PDA

View Full Version : Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?



Pages : [1] 2

Leshy
2012-07-13, 04:54 PM
At the moment things are okay as everyone is working toward the greater good... but what happens when they go to city and rogue just starts stealing around?

Ashdate
2012-07-13, 05:03 PM
As a DM, the players playing the rogue and the paladin need to know each others boundaries. The Paladin Code is not an excuse to prevent another player from having fun; this isn't to say there can't be conflict, but unless the Rogue player allows it, The Paladin should not act like a babysitter, ensuring that the Rogue can't breathe without first passing a Detect Evil-flavored breathalyzer test.

Whatever it takes for the Paladin to look the other way -- conviction that setting a good example is better than scolding, the belief that all beings have a spark of goodness in them, ignorance, or a good bluff check from the Rogue -- should be made clear. This is not to say that the Rogue should commit unlawful acts without fear of repercussions, but said repercussions should primarily come from the DM.

JellyPooga
2012-07-13, 05:21 PM
It entirely depends on how obvious the Rogue is being about stealing stuff, I suppose.

If the Paladin never knows about the Rogue stealing, or only suspects, then he has no reason to get preachy.

On the other hand, if the Rogue goes off and steals something then comes back to the group saying "hey guys, look what I just stole from that old lady across the street", then the Paladin is well within his rights to give a lecture. Quite whether the Rogue pays any attention to the lecture or even sticks around to listen to it, is up to him. The Paladin is really only under compulsion to try and prevent his compatriots from being a- or immoral, not to be the party inquisitor. As long as the amorality stays the right side of outright evil, then the Paladin doesn't really have to do anything.

If the Rogue is blatantly going around mugging or even killing people, then you may have a problem with inter-party conflict, but until then, let the players sort it out as characters. In theory, if the Rogue is good enough at what he's doing, then the Paladin should be none the wiser.

NerfTW
2012-07-13, 05:21 PM
At the moment things are okay as everyone is working toward the greater good... but what happens when they go to city and rogue just starts stealing around?

So the rogue has a kleptomaniac trait? Because I don't see why being in the city means the rogue should just start going nuts and grabbing things.

I agree with Ashdate, but also, for the rogue, why can't he/she make a few compromises? Stealing things is risky. It puts the whole party and their mission at risk. Is the rogue really that much of a jerk/kleptomaniac that they can't go five minutes without stealing shiny things? Why is the defining trait "Steals stuff"? I know a lot of people who are law abiding who know how to do sleight of hand and lock picking. Just having those skills doesn't mean you have an unavoidable compulsion to use them to break the law.

The rogue knows this will tick off the paladin. Why wouldn't they just say "Hey, I'm only going to steal something if it's absolutely necessary, and not let the paladin know. There's no point in dividing the group over it and possibly getting us all thrown in jail. And certainly not because I like shiny things" instead of "I'm going to steal everything I want, regardless of who's looking, and flaunt it in front of my teammate who doesn't approve of it because I enjoy derailing our mission."

BOTH team members should compromise. They can very certainly find an in character reason why they'd work together. People do it all the time in the real world. There's no point in intentionally doing something you know your buddy doesn't like.

Grail
2012-07-13, 05:42 PM
Paladins are NOT police, they are not bound to uphold the law anymore than another LG character is. And that is the issue, thief with a LG companion. A true LG character will find wanton thet abhorrent on both an ethical and moralistic level. They should see the bigger picture (whether it is there or not) stealing from the merchant might mean that merchant can't make payments on his shop, can't feed his children. Perhaps the item stolen was for a local lord after having been commissioned by the let's wife. Wanton and indiscriminate acts of theft don't consider that there can be consequences for their actions. A LG character should try and set things right. They should also try to show the thief that it's not ok to steal at will.

But the big question to be addressed is:

How does the thief expect to be successful at his crimes if the paladin can spot him? Because surely if the paladin spots him, then so does half the city.

Zerter
2012-07-14, 03:59 AM
The Rogue is responsible for not letting the Paladin find out, the Paladin is responsible for not finding out.

If the Paladin does find out there's a problem that has to be resolved, but that's what either role-playing or killing other PCs is for.

TheOOB
2012-07-14, 04:59 AM
Before the campaign even starts, the DM should tell the players that they are required to make characters who can work together as a group. In this case, that means a rogue who is not evil, and/or a paladin who doesn't get ballistic over small crimes and tries to redeem before punishing.

Vitruviansquid
2012-07-14, 06:16 AM
Allowed: The buddy cop dynamic...

He's a mighty paladin who does things by the book. "On my honor, I swear to uphold the laws of your fair city and protect her citizens from those who would wrong them."

He's a cunning rogue with a rough exterior and a heart of gold. "You told me not to take everything that's not nailed down and I only took some of the stuff that's not nailed down!"

Together they slay monsters, rescue damsels, and have their swords and badges taken away by seneschals who are too old to deal with their crap! "Damnit, Rogue and Paladin, you blew up an entire orphanage to apprehend that necromancer! You're a pair of loose cannons that I won't have destroying MY city! I'm taking your swords and badges!

"Come on, milord! That orphanage was a front for an Orcus cult!"

Comedy ensues


Not allowed: The rogue and paladin trying to kill or physically coerce each other over every little thing, like their characters don't know how to solve any their problems without resorting to violence, and like their characters were mortal enemies rather than travelling companions before coming to the city.

huttj509
2012-07-14, 06:54 AM
Also required: A discussion with the DM about what exactly is fall-worthy, especially when it comes to the infamous 'associate with evil' clause. My impression was the question was less "how do they interact" than "how do you keep the paladin from falling because of the thief's actions?"

I may have misunderstood.

Grail
2012-07-14, 08:46 AM
The Paladin cannot fall because of the Thiefs actions, unless the Paladin actively encourages and supports him, and even then it's dubious.

A Paladin does not fall from associating with evil by RAW. Associating with evil is not in violation of his code, it is written in a different section under a different heading.

Madfellow
2012-07-14, 10:56 AM
If it were me, I'd just say the paladin's Code of Conduct doesn't apply. At all. It's a stupid mechanic that causes nothing but grief.

Dr.Epic
2012-07-14, 11:00 AM
At the moment things are okay as everyone is working toward the greater good... but what happens when they go to city and rogue just starts stealing around?

Because all rogues are pickpockets!

Rogues can be good. Heck, they can be LG. Being a rogue is also about being a stealthy fighter, a trap finder, a scout, and a charisma man. They aren't just thieves.

Xuc Xac
2012-07-14, 11:37 AM
Stealing because the character is a rogue is like murdering because the character is a fighter. At least in 2nd Edition and earlier when the class was called "Thief", there was a more understandable reason to steal (although it's still dumb). In 3rd edition and later with prescribed wealth by level, what possible justification would a rogue have for picking pockets in town? You've got a king's ransom in magic items, gems, and gold on you. What's the point in picking pockets in town? That's like driving your Ferrari to a five star restaurant for a meal of lobster stuffed with caviar tacos and then swiping a handful of singles from the bartender's tip jar.

Dr.Epic
2012-07-14, 11:40 AM
Stealing because the character is a rogue is like murdering because the character is a fighter.

Yeah, next thing you people will be saying all wizards do is cast spells.

:smallwink:
:smalltongue:

Seriously though, I do agree with what you're saying.

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-14, 03:16 PM
First:

The DM and the group need to throw out the paladin code of conduct, and rewrite it to be reasonable for the game and the setting and the group.

CET
2012-07-14, 03:32 PM
Basically agree with what's been said (++agree on writing your own code for the paladin).

I think the GM and the players should look at this as a source of fun and dramatic tension. The only reason it would be anything otherwise is if one or more players (or the GM) are using it as an excuse to cause problems.

Some thoughts on how I'd handle it. YMMV.

- The Rogue cannot be the kind of person who would steal things from the paladin or other party members. The Paladin cannot be lawful-genocidal ('Thief? Kill!!').

- In character, if/when the Paladin discovers that the rogue sometimes 'acquires' things, the PCs might start an ongoing IC discussion about a code of conduct (the rogue won't steal from the needy/poor, etc).

- Personally, I think an awesome way to broach this is for the Rogue to produce a stolen McGuffin that the party really needed but couldn't get earlier (the gem that gets them into the evil dukes castle, or whatever). This provides some complexity for the Paladin to work with (yea, stealing is wrong, but we were able to save a bunch of lives because of it . . . )

Nero24200
2012-07-14, 03:37 PM
First thing I would say is discuss the paladin's code with the pal player. Hash out some specifics so that he has a good idea what could make him fall/what wouldn't. Don't be afraid to tweek the code if both of you feel it need's tweeked.

A minor note is that the paladin only falls from associated with evil creatures or creatures he/she objects to morally, so providing good justifcation for steeling can help (for example, looting from fallen enemies is still stealing, but it might be harder for the paladin to object when the "victim" was trying to rip his throat out in the previous round).

Second thing would be to inform the rogue that playing a rogue doesn't automatically mean thief. If he plays a thief it's a character trait he has chosen and not a "bonus" or something from choosing that particular class. Also remind him that his is a choice - the paladin's code is not. The player playing the paladin is stuck with the code purely for playing a paladin, nothing ties this player to theft, so if it starts to cause issues I would look here first personally.

Lastly, remind both players that the party needs to reasonably work together. If something causes problems then it needs to go. If you feel the thief player is stealing a little too much and making it too easy to get spotted by the paladin, I would cause that as the problem and tell the player to drop the stealing. If you feel the paladin is overreacting to certain acts (for example, looting enemy bodies again) then you be inclined to do the same to the paladin.

The important thing is making sure that both players are willing to work together OOC to keep the party in one piece.

Kish
2012-07-15, 12:33 PM
A Paladin does not fall from associating with evil by RAW. Associating with evil is not in violation of his code, it is written in a different section under a different heading.
This is a strange new concept of "RAW" with which I was not previously familiar.

As NerfTW and Xuc Xac have noted, why is "rogue" being treated as "someone who compulsively breaks the law"?

Jay R
2012-07-15, 06:31 PM
We have a great dynamic right now between the paladin and my 2E mage/thief. She has made her position clear, and expects my thief to live up to it. On the other hand, she's not very vigilant. I occasionally slip out while she's occupied to spy on the enemy.

The only fly in the ointment is that I've had to explain to the DM (twice) that my thief has not become Lawful; he just finds it more lucrative to adventure with a paladin than to steal.

DigoDragon
2012-07-16, 08:38 AM
I was involved in a short campaign where I played a roguish cleric and we had a paladin in the group. We worked fine together as long as any law-breaking I did was kept out of sight/out of mind. :smallbiggrin:
A good example was when we captured a pominant henchman to the BBEG. The paladin had nearly killed the foe (he was at -8 HP) and left it to me for healing and interrogation (What we both call "Surgery"). The Paladin knows I'm a little rough with interrogations and so left the room.

After a short interrogation I slit the foe's throat and burned the body (can't be too careful!). Upon returning with the Paladin she only asked if the villain survived surgery or if he died on the operating table. No, this one didn't pull through (I sometimes let the foe live if they're not a major threat).
Paladin knows not to ask further questions and we moved on.

obryn
2012-07-16, 08:47 AM
You know, I ran a multiclassed Rogue/Paladin for a short time in a 3.5 game. It worked great, if you could get past him picking locks to get at the villain instead of bashing in the door. :) And if you can have both in one character, there's probably no problem with having them both in the same party. :)

-O

Janus
2012-07-16, 10:31 AM
Allowed: The buddy cop dynamic...

He's a mighty paladin who does things by the book. "On my honor, I swear to uphold the laws of your fair city and protect her citizens from those who would wrong them."

He's a cunning rogue with a rough exterior and a heart of gold. "You told me not to take everything that's not nailed down and I only took some of the stuff that's not nailed down!"
SENESCHAL: You can't touch the Elven Ambassador! He has diplomatic immunity!
ROGUE: I don't plan on diplomacy, lord.
PALADIN: By the gods, rogue, I'm only two weeks away from retirement! I can't take much more of this!

Mando Knight
2012-07-16, 10:47 AM
Allowed: The buddy cop dynamic...

He's a mighty paladin who does things by the book. "On my honor, I swear to uphold the laws of your fair city and protect her citizens from those who would wrong them."

He's a cunning rogue with a rough exterior and a heart of gold. "You told me not to take everything that's not nailed down and I only took some of the stuff that's not nailed down!"

Together they slay monsters, rescue damsels, and have their swords and badges taken away by seneschals who are too old to deal with their crap! "Damnit, Rogue and Paladin, you blew up an entire orphanage to apprehend that necromancer! You're a pair of loose cannons that I won't have destroying MY city! I'm taking your swords and badges!
You're a loose cannon, Rogue, but a damn good cop!

As NerfTW and Xuc Xac have noted, why is "rogue" being treated as "someone who compulsively breaks the law"?
Fact: one can play a Lawful Rogue. Such a character is generally either the leader of a thieves' guild (if you're gonna steal things, it's gonna be under MY rules!) or the kind of character that's a Rogue because he's a martial-type character that uses his cunning and skills to back his ideals, rather than the omnicidal kleptomaniac.

Synovia
2012-07-16, 10:54 AM
Second thing would be to inform the rogue that playing a rogue doesn't automatically mean thief. If he plays a thief it's a character trait he has chosen and not a "bonus" or something from choosing that particular class. Also remind him that his is a choice - the paladin's code is not. The player playing the paladin is stuck with the code purely for playing a paladin, nothing ties this player to theft, so if it starts to cause issues I would look here first personally. .

This is absolutely not the way to go. You don't tell one character "His concept is more important than yours". The paladin code most certainly is a choice, and there's nothing wrong with having a paladin fall because he can't keep to code.

A good chunk of the rogue's class skills are related to stealing. There's no reason that another character's class choice should prevent the rogue from doing what he does.

The Glyphstone
2012-07-16, 11:26 AM
Allowed: The buddy cop dynamic...

He's a mighty paladin who does things by the book. "On my honor, I swear to uphold the laws of your fair city and protect her citizens from those who would wrong them."

He's a cunning rogue with a rough exterior and a heart of gold. "You told me not to take everything that's not nailed down and I only took some of the stuff that's not nailed down!"

Together they slay monsters, rescue damsels, and have their swords and badges taken away by seneschals who are too old to deal with their crap! "Damnit, Rogue and Paladin, you blew up an entire orphanage to apprehend that necromancer! You're a pair of loose cannons that I won't have destroying MY city! I'm taking your swords and badges!

"Come on, milord! That orphanage was a front for an Orcus cult!"

Comedy ensues


Not allowed: The rogue and paladin trying to kill or physically coerce each other over every little thing, like their characters don't know how to solve any their problems without resorting to violence, and like their characters were mortal enemies rather than travelling companions before coming to the city.
They Fight Crime. (http://www.theyfightcrime.org)

KnightDisciple
2012-07-16, 11:40 AM
A couple thoughts...

1.)Why does the rogue feel the need to wantonly steal while in the city? Unless he nails someone who's really rich, you get way more money by going out adventuring and beating monsters, and occasionally collecting quest rewards. I mean, what gets you a better end result: Pick-pocketing a half-dozen people for 5 gold each, or going out and slaying the Young Red Dragon and getting its hoard of treasure?
HINT: Not the first one.
2.)Why is it so terrible the paladin object to the thief taking people's money? In a medieval society, you don't have banks and debit cards. Most likely, what money you have on your person is all the money you have. Like someone pointed up above, stealing without a care could well bring great harm to many people's lives. So, yeah, the paladin should rightfully object to that. If the rogue is only doing a careful "steal from the corrupt rich" schtick, I could see the paladin being willing to "not notice his antics" or some such. But randomly stealing from innocent people walking down the street? What's wrong with the Paladin, who should be a Stand Up Guy, a Good Guy, objecting to that?
3.)Heck, why is the Paladin the only one who would object? Is anyone else in the party Good-aligned? They should probably not be okay with random pick-pocketing either. Even Chaotic Good shouldn't consistently approve of stealing from anyone the Rogue can see, because the return on the harm caused is too small (especially in light of typical adventurer treasure hauls).
4.)Why would it be bad, if this is a reoccurring thing, for the paladin to say that the rogue needs to stop, the rogue needs to leave, or (if no one else cares the Rogue is clearly heading down the path to Evil what with stealing from everyone in sight for no good reason) the paladin leaves (thus the player can make a Chaotic Neutral Fighter who doesn't care what the rogue does)? That seems like a pretty realistic response if someone's doing something you find strongly objectionable.
5.)Nothing about Rogues says they have to be thieves. Heck, even Sleight of Hand can be used for things like "hiding weapons up your sleeves" and "palming a knife when no one can see you". And even with Rogue skill points, there's no way you can get every skill on their list; thus, you can easily make a sort of scout, pathfinder, trap-disarmer LG Rogue. It's completely feasible. Heck, just go for the angle he's like a Medieval Navy SEAL or something.

Kish
2012-07-16, 12:14 PM
5.)Nothing about Rogues says they have to be thieves. Heck, even Sleight of Hand can be used for things like "hiding weapons up your sleeves" and "palming a knife when no one can see you". And even with Rogue skill points, there's no way you can get every skill on their list; thus, you can easily make a sort of scout, pathfinder, trap-disarmer LG Rogue. It's completely feasible. Heck, just go for the angle he's like a Medieval Navy SEAL or something.
Or a police officer?

(Seriously, no class's skill set is better suited to a cop.)

KnightDisciple
2012-07-16, 01:09 PM
Or a police officer?

(Seriously, no class's skill set is better suited to a cop.)

Oh, true! :smallbiggrin:

Janus
2012-07-16, 01:17 PM
My coworker recommends that the paladin and rogue be related. :smallbiggrin:

Mando Knight
2012-07-16, 03:46 PM
This is absolutely not the way to go. You don't tell one character "His concept is more important than yours". The paladin code most certainly is a choice, and there's nothing wrong with having a paladin fall because he can't keep to code.

A good chunk of the rogue's class skills are related to stealing. There's no reason that another character's class choice should prevent the rogue from doing what he does.

Another character's class choice shouldn't prevent the Paladin from doing what he does, either. It's a two-way street.

Synovia
2012-07-16, 04:09 PM
Another character's class choice shouldn't prevent the Paladin from doing what he does, either. It's a two-way street.

No, but what the Paladin does is not "moderate the personality and habits of your fellow PCs".

He's an exemplar of his god. He leads by example. Hes not a hall monitor.

KnightDisciple
2012-07-16, 04:18 PM
No, but what the Paladin does is not "moderate the personality and habits of your fellow PCs".

He's an exemplar of his god. He leads by example. Hes not a hall monitor.

On the flip side, a Paladin should be careful of the company he keeps. He sets an example for others, and is very much a symbol (especially if associated with a deity).

So a Paladin who hangs out with a guy who's well known as a thief and a liar will be looked on as a hypocrite.

There's a middle ground between "the paladin can't tell people how to play their characters" and "it's totally okay if the Paladin spends time with a rogue who's an unrepentant thief and liar who targets anyone and everyone".

Like Mando Knight said, it's a 2-way street.

Also, besides Sleight of Hand, how exactly do a "good chunk" of the rogue's class skills specifically relate to stealing?

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-16, 04:30 PM
Here's an alternate paladin code I came up with for Lawful Good Paladins of Honor, some time ago... you should look at something like this as an example..


*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, only kill when necessary, and show quarter if possible.

*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.


Notice something? A paladin who follows this code wouldn't necessarily fall if they witness their party members doing an evil act. They can travel with evil party members. They could sneak. They can ambush. They could use poison (not con damaging or hit point damaging ones though). They could (within certain limits) lie.

Reverent-One
2012-07-16, 05:44 PM
Allowed: The buddy cop dynamic...

He's a mighty paladin who does things by the book. "On my honor, I swear to uphold the laws of your fair city and protect her citizens from those who would wrong them."

He's a cunning rogue with a rough exterior and a heart of gold. "You told me not to take everything that's not nailed down and I only took some of the stuff that's not nailed down!"

Together they slay monsters, rescue damsels, and have their swords and badges taken away by seneschals who are too old to deal with their crap! "Damnit, Rogue and Paladin, you blew up an entire orphanage to apprehend that necromancer! You're a pair of loose cannons that I won't have destroying MY city! I'm taking your swords and badges!

"Come on, milord! That orphanage was a front for an Orcus cult!"

Comedy ensues



SENESCHAL: You can't touch the Elven Ambassador! He has diplomatic immunity!
ROGUE: I don't plan on diplomacy, lord.
PALADIN: By the gods, rogue, I'm only two weeks away from retirement! I can't take much more of this!

I find the Paladin/Rogue fantasy buddy cop movie idea far funnier than I probably should. I'd so watch that.

Lord Tyger
2012-07-16, 06:17 PM
Here's an alternate paladin code I came up with for Lawful Good Paladins of Honor, some time ago... you should look at something like this as an example..


*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, only kill when necessary, and show quarter if possible.

*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.


Notice something? A paladin who follows this code wouldn't necessarily fall if they witness their party members doing an evil act. They can travel with evil party members. They could sneak. They can ambush. They could use poison (not con damaging or hit point damaging ones though). They could (within certain limits) lie.

They could not be aware of a party member stealing from random citizens and do nothing about it, unless you have a very odd definition of a 'virtuous law'.

Nero24200
2012-07-16, 06:25 PM
This is absolutely not the way to go. You don't tell one character "His concept is more important than yours". The paladin code most certainly is a choice, and there's nothing wrong with having a paladin fall because he can't keep to code.

Being a paladin is a player choice. The code is something that goes with it. Not everyone likes it, a lot of people in my experience change it. But unless the DM is willing the let the changes slide playing a paladin means having the code, like it or not.

Nothing ever forces a rogue to be a thief. Nothing.

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-16, 06:39 PM
They could not be aware of a party member stealing from random citizens and do nothing about it, unless you have a very odd definition of a 'virtuous law'.

Yes, they have to do something about it, of course... but they don't fall for TRAVELING with or associating with that person. Their actions require some sort of action in general, rather than falling for associating with evil.

Kish
2012-07-16, 06:46 PM
He's an exemplar of his god.
Hold the phone. Is this 4ed (in which case paladins can be any alignment and the whole question makes no sense), Forgotten Realms, or a non-Forgotten Realms setting? Because if it's 3.xed and not Forgotten Realms, paladins aren't god-dependent.

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-16, 06:52 PM
If the deity is Torm, than this is forgotten realms or using the FR pantheon. If it is FR, than to be a Paladin of Torm, you have to worship him. In general, it is fantastically stupid to not worship a deity in FR...

Mistell, wrong thread.

Kish
2012-07-16, 08:46 PM
...Yes, and? As far as I can see, you're the first person in this thread to suggest that the paladin in question worships Torm or exists in the same campaign world as Torm.

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-16, 08:47 PM
That was a misstell... wrong thread. Sorry...

VariaVespasa
2012-07-16, 11:38 PM
Yes, they have to do something about it, of course... but they don't fall for TRAVELING with or associating with that person. Their actions require some sort of action in general, rather than falling for associating with evil.

Committing crimes is fall-worthy, and aiding and abetting is a crime. Harboring a fugitive is a crime. Aiding a known fugitive is a crime. No, as a matter of fact he canNOT travel or associate with a known criminal for very long without falling, barring extraordinary circumstances. Paladins are not supposed to be Easy Mode.

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-17, 12:13 AM
Sure he can. He can try to be redeeming that person, or getting them to not commit crimes, or returning things from the crimes he commits, or whatever. As long as he is Combating Evil and making an attempt to Uphold Virtuous Laws, he can travel with an evil party member. Especially if that party member is necessary for combating a greater evil. He can't be idle when that person is committing such things, but he doesn't automatically fall. Now, past a certain point, he should probably take the party member to a local magistrate and leave him in jail and look on the criminal gets his hand or his head chopped off -- but the point is the player, and the paladin, has options.

Synovia
2012-07-17, 01:13 AM
Being a paladin is a player choice. The code is something that goes with it. Not everyone likes it, a lot of people in my experience change it. But unless the DM is willing the let the changes slide playing a paladin means having the code, like it or not.

