PDA

View Full Version : "Is this Evil? Or Just Taking Out The Trash?"



Pages : [1] 2

Leliel
2008-09-16, 06:11 PM
I found another thread, this one by RavingDork, about one of his 4E pallies:

"We have a paladin of Bahamut in our group who is absolutely ardent about battling evil without mercy. Now, I know paladins can no longer lose their powers in 4th Edition, but if they break their vows/code/whatever, their church might seek to punish them for their transgressions. Their alignment might change to match their continuing deeds as well. Hopefully, you see where this is going by now.

After a successful adventure involving the tracking down and capture (via a vicious battle followed by an Intimidate check) of a known killer and heretic, the party is traveling back to the church on their horses with the prisoner in tow (being pulled along by the paladin's horse with hands bound). The heretic called out to his captor, tha paladin, and insulted his faith and threatened death and dismemberment to his loved ones (something about having powerful friends).

Suddenly, the paladin stopped his horse, dismounted, drew his sword as he made his way to the captive (who began to scream for mercy) and then brutally hacked at the tendons in the captive's legs. The paladin then remounted and began DRAGGING the now crippled heretic behind his horse. He did not survive the two day journey to the church for trial.

The other characters were too feaked out by the deed and too intimidated by the paladin to do anything about it.

Having killed a heretic of the church, the paladin likely won't suffer much more than a slap on the wrist from his superiors (it is not for you to decide who is to be punished before trial!), but I'm wondering if I should change his alignment to evil. The paladin has always been brutal and merciless in his fight against evil, but this seems to me like a new height of depravity for him.

Looking for opinions on the matter. What would you, as a DM do, if anything?"

I personally suggested he homebrew a Blackguard PP for him, but what do you think?

shadow_archmagi
2008-09-16, 06:14 PM
That is evil. A quick decapitation would be debatable, but two DAYS of murderous pain?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-16, 06:14 PM
Eh, it depends on the exact nature of the threat. I'd probably change him to neutral no matter what, but if the guy is promising that he will get off due to powerful allies and then hunt down and murder innocents, it would be ambiguous whether killing him is a bad thing. Torturing him, which is what happened here, is evil, but probably not enough to force a fall.

Dode
2008-09-16, 06:14 PM
What about casting Holy Rain on evil goblin babies?


yes I've seen a RSoP actually do this.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-16, 06:18 PM
What about casting Holy Rain on evil goblin babies?


yes I've seen a RSoP actually do this."I move all the babies into a circle 10' in radius. I then get a longspear and remove the point. I take the -4 for nonlethal damage, and use Smite Evil and Whirlwind attack. The only ones that died deserve it."
*smack*
"What was that for?!"
"YOU deserved it.":smallannoyed:
Yes, that doesn't work by RAW, I'm really tired, gimme a break.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-16, 06:34 PM
That's LN at the very least. Presumably his faith allows for the execution of heretics by designated members of the faithful, and Paladins count as potential executioners. Draining him to death may be cruel, but it may also be the correct penalty for blasphemers. A lot depends on whether the Paladin was acting within his Code or not.

It's only LE if he did it out of personal spite - he was deliberately and excessively cruel to feed his own personal vendetta. Or if he broke the spirit of the church's regulations. NE if he broke the letter of the regulations too.

Of course, one act does not an alignment change make, but a 3e Paladin would likely have fallen for that... though not as bad a fall as, say, killing your liege lord :smallwink:

Fri
2008-09-16, 06:49 PM
You should ask why he didn't just decapitate the heretic.

RukiTanuki
2008-09-16, 06:56 PM
To me, that goes against everything being a paladin is supposed to be about. You're supposed to be the better person. A captured enemy throwing taunts at you should have no effect, or at the very least, not cause you to act out of anger.

The heretic's words did no harm, not to anything but the paladin's pride. If there was harm in his words, a gag would have sufficed. As it stands, the paladin hobbled a prisoner and dragged the man to his death... because the paladin wasn't thick-skinned enough.

This is Anakin and the sandpeople, padawan, take heed.

Enlong
2008-09-16, 06:56 PM
You should ask why he didn't just decapitate the heretic.

"I was only charged with bringing him to trial, not with execution. Any injuries he sustained on the way there were not mine to treat."

But yeah. Definately cruel and evil, in my opinion. Punishment... I'm not sure, it deptends of whether or not the church is as radical as this Paladin.

RebelRogue
2008-09-16, 07:03 PM
This is no doubt an Evil action. Certainly Evil enough that the a paladin of a LG deity should at least have a serious talk with his church superiors in case they'd find out.

chiasaur11
2008-09-16, 07:32 PM
Jeeze.

Couldn't you just kick him into a nearby engine?

It'd be quicker.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2008-09-16, 07:36 PM
You can't tell me you allowed a LG Paly in your game act like this and keep his alignment.
There's a difference between a vengeful paladin and a paladin who makes everything into a crusade/genocide.

Dode
2008-09-16, 07:45 PM
"I move all the babies into a circle 10' in radius. I then get a longspear and remove the point. I take the -4 for nonlethal damage, and use Smite Evil and Whirlwind attack. The only ones that died deserve it."
*smack*
"What was that for?!"
"YOU deserved it.":smallannoyed:
Yes, that doesn't work by RAW, I'm really tired, gimme a break.
Such is the folly of a world with an objective, hereditary morality.

snoopy13a
2008-09-16, 07:46 PM
Alignment shift: yes

Reprimand from superiors: possibly but only if they know about it first

BRC
2008-09-16, 07:58 PM
I found another thread, this one by RavingDork, about one of his 4E pallies:

"We have a paladin of Bahamut in our group who is absolutely ardent about battling evil without mercy. Now, I know paladins can no longer lose their powers in 4th Edition, but if they break their vows/code/whatever, their church might seek to punish them for their transgressions. Their alignment might change to match their continuing deeds as well. Hopefully, you see where this is going by now.

After a successful adventure involving the tracking down and capture (via a vicious battle followed by an Intimidate check) of a known killer and heretic, the party is traveling back to the church on their horses with the prisoner in tow (being pulled along by the paladin's horse with hands bound). The heretic called out to his captor, tha paladin, and insulted his faith and threatened death and dismemberment to his loved ones (something about having powerful friends).

Suddenly, the paladin stopped his horse, dismounted, drew his sword as he made his way to the captive (who began to scream for mercy) and then brutally hacked at the tendons in the captive's legs. The paladin then remounted and began DRAGGING the now crippled heretic behind his horse. He did not survive the two day journey to the church for trial.

The other characters were too feaked out by the deed and too intimidated by the paladin to do anything about it.

Having killed a heretic of the church, the paladin likely won't suffer much more than a slap on the wrist from his superiors (it is not for you to decide who is to be punished before trial!), but I'm wondering if I should change his alignment to evil. The paladin has always been brutal and merciless in his fight against evil, but this seems to me like a new height of depravity for him.

Looking for opinions on the matter. What would you, as a DM do, if anything?"

I personally suggested he homebrew a Blackguard PP for him, but what do you think?
I don't know about 4e alignments, but in 3.x I would consider that a falling action, or at least somthing that would require a deed to redeem himself in the eyes of his superiors. A "Fall Lite" as it were.
It's been established that killing an evil person is a good act, the question was, is it a lawful act. In this case, he had been given orders to bring the heretic in for trial. He killed him, violating those orders. Therefore, this was a chaotic act. Now, had he been given orders to stop the heretic, or had the heretic been actively doing somthing that his paladin code, or other orders, told him to stop, it would have been a lawful act.

For example, had the heretic been summoning a demon in the middle of the town square, his paladin oaths would have said to protect the townsfolk at all costs. Therefore, he could have killed him while being lawful.

Personally, I don't think a blackguard is quite right for this situation. If I was going to assign him the 4e equivilent of a 3e PRC it would be the Grey Guard, a paladin who can break his paladin oaths to a limited extent. A paladin who is given permission to combat great evils by performing small ones.

Edit: Yeah, just re-read the OP. That was definetally an evil act. If he had just chopped off his head, it would be different, but hacking off his legs and letting him drag to death is Evil with a capital E.

Riffington
2008-09-16, 07:59 PM
Draining him to death may be cruel, but it may also be the correct penalty for blasphemers. A lot depends on whether the Paladin was acting within his Code or not.

It's only LE if he did it out of personal spite - he was deliberately and excessively cruel to feed his own personal vendetta.

Um, regardless of the "correct" penalty for blasphemy, torturing a man to death is evil.
If he did it out of personal spite, it's chaotic evil.
If it's the law as written, it's lawful evil.

Occasional Sage
2008-09-16, 08:03 PM
I'd certainly call it an evil act, but a single act doesn't change your alignment; whether this shifts his alignment would depend on the paladin's pattern of actions.

Really, a captive's threats aren't grounds for execution by torture, which makes this gratuitous and personal. The group was charged with capturing and returning the heretic to the church leadership. That makes this a violation of both Good and Lawful behavior.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-16, 08:14 PM
Um, regardless of the "correct" penalty for blasphemy, torturing a man to death is evil.
If he did it out of personal spite, it's chaotic evil.
If it's the law as written, it's lawful evil.

But that doesn't mean the character is strictly Evil. A LN code may have draconian punishments for various crimes (drawing and quartering, cutting off limbs, etc.) and if the Paladin carried out the letter and spirit of the law, then it is a LN act.

However, you are right that even a LG character would not inflict the cruelest penalties, even when authorized by the Law, unless all other options have been exhausted. A LG Paladin would have taken the Heretic to his superiors, dispassionately listed his crimes, and waited for judgment. If his Commander ordered a LG Paladin to torture the Heretic to death, as the Code dictates, then the Paladin may ask once again for clemency for the Heretic, but if the Commander is firm, the Paladin will do what he must, by the Code.

Now, if the Paladin was authorized to torture the Heretic to death at any time, but it was implied that such decisions should really be made by the Commander, then it was a LE act, since the Paladin put his own desires above the spirit of the law. If the Code didn't even permit the Paladin to torture Heretics without explicit authorization, then it was a NE act. If the Code forbade the Paladin from torturing a captive to death, and the Paladin did so out of pure spite, that was a CE act.

Moff Chumley
2008-09-16, 08:30 PM
I suppose it depends on the flavor of your game. If this is heroic fantasy, change the Paly's alignment to Unaligned or evil, and have him banned from the church, at the least. If this is more gritty, I suppose just a slap on the wrists from the church might be appropriate. But then, it might not. It's really your call, and unless you give us more details, it's hard to say.

EvilElitest
2008-09-16, 08:31 PM
I found another thread, this one by RavingDork, about one of his 4E pallies:

"We have a paladin of Bahamut in our group who is absolutely ardent about battling evil without mercy. Now, I know paladins can no longer lose their powers in 4th Edition, but if they break their vows/code/whatever, their church might seek to punish them for their transgressions. Their alignment might change to match their continuing deeds as well. Hopefully, you see where this is going by now.

After a successful adventure involving the tracking down and capture (via a vicious battle followed by an Intimidate check) of a known killer and heretic, the party is traveling back to the church on their horses with the prisoner in tow (being pulled along by the paladin's horse with hands bound). The heretic called out to his captor, tha paladin, and insulted his faith and threatened death and dismemberment to his loved ones (something about having powerful friends).

Suddenly, the paladin stopped his horse, dismounted, drew his sword as he made his way to the captive (who began to scream for mercy) and then brutally hacked at the tendons in the captive's legs. The paladin then remounted and began DRAGGING the now crippled heretic behind his horse. He did not survive the two day journey to the church for trial.

The other characters were too feaked out by the deed and too intimidated by the paladin to do anything about it.

Having killed a heretic of the church, the paladin likely won't suffer much more than a slap on the wrist from his superiors (it is not for you to decide who is to be punished before trial!), but I'm wondering if I should change his alignment to evil. The paladin has always been brutal and merciless in his fight against evil, but this seems to me like a new height of depravity for him.

Looking for opinions on the matter. What would you, as a DM do, if anything?"

I personally suggested he homebrew a Blackguard PP for him, but what do you think?


He is hypocritical sadist, but this is 4E, he is automatically a god guy because he is a protagonist and thus the game doesn't focus on actually punishing him from a rule perspective. Through his gods might be pissed
from
EE

Beleriphon
2008-09-16, 08:35 PM
Now, if the Paladin was authorized to torture the Heretic to death at any time, but it was implied that such decisions should really be made by the Commander, then it was a LE act, since the Paladin put his own desires above the spirit of the law. If the Code didn't even permit the Paladin to torture Heretics without explicit authorization, then it was a NE act. If the Code forbade the Paladin from torturing a captive to death, and the Paladin did so out of pure spite, that was a CE act.

Using 4E alignment the paladin is at best Unaligned to start with and likel well on his way to Evil. I'd never push the character into Chaotic Evil without some dramatic shifts in personality, likely torturing the guy just because he's a prisoner just because he has the means an opportunity.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-16, 08:41 PM
Using 4E alignment the paladin is at best Unaligned to start with and likel well on his way to Evil. I'd never push the character into Chaotic Evil without some dramatic shifts in personality, likely torturing the guy just because he's a prisoner just because he can paladin.

Hmm? Oh yes, well, 4e Paladins can't "fall" because they don't have to follow a Code.

I wouldn't change his alignment unless he routinely uses excessive brutality (which it sounds like he does), in which case he would be Unaligned or Evil, depending on whether he is cruel to serve his private desires, or merely brutally efficient. If he shifts alignment from his god's, then he may have to discuss that matter with church officials or angels... but under RAW he does not lose his powers.

It certainly makes Rogue Paladins more dangerous anyhow. :smallwink:

Yahzi
2008-09-16, 08:59 PM
He's evil.

Neon Knight
2008-09-16, 09:15 PM
Hm, interesting question. Its pretty easy to say "yeah, evil," but you have to consider that a lot of supposedly "cleaner" methods of capital punishment are quite horrendous and nasty.

If the primary objection is that the response was too severe, then a label of evil is pretty much unavoidable. If the methodology is the primary objection, then I think it kind of makes the whole "punishment" aspect of many criminal justice systems evil as well.

I noted some people seem to object mostly strongly to the "torture," to the inflicting of unwarranted suffering, rather than the execution itself. That's where the above line of thought comes from.

Beleriphon
2008-09-16, 09:15 PM
He's evil.

I'd again posit that under 4E system of alignment, not 3E, he's probably going to be Unaligned and well on his way to Evil. One act doesn't change anything, nor does a general attitude. There is no way I'd ever say the character is Good or Lawful Good, but without more info I can't definitively state whether the character is Evil.

EvilElitest
2008-09-16, 09:39 PM
Hm, interesting question. Its pretty easy to say "yeah, evil," but you have to consider that a lot of supposedly "cleaner" methods of capital punishment are quite horrendous and nasty.

If the primary objection is that the response was too severe, then a label of evil is pretty much unavoidable. If the methodology is the primary objection, then I think it kind of makes the whole "punishment" aspect of many criminal justice systems evil as well.

I noted some people seem to object mostly strongly to the "torture," to the inflicting of unwarranted suffering, rather than the execution itself. That's where the above line of thought comes from.

Execution is lawful death penalty (from an good evil perspective) while torture is cruel and inhuman. By 3E standard, evil. As the 4E alignment system basically boils down to "Good=What ever the player wants it to be at the time" he is in the clear
from
EE

Helgraf
2008-09-16, 09:42 PM
He is hypocritical sadist, but this is 4E, he is automatically a god guy because he is a protagonist and thus the game doesn't focus on actually punishing him from a rule perspective. Through his gods might be pissed
from
EE

Umm, no, 4th edition doesn't give the characters a whitewash, no matter how video-gamey you happen to think it is. The DM might, but that's a DM by DM thing, not anything to do with the edition.

Fail.

EvilElitest
2008-09-16, 09:56 PM
Umm, no, 4th edition doesn't give the characters a whitewash, no matter how video-gamey you happen to think it is. The DM might, but that's a DM by DM thing, not anything to do with the edition.

Fail.

nice try, but 4E alignment system is basically just the cardboard cut out of the 3E one (also i didn't even mention video game, so your point doesn't make much sense). I actually mind 4E that much it it cut out alignment entirely. I would be upset, but i could understand it. However, 4E is even more vague and ill defined then 3E core (which takes some work really) an basically boils down to

Good- The good guys, who are the representatives of everything wonderful in the world. As PCs are greatly encouraged to play good characters, so it boils down to "good=The PCs"

Evil- Horrible sociopathic monsters with no empathy for anything, so killing them is perfectly ok. Evil=Enemies

Unaligned- Convient excuse for anything else=anything else in the game that is remotely grey"

Basically, if the Pcs says he is doing good, he is doing good. If you pressure him, he is unaligned, despite being both a hypocrite, a torturer and a murderer all in one

But 4E alignment is a token, as it hold no consequence any more in game it essentially doesn't matter anymore

also, rule of thumb, saying "fail" doesn't actually prove anything shockingly enough. Its just kinda silly, because its doesn't even make sense in context.
from
EE

Neon Knight
2008-09-16, 10:06 PM
Execution is lawful death penalty (from an good evil perspective) while torture is cruel and inhuman. By 3E standard, evil. As the 4E alignment system basically boils down to "Good=What ever the player wants it to be at the time" he is in the clear
from
EE

So what is execution by say... the electric chair? Or hanging? Those procedures, especially when they fail to be immediately lethal, can be excruciating, rivaling and going beyond the worst tortures. Some ancient practices probably qualify as the worst of tortures, unless they kill their victims in the process.

We could also question long term incarceration and exile. Both of these can cause great suffering, perhaps even out of proportion to the original crime.

Allow me to present a scenario: Let's say a pit has been prepared for the community's convicted population, inescapable without tools. However, it is very dark in the pit. A grue might eat the prisoners when they are cast into it.

Let's suppose that by some odd circumstances a new prisoner cannot be fashioned, or at least incarceration cannot be delayed until a new one is prepared. A prisoner has to be cast into the pit. Surely the execution of this sentence brings about a horrific end, being devoured by a savage monster, to the prisoner. Can one not say that this fate is of similar horror as that enacted on the heretic in the OP's tale?

Beleriphon
2008-09-16, 10:06 PM
nice try, but 4E alignment system is basically just the cardboard cut out of the 3E one (also i didn't even mention video game, so your point doesn't make much sense). I actually mind 4E that much it it cut out alignment entirely. I would be upset, but i could understand it. However, 4E is even more vague and ill defined then 3E core (which takes some work really) an basically boils down to

Good- The good guys, who are the representatives of everything wonderful in the world. As PCs are greatly encouraged to play good characters, so it boils down to "good=The PCs"

Which the game encourages the players to play. It doesn't give them a pass just for being the PCs of the game. Evil is still defined in game, and if a character behaves in an evil way, thats what they are.


Evil- Horrible sociopathic monsters with no empathy for anything, so killing them is perfectly ok. Evil=Enemies

Evil is evil in game, the basic assumption is that the players are fighting evil, so yes a good number of the monsters are evil.


Unaligned- Convient excuse for anything else=anything else in the game that is remotely grey"

Which much more useful than some variety of neutral. Because it effectively covers most of humanity, whom aren't actively being Good or Evil. Thats the point of Unaligned, somebody that hasn't take a strong stance one way or another.

Good an Evil cover those that actively behave that way as a function of their daily behaviours.


Basically, if the Pcs says he is doing good, he is doing good. If you pressure him, he is unaligned, despite being both a hypocrite, a torturer and a murderer all in one

It doesn't say that anywhere in the alignment descriptions, you're just making things up to suit your views. The PHB actively encourages the players to be good aligned, or unaligned, and play to that type of character. It doesn't say that beacuse the players states an action is good it is good by default.

Knaight
2008-09-16, 10:27 PM
I'm thinking being eaten quickly is better than getting dragged around for two days without a trial while bleeding to death.

TheThan
2008-09-16, 10:30 PM
To me, that goes against everything being a paladin is supposed to be about. You're supposed to be the better person. A captured enemy throwing taunts at you should have no effect, or at the very least, not cause you to act out of anger.

The heretic's words did no harm, not to anything but the paladin's pride. If there was harm in his words, a gag would have sufficed. As it stands, the paladin hobbled a prisoner and dragged the man to his death... because the paladin wasn't thick-skinned enough.

This is Anakin and the sandpeople, padawan, take heed.

this is pretty much my point of view too. There are ways to justify it but it still doesn't make it right.

EvilElitest
2008-09-16, 10:38 PM
Which the game encourages the players to play. It doesn't give them a pass just for being the PCs of the game. Evil is still defined in game, and if a character behaves in an evil way, thats what they are.

It does actively discourage evil play. the game as designed assumes the players are good or at least unaligned. As they worked very hard to remove the normal moral dilemmas, like the paladins code (essentially making the paladin a knight) the morality basically boils down to "What feels right at the time"
3E in contract had clearly defined morals. It just didn't organize them (or in fact, most of the game) very well




Evil is evil in game, the basic assumption is that the players are fighting evil, so yes a good number of the monsters are evil.
Evil has gone from the reality of 3E, where it was actually quite legitimate to be evil, to now were it is just a justification to killing them.



Which much more useful than some variety of neutral. Because it effectively covers most of humanity, whom aren't actively being Good or Evil. Thats the point of Unaligned, somebody that hasn't take a strong stance one way or another.
Unaligned is a crop out. As i said before, in 3E, alignments don't define personalities, personalities fit into them. Any personality with a few exceptions (see below) could fit into them
It also is inconsistent, because if you have the good and evil alignment, that means that actions effect people's aligniment. Except, intentions define the nature of unaligned. Its basically a way for Wizards to avoid the problems of actually having to adress moral challenges and simply lump it all into the unaligned category (Remember, simpler= better)
Also, how do you have a stance on good or evil? Logically, next to no evil people would consider themselves such. its moronic.

exception
Unaligned' purpose should only serve for things unable to have morality, like most animals or mindless creatures


Good an Evil cover those that actively behave that way as a function of their daily behaviours.

Except that doesn't make sense, because of unaligned. What, do you have to eat a baby to become evil.

Good and evil are basically now "us vs. them"

[UOTE]
It doesn't say that anywhere in the alignment descriptions, you're just making things up to suit your views. The PHB actively encourages the players to be good aligned, or unaligned, and play to that type of character. It doesn't say that beacuse the players states an action is good it is good by default.[/QUOTE]

The alignment descriptions are even less enlightening than 3E's PHBs' versions (impressive i must say). And i'm talking about their role and use. Its simpler and basically boils down to White hats vs. black hat, with everybody else neatly put under unaligned



So what is execution by say... the electric chair? Or hanging? Those procedures, especially when they fail to be immediately lethal, can be excruciating, rivaling and going beyond the worst tortures. Some ancient practices probably qualify as the worst of tortures, unless they kill their victims in the process.
You could make an argument for the electric chair, but they are still lawful forms of execution, IE the person has been fairly tried (at least in 3E if your going for good, most governments would be neutral). The best would be a swift beheading through


We could also question long term incarceration and exile. Both of these can cause great suffering, perhaps even out of proportion to the original crime.

See fair trial has committed a crime, and is found guilty for it in a lawful fair trial, then he has is getting his proper punishments. And exile? you got to be kidding me


Allow me to present a scenario: Let's say a pit has been prepared for the community's convicted population, inescapable without tools. However, it is very dark in the pit. A grue might eat the prisoners when they are cast into it.

Let's suppose that by some odd circumstances a new prisoner cannot be fashioned, or at least incarceration cannot be delayed until a new one is prepared. A prisoner has to be cast into the pit. Surely the execution of this sentence brings about a horrific end, being devoured by a savage monster, to the prisoner. Can one not say that this fate is of similar horror as that enacted on the heretic in the OP's tale?

making a narrow situation where there are only two options doesn't actually prove a point. If prisoners who haven't been properly tried are being thrown to a beast, then you have a far different problem here
from
EE

Knaight
2008-09-16, 10:47 PM
It does actively discourage evil play. the game as designed assumes the players are good or at least unaligned. As they worked very hard to remove the normal moral dilemmas, like the paladins code (essentially making the paladin a knight) the morality basically boils down to "What feels right at the time"

The paladins code was idiocy. Moral dilemas should come down to the characters, and be because of the GM, not because of some arbitrary code that just happens to come with mechanics. Alignment is a cop out, sure its a nice short hand, but its also a crutch, and the paladins code is pretty much built on it.

