PDA

View Full Version : The nature of Paladins



Pages : [1] 2

Jeebers
2011-07-04, 09:33 PM
Could somebody please explain to me why Paladins have such a bad reputation? I mean, they are supposed to be honorable, charismatic, moral individuals who by their very nature are supposed to haul your butt out of jams. The way I see them, these are the type of people you want around when all Hell breaks loose, the ones you depend on to be true blue heroes. One player said that if we were being chased by a horde of demons, and his character tripped, he knew darned well that the only person who'd turn back for his butt would be my Paladin. You and I both know what would happen if a demonic horde got their clawed hands on any PC, but still a Paladin would do his/her best to save your butt.

Yet, I keep finding out that many players think of them as automatic jerks. More than that, they keep assigning goofy rules of behavior that no sane person would even contemplate. For example, one guy got all ticked that my 1st level Paladin, upon seeing a gigantic djinn appear out of nowhere, turned around, picked up the awed mage, and beat feet. He said I couldn't retreat. Since when does being a Paladin mean you give up your sanity?! Or when I was playing a game of dice with the Rogue for pebbles, and he freaked out that I was gambling. For PEBBLES?! And gambling is perfectly legal, too.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-04, 09:37 PM
You have been fortunate to have played a paladin with a DM who doesn't sweat the details and wants you all to have fun, and with players who value your fun just as much as theirs (and apparently this is reciprocal).

Others have not been as fortunate.

Some character archetypes only work when there is a functional group with a healthy interdynamic and a healthy player-DM relationship. The paladin is one of them.

erikun
2011-07-04, 09:58 PM
The problem is that D&D uses a set of draconian restrictions in an attempt to enforce a "noble" code of conduct for Paladins. What it ends up doing is forcing (most) Paladins to play one specific way, and - due to the poorly worded or thought out code - forces the party to play along with them.

As such, a lot of players end up biased against Paladins in general - likely because they have played with the "Lawful Stickinmud" type before, and didn't like it. Certain DMs will stretch the restrictions to ridiculous lengths, or make up new ones, which isn't any fun to play with either.

Jeebers
2011-07-04, 10:39 PM
The way I see Paladins, they should be played almost as if they were Superman. In the comic books, Supe isn't a jerk at all. For the most part, he's a really decent sort of guy. Granted, Paladins aren't anywhere near as godlike as Kal-El, but still, the essential impulse to be heroic is there.

I always thought of Paladins as being the perfect point man, because they are so durable. If you play them as really selfless, they spend their healing magic on the rest of the party, not on themselves.

Another way to play them is as if they were the only representatives of law and order, as if they were the only thing keeping civilization healthy in a very barbaric environment.

The only time I ever had problems playing them is when the Rogue started swiping things. At that point, the dilemma became that while the Rogue was breaking the law, he was at least swiping from the villains. Weakening the bad guys means civilization had a better chance of taking root. Even so, I always thought of it as a difficult conundrum, so I would ask the player of the Rogue to make sure my Paladin didn't find out about it.

bloodtide
2011-07-04, 10:43 PM
Just a couple problems:

Players:Some players make a paladin out to be the dumb sort of goody two shoes type of guy. The guy that always tells the truth, and can not handle any lie, for example. The guy that can never do anything wrong. For example curfew is 10 pm, so the paladin will refuse to leave the inn after 10 pm, even to save someone being slaughtered by a were wolf just down the street.

They also have a problem with stealing. So if the group does the old ''grab some clothing off the laundry line to blend in'' the paladin will refuse to do so and will even expose them as the laundry thieves.

And they never want to go along with 'tricks'. They will refuse to hide or use misdirection or such. They won't sneak in to the castle, they must walk up and announce themselves...and worse.


DM's:A great many DM's have an unnatural hatred for paladins, or at least see them as a great chance to play around with ''laws/ethics/morality/life/death and such. So many DM's just attack a paladin player and try every second to destroy them. They will set up trap after trap to get the paladin to loose all their powers. They will constantly to all the crazy things like 'when fighting a troll and a girl asks for help finding her lost kitty, what should the paladin do?' A player might say ''fight the troll'', but the DM will jump up and scream ''Ha, you loose all your paladin stuff, you violated the oath of helpfullness''.

Jeebers
2011-07-04, 10:48 PM
Wait, the main tenet to being a Paladin was to adhere to Lawful Good, and follow the guidelines in your deity's religious code. After that, it's totally up to the player as to what to do, right? Or do I have something wrong?

Having a Phylactery of Faithfulness is something I'd definitely recommend to anyone playing a Paladin for the first time.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-04, 10:56 PM
Wait, the main tenet to being a Paladin was to adhere to Lawful Good, and follow the guidelines in your deity's religious code. After that, it's totally up to the player as to what to do, right? Or do I have something wrong?

Having a Phylactery of Faithfulness is something I'd definitely recommend to anyone playing a Paladin for the first time.

"Follow the guidelines in your deity's religious code" = Those are clerics, not paladins.

Paladins have their own strict and universal Code of Conduct, that is utterly independent of the god they worship (and indeed, if they worship one at all. Paladins and clerics need not worship any god).

Lapak
2011-07-04, 10:57 PM
Wait, the main tenet to being a Paladin was to adhere to Lawful Good, and follow the guidelines in your deity's religious code. After that, it's totally up to the player as to what to do, right? Or do I have something wrong?

Having a Phylactery of Faithfulness is something I'd definitely recommend to anyone playing a Paladin for the first time.No, you have something RIGHT. The Paladin is one of the victims of the eternal Alignment Debate, and suffers more than almost any of them. There are many good examples in fiction and play of interesting, multi-dimensional Paladins, but some people (both players and DMs) can't see past their own idea of what the class means and what Lawful Good means.

Jeebers
2011-07-04, 11:27 PM
Just because a character focuses on martial prowess more than clerical ability does not mean they get off from religious strictures. Based on what I have read, a paladin of one deity is going to have different strictures than another.

wuwuwu
2011-07-04, 11:30 PM
Just because a character focuses on martial prowess more than clerical ability does not mean they get off from religious strictures. Based on what I have read, a paladin of one deity is going to have different strictures than another.

In 3.5e a paladin is basically independent of religion. In 4e they are warriors for deities. Maybe that's the confusion?

Ravens_cry
2011-07-04, 11:31 PM
No, you have something RIGHT. The Paladin is one of the victims of the eternal Alignment Debate, and suffers more than almost any of them. There are many good examples in fiction and play of interesting, multi-dimensional Paladins, but some people (both players and DMs) can't see past their own idea of what the class means and what Lawful Good means.
The funny thing is that Druids have similarly intense restrictions (though most consciousnesses are temporary) yet most DM's do not gleefully try to get Druids to "Autumn".

Alleran
2011-07-04, 11:33 PM
The way I see Paladins, they should be played almost as if they were Superman. In the comic books, Supe isn't a jerk at all. For the most part, he's a really decent sort of guy. Granted, Paladins aren't anywhere near as godlike as Kal-El, but still, the essential impulse to be heroic is there.
A better example is probably Michael Carpenter from Dresden Files. That's how I'd say most paladins should be played.

Either that, or Optimus Prime.

Coidzor
2011-07-04, 11:35 PM
Well, for starters, which Paladin are you talking about having played? There's been at least 3 of them in D&D proper, 4 if you count 3.0 vs. 3.5.

If you just wanna know which ones give them the bad rap, well, that's mostly 3.X, due to the code of conduct which is more than just following the strictures of a deity and, indeed, the deity's good graces are not required save for Paladins in Forgotten Realms to be capable of preparing spells.

Ravens_cry
2011-07-04, 11:39 PM
A better example is probably Michael Carpenter from Dresden Files. That's how I'd say most paladins should be played.

Either that, or Optimus Prime.
I like Sam Vimes as a model for Paladins.
"'Who watches the Watchmen?'" Me."

Zanatos777
2011-07-04, 11:40 PM
A better example is probably Michael Carpenter from Dresden Files. That's how I'd say most paladins should be played.

Either that, or Optimus Prime.

Michael is basically the best example possible!

Jeebers
2011-07-04, 11:41 PM
If you just wanna know which ones give them the bad rap, well, that's mostly 3.X, due to the code of conduct which is more than just following the strictures of a deity and, indeed, the deity's good graces are not required save for Paladins in Forgotten Realms to be capable of preparing spells.

? Actually, I found a lot of the problems began when the Complete Guide to Paladins came out back in 2e, but there were some odd things originating with the 1st ed Cavalier which a lot of people would get mixed up with the Paladin.

I loved the Complete Paladin, but I really had a problem with a lot of the absolutes. Did you know that even monastic guidelines in medieval Europe weren't as strict as the stuff I read in early D&D?

Jeebers
2011-07-04, 11:42 PM
In 3.5e a paladin is basically independent of religion. In 4e they are warriors for deities. Maybe that's the confusion?

Wha? I never heard that before. Even in Forgotten Realms they specifically mention orders of Paladins dedicated to deities.

Also, I always thought Captain America and Optimus Prime were great Paladin examples.

Ajadea
2011-07-04, 11:50 PM
Paladins are the perfect canary in the coalmine for problem DMs...or players, imo. They have this 'code of conduct' which can be interpreted in an extremely draconican way, they are susceptable to all alignment debates in an extreme sort of way, and they are lightning rods to be screwed with by DMs who like to do that sort of stuff.

Let's see the paladin's code of honor again:


A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Well, the problems with this begin in an instant. Killing is evil. Of course, killing in self-defense or in defense of others really should be exempt. But a draconican DM could literally make the paladin fall for going on a dungeon crawl unprovoked.


Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority,

Easy to interpret as 'paladins must obey authority figures'. Here's a hint for those who want to play paladins: ass-kissing and mindless obedience ≠ respect. You can respectfully decline tasks that are assigned to you by an emperor or whoever, and there is nothing stopping you from defying a guard if you're out past curfew and need to hunt down this werewolf NOW. Just don't punch him/her in the face.


act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth),

See that 'and so forth' bit? That is problematic. Not cheating is pretty simple-don't hide an ace up your sleeve, don't summon your mount during a one-on-one duel, don't replace someone's chariot pins with wax before the big race. Helpful hint for paladin players: not lying ≠ always telling everything to everyone. Shutting up and refusing to speak on the matter is a perfectly viable choice.


help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends),

So, no, you don't fall for stomping on the evil lich's hands and making him fall off the cliff into lava. Also, priorities. A paladin needs to help those in need. In times when multiple people need your help, you have to make a choice. That's kinda how it works. Now, the paladin would want to help them all. If they can't, they shouldn't fall for that.


and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Straightforward enough here. Someone hits a kid, you are authorized to arrest and smite. Someone threatens to burn down a village, negotiations are over and you are authorized to smite and kill.


While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters,

This is a group thing. Someone wants to play an evil character, they'd better be willing to cast undetectable alignment on themselves and do their evil-est work out of sight of the paladin.


nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.

If the neutral rogue keeps rigging races, and the paladin finds out about it, they cannot continue adventuring together. The key point is consistency-one gross offence might get the paladin annoyed, but they don't have to leave or kick the offender out. In fact, trying to keep the morally gray character from slipping further may be a reason for the paladin and that other PC to stick together!

Jay R
2011-07-04, 11:54 PM
In 3.5e a paladin is basically independent of religion. In 4e they are warriors for deities. Maybe that's the confusion?

Since the confusion and arguments over what a paladin can do started in 1975 when the first D&D supplement came out (Greyhawk, which introduced paladins), it doesn't come from 3.5e / 4e incompatability.

Jeebers
2011-07-05, 12:13 AM
Well, the problems with this begin in an instant. Killing is evil. Of course, killing in self-defense or in defense of others really should be exempt.

You can respectfully decline tasks that are assigned to you by an emperor or whoever, and there is nothing stopping you from defying a guard if you're out past curfew and need to hunt down this werewolf NOW. Just don't punch him/her in the face.

Shutting up and refusing to speak on the matter is a perfectly viable choice.

So, no, you don't fall for stomping on the evil lich's hands and making him fall off the cliff into lava.

Straightforward enough here. Someone hits a kid, you are authorized to arrest and smite. Someone threatens to burn down a village, negotiations are over and you are authorized to smite and kill.

This is a group thing. Someone wants to play an evil character, they'd better be willing to cast undetectable alignment on themselves and do their evil-est work out of sight of the paladin.


Wait, in a medieval or Renaissance society, the attitude towards killing is vastly different than the one we practice today. If you or I spent time in their environment, we'd be horrified at how quickly they mete out death. Therefore, a lot of leniency should be observed where killing is concerned. You need to have a very good reason why, but I have never heard of medieval characters agonizing over their choices.

Where those tasks laws are concerned, a player really has to consider the choices between obeying the law and allowing an innocent to die, or disobeying the law and saving someone from a slavering, hairy monster. Which is the greater evil?

Refusing to speak is actually a time honored option that cultures around the world have taken when honorable warriors are concerned.

BTW, I disagree that poison use is inherently evil. If I slather some feces on my sword and use it to slaughter some orcs who are raiding the local village, how is that evil? Heck, it's not even poison, yet it is used identically.

Oh, and based on the original legends and the fact that they are inherently unintelligent automatons, I do not consider the creation of zombies or skeletons an evil act. But, that's me. I would consider it unlawful, though. Perhaps even chaotic. There are laws about disturbing the dead, you know.

Honestly, if I were GMing and I had an unrepentantly evil lich hanging from a cliff and a Paladin stomped on his hands, I don't think I'd penalize the PC. The key here is repentance. If the lich sincerely repented, then yes, killing it is an evil act.

Aren't the last two points really something all adventurers are bound to? After all, we are specifically prevented from playing the 3 evil alignments, and the game is heavily slanted to favor good vs evil.

Coidzor
2011-07-05, 12:22 AM
Wha? I never heard that before. Even in Forgotten Realms they specifically mention orders of Paladins dedicated to deities.


Yes, they work for them or their churches because they like their ideas/churches/particular path to avoiding a fate worse than the 9 Hells. They get spells from them if they're of high enough level. But that's it. Paladinhood is not granted by specific deities or taken away by them except in specific campaign settings.

At least, that's the 3.X way of things.


we are specifically prevented from playing the 3 evil alignments, and the game is heavily slanted to favor good vs evil.

Where? and in what edition?

Talakeal
2011-07-05, 12:26 AM
Paladins weren't required to have deities in second edition either. Don't know about first, that was before my time.


BTW, I disagree that poison use is inherently evil. If I slather some feces on my sword and use it to slaughter some orcs who are raiding the local village, how is that evil? Heck, it's not even poison, yet it is used identically.



It isn't inherently evil, (unless you are using wacky BoED ethics), it is however inherently dishonorable. Although, in your example I would say that is pretty close to evil as it means a long painful death drawn out over weeks or months, maybe even after the orcs have surrendered or atoned.

Lord_Gareth
2011-07-05, 12:31 AM
Relevant post in another thread is relevant:



A Paladin is literally "on a mission from God", so they maybe a bit stricter in their code of conduct than another class that is Lawful Good.

No, they aren't (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205965).

To quote the relevant bit of text:


Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Now, there's no mention of a divinity of any kind in that text. Getting better, if you check the Cleric entry out, you'll find this gem:


Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description).

So you'd think if Paladins were required to have a god, there'd be something like that in there.

In short: the Paladin code is emblematic of what WotC thought the ultimate Lawful Good should be. They were grossly incorrect.

navar100
2011-07-05, 01:01 AM
Well, the problems with this begin in an instant. Killing is evil. Of course, killing in self-defense or in defense of others really should be exempt. But a draconican DM could literally make the paladin fall for going on a dungeon crawl unprovoked.


No, killing is not evil. The motive for the killing makes all the difference. Self-defese and defense of others are not exceptions or exemptions; they're the reason that act of killing is not evil. A paladin is trained with using armor, shields, and weapons. They ride a horse into battle with a lance. In Pathfinder, they can instead enchant the weapon they're holding. They are trained to kill. Paladins are supposed to kill evil creatures.

Ajadea
2011-07-05, 01:06 AM
No, killing is not evil. The motive for the killing makes all the difference. Self-defese and defense of others are not exceptions or exemptions; they're the reason that act of killing is not evil. A paladin is trained with using armor, shields, and weapons. They ride a horse into battle with a lance. In Pathfinder, they can instead enchant the weapon they're holding. They are trained to kill. Paladins are supposed to kill evil creatures.

I didn't say it was logical. I'm implying a +5 Draconican Killer DM of Paladin-Bane here. The fact that 'killing' is mentioned as one of the three things being evil implies could be spun into a gigantic mess.

Jeebers
2011-07-05, 02:32 AM
Yes, they work for them or their churches because they like their ideas/churches/particular path to avoiding a fate worse than the 9 Hells. They get spells from them if they're of high enough level. But that's it. Paladinhood is not granted by specific deities or taken away by them except in specific campaign settings.
At least, that's the 3.X way of things.


I have never read anything that even remotely implies what you just wrote. Yes, I have read the optional "I don't have a deity" section in the PHB and in the Pathfinder core book, but never in FR nor any other setting. Since I have never met a player that DIDN'T want to multiclass freely, they always seem to take the option on page26 of the FR main setting book (special paladin orders). I've got it in front of me. And interestingly enough, on p25: "All paladins of Faerun are devoted to a patron deity, chosen at the start of their career as paladins.":smalltongue:

Banning of evil alignments
"Where? and in what edition?"

Easy. That would be in 3.0, 3.5, 2e, Pathfinder, etc. (nearly all of them) It's typically found in the same chapter in which the 9 alignments are described.

See what I mean?:tongue: What, you never noticed?

Shadowknight12
2011-07-05, 02:36 AM
And interestingly enough, on p25: "All paladins of Faerun are devoted to a patron deity, chosen at the start of their career as paladins.":smalltongue:

In Faerun, all divine casters (druids, rangers, clerics, adepts and paladins, in Core) must follow a god. It is a setting-wide rule. This says nothing of paladins whatsoever.

Outside Faerun, no divine class is bound to follow a god, nor do they necessarily get their spells/powers from them.

Jeebers
2011-07-05, 02:38 AM
It isn't inherently evil, (unless you are using wacky BoED ethics), it is however inherently dishonorable. Although, in your example I would say that is pretty close to evil as it means a long painful death drawn out over weeks or months, maybe even after the orcs have surrendered or atoned.

Nope. People died of disease all the time in the dark ages, and in the Renaissance too. And usually they died pretty quickly, since ANY open wound essentially was a mortal one because almost all would rapidly become infected. So even if there were no fecal matter on the sword, they'd still die within weeks most likely. The fecal matter is actually more of a mercy if you stop and think about it, because it speeds things along. If you don't believe me, try checking out wikipedia for a bit, or maybe ask the CDC.

The point is that no substance is inherently evil. It's just a cultural prejudice that is the origin of "poison is evil" thing. Heck, if you check out Japan, or empires in what is now the Middle East, poison is used all the time, in their "medieval" pasts.

Cerlis
2011-07-05, 02:40 AM
its not Paladins, its what happens to players when they play paladins. and how it can harm the game.

Jeebers
2011-07-05, 02:40 AM
In Faerun, all divine casters (druids, rangers, clerics, adepts and paladins, in Core) must follow a god. It is a setting-wide rule. This says nothing of paladins whatsoever.


Again, no, I have the BOOK in front of me. Dungeons and Dragons Campaign Setting Forgotten Realms. Want me to give you the ISBN? And btw, you just contradicted yourself. Reread the above quote.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-05, 02:43 AM
Again, no, I have the BOOK in front of me. Dungeons and Dragons Campaign Setting Forgotten Realms. Want me to give you the ISBN? And btw, you just contradicted yourself. Reread the above quote.

No, thanks, I have the book.

You misunderstood me. When I said "this says nothing of paladins whatsoever" it means "this is not an indication that paladins must follow a god or derive their powers from a god."

Jeebers
2011-07-05, 02:53 AM
its not Paladins, its what happens to players when they play paladins. and how it can harm the game.

I know. See, most players try to play Paladins as if they were fanatical, and that never works. Faith must be tempered with wisdom and compassion. That is the essence of what Good and being Lawful is. You care about society in general, because the order inherent protects Man from hurting Man. Laws are meant to serve man, not the other way around. Thus, blindly following the law is just as bad as abandoning it utterly (LN or CG). To a paladin, LN looks nice at the outset, but inevitably horrid, insane incidents start cropping up (people serving Law for its own sake, not to maintain the public good), and the slide toward totalitarianism begins. CG is almost as bad, since people would no longer know what to expect. Abner could steal from Joe and get away with it, and thus many of our social contracts would be null.

That's why I like to tell prospective players that when they play one, or indeed any LG character (especially ecclesiastical sorts), that they should just stick to LG and the info they have on their deity. If they get confused, I frequently give them a Phylactery of Faithfulness, so their PC can ask me questions. I like to use popular comic book or movie characters as examples. LG is inherently a passionate alignment. Sometimes people really have a problem portraying LG as a passionate character, but I can't help that.

Even so, I just don't get why LG paladins are so darned hard to play. We have lots of examples in our children's cartoons, movies, and even real life history.

Ossian
2011-07-05, 02:53 AM
Paladins are a great role to play. You can be a rogue, a monk, a fighter, a ranger, and be the Paladin that Faerun deserves. Or the Paladin that Faerun needs (yes Chris Nolan, I look favourably at you). Paladinesque behaviour comes in many shapes and forms, to fit different bills, but there are a few staples in their narrazive, which is, I reckon, what makes them so appealing.

They don't take the easy way out. They risk their butts to uphold their code which, in case of good Paladins, boils down to a few essentials. Protect life, always. Be straightforward. etc etc...

What one finds in the PhB is just a sketch. I don't think WoTC will send you their lawyers if you trash it and re-write it to make your character more enjoyable.

My point is another though. The paladin role applies to characters as different as King Arthur (Knight), Superman (can t stat him), Batman (Rigue), Luke Skywalker (Fighter), any giant robot pilot (minus Shinji). It's the "good" that is in all of us, that emerges and shapes into more than words, and becomes action, at whatever risk or cost. It's sticking your neck out for a perfect stranger. It's about making the difficult choices and trusting your guts.

The Paladin player class is just one of the many numeric abstractions to represent it.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-05, 02:56 AM
Even so, I just don't get why LG paladins are so darned hard to play. We have lots of examples in our children's cartoons, movies, and even real life history.

Not all people are as passionate as you over that specific alignment. Other people prefer CG, NG, CN, TN, LN, LE, NE or CE.

Jeebers
2011-07-05, 03:30 AM
No, thanks, I have the book.

You misunderstood me. When I said "this says nothing of paladins whatsoever" it means "this is not an indication that paladins must follow a god or derive their powers from a god."

Oh yes it is. Want me to continue quoting that very paragraph on p 25?

"All paladins of Faerun are devoted to a patron deity, chosen at the start of their career as paladins. Like paladins of other lands, the paladins of Faerun must be both lawful and good. The paladin's deity must be lawful good, lawful neutral, or neutral good. For example, both Helm the Vigilant one (lawful neutral) and Chauntea the Earthmother (neutral good) have lawful good paladin worshipers. Sune, the goddess of beauty, love, and passion, is an exception to the alignment rule, for her followers include paladins even though her alignment is chaotic good."

And on clerics, p 22:
"Faerunian clerics function as described in the Player's Handbook except that no clerics serve just a cause, philosophy, or abstract source of divine power."

NOTE THE FOLLOWING MOST CAREFULLY:
p23
"It is simply impossible for a person to gain divine powers(such as divine spells) without one." (one here refers to a deity)

Check your book for yourself. I was exact. You can still be a generic paladin or cleric in the core setting book, but sure as heck you can't in FR.

Talakeal
2011-07-05, 03:33 AM
Nope. People died of disease all the time in the dark ages, and in the Renaissance too. And usually they died pretty quickly, since ANY open wound essentially was a mortal one because almost all would rapidly become infected. So even if there were no fecal matter on the sword, they'd still die within weeks most likely. The fecal matter is actually more of a mercy if you stop and think about it, because it speeds things along. If you don't believe me, try checking out wikipedia for a bit, or maybe ask the CDC.

The point is that no substance is inherently evil. It's just a cultural prejudice that is the origin of "poison is evil" thing. Heck, if you check out Japan, or empires in what is now the Middle East, poison is used all the time, in their "medieval" pasts.

I am well aware that people died of infections quite frequently. That doesn't really change anything.

This is one of the strangest arguments I have ever seen about alignment, and that is saying something. Just because something happens "all the time" does not in any way mean that it isn't evil. Just because someone is "likely" to suffer an ill without your input does not give you free reign to insure it. Hell, taken far enough this logic could be saying murder is all fine and good because everyone will die anyway and you are just "helping them along".

As for the argument that nothing is inherently evil and it is only human perception that makes it such, well that is techically correct. Without dragging religion into it, nothing is "good and evil" because good and evil ARE concepts which are invented by the human mind.
Biological warfare is condemned almost universally because it is slow and painful and cannot be controlled, and besides that rubbing excrement in your enemies wounds is just plain disgusting.

Jeebers
2011-07-05, 03:41 AM
Not all people are as passionate as you over that specific alignment. Other people prefer CG, NG, CN, TN, LN, LE, NE or CE.

Uhm, you do know that in most games, Evil alignments are strictly forbidden? In fact, it's even in the PHB or pathfinder core book.

The thing is, if you play Evil alignments correctly, they can't work in a group setting. Basically, if it benefits you, you will happily sell your grandmother into slavery. Another version of D&D "Evil" is what psychologists in real life call "psychopaths". Total lack of conscience. Couldn't care less about other people's welfare, other people are there only to be manipulated or used.

If you look at almost every legend or book that this fantasy genre are based upon, most PC's are going to be Good aligned, like it or not. It's a game about heroes.

I do personally like antihero types (neutral alignments) too, since I find them intriguing. They effectively do all the right things for all the wrong reasons.

I just don't understand why LG paladins are so damned difficult to play for most, and why there are so many misconceptions about them as a class. In a lot of ways, they cleave very close to the heart of what D&D, fantasy genre, etc is. They quite literally embody what it is to be good. Ever read The Book of Exalted Deeds? As a GM though, I like to present my players with difficult choices, to see if they can hack being a true blue hero. So, I don't make it easy to become a high level hero.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-05, 03:47 AM
Check your book for yourself. I was exact. You can still be a generic paladin or cleric in the core setting book, but sure as heck you can't in FR.

Yes. I know. I said that myself. Apparently there is an eagerness to debate here that requires me to clarify myself one more time.

The rules of Faerun apply only to Faerun. A divine class from the PHB (this is the part I omitted before) is not forced to choose a deity nor do they derive powers from it, unless they are in Faerun. The reason I omitted this was because the thread originally started talking about paladins in general, and only later on veered to Faerun. That's why I assumed that whenever I mentioned paladins and divine classes, especially after I had specified how they functioned in Faerun, would be assumed to be referring to no particular setting.

My bad.

Talakeal
2011-07-05, 03:48 AM
The thing is, if you play Evil alignments correctly, they can't work in a group setting. Basically, if it benefits you, you will happily sell your grandmother into slavery. Another version of D&D "Evil" is what psychologists in real life call "psychopaths". Total lack of conscience. Couldn't care less about other people's welfare, other people are there only to be manipulated or used.


While I agree with you that evil PCs shouldn't be allowed in a typical game, I don't believe there is ever anything that says an evil character has to be completely without loyalty or morality. Especially if you are going by the BoED, in which case someone can be evil purely because of the tools they use rather than actions or motivations.

As for the debate about whether or not paladins need a god:
In core D&D no class except clerics needed to choose a god until sometimes late in second edition when even clerics had that restriction removed.
In Forgotten Realms ALL divine characters need to choose a god, have since first edition, and even non divine characters will suffer an eternity of torment after death if they do not choose a god. That has always been the case in Forgotten Realms, but does not apply to D&D as a whole or any other campaign settings, atleast none that I am aware of.

hamishspence
2011-07-05, 04:00 AM
While I agree with you that evil PCs shouldn't be allowed in a typical game, I don't believe there is ever anything that says an evil character has to be completely without loyalty or morality. Especially if you are going by the BoED, in which case someone can be evil purely because of the tools they use rather than actions or motivations.

Champions of Ruin also supports the notion that enough evil acts can eventually lead to an evil alignment- even with good motivations.

So- if the "tools" are murder, torture, the casting of evil spells, and so on, all done toward a good end, and never done against innocents- you can still have an evil character.

Savage Species is also clear about evil characters being quite capable of loyalty, or moral behaviour toward a select group.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-05, 04:01 AM
Uhm, you do know that in most games, Evil alignments are strictly forbidden? In fact, it's even in the PHB or pathfinder core book.

From the PHB:


Most player characters are good or neutral rather than evil. In general, evil alignments are for villains and monsters.

Emphasis mine. No such thing as "strictly forbidden."


The thing is, if you play Evil alignments correctly, they can't work in a group setting. Basically, if it benefits you, you will happily sell your grandmother into slavery. Another version of D&D "Evil" is what psychologists in real life call "psychopaths". Total lack of conscience. Couldn't care less about other people's welfare, other people are there only to be manipulated or used.

You are completely mistaken. Evil comes in shades and degrees. Not all evil characters will do the same, and not all evil characters will sell their grandmother. No, there is no such thing as "correctly playing an alignment." Whether someone's actions fall into a certain alignment or another is highly subjective (see: every alignment debate ever), so while you could say "correctly in my view" you couldn't say "objectively correct."

Psychopathy is not what the movies would have you believe. It's not as simple or as clear-cut as you make it out to be. It's a very complex matter with a hotly debated definition, to the point where it's actually preferred not to use that terminology.

Even you were to use that term, not all Evil characters are psychopaths. You could have a character who advocates the systematic murder of all members of a certain race, but who is kind and loving towards the members of all other races, and who would die to protect them because does, in fact, possess personal ethics and a conscience. His desire to genocide a race that most certainly contains innocents (for example, elves or halflings) is what makes him Evil.


If you look at almost every legend or book that this fantasy genre are based upon, most PC's are going to be Good aligned, like it or not. It's a game about heroes.

Nope. Your games might be. D&D as a whole isn't. D&D is what each table makes of it.


I do personally like antihero types (neutral alignments) too, since I find them intriguing. They effectively do all the right things for all the wrong reasons.

Antiheroes can be of any alignment. Yes, also Lawful Good.