Nothing ever forces a rogue to be a thief. Nothing.

And nothing forces a paladin to not fall. Nothing.


Committing crimes is fall-worthy, and aiding and abetting is a crime. Harboring a fugitive is a crime. Aiding a known fugitive is a crime. No, as a matter of fact he canNOT travel or associate with a known criminal for very long without falling, barring extraordinary circumstances. Paladins are not supposed to be Easy Mode.

Commiting evil acts is fall-worthy. Crimes are unlawful. That doesn't make them evil.

The PHB clearly states that being GOOD is more important for a Paladin than being lawful

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-17, 01:17 AM
Committing crimes is fall-worthy, and aiding and abetting is a crime. Harboring a fugitive is a crime. Aiding a known fugitive is a crime. No, as a matter of fact he canNOT travel or associate with a known criminal for very long without falling, barring extraordinary circumstances. Paladins are not supposed to be Easy Mode.

There's so much wrong with this it's hard to pick a place to start.

Lets go with crimes being fall-worthy: No. Just no. First, there are no crimes anywhere outside of a governing body's reach, because there are no laws. Dogma might count, but if your associate isn't a member of your faith then your dogma doesn't apply to him. Only within the recognized boundaries of some type of government is there any crime at all. Second many crimes fall into an ambiguous territory of alignment. If the crime is a chaotic act: no fall.

Your specifically listed crimes: All of those mean basically the same thing: helping a so-called criminal. Who decided he was a criminal, and did they have the authority to do so? Because if he's being railroaded by a corrupt government for something he didn't even do, It's a paladin's obligation, as a champion of good, to aid him. Even if he did do it; if the authority that's after him is going to torture him, handing him over would be an evil, and thus fall-worthy, act. The paladin would either have to give him a quick clean death, if the crime warranted, or aid him.

Finally, playing a paladin being "easy mode:" You're joking, right? Pallies are T5 and not even at the top of the tier. Don't get me wrong, they're not as terrible as some people seem to think, but "easy-mode" is the T1/T2 casters.

Democratus
2012-07-18, 07:46 AM
The OP hasn't returned to give us any clarification. At this point it is a bunch of people who are not in the campaign in question discussing the topic with nearly zero knowledge.

Many valid questions were asked about the nature of the rogue character and the paladin. Without answers, it's just conjecture and advice.

Paladins have been adventuring with shady characters for decades now. There are any number of ways to make it work. In the end, it's up to the players to decide how to do so.

Thialfi
2012-07-18, 11:05 AM
Why do rogues have to steal stuff from innocent people?

Screw paladins, anyone playing any class of character with a good alignment should have a very big problem with a rogue in their party indescriminently stealing from innocent people. Good people don't look the other way at that and adopt a rogues will be rogues attitude.

KnightDisciple
2012-07-18, 12:57 PM
Why do rogues have to steal stuff from innocent people?

Screw paladins, anyone playing any class of character with a good alignment should have a very big problem with a rogue in their party indescriminently stealing from innocent people. Good people don't look the other way at that and adopt a rogues will be rogues attitude.

This is kind of what I was trying to say earlier.

Synovia
2012-07-18, 01:33 PM
Screw paladins, anyone playing any class of character with a good alignment should have a very big problem with a rogue in their party indescriminently stealing from innocent people. Good people don't look the other way at that and adopt a rogues will be rogues attitude.

Good people look the other way all the time. Thats kind of one of the defining characteristics of the human race.

'Good' in the D&D spectrum doesn't mean "local narc/hall monitor/etc." It means that you try to do the right thing. Not that you force everyone else to behave as you believe they should.

Kish
2012-07-18, 01:54 PM
Objecting to random thefts makes someone a "narc/hall monitor/etc."? This is a definition of "etc" with which I was not previously familiar.

Synovia
2012-07-18, 01:59 PM
Objecting to random thefts makes someone a "narc/hall monitor/etc."? This is a definition of "etc" with which I was not previously familiar.


When the occupation for the player is wandering adventurer/murderhobo, then yeah, having a moral conniption over a theif robbing someone after you just killed an entire village of orcs is, yeah, a bit silly.

Good doesn't mean you impose your beliefs on others. Having a bit of an issue with the theif doing it? Fine. But there's no reason that two characters dissagreeing on what is right/wrong/acceptable should lead to bloodshed. People disagree all the time and don't kill each other.

hamlet
2012-07-18, 02:03 PM
When the occupation for the player is wandering adventurer/murderhobo, then yeah, having a moral conniption over a theif robbing someone after you just killed an entire village of orcs is, yeah, a bit silly.

Good doesn't mean you impose your beliefs on others. Having a bit of an issue with the theif doing it? Fine. But there's no reason that two characters dissagreeing on what is right/wrong/acceptable should lead to bloodshed. People disagree all the time and don't kill each other.

Why are the adventurers "wandering murder hobos"? Seems to be a bad way to put together a group.

Bobb
2012-07-18, 02:12 PM
Why do rogues have to steal stuff from innocent people?

Screw paladins, anyone playing any class of character with a good alignment should have a very big problem with a rogue in their party indescriminently stealing from innocent people. Good people don't look the other way at that and adopt a rogues will be rogues attitude. I would extend this to any non stupid character.

Hyena
2012-07-18, 02:28 PM
I do believe that paladin's job is to enforce good and law, helping innocents and punishing evildoers. Road robbers often got killed, so do bandits in the cities. Why petty thief (and maybe even a murderer) should get a special treatment just because he happens to steal from the bad guys as well?

Edit: Okay, I was pretty harsh. Thief doesn't really need to be killed, but true paladin should capture him and give him in to the authorities. Because it's the right thing.

Kish
2012-07-18, 02:29 PM
Why are the adventurers "wandering murder hobos"? Seems to be a bad way to put together a group.
Indeed.

Basing the argument on, "Should anyone object to theft given the premise that there is no morality in D&D?" produces the answer you want, Synovia, but only because it's a loaded question. Not everyone plays D&D that way. For those who do play that way, well, I can't think of any reason for them to be worrying about what the paladin's code means anyway.

Synovia
2012-07-18, 02:36 PM
I do believe that paladin's job is to enforce good and law, helping innocents and punishing evildoers.

No, and this is a common misconception. A paladin's job is to "respect legitimate authority, act with honor, help those in need, and punish those who harm innocents".

At no point in there does it say that the paladin's job is to ENFORCE the law. The paladin IS NOT A POLICE OFFICER. Good is above all things in a paladin, even law.

The paladin's job isn't to keep the rogue from stealing, its to prevent innocents from being harmed. These aren't always the same thing.

Hyena
2012-07-18, 02:42 PM
You know what? I do believe that stealing is very, very wrong and it directly harms to the innocents. And paladin should defend those innocents, shouldn't he?

Synovia
2012-07-18, 02:43 PM
You know what? I do believe that stealing is very, very wrong and it directly harms to the innocents. And paladin should defend those innocents, shouldn't he?

Whether or not stealing is EVIL is entirely based on context. Wrong has no meaning in this discussion.

KnightDisciple
2012-07-18, 03:32 PM
Whether or not stealing is EVIL is entirely based on context. Wrong has no meaning in this discussion.

Well, if you're not tossing the basic ideas of Good and Evil from the books out the door, I think stealing from people likely counts as Evil. Especially if it's not "we need supplies" and instead is "I like money and that dude's too much of a sap to notice me stealing his wages for the last month".

Stop and think about it this way:

If a character steals money from the average person walking down the street, he has likely stolen that person's wages for, at the least, the week. It's not "pocket change", it's their bank account. The character might as well have taken food from that person's mouth, and quite possibly their family's mouth.

By stealing that money, the character who steals is directly and actively harming innocent people (or, at the most cynical take, people who were just minding their own business/lives), all for their own gain.

Per the SRD:

Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Important parts highlighted.
Also:

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.

The focus is on killing, sure. But taking from others for your own gain with no qualms is in the same category.
And if you take a man's wages, causing his family to starve for a week or a month, you may well cause death. You're just as guilty as if you had stabbed a knife in their throats.

EDIT: So far we haven't been presented with the idea of "stealing out of necessity". Instead it's "stealing for the sake of stealing".
That's an Evil act, and one any self-respecting Good-aligned person should oppose. Start by demanding the money be returned and the act not be repeated. Proceed as necessary from there.

hamishspence
2012-07-18, 03:35 PM
"context" can make the difference between evil and not evil for a lot of acts- but it's not clear if "stealing" is one of them.

What should the default presumption be?

If you know nothing about the person you're stealing from- then they are "innocent".

In general, a person is harmed by losing their property (unless there'd circumstances that modify this).

Thus, in general, stealing from strangers would be Evil as a norm.

Kish
2012-07-19, 08:20 AM
Whether or not stealing is EVIL is entirely based on context. Wrong has no meaning in this discussion.
There are a number of common English words which mean something significantly different as D&D game terms.

"Good" and "Evil" do not happen to be among them. Far too frequently, someone argues that "Good" and "Evil" in D&D have nothing to do with any real-world person's understanding of morality. They're always wrong and it's always annoying.

Thialfi
2012-07-19, 08:26 AM
When the occupation for the player is wandering adventurer/murderhobo, then yeah, having a moral conniption over a theif robbing someone after you just killed an entire village of orcs is, yeah, a bit silly.

Good doesn't mean you impose your beliefs on others. Having a bit of an issue with the theif doing it? Fine. But there's no reason that two characters dissagreeing on what is right/wrong/acceptable should lead to bloodshed. People disagree all the time and don't kill each other.


Can't say I have ever killed an entire village of orcs in my game, but whatever floats your boat. Good most certainly means calling someone out when they behave badly. Doesn't mean it needs to lead to bloodshed. If my character sees Mr. Rogue pickpocketing Farmer Joe he/she is going to call him out and tell him to stop it or he can find a new partner once he gets done running from the guards when my character turns him in. This goes for my lawful good paladin AND my chaotic neutral rogue.

My chaotic neutral rogue isn't going to steal from someone that can't afford to lose the money. That is both unnecessarily cruel and thinking small time. He/she may think differently about the rich merchant. In such instances, I don't ever confront the other characters in my party with my behavior and force them to make a moral choice unless they have shown a willingness to go along with such things in the past. That is being a bad person and a bad thief.

When a good person sees bad bahavior like their friends grabbing their keys after downing a twelve pack and does nothing, that is a sign of weakness and a willingness to supress their morals for the sake of social convenience. It isn't a sign of what good people should find acceptable. I have done that kind of thing myself in life, but it doesn't make me feel good about myself and it usually leads to a lower opinion of the person in question. Enough of that behavior and it leads to me having a former friend.

Leon
2012-07-19, 10:10 AM
why is "rogue" being treated as "someone who compulsively breaks the law"?


Why villafy the rogue when its a common trait in all PCs (inc Paladins)

Synovia
2012-07-19, 10:18 AM
Can't say I have ever killed an entire village of orcs in my game, but whatever floats your boat. Good most certainly means calling someone out when they behave badly.


No, it does not at all.

Again, good doesn't mean you're a cop.Robin Hood, for example, is a good character. He kills, he steals, and he behaves badly.



Doesn't mean it needs to lead to bloodshed. If my character sees Mr. Rogue pickpocketing Farmer Joe he/she is going to call him out and tell him to stop it or he can find a new partner once he gets done running from the guards when my character turns him in. This goes for my lawful good paladin AND my chaotic neutral rogue.


A good character may do that. A character doesn't have to do that to be good.



My chaotic neutral rogue isn't going to steal from someone that can't afford to lose the money. That is both unnecessarily cruel and thinking small time. He/she may think differently about the rich merchant. In such instances, I don't ever confront the other characters in my party with my behavior and force them to make a moral choice unless they have shown a willingness to go along with such things in the past. That is being a bad person and a bad thief.

When a good person sees bad bahavior like their friends grabbing their keys after downing a twelve pack and does nothing, that is a sign of weakness and a willingness to supress their morals for the sake of social convenience. It isn't a sign of what good people should find acceptable. I have done that kind of thing myself in life, but it doesn't make me feel good about myself and it usually leads to a lower opinion of the person in question. Enough of that behavior and it leads to me having a former friend.

Again, the word bad has no meaning in this context. GOOD AND EVIL are the words that are relevant, because they are defined terms within the context of the game.

This is not an argument about your morality. Its not a morality discussion at all. Its a discussion of how characters are required to act by their alignements. At no point in the PHB or DMG's descriptions of the alignment does it say that a Good character has to report things to the authorities, or try to stop a crime. Thats something that would fall on the lawful spectrum.

Plenty of people are good, but are weak. They're AFRAID to speak up. That doesn't make them evil.



"context" can make the difference between evil and not evil for a lot of acts- but it's not clear if "stealing" is one of them.

What should the default presumption be?.

Context is the most important thing in EVERY act. Killing can be a [GOOD] act if the person killed is [EVIL], just as stealing can be a [GOOD] act if it prevents greater [EVIL], etc.


Is stealing a sword from a shop to fight the dragon thats going to kill the whole town an [EVIL] act?

hamishspence
2012-07-19, 11:48 AM
Context is the most important thing in EVERY act. Killing can be a [GOOD] act if the person killed is [EVIL], just as stealing can be a [GOOD] act if it prevents greater [EVIL], etc.

It takes more than just the person being Evil to make killing a good act- or even a nonevil act for that matter. "Murder" is defined as Evil in BoVD and Fiendish Codex 2- and there are plenty of ways in which killing an Evil person can qualify as murder- if there's not other justifying factors.

Other justifying factors might include "Self-Defence" or "Defence of Others".

Some acts might qualify as "always Evil" regardless of the context, like "Harming or Destroying Souls" or possibly "Torture" or "Using Evil Magic".

Though even here, there will be a scale- with "using Evil Magic" being very minor and "inflicting indescribable torture" being very major, in FC2.

Synovia
2012-07-19, 12:56 PM
It takes more than just the person being Evil to make killing a good act- or even a nonevil act for that matter.

No, it doesn't. Killing an [EVIL] outsider is a non-evil act. All the time. Every time.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-19, 01:20 PM
No, it doesn't. Killing an [EVIL] outsider is a non-evil act. All the time. Every time.

Nitpick: That's only okay because of the [evil] subtype tag, not just because the fiend has an evil alignment; and is, in fact, a good act because it reduces the amount of evil in the plane the fiend is on. Being evil and being made of evil are two subtly different things.

Unfortunately killing in D&D is morally subjective. There are always circumstances that swing it one way or the other.

Synovia
2012-07-19, 02:43 PM
Nitpick: That's only okay because of the [evil] subtype tag, not just because the fiend has an evil alignment; and is, in fact, a good act because it reduces the amount of evil in the plane the fiend is on. Being evil and being made of evil are two subtly different things.

Unfortunately killing in D&D is morally subjective. There are always circumstances that swing it one way or the other.
Of course killing is morally subjective. Thats the whole point here. Most of the people on this thread are arguing that killing and stealing are always [EVIL]


Its awesome how people just ignore syntax, ignore what they're actually reading, and just pretend they're seeing whatever they want to argue with.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-19, 03:29 PM
Of course killing is morally subjective. Thats the whole point here. Most of the people on this thread are arguing that killing and stealing are always [EVIL]


Its awesome how people just ignore syntax, ignore what they're actually reading, and just pretend they're seeing whatever they want to argue with.

I agree. I was just clarifying your statement. After all if you stab a tiefling in the back of the head while he's eating his dinner because he pinged on detect evil, and for no other reason, you've just committed murder, an evil act. If you do the same thing to a succubus because your true-seeing revealed it to you, you get a free pass because it had the [evil] descriptor tag. You might have a problem with some by-standers if you can't prove she was a demon though.

Mnemnosyne
2012-07-19, 04:41 PM
No, it doesn't. Killing an [EVIL] outsider is a non-evil act. All the time. Every time.


I agree. I was just clarifying your statement. After all if you stab a tiefling in the back of the head while he's eating his dinner because he pinged on detect evil, and for no other reason, you've just committed murder, an evil act. If you do the same thing to a succubus because your true-seeing revealed it to you, you get a free pass because it had the [evil] descriptor tag. You might have a problem with some by-standers if you can't prove she was a demon though.

If you walked into A'kin the Arcanaloth's shop and murdered him as a paladin, you could try to use that argument. But in any game I run, you'd be making that argument as a fighter without bonus feats, not as a paladin, because you would have fallen for murdering someone who has not demonstrably harmed anyone. The same applies to killing a random succubus just because you happened to see what she is.

However, stealing from people is always harming them, whether it's evil or not. The paladin's code explicitly states that the paladin must punish those who harm or threaten innocents. As long as the person being stolen from cannot be demonstrably shown to be non-innocent, they are by default, innocents. Therefore the paladin is obligated to punish anyone stealing from them. Not because stealing is evil, but because theft unquestionably harms the victim of the theft by depriving them of the product of their work, whether that be money, food, or some other thing.

Even ignoring the paladin's code, it's not too reasonable that most good characters would be inclined to ignore someone indiscriminately stealing. Stealing from a merchant can cause them serious harm - if you steal an expensive magical item from them, this may cause their business serious harm. Perhaps even make them go bankrupt, if enough of their capital was invested in it. Would any good character be ok with making innocent people lose large quantities of money, possibly lose their business? It might be justifiable if this was the only way to stop some greater problem, but in the case of just random indiscriminate theft, it's certainly not justified.

kyoryu
2012-07-19, 04:46 PM
Even ignoring the paladin's code, it's not too reasonable that most good characters would be inclined to ignore someone indiscriminately stealing. Stealing from a merchant can cause them serious harm - if you steal an expensive magical item from them, this may cause their business serious harm. Perhaps even make them go bankrupt, if enough of their capital was invested in it. Would any good character be ok with making innocent people lose large quantities of money, possibly lose their business? It might be justifiable if this was the only way to stop some greater problem, but in the case of just random indiscriminate theft, it's certainly not justified.

Indeed. A Good character should have issues with people randomly stealing from "innocent" folks. If they don't, maybe they should be Neutral, or even Evil.

That doesn't mean they have to *act* on those impulses. Having to grin and bear it when your normal instincts are screaming against what is going on is an excellent roleplaying opportunity - these types of conflict are the core of much drama in fiction. Played right, breaking the typical behavior can actually reinforce how important it is to the character, while giving them more depth.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-19, 04:59 PM
If you walked into A'kin the Arcanaloth's shop and murdered him as a paladin, you could try to use that argument. But in any game I run, you'd be making that argument as a fighter without bonus feats, not as a paladin, because you would have fallen for murdering someone who has not demonstrably harmed anyone. The same applies to killing a random succubus just because you happened to see what she is.

However, stealing from people is always harming them, whether it's evil or not. The paladin's code explicitly states that the paladin must punish those who harm or threaten innocents. As long as the person being stolen from cannot be demonstrably shown to be non-innocent, they are by default, innocents. Therefore the paladin is obligated to punish anyone stealing from them. Not because stealing is evil, but because theft unquestionably harms the victim of the theft by depriving them of the product of their work, whether that be money, food, or some other thing.

Even ignoring the paladin's code, it's not too reasonable that most good characters would be inclined to ignore someone indiscriminately stealing. Stealing from a merchant can cause them serious harm - if you steal an expensive magical item from them, this may cause their business serious harm. Perhaps even make them go bankrupt, if enough of their capital was invested in it. Would any good character be ok with making innocent people lose large quantities of money, possibly lose their business? It might be justifiable if this was the only way to stop some greater problem, but in the case of just random indiscriminate theft, it's certainly not justified.


That's just it though. Fiends aren't people. They harm all that is innocent and pure by their very existence. They are literally made of hate, slaughter, rape, and all that is harmful to good; given physical form. Unless you're actually on one of the lower planes (and often even then,) any outsider with the [evil] descriptor is an invader, there to kick puppies and eat babies. They cannot be reasoned with and they cannot be allowed to stay. If you catch one off guard, and murder it, you've furthered the cause of good in the multiverse.

Also, just because you didn't see mister arcanoloth harm anyone, doesn't mean he never did.

If paladins in your game can't fight incarnations of evil, by any means necessary, your campaign world is doomed.

If it helps you can think of it like this: Good and Evil are at war. Fiends are enemy combatants that are too dangerous for capture. As a Good soldier, you have standing orders to kill these foes on sight. Enemy sympathizers (read evil creatures without the [evil] tag) are to be rehabilitated, or captured for rehabilitation if possible. Do not make first strike against enemy sympathizers. Paladins are like special forces with their own operations guidelines that they must follow, without violating the standing orders of all soldiers on the side of Good.

kyoryu
2012-07-19, 05:22 PM
Is stealing a sword from a shop to fight the dragon thats going to kill the whole town an [EVIL] act?

Yes. (You can probably guess I don't go for utilitarianism, huh?)

Better would be to ask the shopkeeper to let you use the sword.

However, even a Good character might do so. That doesn't mean that the act isn't Evil. But a Good character would try to compensate the shop owner after the fact - either by paying him outright, returning the sword, etc.

hamishspence
2012-07-19, 05:50 PM
No, it doesn't. Killing an [EVIL] outsider is a non-evil act. All the time. Every time.

Except when it would qualify as Murder.

"Murder is an Evil act" may override "Kiiling a fiend is always a Good act" from BoVD.

Nonevil fiends certainly exist- in fact, WoTC statted out a fiend paladin, no less.


If you walked into A'kin the Arcanaloth's shop and murdered him as a paladin, you could try to use that argument. But in any game I run, you'd be making that argument as a fighter without bonus feats, not as a paladin, because you would have fallen for murdering someone who has not demonstrably harmed anyone. The same applies to killing a random succubus just because you happened to see what she is.

This would work quite well in a Sigil-centric campaign- where fiends and celestials interact relatively peacefully in the city. There, you might find them arguing, but generally you won't find them fighting each other.

Some fiends are more loose in their alignment than others- Cambion Demons, who are less human than half-fiends, but still have some human blood, have as much as 10% of their population be nonevil, according to Expedition to the Demonweb Pits.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-19, 05:52 PM
A hypothetical for those that say stealing is always evil:

A beggar steals a day-old loaf of bread from a well-to-do baker twenty minutes before the baker discards his day-old stock, not knowing that if he'd simply waited twenty minutes he could have picked it up out of the gutter for free, just to feed his starving children.

Has he committed an evil act?

Kish
2012-07-19, 05:55 PM
A hypothetical for those that say stealing is always evil:
Has anyone here actually said that?

The thread-starting question was about a paladin's reaction when a rogue in the same party enters a city and "just starts stealing around." So it seems to be much less a matter of some people saying "stealing is always evil" than a matter of some people saying "stealing is NEVER evil and only a ridiculously anal paladin/hall monitor/narc could have a problem with it."

hamishspence
2012-07-19, 05:57 PM
A beggar steals a day-old loaf of bread from a well-to-do baker twenty minutes before the baker discards his day-old stock, not knowing that if he'd simply waited twenty minutes he could have picked it up out of the gutter for free, just to feed his starving children.

Has he committed an evil act?If it was, it would be minuscule- much less evil than, say, "channelling negative energy" or humiliating someone.

"stealing from the needy" is the kind of stealing called out as a Corrupt act in FC2- lesser kinds of stealing might be much lower on the scale, if they register at all.

I figure that "provide a justification for it not being evil in this case" should be the default principle here, though.

Mando Knight
2012-07-19, 06:03 PM
"Murder is an Evil act" may override "Kiiling a fiend is always a Good act" from BoVD.

Unless you take an action being good or evil as not mutually exclusive... which makes alignments a little wall-eyed...

kyoryu
2012-07-19, 06:05 PM
A hypothetical for those that say stealing is always evil:

A beggar steals a day-old loaf of bread from a well-to-do baker twenty minutes before the baker discards his day-old stock, not knowing that if he'd simply waited twenty minutes he could have picked it up out of the gutter for free, just to feed his starving children.

Has he committed an evil act?

Yep. A pretty minor one, though.

He could have asked the baker for the bread, too.

