PDA

View Full Version : Paladin of Freedom [3.5]



Human Paragon 3
2010-08-09, 10:48 AM
One of my players, a barbarian, just recently multiclassed into Paladin of Freedom and he is taking the roleplaying restrictions seriously. This is a good thing IMO, but I've never really had to deal with a paladin on this level before. I definitely do not want to tell him how to roleplay his character. I consider it my job as a DM to heard the cats together and keep the action moving as long as the players aren't actively working against me.

So what kind of actions should I expect from a Chaotic/Good paladin? What situations should I throw at him to test his beliefs in a way that won't cause the game to devolve? Is it OK for him to coup-de-gras evil people just because they're evil and unconscious? Or is that an act of evil in and of itself? Basically, how should I prepare myself for an unpredictable crusader of good?

hamishspence
2010-08-09, 10:57 AM
The Easydamus definition of Chaotic Good:

http://easydamus.com/chaoticgood.html

might be a good place to start. The SRD also has a few basic principles for the Paladin of Freedom to follow.

Dragon 310 has its own CG paladin variant, the Avenger- some ideas could be drawn from that.

Keld Denar
2010-08-09, 11:28 AM
Give him some oppresive LE society to undermine. Richard's actions in the book Faith of the Fallen are exactly what I'd expect a Pally of Freedom to do under similar circumstances.

Otherwise, it could be just as simple as being an anti-slavery advocate, teaching, preaching, and smiting in the name of individual determination. You could present him with slave owners of varying degrees of evility, and see how he approaches each one. Does he smite first, or is he willing to accept and forgive someone who, through social conditioning, didn't realize the level of disregard for human nature he was participating in.

Aroka
2010-08-09, 11:37 AM
You say you want to test his beliefs, but that all depends on his beliefs.

Paladins need a defined dogma: a code of conduct, a code of chivalry, a deity with a defined agenda and dogma and rules, something like that.

In general, though, to test a PoF's faith, you should put him in situations where freedom has "gone wrong" - have him untangle situations where one being's freedoms have infringed on another's, in essence. Put him in circumstances where lack of rules or control appears to be the problem. Make him want to limit others' freedoms but have to persevere championing them.

WinWin
2010-08-09, 11:57 AM
I have always imagined the PoF as something akin to an activist or millitant hippie. Still a champion of good, but willing to defy societal conventions and traditions.

Telonius
2010-08-09, 12:08 PM
Is it OK for him to coup-de-gras evil people just because they're evil and unconscious? Or is that an act of evil in and of itself?

Act of evil in and of itself. That's Chaotic Stupid, not Chaotic Good. While using unorthodox tactics is more of a Chaotic thing, just pinging as Evil on the detect spell - absent any other information - tells you absolutely nothing about what the person has actually done.

If you're talking about killing a single cruel slave-master in his sleep to allow the rest of the slaves to escape, that might qualify as something a CG Paladin would conceivably do. But just for pinging Evil? No way.

Aroka
2010-08-09, 12:10 PM
Act of evil in and of itself. That's Chaotic Stupid, not Chaotic Good. While using unorthodox tactics is more of a Chaotic thing, just pinging as Evil on the detect spell - absent any other information - tells you absolutely nothing about what the person has actually done.

If you're talking about killing a single cruel slave-master in his sleep to allow the rest of the slaves to escape, that might qualify as something a CG Paladin would conceivably do. But just for pinging Evil? No way.

Agreed, but this may be past the level of ethical complexity that D&D settings usually bother to model. In some of them, being evil is grounds for being killed by the good guys. (And, heck, depending on the cosmology, that might make perfect sense.)

Escheton
2010-08-09, 12:11 PM
The problem with this is that you can't railroad a paladin of freedom.
He might reason he doesn't have a choice because his beliefs/faith/dogma dictates he opposes the regime/saves the princess/whatever and reasserts his own freedom by doing something completely different or nothing at all.

WinWin
2010-08-09, 12:12 PM
Perhaps an adaptation of Grey Guard from Complete Scoundrel would suit this character

Aroka
2010-08-09, 12:18 PM
The problem with this is that you can't railroad a paladin of freedom.
He might reason he doesn't have a choice because his beliefs/faith/dogma dictates he opposes the regime/saves the princess/whatever and reasserts his own freedom by doing something completely different or nothing at all.

