[3.5] Ultimate Good Guys ('UGG')

[Zovc]

What are the best good guys you've encountered, what mechanics (if any) let them be?

A friend in a game shop was telling me about a pacifist character he made who made vows (BoED?) to not be violent, etc. In addition, he had a constant calm emotions (or similar) aura emanating from him. The character would also be annoyingly "aggressive with his passivity" like, stepping in between the raging barbarian and causing him to come down from his rage. On one occasion when trying to "convert" the barbarian, this character took the barbarian's sword (which he put all of his funds into) and threw it overboard. The character couldn't care, but the player was... driven (naturally).

In addition to pissing everyone off and foiling combat-based encounters, this character's deity would--by chance--obliterate(?) any weapon that struck him.

Anyone see what was used to make this character?

Either way, share your own BBGG.

[arguskos]

That's just an Apostle of Peace from Book of Exalted Deeds. Take Vow of Peace, Vow of Poverty, and call it a day. :smallwink:

[BenTheJester]

What are the best good guys you've encountered, what mechanics (if any) let them be?

A friend in a game shop was telling me about a pacifist character he made who made vows (BoED?) to not be violent, etc. In addition, he had a constant calm emotions (or similar) aura emanating from him. The character would also be annoyingly "aggressive with his passivity" like, stepping in between the raging barbarian and causing him to come down from his rage. On one occasion when trying to "convert" the barbarian, this character took the barbarian's sword (which he put all of his funds into) and threw it overboard. The character couldn't care, but the player was... driven (naturally).

In addition to pissing everyone off and foiling combat-based encounters, this character's deity would--by chance--obliterate(?) any weapon that struck him.

Anyone see what was used to make this character?

Either way, share your own BBGG.

ouch, that GOT's to be annoying as hell. I'd rather play with a chaotic stupid player than this. By far.

[Rhiannon87]

What are the best good guys you've encountered, what mechanics (if any) let them be?

A friend in a game shop was telling me about a pacifist character he made who made vows (BoED?) to not be violent, etc. In addition, he had a constant calm emotions (or similar) aura emanating from him. The character would also be annoyingly "aggressive with his passivity" like, stepping in between the raging barbarian and causing him to come down from his rage. On one occasion when trying to "convert" the barbarian, this character took the barbarian's sword (which he put all of his funds into) and threw it overboard. The character couldn't care, but the player was... driven (naturally).

In addition to pissing everyone off and foiling combat-based encounters, this character's deity would--by chance--obliterate(?) any weapon that struck him.

Anyone see what was used to make this character?

Either way, share your own BBGG.

Sacred Vow/Vow of Peace/Vow of Nonviolence. Possibly then with the Apostle of Peace PrC, all from BoED. I'm AFB right now, so I can't double-check to see if the destruction of weapons thing is part of the class or if that was homebrew.

EDIT: Friggin' ninjas.

[arguskos]

Sacred Vow/Vow of Peace/Vow of Nonviolence. Possibly then with the Apostle of Peace PrC, all from BoED. I'm AFB right now, so I can't double-check to see if the destruction of weapons thing is part of the class or if that was homebrew.

EDIT: Friggin' ninjas.
The calm emotion effect makes it Apostle of Peace. The Vow of Peace is the "destroy weapons" bit. :smallwink:

Also, shame there's no "Ninja in the Playground" title. :smallcool:

[Tyndmyr]

ouch, that GOT's to be annoying as hell. I'd rather play with a chaotic stupid player than this. By far.

I tend to play true neutral....but if I had an expensive magic weapon tossed overboard, I would either be A. trying to retrieve it, or B. slaying him without it.

A would likely be followed by B.

[arguskos]

No, what you do is calmly bull rush him overboard, and you both find it or drown together. Either way, he started the situation, and he needs to help fix it. :smallwink:

Also, that player is shameful, and gives Exalted and the BoED a bad name. Stop playing with him, or if you aren't, be happy about that fact. :smallwink:

[Tengu_temp]

In general, one PC being an aggressive pacifist usually causes a lot of trouble when the others aren't. It's only slightly worse than having good and evil characters together in a non-comedic campaign.