Again, Good people can commit Evil acts. The difference is under what circumstances they will do so, the "degree" of Evil, whether they try to atone in any way, whether they only do so as a last resort, etc.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-19, 07:34 PM
Except when it would qualify as Murder.

"Murder is an Evil act" may override "Killing a fiend is always a Good act" from BoVD.

Nonevil fiends certainly exist- in fact, WoTC statted out a fiend paladin, no less.



This would work quite well in a Sigil-centric campaign- where fiends and celestials interact relatively peacefully in the city. There, you might find them arguing, but generally you won't find them fighting each other.

Some fiends are more loose in their alignment than others- Cambion Demons, who are less human than half-fiends, but still have some human blood, have as much as 10% of their population be nonevil, according to Expedition to the Demonweb Pits.

Why does, "murder is always evil," take precedence over, "killing fiends is always good?" Both are true aren't they? Why not the otherway around? As for half-fiends: they're also half mortal. The mortal side, and typically the lack of an evil descriptor make them exempt from my use of fiends in this disscusion. I would be comfortable with the good of the one negating the evil of the other and calling it neutral. As for sigil, the outsiders there operate peacefully because they have to, because The Lady of Pain would show everyone the door if they didn't.

I'm not familiar with cambions. Do they have the evil subtype?


Yep. A pretty minor one, though.

He could have asked the baker for the bread, too.

Again, Good people can commit Evil acts. The difference is under what circumstances they will do so, the "degree" of Evil, whether they try to atone in any way, whether they only do so as a last resort, etc.

I can certainly see this as a chaotic act. "My freedom and wellbeing are more important than the rules." How is it evil though? No one was harmed. No one showed flagrant disrespect for life. No one was degraded. I just don't see it.

kyoryu
2012-07-19, 08:15 PM
I can certainly see this as a chaotic act. "My freedom and wellbeing are more important than the rules." How is it evil though? No one was harmed. No one showed flagrant disrespect for life. No one was degraded. I just don't see it.

The baker was harmed, or at least would have been, according to the information the beggar had. Admittedly, it was a minor harm, and did more good than harm. But as I said, I reject utilitarianism.

The beggar deliberately and willfully violated the rights of the baker. That's a (very, very, very) minor Evil act.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-07-19, 08:58 PM
They Fight Crime. (http://www.theyfightcrime.org)

I love that site... so much!

He's a time-tossed chivalrous househusband on the wrong side of the law. She's a foxy psychic nun on the trail of a serial killer. They fight crime!

He's a Nobel prize-winning Amish gentleman spy who hides his scarred face behind a mask. She's a ditzy punk archaeologist who believes she is the reincarnation of an ancient Egyptian queen. They fight crime!

He's a Nobel prize-winning gay boxer with a mysterious suitcase handcuffed to his arm. She's a violent psychic angel descended from a line of powerful witches. They fight crime!

He's a bookish Republican inventor with acid for blood. She's a pregnant impetuous angel with her own daytime radio talk show. They fight crime!

He's a bookish flyboy paranormal investigator trapped in a world he never made. She's a bloodthirsty Buddhist advertising executive who dreams of becoming Elvis. They fight crime!

He's an otherworldly albino househusband who hangs with the wrong crowd. She's a cold-hearted tempestuous vampire with a flame-thrower. They fight crime!

He's an impetuous white trash messiah plagued by the memory of his family's brutal murder. She's an elegant thirtysomething femme fatale from out of town. They fight crime!

He's a gun-slinging arachnophobic inventor looking for 'the Big One.' She's a mentally unstable punk queen of the dead from a family of eight older brothers. They fight crime!

He's a leather-clad Amish dog-catcher on the hunt for the last specimen of a great and near-mythical creature. She's a beautiful mutant mercenary with a knack for trouble. They fight crime!

Okay that's enough.

For now. >_>

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-19, 09:17 PM
The baker was harmed, or at least would have been, according to the information the beggar had. Admittedly, it was a minor harm, and did more good than harm. But as I said, I reject utilitarianism.

The beggar deliberately and willfully violated the rights of the baker. That's a (very, very, very) minor Evil act.

That's absurd. The baker was in no way harmed. His business lost nothing. He lost nothing. As for violating his rights: assuming he was in a nation that even grants him any rights, rights and their violation are on the law-chaos ethical axis, except wherein they intersect with good-evil's moral points of whether or not someone is done injury, their ability to live is deliberately impaired, or they are degraded.

If a magistrate has a right to torture any citizen that touches him without permission, is a person committing an evil act by restraining him from exercising that right and letting the peasant escape?

Kish
2012-07-19, 09:18 PM
Why does, "murder is always evil," take precedence over, "killing fiends is always good?" Both are true aren't they?
Not possible. One must override the other, unless murdering a fiend could be both good and evil.


Why not the otherway around?

There is no way to prove, by the letter of all the rules published for D&D, which one takes precedence.

The question is, which makes more sense? That killing a succubus paladin would be a good act, or that murder is always evil including when it's the murder of a creature with the Evil subtype?

Grimsage Matt
2012-07-19, 09:30 PM
You want a Explination of Evil? Read Start of Darkness. The real bad guys? The Paladins and The Lich.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-19, 11:07 PM
Not possible. One must override the other, unless murdering a fiend could be both good and evil.

There is no way to prove, by the letter of all the rules published for D&D, which one takes precedence.

The question is, which makes more sense? That killing a succubus paladin would be a good act, or that murder is always evil including when it's the murder of a creature with the Evil subtype?

TBH I'm not even sure that the succubus paladin is legal. I know that at least some of those Fight Club monsters were illegal. I'm honestly not sure how to look at knifing her. I doubt even the force that granted her power would be quite sure how to call that one. In the other 99.999999% of cases I personally think that the fiend ganking wins. Even with D&D's absolutist alignment system some things are gray. :smalltongue:

Menteith
2012-07-19, 11:15 PM
TBH I'm not even sure that the succubus paladin is legal. I know that at least some of those Fight Club monsters were illegal. I'm honestly not sure how to look at knifing her. I doubt even the force that granted her power would be quite sure how to call that one. In the other 99.999999% of cases I personally think that the fiend ganking wins. Even with D&D's absolutist alignment system some things are gray. :smalltongue:

Alignment
Always - The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for the individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions. (MM1 p305)

I vaguely recall that "always" means 99% of a population, but I may be miscalling it. Regardless, fiend ganking doesn't win, as it's possible for them to not be evil, and killing people just because they ping the Detect Evil radar or because members of their race are generally Evil is murder.

EDIT
Nor is being Evil, in most places, a crime. A person can be an Evil individual who's in control of themselves and maybe kicks their dog sometime. An Evil person might break the windows on a church and sell booze to children. An Evil person might be a miser who charges people more money that they need to. That doesn't make murder ok. If you know that an individual is guilty of something, then one takes the appropriate action. If through inaction, you believe that others will come to harm, you take appropriate action. That's it.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-20, 02:07 AM
Alignment
Always - The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for the individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions. (MM1 p305)



It seems the Succubus Paladin is Legal. However:


Evil Subtype: ... any affect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. ...


I vaguely recall that "always" means 99% of a population, but I may be miscalling it. That's right.
Regardless, fiend ganking doesn't win, as it's possible for them to not be evil, and killing people just because they ping the Detect Evil radar or because members of their race are generally Evil is murder.

You realize that, if the fiend isn't evil, he'll ping on one of the other detect x spells unless he's TN?


EDIT
Nor is being Evil, in most places, a crime. A person can be an Evil individual who's in control of themselves and maybe kicks their dog sometime. An Evil person might break the windows on a church and sell booze to children. An Evil person might be a miser who charges people more money that they need to. That doesn't make murder ok. If you know that an individual is guilty of something, then one takes the appropriate action. If through inaction, you believe that others will come to harm, you take appropriate action. That's it. I agree that putting sword to face just because a person is evil is unnacceptable. I could care less if it's criminal, and with alignment detection being first level spells there very well could be places it is.

I'm saying that, for the purposes of mechanical alignment, fiends don't count as people, because they are incarnations of evil. Mind you, that's not evil the outlook or philosophy, but evil the universal force opposed to good in both senses of the word.

If you step away from the mechanics, alignment becomes too subjective in any area that's even vaguely gray.

Kish
2012-07-20, 06:36 AM
You realize that, if the fiend isn't evil, he'll ping on one of the other detect x spells unless he's TN?

And also on Detect Evil. Cast any alignment detection spell on a succubus paladin, you'll get "yes." But then, there are lots of ways to make a magical detection method give a false reading, so I'm real unclear on why you're treating "pings on Detect Evil" as having any moral significance whatsoever.


I agree that putting sword to face just because a person is evil is unnacceptable. I could care less if it's criminal, and with alignment detection being first level spells there very well could be places it is.

I'm saying that, for the purposes of mechanical alignment, fiends don't count as people, because they are incarnations of evil.

Even though they don't have to be evil in any way other than having the Evil subtype? That's...a rather appalling argument.

Synovia
2012-07-20, 07:44 AM
Has anyone here actually said that?

The thread-starting question was about a paladin's reaction when a rogue in the same party enters a city and "just starts stealing around." So it seems to be much less a matter of some people saying "stealing is always evil" than a matter of some people saying "stealing is NEVER evil and only a ridiculously anal paladin/hall monitor/narc could have a problem with it."

No one has said stealing is never evil, and several posters have said the exact words you're questioning anyone having said.

It would help if you actually read this thread before commenting.


The baker was harmed, or at least would have been, according to the information the beggar had. Admittedly, it was a minor harm, and did more good than harm. But as I said, I reject utilitarianism.

The beggar deliberately and willfully violated the rights of the baker. That's a (very, very, very) minor Evil act.

Its an act that breaks the local laws. Its not an evil act. Again, real world morality has no intrinsic value in D&D. What is good and evil is not the same thing as right and wrong, and are completely set by the campaign setting.

It could be argued that the baker not stealing the bread is harming his family, and is thus an act of evil.


so I'm real unclear on why you're treating "pings on Detect Evil" as having any moral significance whatsoever.
\

There is no moral significance, because there is no moral significance anywhere in the game. This is not a question of morals. Its a question about what is EVIL and what is GOOD. Not what is right and wrong. These are two completely different things.

Morals are irrelevant. Your morals don't exist in the D&D world. Walking up to someone and stabbing them in the face on Earth is a bad, illegal, etc act. If they're a fiend, in the D&D world, its a GOOD act.

What is moral or immoral on this planet means absolutely nothing in the context of D&D.


Yes. (You can probably guess I don't go for utilitarianism, huh?)

Better would be to ask the shopkeeper to let you use the sword.

However, even a Good character might do so. That doesn't mean that the act isn't Evil. But a Good character would try to compensate the shop owner after the fact - either by paying him outright, returning the sword, etc.


You're confusing GOOD and LAWFUL here. A lawful character would feel the need to reimburse the shopkeeper. A chaotic good character would say "Screw it. Take the sword, it'll help"

Robin Hood is a chaotic good character. He steals from the Sheriff of Nottingham all the time. He doesn't return things, he doesn't offer to pay, he doesn't appologize, and yet, hes still good, and the acts hes doing, are still good.

You're confusing good, and Lawful.

If you're doing something that you think helps people, its a good act in the D&D system. Period. (if the PHB is to be believed).

Kish
2012-07-20, 08:38 AM
Again, real world morality has no intrinsic value in D&D. What is good and evil is not the same thing as right and wrong,
I'd ask "Why do you believe that?" except I know, from past experience, that the answer would be question-begging.

You can repeat that as many times as you like. It will still be insupportable and easily refuted by glancing inside a Player's Handbook. Good and Evil mean the same things in D&D they do in real life. The descriptions of "Good" in the Player's Handbook are descriptions of what is morally right in a default D&D society, not the descriptions of what aligns with "green energy" or some such rot.

The Random NPC
2012-07-20, 10:44 AM
I'd ask "Why do you believe that?" except I know, from past experience, that the answer would be question-begging.

You can repeat that as many times as you like. It will still be insupportable and easily refuted by glancing inside a Player's Handbook. Good and Evil mean the same things in D&D they do in real life. The descriptions of "Good" in the Player's Handbook are descriptions of what is morally right in a default D&D society, not the descriptions of what aligns with "green energy" or some such rot.

Seeing as how we haven't yet defined Good and Evil in real life, I don't know how it will be easily refuted. Oh sure, individual actions have been more or less defined, and everyone "knows it when they see it" but the only "definition" we have is to compare the action in question to past actions that we know are good and see if they are similar.

Kish
2012-07-20, 10:51 AM
Seeing as how we haven't yet defined Good and Evil in real life, I don't know how it will be easily refuted. Oh sure, individual actions have been more or less defined, and everyone "knows it when they see it" but the only "definition" we have is to compare the action in question to past actions that we know are good and see if they are similar.
That's why there are many, many pages of text across many D&D supplements about what good and evil are. Even contradictions, sometimes.

What is easily refuted by a glance at the alignment section of the Player's Handbook is the claim that Good and Evil in D&D are not fundamentally the same as conceptual good and evil, right and wrong in the real world.

' Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"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. '

These are statements about morality, not about Green vs. Red energy. You will never find, in any D&D 3.xed D&D book*, any indication that something is a good act in D&D without also being what the writer considers morally correct, or an evil act without also being what the writer considers morally incorrect.

*This is hedging not because I know of such indications in 1ed and 2ed--I don't--or because I believe them to be likely to exist--I don't--but merely because my knowledge of 1ed and 2ed is not nearly great enough to feel confident in asserting a negative for them.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-20, 12:30 PM
And also on Detect Evil. Cast any alignment detection spell on a succubus paladin, you'll get "yes." But then, there are lots of ways to make a magical detection method give a false reading, so I'm real unclear on why you're treating "pings on Detect Evil" as having any moral significance whatsoever.
I'm not. Detect evil is not a comprehensive analysis of a potential target. It should never be used as the sole basis of an attack. In fact, I generally ignore persons that pings as faint, in a civilized setting. Since the succubus paladin does ping on all detection spells, that would be a very good reason to confront her verbally before attacking.

Even though they don't have to be evil in any way other than having the Evil subtype? That's...a rather appalling argument.

It would be disturbing to discover, after the fact, that the fiend I killed wasn't actually of an evil mind, but I will have rid the world of the concentrated evil energy that held its body together, nonetheless; and that's a good thing. Edit: I suppose that, in that sense at least, it is a red energy v green energy kind of thing.

Alignment and morality/ethics are undeniably related. That doesn't mean they're the same thing. One is a rules construct that sometimes creates a dissonance with the other, social, construct.

Kish
2012-07-20, 12:46 PM
The only "dissonance" I've ever seen demonstrated, is people wanting Good and Evil to be meaningfully different from Right and Wrong.

You had stated that "fiends don't count as people." If you wish to stand by that assertion even while acknowledging that they can be good, then we have nothing further to discuss.

Mando Knight
2012-07-20, 01:12 PM
I'm not. Detect evil is not a comprehensive analysis of a potential target. It should never be used as the sole basis of an attack. In fact, I generally ignore persons that pings as faint, in a civilized setting. Since the succubus paladin does ping on all detection spells, that would be a very good reason to confront her verbally before attacking.

A Detect Evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm) would ping that she's got a Strong Evil Aura up until she hits Paladin 5, which would make her 11 HD for an Overwhelming aura. Neutral Clerics of Evil deities would also get marked at a similar strength, however.

hamishspence
2012-07-20, 01:34 PM
It would be disturbing to discover, after the fact, that the fiend I killed wasn't actually of an evil mind, but I will have rid the world of the concentrated evil energy that held its body together, nonetheless; and that's a good thing.

There's a Savage Species ritual that can replace the "concentrated evil energy" with "concentrated good energy"- while there is a risk of killing it in the process, it is possible for the being to survive it.

It won't be a fiend anymore, though.



I'm not familiar with cambions. Do they have the evil subtype?

Yes. And the Chaotic subtype, the Extraplanar subtype, the Abyss as their native home, and are considered Demons.

Math_Mage
2012-07-20, 01:52 PM
It really doesn't matter how the paladin and rogue choose to work out this issue (ignorance, longstanding beef, whatever) as long as they think about it and don't let this antagonism define their interaction. Really, I'd view it as more of an asset in helping to develop a meaningful relationship than if the characters had no points of tension.

Wait, the conversation has long since moved on to the "succubus paladin" vs. "incarnation of evil" debate. Never mind. :smallsigh:

Kish
2012-07-20, 02:23 PM
The OP never responded to anything anyone posted here. I'm not thinking he needs an answer to the question (anymore, if he ever did. :smalltongue:).

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-20, 02:40 PM
A Detect Evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm) would ping that she's got a Strong Evil Aura up until she hits Paladin 5, which would make her 11 HD for an Overwhelming aura. Neutral Clerics of Evil deities would also get marked at a similar strength, however.
Yes. And?

There's a Savage Species ritual that can replace the "concentrated evil energy" with "concentrated good energy"- while there is a risk of killing it in the process, it is possible for the being to survive it.

It won't be a fiend anymore, though.

At which point I'm no longer in favor of her immediate dispatch being a good act.


Yes. And the Chaotic subtype, the Extraplanar subtype, the Abyss as their native home, and are considered Demons.

A-okay for immediate kill.

It may be worth noting that "killing" an outsider on any but its native plane doesn't actually destroy it.

Edit:

New thought! Why is it that the succubus paladin hasn't undergone the ritual to become a Sanctified Creature?

The Random NPC
2012-07-20, 06:52 PM
She wants to prove that she can be good on her own, not because of a magic ritual.

Math_Mage
2012-07-20, 08:12 PM
She wants to prove that she can be good on her own, not because of a magic ritual.

Something something PRIDE something something. Something something TRULY GOOD something HUMILITY something something.

Kish
2012-07-20, 08:50 PM
This is something of a Catch-22. If good and evil are about her actions, then there's no reason for her to need to perform the ritual; she is good whatever her subtypes.

If they're about Red vs. Green energy, I don't recall reading that pride is particularly Red or that humility is particularly Green in any D&D book.

(To be marginally less snarky, the Savage Species ritual strikes me as coming from a fundamentally different attitude than the writeup of the succubus paladin. They're both in the same game system, but I look at "Why doesn't this fiend who reformed because she chose to, undergo this magical sea-change from another book?" the same way I look at, "How do blackguards interact with Paladins of Tyranny and Slaughter?"--as pointless questions. Depending on the individual group's choices, fiends can reform at will or can reform with magical aid; depending on the individual group's choices, blackguards exist or alternate-alignment paladins do.)

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-20, 09:11 PM
This is something of a Catch-22. If good and evil are about her actions, then there's no reason for her to need to perform the ritual; she is good whatever her subtypes.

If they're about Red vs. Green energy, I don't recall reading that pride is particularly Red or that humility is particularly Green in any D&D book.

(To be marginally less snarky, the Savage Species ritual strikes me as coming from a fundamentally different attitude than the writeup of the succubus paladin. They're both in the same game system, but I look at "Why doesn't this fiend who reformed because she chose to, undergo this magical sea-change from another book?" the same way I look at, "How do blackguards interact with Paladins of Tyranny and Slaughter?"--as pointless questions. Depending on the individual group's choices, fiends can reform at will or can reform with magical aid; depending on the individual group's choices, blackguards exist or alternate-alignment paladins do.)

Sanctified creature isn't the ritual from SS. It's an aquired template in BoED. It only requires the casting of a sanctified spell and entails no risk of death.

hamishspence
2012-07-22, 10:18 AM
While the template discusses the loss of subtypes like tanar'ri or baatezu, at the same time it states that it cannot be applied to creatures with the Evil subtype.

The spell, however, doesn't state it can't be cast on creatures with the Evil subtype.

So it's not clear what happens to such a creature- maybe its alignment changes to match that of the caster (as specified) but it doesn't gain the template?

On Savage Species- one of the campaign archetypes (Chaotic-Accepting) suggested that in that world, enlightened people may regard even fiends as "the victims of their own psychoses" and capable of change:



With Malice Toward None
(Chaotic/Accepting)
In this campaign model, the prevailing opinion holds that monsters, no matter how foul and evil they may look, are free sentient beings with all the inalienable rights that humans, elves, and every other humanoid species are heir to. The denizens of this campaign are not foolish- they know that many monsters are evil and nefarious. Just the same, they are loath to reject monsters simply because of their origins. The philosophical leaders of this land realize that no medusa or troll really had a choice in how it came into this world, and indeed as oppressed as its upbringing may have been, it is deserving of more sympathy and consideration, not less.

In this world, evil among monsters is largely perceived to be a psychological condition rather than an absolute or genetic one. Most monsters are thought to become creatures of evil or destruction not because of any infernal or diabolic tie, but because of a fear of rejection, loneliness, or some other understandable psychological condition. Even the foulest tanar'ri may in truth be the victim of its own psychoses, and the enlightened people of this world hold out hope that with openness, respect, and even love, the darkest of souls can be redeemed. And who knows? Perhaps they are right.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-22, 02:21 PM
While the template discusses the loss of subtypes like tanar'ri or baatezu, at the same time it states that it cannot be applied to creatures with the Evil subtype.

The spell, however, doesn't state it can't be cast on creatures with the Evil subtype.

So it's not clear what happens to such a creature- maybe its alignment changes to match that of the caster (as specified) but it doesn't gain the template?

On Savage Species- one of the campaign archetypes (Chaotic-Accepting) suggested that in that world, enlightened people may regard even fiends as "the victims of their own psychoses" and capable of change:

In campaign models like this, I'd probably have to revise my take on this matter, but only if the DM specifically stated that' "the people's belief" is, in fact, true when I decided to play a paladin. I'd be rather irate to have something like that sprung on me unexpectedly.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-07-22, 03:14 PM
This is why, if a game insists on having alignment, I just use the color wheel or write down "neutral good" on my character sheet.

toapat
2012-07-22, 03:19 PM
Theft: Alignment
Civilian: Evil
Corpse: Neutral
Corrupt Politican to give to the poor: Good

Execution of Person: Alignment
Angel Running a Church: Highly Debatable, anywhere on the spectrum, personnally in my oppinion, this could be a good act, because the angel is performing an evil act, in that he is forcing his will and views on the world onto the mortal plane
Teifling Assassin with Contract to kill the good King: Good
Teifling Assassin Without contract: Evil
Civilian Succubus: Evil

Starshade
2012-07-22, 03:49 PM
Well, one of the few things I can think of, is there some D&D tribe/countries who got a potlatch economy, similiar to some Native American tribes?
I mean, if private property barely exists as such in a iron age potlatch tibe, they got a god who have a few paladins, they would understand the laws of other people, just have no religious obligation in their paladin code as such.

hamishspence
2012-07-22, 03:50 PM
In campaign models like this, I'd probably have to revise my take on this matter, but only if the DM specifically stated that' "the people's belief" is, in fact, true when I decided to play a paladin. I'd be rather irate to have something like that sprung on me unexpectedly.

There's also the possibility that the belief is true- but the vast majority of people don't hold it, being decidedly "unenlightened".

As to whether the paladin should hold it- DM and player might have to talk it out. The paladin might be more judgemental and hold the belief that "the only good demon is a dead demon"

In some campaigns paladin might even believe "the only good orc is a dead orc"- though they'd be likely to Fall if they actually murder orcs.

The Random NPC
2012-07-22, 04:18 PM
Theft: Alignment
Civilian: Evil
Corpse: Neutral
Corrupt Politican to give to the poor: Good

Execution of Person: Alignment
Angel Running a Church: Highly Debatable, anywhere on the spectrum, personnally in my oppinion, this could be a good act, because the angel is performing an evil act, in that he is forcing his will and views on the world onto the mortal plane
Teifling Assassin with Contract to kill the good King: Good
Teifling Assassin Without contract: Evil
Civilian Succubus: Evil

I don't understand what you are trying to say, could you elaborate?

hamishspence
2012-07-22, 04:33 PM
He's arguing that Theft is Evil when done from civilians, Neutral when done from corpses, Good when done from someone "corrupt" to "feed the poor".