I just don't understand why LG paladins are so damned difficult to play for most, and why there are so many misconceptions about them as a class. In a lot of ways, they cleave very close to the heart of what D&D, fantasy genre, etc is. They quite literally embody what it is to be good. Ever read The Book of Exalted Deeds? As a GM though, I like to present my players with difficult choices, to see if they can hack being a true blue hero. So, I don't make it easy to become a high level hero.

Paladins are not difficult to play, any more than any other class. Some people merely dislike them. That's okay. We all have preferences. What many people dislike is the alignment system, and paladins are intimately tied to them. You will find many people who dislike BoED for that exact same reason too. Plus, if you do not agree with the things BoED and BoVD deem Good and Evil, you will likely not enjoy the books themselves.

Talakeal
2011-07-05, 04:12 AM
Champions of Ruin also supports the notion that enough evil acts can eventually lead to an evil alignment- even with good motivations.

So- if the "tools" are murder, torture, the casting of evil spells, and so on, all done toward a good end, and never done against innocents- you can still have an evil character.

Savage Species is also clear about evil characters being quite capable of loyalty, or moral behaviour toward a select group.

Murder and torture are actions, not tools. I meant stuff like spells and items with the evil descriptor used for clearly not evil ends, including the aformentioned poison.

hamishspence
2011-07-05, 04:20 AM
Poison (ability damaging) is a bit of an oddity- at least one Always Good outsider (the couatl) has it.

The Ashworm Dragoon PRC in Sandstorm, when taken by paladins- has the mount lose its poison ability.

I lean to the view that BoED's "using an ability-damaging poison on an enemy qualifies as an evil act" is a bit misguided (though it has precedent in earlier editions) and could be dropped.

Thus, it might count as "a minor violation of the Paladin's Code" for which only repeated major use might lead to a Fall, rather than an "Evil act" for which any use leads to a Fall.

Casting a spell with the Evil descriptor, even from an item, generally qualifies as an Evil act, rather than a "tool".

Interestingly the PHB calls out "channelling negative energy" by way of rebuking undead, an evil act as well, though some Neutral clerics (those of Wee Jas) only get access to it, rather than to Turn Undead.

One book (Heroes of Horror) suggests that doing evil acts (such as casting evil spells) toward good ends, is compatible with a Neutral alignment- the character can, despite their Neutral acts, avoid slipping all the way to Evil.

This may be because those Evil acts are very minor.

Lord_Gareth
2011-07-05, 07:43 AM
Oh yes it is. Want me to continue quoting that very paragraph on p 25?

"All paladins of Faerun are devoted to a patron deity, chosen at the start of their career as paladins. Like paladins of other lands, the paladins of Faerun must be both lawful and good. The paladin's deity must be lawful good, lawful neutral, or neutral good. For example, both Helm the Vigilant one (lawful neutral) and Chauntea the Earthmother (neutral good) have lawful good paladin worshipers. Sune, the goddess of beauty, love, and passion, is an exception to the alignment rule, for her followers include paladins even though her alignment is chaotic good."

And on clerics, p 22:
"Faerunian clerics function as described in the Player's Handbook except that no clerics serve just a cause, philosophy, or abstract source of divine power."

NOTE THE FOLLOWING MOST CAREFULLY:
p23
"It is simply impossible for a person to gain divine powers(such as divine spells) without one." (one here refers to a deity)

Check your book for yourself. I was exact. You can still be a generic paladin or cleric in the core setting book, but sure as heck you can't in FR.

Hey Jeebers: as we've been saying this whole time (and in the post I quoted), that rule only applies in the Forgotten Realms, which isn't the default setting. What if we're running Grayhawk? Spelljammer? Ravenloft? Eberron? Planescape?

And those are just the published settings where the Paladin gets to tell gods where to stick it all day, every day. Homebrew settings are under no onus to follow the Forgotten Realms rules either, and frequently don't. This is because Forgotten Realms is a poorly-written mass of writing Mary Sues that, on occasion, sends out dark, Lovecraftian tendrils into the minds of the D&D fanbase in order to violate them and convince them that it is, in fact, the core setting.

However, it is not, thus making the statement that the Paladin class itself does not require a god perfectly accurate.

Doomboy911
2011-07-05, 10:03 AM
A better example is probably Michael Carpenter from Dresden Files. That's how I'd say most paladins should be played.

Either that, or Optimus Prime.

That's actually a pretty good example. They ought to change the rules so the paladin must have good in their alignment not lawful. Also the fact that a monk must be lawful is kind of annoying I think the monk should have to have neutral in there somewhere not lawful. A monk is one who has taken himself away from the world to try and find inner peace why should they be lawful which means they're actually paying attention to the world.

hamishspence
2011-07-05, 10:06 AM
4E did remove the "lawful" requirement on Monks.

It also made paladins into generic "divine warriors" so any alignment can have them.

These two ideas might be worth thinking about for 3.5 homebrews.

Captain Six
2011-07-05, 10:40 AM
I realized that loosening all alignment restrictions one step in all directions solved most alignment restriction gripes I had. Paladins can be Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, Neutral Good. Monks can be any non-chaotic. Barbarians and Druids can be any alignment. Etc.

As for paladins the one aspect of their code I have taken to heart and gladly remind any DMs I play with of is that they only fall for a gross violation, not a technical slight of their code. Especially oaths like 'no lying' makes simple 'joking around with friends' a very dangerous game. What does a paladin say to a kid who asks about Santa? Anachronistic sure but every nation in every setting has to have some cultural traditions that would be shattered by wanton truth-telling. With that one oath alone, followed rigorously enough, the Paladin becomes a stick-in-the-mud no one wants to be around instead of a shining example of humanity.

Considering avatar choices on this forum I'm sure at least a few of you are familiar with Kamina from Gurren Lagann. He's a charismatic warrior incapable of fear. He is an inspiring leader dedicated entirely to those he cares about. He fights with passion, willpower and instinct (high Cha and Wis) while probably forced to use Int as a dump stat. He was the one who refused to run away and had to be convinced to retreat when it was the only realistic option. Is he the greatest example of a Paladin? No, not even close. But the fact that he can be considered an example of a Paladin goes to show the flexibility of the class to serve multiple interpretation.

Edit: Some clarity issues and clumsy wording fixed.

Starbuck_II
2011-07-05, 03:38 PM
The way I see Paladins, they should be played almost as if they were Superman. In the comic books, Supe isn't a jerk at all. For the most part, he's a really decent sort of guy. Granted, Paladins aren't anywhere near as godlike as Kal-El, but still, the essential impulse to be heroic is there.


Actually, the comics make superman out to be a jerk... a couple of times.:
Scars a man with lazers

http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=28%3Asuperdickery&id=1341%3Asuperman-totally-into-scarification&Itemid=54


Beats up Cyborg

http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=28%3Asuperdickery&id=1326%3Asuperman-doesnt-care-about-black-people&Itemid=54


He even hits girls:

http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=28%3Asuperdickery&id=1319%3Awhen-superman-asks-you-to-get-away-you-get-away&Itemid=54

Milos The Sly
2011-07-05, 04:06 PM
They are unliked because many players tend to misunderstand the definition of Lawful Good, and their characters end up being Lawful Stupid (Miko is the example of that type of paladin). See the definition here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid

LibraryOgre
2011-07-05, 04:55 PM
The way I see Paladins, they should be played almost as if they were Superman. In the comic books, Supe isn't a jerk at all. For the most part, he's a really decent sort of guy. Granted, Paladins aren't anywhere near as godlike as Kal-El, but still, the essential impulse to be heroic is there.

Really, Superman is the ideal for Paladins. He honestly respects law and justice. He realizes that not everyone is up to his standards of behavior, but doesn't hold that against them. He doesn't put other people down for their fear... he tries to help them rise above it. He doesn't condone immorality, though he'll sometimes look the other way if things aren't done by his methods (i.e. Batman), provided the ends are good and the means don't hurt good people.

McStabbington
2011-07-05, 04:58 PM
There are basically two reasons why paladins are hated, one in universe and one out.

The in-universe reason is that WotC created some rather hinky restrictions on what paladins can do, and many DM's and PC's have piled on by interpreting the call to act honorably, forthrightly and justly in as restrictive a fashion as possible. The result tends to be less a realistic character than a sword and board with some kind of Asimovian drive to uphold the Categorical Imperative. Acting honestly and lawfully turns into telling the Gestapo about the Jewish kids under the floorboards. Acting honorably turns into not only giving the high-level wizard the chance to duel, but giving him time to prepare spells first in the name of being sporting. And acting for the sake of pure good turns into executing the party rogue as soon as he breaks into something. Put them all together, and you have a character that either makes games unplayable, or in short order becomes a fighter minus feats.

The out-of-universe reason is that many D&D players have a somewhat jaundiced view of the Lantern Jaw of Justice (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LanternJawOfJustice). Culturally, we don't really think of people who espouse the essentials of the paladin code, namely that the best way to live is for helping others, being the best you can be, and doing the right thing even when it hurts, as heroic. We think of them as foolish, simple-minded or stupid. The people who talk about using the law to do the right thing are typically seen as suckers who just haven't been fleeced yet. Add in the fact that a huge component of D&D gamer culture focuses around the experiences of young males, for whom authority usually consists of people saying "You can't do X" without giving a good reason for why X can't be done, and it's no surprise that the most law-and-order of the classes tends to be infected with these feelings.

Part of playing a good paladin requires either getting past such notions or coming to see them for what they are: teenage reactions to having your emerging power constrained by adults, not always for the best reasons. Paladins can be one of the most fun and interesting classes to play precisely because they cut against our notions of what to expect. We expect that when someone tries to knock out our eye or tooth, that we will do the same to them successfully. A paladin will understand this impulse, feel it, but won't necessarily act out on it. Instead, he'll do what is best even given the provocation. He recognizes people's failings and frailty, and acts above all with mercy and compassion for those who fall prey to it. Not because he's a sucker. But because he thinks that's ultimately the only way to build a world that doesn't leave everyone blind and toothless.

LibraryOgre
2011-07-05, 05:44 PM
The in-universe reason is that WotC created some rather hinky restrictions on what paladins can do, and many DM's and PC's have piled on by interpreting the call to act honorably, forthrightly and justly in as restrictive a fashion as possible.

WotC did not create Paladins. They may have emulated earlier versions in 3.x, but they certainly didn't create them.


The out-of-universe reason is that many D&D players have a somewhat jaundiced view of the Lantern Jaw of Justice (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LanternJawOfJustice). Culturally, we don't really think of people who espouse the essentials of the paladin code, namely that the best way to live is for helping others, being the best you can be, and doing the right thing even when it hurts, as heroic.

I disagree, and I point to Superman's almost 80 year run in the comics as evidence. While there's been a popular surge towards the anti-hero, Superman maintains a continuous appeal.

Seb Wiers
2011-07-05, 05:59 PM
I know. See, most players try to play Paladins as if they were fanatical, and that never works.

It does work (and very well) if they are fanatical ABOUT A CAUSE.
Alignment isn't a cause or even a motivation; its a trait that results from behavior, so trying to make it serve as the character's defining purpose doesn't work very well.
Joan of Arc (especially as portrayed by Milla Jovovich (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151137/)) was a paladin who was fanatical about a cause; her alignment resulted from her devotion, not the other way around.

McStabbington
2011-07-05, 06:05 PM
WotC did not create Paladins. They may have emulated earlier versions in 3.x, but they certainly didn't create them.


Rather than red herring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring) away from the substance of what I wrote, perhaps going forward you can simply mentally substitute in TSR for where I mistakenly write in the name of the company that bought them out.



I disagree, and I point to Superman's almost 80 year run in the comics as evidence. While there's been a popular surge towards the anti-hero, Superman maintains a continuous appeal.

And I would point out that Superman is usually thought of these days as an overgrown Boy Scout, while Batman, a man who responded to his parents getting murdered for their wallets in a dark alley by becoming the world's leading expert on martial arts, ninjitsu, detective and forensic studies, criminal psychology and applied mechanical engineering before going out night after night to fight crime while dressed as a bat is lauded for his realism by comparison.

You are right in a sense: Superman isn't just an overgrown Boy Scout, and he is far more than his detractors give him credit for. In fact, I'll go further: Superman has a far more compelling take on evil than Batman precisely because he sees and hears people do horrible things to one another every moment of every day, and yet he never stops believing in their capacity to be good and better than what they are. Batman fights evil by being even more terrifying than those who do evil; Superman fights evil by showing that one doesn't have to become evil to fight it. Stories that really delve into this aspect of Superman's character, like "What's so funny about Truth, Justice and the American Way" are precisely why he's my favorite superhero.

But my post didn't talk about Superman at all, much less what he is. To the extent that he's relevant, it's only in how Superman is perceived, and by and large people perceive Superman largely in the terms of exactly what I said: childish, naive and with a simplistic notion of good and evil that just isn't "realistic". There's a reason why so many people thought that the Superman monologue (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdWF7kd1tNo) from Kill Bill Vol. 2 was so superb, despite the fact that it is completely wrong (or at least, it's only right if you look only at the Silver-Age Superman, which hasn't been canon for 30 years). Because people think that it gets to the heart of Superman's simple naivete.

Marnath
2011-07-05, 06:14 PM
The funny thing is that Druids have similarly intense restrictions (though most consciousnesses are temporary) yet most DM's do not gleefully try to get Druids to "Autumn".

I know I'm late to the party, but I just had to respond to this one. A druid falls if they fail to revere nature, change to a prohibited alignment, or teach a non-druid the secret druid language. That's no where close to as heavy a restriction as the paladin for two reasons. One, they can be any neutral so they have a lot more room for alignment change and Two, "revering nature" is incredibly broad. Think about it, that covers the lovey-dovey fluffy animal's best friend, to the guy who helps keep predators out of farmer's livestock pens, to peace loving hippies who just want to live outside away from cities and people, to the person who burns down an entire town and kills hundreds of people because some poacher killed a deer in his forest to etc. etc. you get the point. :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2011-07-06, 06:14 AM
And I would point out that Superman is usually thought of these days as an overgrown Boy Scout, while Batman, a man who responded to his parents getting murdered for their wallets in a dark alley by becoming the world's leading expert on martial arts, ninjitsu, detective and forensic studies, criminal psychology and applied mechanical engineering before going out night after night to fight crime while dressed as a bat is lauded for his realism by comparison.

And there's a lot of argument that even Batman is far too "Boy Scout-ish" when it comes to the issue of not killing supervillains (there's a rather long thread in Media Discussions on this).

Janus
2011-07-06, 03:38 PM
Paladins are my favorite class, but I have to make sure that the DM and I are on the same page when I play one.
There are multiple things that bug me when it comes to common interpretations of a paladin's code, but one of my biggest pet peeves is "honor in combat." I can see rules like that applying in a duel, but saying that paladins can't strike from behind during a regular fight? That's ridiculous. There's a difference between honor and tactics.


or teach a non-druid the secret druid language.
*runs off to DM a game where druids lose their powers for training new druids*

hamishspence
2011-07-06, 03:43 PM
I can see rules like that applying in a duel, but saying that paladins can't strike from behind during a regular fight? That's ridiculous. There's a difference between honor and tactics.

Indeed- and given that there are paladin PRCs that advance sneak attack and feats that allow them to multiclass freely as rogues, there's precedent for this view.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-06, 03:48 PM
*runs off to DM a game where druids lose their powers for training new druids*

You are accepted into the druids (after careful screening and a selection process) before you're taught anything truly secret. That's par for the course for secret societies.

Janus
2011-07-06, 04:07 PM
I think there's a lot of merit to the "Paladin issues = alignment issues" argument. Some people take a straight-jacket approach to alignments, and others will apply this especially to paladins as well.
I believe that paladins should have room for varying interpretations of their code and how they apply it. Some are sticks in the mud, some prioritize Law before Good, some are relaxed and willing to crack jokes about their beliefs, and others are Miko.
Heck, right now I'm playing a paladin of Heironeous who follows a less black/white interpretation of the code, causing others of his order to think he's either awesome, spiritually misguided, or a complete heretic.


You are accepted into the druids (after careful screening and a selection process) before you're taught anything truly secret. That's par for the course for secret societies.
But that's not as funny! :smallwink:

hamishspence
2011-07-06, 04:12 PM
I liked the "build your own code" rules in Quintessenial Paladin 2- where each facet of the code can be given different levels of restrictiveness.

Something like that (sorting out what parts are most important and what least important) might be a good idea for players to discuss with the DM beforehand.

Janus
2011-07-06, 04:20 PM
This is why I prefer paladins being directly linked to their god- it allows for a wider variety of codes and gives some good reasons for why one paladin focuses on different aspects than another.

hamishspence
2011-07-06, 04:27 PM
Other reasons might be the personalities of the founders of relevant paladin orders.

Even with "all draw their power from the same cosmic force" a paladin might put their own spin on it, when laying down principles for their successors to follow.

So you might have a generic, "average-restrictiveness" code- and it might be modified over time, as the role of the Order might be established.

Captain Six
2011-07-06, 04:39 PM
But that's not as funny! :smallwink:

Am I wrong for thinking that a Druidic society where you need to give up your own powers to train a pupil is a pretty cool idea? It didn't strike me as funny at all, it makes a lot of fun "dying clan" story lines.

Janus
2011-07-06, 04:43 PM
Am I wrong for thinking that a Druidic society where you need to give up your own powers to train a pupil is a pretty cool idea? It didn't strike me as funny at all, it makes a lot of fun "dying clan" story lines.

Not wrong at all. Heck, I saw some suggestions in the Old Paladin thread about pallies giving up their powers to give them to the younger generations.
I just find it funny with druids because they're the class I usually joke about the most.

Flame of Anor
2011-07-06, 05:05 PM
See, most players try to play Paladins as if they were fanatical, and that never works. Faith must be tempered with wisdom and compassion. That is the essence of what Good and being Lawful is.


They are unliked because many players tend to misunderstand the definition of Lawful Good, and their characters end up being Lawful Stupid (Miko is the example of that type of paladin). See the definition here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid

These are both right. For examples of how to avoid this, you need look no farther than the Comics link in the sidebar on the left, with Miko on one side, and Hinjo and O-Chul on the other.


Really, Superman is the ideal for Paladins. He honestly respects law and justice. He realizes that not everyone is up to his standards of behavior, but doesn't hold that against them. He doesn't put other people down for their fear... he tries to help them rise above it. He doesn't condone immorality, though he'll sometimes look the other way if things aren't done by his methods (i.e. Batman), provided the ends are good and the means don't hurt good people.


The result tends to be less a realistic character than a sword and board with some kind of Asimovian drive to uphold the Categorical Imperative. Acting honestly and lawfully turns into telling the Gestapo about the Jewish kids under the floorboards.

I couldn't have put it better myself.




The out-of-universe reason is that many D&D players have a somewhat jaundiced view of the Lantern Jaw of Justice (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LanternJawOfJustice). Culturally, we don't really think of people who espouse the essentials of the paladin code, namely that the best way to live is for helping others, being the best you can be, and doing the right thing even when it hurts, as heroic. We think of them as foolish, simple-minded or stupid. The people who talk about using the law to do the right thing are typically seen as suckers who just haven't been fleeced yet.


I disagree, and I point to Superman's almost 80 year run in the comics as evidence. While there's been a popular surge towards the anti-hero, Superman maintains a continuous appeal.

No, I think McStabbington is right on. People like Superman, he's fun, but they don't realize that his code of honor is really a noble and effective way to treat the world. His adventures are enjoyable precisely because they touch a nerve that many of us have hidden with cynicism.

Jeebers
2011-07-07, 05:05 AM
Murder and torture are actions, not tools. I meant stuff like spells and items with the evil descriptor used for clearly not evil ends, including the aformentioned poison.

That's the thing, I honestly don't see poison as inherently evil. If that was the case, much of medicine itself wouldn't be kosher. Did you know that many of the medications we use today were also used as poisons? The difference is the AMOUNT of drug used.

That's just one example. I think what defines an evil act is more the intent than anything else.

hamishspence
2011-07-07, 05:08 AM
That one's a holdover from Gygax-era D&D. And given that the "Poison" spell doesn't have the Evil descriptor, and there's an Always Good creature with a poison ability, it might be droppable without too much inconsistancy.

Intent matters- but a case can be made that some acts perhaps ought to be "evil no matter how much player's try to justify them".

Jeebers
2011-07-07, 05:09 AM
one of my biggest pet peeves is "honor in combat." I can see rules like that applying in a duel, but saying that paladins can't strike from behind during a regular fight? That's ridiculous. There's a difference between honor and tactics.


I think what they were getting at is that one must give the opponent a fair shake in a fight. In other words, be honorable. Personally, I wonder just what the authors were smoking when they wrote guidelines for paladins. If it can mess you up that bad, I WANT SOME!

Jeebers
2011-07-07, 05:12 AM
Intent matters- but a case can be made that some acts perhaps ought to be "evil no matter how much player's try to justify them".

Maybe. That's why intent is so damn important. It's the context to the situation that helps define evil.

Personally, I still don't understand why the creation of skeletons and zombies is considered evil, nor why those same undead are evil aligned. How could they be selfish to the point of destructiveness if they are totally unintelligent automatons?????

Jeebers
2011-07-07, 05:13 AM
It does work (and very well) if they are fanatical ABOUT A CAUSE.


I disagree. There is a marked difference between fanaticism and dedication.

Jeebers
2011-07-07, 05:17 AM
They are unliked because many players tend to misunderstand the definition of Lawful Good, and their characters end up being Lawful Stupid (Miko is the example of that type of paladin). See the definition here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid

See, where Miko is concerned, I don't think she was being stupid at all. She kept focusing on the Law aspect of the alignment to the exclusion of Good. In essence, the law existed for her own aggrandizement and for itself, not for the good of the people, in her mind. The instant you become a total prick in a neutral outsider's eyes, is the instant you get your paladinhood taken away. That's why I think she should have been booted LONG before she did in the storyline.

hamishspence
2011-07-07, 05:18 AM
Personally, I still don't understand why the creation of skeletons and zombies is considered evil, nor why those same undead are evil aligned. How could they be selfish to the point of destructiveness if they are totally unintelligent automatons?????

Probably comes from the concept of evil as a tainting force- hence, in order to do this, you have to draw on this force- which can seep into the character over time.

"Evil-aligned" doesn't necessarily have to mean "selfish to the point of destructiveness" in this context.

Othniel Edden
2011-07-07, 05:19 AM
Am I wrong for thinking that a Druidic society where you need to give up your own powers to train a pupil is a pretty cool idea? It didn't strike me as funny at all, it makes a lot of fun "dying clan" story lines.

Actually easy way to get around this is to have multiple pupils. Still gives you the feeling of a legacy though

Jeebers
2011-07-07, 05:21 AM
Psychopathy is not what the movies would have you believe. It's not as simple or as clear-cut as you make it out to be. It's a very complex matter with a hotly debated definition, to the point where it's actually preferred not to use that terminology.

Even you were to use that term, not all Evil characters are psychopaths. You could have a character who advocates the systematic murder of all members of a certain race, but who is kind and loving towards the members of all other races, and who would die to protect them because does, in fact, possess personal ethics and a conscience. His desire to genocide a race that most certainly contains innocents (for example, elves or halflings) is what makes him Evil.


This might surprise you, but I happen to have a career in psychology, in fact, I've been studying mankind and helping since I was old enough to walk. So I know exactly just what psychopathy really is. They care about themselves more than anything or anyone else, and the rest of humanity are basically objects to be manipulated. The closest they come to a conscience or altruism is that they are afraid to be caught red handed.

Oh, and check the Description chapter, the same one that talks about alignments and their definitions, plus height, weight etc. In D&D 3.5 and below, that prohibition against evil is most definitely in effect.

hamishspence
2011-07-07, 05:25 AM
The D&D version of "psychopath" in BOVD is "person who enjoys inflicting death or suffering".

This version is less incompatible with conscience or altruism, than the "real-world" version (which is sometimes called sociopathy).

A character could behave in a psychopathic way (D&D sense) toward an "enemy faction" - while still being altruistic toward everyone else.

It might be a case of "dehumanizing" the enemy.


Most player characters are good or neutral rather than evil. In general, evil alignments are for villains and monsters.

it's within the DM's discretion to allow them though. Books like Savage Species, BoVD, and Champions of Ruin have recommendations for including Evil PCs without disrupting the game.

Jeebers
2011-07-07, 05:43 AM
Probably comes from the concept of evil as a tainting force- hence, in order to do this, you have to draw on this force- which can seep into the character over time.

"Evil-aligned" doesn't necessarily have to mean "selfish to the point of destructiveness" in this context.

That's the thing. The insidiousness of Evil is that to become it, you have to ACCEPT it, possibly even welcome its presence in one's soul. That's why, when you do screwy things as a result of being enchanted or possessed, you don't lose your paladinhood. Sure, you might have to atone a bit, but that's all. If you weren't responsible for your body's acts, you haven't been evil.

If somebody got drunk and killed someone, that's an evil act. If somebody injected you with large amounts of alcohol, and you killed someone without intent, then I don't consider it evil. You have to KNOWINGLY commit an evil deed. The key here is responsibility.

So, I don't agree that certain substances are innately evil. Nor does merely being in a corrupted location make you evil. Sure, you might go loco, but that doesn't mean evil. That's like saying you could read a book and it would turn you Evil just for having read it. Bull!

Shadowknight12
2011-07-07, 05:46 AM
This might surprise you, but I happen to have a career in psychology, in fact, I've been studying mankind and helping since I was old enough to walk. So I know exactly just what psychopathy really is.

Good to know! That makes two of us. :smalltongue:


They care about themselves more than anything or anyone else, and the rest of humanity are basically objects to be manipulated. The closest they come to a conscience or altruism is that they are afraid to be caught red handed.

Yes, I'm aware. However, the term psychopath should be used carefully because it can refer to a number of different disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder or dissocial personality disorder. A diagnosis of psychopathy is actually a forensic measurement. Authors such as Blackburn have spurned the term, considering it "little more than a moral judgement masquerading as a clinical diagnosis." It is, at the very least, a controversial term, and should likely be avoided in discussions to avoid miscommunication.

Even if we are to say "all psychopaths are evil" that still doesn't mean that all evil people must be psychopaths. That's a fallacy of the most inaccurate order.


Oh, and check the Description chapter, the same one that talks about alignments and their definitions, plus height, weight etc. In D&D 3.5 and below, that prohibition against evil is most definitely in effect.

I have. You are completely and absolutely mistaken. The quote I used above, the one where I emphasised the words "most" and "generally," that comes from that chapter. The first page of it, even. Hamishspence quoted it again.

Robert Blackletter
2011-07-07, 05:46 AM
Oh, and check the Description chapter, the same one that talks about alignments and their definitions, plus height, weight etc. In D&D 3.5 and below, that prohibition against evil is most definitely in effect.

Could you quote the text where it says that evil alignments are prohibited in 3.5? or at least give a page number?

hamishspence
2011-07-07, 05:52 AM
Even if we are to say "all psychopaths are evil" that still doesn't mean that all evil people must be psychopaths. That's a fallacy of the most inaccurate order.


And Champions of Ruin does discuss the numerous evil character archetypes- not all of which are specified as lacking empathy.

One was the sociopath "equally capable of performing acts of great good or great evil, neither of which move him in any way emotionally- and in which he is incapable of seeing any contradiction".

Jeebers
2011-07-07, 06:01 AM
Could you quote the text where it says that evil alignments are prohibited in 3.5? or at least give a page number?

Dammit. I gave up my copy for the Pathfinder core book. I'll ask a friend of mine. I not only memorized that particular rule, I underlined it in my book, and he's got it.

hamishspence
2011-07-07, 06:05 AM
I think there's some text in either the PHB or the DMG which states that in general, it's not a good idea- but not that it's absolutely forbidden without the DM's explicit permission.

On evil:


Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

this covers some types- but it's not exclusive- there's plenty of room for those who slip into evil via "necessary evil acts in defense of others".

Gardener
2011-07-07, 06:29 AM
I agree that it's more interesting if the paladin's code can be a little flexible. The example of Michael Carpenter from the Dresden Files was brought up as a classic example - and he really is a good one - but I'd point out his two colleagues. Shiro is Japanese, and became a Baptist when he misunderstood an evangelist in Memphis (he was a big Elvis fan in his younger days). His faith in God is nowhere near as fundamental as his belief in honour and virtue, and he is a true Knight of the Cross for all that. He never steps away from his duty for a second, and keeps his word and his honour in the face of absolutely anything. He was given the power to strike against the darkness, and he uses it to his utmost. He keeps his word meticulously, but is willing to allow others to draw their own conclusions from his words where necessary.

Sanya is agnostic, in a setting where paladins can very explicitly only be empowered by the Christian God - and there are only ever three at a time. He sees his duty as a Knight of the Cross as an extension of being a good communist - there are people who need helping, so he helps them. All he knows is that soething greater than himself gave him power and told him to go help people. He wanted to help people anyway, so he follows along without judging the precise nature of that power. He doesn't feel bound to use only his Sword, and is quite proficient with an assault rifle when the situation calls for it. He has no problem with surprising or ambushing his enemies But he never confuses pragmatism with expediency, and his first thought is always for helping those in need. Sanya is also acutely honest, and has a tendency to say things that may be slightly inappropriate, though it's more "blunt" than "tell the enemy my entire plan".

So we have, in one series, three extremely different examples of the paladin, all of whom are honourable, merciful, just and righteous warriors. But they're very different people, understanding those requirements in different ways and emphasising different aspects.

hamishspence
2011-07-07, 07:02 AM
Yup- alignment - and archetypes, aren't all prescriptive.

There are prescriptive factors "a paladin without honor, or mercy, or justice, or righteousness, is a failure" but within those minimums, there's plenty of room for personality variation.

Gnoman
2011-07-07, 07:08 AM
I've found success in my games by dropping the alignment-based restriction from the paladin code (and the class itself) and requiring all paladins (when I don't exclude them because they don't exist at that time in the setting) to choose one of the paladin Orders, each of which is dedicated to a specific god and has two written codes that the paladins of that Order have to follow.

Whybird
2011-07-07, 07:16 AM
The approach I'm taking in my current no-gods game for the Paladin-alike class is to give Paladin reskin (they're called Rose Knights, and are a secret society of do-gooders) a moral code that's specifically designed to prohibit the kind of dickery they normally get up to:

Honour: Lie if you must, but if you give your word you are bound by it.
Valour: Do good, do it now, and do it yourself.
Humility: The act of doing good is its own reward: to chase fame will bring you only ruin.
Charity: Protect those who cannot protect themselves; speak for those with no voice.
Mercy: An enemy in need is your enemy no more.
Autonomy: Lead by example; so that others may follow by choice.
Authority: Protect the secrets of the Rose from those who are unfit to bear them.

