PDA

View Full Version : Alignment Drops



The Fury
2013-05-17, 09:32 PM
Y'know when your character does something heinous and the DM tells you that your character has gone from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil?
Character Alignment hasn't been anything very strictly enforced in most games I've played in. I guess most of the time the moral standards of the player party are never really challenged, that is we rarely have to make difficult decisions
That said, in the Pathfinder game I'm playing in now our characters' moral standards get tested a lot. There have already been a few times where a difficult challenge could be made easier by doing something reprehensible, like necromancy, murder, kidnapping or what have you. So far I think everyone in the party has suffered at least one alignment drop, my character suffered two, (briefly.)
Now, mind I'm not complaining. In fact I think it's really cool that the DM is actually holding our characters to their ethics and we actually get to make these tough decisions. Also, none of us ever suffer alignment drops unless what we do is pretty unambiguously bad.

So how 'bout you, the rest of the Playground? Have you ever played in a game where alignment drops happened? What was your experience like?

yougi
2013-05-18, 12:15 AM
I've often threatened my players with alignment drops, and it's always been enough. I've made both a Samurai and a Paladin fall (not the same thing as alignment drop, but related), the first for fleeing and letting another PC to be sacrificed for their sake, and the second for lying to save his life.

As a player, I've been in a few situations where I had to take ethically hard decisions, but I've never received an alignment change for them. However, I tend to take non-optimal decisions quite often if that's what the character would do: for example, my most recent character was a wizard who could not accept for knowledge to be destroyed, and would not let his teammates kill an enemy wizard before we found a way to gain all of his knowledge. Of course the enemy escaped and came back to hurt us, but... It was still preferable to my character for him to escape so the knowledge would not be destroyed.

Eurus
2013-05-18, 12:29 AM
I've never been in a game where alignment was a big deal. That's not to say ethics weren't significant, just that it wasn't tied to a metagame label of "lawful good" or "chaotic evil".

But there were external standards, sometimes. One of my DMs made a point of it, mainly with divine-powered characters. It was a feature of the setting that divine magic exclusively came from the gods, not from faith itself or abstract portfolios, and that the gods paid close attention to their chosen. So clerics, druids, and paladins had to be rather careful to follow the proper dogma and philosophies. Several times, characters were hit with warning dreams or visions urging them to "correct" their ways. One cleric character had a personal arc that involved him deciding to forsake his god and falling for a few days, before regaining his powers through alternate sources, so that was cool.

PersonMan
2013-05-18, 08:15 AM
As long as there's an understand that alignment is just a label for your actions, I'd have no problem with my alignment flying all over the place because of the system's weird views of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. If I'm with a group that says "hey you're evil now, why aren't you killing that orphan?" I'd probably have problems with it.

I've never really been in a game where alignment has been more than something I've considered after working out my fluff and tossing up on my sheet, to never look at again (I haven't been hit by alignment-dependent stuff anytime recently, so it's not even consulted for that).

AntiTrust
2013-05-18, 12:09 PM
I've been a player in a game where the DM used alignments as a way to control the direction the players went. I've always believed that even within the same alignment a range of different choices are possible so that even two LG paladins to the same deity can have legitimate points of difference in ethical and moral discussions. This DM however used the alignments like one might see in a video game where you have the 1 NG choice, the 1 LG choice, the 1 LN choice, etc etc so that if you deviated from whatever that choice was at the moment you risked, if you were a divine character, the loss of class abilities (even for non paladins). The alignment system became a sort of straight jacket, I'm not in the game anymore, but I'm glad I was since it made me really think as a DM how I'd run an ethical/moral dilemma.

The Fury
2013-05-18, 12:42 PM
As long as there's an understand that alignment is just a label for your actions, I'd have no problem with my alignment flying all over the place because of the system's weird views of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. If I'm with a group that says "hey you're evil now, why aren't you killing that orphan?" I'd probably have problems with it.


Oh yes, of course. Considering that if a character started out as a good guy they'd probably still have problems with killing orphans, even if they became evil. For my part I still think of my character is still more or less the same person despite any alignment drops, and the DM seems OK with that.


I've been a player in a game where the DM used alignments as a way to control the direction the players went. I've always believed that even within the same alignment a range of different choices are possible so that even two LG paladins to the same deity can have legitimate points of difference in ethical and moral discussions. This DM however used the alignments like one might see in a video game where you have the 1 NG choice, the 1 LG choice, the 1 LN choice, etc etc so that if you deviated from whatever that choice was at the moment you risked, if you were a divine character, the loss of class abilities (even for non paladins). The alignment system became a sort of straight jacket, I'm not in the game anymore, but I'm glad I was since it made me really think as a DM how I'd run an ethical/moral dilemma.

Whoa. Yeah that sounds like a rough way of handling it. I'm glad you were able to get something out of it though. Though I got to wonder, if there was a set of solutions each corresponding to one of the alignments what happens if you come of with a solution that the DM didn't expect? Does that break the game or is it just called CN?

Joe the Rat
2013-05-18, 01:16 PM
It helps to know how your GM (DM, most likely) runs alignment. The more restrictive they play it, the more you should favor Neutral alignments.

In the games I've played where it matters, alignment shifts typically come from the player (or are suggested by fellow players) - The way they are playing the character doesn't quite fit the alignment they picked (in their mind), or the other players think he's more X than Y. Getting the label to fit the character, rather than making the character fit the label.

Mind you, I don't end up in a lot of soul searching/ start of darkness/ let's screw with the paladin/ Snape hunt games, so alignment shifts aren't plot-relevant.


Though since we are on the topic, A quick question: If a character has significant impulse control/leap before they look tendencies, would this be justification for a Chaotic alignment tag, or would that be workable as Neutral?

Jay R
2013-05-18, 03:17 PM
So how 'bout you, the rest of the Playground? Have you ever played in a game where alignment drops happened? What was your experience like?

Drops? No. But in the game I'm currently in, the DM recently told me that my character (2E elven mage/thief) wasn't True Neutral anymore; he is now Neutral Good.

My private reaction was, "Took you long enough." It's been my goal for some time for my thief to be consistently more honorable than all the Lawful Good nobles, and more selfless than the paladin.

Hiro Protagonest
2013-05-18, 05:22 PM
I've made... a Paladin fall... for lying to save his life.

...I think you've become That DM.

RandomNPC
2013-05-18, 06:44 PM
...I think you've become That DM.

Depends on the lie and what happened because of it. If his lie sent someone to burn down a hospital he should have let himself die, fall twice. If the lie meant the person was just going to go around looking for him longer, and he just wanted to get backup to keep himself from being steamrolled when he stood up for himself, so be it.

yougi
2013-05-19, 09:31 AM
...I think you've become That DM.

Depends on the lie and what happened because of it. If his lie sent someone to burn down a hospital he should have let himself die, fall twice. If the lie meant the person was just going to go around looking for him longer, and he just wanted to get backup to keep himself from being steamrolled when he stood up for himself, so be it.

Well, neither, but he lied while begging for his life. It was a great RP moment, as if the character realized his ideals had a limit, and he wouldn't die for them.

But to be honest, I wouldn't feel bad about making a Paladin fall for lying to save his life. I can't imagine one instance where that would follow the spirit of the paladin code, and as written, paladin code says no lying, and that you're out on the first strike. Of course, you're welcome to prove me wrong.

LtPowers
2013-05-19, 10:11 AM
I can't imagine one instance where that would follow the spirit of the paladin code, and as written, paladin code says no lying, and that you're out on the first strike. Of course, you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Lying is against the code, but it's not "out on the first strike". From the D&D 3.5 SRD: "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities".

Is lying to save one's life a gross violation of the code? I would say it depends heavily on the context. But it shouldn't be automatic.


Powers &8^]

Jay R
2013-05-19, 10:44 AM
Is lying to save one's life a gross violation of the code? I would say it depends heavily on the context. But it shouldn't be automatic.

Lying to save your life is putting your life above your virtue and your honor. It is far more against the code in my eyes than many things other people would make him fall for.

Slide
2013-05-19, 11:24 AM
So how 'bout you, the rest of the Playground? Have you ever played in a game where alignment drops happened? What was your experience like?