Similarly, "Executing" someone depends on their actions- Executing even a fiend (if civilian) or an Assassin (if the assassin isn't doing something wrong)- qualifies as Evil- conversely Executing even an Angel is not evil if the angel's actions are sufficiently wrong.

toapat
2012-07-22, 04:34 PM
I don't understand what you are trying to say, could you elaborate?

its just a quick breakdown of the morality of the 2 most debated actions in this thread: Theft, and Killing.

the reason I say killing the Angel is a campaign by campaign case, is that the way i look at it, the angel is manipulating people to their will, as to gain power. That is LE, not LG

hamishspence
2012-07-22, 04:36 PM
Not necessarily Evil enough to warrant execution though.

Might depend on what the angel was making the church do in the first place.

"Manipulating people to their will, to gain power" is a pretty standard approach of almost any would-be leader- but the manipulations will be non-harmful in the case of characters closer to the Good end of the spectrum.

toapat
2012-07-22, 04:42 PM
Not necessarily Evil enough to warrant execution though.

Might depend on what the angel was making the church do in the first place.

"Manipulating people to their will, to gain power" is a pretty standard approach of almost any would-be leader- but the manipulations will be non-harmful in the case of characters closer to the Good end of the spectrum.

I think being dictated your motives and agenda, no matter how good that agenda may be, is still an evil act by the person dictating. A Good aligned leader shouldnt dictate the motives and agenda, but inspire people to follow him and ask them for help in achieving their goals.

The Random NPC
2012-07-22, 05:09 PM
Ah, I understand now.

KnightDisciple
2012-07-22, 05:32 PM
I think being dictated your motives and agenda, no matter how good that agenda may be, is still an evil act by the person dictating. A Good aligned leader shouldnt dictate the motives and agenda, but inspire people to follow him and ask them for help in achieving their goals.

At some point a person who is a leader will have to "dictate" agenda. That's what being in charge is all about. Someone who suggests and inspires isn't a leader, at best they're a figurehead.

A leader always leads. Part of leading is making decisions and telling other people to follow them.

A Good-aligned leader puts forth a decision, and it's up to his subordinates to decide to follow or not. They could refuse an order, and while there might be consequences (assuming the leader is NG or LG, because order would be important), they wouldn't be terribad. At worst, the subordinate would be free to simply leave the group, or might be "fired".
Meanwhile, an Evil leader forces people through nothing but fear and violence.

Note that this refers to the actual alignment of the leader, not the claimed alignment.

I'm also not sure what being "dictated your motives" really means.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-22, 09:39 PM
There's also the possibility that the belief is true- but the vast majority of people don't hold it, being decidedly "unenlightened".

As to whether the paladin should hold it- DM and player might have to talk it out. The paladin might be more judgemental and hold the belief that "the only good demon is a dead demon"

In some campaigns paladin might even believe "the only good orc is a dead orc"- though they'd be likely to Fall if they actually murder orcs.

It matters little what the in-world characters believe, as long as the DM has clearly told the players that alignment takes precedence over alignment subtypes, since that's a variant outside of the normal setup.

I wouldn't even mind playing in such a game. Fantasy racism makes for interesting crises of faith or an obvious road to blackguard. IMHO alignment issues can make the game so much more entertaining, and rather dramatically increase verisimilitude if they're handled well (and the rest of your group doesn't mind the occasional monologue. :smallwink:)

Wardog
2012-07-25, 10:48 PM
Okay that's enough.

For now. >_>

He's a deeply religious neurotic gangster on the run. She's a disco-crazy snooty nun with an evil twin sister. They fight crime!

He's an immortal Amish cat burglar gone bad. She's a tortured tempestuous politician from a secret island of warrior women. They fight crime!

He's a hate-fuelled misogynist librarian She's a beautiful hypochondriac pearl diver with a flame-thrower. They fight crime!

I also got one that started with:
He's a hate-fuelled zombie gangster who hangs with the wrong crowd.

That would have to be a pretty darn bad crowd.

hamishspence
2012-07-26, 06:46 AM
It matters little what the in-world characters believe, as long as the DM has clearly told the players that alignment takes precedence over alignment subtypes, since that's a variant outside of the normal setup.

A variant? I thought it was the norm that alignment could override subtype- for the purpose of determining "who's a villain and who's not"?

olejars
2012-07-26, 07:45 AM
Is stealing a sword from a shop to fight the dragon thats going to kill the whole town an [EVIL] act?

No, but I would argue that it's not honorable. Anyone that is going to fight a dragon that could destroy an entire town is an PC/NPC that is well off anyway, or doesn't have any regard for their lives when they could tactically retreat and regroup to defeat the dragon after finding a better means to do so.

Theirs not much honor in being a crunchy morsel if the town gets destroyed anyway.

Edit: Not something I'd make a paladin fall for, but definately a slap on the hand from either their deity (if they follow one) or have a dream that is manifested by the power of law and goodness.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-26, 10:44 AM
A variant? I thought it was the norm that alignment could override subtype- for the purpose of determining "who's a villain and who's not"?

It can, but villian isn't a mechanical key-word like evil is. That's another of those points of dissonance between the mechanical construct and the social construct. Just because the fiend has changed his ways, doesn't mean that removing the evil he's composed of from the world is no longer a good act. I certainly wouldn't punish a good character that chose not to though.

Menteith
2012-07-26, 11:01 AM
It can, but villian isn't a mechanical key-word like evil is. That's another of those points of dissonance between the mechanical construct and the social construct. Just because the fiend has changed his ways, doesn't mean that removing the evil he's composed of from the world is no longer a good act. I certainly wouldn't punish a good character that chose not to though.

See, I'm comfortable making the judgement that murdering a LG Paladin, regardless of race, is never a Good act. And I would actively punish a Good character that murdered them solely because of their race. Because they're a LG Paladin helping people, and you just murdered them because of preconceived, incorrect reasons.

BoED can suck a nut - it's full of so many bad ideas about Alignment it's not even funny. Using it as a guideline, maybe, but I wouldn't seriously rely on either it or BoVD for alignment in my games.

hamishspence
2012-07-26, 01:17 PM
BoED can suck a nut - it's full of so many bad ideas about Alignment it's not even funny. Using it as a guideline, maybe, but I wouldn't seriously rely on either it or BoVD for alignment in my games.
It actually tends to support the notion that one shouldn't kill beings solely for "being evil" you need a better justification that that.

It's BoVD that stresses the "allowing a fiend to live is clearly evil" notion.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-26, 01:30 PM
See, I'm comfortable making the judgement that murdering a LG Paladin, regardless of race, is never a Good act. And I would actively punish a Good character that murdered them solely because of their race. Because they're a LG Paladin helping people, and you just murdered them because of preconceived, incorrect reasons.

BoED can suck a nut - it's full of so many bad ideas about Alignment it's not even funny. Using it as a guideline, maybe, but I wouldn't seriously rely on either it or BoVD for alignment in my games.

If you don't like the books you don't have to use them. That doesn't change the fact that they're the official source for the mechanical aspects of alignment. Also note, that I'm not saying that the player shouldn't run into trouble for offing a LG member of a society, just that, if he has powers based on his alignment, he shouldn't lose them.

Again, thinking of fiends, or any other outsider for that matter, in the same way you think of mortals is fundamentally flawed. Their mindsets and physical makeup are wholly alien. They interact with the fundamental forces of alignment in a manner that is different from that of mortals. They are not people in the traditional sense.

Menteith
2012-07-26, 02:11 PM
Their mindsets and physical makeup are wholly alien. They interact with the fundamental forces of alignment in a manner that is different from that of mortals. They are not people in the traditional sense.

Could you please cite a source for that viewpoint, one that clearly supports it above all other interpretations? I feel that the burden of proof is on you, when you say things like sentient beings with the same capacity for life and goodness as a human aren't people. Because that sounds a wee bit sociopathic - even for D&D - to me.

And while I don't love BoED, here's what it officially says about violence;

- "First, violence in the name of good must have just cause" (BoED p9)

- "the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm" (BoED p9)

- "Violence against evil is acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done." (BoED p10)

- "The third consideration is one of discrimination. Violence cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncombatants" (BoED p10)

I'm not getting the vibe from these statements that killing stuff because it's from a different plane and looks scary is morally acceptable, or in some way not murder.

EDIT
Man, I'd forgotten how absolutely stupid the writers of BoVD were. I'm paging through it again, and here's some gems on what "Evil" actually is....

"Unsavory sexual behavior, drug addiction, sadism, and masochism are just some of the horrible traits common to the evil and perverse."
(You heard it here, alcoholics and sodomites are Evil.)

"Betrayal does not have to be intentional"
(but it's still Evil, you monster, how dare you get tricked by someone!)

"[Cheaters] rig their enemy's equipment so it breaks or does not function properly"
(How dare you use basic tactics against us! Evil!)

Book of Vile Darkness also calls out Chromatic Dragons as "creatures of consummate, irredeemable Evil". Which also isn't true in canon, as there are non-Evil Chromatics, if I recall correctly.

kyoryu
2012-07-26, 02:17 PM
If you don't like the books you don't have to use them. That doesn't change the fact that they're the official source for the mechanical aspects of alignment. Also note, that I'm not saying that the player shouldn't run into trouble for offing a LG member of a society, just that, if he has powers based on his alignment, he shouldn't lose them.

Well, there's an interesting contradiction here. If there's something that says "killing evil outsiders is always okay, because they're made of evil", then that carries the presumption that they *can't* be good. They're just flat out incapable of it, in the same way that humans are incapable of breathing water.

Allowing evil outsiders to then become good (which is a prerequisite for being a paladin) means you've already houseruled them enough that that particular rule doesn't make any sense any more.

Menteith
2012-07-26, 02:19 PM
Well, there's an interesting contradiction here. If there's something that says "killing evil outsiders is always okay, because they're made of evil", then that carries the presumption that they *can't* be good. They're just flat out incapable of it, in the same way that humans are incapable of breathing water.

Allowing evil outsiders to then become good (which is a prerequisite for being a paladin) means you've already houseruled them enough that that particular rule doesn't make any sense any more.

Except there are canon Fiends who aren't Evil, which wouldn't make it a houserule....plus, the general statement "Always Alignment X" only means that an overwhelming majority of the population is that alignment, not that the creatures are actually "Always Alignment X".

kyoryu
2012-07-26, 02:37 PM
Except there are canon Fiends who aren't Evil, which wouldn't make it a houserule....plus, the general statement "Always Alignment X" only means that an overwhelming majority of the population is that alignment, not that the creatures are actually "Always Alignment X".

A) So killing those Fiends would not fall under the "killing Evil outsiders is okay".

B) My understanding is that statement about "Always alignment X" applies to critters like orcs and goblins, not necessarily to outsiders that are literal embodiments of those alignments.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-26, 02:39 PM
Could you please cite a source for that viewpoint, one that clearly supports it above all other interpretations? I feel that the burden of proof is on you, when you say things like sentient beings with the same capacity for life and goodness as a human aren't people. Because that sounds a wee bit sociopathic - even for D&D - to me. The only source I can site for a different mindset is logic. A creature that has completely different biological needs and no concern for aging will think in a fundamentally different way from anything that would be called mortal. The biology is a bit easier, both fiendish codexes have the better part of a chapter each on the subject. Because of these differences, fiends do not possess the same capacity for goodness. While they do have a capacity for goodness, that capacity is different. If the extraplanar forces of good don't recognize that capacity, for whatever reason, that's a flaw in the system, but part of the sytem none-the-less.


And while I don't love BoED, here's what it officially says about violence;

- "First, violence in the name of good must have just cause" (BoED p9)
Removing solid evil from the world sounds pretty just to me.

- "the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm" (BoED p9)orcs are not fiends, just unpleasant.


- "Violence against evil is acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done." (BoED p10)
BoVD pg8 Destroying a fiend is always a good act. Allowing a fiend to exist, ..., is clearly evil.

- "The third consideration is one of discrimination. Violence cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncombatants" (BoED p10) explain to me how any creature that can destroy with a thought is a non-combatant.


I'm not getting the vibe from these statements that killing stuff because it's from a different plane and looks scary is morally acceptable, or in some way not murder.
I never said the alignment system had a problem with murdering fiends, and not all natives to the lower planes are fiends. We're looking only at creatures with the [evil] descriptor tag.


EDIT
Man, I'd forgotten how absolutely stupid the writers of BoVD were. I'm paging through it again, and here's a gem on what "Evil" actually is....

"Unsavory sexual behavior, drug addiction, sadism, and masochism are just some of the horrible traits common to the evil and perverse."
(You heard it here, alcoholics and sodomites are Evil.)

"Betrayal does not have to be intentional"
(but it's still Evil, you monster, how dare you get tricked by someone!)

"[Cheaters] rig their enemy's equipment so it does not function properly"
(How dare you use basic tactics against us! Evil!)

I have to admit that some of those are just silly, but I can't say that they aren't part of the rules that govern alignment.

The Random NPC
2012-07-26, 02:41 PM
Well, there's an interesting contradiction here. If there's something that says "killing evil outsiders is always okay, because they're made of evil", then that carries the presumption that they *can't* be good. They're just flat out incapable of it, in the same way that humans are incapable of breathing water.

Allowing evil outsiders to then become good (which is a prerequisite for being a paladin) means you've already houseruled them enough that that particular rule doesn't make any sense any more.

Not necessarily, just because someone is made out of elemental evil, doesn't mean it can't be Good. Like making a dam out of bread, just because it'll most likely break at the first touch of water, doesn't mean it isn't a dam, or made of bread.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-26, 02:46 PM
A) So killing those Fiends would not fall under the "killing Evil outsiders is okay".

B) My understanding is that statement about "Always alignment X" applies to critters like orcs and goblins, not necessarily to outsiders that are literal embodiments of those alignments.

Again, killing them would not be a problem if they have the evil descriptor. The alignment line in the creatures stat-block is completely irrelavant.

kyoryu
2012-07-26, 02:46 PM
"Unsavory sexual behavior, drug addiction, sadism, and masochism are just some of the horrible traits common to the evil and perverse."
(You heard it here, alcoholics and sodomites are Evil.)

"Betrayal does not have to be intentional"
(but it's still Evil, you monster, how dare you get tricked by someone!)

"[Cheaters] rig their enemy's equipment so it does not function properly"
(How dare you use basic tactics against us! Evil!)

I have to admit that some of those are just silly, but I can't say that they aren't part of the rules that govern alignment.

At least for the first one, there's a difference between saying "x is a trait often found in Evil people" and "x is inherently evil and makes you evil".

As far as betrayal, it's a lot like intent. Betrayal due to carelessness or thoughtlessness is far closer to Evil than betrayal due to being completely duped.

On the rigging equipment... yeah, that's what cheaters do. But that also implies a scenario in which there are rules that can be broken, which there really aren't on the battlefield. As an example: sabotaging your opponent's armor or gear in a tournament. I still don't know that it's *evil*, but it's certainly chaotic in nature at a minimum. It certainly *could* be evil, depending on what was done - sabotaging the armor in such a way to guarantee that the opponent would die in a friendly competition is pretty evil in my book.

Sabotaging enemy equipment during a war? Unless there's specific rules/laws prohibiting it, why wouldn't you? And, again, that still tends towards unlawful/chaotic rather than flat out evil.

toapat
2012-07-26, 02:56 PM
ok, Let us build a Strawman:

Before us we have a Succubus

She works as an Escort.

When she works, she does not suppress her inherent talents.

All of her profits goto the local Orphanage.

It is the Only Orphanage within 1 month travel.

The Orphanage would shut down if she did not work every single day.


What does the LG paladin do.

Menteith
2012-07-26, 03:01 PM
The only source I can site for a different mindset is logic. A creature that has completely different biological needs and no concern for aging will think in a fundamentally different way from anything that would be called mortal. The biology is a bit easier, both fiendish codexes have the better part of a chapter each on the subject.

So they're fundamentally similar to Elves, Warforged, Necropolitian, anyone with easy access to Reincarnate (Read - most high level characters who can UMD or have Divine friends). So they think differently than humans; that's true of a staggeringly large amount of races in D&D, and still doesn't justify killing.



1) Removing solid evil from the world sounds pretty just to me.
1A)orcs are not fiends, just unpleasant.

2) Destroying a fiend is always a good act.
2A)Allowing a fiend to exist, ..., is clearly evil.

3) explain to me how any creature that can destroy with a thought is a non-combatant.

Answers
1) There is no in game consequence for having additional [Evil] creatures walking around, other than the Evil they may perpetuate. If Eludecia (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) never performs an Evil act, the fact that she has the [Evil] subtype will never make a difference to the world. If you can show me how the world is negatively affected by the mere presence of an [Evil] subtyped creature existing, I'll consider it further, but as it stands, I still see it falling within the same area as murdering Orcs who haven't done anything wrong.

2) This falls under the whole "the book is idiotic" label that I'll get into later, but in a nutshell, even if you accept that killing a fiend is a [Good] act, the book doesn't actually specify that leaving a fiend alive is an [Evil] act - and with how badly the book was written, I'd heavily caution you against reading into things.

3) By choice. Look, if you're comfortable making the statement that you should murder everyone in a war who has the potential to oppose you, then you're committing war crimes. Just because someone has the potential to do something doesn't make them a combative.



I have to admit that some of those are just silly, but I can't say that they aren't part of the rules that govern alignment.

There are mutually exclusive, contradicting statements about alignment throughout D&D (like the morality of Undead - seriously "Deathless" is such a laughable cop out once they realized how badly they'd handled it). I also am committing Evil when I use Deathwatch to monitor a patient's health as a doctor. The alignment books alone will contradict each other, and require a personal ruling on how to handle the things they say (like murdering Dragons who've committed no Evil purely on skin color - Good or Evil, because the books give different opinions). Alignment in D&D fundamentally can't be reconciled with every book out there; the rules that govern alignment require so much opinion from the DM/players that the whole thing is basically meaningless, anyway.

To sum up my point - There isn't a stable body of rules governing alignment when everything is taken into consideration. The rules presented in BoVD and BoED are childishly simplistic ideas of morality that basically bash anything some random dude didn't like (which apparently includes deviant sexual practices, the horrors!). Using common sense and real world morality is going to be required for any real alignment issue, and appealing to the nonexistent authority of the alignment rules is meaningless.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-26, 03:01 PM
ok, Let us build a Strawman:

Before us we have a Succubus

She works as an Escort.

When she works, she does not suppress her inherent talents.

All of her profits goto the local Orphanage.

It is the Only Orphanage within 1 month travel.

The Orphanage would shut down if she did not work every single day.


What does the LG paladin do.

He shanks the crap out of her for sucking the life out of her johns. That's one of a succubus's talents, sucking the life out of the people she kisses. An exalted paladin would do everything he could to either fund, or relocate the orphanage, but any paladin should kill the succubus. Even if she was a paragon of virtue that never hurt a fly, the paladin wouldn't fall for offing her. He shouldn't kill her in that case, but doing so would mechanically be a good act.

toapat
2012-07-26, 03:03 PM
He shanks the crap out of her for sucking the life out of her johns. That's one of a succubus's talents, sucking the life out of the people she kisses. An exalted paladin would do everything he could to either fund, or relocate the orphanage, but any paladin should kill the succubus. Even if she was a paragon of virtue that never hurt a fly, the paladin wouldn't fall for offing her. He shouldn't kill her in that case, but doing so would mechanically be a good act.

Congradulations, you caused the death of 500+ children

if She wasnt killing people through her job, you attain a first level unholy divine rank, because you just increased abuse in the city by 500%, and killed 500+ children.

Paladins dont have WBL within SRD

Menteith
2012-07-26, 03:04 PM
He shanks the crap out of her for sucking the life out of her johns. That's one of a succubus's talents, sucking the life out of the people she kisses. An exalted paladin would do everything he could to either fund, or relocate the orphanage, but any paladin should kill the succubus. Even if she was a paragon of virtue that never hurt a fly, the paladin wouldn't fall for offing her. He shouldn't kill her in that case, but doing so would mechanically be a good act.

Or it'd be a mechanically Evil act according to the guidelines in BoED. Which is why I'm saying that those books aren't actually useful as Alignment rules. Because they're contradictory, and pretty bad even on their own.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-26, 03:16 PM
Congradulations, you caused the death of 500+ children

No, I created the possibility of the deaths of 500 children. They didn't just magically explode in the same moment I struck down the succubus, who by the way, was killing people in a much more direct fashion. You can't hold anyone, paladin or no, responsible for every cascading effect of every action they take, otherwise there can be no paladins. If the orphans die, it's not because the succubus died, it's because they can't take care of themselves. Many of them will get on well-enough by turning to petty crime. It's how a lot of orphans in medieval europe got along after all.


so they're fundamentally similar to elves, warforged, (other long-lived races) No. Among those, only the constructs and undead are truly immortal. Undead fall under the same heading as [evil] subtype creatures. Many of them have a hunger that they must sate, and amongst those that don't they usually became undead through an evil act. Constructs have a basic mindset programed into them. They are just as different from outsiders as they are from mortal creatures.
... There isn't a stable body of rules governing alignment... You're right, it doesn't make perfect sense, that's why we end up with these debates. That and the dissonance between the alignment rules and the social construct of morality. That doesn't change the fact that they are the rules.

toapat
2012-07-26, 03:21 PM
No, I created the possibility of the deaths of 500 children. They didn't just magically explode in the same moment I struck down the succubus, who by the way, was killing people in a much more direct fashion. You can't hold anyone, paladin or no, responsible for every cascading effect of every action they take, otherwise there can be no paladins. If the orphans die, it's not because the succubus died, it's because they can't take care of themselves. Many of them will get on well-enough by turning to petty crime. It's how a lot of orphans in medieval europe got along after all.

In Medival Europe, in the scenario, the kids are kept alive by the wallet of a succubus who likes children but doesnt particularly care about her clients. The Paladin does not have WBL within the SRD, and within realistic gameplay, that 10% you are allowed to keep? that goes to feeding that pain in the ass horse because you dont have Create Food and Water as a spell, and cant learn it.

and yes, A Paladin IS HELD to the cascading results of their actions.

toapat
2012-07-26, 03:24 PM
No, I created the possibility of the deaths of 500 children. They didn't just magically explode in the same moment I struck down the succubus, who by the way, was killing people in a much more direct fashion. You can't hold anyone, paladin or no, responsible for every cascading effect of every action they take, otherwise there can be no paladins. If the orphans die, it's not because the succubus died, it's because they can't take care of themselves. Many of them will get on well-enough by turning to petty crime. It's how a lot of orphans in medieval europe got along after all.

In Medival Europe, in the scenario, the kids are kept alive by the wallet of a succubus who likes children but doesnt particularly care about her clients. The Paladin does not have WBL within the SRD, and within realistic gameplay, that 10% you are allowed to keep? that goes to feeding that pain in the ass horse because you dont have Create Food and Water as a spell, and cant learn it.

and yes, A Paladin IS HELD to the cascading results of their actions.

Menteith
2012-07-26, 03:37 PM
No, I created the possibility of the deaths of 500 children. They didn't just magically explode in the same moment I struck down the succubus, who by the way, was killing people in a much more direct fashion. You can't hold anyone, paladin or no, responsible for every cascading effect of every action they take, otherwise there can be no paladins. If the orphans die, it's not because the succubus died, it's because they can't take care of themselves. Many of them will get on well-enough by turning to petty crime. It's how a lot of orphans in medieval europe got along after all.

""He is so consumed with his own goals and desires that he can think of no reason not to succeed at the expense of others." (BoVD, p9), Evil Act, Paladin falls.

I can and will hold a Paladin responsible for the slow deaths of hundreds of children and their benefactor. Due to a paladin's actions, more suffering, pain, and evil (due to the surviving children turning to Evil) will now result. This is something forseeable, and I can't think of a single player that could try and justify that to a DM with a straight face.


You're right, it doesn't make perfect sense, that's why we end up with these debates. That and the dissonance between the alignment rules and the social construct of morality. That doesn't change the fact that they are the rules.