The key one there, I think, is the Autonomy one. It's only the knight who has to be straight-down-the-line, not the rogue he's with; if the knight wants to make his companions into better people the way to do it is by example, not by shouting.

The other thing -- and it's something that vanilla D&D4e specifically does too -- is that you don't lose your powers for breaking the code. It's other paladins like yourself who come after you, to shout you down at first and later on to attack you. But all the time it's a person judging you, not a god, and so the argument about why you're right and they're wrong is an IC roleplaying experience rather than an OC game-derailing argument.

hamishspence
2011-07-07, 07:46 AM
The approach I'm taking in my current no-gods game for the Paladin-alike class is to give Paladin reskin (they're called Rose Knights, and are a secret society of do-gooders) a moral code that's specifically designed to prohibit the kind of dickery they normally get up to:

Honour: Lie if you must, but if you give your word you are bound by it.
Valour: Do good, do it now, and do it yourself.
Humility: The act of doing good is its own reward: to chase fame will bring you only ruin.
Charity: Protect those who cannot protect themselves; speak for those with no voice.
Mercy: An enemy in need is your enemy no more.
Autonomy: Lead by example; so that others may follow by choice.

The key one there, I think, is the Autonomy one. It's only the knight who has to be straight-down-the-line, not the rogue he's with; if the knight wants to make his companions into better people the way to do it is by example, not by shouting.

Aside from the Authority one, these sound pretty good for a generic paladin- and the last is more a Order-specific thing that can be left out when you don't have an Order with secrets.

There don't seem to be any mentions of things the paladin can't do though. At what point does "expediency" become dubious for this paladin?

Milos The Sly
2011-07-07, 08:21 AM
See, where Miko is concerned, I don't think she was being stupid at all. She kept focusing on the Law aspect of the alignment to the exclusion of Good. In essence, the law existed for her own aggrandizement and for itself, not for the good of the people, in her mind. The instant you become a total prick in a neutral outsider's eyes, is the instant you get your paladinhood taken away. That's why I think she should have been booted LONG before she did in the storyline.

The "Stupid" part in Lawful Stupid doesn't have to mean "Stupid" in a literal sense. Generally, it means that the devotion to Law and lawful ideals is so blind and fanatical that it often violates common sense.

Robert Blackletter
2011-07-07, 09:09 AM
Dammit. I gave up my copy for the Pathfinder core book. I'll ask a friend of mine. I not only memorized that particular rule, I underlined it in my book, and he's got it.
are you sure? Cos I can't find it, there's plenty of txt saying evil pc's are a bad idea, that normally pc's are good guys, but nothing outright stating no you can not be evil.

McStabbington
2011-07-07, 11:23 AM
The approach I'm taking in my current no-gods game for the Paladin-alike class is to give Paladin reskin (they're called Rose Knights, and are a secret society of do-gooders) a moral code that's specifically designed to prohibit the kind of dickery they normally get up to:

Honour: Lie if you must, but if you give your word you are bound by it.
Valour: Do good, do it now, and do it yourself.
Humility: The act of doing good is its own reward: to chase fame will bring you only ruin.
Charity: Protect those who cannot protect themselves; speak for those with no voice.
Mercy: An enemy in need is your enemy no more.
Autonomy: Lead by example; so that others may follow by choice.
Authority: Protect the secrets of the Rose from those who are unfit to bear them.

The key one there, I think, is the Autonomy one. It's only the knight who has to be straight-down-the-line, not the rogue he's with; if the knight wants to make his companions into better people the way to do it is by example, not by shouting.

The other thing -- and it's something that vanilla D&D4e specifically does too -- is that you don't lose your powers for breaking the code. It's other paladins like yourself who come after you, to shout you down at first and later on to attack you. But all the time it's a person judging you, not a god, and so the argument about why you're right and they're wrong is an IC roleplaying experience rather than an OC game-derailing argument.

I like that myself, and I think I'll co-opt it in the future. It gets to the heart of what being a paladin is, it solves what I saw as the most glaring loophole in the paladin code (more below), and it offers a clear, concise set of traits that minimizes the likelihood that the DM and the player will come to differing conclusions about how the class should be played. The only thing I would amend is the part about authority, to make it specific to the paladin. Paladins do not need to worship gods to generate their power, but many do, and I've always seen it that which god they worship colors greatly how they perceive their duties: I would expect a paladin who worships Torm to have a very different conception of his duty than a paladin who worships Helm or Ilmater, for example.

To be honest, I think a lack of conciseness was a huge part of the problem for the class: honor was considered a paramount virtue for the paladin, but what constitutes honorable conduct has always been a combination of arbitrary behavioral prohibitions and imprecise general goals. As such, it was bound to cause friction between DM's and players who have differing notions of what "honorable" combat is, and it was bound to run up against common sense. The stated prohibition against poisons strikes me as one instance of the latter. You get the counterintuitive result that cutting off someone's head with your sword is value neutral, but knocking them out without killing them with a quick dose of drow knockout poison is by definition evil.

The prohibition on associating with evil people was another. I can understand not spending all your free time consorting with demon worshippers or rapists, but a huge part of the mythos of the paladin is that he converts people to the cause of good by force of will and power of example. The paladin's greatest weapon is his power to redeem even the most evil creature. And yet by the terms of the paladin code, he's supposed to never knowingly associate with evil people, which puts a damper on that power. Which is why any time I've played a paladin, I've always talked with the DM before and explained why this was a ridiculous part of the code and asking whether I could be conditionally exempted.

Starbuck_II
2011-07-07, 12:12 PM
Aside from the Authority one, these sound pretty good for a generic paladin- and the last is more a Order-specific thing that can be left out when you don't have an Order with secrets.

There don't seem to be any mentions of things the paladin can't do though. At what point does "expediency" become dubious for this paladin?

There shouldn't be a list of "don't". A code should be about who you are not what you aren't.
Having a list of "nots" leads to arguments.

hamishspence
2011-07-08, 02:42 AM
"Do no unnecessary harm" seems like it is at least a part of most Good characters' codes.

paladinofshojo
2011-07-08, 05:19 AM
I think that it's not so much that paladin restrictions themselves that are the problems, it's how the game has evolved. Let's face it, the simple "slay the dragon/demon/orc and save the land" plot is boring and idealistic. Gamers today want more challenge in their campaign, something that forces them to engage in creativity and flexibility within the DMs world.....Let me give you an example, what is a more interesting scenario to play?

Scenario 1. An evil empire invades the peaceful kingdom, every citizen of said empire is a godless heathen who kicks puppies for a hobby while the worst crimes in the kingdom are jaywalking and littering. The Princess of the Kingdom is a blonde elven woman who looks like Zelda and lets all the real politics go to a faithful and morally upright minister......Meanwhile the Emperor is a crazy, power-hungry tyrant who looks like Sauron and is backed by a court of corrupt noblemen, bloodthirsty orcs, or even demons

Scenario 2. A war breaks out between two extremely different political powers in a bid to control the Continent in which they share:An Empire and a Republic....

One is a Republic, however there is a huge division between the rich and the poor, the poor aren't even granted the right to vote. The only reason said Republic is in war is that its leaders simply want to gain more territory and resources. Even though people have rights on paper in said Republic, the poor are only marginally treated better within this government. There's also the incredible corruption and mismanagement of the government has left its army rather deteriorated. Plus, the country seems to be more of a confederacy, with every city-state having more power than the federal government, leaving a weak central government and army. They also have a mixed population of many ethnicities, ofcourse this causes some resentment amongst peoples. However, in terms of population they outnumber the Empire 6 to 1. The "leader" of the central government is a Chief Minister is a puppet for the de facto leaders of more powerful city-states. He believes that the best way to let a country grow is to let the people govern themselves, a laizzes faire philosophy which has led to many monopolizations of businesses, even a fantasy version of the Mafia. He is also known to be taking bribes from influental members of society who need services of the countries armed forces, (such as to put down a strike or petition with deadly force). Other than that, the government of the Republic generally leaves its people unmolested with the freedom to buy and sell and trade whatever they want aswell as owning property for those who can afford it.

The Empire on the otherhand, the distinction is between noblemen and commoners, even rich commoners are treated slightly lesser than poor nobility. The lowest form of commoners (serfs) have little to no rights and almost no means to advance themselves socially. However, from birth all nobility are taught chivalry and nobles oblige to discourage abuse of position. However, the rate at which nobility actually practice that is the same as the rate of decent politicians in the Republic. The government is headed by a young child who was crowned Emperor after his father died, all the real power falls to a morally-ambiguous ambituous chancellor who wants to use the boy to lead the Empire into a "golden age" who won't stop until he has centralized the Empire into a proud and prosperous nation, however his goals involve conquering neighboring nations, destroying entire towns over rumors of dissidents, and other less morally righteous acts. However, the citizens of the Empire are generally wellfed and healthy under his management, but commoners can't own swords, warhorses, or land and all citizens of the country are taxed more to provide for the army aswell as the socialistic reforms brought on by the chancellor (including healthcare for elderly and orphanages). The army is more organized than the Republic's and the soldier recieve better equipment on average as the resources per man are greater.

And just to make things interesting this whole war was started over a dukedom that was by right the Empire's, however the Duke who was incharge of said dukedom decided to switch sides after emmissaries offered him a substancial bribe, after "declaring independence" he triggered a war between the Empire and the Republic, since both sides couldn't afford to back down to the other. His entire dukedom was turned into a warzone with his own people caught in the middle, even though the dukedom belongs to the Empire, after mingling with Republican soldiers, many within the dukedom decide that they want to carry on with the ceccession. Causing more problems for both sides. The war is currently contained in that dukedom but if something isn't done soon then it will errupt in an all out World War....



((Now tell me, which one of these scenarios are more interesting to play and which one is harder for a paladin to play in?))

Note, I am not bashing the paladin class, I find it to be the most "real" class.....Afterall, it keeps the player in line and stops him from the "kill for XP, loot for weapons, and destroy stuff for fun" ethos. Furthermore, a paladin has to immerse himself in the Rp. A player has to know the distinction between taking orders from a tyrant and taking orders from a legitimate authority. To do that, the player needs to pay attention. Secondly, all normal human beings have an ideal standard of which we live by.... all you cynics out there may deny this, but we all try to be lawful good, it's just that life is too grey and too hard....Which is why the paladin class is basically how the "normal" person is experiencing the world, not a LN robot or a CE phsycopath....but an upright law-abiding person

Shadowknight12
2011-07-08, 05:35 AM
Paladinofshojo said it quite well. The problem isn't really with the paladin class or its restrictions, it's with the lack of foresight on the designers' part. I am of the opinion that developers should have anticipated that not everyone would want to play the same kind of paladin with the same kind of restrictions, or that they would at least want some personal input on what those restrictions end up being. Then again, it would appear that the developers should have anticipated a great deal many things, and didn't.

I think that debates over alignment and the paladin will continue for as long as different people want different things out of the same system.

Whybird
2011-07-08, 06:32 AM
Aside from the Authority one, these sound pretty good for a generic paladin- and the last is more a Order-specific thing that can be left out when you don't have an Order with secrets.


I should probably clarify that by 'the secrets of the rose' I mean 'things that Paladins can do' and by 'those unfit to bear them' I mean 'Paladins who break the above rules'.



There don't seem to be any mentions of things the paladin can't do though. At what point does "expediency" become dubious for this paladin?

That depends. The only consequences of breaking the rules are in the Authority rule (which is basically the "if a Rose Knight is giving us a bad name, teach them a lesson" one), and since the people enforcing the Authority rule are going to be NPCs -- or other party members -- with their own interpretation of what's okay and what's not, it's more of a sliding scale.

So if you watch a guy getting robbed and don't do anything, you might get one fanatic coming after you to have an angry shout. If you murder a child because you suspected his parents (who you'd also murdered) were teaching him to worship demons, you become kill-on-sight to practically every Rose Knight there is once word gets out.

Othniel Edden
2011-07-08, 04:25 PM
I'm playing two characters right now that could be seen as lawful good. One is a 4e Minotaur Paladin of Pelor and the other is a Pathfinder Half-elf Cleric of Abadar. The differences between the two of them are interesting. The Minotaur is a strong angry type drawn to Pelor for his hatred of the undead, and to being a paladin for its discipline that is lacked by his demon worshiping kin. He's conflicted in that his Minotaur nature wants to buck and rage, but his paladin side wants him to act with honor. The only time both sides are in harmony are against the undead, which he turns against with powerful righteous fury burning the corpse in appeasement to his dark temper and his radiant god.

The cleric is nobleman raised in the courts of Brevoy, but was left unable to inherit his father's holdings, as his mother was a woman of common birth. Through religious education he came to join the church of Abadar. He uses his education in the court and through the church to come to decisions which he feels work towards good in civilization. He's polite and diplomatic, speaking softly but with authority. He's always trying to turn things towards doing good, be it standing up for a store owner that lost his property as bringing entitled to compensation, or attempting to redeem bandits by putting them to work rather than executing them he always does things with an intent towards good, while attempting to also further his party's goals. His ambition may cause him to put forth ideas that may do net harm, but he's always attempting to do the most right thing possible without breaking the law.

I'd feel comfortable playing either as 3.5 paladins.

Jeebers
2011-07-09, 05:32 AM
Firstly, why not simply restrict the Paladin code of honor to being LG (as the Gm sees it) and adhering to the particular deity's religion and strictures (Heck, most deities have principles that worshippers have to stick to, as well as guidelines for clerics)?

Second, when I run a game, I don't even have the players assign an alignment. Instead, I look at them straight in the eye, and tell them that alignment is actually a measure of how NPC's view your PC. So if you want to be a Paladin, stick to doing things that you think a LG character would do. In other words, YOU GOTTA EARN YOUR ALIGNMENT!

I remember reading the stricture against evil alignments in the 3.0 and 3.5 handbooks, either that or the DMG (but I doubt the latter). I don't think it's in the Pathfinder book, but I can do some hunting. Personally, I haven't yet found a player willing to truly play an Evil PC, because they know darn well that the other players would slaughter his butt once they found out. Evil alignments are, by definition, in it for themselves alone. That means the rest of the party can go hang themselves if it isn't convenient or absolutely essential to their plans that everybody else lives.

I run really vicious NPC villains who are willing and eager to kick you when you are down. That's the whole point to their existence, THEY'RE VILLAINS! Remember, we are trying to tell an adventure story, and combined with the rather B&W way D&D views things, that means heroics. You know, "Here I come to save the daaaaaay!"

Shadowknight12
2011-07-09, 05:57 AM
Firstly, why not simply restrict the Paladin code of honor to being LG (as the Gm sees it) and adhering to the particular deity's religion and strictures (Heck, most deities have principles that worshippers have to stick to, as well as guidelines for clerics)?

Second, when I run a game, I don't even have the players assign an alignment. Instead, I look at them straight in the eye, and tell them that alignment is actually a measure of how NPC's view your PC. So if you want to be a Paladin, stick to doing things that you think a LG character would do. In other words, YOU GOTTA EARN YOUR ALIGNMENT!

If the players are cool with this, rock on. I would, however, make allowances for people who are actually against choice being removed from them, and would rather have the most amount of input on their own characters as possible. After all, if the player feels frustrated and isn't having any fun, it's a good sign that perhaps one is not doing what they should be doing as a DM, and instead should consider a more flexible approach. After all, not everyone enjoys having to play with the constant knowledge that their every action is being scrutinised and that they might lose their powers at any moment if they don't do what the DM expects/wants them to do.


I remember reading the stricture against evil alignments in the 3.0 and 3.5 handbooks, either that or the DMG (but I doubt the latter). I don't think it's in the Pathfinder book, but I can do some hunting. Personally, I haven't yet found a player willing to truly play an Evil PC, because they know darn well that the other players would slaughter his butt once they found out. Evil alignments are, by definition, in it for themselves alone. That means the rest of the party can go hang themselves if it isn't convenient or absolutely essential to their plans that everybody else lives.

When you find it, let us know. With page number and everything. Until then, I will personally continue to consider such assertion as a complete fabrication.

Again, you seem impervious to all attempts to prove you wrong. What you have described is only one kind of Evil. Just like an ice cream parlour has more than one flavour of ice cream, so does evil come in many ways. We can all name you several instances of evil characters who do not fit into that criteria but are nonetheless evil. The summoner who summons and bargains with fiends to protect his loved ones will not, in fact, betray those he cares about. Yet he is doubtlessly evil for repeatedly and chronically casting [Evil] spells. The sorceress who believes herself to be good and would never even think of betraying her kinsmen, and who also believes that utopia is possible and in order to do so she must systematically Mindrape every man, woman and child in her realm to make them Lawful Good and remove traces of violence from their psyches, is also evil, if only because she is, again, repeatedly and habitually casting an [Evil] spell.

The list of examples goes on. You are wrong, and we have endless truckloads of evidence to support this. You have produced none, to support your claim.


I run really vicious NPC villains who are willing and eager to kick you when you are down. That's the whole point to their existence, THEY'RE VILLAINS! Remember, we are trying to tell an adventure story, and combined with the rather B&W way D&D views things, that means heroics. You know, "Here I come to save the daaaaaay!"

You are entitled to your black-and-white morality, and you're quite welcome to keep on using it. Just don't try to convince us that it's the "right" one, because it isn't. It really, really isn't. D&D is not, contrary to what you think, about one thing. It does not view things in a certain way. It may offer guidelines and advice, but it is in no way restrictive. Black-and-white morality is no more valid than gray-and-gray, blue-and-orange or black-and-gray.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as "we are trying to tell a X story." D&D can be used to run anything from survival horror to action to adventure to romance to comedy to adventure to the most idealistic of fables where everyone is good at heart. If you wish to tell heroic adventures, that's quite fine, I do hope you have fun. Again, don't imply that it's the "official" or "right" thing to do, because you're just disparaging and disdaining everyone else's notions about the game.

Talakeal
2011-07-09, 11:06 AM
Again, you seem impervious to all attempts to prove you wrong. What you have described is only one kind of Evil. Just like an ice cream parlour has more than one flavour of ice cream, so does evil come in many ways. We can all name you several instances of evil characters who do not fit into that criteria but are nonetheless evil. The summoner who summons and bargains with fiends to protect his loved ones will not, in fact, betray those he cares about. Yet he is doubtlessly evil for repeatedly and chronically casting [Evil] spells. The sorceress who believes herself to be good and would never even think of betraying her kinsmen, and who also believes that utopia is possible and in order to do so she must systematically Mindrape every man, woman and child in her realm to make them Lawful Good and remove traces of violence from their psyches, is also evil, if only because she is, again, repeatedly and habitually casting an [Evil] spell.


Don't forget the ruthless serial killer who is good because he summons a celestial bee every night before bed!

Shadowknight12
2011-07-09, 04:24 PM
Don't forget the ruthless serial killer who is good because he summons a celestial bee every night before bed!

Yup! Good ol' Sam and his bees.

JBento
2011-07-10, 09:20 AM
Don't forget the ruthless serial killer who is good because he summons a celestial bee every night before bed!

You mean... like any Good aligned PC summoner? :smallwink:

Seb Wiers
2011-07-10, 11:24 AM
I disagree. There is a marked difference between fanaticism and dedication.

That difference being that the fanatic takes their dedication to such lengths that it drives them to violate prevailing social norms. Batman is a fanatic. Superman is a fanatic. Joan or Arc was a fanatic.

Fanaticism does have some negative connotations (the results of which are obvious in this thread) but it also is a powerful motivator, one which (IMO) pretty well describes a paladin.

For me, it is also one of the cool things about playing a paladin. You have the constant challenge of being devoutly zealous without devolving into a zealot...

Honest Tiefling
2011-07-10, 01:43 PM
Could somebody please explain to me why Paladins have such a bad reputation? I mean, they are supposed to be honorable, charismatic, moral individuals who by their very nature are supposed to haul your butt out of jams. The way I see them, these are the type of people you want around when all Hell breaks loose, the ones you depend on to be true blue heroes.

Other then alignment, this might reveal another concern regarding paladins. I admit that I am probably exaggerating and taking this to an extreme. But, I also doubt that the OP does this. I quoted not to say that the OP is a bad, bad player, but to show how this idea, much like alignment, gets exaggerated to extremes and made silly.

Some people seem to be under the impression that paladins are more heroic or more good then other PCs. In some worlds this might be true. But it is quite annoying as a PC when the paladin demands that the party lets them decide the course of action because they are the paladin and know how to be good better then anyone, and everyone else must follow them. Maybe I am the only one to have experienced this 'Gooder then thou' attitude from paladins in a very annoying fashion?

Endon the White
2011-07-10, 02:58 PM
I've always thought that Paladins should be more of an organization than a class. A Paladin is righteous and good, is pledged to defend the innocent and kill the wicked, and will gladly lay down their life in the defense of another. So why does he have to be a melee character? Why can't they're be ranger paladins, who hunt the wicked and snipe them from afar? Why can't they're be wizard paladins, who wield their arcane power for the force of good? Why is a Paladin so constrained in his duty, as if the powers that be are actively hampering is options?

JBento
2011-07-10, 04:19 PM
@Endon: it all boils down to the same thing that makes Paladins have to be Lawful Good: the basis of the Paladin, which are the (romaticised version of) the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne, and the Knights of the Round Table.

The biggest problem of the Paladin (and, at least on my part, what makes them target of the most flak) is that it's the worst class of the PHB. Not mechanically (hello Monk), not flavour (hello Fighter), but in the worst possible way: it is the only character that actually tells other people how to play their characters.

If there's a Paladin in the party, if the Paladin is to remain a Paladin, then other characters can't:
be Evil
lie
use poison
escape from prison when framed by the culprit
cheat
etc.

Vow of Non-Violence (or of Peace, or both, I'm AFB) suffer from the exact same problem: they generate a character that, by necessity, restricts the rest of the party.

hamishspence
2011-07-11, 02:44 AM
Yup! Good ol' Sam and his bees.

Strictly, most of the alightment splatbooks tend to rate Evil above good- so a few Good acts won't change a person from Evil alignment.

Unless the Evil acts are very minor, like casting [Evil] spells, a character who regularly does both Evil and Good acts, is more likely to be Evil than Neutral or Good.

Casting [Good] spells doesn't qualify as atoning for Evil acts, on their own.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-11, 02:48 AM
Strictly, most of the alightment splatbooks tend to rate Evil above good- so a few Good acts won't change a person from Evil alignment.

Unless the Evil acts are very minor, like casting [Evil] spells, a character who regularly does both Evil and Good acts, is more likely to be Evil than Neutral or Good.

Casting [Good] spells doesn't qualify as atoning for Evil acts, on their own.

If that's the case, then Good and Evil are not balanced, and evil's winning. Mathematically speaking, it will only be a matter of time before evil snuffs out good from the multiverse.

For good and evil to be balanced, then what you have stated must be false.

hamishspence
2011-07-11, 04:46 AM
Because so much of evil is turned on itself (the Blood War being the obvious example) whereas the cosmic forces of good generally don't harm each other (at least according to BoED),

the fact that it's easier to be evil aligned than good aligned, doesn't necessarily guarantee the eventual destruction of the multiverse.

"How "good" can an evil aligned character be, and still qualify as evil aligned?"
"Very"

"How "evil" can a good aligned character be, and still be good aligned"
"Not very"

Shadowknight12
2011-07-11, 05:11 AM
Because so much of evil is turned on itself (the Blood War being the obvious example) whereas the cosmic forces of good generally don't harm each other (at least according to BoED),

the fact that it's easier to be evil aligned than good aligned, doesn't necessarily guarantee the eventual destruction of the multiverse.

"How "good" can an evil aligned character be, and still qualify as evil aligned?"
"Very"

"How "evil" can a good aligned character be, and still be good aligned"
"Not very"

Doesn't matter. Math still proves that good is on its way out. If it's easier for a being to become evil than it is for it to become good, eventually math says that good will be wiped out. It's got to do with the concept of limit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)). If good and evil are not balanced, and it's easier for people to become evil than it is to become good, the amount of evil people in the universe tends towards infinite, while the amount of good people in the universe tends towards zero. It doesn't matter that this number fluctuates due to random happen-stance, or because evil is prone to in-fighting. Those things merely delay the inevitable end.

What you propose is not a state that can last indefinitely. It is by its very nature unstable. Regardless of how much you try to make up for the natural tendencies, eventually those tendencies will drive good towards non-existence. It is much like fighting entropy. Mathematically, entropy always wins. The laws of the universe say that order and disorder are not balanced, that it is easier for the universe to be disordered than it is to be ordered. This means that eventually, everything you know will die. Everything you know will crumble to dust, and all your attempts to delay it (everything your cells are doing to maintain their precious inner balance of solutes and electrical charges) is futile. With every mitosis your cells undergo, your DNA deteriorates a little. This is why you grow old and frail. This process can be stalled, but never reversed. Why? Because of entropy. You will, eventually, succumb to it. All of mankind's attempts to build, maintain and restore are merely delaying the natural effects of time, decay, death and erosion. Entropy still wins, in the end.

Substitute "entropy" with "evil" and you have exactly the same scenario in the universe.

hamishspence
2011-07-11, 05:18 AM
True- but that's actually a not uncommon trope- the idea that the end of the universe/victory of evil is inevitable. This doesn't mean good guys can't stop it in the short term.

Or that a new "verse" will be born as the old one dies.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-11, 05:20 AM
True- but that's actually a not uncommon trope- the idea that the end of the universe/victory of evil is inevitable. This doesn't mean good guys can't stop it in the short term.

Or that a new "verse" will be born as the old one dies.

Oh, of course, you're completely right. I just wanted to point out that if we go by what you say (which is not how I run things, but I don't think it's wrong, either), one should be aware of the results. For logic and consistency's sake, if nothing else. :smallwink:

hamishspence
2011-07-11, 06:06 AM
The question is- do the D&D books tend to consistantly portray it as easier to fall than to be redeemed, easier to be evil than good, the armies of good outsiders being outnumbered by the armies of evil outsiders, and so on?

From what I can tell, they do.
Still, good can win even when it's vastly weaker.

Matt Stover's Revenge of the Sith novelization said it best- after several riffs on "The dark is patient, and it always wins" the book ended with:

"but it has one weakness- a single candle is enough to hold it back. Love is more than a candle. Love can ignite the stars."

Vknight
2011-07-11, 06:33 AM
Thats whats neutral is for.

And Now V-knights 2cents and a morally ambigious settings/video game.

V-knights 2 Cents
It depends on the system really.
4e Paladins simply follow the code of there god. They must keep there gods alignment and never break any of his vows.
In 3.X, Paldins must follow gods that are Lawful Good, Good, or Lawful Neutral. They keep there gods vows along with vows of the Paladin. No attackign someone until there a threat no premptive strikes, honor all that stuff.
Paladins can be played bad and good.
They can be played as heros 'White Knights' etc. But this same reasoning also makes them unfit rulers. A Paladin has to follow his code so he cannot look into ideas of rebellion unless he see's them before his eyes.
That or there crusading zealots barely constrained and with an eye for vengance of there god on those which do not follow him. (See Vknights Tales for example, no there's no link maybe later)

See Paladins are not so much super men as those warriors who well could not cut it without help from some source. In this case a god which gives them ther strength and ability. Unlike other divine classes which take intense study and meditation into the gods motives. Paladins simply follow them because they needed a way to match up to there peers and friends which outclassed them. Think of it this way the Paladin is the kid who just always got 3rd. So when they got to gradute a Paladin starts to revere a god for that added strength speed etc. This bonus let them win the 1st place trophy and gain an adventuring party, all he has to do is say he got that place from worshiping his god. Paladins really are the Warlocks of the divine classes.

4e Example. Other divine classes. Clerics take intense study to master healing arts and protect others using a divine grace. Avengers practice there gods scriptures and remove elements which may stop the god from expanding his influence. And the invoker who has a shard of divine power in him like a sorcerer, he does not need to worship a god but they often do because the shard is from a god. Heck it may not even be from the god they worship.

But the Paladin. He makes the deal you give me this power I'll spread your name. The Cleric does not always gain magic but still worships the god, a Avenger simply follows his god through skill and intense training, and an invoker follows a god for there belief never actually having to worship one for his/her power.
The Warlock does the same thing spread the influence of who ever they made the pact with, demons, things from bayonf time and space, great spirits from beyond the veil, beings of the feywild. A warlock does not even need to preach his masters doctrine simply being alive shows there power after that they care not what he does with it.

Setting
Fallout New Vegas

Caesars Legion
Orginally to be a neutral group. The Legion is going back to the old using old ways to do things and a very roman feel to it. For good reason but they are also slavers. Yet many are cultured people that care for the Legion beyond Caesar and actually care greatly for its people. Yet they use brutal tactics that seem cruel. But these same tactics prove both effective for intimidation, brutal force, damage to supplies, and damage to moral. They also won't let any advanced technology be used, except very limited cases. The Legion is also only held together by the charisma and prominency of its leaders. So no Caesar of Legate and things fall apart. But at the same time those that would stay with the Legion and go inwards to there territory would find roads safe from raiders and outside Legion territory the best Caravan Guards are Legion. The Legion keeps its roads clean of threats and protects its people from any threats some before they can become as such.

NCR
The NCR is a republic and with good ideals but a corrupt system. Back west its corruption left and right by the politicians. They will continue to fight and try to expand the NCR for greater profits. This makes the NCR spread thin with there soliders under equipped, and lacking training. The NCR cannot take care of a problem such as the Fiends and the Khans. Threats that do not have any major gain are not imediately taken care of and they'll gladly attack an ally to take them over. The NCR has good people but it will eventually break up into seperate groups and then war without proper cleaning of the house

Mr.House
Speaking of House. He is in it for the money the NCR can have everywhere else as long as they accept the Vegas strip as a seperate entity the same with Caesar. As long as rules such as these are kept the money rolls in and people can come and go as they please. This also means house cares nothing of the people that could prove a threat or those he can gain from. This means he leaves the Mojave outside Vegas unprotected from Raiders and other threats. The Securitrons well secure Vegas. House has done good things and is a decent person, seeing the Brotherhood of Steel a dangerous threat to be removed. House also views those outside the city of New Vegas and heck most modern people as lesser beings suspecting most can barerly read.

Note on the Brotherhood: If you do not destroy them they become nothing more than raiders for decent tech. Which was the eventual course for the group from there rules and regulations.

