How to make an adventure of CG fight LG? [Archive]

View Full Version : How to make an adventure of CG fight LG?

CyberThread

2013-10-30, 08:43 AM

So if was going to set up a hard campgin, against a set of players. The idea being, that you are CG, sick of LG set of rules, and diplomacy is not working.

How would such a war look like?

Red Fel

2013-10-30, 09:03 AM

It's not impossible, just awkward. Think of the Blood War as a perfect example of L versus C.

Imagine a Robin Hood story, but replace Prince John and his particular nastiness with a more well-intentioned ruler. Note the use of the term intention.

Consider, for example, the following:

It has been years since the Great War. Sir (pick a name, I'll use Richard) Richard, one of the noble heroes of the War, was practically carried to the throne by the adoring masses. Since that time, he has appointed his own elite guard, the Shining Knights, to enforce the laws and stand as a symbol of justice throughout the land. To prevent the chaos and hatred that led to war in the first place, King Richard has instituted a series of laws and reforms, imposing laws with strict enforcement but typically mild penalties. As a result, a brief time spent in jail is not an uncommon experience for the populace, but the jails are at least clean and not a cruel place. Richard's goal is simple - if there are many rules, and they are clear, people will learn to follow them and order will be perfect. The rules need not be draconian - indeed, many people do not mind the small fines and one-day stints in prison, as they are more inconvenient than overly onerous.

Your team of heroes is part of a group that disagrees. They object, not to the punishments - which, while ubiquitous, are again not unjust or cruel - but rather to Richard's image of the kingdom. King Richard, through the passage of his laws, intends that the lives and practices of the citizens should ultimately comport with his definition of an upright, righteous life. The PCs, and the organization set in opposition to Richard, feel that goodness does not mean conformity, and the Crown does not entitle one to dictate the day-to-day lives of the people. They respect what Richard has done for the kingdom, and appreciate that the lives of the people have improved since the war. But they cannot tolerate the idea that the King can say where people must eat, how they must dress, at which temples they may pray, and so forth - his laws pervade every aspect of life, even the most personal, and this is a concept that the PCs cannot accept.

And now you have the sides. Neither is evil. Neither is "wrong." Both seek the benefit of the people. One does so through setting a positive example and enforcing "desirable" behavior by penalizing "undesirable" behavior. The other does so by encouraging personal freedom and expression.

This moral ambiguity, obviously, would make things extremely hard for the PCs. This isn't a case of "The dragon is coming, you have to help us!" Most NPCs will be positively inclined towards Richard. His reputation is sterling, and the kingdom has prospered. They will have little or no interest in changing his laws, let alone deposing him. Further, combat will be fairly one-sided. The Shining Knights are ubiquitous and forceful in putting down altercations (public acts of violence are a big no-no). The PCs will have to venture into the wild to improve their combat skills, although this will give them an excuse to buy weapons. (What citizen would sell them weapons "So we can kill the king?")

It also raises a big question - will there even be a final boss fight? Richard is LG. He is a truly decent human being. He honestly believes that these laws and rules, despite their invasive nature, will not only make the kingdom and its people prosper, but will make the people themselves better people. And he may be right. If your PCs confront him, if they turn this campaign into an actual war... Won't that make them the bad guys? Handling that moral ambiguity will be key, and may be a bit stomach-turning for players accustomed to being heroes.

Socratov

2013-10-30, 09:07 AM

I'd say you could copy (or at least be inspired by) some plot points from Equilibrium (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/) It might feel a bit orwellian, but to me that is what CG vs. LG would be.

Angelalex242

2013-10-30, 09:35 AM

The most difficult thing is straight out of the Book of Exalted Deeds:

Violence against Good is not Good. Thus, if Good characters fight often enough, someone will inevitably be neutral or even evil by the end of it.

This is why Archons and Eladrin NEVER wage war against eachother in a comparable to the Blood Wars idea. Archons may believe Eladrin are flighty party animals, and Eladrin may think Archons are sticks in the mud who never have fun, but they would never, ever wage war against eachother in lethal combat. (Sparring matches, fine, but...)

As such, if the CG characters don't use diplomacy first, what the hell, CG guys? If the LG King doesn't listen to their complaints in a rational, understanding way, what the hell, King?

And the King, for the low low price of 1000 gp, can buy a phylactery of faithfulness to make sure he's pretty much always in the right, and if the situation is really complex, he can pay a cleric to cast commune.

Such an adventure is actually an adventure where the Apostle of Peace prestige class would really shine, as nobody has any business fighting the other side.

Moreover, it's a safe bet the 'shining knights' mentioned above will include several paladins and lawful good clerics. Even fighting the king's men...the Paladin goes to detect evil, can't find any, and switches to diplomacy mode.

Or to put it another way, Kord and Heironeus are allies. There is no reason whatever for Kord's armies to march against Heironeus. The gods in question would simply tell their clerics 'ummm, no.'

Segev

2013-10-30, 09:52 AM

For a conflict between LG and CG to actually lead to violence, a whole lot of talking needs to have failed. One of the key tenets of "good" is that others have a right to be treated with respect and that others' feelings and well-being is important.

It is too easy to bowlderize "Law" in to "Lawful Evil" when one wishes to justify a L/C conflict, because Chaos does equate to greater freedom of individual choice than does Law in a very general sense. And the more one cracks down on individual freedom, the more one steps away from "good" because you start to decide what is best for others.

Lawful Good will hold individual freedom and responsibility as just as important as will Chaotic Good. It's a matter of how they feel these things are to be achieved.

Chaotic Good believes that one should leave responsibilities to the individual to determine, and that the world is made of special cases that have to be judged on a case-by-case basis with an eye towards helping each other out without demanding anything beyond not actively harming others from anybody who doesn't want to participate.

Lawful Good believes that responsibilities are, at least in part, codified. General rules can be applied specifically, and create order and expectation so that everybody knows what is expected and what responsibilities they have for the freedoms and rewards they want. Like CG, it abhors slavery as a general rule, but it sees far less problem with applying penalties for innocent mistakes, and would prefer to allow some unpleasantness in the name of order.

On the surface, that makes it sound like LG is more tolerant of corruption. In practice, however, CG is more vulnerable to exploitation of their system, because malefactors can act in bad faith without fear of having well-defined agreements pointed to to call them out on what they failed to deliver. CG is more violent, too, because they deal with such malefactors (when discovered) again on a case-by-case basis, and don't concern themselves with "orderly, peaceful" procedures like arrest and trial if they "know" what really happened.

LG, in practical implementation adhering to principle, can allow the guilty to go unpunished if the rules are exploited. CG, in practical implementation adhering to principle, can allow the innocent to be punished because they appear guilty.

The more G those involved are, the less likely either is to happen, as the CG with strong G leanings will give more benefits of a doubt and strive to find proof to be certain while the LG with strong G leanings will be more willing to bend the rules when they really, truly know and only the barest fig leaf of the letter of the law protects the guilty.

However, firmly LG and firmly CG will conflict over, well, conflict resolution methods.

Vigilantism of the most noble sort is the rule of the day in CG societies. The idealized Western has the epitome of CG heroes. They go about and bring retribution to the guilty and relief to the innocent, and they simply find enough proof that they know what happened. They count on their own judgment, and if it is flawed, so be it. If one man feels another's wronged him, and they can't come to an amicable agreement about how to resolve it (though, if both are CG, they're likely to TRY), duels are perfectly acceptable. They may even be well-ordered by traditional rules of engagement, provided both trust the other to adhere to them honorably. But if either doubts the other, they're both willing to throw those rules out the window the moment a hint of that treachery is shown.

LG doesn't tolerate vigilantism. It might tolerate highly regulated and ritualized dueling, but it would never sanction throwing the rules of the duel out the window even if it became clear that the other side had cheated. Adhering to the rules gives the LG individual, in his mind, the moral and ethical high ground. LG relies not only on the individual inflicting punishment knowing the target is guilty, but on proving it so that everybody is aware of it and why, so that trust in the authority of the laws are maintained. Laws exist to uphold good, to the LG society, and authority must be given officially for certain acts lest things devolve into chaos.

A CG society is going to be, well, chaotic. Not unpleasantly so for those used to it. Social contracts still exist, but people are going to respect authority because it's earned, rather than because it's given. Codes of conduct are instinctual, and flex as needed.

LG societies are going to be, unsurprisingly, orderly. You can know the score by reading up on the rules. Traditions will also be present, but they're a lot easier to codify in words and thus teach to outsiders.

Developing This LG/CG War

Your King Richard wouldn't need to enact draconian guilt-finding with light punishment; in fact, such would actually tend to undermine his goal as some would make the simple financial calculation that a few hours in jail or a small fine is worth the benefits of the infraction. This causes people to LOSE respect for the law, as they start value-judging whether a given law is "worth" following.

