Evil or not please post your opinion [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

kingsolomon

2012-06-28, 06:38 PM

First i'm a druid neutral. The question/ your opinion. We have a goblin sitting at a desk weapon on table and one on his back. Goblin starts talking about a druid lich. Now our rogue thinks it would be good to get lich on our side. Now we have a party of a druid, bard, rogue, ranger, spell caster of some kind, and pally. Now would a pally go for that or better is that some kind of evil act to want to try to get a lich, druid on your side.

Second me the druid wants the goblin to give up weapons surrender and taken to jail and or some thing to that effect. Now other people want to let goblin go free. Now goblin is a black dragon rider in the ranks of orc, goblin, evil dragons and lizard folk's company. Did i see him do any thing no. Now he said he has valued info? I say i don't care he needs justice done. Pally does nothing, rogue starts talking about letting him go and how to get lich on our side. In the end i try to kill goblin party protects goblin and then sets him free i the druid leave party cause i feel they have lost there way in the war against goblins and ocs taking over the land and now they are deciding to let a lich join on there side to help defend against an orc attack.

In the end should i have did nothing let lich join in or i should say attempt to let lich join. Is it okay for the pally to have did nothing. And last is the rogue evil for even trying to attempt to get lich druid or better known as a blighter to join our cause of fighting off evil forces.
I need closure lol.

ye'leven

2012-06-28, 06:50 PM

Sounds like your paladin is not exactly the lawful good paragon she's supposed to be.

Right thing, wrong thing, it's all subjective. When I play I try to find a balance between maintaining my characters dissenting ideals and what the party has in mind. Though I would say for druid whose party allying with what is basically your antithesis, leaving is a good idea. It sounds like your caught up in a classic case of 90% of the party decided to turn evil.

Were you right to leave the party? Yes and No,
from a DM's perspective, it can be sometimes difficult to try and balance the game and make sure that all the players are having fun when alignments conflict. But from a players perspective it is no fun when you need to neuter your roleplaying.

I'm curious to know how this resolves.

NecroRebel

2012-06-28, 06:54 PM

A paladin wouldn't want to ally with the druid lich; liches are very much Evil, and a paladin's code forbids associating with Evil creatures. Allying with the lich itself is a neutral act, though what you do with the alliance may be otherwise, but this is irrelevant to a paladin.

On the goblin, you have no real reason to believe that the goblin has done anything wrong (aside from speciesism). He may have been neutral, or even Good; just because he's a subordinate to Evil creatures doesn't mean he is himself Evil. You say you wanted to have him face justice. Justice for what, exactly? What crime do you think he committed? While he might have been an enemy combatant, it seems that he was acting as a spy for your people by giving information to you, so at that time he wasn't acting as an enemy.

Again, aligning oneself with an Evil creature is not, itself, Evil. Evil creatures can, and usually do, do neutral acts, and can sometimes do Good. The paladin's acts were in line with what a paladin should do, while it sounds like your actions were somewhat disruptive to the game (which is the one thing you should absolutely avoid doing while roleplaying). You could just as easily have decided, "hey, these orcs/goblins/dragons/lizardfolk are disrupting the balance of the world and all reasonable measures should be taken to stopping them, so bringing in allies who will help us is what we want to do." I'd suggest you read this article, (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) especially the section titled "Decide to React Differently;" it's a very well-done piece by the Giant himself about roleplaying and this point.

Occasional Sage

2012-06-28, 07:12 PM

Associating with an evil person is not intrinsically evil; your concern would be what sort of acts you would then witness and tacitly condone in order to maintain party unity. Paladins however are held to a higher standard.

On the goblin: your decision to attack him doesn't strike me as unreasonable. Sure he's been helpful, but not in a way that really makes you beholden to him, it sounds to me. Alignment-wise I think you'd've been ok either way, but RP-wise (from what I can infer of your character) it makes sense that you simply treated him as his uniform. Another character's mileage may vary on this.

kingsolomon

2012-06-28, 07:29 PM

I left the party due to the conflict of interests. I left due to not wanting be part of trying to get a lich Druid to join our cause. I tried to kill the goblin for having tried to secure the lich druid to attack with them. I saw the goblin as a bigger treat than the black dragon we had killed they saw him as a goblin who wanted nothing more than to leave. Wrong or right actions were made, goblin was set free, Druid washed his hands of the party and left them.

whibla

2012-06-28, 07:31 PM

A paladin wouldn't want to ally with the druid lich; liches are very much Evil, and a paladin's code forbids associating with Evil creatures. Allying with the lich itself is a neutral act, though what you do with the alliance may be otherwise, but this is irrelevant to a paladin.