Independent
The Choice of freedom is when man truly becomes free.
You destroy the threat of Caesar to the east and can expand with your contacts within the Legion.
You show the NCR if they show no quarter you'll do the same, throwing a general off a bridge.
You support those which help the people such as the Followers
You help those that are in need from losing there way of life, trapped because of convicts, or needing to remove the threat of raiders
You stop the Convicts that escaped the NCR correctional facility. Something that should never have happened had the NCR been well equiped and trained.
You remove a dangeours and lethal threat by yourself know as the Fiends.
You bring the Khans to great heights allowing them to form there own empire.
You keep the King alive which with his leadership will help save Freeside making it into a good place to live stopping the rampant violence by also stopping his fighting with the NCR
You safe guard the Mojave from any dangerous threats of corrupt systems. By making it an independent system free of those other governing bodies.
This also leads to a destablizied system for the week after the battle of Hover Dam. Several people die in locations the Correctional Facility becomes a dead area. The Law you bring to Primm may be forced to leave or may seem slightly brutal. The Followers are flooded with injured people and cannot cope. Even with those supplies from the Garrets and You.


In summary.
Each ending can be played good but each has unforseen consequences from who gains the power and how desicions were made for each community

Talakeal
2011-07-11, 08:57 AM
@Endon: it all boils down to the same thing that makes Paladins have to be Lawful Good: the basis of the Paladin, which are the (romaticised version of) the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne, and the Knights of the Round Table.

The biggest problem of the Paladin (and, at least on my part, what makes them target of the most flak) is that it's the worst class of the PHB. Not mechanically (hello Monk), not flavour (hello Fighter), but in the worst possible way: it is the only character that actually tells other people how to play their characters.

If there's a Paladin in the party, if the Paladin is to remain a Paladin, then other characters can't:
be Evil
lie
use poison
escape from prison when framed by the culprit
cheat
etc.

Vow of Non-Violence (or of Peace, or both, I'm AFB) suffer from the exact same problem: they generate a character that, by necessity, restricts the rest of the party.

That's not RAW you know. The paladin cannot associate with evil characters and must punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Nothing says they cannot be near a character who is chaotic, dishonorable, nongood, or even that they must stop them from performing occasional evil acts so long as they don't harm or threaten innocents.

That said, I can't imagine ANY good character would associate with any evil character in any long term fashion that doesn't involve extenuating circumstances. By trying to play an evil character in a good party, you are just asking for conflict.

Also, in my opinion blatantly evil characters are just as bad as paladins in telling others what they can or can't play. Most players want to be a "hero", as in someone who fights evil, yet they can't do that because the most obvious sort of evil is right next to them at all times in the same party, but protected from them by a magic "PC" tag.

hamishspence
2011-07-11, 09:01 AM
That's not RAW you know. The paladin cannot associate with evil characters and must punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Nothing says they cannot be near a character who is chaotic, dishonorable, nongood, or even that they must stop them from performing occasional evil acts so long as they don't harm or threaten innocents.

The bit is "will not continue an association with those who consistantly offend against the paladin's moral code".

Still- there's room for interpretation in that. Some paladins have no problem with deception- as long as it doesn't involve them themselves telling an outright lie. As one put it "Really, your notions of paladins are so old-fashioned. We're honest, not stupid."



That said, I can't imagine ANY good character would associate with any evil character in any long term fashion that doesn't involve extenuating circumstances. By trying to play an evil character in a good party, you are just asking for conflict.

Agreed. Good reasons include the desire to redeem the evildoer, a shared goal (defeating something much worse, for example), or possibly, the evildoer has been defeated in a duel, with the "prize" being the evildoer's service for a time.

For example, a paladin defeating a red dragon- then riding off on the red dragon to save a friend from a Much Worse enemy.

Talakeal
2011-07-11, 09:12 AM
The bit is "will not continue an association with those who consistantly offend against the paladin's moral code".

Still- there's room for interpretation in that. Some paladins have no problem with deception- as long as it doesn't involve them themselves telling an outright lie. As one put it "Really, your notions of paladins are so old-fashioned. We're honest, not stupid."



I was just reading the "Paladin's Code" section, I didn't notice that part in the next section. The book never actually defined what " consistantly offend against the paladin's moral code" actually means, but taken literally I suppose you could extrapolate that to mean the entire party has to live by the paladin's full code.
Since this requirement is not actually listed as part of the code of conduct, does the book give any consequences for violating it?

hamishspence
2011-07-11, 09:18 AM
It doesn't- from the way it's worded, it implies it's impossible for the paladin to continue the association.

One possibility- the DM intervenes and says "You are no longer associating".
One is that the character Falls.
And one is that nothing happens- and that this part of the Paladin class is not meaningful.

Talakeal
2011-07-11, 09:46 AM
It doesn't- from the way it's worded, it implies it's impossible for the paladin to continue the association.

One possibility- the DM intervenes and says "You are no longer associating".
One is that the character Falls.
And one is that nothing happens- and that this part of the Paladin class is not meaningful.

The sentance begins "while she may adventure with any characters of good or neutral alignment" so I would say it is probably the latter as far as other PCs are concerned, and DM's / Players who insist otherwise are just trying to create conflict where non need exist.

hamishspence
2011-07-11, 10:07 AM
Since Good and Neutral characters can still "consistantly offend against the paladin's moral code" it may apply to them too.

The reasoning behind it triggering a Fall may work something like this.

1: A paladin will not do this.
2: Since the PC is doing this, in order for the 1st statement to be true, the PC must cease to be a paladin.

In OotS, Roy seems to believe that Miko will lose class features if she keeps letting the Order behave objectionably:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html

Janus
2011-07-11, 11:04 AM
Maybe I am the only one to have experienced this 'Gooder then thou' attitude from paladins in a very annoying fashion?
I've experienced it in real life, unfortunately.
The way I see it, paladins all have standards that they aspire to live to (essentially a sinless life), but since they're people, they fall short from time to time. Unlike most, however, they strive to correct their mistakes and better themselves.
Unfortunately (like some people I knew as a missionary), some already see themselves as perfect (or at least better than everyone else) and use this delusion as an excuse to boss everyone else around (even other paladins).

Curious- how do you all interpret a paladin's immunity to fear? I always figured it was simply resistance to magical fear, rather than simply removing all traces of it. I know Redcloak says that paladins literally have no fear and thus no doubt, but I consider him an unreliable narrator.
I think paladins are perfectly capable of being afraid, but like most adventurers they simply push through it.

Honest Tiefling
2011-07-11, 11:26 AM
Generally, resistance to fear. Because many people do RP paladins with certain types of fear and doubt. It is hard to remove this from human behavior.

Also, it makes other PCs feel better if they fail against fear if it was magical in the first place. It wasn't that they are a coward and pissed their pants, it was a spell taking over their mind. If there is a ton of magical fear running around, then it makes sense for the paladin aura to protect against that, not basic human interaction.

navar100
2011-07-11, 12:58 PM
@Endon: it all boils down to the same thing that makes Paladins have to be Lawful Good: the basis of the Paladin, which are the (romaticised version of) the Twelve Peers of Charlemagne, and the Knights of the Round Table.

The biggest problem of the Paladin (and, at least on my part, what makes them target of the most flak) is that it's the worst class of the PHB. Not mechanically (hello Monk), not flavour (hello Fighter), but in the worst possible way: it is the only character that actually tells other people how to play their characters.

If there's a Paladin in the party, if the Paladin is to remain a Paladin, then other characters can't:

be Evil

Generally true. However, that's not because of the Paladin but because it is usually bad form to play Evil when everyone else is Good, regardless of class. If the campaign is about Evil/Non-Good PCs, then it's the Paladin who's the odd-man out. However, it is possible to play "altruistic' Evil - someone who is Evil against the evil bad guys of the campaign but otherwise is a "normal" party member with respect to party members and non-bad guy NPCs.

Players aren't forbidden to play evil characters, but it is advisable to be cautious in having one.



lie

Wrong. The paladin won't lie, but he's not forced to tell others to tell truth. If a party member is captured by the enemy, the paladin would not be enraged the party member "gives up" Dantooine instead of Yavin. The paladin probably wouldn't even answer Dantooine, but he's under no obligation whatsoever to answer Yavin.



use poison

The paladin wouldn't advocate it, true, but in this case the character just wouldn't be telling the paladin that's what hes doing. Whether poison use is evil is much debated. Couatls and Guardian Nana use poison.


escape from prison when framed by the culprit

The paladin would not object all the time. Given an Honest True Lawful Good Government with Honest True Justice, then the paladin would be out there trying to prove who the real culprit is. If the government is corrupt/the entity that did the framing, the paladin would help to get his buddy out.



cheat


True, but that's for being Lawful, not a paladin. Any Lawful person would object to cheating. (Lawful Evil objects too despite willing to try to get away with it himself if he can.)

Engine
2011-07-11, 01:15 PM
Could somebody please explain to me why Paladins have such a bad reputation? I mean, they are supposed to be honorable, charismatic, moral individuals who by their very nature are supposed to haul your butt out of jams. The way I see them, these are the type of people you want around when all Hell breaks loose, the ones you depend on to be true blue heroes. One player said that if we were being chased by a horde of demons, and his character tripped, he knew darned well that the only person who'd turn back for his butt would be my Paladin. You and I both know what would happen if a demonic horde got their clawed hands on any PC, but still a Paladin would do his/her best to save your butt.

Yet, I keep finding out that many players think of them as automatic jerks. More than that, they keep assigning goofy rules of behavior that no sane person would even contemplate. For example, one guy got all ticked that my 1st level Paladin, upon seeing a gigantic djinn appear out of nowhere, turned around, picked up the awed mage, and beat feet. He said I couldn't retreat. Since when does being a Paladin mean you give up your sanity?! Or when I was playing a game of dice with the Rogue for pebbles, and he freaked out that I was gambling. For PEBBLES?! And gambling is perfectly legal, too.

As a long time Paladin's player, here's my insight.

As a Paladin, your character has to behave in a honorable manner. How honorable an action is, of course, is entirely subjective.

Paladins have a bad reputation because sometimes they're played by bad players: you know, the ones who think that a Miko-type is a great character concept. They're disruptive to the party and in the case of the Paladin they could hide behind the Code of Conduct ("I'm just roleplaying!"), so a lot of people thinks it's the Paladin's fault. Of course it's the players' fault.

Other times the party has bad players: they think that provoking the Paladin is a great idea. You're there, playing your character, and the rest of the party use your Paladin as a bullseye. They treat your character like garbage and when your Paladin responds in some manner they start whining.

Anyway, rarely someone thinks (DM and players alike) that a Paladin is still a human being (or dwarven, or elven, and so on). That the Paladin could still make a mistake, take a bad decision, put her trust in the wrong person. They think that a Paladin shouldn't be fallible, capable of making an error.

There's the Atonement spell, as Soon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html) said. Sometimes a Paladin could make a bad call, and it's entirely justifiable. Maybe a Paladin doesn't have really an idea how to vanquish some evildoer, and so she does something not really right (of course, not evil, just not really right). Maybe she let the party's Rogue steal something from the evildoer, or shut up when the Bard lies because in her conscience she couldn't just wait and do nothing but she really couldn't figure out what to do.

A Paladin is prone to errors like everyone else. A Paladin always try to be at her best, but sometimes she fails. I think that a Paladin shouldn't always fall when she fails, but a lot of people couldn't accept the simple truth that as a Paladin your character isn't perfect.

JBento
2011-07-11, 01:37 PM
Generally true. However, that's not because of the Paladin but because it is usually bad form to play Evil when everyone else is Good, regardless of class. If the campaign is about Evil/Non-Good PCs, then it's the Paladin who's the odd-man out. However, it is possible to play "altruistic' Evil - someone who is Evil against the evil bad guys of the campaign but otherwise is a "normal" party member with respect to party members and non-bad guy NPCs.

Players aren't forbidden to play evil characters, but it is advisable to be cautious in having one.




Wrong. The paladin won't lie, but he's not forced to tell others to tell truth. If a party member is captured by the enemy, the paladin would not be enraged the party member "gives up" Dantooine instead of Yavin. The paladin probably wouldn't even answer Dantooine, but he's under no obligation whatsoever to answer Yavin.




The paladin wouldn't advocate it, true, but in this case the character just wouldn't be telling the paladin that's what hes doing. Whether poison use is evil is much debated. Couatls and Guardian Nana use poison.



The paladin would not object all the time. Given an Honest True Lawful Good Government with Honest True Justice, then the paladin would be out there trying to prove who the real culprit is. If the government is corrupt/the entity that did the framing, the paladin would help to get his buddy out.





True, but that's for being Lawful, not a paladin. Any Lawful person would object to cheating. (Lawful Evil objects too despite willing to try to get away with it himself if he can.)

It's perfectly possible to play an Evil character with good intentions, I agree with you - the problem with the Paladin is that that's irrelevant. If a character is Evil then, by the rules, the Paladin can't associate with them.

That's true on the lie, but that's not what I was saying: what I was saying is that a character who lies a lot is "constantly offending [the Paladin's] code of conduct." Again, by the rules the Paladin can't associate with them.

Poison use is... one of those things. Rules contradict themselves all over the place. However, for the Paladin, that's irrelevant. A Paladin's code prohibits the use of poison and, therefore, a character who uses it a lot is "constantly offending yaddayadda." yaddayadda impossibility to associate.

Fully agreed on the wrongful imprisonment (which is different from the LAWFUL imprisonment) but that was what I'd written anyway, so... :smallsmile:

Agreed on the Lawful, but it's ALSO from being a Paladin - the Paladin's code specifically states that a Paladin doesn't cheat, and therefore, someone who yaddayaddayaddayadda impossiblity to associate.

As hamishpence pointed out, what "associate" means is never clearly (or unclearly) stated out. Being part of an adventuring party is, imo, "associating" - especially, but not exclusively, in settings where "adventuring charters" are established.

EDIT: True, a Paladin doesn't always fall when he fails: if he can't stop the wizard from completing the evil ritual, he fails, but doesn't fall. If a fellow player under undetectable Alignment spell kills a bunch of people and raises them as undead without the Paladin ever knowing, he fails, but doesn't Fall.
I don't think anyone here is advocating that. Failing is not an Evil act.
The Paladin's entry is actually quite explicit in the reasons that make a Paladin fall - except in the "association" part, which is utterly undefined and is therefore anyone's best guess as to what it means

hamishspence
2011-07-11, 01:44 PM
As hamishpence pointed out, what "associate" means is never clearly (or unclearly) stated out. Being part of an adventuring party is, imo, "associating" - especially, but not exclusively, in settings where "adventuring charters" are established.

It's probably a good start. "They're my ally, not my associate" can work for short periods- with the Evil character not being truly "in the party" but only a temporary ally of convenience, but once accepted in, the nonassociation rule comes up.

The paladin would probably feel that "allowing evil acts to take place through inaction" is morally very close to actually committing them- so they may not feel able to turn a blind eye to an ally's evil acts- and may declare this up front.

The closer the Evil character is to the paladin's ethos (altruism, not harming the innocent) the happier a paladin may be about this alliance- they may see the Evil character as "misguided rather than truly malevolent" and go out of their way to redeem them.

JBento
2011-07-11, 02:25 PM
Allowing Evil acts to take place through inaction (assuming the Paladin had a decent chance of stopping them) is most definitly something that'll make the Paladin crack concrete, as he must "help those in need."
Whether this is actually an Evil act is up for anyone's guess - the rules tell us that it's not Good, but that's all. I peg it as Neutral, personally.

I'm toying with a Machiavellian-goaled character concept that would certainly raise no eyebrows from any eventual Paladin party members, as his evil acts would be comitted away from the party's sight. The only problem is the detect Evil thingy - imo, a Paladin who does not use it on any potential associate is remiss in his vows. There's always the possibility of taking one level of Bard or Dread Necromancer, who get Undetectable Alignment as a 1st level spell... :smallsigh:

I'm not going to touch the "misguided rather than truly malevolent" part, because then we would have to engage in that fun discussion on how you determine an action's alignment, which is a can of purple worms.

paladinofshojo
2011-07-11, 03:10 PM
I've always thought that Paladins should be more of an organization than a class. A Paladin is righteous and good, is pledged to defend the innocent and kill the wicked, and will gladly lay down their life in the defense of another. So why does he have to be a melee character? Why can't they're be ranger paladins, who hunt the wicked and snipe them from afar? Why can't they're be wizard paladins, who wield their arcane power for the force of good? Why is a Paladin so constrained in his duty, as if the powers that be are actively hampering is options?



To answer your question on why can't paladins be rangers or wizards....because along time ago in the dark ages it was considered dishonorable for "men of standing" (knights, paladins, etc.) to use such "dirty tactics".....

though it didn't stop them from training peasants to serve as bowmen, it was more of a status thing .....the more important you are the more you are expected to fight using a sword rather than any other weapon......this is because in every culture the sword is venerated as the elite's weapon, why? Because unlike every other weapon, the sword only has one purpose, combat.....whereas all other weapons were originally hunting or multipurpose tools (bow and arrows, spears and by extension pikes and halberds, axes, hammers, daggers. etc.) Outside of combat and warfare a sword is a useless piece of metal, you can't hunt with it and you certainly can't use it as a tool for any trade. So it makes sense that it is a luxury, after all, why would common people need swords? When they their wood-cutting axes, daggers and hunting bows gets the same job done at a cheaper rate.....

It is fitting that nobility adopt swords as their status symbol....after all both are useless in contributing anything other than warfare to society


It's perfectly possible to play an Evil character with good intentions, I agree with you - the problem with the Paladin is that that's irrelevant. If a character is Evil then, by the rules, the Paladin can't associate with them.





The rules don't say anything about having to screen your entire party of Detect Evil when they don't give you a reason to question their alignment.....All the evil characters have to do is keep their evil deeds hidden from the paladin, if the paladin doesn't have a reason to not trust him why would he need to question their alignment?

It would seem like a pretty rude and a gross invasion of privacy to say
"alright....before we go on this adventure I need to make sure that the rest of you are not Evil....please get in a straight line while I cast Detect Evil on you one by one......"

Being Good means you have to be trust and expect the best out of other people.....granted it doesn't mean allowing them to take advantage of that trust but it also doesn't mean that your character should cast detect evil on the farmer before deciding whether to rescue his children from orcs or kill him in cold blood......

Janus
2011-07-11, 03:35 PM
The rules don't say anything about having to screen your entire party of Detect Evil when they don't give you a reason to question their alignment.....All the evil characters have to do is keep their evil deeds hidden from the paladin, if the paladin doesn't have a reason to not trust him why would he need to question their alignment?

It would seem like a pretty rude and a gross invasion of privacy to say
"alright....before we go on this adventure I need to make sure that the rest of you are not Evil....please get in a straight line while I cast Detect Evil on you one by one......"
The 2e handbook also says that standard D&D cultures consider asking a person's alignment extremely rude, so rude that they can't print an equivalently shocking question in the PHB without getting in trouble.

That, and I think most paladins would prefer to live without the stress of suspecting every person they meet.

Talakeal
2011-07-11, 03:39 PM
The sentence which talks about the rules for paladin's associates would be contradictory if you took that strict an interpretation.

It specifically says that paladins can adventure with any Good or Neutral people.
Paladins are required to be LG at all times.
Therefore, if we hold the "associate" with clause to mean people who routinely violate the paladins code, which includes may be both lawful and good, how does a paladin associate with NG, CG, LN, N, or CN characters?
They would themselves be LG if they didn't repeatedly violate the paladins code.

JBento
2011-07-11, 03:39 PM
Being Good means you have to be trust and expect the best out of other people.....granted it doesn't mean allowing them to take advantage of that trust but it also doesn't mean that your character should cast detect evil on the farmer before deciding whether to rescue his children from orcs or kill him in cold blood......

Actually, giving the benefit of the doubt is not of the traits of Good characters, and is, imo, independent of Good and Evil.

In your (admittedly clearly hyperbolic) example, the farmer's alignment is irrelevant: the Paladin can never kill him in cold blood (Evil) and must still go save his children from the orcs (protect the innocent), or at least investigate WHY the orcs took the children.

A Paladin that is serious about his vows (and all are, as they're Lawful) must take every step he can to ensure he is not, in fact, violating them. Since they can Detect Evil at will, using it to ensure he is not associating (again, whatever that means) with Evil characters is the least he can do in that respect.

Doing otherwise is like a Paladin blindfolding and earmuffling himself so he can go through a slaver camp and do nothing.

The sentence isn't quite as contradictory as you seem to think:

It's quite possible for any of those alignments to respect legitimate authority (though the Chaotic will probably not make any effort to RESORT to such authority, it's also unlikely that they go around giving the finger and calling names to watchmen), act with honor (because, well, a Barbarian must be nonlawful but there's boatloads of barbarian stereotypes who are, indeed, honourable to a fault), and help those in need and and punish those who harm or threaten innocents (heck, most adventures are of this nature, even if the characters are getting paid to do it).

I'm also unsure if being Lawful Good and not comitting an Evil act are part of the code (despite being under that heading), as the ex-paladin entry reads "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct" which suggests them to be different, dissociate things.

If you are right, the mere fact that the class entry contradicts itself is enough reason to shoot it dead or rewrite it - two things that deviate from the RAW and, therefore, are beyond this discussion.

paladinofshojo
2011-07-11, 04:48 PM
If you are right, the mere fact that the class entry contradicts itself is enough reason to shoot it dead or rewrite it - two things that deviate from the RAW and, therefore, are beyond this discussion.

I believe the whole "association" clause of evil just means that a paladin can't adventure with someone who's openly evil. Also a paladin is a class that is not meant to play as an aggressor, every time a paladin goes into combat he is doing so either to prevent lives from being lost, to ensure justice or self-defense as those are the only three times it is considered acceptable for someone who is LG to resort to violence....Therefore, if a paladin is travelling with someone who has an evil alignment and has no reason to suspect that person yet... the paladin should not be penalized because his purpose is to "right wrongs" not "enforce right"....The villain has to make the first move otherwise they won't be the villain now would they? There's a reason "preemptive strikes" are illegal and unethical.....

JBento
2011-07-11, 05:05 PM
One presumes that, if a character has the Evil alignment (barring Hellbred and similar circumstances) he has ALREADY made the first (and second, third, and n'nd) move - otherwise, he wouldn't be Evil in the first place.

The biggest problem with that clause of the Paladin (which is not, by far, the only problem with it, party-wise) is that it's reliant on the utter, non-consensual and contradictory tangle that is the D&D alignment system.

Do note that it is entirely possible for a character to be Evil by performing Evil deeds on Evil characters - someone that the Paladin is not code-bound to punish, but the Paladin STILL can't associate with them. If the rogue routinely tortures the BBEG's henchman for vital information, the Paladin may be under no obligation to stop him (depending on whether you consider torture to be a disrespect for life and a lack of concern for dignity) but he may still not condone that tactic and he cannot associate with the rogue.

Your definition also runs into the problem of defining what "openly Evil" is. Certainly you'll agree the Paladin is code-bound to stop villains who work behind the scenes, performing Evil deeds while tricking the populace into thinking well of them (and are thus not "openly Evil").

paladinofshojo
2011-07-11, 05:33 PM
One presumes that, if a character has the Evil alignment (barring Hellbred and similar circumstances) he has ALREADY made the first (and second, third, and n'nd) move - otherwise, he wouldn't be Evil in the first place.

The biggest problem with that clause of the Paladin (which is not, by far, the only problem with it, party-wise) is that it's reliant on the utter, non-consensual and contradictory tangle that is the D&D alignment system.



If the character had done those deeds before the paladin was part of the story and the paladin has no reason to doubt the evil party member currently then the paladin can not be at fault for association.....The problem with evil is that it is deceptive, manipulative, and incredibly resilient. If a paladin is tricked by an evil wizard to release a demon then the paladin better be sure that he seals the Hell spawn back up....but he shouldn't be penalized for making a mistake judging another party member's character.

Paladins are LG, and as such they have to follow a balance between Law and Good....rather than both. So a paladin has to always find the middle way between civil order (law) and the good of the public (good). For a paladin to be played effectively, following a draconian interpretation of any code is nearly impossible, since only LN and LE characters care more about civil order than the good of the public (well in LE characters, it's more like "order" in general). In the immortal words of Obi-Wan, "Only a Sith Deals in Absolutes".............

JBento
2011-07-11, 05:51 PM
Which, ironically, is an absolute, therefore making Obi-Wan a sith :smallwink:

There's no question that a Paladin does not (or should not) fall for a mistake: the question here is if the Paladin has, or not, the responsibility to Detect Evil on party members when they meet.

I believe they do, since this is a form of "background check," similar to a fireman corp checking if any applicant have, shall we say, a history regarding the inexplicable appearance of fires.

Since the Paladin is, one assumes, joining or forming a party to stop Evil (in general, as opposed to, e.g., Roy who was making a party to stop a specific Evil, namely Xykon) it behooves him to make sure that the people constituting said party are not, in fact, part of said Evil.

paladinofshojo
2011-07-11, 06:03 PM
Which, ironically, is an absolute, therefore making Obi-Wan a sith :smallwink:

There's no question that a Paladin does not (or should not) fall for a mistake: the question here is if the Paladin has, or not, the responsibility to Detect Evil on party members when they meet.

I believe they do, since this is a form of "background check," similar to a fireman corp checking if any applicant have, shall we say, a history regarding the inexplicable appearance of fires.

Since the Paladin is, one assumes, joining or forming a party to stop Evil (in general, as opposed to, e.g., Roy who was making a party to stop a specific Evil, namely Xykon) it behooves him to make sure that the people constituting said party are not, in fact, part of said Evil.

True, but it does seem a bit rude and overbearing to demand the alignments of every person who aids you on your quest...If the Paladin is forming the party, it would be rude to question and deprive privacy from them since they are technically doing him a favor...... If the Paladin is joining a group, he has even less right to question them about their alignments....since as a newcomer who oversteps his authority....he will get kicked out of the group faster than you can say "Detect Evil".....

JBento
2011-07-11, 06:15 PM
True - but the question arises: does the Paladin WANT to work with them?

If he is forming a party for a goal, does he want Evil characters? Since, in D&D, the ends do not justify the means, the answer should be no.

If he is joining a party, does he want to join a party possibly constituted of Evil characters? He should, imo, at the very least check their goals before lending his allegiance to possibly Evil efforts.

A hypothetical scenario: suppose the party is going after an Evil whatever, who seeks to use Evil McGuffin towards Evil End. Shouldn't the Paladin, in good conscience, check to see if there's the possibility of one of the party wanting the Evil McGuffin for themselves, lest he bring down one evil only to put another in its place? He certainly can't dedicate decent attention to them while he's going toe-to-toe with Evil whatever or his Evil Dragon.

Disclaimer: I am now going to bed - tomorrow, we shall return for the next episode of Paladins, The nature of: The Discussion :smallsmile:

Shadowknight12
2011-07-11, 08:44 PM
The question is- do the D&D books tend to consistantly portray it as easier to fall than to be redeemed, easier to be evil than good, the armies of good outsiders being outnumbered by the armies of evil outsiders, and so on?

From what I can tell, they do.
Still, good can win even when it's vastly weaker.

No, I don't really agree. I get the impression that Law, Good, Chaos and Evil are all equally balanced and it's equally easier for a given being to "switch sides" to any of the four.

Good may win on a microscopic scale, sure, in the day-to-day situations, but if good is actually weaker than evil and it's harder to be good than evil, good will always lose on the macroscopic scale.

McStabbington
2011-07-11, 11:10 PM
That, uh, doesn't square with what I know about the Blood War at all. The minions of hell hate the servants of heaven with a passion, and they will both happily dice each other to a pink mist if given half a chance, but both are aware of the fact that without each other, the Nine Hells and the Upper Planes, to say nothing of the Prime Material Plane, would have been overrun with demons ages ago. For every devil out there, there's about a hundred or more demons, with more spawning every minute.

hamishspence
2011-07-12, 02:45 AM
"It's easier to destroy than to create" is pretty traditional- and evil tends to be associated more with destruction than creation.

However, despite this, creation can still proceed- with periods of destruction being the exception rather than the rule.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-12, 02:57 AM
"It's easier to destroy than to create" is pretty traditional- and evil tends to be associated more with destruction than creation.

However, despite this, creation can still proceed- with periods of destruction being the exception rather than the rule.

Destruction = Entropy. That's why it's easier. We've been over this. Creation might take place, but it's only delaying the inevitable. :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2011-07-12, 03:43 AM
That's kind of what I've been saying- because destruction tends to be affiliated with evil (with rare exceptions) and creation with good- in a D&D setting it's easier to be evil than good.

Most of the splatbooks tend to support this- all it takes to go from good to evil is to do evil acts- but to go from evil to good, one must renounce the practice of evil, andmake some effort to atone, and start practicing goodness.

To be good, one must actually be self-sacrificing to a degree "make personal sacrifices for strangers" as well as not doing evil.

It all comes across as much harder.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-12, 04:28 AM
That's kind of what I've been saying- because destruction tends to be affiliated with evil (with rare exceptions) and creation with good- in a D&D setting it's easier to be evil than good.

Most of the splatbooks tend to support this- all it takes to go from good to evil is to do evil acts- but to go from evil to good, one must renounce the practice of evil, andmake some effort to atone, and start practicing goodness.

To be good, one must actually be self-sacrificing to a degree "make personal sacrifices for strangers" as well as not doing evil.

It all comes across as much harder.

The only part where I actually disagree with you (since I don't believe that what you're saying is wrong, I respect that's a perfectly valid way to run a multiverse) is that "splatbooks support that view. As far as I know, splatbooks are actually vague on the matter of alignment (except for the famous BoED and BoVD).

hamishspence
2011-07-12, 04:40 AM
Champions of Ruin (a sequel to BoVD) discusses evil alignment, and the many ways to get it- it's quite easy for a "well-intentioned extremist" or someone "driven to evil deeds" to gain an evil alignment- all it takes is a pattern of doing evil deeds, for whatever reason.

And in Fiendish Codex 2 "getting one's soul back from the Nine Hells" once one has done enough evil deeds to be "condemned to the Nine Hells" is quite hard- it generally requires giving up any personal gains (if any) that were gained by the evil deeds, apologizing to those wronged, and going on an atonement quest.

Exemplars of Evil also discusses "sympathetic villains" whose deeds were done for good reasons.

Overall it seems like a picture of "the easy road to perdition" vs the "hard and difficult road to virtue".

Shadowknight12
2011-07-12, 04:46 AM
Champions of Ruin (a sequel to BoVD) discusses evil alignment, and the many ways to get it- it's quite easy for a "well-intentioned extremist" or someone "driven to evil deeds" to gain an evil alignment- all it takes is a pattern of doing evil deeds, for whatever reason.