Instead, I think King Richard should probably have very sharply defined laws with well-defined punishments, and more importantly, have very clear rules for how one proves guilt. Where he has left himself and his magistrates autonomy is mostly in who are appointed to what positions of authority, and with some leeway given in ability to apply lighter sentences (or "creative" ones, in some cases where the crime is only technical and the person who committed it was really trying to do the right thing), but with laws in place to prevent over-reach and to protect the innocent from being framed or lynched.

This leads to something akin to our own problems in modern society that tend to give rise to our super-hero fiction. There are criminals who get off the hook. Because King Richard is an autocrat when it comes to applying who is in what position, the only corrupt government officials are those who can fool their superiors into believing they are not corrupt. Corruption is its own crime, and more importantly, even if King Richard cannot prove it sufficient to warrant legal action, he can always fire the malefactor.

But that's not enough for our CG heroes. They wish to see justice done. Perhaps one horrid crook has gotten off too easy too often and just won't stop. Perhaps there is just too much LE sneaking in and Richard is powerless to stop it because they're operating outside his direct legal authority to hire and fire. His Shining Knights do their best, but too often see this mafia-like influence laughing as they exploit loopholes to get away with it.

The CG types start taking matters into their own hands. Maybe they even have some Shining Knights initially on their side. Mobman has gotten away with it too often, and the Shining Knights who are sympathetic either catch him "resisting arrest" or go take a short walk to compose their report while the CG vigilantes "take care of it."

But the law does not tolerate such infractions. The Shining Knight in question is one the King likes and knows wouldn't murder somebody who didn't deserve it, but it was still a crime. He has to fire him, and he has to apply a punishment. Maybe he has some light ones for "overzealous pursuit of the accused," and the (now former) Shining Knight merely has honors stripped and is publicly shamed. But in any event, he can't allow more of this, or it breaks down order.

The CG heroes are upset, but somewhat understanding...this time. But they keep up their activities, and maybe the ex-Shining Knight (or few) work with them. They perpetrate a campaign against the LE organization that is most definitely illegal. Maybe they even cause violence to spread to some innocents. They do feel bad about it; let this conflict torment them a little and if they attack innocents believing them guilty, this fuels the LG side's point that you "can't DO that!"

Then, in desperation, the King starts enacting more laws against things the LE group are doing. But these laws infringe on innocents' freedoms, too. He does his best to make minimum punishments light, but it's still irksome to the CG types who see it as creating more problems than it solves.

The out-and-out war would eventually develop because the LG side cannot let the CG side's crimes go unpunished, even if they, between them, managed to stamp out the LE organization's ... well, organization. Obviously, it's not a perfect world, so you'll never purge evil entirely, but perhaps it becomes less organized crime.

In any event, I think you need that touch of an evil "third side" to really force it into being a war. Without that, the methods of the LG King could be light enough of a touch that the CG types just stay out of the way. Good laws will not upset CG types until people start exploiting them, especially when administered by good men. Honest mistakes might irritate the CG types when the LG types nevertheless enforce the rigid rules, but those rules will usually leave enough room for mercy that the punishments are, again, as light as possible.

The only other way I can think to do it would be one that could also cause CG to go to war with CG: irreconciliable differences over who is in the right, and no room for compromise. Since CG is one that allows "taking matters into your own hands," this can lead to two good sides fighting because they believe the other side has wronged them.

Good people who can be calmed down from their anger might be talked out of it eventually.

Lawful Good people would take it to the courts, and (possibly grudgingly) abide by the Lawful ruling.

Combative conflict - unless codified in the laws for some reason (duels, etc.) - will generally only be instigated by Chaotic types. The whole point behind Laws is to provide orderly ways of doing things without having to resort to the oldest law of all: "Can I do it? Can you stop me?"

hamishspence

2013-10-30, 10:01 AM

Nice. Very insightful.

Champions of Valor discusses LG vs CG conflicts (as well as CG vs CG and LG vs LG - much rarer, in Faerun).

But most of what it says is like this- but shorter and in less detail.

Barstro

2013-10-30, 10:01 AM

The "fun" thing about laws is that crafty people will find a way to benefit from them at the expense of others. The kingdom could very easily have an opportunistic "evil" elite that is able to use all the laws of the kingdom to strengthen their power and persecute others.

Because the king and his immediate subjects are instituting good laws, they see no reason to remove those laws, and the unintended consequences continue. The PCs have to fight in order to get rid of the foundation of inequity. Unfortunately, fighting the opportunistic bastards won't do anything; they have to fight good people to create a greater good.

Uhtred

2013-10-30, 10:02 AM

I always think of Batman vs. Superman. Superman does his best to let legitimate law enforcement tackle the things they're capable of facing, but should lives be in danger and he is called upon by the police or victims to assist, he does so using his extraordinary talents, but still typically using nonlethal means that are within the law to bring non-metahuman threats to justice, typically then handing them over to law enforcement. If metagumans are involved then Supes typically feels ok hauling out the super-strength, but he'll do his best to talk them down first.
Batman, at least the non-60's camp version, operates outside of the laws and is effective because hr can do things the police cannot. He can pursue suspects beyond the police jurisdiction without consulting or contacting federal law enforcement. He can lead with violence and follow with evidence rather than the other way around. He can use nonstandard surveillance and interrogation techniques to acquire evidence and confessions. He can break the speed limit, execute illegal u-turns, hang-glide in urban areas, fly through restricted airspace. He knows the laws, he ignores the laws, and will not hesitate to violently break up a mugging or robbery, despite law enforcement typically being able to handle that sort of thing using only the threat of violence and being only a bat-phone call away. And that is where he and the Big Blue Boyscout disagree.
When he and Batman first met, the result was less than amicable. Supes disagreed with Bats' methods, Bats thought Supes was wishy-washy, unwilling to do what needed to be done for true justice, his idea of justice, to be served.
That's what happens when LG and CG are in conflict. Fortunately for CG, not being evil means being immune to Smite, and unfortunately for LG CG is able to break all the rules in a duel or fight. Such conflicts typically end with both realizing the other is necessary, that they're both on the same team, but I don't suppose it HAS to. :)

Angelalex242

2013-10-30, 10:22 AM

The other side of that is 'Justice League', where Superman is the best friend on the Justice League (along with Wonder Woman) Batman has.

But, let us quote the Book of Exalted Deeds:
That said, there are certain limits upon the use of violence
that good characters must observe. First, violence in the name
of good must have just cause, which in the D&D world means
primarily that it must be directed against evil. It is certainly possible
for a good nation to declare war upon another good nation,
but fighting in such a conflict is not a good act.

(Defeating the point of the campaign idea...)

What does a good character do when he is opposed by good?
Two good nations might go to war, two good adventuring parties
might be working toward opposite goals, or two good characters
might become bitter enemies. As discussed under
Violence, above, violence against good creatures is not good.
When conflict arises, as it certainly will at times, good characters
must use every diplomatic means available to avoid the outbreak
of violence, whether between nations, smaller groups, or
individuals. In the D&D universe, if one side’s goals are actually
evil, a relatively simple commune spell can make that abundantly
clear. Diplomacy might not always work, but the outbreak of
violence is not just a failure of diplomacy, it is a failure of good
and a victory for evil.

(Just in case you didn't get it the first time, good vs. good is a victory ONLY for those who are evil! Divide and Conquer, in its highest form...)

Lawful Good characters possess a sense of discipline,
honor, and community that other good characters
do not necessarily share. Lawful good characters
are members of monastic or knightly orders,
church hierarchies, or organizations devoted
to righteous causes. They believe that
morality can be legislated, and promote
the establishment of just societies whose
laws and customs inculcate good behavior
in their citizens. Lawful good adventurers
fight evil knowing that they have the
support of legal systems behind them: they
are bringing criminals to justice as well as
opposing evil.
In an evil culture or one that
tolerates evil, lawful good
characters are in a difficult
situation. On the one hand,
they abhor evil and cannot stand to
see it institutionalized. On the other
hand, they believe in legitimate authority
and will not overthrow a kingdom
because of evil practices within it. Lawful
good characters usually try to work to
change flawed social structures from
within, using whatever political
power is available to them rather
than toppling those structures
by force.
(So it is written)

Chaotic Good characters
are strong-willed
individualists who tolerate
no oppression, even in the
name of the common good.
They usually work alone or
in loose bands, rather than as part of some organization or hierarchy.
They have no confidence in the ability of laws and social
mores to train people in good behavior. Indeed, they have seen
all too often how people hide behind rules and laws as an excuse
for evil or at least irresponsible acts. While promoting a legal
system that places few restrictions on individual freedom,
chaotic good individuals look to other forces—religion, philosophy,
or community, for example—to encourage good behavior
and punish evil. Chaotic good adventurers fight evil because it’s
evil, not because it’s illegal.
In societies where evil practices are tolerated, chaotic good
characters are the most likely rebels, and they have few hesitations
about overthrowing the existing order if it means eliminating
those evils.

