DM tried to have my Fighter "Fall"

[Coltron]

So this interesting tale starts with a close friend of mine inviting me to a new campaign her brother is running. I was weary, having heard he is very draconian about paladins and frequently even has clerics lose their powers(which I am fine with). Also I have heard that he despises martial classes and really prefers his martial to still use magic in some way, a problem for myself because I like playing a fighter. None the less she convinced me that I should give it a go and I thought I a character type in mind.

We started at 1st level and the GM only asked us for some vague information about our characters(he wanted a flexible backstory he could fit in his world, not a problem). So I told him that I was a lawful good dwarf that was devoted to Torag and sought purity through faith, as well as general stone loving Dwarven goodness. Maybe a bit cliche' but I see less and less of the old school Dwarfs, particularly in pathfinder, as I have seen more Dwarven bards, and even Dwarven sorcerers than fighters or barbarians.

I arrive at the game with the paladin code of Torag printed out with my character sheet as a personal guide on how to be more devout. The mod is fairly simple, but well ran and pretty interesting until there is a situation were slaves are involved. We find a group of escaping slaves attacking their slave master. I and my friend (playing a healer) go and try to diffuse the situation. The slaver screams that he has a permit for the slaves and demands that we return them to the king so that they can be sacrificed. Seeing children in the lot I flat out say no, and ask the healer to tend to the slaves while I tend to the slaver(I took a trait that give me healing as a class skill).

The dm told me that as a lawful good character I should respect the authority of the slaver, to which I replied: I am the Good lawful good, not the Lawful lawful good. I don't recognize the legitimate authority of those that keep slaves. He seem aggravated but also a little elated. Soon the ranger(who said he was going to hide in the trees and observe) alerted us to approaching men bearing the same seal of the slaver. Causing the slaver to say something like "this is the end for all of you I will see that you sacrificed right with them". The ranger, being chaotic neutral(aka....evil) straight up kills the guy and drags him off hiding in the brush. I sigh, verbally reprimand him but don't do anything else as the healer starts to lead the slaves away.

I stay with the body, and kneel down in prayer waiting for the men to approach. When they do they see my character, praying with a holy symbol before the body and ask what had happen(politely I might add). I told them that I had been traveling alone when I came upon bandits loading slaves into a wagon and gutting the slaver. Unable to follow them immediately I decided to give the slaver his last rites. He looked shock, like I had just told him I ate five Aasimar babies alive and said roll bluff. I get a 16(I have 14 cha..yes as a dwarf, it is painful to waste a 16 in pb) and he says that they believe me. Thanking me and asking which way the bandits went, I point them to the wrong direction. Once again GM, shocked.

They load the mans body, try to give me some gold for some reason(I refuse it politely) and they storm off. The GM says that I begin to feel weak and empty, that I feel my gifts start to leave me. To which I ask...what gifts. He says, you have lied which is directly against the wishes of Torag. To which I reply by showing him the code in which it says I can mislead others for my people. I lied for the sake of my party and for good. He said be that as it may, I had lied wantonly with no remorse and that I had fallen. To which I say....what do you mean. I am not a Paladin. He did not believe me. And ask to see my sheet. To which I complied, and he saw that I made the crazy saves against his magical ray traps(start of the mod) not because of divine grace but because of Steel Soul, and that I had not let the ranger be blatantly evil because I am lawful good, not because I have a paladin code. I explained that I merely was faithful and had printed out the code for reference. He just sat there for a while and said "okay". Then we moved on.

Long story, not important but I was kinda laughing the whole time during the end and I thought it was interesting.

[Hrugner]

Well done. I'd feel bad for the DM but he probably should have at least glanced at the class on the character sheet at some point.

[Gale]

That was an interesting read. I always love it when people play Lawful Good properly. They don't have to respect all authority if it seems corrupt or unjust; the character should always strive toward being righteous first and not blindly follow every law and regulation. You even manged to justify lying which is pretty fantastic. That's all around good role-playing.

The DM is certainly too obsessed with having characters fall though. I feel even if a character violates a code they shouldn't immediately lose all their blessings. The god should be understanding of the fact that people aren't perfect and are capable of making mistakes when situations are difficult. It's not always easy to abide by the right course of action or even know what it is to begin with. People are fallible and a god should understand that and reward good intentions rather than punishing mistakes. How can a god manage to have followers if they shun everyone who steps even an inch out of line?
Of course the level of tolerance would vary from god to god. I'm sure some have far less tolerance than others.

[whisperwind1]

Lol I guess the DM is one of those Alignment purists, but good to see he was at least reasonable in most respects. Good show friend.

[Venger]

cool story, bro.

way to put your DM in his place. sounds like a fun character.

[ericgrau]

I half expected this to be about the fighter losing all his bonus feats.

[eggynack]

I half expected this to be about the fighter losing all his bonus feats.
Yeah, my mental version of it even went a step further, with the fighter specifically falling for acting unfighterish, perhaps using a bevy of magical items and thus denying his mundane nature. This story's good too though, if perhaps not quite as good as the crazy hypothetical story where a player gets into a fight with his DM about falling fighters or something.

[yellowrocket]

I thought it was going to be mundane fighter killed big bad evil guy with bull rush of ledge. Dm wants fighter to follow.

[ericgrau]

Yeah, my mental version of it even went a step further, with the fighter specifically falling for acting unfighterish, perhaps using a bevy of magical items and thus denying his mundane nature. This story's good too though, if perhaps not quite as good as the crazy hypothetical story where a player gets into a fight with his DM about falling fighters or something.

Depends on the DM there. I've always pictured a fighter adventurer with a grab bag of random magical items as a classic since 2e. I had an elf that went especially crazy with them because, y'know, elf.

[Feint's End]

I'm going to play devils advocate here and say that while I did enjoy the core of your story accepting the actions of the ranger was completely out of character. Killing an unarmed person out of convenience is most likely evil in the standard dnd setting and your dwarf still adventuring with the person after this event seems unlikely at best.

My 50 cents.

[Mendicant]

I'm going to play devils advocate here and say that while I did enjoy the core of your story accepting the actions of the ranger was completely out of character. Killing an unarmed person out of convenience is most likely evil in the standard dnd setting and your dwarf still adventuring with the person after this event seems unlikely at best.

My 50 cents.

So...he should have initiated PvP in his first appearance at the table? This DM is already creating not great table dynamics by being pumped to take away class features and having a really unreasonable, rigid view of alignment. Picking a fight with another player is only going to throw fuel on that fire.

[Coltron]

I'm going to play devils advocate here and say that while I did enjoy the core of your story accepting the actions of the ranger was completely out of character. Killing an unarmed person out of convenience is most likely evil in the standard dnd setting and your dwarf still adventuring with the person after this event seems unlikely at best.

