PDA

View Full Version : Psychopath Paladins and WotC



Pages : [1] 2 3

Tobrian
2007-02-26, 10:15 PM
Moved from "List of Stereotypes we'd Rather Avoid (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35701)" Thread

Addendum to my own reply to Renrik:


Paladins. Why can't people play them right? They're always played as high-and-mighty, imperious law-bringers with no real sense of mercy and an outrageous taste for "righteous" violence, or they end up being "sneaky" paladins that have a grey area in their code of honor, and do whatever it takes to hunt down evil. Why can't they just be humble, protective knights that are devout servants of their faiths? Hinjo is a good example of a real paladin.


Amen. I hate the psycho-paladin with a passion. They're not LG, they're LN, or even LE... "My god demands I wipe out all evil creatures!" No, you're not supposed to "wipe them out", dammit. You should try to lead a life of good example, be a paragon of virtue. Protect those who can't protect themselves. Encourage others to follow your path, not demand it. Keep up hope against cynicism. Try to find the spark of good even in those filled with selfishness, and have mercy with those who have sinned for you might one day sin also. Be humble, and forgiving if forgiveness is asked. Know those who are beyond redemption from those who have the capacity to become better.

Unfortunately, too many players and too many D&D writers (Edit: see below) seem to think that killing everything that detects as evil automatically makes you good.
((SNIPPED REST OF RANT))

Addendum: See my posting below.

I just paged through the Complete Scoundrel, and by chance came upon the Gray Guard (page 40+). Bleh. Notice how this PrC is still noted as LG! Despite the text happily mentioning "beating a confession from a heretic", "doing what must be done no matter how unpleasant" and "in the cause of righteousness".

Oh great WotC writers, thank you for another officially sanctioned stereotype incarnate of the "I'm worldweary and cynical, and I do what those pansy naive paladins don't dare to do for fear of making their pure lillywhite hands dirty" zealot. :smallmad: It's even worse than the inquisitor from Complete Warrior.

Quote from Gray Guard write-up:
"You do what needs to be done for the betterment of your cause."

That's what all zealots say. Nice excuse.

Quote Gray Guard:
Only the most realistic and battleworn paladins become gray guards. They know the cruelties of the world cannot be expunged merely by good example and kind words. Though no less virtuous than other paladins, they join the order's bloodstained ranks out of sense of necessity

"Realistic"?? "No less virtuous"?? The writer's definition of "virtue" seems to be radically different from mine.... :smallannoyed: Is virtue now merely defined by how unwaveringly you follow your deity? No comment.

What pisses me off is the writer basically claiming that pure mercifully paladins with a saviour complex only belong in worlds with a rigid black-and-white morality scheme where good and evil are clearly delineated, while the Gray Guard is more "realistic" and "battle-hardened", he's not a step down up but a step up from a mere paladin towards an elite protector, and his deity approves. GAH!

My opinion? Precisely because the gameworld I run is not just black-n-white THAT's when a paladin's capacity for compassion is needed. IF the world was only made up of gloriously good people on the one hand and hideously irredeemable evil on the other, what would you need compassion and mercy for? One side would never do wrong, the other would be beyond redemption.
It's the gritty grey shades of morality world that needs room for compassion.

It's the Gray Guard who sounds like the textbook example of someone who sees the world in black and white. :smallannoyed:

Notice that other PrCs with similar philosophies (ends justifies the means of killing), like the Avenging Executioner (Completel Scoundrel, page 24) are clearly listed as non-good killers. So, using inspiring fear in your victims/opponents makes you non-good... brutally beating up anyone who doesnt measure up to the beliefs of your religious order because they really really deserve it... makes you LG! Hurray!

Yes, theoretically these guys commit their torturing and stuff in the name of protecting the innocent, see "virtue" above. However, I fail to see the difference between them and what they oppose.

Quote Gray Guard:
"Opon entering this prestige class, you take a vow of allegiance to your faith beyond that of any ordinary paladin. This vow grants you measure of freedom to act on your cause's behalf without fear of retribution should your duties require you to break your code of conduct. Dishonorable acts still cause you to loes both Gray Guard and Paladin class features until you atone, but this infraction is considered much less severe tan it would be for a paladin.(...)

Debilitating Touch: By 2nd level, you learn to channel your lay on hands ability into a painful touch attack. (...)

Justice Blade: By 4th level, you have learned that suffering and injustice are not exclusive province of evil. You can use your smite evil ability to instead punish creatures of chaotic alignment. (...)"

:smalleek:

It's certainly easier to torture Joe the cardsharp than go toe to toe with a Black Guard.


Devastating Touch: When you attain 5th level, your deity shows its approval of your grim work. (...)

What deities you ask? Why, Heironeous! Tyr, and St. Cuthbert.

Quote:
Unbound Justice: At 7th level, unrestricted by your code of honor, you can employ unorthodox methods that are all the more effective because they're unexpected.

Yeah because playing a paladin... well sort of a paladin... is all about being an effective killer. Right.

I wish I could ask that writer who invented the Gray Guard one question: If a deity that has both paladins and Gray Guards in its employ approves of the Gray Guards' work so much, and grants them all sorts of exceptions regarding doing the work of church sanctioned torturers, then why the hell do paladins fall if they do the same stuff?? Isn't it the deity that decides when you fall from grace?? Why does getting a PrC suddenly give you leeway while granting you the same advantages? Is it just me, or is this illogical?

Quote:
Sacrament of True Faith: At 10th level, you gain your order's full confidence. You are granted the freedom to act on behalf of your faith as you deem necessary. Thus you never risk losing your class abilities in the pursuit of of a just cause and never need to atone for violating your code of conduct.

...wait... then what is a code of conduct for? Isn't that convenient.

Quote:
This trust does not grant you the freedom to act as violently or immorally as you wish, however. Release from your code of conduct depends on your acting as an exemplar of your order’s ideals. If you violate this trust by habitually acting in an immoral or corrupt manner, the leaders or deity of your faith might revoke their blessing and banish you from the ranks of the faithful (see Ex-Gray Guards, below).

Kicking a heretic's teeth in = not immoral or corrupt. Listen and learn, kids!

And here was me believing that "justifying your own immoral actions as necessary, lawful and moral under the rules you've made yourself" was the definition of Lawful Evil??

Yes, governments do employ people who do exactly that, the "dirty work", things that "need to be done" as the euphemism goes... sometimes they do need to be done, but more often usually it's a handy excuse for certain people to advance their own agenda. It's called corruption. Look it up.

And in a world filled with magic where evil deities exist, one should perhaps not take tarnishing one's own soul so lightly, even if it is in the pursuit of "goodness". But those Gray Guards would probably tell you that they're prepared to selflessly make that sacrifice. Just after they've told you that you detect as an evil traitor.

All suspects are guilty, otherwise they wouldnt be suspects, right?


Code of Conduct: As a gray guard, you are held to the same code of conduct as a paladin.

Muahahah! Sorry.


You must be of lawful good alignment and must never willingly commit an evil act. You must also pledge to respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, cheating, using poison, and the like), aid the needy, and punish those who harm the innocent. (snip)
You can never break your code without good reason

So it's more a trick of finding the "right" excuse?


So, what are "evil acts", exactly? See below:
Ex-Gray Guards
As a gray guard, you are less at risk of permanently losing your abilities than a paladin is. You might lose them temporarily for committing dishonorable acts, but you are granted clemency for performing such deeds in the name of your faith and can atone more easily. Nevertheless, if you commit unforgivably evil acts (such as slaughtering innocents or despoiling a temple of your faith), take action that opposes your faith’s tenets, or habitually violate your code of conduct, you risk permanent expulsion from the holy order.

..or be forced to revert back to being a pansy go-gooder paladin who has to worry about morality and losing his powers all the time. Nya nya!

WEll, given that as you gain level in this PrC, your code of conduct basically devolves to "do whatever you deem necessary" and "unforgivable evil acts" are so very loosely defined, going along with sacrificing someone else's teeth for your noble cause shouldn't be too hard.

Isn't religion fun.
:smallyuk:

Fawsto
2007-02-26, 10:28 PM
the Gray Guard is not a Paladin, he isn't even a Lawful Good character... In the best of best overwiew he is a Lawfull Neutral character. Being good means being purehearted. This guy isn't purehearted at all. He is that kind of guy that blames his dutys for the evil deeds he is doing... Grey Guard isn't a White Paladin... Looks that the shades of grey are moving towards the more dark ones... Like that other guard, the black one...

That Lanky Bugger
2007-02-26, 10:31 PM
I think this can be quite readily banned from all of my games without seeing the mechanics of the class. The last thing I need is a PrC which encourages Miko-likes to pop up in my games.

oriong
2007-02-26, 10:35 PM
Someone who does what the gray guard does couldbe good, although it's very definitely a slippery slope, but the fact that they have license to do these things does not necessarily mean they take it lightly or even engage in them willingly (sure they may be able to torture someone for information, without evidence and get away with it, it doesn't mean they're willing to or even have to).

That said, they're definitely not paladins, except in a rather 'cynical' world. They could work then, but that would require you think of the gods in rather unflattering terms: the paladins are the spokesmen and poster boys, they're the ones that are presented as paragons of virtue by the gods because the 'public' needs to see that sort of dedication, and they're punished for falling because the gods can't afford flawed 'heroes'. The grey guard are the tools the gods use when they want things to happen rather than just to put on a show.

PaladinBoy
2007-02-26, 10:36 PM
Oh for the love of........

GAHHHHH!

I hate that!!!! That guy is a misguided.....uh...... idiot.....

Okay, rant's over.

Seriously, though, who designed that? I certainly agree that that guy isn't Good. Doing evil acts in the name of a good cause is still evil. And since this class would appear to recognize and agree with its evil actions, it's not even a misguided neutral, it's full-blown evil. Period.

Good deities do not grant spells and powers to evil people, at least not in my campaign.

Tobrian
2007-02-26, 10:37 PM
Unfortunately, the entry requirements for this PrC list Lawful Good alignment and "Special: Must adhere to a code of conduct that prevents the character from performing evil acts." And describes them as a special elite order of paladin-like religious warriors.

I didnt make this up.

Edit:
The flavour text specifically mentioned "beating a confession from a heretic". That's inquisition logic. It's perfectly circular: You beat him up to get him to confess being a heretic... and you're allowed to do that because you already know he's a heretic. it smacks of judge jury and executioner.


That's the main reason why my rogue/wizard/arcane-trickster is so wary of paladins and their detect evil ability (although being NG himself he likes honorable paladins). Come on, if a paladin points at you and claims "Scoundrel! You're evil!!" you're totally at the mercy of a paladin! Because unless there's some other cleric or paladin around how do you prove you're not? No-one can check if the paladin really detected evil... or if he's just lying. But of course everyone knows a paladin would never lie. Right? If you alredy have a bad reputation, who will the citizens believe? If some curse or item you carry (look at Roy carrying Xykon's crown), you MAY have an evil aura without even knowing it.

(Worse, if you're an openly confessed Sceptic - in World of Greyhawk the Sceptics are a philosophical group mostly comprised of wizards and sages, some of who are hard atheists denying that the gods exist at all and claiming that clerics are a kind of sorcerer, while the majority of Sceptics accepts that powerful entities commonly called gods exist but they refuse to worship them.
My rogue/wizard/arcane-trickster character does occasionally worship Rao, god of peace, serenity and knowledge, but he did voice the same objections to clerical power as the Sceptics long before he (or I the player!) knew such a sect existed! And he's been called a heretic by our Pelorite cleric more than once... in good fun? Who knows... Very ominous.)

Add to that the fact that even divinely granted Detect Evil can be blocked or deceived by magic items or certain PrC class abilities, and my character has reason not to trust in the omniscience of paladins.

cupkeyk
2007-02-26, 10:37 PM
I would like to see a variant Paladin with the half elf bard's soothing voice and atonement in it's spell list. Talking the bad guys into becoming good.

Rabiesbunny
2007-02-26, 10:37 PM
Aw, psychopathic paladins are fun...

Hell, there's a feat in Waterdeep: City of Splendors, it's called Veil of Cyric. You can have a LE Paladin of Torm, doing horrible things, but retaining his power because he's so zealous.

malakim2099
2007-02-26, 10:42 PM
I just think of the Mikonator when I hear about this class. *twitch*

Or, to put it another way...

If Miko had this PrC, there's a decent chance she wouldn't have fallen, as she believed she was following the will of the Twelve Gods when she bisected Shojo.

NOTE: This isn't meant to troll or fan any flames to Miko fans out there. I like her as an antagonist to the OOTS. But the bottom line is, if you don't follow the Code, you shouldn't be a paladin, period.

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-26, 10:51 PM
Uh, I like this class, actually.

Frankly, it's possible to be villainous while being a standard Paladin (re: Miko). Even the best codes can be twisted, skirted and misenterpreted. Ultimately it's up to the individual.

Also, it could depend strongly on the deity said Paladin is serving. I could easily see the Church of St. Cuthbert, Helm, or the Silver Flame fielding a squad of Grey Guards who use kidnapping, torture, psychological warfare and any number of "dirty tactics." The Temple of Heironeus and Church of Pelor, not so much.

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-26, 10:53 PM
Aw, psychopathic paladins are fun...

Hell, there's a feat in Waterdeep: City of Splendors, it's called Veil of Cyric. You can have a LE Paladin of Torm, doing horrible things, but retaining his power because he's so zealous.
It's called "Veil of Cyric" for a reason. That ain't Torm giving you all the nifty stuff...

Edit: And also, the feat doesn't let you retain your powers. Gareth Cormaeril is a blackguard and in denial about it; his paladin powers are gone.

PaladinBoy
2007-02-26, 10:55 PM
Unfortunately, the entry requirements for this PrC list Lawful Good alignment and "Special: Must adhere to a code of conduct that prevents the character from performing evil acts." And describes them as a special elite order of paladin-like religious warriors.

I didnt make this up.


And, of course, they get an ability that allows them to ignore their code of conduct and perform evil acts.

That's ridiculously contradictory.

I believe you........ I just hate the idea of this class, I hate the ideals behind this class, etc. My reasoning can be summed up in one sentence.

If you use evil methods to fight an evil regime, then if you win, nothing has changed. There are just new faces on the coins. (I actually paraphrased this from a Star Wars book.)

I see the points some of the above posters are having. I can agree that some churches would have people like this. BUT - they are nothing like paladins. They only think they are; some of them don't even believe that they're like paladins! Even in Eberron, where clerics of the Silver Flame can be evil, paladins still must be paragons of virtue, else they lose their powers.

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-26, 10:57 PM
Miko was lawful good up until she split Shojo in half.

Do you think everything she did up to that point was befitting a paragon of virtue?

Sardia
2007-02-26, 10:59 PM
There is one circumstance why I can see the paladin going into "Dirty Harry" territory and still be Lawful Good-- they _know_ if the being they're dealing with is evil or not. They know that they haven't truly repented, that they're still evil, will do evil acts, etc. If they kept beating the person after they stopped being a ping on the "detect evil' radar, then there's a big alignment problem.

My campaign approached psycho paladins in a slightly different way, though-- they were exclusively worshippers of Heironeous, but instead of detecting evil at will, they detected evil constantly. And as they increased in level, the definition of "Evil" grew ever more strict as their connection with the deity (who I took to be rather a hardass on the subject.) grew.
So as the paladin rises in levels, he gets a dose of divine disgust at more and more things-- murderers and such at first level up to adulterers and traitors and such at middle levels, to liars and petty sinners at the very highest level.
Eventually, they tend to snap and start slaying the evil wherever they find them just to ease the mental strain, or fall to the welcoming, comforting arms of Hextor. Even more likely, they hope to die valiantly in battle before it becomes a problem.

Needless to say, Paladin was not encouraged as a player character choice.

oriong
2007-02-26, 11:01 PM
Uh, I like this class, actually.

Frankly, it's possible to be villainous while being a standard Paladin (re: Miko). Even the best codes can be twisted, skirted and misenterpreted. Ultimately it's up to the individual.

Also, it could depend strongly on the deity said Paladin is serving. I could easily see the Church of St. Cuthbert, Helm, or the Silver Flame fielding a squad of Grey Guards who use kidnapping, torture, psychological warfare and any number of "dirty tactics." The Temple of Heironeus and Church of Pelor, not so much.

No, it's not really possible to be villaneous as a standard paladin. it's possible to be a jerk, but that's about it.

I do agree that there are dieties who would definitely have characters of this type among their ranks, after all even a LG diety can have a LN cleric with no problems at all, and there are certainly gods who are much more L than G. The main issue is their identification with the paladin.

Like the OP said, if the god is so approving of this behavior then why do standard paladins not recieve the same lee-way? Like I said before there are game settings in which there would be valid reasons, but those aren't really standard. It would have been far better to seperate this class from paladins, since it frankly doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Folie
2007-02-26, 11:01 PM
Uh, I like this class, actually.

Frankly, it's possible to be villainous while being a standard Paladin (re: Miko). Even the best codes can be twisted, skirted and misenterpreted. Ultimately it's up to the individual.

Also, it could depend strongly on the deity said Paladin is serving. I could easily see the Church of St. Cuthbert, Helm, or the Silver Flame fielding a squad of Grey Guards who use kidnapping, torture, psychological warfare and any number of "dirty tactics." The Temple of Heironeus and Church of Pelor, not so much.

That's why I might consider putting Grey Guards in my campaign (should I ever run one) as devotees of a Good god, who allows them to get away with all that crazy, morally questionable stuff because an Evil god has duped him/her into believing that a Gestapo is what the world really needs. The campaign, of course, would center around uncovering this Evil god's machinations and ultimately putting a stop to them, and this would almost certainly involve laying the smackdown on the Grey Guards.

PaladinBoy
2007-02-26, 11:03 PM
Miko was lawful good up until she split Shojo in half.

Do you think everything she did up to that point was befitting a paragon of virtue?

No. But she didn't step over the line until then, she was just a strict jerk. She wasn't being nice, but being unkind doesn't equal being evil.

From the sound of this class, they step over the line often, and still keep their powers. I really don't like that.

Rabiesbunny
2007-02-26, 11:05 PM
It's called "Veil of Cyric" for a reason. That ain't Torm giving you all the nifty stuff...

Edit: And also, the feat doesn't let you retain your powers. Gareth Cormaeril is a blackguard and in denial about it; his paladin powers are gone.

Kay, so I misremembered. Please, stop hopping up in every thread I post in trying to contradict and fight with me. I'm woman enough to admit when I've said something not quite true by accident. Gettin' kinda old, second time so far today. I'd appreciate it.

That Lanky Bugger
2007-02-26, 11:08 PM
And, of course, they get an ability that allows them to ignore their code of conduct and perform evil acts.

That's ridiculously contradictory.

I believe you........ I just hate the idea of this class, I hate the ideals behind this class, etc. My reasoning can be summed up in one sentence.

If you use evil methods to fight an evil regime, then if you win, nothing has changed. There are just new faces on the coins. (I actually paraphrased this from a Star Wars book.)

Agreed. I can see granting holy-like powers to a character as a PrC. But to combine this stupid, "ignore your moral code" thing with a bloody Paladin is just plain wrong.

And as a side note... That Star Wars book was X Wing 9: Starfighters of Adumar by Aaron Allston, specifically when Wedge was speaking with Tomer Darpen about how the New Republic wouldn't condone his actions. (Who's geek? Lanky's a geek.)

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-26, 11:10 PM
No. But she didn't step over the line until then, she was just a strict jerk. She wasn't being nice, but being unkind doesn't equal being evil.

From the sound of this class, they step over the line often, and still keep their powers. I really don't like that.

I think you're confusing can with will. One thing I like about this PrC is that it invites more roleplaying on the player's part, as things will be less defined by his code and more defined by his discretion. Sure, the GrayGuard can do things beyond the ken of a typical Paladin, but the idea is that he's given the responsibility because he'll know when not to use it. I see it as an interesting challenge.

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-26, 11:10 PM
Kay, so I misremembered. Please, stop hopping up in every thread I post in trying to contradict and fight with me. I'm woman enough to admit when I've said something not quite true by accident. Gettin' kinda old, second time so far today. I'd appreciate it.
I'm not following you around the board, and I don't have a problem with you. I don't care who says what; if I see an error I will correct it.

Macrovore
2007-02-26, 11:12 PM
Uh, I like this class, actually.

Frankly, it's possible to be villainous while being a standard Paladin (re: Miko). Even the best codes can be twisted, skirted and misenterpreted. Ultimately it's up to the individual.

Also, it could depend strongly on the deity said Paladin is serving. I could easily see the Church of St. Cuthbert, Helm, or the Silver Flame fielding a squad of Grey Guards who use kidnapping, torture, psychological warfare and any number of "dirty tactics." The Temple of Heironeus and Church of Pelor, not so much.
this class was made for eberron.

Wehrkind
2007-02-26, 11:12 PM
Yes, I think the distaste about this class is somewhat idealistic, in the sense that children are idealistic. It is the same logic that says "Execution is bad, because killing is bad!" that says a god might not want you torturing for fun, but if it will save a kidnapped congregation, then it is ok.

The whole point of the class is that it mirrors how reality actually works. Sometimes the good guys do some fairly bad things, and sometimes really bad things, because they only look bad on the face of it.
For instance, it is bad to shoot people in the face. Unless they are in your house threatening your life and family. Now extend that a little (and this is the problem of morality when gods enter into the picture.) A god consideres his worshippers his family, and does not brook those who would harm his brothers. Does he consider it wrong if one of his specially designated tools steps over the lines a bit to avoid great harm to them? Maybe, maybe not, depends on the god, but chances are he doesn't mind so long as they don't get nuts with it. The paladin becomes this specially designated tool precisely because of the fact he has demonstrated he will not go overboard, but is willing to do what the god considers must be done.

Note: In general, a rational moral philosophy does not mix well with the known existance of many gods, or even one.

By the way, I am curious what your adventurers do, if you find this grey paladin so distasteful. Do you still slaughter villages of demihumans because they have green skin, and civilized society calls them evil? Still delve into anchient tombs to steal treasure from those who still claim it? Reality =! D&D, and moral parallels are going to be rough to keep consistent as a result.

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-26, 11:13 PM
Wow, this is really not the way I read the class at all, honestly. I actually think it's a pretty good one.

I think it isn't intended to allow you to "take the easy way out" by torturing any suspect you want, or just killing people "for the greater good, as decided by you." I think players who used the class that way would be just as culpable as paladin players who do the "detect evil=>killing spree" thing.

Look at it this way: Batman won't kill people no matter how evil they are. That's part of his "code of conduct." Isn't it possible to imagine a very similar hero, who although he frowns on killing, will do it if it becomes really, really necessary? I'm not talking about convenience, I'm talking about something like Batman's relationship with the Joker, where the guy is always escaping, and will take innocent lives again and again.

Our hypothetical superhero would have a horribly guilty conscience, and probably spend a lot of time and energy re-focusing on his commitment to good (the equivalent of Atonement), but he would be willing to kill. Again, he wouldn't do it all the time, and certainly wouldn't kill petty thieves.

Or, alternately, compare Batman to Superman. While neither one of them will kill the villain, there are lots of techniques Batman will use that Superman wouldn't. All that intimidation stuff he does, for instance. And yet he still remains focused on stopping evil, protecting good, etc.


What I'm trying to get at is that the Grey Guard isn't intended to be a callous zealot of his cause, heedless to the suffering of innocents as long as he's pursuing his goal. Breaking the code of conduct is still supposed to be a big deal for him (hence he still has to atone, until the very last level of the class). This isn't about "the cardsharp knew the name of the evil devil-worshiper, so I tore out his eyes to make him tell." It's about "the only way to take that diabolist down was by poisoning his drink...may God forgive me." Note that under normal circumstances, paladins "will never knowingly associate with evil characters." That means working with underworld informants to root out the local TEMPLE OF ULTIMATE EVIL is straight out - which a Grey Guard could do, although he would probably still have to atone for it.

alchemy.freak
2007-02-26, 11:14 PM
The idea of Paladins acting as inquisitors and beating confessions our of heretics is nothing new, the PrC Shadowbane Inquisitor is much the same thing.

but really that is only one type of paladin, the chivalrous knight and the honorbound warrior are others.

the point is really that people can roleplay paladins any way they god damn please.

Granted you may ban paladins like this if you want, but i perfer to look at the role play opportunities.

In fact i play a paladin much like an inquisitor, he is cautious, wary and distrustful. I still smite evil where i see it, i merely go about it in a different way.

maybe you dont see eye to eye with this class, but try looking at it from a different prespective.

That Lanky Bugger
2007-02-26, 11:17 PM
Wehrkind: The point is that a Paladin is supposed to represent that idealized good in spite of real world realities. That's why they have such powerful class abilities (at least, for the first five levels) and why they can multiclass freely while retaining their uber-powers. They have a strict code of conduct.

From what I'm reading, this class totally obliterates that line and still hands the Paladin the powers he got.

Now, a sadistic DM can and will constantly put you into positions where you'll lose your powers no matter what. A good DM will occasionally put you into positions which test your faith as a Paladin while leaving you with a valid, in-character way out.

Edit: And while the interpretation of the Paladin code is up for grabs, the code itself is actually pretty explicit. And you're never supposed to break it. But...


Unbound Justice: At 7th level, unrestricted by your code of honor, you can employ unorthodox methods that are all the more effective because they're unexpected.

and...


Sacrament of True Faith: At 10th level, you gain your order's full confidence. You are granted the freedom to act on behalf of your faith as you deem necessary. Thus you never risk losing your class abilities in the pursuit of of a just cause and never need to atone for violating your code of conduct.

Those two abilities are just plain wrong for a Paladin PrC. It basically states that "The ends justify the means", which is pretty much warned against in the Paladin code. Why bother with the code in the first place if you can now break it any time you like with an easy penance and little worries?

Woot Spitum
2007-02-26, 11:20 PM
I think the gray guards can do what they do because they have special dispensation from their deity. The intent appears to me to be a class that can turn the tables on the forces of evil. It would be especially good against a party of evil PC's, turning the tables on them when they expect the "paladins" to not be quite so ruthless. For PC's, on the other hand, it isn't quite as good.

I don't like detect evil as its written. I think it should at the very least be ineffective against humanoids that aren't the active servants of their deity.

oriong
2007-02-26, 11:22 PM
I agree with Spiderbrigade's assesment, it's best not too look at the class as though it's an attempt to 'break' the paladin rules, although many players may take it for just that purpose (that alone may make it a bad idea).

The main issue I have is that it is associated with paladins who follow a very, very different philosophy: virtue above expidience in all things, even above necessity perhaps.

I would not have a problem with the class as a 'grey paladin' prestige class designed to be entered by clerics or non-paladin warriors, but by making it pretty much paladin only they have taken an existing class and pretty much completely removed it's theme. It's akin to making a 'silent bard' or a 'pacifist barbarian'.

Also, while it probably should be read in the way you do unfortunately it's descriptions and class abilities do strongly support a very nasty interpretation. For instance does he really need the ability to transform his healing hands into torture weapons? And making his smite work on chaotic as well as evil just supports the 'despotic' image of the class.

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-26, 11:22 PM
No, it's not really possible to be villaneous as a standard paladin. it's possible to be a jerk, but that's about it.

If you want to split hairs, antagonist. A Paladin can be the villain of your campaign if his views on Good differ radically from the PCs' (and none of them is a Paladin).


I do agree that there are dieties who would definitely have characters of this type among their ranks, after all even a LG diety can have a LN cleric with no problems at all, and there are certainly gods who are much more L than G. The main issue is their identification with the paladin.

Quite frankly, the standard Paladin's Code is so beaten out of shape and vague that it's pretty much up to every individual DM's interpretation in the first place.


Like the OP said, if the god is so approving of this behavior then why do standard paladins not recieve the same lee-way? Like I said before there are game settings in which there would be valid reasons, but those aren't really standard. It would have been far better to seperate this class from paladins, since it frankly doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

What's this all-binding "standard" I've missed all my life?

Anyway, these days I see the Paladin more as a champion of good over any hirearchy or organization. He may swear nominal loyalty to a church or kingdom, but his first loyalty is to general good. The way I look at the GreyGuard, he is essentially putting his organization (his diety or church or whatever) over that, so they're intervening on his behalf and granting him some more leeway.

If you look at what Churches did historically, there was a time when in the worldview of those ancients that members of the church hirearchy had the power to condemn or pardon. This class connects to that and brings a bit of a--dare I say it---"historical" feel to the campaign.

Of course if you're looking for a more storybook-style game, this class probably isn't for you. I wouldn't knock it, though, it has its place.

crazedloon
2007-02-26, 11:28 PM
I’m sorry I stopped reading half the responses because they were much the same stupid thing over and over again. Unfortunately he cut out a lot of the abilities that he quoted. I personally like this class.

Is kicking a heretic’s face in a good act? Oh I would not say it is good but I would never jump to the conclusion that it was evil. For example the Gray guard could have spent the last hour asking politely indeed being a very nice person to the heretic in an attempt to sway him to help or even repent. However when you know that heretics knows the whereabouts of a schools worth of children about to be sacrificed to bring a great daemon into the world you to would probably kick a few skulls in.

The difference between a gray guard and an Inquisitor or a brute trying to get info however is the after math. They do not enjoy their work they do it because they must. Indeed a grey guard should and probably does do more praying for forgiveness then any other paladin (manly because the paly never needs forgiveness because they are such goodytoshoes :smallwink: )

Really I hate this very narrow point of view of the class. It looks like you went into reading the class bitter because people were playing paladins wrong and ended up feeling like this was a class made to be an excuse. Really a good role-player should play this guy as a hard *** when he needs to be but more pious then any other (even if his piousness is grittier then the pansy paly :smalltongue: )

I'll leave you with the quote from the beginning of the class description.

"Does your stout armor give you peace of mind? Does your holy sword help you sleep at night? Mine do not."
-Ambros Brasmerer, gray guard

(that aint a happy person :smallwink: )

oriong
2007-02-26, 11:28 PM
If you want to split hairs, antagonist. A Paladin can be the villain of your campaign if his views on Good differ radically from the PCs' (and none of them is a Paladin).

Antagonist and villian are two completely different things. Also, while a paladin's views on Good may differ, they'll never differ radically, if they did they wouldnt' be Good.



What's this all-binding "standard" I've missed all my life?
The one spelled out in the D+D books, where Good and Evil are concrete and definitive forces, not simply the views of the prevailing norm and where morality is painted in broad strokes.


If you look at what Churches did historically, there was a time when in the worldview of those ancients that members of the church hirearchy had the power to condemn or pardon. This class connects to that and brings a bit of a--dare I say it---"historical" feel to the campaign.

Of course if you're looking for a more storybook-style game, this class probably isn't for you. I wouldn't knock it, though, it has its place.


The main issue is that D+D is a storybook-style game. Certainly it's possible to play it other ways, but the standard (and believe it or not there is one) is one of uncomplicated morality and uncomprimising, universal Good.

That Lanky Bugger
2007-02-26, 11:30 PM
SpiderBrigrage: I think the main complaint a lot of people are having is that this is the Paladin who's being shoe-horned into this role.

To borrow your example... While yes, there are times when a Batman-ish versus Superman-ish approach is necessary. Sometimes it might even be better! But would you ask Superman to take Batman's approach? No! You'd send Batman to take Batman's approach.

Same thing here. If your church has someone they need a confession beaten out of, they don't call for the LG Paladin to light the fire and start heating the hooks, they call for the TN Rogue who happens to have ranks in Intimidation and Knowledge: Torture.

Wehrkind
2007-02-26, 11:30 PM
Lanky: That's exactly my point in saying "Real world morality =! D&D morality."

There is no such thing as monolithic GOOD in D&D, at least insofar as there are gods who define it. Unless you use the paladins of a cause rule, and largely even then, a paladin is a paragon of what his god defines as virtue, not virtue in and of itself.

This is the giant disconnect that causes so many issues with morality and D&D. Once you accept that all possible religions are equally valid, the concept of "good" goes all over. In D&D, "good" becomes defined as "what my god wants" if you are a paladin and want to keep your powers.

The whole point of making the class a PrC instead of a base class is that a paladin has to prove himself as being devoted to his god and the relevant code without fail. After that, if he needs to bend the rules a little, it is understandable because the god knows he isn't doing it for any reason other than forwarding his cause.
Note that the class mentions he can still lose his powers, just that the atonement necessary is less strict due to their oaths and actions. The paladin is trusted further because more is expected of them.

Now, that is not to say the vanilla Paladin should not get better abilities after 6th level. It is silly that they have to PrC just to no suck after a point. The PrC's that cure that are not the problem though. It is the class itself.

oriong
2007-02-26, 11:31 PM
Yes there IS such a thing as monolithic good in D+D, the gods don't define it they are defined by it.

That Lanky Bugger
2007-02-26, 11:36 PM
Lanky: That's exactly my point in saying "Real world morality =! D&D morality."

There is no such thing as monolithic GOOD in D&D, at least insofar as there are gods who define it. Unless you use the paladins of a cause rule, and largely even then, a paladin is a paragon of what his god defines as virtue, not virtue in and of itself.

Key phrase is highlighted.

That's the thing. There IS a raw Good. It's an everpresent force which is CONSTANT. There are entire planes of existence in D&D devoted purely to beings crafted to their very essence from GOODNESS. Heck, a Paladin can even not have a God at all and still have his Paladin powers because this same GOODNESS is where the Paladin derives his powers.

Anyway, to quote the SRD on Paladins...



Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment) and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#poison), and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates

While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment), a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

A Paladin is NOT an inquisitor. They are not a rampaging vigilante bent on bringing the holy to ignorant masses. They are crusaders for all that is good and right in the world, who hold themselves to the highest degree of LAW and GOOD.

In short... The ends do not justify the means. This is explicit in the act with honor bit. Honor is NOT dragging your helpless foe into a dark corner to do your dark work, which this class allows.

Raum
2007-02-26, 11:39 PM
Miko was lawful good up until she split Shojo in half.Err, Lawful I'll grant. But how many "good" acts did she do?

oriong
2007-02-26, 11:40 PM
Err, Lawful I'll grant. But how many "good" acts did she do?

Totally not the place for this arguement.

Tobrian
2007-02-26, 11:41 PM
I would like to see a variant Paladin with the half elf bard's soothing voice and atonement in it's spell list. Talking the bad guys into becoming good.

:smallsmile:
Check the Book of Exalted Deed. Problem is, character with feats from the BoED just dont fit into a normal flavoured campaign, they're saints.

Cityscape (published Nov 2006) has a spell that allows paladins and city guards to make it impossible for an aggressive opponent or opponents to draw their weapon from its sheath. It's called "Peacebond".

Really, there's so many spells and magic items that make it possible to interrogate someone without torture, determine guilt for all to see, charm him, put a Mark of Justice on him or a Geas, it's so superfluous beating up and torturing a prisoner with pain touches. Unless you're a sadist.

Atlas Games published an interesting d20 sourcebook in that regard: Crime and Punishment - it disgusses what forms law and punishment and imprisonment could take in various pseudo-medieval fantasy settings with magic, how to deal with criminal spellcasters, the role of clerics, and lists examples of realm-world historical laws and punishments and how historical prisons looked like (there weren't many... you were either executed, exiled, or more usually for most crimes short of murder or treason you were branded or given a fine and community service. Putting people behind bars for years cost too much money, unless you were a political prisoner.)


(snip)
(if you're an openly confessed Sceptic - in World of Greyhawk the Sceptics are a philosophical group mostly comprised of wizards and sages, some of who are hard atheists denying that the gods exist at all and claiming that clerics are a kind of sorcerer, while the majority of Sceptics accepts that powerful entities commonly called gods exist but they refuse to worship them.

My rogue/wizard/arcane-trickster character does occasionally worship Rao, god of peace, serenity and knowledge, but he did voice the same objections to clerical power as the Sceptics long before he (or I the player!) knew such a sect existed! And he's been called a heretic by our Pelorite cleric more than once... in good fun? Who knows... Very ominous.)
(snip)

You know, if I hadn't had to retire said character at level 16 after a 5-year long campaign, I had been pondering if I shouldn't add some levels of Paladin of Rao to him just to screw with the cleric's mind. :smallbiggrin: Or a PrC or feats from the Book of Exalted Deeds, like Vow of Pacifism, that gives you an aura of Calm Emotions power. The poor character had to suffer being the token no-evocation-spells pacifist of the group for several years, always trying to talk to monsters... befriending a renegade drow... trying to feed a chained starving gnoll... trying to psychoanalyze mindflayers (ew)... he even adopted and raised 6 tiny Quaggoth pups after we'd killed their tribe! Out of guilt. By now he's a wizard with 6 teenage quaggoth bodyguards calling him "daddy". And he carries a sunblade because no-one else in the group could use it after we'd looted it from a pitfiend (you have to be LG or NG to use it, and be allowed to use swords) So don't tell me being good doesn't give you rewards! :smallwink:

No seriously, there was a player in that campaign who was fond of using exactly the same sort of justification for questionable actions as that Gray Guard PrC... admittedly he didnt pretend to be LG but claimed CN, but he would goad my character into doing his dirty work for him, like killing off some ork women and children, by berating my character for being willing to let them live after we'd killed their manfolk in a battle... saying that now the ork women were filled with hatred and would raise their children as killers to slaughter humans, and we better kill them right here, or otherwise the blood of innocents would be on my hands. When my character, feeling ill to his heart, moved to kill the orks, the other player's character stopped him and basically asked him what sort of monster he was, would he really kill ork children. Similar scenes happened a few more times, with my character growing ever more annoyed at having to defend his "wimpy softheartedness". After he'd acidentally beaten some derro to death with his bare hands (yes, a wizard with STR 14 and IUC and some other feats), he finally had enough and challenged the other guy to a duel, a barefisted brawl in loincloths, no weapons, armor or spells, and the loser would shut up. The other player's character (it was his 2nd, the first one had died, but they both shared certain personality traits) declined. No duel, but at least he shut up nagging.

Being able to just soothe an opponent would be cool, though. Jedi powers! "you want to go home and think about your life!" :smallsmile:
My character would have loved that... he had only CHA 04. It's not easy defending your idalistic beliefs if your assertiveness and diplomacy skill suck.
"Don't kill the gnoll. It's just hungry!" (said after the gnoll nearly ate him) :smalltongue:

Raum
2007-02-26, 11:46 PM
The difference between a gray guard and an Inquisitor or a brute trying to get info however is the after math. They do not enjoy their work they do it because they must. Indeed a grey guard should and probably does do more praying for forgiveness then any other paladin (manly because the paly never needs forgiveness because they are such goodytoshoes :smallwink: )How is this different from simply stating "the ends justify the means"? Feeling guilty about it doesn't make it good.