[Zeta Kai]

ouch, that GOT's to be annoying as hell. I'd rather play with a chaotic stupid player than this. By far.

Yeah, it sounds to me like that pacifist character was being played by a jerk.

[arguskos]

Yeah, it sounds to me like that pacifist character was being played by a jerk.
And folks wonder why no one likes the Book of Exalted Deeds. Because of jerks like that guy. :smallannoyed:

[Mystral]

You don't need to feel emotions to kill someone who destroyed your most valuable posession.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Well, in the absence of emotions, you'd probably just hurt the guy (i.e. bull rush him overboard and force him to get the thing back for you). Unless you want to be known as a murderer, or are just plain sociopathic, you wouldn't kill him unless in anger.

[Random832]

Um, you do realize that any metal object is going to sink faster than anyone can swim down, right? So retrieving it is not an option unless a caster can help.

[arguskos]

Um, you do realize that any metal object is going to sink faster than anyone can swim down, right? So retrieving it is not an option unless a caster can help.
Throw his ass overboard and tell him to calm emotion some damn fish and have them get it. He decided it was fun to ruin another character, it's only fair they do the same to him.

Really, what defense does such jerkishness even have? :smallconfused:

[Zovc]

Well, in the absence of emotions, you'd probably just hurt the guy (i.e. bull rush him overboard and force him to get the thing back for you). Unless you want to be known as a murderer, or are just plain sociopathic, you wouldn't kill him unless in anger.

I disagree. The only time I'm encouraged to do anything violent at all is when there is emotion involved. Either way, thread is way off topic.

[SurlySeraph]

In general, one PC being an aggressive pacifist usually causes a lot of trouble when the others aren't. It's only slightly worse significantly worse than having good and evil characters together in a non-comedic campaign.

Fixed that for you.


Well, in the absence of emotions, you'd probably just hurt the guy (i.e. bull rush him overboard and force him to get the thing back for you). Unless you want to be known as a murderer, or are just plain sociopathic, you wouldn't kill him unless in anger.

The character in question is a barbarian. He probably isn't thinking about what happens after "Griznak SMASH puny sword thief!"

[AmberVael]

... having good and evil characters together in a non-comedic campaign.
I have to disagree with that. With the right kind of players and characters, you can indeed put evil and good characters together in a non-comedic and indeed successful campaign.
You just want everyone to be aware of what is going on, and the evil characters are probably going to have to be pretty subtle, and you probably want non-paladin/holy vow good characters. But it can be done.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Why would Griznak want to SMASH puny sword thief if he's not angry?
Wait, don't answer that. I see your point. Habit is powerful.

[Glass Mouse]

Yeah, Lawful Police characters are just... just... *grinds teeth* GRAAARH! RAAAAGE!!!!

...

Ahem.

The barbarian should have realized that getting close to the paladin somehow messed with his mind(/emotions). After realizing this, what would be more logical than setting up an elaborate ranged trap? That way, he could bypass the effect AND get his revenge! Yay, everyone wins! :smallbiggrin: (except, of course, for the paladin)


I know a player who tends to play Lawful Police. I remember his Paladin (why is it always a pally?) who would have Detect Evil constantly turned on. And I mean, constantly. He was, of course, over-zealus and attacked anything that even smelled like evil. Without question. (this would have included my LE monk, if I hadn't decided to just avoid the conflict and make her LN instead).
Yeah, and his druid had a strict "don't rob the dead" policy... which he heavily enforced the moment we entered an evil cult's tomb, filled with magic goodies.

Really, it's not a roleplaying problem. It's that the player is a jerk.

Anyone else wants to share their stories? It's surprisingly therapeutic :smalltongue:

[Zincorium]

Griznak will smash puny sword thief because not having sword will probably mean Griznak is going to get killed later on due to not having that sword.

Or maybe Griznak will get crafty and report the crime to the captain. Stealing on a ship was a plank-walking offense back in the day.

[hamishspence]

I remember his Paladin (why is it always a pally?) who would have Detect Evil constantly turned on. And I mean, constantly. He was, of course, over-zealus and attacked anything that even smelled like evil. Without question.