That's not how Chaotic works, etc.

Escheton
2010-08-09, 12:56 PM
Its how freedom works.

hamishspence
2010-08-09, 01:20 PM
Agreed, but this may be past the level of ethical complexity that D&D settings usually bother to model. In some of them, being evil is grounds for being killed by the good guys. (And, heck, depending on the cosmology, that might make perfect sense.)

3.5 ed in particular has tended to move away from "being evil is grounds for being killed by the good guys"- Eberron, Faerun, Heroes of Horror, BoED, all support the notion that good guys who kill others for "being evil" can expect to be jailed for murder under most circumstances.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-09, 01:20 PM
Its how freedom works.


A paladin of freedom must be of chaotic good alignment and loses all class abilities if he ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin of freedom's code requires that he respect individual liberty, help those in need (provided they do not use the help for lawful or evil ends), and punish those who threaten or curtail personal liberty.
I see no "OMG MUST OPPOSE LAW NAO". It's about bringing the freedom of choice to everyone, and if said "everyone" is happy abiding to a tradition, then the paladin of freedom has no business with it.

Keld Denar
2010-08-09, 01:25 PM
What if everyone is brainwashed into thinking that they are happy abiding by tradition via social conditioning, and doesn't realize what they are involved in is actually oppression of individualistic rights. You'd get a pretty massive resistance to change, simply because people would have no concept of an alternative life. Sometimes you have to shake things up a bit every now and again, just to make sure that people are always questioning their beliefs and whether or not those beliefs are in their collective best interests or not.

You don't always have to CHANGE things, as some things ARE really working as good as they should, but its ALWAYS good to stimulate change, as this results in reflection and reaffermation of the good while purging the bad.

Escheton
2010-08-09, 01:25 PM
I see no "OMG MUST OPPOSE LAW NAO". It's about bringing the freedom of choice to everyone, and if said "everyone" is happy abiding to a tradition, then the paladin of freedom has no business with it.


Missing the point much?

The OP asked how he could put up situations that test his beliefs.
My point was you can't because he will liberate himself of his own beliefs if they stand in the way of his freedom of choice or his personal liberty in general. Though I might have stated it poorly.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-09, 01:28 PM
Missing the point much?

The OP asked how he could put up situations that test his beliefs.
My point was you can't because he will liberate himself of his own beliefs if they stand in the way of his freedom of choice or his personal liberty in general.

Worst-of-two-worlds works. Little backwards village is oppressed by a blue dragon, who demands tributes and sacrifices a maiden every few years. He goes there to fight the dragon and the entire place opposes him because if the dragon goes away, there'll be no one to keep the land safe from bandits and stray monsters.
Does he free them, turning the village defenseless?


Also, what is the "point" to miss? You went and said "oh but i'm so chaotic i change my mind about those beliefs". Chaotic Alignment is not that. In fact, the class is called "Paladin of freedom", not "Paladin of whatever i feel like at the time". You still have beliefs and ideals that you won't give up on.

Human Paragon 3
2010-08-09, 01:34 PM
Thanks for the ideas so far guys. FYI this is for my Silver Hellstar (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145066)campaign.

Right now they are headed to a city under the thumb of a ruthless, evil dictator so there should be tons of fun for my barbarous paladin. The dictator is also the high priest of Asmodeus, so bonus points there!

What do you think of this scenario:

An important person in the evil government is parlaying with the party. He admits that the system they're using is not perfect, and that he is striving to make things better for the people here. He believes his cause is just, and makes an offer to the paladin:

Join our side and become an overseer in the slave pits. There you'll have the power to make the lives of the oppressed better and insure that the institution is phased out, as I have promised to do. If you don't accept, we'll still phase out slavery as an institution, but you'll have no control over how it's done, and it's too big for you to oppose yourself from the outside.

AtwasAwamps
2010-08-09, 01:40 PM
Missing the point much?

The OP asked how he could put up situations that test his beliefs.
My point was you can't because he will liberate himself of his own beliefs if they stand in the way of his freedom of choice or his personal liberty in general. Though I might have stated it poorly.