My 50 cents.

Killing an unarmed person because he is evil and will cause the death of you and slave children is something a chaotic neutral person would do. It was not out of character......I am the character, I get to decide how they act to things. I hate that people are always telling others how they should be roleplaying. I reprimanded him, but understood his reasoning even if I dont agree with it. That's okay. I don't have to agree with everything my party does, as a Lawful Good character I try to urge the party to the light and order. Not railroad them. People with your opinion are the reason why you can't be good in most games anymore.

[darksolitaire]

I'm going to play devils advocate here and say that while I did enjoy the core of your story accepting the actions of the ranger was completely out of character. Killing an unarmed person out of convenience is most likely evil in the standard dnd setting and your dwarf still adventuring with the person after this event seems unlikely at best.

My 50 cents.

You can't really play your character out of character.

[anti-ninja]

did the campaign continue after that?cause it would be a shame to let such a good character go to waste.

[Ganorenas]

Stories like this are the reason I talk with my players often about how they would like alignment to be played out (in all cases, not just classes which will have consequences for doing X or Y).

And especially when they have a risk of Falling or being an Ex-Class.

Communication isn't very hard, though I guess if you set yourself up as what you will Dm as, it isn't as big an issue. You knew the Dm's stance and play style before joining, which is very important.

[OldTrees1]

We started at 1st level and the GM only asked us for some vague information about our characters(he wanted a flexible backstory he could fit in his world, not a problem). So I told him that I was a lawful good dwarf that was devoted to Torag and sought purity through faith, as well as general stone loving Dwarven goodness.

-snip-

I arrive at the game with the paladin code of Torag printed out with my character sheet as a personal guide on how to be more devout.

-snip-

To which I say....what do you mean. I am not a Paladin. He did not believe me. And ask to see my sheet.To which I complied

-snip-

Long story, not important but I was kinda laughing the whole time during the end and I thought it was interesting.

All in all, I think this is a lesson that DMs should know what the players are playing. Your DM asked just the right number of questions to confuse himself about what your class was.

I find it quite humorous too.

[Ashtagon]

I'd have been like,


"So, does that mean my character is a mundane fighter now?"

*GM nods*

"Okay. Here's my character sheet. As you can see, he's a fighter now."

[danzibr]

While I liked the entire story, I particularly liked the notion of a Fighter losing his bonus feats due to behavior.

"My god, why have you forsaken me? I can no longer Power Attack!"

[JNAProductions]

Excellent story.

While I agree you were perhaps a bit lenient on the Ranger, overall you played pretty much as a Lawful Good character should. So props for that.

[Feint's End]

So...he should have initiated PvP in his first appearance at the table? This DM is already creating not great table dynamics by being pumped to take away class features and having a really unreasonable, rigid view of alignment. Picking a fight with another player is only going to throw fuel on that fire.

I wasn't talking about initiating PvP. Maybe I wasn't very clear of that in my post (in fact I typed a bit hastily). I would however talk about this after session. Of course I don't actually know much about the playstyle of OP but from what I gathered his dwarf seems to be very much GOOD lawful good. Maybe good does mean something else in their setting but IMO killing an unarmed guy (yes even an "evil" one) is an act which should be an issue to such a good character. I was harsh when I called it an evil act. In fact I'm fairly sure it's something some type of chaotic neutral characters would do out of pragmatism. I'm just saying that from how I understood the story the dwarf would take an issue with. Then again maybe I'm wrong.


People with your opinion are the reason why you can't be good in most games anymore.

I agree that some of my post was out of line and I already talked about how I understood the story above.

I do however take issue with this sentence. You don't know anything about me so there is no reason to get personal. Did I get personal with you? Sure I might have been wrong to some extend but I never attacked your ability to roleplay and said you were a bad roleplayer. All I said is that from how I understood your character he probably should have taken bigger issue with that situation.
Calling me "People with your opinion are the reason ...." was completely out of line. I'm gonna gloss over it since you seem to be a newer member anyways and GIANITP is a forum with some stricter rules than most other sites, which you might have not gotten used to. I'm just telling you for future posts.

[Bad Wolf]

Now everyone hug and makeup.

[YossarianLives]

This kids, is why you actually look-over character sheets at the beginning of a campaign. It can prevent some nasty surprises.

[Psyren]

I always find it nonsensical when a GM does not know what is on the players' character sheets. How is he supposed to challenge them properly?

Hell, DMG pg. 12 specifically tells the GM that he should know every PC's "race, class, level, hit points, save and base attack bonuses, spells, and special abilities."

[Terazul]

Maybe good does mean something else in their setting but IMO killing an unarmed guy (yes even an "evil" one) is an act which should be an issue to such a good character.

That's an opinion to have, certainly. But being Good, and being honor-bound to only attack someone who has an equal chance of winning are two completely different things. If you want that, play a Knight (haha, Good Rogues? what's that?). It also wasn't killing purely out of convenience, it was killing to free slaves; Because what were they gonna do, have a debate when the rest of his posse shows up, and then have to kill all of them anyway when they inevitably attacked them (which the NPC in question just said they were going to do)?

Yeah I guess 3 dead people is better than 1, as long as they were armed first. Arguably more Good too, since that's 3 dead Evil slavers instead of 1, so I guess you're right. :smallsmile:

But yeah, Good doesn't mean nice, nor does it mean good. There is some overlap, but things that are justifiable as Good are not necessarily good, and vice versa.


Anyway, great story, everyone wants Good characters/Paladins to fall, just play an Evil/Neutral character instead and nobody will ever question you being too good/nice/anything.

[Coltron]

Calling me "People with your opinion are the reason ...." was completely out of line. I'm gonna gloss over it since you seem to be a newer member anyways and GIANITP is a forum with some stricter rules than most other sites, which you might have not gotten used to. I'm just telling you for future posts.

If you took it as a personal attack then I apologize. From your post I did get the feeling that you were attacking me as a roleplayer, and trying to say that I role played my character wrong. I accepted the actions of the Ranger because, lets face it I can either quite playing the game or I can have a different idea about being lawful good. I have explained my take on lawful good as being a guiding force of my party towards order and goodness. I talked the ranger out of several evil actions during the mod, but I talked him out of it. I didn't make any threats or ultimatums.

Being inflexible and bossy is why LG gets such a bad wrap. It is unrealistic, and a caricature of how real LG people would behave. He killed a man I felt was evil to the core, he killed him to save himself, our party, and the slaves. My character does not agree with it, but outside of the two dimensional "PALADIN SMITE!" mentality I can forgive my party for their transgressions and try to guide them to be a force for good. I see lawful good as being a driver of an out of control semi. Sure I could jump out at the slightest hint of trouble or I can stay and try my best to to guide it away from as many innocent people as possible.