Chaotic Neutral. Nuked a small country. Cleric looked at me afterwards. Once he recovered from what appeared to be a pain-induced epileptic seizure, he resolved never to Detect Evil with me nearby ever again.

Loki_42
2013-05-19, 11:29 AM
I don't really treat alignment as a thing, as in, I don't penalize anyone for changing alignment, but if the game has alignment, I keep track of it. As such, I've had a lot of alignment fluidity, both drops and redemption, if I feel that's what the character is acting like now. But I've always treated alignment as an indicator of how the character is acting, not as guidelines for how the character should act.

illyrus
2013-05-19, 12:07 PM
Only time as a player that alignment came up was when my NG druid stepped on a symbol set to temporarily switch the target to Chaotic Evil. Was actually a fun RP moment as my character basically subjugated the entire complex, convincing the evil people inside to surrender and then killed them when they had laid down their weapons.

Cost my druid all his powers even when the symbol wore off but sought an atonement directly thereafter. The GM didn't add any hoops to getting it as he hadn't even planned for it to cause my character any loss in the first place.

LtPowers
2013-05-19, 12:18 PM
Lying to save your life is putting your life above your virtue and your honor. It is far more against the code in my eyes than many things other people would make him fall for.

"Tell me where the rebel hideout is, or I will kill you."

Obviously, the paladin can refuse to say anything, and sacrifice her life... but what if she holds the information that is key to defeating the bad guy? Or she knows that the bad guy will just go get someone else to tell him where the rebels are?

Certainly, lying, even in this (slightly contrived) scenario, is bad. It's against her code of honor. It should weigh heavily upon her conscience, but if the lie is in the service of a greater good, it should not result in immediate revocation of her paladinhood.


Powers &8^]

Sylthia
2013-05-19, 12:22 PM
I once had a paladin take a -2 Cha penalty for killing an unarmed prisoner who had surrendered as a warning, but didn't make her fall. She did have to work to remove the Cha drop, though. I don't think I've ever changed a PCs alignment against their will yet, but I've had a few change it voluntarily.

hamishspence
2013-05-19, 12:31 PM
"Tell me where the rebel hideout is, or I will kill you."

Obviously, the paladin can refuse to say anything, and sacrifice her life... but what if she holds the information that is key to defeating the bad guy? Or she knows that the bad guy will just go get someone else to tell him where the rebels are?

Certainly, lying, even in this (slightly contrived) scenario, is bad. It's against her code of honor. It should weigh heavily upon her conscience, but if the lie is in the service of a greater good, it should not result in immediate revocation of her paladinhood.

A similar one is Leia in A New Hope- "Tell me where the Rebel base is, or I'll kill all your loved ones."

QuintonBeck
2013-05-19, 03:44 PM
In a game I ran a player who had chosen to play as the Monk class was behaving repeatedly in a most definitively chaotic way and I had him drop to Chaotic and lose further class progression. Similarly a Lawful fighter who had been following and assisting with many of the Monk's actions got shifted down to Neutral but that didn't affect him.

I like to keep an idea of where a character's accumulated ethical actions fall on the alignment scale and I'm pretty flexible but sometimes an adjustment is needed.

I once played a Chaotic Neutral Barbarian who went out of his way to help people and the party so often I had him shift to Chaotic Good. And I had a rogue, who had started out as a fast talking TN con man take a shift to NE after the Atropal that had been chasing the party turned out to be an illusion and the party fell to theft and murder without a force driving them to unite anyone. (That was a weird campaign.)

Jay R
2013-05-19, 04:55 PM
Lying to save your life is putting your life above your virtue and your honor. It is far more against the code in my eyes than many things other people would make him fall for.

"Tell me where the rebel hideout is, or I will kill you."

Obviously, the paladin can refuse to say anything, and sacrifice her life... but what if she holds the information that is key to defeating the bad guy?

That's not lying to save your life; that's lying to save the information that is key to defeating the bad guy - a very different thing.

Eldan
2013-05-19, 04:58 PM
Alignment is two words on your sheet that come up once a year when you go to the wrong plane (and your DM enforces that -2 to certain rolls rule) or when you face divine guys. Sure, I've changed alignments. Currently, my entire party wants me to change their alignment to chaotic evil when I'm still think they are chaotic neutral with anger issues.

It really doesn't matter that much.

Stake A Vamp
2013-05-19, 05:04 PM
i ama DM, one of my players decided to start contract killing, there was a paladin in the party. there is literally a whole thread discussing the aftermath.:smallamused:

Amphetryon
2013-05-19, 05:05 PM
That's not lying to save your life; that's lying to save the information that is key to defeating the bad guy - a very different thing.

Only if the Character (and the Player) perceive those as different ends achieved via the same means. I've known more than one DM who cared not a whit about the justification for the lie in determining the punishment for the Paladin - or the Character in a town where falsehoods were crimes and Detect Lies was a thing.

Mr Beer
2013-05-19, 05:56 PM
I've been a player in a game where the DM used alignments as a way to control the direction the players went. I've always believed that even within the same alignment a range of different choices are possible so that even two LG paladins to the same deity can have legitimate points of difference in ethical and moral discussions. This DM however used the alignments like one might see in a video game where you have the 1 NG choice, the 1 LG choice, the 1 LN choice, etc etc so that if you deviated from whatever that choice was at the moment you risked, if you were a divine character, the loss of class abilities (even for non paladins). The alignment system became a sort of straight jacket, I'm not in the game anymore, but I'm glad I was since it made me really think as a DM how I'd run an ethical/moral dilemma.

That's a terrible way to GM alignment. Everyone has to deal with the strangeness of the D&D alignment system in one way or another, he made a poor choice.

TuggyNE
2013-05-19, 06:37 PM
Chaotic Neutral. Nuked a small country. Cleric looked at me afterwards. Once he recovered from what appeared to be a pain-induced epileptic seizure, he resolved never to Detect Evil with me nearby ever again.

The simplest way to ensure that resolution is kept, of course, is to kill your CE face into oblivion :smalltongue:

Narren
2013-05-19, 07:56 PM
Lying to save your life is putting your life above your virtue and your honor. It is far more against the code in my eyes than many things other people would make him fall for.

That depends, I think. What if the paladin is the only one who knows where the kidnapped princess (or whatever) is located. What if he's the only one that can rescue her?

What's more important, that he die with dignity or that he rescue an innocent?

I think the circumstances and motivation should play a large factor.

Joe the Rat
2013-05-20, 08:45 AM
I'm still think they are chaotic neutral with anger issues. We've all seen the "XY with Z tendencies" description (heck, they make Planes for those). I think I'm going to add "with anger issues" as an alignment descriptor.

Alejandro
2013-05-20, 09:01 AM
Let's say the paladin has been captured by a reprehensible enemy. Not surrendered; captured, especially with something like Hold Person, etc, where the paladin couldn't do anything about it.

Now, the paladin knows that the other PCs are on the way to rescue him or her. The Enemy says, 'Alright, paladin, tell us the Secret Password to the Church of Goodness and Loot, or we sandpaper your genitals off and kill you.'

The paladin doesn't want to give that password up. Thinking quickly, he says, "I know the password, but it only works when freely spoken by a paladin or cleric of the Church. You'll have to take me there for me to help you."

Now, this is a lie: The Church actually has crappier security than that, because someone spent all the GP on fancier vestments last quarter. It's just a simple password. But the Enemy doesn't know that, and the Enemy also expects a paladin to tell the truth at all times, rescue puppies, and generally glow with Lawful Goodness.

Now, the Enemy can either kill the paladin (gaining nothing) or try to take the paladin to where he can use the password for them, or at least figure out how to do that. The paladin is buying time for his friends to rescue him, and he is not endangering the Church or anyone other than himself by lying. The evil act would be to freely tell the Enemy the password, breaking his vow to defend the Church.

So, in this case? Paladin is following his code by lying. Which goes to show, it's really situation-dependent, not a simple, always-right list of actions. I mean, a hypothetical Christian Paladin that kills someone breaks one of God's commandments, yet there are innumerable ways and times paladins are expected to take up arms, and kill, to defend their followers or nation or cause.

Jay R
2013-05-20, 09:21 AM
That depends, I think. What if the paladin is the only one who knows where the kidnapped princess (or whatever) is located. What if he's the only one that can rescue her?