Beleriphon
2008-09-16, 11:03 PM
It does actively discourage evil play. the game as designed assumes the players are good or at least unaligned. As they worked very hard to remove the normal moral dilemmas, like the paladins code (essentially making the paladin a knight) the morality basically boils down to "What feels right at the time"
3E in contract had clearly defined morals. It just didn't organize them (or in fact, most of the game) very well

No, no it doesn't. The idea is that the players are supposed to be good. It doesn't mean they can't be, just that they are encouraged to be. Thats it, evil is still evil.


Evil has gone from the reality of 3E, where it was actually quite legitimate to be evil, to now were it is just a justification to killing them.

Its just as legitimate to be evil in 4E, but its discouraged because being evil tends to go against the grain of heroic fantasy. Characters can still be evil based on behaviour.


Unaligned is a crop out. As i said before, in 3E, alignments don't define personalities, personalities fit into them. Any personality with a few exceptions (see below) could fit into them.
It also is inconsistent, because if you have the good and evil alignment, that means that actions effect people's aligniment. Except, intentions define the nature of unaligned. Its basically a way for Wizards to avoid the problems of actually having to adress moral challenges and simply lump it all into the unaligned category (Remember, simpler= better)
Also, how do you have a stance on good or evil? Logically, next to no evil people would consider themselves such. its moronic.

The actions you take on a daily basis define alignment. Just because you don't consider yourself evil doesn't mean you aren't evil. And I would state the vast majority of people really would be unaligned if we classifed real people with alignment. So its not just simpler = better its that moral challenges should not be based on a character's alignment they should be actual moral challenges. Alignment is just a handy notation for a quick idea about how a character acts in most situations. A moral dilemma is still a moral dilemma regardless of whether alignment affects characters in a mechanical manner or not, or even if its exists at all.


exception
Unaligned' purpose should only serve for things unable to have morality, like most animals or mindless creatures

Except that doesn't make sense, because of unaligned. What, do you have to eat a baby to become evil.

Rape, torture, murder, arson, anything generally evil as a basis for your actions should be evil. Its pretty clear cut. The idea is that evil people actively do evil things because thats how they like things done, or its just easier for them to be that way. Good people do good things because thats how they like things to be, and they don't necessarily take the easy route. Its not that different from 3E except now there are no game mechanics related to alignment.

If you think about the status of Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham, Robin is Good the Sheriff is Evil. The Sheriff is evil because he kills peasants out of hand, oppresses the people he's sworn to protect, taxes the crud out of the populace for personal gain and is generally a total git. Robin opposes this, he actively protects the peasants even at personal risk. He goes out of his way to help, even in a situation that he has no personal stake in but he can help with. He's good because he does good things. In this situation an unaligned person person would be like the peasants, they don't want to have the sheriff in charge but don't want to take enough personal responsiblity to stop him. They prefer Robin, but are willing to put up with Sheriff so long as he doesn't hurt them.

As for becoming evil, I might call the described character evil, but one action as described isn't enough. I would definitely say the are unaligned, 3E didn't have any better than LN to describe their behaviour either, which for the most part is best covered by unaligned in 4E.


Good and evil are basically now "us vs. them"

Just like 3E was set up. Orcs are evil so we kill them. Whats the difference? There isn't one as far as I can see except that now there aren't four extra alignments to stick monsters and characters into.


The alignment descriptions are even less enlightening than 3E's PHBs' versions (impressive i must say). And i'm talking about their role and use. Its simpler and basically boils down to White hats vs. black hat, with everybody else neatly put under unaligned

I think their pretty useful, classically good heroic things to do are good aligned. Well yes it does, but only because its always done that by default. D&D is heroic fantasy, if you want to introduce something more complex into that you can. 3E treated the game the same way in terms of us vs them attitudes so I fail to see what you are taking issue with beyond the fact that you don't like 4E as a whole.

Yahzi
2008-09-16, 11:06 PM
I'd again posit that under 4E system of alignment, not 3E, he's probably going to be Unaligned and well on his way to Evil. One act doesn't change anything, nor does a general attitude.
Depraved indifference to suffering. For two days.

Evil.

Neon Knight
2008-09-16, 11:17 PM
You could make an argument for the electric chair, but they are still lawful forms of execution, IE the person has been fairly tried (at least in 3E if your going for good, most governments would be neutral). The best would be a swift beheading through


I don't believe the "lawfulness" or "justness" of the sentences or punishments has much to with my arguments, which are mostly concerned with the humaneness of said punishments.

And even beheadings have been horribly botched before.



See fair trial has committed a crime, and is found guilty for it in a lawful fair trial, then he has is getting his proper punishments. And exile? you got to be kidding me


We're staring to head into waters the Giant might not wish us to sail in, at least on these forums. The credibility or "right" a court, any court has to punish man could be argued against, but we're getting into anarchy there.

Ultimately, my arguments are as such: Courts, laws, and punishments are all fallible because humans, those who make and execute these things, are fallible.

And exile can be a cruel fate. Cast out into the elements as a marked man, possibly with no friends, possibly branded an outlaw who will receive no mercy and who can be slain at will. The loss of all legal rights, and even the right to be regarded as a human being; reduced to mere chattel. The "mark of Cain" is no guarantee.

Imagine being exiled from a desert city, situated on the only oasis around. One would stagger out in the desert to die as the lonely wind hollowed over the uncaring dunes, eventually falling to be buried in the sands, forgotten and forsaken by all men.



making a narrow situation where there are only two options doesn't actually prove a point. If prisoners who haven't been properly tried are being thrown to a beast, then you have a far different problem here
from
EE


I'm thinking being eaten quickly is better than getting dragged around for two days without a trial while bleeding to death.


Here was the point: In attempting to execute punishment X, one may also execute punishment Y. But punishment Y may not always be warranted. The specific example I was thinking of was subjecting someone to the violent and abusive prison culture for relatively minor charges.


Depraved indifference to suffering. For two days.

Evil.

Technically, we don't know that the heretic suffered for two days. All we know is that by the end of the two days, he was dead. He could have lasted only a day, or 12 hours, or 30 minutes. We simply don't know.

Actually, I want to ask a question here: did the Paladin fully understand what he was doing?

I know some people who wouldn't realize that getting dragged behind a horse would be painful and easily lethal to a man. Exposure to certain media where this occurs but with minimal results could have caused him to underestimate the horribleness of the act he committed.

In fact, the OP's statement and the statement he quotes is pretty strongly worded to convince the reader that the Paladin was at fault. I'm wondering if we aren't being presented with biased evidence here...

Swordguy
2008-09-16, 11:31 PM
Paladin falls, but no single act short of premeditated mass murder should be enough for an automatic fall from "good" alignment to "evil", so the Blackguard option is really a bit of overkill on the DM's part.

The perp did threaten to kill the paladin's families and loved ones, and since this is an enemy that it takes the PC's to deal with, he's presumably quite capable of following through on that threat - especially with the "revolving door effect" that death embodies in D&D. The killing of the man isn't so much an end to the problem as it is a deterrent: "Remember how much it hurt the last time I killed you - is that pain worth getting your revenge on my family?"

In the end, Paladin falls for committing an evil action in anger and fear, and should go get an atonement spell/quest to regain Paladin status, along with a church-mandated punishment for blowing his own mission. A repeated pattern of this behavior will cause an alignment shift (3-5 times, severity, circumstances, and GM depending) to neutral, and then only a couple more to evil, and then he's right borked.

Remember, they wouldn't have an atonement spell if paladin's didn't need it now and then.

Beleriphon
2008-09-16, 11:37 PM
Paladin falls, but no single act short of premeditated mass murder should be enough for an automatic fall from "good" alignment to "evil", so the Blackguard option is really a bit of overkill on the DM's part.

Or nothing happens to the paladin in a mechancal sense since 4E doesn't have paladins falling from grace. Which in the context of the Fourth Edition game the Lielel referencing isn't going to happen.


Remember, they wouldn't have an atonement spell if paladin's didn't need it now and then.

Fourth Edition :smallwink:

Swordguy
2008-09-17, 02:12 AM
Or nothing happens to the paladin in a mechancal sense since 4E doesn't have paladins falling from grace. Which in the context of the Fourth Edition game the Lielel referencing isn't going to happen.

Fourth Edition :smallwink:


Pfft. Mere details. If the OP wanted the thread to only have responses dealing with 4e, he would have tagged the thread with [4e]. :smallwink:

bosssmiley
2008-09-17, 03:43 AM
re: the OP's story. That is a classic example of a paladin falling so hard and so fast he'd probably leave a crater. :smalleek:

My benchmark for proper paladinic behaviour: what would Captain Carrot Ironfounderson do? Would Carrot hamstring a stroppy prisoner, then gravel rash them to death? I think not. That is not Lawful behaviour, nor is it Good. Even Judge Dredd (my personal benchmark for LN knight templar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar) characters) wouldn't pull a stunt like that!

nagora
2008-09-17, 04:03 AM
If the paladin is unrepentant then you have a fallen paladin, now a normal fighter with no special powers. Rules say that doesn't happen? Throw out that rule, because it's wrong.

If they are repentant then the atonement task/quest is going to be a belter!

Tengu_temp
2008-09-17, 04:08 AM
I suppose it depends on the flavor of your game. If this is heroic fantasy, change the Paly's alignment to Unaligned or evil, and have him banned from the church, at the least. If this is more gritty, I suppose just a slap on the wrists from the church might be appropriate. But then, it might not. It's really your call, and unless you give us more details, it's hard to say.

This. In an idealistic world where heroes battle evil and bring hope to the world (in other words, default DND) this is not how a paladin, who's supposed to embody the virtues of chivalry, should act - I'd leave his alignment where it is for now, unless he performs another deed like that, but if his church finds out, he'll be in trouble. In a cynical world, where anti-heroes are the norm and even the good guys can be bastards sometimes, he's acting as the setting expects. But then, most characters in such worlds are Unaligned at best.


Pfft. Mere details. If the OP wanted the thread to only have responses dealing with 4e, he would have tagged the thread with [4e]. :smallwink:

Or he had too much faith in people and assumed that everyone responding will read the whole original post beforehand.

nagora
2008-09-17, 04:17 AM
In a cynical world, where anti-heroes are the norm and even the good guys can be bastards sometimes, he's acting as the setting expects.
Sure, but all you're saying is that such a background doesn't have paladins.

bosssmiley
2008-09-17, 04:30 AM
Or he had too much faith in people and assumed that everyone responding will read the whole original post beforehand.

Silly optimist. Thinking the best of people is for suckers. :smallbiggrin:

Swordguy
2008-09-17, 05:32 AM
Or he had too much faith in people and assumed that everyone responding will read the whole original post beforehand.

Bah, this is the INTERNET! We don't hold much to "readin'" `round these here `tubes... :smallbiggrin:

In any case, and to be on-topic...aside from the 1e-3.x-esque "fallen paladin" mechanic, my advise stands. Setting up a Blackguard PP as the OP suggested is overkill. Likewise, the forced alignment change he asks about is in fact discussed in my original post. Something like


...but no single act short of premeditated mass murder should be enough for an automatic fall from "good" alignment to "evil"...

<snip>

A repeated pattern of this behavior will cause an alignment shift (3-5 times, severity, circumstances, and GM depending) to neutral, and then only a couple more to evil, and then he's right borked.

That there isn't really edition-specific advise.


EDIT: Something I didn't notice the first time - nowhere in the OP's post nor (as near as I can tell) the rest of the thread does it say if the Pally is Good or Neutral/Unaligned/Whatever to start with. That information may color opinions somewhat.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-17, 06:42 AM
One note is the Paladin was ordered to deal with the Heretic in whatever manner he deemed neccessary.

So he could have just killed the guy if he wanted.

Tengu_temp
2008-09-17, 06:45 AM
Sure, but all you're saying is that such a background doesn't have paladins.

4e paladins don't need to be LG and cannot fall - their church and in some cases their deity might want to punish them for their transgressions (if they learn about them), but they cannot lose their powers.

Knaight
2008-09-17, 08:55 AM
Basically their powers are theirs to control now, and once given they can't be taken back, so the church has to be careful. That said, this guy is just asking for assassination if word gets out about the stunt he pulled, since nobody is going to want him around.

The_Werebear
2008-09-17, 10:44 AM
My opinion, like so many others, depends on the setting. In Faerun, he would fall so hard. His superiors should punish him severely/remove him from the order until he atones/both.

In Warhammer universe, he gets a high five when he gets back. Maybe some minor criticism that the prisoner can no longer be questioned.

Randel
2008-09-17, 11:30 AM
Okay, the group is bringing a heretic back to face justice. What are some things they could do?

Bind his arms and legs and carry him over the back of a horse- Considering what resources they have, its probably the quickest and least painful method of transporting him available. It also makes it slightly less likely that he could escape or be rescued by friends since he's right there on the horse with one of the heros. [Good]

Tie his hands together and have him walk behind one of the horse- I have a feeling that it would slow the group down both having to keep a pace the prisoner could keep up. Plus walking for miles is bound to hurt his feet like crazy. Of course, this also frees up room on the horses so the heros are less impeded by him in combat, though its possible a gang could cut the rope and free the heretic. [Neutral. Though if he's starting to keel over from forced marching and they drag him its evil, if they carry him its good]

Drag him behind the horse- That would kill him painfully. That sort of thing is only to be used in actual executions. If they had a sleigh or something that he rides on that protects him from dying horribly that it would be just like carrying him. Might also be a pain for the horse, though not sure if its easier dragging a human or carrying one. [Evil]

Crippling his legs- Thats just evil. Crippling any part of a persons body is evil (unless they are an active threat at the time and the alternative is killing them) but a person needs their legs to walk and move. In medivial times then those who can't walk are pretty much dead unless they are rich enough to have people help them. [Evil]

Cutting off a finger or two- Also evil, but not nearly as bad as crippling his legs. This is more what mobsters do to intimidate folks, it also can ruin his ability to handle a weapon effectively (cutting of the index and middle finger would probably make it impossible to wield a bow correctly). [Evil, but could be convincingly said as neutral or good if he was obviously an active threat at the time and his murders used weapons the finger-removal makes unusable. Using divine healing to stop the bleeding would push it towards good a little... but at its still nothing a saint would do]

Gagging him when he mouths off- Might as well be standard procedure to keep him from distracting his captors in tough situations. [Good]

Let him mouth off but record everything he says- Just let him yell and listen to everything he says, only gag him when its possible he will cause trouble by speaking. Telling him "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say may be used against you in a court of law." would be a good act. Also telling him "From what you did, you'll likely hang. If you keep making threats against innocent people and the church then you'll probably get drawn an quartered." would also be good since it might spare him alot of pain. Whatever his ulimate fate is, its in the hands of a court and not on the paladins. [Good]

Cutting his tongue out- That just plain evil. Unless he's a spellcaster who needs verbal components to cast his deadly magic in which case you can argue its in self-defense. Even the wicked deserve a chance to speak, and gagging only stops them for a little while. Plus, him being mute would probably make things harder in the trial. [Evil]

Harming a prisoner- Evil, if they are helpless and under your control then its not nice to injure them... unless they are really nasty in which case a few bashes and bruises might be needed to keep them in line. If he's a Magnificent Bastard then he can be considered dangerous no matter what his current status is... in which case its probably better to Just Shoot Him for the greater good. Chainsawing the Jokers legs off might be a pretty mean thing to do, but hopefully it will slow him down enough that his next escape from jail will be a bit slower than normal. If you bring in your prisoner with no legs, no arms, and eyes gouged out then you'd better have a good speech about about how incredibly dangerous he is while still alive in any manner. Though ironically I think its easier to cast Raise Dead than to cast a regeneration spell, so maiming a prisoner horribly may be more effective at stopping them than killing them. [Evil, but with the right person its Evil Smart or just plain Smart] Note that its probably better for courts to decide on this punishment than for heroes to punish in this way.

Selling prisoners in to slavery- If you are in actual law enforcement and slave trading isn't in your job description then its both evil and chaotic. If its obvious they won't survive in their new job then its evil. Arguably, slave dealing is better than killing them since they are still alive and therefore there is still hope. Though if its considered a Fate Worse than Death then its evil again. Plus, if your slaves are all criminals than you should warn the buyers. In essence, slave trading depends a great deal on the society it takes place in and the character of both the slave owners and the slaves. [Varies, but pretty well excepted that it can go to evil pretty quick if there aren't regulations that protect the rights of slaves. Lawful if the society accepts it as normal, chaotic if society disagrees.]

Trebuchet
2008-09-17, 11:34 AM
In our games, torture is always evil, no matter who applies it to whom, or in what form. That was torture, so it was evil. It might still have been brilliant role playing, though.

The biggest problem in our games is generally getting the player to see that an act was evil. It is fine if the character doesn't see it. Once the player sees that it was evil, though, the rest of the story can get really interesting.

The Valiant Turtle
2008-09-17, 12:19 PM
First off. It's evil. It may or may not be lawful, but it's definitely evil.

There are about 4 different levels that consequences need to be determined on.

1) Are there any immediate consequences, like losing powers.
2) Are there any consequences imposed by NPCs: church officials, regular officials, or the allies the bad guy mentioned. How does the party as a whole relate to the church?
3) Are there any consequences imposed by the PCs? At the very least they are probably going to be watchful and might desire to find means to remove him from the party. Where does that character fit in the party dymanics.
4) Are there any Out of Character considerations.

The last two considerations are really the most important. The most important questions to answer are: Why did the player have his character act that way? What consequence does the player expect? and What consequence do the other players expect?

If the player just wants to play someone who gets to kill things with impunity because he can, than something needs to be done that will correct the players assumptions. If he was simply allowing his character to get angry at a really evil guy, then a word of caution from the church and an apology to the rest of the party members for being a poor example might be all that's necessary.

If the other characters absolutely expect that a Paladin should lose his powers for this I would probably lean in that direction, but this being 4E I think I would shoot for a compromise and just take away his daily powers.

If the loss of powers & atonement path is chosen, I would try to structure it so that the player is not rewarded by being the center of attention of the plot. I'd send the character to do menial labor somewhere and the player plays something else for 1 or 2 sessions.

I think the most likely approach is a very strong rebuke and some punishment from the church heirarchy. I tend to assume that fantasy church hierarchies are much less corrupt, since you never know when your diety might stomp on you, and I assume that frequent exposure to supernatural "Goodness" does tend to have an impact on people. If nothing else the general revulsion that the other party members experienced should convince them that something really wrong happened.

Alternative punishments are also possible, maybe the guy was innocent! In a world with magic, illusions, various shapeshifters and dopplegangers, who knows who is really who?

In any case I definitely feel there should be unpleasant consequences. If the game is super-gritty and the church Hierarchy is going to turn a blind eye than I would make good on the bad guys threats of allies, but again, trying not to reward the player by being the center of plot attention.

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-17, 12:25 PM
Looking for opinions on the matter. What would you, as a DM do, if anything?"

I personally suggested he homebrew a Blackguard PP for him, but what do you think?

If other people find out what he did, then I would have his Paladin or church superior show up, slap him really hard for bringing tremendous dishonor on the order, and give him a court martial or equivalent. He could possibly be stripped of his class, but I don't know if 4e has rules for that.

Even if no one finds out, I would have his supernatural powers begin to act... odd. Like sometimes his Lay on Hands damages instead of heals, his light radiating powers instead turn black, divine challenge sometimes provides a bonus instead of a penalty to foes and so on. The malfunctions in his powers continue until he becomes a blackguard or somehow makes amends for his failings. This would be a houserule of course, as in the 4e RAW .

IMO, it's a failing of 4e not have some sort of mechanical rules in place for a paladin that acts unpaladinlike. Of course, 4e allows chaotic evil paladins with powers identical to lawful good paladins so interjecting 3e paladin moral judgement is perhaps the problem.

I suggest we start looking at 4e Paladins as being utterly unlike 3e, 2e or 1e Paladins. A 4e Paladin is not a traditional holy knight, but rather a simple healing tank class and is not required to act even the slightest bit like Galahad or any of the original Paladin models. Murder, torture or commiting depraved acts of violence doesn't endanger them in the slightest, as long as they manage a good spin when they recount events later to their superiors.

nagora
2008-09-17, 12:40 PM
4e paladins don't need to be LG and cannot fall - their church and in some cases their deity might want to punish them for their transgressions (if they learn about them), but they cannot lose their powers.
Again, you/WotC are just redefining paladin to be a meaningless label. That's spurious. A paladin who does evil and doesn't fall is a moronic concept; it's just a munchkin's wet dream. As I said, if that's what the rules say then throw out those rules because they are wrong.

Can I imagine an order of LE knights (in Warhammer or anywhere else)? Certainly. But if you start calling them paladins then you're insulting my intelligence by redefining black to mean white and asking me to play along with sadistic juvenile powertrips. I don't give a **** if it's canon in 4e and if it is, then 4e is the worse for it.

busterswd
2008-09-17, 12:43 PM
Quibble for people saying "a single act doesn't make you fall."

Single act? Perhaps, but it's not like doing something wrong, saying "Oops," then regretting it. He tortured him for 2 DAYS. As in 48 hours, he listened to someone screaming in pain as he slowly died from bleeding/whatever. It's not even a matter of mercy, that's sadism.

Also, other executions can be painful, but the intent behind them isn't to make them painful. They're designed to be as quick as possible, and if they get screwed up, that's (hopefully) an accident, not a willful, sustained act of sadism. Intent is important.

Killing evil person? Sure. Punishing evil to make sure it doesn't do evil again? Fine.

Willfully torturing someone to death over the span of two days? There's no good justification for that, period.




Even if no one finds out, I would have his supernatural powers begin to act... odd. Like sometimes his Lay on Hands damages instead of heals, his light radiating powers instead turn black, divine challenge sometimes provides a bonus instead of a penalty to foes and so on. The malfunctions in his powers continue until he becomes a blackguard or somehow makes amends for his failings. This would be a houserule of course, as in the 4e RAW .

I like this idea. You could make it so his divinely powered spells stop working, the justification being that whatever good pantheon he decided to worship refused to respond to his requests for power until he atones. If he wants to, he can convert to a new god to fit his new alignment. In other words, while he hasn't lost the power to channel a deity's power, if the deity refuses to supply him with any, his channeling ability is useless.

1of3
2008-09-17, 01:00 PM
In 3.whatever I'd might be serious. In 4e it's just taking out the trash. Especially for an LG Paladin.

Stormageddon
2008-09-17, 01:08 PM
I don't know much about 4e alignment rules, but I know that paladins are not required to be good anymore. I would give him a alignment change, since dragging a person to death for two days requires more than just one act to accomplish. I don't think a new PrC is called for with the new rules.

The Valiant Turtle
2008-09-17, 01:36 PM
In 3.whatever I'd might be serious. In 4e it's just taking out the trash. Especially for an LG Paladin.

Why do you feel that the system being used has any bearing on the morality of an act?

3Power
2008-09-17, 01:37 PM
He made someone who threatened his family suffer and die.

True Neutral. I always view alignment as one's motives, not deeds. It causes less headaches when paladins slaughter goblin babies.

Also, that Paladin is Badass.

Leliel
2008-09-17, 01:43 PM
He made someone who threatened his family suffer and die.

True Neutral. I always view alignment as one's motives, not deeds. It causes less headaches when paladins slaughter goblin babies.

Also, that Paladin is Badass.

Uh, no, there is nothing Badass in crossing the Moral Event Horizon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralEventHorizon). Just sick.

Xenogears
2008-09-17, 01:55 PM
So from what I've gathered about the changes in 4ed. then a Paladin is no longer required to be good right? So that means that instead of being champions of all that is good and holy they are instead champions of all that their church/diety wants. So working on that basic assumption my opinion follows:

First you would have to define exactly what the church is okay with. Plenty of real-life churches actively encouraged their followers to abuse, torture, humiliate, kill, or otherwise harm heathens. Many of them honestly said that raping and murdering heathen women was not only NOT evil but was in fact a GOOD act. So depending on what the DM feels the church does to heathens he might get anything from a promotion to expulsion from the order.

