PDA

View Full Version : Good Can Get You Into A Lot Of Trouble



Bartmanhomer
2019-11-27, 11:07 PM
Ok (D&D 3.5): Ok here's a situation where being good can get you into trouble. Imagine a Chaotic Good Male Elf Bard name Aidon put a sign on a Chaotic Good Male Half-Orc Barbarian name Krunk. Aidon put a sign on Krunk back saying "I hate Trolls because they're stupid" as a prank. One of the troll approach Krunk and the troll was offended by the sigh and start a fight with Krunk. After the horrible beating from the troll. Aidon confessed that he put the offensive sign and Krunk was angry at him. So have anyone ever been in that situation before?

Kitten Champion
2019-11-28, 12:23 AM
What does that have to do with being Good?

Bartmanhomer
2019-11-28, 12:27 AM
What does that have to do with being Good?

I just thought that was a good example.

Kraynic
2019-11-28, 12:27 AM
What does that have to do with being Good?

Actually, if you play a good character and go around trying to make things better for the common folk of the land, I have found a good DM can come up with all sorts of rich and powerful people that can get ticked off at you. I've never had more assassins after me in a game than when I tried playing a very basic good character that cared about "the little" people. :smallredface:

False God
2019-11-28, 12:35 AM
Being a jerk can certainly get you into trouble.

Wouldn't call that good.

mucat
2019-11-28, 01:18 AM
I just thought that was a good example.
That doesn't answer Kitten's question: What has your example got to do with being good?

Lord Raziere
2019-11-28, 01:34 AM
Actually, if you play a good character and go around trying to make things better for the common folk of the land, I have found a good DM can come up with all sorts of rich and powerful people that can get ticked off at you. I've never had more assassins after me in a game than when I tried playing a very basic good character that cared about "the little" people. :smallredface:

killing a king for being a tyrant?
Noble: if they are willing to kill them, they are willing to kill me, so I have to kill them first.

Defend village from orcs?
Noble: I wasn't there to defend them, which makes me look bad and thus threat to my rule, I need to get rid of this adventurer so that they don't prefer them over me

Donate to the poor?
Noble: giving them hope for anything other than becoming my servant? I can't have that.

Insisting upon actually following the letter of the law of something?
Noble: Darn, someone other than me knows how the rules work around here, I can't let that continue, if they can argue against me, I can't make any rule I want while I'm far away from any other figure of authority.

rescuing a lady from an arranged loveless marriage?
noble: hey that was for an alliance I needed, come back with that vital piece to this political/economical deal that will give me more power

and so on and so forth. even a paladin can get in trouble for doing these things, medieval nobility and wealth turns out aren't paragons of law OR good, nor are the rules they support anything like the law we have today. they are in fact, quite rough, varying from noble to noble and full of precedent and ad-hoc rulings than actual rules.

Kaptin Keen
2019-11-28, 02:25 AM
I think the example is meant to show - here's a thing you might do, as a good character, that wouldn't push your alignment to evil, but still might result in serious trouble.

I'm just not sure the example is as innocent as it looks. A sign provoking trolls is only really relevant in a troll-rich environment. So you're putting someone into grave danger, just to laugh at them, and I doubt that's really compatible with a Good alignment. So it's not a harmless prank, it's closer to premeditated manslaughter by proxy.

Kardwill
2019-11-28, 05:16 AM
I just thought that was a good example.

That's actually a pretty bad example. It has nothing to do with being good : It just shows that being a stupid jerk (or hanging out with a stupid jerk) is dangerous.

As the others have said, being good can and will bring you trouble, because it means you're less likely to choose the path of less resistance and just mind your own business when you're facing an injustice. A good character will care, and try to make things better, and bad guys won't like it. It's the reason I like to play good characters : They live interesting (although sometimes short) lives :)

Berenger
2019-11-28, 05:28 AM
I just thought that was a good example.

I'm afraid it isn't. Think about it: why wouldn't a chaotic neutral or chaotic evil character act the same way?