(Well then...)

Neutral Good characters occupy an indistinct middle
ground. They espouse the ideals of good and none other. As a
rule, they don’t care whether good is imposed through laws and
customs or encouraged by temples and philosophers; they
simply want goodness to flourish. Legislating morality sometimes
works, and is good as far as it goes. When lawful
good societies begin legislating every detail of their citizens’
lives, however, passing laws on subjects that have
no bearing on good and evil, the neutral good citizens
become impatient. They support law when it promotes
good, but not law for its own sake. Similarly, they like the idea of
personal freedom, but they’re not sure everyone should have it:
too much freedom gives evildoers too much room to prosper.
Like chaotic good adventurers, neutral good ones fight evil
because it’s evil, but it certainly doesn’t hurt to have the backing
of legal authority whenever possible.
Neutral good characters in societies that tolerate evil resist
evil to the extent they can, without actively working to overthrow
the government. They protest injustice, sometimes
engaging in civil disobedience since unjust laws are useless
and not binding in their view.

(In this LG vs. CG type conflict of interests, don't forget the NGs in the middle, who are probably going to try to mediate things!)

Segev

2013-10-30, 10:35 AM

NG will typically look CG to an outsider, but will be more than happy to work with laws because they tend to agree that protecting the innocent is more important than punishing the guilty. However, they will weight the likelihood of the guilty escaping causing MORE harm, where the LG person will not. The NG person cares less for the respect for the law and more for the respect for the right. He believes in laws as good ways to create common understanding. Where the CG will renegotiate and be flexible (or resort to violence if he feels that he's being wronged), the NG will be very desirous to be almost Lawful in setting up what everybody expects out of a situation. He'll just be a lot more flexible when it comes to granting mercy for unforeseen circumstances. He doesn't mind letting the "law" fall through the cracks for what is right, as long as everybody is on the same page to begin with.

They're not indistinct, to my mind; they're just purer in looking for the greatest GOOD for each involved, over looking for the greatest freedom or the greatest order.

Like I said in my earlier long-winded spiel, the Lawful Good person who is leaning more towards Good will let the law slip a bit when necessary. The CG person leaning more towards Good will give greater benefit of a doubt and probably seek a bit more legitimacy before going after the guilty. Good is about caring about others at least as much as oneself. Law and personal initiative are tools to the NG person, whereas they're paramount means to the LG and CG person (respectively).

Angelalex242

2013-10-30, 10:44 AM

The solution to the Lawful Good character's dilemma, also in plain text in the Book of Exalted Deeds. (Ain't it wonderful how they SORT ALL THIS OUT FOR YOU?)

For better or for worse, a paladin is not just good: she is lawful
good, sworn not just to uphold the principles of good but also
bound by a code of conduct, and subject to local law as well.
Many paladins are also members of a specific deity’s church, a
knightly order of some sort, or both. At the best of times, these
various loyalties—her code of conduct, her church’s laws, her
order’s demands, the laws of her nation, and the abstraction of
her alignment—are all in harmony, and her path is clear before
her. When circumstances are not so ideal, she finds herself torn
between conflicting demands: her superior in her knightly
order commands her to kill a brutal murderer who has escaped
punishment in court on a legal technicality, for example. Her
personal code requires that she punish those that harm innocents,
and this killer certainly falls in that category. However,
her personal code also instructs her to respect legitimate authority,
which includes both her knightly superior and the local law
that has let the killer go free. The demands of her good alignment
suggest she should punish the wrongdoer, but the
demands of her lawful alignment insist that she obey the judgment
of the court. It is entirely possible that either her superior
or the magistrate in the case is corrupt or even possessed.
Whom does she obey? How does she sort out the conflicting
demands of her loyalties?

Paladins are by no means alone in this situation. Any character
who tries consistently to do good eventually finds himself
in a situation where different loyalties are in conflict. Chaotic
good characters might care far less about a potentially corrupt
or at least ineffectual court system, but they might have other
personal standards or obligations that cause conflict in similar
or different situations. In the end, however, many such conflicts
boil down to a question of priorities, and for a character
who aspires to exalted deeds, good is the highest priority. In the
example above, the murderer must at least be captured, if not
killed, before he can kill again. If she has reason to suspect corruption,
either in the court or in her own order, the paladin
must attempt to uncover it, though it might mean being cast
out of her order, punished under local law, or both. Her paladinhood
and her exalted status remain intact, since she acted in
the cause of good even when that required questioning the
legitimacy of authority. Magistrates or knightly superiors who
serve the cause of evil while posing as agents of good are not
legitimate authority, and the paladin is right for exposing their
corruption.

(As such, if the LG King sees crooks getting away on technicalities, even if the King is a Paladin, he's perfectly free to execute justice on the bad guys, technicalities be damned. And if the LG king is NOT putting Good ahead of Law, he's doing it wrong.)

hamishspence

2013-10-30, 10:52 AM

It has its flaws- but BoED earns itself a high place in my opinion, because of this sort of thing.

CyberThread

2013-10-30, 11:27 AM

Fax Celestis

2013-10-30, 11:35 AM

Angelalex242

2013-10-30, 11:39 AM

Well, they made a Book of Exalted Deeds and a Book of Vile Darkness, but I haven't heard of a book of Ironclad Law or a book of Random Stuff.

But in general, yes, good and evil are higher priorities then law or chaos. That's why 'screw the rules, I'm doing what's right' is the choice that lets a Paladin stay a Paladin when law and good come into conflict. It's also why good celestials never fight eachother, but devils and demons ALWAYS fight eachother. (Good beings don't fight, evil always preys upon itself.)

Flickerdart

2013-10-30, 11:41 AM

Angelalex242

2013-10-30, 11:47 AM

Well, that's more the predliction of evil, though.

You don't see Formians waging war against Slaadi, for example.

Brookshw

2013-10-30, 12:09 PM

Have you read the Tales of Wyre? Misguided understandings acted upon can cause good to choose the wrong side in a conflict, but of course once the understanding is corrected the conflict should cease (on a physical level at least)

Flickerdart

2013-10-30, 12:15 PM

Well, that's more the predliction of evil, though.

You don't see Formians waging war against Slaadi, for example.
Sure, they don't seek each other out, because each one is happy to let the others do their thing somewhere else (due to their neutrality). It's not hard to imagine conflict between them though - if Formians and Slaadi ever ran into each other, they would probably start fighting in short order.

Angelalex242

2013-10-30, 12:19 PM

In a world of magic, particularly divine magic, a commune spell fixes that nonsense up right quick. Mortals are dumb, easily deceived. The gods, not so much.

But what if the highest level cleric in town is only 3rd level, you say? And there's no Paladins around to act as canaries of goodness? (If the Paladin loses his powers, clearly he was wrong. If he doesn't, you're wrong...) That is, a Paladin can't fight a Cleric of Kord without one of the two combatants losing their powers relatively quickly in the fight. (unless it's a nonlethal sparring match)

Then you might be able to make this happen. But any scenario with a King is going to have access to a high enough level cleric to cast commune. Once cast, the gods sort the nonsense out.

ArqArturo

2013-10-30, 12:25 PM

On the individual level, it may come to blows, but never to draw blood.

On a large scale, however. There could be tension, but no actual war... Until a third party assassinates a valuable target of X, and puts the blame on Y.

Angelalex242

2013-10-30, 12:30 PM

ArqArturo

2013-10-30, 12:36 PM

Again, defeated by the Commune spell.

King Richard's Cleric:Was King Arthur responsible for this?
God:No.
Did anyone affiliated with his kingdom do this?
God:No.
Did a 3rd party do this?
God:Yes.

And then both kingdoms work together to catch the bad guy.

Is it possible to 'hijack' a spell? I'm looking for something of that nature within the BoVD, or perhaps the same 3rd party could manage to snag the casters, and place doppelgangers to continue the ruse. But yes, Commune can work this out to, in the end, make the god guys either hire a band of heroes, or do it on their own.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-30, 12:36 PM

A war between CG and LG would come down, basically, to ideologies: an LG community could be a strict city-state with a benevolent-yet-iron-fisted monarch. Very strict legislature with harsh--yet fair--rules dictating aspects of nearly all parts of life. A CG rebellion from within said community would then try to maintain the standard of living while relaxing the restrictions of the law upon daily life, improving freedoms and the responsibility of the individual. They might even attempt to depose the Patrician the benevolent ruler on the grounds that no one should rule them but themselves.

