PDA

View Full Version : One reason Paladins are Knight Templarish



ReaderAt2046
2012-10-16, 08:17 PM
Obviously, one of the reasons everyone tends to dislike paladins is that they are almost always very Knight Templarish, smiting and destroying evil characters on sight. What a lot of people fail to consider, though, is that paladins are explicitly required to be this way by the D&D RAW. Because the D&D RAW states that a paladin may never knowingly associate with an evil character, on pain of loosing their class, paladins are more or less required to Smite Evil at every opportunity, even though a paladin might associate with evil characters for one of several good reasons.

1. Not My Jurisdiction: A paladin might leave an evil character alone simply because, although he is wicked, he hasn't actually commited any provable crime or has been properly punished for his crimes. Alternately, a paladin knows the character has committed the crime but simply doesn't have any authority to arrest or judge him.

2. "To fight the raven, one may make alliance with the serpent". In other words, team up with the lesser evil in order to fight the greater evil.

3. Redemption: A paladin may work with an evil character in hopes of directing his evil or eventually turning him towards the light, much as Roy does with Belkar.

In order to fix this problem, I'm in favor of adding a houserule changing "a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters" to "a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters without justification". Since the GM already has to decide what counts as enough association with evil characters to violate the RAW, this will not be significantly more work and could have a significant positive impact on gameplay.

Water_Bear
2012-10-16, 08:45 PM
The problem with your proposed houserule is that is is unnecessary.


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

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

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

As you can see, the Paladin only loses their class abilities if they willingfully comit an evil act, or cease to be Lawful Good. The rest of the Code is just that; a Code of Conduct to which they adhere, but are not magically bound to obey.

The part about not associating with Evil characters is in an entirely different section altogether.

This ties into the real reason people have trouble roleplaying Paladins; they don't understand what being a Paladin means. A Paladin is a holy knight, sure, but first and foremost they are a Hero. A White Hat, a Do-Gooder, someone who fights for Truth and Justice and will never give up as long as Evil remains unpunished and will never ignore the pleas of the innocent. A well-played Paladin is utterly sincere and absolutely incorruptible, and that kind of purity is so cheesey it comes back around into awesome.

ReaderAt2046
2012-10-16, 09:11 PM
I agree with you 100% about what a paladin is and should, and will happily accept your alternate interpretation of that rule. Thank you for defending the legacy of whoever writes those sourcebooks. +1 nice points!

scurv
2012-10-16, 09:12 PM
This is partial to how I tend to run games.
Although I tend to view alignment as a guide, If a player is going to play evil. I kinda like them to actually Be evil, Many people consider the occasional act of theft, white lie or such to be evil...meh not so much really. You can be modestly selfish and still swing nicely in the neutral alignments. In general my line for evil is habitually being the cause of someone else losing life, liberty,home family and possessions of note. Now if someone wishes to claim evil with out doing that....meh so be it. I Might not like it, I would offer them chances to grow in their evilness...And if none of that took place I might suggest a more neutral alignment....if alignment was an issue at all in the current campaign,

Now in regards to Paladins, IF a paladin was knowingly spending time with someone like i described as evil in such a way that it was not in an effort to improve that persons outlook on life...yea its time to begin examining things.

JohnnyCancer
2012-10-16, 09:18 PM
I always preferred the Paladin as portrayed in Sierra's Quest for Glory series. You start as a member of a different class and have to earn your Paladinhood, and they emphasize compassion and mercy. Most of what a Paladin fights in the Quest for Glory series are demons and the undead, though he occasionally must defend himself from animals and even more rarely, other living sentient beings.

Renegade Paladin
2012-10-16, 09:19 PM
"Won't associate with" /= "attack on sight," either.

Raum
2012-10-16, 09:32 PM
Obviously, one of the reasons everyone tends to dislike paladins is that they are almost always very Knight Templarish, smiting and destroying evil characters on sight. Kind of an aside, but the Knight's Templar were nothing like stereotypical D&D paladins. They were bankers and occasionally mercenaries but, above all, they were ruthless and practical politicians. They fought with and occasionally for Arabs almost as often as those of European decent.

They're certainly interesting and worth researching. Just don't buy into the myths. ;)

Now back to your regular programming!

Wyntonian
2012-10-16, 09:33 PM
Much like god-awful teachers inspire me to become a good teacher to undo some of the damage they've done, seeing threads about Lawful Stupid paladins makes me want to play a good paladin.

Akal Saris
2012-10-16, 10:06 PM
Kind of an aside, but the Knight's Templar were nothing like stereotypical D&D paladins. They were bankers and occasionally mercenaries but, above all, they were ruthless and practical politicians. They fought with and occasionally for Arabs almost as often as those of European decent.

They're certainly interesting and worth researching. Just don't buy into the myths. ;)

Now back to your regular programming!

Thank you!

Glaurung
2012-10-16, 11:33 PM
First edition made the connection between associating with evil player or non-player characters more damaging to a Paladin's status as a Paladin. Its become part of the lore of the game, making it easy to miss the nuance in RAW in the 3rd edition and 3.5 (not sure about 4th, although the alignment restriction changed there substantially).

That said, I like the essence of your paladin rules. Why wouldn't a paragon of good try to change or save those who have fallen? From a story telling perspective it is great. Win or lose, its a great story. Even catastrophic failure makes for a good story. If the paladin not only fails to convert his/her fallen companion(s), but also becomes more like them in deed, the paladin then triggers a loss of his/her paladin status and, perhaps, a new, more dark profession.

The 1st edition player's handbook had that wonderful full page image of a paladin fighting a probably loosing battle against many devils, entitled "A Paladin in Hell". I wonder if the title was attached to the wrong picture. Perhaps a better graphic would have shown a paladin who had fallen in with a group of thieves and taken on the task of serving/saving them by example. A world full of ambiguously aligned folk would be a much more apropos hell for a paladin. And make for some great role-play.

TheOOB
2012-10-17, 01:30 AM
No matter how martial your paladin is, detecting as evil is not just cause for murder.

Sith_Happens
2012-10-17, 01:39 AM
I knew I bookmarked this for a reason. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8359242&postcount=1)

SowZ
2012-10-17, 02:07 AM
First edition made the connection between associating with evil player or non-player characters more damaging to a Paladin's status as a Paladin. Its become part of the lore of the game, making it easy to miss the nuance in RAW in the 3rd edition and 3.5 (not sure about 4th, although the alignment restriction changed there substantially).

That said, I like the essence of your paladin rules. Why wouldn't a paragon of good try to change or save those who have fallen? From a story telling perspective it is great. Win or lose, its a great story. Even catastrophic failure makes for a good story. If the paladin not only fails to convert his/her fallen companion(s), but also becomes more like them in deed, the paladin then triggers a loss of his/her paladin status and, perhaps, a new, more dark profession.

The 1st edition player's handbook had that wonderful full page image of a paladin fighting a probably loosing battle against many devils, entitled "A Paladin in Hell". I wonder if the title was attached to the wrong picture. Perhaps a better graphic would have shown a paladin who had fallen in with a group of thieves and taken on the task of serving/saving them by example. A world full of ambiguously aligned folk would be a much more apropos hell for a paladin. And make for some great role-play.

Hell for a Paladin would be a world with 100% goods. Nothing to slay or act self-righteous towards.

Killer Angel
2012-10-17, 02:14 AM
I knew I bookmarked this for a reason. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8359242&postcount=1)

Clearly, that pally was guilty of excessive pride and need of martyrdom. :smallwink:

Cespenar
2012-10-17, 02:15 AM
Hell for a Paladin would be a world with 100% goods. Nothing to slay or act self-righteous towards.

There can't be 100% good people. There can only be low standards. :smalltongue:

The_Shaman
2012-10-17, 02:15 AM
Hell for a Paladin would be a world with 100% goods. Nothing to slay or act self-righteous towards.

And only 2+int skill points for any meaningful activities such as quiche baking!

Arcanist
2012-10-17, 04:54 AM
First edition made the connection between associating with evil player or non-player characters more damaging to a Paladin's status as a Paladin. Its become part of the lore of the game, making it easy to miss the nuance in RAW in the 3rd edition and 3.5 (not sure about 4th, although the alignment restriction changed there substantially).

That said, I like the essence of your paladin rules. Why wouldn't a paragon of good try to change or save those who have fallen? From a story telling perspective it is great. Win or lose, its a great story. Even catastrophic failure makes for a good story. If the paladin not only fails to convert his/her fallen companion(s), but also becomes more like them in deed, the paladin then triggers a loss of his/her paladin status and, perhaps, a new, more dark profession.

The 1st edition player's handbook had that wonderful full page image of a paladin fighting a probably loosing battle against many devils, entitled "A Paladin in Hell". I wonder if the title was attached to the wrong picture. Perhaps a better graphic would have shown a paladin who had fallen in with a group of thieves and taken on the task of serving/saving them by example. A world full of ambiguously aligned folk would be a much more apropos hell for a paladin. And make for some great role-play.

Personally, I always viewed that a good reason for a Paladin to associate with an Evil figure is to potentially redeem him/her. A Paladin does not server an Evil Master because she has fallen, but because she has seen the Truth in his heart. That in reality, behind the black armor, the wicked spells, the cruel actions and all that he has done there is still good in him... And she quest onward to dig that Good to the surface.

I usually throw out the whole Paladin Code of Conduct thing unless they're running around a village and gutting bartenders because he mispronouced a drink in Draconic. I usually run Evil campaigns when I get the chance to DM and the players that have the huevos to walk up, say "I wanna play a Lawful Good character" and actually keep to that path have truly earned my respect.


The true mind can weather all the lies and illusions without being lost. The true heart can tough the poison of hatred without being harmed. Since beginning-less time, darkness thrives in the void but always yields to purifying light.

The link SithHappens posted is actually how I'd like Paladins to play... rarely see it though (in fact I have NEVER seen it) :smalltongue:

ReaderAt2046
2012-10-17, 05:53 AM
@Raum: I know that exceedingly well, but if you're talking to people, you've got to use words they understand.

@SithHappens: Now that is a paladin! O-Chul would be proud.

Another question that's been bugging me, what is the rational behind not permitting paladins to multiclass without losing the ability to advance as paladins? It doesn't seem to make any sense and loses the opportunity for some great character customization and fine-tuning.

Heliomance
2012-10-17, 06:41 AM
This ties into the real reason people have trouble roleplaying Paladins; they don't understand what being a Paladin means. A Paladin is a holy knight, sure, but first and foremost they are a Hero. A White Hat, a Do-Gooder, someone who fights for Truth and Justice and will never give up as long as Evil remains unpunished and will never ignore the pleas of the innocent. A well-played Paladin is utterly sincere and absolutely incorruptible, and that kind of purity is so cheesey it comes back around into awesome.

I like to collect quots, and there's a few I've come across that, for me, exemplify everything that a Paladin should be.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jpV9grFxkKI/SRNLnQKiqPI/AAAAAAAAANM/9kybpBM-rbc/s400/no_you_move_close_up_sm.jpg


When I first became a Paladin, I thought in terms of black and white. I see now that it's really a spectrum of greys, and that plenty of people straddle my arbitrary line between good and evil.
But you know what? Those people aren't my problem. My job is to sniff out those who live their lives far enough away from that line that I need to squint to see any light, and then kick their ass in a manner most righteous.