It is a good example of certain brands of chaotic, though. Depending on the motivation and expected outcome of the action it is either of the "childish and dangerously irresponsible" or "jerkish and malicious" variety.

ezekielraiden
2019-11-28, 07:18 AM
Bartmanhomer, if you'd like a suggestion for something I consider a good example of acting entirely consistent with the Good alignment, but which would likely "get you into trouble," consider the following:

Bertrand the Paladin (LG) and Ernest the Rogue (CG) are old friends who adventure in a party together. The party comes to a new town, spends a night at the inn, and goes about looking for good deeds to do and paying jobs to take. Along the way, they meet a poor old woman and her three grandchildren living in squalid conditions because, with all of the corruption in the city's economy, they can barely afford to pay their mortgage debts, spending some nights hungry. The Rogue wants to help because it's wrong for people to take advantage of the poor, the elderly, and children like this, regardless of whether it's "legal"; the Paladin is just as determined to fix this injustice, but sees it as either needing the law to actually take seriously its responsibilities, or needing to be fixed so that it works correctly. Their party goes on an adventure full of wacky hijinks, which ends up revealing that the lady mayor has had an "arragement" with local organized crime, allowing them extralegal leeway for their family men and letting them squeeze money out of people through illegal loans, as long as they keep their operations clean and neat, avoid killing, and send kickbacks to the mayor and the nobility who support her. She is summarily stripped of office by the royal constabulary, and she, many of her cronies, and some of the top crime lords are arrested and set for trial when the royal circuit judge arrives later that week. Thing is? Both the lady (ex-)mayor's supporters and the crime families have far too big a network to capture them all--and many have ties to powerful members if the nobility, even up to the King's council. The party has just made themselves more than a nuisance, they are a threat to the ongoing plans of the Duke of Westhaven to undermine existing institutions in an ongoing bid to usurp the throne (as his grandfather was the second son of the then-reigning queen). Now the party has a real enemy in a high position, and lots of enemies in middle and low positions (the crime families), and they've disrupted the criminal underworld to such an extent that it will be years before a new equilibrium is reached.

They've earned a LOT of trouble. But they earned it by doing something genuinely good, fighting against evil and oppression. Something that a neutral character might not care that much about (there was no real reward for their deeds, beyond the joy of an elderly woman and her small grandchildren, and a few other townsfolk), and an evil character almost certainly wouldn't have (if anything, an Evil character would probably have tried to use it as blackmail to gain influence within the criminal hierarchy.)

Bartmanhomer
2019-11-28, 07:22 AM
That doesn't answer Kitten's question: What has your example got to do with being good?

Because the elf is Chaotic Good.

noob
2019-11-28, 07:30 AM
Because the elf is Chaotic Good.

But the action was not good and a puppy kicking extra evil villain that follows all the laws would have jumped on the opportunity to do that prank if they knew it was possible to cause hatred that way.

Bartmanhomer
2019-11-28, 07:34 AM
But the action was not good and a puppy kicking extra evil villain that follows all the laws would have jumped on the opportunity to do that prank if they knew it was possible to cause hatred that way.

Ok, I didn't think this though about it. :frown:

Berenger
2019-11-28, 07:38 AM
Because the elf is Chaotic Good.

Yes, but him being good isn't crucial to the described action. You might as well conclude that Elves Can Get You Into A Lot Of Trouble or that Bards Can Get You Into A Lot Of Trouble or that Guys Named Aidon Can Get You Into A Lot Of Trouble.

Studoku
2019-11-28, 10:54 AM
Bards Can Get You Into A Lot Of Trouble
That one's well known.

Berenger
2019-11-28, 11:05 AM
That one's well known.

...fair point.

Jophiel
2019-11-28, 01:10 PM
I'm afraid it isn't. Think about it: why wouldn't a chaotic neutral or chaotic evil character act the same way?
A CN character may not admit to fault ("I dunno") and a CE character would certainly try to pin fault on someone else if possible ("I think it was that guy in the corner, go beat him up!"). A CG character, as in the example, would admit fault and take the consequences.

The "Good" part wasn't the prank, it was taking responsibility for a prank gone wrong that led to harm. I'd assume the CG character didn't intend harm when he hung the sign and thought it would just lead to laughs. Lacking in wisdom, perhaps, but not of ill intent.

Jay R
2019-11-28, 03:05 PM
It wasn’t a Good action. It was a Neutral action if there are no trolls around, or a mildly Evil action if there are.