Segev

2013-10-30, 12:48 PM

The problem, which I love that folks are taking such a good hearty effort to this. You have given me plenty to think on .

A question though is, why does GOOD/EVIL have a stronger axis then LAW/CHAOS?

They seem equal power poles, what if they align stongers along LAW?CHAOS and not the other one?

They don't have a stronger axis, actually. You're examining it from a flawed perspective.

You're looking at "good overriding law/chaos" because you're looking at LG v. CG.

If you examined the Blood War, you could easily draw the opposite conclusion: they're fighting over Law and Chaos despite all being one evil family!

The truth is that Evil and Chaos, for unrelated reasons, are more likely to resort to open combat to achieve their ends. When the L/C sides of Good conflict, their first instinct is towards mercy and understanding. They will try to come together and work something out, because they all care about each other and don't WANT to hurt people. They will if they have to, but it's a last resort.

When the G/E sides of Law conflict, they will get together in extensive negotiations. Evil might resort to some clandestine assassinations, but they'll be surgical as a rule. Both value Law, agreements as to how to handle things, and doing things in an orderly fashion that will last because the agreements were the best that could be worked out.

The LN and CN beings don't get talked about in conflict much, but there is absolutely reason why they'd be every bit as much "at war" as NG and NE would be. Order vs. Chaos, Law and rules and regulations and organization vs. freewheeling do what you like individuality is definitely a thing. But it won't "look" like a war very often, but more like "the cops vs. the hoodlums." The "hoodlums" may not really be out to hurt anybody (but will callously do so if the alternative is personally worse), but they're flouting the law and the order-keepers will pursue them for this horrible disrespect for society...even as they also hurt people if the law says to, but don't look for ways TO hurt people if there's no reason to.

Brookshw

2013-10-30, 12:55 PM

Again, defeated by the Commune spell.

King Richard's Cleric:Was King Arthur responsible for this?
God:No.
Did anyone affiliated with his kingdom do this?
God:No.
Did a 3rd party do this?
God:Yes.

And then both kingdoms work together to catch the bad guy.

Bear in mind that some things, notably Elder Evils, cannot be detected by the gods so I would assume commune spells related to a dieties blind spots (they do have others!) Would result in silence.

Angelalex242

2013-10-30, 01:05 PM

You contact your deity—or agents thereof —and ask questions that can be answered by a simple yes or no. (A cleric of no particular deity contacts a philosophically allied deity.) You are allowed one such question per caster level. The answers given are correct within the limits of the entity’s knowledge. “Unclear” is a legitimate answer, because powerful beings of the Outer Planes are not necessarily omniscient. In cases where a one-word answer would be misleading or contrary to the deity’s interests, a short phrase (five words or less) may be given as an answer instead.

The spell, at best, provides information to aid character decisions. The entities contacted structure their answers to further their own purposes. If you lag, discuss the answers, or go off to do anything else, the spell ends.

(In the event of an elder evil, the cleric of Heironeus would instead get:
Did King Arthur authorize this?
No
Did anyone in his kingdom do this?
No
Did a 3rd party do this?
Unclear. (or, I don't know.) )
Should we attack Arthur?
No.)

As for hijacking DIRECT communication between a cleric and his own god? Well, the Dark Powers in the Ravenloft setting can do that, but other then that, or Epic Spells, I imagine messing with such direct communication is pretty much not gonna happen. (And if you do manage to pull it off with epic spells, woe to you when the unhappy deity you messed with sends agents after you....)

Barstro

2013-10-30, 01:29 PM

Did King Arthur authorize this?
No

Note that this question is very different than your previous;

King Richard's Cleric:Was King Arthur responsible for this?
I submit that the latter answer could be "yes", depending on how the god feels about causal relations (and the definition of "responsible").

I've read many a fantasy novel where an innocent person goes to prison or death due to honestly answering a trained Solicitor's questions.

Who is at fault when a chaotic good Solicitor it trying to make something good happen for the kingdom by using a lawful good king's system of judgement to harm an innocent person so that thousands more may benefit?

Angelalex242

2013-10-30, 01:36 PM

The solicitor. Whoever intends to cause harm for the greater good is the bad guy. The greater good is NEVER an excuse.

And, if Mr. Chaotic Good Solicitor was a cleric of Kord (or a Holy Liberator/Paladin of Freedom), he'd find himself spell free after pulling that kind of stunt.

"to harm an innocent person"

That bit of phrasing right there assigns blame quite clearly. Everything else is obfuscations or justifications.

From the Book of Exalted Deeds. All this stuff is in black and white, folks.

When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? Is it
morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in
order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of
thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the
thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands
of deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and a neutral character
might easily consider the use of torture in such a
circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller
scale, even the most virtuous characters
can find themselves tempted to agree
that a very good end justifies a
mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to
tell a small lie in order to prevent a
minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe?
A world-shattering catastrophe?
In the D&D universe, the fundamental
answer is no, an evil act is an evil act
no matter what good result it may
achieve. A paladin who knowingly
commits an evil act in pursuit of any
end no matter how good still jeopardizes
her paladinhood. Any exalted
character risks losing exalted feats or
other benefits of celestial favor if he commits
any act of evil for any reason. Whether
or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly
cannot make evil means any less evil.
Some good characters might view a situation where an evil
act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom:
“I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my
purity.” For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they
would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause.
After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character
can hang on to her exalted feats.
Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of
thinking treats the purity of the good character’s soul as a commodity
(like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice
like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good
character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger
than the individual character. What the character sees as a personal
sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of
power between good and evil, in evil’s favor. The consequences
of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond
the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character
doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession
to evil, and thus unconscionable.
Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means
remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about
their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them,
no matter how great the need.
Sometimes a situation might demand that a good character
cooperate with an evil one in order to accomplish a worthy and
righteous goal. The evil character might not even be pursuing
the same goal. For example, a brief civil war has put a new ruling
house in power in a drow city, and the new rulers start actively
raiding the surface world. A party of good adventurers travels
into the depths of the earth to stop the drow raids. At the same
time, a party of evil drow loyal to the deposed house seeks to
overthrow the new rulers and restore their house to its position
of power. The two groups have different but mutually compatible
goals, and it is possible—within certain limits—for them to
cooperate with each other. However, the good characters must
not tolerate any evil acts committed by an evil ally during the
time of their alliance, and can’t simply turn a blind eye to such
acts. They must ensure that helping the drow will put a stop to
the surface raids, which might entail a level of trust the drow
simply do not deserve. And of course they must not
turn on their erstwhile allies when victory is in
sight, betraying the trust the drow placed
in them. Such a situation is dangerous
both physically and morally, but
cooperating with evil creatures is
not necessarily evil in itself.

ArqArturo

2013-10-30, 01:36 PM

As for hijacking DIRECT communication between a cleric and his own god? Well, the Dark Powers in the Ravenloft setting can do that, but other then that, or Epic Spells, I imagine messing with such direct communication is pretty much not gonna happen. (And if you do manage to pull it off with epic spells, woe to you when the unhappy deity you messed with sends agents after you....)

If I were casting epic spells, the least of my worries is a meddlesome goody two-shoes god.

I was thinking along the lines of this: Let's say that a cabal of Disciples of Baal are interested that a) Arthur's realm is over, since their chaotic nature may screw things up for them b) to manipulate Richard's Realm, so that they work as the rulers behind the curtain. They set in motion a plan that involves killing the high priest, and planting a look-alike double to pressure the king into war. Second, you take the advisers, usually with murder or framing them, and plant your own. Now you have the chance to manipulate a king into going to war against a CG realm. Unless, of course, one of the parts of the operation botches, or some meddling adventurers and their little paladin sniffing around ruins the whole thing.

Angelalex242

2013-10-30, 01:46 PM

If you're smart enough to get even HALF of that plot done, you'd be dumber then dumb to not put a ring of mind shielding on your replacement cleric.

Clistenes

2013-10-30, 01:46 PM

If the LG side is really LG, and not some shade of LN, it's going to take some effort to avoid the CG side looking like jerks.

I mean, you have a Good government or ruler trying to make and enforce laws to end poverty, hunger, disease and crime, and then some CG guy comes and says "I don't wanna follow your rules! I'm going to tear down your system so people can freely starve and get mugged, killed and raped!"

I can see a CG character working outside law to punish Evil without the constraints said laws impose, but, why would they want to depose a government that tries to make people happy, safe and free? To replace it, with, what? A non-good government? No government at all?.