I really dislike the idea of becoming evil in order to defeat evil unless there are appropriate consequences. And the Gray Guard PrC seems to negate or avoid all consequences for their actions.

Wehrkind
2007-02-26, 11:47 PM
That is patently false, at least where the paladin is concerned. He gets his powers from his GOD, not Good as some force. So long as his god is cool with what he is doing, he keeps his powers.
If "good" was some definition divorced from the god's will, it would be possible for a god to fall while his paladin's do not. Again, D&D does not make this distinction, but the real world does.

oriong
2007-02-26, 11:52 PM
That is patently false, at least where the paladin is concerned. He gets his powers from his GOD, not Good as some force. So long as his god is cool with what he is doing, he keeps his powers.

wrong. Paladin's do not require a god's powers at all. Read the first line in the 'religion' section on paladins

"a paladin need not devote himself to a single god-devotion to righteousness is enough"


If "good" was some definition divorced from the god's will, it would be possible for a god to fall while his paladin's do not. Again, D&D does not make this distinction, but the real world does.

It is possible for a god to fall, in fact it's happened. there have been gods who have changed alingments in various D+D settings. However it is much rarer just like it's rarer for a celestial to 'fall' than a human.

Tobrian
2007-02-26, 11:52 PM
There is no such thing as monolithic GOOD in D&D, at least insofar as there are gods who define it. Unless you use the paladins of a cause rule, and largely even then, a paladin is a paragon of what his god defines as virtue, not virtue in and of itself.

This is the giant disconnect that causes so many issues with morality and D&D. Once you accept that all possible religions are equally valid, the concept of "good" goes all over. In D&D, "good" becomes defined as "what my god wants" if you are a paladin and want to keep your powers.

I would like to agree with you, unfortunately, it's the WotC game designers who have stated again and again that good and evil are absolutes in the D&D universe.

I know, it's not internally consistent. I don't like it. I'm a cynic. An idealist cynic, but still... But the point is, the writers cant even agree on what sort of behaviour is LG and what isnt in their own world. LG archons attacking you when you're chaotic and slaughtering anyone not meeting up to their standards of lawful goodness... crusader angels. I hate it.

On the other hand supplements such as Tome of Horror offer mechanics for "Taint", meaning that any action that is brutal and unethical will taint a character even if he fights and kills for a good cause, making evil a sort of energy field like the Dark Side of the Force, similar to Negative Energy.

Why is using dominate person or geas not an evil spell, but animate dead is, regardless of who uses it or for what ends? It just is.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-26, 11:53 PM
Err, Lawful I'll grant. But how many "good" acts did she do?

Worked to prevent the destruction of the universe by bringing the Order of the Stick to trial.
Rescued a dirt farmer from a group of ogres.
Entered a burning building to rescue those potentially trapped.
Chased down an escaped criminal and murderer (even if she did come close to crossing the line in the end—she still managed to restrain herself).
Those four are the bare minimum. And they comprise almost all of her panel time up until she overheard Shojo talking to Roy about his deceptions.

In any case, she had to be Lawful Good at least up to the point she killed Shojo simply because until then she retained her status as a paladin.

Raum
2007-02-26, 11:53 PM
That is patently false, at least where the paladin is concerned. He gets his powers from his GOD, not Good as some force. So long as his god is cool with what he is doing, he keeps his powers.Not according to the Paladin class. From the SRD: "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin."

If "good" was some definition divorced from the god's will, it would be possible for a god to fall while his paladin's do not. Again, D&D does not make this distinction, but the real world does.But good is defined separately from god's will. It's on pg 103 of the PHB.

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-26, 11:54 PM
Antagonist and villian are two completely different things. Also, while a paladin's views on Good may differ, they'll never differ radically, if they did they wouldnt' be Good.

See below.


The main issue is that D+D is a storybook-style game. Certainly it's possible to play it other ways, but the standard (and believe it or not there is one) is one of uncomplicated morality and uncomprimising, universal Good.

I don't buy that. Even the Forgotten Realms has some twists in it.... Artemis Entreri may be lawful evil, but he's done good things. Hell, in a way he's a moral man. The stories acknowledge this without shifting his alignment to Lawful Good.

You can just take the logical course that's supported by all the text and decide a Good alignment is what's decided as "Good" by the Gods.... and who says the Gods are in agreement? I could very easily imagine a Lawful Good Paladin getting into an altercation with a Chaotic Good Cleric of Kord.

I think things like the GrayGuard, the Crusader class and, say, the whole Eberron campaign setting, show that the designers/writers are generally moving in that direction. Perhaps the older D&D material didn't have the ambiguity present, I don't know, I wasn't there. By contrast, simplistic bollocks like the Book of Exalted Deeds is almost universally snubbed.

That Lanky Bugger
2007-02-26, 11:55 PM
No, Wehrkind... Good is defined as a seperate entity from a God. Quoth the SRD, Clerics this time:


Deity, Domains, and Domain Spells

A cleric’s deity influences his alignment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment), what magic he can perform, his values, and how others see him. A cleric chooses two domains (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/clericDomains.htm) from among those belonging to his deity. A cleric can select an alignment domain (Chaos (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/clericDomains.htm#chaosDomain), Evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/clericDomains.htm#evilDomain), Good (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/clericDomains.htm#goodDomain), or Law (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/clericDomains.htm#lawDomain)) only if his alignment matches that domain.


If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, he still selects two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities. The restriction on alignment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment) domains still applies.

This makes it pretty explicit that Clerics and Paladins don't necessarily have to derive their power from a particular God, but from an otherworldly "Good" (or "Evil", or any other extreme end of the Alignment scale in the case of the Cleric). Hence, you can have a totally atheist Paladin who still smites evildoers and prays simply to all things "Good".

Now, for the coup-de-grace... From the SRD definition of Good Vs. Evil:


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


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

How is it that a Paladin's PrC allows him to do things specifically outlined as evil?

ExHunterEmerald
2007-02-26, 11:55 PM
I've played a few paladins.
Shar ir'Deren is a paladin of the Silver Flame, which is an institute known for very bad things in the name of good.
Shar himself is a reformist, and over the game he's in, he'll be Craft(Essay) checking his way to a book on the Flame, and his own controversial beliefs. I'm projecting that he's going to be cast out of the church, but retain his divine power. I play him as Good as possible. When confronted with four bandits that nearly took his (and his friends) lives, he subdued them, and then used the last of his Lay on Hands powers not on himself (one hit point. One.) or his allies (wounded but stable), but the bandits. So they wouldn't bleed out on the streets. He sought them out in the first place to ask about a stolen item, and then offered them money for their time, and then extra if they would turn from banditry. (Didn't take, obviously.) Maybe it's me, but I think that's how it should be--he never made the first offensive move, attempted to stop combat, offered aid, fought, won, and then tended.

oriong
2007-02-26, 11:58 PM
I don't buy that. Even the Forgotten Realms has some twists in it.... Artemis Entreri may be lawful evil, but he's done good things. Hell, in a way he's a moral man. The stories acknowledge this without shifting his alignment to Lawful Good.

...What the hell are you talking about?

First and foremost just because he's done a few things that 'aren't evil' doesn't make him a moral man. It's utterly senseless to claim he'd come close to lawful good.

Second, artemis entreri is a character in a work of fiction written by someone who only loosely follows the actual D+D game, let alone alingment rules.


You can just take the logical course that's supported by all the text and decide a Good alignment is what's decided as "Good" by the Gods.... and who says the Gods are in agreement? I could very easily imagine a Lawful Good Paladin getting into an altercation with a Chaotic Good Cleric of Kord.

That's not a logical course at all. Never once has 'good' ever been indicated as being determined by the gods.


I think things like the GrayGuard, the Crusader class and, say, the whole Eberron campaign setting, show that the designers/writers are generally moving in that direction. Perhaps the older D&D material didn't have the ambiguity present, I don't know, I wasn't there. By contrast, simplistic bollocks like the Book of Exalted Deeds is almost universally snubbed.

You won't find me defending the BoED, but that's partially because the world it presents isn't a storybook world.

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-26, 11:59 PM
How is it that a Paladin's PrC allows him to do things specifically outlined as evil?

Going strictly by the text, a Paladin violates his code everytime he hurts someone else. Of course the Book of Exalted Deeds is there to pick up the slack. "Harming an evil creature is never an evil act...." I did a pretty good double-take when I read that.

Wehrkind
2007-02-26, 11:59 PM
Ok, let me say this again, in different words.

1. D&D morality is not consistent. Not by any standards we would apply in the real world.

2. In any campaign setting I have seen, there is no GOOD force or EVIL force that tells the gods what to do. The gods do what they want and act how they want, and if that happens to match "good" in the PHB alignment wise, they are good, if evil, evil.

3. The god a paladin follows grants a paladin his powers, just as he does clerics. The paladin merely has to follow his code exactly, instead of being slightly deviant (which doesn't make sense when you think about it, but eh.)

4. Paladins following causes are completely different. If it is not a being with a personality dispensing powers, then things go a bit differently.

That Lanky Bugger
2007-02-27, 12:03 AM
In the end it comes down to two things, for me:

Does it conflict with earlier RAW material which explicitly states a view I've been pushing in my games? Yes it does.

Does it conflict with the thematic take on Paladins which have been presented in the Core material, which has been explicitly stated to overrule secondary sources when it comes to conflict? We're batting two for two.

Result: I'm not letting it in my game. By the RAW, Good is an absolute force. This is indisputable from Core material in the PHB, DMG, and MM. Derivative material has diluted this, but I always go back to Core when it comes to conflicts.

I think the problem with this class is not specifically in the design, but that it appeals to the Good as subjective crowd whereas the Paladin presented in the PHB is, by RAW, designed to appeal to the Good as an absolute crowd. It's divisive.

I think I'm going to end my involvement in this thread here, since the arguments are now straying from the Gray Guard territory and into the Good Subjective vs. Good Objective territory.

oriong
2007-02-27, 12:03 AM
Ok, let me say this again, in different words.

1. D&D morality is not consistent. Not by any standards we would apply in the real world.

That's because D+D isn't the real world, it's a much simpler place and it's designed without deep moral examination in mind. It's simple in the way a fairy-tale is simple.


2. In any campaign setting I have seen, there is no GOOD force or EVIL force that tells the gods what to do. The gods do what they want and act how they want, and if that happens to match "good" in the PHB alignment wise, they are good, if evil, evil. You don't seem to be looking very closely then. The gods represent certain aspects of life or the world, if these are facets of Good or Evil then so is the good. What the god is determines how they behave, not the other way around.


3. The god a paladin follows grants a paladin his powers, just as he does clerics. The paladin merely has to follow his code exactly, instead of being slightly deviant (which doesn't make sense when you think about it, but eh.)
WRONG.

Already shown to be wrong in fact. Read the responses.


4. Paladins following causes are completely different. If it is not a being with a personality dispensing powers, then things go a bit differently.So...you mean the paladin presented in the core book is completely different from...the paladin presented in the core books? Paladin's don't follow causes, they follow GOOD (LG specifically of course.) Paladins don't recieve their powers from gods at all, they recieve it from their devotion to righteousness, they often follow gods in addition but they are a secondary loyalty.

Raum
2007-02-27, 12:04 AM
Heh, may be getting a bit off field here, but...

Worked to prevent the destruction of the universe by bringing the Order of the Stick to trial.Good intentions != good.

Rescued a dirt farmer from a group of ogres.
Entered a burning building to rescue those potentially trapped.Granted, she did some good deeds.

Chased down an escaped criminal and murderer (even if she did come close to crossing the line in the end—she still managed to restrain herself).This is certainly Lawful, but may or may not be good depending on the situation.

Those four are the bare minimum. And they comprise almost all of her panel time up until she overheard Shojo talking to Roy about his deceptions.

In any case, she had to be Lawful Good at least up to the point she killed Shojo simply because until then she retained her status as a paladin.Well that I'll grant. But looking at her actions objectively without knowing her class or class requirements, I'm not sure I would have identified her as good.

Of course deciding what the Lawful Good alignment (or any other) really entails is difficult given the fairly sparse definitions. I'd be willing to bet that there will be at least three different definitions in any given gaming group of four to five people. :)

Tor the Fallen
2007-02-27, 12:05 AM
How is it that a Paladin's PrC allows him to do things specifically outlined as evil?

His God forgives him, as it was deemed necessary.

Tobrian
2007-02-27, 12:05 AM
If you look at what Churches did historically, there was a time when in the worldview of those ancients that members of the church hirearchy had the power to condemn or pardon. This class connects to that and brings a bit of a--dare I say it---"historical" feel to the campaign.

Not just "historical"... :smallfrown: ... but no-one today would claim that the 16th century inquisition was lawful good! At least I hope so.

That's my point. People can write up all the Machiavellian-morality PrCs they want, if they want to play shady Black Ops that fine by me, but they shouldnt pretend it's lawful or good by the alignments definitions of D&D just because the PrC is a ecclesiastical order.


Of course if you're looking for a more storybook-style game, this class probably isn't for you. I wouldn't knock it, though, it has its place.

I've played RPGs like KULT and WoD: Revenants. They're extremely dark.

Please don't throw a "everyone who wants goody goody characters should play carebears, grownups play gritty games" argument at me. If that wasnt your intention and I misread you, I apologize. I shoild go to bed. Goodnight.


P.S. My sample ideal of a saintly paladin? Don Quixote from the movie The Man from La Mancha, with Peter O'Toole in the lead role. Of course, Don Quixote was considered insane, and a relic from a bygone age of chivalry...

An age of chivalry that never truly existed anywhere in the REAL WORLD. But D&D paladins are supposed to be fairy-tale knights in shining armor. They ride around, they heal the sick with a touch, smite evil, and the wickedness in the heart of Men is revealed to their eyes. They lay down their life for others, and quest for the Holy Grail that will rights all wrongs and heal the king who is one with the land.

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-27, 12:11 AM
Err, Lawful I'll grant. But how many "good" acts did she do?
She was a paladin with her powers intact. Ergo, she was lawful good. As for good acts, see the dirt farmers.

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-27, 12:12 AM
...What the hell are you talking about?

First and foremost just because he's done a few things that 'aren't evil' doesn't make him a moral man. It's utterly senseless to claim he'd come close to lawful good.

That's not what I claimed. I am pointing out he's not painted as a shallow, moustache-stroking, cape-twirling baddie just because his character sheet reads Lawful Evil. Similarly, a Paladin doesn't have to be a squeaky-clean, baby-kissing bleeding heart just because he's Lawful Good.

But you knew that. So what's so 4th-Grade about the Alignment system?


Second, artemis entreri is a character in a work of fiction written by someone who only loosely follows the actual D+D game, let alone alingment rules.

Oh, maybe you didn't. So are all badguys in your games required to cackle maniacally and wring their hands for easy identification?


That's not a logical course at all. Never once has 'good' ever been indicated as being determined by the gods.

Good as you mean it here is a metagame term. Why shouldn't an Orc champion of Gruumsh who served his deity well be rewarded with an eternity at his master's side? Oh, so he is. But he was evil wasn't he? Only according to Pelor/Kord/Heironeus, I guess.

Which is where D&D Cosmology breaks down into utter cocktardery. Good and evil aren't philosophical opposites. They're opposite teams in an endless and pointless football game. If you stuck to the basic rules of the game, the only differences between good and evil are cosmetic. Do you want the white/gold armor or the black spiky one? Sure, the souls of most evil people get sent to the Hells or the Abyss, while the souls of the good get to skip around in Elysium or wherever. But eventually those tortured souls become lemures, who become spiked devils, etc. etc. and eventually you've got a Pit Fiend. Well, they've got to start SOMEWHERE. My point is, D&D never says that good ultimately triumphs over evil, or carries a greater reward. What it ACTUALLY says is: don't be evil, unless you think you can be really good at it, in which case maybe you'll get to run your own demi-plane.

Now what the hell kind of storybook is that?

EDIT:


Please don't throw a "everyone who wants goody goody characters should play carebears, grownups play gritty games" argument at me. If that wasnt your intention and I misread you, I apologize. I shoild go to bed. Goodnight.

You did, sorry. Unlike the Spanish Inquisition, the GrayGuard is presumably not going to be fighting random jewish bankers. The Paladin is serving Good. The GrayGuard is serving the Church of _____, who are good, but have to shephard a lot of souls and can't always afford to take a stand on principal.

Tobrian
2007-02-27, 12:16 AM
Now what the hell kind of storybook is that?

Grimms Fairytales.

Gralamin
2007-02-27, 12:18 AM
I personally Like the concept, but I believe they should be knocked to LN and the abilities changed.
Or depending on your DM, you can follow RenegeadePaladin's example, which I believe is generally acceptable behavior.

Beleriphon
2007-02-27, 12:18 AM
I think things like the GrayGuard, the Crusader class and, say, the whole Eberron campaign setting, show that the designers/writers are generally moving in that direction. Perhaps the older D&D material didn't have the ambiguity present, I don't know, I wasn't there. By contrast, simplistic bollocks like the Book of Exalted Deeds is almost universally snubbed.

I'm go clarify this right now. Eberron's views of good and evil are exactly the same as the PHB definitions. The only thing that changes is that now anything, or anybody, can fall into one of those definitions. So evil gold dragons, and good aligned kobolds abound.



You don't seem to be looking very closely then. The gods represent certain aspects of life or the world, if these are facets of Good or Evil then so is the good. What the god is determines how they behave, not the other way around.


Either way the deity in question does not define good or evil, but they rather the deity is defined by good or evil. Presumably Cryic is Chatoic Evil because he would make a wonderful god murder. Murder in D&D is Evil, so you need an Evil representation of concept, while the rebirth and growth are generally regarded Good so Lathander is Good.

Good and Evil are objective, quantifiable forces in D&D and thus they exist outside of the perview of a deity. If a deity is Good then they are that way because what they represent is Good. If what they represent becomes Evil one would assume the deity becomes Evil or is replaced by a deity that is already Evil. To Forgotten Realms Mystra is Good because she encourages the responsible use of magic to better the world. Shar is evil because she wants to use magic to evil ends, to further her own goals at the expense of other, for revenge. To look at it another way a diety holds certain portfolios based on their alignment, so you really shouldn't ever see a Lathander holding the portfolio of murder without a major alignment shift.

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-27, 12:22 AM
I personally Like the concept, but I believe they should be knocked to LN and the abilities changed.
Or depending on your DM, you can follow RenegeadePaladin's example, which I believe is generally acceptable behavior.
My example? Have I really been setting that much of one? :smallamused:

oriong
2007-02-27, 12:23 AM
That's not what I claimed. I am pointing out he's not painted as a shallow, moustache-stroking, cape-twirling baddie just because his character sheet reads Lawful Evil. Similarly, a Paladin doesn't have to be a squeaky-clean, baby-kissing bleeding heart just because he's Lawful Good.

I did misread that, apologies.

However, you're missing a distinction, paladin's aren't simply lawful good. They're more than that, they represent a level of devotion to their ideals (the spirit, not simply the law) that goes beyond it. Do they have to be 2-dimensional stereotypes? No. But they are still knights in shining armor, that's their theme and their purpose. Does a person with the class "Squeaky-clean, baby-kisser" have to be a squeaky-clean baby-kisser? I'd say so. Paladin's can be complex and multi-dimensional characters but they must still be paladins.



Good as you mean it here is a metagame term. Why shouldn't an Orc champion of Gruumsh who served his deity well be rewarded with an eternity at his master's side? Oh, so he is. But he was evil wasn't he? Only according to Pelor/Kord/Heironeus, I guess.
Which is where D&D Cosmology breaks down into utter cocktardery. Good and evil aren't philosophical opposites. They're opposite teams in an endless and pointless football game. If you stuck to the basic rules of the game, the only differences between good and evil are cosmetic. Do you want the white/gold armor or the black spiky one? Sure, the souls of most evil people get sent to the Hells or the Abyss, while the souls of the good get to skip around in Elysium or wherever. But eventually those tortured souls become lemures, who become spiked devils, etc. etc. and eventually you've got a Pit Fiend. Well, they've got to start SOMEWHERE. My point is, D&D never says that good ultimately triumphs over evil, or carries a greater reward. What it ACTUALLY says is: don't be evil, unless you think you can be really good at it, in which case maybe you'll get to run your own demi-plane. Actually in most cases good is meant to triumph over evil, that's why the Paladin existed in the first place (this was of course before the variations came out). It was supposed to be the holy warrior with powers that had no evil 'alternate'. Of course they screwed the pooch mechanically speaking, but that's the idea.

The fact that evil villians don't 'go away and burn forever' doesn't mean D+D morality isn't simple, it just means it doesn't follow the standard 'good is rewarded and evil punished' storyline that is very common. It's still a very simply game of 'look, a horde of wicked <insert monster here>, we shall slay them! For justice!"

Also worth noting that the stuff you mention is hardly part of the original game, it's the result of deeper examination of the 'systems' behind an originally much less complex game.

EDIT: Just to be clear, my problem has never been the existance of this class, even that this class follows and is rewarded by LG deities (although frankly it's poorly written in the sense that it screams 'sadist' rather than 'guy who does what he has to', it seems like a case of a writer who doesn't even believe in what he's doing with it). My problem is the association with the paladin. The class could be lawful good (may be better as lawful neutral) but it contradicts a lot of the essence of the original class and for no real reason or justification.

Logos7
2007-02-27, 12:25 AM
We've Managed to Figure out at least one method of testing for the Good in the Real World, why wouldn't they have that in fantasy ( We'll say a hobit named Kant Baggem's created the unviversal imperative)

Ahh but it's the real world, what we are talking about is fantasy.

Yeah we'll theirs a lot of the real world in fantasy, and even when their's not their is still a level of consistancy from the real world we expect in fantasy ... Verslimitude.

How hard is it to figure out indivudal that punching some guys teeth in is not good, regardless of what happens next. Morality is not hard, Kids can do it, What Twists People Up is Piginholling their views onto everyone else, which is extremely hard. This does't reduce into relativism, you can still make a mistake in your view. The Good Will is not elusive, an understanding of it is.

I think this is gonna be a great PRC for Clerics and Other Faithfull in my Games ( and i game in eberron, where regardless of your alignment you still have to follow the tenats of your beliefs )but not pallies, Just my two cents.

Logos

Tobrian
2007-02-27, 12:27 AM
Is kicking a heretic’s face in a good act? Oh I would not say it is good but I would never jump to the conclusion that it was evil. For example the Gray guard could have spent the last hour asking politely indeed being a very nice person to the heretic in an attempt to sway him to help or even repent. However when you know that heretics knows the whereabouts of a schools worth of children about to be sacrificed to bring a great daemon into the world you to would probably kick a few skulls in.

Strawman argument. We've all heard it before haven't we?

Constructing some far-fetched hypothetical situation to support your point doesnt make it correct.

And heretics are not "evil". They're heretics. Meaning they're holding views deviating from church doctrine.

Beating someone's face in in an attempt to persuade him to change his worldview and adopt your's... is that really a persuasive argument for the moral superiority of your faith? (rhetorical question)

The point is, this Gray Guard and his order define who is innocent and who isnt to begin with. And then the author of that chapter claims it's LG because a LG deity tells them "well done, brave warriors!" And in D&D, where deities exist, the author is basically legitimating the PrC by validating the actions of a fictional character with another fictional Superbeing. Players now have Carte Blanche to let their character do basically anything and claim it's still LG, and if they have a GM who allowed this PrC as a paladin PrC in the first place...

Basically, this PrC sounds like the "paladins" they have in the Theocracy of the Pale on World of Greyhawk. In that country, if you don't worship Pholtus, He of the Blinding Light, whose church claims to follow the only true god and hold the only truth, you're an unbeliever and exiled. Watch out! If you're a cleric or paladin of another god, and are caught proselysing to convert people to your faith, you're thrown into a "re-education camp". If you're not human, you're a second class citizen, if you're a wizard, you might get burned at the stake for witchcraft. If you're a heretic or follow an evil god, you WILL be burned at the stake. Period.

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 12:28 AM
Oriong, you miss my point. Lankybugger sort of gets it, but he isn't addressing it.

D&D's morality is inconsistent and illogical. It does not make things absolutely good or evil, even though it claims to. By Lanky's quote



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


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

As stated previously, a paladin is evil because he hurts people? All that BAB is going to go to waste. And yes, the core contradicts itself, but only by saying paladins can get their powers from different sources. Depending on that source, the result is different. That is not to say that the mechanics have to be different, but the end result is hugely different. If you take god to include 'being with free will' in its definition, that means the actual, role played result is going to be wildly different.

To put it another way, if killing that one good goblin defending his home from the adventuring party does not cause that paladin to fall, the whole alignment system (as defined by WotC) goes out the window.

Gralamin
2007-02-27, 12:28 AM
My example? Have I really been setting that much of one? :smallamused:

Your the only one I can think of off the top of my head :smallwink:

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 12:33 AM
Not just "historical"... :smallfrown: ... but no-one today would claim that the 16th century inquisition was lawful good! At least I hope so.
At the time, however, they were both considered wrong and distasteful, and the pinnacles of those willing to do anything to keep the flock safe.


That's my point. People can write up all the Machiavellian-morality PrCs they want, if they want to play shady Black Ops that fine by me, but they shouldnt pretend it's lawful or good by the alignments definitions of D&D just because the PrC is a ecclesiastical order.
Stop dragging Machiavelli's name through the mud. He described how to keep power in a non-consensual government, and was extremely accurate in the beth methods of doing so. He did not practice them himself, merely noted how it was done at the time, and which was considered at the time, and a long time after, a proper practice.

Also, as the D&D definition of good states first "altruism", the ends DO justify the means. That is a requirement of altruism, that sufficient good on whole out weighs a little bad. That's why you kill orcs instead of taking them to church and rehabilitating them.

Gralamin
2007-02-27, 12:38 AM
At the time, however, they were both considered wrong and distasteful, and the pinnacles of those willing to do anything to keep the flock safe.


Stop dragging Machiavelli's name through the mud. He described how to keep power in a non-consensual government, and was extremely accurate in the beth methods of doing so. He did not practice them himself, merely noted how it was done at the time, and which was considered at the time, and a long time after, a proper practice.

Also, as the D&D definition of good states first "altruism", the ends DO justify the means. That is a requirement of altruism, that sufficient good on whole out weighs a little bad. That's why you kill orcs instead of taking them to church and rehabilitating them.

Expanding on Machiavelli - "The Prince" specifically stated that being a ruler is amoral. The book was meant to show how good rulers gain power.

Also have you read the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind? I believe the main character (Richard) to be LG. Part of the logic is thus:
"If one person is willing to kill others for their own selfish desires, then they sacrifice their right to live."

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-27, 12:38 AM
EDIT: Just to be clear, my problem has never been the existance of this class, even that this class follows and is rewarded by LG deities (although frankly it's poorly written in the sense that it screams 'sadist' rather than 'guy who does what he has to', it seems like a case of a writer who doesn't even believe in what he's doing with it). My problem is the association with the paladin. The class could be lawful good (may be better as lawful neutral) but it contradicts a lot of the essence of the original class and for no real reason or justification.

I agree with you on that last point, because honestly the GrayGuard can't do anything I couldn't see a Paladin doing before. But the Paladin's always been rather lame-footed anyway, and obsolete ever since the Crusader came out. (Note that 'obsolete' here refers to the way a Colt .45 is obsolete.... still kind of cool in its own right, just not the best model anymore). When I saw this PrC, I actually thought "well this might make them worth playing again."

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-27, 12:49 AM
Constructing some far-fetched hypothetical situation to support your point doesnt make it correct.
IMO, in this case this IS a valid argument, and here's why: the Grey Guard is supposed to be breaking the code only in those far-fetched situations, or at least in moderately far-fetched ones :smallwink: He's not a guy who regularly mistreats prisoners, he's a guy who very reluctantly does it, sometimes. And until 10th level, he still has to atone.

I think too much is being made of the quote "unbound by his code of conduct." Note that all that ability does is give him some skill bonuses - it doesn't stop him from having to atone. That is the capstone ability to the class. It is a big deal. You have to be a really screwed-up holy man by that point. And you're STILL not callously torturing everybody. It's still only done in those extreme farfetched cases.

Although I find the "what is the intention of this class" part of the thread pretty interesting, I think I'm going to have to let it go, because as usual the discussion is turning into a very abstract debate about what good and evil are in D&D, and that just goes nowhere :smallfrown:

Gralamin
2007-02-27, 12:52 AM
IMO, in this case this IS a valid argument, and here's why: the Grey Guard is supposed to be breaking the code only in those far-fetched situations, or at least in moderately far-fetched ones :smallwink: He's not a guy who regularly mistreats prisoners, he's a guy who very reluctantly does it, sometimes. And until 10th level, he still has to atone.

I think too much is being made of the quote "unbound by his code of conduct." Note that all that ability does is give him some skill bonuses - it doesn't stop him from having to atone. That is the capstone ability to the class. It is a big deal. You have to be a really screwed-up holy man by that point. And you're STILL not callously torturing everybody. It's still only done in those extreme farfetched cases.

Although I find the "what is the intention of this class" part of the thread pretty interesting, I think I'm going to have to let it go, because as usual the discussion is turning into a very abstract debate about what good and evil are in D&D, and that just goes nowhere :smallfrown:

We don't argue to get stuff done, we argue because we like too :smallbiggrin:

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 12:54 AM
Tobrian: having a "heretic" (a poor choice of words; cultist of evil works better) in custody and having to get the location of a ritual isn't too far fetched even in reality. In D&D it is called "Tuesday." There is constant debate in real life about the treatment of prisoners, and methods of interrogation. Where is the line between beating the piss out of someone for information to save people, and going "Meh, whatever" and doing nothing (thus being derelict in saving others) that takes it from the extremes and being bad, and walks the fine line of good?


When it comes to gods, what about Myrkul and Kelmnavor (spelling, sorry)? Kel is good, and interested in lessening the suffering of the dead in his realm. Mykul was all kinds of evil. At least in the Forgotten realms, god's portfolios are just that simple to move around, regardless of alignment. Not that it is consistent or anything, but it is done.

That is of course my whole point: None of the "alignment system" is consistent. Things are changed to fit the stories and campaigns, and are shifted with in them as writes and designers feel appropriate. Saying "OMG this class doesn't fit at all!" is wrong because it does fit some, and certainly fits just as well as many things in the system.

Duke Malagigi
2007-02-27, 12:55 AM
Simple, paladins while not psychopaths (a role much more appropriate for evilly aligned characters) are not particularly forgiving or merciful to those who cause harm to the innocent. As the Tenth Doctor once said, "I'm so old now. I used to have so much mercy. You get one warning, that was it." Any paladin worth his salt would have to agree with that sentiment.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-27, 12:56 AM
EDIT: Just to be clear, my problem has never been the existance of this class, even that this class follows and is rewarded by LG deities (although frankly it's poorly written in the sense that it screams 'sadist' rather than 'guy who does what he has to', it seems like a case of a writer who doesn't even believe in what he's doing with it). My problem is the association with the paladin. The class could be lawful good (may be better as lawful neutral) but it contradicts a lot of the essence of the original class and for no real reason or justification.

So, if the PrC fluff was less along the lines of "A Paladin willing to perform morally ambiguous acts" and more along the lines of "A former Paladin unable to comply with the rigorous demands of the code but still eager to carry on the fight against Evil (say, he joins up with a deity or finds a group of Grey Guards that teach him such-and-such powers)", you wouldn't have as much of an objection?

Sardia
2007-02-27, 12:58 AM
Really, there's so many spells and magic items that make it possible to interrogate someone without torture, determine guilt for all to see, charm him, put a Mark of Justice on him or a Geas, it's so superfluous beating up and torturing a prisoner with pain touches. Unless you're a sadist.


Or unless you consider fiddling with someone's mind to be a worse offense than giving them a few bruises and broken bones. Which is worse, a kick in the teeth, or a magical compulsion to act in a way antithetical to the core of your beliefs? Arguable.

Bouldering Jove
2007-02-27, 12:58 AM
I feel compelled to point out that, with Sacrament of True Faith, Gray Guards are unrestricted in method but still bound to serving a just cause with their methods, and though they never need to atone for violating their code of conduct, they'll still fall the moment they change alignments. "Habitually" performing a corrupt or immoral act is as simple as doing one without considering alternatives.

So, I don't see what there is here to get worked up about. The Gray Guard is still compelled to be Lawful Good; they can simply be ruthless instead of merciful and compassionate. On top of that, if they ever stop weighing the morality of their actions, they get depowered.

oriong
2007-02-27, 12:58 AM
So, if the PrC fluff was less along the lines of "A Paladin willing to perform morally ambiguous acts" and more along the lines of "A former Paladin unable to comply with the rigorous demands of the code but still eager to carry on the fight against Evil (say, he joins up with a deity or finds a group of Grey Guards that teach him such-and-such powers)", you wouldn't have as much of an objection?

I do think it would actually make an excellent 'fallen paladin' class as an alternative to the blackguard, I'd even suggest giving it substitution levels of the same sort. I could also see it as a class for TN cleric and warrior followers of a LG diety (like I said, most of the abilities are very poorly written, and don't emphasize the class's good points at all.). Or even LG followers, although I'd bet LN would be more common.

Gralamin
2007-02-27, 12:59 AM
Or unless you consider fiddling with someone's mind to be a worse offense than giving them a few bruises and broken bones. Which is worse, a kick in the teeth, or a magical compulsion to act in a way antithetical to the core of your beliefs? Arguable.

I agree with Terry Goodkind about this as well (he has quite a few good points):

A glibness spell (In his books magically compels target to love a certain person) is the moral equivalent of rape.

Tobrian
2007-02-27, 01:01 AM
Stop dragging Machiavelli's name through the mud. He described how to keep power in a non-consensual government, and was extremely accurate in the beth methods of doing so. He did not practice them himself, merely noted how it was done at the time, and which was considered at the time, and a long time after, a proper practice.

I know I know. I ve read parts of El Principe, in a German translation of course... but the adjective Machiavellian has become a synonym of justifying your actions and acting amoraly. Like byzantine, it acquired it's own definition. Give me a better adjective.


Also, as the D&D definition of good states first "altruism", the ends DO justify the means. That is a requirement of altruism, that sufficient good on whole out weighs a little bad. That's why you kill orcs instead of taking them to church and rehabilitating them.

huh? That is NOT the definition of altruism. At least not by any definition I as behavioral biologist have learned. Altruistic behaviour means doing a godo deed without looking for your own gain or asking for a return, or even sacrificing yourself to aid another. Of course, pure altruism rarely exists outside family bonds, usually it's mutual reciprocative altruism, exchanging help so that both interacting partners can profit from it.

But neither definition applies to your example. Sacrificing someone for the sake of the group has nothing to do with altruism. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" may be a Vulcan proverb, but it isnt altruism, especially not if you "nobly" sacrifice someone else to benefit your own community - usually an outsider who doesnt belong to the community anyway. The commonly cited example is the plague carrior who is killed so he won't infect the whole town. But killing an orc or a tribe of orcs under the pretense that they pose a threat to your town is simply tribal warfare. Humans have done that for millenia.

Now, if your town would profit more from negotiating peace with the orc tribe in the long run than by wiping them all out, or burning up resources in a low-level warfare with them for centuries, is that an incentive? Had the Vikings of Greenland not tried to kill the Inuit when the Inuit arrived in Greenland, the Vikings might have learned survival techniques from the Inuit instead of starving.


Where am i going with this? Not sure.

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 01:03 AM
I keep hearing good things about Terry Goodkind. I was aware he was fairly Objectivist (perhaps with sloppy diction at times), though I had largely forgotten. I might have to grab some of his books, if I ever get out from under my current stack.

Gralamin
2007-02-27, 01:07 AM
I keep hearing good things about Terry Goodkind. I was aware he was fairly Objectivist (perhaps with sloppy diction at times), though I had largely forgotten. I might have to grab some of his books, if I ever get out from under my current stack.

Excellent books. For a taste of his logic, wikipedia "Wizard Rules." One rule is released in each book.

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 01:11 AM
Where am i going with this? Not sure. Yea, unfortunately that is pretty much where altruism always goes. Sooner or later it boils down to "Well, it is right for you, but not for me". Is it right for someone to bring that plague bearer into town to take care of them, sacrificing themselves for his good, but also the town? Futher, if someone can demand you be good, doesn't that demand your sacrifice?

The whole definition of "good" under altruism is not thinking of what benefits you, but what benefits others. If you are going to ask others to be good, you ask them to ignore what is good for them, and think about what is good for others. Otherwise you just have to accept that not everyone can be good, or will be good, and the vast majority of people are "neutral" at best. Just one step from gobbo's...

"Mutual reciprocal altruism" is something of a stretch, isn't it? It is tangential to the discussion, but I would happily explain why that is an incorrect concept. You find it a lot in the "social sciences", but to be fair, it has largely been the general basis for morality for millenia, one's obligations to others thus being in constant conflict with their obligations to themselves.

Which has nothing to do with Grey Paladins, but I mean to illustrate the broad range of conceptual morality that D&D says they ignore in favor of "absolutes" but they really don't.

Sardia
2007-02-27, 01:17 AM
I agree with Terry Goodkind about this as well (he has quite a few good points):

A glibness spell (In his books magically compels target to love a certain person) is the moral equivalent of rape.

I suppose in this incidence, a spell compelling someone to act morally Good is denying them the chance to actually repent their evil and act Good for its own sake. Something of a Clockwork Orange deal.
"I should be good or a paladin will kick my teeth in, because good is more powerful than evil." isn't advanced moral reasoning, but it's at least a reason.

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 01:24 AM
Objectivist with sloppy diction = Terry Goodkind. Definitely need to get a few of his books now.

Well, specifically taking away someone's free will in such a manner essentially destroys them as a person. If you do not have the ability to reason and make your own choices, you cease to be human, becoming more of an object that simply affects the world around it. At best, it makes you a slave.

Probably a discussion for another thread, because there is a lot of great discussion to have on the matter :)

Dervag
2007-02-27, 01:24 AM
Yes, I think the distaste about this class is somewhat idealistic, in the sense that children are idealistic. It is the same logic that says "Execution is bad, because killing is bad!"Not for me, it isn't.

