PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Alignment woes: Is that horrible thing I just did Lawful Good?



Pages : [1] 2

ApologyFestival
2013-12-15, 11:09 PM
Alignment. Christ, alignment. Forewarning for those of you who are sick of alignment arguments: This thread is about my Lawful Good character being faced with a horrible choice, and me/the GM/the players struggling to justify it as alignment-appropriate behaviour.

I like to play heroes; I love roleplaying because it lets me save the world and make imaginary peoples' lives better. I ready through the Book of Exalted Deeds and loved it. Though my character isn't jumping for any exalted feats, I'm trying to play by the Book's guidelines on what motivates a truly Good character. The rest of the party is Good, though they're not so heavily attached to the label. My impression so far is that they Must Be Good because they're Not Evil, which has led to a fair few disagreements already.

Our party is currently adventuring in Carceri at the behest of the Church of Heironeous. I'm not sure how my GM's vision of Carceri matches up with the "stock" Carceri, so here's the low-down on that wretched hive: Carceri is the prison plane, where the worst of the worst get imprisoned for eternity. The plane has a weird relationship with time--it passes normally, but the residents don't feel its passing. Prisoners do not age, feel hunger, or the urge to sleep. On leaving Carceri, all that lost time immediately catches up. If anyone were to leave Carceri without, say, eating for a few dozen years, they would immediately die of hunger.

It is almost impossible to escape from, just getting the party out is going to be a months-long trial. Lastly--crucially--no-one can die in Carceri unless killed at the hands of an outsider.

Now, Carceri's pretty ****ing miserable. Almost everyone our party has come across wants to die, just so that they can be free of their wretched existence. Due to a SNAFU the player characters were outed as outsiders, and were quickly swarmed by people eager to die. After being forced to escape, my character put the word out that he would grant a mercy-killing to anyone who wanted it. The next day, he systematically forgave and executed anyone who came to him, and they numbered in the hundreds.

Yeah, my Lawful Good character executed *hundreds* of people in *one* day, and his ethics have been called in to question big-time. He's now treated as a pariah and a monster by the few NPCs that matter, the other PCs didn't want anything to do with it, and gauging the GM's reaction it's looking like an alignment shift is in the cards. Away from Good for the killing of hundreds. Away from Lawful because the criminals were placed in Carceri by means of punishment, and were not to be "freed". This is gonna be problematic not only because I place a lot of enjoyment on my character being a hero, but because my character's a Crusader--a class that doesn't play nice with alignment changes.

So, Playground, please help out a dude who is struggling to play Lawful Good, capital L capital G. Or at least struggling to justify his choices.

If a Good character respects all life, was it wrong to mercy-kill so many people? Even if they asked for it? I considered it a merciful act, but everyone else--even all of the NPCs--are referring to it as a genocide. And that's when they're being polite.

If a Lawful character, uh, upholds the law, was it wrong to free so many horrible people? But from asking around, there were so many people who did *bad things* but did not deserve an eternity of torment by any ethical standard. Many more who were thrown into Carceri by vigilante justice, or just for pissing off the wrong crowd. Necromancers deserve punishment, yes, but 500 years in Carceri as a short-lived race is surely not just? ...Right?

Imagine you're the GM, or another player, or in my character's shoes. What would you think?

Thanks, Playground!

NichG
2013-12-15, 11:41 PM
I'd call it interesting, rather than 'good' or 'evil' or 'lawful' or 'chaotic'. Your character has basically revealed some of their core values - that existence, in its own right, is not 'good' - only 'harmonious', 'joyful', etc existence has value. That's not an unreasonable view to hold, though at the same time someone could be Good without holding that view (e.g. they view living itself as 'good', regardless of the quality of that life).

If anything, I'd say the most 'questionable' part is that you unilaterally ended the sentences of prisoners sent to Carceri for some crimes, which could be considered an unlawful act. However 'law' is always a tricksy subject, because it really matters what authority you answer to. E.g. if someone was sent there by Asmodeus, or some random prime material plane tyrant, or even just someone outside of your church hierarchy, you arguably have no responsibility to uphold their particular 'law' above your own.

One thing to consider though, is if you killed petitioners to Carceri as part of this process, you may or may not have been destroying 'immortal' souls. That might well involve a different ethical dilemma compared to simply ending mortal lives, but its up to your character to decide that.

Raine_Sage
2013-12-16, 12:13 AM
I think that was a really cool bit of roleplay, and that the PCs/GM are being a bit weird about it for reasons that escape me. Sure the subject of euthenasia is...tricky and that's essentially what you did. But it was done as a means of granting peace to people who might have been unjustly imprisoned. If you'd just gone around slaughtering prisoners for the hell of it I might be able to see calling it "genocide" but you didn't kill anyone who didn't literally beg for it.

Law doesn't mean upholding unjust punishments and you had reason to believe many of those trapped there are trapped for unjust reasons.

Airk
2013-12-16, 12:16 AM
This is firmly grey area and interesting to discuss, IMHO. But then, so is the "right to die" for elderly people in real life, and that sure has plenty of people throwing around unnecessarily heated adjectives, so I guess that's not necessarily an inappropriate ingame reaction either. :P

But I don't think we're talking about 'lose paladin status' territory here. I'd say there's probably some 'cruel and unusual punishment' happening at the very least.

Hooray for moral complexity! :)

ReaderAt2046
2013-12-16, 12:17 AM
I personally don't think that what you did was Lawful or Good, but I have two considerations to add.

First, almost no single act can change an alignment, it really needs to be a repeated pattern to induce change.

Second, though I personally would argue that euthanasia of the form you just practiced is wrong, I'm pretty sure you did it out of a sense of pity and mercy, which will massively reduce the possibility of an alignment shift. Also, on the issue of Law, you did make a promise, so there is some argument for your actions being in keeping with Law.

tldr; you did the wrong thing for the right reasons, very unlikely to shift alignments.

Remmirath
2013-12-16, 12:39 AM
I hold that intentions are the most important consideration in terms of alignment, particularly when discussing whether or not an alignment switch is justified. Your character clearly had good intentions.

Now, the actual consequences of the action must also be taken into account, because otherwise an extremely well-intentioned person who goes about wreaking havoc and misery everywhere they go could still be a paladin. In this case, I think it's a grey area -- they asked for it, their alternative was eternal torment, and the worst that could happen is releasing hundreds of questionable people back into the world (albeit after a long prison sentence).

I'm inclined to say that granting mercy and forgiveness and sparing people from eternal torment is good, although if your DM is playing things such that their souls are destroyed that could send it into being a grey area.

As for the lawful part, well, I personally have always believed that the Good is more important than the Lawful in the paladin's alignment -- but that's not the strict rules, so I'll leave that aside. The laws that you need to be upholding are the laws of your own order's moral code, your own deity, and so forth. If that goes against them, I'd say it's an unlawful action. I believe it is explicitly stated that paladins can go against unjust laws -- and if your character believes that they were incarcerated through means of an unjust law, I don't see a problem with it.

So. I wouldn't change your characters alignment, or even consider changing it; I think that morality should be an individual sort of thing, as people clearly show that they have their own standards of morality. Falling a bit into a grey area is not enough to discount that. Going about and executing all the prisoners even though they didn't ask for it would get me questioning your alignment, and marking you as someone who might be on the path to falling.

I also don't think that any one act should cause an alignment change, unless it's a very dramatic act of either evil or good -- neutral acts I feel should affect the alignment but slightly, and it should take repeated questionable acts to make a good character neutral or repeated good acts to make an evil character neutral.

All in all, I'd say you should be fine.

icefractal
2013-12-16, 12:41 AM
Good - Yes, definitely. I'm rather dumbfounded by suggestions that an eternity of torture is better than death, actually. :smallconfused: I mean yes, many of them were evil, but since when is forgiveness not compatible with good? It's not like he was letting them out to roam the world anyway. If you can kill hundreds of orcs as a Paladin and not fall, you can sure as hell kill people who are requesting it for good reason!

Lawful - No. But not necessarily a big chaotic action, either. A Paladin's not sworn to uphold unjust laws, or even respect them if doing so would go against their ideals. I guess the more lawful thing would be to interview each person asking, find out whether there remains a just reason for their imprisonment. But given that this would likely be logistically impossible, it seem unreasonable to demand it. Personally, I would say - chaotic act, but not enough to change alignment.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-16, 12:57 AM
Oh dear. This is a sticky one.

Out of a misguided sense of mercy, your crusader snuffed the existence (not just life but very existence) of hundreds of petitioners suffering their ultimate reward for lives lived as mostly evil people but with chaotic leanings.

Unfortunately, each and every one was a categorically evil act. You destroyed hundreds of souls. That's what petitioners are; the souls of the dead living their afterlives.

On the bright side, it was a result of sticking firmly to one's ethics even though they called for him to do such a terrible thing. That's lawful to a T.

You should unquestionably be pinging on detect evil but you should still be pinging detect law too. Since the evil wasn't malicious or even intentional a casting of atonement should clear it right up. Such severe actions may call for an atonement quest, though, at the DM'a discretion.

Pro tip: buy a phylactery of faithfulness at your earliest opportunity.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-16, 01:42 AM
Damning or harming souls is an evil act according to BoVD, so yeah, it's evil by RAW.


Aside from that, I think that this is mercy. You're alleviating needless suffering. These people aren't getting rehabilitated, they aren't coming back, and they aren't going to do any more evil. The petitioners don't have any memories of the events which led them to Carceri. These people, however evil, were begging for death (well, destruction. whatever), and you freed them from eternal suffering. It's basically euthanasia.

If it was my decision, I think the "relieved from eternal suffering" bit would have outweighed the "destroying souls" bit, and thus had an overall positive impact on your alignment.

Tengu_temp
2013-12-16, 01:55 AM
Mercy-killing someone who wants to die but can't kill him/herself is very much a good act. Leaving them to live and suffer for all eternity would be evil. What you did is pretty much how I expect a paladin or another goody-two-shoes to act in such a situation, and your group's shock over your decision baffles me. They probably approach this in a simplistic, "good characters ALWAYS preserve life no matter the cost" way.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-16, 01:59 AM
Mercy-killing someone who wants to die but can't kill him/herself is very much a good act. Leaving them to live and suffer for all eternity would be evil. What you did is pretty much how I expect a paladin or another goody-two-shoes to act in such a situation, and your group's shock over your decision baffles me. They probably approach this in a simplistic, "good characters ALWAYS preserve life no matter the cost" way.

Agreed. And technically it's not even "preserving life", because petitioners are already dead. Even so, they're suffering enough that a mercy-killing is acceptable in my opinion.

Spore
2013-12-16, 02:05 AM
You shifted to NG in my books.

You gave the people the deaths they wanted but ultimately you circumvent the "law" of an entire plane. You could even shift towards CG but I want players only to shift 1 step at a time (making stuff like switching Paladin levels for Blackguard levels a bit harder and not immediately killing a Cleric's chances for Atonement).

You did good for the sake of good, in disregard of the law (NG or CG). If this new credo becomes your main value and goal, you should end up in CG (freedom and virtue above all things) instead of LG (law and virtue above all things).

Tengu_temp
2013-12-16, 02:27 AM
A single chaotic act, unless it's something of a ridiculously huge magnitude, is not enough for an aligment shift. By DND 3.5 rules, it's not even enough to cause a paladin to fall!

The Fury
2013-12-16, 02:40 AM
Oh dear. This is a sticky one.

Out of a misguided sense of mercy, your crusader snuffed the existence (not just life but very existence) of hundreds of petitioners suffering their ultimate reward for lives lived as mostly evil people but with chaotic leanings.

Unfortunately, each and every one was a categorically evil act. You destroyed hundreds of souls. That's what petitioners are; the souls of the dead living their afterlives.

On the bright side, it was a result of sticking firmly to one's ethics even though they called for him to do such a terrible thing. That's lawful to a T.

You should unquestionably be pinging on detect evil but you should still be pinging detect law too. Since the evil wasn't malicious or even intentional a casting of atonement should clear it right up. Such severe actions may call for an atonement quest, though, at the DM'a discretion.



Then it would be a damned if you don't, damned if you do sort of situation. Either grant the petitioners pleas for mercy and destroy their souls forever, or condemn them to an eternity of suffering by doing nothing.

Apparently Carceri was so dreadful that these petitioners would rather not exist at all than serve out their punishment. Also, with some inference on my part it seems like if there is an end to their time on Carceri at all it seems like it would be really painful-- aging five-hundred years or starving to death in the blink of an eye. Your Crusader appears to have granted them their requested mercy-killing in a comparatively painless way and offered them forgiveness for their past crimes. I don't personally see your character as evil, though even if he were he's not the monster that that all the other characters seem to think he is.

icefractal
2013-12-16, 03:19 AM
Out of a misguided sense of mercy, your crusader snuffed the existence (not just life but very existence) of hundreds of petitioners suffering their ultimate reward for lives lived as mostly evil people but with chaotic leanings.

Unfortunately, each and every one was a categorically evil act. You destroyed hundreds of souls. That's what petitioners are; the souls of the dead living their afterlives.Ultimate reward? He mentioned that some of these people have relatively petty crimes, not worthy of eternal torment (in fact, I have a hard time imagining what would qualify as actually worthy of eternal torment). If that's how Carceri works, then Carceri is evil, and in fact, worthy of being smashed entirely had he the power to do so. Remember, in D&D, divine != good. There are evil gods, and the way they run their afterlives is a bad thing. Ao is neutral. There's nothing inherently good about the natural order of the planes.

And as far as destroying souls being evil - did those souls actually have any chance of anything beyond suffering forever? Carceri isn't where you go to be reformed, it's where you go to stay forever. Utter destruction is, in fact, an improvement on eternal misery.

Envyus
2013-12-16, 03:19 AM
I won't consider it an evil act but I would not consider it a good act. However I would consider it a Chaotic Act.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-16, 03:25 AM
Then it would be a damned if you don't, damned if you do sort of situation. Either grant the petitioners pleas for mercy and destroy their souls forever, or condemn them to an eternity of suffering by doing nothing.

Apparently Carceri was so dreadful that these petitioners would rather not exist at all than serve out their punishment. Also, with some inference on my part it seems like if there is an end to their time on Carceri at all it seems like it would be really painful-- aging five-hundred years or starving to death in the blink of an eye. Your Crusader appears to have granted them their requested mercy-killing in a comparatively painless way and offered them forgiveness for their past crimes. I don't personally see your character as evil, though even if he were he's not the monster that that all the other characters seem to think he is.

Actually, alignment doesn't count the things you -don't- do against you, only the things you do. To rule otherwise would mean that -all- creatures would become evil fairly shortly after reaching adulthood. Apathy is neutral, not evil.

SiuiS
2013-12-16, 03:30 AM
Interesting.

You should search for the story "Lady Despina's Virtue". It's a D&D log that's fantastic. The paladin is now in epic levels, probably a demigod, definitely kitted-out with templates. He at one point authorized full-on raze the earth warfare, offering full forgiveness for his followers and shouldering the burden of their sins himself.

In some sense, ignoring provincial rules and sticking to his morals, if the religion he belongs to allows for mercy and forgiveness, sort of sets him up as a paragon of lawful and good. So the questions are, how willing is the DM to have multiple viewpoints? Are there different good factions or is good a universal thing with solid rules and no interpretation or variegation?

I would ask the DM what would be more fun for the game, the universal good approach, or the beig a radical new exemplar of good which shakes up the foundations of the faithful? Some games thrive on that kind of drama. Some games see causing death as murdering, always bad, and good doesn't do that. Your mileage shall vary.



It should be noted, too, that killing a petitioner doesn't destroy the soul. It hastens their absorption, probably messes with their karma, but each and every single outer plane in D&D operates the same: you sit there until you lose self-identity and merge with the plane. You're breaking them down to their base incarnum, you're not destroying them. Destroying a soul removes that incarnum from the multiversal pool entirely.

@spoorreeg(?): paladins are required to actively resist wicked laws. The laws of a plane of evil are not sacrosanct, and well within the class' limits.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-16, 03:35 AM
Ultimate reward? He mentioned that some of these people have relatively petty crimes, not worthy of eternal torment (in fact, I have a hard time imagining what would qualify as actually worthy of eternal torment). If that's how Carceri works, then Carceri is evil, and in fact, worthy of being smashed entirely had he the power to do so. Remember, in D&D, divine != good. There are evil gods, and the way they run their afterlives is a bad thing. Ao is neutral. There's nothing inherently good about the natural order of the planes.Then the DM did it wrong. A few petty crimes in life do not make for an evil alignment. Alignment is the result of consistent behavior. For a creature to be evil it has to consistently do evil and rarely do good. If it doesn't do a lot of either it's neutral.

Also, carceri -is- evil. The entire plane and all of its denizens are made up of evil so great that it takes physical form.


And as far as destroying souls being evil - did those souls actually have any chance of anything beyond suffering forever? Carceri isn't where you go to be reformed, it's where you go to stay forever. Utter destruction is, in fact, an improvement on eternal misery.

Destroying -any- soul is an evil act, regardless of that soul's circumstances.

Note, however, that souls aren't condemned to -eternal- torment. Over time they lose more and more of themselves until they fade away entirely, merging with the plane itself or, sometimes, becoming true outsiders as appropriate to the individual soul and plane. Hell, the latter is how most devils are created in Baator. The baatezu have turned their entire plane into a factory for such transformation.

Envyus
2013-12-16, 03:36 AM
It should be noted, too, that killing a petitioner doesn't destroy the soul. It hastens their absorption, probably messes with their karma, but each and every single outer plane in D&D operates the same: you sit there until you lose self-identity and merge with the plane. You're breaking them down to their base incarnum, you're not destroying them. Destroying a soul removes that incarnum from the multiversal pool entirely.

Well it does not work that way in the Abyss and Hell however.

TheOOB
2013-12-16, 03:37 AM
The the question posed in the thread title, the only appropriate answer is "Mu" which roughly translated means "The question is wrong". It is not feasible, nor possible, nor helpful to take every action a character can take and try to place it someone in the D&D alignment spectrum. Alignment is a quality of creatures, objects, places, spells, planes, ect, but not so much actions. Actions get muddied up with expectations, cultural norms, intent, ad what not. It's better to look at general objective qualities to determine alignment.

Ask yourself, is your character willing to take risks or make sacrifices to help in innocent, are they unwilling to harm the innocent to advance their goals. If you said yes to that, congrats you are good aligned!

As for lawful, the actions taken don't speak to someone who is lawful aligned to me. Lawful people respect order and tradition, they try to work within the rules rather than ignoring them, they also tend to take a long term view of their actions, thinking of their long term and far reaching consequences. The actions the character took were incredibly short sighted, and directly opposed to the established law and tradition of the plane. They just walked in and said "Your rules suck, I'm imparting my own rules".

Does this mean the character is not lawful, no, but a lawful character is unlikely to perform this action, and if such actions are taken often, then the character's alignment should be changed(or rather it was already changed and it's time to update the character sheet to reflect the actuality of the situation).


For a creature to be evil it has to consistently do evil and rarely do good. If it doesn't do a lot of either it's neutral.

I disagree. Someone who performs both good and evil acts with any regularity isn't neutral, they are evil...or insane. A neutral character doesn't balance good and evil, they are someone who is unwilling to be truely good(that is take risks and make sacrifices purely to help others), but also unwilling to be truely evil(hurt others to advance their own goals.) Anyone who regularly hurts others to advance their goals is likely evil. A chaotic good/neutral character may be willing to do so occasionally, but alignment is about consistency.

Another_Poet
2013-12-16, 04:02 AM
First alignment threat I've ever enjoyed.


If a Good character respects all life, was it wrong to mercy-kill so many people?

<dusts off philosophy degree>

Mercy-killing at someone's informed request is not not necessarily wrong.

In the real world, the question of euthenasia is still controversial. It is not universally considered right or wrong to kill someone who's suffering at their request. However, there are certainly good, moral people who believe it is right and even the best moral choice.

Complications: begging to die is often a nearsighted request, when there may be better long-term options. Almost no one who wants to die can be said to be mentally healthy. Thus, they may not be capable of making a sound decision.

If I were your GM, I would not consider it Evil and, given your motivations I would consider it merciful and Good. You made a principled choice. If there are no other realistic options to relieve their suffering, then you did the most morally correct thing in a horrific situation.

On law: You may have broken a local, planar or even universal law by killing condemned prisoners. This does not affect your alignment. Lawful Good characters are allowed to go against Evil laws. The Paladin description says only to respect "legitimate" authority, and says Paladins lose their powers for committing evil acts (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm) - not for committing unlawful ones. I don't have the Crusader class handy, but it seems unlikely to be stricter than Paladin.

Moreover, "lawful" in the alignment sense doesn't mean "following every law." If someone panics over driving 36 mph in a 35 mph zone, it doesn't make them Lawful Good, it makes them neurotic. "Lawful" in this sense means orderly, principled, & respectful of authority. People like that can still conscientiously object to, and willingly break, stoopid laws.

The only reason I can see a moral issue here is: what happens to these beings you kill? I assume none of them are native to Carceri, making them outsiders. Normally outsiders who die... go back to their home plane. Did you just set free hundreds of criminals?

If not, any reasonable interpretation says you're in the clear. If your god revokes your powers, your character should assume that the god is in fact not Good at all, and should feel duped into following a sadistic, evil being. Seek a wiser, more compassionate god and renounce the articles of your old faith. If possible, go and kill your former god when you are higher level: there can be almost no crime higher than misleading millions of souls into a false conception of justice.

Unless your GM disagrees. Then you're boinked.

SiuiS
2013-12-16, 04:02 AM
Well it does not work that way in the Abyss and Hell at howver.

Sure it does. Where do you think the energy comes from to spawn random demons? They aren't all birthed or transformed, some literally form in like, pockets of soil and awaken. That both fiend sets also interfere with this cycle doesn't change that, any more than nice eating seeds doesn't change that when berries rot and seeds fall into the earth, they grow into trees.

It's worth noting that the evil planes tend not to reproduce new souls, instead forming and then punishing outsiders. It gets hazy on what the exact composition. Of a soul is and whether evil energies meet good energies and balance or whatnot.

Campaign fodder? Good is selfless and allows the transmigration of soul energy so that new creatures can be reborn. The lower planes are jealous and hoard their soul energy, though, eventually tipping the balance of the world in a battle of relative infinities. The players must break the gates of the underworld and allow the departed wicked souls to rejoin the cycle of reincarnation... Or find some method of producing new soul energy entirely, so that Good does not ultimately lose by keeping such a small portion Of it's harvest.


The the question posed in the thread title, the only appropriate answer is "Mu" which roughly translated means "The question is wrong".

This idea of mu intrigues me and I wonder wherefor you came by its definition?



If not, any reasonable interpretation says you're in the clear. If your god revokes your powers, your character should assume that the god is in fact not Good at all, and should feel duped into following a sadistic, evil being. Seek a wiser, more compassionate god and renounce the articles of your old faith. If possible, go and kill your former god when you are higher level: there can be almost no crime higher than misleading millions of souls into a false conception of justice.

Unless your GM disagrees. Then you're boinked.

It should be noted before one scrunched their pants up and gets ready to fight to consider how trustworthy the DM is. I have several I play with, and my reaction would change based on who it is. I've had one where I threw a fit over the surprise force field that wasn't there until I had an adamant weapon and wanted to dig, and I have another who I wouldn't bat an eyelash at if we stated the session with telling me my wizard lost ten points of intelligence and couldn't use magic.

Perhaps losing your powers could be a test? Your god cannot uphold you because you are Good and Lawful but also against his doctrine; it would be spiritual suicide for the deity to dilute himself. So you quest to prove you'll maintain your morality even without divine blessing, and eventually reach apotheosis of your own!

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-16, 04:43 AM
I disagree. Someone who performs both good and evil acts with any regularity isn't neutral, they are evil...or insane. A neutral character doesn't balance good and evil, they are someone who is unwilling to be truely good(that is take risks and make sacrifices purely to help others), but also unwilling to be truely evil(hurt others to advance their own goals.) Anyone who regularly hurts others to advance their goals is likely evil. A chaotic good/neutral character may be willing to do so occasionally, but alignment is about consistency.

A) I didn't say that it was neutral to regularly do both good and evil. I said it was a neutral creature that didn't do a lot of either.

B) You're -probably- right in your assessment of someone who frequently does both. That, however, depends on motivation. The motivations that lead to doing evil prevent acts that would otherwise be good from being good.

Feed the hungry because they're hungry; good. Feed the hungry because it's good PR; not good, helpful to those people but not good. Both motivation -and- results count toward determining the alignment of an action.

If a creature actually has the motivations to do both good and evil acts then he -is- neutral but likely also deeply disturbed. The psychological dissonance necessary to be both a genuine altruist and an utter sociopath is.... noteworthy.

NichG
2013-12-16, 04:47 AM
The the question posed in the thread title, the only appropriate answer is "Mu" which roughly translated means "The question is wrong". It is not feasible, nor possible, nor helpful to take every action a character can take and try to place it someone in the D&D alignment spectrum. Alignment is a quality of creatures, objects, places, spells, planes, ect, but not so much actions. Actions get muddied up with expectations, cultural norms, intent, ad what not. It's better to look at general objective qualities to determine alignment.

I really need to make 'Mu' into a mysterious, hidden 10th alignment in my games that you can get only by repeatedly being exposed to ethical inconsistencies and paradoxes of the multiverse - the equivalent of 'your life is dominated by acts which by their nature actively resist being classified'.

Of course, this means that upon their death, the universe pitches a fit and possibly nucleates a new demiplane on the Ethereal for them.



I disagree. Someone who performs both good and evil acts with any regularity isn't neutral, they are evil...or insane. A neutral character doesn't balance good and evil, they are someone who is unwilling to be truely good(that is take risks and make sacrifices purely to help others), but also unwilling to be truely evil(hurt others to advance their own goals.) Anyone who regularly hurts others to advance their goals is likely evil. A chaotic good/neutral character may be willing to do so occasionally, but alignment is about consistency.

Of course inconsistency need not mean insanity, it may just mean that the person is following an ethical code that is not congruent with the 9 alignment system - or even a code that emphasizes one axis over another.

For example, someone who is extremely Lawful might say 'I will do whatever I am ordered no matter what it is'. If they serve a kind and just liege lord, they end up doing many acts consistent with Good during that reign. If he dies and they go on to serve the liege lord's son, a brutal and vicious ruler, then they may go on to perform many acts consistent with Evil. The net result is that they act consistently Lawful, but their actions can't be described as anything but inconsistent on the good/evil axis - odds are at most tables they'd end up Evil because of the good/evil asymmetry, but such a label would not accurately represent their personal motives or be very predictive of future actions (if, e.g., they ended up serving a new lord).

Envyus
2013-12-16, 04:49 AM
Sure it does. Where do you think the energy comes from to spawn random demons? They aren't all birthed or transformed, some literally form in like, pockets of soil and awaken. That both fiend sets also interfere with this cycle doesn't change that, any more than nice eating seeds doesn't change that when berries rot and seeds fall into the earth, they grow into trees.

Not quite. The souls are turned into Mane over time which mutate in other Demons over time at the whims of the Abyss or it's Demon Lords. Other Demons just randomly spawn. So the Abyss gets Demons from Souls and Demons that just pop up.

In Hell all Souls are tortured unless the soul is going to be used for something else. Then after that the Devils turn the souls into Lemures to produce Divine Energy.

WbtE
2013-12-16, 05:49 AM
I'm not going to give an argument on the right or wrong of this, as other contributors have canvassed the various positions.

My advice is to seek out Atonement. Your character could believe that he did the right thing but also feel that killing, whatever the reason, is a heavy burden to carry on one's soul. This is also the position most likely to appease your DM.

Grozomah
2013-12-16, 06:26 AM
This is for me the best reason for playing RP games - you get into situations that you wouldn't otherwise and get to live out. That being said, this post is gonna be long (wall of text FTW) and very much my interpretation, which not everyone might agree on.


The Great Post of Alignments
A case study

Firstly, what alignment are you is very much up to the DMs discretion, so if he interprets that you're CE now (or whatever), there's not much you can do about it other than Atone or turn Blackguard. That being said, IMO he would be wrong for shifting your alignment for this, for several reasons.

I)
I'll start with asking what is Lawful Good? So far i know about three archetypes that fit this description.

The first one is you - the typical mortal goody-two-shoes. You'll help the downtrodden and the opressed, punish the wrongdoers, honor and obey thy elders and uphold the mortal law, slay the evil dragons, yadda yadda yadda. You'll struggle, you'll fail, but in the end you'll do the best as you could. We'll all probably agree that this is LG.
Next on the list we have The Protector of the Vicked, also known as lawful-stupid. The protector will tresure his concepts of the sacredness of life in any circumstance. Did your party finally bring the evil wizard that enslaved the nation to the knees? Time for a sharp dose of justice to his neck before he pulls one of his trademark escapes. What is this, the holy ser Derpington claims it is wrong to kill him without proper trial? Despite the fact that we saw him murder this village and reanimate the corpses? Yes, I know all life is sacred, but ... and he just teleported away. Again.
Last, but not least we have the Iron Fist of Justice, e.g. Kore. As the eight-winged steel clad angel of Justice bearing the radiant sword of Ultimate Avenging descends in a beam of light from the heavens accompanied by the horns from Inception you are trouly tahnkful that you recently saved that orphanage. Yet as his gaze turns toward you, other memories are forcefully drawn to your mind and you see the questions form in your head: You stole the key to the doors? And you beat up the arsonist before turning him to the autorithies? Not only that, but the kid you saved will turn out to be a ruthless dicator in twenty years? EVIL! The last thing you hear before burning away in the radiant light of Good is You dare question ME, who has never in his life harmed an innocent? And it's your fault if you don't see the future. Get informed.


Now i'm certain that a lot of you will disagree with at least some of the definitions above. It does hopefully show that sometimes, for the greater glory sacrafices do need to be made. The only question is where to draw the line of what is lawful good and what is downright stupid. And this is purely subjective.

It's actually much easier to define evil: An act of evil is one that causes another being harm in return for your own benefit or pleasure. And considering the convicts asked you to kill them means that they decided that the act did them more good than harm. Since they were the only ones harmed, and no one else gets hurt, the act is not evil.
I consider your action Good.

Lawful is a bit more straightforward, however you do need to tell what is the code you follow - is it a personal decree, a paladin's code, orders of the king or the mortal laws? Any of these do, you just need to show some adherence to them. Of course you can try to obey more than one, but eventually you'll find situations where they contradict, and when you get fed up with them you'll just go Jamie Lannister on it all and turn chaotic.
How can you still count yourself a knight, when you have forsaken every vow you ever swore?"

Jaime reached for the flagon to refill his cup. "So many vows...they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other.

You could argue that you were following some other code than the law, however, I consider your action Chaotic.

II)
The second reason would be that your alignment is something that represents your actions over several years or maybe even a lifetime and no single action can change that (exceptions include going on an unporovoked murderous rampage through the Village of Song and Flovers purely fur teh lulz). Anakin's slaughter through the desert people camp (who were after all evil slavers) in itself wasn't enough to turn his eyes yellow, but it did start him on the idea that sometimes sacrafices must be made. He did slide down the morality slope pretty quickly after that, it's true.

III)
Your intentions matter a lot. You did what you thought was best because you wanted to help. Others before me have elaborated this well, so i won't repeat it.

IV)
In your case you had a choice between a chaotic good act (helping and freeing the souls without endangering others) and a lawful evil one (Suffer, you deserve it!! Mwahaha!) Such decisions shift you diagonally on the alignment grid, but considering you are already in the corner, you cannot really be moved away from there.
Another view on this is that either choice moves you away from LG. Either toward chaotic or toward evil.
I would consider it very poor DMing if a forced hand, like in this case, results in an alignment shift that prevents you from using your abilities.

II, III, IV all speak against an alignment shift, not taking the action itself into account.

V)
Carceri itself is a fishy subject. It's an evil plane with evil inhabitants. I'm pretty sure your party doesn't get their panties in a bunch when there's something evil on the material plane that needs killing? So why bother over killing that is actually consentual from both sides (this really doesn't happen often)

VI)
The lawyer approach.
I think me and the other posters pretty much established that your action is generally good, but not Lawful. Or is it? If they were meant to stay in Carceri forever does not neccecarily mean they were sentenced to it.

What exactly is the sentance that the prisoners got at the time they were judged? That they will spend the rest of their days in Carceri? Then there were no laws broken. Was it that they must spend an eternity in Carceri? That's a funny thing to enforce in a plane without time. Even so, was it that they must forever stay in carceri? They never left - you destroyed them at their own request. In every law, there are loopholes and it's not that difficult to be lawful evil or in this case lawful good even if a system expects something else. It would depend on the specific wording, so check it with your DM.

The verdict:
The DM can do whatever he pleases, because rule 0. That said, I consider your action to be chaotic good, but not enough to change your alignment automatically. When you come out of Carceri, I (as a DM) would, however make you do a few quests to prove your convictions and be more attentive to your future decisions.

SiuiS
2013-12-16, 07:11 AM
Not quite. The souls are turned into Mane over time which mutate in other Demons over time at the whims of the Abyss or it's Demon Lords. Other Demons just randomly spawn. So the Abyss gets Demons from Souls and Demons that just pop up.

In Hell all Souls are tortured unless the soul is going to be used for something else. Then after that the Devils turn the souls into Lemures to produce Divine Energy.

I am aware of the processes involved. That they are artficily accelerated does not change the basic principle.

AMFV
2013-12-16, 07:25 AM
The thing you did is complicated, probably at least Good in intention if not in action. Destroying souls is RAW completely evil though, so RAW you have no legs to stand on. It's dumb that it's evil but it is. I would rule that it's good and possibly chaotic. I would probably require an atonement, simply because having that on your conscience would be unbearably harsh, something no good God would want for their champions, I imagine.

Kalmageddon
2013-12-16, 10:00 AM
Good - Yes, definitely. I'm rather dumbfounded by suggestions that an eternity of torture is better than death, actually. :smallconfused: I mean yes, many of them were evil, but since when is forgiveness not compatible with good? It's not like he was letting them out to roam the world anyway. If you can kill hundreds of orcs as a Paladin and not fall, you can sure as hell kill people who are requesting it for good reason!

Lawful - No. But not necessarily a big chaotic action, either. A Paladin's not sworn to uphold unjust laws, or even respect them if doing so would go against their ideals. I guess the more lawful thing would be to interview each person asking, find out whether there remains a just reason for their imprisonment. But given that this would likely be logistically impossible, it seem unreasonable to demand it. Personally, I would say - chaotic act, but not enough to change alignment.

I agree with this.
If it can help, Carceri by default is not a Lawful plane, just Evil, so if your character is aware of that he might reasonably assume that Carceri is just a place where people suffer for suffering's sake, without any higher authority behind it, thus preventing your act from being considered even mildly chaotic.

Sith_Happens
2013-12-16, 11:12 AM
You should search for the story "Lady Despina's Virtue". It's a D&D log that's fantastic. The paladin is now in epic levels, probably a demigod, definitely kitted-out with templates. He at one point authorized full-on raze the earth warfare, offering full forgiveness for his followers and shouldering the burden of their sins himself.

While still a good example to look to on all matters LG, Eadric is a bit of a special case considering that he himself has been his god's appointed judge of what Good and Evil are since around ECL 17 or so.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-16, 11:19 AM
Ultimate reward? He mentioned that some of these people have relatively petty crimes, not worthy of eternal torment (in fact, I have a hard time imagining what would qualify as actually worthy of eternal torment). If that's how Carceri works, then Carceri is evil, and in fact, worthy of being smashed entirely had he the power to do so. Remember, in D&D, divine != good. There are evil gods, and the way they run their afterlives is a bad thing. Ao is neutral. There's nothing inherently good about the natural order of the planes.

And as far as destroying souls being evil - did those souls actually have any chance of anything beyond suffering forever? Carceri isn't where you go to be reformed, it's where you go to stay forever. Utter destruction is, in fact, an improvement on eternal misery.

That's another thing. Carceri only works under a classical/rational-choice theory of crime (Which holds that crime is a rational decision made by free actors accurately weighing the pros and cons of all alternatives. Following that assumption, deterrence via threat of sufficiently-extreme punishment should end crime), which is purely philosophical, based on a priori understandings of behavior. They do not efficiently reduce crime in the real world (not as much as other models do, anyway).

Nor are many traitors in D&D deterred from treason by thoughts of punishment in Carceri, since a purely rational decision based off pleasure/pain outcomes would never a commit a crime (or any other action) which resulted in infinite pain. Actually, it would probably take a hefty Knowledge (Planes) check to even know that Carceri exists, which most people aren't even capable of making (as a Knowledge DC above 10 is impossible without training the skill).


It's easy to see why Carceri is evil once you realize that it doesn't deter criminals or rehabilitate them. Which only becomes more disturbing when one realizes that the gods allow it to continue, probably in spite of this knowledge. Even Hell creates soldiers who fight the Blood War and protect the universe from demons. Carceri just inflicts pain for pain's sake.

Vedhin
2013-12-16, 11:27 AM
First off, let's look at the outcomes of the choice.

Do not kill=all those people suffer for a long time. By the nature of things, they do not remember their crimes, nor can they ever be forgiven by the in-place system. This is an Evil outcome.

Kill=all those people are released from their needless suffering. This is Good, because Good does not want others to suffer.

So, It was Good in my book, because it demonstrated mercy.


Now, what you did was certainly not Lawful. But the law you were breaking was that of a plane that falls under Evil Chaotic Evil on the Great Wheel cosmology. By definition, you are called upon to oppose Chaos and Evil, so the laws they make are invalid-- you follow a higher moral Law.



Basically, you did indeed uphold both Law, Good, and Lawful Good. Making you fall for opposing the unjust system established by an alignment almost exactly opposite your own is silly, given that you did so in ways that upheld virtues of Law and Good.

Not to mention that, as the BoED says, a Paladin should always choose Good over Law. Showing mercy to those who do not deserve it is very Good in my book, even if death was the only mercy available to them in this case.

Waar
2013-12-16, 12:05 PM
Lawful Good character
...
text
...


As a lawful Good character, your character wants to do good and uphold good laws, not evil laws, now I would count the situation the laws of Carceri, as described in the op as evil and not good laws, as such these laws are null and void for your character, and if these laws get broken by your character doing good (or stopping evil) acts that should be perfectly in line with (among others) all good alignments.
(wheter this particular case of mercy killing is a good act, well that might depend on who you ask, but I find it perfectly resonable and in character for a character such as yours)

Berenger
2013-12-16, 12:56 PM
Okay, I will try to get this straight.

1. Carceri is an EVIL plane.

2. The prisoners of Carceri have no chance to pursue happiness.

3. Those prisoners have no hope of parole, redemption, rebirth etc.

4. If they are killed, they "vanish" from the universe and are not unleashed to continue any crimes against innocent victims.

Are those assumptions correct?



If yes:

Carceri is a plane of useless suffering. It should be considered abhorrent by every good aligned deity, cleric, paladin, crusader or lay person. This situation is not akin to RL euthanasia, since no person on earth lives with the prospect of eternal pain and hopelessness. Also, all "divine judging time" is over, they have already been judged, presumably by evil or uncaring gods. The notion of "genocide" is just provable wrong: The victims of Carceri don't even belong to the same ethnicity, race, religion etc. Five random persons chained to the same wall don't make a society, they just happen to be in the same location. Even if they were similiar in such ways, the paladin would not kill them on grounds of this similiarity, nor would he kill them indiscriminately. In short, Carceri can go to die in a fire and no one is harmed if mercy is granted to its "inhabitants". The only ass pull that can make your action evil or chaotic is some hidden use of those tormented souls - perhaps they do slave labor to cobble shoes for cute orphans or are needed to "balance out the universe" or some other arbitrary BS...

Weirdlet
2013-12-16, 03:10 PM
This strikes me as the sort of Lawful Good action that will haunt your paladin's sleep for the rest of their life- but you acted with clear reason and intent of mercy, at the request of those suffering and whom no other act could free from their torment. Barring becoming a god and rearranging the cosmos so as to end this needless suffering, you did the only reasonable thing you could with what you had to hand.

The only potentially wrong thing I see in this is the whole 'going against the divine plan' part, because gods are jealous of their power and authority. And in that- they can be wrong.

veti
2013-12-16, 03:24 PM
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

Now, these people are dead, so "respect for life" and "killing" doesn't enter into it. What's left is "concern for the dignity of sentient beings" - which you showed, by respecting their wish to die - versus "hurting or oppressing" others - which is what the alternative seems to be.

Seems like a no-brainer to me. You did absolutely the right thing. You should get up tomorrow and do it again, and again, and again, until the whole of Carceri is completely depopulated except for those who actually want to remain there.