ArqArturo

2013-10-30, 01:49 PM

If you're smart enough to get even HALF of that plot done, you'd be dumber then dumb to not put a ring of mind shielding on your replacement cleric.

It would be very funny if that priest had Vow of Poverty, and suddenly the king notices the replacement cleric wearing bling :smallcool:.

If the LG side is really LG, and not some shade of LN, it's going to take some effort to avoid the CG side looking as jerks.

The only way I can figure it out is that the LG government might be tolerating something from some nation, but even that is too far-fetched. A LG kingdom that expresses the value of freedom from slavery will not go into merchant relationships with a LN kingdom that tolerates slavery (even if that slavery is more of an indentured servants).

Segev

2013-10-30, 01:58 PM

The trick to avoiding either side "looking like jerks" is to quite simply have them disagree over methods, and have there be a challenge or suite of challenges that these contested methods could be used to solve to varying degrees of effectiveness. The LG people will want to err on the opposite side of things than the CG people, and thus you can highlight the drawbacks of each's methods by the ways they backfire or fail to handle the immediate problem, highlight the strengths of each by demonstrating how they DO resolve the immediate issues, and demonstrate the drawbacks of each by showing where their failures and backfires create long-term difficulties.

Each side feels justified in their actions because "they work" and downplays the severity of those situations where they don't. The methods are often mutually exclusive, and when one "cleans up" the other's "mess," they both feel the other was in the wrong for acting at all. Conflict can arise over these methods, not because they don't feel they SHOULD work together, but because they just can't agree. War breaks out when they have a crisis come to a head, and they HAVE to establish who is going to use their method (or prevent the other from using theirs because the results of failure/backfiring would be too catastrophic).

Angelalex242

2013-10-30, 02:10 PM

That still runs into 'violence against good isn't good', and clerics on both sides, and Paladins on the LG side, will find themselves powers free if they slay another good character.

And you fail to mention where the NG mediators are. They're not gonna stand there and watch. Pelor's clerics will certainly have something to say about it!

Flickerdart

2013-10-30, 03:52 PM

That still runs into 'violence against good isn't good', and clerics on both sides, and Paladins on the LG side, will find themselves powers free if they slay another good character.
Good VS Good conflict features a lot of Merciful swords, Sleep spells, and prisons.

ArqArturo

2013-10-30, 03:54 PM

And lots and lots of Diplomacy.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-30, 04:43 PM

Or litigation.

ArqArturo

2013-10-30, 04:45 PM

Am I the only one that feels weird trying to make two hypothetical good nations/realms to wage war on each other? :smallbiggrin:.

Angelalex242

2013-10-30, 05:16 PM

Well, I feel weird enough about it to point out that there'd have to be multiple epic failures of diplomacy (and possibly nonlethal duels between champions) before it ever came to anything like blows.

Seriously, Sense Motive's a class skill for Paladins and Clerics. If everyone is working towards the common good, there's only so long misunderstandings can last.

CyberThread

2013-10-30, 07:36 PM

*coughs* Helm vs Torm

Angelalex242

2013-10-31, 01:41 AM

Helm is Lawful Neutral, and LG vs. LN is a COMPLETELY different debate.

Barstro

2013-10-31, 07:51 AM

Segev

2013-10-31, 08:06 AM

Consider that Vikings go to Asgard, and in D&D's cosmology that's one of the strongly CG planes. They find death in glorious battle to be awesome.

Chaotic types can kill. Just not indiscriminately. And sometimes, people who are LG "need killin'" when their Laws are getting in the way of what's right. "Right" here is filtered through the CG perspective, obviously.

Stux

2013-10-31, 08:11 AM

hamishspence

2013-10-31, 11:01 AM

It also represents the far extreme of Goodness.

Characters who are a mix of Good and Evil (but so much more Good than Evil, as to not qualify as Neutral) could work for a Good vs Good conflict.

Angelalex242

2013-10-31, 11:22 AM

That doesn't make such a conflict any less of a victory for evil, or a failure of good in general. It also doesn't mean divine casters won't lose their powers for participating in this sort of nonsense, because the gods of light won't put up with it, even if their followers are being stupid for some reason or other.

Remember, Azatas never decide Archons just 'need killin' cause they're 'in the way.' Archons DO sometimes decide Azatas need to be reigned in a little, but they never go lethal about it. It's a diplomacy duel. (And sometimes, the Archon has to give way in the greater cause of good.) Of course, Celestials are ALSO untainted by mortal foibles. "What fools these mortals be" and all that.

That said, in a scenario where there's no divine casters involved, good can technically fight good all they want, as there's no supernatural divine powers involved slapping them around for being idiots. If the parties consist only of Barbarian and Fighters and wizards and sorcerers and bards and monks, then there's no supernatural forces in play to go 'knock it off you idiots.' It's just clerics and paladins that absolutely cannot participate in this, and to a lesser extent, druids and rangers (the power of nature has VERY different concern then gods of light, so these guys tend to side with whoever's killing less trees.)

Oko and Qailee

2013-10-31, 11:31 AM

- cut bc of length - .

I just wanted to tell you this is one of the coolest campaign premises I've ever read. Seems REALLY hard to do, but would be epic if pulled off right.

Red Fel

2013-10-31, 12:06 PM

I just wanted to tell you this is one of the coolest campaign premises I've ever read. Seems REALLY hard to do, but would be epic if pulled off right.

Thanks! :smallsmile:

I agree with many of the above posters that an all-out war between Good and Good would be non-Good, and that divine casters and Phylacteries of Faithfulness would put a stop to major conflicts pretty quickly.

But Good and Good do disagree, on methods, on practices, on lots of things. And while it's true that they would rather resort to diplomacy or peaceful means as opposed to bloody conflict, remember two things.

1: Diplomacy does not always work. Sad but true. An LG ruler, even a merciful and just one, will be idealistic. He will have certain limits that he simply will not cross, and far more of those than an NG or CG ruler might. By the same token, a CG resistance like this must necessarily stand for ideals; ideals are a hard thing to compromise. If they reach a point where peaceful means cannot progress unless one side yields, and neither side is able to yield, there will be conflict. It may not be war, but it will be friction.

2: These are not Outsiders. These are simple, imperfect, fallible mortals who make mistakes. The Blood War happens because Evil Outsiders are aggressive and self-interested enough that they will kill one another over ideas of Law and Chaos. They'll kill each other over a misunderstood glance. Good Outsiders are too Good to do something like that. But mortals, even noble mortals, are not so purely Good that they won't occasionally do something regrettable. And the gods, while they may frown on such things, won't generally intervene unless it becomes necessary.

Most importantly, a campaign pitting LG against CG won't be pretty, and it won't be happy. It won't be your typical combat-oriented campaign, because neither side wants to kill the other. It will involve subterfuge, and espionage, and covert operations, and diplomacy. It will involve betrayal, moral ambiguity, and hurt feelings. It won't be a nice campaign where the PCs come out the other side feeling like Big Dang Heroes. They'll probably feel pretty cruddy at the end of it.

And that's the bottom line. Can it be done? Absolutely. It will be a non-traditional spygame of attrition where the PCs feel like garbage for ruining what might have been pretty darn close to a utopia. It will take PCs of exceptional quality as RPers, and a DM of incomparable talent as a storyteller.

Angelalex242

2013-10-31, 01:20 PM

I also think it's important to have 'peaceful resolution' be an option.

That is, establish a base 'diplomacy check' where if the PCs win, the other side sees their point and concedes something. Remember, only 2-5% of these conflicts end in an actual fight...

By contrast, there should also be a mechanic in place where the PCs can 'lose' on diplomacy...maybe they have to make sense motive checks against the diplomacy of the other side. If they fail, they get a 'diplomacy counter.' If they get more 'diplomacy counters' then their will save, they concede the king's point. "Well, you're right...attacking that guy out of hand, it's possible we could've made a mistake and attacked the wrong guy..."

Grytorm

2013-10-31, 01:38 PM

Also with a viewpoint that people are people first and are loyal to other people before alignments it can work well. Two groups of people who try to make the world a bit better for everyone at each others throats over some random things. Sure those Knights paid fairly for the section of forest that the new road passes through, but it was still the Elves' extensive sacred forest.

Angelalex242

2013-10-31, 01:41 PM

At that point, I question why the elves sold it in the first place. You don't SELL Sacred Forest. (at least not to Knights. Maybe you could sell it to druids, but...)

Red Fel

2013-10-31, 01:46 PM

At that point, I question why the elves sold it in the first place. You don't SELL Sacred Forest. (at least not to Knights. Maybe you could sell it to druids, but...)