So is Drown Healing, the Trample Feat giving Wargs Hoof attacks, and other fun nonfunctional statements. Just because they've been written down doesn't make them any more stupid or absurd. There are mutually exclusive areas of the alignment "rules" that cannot be resolved without ignoring a source. There isn't a guideline on which source is more definitive. Thus, players and DMs will have to use their best judgement on what's actually good and evil (which is a good thing anyway, given BoVD and BoED). When a creature does no harm, and quite a bit of good, I'd say murdering it in cold blood because a book told you it was OK to do doesn't mean that the act is any more just, it just means the book is wrong.

The Random NPC
2012-07-26, 03:38 PM
ok, Let us build a Strawman:

Before us we have a Succubus

She works as an Escort.

When she works, she does not suppress her inherent talents.

All of her profits goto the local Orphanage.

It is the Only Orphanage within 1 month travel.

The Orphanage would shut down if she did not work every single day.


What does the LG paladin do.

One of two thing, kill the succubus, or let the succubus live, either one wouldn't result in the paladin falling. Leaving the orphanage without funding after killing the succubus may result in falling.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-26, 03:50 PM
In Medival Europe, in the scenario, the kids are kept alive by the wallet of a succubus who likes children but doesnt particularly care about her clients. The Paladin does not have WBL within the SRD, and within realistic gameplay, that 10% you are allowed to keep? that goes to feeding that pain in the ass horse because you dont have Create Food and Water as a spell, and cant learn it.

and yes, A Paladin IS HELD to the cascading results of their actions.
You're assigning assumptions to your hypothetical that you never specified. Did the paladin know that the succubus was an orphanage's benefactor? My comment about the paladin helping the orphanage to the best of his ability is something that he should be inclined to do in anycase. I can agree that if he does know about the orphanage and the succubus's ties to it, then he would be responsible for taking up the responsibility of caring for that orphanage. If he succesfully produces a way for the orphanage to continue, great. If he fails, he fails. He doesn't fall unless he didn't try.

Okay, my turn for a hypothetical. A paladin is traveling through the woods when he's attacked by a warg. He slays the warg with little effort because he's of reasonably high level. That wargs pups die, because he never returns to the den and either they starved or his mate wasn't there to protect them at a critical moment. His mate, possibly after recovering from her own near starvation, in a fit of rage goes to the nearest town and starts attacking innocent peasants.

Where do you draw the line for the paladin's responsibility? The dead pups? The dead villiagers? If you hold a paladin, or any character for that matter, to every possible consequence of his actions, then every person who's ever done anything has commited an evil act, and did it without even knowing about it in most cases.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-26, 04:08 PM
""He is so consumed with his own goals and desires that he can think of no reason not to succeed at the expense of others." (BoVD, p9), Evil Act, Paladin falls.

I can and will hold a Paladin responsible for the slow deaths of hundreds of children and their benefactor. Due to a paladin's actions, more suffering, pain, and evil (due to the surviving children turning to Evil) will now result. This is something forseeable, and I can't think of a single player that could try and justify that to a DM with a straight face.



So is Drown Healing, the Trample Feat giving Wargs Hoof attacks, and other fun nonfunctional statements. Just because they've been written down doesn't make them any more stupid or absurd. There are mutually exclusive areas of the alignment "rules" that cannot be resolved without ignoring a source. There isn't a guideline on which source is more definitive. Thus, players and DMs will have to use their best judgement on what's actually good and evil (which is a good thing anyway, given BoVD and BoED). When a creature does no harm, and quite a bit of good, I'd say murdering it in cold blood because a book told you it was OK to do doesn't mean that the act is any more just, it just means the book is wrong.

See my previous post for the rebuttal to the hypothetical.

If we throw out the rules, then we're just discussing our, obviously differing, opinions. By the definition of "opinion" neither of us can be right or wrong, and this discussion becomes moot.

toapat
2012-07-26, 04:13 PM
You're asigning assumptions to your hypothetical that you never specified. Did the paladin know that the succubus was an orphanage's benefactor? My comment about the paladin helping the orphanage to the best of his ability is something that he should be inclined to do in anycase. I can agree that if he does know about the orphanage and the succubus's ties to it, then he would be responsible for taking up the responsibility of caring for that orphanage. If he succesfully produces a way for the orphanage to continue, great. If he fails, he fails. He doesn't fall unless he didn't try.

Okay, my turn for a hypothetical. A paladin is traveling through the woods when he's attacked by a warg. He slays the warg with little effort because he's of reasonably high level. That wargs pups die, because he never returns to the den and either they starved or his mate wasn't there to protect them at a critical moment. His mate, possibly after recovering from her own near starvation, in a fit of rage goes to the nearest town and starts attacking innocent peasants.

Where do you draw the line for the paladin's responsibility? The dead pups? The dead villiagers? If you hold a paladin, or any character for that matter, to every possible consequence of his actions, then every person who's ever done anything has commited an evil act, and did it without even knowing about it in most cases.

RAW: The Paladin only knows the conditions of the Strawman. It becomes his responsibility if executing the Succubus to help the orphanage. He does not know who to contact, where it is, or whether he can actually convince anyone to help it out. A Paladin, following the PHB code to the letter, does not have spare coin to give an orphanage he just found out about.

IF paladin was written properly, they would have Soothe animal as a first level spell, and as a second level spell Conjure Food and Water. The difference here is that THIS cascade of Events can not within reasonable bounds be judged by the paladins actions alone, because there might have been a Dire Half Fiend Polar Bear on the future path of the Worg in question. This is a Strawman in actuality.

The reason why the Succubus orphan Matron works, is because a Succubus is a Demon who even in origin is an Infiltrator and Escort. Her not being found out can easily be attributed to a combination of Alter form at will, High bluff, Diplomacy, Perform, and Charisma, and a torch.

Menteith
2012-07-26, 04:15 PM
You're assigning assumptions to your hypothetical that you never specified. Did the paladin know that the succubus was an orphanage's benefactor? My comment about the paladin helping the orphanage to the best of his ability is something that he should be inclined to do in anycase. I can agree that if he does know about the orphanage and the succubus's ties to it, then he would be responsible for taking up the responsibility of caring for that orphanage. If he succesfully produces a way for the orphanage to continue, great. If he fails, he fails. He doesn't fall unless he didn't try.

I'll give you a slightly more comprehensive situation
A Fiend has been the guardian of a town for centuries. Its honor and compassion is beyond doubt, and it alone is responsible for the protection and lives under its watch. In your mind, is it a good act to murder this creature, knowing full well that doing so will only bring harm to the world around it and destroy a noble being, because of a single line in BoVD that's contradicted by BoED and the existence of non-Evil Fiends?


Okay, my turn for a hypothetical. A paladin is traveling through the woods when he's attacked by a warg. He slays the warg with little effort because he's of reasonably high level. That wargs pups die, because he never returns to the den and either they starved or his mate wasn't there to protect them at a critical moment. His mate, possibly after recovering from her own near starvation, in a fit of rage goes to the nearest town and starts attacking innocent peasants.

Where do you draw the line for the paladin's responsibility? The dead pups? The dead villiagers? If you hold a paladin, or any character for that matter, to every possible consequence of his actions, then every person who's ever done anything has commited an evil act, and did it without even knowing about it in most cases.

Sure, you need to keep it reasonable. You can't endlessly go down the path of causality. But would it be cool for the Paladin to still murder than Good demon even if he knew his actions would result in the slow death by starvation of hundreds, and the destruction of a Good creature, solely due to that creature's origins?

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-26, 04:20 PM
RAW: The Paladin only knows the conditions of the Strawman. It becomes his responsibility if executing the Succubus to help the orphanage. He does not know who to contact, where it is, or whether he can actually convince anyone to help it out. A Paladin, following the PHB code to the letter, does not have spare coin to give an orphanage he just found out about.

IF paladin was written properly, they would have Soothe animal as a first level spell, and as a second level spell Conjure Food and Water. The difference here is that THIS cascade of Events can not within reasonable bounds be judged by the paladins actions alone, because there might have been a Dire Half Fiend Polar Bear on the future path of the Worg in question. This is a Strawman in actuality.

The reason why the Succubus orphan Matron works, is because a Succubus is a Demon who even in origin is an Infiltrator and Escort. Her not being found out can easily be attributed to a combination of Alter form at will, High bluff, Diplomacy, Perform, and Charisma, and a torch.

If I'm reading you right, you're saying that the paladin didn't know where the orphanage was, how to get there, or even that the woman he just killed was a succubus? One of these cannot be true.

If he knew she was a succubus, and she told him about the orphanage, then there'd be no reason for him to believe it, and he shouldn't be held responsible for the orphanage.

If he heard about the orphanage from someone else, then other people know about it and he can find it if he tries hard enough.

If he didn't know she was a succubus, but did know she was killing people, and he knew about the orphanage, he shouldn't have auto-killed her. He should've tried to capture her and turn her over to the authorities.

If he didn't know she was a succubus, didn't know about the killings, and did know about the orphanage, why did he want to kill her in the first place?

The problem isn't in my response to the hypothetical, it's in the hypothetical's lack of relavant detail.

toapat
2012-07-26, 04:22 PM
I'll give you a slightly more comprehensive situation
A Fiend has been the guardian of a town for centuries. Its honor and compassion is beyond doubt, and it alone is responsible for the protection and lives under its watch. In your mind, is it a good act to murder this creature, knowing full well that doing so will only bring harm to the world around it and destroy a noble being, because of a single line in BoVD that's contradicted by BoED and the existence of non-Evil Fiends?

Sure, you need to keep it reasonable. You can't endlessly go down the path of causality. But would it be cool for the Paladin to still murder than Good demon even if he knew his actions would result in the slow death by starvation of hundreds, and the destruction of a Good creature, solely due to that creature's origins?

^Good Example. One book says that creatures with a [Evil] Descriptor should be pitied for not being able to understand Love.

the reason why i built my scenario the way i did is that the Succubus is clearly being Evil, but you cant kill her lest you comit an evil act.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-26, 04:34 PM
I'll give you a slightly more comprehensive situation
A Fiend has been the guardian of a town for centuries. Its honor and compassion is beyond doubt, and it alone is responsible for the protection and lives under its watch. In your mind, is it a good act to murder this creature, knowing full well that doing so will only bring harm to the world around it and destroy a noble being, because of a single line in BoVD that's contradicted by BoED and the existence of non-Evil Fiends?



Sure, you need to keep it reasonable. You can't endlessly go down the path of causality. But would it be cool for the Paladin to still murder than Good demon even if he knew his actions would result in the slow death by starvation of hundreds, and the destruction of a Good creature, solely due to that creature's origins?

Again there are flaws in the hypothetical, but I'll answer anyway. Mechanically, yes, killing the demon is a good act. Morally no of course not, but that's the rub. Mechanical alignment and the social construct of morality are related, but not the same thing.

Now for the flaws in the hypothetical: what's the paladin's motivation for attacking the demon? Why didn't he change his mind when he, inevitably, found out that the demon was good? Why wouldn't he do everything in his power to prevent the eventual decline of the city? Why are the peasants staying there to starve when they know that their benefactor is gone? How in the blazes did an entire town come to trust a frickin' demon?

Without all of the proper context, all there is to fall back on is mechanics.

Like I said, if you want to discuss mechanics, I'll do everything I can to show my point. If you want to discuss morality, that's all just opinion anyway and neither of us can be definitively right or wrong.

Malachite
2012-07-26, 04:36 PM
The Paladin does not have WBL within the SRD, and within realistic gameplay, that 10% you are allowed to keep

Can I ask where you're getting this? I can't see anything like that in the SRD, and can only assume you're taking the idea of tithing (that is, setting aside 10% of your income for God) and completely getting it the wrong way around.


Guys, the logical contradiction isn't whether or not it's right to kill a succubus paladin, it's the idea that a demon - a being of composed of pure, elemental evil - can be good aligned. If they were good aligned, they would no longer be creatures of pure, elemental evil! It all comes down to some game designer thinking "Hey, I want to make a hot, sexy, controversial paladin, so what if I made a good succubus?" without really thinking things through. It's like saying "I'm going to make some green jelly, but red!"

Hiro Protagonest
2012-07-26, 04:43 PM
RAW: The Paladin only knows the conditions of the Strawman. It becomes his responsibility if executing the Succubus to help the orphanage. He does not know who to contact, where it is, or whether he can actually convince anyone to help it out. A Paladin, following the PHB code to the letter, does not have spare coin to give an orphanage he just found out about.

...

That's Vow of Poverty, not paladin. Paladin just has to help. That could be as little as giving 5 GP to an orphanage.

WBL is RAW. It's right there in the DMG, and it isn't in one of those "variant rule" sidebars.

As for your scenario? I say he kills the succubus. If it's a local orphanage, any average citizen in town would know where it is. Then he donates 2000 GP of his massive WBL to the orphanage, which, given that a farmer can feed his entire family on one silver piece a day, will help the kids stay fed for a hundred days or so, easily long enough for him to go kill some more monsters, watch as his wealth increases exponentially, then come back and donate much more money. For his entire life, he could go around the countryside facing random encounters and easily support the orphanage and the town on that alone.

And last of all, the paladin's code says "punish those who harm or threaten innocents", which the succubus is most definitely doing. It doesn't say "prevent innocents from dying". So we get into whether his actions are an evil act. So we turn to the BoED/BoVD. Which state that letting a fiend live is always an evil act. But, as far as I can tell from all the quotes in these discussions, doesn't state "if innocents die as an indirect result of an action, it is an evil act".

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-26, 04:43 PM
Can I ask where you're getting this? I can't see anything like that in the SRD, and can only assume you're taking the idea of tithing (that is, setting aside 10% of your income for God) and completely getting it the wrong way around.


Guys, the logical contradiction isn't whether or not it's right to kill a succubus paladin, it's the idea that a demon - a being of composed of pure, elemental evil - can be good aligned. If they were good aligned, they would no longer be creatures of pure, elemental evil! It all comes down to some game designer thinking "Hey, I want to make a hot, sexy, controversial paladin, so what if I made a good succubus?" without really thinking things through. It's like saying "I'm going to make some green jelly, but red!"

No sir, I'm afraid the rules of the game contradict you on this one. The fiendish codexes describe how fiendish creatures are made of pure malevolance, and MotP talks about how all outsiders are made up of the stuff of their planes, and how, in-turn, each of the outer planes is made up of the raw stuff of alignments. Changing how you think doesn't change what you're made of.

I have no idea how the fellow you quoted thinks WBL works. That's why I never addressed that particular point.

Menteith
2012-07-26, 04:46 PM
Now for the flaws in the hypothetical: what's the paladin's motivation for attacking the demon? Why didn't he change his mind when he, inevitably, found out that the demon was good? Why wouldn't he do everything in his power to prevent the eventual decline of the city? Why are the peasants staying there to starve when they know that their benefactor is gone? How in the blazes did an entire town come to trust a frickin' demon?

Without all of the proper context, all there is to fall back on is mechanics.


- The Paladin's motivation is that it's a Demon, and he once read a book that said it was a good thing to kill demons no matter what.

- He didn't change his mind because the book told him what he was doing was a good thing, no matter how much logic and circumstance might disagree.

- The Paladin might have tried, but lacked the power and capabilities of the immortal, super powered being who'd been there for centuries.

- The peasants might not starve, but they're going to be driven from their homes and lose everything. The city is likely to be invaded by a powerful tribe of evil Goblins who were nonviolently held at bay by the Demon (Lets say it's a LG Balor with Vow of Nonviolence, who uses Power Word: Stun and grappling to stop conflict). The Fiend came to be trusted when it saved the city from an invading army generations ago, and has always fairly and honorably defended the city, and helped everyone grow in a [Good] way, teaching them and offering guidance when asked. Think of what an Archangel would do, only it's an enlightened Balor.

This might be the only LG Balor in history, who's the gentlest, kindest individual, who has never done wrong and only desires to help and care for those in the world, and who has the means to actually help. And you're arguing that it's a [Good] act to murder it because....?

Malachite
2012-07-26, 04:48 PM
the reason why i built my scenario the way i did is that the Succubus is clearly being Evil, but you cant kill her lest you comit an evil act.

A guy walks up to your house holding a knife. He tells you that he's tied someone up on an abandoned building somewhere, and if you don't let him stab your family, he'll leave them to starve. He's clearly being Evil, but you can't refuse open the door for him, otherwise you're committing an Evil act by leading to the death of the kidnapped person...

Except you wouldn't be. You are not the cause of the other person's difficulty, and the fact that this guy has the power to keep them alive does not give him the right to cause the deaths of others. The best thing you can do in this situation is stop him killing anyone else and try to find the kidnapped person before they starve.

EDIT:

No sir, I'm afraid the rules of the game contradict you on this one. The fiendish codexes describe how fiendish creatures are made of pure malevolance, and MotP talks about how all outsiders are made up of the stuff of their planes, and how, in-turn, each of the outer planes is made up of the raw stuff of alignments. Changing how you think doesn't change what you're made of.


Kelb, that's my point - a creature of 'pure malevolence', 'made up of the raw stuff of their alignments' should not be capable of thinking in another way, just as something made of iron cannot be water.

toapat
2012-07-26, 04:50 PM
Again there are flaws in the hypothetical, but I'll answer anyway. Mechanically, yes, killing the demon is a good act. Morally no of course not, but that's the rub. Mechanical alignment and the social construct of morality are related, but not the same thing.

Now for the flaws in the hypothetical: what's the paladin's motivation for attacking the demon? Why didn't he change his mind when he, inevitably, found out that the demon was good? Why wouldn't he do everything in his power to prevent the eventual decline of the city? Why are the peasants staying there to starve when they know that their benefactor is gone? How in the blazes did an entire town come to trust a frickin' demon?

Without all of the proper context, all there is to fall back on is mechanics.

Like I said, if you want to discuss mechanics, I'll do everything I can to show my point. If you want to discuss morality, that's all just opinion anyway and neither of us can be definitively right or wrong.

{{scrubbed}} The Scenarios that you didnt build had all the context required, because the decision you make has direct consequences. Kill the Succubus, the Orphanage cant feed the children today, Kill the Demon, .

The Abyssal-American wanted a bit of power, so he wanted people to trust him

He does that by helping them out with odd jobs

He does this long enough that they come to respect him

As they come to respect him, they put him in charge

In charge, he learns that the best way to say in charge is to keep doing what he was doing.

Because he founds a pretty stable town, people travel to that town

that town becomes a city

The Demon becomes a Lord

He is happy, because he has power (Evil) and does random things (Chaotic).

PHB description of paladin says you donate 90+% of your earnings to charity. The Code in the same book reinforces that.


...

That's Vow of Poverty, not paladin. Paladin just has to help. That could be as little as giving 5 GP to an orphanage.

WBL is RAW. It's right there in the DMG, and it isn't in one of those "variant rule" sidebars.

Vow of Poverty is 1% of WBL kept, Paladin Code is 10%, but the horse eats 11% worth of food.

kyoryu
2012-07-26, 04:51 PM
^Good Example. One book says that creatures with a [Evil] Descriptor should be pitied for not being able to understand Love.

the reason why i built my scenario the way i did is that the Succubus is clearly being Evil, but you cant kill her lest you comit an evil act.

Except, I don't see it that way. Heck, she's committing Evil acts as part of her job (draining innocent men to death).

Bad things happen. Failing to prevent bad things from happening doesn't make you Evil.

Now, admittedly, I'd ask what was up with the Paladin if he just walked away from the orphanage afterwards. I'd even understand if he didn't kill the succubus. But I just don't see it as an Evil act.

Same with the warg example. The man obviously has the right to self defense, and that's not evil, since he didn't provoke the attack in any way. (It's not necessarily Good, either, it's probably Neutral).

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-26, 04:51 PM
- The Paladin's motivation is that it's a Demon, and he once read a book that said it was a good thing to kill demons no matter what.

- He didn't change his mind because the book told him what he was doing was a good thing, no matter how much logic and circumstance might disagree.

- The Paladin might have tried, but lacked the power and capabilities of the immortal, super powered being who'd been there for centuries.

- The peasants might not starve, but they're going to be driven from their homes and lose everything. The city is likely to be invaded by a powerful tribe of evil Goblins who were nonviolently held at bay by the Demon (Lets say it's a LG Balor with Vow of Nonviolence, who uses Power Word: Stun and grappling to stop conflict). The Fiend came to be trusted when it saved the city from an invading army generations ago, and has always fairly and honorably defended the city, and helped everyone grow in a [Good] way, teaching them and offering guidance when asked. Think of what an Archangel would do, only it's an enlightened Balor.

This might be the only LG Balor in history, who's the gentlest, kindest individual, who has never done wrong and only desires to help and care for those in the world, and who has the means to actually help. And you're arguing that it's a [Good] act to murder it because....?

If the paladin took down the balor, how is it he didn't have the power or wealth to protect the town? A high level adventurer's gear could easily fund nearly any program you could think of, all he's got to do is go to another, bigger, city to cash-out. Hell, he could buy a candle of invocation and replace the balor with a solar. Problem solved.

What you're talking about isn't making a paladin fall for commiting evil. It's making a paladin fall for failing to successfully deal with the consequences of his actions. Again, he should only fall if he didn't try.

Malachite
2012-07-26, 04:54 PM
No sir, I'm afraid the rules of the game contradict you on this one. The fiendish codexes describe how fiendish creatures are made of pure malevolance, and MotP talks about how all outsiders are made up of the stuff of their planes, and how, in-turn, each of the outer planes is made up of the raw stuff of alignments. Changing how you think doesn't change what you're made of.


Kelb, that's my point - a creature of 'pure malevolence', 'made up of the raw stuff of their alignments' should not be capable of thinking in another way, just as something made of iron cannot be water.

Menteith
2012-07-26, 04:55 PM
If the paladin took down the balor, how is it he didn't have the power or wealth to protect the town? A high level adventurer's gear could easily fund nearly any program you could think of, all he's got to do is go to another, bigger, city to cash-out. Hell, he could buy a candle of invocation and replace the balor with a solar. Problem solved.


No, you're not allowed to sidestep the question. In such a situation, do you believe that it's a good act to try and murder this creature? Even if the Paladin doesn't succeed, was their attempt (in full knowledge of what would happen) a [Good] action? Don't dance around the issue we're discussing - Is it right to kill a paragon of goodness solely because of their origins? You don't need increasingly elaborate situations to answer that - just say yes or no.

toapat
2012-07-26, 04:57 PM
No, you're not allowed to sidestep the question. In such a situation, do you believe that it's a good act to try and murder this creature? Even if the Paladin doesn't succeed, was their attempt (in full knowledge of what would happen) a [Good] action? Don't dance around the issue we're discussing - Is it right to kill a paragon of goodness solely because of their origins? You don't need increasingly elaborate situations to answer that - just say yes or no.

Simply, NO.

The Alignment System is pretty crap, Rigid, but Well DEFINED.

Moralty of Actions is Subjective entirely, AND DOES NOT RELY AT ALL ON DESCRIPTORS.

Good: Something that helps others.

Evil: Something that helps only one person.

Lawful: Doing things within law or without significant variance when presented the same scenario

Chaotic: Doing things as you please.

Malachite
2012-07-26, 05:03 PM
PHB description of paladin says you donate 90+% of your earnings to charity. The Code in the same book reinforces that.

Vow of Poverty is 1% of WBL kept, Paladin Code is 10%, but the horse eats 11% worth of food.

Again, where are you getting this from? The PHB description of the paladin (for 3.5, at least) says nothing of the sort, and nor does the code. Furthermore, the horse lives in the celestial realms for the majority of its life and can find its own delicious grass. :smallwink:

Lord_Gareth
2012-07-26, 05:07 PM
Guys, the logical contradiction isn't whether or not it's right to kill a succubus paladin, it's the idea that a demon - a being of composed of pure, elemental evil - can be good aligned. If they were good aligned, they would no longer be creatures of pure, elemental evil! It all comes down to some game designer thinking "Hey, I want to make a hot, sexy, controversial paladin, so what if I made a good succubus?" without really thinking things through. It's like saying "I'm going to make some green jelly, but red!"