If your DM looks askance at the prospect, tell him to Google "the Harrowing of Hell" for your precedent.

TheOOB
2013-12-16, 04:22 PM
This idea of mu intrigues me and I wonder wherefor you came by its definition?

Mu is a concept from Zen Buddism

http://buddhism.about.com/od/chanandzenbuddhism/a/What-Is-Mu.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29

In modern debate the term is sometimes used when the question itself is misleading or incorrect so that any applicable answer would be incorrect. If I asked "would you prefer to be a murderer or thief" Mu would be an answer, indicating that saying you prefer either would create an incorrect assumption.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-16, 04:45 PM
Mu is a concept from Zen Buddism

http://buddhism.about.com/od/chanandzenbuddhism/a/What-Is-Mu.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29

In modern debate the term is sometimes used when the question itself is misleading or incorrect so that any applicable answer would be incorrect. If I asked "would you prefer to be a murderer or thief" Mu would be an answer, indicating that saying you prefer either would create an incorrect assumption.

I once heard that in the original chinese, "Wu" (sounding like a dog's barking) was a humorous response to the question "does a dog have buddha nature?"

Also, now I totally want to respond to a thread with "Unask the question".

SowZ
2013-12-16, 05:06 PM
So the Lawful Good thing is to ignore the pleas and suffering of hundreds of people in miserable pain for all eternity and say 'sucks to be you, but I have places to be.'

Also, if just killing them is bad by virtue of the killing, wouldn't that mean murder is more evil than kidnapping someone and keeping them in a torture dungeon for fifty years? That's very silly. Wouldn't it make lawful execution evil, too, since these people probably earned that, too.

Vedhin
2013-12-16, 05:12 PM
So the Lawful Good thing is to ignore the pleas and suffering of hundreds of people in miserable pain for all eternity and say 'sucks to be you, but I have places to be.'

For degenerate definitions of Law and Good, yes. For sane definitions, not a chance.



Also, this thread has inspired me to try and figure out what actual sane definitions for the existing alignments are. Not reworking things, but cleaning up WotC's mess.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-16, 07:31 PM
So the Lawful Good thing is to ignore the pleas and suffering of hundreds of people in miserable pain for all eternity and say 'sucks to be you, but I have places to be.'


Harming souls is evil, but mitigating suffering is good. The rules would most likely say that destroying them is both a good act and an evil act, because this is an extreme edge case which they weren't written to cover.

Amaril
2013-12-16, 07:35 PM
See, this is part of what bothers me about the D&D RAW alignment system: its over-dependence on categorical imperatives. In my games (at least, the ones that use alignment at all), there are no actions that are labelled in advance as belonging to particular alignments--an action's morality is determined case-by-case according to the situation and the motivations behind it.

Telok
2013-12-16, 07:41 PM
D&D land isn't the real world, we can't apply our RL morals directly to D&D alignment.

One unstated question is whether Good, Evil, Order, and Chaos exist as independant functions of the universe or if they are rules determined by the gods.

If the alignments are universal functions then they are like electrical charges on atoms and asking "Is this killing Good or Evil" is like asking "Is this radio positively or negatively charged?" In such a case alignment is nothing more than a label that determines the effects that some spells and magic have on you. In this case a nice man who attends chursh, gives to charity, is a good parent and neighbor, and loves his wife, is Evil if he animates unclaimed bodies at the morgue and orders them to clean the sewers.

If the alignments are rules dictated by the gods then the only question is really "What are my god's rules on such a circumstance?"

In D&D there is precious little text that defines what is really Good or Evil without contradiction by itself or other published material. What few things we are certain of is that killing Evil is normally Good, mercy is Good, forgiveness is Good, and obeying laws and customs may or may not be Lawful.

SowZ
2013-12-16, 08:01 PM
Harming souls is evil, but mitigating suffering is good. The rules would most likely say that destroying them is both a good act and an evil act, because this is an extreme edge case which they weren't written to cover.

Destroying something isn't always doing harm. Removing an appendix is harming an organ, but not the patient. Giving morphine is harmful to the body, but can ultimately be better for the patient and not harmful. In this case, destroying the souls is not harming them but helping them.

It's not quite the same as euthanasia. Euthanasia, the body is typically dying anyway and speeding it up is interrupting nature. Not saying I disagree with it, but I digress. This is far more similar to removing life support from someone who can't recover and is suffering, since the plane itself is unnaturally keeping them alive.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-16, 08:03 PM
So the Lawful Good thing is to ignore the pleas and suffering of hundreds of people in miserable pain for all eternity and say 'sucks to be you, but I have places to be.' No of course it isn't. It's just not an evil act either. It's a non-act. (well, ignoring them is. Rubbing their faces in it might count as a mild evil). Also, btw, it's more like hundreds of -billions- of people; 1/17th of all the humans that have ever lived on the prime material plane end up here as well as a significant portion of any populace of usually evil creatures.

Also of note; the multiverse itself and the alignment forces that are part of its basic building blocks predate the gods by a significant margin. The gods of good -do- abhor carceri and all of the other lower planes but they can't really do anything about it because of divine MAD. They also don't have any influence over anyone's alignment save through alignment altering spells that they grant their followers or cast themselves. That's why, I think, that the character's god should happily grant an atonement without cost or quest to the character or his cleric. His transgression was wholly accidental and might well amuse his god, though perhaps not.

The cosmic forces of good and evil that even the gods cannot alter are what label him as evil for destroying those souls, not the gods themselves.


Also, if just killing them is bad by virtue of the killing, wouldn't that mean murder is more evil than kidnapping someone and keeping them in a torture dungeon for fifty years? That's very silly. Wouldn't it make lawful execution evil, too, since these people probably earned that, too.

Killing is not an inherently aligned action in itself. Its moral and ethical weight are determined entirely by the killer's motives. If the killer does so out of duty, as a lawful execution or a soldier in battle, then the action is lawful and morally neutral. If he does it out of malice, as a murder, then its evil. If it's to prevent the slain from doing immediate and (note the "and") future evil, it's good. If it's done without thought, a reaction to being surprised in a hostile environment perhaps, it's chaotic and if it's done to prevent the killer's own death or to avoid starvation it's neutral.

The paladin in the OP acted out of mercy but he destroyed hundreds of souls. One could argue that his actions were simultaneously good and evil but the destruction of souls is -always- evil and so it cannot be argued that he did not do evil.

SowZ
2013-12-16, 08:03 PM
See, this is part of what bothers me about the D&D RAW alignment system: its over-dependence on categorical imperatives. In my games (at least, the ones that use alignment at all), there are no actions that are labelled in advance as belonging to particular alignments--an action's morality is determined case-by-case according to the situation and the motivations behind it.

Which necessitates a judge, though, meaning you need either some sort of ultimate G-d to determine it or it is subjective to whichever entity is in charge of justice at the time. If Good and Evil are objective energies, it makes sense that they don't follow logic and sometimes oppose ethics/reasonable morality. Good and Evil don't really mean Good and Evil anymore, though.

NichG
2013-12-16, 08:12 PM
It kind of makes me wonder if there would logically be all sorts of silly treaties and pacts to force gods to 'enforce' cosmic alignment against their better judgement.

For example, must Paladins be cosmically Lawful Good because the good deities and evil deities have an agreement 'we'll stay out of the upper planes, but you have to force your representatives to follow cosmic alignment rules, not just what you yourself support' or something like that?

E.g. what's stopping Hieronyous from just auto-atoning any cosmically Evil act or cosmically Chaotic act that he personally doesn't really give a fig about? Wouldn't a systematic application of auto-atonement basically act to effectively redefine alignment for those who follow him?

I guess it comes down to, a deity only gets so many free actions per round, and there are a lot of paladins out there...

Tragak
2013-12-16, 08:18 PM
Either the people in Carceri deserve to suffer there, or they don't. EITHER WAY, KILLING THEM IS A GOOD ACT (and possibly Lawful)

If they deserve to suffer there, it is because they had been Very Very Evil. True Neutrals with some Chaotic Evil leanings go to the Outlands. Carceri is for people who had been ALL-CAPS EVIL (with some Chaotic leanings) in life, who go there because they deserve every bit of mercy that they had chosen to show their own victims in life.

If they don't deserve to suffer there, then they deserve to be saved by any means necessary.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-16, 08:18 PM
See, this is part of what bothers me about the D&D RAW alignment system: its over-dependence on categorical imperatives. In my games (at least, the ones that use alignment at all), there are no actions that are labelled in advance as belonging to particular alignments--an action's morality is determined case-by-case according to the situation and the motivations behind it.

They're categorical because, if they were hypothetical, then players could justify any action with the proper thought process, and we would be complaining about how the alignment system is meaningless.

My beef with alignment is that it takes social constructions (things like good, evil, and law) and turns them into universal constants. That breaks immersion because it conflicts of the subjective and mutable nature of socially-constructed categories.



If they deserve to suffer there, it is because they had been Very Very Evil. True Neutrals with some Chaotic Evil leanings go to the Outlands. Carceri is for people who had been ALL-CAPS EVIL (with some Chaotic leanings) in life, who go there because they deserve every bit of mercy that they had chosen to show their own victims in life.


This goes back to something I was saying before. There isn't a good reason to punish them. It doesn't help anyone, it doesn't deter traitors, and doesn't serve any known purpose beyond pain for pain's sake. I think that is the reason Carceri is an evil-aligned plane.

Scow2
2013-12-16, 08:33 PM
I disagree. Someone who performs both good and evil acts with any regularity isn't neutral, they are evil...or insane. A neutral character doesn't balance good and evil, they are someone who is unwilling to be truely good(that is take risks and make sacrifices purely to help others), but also unwilling to be truely evil(hurt others to advance their own goals.) Anyone who regularly hurts others to advance their goals is likely evil. A chaotic good/neutral character may be willing to do so occasionally, but alignment is about consistency.It's not evil or insanity to swing between Evil and Good acts, nor insane. - most neutral people do. People who's sum of Good and Evil actions (Not taken because of their alignment, but their personality) balance are Neutral, because Evil doesn't want someone that kind-hearted, and Good doesn't want someone that... well, whatever he does when he commits evil acts.

This character is indubitably Lawful Good, though.

SowZ
2013-12-16, 08:34 PM
They're categorical because, if they were hypothetical, then players could justify any action with the proper thought process, and we would be complaining about how the alignment system is meaningless.

My beef with alignment is that it takes social constructions (things like good, evil, and law) and turns them into universal constants. That breaks immersion because it conflicts of the subjective and mutable nature of socially-constructed categories.



This goes back to something I was saying before. There isn't a good reason to punish them. It doesn't help anyone, it doesn't deter traitors, and doesn't serve any known purpose beyond pain for pain's sake. I think that is the reason Carceri is an evil-aligned plane.

But we argue about how it is meaningless, anyway.

Amphetryon
2013-12-16, 08:51 PM
No of course it isn't. It's just not an evil act either. It's a non-act. (well, ignoring them is. Rubbing their faces in it might count as a mild evil). Also, btw, it's more like hundreds of -billions- of people; 1/17th of all the humans that have ever lived on the prime material plane end up here as well as a significant portion of any populace of usually evil creatures.

Also of note; the multiverse itself and the alignment forces that are part of its basic building blocks predate the gods by a significant margin. The gods of good -do- abhor carceri and all of the other lower planes but they can't really do anything about it because of divine MAD. They also don't have any influence over anyone's alignment save through alignment altering spells that they grant their followers or cast themselves. That's why, I think, that the character's god should happily grant an atonement without cost or quest to the character or his cleric. His transgression was wholly accidental and might well amuse his god, though perhaps not.

The cosmic forces of good and evil that even the gods cannot alter are what label him as evil for destroying those souls, not the gods themselves.



Killing is not an inherently aligned action in itself. Its moral and ethical weight are determined entirely by the killer's motives. If the killer does so out of duty, as a lawful execution or a soldier in battle, then the action is lawful and morally neutral. If he does it out of malice, as a murder, then its evil. If it's to prevent the slain from doing immediate and (note the "and") future evil, it's good. If it's done without thought, a reaction to being surprised in a hostile environment perhaps, it's chaotic and if it's done to prevent the killer's own death or to avoid starvation it's neutral.

The paladin in the OP acted out of mercy but he destroyed hundreds of souls. One could argue that his actions were simultaneously good and evil but the destruction of souls is -always- evil and so it cannot be argued that he did not do evil.

What would be the LG act in this scenario, if the act chosen pings as Evil? For extra fun, what would an Exalted LG response be?

SowZ
2013-12-16, 08:59 PM
What would be the LG act in this scenario, if the act chosen pings as Evil? For extra fun, what would an Exalted LG response be?

Exalted certainly wouldn't ignore suffering, repentant sapients asking for help. Neither would they free people imprisoned for their crimes. I see only one alternative.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-16, 09:06 PM
But we argue about how it is meaningless, anyway.

Touche :smalltongue:


What would be the LG act in this scenario, if the act chosen pings as Evil? For extra fun, what would an Exalted LG response be?

Maybe an Exalted character would try to move them into a plane which he thought was acceptable (i.e. which doesn't let them do more evil, but isn't full of needless suffering, and wouldn't be completely trashed by them), most likely creating a portal between it and Carceri?

Amphetryon
2013-12-16, 09:10 PM
Maybe an Exalted character would try to move them into an afterlife which he thought was acceptable, by creating a portal between it and Carceri?
So an Exalted LG Character would put his own judgment over the judgment of the beings and laws that landed the souls in Carceri? Really?

SowZ
2013-12-16, 09:12 PM
So an Exalted LG Character would put his own judgment over the judgment of the beings and laws that landed the souls in Carceri? Really?

It would be easier to just kill them, which isn't prevented by the laws of Carceri since allowing outsiders to kill them is allowed.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-16, 09:15 PM
So an Exalted LG Character would put his own judgment over the judgment of the beings and laws that landed the souls in Carceri? Really?

If he felt like they were wrong to send people to an evil plane to endure meaningless punishment, yes. IIRC disobeying the gods isn't an evil act.

I mean, I could totally see an Exalted character trying to have a chat with the gods first, to figure out their angle on it.

SowZ
2013-12-16, 09:23 PM
If he felt like they were wrong to send people to an evil plane to endure meaningless punishment, yes. IIRC disobeying the gods isn't an evil act.

I mean, I could totally see an Exalted character trying to have a chat with the gods first, to figure out their angle on it.

I do think an exalted characters Lawful side would make a sincere attempt to work within the natural order of the gods, though, as long as doing so didn't violate their conception of Good.

Scow2
2013-12-16, 09:36 PM
Why the hell would any Exalted character give a rat's ass what a Deity thinks about alignment? That's like a Knight taking orders from a peasant.

Exalted characters and paladins answer directly to Cosmic Good - nothing below that.

NichG
2013-12-16, 09:45 PM
I think the sticking point here is the Lawful bit, not the Good bit.

Lawful is a complex alignment, because it implicitly must ask the question 'whose laws do you follow?'. This question must be answered in order to determine whether a given act is Lawful or Chaotic, even in the case of cosmic absolutes.

Amphetryon implied that exercising one's own judgement on the souls in Carceri over 'whomever put them there' was not a Lawful act. I would say, however, that a given Lawful character is not de-facto beholden to the decisions of 'whomever put them there', a set of unknown individuals. A character who obeys their liege lord's orders to break into an enemy city and commit arson is still being lawful, even if the act of arson is illegal in that city. A character who obeys their deities orders 'thou shalt not permit suffering to continue' is still being lawful when they follow that instruction over any considerations of preserving the natural order of the planes.

So yes, I would say that an Exalted LG character could very well do exactly what was done here without coming into conflict with their Exalted, Lawful, or Good natures. I would also say that an Exalted LG character could refuse to do this without coming into conflict. It depends on what specific code, rules, or individuals/organizations the character is Lawful towards.

SowZ
2013-12-16, 09:45 PM
Why the hell would any Exalted character give a rat's ass what a Deity thinks about alignment? That's like a Knight taking orders from a peasant.

Exalted characters and paladins answer directly to Cosmic Good - nothing below that.

Purely to avoid accidentally upsetting any sort of universal order or balance they are unaware of. The gods have things set up for a reason.

Amphetryon
2013-12-16, 09:59 PM
So yes, I would say that an Exalted LG character could very well do exactly what was done here without coming into conflict with their Exalted, Lawful, or Good natures. I would also say that an Exalted LG character could refuse to do this without coming into conflict. It depends on what specific code, rules, or individuals/organizations the character is Lawful towards.
Note that my question was originally asked of Kelb, who maintains that the acts the OP described ping as Evil, no ifs, ands, or buts. Given that baseline, what's the LG, or Exalted LG, course of action?

Scow2
2013-12-16, 10:07 PM
Purely to avoid accidentally upsetting any sort of universal order or balance they are unaware of. The gods have things set up for a reason.The universal order/balance is Neutral, and just as Evil as it is Good. An exalted person wouldn't care about that either, and go Good all the way.

NichG
2013-12-16, 10:13 PM
Note that my question was originally asked of Kelb, who maintains that the acts the OP described ping as Evil, no ifs, ands, or buts. Given that baseline, what's the LG, or Exalted LG, course of action?

Alright, that is a somewhat different issue then.

My own take is that when you bring Exalted into it, the best answer is invariably 'option 3'. Personally rehabilitate each of the prisoners and then free them from the plane one at a time. Work to change the fundamental nature of Carceri to resolve the inherent paradox between universal order and universal good.

But if it comes down to you suffering a change of labels to alleviate the real eternal suffering of thousands, then by all means you should take the evil hit and stop being Exalted - an atonement will restore your Good status, so you can continue to do your job. Even better, you're acting as the repository for 'necessary sin', which is an important job in of its own right.

Of course, if we extend this logic further, each deity probably has some guy whose job it is to perform said 'necessary sins', so perhaps just try to get that guy sent down to Carceri to do it in your stead? No reason to 'waste' your Exalted status if this situation has come up in the past.

Kane0
2013-12-16, 10:27 PM
Depending on setting, what you did might well have been good and/or lawful.

In your game, if Carceri is where people are locked away unlawfully then freeing them is a lawful act.
In your game, if dying in carceri frees you (and you honestly believe they deserve to be freed, as well as have the authority to make that call) then killing them in order to free them is a good act.
However, if their just punishment is an eternity in prison then freeing them is an unlawful act.
Similarly so, if killing them while in Carceri destroys them completely from life, the afterlife and anything else then that is an evil act, almost regardless of how you justify it.

Fiery Diamond
2013-12-16, 10:32 PM
Similarly so, if killing them while in Carceri destroys them completely from life, the afterlife and anything else then that is an evil act, almost regardless of how you justify it.

See, other than "this one non-core book says so" I don't see why this is the case. Nonexistence, if the only alternative to neverending suffering, is BETTER than neverending suffering for the person suffering. Existence is not, in and of itself, a good thing.

Agrippa
2013-12-16, 10:35 PM
I thought that Carceri was a CN(E) plane because it inhabitants/inmates were CN(E) to more mild CE and that the main punishment is being forced to spend an eternity with people just bad and obnoxious as you. Besides, Hell, or in this case Carceri, is other people. Just imagine an afterlife filled with people like Jayne Cobb, Tony Montana, Chev Chellos, Richard Fitzpatrick, Richard B. Riddick and Deadpool on a good day. They don't need cruel and oppresive wardens to torture and mistreat them, they have each other. There's a reason Good aligned and Lawfully aligned outsiders avoid the place.

awa
2013-12-16, 10:35 PM
"just punishment" is the concern of good not lawful.
The evil lawyer depiction of lawful evil does not typically care about a "just punishment"

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-16, 10:40 PM
What would be the LG act in this scenario, if the act chosen pings as Evil? For extra fun, what would an Exalted LG response be?

Unfortunately, there isn't always a satisfactory answer to that question. Sometimes a LG character just has to do the best he can.

In this case, he could do what was in his power to alleviate their immediate suffering. The only way to save any of these souls, long-term, would be to encapsulate as many as possible with spells like trap the soul or binding and carry them out of carceri. You could also, if you lead them to the border, use shapechanging magic to temporarily relieve them of their planar commitment trait and lead them out.

Ultimately this is very likely to end in failure if the character tries to swipe more than just a few souls, but it's the most good action he could do as it is an act of mercy that -doesn't- require taking one of the very few always evil actions. He'd have to be very careful about where he released them and bear in mind that these creatures are unquestionably evil. That's how they got there in the first place.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-16, 10:44 PM
See, other than "this one non-core book says so" I don't see why this is the case.

Because that non-core book states the RAW for alignments, just like how there's a non-core book (Sandstorm) which lays out RAW for desert environemnts, and another (Manual of the Planes) which states the RAW for how Carceri works. If one doesn't like it (like many do), one can make his/her own ruling and use it instead.

You can think of it like drown-healing. The rules say that's the way it works, but that breaks immersion, so many groups decide to alter that rule to their liking. It's the same thing, only with alignments.

Amphetryon
2013-12-16, 10:51 PM
Unfortunately, there isn't always a satisfactory answer to that question. Sometimes a LG character just has to do the best he can.

In this case, he could do what was in his power to alleviate their immediate suffering. The only way to save any of these souls, long-term, would be to encapsulate as many as possible with spells like trap the soul or binding and carry them out of carceri. You could also, if you lead them to the border, use shapechanging magic to temporarily relieve them of their planar commitment trait and lead them out.

Ultimately this is very likely to end in failure if the character tries to swipe more than just a few souls, but it's the most good action he could do as it is an act of mercy that -doesn't- require taking one of the very few always evil actions. He'd have to be very careful about where he released them and bear in mind that these creatures are unquestionably evil. That's how they got there in the first place. Doing the best he (or she) can is the point of my question. If the LG Character's effort leaves room for improvement, s/he cannot, in good conscience, call the effort "best," particularly if the LG Character in question is also Exalted. Carrying them out of Carceri would quite likely run afoul of most LG Character's "respect for legitimate authority," and would seem therefore to be insufficient (and likely to cause an Alignment strain). An effort "that is very likely to end in failure" or is not able to help more than a very few souls is definitely one with room for improvement.

The Fury
2013-12-16, 11:22 PM
Doing the best he (or she) can is the point of my question. If the LG Character's effort leaves room for improvement, s/he cannot, in good conscience, call the effort "best," particularly if the LG Character in question is also Exalted. Carrying them out of Carceri would quite likely run afoul of most LG Character's "respect for legitimate authority," and would seem therefore to be insufficient (and likely to cause an Alignment strain). An effort "that is very likely to end in failure" or is not able to help more than a very few souls is definitely one with room for improvement.

Well, sometimes the best that can be done and the best one can do aren't the same thing. As has been pointed out there do exist other characters that could do something that's a better long-term solution. Only it appears they're not willing to. Sometimes one just has to settle for the best out of viable options.

Beleriphon
2013-12-17, 12:09 AM
This idea of mu intrigues me and I wonder wherefor you came by its definition?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29

The word is specifically Japanese/Korean but the idea extends to most of South-East Asia in some form or another.

Quoth the Wiki:

"Mu" may be used similarly to "N/A" or "not applicable," a term often used to indicate the question cannot be answered because the conditions of the question do not match the reality. A layperson's example of this concept is often invoked by the loaded question "Have you stopped beating your wife?",[22] to which "mu" would be the only respectable response.

Either way I do agree. The question must either be reasked or cannot be answered.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-17, 12:51 AM
Doing the best he (or she) can is the point of my question. If the LG Character's effort leaves room for improvement, s/he cannot, in good conscience, call the effort "best," particularly if the LG Character in question is also Exalted.Perhaps. Conscience isn't the determiner for alignment though. The OP's conscience has caused him to commit one of the most evil acts possible in destroying souls. Limits to the character's knowledge don't count against him for intent and sometimes the greater good demands overlooking evil that you can't realistically do anything about. Carceri is an infinite plane occupied by not only the petitioners of those who were evil and a bit chaotic in life but also their keepers and the enhanced petitioners that serve them. No one character or small group can even hope to liberate more than a handful of souls and even trying to do so is a questionable decision from an ethical standpoint.


Carrying them out of Carceri would quite likely run afoul of most LG Character's "respect for legitimate authority," and would seem therefore to be insufficient (and likely to cause an Alignment strain). That depends on the acting party's knowledge of how things work. If all they know is that these creatures are suffering then trying to save them doesn't run afoul of being lawful ethically. It -may- be a problem to release them in a lawful plane and it would most certainly be a chaotic act to bring them into the material plane but you can't be said to be taking chaotic action when you aren't aware of the rules you're breaking.


An effort "that is very likely to end in failure" or is not able to help more than a very few souls is definitely one with room for improvement.

That's simply a matter of logistics. A lone individual simply cannot swipe more than a few souls without drawing attention to his actions. That attention can very rapidly turn to failure when his intention is discovered. Guards and wardens don't much care for prison breaks you know.

If these were mortals unjustly imprisoned in a prison on the material there wouldn't be any question. Such "euthanasia" couldn't possibly be construed as good because there exists the possibility of escape or the prison being overtaken. A proper paladin* wouldn't even have considered it.

These petitioners are only different in that their prison is much larger, has much tighter security, and that there's no reasonable hope of ever overtaking it. They would have faded away in time and some effort could've been made for helping at least a portion of them escape.

These differences and the character's intention mitigate his decision, mostly because I seriously doubt that he had any magic capable of freeing the prisoners of their planar commitment quality. Even then it's questionable, at best, as a good action even if you were to ignore the fact that it's destroying souls.

*I'm aware that the OP is not a paladin.

NichG
2013-12-17, 01:18 AM
Perhaps. Conscience isn't the determiner for alignment though. The OP's conscience has caused him to commit one of the most evil acts possible in destroying souls.

This just goes to show that sometimes the most Evil act possible can still be the act most consistent with the ideals of 'good'. Which is just a consequence of the fact that real morality - morality that matters in the practical sense of suffering and helping others and so on - isn't an absolute, cosmic force, and is forced in D&D to exist with something that is an absolute cosmic force.

A person who allows themselves to become Evil in order to save thousands of others has done a good deed, even if at the end of the day they still detect as Evil.

Angelalex242
2013-12-17, 01:39 AM
Hmmmm. This is why all alignment dependent characters should have a tattoo that functions as a phylactery of faithfulness. Best investment you'll ever make, particularly for Exalted characters.

With such a thing, if you think offering them mercy is 'good' and in fact it isn't, the tattoo pings you and goes, "Wait don't do that." And then you know not to do it. If, on the other hand, it really is good, then it doesn't ping you and you're clear to end as many as your arm has strength to swing the sword for. Ditto for question of Law. If it's not Lawful, it'll ping you and go 'wait don't do that...'

As for what an Exalted Paladin does? If your two choices are an LE action and a CG action, you can take the CG action, if there is no other alternative. If there's a third option, though, find it. That's the stuff Saints are made of...finding the third option.

Another_Poet
2013-12-17, 01:42 AM
I motion that we stop referencing the "destroying souls is evil" rule in this case. Here's why.

That rule is the equivalent of "killing is evil" just scaled up. It certainly wasn't written with the idea that souls would ask you to destroy them (and have a good reason, and no better alternatives).

It's an exact parallel to euthanasia. You can argue against it because "killing is bad!" but that really doesn't address the situation. The reason killing is bad is because normally it involves violating a person and depriving them of their most precious quality, and they are presumed to not consent to this. When those conditions don't hold, the rule doesn't apply.

If someone can present an argument for why destroying souls is always evil, other than "it's the rule," then that rule might still make sense even in this horrific Carceri situation.

But the best reason I can see why destroying souls is evil is because it ends a conscious being in a way similar to, but even more permanent than death. If a being wants that, and has good reason to, then there are times when destroying a soul won't be evil after all.

Of course anyone can answer with: yes but this is Rules As Written. And I acknowledge that, but this is a case where the reasoning of the rule is so far off from the in-game situation, that there's no question a GM ruling is required.

To suggest the "don't destroy souls" rule should be taken at face value in this case is exactly as sensible as trying drown-healing in a real game.

Agrippa
2013-12-17, 01:43 AM
I just mixed up Caceri with Pandemonium. In Carceri it's petitioners/inmates are eternally imprisoned by their own deceit and dishonesty.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-17, 02:20 AM
I motion that we stop referencing the "destroying souls is evil" rule in this case. Here's why.

That rule is the equivalent of "killing is evil" just scaled up. It certainly wasn't written with the idea that souls would ask you to destroy them (and have a good reason, and no better alternatives).

It's an exact parallel to euthanasia. You can argue against it because "killing is bad!" but that really doesn't address the situation. The reason killing is bad is because normally it involves violating a person and depriving them of their most precious quality, and they are presumed to not consent to this. When those conditions don't hold, the rule doesn't apply.

If someone can present an argument for why destroying souls is always evil, other than "it's the rule," then that rule might still make sense even in this horrific Carceri situation.

But the best reason I can see why destroying souls is evil is because it ends a conscious being in a way similar to, but even more permanent than death. If a being wants that, and has good reason to, then there are times when destroying a soul won't be evil after all.

Of course anyone can answer with: yes but this is Rules As Written. And I acknowledge that, but this is a case where the reasoning of the rule is so far off from the in-game situation, that there's no question a GM ruling is required.

To suggest the "don't destroy souls" rule should be taken at face value in this case is exactly as sensible as trying drown-healing in a real game.

Ahem;


If these were mortals unjustly imprisoned in a prison on the material there wouldn't be any question. Such "euthanasia" couldn't possibly be construed as good because there exists the possibility of escape or the prison being overtaken. A proper paladin* wouldn't even have considered it.

These petitioners are only different in that their prison is much larger, has much tighter security, and that there's no reasonable hope of ever overtaking it. They would have faded away in time and some effort could've been made for helping at least a portion of them escape.

These differences and the character's intention mitigate his decision, mostly because I seriously doubt that he had any magic capable of freeing the prisoners of their planar commitment quality. Even then it's questionable, at best, as a good action even if you were to ignore the fact that it's destroying souls.

*I'm aware that the OP is not a paladin.

Destroying life without a proper cause is evil. Self preservation, the prevention of evil at the hands of the slain, even lawful execution are all valid. Because you don't have the resources to affect a proper rescue is not. To do so is to snuff hope and accept despair. Even simply promising to return to save them at a later time, whether you could realistically do so or not, would've been more clearly good than the action taken.

To quietly move on would've been difficult; perhaps even haunting to one's conscience; but it wouldn't have been evil and was probably the correct course. Non-acts don't weigh against your alignment no matter how they affect your conscience.

The biggest problem here is that the OP's DM completely misrepresented Carceri. It's not a plane of eternal torment. That's Baator. It's a plane of eternal imprisonment. It's closer to jail in the US or Britain than it is to a third world dungeon.

icefractal
2013-12-17, 05:35 AM
If these were mortals unjustly imprisoned in a prison on the material there wouldn't be any question. Such "euthanasia" couldn't possibly be construed as good because there exists the possibility of escape or the prison being overtaken. A proper paladin* wouldn't even have considered it.I - don't actually agree with that. If they were mortals, they also have a finite lifespan. The Paladin has limited abilities, the chance of them escaping otherwise is also limited, and if they're asking to be killed, they have clearly decided that they prefer an immediate end to their suffering over a small hypothetical chance of rescue.

I mean, to follow that logic, if someone is being eaten alive by army ants, there is no help around for miles, and you have a gun, you still shouldn't shoot them because theoretically a special-forces team could parachute in from a jet and save them. To which I would say - BS.



They would have faded away in time and some effort could've been made for helping at least a portion of them escape.Several people have mentioned this. I'm not sure in what possible way it constitutes an argument against destroying the souls. Having everything that makes you an individual fade away until you are rendered down into raw materials for a plane is having your soul destroyed, in every way that matters. Oh noes, it affects the planar balance. Something that would be worth giving a crap about if mages/demon lords/cthulu/etc weren't already doing it much more so on a weekly basis.



The biggest problem here is that the OP's DM completely misrepresented Carceri. It's not a plane of eternal torment. That's Baator. It's a plane of eternal imprisonment. It's closer to jail in the US or Britain than it is to a third world dungeon.Well, he did mention his DM was doing it a bit differently. I would say that if that's how Carceri operates in that campaign, then that's the basis that acts in said campaign should be judged on.


The main thing I'm not seeing here, is a non-tautological reason why destroying souls is always evil. That a book said so does not make it non-stupid - ie. drown healing. And it doesn't mean we have to or even should use it - ie. drown healing. Existance, in itself, is not the be-all and end-all. Let's look at a soul that gets sent to the Nine Hells.

1) It gets tortured for many years until it loses all individuality.
2) It merges with the raw evil of the plane, increasing the evil-power available.
3) That evil-power gets turned into more devils.

No part of that is a good thing. The multiverse would be a better place without it. The reason it isn't already, is the good-aligned gods don't control the planes, they at best can maintain the balance of power and keep things from getting worse. Upholding that system is not "good", and a Paladin should absolutely interfere with it when they have an opportunity to.

SiuiS
2013-12-17, 07:05 AM
The thing you did is complicated, probably at least Good in intention if not in action. Destroying souls is RAW completely evil though, so RAW you have no legs to stand on. It's dumb that it's evil but it is. I would rule that it's good and possibly chaotic. I would probably require an atonement, simply because having that on your conscience would be unbearably harsh, something no good God would want for their champions, I imagine.

Killing a petitioner is not destroying a soul. Petitioners are made out of souls, but they are not.

Otherwise, killing a demon would also be an evil act, always. Both are outsiders. Both are capable of being redirected in the same fashion both suffer the same fate when they die (note die, not 'are destroyed').

NichG
2013-12-17, 07:31 AM
The main thing I'm not seeing here, is a non-tautological reason why destroying souls is always evil. That a book said so does not make it non-stupid - ie. drown healing. And it doesn't mean we have to or even should use it - ie. drown healing. Existance, in itself, is not the be-all and end-all.

Well, I don't necessarily agree that this is supported by D&D lore or that it actually does place it in the domain of 'always evil', but here's a possible explanation. It requires many leaps of assumption of cosmic realities that aren't actually confirmed anywhere in any of the books to my knowledge, so take it with a demiplane of salt.

If in some sense the total amount of 'spiritual essence' in the multiverse is incapable of growing, then performing the absolute destruction of a soul irreversibly moves the multiverse towards an inevitable end, in which there is insufficient spiritual material to both make a place to exist and things to exist within it.

In this case, one could argue that whatever suffering that particular soul is going through is less important on the grand cosmic scale than the consequence of that soul's material not being present to be recycled by the system.

Even in that case, I'd say its flimsy justification for 'always evil'. The corresponding example in our universe is akin to burning a log for your campfire - its irreversibly increasing the total entropy of the universe, but not in a way that will matter on the scale of life on earth.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-17, 08:36 AM
I - don't actually agree with that. If they were mortals, they also have a finite lifespan. The Paladin has limited abilities, the chance of them escaping otherwise is also limited, and if they're asking to be killed, they have clearly decided that they prefer an immediate end to their suffering over a small hypothetical chance of rescue.The OP is not, to the best of my knowledge, a paladin. Moving on.

If they -really- want to die and they're not bound (they can move freely enough to come to Dr Kevorkian here) why aren't they just killing themselves or each other? To bring hope is good. To accept despair is, at best, not evil.


I mean, to follow that logic, if someone is being eaten alive by army ants, there is no help around for miles, and you have a gun, you still shouldn't shoot them because theoretically a special-forces team could parachute in from a jet and save them. To which I would say - BS.Different situation is different. This is one of the biggest hiccups in these discussions; people taking a situation and comparing it to a grossly exaggerated situation that's superficially similar and calling it the same thing.

If you should happen upon someone being eaten alive by ants (and aren't in immediate danger of being attacked yourself, somehow) then the idea that there's no help around for miles is inherently false. You're there.

If you insist on risking your own well being to help, you get him up and away from the path the ants have marked and then you help him brush them off as best you can. Maybe you get them all off, maybe you don't and maybe he survives, or not, but simply putting the bullet in his head is just not trying. It's accepting that he's already doomed and if that's the case then there's no need to interfere. Alleviating his suffering by shooting him -may- spare him a couple of hours of pain but he'll be just as dead in the end either way and you didn't cause his suffering in the first place so it's not your responsibility to fix it. This may or may not be a moral stance you can agree with but if you measure a person's non-actions against him then all but a small handful of sapient creatures should register under detect evil



Several people have mentioned this. I'm not sure in what possible way it constitutes an argument against destroying the souls. Having everything that makes you an individual fade away until you are rendered down into raw materials for a plane is having your soul destroyed, in every way that matters. Oh noes, it affects the planar balance. Something that would be worth giving a crap about if mages/demon lords/cthulu/etc weren't already doing it much more so on a weekly basis. It's the same argument as killing vs allowing them to die of old age. They're going to get there whether you speed the process up or not but choosing to speed it up is taking away any and every possible thing that could happen to them in between now and their natural time. If they really want to give up that possibility they can do it themselves (unless they can't and then -maybe- you make an exception).



Well, he did mention his DM was doing it a bit differently. I would say that if that's how Carceri operates in that campaign, then that's the basis that acts in said campaign should be judged on. No he didn't. He repeated a description as he remembers it. That's not the same as saying the GM intentionally changed things. In any case my comment about Carceri being misrepresented was an independent one from everything else I've said and is largely irrelevant to the discussion.



The main thing I'm not seeing here, is a non-tautological reason why destroying souls is always evil. That a book said so does not make it non-stupid - ie. drown healing. And it doesn't mean we have to or even should use it - ie. drown healing. Existance, in itself, is not the be-all and end-all.You're conflating morality with alignment. The two are not the same thing. In reality the relation is that alignment was based on morality that is as universal as something inherently subjective can be. In-game, however, the reverse is true. Good and Evil are cosmic forces, first and foremost, and the ideas of morality generally sprang from the gods whom were spontaneously spawned by those alignment forces, though it may also develop independently from them in more secular cultures.

Alignment is a rules construct that exists to facilitate certain kinds of games and character archetypes. As such its RAW is there to act as a common ground for all of the players to draw from as a basis for how to determine which of the nine labels they put on their character sheet and how their behavior might change that label. This is necessary because morality is a social construct that is -not- objectively measurable and varies from one person to the next, sometimes quite markedly and that fact would make the games and characters that alignment makes possible rather dramatically stickier to create and run than they already are.


Let's look at a soul that gets sent to the Nine Hells.

1) It gets tortured for many years until it loses all individuality.
2) It merges with the raw evil of the plane, increasing the evil-power available.
3) That evil-power gets turned into more devils.

No part of that is a good thing. The multiverse would be a better place without it. The reason it isn't already, is the good-aligned gods don't control the planes, they at best can maintain the balance of power and keep things from getting worse. Upholding that system is not "good", and a Paladin should absolutely interfere with it when they have an opportunity to.

Small error there. Step 2 never happens. The petitioners of baator are stripped of their individuality by the horrendous torture that all but an insignificant fraction are treated to and turned directly into manes in the process. It's only when a devil is slain that those souls are finally merged into the planes.

Anywho; there actually is a purpose to this. Devils are agents of Law that exist to stem the tide of the tan'ari flowing from the abyss. Since they don't receive any power from the gods as do the most other gods-created outsiders they have to get it somewhere else. They extract it directly from the souls that they render down into manes and use it to empower higher level devils so that they can act as officers and bureaucrats in the machine that is Baator and continue to fight the bloodwar. The purpose of the treatment of petitioners in other planes can certainly be questioned but in Baator it's crystal clear.

Segev
2013-12-17, 09:10 AM
It may not have been Lawful, because you "forgave" them before ending their suffering. Did you have authority to do so? They hadn't wronged you, so you can't forgive them of their trespasses against you. If you're not in legal authority over them, you can't pardon whatever crimes they've committed.

I'd call the mercy-killings themselves neutral, honestly. Whether it's so strongly ungood that you should suffer alignment shift is really a matter for you and your DM to discuss, but if I were your DM, I'd probably call your Exalted status into question. I wouldn't make a paladin fall for it, though the unlawful portion mentioned above might cause him to need an Atonement to regain his Lawful alignment.

An Exalted (and even a solid Paladin) Good character should have been seeking a third option: a way to relieve them of their suffering without ending their lives. Whether through redemption (genuine repentance and penitence and turning over a new leaf) or otherwise, an Exalted Good character is going to seek a way to break the ones who don't deserve the suffering they're enduring out. Yes, it's hard. Stupidly hard. Campaign-long quest hard. But that's the "right" way out. And being Exalted Good means you don't take "but it's impossible" for an answer; that just means you haven't FOUND the way, yet.

Vedhin
2013-12-17, 10:09 AM
To quietly move on would've been difficult; perhaps even haunting to one's conscience; but it wouldn't have been evil and was probably the correct course. Non-acts don't weigh against your alignment no matter how they affect your conscience.