Secondly. You must determine the Players intent. Maybe he was only planning on teaching the guy a lesson. Maybe he didn't think it would kill him. Perhaps he thought the guy would just be severely bruised from it. I mean while your galloping along your not gonna notice the guy being dragged behind you very much. So maybe the death was accidental. Just a lesson in keeping your mouth shut gone wrong. Lots of good characters ruitinely beat the living hell out of the villains even after they are defeated.

Finally based on the above two points you must determine how evil the act is. If say the church expressly forbids torture and the Player planned on killing the guy that way then it is pretty evil. Still don't think that one evil act makes a person evil (although it certainly is the first step on a short road). If on the other hand the church frequently tortures heathens (remember most religions feel that anyone who does NOT worship them is less than a person and can be treated very inhumanely) and the Player meant to only hurt the heathen then have the higher ups tell him to be more careful next time so that they can give him a public trial.

Tengu_temp
2008-09-17, 01:56 PM
Again, you/WotC are just redefining paladin to be a meaningless label. That's spurious. A paladin who does evil and doesn't fall is a moronic concept; it's just a munchkin's wet dream. As I said, if that's what the rules say then throw out those rules because they are wrong.

Can I imagine an order of LE knights (in Warhammer or anywhere else)? Certainly. But if you start calling them paladins then you're insulting my intelligence by redefining black to mean white and asking me to play along with sadistic juvenile powertrips. I don't give a **** if it's canon in 4e and if it is, then 4e is the worse for it.

I wasn't aware that munchkins play paladins. And apparently the Paladin of Slaughter/Tyranny 3.5 variants don't exist?

Paladin basically means "knight". Paladins falling and losing their powers is a purely DND invention (and not a part of the definition) - and it caused all kinds of trouble, because different DMs and even different sourcebooks interpreted the code in different ways. Which is why they've done away with it in 4e. Just because an evil paladin can keep his powers doesn't mean that 4e (or me - you have a habit of making very far-fetched conclusions) encourages paladins to act like ***** - they still have to deal with other consequences of their actions. Just like everyone else.

Besides, a fallen hero of light, evil but still using his powers, is a concept almost as old as a hero using dark powers to do good. Just usually an antagonist.

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-17, 02:08 PM
Why do you feel that the system being used has any bearing on the morality of an act?

It doesn't have an effect on morality. It's evil to kill someone without a trial, and in a manner that drags out their death over the course of two days.

It *does* have a huge effect on the consequences. 3e has consequences for Paladins who are dishonorable or evil. 4e does not.


He made someone who threatened his family suffer and die.

True Neutral. I always view alignment as one's motives, not deeds. It causes less headaches when paladins slaughter goblin babies.

Also, that Paladin is Badass.

He kidnapped and murdered without a trial a man accused of heresy. In modern terms, heresy is not even a crime and with good reason. I understand why a medieval paladin would need to bring in a heretic, but I just have to comment that his crime was literally commiting free speech and having a different religous view. We aren't talking hardened killer or criminal here.

The Paladin's victim was also completely in the Paladin's power and posed no immediate threat to him and his family. Regardless of the threats leveled at him, making verbal threats at another person is not actually a crime.* If he had the ability to back those up those threats then the Paladin would have an excuse for taking them more seriously, but nothing about verbal taunting makes it ok to actually hurt the taunter.

What motivated the Paladin was most likely his pride and anger at being besmirched by a lowlife heretic. What never enters into his motives are things you would associate with "good" like a respect for life, patience, temperance, understanding and mercy. I can't help having the opinion that killing a helpless man who has surrendered to you, even if he offends you, is an evil act. However, with the nebulous way 4e alignment rules work I wouldn't doubt it somehow falls into the unaligned catagory.

The Paladin IMO is a Bully, not a badass.

* Unless they're a police officer or the President, or someone else in that vein, k? You can threaten most people in most situations without a problem. It's just special cases when it rises to the level of crime.

Faithdreamer
2008-09-17, 02:13 PM
Tokiko-san, I'll shorten all of that.

Paladin is Evil by Heaven's standards without question. Divine Smite! :smallfurious: Chie! :smallsmile:

(At minimum it was an act of undiluted evil); there is no 'taking out the trash'. That sentence is garbage invented by cruel creatures.

EDIT: Goodness and righteousness would not go around hacking the legs off things and dragging them back to be (persecuted?) prosecuted.

The fifth virtue of Heaven - Justice. Not Wrath.

Oslecamo
2008-09-17, 02:17 PM
Both sides are wrong.

Following 4e rules, the tendons would have regenerated by themselves after some minutes, just like all status ailments disapear after a combat.

The heretic would also heal all his wounds after each day.

Since 4e is too perfect for houseruling, there's no way the heretic could have died with just a STR vs FORT at will attack from the paladin, since it would totally breack the balance of the game having such uber crippling effects whitout hefty costs.

You were clearly not playing 4e. Please specify the system you were actually playing.

Pronounceable
2008-09-17, 02:18 PM
I'd have done similar (if not worse). That bastard had it coming... That said, I'm no paladin material. Which means my approval is actually a disapproval.

4e pallies are responsible against their gods. If it's fine by Bahamut, it's completely fine. Who can hold it against him if Bahamut himself doesn't? But I'd rule a LG deity wouldn't like this at all. It's time to send an angel of discipline or something to slap his wrist...

3Power
2008-09-17, 02:21 PM
He kidnapped and murdered without a trial a man accused of heresy. In modern terms, heresy is not even a crime and with good reason. I understand why a medieval paladin would need to bring in a heretic, but I just have to comment that his crime was literally commiting free speech and having a different religous view. We aren't talking hardened killer or criminal here.Except we are, read the first post again. Murder AND Heresy.
Second, even in real life people respond to threats with the utmost seriousness. It might not be the best way to handle it, but it handles it.

Faithdreamer
2008-09-17, 02:24 PM
Criminal or not Heaven will not make exception - that would be unheavenly. As a Paladin, you might expect him to strive for all the things the very best of heaven does. Bahamut is a Lawful Good deity isn't it?

Sixty-nine for a Yin Yang, leave the path of atonement available to this Paladan. It is his decision, Bahamut will not make it for him.

nagora
2008-09-17, 02:26 PM
The heretic would also heal all his wounds after each day.
To be fair, I don't think being dragged along the road counts as "rest" even in something as silly as 4e's health system.

erikun
2008-09-17, 02:37 PM
Randomly hacking off someone's feet and dragging them to their death is hardly lawful. Well, if it's a Paladin of Ilmater, then I suppose you could get away with saying "suffering cleanses the spirit, so the pain was to help him reform." However, anyone else would consider being dragged, bleeding, for two solid days unnecessary force.

Now, if the prisoner was trying to escape, or if keeping him alive on the journey would have been a threat to innocents, then you could say that killing him was still lawful. Heck, I had a Paladin of Kelemvor who would execute captured criminals, although only if the situation was dire and we could not get them back to town. Hacking out someone's ankles because they threatened you, though, doesn't count.

And this is assuming that the party had just decided to capture the criminal for trial, and the criminal was wanted "dead or alive". If they were given a specific mission to bring the evil guy back alive, or if the paladin gave his word that he would do so, then this is clearly a chaotic act. Killing someone and then saying "not my fault that he died" isn't just disobeying the assigned mission, it's outright rejecting it and doing your own thing.

As for the good/evil scale, wounding someone and then dragging them to their death is simply evil. He didn't just kill the guy; he tourtured him to death. If the paladin has begun to show remorse for the act after getting back to the church, then perhaps he is shifting over to neutral. However, if he's telling the church "oops, didn't know he was dead", I doubt he's being remorseful.


So, it looks like your paladin is currently Neutral Evil (or "Evil" in 4e terms). If he completely ignored a church order to keep the killer alive, then he's fallen all the way to Chaotic Evil. If not, and he's seeking redemption for his actions, he's probably up to True Neutral/Unaligned, although he has a long way to go to get back into gooddom. I suppose there's a possibility that he could be Chaotic Neutral, but I have a hard time seeing him discount what happened to church officials, then turn around and sincerely show remorse.


PS. Sounds like a good time to throw some angels into the game.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-17, 03:00 PM
He kidnapped and murdered without a trial a man accused of heresy. In modern terms, heresy is not even a crime and with good reason. I understand why a medieval paladin would need to bring in a heretic, but I just have to comment that his crime was literally commiting free speech and having a different religous view. We aren't talking hardened killer or criminal here.


Dude, did you miss the part where the OP's OP (oreiginal thread) mentioned that the Heretic could be taken care of by the Paladins discretion and that the heretic killed any who disagreed with him?
The Heretic was a murderer and a heretic.

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-17, 03:53 PM
Oops. My mistake, as I didn't double back and read the OP's OP: and just situation as posed on this thread. My apologies.

However, it doesn't much change the situation. My point was that heresy is barely a crime, and that he killed someone for talking trash about him, not because they were a murderer. If he was going to be judge, jury, and executioner why not kill him on the spot and save the trouble of detaining him? He's still a bully and the fact that he felt he needed to arrest a murderer means that he knows that instant on the spot justice is not supposed to be the answer in this case.

chiasaur11
2008-09-17, 03:56 PM
Oops. My mistake, as I didn't double back and read the OP's OP: and just situation as posed on this thread. My apologies.

However, it doesn't much change the situation. My point was that heresy is barely a crime, and that he killed someone for talking trash about him. If he was going to be judge, jury, and executioner why not kill him on the spot and save the trouble of detaining him? He's still a bully and the fact that he felt he needed to arrest a murderer means that he knows that instant on the spot justice is not supposed to be the answer in this case.

The man was a multiple murderer.

The Paladin was probably wrong to kill him (and the method... yeah), but the guy had it coming to him.

Plus, threatening to kill everyone you know (and maybe being able to go through with it) is more than trash talk.

It's an evil act, sure, but it leans more towards Cuthbert than Asmodeus. For now.

Occasional Sage
2008-09-17, 04:13 PM
The man was a multiple murderer.

The Paladin was probably wrong to kill him (and the method... yeah), but the guy had it coming to him.

Plus, threatening to kill everyone you know (and maybe being able to go through with it) is more than trash talk.

It's an evil act, sure, but it leans more towards Cuthbert than Asmodeus. For now.

I disagree. If he were a free man, hurling threats from a position of strength, I'd be there with you. Since he's a bound prisoner, though, there's no justification for the extreme reaction. That makes it Evil in my mind.

BendakStarkiler
2008-09-17, 04:26 PM
I think that the line of evil for a cleric or paladin, must have something to do with their relation to their god. For example of a cleric of pelor took a wizard he was keeping as a prisoner and broke his fingers then used a cure spell to heal the bones in awkward disformed ways so the wizard could not cast spells I think that would be evil, because the cleric is using his divine gifts in a manner unbefitting of Pelor. What the paladin did, while harsh is not an affront to his God, thus i don't think is should count as an evil act.

Knaight
2008-09-17, 04:56 PM
That depends on the god. Most good gods wouldn't be happy with it, some of the more callous unaligned gods wouldn't care, less callous unaligned gods wouldn't be happy with it either, and evil gods would be cheering on the sidelines.

Xenogears
2008-09-17, 05:07 PM
Why is everyone assuming that the Player (or character) even knew it would kill the heretic. How many books, shows, cartoons, comics, etc. have you read or seen where someone gets dragged behind a horse for days and comes out with just some bumps and bruises? I've certainly encountered it.

Also if you are going to argue that one evil act makes someone evil then you also have to say that one good act makes someone good if its good enough. So the mass-murderer donates all his millions of gold to charity and saves a town from monsters is now a good guy. And the Paladin who spent his life serving the people and fighting evil but murdered someone in anger last week is evil. Doesn't make an ounce of sense to consider things that way. Hell someone said earlier something like "this is Anakin and the sandpeople." Well that one act didn't make Anakin an evil person. It didn't make him "unalaigned" either. It made him a good person that when he gets angry he might do something evil. After enough evil acts he made the choice and became an evil person. Just killing the sandpeople didn't make HIM evil it just made his ACTION evil.

Just because someone does something evil does not make them evil. If they regurally do evil things then yes they are evil. If they spend most of their time doing good deeds and do one evil deed (unless it is something like killing a hundred people for fun) then they are still a good person. In the paladin question then if his church bans such acts then he should face some kind of punishment from the church (and possibly the god). However committing one evil act does not make you an evil person. Telling the player that because he commited one evil act his character is an evil person is just dumb.

nagora
2008-09-17, 05:08 PM
Paladins falling and losing their powers is a purely DND invention
No, it's not. Both Arthur and Lancelot spring to mind.

Paladins' abilities are a game balance issue. Being good is hard, and being evil is easy. Players getting special abilities for doing something trivial is not a reasonable design. Why not be a paladin in 4e? It's obvious in previous editions that it's a choice with a stiff cost.


Why is everyone assuming that the Player (or character) even knew it would kill the heretic. How many books, shows, cartoons, comics, etc. have you read or seen where someone gets dragged behind a horse for days and comes out with just some bumps and bruises?
Er...None :smalleek: Days?!

Occasional Sage
2008-09-17, 05:13 PM
I think that the line of evil for a cleric or paladin, must have something to do with their relation to their god. For example of a cleric of pelor took a wizard he was keeping as a prisoner and broke his fingers then used a cure spell to heal the bones in awkward disformed ways so the wizard could not cast spells I think that would be evil, because the cleric is using his divine gifts in a manner unbefitting of Pelor. What the paladin did, while harsh is not an affront to his God, thus i don't think is should count as an evil act.



After a successful adventure involving the tracking down and capture (via a vicious battle followed by an Intimidate check) of a known killer and heretic, the party is traveling back to the church on their horses with the prisoner in tow (being pulled along by the paladin's horse with hands bound).... Suddenly, the paladin... brutally hacked at the tendons in the captive's legs.... He did not survive the two day journey to the church for trial.


The paladin's mission was to capture the heretic and return him for trial. He passed judgment without trial or justice and against his orders. That makes this an affront to Pelor through His church. While the relationship between the paladin and Pelor probably isn't irrecoverable, it should be badly damaged and in need of repair.

EDIT TO ADD:


Also if you are going to argue that one evil act makes someone evil then you also have to say that one good act makes someone good if its good enough. So the mass-murderer donates all his millions of gold to charity and saves a town from monsters is now a good guy. And the Paladin who spent his life serving the people and fighting evil but murdered someone in anger last week is evil. Doesn't make an ounce of sense to consider things that way.

Just because someone does something evil does not make them evil. If they regurally do evil things then yes they are evil. If they spend most of their time doing good deeds and do one evil deed (unless it is something like killing a hundred people for fun) then they are still a good person. In the paladin question then if his church bans such acts then he should face some kind of punishment from the church (and possibly the god). However committing one evil act does not make you an evil person. Telling the player that because he commited one evil act his character is an evil person is just dumb.


I'd certainly call it an evil act, but a single act doesn't change your alignment; whether this shifts his alignment would depend on the paladin's pattern of actions.


Right. That's why the majority of posters (myself included) have made that distinction already.

BRC
2008-09-17, 05:18 PM
If I was the DM, I'd make him do a Quest of Penance or somthing. Maybe he needs to solve some problem (Goblins attacking a village or something like that), or do some other service for the church. However, if he uses violent while doing this service he loses his powers.

Swok
2008-09-17, 05:19 PM
Wasn't he a Paladin of Bahamut? As it involved intentionally causing suffering, I dare say the God who has tenets involving protection and chivalry would severely frown on what the Paladin in question did.

Occasional Sage
2008-09-17, 05:19 PM
If I was the DM, I'd make him do a Quest of Penance or somthing. Maybe he needs to solve some problem (Goblins attacking a village or something like that), or do some other service for the church. However, if he uses violence while doing this service he loses his powers.

Boy, wouldn't it be nice if 4e worked that way?

BRC
2008-09-17, 05:20 PM
Boy, wouldn't it be nice if 4e worked that way?
I don't know 4e and I don't have the books. Ergo, if I was DM we would be playing 3.5, Ergo he Could lose his powers.

Beleriphon
2008-09-17, 05:22 PM
No, it's not. Both Arthur and Lancelot spring to mind.

Paladins' abilities are a game balance issue. Being good is hard, and being evil is easy. Players getting special abilities for doing something trivial is not a reasonable design. Why not be a paladin in 4e? It's obvious in previous editions that it's a choice with a stiff cost.

It still is a stiff cost. You are divinely embued by the will of a deity and bound by oath to do their will. There should be RP consequences, not mechanical ones.

RP balance are poor substitute for mechanical balance. The only reason anybody took paladin was for RP purposes, mechanically they're a weak class in previous editions.

Now in 4E you can be a paladin if you want to be, and not be stuck playing to the way your DM thinks your paladin should be. Your question amounts to why not play a wizard, or a rogue, or fighter, or any other class.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-17, 05:26 PM
It still is a stiff cost. You are divinely embued by the will of a deity and bound by oath to do their will. There should be RP consequences, not mechanical ones.

RP balance are poor substitute for mechanical balance. The only reason anybody took paladin was for RP purposes, mechanically they're a weak class in previous editions.

Now in 4E you can be a paladin if you want to be, and not be stuck playing to the way your DM thinks your paladin should be. Your question amounts to why not play a wizard, or a rogue, or fighter, or any other class.

True, but your church might regret you acting unlike what they want a Pally and try to arrest you. So it is sorta RP and a little mechanical (at least when they attack you lol).

Xenogears
2008-09-17, 05:27 PM
Er...None :smalleek: Days?!

Really? Huh. Well most of the time its for an indetermanite amount of time (hero ties them to the horse, gallops off, screen fades, next scene is them arriving in a town that you have no idea how close it was), but I did read a book where they dragged the guy like that for a week. I think someone else mentioned something about the player probably being influenced by media into thinking it wouldn't kill the guy.

Also just felt like saying but Bahamut (despite being LG) is still a dragon. They are known (even the good ones) for dealing very harshly with people (especially thieves). I mean even a gold dragon is still gonna brutally murder and eat you if you try to steal from it. It "might" give you about a minute to try and come up with a reeeaally good reason for being there. Maybe. So of all the LG gods bahamut seems the least likely to get upset about this. He probably wouldn't condone torturing the guy to death. On the other hand if the paladin only meant to teach him a lesson and he died as a result bahamut would probably only be mildly angry. Upset enough to assign him penetince (say donating a large sum of money to the church and spending three days in the "Chamber of Reflection" without food to reflect on how he might better act next time) but probably not going to kick him out of the church for it. Likely not gonna take away his powers either.

If the Paladin did indeed mean to drag the guy to death then he has taken his first step towards evil. He is still not evil. Not yet. Hes not unaligned yet either. Still good. Just closer to evil than before.

quillbreaker
2008-09-17, 05:33 PM
Killing a prisoner in custody is pretty unquestionably evil. The only time it could possibly be justified is if you are preventing the target's escape or rescue, and even that is cutting it close.

Torturing a prisoner in custody is also evil. The strawman argument, that the victim has knowledge that will save lives, is nonsense. You can't guarantee that they have the information or that torturing will get it out of them. To have a good chance of getting any useful information you have to torture a lot of people, some of which will be ignorant and a few of which (at least) will be innocent.

By the way (and it's a bit off topic), my advice to DMs is to never, ever, ever let the players learn anything useful or accomplish anything useful through torture, no matter how much sense it might make, unless you like roleplaying that kind of thing. Players will repeat a successful strategy, and if the strategy works sometimes and doesn't work other times, they will try to improve the strategy. So unless you want to find yourself figuring out the DC modifiers for creative use of dungeoneering equipment for interrogation, avoid torture.

Tengu_temp
2008-09-17, 05:38 PM
No, it's not. Both Arthur and Lancelot spring to mind.


I wasn't aware that Lancelot or Arthur could channel God's power.



Paladins' abilities are a game balance issue. Being good is hard, and being evil is easy. Players getting special abilities for doing something trivial is not a reasonable design. Why not be a paladin in 4e? It's obvious in previous editions that it's a choice with a stiff cost.


Game balance issue? That'd be true if paladins would be a super-duper class, stronger than the others (which also creates problems, because balancing crunch with fluff doesn't usually work very well, but that's a different matter - one we're not discussing here). But paladins are a decent, balanced with everyone else class in 4e, and outward weak in 3.x.

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-17, 05:39 PM
Why is everyone assuming that the Player (or character) even knew it would kill the heretic. How many books, shows, cartoons, comics, etc. have you read or seen where someone gets dragged behind a horse for days and comes out with just some bumps and bruises? I've certainly encountered it.

Also if you are going to argue that one evil act makes someone evil then you also have to say that one good act makes someone good if its good enough. So the mass-murderer donates all his millions of gold to charity and saves a town from monsters is now a good guy. And the Paladin who spent his life serving the people and fighting evil but murdered someone in anger last week is evil. Doesn't make an ounce of sense to consider things that way. Hell someone said earlier something like "this is Anakin and the sandpeople." Well that one act didn't make Anakin an evil person. It didn't make him "unalaigned" either. It made him a good person that when he gets angry he might do something evil. After enough evil acts he made the choice and became an evil person. Just killing the sandpeople didn't make HIM evil it just made his ACTION evil.

Just because someone does something evil does not make them evil. If they regurally do evil things then yes they are evil. If they spend most of their time doing good deeds and do one evil deed (unless it is something like killing a hundred people for fun) then they are still a good person. In the paladin question then if his church bans such acts then he should face some kind of punishment from the church (and possibly the god). However committing one evil act does not make you an evil person. Telling the player that because he commited one evil act his character is an evil person is just dumb.

I'll link and quote the OP's OP, because I made the mistake of not googling for and getting the link myself, and got burned for it. Here's the link:

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1085734


We have a paladin of Bahamut in our group who is absolutely ardent about battling evil without mercy. Now, I know paladins can no longer lose their powers in 4th Edition, but if they break their vows/code/whatever, their church might seek to punish them for their transgressions. Their alignment might change to match their continuing deeds as well. Hopefully, you see where this is going by now.

After a successful adventure involving the tracking down and capture (via a vicious battle followed by an Intimidate check) of a known killer and heretic, the party is traveling back to the church on their horses with the prisoner in tow (being pulled along by the paladin's horse with hands bound). The heretic called out to his captor, tha paladin, and insulted his faith and threatened death and dismemberment to his loved ones (something about having powerful friends).

Suddenly, the paladin stopped his horse, dismounted, drew his sword as he made his way to the captive (who began to scream for mercy) and then brutally hacked at the tendons in the captive's legs. The paladin then remounted and began DRAGGING the now crippled heretic behind his horse. He did not survive the two day journey to the church for trial.

The other characters were too feaked out by the deed and too intimidated by the paladin to do anything about it.

Having killed a heretic of the church, the paladin likely won't suffer much more than a slap on the wrist from his superiors (it is not for you to decide who is to be punished before trial!), but I'm wondering if I should change his alignment to evil. The paladin has always been brutal and merciless in his fight against evil, but this seems to me like a new height of depravity for him.

Looking for opinions on the matter. What would you, as a DM do, if anything?

Facts:
The Paladin has a history of vicious retribution, but this is the most extreme his party has seen.
He dragged the now crippled guy behind his own horse for *two days.*
Being dragged behind something for even a few miles is enough to strip the skin off of most people.
He likely died of blood loss, shock or concussion before the end of day one, anyway.

As far as the Anakin comparison, Anakin's actions showed that he his fear and anger could drive him to toss aside everything that should have been important to him. After the Sandpeople incident, it was just a matter of making Anakin mad or angry enough to turn to the Dark Side. Another important aspect, I think is that Anakin doesn't show any remorse, even though he intellectually knows what he did was very wrong. He doesn't address the issue, and even ignore's Yoda's advice on the subject.

For Anakin, the Sandpeople established that he lacked the strength of character to avoid the Dark Side. In the case of this Paladin, we already have a pattern of Dark Side behaviour, and this is the freshest example.

Dervag
2008-09-17, 05:43 PM
Personally, I don't think a blackguard is quite right for this situation. If I was going to assign him the 4e equivilent of a 3e PRC it would be the Grey Guard, a paladin who can break his paladin oaths to a limited extent. A paladin who is given permission to combat great evils by performing small ones.But in this case, the "paladin" has no reason to perform a "small" evil (Dragging someone behind a horse as they scream in pain from their ruined legs, as they're scraped to death against the ground is small!?). There's no reason to do it except cruelty and spite.