A king may move a man, a father may claim a son. But remember that, even when those who move you be kings or men of power, your soul is in your keeping alone. When you stand before God you cannot say "but I was told by others to do thus" or that "virtue was not convenient at the time." This will not suffice. Remember this.

~King Baldwin IV, Kingdom of Heaven


Some say that the age of chivalry is past, that the spirit of romance is dead. The age of chivalry is never past, so long as there is wrong left unredressed on earth.

~Charles Kingley

And this song. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfHnzYEHAow) Oh how I love that song. (You only need to watch up to 2:08, after that it goes on to other stuff)

hamlet
2012-10-17, 07:59 AM
First edition made the connection between associating with evil player or non-player characters more damaging to a Paladin's status as a Paladin. Its become part of the lore of the game, making it easy to miss the nuance in RAW in the 3rd edition and 3.5 (not sure about 4th, although the alignment restriction changed there substantially).

That said, I like the essence of your paladin rules. Why wouldn't a paragon of good try to change or save those who have fallen? From a story telling perspective it is great. Win or lose, its a great story. Even catastrophic failure makes for a good story. If the paladin not only fails to convert his/her fallen companion(s), but also becomes more like them in deed, the paladin then triggers a loss of his/her paladin status and, perhaps, a new, more dark profession.

The 1st edition player's handbook had that wonderful full page image of a paladin fighting a probably loosing battle against many devils, entitled "A Paladin in Hell". I wonder if the title was attached to the wrong picture. Perhaps a better graphic would have shown a paladin who had fallen in with a group of thieves and taken on the task of serving/saving them by example. A world full of ambiguously aligned folk would be a much more apropos hell for a paladin. And make for some great role-play.

Just for reference, the exact wording of the 1e player's handbook paladin code is thus:


Paladins will have henchmen of lawful good alignment and none other; they will associate only with characters and
creatures of good alignment; paladins can join a company of
adventurers which contains non-evil neutrals only on a single expedition
basis, and only if some end which will further the
cause of lawful good is purposed.

And then the only part of the description that addresses falling:


Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins. If they ever
knowingly perform an act which is chaotic in nature, they must seeka high
level (7th or above) cleric of lawful good alignment, confess their sin, and
do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a paladin should ever knowingly
and willingly perform on evil act, he or she loses the status of paladinhood
immediately and irrevocably All benefits are then lost, and no deed or
magic can restore the character to palodinhood; he or she is everafter a
fighter.

So, actually, it's not quite what people think.

Paladins do not fall for associating with evil people, or even helping them out. They fall for performing evil deeds (i.e., helping that evil person acheive an evil end). The bit about associating with evil is merely a code, not a stricture.

It wasn't until later that the two got conflated.

navar100
2012-10-17, 09:20 AM
1) Not everyone dislikes paladins.

2) Players dislike other players being jerks. Don't be a jerk; your class is irrelevant.

The Glyphstone
2012-10-17, 10:07 AM
Breaking News: The Paladin's Code is too rigid and restricts roleplaying in an unrealistic manner. Film at 11.

CarpeGuitarrem
2012-10-17, 10:09 AM
That's actually a nice and subtle catch; it seems that the bit about associating with evil characters is in the RP/fluff section. As in, "this is how a paladin acts".

I really want to find some good Michael Carpenter quotes now...that dude is a paladin. (Actually, from what I've read, Sasha is also a very intriguing concept for a paladin...)

123456789blaaa
2012-10-17, 04:32 PM
I like to collect quots, and there's a few I've come across that, for me, exemplify everything that a Paladin should be.

On the quote in the picture: I hate to Godwin here but wouldn't that quote also apply to Hitler?

SowZ
2012-10-17, 05:26 PM
On the quote in the picture: I hate to Godwin here but wouldn't that quote also apply to Hitler?

And I direct you to Paladin's of Tyranny. Paladins are rigid and unwavering in their code, which makes them unreasonable in many situations, whatever their alignment. (That sounds like a negative turn, but someone wholly unwavering cannot be reasoned with sometimes.)

Heliomance
2012-10-17, 07:48 PM
On the quote in the picture: I hate to Godwin here but wouldn't that quote also apply to Hitler?

Except the bit about standing beside the river of Truth. But politics bad, so no more discussing that subject.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-10-17, 09:19 PM
I knew I bookmarked this for a reason. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8359242&postcount=1)
Nice....... or too bad. I'm not any more sure of which it is than the guy that played the paladin. Either way that's how they -should- be played.

@Raum: I know that exceedingly well, but if you're talking to people, you've got to use words they understand.

@SithHappens: Now that is a paladin! O-Chul would be proud.

Another question that's been bugging me, what is the rational behind not permitting paladins to multiclass without losing the ability to advance as paladins? It doesn't seem to make any sense and loses the opportunity for some great character customization and fine-tuning.

It's a matter of dedication. A paladin (or monk) is supposed to be utterly dedicated to being a paladin (or monk) and multiclassing is seen (by the designers) as taking time off from being a paladin (or monk).

That said, it's poor reasoning at best. As long as the paladin stays true to the code, I wouldn't apply that clause until he reached the point that fewer than half his levels were paladin. At that point, I feel, he's more of a <other class> than a paladin. (the monk multiclassing restriction doesn't make any real sense at all. I throw it out without a thought.)

Agrippa
2012-10-17, 11:37 PM
Would you consider someone who willing spends years of his life hunting down and ultimately killing a violent, murderous brigand a knight templar? How about if that brigand and his crew robbed and murdered a woman in front of you and ran away before you could catch them? Add on the fact that you held the dying woman in your arms trying to comfort her? Like Solomon Kane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Kane). To be fair most of Kane's villains would count as this sort (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CompleteMonster) of trash.

Marillion
2012-10-18, 05:34 PM
And this song. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfHnzYEHAow) Oh how I love that song. (You only need to watch up to 2:08, after that it goes on to other stuff)

If I may add to your paladin songs:



Hold your head up high-for there is no greater love
Think of the faces of the people you defend
And promise me, they will never see the tears within our eyes
Although we are men, with mortal sins, angels never cry

So bury fear, for fate draws near
And hide the signs of pain
With noble acts, the bravest souls
Endure the heart's remains (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVNjx4k8mWk)

willpell
2012-10-20, 12:56 AM
This is partial to how I tend to run games.
Although I tend to view alignment as a guide, If a player is going to play evil. I kinda like them to actually Be evil, Many people consider the occasional act of theft, white lie or such to be evil...meh not so much really.

Sounds to me like a Paladin of Tyrrany, someone from whom Evil is the real Good. It explicitly says in Unearthed Arcana that a PoT (or a Pal of Slaughter) will only associate with good characters in order to exploit them for his own evil ends; the same rationale in reverse can very easily apply to a Good paladin (or Pal of Freedom).


I always preferred the Paladin as portrayed in Sierra's Quest for Glory series. You start as a member of a different class and have to earn your Paladinhood.

UA also offers the option to make Paladin a prestige class, which gets in the direction of needing to earn that status. Although they didn't do a very good job, because other than being LG, the prereqs don't really say anything about you having to qualify as noble and virtuous and committed to doing good works. They're all mechanical stuff, requiring you to be five levels where at least three are Cleric and one has to be Fighter or another fullbab class (with Paladin and Ranger both being ruled out, and Barbarian requiring you to have switched alignment, so Fighter is about the only option in core).

***

Also, IMO the CapAm quote is very Knight Templarish. "The entire world says it's right, but I know I'm right so I'll just refuse to ever listen to anybody else, and if necessary kill them all." Just because you say that you know where the River of Truth is doesn't mean you actually do.

DeusMortuusEst
2012-10-20, 04:29 AM
Also, IMO the CapAm quote is very Knight Templarish. "The entire world says it's right, but I know I'm right so I'll just refuse to ever listen to anybody else, and if necessary kill them all." Just because you say that you know where the River of Truth is doesn't mean you actually do.

Our images of captain America seem to differ widely.

Also, best paladin I know is probably Michael Carpenter, mentioned earlier in the thread.

hamlet
2012-10-20, 04:32 AM
I always preferred the Paladin as portrayed in Sierra's Quest for Glory series. You start as a member of a different class and have to earn your Paladinhood, and they emphasize compassion and mercy. Most of what a Paladin fights in the Quest for Glory series are demons and the undead, though he occasionally must defend himself from animals and even more rarely, other living sentient beings.

The original Rules Cyclopedia did this. You had to get to 9th level as a fighter before you could become a Paladin (or an Avenger or a Knight). And you had to seek out an organization to induct you and instruct you on top of that. The best way I've ever seen it handled.

GreenZ
2012-10-20, 04:32 AM
Also, IMO the CapAm quote is very Knight Templarish. "The entire world says it's right, but I know I'm right so I'll just refuse to ever listen to anybody else, and if necessary kill them all."

I just have to post to say that this is fundamentally incorrect, Captain America isn't saying to kill anyone but saying to not move from your convictions even if it kills you.

It's the reason he's my favorite super hero and why I adore paladins; they are not all murderers of evil but more often defenders of good. This often comes in the form of preventing evil, but does not automatically mean killing said evil nor should hunting evil be more important than protecting good.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-10-20, 05:47 AM
How's about we give cap's quote a bit of context here. That set of lines is from part of the Marvel civil war series. It's easily one of the grayest times of cap's (or any other marvel hero's) life. It's a good speech, and I tend to agree with the idea, though not the particular phrasing, but it's a prime example of overwhelming conviction with a sketchy view of how things work.

If the whole world says you're wrong, you should at least consider the idea you may be wrong. Moreover, even if you decide you're not wrong after due consideration, you may still be such anyway. It's extremely rare to have an absolutely clear and complete picture of things if that situation, thinking something different from the entire world, comes up.

Conviction's great, but blind conviction can lead to all kinds of atrocity, often in the name of the "greater good."

TuggyNE
2012-10-20, 05:50 AM
Conviction's great, but blind conviction can lead to all kinds of atrocity, often in the name of the "greater good."

Indeed. Conviction is only really useful if it happens to be correct. (D&D dodges this for the most part by giving paladins a near-certainty that, e.g., a given creature is evil, or that they themselves are good, and so forth, which can certainly motivate a bit of envy from those not so fortunate as to live in that universe.)

hamishspence
2012-10-20, 06:02 AM
That said (quite apart from magical means of fooling detection, and the notion that Evil does not equal Deserves To Be Attacked)- there's several ways in which one can detect as evil without being evil.

One can be a nonevil undead.
One can be a nonevil Fiend (Outsider with Evil Subtype)
One can be a nonevil cleric of an Evil deity.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-10-20, 07:42 AM
That said (quite apart from magical means of fooling detection, and the notion that Evil does not equal Deserves To Be Attacked)- there's several ways in which one can detect as evil without being evil.

One can be a nonevil undead.
One can be a nonevil Fiend (Outsider with Evil Subtype)
One can be a nonevil cleric of an Evil deity.

While the other two are inarguably correct, it's interesting to note that while the SRD entry for detect evil only says "undead" on its table, the PHB actually says "evil undead" on the same line.

Unless the SRD version includes some errata on the matter (I can't open pdf's so I can't check) it seems that being undead doesn't automatically ping you on pala-dar.