So if a Paladin stands by while someone explains their plans to burn down an orphanage, and that person proceeds to burn down said orphanage according to said plan, while the Paladin does nothing, the Paladin doesn't fall?:smallconfused:

Akolyte01
2013-12-17, 10:22 AM
You displayed mercy. A strange kind of mercy, but it is a strange situation.

It was a good act. You saved people from a fate worse than death.

But I think it definitely wasn't lawful. You actively worked against "the system" that was place.

Amphetryon
2013-12-17, 10:23 AM
So if a Paladin stands by while someone explains their plans to burn down an orphanage, and that person proceeds to burn down said orphanage according to said plan, while the Paladin does nothing, the Paladin doesn't fall?:smallconfused:

Yeah, I agree here. "Paladin does nothing in the face of someone's suffering and asking for assistance" cannot be the Good option, to my sensibilities.


Well, sometimes the best that can be done and the best one can do aren't the same thing. As has been pointed out there do exist other characters that could do something that's a better long-term solution. Only it appears they're not willing to. Sometimes one just has to settle for the best out of viable options.
I have always been given to understand that "settling" for less than the actual best is giving up and/or copping out. I do not believe that the Character I proposed would find either giving up or copping out acceptable.

SiuiS
2013-12-17, 10:29 AM
While still a good example to look to on all matters LG, Eadric is a bit of a special case considering that he himself has been his god's appointed judge of what Good and Evil are since around ECL 17 or so.

I am more referencing the idea that while D&D conditions is to look at these things as pass/fail, a lot of "losing" prepositions are actually 100% fantastic opportunities for Roleplaying and drama, and all you have to do is tell the player "look, this is awesome, but Korg McLawfulgood is going to go through some trials. Stay the course, cuz it's cool, but drama happens now".


This strikes me as the sort of Lawful Good action that will haunt your paladin's sleep for the rest of their life- but you acted with clear reason and intent of mercy, at the request of those suffering and whom no other act could free from their torment. Barring becoming a god and rearranging the cosmos so as to end this needless suffering, you did the only reasonable thing you could with what you had to hand.


Exactly! Let it haunt you, like the whole Spider-Man thing. But don't let "I feel bad about it" drag you down; that's some crazy dynamism and can be milked for juicy RP. This is the sort of thing they tell stories about! Live it, love it!


Mu is a concept from Zen Buddism

http://buddhism.about.com/od/chanandzenbuddhism/a/What-Is-Mu.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29

In modern debate the term is sometimes used when the question itself is misleading or incorrect so that any applicable answer would be incorrect. If I asked "would you prefer to be a murderer or thief" Mu would be an answer, indicating that saying you prefer either would create an incorrect assumption.

Excellent, thank you!


It kind of makes me wonder if there would logically be all sorts of silly treaties and pacts to force gods to 'enforce' cosmic alignment against their better judgement.

Are you kidding? That's half the fun of any good setting with deities in it!



As a complete aside, this is actually why I like incarnum. Þrenoiðia is Law. She is always justified in executing the law, judge jury and executioner, without concern for good or evil. She's put down good rebellions, but she's also overthrown petty governments and actually helped crime syndicates maintain prominence because their power rules the surrounding town and arresting or executing them would damage the coherency of Law in the area.


The universal order/balance is Neutral, and just as Evil as it is Good. An exalted person wouldn't care about that either, and go Good all the way.

Depends. There's no reason to assume a discrepancy between cosmic good and deities of good. It's campaign dependent.


Because that non-core book states the RAW for alignments, just like how there's a non-core book (Sandstorm) which lays out RAW for desert environemnts, and another (Manual of the Planes) which states the RAW for how Carceri works. If one doesn't like it (like many do), one can make his/her own ruling and use it instead.

You can think of it like drown-healing. The rules say that's the way it works, but that breaks immersion, so many groups decide to alter that rule to their liking. It's the same thing, only with alignments.

The actual written player's handbook made it clear that drowning actually "reduced your HP to 0", meaning that you can't reduce your hp upward and can't heal. Of course, there also wasn't a way to stop drowning until stone wrack, so...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29

The word is specifically Japanese/Korean but the idea extends to most of South-East Asia in some form or another.

Quoth the Wiki:


Either way I do agree. The question must either be reasked or cannot be answered.

That's fantastic, and much better and less rude than my usual "that's irrelevant". Thanks folks!


Perhaps. Conscience isn't the determiner for alignment though. The OP's conscience has caused him to commit one of the most evil acts possible in destroying souls.

That still has yet to be established.

Seto
2013-12-17, 10:36 AM
I must first congratulate you on what I think was a great roleplaying decision.

I think what you did, however, was strongly unlawful and strongly evil. Destroying an immortal soul is the most vile act imaginable : that's a fundamental law of good and evil. The point of being LG is that there're lines (what you consider laws) that you'll never cross unless you absolutely cannot do otherwise : NG might tamper with them, CG will if their conscience tells them to.
Now, I know your situation was kinda lose-or-lose, and I think it's great that you decided to at least try and do something about it. So, you freed prisoners from their jail even if you had no right to... but some of them were unjustly sentenced, so you did the right thing. The unlawful behavior isn't that (or not only that). It's that you broke a law of Good : never destroy an immortal soul. And everyone knows that in D&D from a LG standpoint, "commit an evil act for a good end" isn't acceptable.

If it was only unlawful but the good thing to do (break a law for a good end), it would have been OK for a Crusader to do it. But that's not the case.

Now, about the consequences :
- I think you should fall. Heironeous is every bit as Lawful as he is Good (even if his paladins are required to uphold good when in contradiction with law), and I think he'd have slapped you in the face.
- I don't think it should cause an alignment shift. Destroying souls is one of the few acts that can, but as you were driven by ethical concerns all the way, and you thought it was LG and you honestly wanna be LG, I'd say you stay LG. Most of all, I as a DM wouldn't wanna inconvenience you too bad for doing interesting roleplaying.
- Therefore, an atonement spell should do the trick.
- Now let's be clear about it. I think what you did wasn't at all weird or stupid. I think it was the right thing to do, I'd have done the same in your character's place. Thing is, I'm not LG (more like TN). So if you fall and then weigh being driven by compassion against being driven by Law and Good (I think compassion and forgiveness would be between NG and TN, if values had alignments), it should make for some very interesting roleplaying :).

Amaril
2013-12-17, 10:54 AM
One thing this conversation keeps reminding me of is something I saw someone else (I can't remember who) say on another thread--I think it was something like a compilation of tips for paladins.

Paraphrased:


Eventually you will fall. It's inevitable--at some point, you'll be in a situation where there is nothing you can do that won't result in you losing your status. Don't worry about it, it happens to all paladins eventually.

Now please understand that this is just my opinion, but at the risk of sounding confrontational, this interpretation can f*** right off. I think it stems from the idea that the powers which grant paladin status are incapable of examining a situation themselves and realizing that their servant really couldn't have done any better no matter how hard they tried. In fact, assuming these forces to be the gods of Law and Good, they should be even better equipped to make those kinds of judgments than mortals are. If a paladin is caught in a no-win scenario where there is absolutely no way out but to choose what they believe to be the lesser of two evils (and yes, I know these situations are actually impossible and a really good paladin can and will always create a third option, but hypothetically speaking), the gods should look at what the paladin chose to do, understand that their motivations were pure and they were honestly doing their best, and be willing to forgive them, probably requiring an atonement. I know your character is a crusader, not a paladin, but in this situation, I think the results should be pretty similar. From the sound of things, you resolved an unpleasant and difficult situation in the best way you possibly could (I certainly couldn't come up with something better, and probably wouldn't have had the stomach to do what you did even if it occurred to me). I'd definitely say an atonement is in order, and it'll probably be something that'll weigh on your character's conscience for the rest of their life, but I don't think your alignment should change or that you should lose any powers. Your character isn't a celestial or a god of Good--they're mortal and fallible, and all the multiverse can ask of them is that they do their best.

Scow2
2013-12-17, 10:58 AM
He hasn't destroyed any souls. Any souls destroyed by his hand were destroyed by the soul itself: They were the ones making the decision, not him. There's also a good chance he didn't even destroy them (Which requires powerful dark magic possessed only by [Evil] outsiders and deities and certain Wizards) and merely hastened their absorption into the plane. In fact, killing petioners of Carceri is a unilaterally Good act, regardless of whether they want to die or not: They're Evil Outsiders.

Also - Not being able to help everyone is NO EXCUSE to not help the ones you can.

Cosmic Good doesn't give a rats ass about the 'cosmic necessity' of the Lower Planes such as Carceri. It wants any plane south of Ysgard or Arcadia on the Great Wheel gone, and all of their inhabitants Redeemed and Sanctified, not Imprisoned. Tolerance and Empathy toward evil is Evil. On that note, Ultimate Cosmic Good is just as hostile to the world as Ultimate Cosmic Law, Ultimate Cosmic Chaos, and Ultimate Cosmic Evil, though each has their own way of going about being inhospitable to life as we know it (Mortals have physical limitations that drive them to Evil out of necessity/desperation.)

Also, on Carceri, all inhabitants are unjustly imprisoned, because they have no memory of the life that condemned them.

Vedhin
2013-12-17, 11:04 AM
Cosmic Good doesn't give a rats ass about the 'cosmic necessity' of the Lower Planes such as Carceri. It wants any plane south of Ysgard or Arcadia on the Great Wheel gone, and all of their inhabitants Redeemed and Sanctified, not Imprisoned. Tolerance and Empathy toward evil is Evil. On that note, Ultimate Cosmic Good is just as hostile to the world as Ultimate Cosmic Law, Ultimate Cosmic Chaos, and Ultimate Cosmic Evil, though each has their own way of going about being inhospitable to life as we know it (Mortals have physical limitations that drive them to Evil out of necessity/desperation.)

And thank you for explaining why True Neutral wants to maintain a Balance



Also, on Carceri, all inhabitants are unjustly imprisoned, because they have no memory of the life that condemned them.

Excellent point.

Scow2
2013-12-17, 11:38 AM
And thank you for explaining why True Neutral wants to maintain a Balance
Cosmic Good even wants to do away with the Material Plane, and there ARE Lawful Good Doomsday Cults (That can be extremely popular as well!). Their "doomsday" happens to involve the resurrection and immortalization of everyone, and purging of all wicked thoughts, needs, and deeds from their minds and bodies. (Some believe that the world was originally this way, then cursed with Evil needs and desires)

SowZ
2013-12-17, 12:30 PM
I must first congratulate you on what I think was a great roleplaying decision.

I think what you did, however, was strongly unlawful and strongly evil. Destroying an immortal soul is the most vile act imaginable : that's a fundamental law of good and evil. The point of being LG is that there're lines (what you consider laws) that you'll never cross unless you absolutely cannot do otherwise : NG might tamper with them, CG will if their conscience tells them to.
Now, I know your situation was kinda lose-or-lose, and I think it's great that you decided to at least try and do something about it. So, you freed prisoners from their jail even if you had no right to... but some of them were unjustly sentenced, so you did the right thing. The unlawful behavior isn't that (or not only that). It's that you broke a law of Good : never destroy an immortal soul. And everyone knows that in D&D from a LG standpoint, "commit an evil act for a good end" isn't acceptable.

If it was only unlawful but the good thing to do (break a law for a good end), it would have been OK for a Crusader to do it. But that's not the case.

Now, about the consequences :
- I think you should fall. Heironeous is every bit as Lawful as he is Good (even if his paladins are required to uphold good when in contradiction with law), and I think he'd have slapped you in the face.
- I don't think it should cause an alignment shift. Destroying souls is one of the few acts that can, but as you were driven by ethical concerns all the way, and you thought it was LG and you honestly wanna be LG, I'd say you stay LG. Most of all, I as a DM wouldn't wanna inconvenience you too bad for doing interesting roleplaying.
- Therefore, an atonement spell should do the trick.
- Now let's be clear about it. I think what you did wasn't at all weird or stupid. I think it was the right thing to do, I'd have done the same in your character's place. Thing is, I'm not LG (more like TN). So if you fall and then weigh being driven by compassion against being driven by Law and Good (I think compassion and forgiveness would be between NG and TN, if values had alignments), it should make for some very interesting roleplaying :).

Can you explain why it is evil other than just, "Nope, always evil because it is immortal." And how can it be the right thing to do and be evil? Unless you are claiming that Good and Evil have no inherent ethical or moral implications but purely objective forces or energies, in which case your argument can make sense to me.

How is it all fine and dandy for the gods to torture someone for all time, but not to destroy them utterly?

Tragak
2013-12-17, 12:33 PM
He hasn't destroyed any souls. Any souls destroyed by his hand were destroyed by the soul itself: They were the ones making the decision, not him. There's also a good chance he didn't even destroy them (Which requires powerful dark magic possessed only by [Evil] outsiders and deities and certain Wizards) and merely hastened their absorption into the plane. In fact, killing petioners of Carceri is a unilaterally Good act, regardless of whether they want to die or not: They're Evil Outsiders.

Also - Not being able to help everyone is NO EXCUSE to not help the ones you can. Exactly :smallwink:

The_Werebear
2013-12-17, 01:15 PM
One thing this conversation keeps reminding me of is something I saw someone else (I can't remember who) say on another thread--I think it was something like a compilation of tips for paladins.

Paraphrased:

Eventually you will fall. It's inevitable--at some point, you'll be in a situation where there is nothing you can do that won't result in you losing your status. Don't worry about it, it happens to all paladins eventually.



Now please understand that this is just my opinion, but at the risk of sounding confrontational, this interpretation can f*** right off. I think it stems from the idea that the powers which grant paladin status are incapable of examining a situation themselves and realizing that their servant really couldn't have done any better no matter how hard they tried.

I could not agree more. It's that philosophy that gives sadistic DM's carte blanche to shove Paladins in particular in situations that will result in loss of class features. Worse, it creates situations in which Paladins will stand aside and do nothing out of fear of losing class features. That, to me, is more monstrous than picking the lesser evil and doing the best that can be done.

Hyena
2013-12-17, 01:19 PM
something I saw someone else (I can't remember who)
It was me. Based it on my own experiences of playing paladins, nothing more, nothing less.

On topic - I think that you did absolutely the right thing and should not fall. However, you shouldn't stop here - when you have the resources, you should return to Carceri and clear the entire plane from the suffering victims.

Seto
2013-12-17, 01:22 PM
Can you explain why it is evil other than just, "Nope, always evil because it is immortal." And how can it be the right thing to do and be evil? Unless you are claiming that Good and Evil have no inherent ethical or moral implications but purely objective forces or energies, in which case your argument can make sense to me.

How is it all fine and dandy for the gods to torture someone for all time, but not to destroy them utterly?

I'll try and explain myself. Sorry about the novella I'm about to write :smallwink:

Destroying a soul is the most evil act ever in D&D because the books are written that way. If I were to make this make sense, I'd say that's because destroying a soul, even that of an evil mortal, is basically snuffing a being out of existence permanently, thus effectively denying it the possibility of ever finding redemption or light. Being in existence means that there is always a possibility that the soul will find its true way (that's to say, be LG and eternally blissful, from the LG perspective). A soul is what's supposed to remain of a being. Destroying a soul is not merely committing murder, but wiping out all that a person is, has ever been and would ever have had the possibility of being. Think about it : in real life, denying a person (or several) the right to exist (and acting on it) is about the most horrible you can get. Except, IRL you can't damage a soul (hell, we don't even know if it exists). In D&D, you can, thus ensuring that the person is truly gone.
Now, I'm talking about the immortal souls of mortals. Lawful Evil souls sent to Baator undergo a process that destroys everything they were, leaving but a shell. And Devils are born. (I'm not sure how it goes for Demons). These creatures are mockery of souls, born from the desacrated remains of what was supposed to be immortal and irreversibly twisted into enemies of life and Good. That's why it's Good to kill them. Redemption is really the big picture here. Fiends are immune to redemption (says BoED). Everything else isn't and, why it sometimes sadly needs to be killed, should be given a chance (be it only in the form of a soul).

About the "right thing to do" thing, I used the term in two different occasions, which I should clarify. I first said that by going against the law of the plane to free unjustly imprisoned souls, he did the right thing (in the LG perspective). What I meant is that going against the law of the plane isn't where the problem lies : it would have been fine if he didn't destroy hundred of souls to do it. When I later said that "I think it was the right thing to do", I meant that, in my view, that was the right thing to do - but if I were a D&D character I'd be TN, and while that may be the right thing to do from a TN perspective, it's not the case from a LG perspective.
In other words, yes, I am claiming that in D&D Good and Evil are objective forces, and my ethical and moral stance is that of a relativist. What I would call "ethically good" doesn't always fit exactly what is objectively good according to D&D morality, even though most of the time it does. But then again, that's the reason I'm not LG.

It's not fine for the gods to put someone to eternal torment, unless you're an Evil god. (Well, it's not fine for Heironeous, which was the player's deity). But still more fine than destroying souls. Lesser of two evils and all that. The only other acceptable thing to do (the only truly LG fine thing) would have been to actually get people out of the plane. But I'm not sure OP was in any position to do it.

To Scow2 : I don't know much about Carceri. But if the souls there can (even if it's very unlikely) be taken out and redeemed, calling them Evil Outsiders seems a technicality to me. They're not Fiends. Or are they ? Has the process of wiping out their memories (which I didn't know existed btw, thanks) made them unable to leave Carceri, turned them into Fiends, automatically made them return to Carceri even if they do escape and die again ?

SowZ
2013-12-17, 01:30 PM
I'll try and explain myself. Sorry about the novella I'm about to write :smallwink:

Destroying a soul is the most evil act ever in D&D because the books are written that way. If I were to make this make sense, I'd say that's because destroying a soul, even that of an evil mortal, is basically snuffing a being out of existence permanently, thus effectively denying it the possibility of ever finding redemption or light. Being in existence means that there is always a possibility that the soul will find its true way (that's to say, be LG and eternally blissful, from the LG perspective). A soul is what's supposed to remain of a being. Destroying a soul is not merely committing murder, but wiping out all that a person is, has ever been and would ever have had the possibility of being. Think about it : in real life, denying a person (or several) the right to exist (and acting on it) is about the most horrible you can get. Except, IRL you can't damage a soul (hell, we don't even know if it exists). In D&D, you can, thus ensuring that the person is truly gone.
Now, I'm talking about the immortal souls of mortals. Lawful Evil souls sent to Baator undergo a process that destroys everything they were, leaving but a shell. And Devils are born. (I'm not sure how it goes for Demons). These creatures are mockery of souls, born from the desacrated remains of what was supposed to be immortal and irreversibly twisted into enemies of life and Good. That's why it's Good to kill them. Redemption is really the big picture here. Fiends are immune to redemption (says BoED). Everything else isn't and, why it sometimes sadly needs to be killed, should be given a chance (be it only in the form of a soul).

About the "right thing to do" thing, I used the term in two different occasions, which I should clarify. I first said that by going against the law of the plane to free unjustly imprisoned souls, he did the right thing (in the LG perspective). What I meant is that going against the law of the plane isn't where the problem lies : it would have been fine if he didn't destroy hundred of souls to do it. When I later said that "I think it was the right thing to do", I meant that, in my view, that was the right thing to do - but if I were a D&D character I'd be TN, and while that may be the right thing to do from a TN perspective, it's not the case from a LG perspective.
In other words, yes, I am claiming that in D&D Good and Evil are objective forces, and my ethical and moral stance is that of a relativist. What I would call "ethically good" doesn't always fit exactly what is objectively good according to D&D morality, even though most of the time it does. But then again, that's the reason I'm not LG.

It's not fine for the gods to put someone to eternal torment, unless you're an Evil god. (Well, it's not fine for Heironeous, which was the player's deity). But still more fine than destroying souls. Lesser of two evils and all that. The only other acceptable thing to do (the only truly LG fine thing) would have been to actually get people out of the plane. But I'm not sure OP was in any position to do it.

To Scow2 : I don't know much about Carceri. But if the souls there can (even if it's very unlikely) be taken out and redeemed, calling them Evil Outsiders seems a technicality to me. They're not Fiends. Or are they ? Has the process of wiping out their memories (which I didn't know existed btw, thanks) made them unable to leave Carceri, turned them into Fiends, automatically made them return to Carceri even if they do escape and die again ?

Consistent enough, yeah, makes sense.

Vedhin
2013-12-17, 01:36 PM
To Scow2 : I don't know much about Carceri. But if the souls there can (even if it's very unlikely) be taken out and redeemed, calling them Evil Outsiders seems a technicality to me. They're not Fiends. Or are they ? Has the process of wiping out their memories (which I didn't know existed btw, thanks) made them unable to leave Carceri, turned them into Fiends, automatically made them return to Carceri even if they do escape and die again ?

In a nutshell: Yes.

First off, all petitioners (except those in Elysium) lose all their memories.
Second, Petitioners are also Outsiders with the alignment subtypes of their planes, essentially qualifying as fiends.
Third, petitioners are stuck on the plane they are sent to. (Baator and the Abyss are different, IIRC. Maybe Hades.)


But a longer answer involves asking how Carceri embodies Evil with Chaotic leanings. It comes down to the fact that Carceri is a mockery, or even the antithesis, of justice.

Carceri offers no hope of redemption.
Carceri is not a deterrent to future crime.
Carceri does not allow its victims to know why they are punished.
Carceri does not recompensate those wronged by its petitioners.
Carceri just wants people to suffer.

What self respecting Good or Lawful character would not do anything they could to undermine this travesty of everything they stand for?

ApologyFestival
2013-12-17, 03:56 PM
OP here. Well, this blew up! I wasn't expecting so many replies, so I can't even begin to respond to them on an individual basis. But, I've read everything and thank you all so much for the (hopefully ongoing) discussion. There's a lot of food for thought in here, and a lot of wildly opposed opinions for me to think on.

Thanks to your opinions (on both sides of the fence) I'm at peace with my character's decision to grant mercy, even if it means destroying immortal souls. The ultimate arbiter of morality--at least the mechanical side of it--is my GM, but I think this was the right choice for the character. Even if his alignment shifts and his god irrevocably forsakes him, I will maintain that he is a truly Good crusader.

However, I agree that this should have a huge impact on my character's trajectory, other players' patience for hogging the spotlight permitting. An atonement is definitely required, not just for the killings but for offering to "shoulder the burdens" of the crimes of the petitioners--his means of offering forgiveness--something he had no absolute authority to do. A phylactery of faithfulness is a great choice, though had Heironeous told my character not to do this, he would likely have renounced his faith there and then. Many sleepless nights are in the cards, as is, I think, some mellowing out and gradual development towards a more introspective personality. He started the campaign as a bone-headed zealot, and I'm enjoying his development away from that.

I understand that the truly good solution to this problem would have involved trapping the souls and getting them out of Carceri, to take them somewhere they can be judged fairly. I'm all for Good characters always having strive for perfection, to do the best they can, and yeah, "good enough" is never good enough. But what's a character to do when the ideal solution is not just a monumental task, but literally out of their reach forever?

I'm playing a "mundane" character because I initially thought that playing D&D without spells would be a fun challenge. However, in situations like this I'm finding myself getting frustrated. If the best solution to a problem--from an exalted point of view--invariably involves spellcasting, and the rest of the party (all top-tier spellcasters) are unwilling to help, is this not an intensely unfair strain on the Good-hoping-for-Exalted martial character?

As an aside, one of the major driving factors in my character's choice was that not all of the petitioner's in my GM's vision of Carceri are here due to cosmic justice. Many petitioners that the party talked to were thrown into Carceri as mortals via a gate or plane shift, and became petitioners of the plane as they lost their hopes of escape (this would imply that some, at least, remember their crimes). Some were trapped in Carceri by vigilante heroes who were sick of the bad guy being resurrected to wage evil another day, some simply pissed off the wrong wizard.

One notable ex-player character ended up becoming a petitioner of Carceri because the character was a jerk and the player not much better. So a powerful wizard tricked him into walking through a one-way gate to his eternal prison. While funny to the GM and the other players, I'm sure, in-universe that's a completely unjust punishment that has been repeatedly regaled, and proof that--in my eyes--Carceri needs a good smashing.

SowZ
2013-12-17, 04:02 PM
OP here. Well, this blew up! I wasn't expecting so many replies, so I can't even begin to respond to them on an individual basis. But, I've read everything and thank you all so much for the (hopefully ongoing) discussion. There's a lot of food for thought in here, and a lot of wildly opposed opinions for me to think on.

Thanks to your opinions (on both sides of the fence) I'm at peace with my character's decision to grant mercy, even if it means destroying immortal souls. The ultimate arbiter of morality--at least the mechanical side of it--is my GM, but I think this was the right choice for the character. Even if his alignment shifts and his god irrevocably forsakes him, I will maintain that he is a truly Good crusader.

However, I agree that this should have a huge impact on my character's trajectory, other players' patience for hogging the spotlight permitting. An atonement is definitely required, not just for the killings but for offering to "shoulder the burdens" of the crimes of the petitioners--his means of offering forgiveness--something he had no absolute authority to do. A phylactery of faithfulness is a great choice, though had Heironeous told my character not to do this, he would likely have renounced his faith there and then. Many sleepless nights are in the cards, as is, I think, some mellowing out and gradual development towards a more introspective personality. He started the campaign as a bone-headed zealot, and I'm enjoying his development away from that.

I understand that the truly good solution to this problem would have involved trapping the souls and getting them out of Carceri, to take them somewhere they can be judged fairly. I'm all for Good characters always having strive for perfection, to do the best they can, and yeah, "good enough" is never good enough. But what's a character to do when the ideal solution is not just a monumental task, but literally out of their reach forever?

I'm playing a "mundane" character because I initially thought that playing D&D without spells would be a fun challenge. However, in situations like this I'm finding myself getting frustrated. If the best solution to a problem--from an exalted point of view--invariably involves spellcasting, and the rest of the party (all top-tier spellcasters) are unwilling to help, is this not an intensely unfair strain on the Good-hoping-for-Exalted martial character?

As an aside, one of the major driving factors in my character's choice was that not all of the petitioner's in my GM's vision of Carceri are here due to cosmic justice. Many petitioners that the party talked to were thrown into Carceri as mortals via a gate or plane shift, and became petitioners of the plane as they lost their hopes of escape (this would imply that some, at least, remember their crimes). Some were trapped in Carceri by vigilante heroes who were sick of the bad guy being resurrected to wage evil another day, some simply pissed off the wrong wizard.

One notable ex-player character ended up becoming a petitioner of Carceri because the character was a jerk and the player not much better. So a powerful wizard tricked him into walking through a one-way gate to his eternal prison. While funny to the GM and the other players, I'm sure, in-universe that's a completely unjust punishment that has been repeatedly regaled, and proof that--in my eyes--Carceri needs a good smashing.

Of course, your god being irrationally angry at you for a good action is within D&D RAW, especially if we go by BoED. We're talking about a book where a character who takes 'Vow of Chastity' has to beg forgiveness from their gods and make amends for the crime of being raped, after all. Clearly, the good gods in D&D are complete d-bags.

veti
2013-12-17, 04:16 PM
I'll try and explain myself. Sorry about the novella I'm about to write :smallwink:

Destroying a soul is the most evil act ever in D&D because the books are written that way. If I were to make this make sense, I'd say that's because destroying a soul, even that of an evil mortal, is basically snuffing a being out of existence permanently, thus effectively denying it the possibility of ever finding redemption or light. Being in existence means that there is always a possibility that the soul will find its true way (that's to say, be LG and eternally blissful, from the LG perspective).

Sorry, but this explanation doesn't stand up. The soul of a mortal who's died and gone to another plane, from which there is no return or escape, has no possibility of "redemption". And the very concept of "redemption" itself doesn't make a lot of sense when the LG powers of the world are no more powerful than the LE, CE or CG ones. Evil souls have already found their "true way"; just because it's not the same as the LG way, doesn't make it any less true.

I'm not touching the rest of your argument with its real-world connotations, except to point out that the souls in question wanted to be destroyed. To refuse to respect their wishes, to assert that you know better than they do what's Truly Best for them, is failing to meet the standards of Good, defined as "showing respect for the dignity of sentient beings".


Now, I'm talking about the immortal souls of mortals. Lawful Evil souls sent to Baator undergo a process that destroys everything they were, leaving but a shell. And Devils are born. (I'm not sure how it goes for Demons). These creatures are mockery of souls, born from the desacrated remains of what was supposed to be immortal and irreversibly twisted into enemies of life and Good. That's why it's Good to kill them.

And now you're contradicting yourself. A minute ago, "destroying souls" was "the most evil act ever". Now it's good, if those souls don't match your idea of a correct alignment?


Redemption is really the big picture here. Fiends are immune to redemption (says BoED). Everything else isn't and, why it sometimes sadly needs to be killed, should be given a chance (be it only in the form of a soul).

Yeah well, BoED can go eat a rat and die. I've always suspected it's written by someone who flunked their philosophy class, now I'm sure.

Let me ask you a question. Let's say I'm a horrible unrepentant child-murdering felon, confined to Carceri.

After 1000 years or so of confinement, I have come to terms with the things I did. I no longer hate everything good and pure.

After another 1000 years, I have evolved into a saint. Gentle, selfless, pacifistic, perfectly honest and kind. But I'm still stuck in Carceri, with no way out. There is no redemption from here.

Another 1000 years goes by. My new-found patience has been tested to the limit by the evil of those around me. I'm starting to discover that saintliness is not only thankless, it's also damned, no pun intended, uncomfortable in this environment.

After another 1000 years, I'm back to eating babies. Except now, of course, I'm no longer driven by blind instinct or unthnking hatred. Nothing I do is "unthinking", I've thought through absolutely everything you can imagine in terrifying detail, and this is the conclusion I've come to - this is what I want to do.

Tell me - wouldn't the world be a better place, if this sterling fellow had come along after 1000 or 2000 years and ended my imprisonment then?

Icewraith
2013-12-17, 04:38 PM
Well for staters, after a certain period of time you should have absorbed into Carceri itself, if I understand the mechanics correctly.

You also have no memories of anything you did in life, according to information in this thread.

What I don't understand is that if Carceri is a prison plane, why it has any petitioners at all. This seems like somewhere that you send living mortals or outsiders that have supremely ticked you off, so that they can't be resurrected and even their soul can't reincarnate or be absorbed by their home plane and reconstituted into some other form that will probably bother you.

It should be populated by technically immortal living (or undead) creatures that never actually die, all of whom are outsiders but cannot be banished. There's also the question of why your deity sent you here in the first place, and how you're going to get out.

Seto
2013-12-17, 04:58 PM
Sorry, but this explanation doesn't stand up. The soul of a mortal who's died and gone to another plane, from which there is no return or escape, has no possibility of "redemption". And the very concept of "redemption" itself doesn't make a lot of sense when the LG powers of the world are no more powerful than the LE, CE or CG ones. Evil souls have already found their "true way"; just because it's not the same as the LG way, doesn't make it any less true.

I'm not touching the rest of your argument with its real-world connotations, except to point out that the souls in question wanted to be destroyed. To refuse to respect their wishes, to assert that you know better than they do what's Truly Best for them, is failing to meet the standards of Good, defined as "showing respect for the dignity of sentient beings".

Should the mortal be resurrected, redemption is possible. With the rest of your argument I personally agree. That's because I recognize I have no grasp on the nature of Good (or to be precise, I don't think it's objective). But a LG character can and will have an opinion on what's best for you, even if you don't agree. If you decide to commit suicide, I won't think it's good for you because you asked for it. And if you ask me to destroy your immortal soul, I won't do that if it stands against everything I believe in. "Showing respect for the dignity of sentient beings" might include going against their wishes when said wishes threaten their existence or dignity, you know. Sure, they're free to choose for themselves what they do. But what you do on their behalf is a completely different matter.


now you're contradicting yourself. A minute ago, "destroying souls" was "the most evil act ever". Now it's good, if those souls don't match your idea of a correct alignment?

That's my point : turning into a Devil is an agonizing process that effectively destroys the soul. A Devil's not a soul, that's a former soul now unable to make moral choices (which is what having a soul is all about). Turning into a Celestial preserves your soul, it just makes it reach a higher form. But you can still fall. On the contrary, you can't be redeemed as a Fiend.
Let's say a soul is like a coconut. If you see me throw a coconut away, you might accuse me of wasting perfectly good food. You'll be right. If, however, the coconut is empty or contains nothing but rotten fruit and maggots, there's nothing to waste because, while it looks like a coconut, it's not, it can't be eaten and will never be a coconut again. That's what a Devil is.


well, BoED can go eat a rat and die. I've always suspected it's written by someone who flunked their philosophy class, now I'm sure.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, and it's your right no to use BoED material. The OP, however, seems to use it, so I'm going with it too.


Let me ask you a question. Let's say I'm a horrible unrepentant child-murdering felon, confined to Carceri.

After 1000 years or so of confinement, I have come to terms with the things I did. I no longer hate everything good and pure.

After another 1000 years, I have evolved into a saint. Gentle, selfless, pacifistic, perfectly honest and kind. But I'm still stuck in Carceri, with no way out. There is no redemption from here.

Another 1000 years goes by. My new-found patience has been tested to the limit by the evil of those around me. I'm starting to discover that saintliness is not only thankless, it's also damned, no pun intended, uncomfortable in this environment.

After another 1000 years, I'm back to eating babies. Except now, of course, I'm no longer driven by blind instinct or unthnking hatred. Nothing I do is "unthinking", I've thought through absolutely everything you can imagine in terrifying detail, and this is the conclusion I've come to - this is what I want to do.

Tell me - wouldn't the world be a better place, if this sterling fellow had come along after 1000 or 2000 years and ended my imprisonment then?

I was under the impression that it was possible, if very difficult, to get souls out of Carceri. If that's not the case, then I spoke too soon and yes, might as well kill them (which would still be an Evil act. But at least it would save hopeless suffering). But if there's even a shot at it happening, a LG character shouldn't take it upon themselves to annihilate that shot. Even if just one guy out of thousand could make it, it'd be worth it.

Vedhin
2013-12-17, 05:11 PM
What I don't understand is that if Carceri is a prison plane, why it has any petitioners at all.

Well, each of the planes embodies some alignment combination. Carceri is Neutral Evil with Chaotic leanings, so people like that (and all of Nerull's faithful) get sorted into Carceri.
Carceri, in canon, also is a bit more specialized, and escapable for mortals. The specialization it has, is in traitors. Sounds like a nice spot, no?

The top layer has those who betrayed their country (typically on a political/national level). It has all sorts of bogs-- think Compromise Quicksand. Those who are sent here get to live with constant backstabbing and undermining, like they did in life.
The next layer has those who betrayed their humanity for bestial urges. It's basically a giant, decaying jungle, where it isn't plains of razor-sharp grass. Those who are sent here get to survive only by acting like beasts, as they did in life.
The third layer has those who betrayed their duty for personal gain. It's a giant sand pit, with frequent nasty sandstorms. Those who are sent here get to spend their time digging a pit for shelter, scrabbling constantly for more, as they did in life.
The fourth layer holds those who betrayed trust, the liars and cheaters. They liar is comprised of staggering cliffs and valleys, with only narrow paths. Those who are sent here spend their time deceiving others, trying to eke out whatever they can from their surroundings, as they did in life.
The fifth has those who betrayed social bonds, those who neglected the downtrodden. The layer is an acid sea, with acid snow, and the inhabitants huddle on the scattered sandbars. Those who are sent here spend there time trying to escape the sandbars by any means possible, promising anything to anyone who might help them escape. These promises are never followed through on, and they care nothing for their fellows, as they did in life.
The sixth layer holds those who betrayed personal bonds, those of friendship or family. The layer is an icy wasteland, with a constant blizzard that entombs those who are not moving. Those who are sent here spend their time entrapped in the ice, offering alliances to any who might free them. As in life, these claims mean nothing.


So that's how it works canonically.

SiuiS
2013-12-17, 05:23 PM
I must first congratulate you on what I think was a great roleplaying decision.

I think what you did, however, was strongly unlawful and strongly evil. Destroying an immortal soul is the most vile act imaginable : that's a fundamental law of good and evil.

One more time then;

Killing a petitioner is NOT destroying a soul. A petitioner is an outsider just like any other outsider.

When a devourer eats someone's soul, there is no petitioner inside.
When a Trap The Soul spell or a Magic Jar spell move a soul around, there is no petitioner involved.

Petitioner != soul. Your argument is utterly flawed because you are saying strawberries are truck tires, and that is the lynchpin of the argument.

It's also noteworthy that an Angel or Archon is as much a destroyed soul as a Demon or Devil. Aside from 'agonizing process' the birthing is identical. That sort of leans toward disproving the idea that a fiend is okay to 'destroy' (I note that somehow you can't kill them, you skip straight to annihilation despite them leaving a body behind, and being ressurectable? How does that make sense?).

In short.


Mercy Killing a petitioner IS NOT and CAN NOT be evil solely because of an unrelated rule about destroying souls. because that is what the rule about destroying a soul being evil is; unrelated. Absolutely nothing in the rules and very little in the setting fluff supports otherwise.

Icewraith
2013-12-17, 05:25 PM
Ah. In that case, if it's just petitioners, you're fine. All you did was speed up the process of the plane reabsorbing them.

Actually, if the souls were just going to continue to power Carceri, you probably wouldn't have been remiss if you detonated them in some fashion so they couldn't be reabsorbed. The evil characters can never be resurrected, Carceri doesn't gain power from the petitioners, a bunch of useless suffering is completely avoided (since the petitioners apparently have none of their memories in life), and you tip the cosmic balance away from evil and towards good in some fashion. There's also fewer souls to maybe end up as yugoloths?

Edit: In which case, if you speed up the process Carceri uses to perform some kind of neutral evil related function, you technically comitted an evil act by essentially dumping more evil fuel into the evil fuel tank. If you interfered with the process, maybe Carceri can get less energy or whatever from reabsorbed petitioners who haven't been tormented enough by the plane to reabsorb naturally, it was a good act- instead of full on 100% evil fuel, Carceri has to deal with a 10% Ethanol blend.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-17, 11:52 PM
So if a Paladin stands by while someone explains their plans to burn down an orphanage, and that person proceeds to burn down said orphanage according to said plan, while the Paladin does nothing, the Paladin doesn't fall?:smallconfused:

Again, different situation is different.

Choosing not to act in this situation is unconscionable. No good creature, regardless of class, -could- choose not to act without some mitigating circumstance. If they did choose not to act because of some valid mitigating circumstance then it would still be a non action and the paladin would not fall. If the paladin does not care then he was already a fallen paladin anyway because he's not a good character.

Note, however, that destroying buildings isn't evil. Evacuating the orphanage is a viable, good solution that does not interfere with the villain's stated plan and may be the best the paladin could reasonably do if the villain was significantly more powerful. If the villain has the property rights to the building under valid laws then there's nothing the paladin can do though he does have a duty to try to rescue anyone who happens to be in the building under the code.

There's a difference between choosing not to act because there's nothing you can be reasonably expected to do and because you just don't give a damn. In the latter case there needs to be some mitigation or it's simply not a motivation that a good character could have.

@ Siuis:

You're just plain wrong in your contention that petitioners aren't souls. The body and soul of an outsider are a single unit. No soul is released on their death. This is explicitly stated in the description of the outsider type.

Petitioners also lack the alignment subtypes. The example ogre petitioner in MotP is wrong. The template says that the creature's type is changed to outsider with no mention of changes or additions to subtype. Therefore, petitioners are also not fiends.

It is likely unintended, but the rule stating that it is always evil to destroy a soul makes it an evil act to destroy any outsider that is not a fiend (explicit exception) or a native outsider.

Scow2
2013-12-18, 01:09 AM
It is likely unintended, but the rule stating that it is always evil to destroy a soul makes it an evil act to destroy any outsider that is not a fiend (explicit exception) or a native outsider.

Except killing an Outsider is not destroying a soul. The soul remains, and returns to Essentia/Incarnum. All you do is destroy the facimile of a being it has formed.

In order to destroy a soul, you need terrible terrible magic. The only ways I know of to destroy souls are to either feed them to a Devourer, or use them to power item creation and spellcasting (As per the BoVD). Otherwise, it's as much "Destroying souls" as drinking water is destroying it.

When you destroy an outsider such as a petitioner, fiend or angel, the essentia it is composed merely changes/loses its form. The soul(s) are unharmed. It's more like burning coal (oxidizing carbohydrates) than running an antimatter engine.

Again - there are only four ways to actually destroy a soul - Powerful magic spells/rituals, powering the XP cost of Item Creation and Spell Casting, and being used to power a Devourer or similar undead creature..

Seto
2013-12-18, 01:17 AM
Oh ? Ok then. I thought "petitioner" was just how you called a soul sent to an Outer plane after death. If petitioners are something else entirely, and killing them somehow doesn't affect the soul, my argument doesn't stand.