And in Fiendish Codex 2 "getting one's soul back from the Nine Hells" once one has done enough evil deeds to be "condemned to the Nine Hells" is quite hard- it generally requires giving up any personal gains (if any) that were gained by the evil deeds, apologizing to those wronged, and going on an atonement quest.

Exemplars of Evil also discusses "sympathetic villains" whose deeds were done for good reasons.

Overall it seems like a picture of "the easy road to perdition" vs the "hard and difficult road to virtue".

Both Champions of Ruin and Exemplars of Evil are setting-specific books, though. We've established that evil functions differently according to the settings we're discussing. In Faerun, specially, we have alignment and divinity rules that function VERY differently than they do in "vanilla" or "standard" D&D.

The quote Fiendish Codex II means nothing in and of itself. It doesn't say that Good doesn't work in the exact same way. Perhaps a soul "condemned" to the Seven Mounts of Celestia must do quite a bit to fall from grace.

Sorry, but I'm still unconvinced. Leaving aside the setting-specific books (and speaking solely about non-setting-specific splats), it still doesn't paint that picture. At the absolute worst, it only says "turning back from an evil path after one has reached a certain point is extremely hard." Which can also be said of Law, Chaos and Good. We don't really know.

hamishspence
2011-07-12, 05:08 AM
The idea of someone having committed both "enough good deeds to automatically go to Celestia regardless of the evil they did in life" and

"enough evil deeds to automatically go to Baator regardless of the good they did in life"

seems a bit logically contradictory.

And Exemplars of Evil, unlike Champions of Ruin, isn't setting-specific. It's a "generic setting book" with text describing how it's villains can be adapted to Faerun, or Eberron.

In BoED there's plenty of "this is an evil act regardless of the motives" and "a good deed with selfish motives becomes a neutral deed"

But there's no corresponding text in BoVD reversing this.

Exalted characters lose their Exalted feats, PRCs, etc if they ever commit an Evil act.
But Vile ones don't lose theirs if they ever commit a Good act.

Celestials fall pretty easily (a large proportion of fiends, especially in Baator, are fallen celestials.)

But risen fiends are rare- there's one risen Good fiend on the WOTC site, but the rest of the D&D books generally don't have them.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-12, 05:24 AM
The idea of someone having committed both "enough good deeds to automatically go to Celestia regardless of the evil they did in life" and

"enough evil deeds to automatically go to Baator regardless of the good they did in life"

seems a bit logically contradictory.

What? I never said that. I said that you can't prove that Good (or Law, or Chaos) doesn't work the same way Evil is said to work there. FCII says that a person who has done enough evil to deserve an afterlife in Baator will find redemption very hard. What I'm saying is that the book doesn't say if another person, who has done enough good to deserve an afterlife in Celestia, will find it just as hard to stop being good. My point is that you're not proving that good and evil aren't balanced, or that indeed, your belief that evil is easier than good is, in fact, valid.


And Exemplars of Evil, unlike Champions of Ruin, isn't setting-specific. It's a "generic setting book" with text describing how it's villains can be adapted to Faerun, or Eberron.

I stand corrected. Still, that book doesn't say anything about the opposite case, does it? It doesn't say anything about Good.


In BoED there's plenty of "this is an evil act regardless of the motives" and "a good deed with selfish motives becomes a neutral deed"

But there's no corresponding text in BoVD reversing this.

Actually, there ARE "this is a good act regardless of the motives" acts all over the place. They're called "spells with the [Good] descriptor."

BoVD actually does say that there are acts that may be evil or non-evil according to intent. Page 6, under Intent And Context.


Celestials fall pretty easily (a large proportion of fiends, especially in Baator, are fallen celestials.)

But risen fiends are rare- there's one risen Good fiend on the WOTC site, but the rest of the D&D books generally don't have them.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Again, this is the same as all the points you've been making thus far. Just because we're shown something doesn't mean that the opposite does not exist. Just because we see fallen angels all the time doesn't mean ascended fiends are inexistent. Or would you say that commoners are inexistent, since they're never mentioned as important NPCs almost anywhere? Just because WotC has chosen to showcase a specific NPC (because they like clichés, or because they think that's what the fans want to see, or because of marketing reasons) doesn't mean that there isn't an equal amount of opposite examples that haven't been displayed to us.

EDIT:


Exalted characters lose their Exalted feats, PRCs, etc if they ever commit an Evil act.
But Vile ones don't lose theirs if they ever commit a Good act.

Vile feats may be removed by evil patrons if the character displeases it. Committing good acts may well be cause for displeasure.

hamishspence
2011-07-12, 05:42 AM
Perhaps- but the idea of morality as a slope- where becoming Good is a difficult climb, and becoming Evil is an easy slide- seems to dominate fiction in general.

Why would D&D be the exception to this? It's true that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence- but the evidence seems to me to be more strongly in favour of D&D morality being a "slope" rather than "flat ground" where moving in both directions is equally easy.

Eberron specifically says casting evil spells "threatens to change the character's alignment" but it doesn't say the same for Good spells.

BoVD says "the path of evil magic leads swiftly to corruption" but BoED doesn't say "the path of good magic leads swiftly to righteousness".

And so on.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-12, 05:52 AM
Perhaps- but the idea of morality as a slope- where becoming Good is a difficult climb, and becoming Evil is an easy slide- seems to dominate fiction in general.

True, no disagreement there. If I venture a guess as to why this is the case, I'd say that it's because it usually makes for a better story.


Why would D&D be the exception to this? It's true that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence- but the evidence seems to me to be more strongly in favour of D&D morality being a "slope" rather than "flat ground" where moving in both directions is equally easy.

I am not saying that it's not the way you propose, I'm saying that it's left deliberately vague so that each DM can customise its campaign to taste.

I would not disagree that the evidence points out to a slope rather than a flat ground. I would disagree, however, that the slope is a single direction. Why? Because you don't have all the evidence. D&D splats focus on evil. It's a fact. Why? Because it sells. So we're told about the nature of evil, evil antagonists, villains, evil mooks, evil spells, evil monsters, etc. Very little is said about the other three alignment forces, there literally isn't enough evidence to make any categorical statements about them.

It may well exist not a slope, but a four-sided pyramid. The tip would be True Neutral, each corner would be LE, LG, CG and CE, and the sides would be LN, NG, CN and NE. This interpretation is consistent with the evidence you presented, that it's easy to slide into evil and hard to climb out of it. But it also says that it's easy to slide towards Good, Law and Chaos, and hard to climb out of them, too. This is a possible interpretation that fits the presented evidence and where all four forces remain balanced.

Or not, I like the ambiguity, it gives me more freedom to do as I please as a DM.


Eberron specifically says casting evil spells "threatens to change the character's alignment" but it doesn't say the same for Good spells.

BoVD says "the path of evil magic leads swiftly to corruption" but BoED doesn't say "the path of good magic leads swiftly to righteousness".

And so on.

Again, none of what you're saying precludes the existence of the opposite statement. Just because it's not stated doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't affirm, categorically, that those statements are false merely because they haven't been printed. It'd be like saying that commoners can't be redheaded because there isn't a single redheaded commoner out there. Or that Half-celestial pixies with incarnate levels don't exist because there isn't an NPC with that exact combination.

hamishspence
2011-07-12, 06:02 AM
true- but there is one splat that focuses on Good- BoED.

Just as "Evil is Easy" seems to be the overarching theme of BoVD, "Good is Hard" seems to be at least part of the theme of BoED.

Result- a decidedly sloped system.

Chaotic and Lawful are, admittedly, left vague.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-12, 06:07 AM
true- but there is one splat that focuses on Good- BoED.

Just as "Evil is Easy" seems to be the overarching theme of BoVD, "Good is Hard" seems to be at least part of the theme of BoED.

Result- a decidedly sloped system.

Chaotic and Lawful are, admittedly, left vague.

That doesn't really seem to be the theme of BoVD and BoED to me at all. BoVD seems to say "Evil is spooky and icky!" and BoED seems to say "Being Exalted is hard!" which is cool. Exalted is only a small part of Good. Note how, in BoED, it's only when it starts to talk about exalted characters and exalted deeds and the exalted path that it starts talking about "how hard" it is. Before that, it simply defines what is good and what is not (in standard D&D, at any rate).

hamishspence
2011-07-12, 06:19 AM
The sample evil character archetypes includes one whose evil act is simply knowing what other evildoers are doing and not interfering- "consenting" to it being done, so to speak- the "evil teacher".

The sample evil acts, include plenty of things PCs might feel tempted to do "for the greater good"- cheating, stealing, murder, casting evil spells, and so on.

The text in Champions of Ruin, and Champions of Valor, is pretty consistant with BoVD and BoED- they're basically "continuations" of those two, with Faerun prestige classes and sample characters.


It may well exist not a slope, but a four-sided pyramid. The tip would be True Neutral, each corner would be LE, LG, CG and CE, and the sides would be LN, NG, CN and NE. This interpretation is consistent with the evidence you presented, that it's easy to slide into evil and hard to climb out of it. But it also says that it's easy to slide towards Good, Law and Chaos, and hard to climb out of them, too. This is a possible interpretation that fits the presented evidence and where all four forces remain balanced.

Maybe- but it's not so consistant with the general portrayal of Good as something that's hard to climb up to, and easy to slide down from.

D&D does not have to be a world in balance. In fact it's quite common for Evil factions to outnumber and outpower Good ones- with it only being their unwillingness to cooperate, that prevents Good from being crushed.

That's what makes the heroism of good so great- because it's so outgunned.

Roderick_BR
2011-07-12, 11:31 AM
Just a couple problems:

Players:Some players make a paladin out to be the dumb sort of goody two shoes type of guy. The guy that always tells the truth, and can not handle any lie, for example. The guy that can never do anything wrong. For example curfew is 10 pm, so the paladin will refuse to leave the inn after 10 pm, even to save someone being slaughtered by a were wolf just down the street.

They also have a problem with stealing. So if the group does the old ''grab some clothing off the laundry line to blend in'' the paladin will refuse to do so and will even expose them as the laundry thieves.

And they never want to go along with 'tricks'. They will refuse to hide or use misdirection or such. They won't sneak in to the castle, they must walk up and announce themselves...and worse.


DM's:A great many DM's have an unnatural hatred for paladins, or at least see them as a great chance to play around with ''laws/ethics/morality/life/death and such. So many DM's just attack a paladin player and try every second to destroy them. They will set up trap after trap to get the paladin to loose all their powers. They will constantly to all the crazy things like 'when fighting a troll and a girl asks for help finding her lost kitty, what should the paladin do?' A player might say ''fight the troll'', but the DM will jump up and scream ''Ha, you loose all your paladin stuff, you violated the oath of helpfullness''.

All other players: Everyone want to be jerks that can kill anyone they please, and don't like "goody" characters around. Look "DM" above. Simply as that.

Flame of Anor
2011-07-12, 11:35 AM
If I venture a guess as to why this is the case, I'd say that it's because it usually makes for a better story.

Or simply because it's true.

I mean...it's much easier to hold a grudge against someone than it is to just forgive them, right? (For example.)

Shadowknight12
2011-07-12, 04:21 PM
The sample evil character archetypes includes one whose evil act is simply knowing what other evildoers are doing and not interfering- "consenting" to it being done, so to speak- the "evil teacher".

So? You're still not proving that the opposite example (a person committing a good act by not interfering with the commission of a good act) is not true.


The sample evil acts, include plenty of things PCs might feel tempted to do "for the greater good"- cheating, stealing, murder, casting evil spells, and so on.

Again, so? You're not proving that villains might feel very tempted to do good because it's easier (to blend into society, get affection and a lesser resistance, etc), such as establishing a charity, aiding the poor and the sick, helping out good churches, etc.


The text in Champions of Ruin, and Champions of Valor, is pretty consistant with BoVD and BoED- they're basically "continuations" of those two, with Faerun prestige classes and sample characters.

Nope. Setting-specific, sorry, not valid. Faerun is not vanilla D&D. There are enough differences to make any FR book invalid in this specific debate. Same for other settings, really. Or are you saying that Ravenloft is a valid setting, a setting that actively rewards (and simultaneously punishes) evil? Or Eberron, where an evil cleric can serve a good deity and viceversa?


Maybe- but it's not so consistant with the general portrayal of Good as something that's hard to climb up to, and easy to slide down from.

Where is that portrayed? I think you're confusing Good with Exalted. They're not the same thing.


D&D does not have to be a world in balance. In fact it's quite common for Evil factions to outnumber and outpower Good ones- with it only being their unwillingness to cooperate, that prevents Good from being crushed.

That's what makes the heroism of good so great- because it's so outgunned.

I am not arguing that what you do in your campaigns is wrong or not supported by the literature on the subject. I think that it's good that D&D allows for both interpretations, so that people can have their "evil is easy, good is hard" slope and others can have the pyramid (or the flat ground). I even do something that's even MORE different (going by BoVD's alternative suggestion of subjective alignment).

What I'm saying is that it's been left vague on purpose, so that different campaigns can focus on different things. No interpretation is "more right" than the other.

EDIT:


Or simply because it's true.

I mean...it's much easier to hold a grudge against someone than it is to just forgive them, right? (For example.)

True IRL or in D&D? IRL, you are sadly mistaken. In D&D, I think I've established that my objective here is not to say "there is only one way to interpret alignment in D&D!" but to say "It's cool that there are so many different interpretations to give DMs and players more freedom to play."

navar100
2011-07-12, 08:55 PM
Just watched the Transformers movie today.

Optimus Prime = PALADIN!

Flame of Anor
2011-07-12, 09:28 PM
True IRL or in D&D? IRL, you are sadly mistaken.

You're saying it's easy to be a truly good person IRL? Would you like me to enumerate the countless philosophers who disagree with you? Or perhaps you could explain how there is so much evil and suffering in the world when it's easier to be good than evil...

Shadowknight12
2011-07-12, 10:33 PM
You're saying it's easy to be a truly good person IRL? Would you like me to enumerate the countless philosophers who disagree with you? Or perhaps you could explain how there is so much evil and suffering in the world when it's easier to be good than evil...

I'm not touching discussions of RL morality with a ten-foot pole. When I say that I think you're wrong, I may be disagreeing with you using the terms "good" and "evil" when applied to reality rather than D&D, rendering your statement invalid.

paladinofshojo
2011-07-12, 10:37 PM
True - but the question arises: does the Paladin WANT to work with them?

If he is forming a party for a goal, does he want Evil characters? Since, in D&D, the ends do not justify the means, the answer should be no.

If he is joining a party, does he want to join a party possibly constituted of Evil characters? He should, imo, at the very least check their goals before lending his allegiance to possibly Evil efforts.

A hypothetical scenario: suppose the party is going after an Evil whatever, who seeks to use Evil McGuffin towards Evil End. Shouldn't the Paladin, in good conscience, check to see if there's the possibility of one of the party wanting the Evil McGuffin for themselves, lest he bring down one evil only to put another in its place? He certainly can't dedicate decent attention to them while he's going toe-to-toe with Evil whatever or his Evil Dragon.



True but a paladin forming a party who demands to screen potential participants would find little success in forming a party in a stereotypical tavern of all places.... Moreover, a paladin is as I've said before someone who reacts to rather than initiates a conflict....his very nature is focused on the "here and now" rather than any long term plan or goal, if he has one, it's usually something like restoring law and order or saving the realm. As such, a paladin is focused on destroying the primary evil.....if he was worried about other evil surfacing after the primary evil is destroyed, why bother going on the quest to destroy the primary evil in the first place?

Flame of Anor
2011-07-13, 02:56 AM
I'm not touching discussions of RL morality with a ten-foot pole.

What's this, then?


IRL, you are sadly mistaken.

It seems to me that you're ready to tell me I'm wrong, but not to discuss it. Not a very mature attitude, I must say.



When I say that I think you're wrong, I may be disagreeing with you using the terms "good" and "evil" when applied to reality rather than D&D, rendering your statement invalid.

Are you saying that you're a moral relativist? Because if you are, and you really think that morality is something which only exists in a game world, then I don't think you can understand paladins, any more than a blind man can understand paintings.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-13, 03:34 AM
What's this, then?

It seems to me that you're ready to tell me I'm wrong, but not to discuss it. Not a very mature attitude, I must say.

No, I'm telling you that if you believe that RL morality works like D&D morality, you're mistaken. At least, I haven't seen any evidence that it does.


Are you saying that you're a moral relativist? Because if you are, and you really think that morality is something which only exists in a game world, then I don't think you can understand paladins, any more than a blind man can understand paintings.

I'm saying that IRL, I am able to understand many different kinds or morality systems, and I have chosen the one I believe will bring the most good. In D&D, I understand that many campaigns follow the standard of objective morality and I am aware of what must be done under such constraints to remain Good-aligned. Please, don't assume that I do not understand the matter at hand simply because I disagree with you. Thanks.

hamishspence
2011-07-13, 04:04 AM
Nope. Setting-specific, sorry, not valid. Faerun is not vanilla D&D. There are enough differences to make any FR book invalid in this specific debate. Same for other settings, really.

Faerun was vanilla D&D for a long period- in 2nd ed, the basic village characters started out in, was a Faerun one.

And Eberron, while making many Always Evil monsters Usually evil, and granting some extra rules for clerics, doesn't say anything about changing the basic morality system.

BoVD and BoED don't just talk about "Exalted" and "Vile" they talk about "Good" and "evil"- acts that a good character should balk at- and on the other side, acts that qualify as Evil.

Most acts that tend to be considered morally dubious in the present day, are listed as Evil in BoVD or BoED. The tie between "real morality" and "D&D morality" is not that weak.

For another example of the moral slant- BoVD makes it clear Evil spells have a corruptive influence (though a nonevil character might be able to get away with casting a few for good reasons and still be nonevil).

However BoED makes it clear Good spells have no redemptive influence, and that "an evil character does not normally choose to abandon his evil ways merely because he's been purified by the touch of the holy".

JBento
2011-07-13, 06:28 AM
There's an example of such a slant in one of Frank&K's tomes: IIRC, it goes something like this:

If Joe the Thatcher helps his poor neighbours by thatching their roofs for free, then he's Joe the Good-aligned Friendly Thatcher.

But if he also kills and eats one of his neighbours, then he's Joe the Evil Cannibal, and there's NO amount of free roof-thatching that'll change it.

I don't see why the Paladin would have such troubles forming a party - according to the PHB, roughly 33% of humans are Good-aligned, and the remaining PHB races have a large bias towards the Good alignment. I don't see any preclusion from or bias towards taverns in any alignment (though I can see Chaotic characters being advocated as more likely there).

Either way, if the Paladin is forming a party, he could just as well post a message in the barracks/jail/constabulary/etc. (which might bias the pool towards Lawful) or near Good-aligned temples (biasing it towards Good).

He's going to stop the Evil because, as you said, he's working in the "here and now." And NOW there's Evil McMeanie with a powerful Evil artifact.

hamishspence
2011-07-13, 06:41 AM
There's an example of such a slant in one of Frank&K's tomes: IIRC, it goes something like this:

If Joe the Thatcher helps his poor neighbours by thatching their roofs for free, then he's Joe the Good-aligned Friendly Thatcher.

But if he also kills and eats one of his neighbours, then he's Joe the Evil Cannibal, and there's NO amount of free roof-thatching that'll change it.

This sums it up well- even if Joe The Evil Cannibal only tortures, kills, and eats villains, and does Good the rest of the time, a paladin's unlikely to work with him knowing his hobby, unless the circumstances are desperate.


I don't see why the Paladin would have such troubles forming a party - according to the PHB, roughly 33% of humans are Good-aligned, and the remaining PHB races have a large bias towards the Good alignment.

Technically it doesn't give figures- but "no tendency toward any alignment, not even Neutral" does suggest that the figures for all three should be fairly close to 1/3.

The PHB does place humans in the True Neutral section when listing "typical alignments" for various races (and some classes)- but I'd say the bias toward TN is very small- it may be commoner than the other alignments, but not by much.

Talakeal
2011-07-13, 10:13 AM
D&D mortality is a lot more extreme than RL. Hell, ~1/3 of all people in D&D are evil. Can you imagine is 1/3 of people in RL were EVIL? I don't mean just selfish jerks, I mean actually evil. If you look at the numbers of felons or people with a ethically impairing mental disorder the numbers are no where near 1/3.


In D&D good requires meaningful sacrifice, but evil can be picked up like a disease from doing things with no ethical repercussions. Dangerous animal needs to be tranquilized? Evil. Pit fiend walks into town and the villagers decide to try and placate him so he won't eat them? Evil. Working together with the bad guys for the common good or to defeat a greater evil? Evil. Picking up the evil warlords Unholy Sword and using it against him? Evil. Summoning the ghosts of dead soldiers to defend their now helpless kingdom ala bed-knobs and broomsticks? Evil. Performing a minor evil act to prevent a much greater evil act? You better believe that's evil.

3.5 and later D&D toss around the title "Evil" so liberally that it has lost all meaning and isn't really useful for determining who the bad guys are, which I guess makes sense if they expect 1/3 of all people to be evil. Now you have to use the term "Vile" to see who the true bad guys are I guess.

Also, they say evil is like a taint that corrupts those who do evil acts for good ends. Funny how the PHB insists that alignment isn't a straightjacket and your actions influence you alignment and not vice versa, but still allows it to "corrupt you".

hamishspence
2011-07-13, 11:01 AM
In D&D good requires meaningful sacrifice, but evil can be picked up like a disease from doing things with no ethical repercussions. Dangerous animal needs to be tranquilized? Evil.
Strictly, substances that only cause unconsciousness or paralysis, are not evil to use- only ability damaging poisons, since they "cause unnecessary suffering". Arguably, this was a mistake.


Pit fiend walks into town and the villagers decide to try and placate him so he won't eat them? Evil.

Since they're generally only placated by more evil deeds, this tends to make sense.


Working together with the bad guys for the common good or to defeat a greater evil? Evil.
Not true according to BoED.


Picking up the evil warlords Unholy Sword and using it against him? Evil.
Again, where's the source that explicitly states this? The sword will do damage to the wielder (a negative level) but less damage to the victim (since it's immune to the extra damage) but nothing says it's an evil act to use that sword.


Summoning the ghosts of dead soldiers to defend their now helpless kingdom ala bed-knobs and broomsticks? Evil.
True- but minor evil acts don't change a good character's alignment to neutral- at least, not right away.


Performing a minor evil act to prevent a much greater evil act? You better believe that's evil.

Well, of course, otherwise it wouldn't be called a minor evil act. Again, good guys don't change to Neutral with the first act- it takes a pattern of evil deeds.

Starbuck_II
2011-07-13, 11:29 AM
This sums it up well- even if Joe The Evil Cannibal only tortures, kills, and eats villains, and does Good the rest of the time, a paladin's unlikely to work with him knowing his hobby, unless the circumstances are desperate.


Why? No book says Cannibalism is evil unless used for powering evil spells.

Talakeal
2011-07-13, 11:32 AM
According to the BoVD simply allowing a fiend to exist, let alone consorting with it or aiding it in any way, is evil.

Therefore, if a pit fiend walks into a bar and orders a beer, the barkeep is evil unless he tells the pit fiend "Your kind aren't welcome around here" and gathers a mob to chase him out of town.
Likewise, if the pit fiend offered to work with you to help destroy a mutual enemy, say for example a CE Balor or Red Dragon, you are evil for accepting his help.


As for the using an evil item, I have no idea if it is RAW or not, so I couldn't tell you the source, but I have been told on this board numerous times that it is and as I haven't read any of the alignment books in depth after the BoED and BoVD I take their word for it.


See, the thing is BoED claims that evil is all consuming. In real life if most everyone agrees that a small wrong to prevent a larger one is the right thing to do. BoED claims that is is ALWAYS evil and that no matter how great a good stems from from the act the end result is a gradual alignment shift toward evil.
So basically, anyone who actively tries to help people or stop evil will eventually become evil themselves.

My biggest problem with BoED and BoVD philosophy is that evil is mechanical while good is not. Perform an evil act, shift towards evil, even if the evil act is only evil according to the letter of the law or necessary.
Good, on the other hand, is not mechanical. Performing a good act does not slide you toward good. Therefore if you cast a good spell for an evil end you become evil, if you cast an evil spell for a good end, you become evil. Evil always wins in BoED / BoVD D&D.

Starbuck_II
2011-07-13, 12:16 PM
See, the thing is BoED claims that evil is all consuming. In real life if most everyone agrees that a small wrong to prevent a larger one is the right thing to do. BoED claims that is is ALWAYS evil and that no matter how great a good stems from from the act the end result is a gradual alignment shift toward evil.
So basically, anyone who actively tries to help people or stop evil will eventually become evil themselves.

Well, as a Paladin I think commiitting a small evil to prevent a larger one is never the right thing to do real or game life.
It is always evil. It might be the easier or more rewarding path, but not a a good thing.



My biggest problem with BoED and BoVD philosophy is that evil is mechanical while good is not. Perform an evil act, shift towards evil, even if the evil act is only evil according to the letter of the law or necessary.
Good, on the other hand, is not mechanical. Performing a good act does not slide you toward good. Therefore if you cast a good spell for an evil end you become evil, if you cast an evil spell for a good end, you become evil. Evil always wins in BoED / BoVD D&D.

Nope, there are no rules that performing a good act does not slide you good. That is just popular opinion. Assassin Jim who summons a celestial bee before going to bed does stay moderately good as long as he does more good than evil (summon more [good] than evil acts).

hamishspence
2011-07-13, 12:48 PM
Why? No book says Cannibalism is evil unless used for powering evil spells.

BoVD "In the broader sense, cannibals may be defined as creatures that eat other intelligent creatures for whatever perverted pleasure they gain from it".

So- it's not the "using it to power spells" that's the key feature, it's the "pleasure they gain from it".


Assassin Jim who summons a celestial bee before going to bed does stay moderately good as long as he does more good than evil (summon more [good] than evil acts).

BoED states explicitly otherwise - [Good] spells have no redemptive influence- an evil wizard that choose to can a whole bunch of [Good] spells won't change alignment.

That said, a Neutral character whose only Evil acts are minor (casting [Evil] spells) and only done for Good reasons- could arguably stay Neutral, according to Heroes of Horror.



My biggest problem with BoED and BoVD philosophy is that evil is mechanical while good is not. Perform an evil act, shift towards evil, even if the evil act is only evil according to the letter of the law or necessary.
Good, on the other hand, is not mechanical. Performing a good act does not slide you toward good. Therefore if you cast a good spell for an evil end you become evil, if you cast an evil spell for a good end, you become evil. Evil always wins in BoED / BoVD D&D.

Good acts done for selfish reasons become Neutral- but they don't become Evil- and don't guarantee an alignment change.


While BoVD says "allowing a fiend to exist, let alone helping one in any way, is clearly evil"- numerous D&D sources tend to contradict this, allowing Good characters with special powers, like paladins, to work with fiends, and not Fall.

Talakeal
2011-07-13, 12:55 PM
While BoVD says "allowing a fiend to exist, let alone helping one in any way, is clearly evil"- numerous D&D sources tend to contradict this, allowing Good characters with special powers, like paladins, to work with fiends, and not Fall.

That's actually my whole point. BoED and BoVD stay a lot of weird things that contradict other books as well as common sense. IMO they are best ignored except in a very specific style of campaign.



Well, as a Paladin I think commiitting a small evil to prevent a larger one is never the right thing to do real or game life.
It is always evil. It might be the easier or more rewarding path, but not a a good thing.

So you think it is evil to, say, give a child a vaccination? You are causing pain and suffering of an unwilling person, which is the definition of evil, yet by doing so you are potentially saving their life as well as the lives of anyone they might infect.

hamishspence
2011-07-13, 01:01 PM
PHB- "Evil involves hurting, oppressing, and killing others" (a case could be made that it is only unnecessary cases of hurting and killing that are evil).

BOVD and BOED mostly list acts that hurt, or oppress, as evil.

Stealing, cheating, murdering, torturing, and so on.

PHB- "Good makes personal sacrifices to help others"
BOED- "only Good acts that come with personal sacrifice, are Good- otherwise, they are Neutral".

The two tend to follow the same general theme.

And in the above case- a vaccination could be qualified as "necessary hurting"- with the intention of benefitting the person vaccinated.

If 1/3 of the population are Evil- that simply means that they oppress, hurt, exploit people, and the justification is (in the eyes of the universe) insufficient.

There are a myriad of ways to oppress people, and a myriad of excuses to make.

Most Evil people aren't psychopaths or sociopaths- they are simply oppressive or exploitative, and have rationalized it to themselves.

SITB
2011-07-13, 01:03 PM
BoVD "In the broader sense, cannibals may be defined as creatures that eat other intelligent creatures for whatever perverted pleasure they gain from it".

So- it's not the "using it to power spells" that's the key feature, it's the "pleasure they gain from it".

I enjoy eating steak because of it's delicious taste. Does that make me a bad person?

I mean, advocating cannibalism is evil for disrespecting the dead* is okay. But condeming cannibalism for enjoying the act of eating?



* If we assume that it has no effect on the soul.**

** Except that if you do eat the body it can't be used for necromancy which still has the evil tag so it's a net benefit.

hamishspence
2011-07-13, 01:05 PM
I enjoy eating steak because of it's delicious taste. Does that make me a bad person?

I mean, advocating cannibalism is evil for disrespecting the dead* is okay. But condeming cannibalism for enjoying the act of eating?

It's specifically the eating of "intelligent creatures"- which I think means sapient in this context.

If the intelligence of the creature contributes to the enjoyment of the act- this is where it begins.

(It goes on to point out that most dragons don't enjoy eating people any more than they would animals).

SITB
2011-07-13, 01:16 PM
It's specifically the eating of "intelligent creatures"- which I think means sapient in this context.

If the intelligence of the creature contributes to the enjoyment of the act- this is where it begins.

(It goes on to point out that most dragons don't enjoy eating people any more than they would animals).

So cannibalism is evil if you specifically practice it because you enjoy hurting other intelligent creatures? This seems like mustache-twirlingly evil level.

Starbuck_II
2011-07-13, 01:22 PM
It's specifically the eating of "intelligent creatures"- which I think means sapient in this context.

If the intelligence of the creature contributes to the enjoyment of the act- this is where it begins.

(It goes on to point out that most dragons don't enjoy eating people any more than they would animals).

So Cannabalism is okay if we like as much as steak but no more?

hamishspence
2011-07-13, 01:24 PM
It might not be the hurting- it might simply be the sense of power.

Even if the being was killed painlessly, the evil character might enjoy the thought that it was intelligent before it died- and see it as reaffirming their position "at the top of the food chain".