This tendency might be solveable by the DM informing the player ahead of time that, on average 1/3 of the population of any town is evil- and smiting without more of an excuse than "its evil" results in:

"Goodbye paladin, hello fighter without bonus feats"

[Foryn Gilnith]

I second that. It might not necessarily violate the "good" portion of his alignment, although that's iffy. It most likely would cause the paladin to deviate from law, which would lead to problems.

[hamishspence]

If you define unprovoked killing to be murder, and an evil alignment to be insufficient provocation, it's definitely an evil act.

[Foryn Gilnith]

That's a conditional, which is "possibly". Also, since the paladin hasn't fallen yet, I assume that such an immediately obvious course of argument has already been rejected.

[hamishspence]

Yes- Radardins can work if the gaming setting defines Evil as "you may attack it"

Murder is (at least in BoVD and Fiendish Codex 2) one of the most evil acts listed.

If you're using modern legal standards of murder, or anything close, then a paladin pulling that kind of act in a town would be committing murders.

That is, if it was a case of

"I detect evil"
The barman detects as evil"
"I attack the barman with lethal force"

when the barman hasn't actually done anything really wrong- he's just a bit of a bully.

But it does seem like this kind of standard is not being used.

[Yukitsu]

If he pings evil from mere bullying, which isn't really on the evils list, you'll have to admit that it is by definition, a more heinous act than you're giving it credit for. You'd have to do some fairly extreme bullying to be evil from it, as opposed to a shade of neutral.

Neutral isn't an infinitely thin line. The range of how evil or good you can be while remaining neutral should be just as vast as the sides of good and evil.

I deal with VoPers by learning the cruelist spells that provide no lethal damage, such as insanity, curses, pain spells, diseases. I especially like giving them conditions that make it hard to surrender, such a silence. Then the VoPer gets to watch some guy who's alive, but will be suffering forever.

[hamishspence]

If Neutral is only 1/3 the population, 1/3 evil, 1/3 good (very roughly) than the "evil" person is likely to be "evil" without being especially heinous.

"Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral"

[Zovc]

I'd expect a real human population to be more like 2/5 Good 2/5 Neutral 1/5 Evil or 1/5 Good 3/5 Neutral 1/5 Evil.

[Paulus]

Barbarian: Why for you are to be throwing sword overboard?
Gooder-than-thou-PC: Weapons are useless my friend, don't you see? You should be like myself, I use no weapons, and promote only peace. No weapon is the best weapon; the best weapon is peace.
Barbarian: ...hmm maybe you right. Me am consider.
GTTPC: *beams and pats himself on the back*
Later in the lair of the dragon when sed dragon finally emerges.
Barbarian: *reaches over grabing the GTTPC*
GTTPC: what are you doing frined barbarian?
Barbarian: Me am think long and hard you is right, no weapon is best weapon, and you use no weapon. So, you is best weapon! *hefts the GTTPC up and swings him at the dragon.*
GTTPC: Wait this is not what i OOF!? aren't you suppose to be calm and rational!? My god deity of good and peace, please smite the dragon so it can't hurt me!
Tiamat: Don't think so.
Barbarian: *proceeds to bludgeon the Dragon to death with GTTPC.* You is right! This best weapon is peace!


But seriously, any character who outright goes out of their way to be detrimental to other PC's is just foolishness. Good or evil. There is RPing, and then there is the people around you at the table with you. Guess which matters more?

[Zovc]

But seriously, any character who outright goes out of their way to be detrimental to other PC's is just foolishness. Good or evil. There is RPing, and then there is the people around you at the table with you. Guess which matters more?

It does make for an interesting "bad good guy." I.E. He is along with the PCs when they encounter (not so) BBEG, but no conflict can occur and bad guy gets away.

He becomes the kind of guy the PCs want to make an elaborate trap for, kill him, then be punished for committing evil deeds. XD

[hamishspence]

the "power center alignment distribution" and the "large community population alignment distribution" are biased in favour of Law and Good.