They've published a succubus paladin. More importantly, they've published numerous fallen celestials. Planescape is chock-full of neutral-aligned examples of both. One of the cornerstones of D&D's assumptions is that sapient beings are possessed of freedom of will; if a demon literally could not choose to take any action other than that which was harmful and corrupting, it'd be little worse (morally) than a viper or a tiger.

Malachite
2012-07-26, 05:19 PM
They've published a succubus paladin. More importantly, they've published numerous fallen celestials. Planescape is chock-full of neutral-aligned examples of both. One of the cornerstones of D&D's assumptions is that sapient beings are possessed of freedom of will; if a demon literally could not choose to take any action other than that which was harmful and corrupting, it'd be little worse (morally) than a viper or a tiger.

Yes, and we've already established that WotC have published quite a lot of contradictory material. A being of pure malevolence who becomes non-malevolent is no longer a being of pure malevolence. Likewise, a being of pure good who becomes non-good is no longer a being of pure good. To assert that they are is to make a logical contradiction.

That's why we have this crazy situation where it can appear that killing a good evil creature is simultaneously good and evil.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-26, 05:19 PM
No, you're not allowed to sidestep the question. In such a situation, do you believe that it's a good act to try and murder this creature? Even if the Paladin doesn't succeed, was their attempt (in full knowledge of what would happen) a [Good] action? Don't dance around the issue we're discussing - Is it right to kill a paragon of goodness solely because of their origins? You don't need increasingly elaborate situations to answer that - just say yes or no.

You're demanding that I ignore the fact that the neither the paladin, nor anyone else for that matter, knows what will happen in the future anymore than you know how I'll respond to your next post.

But since you demand an answer, Yes. In the case of fiends it is a good act to kill them, even if they're a solar's best friend ever, solely because of their inherent makeup.

That's the mechanical rules. If you want my opinion on the morality of it, I don't care. My opinion is no more valid than yours. I'm not going to argue morality, only mechanics. Besides, arguing the morality of it might skirt dangerously close to breaking forum rules.

Kish
2012-07-26, 05:32 PM
Yes, and we've already established that WotC have published quite a lot of contradictory material. A being of pure malevolence who becomes non-malevolent is no longer a being of pure malevolence. Likewise, a being of pure good who becomes non-good is no longer a being of pure good. To assert that they are is to make a logical contradiction.
Because celestials who become evil and fiends who become good have no precedent outside of D&D, and the examples of them in D&D are as obscure as the succubus paladin rather than--say--including fallen celestials as rulers of levels of the Nine Hells.

There is a logical contradiction in the concept, "Sapient creature of pure good/pure evil." If they can't make choices, then they're not sapient. D&D has, for at least a very long time, taken the stance that celestials and fiends still have moral choice.

Lord_Gareth
2012-07-26, 05:34 PM
Because celestials who become evil and fiends who become good have no precedent outside of D&D, and the examples of them in D&D are as obscure as the succubus paladin rather than--say--including fallen celestials as rulers of levels of the Nine Hells.

There is a logical contradiction in the concept, "Sapient creature of pure good/pure evil." If they can't make choices, then they're not sapient. D&D has, for at least a very long time, taken the stance that celestials and fiends still have moral choice.

And if they don't, then they're more accurately incapable of morality, which would make 'em more like golems and less like, you know, good or evil beings.

Malachite
2012-07-26, 05:44 PM
OK, so the contradiction is between free will and being composed of pure good/evil. There's still a logical contradiction in how they are written, and that's why it seems to be simultaneously right and wrong to kill them off-hand. Your conclusion of whether or not it's right to kill fiends on sight depends on which side of that contradiction you discard and which you maintain.

Also, lack of free will does not necessarily mean neutral. A zombie with nothing but a ravening hunger for living flesh is mindlessly evil.

hamishspence
2012-07-26, 05:50 PM
I think of it as not so much "made of evil" as "contains some evil energy". makes more sense in the context of them being able to change.

On chromatic dragons, BoED is a bit less harsh than BoVD- it states they're "not entirely beyond salvation"

So it may be a case of BoVD being the stand-out- the exception rather than the rule- with Monte Cook taking a less nuanced approach than other authors.

Kish
2012-07-26, 05:57 PM
Also, lack of free will does not necessarily mean neutral.

Indeed not. "Neutral" still requires a mind. Lack of free will logically means no alignment at all.

A zombie with nothing but a ravening hunger for living flesh is mindlessly evil.
You're at once arguing that WotC publishing non-evil fiends should be ignored for being goofy (...and completely ignoring me pointing out that they hardly invented the idea...) and that "this mindless creature which does its creator's bidding but happens to be an animated corpse has a different alignment than this mindless creature which does its creator's bidding but happens to be made of clay/stone/iron/multiple corpses" makes sense.

Either "WotC sez so" is authoritative, zombies are evil, and none of your objections to the succubus paladin are valid. Or "WotC sez so" is not authoritative. Pick one.

hamishspence
2012-07-26, 06:00 PM
Dragon zombies and zombie dragon have different alignments. Dragon zombies (MM) are NE like other zombies.

Zombie dragons (Draconomicon) are N- possibly because it was published early in 3.5 and they may not have gotten the memo about even mindless undead now having an Evil alignment.

Malachite
2012-07-26, 06:21 PM
Indeed not. "Neutral" still requires a mind. Lack of free will logically means no alignment at all.

You're at once arguing that WotC publishing non-evil fiends should be ignored for being goofy (...and completely ignoring me pointing out that they hardly invented the idea...) and that "this mindless creature which does its creator's bidding but happens to be an animated corpse has a different alignment than this mindless creature which does its creator's bidding but happens to be made of clay/stone/iron/multiple corpses" makes sense.

Either "WotC sez so" is authoritative, zombies are evil, and none of your objections to the succubus paladin are valid. Or "WotC sez so" is not authoritative. Pick one.

I'm not arguing on their say so. The zombie may not have a choice, but it is animated by necromantic magic (definitively evil, though poorly explained as to why) and under a constant compulsion to maim and kill (ie. commit evil acts). The golem is animated by unaligned magic and has no compulsion other than to follow commands.

On the idea of not inventing the idea, I assume you're talking about angels and demons. While there's actually not all that much information on them in the Bible, neither are asserted to be made of pure good/evil and the fact that they can and did choose between good and evil implies that they are not composed of pure good/evil.

To restate my position once again before bed - a being composed of pure evil has no capacity to be good and so destroying such a being can only be good. If a being has the capacity to choose between good and evil, it cannot be purely evil and therefore it is not necessarily right to destroy it - further investigation is needed. WotC creates the logical contradiction by saying demons/devils are both composed of pure evil and capable of choice, leading to differences in opinion of how they should be treated depending on which one of two incompatible statements the decision-maker chooses to uphold. Either position requires rejecting some information and so cannot be said to be superior to the other.

The Random NPC
2012-07-26, 06:41 PM
I'm not arguing on their say so. The zombie may not have a choice, but it is animated by necromantic magic (definitively evil, though poorly explained as to why) and under a constant compulsion to maim and kill (ie. commit evil acts). The golem is animated by unaligned magic and has no compulsion other than to follow commands.

On the idea of not inventing the idea, I assume you're talking about angels and demons. While there's actually not all that much information on them in the Bible, neither are asserted to be made of pure good/evil and the fact that they can and did choose between good and evil implies that they are not composed of pure good/evil.

To restate my position once again before bed - a being composed of pure evil has no capacity to be good and so destroying such a being can only be good. If a being has the capacity to choose between good and evil, it cannot be purely evil and therefore it is not necessarily right to destroy it - further investigation is needed. WotC creates the logical contradiction by saying demons/devils are both composed of pure evil and capable of choice, leading to differences in opinion of how they should be treated depending on which one of two incompatible statements the decision-maker chooses to uphold. Either position requires rejecting some information and so cannot be said to be superior to the other.

I don't see how what you are made of can force you act a certain way.

Menteith
2012-07-26, 07:00 PM
I don't see how what you are made of can force you act a certain way.

^

There's nothing legally stopping a [Fire] subtype character from entering the Cryomancer PrC, or from casting [Water] spell, and there's nothing stopping a Lich from casting spells that use positive energy.



You're demanding that I ignore the fact that the neither the paladin, nor anyone else for that matter, knows what will happen in the future anymore than you know how I'll respond to your next post.

But since you demand an answer, Yes. In the case of fiends it is a good act to kill them, even if they're a solar's best friend ever, solely because of their inherent makeup.

That's the mechanical rules.

I can make an educated guess at what will happen if I try and stab a child. I can predict what will occur when I try and murder a champion of good. So yeah, I guess I technically don't know the future, but I know basic causality regarding murder. Here's our disagreement, as I understand it. I'm just going to lay out what I believe is going on, and I'd like you to correct me on areas I may be misunderstanding.

1) Your argument is that [Good] and [Evil] in D&D are dissociated from actual morality, and instead represent cosmic forces that have tendencies to align themselves with what a normal person sees as good or evil.

2) What is [Good] and [Evil] is mechanically defined in several books, most notably the Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness. There are detailed lists about what is [Good] and [Evil] in these books, and one of the acts that is unambiguously [Good] is the destruction of an [Evil] outsider, regardless of what alignment that outsider actually has.

Is this an accurate understanding of your position? I don't want to misrepresent you, so please correct me if I'm mistaken. Here's my counter argument;

1) Outside of a specific line in the Book of Vile Darkness, murdering a good [Evil] creature would be an [Evil] and evil act, instead of a [Good] and evil act. This makes sense to me on both a moral and logical level

2) The Book of Vile Darkness contains numerous statements which are disputed by other sources - for example, the it's possible to redeem an irredeemable Chromatic Dragon. The previous statement is an impossibility, and given that D&D allows for free will (which by nature must allow for alignment changes, disputing the idea of [Evil] creatures always being evil), it seems more likely that the blanket statements about good and evil in the the Book of Vile Darkness are incorrect, rather than the more nuanced alignment viewpoints of later books and sources.

Ask yourself - are chromatic dragons irredeemable? If you said yes, then you have disagreed with the Book of Exalted Deeds, and I would say that you may no longer use the book as a definitive source on alignment. If you said no, then you have disagreed with the Book of Vile Darkness, and I don't believe that one should use it as a definitive source on alignment. I believe that chromatic dragons are redeemable (and disagree with many other points Book of Vile Darkness raises, but this is a clear cut RAW conflict between two books), and I do not trust using a source that's proven to be wrong (to me) as an authority.

I see your argument as an appeal to the authority of the Book of Vile Darkness, and I do not recognize the Book of Vile Darkness as an authority on alignment, either with regard to RAI, nor with RAW (given the impossibilities accepting its authority brings). I doubt we're going to ever come to a consensus on this, but I wanted you to understand what I meant. Does this clarify my position?

toapat
2012-07-26, 07:07 PM
Even in the settings where dragons are supposedly permanently aligned with their MM entry, Red Dragons enter contracts with cities as Living Blast Furnaces, so killing them means you just put the entire Ironworkers guild out of business.

KnightDisciple
2012-07-26, 07:39 PM
...

That's Vow of Poverty, not paladin. Paladin just has to help. That could be as little as giving 5 GP to an orphanage.

WBL is RAW. It's right there in the DMG, and it isn't in one of those "variant rule" sidebars.

As for your scenario? I say he kills the succubus. If it's a local orphanage, any average citizen in town would know where it is. Then he donates 2000 GP of his massive WBL to the orphanage, which, given that a farmer can feed his entire family on one silver piece a day, will help the kids stay fed for a hundred days or so, easily long enough for him to go kill some more monsters, watch as his wealth increases exponentially, then come back and donate much more money. For his entire life, he could go around the countryside facing random encounters and easily support the orphanage and the town on that alone.

And last of all, the paladin's code says "punish those who harm or threaten innocents", which the succubus is most definitely doing. It doesn't say "prevent innocents from dying". So we get into whether his actions are an evil act. So we turn to the BoED/BoVD. Which state that letting a fiend live is always an evil act. But, as far as I can tell from all the quotes in these discussions, doesn't state "if innocents die as an indirect result of an action, it is an evil act".
He hit this one on the nose.


Vow of Poverty is 1% of WBL kept, Paladin Code is 10%, but the horse eats 11% worth of food.
I just double-checked the D&D 3.5 PHB. There is absolutely nothing at all under the Paladin's code that mentions only being able to keep 10% of their Wealth By Level. There's not even anything about them having to give 10% of their WBL.
I'm honestly curious where you're pulling that notion from. I've never seen RAW support for it. :smallconfused:

If you stop and think, the notion makes no sense; if Paladins can only keep 10% of their WBL, they're inherently held back because they won't ever keep up gear-wise with the rest of the party. Considering their poor mechanics anyways...

Point is, Jade Dragon's right. The Paladin can easily work hard and keep the orphanage fed for the rest of his life, and after a time will have enough money to set up a long-term account where the orphanage can live off the interest and such, without needing constant influxes of cash from him, or worse from a murdering creature made of pure evil.

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-26, 08:23 PM
Vow of Poverty is 1% of WBL kept, Paladin Code is 10%, but the horse eats 11% worth of food.

What the heck are you smoking? O,o

That is nowhere in the 3.5e or 3.0e rules...

Where do you find such things??

KnightDisciple
2012-07-26, 09:05 PM
Even in the settings where dragons are supposedly permanently aligned with their MM entry, Red Dragons enter contracts with cities as Living Blast Furnaces, so killing them means you just put the entire Ironworkers guild out of business.

Source?

I'm genuinely curious where there are Red Dragons contracting their fire breath out. As opposed to just leveling the town and taking everything by force.

hamishspence
2012-07-27, 06:08 AM
Forgotten Realms. Hephasteus in the Dark Elf Trilogy is regularly hired to do smelting.

KnightDisciple
2012-07-27, 11:13 AM
Forgotten Realms. Hephasteus in the Dark Elf Trilogy is regularly hired to do smelting.

Is he unique, or do other dragons do so? Might be something of an exception that proves the rule.

Kish
2012-07-27, 11:25 AM
Is he unique, or do other dragons do so? Might be something of an exception that proves the rule.
That's not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule) what that phrase means.

The Random NPC
2012-07-27, 12:08 PM
That's not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule) what that phrase means.

While correct, language is simply a means to facilitate communications. So as long as everyone understands each other, there isn't a need for precision. In this case, the phrase is misused enough that I believe everyone understands the meaning attempting to be conveyed.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-27, 09:16 PM
@ Menteith:

Yes, you've summed up my position rather nicely, and I do see where you're coming from as well. I see a problem with your statement that BoED and BoVD cannot both be correct because of the possibility of the redemption of evil dragons though. The portion of BoED you're drawing from is plainly saying that most creatures that have the "always evil" alignment line -are- irredeemable in virtually all cases. It's flat telling you that you'd be better off killing a red dragon than trying to talk it into a conversion. This expands upon the BoVD's points about why killing these creatures isn't evil, it does not contradict it.

I do agree that you and I will probably not see eye to eye on this subject. I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion though.

However I did find a source on why your balor town benefactor is harming his town with his mere presence. BoVD pg 35 under lingering affects of evil. Under the heading "a lasting evil" the long-term presence of an evil outsider is listed as a cause. Listed affects include, an absence of plant life (farmers crops anyone?) and neuroses, nightmares, and other psychological disorders in people. Those seem pretty harmful to me.

@ Malachite: There is no logical contradiction between a creature with the [Evil] descriptor being made up of the stuff of pure evil and still having free will. How you think doesn't affect what you're made of.

If I believed with all my heart that I was made of ice, it still wouldn't be true. I wouldn't melt in the sun. I wouldn't stick to metal just because it was damp.
Allow me to use your own metaphor, "Iron can't be water." That's true in a sense. However Iron can behave like water if it's reduced to a liquid state by heat. To take the metaphor even further, iron can be water, if enough subatomic breakdown and molecular rearrangement is done.

By the same token, a fiend can shed it's evil subtype. There are rituals described in SS that describe how. Sure it's risky, but so is getting a kidney transplant. It beats being on dialisys for the rest of your life, and not having the evil subtype should be worth the risk, especially since you'd otherwise have to live with being a valid target for smite evil for the rest of eternity.

@ Anyone who would like to post any further hypotheticals:

Here's something to think about. No matter what the character (usually a paladin in these cases) does, the consequences of his actions aren't known with certainty until they actually occur. To punish the character for those consequences before they come to pass is punishing that character for a mere possibility, that he or she may be able to prevent. In the two hypotheticals I've already addressed, the only consequences that are certain, at the time those fiends are killed, are that the succubus won't kill anymore men in the town she was opperating in, and the balor will explode. Anything else is only possible or probable until it actually happens, and no character should be punished for a mere possibility.

Menteith
2012-07-27, 11:16 PM
Kelb_Panthera, after considering it, you are correct. By RAW, Book of Vile Darkness is a primary source with regard to alignment, and I'm not going to find an argument that will change that. With that said, I would still urge individuals to handle alignment issues more carefully than the strict RAW. Good discussion, KP.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-27, 11:32 PM
Kelb_Panthera, after considering it, you are correct. By RAW, Book of Vile Darkness is a primary source with regard to alignment, and I'm not going to find an argument that will change that. With that said, I would still urge individuals to handle alignment issues more carefully than the strict RAW. Good discussion, KP.

Thank you, Menteith, for one of the most entertaining discussions I've had on this forum to date.

To anyone else who's enjoyed this debate, I agree with Menteith's statement that if you're going to take alignment any kind of seriously in your game, you should have a discussion with your group about how it will be handled. The RAW is pretty controversial, as we've amply demonstrated by now.

Have a nice day. :smallsmile:

hamishspence
2012-07-28, 03:03 AM
The portion of BoED you're drawing from is plainly saying that most creatures that have the "always evil" alignment line -are- irredeemable in virtually all cases. It's flat telling you that you'd be better off killing a red dragon than trying to talk it into a conversion. This expands upon the BoVD's points about why killing these creatures isn't evil, it does not contradict it.

"There is truly only the barest glimmer of hope"
or
"only a naive fool would try to convert them"

might justify not trying to redeem a defeated "Always Evil-race opponent"- but it wouldn't justify killing one in itself. There needs to be a better reason, like

"it's committed acts that warrant the death penalty"
or
"it's in the process of harming innocents and the only way to stop it is to kill it"


Especially when there are cases of success, or the creature having changed its ways of its own accord.

When a good-aligned fiend, or chromatic dragon, is killed using the BoVD reasoning, one of the immediate consequences is "a being has been killed unjustly"- not for its actions, but its race.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-28, 12:29 PM
"There is truly only the barest glimmer of hope"
or
"only a naive fool would try to convert them"

might justify not trying to redeem a defeated "Always Evil-race opponent"- but it wouldn't justify killing one in itself. There needs to be a better reason, like

"it's committed acts that warrant the death penalty"
or
"it's in the process of harming innocents and the only way to stop it is to kill it"


Especially when there are cases of success, or the creature having changed its ways of its own accord.

When a good-aligned fiend, or chromatic dragon, is killed using the BoVD reasoning, one of the immediate consequences is "a being has been killed unjustly"- not for its actions, but its race.

I've recently cited a source for how the fiend is causing harm with no more than his presence, even if it is not his intent. In-fact, it's the same post of mine that you're quoting. I never said that you should auto-kill a dragon or any other "always evil" creatures, just [evil] subtype outsiders.

The paragraph in BoED that suggests that some "always evil" creatures can be redeemed is a paragraph that's describing why it's better not to take that chance, and it uses chromatic dragons as a potential example.

Fiends are more than just "always evil" though. They're harmful to the material plane regardless of their alignment. To allow even the very nicest demon or devil to live, is to allow harm to come to innocents. That's explicitly an evil act.

The same is not true of chromatic dragons, or any other "always evil" creature that doesn't carry the subtype.

If you find a good red dragon, congratulate him on his reform and give him treasure.

Wardog
2012-07-28, 05:53 PM
Personally, I think that "Always Evil" ought to mean that something is:
1) Always evil, and
2) Acceptable to kill on sight.

And if either of those are unacceptable (or nonsensical), then the designation "Always Evil" should not exist.

Unfortunately the creators of D&D thought otherwise, and so we've got the mess we've got.


As for how to resolve the problem (other than by houseruling either that fiends are not literally made of Evil, or fiends cannot ever be non-evil), I would say:

If a fiend behaves as a "good" being (and is doing so genuinely, rather than as part of an evil plot) and does no evil then it is morally good, and killing it simply for being a fiend is evil.

If despite that, the fiend still has an "Evil" subtype (and pings as Evil for the purposes Detect Alignment etc), then that can only be possible if the "objective alignment" exists independently of behaviour and intentions.

In which case it potentially could be simultaneously Good and Evil to kill the fiend out of hand.

In which case a paladin would still fall for doing so, because they commited an Evil act. (Just as a paladin that saved someone from a mugger (Good) by torturing the mugger to death (Evil) would fall.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-28, 08:14 PM
Perhaps pulling all of my points together into a single post will make this a little clearer.

Point the first: The only statement I am making is that killing fiends out of hand is always a good act. Killing other "always evil" creatures may or may not be good, based on circumstance. Note that torturing any creature, for any reason, is evil.

Point the second: Creatures with the evil subtype are treated as evil regardless of their actual alignment as per MM pg309-310.

Point the third: An evil outsider's presence on the material plane causes harm to living creatures in the area regardless of its intent as per BoVD pg 35.

Point the fourth: While BoED does suggest that a rare few creatures listed as "always evil" are redeemable, it does not say that fiends are ever one of these rare cases. It also says that trying to redeem any such creatures, regardless of whether they're fiends or not is a fool's errand. This can be found on pg8.

Point the fifth: BoVD explicitly states that killing a fiend is always good. This is supported by both BoVD itself and BoED, because both say destroying an evil creature that brings harm to others is a good act, and allowing such a creature to live is an evil act. Creatures with the evil subtype are A) always treated as evil and B) bring harm to others by their mere presence. Therefore killing them is, explicitly, always a good act by RAW.

Final point: Any creature with the evil subtype, that truly wishes to become a good creature, can be rid of that subtype as outlined toward the end of SS. (if someone can help me out with a page number I'd be appreciative and edit this post to list it. My copy of SS was inadvertantly destroyed.)

If you're not using any of these sources then things become much grayer because there is no raw on the matter. In that case, things come down to DM adjudication, and your group needs to have a discussion on alignment, if alignment is going to be a significant part of your game.

Does this make my position any clearer?

EDIT, additional points to address the fluff for this raw crunch:

It's explained in MoTP and a few other sources that an outsider is made of the stuff of his home plane.

All of the lower planes are made up of evil in material form, though some are blended with an ethos given physical form.

Therefore, a fiend, described as an outsider with the evil subtype native to a lower plane, is literally made of evil.

As I explained in a previous post, how you think does not determine what you're made of. If I believe myself to be ice, and you believe you're fire, neither of us will be harmed by the others mere touch.

By the same token, no matter how a fiend's outlook on morality has changed, he's still made of evil given physical form.

toapat
2012-07-29, 12:39 AM
BoVD explicitly states that killing a fiend is always good.

Let me Surgical Strike your entire Argument:

Book of Vile Darkness IS NOT a 3.5 rulebook.
Savage Species IS NOT a 3.5 Rulebook. also, if you already bought it, just download it.

Even if we take the "Kill fiends because they are Here." as part of the Paladin code, that simply means if the outsider does not have the Native Subtype, then the paladin should stick a blade through their head.

The Random NPC
2012-07-29, 01:13 AM
Let me Surgical Strike your entire Argument:

Book of Vile Darkness IS NOT a 3.5 rulebook.
Savage Species IS NOT a 3.5 Rulebook. also, if you already bought it, just download it.

Even if we take the "Kill fiends because they are Here." as part of the Paladin code, that simply means if the outsider does not have the Native Subtype, then the paladin should stick a blade through their head.

While they aren't 3.5, they are 3.0. And as we all know, any unupdated 3.0 book can be used within a 3.5 game.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-29, 01:51 AM
Let me Surgical Strike your entire Argument:

Book of Vile Darkness IS NOT a 3.5 rulebook.
Savage Species IS NOT a 3.5 Rulebook. also, if you already bought it, just download it.