Paladins are intrinsically an idealistic class. They're modeled after legendary figures like Sir Galahad from Arthurian legend. The entire point of the paladin class is that they gain divine power by virtue of being, well, virtuous. The idea of a paladin that isn't idealistic is a contradiction in terms.

These 'Grey Guards' aren't paladins at all. They're no more virtuous than so many Gestapo agents. They're not 'kind of like a paladin, only willing to get their hands dirty.' They're not like a paladin at all.


that says a god might not want you torturing for fun, but if it will save a kidnapped congregation, then it is ok.Is it? Is it worth soiling everything a deity stands for? Is that how deities work?

Remember, the deities know that their followers will be rewarded by life after death. Why would they be willing to endorse gross violations of their own fundamental codes to delay that?


The whole point of the class is that it mirrors how reality actually works. Sometimes the good guys do some fairly bad things, and sometimes really bad things, because they only look bad on the face of it.The catch is that there's a huge difference between shooting someone in the face during a fight and shooting someone in the face to terrify the other prisoners into telling you the whereabouts of the treasure.

The problem is that not all acts committed in the name of good are good; not all that seems fair is fair. Paladins recognize this implicitly with their code, which is supposed to force them to abstain from committing evil acts in the name of good.

Grey Guards do not; that way lies the evils of the Spanish Inquisition and the secret police of totalitarian societies.


The paladin becomes this specially designated tool precisely because of the fact he has demonstrated he will not go overboard, but is willing to do what the god considers must be done.I don't think that this class is compatible with paladinhood, for the reasons above. This guy is the sort of fellow who would have loved to work for the Inquisition or the Gestapo or the NKVD. People like that are not good.

What bothers me is trying to call this fellow a paladin or associate him with the concept of 'paladin'. He isn't quite as gross a negation of all the paladin stands for as the blackguard is, but he comes pretty close.


Note: In general, a rational moral philosophy does not mix well with the known existance of many gods, or even one.Why not?


By the way, I am curious what your adventurers do, if you find this grey paladin so distasteful. Do you still slaughter villages of demihumans because they have green skin, and civilized society calls them evil?Not if they haven't done anything to anyone.
Still delve into anchient tombs to steal treasure from those who still claim it?Depends on the claim.


What I'm trying to get at is that the Grey Guard isn't intended to be a callous zealot of his cause, heedless to the suffering of innocents as long as he's pursuing his goal. Breaking the code of conduct is still supposed to be a big deal for him (hence he still has to atone, until the very last level of the class). This isn't about "the cardsharp knew the name of the evil devil-worshiper, so I tore out his eyes to make him tell." It's about "the only way to take that diabolist down was by poisoning his drink...may God forgive me." Note that under normal circumstances, paladins "will never knowingly associate with evil characters." That means working with underworld informants to root out the local TEMPLE OF ULTIMATE EVIL is straight out - which a Grey Guard could do, although he would probably still have to atone for it.OK, now that makes more sense.


Actually in most cases good is meant to triumph over evil, that's why the Paladin existed in the first place (this was of course before the variations came out). It was supposed to be the holy warrior with powers that had no evil 'alternate'. Of course they screwed the pooch mechanically speaking, but that's the idea.Right. The idea was that good and evil are not symmetrical. Evil doesn't create individual paladins to embody it; good does.


The fact that evil villians don't 'go away and burn forever' doesn't mean D+D morality isn't simple, it just means it doesn't follow the standard 'good is rewarded and evil punished' storyline that is very common. It's still a very simply game of 'look, a horde of wicked <insert monster here>, we shall slay them! For justice!"Also remember that the lower planes (for evildoers' afterlives) really suck for most people. Ordinary petty evildoers aren't going to be happy in the Nine Hells or the Abyss, even if extremely powerful evil individuals might. That is a big part of the difference between good and evil- how ordinary people fare under the two alignments.

The Great Skenardo
2007-02-27, 01:27 AM
Good as you mean it here is a metagame term. Why shouldn't an Orc champion of Gruumsh who served his deity well be rewarded with an eternity at his master's side? Oh, so he is. But he was evil wasn't he? Only according to Pelor/Kord/Heironeus, I guess.
Well, as I understand the rules about afterlife in D&D, people of an alignment tend to go to their Gods' plane or the suitably-aligned plane. Certainly, the Orc Warlord that devotes his life to Gruumsh and domination in his name will probably go to Gruumsh's side when she dies. If that's your idea of a good time.



Which is where D&D Cosmology breaks down into utter cocktardery. Good and evil aren't philosophical opposites. They're opposite teams in an endless and pointless football game. If you stuck to the basic rules of the game, the only differences between good and evil are cosmetic. Do you want the white/gold armor or the black spiky one?
I'm not certain that ascetics are the only difference here. One has more flames and screaming and pointy sticks, but is this merely asthetic? I'm not convinced. I suppose the thing to realize is that no mere convention of dice and plusses can really encompass the complexities of a full-blown moral dilemma. It must perforce be simplified to the RAW.


Sure, the souls of most evil people get sent to the Hells or the Abyss, while the souls of the good get to skip around in Elysium or wherever. But eventually those tortured souls become lemures, who become spiked devils, etc. etc. and eventually you've got a Pit Fiend. Well, they've got to start SOMEWHERE. My point is, D&D never says that good ultimately triumphs over evil, or carries a greater reward. What it ACTUALLY says is: don't be evil, unless you think you can be really good at it, in which case maybe you'll get to run your own demi-plane.

Perhaps you're taking too broad a view here? When you talk about the eventualities of moving from damned to lemure up and down the treacherous ranks of fiends...This can be hundreds or thousands of years. If you want a more conclusive ending to your campaign world, then by all means, you can end your campaign with a grand event ending evil forever. In most cases, however, the course of a campaign is rarely more than 10 years.

I suppose my point is that the end of the grand battle of good and evil is up to you and your DM. The rules are there to provide a balanced environment in which there is a constant battle of good and evil. If one side or the other wins, Clyde the 1st-level ranger will have to look elsewhere to roll his dice.



Now what the hell kind of storybook is that?

One that goes on and on forever.

EDIT: Mostly simu-ninja'd

Jade_Tarem
2007-02-27, 01:38 AM
So...

Interesting PrC... I haven't seen it played and already I hate it. My "campaign trashometer" is sounding red alert. As someone said before, I would only use it as a villian.

The PrC sounds a bit like Kore from the Goblins webcomic, now that I think about it. I'm not sure about the details, but he can kill innocent kids whose only crime is encountering evil without losing his paladin abilities. His famous line is "All evil, even potential evil, must be destroyed." *Ker-SHAK*

I think we can chalk it up like all the other paladin variants, another one off the "Whaaaaaambulance" for players who wanted to play paladins with other alignments but whose DMs wouldn't let them.

The Great Skenardo
2007-02-27, 01:40 AM
It might also be appropriate for more dystopian settings. Things that draw from heroes of horror or even just SRD with a grittier feel.

Tobrian
2007-02-27, 01:57 AM
Or unless you consider fiddling with someone's mind to be a worse offense than giving them a few bruises and broken bones. Which is worse, a kick in the teeth, or a magical compulsion to act in a way antithetical to the core of your beliefs? Arguable.

Well, a magical compulsion usually does not leave crippling injuries for life. Psychologists fiddle with someone's mind all the time... but usually to help that person. I agree with you that a Dominate Person spell is a sort of mental rape. On the other hand, if an murderer can be stopped from killing by using Hold PErson or Dominate instead if killing him... it is of course no easy question with no simply answer. that's why i find it ironic that the paladin spell MArk of Justice is a necromantic spell.

But the point I'm trying to make is, if someone has been convicted as a criminal, it is lawful for a paladin to support that the criminal should be punished. There are ways in D&D to deal with criminals, spells, that make killing or torturing them superfluous. And unless they'Re completely insane evil and must be kept locked away or killed forever (even death isnt ultimately the end in D&D, what with resurrection spells) to protect others, I take the stance of Alfred Bester's novel The Demolished Man that if you have the magical means to rehabilitate a sociopath or habitual criminal by scrubbing his memory clean with telepathy (or magic) and build him up again and make him a better person, that's a better alternative that killing him, because killing someone who has already proven that he is strong of will, intelligent and able to rise above the mass of everyday people is a waste of talent. You just need to prod and push him into the right direction, one that benefits society. Yes, it is invasive... but he has already reliquishes certain rights when he decided to become a murderer.

Personally, if I had to choose between being put on the wheel, drawn and quartered, or having a helmet of opposite alignment put on me and having my whole worldview changed, well... if I was NE, I'd probably rather chose to survive than be killed gruesomely, and if I was good and people wanted to turn me deeply evil... well I dunno, the wheel is a horrible way to die. Rock and a hard place. Dying for your beliefs only has a point if it serves a purpose.

My problem with the Gray Guard is that he doesnt merely bring convicted criminals and murderers to justice... the Bloodhound PrC from Complete Adventurer is a headhunter, but he has specific feats to catch his mark alive. The Gray Guard does not merely do questionable thingsto evil people, he does questionable things to people to force them to confess being evil, or a criminal! He can pardon himself for anything he does as long as it is defined as a just cause by his own Gray Guard order. Who watches the watchers? No-one, in this case. And the Gray Guard explicitely mentions that they don't just hunt down evil, but punish people of chaotic alignment as well.

If the poeple he kills really are evil or corrupt a paladin would have no problem with executing or handing them over to justice either, so why pretend the Gray Guard is doing the work the paladin can't? So what's the point of creating this PrC and its special feats as a "gritty paladin" PrC? If the writer just wanted to make a special class that represents a corrupt "holy order" who torture victims with pain touches, fine.

But the way it is written smacks of sadism just for the sake of being a "bloodstained" anti-hero. Using questionable methods equals coolness? :smallannoyed:


Addendum: I just noticed the Gray Guard has Forgery among his class skill. Also Bluff, but no Diplomacy. Ominous. What, pray, does he need forgery for?

darkzucchini
2007-02-27, 01:57 AM
I tend to think of the Grey Guard as a utilitarian version of the paladin. You will perform evil acts for the greater good, or at least the greater good in the eyes of your god and the Church. I don't believe that this class is made to allow paladins go around killing everyone that they detect as evil, but as a class that is sent on missions for the Church that involve getting one's hands dirty. Say some adventurers unknowingly get their hands on and evil artifact that some good Church had hidden in a dungeon. The Church would then send out a Grey Guard to kill the adventures in order to regain the artifact without letting anyone know what power it holds. Or torturing an evil cultist to find out what member of the church is a spy for an evil god. Or bring back paladins that have truely gone off the deep end and have started killing who ever they view as evil.

darkzucchini
2007-02-27, 02:17 AM
I think that its flawed to look at the grey gaurd as an evil or LN paladin. I believe that it should be viewed as an utilitarian paladin, someone who has the greater good in mind, or at least the greater good in the eyes of his god and the church. You would send out the grey guard to kill someone that has unknowingly discovered an evil artifact. Or to torture an evil cultist that knows the identity of an evil spy in the ranks of the paladins church. I think that calling the paladin as an idealistic class is too narrow of a view. Obviously, if a paladin is commiting evil acts without reason or that do not work for a greater good, he should loose his abilities. But if he he has to break some bones, maybe even slit some throats, to save thousands of innociant lives and souls, I think there should be room for the type of good that sees taking such actions as a duty.

darkzucchini
2007-02-27, 02:18 AM
oops. Thought I had lost my first post. Owell.

Thomas
2007-02-27, 02:20 AM
I love the Gray Guard (like I love the Shadowbane Inquisitors and Stalkers), mostly because I don't much hold with the idea of black-and-white good and evil.

The way I look at it, Lawful Good is one of the best villain alignments (Planescape experiences play a big part in this view; Harmonium, anyone?). They know what's right, and they're going to make- er, "help" people live that way. "Red meat is unhealthy for you. No eating red meat. Not praying daily is unhealthy for you, too - we've got people who make sure of that." (Everybody's seen or read some SF with this sort of society.)

Cynicism plays a big part in my view, too. Sure, you've got a LG deity; but how much attention do deities really pay to the world? Oh, look, you've also got an organized religion - what a great way to let human weakness corrupt your ideals and practices.

I don't think Good characters are necessarily pleasant, peaceful, or constantly virtuous (and the definition of virtue does indeed vary by culture and religion).

Paladin antagonists are one of my favorite types (because even the pure, chivalrious sort get on my players' nerves so bad), but paladin villains are downright delicious. (I also loved the angel villain in Planescape: Torment.)


If you look at what Churches did historically, there was a time when in the worldview of those ancients that members of the church hirearchy had the power to condemn or pardon. This class connects to that and brings a bit of a--dare I say it---"historical" feel to the campaign.

Pretty much my sentiment on the issue. It's not realism so much as versimilitude. "Well, gee, the church is good, but sometimes you have to torture some unbelievers."

Like crazedloon, I feel a Gray Guard would spend a lot of time in penance - mortification, prayer, and other purification, or ritualistic good works, along with atonement spells - in between missions. (Just like I envision the Shadowbane Inquisitors and Stalkers doing, although I'm of the opinion they've got an even darker, almost masochistic edge to their practices.) Why should Warhammer Fantasy be the only game with flagellants...?


The main issue is that D+D is a storybook-style game. Certainly it's possible to play it other ways, but the standard (and believe it or not there is one) is one of uncomplicated morality and uncomprimising, universal Good.

So can somebody provide any sort of reasonable argument for why splatbooks can't present something that deviates from the standard? (Especially seeing as how, you know, that's all they do already - present non-standard options and mechanics.)


A Paladin is NOT an inquisitor. They are not a rampaging vigilante bent on bringing the holy to ignorant masses.

Actually, one of my favorite AD&D classes was the ranger-paladin hybrid vigilante from an issue of Dragon.


How is this different from simply stating "the ends justify the means"? Feeling guilty about it doesn't make it good.

The idea of penance and purification removing sin (see, er, any religion; Christianity and original sin, anybody?) is hardly rare, and not at all incompatible with certain religions. If Good deities or the highest clerics of a Good church feel that there is a need for servants of the church who don't take the high road, they'd surely institute rigorous rites of purification and penance for these servants. (Suddenly I'm interested in whether there were any similar traditions involved with the real-world Inquisition.)


wrong. Paladin's do not require a god's powers at all. Read the first line in the 'religion' section on paladins

"a paladin need not devote himself to a single god-devotion to righteousness is enough"

This is setting-specific. In Faerûn, for instance, even rangers must choose a deity who supplies their spells. (And Faerûn is one of the old Big Two, and one of the new Big Two/Three, as campaign settings go. "The other" big setting is Eberron, which explicitly doesn't conform to the "standard" deity and worshipper alignment rules...)


utter cocktardery

First time I've ever wanted to put somebody's comment in my signature. "Utter cocktardery" indeed!


huh? That is NOT the definition of altruism.

Yeah, it sounded more like utilitarianism - which, incidentally, was an integral part of the only actual paladin code I've read (from the AD&D Faerûn sourcebooks). "Do the most good to the most people while causing the least harm." (Not a principle I'd necessarily agree with; but I've got a soft spot for heroes who despair about not letting harm come to anyone...)

Sardia
2007-02-27, 02:20 AM
My problem with the Gray Guard is that he doesnt merely bring convicted criminals and murderers to justice... the Bloodhound PrC from Complete Adventurer is a headhunter, but he has specific feats to catch his mark alive. The Gray Guard does not merely do questionable thingsto evil people, he does questionable things to people to force them to confess being evil, or a criminal! He can pardon himself for anything he does as long as it is defined as a just cause by his own Gray Guard order. Who watches the watchers? No-one, in this case. And the Gray Guard explicitely mentions that they don't just hunt down evil, but punish people of chaotic alignment as well.


Not having the character description in front of me, I can only take a stab at this, but taking as true that guilt or evil can be objectively demonstrated to an observer, the only purpose of making the subject confess is to make the subject explicitly acknowledge his guilt or evil. To him or herself.
Now, if the Gray Guard kicks in some teeth and then offs the person after getting the confession, not much point, I'll admit. But since there's not a spell that offers personal insight into one's motivations and drives, there's no good magical alternative to substitute for a good grilling. (Although the grilling might well better be more psychological than physical, ideally)

"I killed them for the good of the kingdom and the people, I swear it!" *thwack, crunch*
"It had to be done, otherwise we'd have fallen to ruin. Thousands would have suffered. My personal benefit was just a side effect!" *thwack, thwack, thud*
"Alright, alright, I wanted them dead, I wanted the money, and this was a good way of getting it all."

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 02:38 AM
Not for me, it isn't.

Paladins are intrinsically an idealistic class. They're modeled after legendary figures like Sir Galahad from Arthurian legend. The entire point of the paladin class is that they gain divine power by virtue of being, well, virtuous. The idea of a paladin that isn't idealistic is a contradiction in terms. Who killed people perceived as evil with no problems, or even much serious consideration. That's how things were done then.


These 'Grey Guards' aren't paladins at all. They're no more virtuous than so many Gestapo agents. They're not 'kind of like a paladin, only willing to get their hands dirty.' They're not like a paladin at all.
You are ignoring the reasons they do it. Not that the ends justify the means, but rather that killing a murder and killing a political dissident are vastly different things.



Is it? Is it worth soiling everything a deity stands for? Is that how deities work?

Remember, the deities know that their followers will be rewarded by life after death. Why would they be willing to endorse gross violations of their own fundamental codes to delay that?

However, those dieties also seem to mind that their followers get killed. Why? If they KNOW they will be happy, and likely better off, after death, why not let Gruumsh go nuts and wipe everything bright and beautiful off the face of the map? Apparently the gods generally are concerned with their followers suffering on the mortal plane. Why? (Hint: this is partly why rational morality and gods do not work out.)


The catch is that there's a huge difference between shooting someone in the face during a fight and shooting someone in the face to terrify the other prisoners into telling you the whereabouts of the treasure. Treasure perhaps, but what if you know the man you are going to shoot is a killer, destined for the gallows anyway? (And to your above point, if he is just going to go to the afterlife anyway, why not let the gods sort him out?)



The problem is that not all acts committed in the name of good are good; not all that seems fair is fair. Paladins recognize this implicitly with their code, which is supposed to force them to abstain from committing evil acts in the name of good.

Grey Guards do not; that way lies the evils of the Spanish Inquisition and the secret police of totalitarian societies.

Yes, the first paragraph is correct (the second makes the fallacy noted above). Grey Guards as a PrC also recognize this, and the fact that the code ties their hands on occaision and prevents them from battling evil. Hence they can do questionable things on occaision, but must atone. Can it spiral into maddness? Oh yea. But look at Miko a second, and really ask yourself if that is so different from how some paladins can reasonably act? If she had been right, would she have lost her paladinhood?



I don't think that this class is compatible with paladinhood, for the reasons above. This guy is the sort of fellow who would have loved to work for the Inquisition or the Gestapo or the NKVD. People like that are not good.

What bothers me is trying to call this fellow a paladin or associate him with the concept of 'paladin'. He isn't quite as gross a negation of all the paladin stands for as the blackguard is, but he comes pretty close.

Goodwin's law... there is no need to bring up Nazi's here. A paladin quite happily can kill all the evil he wants if they are in the act of being evil. The question is "how evil does it have to be to require killing?" The evil baker doesn't get the axe at the first use of "detect evil". The evil priest might. Where's the line? That's what the Grey Guard walks.


Why not?
LONG discussion, largely off topic. I can PM you if you are really interested, and not just being rhetorical.


Not if they haven't done anything to anyone.Depends on the claim.
Does the paladin stop and check every goblin that his sword finds? Hell, when was the last time the party checked to see if they were even the right goblins? Do you expect your party palladins to examine every goblin and say "Whoa! stop! This one is cool." when they find a neutral or good aura? Your premise of guilt group ("not if they have done anything") belies the problem. Is it so much different to kill a cultist that hasn't particularly killed any babies? How about not killing him, but smacking him around a little to get the truth to prevent that baby's killing?
As to the claim how about "It was mine when I died, and it is still mine." Or "We live here now. This stuff is ours."




Well, a magical compulsion usually does not leave crippling injuries for life. Psychologists fiddle with someone's mind all the time... but usually to help that person. I agree with you that a Dominate Person spell is a sort of mental rape. On the other hand, if an murderer can be stopped from killing by using Hold PErson or Dominate instead if killing him... it is of course no easy question with no simply answer. that's why i find it ironic that the paladin spell MArk of Justice is a necromantic spell. There really is no such thing as "crippled for life" in D&D. The idea of "for life" is a little questionable too, since there is an afterlife, as well as multiple resurrections etc. Not saying that it makes it better, just that it is not a one way street.



But the point I'm trying to make is, if someone has been convicted as a criminal, it is lawful for a paladin to support that the criminal should be punished. There are ways in D&D to deal with criminals, spells, that make killing or torturing them superfluous. And unless they'Re completely insane evil and must be kept locked away or killed forever (even death isnt ultimately the end in D&D, what with resurrection spells) to protect others, I take the stance of Alfred Bester's novel The Demolished Man that if you have the magical means to rehabilitate a sociopath or habitual criminal by scrubbing his memory clean with telepathy (or magic) and build him up again and make him a better person, that's a better alternative that killing him, because killing someone who has already proven that he is strong of will, intelligent and able to rise above the mass of everyday people is a waste of talent. You just need to prod and push him into the right direction, one that benefits society. Yes, it is invasive... but he has already reliquishes certain rights when he decided to become a murderer.

Whole discussion to be had about all that. But since the gods all maintain their own afterlife, why not just kill people and let them move on to the next plane, particularly if you know they are evil?
And side question, do helms of opposite alignment get you into the "good" afterlives? Or do you have to become a devotee of a particular god?


Personally, if I had to choose between being put on the wheel, drawn and quartered, or having a helmet of opposite alignment put on me and having my whole worldview changed, well... if I was NE, I'd probably rather chose to survive than be killed gruesomely, and if I was good and people wanted to turn me deeply evil... well I dunno, the wheel is a horrible way to die. Rock and a hard place. Dying for your beliefs only has a point if it serves a purpose. If you think you are correct, then dying for your honor and pride is it's own purpose. Sound like a paladin at all?



My problem with the Gray Guard is that he doesnt merely bring convicted criminals and murderers to justice... the Bloodhound PrC from Complete Adventurer is a headhunter, but he has specific feats to catch his mark alive. The Gray Guard does not merely do questionable thingsto evil people, he does questionable things to people to force them to confess being evil, or a criminal! He can pardon himself for anything he does as long as it is defined as a just cause by his own Gray Guard order. Who watches the watchers? No-one, in this case. And the Gray Guard explicitely mentions that they don't just hunt down evil, but punish people of chaotic alignment as well.

If the poeple he kills really are evil or corrupt a paladin would have no problem with executing or handing them over to justice either, so why pretend the Gray Guard is doing the work the paladin can't? So what's the point of creating this PrC and its special feats as a "gritty paladin" PrC? If the writer just wanted to make a special class that represents a corrupt "holy order" who torture victims with pain touches, fine.

But the way it is written smacks of sadism just for the sake of being a "bloodstained" anti-hero. Using questionable methods equals coolness? :smallannoyed:

Well, his god watches the Grey Guard, specifically. That's who watches the watcher.
The whole point is not "the Grey Guard can kill anyone for the hell of it! and still be good!" it is that the paladin can not so much as give a titty twister to a prisoner. The prisoner is helpless after all, and so can not be forced to do anything. Or can he? Does his code stretch into that somewhat ambiguous zone? If he thinks they are evil and corrupt, can he just execute them? They do frequently, but is it consistent? Or is this reaching into a grey area they might have to repent for? (Ahem... Grey Guard.)

Also, they are not "corrupted" paladins. They are simply care less about being nice and more about furthering good. You might say they find the line between being too extreme in their behavior and not extreme enough. They walk the grey zone between not getting the job done and "the ends justify the means."


Addendum: I just noticed the Gray Guard has Forgery among his class skill. Also Bluff, but no Diplomacy. Ominous. What, pray, does he need forgery for?[/QUOTE] He probably needs to trick the scummy people he deals with false documents. There are lots of good reasons to lie to evil people.

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 02:44 AM
Btw: Utilitarianism is an offshoot of Altruism that explicitly recognizes the "greatest good for the greatest number" conclusion of altruism.
Again, can anyone pose an argument as to why, if everyone is supposed to be altruistic, that you couldn't say someone was "bad" for refusing to sacrifice for someone else?

If you can't, you have to admit that altruism requires sacrifice to be "good".

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-27, 02:52 AM
But the way it is written smacks of sadism just for the sake of being a "bloodstained" anti-hero. Using questionable methods equals coolness? :smallannoyed:

Addendum: I just noticed the Gray Guard has Forgery among his class skill. Also Bluff, but no Diplomacy. Ominous. What, pray, does he need forgery for?

Skill Focus [Forgery]. To prove you're a real roleplayer.

Anyway, everybody knows the coolest anti-heroes are the Chaotic Evil ones. =D

Weasel of Doom
2007-02-27, 03:34 AM
Well in my campaign i'd just screw the LG part and make it a prstige class that allows you to stay paladin when LN or maybe LE not sure how far i"d let it allow you to fall

Tobrian
2007-02-27, 03:45 AM
Paladins are intrinsically an idealistic class. They're modeled after legendary figures like Sir Galahad from Arthurian legend. The entire point of the paladin class is that they gain divine power by virtue of being, well, virtuous. The idea of a paladin that isn't idealistic is a contradiction in terms.

These 'Grey Guards' aren't paladins at all. They're no more virtuous than so many Gestapo agents. They're not 'kind of like a paladin, only willing to get their hands dirty.' They're not like a paladin at all.

Thank you.

---
From Terry Pratchett's Discworld novel "Night Watch"
Samuel Vimes, Captain of the Nightwatch, and his men are raiding the headquarters of the Unmentionables, the secret police of the city's corrupt and paranoid patrician. Anyone can be arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or saying the wrong things, and prisoners in the hands of the Unmentionables sometimes turns up days later with curious injuries, and sometimes they are never seen again.


In this room there was a big wooden chair. In this room there was, by the chair, a rack. The chair was bolted to the floor. It had wide leather straps. The rack held clubs and hammers. In this room, that was all the furnishings.

The floor was dark and sticky. Down the length of it, a gully ran down to a drain.

Boards had been nailed over the tiny window at street level. This wasn't a place where light was welcome. And all the walls, and even the ceiling, were padded heavily with sacks stuffed with straw. Sacks had even been nailed to the door. This was a very thorough cell. Not even sound was meant to escape.

A couple of torches did nothing at all for the darkness except making it dirty.

Behind him, Vimes heard Nancyball throw up.

In a strange kind of dream, he walked across the floor and bend down to pick up something that gleamed in the torchlight.

It was a tooth.

(...)

Vimes hurried back to the main chamber. The torturer was still out cold. Vimes hauled him up into the chair, with great effort, and pulled off his hood, and recognized the face. The face, yes, but not the person. That is, it was the kind of face you saw a lot of in Ankh-Morpork: big, bruised, and belonging to someone who'd never quite learned that hitting people long after they'd lost consciousness was a wicked thing to do. He wondered if the man actually liked beating people to death. They often didn't think about it. It was just a job.


Everyone was guilty of something. Vimes knew that. Every copper knew it. That was how you maintained your authority - everyone, talking to a copper, was secretly afraid you could see their guilty secret written on their forehead. You couldn't, of course. But neither were you supposed to drag someone off the street and smash their fingers with a hammer until they told you what it was.

Thomas
2007-02-27, 03:58 AM
It's the pinnacle of Pratchett's work so far, but I'm not sure about the relevance. Are you equating Gray Guards to the Unmentionables or Vimes to paladins or what? (Both inaccurate comparisons, anyway.)

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 04:19 AM
What happened to going to bed Tobrian? You had a late night last night.

At any rate, try to imagine the Grey Guard not as a secret police (no reason they can't be open about things) and not even as an inquisitor. Imagine this scenario:

An evil psionic has been running a cult in a major city. The cult has been kidnapping citizens and doing unspeakable things. The local magistrates have been unable to locate the cult, or positively identify the members. Enter the PCs, one of whom is either a paladin 14 or paladin 10/greyguard4 (levels are sort of irrelevant.)
Now, after a good bit of investigation (all of which is perfectly code friendly) the PCs are 90% certain they know who the villain is. (*gasp* high ranking official, of course.) So they track him down and the paladin takes him prisoner.
He won't talk, however. The party knows they need to get information from him about finding the victims before it is too late. Perhaps they could do more investigation, but this is the big lead, and who knows how long it could take otherwise. Trouble is, the bugger is a psion, and has some sort of mental defense up to keep people from reading his thoughts or compelling him to talk. Scrying spells have no effect (likely because of anti-scrying effects on the cult's hideout.)
So, what to do? They can't turn him in, since the police will either
A) Let him go, because he is a high official with friends in high places (perhaps why he wasn't found before.)
B) Torture him to get the information, since spells don't work. A paladin can't hand over his prisoner knowing he will be tortured.

So... the only thing left is to physically compel the prisoner themselves. It might not work, but of course they have to try. The paladin again becomes a problem. He can't hit the bugger himself; that might be dishonorable, and besides, he is a helpless prisoner.
He can't hand him over to the rogue to torture. Again, he can't deliver a person into such a situation. "I won't torture you, but my buddy here is going to mangle you beyond recognition." is not exactly ok with his code.

Children are likely dying as he deliberates... time is running out. He knows the prisoner is evil from both evidence and a subtle detect evil cast earlier before the fellow put his ward up.

What does a paladin do? I don't know. I honestly don't.

What does a Grey Guard do? Recognize that code aside, he is allowing innocents to suffer by not inflicting pain on someone who he thinks deserves it anyway, that's what. So he belts the scheisskopf across the mouth. He then proceeds to make the guy's life miserable until he talks. Afterwards, he atones for what he did, and spends time fasting and in contemplation to learn from what happened, and how it can be avoided in the future. Later, he goes and helps tend to those injured and hurt by the cult before they could be freed.

Somewhat different light, eh? A Grey Guard is someone that decides that evil will not always come out and fight you in honorable combat, and that sometimes you need to seek them out on their own turf.

You might not be able to get a copy of Dirty Harry over there in Germany with much ease, but if you get the chance to see it, I highly recommend it. That is exactly the character this PrC is designed for.



I am still really interested in how people reconcile the fact they never try to show kobolds the error of their ways with "you shouldn't hurt bad people." Or how they differentiate the beholder who is evil, but hasn't done anything against anyone else (for lack of opportunity) but doesn't like people mucking about in his cave.

Edited for clarity in pronoun usage.

Tobrian
2007-02-27, 04:19 AM
The Gray Guards certainly are in the same line of work as the Unmentionables.

I was actually writing up something about Carrot and Vimes how they might compare to paladins, but it was getting too long. Vimes is probably NG, but really, he doesn't fit into standard D&D alignments.

You folks are keeping me up.:smallsigh: I had a lumbago on saturday, that messed up my night-day routine. Can't sleep.


Btw: Utilitarianism is an offshoot of Altruism that explicitly recognizes the "greatest good for the greatest number" conclusion of altruism. Again, can anyone pose an argument as to why, if everyone is supposed to be altruistic, that you couldn't say someone was "bad" for refusing to sacrifice for someone else?

If you can't, you have to admit that altruism requires sacrifice to be "good".

What? What the frell are you talking about?

No-one is "supposed" to be altruistic, or else. Altruism means "unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness without expecting an immediate return". There's no moral law demanding you kill yourself for someone else's convenience.

The only text I found that tenuously connects the term altruism with utilitarianism is this:
http://webs.wofford.edu/kaycd/ethics/util.htm


Consequentialist moral theories are teleological: they aim at some goal state and evaluate the morality of actions in terms of progress toward that state. The best known version of consequentialism is utilitarianism. This theory defines morality in terms of the maximization of net expectable utility for all parties affected by a decision or action. Although forms of utilitarianism have been put forward and debated since ancient times, the modern theory is most often associated with the British philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806- 1873) who developed the theory from a plain hedonistic version put forward by his mentor Jeremy Bentham (1748- 1832). As most clearly stated by Mill, the basic principle of utilitarianism is:

Actions are right to the degree that they tend to promote the greatest good for the greatest number.

Of course, we are still unclear about what constitutes "the greatest good." For Bentham, it was simply "the tendency to augment or diminish happiness or pleasure," with no distinctions to be made between pleasures or persons--all measures are strictly quantitative. For Mill, however, not all pleasures were equally worthy. He defined "the good" in terms of well-being (Aristotle's eudaimonia), and distinguished not just quantitatively but also qualitatively between various forms of pleasure. In either case, the principle defines the moral right in terms of an objective, material good. (...)

Both men insisted that "the greatest number" included all who were affected by the action in question with "each to count as one, and no one as more than one." Any theory that seeks to extend benefits not only to the self but also to others is a form of altruism . (Another goal-directed theory is egoism, which promotes the greatest good for the self alone.)

Utilitarianism is a simple theory and its results are easy to apply. It also allows for degrees of right and wrong, and for every situation the choice between actions is clear-cut: always choose that which has the greatest utility.

There are several objections, however--


1. It is not always clear what the outcome of an action will be, nor is it always possible to determine who will be affected by it. Judging an action by the outcome is therefore hard to do beforehand.

2. It is very difficult to quantify pleasures for cost/benefit analysis (but since this only has to be done on a comparative scale, this may not be as serious an objection as it at first seems).

3. The calculation required to determine the right is both complicated and time consuming. Many occasions will not permit the time and many individuals may not even be capable of the calculations.

4. Since the greatest good for the greatest number is described in aggregate terms, that good may be achieved under conditions that are harmful to some, so long as that harm is balanced by a greater good.

5. The theory fails to acknowledge any individual rights that could not be violated for the sake of the greatest good. Indeed, even the murder of an innocent person would seem to be condoned if it served the greater number.
(...)


And...
The greatest good is best served by the masses when they follow rules out of duty and leave the difficult and subtle calculations to those in authority.

That last statement is a "conclusion" that turns up with tiring regularily in the worldview of regimes. :smallmad:

I guess you can already glean my opinion about utilitarianism from this answer. Conscience is not a matter of numbers.

WE could quote philosophy at each other for days, without anything coming of it. Thakn you I had philosophy in school, nice but ultimately it annoyed me. You can find arguments for ANY position, it proves nothing.

Shall I lock the thread? Ask me again in 7 hours.

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 04:20 AM
Tobrian, don't know if you saw my post above your last. It is relevant to your interests.

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-27, 04:27 AM
http://www.libriumarcana.com/Uploads/Rogue/Pictures/JPEGs/Cats/RelevantCat.jpg

Sorry, couldn't resist. :smallbiggrin:

As for interrogation, there's this wonderful little spell called discern lies. On the paladin list too, conveniently enough, along with zone of truth. Alternatively, nothing says you can't frighten a prisoner, even if you don't intend to actually do anything.

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 04:36 AM
Hehe had I that picture at work, I was going to post it.

See, the problem with "detect lies" is that it requires the person to talk. Even if you know he is lying that he "doesn't know what you are talking about" it doesn't give you information, just what isn't true. You know he knows better than you did previously, but you are still right where you started. You don't know exactly what it is he knows, just that he knows it.

Scary isn't that scary when you know the pally can't back it up with anything. You know he's a pally, so you know he can't let anything happen to you. Unless he is willing to fall, which is pretty unlikely. Of course, right after he surprises by belting you across the gob, you are likely terrified.

"But..-spits out a tooth-... but you're a paladin! You can't do that!"
"So... what's your point? -Picks up a hot poker- Now let's talk about those children, and where you are holding them."

Sardia
2007-02-27, 04:54 AM
Scary isn't that scary when you know the pally can't back it up with anything. You know he's a pally, so you know he can't let anything happen to you. Unless he is willing to fall, which is pretty unlikely. Of course, right after he surprises by belting you across the gob, you are likely terrified.


Adding to the gray area is that if you have a 13th level cleric or ring of regeneration handy, you can always just regenerate whatever damage you do to the poor bugger. And presuming the cleric's deity has no problem with this, you can feed the interrogation subject his own fingers one joint at a time and still leave a (physically) unharmed person the next day.

"Talk, and we'll pull you off the spike. No? Alright boys, dinner time."

Tobrian
2007-02-27, 04:55 AM
Wehrkind, you can throw invented "ticking bomb" strawman scenarios at me as long as you want, it doesn't make them better.

Why you think I shouldnt be able to get a DVD of Dirty Harry here in Germany is beyond me. It's a movie. So? And I've seen it, I just don't get all excited about it.

Who says no adventurer has ever talked to kobolds?

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 04:57 AM
Hehe that was pretty much my point earlier about physical damage being very temporary. Hell, the Grey Guard can heal his own torture "victim" right afte he gets done.

"See... now doesn't your soul feel lighter now that you confessed? You have perhaps taken the first step to saving your sould. Now... let's see about putting that tooth back in."

Sardia
2007-02-27, 04:58 AM
Interestingly, I did have a group of players attempt to interrogate a group of Paladins through use of force and threats of violence. They didn't know they were paladins.
Needless to say, trying to threaten someone immune to fear is a lost cause.

Beleriphon
2007-02-27, 05:00 AM
Why you think I shouldnt be able to get a DVD of Dirty Harry here in Germany is beyond me. It's a movie. So? And I've seen it, I just don't get all excited about it.


Harry Callahan is a character that is commonly trotted out when discussing somewhat questionable morality for the right reasons. Like he says, "When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross." - Dirty Harry 1971

In effect Harry's actions, that would be manhandling a criminal, to punish them or get what he needs seems to be similar to the PrC in question. I would question Harry being LG, let alone a paladin like character, but I could certainly be persuaded. But that's neither here nor there.

Sardia
2007-02-27, 05:05 AM
I would question Harry being LG, let alone a paladin like character, but I could certainly be persuaded.

Clearly, and a humane one at that. Consider how he used Intimidation to apprehend a criminal rather than simply shooting him. "Feel lucky, punk?" rather than "Blam. Dead evildoer."

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 05:08 AM
Wehrkind, you can throw invented "ticking bomb" strawman scenarios at me as long as you want, it doesn't make them better.

Why you think I shouldnt be able to get a DVD of Dirty Harry here in Germany is beyond me. It's a movie. So? And I've seen it, I just don't get all excited about it.

Who says no adventurer has ever talked to kobolds?