The therns, in the John Carter of Mars books- eat primarily other Martian races- specifically to affirm their position as "the gods of Mars".


So Cannabalism is okay if we like as much as steak but no more?

It is a little odd, true. It might be a case of "it's OK if it's not being done specifically because the victim is intelligent".

For survival, for example. Or possibly as a cultural practice- that's intended to honor the dead rather than desecrate them.

Maharet and Mekare's culture, in Queen of the Damned, may qualify.

SITB
2011-07-13, 01:32 PM
It might not be the hurting- it might simply be the sense of power.

Even if the being was killed painlessly, the evil character might enjoy the thought that it was intelligent before it died- and see it as reaffirming their position "at the top of the food chain".

The therns, in the John Carter of Mars books- eat primarily other Martian races- specifically to affirm their position as "the gods of Mars".

So cannibalism is bad because it involves acting out a power fantasy? That's an even worse justification. Hell, by that same reasoning every time someone does something vaguely A-holish in video games he is an evil person because he indulges in a power fantasy (See: Sims, Black and White etc).

hamishspence
2011-07-13, 01:39 PM
It's not the power fantasy on its own, or the cannibalism on its own- its the two put together.

"I need to survive" might be a good reason.
"The culture considers it a way to honor the dead" might be a good reason.

"I am a god, and gods only eat intelligent beings" is ... not a good reason.

SITB
2011-07-13, 01:50 PM
It's not the power fantasy on its own, or the cannibalism on its own- its the two put together.

"I need to survive" might be a good reason.
"The culture considers it a way to honor the dead" might be a good reason.

"I am a god, and gods only eat intelligent beings" is ... not a good reason.

So, as I said before, limited enough as to be seen as mustache-twirlingly level evil.

Not to mention if your culture itself practices cannibalism (For instance, the Trolls in Errant Story believe that by consuming the flesh of the fallen their spirit is passed on to the consumer and he becomes stronger for it, otherwise the spirit dissolves into nothingness which is one of the most dire punishments that can be meted.) then by that culture values cannibalism is good. And if a Troll, when he kills and eats the flesh of the fallen troll, enjoys the fact that he will be blessed with his strength. By your alignment logic he is evil. Despite the fact that it's standard practice for the Troll species, and every Troll prefers that his flesh will be eaten so his spirit would live forever.

hamishspence
2011-07-13, 01:57 PM
It's not a case of them "asserting their superiority over a lesser being" (by eating it) though- and (in the case of this troll) that's not where any enjoyment comes from.

Since trolls want to be eaten when they die, a troll eating another troll is in fact doing something the other troll approves of.

So the other troll is not, meaningfully, being "wronged".

The justification is pretty thin- but the point being, that there is a certain logic behind cannibalism of the kind specified in BoVD, being evil.

"Other cannibalism" is, arguably, not.

BoVD's attempts at defining evil acts don't always work- but you can see the general idea of where they're coming from.


So, as I said before, limited enough as to be seen as mustache-twirlingly level evil.

Non-moustache-twirlingly evil, evil characters, don't seem to get much mention in the PHB- it's the splatbooks that are more about "sympathetic evil" rather than "evil for profit" and "evil for pleasure"


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Lawful Evil, "Dominator"
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical," because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.

Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

Neutral Evil, "Malefactor"
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.

Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

Chaotic Evil, "Destroyer"
A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-13, 03:22 PM
Faerun was vanilla D&D for a long period- in 2nd ed, the basic village characters started out in, was a Faerun one.

Still not valid. The rules for handling divine characters, faith and alignment are actually quite different from the "vanilla" rules.


And Eberron, while making many Always Evil monsters Usually evil, and granting some extra rules for clerics, doesn't say anything about changing the basic morality system.

That IS changing the basic morality system. Plus, that's not the entire extent of the changes.


BoVD and BoED don't just talk about "Exalted" and "Vile" they talk about "Good" and "evil"- acts that a good character should balk at- and on the other side, acts that qualify as Evil.

Yes, but when they talk about what constitutes as good or evil, they don't make any specifications on which is easier or which is harder. Only when BoED starts talking about "the exalted path," it's where it starts talking about how hard it is.


Most acts that tend to be considered morally dubious in the present day, are listed as Evil in BoVD or BoED. The tie between "real morality" and "D&D morality" is not that weak.

The ties between RL morality and D&D morality are loose at best. And that's using the term "loose" loosely.


For another example of the moral slant- BoVD makes it clear Evil spells have a corruptive influence (though a nonevil character might be able to get away with casting a few for good reasons and still be nonevil).

However BoED makes it clear Good spells have no redemptive influence, and that "an evil character does not normally choose to abandon his evil ways merely because he's been purified by the touch of the holy".

You do realise that you're saying the exact same thing right? That the spells from one side don't automatically change your alignment to that? That's pretty standard, actually. Only paladins Fall for committing a single act of Evil. For everyone else, it's a gradual process.

As for the "corruptive" part, that's meaningless, since ALL evil acts corrupt. Evil spells are just like any other evil act. Corrupt, in this case, being defined as "takes you a step closer towards evil," which is exactly how alignment works. The more you do a certain kind of act, the more you slide towards that alignment. That's corruption for you.

There's corruption on the side of good, too. Look at the rules for redeeming evil-doers with Diplomacy.

Flame of Anor
2011-07-13, 04:35 PM
No, I'm telling you that if you believe that RL morality works like D&D morality, you're mistaken. At least, I haven't seen any evidence that it does.

Well, now, that depends on how you play D&D morality, yes? If you take the alignment system as a restriction, then no, it doesn't work very similarly. However, if you have a good DM and everyone understands the alignment system as simply a way to represent morality which is analogous to IRL morality, then it can be quite similar. Naturally, this may involve disregarding some rules in BoVD or BoED.


I'm saying that IRL, I am able to understand many different kinds or morality systems, and I have chosen the one I believe will bring the most good. In D&D, I understand that many campaigns follow the standard of objective morality and I am aware of what must be done under such constraints to remain Good-aligned.

If you've chosen the one that you believe will bring the most good, that implies that you were using a morality system to judge the "different kinds" of morality systems. That's a bit odd, because if the morality system you were judging by is correct, then why choose a new one--and if it's not, why are you judging by it?


Please, don't assume that I do not understand the matter at hand simply because I disagree with you. Thanks.

Well, you were unclear. I apologize.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-13, 05:09 PM
Well, now, that depends on how you play D&D morality, yes? If you take the alignment system as a restriction, then no, it doesn't work very similarly. However, if you have a good DM and everyone understands the alignment system as simply a way to represent morality which is analogous to IRL morality, then it can be quite similar. Naturally, this may involve disregarding some rules in BoVD or BoED.

Quite true, I will agree that's a perfectly valid way to play. However, you always have to disregard some rules in BoVD or BoED. Case in point, BoVD includes rules for subjective and objective evil. Considering both cannot coexist without some strange shenanigans, you'll have to disregard one or the other.


If you've chosen the one that you believe will bring the most good, that implies that you were using a morality system to judge the "different kinds" of morality systems. That's a bit odd, because if the morality system you were judging by is correct, then why choose a new one--and if it's not, why are you judging by it?

If you'll allow me a metaphor, it's much like knowing that there are different ways to take care of your garden. Depending on what you interpret as "taking care" and what your exact goals for the garden are, you have an arrange of different gardening techniques that prioritise different things. Some of them prioritise the delicate plants over the rest, while others focus exclusively on plants that bear some use, like fruits, leaves or flowers. Some say that the garden must be razed of all plants but the ones you want, while others say that it's important to allow plants to grow freely, even if that might hamper the growth of the ones you favour. Some say that you have to use specially prepared fertilisers, while others say that you must only use natural, organic stuff.

So what I do is decide what I want for my garden, what's important for me, and then I analyse all the different horticultural philosophies and pick the one I believe will get me closer to my goals, perhaps with some modifications taken from other philosophies.


Well, you were unclear. I apologize.

You're welcome, and my apologies for being unclear. :smallsmile:

McStabbington
2011-07-13, 09:56 PM
Quite true, I will agree that's a perfectly valid way to play. However, you always have to disregard some rules in BoVD or BoED. Case in point, BoVD includes rules for subjective and objective evil. Considering both cannot coexist without some strange shenanigans, you'll have to disregard one or the other.


Er, what? The distinction between subjective and objective evil is just "what is evil given the observer" and "what is always evil". Murder is objectively evil; there are no times where murder is a good thing. Driving as fast as you can on the left-hand side of the road is subjectively evil; it's not bad if you're alone on a long, straight road in Britain, and any observer would cite you as failing, at most, to technically violating the law, but it's liable to lead to injury and death on the Las Vegas strip. I see no reason why these moral facts can't coexist at the same time.

Flame of Anor
2011-07-13, 10:47 PM
Er, what? The distinction between subjective and objective evil is just "what is evil given the observer" and "what is always evil". Murder is objectively evil; there are no times where murder is a good thing. Driving as fast as you can on the left-hand side of the road is subjectively evil; it's not bad if you're alone on a long, straight road in Britain, and any observer would cite you as failing, at most, to technically violating the law, but it's liable to lead to injury and death on the Las Vegas strip. I see no reason why these moral facts can't coexist at the same time.

You are referring not exactly to subjective vs. objective evil, but rather to situational vs. universal evil. Perhaps Shadowknight12 was referring to "subjective evil" in the sense of moral relativism.

Talakeal
2011-07-13, 10:56 PM
Er, what? The distinction between subjective and objective evil is just "what is evil given the observer" and "what is always evil". Murder is objectively evil; there are no times where murder is a good thing.

"Murder" is a loaded term though. If you replace it with something more neutral like "killing an intelligent being" then it isn't quite so objective. Execution of a criminal, mercy killing of someone in pain, suicide, killing in self defense, killing in a war, killing for survival, or even killing accidently or through inaction or negligence are not so clear cut. You could find a lot of people who would argue that each of those is not only not evil, but perhaps even a good thing.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-13, 11:05 PM
Er, what? The distinction between subjective and objective evil is just "what is evil given the observer" and "what is always evil". Murder is objectively evil; there are no times where murder is a good thing. Driving as fast as you can on the left-hand side of the road is subjectively evil; it's not bad if you're alone on a long, straight road in Britain, and any observer would cite you as failing, at most, to technically violating the law, but it's liable to lead to injury and death on the Las Vegas strip. I see no reason why these moral facts can't coexist at the same time.

If you had read the actual sections I was referencing, I get the feeling you wouldn't have said that. Because it makes no sense. I think Flame of Anor has it right and you're confusing terms.

I quite disagree that murder is objectively evil. In fact, D&D disagrees that murder is objectively evil. Look at both BoVD and BoED. As terrible as those books were, they are (whether we like it or not), our main reference when it comes to good and evil. In D&D, sometimes murder is objectively evil, sometimes objectively neutral and sometimes (such as in the case of a fiend or evil deity) objectively good.

The subjective vs. objective debate is explained in further in BoVD. In short, it says that in objective evil, there's a list of things that are always evil and shift your alignment towards evil (this is the typical D&D morality). So all evil people are actually evil and if someone pings as evil in your Detect Evil sight, they're actually evil and there's no arguing. It doesn't matter if the objective force of evil says that murder is evil or that jaywalking is evil. You do the action, you're evil. Some actions have more qualifiers, of course. Murder in itself is not evil in D&D, but murdering a celestial is. Objective evil can be measured and counted, and there are no arguments over what is evil and what is not. If it shifted your alignment towards Evil, it's evil, period.

Subjective evil means that everyone has an idea of what evil is but nobody's right (or wrong). A paladin using detect evil sees as evil people who have committed the actions she deems evil. A person who deems that ALL murder is evil will see ALL people who have committed a sufficient amount of murder as evil.

Objective evil: Two paladins use detect evil on a person, both see exactly the same.
Subjective evil: Two paladins use detect evil on a person, both see different things.

As you can see, both cannot coexist without some really convoluted shenanigans.

hamishspence
2011-07-14, 03:24 AM
Murder in itself is not evil in D&D, but murdering a celestial is.

BoVD says otherwise. "Murder is one of the most horrible acts a being can commit" but "the adventurers who sneak into the green dragon's lair to slay it are not murderers"

So does Fiendish Codex 2, for that matter- listing Murder as a very severe Corrupt act (Cold Blooded Murder is listed as worse, and Murder For Pleasure is worst of all.)

The tricky part is identifying when a killing qualifies as murder, and when it doesn't.

Ones which are "not objectively evil, but risky" including lying (in BoVD).

There's also a certain amount of leeway on "if you do X evil act, you're evil"- the DMG does point out that alignment changes take time, as does Champions of Ruin- saying that good characters may be "driven to evil acts from time to time". And Heroes of Horror goes so far as to suggest that a character who consistantly commits evil acts, can still be Neutral, if their every evil act is "for good reasons"

I would add "and is a fairly minor evil act" to that requirement though, given that in general regular evildoing tends to suggest an evil alignment according to Champions of Ruin.


Still not valid. The rules for handling divine characters, faith and alignment are actually quite different from the "vanilla" rules.
Divine characters and faith, yes- but alignment? As far as I can tell, everything in Champions of Ruin about alignment is simply a continuation of BoVD.


That IS changing the basic morality system. Plus, that's not the entire extent of the changes.

Changing the level of evilness of the monsters, is not the same thing as changing "what counts as evil"


There's corruption on the side of good, too. Look at the rules for redeeming evil-doers with Diplomacy.

That's more "altering someone's outlook" than "they change alignment through committing good acts.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-14, 03:52 AM
BoVD says otherwise. "Murder is one of the most horrible acts a being can commit" but "the adventurers who sneak into the green dragon's lair to slay it are not murderers"

So does Fiendish Codex 2, for that matter- listing Murder as a very severe Corrupt act (Cold Blooded Murder is listed as worse, and Murder For Pleasure is worst of all.)

The tricky part is identifying when a killing qualifies as murder, and when it doesn't.

If a party of heroes hunts down hapless fiends for pleasure, that's murder. Assume all the necessary qualifiers for murder are there. The fiend can't defend itself, it's no threat to the "heroes," all that. It fulfils all the qualifiers for "murder for pleasure." Now, since it's a fiend, it's actually an objectively good act, because killing a fiend (regardless of the circumstances) is always a good act. Not a dragon, but a fiend. An Outsider with the (Evil) subtype (and presumably with evil alignment).


Ones which are "not objectively evil, but risky" including lying (in BoVD).

There's also a certain amount of leeway on "if you do X evil act, you're evil"- the DMG does point out that alignment changes take time, as does Champions of Ruin- saying that good characters may be "driven to evil acts from time to time". And Heroes of Horror goes so far as to suggest that a character who consistantly commits evil acts, can still be Neutral, if their every evil act is "for good reasons"

I would add "and is a fairly minor evil act" to that requirement though, given that in general regular evildoing tends to suggest an evil alignment according to Champions of Ruin.

Divine characters and faith, yes- but alignment? As far as I can tell, everything in Champions of Ruin about alignment is simply a continuation of BoVD.

I have never read nor I plan to read Champions of Ruin. I was less than pleased with BoVD and BoED, but they were sadly affecting "vanilla" D&D, so I had to read them. Champions of Ruin may say whatever it wants to say. It's a setting-specific book and therefore I will pay no mind to it. It might as well not exist to me at all. And for the purposes of non-FR discussions, this is actually not a problem in the slightest.

Heroes of Horror specifically states that it's offering alternatives on alignment. What with the Taint rules and all that.


Changing the level of evilness of the monsters, is not the same thing as changing "what counts as evil"

I disagree. If vanilla D&D says that some creatures are "Always Evil," it's got an in-game reason, flimsy as it may be. Changing this changes the way alignment works, since the same dragons are doing the same things but receiving a different objective judgement from the objective forces of Law, Good, Chaos and Evil.


That's more "altering someone's outlook" than "they change alignment through committing good acts.

Semantics. If they change outlook, they'll be more inclined to do good acts and viceversa. Same thing with evil. They might have different approaches, of course. Evil may want you to do more evil acts so that later your outlook changes, while good might prefer to change your outlook from the start so that you later do good on your own. They're still doing the same thing, only starting from different ends of the same line.

hamishspence
2011-07-14, 04:05 AM
If a party of heroes hunts down hapless fiends for pleasure, that's murder. Assume all the necessary qualifiers for murder are there. The fiend can't defend itself, it's no threat to the "heroes," all that. It fulfils all the qualifiers for "murder for pleasure." Now, since it's a fiend, it's actually an objectively good act, because killing a fiend (regardless of the circumstances) is always a good act. Not a dragon, but a fiend. An Outsider with the (Evil) subtype (and presumably with evil alignment).

This would probably fall into "which takes precedence"

Personally I'd go with "murder is always evil" takes precedence over "killing a fiend is always Good"- thus resolving the moral dissonance, and allowing adventures in Sigil, or the City of Brass, to not devolve into the players being hunted by the whole city.


Heroes of Horror specifically states that it's offering alternatives on alignment. What with the Taint rules and all that.

However, not everything in the book is covered under this- new classes like the Dread Necromancer, don't have to be in a campaign that uses Taint, and the text in Dread Necromancer'd description that says they can "combine evil deeds with good intentions and remain solidly neutral" may be valid in an ordinary campaign.



I disagree. If vanilla D&D says that some creatures are "Always Evil," it's got an in-game reason, flimsy as it may be. Changing this changes the way alignment works, since the same dragons are doing the same things but receiving a different objective judgement from the objective forces of Law, Good, Chaos and Evil.

Nope. Good and Neutral chromatic dragons don't do the same things as Evil ones. The judgement is the same- it's just that the dragons' personalities exhibit more variety.


Semantics. If they change outlook, they'll be more inclined to do good acts and viceversa. Same thing with evil. They might have different approaches, of course. Evil may want you to do more evil acts so that later your outlook changes, while good might prefer to change your outlook from the start so that you later do good on your own. They're still doing the same thing, only starting from different ends of the same line.

A person can keep doing Evil acts without changing the "basic outlook" of "make personal sacrifices to help strangers" and "do not harm the innocent"- using an act-based morality for Evilness, means that such a character eventually drops to Neutral, and finally, evil. This makes sense for Evil.

By contrast, it makes more sense to use an outlook-based morality as well as an act-based morality for Good. No amount of summoning celestial bees will change an Evil character's alignment- the only thing that will do so is "renouncing Evil deeds".

Shadowknight12
2011-07-14, 04:20 AM
This would probably fall into "which takes precedence"

Personally I'd go with "murder is always evil" takes precedence over "killing a fiend is always Good"- thus resolving the moral dissonance, and allowing adventures in Sigil, or the City of Brass, to not devolve into the players being hunted by the whole city.

All well and good, but that's not what the rules say. The rules say that killing an evil outsider is a Good act.


However, not everything in the book is covered under this- new classes like the Dread Necromancer, don't have to be in a campaign that uses Taint, and the text in Dread Necromancer'd description that says they can "combine evil deeds with good intentions and remain solidly neutral" may be valid in an ordinary campaign.

Yes, which is actually a point in my favour when I said that evil and good were balanced. According to that, you can consistently perform evil acts (presumably the casting of evil spells) while still avoiding an evil alignment because they balance out each evil act with a good act. If evil was easier or stronger than good, no amount of good acts would save a person from sliding towards evil. Or at least the acts would have to be many and of a greater magnitude than the evil acts committed, which is not the case.

Also, I have no idea why the Dread Necromancer can't be good-aligned, considering that not all the spells in its repertoire have the [Evil] descriptor. Must be the whole "transitioning towards undead" coupled with the arbitrary "all undead are evil" rule that's always going about.


Nope. Good and Neutral chromatic dragons don't do the same things as Evil ones. The judgement is the same- it's just that the dragons' personalities exhibit more variety.

You missed my point. A silver dragon in vanilla does the same things a silver dragon does in Eberron, yet it's no longer Always Lawful Good. Something has changed in the way the objective forces of Law and Good see silver dragons.


A person can keep doing Evil acts without changing the "basic outlook" of "make personal sacrifices to help strangers" and "do not harm the innocent"- using an act-based morality for Evilness, means that such a character eventually drops to Neutral, and finally, evil. This makes sense for Evil.

By contrast, it makes more sense to use an outlook-based morality as well as an act-based morality for Good. No amount of summoning celestial bees will change an Evil character's alignment- the only thing that will do so is "renouncing Evil deeds".

This is actually impossible, according to the rules. It is impossible that both forces work under different premises. Either they're both working under the same premises and merely have different tactics (as I outlined in my previous post) or you're confusing two alternative ways of handling alignment in a campaign (act-based vs. outlook-based). Either [Good], [Lawful], [Chaotic] and [Evil] spells don't change your alignment (unless you "renounce your [alignment] deeds") or they do, eventually making you slide towards that alignment.

If you insist that this is the case, I'm afraid you'll have to prove it, since there is no place in the rules that says that each objective alignment force is handled with a different premise.

hamishspence
2011-07-14, 04:26 AM
All well and good, but that's not what the rules say. The rules say that killing an evil outsider is a Good act.

"Killing" is distinct from "Murder" - so arguably, any killings of fiends that qualify as Murder count as evil, but any killings that don't qualify as murder count as Good.

Result- logical problem is resolved.



You missed my point. A silver dragon in vanilla does the same things a silver dragon does in Eberron, yet it's no longer Always Lawful Good. Something has changed in the way the objective forces of Law and Good see silver dragons.

Nope- the description in the monster section is quote clear- it's the monster behaviour that's changed, not the alignment system.


This is actually impossible, according to the rules. It is impossible that both forces work under different premises. Either they're both working under the same premises and merely have different tactics (as I outlined in my previous post) or you're confusing two alternative ways of handling alignment in a campaign (act-based vs. outlook-based). Either [Good], [Lawful], [Chaotic] and [Evil] spells don't change your alignment (unless you "renounce your [alignment] deeds") or they do, eventually making you slide towards that alignment.

If you insist that this is the case, I'm afraid you'll have to prove it, since there is no place in the rules that says that each objective alignment force is handled with a different premise.

BoVD's description of evil spells "the path of evil magic leads swiftly to corruption" vs BoED's description of Good spells "Good spells have no redemptive influence on those who cast them."

Shadowknight12
2011-07-14, 04:39 AM
"Killing" is distinct from "Murder" - so arguably, any killings of fiends that qualify as Murder count as evil, but any killings that don't qualify as murder count as Good.

Result- logical problem is resolved.

Murder is still killing.


Nope- the description in the monster section is quote clear- it's the monster behaviour that's changed, not the alignment system.

"Alignments are relative gauges of a character or creature’s viewpoint, and not absolute barometers of affiliation and action; nothing is exactly as it seems. Alignments are blurred, so that it’s possible to encounter an evil silver dragon or a good vampire. Traditionally good aligned creatures may wind up opposed to the heroes, while well-known agents of evil might provide assistance when it’s least expected."

That's actually saying that BOTH things have changed, the monster behaviour and the way alignment works.


BoVD's description of evil spells "the path of evil magic leads swiftly to corruption" vs BoED's description of Good spells "Good spells have no redemptive influence on those who cast them."

Taken out of context, those quotes seem to support the incoherency you proposed before, but if you look at the actual paragraphs, they're not talking about the same things, so they're actually not comparable. In BoED, it talks about "casting a few good spells" indicating (correctly) that a small amount of good acts is not enough to shift alignment. In BoVD, it talks about getting away with casting a few evil spells, again confirming that a small quantity of evil acts are not enough to shift alignment. Then it goes on to talk about the "path of evil magic," implying habit and a greater quantity of evil acts being performed.

If we understand "path of evil magic" as "repeatedly casting evil spells," then that is corruptive because that is the same as repeatedly performing evil acts. Good could be just as corruptive if one were to take up the "path of good magic."

TL;DR: They're not talking about the same things.

hamishspence
2011-07-14, 04:48 AM
Murder is still killing.

But it's a subsection of it- since not all killings are Murder. Thus, the simplest resolution to "killing a fiend is always Good" is to add "as long as that killing is not Murder".

While Good could be that redemptive if practiced consistantly- the book doesn't actually say it is. In fact, the "no redemptive influence" strongly implies that it is not, in this case.

Whereas the BoVD book does say evil is corruptive if practiced consistantly.

If a character casts Good and Evil spells every week, in roughly equal quantities- are they Neutral?

Or, for that matter, if a character murders people regularly, but also saves people's lives regularly- are they Neutral?

Somehow, this seems hard to believe.


"Alignments are relative gauges of a character or creature’s viewpoint, and not absolute barometers of affiliation and action; nothing is exactly as it seems. Alignments are blurred, so that it’s possible to encounter an evil silver dragon or a good vampire. Traditionally good aligned creatures may wind up opposed to the heroes, while well-known agents of evil might provide assistance when it’s least expected."

This is not incompatible with a non-Eberron campaign. The core MM does say that even for "Always X alignment" monsters, there are exceptions.

Books like Exemplars of Evil and Heroes of Horror, and even BoED do raise the possibility of alliance with evil against Worse Evil, or of Good aligned beings being misguided and thus in opposition to the heroes.

Eberron simply takes the real flexibility of D&D alignment, and emphasises it.

One of the biggest complaints about Karma Meters in computer games, especially D&D ones- is that they are balanced- thus, redemption becomes absurdly easy- just a matter of casting a few Good spells or making a few charitable donations.

Whereas- with Fiendish Codex 2- and other sources- redemption is not easy- good acts don't matter, if they're not part of the atonement for evil ones.

TV Tropes said it best:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidNeutral

Stupid Neutral people tend to think of morality as balancing a metaphysical checkbook; any evil deed can be 'cancelled out' by committing an equally good deed. No remorse or atonement is needed; to these people, there is no Moral Event Horizon past which their actions cannot be forgiven by good works (or evil works, as the case may be). In short, these people are the types who will build an orphanage and then 'balance it out' by burning down the orphanage across the street. This pattern of kicking the dog and then stopping to pet it immediately afterwards just results in a very neurotic dog... and a very confused audience.

This kind of behaviour is resolved (using sources like BoED, Champions of Ruin, Fiendish Codex 2, etc) as more appropriate for an Evil alignment than a Neutral one.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-14, 05:38 AM
But it's a subsection of it- since not all killings are Murder. Thus, the simplest resolution to "killing a fiend is always Good" is to add "as long as that killing is not Murder".

While not all killings are murder, all murders are killing, so the rule still applies. Also, if you're going to start saying that house rules are applicable to this debate, I'm bringing my own, too. :smalltongue:


While Good could be that redemptive if practiced consistantly- the book doesn't actually say it is. In fact, the "no redemptive influence" strongly implies that it is not, in this case.

Yes, that was my argument all along. That some things are not stated in the books, so you can't make categorical affirmations about things you don't know. "Implied" is actually fabrication until demonstrated.


Whereas the BoVD book does say evil is corruptive if practiced consistantly.

That is stated. It is not stated what happens with good. You cannot say that good doesn't behave the same way, just like you cannot say that it does. It is an unknown.


If a character casts Good and Evil spells every week, in roughly equal quantities- are they Neutral?

Or, for that matter, if a character murders people regularly, but also saves people's lives regularly- are they Neutral?

Somehow, this seems hard to believe.

You cited the Dread Necromancer yourself. It doesn't even say "casting evil spells," it actually does say "performing evil acts," so the answer would be yes. They do balance each other out. According to Heroes of Horror.


This is not incompatible with a non-Eberron campaign. The core MM does say that even for "Always X alignment" monsters, there are exceptions.

Books like Exemplars of Evil and Heroes of Horror, and even BoED do raise the possibility of alliance with evil against Worse Evil, or of Good aligned beings being misguided and thus in opposition to the heroes.

Eberron simply takes the real flexibility of D&D alignment, and emphasises it.

Yes, it is, because it's specifically stated that alignment works different, that it is blurry, etc. Yes, those exception exist, but it's never stated why those exceptions occur, if it's something that is (for a lack of a better word) "genetic" and ingrained in their very being (such as Outsiders) or if it's a consequence of the culture in which they were raised. It is, as I've been saying all along, up to the DM to decide.


One of the biggest complaints about Karma Meters in computer games, especially D&D ones- is that they are balanced- thus, redemption becomes absurdly easy- just a matter of casting a few Good spells or making a few charitable donations.

Whereas- with Fiendish Codex 2- and other sources- redemption is not easy- good acts don't matter, if they're not part of the atonement for evil ones.

Irrelevant, really. All of that is opinion, not fact, and we've agreed we have different opinions on D&D morality and how to implement it.

Also, you're not defining whether "don't matter" refers to the established "a few good acts don't change alignment" or if that source is actually saying "no amount of good acts can change alignment." If it's the former, it's still in keeping with everything I've been saying. If it's the latter, it's contradicting both BoVD and BoED.


TV Tropes said it best:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidNeutral

This kind of behaviour is resolved (using sources like BoED, Champions of Ruin, Fiendish Codex 2, etc) as more appropriate for an Evil alignment than a Neutral one.

Firstly, that's opinion, not fact, regardless of whether it's been posted on an informal wiki or not. It is not said, anywhere, that that is NOT how the alignment system works. In fact, Heroes of Horror (in the Alignment part of the Dread Necromancer class) says that it's exactly how alignment works.

If you choose to skew your interpretation of the sources to fit your criteria, I can do the same, and say that, since there's nothing stopping me from declaring Good, Law and Chaos to be as corrupting as Evil, then that's the more appropriate way of handling it.

hamishspence
2011-07-14, 05:46 AM
"Murder is always evil" isn't a houserule- it's a rule in Fiendish Codex 2.

As to "how good behaves is unknown" for good to behave exactly like Evil- leads to logical contradictions- the aforementioned "automatically go to heaven" + "automatically go to hell" contradiction.

"No amount of good acts can change alignment in the absence of a change of outlook" is pretty much what BoED states.

Heroes of Horror specifically states "for good ends"- so a person who does a mixture of evil and good acts, but the evil acts are for good ends, can maintain a Neutral alignment.

One whose evil acts are not for good ends, can't.

I will happily concede there isn't enough evidence to prove the alignment system is slanted, but so far IMO there is more evidence in favour of a slant, than there is evidence against it.

Given this comment here:


The summoner who summons and bargains with fiends to protect his loved ones will not, in fact, betray those he cares about. Yet he is doubtlessly evil for repeatedly and chronically casting [Evil] spells. The sorceress who believes herself to be good and would never even think of betraying her kinsmen, and who also believes that utopia is possible and in order to do so she must systematically Mindrape every man, woman and child in her realm to make them Lawful Good and remove traces of violence from their psyches, is also evil, if only because she is, again, repeatedly and habitually casting an [Evil] spell.

is your argument, that the only thing that's stopping these characters from being Good/Neutral, is that they're not casting Good spells as well?