Even if we take the "Kill fiends because they are Here." as part of the Paladin code, that simply means if the outsider does not have the Native Subtype, then the paladin should stick a blade through their head.

Random NPC beat me to the punch on why you're wrong about the 3.0 v 3.5 issue.

As for the rest of your post, I suspect there's a typo in there somewhere, because you seem to disagree with me, but that's pretty much exactly what I've been saying. Though I'm pointing it out as a general rule, rather than something specific to the paladin.

Edit: I intend to buy another copy of SS in the near future. I don't download any of the supplements, because A) I don't like the "feel" of digital books, and B) I can't anyway, since my only internet access is through my wii.

Mnemnosyne
2012-07-29, 02:46 AM
Even going by the ristupulous rules you're quoting, that only theoretically makes it ok to kill a fiend if they are or have been on the Prime Material for a significant enough time to fall under that rule on page 35.

Otherwise, killing a fiend simply because it is a fiend falls under murder, because the justifications that excuse killing evil creatures under the description of Murder as an evil act on page 7 explicitly depend upon 'because it still stops the creature's predations upon the innocent.'

Therefore, killing a fiend on any plane other than the Prime Material without having individual evidence that this particular fiend is actually committing evil is murder. Even killing a fiend on the Prime Material may be murder, if the fiend has not been on the prime material for a significant enough time to cause lasting harm as per page 35 of BoVD. Even if you claim killing one is a good act, it's still murder and therefore also always evil.

Furthermore, none of this actually depends on the fiend being of any alignment other than its natural alignment. A fiend could theoretically be evil due to its beliefs, but never actually do anything evil, and therefore killing it would still always fall under murder, because killing it cannot be excused by stopping its predations, since it wasn't doing any predations.

The Random NPC
2012-07-29, 04:14 AM
Even going by the ristupulous rules you're quoting, that only theoretically makes it ok to kill a fiend if they are or have been on the Prime Material for a significant enough time to fall under that rule on page 35.

Otherwise, killing a fiend simply because it is a fiend falls under murder, because the justifications that excuse killing evil creatures under the description of Murder as an evil act on page 7 explicitly depend upon 'because it still stops the creature's predations upon the innocent.'

Therefore, killing a fiend on any plane other than the Prime Material without having individual evidence that this particular fiend is actually committing evil is murder. Even killing a fiend on the Prime Material may be murder, if the fiend has not been on the prime material for a significant enough time to cause lasting harm as per page 35 of BoVD. Even if you claim killing one is a good act, it's still murder and therefore also always evil.

Furthermore, none of this actually depends on the fiend being of any alignment other than its natural alignment. A fiend could theoretically be evil due to its beliefs, but never actually do anything evil, and therefore killing it would still always fall under murder, because killing it cannot be excused by stopping its predations, since it wasn't doing any predations.

See the thing is, just by existing they are preying on the innocent. Furthermore, the BoVD defines murder as a killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose. If a paladin has a nefarious purpose for killing anything they probably should have fallen long before the issue of whether or not killing fiends is evil comes into play.

Mnemnosyne
2012-07-29, 05:06 AM
See the thing is, just by existing they are preying on the innocent. Furthermore, the BoVD defines murder as a killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose. If a paladin has a nefarious purpose for killing anything they probably should have fallen long before the issue of whether or not killing fiends is evil comes into play.
I see nothing that suggests that by a fiend existing, they are preying on the innocent. On page 35 it says that the long term presence of an evil outsider on the material plane can cause lingering evil. It says nothing about the short term presence of one, nor about the short or long term presence of one on any plane but the prime material. It also doesn't really define what long term presence means, precisely, but it can clearly be read to mean a period at the very least consisting of weeks, most likely consisting of years.

So, unless there's a cite that supports the mere existence of a fiend causing harm or otherwise preying on the innocent, their race is not justification for murder in and of itself, it can only be justification if their death would prevent further harm, or predations on the innocent. If neither of these can be substantially shown to occur should the fiend not be killed, then killing it is an act of pure racial hatred and prejudice, which clearly falls under a nefarious purpose and is therefore murder.

The Random NPC
2012-07-29, 05:29 AM
Before I continue, I want to make sure I understand you position. I believe your position is that, at the very least on their home plane, they can be neutral enough to not justify being killed. That is, although they may be evil, they might never have done anything to justify being killed.

Mnemnosyne
2012-07-29, 06:11 AM
Right, although not just on their home plane - on any plane other than the Prime Material, since the 'lingering evil' on page 35 is the only reference I am aware of that suggests that fiends cause harm by their very existence, and that specifically calls out the material plane only.

The Random NPC
2012-07-29, 06:47 AM
In that case, the only justification I can think of is that since they are made of pure evil, killing them would remove it from the multiverse.

Sidenote: I do agree that a morally ambiguous devil is the better way to go, and that any paladin that kills them with no better reason than their race should fall.

Menteith
2012-07-29, 10:42 AM
In that case, the only justification I can think of is that since they are made of pure evil, killing them is would remove it from the multiverse.

Sidenote: I do agree that a morally ambiguous devil is the better way to go, and that any paladin that kills them with no better reason than their race should fall.

This thread has inspired me to try and force my party to choose between defending a good [Evil] creature with Vow of Peace and Vow of Nonviolence, or giving it up to Celestial [Good] creatures who would utterly destroy it. Pitting [Good] against actual good is going to turn out to be interesting, I think....

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-29, 12:01 PM
Further justification of the lingering evil rule is a little trickier to cite since there is no single source that expands upon it. However, several sources that deal with the outer planes have said that whole worlds and even layers of different outer planes have migrated to one of the other planes when enough of a particular alignment was present on those planes. The lowest layer of mechanus, for example, used to be part of arcadia according to MoTP, and DoTU says that Lloth has dragged whole worlds into the demon web pits by gaining a strong enough following on those worlds.

The fact that a fiend -can- cause a lingering evil with its presence indicates that there is something about its presence that has a corrupting influence on the world its on. Even if the fiend is not actively doing evil, and does not linger long enough to cause a lasting evil in one place, his presence is still bringing that world, whether it's a material plane world or not, closer to being drawn into one of the lower planes. Simply by being there, he's making it easier for others of his kind, who have darker minds, to remove the influence of good and destroy or conquer that world.

As for fiends on the lower planes, if they are good then they're disrupting that plane as well, to leave would cause harm to another plane, while to remain would mean harm to their home realm. Destroying a good fiend on a lower plane is a mercy, and necessary to keep that fiend from losing hope and returning to evil.

Rorrik
2012-07-29, 06:18 PM
"There is truly only the barest glimmer of hope"
or
"only a naive fool would try to convert them"

might justify not trying to redeem a defeated "Always Evil-race opponent"- but it wouldn't justify killing one in itself. There needs to be a better reason, like

"it's committed acts that warrant the death penalty"
or
"it's in the process of harming innocents and the only way to stop it is to kill it"


I wanted to add to the two justifications "it is likely to go on to harm innocents(or regular folk if you don't believe in innocents)."

In the case of a red dragon, while it may not be burning the nearby village to the ground right now, there's no guarantee the good guys will be able to stop it when it is, if they are even in the area. While ideally it could be brought before a court the moment it commits a crime, D&D adventures tend to take place in the wild, beyond the long arm of the law itself. Out here on the raggedy edge, leaving a likely threat alive because you got to it before it got to you is Lawful Stupid.

By this token, I would not be averse to letting a paladin character go so far as to take part in an effort of a kingdom to kill all chromatic dragons in a nearby range of mountains on the justification of several villages at the base of the mountains being destroyed in recent months. Genocide? Maybe. I'd certainly be a little more queasy about it if the paladin were doing it to avenge his family, or because he hates dragons, or for renown. But if his motivation is to defend the innocent lives of his nation or to obey his just king, then he's got the green light from me.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-29, 06:30 PM
I wanted to add to the two justifications "it is likely to go on to harm innocents(or regular folk if you don't believe in innocents)."

In the case of a red dragon, while it may not be burning the nearby village to the ground right now, there's no guarantee the good guys will be able to stop it when it is, if they are even in the area. While ideally it could be brought before a court the moment it commits a crime, D&D adventures tend to take place in the wild, beyond the long arm of the law itself. Out here on the raggedy edge, leaving a likely threat alive because you got to it before it got to you is Lawful Stupid.

By this token, I would not be averse to letting a paladin character go so far as to take part in an effort of a kingdom to kill all chromatic dragons in a nearby range of mountains on the justification of several villages at the base of the mountains being destroyed in recent months. Genocide? Maybe. I'd certainly be a little more queasy about it if the paladin were doing it to avenge his family, or because he hates dragons, or for renown. But if his motivation is to defend the innocent lives of his nation or to obey his just king, then he's got the green light from me.

The very passage those justifications come from say plainly, that killing an "always evil" creature just because it's there or because you want its treasure, while they certainly aren't good acts, are not generally considered evil. It only becomces a question of whether or not the act is evil, when the creature in question is definitely of a good alignment.

toapat
2012-07-29, 08:23 PM
The very passage those justifications come from say plainly, that killing an "always evil" creature just because it's there or because you want its treasure, while they certainly aren't good acts, are not generally considered evil. It only becomces a question of whether or not the act is evil, when the creature in question is definitely of a good alignment.

Let me explain what i meant:

The only time in which murdering a fiend for being on the prime material Plane is not an Evil act, is when the act of murdering non-native Outsiders is a non-evil act, because the setting sees outsiders as interfering with the natural order by being there. Otherwise, Murdering the Succubus orphan matron who works day and noight to feed the kids is an evil act.

Mnemnosyne
2012-07-29, 08:33 PM
Further justification of the lingering evil rule is a little trickier to cite since there is no single source that expands upon it. However, several sources that deal with the outer planes have said that whole worlds and even layers of different outer planes have migrated to one of the other planes when enough of a particular alignment was present on those planes. The lowest layer of mechanus, for example, used to be part of arcadia according to MoTP, and DoTU says that Lloth has dragged whole worlds into the demon web pits by gaining a strong enough following on those worlds.

The fact that a fiend -can- cause a lingering evil with its presence indicates that there is something about its presence that has a corrupting influence on the world its on. Even if the fiend is not actively doing evil, and does not linger long enough to cause a lasting evil in one place, his presence is still bringing that world, whether it's a material plane world or not, closer to being drawn into one of the lower planes. Simply by being there, he's making it easier for others of his kind, who have darker minds, to remove the influence of good and destroy or conquer that world.

As for fiends on the lower planes, if they are good then they're disrupting that plane as well, to leave would cause harm to another plane, while to remain would mean harm to their home realm. Destroying a good fiend on a lower plane is a mercy, and necessary to keep that fiend from losing hope and returning to evil.
If we're going to discuss these utterly ridiculous rules in the first place, we have to stick by the exact letter of the rule, and the rule says evil outsiders cause lingering evil only on the Material plane. By the way, it says 'evil outsiders'. It doesn't say things with the [Evil] subtype. Any outsider with an evil alignment, regardless of its subtype, plane of origin, or whether it acts on its evil alignment, apparently causes lingering evil, according to that rule. And it makes no exceptions for outsiders of the native subtype. If we're using that rule as an excuse for murder, then it means that murdering every single outsider of any subtype that pings on detect evil and is on the prime material plane for a 'long-term', whatever that is, is justified, including tieflings, genasi, etc.

The rest of the stuff mentioned here has no rules by which to judge it on, and therefore can't come into a nitpicky discussion based solely on a stupid set of rules. There are no actual rules for sections of one plane sliding into another - it happens, but there are no rules on it, therefore there's no way to actually account for it in such a nitpicky discussion. It exists purely in the realm of DM fiat.

I wanted to add to the two justifications "it is likely to go on to harm innocents(or regular folk if you don't believe in innocents)."

In the case of a red dragon, while it may not be burning the nearby village to the ground right now, there's no guarantee the good guys will be able to stop it when it is, if they are even in the area. While ideally it could be brought before a court the moment it commits a crime, D&D adventures tend to take place in the wild, beyond the long arm of the law itself. Out here on the raggedy edge, leaving a likely threat alive because you got to it before it got to you is Lawful Stupid.

By this token, I would not be averse to letting a paladin character go so far as to take part in an effort of a kingdom to kill all chromatic dragons in a nearby range of mountains on the justification of several villages at the base of the mountains being destroyed in recent months. Genocide? Maybe. I'd certainly be a little more queasy about it if the paladin were doing it to avenge his family, or because he hates dragons, or for renown. But if his motivation is to defend the innocent lives of his nation or to obey his just king, then he's got the green light from me.


The very passage those justifications come from say plainly, that killing an "always evil" creature just because it's there or because you want its treasure, while they certainly aren't good acts, are not generally considered evil. It only becomces a question of whether or not the act is evil, when the creature in question is definitely of a good alignment.
This is only given with the justification of 'because it still stops the creature's predations on the innocent.' If the creature has made no such predations, there is nothing to stop, therefore it wasn't justified and it is murder. Just because you think someone is likely to cause harm doesn't make it true, and if it's not true, then the murder is not justified and therefore evil. So, you could be trying to stop someone from harming others, but you're acting on wrong information. Still murder, just as if I overhear you plotting to kill someone, murder you to prevent it, and it turns out you were talking about doing something in a game, I still committed murder.

Rorrik
2012-07-29, 08:42 PM
This is only given with the justification of 'because it still stops the creature's predations on the innocent.' If the creature has made no such predations, there is nothing to stop, therefore it wasn't justified and it is murder. Just because you think someone is likely to cause harm doesn't make it true, and if it's not true, then the murder is not justified and therefore evil. So, you could be trying to stop someone from harming others, but you're acting on wrong information. Still murder, just as if I overhear you plotting to kill someone, murder you to prevent it, and it turns out you were talking about doing something in a game, I still committed murder.

Your hypothetical is all good and well when there are law enforcement entities powerful enough to handle the would-be-murderer in a controlled fashion. The reality of these fantasy games is that there is no law enforcement and waiting for the plotter to make his move will result almost certainly in the target's death.
There's a reason people's paranoia drove them to burn accused witches, they were afraid and believed they represented a present danger they couldn't risk letting continue. The difference here is it's not a witch, it's a dragon of a sort history has demonstrated is a clear and present danger to the nearby village. It's a pretty safe bet it's a danger and a greater danger at that.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-29, 08:53 PM
Let me explain what i meant:

The only time in which murdering a fiend for being on the prime material Plane is not an Evil act, is when the act of murdering non-native Outsiders is a non-evil act, because the setting sees outsiders as interfering with the natural order by being there. Otherwise, Murdering the Succubus orphan matron who works day and noight to feed the kids is an evil act.
So..... when the cited sources for rules on the matter aren't in play? If that's your meaning then I can't really argue with it because you're right.

If we're going to discuss these utterly ridiculous rules in the first place, we have to stick by the exact letter of the rule, and the rule says evil outsiders cause lingering evil only on the Material plane. By the way, it says 'evil outsiders'. It doesn't say things with the [Evil] subtype. Any outsider with an evil alignment, regardless of its subtype, plane of origin, or whether it acts on its evil alignment, apparently causes lingering evil, according to that rule. And it makes no exceptions for outsiders of the native subtype. If we're using that rule as an excuse for murder, then it means that murdering every single outsider of any subtype that pings on detect evil and is on the prime material plane for a 'long-term', whatever that is, is justified, including tieflings, genasi, etc.

The rest of the stuff mentioned here has no rules by which to judge it on, and therefore can't come into a nitpicky discussion based solely on a stupid set of rules. There are no actual rules for sections of one plane sliding into another - it happens, but there are no rules on it, therefore there's no way to actually account for it in such a nitpicky discussion. It exists purely in the realm of DM fiat.



This is only given with the justification of 'because it still stops the creature's predations on the innocent.' If the creature has made no such predations, there is nothing to stop, therefore it wasn't justified and it is murder. Just because you think someone is likely to cause harm doesn't make it true, and if it's not true, then the murder is not justified and therefore evil. So, you could be trying to stop someone from harming others, but you're acting on wrong information. Still murder, just as if I overhear you plotting to kill someone, murder you to prevent it, and it turns out you were talking about doing something in a game, I still committed murder.

You can't use logical extensions of rules to justify your argument, and then throw out the ones that go against it. Only the DM can say if a creature that is "always evil" has never committed an evil act. How is that any less fiat than, "the presence of an evil subtype creature is harmful to the material plane?" Even if he does, how would the character that's attacking it know that? Because the creature told him? If anything the fiends causing material plane problems is less fiat than any one of them being completely innocent.

Hell, if you wanna stick strictly to the rules and throw logic out entirely, how's this? BoED says killing a creature with no justification is evil. This is a general rule. BoVD says that killing fiends is always good. This is a specific rule that's not excepted by any other more specific rule. Specific trumps general.

Mnemnosyne
2012-07-29, 09:45 PM
I wasn't arguing against the 'always good' part, but I was arguing that it is also murder and therefore also evil. An act can certainly be both good and evil - for instance, stopping someone from harming someone else (good) by casting a corrupt spell (evil). The act is both good and evil. Now, arguing on a nitpicky level of the rules I can't say that killing a fiend isn't always good, because it's stated so directly. However, killing a fiend is good, but killing one without justification is also evil at the same time. The fact that it's good doesn't negate the fact that it's evil.

The only logical extension I can see I may have made is that killing someone based on racism falls under the 'or the like' clause of being nefarious. All the other things are precisely what the rules say, without any extending whatsoever; specifically, that killing without justifying it because it stops predations on the innocent is evil, and that the long-term presence of a fiend causes lingering evil only on the material plane. So, killing a fiend can be justified if they have a long-term presence on the material plane, but not so on any other plane.

As to the degree of evil vs. the degree of good, I can't say at all. I would argue that murder is more evil than killing a fiend is good, but the book doesn't actually say, so I don't include that in my argument. All I note is that killing a fiend without proper justification is murder, and therefore at least slightly evil, even if it is also good.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-29, 10:16 PM
Pg 7 of BoVD doesn't say that killing without justification is not evil because it prevents future depredations. It says that killing an "always evil" creature with what would otherwise be evil justification isn't evil because it will stop the creature from preying on the innocent.

There's no such thing as killing without justification. If you're sticking a pointy bit of metal into another creature you have some reason.

If your reason for stabbing a fiend is, "it's a fiend, and fiends are evil." It's not an evil act, even if you're wrong in this particular instance.

Upon review I can't say that killing a fiend is never evil, but the justifications for why killing a fiend might be evil aren't justifications a good creature would use.

The justification I now realize I've been defaulting to is, "because it's a fiend, and fiends cause harm with their very presence." This particular justification does not make killing the fiend evil. In certain extremely rare cases it may not be a very good justification, but it's still not enough to make the act evil. I do, however, think I've done a rather admirable job of validating my justification.

Can we agree then that the rule is, "Killing a fiend is always a good act, but it's also an evil act if you kill the fiend for hatred, vengeance, or pleasure."

Mnemnosyne
2012-07-29, 11:38 PM
The thing is, your basis that fiends cause harm by their very presence is wrong, except on the material plane. There, and only there, do fiends cause harm by their very presence.

Killing a fiend is always good, but it's also evil if that particular fiend doesn't prey on the innocent, and there is nothing inherent to their nature that requires that to be so, as long as they avoid long-term presence on the material plane.

Now, if you kill fiends because fiends are evil, you're gonna be right almost every time. You may spend lifetimes killing them without ever murdering, because you might not run into one that doesn't prey on the innocent. But, in the ridiculously rare event that you happen to run into such a fiend, and kill it, because 'fiends are evil', you've committed murder. So, if a paladin did that, he'd fall. Because murder is evil, and paladins fall when they willingly commit any evil act, no matter how balanced it is. The paladin could probably get an atonement, and it likely wouldn't be too huge a deal. Maybe he'd have to get a True Resurrection for the fiend he killed to make up for it. But it'd still have been an evil act.

toapat
2012-07-30, 12:25 AM
The thing is, your basis that fiends cause harm by their very presence is wrong, except on the material plane. There, and only there, do fiends cause harm by their very presence.

Killing a fiend is always good, but it's also evil if that particular fiend doesn't prey on the innocent, and there is nothing inherent to their nature that requires that to be so, as long as they avoid long-term presence on the material plane.

Now, if you kill fiends because fiends are evil, you're gonna be right almost every time. You may spend lifetimes killing them without ever murdering, because you might not run into one that doesn't prey on the innocent. But, in the ridiculously rare event that you happen to run into such a fiend, and kill it, because 'fiends are evil', you've committed murder. So, if a paladin did that, he'd fall. Because murder is evil, and paladins fall when they willingly commit any evil act, no matter how balanced it is. The paladin could probably get an atonement, and it likely wouldn't be too huge a deal. Maybe he'd have to get a True Resurrection for the fiend he killed to make up for it. But it'd still have been an evil act.

One of the further points of this is, each of planes on the "Outer Plane" is both infinite, and has an infinite number of denizines. even if your "Always Evil" means only 1/(2^5832) of them are not chaotic evil, that still leaves us with a slightly less insignificant INFINITE number of good aligned fiends.

not only that, but it is often cited that "Always Alignment" unless specifically Neutral Hungry or Unaligned, means 95% of the populous is that alignment.

elizasteave
2012-07-30, 01:30 AM
Well, I only had a small idea regarding this thing, but when I went through this thread, then I realized that I really had small idea about what's allowed and what's not regarding paladin and rogue. Thanks community for sharing all these things over here.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-30, 01:32 AM
The thing is, your basis that fiends cause harm by their very presence is wrong, except on the material plane. There, and only there, do fiends cause harm by their very presence.

Killing a fiend is always good, but it's also evil if that particular fiend doesn't prey on the innocent, and there is nothing inherent to their nature that requires that to be so, as long as they avoid long-term presence on the material plane.

Now, if you kill fiends because fiends are evil, you're gonna be right almost every time. You may spend lifetimes killing them without ever murdering, because you might not run into one that doesn't prey on the innocent. But, in the ridiculously rare event that you happen to run into such a fiend, and kill it, because 'fiends are evil', you've committed murder. So, if a paladin did that, he'd fall. Because murder is evil, and paladins fall when they willingly commit any evil act, no matter how balanced it is. The paladin could probably get an atonement, and it likely wouldn't be too huge a deal. Maybe he'd have to get a True Resurrection for the fiend he killed to make up for it. But it'd still have been an evil act.

Being wrong is evil now?

One thing BoVD and BoED agree on is that intention matter as much as the action itself.
The second consideration is that violence should have good intentions. (example) Violence against evil is acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done.
Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: (examples) If you kill a fiend, or any other "always evil" creature for that matter, because you are of the belief that it is evil, and by doing so you're preventing it from harming innocents, you have not commited murder, even if you're wrong. It's certainly a tragedy but it's not evil.

I simply cannot agree with any interpretation of good that would punish its adherents for making mistakes in good faith. Especially considering that causing despair is considered evil.

If a paladin smites one of these oh-so-rare non-evil fiends he's caught by surprise with no knowledge that it isn't evil, and suddenly finds himself no-longer blessed by the forces of good, how can that not cause him to despair? Everything he's ever been taught tells him that fiends are creatures of irredeemable evil. At the time of the attack, the creature pinged on detect evil and his smite ability struck home with its full force. Then his source of power suddenly snatched that power away. That sounds an awful lot like betrayal to me. Betrayal, incidentally, is another evil act.

If the forces of good are commiting evil acts against their own champions, how the hell are those champions supposed to continue to believe in good? Nevermind the sheer hypocrisy of holding individuals to a higher standard than the force that empowers them.

Incedentally, while I no longer believe my previous justification is entirely within the parameters of RAW, you have to admit that my logic is pretty solid.

Mnemnosyne
2012-07-30, 06:06 AM
Yeah, I agree that your logic is solid in that case, and I agree that it sounds like betrayal (because the paladin wasn't informed that some fiends don't, in fact, deserve killing), and hypocrisy (because most gods that have paladins have, in fact, committed at least one evil act). But I also think that is exactly what happens according to RAW.