What's more important, that he die with dignity or that he rescue an innocent?

I think the circumstances and motivation should play a large factor.

Of course. You evidently missed the later post in which I said, "That's not lying to save your life; that's lying to save the information that is key to defeating the bad guy - a very different thing."

The crucial point is this: The Paladin must put honor and virtue and innocent lives above his own life. Saving his own life cannot be the primary goal.

But that's the easy question. Here's the hard one:

Consider a Paladin in the situation in which he must lie, and therefore violate his code, to save innocent lives. I as the DM would emphasize the violation of his code, and the threat to his paladin status. If he says some version of, "It doesn't matter what happens to me; I have to save them, " then lies to keep them safe, he will either keep his status, or atone and regain it easily.

But if he decides to preserve either his own life or his paladin code and status at the cost of innocent lives, he will lose his status - permanently.

Joe the Rat
2013-05-20, 11:24 AM
I'm tempted to see what happens if the Paladin Code was restructured to be more Three Laws Compliant (replacing "Human" with "Good")


The crucial point is this: The Paladin must put honor and virtue and innocent lives above his own life. Saving his own life cannot be the primary goal.

But that's the easy question. Here's the hard one:

Consider a Paladin in the situation in which he must lie, and therefore violate his code, to save innocent lives. I as the DM would emphasize the violation of his code, and the threat to his paladin status. If he says some version of, "It doesn't matter what happens to me; I have to save them, " then lies to keep them safe, he will either keep his status, or atone and regain it easily.

But if he decides to preserve either his own life or his paladin code and status at the cost of innocent lives, he will lose his status - permanently.Remember kids, when it's "To Be Lawful or To Be Good," always choose the greater Good.

Omegonthesane
2013-05-20, 11:27 AM
Of course. You evidently missed the later post in which I said, "That's not lying to save your life; that's lying to save the information that is key to defeating the bad guy - a very different thing."

The crucial point is this: The Paladin must put honor and virtue and innocent lives above his own life. Saving his own life cannot be the primary goal.
Why? Even if there is no immediate threat to innocent lives, how can it be honourable or noble for a paladin to die pointlessly in the name of a rigid interpretation of their own code, when they could have lived one more day and saved one more life by - to cite the original example - deceiving someone who would otherwise murder a currently-helpless champion of Good? Do you really need to prove any kind of moral point to the kind of enemy that would slaughter a helpless paladin?


Consider a Paladin in the situation in which he must lie, and therefore violate his code, to save innocent lives. I as the DM would emphasize the violation of his code, and the threat to his paladin status. If he says some version of, "It doesn't matter what happens to me; I have to save them, " then lies to keep them safe, he will either keep his status, or atone and regain it easily.

But if he decides to preserve either his own life or his paladin code and status at the cost of innocent lives, he will lose his status - permanently.
A Different DM: "Your word is your bond. You had a way out that fulfilled your vows and you refused it. You're not worthy of the Paladin's path."
Player: "But, innocent lives!"
ADDM: "The Code's the code. Go play a Good Cleric if you want a holy warrior unfettered by exact oaths."


I'm tempted to see what happens if the Paladin Code was restructured to be more Three Laws Compliant (replacing "Human" with "Good")

Something like...

1. A paladin may not injure a Good being or, through inaction, allow a Good being to come to harm.
2. A paladin must obey the orders given to it by Good beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A paladin must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

0. A paladin may not harm Good, or, by inaction, allow Good to come to harm.
...Nope, doesn't work thematically. Neutral people are still innocent, and most Evil people are yet convertable away from Evil and thus worthy of protection. (This is legally distinct from "redemption" in that if you do so you're screwing them out of the rewards that await the competent ones in the afterlife, as surely as if you were Evil and tempting Good characters away from their alignment. D&D cosmology is weird like that - only high level Good souls actually get much of a reward.)

Joe the Rat
2013-05-20, 12:10 PM
Something like...
[Curse you, non-nesting quotes!]
...Nope, doesn't work thematically. Neutral people are still innocent, and most Evil people are yet convertable away from Evil and thus worthy of protection. (This is legally distinct from "redemption" in that if you do so you're screwing them out of the rewards that await the competent ones in the afterlife, as surely as if you were Evil and tempting Good characters away from their alignment. D&D cosmology is weird like that - only high level Good souls actually get much of a reward.) Yeah, straight copy-paste doesn't quite work, and definitely not plugging in the Capital G Good.... but there may be something to work with here.

First Law: Allow no harm --> Protect whatever the hell it is Paladins are supposed to Protect - ideals of Good? "What is Good?" debates!
Second Law: Follow Orders --> Follow the Code, unless it conflicts with #1 (your virtue is less important that innocent lives). Universal Obedience is not part of the code, and free will is considered Good (if somewhat messy).
Third Law: Self-preservation --> Keep yourself alive, unless it conflicts with #1 or #2.

...subject to rationalization. One fiddly bit in this is all the "through inaction" bits. Lies of Omission may not pass muster. Is that better than how they normally get played?

hamishspence
2013-05-20, 01:27 PM
1: A paladin shall not commit an evil deed.
2: A paladin shall not (except where it would conflict with rule 1) allow an Evil deed to be committed through inaction.
3: A paladin shall protect the innocent, except where it conflicts with rules 1 and 2.
4: A paladin shall respect legitimate authority except where it conflicts with rules 1, 2 and 3.

These seem to me fairly consistant with the existing code.

Alejandro
2013-05-20, 01:37 PM
The simplest paladin code is 'Can the player justify the paladin's actions in a way that the table accepts?' If so, great. If not, not great.

hamishspence
2013-05-20, 02:02 PM
Why? Even if there is no immediate threat to innocent lives, how can it be honourable or noble for a paladin to die pointlessly in the name of a rigid interpretation of their own code, when they could have lived one more day and saved one more life by - to cite the original example - deceiving someone who would otherwise murder a currently-helpless champion of Good?

Save My Game: Lawful & Chaotic (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)

Should a paladin sacrifice herself to save others? In the broadest sense, yes, since doing so is the ultimate act of good. However, she must also have enough respect for her own life and ability to make sure that her sacrifice brings about a significant benefit for others. A paladin who holds the only key to saving the world should not sacrifice herself needlessly against an orc horde. As long as the paladin keeps the greater good in mind, she is adhering to her code.

And "minor violations" as opposed to "gross violations" (when the act is not intrinsically evil in itself) don't normally make Paladins Fall.

O-Chul lies here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0545.html

as demonstrated by his comment that "Charisma (for Bluffing) seemed like a safe dump stat at the time"- but there's no hint that this made him Fall- and he successfully uses Smite Evil later, implying that he didn't.

illyrus
2013-05-20, 02:55 PM
I'm all in favor of house ruling a more lenient paladin code. The code does nothing to alter the power mechanics of the game and would probably allow everyone to have a bit more fun with a paladin in the party.

Paladins are far from the most powerful class and most of the stories I hear/read seem to be GMs just screwing with the paladin players as opposed to actually creating interesting stories involving paladin ethics. With that in mind I really don't see the point of a strict enforcement of the code in an actual game.

Jay R
2013-05-20, 04:42 PM
The simplest paladin code is 'Can the player justify the paladin's actions in a way that the table accepts?' If so, great. If not, not great.

That's any Lawful character. A Paladin's code should be stricter.

The Fury
2013-05-20, 05:48 PM
It's a little strange that most discussions on character alignment eventually become about paladins. Though I guess that makes sense considering that paladins have the strictest alignment requirements of any character class. That and no other character class, (apart from clerics-- maybe. Sometimes,) really suffers any drawbacks from having their alignment changed through character action.
All the same, do you guys think that we ought to start a thread for a more standardized, comprehensive paladin code?

hamishspence
2013-05-20, 05:53 PM
It's a little strange that most discussions on character alignment eventually become about paladins. Though I guess that makes sense considering that paladins have the strictest alignment requirements of any character class. That and no other character class, (apart from clerics-- maybe. Sometimes,) really suffers any drawbacks from having their alignment changed through character action.