It wouldn’t by itself, change his alignment, but the action was opposed to his alignment, or, at best, irrelevant to it. It certainly wasn’t indicative of, or consistent with, being Good.

Bartmanhomer
2019-11-28, 03:14 PM
Bartmanhomer, if you'd like a suggestion for something I consider a good example of acting entirely consistent with the Good alignment, but which would likely "get you into trouble," consider the following:

Bertrand the Paladin (LG) and Ernest the Rogue (CG) are old friends who adventure in a party together. The party comes to a new town, spends a night at the inn, and goes about looking for good deeds to do and paying jobs to take. Along the way, they meet a poor old woman and her three grandchildren living in squalid conditions because, with all of the corruption in the city's economy, they can barely afford to pay their mortgage debts, spending some nights hungry. The Rogue wants to help because it's wrong for people to take advantage of the poor, the elderly, and children like this, regardless of whether it's "legal"; the Paladin is just as determined to fix this injustice, but sees it as either needing the law to actually take seriously its responsibilities, or needing to be fixed so that it works correctly. Their party goes on an adventure full of wacky hijinks, which ends up revealing that the lady mayor has had an "arrangement" with local organized crime, allowing them extralegal leeway for their family men and letting them squeeze money out of people through illegal loans, as long as they keep their operations clean and neat, avoid killing, and send kickbacks to the mayor and the nobility who support her. She is summarily stripped of office by the royal constabulary, and she, many of her cronies, and some of the top crime lords are arrested and sent for trial when the royal circuit judge arrives later that week. Thing is? Both the lady (ex-)mayor's supporters and the crime families have far too big a network to capture them all--and many have ties to powerful members of the nobility, even up to the King's council. The party has just made themselves more than a nuisance, they are a threat to the ongoing plans of the Duke of Westhaven to undermine existing institutions in an ongoing bid to usurp the throne (as his grandfather was the second son of the then-reigning queen). Now the party has a real enemy in a high position, and lots of enemies in middle and low positions (the crime families), and they've disrupted the criminal underworld to such an extent that it will be years before a new equilibrium is reached.

They've earned a LOT of trouble. But they earned it by doing something genuinely good, fighting against evil and oppression. Something that a neutral character might not care that much about (there was no real reward for their deeds, beyond the joy of an elderly woman and her small grandchildren, and a few other townsfolk), and an evil character almost certainly wouldn't have (if anything, an Evil character would probably have tried to use it as blackmail to gain influence within the criminal hierarchy.)
Your example is better than mine, I'll give you that.

Jophiel
2019-11-28, 06:24 PM
It wasn’t a Good action. It was a Neutral action if there are no trolls around, or a mildly Evil action if there are.
It would only be evil if it was done with malice and the hope of getting the other guy beat up. Doing something that proves to be a poorly thought out idea isn't evil (or good, or neutral), it's just a thing. Most actions don't really qualify for an alignment call.

On the other hand, recognizing that your actions hurt someone and willingly taking the blame and consequences is a good action.

False God
2019-11-28, 06:31 PM
The "Good" part wasn't the prank, it was taking responsibility for a prank gone wrong that led to harm. I'd assume the CG character didn't intend harm when he hung the sign and thought it would just lead to laughs. Lacking in wisdom, perhaps, but not of ill intent.

Maybe, but the trouble wouldn't have occurred if they hadn't pulled the prank in the first place. Sure, they apologized, which may or may not be good depending on the sincerity and plausibility. Taking responsibility for your actions doesn't make you good. It's learning from your misdeeds/mistakes and not repeating them that makes you good. An evil person may take responsibility and apologize because it ensures the victim continues to be loyal toward them and diffuses the situation. A neutral person might apologize and take responsibility because they know the apology holds meaning to the victim, but holds no meaning to the neutral person saying it.

I mean what, Krunk got his butt whooped by the prank and Aidon had to say "sorry bro"? Big deal. If Aidon suffers no punishment or doesn't have to make any amends, what's to stop him from doing it again? He just learned he can "prank" others and say "sorry" and everything will be hunky-dory.