Actually, not all liches are evil. Whilst the majority tend to be, several exceptions have been written into the rulebooks. Even the fact he's a Blighter doesn't require him to be evil, only non-good.

One of the joys of DM'ing comes when a player decides to play a paladin. Rarely is anything black and white, good and bad, even in D&D. It's easy to tell right from wrong, it's a lot harder to tell the wrong that's more right:

Ally with a lich (alignment unknown), defeat Orc horde that's poised to decimate your kingdom. May have a price...
Refuse to ally with a lich, thousands (potentially) of innocents die during the Orc invasion. Definite cost...

Maybe it's the druid (the OP) who lost sight of the big picture, simply cos he got enraged at the thought of having to co-operate with a blighter ... essentially a very selfish motivation.

I wasn't there, I have no idea of the true situation but, again, moral quandries are rarely clear cut.

icthenue

2012-06-28, 08:25 PM

In my opinion, you did the right thing regarding leaving the group, and you were not fully wrong in outright attacking the goblin. In my eyes, a Blighter is to a druid as evil is a paladin; it goes against everything you stand for. It is rot, destruction, and essentially a corruption of nature. The paladin should have an equally difficult time accepting help from it, atleast until he can use detect evil to determine its motives. As for attacking the goblin, as a neutral character you could have gone either way. If your character is generally merciful, you shouldn't have attacked it. If there was ANY doubt in your mind as to its motives or sincerity, killing it would be a fairly neutral act (as long as you made it quick and clean) if you took to much satisfaction from the kill, thats treading further from neutral. My 2 cents. Also, kudos to you for walking a character away when it became messy, I know too many times when a character makes waves and the party suffers for months as a result.

Masque

2012-06-28, 08:34 PM

i think you made the right call leaving your party. Liches "blighter" twist life to where you, the druid, do everything to preserve it. I think you were also right to demand the goblin surrender and go to jail.

if you ask me, that paladin has a few screws loose and needs a alignment check for remaining passive about the lich join and not siding with you about the goblin.

Grail

2012-06-28, 09:04 PM

Well, what is more important - the character's morals, or the lives of the innocents that the Lich may have saved if he sided with you against the invading goblinoid army?

Having morals is good and should be encouraged, and conviction to stand behind them is moreso. However, saying that, the group has the opportunity to utilise a weapon to save lives. Now your character is Neutral, so that is probably the best balance. Use Evil to do Good. We have harmony.

Should you have attacked the Goblin. Well, he was not attacking you, and was offering help. The group, if they believed that he was willing to disappear into the sunset now that his dragon had been killed could be justified in letting him go. If you take a villain, lock them up in prison then they can get out. It will take resources to get them back to where they can be locked up, and they might escape. The Goblin had effectively surrendered, at least that's how it sounds, so the lawful party members would be well within their rights to stop you from killing him. Maybe you should have killed him first, asked questions later.

Part of being a truly good character (we're talking paladin good, ultimate good) is also the ability to show mercy, to believe in redemption. Maybe the Paladin believed that the Goblin was going to do what he said he was going to do. Maybe the Paladin believed that the Goblin had been defeated and wanted nothing more to do with the battle.

I'd say that your character was acting more Chaotic Good than Neutral by the actions you've described.

Chaotic in that you believed that you needed to kill the Goblin for the greater good. You weren't an idealist, but you were being more of a "Jack Bauer" kind of alignment.

Good in that you were adverse to siding with an abhorrent travesty of justice in the Lich.

This doesn't mean that you should change alignment, alignments aren't straight jackets, and characters should be free to act with some leniency within them, but at this stage IMO, you weren't being Neutral. No biggie, you'll probably be Lawful Evil in the future and balance it out. :D

King Atticus

2012-06-28, 09:42 PM

First off, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm in the group in question. I'm going to add a few more details to the situation and then retreat to the shadows to observe so as not to drag this thread into a back and forth exchange.

We are running through 'Red Hand' at the moment just to give those of you who have run it the big picture. The goblin in question was a low-level wormlord who at no point during the entirety of our party clearing out his tower, ever, raised a hand against us. We cleared out the tower including his friend the dragon and then found him in his room sitting passively at a table mourning the loss of his friend. The DM played his as world-weary and resigned to the fact that he was at our mercy. His weapon was sitting on the table and at no point did he make a move for it. In the middle of the group talking to the goblin he divulged that part of the treasure we had found was indeed a phylactory and he proceeded to tell us the name of the lich it belonged to. That's it...the lich wasn't there, we weren't negotiating with the lich, all that was happening was the goblin was telling us of the lich's existence in exchange for his getting to go free. We had no reason to believe he was a threat and we also don't believe he could ever rejoin the army as the only reason he was in it to start with is he was friendly with a dragon. At the point he mentioned the phylactory the OP drew his bow and leveled it at the goblin, I stood up and used my body as a shield to defend him at which point the OP blasts him with some kind of electricity reserve feet he has. I quickly had the goblin removed from the room at which point the OP started attacking party members for trying to keep the goblin alive. He hit me with his electricity so I drew down and attacked him at which point the party Pali stepped in to cool the situation down and the OP left the room gathered his fair share of the loot and left.