Bards and monks lose the ability to advance if they change to a prohibited alignment, barbarians lose the rage ability, and druids might lose all abilities if they change to a prohibited alignment.

The Fury
2013-05-20, 06:02 PM
Bards and monks lose the ability to advance if they change to a prohibited alignment, barbarians lose the rage ability, and druids might lose all abilities if they change to a prohibited alignment.

True, though the classes you mentioned allow a good deal more wiggle-room as they're only restricted along the C/N/L axis and not the G/N/E one. Paladins are unique in that they're restricted to one specific alignment.
I will admit that my earlier statement was inaccurate, I apologize.

Amphetryon
2013-05-20, 08:49 PM
Bards and monks lose the ability to advance if they change to a prohibited alignment, barbarians lose the rage ability, and druids might lose all abilities if they change to a prohibited alignment.

Honest question open to anyone: Have you ever seen a Bard lose the ability to advance in 3.X due to an Alignment conflict? Have you ever seen a Barbarian lose the ability to Rage, without deliberately changing Alignment to take another Class?

I've seen Paladins and Monks fall for failure to adhere to the Lawful/Good paradigm as understood by the DM, but I cannot ever recall a Chaotic Character losing abilities due to being "too Lawful" in nature.

illyrus
2013-05-20, 09:08 PM
The thing that gets me about a paladin is that they don't even have to do enough to warrant an alignment shift, just enough to violate their code. A LG angel or god has more wiggle room.

Only the druid in core has anything close with the armor limitation and it is fixed in 24 hours.

QuintonBeck
2013-05-20, 09:43 PM
I think it takes an understood pursuance of acting lawful by a character which goes against the general chaotic leaning of your average adventuring party and as such if the player didn't already slap Lawful on their character sheet they're unlikely to make that extra effort to listen to the law when they already have the caveat of ignoring it cause "Hey, I'm chaotic/neutral!" It would be an interesting character to run though. See if a DM actually called you on it.

Jay R
2013-05-20, 10:18 PM
All the same, do you guys think that we ought to start a thread for a more standardized, comprehensive paladin code?

No. Until everybody agrees on what is or isn't Lawful, and what is or isn't moral, there's no point trying to reach agreement on a Paladin code.

Since we'll never answer the easy ones, why focus on the hard one?

Telonius
2013-05-20, 10:26 PM
"Tell me where the rebel hideout is, or I will kill you."

Obviously, the paladin can refuse to say anything, and sacrifice her life... but what if she holds the information that is key to defeating the bad guy? Or she knows that the bad guy will just go get someone else to tell him where the rebels are?

Certainly, lying, even in this (slightly contrived) scenario, is bad. It's against her code of honor. It should weigh heavily upon her conscience, but if the lie is in the service of a greater good, it should not result in immediate revocation of her paladinhood.


Powers &8^]

I once saw a situation like this. The Space Elf in question was able to get out of it.


It is logical to conclude that you will kill us in any event. Therefore, I choose not to cooperate.

The Fury
2013-05-21, 09:22 AM
Honest question open to anyone: Have you ever seen a Bard lose the ability to advance in 3.X due to an Alignment conflict? Have you ever seen a Barbarian lose the ability to Rage, without deliberately changing Alignment to take another Class?

I've seen Paladins and Monks fall for failure to adhere to the Lawful/Good paradigm as understood by the DM, but I cannot ever recall a Chaotic Character losing abilities due to being "too Lawful" in nature.

Honestly? The only character class I've seen lose abilities because of alignment restriction, other than a paladin, has been a cleric.


No. Until everybody agrees on what is or isn't Lawful, and what is or isn't moral, there's no point trying to reach agreement on a Paladin code.

Since we'll never answer the easy ones, why focus on the hard one?

Alright then, that makes sense. Considering that there's already a good deal of presumed disagreement on character alignment. I imagine that most alignment shifts occur because the DM and the Player are interpreting alignment differently.

Eldan
2013-05-22, 01:03 PM
We've all seen the "XY with Z tendencies" description (heck, they make Planes for those). I think I'm going to add "with anger issues" as an alignment descriptor.

Ooh. How about a third (more like twentieth, in the playground) alignment axis? Wrath vs. Serenity?

Jay R
2013-05-22, 01:29 PM
I imagine that most alignment shifts occur because the DM and the Player are interpreting alignment differently.

Quite possibly. I urge players and DMs to talk about this before the game begins, since it's one of the most common sources of arguments.

LtPowers
2013-05-22, 02:56 PM
The thing that gets me about a paladin is that they don't even have to do enough to warrant an alignment shift, just enough to violate their code. A LG angel or god has more wiggle room.

Only the druid in core has anything close with the armor limitation and it is fixed in 24 hours.

Violating the Paladin's code does not result in a paladin falling. By RAW, the paladin must change alignment, willingly commit an evil act, or grossly violate the code.

For instance, casting aspersions upon a legitimate ruler would be against the code... but should not result in the loss of the Paladin's abilities. Working to overthrow a legitimate ruler would be arguable. Killing the legitimate ruler would be a gross violation and would probably result in a fall.


Powers &8^]

Cheiromancer
2013-05-22, 03:35 PM
Violating the Paladin's code does not result in a paladin falling. By RAW, the paladin must change alignment, willingly commit an evil act, or grossly violate the code.

I agree. I would also add that if the Paladin is in a "damned-if-you, damned-if-you-don't" kind of situation - where the consequences either way are grave - the act should count as unwilling. If the consequences of wrong-doing are much less than that of telling the truth or remaining silent - as in O'Chul's case - then it would not count as a gross violation. A bending of the code, at most.

As a DM I've temporarily withdrawn paladinhood from a PC, but the only time I remember is for a cultic violation; he was a paladin of Tyr, the watcher, and he fell asleep on duty. Mind you, it was because he failed a saving throw, but still. A quick visit to a nearby cleric for an easy atonement, and it was all better. The Paladin's code is more for flavor and RP than for mechanical balance, I think.

What I'm curious about are some feats and abilities that require one to be evil. Suppose you have Insane Defiance - how to you ensure you don't drift into neutrality and find yourself unable to use the feat?

illyrus
2013-05-22, 03:46 PM
Violating the Paladin's code does not result in a paladin falling. By RAW, the paladin must change alignment, willingly commit an evil act, or grossly violate the code.

For instance, casting aspersions upon a legitimate ruler would be against the code... but should not result in the loss of the Paladin's abilities. Working to overthrow a legitimate ruler would be arguable. Killing the legitimate ruler would be a gross violation and would probably result in a fall.


Powers &8^]

While I think that's the intention behind it, it is not how many GMs see it. Pathfinder is even worse in this respect as they removed the word "grossly" from the sentence.

Also willingly committing a single minor act that is opposed by your alignment does not cause you to suddenly shift normally. A NE character that saves an orphan from a fire is normally not switched to TN on the spot, maybe he was an orphan himself and holds a soft spot in his heart for other orphans. A LG character that commits a minor "evil" act isn't immediately tossed down to LN. A paladin, instant loss of all powers. And often an act that wouldn't cause a GM to bat an eye done by a good character is put under very heavy scrutiny if a paladin is doing it.

I think a paladin's code and alignment restrictions should be a huge opportunity for roleplay. It should not be a case of having his or her powers tied to some switch that a GM styling himself as The Joker has his hands on ready to flip at the slightest excuse.

kardar233
2013-05-23, 03:05 PM
I would be okay with a kind of "revolving-door" approach to those kind of falls. If a Paladin breaks his code in the interest of the greater good, he'll still fall, but Atonement should be super easy (possibly not even requiring the spell, just some confession and prayer). If those situations persist, he may want to consider becoming a Paladin of Freedom.

On the other hand, if I were playing a Paladin who fell in the interest of the greater good, who decided that he didn't make a mistake in doing so, and because of such the Atonement didn't work... he might start thinking his god isn't quite Good after all.

Scow2
2013-05-24, 03:54 PM
Lying to save your life is putting your life above your virtue and your honor. It is far more against the code in my eyes than many things other people would make him fall for.

Throwing your life away needlessly is against a Paladin's code even moreso. If the lie wouldn't be out of place in a comedy sketch, it's probably fine.