I feel like this is a definite misinterpretation of the Paladin of Freedom's vows. They are just as selfless and determined as a regular paladin. They're not fighting for THEIR freedom...they're fighting for everyone's freedom. And if that sacrifices a part of their own individual freedom, then so be it...they have done it in the name of good.

Then again, I'm always of the opinion that Paladins are supposed to be a paragon of the Good/Evil alignments, and that lawful/chaotic are secondary to that, so take what I say with a pinch of salt.

Aroka
2010-08-09, 01:41 PM
Missing the point much?

The OP asked how he could put up situations that test his beliefs.
My point was you can't because he will liberate himself of his own beliefs if they stand in the way of his freedom of choice or his personal liberty in general. Though I might have stated it poorly.

But that's not what being Chaotic/a PoF means. No human being would ever behave in the way you've described - it's ridiculous, it's stupid. There's no reason a PoF would ever have to "become free" of the dogma that defines them as a PoF.

Escheton
2010-08-09, 01:44 PM
Worst-of-two-worlds works. Little backwards village is oppressed by a blue dragon, who demands tributes and sacrifices a maiden every few years. He goes there to fight the dragon and the entire place opposes him because if the dragon goes away, there'll be no one to keep the land safe from bandits and stray monsters.
Does he free them, turning the village defenseless?


Also, what is the "point" to miss? You went and said "oh but i'm so chaotic i change my mind about those beliefs". Chaotic Alignment is not that. In fact, the class is called "Paladin of freedom", not "Paladin of whatever i feel like at the time". You still have beliefs and ideals that you won't give up on.

You are still clearly missing it. It's not about being chaotic. It's not do whatever you feel like. It's about being unrestrained. Even by yourself.
Yes, paladins of freedom have clear beliefs and ideals. You just have a very small minded view of what those are. Well, limited at least. And as such you are missing the point.

hamishspence
2010-08-09, 01:44 PM
I feel like this is a definite misinterpretation of the Paladin of Freedom's vows. They are just as selfless and determined as a regular paladin. They're not fighting for THEIR freedom...they're fighting for everyone's freedom. And if that sacrifices a part of their own individual freedom, then so be it...they have done it in the name of good.

Then again, I'm always of the opinion that Paladins are supposed to be a paragon of the Good/Evil alignments, and that lawful/chaotic are secondary to that, so take what I say with a pinch of salt.

I agree with that- for standard paladins, if Law was primary and Good secondary, the paladin would fall for Chaotic acts, and have Detect Chaos.

Since it doesn't work that way, it makes sense to put Good as primary for the standard paladin.

And, as written, for the Paladin of Freedom.

Similarly, the Paladin of Tyranny and Paladin of Slaughter (SRD, Unearthed Arcana) are Evil first, Law (or Chaos) second.

Of the Dragon Magazine variant paladin classes, only the Despot breaks the "Good/Evil is primary, law/chaos secondary" principle.

(the Despot must be LE, but gets Detect Chaos, Aura of Law, and falls for Chaotic acts).

Snake-Aes
2010-08-09, 01:50 PM
You are still clearly missing it. It's not about being chaotic. It's not do whatever you feel like. It's about being unrestrained. Even by yourself.
Yes, paladins of freedom have clear beliefs and ideals. You just have a very small minded view of what those are. Well, limited at least. And as such you are missing the point.

Someone who gives up on whatever he is doing regardless of the consequences to others is Evil. The premise of the paladin of freedom is to defend the liberty of everyone.
Being Good-Aligned, they'd also feel immensely guilty of willingly giving up on a quest.


They are, as hamish said, Good First, Orderly/Chaotic Second. A paladin of freedom and a paladin of justice have a lot in common.

Person_Man
2010-08-09, 01:53 PM
From a fluff point of view, I wouldn't ask or encourage him to have a strict code of ethics. He's supposed to embody freedom after all. He should only "fall" if he actively supports a regime (by accepting an official title or position of power) or commits clearly Evil acts (murdering the innocent, willingly helping demons, allowing a clearly unjust law to be executed when he could have directly prevented it, etc). And even then, it should be more of a "hey, does your God believe in that" and not "because you allowed that man to be arrested for jaywalking, you have lost your Paladin abilities."