Any entity worthy of the description "Lawful Good" (which, I gather, includes Bahamut) would despise such an action. I find it difficult to believe that Bahamut would accept this person as a champion. And paladins, even in fourth edition, can fall if they no longer faithfully uphold the cause of their god.

To heck with what his church does; this man should never cast a spell again unless he can find a new source of power to permit him to commit further evil.


He is hypocritical sadist, but this is 4E, he is automatically a god guy because he is a protagonist and thus the game doesn't focus on actually punishing him from a rule perspective. Through his gods might be pissed
from
EEWhat, 4th Edition doesn't have rules for what happens when a paladin stops following their god? Because that's totally what this guy just did.


The paladins code was idiocy. Moral dilemas should come down to the characters, and be because of the GM, not because of some arbitrary code that just happens to come with mechanics. Alignment is a cop out, sure its a nice short hand, but its also a crutch, and the paladins code is pretty much built on it.The paladin's code was meant to allow a specific type of character (the "holy knights" of Christian mythology) to be played, with mechanical consequences for the paladin failing to follow the path of virtue.

Considered on its own, it makes little sense. Considered in light of what Western culture and mythos looked like before D&D was invented, it makes more sense.


He made someone who threatened his family suffer and die.

True Neutral. I always view alignment as one's motives, not deeds. It causes less headaches when paladins slaughter goblin babies.

Also, that Paladin is Badass.One's willingness to commit acts of grotesque cruelty is part of one's motives. Any smug bastard can whip up a justification for evil acts out of "good" motives:

"I just wanted to make room for my people!"

I believe that the principle of mercy requires me to treat everyone as if they might have had a non-evil motive until proven otherwise. This guy has proven otherwise, though. Crippling and torturing a helpless prisoner is not morally neutral. Morally neutral means "It's OK to do this, but OK not to do this." Which definitely does not describe crippling and torturing a helpless prisoner.
______________


Paladin basically means "knight". Paladins falling and losing their powers is a purely DND invention (and not a part of the definition) - and it caused all kinds of trouble, because different DMs and even different sourcebooks interpreted the code in different ways.Before there was D&D, "paladin" meant not only "knight" but "exemplar." A paladin was a champion, a superb example of some (presumably good) thing. If you said "paladin," people would assume you meant something righteous. Not 'self-righteous'. Righteous. As in good and right.

The D&D paladin comes from the archetype of a virtuous warrior who gains supernatural powers through his virtue. The Knights of the Round Table and the Peers of Charlemagne are examples that come up a lot. These examples may or may not be familiar to you; I don't know. But they're real. Gygax even cited them.

Of course, when you adapt the idea to a polytheistic setting, it's reasonable that a paladin is a champion of a god. Any god, including gods who don't care about how virtuous their followers are.

Thing is, Bahamut is Lawful Good. He presumably does care about whether his followers are virtuous. If his followers are the opposite of virtuous, and become vicious, then he would most likely not grant them powers anymore. Which is how a 4th Edition paladin can fall.

Thus, this paladin of Bahamut should fall, for acts grossly inconsistent with the desires of his god. Just like a paladin of a fire god who joins a conspiracy to wrap the world in ice. Or a paladin of a nature god who decides to start strip-mining the wilderness.


Wasn't he a Paladin of Bahamut? As it involved intentionally causing suffering, I dare say the God who has tenets involving protection and chivalry would severely frown on what the Paladin in question did.Ah. Thank you. I thought Bahamut's portfolio was like that, but I don't have 4e rulebooks yet.

That, I think, reinforces my argument- a god of chivalry would not want a champion who tortures prisoners to death in a fit of rage.

Incidentally, if you look at the original Greek concept of the word, this paladin has just committed hubris (an outrage which not only hurts and humiliates its victim, but also shames the person who committed it). The gods punish hubris, no?
____________________


Boy, wouldn't it be nice if 4e worked that way?If a paladin's powers are granted directly by a god, then paladins can lose or regain their powers in whatever way the god desires. Or, failing that, the god can simply direct its servants to strike down the paladin if said paladin refuses to obey the god's dictates.

Unless I am sorely mistaken, this is true no matter how Fourth Edition works, assuming 4th Edition gods are powerful. Which I gather they are.
_________________________


Now in 4E you can be a paladin if you want to be, and not be stuck playing to the way your DM thinks your paladin should be. Your question amounts to why not play a wizard, or a rogue, or fighter, or any other class.Even in Fourth Edition, your paladin is still required to be a champion of a god. Therefore, if the DM thinks your paladin is breaking his deity's rules (as opposed to an abstract philosophical alignment code), the DM has reason to punish your paladin.

As in, have an angel with a flaming sword descend from the heavens and demand in a window-rattling voice that the paladin repent his deeds or be destroyed where he stands. Something subtle like that.

Kletian999
2008-09-17, 05:49 PM
Wasn't he a Paladin of Bahamut? As it involved intentionally causing suffering, I dare say the God who has tenets involving protection and chivalry would severely frown on what the Paladin in question did.

I'd say he protected his wife and children and future people that might have been killed by the heretic. Villians never stay arrested.

BRC
2008-09-17, 05:50 PM
But in this case, the "paladin" has no reason to perform a "small" evil (Dragging someone behind a horse as they scream in pain from their ruined legs, as they're scraped to death against the ground is small!?). There's no reason to do it except cruelty and spite.

Any entity worthy of the description "Lawful Good" (which, I gather, includes Bahamut) would despise such an action. I find it difficult to believe that Bahamut would accept this person as a champion. And paladins, even in fourth edition, can fall if they no longer faithfully uphold the cause of their god.

To heck with what his church does; this man should never cast a spell again unless he can find a new source of power to permit him to commit further evil.

Yeah, my Grey Guard suggestion was before completally reading the OP, I'd just kinda skimmed it and though he'd just pulled over and chopped his head off or somthing. Upon re-reading I saw this was way past grey-guard evil.

Knaight
2008-09-17, 05:55 PM
No kidding. Bahamut would be sending angels of vengeance after this guy right about now. Just because Bahamut gave him the power as opposed to renting it doesn't mean he can blow Bahamut off, its angels of vangeance time. And excommunication time.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-17, 05:57 PM
What, 4th Edition doesn't have rules for what happens when a paladin stops following their god? Because that's totally what this guy just did.

Nope. The Paladin created through a ritual.
Once undertaken can never be taken from you: just like Teiflings.
Tieflings: They never talk to demons, but since their parents did they have horns.


Thing is, Bahamut is Lawful Good. He presumably does care about whether his followers are virtuous. If his followers are the opposite of virtuous, and become vicious, then he would most likely not grant them powers anymore. Which is how a 4th Edition paladin can fall.

exceprt gopds believe in free will because the books say they don't take away powers. The worst they do is send their church to get you (wanted posters, etc).



If a paladin's powers are granted directly by a god, then paladins can lose or regain their powers in whatever way the god desires. Or, failing that, the god can simply direct its servants to strike down the paladin if said paladin refuses to obey the god's dictates.

Unless I am sorely mistaken, this is true no matter how Fourth Edition works, assuming 4th Edition gods are powerful. Which I gather they are.
_________________________



Nope. You powers come from the initial Ritual.
The Ritual comes from the god or the church, but once undertaken (I assume that the God must have seen something in you that makes them believe you would be worthy) cannot be revoked.

It is yours now.

Beleriphon
2008-09-17, 06:00 PM
Even in Fourth Edition, your paladin is still required to be a champion of a god. Therefore, if the DM thinks your paladin is breaking his deity's rules (as opposed to an abstract philosophical alignment code), the DM has reason to punish your paladin.

As in, have an angel with a flaming sword descend from the heavens and demand in a window-rattling voice that the paladin repent his deeds or be destroyed where he stands. Something subtle like that.

Which I do point out. Just because there is no mechanical punishment from the rules system doesn't meant here shouldn't be a punishment at all.

My point to Naogra was largely that playing a paladin should be the same as a wizard, or fighter, or whatever. Punishments should meted out in character, not by the rules.

Tengu_temp
2008-09-17, 06:02 PM
Which I do point out. Just because there is no mechanical punishment from the rules system doesn't meant here shouldn't be one.

Of course. I can't help but think that some people are too rooted in the older editions to realize that a paladin can be punished for his transgressions in other ways than falling.

Xenogears
2008-09-17, 06:02 PM
Facts:[LIST=1]
The Paladin has a history of vicious retribution, but this is the most extreme his party has seen.

Judging by the OP all we can say is that he is merciless towards evil. Unless I missed something then it didn't say that he had enacted retribution towards previous villains. This might be the first time he has done it.


He dragged the now crippled guy behind his own horse for *two days.* Being dragged behind something for even a few miles is enough to strip the skin off of most people.He likely died of blood loss, shock or concussion before the end of day one, anyway.

If he was dead after the first day then he would have stopped dragging him. I doubt that the Paladin rode for two days straight (also you can only ride harder than a walk for maybe an hour or two without killing the horse) So the heretic probably died sometime during the second day.


As far as the Anakin comparison, Anakin's actions showed that he his fear and anger could drive him to toss aside everything that should have been important to him. After the Sandpeople incident, it was just a matter of making Anakin mad or angry enough to turn to the Dark Side. Another important aspect, I think is that Anakin doesn't show any remorse, even though he intellectually knows what he did was very wrong. He doesn't address the issue, and even ignore's Yoda's advice on the subject.
For Anakin, the Sandpeople established that he lacked the strength of character to avoid the Dark Side. In the case of this Paladin, we already have a pattern of Dark Side behaviour, and this is the freshest example.

All the Sandpeople incident showed was that in extreme cases of fear/anger he would do extreme things. Most people would try to get revenge on the people who killed their mother. The evilness of the act was that he killed everyone in the village not just the warriors and adults. It didn't necessarily show that he was going to turn evil. It was a hint that he had the capacity for great evil. Throughout the Clone Wars he was willing to sacrifice himself for the good of the republic on numerous occasions. He was willing to put himself at great personal risk to aid his allies. He led an examplery life for that time period. Same with the Paladin. This act shows that he has a capacity to do great evil. If that capacity is nurtered he will soon be quite evil. If he takes this oppurtunity to deal with whatever issues he has then he can continue to be quite good.

You can approach this issue from either a black/white perspective or a grey area perspective. In the grey area than you can't just say that one evil act makes a person evil (hell most people have done plenty of "evil" acts and are still for the most part good). In the Black/white perspective then you just encounter too many problems. If killing a good person is evil what happens when two good nations go to war? Are all the soldiers evil now? Or is it okay because they are soldiers? Black/White issues only really work when dealing with demons/undead vs. Celestiels. Creatures of pure good and evil.

Occasional Sage
2008-09-17, 06:13 PM
I can't help but think that some people are too rooted in the older editions to realize that a paladin can be punished for his transgressions in other ways than falling.

The problem here is that in many cases gamers assume that if the rules don't say it, then they don't need to worry about it. "Oh, no more rules for falling? OK, no more behavior guidelines!" will be the thought of many, many players and DMs. I've seen this pattern repeated over the last 25 years, it's pervasive and persistent.

I don't want to derail this thread onto what should and shouldn't be included in rules, though.

This act? *NOT OK* for any LG character. This act for a paladin? Especially grievous. Falling? No longer an option. Punishment? A consummation devoutly to be wished.

Tengu_temp
2008-09-17, 06:25 PM
For some reason, I don't see people claiming to have good alignments and acting like total jerks on every opportunity, just because the rules won't bite them in the ass when they do that. Must be the groups I'm playing with - mature people, mostly.

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-17, 06:30 PM
Judging by the OP all we can say is that he is merciless towards evil. Unless I missed something then it didn't say that he had enacted retribution towards previous villains. This might be the first time he has done it.

You can draw your own conclusions from the description of "brutal and mercilous" and "new height of depravity" I suppose.


If he was dead after the first day then he would have stopped dragging him. I doubt that the Paladin rode for two days straight (also you can only ride harder than a walk for maybe an hour or two without killing the horse) So the heretic probably died sometime during the second day.

It doesn't really matter, but I was assuming a normal walking pace anyway (If the paladin wanted bring his horse to a gallop, he wouldn't have needed to bother to cut any tendons, as a human can't run that fast anyway.) If you can't stand you'll find that the ground is a pretty rough thing to be dragged against. It doesn't take long at all to tear off skin and puncture flesh. Blood flow can't be stopped if wounds are scraped open before they even fully close.

Pretty soon shock from blood loss sets in, and you can't keep your head off the ground. Then it's a race to see if concussion or shock or bleeding is what kills you. If you're lucky you'll snag something and break your neck and save yourself a lot of pain.

So I really don't think that guy survived to day two, and I don't see a problem with the paladin dragging a corpse like an anchor. Maybe he thought the blood trail would serve as a warning to others not to say anything that might make him mad enough to cut your tendons and drag you to your death? It doesn't matter.. it's still an exceptional cruel way to die.


You can approach this issue from either a black/white perspective or a grey area perspective. In the grey area than you can't just say that one evil act makes a person evil (hell most people have done plenty of "evil" acts and are still for the most part good). In the Black/white perspective then you just encounter too many problems. If killing a good person is evil what happens when two good nations go to war? Are all the soldiers evil now? Or is it okay because they are soldiers? Black/White issues only really work when dealing with demons/undead vs. Celestiels. Creatures of pure good and evil.

No, I don't think this one singular action leads the Paladin to evil, since you ask. No one here (I think?) believes that. However, the Paladin has a history and this is merely a culminating act. This isn't "Anakin and the Sandpeople," it's "Anakin and the Younglings."

monty
2008-09-17, 06:31 PM
To quote my biology professor: "Not everybody has the luxury of working with intelligent people."

Frosty
2008-09-17, 06:32 PM
If this were 3.5, he'd have fallen and went neutral instantly in my campaign. And Bahamut/Heironeous/Kord would smite him.

Tengu_temp
2008-09-17, 06:33 PM
To quote my biology professor: "Not everybody has the luxury of working with intelligent people."

Well, DND is not work, is it? If your players are retards, ditch them.

tribble
2008-09-17, 07:31 PM
Well, DND is not work, is it? If your players are retards, ditch them.

What about this (http://www.flashportal.com/movies/unforgotten_realms_1.html)?
kekekeke

busterswd
2008-09-17, 08:30 PM
You can approach this issue from either a black/white perspective or a grey area perspective. In the grey area than you can't just say that one evil act makes a person evil (hell most people have done plenty of "evil" acts and are still for the most part good). In the Black/white perspective then you just encounter too many problems. If killing a good person is evil what happens when two good nations go to war? Are all the soldiers evil now? Or is it okay because they are soldiers? Black/White issues only really work when dealing with demons/undead vs. Celestiels. Creatures of pure good and evil.

Intent and remorse are important though, as is restraint in using force. Even a soldier should not view taking a life lightly, even if he kills people for a living.

Again though, I'd say in this case it's not the death of the criminal that was so bad, it was the sustained torture that lead to it. Sadism for the sake of anger or entertainment one of the few things I'd argue is blatantly evil. I don't think there's any possible gray area for reveling in someone else's suffering. If you argue he wanted to protect his family, it'd be much faster and safer to just give him a quick death on the spot, and as someone posted in the original thread, dragging a screaming man on your horse has a way of attracting the attention of other people, meaning that his allies had the possibility of seeing that and enacting vengeance on their own.

EvilElitest
2008-09-17, 10:20 PM
The paladins code was idiocy. Moral dilemas should come down to the characters, and be because of the GM, not because of some arbitrary code that just happens to come with mechanics. Alignment is a cop out, sure its a nice short hand, but its also a crutch, and the paladins code is pretty much built on it.

Fallacy. THe paladin code isn't arbitrary, because nothing forces you to take that class. And there is no special situation that only allows paladins to have moral dilemmas. paladins simply take a single alignment to an extreme.

The idea that alignment is a hinderence is based upon a massive misunderstanding of hte system. There are not nine personalities that one has to have. Any personality can fit into the alignment system


No, no it doesn't. The idea is that the players are supposed to be good. It doesn't mean they can't be, just that they are encouraged to be. Thats it, evil is still evil.

Considering how ill defined evil and good are, players can get away with a lot. i mean, this character is basically dirty harry who would be evil in 3E



Its just as legitimate to be evil in 4E, but its discouraged because being evil tends to go against the grain of heroic fantasy. Characters can still be evil based on behaviour.



No its not, because the way its show is that they are just baby eating sociopaths. Because you have to work to be evil, this means you ahve to be a total bastard to be considered evil


The actions you take on a daily basis define alignment. Just because you don't consider yourself evil doesn't mean you aren't evil.
in 3E yes. However as unaligned people are still doing stuff,


And I would state the vast majority of people really would be unaligned if we classifed real people with alignment. So its not just simpler = better its that moral challenges should not be based on a character's alignment they should be actual moral challenges. Alignment is just a handy notation for a quick idea about how a character acts in most situations. A moral dilemma is still a moral dilemma regardless of whether alignment affects characters in a mechanical manner or not, or even if its exists at all.

1) No, most real life people would be neutral or evil, with a small group of good. As 4E loves simplification, it just creates a mongol aligniment system with the worst traits of both morality RPG system
2) i'm not again aligniment actually. I am again an aligniment system which doesn't do what an aligniment system is suppose to, IE provide objective morality.


Rape, torture, murder, arson, anything generally evil as a basis for your actions should be evil. Its pretty clear cut. The idea is that evil people actively do evil things because thats how they like things done, or its just easier for them to be that way. Good people do good things because thats how they like things to be, and they don't necessarily take the easy route. Its not that different from 3E except now there are no game mechanics related to alignment.

Not according to the PHB definition. I can find half a dozen justification for each of those things. It was pretty clear cut, but things are different now. in 3E you'd be right, but in 4E not at all



If you think about the status of Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham, Robin is Good the Sheriff is Evil. The Sheriff is evil because he kills peasants out of hand, oppresses the people he's sworn to protect, taxes the crud out of the populace for personal gain and is generally a total git. Robin opposes this, he actively protects the peasants even at personal risk. He goes out of his way to help, even in a situation that he has no personal stake in but he can help with. He's good because he does good things. In this situation an unaligned person person would be like the peasants, they don't want to have the sheriff in charge but don't want to take enough personal responsiblity to stop him. They prefer Robin, but are willing to put up with Sheriff so long as he doesn't hurt them.

1) In 3E, it depends on your story. i'd say the Sherif is normally LE or NE, while most versions of Robin hood are CG or NG.
2) The peasents would be neutral. Or even good or evil. Because you know consistency. Just because you aren't a main character doesn't mean you don't have morals. Unaligned is an absurd idea, its just saying "ok, if you have a name, you get an aligniment. If not, well we don't care"


As for becoming evil, I might call the described character evil, but one action as described isn't enough. I would definitely say the are unaligned, 3E didn't have any better than LN to describe their behaviour either, which for the most part is best covered by unaligned in 4E.


In 3E he'd be clearly evil, because every time the person begged for mercy and he ignored it, then he'd be commiting another evil action. He certainly be at least neutral and would defiantly fall.


Just like 3E was set up. Orcs are evil so we kill them. Whats the difference? There isn't one as far as I can see except that now there aren't four extra alignments to stick monsters and characters into.
1) fallacy actually, orcs are often chaotic evil. BoED deeds says killing evil things just for being evil (creatures like demons and other always evil being the exception of course) is in fact murder and thus evil
2) well we've gone from having a cohesiveness morality system that covers all ground to one that cut corners in its determination to make its self simpler.




1) Actually, classic fantasy is a relative term. Most heros in myths would be evil interestly enough.
2) another fallacy, it seems 4E appeals to sterotypes. D&D's morality, at least until 4E was never simplistic, it was actually pretty complicated. Just painfully explained
3) 4E's determination to make the system even more simpler and its utter lack of respect for its own rules is part of it yes, but as 4E's morality goes, this guy is in the clear. Old rules would make him evil for being a sadist hypocrite, but now he is just Dirty harry

[QUOTE]
I don't believe the "lawfulness" or "justness" of the sentences or punishments has much to with my arguments, which are mostly concerned with the humaneness of said punishments.

And even beheadings have been horribly botched before.

Electric chair would be inhumainly cruel. Hanging would vary, because often times its the best you could do at hte time. A botched beheading is an accident, which you can't hold them for




We're staring to head into waters the Giant might not wish us to sail in, at least on these forums. The credibility or "right" a court, any court has to punish man could be argued against, but we're getting into anarchy there.

Ultimately, my arguments are as such: Courts, laws, and punishments are all fallible because humans, those who make and execute these things, are fallible.

In real life. in the world of 3E D&D, this can not be the case, as there are ways to find the truth.


And exile can be a cruel fate. Cast out into the elements as a marked man, possibly with no friends, possibly branded an outlaw who will receive no mercy and who can be slain at will. The loss of all legal rights, and even the right to be regarded as a human being; reduced to mere chattel. The "mark of Cain" is no guarantee.
The fact that you've committed something evil (and lets assume the court is a just one), having your rights stripped aways is a perfectly likely


Imagine being exiled from a desert city, situated on the only oasis around. One would stagger out in the desert to die as the lonely wind hollowed over the uncaring dunes, eventually falling to be buried in the sands, forgotten and forsaken by all men.
actually, thats murder, and thus not good (unless you prefered to try your luck there). however an exile out of a country into forgein lands is perfectly understandable



Here was the point: In attempting to execute punishment X, one may also execute punishment Y. But punishment Y may not always be warranted. The specific example I was thinking of was subjecting someone to the violent and abusive prison culture for relatively minor charges.
your example is so narrow it losses its own merit in the process. Throwing a dude to certain death is certainly evil




Technically, we don't know that the heretic suffered for two days. All we know is that by the end of the two days, he was dead. He could have lasted only a day, or 12 hours, or 30 minutes. We simply don't know.

Actually, I want to ask a question here: did the Paladin fully understand what he was doing?

I know some people who wouldn't realize that getting dragged behind a horse would be painful and easily lethal to a man. Exposure to certain media where this occurs but with minimal results could have caused him to underestimate the horribleness of the act he committed.

In fact, the OP's statement and the statement he quotes is pretty strongly worded to convince the reader that the Paladin was at fault. I'm wondering if we aren't being presented with biased evidence here...
1) The fact that he was dragged to death is pretty absurd
2) Um didn't know? Unless he is mentally crippled he should be able to catch on

In short. 3E, he has fallen for torture, cowerdness and hypocrisy. In 4E, meh he is fine




This. In an idealistic world where heroes battle evil and bring hope to the world (in other words, default DND) this is not how a paladin, who's supposed to embody the virtues of chivalry, should act - I'd leave his alignment where it is for now, unless he performs another deed like that, but if his church finds out, he'll be in trouble. In a cynical world, where anti-heroes are the norm and even the good guys can be bastards sometimes, he's acting as the setting expects. But then, most characters in such worlds are Unaligned at best.
In both he is still torurting a dude to death, it just depends on the portrayal




In our games, torture is always evil, no matter who applies it to whom, or in what form. That was torture, so it was evil. It might still have been brilliant role playing, though.
In 3E that is the case as well




He made someone who threatened his family suffer and die.

True Neutral. I always view alignment as one's motives, not deeds. It causes less headaches when paladins slaughter goblin babies.

Also, that Paladin is Badass.
1) The victom threatens, and hte paladins actually does it. So we have a hypocrite
2) if this is 3E your talking about, then your wrong. actions > morality. Nobody thinks themselves as evil and the sheer inhumanity of the action is just sickening
3) Wow, that is awful. Dragging a man to death on a horse is now badass. Dear god, how many real life people could we apply that to now




Paladin basically means "knight". Paladins falling and losing their powers is a purely DND invention (and not a part of the definition) - and it caused all kinds of trouble, because different DMs and even different sourcebooks interpreted the code in different ways. Which is why they've done away with it in 4e. Just because an evil paladin can keep his powers doesn't mean that 4e (or me - you have a habit of making very far-fetched conclusions) encourages paladins to act like ***** - they still have to deal with other consequences of their actions. Just like everyone else.
actually no. THe idea of a paladin, at least in D&D is the embodyment of LG. The knight, a seperate class is just a champion for a cause. 4E got rid of it because they no longer want to actually address moral issues any more (see crop out) and generally just a response to stereotypes/need for simplification






Both sides are wrong.

Following 4e rules, the tendons would have regenerated by themselves after some minutes, just like all status ailments disapear after a combat.