Hiro Protagonest
2013-05-24, 04:43 PM
What if the paladin does this? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPjhyOCEOrA)

LtPowers
2013-05-24, 09:26 PM
What if the paladin does this? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPjhyOCEOrA)

That's a 40-minute video. Can you be more specific?


Powers &8^]

Hiro Protagonest
2013-05-24, 09:54 PM
That's a 40-minute video. Can you be more specific?


Powers &8^]

Lies out of his ass for 35 minutes in a situation where he's a hostage. :smalltongue:

Eldan
2013-05-25, 05:36 AM
Paladins are good. They should preserve life. That should include their own.

Alejandro
2013-05-25, 10:56 AM
Violating the Paladin's code does not result in a paladin falling. By RAW, the paladin must change alignment, willingly commit an evil act, or grossly violate the code.

For instance, casting aspersions upon a legitimate ruler would be against the code... but should not result in the loss of the Paladin's abilities. Working to overthrow a legitimate ruler would be arguable. Killing the legitimate ruler would be a gross violation and would probably result in a fall.


Powers &8^]

What if the ruler (who is 100% legitimate, the true king by birth, blood, election, whatever the setting is) is also a horrible tyrant? In that case, the paladin striving against this horrible and absolutely legitimate tyrant becomes a little different.

That's why it's really up to the individual group of players and DM.

Water_Bear
2013-05-25, 11:01 AM
What if the ruler (who is 100% legitimate, the true king by birth, blood, election, whatever the setting is) is also a horrible tyrant? In that case, the paladin striving against this horrible and absolutely legitimate tyrant becomes a little different.

That's why it's really up to the individual group of players and DM.

The "legitimate" in the phrase legitimate authority is there specifically so that Paladin's don't have to respect tyrants. It refers to moral standing rather than legality, the same way that Paladins are explicitly told Good > Law. I'm pretty sure that's spelled out in BoED, but if not seems like common sense.

The Fury
2013-05-25, 01:02 PM
Lies out of his ass for 35 minutes in a situation where he's a hostage. :smalltongue:

I'd say it depends on what he's trying to accomplish by lying. Just off the top of my head, if our hypothetical hero is being held hostage by some really awful villain and lying to him might stall him for a while. Maybe stalling the villain would end up buying time for the rest of the group to defeat him?


The "legitimate" in the phrase legitimate authority is there specifically so that Paladin's don't have to respect tyrants. It refers to moral standing rather than legality, the same way that Paladins are explicitly told Good > Law. I'm pretty sure that's spelled out in BoED, but if not seems like common sense.

Sort of. Again, this depends a lot on the kind of game you're playing but taking out a tyrant without a plan for what to do afterwards can be pretty destructive too. Say the lawful king is a dreadful tyrant, he overtaxes the peasants, he's religiously intolerant, he has those that displease him tortured to death, by any reasonable metric he's an awful guy. So our hero, (maybe a paladin,) decides to step in and kill the guy.
OK, what comes after that? Maybe that tyrant had an heir, maybe he didn't. If he didn't the kingdom our hero just "saved" could rip itself apart in a war of succession. So in that way our hero could cause more wholesale, indiscriminate violence than that tyrant ever did.

GM.Casper
2013-05-25, 01:20 PM
If it is ok for paladin to kill an evil person, why would in not be ok to deceive an evil person?

Water_Bear
2013-05-25, 01:52 PM
OK, what comes after that? Maybe that tyrant had an heir, maybe he didn't. If he didn't the kingdom our hero just "saved" could rip itself apart in a war of succession. So in that way our hero could cause more wholesale, indiscriminate violence than that tyrant ever did.

Paladins are all about deontological ethics, so appeals to the consequences of their actions aren't super effective. If doing the right thing dooms the world... it's still the right thing to do. That's why so many D&D supplements explicitly say that the ends never justify the means in terms of alignment.

Hiro Protagonest
2013-05-25, 01:54 PM
I'd say it depends on what he's trying to accomplish by lying.

Well, he was taken hostage along with a few others because the terrorists got a missile that requires launch codes. And he basically managed to get a couple of guys to follow him into a group of marines, then either followed or led them (it's been a while since I actually watched it) to the main area where the other hostages were.

The Fury
2013-05-25, 02:29 PM
Paladins are all about deontological ethics, so appeals to the consequences of their actions aren't super effective. If doing the right thing dooms the world... it's still the right thing to do. That's why so many D&D supplements explicitly say that the ends never justify the means in terms of alignment.

Personally, I'd argue that the consequences of a "good" action determine whether it was good or not. If the world is doomed because of a "good" act, maybe the paladin wouldn't fall but plenty of people in the world would have legitimate grievances with the paladin's choice of actions. I'd also say that if a "good" act could potentially cause more suffering this should at least give any good-aligned character pause, and maybe try to find a better option.
I'm not trying to say, "Yes, the ends justify the means" or anything. I'm saying any good character should be mindful of what their actions will cause. If something they do causes something bad to happen then it's up to them to try and fix it.


Well, he was taken hostage along with a few others because the terrorists got a missile that requires launch codes. And he basically managed to get a couple of guys to follow him into a group of marines, then either followed or led them (it's been a while since I actually watched it) to the main area where the other hostages were.

If lying prevented or delayed the missiles from being launched he'd probably be justified. I don't think I have enough time to watch the video in question so I can't comment in too great of detail.

Water_Bear
2013-05-25, 02:49 PM
Personally, I'd argue that the consequences of a "good" action determine whether it was good or not. If the world is doomed because of a "good" act, maybe the paladin wouldn't fall but plenty of people in the world would have legitimate grievances with the paladin's choice of actions. I'd also say that if a "good" act could potentially cause more suffering this should at least give any good-aligned character pause, and maybe try to find a better option.

Yup.

That's why I like Celestials and Good Religions as villains; pure Good without consideration of the consequences can be a pretty scary concept. They're not tyrannical or sinister per se, they just don't have any consideration of the way the rest of the world is affected by their actions; prohibition feeding violent crime syndicates and turning ordinary people into desperate criminals, excessive charity leading to economic collapse, never compromising with Evil leading to devastating wars, etc. People with good intentions are some of the most dangerous ones if they get power.

QuidEst
2013-05-25, 02:53 PM
Heh, I've had another player hint broadly to the DM about giving me alignment bumps because my Evil character was very concerned about appearing good.

PersonMan
2013-05-25, 03:05 PM
If lying prevented or delayed the missiles from being launched he'd probably be justified. I don't think I have enough time to watch the video in question so I can't comment in too great of detail.

He basically BSed about the codes being in a suitcase, in some hardware, in a shack off on the edge of town (they were in the center of the town and being approached by marines intent on stopping the missile launch and saving the hostages), led three people with him, managed to get them all killed and escape.

Seeing as he was needed to make the missile launch work in the first place, doing so successfully prevented it and saved his life.

Terazul
2013-05-27, 10:44 AM
I tend to find any time alignment drops happen in a game I've played in, there's one of three things happening or present:

A) Someone is playing with an alignment-restricted class
B) Someone is playing Lawful Good
or C) The DM is using the idea of becoming "X Evil" as some kind of threat to keep characters acting a certain way.

As such, I kinda tend to hate the alignment system, especially since in the latter case it tends to just be kind of arbitrarily enforced; If I'm playing someone who's Chaotic Good/Neutral, I tend to be under severely less scrutinization than if I was LG. It also seems that if you have a class restricted by alignment, suddenly everyone starts looking for excuses to bump you from it; most often seen in the numerous paladin examples, but I have seen one or two instances of "your Barbarian is being too lawful", which I still find to be silly.

The most memorable drop I have was when I was playing a Half-Giant Crusader. In the setting Giants and Humans had always been at each others throats, with the giants being viewed as the "bad" guys. My character had been raised from a child amidst humans though, and had always strived to be better than what his heritage implied. Lawful Good, always looking out for the smaller man, only fought with a giant shield. The rest of the party was a LE Warlock, a CN Scout, and a LG Cleric/Church Inquisitor. Now, at one point we find this den of goblins that have been terrorizing a nearby town, and manage to capture one. Everyone else in the party insists on torturing the guy to get information (of which my character stays out of), eventually leaving him hanging from a rope in a barn overnight. The cleric apparently can get away with this "because he's an inquisitor" or something. The next morning, after my character gets him down, I'm holding him by the rope and having him lead us to their other base of operation. He's very clearly stalling, and trying to lead us astray, so my character calmly flicks the rope a little, as if to say "giddyup", simply so he knew I meant business. I am immediately called out that if my character continues this kind of action I risk dropping from Lawful Good. A minor action or two somehow risks losing years of developed characterization. I was not pleased. We had a discussion later.