From a crunch point of view, I would highly suggest Lion Totem Barbarian 1/Paladin of Freedom 4/PrC X. Something like Bear Warrior 1/Warshaper 3, Runescarred Berserker 10, Frostrager 5, Deepwarden 2, War Hulk 10, un-errata'd Weretouched Master 5, or Frenzied Berseker 10 (if you know exactly what you're doing). Barbarian 2+ and PoF 5+ are usually junk levels, especially when you multiclass.

Caphi
2010-08-09, 01:53 PM
The paladin of freedom doesn't go out of his way to spit on law or authority. He just doesn't let it get in the way of him being a paladin. Sometimes he doesn't let it pretty hard.

hamishspence
2010-08-09, 02:00 PM
He should only "fall" if he actively supports a regime (by accepting an official title or position of power) or commits clearly Evil acts (murdering the innocent, willingly helping demons, allowing a clearly unjust law to be executed when he could have directly prevented it, etc).

What if the regime's a Chaotic regime- an elven community, for example, if the paladin is an elf?

"willingly helping demons" is one of the iffier ones- very occasionally, an adventure may demand that the heroes ally themselves with demons against Worse Demons, so to speak. It features in D&D novels, and in the Savage Tide adventure path.

Another tricky question is whether murdering the "not innocent" counts as evil- say, a person who is evil and oppressive, but have never committed a crime that would merit the death penalty, even by the law code of a typical Good regime.

Telonius
2010-08-09, 02:08 PM
Thanks for the ideas so far guys. FYI this is for my Silver Hellstar (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145066)campaign.

Right now they are headed to a city under the thumb of a ruthless, evil dictator so there should be tons of fun for my barbarous paladin. The dictator is also the high priest of Asmodeus, so bonus points there!

What do you think of this scenario:

An important person in the evil government is parlaying with the party. He admits that the system they're using is not perfect, and that he is striving to make things better for the people here. He believes his cause is just, and makes an offer to the paladin:

Join our side and become an overseer in the slave pits. There you'll have the power to make the lives of the oppressed better and insure that the institution is phased out, as I have promised to do. If you don't accept, we'll still phase out slavery as an institution, but you'll have no control over how it's done, and it's too big for you to oppose yourself from the outside.

That's actually a pretty good dilemma for him. The government guy is clearly trying to do the right thing - he's a reformer generally working towards the same goals as the Paladin. But in order to do things the government guy's way, the Paladin would have to compromise his own ideals of freeing all the slaves immediately. Basically, he's offering a Neutral compromise. I wouldn't necessarily say he'd fall (i.e. commit an evil act) if he took the option, depending on how he conducted himself. But it is a neutral act. If he keeps making that sort of decision, his alignment would gradually change to NG.

For most players, I'd expect them to turn down the offer and try to find a more dramatic "free the slaves now!" solution. That would be more in keeping with the image I have of a Paladin of Freedom.

hamishspence
2010-08-09, 02:11 PM
The tricky part is that being an overseer is almost bound to lead to the character having to oppress, at least a little.

"evil implies oppressing, hurting, and killing others"

It may not necessarily require all three.

"Oppression" might qualify as an evil act, in this case.

Human Paragon 3
2010-08-09, 02:25 PM
Indeed, that is the trick. I would say serving as a slave overseer would be highly contrary to the code of a Paladin of Freedom.

However, that deal might actually be teamed with a Suggestion spell (devil's whispers invocation)...

hamishspence
2010-08-09, 02:30 PM
Just as a possible temptation for a normal paladin, is to disregard legitimate authority for a "good" reason (maybe, to murder somebody that the law won't touch)

so here we have a temptation to support morally dubious authority for a "good" reason- the long-term good of the slaves.

Might be an interesting way for Chaotic paladins to slip into "ends justify means".

Marnath
2010-08-09, 03:56 PM
What do the other PC's think about all this? I hope the paladin player doesn't take his class fluff as a reason to boss the party around like so many LG paladins do. I agree that a chaotic person is no more likely to betray their beliefs than a lawful person. They just see different paths leading to their goals than the lawful person does.