Kitten Champion
2019-11-28, 08:14 PM
Maybe, but the trouble wouldn't have occurred if they hadn't pulled the prank in the first place. Sure, they apologized, which may or may not be good depending on the sincerity and plausibility. Taking responsibility for your actions doesn't make you good. It's learning from your misdeeds/mistakes and not repeating them that makes you good. An evil person may take responsibility and apologize because it ensures the victim continues to be loyal toward them and diffuses the situation. A neutral person might apologize and take responsibility because they know the apology holds meaning to the victim, but holds no meaning to the neutral person saying it.

I mean what, Krunk got his butt whooped by the prank and Aidon had to say "sorry bro"? Big deal. If Aidon suffers no punishment or doesn't have to make any amends, what's to stop him from doing it again? He just learned he can "prank" others and say "sorry" and everything will be hunky-dory.

Technically no apology was issued, this theoretical character admitted culpability for his actions and nothing more. I would say that has shades of Lawfulness - not Good or Evil - and that regardless the primary source of "Trouble" here was that he was a **** to his companion in the first place, not his specific standing in D&D cosmology.

Generally though, I'm not inclined to view a PC's every thought and action through the prism of D&D alignment just because they have one written on their sheet. PC's are supposed to represent a sentient Creature at the end of the day with multifaceted personalities and not nine immutable moral paradigms. To me, alignment is more about one's overarching motivations and core moral standards than whether you've properly sorted the trash or tipped your waitress. Pulling a weird and dumb prank is just pulling a weird and dumb prank unless it goes to such extremes that it becomes malicious sadism.

Jophiel
2019-11-28, 09:37 PM
Taking responsibility for your actions doesn't make you good. It's learning from your misdeeds/mistakes and not repeating them that makes you good.
No, learning from your mistakes makes you experienced or wise. The morality comes from sincerely admitting wrong even when it would be easier/beneficial to do otherwise.

Florian
2019-11-29, 12:23 AM
I just thought that was a good example.

As usual, it leaves the impression that you don't have any clue about what alignments are and how they work.

Bartmanhomer
2019-11-29, 10:12 AM
As usual, it leaves the impression that you don't have any clue about what alignments are and how they work.

I've been playing D&D 3.5 for quite a while so I do have a clue of what alignments are and how they work.

Wraith
2019-11-29, 10:35 AM
If I were in a generous mood - ie, I hadn't just been beaten up by a troll - I might admit that it was a Good act to admit your mistake and apologise, even though you knew that Krunk was going to be mad at you and possibly even retaliate. You tell him anyway and accept the consequences, because it's the right thing to do.

Pulling a harmless prank on a comrade isn't Evil, it's just not particularly Lawful. A harmless prank that gets out of hand and unintentionally causes harm also isn't Evil, it's just a mistake.

Good characters can make mistakes and still be Good, provided that they acknowledge the mistake, take responsibility and try to make reparations. A Neutral character might shrug it off and deny responsibility, and an Evil one would revel in the harm they have caused.

Just don't make a habit out of trying to embarrass your companions, and you should be fine.

AMFV
2019-11-29, 11:25 AM
killing a king for being a tyrant?
Noble: if they are willing to kill them, they are willing to kill me, so I have to kill them first.

Or it turns out that tyrants are also jerks to the nobles who may not be legally able to remove them, so they may love you for that rather than trying to kill you. Also the nobles don't likely think of themselves as tyrants and may not consider this a threat.



Defend village from orcs?
Noble: I wasn't there to defend them, which makes me look bad and thus threat to my rule, I need to get rid of this adventurer so that they don't prefer them over me

Or frame it so that they were only able to defend the village because I was there, or pay them for their services so that looks like the way I handled the problem.



Donate to the poor?
Noble: giving them hope for anything other than becoming my servant? I can't have that.

Or you might want that, if they're hopeful then they'll work harder, and you can also get knights and vassals of better quality if you do that. Also not all nobles are exclusively self centered.



Insisting upon actually following the letter of the law of something?
Noble: Darn, someone other than me knows how the rules work around here, I can't let that continue, if they can argue against me, I can't make any rule I want while I'm far away from any other figure of authority.