My character strives towards a world of order and goodness, where the rule of law bolsters the prosperity of all races. He never lies about anything that will not assure those goals, and he does not impose personal tyranny on those who fall short of his vision. I am perfectly okay with that, I just wish people didn't expect me to be a jerk or stick in the mud because I have ideals.

[Segev]

Fortunately, unless the DM was relying for some reason on the paladin falling (which he should NOT do), this isn't a pitfall for the game. Mildly embarrasing for the DM, but nothing a healthy ego with even a modicum of humility and ability to laugh at oneself cannot absorb.

[HurinTheCursed]

If slavery is evil to your god and lawful for the king, there is no way out with this kind of DM trap. Either he doesn't act good or he doesn't act lawful.
Even with the worst interpretation, this character may have commited a chaotic act, but did nothing evil, hence I don't understand why he may have fallen as a paladin, according to RAW.

Then, slavery may be allowed in this kingdom, but if it was not allowed by his faith, should a paladin stay lawful to the local law or to his god's code ?

[Terazul]

If slavery is evil to your god and lawful for the king, there is no way out with this kind of DM trap. Either he doesn't act good or he doesn't act lawful.
Even with the worst interpretation, this character may have commited a chaotic act, but did nothing evil, hence I don't understand why he may have fallen as a paladin, according to RAW.

Then, slavery may be allowed in this kingdom, but if it was not allowed by his faith, should a paladin stay lawful to the local law or to his god's code ?

Ooh! I got this one:



First of all, let's be clear about one important concept: Lawful does not necessarily mean "adheres to the letter of the law." A law (or body of laws) is merely a rule that a government imposes on those who are subject to its power. A lawful alignment, on the other hand, represents an orderly approach to matters of ethics and personal conduct. Most lawful characters do respect the order that the laws of the realm represent, but adherence to local ordinances is only one way of demonstrating a lawful alignment.
...
As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law is unfair or capricious.
...
Now let's address the question of how the paladin's code of conduct governs her actions. A paladin is both lawful and good, and she must uphold both aspects of her alignment. Thus, if the laws in a particular realm are corrupt and evil, she is under no obligation to obey them.

So god's/personal code. Such a good article. (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)

[Extra Anchovies]

If slavery is evil to your god and lawful for the king, there is no way out with this kind of DM trap. Either he doesn't act good or he doesn't act lawful.

Not really. Gods are generally more powerful than kings, so it makes sense for gods to be considered a higher authority.

[Keltest]

If slavery is evil to your god and lawful for the king, there is no way out with this kind of DM trap. Either he doesn't act good or he doesn't act lawful.
Even with the worst interpretation, this character may have commited a chaotic act, but did nothing evil, hence I don't understand why he may have fallen as a paladin, according to RAW.

Then, slavery may be allowed in this kingdom, but if it was not allowed by his faith, should a paladin stay lawful to the local law or to his god's code ?

First off, paladins are good first, lawful second. That's why a single evil act will cause a fall, but not a single chaotic act.

Secondly, a lawful alignment has nothing to do with the actual laws of a region. Lawful characters believe in order and structure. They often have a personal code of conduct beyond what is required by law. Anyway, they view laws as useful tools for establishing order, but like all tools they can be misused. When that happens, they will attempt to correct them if possible, or if not wont concern themselves overmuch with the letter of the law. A paladin will not let an assassin go just because its "Free Murder Wednesday" in the local region.

[elonin]

I'm shocked that the dm would have made a paladin fall for such actions.

[Elandris Kajar]

I personally believe that the DM didn't notice even though the paladin did not smite, lay on hands or otherwise use any Paladin abilities. If you were a Paladin, you would probably smite the slaver.

[Venger]

If slavery is evil to your god and lawful for the king, there is no way out with this kind of DM trap. Either he doesn't act good or he doesn't act lawful.
Even with the worst interpretation, this character may have commited a chaotic act, but did nothing evil, hence I don't understand why he may have fallen as a paladin, according to RAW.

Then, slavery may be allowed in this kingdom, but if it was not allowed by his faith, should a paladin stay lawful to the local law or to his god's code ?
as ever, most of the things people assume about how pallies are compelled to act are not actually true

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

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

paladins do not have to worship a god or be beholden to a king.

Lawful does not mean "follows the local laws." the simplest example of this is if a pally goes to baator. he's not bound to follow devil law and do naughty things.


I'm shocked that the dm would have made a paladin fall for such actions.

why? that's all people do to paladins. they make them fall.


I'm going to play devils advocate here and say that while I did enjoy the core of your story accepting the actions of the ranger was completely out of character. Killing an unarmed person out of convenience is most likely evil in the standard dnd setting and your dwarf still adventuring with the person after this event seems unlikely at best.

My 50 cents.

I guess your party never runs into evil monks



Killing an unarmed person because he is evil and will cause the death of you and slave children is something a chaotic neutral person would do. It was not out of character......I am the character, I get to decide how they act to things. I hate that people are always telling others how they should be roleplaying. I reprimanded him, but understood his reasoning even if I dont agree with it. That's okay. I don't have to agree with everything my party does, as a Lawful Good character I try to urge the party to the light and order. Not railroad them. People with your opinion are the reason why you can't be good in most games anymore.

I know, right? it's your guy, no one knows what's OOC for him except you. besides, killing bad guys is never an evil act, even if it is an Evil act.

rolling Good is a sucker's game. I always roll Evil and just play a good guy, especially since Good is evil and Evil is good in D&D. no one ever tries to make you fall as an urpriest for saving too many puppy orphanages.


Anyway, great story, everyone wants Good characters/Paladins to fall, just play an Evil/Neutral character instead and nobody will ever question you being too good/nice/anything.
pretty much this


If you took it as a personal attack then I apologize. From your post I did get the feeling that you were attacking me as a roleplayer, and trying to say that I role played my character wrong. I accepted the actions of the Ranger because, lets face it I can either quite playing the game or I can have a different idea about being lawful good. I have explained my take on lawful good as being a guiding force of my party towards order and goodness. I talked the ranger out of several evil actions during the mod, but I talked him out of it. I didn't make any threats or ultimatums.

Being inflexible and bossy is why LG gets such a bad wrap. It is unrealistic, and a caricature of how real LG people would behave. He killed a man I felt was evil to the core, he killed him to save himself, our party, and the slaves. My character does not agree with it, but outside of the two dimensional "PALADIN SMITE!" mentality I can forgive my party for their transgressions and try to guide them to be a force for good. I see lawful good as being a driver of an out of control semi. Sure I could jump out at the slightest hint of trouble or I can stay and try my best to to guide it away from as many innocent people as possible.