The heretic would also heal all his wounds after each day.

Since 4e is too perfect for houseruling, there's no way the heretic could have died with just a STR vs FORT at will attack from the paladin, since it would totally breack the balance of the game having such uber crippling effects whitout hefty costs.

You were clearly not playing 4e. Please specify the system you were actually playing.
......now that is badass



I'd have done similar (if not worse). That bastard had it coming... That said, I'm no paladin material. Which means my approval is actually a disapproval.
so freedom of speech is an illusion?




Dude, did you miss the part where the OP's OP (oreiginal thread) mentioned that the Heretic could be taken care of by the Paladins discretion and that the heretic killed any who disagreed with him?
The Heretic was a murderer and a heretic.
1) Being a heretic isn't actually crime
2) and the paladin also is a murderer, your point?



What, 4th Edition doesn't have rules for what happens when a paladin stops following their god? Because that's totally what this guy just did.
actually, there isn't anything that says he broke his god's law. Just that he acted "badass" according to some. Basically, Dirty harry

from
EE

Knaight
2008-09-17, 10:41 PM
Fallacy. THe paladin code isn't arbitrary, because nothing forces you to take that class. And there is no special situation that only allows paladins to have moral dilemmas. paladins simply take a single alignment to an extreme.

The idea that alignment is a hinderence is based upon a massive misunderstanding of hte system. There are not nine personalities that one has to have. Any personality can fit into the alignment system


Considering how ill defined evil and good are, players can get away with a lot. i mean, this character is basically dirty harry who would be evil in 3E


No its not, because the way its show is that they are just baby eating sociopaths. Because you have to work to be evil, this means you ahve to be a total bastard to be considered evil

in 3E yes. However as unaligned people are still doing stuff,

1) No, most real life people would be neutral or evil, with a small group of good. As 4E loves simplification, it just creates a mongol aligniment system with the worst traits of both morality RPG system
2) i'm not again aligniment actually. I am again an aligniment system which doesn't do what an aligniment system is suppose to, IE provide objective morality.

Not according to the PHB definition. I can find half a dozen justification for each of those things. It was pretty clear cut, but things are different now. in 3E you'd be right, but in 4E not at all



1) In 3E, it depends on your story. i'd say the Sherif is normally LE or NE, while most versions of Robin hood are CG or NG.
2) The peasents would be neutral. Or even good or evil. Because you know consistency. Just because you aren't a main character doesn't mean you don't have morals. Unaligned is an absurd idea, its just saying "ok, if you have a name, you get an aligniment. If not, well we don't care"

In 3E he'd be clearly evil, because every time the person begged for mercy and he ignored it, then he'd be commiting another evil action. He certainly be at least neutral and would defiantly fall.

1) fallacy actually, orcs are often chaotic evil. BoED deeds says killing evil things just for being evil (creatures like demons and other always evil being the exception of course) is in fact murder and thus evil
2) well we've gone from having a cohesiveness morality system that covers all ground to one that cut corners in its determination to make its self simpler.

1) Actually, classic fantasy is a relative term. Most heros in myths would be evil interestly enough.
2) another fallacy, it seems 4E appeals to sterotypes. D&D's morality, at least until 4E was never simplistic, it was actually pretty complicated. Just painfully explained
3) 4E's determination to make the system even more simpler and its utter lack of respect for its own rules is part of it yes, but as 4E's morality goes, this guy is in the clear. Old rules would make him evil for being a sadist hypocrite, but now he is just Dirty harry


Electric chair would be inhumainly cruel. Hanging would vary, because often times its the best you could do at hte time. A botched beheading is an accident, which you can't hold them for




In real life. in the world of 3E D&D, this can not be the case, as there are ways to find the truth.


The fact that you've committed something evil (and lets assume the court is a just one), having your rights stripped aways is a perfectly likely

actually, thats murder, and thus not good (unless you prefered to try your luck there). however an exile out of a country into forgein lands is perfectly understandable


your example is so narrow it losses its own merit in the process. Throwing a dude to certain death is certainly evil



1) The fact that he was dragged to death is pretty absurd
2) Um didn't know? Unless he is mentally crippled he should be able to catch on

In short. 3E, he has fallen for torture, cowerdness and hypocrisy. In 4E, meh he is fine


In both he is still torurting a dude to death, it just depends on the portrayal



In 3E that is the case as well



1) The victom threatens, and hte paladins actually does it. So we have a hypocrite
2) if this is 3E your talking about, then your wrong. actions > morality. Nobody thinks themselves as evil and the sheer inhumanity of the action is just sickening
3) Wow, that is awful. Dragging a man to death on a horse is now badass. Dear god, how many real life people could we apply that to now



actually no. THe idea of a paladin, at least in D&D is the embodyment of LG. The knight, a seperate class is just a champion for a cause. 4E got rid of it because they no longer want to actually address moral issues any more (see crop out) and generally just a response to stereotypes/need for simplification





......now that is badass


so freedom of speech is an illusion?



1) Being a heretic isn't actually crime
2) and the paladin also is a murderer, your point?

actually, there isn't anything that says he broke his god's law. Just that he acted "badass" according to some. Basically, Dirty harry

from
EE
Nothing forces you to take that class, but being able to smite people really shouldn't require an extreme code, since that would be an easier power for gods to give out than spells anyways, and it makes sense that quite a few gods would. That shouldn't mean moral dilemmas any more than any other character. And alignment is a hinderance, because of class features and such tied to it. Apparently rational, logical people can't ever go into battle frenzy, or sing really well, where more free spirited people can't punch really hard. Alignment is tied to mechanics way too much, which makes it restrictive when classes force you to stay in an alignment.

As for having to work to be evil, thats what most serious crimes would entail. Murder is working to be evil, as is rape, massive theft, etc. Dragging someone behind a horse after cutting their legs open is working to be evil. Unaligned would be a massive amount of people, who, while they put themselves first aren't willing to kill people to advance in life. Most criminals would be evil, as would tyrants and such, and people who did charity work, and went out of their way to help people would be good. Its hardly if you don't have a name your unaligned, its just that thats where most people would fall. And Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness are incredibly stupid. Crap like ravages pretty much confirms this, not to mention some of the stuff that gets listed as evil. Ie poison, stabbing someone is OK, but if you have poison on the sword you are a bad person. Thats just taking advantage of resources in a fight, which if the fight isn't evil, shouldn't matter.

This is an evil act even in fourth edition, which has higher standards for evil. You have to go out of your way to be truly evil, yes, but thats pretty much a text book case of it.

As for alignment, it shouldn't have any effect, put objective morality in a game, or do much of anything other than provide a quick short hand.

Yahzi
2008-09-17, 11:12 PM
Technically, we don't know that the heretic suffered for two days. All we know is that by the end of the two days, he was dead. He could have lasted only a day, or 12 hours, or 30 minutes. We simply don't know.
Does it matter?


Actually, I want to ask a question here: did the Paladin fully understand what he was doing?
He's a man who makes a living killing people with a sword. If he doesn't know that being dragged behind a horse while unable to walk is painful and lethal, he is mentally retarded.

Honestly, anyone who doesn't know this has something severely wrong with them. And wouldn't the ongoing experience be adequate to demonstrate it? Does the paladin not realize when a person is in pain?


Why is everyone assuming that the Player (or character) even knew it would kill the heretic.
Asserting that the player was a 12-year old (and a stupid one at that) is a legitimate defense. Asserting that the character rides a horse for a living but doesn't know that being dragged behind one for two days is fatal is simply unbelievable.


Also if you are going to argue that one evil act makes someone evil then you also have to say that one good act makes someone good if its good enough.
I couldn't think of anything polite to say, so I'll settle for this: No.

Swordguy
2008-09-17, 11:24 PM
He's a man who makes a living killing people with a sword. If he doesn't know that being dragged behind a horse while unable to walk is painful and lethal, he is mentally retarded.


Some people would argue that makes all adventurers evil by default, so the whole situation is moot...

monty
2008-09-17, 11:33 PM
Some people would argue that makes all adventurers evil by default, so the whole situation is moot...

That didn't mean that he was evil. It meant that he knew exactly what he was doing.

Edit: He was still evil, though.

Knaight
2008-09-17, 11:35 PM
Yes, which removes the whole accident argument. If hamstringing someone then dragging them around behind a horse is evil, then it was an evil act, there were no mistakes or anything to justify it.

Beleriphon
2008-09-17, 11:55 PM
Considering how ill defined evil and good are, players can get away with a lot. i mean, this character is basically dirty harry who would be evil in 3E

Harry Callahan is not evil, in 4E or 3E. Harry is probably going to be some variety of CN. He'd be Unaligned in 4E.


No its not, because the way its show is that they are just baby eating sociopaths. Because you have to work to be evil, this means you ahve to be a total bastard to be considered evil

In 4E you have to be well into the evil side of things to be evil. You have to be pretty damned good to be good as well, rather than just be a generally nice person.


1)in 3E yes. However as unaligned people are still doing stuff,

1) No, most real life people would be neutral or evil, with a small group of good. As 4E loves simplification, it just creates a mongol aligniment system with the worst traits of both morality RPG system
2) i'm not again aligniment actually. I am again an aligniment system which doesn't do what an aligniment system is suppose to, IE provide objective morality.

Most real life people are as you say neutral, which the same as not having an alignment. They don't have an alignment at all because they aren't going out of their way one way or the other. 4E alignment requires that you actively engage in things that are Good or Evil. So my point stands, Unaligned is a useful measure for people that don't fit into one of the other four because they aren't actively engaged in activities that they cover.


Not according to the PHB definition. I can find half a dozen justification for each of those things. It was pretty clear cut, but things are different now. in 3E you'd be right, but in 4E not at all

You have read the PH right? Because it is quite clear cut that evil is still the same thing, and so is good. Unaligned covers those that don't care enough to be one way or the other, or where it doesn't make a difference.


1) In 3E, it depends on your story. i'd say the Sherif is normally LE or NE, while most versions of Robin hood are CG or NG.
2) The peasents would be neutral. Or even good or evil. Because you know consistency. Just because you aren't a main character doesn't mean you don't have morals. Unaligned is an absurd idea, its just saying "ok, if you have a name, you get an aligniment. If not, well we don't care"

You can still have Good or Evil peasants, its just that for the most part they aren't one or the other. A peasant that actively helps the Sheriff out of greed probably going to be evil. One that hides or gives his food and resources to the old widow after the Sheriff takes all of her stuff to pay taxes is good.

The hallmarks of standing up for the weak, being virtuous, etc. still apply to the Good alignments. Being evil still implies using others for your own ends, not caring about others, hurting others because it doesn't matter to you if you do (or you like doing it).


In 3E he'd be clearly evil, because every time the person begged for mercy and he ignored it, then he'd be commiting another evil action. He certainly be at least neutral and would defiantly fall.


1) fallacy actually, orcs are often chaotic evil. BoED deeds says killing evil things just for being evil (creatures like demons and other always evil being the exception of course) is in fact murder and thus evil

Using the BoED to support a claim isn't such a hot deal. I'm not suggesting that you kill orcs just for being evil, nor does the PH. It does use orcs as examples of creatures that are Chaotic Evil and thus are opposed by people that don't want Chaotic Evil creatures rampaging through town.


2) well we've gone from having a cohesiveness morality system that covers all ground to one that cut corners in its determination to make its self simpler.

And easier to use in play. The basics of it follow the exact same as 3E alignment system. In fact the descriptions for Lawful Good and Good are virtually identical to those from 3E, and so are Evil and Chaotic Evil. Good has subsumed CG and NG, while Evil absorbed LE and NE. Unaligned covers the TN, CN and LN pretty well.


1) Actually, classic fantasy is a relative term. Most heros in myths would be evil interestly enough.

Heroic fantasy is the term I used. There is a difference.

I know that a classical hero is simply defined by being a personage of divine relation. They usually fall/die horribly due to hubris after a life of success and wealth. Thus why I didn't use the term.


2) another fallacy, it seems 4E appeals to sterotypes. D&D's morality, at least until 4E was never simplistic, it was actually pretty complicated. Just painfully explained
3) 4E's determination to make the system even more simpler and its utter lack of respect for its own rules is part of it yes, but as 4E's morality goes, this guy is in the clear. Old rules would make him evil for being a sadist hypocrite, but now he is just Dirty harry

And Harry Callahan again is probabably CN in 3E while he'd be Unaligned in 4E. I don't think you've really watched Dirty Harry, or its sequels, otherwise you'd realize this.

He's also not clear, from an IC perspective. There are no rules that affect him for being evil, but as far his behaviour goes that's up to the DM to decide for the NPCs. Just like 3E's alignment system.


In short. 3E, he has fallen for torture, cowerdness and hypocrisy. In 4E, meh he is fine

Again, not at all. If you keep meaning from a paladin perspective, fine compared to a 3E paladin nothing happens to him be from a mechanical sense. However, RP wise he should be in crud. He's a paladin of Bahamut, a Lawful Good deity of chilvary and virtuousness. I think that the clerical heirarchy might take issue with such an action.


actually, there isn't anything that says he broke his god's law. Just that he acted "badass" according to some. Basically, Dirty harry

Again, what makes you honestly think this means anything. Harry is a good person that feels constrained by the rules of his position to the point that he can't see justice done. Scorpio for example is let out on a technicality, and even manages to get Harry in trouble for trying to arrest a guy that kidnapped and murdered a 13 year old girl and played San Francisco sniper. Harry shoots the guy after he kidnaps a bus load of school children. In fact Harry does everything in his power to arrest Scorpio before finally having to kills him after the guy pulls a gun on him.

I honestly think Harry covers the concept of Unaligned pretty well. Don't you?

chiasaur11
2008-09-18, 12:25 AM
Although, for the record, I feel the act to be evil, and if this sort of thing is the norm, Evil on the report card is reasonable, howzacome I'm the only person who thought of that one time Malcolm Reynolds kicked that guy into the engines?

Because, unlike slowly torturing a guy to death without even bothering to get useful information out of him (geeze, at least try for a flimsy excuse for your actions) that was totally awesome.

Dervag
2008-09-18, 01:49 AM
exceprt gopds believe in free will because the books say they don't take away powers. The worst they do is send their church to get you (wanted posters, etc).In which case a god who is a freakin' embodiment of justice and ethical conduct would probably feel responsible if you went on an evil rampage. To the point where a "paladin" of Bahamut who starts sinning and refusing to repent winds up required to repent. And if they don't, they wind up an apostate, at which point they become a target for the entire religion, including the supernatural minions of the deity himself.

Question: Are 4th Edition gods incapable of removing the supernatural abilities of a mortal? As in, the rules regarding deific power have been made restrictive enough that this is no longer possible?
____________


Well, DND is not work, is it? If your players are retards, ditch them.Unfortunately, there are often social or psychological reasons why someone can't do that. Even though it's the best solution, it isn't always possible.
_____________


Fallacy. THe paladin code isn't arbitrary, because nothing forces you to take that class...That doesn't make any sense as a standalone argument. The fact that you voluntarily agree to be bound by a rule does not mean the rule is not arbitrary. I could make up a strange and random rule like "From now on, you have to say "badgers" every time you blink." And you could agree to that. But it would still be an arbitrary rule, even though it was one you agree to follow.


Not according to the PHB definition. I can find half a dozen justification for each of those things. It was pretty clear cut, but things are different now. in 3E you'd be right, but in 4E not at allIf the justification is transparent BS, then it doesn't count.

The alignment descriptions in the Player's Handbooks (going back to the very beginning) are not and never were strict legal definitions that would stand up in a D&D court. They are intended to give an intelligent person a rough idea of what the alignments stand for, not to be picked apart word by word for the lawyers to justify any imaginable act as following any imaginable alignment.

The Joker isn't Lawful; dragging prisoners to death isn't Good. Let's move on with our lives.
________________________


2) well we've gone from having a cohesiveness morality system that covers all ground to one that cut corners in its determination to make its self simpler.At this point, you have complained many times about how simplistic 4th Edition morality is. Could you please provide some actual proof of your assertion, in the form of quotations and detailed arguments? Yes, yes, 4th Edition is simplistic and all about stereotypes. You've obviously known this for a long time.

How did you find it out? What discovery did you make that taught you this? Would you be willing to share?


1) Being a heretic isn't actually crimeThat depends heavily on the legal code, no?


Although, for the record, I feel the act to be evil, and if this sort of thing is the norm, Evil on the report card is reasonable, howzacome I'm the only person who thought of that one time Malcolm Reynolds kicked that guy into the engines?

Because, unlike slowly torturing a guy to death without even bothering to get useful information out of him (geeze, at least try for a flimsy excuse for your actions) that was totally awesome.Also, effective, because it meant the next guy was more likely to act as Malcolm's messenger to Niska and less likely to waste time and energy on posturing.

"Best thing for everyone."

nagora
2008-09-18, 04:26 AM
Game balance issue? That'd be true if paladins would be a super-duper class, stronger than the others (which also creates problems, because balancing crunch with fluff doesn't usually work very well, but that's a different matter - one we're not discussing here). But paladins are a decent, balanced with everyone else class in 4e, and outward weak in 3.x.
An interesting illustration of how there are good ways to balance a game and bad ways. Essentially you are saying that because all classes are bland, paladins should have no restrictions on behaviour.

Well, we've established that the 4e paladin is a mockery designed for munchkins to play out powertrips (how very modern); I think I'll leave it at that. WotC may be trying to eliminate the need for a DM, but I'm glad the rest of us can still play the older editions and ignore their sterile nonsense.

Dode
2008-09-18, 05:01 AM
"Hey guys, is it Lawful Good to needlessly torture a man to death and defend it by citing a technicality in the law?"

Aenghus
2008-09-18, 05:43 AM
In the interests of being constructive I'm trying to think I would deal with this sort of issue as a DM. We don't know the full details of the original situation, how well the DM knew the player concerned and the dynamics of the group involved etc.

Myself, for most of my D&D games I up front say no Evil characters. I try to find out from all my players what they want from the game, particularly any PC with an external moral code or with signs of being evil-curious. Sometimes this means asking a player to modify their concept or just drop their initial idea. If a PC should probably have a strict external code, its important to flesh out that code beforehand and make sure the player understands. Also find out if they intend or are willing for the PC to lapse from that code and the possible consequences.

These restrictions are mainly intended to promote a more-or-less heroic adventuring party, and avoid the often juvenile ugliness of the average Eeevill PC, especially of the expendable crash and burn variety. In practice once a PC is in play for a while I'm not as strict, and let PCs dabble in darkness if they must. After all PCs generally kill monsters and take their stuff.

Now some players are hard to pin down, and PCs can genuinely drift in concept in play. Sometimes a potentially defining moment comes up out of the blue, such as the hamstringing and death dragging incident that provoked this thread.

My reaction depends on the player and circumstances, but if this was uncharacteristic and likely to semi-permanently and adversely affect the PC, I might have a time out and privately explore why the player is doing these things *before* I escalate things and it becomes a train wreck.

After all there are no rules for ham-stringing, or other permanent injury. Hell, there are no hard and fast rules for death dragging a prisoner. Often the player won't intend to do these things at all, they are just trying to be a tough guy. Occasionally a player will want to do the "go too far and fall" schtick, which can work well with a little work if the campaign suits. And sometimes the player is just being an asshat and there is no thought at all behind his actions, so consequences have to be explained.

I wouldn't have the prisoner die en route without such a discussion unless I was sure that the player was willing to accept the consequences. Alternatively the prisoner's life could be saved by a number of events, or he could be rescued etc etc.

4e is interesting due to it's downscaling alignment in the mechanics, such that an ordained cleric or paladin that strays from the official teachings of their faith likely still retains all their abilities, as 4e gods are far more aloof and don't directly intervene as much as they used to. Thinking about it this is how the Greyhawk deities were often described originally back in the day.

4e Deities don't strip powers as a rule, which reduces one of the downsides of the divine classes, in which they can be gimped if the concepts of a player and DM don't mesh, and the DM strips divine powers from such classes for a variety of offenses. However, mortal churches may outlaw heretics, and send people to arrest or kill them. At higher levels angels or exarchs could be sent to deal with them.

After all 4e has moved much closer to the "action movie" genre, where violence solves problems and doesn't have lasting negative effects as conveniently there is no collateral damage, and anyone killed turns out to be a bad guy. Another trope 4e has taken from action movies is stripping out or downplaying NPC good guys, so the PCs have to do most things themselves without the expectation of help.

Interestingly, the rules as written make it much easier for a church or cult to be corrupt and get away with it, allowing a heroic PC to be both an outlaw and loyal to his faith, potentially going on to clean house and bring the corrupt to justice.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-18, 05:56 AM
If he was dead after the first day then he would have stopped dragging him. I doubt that the Paladin rode for two days straight (also you can only ride harder than a walk for maybe an hour or two without killing the horse) So the heretic probably died sometime during the second day.


The DM didn't mention he was dead till after day 2 so yeah he must have died during day 2 or the DM forgot about him till then.

pendell
2008-09-18, 09:03 AM
"Hey guys, is it Lawful Good to needlessly torture a man to death and defend it by citing a technicality in the law?"

QFT.

Two thoughts:

1) What was the GM doing while this was happening? Two days of
game time has to have taken *some* real time. If it had been my table,
this sentence would have been out of my mouth right away...


Me: Um... you want to what? You want to break the man's legs and drag him behind
your horse? And you're a paladin? Are you absolutely sure you want to do this?

It's at this point I would have taken the player aside and made it *absolutely clear* what the consequences were. We'll explore that in point #2.

2) Although paladins don't lose their powers, there's no reason they can't suffer the Wrath of the patron god i.e., the DM. You can still do "rocks fall, your character is dead". Or "out of nowhere, an angel appears and tells you to cut this stuff out." or "in the next town you arrive in, an itinerant prophet falls back at the sight of you and rebukes you for your evil deeds. You are under the effects of bestow curse (-4 to all rolls) until you have atoned". Or even just a simple "your character just died of a stroke; hand me your character sheet".

Check me on this: Nothing in the rules of any edition says a DM can't smackdown his players at any time. The sole check on that power is the willingness of the players involved to keep showing up at the table. And sometimes you don't WANT someone to come back.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-18, 09:38 AM
That depends heavily on the legal code, no?

Not really. Just because powerful people want to make thinking differently a punishable offense, and add it to their law books and send out people to kill based on those law books that doesn't mean I'm going to count it as a real crime. Anyone that thinks rationally for even a few minutes on the subject of 'gee, how is heresy bad compared to robbery, murder, theft, arson, assault, etc?' is inevitably going to come to the conclusion that heresy actually benefits society more than it harms it, and results in no physical harm whatsoever.

My point was that heresy as a crime is a combination of commiting free speech plus freedom of religon. I'm aware that the charge of heresy has been punished by death often throughout history, so heretics need to beware. I'm just saying if you haven't done anything wrong, I'm not going to count it as a crime and the heretic as a criminal.

Though, you will get me on the technical definition of a crime and I'm aware of that. If the King makes fuzzy bunny slippers against the law, then owning a pink pair of them is technically a crime. What I'm saying is I would never count it as such and never treat an owner of longeared slippers the same as I would an arsonist. It's a fine line, I know. :smallsmile:

Eorran
2008-09-18, 10:30 AM
The act of hamstringing someone and dragging them to a slow death is unquestionably evil. The Paladin's alignment should be immediately changed to Evil, not Unaligned - this wasn't a single act done in anger, it was a deliberate, two-day campaign of torture. "Oops" doesn't cut it.
Bahamut represents justice, protection, nobility, and honor. There was no trace of any of these elements in that act. Execution of a heretic could be viewed as justice, but this method is simply unacceptable to Bahamut.
As a DM, I would probably have this character punished by his church. (Actually, I'd houserule in the old system, and strip him of his powers)
As one of the other PCs, I'd ditch this psychopathic lunatic the first chance I had- who's to say what horror he could commit over some minor offense, and I don't want to be around in case his diety shows up for a beatdown.

Swok
2008-09-18, 10:39 AM
Not really. Just because powerful people want to make thinking differently a punishable offense, and add it to their law books and send out people to kill based on those law books that doesn't mean I'm going to count it as a real crime. Anyone that thinks rationally for even a few minutes on the subject of 'gee, how is heresy bad compared to robbery, murder, theft, arson, assault, etc?' is inevitably going to come to the conclusion that heresy actually benefits society more than it harms it, and results in no physical harm whatsoever.

