Ridiculous D&D contrivances

[lord_khaine]

there is the option left thats called all of the above at the same time, resulting in more attacks at lower accuracy.

[Evil the Cat]

That's one of the things I hate: the double standard.

Casting a Good Spell for Good purposes: Good
Casting an Evil Spell for Evil purposes: Evil
Casting a Good Spell for Evil purposes: Evil
Casting an Evil Spell for Good purposes: Evil

It seems unfair. But hey, that's how the cookie crumbles...


Just look at 8-bit theater's mechanics on hadoken and it totally works. If the casting of an evil spell actually does some damage to the world or the universe (taint for example) then whether or not your purpose is good, it is going to be evil.

Wheras even if good spells inherently help the world, using it to kill or torture would still be net evil.

[Stephen_E]

Crunch-wise, it's that the Monk only has one US. Heck, the entry reads "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." You wield one US. You can TWF with another item, but you only get the one US.

Fluff-wise, they're striking with their entire body. That's why FoB adds 2 bonus attacks. You're using "either fist interchangeably or even...elbows, knees, and feet". What's left for them to TWF with?

Read TWF feat. It specifically includes Unarmed Strikes. The Feat is the primary source and trumps the Monks non-specific general spiel on unarmed fighting.

Stephen E

[tyckspoon]

Well, stabbing them in the brainstem instantly kills them. The latter method turns them into a vegetable and prolongs their death. It's sadistic.

I would argue that it's actually less evil than the typical means of killing a person (in particular, as compared to other save-or-die spell effects.) Decerebrate doesn't actually kill the target and is pretty easy to reverse. You can do it with Greater Restoration or Regenerate, which should be pretty easy to come by at the level where things would have to deal with Decerebrate (especially Regenerate, with no expensive material component or xp cost to cast.) If those options are used, recovery doesn't even do the victim any harm, unlike the level/Con loss from being Raised. And if no suitable spell should be available in time, you can still just Raise the guy. Most Save-or-Die effects are far more difficult to recover from, because they are often either [Death] effects or they wreck the body beyond the capacity of Raise Dead.

Really, I wouldn't consider Decerebrate to be much different from any other disabling effect that leads into death by coup-de-grace.

[Darth Stabber]

Because none of them have levels in the William Shatner PrC.

As to why they can't TWF...it's because they're already using both fists(and their head, elbows, feet, knees, and maybe tail) for the US. They don't have a second body to dual-wield. They can still TWF with a Kama or something, but they don't have 2 US to wield at the same time.

That means that Dvati Monks can duel wield their bodies.

[Darth Stabber]

Because none of them have levels in the William Shatner PrC.

As to why they can't TWF...it's because they're already using both fists(and their head, elbows, feet, knees, and maybe tail) for the US. They don't have a second body to dual-wield. They can still TWF with a Kama or something, but they don't have 2 US to wield at the same time.

That means that Dvati Monks can duel wield their bodies.

[Faulty]

I would argue that it's actually less evil than the typical means of killing a person (in particular, as compared to other save-or-die spell effects.) Decerebrate doesn't actually kill the target and is pretty easy to reverse. You can do it with Greater Restoration or Regenerate, which should be pretty easy to come by at the level where things would have to deal with Decerebrate (especially Regenerate, with no expensive material component or xp cost to cast.) If those options are used, recovery doesn't even do the victim any harm, unlike the level/Con loss from being Raised. And if no suitable spell should be available in time, you can still just Raise the guy. Most Save-or-Die effects are far more difficult to recover from, because they are often either [Death] effects or they wreck the body beyond the capacity of Raise Dead.

Really, I wouldn't consider Decerebrate to be much different from any other disabling effect that leads into death by coup-de-grace.

I guess I can see that, but Evil spells (and powers, Incarnum, etc.) are ones that draw on evil power or cause undue suffering. If you're trying to kill someone, you could just do it quickly, rather than removing part of their brain. The game mechanic effect (how easy it is to fix) doesn't affect the suffering it would do in the fantasy world.

[Foryn Gilnith]

That is somewhere around 10th level characters stop been "human" (substitute race of choice) and become "superhuman" and thus certain RL factors stop applying. It's inherently designed in the system, and if you play DnD you do need to accept that if you're going to play at those levels. If you hate the "superhuman" concept then you need to add extra damage based on class levels. i.e. an additioonal 2pts of damage for each PC class level. 1pt fpr each NPC class level.


IMHO, after 5th level is beyond human abilities. Superhuman the way superheroes are comes after 10 or so.

[Chronos]

IMHO, after 5th level is beyond human abilities. Superhuman the way superheroes are comes after 10 or so.You need 5th level to accurately represent the abilities of someone with a PhD, and there's still plenty of room for advancement beyond that. Meanwhile, a 1st-level member of any spelllcasting class is already doing things that are "superhuman".