Harperfan7
2010-08-10, 12:43 AM
On an alignment basis, it's ok to kill evil when they are unconcious simply for being evil. It's a neutral act, and an unlawful one in areas where there are laws, so yeah, he can.

A paladin of freedom is often a vigilante.

As for what to expect, he won't cooperate with authority unless he was going to anyways, he can get along with lawful people as long as they don't try to force him (or others) into anything, he will kill evil as enthusiastically as any normal paladin, and he can fight as dirty as good allows as long as he's not the (libertarian jargon, coming in hot!) "initiator of force" to any living creature.

hamishspence
2010-08-10, 03:36 AM
Thing is- where does "killing evil beings for being evil is a neutral act" come from?

The PHB doesn't mention it.

DMG mentions that, in most societies, "being evil" isn't a crime in itself.

BoVD does- but also uses the phrase "only applies to creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil"

And also says "murder is one of the most horrible acts a being can commit"

BoED suggests that "making war on evil creatures solely because they are evil, without just cause" is evil.

And Fiendish Codex 2 ranks Murder as an extremely severe corrupt act.

So- it is possible for killing an evil being to be the extremely severe evil act of Murder.

Escheton
2010-08-10, 07:55 AM
So you hunt and kill evil beings. Well, you slaughter them. Become a paladin of slaughter and play him like an absolutely ruthless man trying to do the right thing. Sure, he's evil. He will disagree though. I'm thinking kinda like Kore from goblins but with a more Dexter feel to him.

Math_Mage
2010-08-10, 11:08 AM
So you hunt and kill evil beings. Well, you slaughter them. Become a paladin of slaughter and play him like an absolutely ruthless man trying to do the right thing. Sure, he's evil. He will disagree though. I'm thinking kinda like Kore from goblins but with a more Dexter feel to him.

I...what? Your solution is to turn him into a CE character?

Gaurd_Juris, I see little about your proposed dilemma that would challenge the ethics of a Paladin of Freedom. Submitting to authority in order to change an evil institution from the inside in some legalistically legitimate way is not going to appeal to a CG character, let alone a CG paladin. If you want him to get into a dilemma over law vs. chaos, the lawful option needs to be more...good.

Example: The paladin is escorting a group of refugees out of Evil Country, hounded by the BBEG's minions and so on. They come across a kingdom that offers to take them in...as conscripts in the war against Evil Country (women and children naturally exempted, but the paladin included regardless of gender/age).

On the one hand, the paladin seriously endangers his refugee party by turning down this offer and trying to survive to reach another kingdom. On the other, the paladin sacrifices his freedom, and that of his group (albeit in a good cause), by accepting.

If this paladin turns down the initial offer, a second one might be made, in which only the paladin has to join up. The king might hope that a large percentage of the refugees would join without being forced to due to their hatred for Evil Country, and the paladin is the prize of the group in any case. And that second offer would be much harder to turn down, as the paladin would be only sacrificing his own freedom.

The paladin shouldn't fall or suffer consequences for taking either choice, though consistent choices in one direction or the other might suggest an alignment shift. And either choice leads to plenty of yummy plot hooks.

Human Paragon 3
2010-08-10, 11:17 AM
Sounds good, Math Mage! I think I'll still use my initial scenario as an "easy" test for him. It's the kind of thing an evil beurocrat would so anyway.

Your idea used as a follow up should be very interesting!

Marnath
2010-08-10, 11:20 AM
The paladin shouldn't fall or suffer consequences for taking either choice,

...darn straight, the paladin shouldn't fall when the DM backs him into a corner :smallmad:
Playing a paladin doesn't give a DM the right to engineer situations where the only choice is to fall. It's not realistic, and you wouldn't punish a pc of a different class like that.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-10, 11:33 AM
...darn straight, the paladin shouldn't fall when the DM backs him into a corner :smallmad:
Playing a paladin doesn't give a DM the right to engineer situations where the only choice is to fall. It's not realistic, and you wouldn't punish a pc of a different class like that.

Rectify your complaint. You are complaining that it is not realistic for someone to find himself cornered in situations with only bad endings. On the contrary, it's very possible and happens IRL all the time.