My point was that heresy as a crime is a combination of commiting free speech plus freedom of religon. I'm aware that the charge of heresy has been punished by death often throughout history, so heretics need to beware. I'm just saying if you haven't done anything wrong, I'm not going to count it as a crime and the heretic as a criminal.

Though, you will get me on the technical definition of a crime and I'm aware of that. If the King makes fuzzy bunny slippers against the law, then owning a pink pair of them is technically a crime. What I'm saying is I would never count it as such and never treat an owner of longeared slippers the same as I would an arsonist. It's a fine line, I know. :smallsmile:

The problem is that it seems you're conflating "Good" with "Law". They don't necessarily go hand in hand, and in many cases a given law is horrible. But, as you said, it is still a law in the "technical" definition (which also comes back to you associating good with law, as I don't see anything about "morally correct" in the definition of Law. They don't always get along. They can, but that doesn't mean they have to).

Although, isn't the lawfulness of it completely beside the point? I thought this was discussion of whether it was evil or not?

Tengu_temp
2008-09-18, 11:00 AM
An interesting illustration of how there are good ways to balance a game and bad ways. Essentially you are saying that because all classes are bland, paladins should have no restrictions on behaviour.

Well, we've established that the 4e paladin is a mockery designed for munchkins to play out powertrips (how very modern); I think I'll leave it at that. WotC may be trying to eliminate the need for a DM, but I'm glad the rest of us can still play the older editions and ignore their sterile nonsense.

Translation to English:


I hate 4e and will never cease to be extremely and annoyingly about it, even going as far as pulling "facts" from my ass, including lying about what other people are saying.

To make it easier, I bolded the parts in the original post that are lies. And, frankly, since I don't see any value in your post, I'll stop responding to it here.

Riffington
2008-09-18, 11:10 AM
Obviously, dragging a man to death is evil, regardless of that man's crimes.

However, let us not drag in the modern view of heresy ("you have the right to say whatever you want about religion") into it.
In certain settings, heresy is entirely worthy of imprisonment and/or (humane) execution; a Paladin in such a setting could certainly mete out punishment accordingly.
After all, in a certain kind of setting, heresy is not merely words. It is treason, and worse. It is words that corrupt the soul of the speaker and the listener, and which may damn both for eternity.
If that is a fact of one's setting, a Paladin does not need to listen to heresy. Depending on his organization, he may gag the heretic and bring him to trial, or may even be empowered to judge and swiftly execute the heretic. None of that can permit a Good character to execute a man by dragging, regardless of the law.

nagora
2008-09-18, 11:26 AM
"Hey guys, is it Lawful Good to needlessly torture a man to death and defend it by citing a technicality in the law?"

You're just being old-fashioned and think that the struggle between good and evil is a core concept of the fantasy genre. How 18th century of you!

The fine fellows at WotC have realised what centuries of writers have missed: those ideas are a distraction from the really important stuff - main characters who have horns and can breath fire. It's MUCH more important that they are an assumed part of the background than that paladins gain their powers through devotion and self-sacrifice for the sake of Good as a concept.

Get with the programme, man!

Swok
2008-09-18, 11:28 AM
You're just being old-fashioned and think that the struggle between good and evil is a core concept of the fantasy genre. How 18th century of you!

The fine fellows at WotC have realised what centuries of writers have missed: those ideas are a distraction from the really important stuff - main characters who have horns and can breath fire. It's MUCH more important that they are an assumed part of the background than that paladins gain their powers through devotion and self-sacrifice for the sake of Good as a concept.

Get with the programme, man!

If only there was actually text of that nature in 4e. Evil is still Evil, even if there are fewer categories for alignment.

Leliel
2008-09-18, 11:30 AM
Nagora, as much as I respect your 3.5 Edition advice, this is not the thread for it.

Go and create your own thread, if you want to complain.

And since I'm one of the 4E crowd: What? Being cool is a crime now?

Tengu_temp
2008-09-18, 11:31 AM
Seriously, nagora - if you don't have anything constructive and on-topic to say, don't post here.

Zenos
2008-09-18, 11:37 AM
I think you should at least send some servant of Bahamut to reprimand him and demand him to atone. If he continoues with his extreme behaviour and doesn't even try to atone and change, it is time for excommunication, outlawing, maybe even an assassin executioner, maybe a whole cadre, since he is doing a very bag job of representing Bahamut and his followers.

nagora
2008-09-18, 11:43 AM
Seriously, nagora - if you don't have anything constructive and on-topic to say, don't post here.

OK: yes, that was an evil act and any DM with sense would strip the paladin of their power for doing it.

What was your problem again? That someone criticised 4e's dumbed-down paladin for kiddies? Are Hasbro paying you to defend their inept ideas or something? It was you who suggested that players who take advantage of this change in the rules would be "retards", I recall. Was that "constructive"? And, if you think that, then surely you must think the change is retarded too; or is it only retarded to point out how retarded it is?

Where do you think a paladin gets their powers from?

Tengu_temp
2008-09-18, 11:49 AM
OK: yes, that was an evil act and any DM with sense would strip the paladin of their power for doing it.

In 3.x. Not in 4e, because, as it was said many times before, paladins cannot fall in 4e.


It was you who suggested that players who take advantage of this change in the rules would be "retards", I recall.

Because I can't remember that, I'm afraid you're mistaken.


Where do you think a paladin gets their powers from?

It was described in this thread, on several occasions. Maybe you should read it more carefully?

The rest of your post is not worth responding to. Of course, everyone who likes 4e must be a tasteless idiot who gets paid by Wizards, and the game is not suited for anything but simple HNS games.

Leliel: Sorry I'm keeping the thread off-topic by talking with this individual. Hope you forgive me.

monty
2008-09-18, 12:00 PM
In 3.x. Not in 4e, because, as it was said many times before, paladins cannot fall in 4e.

How to make a paladin fall in 4e:

Paladin: (does something stupid)
DM: You just fell. You lose all class features until you do X.

Was that so hard? Rule 0, people.

Tengu_temp
2008-09-18, 12:05 PM
Of course, you can do that. But it's not in the default rules. By default, the 4e paladin gets punished by sicking his church/angels at him, if the church or deity finds out. Default rules say that a paladin cannot fall, and I don't think if we're discussing houserules here. In fact, Leliel didn't even ask "should this paladin fall?", just was his act evil.

Cubey
2008-09-18, 12:08 PM
How to make a paladin fall in 4e:

DM: You travel on the side of the mountain. Suddenly, an avalanche rolls nearby! Everyone roll reflex.
Paladin: *fails*
DM: The paladin was swept with the avalanche and falls down the mountain.
Paladin: No! My precious HPs!

(I'm aware you don't roll for saving throws anymore.)

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-18, 12:48 PM
The problem is that it seems you're conflating "Good" with "Law". They don't necessarily go hand in hand, and in many cases a given law is horrible. But, as you said, it is still a law in the "technical" definition (which also comes back to you associating good with law, as I don't see anything about "morally correct" in the definition of Law. They don't always get along. They can, but that doesn't mean they have to).

Although, isn't the lawfulness of it completely beside the point? I thought this was discussion of whether it was evil or not?

I'm trying not to touch morality (e.g. "good") with my view on crime, actually. Whether something is a crime to me depends on the good of society as a whole. Punishment for criminal offenses for example, are good for society as a whole but they definately don't fit the D&D description of "good" which would lead you to forgive rather than punish. Ideally, most laws will be morally good as well as good for a functioning society but that doesn't have to be universally true. So I agree with you, but I'm approaching this from another perspective.

I'm just positing that heresy is an invalid law, both from a standpoint of the good of society as well as a moral standpoint. That's why I don't count heresy as a real crime, and say a heretic is not a criminal no matter what the technical law may be. The law of the land may make heresy a crime, and a heretic may get labeled a criminalas well as be punished like one but that's because the law is corrupt and not serving society, which is ideally every law's purpose.

You're right as far as your point that it's not the topic of this thread to debate legality of heresy. I should make a new thread for it, honestly but I hate starting new threads. I think we're agreed that torturing the heretic is an evil act, though. Again, I wish 4e had rules to deal with the situation, but 4e Paladin aren't Paladins in the sense that earlier edition paladins are. Which is a shame, but at least there will be less fighting over alignment issues in 4e.

nagora
2008-09-18, 01:02 PM
In 3.x. Not in 4e, because, as it was said many times before, paladins cannot fall in 4e.
If the DM says the paladin can fall, then a paladin can fall in any edition. This is probably the core issue with your stance for me - if the player can tell the DM what the gods can and can't do with their own gifts then the campaign is screwed. Every "mature" DM knows that because it has been demonstrated to be true since the 1970's by direct experience.


Because I can't remember that, I'm afraid you're mistaken.
It's a bit much when you don't read your own posts!


It was described in this thread, on several occasions. Maybe you should read it more carefully?
I did read it; my point is that "paladins can't fall" is an internal contradiction - if the paladin's abilities come from the gods then they can be taken away by the gods. That still holds true even if you allow such asinine characters as evil paladins.

Overrulling an incorrect printed rule is not only fine, but it is the hallmark of good DMing. Which is what I was referring to earlier - by insisting that a DM not be allowed to make the paladin fall you are calling for the removal of the DM from the game concept, whether you realise it or not.


Of course, you can do that. But it's not in the default rules.
Rule 0 is the default rule.

Ravens_cry
2008-09-18, 01:08 PM
I consider this act to be. . .sick.
Tyeing a man up and have him try to keep up behind a horse, yeah I have seen that in western movies, even done by the heroes of said movies. Part of that whole 'rough and ready' justice thing. However, this is different. Paladins may not be the champions of Good they used to be, but by heck, they are champions of their Deity. And unlike in the western movies, there was justice at hand, there lawful court at the end of the journey. And he didn't just drag him along, he made it so he was in agony and couldn't even think about walking, and dragged him for two DAYS. Not an hour or two, not a minute or two. 2 days, 48 hours, 2880 minutes, 172800 seconds, and some odd extra. And while the initial act may have been in anger, though that doesn't NEARLY have excused it, he kept this up all that time. He tortured a prisoner to death. Likely he would have been executed at the end of his trial, maybe even by some horrid method, but there would have BEEN a trial. We can even imagine it would have been fair. But we can't know that now, because the paladin murdered the defendant.
This act, this sacrilege, was neither lawful or good. It was depraved ,reprehensible, chaotic, EVIL. It went against all the Deity's principles, and I think the Church itself should be punished for what it has condoned.
This act was neither lawful, good, noble, or honorable.
It was WRONG.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-18, 01:13 PM
I did read it; my point is that "paladins can't fall" is an internal contradiction - if the paladin's abilities come from the gods then they can be taken away by the gods. That still holds true even if you allow such asinine characters as evil paladins.

Have you even read the PHb or just assuming?


Rule 0 is the default rule.


No it is a house rule.

monty
2008-09-18, 01:15 PM
No it is a house rule.

I'm pretty sure it has explicitly said in every version of D&D ever that the DM can change other rules if he doesn't like them, or add new stuff. It is, in fact, the only completely constant rule. If it is broken, the game is doomed to failure.

tribble
2008-09-18, 01:25 PM
I consider this act to be. . .sick.
Tyeing a man up and have him try to keep up behind a horse, yeah I have seen that in western movies, even done by the heroes of said movies. Part of that whole 'rough and ready' justice thing. However, this is different. Paladins may not be the champions of Good they used to be, but by heck, they are champions of their Deity. And unlike in the western movies, there was justice at hand, there lawful court at the end of the journey. And he didn't just drag him along, he made it so he was in agony and couldn't even think about walking, and dragged him for two DAYS. Not an hour or two, not a minute or two. 2 days, 48 hours, 2880 minutes, 172800 seconds, and some odd extra. And while the initial act may have been in anger, though that doesn't NEARLY have excused it, he kept this up all that time. He tortured a prisoner to death. Likely he would have been executed at the end of his trial, maybe even by some horrid method, but there would have BEEN a trial. We can even imagine it would have been fair. But we can't know that now, because the paladin murdered the defendant.
This act, this sacrilege, was neither lawful or good. It was depraved ,reprehensible, chaotic, EVIL. It went against all the Deity's principles, and I think the Church itself should be punished for what it has condoned.
This act was neither lawful, good, noble, or honorable.
It was WRONG.

the church itself? have you ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? Hardly fair to label the entire Catholic church because of that, is it? the same applies here. oh, by the way, the man was not going to get off. At. All. if a church decides you're guilty, you are. period. this man was clearly in that boat, and for all we know this was merciful compared to what the church might have had in store for him after his "trial". heres an Idea: make a roll of the criminal's charisma against the paladin's wisdom. if the murderer wins, the paladin was genuinely afraid for his family or whatever, and the act was chaotic neutral with evil leaning. if the paladin wins, it's time for a smiting or a fall. frankly, I am of the camp that believes that if a person with a class behaves in a way comepletely innapropriate for that class, they should lose their class abilities. if a bard joins a hardcore lawful organization, he loses his bard abilities.if a paladin commits acts that go against everything a paladin stands for, he loses his paladin abilities. likewise for a druid that fails to remain neutral, or a barbarian who goes lawful,or-you get the Idea.

Rion
2008-09-18, 01:33 PM
One thing to remember is that laws can be evil and that execution can be needlessly cruel and inflict as much pain as possible. Being drawn and quartered for example:

Until 1814, the full punishment for the crime of treason was to be hanged, drawn and quartered in that the condemned prisoner would be:

1. Dragged on a hurdle (a wooden frame) to the place of execution. (This is one possible meaning of drawn.)[2]
2. Hanged by the neck for a short time or until almost dead (hanged).
3. Disembowelled and emasculated and the genitalia and entrails burned before the condemned's eyes (this is another meaning of drawn—see the reference to the Oxford English Dictionary below).[3]
4. Beheaded and the body divided into four parts (quartered).

Typically, the resulting five parts (i.e. the four quarters of the body and the head) were gibbeted (put on public display) in different parts of the city, town, or, in famous cases, in the country, to deter would-be traitors who had not seen the execution. After 1814, the convict would be hanged until dead and the mutilation would be performed post-mortem. Gibbeting was later abolished in England in 1843, while drawing and quartering was abolished in 1870.
From Wikipedia.

That however does not mean that the act the paladin commited could in any way be described as Lawful, let alone Good. Usually only the highest court can condemn someone to so brutal and horrific punishments, I don't think a simple paladin counts a having the right to do that to someone.

I would say he could have been anything from Good to Evil (though if he was Good he would have been close to Unaligned) before commiting the deed, after the doing there is question he is no longer Good, and while he might not be evil yet, he is dangerously close.

nagora
2008-09-18, 01:45 PM
That however does not mean that the act the paladin commited could in any way be described as Lawful, let alone Good. Usually only the highest court can condemn someone to so brutal and horrific punishments, I don't think a simple paladin counts a having the right to do that to someone.
I paladin would not tolerate a law that allowed such treatment; indeed any LG character would reasonably be expected to support or organise resistance to such treatment.

Rion
2008-09-18, 02:06 PM
I paladin would not tolerate a law that allowed such treatment; indeed any LG character would reasonably be expected to support or organise resistance to such treatment.
I think so too, and yet the paladin in the OP not only does it himself, he does without any form of justification (or at least very minor justification).
He would certainly fall if he did the 3.5 edition.

NEO|Phyte
2008-09-18, 03:02 PM
if a bard joins a hardcore lawful organization, he loses his bard abilities.
Yeah, because suddenly forgetting various things you've learned over the years just because you join the town watch or whatever REALLY makes sense. Or a barbarian suddenly becoming literate (illiteracy is a class ability) because he decided laws are a good idea.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-18, 03:17 PM
Yeah, because suddenly forgetting various things you've learned over the years just because you join the town watch or whatever REALLY makes sense. Or a barbarian suddenly becoming literate (illiteracy is a class ability) because he decided laws are a good idea.

Actually, Barbarians don't lose anything but Rage.

NEO|Phyte
2008-09-18, 03:18 PM
Actually, Barbarians don't lose anything but Rage.

By RAW, correct, but my comment is in regards to someone saying classes should lose ALL abilities when they act 'outside their class'.

chiasaur11
2008-09-18, 03:34 PM
I paladin would not tolerate a law that allowed such treatment; indeed any LG character would reasonably be expected to support or organise resistance to such treatment.

I disagree.

Sometimes, justice demands an unpleasant death, or at least makes it make sense.

Not often, not when there's a good alternative, and in ideal circumstances, never, but the distaste for violent punishment as the dominant social position is a relatively modern invention. If you hold a position not placing the current era as the apex of morals in every area, then at least the possibility of a horrible death being just for the worst crimes has some backing in the history of mankind. Of course, reasonable people can differ.

But we may be getting off topic. And it's clear that Pally was in no way authorized to do that, let alone without trial.

SpikeFightwicky
2008-09-18, 03:56 PM
Maybe this would be easier for some if we could get a quote of the different alignments in 4th ed.? The main argument against doing something seems to be "4th is too simplistic, so he gets away with it. He was doing a good act"....

And yes, EE is definately mistaking Harry for someone else... I've never seen him take a life unless it was life or death (though if anyone can think of a time, then by all means...)

Starbuck_II
2008-09-18, 04:00 PM
By RAW, correct, but my comment is in regards to someone saying classes should lose ALL abilities when they act 'outside their class'.

Would then Fighters lose all their bonus feats when they stop fighting?

Knaight
2008-09-18, 06:07 PM
Except for them not being required to fight, but if they were, yep. That said, I find it highly unlikely that whatever the church was going to do was worse than dragging someone behind a horse for 2 days after cutting their legs out from under them.

Ravens_cry
2008-09-18, 06:34 PM
the church itself? have you ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? Hardly fair to label the entire Catholic church because of that, is it? the same applies here. oh, by the way, the man was not going to get off. At. All. if a church decides you're guilty, you are. period. this man was clearly in that boat, and for all we know this was merciful compared to what the church might have had in store for him after his "trial". .
By the church, I mean the clerics and clergy and other paladins, not so much the congregation. Also, if God exists, He/She doesn't interact with the world the way a DnD deity like Bahamut can and/or does. Now, if this Paladin was truly after mercy, he would have just lopped off the the murderers/heritcs head. Instead he actively goes after what is possibly one of the most painful ways to die, up their with crucification and hung,drawn and quartered. And if the Church of Bahamut engage in such activities, how can they, by modern standards at least, be called good? Some try to argue this is a medieval game, with medieval morality, but I call BS on that. This is a FANTASY game, with, at most, a medieval FLAVORING. The Fantasy part, rather then the medieval part , is what gives it its morality. If it was truly medieval all the Good deities would be fighting each other to see who was goodest. There would be no magic, except for tricks, and most people would be serfs. Any cities would have more disease then a hospital, and doctors would be worse then useless.
So, any what in Fantasy is called a good deity would not condone the actions of this Paladin, and I don't believe it would condone the actions of the Hierarchy of the faith. I say we see some comeuppance a comin'.

Mike_G
2008-09-18, 06:51 PM
OK, just to clarify and dispel some of the anti 4e silliness on this thread, Alignment still represents a character's or creature's actions and ideals. PC's cannot go around raping and torturing their way through the world by the light of burning babies and still be good because they are PC's and the books says so, regardless of what EE thinks.

And the 4e Paladin class is a devoted servant of any deity, all the gods have their crusading heroes, so non- Lawful Good Paladins can exist, by the rules, however much Nagora hates the idea.

And the rules do state that "once a Paladin, always a Paladin," which I dislike, since it takes away the whole "with great power come great responsibility" idea. By the RAW, the Paladin in question does not lose his powers.

That said, the Paladin in the OP is supposedly a servant of a Lawful Good deity, presumably the source of his authority. Such a deviation from all things that his God exemplefies should result in punishment.

Were I the DM, before anything was done in game, I'd have a chat with the player. "Ummm, Dude, you do realize that you are the chosen instrument of a god whose whole thing is chivalry and justice and honor, right? And you do get how what you're proposing is just thuggish, bullying, torture without any real excuse, right?"

The other side of the coin, if you want a dark game, is that many, many real life crusaders and holy men have violated the bejeezus out of the spirit of their given Church's teachings to lean heavy on the heathens/heretics/unclean ones. So, he could morph into a Grand Inquisitor type of real villain, if you have any interest in going down that road.

Yahzi
2008-09-18, 08:09 PM
Some people would argue that makes all adventurers evil by default, so the whole situation is moot...
The mere fact that you kill people on a professional basis does not make you evil. The reason for your actions makes the difference.

Of course, since adventurer's reasons tend to run along "because I want his stuff!," you're pretty much right. :smallbiggrin:


that one time Malcolm Reynolds kicked that guy into the engines?
That was different: Mal had tried to make peace with the guy, and the guy had refused. Plus, it wasn't torture. And finally, Mal is not, by an stretch of the imagination, a paladin.

Mal is at best CG.


I'm going to count it as a real crime. Anyone that thinks rationally for even a few minutes on the subject of 'gee, how is heresy bad compared to robbery, murder, theft, arson, assault, etc?' is inevitably going to come to the conclusion that heresy actually benefits society more than it harms it, and results in no physical harm whatsoever.
Dervag didn't say it was wrong, he said it was a crime. They're different.

And also, in the D&D world, where gods are palpably real and beliefs have physical consequences (such as Detect Alignment), then heresy might very well result in physical harm.

Riffington
2008-09-18, 08:36 PM
Not really. Just because powerful people want to make thinking differently a punishable offense, and add it to their law books and send out people to kill based on those law books that doesn't mean I'm going to count it as a real crime. Anyone that thinks rationally for even a few minutes on the subject of 'gee, how is heresy bad compared to robbery, murder, theft, arson, assault, etc?' is inevitably going to come to the conclusion that heresy actually benefits society more than it harms it, and results in no physical harm whatsoever.


This may be true in your campaign.
But just as arson is immoral on Earth yet friendly on the Elemental Plane of Fire, so heresy may work differently in different worlds.
IF heresy in fact may run the risk of eternal damnation for speaker and listener, then it is far worse than any of the crimes you listed... and should be treated accordingly.

nagora
2008-09-19, 04:16 AM
And the rules do state that "once a Paladin, always a Paladin," which I dislike, since it takes away the whole "with great power come great responsibility" idea. By the RAW, the Paladin in question does not lose his powers.
Of course, the simple and logical solution, which fits all the requirements by RAW is that the deity in question simply slays the paladin by fiat.

If the god can not withdraw their gifts from those they have given them to, then the only sensible thing for the god to do when that person goes wildly off the rails like that is to simply do the "bolt from the blue" and kill them. Why would they not? The "rules" leave them no real option, do they?

Tengu_temp
2008-09-19, 04:32 AM
4e paladins are anointed by the church, not by the god personally. I'd imagine the god will take interest in actions of a powerful, famous and important paladin, if he suddenly does something he shouldn't... but all the low-level ones? They're not being watched 24 hours a day, divines have more important things to do with their time than constantly spy on their followers.

nagora
2008-09-19, 05:09 AM
4e paladins are anointed by the church, not by the god personally. I'd imagine the god will take interest in actions of a powerful, famous and important paladin, if he suddenly does something he shouldn't... but all the low-level ones? They're not being watched 24 hours a day, divines have more important things to do with their time than constantly spy on their followers.
More important than making sure anointed paragons of their beliefs and channellers of their devine power are not making a mockery of those beliefs in public? Unless the god is actively under attack on their home plane, I don't think so.

I don't think "spying" is needed when the power is directly derived from the deity's strength - every divine challenge should be drawing a small amount of attention to the character.

I think you are trying to have it both ways: you want paladins to be more connected to their individual god's values instead of an alignment, but you don't want the deities in question to enforce any more adherence to their causes and values. In fact, you seem to want less.

The DM has a responsibility to roleplay the NPCs as if they were their own PCs, and that includes the gods. If you were playing the LG deity of the character in the OP, what action would you take?

Tengu_temp
2008-09-19, 05:31 AM
If I were a LG god and knew that my church is a powerful and just organisation that will actively seek out its members who have performed atrocities and punish them, I'd leave the small fries in their hands. I'm too busy making sure the forces of evil gods won't destroy everything.