As for the other considerations, the fact is that the very existence of spells to mislead divinations like detect evil -should- be enough reason to properly vet your targets before smiting. Compound that with the fact that having an evil aura doesn't necessarily mean you've done anything wrong and the fact that good is supposed to redeem those that it can, and smite-on-sight is just an all-around bad idea in any case that doesn't involve a moderate or stronger aura.

willpell
2012-10-20, 08:32 AM
Our images of captain America seem to differ widely.

Okay fine, replace "kill" with "beat up and throw in prison" (assuming he's not fighting against the government at that time in which case it's basically just "beat up"). It doesn't change the fact that the picture (which doesn't correspond to the Cap I'm familiar with) has him advocating refusing to ever listen to anybody. Real heroic, that....


Also, best paladin I know is probably Michael Carpenter, mentioned earlier in the thread.

Never heard of him.


It's the reason he's my favorite super hero and why I adore paladins; they are not all murderers of evil but more often defenders of good. This often comes in the form of preventing evil, but does not automatically mean killing said evil nor should hunting evil be more important than protecting good.

I agree completely; the use of "kill" was in reference to the Templar, but I misspoke by not distinguishing that I was comparing Cap to the Templar's "I am right and you are wrong" mentality, rather than his actions based thereon.


One can be a nonevil undead.
One can be a nonevil Fiend (Outsider with Evil Subtype)
One can be a nonevil cleric of an Evil deity.

The first is dubious as Kelb points out; Necropolitans and worshippers of Evening Glory and the like may well not detect as evil, as no such things were imagined in the original core (there were ghosts which could be nonevil, but otherwise it was almost impossible to be undead without either being evil or mindless, up until some of the later books). The last, you're correct, although I can see an argument for saying that worshipping an evil deity gives it power, which it will use to evil ends. This may depend on campaign setting. The second, however, I find deeply dubious, because Outsiders are literally made out of the fabric of their planes, and the Lower Planes are so inherently Evil that Good characters take a penalties to their actions just from being there. I think there's a good argument for saying that [Evil] Outsiders simply have no choice but to be evil; it's in their blood, it's in their nature, they possess no genuine free will.

hamishspence
2012-10-20, 10:32 AM
My copy of the PHB just says "Undead" not "Evil undead"- in the entries in the Detect Evil table. Maybe it's a late print.

There's enough fluff supporting the notion of redeemed fiends in D&D (Eludocia from the Succubus Paladin online article, Fall-From-Grace from Planescape Torment) to suggest that "fiends have no free will" is not true.

The MM states specifically that the Evil subtype (or any of the alignment subtypes, for that matter) can differ from the creature's actual alignment. But it's saddled with detecting as Evil anyway.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-10-20, 10:49 AM
My copy of the PHB just says "Undead" not "Evil undead"- in the entries in the Detect Evil table. Maybe it's a late print.

There's enough fluff supporting the notion of redeemed fiends in D&D (Eludocia from the Succubus Paladin online article, Fall-From-Grace from Planescape Torment) to suggest that "fiends have no free will" is not true.

The MM states specifically that the Evil subtype (or any of the alignment subtypes, for that matter) can differ from the creature's actual alignment. But it's saddled with detecting as Evil anyway.

It seems mine is a pretty early printing. If I'm understanding this determination correctly, I've got a 4th printing copy of the special edition printed around 2004.

How 'bout you?

hamishspence
2012-10-20, 12:09 PM
Mine says First Printing: July 2003, so maybe it's the other way round.

Either way, the SRD followed the same format.

Gnoman
2012-10-20, 02:40 PM
Okay fine, replace "kill" with "beat up and throw in prison" (assuming he's not fighting against the government at that time in which case it's basically just "beat up"). It doesn't change the fact that the picture (which doesn't correspond to the Cap I'm familiar with) has him advocating refusing to ever listen to anybody. Real heroic, that....



Not quite. Again, context matters. In that arc, Captain America was rebelling against a law that said, in essence, that if you have any inborn superpower or metahuman ability, your choices were to be drafted by the government, or spend your entire life in prison. As he had been an agent of the government, he was expected to enforce that law. The panel shown is his reason for refusing.

Sinfonian
2012-10-20, 04:21 PM
Never heard of him.


Michael Carpenter is a character from the Dresden Files books. He is a Knight of the Cross, a bearer of one of three holy swords: each containing a nail from the Crucifixion. He is a good man, faithful to both his friends and his religion. He believes in attempting to redeem his enemies, and feels true remorse for any incidental harms inflicted in the course of his work.

Really a very good example of what a paladin should be. Just one small incident of his character:

Even when he was shot several times at close range by an automatic weapon and was in critical condition at a hospital, his first question on waking was to inquire on the safety of his friend that was there.

Raum
2012-10-20, 06:09 PM
For the best representation of a paladin I've read, pick up Elizabeth Moon's Deed of Paksenarrion. Her paladin character is far more central to the story and more developed than Carpenter.

I like Butcher's writing as well but Carpenter, Sanya, and other sword wielders are side characters. They aren't central to the story or fleshed out completely.

Heliomance
2012-10-20, 06:59 PM
The first is dubious as Kelb points out; Necropolitans and worshippers of Evening Glory and the like may well not detect as evil, as no such things were imagined in the original core (there were ghosts which could be nonevil, but otherwise it was almost impossible to be undead without either being evil or mindless, up until some of the later books). The last, you're correct, although I can see an argument for saying that worshipping an evil deity gives it power, which it will use to evil ends. This may depend on campaign setting. The second, however, I find deeply dubious, because Outsiders are literally made out of the fabric of their planes, and the Lower Planes are so inherently Evil that Good characters take a penalties to their actions just from being there. I think there's a good argument for saying that [Evil] Outsiders simply have no choice but to be evil; it's in their blood, it's in their nature, they possess no genuine free will.

Wizards have officially statted out a Succubus Paladin. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) That's proof that evil outsiders don't have to be evil in alignment. The poor thing pings up on all four detect alignment spells (lawful good alignment, [chaotic] and [evil] subtypes) and takes a negative level from her own Holy Avenger.

JellyPooga
2012-10-20, 08:14 PM
For the best representation of a paladin I've read, pick up Elizabeth Moon's Deed of Paksenarrion.

I'll second this. Very good read of what a Paladins backstory should look like.

She saves the king and his 3 squires, grants them free passage from harm for several days and begins the redemption of an entire guild of thieves under the influence of an evil deity by being tortured to death...proving that not every fight can, or should, be won with a sword.

VanBuren
2012-10-20, 10:39 PM
Not quite. Again, context matters. In that arc, Captain America was rebelling against a law that said, in essence, that if you have any inborn superpower or metahuman ability, your choices were to be drafted by the government, or spend your entire life in prison. As he had been an agent of the government, he was expected to enforce that law. The panel shown is his reason for refusing.

Thus the meaning changes from, "I'm right so anybody who disagrees should SHUT UP" to something more along the lines of "some truths aren't up for popular vote" which is actually a fairly standard foundation in a constitutional democracy.

willpell
2012-10-21, 12:25 AM
Not quite. Again, context matters. In that arc, Captain America was rebelling against a law that said, in essence, that if you have any inborn superpower or metahuman ability, your choices were to be drafted by the government, or spend your entire life in prison. As he had been an agent of the government, he was expected to enforce that law. The panel shown is his reason for refusing.


Thus the meaning changes from, "I'm right so anybody who disagrees should SHUT UP" to something more along the lines of "some truths aren't up for popular vote" which is actually a fairly standard foundation in a constitutional democracy.

The law in question represented the will of the American public, and having dedicated his life to being a living symbol of America, Cap's refusal to submit was basically a statement that the American people shouldn't obey laws they don't like. Which, personally, I happen to believe in, but the euphemistically termed "Civil War" is exactly what we would have if that principle were put into effect. Everyone would fight everyone else over their own personal "river of truth", because nobody would be willing to trust that the government knows what they're doing in creating the laws (again, whether this is true or not is irrelevant to the point).

Like I said, it's not even that I disagree with Cap's choices in Civil War; I'm arguing only against the spurious logic displayed in the quoted panel. He wasn't talking about the Constitution or the Founding Fathers or anything; there's no evidence in that panel that the "truth" he's talking about doesn't mean "whatever I personally believe to be true". And he states that he will not let any number of people change his mind. Which strikes me not as heroic conviction, but as paranoid isolation.

*******

As for the succubus paladin, well, Wizards may have decided it works in the "default" D&D campaign world, but I'm inclined to think I wouldn't in mine. Why should a Demon, a creature literally made of Evil, be capable of falling in love? If that can happen, then shouldn't a Solar somewhere decide to start murdering babies just because he feels like it, and keep his [Good] subtype even while doing Evil things? Being an incarnation of an alignment is supposed to mean something, or else the alignments don't mean anything. If one being proves that you can't trust the alignments to be a guarantee, then everyone who pings on a Detect X spell can still be suspected of secretly being non-X, and thus we're back to exactly the same situation as in reality, where nobody can be sure who's really good and who's just play-acting.

SowZ
2012-10-21, 12:42 AM
The law in question represented the will of the American public, and having dedicated his life to being a living symbol of America, Cap's refusal to submit was basically a statement that the American people shouldn't obey laws they don't like. Which, personally, I happen to believe in, but the euphemistically termed "Civil War" is exactly what we would have if that principle were put into effect. Everyone would fight everyone else over their own personal "river of truth", because nobody would be willing to trust that the government knows what they're doing in creating the laws (again, whether this is true or not is irrelevant to the point).

Like I said, it's not even that I disagree with Cap's choices in Civil War; I'm arguing only against the spurious logic displayed in the quoted panel. He wasn't talking about the Constitution or the Founding Fathers or anything; there's no evidence in that panel that the "truth" he's talking about doesn't mean "whatever I personally believe to be true". And he states that he will not let any number of people change his mind. Which strikes me not as heroic conviction, but as paranoid isolation.

*******

As for the succubus paladin, well, Wizards may have decided it works in the "default" D&D campaign world, but I'm inclined to think I wouldn't in mine. Why should a Demon, a creature literally made of Evil, be capable of falling in love? If that can happen, then shouldn't a Solar somewhere decide to start murdering babies just because he feels like it, and keep his [Good] subtype even while doing Evil things? Being an incarnation of an alignment is supposed to mean something, or else the alignments don't mean anything. If one being proves that you can't trust the alignments to be a guarantee, then everyone who pings on a Detect X spell can still be suspected of secretly being non-X, and thus we're back to exactly the same situation as in reality, where nobody can be sure who's really good and who's just play-acting.

Having a large number of people disagree with you may increase the odds of them having good arguments and smarter people than you/me to explain that logic, but it doesn't mean they are RIGHT. If every other person on the planet insisted that two and two was seven, they would be wrong and it would be right to fight it.

If the majority of the American populace believed in something, that doesn't justify it any more than nine out of ten kids agreeing to beat up the school nerd in some 1980s high school flick is justified. There are lots of times the US public has supported outright evil and a Cap America figure would have fought it. THAT is what he is talking about.

willpell
2012-10-21, 02:45 AM
If every other person on the planet insisted that two and two was seven, they would be wrong and it would be right to fight it.