Possibly because it's harder for a community to work, if its leaders are chaotic, evil, or both. Same applies to large towns as compared to small populations.

[Yukitsu]

If Neutral is only 1/3 the population, 1/3 evil, 1/3 good (very roughly) than the "evil" person is likely to be "evil" without being especially heinous.

"Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral"

I didn't mean by population, I meant by range of actions. People seem to look at things like pilfering a candy at the local convenience store as evil, but really, it's so minor it's not actually worth mentioning as aligned. Inversely, I've heard people say the act of not stealing the candy is good. Again, it's so trivial as not to matter.

[Dixieboy]

In general, one PC being an aggressive pacifist usually causes a lot of trouble when the others aren't. It's only slightly worse than having good and evil characters together in a non-comedic campaign.

If people handle their character with a somewhat mature attitude there shouldn't be any problems with a good and evil dude in the same party.

[Zovc]

I didn't mean by population, I meant by range of actions. People seem to look at things like pilfering a candy at the local convenience store as evil, but really, it's so minor it's not actually worth mentioning as aligned. Inversely, I've heard people say the act of not stealing the candy is good. Again, it's so trivial as not to matter.

But it does disregard LAW. ^_^

[Paulus]

It does make for an interesting "bad good guy." I.E. He is along with the PCs when they encounter (not so) BBEG, but no conflict can occur and bad guy gets away.

He becomes the kind of guy the PCs want to make an elaborate trap for, kill him, then be punished for committing evil deeds. XD

Which is fine if your party understands that. If they don't, either the UGGPC player is upset or the other players are. Either way, some player is now upset, over a game. Why bother?

Also, to help with your current situation -if it even is current- I would have a mermaid (or some other watery appropriate character) appear later with the sword seeking the one who threw the sword overboard, as it killed her friend and she is seeking revenge. Through the resolution of this, the barbarian gets his sword back, and mister sword chucker must now deal with going to trial in the mer kingdom, or the guilt of having the party being forced to kill someone for his inconsiderate actions.

Also, I'd suggest having a REAL good character, one who doesn't push his values and such on others and respects their culture, feelings, thoughts, and differences, show up and show this guy how it's done. *tsk*

EDIT: with of course the consideration that, as always, players and DM should talk to each other first. Make him understand. If they all want combat, he shouldn't make a character his is totally against it, it's game disruptive. Hogs all the spot light for himself. and is just plain selfish, good or not. and if he STILL refuses to take the hint, drop the previous suggestions on him and see if you can make him reconsider. /disclaimer

[Zovc]

That's a very inventive solution, Paluus. The situation is not current, and I was never involved--a friend told me about this PC.

[Reaper_Monkey]

No, what you do is calmly bull rush him overboard, and you both find it or drown together. Either way, he started the situation, and he needs to help fix it. :smallwink:


...
Barbarian: *proceeds to bludgeon the Dragon to death with GTTPC.* You is right! This best weapon is peace!

Either of these solutions I approve of! Luckily I use the Tome homebrew for my barbarian, which makes me immune to compulsion effects whilst raging (like calm emotions is) so I'd just sunder his head with my fists of steel! (He's also part monk).

But seriously, this guy is obviously a jerk, imposing your will on any player is always unacceptable. You may negotiate, refuse to aid, and debate, but if you don't want the person sitting at the same table as you to bludgeon you to death with their dice bag you do not impose, more so using any in game mechanical effects.

If this does happen, then its quite simple that your in game character would act in character and decide that hanging around a narrow minded dictator (and risking your life for them on occasion) really isn't worth it their effort and leave and do things their way. Which is the exact advice I'd give to the player of that character, leave and find a better group to play with (or remove them from the group, either works).

[MickJay]

Better yet, DM should have rolled a die (for every 10 metres of depth, for example) if there wasn't some innocent animal or sentient creature on the sword's way to the bottom. If there was, it would have meant that the VoP character mindlessly violated their vow by wounding/killing a random fish. :smalltongue:

Even without that, why didn't someone calmly and peacefully toss the "good" character overboard so he could retrieve the sword, and to further his moral development by teaching him the importance of humility, caution, respect for other people's beliefs and property?