Being wrong in general isn't evil, but being wrong about killing someone? That's not really an 'oops, my bad! Sorry!' situation, that's...well, murder. You've ended a sentient life, completely intentionally and not by accident, and they didn't do anything to deserve it. If that's ok, if that's not a big deal, especially under objective morality, then there's a serious problem in the system.

Good intentions help, but they're not always enough. Both reality and stories, including plenty of official D&D stories, are full of people who have the best of intentions and are still doing evil. Consider the sliding of the third layer of Arcadia that you mentioned previously, done by the Harmonium. The Hardheads often have the best of intentions, but it's often not quite enough.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-30, 12:10 PM
So our disagreement comes down to our interpretations of what is or is not a valid justification of the act of killing the fiend. That's not RAW, it's RAI. Each of us is interpreting the same rule, specifically "intent matters," in different ways. At this point it's become a difference of opinion. Neither of us can be proven definitively right or wrong.

How frustrating. :smallannoyed:

I guess all that's left to say now, is, "I disagree with your interpretation of this particular rule, but if that's how you wanna play it in your game, so be it."

Personally, I see that as holding good to an impossible standard, but to each his own.

kyoryu
2012-07-30, 12:12 PM
Being wrong in general isn't evil, but being wrong about killing someone? That's not really an 'oops, my bad! Sorry!' situation, that's...well, murder. You've ended a sentient life, completely intentionally and not by accident, and they didn't do anything to deserve it. If that's ok, if that's not a big deal, especially under objective morality, then there's a serious problem in the system.

Good intentions help, but they're not always enough. Both reality and stories, including plenty of official D&D stories, are full of people who have the best of intentions and are still doing evil. Consider the sliding of the third layer of Arcadia that you mentioned previously, done by the Harmonium. The Hardheads often have the best of intentions, but it's often not quite enough.

I do think it's also a matter of whether or not there's negligence involved.

If you're not going with "Fiends are Evil, therefore killing one is always Good", then just whacking a fiend because "they're probably Evil" is negligent, and therefore Evil.

Finding out that the fiend is in fact Evil, and is doing destructive things with a group of evil fiends means you're A-OK.

If it turns out that the fiend was in fact a double-agent, and was only working with the group to double-cross them is tragic - but not necessarily Evil.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-30, 12:18 PM
I do think it's also a matter of whether or not there's negligence involved.

If you're not going with "Fiends are Evil, therefore killing one is always Good", then just whacking a fiend because "they're probably Evil" is negligent, and therefore Evil.

Finding out that the fiend is in fact Evil, and is doing destructive things with a group of evil fiends means you're A-OK.

If it turns out that the fiend was in fact a double-agent, and was only working with the group to double-cross them is tragic - but not necessarily Evil.

But how do you find out if the fiend is evil? Unlike some "always evil" creatures, a fiend will always light up a detect evil. If he has more than 1HD he'll ping as at least moderately evil at that. There is no way to determine, reasonably quickly, if a fiend is not evil.

Menteith
2012-07-30, 12:20 PM
But how do you find out if the fiend is evil? Unlike some "always evil" creatures, a fiend will always light up a detect evil. If he has more than 1HD he'll ping as at least moderately evil at that. There is no way to determine, reasonably quickly, if a fiend is not evil.

Then the logical answer is to not plan out and execute the killing of a sentient being quickly.

kyoryu
2012-07-30, 12:23 PM
But how do you find out if the fiend is evil? Unlike some "always evil" creatures, a fiend will always light up a detect evil. If he has more than 1HD he'll ping as at least moderately evil at that. There is no way to determine, reasonably quickly, if a fiend is not evil.

Which is why I made the example of finding out that he's working with a group of fiends and doing nefarious things. You know, research. Almost like a detective might have to do before bringing in (or summarily executing) a suspect.

Of course, you could *neglect* to do such, but that would be, ah, "negligent".

Kish
2012-07-30, 12:41 PM
Then the logical answer is to not plan out and execute the killing of a sentient being quickly.
Indeed. Particularly based on easily-fooled magical detection methods.

Someone to whom, "But how do you determine whether you can legitimately kill someone on sight if Detect Evil isn't Reliably Detect Valid Target?" looks like a valid question...well, he'd better never play Ravenloft, for one thing. :smalltongue:

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-30, 01:12 PM
Given the nature of very nearly all fiends, taking the time to make sure will almost always result in the fiend A) getting away, and B) causing harm to pretty much anyone it comes across. This, again, feels like holding good to an impossible standard. You're basically arguing that it's better to let most fiends go about their villianous way than to risk smiting the one-in-a-billion not-evil fiend. That's just not reasonable.

hamishspence
2012-07-30, 01:22 PM
No- the argument is that the standard for killing fiends is exactly the same as the standard for killing humans, elves, dwarves, etc.

"Doing the research" to prove that the apparent villain (under Detect spell) is, in fact, a villain "for real" seems like a pretty basic standard.

Same principle might apply to a Neutral cleric of an Evil deity, for that matter.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-30, 01:29 PM
I'm arguing that holding an immortal creature with drastically different biological needs, that disrupts reality with its presence to the same standard that you hold mortal creatures is patently absurd.

For that matter any creature that pings under detect evil, while not necessarily something to autosmite, has the burden of proof placed upon them, not the detector. Being a double agent means risking friendly fire.

Menteith
2012-07-30, 01:35 PM
I'm arguing that holding an immortal creature with drastically different biological needs, that disrupts reality with its presence to the same standard that you hold mortal creatures is patently absurd.

For that matter any creature that pings under detect evil, while not necessarily something to autosmite, has the burden of proof placed upon them, not the detector. Being a double agent means risking friendly fire.

Citation for the bolded section? Being Evil isn't a crime or a sin, according to what I've read. And don't Fiends only disrupt individuals on the Material Plane, meaning that in an extraplanar location, their presence doesn't inherently cause harm?

kyoryu
2012-07-30, 01:47 PM
For that matter any creature that pings under detect evil, while not necessarily something to autosmite, has the burden of proof placed upon them, not the detector. Being a double agent means risking friendly fire.

Imagine a Lawful Evil executioner. Likes murdering, but doesn't murder because it's against the law. He took a job working as an executioner because he *likes* it, but he only kills those who have been justly sentenced to death (presume this is a non-corrupt society).

Evil as all get-out. Gets his jollies from killing people. In terms of society though, does absolutely nothing wrong.

hamishspence
2012-07-30, 01:51 PM
For that matter any creature that pings under detect evil, while not necessarily something to autosmite, has the burden of proof placed upon them, not the detector. Being a double agent means risking friendly fire.

neutral-aligned clerics of evil deities aren't automatically "double agents". They might simply be people who signed up to the less malevolent aspects of the deity's dogma.

Even evil beings, for that matter "don't necessarily deserve to be attacked by adventurers" (Eberron Campaign Setting). BoED also points out that waging war on Evil beings isn't necessarily good- and might even be Evil- if those beings have been "causing no harm".

though that might mean "causing no death-penalty-level harm" since being Evil pretty much mandates some Evil acts- and some people being harmed in some fashion by them.

It might be a case of context- if you know the fiend is seeking redemption- because you've heard it straight from the mouth of his celestial guide (like, the angel in the Succubus Paladin example)- you have much less reason to claim "I thought it was necessary at the time"

"For The Greater Good" may not be a nefarious motive in itself- but that doesn't mean all murders commited for that reason "are not murders in the D&D sense of the word".

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-30, 01:55 PM
Citation for the bolded section? Being Evil isn't a crime or a sin, according to what I've read. And don't Fiends only disrupt individuals on the Material Plane, meaning that in an extraplanar location, their presence doesn't inherently cause harm?

No citation, just logic. We've moved beyond RAW at this point anyway.

The RAW is plain. Killing a fiend is good. Killing an intelligent creature without reasonable justification is evil.

We've now moved into the RAI territory of what is reasonable justification, and where do you draw the line for making mistakes.

It's entirely academic at this point, since we're just discussing our opinions.

Water_Bear
2012-07-30, 02:14 PM
Evil as all get-out. Gets his jollies from killing people. In terms of society though, does absolutely nothing wrong.

Not to mention there are many forms of non-violent evil, some of which a cynical person might say are required for society to function.

An NE Banker who refuses to give loans to poor starving orphans to keep their profit margins up and wrings every possible penny out of poor debtors isn't just Evil; their actions can likely be traced directly to dozens of deaths, hundreds if they are old enough and in a big enough city. Yet their frugality means more gold is available to fund investments in infrastructure or magical research which will make life better for whole cities, as a side-effect of their attempts to enrich themselves.

A Dread Necromancer is doing things that, by RAW, are horribly evil. Creating undead, likely worshiping evil deities, using diseases and [Evil] spells as weapons. But a small army of undead, properly buffed and lead intelligently, could fight a war to completion with a minimum of casualties. They are potentially very effective; operating without need for rest supplies (except maybe Black Onyx) or reinforcement, having a huge morale advantage and being naturally scary. A large number of small Evil acts add up to save a Good empire, or bring peace to a war-torn land.

A group of Neogi traders setting up shop in your city is a horrible thing; they are evil, extraplanar spiders who enslave and torment people and deal in the most depraved wares on every plane. But they are also the single most reliable possible trade route for extraplanar or highly expensive magical items. A city which deals with them is hooking itself into a market which will enrich it's citizens and enable their champions or armies to better defend them from other external evils.

Trading a handful of slaves per year to make your city wealthy and secure is unquestionably evil, but it might just be necessary. Rather deal with the Neogi than risk some Lich finding the 'Macguffin of World Destruction' and your city's heroes not being able to get the gear to fight it.

It really isn't too hard to come up with these, and the point stands that sometimes Evil can be beneficial, even if it isn't Good.

Paladins shouldn't be judged too harshly for subversions (if 99% of Balors are evil, and a Balor attacks you, killing it is reasonable), but they should do their do diligence when possible and keep an open mind. Sometimes Evil needs to be converted more than it needs to be smited. Sometimes it is worth tolerating the devil you know rather than inviting much worse disaster by removing them.

hamishspence
2012-07-30, 02:26 PM
The tricky part is squaring this with BoVD's "Allowing a fiend to exist (let along helping or cooperating with one in any way) is clearly evil".

Still, novels have had paladins do this and not Fall. Some 3.5 adventures (like Savage Tide) pretty much require you to obtain fiendish and celestial help, to complete successfully.

"Respect for life" may include respect for all life- Evil included. Which doesn't mean you don't kill- just that you've extremely careful about being sure it's necessary.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-30, 02:33 PM
Now that we're discussing our opinions on RAI, I'm withdrawing from the discussion. I'm pretty sure I've made my position clear already. Whether anyone agrees with me or not is immaterial, since it's all just opinion.

A quick summary reiteration: I'm of the opinion that, for reasons I've already cited, allowing a fiend to exist on any plane is harmful, unless they've rid themselves of the evil subtype. Therefore, killing them upon determining that they are a fiend is okay if they light up detect evil, unless they come to you to for help in being redeemed.

hamishspence
2012-07-30, 02:57 PM
And what if they're clearly under someone else's "being redeemed" supervision? Or seem to be doing so, very successfully, on their own?

removing the Evil subtype might be the reward at the end of the redemption path- rather than something to be handed out at the start of it.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-30, 03:41 PM
And what if they're clearly under someone else's "being redeemed" supervision? Or seem to be doing so, very successfully, on their own?

removing the Evil subtype might be the reward at the end of the redemption path- rather than something to be handed out at the start of it.

I don't know why I'm answering this when I said I was done, but a good creature is supposed to be humble. Even if he's doing well on his own, he should be willing to ask a paragon of virtue (read: paladin that isn't fallen) for pointers. Even asking for the smallest of help is still asking for help.

As for the ritual to remove his evil subtype, if he's truly repentant he should want to undergo the ritual as soon as the option is available, whether that's at the beginning of the path of redemption, the end, or somewhere in-between.

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-30, 03:48 PM
Uh... yea, I don't think Humility is considered a primary virtue of being Good in D&D...

Gavinfoxx
2012-07-30, 03:49 PM
Uh... yea, I don't think Humility is considered a primary virtue of being Good in D&D...

Mnemnosyne
2012-07-30, 04:39 PM
Now that we're discussing our opinions on RAI, I'm withdrawing from the discussion. I'm pretty sure I've made my position clear already. Whether anyone agrees with me or not is immaterial, since it's all just opinion.

A quick summary reiteration: I'm of the opinion that, for reasons I've already cited, allowing a fiend to exist on any plane is harmful, unless they've rid themselves of the evil subtype. Therefore, killing them upon determining that they are a fiend is okay if they light up detect evil, unless they come to you to for help in being redeemed.
Ok, since we're debating opinion here...you're basing your opinion that fiends are harmful by their very presence on the lingering evil rule, right? Because as far as I know, there isn't anything else that suggests that a fiend minding its own business and not causing harm (for instance, the previously mentioned A'kin the Arcanaloth) is still harmful by nature.

Assuming you are, what about other outsiders? That rule very specifically says "The long-term presence of an evil outsider on the Material Plane." Now, you're extending material plane to all planes, which isn't unreasonable if you're looking at it in a logical manner and not trying to stick to absolute RAW, but why are you limiting 'an evil outsider' to fiends only? That category encompasses everything that is an Outsider with the evil alignment. Tieflings? Outsiders. Genasi? Outsiders. Lots of outsiders can be evil without being fiends and without having the evil subtype. Why, if you're taking the most expansive possible reading of where an evil outsider does harm, are you not also taking a straightforward and logically expansive reading of what an evil outsider is? Is there a logical reason for this seemingly inconsistent application of extremely narrow selection criteria to one part of the rule, while simultaneously broadly expanding the actual verbiage of another part of it?

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-30, 04:55 PM
I haven't been including plane-touched because they're make up is comprised of material plane stuff. As for the expansiveness of the word fiend, I was of the impression that all of the outsiders native to the lower planes had the evil subtype. If I'm wrong about that, I would include any evil outsider native to a lower plane, regardless of the absence of that subtype.

My extension of the lingering evil rule goes much further than just expanding it to include all planes, it also includes all alignments. Anarchs on any plane other than their native are making those planes more chaotic. Axiomats are making whatever plane they're on more lawful, and celestials are making whatever plane they're on more good. My basis for this was never in the lingering evil rule alone, the points I brought up earlier about planar layers moving about because of too much of another aligned energy was part of the reasoning too.

On a completely unrelated note: I just use the phrase "more good" without being grammatically incorrect. Take that english teachers. :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2012-07-31, 05:59 AM
As for the ritual to remove his evil subtype, if he's truly repentant he should want to undergo the ritual as soon as the option is available, whether that's at the beginning of the path of redemption, the end, or somewhere in-between.

The ritual doesn't remove it so much as replace it. Basically- Evil subtype is replaced with Good subtype, if a Good cleric uses the ritual.

It's entirely probable that many of the various redeemed fiends in D&D were created before the notion of this ritual came up.

Lord_Gareth
2012-07-31, 09:54 AM
The ritual doesn't remove it so much as replace it. Basically- Evil subtype is replaced with Good subtype, if a Good cleric uses the ritual.

It's entirely probable that many of the various redeemed fiends in D&D were created before the notion of this ritual came up.

Falls-From-Grace certainly seemed CN to me.

Wardog
2012-07-31, 11:13 AM
not only that, but it is often cited that "Always Alignment" unless specifically Neutral Hungry or Unaligned, means 95% of the populous is that alignment.

Do you have a source for that?

I was under the impression that "Always Evil" meant "Always Evil, except for isolated or unique cases justified by Plot" (think: Buffyverse vampires).

Not "one in twenty is non-evil".

Kelb_Panthera
2012-07-31, 11:50 AM
The ritual doesn't remove it so much as replace it. Basically- Evil subtype is replaced with Good subtype, if a Good cleric uses the ritual.

It's entirely probable that many of the various redeemed fiends in D&D were created before the notion of this ritual came up.

Like I said earlier, I don't have a copy of SS atm, but that's basically the same net effect. The fiend stops being a physical incarnation of evil. Whether he's realigned with good, law, chaos, or none of the above is irrelavent.

Menteith
2012-07-31, 12:49 PM
Do you have a source for that?

I was under the impression that "Always Evil" meant "Always Evil, except for isolated or unique cases justified by Plot" (think: Buffyverse vampires).

Not "one in twenty is non-evil".

Alignment;
Often: A plurality (40%-50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common.

Usually: The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the given alignment.

Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.

MM1, p305

I've seen the 95% number batted around a few times, but I can't find a hard source for it myself. If anyone has it, please let me know!

toapat
2012-07-31, 04:52 PM
I've seen the 95% number batted around a few times, but I can't find a hard source for it myself. If anyone has it, please let me know!

It is from one of the Wizards articles, and i think it is brought up in the Succubus paladin one, but im not going to go hunt for it

hamishspence
2012-08-01, 05:47 AM
Falls-From-Grace certainly seemed CN to me.

I thought she was officially LN.

Some fiends, like efreeti and dao, aren't "modified mortal souls"- they're creatures born the normal way- on the Elemental Planes rather than the Lower Planes.

What's the appropriate response to them?

If an efreeti trading party visits a city, starts selling Plane of Fire exotic materials to the locals, and suddenly a paladin wades in, starts attacking them because "they're fiends- they taint the material plane by being there"- what happens?

Should the paladin Fall for launching an unprovoked attack on relatively innocent (as far as he knows) traders?

Going back to the original topic- if a paladin and a rogue are travelling together, and the rogue chooses to spare the life of a fiend because "I don't know it's done any harm on this plane yet" - was this an Evil Act that the paladin must prevent?

What Evil acts carried out by rogues and other party members, can the paladin choose to politely object to, rather than use force to rectify?

How much in the way of Evil acts is needed before the paladin must obey the "will not continue an association with those who repeatedly offend against the paladin's moral code" rule comes into play?

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-01, 04:17 PM
I thought she was officially LN.

Some fiends, like efreeti and dao, aren't "modified mortal souls"- they're creatures born the normal way- on the Elemental Planes rather than the Lower Planes.

What's the appropriate response to them?

If an efreeti trading party visits a city, starts selling Plane of Fire exotic materials to the locals, and suddenly a paladin wades in, starts attacking them because "they're fiends- they taint the material plane by being there"- what happens?

Should the paladin Fall for launching an unprovoked attack on relatively innocent (as far as he knows) traders?

Going back to the original topic- if a paladin and a rogue are travelling together, and the rogue chooses to spare the life of a fiend because "I don't know it's done any harm on this plane yet" - was this an Evil Act that the paladin must prevent?

What Evil acts carried out by rogues and other party members, can the paladin choose to politely object to, rather than use force to rectify?

How much in the way of Evil acts is needed before the paladin must obey the "will not continue an association with those who repeatedly offend against the paladin's moral code" rule comes into play?

I think I may have found one of the reasons my opinion doesn't jive with some of you. I don't consider efreeti fiends either. To my mind, the word "fiend" is used as a catch-all to describe outsiders native to the lower planes and carrying the evil subtype, not just any creature who has an evil alignment and the outsider type. (seriously, are there any outsiders native to the lower planes that don't carry the evil subtype?)

The efreeti traders aren't auto-smite material, but probably bear watching, since they're known to be an evil race. They're automatically on thin-ice, but not kill-on-sight.

As for intra-party politics. The paladin should object to any member of his party committing an evil act. How forcefully he should object depends on how evil the act is. How evil an act is, unfortunately, is often subjective. The only actions that are hard-line, do-not-allow actions are torture and, the ill-defined, murder. It's ultimately a judgement call on the part of the paladin. The RAW isn't specific enough for an exhaustive list.

As for how often he should grudgingly allow lesser evils, I say, as long as it serves the greater good, and he doesn't actually commit any such acts himself, or until the character performing the evil acts starts pinging on ye olde evil-dar.

Mind you, when I say "lesser evils," I mean things that could only be considered evil depending on motivation. ie killing an evil, but not "always evil" creature for racial hatred, rather than any sense of justice, or maliciously stealing from those who would be undeniably harmed by the theft, rather than stealing minor baubles from a rich lord because you're a klepto. If motivation and intent are the only way to define whether an act is evil or not, then a paladin can let them slide sometimes, unless the character committing the act is, himself, evil.

Does that make sense? I'm willing to elaborate further if my position is still unclear.

Water_Bear
2012-08-01, 05:02 PM
Part of the issue here is misuse of terms. Fiend means one specific thing, and people have been misapplying it.

Fiend, in D&D 3.5 at least, means an Outsider with the [Evil] subtype. They always ping Evil on Detect Evil, even if they are Paladins themselves, and technically it is an Evil act to allow them to exist. A Paladin could theoretically fall by choosing not to kill a Succubus Paladin, but also fall for committing murder if they did. :smallconfused:

Other "Usually/Always Evil" Outsiders are not Fiends. This includes Efreeti, and I think at least one of the other Genie breeds. These guys will usually ping Evil, but the less-hardcore mortal kind of Evil unless they're a Cleric of Hextor or something. Killing them ought to be morally equivalent to killing an Orc; they're probably a jerk, but you should check first.

The 'Lingering Corruption' rule apparently just says "Evil Outsider" rather than Fiend, which opens the door to saying species like Tieflings or Efreeti shouldn't be allowed on the Material Plane. I personally think they meant Fiend, but that's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.

TuggyNE
2012-08-01, 09:48 PM
that's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.

Can I sig this? It is pretty great.

Water_Bear
2012-08-01, 10:51 PM
Can I sig this? It is pretty great.

Go for it.

hamishspence
2012-08-02, 06:16 AM
Part of the issue here is misuse of terms. Fiend means one specific thing, and people have been misapplying it.

Fiend, in D&D 3.5 at least, means an Outsider with the [Evil] subtype. They always ping Evil on Detect Evil, even if they are Paladins themselves, and technically it is an Evil act to allow them to exist. A Paladin could theoretically fall by choosing not to kill a Succubus Paladin, but also fall for committing murder if they did. :smallconfused:

Other "Usually/Always Evil" Outsiders are not Fiends. This includes Efreeti, and I think at least one of the other Genie breeds. These guys will usually ping Evil, but the less-hardcore mortal kind of Evil unless they're a Cleric of Hextor or something. Killing them ought to be morally equivalent to killing an Orc; they're probably a jerk, but you should check first.

Sorry about that- I was sure they had Evil subtype- maybe was confused.

I know some outsiders not native to the Lower Planes have it:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/uvuudaum.htm

I think the Detect Evil rules also say "Evil Outsider" not "Outsider with Evil subtype":

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm

Mnemnosyne
2012-08-02, 06:48 AM
I'm not sure there's a proper definition for 'fiend' in 3.5, actually. I certainly can't recall that term being specifically defined anywhere, though I'd like to see a reference if it is.

In 2nd Edition it was pretty clearly laid out in Faces of Evil: the Fiends. Fiends are: baatezu, tanar'ri, yugoloths, gehreleths, and hordlings. Everything else doesn't count as a fiend.

And yeah, there's a lot of [Evil] outsiders that aren't from the lower planes. The reason you thought of genies was probably because, at least in the Manual of the Planes, the Dao is listed as having the evil subtype, but that one has been updated in 3.5 and lacks it now.

Kaorti, on the other hand, still have it as far as I'm aware. There's some others. Krathbairn, from 106 Dragons of Faerun, are outsiders with both the evil and native subtype. Native to Faerun. Also the Earth Glider (84 Underdark), native to the Elemental Plane of Earth. Probably a handful of others scattered about. Githyanki used to have the evil subtype in 3.0 also (moderately relevant since BoVD is also 3.0, so when it was written, they would have counted).

hamishspence
2012-08-02, 09:47 AM
The three "Fiend of" PRCs in Fiend Folio (late 3.0, has some 3.5 rule conventions) require Outsider and Evil subtype- but I don't think they require the Extraplanar subtype. A case could be made that those two traits define a Fiend.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-08-02, 12:35 PM
The only place I remember seeing fiend almost-defined is in the MM glossary under the evil subtype heading. That's a bit vague though.