Generally from now on I just play characters that flat out don't care about alignment, or play one of the "Chaotic X"s, simply because for some reason the minute you mention Lawful Whatever or anything remotely resembling a Paladin, people seem to get sticks up their you-know-what and try to drop/fall them for not being an absolute paragon of virtue. Even in the case of a Paladin, while that is what he or she is ultimately trying to be, they're supposed to grossly violate the code for this to happen, but more often than not I see said characters immediately being thrown into situations where they don't have a viable choice that doesn't result in falling from some interpretation of the DM, or they'll fall him for lying about what he had for breakfast that morning because he forgot (that is to say, something small and inconsequential). Why is it that it seems alignment is more often used to bully characters around than to actually foster development?

Frosty
2013-05-27, 11:50 AM
On the other hand, if I were playing a Paladin who fell in the interest of the greater good, who decided that he didn't make a mistake in doing so, and because of such the Atonement didn't work... he might start thinking his god isn't quite Good after all.That's what my paladin has flat out said many a times to her gods. If she believes that the gods no longer embody Good, then she will categorically reject them.

Waar
2013-05-27, 12:02 PM
You know some RPG (like WoD or SAGA) have aligment drop as a actual (if somewhat vague) mechanic, with rules and everything. the risk of falling to the dark side in a star wars game should not be ignored :smallwink:

CowardlyPaladin
2013-05-27, 01:31 PM
Y'know when your character does something heinous and the DM tells you that your character has gone from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil?
Character Alignment hasn't been anything very strictly enforced in most games I've played in. I guess most of the time the moral standards of the player party are never really challenged, that is we rarely have to make difficult decisions
That said, in the Pathfinder game I'm playing in now our characters' moral standards get tested a lot. There have already been a few times where a difficult challenge could be made easier by doing something reprehensible, like necromancy, murder, kidnapping or what have you. So far I think everyone in the party has suffered at least one alignment drop, my character suffered two, (briefly.)
Now, mind I'm not complaining. In fact I think it's really cool that the DM is actually holding our characters to their ethics and we actually get to make these tough decisions. Also, none of us ever suffer alignment drops unless what we do is pretty unambiguously bad.

So how 'bout you, the rest of the Playground? Have you ever played in a game where alignment drops happened? What was your experience like?

My policy is simple, I let the players choose there starting AL and if they ever change their AL I don't tell them. Unless they are a Paladin or Knight or something, I won't let them know. SO when the party fighter slaughtered goblin children so taht they wouldn't grow up to fight him in 9 years, he fell to evil, but he still thought he was CG, it wasn't until they met a band of Paladin's that things to complicated. Paladin's will get a warning if they have enough time, but otherwise they will fall right away.

The Fury
2013-05-28, 10:09 AM
Yup.

That's why I like Celestials and Good Religions as villains; pure Good without consideration of the consequences can be a pretty scary concept. They're not tyrannical or sinister per se, they just don't have any consideration of the way the rest of the world is affected by their actions; prohibition feeding violent crime syndicates and turning ordinary people into desperate criminals, excessive charity leading to economic collapse, never compromising with Evil leading to devastating wars, etc. People with good intentions are some of the most dangerous ones if they get power.

That's an interesting idea, though one would hope that the reason why a Celestial or Good Religion doesn't consider how the rest of the world is effected by their actions is because they don't know for some reason. Like maybe the Celestials stopped monitoring a situation after they thought they solved it, or maybe the clergy of the Good Religion are so cloistered from the world they can't see the damage they accidentally caused.
Alignment is a sticking point with a lot of people and agreeing to disagree is often required, though I personally think that "If you know better, do better" is part and parcel to any Good alignment.

illyrus
2013-05-28, 11:27 AM
That's an interesting idea, though one would hope that the reason why a Celestial or Good Religion doesn't consider how the rest of the world is effected by their actions is because they don't know for some reason. Like maybe the Celestials stopped monitoring a situation after they thought they solved it, or maybe the clergy of the Good Religion are so cloistered from the world they can't see the damage they accidentally caused.
Alignment is a sticking point with a lot of people and agreeing to disagree is often required, though I personally think that "If you know better, do better" is part and parcel to any Good alignment.

Does a celestial really care if someone dies young if they lived a virtuous life though? A celestial KNOWS what happens to good souls where (depending upon the campaign world) the afterlife can be superior to mortal life. The ones that are so easily swayed towards evil shouldn't be allowed to sit at the feast halls with the good gods etc.

Good doesn't have to equal nice. As a note I'm not saying it has to be played that way, but I think it is valid without the good celestials/religion having to be naive.

Scow2
2013-05-28, 01:52 PM
Does a celestial really care if someone dies young if they lived a virtuous life though? A celestial KNOWS what happens to good souls where (depending upon the campaign world) the afterlife can be superior to mortal life. The ones that are so easily swayed towards evil shouldn't be allowed to sit at the feast halls with the good gods etc.

Good doesn't have to equal nice. As a note I'm not saying it has to be played that way, but I think it is valid without the good celestials/religion having to be naive.

Yes, the celestial does care. "Respect for life" and all that being part of Good.

Anuiel
2013-05-28, 05:51 PM
I really, really hate alignments in games. I feel that they are one of the most stifling things you could impose on a player/character/whatever else. Instead, why not let the entity's actions speak for themselves?

No one agrees on what evil and good truly are, so why is there this childish trope in so many fantasy games that everyone seems to agree on what good and evil are? It's impossible. Our ancestors practiced human sacrifice and slavery. Does that make them evil?

TuggyNE
2013-05-28, 06:56 PM
Our ancestors practiced human sacrifice and slavery. Does that make them evil?

Uhhh. Nobody answer that, OK?

illyrus
2013-05-28, 08:32 PM
Yes, the celestial does care. "Respect for life" and all that being part of Good.

It is a part, it doesn't have to be the overriding part though.

Anuiel
2013-05-28, 08:43 PM
Uhhh. Nobody answer that, OK?

Not talking about these things isn't going to help anything; in fact, it will make them worse.

Raping women in ancient societies, especially slave women (and men) (Rome is my main point here) wasn't considered bad then, but we consider it bad now. However, their mindset didn't work like that. People thought differently back then.

It's like calling one of the gods of Chaos from Warhammer evil. Yeah, they do things that many of the races consider evil, but how can something be evil when it only does what it knows and can only know?

That's not to say that those ancient folks did what the Chaos gods do, nor that they only did those types of things, but you have to understand that people of different culture, races, time periods, etc thought differently (and, in the matter or races/species, can think very alien-like).

Terazul
2013-05-28, 08:49 PM
Not talking about these things isn't going to help anything; in fact, it will make them worse.


Likely meant that it was going against the forum rules, and thus could get the thread closed, rather than what you're implying, there.

The Fury
2013-05-29, 12:08 AM
I really, really hate alignments in games. I feel that they are one of the most stifling things you could impose on a player/character/whatever else. Instead, why not let the entity's actions speak for themselves?

No one agrees on what evil and good truly are, so why is there this childish trope in so many fantasy games that everyone seems to agree on what good and evil are? It's impossible. Our ancestors practiced human sacrifice and slavery. Does that make them evil?

I agree that character alignment is broadly abstract and more than a little silly. Though I don't agree that that's necessarily a bad thing. Armor Class and Hit Points are abstract and silly too but I can accept them just as easily. I think of alignments as characterization tools to be used as a starting point, because, obviously most people are more complex than simply "Chaotic Good" or whatever. That said I do get that it's not a tool everyone likes.


Not talking about these things isn't going to help anything; in fact, it will make them worse.


Oh sure, it's a subject worth discussing. Though this is a forum thread about swapping RPG stories, I think it's a subject well beyond the scope of this thread.


Likely meant that it was going against the forum rules, and thus could get the thread closed, rather than what you're implying, there.