My character strives towards a world of order and goodness, where the rule of law bolsters the prosperity of all races. He never lies about anything that will not assure those goals, and he does not impose personal tyranny on those who fall short of his vision. I am perfectly okay with that, I just wish people didn't expect me to be a jerk or stick in the mud because I have ideals.

very well done. way to avoid the pitfalls of lawful stupid/stupid good. I wish more DMs would let people play paladins like this

[Elandris Kajar]

why? that's all people do to paladins. they make them fall.

As proven by this thread:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?419502-Would-this-make-a-Paladin-fall

[Sacrieur]

I'm going to play devils advocate here and say that while I did enjoy the core of your story accepting the actions of the ranger was completely out of character. Killing an unarmed person out of convenience is most likely evil in the standard dnd setting and your dwarf still adventuring with the person after this event seems unlikely at best.

My 50 cents.

It's not really "convenience" like you'd have to wait five more minutes in line. It would have resulted in some serious problems.

[Douglas]

rolling Good is a sucker's game. I always roll Evil and just play a good guy, especially since Good is evil and Evil is good in D&D. no one ever tries to make you fall as an urpriest for saving too many puppy orphanages.
Try playing a Paladin of Slaughter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofSlaughterClas sFeatures) some time. Avoiding a Fall with that Code of Conduct strikes me as a lot harder than the normal Paladin one, and the resulting gameplay might be amusing.

[Venger]

Try playing a Paladin of Slaughter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofSlaughterClas sFeatures) some time. Avoiding a Fall with that Code of Conduct strikes me as a lot harder than the normal Paladin one, and the resulting gameplay might be amusing.

pally of slaughter is... well, it's called PoS for a reason. pally of tyranny's where it's at.

[Andezzar]

Try playing a Paladin of Slaughter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofSlaughterClas sFeatures) some time. Avoiding a Fall with that Code of Conduct strikes me as a lot harder than the normal Paladin one, and the resulting gameplay might be amusing.Yeah the codes of the two evils "paladins" are particularly stupid. Willingly committing one good act causes both of them to fall. Simply mirroring concepts for good and evil does not work.

[General Sajaru]

Yeah the codes of the two evils "paladins" are particularly stupid. Willingly committing one good act causes both of them to fall. Simply mirroring concepts for good and evil does not work.

Why not? If normal paladin is going to be penalized for ever doing evil, shouldn't an evil paladin be similarly penalized for doing good? Now, the whole sowing death and destruction wherever you go as the Paladin of Slaughter is a bit more iffy.

[Keltest]

Why not? If normal paladin is going to be penalized for ever doing evil, shouldn't an evil paladin be similarly penalized for doing good? Now, the whole sowing death and destruction wherever you go as the Paladin of Slaughter is a bit more iffy.

It forces a "stupid evil" playstyle. A LG paladin is perfectly capable of avoiding Lawful Stupid or Stupid Good, but if you take away all good actions, youre pretty much left with only the evil ones that get you hunted down and killed.

An actual evil character would have a vested interest in NOT having the public will be against them, and would be perfectly willing to put on the appearance of being good if it benefitted them.

[Talakeal]

I have 14 cha..yes as a dwarf, it is painful to waste a 16 in pb.

Nothing to add to the thread at the moment, but I just wanted to say I feel your pain.

I too am playing a dwarf (ranger) with a 14 charisma in my current game, and it really hurts when doing PB.

I wonder it they actually thought about how punishing racial stat penalties could be if you are playing against type and using a point buy?

[General Sajaru]

It forces a "stupid evil" playstyle. A LG paladin is perfectly capable of avoiding Lawful Stupid or Stupid Good, but if you take away all good actions, youre pretty much left with only the evil ones that get you hunted down and killed.

An actual evil character would have a vested interest in NOT having the public will be against them, and would be perfectly willing to put on the appearance of being good if it benefitted them.

It doesn't say that you can't perform neutral actions, like not killing everyone you encounter. Unless you're of the opinion that NOT killing someone is a Good action. In which case I can see your point.

[Sir Chuckles]

It doesn't say that you can't perform neutral actions, like not killing everyone you encounter. Unless you're of the opinion that NOT killing someone is a Good action. In which case I can see your point.

"sow destruction and death at all opportunities" is pretty explicit. In addition, the whole "don't listen to anyone who hasn't beaten you up" in combination with "disrespect all other authority figures" put an impressively short lifespan on the character.

[Andezzar]

we're not talking about neutral acts but any little acts of goodness or kindness will cause those guys to fall. Giving one of your party members some food without asking for something in return, healing them for free, donating to an orphanage to appear good etc.
The problem is that good acts don't cease to be good acts even if you use them to set up an evil scheme. Paladins of tyranny or slaughter are unable to do such a thing without falling, which is silly.

[General Sajaru]

Well, I have to say that the whole idea of the Chaotic Evil Paladin of Slaughter following a Code of Conduct is pretty ridiculous, and the way in which it's worded is bit stronger than that of the traditional Paladin. After all, if the standard Paladin Code of Conduct said "Must seek to aid those around them and defeat evil at all opportunities" they'd have a pretty short lifespan too; as is usually pointed out when talking about Paladins playing the Lawful Stupid alignment.


Giving one of your party members some food without asking for something in return, healing them for free,

Both of those are neutral acts; helping your party/followers isn't Good, because it's to the selfish end of having them support you and help you in return. Now, if you gave an orphan on the street a copper then you'd fall immediately. At the same time, the paladin who ignored said orphan would probably have their DM question their goodness, and if they accidentally rode them down while pursuing an evildoer, they'd probably fall too.

[Gale]

The code of conducts for the evil Paladins is absurd. A Paladin of Slaughter is borderline insane under the given rules. They never willingly commit a good act, lest they lose all their powers; and they refuse to help anyone while constantly pursuing murder and destruction. It makes the character impossible to play beyond an NPC villain, and even then it’s debatable as to how this person managed to continue existing in a world where everyone would be against them.
The Paladin of Tyranny is better, but it still forces the player to role-play a cartoon villain the entire time; which completely removes all moral ambiguity from the character. I’ve always been of the opinion that few people regarded themselves as being truly evil. In their minds what they are doing is good. Or they may see evil acts as necessary to accomplish a greater good. It If it wasn’t, then they wouldn’t be doing it. It makes the idea of following a code of conduct that instructs you to be blatantly evil at all times absurd.