See, that's the thing, you love saying it is a straw man, but in that line of work it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility. It might not be every day, but it is likely to come up more than once. If you can not answer reasonably what a paladin is to do, you have to admit there is room for a different approach. I mean, can you even put forth an argument as to WHY it is a strawman, or an argument that can show it is wrong? It should be easy, if it is just a straw man for you to defeat.

About the movie, I just didn't know if it was easy to get or not. Finding German films in the 'States is something of a trick. The reason I brought it up is that it illustrates how being too soft on criminals can cause problems. The whole movie was inspired by the huge surge in crime here during the Warren Court's castrating of the American justice system. The Dirty Harry character is exactly someone I would consider as a candidate for a Grey Guard. He was originally Captain Lawful Good (so we are given to understand at least), but became increasingly bound by laws and regulations that kept him from doing what needed to be done to protect the innocent. See the parallel in the situation above, where a pally needs to get information from a known evil doer, but the pally can not because of his code. A code which keeps him to the straight and narrow to be sure, but also prevents him from helping good.

Consider the opposite situation. Can a character be a paladin and turn his back on the world? Say a paladin takes his code very seriously, refusing to injure any he can avoid hurting, and completely remove himself from the world's sin and temptation. He becomes a hermit. Is he virtuous? He doesn't break the code, but at the same time he doesn't help people. Where's the line there?


And by the way, a straw man is when someone makes up an argument that is easily foiled, says "this is what my opponants claim", then proceeds to foil it easily. I am putting forth a situation, now two, that both illustrates how a Grey Guard could remain lawful good and still do some shadey things, as well as raising the question "How does Captain LawfulGood the Paladin handle this otherwise?"

Since you can not answer the former, perhaps you would like to try the latter? Otherwise, without showing me why my arguments are wrong, you are only really putting your fingers in your ears singing "LAH LAH LAH" and not helping anyone.

Tobrian
2007-02-27, 05:10 AM
Adding to the gray area is that if you have a 13th level cleric or ring of regeneration handy, you can always just regenerate whatever damage you do to the poor bugger. And presuming the cleric's deity has no problem with this, you can feed the interrogation subject his own fingers one joint at a time and still leave a (physically) unharmed person the next day.

"Talk, and we'll pull you off the spike. No? Alright boys, dinner time."

You know I recently did something similar to a fallen NPC paladin in my campaign. A sadistic cleric of Nerull had him nailed to an altar for several months and kept mutilating him every day, using cure spells and a stone of regeneration during the night to keep him alive, while he used magic to force the paladin's squire to feed him... the meat. All in the name of an experiment creating a new race of ghouls.
When our group's paladin of Heironeous found what was left of the other, former paladin, the man was still alive... but insane, blind, and his limbs and face mangled beyond recognition. The party paladin of Heironeous was pissed off beyond compare. The cowardly cleric threw all his exploding undead at the group and got away, this time, (the fact that the paladin was dueling a half-demon bugbear at the time the cleric scarpered had something to do with it, too), but our paladin has sworn to find that Nerullian. And then he *will* kill him. And no, the former paladin didn't survive the exploding undead. And maybe it was better that way.

Do you think the cleric was anything but evil? If he had done this "for a good cause" would it have been anything less evil?


See, the problem with "detect lies" is that it requires the person to talk. Even if you know he is lying that he "doesn't know what you are talking about" it doesn't give you information, just what isn't true. You know he knows better than you did previously, but you are still right where you started. You don't know exactly what it is he knows, just that he knows it.

See the problem is that you invent fictional scenarios that are geared towards allowing only ONE solution, the one you propose, with all other avenues carefully closed (the villain cant be brought before a court, the villain is a psion, the villain won't talk, time's runnning out etc etc etc) and the use that as justification for our claim that only torturing the villain will bring results.

I'm sick and tired of it.

Know what? Your problem here is that you've already decided that your Gray Guard wants to torture that guy and only needs a convenient excuse. You never even seriously try to think outside the box... you draw a line from A to B and then claim there's no other way around the obstable in the middle.

There's tons of spells to find missing persons, or to contact your own deity for info if nothing else helps. Strange dark cults in cities don't operate in a vaccuum... people get kidnapped and no-one has seen anything? Cultists meet regularly and no-one has seen anything? Where did they leave the bodies? No-one has seen anything? How about some Gather Information skill rolls?

Get a dog, let him sniff from the house of the villain if he can find out where the villain has been. Check his closet, are there any residual signs ,dirt, whatever, on his clothes? Does he keep his evil cultist robe in his house, or does he go into the sewers or whereever the cult has its lair, with normal clothes on? Do some detective work. Ask the villain's servants and house personal. Put verbal pressure on his friends. Hell, ask the night people, the beggars, the "invisibles" who live under the bridges... they might smell, but they often know. If there's a crime ring in the city, they might know where the cult has its headquarters. A paladin won't fall if he talks to a few burglars. Offer them money if they find the children.

If children have disappeared you can't tell me there isn't people who're willing to help you, even if the villain is a high ranking politician or whatever. And if that whole town or city is so corrupted from top to bottom, and the paladin is there all by himself with no support, there's no shame in trying and failing... No-one is omniscient.



Scary isn't that scary when you know the pally can't back it up with anything. You know he's a pally, so you know he can't let anything happen to you. Unless he is willing to fall, which is pretty unlikely. Of course, right after he surprises by belting you across the gob, you are likely terrified.

"But..-spits out a tooth-... but you're a paladin! You can't do that!"
"So... what's your point? -Picks up a hot poker- Now let's talk about those children, and where you are holding them."

You're entirely too enthusiastic about this. [censored for your protection] :smallmad:

Look, the trick is knowing your strengths and weaknesses. And knowing the weaknesses of the opponent. Don't threaten him with something you can't back up, that's stupid, if you can't bluff, then don't try. Find another way.

Of course, if that "psion" is all-powerful, how did you catch him in the first place? If he's really that demented evil, do you think a beating will faze him?

And if you have someone on your torture chair and he doesnt tell you what you want to hear, because he honestly doesnt know, and you prefer to think that your detect lies spell was foiled, do you keep beating him until he's dead?

Sorry, make that Gray Guard LN or LE and I have no problem with them from a game standpoint.

Thomas
2007-02-27, 05:15 AM
The Gray Guards certainly are in the same line of work as the Unmentionables.

What, serving a Good god, or some knightly or monastic order dedicated to one, and combating Evil in all its forms (without always stopping to worry about the methods)?

No, I don't think that's what the Unmentionables did.


I am also amused by the mention of both Vimes and Dirty Harry on the same page of the thread.

Bouldering Jove
2007-02-27, 05:15 AM
Tobrian, exactly what good cause would such an extreme action be serving?

"Gray Guards can get away with horrible torture" is as much of a strawman as "ticking time bomb will kill thousands."

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 05:15 AM
Harry Callahan is a character that is commonly trotted out when discussing somewhat questionable morality for the right reasons. Like he says, "When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross."

I would question Harry being LG, let alone a paladin like character, but I could certainly be persuaded.

As Sardia pointed out, he clearly is. He cares about helping others, repeatedly puts himself in the line of fire to protect others, rejects any and all corruption, even going so far as to make "poor career decisions" when speaking with superiors he finds distasteful. He also doesn't hurt people when he doesn't have to.
When hurting someone is the only way to save an innocent however, then the magnum comes out.

Tobrian, you are making a HORRIBLE comparison with your cleric and a Grey Guard. The cleric was not torturing to save someone from an evil doer. He was torturing an innocent to make an evil doer. The two situations could not be more polar opposite. I mean... wow... tell me you can see the difference there, and that was a typo.

Beleriphon
2007-02-27, 05:20 AM
Do you think the cleric was anything but evil? If he had done this "for a good cause" would it have been anything less evil?

No. But I don't think that the point of the class, its more of a rough the guy up style. Think Andy Sipowicz's interrogation style. He'd never outright kill a guy, he's not above slapping a suspect around or smashing the suspect's face into a table.

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 05:30 AM
Oh, and by the way, I seriously doubt you hold diplomatic sessions with every green skin you encounter, just to make certain they were bad guys, and deserved to be slaughtered.

Tobrian
2007-02-27, 05:41 AM
"Greenskins" eh? Depends on what kind of alignment person my character in question is at that moment. My NG rogue/wiz, yes he DID consistently try to talk to humanoid creatures. Tongues spell anyone? Unless they attacked first. Of course sometims they attacked the group because we had entered their territory, sometimes because we wanted to free captives, or jsut because they wanted to eat us. STill that's no reason to be proud of it. He was sad when he had to kill. And he did adopt those quaggoth cubs. *shrug*

I've played less idealistic characters, too. So? What do my characters have to do with anything?

People these days seem to watch too much "24". So eager to have the torture option, they don't care for anything else.

Tobrian
2007-02-27, 05:50 AM
Tobrian, you are making a HORRIBLE comparison with your cleric and a Grey Guard. The cleric was not torturing to save someone from an evil doer. He was torturing an innocent to make an evil doer. The two situations could not be more polar opposite. I mean... wow... tell me you can see the difference there, and that was a typo.

The point was being made that a Gray Guard might as well mutilate someone during interrogation "in the line of duty" and later use healing spells and this would all be nice as if nothing bad had happened at all and be lawful and good because the GG had an higher noble goal in mind all the time. And I say some things are always beyond the pale no matter what lofty goals you are bullsh*tting yourself about having.

Not to mention that it's been proven time and again that intel derived from torture isn't accurate but anyway.

Where not getting anywhere here gnight.............

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 05:56 AM
STill that's no reason to be proud of it. He was sad when he had to kill. And he did adopt those quaggoth cubs. *shrug*

I've played less idealistic characters, too. So?

People these days seem to watch too much "24". So eager to have the torture option, they don't care for anything else.

See, that's your error. The class specifically states the Grey Guard has to atone, and does not do it more than they have to. He doesn't have to like using unpleasant means to recognize them as necessary. Most people don't like killing, but recognize it is sometimes needed. My dentist isn't going to be proud, watching me winch and tear up as he performs surgery on my gums, but he knows he has to do it. You seem to assume the Grey Guard wants to inflict torture as much as possible, that they enjoy it for it's own sake. The point of the class is it is a paladin who recognizes, with his god's agreement, that sometimes being nice doesn't get the job done. He doesn't like doing it, and has to atone even, but if that is what stopping evil and protecting the innocent requires, so be it.

It has nothing to do with 24. This idea didn't suddenly become popular because of the show. I has everything to do with the moral question of "When do you go too far in defending the innocent, and when have you not gone far enough?" You seem unwilling to actually answer that question, or even propose alternative solutions to the situations I posed.


And yes, greenskins. I am rather fond of Warhammer 40k, in large part because it is in many ways a universe based largely on altruistic morality taken to it's logical conclusion. (Not 100%, but you see it in the logic of the Imperium.) Lots of the fluff is an interesting thought experiment.
You might even look at the inquisitors from that as Grey Guards. Some are more questionable than others, and sometimes their methods go over the edge and they need to be stopped, but when you get down to it they are doing their utmost to protect humanity (which is defined as the good, of course.) If they wipe out a world of 5 billion, it is to save untold billions in the grand scheme. Is that always good? Depends on many things, but it is fertile ground for a huge amount of philosophic thought. Hence the appeal.

Sardia
2007-02-27, 05:56 AM
Do you think the cleric was anything but evil? If he had done this "for a good cause" would it have been anything less evil?


I'd suppose the dividing line is this-- could he have done anything else and gotten the information, and was that the minimum amount of torture to get the job done. And possibly what care was given after the information was gotten.
And of course once you've fed him a few fingers, you might guess he's not going to answer, so continuing to do it might be an issue as well.
Which brings up the classic but also morally questionable tactic of just killing him as painlessly as possible and casting Speak with Dead. For the very well-funded and softhearted, you can use Raise Dead afterward. (Send the bill whoever was going to be killed by the ticking bomb).
Does costing someone a level count as torture?

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 06:01 AM
The point was being made that a Gray Guard might as well mutilate someone during interrogation "in the line of duty" and later use healing spells and this would all be nice as if nothing bad had happened at all and be lawful and good because the GG had an higher noble goal in mind all the time. And I say some things are always beyond the pale no matter what lofty goals you are bullsh*tting yourself about having.

Not to mention that it's been proven time and again that intel derived from torture isn't accurate but anyway.

Where not getting anywhere here gnight.............

So, please, tell me what is the correct way to interrogate a prisoner? Where is the line? You keep feeding negatives "That's wrong, that could never happen, it's always wrong." So tell us what is right in this case?

And don't say magical compulsion. Is temporary pain better than the psychic shock of having someone else controlling your body and actions against your will? What spell cures psychological damage?

Detect Lie is great for telling whether the suspect is lying under torture. That, and would you be so kind as to point me towards what studies or evidence you have that information gained under duress is any more or less useful than a confession interrogated out of someone merely scared? People keep stating that as though it were obvious, but never have I been directed to any evidence as such. Considering people whose job it is to gather information seem to think it has its uses, I am inclined to think it is fairly useful.

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 06:07 AM
And can anyone tell me why it is immoral to kill someone if you KNOW they will simply be gathered up by their god and have a wonderfully appropriate afterlife?
I still don't understand why a god would need to care about the worldly affairs of their followers if preventing some of them getting killed was not worth hurting or killing someone who was evil, and against everything they stood for.

Come to think of it, should paladins even be allowed to kill anyone? If they can't kill an evil doer and cast speak with dead, should they be going all DC and simply capturing villains and sentient monsters and handing them over to the police?
Might be kind of funny to see the PCs come back from the Temple of Elemental evil with ~2500 various evil humanoids and sentient beings in shackles in a line behind them.
"So yea, which way to the jail? Ohh, watch the one with all the eyes... he can get ya...And how long do you think we will need to be here in Homlett to testify at 2500 trials?"

Sardia
2007-02-27, 06:09 AM
And I say some things are always beyond the pale no matter what lofty goals you are bullsh*tting yourself about having.


Okay, there's a distinction here that might be interesting to narrow down-- presumably if the Paladin is defending the innocent out on the field of battle, chopping up the opponent is allowed as a harsh necessity. Doing so outside of combat brings up (at the least) a gray area. Where exactly does the difference lie?
This being D&D and not real life, Detect Lie does enable the distinction of accurate from inaccurate information given during an interrogation so lack of accuracy isn't an issue.

Thomas
2007-02-27, 06:12 AM
And don't say magical compulsion. Is temporary pain better than the psychic shock of having someone else controlling your body and actions against your will? What spell cures psychological damage?

Heal, I think (since it cures insanity and other mental effects). And though I agree with most of your arguments, whatever damage magical compulsion may inflict on a person, the psychological effects of torture are undeniable and potentially crippling.

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 06:15 AM
Actually getting back to the topic of a Grey Guard, it might make a really interesting story to have a paladin that becomes more and more frustrated and hard, becoming a Grey Guard, and then deciding that he took the wrong path and going back to being a standard paladin. Perhaps after tracing the root of some foul corruption in the church back to his mentor or something, perhaps a Grey Guard whose fine line starts to veer towards evil.

Granted, I would hope he discovers somewhere along the line the perfectly humane and proper way to extract necessary information that Tobrian refuses to tell us. Still, that might make for a great yarn. Redemption stories are always great.

Beleriphon
2007-02-27, 06:29 AM
Detect Lie is great for telling whether the suspect is lying under torture. That, and would you be so kind as to point me towards what studies or evidence you have that information gained under duress is any more or less useful than a confession interrogated out of someone merely scared? People keep stating that as though it were obvious, but never have I been directed to any evidence as such. Considering people whose job it is to gather information seem to think it has its uses, I am inclined to think it is fairly useful.

There is a school of thought, I've seen this a few times in psych text books I've read, that supports the claim that some people will admit to anything to stop torture from continuing. It was one of the hallmarks of the Inquisition in our own history, people were tortured into admitting something, anything. Most would admit to whatever the Inquisition had implied just to make the pain stop. Physical torture is a surprisingly poor choice for extracting information, psychological torture is better, but it has the same pitfalls in that there are people that will admit to whatever it is you're asking them just to get out of the situation.

Wikipedia has an interesting article on torture from an academic standpoint. It goes as far as quoting from the CIA Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_torture

Another article of interest would be The Dark Art of Interrogation (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200310/bowden). Be warned, its not pleasant. This one suggests that physical pain is a poor motivator, fear of physical pain is much better, but you eventually have to deliver and its either not as bad as the person thought or so much worse they'll say anything to make it stop.

Sardia
2007-02-27, 06:34 AM
Heal, I think (since it cures insanity and other mental effects). And though I agree with most of your arguments, whatever damage magical compulsion may inflict on a person, the psychological effects of torture are undeniable and potentially crippling.

The psychology of any D&D creature or (especially) PC is a thing of pure lunacy, though. Someone who voluntarily takes a job where they slaughter dozens or more people/beings on perhaps a weekly basis is either insane to begin with or is going to rapidly become so.
Consider Gimli and Legolas' orc killing competition for a good example.
"Drat, I chipped my axe when I lopped that last head off. That was my favorite axe, too."

Either the characters consider the other species to be people, in which case they should be accumulating some psychological issues pretty briskly, or they consider them outright animals, in which case I doubt they'll have a problem sawing bits off the kobold or whatever.
Whether enough practice on kobolds makes it simpler on people, well...

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 06:36 AM
Heal, I think (since it cures insanity and other mental effects). And though I agree with most of your arguments, whatever damage magical compulsion may inflict on a person, the psychological effects of torture are undeniable and potentially crippling.

That's my point. If there are spells to cure physical damage, then you have to weigh the mental trauma of physical torture against the mental trauma of magical compulsion. If there are spells to fix mental trauma, well... at that point, is there really any argument against it?

Now, I would also point out that there is a great deal of difference in trauma inflicted between torturing someone until they give you information, and long term torture. Being smacked around and hurt only until you give the information someone is looking for, and being tortured repeatedly for a length of time just because someone enjoys it are very different things in terms of damage. I would suspect it is mostly a matter of feeling control, in so far as you know you can tell the interrogator what they want to know and they will stop (assuming you actually have the information), and the despair of being completely helpless. This does assume the interrogator is going after information you actually know.

Thomas
2007-02-27, 07:03 AM
I would suspect it is mostly a matter of feeling control, in so far as you know you can tell the interrogator what they want to know and they will stop (assuming you actually have the information), and the despair of being completely helpless.

This would seem likely, since the key element in most psyche-shattering trauma is helplessness (shell-shock, etc.).

And I do agree that there's a big difference between smacking someone until they tell you where X is, and torturing someone until they admit to Y.

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 07:54 AM
There is a school of thought, I've seen this a few times in psych text books I've read, that supports the claim that some people will admit to anything to stop torture from continuing. It was one of the hallmarks of the Inquisition in our own history, people were tortured into admitting something, anything. Most would admit to whatever the Inquisition had implied just to make the pain stop. Physical torture is a surprisingly poor choice for extracting information, psychological torture is better, but it has the same pitfalls in that there are people that will admit to whatever it is you're asking them just to get out of the situation.

Wikipedia has an interesting article on torture from an academic standpoint. It goes as far as quoting from the CIA Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_torture

Another article of interest would be The Dark Art of Interrogation (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200310/bowden). Be warned, its not pleasant. This one suggests that physical pain is a poor motivator, fear of physical pain is much better, but you eventually have to deliver and its either not as bad as the person thought or so much worse they'll say anything to make it stop.

That's an interesting article (Wikipedia's) Beleriphon, though I think it focuses more on long term effects from long term toture, not short term, and definitely not the "roughing up" one might do to a suspect. I say that because it does not go into the duration, and how long such things take to occure, as well as any stages.

The second is very interesting, but also a but too dense for me to take in afte being up for 15 hours of work. So I will read over it tonight and comment.

Good stuff though :)

Beleriphon
2007-02-27, 08:25 AM
That's an interesting article (Wikipedia's) Beleriphon, though I think it focuses more on long term effects from long term toture, not short term, and definitely not the "roughing up" one might do to a suspect. I say that because it does not go into the duration, and how long such things take to occure, as well as any stages.

The second is very interesting, but also a but too dense for me to take in afte being up for 15 hours of work. So I will read over it tonight and comment.

Good stuff though :)

Both do deal with long term effects, the second is ultimately about modern use of torture and the difference between that and interrogation.

At any rate the Gray Guard seems to fall into the gray area that isn't torture, but isn't Andy Sipowicz style beatings either.

Dausuul
2007-02-27, 09:10 AM
Yes, I think the distaste about this class is somewhat idealistic, in the sense that children are idealistic. It is the same logic that says "Execution is bad, because killing is bad!" that says a god might not want you torturing for fun, but if it will save a kidnapped congregation, then it is ok.

Paladins are idealistic. That's the whole point of the class. They're the guys who don't take the easy way out, who walk the straight and narrow, who try right up to the end to find a way to reconcile the greater good with the demands of honor and compassion. Sometimes that puts them in a bad place. That's the whole idea. Playing a paladin is a challenge that way. If you don't want that challenge, don't play a frickin' paladin.


The whole point of the class is that it mirrors how reality actually works. Sometimes the good guys do some fairly bad things, and sometimes really bad things, because they only look bad on the face of it...Sometimes the good guys do. Paladins don't. The ends do not justify the means.

Here's the thing about using bad means to achieve good ends: It requires that you do indeed achieve your ends. If you fail to do so, then you've done evil to no purpose. Torturing the guy to find out where the mass sacrifice of the congregation is... well, that's all well and good until you discover that the guy you were torturing doesn't know after all. He's actually an innocent man who was left as bait for you by the villains, with a spell cast on him to fool your paladin Evil Radar. You were too certain of yourself to admit the possibility that you'd made a mistake and got the wrong man, and so you committed evil.

That's the point of the paladin in my book. It's not just about demonstrating one's ability to behave with discipline. It's about the humility of realizing that you are not wise enough to judge infallibly when doing evil will serve the greater good, and therefore refusing to use evil means even when it seems necessary.

I'd be much more okay with the Grey Guard if it were a Lawful Neutral class with benefits for fallen paladins--like the blackguard but not evil.


By the way, I am curious what your adventurers do, if you find this grey paladin so distasteful. Do you still slaughter villages of demihumans because they have green skin, and civilized society calls them evil? Still delve into anchient tombs to steal treasure from those who still claim it? Reality =! D&D, and moral parallels are going to be rough to keep consistent as a result.No, actually, my adventurers quest to save their country and their world from the rampaging hordes of Evil. The green-skinned guys attack them, they fight back, but they don't go into the wilderness looking for green-skinned guys to kill. D&D characters do not have to be glorified mercenaries. If a paladin in a game I was running started behaving in the way you describe, that paladin would fall.

Attilargh
2007-02-27, 09:21 AM
I agree with Dausuul on this. I can't see a paladin doing the stuff described on the first page, just because I can't see a god (or the paladin herself, if said paladin does not worship a god) go "Well okay, you can break the Code now, but don't make it a habit."

In faux drama terms, Paladins are Special because of the strict Code. If you loosen it up a bit to let the Paladin get away with some stuff, it's not as cool.


I'd be much more okay with the Grey Guard if it were a Lawful Neutral class with benefits for fallen paladins--like the blackguard but not evil.
Actually, I can see a Lawful Good person doing it too (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0329.html). At least in certain circumstances.

Khantalas
2007-02-27, 10:27 AM
OK, here's something that's been bugging me since the beginning of the thread. Gray Guard is a 10-level prestige class. It mostly defines what you are. It's not about like Uncanny Trickster, for example, which simply improves one aspect of your abilities without halting most of the rest.

Think about the Gray Guards. They do not improve your mount's abilities, they don't give you extra uses of remove disease, they slow down your spellcasting. This is not a a paladin. This is a Gray Guard. You may need to have been a paladin once to become a Gray Guard, but now you're a Gray Guard. Saying that one should not be about having to commit evil acts to preserve the greater good and just be a goody two shoes paladin is like saying that someone with levels of assassin should not be about killing people and just be a cheerful adventurer rogue that goes on dungeon crawls.

No, Gray Guards are not paladins. They aren't meant to be. A warblade with levels of Order of the Bow Initiate isn't meant to be a melee combatant like a warblade (though this will also be a particularly poor choice).

Makes no sense? Just to stupid to be considered seriously? Join the club, I have no idea what I want to say either.

Roderick_BR
2007-02-27, 11:03 AM
I would like to see a variant Paladin with the half elf bard's soothing voice and atonement in it's spell list. Talking the bad guys into becoming good.
That would work great as a multiclass option, if the DM allows you to multiclass your paladin levels with bard, like Forgotten Realms where some deities lets you multiclass with some specific classes.
A PrC with those abilities could be called "mediator" or something.
As for variation, you could exchange your smite evil abilities for it. Something to think about.

Fawsto
2007-02-27, 12:20 PM
I understand what you said Khantalas... This is the old point: a Lvl 10 Fighter/ lvl 10 Lasher obviously would name himself a lasher. A Blackguard may had once been a Paladin, but now he is a BlackGuard. The same happens to the grey guard, for instance he isn't a paladin anymore, now he is a grey guard. Just that.

And this is the point of it. Paladins and Grey guards are diferent classes, with very diferent distinctions of how deep should you go in the evil territory to be able to fight evil...

Attilargh
2007-02-27, 12:36 PM
But my beef is that he never stops being a Paladin. He might be Grey Guard, but he's also a Paladin. He still has his abilities, including Lay on Hands and Bump Uglies and even some parts of his old code, but now he can do more stuff with them all.

"Here, let me lay my hands on you before I go and righteously kick that other guy's teeth in because his Chaotic ways brought suffering to you all."
"But doesn't your Code prevent that?"
"Yeah, but sometimes you've got to do what you've got to do, you know?"

He's a Paladin with the freedom of action near that of a Fighter. That's what bothers me.

Dark
2007-02-27, 01:06 PM
Hmm.

Do the rules for the Gray Guard ever say that he keeps his paladin abilities even after breaking the paladin's code? I only have Tobrian's excerpts to go on, but it sounds like the "Sacrament of True Faith" ability only protects the Gray Guard class abilities, not necessarily the Paladin class abilities (which, after all, come from a different class).

In fact, the Gray Guard prerequisites say "must adhere to a code of conduct that prevents the character from performing evil acts", but the Gray Guard is "held to the same code of conduct as a paladin". So the base class doesn't need to be Paladin, and might have a different code of conduct. So why would the Gray Guard's exceptions apply to the base class?

This could lead to odd combinations, though, and half-fallen characters :)

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 02:56 PM
See, again, Dausuul missed the point, Attilargh misses the point, Khantalas sort of gets it.

The Grey Guard doesn't start out as some one who knows who is evil and who isn't, and is free to judge as he sees fit. He starts out as a PALADIN, someone who DOES know who is evil and who is not, but is not free to do with evil as he sees fit. He then takes the prestige class to become someone who, under circumstances defined by his god/over arching force of good, can do what is necessary to acheive a greater good. He merely is allowed to judge and act on the judgement, though if he is wrong he still faces the exact same loss of powers. He is still defending good and the innocent, only instead of being unwilling to go after evil if they refuse to be stand up and face him, he, at very discrete and specific forks in the road, is allowed to bend the rules.

You have to remember, this isn't the real world. These people have magical powers that TELL THEM whether someone is good or evil. You don't get things like, "oh, well he was innocent. It was the one armed man." You can look into their soul and see "he is not an annocent." If, however, through some really elaborate plot by the villains to plant a stooge, the Grey Guard can still fall and lose their abilities.

This is why D&D alignment is awkward. If good and evil are going to be absolutes (I don't think they are consistent in treating them as such, by the way), and you can detect those absolutes, why shouldn't you be able to kill anyone who pings as evil? You don't get to be evil by generally being a prick, or being a decent guy who cheats on his wife. That's "neutral." You can't be "evil" without doing some serious evil. Thus you are guilty of something very serious. You probably have aided or abbetted murder, maybe extensive theft, rapine, who knows. You are DEFINITELY out of that grey area of "well, not really evil, just misguided." After all, Good and Evil are absolute. If you ping as one, you are it. If you can kill them, why not torture them for info first?

Further, no one has explained why gods care about their congregations being killed, since they can just whisk them away to a promised land after. Or why they don't whisk them away right off the bat.

I probably should have known better than to use the word childish when speaking of idealism. Allow me to rephrase.
The idealism people attribute to paladins is similar to the idealism that children hold, ie. extremely simplistic and limited in experiences it can deal with. For instance, a child is told "killing is bad." They then ask "Well, why is it ok to kill cows?" and "Why can police and soldiers kill people?" It is an idealism that does not consider the ends, the means, or the context of any event, simply that something happened, that something is defined as being "bad", and so therefore is unacceptable.
No offense, but that is what happens when you have an irrational code of morals that must be taught and driven into you, not one that is rational and consistent, and thus can be reasoned.
People treat paladins the same way. They say "hurting people is bad." Well, one, a paladin kills evil all the time. It's his job. Why is he allowed to do so? Because the evil was going to destroy good, and the good is the most important. If you find that statement of a paladin's purpose for existing and why he can hurt and kill things acceptable, please demonstrate another. If you accept it, however, you have to ask yourself why the paladin is only allowed to protect the good by killing in face to face combat, as opposed to injuring the enemy to acheive his end, thus leaving the enemy the chance to redeem himself. Why must a paladin limit himself to brute force or words, when something in between protects the good just as well?
"Sorry Mr Orc, I am not allowed to smack you around, so since you won't tell me where your slave camp is, I just have to kill you. Can't have you running around after all."

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 03:09 PM
No, actually, my adventurers quest to save their country and their world from the rampaging hordes of Evil. The green-skinned guys attack them, they fight back, but they don't go into the wilderness looking for green-skinned guys to kill. D&D characters do not have to be glorified mercenaries. If a paladin in a game I was running started behaving in the way you describe, that paladin would fall.
I didn't address this properly.
So, how do your adventures save their country and world from EEEEEVIL? Is it by killing evil? Do they seek it out, or just sit on their butts waiting for the evil to kill a few innocents before doing anything about it? Do they pursue it back into the wilderness to make sure it doesn't come back to kill again, or just stop at the city gates. "Ahh well, I am sure he won't be back for a few hours at least. Let's go have a beer." After those green skinned bad guys back off, your heroes just hang around, waiting for them to to come back. If the greenskins are in fact EEEEEVIL, doesn't it make sense to track them down and make certain they never come back? Wouldn't that involve going out and finding the eeeeeeeevil to kill?

It has nothing to do with being mercenaries. A mercenary is just someone who fights for pay, as opposed to defending their country/homes/faith or whatever (ie. pro bono killing.)

So, what will your players do when the enemies are not the orcs you let come and rampage periodically, but rather internal corruption? Do you go up to the corrupt official and demand he stop doing whatever it is he does that is eeeeevil, or else face you in single combat? When good and neutral people don't know enough about what is going on to root the guy out, your paladin is done. He can't associate with anyone in the underworld of the city (eeeeevil) to find out who knows what. Even if he does get a tip along the lines of "Jimmy the Shovel over there on Gutter Street, he seems to be coming across a whole slew of new bodies to bury" he can't go and find out just what Jimmy does that makes him detect as so eeeevil.
"You will tell me what you have done, and by admittance hope to purge your vile soul!" "
"Uhm... I totally lie to my wife about my affair with her sister. And mom. And dad..."
"Aww, come on, seriously. Are you kidding? Detect lie says you aren't, but it has to be more than that, right? How about if I buy you some coffee?"

darkzucchini
2007-02-27, 03:23 PM
Paladins are idealistic. That's the whole point of the class. They're the guys who don't take the easy way out, who walk the straight and narrow, who try right up to the end to find a way to reconcile the greater good with the demands of honor and compassion. Sometimes that puts them in a bad place. That's the whole idea. Playing a paladin is a challenge that way. If you don't want that challenge, don't play a frickin' paladin.

The problem that I have with this is that it limits options for characters. If thats what you want in your campaign thats fine, but I like to give my players as many options as possible, as long as its not out of place or broken. I'd probably let a paladin in one of my campaign act like a Grey Guard without take the prestige class as long as they have stated in their history that they see the ends as justifying the means. of course, this may bring them into conflict with other paladins or members of their church, which in turn could lead to more role playing. I don't want to see every paladin as an idealistic Galahad clone. Its still a challenge to straddle that line between upholding the greater good and falling from grace.

Telonius
2007-02-27, 04:06 PM
Honestly, I didn't see a problem with this PrC. In fact, I'd even say that it's a good one. It gives a mechanic for achieving something (associating with non-good characters) that was impossible for a standard Paladin to do. It's not a license to go ahead and torture and maim; reading the PrC, I didn't get that sense.

This is what I did get: Paladins are held to a very rigorous standard in order to perfect themselves, and grow in their faith. In relaxing the vows, the church hierarchy is, in effect, saying that they're worthy of trust beyond the normal scope. Standard Paladins aren't forbidden to associate with non-good people (and all the rest of the requirements) because non-good people aren't worthy. It's not about the others, it's about keeping the Paladin on the straight and narrow. Paladins take the vows, because Paladins need them most. Grey Guards have grown enough that they don't need the training wheels of the vows. To use a Star Wars analogy, it's kind of like Qui-gon Jin fixing the dice when he freed Anakin. (Not exactly the same, I know, but I think the analogy works).

PaladinBoy
2007-02-27, 04:35 PM
See, again, Dausuul missed the point, Attilargh misses the point, Khantalas sort of gets it.

The Grey Guard doesn't start out as some one who knows who is evil and who isn't, and is free to judge as he sees fit. He starts out as a PALADIN, someone who DOES know who is evil and who is not, but is not free to do with evil as he sees fit. He then takes the prestige class to become someone who, under circumstances defined by his god/over arching force of good, can do what is necessary to acheive a greater good. He merely is allowed to judge and act on the judgement, though if he is wrong he still faces the exact same loss of powers. He is still defending good and the innocent, only instead of being unwilling to go after evil if they refuse to be stand up and face him, he, at very discrete and specific forks in the road, is allowed to bend the rules.

Frankly, I don't think this helps the Grey Guards any. Apology is nice...... never letting it happen again is better. It doesn't change the fact that he's still committed an evil act. His apology could be considered rather false, since he's still willing to do it again if necessary.


If you can kill them, why not torture them for info first?

See my point below.


I probably should have known better than to use the word childish when speaking of idealism. Allow me to rephrase.
The idealism people attribute to paladins is similar to the idealism that children hold, ie. extremely simplistic and limited in experiences it can deal with. For instance, a child is told "killing is bad." They then ask "Well, why is it ok to kill cows?" and "Why can police and soldiers kill people?" It is an idealism that does not consider the ends, the means, or the context of any event, simply that something happened, that something is defined as being "bad", and so therefore is unacceptable.
No offense, but that is what happens when you have an irrational code of morals that must be taught and driven into you, not one that is rational and consistent, and thus can be reasoned.
People treat paladins the same way. They say "hurting people is bad." Well, one, a paladin kills evil all the time. It's his job. Why is he allowed to do so? Because the evil was going to destroy good, and the good is the most important. If you find that statement of a paladin's purpose for existing and why he can hurt and kill things acceptable, please demonstrate another. If you accept it, however, you have to ask yourself why the paladin is only allowed to protect the good by killing in face to face combat, as opposed to injuring the enemy to acheive his end, thus leaving the enemy the chance to redeem himself. Why must a paladin limit himself to brute force or words, when something in between protects the good just as well?
"Sorry Mr Orc, I am not allowed to smack you around, so since you won't tell me where your slave camp is, I just have to kill you. Can't have you running around after all."

First off, a paladin follow very strict Good, is an idealist, and is not willing to compromise his ideals. The trick to making that work? A paladin's ideals follow the Good alignment. The Book of Exalted Deeds (it's really an excellent resource for this type of debate) defines several of the parameters as helping others, charity, healing, personal sacrifice, mercy, forgiveness, bringing hope, and redeeming evil. These are a paladin's ideals. If you point specific problems out to me, I'll do my best to answer your questions.

Also, the BoED provides info about tough moral questions. One of them is whether the ends justify the means. The simple answer is no, they do not. An evil act is an evil act no matter how many people it saves. Another question is whether violence is always evil. Again, no, it's not. However, it must have a good motive and accomplish a good purpose to be considered good.

As to why you can kill but you can't torture.......... torture is far worse than a quick death. Very few Good people like unnecessary pain and suffering, and I believe that torture is always unnecessary. Yes, always. If you can't see another way out, then keep looking until you find one. If people die because you took too long........ well, you didn't kill them. The people you were hunting for did that. Should you feel bad about it? Of course. Is it your fault? No, it's the murderers' fault.

This leads me to the problem with this class. They're not Good. They're LN at best. In my campaigns, while it might be possible for Evil people to be granted power by a Good deity (I really hate that aspect of Eberron), I would not make them remotely like paladins. Can I see people like this existing? Sure. Are they Good? Absolutely, unequivocally, no. Good intentions don't mean that you're Good........ if that were true :miko: never would have fallen.

Rabiesbunny
2007-02-27, 04:40 PM
Are they Good? Absolutely, unequivocally, no. Good intentions don't mean that you're Good........ if that were true never would have fallen.

Tis true, but sometimes, even in WotC literature it's passed over if someone is Good. ;) Ever heard of the Dawn Cataclysm? The Good aligned Lathander decided that he wanted to be the ruler of the human pantheon, and ended up killing a goddess. Not to mention when he kidnapped Good Tymora and Evil Beshaba, and tried to fuse them back together in a process that could have destroyed the realms.

All because the Earth Goddess spurned him for a date, and he wanted his old girlfriend back.
It's a weird thing when it's permitted to happen, because according to the alignment system, it shouldn't!

Winterking
2007-02-27, 04:42 PM
My only problem with this PrC is the LG alignment. My apologies if anyone's mentioned this before (didn't feel like reading through 5 pages of anti-paladin vs pro-paladin rants) but the Grey Guard reminds me quite a lot of the Operative from the movie Serenity. Someone dedicated to a cause, heart and soul, and willing to do anything and everything necessary to achieve it. The Operative is believable, however, because he fights for a pure, idealistic goal--a pure and good and safe human society--and acknowledges that his deeds make him ineligible for participating. So he's LN, if not LE. He works for a good goal, but he realizes that the things he does makes him a not-good person.
I would personally treat the Grey Guard class along those lines. Sure, the Paladin keeps getting his powers, and can do worse and worse stuff to serve his/her god. The god, after all, thinks that sometimes, darkness must be fought by darkness, or at least by greyness. However, the Paladin/GG has to accept that he/she is doing bad things, that they are forsaking their ideals, and that they are, by those standards, damned. Change their alignment to LN (or LE, depending on the acts they end up doing); emphasize to the players how each additional necessary evil act, while in the cause of their ideal, adds another stain to their soul, reminding them that they won't go to the happy paladin afterlife, but rather be dumped unceremoniously into a pit of torment.
(now, it doesn't really matter whether or not that _actually_ happens, or the god plucks them from damnation at the moment of their death because of the sacrifice they made throughout their life, giving their soul for their cause)

I think this could add interesting nuance to the GG.