Masque

2012-06-28, 09:52 PM

i take back what i said about the op's choice after hearing the full story from King Atticus.

JoshuaZ

2012-06-28, 10:11 PM

I'm confused how to reconcile the description by King Atticus with the description given by OP, although some of my confusion may be due to OP's grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Is someone else able to parse this well enough to combine it with what Atticus said to get a clear picture?

Right now, my immediate reaction is that at a meta-level, unless one is in a party of very mature people and you've discussed it before, attacking fellow party members is a bad idea. It easily leads to bad feelings. Moreover, unless one is some sort of highly chaotic alignment, if one does attack someone, and a party member tries to stop you, and you've worked with that party member any minimal amount of time, your response probably isn't realistically going to be attacking the other party member. People don't do that. They might yell at their party members or might try to attack around the party member. But people don't attack people they've worked with at a drop of a hat like that.

Grail

2012-06-28, 10:11 PM

Yup. Again, good characters should know how to display mercy. If they can't, then they're just another variation of evil.

NikitaDarkstar

2012-06-28, 10:24 PM

Grail

2012-06-28, 10:42 PM

Being evil does not preclude a paladin from associating with or using the Lich to fight an even greater evil. If a paladin could not associate with an evil creature, how could they redeem one?

And whilst it's true, there would be no hope of redemption of the Lich, is it not better to channel the destructive power of the Lich to a good cause and then confront the Lich afterwards?

There are a couple options available to the group (and thus the paladin) at this point.

Spoiled for those in the game:

1. Confront the Lich and try to destroy him now.
2. Confront the Lich and try to remove him from the battle on either side.
3. Confront the Lich and try to make him an ally.
4. Ignore the Lich and leave him on the enemy side.

1, 2 and 3 are the really only viable options, the Lich cannot be left to be on the side of the Red Hand, as his forces are very strong and will help turn the tide their way. So 4 has to be discounted.

1 is the most dangerous. If the heroes fail in their quest to vanquish the Lich, then they will not be there to stop the tide of the Red Hand. And this will have dire consequences for the people of the Elsir Vale.

2 and 3 allow for the Lich to be confronted after the main threat has been dealt with. When the risk for hundreds or thousands of innocents has been mitigated and the Red Hand destroyed and the leaders slain or brought to justice.

Going option 3, making the Lich an ally will allow for the battle against the Red Hand to go quicker for the good guys, they should win with the Ghost Lord's help, and win quite handily. Whilst doing so, they are able to ensure that the Ghost Lord's evil is contained, at least moreso than if he was off on his own. They don't have to be friends or make long-lasting allegiances with the Ghost Lord, merely make short-term ones to deal with a common foe. An enemy of the characters and someone who held the Lich to ransom.

IMO, Option 3 is the best bet for any character who calls themselves "Good"

Honest Tiefling

2012-06-28, 10:46 PM

I think I am more inclined to call it 'An action borne of miscommunication'. Sounds like you need to discuss this more with the players, because if both versions are true, something was miss-said or misinterpreted.

However, I would like to add two points:

1) Just because the goblin didn't attack NOW does not mean it won't attack LATER. Goblins are notorious across campaign settings for being tricky or rogues. Sure, he might be all world weary when several armed adventurers burst in, but what happens when he has his dragon friend, eh? (I actually don't know, never read the adventure). I am not advocating killing the guy, but I think some sense of wariness would not be unwarranted.

2) I think talk of allying with a Blighter should really not happen with a druid. I don't think that Kingypants up there really intended to do such, but I think that's crossing a line when you know you have a druid in the party, unless you have a VERY good reason, because it really makes it hard to RP the character. Again, not sure if that what was actually occurring!

Also, I'd imagine farms are sorta important for armies and getting huge swaths of land to erode, be infertile, not produce wood, game or food sorta not the wisest idea.

Gavinfoxx

2012-06-28, 10:47 PM

Being evil does not preclude a paladin from associating with or using the Lich to fight an even greater evil.

False. They cannot associate with evil, even to fight a greater evil.

If a paladin could not associate with an evil creature, how could they redeem one?

They can't. That's not their job; that is maybe the Cleric's job. Their job is to smite evil.