Scow2
2013-12-18, 01:20 AM
Oh ? Ok then. I thought "petitioner" was just how you called a soul sent to an Outer plane after death. If petitioners are something else entirely, and killing them somehow doesn't affect the soul, my argument doesn't stand.The petitioner is... sort of the soul. But "killing" it doesn't destroy the soul/essentia it's made of, merely hastens its absorption into the plane. The essence of whoever that person goes unconscious and is spread throughout the entire plane (And is occasionally drawn upon by Incarnum users)

Raine_Sage
2013-12-18, 01:37 AM
Oh ? Ok then. I thought "petitioner" was just how you called a soul sent to an Outer plane after death. If petitioners are something else entirely, and killing them somehow doesn't affect the soul, my argument doesn't stand.

They are souls, it's just that killing them doesn't destroy them. Just like killing an earthly body doesn't destroy the soul. Souls can take a beating without being destroyed. Killing a petitioner just means their soul either gets shuffled elsewhere or is absorbed into the plane faster. The soul itself remains intact, however it no longer has a mock body to putter around in.

SiuiS
2013-12-18, 03:17 AM
@ Siuis:

You're just plain wrong in your contention that petitioners aren't souls. The body and soul of an outsider are a single unit. No soul is released on their death. This is explicitly stated in the description of the outsider type.


So the trap the soul spell creates a petitioner? Magic jar moves around petitioners? You need to strap a struggling petitioner to an altar to use it for item creation? The creation of an angel is an evil act?

No. Scow2 explains it well, but there are only a few ways to destroy a soul. Every way to destroy a soul prevents resurrection. Killing a petitioner does not prevent resurrection. It's a very clear case. If it was destroyed you could not repair it. You can repair it; it must not have been destroyed then, and only utter destruction is evil.

There's also a difference between petitioner and soul, because Game Mechanics, but that's not even necessary for my point to stand.


They are souls, it's just that killing them doesn't destroy them. Just like killing an earthly body doesn't destroy the soul. Souls can take a beating without being destroyed. Killing a petitioner just means their soul either gets shuffled elsewhere or is absorbed into the plane faster. The soul itself remains intact, however it no longer has a mock body to putter around in.

They are what souls are embodied in, but they are not themselves, souls. You don't have a petitioner inside you, and if your soul is stolen it does not take the form of a petitioner.

A petitioner is what a soul becomes when it translates to an outer plane via some obscure, arcane mechanism. But if we are being pedantic, the soul has already been destroyed and turned into a petitioner at that point. Which means the universe is wholly, attrociously evil. We need to crusade against the universe! To arms!



... I just found my next doomsday cult. :smallbiggrin:

Vedhin
2013-12-18, 09:56 AM
Again, different situation is different.

Choosing not to act in this situation is unconscionable. No good creature, regardless of class, -could- choose not to act without some mitigating circumstance. If they did choose not to act because of some valid mitigating circumstance then it would still be a non action and the paladin would not fall. If the paladin does not care then he was already a fallen paladin anyway because he's not a good character.

There's a difference between choosing not to act because there's nothing you can be reasonably expected to do and because you just don't give a damn. In the latter case there needs to be some mitigation or it's simply not a motivation that a good character could have.

First off: Do I really have to specify that this orphanage has orphans in it? :smallsigh: And I specifically said that the Paladin does nothing.
Second: One of the reasons to stop the villian here is to prevent suffering. That is what the OP acted to do.
Third: By this logic, a Paladin in the OP's situation would have fallen for not doing anything.


Foremost: Carceri's petitioners are Evil. They have the alignment, they have the subtype. As Outsiders, they are literally MADE OF EVIL. Killing them shifts the metaphysical balance away from Evil and towards Good. Thus, it is a Good act because it causes a relative increase in Good.



A petitioner is what a soul becomes when it translates to an outer plane via some obscure, arcane mechanism. But if we are being pedantic, the soul has already been destroyed and turned into a petitioner at that point. Which means the universe is wholly, attrociously evil. We need to crusade against the universe! To arms!



... I just found my next doomsday cult. :smallbiggrin:

Where do I sign up? I always felt the D&D afterlife was completely abhorrent.

veti
2013-12-18, 10:05 AM
Again, different situation is different.

Choosing not to act in this situation is unconscionable. No good creature, regardless of class, -could- choose not to act without some mitigating circumstance.

Not actually seeing any difference yet.


Note, however, that destroying buildings isn't evil. Evacuating the orphanage is a viable, good solution that does not interfere with the villain's stated plan and may be the best the paladin could reasonably do if the villain was significantly more powerful. If the villain has the property rights to the building under valid laws then there's nothing the paladin can do though he does have a duty to try to rescue anyone who happens to be in the building under the code.

Pretty sure that "destroying buildings with people inside" is both evil and unlawful in most places, regardless of ownership.


There's a difference between choosing not to act because there's nothing you can be reasonably expected to do and because you just don't give a damn. In the latter case there needs to be some mitigation or it's simply not a motivation that a good character could have.

There may be a difference, but how would you as DM tell which it is? In the scenario described in this thread, are the rest of the party not acting because (a) they think they can't do anything (which they have been explicitly told is false), or because (b) they think they can't do anything good, or because (c) they've got bigger things on their minds (i.e. can't be bothered)? Personally, I suspect they're using (b) as a cover for (c).


It is likely unintended, but the rule stating that it is always evil to destroy a soul makes it an evil act to destroy any outsider that is not a fiend (explicit exception) or a native outsider.

And that right there is a big clue that something is badly screwed up in your logic. Or do paladins fall if they fight a mephit?

AMFV
2013-12-18, 10:10 AM
Not actually seeing any difference yet.



Pretty sure that "destroying buildings with people inside" is both evil and unlawful in most places, regardless of ownership.


Not in medieval times its not. Or if they're not considered to be people. You're looking at it through a modern lens, which doesn't work for pseudo-medieval laws. In Thay for example burning down an orphanage with people inside might be totally cool, particularly if done for research.



There may be a difference, but how would you as DM tell which it is? In the scenario described in this thread, are the rest of the party not acting because (a) they think they can't do anything (which they have been explicitly told is false), or because (b) they think they can't do anything good, or because (c) they've got bigger things on their minds (i.e. can't be bothered)? Personally, I suspect they're using (b) as a cover for (c).


Well it's a debatable point. In fact, the fact that we've had pages and pages of argument about the morality of this, means that it is not an easy point. Not even a little bit. The Paladin did something but it may have been for good or for ill in the end. I'd still have him atone, simply because even if it wasn't technically evil. If I were in the Paladin's shoes, I'd want to atone, although that may just be the Catholic in me.



And that right there is a big clue that something is badly screwed up in your logic. Or do paladins fall if they fight a mephit?

That's a sign that the rules are borked, not that his logic is bad.

Talderas
2013-12-18, 01:57 PM
The only way to reasonably play paladins is to play to the code under which they serve. As others have stated, paladins are not sworn to uphold laws which are unjust or conflict with their codes. DMs which disagree with this are probably trying to setup paladins for a fall for "it's a good RP situation" which about the worst possible thing.

So let's address the lawfulness of your actions. Heironeous is the deity of Chivalry, Justice, Honor, War, Daring, and Valor. You can also word this as defending the weak, being morally straight, being respectable, being willing to fight when necessary, be bold, and be courageous.

He has three duties which his church upholds.

Duty to the People. This duty stresses courage, justice, mercy, valor, protection of the weak, and faithfulness to church superiors of officer of righteous law.
Duty to the Arch-paladin. This duty stresses obedience to Heironeous himself, devotion to the church, generosity, championing good against evil, putting the needs of the church and the faith above those of mortals.
Duty to a Lady. This duty pertains to the concept of courtly love, devotion to one's beloved, and respect toward all women in general.

Now, a full stop interjection. Had any of these souls been placed in Carceri by Heironeous's own hand then setting them free would be subverting your duty to the arch-paladin and would be a rather chaotic action for that single soul. On the flip side the killings also fall in line with the duty to the arch-paladin. These souls will eventually make an evil aligned plane stronger and consequently aid the side of evil in the good vs evil struggle. By killing these souls you are preventing that from happening and directly championing the side of good which is a good act. Killing is something people get easily confused on good and evil. Killing is an of itself is not evil or good. Killing is evil when it lacks respect for life. That's why murder is evil. It's why killing orcs that show you no threat is evil. To look at it another way, ending the existence of an entity without respect to whether or not it wishes to continue to exist is evil. These souls do not want to exist any longer so ending that existence is not evil.

Even further these slayings (since voluntary) very much so fall in line with the duty to the people. They are merciful. You are after all being quite benevolent and you are certainly expressing forgiveness for whatever evils and sins they may have committed. You are also protecting the weak by preventing them by being exploited, tortured, or otherwise treated poorly by those with power over them.

In summary, I do not consider your actions evil and I consider your action lawful by seeming to fall within the code of duty to Heironeous. The only case under which you would not be lawful would be if the souls in question had been directly sentenced to Carceri by Heironeous and even that is questionable.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-21, 03:54 AM
So the trap the soul spell creates a petitioner? Magic jar moves around petitioners? You need to strap a struggling petitioner to an altar to use it for item creation? The creation of an angel is an evil act?

No. Scow2 explains it well, but there are only a few ways to destroy a soul. Every way to destroy a soul prevents resurrection. Killing a petitioner does not prevent resurrection. It's a very clear case. If it was destroyed you could not repair it. You can repair it; it must not have been destroyed then, and only utter destruction is evil.

There's also a difference between petitioner and soul, because Game Mechanics, but that's not even necessary for my point to stand.Try this on for size; every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square.

At the same time, every outsider is a soul but not every soul is an outsider.


They are what souls are embodied in, but they are not themselves, souls. You don't have a petitioner inside you, and if your soul is stolen it does not take the form of a petitioner.

A petitioner is what a soul becomes when it translates to an outer plane via some obscure, arcane mechanism.You're aware of the fact that you just said that a petitioner is both what a soul becomes, making it equivalent to a soul, and that a petitioner is what a soul is embodied in, making it a container for a soul which the game rules explicitly say is wrong?
--- Unlike most other living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature --- its soul and body form one unit. When an oustider is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, [examples], don't work on an outsider.


First off: Do I really have to specify that this orphanage has orphans in it? :smallsigh:Yes. Yes you do. An orphanage is an orphanage regardless of whether it's currently occupied by orphans or not. Just built, under construction, just shut-down, etc are all states in which an orphanage could exist whilst still being unoccupied.


And I specifically said that the Paladin does nothing. If there's nothing he can legally do and no one is in immediate danger then doing nothing is absolutely fine. In fact, attacking a gloating land-lord for exercising his legal rights because it rubs you the wrong way is definitely chaotic and might even be border-line evil if the man isn't otherwise deserving of a good smiting.

Second: One of the reasons to stop the villian here is to prevent suffering. That is what the OP acted to do.There's a difference between cutting down the villain so he won't cause suffering and killing the victim to alleviate his suffering. The latter taken to an absurd extreme results in a nihilistic cult that wants to kill -everything- to ensure that there is no more suffering at all.

Third: By this logic, a Paladin in the OP's situation would have fallen for not doing anything.If you think this then you didn't follow my logic properly.



Foremost: Carceri's petitioners are Evil. They have the alignment, they have the subtype. As Outsiders, they are literally MADE OF EVIL. Killing them shifts the metaphysical balance away from Evil and towards Good. Thus, it is a Good act because it causes a relative increase in Good.The underlined is untrue. I already mentioned this once but I'll repeat; the template doesn't actually change the creature's subtype(s). The example is wrong. Examples that break the rules that were just laid out in 3e books is disgustingly common. Lacking the evil subtype, they are not necessarily made of concentrated evil. There's enough import from other planes and enough metaphysical energies of other types to account for outsiders that lack alignment subtypes on to be made up of other building blocks without causing a rules conflict.


Not actually seeing any difference yet.If you can't see the difference between stopping an individual from acting and flailing in futility at the literally infinite evil of an entire plane by trying to take away some of its victims then I can't help you.




Pretty sure that "destroying buildings with people inside" is both evil and unlawful in most places, regardless of ownership.A) He said nothing about there being orphans inside. It's a very important point to the situation to leave implied. Even so, failing to stop the villain doesn't change the fact that he's the one who committed evil, not you. If you insist on counting the actions of others against those who don't interfere with them then virtually everyone is evil since most people won't act on behalf of others without something to gain.

B) Evil, probably. It depends on the people inside. Unlawful, who knows. Laws vary, sometimes quite widely, from one place to another and so do social mores. In classic Japan, for example, no one would give a flying fig if a samurai (top of the social order) cut down an eta (bottom of the social order) for virtually any reason short of one he just plain made up. It wouldn't be a violation of the law nor would it be a violation of social convention. It wouldn't be even a little bit unlawful in that culture.



There may be a difference, but how would you as DM tell which it is? By explicitly asking the player what his character's motivations are and to clarify if I feel he's being unclear. Motivation is too important for games in which alignment plays a major role to not be as clear as possible when it comes up.


In the scenario described in this thread, are the rest of the party not acting because (a) they think they can't do anything (which they have been explicitly told is false), or because (b) they think they can't do anything good, or because (c) they've got bigger things on their minds (i.e. can't be bothered)? Personally, I suspect they're using (b) as a cover for (c).The rest of the party's motivations don't matter a whit for determining the alignment of the OP's action; only whether one or more of them is both willing and able to grant the character access to abilities he doesn't already have and only then because the situation in question was one of the rare instances in which magic was absolutely necessary to do good. Trying to force them to do so would be a betrayal and, as such, an undeniably evil act, nevermind utterly ineffective unless they somehow have access to a dominate effect.




And that right there is a big clue that something is badly screwed up in your logic. Or do paladins fall if they fight a mephit?

As AMFV pointed out. This is a flaw in the game rules more than in my logic.

Amphetryon
2013-12-21, 07:41 AM
Remind me, please, where in the game rules it describes the process whereby a petitioner (not a soul; the two terms appear distinct) can be redeemed? I ask because that appears to be the only available choice of action to a LG Paladin in this situation order to avoid falling. . . and I'm sure you're not advocating for a no-win scenario for the Paladin.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-21, 07:55 AM
Remind me, please, where in the game rules it describes the process whereby a petitioner (not a soul; the two terms appear distinct) can be redeemed? I ask because that appears to be the only available choice of action to a LG Paladin in this situation order to avoid falling. . . and I'm sure you're not advocating for a no-win scenario for the Paladin.

Define redeem.

If you mean simply being converted to a good alignment that's extremely simple. Every sapient creature is capable of shifting its alignment based on its attitudes and actions. Angels fall and demons rise, it's just -really- uncommon.

If you mean both converted to good and rescued from the plane to which they're committed that's a bit trickier. You have to temporarily relieve them of that trait (planar commitment) before you can move them off plane and that requires some transmutation magic and direct intervention by would-be rescuers or deific intervention.

If you mean being converted to good and released from the plane without intervention from outside forces then -that- is not possible.

As I said, a paladin would not fall for simply moving along without trying to intervene in suffering brought on by the situation (rather than fiendish tormentors) because it's simply beyond his abilities to actually do anything. He may feel a bit guilty about his inability to do anything but that's simply misplaced blame and an all too common human foible.

SowZ
2013-12-21, 08:23 AM
Define redeem.

If you mean simply being converted to a good alignment that's extremely simple. Every sapient creature is capable of shifting its alignment based on its attitudes and actions. Angels fall and demons rise, it's just -really- uncommon.

If you mean both converted to good and rescued from the plane to which they're committed that's a bit trickier. You have to temporarily relieve them of that trait (planar commitment) before you can move them off plane and that requires some transmutation magic and direct intervention by would-be rescuers or deific intervention.

If you mean being converted to good and released from the plane without intervention from outside forces then -that- is not possible.

As I said, a paladin would not fall for simply moving along without trying to intervene in suffering brought on by the situation (rather than fiendish tormentors) because it's simply beyond his abilities to actually do anything. He may feel a bit guilty about his inability to do anything but that's simply misplaced blame and an all too common human foible.

It's not actually beyond his ability, though. He can do something in that he can kill them. He may feel bound by his moral code, but he isn't actually helpless. Moving on and ignoring the suffering would be as if an animal rights activist say somebody hit an animal on the road. It's a gut wound and it's lethal and it may even take a day or two for the poor thing to die but there is no hope of saving it, no vet nearby, no way to transport it, etc. While it isn't evil to walk on by, it's not the Activists respobsibility, it still isn't in the animals best interest. And even if some people wouldn't have the stomach to finish it off, few would call that an evil action.

Amphetryon
2013-12-21, 08:27 AM
Define redeem.

If you mean simply being converted to a good alignment that's extremely simple. Every sapient creature is capable of shifting its alignment based on its attitudes and actions. Angels fall and demons rise, it's just -really- uncommon.

If you mean both converted to good and rescued from the plane to which they're committed that's a bit trickier. You have to temporarily relieve them of that trait (planar commitment) before you can move them off plane and that requires some transmutation magic and direct intervention by would-be rescuers or deific intervention.

If you mean being converted to good and released from the plane without intervention from outside forces then -that- is not possible.

As I said, a paladin would not fall for simply moving along without trying to intervene in suffering brought on by the situation (rather than fiendish tormentors) because it's simply beyond his abilities to actually do anything. He may feel a bit guilty about his inability to do anything but that's simply misplaced blame and an all too common human foible.Petitioners are not creatures. They are not souls either. Nor are they angels or demons, so the tangent about angels/demons rising or falling is not really relevant to the question. They are a transitive state between creatures and souls, in the way that 3.5 uses the terms.

And, as the majority have said here, ignoring the suffering of all the petitioners is not an action a Paladin can take without falling. Non-action is not what I asked about. I asked about an actual action he can take that will not cause him to fall, when given this situation. I maintain that a claim that there is no action or inaction a Paladin could take - by the standards you're positing and the rules for Paladins - that would not result in a fall in this situation, and that as such there's an issue with those standards.

Vedhin
2013-12-21, 09:36 AM
Try this on for size; every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square.

At the same time, every outsider is a soul but not every soul is an outsider.

You're aware of the fact that you just said that a petitioner is both what a soul becomes, making it equivalent to a soul, and that a petitioner is what a soul is embodied in, making it a container for a soul which the game rules explicitly say is wrong?

Not so. This is equivalent to claiming a butterfly is a caterpillar. Iit may have been one, but it has changed.



Yes. Yes you do. An orphanage is an orphanage regardless of whether it's currently occupied by orphans or not. Just built, under construction, just shut-down, etc are all states in which an orphanage could exist whilst still being unoccupied.

Fine, then let me state it explicitly: there are orphans in the orphanage. Furthermore, these orphans are not able to escape, and will die unless the paladin does something. But seriously, context



If there's nothing he can legally do and no one is in immediate danger then doing nothing is absolutely fine. In fact, attacking a gloating land-lord for exercising his legal rights because it rubs you the wrong way is definitely chaotic and might even be border-line evil if the man isn't otherwise deserving of a good smiting.

As the BoED says, the correct choice between Good and Law is always Good for a Paladin.



There's a difference between cutting down the villain so he won't cause suffering and killing the victim to alleviate his suffering. The latter taken to an absurd extreme results in a nihilistic cult that wants to kill -everything- to ensure that there is no more suffering at all.

If we are going by stupidly strict RAW (like you seem to be), then those doomsday cults are Good.



If you think this then you didn't follow my logic properly.

Instead of just saying this, try explaining please.



The underlined is untrue. I already mentioned this once but I'll repeat; the template doesn't actually change the creature's subtype(s). The example is wrong. Examples that break the rules that were just laid out in 3e books is disgustingly common. Lacking the evil subtype, they are not necessarily made of concentrated evil. There's enough import from other planes and enough metaphysical energies of other types to account for outsiders that lack alignment subtypes on to be made up of other building blocks without causing a rules conflict.

Once again by stupidly-strict RAW, nothing countermands this, so we go by the example creature.



If you can't see the difference between stopping an individual from acting and flailing in futility at the literally infinite evil of an entire plane by trying to take away some of its victims then I can't help you.

Oh, there's a difference. But in D&D, the metaphysical force of Good promotes both. Even if you make only an infinitesimal dent in Carceri, you still helped those you helped. The rest of the plane may be fine, but those you affected were helped.



A) He said nothing about there being orphans inside. It's a very important point to the situation to leave implied. Even so, failing to stop the villain doesn't change the fact that he's the one who committed evil, not you. If you insist on counting the actions of others against those who don't interfere with them then virtually everyone is evil since most people won't act on behalf of others without something to gain.

You can't call a single act as an indicator of alignment. Also, ever hear of things like charities?
Even the rulebooks acknowledge things like LG characters with a greedy streak, and other such things.

Angelalex242
2013-12-21, 12:00 PM
Since we've established a soul can't be destroyed by anything as mundane as a sword, I believe the OP is fine now. Even a sword+5 isn't soul destroying.

Anyways, damaging a chaotic evil plane is both lawful and good. Mostly because it's 'sabotage' against an enemy stronghold. It slows down the forces of evil and chaos in the world, which is a big thumbs up from the gods of light.

AMFV
2013-12-21, 12:11 PM
Well if Petitioners != Souls, then it makes the question very difficult in several ways, we should probably evaluate it based on that, since it's easier and the other option has an RAW answer.

Lawful:

As far as the legality of the action goes, the question is Carceri, a legally appointed authority. The answer is pretty definitively, yes, the souls that are there are the domain of that plain. In much the same way that traitors are legally bound to the White Witch in Narnia, the souls in Carceri are bound to that plane, as such they shouldn't have their sentences changed (to execution) or commuted (to a less lengthy sentence) without some external legal influence.

So probably not a lawful action or at least questionable in that regard. Possibly not a fully chaotic action, it's at least a debatable one, the Paladin could certainly argue that he was misinformed, or didn't believe it was a legitimate authority, so there is some wiggle room, but not much.

Good, well you're certainly doing what the souls want, and doing something counter to the designs of the plane, so good on those counts.
However the issue is complex, you're killing something and ending life, ending potential, that's probably at least a little evil, particularly if there was any chance for there to be another way. But it's not selfish, so it's probably isn't all that evil, being that it is not evil at least not to any reading I've seen. The intention is good and that matters.

SiuiS
2013-12-21, 01:21 PM
Where do I sign up? I always felt the D&D afterlife was completely abhorrent.

Heh.

I dunno. At the mortal (read: non adventuring) level, "go to the afterlife and reap your just rewards until you transcend" isn't a bad deal.


Try this on for size; every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square.

Unlike squares and rectangles, however, a petitioner is a post soul outsider template.



You're aware of the fact that you just said that a petitioner is both what a soul becomes, making it equivalent to a soul, and that a petitioner is what a soul is embodied in, making it a container for a soul which the game rules explicitly say is wrong?

I am aware of the fact that your argument defeats itself because T it's core it is absurd and contradictory. Your stance that killing a petitioner is evil because it destroys a soul means that by killing a demon or devil, you are performing an irredeemably evil act because, by the same token, they too are a soul.

So either killing any outsider is irredeemable and all paladins who hunt them fall, which is not the case, or something which comes from but no longer is a soul (but has a soul as it's body, see the description of outsider you quoted; page 33 was it? Monster manual?) is nt equivalent to a soul in the same sense, not is it's death easily proven to be utter anihilation.

Your argument has no grounds because it is verifiably false; the logical conclusion of it demonstratably does not come to pass. By mechanics of the system, a petitioner cannt be substituted for a soul, because it is not one.


Petitioners are not creatures.

This is not true. A petitioner is a creature. You represent one in game by slapping a template onto the base creature and then reducing it to incompetence, but it still exists as a creature by the game mechanics definition of the term, which is all we can argue with.


Since we've established a soul can't be destroyed by anything as mundane as a sword, I believe the OP is fine now. Even a sword+5 isn't soul destroying.

Pretty much! Nice thread, everyone. Good game. :smallsmile:

Draken
2013-12-21, 07:43 PM
While everyone argues over whether the action was good or evil and apparently agrees that it was chaotic, I would like everyone to check their Manual of the Planes and take a good, long look at where Carceri is.

For those who don't, I will tell outright. Carceri is sitting square in between Hades and the Abyss. Carceri has nothing whatsoever to do with Law. It is not a prison for the justly condemned to eternal suffering. Carceri is a dungeon of victims and slaves managed by Nerull, a primeval force of evil driven by hatred against all that lives, a god worshiped by insane sadomasochistic murderers with no greater goal than murder itself, ideally culminating in suicide as far as their own god is concerned.

Nerull has very few followers, so the vast majority of the petitioners of Carceri are probably not his devoted (who are a lot more prone to taking up the mantle of undeath anyway, since Nerull is cool with it and it lets them keep murdering), the vast majority of Carceri's petitioners are innocents sacrificed to Nerull in grisly rituals for his favor. Made to suffer beyond life and deprived of their just rewards (said just rewards could very well be Hades or Hell or the Abyss, sure).

Other than those, I got an implication that the plane was being used as a prison to punish criminals, which implies some means of making them into natives of the plane, far as I am concerned, the only way to do that is to sacrifice the petitioner-to-be to a god that lives in Carceri (read: Nerull). Simply planeshifting the prisoner there would keep them as extraplanars (not natives) and simply killing them wouldn't necessarily send them to Carceri, no matter how prim and proper the assigned sentence was, no matter how righteous the authority of good and law it was given under. Why?

Because Carceri is a realm of torture and evil sitting between Hades and the Abyss. It is not evil enough to be part of Ultimate Desolation nor is it chaotic enough to fall into The Cesspit of Reality Reaching Endlessly and Pointlessly for Outer Madness as happened to a layer of Arcadia that fell into Mechanus. But it is still a place of evil that feels more strongly for Chaos than it does for Law.

As a general rule, nobody who goes Carceri deserves it. Those who do deserve, don't, because of Xykon's maxim.

"Be a lich, or a vampire, or a brain in a jar in a pinch. Anything to avoid the big fire bellow."

Any good person going to Carceri should go with the wish to, now or when they can in the future, tear its foundations asunder and smash it to nothingness, dissolving any miserable prisoner of that place back into primordial Incarnum to have a chance at a wholesome existence again.

NichG
2013-12-21, 07:58 PM
There's some cosmology confusion here I think. Part of it may be a mix of 2e and 3e cosmology. I'm more familiar with the 2e cosmology:

Non-outsiders in D&D have both a body and a soul. When they die, the soul leaves the body to go to an Outer Plane via the Astral. A soul that has reached its destination is adapted to that plane - its body is its soul, it is now an outsider, and the specific type of outsider it becomes is a 'petitioner'. This process strips it of most of its memories and experiences, though the intervention of a deity or the specific rules of a particular deity's afterlife may vary (e.g. its reasonable to assume that souls that go to Annwyn's halls of heroes where everyone spends all their time bragging of what they did in life can actually remember the heroic deeds that got them there)

The complex bit is that what happens when you kill an outsider varies based on the type of outsider. When you kill a demon, for example, it returns to the Abyss. However, if you kill a demon on its home plane, it is destroyed. This generally appears to apply to deities as well, at least based on the whole Finder/Moander thing. I'm not sure if it applies to upper-planar outsiders/etc though.

For petitioners, iirc, its actually the opposite. If you kill a petitioner on its home plane, it's just re-formed elsewhere on the plane. However, if you kill a petitioner off of its home plane, the soul is destroyed. This is why most petitioners won't leave their home plane (well also, they have very little free will left at that point and very little desire to actually leave).

I don't think the 'why' of this was ever explained, but it'd make sense that basically a petitioner is still being made into 'part of the plane', while a full-fledged demon/etc is the result of that process going to completion.

Now, this picture makes the OP's character's actions seem particularly futile, if he killed a bunch of petitioners but it didn't free them. However, it seems clear that if this picture is actually the way the OP's cosmology works, his character had no awareness or knowledge of that - it might well be different, or be a well-kept secret, or whatever - that would make it tragic, but not willfully evil. From his character's point of view, he was freeing them from suffering.

In the 3e cosmology, its likely that killing an outsider doesn't destroy a soul, but probably places it into a very difficult to retrieve damaged state. That's why a special spell - revive outsider - is needed to recover it. However, I'm not aware of anything that says explicitly what happens to the outsider in that context - where an outsider's existence goes when it is destroyed, such that it can be retrieved later with magic. Since revive outsider requires a body, I guess it could literally just be stored in the corpse.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-22, 01:17 AM
It's not actually beyond his ability, though. He can do something in that he can kill them. He may feel bound by his moral code, but he isn't actually helpless. Moving on and ignoring the suffering would be as if an animal rights activist say somebody hit an animal on the road. It's a gut wound and it's lethal and it may even take a day or two for the poor thing to die but there is no hope of saving it, no vet nearby, no way to transport it, etc. While it isn't evil to walk on by, it's not the Activists respobsibility, it still isn't in the animals best interest. And even if some people wouldn't have the stomach to finish it off, few would call that an evil action.
I never argued that killing the petitioners was -definitely- evil because of the morality of euthanasia. Only that it is destroying souls and -that- is one of the extremely few actions that's always aligned the same way; evil.

The morality of euthanasia is vague enough that I'm comfortable saying it's definitely not -good- but nothing more.

Petitioners are not creatures. They are not souls either. Nor are they angels or demons, so the tangent about angels/demons rising or falling is not really relevant to the question. They are a transitive state between creatures and souls, in the way that 3.5 uses the terms.This is demonstrably false. Crack open your MotP to the creature templates section. Petitioner is a template added to a base creature that turns it into an outsider and is the mechanical representation of dead mortals' afterlives.


And, as the majority have said here, ignoring the suffering of all the petitioners is not an action a Paladin can take without falling. Non-action is not what I asked about. I asked about an actual action he can take that will not cause him to fall, when given this situation. I maintain that a claim that there is no action or inaction a Paladin could take - by the standards you're positing and the rules for Paladins - that would not result in a fall in this situation, and that as such there's an issue with those standards.
ignoring suffering is not an act at all. It's a decision. Under most circumstances it's a morally disagreeable decision but it's still never an action in itself. A paladin can't fall for -not- acting.

To answer your "what can he do" question; unless he has certain magics at his disposal the best he can do is try to ease their suffering by offering them succor; not a blade to fall on. He can offer them an ear to hear their stories. He can heal what physical wounds they may have. He can help them organize a defense against the fiends that torment them or even cut down any that happen to be nearby.

Slaying them because they want to die is no different than if you did so on the material. There is a chance to turn things around, albeit a horribly slim one, and slaying them denies that chance.

Not so. This is equivalent to claiming a butterfly is a caterpillar. Iit may have been one, but it has changed. That's a fine analogy as well. A caterpillar changes into a butterfly but it never ceases to be the same creature. The butterfly and the caterpillar are simply different forms of the same thing; an arthropod of the lepidoptera family.





Fine, then let me state it explicitly: there are orphans in the orphanage. Furthermore, these orphans are not able to escape, and will die unless the paladin does something. But seriously, contextEven so the evil act is on the villain. In this case there is some wiggle room to say the paladin is complicit in the act but if he falls it's not for failing to act but for conspiring in the commission of an evil act.

The argument that allows the OP to slay the petitioners he did would allow that paladin to thwart the villain's plan, which is a good act, by slaying the orphans himself. This is absurd.




As the BoED says, the correct choice between Good and Law is always Good for a Paladin. That's heavily implied in the player's handbook. However, the problem with this argument is that it's highlighting a false dichotomy. There are actions in the scenario that are both lawful and good and these should take precedence over either lawful but not good and good but not lawful options. Saving the orphans is the priority but if the villain is acting in a lawful manner then rescuing the orphans without disrupting his plan to destroy the orphanage is the most correct choice.

It would also be Good to try and do something to replace the orphans' lost home but failing to do so isn't an evil act either.




If we are going by stupidly strict RAW (like you seem to be), then those doomsday cults are Good.That's simply not true. That is a consequence of the interpretation of RAW that you've chosen. RAW as I've been describing it has these cults as evil as common morality suggests they should be.

Note; RAW on alignment is -not- perfectly clear. It demands some degree of interpretation.




Instead of just saying this, try explaining please.I've been explaining and will continue to do so. Rather than waste time rephrasing things I've already said, I'll continue to explain my position in future replies and we'll simply have to hope we come to a mutual understanding as we clearly haven't done so yet.




Once again by stupidly-strict RAW, nothing countermands this, so we go by the example creature.That's not how RAW works. the primary source for a template is the text describing it. The example is a secondary source -intended- to clarify the description but does not override what's in that description if they don't match up. Templates don't make changes to a creature unless they explicitly say they do, as described in the MM on how to apply templates.

The ogre petitioner example for the petitioner template is wrong. The template says nothing about changing or adding subtypes, therefore the template does not change or add any subtypes. As such, petitioners only have an alignment subtype if the base creature did and are not -necessarily- made up of concentrated alignment forces. As a rather obvious example for an alternative; incarnum can make solid materials.




Oh, there's a difference. But in D&D, the metaphysical force of Good promotes both. Even if you make only an infinitesimal dent in Carceri, you still helped those you helped. The rest of the plane may be fine, but those you affected were helped.Good doesn't expect its champions to waste time on futile efforts. If it did then it would be necessary to try and convert both fiends and evil dragons because simply slaying them would not be acceptable unless they were already causing an active threat to the woudl-be slayer and/or innocents incapable of defending themselves.




You can't call a single act as an indicator of alignment. Also, ever hear of things like charities?I'm not talking about individual actions. I'm talking about the inevitable cumulative effect of willfully ignoring any form of evil being an evil act by association. It would mean that anyone who wasn't an altruist regularly giving to such charities would be evil and even such altruists would have to struggle mightily to stay neutral.

The stated alignment status of humans (equal distribution amongst the nine alignments) would simply be impossible, given human nature.


Unlike squares and rectangles, however, a petitioner is a post soul outsider template.For this to be the case, no spell that relied on interacting with disembodied souls could work at all, since -every- example of a disembodied soul in the game involves either deliberately separating the soul from the body and storing it in some kind of receptacle or applying a template to the deceased; the base creature.

Ghost (undead): the soul of someone who died with unfinished business while experiencing strong emotion

Ghost (ghostwalk): the souls of the dead who haven't moved on to the afterlife (note that this is a different cosmology with a different afterlife).

Sacred Watcher: as ghost except that the unfinished business is the protection of an innocent and the emotion is sense of duty.

Petitioner: souls that move into the afterlife without incident.

Note also that at least one spell (though I forget which) defines incorporeal undead as being souls. This gives us precedent for templates -not- changing souls into something else but simply giving them form. (Once DNDtools is back up I'll dig it up.)


I am aware of the fact that your argument defeats itself because T it's core it is absurd and contradictory. Your stance that killing a petitioner is evil because it destroys a soul means that by killing a demon or devil, you are performing an irredeemably evil act because, by the same token, they too are a soul.

So either killing any outsider is irredeemable and all paladins who hunt them fall, which is not the case, or something which comes from but no longer is a soul (but has a soul as it's body, see the description of outsider you quoted; page 33 was it? Monster manual?) is nt equivalent to a soul in the same sense, not is it's death easily proven to be utter annihilation.

So you're just going to ignore the fact that fiends are given explicit exemption by the fact that RAW says slaying fiends is always a good act then? Or that the books say that slaying an outsider that's not on its native plane isn't actually destroyed but instead banished to that realm?


Your argument has no grounds because it is verifiably false; the logical conclusion of it demonstratably does not come to pass. By mechanics of the system, a petitioner cannt be substituted for a soul, because it is not one. My argument has fine merit. That you're conveniently overlooking the points that give it that merit doesn't take it away.

It is an odd, and likely unintended, rules hiccup that slaying most outsiders on their native planes is always an evil act but it doesn't disrupt the game unless you're focusing on traveling the planes other than those on the bottom of the great wheel. Even then there are templates that can be used to represent the natives of those planes that -aren't- outsiders.

It's a dysfunctional rule, not a self-defeating failure of logic on my part.

SowZ
2013-12-22, 01:26 AM
I never argued that killing the petitioners was -definitely- evil because of the morality of euthanasia. Only that it is destroying souls and -that- is one of the extremely few actions that's always aligned the same way; evil.

The morality of euthanasia is vague enough that I'm comfortable saying it's definitely not -good- but nothing more.
This is demonstrably false. Crack open your MotP to the creature templates section. Petitioner is a template added to a base creature that turns it into an outsider and is the mechanical representation of dead mortals' afterlives.


ignoring suffering is not an act at all. It's a decision. Under most circumstances it's a morally disagreeable decision but it's still never an action in itself. A paladin can't fall for -not- acting.

To answer your "what can he do" question; unless he has certain magics at his disposal the best he can do is try to ease their suffering by offering them succor; not a blade to fall on. He can offer them an ear to hear their stories. He can heal what physical wounds they may have. He can help them organize a defense against the fiends that torment them or even cut down any that happen to be nearby.

Slaying them because they want to die is no different than if you did so on the material. There is a chance to turn things around, albeit a horribly slim one, and slaying them denies that chance.
That's a fine analogy as well. A caterpillar changes into a butterfly but it never ceases to be the same creature. The butterfly and the caterpillar are simply different forms of the same thing; an arthropod of the lepidoptera family.




Even so the evil act is on the villain. In this case there is some wiggle room to say the paladin is complicit in the act but if he falls it's not for failing to act but for conspiring in the commission of an evil act.

The argument that allows the OP to slay the petitioners he did would allow that paladin to thwart the villain's plan, which is a good act, by slaying the orphans himself. This is absurd.



That's heavily implied in the player's handbook. However, the problem with this argument is that it's highlighting a false dichotomy. There are actions in the scenario that are both lawful and good and these should take precedence over either lawful but not good and good but not lawful options. Saving the orphans is the priority but if the villain is acting in a lawful manner then rescuing the orphans without disrupting his plan to destroy the orphanage is the most correct choice.

It would also be Good to try and do something to replace the orphans' lost home but failing to do so isn't an evil act either.



That's simply not true. That is a consequence of the interpretation of RAW that you've chosen. RAW as I've been describing it has these cults as evil as common morality suggests they should be.

Note; RAW on alignment is -not- perfectly clear. It demands some degree of interpretation.



I've been explaining and will continue to do so. Rather than waste time rephrasing things I've already said, I'll continue to explain my position in future replies and we'll simply have to hope we come to a mutual understanding as we clearly haven't done so yet.



That's not how RAW works. the primary source for a template is the text describing it. The example is a secondary source -intended- to clarify the description but does not override what's in that description if they don't match up. Templates don't make changes to a creature unless they explicitly say they do, as described in the MM on how to apply templates.

The ogre petitioner example for the petitioner template is wrong. The template says nothing about changing or adding subtypes, therefore the template does not change or add any subtypes. As such, petitioners only have an alignment subtype if the base creature did and are not -necessarily- made up of concentrated alignment forces. As a rather obvious example for an alternative; incarnum can make solid materials.



Good doesn't expect its champions to waste time on futile efforts. If it did then it would be necessary to try and convert both fiends and evil dragons because simply slaying them would not be acceptable unless they were already causing an active threat to the woudl-be slayer and/or innocents incapable of defending themselves.



I'm not talking about individual actions. I'm talking about the inevitable cumulative effect of willfully ignoring any form of evil being an evil act by association. It would mean that anyone who wasn't an altruist regularly giving to such charities would be evil and even such altruists would have to struggle mightily to stay neutral.

The stated alignment status of humans (equal distribution amongst the nine alignments) would simply be impossible, given human nature.

For this to be the case, no spell that relied on interacting with disembodied souls could work at all, since -every- example of a disembodied soul in the game involves either deliberately separating the soul from the body and storing it in some kind of receptacle or applying a template to the deceased; the base creature.

Ghost (undead): the soul of someone who died with unfinished business while experiencing strong emotion

Ghost (ghostwalk): the souls of the dead who haven't moved on to the afterlife (note that this is a different cosmology with a different afterlife).

Sacred Watcher: as ghost except that the unfinished business is the protection of an innocent and the emotion is sense of duty.

Petitioner: souls that move into the afterlife without incident.

Note also that at least one spell (though I forget which) defines incorporeal undead as being souls. This gives us precedent for templates -not- changing souls into something else but simply giving them form. (Once DNDtools is back up I'll dig it up.)



So you're just going to ignore the fact that fiends are given explicit exemption by the fact that RAW says slaying fiends is always a good act then? Or that the books say that slaying an outsider that's not on its native plane isn't actually destroyed but instead banished to that realm?

My argument has fine merit. That you're conveniently overlooking the points that give it that merit doesn't take it away.

It is an odd, and likely unintended, rules hiccup that slaying most outsiders on their native planes is always an evil act but it doesn't disrupt the game unless you're focusing on traveling the planes other than those on the bottom of the great wheel. Even then there are templates that can be used to represent the natives of those planes that -aren't- outsiders.