PaladinBoy
2007-02-27, 04:45 PM
Tis true, but sometimes, even in WotC literature it's passed over if someone is Lawful Good. ;) Ever heard of the Dawn Cataclysm? The Good aligned Lathander decided that he wanted to be the ruler of the human pantheon, and ended up killing a goddess. Not to mention when he kidnapped Good Tymora and Evil Beshaba, and tried to fuse them back together in a process that could have destroyed the realms. It's a weird thing when it's permitted to happen, because according to the alignment system, it shouldn't!

No, I've never heard of that. (Until now.:smallwink: ) I certainly don't like that, I would never write in something like that happening, and I would tell any of my players that told me that something like that happened in my campaign world, "I'm the DM, even though it's published literature I'm free to edit it for my campaigns, and it didn't happen."

That's an interesting take on it, Winterking (and nice example from Serenity). I might do it that way myself, as I just take umbrage at how this class is portrayed as LG and like a paladin.

Winterking
2007-02-27, 04:51 PM
One other comment: Paladins, and the churches they belong to, have no real need of a Paladin-variant that can do naughty stuff. There's clerics who could multiclass into rogue, devout rogues, rogues that like being paid regularly by the church, fighters/rangers/etc who feel the same way...

Having Paladins, therefore, be unable to commit evil acts for the greater good really isn't a concern. They don't have to rough up the Orc to get information, they don't have to skulk about in the criminal underworld to find out who killed whom and why: that's what the church's support network is for. Paladins don't have to do anything beyond serve as a shining ideal, standing up as gleaming examples of Good. Oh, and bumping ugl----I mean, smiting evil, against obvious/already identified evil baddies. The grey guard is strictly necessary only for an order of paladins that is all-paladins, all the time, which, quite frankly, is kind of stupid.

enderrocksonall
2007-02-27, 04:56 PM
I think the real problem people have when dealing with morality in D&D is that game world morality IS NOT THE SAME AS REAL WORLD MORALITY. In todays world we consider it barbarous to torture prisoners, we consider it morally reprehensible to steal from religious institutions. But D&D society is based on life in the Dark and Middle ages when both of these practices were commonplace.
A paladin's prohibitions against the use of poison or lying are not because those acts are inherently evil. It is because of the sense of chivalry and honor that paladins must uphold, lest they abuse their powers.

I know someone is going to say that lying IS inherently evil, but i disagree. A paladin, by his very nature, is a warrior and all war is based on deception in some way. Whether that deception be about the strength or weakness of an army, the location of that army, or even the identity of the people leading it.
In a world where assination is cheaper than war, lies become the most moral course of action when you can save the king's life.

PaladinBoy
2007-02-27, 05:12 PM
I think the real problem people have when dealing with morality in D&D is that game world morality IS NOT THE SAME AS REAL WORLD MORALITY. In todays world we consider it barbarous to torture prisoners, we consider it morally reprehensible to steal from religious institutions. But D&D society is based on life in the Dark and Middle ages when both of these practices were commonplace.
A paladin's prohibitions against the use of poison or lying are not because those acts are inherently evil. It is because of the sense of chivalry and honor that paladins must uphold, lest they abuse their powers.

I know someone is going to say that lying IS inherently evil, but i disagree. A paladin, by his very nature, is a warrior and all war is based on deception in some way. Whether that deception be about the strength or weakness of an army, the location of that army, or even the identity of the people leading it.
In a world where assination is cheaper than war, lies become the most moral course of action when you can save the king's life.

The BoED has some good stuff on this too. It says that even if following good ideals makes you ahead of your time or out of step with your culture, you must follow them anyway, because it's Good. Not all D+D is based on the Dark and Middle Ages, and even for those campaigns that are, it's a more enlightened version, at least in my campaigns.

As for lying, I agree. It's not inherently evil. In many circumstances it is dishonorable, however.

Hopeless
2007-02-27, 05:35 PM
Sorry to blaspheme but when I planned to run Kingdoms of Kalamar I had pretty much decided there was only one way to resolve this matter and that was to declare that ALL FAITHS had their own PALADINS.
None of this LG only rubbish, if they had to fight someone who no better than a Paladin of a rival order, thereby Black Guards or as I call them FALLEN PALADINS are just those that have fallen from the goals of their faith.

In the one game i ran I had a Paladin of the Rotlord fight a PC Paladin and it made sense for the class FINALLY.

I was told at a club I used to go to that Paladins can only be LG because they're supposed to be the personification of their god.

However why the heck would they be restricted to just LG gods, the Chaos Knight the original name for a CE Paladin just meant for me that there are other Paladins of different viewpoints and rather having these debates it should be resolved likewise.

In a Greyhawk campaign I watched as a Paladin player not only condoned torture he also committed cold blooded murder on a captive ignoring the rest of the party and kept his so-called abilities because the dm decided all goblins were evil, the fact this target was a captive was beside the point since he had claimed she would have raised the alarm elsewhere BUT that would have been after we had left the area which by the way they were waiting for us on the way out anyway so poor dming more than anything...

In my view the dm should look at Paladins as not restricted to LG throw out these "alternate" Paladin classes and stick to what it should be, the Paladin wants to fight evil, give him a Paladin from an enemy faith not continue this mockery that is either a dm who doesn't know better and a player who should stick to playing fighters or clerics with a short life expectancy!

Take care and all the best!

Rabiesbunny
2007-02-27, 06:08 PM
In a Greyhawk campaign I watched as a Paladin player not only condoned torture he also committed cold blooded murder on a captive ignoring the rest of the party and kept his so-called abilities because the dm decided all goblins were evil, the fact this target was a captive was beside the point since he had claimed she would have raised the alarm elsewhere BUT that would have been after we had left the area which by the way they were waiting for us on the way out anyway so poor dming more than anything...

That paragraph saddens me. :( I'm glad I've never had a DM that would condone that, I'd freak out! A well played LG Paladin can come many, many ways, but never does killing a helpless being or condoning their slaughter, even if their race is evil, constitute a good act. It is so evil through and through it hurts.

The character Holly Harrowslough from the Lost Gods series is a good example of a Paladin's concern for life. She actually feels concern for demons begin led to slaughter by an evil priestess.

"A bunch of evil, lawless creatures", Jas pointed out.

"It's still not right," Holly said, shaking her head, "whatever kind of creatures they are."

"You're too softhearted," Jas declared.

"So only the just deserve justness? Only the good deserve goodness? Is that what you think?"
Holly asked sadly.

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 07:31 PM
"So only the just deserve justness? Only the good deserve goodness? Is that what you think?"
Holly asked sadly.
YES! (To what is in bold.) That IS justice.

Ok, look at this another way. Say you have a LG fighter, and a LG paladin. The fighter can do whatever he wants to further good, within reason. If he wants, he can subdual damage the hell out of someone he captures in order to get important information to further good. Does he then shift to LN immediately? Does he lose bonus feats?
Now a Grey Guard on whole does a lot of good. He may turn to less than honorable methods on occaision, but that doesn't make him LN. If rogues can be LG, then so can a Grey Guard.

You are all thinking of this like as soon as your paladin takes a level of Grey Guard, it's "hole in the sheet" time. Soon it will be wearing babies as pauldrons, whoring with orcs, and beating old men to death. Just so long as it is through the hole in the sheet, or class, it's cool. That just isn't the case. The GG still has to atone when they step over the line, or on it.

The whole point of the class is that the GG gets a lot closer to that line between LG Paladin and LN than the paladin can get without seriously tarnishing his image. Again, it is moving away from childish idealism of the paladin towards the answer to "What ideals are most important, if not all are attainable at once?" that adults deal with.

Sardia
2007-02-27, 07:44 PM
So what exactly is a deity getting out of having a Paladin, rather than just a cleric? And a Gray Guard, rather than have that cleric with a set of thumbscrews?
What's the Paladin's purpose in the divine order of things, since he's not as good a spellcaster as the Cleric, and not as good at killing evil as the fighter (or the cleric. Heh.), what purpose does he serve in adhering to the strict code?

PaladinBoy
2007-02-27, 07:48 PM
I've always viewed one of the best attributes of a paladin (and of true Good, for that matter) is not asking which ideals need to be sacrificed, but striving to achieve all of them.

Also, with the GG, resorting to torture is a little farther away from Good than any LG rogue or fighter. Sure, if he only used it once, I wouldn't drop him to LN, but it sounds like the point of this class is that they are willing to do it whenever it's necessary, and I don't consider that Good. I also think that once you start using it "whenever necessary" that the line between "necessary" and "convenient" will become very blurry eventually, resulting in such situations as resorting to torture when it's the fastest solution, not necessarily the only one. Particularly since I don't think that torture is ever the only solution to a problem.......

I still don't think the paladin's ideals are childish; I believe you yourself, Wehrkind, said that that causes problems with killing things. A paladin's ideals should allow him to carry out his mission without stepping over the line of what's Good. Since this is D+D, that line usually is an absolute. I did post a list of Good ideals earlier in the thread, so if you have any problems with those, then post about it, particularly how the paladin has a childish view and how the GG has a more mature view.

Sardia
2007-02-27, 07:49 PM
Further, no one has explained why gods care about their congregations being killed, since they can just whisk them away to a promised land after. Or why they don't whisk them away right off the bat.

Depends on the metaphysics of the given world, but if you're a deity taking the long view, and either a) your mortal worshippers are your source of power or b) petitioners are a handy source of labor/cannon fodder/building material for the outer plane of your choice and only come from the souls of dead material plane beings, then you want your worshippers to spread the faith and have lots of offspring who also worship you.
If a deity gets a reputation for letting its worshippers bite it left and right, the future supply might be low.

crazedloon
2007-02-27, 07:50 PM
So what exactly is a deity getting out of having a Paladin, rather than just a cleric? And a Gray Guard, rather than have that cleric with a set of thumbscrews?
What's the Paladin's purpose in the divine order of things, since he's not as good a spellcaster as the Cleric, and not as good at killing evil as the fighter (or the cleric. Heh.), what purpose does he serve in adhering to the strict code?

Think of them as poster boys (or at least the paly)

Then think of the Grey Guard as the dirtyjobs sort of guy. He would work with the fighters of that deity to get the work done. What they do you wouldnt want the cleric who should be teaching and spreading the faith or the palys i.e. poster boys of the faith to do becuase they would shine badly on your faith for someone not of your faith. (i.e. it looks realy bad when your clerics beat the **** out of non believers)

But personaly I think Palys should be able to be of any faith/Alignment and there should be rules showing that. Personaly I think that paly class needs an overhaul (hmm mabey that will be my next homebrew disaster :smallamused: )

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 07:51 PM
Heh , I was kind of wondering about that too, since clerics can deviate from their diety's code a great deal more than paladins, but have less of the easily aquired martial skills, and more of the "good human, have some of my divine might" spells. One would think it would be the other way around.

I tend to think of paladins as fighter++ not really clerics. The folks who get things done in the muscle department, while being of a higher standard than your normal fighter. In theory, clerics should be a higher standard still, but they get a bye.

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 08:19 PM
Depends on the metaphysics of the given world, but if you're a deity taking the long view, and either a) your mortal worshippers are your source of power or b) petitioners are a handy source of labor/cannon fodder/building material for the outer plane of your choice and only come from the souls of dead material plane beings, then you want your worshippers to spread the faith and have lots of offspring who also worship you.
If a deity gets a reputation for letting its worshippers bite it left and right, the future supply might be low.
In that case, then it only makes sense that a god, any god, would be perfectly fine killing those who prey upon their congregations. After all, if your god is not willing to defend you, who will? Perhaps you should find a new god? Further, killing an evil doer who preys upon your people likely weakens your opponents. So that just gets back to the question "Why does a god care about what happens to an enemy of his people more than his own people?"


I've always viewed one of the best attributes of a paladin (and of true Good, for that matter) is not asking which ideals need to be sacrificed, but striving to achieve all of them.
And that's the point, achieving ALL values is impossible. Sometimes it comes down to which is more important to you. Not every moment of every day, but fairly frequently. Just because you recognize that not all are attainable simultaneously does not mean you stop trying to achieve them all. It just means you recognize which are more important if you can't have them all. That is the difference between a child who thinks they should have their cake and eat it too, and and an adult who realizes that if they really want that cake they better not eat it. Sometimes it is not possible be patient and caring with bad guys and also do your utmost to protect the innocent. At such times you need to decide which is more important, since one is going to lose out to the other.
Morality is all about making decisions, and deciding what you value most is what defines your morality. Even tacit betrayal of a value by inaction is a betrayal.



Also, with the GG, resorting to torture is a little farther away from Good than any LG rogue or fighter. Sure, if he only used it once, I wouldn't drop him to LN, but it sounds like the point of this class is that they are willing to do it whenever it's necessary, and I don't consider that Good. I also think that once you start using it "whenever necessary" that the line between "necessary" and "convenient" will become very blurry eventually, resulting in such situations as resorting to torture when it's the fastest solution, not necessarily the only one. Particularly since I don't think that torture is ever the only solution to a problem.......

Firstly, why should a paladin change alignments faster than a fighter or rogue? If anything he is so far towards "good" on the scale that it should take longer than those who have no particular compunctions built into the class. Not to say they shouldn't lose their class features, but it definitely does not make sense that they should stop being LG faster.

The second point you make is at once the point of the class, and missing it completely. The whole point is that, having been a paladin as well, the GG is exactly the sort who would only use questionable methods when necessary. He can still go over the line, and still be punished for it. The whole point is that he is trusted to not do so, as compared to say a paladin in training or the like. Hence the very light line the character walks, and the whole interest of the class. "You have all these powers, and can use them if you deem necessary. But don't use them, lightly, or at all if necessary." THAT is why it is a cool class, not because it is gritty or blood stained, but because it allows the character to examine the line between those who say they stand for good and justice, and those who actually have to make the decisions that ensure the dispensation of justice to protect the good.



I still don't think the paladin's ideals are childish; I believe you yourself, Wehrkind, said that that causes problems with killing things. A paladin's ideals should allow him to carry out his mission without stepping over the line of what's Good. Since this is D+D, that line usually is an absolute. I did post a list of Good ideals earlier in the thread, so if you have any problems with those, then post about it, particularly how the paladin has a childish view and how the GG has a more mature view.
See above as for why one is more childish than the other. Suffice to say, since real people can not afford to get things done at the speed of plot, and real situations do not always have a DM writing them so that the paladin doesn't need to face seriously difficult situations that don't have a "good" way out, the character of the GG makes sense. D&D =! Real Life, but it makes for better versimmlitude if it mirrors it as much as possible. Real life puts you insituation where you have to choose between bad and worse. Sometimes one is forced to decide what values are most important to them, since only a finite amount can be achieved.

PaladinBoy
2007-02-27, 08:44 PM
And that's the point, achieving ALL values is impossible. Sometimes it comes down to which is more important to you. Not every moment of every day, but fairly frequently. Just because you recognize that not all are attainable simultaneously does not mean you stop trying to achieve them all. It just means you recognize which are more important if you can't have them all. That is the difference between a child who thinks they should have their cake and eat it too, and and an adult who realizes that if they really want that cake they better not eat it. Sometimes it is not possible be patient and caring with bad guys and also do your utmost to protect the innocent. At such times you need to decide which is more important, since one is going to lose out to the other.
Morality is all about making decisions, and deciding what you value most is what defines your morality. Even tacit betrayal of a value by inaction is a betrayal.

Well, if you don't try to achieve the highest levels of morals, you will never reach them, EVER. I would view my values as more important than anything else, so I guess that defines my morality. Also, you would prefer an actual, real betrayal of your values to a tacit betrayal? That's even assuming you consider it a tacit betrayal. After all, if you try your very hardest to find some prisoners before they are killed, and fail, then you just need to improve your abilities so you don't fail next time. It's not really a moral failing. Also, you didn't kill them, and you didn't put them in the situation where they were harmed; that would be the enemies you tried to find. Should you feel bad about their deaths? Heck yes, if you didn't I'd worry that you weren't Good. Are you at fault? Not really, then enemies are.


Firstly, why should a paladin change alignments faster than a fighter or rogue? If anything he is so far towards "good" on the scale that it should take longer than those who have no particular compunctions built into the class. Not to say they shouldn't lose their class features, but it definitely does not make sense that they should stop being LG faster.

Well, paladins are judged to a higher standard, but I agree that they wouldn't change alignment faster.


The second point you make is at once the point of the class, and missing it completely. The whole point is that, having been a paladin as well, the GG is exactly the sort who would only use questionable methods when necessary. He can still go over the line, and still be punished for it. The whole point is that he is trusted to not do so, as compared to say a paladin in training or the like. Hence the very light line the character walks, and the whole interest of the class. "You have all these powers, and can use them if you deem necessary. But don't use them, lightly, or at all if necessary." THAT is why it is a cool class, not because it is gritty or blood stained, but because it allows the character to examine the line between those who say they stand for good and justice, and those who actually have to make the decisions that ensure the dispensation of justice to protect the good.

I don't think that that makes the GG good. True Good would be not committing any evil at all. His good intentions are a point in his favor, but he still commits evil acts. His discretion, using his abilities only when necessary, is another point, but I still worry that the line between "necessary" and "convenient" would blur eventually. I think that this class having a paladin background is only possible if you make it so the paladin Falls first, as any paladin that resorted to evil acts would Fall.



See above as for why one is more childish than the other. Suffice to say, since real people can not afford to get things done at the speed of plot, and real situations do not always have a DM writing them so that the paladin doesn't need to face seriously difficult situations that don't have a "good" way out, the character of the GG makes sense. D&D =! Real Life, but it makes for better versimmlitude if it mirrors it as much as possible. Real life puts you insituation where you have to choose between bad and worse. Sometimes one is forced to decide what values are most important to them, since only a finite amount can be achieved.

I think that D+D should only mirror real life up to a point. Frankly, one of the major reasons I like D+D is that D+D morality isn't like real world morality. Also, if a DM put me in a situation that forced me to choose between bad and worse, I would probably start yelling, then after I calmed down try my hardest to get the best option possible while staying true to my ideals.

Counterpower
2007-02-27, 08:58 PM
I'll keep that in mind.

(note: next adventure, challenge his morality)

Gralamin
2007-02-27, 09:19 PM
(For the record I feel like I'm Lawful Neutral in Real life, so you can think of this as a LN viewpoint)

More on Altruism:

Altruism at its roots is evil. It demands you to make a sacrifice to help the less fortunate. This sacrifice could be food, time, money, or a variety of other things.
What right do these people have to make someone, even someone Lawful Good, make sacrifices for them? They should strive to gain what they want on their own. That is the key to being good. This is not to say Altruism shouldn't be practiced at all, it is just that they have no right to request something that you'd have to go out of your way to accomplish.
Altruism gives some "something for nothing." Communism was the pinnacle of Altruism, making everyone sacrifice to bring everyone to an equilibrium.

Yes I know this post was cynical. But being cynical is not being evil.

Clementx
2007-02-27, 09:23 PM
This class is not Lawful Good, it is the epitome of Lawful Neutral. Extreme dedication to a cause or ideal, so much so that it overrides the rights of others to be alive, happy, and/or protected (Good) as well as one's own selfish, destructive, and/or dark desires (Evil). So on that count, it shouldn't be anywhere close to a Paladin. In fact, I wrote my own fallen-paladin class for an NPC that because obsessed with vengeance at any cost, with blackguard-like conversion of levels for a neutral transformation. Sure, it is a total Punisher ripoff, but its been a comic for so long for a reason. It is terrifyingly violent, and frighteningly understandable. He was the scariest ally-then-antagonist ever, because my players knew that he considered himself a paladin still. Miko wasn't the first, just the one with the most annoying personality.

Codes of Conduct are not there for subsequent class features or feats to remove. If you violate them, you lose the class, plain and simple. They are what defines the class. So what the Grey Guard really does is make you a fallen Paladin, and give you your class features back like nothing happened. So all that angst and moral ambiguity goes to waste, because nothing happened.

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 09:28 PM
Well, if you don't try to achieve the highest levels of morals, you will never reach them, EVER. I would view my values as more important than anything else, so I guess that defines my morality.
A swing and a miss. No one said he doesn't TRY. The point is that he recognizes that no matter how much you try, you get to a point where you have to make a decision between them. Then you have to decide which you value more. Sure, your values are more important than anything else, but WHICH values are more valuable than the others? You might value not putting your hand into a septic tank. You might also value cake. If you can have cake if you put your hand into a septic tank (you get to wash it after), do you do it? Do you do it if you are starving? Do you do it if someone else is starving? Silly example, but you get the general idea.


Also, you would prefer an actual, real betrayal of your values to a tacit betrayal? That's even assuming you consider it a tacit betrayal. After all, if you try your very hardest to find some prisoners before they are killed, and fail, then you just need to improve your abilities so you don't fail next time. It's not really a moral failing. Also, you didn't kill them, and you didn't put them in the situation where they were harmed; that would be the enemies you tried to find. Should you feel bad about their deaths? Heck yes, if you didn't I'd worry that you weren't Good. Are you at fault? Not really, then enemies are.
Tacit betrayal = Real betrayal. Tacit just means you do it without specific action. Such as in this case if a paladin sees someone being mugged and murdered, and just walks by without doing anything, that is tacit approval of the murder. That is all evil needs to get away with things.

You are correct that if you try everything you can and fail, it is not your moral failing, but simply a failure of skills/knowledge. If, however, you refuse to try everything and fail, are you not liable for failing due to your unwillingness to try? For the earlier example of walking past someone being murdered, if your paladin is a pacifist and completely against violence, is he still "good" if he decides to just stand there and shout at the murderer to stop? He might think it is wrong to kill anyone, but is the life of the victim not more important than the life of the person killing her? That is a moral failing.



I don't think that that makes the GG good. True Good would be not committing any evil at all. His good intentions are a point in his favor, but he still commits evil acts. His discretion, using his abilities only when necessary, is another point, but I still worry that the line between "necessary" and "convenient" would blur eventually. I think that this class having a paladin background is only possible if you make it so the paladin Falls first, as any paladin that resorted to evil acts would Fall. That's the point, again, of the class. A paladin that toes the line in order to do more good. I don't know that I can explain again that the point of the GREY Guard is that he toes the line between paladin and not. He isn't Mr. Squeeky Clean anymore, but he still follows the ideals he had before. He just doesn't hold them all as equal priorities. If he does get his priorities out of whack, then he is punished and falls.





I think that D+D should only mirror real life up to a point. Frankly, one of the major reasons I like D+D is that D+D morality isn't like real world morality. Also, if a DM put me in a situation that forced me to choose between bad and worse, I would probably start yelling, then after I calmed down try my hardest to get the best option possible while staying true to my ideals.
Well... I don't know what to tell you. If you want to play "Easy Morality for Being Exquisitely Pure" sorts of game, well, that's up to you. This class does not fit that theme, since a paladin will do just fine if your DM wants it that way. There might even be a Smurfs or Rainbow Bright game that would fit it better. D&D lends itself pretty well to easy moral choices, though I don't think it should include classes that require fervent moral rectitude in that case. If the possibility of falling isn't there, or is not at all possible even if you try, it rather limits the scope of the class. At any rate, a GG doesn't fit that sort of campaign at all.

Now, if you are interested in a more challenging moral game, one that really explores the possibilities and makes the PCs think, the GG is an excellent class.

I suppose it just comes down to what sort of game you enjoy in that case.

Sardia
2007-02-27, 09:37 PM
In that case, then it only makes sense that a god, any god, would be perfectly fine killing those who prey upon their congregations. After all, if your god is not willing to defend you, who will? Perhaps you should find a new god? Further, killing an evil doer who preys upon your people likely weakens your opponents. So that just gets back to the question "Why does a god care about what happens to an enemy of his people more than his own people?"

Because the dead evildoer just goes on to (at least in the short run) strengthen the opposition.
Ultimately, we'd presume that a good deity would like to see the ultimate conquest of good over evil. Killing them all removes the (slight) chance that they'd turn good. It might be inevitable to have to do so to protect the good, but only in cases of necessity.
Perhaps best to look at it this way-- what happens if you get the various good folks waging a war of extermination against the evil?

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 09:39 PM
This class is not Lawful Good, it is the epitome of Lawful Neutral. Extreme dedication to a cause or ideal, so much so that it overrides the rights of others to be alive, happy, and/or protected (Good) as well as one's own selfish, destructive, and/or dark desires (Evil). So on that count, it shouldn't be anywhere close to a Paladin. <snip>

Codes of Conduct are not there for subsequent class features or feats to remove. If you violate them, you lose the class, plain and simple. They are what defines the class. So what the Grey Guard really does is make you a fallen Paladin, and give you your class features back like nothing happened. So all that angst and moral ambiguity goes to waste, because nothing happened.

Those who initiate the violations of rights of others by so doing void their own rights. That is why it is morally acceptable to kill a murderer to keep them from killing someone. The criminal abdicates his rights you state above precisely because he destroys other's abilities to have them. That is why he is put in jail, thus made unhappy, and perhaps even killed. They Grey Guard stops these criminals exactly BECAUSE the criminals have destructive, dark desires and further ACT upon them. He might not use the most charming methods, but he is not using them on those who can logically be said to be awash in rights. You can not rationally claim to have rights when you destroy them in others.

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 09:45 PM
Because the dead evildoer just goes on to (at least in the short run) strengthen the opposition.
Ultimately, we'd presume that a good deity would like to see the ultimate conquest of good over evil. Killing them all removes the (slight) chance that they'd turn good. It might be inevitable to have to do so to protect the good, but only in cases of necessity.
Perhaps best to look at it this way-- what happens if you get the various good folks waging a war of extermination against the evil?
As they say, a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush. In this case, 1 living worshipper is worth 2 worshippers that might turn to good after they stop killing your flock.

As you say though "It might be inevitable to have to do so to protect the good, but only in cases of necessity. " That pretty much sums up the Grey Guard's philosophy.

As to the war of extermination... that is pretty much the plan, isn't it? The good might be willing to put up with the orc tribe so long as they don't cause problems, but as soon as the orc's evil manifests itself, they are wiped out. Good will not win against evil by hoping it goes away. Converting your enemies to your way of thinking is always good. Killing them is the next best thing. Losing one follower in the hopes that you will gain a new one is betraying your follower for a dubious chance at a new follower.

Raum
2007-02-27, 09:51 PM
Those who initiate the violations of rights of others by so doing void their own rights. That is why it is morally acceptable to kill a murderer to keep them from killing someone. The criminal abdicates his rights you state above precisely because he destroys other's abilities to have them. That is why he is put in jail, thus made unhappy, and perhaps even killed. I agree with the general sentiment though possibly not entirely with the way you stated it, in any case, "morally acceptable" is not the same as "good". It's morally acceptable to not be charitable but it's charity which is considered good.


They Grey Guard stops these criminals exactly BECAUSE the criminals have destructive, dark desires and further ACT upon them. He might not use the most charming methods, but he is not using them on those who can logically be said to be awash in rights. You can not rationally claim to have rights when you destroy them in others.The Grey Guard doesn't require that those he harmed be criminals or even evil. As written, it's perfectly acceptable for him to force a child to answer questions about about the villain's where abouts. Certainly not a good act no matter what the villain intends.

I don't have anything against dark heroes, in fiction I tend to prefer them. But the PrC would fit better if it was written as a way for disillusioned and fallen paladin to gain and use similar powers and continue serving their god. A neutral blackguard who isn't repudiated by his deity.

Sardia
2007-02-27, 09:52 PM
As you say though "It might be inevitable to have to do so to protect the good, but only in cases of necessity. " That pretty much sums up the Grey Guard's philosophy.

As to the war of extermination... that is pretty much the plan, isn't it? The good might be willing to put up with the orc tribe so long as they don't cause problems, but as soon as the orc's evil manifests itself, they are wiped out. Good will not win against evil by hoping it goes away. Converting your enemies to your way of thinking is always good. Killing them is the next best thing. Losing one follower in the hopes that you will gain a new one is betraying your follower for a dubious chance at a new follower.

And the question with the Gray Guard's morality came up with the notion of whether what he does is actually necessary to best pursue the good.

As for the war of extermination, as you put it, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush-- orcs fight back, and while fighting them defensively is surely a necessary and good goal, getting your own people killed during the campaign to wipe them out entirely may well be a loss.

Gralamin
2007-02-27, 10:01 PM
And the question with the Gray Guard's morality came up with the notion of whether what he does is actually necessary to best pursue the good.

As for the war of extermination, as you put it, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush-- orcs fight back, and while fighting them defensively is surely a necessary and good goal, getting your own people killed during the campaign to wipe them out entirely may well be a loss.

You can never win a war defensively. Doing so is condemning your army to death, which in itself is evil. The enemy must be wiped out. no more, no less. Allowing them to live would betray all the lives that sacrificed themselves so that others may live.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-27, 10:07 PM
As they say, a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush. In this case, 1 living worshipper is worth 2 worshippers that might turn to good after they stop killing your flock.

Not necessarily. A martyr who dies in your service serves to strengthen your followers' faith in you. Additionally, he becomes a petitioner on your plane and eventually may become a warrior for Good in the afterlife. A potential convert who dies prior to conversion may or may not serve as a martyr for the enemy's cause, but he will definately not become a petitioner on your plane and may serve the forces of Evil in the afterlife.


The Grey Guard doesn't require that those he harmed be criminals or even evil. As written, it's perfectly acceptable for him to force a child to answer questions about about the villain's where abouts. Certainly not a good act no matter what the villain intends.

If a child knows the villain's whereabouts, there are probably a thousand different ways you could get him to tell you. Torturing the child in lieu of anything else would be Evil. By the same token, extracting information from the villain by killing his children would also be Evil, since there are less Evil ways of going about that. Torturing the villain himself is morally grey, but could potentially be "justified." Don't make a habit of it, though: If you slip from Good...

Raum
2007-02-27, 10:17 PM
I agree, those actions would, at least, lead towards evil and an alignment change...unless you're a Grey Guard. That's why I dislike it's maintaining the paladin abilities.

Sardia
2007-02-27, 10:22 PM
You can never win a war defensively. Doing so is condemning your army to death, which in itself is evil. The enemy must be wiped out. no more, no less. Allowing them to live would betray all the lives that sacrificed themselves so that others may live.

By fighting defensively, I mean going to war only when necessary-- in short, when provoked by an attack or incipient attack.
Let's call 'em orcs. If the orcs attack, or mass on your border, and you go out and fight them, killing as many of them as needed to drive the rest back to wherever they came from and perhaps encourage them to more peaceful pursuits, you'll lose some soldiers in the fighting.
Keep pursuing them with the goal of exterminating them and a) they'll likely fight harder as they've nothing to lose, b) you'll lose far more of your own people, and c) your society is going to be at war longer, and wars cost money-- the soldier in the field isn't going to be at home to harvest the grain or keep the wolves away from the sheep or protect against Gnolls or trolls or whatever.

Finally, one underlying assumption here seems to be that the good side is going to win the war. If you've got smaller bastions of good outnumbered by hordes of orcs, hobgoblins, etc, taking an aggressive stance might not be a wise thing at all compared to demonstrate the virtues of cooperation, civility, and peace by using your military in sharp, short ventures intended only to thoroughly dissuade invaders.

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 10:24 PM
Well put Galamin.



Not necessarily. A martyr who dies in your service serves to strengthen your followers' faith in you. Additionally, he becomes a petitioner on your plane and eventually may become a warrior for Good in the afterlife. A potential convert who dies prior to conversion may or may not serve as a martyr for the enemy's cause, but he will definately not become a petitioner on your plane and may serve the forces of Evil in the afterlife.
Martyrs are a little over rated. One or two who actively and purposefully become martyrs are good. Martyring random followers who didn't really have that in mind is very bad. The vast majority of any group such as a congregation is made of up non-fanatics, people who you would call ordinary folks who cleave to the group for protection and acceptance. They can be willing to fight for their beliefs, but are not the gung ho type. They just want normal lives. They are to be inspired by martyrs, but not become them. Only a few are truly zealous enough to be eager at the chance to become a martyr. They are usually slightly crazy.

You pretty much take the chance they will become a servant in the afterlife no matter what you do or why you kill them. As stated, it is all well and good to convert those who you can, but hoping that by letting a few ACTUAL followers die for a few potential followers is a bad course of action. Why follow a god at all when they don't care if you live or die?




If a child knows the villain's whereabouts, there are probably a thousand different ways you could get him to tell you. Torturing the child in lieu of anything else would be Evil. By the same token, extracting information from the villain by killing his children would also be Evil, since there are less Evil ways of going about that. Torturing the villain himself is morally grey, but could potentially be "justified." Don't make a habit of it, though: If you slip from Good...
Again, nicely put. If you can't come up with something better than "put the brat on the rack!" you are either dealing with a supremely obstinate kid, or should never have been a paladin in the first place. Scaring the kid a bit might well be justified though.

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 10:31 PM
By fighting defensively, I mean going to war only when necessary-- in short, when provoked by an attack or incipient attack.
Let's call 'em orcs. If the orcs attack, or mass on your border, and you go out and fight them, killing as many of them as needed to drive the rest back to wherever they came from and perhaps encourage them to more peaceful pursuits, you'll lose some soldiers in the fighting.
Keep pursuing them with the goal of exterminating them and a) they'll likely fight harder as they've nothing to lose, b) you'll lose far more of your own people, and c) your society is going to be at war longer, and wars cost money-- the soldier in the field isn't going to be at home to harvest the grain or keep the wolves away from the sheep or protect against Gnolls or trolls or whatever.

Finally, one underlying assumption here seems to be that the good side is going to win the war. If you've got smaller bastions of good outnumbered by hordes of orcs, hobgoblins, etc, taking an aggressive stance might not be a wise thing at all compared to demonstrate the virtues of cooperation, civility, and peace by using your military in sharp, short ventures intended only to thoroughly dissuade invaders.

Yea, see, horrible logic in a military sense. By only fighting defensively, and never pursuing victory, all you accomplish at best is making them find another target. Likely they are just going to regroup and hit you again, and again, until they figure out how to win. Military history is filled with failed campaigns where a general could acheive victory on the field, but could not follow up. For instance "Hannibal knew how to achieve victory, but not what to do with it." The Romans, in contrast, recognized that so long as Carthage stood, they would constantly be at war.
The issue is more keen when you throw in absolute alignment and monsters etc. One can assume the Carthaginians wanted peace and prosperity the same as the Romans, and so perhaps could be dealt with diplomatically. Perhaps not, but it is an option. Orcs, by and large, are not going to see things that way. They are going to see either strength to kill them, which should be avoided until it can be defeated, or weakness to be exploited. If you never strike back and erradicate the orcs, even if beaten they will just wait until they think they have a chance again, then strike.

Essentially a purely defensive war is an eternal war.

Sardia
2007-02-27, 10:32 PM
Why follow a god at all when they don't care if you live or die?

In some circumstances, that'd be a plus. For one thing, it beats trying to boost the "die" side of the equation (Erythnul, Nerull, etc).
On the other hand, you're probably going to die anyhow- you might do it a few years or decades or centuries later, but it's almost certainly going to happen.
Which deity do you want to spend the rest of eternity with? Heironeous or Pelor might insist that you live virtuously even if it kills you, and Hextor might ensure you live a long and powerful life...but after that, it's a long, long time as a petitioner and Mt. Celestia sounds a lot more pleasant than the Nine Hells. At most, you're talking a few hundred years more wandering around on the material plane compared to being currency in Hell.

Wehrkind
2007-02-27, 10:43 PM
Still, we have to operate on the assumption that each person wants to live as long as possible, in the best conditions as possible. I agree that belief in an afterlife that is immeasurably superior to the mortal life (painful, brutish and short) makes a lot more sense when people are eager to get there. If anything, I would expect a lot more crusading armies in a D&D world.

However, it doesn't seem to be the case that that is an assumption D&D morality makes. It seems to assume that everyone wants to live. If not, well, we would have to rethink every philosophic point we have made thus far, and write a new morality based partially on the premise that dying as soon as possible within the requirements of your god's rules is everyone's goal.

It would be hard, but it would make for a VERY interesting campaign world.

PaladinBoy
2007-02-27, 10:43 PM
A swing and a miss. No one said he doesn't TRY. The point is that he recognizes that no matter how much you try, you get to a point where you have to make a decision between them. Then you have to decide which you value more. Sure, your values are more important than anything else, but WHICH values are more valuable than the others? You might value not putting your hand into a septic tank. You might also value cake. If you can have cake if you put your hand into a septic tank (you get to wash it after), do you do it? Do you do it if you are starving? Do you do it if someone else is starving? Silly example, but you get the general idea.

Perhaps the GG tries, but I think that he gives up on trying. Refusing to recognize that you'll need to give up your values is the only way you can keep them all and stay on a exalted/ saintly path, and in D+D, that's actually possible. (I'd like it to be possible in the real world too, but I suppose I can't have everything.) Even recognizing that some values may have to be compromised MIGHT be fine, if you only drop to neutral acts. The GG appears to drop a little farther than that.



Tacit betrayal = Real betrayal. Tacit just means you do it without specific action. Such as in this case if a paladin sees someone being mugged and murdered, and just walks by without doing anything, that is tacit approval of the murder. That is all evil needs to get away with things.

You are correct, also shown in this quote: "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."


You are correct that if you try everything you can and fail, it is not your moral failing, but simply a failure of skills/knowledge. If, however, you refuse to try everything and fail, are you not liable for failing due to your unwillingness to try? For the earlier example of walking past someone being murdered, if your paladin is a pacifist and completely against violence, is he still "good" if he decides to just stand there and shout at the murderer to stop? He might think it is wrong to kill anyone, but is the life of the victim not more important than the life of the person killing her? That is a moral failing.

One thing your example shows it that pacifism is not always right. The life of the victim is more important. In which case you should go as far as necessary to stop him, and no farther.

However, isn't it true that all Good people observe certain limits on their behavior based on their values? Isn't it also true that this is what makes them Good? Finally, where does this put the GG?