Math_Mage
2010-08-10, 11:46 AM
...darn straight, the paladin shouldn't fall when the DM backs him into a corner :smallmad:
Playing a paladin doesn't give a DM the right to engineer situations where the only choice is to fall. It's not realistic, and you wouldn't punish a pc of a different class like that.

...I'm confused. You seem to be agreeing with me, but very angrily.

As a general rule, when the DM backs the paladin into an 'only bad endings' scenario, he shouldn't make the paladin fall for it. However, it's within the DM's purview to set up an 'only bad endings' scenario. The same goes for ambiguous scenarios like the one I outlined above.

Human Paragon 3
2010-08-10, 11:46 AM
I'm not a huge fan of the whole "Falling" thing. Even if I were, in Math Mage's scenario, neither option looks bad enough to cause the paladin to fall. It's just a hard choice.

Marnath
2010-08-10, 11:50 AM
...I'm confused. You seem to be agreeing with me, but very angrily.

As a general rule, when the DM backs the paladin into an 'only bad endings' scenario, he shouldn't make the paladin fall for it. However, it's within the DM's purview to set up an 'only bad endings' scenario. The same goes for ambiguous scenarios like the one I outlined above.

yeah, i was agreeing with you. The smilie is for people who think its funny or whatever to do that to a paladin, not you specifically.

What would be an idea of a situation with only bad choices then, snake-aes?

Snake-Aes
2010-08-10, 11:53 AM
yeah, i was agreeing with you. The smilie is for people who think its funny or whatever to do that to a paladin, not you specifically.

What would be an idea of a situation with only bad choices then, snake-aes?

Unfair? Annoying? Frustrating? Troublesome? Thrilling? It can be anything, but "Unrealistic"? It is realistic.

Human Paragon 3
2010-08-10, 11:54 AM
You're on a life raft with only enough food and water for 5 people, but there are 6 people on the boat. Either one person has to be sacrificed for the other 5, or everybody will die of thirst before help arrives, and nobody will volunteer to be the one that goes. What do you do?

Absurd? Slightly, but it's just an example. Not that I'd do this to my players.

Marnath
2010-08-10, 11:54 AM
Unfair? Annoying? Frustrating? Troublesome? Thrilling? It can be anything, but "Unrealistic"? It is realistic.

O.o thats not an example...

*edit obviously the paladin is the one who makes the sacrifice. Letting someone else starve seems to be a neutral option.

Harperfan7
2010-08-10, 11:57 AM
You don't get to be evil by not deserving a sword in your face, and detect evil is a surefire way to know that somebody is evil, so what's the problem?

Remember, evil is EVIL, as in kills for fun and profit, steals for the same reason, rapes, molests, despoils, whatever. In D&D, an evil person has done whatever it takes to become evil, so they deserve to be killed (it would be better to redeem them, if possible, but its often not). You're avenging whoever they have done evil to, and are preventing any future evil from them.

See, in real life you have to have proof that somebody is really bad and deserving of death before you kill them, in D&D any swinging paladin can just point, yell "BOOYAH!" and stab away. Thing is, doing so is often less than legal or diplomatic and can often inhibit the greater good (but it's not evil).

Human Paragon 3
2010-08-10, 11:57 AM
That's fine for a paladin, it's just a no win scenario. I thought that was the question. But I actually want to nip this in the bud, lest it become another "Does the paladin fall" thread. That's not particularly useful to me, as the OP. If you'd like to discuss it further, start a fresh thread, please.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-10, 11:57 AM
I'm just saying you are complaining with wrong terms. Putting a paladin in a situation that all his alternatives screw him over is realistic. People find themselves in such corners in real life much more often than they'd like to.

Human Paragon 3
2010-08-10, 12:00 PM
You don't get to be evil by not deserving a sword in your face, and detect evil is a surefire way to know that somebody is evil, so what's the problem?

Remember, evil is EVIL, as in kills for fun and profit, steals for the same reason, rapes, molests, despoils, whatever. In D&D, an evil person has done whatever it takes to become evil, so they deserve to be killed (it would be better to redeem them, if possible, but its often not). You're avenging whoever they have done evil to, and are preventing any future evil from them.