Shadowknight12
2011-07-14, 06:24 AM
"Murder is always evil" isn't a houserule- it's a rule in Fiendish Codex 2.

I meant the addition of "as long as that killing is not murder." That's a houserule.


As to "how good behaves is unknown" for good to behave exactly like Evil- leads to logical contradictions- the aforementioned "automatically go to heaven" + "automatically go to hell" contradiction.

What aforementioned contradiction?

Also, saying that good does not behave exactly like evil also contradicts any time the rules speak of the four alignment forces equally. If they didn't behave equally, it'd be impossible to speak of them equally. Also, do prove that it's stated in the rules, in no uncertain terms, that they do not behave equally. And do not say "evil does this" and "good does that." Prove beyond any doubt that they don't behave equally and I'll concede the point.


"No amount of good acts can change alignment in the absence of a change of outlook" is pretty much what BoED states.

That's not what I got out of the book, actually. That changing outlook is a way to get someone to become good, sure, that's true. But in no way it says that no amount of good acts will turn a person good. It only says that a few good acts will not turn a person good. They're not the same thing.


Heroes of Horror specifically states "for good ends"- so a person who does a mixture of evil and good acts, but the evil acts are for good ends, can maintain a Neutral alignment.

One whose evil acts are not for good ends, can't.

It actually says "balance evil acts with good intentions." This can mean two different things. It can mean that every evil act must have a good intention behind it or it can mean that you perform an evil act for X intention and then perform act Y with good intentions to balance out your alignment. It could go either way.


I will happily concede there isn't enough evidence to prove the alignment system is slanted, but so far IMO there is more evidence in favour of a slant, than there is evidence against it.

And my impressions are the opposite. It had never occurred to me that the alignment system had a slant until today.


Given this comment here:



is your argument, that the only thing that's stopping these characters from being Good/Neutral, is that they're not casting Good spells as well?

Precisely. Repeatedly casting [Evil] spells will turn a person evil, just like repeatedly committing any other kind of evil acts. Both cases are being done for the greater good and with the best of intentions, but the absence of good acts to balance out the evil acts cause a slide towards evil. That's not what I personally use in my campaigns, but it's the way I understand objective morality works in D&D.

hamishspence
2011-07-14, 06:32 AM
I mentioned it back here.


The idea of someone having committed both "enough good deeds to automatically go to Celestia regardless of the evil they did in life" and

"enough evil deeds to automatically go to Baator regardless of the good they did in life"

seems a bit logically contradictory.


if Good worked exactly like Evil, with "consecration points" vs "corrupt points" (like Consecrate Spell vs Corrupt spell metamagic feats)

it would lead to this.

and "Good spells have no redemptive influence" sounds a lot like "no amount of casting Good spells will turn an Evil guy into a Neutral guy" to me.

Though admittedly I might be biased in that regard.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-14, 07:02 AM
I mentioned it back here.

if Good worked exactly like Evil, with "consecration points" vs "corrupt points" (like Consecrate Spell vs Corrupt spell metamagic feats)

it would lead to this.

Um, it already happens. Save very specific exceptions, all creatures have, in their lives, committed acts of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos. Whichever you've committed the most of determines your alignment, and therefore, your afterlife destination. Note how paladins do not fall for having committed evil acts in the past, but for committing them from the moment they take their first level in the class onwards. And even upon the commission of such acts, they can still gain Atonement.

So a paladin actually goes to Celestia regardless of the evil he committed in life, provided he remains Lawful Good and (perhaps, it is not clear) atoned for whatever evil he committed.


and "Good spells have no redemptive influence" sounds a lot like "no amount of casting Good spells will turn an Evil guy into a Neutral guy" to me.

Though admittedly I might be biased in that regard.

We don't know if evil spells, by themselves, have no "corrupting" influence. The bit about evil magic being corruptive may be simply talking about how repeated acts of evil are, as a whole, corruptive. In fact, the repeated assertions that casting a few evil spells has no effect on alignment could be used as evidence that by themselves, evil spells have no "corrupting" influence either.

hamishspence
2011-07-14, 07:08 AM
So a paladin actually goes to Celestia regardless of the evil he committed in life, provided he remains Lawful Good and (perhaps, it is not clear) atoned for whatever evil he committed.

In FC2 it's pretty clear that (past a certain level of corruption) the atonement is required.

Concerning [evil] spells- casting one is a 1 point Corrupt act in FC2.

That said, a case can certainly be made that a person can maintain a neutral alignment despite regularly casting [evil] spells.

For another example- imagine a serial-killing doctor. They save lives, all the time. They also commit murders regularly. Do the Good acts of regular lifesaving, equal the evil acts of regular Murder- allowing such an unrepentant murderer to qualify as Neutral?

I don't think they do.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-14, 07:18 AM
In FC2 it's pretty clear that (past a certain level of corruption) the atonement is required.

Concerning [evil] spells- casting one is a 1 point Corrupt act in FC2.

That said, a case can certainly be made that a person can maintain a neutral alignment despite regularly casting [evil] spells.

For another example- imagine a serial-killing doctor. They save lives, all the time. They also commit murders regularly. Do the Good acts of regular lifesaving, equal the evil acts of regular Murder- allowing such an unrepentant murderer to qualify as Neutral?

I don't think they do.

Again, you're not proving that Good, Law and Chaos don't work the same way. Atonement is not just for Evil.

It depends on the amount and the nature of the acts, of course. If he kills one person a month because he firmly believes he's ridding the world of evil, and he keeps on saving lives in the meantime, it wouldn't cost me that much to believe him to be Neutral or even Good. After all, standard adventurers do far worse.

JBento
2011-07-14, 08:48 AM
A doctor saving lives isn't doing any Good acts, assuming he's not doing it pro bono and without ulterior motives. If he's getting paid for it, it's a Neutral act, as he's receving compensation for doing something without risk or sacrifice.

Talakeal
2011-07-14, 10:42 AM
A doctor saving lives isn't doing any Good acts, assuming he's not doing it pro bono and without ulterior motives. If he's getting paid for it, it's a Neutral act, as he's receving compensation for doing something without risk or sacrifice.

Being a doctor is a very difficult and time consuming process, and I doubt most of them go into it just for the money. Unless the doctor is independently wealthy they need to be paid for their work, or else they would have to seek out a second job where they are not saving lives, otherwise they die on the street and can't help anyone. As most places have a shortage of medical care, you don't want doctors having to seek out a second job where they are not saving lives, so you pay them.

hamishspence
2011-07-14, 10:43 AM
For the moment- let's leave it as pro bono. Or at least- by most standards, the pay not being enough, to downgrade their work from Good act to Neutral act.

And, in this case, it might involve them expending more than just time- in a somewhat contagious situation, it might involve personal risk as well.

Same principles would apply to volunteer lifeguards, or various other occupations that involve lifesaving for little compensation.



It depends on the amount and the nature of the acts, of course. If he kills one person a month because he firmly believes he's ridding the world of evil, and he keeps on saving lives in the meantime, it wouldn't cost me that much to believe him to be Neutral or even Good. After all, standard adventurers do far worse.

And if he does so for profit, or because he's addicted to killing?

And "standard adventurers do far worse"? Where's this said? As far as I can tell, adventurers aren't exempt from the general principle that murder is a serious evil act, and that "lifesaving" is not enough to balance it out.

McStabbington
2011-07-14, 10:54 AM
If you had read the actual sections I was referencing, I get the feeling you wouldn't have said that. Because it makes no sense. I think Flame of Anor has it right and you're confusing terms.

I quite disagree that murder is objectively evil. In fact, D&D disagrees that murder is objectively evil. Look at both BoVD and BoED. As terrible as those books were, they are (whether we like it or not), our main reference when it comes to good and evil. In D&D, sometimes murder is objectively evil, sometimes objectively neutral and sometimes (such as in the case of a fiend or evil deity) objectively good.

The same BoED that says:

"For good characters who devote their lives to hunting and exterminating the forces of evil, evil's most seductive lure may be the abandonment of mercy. Mercy means giving quarter to enemies who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion and even kindness. It is, in effect, the good doctrine of respect for life taken to its logical extreme--respecting and honoring even the life of one's enemy . . . Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness or escape from captivity to continue their evil deeds." p.7

If you have trouble finding that passage, it's right above a picture of a paladin confronting two unarmed succubi with the caption "A paladin must choose between destroying evil and honoring love."

Weirdly enough, it also states that violence should have just cause (p.9), citing the fact that the fact that you're attacking an evil band of orcs doesn't justify your actions if it is unprovoked or for the sake of revenge. It also cites violence's need to spring from good intentions (Id.) and that the means used must be as good as the ends sought (p.10) This is in keeping with the passage that states: "In the D&D universe . . . an evil act is an evil act, no matter what good result it may achieve. A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood." (p.9)

So I really don't think it's that much of a stretch to say that, according to the BoED, it is a particularly vile act to murder, even if it is a fiend. If they surrender and throw themselves on your mercy, they are still as evil as evil can be, and they should be treated as such: they should be tried for the crimes they've committed, and punished with death or banishment. That's not murder. If, however, you simply walk up to said surrendered fiend, say "I am going to make you pay for all the hurt you've done to me", and butcher them over the period of several hours, the fact that they were as evil as evil can be does not mean that what you've done somehow becomes hunky dory. It's still really, really ridiculously evil.




The subjective vs. objective debate is explained in further in BoVD. In short, it says that in objective evil, there's a list of things that are always evil and shift your alignment towards evil (this is the typical D&D morality). So all evil people are actually evil and if someone pings as evil in your Detect Evil sight, they're actually evil and there's no arguing. It doesn't matter if the objective force of evil says that murder is evil or that jaywalking is evil. You do the action, you're evil. Some actions have more qualifiers, of course. Murder in itself is not evil in D&D, but murdering a celestial is. Objective evil can be measured and counted, and there are no arguments over what is evil and what is not. If it shifted your alignment towards Evil, it's evil, period.

Subjective evil means that everyone has an idea of what evil is but nobody's right (or wrong). A paladin using detect evil sees as evil people who have committed the actions she deems evil. A person who deems that ALL murder is evil will see ALL people who have committed a sufficient amount of murder as evil.

Objective evil: Two paladins use detect evil on a person, both see exactly the same.
Subjective evil: Two paladins use detect evil on a person, both see different things.

As you can see, both cannot coexist without some really convoluted shenanigans.

If that's your conception of subjective evil, then that's your problem: paladins don't live in a world where "subjective evil" by that definition exists. Paladins often struggle with the how question of good: I want to do good, but the situation makes knowing what that is best murky and difficult. Paladins never ask the whether question: I want to do good, but maybe my conception of good is only applicable to me. You do not become a champion of goodness and order capable of channeling the elemental force of goodness through oneself if you have any serious doubts about whether or not every sentient being would be better off if they lived like you do.

hamishspence
2011-07-14, 11:41 AM
Again, you're not proving that Good, Law and Chaos don't work the same way. Atonement is not just for Evil.

Mostly, it is.

They don't have to repent their past Good deeds to gain an Evil alignment- it is sufficient, for the forces of Evil, that they are doing evil deeds now.

By contrast, an "unrepentant evildoer" who does not regret their past evil deeds, or seek to atone for them, is not going to cease having an evil alignment merely because they're doing Good deeds at the moment- it takes real repentance to gain redemption.

A paladin does not have to "atone for their past Good deeds" to become a blackguard- as far as we know.

Talakeal
2011-07-14, 12:04 PM
Lots of Stuff

The BoED talks about mercy, this is true. But the PHB also says that LG characters are merciless and paladins must punish evil. Likewise the BoVD say's that killing an evil outsider is always good and letting one live is always evil.
Just like the Monster Manual says that mindless creatures without free will are always neutral, but then slaps the always evil alignment on skeletons and zombies.
Those books are just full of contradictions, which is one of the main reasons why alignment debates like this one are so frequent, the books are just plain contradictory because they were written by different writers at different times and not thoroughly edited.

hamishspence
2011-07-14, 12:51 PM
The BoED talks about mercy, this is true. But the PHB also says that LG characters are merciless and paladins must punish evil. Likewise the BoVD say's that killing an evil outsider is always good and letting one live is always evil.
Just like the Monster Manual says that mindless creatures without free will are always neutral, but then slaps the always evil alignment on skeletons and zombies.

Design evolution may play a part in this. The text for LG characters "hate to see the guilty go unpunished" and a sample LG character who "fights evil without mercy" is directly copied from the 3.0 Players Handbook.

In the same way, skeletons and zombies were "always neutral" in 3.0- they changed them to "always evil"- but didn't change the text.

BoVD's "killing an evil outsider is always good" in a 3.0 book, is a bit inconsistant with later books that say "murder is always evil".

In fact, a case could be made that it is "good" only in the sense that casting a [good] spell is good. A [good] spell can be used to commit murder- in which case, the evilness of the murder far outweighs the goodness of the spell.

Same may apply to murdering a fiend. The "good" part is that a source of evil energy has been removed- the evil part, is the act of murder.

McStabbington
2011-07-14, 01:00 PM
The BoED talks about mercy, this is true. But the PHB also says that LG characters are merciless and paladins must punish evil. Likewise the BoVD say's that killing an evil outsider is always good and letting one live is always evil.
Just like the Monster Manual says that mindless creatures without free will are always neutral, but then slaps the always evil alignment on skeletons and zombies.
Those books are just full of contradictions, which is one of the main reasons why alignment debates like this one are so frequent, the books are just plain contradictory because they were written by different writers at different times and not thoroughly edited.

With respect, that's not what the Player's handbook says. Quoting directly from the section on alignments: "A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished." That says nothing about "merciless". That says they don't ever say "Well, there is evil to slay in this land . . . but tonight Community is on and I really wanted to catch it. I think I'll do it tomorrow."

Similarly, the section on animal neutrality says "Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior." In other words, part of an action being moral or immoral is the volition behind the act: despite the fact that murder is evil, tigers can't murder because they can't form the necessary intent to do it. It's working on the same principle that while injuring someone by kicking them is evil, I haven't committed an evil act if I kick someone while I'm having a seizure. Presumably, a reanimated skeleton is evil for three reasons: 1) desecrating the dead body of a sentient is always evil, 2) the volition of the skeleton is replaced by the volition of the re-animator, and the re-animator could only have evil intentions if he re-animates someone's dead body, and/or 3) to the extent that a mindless undead is mindless, it's because it's impulses are "murder and defile" in exactly the same way that a tiger's impulses are "relieve hunger".

I'll admit there is never going to be complete overlap, because we're mixing modern notions of ethics with medieval notions of evil to get the right feel of the time. In our modern conception, a place or building can't be evil because it has no choice. In the medieval conception, places or buildings or items can retain the taint of the evil they used to do. Auschwitz is usually described as a tainted, evil place for example despite the fact that nothing that remains there had any choice about what went on. But that discrepancy is both smaller than usually presented and can be fudged around, if you are willing to read the books in a more intellectually charitable way.

hamishspence
2011-07-14, 01:05 PM
That says nothing about "merciless". That says they don't ever say "Well, there is evil to slay in this land . . . but tonight Community is on and I really wanted to catch it. I think I'll do it tomorrow."

It does say Alhandra "fights evil without mercy" but that doesn't mean all LG characters do that, or that Alhandra is right to do so.

It may be that while she never offers surrender (hence "without mercy") she may be obliged to accept it if it is made- lest her killing cross the line from defensive, to murder itself.

Talakeal
2011-07-14, 02:03 PM
With respect, that's not what the Player's handbook says.

The exact quote is "A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Allhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent is lawful good."

True it doesn't use the exact word merciless, but the implication is clear.



Presumably, a reanimated skeleton is evil for three reasons: 1) desecrating the dead body of a sentient is always evil, 2) the volition of the skeleton is replaced by the volition of the re-animator, and the re-animator could only have evil intentions if he re-animates someone's dead body, and/or 3) to the extent that a mindless undead is mindless, it's because it's impulses are "murder and defile" in exactly the same way that a tiger's impulses are "relieve hunger".


Desecrating a dead body is always evil? Are you sure? Lots of religions eat or make shrines out of corpses in the real world, likewise medical schools dissect corpses for teaching, and many hospitals harvest corpses for parts. That doesn't sound "always evil to me". What if you volunteer your corpse to the necromancer? Besides, there are now positive energy undead called deathless who are forces of good rather than evil, and they use corpses in the same way.
Yes, it could replace it does replace the skeletons volition with that of the creator, but even the BoED doesn't say that a good character cannot ever create undead or do so with good intentions, so if this were the case alignment would instead read "Alignment: as creator"
Undead do not have any impulses whatsoever, let alone to "murder and kill". They are completely mindless and will do absolutely nothing unless ordered to. Suggesting that they do, or that they attack people if left alone or go out of their way to pervert orders to wicked ends is purely a house rule with no basis in RAW.


The reason why mindless undead are evil is because they are typically regarded as unholy abominations, and as a result paladins should be able to smite them and clerics be able to defeat then with Holy Word and Protection from Evil. But it is not consistent with the game world as presented.

Talakeal
2011-07-14, 02:07 PM
Edit: Sorry for the double post, was trying to edit a quote into my earlier post and hit the wrong button.

hamishspence
2011-07-14, 02:13 PM
In Libris Mortis it's mentioned that malevolent spirits comprise the animating force for "many of the mindless undead".

That might be a retcon to explain the change from "always neutral" in 3.0 to "always evil" in 3.5 though.

Even in 3.0, when they weren't Evil- they still detected as Evil. All undead did. And all undead, even nonevil ones, still do.

Talakeal
2011-07-14, 02:16 PM
In Libris Mortis it's mentioned that malevolent spirits comprise the animating force for "many of the mindless undead".

That might be a retcon to explain the change from "always neutral" in 3.0 to "always evil" in 3.5 though.

Even in 3.0, when they weren't Evil- they still detected as Evil. All undead did. And all undead, even nonevil ones, still do.

Which is weird because Negative Energy itself isn't evil. The Plane doesn't have the evil trait, and spells which channel negative energy directly do not have the [evil] tag.
I assume it is the negative energy that is the problem, because positive energy undead like the deathless of Ebberon do not.

You know what is really weird? Monte Cook wrote the book of Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds. This is the same guy who wrote much of the third ed PHB and was the lead designer for Planescape. The city of Sigil is filled with the dustmen who regularly make use of necromancy and are socially accepted as well as fiends and celestials who regularly interact peaceably with each-other as well as the cities inhabitants. I wonder what happened to make Mr. Cook become so closed minded between the two.

hamishspence
2011-07-14, 02:28 PM
Actually, while Monte wrote BoVD, someone else wrote BoED (James Wyatt, Christopher Perkins, Darrin Drader).

Given that in the PHB page 160 (Turn or Rebuke Undead) "Even if a cleric is neutral, channelling positive energy is a good act and channelling negative energy is evil"

it does seem that it's the energy that's partly responsible.

BoVD was one of Monte's last books- maybe his views changed?

JBento
2011-07-14, 03:00 PM
Psssst.

Spells like Enervation, Energy Drain, Waves of Exhaustion and Waves of Fatigue (and, presumably, the corresponding Rays) very explictly channel negative energy and don't have the [Evil] tag.

Neither do Harm or any of the Cause X Wounds spells.

Any of the above spells can also be cast by Good-aligned Clerics without repercussion.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-14, 05:23 PM
And if he does so for profit, or because he's addicted to killing?

And "standard adventurers do far worse"? Where's this said? As far as I can tell, adventurers aren't exempt from the general principle that murder is a serious evil act, and that "lifesaving" is not enough to balance it out.

Still depends on intention, severity and quantity.

Standard adventurers break into locations to rob, murder and pillage everything they encounter. It gets quite shady whether it's murder or self-defence when the victim is facing strangers who just broke into their home to loot it.

And I'm not saying it automatically is. It depends on all those things BoVD and BoED tell you to take into consideration. Plus the quantity of each.



The same BoED that says:

"For good characters who devote their lives to hunting and exterminating the forces of evil, evil's most seductive lure may be the abandonment of mercy. Mercy means giving quarter to enemies who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion and even kindness. It is, in effect, the good doctrine of respect for life taken to its logical extreme--respecting and honoring even the life of one's enemy . . . Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness or escape from captivity to continue their evil deeds." p.7

If you have trouble finding that passage, it's right above a picture of a paladin confronting two unarmed succubi with the caption "A paladin must choose between destroying evil and honoring love."

All well and good, but it doesn't touch on the fact that killing an evil outsider is specifically defined as being a good act. "Villains" do not automatically mean evil outsiders, which is why that paragraph exists. Killing an ordinary, non-evil-outsider villain is not automatically a good act.


Weirdly enough, it also states that violence should have just cause (p.9), citing the fact that the fact that you're attacking an evil band of orcs doesn't justify your actions if it is unprovoked or for the sake of revenge. It also cites violence's need to spring from good intentions (Id.) and that the means used must be as good as the ends sought (p.10) This is in keeping with the passage that states: "In the D&D universe . . . an evil act is an evil act, no matter what good result it may achieve. A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood." (p.9)

Orcs are not evil outsiders. Again, this proves nothing.


So I really don't think it's that much of a stretch to say that, according to the BoED, it is a particularly vile act to murder, even if it is a fiend. If they surrender and throw themselves on your mercy, they are still as evil as evil can be, and they should be treated as such: they should be tried for the crimes they've committed, and punished with death or banishment. That's not murder. If, however, you simply walk up to said surrendered fiend, say "I am going to make you pay for all the hurt you've done to me", and butcher them over the period of several hours, the fact that they were as evil as evil can be does not mean that what you've done somehow becomes hunky dory. It's still really, really ridiculously evil.

It is indeed an enormous, unfounded stretch to lump evil outsiders along with every other kind of evil being, because they are specifically called out to be exceptions.

So no, you're wrong. You can horribly butcher a demon and it is, by the rules, an act of Good. If your DM (ahem, sorry, "the metaphysical forces of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos") decides to separate the "torture" aspect from the simple act of killing, then it's possible to do both good and evil in the same act (since it's not stated anywhere that torturing a fiend is a good act, normal rules for torture apply)


If that's your conception of subjective evil, then that's your problem: paladins don't live in a world where "subjective evil" by that definition exists. Paladins often struggle with the how question of good: I want to do good, but the situation makes knowing what that is best murky and difficult. Paladins never ask the whether question: I want to do good, but maybe my conception of good is only applicable to me. You do not become a champion of goodness and order capable of channeling the elemental force of goodness through oneself if you have any serious doubts about whether or not every sentient being would be better off if they lived like you do.

That's not my conception of subjective evil, it is a variant suggested in BoVD. It is not the default way morality works in D&D, of course, but it is no more foreign than a racial substitution level, "armour as DR" or an ACF.

So yes, everything you wrote is actually true when one is using the default morality system, but actually false when one is working under subjective morality. Which I've said cannot coexist in the same setting because they require different rules to be in place.


Mostly, it is.

They don't have to repent their past Good deeds to gain an Evil alignment- it is sufficient, for the forces of Evil, that they are doing evil deeds now.

By contrast, an "unrepentant evildoer" who does not regret their past evil deeds, or seek to atone for them, is not going to cease having an evil alignment merely because they're doing Good deeds at the moment- it takes real repentance to gain redemption.

A paladin does not have to "atone for their past Good deeds" to become a blackguard- as far as we know.

Nope. Just because it's used mainly for that doesn't make it objectively true.

That's not at all what I said. What I said was that it was unclear whether a (still Lawful Good) paladin who had Fallen but not atoned would still go to Celestia after his death.


Undead do not have any impulses whatsoever, let alone to "murder and kill". They are completely mindless and will do absolutely nothing unless ordered to. Suggesting that they do, or that they attack people if left alone or go out of their way to pervert orders to wicked ends is purely a house rule with no basis in RAW.

The reason why mindless undead are evil is because they are typically regarded as unholy abominations, and as a result paladins should be able to smite them and clerics be able to defeat then with Holy Word and Protection from Evil. But it is not consistent with the game world as presented.

This is quite true. D&D is steeped on a very strong, very old notion of some things being "okay to kill, no problem," like undead, fiends, dragons, orcs and the like, and this old notion coupled with more modern ways to see morality has caused some things to be mutually contradictory.

Negative energy, for example. Authors can't agree on the nature of it. The PHB says that channelling negative energy is an evil act, and 99% of all creatures animated by negative energy are evil. Then we have explicit declarations of negative energy not being evil (usually when speaking of the Negative Energy Plane and raw negative energy effects). Then we have some negative energy spells that are evil for absolutely no reason other than (apparently) because they manipulate negative energy, and then we have negative energy spells that aren't evil. It's quite ridiculous, really.

McStabbington
2011-07-14, 06:58 PM
The exact quote is "A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Allhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent is lawful good."

True it doesn't use the exact word merciless, but the implication is clear.


My apologies. I did not mean to misconstrue what you wrote; I was simply copying from the SRD because my PHB is in a box, and the SRD page doesn't include (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment) that language. Given the fuller quote, I see your point, but I do think it's entirely reasonable to assume that this particular description was not written with a great deal of nuance in mind.

To be honest, I think that a large part of this debate devolves into a question of how intellectually charitable you are towards the D&D writers. In almost any literary work around a theme or philosophical work, you're going to encounter a few sentences here and there that can be interpreted as out-of-sync, or connoting something beyond what the core or central thesis would imply. A hero in a literary work that explores what it means to be just will be a little too bloodthirsty here and there, or a philosopher will use an example that stakes too strident a tone and less defensible a stance than what the rest of her argument implies. Part of being a good and diligent reader is reading with a bit of charity in mind: you have to assume, at least until demonstrated conclusively otherwise, that the person whom you are reading is not an idiot and isn't going to present an example that can be shot down with five seconds worth of reflection.



Desecrating a dead body is always evil? Are you sure? Lots of religions eat or make shrines out of corpses in the real world, likewise medical schools dissect corpses for teaching, and many hospitals harvest corpses for parts. That doesn't sound "always evil to me". What if you volunteer your corpse to the necromancer? Besides, there are now positive energy undead called deathless who are forces of good rather than evil, and they use corpses in the same way.
Yes, it could replace it does replace the skeletons volition with that of the creator, but even the BoED doesn't say that a good character cannot ever create undead or do so with good intentions, so if this were the case alignment would instead read "Alignment: as creator"
Undead do not have any impulses whatsoever, let alone to "murder and kill". They are completely mindless and will do absolutely nothing unless ordered to. Suggesting that they do, or that they attack people if left alone or go out of their way to pervert orders to wicked ends is purely a house rule with no basis in RAW.


The reason why mindless undead are evil is because they are typically regarded as unholy abominations, and as a result paladins should be able to smite them and clerics be able to defeat then with Holy Word and Protection from Evil. But it is not consistent with the game world as presented.

So long as we're on the subject of charity, I'm sure you can see the difference between what I was talking about (namely: desecration by re-animation of the corpse) and harvesting someone's organs or using the body for medical purposes after death with the person's consent. And yes, consent while you are living is required for both organ harvesting and post-mortem medical research; they do not simply exhume cadavers and cut them apart at medical schools. The rationale now is the same as it was in the middle ages: there is a deep taboo in our culture about mistreating the remains of the dead, dating back as far as our stories go. Homer's Iliad makes clear that Achilles goes way, way too far in his quest for vengeance when he desecrates Hector's corpse. D&D, in keeping with medieval feel, keeps this taboo intact. However you want to get there, then, you have to get to the conclusion that creating undead is unnatural, vile and evil in equal measure.



Orcs are not evil outsiders. Again, this proves nothing.


And again, speaking of charity, citing one example from the book means that all the other citations are completely inconsequential? Part of having an honest debate is being able to admit that my ideas may not be as well-thought out, or as in keeping with the text as I thought they were. Debate is a powerful tool for learning, and learning requires first admitting that there are things I don't know and could be wrong about. I realize that conceding the possibility that you might be wrong is never fun, but really, you'll just find the most inconsequential part of my entire post and use that to dismiss my entire argument out of hand?



It is indeed an enormous, unfounded stretch to lump evil outsiders along with every other kind of evil being, because they are specifically called out to be exceptions.

So no, you're wrong. You can horribly butcher a demon and it is, by the rules, an act of Good. If your DM (ahem, sorry, "the metaphysical forces of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos") decides to separate the "torture" aspect from the simple act of killing, then it's possible to do both good and evil in the same act (since it's not stated anywhere that torturing a fiend is a good act, normal rules for torture apply)


That's a simple non sequitur. Nowhere in the rules does it say: "To be good, one must act with charity, mercy, grace and justice even to one's enemies. Unless those enemies are demons, in which case screw the rule and do whatever the deuce you want with them. Torture, murder, rape? It's all good so long as it's done to a demon."

Now I've never owned the Book of Vile Darkness and it's been years since I flipped through it, but as I understand it, the rule that you've cited says that killing demons is good. That's great, because if that's what it says, what I have said, and what the Book of Vile Darkness have said are completely consonant with one another. Because all I've said is that not every manner of bringing a demon to the end state of death equates to what that writer was thinking about when he said "killing demons". Killing him in open combat when he is attacking you? Good. Sodomizing him to death with a chainsaw after he surrenders? Not good. Holding him for trial, finding him guilty and executing him? Good. Hacking him to death after he's been paralyzed and cannot defend himself? Not good. The rest of the rules about what constitutes noble conduct, and ones need to adhere to them, do not simply disappear just because demons are the most vile and basest of creatures on the Planes. And if that's what you're reading into that small passage about killing demons being good, then you've read it wrong.

Talakeal
2011-07-14, 07:54 PM
Polite Stuff.

You are a lot more polite than most forum dwellers :smallsmile:

As for the merciless thing, yeah, I give the authors the benefit of the doubt. However, I have been told by a DM that I was violating my LG alignment for sparing enemy lives because LG is supposed to be merciless and hate to see the evil go unpunished and all that.
That's actually pretty much my whole problem with the D&D alignment system. I am doing my best to play a good character and make the decisions that I feel are the right thing to do, and then I am told by the DM or other player's that my morals are "wrong", that I am "evil" and that my character isn't allowed to do that without losing class features.