That too.

AzureNightshade
2013-05-29, 09:07 PM
Surprisingly on topic, I've been playing a MS-Conjurer/Malconvoker, in a pretty long campaign. One of the restrictions of being a Malconvoker is being of a non-evil alignment, but removes alignment restrictions for summoning. My character is Chaotic Neutral, and basically has the mind of the only good demon is either in chains or dead.

Now for the questionable bit. Would Planar Binding a Demon (a Verakia from DM#357) and immediately killing it and reanimating it as a skeleton to be used as a siege engine be
1. out of character and
2. an evil deed

Even though it's an abomination (think demon T-Rex), it would still be akin to kidnapping a creature of animal intelligence from its home plane, murdering it and desecrating the body.

Water_Bear
2013-05-29, 10:04 PM
Now for the questionable bit. Would Planar Binding a Demon (a Verakia from DM#357) and immediately killing it and reanimating it as a skeleton to be used as a siege engine be
1. out of character and
2. an evil deed

Even though it's an abomination (think demon T-Rex), it would still be akin to kidnapping a creature of animal intelligence from its home plane, murdering it and desecrating the body.

The only Evil act here is creating an undead, and that is possibly mitigated as killing a Fiend is always a Good act by RAW. Personally I'd say the whole thing evens out at Neutral, but technically by RAW it is a Good act followed immediately by an Evil act. Either way I doubt it's enough for an alignment shift.

(Hilariously, allowing the Good Demon to exist would have been an Evil act so your Malconvoker absolutely did the right thing by killing it.)

On another note, capturing and killing beings of animal intelligence (like... animals!) and using their body parts as tools is not only not Evil but it's done even by Good Outsiders. Look at Ysgard and all the Titans wearing pelts or leather; that all came from animals, many of which are likely Int 3+ given how liberally the Celestial Creature template gets tossed out.

Jeff the Green
2013-05-29, 10:27 PM
More on-topic, I'm currently roleplaying a cleric of Kelemvor. She started off LG, but when I decided I wanted to go into Anima Mage I had to drop her down to LN. Conveniently, she's recently had the opportunity to kill someone who surrendered to her but really deserved it, to issue an undirected prayer that was answered by some Evil god or force, to learn soulbinding, and to eat someone's brain to learn their memories*. Since her previous Goodness was mostly convenience, since she's spent most of her life as a librarian and hasn't really had to do much to maintain it, this has been a rather fast fall. She's also gradually having a nervous breakdown and is lying to her allies about her new and strange powers. And black teeth.


*Strictly speaking, since this is an [Evil] spell, she can't do that until she turns LN, but the DM has ruled that in light of her previous activities, she can deliberately shake off her previous righteousness as part of the act of casting it.


Surprisingly on topic, I've been playing a MS-Conjurer/Malconvoker, in a pretty long campaign. One of the restrictions of being a Malconvoker is being of a non-evil alignment, but removes alignment restrictions for summoning. My character is Chaotic Neutral, and basically has the mind of the only good demon is either in chains or dead.

Now for the questionable bit. Would Planar Binding a Demon (a Verakia from DM#357) and immediately killing it and reanimating it as a skeleton to be used as a siege engine be
1. out of character and
2. an evil deed

Even though it's an abomination (think demon T-Rex), it would still be akin to kidnapping a creature of animal intelligence from its home plane, murdering it and desecrating the body.

Lessee. Calling a demon is evil, killing a demon is good, and animating it as a skeleton is evil. Out of character, though? Absolutely not.

Cheiromancer
2013-05-30, 06:37 AM
Surprisingly on topic, I've been playing a MS-Conjurer/Malconvoker, in a pretty long campaign. One of the restrictions of being a Malconvoker is being of a non-evil alignment, but removes alignment restrictions for summoning.

This relates to the concern I was expressing in the Minimal Evil thread (which has now moved on to discussing Star Wars). How do you keep from falling 'up' if you need to keep a non-good alignment, but tend to play nice characters. I was mostly worried about how to keep the evil prerequisites of a [vile] feat, but its the same idea.

There doesn't seem to be a symmetry between good and evil. One rash action can lose a paladin's powers, but it is not as easy to accidentally become good.

hamishspence
2013-05-30, 06:42 AM
There doesn't seem to be a symmetry between good and evil. One rash action can lose a paladin's powers, but it is not as easy to accidentally become good.

Or even "accidentally become Neutral". You don't lose Vile feats for committing Good acts, the way you lose Exalted feats for committing Evil ones.

Which makes sense- being Evil is more about what you do, whereas being Good is both about what you do, and what you don't do.

Omegonthesane
2013-05-30, 08:53 AM
The only Evil act here is creating an undead, and that is possibly mitigated as killing a Fiend is always a Good act by RAW. Personally I'd say the whole thing evens out at Neutral, but technically by RAW it is a Good act followed immediately by an Evil act. Either way I doubt it's enough for an alignment shift.


Lessee. Calling a demon is evil, killing a demon is good, and animating it as a skeleton is evil. Out of character, though? Absolutely not.

I feel I must question why the bit where you animate the body is evil, at least if you're only using it to create a skeleton or zombie - though that's more in general that the rules don't in any way justify how creating mindless undead is an evil deed. After all, if anything animating a skeleton causes less suffering in and of itself than making a golem, since the skeleton's original soul is in no way affected by their body's new state whereas a golem requires an imprisoned and enslaved spirit to power it.

Water_Bear
2013-05-30, 09:02 AM
I feel I must question why the bit where you animate the body is evil, at least if you're only using it to create a skeleton or zombie - though that's more in general that the rules don't in any way justify how creating mindless undead is an evil deed. After all, if anything animating a skeleton causes less suffering in and of itself than making a golem, since the skeleton's original soul is in no way affected by their body's new state whereas a golem requires an imprisoned and enslaved spirit to power it.

I guess the designers figured animating shambling undead horrors being a bad thing was fairly uncontroversial, like saying that killing Fiends is a pretty good idea. I think in general most groups / campaign settings agree with those assumptions, but there is no reason you can't change them for a setting where they don't make sense. RAW is just a theoretical construct which helps us examine the rules rather than holy law, after all.

Omegonthesane
2013-05-30, 09:54 AM
I guess the designers figured animating shambling undead horrors being a bad thing was fairly uncontroversial, like saying that killing Fiends is a pretty good idea. I think in general most groups / campaign settings agree with those assumptions, but there is no reason you can't change them for a setting where they don't make sense. RAW is just a theoretical construct which helps us examine the rules rather than holy law, after all.

They've assumed different things in different writeups. Notably back in D&D 3.0, skeletons and zombies were explicitly True Neutral, as their lack of a mind was unable to have an alignment.

And yes, the idea that turning useless meat into a potential benefit for society (in this case, in the form of tireless labour) is a bad thing is controversial, thank you very much.

LtPowers
2013-05-30, 12:56 PM
I really, really hate alignments in games. I feel that they are one of the most stifling things you could impose on a player/character/whatever else. Instead, why not let the entity's actions speak for themselves?

Um, that's what alignment does. It's not supposed to be a straitjacket (except for Paladins); it's just a description of how the character thinks and acts. If the character starts acting differently, then his or her alignment changes accordingly.

Its benefit lies in enabling interesting effects like this one (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html).


Powers &8^]

The Fury
2013-05-30, 09:01 PM
Surprisingly on topic, I've been playing a MS-Conjurer/Malconvoker, in a pretty long campaign. One of the restrictions of being a Malconvoker is being of a non-evil alignment, but removes alignment restrictions for summoning. My character is Chaotic Neutral, and basically has the mind of the only good demon is either in chains or dead.

Now for the questionable bit. Would Planar Binding a Demon (a Verakia from DM#357) and immediately killing it and reanimating it as a skeleton to be used as a siege engine be
1. out of character and
2. an evil deed

Even though it's an abomination (think demon T-Rex), it would still be akin to kidnapping a creature of animal intelligence from its home plane, murdering it and desecrating the body.

Have you asked the DM about this? What's their take on it? If it were up to me I'd let this sort of thing slide maybe once. Though I would make a warning that you shouldn't make a habit of this sort of behavior.