See, in real life you have to have proof that somebody is really bad and deserving of death before you kill them, in D&D any swinging paladin can just point, yell "BOOYAH!" and stab away. Thing is, doing so is often less than legal or diplomatic and can often inhibit the greater good (but it's not evil).

A good person can become bad, and bad person can become good. Who are you to take away their chance to redeem themselves?

Also brings up the issue, is it evil acts or evil thoughts that make us evil? If we want to kill everyone and become king, but can't because we're too weak, are we good?

If you fantasize about raping all the virgins in the village but don't because you're afraid of their fathers, are you good?

Do you deserve to die based on your private thoughts?

Marnath
2010-08-10, 12:09 PM
"Many who live deserve death, but some who die deserve life. Can you give it to them Frodo? Then do not be so eager to deal out death and judgement." :smallsmile:

Math_Mage
2010-08-10, 12:15 PM
"Many who live deserve death, but and some who die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Then do not be so eager to deal out death and in judgment." :smallsmile:

Ok, sorry, that's my LotR nerd talking. I agree with your overall point.

Harperfan7
2010-08-10, 12:19 PM
I'm not saying that its a good idea and that I would do it were I a paladin.

I'm saying that its not evil.

Human Paragon 3
2010-08-10, 12:21 PM
Why isn't it evil to kill somebody if you don't know they've even done anything wrong? Based on their life philosophy alone?

Snake-Aes
2010-08-10, 12:22 PM
I'm not saying that its a good idea and that I would do it were I a paladin.

I'm saying that its not evil.

This is exactly what we calling wrong by book definition. It is not 'alright' to kill someone just because he is evil. It is evil to kill other people "because they are evil". For a murder to be "not evil", the murdered has to have actually commited (or tried to commit) a deed that calls for it.

Marnath
2010-08-10, 12:22 PM
Ok, sorry, that's my LotR nerd talking. I agree with your overall point.

lol, having never read the books i'm left with the movie :smallredface:

Harperfan7
2010-08-10, 12:54 PM
For a murder to be "not evil", the murdered has to have actually commited (or tried to commit) a deed that calls for it.

To be evil in the first place requires doing something evil.

Marnath
2010-08-10, 12:56 PM
To be evil in the first place requires doing something evil.

wrong. Being evil requires only that you wish to do something evil.

Harperfan7
2010-08-10, 01:03 PM
wrong. Being evil requires only that you wish to do something evil.

Where is this stated in the PHB?

Marnath
2010-08-10, 01:07 PM
Where is this stated in the PHB?

did i say it was in the phb? I did not. There's lots of good alignment stuff in the books of vile darkness and exalted deeds.

Harperfan7
2010-08-10, 01:51 PM
did i say it was in the phb? I did not. There's lots of good alignment stuff in the books of vile darkness and exalted deeds.

Well, there you go.

Marnath
2010-08-10, 01:53 PM
Well, there you go.

There i go what? We're having a conversation about alignment, and all WoTC published material is game for that.

hamishspence
2010-08-10, 02:14 PM
Some people dislike BoVD and BoED for their stance on alignment.

Technically none of the books- not even the PHB, state "You cannot be evil aligned without having done evil things."

And a newborn chromatic dragon, or a saintly character that just had a Helm of Opposite Alignment put over their head, prove that evil alignment can in some cases, be all about the being's personality, and not their deeds.

So, in some cases, a being can be evil without ever having done evil.

However- Fiendish Codex 2 does state that a the soul of a being cannot enter Baator, without having committed corrupt acts.

Which can be quite minor.

So- using those rules, if you killed a newborn chromatic dragon (Blue or Green), or someone who has just been Helmed and become LE (but has never done any unatoned-for corrupt acts), their souls could not go to Baator. Maybe the souls would go to Acheron instead?

Personality, and deeds, are both possible components of an evil alignment. In Champions of Ruin, deeds are what cement a person's alignment- repeatedly, deliberately, doing evil deeds, will make a person evil, even if, their personality is more like what PHB would define as a Neutral or Good character- they are self-sacrificing, altruistic, have compunctions against hurting the innocent, protect the innocent, etc.