I don't think if divines are constantly aware of everything each and every of their paladins and clerics is doing. Not all gods are omniscient. They can observe the actions of those infused with their powers easier, sure, but it still requires an active desire to do so.

BobVosh
2008-09-19, 05:56 AM
The mere fact that you kill people on a professional basis does not make you evil. The reason for your actions makes the difference.
Does for assassin. Also before you get into it being an assassin for money, etc, I mean a political assassin destroying an evil and corrupt goverment that eats baby humans with crushed up hopes and dreams as an instant milk (just add blood of the innocent!).


Of course, since adventurer's reasons tend to run along "because I want his stuff!," you're pretty much right. :smallbiggrin:


Fair enough.

nagora
2008-09-19, 06:08 AM
Does for assassin. Also before you get into it being an assassin for money, etc, I mean a political assassin destroying an evil and corrupt goverment that eats baby humans with crushed up hopes and dreams as an instant milk (just add blood of the innocent!).
Killing evil people does not make you evil, although the way you do it or your reasons for doing it might.

BobVosh
2008-09-19, 06:26 AM
Killing evil people does not make you evil, although the way you do it or your reasons for doing it might.

Except for assassins. The class requires it.

Swok
2008-09-19, 06:48 AM
Except for assassins. The class requires it.

Assassins are evil for killing due to their reasons. They kill people for personal financial gain.

pendell
2008-09-19, 06:52 AM
Ironically, I think the Bible (of all things) actually offers excellent roleplaying material in this situation. 1 Kings 13, for example.

IIRC, 'the gifts and calling are irrevocable' (Romans 11:29), meaning if one became a prophet or holy man or some such one was going to keep those gifts for life. And the price of that was a heightened degree of scrutiny that normal people didn't get. In the particular story, a man was divinely commissioned to take a message. He disobeyed his instructions. So he got eaten by a lion, which nonetheless didn't touch the donkey he was riding at the time. It just stood on the side of the road next to the donkey while travelers went by.

If you read through the OT -- all *kinds* of interesting thing a ticked off deity can do. All right, so there's one specific thing that won't happen -- being stripped of granted powers. But that still leaves being eaten by lions, struck by leprosy, attacked by angels with swords, being swallowed alive by the earth, struck by lightning ... the list is endless.

Same for RP. A being with the power of even a lesser 'god' in a D&D campaign still has all kinds of options for making a character's life a living hell if the character grotesquely mis-represents the god. I would expect a god to do that if the character in question was using divinely given powers to accomplish that abuse. So instead of having a list of N possible punishments the list is now N-1, where N is a very large number.

So I contend that "once a paladin, always a paladin" is not broken. If anything, it's actually closer to the real-world religious/mythic tradition paladins came from.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

EvilElitest
2008-09-20, 07:51 PM
QUOTE=Knaight;4941035]Nothing forces you to take that class, but being able to smite people really shouldn't require an extreme code, since that would be an easier power for gods to give out than spells anyways, and it makes sense that quite a few gods would.
[/QUOTE]
We have clerics for the gods work. Each class has its own specifics. If you want to be a paladin who draws their powers from the pure essense of law and good, then your going to actual make a commitment, shocking as that may seem


That shouldn't mean moral dilemmas any more than any other character. And alignment is a hinderance, because of class features and such tied to it. Apparently rational, logical people can't ever go into battle frenzy, or sing really well, where more free spirited people can't punch really hard. Alignment is tied to mechanics way too much, which makes it restrictive when classes force you to stay in an alignment.

1) Alignments are not personalities, they are categories. It makes sense they effect a mechanical view point
2) The barbarion's fluff back ground is a warrior who embraces inner rage. Not just going into a battle rages, embraces it as a way of fighting. That certainly is chaotic.
3) the bard makes sense in its narrow ill defined context as a wandering minstrial. While i don't like it, within its context it makes sense
4) Hmm, a monk, somebody who's maiin focus is discipline, order, unity of spirity and massive focus happens to be lawful. Wow, i didn't see that one coming
5) Aligniments don't hinder morallity in the game because literally any morality can fit within the game's context


As for having to work to be evil, thats what most serious crimes would entail. Murder is working to be evil, as is rape, massive theft, etc.
Really, because i can easily justify almost all of those. In 3E, simply commiting those actions, justifcation or not is evil, while in 4e you have to e true scum to be evil


Dragging someone behind a horse after cutting their legs open is working to be evil.
Why? The definition of evil in 4E doesn't give any specifics. he is just doing what good does, hunt evil without mercy


Unaligned would be a massive amount of people, who, while they put themselves first aren't willing to kill people to advance in life. Most criminals would be evil, as would tyrants and such, and people who did charity work, and went out of their way to help people would be good. Its hardly if you don't have a name your unaligned, its just that thats where most people would fall.
1) Really, because the 4E books don't actually define that as such
2) No, because 4E specifically says that minor good/evil deeds don't make a difference, so it is a name thing
3) and again, most normal people would be neutral or evil. Just normal day to day stuff


And Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness are incredibly stupid. Crap like ravages pretty much confirms this, not to mention some of the stuff that gets listed as evil. Ie poison, stabbing someone is OK, but if you have poison on the sword you are a bad person. Thats just taking advantage of resources in a fight, which if the fight isn't evil, shouldn't matter.

Your going to use one bad rule to prove both books as stupid. Yeah, that certainly makes sense


This is an evil act even in fourth edition, which has higher standards for evil. You have to go out of your way to be truly evil, yes, but thats pretty much a text book case of it.

Actually, it fits in with Good's hunting evil without mercy. I can justify it certainly, so no. Unaligned maybe, but again 4E's aligniment is very much about going "there there, don't worry about morality, do what you want baby"





Harry Callahan is not evil, in 4E or 3E. Harry is probably going to be some variety of CN. He'd be Unaligned in 4E.

In 3e he woudl be NE. He has murdered, tortured, and brutalized people to get what he wants, he has thrown the rules aside to get what he wants (a good goal admittedly but still) and in many ways is as bad as his enemies. In 4E he'd be unaligned, because he gets to have a nice little cause for his evil actions, so he's excused. A knight templar/well intentioned extermist to the core



In 4E you have to be well into the evil side of things to be evil. You have to be pretty damned good to be good as well, rather than just be a generally nice person.
Except its an inconsistenty standard, because it is little more than a token system anyway (see crop out). In 3E, to be evil you had to simply do evil things. There would be many evil people, selfish merchants, kings who has done questionable things for his realm (like you know, almost all of them), mercenaries who have in the past committed evil actions and not repented. The thing is, being evil isn't a bad thing, its just a different aligniment. However that would mean that PCs could very easily slip into the evil aligniment (remember, good and evil are not the same as right and wrong) and that brought a lot of questions. 4E just simplifies everything to the point where the alignment system is obsolete (really, it serves no purpose in the game at this point) and in the end its a crop out to avoid being held responsibly for the many alignment discussions. Its a heavy handed show of incompetence, and quite frankly, i wish they put the aligniment system to death then let this happen


Most real life people are as you say neutral, which the same as not having an alignment.
No its not, neutral is an entirely different code than good or evil. It doesn't mean they aren't for ether side, they just follow a code that isn't as fanatical ether way.


They don't have an alignment at all because they aren't going out of their way one way or the other. 4E alignment requires that you actively engage in things that are Good or Evil. So my point stands, Unaligned is a useful measure for people that don't fit into one of the other four because they aren't actively engaged in activities that they cover.
1) They why drop all of the other aligniments
2) your point does not stand, because there is no definition of "active engagement in good and evil". Again, its a crop out to avoid the complexities of the entire aligniment system, which brings us back again to D&D for dummies



You have read the PH right? Because it is quite clear cut that evil is still the same thing, and so is good. Unaligned covers those that don't care enough to be one way or the other, or where it doesn't make a difference.


I own hte PHB. It gives no explanation on the specifics of good and evil


You can still have Good or Evil peasants, its just that for the most part they aren't one or the other. A peasant that actively helps the Sheriff out of greed probably going to be evil. One that hides or gives his food and resources to the old widow after the Sheriff takes all of her stuff to pay taxes is good.

Why have the change in the first place


The hallmarks of standing up for the weak, being virtuous, etc. still apply to the Good alignments. Being evil still implies using others for your own ends, not caring about others, hurting others because it doesn't matter to you if you do (or you like doing it).
And you can very easily turn that on its self. I torture evil people for infomation to protect the weak, i protect the weak to make myself look good,




Using the BoED to support a claim isn't such a hot deal. I'm not suggesting that you kill orcs just for being evil, nor does the PH. It does use orcs as examples of creatures that are Chaotic Evil and thus are opposed by people that don't want Chaotic Evil creatures rampaging through town.

1) Considering it is one of the two books that are based upon alignment, actually it is a good deal
2) your evading the point, your claim was that you kill orcs because they are evil. Wrong, you kill orcs because they are doing evil things that could harm you or innocents.


And easier to use in play. The basics of it follow the exact same as 3E alignment system. In fact the descriptions for Lawful Good and Good are virtually identical to those from 3E, and so are Evil and Chaotic Evil. Good has subsumed CG and NG, while Evil absorbed LE and NE. Unaligned covers the TN, CN and LN pretty well.
How is it easier? Its simplier? Its black and white? Its two intentionally? I suppose that counts as easier through simplification.
Oh and your wrong on a few points
Lawful good means nothing because NG and CG don't exist any more, and instead has become "super good" or "Better good"
Same goes for CE, in the old games it was simply another ideal, now its worst than evil
taking away NG and CG, NE and LE (techincally CE and LG as well, becasue they are meanenles now) simply breaks the game down into black and white
Unaligned isn't TN, Unaligned is simply undecided, which TN is not

Again, D&D for dummies

He's also not clear, from an IC perspective. There are no rules that affect him for being evil, but as far his behaviour goes that's up to the DM to decide for the NPCs. Just like 3E's alignment system.

NO, because good and evil are clearly defined in 3E, because morals are objective



Again, not at all. If you keep meaning from a paladin perspective, fine compared to a 3E paladin nothing happens to him be from a mechanical sense. However, RP wise he should be in crud. He's a paladin of Bahamut, a Lawful Good deity of chilvary and virtuousness. I think that the clerical heirarchy might take issue with such an action.
1) Bahamut has so little description that he could very easily get away with it if you fit this into the "evil without mercy" clause
2) Well the paladin is basically a knight now




Again, what makes you honestly think this means anything. Harry is a good person that feels constrained by the rules of his position to the point that he can't see justice done.
So is ever well intentioned extreamist.


Scorpio for example is let out on a technicality, and even manages to get Harry in trouble for trying to arrest a guy that kidnapped and murdered a 13 year old girl and played San Francisco sniper. Harry shoots the guy after he kidnaps a bus load of school children. In fact Harry does everything in his power to arrest Scorpio before finally having to kills him after the guy pulls a gun on him.
ignoring the fact that the movie is so utterly simplistic, both from a script writing and directing sense (good fight scenes through) his blatent disrespect for the law and people's right to get what he wants, and he shoots and tortures an unarmed man who just surrendered. I mean bloody hell, serial killer or not, that is simply evil

also in real life, Sciopo wouldn't be realized for that, he'd simply be given a lighter sentence



I honestly think Harry covers the concept of Unaligned pretty well. Don't you?
Do we let Light yagami in there as well?



That doesn't make any sense as a standalone argument. The fact that you voluntarily agree to be bound by a rule does not mean the rule is not arbitrary. I could make up a strange and random rule like "From now on, you have to say "badgers" every time you blink." And you could agree to that. But it would still be an arbitrary rule, even though it was one you agree to follow.

What? that doesn't make sense. your example is somebody forcing me following something simply because you told me to. THe paladin code to not commit evil is like some priests vows of Chasity. Sure it might be harsh, but i knew the implications and the sacrifices when i enter the group.




If the justification is transparent BS, then it doesn't count.
Techincally, he is showing no mercy for evil.


The alignment descriptions in the Player's Handbooks (going back to the very beginning) are not and never were strict legal definitions that would stand up in a D&D court. They are intended to give an intelligent person a rough idea of what the alignments stand for, not to be picked apart word by word for the lawyers to justify any imaginable act as following any imaginable alignment.
Actually, good and evil, at least in 2E or 3E are clearly defined concepts. IE objective. in 3E, torture is always evil, no mater what the situation is. A good person (not an exalted) might be able to get away with it once, but if he kept it up he wouldn't be good any more. rape is always evil, murder is always evil, human sacerfice is always evil, ect. hence BoED/BoVD/other books on the subject


The Joker isn't Lawful; dragging prisoners to death isn't Good. Let's move on with our lives.
in 3E, your right. Dragging prisoners to death is clearly evil and he would certainly be both evil and no longer a paladin. The Joker isn't lawful in 3E at all. In 4E, um, law isn't really an alginiment any more, so he is simply evil




At this point, you have complained many times about how simplistic 4th Edition morality is. Could you please provide some actual proof of your assertion, in the form of quotations and detailed arguments? Yes, yes, 4th Edition is simplistic and all about stereotypes. You've obviously known this for a long time.
1) i've know this for a long time because i read the preview books
2) Do you mean the alignment system or 4e in general. If the latter then we already have a very large thread filled with my posts about 4E being a failure as an edition. If the former, then the very nature of the new system, apart from being useless, is a simplified way version of the old version, (which was actually quite complex) until its basically "us, them, everybody else", because it is a way for wizards to easily side step the risk of the aligniment system (IE, having a consistent logical moral system) without taking away the system totally




How did you find it out? What discovery did you make that taught you this? Would you be willing to share?
um, reading the PHB's section on the subject? understanding the 3E's moral system. General common sense? Take your pick?




After all 4e has moved much closer to the "action movie" genre, where violence solves problems and doesn't have lasting negative effects as conveniently there is no collateral damage, and anyone killed turns out to be a bad guy. Another trope 4e has taken from action movies is stripping out or downplaying NPC good guys, so the PCs have to do most things themselves without the expectation of help.
horray



Interestingly, the rules as written make it much easier for a church or cult to be corrupt and get away with it, allowing a heroic PC to be both an outlaw and loyal to his faith, potentially going on to clean house and bring the corrupt to justice.
that could be done in 3E as well, like in Fr or Ebberon




Originally Posted by nagora View Post
I hate 4e and will never cease to be extremely and annoyingly about it, even going as far as pulling "facts" from my ass, including lying about what other people are saying.
isn't this basically a flame? For shame tengu

Also, he actually has a good point about the paladin/powergamer statement, its the powers without the morality. I don't get the Dm point through



Nagora, as much as I respect your 3.5 Edition advice, this is not the thread for it.

Go and create your own thread, if you want to complain.

And since I'm one of the 4E crowd: What? Being cool is a crime now?
If you don't like it, don't read it. As this is a 4E thread......



Seriously, nagora - if you don't have anything constructive and on-topic to say, don't post here.
Tengu, you just made a blatant flame and utterly dismissed his argument. His argument was on topic, your just being insulted. I mean, i like you man, but come on, some decency please
from
EE

Knaight
2008-09-20, 08:17 PM
In a class based system, things are limited enough without having to deal with fluff backgrounds, which are easy enough to change. What if I want someone who has to actively control their emotions, and if they let their guard down, their emotions will take over. In battle, sometimes they deliberately drop that control. Mechanically barbarian, possibly even frenzied berserker prestige class fits perfectly, except for its a lawful character. As for a monk, mechanically they are tough guys who hit people unarmed and don't use armor. A gifted, arrogant combatant who doesn't need weapons, just understands stuff like pressure points for whatever reason, and other things works best through the monk class. But personality wise, they are textbook Chaotic Neutral.

As for your third paragraph, rapists, murderers, and the like are true scum. Sure, there is no definition of evil in fourth edition, but thats because evil is a word that already has meaning. They don't need to define evil, we already know what evil means. Which is why unaligned is the most common alignment, most people look out for themselves first, but aren't willing to haplessly murder.

As for ravages, thats just an example. Vile deeds pretty much makes evil look comically bad and not realistic at all, there is a reason both of those books were pretty much abhorred by the vast majority of D&D players. Evil should require high standards, selfishness shouldn't be enough, but Vile deeds just takes it too far. Again, this is why I dislike alignment, there are always arguments about it, and when it gets mechanical relevance, it handicaps your character building options. Ideally you should be able to make mechanics fit your character perfectly, as well as having whatever personality you want, and alignment restrictions get in the way. Furthermore there is no need to define good and evil in the books, it didn't help. 4e took a step in the right direction removing what alignments they did, and then decided not to get rid of the rest of them.

Alignment has always been far simpler than real morality, and was there in the beginning due entirely to the wargame background. If they are irrelevant then they can just be forgotten, but with class restrictions, spells like blasphemy, and other such stuff, you get people arguing about alignment when it changes, due to it being muddy writing in the beginning. It starts off as a good tool, and helpful, and quickly becomes a straight jacket in regards to mechanics and personality interacting. How quickly is going to vary(I'm thinking that part of the reason it happened to me quickly is the amount of time I spend doing drama and theater related stuff and reading about complex characters. If your favorite show is Naruto, you don't watch plays, and you read books like Harry Potter which have no complex characters other than Snape while playing hack and slash games, its going to take a while, and you need alignment).

EDIT: I just noticed that the grammatical quality, capitalization and punctuation quality, and other parts of your post seem to vary highly depending on who your responding to. Is this possibly some sort of sign for respect for certain posters and/or their arguments and tones in their posts?

Dervag
2008-09-20, 09:14 PM
Not really. Just because powerful people want to make thinking differently a punishable offense, and add it to their law books and send out people to kill based on those law books that doesn't mean I'm going to count it as a real crime.Ah. I misunderstood your use of the word "law." I thought you meant "the laws that are in fact on the books," when in fact you meant "the abstract laws that I think should be on the books." Which is fine; I just didn't realize you were doing it.


Anyone that thinks rationally for even a few minutes on the subject of 'gee, how is heresy bad compared to robbery, murder, theft, arson, assault, etc?' is inevitably going to come to the conclusion that heresy actually benefits society more than it harms it, and results in no physical harm whatsoever.Unless, of course, it makes people go to hell and burn in eternal agony and sorrow. Which, depending on who you ask, it just might.


I'm just saying if you haven't done anything wrong, I'm not going to count it as a crime and the heretic as a criminal.Sure. Fine. I agree, as a principle of jurisprudence. What I'm trying to get at is that it's very easy to imagine a paladin as part of a legal structure in which a heretic is a priori a dangerous criminal. In which case treating a heretic according to whatever laws exist about the treatment of prisoners would not be something he should be punished for severely. A man cannot be expected to transcend his times and context. I can want him to do so, but I cannot reasonably require him to.

And, of course, to put the icing on the cake, this particular heretic was known to have committed multiple murders in the past already. Which makes them a criminal, regardless of whatever heresy they may or may not have practiced.
_________________


I think you should at least send some servant of Bahamut to reprimand him and demand him to atone. If he continoues with his extreme behaviour and doesn't even try to atone and change, it is time for excommunication, outlawing, maybe even an assassin executioner, maybe a whole cadre, since he is doing a very bag job of representing Bahamut and his followers.Assassins are too subtle. Have the clergy be very obvious and aboveboard with this. This guy has publically stained the honor of his Church in the eyes of everyone who watched him drag that man to death. His punishment should be public. If he keeps doing it, his execution should be public. Have the church conjure up an angel with a flaming sword and crackling lightning eyes and a booming voice that can be heard halfway across the county.* Said angel will openly condemn the paladin for his crimes, and openly engage the paladin in combat. Nothing quiet about this. The church of Bahamut profits from being loud and open about this, because it gets a reputation for being willing to deal with evildoers in its own ranks.

*Note: in 4E, angels are servants of their gods and not necessarily good-aligned. I know this. But an angel of Bahamut would be a good entity, and would be an ideal choice to send the paladin the message

Seeing as how angels were literally meant as messengers.
________________________________


Of course, you can do that. But it's not in the default rules. By default, the 4e paladin gets punished by sicking his church/angels at him, if the church or deity finds out. Default rules say that a paladin cannot fall, and I don't think if we're discussing houserules here. In fact, Leliel didn't even ask "should this paladin fall?", just was his act evil.In this case, the church will find out because instead of a live heretic prisoner, they have a dead heretic corpse with cut hamstrings and a lot of flesh flayed off the side in contact with the ground. They're going to ask some questions. Either this man was crippled and dragged painfully to death over a long period of time, or this paladin has invented one hell of a swordfighting technique.

It's pretty well established that the gods of a D&D setting are capable of breaking the conventional rules, I think. There are still limits on what they can accomplish, but depowering a mortal is well within those limits.
______________________________


I'm just positing that heresy is an invalid law, both from a standpoint of the good of society as well as a moral standpoint. That's why I don't count heresy as a real crime, and say a heretic is not a criminal no matter what the technical law may be.That's true in the world we know, where heretics cannot possibly summon actual demons that will run around and eat people. Assuming, of course, that you don't believe in any of the religions that think you can go to hell for believing the wrong things.

In a D&D universe, it's quite possible that this guy's heresy was "I am going to summon demons to destroy all who refuse to bow down to me!" And he could quite possibly have accomplished that aim, given time and power.

In which case the heresy is a crime- specifically, the intent to commit a lot of murders. Which is in fact a crime in modern legal systems, freedom of speech or not.
____________________


No it is a house rule.If you say "Rule 0" is just a house rule, then you must be using a very strange definition of "house rule."

You see, Rule 0 started in Gary Gygax's house, and moved to TSR's house, and now resides in Wizards of the Coast's house. That's no ordinary house rule.
_____________________


If I were a LG god and knew that my church is a powerful and just organisation that will actively seek out its members who have performed atrocities and punish them, I'd leave the small fries in their hands. I'm too busy making sure the forces of evil gods won't destroy everything.Fine, but a paladin who evades the justice of the church (either by talking the church out of punishing him, or by fighting back) should become a target. Like in real life- if some criminal gang wins a shootout with the local police, or bribes them to overlook their crimes, they don't get away free and clear. They become the target of higher levels of law enforcement, including things like SWAT teams and armored vehicles, until eventually they're overwhelmed by brute force.

A church's response to an out of control paladin should be like that. If appropriate, start by telling him to stop (rebuke). Then punish him in nonaggressive ways (remove church support) and nonlethal ways (curses and such). If he continues to break the rules, or to use his paladin powers in ways inconsistent with the aims of the church, go after him with lethal force.

If he is not punished with lethal force, sooner or later his actions will come to attention of the god or the supernatural servants of the god. At which point the paladin should be hopelessly outgunned.


I don't think if divines are constantly aware of everything each and every of their paladins and clerics is doing. Not all gods are omniscient. They can observe the actions of those infused with their powers easier, sure, but it still requires an active desire to do so.OK, but that's a rules interpretation. It's reasonable to do it either way. D&D is not very specific about how divine-powered magic actually works... for good reasons.
_____________________


What? that doesn't make sense. your example is somebody forcing me following something simply because you told me to. THe paladin code to not commit evil is like some priests vows of Chasity. Sure it might be harsh, but i knew the implications and the sacrifices when i enter the group.You obviously did not understand my argument. My argument is that a law can be "arbitrary" without being "involuntary." I may volunteer to follow the Law of Badger, by which I am required to say "badger" every time I blink, on pain of death. But even if I accept it, it is arbitrary. There is no logical reason why I should have to say "badger" every time I blink, or why I should be put to death for not doing so. The law is arbitrary. But I still signed up for it knowing what it was.

"Arbitrary law" is not the same thing as "bad law" or "law someone is making me follow against my will."
__________________


Techincally, he is showing no mercy for evil.Were you listening to what you responded to? A justification that is transparent BS, obviously intended as a cover story for evil and cruelty that were committed for the sake of personal desires, is worthless. Asserting that someone is "good" because you can fool around with the definitions of the words used to describe "good" in the Player's Handbook until those words can be used to mean anything and everything is not a valid approach. The definition in the Players Handbook was never rigorous. A determined lawyer could always find loopholes to exploit.

You're supposed to look at the rules and not be an idiot. Recognizing that it's wrong to drag a helpless prisoner to death behind your horse for two days falls under "not being stupid," whatever the broadest possible interpretation of the words of the book say. You're not supposed to use that broad interpretation because it was deliberately created by you to twist the rules into knots.