Perhaps the Elves understood it not to be a sale of the forest, but a lease for dwelling, or a rent paid for safe passage... Not ownership, just use-without-harm. Perhaps the Elves also don't believe in permanent ownership of land - the "sale," in their minds, was a payment for a temporary benefit, which has expired.

Or perhaps the Elves never sold the land at all, nor did they recognize the sale; perhaps some humans came by years ago, saw that nobody lived there, and under the laws of the human kingdom, claimed ownership, unbeknownst to and without consulting the Elves, as they had no reason to know the Elves laid claim to a patch of uninhabited forest. Perhaps these humans did not use the land, thus not giving the Elves notice of their claim, but later sold the land in a perfectly legal sale to someone who did proceed to make use of the Sacred Forest. (Admittedly, this begins to look like a law school exam.)

And so it goes. Nobody's being evil, but they all have something important to them that they claim a right to. The conflict is inevitable.

Angelalex242

2013-10-31, 01:52 PM

And...THAT would be settled in court. The elven diplomat shows up, the humans who thought they had it show up, they make sure the jury has 6 elves and 6 humans on it, and the case gets decided.

Flickerdart

2013-10-31, 02:07 PM

And...THAT would be settled in court. The elven diplomat shows up, the humans who thought they had it show up, they make sure the jury has 6 elves and 6 humans on it, and the case gets decided.
If there's a pressing reason the elves need the land back (that the humans don't see as legitimate - a cultural reason for instance), they might not allow the time for due process to happen and just chase everyone out with sleep and teleportation circles.

Grytorm

2013-10-31, 02:10 PM

My thought was that the Knights would have at least attempted to claim imminent domain of that section of forest claiming that they need the road in order to have a short march to a nearby allied city. The Elves would have objected to that but the Knights weren't willing to really take no for an answer.

Just what my original idea for what could lead to conflict between LG and CG.

Red Fel

2013-10-31, 02:24 PM

And...THAT would be settled in court. The elven diplomat shows up, the humans who thought they had it show up, they make sure the jury has 6 elves and 6 humans on it, and the case gets decided.

Whose court?

The kingdom's court? The kingdom is a human kingdom. It has laws for land ownership, laying claims to uninhabited lands, and so forth. The elves certainly made no attempt to mark the Sacred Forest as their own. Even a judge who was culturally sensitive to the elven position would acknowledge that unowned land is unowned; as the elves acknowledge that nobody owns the Sacred Forest, and they made no attempt to demarcate it as separate property, humans were within rights to take possession.

And what if the elves refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of the human courts at all in issues of elven sanctity?

Fine, let's try it in an elven court. Well, according to elven law, the Sacred Forest belongs to itself; no mortal can own it, nor lay claim to it, nor desecrate nor despoil it. The humans who bought and sold it violated that law. Done and done.

But wait, reply the humans. We knew of no such law. There were no notices, no warnings, we had no way of knowing this forest was sacred. What's to stop you from declaring any area of forest sacred and not telling us?

And what if the humans refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of the elven courts at all in areas of human property sales? The first owner claimed the land in accordance with human laws. The second bought it in accordance with human laws. What right does the elven court have to say that these transactions were not valid?

Again, a conflict. Neither side is evil. Neither side is wrong. Both sides are opposed. Neither side will acknowledge the other has superior jurisdiction. And who would they appoint to arbitrate? The dwarves? They live in caves, what do they know of sacred forests? The gnomes? They live in the forests as well, of course they would side with the elves. The orcs? They'd simply burn down the forest at first glance, that doesn't help either side.

I'm exaggerating, of course. But you see the point. For the sides to go to the courts, they'd have to acknowledge the ability of the court to render a binding opinion. For diplomacy to work, the sides must be willing to agree to a compromise. Where neither side is able to yield, even a disagreement of Good versus Good isn't easily resolved.

hamishspence

2013-10-31, 02:39 PM

BoVD's example:

Even with the most black-and-white, objective approach to good and evil, gray areas will always exist. Consider this example: a terrible disease has come to the village of Varro, and the cure lies in the heartwood of the sacred trees of the Varrowood. The villagers go into the wood to get the cure. The druids of the Varrowood believe that the trees are holy and should not be violated. They try and stop the villagers. Is either side truly evil in this scenario? Probably not.

Angelalex242

2013-10-31, 02:40 PM

Well, that IS why I said the jury would have 6 elves and 6 humans on it.

After they deliberate for some time, they'd either come up with a solution, or...

As for an arbitrator, I'd have a half elven druid serve as the 'judge', with a counselor who knows all there is to know about human AND elven law. Besides, humans infringing on elven forests has likely happened before, so there'd be precedent on how it was resolved last time. (unless this is a 'when the world is very young' conflict, and it's the first time.)

"This isn't the first time humans infringed on elven lands because the elves forgot to mark it. In the kingdom of X, and neighboring elven kingdom Y, after many long debates about it, they concluded the road could stay, after all, the road is a benefit to elves, and even animals, but traveling on it required a toll to the elves. Oh, and to prevent any further misunderstandings, the elves very clearly marked their lands, and which sections of forest the humans could use for lumber, and how much they could take in any given year."

Grytorm

2013-10-31, 04:48 PM

Why do you assume that people with a Good alignment must be particularly reasonable?
Although mediation is a very good solution to the problems people deal with it isn't always possible for people to agree on a mediator. Mostly I suggested the road thing because I wanted to see what could bring two good groups into conflict that with time could escalate into war. In an actual story hings could be resolved peacefully or things could get much worse. It all depends how things turn out.

Also I actually have a reasonably developed opinion about alignments and how the interact. Probably part of the reason why I can actual take part in these somewhat extended arguments now.

Angelalex242

2013-10-31, 05:36 PM

Not EVERY good person reasonable, true. But the guys they make ambassadors ARE reasonable (or they wouldn't have that job), so...

hamishspence

2013-10-31, 05:41 PM

Not EVERY good person reasonable, true. But the guys they make ambassadors ARE reasonable (or they wouldn't have that job), so...

That said, incompetent, unreasonable ambassadors (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AssInAmbassador) are a trope in their own right.

Frosty

2013-10-31, 06:00 PM

Thanks! :smallsmile:

I agree with many of the above posters that an all-out war between Good and Good would be non-Good, and that divine casters and Phylacteries of Faithfulness would put a stop to major conflicts pretty quickly.

But Good and Good do disagree, on methods, on practices, on lots of things. And while it's true that they would rather resort to diplomacy or peaceful means as opposed to bloody conflict, remember two things.

1: Diplomacy does not always work. Sad but true. An LG ruler, even a merciful and just one, will be idealistic. He will have certain limits that he simply will not cross, and far more of those than an NG or CG ruler might. By the same token, a CG resistance like this must necessarily stand for ideals; ideals are a hard thing to compromise. If they reach a point where peaceful means cannot progress unless one side yields, and neither side is able to yield, there will be conflict. It may not be war, but it will be friction.

2: These are not Outsiders. These are simple, imperfect, fallible mortals who make mistakes. The Blood War happens because Evil Outsiders are aggressive and self-interested enough that they will kill one another over ideas of Law and Chaos. They'll kill each other over a misunderstood glance. Good Outsiders are too Good to do something like that. But mortals, even noble mortals, are not so purely Good that they won't occasionally do something regrettable. And the gods, while they may frown on such things, won't generally intervene unless it becomes necessary.

Most importantly, a campaign pitting LG against CG won't be pretty, and it won't be happy. It won't be your typical combat-oriented campaign, because neither side wants to kill the other. It will involve subterfuge, and espionage, and covert operations, and diplomacy. It will involve betrayal, moral ambiguity, and hurt feelings. It won't be a nice campaign where the PCs come out the other side feeling like Big Dang Heroes. They'll probably feel pretty cruddy at the end of it.

And that's the bottom line. Can it be done? Absolutely. It will be a non-traditional spygame of attrition where the PCs feel like garbage for ruining what might have been pretty darn close to a utopia. It will take PCs of exceptional quality as RPers, and a DM of incomparable talent as a storyteller.Could you put up the Big 16 for this so I can apply to be in this game nao? :smallwink: I'd *love* to play in such a game. If we do play such a game, I'd also suggest homebrewing a social combat system (see the Dresden Files RPG system as an example, but translating it into DnD involved Social HP, defenses, etc all based offa mental stats) that is not only numbers based, but heavily RP based. As in, you do NOT get this stated bonus unless you actually roleplay this well and give an in-game reason of why it works.

Angelalex242

2013-10-31, 07:21 PM

Well, if this game were done HERE, instead of at the table, you could have PCs on BOTH SIDES of this conflict, depending on whether they agree with the king or rebels. (Or the humans vs. the elves, etc.)