What counts as Evil Deeds? FC2, BoVD, and BoED have a fairly short list of deeds that are evil regardless of the nature of the victims.

One is murder. Another is torture. A third is "robbing the needy".

So, using Champions of Ruin, a person who is a hero in every other way- but routinely tortures villains (for info, or for their own pleasure, or for pretty much any reason) will eventually become Evil-aligned- even if every other aspect of their personality fits with a Good or Neutral character.

If we go to PHB- the 3 basic evil things to do are "Hurt" "Oppress" "Kill"- given that hurting and killing are done a lot by paladins, this may suggest that "without reasonable justification" is what makes them evil.

However- a person can hurt, and oppress, on a small scale- they don't have to routinely do it on a massive scale, to be evil.

In FC2, a common trait of LE societies, is an education system that encourages older children to hurt and oppress younger ones. This is how the society produces LE adults.

But it doesn't automatically follow, that the LE citizens of an LE society, ever do more than this kind of "sanctioned bullying".

ZeroGear
2010-08-10, 06:20 PM
I know someone mentioned the BoED earlier, and it it a very good place to look. If I were you, I'd look at the first section where it talks about the nature of being good, and one of the later sections about the approach taken (lawful, neutral, or chaotic). There is also a section where it talks about godd and different classes, and I would suggest reading up on the exalted barbarian for some guidance.

Off hand, I'd suggest the following rules on how to act:
-Do not kill a helpless person, unless he is irredeamibly evil.
-If the enemy surrenders, do not kill them.
-Heal those who are hurt, unless they intendo to use that gift for an evil cause.
-If you have captured an enemy, give them the chance to reform themselves, and make an attempt to reform the villan, if able.
-Do not allow tyrany to reign, allow individuals the chance to choose.
-Show kindness, loce, and compassion to those who need it.
-Help those who are unable to help themselves, especially if opressed by evil.

Try those for a start.

hamishspence
2010-08-11, 04:41 AM
That's a pretty fair summary. While BoED has its dubious moments (the whole "poison is evil but ravages aren't" thing, and the spell Sanctify the Wicked, in general it does provide a reasonable place to start.

Some people dislike the amount of emphasis it places on mercy as an essential part of goodness- but I think it's a good idea. After all, Celestia, plane of lawful goodness, is descibed as being both "justice and mercy" in Manual of the Planes.

Yora
2010-08-11, 04:55 AM
Being Good means making sacrifices. Being nice only when it's convenient is not Good.
And mercy might be very difficult in certain situations, but the Good thing to do is accepting the burdens that come with it.

hamishspence
2010-08-11, 05:00 AM
In Dragon Magazine 310, the Avenger (CG paladin variant) is a vigilante, punishing the evil, often in ironic ways to fit the crimes of the evil- but they reserve killing for only the vilest evil villains.

ZeroGear
2010-08-11, 04:31 PM
One of the Best examples of chaotic good in Literaturen is Robin Hood. True, He is a Thief, but He only Steals from the tyranic Prince John, giving to the poor and the Helpless. He also refuses to kill, except in extreme Situation.

hamishspence
2010-08-11, 04:38 PM
There's a lot of different versions of Mr The Hood- but the milder versions do tend to be like this. And the splatbook Complete Scoundrel does cite him as a typical CG scoundrel hero.

In the grimmer versions, Robin is the brutal Godfather of Sherwood Forest and it's neighbouring villages, ruling over them with an iron fist, (but the authorities in that version are generally even worse.)

ZeroGear
2010-08-11, 07:02 PM
Do note I am leaning towards the Disny Fox hood, and "the Geast of Robyn Hood" (the original manuscript). Although the orignal manuscript did not feature Prince John, it still portrayed Robyn as a good natured scoundrel who rewarded the truthful and punished those who opressed/lied to/cheated others. Also, the tales of the Mafia-version Hood are scarce, and therefore are not as reliable as the many versions that show the kind side of Robin.

hamishspence
2010-08-12, 02:42 AM
True. I wondered once if Robert the Bruce might have been the prototype for some of the Robin Hood concept- he was a Robert, an Earl of Huntington, and an outlaw, in the reign of Edward I. A bit later than the period most Robin Hood stories are set, but not by much.