[Paulus]

That's a very inventive solution, Paluus. The situation is not current, and I was never involved--a friend told me about this PC.

You should bring it up with your friend next time then, if his group doesn't. He is your friend after all, and that type of behavior can get him kicked from his game, which would be bad on all counts. Nothing worse than loosing a good player then loosing a good player because of lack of simple effort. People skills are not listed, but we all have ranks.

Getting a bit preachy... thankfully, I've no intention of continuing on such a course and shall now make a joke.

A green star adept, a full monk, and two Dragon disciples walk into a Dragon's lair. The Dragon says "What is this, a joke?"

*buh dum pssh*

[Zovc]

Even without that, why didn't someone calmly and peacefully toss the "good" character overboard so he could retrieve the sword, and to further his moral development by teaching him the importance of humility, caution, respect for other people's beliefs and property?

This keeps being suggested. I don't understand HOW you think you could go through with throwing someone off of a boat while being completely void of anger.


You should bring it up with your friend next time then, if his group doesn't. He is your friend after all, and that type of behavior can get him kicked from his game, which would be bad on all counts.

Not close friends, we just met in a passing manner--he was reading a Pathfinder book while I was volunteering at a hobby shop. We started talking about the game and he mentioned this character to me. He had a friend with him and both were laughing about the story, it led me to believe the group found it funny. I imagine the barbarian was somewhat frustrated. XP

[Paulus]

This keeps being suggested. I don't understand HOW you think you could go through with throwing someone off of a boat while being completely void of anger.

Oh you don't have to be angry to be calculating or vengeful.


Not close friends, we just met in a passing manner--he was reading a Pathfinder book while I was volunteering at a hobby shop. We started talking about the game and he mentioned this character to me. He had a friend with him and both were laughing about the story, it led me to believe the group found it funny. I imagine the barbarian was somewhat frustrated. XP

Oh. Then I suggest you laugh, laugh long and hard. and never look back. :3

[Foryn Gilnith]

This keeps being suggested. I don't understand HOW you think you could go through with throwing someone off of a boat while being completely void of anger.

We're not angry. This is happening to a fictional character owned by a player we don't even know. Yet we quickly suggest dumping the fellow overboard.

[Siosilvar]

An alternate solution to throwing the "good guy" (hah!) overboard is to make him throw stuff equal in value to the sword overboard.

[chiasaur11]

An alternate solution to throwing the "good guy" (hah!) overboard is to make him throw stuff equal in value to the sword overboard.

Doesn't solve the problem.

Make him give you items of equal value to the sword. Hurts him more and gives you a new sword.

[CockroachTeaParty]

Actually, the scenario in the first post isn't actually an Apostle of Peace necessarily. The Vow of Peace provides the Calm Emotions aura automatically. The Apostle can calm emotions with a touch.

The Calm Emotions effect isn't as powerful as one might think, either. It pays to read the spell description: it's a very limited spell. For instance, if one person makes their save, and decides to take an offensive action, the calm emotions effect ends for everybody, regardless of whether they made their saves or not.

Vow of Peace does not have to be game-breaking, or even that much of an inconvenience, but using any material from the Book of Exalted Deeds should be understood and okayed by the DM first and foremost. The scenario above is primarily a product of miscommunication and poor RP'ing etiquette.

[MickJay]

This keeps being suggested. I don't understand HOW you think you could go through with throwing someone off of a boat while being completely void of anger.

It's all about formulating the character's motivation behind the act, not the act itself (which, indeed, was suggested already). For example, a soldier can still kill his enemies when he's without anger because it's his duty, or because he might get killed instead, or because he wants to protect others. A parent might punish their child without anger, because in the end, that punishment is going to help the child understand something and grow up to be a better person (hopefully).

The barbarian might toss the stupid git into the water so that his do-goodishness would consider the simple fact that just because he's made a few vows, it doesn't give him the right to, effectively, destroy other people's prized, and possibly irreplacable, possessions.

[Glimbur]

A lot of these Detect'n'Smite Paladin problems wouldn't come up if more people would actually read the Detect Evil spell.