It's a dysfunctional rule, not a self-defeating failure of logic on my part.

Then killing Fiends in their home plane is Evil.

SiuiS
2013-12-22, 01:49 AM
I would like to go on record as not considering the acts of the OP to be chaotically aligned.



Ghosts are tricky; they're actually an ethereal memory matrix, and much easier to describe via Psionic phenomena than not, but the general layout does not have the ghost as a soul, but as an undead thing which traps the soul. They're poorly thought out at the rules granularity depth where this comes up, though, and only Ravenloft gave them much thought.

Ghostwalk is an exception and not worth looking at except for how it's specific changes imply rulings.

There is a spell which considers ghosts to be spirits, but I don't recall souls. The exact wording would be nice either way though. If I could get to my books is dive for it.

I still have yet to see an answer as to how slaying an outsider on it's home plane "destroys a soul", given that a slain outsider can be healed but a destroyed soul cannot be reconstituted.

SarmKahel
2013-12-22, 01:55 AM
I can definitely see where many could consider this evil. I can also see your take on it. Bearing in mind that the NPC's are controlled by the DM and so any person he's trying to play as "reasonable" is surely going to take his side in any disagreement.

This is one of those "on the border" issues. Technically you did kill hundreds of people, and by RAW that is a very evil act. However, these were mercy killings, and not just of creatures who were having a rough time, but creatures who were truly suffering. After all, they came to you BEGGING for you to kill them, not just requesting. These were people who not only wanted death, but were unsure if they could tolerate the time it would take you to make your decision. Keeping this in mind, had they been under some horrible curse (such as being undead) the morality scale would have gladly accepted your actions not only as acceptable, but you would have been seen as a paragon for saving those poor retched creatures, regardless of their crimes in life. This prison seems awfully familiar to me, with that regard.

As for the lawful question, this alignment has very little to do with the laws laid down by others, and everything to do with your characters personal beliefs. If he disagree's with this method of punishment, more than he agree's with the benefits of those who uphold it it would be inconsistent with his beliefs to stand and watch while this happened right in front of him. Lawful characters follow their own code, not the code of others, and if your character swears to this version of morality and sticks to it, there is nothing more lawful than that.

This seems like one of those problems where you and your DM have different personal opinions on a situation, and its probably going to end with an out of game discussion. Personally, I prefer not to force alignment changes on people when they have a reasonable argument for why they've done things the way they did, even if I disagree. Its unreasonable to expect someone to be a philosopher to play a role playing game.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-22, 02:32 AM
Then killing Fiends in their home plane is Evil.

No it's not. Killing fiends is always a good act. This is a specific rule in BoVD. This overrides the fact that killing outsiders on their native plane is evil because it constitutes destroying a soul.

D&D is an exception based rules system. Since specific trumps general and fiends are a more specific set of the larger set of outsider which is in turn a more specific subset of the greater souls set, the above is true. Killing a fiend, regardless of other circumstances, is always a good act.

The only way your statement becomes true is if you're willing to accept the concept of actions being aligned with both good and evil simultaneously in certain circumstances. This muddies the waters to the point of alignment being nearly impossible to adjudicate again.

SowZ
2013-12-22, 03:30 AM
No it's not. Killing fiends is always a good act. This is a specific rule in BoVD. This overrides the fact that killing outsiders on their native plane is evil because it constitutes destroying a soul.

D&D is an exception based rules system. Since specific trumps general and fiends are a more specific set of the larger set of outsider which is in turn a more specific subset of the greater souls set, the above is true. Killing a fiend, regardless of other circumstances, is always a good act.

The only way your statement becomes true is if you're willing to accept the concept of actions being aligned with both good and evil simultaneously in certain circumstances. This muddies the waters to the point of alignment being nearly impossible to adjudicate again.

Then you cannot say 'destroying souls is always an evil act.' It is absolutely impossible to adjudicate concretely because always doesn't mean anything in D&D, or at least it certainly doesn't mean always. Always evil creatures aren't always evil. It isn't always a good act to kill fiends, since the rules say fiends can be good. So none of those 'always good' or 'always evil' hold water, and they can't be used in a debate.

Yes, that makes the whole thing impossible to get a concrete ruling on. Yes, that makes the alignment system not worth much.

Envyus
2013-12-22, 06:00 AM
Then you cannot say 'destroying souls is always an evil act.' It is absolutely impossible to adjudicate concretely because always doesn't mean anything in D&D, or at least it certainly doesn't mean always. Always evil creatures aren't always evil. It isn't always a good act to kill fiends, since the rules say fiends can be good. So none of those 'always good' or 'always evil' hold water, and they can't be used in a debate.

Yes, that makes the whole thing impossible to get a concrete ruling on. Yes, that makes the alignment system not worth much.

It is 99.99999999999% of the time okay to kill fiends morally and 100% ok to kill them universally. Fiends will always count as evil even when they change alignment just like Angels will always count as good when they change alignment.

Fiends who turned good have a habit of turning back to evil anyway because it's programmed in to them.

Zale
2013-12-22, 08:04 AM
Sanctify The Wicked, anyone?

Fiends can't be redeemed my donkey.

AMFV
2013-12-22, 08:31 AM
While everyone argues over whether the action was good or evil and apparently agrees that it was chaotic, I would like everyone to check their Manual of the Planes and take a good, long look at where Carceri is.

For those who don't, I will tell outright. Carceri is sitting square in between Hades and the Abyss. Carceri has nothing whatsoever to do with Law. It is not a prison for the justly condemned to eternal suffering. Carceri is a dungeon of victims and slaves managed by Nerull, a primeval force of evil driven by hatred against all that lives, a god worshiped by insane sadomasochistic murderers with no greater goal than murder itself, ideally culminating in suicide as far as their own god is concerned.

The problem isn't that Carceri is lawful, or that the Paladin is violating the laws of Carceri, the Paladin in this case took on the decision to alter the trajectory of a soul from it's final judgement. That's chaotic, it's an act fundamental order in the universe, and certainly arguably a good act, but it is not in line with universal laws.



Nerull has very few followers, so the vast majority of the petitioners of Carceri are probably not his devoted (who are a lot more prone to taking up the mantle of undeath anyway, since Nerull is cool with it and it lets them keep murdering), the vast majority of Carceri's petitioners are innocents sacrificed to Nerull in grisly rituals for his favor. Made to suffer beyond life and deprived of their just rewards (said just rewards could very well be Hades or Hell or the Abyss, sure).

Why would the sacrifices go to Carceri? That's sort of nonsensical. Your soul goes to the plane of your deity when it passes in Greyhawk, those without wind up in one of the neutral planes, so the souls are definitely the souls of the evil, although it's not clear how they're divided up, but however this is done, it certainly is done. So how do you send a soul to Carceri? Short of epic magic, or soul binding and then physically taking the soul there (in which case you can't leave either) there's no real to do that?



Other than those, I got an implication that the plane was being used as a prison to punish criminals, which implies some means of making them into natives of the plane, far as I am concerned, the only way to do that is to sacrifice the petitioner-to-be to a god that lives in Carceri (read: Nerull). Simply planeshifting the prisoner there would keep them as extraplanars (not natives) and simply killing them wouldn't necessarily send them to Carceri, no matter how prim and proper the assigned sentence was, no matter how righteous the authority of good and law it was given under. Why?


They're not petitioners to be, they've died, this is their afterlife, for better or for worse. It'd be like the Paladin trying to drag petitioners from Limbo because he doesn't appreciate the Chaos, this is the end result of how they lived their lives. So breaking that is slightly unlawful. Or at the very least questionable by law. I mean there are inevitables that exist to try to hunt down those who try to avoid Death, suggesting that final judgement is important to law.



Because Carceri is a realm of torture and evil sitting between Hades and the Abyss. It is not evil enough to be part of Ultimate Desolation nor is it chaotic enough to fall into The Cesspit of Reality Reaching Endlessly and Pointlessly for Outer Madness as happened to a layer of Arcadia that fell into Mechanus. But it is still a place of evil that feels more strongly for Chaos than it does for Law.


I'm fair that the alignment is neutral enough as far as law-chaos on the plane, but again it's not because it's Carceri that the action is unlawful, it's because the Paladin is interfering with the end judgement, something which is protected by inevitables and therefore clearly a matter of law.



As a general rule, nobody who goes Carceri deserves it. Those who do deserve, don't, because of Xykon's maxim.

"Be a lich, or a vampire, or a brain in a jar in a pinch. Anything to avoid the big fire bellow."

Not so... Nobody's lived forever, not even in D&D, so everybody eventually gets their soul taken to where it goes, Liches can prolong that for centuries, but even they lose out in the end.



Any good person going to Carceri should go with the wish to, now or when they can in the future, tear its foundations asunder and smash it to nothingness, dissolving any miserable prisoner of that place back into primordial Incarnum to have a chance at a wholesome existence again.

Why would a good person go to Carceri, again the only things I can think of that work that way, are epic level spells (Damnation in particular) or a soul bind and manually dragging the soul there. Otherwise it would go to it's deity's plane to be judged accordingly.

SowZ
2013-12-22, 11:00 AM
It is 99.99999999999% of the time okay to kill fiends morally and 100% ok to kill them universally. Fiends will always count as evil even when they change alignment just like Angels will always count as good when they change alignment.

Fiends who turned good have a habit of turning back to evil anyway because it's programmed in to them.

Regardless, it's evil to kill a fiend who isn't and hasn't done evil. It's evil to kill a good fiend. If the rules say otherwise, I respect that rule exactly as much as I'd respect a hypothetical rule that says it's worse to kill white half longs than black ones.

Creatures with the Evil subtype can explicitly be good. There are ways for good creatures to obtain it against their will he retain their good alignment. Killing them would be as evil an act as killing an elf for being an elf.

Draken
2013-12-22, 11:48 AM
The problem isn't that Carceri is lawful, or that the Paladin is violating the laws of Carceri, the Paladin in this case took on the decision to alter the trajectory of a soul from it's final judgement. That's chaotic, it's an act fundamental order in the universe, and certainly arguably a good act, but it is not in line with universal laws.

There have been plenty of mentions of how paladins don't have to uphold unjust laws. What, exactly, can be more unjust than the order established in the lower planes?

The reason good allows evil to exist is the same reason evil allows good to exist. It is not to uphold some sense of cosmic balance, it is because neither has managed to obliterate the other.


Why would the sacrifices go to Carceri? That's sort of nonsensical. Your soul goes to the plane of your deity when it passes in Greyhawk, those without wind up in one of the neutral planes, so the souls are definitely the souls of the evil, although it's not clear how they're divided up, but however this is done, it certainly is done. So how do you send a soul to Carceri? Short of epic magic, or soul binding and then physically taking the soul there (in which case you can't leave either) there's no real to do that?

Book of Vile Darkness states that souls sacrificed to lower powers are dedicated to them ('sometimes', sure, it is supposed to be a DM call I guess). For the record, this is what I mean when I say sacrifice, the rules for ritual murder in the BoVD.

Epic Magic isn't always the answer. It more often than not is just the "as a standard action, X times a day" answer. There are a lot more rues for supernatural things in D&D than just spellcasting and that one feat.


They're not petitioners to be, they've died, this is their afterlife, for better or for worse. It'd be like the Paladin trying to drag petitioners from Limbo because he doesn't appreciate the Chaos, this is the end result of how they lived their lives. So breaking that is slightly unlawful. Or at the very least questionable by law. I mean there are inevitables that exist to try to hunt down those who try to avoid Death, suggesting that final judgment is important to law.

If they are not petitioners, they are not really trapped in the plane. Any outsider can leave its home plane through the myriad of natural portals or maybe the Styx, from Carceri, sure, the closest options are Hades and the Abyss, but there are ways to the Outlands as well. And anyone who isn't a petitioner can use those paths. It is difficult for them to escape, sure, but there is actually a glimmer of hope beyond dissolution.


I'm fair that the alignment is neutral enough as far as law-chaos on the plane, but again it's not because it's Carceri that the action is unlawful, it's because the Paladin is interfering with the end judgment, something which is protected by inevitables and therefore clearly a matter of law.

It has been stated that a paladin should always favor good over law, and Inevitables uphold all laws without distinction, concern or insight from or for other sentients. See the Obligatum line, whose goal and purpose is to release an end-of-the-multiverse entity.

Paladins uphold what is right not what is lawful.


Not so... Nobody's lived forever, not even in D&D, so everybody eventually gets their soul taken to where it goes, Liches can prolong that for centuries, but even they lose out in the end.

"General rule", meaning "for the most part", meaning "there are exceptions".


Why would a good person go to Carceri, again the only things I can think of that work that way, are epic level spells (Damnation in particular) or a soul bind and manually dragging the soul there. Otherwise it would go to it's deity's plane to be judged accordingly.

Planeshift is a thing, you can use it to go to any plane you feel like.

SiuiS
2013-12-22, 01:50 PM
No it's not. Killing fiends is always a good act. This is a specific rule in BoVD. This overrides the fact that killing outsiders on their native plane is evil because it constitutes destroying a soul.

The only way your statement becomes true is if you're willing to accept the concept of actions being aligned with both good and evil simultaneously in certain circumstances. This muddies the waters to the point of alignment being nearly impossible to adjudicate again.

Interesting. So you think non-binary actions somehow break alignment?

How do you reconcile the non-destruction of a slain petitioner with the destruction of a soul enough to equate them?

AMFV
2013-12-22, 02:02 PM
There have been plenty of mentions of how paladins don't have to uphold unjust laws. What, exactly, can be more unjust than the order established in the lower planes?

The reason good allows evil to exist is the same reason evil allows good to exist. It is not to uphold some sense of cosmic balance, it is because neither has managed to obliterate the other.


This is true. I'm not saying that it wasn't good, just that it wasn't exactly lawful, Paladins don't fall due to chaotic actions, particularly one that's intended to be good although it may or may not be. To be honest this is the kind of thing that could puzzle actual philosophers so I can imagine that in game it would be very difficult.



Book of Vile Darkness states that souls sacrificed to lower powers are dedicated to them ('sometimes', sure, it is supposed to be a DM call I guess). For the record, this is what I mean when I say sacrifice, the rules for ritual murder in the BoVD.

That's kind of contradictory with a lot of setting stuff, it definitely shows some of the larger flaws in the alignment stuff from the BoVD and BoED, I think that particular methodology is pretty poorly thought out.



Epic Magic isn't always the answer. It more often than not is just the "as a standard action, X times a day" answer. There are a lot more rues for supernatural things in D&D than just spellcasting and that one feat.

If they are not petitioners, they are not really trapped in the plane. Any outsider can leave its home plane through the myriad of natural portals or maybe the Styx, from Carceri, sure, the closest options are Hades and the Abyss, but there are ways to the Outlands as well. And anyone who isn't a petitioner can use those paths. It is difficult for them to escape, sure, but there is actually a glimmer of hope beyond dissolution.


I think that there is a misunderstanding here, I was stating that the only spell I knew that could damn somebody directly to the Abyss or the Nine Hells was an epic level spell. There's also a 9th level Sanctified one, which is pretty crappy also.

I was referring to the petitioners themselves, not as a method of general travel, I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, since general travel can be accomplished through Plane Shift



It has been stated that a paladin should always favor good over law, and Inevitables uphold all laws without distinction, concern or insight from or for other sentients. See the Obligatum line, whose goal and purpose is to release an end-of-the-multiverse entity.

Paladins uphold what is right not what is lawful.


But both things matter to them. What is lawful is an imperative as well, although not as important an imperative, while law can be evil, or poorly thought out, or reactionary or oppressive, the Paladin respects and follows the law. While he may have a higher obligation towards good, some of his obligation is towards law. Furthermore I've not seen an argument that's disproven the statement, which was the foundation of my argument, that the souls are sent to their location after death, as according to higher laws. Which is a lawful thing, acting against that system, while it may be good, is not lawful.



"General rule", meaning "for the most part", meaning "there are exceptions".


I can't think of any person in D&D that has lived forever... All of the Liches, Acerak, even many of the Gods such as Bhaal, have died impermanence is a factor of the D&D universe.



Planeshift is a thing, you can use it to go to any plane you feel like.

Yes, I think this is again addressing the misunderstanding I as referring to redirecting souls, and changing the location of petitioner's final resting places.

Draken
2013-12-22, 02:29 PM
Perhaps, but you were misunderstanding a variety of different points I made, I believe. Take this sequence, for instance.

Any good person going to Carceri should go with the wish to, now or when they can in the future, tear its foundations asunder and smash it to nothingness, dissolving any miserable prisoner of that place back into primordial Incarnum to have a chance at a wholesome existence again.

------------------

Why would a good person go to Carceri, again the only things I can think of that work that way, are epic level spells (Damnation in particular) or a soul bind and manually dragging the soul there. Otherwise it would go to it's deity's plane to be judged accordingly.

------------------

Planeshift is a thing, you can use it to go to any plane you feel like.

------------------

Yes, I think this is again addressing the misunderstanding I as referring to redirecting souls, and changing the location of petitioner's final resting places.

This starts with pointing out that "a good person going to the lower planes", which you apparently took to mean going there for their final reward, where I meant going there as a magically-aided transdimensional field trip.

I would also like to point out that Damnation doesn't even trap its victim in the lower planes. It traps them there for 20 hours, not even a whole day. Against anything but a spellcaster with Planeshift prepared, it is just an extremely expensive Heightened Planeshift. Edit: That also forces a bunch of encounters an epic level character probably doesn't give a flip about.


And yes, Villains die, specially those who are famous, but immortals in D&D are a dime a dozen. For every Acererak that was killed spectacularly there are a dozen nameless 11th level Lich Priests of Whoever going about their hideous business in some secluded edge of the world with nothing so much as mewling peasants knowing about their existence.


For a final point on the fact that order is important to paladins still, I will reiterate. The order of the lower planes should not matter to Lawful Good characters, paladins or not. It is inimical and malevolent and is there to be torn apart by heroes with the power to do so. Just as the chaos of Arborea is there for Chaotic Evil villains to shred and defile as they see fit.

For a paladin, Law prevails when it is contraposed to Chaos. If it stands against Good (such as, say, when it is the law of an Evil plane), it should be cast down whenever and however possible.

Blightedmarsh
2013-12-22, 02:45 PM
I have one major point to put and I apologize if this has already been brought up.

This is Carceri a plane designed to be a personalized hell for its various captives.

Now you have this Very LAWFUL and GOOD character somehow in Carceri. He has this endless chain of the most miserable wretches imaginable begging him for forgiveness and release. He has the power to end all their eternal suffering by doing this Very EVIL thing; destroying them as they are begging him to do.

If he walks away he flies in the face of all he stands for by abandoning them to eternal suffering. If he choses to slay them then he is committing a truly heinous crime against all that good and he is damned in the eyes of all he cares for.

All I can say is that if that's not a perfect personalized hell then I don't know what is. Good job Carceri; good job.

AMFV
2013-12-22, 02:56 PM
Perhaps, but you were misunderstanding a variety of different points I made, I believe. Take this sequence, for instance.

Any good person going to Carceri should go with the wish to, now or when they can in the future, tear its foundations asunder and smash it to nothingness, dissolving any miserable prisoner of that place back into primordial Incarnum to have a chance at a wholesome existence again.

------------------

Why would a good person go to Carceri, again the only things I can think of that work that way, are epic level spells (Damnation in particular) or a soul bind and manually dragging the soul there. Otherwise it would go to it's deity's plane to be judged accordingly.

------------------

Planeshift is a thing, you can use it to go to any plane you feel like.

------------------

Yes, I think this is again addressing the misunderstanding I as referring to redirecting souls, and changing the location of petitioner's final resting places.

[/Quote]

Which I am arguing if fundamentally chaotic since it's not in line with the order of the universe. We have inevitables designed to force people into the afterlife, ergo that has to be a lawful conclusion of life. Caceri itself doesn't factor into this, the CN people that wind up in Limbo do so as a result of laws as well.

Ah, I wasn't actually addressing that starting paragraph. I was addressing the discussion of good souls going to Carceri for their final judgement which was referenced slightly earlier. That's the disconnect, when I was talking about good people to Carceri, I wasn't referring to the field trip, but the petitioners, and I was following the field trip comment, I just didn't think it needed to be addressed directly.



This starts with pointing out that "a good person going to the lower planes", which you apparently took to mean going there for their final reward, where I meant going there as a magically-aided transdimensional field trip.

I would also like to point out that Damnation doesn't even trap its victim in the lower planes. It traps them there for 20 hours, not even a whole day. Against anything but a spellcaster with Planeshift prepared, it is just an extremely expensive Heightened Planeshift. Edit: That also forces a bunch of encounters an epic level character probably doesn't give a flip about.

True, meaning that there is no way to damn a good character to the lower planes, so all the folks at Carceri, deserve to be there at least on some level or did at some point. So again there is the law issue.



And yes, Villains die, specially those who are famous, but immortals in D&D are a dime a dozen. For every Acererak that was killed spectacularly there are a dozen nameless 11th level Lich Priests of Whoever going about their hideous business in some secluded edge of the world with nothing so much as mewling peasants knowing about their existence.


Until they've lived forever they're not immortal, as nobody has managed that feat in D&D I would say that there are no true immortals, those are immune to aging will eventually be killed by their enemies, even the Gods, as I've pointed out are vulnerable to this given a long enough span of time.



For a final point on the fact that order is important to paladins still, I will reiterate. The order of the lower planes should not matter to Lawful Good characters, paladins or not. It is inimical and malevolent and is there to be torn apart by heroes with the power to do so. Just as the chaos of Arborea is there for Chaotic Evil villains to shred and defile as they see fit.

For a paladin, Law prevails when it is contraposed to Chaos. If it stands against Good (such as, say, when it is the law of an Evil plane), it should be cast down whenever and however possible.

This isn't the law of an evil plane, this is the law of the multiverse, all of the planes. The reason people get sent to Limbo, or Ysgard, or The Nine Hells, they are sent places when they die. This is order and law. We have inevitibles (not beings of the lower planes that enforce those laws). The Paladin is fighting Carceri, he's commuting the sentences of those who have been deemed evil enough to go their for all eternity, and that is very very chaotic. That's fighting against the fundamental laws of the universe. While it may be good, it is definitely chaotic.

Draken
2013-12-22, 03:28 PM
Which I am arguing if fundamentally chaotic since it's not in line with the order of the universe. We have inevitables designed to force people into the afterlife, ergo that has to be a lawful conclusion of life. Caceri itself doesn't factor into this, the CN people that wind up in Limbo do so as a result of laws as well.

Ah, I wasn't actually addressing that starting paragraph. I was addressing the discussion of good souls going to Carceri for their final judgement which was referenced slightly earlier. That's the disconnect, when I was talking about good people to Carceri, I wasn't referring to the field trip, but the petitioners, and I was following the field trip comment, I just didn't think it needed to be addressed directly.



True, meaning that there is no way to damn a good character to the lower planes, so all the folks at Carceri, deserve to be there at least on some level or did at some point. So again there is the law issue.



Until they've lived forever they're not immortal, as nobody has managed that feat in D&D I would say that there are no true immortals, those are immune to aging will eventually be killed by their enemies, even the Gods, as I've pointed out are vulnerable to this given a long enough span of time.



This isn't the law of an evil plane, this is the law of the multiverse, all of the planes. The reason people get sent to Limbo, or Ysgard, or The Nine Hells, they are sent places when they die. This is order and law. We have inevitibles (not beings of the lower planes that enforce those laws). The Paladin is fighting Carceri, he's commuting the sentences of those who have been deemed evil enough to go their for all eternity, and that is very very chaotic. That's fighting against the fundamental laws of the universe. While it may be good, it is definitely chaotic.

In that case, fighting against evil is in itself chaotic, because evil has its place in the universe, and thus Lawful Good is an impossibility on a metaphysical level. Similarly fighting against Good and its place in the cosmos is inherently chaotic, and thus Lawful Evil cannot exist.

Unless both Lawful Evil and Lawful Good are forces that are happy to let everything else be and stay exclusively on the defensive. Which we all know is untrue.

Pure Law does not care about Good and Evil, only about Chaos. Pure Good does not care about Law or Chaos, only Evil.

Lawful Good, however, cares about both Chaos and Evil. What it cares the most about can vary. But in the case of paladins, they are most concerned with the moral axis, not the ethical axis.

And there are means to damn good aligned people. They are just not a paragraph in some wizard's spellbook.

In fact, pull out the Fiendish Codex II and take a glean at the concept of "Obeisance". Respecting and following evil laws and orders can and will send you to the Nine Hells even if you are good aligned.

AMFV
2013-12-22, 03:52 PM
In that case, fighting against evil is in itself chaotic, because evil has its place in the universe, and thus Lawful Good is an impossibility on a metaphysical level. Similarly fighting against Good and its place in the cosmos is inherently chaotic, and thus Lawful Evil cannot exist.


Not so, you aren't fighting against evil you're fighting against judgement. Which is purely lawful, just because you don't agree with the sentence, doesn't make it not lawful.



Unless both Lawful Evil and Lawful Good are forces that are happy to let everything else be and stay exclusively on the defensive. Which we all know is untrue.


They do tend to be more reactionary than Chaos, particularly since chaos tends to be more innovative, yes. But they don't have to be exclusively so.



Pure Law does not care about Good and Evil, only about Chaos. Pure Good does not care about Law or Chaos, only Evil.

Lawful Good, however, cares about both Chaos and Evil. What it cares the most about can vary. But in the case of paladins, they are most concerned with the moral axis, not the ethical axis.

And there are means to damn good aligned people. They are just not a paragraph in some wizard's spellbook.

In fact, pull out the Fiendish Codex II and take a glean at the concept of "Obeisance". Respecting and following evil laws and orders can and will send you to the Nine Hells even if you are good aligned.

Obeisance is the attempt to lure CE creatures to become LE, it doesn't at all suggest that a LG person would become LE and go to hell simply for following those laws, many of which are strictly lawful rather than simply LE. But a chaotic person might. It's why Devils disguise themselves a demons.

So in fact there is no way to damn good aligned people, since the obeisance doesn't apply in that respect. And nowhere in that whole chapter does it reference good aligned people going to hell. it does mention them being corrupted though.

Scow2
2013-12-22, 05:38 PM
If you can't see the difference between stopping an individual from acting and flailing in futility at the literally infinite evil of an entire plane by trying to take away some of its victims then I can't help you.The inability to help everyone everywhere is not an excuse to sit by and not help anyone anywhere. Also, decisions and actions are the same thing. It's evil for someone to stand by when they have the power to help (And are not coerced into not helping - and Fire has a pretty big intimidate score). It's not evil for them to not help in a situation because they're unaware of it or not in a position to help. "You could have stopped him!" "I wasn't even here!" "Then you shouldn't have gone on vacation the day before the orphanage caught fire!"


There have been plenty of mentions of how paladins don't have to uphold unjust laws. What, exactly, can be more unjust than the order established in the lower planes?In agreement with this - Lawful does not hold up the natural order, either. Planes like Carceri, Olympia, Limbo, the abyss, and Ysgard break Lawfulness. Furthermore The natural order is not respected by Law, because it tolerates and has Chaos in it. In fact "natural order" is an oxymoron. It merely states how things are, not how they should be. There is no room for Carceri, the Abyss, Limbo, or Pandemonium in a Lawful and Orderly planescape.


That's kind of contradictory with a lot of setting stuff, it definitely shows some of the larger flaws in the alignment stuff from the BoVD and BoED, I think that particular methodology is pretty poorly thought out.Souls of people that die to natural causes go to their home plane. Souls of people who are ritually sacrificed go to the plane of whom they are sacrificed to. Yes, it DOES mean the saintly martyr who is ritually sacrificed by the greatest elder evil goes to the Abyss/Carceri/Hell. That's what makes the process so EVIL.

One of Evil's primary traits is its ability to break/bend the rules to make things suffer, and absolutely troll anything that wants to be good.
Killing all creatures great and small is evil? Now you have to kill things just to survive.
Everyone is worthy of redemption and respect? Now there are entire races and species who are so overwhelmingly disposed toward evil that they WILL betray, murder, and screw over anyone who gives them an inch of latitude, yet have just enough of a chance of being redeemed that it's not moral to slaughter them all.
If you live a good life, you'll go to paradise? Not if Evil can get their claws on you - With a ritual sacrifice, you're going straight down with the most vile souls to ever exist. Or your soul will be obliterated forever.

Good is inhospitable to the world as we know it because Evil has programmed a lot of "**** You"s and other traits into existence that serve no other purpose than to troll Good and make peaceful existence and righteous justice impossible.

NichG
2013-12-22, 06:56 PM
I can't think of any person in D&D that has lived forever... All of the Liches, Acerak, even many of the Gods such as Bhaal, have died impermanence is a factor of the D&D universe.


Elminster is still kicking across 3 editions of the game (4 if he's in D&D Next). He's outlived how many Mystras by now? Heck, since edition shifts are actually an in-character events in Faerun (Time of Troubles, Spellplague), one can conclude that he's actually outlived the 'natural order' of the planes and has seen the entire cosmology rewrite itself within his lifespan.

Amphetryon
2013-12-22, 07:17 PM
Elminster is still kicking across 3 editions of the game (4 if he's in D&D Next). He's outlived how many Mystras by now? Heck, since edition shifts are actually an in-character events in Faerun (Time of Troubles, Spellplague), one can conclude that he's actually outlived the 'natural order' of the planes and has seen the entire cosmology rewrite itself within his lifespan.

If Ao or the Lady of Pain have died in any editions, I missed that memo. I know they're overdeities, but they stand in contrast to the no one lives forever/impermanence is a factor in D&D argument.

AMFV
2013-12-22, 07:37 PM
The inability to help everyone everywhere is not an excuse to sit by and not help anyone anywhere. Also, decisions and actions are the same thing. It's evil for someone to stand by when they have the power to help (And are not coerced into not helping - and Fire has a pretty big intimidate score). It's not evil for them to not help in a situation because they're unaware of it or not in a position to help. "You could have stopped him!" "I wasn't even here!" "Then you shouldn't have gone on vacation the day before the orphanage caught fire!"

In agreement with this - Lawful does not hold up the natural order, either. Planes like Carceri, Olympia, Limbo, the abyss, and Ysgard break Lawfulness. Furthermore The natural order is not respected by Law, because it tolerates and has Chaos in it. In fact "natural order" is an oxymoron. It merely states how things are, not how they should be. There is no room for Carceri, the Abyss, Limbo, or Pandemonium in a Lawful and Orderly planescape.

Why not? They exist as it is. In fact in a lawful and orderly planescape there would be no variance at all. So no need for those things to exist. Carceri is neither lawful nor is it chaotic. But the process that takes souls there is lawful, at least lawful enough to have inevitables created to protect it (death and transition to the afterlife), as such I would say it is pretty clearly lawful.



Souls of people that die to natural causes go to their home plane. Souls of people who are ritually sacrificed go to the plane of whom they are sacrificed to. Yes, it DOES mean the saintly martyr who is ritually sacrificed by the greatest elder evil goes to the Abyss/Carceri/Hell. That's what makes the process so EVIL.

If you'll forgive me, that's what makes the whole process kind of poorly conceived to my mind. It clearly was written by people who had not thought through the moral implications of what they were writing, I tend to avoid those sections of the BoED/BoVD like a plague, because they were clearly not written by those who had studied philosophy, or morality, or ethics in any real capacity.



One of Evil's primary traits is its ability to break/bend the rules to make things suffer, and absolutely troll anything that wants to be good.
Killing all creatures great and small is evil? Now you have to kill things just to survive.
Everyone is worthy of redemption and respect? Now there are entire races and species who are so overwhelmingly disposed toward evil that they WILL betray, murder, and screw over anyone who gives them an inch of latitude, yet have just enough of a chance of being redeemed that it's not moral to slaughter them all.
If you live a good life, you'll go to paradise? Not if Evil can get their claws on you - With a ritual sacrifice, you're going straight down with the most vile souls to ever exist. Or your soul will be obliterated forever.

Good is inhospitable to the world as we know it because Evil has programmed a lot of "**** You"s and other traits into existence that serve no other purpose than to troll Good and make peaceful existence and righteous justice impossible.

I'm not sure if that's the case, to me a world that is inherently bendable isn't very realistic although that could be the sciency part of my thinking. At least to my mind the rules of the universe shouldn't be overly bendable, and then good should be equally able to bend them since it has the same inclination towards chaos.

Edit: The system you propose leans towards AD&D or OD&D morality where evil is chaotic and good is lawful, which isn't the system as it exists in 3.5. Good and evil are equally bound by and able to violate the rules of the game.

Scow2
2013-12-22, 07:56 PM
Why not? They exist as it is. In fact in a lawful and orderly planescape there would be no variance at all. So no need for those things to exist. Carceri is neither lawful nor is it chaotic. But the process that takes souls there is lawful, at least lawful enough to have inevitables created to protect it (death and transition to the afterlife), as such I would say it is pretty clearly lawful.Carceri is explictly Chaotic, not Lawful, Evil, though more Evil than the Abyss. The process that takes souls there is NOT lawful or protected by inevitables - it works against the inevitables by sinking its claws into the souls of those it, not any lawfully-ordained power, desires (Or those sacrificed to Nerul) It's defended by demons, yugoloths, and possibly a stray devil or two.




If you'll forgive me, that's what makes the whole process kind of poorly conceived to my mind. It clearly was written by people who had not thought through the moral implications of what they were writing, I tend to avoid those sections of the BoED/BoVD like a plague, because they were clearly not written by those who had studied philosophy, or morality, or ethics in any real capacity.Which part? The going to the lower planes? Or the shanghaing of souls that should be destined to other planes through foul magic? The entire point of a sacrifice is to give something to another - if the souls sacrificed through ritual to Nerul didn't reach him, it wouldn't be a sacrifice.

What do philosophy, ethics, and morality have to do with the power of Evil

I'm not sure if that's the case, to me a world that is inherently bendable isn't very realistic although that could be the sciency part of my thinking. At least to my mind the rules of the universe shouldn't be overly bendable, and then good should be equally able to bend them since it has the same inclination towards chaos.

Edit: The system you propose leans towards AD&D or OD&D morality where evil is chaotic and good is lawful, which isn't the system as it exists in 3.5. Good and evil are equally bound by and able to violate the rules of the game.The laws of the world are about as stable as the laws in any (Insert politically volatile region here), with what working when determined by which god is beating down the others the hardest at the moment. It's the sort of peace and stability that exists between trenches.

Good bends the rules where it can, but most rules are established to promote the common good. It does a lot through redemption, atonement, and the dispatching of heroes to save the day. Unfortunately, all their messianic cults get mistaken for doomsday cults and shut down.

NichG
2013-12-22, 07:57 PM
If you'll forgive me, that's what makes the whole process kind of poorly conceived to my mind. It clearly was written by people who had not thought through the moral implications of what they were writing, I tend to avoid those sections of the BoED/BoVD like a plague, because they were clearly not written by those who had studied philosophy, or morality, or ethics in any real capacity.


The theology is different though. The D&D cosmology was not created only by the forces of order and good, so there is no expectation that it should be intrinsically 'fair' or 'just'. In fact, injustice is a key element of the nature of the D&D universe. Good is not more powerful than evil; the lower planes are not just there to punish/rehabilitate the wicked, in many cases they're actually a reward for evil - there is always that chance of eventually becoming a Balor or Arcanoloth or Pit Fiend or whatever, even if the process is awful. For the strong, they have a constant supply of victims to torment.

The natural processes of the D&D universe have no requirement to be ethical, because they were shaped as much by evil as by good.



I'm not sure if that's the case, to me a world that is inherently bendable isn't very realistic although that could be the sciency part of my thinking. At least to my mind the rules of the universe shouldn't be overly bendable, and then good should be equally able to bend them since it has the same inclination towards chaos.


I don't think of it so much as 'bending the rules of physics' as 'good and evil take turns deciding something about the universe'. Good decides 'those who are kind to others will be rewarded in the afterlife'. Evil responds 'but in exchange they will suffer during their mortal existence'. Good decides 'humanity will understand that killing is wrong'. Evil responds 'but the world will be such that it is sometimes necessary'. Good decides 'societies founded on equality and justice will be stable'. Evil responds 'but it only takes one person willing to take advantage of the goodwill of others to spoil it'.

AMFV
2013-12-22, 08:00 PM
Carceri is explictly Chaotic, not Lawful, Evil, though more Evil than the Abyss. The process that takes souls there is NOT lawful or protected by inevitables - it works against the inevitables by sinking its claws into the souls of those it, not any lawfully-ordained power, desires (Or those sacrificed to Nerul) It's defended by demons, yugoloths, and possibly a stray devil or two.

I guess it is slightly chaotic. I wasn't aware of that.



Which part? The going to the lower planes? Or the shanghaing of souls that should be destined to other planes through foul magic? The entire point of a sacrifice is to give something to another - if the souls sacrificed through ritual to Nerul didn't reach him, it wouldn't be a sacrifice.

It'd be the life that's being sacrificed. I have a large problem with souls being able to be snagged in that manner since it raises all kinds of options for shanghaiing your way into a better afterlife, and I don't agree with that.



What do philosophy, ethics, and morality have to do with the power of Evil
The laws of the world are about as stable as the laws in any (Insert politically volatile region here), with what working when determined by which god is beating down the others the hardest at the moment. It's the sort of peace and stability that exists between trenches.

Good bends the rules where it can, but most rules are established to promote the common good. It does a lot through redemption, atonement, and the dispatching of heroes to save the day. Unfortunately, all their messianic cults get mistaken for doomsday cults and shut down.

That's probably closer to the old school D&D alignments, I think than the current ones. In the current system there is good that moves counter to the rules, often with very amusing results.

Scow2
2013-12-22, 08:15 PM
It'd be the life that's being sacrificed. I have a large problem with souls being able to be snagged in that manner since it raises all kinds of options for shanghaiing your way into a better afterlife, and I don't agree with that.There actually ARE ways for an upper plane to 'steal' a soul set for a lower plane. The Valkyries of Ysgard do this frequently (Though they tend to compete with the recruiters of Acheron).


That's probably closer to the old school D&D alignments, I think than the current ones. In the current system there is good that moves counter to the rules, often with very amusing results.While Good can move counter to some rules, Good has its hands tied in a lot of ways Evil is all-too-happy to exploit. Good can't destroy souls, meaning there's no permanent way to keep a Great Evil down. Good can't betray. Good can't smite-on-sight. Good has to be VERY careful with deployment of WMDs (And doesn't really have any good apocalypse spells anyway). Good has to care about collateral damage. Good has to tend to those who serve it. Good has to ensure that those it promotes don't undermine it.

Good has a LOT of extra work to deal with that Evil doesn't give a damn about. Evil's allowed to be "That Guy", taking actions that screw over his opponent than taking actions that promote its own goals, because they're one and the same. Good wants to see what's best for the world. Evil wants to see Good fall on its face.

Draken
2013-12-22, 09:18 PM
I guess it is slightly chaotic. I wasn't aware of that.

Thgkjfjfkhgffkghkjfhgfggfg.

This is literally the FIRST THING I POINTED OUT WHEN I ENTERED THIS THREAD.


It'd be the life that's being sacrificed. I have a large problem with souls being able to be snagged in that manner since it raises all kinds of options for shanghaiing your way into a better afterlife, and I don't agree with that.

As stated before, there are, indeed, plenty of ways of tricking yourself into a different afterlife than the one you are meant for.

The fact that there is a method for anything, even souls and their eternal reward, to be stolen, has very little to do with said methods.


That's probably closer to the old school D&D alignments, I think than the current ones. In the current system there is good that moves counter to the rules, often with very amusing results.

You mean chaotic good.

Also thanks to Scow2 for pointing out that Inevitables and the laws that they uphold have jack all to do with natural order.

Koliaruts uphold contracts. They usually disregard minor ones, but if its big, it doesn't matter if one part was tricked or deceived. They will go after the oathbreaker.

Maruts don't care about the destiny of the soul. They care that it go away. It doesn't matter why you decided to extend your life, if you are alive past your allotted time by whatever methods they use to decide that, they will come after you.

Zhelekuts care for sentences, guilt and innocence doesn't compute. And big hint. Your average D&D world is not heavy on constitutionally governed nations with centralized law enforcement. It is heavy on superstitious, uneducated, downtrodden and generally miserable folks in search of outlets for their grievances. Some of these people might even be worshippers of Vecna looking for scapegoats.

I am not sure what the time-guard inevitables even deal with. Wizards who abuse planar time traits?

Varakhuts! The defenders of the gods. Evil gods. Lawful gods. Good gods. Bet they defend Chaotic gods too. Why? Because they are heartless machines with a semblance of sapience that is called out as being prone to glitching, not actual rational individuals. It is why they are called inevitables, they can't be argued with, or they would be evitable.