And that is why I hate the default paladin code. It doesn't make sense.

Starbuck_II

2012-06-28, 10:49 PM

If the lich druid is a Blighter neither a druid or a paladin should be willing to associate with them. The druid because a blighter destroys nature and the paladins because Blighters are evil by nature.

On the goblin I honestly have no opinion.

No, Blighters are evil by reputation. Alignment is NN, NE, LN, LE, CN, CE.

So 1/2 of them are neutral not evil.

IMO, Option 3 is the best bet for any character who calls themselves "Good"

Any non-paladin. Paladins can't do justify the ends by any means, but the means themselves. They must justify means for the ends.

So they can't ally with evil. Pathfinder paladins can, but they are more strict (even a tiny lie makes you fall), unlike D&D one where you need gross acts to fall.

myancey

2012-06-29, 12:15 AM

To put an end to the whole paladin discussion...the player in question is a ruby knight vindicator, btw. And as the groups dm, I had advised from the get go that the paladins code people are so passionately debating was to be homebrewed by me so as to make it less...rigid.

vrigar

2012-06-29, 12:38 AM

I need closure lol.
In Party fighting is always amusing to the winning side, frustrating to the losing side and destructive for the campaign (which makes the DM mad and then everybody loses.
Just kiss and make up.

Gavinfoxx

2012-06-29, 12:46 AM

Lemme just find a quote here...

As a DM...

The first thing you should do is throw out the default Paladin of Honor code of conduct.

SERIOUSLY.

That thing is a mess of garbage!

Create a completely new code of conduct, one that actually makes sense for Paladins of Honor.

Here's an alternative code for Lawful Good paladins I came up with, some time ago:

*Show kindness to children and others that are weak.

*Never stand idly by while the weak become the victim of the strong.

*Defend hearth and home, family and friends, stranger and ally, and especially defend innocents.

*Once given, a paladin's word is a solemn contract.

*Refrain from abusing or overusing intoxicants.

*Whenever possible, work for and give to noble charities.

*It is an unspeakable act to deny any soul its rightful afterlife.

*Never use lethal poison.

*Respect life, even that of the foe, do not kill lightly, and show quarter if feasible.

*Respect the terms of an honorable and fair duel.

*Never willfully commit an evil act, and combat evil whenever possible. This does not mean that it is appropriate to be violent against evil all the time; seek justice tempered with mercy more than a violent solution.

*Use power to aid and help others, except towards evil ends. Do not seek out power simply to have power.

*Be courteous in all you do, and seek to never be crude.

*Be humble before the forces of light and good.

*Uphold virtuous laws whenever possible.

*Lead by example.

*Respect and hold dear the trust that others place in you.

*Be heroically brave in pursuit of goodness.

*Show kindness towards guests.

*Care for and be kind towards those you employ, and especially your mount.

Basically... the default code does not let you do what you did. Which is why you should immediately throw out the default code for the Paladin Code of Honor. The default code does not let you redeem evil.

lsfreak

2012-06-29, 01:43 AM

Attacking the goblin because he's a goblin strikes me as a strongly Evil act, especially when he's helped you.

Joining up with the lich is strictly forbidden for the paladin by RAW, but RAW the paladin's code is ridiculous. RAW forces paladins to be Lawful Stupid when it comes to the code. A real Good character might well join up for the greater good, trying to convert the lich while you're teamed up, and setting up plans to either imprison or kill the lich when you're done and he's still evil.

Trying to join up with evil for fighting a bigger evil is neutral. Sitting by while the druid torches a village, evil. Letting the lich leave after you've done your thing, also probably evil. Trying to convert the lich to good while you're joined up, good. Imprisoning the lich once you're done, good. Allowing the lich to use evil spells, probably evil. But again, killing the goblin, definitely evil.

As a druid, you'd probably have problems with joining up with a blighter though. You can justify it as coercion from the party, or as a lesser evil, or actively try to sabotage your alliance. But unless there's something intensely personal about it, I see know reason to come to violence over it, especially not lethal violence (attacking party members with spells/reserve feats).

LordBlades

2012-06-29, 04:52 AM

Joining up with the lich is strictly forbidden for the paladin by RAW, but RAW the paladin's code is ridiculous. RAW forces paladins to be Lawful Stupid when it comes to the code. A real Good character might well join up for the greater good, trying to convert the lich while you're teamed up, and setting up plans to either imprison or kill the lich when you're done and he's still evil.

Only if the lich is evil and the paladin knows that in character.

To the OP:

Regarding the goblin: I don't think either bringing him to justice (assuming a fair trial, which the goblin would probably not get due to being, well, a goblin) or letting him go are evil acts. But then again, what would you have the goblin accused of, since you haven't seen him do anything?