Yes, I agree there are differences. The problem is D&D doesn't like to deal in shades of grey of circumstances, only in absolutes and always. We aren't given a undead are only evil if animated without consent or without good cause, instead we are told that it is evil no matter what and that the kindest person in the world could do it out of absolute necessity and still be condemned for it.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-14, 08:21 PM
And again, speaking of charity, citing one example from the book means that all the other citations are completely inconsequential? Part of having an honest debate is being able to admit that my ideas may not be as well-thought out, or as in keeping with the text as I thought they were. Debate is a powerful tool for learning, and learning requires first admitting that there are things I don't know and could be wrong about. I realize that conceding the possibility that you might be wrong is never fun, but really, you'll just find the most inconsequential part of my entire post and use that to dismiss my entire argument out of hand?

Yes, because none of those citations refer to the specific case that the rules make an exception for. When you have a rule that says "Killing fiends is good" and then another citation that talks about "villains" you can't assume that the citation that talks about villains covers fiends unless it specifically says it does.

And to be fair, I'm not seeing you as wanting to debate with me, only attempting to prove me wrong simply for stating an opinion that disagrees with you, even though I specifically stated that it is not the way I run my campaigns. I have no idea what you're arguing for, what you want to accomplish, or even what your ultimate goal is here. So you'll forgive me if I ignore the parts I don't understand and focus on the ones I do.


That's a simple non sequitur. Nowhere in the rules does it say: "To be good, one must act with charity, mercy, grace and justice even to one's enemies. Unless those enemies are demons, in which case screw the rule and do whatever the deuce you want with them. Torture, murder, rape? It's all good so long as it's done to a demon."

No, but BoED does say that some creatures are beyond redemption, and in those cases, killing them is the best solution. Furthermore, I distinctively recall having read the "killing an evil outsider is always a good act" rule, somewhere, but I can't find it. When I do, I'll get back to you with an actual quotation.

As far as I know, torture, rape and all that are not inherently good acts when performed on an evil outsider, only killing.


Now I've never owned the Book of Vile Darkness and it's been years since I flipped through it, but as I understand it, the rule that you've cited says that killing demons is good. That's great, because if that's what it says, what I have said, and what the Book of Vile Darkness have said are completely consonant with one another. Because all I've said is that not every manner of bringing a demon to the end state of death equates to what that writer was thinking about when he said "killing demons". Killing him in open combat when he is attacking you? Good. Sodomizing him to death with a chainsaw after he surrenders? Not good. Holding him for trial, finding him guilty and executing him? Good. Hacking him to death after he's been paralyzed and cannot defend himself? Not good. The rest of the rules about what constitutes noble conduct, and ones need to adhere to them, do not simply disappear just because demons are the most vile and basest of creatures on the Planes. And if that's what you're reading into that small passage about killing demons being good, then you've read it wrong.

Again, not sure where I read that rule. Apparently it's not in the sources at my disposal right now.

If the rule in question does not specify the manner of the fiend's death, then indeed, all manner of killing him would be good. However, as I said in my previous post, if there is torture in addition to the killing, that (DM's discretion) could be considered a separate act, which would not be good, since there are no rules that say that torturing/raping anyone, evil outsider or not, is a good act. If that's the case, then you'd have committed a good act (killing an evil outsider) and an evil act (raping someone) at the same time.






EDIT: There we go! It was in Book of Vile Darkness all along. Quotation:


Fiends are the ultimate expression of evil given animate form—literally evil incarnate. Destroying a fiend is always a good act. Allowing a fiend to exist, let alone summoning one or helping one, is clearly evil.

"Destroying a fiend is always a good act." Again, doesn't say HOW you destroy it, only that it happens. If you add torture to the destruction, then the DM might be in his right to say those are two very different acts, torture and killing, one evil, the other good.

Also, simply letting a fiend exist is an evil act. A paladin Falls for not killing a fiend. It doesn't matter if the fiend is useful or knows a universe-shattering secret that might prevent evil if he spoke it. Letting him live is evil.

hamishspence
2011-07-15, 02:42 AM
No, but BoED does say that some creatures are beyond redemption, and in those cases, killing them is the best solution.

BoED's version was "Fiends are best slain, or at least banished, and only a naive fool would try and convert them". Nonetheless, the presence of redeemed fiends is evidence that

"sometimes naive fools succeed".

As to "sparing a fiend is always evil"- BoED does mention Exalted characters keeping a fiend prisoner (by keeping it unconscious via nonlethal damage, or using things like antimagic shackles).

So, clearly it's not always evil to spare a fiend's life for a time when you have it in your power.

I see "destroying a fiend is always good" as having the same status that "casting a [Good] spell is always good".

A [Good] spell, such as holy word, can be used to commit murder- in which case the evilness of the murder significantly outweighs the goodness of the spell.

Same applies to "destroying a fiend" when that destruction involves murder.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-15, 02:52 AM
BoED's version was "Fiends are best slain, or at least banished, and only a naive fool would try and convert them". Nonetheless, the presence of redeemed fiends is evidence that

"sometimes naive fools succeed".

As to "sparing a fiend is always evil"- BoED does mention Exalted characters keeping a fiend prisoner (by keeping it unconscious via nonlethal damage, or using things like antimagic shackles).

So, clearly it's not always evil to spare a fiend's life for a time when you have it in your power.

I see "destroying a fiend is always good" as having the same status that "casting a [Good] spell is always good".

A [Good] spell, such as holy word, can be used to commit murder- in which case the evilness of the murder significantly outweighs the goodness of the spell.

Same applies to "destroying a fiend" when that destruction involves murder.

Excellent, you've proven that BoED and BoVD are mutually contradictory. Now we can finally stop using them as references on alignment debates.

The rest is mostly what we've already said and your opinion. I can't really argue against that, because you're not addressing actual facts.

hamishspence
2011-07-15, 02:58 AM
Excellent, you've proven that BoED and BoVD are mutually contradictory. Now we can finally stop using them as references on alignment debates.

Or, simply look for ways of resolving the contradiction. With the most recent version taking precedence.

Like "BoVD info is valid, unless contradicted in later work- and even then, only the bit that is contradicted, becomes invalidated"

One doesn't have to throw out the whole book, simply because of one factoid that's contradicted by later sources.

The idea that an act can have two alignments, helps to resolve issues like "Good spell used to commit murder" and so on.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-15, 03:39 AM
Or, simply look for ways of resolving the contradiction. With the most recent version taking precedence.

Like "BoVD info is valid, unless contradicted in later work- and even then, only the bit that is contradicted, becomes invalidated"

One doesn't have to throw out the whole book, simply because of one factoid that's contradicted by later sources.

The idea that an act can have two alignments, helps to resolve issues like "Good spell used to commit murder" and so on.

Yeah, and resolving contradictions is very good, so long as you remember that they're unofficial decisions that you made yourself, interpreting the rules as best as you're able, and not actually stated directly in the rules.

hamishspence
2011-07-15, 05:31 AM
I think there's a general rule that new versions of anything replace old ones, ruleswise, and new rules override old ones.

So- resolving all contradictions in favour of new material, is consistant with the way WoTC actually does things.

Maybe "is the alignment system tilted?" should get its own thread, and this one should return to the original topic- paladins.

Talakeal
2011-07-15, 11:04 AM
The two books only came out a year apart, I really think the BoED was meant to be the next in the series rather than an update for the BoVD.

And frankly the BoED contradicts itself plenty. Try reading the section on why violence toward the bad guys is ok and then why performing an evil deed for a good cause is not back to back.

Morghen
2011-07-15, 11:15 AM
Hitler.

\thread

McStabbington
2011-07-15, 11:49 AM
BoED's version was "Fiends are best slain, or at least banished, and only a naive fool would try and convert them". Nonetheless, the presence of redeemed fiends is evidence that

"sometimes naive fools succeed".

As to "sparing a fiend is always evil"- BoED does mention Exalted characters keeping a fiend prisoner (by keeping it unconscious via nonlethal damage, or using things like antimagic shackles).

So, clearly it's not always evil to spare a fiend's life for a time when you have it in your power.

I see "destroying a fiend is always good" as having the same status that "casting a [Good] spell is always good".

A [Good] spell, such as holy word, can be used to commit murder- in which case the evilness of the murder significantly outweighs the goodness of the spell.

Same applies to "destroying a fiend" when that destruction involves murder.

Honestly, I think the best way to square this circle is simply to applying a bit of common sense to the notion of "Allowing a fiend to exist, let alone summoning one or helping one, is clearly evil." If you've got a demon shackled, bound in an antimagic sphere, and you're taking it somewhere else so that it can be questioned, charged and ultimately lawfully executed for its crimes against the multiverse, that's not "allowing a fiend to exist" in any meaningful sense. Nor still is it slaying it in a way that does evil (really, there is no need to break this into "two acts"; the act of murder and the act of lawful execution are different acts already, with entirely different definitions, referents and semantic extensions).

Further, we've seen extremely powerful Guardinals, which are literal incarnations of neutral goodness, make certain pacts with even more powerful demon lords without somehow losing their sense of goodness. So clearly "allowing a fiend to exist" must be attenuated by conditions like "that are in your reasonable power to destroy" or "does not apply if it would cause cataclysmic destruction if you actually did slay them". If we were to read that statement completely literally, paladins would lose their paladinhood the moment they get it because somewhere out there Orcus hasn't been slain. Similarly if they did by some miracle keep their powers, then if you put the paladin in a position of choosing between killing one rutterkin and saving the life of one million baby children, they would either have to slay the rutterkin or lose their paladinhood. Which is an absurd result that I cannot believe the writer intended.

Talakeal
2011-07-15, 12:10 PM
Honestly, I think the best way to square this circle is simply to applying a bit of common sense to the notion of "Allowing a fiend to exist, let alone summoning one or helping one, is clearly evil." If you've got a demon shackled, bound in an antimagic sphere, and you're taking it somewhere else so that it can be questioned, charged and ultimately lawfully executed for its crimes against the multiverse, that's not "allowing a fiend to exist" in any meaningful sense. Nor still is it slaying it in a way that does evil (really, there is no need to break this into "two acts"; the act of murder and the act of lawful execution are different acts already, with entirely different definitions, referents and semantic extensions).

Further, we've seen extremely powerful Guardinals, which are literal incarnations of neutral goodness, make certain pacts with even more powerful demon lords without somehow losing their sense of goodness. So clearly "allowing a fiend to exist" must be attenuated by conditions like "that are in your reasonable power to destroy" or "does not apply if it would cause cataclysmic destruction if you actually did slay them". If we were to read that statement completely literally, paladins would lose their paladinhood the moment they get it because somewhere out there Orcus hasn't been slain. Similarly if they did by some miracle keep their powers, then if you put the paladin in a position of choosing between killing one rutterkin and saving the life of one million baby children, they would either have to slay the rutterkin or lose their paladinhood. Which is an absurd result that I cannot believe the writer intended.

Your catching on. RAW on D&D morality just plain doesn't work, that is what I (and I think shadowknight) have been saying since page 1, and you need to bring in some common sense.

The problem is, people at the table and on the forums use RAW to label any action they don't like as "CHAOTIC EVIL!!!!!!"

Shadowknight12
2011-07-15, 12:21 PM
I think there's a general rule that new versions of anything replace old ones, ruleswise, and new rules override old ones.

So- resolving all contradictions in favour of new material, is consistant with the way WoTC actually does things.

Maybe "is the alignment system tilted?" should get its own thread, and this one should return to the original topic- paladins.

Not unless specifically stated. Since you like FR so much, go read PGtF and see how it specifically lets you know that the rules therein supersede the old ones.

"The way WotC actually does things" is not a good guideline. At all.

Good idea.

McStabbington
2011-07-15, 04:06 PM
Your catching on. RAW on D&D morality just plain doesn't work, that is what I (and I think shadowknight) have been saying since page 1, and you need to bring in some common sense.

The problem is, people at the table and on the forums use RAW to label any action they don't like as "CHAOTIC EVIL!!!!!!"

Actually, I believe my point would be "hold on a second there." If I read you and Shadowknight's post correctly (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong), you are saying "The plain meaning of the texts in BoVD and some of the other posts about paladins is contradictory and leads to absurd conclusions." On that point, we seem to be in agreement. Where we differ, however, is whether it necessarily follows from said statement that the alignment system is broken.

I've been arguing that where carrying out the plain meaning of the text leads to absurd results, you don't throw out the rules. You throw out the plain meaning schema of interpreting the text. In this case, there is a perfectly good replacement interpretation scheme: authorial intent. The writers never intended to make a contradictory set of rules, and they probably didn't intend for their rules to lead to absurd results. Further, they've always been very clear that the rules are subject to DM interpretation, override and modification in the name of playability anyway. Finally, the rules are contradictory only when you take your "plain meaning" scheme of interpretation to levels that even Isaac Asimov would shrink from using in his stories for fear of being overly pedantic.

In short, I think you've demonstrated that if you interpret the rules with a nigh-autistic level of plain meaning, then yeah, there are some serious flaws in the rules. But that shows that you shouldn't take your plain meaning to nigh-autistic levels, nor use a single sentence in a single book to say "Oh, this doesn't work with the rest of the text. Rules are hopelessly broken." Instead, you do what any reasonable person would do in that circumstance: you look at what the writers were trying to do, realize they weren't trying to hopelessly break the rules, and fudge the interpretation a little. One method requires assuming that when the authors wrote one sentence, they left implicit several important qualifiers. The other requires throwing out the entire rulebook. Now I could be wrong, but I think the former is a much better interpretation scheme precisely because it doesn't carry the extreme outcome of the latter.

Talakeal
2011-07-15, 04:29 PM
If you read page 9 of BoED they spend almost 1,000 words telling you how the ends never justify the means and that a minor evil act for a greater good will only cause more evil in the long run. It is very clear that it is not "good" to commit an evil act for ANY reason.

Throughout the books then you will see statements like "Poison is always evil." "Spells with the Evil descriptor are always evil", "Allowing a fiend to live is always evil," "Undead are always evil" "Working with an evil outsider is always evil".

I don't really think that it is twisting their words or reading too much into it to think they meant that some acts are always evil.

But then, you have Coatls who are always good and still use poison. That is a blatant contradiction, and I don't see how it can be read any other way.
Likewise you have the monster manual flat out say that mindless creatures are incapable of having an alignment, yet lists skeletons as always evil. I don't know how you can read that without seeing a contradiction.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-15, 11:33 PM
Actually, I believe my point would be "hold on a second there." If I read you and Shadowknight's post correctly (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong), you are saying "The plain meaning of the texts in BoVD and some of the other posts about paladins is contradictory and leads to absurd conclusions." On that point, we seem to be in agreement. Where we differ, however, is whether it necessarily follows from said statement that the alignment system is broken.

The rest of your post is very well thought-out and coherent, and I definitely agree that it's a good solution for the problem. I would just like to point out that the alignment system is, indeed, broken, and not simply because of a few contradictory sentences. The alignment system is a simplified version of one kind of morality. It was marketed well, since that's the prevalent morality of the target audience, but it's still limited and awkward in use. I've found that the only way I can actually represent a variety of points of view that most closely approaches reality and not a discourse on morality disguised as a heroic fantasy story, is to use the subjective alignment variant.

Of course, that's a problem that I (and many others) have found, and it's not an indication that the alignment system is beyond redemption and hopelessly broken, it just means that (just like everything else in D&D) it has to be adapted to each table in particular. Trying to adhere closely to what's written in the PHB, BoVD, BoED and the like will just multiply the amount of headaches.

Talakeal
2011-07-16, 12:49 AM
I'm just glad they never got around to writing a book about Law / Chaos, because if you thing Good vs. Evil causes headaches...

Jeebers
2011-07-16, 06:14 AM
Generally true. However, that's not because of the Paladin but because it is usually bad form to play Evil when everyone else is Good, regardless of class.

It is not possible to play "altruistic" Evil, simply because that is a contradiction in terms. Evil is by its very nature both self serving to the point that it's destructive to everyone around them. Unadulterated selfishness. You might be able to temporarily convince someone that a given action is in their best interest, but if they are Evil, it won't be for long. Sooner or later, they'll happily shaft over everyone around them one by one for their own benefit. When in a life threatening situation, an Evil alignment will ALWAYS take care of themselves before they even think of saving someone else's butt, that is, *IF* they ever consider helping anyone else out.

This is why most GM's never allow Evil alignments in the group. They'll screw over the rest of the party (it's only a matter of time), and if they don't, they aren't playing an Evil alignment accurately.

SITB
2011-07-16, 06:23 AM
It is not possible to play "altruistic" Evil, simply because that is a contradiction in terms. Evil is by its very nature both self serving to the point that it's destructive to everyone around them. Unadulterated selfishness. You might be able to temporarily convince someone that a given action is in their best interest, but if they are Evil, it won't be for long. Sooner or later, they'll happily shaft over everyone around them one by one for their own benefit. When in a life threatening situation, an Evil alignment will ALWAYS take care of themselves before they even think of saving someone else's butt, that is, *IF* they ever consider helping anyone else out.

This is why most GM's never allow Evil alignments in the group. They'll screw over the rest of the party (it's only a matter of time), and if they don't, they aren't playing an Evil alignment accurately.

Because obviously the Warlord leading the Gnollish menace that tries to take over the highland for his people is trying to ruin his people, rather than taking a jingoistic view of reality and trying to help his race.

Evil people can have good goals, loved ones and all that rot. They simply take actions which disproportionally harm other beings to get there.

In my example the gnoll leader doesn't consider the nomadic elves living in the highland to be anywhere near equal worth to 'his' people, AKA the gnolls.

Jeebers
2011-07-16, 06:28 AM
Perhaps- but the idea of morality as a slope- where becoming Good is a difficult climb, and becoming Evil is an easy slide- seems to dominate fiction in general.


Interestingly, most humans tend to be on the whole, rather animalistic. That is, they won't go out of their way to help nor harm anyone else, and they consider their welfare more important than anything else (survival), but by the same token they aren't willing to expend much effort in being ruthless.

The way I see it, it takes effort to be either seriously good or evil. And, such people are relatively rare on the whole.

Jeebers
2011-07-16, 06:54 AM
All well and good, but that's not what the rules say. The rules say that killing an evil outsider is a Good act.


This is one of the reasons why I believe D&D to be extremely binary or B&W in it's thinking. I myself prefer something more relativistic. Basically, it's a combination of the doer's intent and the effects of that deed on the world around them that determines good or evil alignment in the end. That's why I prefer to have alignment be more of a "this is the way NPC's and magic regards you" rather than an absolute restriction. This also allows players to gradually shift alignments if their deeds warrant it.

Killing somebody "just because" is inherently evil, imho.

Personally, I think the usage of poison being evil is a Westernized cultural aspect rather than an inherently evil act. And I don't see how a spell would be an inherently evil act, for the most part. Fireball isn't evil, so why is the same amount of damage considered evil in origin if a necromancy spell did it via draining moisture out of the target? Just seems silly.

As for cannibalism, in real life it was always something you do because you wanted to absorb the virtues of the former person. You didn't kill someone specifically to do this, however. It was something done after the fact that someone had died, but not used as an excuse to kill. Is that evil? Well, since the dude is already dead, mutilating the body isn't going to hurt them, so what you end up with in Western societies is more of an unlawful act rather than an evil one. Eating a dead body? It more grosses others out than actually harms the deceased.

I think that if D&D removed all references to alignment when it comes to magic of any kind, it'd be a LOT less B&W. It'd also be harder to be heroic, too. Things wouldn't be so simple. Evil would be more "shades of grey" than anything.

Wouldn't it be nice if good and evil acts were given a point value of some sort, so that we could evaluate whether someone shifts in alignment? Heroes of Horror sort of experimented with this idea, but honestly, there are some things that confuse the heck out of me. Evil is purely voluntary by nature, you can't really be Evil if you were somehow magically compelled to do something. So, why does being on unholy ground eventually turn you Evil just by being there or seeing something nasty?

And I gotta disagree that unintelligent automaton undead are automatically Evil. To be Evil, you gotta intentionally do something nasty. If I came across a zombie that was doing nothing more than sweeping, and had been used to do nothing but, why the hairy heck would it detect as Evil? The thing has no volition of its own! That's like saying a robot is Evil just because it LOOKS nasty. If that were true, all those Hollywood animatronics beasties would be considered evil, yet nobody in the real world feels that way (would YOU assign evil intent to something that won't function unless you tell it to?).

Mike_G
2011-07-16, 01:12 PM
To answer the OP, all you need to do is look at Miko and the Sapphire Guard as seen in the comic. Not everyone play a Miko paladin, but most of us have seen somebody play one, and I would, like Varsuvius, sooner associate with the homicidal little punk Belkar than with Miko. Miko is the "bad example" paladin, and why many of us D&D veterans sob inside when we hear that a new player wants to bring along a Paladin.

As to why the alignment system itslef is a boatload of awful, the "up is down, war is peace, freedom is slavery" arguments that we've seen here is pretty much it.

I've played D&D since the Red Box in like 1978 or so, and we never, ever, ever had a player try the insane logic that some of the books tend to espouse to rationalize the allegedly objective morality of D&D. As a a guide, and shorthand for how the character acts, it's fine. As a mechanical system, it's utter pants.

If you want to execute the noncombatant prisoners, or yank out someone's fingernails in a Zone of Truth until he tells you what you want to know, and still try to justify your LG alignment, you have gone off the rails and may as well just start herding Kobolds into reeducation camps.

I have no problem with players playing morally grey characters. I think it's interesting. I just hate the attempt, pretty much alone in all of RPGs, to codify concepts that are so subjective that the greatest philosophers of civilization still don't agree.

Jeebers
2011-07-16, 02:12 PM
I just hate the attempt, pretty much alone in all of RPGs, to codify concepts that are so subjective that the greatest philosophers of civilization still don't agree.

If they didn't, most gamers would treat the rpg universe like they were playing a videogame. If you want to know what I mean, look up "**** moves" on cracked.com

You know, when I started this thread, I recall thinking I might get a handful of responses at most!

Mike_G
2011-07-16, 02:37 PM
If they didn't, most gamers would treat the rpg universe like they were playing a videogame. If you want to know what I mean, look up "**** moves" on cracked.com

You know, when I started this thread, I recall thinking I might get a handful of responses at most!


That is patently false assertion. Almost no ither RPG uses such an onerus alignment system.

GURPS or Hero system or Call of Cthulhu don't automatically degenerate into a "rape the setting" session. People who want to play a jerk will.

In D&D, they play a Miko Paladin.

Talakeal
2011-07-16, 03:11 PM
That is patently false assertion. Almost no ither RPG uses such an onerus alignment system.

GURPS or Hero system or Call of Cthulhu don't automatically degenerate into a "rape the setting" session. People who want to play a jerk will.

In D&D, they play a Miko Paladin.

Personally I find myself having to play Miko unless I want to come to the session to sit around watching the other players acting out their anti social power fantasies all evening.

Mike_G
2011-07-16, 05:16 PM
Personally I find myself having to play Miko unless I want to come to the session to sit around watching the other players acting out their anti social power fantasies all evening.

That's an issue with the players, not the system.

If everyone wants to play anti social power fantasies, maybe they're not the group for you, but I'm sure that the last thing they want is Miko ruining everything, so nobody gets to have fun.

If you play a PC whose whole thing is policing everybody else's actions, like a heavily armed hall monitor, you succeed only when nobody gtes to do what he wants.

That's why we play with a "Don't be a ****." rule rather than alignment system. That means no massacring the peasants, yes. But it means no stick up the butt party policeman either.

We all ahve jobs and lives and stuff to do, and a few hours a week to game. It's not worth showing up to compete in who can ruin the other guy's fun first. We play a co-operative game.

Talakeal
2011-07-16, 07:24 PM
That's an issue with the players, not the system.

If everyone wants to play anti social power fantasies, maybe they're not the group for you, but I'm sure that the last thing they want is Miko ruining everything, so nobody gets to have fun.

If you play a PC whose whole thing is policing everybody else's actions, like a heavily armed hall monitor, you succeed only when nobody gtes to do what he wants.

That's why we play with a "Don't be a ****." rule rather than alignment system. That means no massacring the peasants, yes. But it means no stick up the butt party policeman either.

We all ahve jobs and lives and stuff to do, and a few hours a week to game. It's not worth showing up to compete in who can ruin the other guy's fun first. We play a co-operative game.


Usually it goes something like this:

DM: Ok tonight's adventure is to slay the dragon and rescue the princess.
Everyone: Ok
One random guy: Hey, instead of rescuing the princess, let's hold her hostage and demand 10x the reward from her father!
Rest of the Party: Sure, why not. I'm just here to kill stuff and couldn't care less about the RP.
Me: WTF? Are you serious? I thought we were playing lawful good heroes?

Yukitsu
2011-07-16, 07:27 PM
All 9 squares of the alignment table end up approximately rendered as "violent, rich hobos" in the hands of most players.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-16, 07:35 PM
This is one of the reasons why I believe D&D to be extremely binary or B&W in it's thinking.

The sad fact is that when you have Good and Evil as tangible, concrete forces in the universe, that's what you get as a result.


I myself prefer something more relativistic. Basically, it's a combination of the doer's intent and the effects of that deed on the world around them that determines good or evil alignment in the end. That's why I prefer to have alignment be more of a "this is the way NPC's and magic regards you" rather than an absolute restriction. This also allows players to gradually shift alignments if their deeds warrant it.

Killing somebody "just because" is inherently evil, imho.

And this is another way of doing things that is fully supported by the rules, just like many of the other ways to interpret alignment.


Personally, I think the usage of poison being evil is a Westernized cultural aspect rather than an inherently evil act. And I don't see how a spell would be an inherently evil act, for the most part. Fireball isn't evil, so why is the same amount of damage considered evil in origin if a necromancy spell did it via draining moisture out of the target? Just seems silly.

It IS silly. Quite silly. See: my rant about other types of morality not being considered. For many kinds of morality systems, "dishonourable" is not a synonym of "evil," for example.


As for cannibalism, in real life it was always something you do because you wanted to absorb the virtues of the former person. You didn't kill someone specifically to do this, however. It was something done after the fact that someone had died, but not used as an excuse to kill. Is that evil? Well, since the dude is already dead, mutilating the body isn't going to hurt them, so what you end up with in Western societies is more of an unlawful act rather than an evil one. Eating a dead body? It more grosses others out than actually harms the deceased.

Pro tip: D&D thinks that evil is "spooky and icky" and that things "spooky and icky" are evil. See: BoVD.


I think that if D&D removed all references to alignment when it comes to magic of any kind, it'd be a LOT less B&W. It'd also be harder to be heroic, too. Things wouldn't be so simple. Evil would be more "shades of grey" than anything.

Correct. This is the route I'm going for with my houserules.


Wouldn't it be nice if good and evil acts were given a point value of some sort, so that we could evaluate whether someone shifts in alignment? Heroes of Horror sort of experimented with this idea, but honestly, there are some things that confuse the heck out of me. Evil is purely voluntary by nature, you can't really be Evil if you were somehow magically compelled to do something. So, why does being on unholy ground eventually turn you Evil just by being there or seeing something nasty?

This is doomed to failure. See: The main complaints levied against karma systems in videogames. Also, increased bookkeeping at the table. Also, more arguments (not only are you arguing whether something is Evil or not, you're also arguing about how much it's worth). Also, the "points" will be based on generic actions, which break down in actual play, with all the extra variables added to it.


And I gotta disagree that unintelligent automaton undead are automatically Evil. To be Evil, you gotta intentionally do something nasty. If I came across a zombie that was doing nothing more than sweeping, and had been used to do nothing but, why the hairy heck would it detect as Evil? The thing has no volition of its own! That's like saying a robot is Evil just because it LOOKS nasty. If that were true, all those Hollywood animatronics beasties would be considered evil, yet nobody in the real world feels that way (would YOU assign evil intent to something that won't function unless you tell it to?).

Correct, yet this is one of those things that WotC just screwed up and never bothered to fix. Their treatment of positive and negative energy has been, in no uncertain terms, frankly retarded.

Mike_G
2011-07-16, 09:09 PM
Usually it goes something like this:

DM: Ok tonight's adventure is to slay the dragon and rescue the princess.
Everyone: Ok
One random guy: Hey, instead of rescuing the princess, let's hold her hostage and demand 10x the reward from her father!
Rest of the Party: Sure, why not. I'm just here to kill stuff and couldn't care less about the RP.
Me: WTF? Are you serious? I thought we were playing lawful good heroes?

The problem with that scenario is "Lawful Good" heroes.

"Heroes" of any kind don't do that.

That falls under the "Don't be a ****" rule. If your party can't handle that simple guideline, then the Alignment system won't work anyway, and we have the Grand Inquisitor Paladins shoving the infidels into the gas chambers.

Oh, they still raise holy hell when the party wants to lie to the guards or steal stuff or backstab (so, like play a Rogue at all) or animate skeletons, but they will happily genocide humanoid races in a way that make the Japanese Rape of Nanking look like a humanitarian mission and use some splatbook lawyering to defend that as Lawful Good.

Whereas my simple "Guys, you're the heroes. Don't be a ****." nips all those arguments in the bud without the baggage of the Alignment grid.

paladinofshojo
2011-07-16, 11:45 PM
A question keeps coming into my head.... can paladins have sadistic and cruel tendencies aslong as they technically follow their code of conduct? For instance, not killing a prisoner? That's fine but what about banishing them to Baator?................... Instead of actually killing anyone in your power just plane shift them away? Who cares where they end up and what horrors they meet? You didn't directly kill them and they're not your problem anymore.....problem solved :smallbiggrin:

Jeebers
2011-07-17, 02:05 AM
A question keeps coming into my head.... can paladins have sadistic and cruel tendencies aslong as they technically follow their code of conduct? For instance, not killing a prisoner? That's fine but what about banishing them to Baator?................... Instead of actually killing anyone in your power just plane shift them away? Who cares where they end up and what horrors they meet? You didn't directly kill them and they're not your problem anymore.....problem solved :smallbiggrin:

No. They can't. That's what the Good half of the alignment means. And in the end, it's only a guideline, a type, not a specific set of rules.

Cerlis
2011-07-17, 02:34 AM
And I gotta disagree that unintelligent automaton undead are automatically Evil. To be Evil, you gotta intentionally do something nasty. If I came across a zombie that was doing nothing more than sweeping, and had been used to do nothing but, why the hairy heck would it detect as Evil? The thing has no volition of its own! That's like saying a robot is Evil just because it LOOKS nasty. If that were true, all those Hollywood animatronics beasties would be considered evil, yet nobody in the real world feels that way (would YOU assign evil intent to something that won't function unless you tell it to?).

Um i think it has something to do with the whole "Raping the natural cycle of life with evil energies to molest a departed person's remains for your own benefit, and possible tainting of the person's ETERNAL SOUL!"

so, um, wtf you talkin' 'bout.