I don't think I need to talk about the inevitables who go after people who irrigate deserts.

Inevitables are insane, inhuman machines created in a plane of absolute adherence to calculated odds and arcane, unknowable laws. Said laws are so arcane and unknowable that the inevitables themselves need periodic brainwashing so they don't go haywire.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-22, 09:19 PM
Then you cannot say 'destroying souls is always an evil act.' It is absolutely impossible to adjudicate concretely because always doesn't mean anything in D&D, or at least it certainly doesn't mean always. Always evil creatures aren't always evil. It isn't always a good act to kill fiends, since the rules say fiends can be good. So none of those 'always good' or 'always evil' hold water, and they can't be used in a debate.

Yes, that makes the whole thing impossible to get a concrete ruling on. Yes, that makes the alignment system not worth much.
Every rule in D&D comes with the implicit phrase "unless a more specific rule alters or contradicts this." That's the nature of an exception based rules system.

Always has -never- meant "without exception" in D&D. It rarely means that in -any- context in life beyond the dictionary.

Yes, fiends can be good but they're always [evil]. It's always a good act to break up that concentrated evil and relieve it of the ability to spread beyond its native realm. There are only three options available for adjudicating the slaying of a good fiend; either you rule that it's simultaneously a good and an evil act, that it balances to a neutral act, or that one or another of the rules regarding such an action takes precedence and assign its alignment based on that. The first is a dangerous precedent that makes ruling any action difficult at best. The third is difficult to rule against it being a good action because the slaying fiends is always good rule is remarkably specific while any other rules regarding the action are less so. The second works well enough but doesn't change the fact that killing fiends is always okay.


Interesting. So you think non-binary actions somehow break alignment?That's not at all what I'm saying.

I'm saying that A) Specific trumps general and B) setting a precedent that individual actions can be aligned to both ends of the moral and ethical spectrums simultaneously makes judging any individual action unnecessarily complicated and that further complicating an already complicated system is a -very- bad idea.


How do you reconcile the non-destruction of a slain petitioner with the destruction of a soul enough to equate them? Petitioners are souls. The phrases "slay a creature" and "destroy a creature" are synonymous; i.e. dropping any undead or construct to 0 hp's is destroying them even though they're no more completely annihilated than if they were living creatures reduced to -10. Therefore slaying a petitioner is destroying a soul.


The inability to help everyone everywhere is not an excuse to sit by and not help anyone anywhere. Also, decisions and actions are the same thing. It's evil for someone to stand by when they have the power to help (And are not coerced into not helping - and Fire has a pretty big intimidate score). It's not evil for them to not help in a situation because they're unaware of it or not in a position to help. "You could have stopped him!" "I wasn't even here!" "Then you shouldn't have gone on vacation the day before the orphanage caught fire!"

By this logic a paladin in carceri that consents to killing one petitioner is trapped in that plane forever more because there will be a literally endless stream of such petitioners (infinite plane) making the same request until he either turns one down (and falls) or until he dies either from old age or is slain by something.

Draken
2013-12-22, 09:36 PM
By this logic a paladin in carceri that consents to killing one petitioner is trapped in that plane forever more because there will be a literally endless stream of such petitioners (infinite plane) making the same request until he either turns one down (and falls) or until he dies either from old age or is slain by something.

This would never happen due to the geography of Carceri. The plane is infinite, yes, but it is made of extremely finite areas that petitioners can't really move in between.

So our paladin would probably sit there for no more than a day before the immediate area was out of suicidal petitioners. If he lingered too long and the story somehow spread, it is likely that in the following days or weeks, petitioners from the planetoid he was in would converge onto the origin point of the stories. But he wouldn't really need to wait there for them to come.

SowZ
2013-12-22, 09:39 PM
Every rule in D&D comes with the implicit phrase "unless a more specific rule alters or contradicts this." That's the nature of an exception based rules system.

Always has -never- meant "without exception" in D&D. It rarely means that in -any- context in life beyond the dictionary.

Yes, fiends can be good but they're always [evil]. It's always a good act to break up that concentrated evil and relieve it of the ability to spread beyond its native realm. There are only three options available for adjudicating the slaying of a good fiend; either you rule that it's simultaneously a good and an evil act, that it balances to a neutral act, or that one or another of the rules regarding such an action takes precedence and assign its alignment based on that. The first is a dangerous precedent that makes ruling any action difficult at best. The third is difficult to rule against it being a good action because the slaying fiends is always good rule is remarkably specific while any other rules regarding the action are less so. The second works well enough but doesn't change the fact that killing fiends is always okay.

That's not at all what I'm saying.

I'm saying that A) Specific trumps general and B) setting a precedent that individual actions can be aligned to both ends of the moral and ethical spectrums simultaneously makes judging any individual action unnecessarily complicated and that further complicating an already complicated system is a -very- bad idea.

Petitioners are souls. The phrases "slay a creature" and "destroy a creature" are synonymous; i.e. dropping any undead or construct to 0 hp's is destroying them even though they're no more completely annihilated than if they were living creatures reduced to -10. Therefore slaying a petitioner is destroying a soul.



By this logic a paladin in carceri that consents to killing one petitioner is trapped in that plane forever more because there will be a literally endless stream of such petitioners (infinite plane) making the same request until he either turns one down (and falls) or until he dies either from old age or is slain by something.

Yeah, it's an exception based system. This is an exception. Just because it isn't laid out in the books doesn't mean it's not an exception.

Scow2
2013-12-22, 09:55 PM
Every rule in D&D comes with the implicit phrase "unless a more specific rule alters or contradicts this." That's the nature of an exception based rules system.

Always has -never- meant "without exception" in D&D. It rarely means that in -any- context in life beyond the dictionary.

Yes, fiends can be good but they're always [evil]. It's always a good act to break up that concentrated evil and relieve it of the ability to spread beyond its native realm. There are only three options available for adjudicating the slaying of a good fiend; either you rule that it's simultaneously a good and an evil act, that it balances to a neutral act, or that one or another of the rules regarding such an action takes precedence and assign its alignment based on that. The first is a dangerous precedent that makes ruling any action difficult at best. The third is difficult to rule against it being a good action because the slaying fiends is always good rule is remarkably specific while any other rules regarding the action are less so. The second works well enough but doesn't change the fact that killing fiends is always okay.

That's not at all what I'm saying.

I'm saying that A) Specific trumps general and B) setting a precedent that individual actions can be aligned to both ends of the moral and ethical spectrums simultaneously makes judging any individual action unnecessarily complicated and that further complicating an already complicated system is a -very- bad idea.The "Letting fiends live is evil" rule comes from the BoVD, a 3.0 supplement. And, that's a general rule. The 3.5 supplement, The Book of Exalted Deeds, trumps that with an exception to redeemed fiends, who, while still [Evil] are now also Good, and thus subject to mercy. Of course, this greatly strengthens Evil, because it keeps fiends from being given blanket exception to sins/virtues governing respect of life.

Good Says: "All Life is worthy of respect and mercy"
And Evil says: "Except these fiend guys. They're my bros, and will always do evil stuff no matter what."
To which Good replies: "You can destroy fiends and similar creatures, for they are incapable of existing in a virtuous community to the last."
And Evil checkmates with: "...actually, even some of my most vile creations are capable of joining you. Now you have to check before you smite, and ask yourself... was that succubus just trying to deceive you, or did she really seek redemption?"
And Good is stuck saying: "DAMN YOU TO HELL!"
And Evil last-words with "Already there!"

Vedhin
2013-12-22, 10:06 PM
Thgkjfjfkhgffkghkjfhgfggfg.

This is literally the FIRST THING I POINTED OUT WHEN I ENTERED THIS THREAD.

Not to mention that Carceri's particular brand of Evil tinged with Chaos is making a mockery of justice. Carceri is basically founded on spiting Law and Good.

Carceri is based on twisting what it is to be Lawful Good into the opposite. Anything that tears down the natural order of this plane is Lawful and Good, because it strikes a blow against Chaos and Evil.

And another thing: Law, Good, Chaos, and Evil could barely care less about the natural order. They'd all like to excise the other alignments completely, regardless of the consequences.
If you want to maintain the natural order, ask the True Neutrals. It's what they do.

Slipperychicken
2013-12-22, 10:10 PM
If you want to maintain the natural order, ask the True Neutrals. It's what they do.

The natural order kind of sucks, though.

Draken
2013-12-22, 11:03 PM
Not to mention that Carceri's particular brand of Evil tinged with Chaos is making a mockery of justice. Carceri is basically founded on spiting Law and Good.

Carceri is based on twisting what it is to be Lawful Good into the opposite. Anything that tears down the natural order of this plane is Lawful and Good, because it strikes a blow against Chaos and Evil.

And another thing: Law, Good, Chaos, and Evil could barely care less about the natural order. They'd all like to excise the other alignments completely, regardless of the consequences.
If you want to maintain the natural order, ask the True Neutrals. It's what they do.

Yeah. I pointed that out too.

It was a complete rant on how Carceri isn't some sort of penal colony of the outer planes, but mainly a dungeon for victims of cosmic kidnap managed by a hateful and deceitful death god defined by his nature as an enemy of all that is good and/or alive, as opposed to being a caretaker of any sort of natural law.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-23, 12:47 AM
Yeah, it's an exception based system. This is an exception. Just because it isn't laid out in the books doesn't mean it's not an exception.
What? :smallconfused:

The "Letting fiends live is evil" rule comes from the BoVD, a 3.0 supplement. And, that's a general rule. The 3.5 supplement, The Book of Exalted Deeds, trumps that with an exception to redeemed fiends, who, while still [Evil] are now also Good, and thus subject to mercy. Of course, this greatly strengthens Evil, because it keeps fiends from being given blanket exception to sins/virtues governing respect of life.

Good Says: "All Life is worthy of respect and mercy"
And Evil says: "Except these fiend guys. They're my bros, and will always do evil stuff no matter what."
To which Good replies: "You can destroy fiends and similar creatures, for they are incapable of existing in a virtuous community to the last."
And Evil checkmates with: "...actually, even some of my most vile creations are capable of joining you. Now you have to check before you smite, and ask yourself... was that succubus just trying to deceive you, or did she really seek redemption?"
And Good is stuck saying: "DAMN YOU TO HELL!"
And Evil last-words with "Already there!"

Wrong rule. BoVD page 8, first paragraph under "consorting with fiends," third sentence; "Destroying a fiend is always a good act."

Don't give me "3.0 vs 3.X." They're the same game. BoVD rules on morality don't conflict with any 3.5 rules and were never updated. As such, they stand.

SowZ
2013-12-23, 01:04 AM
What? :smallconfused:


Wrong rule. BoVD page 8, first paragraph under "consorting with fiends," third sentence; "Destroying a fiend is always a good act."

Don't give me "3.0 vs 3.X." They're the same game. BoVD rules on morality don't conflict with any 3.5 rules and were never updated. As such, they stand.

My point is, you can't say, "X action is always evil!" Then say, "Oh, well, okay, sometimes its not," but then say this case cannot be an exception. This is an exception if I ever saw one, and every exception isn't written in the rules. If through some convoluted scenario, you were given the choice to use lethal poison on an evil mastermind about to cast a spell that sends the souls of every innocent and child, past present and future, into an eternal plane of torment ten times worse than any of the hells with no escape, it would be 'evil' to poison him because poison is evil and this is not a listed exception.

Either this means that A. Good and Evil are neutral, unbiased universal forces unrelated to ethics and only line up with them most of the time by luck or B. there are more exceptions than are listed in the books.

NichG
2013-12-23, 01:07 AM
Or C. They line up with ethics 99% of the time and 1% of the time things are ambiguous. It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. In fact, for any sufficiently complex formal system, you are guaranteed to find provable inconsistencies. The main ingredient needed to create them is anything self-referential. So once you say something like 'its Good to kill Evil creatures' can be a rule, you're formally guaranteed that there will exist inconsistent statements within the system.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-23, 01:36 AM
My point is, you can't say, "X action is always evil!" Then say, "Oh, well, okay, sometimes its not," but then say this case cannot be an exception. This is an exception if I ever saw one, and every exception isn't written in the rules. If through some convoluted scenario, you were given the choice to use lethal poison on an evil mastermind about to cast a spell that sends the souls of every innocent and child, past present and future, into an eternal plane of torment ten times worse than any of the hells with no escape, it would be 'evil' to poison him because poison is evil and this is not a listed exception.

Either this means that A. Good and Evil are neutral, unbiased universal forces unrelated to ethics and only line up with them most of the time by luck or B. there are more exceptions than are listed in the books.

Um... that's exactly what an exception based rules system is.

For example; making a melee touch attack to begin a grapple provokes an attack of opportunity.

Unless you have improved grapple or improved grab or some other similar ability.

The rule and its exceptions are all declarative statements without qualifiers. (The comment on exceptions in the grapple section is a parenthetical and a separate declarative statement, not a qualifier.)

By the same token, killing fiends is always a good act except when it isn't because of a more specific rule. However, there are no more specific rules regarding the morality of the killing of fiends and so it is without exception.

The rule about killing living creatures without just cause conflicts with the rule about killing fiends but is a less specific rule and is, therefore, overridden by it. The alternatives to killing a good fiend being a good act that I listed above are only concessions to the logic behind morality. They are also pretty flagrantly against RAW.

Scow2
2013-12-23, 01:43 AM
The rule about killing living creatures without just cause conflicts with the rule about killing fiends but is a less specific rule and is, therefore, overridden by it. The alternatives to killing a good fiend being a good act that I listed above are only concessions to the logic behind morality. They are also pretty flagrantly against RAW.
The BoED's lines on mercy overrule the BoVD's rules on what's Good or not. The BoVD deals with Evil only - references to good are guidelines, not rules.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-23, 01:57 AM
The BoED's lines on mercy overrule the BoVD's rules on what's Good or not. The BoVD deals with Evil only - references to good are guidelines, not rules.

What can I say in response to this other than, "I respectfully disagree."

The rules on mercy are broad statements that makeup general rules.

The rule on killing fiends is a very specific statement that makes a specific exception to those rules.

Discarding either as being a guideline rather than actual rules calls into question the validity of both books as rules sources altogether, excepting those rules that are clearly game mechanics and game mechanics only, i.e. feats, spells, PrC's etc.

Scow2
2013-12-23, 02:16 AM
What can I say in response to this other than, "I respectfully disagree."

The rules on mercy are broad statements that makeup general rules.

The rule on killing fiends is a very specific statement that makes a specific exception to those rules.The BoED is a higher-priority source than the BoVD on alignment, and was also written and published later. It even had specific examples of letting fiends live.

Discarding either as being a guideline rather than actual rules calls into question the validity of both books as rules sources altogether, excepting those rules that are clearly game mechanics and game mechanics only, i.e. feats, spells, PrC's etc.Newsflash: The BoVD and BoED are NOT rules sources beyond what are clearly game mechanics, such as feats, spells, items, monster abilities, etc. Everything else in there is flavor and guidelines, for setting the tone and mood that the rules are to be incorporated, and ideas for how campaigns can be run to emphasize and incorporate the Good vs. Evil alignment axis.

The PHB and DMG, NOT the BoVD or BoED, are the primary source on Alignment.

In fact, NO supplementary publications are valid as a rules source, except the compendiums. ... And the miniatures handbook, because it fixed/broke the action economy.

SiuiS
2013-12-23, 02:35 AM
That's not at all what I'm saying.

I'm saying that A) Specific trumps general and B) setting a precedent that individual actions can be aligned to both ends of the moral and ethical spectrums simultaneously makes judging any individual action unnecessarily complicated and that further complicating an already complicated system is a -very- bad idea.

I know specific trumps general. What I'm saying is this specific specific does not contradict the general, so specific > general doesn't apply. An action can be chaotic, good, and neutral aligned. There is no reason an action cannot also be chaotic and lawful, or good and evil.


Petitioners are souls. The phrases "slay a creature" and "destroy a creature" are synonymous; i.e. dropping any undead or construct to 0 hp's is destroying them even though they're no more completely annihilated than if they were living creatures reduced to -10. Therefore slaying a petitioner is destroying a soul.

But the prase destroy a creature is not synonymous with destroy a soul.
There are VERY specific rules on how to destroy a soul, and what the consequences of destruction are.
Killing a petitioner does not meet the criteria for destroying a soul. Petitioners do not meet the consequences of destruction when killed. They are scientifically proven not to be destroyed when killed.
So, you are saying 'not destroying a petitioner is the same as destroying a soul' and I'm pointing out every rule that says otherwise.

Specifically, you have to accept your argument is true before you can prove it is true. And I do not accept a contentious argument as basis for it's own trial.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-23, 03:04 AM
I know specific trumps general. What I'm saying is this specific specific does not contradict the general, so specific > general doesn't apply. An action can be chaotic, good, and neutral aligned. There is no reason an action cannot also be chaotic and lawful, or good and evil. Sure it does. Killing any living creature simply for existing is evil with exceptions. This is what BoED says, albeit paraphrased. The statement in BoVD gives one such exception and takes it a step further by saying that killing fiends is -always- a good act.



But the phrase destroy a creature is not synonymous with destroy a soul.
There are VERY specific rules on how to destroy a soul, and what the consequences of destruction are.
Killing a petitioner does not meet the criteria for destroying a soul. Petitioners do not meet the consequences of destruction when killed. They are scientifically proven not to be destroyed when killed.
So, you are saying 'not destroying a petitioner is the same as destroying a soul' and I'm pointing out every rule that says otherwise.I contest the underlined statement. For one, science never comes into the picture here. We're talking about metaphysics in a fantasy game.

How, pray, is killing a creature different from destroying it? The two terms are used synonymously in the rules as the terms for utterly depleting a creature of its hp until it's no longer capable of functioning.


Specifically, you have to accept your argument is true before you can prove it is true. And I do not accept a contentious argument as basis for it's own trial.

So you're still contesting the fact that petitioners are souls then.

We're not arguing a single point here. There are two; 1) outsiders are souls and 2) killing a creature is synonymous with destroying it.

Once you've accepted both of them the only conclusion is that killing an outsider is destroying a soul.

As I have pointed out, an outsider's body and soul are one unit. This is clearly and explicitly stated in the MM. You cannot affect one without affecting both.

Petitioners are outsiders that result from the soul of deceased mortals taking form on the outer plane that represents their afterlife.

Killing a petitioner is the same as destroying an outsider, as killing and destroying are synonyms and petitioners are outsiders.

Therefore killing a petitioner is destroying a soul.

SowZ
2013-12-23, 03:05 AM
Um... that's exactly what an exception based rules system is.

For example; making a melee touch attack to begin a grapple provokes an attack of opportunity.

Unless you have improved grapple or improved grab or some other similar ability.

The rule and its exceptions are all declarative statements without qualifiers. (The comment on exceptions in the grapple section is a parenthetical and a separate declarative statement, not a qualifier.)

By the same token, killing fiends is always a good act except when it isn't because of a more specific rule. However, there are no more specific rules regarding the morality of the killing of fiends and so it is without exception.

The rule about killing living creatures without just cause conflicts with the rule about killing fiends but is a less specific rule and is, therefore, overridden by it. The alternatives to killing a good fiend being a good act that I listed above are only concessions to the logic behind morality. They are also pretty flagrantly against RAW.

There can be exceptions other than those specifically laid out in the rules. Unless you want to admit that if one had to choose between letting the eternal inconceivable suffering of everything good and innocent in the multi-verse occur or using a poison against the evil guy doing it, the Good action is the former.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-23, 03:10 AM
There can be exceptions other than those specifically laid out in the rules. Unless you want to admit that if one had to choose between letting the eternal inconceivable suffering of everything good and innocent in the multi-verse occur or using a poison against the evil guy doing it, the Good action is the former.

Actually. The rule isn't that poison is evil. That's a gross over-simplification that gets bandied about as a highlight for how alignment is broken from the ground up.

The actual rule is that using manufactured poisons that do ability damage is evil. The villain could just as easily be subjected to a knockout drug and dispatched with a coup de gras and that would allow him to be stopped without committing an evil act.

I'll just ignore that destroying all life everywhere is a matter of DM fiat that can't actually be done within the rules.

Blightedmarsh
2013-12-23, 03:28 AM
Are these petitioners real souls or are they phantoms generated by Carceri to torment our caviler? If they aren't then this is simply Carceri doing what carceri does; torment people with their own personal hell.

SowZ
2013-12-23, 03:46 AM
Actually. The rule isn't that poison is evil. That's a gross over-simplification that gets bandied about as a highlight for how alignment is broken from the ground up.

The actual rule is that using manufactured poisons that do ability damage is evil. The villain could just as easily be subjected to a knockout drug and dispatched with a coup de gras and that would allow him to be stopped without committing an evil act.

I'll just ignore that destroying all life everywhere is a matter of DM fiat that can't actually be done within the rules.

Okay, fine, the only poison on hand is an ability damage one and it is the only way to stop the 30th level CE halfling wizard with epic spells who is instead just targeting all the children, (and gnomes because why not,) within the Forgotten Realms to send to his personal demi-plane of agelessness and torture where time is so slow that even if you are able to save them, (which will probably take a long, long time because it is protected from any sort of scrying/forced entry as much as possible,) the children will have experienced millions of years of torture per second you take.

The hypothetical scenery-chewing crazy-evil villain has a spellcraft check in the upper hundreds or something. So. Is it still evil to poison him with an ability damaging poison? Just to make it less morally gray, it is a Dex poison and won't even kill the villain. It will just knock him out. And the villain is immune to pain, so it won't even hurt him.

Any sort of, "That probably couldn't happen because..." is just dodging and delaying the inevitable because we both know eventually I will come up with a totally absurd example that, while improbably, is allowed by the rules and shoot, there are some hyper convoluted plot twists that can happen in a campaign.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-23, 04:01 AM
Missing the point, but okay, fine, the only poison on hand is an ability damage one and it is the only way to stop the 30th level CE halfling wizard with epic spells who is instead just targeting all the children, (and gnomes because why not,) within the Forgotten Realms to send to his personal demi-plane of agelessness and torture where time is so slow that even if you are able to save them, (which will probably take a long, long time because it is protected from any sort of scrying/forced entry as much as possible,) the children will have experienced millions of years of torture per second you take.

The hypothetical scenery-chewing crazy-evil villain has a spellcraft check in the upper hundreds or something. So. Is it still evil to poison him with a lethal poison? Any sort of, "That probably couldn't happen because..." is just dodging and delaying the inevitable because we both know eventually I will come up with a totally absurd example that, while improbably, is allowed by the rules and shoot, there are some hyper convoluted plot twists that can happen in a campaign.

A) An evil act for a good end is still an evil act. This is clearly stated in BoED. So, yes, poisoning the halfling is indeed an evil act. I was simply pointing out that rather notable flaw in the scenario you presented.

B) Attempting to poison him is also an utterly futile act. No poison that does significant con damage or causes instant death (the latter of which isn't evil either btw) has better than a 5% chance of working -if- the guy's even still vulnerable to poisons; an enormous if.

The scenario is flawed from the ground up as one designed to force a fall by giving the paladin the -false- choice between taking an evil act and not acting. The evil act has a negligible chance of success and there are myriad other non-evil options available with equally low chances of success.

Souhiro
2013-12-23, 04:07 AM
I think that all goes to the GM but also it goes TO YOU.

In RealLife™ you can argue that something is Good or Bad: For a Paterfamilias in ancient Roma, was good to be kind with your slaves? For most of people in that time that would be "an extravagant act of goodness and good faith", but in modern times some voices would raise saing "NO: I'ts an evil act, because you're still keeping them as slaves".
So, it can be discussed. There isn't a visible line that marks "From here, there is only good, until here, there is only evil"

But in D&D, there are gods of good and evil, there is a GM, and THERE IS that line. So, in your game, in your world, the Powers that Be can see your act of mercy-killing as a good act (Your'e ease someone's pain. And they're also BEGGING for you to do so) or it can be evil (You're killing thousands)

So, you NEED to talk with your GM. The Mercy-Massive-Killing was indeed something that your PC did under pressure, so you can talk to him, and ask "What is My PC's conscience saying? Do I feel that I did the correct thing?"

Don't fear to talk with your GM. It may improve the game, after all!

SowZ
2013-12-23, 04:11 AM
A) An evil act for a good end is still an evil act. This is clearly stated in BoED. So, yes, poisoning the halfling is indeed an evil act. I was simply pointing out that rather notable flaw in the scenario you presented.

B) Attempting to poison him is also an utterly futile act. No poison that does significant con damage or causes instant death (the latter of which isn't evil either btw) has better than a 5% chance of working -if- the guy's even still vulnerable to poisons; an enormous if.

The scenario is flawed from the ground up as one designed to force a fall by giving the paladin the -false- choice between taking an evil act and not acting. The evil act has a negligible chance of success and there are myriad other non-evil options available with equally low chances of success.

So the wizard has a joker level obsession with the hero and has intentionally crafted this scenario soley for his own amusement. He is willing to pull the trigger if his bluff is called, and the hero knows it, but he will also go home satisfied without harming anyone if the hero plays along with the game. Every time the hero has ever faced this person, it has been the same. The game is, "You can poison me with this vial that won't cause me an ounce of pain or any lasting damage, I'll heal it up in six seconds, or I send every child and gnome on the planet into my ageless torture dimension where there is no hope of rescue for billions of years, at least."

Vast past experience dictates he will send the children to their doom if the hero doesn't poison him, but will pack up his toys and go home if he does.

All it is is a poison that does 1 con damage. The villain will intentionally fail his save, and will allow the hero to poison him, but be fine. Then he'll twirl his mustache and come up with another DC comics level plot to ruin the heroes life. What's more, the hero used divination magic which the villain intentionally didn't shield himself against and the hero knows with near 100% certainty the scenario is legit. The hero is a 5th level Paladin with no significant magic items and no time to get any allies, not that any of his friends could do anything against crazy-Joker-wizard. And the wizard is shielded from virtually every other type of attack.

The hero has twelve seconds to decide and the slightest hint of funny business and the spell is cast.

There have to be exceptions for stuff like this, or the Good/Evil spectrum is 100% borked. By hurting no one and involving no one but the creator of the scenario, you can save millions of innocents from a horrible fate. Yet that is the evil choice. Bananas. I'm not calling you crazy, just the rules if they don't have more wiggle room than that. Clearly, all moral responsibility in this scenario for the Paladin using the poison should fall on the wizard and the paladin is also, I think, psychotic if he doesn't use the poison.

Souhiro
2013-12-23, 04:30 AM
The "Use of Poison is an Evil Act" is something of a headbanger for me.

I mean... a greatsword to the neck, an arrow to the brain, dissintegrate the head, or cast HARM in someone's heart isn't evil, as long as the victim itself is evil.

But you do the same thing, with the very same greatsword or arrow, but POISONED, and that's evil act.

WHY?

icefractal
2013-12-23, 04:37 AM
Are we really arguing based on the RAW definitions in the BoED / BoVD? Because those books - have issues, to put it mildly. And unless you're running a surrealist / parody campaign, then I would put "alignment makes any damn sense" way the hell above "the exact wording in some splatbook". In the same way that I would say "Ha, no" to the peasant railgun or drown-healing. The books are not all-knowing wisdom, no need to canonize the stupid parts.


Re: continuation of existence being the highest good - I disagree, fundamentally. That's really all there is to say, we could nitpick about situations, but I don't accept the basic premise. So - let's leave that aside for now and just say that YMMV.


Anyway, about the natural order / existing system of the planes. Not only is it not good, it isn't lawful either. It is neutral. If you are a champion for any of the cosmic alignment forces, then you are against the natural order of the multiverse. Cosmic good wants to break the great wheel. To get rid of and/or redeem the evil parts of the multiverse. Preserving the balance is a goal for neutrals.


Edit: Special rant for poison! That would be one of those "stupid parts" I mentioned. AFAICT, it comes from medieval chivalry. Which ultimately, in this case, boils down to "Being a knight takes a lot of training and equipment, supporting the stability of the social order. If some jerkass peasant with a poisoned spear can defeat a knight, that throws the feudal system all out of whack. So therefore, it is bad." Since very little of that applies in D&D, and the feudal system isn't an inherent "good" anyway, the concept is dumb.

SowZ
2013-12-23, 04:43 AM
Are we really arguing based on the RAW definitions in the BoED / BoVD? Because those books - have issues, to put it mildly. And unless you're running a surrealist / parody campaign, then I would put "alignment makes any damn sense" way the hell above "the exact wording in some splatbook". In the same way that I would say "Ha, no" to the peasant railgun or drown-healing. The books are not all-knowing wisdom, no need to canonize the stupid parts.


Re: continuation of existence being the highest good - I disagree, fundamentally. That's really all there is to say, we could nitpick about situations, but I don't accept the basic premise. So - let's leave that aside for now and just say that YMMV.


Anyway, about the natural order / existing system of the planes. Not only is it not good, it isn't lawful either. It is neutral. If you are a champion for any of the cosmic alignment forces, then you are against the natural order of the multiverse. Cosmic good wants to break the great wheel. To get rid of and/or redeem the evil parts of the multiverse. Preserving the balance is a goal for neutrals.

Lawful neutrals can aim to uphold that balance in their own way though, can't they? Or do all the inherently LN beings try and eliminate chaos?




Edit: Special rant for poison! That would be one of those "stupid parts" I mentioned. AFAICT, it comes from medieval chivalry. Which ultimately, in this case, boils down to "Being a knight takes a lot of training and equipment, supporting the stability of the social order. If some jerkass peasant with a poisoned spear can defeat a knight, that throws the feudal system all out of whack. So therefore, it is bad." Since very little of that applies in D&D, and the feudal system isn't an inherent "good" anyway, the concept is dumb.

Which is why I advocate for common sense when determining the alignment of an action as opposed to sticking with absolutes.

On chivalry, while it was considered noble to try and be chivalrous in day to day life, you were only truly bound by it when dealing with other knights or people of high birth. So that muddies up the idea that chivalry=good even more.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-23, 04:44 AM
So the wizard has a joker level obsession with the hero and has intentionally crafted this scenario soley for his own amusement. He is willing to pull the trigger if his bluff is called, and the hero knows it, but he will also go home satisfied without harming anyone if the hero plays along with the game. Every time the hero has ever faced this person, it has been the same. The game is, "You can poison me with this vial that won't cause me an ounce of pain or any lasting damage, I'll heal it up in six seconds, or I send every child and gnome on the planet into my ageless torture dimension where there is no hope of rescue for billions of years, at least."

Vast past experience dictates he will send the children to their doom if the hero doesn't poison him, but will pack up his toys and go home if he does.

All it is is a poison that does 1 con damage. The villain will intentionally fail his save, and will allow the hero to poison him, but be fine. Then he'll twirl his mustache and come up with another DC comics level plot to ruin the heroes life. What's more, the hero used divination magic which the villain intentionally didn't shield himself against and the hero knows with near 100% certainty the scenario is legit. The hero is a 5th level Paladin with no significant magic items and no time to get any allies, not that any of his friends could do anything against crazy-Joker-wizard. And the wizard is shielded from virtually every other type of attack.

The hero has twelve seconds to decide and the slightest hint of funny business and the spell is cast.

There have to be exceptions for stuff like this, or the Good/Evil spectrum is 100% borked. By hurting no one and involving no one but the creator of the scenario, you can save millions of innocents from a horrible fate. Yet that is the evil choice. Bananas. I'm not calling you crazy, just the rules if they don't have more wiggle room than that. Clearly, all moral responsibility in this scenario for the Paladin using the poison should fall on the wizard and the paladin is also, I think, psychotic if he doesn't use the poison.

You can hardly blame the game's designers for not writing the system with this sort of obscenely contrived scenario in mind.

More importantly there are still flaws in your setup.

A) The amount of cheese required to actually deliver on that threat in a single action is absurd. If you have to call the epic spell casting rules to support your argument you've already moved well past reasonable expectations.

B) Paladins have no native way of actually calling on those divinations and no divination can give results that accurate.

C) The "no hope of rescue" bit is DM fiat. There's no way to do that within the rules. The best that can be done is a demi-plane whose entrance is difficult to reach.

D) The gods are not omniscient. Falls can happen for accidental evil acts. This sort of thing is exactly why the atonement spell exists. No good god would deny an atonement for this paladin if he -did- accept this absurd scenario instead of rushing headlong to his death in a vain attempt to stop this madman that he has no reason to trust because of point B.

E) This scenario results from some of the worst power-tripping DM shenanigans imaginable. This is counter to the entire purpose of the game and -should not- be accounted for in the rules as doing so amounts to pandering to these sorts of terrible DM's by simply acknowledging it as a valid GM'ing "style."

SowZ
2013-12-23, 04:55 AM
You can hardly blame the game's designers for not writing the system with this sort of obscenely contrived scenario in mind.

More importantly there are still flaws in your setup.

A) The amount of cheese required to actually deliver on that threat in a single action is absurd. If you have to call the epic spell casting rules to support your argument you've already moved well past reasonable expectations.

B) Paladins have no native way of actually calling on those divinations and no divination can give results that accurate.

C) The "no hope of rescue" bit is DM fiat. There's no way to do that within the rules. The best that can be done is a demi-plane whose entrance is difficult to reach.

D) The gods are not omniscient. Falls can happen for accidental evil acts. This sort of thing is exactly why the atonement spell exists. No good god would deny an atonement for this paladin if he -did- accept this absurd scenario instead of rushing headlong to his death in a vain attempt to stop this madman that he has no reason to trust because of point B.

E) This scenario results from some of the worst power-tripping DM shenanigans imaginable. This is counter to the entire purpose of the game and -should not- be accounted for in the rules as doing so amounts to pandering to these sorts of terrible DM's by simply acknowledging it as a valid GM'ing "style."

I'm not blaming the writers, I'm giving the writers the benefit of the doubt that they their intention wasn't black/white morality with zero exceptions save the ones they laid out. I think the writers would accept there are too many exceptions to the 'when is something flat out evil' rules then they could come up with.

The fact that there are exceptions shows these rules aren't 100% universal. So there are other exceptions, IMO, by RAI even if there aren't by RAW.

Also, the biggest reason the paladin trusts the scenario is because he has been faced with a dozen such scenarios before from the same guy. The joker wizard is so godlike he has nothing more amusing to do then screw with mortals.

Agreed the scenario is silly, but is still possible. Make the same scenario where only one innocent is going to be killed unless a poison is applied that won't do any lasting harm to joker man, and the moral imperitive remains the same.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-23, 05:05 AM
I'm not blaming the writers, I'm giving the writers the benefit of the doubt that they their intention wasn't black/white morality with zero exceptions save the ones they laid out. I think the writers would accept there are too many exceptions to the 'when is something flat out evil' rules then they could come up with.

The fact that there are exceptions shows these rules aren't 100% universal. So there are other exceptions, IMO, by RAI even if there aren't by RAW.

Also, the biggest reason the paladin trusts the scenario is because he has been faced with a dozen such scenarios before from the same guy. The joker wizard is so godlike he has nothing more amusing to do then screw with mortals.

Agreed the scenario is silly, but is still possible. Make the same scenario where only one innocent is going to be killed unless a poison is applied that won't do any lasting harm to joker man, and the moral imperitive remains the same.

Actually, I just thought of the non-evil solution. The paladin kills himself. You can't bring someone back to life unwilling.

Also, another flaw; as god-like as the enemy may be, there are still actual gods that would step in to oppose this madman's plan.

The designers -did- acknowledge that there are very few clear-cut cases by using absolute language -extremely- rarely.

The entire list of always evil actions includes committing acts of torture, the destruction of souls, the creation of undead creatures, the use of manufactured poisons that deal ability damage, and that's it.

The list of always good acts is even shorter; killing fiends, end of list.

SowZ
2013-12-23, 05:08 AM
Actually, I just thought of the non-evil solution. The paladin kills himself. You can't bring someone back to life unwilling.

Also, another flaw; as god-like as the enemy may be, there are still actual gods that would step in to oppose this madman's plan.

The designers -did- acknowledge that there are very few clear-cut cases by using absolute language -extremely- rarely.

The entire list of always evil actions includes committing acts of torture, the destruction of souls, the creation of undead creatures, the use of manufactured poisons that deal ability damage, and that's it.

The list of always good acts is even shorter; killing fiends, end of list.

And there are going to be exceptions, I believe, to all of those. There are exceptions to the always good acts already. Some Fiends are Good.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-23, 05:17 AM
And there are going to be exceptions, I believe, to all of those. There are exceptions to the always good acts already. Some Fiends are Good.

There is no rule that fiends must always be evil for that to be an exception to. In fact the written rules are exactly what allow such creatures to exist in the first place.

Killing those fiends is still a good act. The nature of fiends is such that even if they do take on a good alignment it's doomed to return to evil and it's still a force of evil simply by existing. That it may be morally objectionable is irrelevant.

Those lists are always aligned that way, without exception. The situations necessary to even make them morally different from the way they're aligned are each and every one so contrived as to be nonsense.

SowZ
2013-12-23, 05:35 AM
There is no rule that fiends must always be evil for that to be an exception to. In fact the written rules are exactly what allow such creatures to exist in the first place.

Killing those fiends is still a good act. The nature of fiends is such that even if they do take on a good alignment it's doomed to return to evil and it's still a force of evil simply by existing. That it may be morally objectionable is irrelevant.

Those lists are always aligned that way, without exception. The situations necessary to even make them morally different from the way they're aligned are each and every one so contrived as to be nonsense.

Killing a Good Fiend isn't contrived at all, and is blatant genocide of a Good being. Further evidence to me that the forces of Good and Evil aren't merit based, but random forces that have bias towards random things and one just happens to line up with the right thing more often.

I realize my situations were mostly absurd, but I didn't mind that since I find the whole alignment system equally absurd. By the actual rules, sure, you areprobably right. I still think RAI, most of the writers would admit there are edge cases if the situation got silly enough where the currently written rules wouldn't exactly apply. But for the most part I just can't accept the internal logic of the alignment system and am typically going to side against it.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-23, 05:44 AM
Killing a Good Fiend isn't contrived at all, and is blatant genocide of a Good being. Further evidence to me that the forces of Good and Evil aren't merit based, but random forces that have bias towards random things and one just happens to line up with the right thing more often.

The circumstances under which a fiend becomes good in the first place are.

Also, misuse of genocide. Good fiends don't constitute a large enough group for genocide against them to even be a realistic option. The genocide is leveled against fiends in general and the -extremely- rare good fiend is just collateral.

You'll notice I didn't include genocide on the list anyway as genocide against fiends is not evil because killing them is always good.

SowZ
2013-12-23, 05:59 AM
The circumstances under which a fiend becomes good in the first place are.

Also, misuse of genocide. Good fiends don't constitute a large enough group for genocide against them to even be a realistic option. The genocide is leveled against fiends in general and the -extremely- rare good fiend is just collateral.

You'll notice I didn't include genocide on the list anyway as genocide against fiends is not evil because killing them is always good.

Killing someone on sight because of what they are is genocide. There could be six people in the world of a given ethnic group. Wiping them out would be genocide.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-23, 06:04 AM
Killing someone on sight because of what they are is genocide. There could be six people in the world of a given ethnic group. Wiping them out would be genocide.

No, killing an entire ethnic, political, or religious group; or at least attempting it; is genocide.

Killing something because of what it is constitutes the logical extreme of hostile racism.

Though honestly, if you're going to be racist, the race that's most likely to kill you for fun is probably a good group to oppose.

No one is trying to kill only the good fiends.

SowZ
2013-12-23, 06:07 AM
No, killing an entire ethnic, political, or religious group; or at least attempting it; is genocide.

Killing something because of what it is constitutes the logical extreme of hostile racism.

Though honestly, if you're going to be racist, the race that's most likely to kill you for fun is probably a good group to oppose.

No one is trying to kill only the good fiends.

Hostile racism, genocide; tomato, tomatoe.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-23, 06:28 AM
Hostile racism, genocide; tomato, tomatoe.

Yeah, no.

Genocide requires actual killing. Hostile racism only goes to killing at its extreme. A more moderate form would be something like snubbing the orc who came into your bar for a drink because he's an orc.

Genocide is leveled against fiends in general, not on good fiends in particular.

Good fiends would most closely constitute a religious organization. Genocide leveled against them would be because of hatred for their ideas. Good characters wouldn't do that. They'd be trying to kill them because they're fiends and would likely never think to ask about their ideas under the assumption that their ideas include fried baby hors d' oeuvres and playing soccer with a ball made of puppies. They'd be killed as an unfortunate consequence of cosmic good's war against fiends in general.

This aside about the proper use of genocide is beside the point.