This relates to the concern I was expressing in the Minimal Evil thread (which has now moved on to discussing Star Wars). How do you keep from falling 'up' if you need to keep a non-good alignment, but tend to play nice characters. I was mostly worried about how to keep the evil prerequisites of a [vile] feat, but its the same idea.

There doesn't seem to be a symmetry between good and evil. One rash action can lose a paladin's powers, but it is not as easy to accidentally become good.

Yeah, I think I get what you mean. It's hard to pin down what sort of action might cause an evil character to lose their "evil" status.
I don't agree that a good act should cause it, or even habitually good behavior. If it did, evil characters that went out of their way to appear good really would be. Maybe a good act that really was genuinely selfless and free of ulterior motives, though good luck trying to unambiguously define that-- even within the context of D&D alignments

AzureNightshade
2013-05-31, 12:49 AM
My post was purely asking for an opinion and nothing more, because its been nagging at me. My chaotic neutral character raises undead all the time but I don't see how she should be considered evil if she uses those undead for things such as laying siege to the fortresses of evil sorcerers, only raises the dead of evil beings and basically sees necromancy as a tool to make life more convenient.

The Verakia was a result of her calling something that couldn't be controlled because it was too wild... so she had to force it into submission. It kept everything important anyway, all it lost was a 14d6 breath weapon and an aura of insanity which is more harmful then not. So technically by converting it to undead she made it less of a risk to the people around her, what a nice thoughtful person!

Omegonthesane
2013-05-31, 03:19 AM
I think you got opinions aplenty.

Basically - unless you postulate that mindless undead actually do evil things when not given specific orders, there is no justification for their creation to be Evil, so assuming you have the raw materials, creating zombies is no more evil than creating swords. The only inherent grey area is that the cheapest resurrection effect, Raise Dead, is impossible if the body has been animated first, and that only applies to people whose destiny is worth at least 5000gp and a level - frankly, even to a Lawful Good paladin, that simply isn't the case for most peasants.

Of course, even if undead are inherently evil, you could simply go further in your use of them to mitigate the evil of their existence. Using them as disposable fodder in the fight against Evil results in less living people that have to die doing that job, but how about a zombie labour public works program?... he said before remembering this is a Chaotic cleric.

illyrus
2013-05-31, 07:32 AM
Technically by the rules your use of the animate dead spell is something that is going to ping detect evil as a moderate evil at the least. You could murder 300 peasant children in front of their family while laughing maniacally and the act wouldn't ping detect evil (though you yourself might). So unless you have some sort of magical method to avoid that the creation itself is an evil act.

Now what it is used for might balance that out. Save an orphanage with the undead and you're probably looking at a net neutral use, use them to raid a tomb for treasures I'd put in the light evil category, use them to torment their loved ones for giggles or murder innocents and I'd put that in more of a pure evil category and start considering an alignment drop then.

If the undead thing became a habit and something that people far and wide could learn about as the GM I probably wouldn't switch your alignment but I might have an undead slaying group send a team after you and your minions. Not because they thought you were evil, they don't care about that, they just hate undead and those who create them. Give more of story consequences that you can overcome rather than playing with the alignment slider bar.

Jay R
2013-05-31, 10:48 AM
My post was purely asking for an opinion and nothing more, because its been nagging at me. My chaotic neutral character raises undead all the time but I don't see how she should be considered evil if she uses those undead for things such as laying siege to the fortresses of evil sorcerers, only raises the dead of evil beings and basically sees necromancy as a tool to make life more convenient.

Throughout history, desecrating bodies by taking them from their graves has been considered evil. Nineteenth century doctors were often disapproved of if they had skeletons to use for their researches.

Water_Bear
2013-05-31, 11:05 AM
Throughout history, desecrating bodies by taking them from their graves has been considered evil. Nineteenth century doctors were often disapproved of if they had skeletons to use for their researches.

We might want to stay away from questions of RL morality, just to be on the safe side. If any thread is being watched it's an alignment thread.

Also; this is a minor nitpick, but medical schools needed cadavers (as fresh as possible) for dissection, so that they could actually see all the organs roughly as they would appear in a living person. Skeletons are both less useful for that purpose and much easier to get a hold of.

Scow2
2013-05-31, 11:53 AM
It is a part, it doesn't have to be the overriding part though.It's the core foundation of Good, from which everything else comes.


They've assumed different things in different writeups. Notably back in D&D 3.0, skeletons and zombies were explicitly True Neutral, as their lack of a mind was unable to have an alignment.

And yes, the idea that turning useless meat into a potential benefit for society (in this case, in the form of tireless labour) is a bad thing is controversial, thank you very much.And yet, Animate Dead has always been [Evil]. Have you ever thought of what the process required to prepare those spells might be? People tend to gloss over how Vancian casting actually works.

AzureNightshade
2013-05-31, 12:16 PM
You put an onyx worth 25gp/hd into their mouths, infuse some (negative)energy, and badda-bing badda-boom, one re-purposed fleshbag; right there in the PHB.

Omegonthesane
2013-05-31, 12:38 PM
And yet, Animate Dead has always been [Evil]. Have you ever thought of what the process required to prepare those spells might be? People tend to gloss over how Vancian casting actually works.

It is not for me to come up with flavour text to justify WotC's flimsy categorisations; it was for WotC to write that, and they failed to do so. If you're going to say that the default of a spell has a property, you need to justify what about the default causes that property - for example if, say, there was a spell called Energy Ball that did d6*caster level force damage and randomly had the Fire type, you'd be more likely to assume that this was a printing error than that it was meant to be a Fireball.

hamishspence
2013-05-31, 12:40 PM
It is not for me to come up with flavour text to justify WotC's flimsy categorisations; it was for WotC to write that, and they failed to do so.

Could have been a holdover from 2nd ed, which said "Animating the dead is not a good act, and only evil casters do so regularly" in the spell description.

Scow2
2013-05-31, 12:42 PM
You put an onyx worth 25gp/hd into their mouths, infuse some (negative)energy, and badda-bing badda-boom, one re-purposed fleshbag; right there in the PHB.First off - that's not preparing the spell. That's just the final part of the ritual that you began that morning and then postponed the completion of. And, bringing Negative Energy into the world is an [Evil] act.

hamishspence
2013-05-31, 12:45 PM
Using "ordinary" negative energy spells, however (energy drain and the like) generally isn't.

illyrus
2013-05-31, 04:49 PM
It's the core foundation of Good, from which everything else comes.
You're talking about this statement here I assume:
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

My argument is more along these lines:

A celestial knows that if person A dies at age 20 due to martyring themselves they will go to a good plane. They know if they intervene then the person will go on to be corrupted and go to an evil plane when they die. I don't think it is unreasonable for the celestial host to not feel sad at the person's death given the alternative.

While respect for life is one of the foundations of good the respect for a single life above all else can break with the welfare of others and the dignity of sentient beings pillars.

The Fury
2013-05-31, 09:06 PM
A celestial knows that if person A dies at age 20 due to martyring themselves they will go to a good plane. They know if they intervene then the person will go on to be corrupted and go to an evil plane when they die. I don't think it is unreasonable for the celestial host to not feel sad at the person's death given the alternative.


Wait, can Celestials actually know that? Whether someone that lives past 20 will become corrupted or not I mean.

illyrus
2013-06-01, 08:35 AM
Wait, can Celestials actually know that? Whether someone that lives past 20 will become corrupted or not I mean.

If we're referring to 3.5:
They probably wouldn't care about Joe the Baker but powerful celestials have access to full cleric spell progression and could probably go ask their deity directly without relying on divination like commune. So the question would become how far the deity could see into the future. Greater deities can see at least 1 week per rank into the future on issues dealing with their portfolio. So while 10 years would be out of range using that one element of a deity's power they should be able to see far enough to see the aftereffects of an action.

So Jim the adventurer is going to be executed by the evil overlord. A celestial petitions his deity or casts commune to decide if it should save Jim or not. The deity looks into the future and sees that Jim's death will spark the populace to rise up against the evil overlord and overthrow him. If Jim were to be saved then he would end up leading the rebellion and be the natural choice as a leader. The power would quickly go to his head and he'd fall towards evil. The deity advises his agent not to get involved.