That "necessary" bit is very important. Defining what's necessary can be very difficult to do. For example, in the "have to hunt down an evil cult before they summon the demon" example, you have other ways to find them. They'll just take longer. Without knowing exactly how long you have, you have no way of determining whether torture is necessary for its speed or not. Therefore, you can't assume that it's necessary. It's a tough standard, but that's the point. To prevent any possible wrongdoing.

Lastly, your example has one crucial problem. This pacifist paladin did nothing. That's a problem. If you go to extreme lengths and work yourself even harder in order to avoid evil acts and find a better way....... that's very good. You're doing more than you might need to in order to avoid an easier evil solution. That is what makes you a paragon of virtue. Even if you fail, all that means is that you need to push yourself harder next time, not do less work.


That's the point, again, of the class. A paladin that toes the line in order to do more good. I don't know that I can explain again that the point of the GREY Guard is that he toes the line between paladin and not. He isn't Mr. Squeeky Clean anymore, but he still follows the ideals he had before. He just doesn't hold them all as equal priorities. If he does get his priorities out of whack, then he is punished and falls.

I would debate the point about following the same ideals as before. If he was a paladin before, and condones torture and other evil acts now, then he does not have the same values.


Well... I don't know what to tell you. If you want to play "Easy Morality for Being Exquisitely Pure" sorts of game, well, that's up to you. This class does not fit that theme, since a paladin will do just fine if your DM wants it that way. There might even be a Smurfs or Rainbow Bright game that would fit it better. D&D lends itself pretty well to easy moral choices, though I don't think it should include classes that require fervent moral rectitude in that case. If the possibility of falling isn't there, or is not at all possible even if you try, it rather limits the scope of the class. At any rate, a GG doesn't fit that sort of campaign at all.

Now, if you are interested in a more challenging moral game, one that really explores the possibilities and makes the PCs think, the GG is an excellent class.

I suppose it just comes down to what sort of game you enjoy in that case.

First, I would like to request that you do not tell me which games I like or do not like.

I actually love tough moral questions and moral debate; why do you think I've carried on so long in this thread?

The thing is, I believe that a happy ending is always possible, and without doing any evil. And I'm willing to go to any length if I can get that happy ending and preserve my moral code.


Edit: To deal with the army question: Eradicating the orcs would take a LONG time, make them fight much harder, and cost you a lot, both in money and people.

That said, simply fending off the orc strikes isn't going to get you anywhere.

I think the trick is to find the middle ground...... don't pursue the war more than is necessary to ensure that the orcs won't be a threat for a while, but don't just hide either.

Wizzardman
2007-02-27, 10:44 PM
...I'm probably misinterpreting the argument, but it seems to me like it devolves into a battle over consequentialism vs Kantian or rights-based ethics--i.e. "the end result defines morality" or "the action performed defines morality."

Example: A GG starts torturing a heretic so he can find the hidden location of the "secret rebel base," from which the heretics kidnap people and sacrifice them to an elder godling.

By consequentialism, that's totally okay--after all, the GG will save hundreds of people from kidnapping and early death. Torture is bad, but the consequences automatically outweigh the action. This is a very popular and legitimate ethical theory, often used in politics as a basis for legal initiatives.

By Kantian or rights-based ethics, that's not okay--torture is not and can never be a good thing, and a GG should not do this in the name of their god. This is also a very popular and legitimate ethical theory [so quit with the accusations of childishness], and is the basis for the Bill of Rights.

Now both of these are accurate, and either can be used to define D&D morality at the discretion of the GM. However, I would like to make the argument that maybe both can be used--and used in such a way as to reflect the classic D&D paladinship more accurately.

I think its entirely possible for a character to take action in the name of Lawful Goodness [i.e. have lawful good intentions] and be neutral or evil.

Using the same example: the GG is torturing people [an act that his God Stabiclese and all other LG gods do not condone] in order to save lives [a very good act indeed]. Thus, the GG is committing an evil act--and therefore is Not Good--but saves many lives--which is a Good result. The Grey Guard is supporting good in the world, but is damaging his own moral qualities (and making it more likely that he commit other vile acts in order to achieve his ends, whether they are really good or not). Net gain: Good. Net alignment of GG: Not so good.

The point of being a Paladin is to represent Lawful Good as Lawful Good should be--so he can't go about committing evil acts, or he'd be encouraging other people to perform similar evil acts in the name of percieved justice. Additionally, the Paladin's class abilities are determined by his or her net morality, not how much he or she benefits the good cause [that's what fighters, clerics, and other worshippers are for]. Basically, the Paladin is there as a symbol, a point of justice and honor that all should aspire to, and thus should hold to her code [and the position of Lawful Goodness] without resorting to evil actions and assuming that these actions are the only way to solve the problem.

It is certainly possible, however, to have a LN fighter who solves his problems in less than good ways, but promotes a net good benefit to the world around him. My point is, sometimes nongood acts are necessary for the greater good, but that doesn't magically transform this nongood act into a good act. Two wrongs don't make a right--and often, one wrong leads to more wrongs as the person gets used to doing wrong in right's name. A person willing to commit evil acts in order to save others could certainly be considered a brave man, a strong man, or a just man--but he or she could not be considered a good man, let alone a Paladin.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-27, 10:46 PM
I agree, those actions would, at least, lead towards evil and an alignment change...unless you're a Grey Guard. That's why I dislike it's maintaining the paladin abilities.

No, the Grey Guard has the ability to bend the Paladin Code. He cannot bend the very nature of Lawful Good. The Paladin Code is far more restrictive. If a Grey Guard violates the Code, he can recover. If he changes alignment, he instantly falls, and it takes far more work to recover from a changed alignment than to recover from a Code violation (indeed, often you subconsciously won't even want to recover!). The GG is held to the same alignment standards as anyone else.


Martyrs are a little over rated. One or two who actively and purposefully become martyrs are good. Martyring random followers who didn't really have that in mind is very bad. The vast majority of any group such as a congregation is made of up non-fanatics, people who you would call ordinary folks who cleave to the group for protection and acceptance. They can be willing to fight for their beliefs, but are not the gung ho type. They just want normal lives. They are to be inspired by martyrs, but not become them. Only a few are truly zealous enough to be eager at the chance to become a martyr. They are usually slightly crazy.

You pretty much take the chance they will become a servant in the afterlife no matter what you do or why you kill them. As stated, it is all well and good to convert those who you can, but hoping that by letting a few ACTUAL followers die for a few potential followers is a bad course of action. Why follow a god at all when they don't care if you live or die?

In retrospect, that was poorly-worded. I was responding to what I inferred to be "Your own followers are always better than potential converts." In actuality, a convert is worth more than the life of a follower, since the former swings the ultimate balance of fates towards your side (the parable of the Prodigal Son: The father rejoices more over his ostensibly penitent son than over years of loyalty from his other son). Now, you still don't want your followers to die on you, particularly in such a polytheistic system, but you really want converts. Sacrificing a follower on the off-chance that the psychotic murderer will convert, however, is folly. You want to go for real conversions.


Yea, see, horrible logic in a military sense. By only fighting defensively, and never pursuing victory, all you accomplish at best is making them find another target. Likely they are just going to regroup and hit you again, and again, until they figure out how to win. Military history is filled with failed campaigns where a general could acheive victory on the field, but could not follow up. For instance "Hannibal knew how to achieve victory, but not what to do with it." The Romans, in contrast, recognized that so long as Carthage stood, they would constantly be at war.
The issue is more keen when you throw in absolute alignment and monsters etc. One can assume the Carthaginians wanted peace and prosperity the same as the Romans, and so perhaps could be dealt with diplomatically. Perhaps not, but it is an option. Orcs, by and large, are not going to see things that way. They are going to see either strength to kill them, which should be avoided until it can be defeated, or weakness to be exploited. If you never strike back and erradicate the orcs, even if beaten they will just wait until they think they have a chance again, then strike.

Essentially a purely defensive war is an eternal war.

True, but occupation of a fanatically opposed territory is also doomed to failure (unless you're willing to resort to genocide, but we're talking about the Good guys). What you want to do is ensure they won't attack again. For the immediate circumstances, that means a counterattack. For the long-term, you need to resort to diplomacy (or espionage, propaganda, and assassination, depending on circumstances).

Sardia
2007-02-27, 10:50 PM
Still, we have to operate on the assumption that each person wants to live as long as possible, in the best conditions as possible. I agree that belief in an afterlife that is immeasurably superior to the mortal life (painful, brutish and short) makes a lot more sense when people are eager to get there. If anything, I would expect a lot more crusading armies in a D&D world.

However, it doesn't seem to be the case that that is an assumption D&D morality makes. It seems to assume that everyone wants to live. If not, well, we would have to rethink every philosophic point we have made thus far, and write a new morality based partially on the premise that dying as soon as possible within the requirements of your god's rules is everyone's goal.

It would be hard, but it would make for a VERY interesting campaign world.

We could assume that the goal of the good person is to serve the cause of good as thoroughly as he could. If that means living long, great. Dying? Unfortunate, but hardly the worst thing that could happen.
Absolute insistence on living the longest, most comfortable life possible at the cost of morality or ethics is probably not a trait of the good alignments.

"You, mortal, shall go forth and bring joy, health, healing, and bounty to all you meet, and encourage them in the paths of righteousness and love."
"Yeah? What's in it for me? And it better not be too difficult or take too much time away from my pleasures. And if it's risky, you can stuff it."

Living at any cost probably makes you evil. Shirking the concept of a moral duty to do good in the material plane probably makes you chaotic.

Dervag
2007-02-27, 10:50 PM
YES! (To what is in bold.) That IS justice.No. No it isn't.

A thief is still legally protected against thievery. You can go to jail for murdering a murderer. Justice has to be uniform, and nonuniform treatment must always come from a legitimate authority, or there is no justice.


Ok, look at this another way. Say you have a LG fighter, and a LG paladin. The fighter can do whatever he wants to further good, within reason. If he wants, he can subdual damage the hell out of someone he captures in order to get important information to further good. Does he then shift to LN immediately? Does he lose bonus feats?If he makes a habit out of it, yes. The point is that he is committing evil acts. If you commit enough evil acts for a nominally good cause, you'll eventually end up neutral between good and evil.


Now a Grey Guard on whole does a lot of good. He may turn to less than honorable methods on occaision, but that doesn't make him LN. If rogues can be LG, then so can a Grey Guard.Well, there's a difference between 'dishonorable' and 'evil'. Getting information by bribing a criminal to inform on his boss is dishonorable. Getting information by beating a criminal to inform on his boss is evil, even if it is being done for a nominally good cause.


The whole point of the class is that the GG gets a lot closer to that line between LG Paladin and LN than the paladin can get without seriously tarnishing his image. Again, it is moving away from childish idealism of the paladin towards the answer to "What ideals are most important, if not all are attainable at once?" that adults deal with.I don't think the paladin's idealism is childish at all. Again, the paladin is supposed to be a reflection of the ideal of the 'perfect knight', which is not a childish archetype.

It isn't intrinsically more 'adult' to join the Gestapo than to refuse to do so.


What's the Paladin's purpose in the divine order of things, since he's not as good a spellcaster as the Cleric, and not as good at killing evil as the fighter (or the cleric. Heh.), what purpose does he serve in adhering to the strict code?He's an exemplar.

Of course, for a lawful good deity, having paladins may be desirable for its own sake. Good deities don't necessarily do everything for selfish reasons.


Yes I know this post was cynical. But being cynical is not being evil.It isn't being right, either.

The recipients of altruism don't "force" you to do anything. The whole point of the exercise is the recognition that society is in fact a better place when people are willing to put themselves to inconvenience for the sake of others. It really is. Society doesn't work as well when each individual acts as if the only things that matter are the ones happening inside their own head.


A swing and a miss... Then you have to decide which you value more. Sure, your values are more important than anything else, but WHICH values are more valuable than the others?The right is more precious than peace.
Death is lighter than a feather; duty is heavier than mountains.
Let there be justice, though the heavens fall.

These, and similar sentiments, motivate the paladin.

You might value not putting your hand into a septic tank. You might also value cake. If you can have cake if you put your hand into a septic tank (you get to wash it after), do you do it? Do you do it if you are starving? Do you do it if someone else is starving? Silly example, but you get the general idea.The problem is that your example involves sacrificing of yourself by doing something nasty. That isn't what a Grey Guard does that we have problems with. The problem comes when the Grey Guard starts sacrificing other people for the sake of his goals. That is what paladins aren't supposed to do.


Tacit betrayal = Real betrayal. Tacit just means you do it without specific action. Such as in this case if a paladin sees someone being mugged and murdered, and just walks by without doing anything, that is tacit approval of the murder. That is all evil needs to get away with things.Yes. But if, in the pursuit of evil, one ignores the justice or injustice of one's own conduct, then one is neutral.

The best illustration of why we need ironclad laws to govern our actions in pursuit of evil comes from a famous colloquy from A Man for All Seasons:

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.


That's the point, again, of the class. A paladin that toes the line in order to do more good. I don't know that I can explain again that the point of the GREY Guard is that he toes the line between paladin and not. He isn't Mr. Squeeky Clean anymore, but he still follows the ideals he had before. He just doesn't hold them all as equal priorities. If he does get his priorities out of whack, then he is punished and falls.A good person can toe the line, but a paladin may not. Note the distinction between 'can' and 'may'. The paladin is not permitted to toe the line; a paladin's virtue is at the core of what makes them a paladin in the first place. A paladin who abandons principle has abandoned virtue, and has therefore abandoned the path of paladinhood.


Losing one follower in the hopes that you will gain a new one is betraying your follower for a dubious chance at a new follower.Err... why does that remind me of the old saying: "The blood of martyrs is the seed of Christians?"

I can certainly imagine a church which grows by pacifism; I've seen it. I drive past its temples every day, because that's how Christianity spread in the days of the Roman Empire.

Black Swan
2007-02-27, 10:53 PM
I like the idea of the Grey Guard for a few reasons.

1. Too many DM's I've played with actively try to screw Paladins on the Code of Conduct.

2. Mechanics-wise, I hate the Code of Conduct. "Okay, I'm weaker than the cleric in spells and after like level 7 he fights better in melee too, but I get held to a tougher standard? Umm...what?" Plus, as per point 1, it exposes the player to a lot of anti-paladin DM hating.

3. I don't like the alignment system as a whole. If anyone's played Arthurian Adventures, then you know what the nobility system is. I infinitely prefer that. Okay, I take a hit on nobility for smacking that dude around, but hey, none of my buddies are dying today because we didn't know what we were getting into. I'm okay with that.

Oh yeah...hey Sardis, ask the Albigensians and the Saracens what they think of the Christian Church's record for pacifism. Or the other Italian provinces during the Renaissance. Not to hate too hard on the Christians - I'm one too - but we don't necessarily have a great record for doing things peacefully.

Sardia
2007-02-27, 10:55 PM
Military history is filled with failed campaigns where a general could acheive victory on the field, but could not follow up.

And it's filled with examples of achieving your objective and calling it that. Germany, Japan, and the Southern US aren't depopulated wastelands, for example.

As for absolute alignments...well, I hear there's at least one Chaotic Good Drow out there...

Raum
2007-02-27, 11:33 PM
No, the Grey Guard has the ability to bend the Paladin Code. He cannot bend the very nature of Lawful Good. The Paladin Code is far more restrictive. If a Grey Guard violates the Code, he can recover. If he changes alignment, he instantly falls, and it takes far more work to recover from a changed alignment than to recover from a Code violation (indeed, often you subconsciously won't even want to recover!). The GG is held to the same alignment standards as anyone else.Well then I have a few questions for you... How many non-good acts does it take for a LG fighter's alignment to move towards neutral? What about the LG paladin / grey guard? Is there any difference in how you define those acts? If there isn't a difference, then the GG is simply a paladin without a code.

Thrawn183
2007-02-27, 11:41 PM
Agreed. I can see granting holy-like powers to a character as a PrC. But to combine this stupid, "ignore your moral code" thing with a bloody Paladin is just plain wrong.

And as a side note... That Star Wars book was X Wing 9: Starfighters of Adumar by Aaron Allston, specifically when Wedge was speaking with Tomer Darpen about how the New Republic wouldn't condone his actions. (Who's geek? Lanky's a geek.)

I love the X-wing series. Never forget your hyphenations!

Wehrkind
2007-02-28, 12:03 AM
...I'm probably misinterpreting the argument, but it seems to me like it devolves into a battle over consequentialism vs Kantian or rights-based ethics--i.e. "the end result defines morality" or "the action performed defines morality."

Example: A GG starts torturing a heretic so he can find the hidden location of the "secret rebel base," from which the heretics kidnap people and sacrifice them to an elder godling.

By consequentialism, that's totally okay--after all, the GG will save hundreds of people from kidnapping and early death. Torture is bad, but the consequences automatically outweigh the action. This is a very popular and legitimate ethical theory, often used in politics as a basis for legal initiatives.

By Kantian or rights-based ethics, that's not okay--torture is not and can never be a good thing, and a GG should not do this in the name of their god. This is also a very popular and legitimate ethical theory [so quit with the accusations of childishness], and is the basis for the Bill of Rights.
Kant was an idiot; don't be too enamored. He had nothing to contribute to a rights based discussion. There also can not be multiple legitimate ethical theories. For there to be such requires moral relativism, in which nothing is right or wrong. And no matter how popular something is, it doesn't mean it is either childish or legitimate. Many things are popular and are both or neither.

Your evaluation of the situation leaves out a third possibilty, that of Objectivism(and about 100 others that are less useful). The person who initiates the violation of rights must revoke his own in so doing. Thus the heretic/kidnapper you mention no longer has the right to not be tortured. It doesn't mean you should like doing it, but if needed, it is needed. The right of the kidnap victim's to their lives is far more important than the heretic's now voided claim to life.
That is the gist of the "decide which values are more important" requirement of adults. You have to decide what your hierarchy of values are, because you WILL be asked to decide at some point in your life. To pretend otherwise is to live in a fantasy world, from which you will be awaked someday, likely crying "but it isn't fair!" It is indeed not fair, but it is life, and the requirements of it.



I think its entirely possible for a character to take action in the name of Lawful Goodness and be neutral or evil.
I agree with this.


Using the same example: the GG is torturing people [an act that his God Stabiclese and all other LG gods do not condone] in order to save lives [a very good act indeed]. Thus, the GG is committing an evil act--and therefore is Not Good--but saves many lives--which is a Good result. The Grey Guard is supporting good in the world, but is damaging his own moral qualities (and making it more likely that he commit other vile acts in order to achieve his ends, whether they are really good or not). Net gain: Good. Net alignment of GG: Not so good.
If I ever create my own religion, I promise you I will name my god "Stabiclese." You will get your own 8" white gold Stabiclese medalion, repleate with embedded gemstones, to hang around your neck. That and a shirt that says "Stabiclese is MY homeboy."
Now, I have to question how someone can accomplish, not intend, but actually accomplish a great deal of good, and yet be evil? I can understand why you say it is less good to solve a problem such as that by torturing the suspect for the information as opposed to witty repatoir and questioning. However, I would posit that that is precisely why it is a "grey guard," as opposed to "tighty whitey". They do good on whole, but sometimes they must resort to questionable practices in the process. However, the practices are wholly necessary.



The point of being a Paladin is to represent Lawful Good as Lawful Good should be--so he can't go about committing evil acts, or he'd be encouraging other people to perform similar evil acts in the name of percieved justice. Additionally, the Paladin's class abilities are determined by his or her net morality, not how much he or she benefits the good cause [that's what fighters, clerics, and other worshippers are for]. Basically, the Paladin is there as a symbol, a point of justice and honor that all should aspire to, and thus should hold to her code [and the position of Lawful Goodness] without resorting to evil actions and assuming that these actions are the only way to solve the problem.

That's why they stop being paladin, and become Grey Guards. They simply are allowed to maintain their powers because they are still a cause of net good, they just get very close to losing them, and in fact still very much can.


It is certainly possible, however, to have a LN fighter who solves his problems in less than good ways, but promotes a net good benefit to the world around him. My point is, sometimes nongood acts are necessary for the greater good, but that doesn't magically transform this nongood act into a good act. Two wrongs don't make a right--and often, one wrong leads to more wrongs as the person gets used to doing wrong in right's name. A person willing to commit evil acts in order to save others could certainly be considered a brave man, a strong man, or a just man--but he or she could not be considered a good man, let alone a Paladin.
And that is the weak point in your moral theory. If any given act is inherently evil no matter what, or inherently good, suddenly killing is right out. Lying is right out. What is the distinction? If it is wrong to smack your wife, is it also wrong to hit a monster attacking you? If it is wrong to kill a random person, is it wrong to kill anyone?


Perhaps the GG tries, but I think that he gives up on trying. Refusing to recognize that you'll need to give up your values is the only way you can keep them all and stay on a exalted/ saintly path, and in D+D, that's actually possible. (I'd like it to be possible in the real world too, but I suppose I can't have everything.) Even recognizing that some values may have to be compromised MIGHT be fine, if you only drop to neutral acts. The GG appears to drop a little farther than that. No offense, but you think wrongly. Not only does he not give up on trying, but he doesn't give up on them either. He doesn't forsake the path of good. He in all cases tries to choose the path of least evil. He does not have to cry when "least evil" is not "perfectly good", however. He does the job, then atones for mistakes as necessary.
Sort of like the Incredibles, where superheroes start getting sued for collateral damage and saving people who didn't want to be saved, or not doing it well enough. Their only response was to go underground and stop saving people in general. Paladins have the issue where if the only options are bad and worse, they are screwed. Sure, your DM might make certain there is always a way around that, but that is essentially just fiat.Things do not actually happen that way when story and plot are not the driving factors in the universe.


You are correct, also shown in this quote: "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
That's the one I was reaching for, thank you.




One thing your example shows it that pacifism is not always right. The life of the victim is more important. In which case you should go as far as necessary to stop him, and no farther.

However, isn't it true that all Good people observe certain limits on their behavior based on their values? Isn't it also true that this is what makes them Good? Finally, [I]where does this put the GG?

It puts him at doing what is NECESSARY. No more, but certainly no less. That's where the class' functionality comes in. What is necessary? Where is the line? In the hands of the right group, that is a trove of role playing opportunity.
To answer your question it puts the GG dangerously close to LN and falling. That is why it is so tasty. It is really easy to say "I refuse to hold any value higher than another, and insist I must be able to achieve all at once (despite the dictates of reality)". It is much more difficult to play "I am obligated to do the most good possible, and if necessary choose which values are most important and not to be lost, even if by so doing I might damn myself."

It isn't for everyone in every campaign, but it really lends itself to some excellent options if you wish to explore them.



That "necessary" bit is very important. Defining what's necessary can be very difficult to do. For example, in the "have to hunt down an evil cult before they summon the demon" example, you have other ways to find them. They'll just take longer. Without knowing exactly how long you have, you have no way of determining whether torture is necessary for its speed or not. Therefore, you can't assume that it's necessary. It's a tough standard, but that's the point. To prevent any possible wrongdoing.
That is the point, but not knowing doesn't mean you do nothing. It simply means you either figure it out, and run from there. A Grey Guard can agree with you and decide not to resort to torture, at the risk of being too late. Another might think it is worth the risk to his soul to stop the imminent evil. The point is he has the choice, and has to live with the consequences of each. If it were an easy choice, or a non-choice (as with vanilla pally) it would not have the appeal.


Lastly, your example has one crucial problem. This pacifist paladin did nothing. That's a problem. If you go to extreme lengths and work yourself even harder in order to avoid evil acts and find a better way....... that's very good. You're doing more than you might need to in order to avoid an easier evil solution. That is what makes you a paragon of virtue. Even if you fail, all that means is that you need to push yourself harder next time, not do less work.
No, the pacifist tried everything short of violence. It's just that in that case that which does not involve violence doesn't work. Someone who just wants to kill is not going to stop because you tell them too. They stop when they are killed.




I would debate the point about following the same ideals as before. If he was a paladin before, and condones torture and other evil acts now, then he does not have the same values. He doesn't necessarily condone torture, just recognizes it as necessary some times. He values the same things, and recognizes that sometimes it is a matter of which he values more.



First, I would like to request that you do not tell me which games I like or do not like.
I said which you might like, not which you do.


The thing is, I believe that a happy ending is always possible, and without doing any evil. And I'm willing to go to any length if I can get that happy ending and preserve my moral code. Believe it all you want. It unfortunately does not make it true. Some endings are happier than others. I really do applaude your desire to work for your ideals and not compromise them. I really do, honestly. It just is that it is not always possible to hold to every ideal in some situations. You should want to, but sometimes you have to pick the more important. If you have a DM running your world that won't make you, so much the better, but the real world does not work like that.




Edit: To deal with the army question: Eradicating the orcs would take a LONG time, make them fight much harder, and cost you a lot, both in money and people.

That said, simply fending off the orc strikes isn't going to get you anywhere.

I think the trick is to find the middle ground...... don't pursue the war more than is necessary to ensure that the orcs won't be a threat for a while, but don't just hide either.

There is no substitute for victory. If you do not eradicate them it only means they will come back later to kill more. In effect, by not dealing with them at the time you are only push the deaths to future generations.
Now, sometimes you can't eradicate them all. Manpower, resources, all sorts of limitations can cause that. That doesn't mean you should not attempt it to the best of your abilities. It is the realm of strategy that decides how to eradicate them, but it is an imperative that you do.

Gralamin
2007-02-28, 12:14 AM
It isn't being right, either.

The recipients of altruism don't "force" you to do anything. The whole point of the exercise is the recognition that society is in fact a better place when people are willing to put themselves to inconvenience for the sake of others. It really is. Society doesn't work as well when each individual acts as if the only things that matter are the ones happening inside their own head.

If you notice I said That doesn't mean you shouldn't practice some altruism. Quite simply, it has to be used in moderation.
I'm not very good at arguing, I don't generally know how to phrase something for maximum effect, but I like to participate anyway.

Here is the definition of Altruism I'm using:
http://www.answers.com/altruism?ff=1

al·tru·ism (ăl'trū-ĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.

1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.
That sounds to me like giving up the rights of an individual to help society. Oh right, Thats Communism. The entire Idea of Altruism is to sacrifice. And if you don't, well, your not being very selfless are you? Selflessness is a good thing right? Paladin's are Exemplars of good correct? well then they have to be Exemplars of selflessness, as its an aspect of good.
Congratulations. Paladins are Communists.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-28, 12:22 AM
That sounds to me like giving up the rights of an individual to help society. Oh right, Thats Communism. The entire Idea of Altruism is to sacrifice. And if you don't, well, your not being very selfless are you? Selflessness is a good thing right? Paladin's are Exemplars of good correct? well then they have to be Exemplars of selflessness, as its an aspect of good.
Congratulations. Paladins are Communists.

In a world filled with altruists, Communism is natural. Everybody gives up their rights and works for the good of the whole. All people with natural aptitude for engineering are engineers; other people are farmers or politicians or teachers. They do what they're best at and expect only what they absolutely need in return. Ideally, they become like a giant collective hive mind: Thousands of brains contributing to one single will.

Communism fails because people are not altruistic. Without any incentive, they won't do any work. When the people who really do work hard notice that they get as much out of it as the guy who sleeps all day, they get demoralized.

Gralamin
2007-02-28, 12:24 AM
In a world filled with altruists, Communism is natural. Everybody gives up their rights and works for the good of the whole. All people with natural aptitude for engineering are engineers; other people are farmers or politicians or teachers. They do what they're best at and expect only what they absolutely need in return. Ideally, they become like a giant collective hive mind: Thousands of brains contributing to one single will.

Communism fails because people are not altruistic. Without any incentive, they won't do any work. When the people who really do work hard notice that they get as much out of it as the guy who sleeps all day, they get demoralized.

so a paladin should be trying to make everyone altruistic to convert everyone to communism?

Sardia
2007-02-28, 12:39 AM
so a paladin should be trying to make everyone altruistic to convert everyone to communism?

I don't think there's anything mutually-incompatible with some form of capitalism and even the far-lawful, far-good ideal, and it'd have some advantages that a purely communist system wouldn't-- efficient transmission of information (via a price mechanism) for one.

Wehrkind
2007-02-28, 01:04 AM
And it's filled with examples of achieving your objective and calling it that. Germany, Japan, and the Southern US aren't depopulated wastelands, for example.

As for absolute alignments...well, I hear there's at least one Chaotic Good Drow out there...
Japan had a few depopulated wastelands...
Specifically these countries stopped being threats because they aknowledged defeat, and came to the winner with surrender and terms. Germany in particular got spanked twice, the second time resulting in a 40 year occupation (at least on paper). Japan was taken, its leaders deposed, and occupied for what, 15 years? And not soft occupation like Germany, but "I am running your country until you learn by example how not to be crazy" occupation. (wistful sigh). The South US was run by Northerners for some time, and they were even from the same country.
So yes, while it is not always necessary to eradicate your enemy, you do have to eradicate the culture or philosophy that drives them to fight you, even if it is just competition.

Still, while I think it would be sort of funny to make a paladin fall because he killed "the one CG drow, who was just fighting because he had to", it would only be because I wanted the player to never come back. By your logic though, one has to detect evil on every drow before engaging, just in case he is a misunderstood renegade, otherwise you run the risk of alignment change?


No. No it isn't.

A thief is still legally protected against thievery. You can go to jail for murdering a murderer. Justice has to be uniform, and nonuniform treatment must always come from a legitimate authority, or there is no justice.

I absolutely agree with you. In real life. In optimal situations. A government must have a monopoly on force, and laws must be in place. However, that still leaves space for self defense, even against the government. (You can go to jail for murdering a murderer, but (idealy) not while he is in the act of murdering you.)
In this case, however, the paladin is the legitimate authority. The PC's are typically in the role of vigilante. "Legitimate authority" is a sketchy concept in medieval times at best, and even later can be very awkward. Imagine a Grey Guard as the sherrif in a rough Western town, in the vein of Dodge City. (In fact, I would nominate as best example of Grey Guard the sherrif fellow from Dead Wood whose name escapes me.) There is no reason why a Grey Guard could not be the legitimate authority in a district.




If he makes a habit out of it, yes. The point is that he is committing evil acts. If you commit enough evil acts for a nominally good cause, you'll eventually end up neutral between good and evil.

Well, there's a difference between 'dishonorable' and 'evil'. Getting information by bribing a criminal to inform on his boss is dishonorable. Getting information by beating a criminal to inform on his boss is evil, even if it is being done for a nominally good cause.

See, I disagree. Bribing the criminal might be more beneficial in the long term. Then again, beating on him a bit might be more so. Short or long term, one might work where the other doesn't. I agree that beating on someone shouldn't be the only answer, but sometimes it is the best.




I don't think the paladin's idealism is childish at all. Again, the paladin is supposed to be a reflection of the ideal of the 'perfect knight', which is not a childish archetype.

It isn't intrinsically more 'adult' to join the Gestapo than to refuse to do so.

He's an exemplar.

Yes, a perfect knight who never deviates from his code and never has to is a terribly childish character. Read some old stories; knights frequently do things we would consider less than chivalrous. Not that attempting to live to an impossibly high moral standard is necessarily childish, but pitching a fit because you have to choose at some point which ideal is more important is. It simply isn't the case that it is possible.
To look at it another way, how many innocents died or suffered unnecessarily because Superman refused to just kill Lex Luthor? He kept foiling his evil plots, putting him in prison, only to have him out like 20 minutes later with some new evil scheme (involving stealing pies, no doubt.) Yes, nice from a story line point, since you never have to make up new villains if you don't feel like it. Good? No, I call that derelict in civic duty. The first 10 times, ok. Time number 11? You know he's evil, just laser beam eyes him to death already.


Of course, for a lawful good deity, having paladins may be desirable for its own sake. Good deities don't necessarily do everything for selfish reasons. YES THEY DO! [/Objectivist assumptions.] :smallsmile:



The recipients of altruism don't "force" you to do anything. The whole point of the exercise is the recognition that society is in fact a better place when people are willing to put themselves to inconvenience for the sake of others. It really is. Society doesn't work as well when each individual acts as if the only things that matter are the ones happening inside their own head.

Yes, if altruism expects you to be good, it does. Note how welfare works. I don't have the option not pay that part of my taxes, last time I checked. Communists don't have the option of not collectivizing their farms "for the greater good."
Society works best when people have their own best interests at heart. One of these days, I need to start a "Why D&D ethics is stupid, and the whole system needs to be rewritten with Objectivist morals" thread. :smallwink:



The right is more precious than peace.
Death is lighter than a feather; duty is heavier than mountains.
Let there be justice, though the heavens fall.

Funny, I was imagining that tatooed on the butt of every Grey Guard as part of the initiation.
"It is unjust to allow the wicked to thrive while the innocent suffer, and to hell with the gods who believe otherwise.
I do not care for my own life, so long as my duty to the good is done.
There is no pain I will not bestow upon the unrighteous who prey upon the innocent."
( That would be the second stanza.)


These, and similar sentiments, motivate the paladin.
Indeed.


The problem is that your example involves sacrificing of yourself by doing something nasty. That isn't what a Grey Guard does that we have problems with. The problem comes when the Grey Guard starts sacrificing other people for the sake of his goals. That is what paladins aren't supposed to do. That is a fair point. Perhaps I should have said "Would you tell your buddy 'Seriously dude, stop being a wuss and stick your hand in there so this poor guy can eat some cake.'"
One would also make the point that there is a great deal of difference between sacrificing an innocent person for the sake of others, and sacrificing the person who put those innocents at risk in the first place.


Yes. But if, in the pursuit of evil, one ignores the justice or injustice of one's own conduct, then one is neutral. Who said anything about being unjust? Making the lives of those who prey upon the innocent unpleasant is largely the point of justice, just as rewarding those who do good is justice.



The best illustration of why we need ironclad laws to govern our actions in pursuit of evil comes from a famous colloquy from A Man for All Seasons:

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

I agree completely. Rule of law is necessary.
That does not mean that all laws are "good."


A good person can toe the line, but a paladin may not. Note the distinction between 'can' and 'may'. The paladin is not permitted to toe the line; a paladin's virtue is at the core of what makes them a paladin in the first place. A paladin who abandons principle has abandoned virtue, and has therefore abandoned the path of paladinhood. I see your point, but that depends on the priciples at hand, doesn't it? It's fuzzy and depends on the code of the paladin. However, keep in mind the GG takes a NEW oath, ascribes to a different code, a new and everlasting covenant, if you will, that changes the rules for them.


Err... why does that remind me of the old saying: "The blood of martyrs is the seed of Christians?" Again, willing martyrs are one thing. Martyrs who are not down with it are called "sacrificial lambs." There is a HUGE difference between "I willingly lay down my life for my beliefs and god!" and "Great, I got kidnapped. Pelor is totally going to leave me here to get brutalized and murdered so his precious paladins don't have to slap someone around..." The former inspires faith, the latter makes one wonder why they are willing to suffer for their god.



I can certainly imagine a church which grows by pacifism; I've seen it. I drive past its temples every day, because that's how Christianity spread in the days of the Roman Empire.
Yea, it probably had nothing to do with the Roman legions, the Emporer Constantine making it the official religion, destruction of pagan temples... nothing to do with that at all...


We could assume that the goal of the good person is to serve the cause of good as thoroughly as he could. If that means living long, great. Dying? Unfortunate, but hardly the worst thing that could happen.
Absolute insistence on living the longest, most comfortable life possible at the cost of morality or ethics is probably not a trait of the good alignments.
I didn't say "most comfortable." I said "best conditions." Absolute insistance is not necessary either, just what is desired. US Marines insist on neither perfect safety or comfort, but that is what they fight for. Paladins likewise are willing to forgo much of the safety and good conditions, but they are doing so to promote that for others.



"You, mortal, shall go forth and bring joy, health, healing, and bounty to all you meet, and encourage them in the paths of righteousness and love."
"Yeah? What's in it for me? And it better not be too difficult or take too much time away from my pleasures. And if it's risky, you can stuff it."
That isn't every person you ever met? Short paladins, missionaries, and the occaisional evangelical, that is.



Living at any cost probably makes you evil. Shirking the concept of a moral duty to do good in the material plane probably makes you chaotic.
I didn't say at any cost. I said that is generally what people want. Lot of people are willing to put themselves in harm's way to save the people they love, for example.
In general though, they want to live and be happy. That is why paladins are rare. Not many people say "Face off against insane undead, demonic monstrosities that unravel my concept of sanity, AND evil henchmen of unspeakable evil? With a mundane array of abilities that do not improve much past 6th level? Sign me up!!!" That's why there are many more civilians that follow dieties than paladins and clergy.


No, the Grey Guard has the ability to bend the Paladin Code. He cannot bend the very nature of Lawful Good. The Paladin Code is far more restrictive. If a Grey Guard violates the Code, he can recover. If he changes alignment, he instantly falls, and it takes far more work to recover from a changed alignment than to recover from a Code violation (indeed, often you subconsciously won't even want to recover!). The GG is held to the same alignment standards as anyone else. Yes.





In retrospect, that was poorly-worded. I was responding to what I inferred to be "Your own followers are always better than potential converts." In actuality, a convert is worth more than the life of a follower, since the former swings the ultimate balance of fates towards your side (the parable of the Prodigal Son: The father rejoices more over his ostensibly penitent son than over years of loyalty from his other son). Now, you still don't want your followers to die on you, particularly in such a polytheistic system, but you really want converts. Sacrificing a follower on the off-chance that the psychotic murderer will convert, however, is folly. You want to go for real conversions.
You might want to examine your concept of "loyalty". The parable of the Prodigal Son is a great example of twisted ethics and values. You are telling me you would rather have two sons that are vile and disgusting, but eventually decide to stop being so, instead of 2 good and loving sons? Is the message here "Go out and be as evil as you can; it will only make your god love you more when you convert"?
Converts are all well and good, but there is no reason to convert to a god who doesn't care about you once he thinks he has you in his pocket.



True, but occupation of a fanatically opposed territory is also doomed to failure (unless you're willing to resort to genocide, but we're talking about the Good guys). What you want to do is ensure they won't attack again. For the immediate circumstances, that means a counterattack. For the long-term, you need to resort to diplomacy (or espionage, propaganda, and assassination, depending on circumstances).
I agree, in so far as we are talking about humans. Orcs, they might not even be capable of such things (being evil and worshipping Gruumsh and all. That's where it gets tricky. It might also come down to, as mentioned above, simple occupation until they accept your cultural views.