Pickford

2013-11-01, 01:24 AM

CyberDrag:

So if was going to set up a hard campgin, against a set of players. The idea being, that you are CG, sick of LG set of rules, and diplomacy is not working.

How would such a war look like?

It would probably resemble thwarting the others goals, rather than outright attacking each other. That being said, if two sides have a territorial dispute, it's entirely possible for them to come to blows and a full out war without either side being evil. That being said, each side will have a mix of good/neutral/evil actors even if the leader happens to have a particular alignment.

(i.e. the leader and their minions could be in harmony in terms of their alignments, or you could have a lawful evil leader who recognizes the value of good minions and those good minions are trying to make the best of things under said leader, or vice versa)

I'd be inclined to think the flash point would be a chaotic good organization disagrees with the policy choices of the lawful good leadership, for example:

Lawful Good leader seeks peace treaties with neighboring country to avoid war, and maintain peace and stability for the innocent. Chaotic Good rights organization within that country is appalled that the leader would allow the neighboring regimes to continue, and so starts up a guerilla war against the evil regimes. In order to avert war, and the horrors consummate with it, the Lawful Good leader outlaws the Chaotic Good organization, and seeks to capture them for fomenting disorder. Thus, the Chaotic Good organization is forced to fight against the Lawful Good government, both believing their are doing 'the right thing' (tm).

It's hard to make clear, as sides tend to demonize their opposition (i.e. to those who are loyalists, the chaotic good group might appear to be rabblerousers, warmongers, and trouble makers; whereas the chaotic good might view/portray the loyalists as heartless) but both sides can be, primarily good (taking into account individual alignment and all that).

Incidentally, it's hard to have a war between Chaotic Good and anyone, because Chaotic Good is somewhat unlikely to get very far in power structures (i.e. short of heridity, most leaders would tend towards Lawful)

There's also, always, the push comes to shove, scenario: Chaotic Good characters have something that Lawful Good characters are required to bring to point X. What happens when they confront each other? Lawful Good are obligated to retrieve said object, Chaotic Good won't back down and the only way to escape is to fight. Thus a fight ensues.

deuxhero

2013-11-01, 01:57 AM

War, especially "civil" war, is great for making people of any alignment fight eachother.

If you want the leaders to both be Good, it requires a bit more effort.

Grytorm

2013-11-01, 12:59 PM

CyberDrag:

It would probably resemble thwarting the others goals, rather than outright attacking each other. That being said, if two sides have a territorial dispute, it's entirely possible for them to come to blows and a full out war without either side being evil. That being said, each side will have a mix of good/neutral/evil actors even if the leader happens to have a particular alignment.

(i.e. the leader and their minions could be in harmony in terms of their alignments, or you could have a lawful evil leader who recognizes the value of good minions and those good minions are trying to make the best of things under said leader, or vice versa)

I'd be inclined to think the flash point would be a chaotic good organization disagrees with the policy choices of the lawful good leadership, for example:

Lawful Good leader seeks peace treaties with neighboring country to avoid war, and maintain peace and stability for the innocent. Chaotic Good rights organization within that country is appalled that the leader would allow the neighboring regimes to continue, and so starts up a guerilla war against the evil regimes. In order to avert war, and the horrors consummate with it, the Lawful Good leader outlaws the Chaotic Good organization, and seeks to capture them for fomenting disorder. Thus, the Chaotic Good organization is forced to fight against the Lawful Good government, both believing their are doing 'the right thing' (tm).

It's hard to make clear, as sides tend to demonize their opposition (i.e. to those who are loyalists, the chaotic good group might appear to be rabblerousers, warmongers, and trouble makers; whereas the chaotic good might view/portray the loyalists as heartless) but both sides can be, primarily good (taking into account individual alignment and all that).

Incidentally, it's hard to have a war between Chaotic Good and anyone, because Chaotic Good is somewhat unlikely to get very far in power structures (i.e. short of heridity, most leaders would tend towards Lawful)

There's also, always, the push comes to shove, scenario: Chaotic Good characters have something that Lawful Good characters are required to bring to point X. What happens when they confront each other? Lawful Good are obligated to retrieve said object, Chaotic Good won't back down and the only way to escape is to fight. Thus a fight ensues.

Probably a critical component for such a war occurring at least with a typical viewpoint of Good would be a lack of communication between the parties. Also sabotaging each others operations would be at least part of how things started. Then you get escalation. So soldiers are sent to clear out to oppose the non violent bandits and things get ugly.

Angelalex242

2013-11-01, 03:02 PM

Pickford

2013-11-01, 10:01 PM

That's still an epic failure of diplomacy.

When the king could, for example, simply invite the CG guys to a banquet at his hall, let them voice their opinions, and we're back to talking things out.

Besides, suppose both sides have a divine caster...

Either the clerics (and paladins) have to sit the whole thing out...(and possibly talk peace while they're at it...)

Or they all end up stripped of their powers for foolishly attacking a good opponent. (If the king's party comes back with a depowered cleric and paladin, and the cg's party goes home with their depowered cleric, they'll certainly try things differently next time!)

This isn't a matter of diplomacy, it's a matter of neither side wanting to back down from fundamental, yet mutually exclusive goals.

edit: And furthermore, neither clerics nor paladins would be at risk for losing their powers simply for fighting (or killing) another good person as that is not an inherently evil act.

Angelalex242

2013-11-01, 11:04 PM

Oh yes it is!

Killing a good person is the definition of an evil act. At least in my games, you may rule 0 otherwise. But any divine caster in my game who slays a good creature (and that applies as much to a gold dragon as a good human...) under anything less then charm/dominate/confuse is cruising for a power loss, or an atonement spell if they are dominated.

I've said 10 times in this thread...violence against good is not good. KILLING good is evil.

Talya

2013-11-01, 11:18 PM

There's a reason Eladrin and Archons mostly get along, while Demons and Devils have been locked in an ancient blood war for nearly an eternity.

Pickford

2013-11-02, 09:21 AM

hamishspence

2013-11-02, 09:26 AM

Angelalex242

2013-11-02, 02:02 PM

That is because killing a good being automatically counts as murder.

From the 2e Paladin handbook...

Category 3: Extreme Violations
This category covers acts that call into question the paladin’s commitment to his ethos, such as intentional acts that jeopardize the safety of non-evil characters. Examples include:
• Delaying the execution of an edict, or failing to satisfactorily complete an edict.
• Informing travelers that the road ahead is safe, declining to mention the rumors of bandits.
• Inadvertently inflicting great harm on the patron’s cause, such as failure to protect an artifact or important official. (Would ya look at that. It's possible to jeapordize your status just for BAD DICE ROLLS! Beware of dice that roll too many 1s, kids...)
• Avarice, usury, or preoccupation with worldly goods.
• Failing to aid a dying person.
• Panicking and retreating from a battle.
Sample penalties include:
• Forfeit his stronghold and all other property holdings.
• Permanently lose the ability to cast spells (or the spells of a particular sphere) until appropriate atonement is made.
• Permanently lose one of the following abilities: detect presence of evil, disease immunity, aura of protection, or laying on hands to cure disease until appropriate atonement is made.
• The bonded mount leaves, never to return. The paladin never acquires a replacement.

Category 4: Execrable Violations
This category includes the most intolerable and unforgivable ethos violations, the worst deeds a paladin can commit. Any direct violation of a stricture or edict belongs here, as do violations that result in physical harm to any lawful good character. This category also includes any violation affecting an official of the paladin’s government or church. Examples include:

• Refusing or ignoring a just edict.
• Habitual cowardice.
• Committing an act of blasphemy.
• Betrayal of the patron.
• Concealing funds, hoarding more than 10 magical items, or purposely neglecting to tithe.

There is but one penalty here:
• The paladin immediately loses his status, as described in the “Evil Violations’’ section above.

Heinous crimes against the monarch may merit execution. Crimes against the church may result in a vengeful deity striking the paladin dead with a lightning bolt or causing the earth to swallow him up. (If in doubt, roll 1d20. On a roll of 1, the deity kills the blasphemous paladin; otherwise he is just subject to institutional penalties.)

On Killing/Murder:
When will a paladin take a life? A paladin kills whenever necessary to promote the greater good, or to protect himself, his companions, or anyone whom he’s vowed to defend. In times of war, he strikes down the enemies of his ruler or church. He does not interfere with a legal execution, so long as the punishment fits the crime.

Otherwise, a paladin avoids killing whenever possible. He does not kill a person who is merely suspected of a crime, nor does a paladin necessarily kill someone he perceives to be a threat unless he has tangible evidence or certain knowledge of evildoing. He never kills for treasure or personal gain. He never knowingly kills a lawful good being.