I don't agree. "Four" is the name that all English-speakers have agreed upon to represent the quantity produced by adding two and two; if they all decide that they want to stop calling that quantity "four" and start calling it "seven", that is their choice. The actual quantity won't change, and they'll be able to prove that for themselves easily enough just by manipulating small numbers of objects. But the decision of what term should refer to that quantity - that is entirely a construct of human thought, and such constructs are no more immutable than humans decide to pretend they are.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-10-21, 04:05 AM
Actually, IIRC, the registration law that sparked the marvel civil war was Tony Stark's idea and he pushed it on congress. They lapped it up and dropped it on the american people whether they liked it or not, and like the supers themselves, about half of them didn't much care for the new law. Peter Parker (alias; spiderman) didn't help matters when he decided to openly support the law by unmasking himself at a press confrence, unintentionally planting the idea that other supers might have to do the same.

It's a great piece of fiction for the Marvel Universe, but things were more than a little more gray than I'd be comfortable drawing any examples of black-and-white morallity from. The quote in question is an excellent example of a normally well-played paladin making the classic mistake of letting his conviction run away with him, IMO. This becomes especially clear at the end of the civil war series. I won't spoil it for anyone. It's too good a read to spoil.

On topic: If you want a terrific example of a poorly played, smite-on-sight paladin; Paladin Anderson from the anime Hellsing. I don't know if he was any better in the manga, but in the anime he was nothing less than a hateful biggot toward poor Seras.

Heliomance
2012-10-21, 04:11 AM
As for the succubus paladin, well, Wizards may have decided it works in the "default" D&D campaign world, but I'm inclined to think I wouldn't in mine. Why should a Demon, a creature literally made of Evil, be capable of falling in love? If that can happen, then shouldn't a Solar somewhere decide to start murdering babies just because he feels like it, and keep his [Good] subtype even while doing Evil things?

No reason at all. IMO, a Solar that fell would indeed keep the [good] subtype, despite being evil. Subtypes are a measure of what you are, not what you do.


Being an incarnation of an alignment is supposed to mean something, or else the alignments don't mean anything. If one being proves that you can't trust the alignments to be a guarantee, then everyone who pings on a Detect X spell can still be suspected of secretly being non-X, and thus we're back to exactly the same situation as in reality, where nobody can be sure who's really good and who's just play-acting.
I'm not seeing the problem here.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-10-21, 04:14 AM
No reason at all. IMO, a Solar that fell would indeed keep the [good] subtype, despite being evil. Subtypes are a measure of what you are, not what you do.
Not only is it possible, it's cannon. That's the backstory of one of the vestiges in ToM, IIRC, and it's also the story of one of the major characters tied to the elder evil Sertrous.


I'm not seeing the problem here.

Agreed. That's a feature of the system, not a bug.

Arcanist
2012-10-21, 05:30 AM
On topic: If you want a terrific example of a poorly played, smite-on-sight paladin; Paladin Anderson from the anime Hellsing. I don't know if he was any better in the manga, but in the anime he was nothing less than a hateful biggot toward poor Seras.

In the Manga, Anderson was for all intensive purposes a Paladin that truly understood self-sacrifice even going so far as to sacrifice himself and his own beliefs just for a chance to defeat an abomination (Alucard).

I must admit that I shed a tear when I saw him do this in the OVA... Wanna try and make a template for getting stabbed with a Nail of Helena :smallamused:

Kelb_Panthera
2012-10-21, 05:56 AM
In the Manga, Anderson was for all intensive purposes a Paladin that truly understood self-sacrifice even going so far as to sacrifice himself and his own beliefs just for a chance to defeat an abomination (Alucard).

I must admit that I shed a tear when I saw him do this in the OVA... Wanna try and make a template for getting stabbed with a Nail of Helena :smallamused:

I suppose I should clarify that I meant the short anime, not the OVA. I haven't had the opportunity to see the manga or more than a single episode of the OVA and that particular episode didn't feature Anderson.

I very much would like a shot at seeing the OVA but that's simply not possible at this time.

willpell
2012-10-21, 08:49 AM
I'm not seeing the problem here.

The problem is that if you can't cast Detect Evil on a person and absolutely know whether or not they are Evil, what is the point of Detect Evil existing? If alignments don't serve as a guarantee of behavior, why have them at all?

Lord_Gareth
2012-10-21, 08:58 AM
The problem is that if you can't cast Detect Evil on a person and absolutely know whether or not they are Evil, what is the point of Detect Evil existing? If alignments don't serve as a guarantee of behavior, why have them at all?

Welcome to the question most of us ask. Plus, you know, there's all kinds of ways to detect as non-alignment (spells, abilities, class features, racial characteristics....)

That's why smite-on-site is not acceptable. You can't rely absolutely on Detect Evil as evidence, only for suspicion.

willpell
2012-10-21, 09:14 AM
Welcome to the question most of us ask.

Right, and I'm giving you an easy answer to it: just don't allow exceptions. It's one thing to have a spell or magic item which can thwart detection, but when it's something as fiddly as ruling that [Evil] =/= Evil, there's really no need to be that generous.


That's why smite-on-site is not acceptable. You can't rely absolutely on Detect Evil as evidence, only for suspicion.

It's true that smite-on-sight is generally not proper behavior, but in cases where you have a split-second decision to make where innocent lives or the like are at stake, it would be nice to know that there are not a huge number of exceptions.

Lord_Gareth
2012-10-21, 09:23 AM
Right, and I'm giving you an easy answer to it: just don't allow exceptions. It's one thing to have a spell or magic item which can thwart detection, but when it's something as fiddly as ruling that [Evil] =/= Evil, there's really no need to be that generous.

Ruling? There is no 'ruling'. It's canon. There's more than one example (on both sides) of non-alignment [Alignment] beings (neutral Modrons, lawful Slaad, evil celestials, good fiends). Plus by eliminating free will from the equation you have to re-write the entirety of planar politics. As a small example, 4/9 Lords of the Nine are former celestials, and Erinyes used to be celestials as well. If you say having an alignment subtype eliminates free will, they could never have come to pass.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-10-21, 09:42 AM
Right, and I'm giving you an easy answer to it: just don't allow exceptions. It's one thing to have a spell or magic item which can thwart detection, but when it's something as fiddly as ruling that [Evil] =/= Evil, there's really no need to be that generous.

The reason is pretty simple, IMO. Utter certainty of anything is borring. You're running into the Good and Evil = morality hiccup. Good and Evil as cosmic forces are related to morality, but they're nonetheless seperate concepts.



It's true that smite-on-sight is generally not proper behavior, but in cases where you have a split-second decision to make where innocent lives or the like are at stake, it would be nice to know that there are not a huge number of exceptions.

In that sort of situation you're probably only detecting evil to decide whether to use your smite or not, rather than genuinely trying to decide whether or not to take action. The fact is, there aren't many exceptions to detect evil actually detecting evil, sans concealing magicks.

Creatures of the evil subtype -can- be redeemed, but the possibility is so fleeting that it's acceptable to ignore it. This is the rule in the alignment system, not my opinion.

Non-evil clerics serving evil gods are still serving evil gods and are definitely something to be stopped. Unless you're in a city where capturing them and handing them over to an authority is reasonably possible, stop = kill. You are never required to offer quarter, though you're supposed to give quarter when it's genuinely requested.

Non-evil undead may not even trigger detect evil (note the fuzziness of this particular rule as we discussed above) but if they do, the undead in question is almost certainly better of dead-dead than undead.

These are the only three natural exceptions to detect evil only detecting actually evil creatures. Any other instance of the spell's failure is the result of deliberate tampering.

Water_Bear
2012-10-21, 10:33 AM
Detect Evil is an incredibly useful tool, but it isn't foolproof. That is a very good thing. If it weren't for that there wouldn't be any reason not to be a Radar Paladin.

Plus, the cases where Detect Evil fails aren't exactly common;

Protective Buffs (i.e. Undetectable Alignment): So either your target is a caster with buffs up, or they're shelling out a significant chunk of change every day or so to pretend they're one (10gp/day is 100x the median wage). So Nobles or Casters only.
Magic Items (i.e. Ring of Mind Shielding): This one is even more expensive than the last, and more obvious than buffs; that shifty guy with fancy jewelry who detects neutral is almost certainly up to something anyway.
Feats/PrCs which block Detect Evil: These, more than anything else, are only available to fairly high level Evil characters, which means BBEGs. And nothing sucks the fun out of a game like identifying the BBEG in the first five minutes, so good on WotC for giving DMs these options.
non-Evil [Evil] Outsiders, Undead, Chromatic Dragons and Clerics of Evil deities: "Always X" is something like 95%, so your odds are still pretty good that any random Demon or Vampire is Evil. Really, all this does is remove the "Kill On Sight" tag from Tieflings and Clerics of Nerull; they actually have to have done something wrong to justify killing them, rather than just existing.


In other words, if Detect Evil gets a false negative it's going to be a plot-relevant NPC, because only they have the skill and/or the cash to avoid it. If Detect Evil gets a false positive, it's in a case where common sense and due diligence ought to stay your hand anyway.

Amnestic
2012-10-21, 12:09 PM
Protective Buffs (i.e. Undetectable Alignment): So either your target is a caster with buffs up, or they're shelling out a significant chunk of change every day or so to pretend they're one (10gp/day is 100x the median wage). So Nobles or Casters only.

Bard 2 isn't that 'caster' to me, and seems like a fairly reasonable dip (well, Bard 3-4 might be better) for a rogue-ish type. Or a Warblade.

On the PrC issue, there's the Spymaster which gets permanent Undetectable Alignment at 1st and can be taken at 6th level which isn't that high I wouldn't have thought.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-10-21, 12:19 PM
Heck, any psionic creature period can pickup the feat mind mask (Secrets of Sarlona) and never let anyone detect his alignment ever again.

And aside from undetectable alignment there're about half-a-dozen more spells that can block or mislead detect <alignment> in core alone.

Detect <alignment> never was foolproof.

Water_Bear
2012-10-21, 12:46 PM
Bard 2 isn't that 'caster' to me, and seems like a fairly reasonable dip (well, Bard 3-4 might be better) for a rogue-ish type. Or a Warblade.

Bards cast spells, hence they are spellcasters. Plus, a low level Bard only has a handful of spells-per-day even with high Charisma and even fewer Spells Known; casting Undetectable Alignment with any frequency is a huge investment.


On the PrC issue, there's the Spymaster which gets permanent Undetectable Alignment at 1st and can be taken at 6th level which isn't that high I wouldn't have thought.

Well, it comes down to how you want to look at it.

By RAW, the DMG rules for generating settlements would say that 6th level people should be fairly common in larger settlements, but that comes with some exponential weirdness. Essentially the formula for frequency of base classes is 2^(1dX+Community modifier - Y) for finding the number of NPCs with Y level in X base class, which you can use to estimate it, but also ends up with populations orders of magnitude too high for the settlements.

I prefer the approach where you have a handful of characters in the mid-level range per city, a handful of characters in the high level range per country, and a handful of Epic level characters ever. So characters who could even take the Spymaster class would be fairly uncommon to begin with, and the ones who chose to would be few enough that a given Paladin isn't likely to run into more than one or two in their lifetime.

willpell
2012-10-21, 10:02 PM
Plus by eliminating free will from the equation you have to re-write the entirety of planar politics. As a small example, 4/9 Lords of the Nine are former celestials, and Erinyes used to be celestials as well. If you say having an alignment subtype eliminates free will, they could never have come to pass.