Killing fiends is always a good act and to rule otherwise because of the extremely rare circumstance of a good fiend, which would be utterly indistinguishable from his kin, is an absurd decision to even consider. It sets a terrible precedent and makes epitomizing good, an already difficult task, virtually impossible since it means killing -anything- requires you to allow them to commit evil to verify their status before you attack. This also has the undesirable effect of tipping the balance in favor of evil.

Seriously, even angels would have to wait until a given fiend corrupted or killed a mortal before they could act against it. You're advocating that good cede the initiative in the war against evil and stripping it of any reasonable way to gain any momentum.

SowZ
2013-12-23, 07:19 AM
Yeah, no.

Genocide requires actual killing. Hostile racism only goes to killing at its extreme. A more moderate form would be something like snubbing the orc who came into your bar for a drink because he's an orc.

Genocide is leveled against fiends in general, not on good fiends in particular.

Good fiends would most closely constitute a religious organization. Genocide leveled against them would be because of hatred for their ideas. Good characters wouldn't do that. They'd be trying to kill them because they're fiends and would likely never think to ask about their ideas under the assumption that their ideas include fried baby hors d' oeuvres and playing soccer with a ball made of puppies. They'd be killed as an unfortunate consequence of cosmic good's war against fiends in general.

This aside about the proper use of genocide is beside the point.

Killing fiends is always a good act and to rule otherwise because of the extremely rare circumstance of a good fiend, which would be utterly indistinguishable from his kin, is an absurd decision to even consider. It sets a terrible precedent and makes epitomizing good, an already difficult task, virtually impossible since it means killing -anything- requires you to allow them to commit evil to verify their status before you attack. This also has the undesirable effect of tipping the balance in favor of evil.

Seriously, even angels would have to wait until a given fiend corrupted or killed a mortal before they could act against it. You're advocating that good cede the initiative in the war against evil and stripping it of any reasonable way to gain any momentum.

I'm asking good not to cross a line which makes them significantly less distinguishable from evil, yes. Saying, "You cannot kill things because their skin is a different color than yours and because of what you've been taught about them and what your past experiences dictate and because of what they'll most likely do, no matter what the creature is," is not so absurd it isn't even worth considering.

Shoot, that same line of reasoning that says, "it's senseless to even consider the rights of these particular good sapient beings because that will make it way to hard for good to fight them," is eerily similar to arguments used to defend courtrooms where you are guilty until proven innocent.

What I hear you saying is, "By those rules, Good could never execute someone for a crime they didn't commit and would be unable to kill people until they did something deserving of it." To which I say. "Yes." That's the law everyone has to follow. Cops can't shoot someone because he looks suspicous. The cop can keep an eye on him, though, and jump in if needs be. And angels could still interfere and save a person from attempted murder.

You say my decision gives evil an edge. I say screw it, if 'Good' is willing to wholesale slaughter other good beings just because they decide that one day those beings will probably kill again, and because they can't be bothered to check if the victims of their rampant genocide are deserving because they all look the same, then that isn't any group I want any affiliation with and I certainly don't want them in charge of the universe.

SiuiS
2013-12-23, 07:38 AM
Sure it does. Killing any living creature simply for existing is evil with exceptions. This is what BoED says, albeit paraphrased. The statement in BoVD gives one such exception and takes it a step further by saying that killing fiends is -always- a good act.

Always a good act! Still also always an evil one. Because as I laid out, it can be both.



I contest the underlined statement. For one, science never comes into the picture here. We're talking about metaphysics in a fantasy game.

We are talking the rational dissection of rules and mathematics laid out in systemic fashion. Out rational discussion and dissection is science, science being a process and a body of knowledge acquired by that process.

Here you go, have fun with this.

• a destroyed soul is irrevocably destroyed. It cannot be raised or ressurected.
• a soul cannot be harmed by conventional means. Only attacks or effects which specifically call out being able to affect a soul can do so. A sword stroke is actually specifically called out as being incapable of destroying a soul.
• a slain petitioner is not irrevocably destroyed and can be raised or ressurected.
• a petitioner can be harmed by conventional means.
• a petitioner is not destroyed by effects which specifically are called out as being able to destroy souls.

Given all this is true; you're wrong. And you haven't even bothered disproving any of it, you've just kept saying "petitioners are souls, your argument is invalid". If it is not affected by soul affecting things, it is not a soul. That's fairly straightforward.



How, pray, is killing a creature different from destroying it? The two terms are used synonymously in the rules as the terms for utterly depleting a creature of its hp until it's no longer capable of functioning.


A creature still exists when it has no hit points. It's body becomes an object, until this condition is repaired. Constructs or undead are called out as destroyed when reduced to zero hit points. Outsiders rarely are.

Further, destruction of a soul is different, specifically, from destruction of a creature. It had its own rules, consequences and subsystems. These rules, consequences and subsystems do not apply to outsiders, petitioners, or creatures in general.



So you're still contesting the fact that petitioners are souls then.

We're not arguing a single point here. There are two; 1) outsiders are souls and 2) killing a creature is synonymous with destroying it.

Outsiders are not souls, they possess a single soul-body unit. A nonoutsider is likewise not simply their body.

Destroying a creature is not synonymous with destroying a soul, because [see above].



As I have pointed out, an outsider's body and soul are one unit. This is clearly and explicitly stated in the MM. You cannot affect one without affecting both.

And when you kill one, their "soul" is right there. It can easily be fixed and put back together, good as new. This is explicitly something that does not happen to souls. If souls cannot be fixed, and an outsider can be fixed without needing an exception due to beig a soul, then there is no need for an exception, the 'soul destruction. Is permanent and non-reversible' rule is still in effect, and outsiders, both impermanent in death and reversible in death, are clearly not souls due to not meeting any criteria in the game for being a soul except the line that says they have one, but it's not separate.

I also contest that destroy and kill are synonymous rules terms for creatures but it's not relevant to my argument, because destroy is a separate rules term from destroy and destroy, depending on whether targeting creatures, objects, or souls.

SiuiS
2013-12-23, 08:00 AM
Hmm. My posts are starting to seem antagonistic, so I'll summarize and risk a double post.


That destroying a soul is evil is rules text. That an outsider possesses a single body-soul unit is rules text. That killing an outsider destroys a soul is ontological surmise. And no matter how far we get, you have not been able to prove this as a game construct beyond surmise.

It is firmly in the realm of DM decision whether or not this is true. I can follow the logic but it does not have the weight of rules, because it requires ignoring other, specific rules without making exception of them.

It's understandable, but not RAW. It's RAI.

Scow2
2013-12-23, 04:55 PM
Where is "Destroying a soul is evil" have rules text?

The BoED and BoVD do not have any valid Rulestext when it comes to alignment, only unenforcable guidelines to help understand the cosmic forces.

However, these forces are Good and Evil, not Law. They are not bound to deontological definitions and rigid phrases.

Scow2
2013-12-23, 05:08 PM
I'm asking good not to cross a line which makes them significantly less distinguishable from evil, yes. Saying, "You cannot kill things because their skin is a different color than yours and because of what you've been taught about them and what your past experiences dictate and because of what they'll most likely do, no matter what the creature is," is not so absurd it isn't even worth considering.

Shoot, that same line of reasoning that says, "it's senseless to even consider the rights of these particular good sapient beings because that will make it way to hard for good to fight them," is eerily similar to arguments used to defend courtrooms where you are guilty until proven innocent.

What I hear you saying is, "By those rules, Good could never execute someone for a crime they didn't commit and would be unable to kill people until they did something deserving of it." To which I say. "Yes." That's the law everyone has to follow. Cops can't shoot someone because he looks suspicous. The cop can keep an eye on him, though, and jump in if needs be. And angels could still interfere and save a person from attempted murder.

You say my decision gives evil an edge. I say screw it, if 'Good' is willing to wholesale slaughter other good beings just because they decide that one day those beings will probably kill again, and because they can't be bothered to check if the victims of their rampant genocide are deserving because they all look the same, then that isn't any group I want any affiliation with and I certainly don't want them in charge of the universe.So, now you're saying real-world discriminated-against races are made of incarnate evil?

We're not talking about people here. We are talking about manifestations of Cosmic Evil. As long as there are Fiends in the world, there will be Evil - no matter what that Fiend's alignment is. Good is incompatible with Evil

Yes, fiends ARE the exception to Good's "Do not kill based on prejudice", because Evil is a **** and specifically made Fiends to be a justification of racism. The "Racists" aren't evil when they're right.

A "Good" fiend is still Evil - As long as it exists, there will be Evil around it. Of course, a fiend is also defined in part as an Evil Outsider - if it's not Evil, it's not a Fiend. And, the rules are not meant to support Nonevil Fiends, Nongood Celestials (Fallen celestials become fiends), or nonlawful Inevitables. The succubus paladin breaks RAW and RAI - but is not the only case of a character WotC thought would be 'interesting' explicitly breaking the rules of the game.

In fact, by RAW, good fiends are supposed to become Sanctified creatures, which are [Good], not [Evil] outsiders (And no longer fiends).

paddyfool
2013-12-23, 05:15 PM
Edit: Special rant for poison! That would be one of those "stupid parts" I mentioned. AFAICT, it comes from medieval chivalry. Which ultimately, in this case, boils down to "Being a knight takes a lot of training and equipment, supporting the stability of the social order. If some jerkass peasant with a poisoned spear can defeat a knight, that throws the feudal system all out of whack. So therefore, it is bad." Since very little of that applies in D&D, and the feudal system isn't an inherent "good" anyway, the concept is dumb.

It's not just that. Using poison in a contest of blades, in the age of chivalry or any other time, is arguably worse still than using a blade in a contest of fists. It's not only cheating, but it will generally only hurt your opponent after the battle is done, in a slow, lingering and painful way (if you're going with a simple medieval poison such as covering your blade in faeces and/or rotting flesh so that the wounds get infected, or indeed a natural necrotising venom, such as many forms of snake venom). There's an ethical obstacle to killing your opponent off the battlefield, rather than on it - both because there are rules in many cultures as to when and where wars are fought, and because the use of many poisons does not constitute an act of self-defence, since they're too slow-acting to affect the fight itself (although some are, e.g. fast-acting neurotoxins such as curare).

But yes, the evil is in the specific action, not the general thing itself. I'd say the use of a slow-acting, debilitating and painful venom that, say, rots the victim's flesh leaving them disfigured and disabled for life (in the absence of magical healing, which kind of skews things) is an "almost always evil" act, myself, but even there there may be room for exceptions.

SowZ
2013-12-23, 05:28 PM
It's not just that. Using poison in a contest of blades, in the age of chivalry or any other time, is arguably worse still than using a blade in a contest of fists. It's not only cheating, but it will generally only hurt your opponent after the battle is done, in a slow, lingering and painful way (if you're going with a simple medieval poison such as covering your blade in faeces and/or rotting flesh so that the wounds get infected, or indeed a natural necrotising venom, such as many forms of snake venom). There's an ethical obstacle to killing your opponent off the battlefield, rather than on it - both because there are rules in many cultures as to when and where wars are fought, and because the use of many poisons does not constitute an act of self-defence, since they're too slow-acting to affect the fight itself (although some are, e.g. fast-acting neurotoxins such as curare).

But yes, the evil is in the specific action, not the general thing itself. I'd say the use of a slow-acting, debilitating and painful venom that, say, rots the victim's flesh leaving them disfigured and disabled for life (in the absence of magical healing, which kind of skews things) is an "almost always evil" act, myself, but even there there may be room for exceptions.

Not in D&D though. Poisons are likely to kill you just as fast as a stab, since enemies left at -1 are going to bleed out and poison is insanely fast acting in D&D.

Scow2
2013-12-23, 05:31 PM
Not in D&D though. Poisons are likely to kill you just as fast as a stab, since enemies left at -1 are going to bleed out and poison is insanely fast acting in D&D.

Negligible damage immediate, and having to wait 10 more rounds (Or was it 100?) before it has a chance of killing you? That's not fast-acting.

I don't know of ANY "Instant-death" poisons in D&D - none do HP damage, none deal more than 6 instant-CON damage, and none have "Kill" primary.

123456789blaaa
2013-12-23, 05:32 PM
<snip>
Souls of people that die to natural causes go to their home plane. Souls of people who are ritually sacrificed go to the plane of whom they are sacrificed to. Yes, it DOES mean the saintly martyr who is ritually sacrificed by the greatest elder evil goes to the Abyss/Carceri/Hell. That's what makes the process so EVIL.
<snip>


Can I get a source for this? I know that beings that accept the worship of Demon Princes before they're sacrificed go to their layer despite the alignment of the creature (it's in all the Demonomicon articles in Dragon mag).

I found this:


WHAT IS A SACRIFICE?
Sacrifice is the offering of the life of a sentient being to an evil deity or powerful fiend. The victim is trussed, tied, or otherwise immobilized so that a ceremony may be conducted that culminates with the murder. In many rituals, blood is a sacred symbol of life. When that blood spills during the ritual murder of an innocent creature, the blood (and sometimes even the soul of the creature) is dedicated to a nether power of malevolence. Bloodless forms of killing, such as strangulation and drowning, are possible during sacrifices, but usually those that are despicable enough to practice this profane art prefer bloodier deeds.

In the BOVD.

Your statement was much more broad though.

veti
2013-12-23, 05:37 PM
Are we really arguing based on the RAW definitions in the BoED / BoVD? Because those books - have issues, to put it mildly. And unless you're running a surrealist / parody campaign, then I would put "alignment makes any damn sense" way the hell above "the exact wording in some splatbook". In the same way that I would say "Ha, no" to the peasant railgun or drown-healing. The books are not all-knowing wisdom, no need to canonize the stupid parts.

This. They're splatbooks. Aids to understanding, not cast-iron rules.


Edit: Special rant for poison! That would be one of those "stupid parts" I mentioned. AFAICT, it comes from medieval chivalry. Which ultimately, in this case, boils down to "Being a knight takes a lot of training and equipment, supporting the stability of the social order. If some jerkass peasant with a poisoned spear can defeat a knight, that throws the feudal system all out of whack. So therefore, it is bad." Since very little of that applies in D&D, and the feudal system isn't an inherent "good" anyway, the concept is dumb.

For me, the "stupid parts" would include any assumption that our real-world concepts of good and evil are in any way whatsoever transferrable into a world with a completely different social, economic and political order.

My favourite DM would say something like "it's not that poison is 'evil', exactly, it's more that it's beneath you. If word got around that you couldn't beat this poser without resorting to trickery like that, your reputation would be permanently flushed. And could you live with a guilty secret like that?"

SavageWombat
2013-12-23, 05:57 PM
Carceri is the ultimate destination for souls who betray their humanity, that are NE with C tendencies. Souls there eventually join the plane.

Carceri is ALSO, because of its nature, a horrible prison that's hard to escape. So cosmic forces, like the Greek Gods, use it as a prison for powerful entities that deserve punishment. Regardless of alignment.

Carceri, much like criticisms of the modern prison system, seeks to turn all those who dwell there into a reflection of itself, so that they then BECOME NE with C tendencies and can be absorbed by the plane.

Carceri was not designed by the forces of law in any way. But they find it useful. There's no justice here.

Great debate - carry on.

SowZ
2013-12-23, 06:26 PM
Negligible damage immediate, and having to wait 10 more rounds (Or was it 100?) before it has a chance of killing you? That's not fast-acting.

I don't know of ANY "Instant-death" poisons in D&D - none do HP damage, none deal more than 6 instant-CON damage, and none have "Kill" primary.

It's ten rounds later before you die. But that's not my point. My point is that if you stab someone with a sword that brings them to -1 HP, they will nine more rounds dying. If that same sword is poisoned, an extra 1d6 Con will speed up the process.

Anyway, someone dying one minute after being stabbed is hardly the sort of thing anyone would blink at in medieval times. Most people take longer to die from that after getting hit with a waraxe, And if it isn't a Con poison, it is non-lethal. That's how it is. If someone takes Str, Dex, Int, Wis, or Cha, damage you are doing them a great kindness above killing them because they cannot die from it. It's impossible. In fact, over time, they will 100% recover, 100% of the time, unless something else kills them in the meantime.

Lethal poisons usually speed up the process of dying in combat and all other poisons are non-lethal. So any of the moral reasons to be against poisons in the real world or historically do not exist in D&D. I think I would much rather be brought to 0 Dex, or stabbed once then take con damage, than be stabbed over and over until I died.

I find poisons to be more good than bad in D&D for these reasons.

paddyfool
2013-12-23, 06:49 PM
And my own description was kind of selective for the kind of real-world poisons you'd really have no reason to choose, whereas there are plenty of plant and animal venoms (mainly neurotoxins) which can be used to swiftly incapacitate or kill. Some without too many long-lasting side-effects in the event that they don't do the job of killing, but it's best not to discuss which.

The other "evil" in poisons, if there is one, is that they can be indiscriminate. Like a landmine, a poisoned weapon could inadvertently injure or kill the wrong person all too easily. Never mind a poisoned water source, or clouds of airborne poison. But again, the evil here is in the use, rather than the thing itself.

AMFV
2013-12-23, 06:57 PM
The reason why poisons are considered immoral (and are illegal in real warfare) is because they cause greater suffering than simply stabbing somebody. I'm not sure if the same thing has been illustrated in D&D, but if it has then it could be the same reasoning.

Because in the real world, weapons have to be designed to kill in a manner that is not designed to be cruel or cause undue suffering. There's actually international committees designed to preserve this, and most military weapons have to be tested by them, to ensure that they are not designed to make people suffer.

NichG
2013-12-23, 07:44 PM
The reason why poisons are considered immoral (and are illegal in real warfare) is because they cause greater suffering than simply stabbing somebody. I'm not sure if the same thing has been illustrated in D&D, but if it has then it could be the same reasoning.

Because in the real world, weapons have to be designed to kill in a manner that is not designed to be cruel or cause undue suffering. There's actually international committees designed to preserve this, and most military weapons have to be tested by them, to ensure that they are not designed to make people suffer.

There's a lot of variation on how much suffering a given weapon can do. A gunshot to the head is quick, but a gunshot to the stomach would be a slow, painful death. An explosive could kill instantly, or leave someone without a limb for the rest of their life.

In some sense, poisons are going to be a lot more consistent. Death by curare is probably about the same whether its introduced via the leg or the chest.

Whether or not death by curare causes more or less suffering than death by a bleeding stomach wound, I couldn't say. Curare probably feels like asphyxiation, but I've never been shot so I don't have a frame of reference to compare it with.

I have no doubt that if there were really an interest in developing a 'humane poison', one could be invented in fairly short order. You'd basically just need an anaesthetic component that knocks the target unconscious before it does horrible things to their internal organs, suffocates them, etc. My guess is though that single-target poison would just not be worth the trouble in modern warfare. If you hit someone, its probably good odds that you take them out of commission even if its not a lethal wound - and from a strategic point of view, every soldier you wound but leave alive means that the enemy forces have to dedicate resources to maintaining, transporting, and protecting someone who isn't fighting back.

AMFV
2013-12-23, 07:47 PM
There's a lot of variation on how much suffering a given weapon can do. A gunshot to the head is quick, but a gunshot to the stomach would be a slow, painful death. An explosive could kill instantly, or leave someone without a limb for the rest of their life.

In some sense, poisons are going to be a lot more consistent. Death by curare is probably about the same whether its introduced via the leg or the chest.

Whether or not death by curare causes more or less suffering than death by a bleeding stomach wound, I couldn't say. Curare probably feels like asphyxiation, but I've never been shot so I don't have a frame of reference to compare it with.

I have no doubt that if there were really an interest in developing a 'humane poison', one could be invented in fairly short order. You'd basically just need an anaesthetic component that knocks the target unconscious before it does horrible things to their internal organs, suffocates them, etc. My guess is though that single-target poison would just not be worth the trouble in modern warfare. If you hit someone, its probably good odds that you take them out of commission even if its not a lethal wound - and from a strategic point of view, every soldier you wound but leave alive means that the enemy forces have to dedicate resources to maintaining, transporting, and protecting someone who isn't fighting back.

Well that could be argued, but shooting somebody in the head isn't illegal, and poisons are. People have made the argument that poisons cause undue suffering. So they are illegal. Also poisons are hard to obtain and difficult to manufacture, it's why there are lots of problems with making sure that there is a steady supply of materials to use for lethal injection for people.

In any case, both explosives and guns are legal in warfare, poisons are not. So there is at least some precedent for that morality, in D&D.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-23, 08:24 PM
I'm asking good not to cross a line which makes them significantly less distinguishable from evil, yes. Saying, "You cannot kill things because their skin is a different color than yours and because of what you've been taught about them and what your past experiences dictate and because of what they'll most likely do, no matter what the creature is," is not so absurd it isn't even worth considering.The problem is that you're asking them to take that stance against an entire class of beings that are -overwhelmingly- beyond redemption and ultimately doomed to return to evil unless slain under the -extremely- rare circumstance that they're currently good.

Slaying a fiend is breaking up a lump of concentrated evil that -will- try to move outside its native realm, spreading evil through the cosmos whether it is their intention or not. If it happens to be of a good alignment at the time you're preventing it from returning to evil as much as you are preventing it from acting for good.


Shoot, that same line of reasoning that says, "it's senseless to even consider the rights of these particular good sapient beings because that will make it way to hard for good to fight them," is eerily similar to arguments used to defend courtrooms where you are guilty until proven innocent. As unpleasant as it sounds, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

We're not talking about creatures with the same thoughts and feelings as human beings. In virtually, but not literally, all cases these creatures are completely beyond reasoning and persuasion that their evil nature is wrong and should be changed. In -all- cases that they actually are convinced of that they -will- return to evil, unless they're slain, because they have to deal with a literally endless amount of temptation over the course of eternity.

Anything with a non-zero chance of occurrence will happen given an infinite number of opportunities.


What I hear you saying is, "By those rules, Good could never execute someone for a crime they didn't commit and would be unable to kill people until they did something deserving of it." To which I say. "Yes." That's the law everyone has to follow. Cops can't shoot someone because he looks suspicous. The cop can keep an eye on him, though, and jump in if needs be. And angels could still interfere and save a person from attempted murder.

You say my decision gives evil an edge. I say screw it, if 'Good' is willing to wholesale slaughter other good beings just because they decide that one day those beings will probably kill again, and because they can't be bothered to check if the victims of their rampant genocide are deserving because they all look the same, then that isn't any group I want any affiliation with and I certainly don't want them in charge of the universe.
With -any- other set of creatures this argument would carry some weight but not with fiends.

The forces of good are not cops. They're soldiers in an endless war and fiends are the common, uniformed foot-soldiers, officers, and generals of the enemy. If the opportunity presents itself to convert one of them, taking it is a noble thing to do, but it's not an opportunity that will present itself with enough frequency to make trying to convert the enemy an acceptable general policy if good is to have any chance of -ever- winning.


Always a good act! Still also always an evil one. Because as I laid out, it can be both.On this we'll simply have to agree to disagree.




We are talking the rational dissection of rules and mathematics laid out in systemic fashion. Out rational discussion and dissection is science, science being a process and a body of knowledge acquired by that process.That's true but it's not what you said even if it's what you meant.


Here you go, have fun with this.Okay, lets.


• a destroyed soul is irrevocably destroyed. It cannot be raised or ressurected.Show me this rule.

As a counter argument in absence of this rule, the ritual of renaming in ToM can bring back into being a creature who has been utterly snuffed from reality as a whole.

• a soul cannot be harmed by conventional means. Only attacks or effects which specifically call out being able to affect a soul can do so. A sword stroke is actually specifically called out as being incapable of destroying a soul.Again, show me where this is written.

• a slain petitioner is not irrevocably destroyed and can be raised or ressurected.This is almost true. They can be ressurected by true-res or revived by a spell that targets outsiders specifically but they cannot be raised by raise dead or even ressurection.

• a petitioner can be harmed by conventional means.Yeah.

• a petitioner is not destroyed by effects which specifically are called out as being able to destroy souls.False. Soul larvae, a form of petitioner native to the lower planes, can be used as an optional spell component. Incidentally, I found the passage that shows incorporeal undead to be souls as well. BoVD page 33, third paragraph under Souls as power, last sentence; "Even incorporeal undead can be used in this way if they can be imprisoned somehow."


Given all this is true; you're wrong. And you haven't even bothered disproving any of it, you've just kept saying "petitioners are souls, your argument is invalid". If it is not affected by soul affecting things, it is not a soul. That's fairly straightforward. If all of that was given. The first is questionable, the second lacks supporting rules text, and the last is verifiably wrong.




A creature still exists when it has no hit points. It's body becomes an object, until this condition is repaired. Constructs or undead are called out as destroyed when reduced to zero hit points. Outsiders rarely are.Spells exist to resurrect undead and constructs. This doesn't make them any less destroyed. Destroyed and killed are synonyms in regards to creatures and you have yet to prove that creatures and souls are explicitly separate when outsiders, particularly petitioners, are explicitly called out as being a single body-soul unit.


Further, destruction of a soul is different, specifically, from destruction of a creature. It had its own rules, consequences and subsystems. These rules, consequences and subsystems do not apply to outsiders, petitioners, or creatures in general.There are particular rules that give -extra- ways to destroy a soul but they're never called out as an exhaustive list and at least one of them does, in fact, apply to petitioners and incorporeal undead specifically.




Outsiders are not souls, they possess a single soul-body unit. A nonoutsider is likewise not simply their body.The first is yet to be proven and the second is a tautology. The same rule that explicitly states that outsiders' body and soul are the same unit states it as a direct contrast to other living creatures that have body and soul as separate units.



And when you kill one, their "soul" is right there. It can easily be fixed and put back together, good as new. This is explicitly something that does not happen to souls. If souls cannot be fixed, and an outsider can be fixed without needing an exception due to beig a soul, then there is no need for an exception, the 'soul destruction. Is permanent and non-reversible' rule is still in effect, and outsiders, both impermanent in death and reversible in death, are clearly not souls due to not meeting any criteria in the game for being a soul except the line that says they have one, but it's not separate.Again, if souls cannot be fixed. I'm unaware of any such rule existing to need explicit exception.

There are a handful of abilities that exist that explicitly consume the souls of those slain by them and that even wish or miracle are insufficient to bring the creature back to life, but only a handful explicitly spell out that gods have any trouble restoring the creature. None, to the best of my knowledge, say that the destroyed soul is completely beyond recovery by even the gods.


I also contest that destroy and kill are synonymous rules terms for creatures but it's not relevant to my argument, because destroy is a separate rules term from destroy and destroy, depending on whether targeting creatures, objects, or souls.

Creatures and objects are both destroyed under the same circumstance; their hp are depleted. The only reason that there's -any- contention on the same being true of souls is because the primary point of contention is whether or not every representation of a soul in the game has HP to deplete.

NichG
2013-12-23, 08:32 PM
Well that could be argued, but shooting somebody in the head isn't illegal, and poisons are. People have made the argument that poisons cause undue suffering. So they are illegal. Also poisons are hard to obtain and difficult to manufacture, it's why there are lots of problems with making sure that there is a steady supply of materials to use for lethal injection for people.

In any case, both explosives and guns are legal in warfare, poisons are not. So there is at least some precedent for that morality, in D&D.

I think its more just that, there are arbitrary elements to the D&D moral system. Call it a cultural or historical or cosmic bias or whatever.

The usual demonstrative example is that in D&D you can use elemental acid to attack your enemies. Actual wounds from acid burns are really horrific, and yet it isn't considered evil to use acid-based attacks.

Its far less confusing if you look at it like:

D&D alignment is designed to mimic medieval, chivalric codes. There were cultural factors behind those codes that don't exist in the modern day, or even in the assumed D&D setting. Therefore, you're likely to find a few arbitrary things thrown in there. The 'actual' explanations need not be in-character ones.

And when it comes down to it, you can basically use whatever interpretation of alignment you like at your table and fix what feels inconsistent. Alignment is not the only place in the game where the RAW have weird consequences.

AMFV
2013-12-23, 08:35 PM
I think its more just that, there are arbitrary elements to the D&D moral system. Call it a cultural or historical or cosmic bias or whatever.

The usual demonstrative example is that in D&D you can use elemental acid to attack your enemies. Actual wounds from acid burns are really horrific, and yet it isn't considered evil to use acid-based attacks.

Its far less confusing if you look at it like:

D&D alignment is designed to mimic medieval, chivalric codes. There were cultural factors behind those codes that don't exist in the modern day, or even in the assumed D&D setting. Therefore, you're likely to find a few arbitrary things thrown in there. The 'actual' explanations need not be in-character ones.

And when it comes down to it, you can basically use whatever interpretation of alignment you like at your table and fix what feels inconsistent. Alignment is not the only place in the game where the RAW have weird consequences.

Except that poison is illegal in a modern setting as well... In fact there's a strong argument to be made for it causing more suffering. Poisons in D&D are typically described in ways that would induce suffering. Also dosage is difficult, it's hard to kill somebody with poison, so you could wind up causing suffering when otherwise you could just kill somebody, by shooting them in the head. Or stabbing in D&D.

Angelalex242
2013-12-23, 09:06 PM
Slaying fiends vs. Racism/Genocide.

When you slay fiends for being fiends, you are not a Nazi saying the fiends are Jews.

Fiends are the equivalent of Lucifer, Beezelebub, and so on. The 1/3 of the angelic hosts that fell when Lucifer did and got renamed Satan. We're talking about killing those fallen angels, not humans of any sort. Thus, laws of what's moral to do to a human cannot be likewise used when referencing fallen angels. Doctrine typically says these fallen angels, like Satan himself, are well beyond redemption. There's no such thing as a fallen angel repenting. It just doesn't happen. Not even once. Not one recorded case. WOTC can make Succubus Paladins all it wants, but in real life, that idea is nonsense, for the fallen angels literally cannot reform. I'm pretty sure the angels that remained faithful to God up till now can't fall anymore either. Having passed their test, they just can't be tempted in that way again. They 'know better.'

I think the only reason we haven't killed fallen angels in real life is that excorcisms simply kick them out of a human and back into Hell. And thus, nobody actually knows how to kill them. We just know how to kick them out.

NichG
2013-12-23, 09:06 PM
Except that poison is illegal in a modern setting as well... In fact there's a strong argument to be made for it causing more suffering.

You haven't convinced me that being shot in the stomach is better than being dosed with curare. I don't really want to test this theory of course.

Consider the circumstances of the illegality of poisons in real life warfare. The kinds of poisons that people are concerned about aren't the sort you dip a bullet in and shoot someone with. They're wide-area dispersal chemical weapons. There are more concerns than 'poison hurts more than being shot' - things like 'what if a poison bomb spreads to a civilian target?', 'what if it gets into the water supply?' or even 'what if they use that one poison that is really really horrific?'

Given the era in which this legislation began (in response to widespread chemical weapons before and during WWI) and that there really isn't incentive to push for the use of poison in warfare (as I pointed out, dipping your bullets in curare would actually hurt your chances of victory - better leave a soldier wounded than dead), its not surprising to me that the legislation would simply outlaw 'all poison use' instead of 'the use of this specific list of poisons'. If you outlaw all poisons, it covers not only present issues but also future ones. If you outlaw specific poisons, someone just goes an invents some new cheap, horrible thing and deploys it.

If there were serious interest in using personal-scale poisons in warfare, we'd probably see the development of humane poisons and a push by signatory countries to get those specific poisons approved. But there's no point in doing that, because there's no reason anyone would want to bother given the nature of modern warfare.


Poisons in D&D are typically described in ways that would induce suffering. Also dosage is difficult, it's hard to kill somebody with poison, so you could wind up causing suffering when otherwise you could just kill somebody, by shooting them in the head. Or stabbing in D&D.

Dosage isn't actually an issue in D&D, at least by RAW. I can baste my sword in Black Lotus or use the minimum dose and the effect is the same. And if suffering is the issue, you haven't answered the example of using acid or fire spells to kill.

Heck, using the spell Stinking Cloud has no alignment hit in D&D, but it would probably be illegal under modern warfare conventions.

AMFV
2013-12-23, 09:12 PM
You haven't convinced me that being shot in the stomach is better than being dosed with curare. I don't really want to test this theory of course.

Consider the circumstances of the illegality of poisons in real life warfare. The kinds of poisons that people are concerned about aren't the sort you dip a bullet in and shoot someone with. They're wide-area dispersal chemical weapons. There are more concerns than 'poison hurts more than being shot' - things like 'what if a poison bomb spreads to a civilian target?', 'what if it gets into the water supply?' or even 'what if they use that one poison that is really really horrific?'

Given the era in which this legislation began (in response to widespread chemical weapons before and during WWI) and that there really isn't incentive to push for the use of poison in warfare (as I pointed out, dipping your bullets in curare would actually hurt your chances of victory - better leave a soldier wounded than dead), its not surprising to me that the legislation would simply outlaw 'all poison use' instead of 'the use of this specific list of poisons'. If you outlaw all poisons, it covers not only present issues but also future ones. If you outlaw specific poisons, someone just goes an invents some new cheap, horrible thing and deploys it.

If there were serious interest in using personal-scale poisons in warfare, we'd probably see the development of humane poisons and a push by signatory countries to get those specific poisons approved. But there's no point in doing that, because there's no reason anyone would want to bother given the nature of modern warfare.

It's as illegal in modern warfare to stab somebody with a poisoned knife as it is to gas them, furthermore gas isn't actually included in the laws against poisons. You can use tear gas, or gas your enemies to your heart's content, it hasn't been used because it's generally thought of as poor form, but it isn't against the laws of land warfare. Whereas poisons are. Interestingly enough.

Chemical warfare was banned under the Geneva protocals, which don't actually address the suffering caused by the weapons. That'd be a different international law issue. Poisoned weapons are banned for the same reason because they cause undue suffering.



Dosage isn't actually an issue in D&D, at least by RAW. I can baste my sword in Black Lotus or use the minimum dose and the effect is the same. And if suffering is the issue, you haven't answered the example of using acid or fire spells to kill.

Heck, using the spell Stinking Cloud has no alignment hit in D&D, but it would probably be illegal under modern warfare conventions.

It is though, because you may not do enough con damage to kill somebody, as such that would be painful without causing death. Ergo, undue suffering.

icefractal
2013-12-23, 09:19 PM
The simple answer to "poison is evil because it causes suffering" - Acid Fog. It is a cloud of acid that dissolves your lungs from the inside and burns off your skin. There is no way for that not to be horrifically painful, at least not if you die from it (if you survived, maybe you managed to mostly avoid it). And yet - no evil descriptor on that spell, not called out as an evil act anywhere.

And for that matter, I could point out that being stabbed in the gut is not exactly a pleasant experience, and that many poisons in D&D are entirely non-lethal - they have 0% chance to kill anyone or cause permanent damage.

I would say at the point that the RAW (from a splatbook, no less) goes completely against anyone's actual definition of "good", then it is no longer a useful guide to follow. Unless I'm playing a surrealist campaign, I have no interest in simulating an entirely alien set of ethics that happen to confusingly share names with commonly used concepts.

AMFV
2013-12-23, 09:25 PM
The simple answer to "poison is evil because it causes suffering" - Acid Fog. It is a cloud of acid that dissolves your lungs from the inside and burns off your skin. There is no way for that not to be horrifically painful, at least not if you die from it (if you survived, maybe you managed to mostly avoid it). And yet - no evil descriptor on that spell, not called out as an evil act anywhere.

If they are trying to make the case that it's based on the laws of warfare then using that spell is evil as well. So if you accept the reasoning behind that ruling, which I suspect is the reasoning behind it, then using the spell is evil. However lack of an evil tag doesn't make a spell evil, or else Deathwatch shouldn't be evil...



And for that matter, I could point out that being stabbed in the gut is not exactly a pleasant experience, and that many poisons in D&D are entirely non-lethal - they have 0% chance to kill anyone or cause permanent damage.


But Con Damage is probably exceedingly painful, if you are using something that isn't meant to cause death, but is meant to cause pain, that's pretty bad by real world standards.



I would say at the point that the RAW (from a splatbook, no less) goes completely against anyone's actual definition of "good", then it is no longer a useful guide to follow. Unless I'm playing a surrealist campaign, I have no interest in simulating an entirely alien set of ethics that happen to confusingly share names with commonly used concepts.

Poisons are against the laws of warfare, that's not surrealist, that's considered highly immoral in real life. Now, it could be okay to not consider it immoral in D&D, but it is hardly surreal to consider it immoral in real life.

The same way as barbed arrows are considered immoral in real life.

SowZ
2013-12-23, 09:25 PM
If they are trying to make the case that it's based on the laws of warfare then using that spell is evil as well. So if you accept the reasoning behind that ruling, which I suspect is the reasoning behind it, then using the spell is evil. However lack of an evil tag doesn't make a spell evil, or else Deathwatch shouldn't be evil...



But Con Damage is probably exceedingly painful, if you are using something that isn't meant to cause death, but is meant to cause pain, that's pretty bad by real world standards.



Poisons are against the laws of warfare, that's not surrealist, that's considered highly immoral in real life. Now, it could be okay to not consider it immoral in D&D, but it is hardly surreal to consider it immoral in real life.

The same way as barbed arrows are considered immoral in real life.

Non lethal weapons are often designed to be more painful then actual guns, but are considered humane.


The reason why poisons are considered immoral (and are illegal in real warfare) is because they cause greater suffering than simply stabbing somebody. I'm not sure if the same thing has been illustrated in D&D, but if it has then it could be the same reasoning.

Because in the real world, weapons have to be designed to kill in a manner that is not designed to be cruel or cause undue suffering. There's actually international committees designed to preserve this, and most military weapons have to be tested by them, to ensure that they are not designed to make people suffer.

But it has already been demonstrated that in D&D, stabbing someone with a poisoned knife will kill usually someone faster than just stabbing them with a short-sword. Also,those painful poison are typically lethal. Most aren't in D&D, even evil poisons. And there is nothing to indicate that taking Wisdom damage is more painful then being, say, hooked with a serrated polearm and having part of you torn out.

AMFV
2013-12-23, 09:34 PM
Non lethal weapons are often designed to be more painful then actual guns, but are considered humane.


They are considered inhumane if they are designed to cause more suffering than is necessary to subdue somebody. And they would be against the laws of war in that case.



But it has already been demonstrated that in D&D, stabbing someone with a poisoned knife will kill usually someone faster than just stabbing them with a short-sword. Also,those painful poison are typically lethal. Most aren't in D&D, even evil poisons. And there is nothing to indicate that taking Wisdom damage is more painful then being, say, hooked with a serrated polearm and having part of you torn out.

Would it kill them more painfully than is necessary? That's the fundamental rule. Also serrated polearms would probably be considered immoral in the current time. Since barbed arrows are also illegal according to the laws of land warfare, I'd imagine serrated polearms would be.

The rule is that nothing should cause undue or unnecessary suffering, now a poison would possibly cause undue suffering or suffering that is not proportional to the increase in speed that it takes for it to kill you, making it immoral.


There's a lot of variation on how much suffering a given weapon can do. A gunshot to the head is quick, but a gunshot to the stomach would be a slow, painful death. An explosive could kill instantly, or leave someone without a limb for the rest of their life.

In some sense, poisons are going to be a lot more consistent. Death by curare is probably about the same whether its introduced via the leg or the chest.

Dosage will start to matter then, and its an important factor.



Whether or not death by curare causes more or less suffering than death by a bleeding stomach wound, I couldn't say. Curare probably feels like asphyxiation, but I've never been shot so I don't have a frame of reference to compare it with.

And that may be defined as undue suffering, waterboarding is typically defined as torture by the international community, so the question is does it cause more pain than is necessary for it's military usefulness. It's a question of proportionality, and propriety, and there are precedents on both counts.



I have no doubt that if there were really an interest in developing a 'humane poison', one could be invented in fairly short order. You'd basically just need an anaesthetic component that knocks the target unconscious before it does horrible things to their internal organs, suffocates them, etc. My guess is though that single-target poison would just not be worth the trouble in modern warfare. If you hit someone, its probably good odds that you take them out of commission even if its not a lethal wound - and from a strategic point of view, every soldier you wound but leave alive means that the enemy forces have to dedicate resources to maintaining, transporting, and protecting someone who isn't fighting back.

There is an interest in it... for lethal injection in the US, and that interest has yet to produce a truly humane poison, and there have been significant problems with that. So I imagine that it's not really as feasible as you suggest.

Edit, corrected for accidental double post.

SowZ
2013-12-23, 09:44 PM
The problem is that you're asking them to take that stance against an entire class of beings that are -overwhelmingly- beyond redemption and ultimately doomed to return to evil unless slain under the -extremely- rare circumstance that they're currently good.

Slaying a fiend is breaking up a lump of concentrated evil that -will- try to move outside its native realm, spreading evil through the cosmos whether it is their intention or not. If it happens to be of a good alignment at the time you're preventing it from returning to evil as much as you are preventing it from acting for good.