It detects five cases.

1) Evil Creature. Are humanoids creatures? Not generally.

2) Undead

3) Evil Outsider

4) Evil Cleric (or other classes with an Aura)

5) [Evil] spells and magic items.

So, it's great for ferreting out a Ghoul using a Hat of Disguise, or an evil outsider dumb enough to not have Undetectable Alignment or similar running. It should not ping on 1/3 of the population of the world, and just because your monk happens to have LE on the character sheet does not mean that Detect Evil goes off.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Are humanoids creatures? Not generally.

Humanoids are creatures. PHB 306, definition of "creature".


creature: A living or otherwise active being, not an object, The terms "creature" and "character" are sometimes used interchangeably.

Humanoids live, are otherwise active, and may be characters.

Even colloquially, humanoids (as living beings, and technically even members of the animal kingdom) are creatures.

[Glimbur]

So then why do Clerics get a separate entry, and one that lets you more finely grade their hit dice?

[Dracomorph]

So then why do Clerics get a separate entry, and one that lets you more finely grade their hit dice?

Because they project a more powerful alignment aura than other normals.

Because they are the living representatives of deities that concern themselves with human ethics and morals.

Because the gods say so.

[Grumman]

So then why do Clerics get a separate entry, and one that lets you more finely grade their hit dice?
Because it lets you more finely grade their hit dice. Anyone that is evil pings on your evildar, but evil divine spellcasters (like a cleric or blackguard) show up better.

[MickJay]

Interestingly enough, I just noticed that the character who threw the sword overboard, if he had the Vow of Poverty, had just violated the Vow by grabbing that sword in the first place, since he technically stole it (while VoP characters can't even borrow magical stuff), even if for a very short time, and then used it (by tossing it overboard) to achieve what he wanted.

[Foryn Gilnith]

So then why do Clerics get a separate entry, and one that lets you more finely grade their hit dice?

Does it matter? You told us to read the rules. We read the Detect Evil rules, and then some. There is a clear in-game definition of "Creature", and if the DM has decided to make the "creature" "evil", we can determines its aura. What constitutes "evil" is unclear by RAW, but this is one of the few occasions where "rules as written" actually has some relevance.

[Gametime]

Yes- Radardins can work if the gaming setting defines Evil as "you may attack it"

Murder is (at least in BoVD and Fiendish Codex 2) one of the most evil acts listed.

If you're using modern legal standards of murder, or anything close, then a paladin pulling that kind of act in a town would be committing murders.

That is, if it was a case of

"I detect evil"
The barman detects as evil"
"I attack the barman with lethal force"

when the barman hasn't actually done anything really wrong- he's just a bit of a bully.

But it does seem like this kind of standard is not being used.

Emphasis mine, and that's where I see a problem.

Why exactly does a medievally-based fantasy setting have modern legal codes?

(For that matter, Solars are supposed to be paragons of Good with a capital G, and they carry around an infinite number of slaying arrows. I think that right there should demonstrate that killing isn't evil in D&D so long as you're just killing baddies.)

[Gametime]

Interestingly enough, I just noticed that the character who threw the sword overboard, if he had the Vow of Poverty, had just violated the Vow by grabbing that sword in the first place, since he technically stole it (while VoP characters can't even borrow magical stuff), even if for a very short time, and then used it (by tossing it overboard) to achieve what he wanted.

Vow of Poverty prohibits owning or borrowing items. Taking and disposing of an item is kind of the opposite of owning it, and I can't imagine any sane DM would rule that to be a violation of his Vow.

On the other hand, forcibly robbing and disarming your comrade is grounds for an alignment shift unless they were REALLY asking for it, and making him Neutral would disqualify him from using ANY of his Exalted feats.

[hamishspence]

Or even medieval codes.

Heroes of Horror accentuated the fact that, as a rule "being evil" is not a crime, therefore killing people just for "being evil" is murder.

[Gametime]

We're not angry. This is happening to a fictional character owned by a player we don't even know. Yet we quickly suggest dumping the fellow overboard.

It's a lot easier to suggest random violence than to enact random violence.