Attacking the party over it however is a bit extreme. To put it metaphorically, I wouldn't consider a guy who punches his friends/co-workers in the face every time they want to do something differently than he does as a nice, sensible person that I want to have around. Arguing your case, trying to convince them to do things your way would be all right, but trying to take matter into your own hands regardless, and then attacking the other party members when they took action to stop you would give them every reason they need to kick your character out of the party. Who wants to have a guy that you can't disagree with around?

Regarding the blighter lich: The paladin, assuming he doesn't know that it's evil, can at least investigate this (rather huge) potential benefit without breaking his code. Of course, he can't really associate with it unless it's a neutral blighter, but he can, and IMO should, look into it . As for a druid, a blighter is pretty much the entire opposite of what one stands for, so I completely understand why a druid would be hesitant to work with one. Whether a particular druid would place the greater good such an alliance would bring above his personal feelings or not, depends on each particular character.

Grail

2012-06-29, 04:57 AM

False. They cannot associate with evil, even to fight a greater evil.
....snip....
They can't. That's not their job; that is maybe the Cleric's job. Their job is to smite evil.

Paladin's are the greatest force for good in the game.
Book of Exalted Deeds, pg8
Redeeming Evil
Perhaps the greatest act of good one could ever hope to accomplish is the redemption of an evil soul. Bringing an evil character to see the error of her ways not only stops her from preying on innocent victims, but helps her as well, winning her a place in the blessed afterlife of the Upper Planes instead of an eternity of torment and damnation in the Lower....

To say that a Paladin's job, and their sole job is to smite evil is incredibly narrow minded and frivolous. It is more than that, it is to defeat evil, not necessarily to do so just by the use of a sword. The best way to defeat evil is to remove its influence and make an evil enemy a good ally.

Obviously though, you're of the school of thought that makes playing Paladin's in most groups impossible.

The code has never been spelled out in 3.x, it's only got a few remarks about it. It then leaves it up to the player and DM's interpretation. You are interpreting it as though what is written in those two sentences is the entire code. One cannot live a life on so short a brief.

Further to that, if you want to go entirely by RAW, then there is no restriction on their code of conduct precluding them from associating with someone who is evil.

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all special class abilities if she ever willingly commits an act of evil. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, etc.), help those who need help (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those that 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. A paladin will not continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may only hire henchmen or accept followers who are lawful good.

Associates is quite clearly defined differently than their code of conduct. Now, they lose their powers based on their code of conduct, not on their Associates.

Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all special abilities and spells, including the service of the paladin’s warhorse. She also may not progress in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description, page 176), as appropriate.

By not using evil to fight a greater evil, one could argue that the Paladin did not do everything in their power to uphold their code, specifically "help those who need help".

Paladins are not means justifies the ends either. Not even close. Paladins must walk a thin line, definitely. But they must also be good. They must do what is right.

Too often I hear people talk about Paladins being lawful. They tend to always forget that they are supposed to be more good than law.

hamishspence

2012-06-29, 05:50 AM

Defenders of the Faith mentions paladins can associate with Evil- for redemption purposes and/or to fight a greater one- but it's risky.

Dragon Magazine's paladin guide also mentions they can associate for redemption purposes.

The Succubus

2012-06-29, 06:05 AM

My take? The whole Lich business is a red herring.

You cannot attack and kill someone for actions they "might" take, now matter how much you disapprove of them. The goblin was merely sitting at a table talking with you and you tried to put an arrow in his face. Tempting though it is at times, you cannot shoot someone in the face for talking to you.

Grail

2012-06-29, 06:08 AM

Tempting though it is at times, you cannot shoot someone in the face for talking to you.

Well, you can.... of course that's the path of an evil character, and the other good characters in the group might take exception to it.

dascarletm

2012-06-29, 01:56 PM

I'm curious as to the age of the players in this campaign.

It reminds me of when I played with my friends way back when.

We were young and angry and fought within the party, and not the good kind.

Seriously though, that whole situation seems really stupid, and I think it really is the OP's fault entirely. Sorry

For the sake of argument lets just say the goblin fought your group, and surrendered at the end of the battle. The paladin would be in the right to take him captive instead of executing him. Now the OP for whatever reason wanted to kill him, but instead of having a great chance to have cool character arguments you decide to straight up attack them.

When playing DnD it seems like not so much a big deal, but lets think about it.

Myself, Grail, and the OP are off exploring the world. We get into a disagreement on how to proceed on an issue. (assume it is of the same caliber as the original situation). If I started to try and KILL Grail, by attacking him...

you get the rest

It's grounds for thinking I'm unbalanced and need meds, have no regard for life, or just a plain evil f***.