Hardly; they just have to lose the subtype in the process of converting. An Erinyes isn't a celestial anymore; she's a devil. Changing alignment also changes species, if you're an outsider; thusly, the Succubus Paladin could exist as an individual, but she would have stopped being a succubus, becoming some roughly analogous form of Archon or Angel, and thus her powers would change (notably she'd no longer be able to smooch anyone to death and then make them rise as a wight). My setting does include direct analogues to succubi in all of the Chaotic and Evil alignments (sexual themes are big in my world), while for Lawgood it'd be a less direct analogue, but angels in general tend to be beautiful so it's not too much of a stretch to think you could find a match.


The reason is pretty simple, IMO. Utter certainty of anything is borring.

I disagree. Without certainty, you cannot act, and inaction is boring. With certainty, you know what can in fact be done. If I'm to place my life in someone's hands, I need to know absolutely and unquestionably that they can be trusted; otherwise they remain a potential enemy and I must be on guard around them, but cannot kill them because they're not known to be actively plotting my doom either. So where there is no Good and no Evil, there can only be paranoia, mistrust, and restlessness.


You're running into the Good and Evil = morality hiccup. Good and Evil as cosmic forces are related to morality, but they're nonetheless seperate concepts.

All that is an interpretation of strict RAW which I disagree with, believing that strict RAW is an inexact model for reality and should not be taken so literally. Good is a cosmic force, but it is still Good, no question; an angel simply cannot just snap and go on a killing spree, nor can a demon just snap and *not* go on a killing spree, because in either case their entire nature and being is composed of and overwhelmed by only the sum total of their alignments. If that is not true, then Good and Evil are meaningless. They're two nations of mortal creatures fighting for their own survival or dominance; they exist only as reflections of the moral concepts that play out in the human(oid) world. If all living beings accepted that life was every-man-for-himself and social strictures were never trustworthy, Good and/or Law would simply cease to exist, and there would be no more Angels or Devils or Inevitables anymore. But as long as a single human being has to decide between selfishness or selflessness, a battle continues to rage in the cosmos. (Of course, this includes dead humanoids living in the Outer Planes, so the chances of those who are currently enjoying the fruits of Heaven deciding to completely reject Good, and thereby cause Heaven to cease to exist, are pretty slim.)



You are never required to offer quarter, though you're supposed to give quarter when it's genuinely requested.

So if you can kill them before they have a chance to ask you not to kill them, it's okay not to wonder whether they wanted you to not kill them? Seems pretty Templarish to me. "Remember men, if you give them a moment to catch their breath, they might beg for mercy, so take no chances and put them down in the first split-second." (Which sort of makes sense if the objective is to avoid feeling guilty, rather than to avoid actually committing an atrocious act for which you should feel guilt.)


Non-evil undead may not even trigger detect evil (note the fuzziness of this particular rule as we discussed above) but if they do, the undead in question is almost certainly better of dead-dead than undead.

The entire Necropolitan civilization, to say nothing of any number of liches (including the good, positive-energy liches that run elven civilization in Faerun and possibly Eberron), would take strong exception to this attitude.

Zelphas
2012-10-21, 11:05 PM
If I may jump into this discussion about whether or not Outsiders can change their alignment without changing their essence, I think the thing is that people are looking at the creatures in two different ways. Willpell, Your argument is that the Outsiders are essentially emanations of the struggles of alignment on the Material Plane, and as such are totally focused on upholding and continuing their "ideal", am I right? Everyone who's arguing against that is coming from the viewpoint that each Outsider is an individual being, with hopes and desires beyond what is "programmed" in their essence, is that correct?

If I'm completely off, I apologize. I'm still kinda new at this.

To tie this back to the thread, I'm actually going to play an outsider Paladin character in an upcoming campaign. He was a Hedon (homebrew the DM made up, essentially a denizen of the Realm of Nightmares), and as such was Chaotic Evil. He polymorphed into human form to infiltrate a holy society, and ended up being selected as a paladin. (I'm guessing this doesn't work by RAW, but both I and the DM liked the concept, so we're trying it.) He eventually switched to Lawful Good, and has taken on his mask in all respects, wanting only to heal others and remain quietly living on the Material Plane. Reading this argument gave me a new dimension on this character's inner conflict, so thank you for that.

I'm sorry if I got a bit off-topic. I'm hoping this character doesn't go "Knight-Templarish"; if you guys see any red flags, could you let me know? Thanks.

hamishspence
2012-10-22, 01:07 AM
Non-evil clerics serving evil gods are still serving evil gods and are definitely something to be stopped. Unless you're in a city where capturing them and handing them over to an authority is reasonably possible, stop = kill. You are never required to offer quarter, though you're supposed to give quarter when it's genuinely requested.


In many settings, Evil churches are tolerated in Neutral societies- if they're reasonably well behaved.

willpell
2012-10-22, 01:25 AM
In many settings, Evil churches are tolerated in Neutral societies- if they're reasonably well behaved.

Yes, and I love that. It ties nicely into the fact that humanity is not a "usually good" race; we all have Evil within us, and often fear Good because it judges and condemns a part of ourselves that we dont' know how to get rid of. I apply very different standards in the case of beings that lack Humanity's origins and complexity. Gods, outsiders and so forth are part of the very definition of Good and Evil; their essence must remain pure and inviolate, as they both influence and are influenced by humanity's perception of the principles they represent.


Willpell, Your argument is that the Outsiders are essentially emanations of the struggles of alignment on the Material Plane, and as such are totally focused on upholding and continuing their "ideal", am I right? Everyone who's arguing against that is coming from the viewpoint that each Outsider is an individual being, with hopes and desires beyond what is "programmed" in their essence, is that correct?

Precisely. I don't consider an outsider to be just "a creature", as independent-minded as an elf or a dragon; an angel is a sentient piece of Heaven walking around and doing only that which is Heaven's will. I get that this is kind of incompatible with letting a player play one of those beings, but that's not really terribly possible anyway, as they tend to be hugely powerful with tons of RHD and insane numbers of SLAs that give them a high LA. It can be done, but awkwardly, and with little ability for players to influence the build, so I don't tend to consider it a good idea.

hamishspence
2012-10-22, 06:18 AM
Angels fall, demons rise. At least from Planescape onward.

While usually there's a change of subtype (Triel the Archon becoming Baalzebul the Devil) - not always.

hewhosaysfish
2012-10-22, 06:40 AM
Hardly; they just have to lose the subtype in the process of converting. An Erinyes isn't a celestial anymore; she's a devil.

How does a celestial "convert" to being a fiend in your setting? The Paradise Lost answer would be to say that if they sin grievously then they "fall" and become a fiend... but if celestials are constitutionally incapable of doing wrong then that can't happen.


I disagree. Without certainty, you cannot act, and inaction is boring. With certainty, you know what can in fact be done. If I'm to place my life in someone's hands, I need to know absolutely and unquestionably that they can be trusted; otherwise they remain a potential enemy and I must be on guard around them, but cannot kill them because they're not known to be actively plotting my doom either. So where there is no Good and no Evil, there can only be paranoia, mistrust, and restlessness.

No offense but that is a ridiculously hyperbolic statement.
You yourself pointed out on the previous page that being completely unable to scan other people to detect their moral leanings is "exactly the same situation as in reality".
Are people in the real world paralyzed by uncertainty because the don't have any magic they can use to check that their friends, neighbours and coworkers aren't homicidal maniac?

And just because Detect Evil returns a false positive with the small percentage of redeemed fiends doesn't mean that it's useless. You can still scan humanoids, celestials, magic items, badgers and empty rooms with it and be certain that if you get a positive result then something is up.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-10-22, 07:32 AM
Hardly; they just have to lose the subtype in the process of converting. An Erinyes isn't a celestial anymore; she's a devil. Changing alignment also changes species, if you're an outsider; thusly, the Succubus Paladin could exist as an individual, but she would have stopped being a succubus, becoming some roughly analogous form of Archon or Angel, and thus her powers would change (notably she'd no longer be able to smooch anyone to death and then make them rise as a wight). My setting does include direct analogues to succubi in all of the Chaotic and Evil alignments (sexual themes are big in my world), while for Lawgood it'd be a less direct analogue, but angels in general tend to be beautiful so it's not too much of a stretch to think you could find a match. This is all homebrew. If it works for you, that's great, but it doesn't mean anything to a discussion based on the RAW and the cannon lore. I'll give it this much; it's an interesting, if simplified take on the matter.




I disagree. Without certainty, you cannot act, and inaction is boring. With certainty, you know what can in fact be done. If I'm to place my life in someone's hands, I need to know absolutely and unquestionably that they can be trusted; otherwise they remain a potential enemy and I must be on guard around them, but cannot kill them because they're not known to be actively plotting my doom either. So where there is no Good and no Evil, there can only be paranoia, mistrust, and restlessness. This is just absurd. You don't need good and evil to get a clear picture of who your enemies are, unless they're deliberately concealing the fact that they're your enemies. For a grand twist, good and evil being cosmic forces still doesn't prevent this. There's a difference between reasonable certainty and utter certainty, the former is cause for action, the latter is either boring if its always correct or fanatacism if it might be wrong.




All that is an interpretation of strict RAW which I disagree with, believing that strict RAW is an inexact model for reality and should not be taken so literally. Good is a cosmic force, but it is still Good, no question; an angel simply cannot just snap and go on a killing spree, nor can a demon just snap and *not* go on a killing spree, because in either case their entire nature and being is composed of and overwhelmed by only the sum total of their alignments. If that is not true, then Good and Evil are meaningless. They're two nations of mortal creatures fighting for their own survival or dominance; they exist only as reflections of the moral concepts that play out in the human(oid) world. If all living beings accepted that life was every-man-for-himself and social strictures were never trustworthy, Good and/or Law would simply cease to exist, and there would be no more Angels or Devils or Inevitables anymore. But as long as a single human being has to decide between selfishness or selflessness, a battle continues to rage in the cosmos. (Of course, this includes dead humanoids living in the Outer Planes, so the chances of those who are currently enjoying the fruits of Heaven deciding to completely reject Good, and thereby cause Heaven to cease to exist, are pretty slim.) It's not just an interpretation of RAW. It's also the cannon lore. Good and Evil existed before any sapient creature of any type, including outsider. The forces themselves created the gods and outsiders, who in turn created the prime and the mortal races that dwell there. If you read the fluff in the books, instead of just the crunch, it's all there. You are of course free to change it for your own setting and games, but that doesn't make it any less the cannon lore.





So if you can kill them before they have a chance to ask you not to kill them, it's okay not to wonder whether they wanted you to not kill them? Seems pretty Templarish to me. "Remember men, if you give them a moment to catch their breath, they might beg for mercy, so take no chances and put them down in the first split-second." (Which sort of makes sense if the objective is to avoid feeling guilty, rather than to avoid actually committing an atrocious act for which you should feel guilt.) That's a rather cynical interpretation of what I said. Of course they didn't want you to kill them. There's no need to wonder about that. Capture isn't always a viable option though. Why would you be expected to offer quarter when you have no reason to believe it would be offered if the situation were reversed. Good characters are supposed to be righteous and compassionate, but they're not expected to always throw all practical concerns to the wayside to always be absolute paragons of those ideas. If a creature is trying to kill you, it's not evil to try and kill him back, unless he surrenders when he realizes he's completely outmatched.