Though paladins believe in the sanctity of innocent life, most kill animals and other nonaligned creatures in certain situations. A paladin may kill animals for food. He will kill a monster that endangers humans, even if the monster is motivated by instinct, not evil. While some paladins avoid hunting for sport, others may hunt to sharpen their combat and tracking skills.

TuggyNE

2013-11-02, 07:32 PM

That is because killing a good being automatically counts as murder.
[… long snip that does not actually mention anything about killing good beings equaling murder…]

That's 2e, and it also does not actually prove your point. Killing a good being in self-defense (perhaps because it's mind-controlled, misunderstands your presence, or is unable to determine that you're not a threat because of language barriers) would not be murder, and would not necessarily be an evil act either.

Eldest

2013-11-02, 08:19 PM

Pickford

2013-11-02, 08:27 PM

What definition of murder's being used though?

BoVD suggests that "nefarious reasons" is a requirement for a killing to qualify as Murder.

However, other sources may have a slightly looser definition.

Would you care to submit a source of another definition in D&D? Or was this just an attempt to add doubt where none need exist?

Angelalex242

2013-11-02, 08:46 PM

To be fair. my big 2e quote mentions "Jeapordize the safety of non evil creatures."

However, it seems to place a lot more importance on bad things happening to Lawful Good creatures...

violations that result in physical harm to any lawful good character.
He never knowingly kills a lawful good being.

On this hierarchy of sins list, killing a gold dragon is a LOT more serious then killing a copper dragon...

But Back to the Book of Exalted Deeds...

Violence is a part of the D&D
world, and not inherently evil in the
context of that world. The deities of
good equip their heroes not just to be
meek and humble servants, but to be
their fists and swords, their champions
in a brutal war against the forces of
evil. A paladin smiting a blackguard or a
blue dragon is not committing an evil act:
the cause of good expects and often demands that violence
be brought to bear against its enemies.
That said, there are certain limits upon the use of violence
that good characters must observe. First, violence in the name
of good must have just cause, which in the D&D world means
primarily that it must be directed against evil. It is certainly possible
for a good nation to declare war upon another good nation,
but fighting in such a conflict is not a good act. In fact, even
launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not necessarily
good if the attack comes without provocation—the mere
existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if
the orcs have been causing no harm. A full-scale war would provoke
the orcs to evil deeds and bring unnecessary suffering to
both sides of the conflict. Similarly, revenge is not an acceptable
cause for violence, although violence is an appropriate means of
stopping further acts of evil (as opposed to paying back evil
already committed).
The second consideration is that violence should have good
intentions. Launching an incursion into orc territory is not a
good act if the primary motivation is profit, whether that means
clearing the treasure out of the ruins the orcs inhabit or claiming
their land for its natural resources. Violence against evil is
acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts
from being done.
The third consideration is one of discrimination. Violence
cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncombatants
(including children and the females of at least some
races and cultures). Placing a fireball so that its area includes orc
women and children as well as warriors and barbarians is evil,
since the noncombatant orcs are not a threat and are comparatively
defenseless.
Finally, the means of violence must be as good as the intentions
behind it. The use of evil spells, obviously, is not good even
when the target is evil. Likewise, the use of torture or other
practices that inflict undue suffering upon the victims goes
beyond the pale of what can be considered good.
Within these limits, violence in the name of good is an
acceptable practice in the D&D universe.

Grytorm

2013-11-02, 11:22 PM

Actually that isn't a good standard for judging if CG and LG can come into open conflict. It just describes when violence serves the cause of Good. But something being not Good is not significant enough for Good people to not do it. For it to be unacceptable for a good character then it probably has to fall into the Evil category. And the section you posted you posted even admits that good nations sometimes do go to war with one another.

Angelalex242

2013-11-03, 12:13 AM

I think what the passage is trying to say is:
If a good nation declares war on a good nation, good divine casters need to sit it out...or else.

After all, if wiping orcs out for profit isn't kosher, how much worse must warring against good be? So violence against good violates 'just cause.'

(And in fact, if the King was a divine caster and declared war against good, regardless of his reasons, he'd lose his powers for even declaring war!)

Ravens_cry

2013-11-03, 12:20 AM

Sometimes, you can have war for perfectly reasonable reasons. For example, let's say that there is a rare resource that both sides desperately need and splitting won't be enough to be any good.

Angelalex242

2013-11-03, 12:21 AM

Ravens_cry

2013-11-03, 12:26 AM

Slippery slope. No matter how badly you need the resource, mowing down a good guy in the way is evil. Besides, it's a world of magic. Have your clerics cast divination to find a source of whatever the god considers acceptable for you to go after.
Rare. Resource. What if there isn't any such source? Do you let whatever awful thing will happen if you don't get your hands on it happen to your people?

Angelalex242

2013-11-03, 12:31 AM

Actually, yes. You pretty much have to. The greater good is NEVER an acceptable excuse for evil actions. "If I kill this baby I can save a million lives..." *BZZZZZZT* Wrong answer! The right answer is, "Nobody's responsible for evil but you, and I will not kill that baby, so screw you, evil guy!"

Book of Exalted Deeds, on "Ends Justify the Means":

When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? Is it
morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in
order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of
thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the
thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands
of deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and a neutral character
might easily consider the use of torture in such a
circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller
scale, even the most virtuous characters
can find themselves tempted to agree
that a very good end justifies a
mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to
tell a small lie in order to prevent a
minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe?
A world-shattering catastrophe?
In the D&D universe, the fundamental
answer is no, an evil act is an evil act
no matter what good result it may
achieve. A paladin who knowingly
commits an evil act in pursuit of any
end no matter how good still jeopardizes
her paladinhood. Any exalted
character risks losing exalted feats or
other benefits of celestial favor if he commits
any act of evil for any reason. Whether
or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly
cannot make evil means any less evil.
Some good characters might view a situation where an evil
act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom:
“I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my
purity.” For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they
would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause.
After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character
can hang on to her exalted feats.
Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of
thinking treats the purity of the good character’s soul as a commodity
(like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice
like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good
character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger
than the individual character. What the character sees as a personal
sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of
power between good and evil, in evil’s favor. The consequences
of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond
the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character
doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession
to evil, and thus unconscionable.
Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means
remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about
their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them,
no matter how great the need.
Sometimes a situation might demand that a good character
cooperate with an evil one in order to accomplish a worthy and
righteous goal. The evil character might not even be pursuing
the same goal. For example, a brief civil war has put a new ruling
house in power in a drow city, and the new rulers start actively
raiding the surface world. A party of good adventurers travels
into the depths of the earth to stop the drow raids. At the same
time, a party of evil drow loyal to the deposed house seeks to
overthrow the new rulers and restore their house to its position
of power. The two groups have different but mutually compatible
goals, and it is possible—within certain limits—for them to
cooperate with each other. However, the good characters must
not tolerate any evil acts committed by an evil ally during the
time of their alliance, and can’t simply turn a blind eye to such
acts. They must ensure that helping the drow will put a stop to
the surface raids, which might entail a level of trust the drow
simply do not deserve. And of course they must not
turn on their erstwhile allies when victory is in
sight, betraying the trust the drow placed
in them. Such a situation is dangerous
both physically and morally, but
cooperating with evil creatures is
not necessarily evil in itself.

Grytorm

2013-11-03, 12:33 AM

Nothing in that suggests that all Divine casters are held to standards like that. And an immediate example that comes to mind of why this doesn't apply is Thrane of Eberron. Besides this Paladins the main area where the standard you are applying to Clerics is most likely to apply would often also run into conflicts of loyalty to their leaders depending on the circumstances.

Edit: And the text you have put up is talking about the most perfect examples of good. But nothing decrees that Clerics of Good gods or even those gods themselves must hold themselves to an exalted standard.

Ravens_cry

2013-11-03, 12:37 AM

Angelalex242

2013-11-03, 12:51 AM

Nobody said you had to be LAZY about it.

This is a magical world with things like wish and miracle available. Why should you attack good nation X, putting innocent people to the sword, when you can send group of adventurers Y to find an alternate source of whatever it is you needed...or hell, MAKE an alternate source of whatever is needed from scratch. There's very little you can't do with wish, miracle or both. Hence, curbstomping the innocent people between you and what you want is evil...and lazy to boot.

(OOC:As a side note, that also sounds like a perfectly good campaign concept. "We need a source of X, but the only known source of X is in good kingdom Y. I don't want to declare war on Good Kingdom Y, so go forth, noble adventurers, and find or make me a source of X! You've got about 2 months before we start dying for the lack of X...")