This doesn't bother me because I'm not just making arbitrary rules, only the ones I actually am allowed to make.



rescuing a lady from an arranged loveless marriage?
noble: hey that was for an alliance I needed, come back with that vital piece to this political/economical deal that will give me more power

This one isn't a question of good or law really, so I'm not actually going to address it.



and so on and so forth. even a paladin can get in trouble for doing these things, medieval nobility and wealth turns out aren't paragons of law OR good, nor are the rules they support anything like the law we have today. they are in fact, quite rough, varying from noble to noble and full of precedent and ad-hoc rulings than actual rules.

Medieval nobles varied from noble to noble as to whether they were paragons of law and good. The same as people do today. Paladins might get into trouble with one noble and be lauded by another.

a_flemish_guy
2019-12-08, 08:50 PM
so a scenario: you are jonathan freeguy, CG rogue, one day before you get out of town to fight the evil lich zangarax, who's plan to dominate all life is entering it's final stages, you enter the general store and find 2 ruffians extorting the shop owner for protection money in the name of the local crime syndicate
naturally you beat the snot out of them since it's the good thing to do

sure, we can pretend that it's a pure coincidence that if you return in triumph that the shopkeeper was hanged and his store burned or that you're not at fault for the evils of the crime syndicate since everyone has free will but to me this strikes as throwing a rock at the wasp-hive near the weelchair-bound allergic man and walking away, sure the wasps could have chosen not to sting him but we all know it doesn't work that way

also how would the situation change if it was reginald goodheart, LG palladin?

Lord Raziere
2019-12-08, 10:43 PM
Or it turns out that tyrants are also jerks to the nobles who may not be legally able to remove them, so they may love you for that rather than trying to kill you. Also the nobles don't likely think of themselves as tyrants and may not consider this a threat.

*snip*

none of your examples invalidate my examples. this is thread about how good can get you INTO trouble. reasons why it might not, are irrelevant to the thread and in fact are antithetical to the point.

Kaptin Keen
2019-12-09, 02:41 AM
On reflection, this thread should have been called: Good aligned characters can still get into a lot of trouble.

Doing good, by and large, will very rarely land you in trouble. Sure, the old 'save the ork child' - and then he grows up to have both the intelligence and education of a human general and the ferocious strength of an ork warlord, and drowns the world in war - whoops. But otherwise, nah, not usually.

a_flemish_guy
2019-12-09, 03:13 AM
On reflection, this thread should have been called: Good aligned characters can still get into a lot of trouble.

Doing good, by and large, will very rarely land you in trouble. Sure, the old 'save the ork child' - and then he grows up to have both the intelligence and education of a human general and the ferocious strength of an ork warlord, and drowns the world in war - whoops. But otherwise, nah, not usually.

this reminds me of a FFH story (FFH is a D&D modification of civ4, bassicly the elohim are budhist monks that ingame can create units from other factions, bannor are the palladin faction and sheaim are wizards trying to destroy the world)
spoilered for length
General Barthan had been leader of the Fourth Bannor Regiment for thirty years, but he knew the task before him would be his hardest. The city of Grottisburg looked like any other Sheaim city, and Sheaim cities bore an unsettling resemblance to Bannor cities. He understood, however, what needed to be done. They could not be allowed to stand; those untainted by the Ashen Veil would be accepted into the Bannor Empire, while the rest, the vast majority of people, could only be cured by blessed steel.

Barthan was not a cruel man. He had a wife and two children, who he would unhesitatingly sacrifice his life for. He did not enjoy killing the Sheaim, and was always ready to offer redemption to those who could earn it. Not a single Sheaim child had died by the blades of the Fourth Bannor Regiment, even when the Confessors warned they would grow to be a threat to the Bannor empire. Barthan would rather deal with that threat then have a child's blood on his hands.

But the Elohim were too compassionate. They offered mercy and forgiveness to the most wretched of dark sorcerors. They offered solace to women whose husbands had been slain by righteous steel after killing hundreds of innocents for their dark rituals. The Sheaim cities were allowed to stand, wretched temples and all. The Bannor had tolerated this oddity for some time, but it was clear that Grottisburg had to be burned to the ground and cleansed totally in holy flame. Here, the dark mages of the Sheaim had founded the Ashen Veil. Here, even the children were born corrupted and twisted...