[Draco Dracul]

Evil is also selfish. If someone does something for purely self-serving reasons, it quite literally can't be an objectively 'good' act.

Actually, can you even name an objectively 'good' act, outside deity worship? Offhand, I can't.

Saving the universe from eldritch abominations that will condemn every being in the universe to an inescapable nightmare realm for all eternity?

[streakster]

Saving the universe from eldritch abominations that will condemn every being in the universe to an inescapable nightmare realm for all eternity?

"Hey! Cthulu's steppin' on my turf! Why, I'll murderize him! "

[Draco Dracul]

"Hey! Cthulu's steppin' on my turf! Why, I'll murderize him! "

What you do after words maybe vile, cruel, and repugnant, but stopping Cthulu is always a good thing.

Of course I have always subscribed to the idea that, while evil deserves punishment and good deserves reward, neither is inherently more difficult to archive than the other.

[SolkaTruesilver]

What you do after words maybe vile, cruel, and repugnant, but stopping Cthulu is always a good thing.

Of course I have always subscribed to the idea that, while evil deserves punishment and good deserves reward, neither is inherently more difficult to archive than the other.

I don't buy it. If I am an evil overlord, I will try to stop Cthulu so that I still have a world to rule (and I don't want to die). My reasons are selfish. Cthulu is merely a "greater evil".

[Dervag]

Well, stabbing them in the brainstem instantly kills them. The latter method turns them into a vegetable and prolongs their death. It's sadistic.A normal head injury can turn you into a vegetable without killing you at all, let alone quickly. And it's kind of random what amount of brain damage will be caused by denting someone's helmet with a mace. If a fighter can go around causing brain damage all day using ordinary weapons without being intrinsically evil, I see no reason why a psion can't do the same using tactical teleportation.

[Draco Dracul]

I don't buy it. If I am an evil overlord, I will try to stop Cthulu so that I still have a world to rule (and I don't want to die). My reasons are selfish. Cthulu is merely a "greater evil".

I don't think stopping Cthulu would make you a good person if you live a wicked life before and continued to after words, but the singular act of saving the world/universe is still a good one. Really if saving the world with selfish intentions is an evil act then is defending yourself from an attacker also an evil act as you are doing it for the selfish reason of "I don't want to die"?

[Chronos]

Saving yourself is not inherently good nor evil. Saving yourself at the expense of others is evil, and saving others is inherently good.

[Draco Dracul]

Saving yourself is not inherently good nor evil. Saving yourself at the expense of others is evil, and saving others is inherently good.

So just for clarification what is saving an entire world of other people when you are mostly fighting for self-preservation?

[Stephen_E]

Saving yourself is not inherently good nor evil. Saving yourself at the expense of others is evil, and saving others is inherently good.

So the Evil Overlords bodyguards are good guys?
Indeed all bodyguards are good guys by that logic.

I'm a follower of the "no absolutes" school when it comes to alignment/acts. Some acts tend towards "x" alignment, but they aren't inherently "x" alignment. Casting "evil" spells isn't automatically evil, although it'll probably detect as evil, but that because "Detect Evil" doesn't actuially detect evil. Likewise casting "good" spell.s

Stephen

[Stephen_E]

So just for clarification what is saving an entire world of other people when you are mostly fighting for self-preservation?

Obviously I have different views from Chronos, but I'd say mildly good, unless he had a "run away and survive" option which he choose not to use or put off as a last resort. In that case it would increase to strongly good, or even heroically good. Even as a heroically good act it wouldn't automatically cause an alignment shift, although it would be the basis for an alignment shift if the character so choose.

Stephen E

[Chronos]

So the Evil Overlords bodyguards are good guys?Probably not, because their method of saving one person probably involves killing a bunch of other people.

[BossMuro]

Probably not, because their method of saving one person probably involves killing a bunch of other people.

In my experience, protecting someone in DnD usually involves killing a lot of people.

[Curmudgeon]

As I'm sure you realize, the problem comes when a PC is so tough that they are (in-game) guaranteed to survive a fall from extreme height. A high level fighter could climb a mile-high cliff, jump off the top, then climb back up again, jump off again, and almost certainly live to tell the tale.
Remember there's at least a 5% chance of death each time, because rolling a 1 on a massive damage save is fatal.

But yeah, a high level fighter is assumed to know how to keep their wits about them when falling, and use the descent time to aim for the fluffy snow/haystack/springy branches/pond/marshy ground that's going to do the best job of ensuring survivability.

[revolver kobold]

Remember there's at least a 5% chance of death each time, because rolling a 1 on a massive damage save is fatal.