[anti-ninja]

The code of conducts for the evil Paladins is absurd. A Paladin of Slaughter is borderline insane under the given rules. They never willingly commit a good act, lest they lose all their powers; and they refuse to help anyone while constantly pursuing murder and destruction. It makes the character impossible to play beyond an NPC villain, and even then it’s debatable as to how this person managed to continue existing in a world where everyone would be against them.
The Paladin of Tyranny is better, but it still forces the player to role-play a cartoon villain the entire time; which completely removes all moral ambiguity from the character. I’ve always been of the opinion that few people regarded themselves as being truly evil. In their minds what they are doing is good. Or they may see evil acts as necessary to accomplish a greater good. It If it wasn’t, then they wouldn’t be doing it. It makes the idea of following a code of conduct that instructs you to be blatantly evil at all times absurd. well that is what you get when you base a classes abilities around being an extremist.

[Elandris Kajar]

well that is what you get when you base a classes abilities around being an extremist.

Yes. This is beautiful.

[martixy]

I'll distance myself of the discussion on paladins and just say that I really like how you pulled one over your DM.

We all know you knew what you were doing. Good job. ;)

[Oddman80]

Thanks for sharing - I was sure he was somehow going to still strip you of something..

[Ettina]

Both of those are neutral acts; helping your party/followers isn't Good, because it's to the selfish end of having them support you and help you in return.

That's assuming that's their motivation. I always play my evil characters as genuinely caring for their fellow PCs despite not caring about anyone else - otherwise, I'd probably do PvP because my characters wouldn't care enough to avoid hurting teammates when they can get away with it. In pretty much every evil campaign I've had, I've run into a moment where, if not for this emotional attachment, my character would probably have harmed her party in some way.

[LoyalPaladin]

I half expected this to be about the fighter losing all his bonus feats.
I did too. I kept waiting for it. That would've been ridiculous. I'm slightly concerned there with be DM revenge planned though. Especially if he was willing to fall a Paladin for following his Paladin code. Haha.

[Segev]

My own signature NE character tends to be VERY loyal to his party, ESPECIALLY if they're Good and/or Lawful people. Playing the hero can buy forgiveness for a lot of sins, and can also get you rewarded - with gratitude - with what you might otherwise have taken by force (and earned enemies for). Staying on good terms with your allies means they will go out of their way to protect/save you when you need it. Having a reputation for loyalty means people will trust you in the future, making it a lot easier to get what you want because they believe you will deal honestly.

In truth, he isn't even as emotionally distant as he might act; he does care, and given preference, will protect friends and allies just because he doesn't want to lose them. However, he will lie and break his word. He will engage in reprehensible acts and betray trusts...but he'll make sure that nobody will ever know, even if that means binding all possible witnesses to his necromantic will to silence them forever.

He'll hope allies might understand, especially if he can come back to save them later and pass his lie off as "to be in a position to save them." But it will niggle at him to know that an ally saw him give his word and break it. Not because being foresworn upsets him, but because that ally now knows his word is not quite so much his bond as he wants everybody to believe.

[ComaVision]

I've been playing my Bardadin of Freedom (not dwarf so I can have a good Charisma lol) as a complete extremist. I will shank someone on the street if they ping evil because evil must die and I do not recognise the authority of the town guards. This character was also involved in the wholesale slaughter of goblin children (DM said they were pinging evil so...). I think my DM was kind of surprised by my take on CG but he's tolerant enough that he's not going to fall me at a whim.



It's kind of funny because my character concept was initially to play as a pacifist but it just wasn't mechanically functional in a party that's DFI dependent for damage and I'm the closest to full BaB.

[anti-ninja]

I've been playing my Bardadin of Freedom (not dwarf so I can have a good Charisma lol) as a complete extremist. I will shank someone on the street if they ping evil because evil must die and I do not recognise the authority of the town guards. This character was also involved in the wholesale slaughter of goblin children (DM said they were pinging evil so...). I think my DM was kind of surprised by my take on CG but he's tolerant enough that he's not going to fall me at a whim.
sounds more CE to me.:smalleek:

[ComaVision]

sounds more CE to me.:smalleek:

I also donate money to the poor, churches, and groups that I find agreeable as an aside from saving the world. :smallcool:

[OldTrees1]

I also donate money to the poor, churches, and groups that I find agreeable as an aside from saving the world. :smallcool:

Still sounds like CE. (Evil can be nice when it wants to and frequently lacks a reason not to be nice when it wants to be nice)

However I think your gaming table uses different moral theories than mine.

[ComaVision]

Still sounds like CE.

Haha, that's fair. My point is that it's arguable/subjective. I only kill inherently evil beings unprovoked.

[OldTrees1]

Haha, that's fair. My point is that it's arguable/subjective. I only kill inherently evil beings unprovoked.

The "inherently" aspect is unexpected given your example. You must be using different goblins than I. That would also explain anti-ninja's reaction (since your goblins are as abnormal as my devils).

[Flickerdart]

I've been playing my Bardadin of Freedom (not dwarf so I can have a good Charisma lol) as a complete extremist. I will shank someone on the street if they ping evil because evil must die and I do not recognise the authority of the town guards. This character was also involved in the wholesale slaughter of goblin children (DM said they were pinging evil so...). I think my DM was kind of surprised by my take on CG but he's tolerant enough that he's not going to fall me at a whim.
Yep, that's definitely Chaotic Evil. A greedy merchant or a corrupt minister might be considered Evil, but their crimes (if any) hardly justify execution. Children of any race definitely don't. A CG act would have been to turn them over to an orphanage so they could be raised Good, or taking care of them yourself, or finding a goblin tribe that was already at least neutral.

[Geddy2112]

I love this. Your class does not automatically determine who you are or how you act. Fighters can be LG and devout to a deity. So can bards, rogues, wizards, and just about every other class sans druid. Likewise, your class and skill set does not de facto determine your day job.

Bravo for roleplaying your character, and hopefully enlightening your DM.

[ComaVision]

The "inherently" aspect is unexpected given your example. You must be using different goblins than I. That would also explain anti-ninja's reaction (since your goblins are as abnormal as my devils).


Yep, that's definitely Chaotic Evil. A greedy merchant or a corrupt minister might be considered Evil, but their crimes (if any) hardly justify execution. Children of any race definitely don't. A CG act would have been to turn them over to an orphanage so they could be raised Good, or taking care of them yourself, or finding a goblin tribe that was already at least neutral.

That is deliberately why I mentioned that they were pinging evil. It suggests that they are inherently evil rather than being taught (nature rather than nurture). If they were neutral and there was anything to suggest that not every single goblinoid in the world was evil then I would totally agree.

I'm absolutely willing to accept that it's an unpopular stance though.