This meant, of course, that Barthan would have to break the unspoken, unofficial oath of the Fourth Regiment. It wasn't a legal or religious oath, of course, but Barthan still found himself fearing Junil's wrath, even for doing what was necessary. Killing children... Barthan hoped they would not look human. He prayed that they would be as corrupted on the outside as they were on the inside. Demons possessed every soul in this town, or so he had heard. Wretched imps feasted upon the fury of the lowest beggars, slitting each other's throats for a bit of bread, and dark princes guided the hands of magistrates and kings.

So the city needed to be burned. He knew that. But the Elohim were another matter. Which was why Barthan was going now, to meet the leader of the Fifth Temple of the Order of the Stallion. As he entered the tent, Barthan hoped the leader of the Fifth House, one Brother Andrews, was a sensible man, not some academic who sent his brother monks to die while he prattled on about poetry and beauty. Looking upon the man, Barthan also suspected this was true. Brother Andews had several nasty scars, and although he was an old man with a long beard and hair longer then any Bannor, man or woman, would ever have, he was also suprisingly fit, and nimbly leapt up to great Barthan. "Ah, yes! Barthan, is it, of the Fourth Regiment? Your reputation precedes you! I have heard many good things, both about your leadership and your character. Sit, sit! If you like, share a meal with me!"

Andrews' meal was a simple offering of bread and water, as befitted a monk. Barthan knew of so-called Elohim monks who would die without their fine wines and venison, and Andrews' relatively simple meal helped Barthan's opinion of the man. He probably ate no better then his troops, and that was a good sign. The spent some time discussing philosophy, after which Barthan finally broke the question. "If the Fifth House takes Grottisburg, what are its plans?" Andrews looked girm. "It's out of my hands. The Fifth House is withdrawing tomorrow... they're sending in..." Andrews paused, and briefly studied Barthan. "Tell me," Andrews asked, "have you heard of the Order of the Blank Banner?"

Barthan's cup tumbled to the ground. After a moment of shocked silence, he spoke. "I thought... that... I thought..." "You thought," Andrews said, "it was just a rumor we made up, to scare the Svartalfar and keep them off our backs? I assure you, the Order of the Blank Banner is quite real. I have heard much good of you, General Barthan, and speaking to you, what I have heard is true. So I shall tell you about them. I must ask that none hear of the truth about that Order. It does not exist in any of the records. It is not spoken of. You will find it to be... unique. I very much doubt you will like them. If I send you to them, do you swear by your Junil that you will not speak of them to any?" Barthan swore it, and Andrews nodded. "Very good. Go about one mile northwest, until you see a lone obelisk. Ideally, go alone, but if you bring an escort, bring only those you trust, and make them swear as you have sworn. Wait there until a Paladin approaches you. He will be like none you have seen before, with unmarked armor, but I assure you, he is a warrior of Good. When he asks who you are, tell him you are nobody, going nowhere, seeking nothing. He will take you to meet the leader of the Order of the Blank Banner."

Barthan had heard of the legendary Order of the Blank Banner. It was said that they were not bound by the same vows binding the rest of the Elohim army, that were sent in to do what the Elohim could not otherwise do. They were said to be ruthless, killing without hesitation and not hesitating to lower themselves to the level of their foes in order to defeat the forces of Evil. It was rumored that others in the Elohim military were forbidden to even speak to them, for they were so deadly they had to be treated like threats as much to their fellow Elohim as to those they were sent to destroy. So it was with sword drawn that Barthan found the obelisk.

He waited only a few minutes before the promised paladin came. He was a giant, easily nine feet tall and wearing enough armor for a knight, horse and rider. The proportions of his body were odd and unnatural, and his armor was plain steel, decorated with only a handful of holy enchantments. The Paladin bowed before Barthan. "You have travelled long and far," the Paladin rumbled, "to find this place. Who are you?" "I am nobody, going nowhere, seeking nothing," Barthan replied. The Paladin got up. "Follow me." "Wait," asked Barthan. "How do I know this isn't a trap." The Paladin took off his helmet, revealing a grotesque, horrifically deformed face. "This," he said, "is what the Balseraph's experiments did to me. My body was twisted, my mind corrupted, my soul crushed. The Elohim could save the last two, with many painful years, but my body remains as you see it. I am stronger than any mortal man was meant to be, but at the cost of great agony. I fight to assure my place in Heaven, to be rid of this body and be freed. If you doubt my intentions," the Paladin said, kneeling so that his head was within easy reach of Barthan's blade, "send me there now." Barthan nodded, and sheathed his sword.