Unless you're a Knight, in which case a natural 1 isn't an automatic fail.

[Curmudgeon]

Unless you're a Knight, in which case a natural 1 isn't an automatic fail. There are also Luck feats, and the Clerical Pride domain. There are ways to buy exceptions to most of the D&D rules; this is no different. Still, most players aren't going to risk killing off their high-level fighters by jumping off cliffs repeatedly. Death is expensive. Not only is there the high cost of True Resurrection, but when your character dies on impact all their possessions become unattended and are likely to get destroyed -- dead characters don't get saving throws.

[Stephen_E]

Probably not, because their method of saving one person probably involves killing a bunch of other people.

So if a party saves a peasant from been killed by 2 dozen orcs by killing most of the orcs they aren't doing a good act?

Stephen E

[Evil the Cat]

Most of the time, the only real gauge of good or evil is going to come down to motive. Did he save the world to defend humanity, or to conquer it himself? Killing orcs to save a peasant will usually be good, but if he killed the orcs because he just doesn't like orcs, then it is closer to evil.

Generally speaking, if an act is done for selfless reasons it is good, if it is done for selfish reasons it is evil. if it can be classified as both, it is probably neutral. Very few acts are by definition truly good or evil: most people would outright classify rape as evil, but in a more animalistic society, that just might be the way things are. Ultimately, 90% of the time, the "why" matters more than the "what". Sadly, adding in crazy or delusional just makes things more complicated.

In the case of the aforementioned Evil Overlord's bodyguards. It depends on if they follow out of loyalty (probably Lawful), because they share his viewpoints (probably Evil), or because they actually believe he is benevolent and doing what is right (possibly Good). If they're outright fanatics, any alignment is possible, though most will wind up having the same alignment as whoever they're serving.

[Faulty]

One thing that kinda ticked me off was how, near the end of 3.5's run, they started recycling pictures from books and changing the captions. :smallannoyed:

[Draco Dracul]

Obviously I have different views from Chronos, but I'd say mildly good, unless he had a "run away and survive" option which he choose not to use or put off as a last resort. In that case it would increase to strongly good, or even heroically good. Even as a heroically good act it wouldn't automatically cause an alignment shift, although it would be the basis for an alignment shift if the character so choose.

Stephen E

This basically sums up my feelings on this topic. Thanks.

[Stephen_E]

Generally speaking, if an act is done for selfless reasons it is good, if it is done for selfish reasons it is evil. if it can be classified as both, it is probably neutral. Very few acts are by definition truly good or evil: most people would outright classify rape as evil, but in a more animalistic society, that just might be the way things are. Ultimately, 90% of the time, the "why" matters more than the "what". Sadly, adding in crazy or delusional just makes things more complicated.


And as you note even what seems a nobrainer, such as selflessness, is only a general rule. Through the "for your own good" meme it can easily become evil.

I suspect there is really no such thing as an evil act, Evil/Neutral/Good is on;y toggle states based on the infomation you currently have. Thus it is possible to give a brief description of an act and get an alignment opinion of the act, but as you add infomation you can toggle the alignment opinion. Essentailly the alignment of the act isn't based on what actually happened, but on what you thought was happening.

Rescuing the peasant from the orcs is good, but if you knew that the peasant had raped and tortured several orc children it would be evil, but further infomation could again toggle the alignment switch, if you know about it or can resonably be expected to know about it. Note the 2nd part. If you charge into a situation without naking a reasonable attempt to find out what the situation is then you can be held responsible alignment wise for the knowledge that you could have had but didn't. This includes knowledge ignore through arrogance or prejudice.

Stephen E

[Faleldir]

You're all putting way too much thought into the alignment system. Remember, the Talisman Of Pure Good and Talisman Of Ultimate Evil do exactly the same thing, just to different people.

[Roderick_BR]

The debate is that they don't have 2 US to dual-wield. There's no issues with them TWF a US and a Kama or something, the issue is that they're already using their entire body to attack with, and they don't have a second one.
If I'm not wrong, they can use TWF with US, according to that page at the wizard's site. You can even combine TWF with flurry.
But you really want to use TWF, that is a not-so-good feat with monks, the not-so-good class?

[Chronos]

To change the topic off of alignment:

I'm a human, with a below-average Str, and I've never made any sort of effort to train myself to jump better. I can consistently jump about 5 or 6 feet, but no more than that.

Now, according to the rules, I have a total Jump modifier of about -2. This means that if I run and try to jump as far as I possibly can, about 10% of the time, I can't jump at all, and over a third of the time, I should land flat on my face. On the other hand, though, if I'm a bit lucky, I should also occasionally manage to clear as much as 18 feet.