The entire Necropolitan civilization, to say nothing of any number of liches (including the good, positive-energy liches that run elven civilization in Faerun and possibly Eberron), would take strong exception to this attitude.
I said most not all. The baelnorns are a notable exception to the normal lich template and wouldn't even be undead had someone been aware of the deathless type. Standard liches and necropolitans are, each and every one, guilty of commiting at least one major act of evil; namely, participating in the ritual to become undead (both rituals require either evil acts or evil tools beyond the inherently evil act of creating undead.)

In many settings, Evil churches are tolerated in Neutral societies- if they're reasonably well behaved.

It's one thing for a society to tolerate those churches, it's quite another for adherents to good faiths to tolerate them. The local government has to ensure the safety of its people and the surrounding territory, having the evil church out in the open makes that easier. This doesn't change the fact that the church itself is acting toward evil ends if its following the dictates of its god. Thwarting the churches plans is generally a good idea, unless you have a common goal or enemy.

willpell
2012-10-22, 10:43 AM
How does a celestial "convert" to being a fiend in your setting? The Paradise Lost answer would be to say that if they sin grievously then they "fall" and become a fiend... but if celestials are constitutionally incapable of doing wrong then that can't happen.

I figure that the first time they commit even a mild grievance, it feels like they're tearing themselves apart inside, and usually that pain is enough to discourage them from pushing the envelope - it'd be like a human trying to burn / cut / rack-stretch / etc. themselves (all of which some humans do in fact do on purpose for any number of reasons, some of which might apply to an outsider). Mostly they're discouraged, but a few begin to find a repellent fascination - and are well on their way to mutating into the exact opposite of everything they've ever been, but only if they don't panick at these first signs and back away and beg for help (or, in Evil's case, perform their own "therapy" to make sure the screams of flayed children still give them that warm fuzzy feeling). If they go far enough in such explorations, it triggers changes in them, by which time they had best hope they're well away from their former fellows.

To me, this is good drama, whereas a big red guy with horns and a tail showing up outside an orphanage and saying "Hey kids, I've brought you Life Day Presents!" is not good drama, not even if the Pit Fiend in question has legitimately converted to the side of Good. If you expect to switch teams, you'd best be prepared to wear your new pals' uniform, and in an Outsider's case, the uniform is made of what passes for flesh, along with appropriate Sp and Su abilities to replace all the ones you previously had.


No offense but that is a ridiculously hyperbolic statement.

Yeah, I'm good with those.


You yourself pointed out on the previous page that being completely unable to scan other people to detect their moral leanings is "exactly the same situation as in reality".
Are people in the real world paralyzed by uncertainty because the don't have any magic they can use to check that their friends, neighbours and coworkers aren't homicidal maniac?

Only if they're as neurotic as me, apparently.


This is just absurd. You don't need good and evil to get a clear picture of who your enemies are, unless they're deliberately concealing the fact that they're your enemies.

That's exactly what they often do! Haven't you ever had your boss tell you what a good job you are doing, only to end up laid off a week later for no visible reason? Haven't you ever seen a hot chick (or dude) at a bar only to discover back at her (his) place that s/he is married, insane, STD-positive, or otherwise undesireable, and just lied to you to lure you in? How about advertising; that exists solely to convince you to pay more than it's worth for something you didn't want before you saw the ad in the first place. IMO, Deception is one of the chief traits of Evil anyway; IMC, entire races of Always Evil races have a big Evil plan consisting of "convince the forces of Good that Evil no longer exists, thus getting them to relax their guard, so they can be gradually convinced to behave Evilly themselves, until five hundred years from now they won't even remember what Good is". Seduction, corruption, treachery - all classic Evil. Good needs Detect Evil to have any hope of protecting itself, while Evil needs Detect Good to identify vulnerable marks.


For a grand twist, good and evil being cosmic forces still doesn't prevent this. There's a difference between reasonable certainty and utter certainty, the former is cause for action, the latter is either boring if its always correct or fanatacism if it might be wrong.

I don't agree with the boring part, and the creepiness of the fanaticism (with IRL parallels that I had best not discuss) is exactly why I'm such a hardliner on the topic. You don't get to claim that you're pure Good in my game unless you actually are - which doesn't mean that there's no dramatic conflict, because Good can be complicated and its scions don't always agree, and meanwhile Evil tries very hard to convince you that it's simply being "reasonable and pragmatic" by "murdering anyone who looks like they might be thinking about getting somewhere near your way" (obviously in more guarded language than that).


The forces themselves created the gods and outsiders, who in turn created the prime and the mortal races that dwell there. If you read the fluff in the books, instead of just the crunch, it's all there. You are of course free to change it for your own setting and games, but that doesn't make it any less the cannon lore.

Eh, well, knowing that I exist IRL and that objective Good and Evil apparently don't makes me disinclined to think that lore satisfactory.


Why would you be expected to offer quarter when you have no reason to believe it would be offered if the situation were reversed.

Because Good is about being the bigger person, taking the risks, and making the sacrifices so others don't have to (within reason). If you spare your enemy's life, you give him reason to wonder why he is your enemy; if you make it clear he's dead no matter what, he's no reason not to go all-out trying to kill you first. Forgiveness and mercy are a propaganda weapons in Good's arsenal, which are the main reasons why some people convert to Good, just as people's inherent tendency toward selfishness and compromise are why they sometimes fall to Evil. It's the basic mechanism of the alignments; Good makes and accepts donations, Evil steals and cheats and assumes it'll be cheated and stolen from. (I'm aware that some see theft and cheating as more Chaotic than Evil, but my version of Law/Chaos is generally more about methodology and motivation than actual actions; theft is like killing IMO, in that it can be done in a way that's consistent with Good, but by default is always Evil if no justifying circumstances exist, because it inherently says your desire to have a thing is more important than it's current owner's possible need to keep it, and thus it's an act of selfishness and antisociality. The fact that I equate Chaos with Good, and Law with Evil, far more than D&D default does has a lot to do with all these interpretations.)


Good characters are supposed to be righteous and compassionate, but they're not expected to always throw all practical concerns to the wayside to always be absolute paragons of those ideas.

Of course not, if they're mortal (especially low-level) and fallible. And even a solar might kill a balor, since they're comparable in power. But a solar killing a blackguard with 12 total character levels is just pathetic. As long as the hero-type is at least vaguely safe, he has an obligation to accept a certain amount of risk as the necessary cost of making the world a better place.


If a creature is trying to kill you, it's not evil to try and kill him back

No, but it is regrettable. And in my game, you roleplay that regret sincerely, or you risk being dinged for the evil mindset of eagerly accepting death as a solution to your problems.


unless he surrenders when he realizes he's completely outmatched.

See my previous point about him going all-out if he's no reason to expect you'll spare him. He may not be accurately able to gauge how safe he is; desperation is a very common trait among the Evil, and that's part of why Good has an obligation to use its strength to endure assaults, rather than pre-emptively prevent them with death, in the hopes of exhausting the attacker's rage and persuading him to consider a better way.


Standard liches and necropolitans are, each and every one, guilty of commiting at least one major act of evil; namely, participating in the ritual to become undead (both rituals require either evil acts or evil tools beyond the inherently evil act of creating undead.)

The Crucimigration is voluntary, as I understand it; the only person that you commit an evil deed on is yourself, by committing (slow and painful) suicide. Then again I haven't read all of Libris Mortis so I may be missing a detail there. As for the lich, well there all I can say is that I thought the "the ritual is UNSPEAKABLY EVIL" was a tacked-on cliche that's really only there to enforce the default (read: simplistic) genre of the corebooks. Aside from the IMO-dumb "undead = evil" thing, there's really no sane reason why being a lich has to be any more evil than wearing a Ring of Regeneration while being an Elan (the EPH race, not the OOTS bard).

hamishspence
2012-10-22, 10:57 AM
It's one thing for a society to tolerate those churches, it's quite another for adherents to good faiths to tolerate them. The local government has to ensure the safety of its people and the surrounding territory, having the evil church out in the open makes that easier. This doesn't change the fact that the church itself is acting toward evil ends if its following the dictates of its god. Thwarting the churches plans is generally a good idea, unless you have a common goal or enemy.

Sometimes the Plan is simply "make the deity more powerful by Spreading The Word".

In a Faerun seaport, clerics of the Evil sea deity Umberlee are likely to be tolerated (perhaps even by paladins), because if they were attacked enough, Umberlee's wrath would come down on the whole port in the form of big waves.

Now if the Church of Umberlee starts secretly abducting and sacrificing people, and you find out- then you have a justification to go after them.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-10-22, 11:06 AM
@willpell

Regardless of whether you like or accept the lore, and the RAW that supports it, it's there and it's not changing. You can houserule all you want, and if your players are cool with it, that's fine. The D&D police aren't going to kick in your door tasers flailing.

Frankly though, I find the idea that outsiders having no free will isn't a good fit for how I like to play things. Then notion that my evil beguiler could talk an angel into falling from grace is an appealing one, that loses a lot of its charm if that angel will spontaneously morph into a hideous fiend upon my beguiler's success. I do favor a bit more machiavellian politics in my games than may be normal though.

Fanatacism's creepiness and the associated tragedy of a fanatic backing the wrong side are things I'd rather not throw out either.

I actually -do- agree that the ritual for becoming a lich would be easier to swallow as inherently evil if they'd fleshed it out a bit more. The ritual of crucimigration though, requires the use of magically prepared evil nails. Using evil tools = evil act, creating undead = evil act, becoming a necropolitan = evil act. Like any sapient creature though, both liches and necropolitans are perfectly capable of being as non-evil as they want.

Btw, does anyone else always think of ice-cream when they read the word necropolitan?

willpell
2012-10-22, 11:26 AM
magically prepared evil nails.

*facepalm* Well, that's two instances of completely superfluous evil I'll be throwing out of my CW.


Btw, does anyone else always think of ice-cream when they read the word necropolitan?

Never did before, but now I won't be able to stop. Now that's Evil. Or at least [Evil]. :smallbiggrin:

Lord_Gareth
2012-10-22, 11:27 AM
I actually -do- agree that the ritual for becoming a lich would be easier to swallow as inherently evil if they'd fleshed it out a bit more. The ritual of crucimigration though, requires the use of magically prepared evil nails. Using evil tools = evil act, creating undead = evil act, becoming a necropolitan = evil act. Like any sapient creature though, both liches and necropolitans are perfectly capable of being as non-evil as they want.

It should be noted that the creation of an undead being is not actually explicitly labeled as an evil action, though the spells that do so usually have the [Evil] descriptor. Creating an undead that has to prey upon the living is, of course, complicated at the barest minimum (can it feed on animals? Will it?) but there are actually cruelty-free options for creating and maintaining undead beings. Ghouls, for example, only require dead flesh to survive, with no stipulations as to how dead, for how long, or from what. Bring livestock along with your ghoulish army (or make a village of ghoulish cattle-ranchers) and you are officially cruelty-free and morally okay.

hamishspence
2012-10-22, 11:33 AM
Very few actions are "listed as evil actions" in core- you pretty much have to turn to splatbooks like BoVD, Fiendish Codex 2, BoED, etc to get references to acts as "evil"or "wrong" or "corrupt"

One of the few "explicitly evil" acts in core is Channelling Negative Energy (of the Rebuke/Command Undead type).