[anti-ninja]

That is deliberately why I mentioned that they were pinging evil. It suggests that they are inherently evil rather than being taught (nature rather than nurture). If they were neutral and there was anything to suggest that not every single goblinoid in the world was evil then I would totally agree.
unless your dm hombrewed it like that I believe just tells a)if there evil and b)if there is a stronger aura like a cleric of an evil god or an evil outsider,but that merchant who steals fro his employes and blackmails anyone who finds out he just pinged still ,and there goes your great axe into his heart.but I think its best to agree to disagree

[Flickerdart]

That is deliberately why I mentioned that they were pinging evil. It suggests that they are inherently evil rather than being taught (nature rather than nurture). If they were neutral and there was anything to suggest that not every single goblinoid in the world was evil then I would totally agree.
It doesn't matter if every single goblin in the world is evil. There was a succubus paladin - and she started out as not only Evil but [Evil]. You can raise a measly goblin as a Good creature.

[anti-ninja]

It doesn't matter if every single goblin in the world is evil. There was a succubus paladin - and she started out as not only Evil but [Evil]. You can raise a measly goblin as a Good creature. exactly ,besides goblins are not evil outsiders so they are not [Evil]and therefore killing them for being goblins is not a CG act,much less a capital G good act.

[Keltest]

exactly ,besides goblins are not evil outsiders so they are not [Evil]and therefore killing them for being goblins is not a CG act,much less a capital G good act.

Honestly, if the DM tells me that goblins are born evil and are incapable of being good, im inclined to take them at their word. Now maybe that particular DM didn't think their implications through all the way, but I have no trouble accepting always-evil to mean ALWAYS evil in non-outsiders if its part of the setting.

[ComaVision]

It doesn't matter if every single goblin in the world is evil. There was a succubus paladin - and she started out as not only Evil but [Evil]. You can raise a measly goblin as a Good creature.


Honestly, if the DM tells me that goblins are born evil and are incapable of being good, im inclined to take them at their word. Now maybe that particular DM didn't think their implications through all the way, but I have no trouble accepting always-evil to mean ALWAYS evil in non-outsiders if its part of the setting.

Thank you. The fact a single succubus was redeemed in a setting that has nothing to do with my DM's means nothing. As far as I have any reason to believe, goblinoids are not redeemable at all.

EDIT: Something interesting I came across:


I am not sure how this will play with the offical settings, but I just started reading Night of the Hunter: Companions Codex, I by R A Salvatore, that is taking aprt int he new realms, and one of the characters who can almost be considered a choosen of Mielikki stated she was advised by her goddess that the various goblinkin and orcs are different then the 'good' races, and by large should be removed.

This was pretty shocking to me, as I do not like the moral absolutism that brings and is a bit of a strike to me against the Forgotten Realms setting. Stating the the race and culture is pure evil and the drow are even redemable as a whole, but the goblinkin are not. The goblinkin are created to destroy, nothing more, to be a blight on the land. As told by Mielikki they are a scourge and challenge to those who would serve goodly purpose. They are not people, but monsters, full goblinkin do not have a conscience. Raising a lion would be safer then raising a goblin child.

This was from around page 45 in the novel.

It is good aligned to be a murder hobo against goblinoids, burning there villages and wiping them out. It makes what happened with Redcloak and his goblins in Order of the Stick seem a reflection of the offical settings.

So there's a least a sprinkling of support within WOTC materials that goblinoid genocide is a good act.

[anti-ninja]

yes but theirs also WOTC materiel like BoED's mercy rules which make it nearly impossible for a good character to kill a bad guy if he is willy willy sowy.But killing goblins is not what i really care about (though I still don't like the implications of killing goblins cause there goblins),its killing Joe the corrupt merchant for pinging evil that makes me think your character is CE .

[ComaVision]

yes but theirs also WOTC materiel like BoED's mercy rules which make it nearly impossible for a good character to kill a bad guy if he is willy willy sowy.But killing goblins is not what i really care about (though I still don't like the implications of killing goblins cause there goblins),its killing Joe the corrupt merchant for pinging evil that makes me think your character is CE .

Just for the record, none of our combatants has made a last minute plea so far.

I would kill Joe the corrupt merchant but apparently he doesn't exist. Like, I've literally not come across one person in the capital or any other town that pings evil. I think since the DM is quite new that he has really polarized alignments. I think that if I come across someone that's evil they're probably actually EVIL, which would justify it in the setting.

[Andezzar]

its killing Joe the corrupt merchant for pinging evil that makes me think your character is CE .Exactly. A creature being evil does not give you a license to kill it nor does it make the killing a non-evil act.

[Venger]

Just for the record, none of our combatants has made a last minute plea so far.

I would kill Joe the corrupt merchant but apparently he doesn't exist. Like, I've literally not come across one person in the capital or any other town that pings evil. I think since the DM is quite new that he has really polarized alignments. I think that if I come across someone that's evil they're probably actually EVIL, which would justify it in the setting.

either that or since you've made it clear that you'll genocide anything that pings on your detect Evil radar, he's not having it come up much to prevent headaches for the game.

[YossarianLives]

@ComaVision

Judging by the fact that you think "mook races" cannot be redeemed and you've never had a enemy surrender. :smallconfused: It sounds like you and your group play hack and slash games. It's not a bad way of playing but I for one just don't enjoy that kind of play-style.

[anti-ninja]

I would kill Joe the corrupt merchant and that is why in my eyes you're CE Joe stole and blackmailed but never killed raped or anything like that,while you have admitted to being genocidal .

[ComaVision]

either that or since you've made it clear that you'll genocide anything that pings on your detect Evil radar, he's not having it come up much to prevent headaches for the game.

Same result :smallbiggrin:


@ComaVision

Judging by the fact that you think "mook races" cannot be redeemed and you've never had a enemy surrender. :smallconfused: It sounds like you and your group play hack and slash games. It's not a bad way of playing but I for one just don't enjoy that kind of play-style.

That's a valid assessment. While we're only about four sessions in to this campaign I don't think we've collectively ever had a session without any combat. One of our players has a really poor memory and while he has an OK enough grasp on combat, non-combat encounters basically mean he isn't playing. I'm certain he wouldn't be able to recount the events of our session yesterday with much accuracy.

[Deadline]

and that is why in my eyes you're CE Joe stole and blackmailed but never killed raped or anything like that,while you have admitted to being genocidal .

Genocidal? Which ethnic group is he trying to exterminate again?

Also, you keep trying to apply real-world morality to D&D. In the real world, good and evil are moral concepts. In D&D, they are literal forces of the universe. You can even have beings literally made of Evil. I'm not sure you can apply the same broad brush strokes.