Barthan wasn't precisely sure how he had reached the camp of the Order of the Blank Banner. Their road was one with many twists and turns across the barren wastes, and every twig, rock, and gnarled tree seemed to be a landmark for the mysterious Paladin. Finally, they reached the camp. True to its name, a banner of Elohim blue flew above it, but it had no insignia. A dark figure appeared suddenly before Barthan, holding a sword to his throat. "Someone must have trusted you, to tell you how to reach us," the mysterious man said. Barthan noticed the man had a thick Sidar accent. "I hope his trust was not misplaced." With that, the sword was withdrawn and the figure vanished. Barthan decided not to ask any questions, but the Paladin answered his unspoken one. "That was Saeth. Our Sidar assassin. They say shades don't have emotions. I think they do. Just not in the same way as us. They're dulled, simple emotions, but they are there. Saeth feels, as much as he can in his state, regret. Of course, I could be wrong. But if he did not regret his present state, he would not be fighting alongside us, seeking his redemption as we all do."

Barthan took a moment to look over the shadowy camp before getting up his courage. He didn't want to know the answer to his next question, but he had to ask. "Who is in charge here?" The Paladin pointed towards the tent in the camp's center. "Morthas. You'll know him when you see him." Barthan went up to the tent. The first thing he noticed was its guard. A vampire. Barthan pretended not to notice, but the vampire smiled. "Curious, aren't you? Wondering how a shade, a freak, and a vampire ended up fighting with the Elohim?" Barthan studied the vampire, then decided to satiate his curiosity and listen. "You heard of the Elohim conquest of the Calabim's western colonies, yes? Well, when they freed us, the so-called feeding stock, we wanted to get even. So we did it the only way we knew how. The monks tried to stop us, but... we feasted. We had our way with the vampiric women. We slaughtered the men like pigs. And then, some of us, the maddest of the mad, drunk on newfound power, found out how the Vampires had attained their state. So... we turned the tables. We became vampires ourselves, and repayed our former masters a thousand times over. The Elohim did there best to stop us, but we sealed quite a few of the scumbags into crypts and let them spend eternity suffering. Unfortunately, cattle's blood didn't exactly do the trick like we'd hoped. Turns out it has to be the blood of a sentient... some of us became criminals, disappearing into the lands of Esus. Some of us became mercenaries. And some of us... joined the Order of the Blank Banner. We go hungry a lot. It's rare that anyone really deserves death. But it happens... however, I have held you long enough. Our commander awaits."

Barthan wondered what lay within the tent as he entered. It couldn't be any stranger then a freak paladin, or a vampire guard. Could it? The Order's commander was a relatively young man, sitting in a simple chair, face towards the ground. At first, he seemed to be wearing a rough leather helmet. Then Barthan saw that his head was uncovered, but criscrossed with countless scars, burned into his flesh. "They're to cover up the unholy symbols," the man said without looking up. Barthan shuddered. He should have known. It'd be a Sheaim. "State your business." "It's about Grottisburg..." "You're Bannor. You want me to burn it to the ground. Am I correct?" Barthan nodded, before realizing Morthas still looked towards the ground. "Yes, you are. You see..." "Stop," Morthas commanded. "I already know what must be done. Grottisburg will burn. Keep your men out of it. I will summon fire elementals to do the foul deed. That way, none of your men need corrupt themselves with the slaughter. I have nothing to lose, so I will take whatever punishment the gods deliver to me." Barthan went silent.

Morthas sat in contemplation, and then asked, "have you any regrets?" Barthan gave the thought a moment of honest contemplation. "None." "Do you remember Tongurstad?" "Yes," Barthan said. It had been his men that had taken the city. "Do you remember," Morthas continued, "what you were ordered to do?" "I was ordered," Barthan said, unsure of why he was answering, "to kill everyone there." "Did you?" "No. I spared the children, the slaves, and all the other innocents who had suffered under Sheaim oppression." "Why did you spare the children?" "Because they were children. One does not slaughter children. I disobeyed orders, but luckily, the Overcouncil supported my decision. I was reprieved."