Wehrkind
2007-02-28, 01:11 AM
In a world filled with altruists, Communism is natural. Everybody gives up their rights and works for the good of the whole. All people with natural aptitude for engineering are engineers; other people are farmers or politicians or teachers. They do what they're best at and expect only what they absolutely need in return. Ideally, they become like a giant collective hive mind: Thousands of brains contributing to one single will.

Communism fails because people are not altruistic. Without any incentive, they won't do any work. When the people who really do work hard notice that they get as much out of it as the guy who sleeps all day, they get demoralized.

Communism fails because it is an inherently flawed theory. The price mechanism is a joke, and self contradicting at that.

It also fails because someone has to direct all that human endeavor, because no one wants to be the sewage collector. Some poor schmuck just gets stuck with it. All those jobs people only take in capitalist societies because they want the money more than they dislike the job get stuck on people at gun point in communism.

Further, a single person or commitee of people can never organize something so massive and efficient as an economy as well as the wishes of the people organize themselves. That is the information transfer mentioned. Markets respond to changes in demand much faster than governments.

Lastly corruption is a huge issue. You might say if everyone was altruistic this wouldn't be a problem, but you might as well say "if everyone had gills, we could just live in the sea." It might well be true, but it is largely irrelevant to what is realistic.

Renegade Paladin
2007-02-28, 01:11 AM
(For the record I feel like I'm Lawful Neutral in Real life, so you can think of this as a LN viewpoint)

More on Altruism:

Altruism at its roots is evil. It demands you to make a sacrifice to help the less fortunate. This sacrifice could be food, time, money, or a variety of other things.
What right do these people have to make someone, even someone Lawful Good, make sacrifices for them? They should strive to gain what they want on their own. That is the key to being good. This is not to say Altruism shouldn't be practiced at all, it is just that they have no right to request something that you'd have to go out of your way to accomplish.
Altruism gives some "something for nothing." Communism was the pinnacle of Altruism, making everyone sacrifice to bring everyone to an equilibrium.

Yes I know this post was cynical. But being cynical is not being evil.
Personal altruism is the highest form of good. No, those people have no right to demand it, but you freely give nonetheless.

Enforcing altruism on others is where the evil comes in; at it's core, making someone else behave altruistically (or being altruistic with someone else's resources) is simple theft.

Wehrkind
2007-02-28, 01:18 AM
Personal altruism is the highest form of good. No, those people have no right to demand it, but you freely give nonetheless.

Enforcing altruism on others is where the evil comes in; at it's core, making someone else behave altruistically (or being altruistic with someone else's resources) is simple theft.
No, it really isn't. It is evil right down to the root. Any code that says being good requires you to sacrifice yourself to others is evil. Even if it says "Well, it's ok if you don't want to, but you won't be good."

Any code you can't encourage others to uphold along with you is highly suspect. Any code that defines "good" as "sacrifice your values to any scum bag that happens along if you want to be good" is evil.


Edit: Please do not confuse "altruism" with "magnaminity" or "beneficence". (Feel free to correct my spelling.) Altruism demands you sacrifice to those who have less. Beneficence means you do it of your own will, because it makes you happy.

Sardia
2007-02-28, 01:34 AM
You might say if everyone was altruistic this wouldn't be a problem, but you might as well say "if everyone had gills, we could just live in the sea." It might well be true, but it is largely irrelevant to what is realistic.

True for the population at large, but the outer planes do seem to serve as a sorting mechanism. Presumably, everyone winding up on Mt. Celestia after death is some variety of altruist. Celestia appears pretty pleasant, so one presumes the beings existing there would guess that everyone'd wind up happier and better off if everyone were equally altruistic, etc.
Would it work as an economy in any other situation where you don't have gods, magic, and a utopian environment? Not a chance, but planes can move and be altered, after all.

Wehrkind
2007-02-28, 01:44 AM
True for the population at large, but the outer planes do seem to serve as a sorting mechanism. Presumably, everyone winding up on Mt. Celestia after death is some variety of altruist. Celestia appears pretty pleasant, so one presumes the beings existing there would guess that everyone'd wind up happier and better off if everyone were equally altruistic, etc.
Would it work as an economy in any other situation where you don't have gods, magic, and a utopian environment? Not a chance, but planes can move and be altered, after all.

Sorry, we were speaking of the real world, at least I was.

When it comes to the afterlife, I look at it is way. If you believe in it, you are still being selfish (Objectivism puts rational self interest as the ideal. [So help me god, if you neglect that rational... don't even start if you do :) ]) after all, an Objectivist practices rational self interest to improve his life on earth as much as possible, making decisions on long term happiness before death. The theist simply pushes the goal posts back a bit to after death. They work in life to secure a better after life, just as a good Objectivist works hard to secure a good future. The difference is that the theist simply believes they are going to heaven (no one actually knows from observation), while the Objectivist knows they are going to get old (if they die young, it won't make a difference).
The theist after all does not do all their good acts so someone else can get to heaven (some are for that end, but not all, and they are usually not required).

Anyway, just tossing that out there.

Edit: Came across harsher than I intended. Added smilies as needed.

Sardia
2007-02-28, 01:57 AM
Sorry, we were speaking of the real world, at least I was.

When it comes to the afterlife, I look at it is way. If you believe in it, you are still being selfish

Hey, we started out talking about paladins-- I figured the real world was way over somewhere else.

As to self-interestedly being altruistic, there's a catch-- if the good-and-happy afterlife only lets you in if you're truly motivated by altruism, you're still screwed. You can serve the poor, defend the weak, heal the sick, and praise the good all your life with the intent of working your way into the good spot, and still wind up with the other Neutral Evil petitioners when you die because your motives weren't good at all.
After all, if you got to eternal bliss by slaughtering the innocent, you'd have probably done that instead of the good deeds, right?

Wehrkind
2007-02-28, 02:19 AM
Hehe, sorry, the conversation keeps vascilating between real world and D&D ethics. As soon as communism hit the table, I took it as real world again. (Not that communists have any interest in the REAL world...)

Hehehe but at the same time, it has been demonstrated that good intentions does not necessarily make one good. It could well be posited that poor intentions to not nullify good deeds.
Could you really spend all your time doing those good deeds you mention and not make the cut? Who knows.
In D&D at least, slaughtering the innocent is a path to the proper afterlife. Orcs presumably are stoked at being at Gruumsh's side. That is largely setting specific though, which turns a lot of the conversatin on it's ear anyway. "We don't do it like that in my campaign!" essentially kills any line of reasoning, since being able to dictate the metaphysics of a world means any messed up moral system you want to devise can be made to work, simply because you say it does.

Wizzardman
2007-02-28, 02:20 AM
Kant was an idiot; don't be too enamored. He had nothing to contribute to a rights based discussion. There also can not be multiple legitimate ethical theories. For there to be such requires moral relativism, in which nothing is right or wrong. And no matter how popular something is, it doesn't mean it is either childish or legitimate. Many things are popular and are both or neither.

I will agree that Kant was an idiot--but that would be my opinion, and my opinion isn't exactly D&D canon, so I can't say for certain that Kant's horrible theory doesn't apply to Paladins. Additionally, no moral theory is absolutely correct 24/7; if that were true, then genocide would be okay as long as humanity benefited overall from the loss of the genes of those killed. Thus, both theories should be considered for this context, so we can figure out which one is right for this situation.



Your evaluation of the situation leaves out a third possibilty, that of Objectivism(and about 100 others that are less useful). The person who initiates the violation of rights must revoke his own in so doing. Thus the heretic/kidnapper you mention no longer has the right to not be tortured. It doesn't mean you should like doing it, but if needed, it is needed. The right of the kidnap victim's to their lives is far more important than the heretic's now voided claim to life.

Does objectivism state that what is good and what is right are the same thing?--I'm asking a serious question here, as I have not yet learned enough philosophy to know whether objectivism is value-based or duty-based.

Regardless, I would argue that there is a difference between what is good and what is right, and that even if torturing the kidnapper is the right thing to do, it is not a good thing. As you say, sometimes good people are forced to do terrible things in order to achieve a positive result. But if they start to consider this terrible act good, then it becomes far easier to commit in the future--and thus is going to be considered in situations where its not necessary, or the results aren't nearly as good. Sometimes, such actions are necessary--but those who perform the act should remember that the action was evil, and should atone for it, at the very least so that they will hesitate before committing it in the future. The villain has lost his right to be protected from torture, yes, but he is still a sapient being--so while torturing him is certainly within your rights [and may be what you should do], you still have to acknowledge that this act would be bad on most any other sapient being.

Moreover, this assumes that you know the heretic is a kidnapper--he may simply be a cruel, puppy-kicking weirdo who pinged your EvilDar for entirely different reasons.

...Of course, I'm probably wrong by objectivism, but this is all based on my perception of the events and the ethical arguments, so its the best I can do by my own beliefs.



That is the gist of the "decide which values are more important" requirement of adults. You have to decide what your hierarchy of values are, because you WILL be asked to decide at some point in your life. To pretend otherwise is to live in a fantasy world, from which you will be awaked someday, likely crying "but it isn't fair!" It is indeed not fair, but it is life, and the requirements of it.

...I'm going to assume that this is a general statement about adulthood, and not directed at me, because I'm fairly sure I haven't given any particular signs of being underage, or not having determined my hierarchy of values before.

Nevertheless, I still argue that just because the action must be done doesn't make it good. And that I would be willing to perform such actions in the name of greater good, at the very least so others won't have to. But, then again, I am not a purely good person, let alone a paladin.

And there is a certain assumed amount of leeway for Paladins; they can atone, after all. Sure, this takes a lot of resources and repayment, but that's the point. If it wasn't hard to atone, then someone out there would just start torturing willy-nilly without regard to the consequences, the other options, or the rights of those involved (including themselves; torturing people doesn't have a positive effect on the human psyche).



I agree with this.

If I ever create my own religion, I promise you I will name my god "Stabiclese." You will get your own 8" white gold Stabiclese medalion, repleate with embedded gemstones, to hang around your neck. That and a shirt that says "Stabiclese is MY homeboy."
Now, I have to question how someone can accomplish, not intend, but actually accomplish a great deal of good, and yet be evil? I can understand why you say it is less good to solve a problem such as that by torturing the suspect for the information as opposed to witty repatoir and questioning. However, I would posit that that is precisely why it is a "grey guard," as opposed to "tighty whitey". They do good on whole, but sometimes they must resort to questionable practices in the process. However, the practices are wholly necessary.

Here's an example: say a person decides that peaceful society promotes evil. Humans need something to fight against--something nasty--or they will turn to bickering, ruthless greed, or needless cruelty, sheerly because of inherent stresses in society and the general will to serve one's self. Say that person decides that society needs a bad guy, someone for everyone to rally against, so that people will generally be nicer to each other and work together despite their differences in the name of that bad guy's eventual destruction. Say that person 'selflessly' decides that to be that bad guy, and commits horrible acts of destruction and genocide in order to be bad enough to get everyone's attention. Even if they are right, and good is promoted overall, are they not still evil for committing these crimes?

What if someone decides to kill all criminals [regardless of crime] in order to promote good in society. Even if killing all criminals does promote good [which it wouldn't] isn't that person still committing evil by killing all those people?

Keep in mind, I'm not arguing against the Grey Guard class in general; I'm just arguing that it isn't necessarily Lawful Good conceptually. The GG's god needs him to be there in order to handle actions of uncertain morality, and thus provides the GG leeway, and expects him to violate many of the things that make him Lawful Good. ...I guess at this point I'm saying that the GG class should be opened up to Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil people, too.




And that is the weak point in your moral theory. If any given act is inherently evil no matter what, or inherently good, suddenly killing is right out. Lying is right out. What is the distinction? If it is wrong to smack your wife, is it also wrong to hit a monster attacking you? If it is wrong to kill a random person, is it wrong to kill anyone?

...I'm assuming some amount of leeway on the part of the GM. In reality, killing someone in self defense is justifiable--but it isn't necessarily a good thing, especially if other options were available to you. No one cheers a guy on for killing an attacker--they cheer him on for being strong enough to defend himself and survive. No one is really happy that the attacker is dead; they're happy that the defender is alive.

Of course, this is D&D, where Good and Evil are entirely dependent on the GM, and get fancy capital letters. From my experience, I would assume that the great Smite-atron, God of Paladinship, would certainly tell his followers to kill a horde of bloodthirsty gnomes that would threaten the lives of innocent, but I wouldn't assume that Smite-atron is happy that these gnomes had to die. He'd accept it, but possibly wish that there was a better way--one that possibly led to less death and potential loss of useful paladins, and more conversion of said gnomes into useful worshippers. But this is D&D, where Good and Evil are absolutes, and therefore killing Evil is Good, as they cannot be redeemed.

Wehrkind
2007-02-28, 02:50 AM
I will agree that Kant was an idiot--but that would be my opinion, and my opinion isn't exactly D&D canon, so I can't say for certain that Kant's horrible theory doesn't apply to Paladins. Additionally, no moral theory is absolutely correct 24/7; if that were true, then genocide would be okay as long as humanity benefited overall from the loss of the genes of those killed. Thus, both theories should be considered for this context, so we can figure out which one is right for this situation.
Uhm... what? Ow, dear god, I think someone just teleported a knife into my brain...
Ok, let be disabuse you of that notion. There is a VAST difference between a moral failure, and a knowledge failure. Moral failure is when you know right from wrong, and pick wrong. Knowledge failure is when you just don't have the information to make the right decision. I... don't know which you are referring to when it comes to removing genes by genocide... Uhm.. confused..
Ok, genes have nothing to do with moral theories. A moral theory can be 100% correct and not involve genocide. In fact, that might be one of the hallmarks of a good theory... If your philosophical theory ever boils down to "wipe out all humanity" every time you work through it, it is wrong. Check your premises.



Does objectivism state that what is good and what is right are the same thing?--I'm asking a serious question here, as I have not yet learned enough philosophy to know whether objectivism is value-based or duty-based.
Yes. Your duty is to yourself and life first. Your duty is to reason and use that capacity to improve your life as much as possible. The extent at which you succeed at this long range consideration is largely the extent you are happy. Thus rational self interest. You do what is best for you, recognizing that short term gain can be very damaging in the long run. Essentially the very skills that are necessary in investing and business are the same skills that work with the rest of life (long range planning, priority setting, very strict sense of justice, etc).


Regardless, I would argue that there is a difference between what is good and what is right, and that even if torturing the kidnapper is the right thing to do, it is not a good thing. As you say, sometimes good people are forced to do terrible things in order to achieve a positive result. But if they start to consider this terrible act good, then it becomes far easier to commit in the future--and thus is going to be considered in situations where its not necessary, or the results aren't nearly as good. Sometimes, such actions are necessary--but those who perform the act should remember that the action was evil, and should atone for it, at the very least so that they will hesitate before committing it in the future. The villain has lost his right to be protected from torture, yes, but he is still a sapient being--so while torturing him is certainly within your rights [and may be what you should do], you still have to acknowledge that this act would be bad on most any other sapient being. If what is good to do, and what is right to do are two different things for you, that's a hell of a problem. A moral system that requires that dichotomy is going to cause problems. (also, your paragraph essentially sums up the GG and why it works.)


Moreover, this assumes that you know the heretic is a kidnapper--he may simply be a cruel, puppy-kicking weirdo who pinged your EvilDar for entirely different reasons. Indeed it does.



...I'm going to assume that this is a general statement about adulthood, and not directed at me, because I'm fairly sure I haven't given any particular signs of being underage, or not having determined my hierarchy of values before. Yes, not directed at you at all. Just that there is a difference in the idealism of children, which a paladin fits, and adult idealism, which necessitates decisions. It is a childish notion to believe that every situation can be solved within the paladin code (as understood by what is discussed in this thread.) It works in story books where the author can write any solution he wants. It doesn't work in real life. Sometimes you have to decide whether you care more about the innocents in danger or the villains putting them there.


Nevertheless, I still argue that just because the action must be done doesn't make it good. And that I would be willing to perform such actions in the name of greater good, at the very least so others won't have to. But, then again, I am not a purely good person, let alone a paladin. If something must be done, it is rather vile to attach moral bearing on it. One can argue whether or not it must be done, but once it is accepted that it is mandatory, it is wrong to say that it is a moral decision anymore. One might as well posit that breathing is evil, or going to the bathroom is a crime.


And there is a certain assumed amount of leeway for Paladins; they can atone, after all. Sure, this takes a lot of resources and repayment, but that's the point. If it wasn't hard to atone, then someone out there would just start torturing willy-nilly without regard to the consequences, the other options, or the rights of those involved (including themselves; torturing people doesn't have a positive effect on the human psyche).



Here's an example: say a person decides that peaceful society promotes evil. Humans need something to fight against--something nasty--or they will turn to bickering, ruthless greed, or needless cruelty, sheerly because of inherent stresses in society and the general will to serve one's self. Say that person decides that society needs a bad guy, someone for everyone to rally against, so that people will generally be nicer to each other and work together despite their differences in the name of that bad guy's eventual destruction. Say that person 'selflessly' decides that to be that bad guy, and commits horrible acts of destruction and genocide in order to be bad enough to get everyone's attention. Even if they are right, and good is promoted overall, are they not still evil for committing these crimes?
Yes, mindless destruction is still a net loss of value. You are pretty much rephrasing the fallacy of the broken window, as it is understood in economics. Basically, a boy breaks a baker's window, and his defense is "Well, now the window maker has more work! I am stimulating the economy!" (precocious bugger.) So people think "Hey, he is right! All this destruction is good, think of all the money it moves around!"
The fallacy is that while the baker spent say 20$ fixing the window the window maker would not have had otherwise, he is still right back where he started, just short 20$. Had the window not been broken, he might have a window, and say a new suit. All the broken window did was take money from the suit maker and give it to the window maker. No improvement in the movement of money, and a net loss in value to the community since the suit never gets made.
Same here. The villain might create a sense of community, but only because the people are more unhappy about their losses than they were with each other.


What if someone decides to kill all criminals [regardless of crime] in order to promote good in society. Even if killing all criminals does promote good [which it wouldn't] isn't that person still committing evil by killing all those people? Is it just in each case? Killing every petty thief is a bit much, but every rapist and murderer? Perhaps. The punishment needs to fit the crime.


Keep in mind, I'm not arguing against the Grey Guard class in general; I'm just arguing that it isn't necessarily Lawful Good conceptually. The GG's god needs him to be there in order to handle actions of uncertain morality, and thus provides the GG leeway, and expects him to violate many of the things that make him Lawful Good. ...I guess at this point I'm saying that the GG class should be opened up to Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil people, too. The point of him being LG is that he HAS moral certainty, at least compared to most. In order to walk the line between good and neutrality/evil, you have to know precisely where that line is. That's what he learned when he was a paladin.




...I'm assuming some amount of leeway on the part of the GM. In reality, killing someone in self defense is justifiable--but it isn't necessarily a good thing, especially if other options were available to you. No one cheers a guy on for killing an attacker--they cheer him on for being strong enough to defend himself and survive. No one is really happy that the attacker is dead; they're happy that the defender is alive. I would cheer if someone killed say John Wayne Gacey in self defense, or say shot someone dead who was in the process of hosing down a coffee shop with an AK.



Of course, this is D&D, where Good and Evil are entirely dependent on the GM, and get fancy capital letters. From my experience, I would assume that the great Smite-atron, God of Paladinship, would certainly tell his followers to kill a horde of bloodthirsty gnomes that would threaten the lives of innocent, but I wouldn't assume that Smite-atron is happy that these gnomes had to die. He'd accept it, but possibly wish that there was a better way--one that possibly led to less death and potential loss of useful paladins, and more conversion of said gnomes into useful worshippers. But this is D&D, where Good and Evil are absolutes, and therefore killing Evil is Good, as they cannot be redeemed. I largely agree. No one seems to mind that orcs are not rounded up with subdual damage by paladins for the purpose of being redeemed.

darkzucchini
2007-02-28, 03:17 AM
Communism fails because it is an inherently flawed theory. The price mechanism is a joke, and self contradicting at that.

It also fails because someone has to direct all that human endeavor, because no one wants to be the sewage collector. Some poor schmuck just gets stuck with it. All those jobs people only take in capitalist societies because they want the money more than they dislike the job get stuck on people at gun point in communism.

Further, a single person or commitee of people can never organize something so massive and efficient as an economy as well as the wishes of the people organize themselves. That is the information transfer mentioned. Markets respond to changes in demand much faster than governments.

Your thinking of the Soviet style of communism. In Marxist style of communism, there is no government and people carry out there roles in society because they are willingly altruistic. Marxist theory fails because most people aren't altruistic most of the time. However, Marx also did not say that communism would work today. In Marxist theory, society must shift from capitalism to socialism to communism, a prossess that wouldn't happen over night, probably taking hundred or thousands of years to become fully relized if ever. Who knows, maybe in 5 thousand years there will be no more government and someone will collect the trash because they wish to help support their community.

Wehrkind
2007-02-28, 03:31 AM
Read Marx again. That part where he defines the price mechanism as "how much work goes into a product" is the broken part. (Well, the most obvious.) To paraphrase Heinlein "You can put all the work into that mudpie you want, but it won't make it a delicious tart." Or delicious cake, that you must eat. He contradicts it later with another theory that doesn't work, but I can't recall the wording of it off the top of my head.

Plus, saying the problem is people are not altruistic enough is again, like saying we would all live in water if we had gills. We don't, and there is little reason to see why or how that will change.

Write this down. You PM me if it ever is proven wrong, but I hereby put my left nut out as a wager against whatever you want.

"If people could freely pick their jobs, and be compensated the same way, the ratio of artists to cleaning ladies will never go below 100::1, assuming a total lack of compulsion."

Feel free to substitute "assistant crack whore" or "sewage worker" or whatever the "World's Worst Job" is for that year. People will be willing to clean their own house, but if they have to choose between cleaning other people's filth and say, singing a song, or painting a picture, they will always pick the latter.

Edit: Not to mention the fact that if everyone is compensated the same for different work, who would really know what had to be done? It is easy to grasp the range of necessities and jobs around a basic house. How would you know what was needed around the county? The state? The nation? The world? Prices do that in a capitalist economy, as people freely trade for what they want and need to fullfil their desires. What do people use to communicate that information in communism?

TerraNova
2007-02-28, 03:45 AM
This is why D&D alignment is awkward. If good and evil are going to be absolutes (I don't think they are consistent in treating them as such, by the way), and you can detect those absolutes, why shouldn't you be able to kill anyone who pings as evil? You don't get to be evil by generally being a prick, or being a decent guy who cheats on his wife. That's "neutral." You can't be "evil" without doing some serious evil. Thus you are guilty of something very serious. You probably have aided or abbetted murder, maybe extensive theft, rapine, who knows. You are DEFINITELY out of that grey area of "well, not really evil, just misguided." After all, Good and Evil are absolute. If you ping as one, you are it. If you can kill them, why not torture them for info first?

By the same reasoning, you'd have to save several children from burning houses, or spend half your income aiding the poor to qualify as good. I'd put the lines much closer to home than that. If you generally are more concerned with getting ahead than anything else: Neutral Evil, even if you didn't commit any vile acts. I'd bet 30% of all random pedestriants would qualify as evil. Same for Good, by the way.

If you put the threshold for Evil at "Baby Eating", than it becomes not only an absolute, it becomes a card blanche for all kinds of atrocities - all justified in the name of good. I'd put it solidly before that point of no sympathy, it just makes for more believable villains, interesting stories, and a less problems with "Kill them all, lets god sort them out" behaviour by the PCs.

Wehrkind
2007-02-28, 04:27 AM
Yea lost my original post on this.

To summarize:

1) I don't consider humans as tending towards evil. I think that most are basically good, or neutral at worst, over all. I think you need to be quite evil to really ping as "evil". Your milage may vary.

2) It is possible to have a campaign world where the majority is non-good. It would not be standard D&D probably, but could be interesting. Religion would be an issue (do evil people worship good gods?) It would be feasible to imagine certain cultures having very different demographics alignement wise though.
Could be interesting.

Real world though, I think most people are basically good. Most folks have a reasonable sense of life, and generally do not inflict suffering or violate the rights of others intentionally. Sometimes without realizing what they are doing due to vile philosophies they don't full understand, but day to day most people are decent.

TerraNova
2007-02-28, 05:31 AM
After a long, involved battle with the login form, here is my reply ;)


Yea lost my original post on this.

To summarize:

1) I don't consider humans as tending towards evil. I think that most are basically good, or neutral at worst, over all. I think you need to be quite evil to really ping as "evil". Your milage may vary.

2) It is possible to have a campaign world where the majority is non-good. It would not be standard D&D probably, but could be interesting. Religion would be an issue (do evil people worship good gods?) It would be feasible to imagine certain cultures having very different demographics alignement wise though.
Could be interesting.

Hmm, i remember a scene from one game i GMed, where the PC paladin was shocked to learn that the Innkeep and his Daughter both detected as evil. Fortunately, the response was not an immediate smite, but some examination.

Turned out that the Innkeep was a unpleasant old man who maintained his monopoly through intimidation tactics and his friendship with the local law enforcement, and the daughter had started to raid the rooms of patrons for no other reason then her own bottom line. LE and NE right there, but not someone you'd eviscerate or torture to death for their vile deeds, right?



Real world though, I think most people are basically good. Most folks have a reasonable sense of life, and generally do not inflict suffering or violate the rights of others intentionally. Sometimes without realizing what they are doing due to vile philosophies they don't full understand, but day to day most people are decent.

I have read your previous reply... but my point remains. If being "generally decent" merits being included as a good person, then being "generally unpleasant" probably merits the evil label. Note that i put 40% of all humans as neutral - thats a solid majority. Not because they don't have their strong points or character flaws, but because in the grand average, they cancel each other out. But every so often you have someone who ist just a prick, and thus comes out as evil in the grand total, or someone who takes above-average pains for his fellow men, and comes out as good.

Saph
2007-02-28, 06:17 AM
Wehrkind, after reading all your posts, most of your argument seems to come down to:

"The ends justify the means, therefore the Paladin's Code is stupid, therefore there's nothing wrong with ignoring it".

The whole POINT of the Paladin code is that if you're a Paladin, the ends DO NOT justify the means. If you want to play an 'ends justify the means' character, DO NOT PLAY A PALADIN! Play a rogue, or a fighter, or a wizard, or a . . . hell, you can play pretty much any class in D&D except a paladin. But playing a paladin and then insisting that you should be able to torture, murder, whatever as long as it's in 'a good cause' is just being a pain in the neck.

Personally, I think it's the people who say 'the ends justify the means' who are being childish and immature, and the ones who draw lines that they won't step over who are the mature ones. But there's no reason to have a big argument about it. If you're an ends type, just write 'CG' or something similar on your character sheet, and have fun. The problem is that you're trying to say that you should be able to play the single class in D&D that is explicitly opposed to the 'ends justify the means' belief, and then ignore the code that's the foundation of the class.

And that's stupid.

Do you get the point? People aren't arguing with you because they think 'ends justify the means' characters shouldn't exist. They're arguing with you because they SHOULDN'T BE PALADINS! And in that, I agree completely with the OP. The Grey Guard is a stupid PrC, and shouldn't exist.

- Saph

Wehrkind
2007-02-28, 06:19 AM
Kill kill kill... just lost like 1000 words of text which had to be torturously removed from my sleep deprived conscious.

It involved something along the lines of "GG isn't torture happy, just sees it as an evil that is sometimes necessary. Much better to avoid using it." Something about.,, I don't know, I made up ratios for Good++:Good:Neutral:Evil:Evil--. And some others.

I think I was asking "Is desire/intent/willingness enough to make you evil, or so you have to actually act on it?" Something about eating babies in west china without a passport.

Anyway, when I can type without hitting "back" on my mouse, I will try and come up with something good for you, I promise.

Wehrkind
2007-02-28, 06:23 AM
Saph... no. I am not arguing the ends justify the means. That implies that any means is suitable for any end.
I am not even saying that on balance an even means for ends trade is good.

But hey, if you are willing to let someone die because you believe the person killing them's pain threshold is sacrosanct, run with that.

Saph
2007-02-28, 06:28 AM
But hey, if you are willing to let someone die because you believe the person killing them's pain threshold is sacrosanct, run with that.

You missed the point of my post.

You are completely free to play a character who believes that. You can even make snarky comments such as the one above about how you're the one 'really' being good and they're not. Whatever floats your boat.

But if you're playing that kind of character, you SHOULD NOT BE PLAYING A PALADIN! Is this so hard to understand?

- Saph

Wehrkind
2007-02-28, 06:33 AM
Oh, I understand. I understand perfectly well that you are trying to tell me "You are playing it wrong!" and I am attempting to demonstrate "No, I am not. You are."

You are not addressing any of my arguments, instead putting up the straw man of "the ends justify the means" (see, that's an actual straw man) and then defeating it by asserting "that's never good!" I happen to agree that the ends do not necessarily justify the means, so I am not going to press you to demonstrate how you come to that conclusion, and from what premise.

However, if you want to tell me "But if you're playing that kind of character, you SHOULD NOT BE PLAYING A PALADIN! Is this so hard to understand? " I would appreciate it you would address my points and not simply decry my paladin as less goodly than yours. At least not without defining why.

Saph
2007-02-28, 06:38 AM
However, if you want to tell me "But if you're playing that kind of character, you SHOULD NOT BE PLAYING A PALADIN! Is this so hard to understand? " I would appreciate it you would address my points and not simply decry my paladin as less goodly than yours. At least not without defining why.

*hits head against table several times*

Because your paladin is NOT FOLLOWING THE PALADIN'S CODE!

Paladins have a code. Torture, murder, lying, and similar things are against the paladin's code. If you are not following the paladin's code, your paladin will fall. So he won't be a paladin anymore. Whether you think your paladin is more or less 'goodly' is irrelevant.

- Saph

Bouldering Jove
2007-02-28, 06:42 AM
If players are interested in prestige classes that shore up mechanical weaknesses of their base classes, do you tell them that they shouldn't have been playing those classes in the first place if they didn't want those glaring faults?

How is the Gray Guard different? They overcome the anguished indecision of normal paladins in situations where they have to choose the best of bad options. Yes, this changes the flavor of the class. Every prestige class does.

Wehrkind
2007-02-28, 06:42 AM
That's a paladin, this is a Grey Guard. The Grey Guard specifically takes a new oath, one that changes the rules he had on his last oath. Essentially it reprioritizes which parts of the code come before others.

Can he lie as much as he wants? No. Can he torture just for spoons and giggles? No. Does he murder? Not more than a paladin (arguably) does.

Again, READ THE CLASS.

Welcome to the thread.


Edit: Thank you Jove. I am glad I was not the only one who saw that as very little of an attack upon the ideas presented, and rather more a cry of "PALADINS DON'T DO THAT!"

Saph
2007-02-28, 07:00 AM
That's a paladin, this is a Grey Guard.

And that's why so many people, me included, think the Grey Guard is an incredibly stupid prestige class.

Tobrian put it very well:

I wish I could ask that writer who invented the Gray Guard one question: If a deity that has both paladins and Gray Guards in its employ approves of the Gray Guards' work so much, and grants them all sorts of exceptions regarding doing the work of church sanctioned torturers, then why the hell do paladins fall if they do the same stuff?? Isn't it the deity that decides when you fall from grace?? Why does getting a PrC suddenly give you leeway while granting you the same advantages? Is it just me, or is this illogical?

It doesn't make sense. Or rather, it does make sense - it's a PrC designed to let someone be a paladin while being free to break all the laws and rules that a normal paladin has to uphold.

Pity the poor paladins who have to play in a world where there are Grey Guards:

"I swear I will protect you."
"Get away!"
"But I'm a paladin."
"Yeah, and so are the guys running the torture chambers in the castle up there."

- Saph

Wehrkind
2007-02-28, 07:23 AM
Ah, you bring up a valid point. Thanks.

I made the point, and many others in this thread, that the paladin's exact code is not one that necessarily protects the "good" the best. Frequently it leaves the paladin wringing his hands as he is stuck between a bad choice and a worse choice. That is all well and good in fairy tale land where the DM writes out that sort of choice. It causes problems in the real world where those who fight evil sometimes get put in positions where there isn't a good and bad choice.

Futher, GGs do NOt run torture chambers. I keep pointing this out, and people keep ignoring it. Being able to use torture or coercion to extract information =! keeping a running torture chamber in your living room. They don't go pick up random people on charges of heresy. They don't go around slaughtering everyone who pings evil.

The fact the deity is the one who determines the fall is precisely why they are allowed to take a different oath, one that binds more closely to the diety. They have earned more trust, and so are allowed to push the limits a little more WITHOUT going over. You might notice the word "atone" showing up a few times. It appears in reference to how they have to do it when they foul up.

I further go on to point out, perhaps not well, that a paladin's code needs changing because it is not terribly good at dealing with evil. It does not let him made bad/worse decisions. When it comes to saving/taking lives, often times those are all you have. Not being able to make those decisions is odd.

And honestly, to quote from the montage at the end of Boondock Saints "Are you losing any sleep over it? Because I tell you, I'm not honey."
Give me a few more Dirty Harry's, or Detective Sipowitz's, and I will be perfectly happy.

(Yes, Sipowitz is not really a paladin in the vein of a Dirty Harry, but if I am the one they are trying to save, I would appreciate them not stopping at mean language to find out where I am.)

Amphimir Míriel
2007-02-28, 11:08 AM
Wehrkind and Co.

While I must say that a Greyguard would have no place in my campaign world (at least not a Paladin/Greyguard), I can understand your position and think it's completely respectable.

Ethics and Morality debates have occupied humanity for years and years and we are certainly NOT going to reach any philosophical breakthroughs here.

So, can we agree to disagree? Could we at least reach a consensus stating that this (like any other class/race/prestigeclass) is subject to DM approval?

--

BTW, this is probably not the best place to mention my alternate alignment system, right?
:smallamused:

Telonius
2007-02-28, 12:07 PM
And that's why so many people, me included, think the Grey Guard is an incredibly stupid prestige class.

Tobrian put it very well:

I wish I could ask that writer who invented the Gray Guard one question: If a deity that has both paladins and Gray Guards in its employ approves of the Gray Guards' work so much, and grants them all sorts of exceptions regarding doing the work of church sanctioned torturers, then why the hell do paladins fall if they do the same stuff?? Isn't it the deity that decides when you fall from grace?? Why does getting a PrC suddenly give you leeway while granting you the same advantages? Is it just me, or is this illogical?

It doesn't make sense. Or rather, it does make sense - it's a PrC designed to let someone be a paladin while being free to break all the laws and rules that a normal paladin has to uphold.

Pity the poor paladins who have to play in a world where there are Grey Guards:

"I swear I will protect you."
"Get away!"
"But I'm a paladin."
"Yeah, and so are the guys running the torture chambers in the castle up there."

- Saph

It makes sense to me. A Paladin's power is depedant on their vow. The deity gets something (a vow to serve) from the character, and grants power in return. If the character fails to live up to the terms, they lose the power. With a Grey Guard, the deity changes the terms of the deal; gives different powers to the character; and the character gives a different vow in return.

The deity wouldn't just give the "Grey Guard" deal to anybody, just people that they trust implicitly - people who have already proved worthy of trust as Paladins. A good deity has nothing to gain by a bunch of torturers doing stuff in his name. If stuff like that became common, it could cause a crisis in the faith, as good people drifted away from it. So only the most sincere Paladins would get the "Grey Guard" offer. They would be given some leash, but only because they're responsible and mature enough to handle it. It would probably be an even harder test of faith than the Paladin vow, since it would put the character that much closer to temptation.

Fhaolan
2007-02-28, 01:29 PM
It makes sense to me. A Paladin's power is depedant on their vow. The deity gets something (a vow to serve) from the character, and grants power in return. If the character fails to live up to the terms, they lose the power. With a Grey Guard, the deity changes the terms of the deal; gives different powers to the character; and the character gives a different vow in return.

For some reason, my mind is hiccuping on the concept of a diety making deals and negotiating stuff with it's followers. Not that there isn't examples of this idea in fiction and in RL religious texts, but I'm just having some difficulty processing the concept. Must be my actual alignment showing through. :smallsmile:

Telonius
2007-02-28, 01:36 PM
I know, it's kind of hard for me to get a hold of, too. But it's the only way I've been able to figure out any kind of coherence for it. The gods of most D&D settings are fairly actively involved in the affairs of the world. They all have their portfolios and agendas, and a good bit of that involves having more and stronger followers than the other gods. In other words, mortals have something that gods want. D&D gods would be perfectly willing and able to make deals with mortals in order to get that.

Starbuck_II
2007-02-28, 02:00 PM
so a paladin should be trying to make everyone altruistic to convert everyone to communism?
Dude a Communist Paladin is such a good idea. If I can do so I'm so making one next time.

Telonius
2007-02-28, 02:02 PM
"There is a specter haunting Eberron ..." :smallbiggrin:
Make your paladin a Warforged, and you've got it made.

darkzucchini
2007-02-28, 03:07 PM
I know, it's kind of hard for me to get a hold of, too. But it's the only way I've been able to figure out any kind of coherence for it. The gods of most D&D settings are fairly actively involved in the affairs of the world. They all have their portfolios and agendas, and a good bit of that involves having more and stronger followers than the other gods. In other words, mortals have something that gods want. D&D gods would be perfectly willing and able to make deals with mortals in order to get that.

I think there are two ways of looking at this issue. The first is that the gods play an active role in the world as you said. In such a case they probably have goals in mind that might not always be served best by a paladin but needs someone with the same stengths and resolves of a paladin who is willing to put the goal of the god before their code of honor.
The second concept is that the gods are distent from the world and they leave their decisions to their church. In such a case, the church probably employs some people who are willing to act toward the churches end rather then uphold everyone of its laws all the time. In such a world clerics gain their spells from their faith rather then having them dolled out to them every day by their god and paladins fall when they break the tenets that they believe in. A grey guard also loses their powers if they break the tenets that they follow, its just that the tenets that they follow are slightly different from those of a paladin.
This second view is obviously much more similar to real life and I think its pretty clear that not everyone with the same religious beliefs practices them in the same way. Most of the campaign that I run follow this second idea of the role of gods so I don't have as much to say about the first view.