(And I'd reread some of the above posts - I think at least a few of the people in this thread are angered by the mention of overly-zealous babysitter PCs. Bad experiences, perhaps? :smalltongue:)

[Foryn Gilnith]

Eh, true. And he is a barbarian, so he wouldn't think about reporting the crime. But if I was playing a rogue-type, more cunning, I'd porbably report the theft to the captain. If I were playing somebody smarter than I was, I'd definitely go for the guilt trip by reminding him of the poor fish he just killed. :D

So a Holy Liberator would be more likely to murder people for being evil. Still quite unlikely, since more than ust law-breaking is the issue.

[Gametime]

Or even medieval codes.

Heroes of Horror accentuated the fact that, as a rule "being evil" is not a crime, therefore killing people just for "being evil" is murder.

Really? Because what I got out of Heroes of Horror was that antiheroes can be a fun archetype to portray, and they're explicitly listed as being "a flexible neutral".

Regardless, what little rules exist for changing alignments, along with the alignment descriptions themselves, are heavily based around action. This implies that an evil person does or has done evil things, and fortunately for paladins everywhere, evil things ARE crimes.

Although since the gods don't derive their authority from human legal codes, I'm not sure why they'd necessarily care if an action was legal. You don't have to answer to anybody but Big Brother when it comes to losing your paladin abilities.

[MickJay]

Vow of Poverty prohibits owning or borrowing items. Taking and disposing of an item is kind of the opposite of owning it, and I can't imagine any sane DM would rule that to be a violation of his Vow.

On the other hand, forcibly robbing and disarming your comrade is grounds for an alignment shift unless they were REALLY asking for it, and making him Neutral would disqualify him from using ANY of his Exalted feats.

What about a situation like "hey, can I take a look at that horrible device for murdering people?" *splash*. If the barbarian willingly offered the weapon for inspection, it would be "borrowed" then :smalltongue: Anyhow, I'm a firm believer in retaliatory jerkiness, if one player's character acts way beyond accepted norms, he shouldn't complain when his own PC is treated less than fairly.

I'm not sure if taking items for the purpose of getting rid of them really counts as "opposite" of owning. There were a few discussions on the concept of Forsaker with VoP, and the opinion of majority was that it wouldn't work. Forsaker needs to destroy magical items to fuel his abilities, so even if he doesn't keep the stuff, he would still need to obtain them first. Here the "good" character disposes of the item to promote his agenda, not just to inconvenience the barbarian (at least that was the explanation given), so he *did* make a use of it.

[hamishspence]

Really? Because what I got out of Heroes of Horror was that antiheroes can be a fun archetype to portray, and they're explicitly listed as being "a flexible neutral".

True up to a point- it does say that.

It also says, in the discussions of the alignment system, after the variant, that, even if you aren't using the variant, there are several ways in which Detect Evil is not helpful. One of which is the fact that not everyone who is evil is a criminal- especially if they are Lawful Evil.


Regardless, what little rules exist for changing alignments, along with the alignment descriptions themselves, are heavily based around action. This implies that an evil person does or has done evil things, and fortunately for paladins everywhere, evil things ARE crimes.

Only in paladinland- and maybe not even there.

Evil acts are listed in BoVD and Fiendish Codex 2- yes, alignment is heavily based on actions. No, not every action is serious enough to be called "criminal" or "enough to deserve death"

[Reaper_Monkey]

What about a situation like "hey, can I take a look at that horrible device for murdering people?" *splash*. If the barbarian willingly offered the weapon for inspection, it would be "borrowed" then :smalltongue:

Well the easier thing to do is for the barbarian to, calmly, agree and relinquish their backup weapon to the paladin as well. No, not in the form of using the paladin as a squishy sheath, but in a "I can see your point, here you can have my other weapon too" and handing it over. Oh look, the paladin is now in ownership of an item! No more VoP for you or any of its subsidiary feats, like Vow of Peace... so now more calm emotions either. The barbarian realises that he is actually pretty mad at losing his sword, and squishes a much easier to kill unarmed paladin in a fit of rage! :smallbiggrin: Vengeance is best served cheesey.