BoVD is pretty explicit though:

On Undead:
"Creating them is one of the most heinous crimes against the world that a character can commit. Even if they are commanded to do something good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place"

Frozen_Feet
2012-10-22, 11:33 AM
I find all comments about "free will" pretty hilarious. Free will means ability to choose from options you have - nothing about the concept requires everyone to have the same range of options. Humans are not "free" to feel all emotions and sensations possible for animalkind, and vice versa. Just because we're restricted in one area or another doesn't mean we lack "free will", period - we just lack that particular freedom. Against this background, why should incarnations of metaphysical forces have the same spectrum of freedoms as humans?

Kelb_Panthera
2012-10-22, 11:34 AM
It should be noted that the creation of an undead being is not actually explicitly labeled as an evil action, though the spells that do so usually have the [Evil] descriptor. Creating an undead that has to prey upon the living is, of course, complicated at the barest minimum (can it feed on animals? Will it?) but there are actually cruelty-free options for creating and maintaining undead beings. Ghouls, for example, only require dead flesh to survive, with no stipulations as to how dead, for how long, or from what. Bring livestock along with your ghoulish army (or make a village of ghoulish cattle-ranchers) and you are officially cruelty-free and morally okay.


Very few actions are "listed as evil actions" in core- you pretty much have to turn to splatbooks like BoVD, Fiendish Codex 2, BoED, etc to get references to acts as "evil"or "wrong" or "corrupt"

One of the few "explicitly evil" acts in core is Channelling Negative Energy (of the Rebuke/Command Undead type).

BoVD is pretty explicit though:

On Undead:
"Creating them is one of the most heinous crimes against the world that a character can commit. Even if they are commanded to do something good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place"

Before we derail this one too much more, that conversation has already been started.

Gimme a minute and I'll link for anyone interested in the topic.

Click here for more on the discussion of undeath's relationship to evil. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257643)

Lord_Gareth
2012-10-22, 11:37 AM
I find all comments about "free will" pretty hilarious. Free will means ability to choose from options you have - nothing about the concept requires everyone to have the same range of options. Humans are not "free" to feel all emotions and sensations possible for animalkind, and vice versa. Just because we're restricted in one area or another doesn't mean we lack "free will", period - we just lack that particular freedom. Against this background, why should incarnations of metaphysical forces have the same spectrum of freedoms as humans?

Partially because it makes for a more interesting story. Partially because determinism is annoying and bad for stories. But mostly because that's what's already established in canon and, getting even better, has been proven to be awesome as hell. Falls-From-Grace is one of my favorite characters in existence, and Asmodeus is all the more chilling as a reminder that even the greatest servants of Celestia are not free from corruption of purpose. Attempting to reconcile impaired freedom of choice with these characters cheapens one, the other, or both.

hamishspence
2012-10-22, 11:41 AM
The paladin's code mentions that they "punish those who harm or threaten innocents"

Question is- are they obliged, via "respect for life" - to keep it proportionate?

And how much evidence of "harming or threatening innocents" do they need?

Suppose a characters' Evil acts don't involve harming the innocent- say, they're a particularly cruel lawman or prison guard, who is at the same time very diligent in making sure their victims are villains?

Frozen_Feet
2012-10-22, 12:07 PM
Lord_Gareth: I know current D&D canon has its exceptions. Can't comment on on how "awesome" it is due to never having played Planescape, but Asmoudeus is a fairly generic Devil fgure. :smalltongue:

But I object to your statements that it's "more interesting", or that "determinism is bad for a story". These sound to me like statements in a vacuum - it's true you can't have some stories when freedom of choice is restricted, but that doesn't mean the stories you can tell are bad, nor does it mean that the stories you can tell are worthwhile.

Personally, I've often found it more interesting when non-human characters have been portrayed with non-humans minds. Silent Planet by C.S. Lewis is a favorite in this regard, with alien species who don't have concept or experience of evil.

Lord_Gareth
2012-10-22, 12:12 PM
Lord_Gareth: I know current D&D canon has its exceptions. Can't comment on on how "awesome" it is due to never having played Planescape, but Asmoudeus is a fairly generic Devil fgure. :smalltongue:

But I object to your statements that it's "more interesting", or that "determinism is bad for a story". These sound to me like statements in a vacuum - it's true you can't have some stories when freedom of choice is restricted, but that doesn't mean the stories you can tell are bad, nor does it mean that the stories you can tell are worthwhile.

Personally, I've often found it more interesting when non-human characters have been portrayed with non-humans minds. Silent Planet by C.S. Lewis is a favorite in this regard, with alien species who don't have concept or experience of evil.

Let me rephrase - determinism is nearly universally bad for roleplaying game stories.

But to address the 'non-human minds' thing - it's certainly possible for the two to co-exist very well, even to the point where [Good]-aligned beings are more disturbing than comforting. I recall a game I was DMing where the party met up with a celestial that had been sent to deliver them a dire warning and in the process permitted the massacre of a village by orcs. When they asked why he didn't stop to save the villagers, he explained that his mission was more important, and that furthermore the villagers are in a better place. It's not that their lives were meaningless to him. It's that he felt that their existence as Petitioners was a form of life.

Heliomance
2012-10-22, 06:47 PM
Regarding the Lich ritual: 2e went into quite some detail on it, and it is indeed thoroughly evil, involving such things as the blood of a unicorn poisoned to death with very specific mixtures of poisons and so on. Unfortunately, I can't find my copy of the Encyclopaedia Magica at the moment, so I can't copy the text here.

Agrippa
2012-10-22, 06:57 PM
Regarding the Lich ritual: 2e went into quite some detail on it, and it is indeed thoroughly evil, involving such things as the blood of a unicorn poisoned to death with very specific mixtures of poisons and so on. Unfortunately, I can't find my copy of the Encyclopaedia Magica at the moment, so I can't copy the text here.

How about a link (http://www.textfiles.com/sf/lich.txt)?

hamlet
2012-10-22, 07:28 PM
Regarding the Lich ritual: 2e went into quite some detail on it, and it is indeed thoroughly evil, involving such things as the blood of a unicorn poisoned to death with very specific mixtures of poisons and so on. Unfortunately, I can't find my copy of the Encyclopaedia Magica at the moment, so I can't copy the text here.

Indeed.

General consensus was that, while some undead might not be evil (skeletons and zombies being essentially automotons), the actual creation of undead was evil itself, and the creation of a lich was unspeakably so given what was involved in the ritual.

navar100
2012-10-22, 07:33 PM
I don't agree. "Four" is the name that all English-speakers have agreed upon to represent the quantity produced by adding two and two; if they all decide that they want to stop calling that quantity "four" and start calling it "seven", that is their choice. The actual quantity won't change, and they'll be able to prove that for themselves easily enough just by manipulating small numbers of objects. But the decision of what term should refer to that quantity - that is entirely a construct of human thought, and such constructs are no more immutable than humans decide to pretend they are.

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/05/23/lincoln-quote-sourced-calfs-tail-not-dogs-tail/

willpell
2012-10-23, 01:39 AM
BoVD is pretty explicit though:

Yes, and it is also widely regarded as being silly and better-disregarded on the topic of what counts as pyoooor-eeeeevil-mwahaha. As for the 2E lich ritual, well, that's 2E; I see no reason to assume the canon remains unchanged in the case of 3E liches which were created (out of game) by players not aware of such specifications. This being fantasy, we can easily decide that becoming a lich doesn't require dead unicorn blood, or any other eeeeeevil components. And without such explicit notation, the 3E lich version displays no particular reason why it has to be evil, so as GM I feel justified in allowing it not to be.

Heliomance
2012-10-23, 02:43 AM
How about a link (http://www.textfiles.com/sf/lich.txt)?

That is absolutely terribly presented. It's confusing, doesn't explain what the potion is for, and is all around unhelpful. The passage in the actual sourcebooks is much better.

That does give an inkling of what's involved, though.

ReaderAt2046
2012-10-23, 11:48 AM
Hardly; they just have to lose the subtype in the process of converting. An Erinyes isn't a celestial anymore; she's a devil. Changing alignment also changes species, if you're an outsider; thusly, the Succubus Paladin could exist as an individual, but she would have stopped being a succubus, becoming some roughly analogous form of Archon or Angel, and thus her powers would change (notably she'd no longer be able to smooch anyone to death and then make them rise as a wight). My setting does include direct analogues to succubi in all of the Chaotic and Evil alignments (sexual themes are big in my world), while for Lawgood it'd be a less direct analogue, but angels in general tend to be beautiful so it's not too much of a stretch to think you could find a match.


Please accept 20 AWESOME POINTS for pointing this out!

Fax Celestis
2012-10-23, 11:54 AM
Changing alignment also changes species, if you're an outsider

Please back this up mechanically.

Sith_Happens
2012-10-23, 12:06 PM
Please back this up mechanically.

If you haven't noticed, he's been doing a "let me tell you about my campaign setting" for a page now.

Fax Celestis
2012-10-23, 12:15 PM
If you haven't noticed, he's been doing a "let me tell you about my campaign setting" for a page now.

To be honest, I haven't. I've sort of glossed over his posts as being largely posturing about how how awesome his house rules are.

I don't care how awesome they are. House rules make a poor basis for conversation, as they're different for everyone. The only thing that makes sense to discuss is how things work for everyone, barring exceptions (read: house rules), so I would ask that this conversation remain within the bounds of RAW.

tbok1992
2012-10-23, 12:44 PM
Sort of off topic with this alignment-based slapfight, but what do you think of the 4e "You only have to be the alignment of your god" paladins? Personally, I love the idea, as it opens up a lot of new possibilities for villains.

Some examples could include a Paladin of Torog sealed in armor with the spikes facing inward; constantly bleeding, a paladin of Zehir who always poisons his blade before a fight, a paladin of Tiamat who dresses in golden jewel-bedecked armor and talks and acts an awful lot like fantasy John Galt*, or a paladin of Grumuush who goes into battle naked; protected only by his god's will; his comically oversized axe; and his sheer crazy.

*As you can tell, I am not much of a fan of Ayn Rand or Objectivism.

Sith_Happens
2012-10-23, 01:47 PM
Sort of off topic with this alignment-based slapfight,

Technically it's the alignment slap fight that's off-topic. The thread is in fact supposed to be about paladins.

Heliomance
2012-10-23, 07:35 PM
Sort of off topic with this alignment-based slapfight, but what do you think of the 4e "You only have to be the alignment of your god" paladins? Personally, I love the idea, as it opens up a lot of new possibilities for villains.

Some examples could include a Paladin of Torog sealed in armor with the spikes facing inward; constantly bleeding, a paladin of Zehir who always poisons his blade before a fight, a paladin of Tiamat who dresses in golden jewel-bedecked armor and talks and acts an awful lot like fantasy John Galt*, or a paladin of Grumuush who goes into battle naked; protected only by his god's will; his comically oversized axe; and his sheer crazy.

*As you can tell, I am not much of a fan of Ayn Rand or Objectivism.

No, I like Paladins as paragons of goodness. I might be persuaded to allow NG or possibly even CG paladins, but any paladins playing in my games had better be as Good as you get.

willpell
2012-10-24, 01:06 AM
Please accept 20 AWESOME POINTS for pointing this out!