If I was the DM for that situation, I'd probably say the OP went toward evil a step, and defiantly towards chaotic a step for that situation.

Trying to hurt your friends because you disagree on the situation isn't just retarded role-playing, its bad table etiquette. (although sometimes it is okay if you have the right group).

Tyndmyr

2012-06-29, 02:19 PM

I say i don't care he needs justice done. ...In the end i try to kill goblin

So, your idea of justice is to kill someone out of hand because of their race, and a ping on your magical radar, regardless of helpful possibilities?

Yeah, your actions sound evil to me.

dascarletm

2012-06-29, 02:25 PM

So, your idea of justice is to kill someone out of hand because of their race, and a ping on your magical radar, regardless of helpful possibilities?

Yeah, your actions sound evil to me.

Evil, or just not very well thought out roleplaying... It sounds like when I DM'd for my little nephews. They just don't think about what they are doing.

They get an Idea in their head and think, "THAT IS RIGHT ALL ELSE ARE WRONGS!"

roguemetal

2012-06-29, 03:13 PM

1) Paladins can't work with evil to obtain information, it's their main flaw. If you need a quote: "...a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code."

2) The Paladin must still help those in need if they do not use the help for evil purposes, e.g. you are required to continue assisting the party, so long as they don't act evil. The party should have been dissuaded in the first place from considering working with the lich, but the moment the lich comes in, the Paladin must kill it before it corrupts the party. Or, if the party is seen conspiring to receive or work with this lich, the Paladin no longer has obligation to the party and must eventually find a way to destroy the whole party.

3) It is unusual for a druid to work with undead, although not explicitly stated by the rules. Druids are required to revere nature, and undead are by the rules heretical to that idea through unnatural extension of life.

Hope this helps.

kingsolomon

2012-06-29, 03:15 PM

"THAT IS RIGHT ALL ELSE ARE WRONGS!" I loved this phrase. Was i wrong yea maybe, would i do it again yea i probable would. Is it an evil act or not I guess it dosne't really matter cause in the end i lost my character. To have tried to kill a goblin in cold blood at the time yea i thought evil guy going to get off due idiot rogue. I may have croosed the line, but if all you do is associate with evil beings hell bent on crushing all who is in there way. By assocation does that not make you an evil person. Helping them by not trying to stop them and in some cases just full out helping them. To me the goblin was there he was there dragon rider,I don't think he rode on the back saying yeee haa, and not using the DM described as a "wicked looking bow on the table" to shoot down people. As kingatticus pointed out i did attack all party memebers (2 out of the 8 who blinked the goblin out of the room). So yea i then saw my rogue and his friend mage of some kind as a threat to all. The pally then came in saying please stop the fighting but it was already over lines had been drawn blood had been shed. I left the party as to not be more of a distraction. I still believe what i did was right even if it is wrong. As a Druid no lich druid was going to fight by me and taint the land as i tried to heal or purge any thing bad from it.

dascarletm

2012-06-29, 03:21 PM

I still believe what i did was right even if it is wrong.

And that's why I said you are like my little nephews playing.:smallannoyed:

Having fun with your friends > being right in the game.

It might not have been a big deal out of game, if it wasn't then I take it back. If it was a big deal, as I am interpreting it, then thats where you're doing it wrong.

roguemetal

2012-06-29, 03:45 PM

As a Druid no lich druid was going to fight by me and taint the land as i tried to heal or purge any thing bad from it.

Chaotic Good Druid? Doesn't exist. You can work against the Lich with your party, or sever alliances and fight them later once they know you are against them, but to turn on the party for a personal sense of justice is a CG act, not usually permitted by class restrictions. Druids can be protectors of the land, but are only required to revere nature. Protecting it makes them NG.

lsfreak

2012-06-29, 08:15 PM

To have tried to kill a goblin in cold blood at the time yea i thought evil guy going to get off due idiot rogue.
Evil guys get off all the time. Hell, a third of the whole world is evil, humans included. He was helping you out and showed no real inclination towards doing evil. Unlike you, he didn't just attempt murder in front of a paladin.

I may have croosed the line, but if all you do is associate with evil beings hell bent on crushing all who is in there way. By assocation does that not make you an evil person. Helping them by not trying to stop them and in some cases just full out helping them.
Nope, it doesn't.

So yea i then saw my rogue and his friend mage of some kind as a threat to all.
Releasing one goblin is a threat to all? That sounds like a slight overstatement, especially from a NEUTRAL character.

As a Druid no lich druid was going to fight by me and taint the land as i tried to heal or purge any thing bad from it.
Right, but that doesn't mean murder the person who merely mentioned the lich to you. It means see what happens, try and turn the party members against the idea, sabotage the meeting, watch vigilantly over the lich to make sure he does no evil, work with the paladin to ensure he's turned or imprisoned or killed when you're done, etc.