[OldTrees1]

That is deliberately why I mentioned that they were pinging evil. It suggests that they are inherently evil rather than being taught (nature rather than nurture). If they were neutral and there was anything to suggest that not every single goblinoid in the world was evil then I would totally agree.

I'm absolutely willing to accept that it's an unpopular stance though.

I see. You are playing with irredeemable goblins. This species is not common although it is about as common as the redeemable devils species I play with.

Strange how a simple species replacement can drastically alter the alignments of characters.
:)

[ComaVision]

Genocidal? Which ethnic group is he trying to exterminate again?

Also, you keep trying to apply real-world morality to D&D. In the real world, good and evil are moral concepts. In D&D, they are literal forces of the universe. You can even have beings literally made of Evil. I'm not sure you can apply the same broad brush strokes.

Agreed.


and that is why in my eyes you're CE Joe stole and blackmailed but never killed raped or anything like that,while you have admitted to being genocidal .

I admitted no such thing.

[anti-ninja]

Genocidal? Which ethnic group is he trying to exterminate again?

Also, you keep trying to apply real-world morality to D&D. In the real world, good and evil are moral concepts. In D&D, they are literal forces of the universe. You can even have beings literally made of Evil. I'm not sure you can apply the same broad brush strokes.Fair enough I probably went to far with that statement and for that I apologize.

[Venger]

Genocidal? Which ethnic group is he trying to exterminate again?

Also, you keep trying to apply real-world morality to D&D. In the real world, good and evil are moral concepts. In D&D, they are literal forces of the universe. You can even have beings literally made of Evil. I'm not sure you can apply the same broad brush strokes.

well, genocide is Good in D&D. this guy sounds like he's playing LG to the hilt (pardon the pun) or at least, LG as written by RAW


Many monstrous beings are
not tolerated by the surrounding community and must keep
their existence secret. Evil communities may tolerate the presence
of monsters that other communities would not, but
neutral and good communities are liable to drive away
monsters and those who would associate with them

[Necroticplague]

Genocidal? Which ethnic group is he trying to exterminate again?

Also, you keep trying to apply real-world morality to D&D. In the real world, good and evil are moral concepts. In D&D, they are literal forces of the universe. You can even have beings literally made of Evil. I'm not sure you can apply the same broad brush strokes.

The problem I find that people too often equate the two. If Evil and Good are physical forces, it doesn't make sense to apply morality to them. So the fact you ping evil doesn't mean you're a bad person, just that you naturally posses more of that Evil energy. You might be Evil because you reanimate a lot of undead, and the Evil energy from the spell has been rubbing off, but that doesn't mean you're evil if you have your skeletons help rebuild a town.

[anti-ninja]

well, genocide is Good in D&D. this guy sounds like he's playing LG to the hilt (pardon the pun) or at least, LG as written by RAW
Well he was saying that his character was CG,also I dont think something as subjective as alignment can be determined by raw unless WoTC literally published a list of all possible actions an alignment could and all reactions they could have.I would still like to know why Joe the theoretical merchant would be considered deserving of death by a CG character,but it sounds like his game is more hack &slash so to each there own I guess.

[ComaVision]

Well he was saying that his character was CG,also I dont think something as subjective as alignment can be determined by raw unless WoTC literally published a list of all possible actions an alignment could and all reactions they could have.I would still like to know why Joe the theoretical merchant would be considered deserving of death by a CG character,but it sounds like his game is more hack &slash so to each there own I guess.

Who decides what acts are worth the death penalty and which aren't? Seems pretty subjective to me. Hell, maybe he doesn't get an evil alignment until he's cheating people and also peddling child slaves on the side.

[anti-ninja]

Who decides what acts are worth the death penalty and which aren't? Seems pretty subjective to me. Hell, maybe he doesn't get an evil alignment until he's cheating people and also peddling child slaves on the side. while it is subjective,I just can't see killing everything that pings as good action at best CN one.side note gutting that merchant in the town square is also probably not the smartest thing to ,assuming that not everyone knows about his actions its a good way to make you look like a psychopath.

[Keltest]

while it is subjective,I just can't see killing everything that pings as good action at best CN one.side note gutting that merchant in the town square is also probably not the smartest thing to ,assuming that not everyone knows about his actions its a good way to make you look like a psychopath.

Again, it depends on how the setting handles it. If goblins were created to be slave-warriors to the evil gods who are trying to overthrow the minions of the good and neutral gods, and are under a form of magical domination that compels them to be evil, then yeah, treating them as universally evil is not unreasonable.

[Venger]

Well he was saying that his character was CG,also I dont think something as subjective as alignment can be determined by raw unless WoTC literally published a list of all possible actions an alignment could and all reactions they could have.I would still like to know why Joe the theoretical merchant would be considered deserving of death by a CG character,but it sounds like his game is more hack &slash so to each there own I guess.

I meant comavision, since he said he actively went around genociding everyone, sorry if that was unclear. I don't mean to say "ACTUALLY, comavision, you should change your alignment because I say so, without ever having seen your character" I was just participating in the conversation that alignment is broken.

I don't care what he or anyone puts on their sheet, alignment's only there to determine what version of blasphemy hurts you

[ComaVision]

I meant comavision, since he said he actively went around genociding everyone, sorry if that was unclear. I don't mean to say "ACTUALLY, comavision, you should change your alignment because I say so, without ever having seen your character" I was just participating in the conversation that alignment is broken.
Now I'm confused.

I don't care what he or anyone puts on their sheet, alignment's only there to determine what version of blasphemy hurts you
I agree with this. At best, it's an extremely loose guideline.

[Sir Chuckles]

Who decides what acts are worth the death penalty and which aren't?

Apparently you do.

[ComaVision]

Apparently you do.

Yeah man.

My point was that my opinion is just as valid as another. Maybe not as valid as my DM's but we seem to have an understanding.






inb4 I fall next game

[Ettina]

The problem I find that people too often equate the two. If Evil and Good are physical forces, it doesn't make sense to apply morality to them. So the fact you ping evil doesn't mean you're a bad person, just that you naturally posses more of that Evil energy. You might be Evil because you reanimate a lot of undead, and the Evil energy from the spell has been rubbing off, but that doesn't mean you're evil if you have your skeletons help rebuild a town.

And his character pings 'Good' for killing said necromancer because he removed a source of Evil energy, regardless of real-life morality.

[OldTrees1]

And his character pings 'Good' for killing said necromancer because he removed a source of Evil energy, regardless of real-life morality.

No need to preface that with "real-life" since that view of Good and Evil also separates Good and Evil from in-game morality(usually denoted as good and evil when these RAW derails occur).

[Telok]

Man, you could have some major fun in that game with the corrupt spell metamagic.

Walk into a crowded market ahead of the local paladin squad and cast a corrupt bless spell on some people. Just make sure to throw nondetection on yourself first.