EvilElitest
2007-02-28, 03:11 PM
I think that its flawed to look at the grey gaurd as an evil or LN paladin. I believe that it should be viewed as an utilitarian paladin, someone who has the greater good in mind, or at least the greater good in the eyes of his god and the church. You would send out the grey guard to kill someone that has unknowingly discovered an evil artifact. Or to torture an evil cultist that knows the identity of an evil spy in the ranks of the paladins church. I think that calling the paladin as an idealistic class is too narrow of a view. Obviously, if a paladin is commiting evil acts without reason or that do not work for a greater good, he should loose his abilities. But if he he has to break some bones, maybe even slit some throats, to save thousands of innociant lives and souls, I think there should be room for the type of good that sees taking such actions as a duty.

How is good to kill innocent adventures just to take their something they unknowling picked up? How would you feel if somebody just walked up and killed you? Sure he had a reason, but did that give him the right? And how is tourture good by any standards? "Oh the ends justify the means". Well a quote from the second favorite webcomic (apart from OOTS) Something Positive
"Ends justify the means, is just the cowards way of saying, but i did it anyways and i don't wanna face the consequences"
It is never right to hurt enough being for infomation. If he was LN he could work for the greater good, but not a LG. And defiently not as a palidan. A "Cynical realistic" paladin would know that actions for the "greater good" only lead to zealotry. You can't claim to protect inocents when you are hurting them yourself. And you can't fight evil when you are doing evil yourself.
That being said, i do like the class, but i changed it. In my games, players have two aligments. One that they choose in the beginning and one that i have. When they first make their characters, both of their aligments are the same. Then, based on their actions i changed my version of their aligment. If then are a paladin or monk or bard ect. i will give them a warning, it is not fair to take away their ablities without one. But they can think they are LG and be LE instead. My aligment is the absolute, but they can choose whatever they want to have their character think he/her is.
So i would make Grey Guards a way for fallen Paladins like Miko to keep their ablities. They will not be paladin though, not by any means. They will just have simplier ablities from a different source. They might think they are good, but they are not good in reality.

from,
EE

Telonius
2007-02-28, 03:23 PM
How is good to kill innocent adventures just to take their something they unknowling picked up? How would you feel if somebody just walked up and killed you? Sure he had a reason, but did that give him the right? And how is tourture good by any standards? "Oh the ends justify the means". Well a quote from the second favorite webcomic (apart from OOTS) Something Positive
"Ends justify the means, is just the cowards way of saying, but i did it anyways and i don't wanna face the consequences"
It is never right to hurt enough being for infomation. If he was LN he could work for the greater good, but not a LG. And defiently not as a palidan. A "Cynical realistic" paladin would know that actions for the "greater good" only lead to zealotry. You can't claim to protect inocents when you are hurting them yourself. And you can't fight evil when you are doing evil yourself.
from,
EE
Thus, the greater challenge that a Grey Guard would face in maintaining their alignment. Remember, alignment is the general moral and personal outlook of the character, not particular actions. One evil act does not make an Evil alignment; it doesn't even make a neutral alignment. An attitude shift, however, will change alignment. If the Grey Guard actually does start following the slippery slope down, and stops caring whether their actions are evil or not, then they change their alignment and "fall."

darkzucchini
2007-02-28, 03:25 PM
As for different alignment systems, I used the system in from The Book of Hallowed Might, by Monte Cook, in my last campaigned and I like it a lot more then the normal alignment system. Basicly, every alignment except neutral is put on a scale of 1 through 9, with 1 being closest to neutral ( and actually counting as neutral for all porpuses) and 9 being so far into the extreem of that alignment that you will probably no longer be able to play that character. For example, your steriotypical paladin would probably be Good 7 (takes ideas like innocence, purity, and other higher principles very seriously) and Lawful 5 (willing to follow a code or strict set of principles even if it brings misfortune on himself). In contrast, someone that was Good 9 and Lawful 9 would would refuse to harm anything, even if it harmed or killed himself and would follow a set path in so orderly a fashion as to risk blind self-destruction. Also despises and fears individuality. Big difference between the two.

EvilElitest
2007-02-28, 03:26 PM
What happened to going to bed Tobrian? You had a late night last night.

At any rate, try to imagine the Grey Guard not as a secret police (no reason they can't be open about things) and not even as an inquisitor. Imagine this scenario:

An evil psionic has been running a cult in a major city. The cult has been kidnapping citizens and doing unspeakable things. The local magistrates have been unable to locate the cult, or positively identify the members. Enter the PCs, one of whom is either a paladin 14 or paladin 10/greyguard4 (levels are sort of irrelevant.)
Now, after a good bit of investigation (all of which is perfectly code friendly) the PCs are 90% certain they know who the villain is. (*gasp* high ranking official, of course.) So they track him down and the paladin takes him prisoner.
He won't talk, however. The party knows they need to get information from him about finding the victims before it is too late. Perhaps they could do more investigation, but this is the big lead, and who knows how long it could take otherwise. Trouble is, the bugger is a psion, and has some sort of mental defense up to keep people from reading his thoughts or compelling him to talk. Scrying spells have no effect (likely because of anti-scrying effects on the cult's hideout.)
So, what to do? They can't turn him in, since the police will either
A) Let him go, because he is a high official with friends in high places (perhaps why he wasn't found before.)
B) Torture him to get the information, since spells don't work. A paladin can't hand over his prisoner knowing he will be tortured.

So... the only thing left is to physically compel the prisoner themselves. It might not work, but of course they have to try. The paladin again becomes a problem. He can't hit the bugger himself; that might be dishonorable, and besides, he is a helpless prisoner.
He can't hand him over to the rogue to torture. Again, he can't deliver a person into such a situation. "I won't torture you, but my buddy here is going to mangle you beyond recognition." is not exactly ok with his code.

Children are likely dying as he deliberates... time is running out. He knows the prisoner is evil from both evidence and a subtle detect evil cast earlier before the fellow put his ward up.

What does a paladin do? I don't know. I honestly don't.

What does a Grey Guard do? Recognize that code aside, he is allowing innocents to suffer by not inflicting pain on someone who he thinks deserves it anyway, that's what. So he belts the scheisskopf across the mouth. He then proceeds to make the guy's life miserable until he talks. Afterwards, he atones for what he did, and spends time fasting and in contemplation to learn from what happened, and how it can be avoided in the future. Later, he goes and helps tend to those injured and hurt by the cult before they could be freed.

Somewhat different light, eh? A Grey Guard is someone that decides that evil will not always come out and fight you in honorable combat, and that sometimes you need to seek them out on their own turf.

You might not be able to get a copy of Dirty Harry over there in Germany with much ease, but if you get the chance to see it, I highly recommend it. That is exactly the character this PrC is designed for.



I am still really interested in how people reconcile the fact they never try to show kobolds the error of their ways with "you shouldn't hurt bad people." Or how they differentiate the beholder who is evil, but hasn't done anything against anyone else (for lack of opportunity) but doesn't like people mucking about in his cave.

Edited for clarity in pronoun usage.


Oh yes, let just tourture the guy for the greater good. I can imagine the KGB saying that. Or the any secret servince force. Tourture is wrong. Period. End of story. You can mope and whine about how it is for the greater good but you are still commiting an evil deed. A really bad evil deed. Yeah you can whine about D&D morality system but the deed is stil evil, inhuman, and vile. And that also makes you a hypocrite, a lair, a coward, and a zealot. If all it takes a minor bit of self reflection to repent for you sins, then Miko could just have killed Belkar right their in the throne room and say it was for the greater good and move on. It is never right to stoop to your enemies level. That is why they are you enemies. And how can you not see the Grey Guards as a secret police force. Nothing in their code stops them. I could easily see them a an old age KGB. Because the KGB were not doing their deed just because they liked being evil. They thought want they were doing was right. As do these guys, they belive that you need to commite evil to fight it. And in the end who is evil? Good is good because it is harder to be good than evil. And evil person can do anything he wants. He could save children, kill babies, beat homless people, steal money and kill evil cultiests. But that is the "quick and evil path". A good person has to have some actions that they will not do. Killing innocent people is an evil action. As is kidnapping. And tourture. Becuase if you no longer have to obey the laws of the paladin, what keeps you from judging everyone as evil? Or evil who disagrees?


Thus, the greater challenge that a Grey Guard would face in maintaining their alignment. Remember, alignment is the general moral and personal outlook of the character, not particular actions. One evil act does not make an Evil alignment; it doesn't even make a neutral alignment. An attitude shift, however, will change alignment. If the Grey Guard actually does start following the slippery slope down, and stops caring whether their actions are evil or not, then they change their alignment and "fall."

That is unspeakable deluded. So you say if the Grey Guard regrets doing evil it is right?! Kord from Goblins regrets what he is doing, and that is not right. Good is not just in intent. Good is in actions and intent. You can't commited good actions with evil intent and you can't commite evil actions with good intent. Does not work that way sorry. Additude does not define you aligment. You can be a complete jerk but still be a good person. Hell i know a lot of people like that. You can be a very nice person, but still commite evil actions. You may feel sorry for what you did, but you still did it. If Grey Guard show regret but commite evil, they are not good. They are evil, in th worst possible way, and they are not even brave enough to admite they are doing wrong.
from,
EE

darkzucchini
2007-02-28, 03:36 PM
"Ends justify the means, is just the cowards way of saying, but i did it anyways and i don't wanna face the consequences"
It is never right to hurt enough being for infomation. If he was LN he could work for the greater good, but not a LG. And defiently not as a palidan. A "Cynical realistic" paladin would know that actions for the "greater good" only lead to zealotry. You can't claim to protect inocents when you are hurting them yourself. And you can't fight evil when you are doing evil yourself.

I see no problem with having paladins that are zelots, if fact, I think that most paladins probably are zealots. And what I have been argueing for this entire time is to not exculed all but one philosophical view of good. I have no problem with you playing your Kantian paladin, I've played them before, but I also see no reason that I shouldn't be able to play my utilitarian paladin, aka Grey Guard. You can quote other people and webcomics all you want but they are just pushing one of many views of good.

Telonius
2007-02-28, 03:37 PM
Again, the Grey Guard has to be Lawful Good, or he is no longer a Grey Guard. Any security force (I'm leaving this as an abstract, no need to bring real-world politics into it) that routinely tortures its prisoners is not displaying LG tendencies. It's the extreme cases that the Grey Guards are supposed to fill in for. The acts are definitely evil, but the alignment of the people doing them isn't necessarily evil. I agree, morally speaking this is very dangerous ground. But that's why they're called Grey Guards, they're right up against the line between good and evil.

Telonius
2007-02-28, 03:44 PM
That is unspeakable deluded. So you say if the Grey Guard regrets doing evil it is right?! Kord from Goblins regrets what he is doing, and that is not right. Good is not just in intent. Good is in actions and intent. You can't commited good actions with evil intent and you can't commite evil actions with good intent. Does not work that way sorry. Additude does not define you aligment. You can be a complete jerk but still be a good person. Hell i know a lot of people like that. You can be a very nice person, but still commite evil actions. You may feel sorry for what you did, but you still did it. If Grey Guard show regret but commite evil, they are not good. They are evil, in th worst possible way, and they are not even brave enough to admite they are doing wrong.
from,
EE

No, it's not right. It's evil, and a Grey Guard should admit that. But any character can commit evil acts, without having an evil alignment.

Attitude does determine alignment. From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment):


A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment): lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

Alignment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment) is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

(Emphasis added.)

Dark Tira
2007-02-28, 03:48 PM
Not to interfere with the various rants, but I just wanted to interject and say that this thread has amused me to no end. I find it delightfully ironic that many of the posts reflect exactly the opinion a normal paladin is expected to have of the gray guard. Keep up the good work people.

darkzucchini
2007-02-28, 03:52 PM
Also going by Monte Cook's alignment system in The Book of Hallowed Might, a greay guard would have an alignment of Good 5-7 (giving of himself to help others, be it time, money, or something else to takes ideas like innocence, purity, and other higher principles very seriously) and Lawful 4 (willing to see one person killed or hurt if it helps a large number of people.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-02-28, 07:27 PM
As for different alignment systems, I used the system in from The Book of Hallowed Might, by Monte Cook, in my last campaigned and I like it a lot more then the normal alignment system. Basicly, every alignment except neutral is put on a scale of 1 through 9, with 1 being closest to neutral ( and actually counting as neutral for all porpuses) and 9 being so far into the extreem of that alignment that you will probably no longer be able to play that character. For example, your steriotypical paladin would probably be Good 7 (takes ideas like innocence, purity, and other higher principles very seriously) and Lawful 5 (willing to follow a code or strict set of principles even if it brings misfortune on himself). In contrast, someone that was Good 9 and Lawful 9 would would refuse to harm anything, even if it harmed or killed himself and would follow a set path in so orderly a fashion as to risk blind self-destruction. Also despises and fears individuality. Big difference between the two.

Really?? I thought I was being original! (see link in my signature)

Darn!

PaladinBoy
2007-02-28, 08:09 PM
And that is the weak point in your moral theory. If any given act is inherently evil no matter what, or inherently good, suddenly killing is right out. Lying is right out. What is the distinction? If it is wrong to smack your wife, is it also wrong to hit a monster attacking you? If it is wrong to kill a random person, is it wrong to kill anyone?

I wouldn't put killing or lying in the list of "always evil". Killing and torturing without any provocation? Yes. (I'm not saying the GG does that.)


No offense, but you think wrongly. Not only does he not give up on trying, but he doesn't give up on them either. He doesn't forsake the path of good. He in all cases tries to choose the path of least evil. He does not have to cry when "least evil" is not "perfectly good", however. He does the job, then atones for mistakes as necessary.
Sort of like the Incredibles, where superheroes start getting sued for collateral damage and saving people who didn't want to be saved, or not doing it well enough. Their only response was to go underground and stop saving people in general. Paladins have the issue where if the only options are bad and worse, they are screwed. Sure, your DM might make certain there is always a way around that, but that is essentially just fiat.Things do not actually happen that way when story and plot are not the driving factors in the universe.

Unfortunately, I think the GG does things that are a little farther down than "perfectly good" sliding into evil. Good intents and results do not absolve or fix evil acts, they only make it less of a net evil gain.

I don't even care if my DM always gives me a way out. One thing I would like to point out is that it's not your fault when murderers kill someone. It's their fault, whether or not evil methods would have helped. The only thing you can be faulted for is not being strong enough to stop it. While you might feel that it is a moral failing for being unwilling to dirty your hands, well, I consider it a far worse moral failing to resort to evil methods.


It puts him at doing what is NECESSARY. No more, but certainly no less. That's where the class' functionality comes in. What is necessary? Where is the line? In the hands of the right group, that is a trove of role playing opportunity.
To answer your question it puts the GG dangerously close to LN and falling. That is why it is so tasty. It is really easy to say "I refuse to hold any value higher than another, and insist I must be able to achieve all at once (despite the dictates of reality)". It is much more difficult to play "I am obligated to do the most good possible, and if necessary choose which values are most important and not to be lost, even if by so doing I might damn myself."

I do see a GG being roleplayed that way. The problem is, that's nothing like a paladin. A paladin refuses to resort to any evil for any reason; those that come to believe that evil can be used will Fall, sooner or later.

You seem convinced that it is impossible to keep all of your morals intact. If you believe that, as I said, then it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. While it might be impossible, I prefer to believe that it is possible. That is the only way it will become possible. Should a bad or worse choice come up...... well, I will keep my morals intact.

For example: in either D+D or the real world, if a friend of mine was taken hostage and was used to try and force me to murder people....... well, the best way to help that is actually to refuse. They can't kill the hostage, otherwise they have no hold over me. And if they do kill the hostage......... then I have no reason not to stop them, with force.


It isn't for everyone in every campaign, but it really lends itself to some excellent options if you wish to explore them.

I don't wish to explore the options in conceding to evil, thank you.


That is the point, but not knowing doesn't mean you do nothing. It simply means you either figure it out, and run from there. A Grey Guard can agree with you and decide not to resort to torture, at the risk of being too late. Another might think it is worth the risk to his soul to stop the imminent evil. The point is he has the choice, and has to live with the consequences of each. If it were an easy choice, or a non-choice (as with vanilla pally) it would not have the appeal.

Perhaps the choice would not be as exciting. The attempts to stop them would be very exciting, as well as possibly roleplaying my paladin's anguish if he was too late.


He doesn't necessarily condone torture, just recognizes it as necessary some times. He values the same things, and recognizes that sometimes it is a matter of which he values more.

From my dictionary:

Condone v. 1. To forgive, overlook, or disregard.
It seems pretty close to me.


Believe it all you want. It unfortunately does not make it true. Some endings are happier than others. I really do applaude your desire to work for your ideals and not compromise them. I really do, honestly. It just is that it is not always possible to hold to every ideal in some situations. You should want to, but sometimes you have to pick the more important. If you have a DM running your world that won't make you, so much the better, but the real world does not work like that.

As I stated above, I simply refuse to believe that. It really does depend upon what your morals are. I would feel anguished if people were to die because I wasn't quick enough to save them from murderers, but I view that as a failing of my abilities, not really my morals.

Gralamin
2007-03-01, 01:09 AM
You missed the point of my post.

You are completely free to play a character who believes that. You can even make snarky comments such as the one above about how you're the one 'really' being good and they're not. Whatever floats your boat.

But if you're playing that kind of character, you SHOULD NOT BE PLAYING A PALADIN! Is this so hard to understand?

- Saph

Saph your arguments is the type of thinking that caused the stagnation in the middle ages. The Renaissance was the rebirth of the type of reasoning Wehrkind and I use. Life is whats important, not death. Improving your life is more important then improving everyone else's life. becoming a slave to others needs is evil.

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-01, 01:35 AM
Unfortunately, I think the GG does things that are a little farther down than "perfectly good" sliding into evil. Good intents and results do not absolve or fix evil acts, they only make it less of a net evil gain.
Man, it's not ABOUT "absolving" or "fixing". If you've got the choice between five units of evil and five hundred, going with five prevents 495 units of evil.


I don't even care if my DM always gives me a way out. One thing I would like to point out is that it's not your fault when murderers kill someone. It's their fault, whether or not evil methods would have helped. The only thing you can be faulted for is not being strong enough to stop it. While you might feel that it is a moral failing for being unwilling to dirty your hands, well, I consider it a far worse moral failing to resort to evil methods. That's, uh, pretty sick. It's not okay to hurt someone, but it's okay to let someone die? Torture is hurting someone, a lot. Hurting someone like that is a really s@#!tty thing to do, yeah... but so is, you know, killing them. Sometimes s@#!tty things need doing.
Torture isn't generally a good idea because it doesn't actually work very well, mind--but if it did, using it could be justified.
Oh, and incidentally? If you could have stopped a huge evil by doing something bad, and you didn't? Yeah. Not saving him is your fault. It's like walking past a drowning guy you could pull out of the water and doing anything about it.
Screw "moral failings". Screw "morals". The Grey Guard is the kind of not-quite-paladin who puts real, live people and their lives and happiness over something as petty as "moral strictures".


I do see a GG being roleplayed that way. The problem is, that's nothing like a paladin. A paladin refuses to resort to any evil for any reason; those that come to believe that evil can be used will Fall, sooner or later.That's the cliche, yes. It's not necessarily true. To quote Dogs in the Vineyard, "Sometimes it's better for one to die than for many to suffer. Sometimes, Dog, sometimes you have to cut off the arm to save the life."
And it's certainly better for one to suffer than for many to die.


For example: in either D+D or the real world, if a friend of mine was taken hostage and was used to try and force me to murder people....... well, the best way to help that is actually to refuse. They can't kill the hostage, otherwise they have no hold over me. And if they do kill the hostage......... then I have no reason not to stop them, with force.That's a terrible example that has nothing to do with anything. It's more like, either you murder someone, or twenty thousand people die.


I don't wish to explore the options in conceding to evil, thank you.So don't. Just quit telling people that if they do, they're having badwrongfun.



As I stated above, I simply refuse to believe that. It really does depend upon what your morals are. I would feel anguished if people were to die because I wasn't quick enough to save them from murderers, but I view that as a failing of my abilities, not really my morals."If a god approves of and creates Grey Guards, why are there still paladins?"
Because neither path is for everyone. Some people can't *handle* being Grey Guards. They'd go too far. Some people can't handle being paladins. They wouldn't stop short enough. Sometimes one is called for, sometimes the other is. Sometimes you go get a melee cleric.

Wehrkind
2007-03-01, 02:59 AM
Lesson for today: The GiantItp forums are unstable, so put your 6 page responses into Word before hitting “post”.

So, once more, into the breach.



How is good to kill innocent adventures just to take their something they unknowling picked up? How would you feel if somebody just walked up and killed you? Sure he had a reason, but did that give him the right? It isn’t good. He should at least try to explain why the artifact is bad, and that it needs to be destroyed, yadda yadda. Depending on how big a threat it is depends on his actions if they refuse. He would be perfectly justified in killing them if it were a tactical nuke and they wanted to bring it into his city.


And how is tourture good by any standards? The standard of use for human purpose. This is same standard by which any action or object is to be considered good or bad. I think what you really mean to ask is “Under what circumstances can one be justified violating the right to not be hurt of another?” I would answer “If that person is in the process of violating another’s right to not be hurt, he has no claim to any such right of his own, and this is fair game if that is the only way to stop him.”


"Oh the ends justify the means". Well a quote from the second favorite webcomic (apart from OOTS) Something Positive

"Ends justify the means, is just the cowards way of saying, but i did it anyways and i don't wanna face the consequences" That is a good comic, I agree. I also agree with that statement, but no one said the GG doesn’t accept the consequences. In his case, the consequence for going past the bounds of his oath is falling and needing to atone if he wants his powers back.



It is never right to hurt enough being for infomation. People keep asserting this, and never bother to explain why. If you wish to actually convince someone, a sound, logical argument works much better than dogmatic repetition.


If he was LN he could work for the greater good, but not a LG. And defiently not as a palidan. Say that again, out loud, to yourself, and really think hard about the “he could work for the greater good, but not a LG” part. Of course paladins can have nothing to do with working for the greater good, particularly if they are LG.


A "Cynical realistic" paladin would know that actions for the "greater good" only lead to zealotry. Care to explain why?

You can't claim to protect inocents when you are hurting them yourself. Who said anything about hurting innocents? Criminals are not innocent by definition. While you can make a case that breaking a government law does not make you morally wrong (and in many cases that is true) breaking moral laws does necessarily make you morally wrong.


And you can't fight evil when you are doing evil yourself. Again I dispute that torturing someone is in all cases evil.


Oh yes, let just tourture the guy for the greater good. I can imagine the KGB saying that. Or the any secret servince force. [reductio ad absurdum] EvilElitest, you really need to stop breathing right now. You are breathing just like a KGB agent would! [/reductio ad absurdum]
Seriously now, if you can’t make a good logical argument as to why you think what you do, at least refrain from trying to paint every action as evil just because some bad people did it. The KGB are considered evil in part because they used torture on political dissidents for kicks. Not the other way around. You can not damn an action because someone evil does it.

Wehrkind
2007-03-01, 03:00 AM
Page 2


Tourture is wrong. Period. End of story. Perhaps since it is so clear and simple to you, you will deign to explain to the rest of us this fact we are too dense to see?


You can mope and whine about how it is for the greater good but you are still commiting an evil deed. A really bad evil deed. Yeah you can whine about D&D morality system but the deed is stil evil, inhuman, and vile. And that also makes you a hypocrite, a lair, a coward, and a zealot.
I presume you are not directing this at me personally. In either case, please, explain it.


It is never right to stoop to your enemies level. So it isn’t right to fight someone who is trying to kill you, because using violence is just stooping to their level? Try again.


That is why they are you enemies. No, it isn’t. People become enemies for discrete reasons, ranging from “I want your woman” to “You seem to think I should be dead” and everything in between. The choice of enemies is not dictated by tactics used, though why you are enemies might dictate the tactics.


And how can you not see the Grey Guards as a secret police force. Nothing in their code stops them. I could easily see them a an old age KGB. Because the KGB were not doing their deed just because they liked being evil. They thought want they were doing was right. As do these guys, they belive that you need to commite evil to fight it. And in the end who is evil? I can see them as not a secret police force the same way I can see every class as not being one. A mage has no “code” dictating that they can not be in a secret police force. Neither does a monk, cleric, ranger, fighter… or really any. Neither does a paladin. I do not think you found too many high minded idealists in the KGB however. The organization was evil because of what it did (specialize in the oppression of dissident political figures.) What it did was not necessarily evil because it did it. Cause and effect, read about it sometime.


Good is good because it is harder to be good than evil.
No, no, a thousand times, no!
Good is not good because it is harder than evil. Difficulty is not a basis for moral purity. If it were, all the world’s people would be avidly pursuing Quantum Theory and attempting to create a universal theory of everything. Those who majored in phys.ed. would be labeled heretics, and driven to the fringes of society. (No offense to phys ed majors.
Something is good if it serves human needs and purposes. Usually those purposes are broadly in the “life and happiness” categories. Something is evil if it destroys those values. The relative DC of an act does not dictate morality.


And evil person can do anything he wants. He could save children, kill babies, beat homless people, steal money and kill evil cultiests. But that is the "quick and evil path". A good person has to have some actions that they will not do. Killing innocent people is an evil action. As is kidnapping. And tourture. Becuase if you no longer have to obey the laws of the paladin, what keeps you from judging everyone as evil? Or evil who disagrees?
Those children he saves might not see him as evil, until he tries to eat them at least. I would also suggest you do not look to George Lucas for moral authority. The man who brought us Jar Jar Binks is not one to be trusted.
Now, you said killing innocent people is an evil action. Ok, good, we can agree. Remove “innocent person” and replace with “murderer” and you are perfectly valid in killing them. Kidnapping? In the sense of stealing innocent people and holding them by force, yes I agree it is evil. Remove the “innocent” and replace with “criminal” and you have a prison. Torturing innocent people is bad (whether for short term information, or long term sadism.) Are you so certain that torturing criminals short term for information is bad? Well, of course you are, but can you explain why?

Wehrkind
2007-03-01, 03:01 AM
Page 3


That is unspeakable deluded. So you say if the Grey Guard regrets doing evil it is right?! Kord from Goblins regrets what he is doing, and that is not right. Good is not just in intent. Good is in actions and intent. You can't commited good actions with evil intent and you can't commite evil actions with good intent. Does not work that way sorry. Additude does not define you aligment. You can be a complete jerk but still be a good person. Hell i know a lot of people like that. You can be a very nice person, but still commite evil actions. You may feel sorry for what you did, but you still did it. If Grey Guard show regret but commite evil, they are not good. They are evil, in th worst possible way, and they are not even brave enough to admite they are doing wrong.

Surely you can commit good actions with evil intent. You can feed the poor and hungry out of some diabolical plan to promote obesity in the homeless. I don’t think a single homeless person would complain. You can heal the sick and wounded out of a sadistic glee at watching their recoveries. Doesn’t make healing them bad.
The problem with good intentions is that too often they keep people from thinking about the results. They insist they are doing the right thing because they mean well, ignoring the fact what they are doing causes more harm than good no matter why they are doing it. That is the point of “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Good intentions tend to mask the actual result of what you are doing, even when people demonstrate that it causes more harm than good.


I wouldn't put killing or lying in the list of "always evil". Killing and torturing without any provocation? Yes. (I'm not saying the GG does that.)


Unfortunately, I think the GG does things that are a little farther down than "perfectly good" sliding into evil. Good intents and results do not absolve or fix evil acts, they only make it less of a net evil gain. Intents do nothing to absolve anything (see above.) Results wise, I agree in terms that doing evil to achieve good is usually very questionable. As I said before though, I do not agree that torture is always evil. I just don’t think it is evil to torture a villain who is in the process of killing someone to get that villain to stop. No more than I think killing them is evil in that case.


I don't even care if my DM always gives me a way out. One thing I would like to point out is that it's not your fault when murderers kill someone. It's their fault, whether or not evil methods would have helped. The only thing you can be faulted for is not being strong enough to stop it. While you might feel that it is a moral failing for being unwilling to dirty your hands, well, I consider it a far worse moral failing to resort to evil methods.
I absolutely agree that you are not morally responsible for someone killing someone else. You can only be morally responsible for your own decisions.
For instance, I am not morally responsible if someone breaks into my neighbor’s house and kills her without my knowledge. I am likewise not morally responsible if I am aware of it, and he kills her while I am calling the police. I AM however morally responsible if I know he is trying to kill her, and I enjoy some delicious cake instead of doing anything, because I am choosing to let it happen with no attempt to save her. We agree on all three of those points I believe.
However, take a fourth situation, and my supposition. I posit that it is better, more “good”, if I attempt to stop the killer. (After calling the police if you’d like, but I probably would not take that time.) Even if I have to kill the murderer to get him to stop, it is still better to have her alive and a dead murderer. You might say it is better to have both alive, and I might agree (assuming he was known to never murder again), but I hold it as true that if one has to choose between a murderer and his victim being alive, the good person chooses the victim. Every time. Even if I fail, I still consider it better (more “good”) to have tried to save her, than to let her die. I don’t think any worse of my wife for not trying to save her (being very small and likely unable to do anything), but I consider myself to be in better moral standing than if I did nothing.



I do see a GG being roleplayed that way. The problem is, that's nothing like a paladin. A paladin refuses to resort to any evil for any reason; those that come to believe that evil can be used will Fall, sooner or later. Again, that depends on the definition of evil. I am not certain I understand how you can say “Killing an evil doer to save an innocent is alright” but then say “Hurting the evil doer to save an innocent is evil.” If you required your paladins to never do lethal damage ever, ok, I think you might be able to make a consistent argument.



You seem convinced that it is impossible to keep all of your morals intact. If you believe that, as I said, then it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. While it might be impossible, I prefer to believe that it is possible. That is the only way it will become possible. Should a bad or worse choice come up...... well, I will keep my morals intact. I wish to draw a distinction. Recognizing that you can not always achieve all your values at the same instant is not the same as shattering your morals. To say “I can not achieve my value of being the greatest fencer in the world and the greatest dad” may simply be realistic. You might even try, and find it just isn’t possible. So you have to decide “Do I want to be the best fencer, or the best dad?”
Likewise it sometimes comes down to a bad or worse decision “Do save an innocent and do something somewhat repugnant, or let them die when I could have helped?”
Let me know how you define “keep your morals intact” when it comes to two contradictory morals competing.



For example: in either D+D or the real world, if a friend of mine was taken hostage and was used to try and force me to murder people....... well, the best way to help that is actually to refuse. They can't kill the hostage, otherwise they have no hold
over me. And if they do kill the hostage......... then I have no reason not to stop them, with force.
That is a good example where you would not be right to kill one innocent for another. However, should you catch one of the kidnappers while he was stopping at the 7-11 for snacks, I think you would be perfectly moral to force him to tell you where the others were hiding. I also think one would be without moral taint if they killed the kidnappers in the process of freeing their friend.



It seems pretty close to me. Condoning the killing of an innocent and the killing of a murderer are two different things. Same applies here. You can be against killing in general and still recognize its necessity, and as such recognize it is sometimes the right thing to do.




As I stated above, I simply refuse to believe that. It really does depend upon what your morals are. I would feel anguished if people were to die because I wasn't quick enough to save them from murderers, but I view that as a failing of my abilities, not really my morals. See, me, I would recognize it was not my moral failing that caused the people to die, unless it was my moral choice that the lack of pain in a villain was more important than the life of an innocent. Now, if I did not know it was a villain, that would leave a chance I was hurting an innocent, which is of course a moral failing as well.

Sardia
2007-03-01, 03:21 AM
Okay, so we've got two dissimilar and perhaps irreconcilable definitions of pursuing the good here:
One is outcomes-based: whatever results in the greatest net amount of good is good. Throwing one baby in a fire so ten babies don't get roasted over coals is a good thing.
The other is process-based: some actions are good or evil intrinsically, and one should refrain from evil actions. Throwing babies in a fire is bad, and if ten get roasted, that's certainly terrible, but wasn't preventable within the moral strictures of the good person.

This seems to suggest a question: if an action results in a greater amount of evil than would otherwise occur, is that action by definition good or evil?

Let's skip torture for a moment and try another revealing example: Say that the 5rd level paladin, conveniently immune to disease, has been placed in charge of maintaining the quarantine of a village experiencing an epidemic of a highly-contagious, eventually-fatal disease. All the villagers may not have the disease, but it is expected that some of them may, and the paladin is in charge of making sure they stay in place until clerics can be found to make sure.
The villagers are not happy about being so confined, and have expressed a desire to leave the village and go to other areas just in case there is a plague.
The paladin then notices that one villager who has previously expressed his disbelief in the existance of the disease has escaped from the village and is just at the edge of bow range near a forest. If he escapes there, with his greater knowledge of the local terrain, he is almost certainly uncapturable, and if diseased will spread it to nearby villages if he passes through them. If the paladin leaves to pursue him, other villagers will flee.
The paladin has a bow in hand, sufficiently powerful to kill the villager should he hit. Does he shoot down an unarmed, fleeing man?

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-01, 03:24 AM
I say again: "Sometimes it's better for one to die than for many to suffer. Sometimes, Dog, sometimes you have to cut off the arm to save the life."

Sardia
2007-03-01, 03:28 AM
I say again: "Sometimes it's better for one to die than for many to suffer. Sometimes, Dog, sometimes you have to cut off the arm to save the life."

Alright, so what if the metaphysics don't work that way-- if the individual is responsible for maintaining his own moral purity and integrity, but not for enforcing morality as a universal concept?
In short, if the big weighing question when sorting souls in the afterlife isn't "How much good did you do?" but "How little evil did you personally indulge in?"
Mind you, this sounds like the perfect entry question for chaotic good deities, not lawful good ones.

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-01, 03:42 AM
Then some people will have to step up to the plate and do what's right--even if it's not what's arbitrarily defined as Good--anyway.
Some of those people could be the Gray Guards.

Wehrkind
2007-03-01, 03:42 AM
Actually Sardia, I reject both of your possible moral codes.

You don't throw an innocent into a fire to save others. You can and do throw in the person who would put them in the fire.

An innocent person is properly free from outside force and coercion. As soon as he violates other's rights to that, then he voids his own and is essentially fair game.

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-01, 03:48 AM
I disagree. Just because someone's done something bad doesn't mean it's okay to do bad things to them.
It might be okay to do bad things to them because that will stop them from doing worse things to others--but that's a different story.

darkzucchini
2007-03-01, 03:49 AM
One is outcomes-based: whatever results in the greatest net amount of good is good. Throwing one baby in a fire so ten babies don't get roasted over coals is a good thing.
The other is process-based: some actions are good or evil intrinsically, and one should refrain from evil actions. Throwing babies in a fire is bad, and if ten get roasted, that's certainly terrible, but wasn't preventable within the moral strictures of the good person.

As I have been saying, I don't see why you can't have both views in the same campaign.


Let's skip torture for a moment and try another revealing example: Say that the 5rd level paladin, conveniently immune to disease, has been placed in charge of maintaining the quarantine of a village experiencing an epidemic of a highly-contagious, eventually-fatal disease. All the villagers may not have the disease, but it is expected that some of them may, and the paladin is in charge of making sure they stay in place until clerics can be found to make sure.
The villagers are not happy about being so confined, and have expressed a desire to leave the village and go to other areas just in case there is a plague.
The paladin then notices that one villager who has previously expressed his disbelief in the existance of the disease has escaped from the village and is just at the edge of bow range near a forest. If he escapes there, with his greater knowledge of the local terrain, he is almost certainly uncapturable, and if diseased will spread it to nearby villages if he passes through them. If the paladin leaves to pursue him, other villagers will flee.
The paladin has a bow in hand, sufficiently powerful to kill the villager should he hit. Does he shoot down an unarmed, fleeing man?

If I was playing the Kantian paladin, no, I would let the villager go or try to talk the other villagers in waiting until I got back from catching the villager.

If I was playing the utilitarian paladin, I would first fire a warning shot in front of the fleeing villager. If he kept going, I would take an aimed shot at his leg. If it comes down to it, I would take him out and then bandage him up/lay on hands.

Wehrkind
2007-03-01, 03:52 AM
As to the quarentine question, I wouldn't kill him, since it probably isn't necessary. Putting an arrow into his thigh would do the trick though. Heal him right up afterwards, and tie his ass up.
Now, I presume your example simply doesn't mention that the village's governing body or some other legitimate authority announced the quarentine, and it not just an arbitrary assertion. I further presume they have the authority to enforce something like that (charters for civic organizations can contain lots of various things like that, which by living in the town you tacitly agree to live by those laws.)

I am trying to think of reasons why it is better to let him go, but it pretty much comes down to the fact he agreed to be ruled by the laws of the village, and now he is breaking those laws he agreed to live by. Thus the consequence. I do think the paladin should take the least damaging route possible to prohibit his escape. Shooting him in the head is over kill. Wounding him so that he can't escape, that's not.

Wehrkind
2007-03-01, 03:58 AM
BWL : Do you agree it is ok to lock people up in prison? Take their money by force (fines)?
The reason it is morally alright to commit an action such as those that would violate their right is because they have abrogated their own rights by their actions. That's why the police officer is not morally culpable for shooting someone in defense of others, and why the prison guard is not guilty of "forcible confinement" as he keeps all those prisoners locked up.

We set limits on those losses of rights in order to keep a sane society. A police officer can't shoot the guy who attacked someone ten years after the fact. He might still be in prison though. The extent that someone loses their rights over various violations is debatable. The fact that they do is not, unless you consider the entire criminal justice system immoral from root to leaf.

Sardia
2007-03-01, 04:15 AM
I am trying to think of reasons why it is better to let him go, but it pretty much comes down to the fact he agreed to be ruled by the laws of the village, and now he is breaking those laws he agreed to live by. Thus the consequence. I do think the paladin should take the least damaging route possible to prohibit his escape. Shooting him in the head is over kill. Wounding him so that he can't escape, that's not.

Assume there's no village endorsement of the quarantine. Presume, even, that the village is in general opposed to the notion of a quarantine at all. After all, that's why the paladin's standing there "encouraging" them to stay put until clerics arrive. The overall ruler of the region may well be in favor of it as a benevolent measure, but the peasants had no particular say in his reign, nor (being mud-grubbing peasants in a pseudo-medieval world) much of a chance to leave and establish their own territory, either- any other sovereign would probably order the same quarantine.
As for shooting him in the thigh, he's at the edge of reasonable bow range-- a shot that hits him at all may well be, and probably will be, a body shot of sufficient power to kill him (Darn monty-haul GM handed out a +5 flaming, shocking, composite longbow of distance, so it's an average of 16.5 damage to a level one commoner with 2-3 hit points.) In short, the only way to stop the guy from running is also likely to kill him.