NecroRebel

2012-06-29, 09:44 PM

To have tried to kill a goblin in cold blood at the time yea i thought evil guy going to get off due idiot rogue.

The important question on the goblin issue is, again, this: what crime is it that you think this goblins has committed? Being Evil is not a crime in most societies (and a society that criminalized being Evil would probably tend towards Lawful Evil itself and would never be Good). It is somewhat difficult* to "get off" of a criminal charge when one has never been accused of a crime or done anything criminal.

*Blue words have seemingly become the standard "sarcasm mode" indicator on these boards recently. I use it here.

toapat

2012-06-29, 10:07 PM

rexreg

2012-06-29, 11:49 PM

why did the druid need to whack the goblin? (not the first line from a bad joke)
if the slaying was tied into the goblin apprising the group of the existence of a lich, this is tantamount to shooting the messenger...i don't get it; it seems gratuitous @ best...if you saw him do nothing evil & the rest of the party shows no desire to whack him, how about your character knows he must foster good relations w/ his co-workers for future dealings; he grits his teeth & allows the goblin to leave, saying "if i see your mangy hide again i will make you rue the day you mother first laid eyes upon your father...get out!" (kicks goblin as he leaves)...unless of course he has an incredibly low Wisdom; given his class, i would doubt that...

the paladin is under no onus to kill the goblin; as the groups i am in play it, a paladin't Detect Evil ability detects either strong Evil (Lower Planar creatures & most Undead, mass murderers) or, in more 'normal' creatures ill or dangerous intent...it could be argued we all have Evil as part of our makeup; would a Paladin then detect all of us as being Evil? the Detection ferrets out more active Evil in the run-a-day being...is the goblin planning on stabbing us as soon as we start filing out the door? if so, he would detect as evil. the goblin, while not surrendering, parlayed in good faith...if anything, the paladin should wish to protect the goblin...you don't backstab those you have a discussion with whilst under a flag of truce even if not physically present, but still implied...this is a no-no for a paladin...

there are several published Undead who are not evil.
e.g. mummies can be Lawful Good temple guardians. in Ravenloft there is a Neutral Bardic Lich. The Paladin would fight in support of the mummies and be, perhaps, indifferent to the Bardic Lich...
in the given situation, if anything, the paladin should be gung-ho to investigate the lich to make sure it is not evil &, if it is, to redirect/neutralize it, at least in the short run...if the lich is evil, is it worth trying to take out @ the present time? a truce w/ lesser evil so as to destroy a greater evil is something the paladin grits his teeth over, but may find necessary; perhaps after the greater evil is destroyed the paladin & lich part ways (no longer allies of the moment) each swearing destruction on the other when they meet again...what a great plot hook!!
try playing a paladin in Sigil & attacking every Evil creature you see on the street...you'd last 5 seconds...this approach would be called Lawful Stupid...

would a druid work w/ a Blighter? never, never, &, dare i say, never...is attacking your party members because they discuss researching the lich? never, never &, dare i say, never...
i will never say there is never (double negative!!) a reason for attacking a party member; but, those reasons are far & few between...
**short interlude**
a disguised ninja & a samurai are staying in a nobles house...the samurai is unaware he is in the company of a ninja...the ninja decides to steal a rare book sitting on a pedestal; the samurai is in the room, watching
Ninja-I steal the book.
Samurai-you don't want to do that
Ninja-why not?
Samurai-i will not let you steal from our host; under the circumstances, i will be honour-bound to defend our host & his property.
Ninja-what?
Samurai-**sigh** (to the player--i will lose my samurai-hood if you take the book & i do nothing about it). i will result to physical violence if i must, be warned...
Ninja-you wouldn't do that...we're in the same party
Samurai-ummm...we are guests and i will not let you steal from our host (i will NOT lose my samurai-hood for you)
Ninja-(repeats) you wouldn't do that, we're in the same party. i take the book.
Samurai-i shoot the ninja, trying to incapacitate him (called shot to the leg)
the ninja throws a tantrum, starts throwing poisoned shuriken at the samurai (revealing himself as a ninja) & gets killed by the samurai...
the ninja's player never played w/ us again...
valid attacking a party member in this case? i would argue yes...not so in your case, however...i get the goblin out of the room..oh yeah? i attack you...
you, king solomon (a misnomer if i ever heard one), should perhaps have made more of an attempt to discuss things & stop the party from working w/ the Blighter...your actions accomplished what? they will go look for the lich & you no longer have influence w/ the of the group...
i'm guessing y'all are friends, because your actions, tone, & lack of understanding about the situation are curious (plz note the blue colour), yet you were allowed to make a new character, consider yourself lucky...
i think i would place your alignment as Chaotic Willful; maybe Chaotic Disruptive...