As unpleasant as it sounds, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

We're not talking about creatures with the same thoughts and feelings as human beings. In virtually, but not literally, all cases these creatures are completely beyond reasoning and persuasion that their evil nature is wrong and should be changed. In -all- cases that they actually are convinced of that they -will- return to evil, unless they're slain, because they have to deal with a literally endless amount of temptation over the course of eternity.

Anything with a non-zero chance of occurrence will happen given an infinite number of opportunities.


With -any- other set of creatures this argument would carry some weight but not with fiends.

The forces of good are not cops. They're soldiers in an endless war and fiends are the common, uniformed foot-soldiers, officers, and generals of the enemy. If the opportunity presents itself to convert one of them, taking it is a noble thing to do, but it's not an opportunity that will present itself with enough frequency to make trying to convert the enemy an acceptable general policy if good is to have any chance of -ever- winning.

On this we'll simply have to agree to disagree.



That's true but it's not what you said even if it's what you meant.

Okay, lets.

Show me this rule.

As a counter argument in absence of this rule, the ritual of renaming in ToM can bring back into being a creature who has been utterly snuffed from reality as a whole.
Again, show me where this is written.
This is almost true. They can be ressurected by true-res or revived by a spell that targets outsiders specifically but they cannot be raised by raise dead or even ressurection.
Yeah.
False. Soul larvae, a form of petitioner native to the lower planes, can be used as an optional spell component. Incidentally, I found the passage that shows incorporeal undead to be souls as well. BoVD page 33, third paragraph under Souls as power, last sentence; "Even incorporeal undead can be used in this way if they can be imprisoned somehow."

If all of that was given. The first is questionable, the second lacks supporting rules text, and the last is verifiably wrong.



Spells exist to resurrect undead and constructs. This doesn't make them any less destroyed. Destroyed and killed are synonyms in regards to creatures and you have yet to prove that creatures and souls are explicitly separate when outsiders, particularly petitioners, are explicitly called out as being a single body-soul unit.

There are particular rules that give -extra- ways to destroy a soul but they're never called out as an exhaustive list and at least one of them does, in fact, apply to petitioners and incorporeal undead specifically.



The first is yet to be proven and the second is a tautology. The same rule that explicitly states that outsiders' body and soul are the same unit states it as a direct contrast to other living creatures that have body and soul as separate units.


Again, if souls cannot be fixed. I'm unaware of any such rule existing to need explicit exception.

There are a handful of abilities that exist that explicitly consume the souls of those slain by them and that even wish or miracle are insufficient to bring the creature back to life, but only a handful explicitly spell out that gods have any trouble restoring the creature. None, to the best of my knowledge, say that the destroyed soul is completely beyond recovery by even the gods.



Creatures and objects are both destroyed under the same circumstance; their hp are depleted. The only reason that there's -any- contention on the same being true of souls is because the primary point of contention is whether or not every representation of a soul in the game has HP to deplete.

Since it is senseless to even consider refraining slaughtering wholesale a group capable of Goodness, I see no point continuing the discussion, since I find the position that it is nonsense to even stop and seriously consider if murdering a good person is evil just because they were born into an evil group and are probably evil an equally preposterous position to hold.

There's no point discussing it if you find the whole concept ridiculous to even consider.


They are considered inhumane if they are designed to cause more suffering than is necessary to subdue somebody. And they would be against the laws of war in that case.



Would it kill them more painfully than is necessary? That's the fundamental rule. Also serrated polearms would probably be considered immoral in the current time. Since barbed arrows are also illegal according to the laws of land warfare, I'd imagine serrated polearms would be.

The rule is that nothing should cause undue or unnecessary suffering, now a poison would possibly cause undue suffering or suffering that is not proportional to the increase in speed that it takes for it to kill you, making it immoral.



Dosage will start to matter then, and its an important factor.



And that may be defined as undue suffering, waterboarding is typically defined as torture by the international community, so the question is does it cause more pain than is necessary for it's military usefulness. It's a question of proportionality, and propriety, and there are precedents on both counts.



There is an interest in it... for lethal injection in the US, and that interest has yet to produce a truly humane poison, and there have been significant problems with that. So I imagine that it's not really as feasible as you suggest.

Edit, corrected for accidental double post.

Well, very often you're options may be, "Use this poison," or "Kill them." If the poison is still evil, then this attempt to prevent undue suffering cause totally unnecessary death and doesn't even prevent that much suffering, because the victim still suffers when I ram a piece of metal through his bowels.

Then in that case, basically every evocation spell should be evil. There are definitely less painful options for a wizard than fire, cold, acid... Basically,any elemental spell. Pure telekinetic crushing damage is bound to be less painful than burning to death or having acid eat you away. So only one or two wizard spells aren't evil.

Also, most weapons should be evil. Because only a handful of weapons are going to be the 'least painful' so any other option is more pain than is necessary.

Also, there is no reason to think ability damage is particularly painful, especially mental.

AMFV
2013-12-23, 09:50 PM
Since it is senseless to even consider refraining slaughtering wholesale a group capable of Goodness, I see no point continuing the discussion, since I find the position that it is nonsense to even stop and seriously consider if murdering a good person is evil just because they were born into an evil group and are probably evil an equally preposterous position to hold.

There's no point discussing it if you find the whole concept ridiculous to even consider.



Well, very often you're options may be, "Use this poison," or "Kill them." If the poison is still evil, then this attempt to prevent undue suffering cause totally unnecessary death and doesn't even prevent that much suffering, because the victim still suffers when I ram a piece of metal through his bowels.

Then in that case, basically every evocation spell should be evil. There are definitely less painful options for a wizard than fire, cold, acid... Basically,any elemental spell. Pure telekinetic crushing damage is bound to be less painful than burning to death or having acid eat you away. So only one or two wizard spells aren't evil.

Also, most weapons should be evil. Because only a handful of weapons are going to be the 'least painful' so any other option is more pain than is necessary.

Also, there is no reason to think ability damage is particularly painful, especially mental.

It's not a non-painful option, it's proportionality. An option that is more painful than is required for it's military virtue is negative. In real life poisons cause more suffering than is required for their purpose... killing something. While a weapon is painful, it is not more painful than is required to kill you.

In real life there are a wide variety of weapons available, some of which cause bludgeoning damage, kill with impact, kill with fire. Many of which are still legal, since they don't cause "undue suffering" ergo they don't inflict more pain than is necessary. A fireball for example in D&D, does damage over a wide area, is relatively instantaneous and is therefore probably okay, at least as far as modern laws of war go.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-23, 09:59 PM
Since it is senseless to even consider refraining slaughtering wholesale a group capable of Goodness, I see no point continuing the discussion, since I find the position that it is nonsense to even stop and seriously consider if murdering a good person is evil just because they were born into an evil group and are probably evil an equally preposterous position to hold.

There's no point discussing it if you find the whole concept ridiculous to even consider.

There's a difference between being capable of something in what is, in the grand scheme of things, extremely limited amounts and simply being different for lack of exposure to different ideas.

Fiends, unlike almost all mortal creatures, are -born- evil. They grow up doing evil as a matter of course, in the unusual circumstance that they even are born and grow up in the traditional sense, and they -enjoy- it. Most spring into existence fully formed with the ideas that embody evil and the intent to act on and spread those ideas as far as they can. Most aren't even capable of wrapping their minds around the concepts of good, particularly the mindless ones like dretches, nuperribos, manes, etc.

You're trying to apply human morality to something inherently inhuman. This is as utterly absurd as my argument would be if it was applied to most mortal creatures.

SowZ
2013-12-23, 09:59 PM
It's not a non-painful option, it's proportionality. An option that is more painful than is required for it's military virtue is negative. In real life poisons cause more suffering than is required for their purpose... killing something. While a weapon is painful, it is not more painful than is required to kill you.

In real life there are a wide variety of weapons available, some of which cause bludgeoning damage, kill with impact, kill with fire. Many of which are still legal, since they don't cause "undue suffering" ergo they don't inflict more pain than is necessary. A fireball for example in D&D, does damage over a wide area, is relatively instantaneous and is therefore probably okay, at least as far as modern laws of war go.

By what I've been reading, what matters is if it is unnecessary suffering. Less painful options than fireball exist, so that would make fireball evil. Also, less painful weapons exist than, say, a maul, so a maul should be evil. Also, by these rules, any damage over time spell should be very evil.

If you say, "Well, you can use more effective weapons even if they are more painful because effectiveness is important." Well, poison sword is more effective than not poisoned sword. And is still fairly quick, quicker than killing by not poisoned swords. Is it more painful? Maybe, but there is no strong reason to think so.

Besides, saying, "Okay, a spiked chain is painful but just baaarely ethical but poison crosses the line," is fairly arbitrary. Also, using non lethal poisons may be painful, but you keep assuming there are better non-lethal options. Often, poison is the best non lethal option available and 100% of the time causes 0 permanent damage. Would it be better to kill or permanently maim the person?

SowZ
2013-12-23, 10:00 PM
There's a difference between being capable of something in what is, in the grand scheme of things, extremely limited amounts and simply being different for lack of exposure to different ideas.

Fiends, unlike almost all mortal creatures, are -born- evil. They grow up doing evil as a matter of course, in the unusual circumstance that they even are born and grow up in the traditional sense, and they -enjoy- it. Most spring into existence fully formed with the ideas that embody evil and the intent to act on and spread those ideas as far as they can. Most aren't even capable of wrapping their minds around the concepts of good, particularly the mindless ones like dretches, nuperribos, manes, etc.

You're trying to apply human morality to something inherently inhuman. This is as utterly absurd as my argument would be if it was applied to most mortal creatures.

And I think it is utterly absurd to mindlessly accept genocide and say that it is absurd to give any serious consideration of, "Maybe we should't kill this good creature."

Also, if we don't have to apply our morality to fiends, what makes raping and torturing a fiend evil? It's absurd to apply human morality , after all.

You are saying that the goodness of killing fiends is self-evident. We can't get anywhere, because I'm never going to accept that the goodness of killing is ever self-evident. Even a mosquito. Sometimes it is justified, but because of reasons. Not because it is absurd to consider not killing it.

AMFV
2013-12-23, 10:03 PM
By what I've been reading, what matters is if it is unnecessary suffering. Less painful options than fireball exist, so that would make fireball evil. Also, less painful weapons exist than, say, a maul, so a maul should be evil. Also, by these rules, any damage over time spell should be very evil.

But is its suffering in line with it's effectiveness?



If you say, "Well, you can use more effective weapons even if they are more painful because effectiveness is important." Well, poison sword is more effective than not poisoned sword. And is still fairly quick, quicker than killing by not poisoned swords. Is it more painful? Maybe, but there is no strong reason to think so.

Well if we default to standard real world rules it is more painful. Which would mean it would probably be against the laws of land warfare, it's a complex issue. And difficult to define. I personally think the prohibition is stupid. But in the real world those laws exist.



Besides, saying, "Okay, a spiked chain is painful but just baaarely ethical but poison crosses the line," is fairly arbitrary. Also, using non lethal poisons may be painful, but you keep assuming there are better non-lethal options. Often, poison is the best non lethal option available and 100% of the time causes 0 permanent damage. Would it be better to kill or permanently maim the person?

Damage is pretty much permanent unless it's healed. And it may be excrutiatingly painful. Sleep is a better non-lethal option. Daze is a better nonlethal option. Mindrape is a better non-lethal option.

SowZ
2013-12-23, 10:05 PM
But is its suffering in line with it's effectiveness?



Well if we default to standard real world rules it is more painful. Which would mean it would probably be against the laws of land warfare, it's a complex issue. And difficult to define. I personally think the prohibition is stupid. But in the real world those laws exist.



Damage is pretty much permanent unless it's healed. And it may be excrutiatingly painful. Sleep is a better non-lethal option. Daze is a better nonlethal option. Mindrape is a better non-lethal option.

No, ability damage is temporary with poisons. Also, I'd argue poisons are effective. Just like spiked chains are effective. Saying poisons are evil, irrespective of their effectiveness in a given situation or improved killing speed or non-lethality is a major logical oversight in the rules, I think.

AMFV
2013-12-23, 10:37 PM
No, ability damage is temporary with poisons. Also, I'd argue poisons are effective. Just like spiked chains are effective. Saying poisons are evil, irrespective of their effectiveness in a given situation or improved killing speed or non-lethality is a major logical oversight in the rules, I think.

I think it's based on an interpretation of modern laws of warfare. Which may or may not be logical when applied to the same sort of rules as we have in D&D.

SowZ
2013-12-23, 10:48 PM
I think it's based on an interpretation of modern laws of warfare. Which may or may not be logical when applied to the same sort of rules as we have in D&D.

Poison in RL is as comparable to Poison in D&D as Heavy Machine Guns are comparable to Magic Missile.

AMFV
2013-12-23, 10:58 PM
Poison in RL is as comparable to Poison in D&D as Heavy Machine Guns are comparable to Magic Missile.

Heavy Machine Guns don't have the same intended purpose in real life so that would be a bad comparison, they'd be much more like grease, or Evard's Black Tentacles in their operation, and they're actually pretty close on those counts. I believe that the section in the BoVD where it discusses poisons does discuss the painful aspects of them as well, as does the description of each poison, so they are defined as being painful, so then you'd have the question of necessity. Which I'm fairly sure that the pain they cause may not be proportional to the necessity of their use. So questionable at best.

SowZ
2013-12-23, 11:18 PM
Heavy Machine Guns don't have the same intended purpose in real life so that would be a bad comparison, they'd be much more like grease, or Evard's Black Tentacles in their operation, and they're actually pretty close on those counts. I believe that the section in the BoVD where it discusses poisons does discuss the painful aspects of them as well, as does the description of each poison, so they are defined as being painful, so then you'd have the question of necessity. Which I'm fairly sure that the pain they cause may not be proportional to the necessity of their use. So questionable at best.

Yeah, the use of poison in RL is as far removed from the use of poison in D&d as heavy machine guns are from magic missile. Poisons are usually to make someone sick and die from infection or something. Not even kind of related to how poison works in D&D.

There's still the unaddressed that most weapons and most evocation spells are evil by the same logic. Also, poisons make the deaths quicker or else non-lethal, so that should more than counteract being painful. Getting stabbed in the belly is bound to be a much more painful death than a one-minute tops kill weapon, anyway.

NichG
2013-12-23, 11:22 PM
I think it's based on an interpretation of modern laws of warfare. Which may or may not be logical when applied to the same sort of rules as we have in D&D.

No, I'm pretty sure thats something you brought in. Also, on the matter of waterboarding, it isn't a procedure intended to kill, so by your metric (minimum suffering necessary for outcome) it would logically have a different minimum. Simple question, since I don't know the answer - is it illegal in land warfare to strangle an enemy?

Anyhow, the closest analog to D&D alignment is the medieval rules of chivalry. Which should not be surprising - thats what D&D is trying to emulate. The feudal origin of chivalry is going to mean that 'the point of things' will be quite different than modern ethics. As another poster pointed out, things that destabilize that particular social structure will naturally be considered 'unchivalrous'. In warfare of that era, it was considered unethical to specifically target officers with weapons fire for example - most officers at that time were also nobility, and that had a certain weight, as well as conferring certain blind spots.

So no, I don't think its about suffering. I think its about poison being associated with 'dishonorable conduct' - the association with people skulking around, killing in secret, etc, is enough to tar even overt uses.

Now, as far as suffering goes, many of us probably have been 'poisoned' before, and therefore have a frame of reference to compare with. If you've ever had surgery where you've had to be unconscious for it, you've been dosed with a general anaesthetic - a poison that knocks you out. In fact, something very similar is the first step in the lethal injection procedure used in the US, which you brought up. Double that dose of general anaesthetic and you wouldn't wake up - thats why you have an anaesthesiologist monitoring everything very carefully in a surgery. Give less than the needed dose to knock someone out and they'll feel a bit foggy, but that's about it.

Now obviously different poisons will feel different. For warfare, its better to ban them all, even if there are options that wouldn't cause suffering, just because - is it really important to have a clause saying 'but sodium thiopental is okay to use' in military law?

As for D&D poisons, its hard to say, but the system generally conflates Wis damage with inebriation or other 'loss of judgement' style effects, including hallucinogens. Cha damage would likely be the result of mood-altering substances, things that decrease your force of personality (so a sedative, for example). Dex damage is likely a paralytic, so it would probably be accompanied by numbness and loss of control.

Int, Str, and Con damage are harder to say. I think the only conclusion there is 'not all Con damage will be the same' - basically any disease that can kill you must, in D&D terms, be doing Con damage, but 'the flu' is not going to feel nearly as awful as, say, cholera, and thats not just about the magnitude of the disease but also about the method of action.

I don't actually know what situations Str damage would correspond to in real life. Int damage would probably mostly correspond to head injuries in real life - I don't know what the poison equivalent would be.

Kelb_Panthera
2013-12-23, 11:34 PM
And I think it is utterly absurd to mindlessly accept genocide and say that it is absurd to give any serious consideration of, "Maybe we should't kill this good creature."

We're not mindlessly accepting it. No matter how you look at it the conversion of all fiends to non-evil alignments is simply not a reasonable goal to pursue. In order to think "Maybe we should't kill this good creature," there has to be a reasonable way to conclude that the creature in front of you is good. With a fiend there is no such way.

With the exceptions being so rare as to be virtually unique creatures the thought necessary to get to "Maybe we should't kill this good creature," is "maybe this one is the one in ten trillion exception to the rule that all fiends are murderous psychopaths that couldn't even grasp compassion as a rational thought, much less actually feel it."

That's simply not a reasonable thought that anyone could be expected to have. Even the rare good fiend would tell you the best way to greet any of his kin is with the business end of something made to kill things.


Also, if we don't have to apply our morality to fiends, what makes raping and torturing a fiend evil? It's absurd to apply human morality , after all. That goes into the unrelated field of causing suffering to gain pleasure. If you're even capable of pinning one down to do either of those things then you're either dealing with a mindless peon that doesn't know anything useful or already have access to magics that will get you more reliable information than torture ever could. There's no logical reason to resort to those things except for the pleasure of indulging in hurting another creature. It also does nothing to diminish the evil that the fiend represents by simply existing.

It goes against good's respect for the dignity of living creatures. They're beyond redemption in all but the rarest of circumstances but that doesn't give you carte blanche to treat them however you want.


You are saying that the goodness of killing fiends is self-evident. We can't get anywhere, because I'm never going to accept that the goodness of killing is ever self-evident. Even a mosquito. Sometimes it is justified, but because of reasons. Not because it is absurd to consider not killing it.

Killing in D&D is not inherently aligned toward good or evil. What you're killing and why you're killing it determine that. Fiends bring evil by their very existence. The circumstances under which a fiend can be redeemed are so rare as to be negligable and even the rare good fiend -will- fall unless it's slain before it has the chance and it's still a lump of concentrated evil that needs to be broken up and sent back to where it belongs.

If we were talking about almost any other type of creature (evil true dragons are a pretty tough sell too) you'd be absolutely right but the unique circumstances surrounding fiends are such that it is -always- justified to slay one when you encounter it. If it somehow manages to convey that it is a good creature in some convincing way (a monumental feat on its own) then allowing it to live for a time or even trying to help it undergo the ritual to change it into a non-fiend is perfectly acceptable but it won't change the fact that killing it immediately is eliminating evil and that it is a good act.

AMFV
2013-12-23, 11:40 PM
No, I'm pretty sure thats something you brought in. Also, on the matter of waterboarding, it isn't a procedure intended to kill, so by your metric (minimum suffering necessary for outcome) it would logically have a different minimum. Simple question, since I don't know the answer - is it illegal in land warfare to strangle an enemy?

Strangling an enemy is probably legal, however it'd be a more questionable thing, introducing a weapon designed to strangle enemies would not be.



Anyhow, the closest analog to D&D alignment is the medieval rules of chivalry. Which should not be surprising - thats what D&D is trying to emulate. The feudal origin of chivalry is going to mean that 'the point of things' will be quite different than modern ethics. As another poster pointed out, things that destabilize that particular social structure will naturally be considered 'unchivalrous'. In warfare of that era, it was considered unethical to specifically target officers with weapons fire for example - most officers at that time were also nobility, and that had a certain weight, as well as conferring certain blind spots.

That's not really a close analog in any case. Lawful and Good under chivalry are very different than the ideas that are presented under a D&D alignment. It can be said that was based on an idea of those elements. But it's closer to modern sensibilities, in practice and explanation.

This is why I brought up the element of modern warfare laws. It is more likely that these are what brought about the ideas of evil vs. good in the sense of the BoVD/BoED, since they're not even a little bit close to Chivalric concepts of good and bad.

For example not accepting a Challenge isn't evil, whereas according to chivalry that's one of the highest errors and flaws you can make, so that would be evil in a chivalry based system. Lying would be evil, and it's not. Disobedience to your Lord would be evil, and it's not. The reason I bring up modern concepts is because D&D morality is usually based on more modern concepts and is very far from Chivalry. Dishonorable conduct in medieval is poorly represented in D&D. I suspect that this is more due to a lack of scholarship on the part of the authors than anything, if they were aware of Chivalry then it would probably have been closer, but the fact is, it's not. So we can't really bring Chivalry into the discussion because it's far removed from what they present.


Yeah, the use of poison in RL is as far removed from the use of poison in D&d as heavy machine guns are from magic missile. Poisons are usually to make someone sick and die from infection or something. Not even kind of related to how poison works in D&D.

There's still the unaddressed that most weapons and most evocation spells are evil by the same logic. Also, poisons make the deaths quicker or else non-lethal, so that should more than counteract being painful. Getting stabbed in the belly is bound to be a much more painful death than a one-minute tops kill weapon, anyway.

Not really, and as I've pointed out you can argue military necessity for Fireballs or Scorching Rays, those would be fine, since their usefulness outweighs the suffering they cause, furthermore they don't light you on fire, and don't cause suffering that isn't designed to kill you, by your logic, getting shot in the head would be illegal, and it's not. There is a metric for this sort of thing.

I doubt it, poisons are known to be extremely painful, many of them in any case. A gut wound could range from very painful, to not even noticeable till you die, those things vary. Besides you don't really try for that in most circumstances, the goal is to kill with as little suffering as is possible, of course barring necessity.

SowZ
2013-12-24, 12:22 AM
Strangling an enemy is probably legal, however it'd be a more questionable thing, introducing a weapon designed to strangle enemies would not be.



That's not really a close analog in any case. Lawful and Good under chivalry are very different than the ideas that are presented under a D&D alignment. It can be said that was based on an idea of those elements. But it's closer to modern sensibilities, in practice and explanation.

This is why I brought up the element of modern warfare laws. It is more likely that these are what brought about the ideas of evil vs. good in the sense of the BoVD/BoED, since they're not even a little bit close to Chivalric concepts of good and bad.

For example not accepting a Challenge isn't evil, whereas according to chivalry that's one of the highest errors and flaws you can make, so that would be evil in a chivalry based system. Lying would be evil, and it's not. Disobedience to your Lord would be evil, and it's not. The reason I bring up modern concepts is because D&D morality is usually based on more modern concepts and is very far from Chivalry. Dishonorable conduct in medieval is poorly represented in D&D. I suspect that this is more due to a lack of scholarship on the part of the authors than anything, if they were aware of Chivalry then it would probably have been closer, but the fact is, it's not. So we can't really bring Chivalry into the discussion because it's far removed from what they present.



Not really, and as I've pointed out you can argue military necessity for Fireballs or Scorching Rays, those would be fine, since their usefulness outweighs the suffering they cause, furthermore they don't light you on fire, and don't cause suffering that isn't designed to kill you, by your logic, getting shot in the head would be illegal, and it's not. There is a metric for this sort of thing.

I doubt it, poisons are known to be extremely painful, many of them in any case. A gut wound could range from very painful, to not even noticeable till you die, those things vary. Besides you don't really try for that in most circumstances, the goal is to kill with as little suffering as is possible, of course barring necessity.

Stabbing somebody in the right place to burst the gut is one of the most painful injuries you can get. I don't think dying

And poisons have incredible utility and can easily double the damage of all your common soldiers if each coated their blade. That's significantly more tactical utility than a fireball. I think these lines that are being drawn are arbitrary. Many spells are described specifically as being painful. Also, you keep ignoring that poison is probably the best and simplest way to incapacitate large groups of soldiers without magic. It could save dozens of lives in a battle without many good non lethal options. The difference in pain between dying from a gut wound over a minute or poison that cannot possibly do lasting harm isn't so vast as to say, "it' better they die experience that pain."

AMFV
2013-12-24, 12:27 AM
Stabbing somebody in the right place to burst the gut is one of the most painful injuries you can get. I don't think dying

And poisons have incredible utility and can easily double the damage of all your common soldiers if each coated their blade. That's significantly more tactical utility than a fireball. I think these lines that are being drawn are arbitrary. Many spells are described specifically as being painful. Also, you keep ignoring that poison is probably the best and simplest way to incapacitate large groups of soldiers without magic. It could save dozens of lives in a battle without many good non lethal options. The difference in pain between dying from a gut wound over a minute or poison that cannot possibly do lasting harm isn't so vast as to say, "it' better they die experience that pain."

Well the question is, "is it undue suffering", and I don't have an answer for you, I'm not on a committee that evaluates those sort of things, nor do I have the degree in international law that that require. Obviously the laws of good v. evil in the game world are contrived, but as far as D&D goes, poisons are evil, so we must assume that they do cause some form of suffering, probably undue suffering. Since it is clearly not a question of dishonorable conduct (that would be answered on the law-chaos axis). Fireballs aren't defined as evil, so they must have necessity beyond the suffering caused by them. It would be much more efficient to give all soldiers bullets loaded with poison in the modern world as well, but we don't and that's considered unethical. So enemies survive battles that they might not be able to, or could potentially be disfigured, but there has been a conclusion that poisoning is a worse form of suffering.

SowZ
2013-12-24, 12:39 AM
Well the question is, "is it undue suffering", and I don't have an answer for you, I'm not on a committee that evaluates those sort of things, nor do I have the degree in international law that that require. Obviously the laws of good v. evil in the game world are contrived, but as far as D&D goes, poisons are evil, so we must assume that they do cause some form of suffering, probably undue suffering. Since it is clearly not a question of dishonorable conduct (that would be answered on the law-chaos axis). Fireballs aren't defined as evil, so they must have necessity beyond the suffering caused by them. It would be much more efficient to give all soldiers bullets loaded with poison in the modern world as well, but we don't and that's considered unethical. So enemies survive battles that they might not be able to, or could potentially be disfigured, but there has been a conclusion that poisoning is a worse form of suffering.


You're logic is backwards. You're saying, "X is Y because Y is X." You're argument is based around the assumption that since poison is called evil, it must have a reason. It could be as senseless as the rest of the alignment rules. And no, it doesn't require a degree in international law to debate D&D ethics.

Todd Stewart
2013-12-24, 12:44 AM
You might enter Carceri as Lawful Good, but for each petitioner you kill out of mercy, the plane takes something from you. Each soul slain is another link in the chains waiting to bind you in turn to the Scarlet Prison. With each drop of blood split, and with each act of misguided, futile righteousness, overhead the spheres shine dimly.

The void chimes with the Bells of Othrys, they watch, they ring, they sneer, and they laugh as Carceri claims another self-imprisoned prisoner.

AMFV
2013-12-24, 12:46 AM
You're logic is backwards. You're saying, "X is Y because Y is X." You're argument is based around the assumption that since poison is called evil, it must have a reason. It could be as senseless as the rest of the alignment rules. And no, it doesn't require a degree in international law to debate D&D ethics.

But it does in the context that we have moved to. We are debating the good-evil spectrum according to the conventions of international law, as such we would need to have a good understanding of this sort of thing, as neither of us are UN weapons inspectors we can't really determine if poison would be illegal if it followed the same methodology as D&D poisons do.

Also why do we assume it's senseless. Poison banning is pretty standard throughout the world, out of all of the ridiculous stuff in the alignment, poison being problematic, is one of the closest analogues to real world morality, which is the point I was making, so we can it assume that the reasoning is probably similar, there are other things that are more ridiculous, for example killing fiends always being good, casting Death Watch being evil, but the poison one, is at least close to a real system of morality.

NichG
2013-12-24, 12:55 AM
You might enter Carceri as Lawful Good, but for each petitioner you kill out of mercy, the plane takes something from you. Each soul slain is another link in the chains waiting to bind you in turn to the Scarlet Prison. With each drop of blood split, and with each act of misguided, futile righteousness, overhead the spheres shine dimly.

The void chimes with the Bells of Othrys, they watch, they ring, they sneer, and they laugh as Carceri claims another self-imprisoned prisoner.

Thats a Shemeshka avatar, isn't it?

SowZ
2013-12-24, 01:00 AM
But it does in the context that we have moved to. We are debating the good-evil spectrum according to the conventions of international law, as such we would need to have a good understanding of this sort of thing, as neither of us are UN weapons inspectors we can't really determine if poison would be illegal if it followed the same methodology as D&D poisons do.

Also why do we assume it's senseless. Poison banning is pretty standard throughout the world, out of all of the ridiculous stuff in the alignment, poison being problematic, is one of the closest analogues to real world morality, which is the point I was making, so we can it assume that the reasoning is probably similar, there are other things that are more ridiculous, for example killing fiends always being good, casting Death Watch being evil, but the poison one, is at least close to a real system of morality.

It's irrelevant, because nearly every single reason poison is illegal is irrelevant in D&D. You may as well say fireball should be illegal since flamethrowers are. We don't have the expertise to debate if it would be illegal, per say, but that has nothing to do with if it's moral. There's tons of immoral policies, even in the UN. A lawyer is no better at deciding morality than me. In my experience, worse, even. You don't need a degree to be qualified in morality.

SowZ
2013-12-24, 01:03 AM
But it does in the context that we have moved to. We are debating the good-evil spectrum according to the conventions of international law, as such we would need to have a good understanding of this sort of thing, as neither of us are UN weapons inspectors we can't really determine if poison would be illegal if it followed the same methodology as D&D poisons do.

Also why do we assume it's senseless. Poison banning is pretty standard throughout the world, out of all of the ridiculous stuff in the alignment, poison being problematic, is one of the closest analogues to real world morality, which is the point I was making, so we can it assume that the reasoning is probably similar, there are other things that are more ridiculous, for example killing fiends always being good, casting Death Watch being evil, but the poison one, is at least close to a real system of morality.

You are talking about if it's legal. I'm talking about if it's moral. I give as many figs for the UN as I do for the Joss Whedon Fan Club.

Todd Stewart
2013-12-24, 01:12 AM
Thats a Shemeshka avatar, isn't it?

Why yes indeed it is. http://arcanofox.foxpaws.net/shemmywink.gif

Scow2
2013-12-24, 03:09 AM
1. On poisons - the problem with poison is that it's indiscriminate and treacherous (Unlike the BoED's Ravages, which merely use the victim's own sins against them).

2. On fiends - Fiends being capable of Goodness is a horrific dysfunction. Of course, ultimately fiends aren't even "beings" - they're merely manifestations of raw Evil. And, killing them is always Good because it directly reduces the amount of Evil in the world... but, as (I think Siuis) pointed out, it can also be Evil, in the case that the Fiend IS good. It is good in that it directly reduces the amount of Evil in the world like a liposuction reduces the fat on a person: There's no getting around that. However, it can be Evil by undermining the morality of whoever chose to kill a Good Evil Creature.

There are a lot of actions that are both Good and Evil. They don't matter to most people, because one overwhelmingly overshadows the other. The only people it matters to are those with an absolute requirement to never commit an evil act: They are not allowed to ever undermine their own morality (Not even in desperate circumstances), because of the ramifications that causes further down the line.

SowZ
2013-12-24, 03:35 AM
1. On poisons - the problem with poison is that it's indiscriminate and treacherous (Unlike the BoED's Ravages, which merely use the victim's own sins against them).

2. On fiends - Fiends being capable of Goodness is a horrific dysfunction. Of course, ultimately fiends aren't even "beings" - they're merely manifestations of raw Evil. And, killing them is always Good because it directly reduces the amount of Evil in the world... but, as (I think Siuis) pointed out, it can also be Evil, in the case that the Fiend IS good. It is good in that it directly reduces the amount of Evil in the world like a liposuction reduces the fat on a person: There's no getting around that. However, it can be Evil by undermining the morality of whoever chose to kill a Good Evil Creature.

There are a lot of actions that are both Good and Evil. They don't matter to most people, because one overwhelmingly overshadows the other. The only people it matters to are those with an absolute requirement to never commit an evil act: They are not allowed to ever undermine their own morality (Not even in desperate circumstances), because of the ramifications that causes further down the line.

Poisons are no more indiscriminate than an explosive runes spell, and no more treacherous than a sneak attack.

paddyfool
2013-12-24, 04:49 AM
Stabbing somebody in the right place to burst the gut is one of the most painful injuries you can get.

Your repeated comparison of gut wounds to Curare is picking one of the worst options from one form of injury to compare to one of the best options from the other. Pick a proper flesh-rotting venom and you're on a different page entirely. Simple pain-causing compounds (such as, say, pepper spray) would be somewhere in the middle.


And poisons have incredible utility and can easily double the damage of all your common soldiers if each coated their blade.

If you're willing to accept a higher share of your soldiers than usual dying or being severely injured by accidental cuts etc ("friendly stab", as Terry Pratchett put it).


Poisons are no more indiscriminate than an explosive runes spell, and no more treacherous than a sneak attack.

Well, explosive runes spells do at least only target the literate, so won't accidentally end up killing/maiming dumb animals etc. But yeah, they're also on the same moral page as landmines and chemical warfare in my book.

And I have to agree that there's also a real ethical problem with acid fog etc.

SowZ
2013-12-24, 04:53 AM
Your repeated comparison of gut wounds to Curare is picking one of the worst options from one form of injury to compare to one of the best options from the other. Pick a proper flesh-rotting venom and you're on a different page entirely. Simple pain-causing compounds (such as, say, pepper spray) would be somewhere in the middle.



If you're willing to accept a higher share of your soldiers than usual dying or being severely injured by accidental cuts etc ("friendly stab", as Terry Pratchett put it).



Well, explosive runes spells do at least only target the literate, so won't accidentally end up killing/maiming dumb animals etc. But yeah, they're also on the same moral page as landmines and chemical warfare in my book.

And I have to agree that there's also a real ethical problem with acid fog etc.

I can pick the tamest ability damage poisons in the books and fairly compare them to the worst physical injuries, because according to the rules the former is Evil and the latter is not. Making it a comparison in good faith.

And no, accidental cuts won't kill anyone, not even once. The poison won't kill a single enemy, ever. Not even once in a billion vials. Ability damage other than Con cannot kill someone according to D&D rules. It is impossible. And yet, according to the rules, if my options are to stab him with a sword and kill him or use a Dex poison to paralyze him, remove his weapons, then restore his ability damage, killing him is fine even if I have to stab him twenty eight times with a dagger yet using a non-lethal tactic involving Dex poison is evil.

paddyfool
2013-12-24, 05:05 AM
I can pick the tamest ability damage poisons in the books and fairly compare them to the worst physical injuries, because according to the rules the former is Evil and the latter is not. Making it a comparison in good faith.

And no, accidental cuts won't kill anyone, not even once. The poison won't kill a single enemy, ever. Not even once in a billion vials. Ability damage other than Con cannot kill someone according to D&D rules. It is impossible. And yet, according to the rules, if my options are to stab him with a sword and kill him or use a Dex poison to paralyze him, remove his weapons, then restore his ability damage, killing him is fine even if I have to stab him twenty eight times with a dagger yet using a non-lethal tactic involving Dex poison is evil.

Yes, I agree that D&D poisons, as modelled by D&D, are daft to consider necessarily evil. What I'm saying is that it's rooted in real-world ethics wherein many poisons are indiscriminate tools of murder and torture, rather than tools of self-defence. (Paralytics and inducers being the exception rather than the rule).

SiuiS
2013-12-24, 05:16 AM
Negligible damage immediate, and having to wait 10 more rounds (Or was it 100?) before it has a chance of killing you? That's not fast-acting.

I don't know of ANY "Instant-death" poisons in D&D - none do HP damage, none deal more than 6 instant-CON damage, and none have "Kill" primary.

6 con damage is guaranteed to reduce your HP by 3/hit die. That can kill you right there.


Well that could be argued, but shooting somebody in the head isn't illegal, and poisons are.

What? I am incredulous.



That's true but it's not what you said even if it's what you meant.


On the contrary, what is intended and what flows from context is as if not more important than a misconstrual of word parsing. There are for components to communication; I hit three of them. Anything else is quibbling on your end.



Show me this rule.


All texts under soul destruction, including sacrifice which destroys souls, necrotic tumor thingy whose name I don't recall (cyst?), the devourer, and any other effect which destroys souls. Any texts which talk about soul destruction in general, including those which explain why it is always heinous evil; because it is99% irrevocable.


As a counter argument in absence of this rule, the ritual of renaming in ToM can bring back into being a creature who has been utterly snuffed from reality as a whole.

Specific exception in exception based ruleset. Not contradictory.


Again, show me where this is written.

Discussion of souls throughout the texts. One of them says "a soul cannot be harmed by a sword or [...]".

As an aside, please put line breaks between quotes and your responses? It makes this much easier for everyone.



This is almost true. They can be ressurected by true-res or revived by a spell that targets outsiders specifically but they cannot be raised by raise dead or even ressurection.

Destroyed souls are gone forever, either beyond wish/miracle and requiring intervention of a great deity, or possible with wish miracle. It's also possible your invocation, depending on specific text, could not reconstitute a lost soul, you'll have to cross reference that.



False. Soul larvae, a form of petitioner native to the lower planes, can be used as an optional spell component.

Specific exception in exception based ruleset. Not contradictory. "Using a soul as a spell component" is one of the few, and ONLY, listed ways to destroy a soul.

In addition, you must prove that larvae are souls still. This requires me to accept petitioners are souls in order for you to prove that my proof that petitioners aren't souls is false.


Incidentally, I found the passage that shows incorporeal undead to be souls as well. BoVD page 33, third paragraph under Souls as power, last sentence; "Even incorporeal undead can be used in this way if they can be imprisoned somehow."

Specific exception in exception based ruleset. Not contradictory.

Allows ghosts to be used as if they were a soul, does not make a ghost a soul. Soul forgers(?, dwarven incarnum prestige class) can make magic items as if they had casting, does not mean they have casting.



There are particular rules that give -extra- ways to destroy a soul but they're never called out as an exhaustive list and at least one of them does, in fact, apply to petitioners and incorporeal undead specifically.

On the contrary, souls are listed as difficult to destroy, not destructible by conventional means, and given a set of conditions which destroy them. That is, they are given blanket immunity (meaning not extra methods, because there are no generic soul destruction methods) and the. Their destruction specifics are listed.



The first is yet to be proven


On the contrary, the opposite – that an outsider is a soul – has yet to be proven. Again, a stance in contention cannot be used as proof of itself; until you prove that outsiders are souls, rather than have souls that are also bodies, which you have not done, outsiders being souls is not the thing which stands and must be disproven. The burden of proof is on you. I'm just supplying supporting evidence which shows it.


the second is a tautology. The same rule that explicitly states that outsiders' body and soul are the same unit states it as a direct contrast to other living creatures that have body and soul as separate units.

That contrast does not create the case of a body being a soul meaning a creature with a body is a soul; it continues to support the case that a creature with a body that is a soul is a creature with a soul. It's right there, In English. Or math. I could render it into math for you. But you have not proven that possession of [thing] equates to being [thing]. I suspect you cannot. Which I why I am arguing, because I see how you could be interpreted to be correct in any given game but not by the rules as they stand. You are interpreting them as such, making this rules as interpreted. Which means not rules as written. Which means it's not the standard rule.



There are a handful of abilities that exist that explicitly consume the souls of those slain by them and that even wish or miracle are insufficient to bring the creature back to life, but only a handful explicitly spell out that gods have any trouble restoring the creature. None, to the best of my knowledge, say that the destroyed soul is completely beyond recovery by even the gods.

Specific exception in exception based ruleset. Not contradictory.

"Deities can do it" is not an argument, it's an edge case and specific exception. You'll note EVERY INSTANCE of soul destruction has that text, not "a handful".

There is one ability which removes a creature so thoroughly it cannot be brought back even by greater deities. It is in the epic level handbook.



Creatures and objects are both destroyed under the same circumstance; their hp are depleted.

A creature which has it's HP depleted is [destroyed]. It stops being a creature, it becomes an object, it is no longer alive. An object which has it's HP depleted is [destroyed]. It is no longer serviceable as an object. It cannot maintain structure and needs reparation before it can be used for anything. A soul which is [destroyed] is gone, beyond 99% of magic.

These conditions may all be called "destroyed" but they are not the same condition.