[Andezzar]

Man, you could have some major fun in that game with the corrupt spell metamagic.

Walk into a crowded market ahead of the local paladin squad and cast a corrupt bless spell on some people. Just make sure to throw nondetection on yourself first.It's always fun to make the smite first, don't ask questions later paladins fall.

[daremetoidareyo]

So there's a least a sprinkling of support within WOTC materials that goblinoid genocide is a good act.

This goblin genocide predicated on goblinoids being beings built of destruction, while oxymoronic to a degree, is super fun campaign fodder. What if destruction, as a concept weren't bad? What part of the world ecosystem would shift to compensate? It would be a neat campaign where goblinoids were made extinct, and the cosmic force of destruction chose a new race, a smarter, stronger race, to become beings born to destroy: I nominate dwarves, but you can totally convince me that humans would be good also.

[Ettina]

This goblin genocide predicated on goblinoids being beings built of destruction, while oxymoronic to a degree, is super fun campaign fodder. What if destruction, as a concept weren't bad? What part of the world ecosystem would shift to compensate? It would be a neat campaign where goblinoids were made extinct, and the cosmic force of destruction chose a new race, a smarter, stronger race, to become beings born to destroy: I nominate dwarves, but you can totally convince me that humans would be good also.

Yeah, I think humans are more likely. Dwarves are described as 'often lawful good', while humans can be any alignment. So it's not as big a shift to make humans have a tendency towards evil.

[Andezzar]

Also humans multiply much more quickly than dwarves. Such evil has won campaigns are interesting.

[ComaVision]

Man, you could have some major fun in that game with the corrupt spell metamagic.

Walk into a crowded market ahead of the local paladin squad and cast a corrupt bless spell on some people. Just make sure to throw nondetection on yourself first.

I'm glad my DM isn't on these forums lol

That would make for some interesting events though.

[Flickerdart]

Yeah, I think humans are more likely. Dwarves are described as 'often lawful good', while humans can be any alignment. So it's not as big a shift to make humans have a tendency towards evil.
Hell, there are already evil humans in the BoVD, and "any evil feat" makes a much less obscenely strong race than "any feat." Have them tend to worship Zarus, the God of Racism, and you have something going. You could still have minorities of non-evil humans (mostly for PCs), but these would most likely still be Neutral (due to their evil feat that they probably want to use at least a little bit).

[Deadline]

It's worth noting that if [Good] and [Evil] are actual opposed forces, then the destruction of one is beneficial to the other. So yeah, killing anything that pings as [Evil] is a [Good] thing to do. It may not be a particularly moral thing to do, but it is [Good].

[Keltest]

Yeah, I think humans are more likely. Dwarves are described as 'often lawful good', while humans can be any alignment. So it's not as big a shift to make humans have a tendency towards evil.

My money is on gnomes. A horde of ravenous gnomes.

[Venger]

Hell, there are already evil humans in the BoVD, and "any evil feat" makes a much less obscenely strong race than "any feat." Have them tend to worship Zarus, the God of Racism, and you have something going. You could still have minorities of non-evil humans (mostly for PCs), but these would most likely still be Neutral (due to their evil feat that they probably want to use at least a little bit).

They're called vashar. Pretty cute if relying on vile feats

[Andezzar]

My money is on gnomes Kender. A horde of ravenous gnomes Kender.FTFY. Or something like the Halflings from Overlord.

[Tiri]

In my DM's campaign, any class can fall if they start as Good. Any good character who turns neutral or evil loses all their levels (but somehow survives with no levels).

[Keltest]

FTFY. Or something like the Halflings from Overlord.

Kender are already agents of chaos and destruction.

[Andezzar]

Chaos and destruction, yes, but not evil.

[OldTrees1]

In my DM's campaign, any class can fall if they start as Good. Any good character who turns neutral or evil loses all their levels (but somehow survives with no levels).

This confuses me. It sounds like a really foolish, spiteful, childish, ... rule. However your tone shows only mild annoyance at most. Would you please explain?



On the whole replacement race for goblins question:
Which race breeds like rabbits and already has swarmed over a majority of the civilized lands? Yep, Humans are the replacement race.

[Andezzar]

In my DM's campaign, any class can fall if they start as Good. Any good character who turns neutral or evil loses all their levels (but somehow survives with no levels).So does a character that starts out as evil or neutral also fall if he becomes neutral or good?

[Elandris Kajar]

So does a character that starts out as evil or neutral also fall if he becomes neutral or good?

I am guessing that it is simply to "make it more realistic", any only affects good people.

[Segev]

In my DM's campaign, any class can fall if they start as Good. Any good character who turns neutral or evil loses all their levels (but somehow survives with no levels).

Sounds like he's encouraging people to start as neutral or evil characters.

[Coltron]

Well I died in that campaign last night. Apparently lawful people are banned from this kings castle(I went with my party to try and free the slaves). As we passed through the gate I was disintegrated, no save, by a Glyph of Law Bane(which I haven't found anywhere, go figure). I have never left a game before, not show up anymore, sure; but never flat out pack my stuff and leave. His sister came with me and when we left he was running the ranger through the rest of the mod ignoring us.

[Keltest]

Well I died in that campaign last night. Apparently lawful people are banned from this kings castle(I went with my party to try and free the slaves). As we passed through the gate I was disintegrated, no save, by a Glyph of Law Bane(which I haven't found anywhere, go figure). I have never left a game before, not show up anymore, sure; but never flat out pack my stuff and leave. His sister came with me and when we left he was running the ranger through the rest of the mod ignoring us.

Good choice. Any DM that resorts to "Disintegrate the character" is not to be played with. No gaming is better than bad gaming.

[atemu1234]

Good choice. Any DM that resorts to "Disintegrate the character" is not to be played with. No gaming is better than bad gaming.

I agree. Just walk away.

[Venger]

This confuses me. It sounds like a really foolish, spiteful, childish, ... rule. However your tone shows only mild annoyance at most. Would you please explain?

On the whole replacement race for goblins question

sure does. well, what reason is there to be more than mildly annoyed? just roll neutral/evil and act how you wanted your guy to act. done. nothing's gonna happen to your guy then. this is why no one plays Good characters.


Well I died in that campaign last night. Apparently lawful people are banned from this kings castle(I went with my party to try and free the slaves). As we passed through the gate I was disintegrated, no save, by a Glyph of Law Bane(which I haven't found anywhere, go figure). I have never left a game before, not show up anymore, sure; but never flat out pack my stuff and leave. His sister came with me and when we left he was running the ranger through the rest of the mod ignoring us.

good call, your dm sounds like a real paladin of slaughter.