Morthas nodded. "Yes, the Overcouncil. The Bannor have never been entirely fond of them, have they?" "No." "Well then, Barthan, it may interest you to know that while some of the children you spared grew up to live perfectly healthy lives, others were... tainted. One child in particular, the son of a great archmage, secretly plotted to avenge his father's death. For many years he practiced the forbidden Sheaim arts in secret, before killing his adoptive parents and rejoining his people. Countless innocents died by his hands. Countless murders that could have been prevented... had you killed but a single child. Do you regret your decision, Barthan?" "No," Barthan said firmly. "Then it may also interest you to know..." "Let me guess. That child sits before me now, a changed man, right?" Morthas looked briefly suprised. "How did you guess?" Barthan grinned. "I kind of figured where that old yarn was going. You Elohim are huge fans of the whole redemption theme." Morthas smiled, although it looked a bit odd on his face. "You called me an Elohim, not a Sheaim. I take that as a high compliment. You seem to have adjusted rather quickly to our... eccentricity. If ever your kind acts earn you the wrath of the Bannor... there's always room in the Order of the Blank Banner."

AMFV
2019-12-09, 09:43 AM
none of your examples invalidate my examples. this is thread about how good can get you INTO trouble. reasons why it might not, are irrelevant to the thread and in fact are antithetical to the point.

My issue is that your "point" was basically a rant attacking people in positions of authority. Certainly being good can get you into trouble but then again you could get into trouble for any philosophical position contrary (or even) shared with people in positions of authority.

Lord Raziere
2019-12-09, 08:43 PM
My issue is that your "point" was basically a rant attacking people in positions of authority. Certainly being good can get you into trouble but then again you could get into trouble for any philosophical position contrary (or even) shared with people in positions of authority.

And those philosophical positions are irrelevant to the thread. because its about how GOOD that can get you into trouble. what you say is true, but if I'm telling a story about good people doing good things and want to cause trouble for them, your points don't really matter.

is rant just a word for any long bunch of words that people don't like now? I was under the impression that the word "rant" has connotations of being angry, fast and overly negative. I was just listing examples relevant to the thread.

ezekielraiden
2019-12-10, 01:52 AM
so a scenario: you are jonathan freeguy, CG rogue, one day before you get out of town to fight the evil lich zangarax, who's plan to dominate all life is entering it's final stages, you enter the general store and find 2 ruffians extorting the shop owner for protection money in the name of the local crime syndicate
naturally you beat the snot out of them since it's the good thing to do

sure, we can pretend that it's a pure coincidence that if you return in triumph that the shopkeeper was hanged and his store burned or that you're not at fault for the evils of the crime syndicate since everyone has free will but to me this strikes as throwing a rock at the wasp-hive near the weelchair-bound allergic man and walking away, sure the wasps could have chosen not to sting him but we all know it doesn't work that way
Good that acts with reckless disregard for perfectly expectable consequences of its own actions is at best a poor take on Good. At worst, it is a particularly unpleasant form of Neutrality, that pats itself on the back for being a "good person" while actually making situations substantially worse all the time.

Or, in other words? This sounds like the active-interventionist form of Stupid Good (as opposed


also how would the situation change if it was reginald goodheart, LG palladin?
Well, at the very least, I would expect that a Paladin would not simply start a fight in the middle of the store. From there, it depends on too many details you have not described. How much is the bribe? Can I afford to pay it and then work with the shopkeeper to resolve the underlying problem later? Is it possible to draw real authority's attention to the problem so that *I* don't have to solve it (even if it reflects poorly on them that only a Paladin can get their attention to fix it)? Can I challenge them, to hopefully deflect attention from the shopkeeper and onto myself? Etc.

Without knowing more about the situation at hand, I cannot say more. But in any game where I'm playing a Paladin, I certainly expect that the DM is willing to let this problem be ACTUALLY resolved, though it may be difficult and dangerous to do so. If this is a world where you dangle a protection-racket in front of us that we cannot do anything about, I'm going to have a very serious conversation with that DM afterward. And there is a non-negligible chance that the wrong answers could induce me to walk from that table.