TuggyNE

2012-06-29, 11:52 PM

Paladin: A paladin shouldnt be obliged to leave a party just because they pick up a lich. if that was true, then you wouldnt be able to have a deathless be a friend with a paladin. Sure, a paladin should be offended by the existance of both a lich and a deathless, but that doesnt mean autokill. Undead are neutral until proven otherwise.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with this in general, but I have to note that deathless and undead are quite different in fluff, and there is no real connection between them.

Lich: as Xykon has said, Do anything to stay in the game. Lich, again, doesnt mean evil. It just means they were willing to go through the rites. Hell, even if the lich has very evil motivations, a paladin is suposed to be able to look away as long as the lich is the lesser evil.

The problem with this is that the ritual used to become a lich is, in fact, "unspeakably evil"; therefore, at some point in the past, the person was willing to initiate a process of unspeakable evil for ... whatever motive. This means they are almost certainly evil at the time, and, unless they've changed for some reason, are still just as evil or more so. If the lich had actually been anywhere nearby, this might have even been excuse for a detect-and-smite routine.

But as pointed out, a lot of this is due to conflicts in what people assume a paladin is supposed to do, vs. what the game says a paladin is supposed to do, vs. what would be convenient (and, not infrequently, careless writers contradicting each other in different books). Speaking of the code... while a paladin's non-association with evil is not listed under the same heading, there is no RAW way to get out of it — no penalty allowed if you transgress, no loss of powers, no atonement, you are literally not allowed to do it at all. Which is arguably kind of stupid, but if you're gonna go by RAW, at least recognize how absurdly strict it really is.

lsfreak

2012-06-30, 01:23 AM

I'm not entirely sure I agree with this in general, but I have to note that deathless and undead are quite different in fluff, and there is no real connection between them.

This reminded me of another thing. "Lich" doesn't always mean "Lich." Whenever I play, the assumption is that in-game people have different terms. If they call something a "lich," what they really mean is "powerful, undead spellcaster." The people who actually know what a "lich" is are going to be few and far between. They could be a lich, or they could be something completely different, because characters in the world aren't privy to our out-of-game character sheets and monster manuals.

This means, despite a lich-lich needing a ritual of unspeakable evil, it could well be a mummy, a particularly skeletal vampire, or even just a necropolitan.

The Paladin Code has no bearing on this discussion, at least in this particular case.
The DM already stated in-thread that the paladin is a Ruby Knight Vindicator and not a paladin at all. (coughseewhatijustsaid)

LadyLexi

2012-06-30, 10:05 AM

As my most recent Paladin, I would have tried to capture to goblin. If I had party members who opposed this choice, I would give them a chance to speak and if I was not convinced I would proceed with trying to capture the goblin. If violence broke out between party members and I then I would attempt to incapacitate the party members in question(but never kill) and proceed.

Chances are I would lose and die and I would be cool with that. My friends and I would maybe get a laugh in or two about it and I would make something else. If I won then I would heal the incapacitated characters after I had secured the prisoner.

As for your druid, it sounds like the party turned against your choice. This happens sometime/often depending on the group and the important thing to remember is that the character isn't you, and the other player's aren't their characters. If someone does something you don't like in the game that you feel doesn't make sense for their character either, ask them to explain why.

The exception of course goes for the jerk players who make characters just for the sake of ruining everyone else's fun.

Don't get mad at the player's just realize that sometime, like in actual life, you don't always share the ideology of your friends and that these things are settled best by splitting up or stabbing them in the chest. :-P

Knightofvictory

2012-06-30, 10:45 AM

My two cents...

Situation: coming across an unarmed, but likely evil opponent that gives information about his boss freely and surrenders to party.

Good: Feel compassion for the guy, and let him live. This may be his first step to redemption. If possible, see if you can help him get out alive.

Neutral: He is an enemy, let's not complicate this. Take his weapon, tie him up, or force him to run away. Maybe smack him around a little or break some fingers if 'his kind' has given you problems and you're feeling a little jerkish. He doesn't want to fight, but he ain't your friend neither so get him away from you and if you see him again, kill him.

Evil: Hah, surrender... where do they come up with this stuff? Run my little chunks of XP! :belkar:

Killing a helpless non-combatant doing you a favor sounds evil to me, especially if it is a habit. Rogue sounds evil to me too, for whatever it's worth. Knight/Paladin guy sounds like perfect good trying to defend an unarmed, helpful guy from an unlawful, brutal death.