Good to know I'm not alone with my theories. But as Fax and Sith have pointed out, this is not strict RAW, it's my own interpretation (not so much "in my campaign world" as "in virtually any campaign world when I was running it", unless I had a very strong reason to use the IMO-wrongbad RAW instead).


I would ask that this conversation remain within the bounds of RAW.

And I would deny that request. This isn't a strict-rules thread, this is speculation and interpretation, and I have a right to represent my point of view therewithin.


Sort of off topic with this alignment-based slapfight, but what do you think of the 4e "You only have to be the alignment of your god" paladins?

This is more restrictive than it needs to be, as paladins aren't even required to have a god. I prefer to stick with the main paladin plus the three alternate paladins in Unearthed Arcana (tweaked appropriately); having paladins in all four non-neutral alingments, and druids in all five neutral ones, seems fitting to me, as paladins are attached to ideology while druids take a more realistic and nuanced approach.


Some examples could include a Paladin of Torog sealed in armor with the spikes facing inward; constantly bleeding, a paladin of Zehir who always poisons his blade before a fight, a paladin of Tiamat who dresses in golden jewel-bedecked armor and talks and acts an awful lot like fantasy John Galt*, or a paladin of Grumuush who goes into battle naked; protected only by his god's will; his comically oversized axe; and his sheer crazy.

These are neat characters, but they are not paladins. They'd be more like members of the Divine Champion (I think that's the word?) prestige class from Complete Divine, which IIRC you qualify for by taking seven levels of Fighter and a couple cross-class Religion Knowledge ranks, and that's it. Simple way of kicking butt for your particular Lord; everything beyond that is flavoring to taste. (Also I don't know why you flagged Tiamat for the jewel-encrusting, as she's generally portrayed as being more about destruction than about appreciation of wealth. Exactly which god I pegged this description on would depend on the campaign setting, but I think someone who is more hypocritical like Zarus or Erathis would work better than someone who has the raw power required to be an unapologetic monster.)

tbok1992
2012-10-24, 01:32 AM
(Also I don't know why you flagged Tiamat for the jewel-encrusting, as she's generally portrayed as being more about destruction than about appreciation of wealth. Exactly which god I pegged this description on would depend on the campaign setting, but I think someone who is more hypocritical like Zarus or Erathis would work better than someone who has the raw power required to be an unapologetic monster.)

Actually, Tiamat is the God of Greed in the 4e Points of Light setting, and I'm most familiar with her in that one, given that I started playing in 2009 with 4e. And I'd picture a Divine Champion of Erathis as more like Judge Dredd with a polearm.

willpell
2012-10-24, 01:47 AM
Actually, Tiamat is the God of Greed in the 4e Points of Light setting, and I'm most familiar with her in that one, given that I started playing in 2009 with 4e.

Oh. Gotcha.


And I'd picture a Divine Champion of Erathis as more like Judge Dredd with a polearm.

I'd attach that more to a nastier version of St. Cuthbert myself. Of course the real way to handle Judge Dredd isn't with a god at all, it's with an Inevitable.

Lord Raziere
2012-10-24, 02:42 AM
Bah. To get any Paladin you want, all you have to do is just change a few words around and you can get pretty much any kind of Paladin you can imagine. Crunch =/= Fluff after all.

So feel free to play a Chaotic Pineapple Alignment paladin with the Smite Fire ability. Nothing will drastically change, just your allies and enemies. The whole argument is silly, since anyone who actually likes playing default paladin will play default paladin, and anyone who doesn't, easily play said paladin with changes so easy that anyone could do it- and anyone who wants to ruin the fun of somebody else who wants to do so, isn't rated highly in my book.

willpell
2012-10-24, 04:02 AM
Bah. To get any Paladin you want, all you have to do is just change a few words around and you can get pretty much any kind of Paladin you can imagine. Crunch =/= Fluff after all.

So feel free to play a Chaotic Pineapple Alignment paladin with the Smite Fire ability. Nothing will drastically change, just your allies and enemies. The whole argument is silly, since anyone who actually likes playing default paladin will play default paladin, and anyone who doesn't, easily play said paladin with changes so easy that anyone could do it- and anyone who wants to ruin the fun of somebody else who wants to do so, isn't rated highly in my book.

By your logic anyone who wants to can play an axe-murdering angel or a wizard whose only spell is "hit things with a hammer", and anyone who tells them they're doing it wrong is just ruining other people's fun. Some of us actually like it when things mean things.

Sith_Happens
2012-10-24, 04:19 AM
a wizard whose only spell is "hit things with a hammer"

I am so playing this now.:smalltongue:

Heliomance
2012-10-24, 04:21 AM
I am so playing this now.:smalltongue:

Have you not seen the thread about the Barbarian who thinks he's a Wizard that was around a while ago?

Thinker
2012-10-24, 06:51 AM
And I would deny that request. This isn't a strict-rules thread, this is speculation and interpretation, and I have a right to represent my point of view therewithin.

The OP was asking for speculation and interpretation with regard to the rules. Your point of view is based on a different set of views that does not apply to the OP. The way you were discussing things made it seem like you were asserting your house rules as the way things are for everyone. :smallyuk:

Sith_Happens
2012-10-24, 06:53 AM
Have you not seen the thread about the Barbarian who thinks he's a Wizard that was around a while ago?

I most certainly have, but I was thinking more along the lines of an actual wizard who exclusively casts the various spells that could be roughly described as "magically smack someone with a blunt object."

Kelb_Panthera
2012-10-24, 07:42 AM
Bah. To get any Paladin you want, all you have to do is just change a few words around and you can get pretty much any kind of Paladin you can imagine. Crunch =/= Fluff after all.

So feel free to play a Chaotic Pineapple Alignment paladin with the Smite Fire ability. Nothing will drastically change, just your allies and enemies. The whole argument is silly, since anyone who actually likes playing default paladin will play default paladin, and anyone who doesn't, easily play said paladin with changes so easy that anyone could do it- and anyone who wants to ruin the fun of somebody else who wants to do so, isn't rated highly in my book.

This gives me the impression you either don't understand the origin of the word paladin or you don't care that the word has meaning beyond being the label for a class.

I'm perfectly comfortable with the notion of making 8 more classes that are mechanically very similar to a paladin, but I'm not at all comfortable calling all nine classes "paladin." I'm also less than thrilled with the idea of all nine being able to take paladin only options, few though there may be.

Thinker
2012-10-24, 08:00 AM
This gives me the impression you either don't understand the origin of the word paladin or you don't care that the word has meaning beyond being the label for a class.

A palace official? (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=paladin)

Maybe you mean one of the twelve peers of Roland instead?

Maybe you're referring to the later change to the peers of Charlemagne?

Or the leaders of the armies under Frederick V in the 30 years war?

Kelb_Panthera
2012-10-24, 09:31 AM
A palace official? (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=paladin)

Maybe you mean one of the twelve peers of Roland instead?

Maybe you're referring to the later change to the peers of Charlemagne?

Or the leaders of the armies under Frederick V in the 30 years war?

Them's the ones.

In their day and culture they were heroes and paragons of virtue, or at least percieved as such.

History may paint a darker picture now. I'm not the biggest history buff but it seems to me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, that the word paladin has connotations of heroics bound up in honor and chivalry.

Discarding that just doesn't sit right, savvy? Nevermind the D&D legacy from earlier editions.

Lord Raziere
2012-10-24, 09:44 AM
By your logic anyone who wants to can play an axe-murdering angel or a wizard whose only spell is "hit things with a hammer", and anyone who tells them they're doing it wrong is just ruining other people's fun. Some of us actually like it when things mean things.

Let see……I have made at least two settings where a wizard's power can literally be "Hammer" and so solve everything through the creative application of hammer magic, and angel who has experienced a fall from grace, thus becoming a fallen angel or an angel who has gone insane from their job being too stressful sounds very interesting to me: what would make the angel become axe-murdering? alternatively the angel could be a moral extremist, and could might kill anyone who doesn't meet incredibly high standards of "good"!

thanks for the ideas. also: Nobilis can easily make both, and Exalted has 300 wizards whose only spell is hit things with hammer, yet those wizards are awesome. cause your not just hitting things with hammer, your hitting things with hammer really really awesomely.

as for connotations of heroic of chivalry and honor and whatnot- its not being a paladin that gives you that. if you really want to play such a character, trying playing one without the paladin class instead, roleplay the whole thing out as best you can, if your character is truly a honorable chivalrous knight in shining armor, he doesn't need divine powers or out of character mechanics to enforce that- just his motivations, his character, his personality, his principles. such a character is far more rewarding in my opinion.

Lord_Gareth
2012-10-24, 09:54 AM
Discarding that just doesn't sit right, savvy? Nevermind the D&D legacy from earlier editions.

Oh well certainly, but I think the general idea is that it's more important that a character acts with honor and chivalry to be called a paladin, than that paladins act with honor and chivalry if you get the distinction. I have no trouble referring to Crusaders, well-played Fighters, Clerics, or even Rogues as 'Paladins' if they fit the archetype. The natural reverse of this is that the class named "Paladin" doesn't necessarily HAVE to adhere to that archetype as long as you don't mind being CALLED a paladin.

Thinker
2012-10-24, 10:57 AM
Them's the ones.

In their day and culture they were heroes and paragons of virtue, or at least percieved as such.

History may paint a darker picture now. I'm not the biggest history buff but it seems to me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, that the word paladin has connotations of heroics bound up in honor and chivalry.

Discarding that just doesn't sit right, savvy? Nevermind the D&D legacy from earlier editions.

The paladin stories were circulating starting in the 9th Century (and some stories were circulating earlier, but were ascribed to other people), but the chivalry wasn't added until the 12th century. This is about the same time that stories about King Arthur and his knights became popular. To refer to them as paragons of virtue in their day is akin to the Romanticism of the Age of Sail today. The paladins of Frederick V had no such virtues attached to them.

Based on it's history, I think that anything called Paladin would simply have to be a champion for some cause and not just the cause of LG. Then again, D&D class names have never been very good at depicting their historical counterparts.

hamlet
2012-10-24, 11:21 AM
Based on it's history, I think that anything called Paladin would simply have to be a champion for some cause and not just the cause of LG. Then again, D&D class names have never been very good at depicting their historical counterparts.

They were never supposed to depict their historical inspirations except in the very broadest of terms.

A fighter (originally known as "Fighting Man") is not supposed to be just a Western European soldier man at arms. He's an extremely broad archetype for all people who pick up weapons and fight their enemies that way.

A paladin is not meant to accurately depict the 12 Peers, but the broad archetype of a paragon of justice, virtue, and integrity rolled up in a militant package. Hell, as I see it, the whole "paladins must worship a god" thing is a later add on that's really not entirely supported by the text. Every game I've run has had paladins as specifically outside of any real organized religion. They don't get their power from the gods, they get their power from their convictions.

When you get right down to the nitty gritty, the original character classes (which were originally Fighting Man, Magic User, and Cleric) were intended to echo things like Fafrehd and Mouser and Elric, not history, cinema, or literature/mythology.

Things have changed, though, but we still cart around the baggage of the original intent and, as far as I can see, won't ever really be rid of it as long as you stick to D&D.