2) Do you mean the alignment system or 4e in general. If the latter then we already have a very large thread filled with my posts about 4E being a failure as an edition. If the former, then the very nature of the new system, apart from being useless, is a simplified way version of the old version, (which was actually quite complex) until its basically "us, them, everybody else", because it is a way for wizards to easily side step the risk of the aligniment system (IE, having a consistent logical moral system) without taking away the system totally.OK. You've asserted all this stuff about the new system being simplified and a failure. Can you provide a link? A quotation from the Player's Handbook? Some actual evidence?

Repeating assertions does not make them true. If you used common sense or moral philosophy to arrive at what you now believe, great. Tell me your reasoning. I've never seen or heard it. Or, if you've already told everyone you're reasoning and I'm just clueless, could you provide a link?

Or you could get other people to tell me that they've seen your reasoning and are satisfied with it. I'll take their word for it. I'm not picky. I'd just like to see some proof for all these very damning accusations I've seen you make over and over for months. I only want you to share whatever reasoning has made you so absolutely certain that the 4th Edition alignment system is a stupid simplification designed to allow infantile power fantasies to rule the system. You're very sure of this. You repeat it at every opportunity. What makes you so sure? I want to see your reasoning for myself, so that I can evaluate it independently instead of taking your word for it. Or at least hear from people I can trust that you have reasoning, and have not merely pulled your opinions out of a big pile of random biases.

Asbestos
2008-09-20, 10:16 PM
Definitely an evil act and his excuse for doing it is basically 'I didn't kill him, the ground did' which is just ludicrous.
I'd say, if he drifts outside of his church's/god's alignment then just take away his 'channel divinity' powers and the benefits of paladin paragon paths. If he goes to the Dark Side and starts following a more... ambivalent god, then give him back his powers and maybe alter 'Radiant' damage to fire or necrotic or whatever else might be appropriate.

As a side note I don't see why people are using this thread to say how superior the 3.x alignment system is. I don't see how the system makes the act any less evil.

BobVosh
2008-09-20, 10:19 PM
Assassins are evil for killing due to their reasons. They kill people for personal financial gain.

So there is no way I can be a political assassin againist an evil government and be an assassin?

Kiren
2008-09-20, 10:20 PM
I have a idea, Elect some forumers to solve questions like this by discussing it then vote to see which is the answer.

Vexxation
2008-09-20, 10:38 PM
So there is no way I can be a political assassin againist an evil government and be an assassin?

Well, no, not by 3E RAW. Of course, the requisite of "evil" is stupid.
But if you want to be a Good Assassin, you must kill in the the most efficient, painless way possible, and accepting payment is iffy. If you do it for reasons of State or for Overall Good you're more of a stealthy Paladin of Death. But still an assassin.

Anyway, my comment on the OP is that the Paladin, while he acted in a relatively inhumane way, was not acting evilly. The man made a threat. From a captor's point of view, this is a form of non-compliance. Imagine what a police officer might do if you threatened his family. Yeah. Now, imagine that you threaten that officer after attempting a holy war against the religion he believes. You aren't going to get mercy.

So, from a simple captor's point of view, the guy had it coming. It really isn't the Paladin's fault the man was injured and subsequently died; had the man not bled so profusely he'd have been fine. And the Paladin carried out his order: He delivered the heretic. He was not alive but he was delivered.

So while the act itself was cruel, it was deserved, and considering the man was going to die any way, probably after much more pain was inflicted, it may have even been mercy. Heck, if I had anything annoying happen, I'd have his superiors chastise him for letting him die too quickly, then make him pay to resurrect him for his sentencing.

Of course, I don't really like Paladin's as Lawful Good. I prefer Lawful Neutral. Judge Dredd and all. Lawful Neutral is where I'd peg the Paladin f he did this all the time; if not, I'd let him stay Lawful Good.

Roland St. Jude
2008-09-20, 10:42 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep it civil in here and do not discuss real world piolitics and religion. Those topics are off-topic - even when related to to gaming.

Asbestos
2008-09-20, 11:05 PM
Why? The definition of evil in 4E doesn't give any specifics. he is just doing what good does, hunt evil without mercy

I own hte PHB. It gives no explanation on the specifics of good and evil

NO, because good and evil are clearly defined in 3E, because morals are objective

Actually, good and evil, at least in 2E or 3E are clearly defined concepts. IE objective. in 3E, torture is always evil, no mater what the situation is. A good person (not an exalted) might be able to get away with it once, but if he kept it up he wouldn't be good any more. rape is always evil, murder is always evil, human sacerfice is always evil, ect. hence BoED/BoVD/other books on the subject


If what, 4-6 human beings sitting around a table need a few lines in a book about fantasy adventure to tell them that rape, murder, are torture are evil then well, I mean... wow. Does the handbook need explicit definitions of good and evil for us to figure out that dragging a man to his death over the course of two days probably isn't a 'good' thing?

Anyway! how about we get quotes from the 4e PHB?
From the bit on the Good alignment


You can follow rules and respect authority, but
you’re keenly aware that power tends to corrupt
those who wield it, too often leading them to exploit
their power for selfish or evil ends. When that happens,
you feel no obligation to follow the law blindly.
It’s better for authority to rest in the members of a
community rather than the hands of any individual
or social class. When law becomes exploitation, it
crosses into evil territory, and good characters feel
compelled to fight it.

Mhmmm, now from Lawful Good


Lawful good characters believe just as
strongly as good ones do in the value of life, and they
put even more emphasis on the need for the powerful
to protect the weak and lift up the downtrodden. The
exemplars of the lawful good alignment are shining
champions of what’s right, honorable, and true, risking
or even sacrificing their lives to stop the spread of evil
in the world.
When leaders exploit their authority for personal
gain, when laws grant privileged status to some citizens
and reduce others to slavery or untouchable
status, law has given in to evil and just authority
becomes tyranny.

And evil?


Evil characters don’t necessarily go out of their way
to hurt people, but they’re perfectly willing to take
advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what
they want.
Evil characters use rules and order to maximize
personal gain. They don’t care whether laws hurt other
people.

and for the sake of argument, the VERY FIRST line under 'Unaligned'


If you’re unaligned, you don’t actively seek to harm
others or wish them ill.



Using the 4e PHB, what the Paladin did is CLEARLY evil. It isn't unaligned, it isn't good. He used the 'law' to justify intentional pain and suffering. He exploited the law, he went out of his way to maim and kill. He IS evil. Where is the ambivalence?!

Something I've seen cropping up is what defines a 'Paladin'. Historically it could either be a royal guard or a high-ranking bureaucrat in the Catholic Church. In D&D it was, up until 4e, 'Divine Powered LG Knight' and was the only base class, unless you count the variants in... what was it, Unearthed Arcana?... that was a 'Divinely Powered Knight' and the others, like the Blackguard, were PrCs. 4e did what should have been done since the beginning, either relegate Paladin to a PrC or make the base class 'Divine Knight' and open it to all deities. The problem is the name 'Paladin' was grandfathered in. The class allows you to play a 'classic' Paladin, but it also allows you to play any other alignment of divine knight.

Side note, been bugging me, no offense to you EE, but its been bugging me.
Crop out = "rise to the surface, become visible or evident"
Cop out = "take the easy way out"
Thanks, Answers.com!

Yahzi
2008-09-20, 11:40 PM
It really isn't the Paladin's fault the man was injured and subsequently died; had the man not bled so profusely he'd have been fine.
Maybe it was the sword's fault for being so sharp.


So while the act itself was cruel,
And unnecessary. The heretic was no immediate threat; he was going to be delivered to justice anyway.

If cruel and unnecessary acts aren't evil, then nothing is.


Of course, I don't really like Paladin's as Lawful Good.
I agree with the sentiment: they hardly seem like avatars of pure goodness. The way I handle it is to make Neutral Good the "highest" alignment, while LG is the second-highest.

Asbestos
2008-09-20, 11:52 PM
Just thought of another way to get the Paladin in line.
Angel of Vengeance.
Their description says they "strike down those who wrong a deity.
They also punish disloyalty and failure among the devout."
and a lore check on them reveals that...
"A god might also send an angel of vengeance to test one who is in danger of falling off the deity’s path, showing no mercy for failure."
I'd say that being schooled by an angel is up there with having powers taken away. Pretty clear sign that you're doing something wrong.

Having angels, or members of the church, whup his butt fits with the RAW for Paladins as well.


Once initiated, the paladin is a paladin forevermore.
How justly, honorably, or compassionately the
paladin wields those powers from that day forward
is up to him, and paladins who stray too far from the
tenets of their faith are punished by other members of
the faithful.

Surrealistik
2008-09-21, 12:03 AM
Evil without question.

EvilElitest
2008-09-23, 10:47 PM
In a class based system, things are limited enough
without having to deal with fluff backgrounds, which are easy enough to change.

1) The class system isn't that limiting really. Its one of the styles of the game.
2) the thing is, the fluff background is an inherent part of the class. I mean, if i
want to play as an embodiment of law and good, well then i should actually, you
know, be law and good. If you want to be servant of nature, you need it makes
sense to have a dedication to nature. If you want to be a master of medication and
law who focuses upon inner discipline, it makes sense to have a dedication to go
with it. If you want to be a samerai who's first loyalty is to his lord and his
dedicated, the idea of having a cod is quit logically. part of the unique nature of
the class is what makes it appealing, other wise you could easily play a fighter or a
wizard which doesn't have a code. Fluff is part of the game, without its stale. Now
if you personally don't like, don't include them in your game, but they certainly
aren't arbitrary.


What if I want someone who has to actively control their emotions, and if they let
their guard down, their emotions will take over. In battle, sometimes they
deliberately drop that control. Mechanically barbarian, possibly even frenzied
berserker prestige class fits perfectly, except for its a lawful character.

The barbarian's nature is one where he embraces chaos as his own power. The
thing is, his very nature is an embrace of chaos and driving emotional passion. The
thing is, its part of the class, his very nature is chaotic. he can act in a generally
lawful way most of the time, but if he goes too far, he can't advance any more in
his class. He won't lose his abilities mind you, he just can no longer tap into the
raw power of chaos any further


As for a monk, mechanically they are tough guys who hit people unarmed and
don't use armor. A gifted, arrogant combatant who doesn't need weapons, just
understands stuff like pressure points for whatever reason, and other things works
best through the monk class. But personality wise, they are textbook Chaotic
Neutral.
Monks aren't fist fighters, they are people who embrace the ideals of mind over
body, of discipline and order of the humanly senses (see their other special
abilities), they are understanders of the way of inner peace. now if one becomes
non lawful, they simply can't advance further in that school of training because
they have lost the inner control. now they can take a PrC taht gives then an
exception of course


As for your third paragraph, rapists, murderers, and the like are true scum. Sure,
there is no definition of evil in fourth edition, but thats because evil is a word that
already has meaning. They don't need to define evil, we already know what evil
means. Which is why unaligned is the most common alignment, most people look
out for themselves first, but aren't willing to haplessly murder.
that isn't true actually. I really hate to said this, but there are plenty of murderers
who are generally good people except for a few nasty deeds they've done at some
point or another. Murder is in fact very hard to define. 3E did it, but 4E leaves it
vague. Is killing a man who has surrendered in order to prevent a crime wrong? Is
killing a innocent man in order to save three others evil? how about tortureing a
man for a confession? How about stabbing a man in the back as he goes to trial
to avoid the chance of him escaping? how about killing farmers of the evil empire
to weaken their power? Killing evil goblins who live in caves by themselves and
worship evil gods?

As for rape, what about somebody who is charmed? Drunk? not understanding
the situation? Underaged?

3E makes all of these situations clear, 4E simply avoids it by grouping anything
that doens't neatly fit into their black and white morality into "unaligned"

Which brings me to the question again, what is hte point of unalignied. We already
had several types of neutral, which covered all of the different possibilities, as well
as multiple types of good. Unalignied is a crop out, a way for WotC to avoid those
nasty moral problems cuts down on all the complications, because apperently the
players couldn't handle it. See also, D&D for Dummies.


As for ravages, thats just an example. Vile deeds pretty much makes evil look
comically bad and not realistic at all, there is a reason both of those books were
pretty much abhorred by the vast majority of D&D players.
1) How so? Apart form you claim, how are they bad? In fact, they make sense,
murdering somebody for money and selling a soul are very different ranges of evil
2) they where abhorred? Really? Prove it. really go ahead, prove it based upon
something more than an unbacked claim. They sold quite well, they are referenced
to a lot, and both have a 4 1/2 star adverse on amazon.com last i checked. So
when you make claims of vast majority, actually make sure thats true



Evil should require high standards, selfishness shouldn't be enough, but Vile deeds
just takes it too far.
Evil having standards doesn't make sense. Good is having standards, neutral is
having more flexible standards, evil is having no standards. Evil people do what
they want, when they want and when they feel like it. Part of being evil is that you
don't have to have standards. Good people can't commit too many evil acts or
they fall. Evil people can commit as many good actions as they want without the
fear of falling


Again, this is why I dislike alignment, there are always arguments about it, and
when it gets mechanical relevance, it handicaps your character building
options.
Alignment doesn't hinder Roleplaying, and it doesn't hinder mechanics any more
than other sytems.


Ideally you should be able to make mechanics fit your character perfectly, as well
as having whatever personality you want, and alignment restrictions get in the
way.

What double standard is this? 4E is built upon the idea of limiting character
options (see the 4E complaining thread for details) what are you talking about? in
4E, character options are absurdly limited and the whole game is based upon
simplifying itself while not allowing other styles of play. How can you complain
about 3E' easily ignored and actually justified "limitations" while 4E's system is
built upon arbitrary limitations out a fear of complexity


Furthermore there is no need to define good and evil in the books, it didn't help.
4e took a step in the right direction removing what alignments they did, and then
decided not to get rid of the rest of them.
1) There is if you want to have an afterlife system based upon good and evil
2) also some people like the idea of two absolute forces of good and evil, which
makes paladins, angels, demons, gods and what not much more endgaging


Alignment has always been far simpler than real morality, and was there in the
beginning due entirely to the wargame background.
Thats actually not true, because any real life morality can fit into the alignment
system. remember, good and evil are not the same as right and wrong


If they are irrelevant then they can just be forgotten, but with class restrictions,
spells like blasphemy, and other such stuff, you get people arguing about
alignment when it changes, due to it being muddy writing in the beginning. It
starts off as a good tool, and helpful, and quickly becomes a straight jacket in
regards to mechanics and personality interacting.
Not at all, because alignments are categories, not absolutes or personalities.


How quickly is going to vary(I'm thinking that part of the reason it
happened to me quickly is the amount of time I spend doing drama and theater
related stuff and reading about complex characters. If your favorite show is Naruto,
you don't watch plays, and you read books like Harry Potter which have no
complex characters other than Snape while playing hack and slash games, its going
to take a while, and you need alignment).
your using stereotypes to prove a point? Yeah, that will go well. While i'm not a
fan of Narato at all, and i'm not big on HP, i don't think those are signs complexity
incompetence



EDIT: I just noticed that the grammatical quality, capitalization and punctuation
quality, and other parts of your post seem to vary highly depending on who your
responding to. Is this possibly some sort of sign for respect for certain posters
and/or their arguments and tones in their posts?

No



You obviously did not understand my argument. My argument is that a law can be
"arbitrary" without being "involuntary." I may volunteer to follow the Law of Badger,
by which I am required to say "badger" every time I blink, on pain of death. But
even if I accept it, it is arbitrary. There is no logical reason why I should have to say
"badger" every time I blink, or why I should be put to death for not doing so. The
law is arbitrary. But I still signed up for it knowing what it was.

fair enough, but it alignment isn't arbitrary, nor its requiriments

"Arbitrary law" is not the same thing as "bad law" or "law someone is
making me follow against my will."
__________________
actually, if we want to get really technical, its a law down not on the basis of logic
or reason, but one that seems to be on whim or illogical, which aligniment is not.
It makes sense in context. People might not like it but it certainly isn't arbitrary.



Were you listening to what you responded to? A justification that is transparent BS,
obviously intended as a cover story for evil and cruelty that were committed for
the sake of personal desires, is worthless.
Of course it was, you know that i know that, but the fact remains, within 4E
context, the standard on good are basically non existent. The fact remains that
there aren't any established standard to good and evil, nor even the god's codes.


Asserting that someone is "good" because you can fool around with the
definitions of the words used to describe "good" in the Player's Handbook until
those words can be used to mean anything and everything is not a valid approach.
The definition in the Players Handbook was never rigorous. A determined lawyer
could always find loopholes to exploit.

Your right, but unlike 3E, which actively attempted to go against this, the codes in
4E are so vague it is way to easy to exploit, them, both because they are vague (see
WotC doesn't care) and because nothing has been made to actually draw a line on
what is actually good and what i evil. Nor what gods tolerate


You're supposed to look at the rules and not be an idiot. Recognizing that it's
wrong to drag a helpless prisoner to death behind your horse for two days falls
under "not being stupid," whatever the broadest possible interpretation of the
words of the book say. You're not supposed to use that broad interpretation
because it was deliberately created by you to twist the rules into knots.

Realize i'm arguing against my normal option here, but that is the kind of thing
Dirty Harry, Officer White, The Bride, and other popular characters like that would
do. As Bahamet has no real dogma defined, you could make a pretty solid case
there


OK. You've asserted all this stuff about the new system being simplified and a failure. Can you provide a link? A quotation from the Player's Handbook? Some actual evidence?
Techincally i already did, but if you insist
P. 19, PHB. We have the aligniment section.

Now first off, we are mising some aligniments. All of the neutrals for one, as well as CG and LE. The've all been replaced by unaligned. Simplified, certainly, don't need evidence for that, i have my previous assertions. Quite note here
"If you choolse an alignment for your character, you should pick either good or lawful good. Unless your DM is running a campaign in which all the characters are evil or chaotic evil, playing and evil or chaotic evil character disrupts and adventuring party and frankly makes all the other characters angry at you"

now this is an interesting statement here. For anyone claiming that 4E doesn't restrict playing styles, i offer this in comparison to 3E, which actually have evil options available, nor did it have the arrogence to put down a play style. to be fair, in 3E, evil is quite a valid option, as all that is required to be evil is to have committed evil acts in teh past, and and not repent for them. So being evil actually make a lot of sense, take julius Caesar or Napleon, or any character from God father. But in this, evil simply isn't an option, now this is not only considered unplayable, but it will also make the other players angry at you? So if you being evil, you now have to be psychopathic, because if evil will almost certainly annoy the players, evil must be so utterly 2 dimensional that a good evil character is impossible

Anyways, now we have the good alignment

Basically, its this, you have to protect people and fight evil, abide by law when it is just and ignore it when it isn't..........um, that actually is about it. Its makes the 3E PHB look detailed.

"Protecting teh weak from those who would dominate or kil them is just the right thing to do"
Vague and undefined. Wow, taking the somewhat unfounded criticisms of the 3E alignment system and making it real.

Lawful good
"An order society protects itself from evil"
Now, i would like to remind you, that Lawful good is meaningless without NG and CG to go along with it, so it, like the rest of the alignment system is redundant

Basically, its like normal good, but hard core ""the exemplars of the lawful good alignment are shining champions of what's right, honorable and true, risking or even sacrificing their lives to stop the spread of evil in the world"
The only real difference apart from being more hardcore version of good, have more respect for the law.

To be fair is worth noting that slavery and tyranny are actually evil, as well as the untouchable status.

Evil
"It is my right to claim what others posses"
This one is much shorter than the others

"Evil Charactesr don't necessarily go out of their way to hurt people, but they are perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire, what they want.
Evil characters use rules and orders to maximize personal gain. They don't care whether laws hurt others people.. They support institutional structures that give them power, even if that power comes as the expense of others' freedom. Slavery and ridge caste structures that are not only acceptable btu desirable to evil characters, as long as they are in a position to benefit from them."
Now this is interesting. Like the other alignments, there is a lot of words that describe very little. This is pretty much lawful evil, to an extreme. Odd through, that eariler in this section they describe alignments as not being personality, when this open basically is only one personality. Doesn't go along with evil being unable to work with the party, but apperently this single minded personalty isn't really computable. evil in 3E was more general and could cover more ground, while this is just a sociopath.

Chaotic evil is just evil, but crazy.





Repeating assertions does not make them true. If you used common sense or moral philosophy to arrive at what you now believe, great. Tell me your reasoning. I've never seen or heard it. Or, if you've already told everyone you're reasoning and I'm just clueless, could you provide a link?
I did so at the beginning of the thread, i'll repeat it when i have more time ok? PM me actually, i have a whole essay being written in terms of explaining this


Or you could get other people to tell me that they've seen your reasoning and are satisfied with it. I'll take their word for it. I'm not picky. I'd just like to see some proof for all these very damning accusations I've seen you make over and over for months. I only want you to share whatever reasoning has made you so absolutely certain that the 4th Edition alignment system is a stupid simplification designed to allow infantile power fantasies to rule the system. You're very sure of this. You repeat it at every opportunity. What makes you so sure? I want to see your reasoning for myself, so that I can evaluate it independently instead of taking your word for it. Or at least hear from people I can trust that you have reasoning, and have not merely pulled your opinions out of a big pile of random biases.
Well my reasoning is this. In 3E, there was a clear explanation on what the alignment system entailed, but because of that WotC had to do a lot of work to maintain consistency (which didn't work out that well actually) and all these tricky "right wrong" moral situations that keep cropping up in the game

in 4E, WoTC chickens out and instead chooses to have a system that is basically black and white, with complexities fit into "unaligned" it is also worth noting how vague it is, is that players can just make their own interpretations and go with it. Which makes the point of the alignment system utterly useless, as it is meant to be objective. Its basically for show, not for use.



If what, 4-6 human beings sitting around a table need a few lines in a book about fantasy adventure to tell them that rape, murder, are torture are evil then well, I mean... wow. Does the handbook need explicit definitions of good and evil for us to figure out that dragging a man to his death over the course of two days probably isn't a 'good' thing?

It mattered for the last edition? What is an evil act, what is a good act


Anyway! how about we get quotes from the 4e PHB?
From the bit on the Good alignment
vague, barely detailed, basically "what ever you feel like" they never actaully explain what is and is not a good act



Mhmmm, now from Lawful Good

which is meanenless without CG and NG


And evil?
Grrrrrrr, mindless monsters. Sociopaths away


and for the sake of argument, the VERY FIRST line under 'Unaligned'

everything


Using the 4e PHB, what the Paladin did is CLEARLY evil. It isn't unaligned, it isn't good. He used the 'law' to justify intentional pain and suffering. He exploited the law, he went out of his way to maim and kill. He IS evil. Where is the ambivalence?!

Where is tortured said to be evil. At no point does the section say that taking law into your own hands is wrong. In fact, it implies the other end of the spectrum, that if the law won't do the job, you need to do what you think is right. Its utterly subjective, which makes the point of aligniment pointless


Something I've seen cropping up is what defines a 'Paladin'. Historically it could either be a royal guard or a high-ranking bureaucrat in the Catholic Church. In D&D it was, up until 4e, 'Divine Powered LG Knight' and was the only base class, unless you count the variants in... what was it, Unearthed Arcana?... that was a 'Divinely Powered Knight' and the others, like the Blackguard, were PrCs. 4e did what should have been done since the beginning, either relegate Paladin to a PrC or make the base class 'Divine Knight' and open it to all deities. The problem is the name 'Paladin' was grandfathered in. The class allows you to play a 'classic' Paladin, but it also allows you to play any other alignment of divine knight.
wrong on a few counts
1) historical paladisn is not waht the D&D paladin is based upon
2) Also wrong. you had knight and crusader. Crusadors embraced any cause, Knights were honorable warriors, while paladins were lawful good embodyiments. hell, clerics were pretty much devine warriors.
3) no, because in doing so that ruins waht made the paladin, a paladin. Its basically a knight, and a knight can get away with a lot



Side note, been bugging me, no offense to you EE, but its been bugging me.
Crop out = "rise to the surface, become visible or evident"
Cop out = "take the easy way out"
Thanks, Answers.com!
Alright the, Cop out


and paladins who stray too far from the
tenets of their faith are punished by other members of
the faithful.



never says he opposes torture, just that he is a good diety. Not much there actually in terms of fluff, like most of the edition
from
EE

Ravens_cry
2008-09-23, 11:29 PM
If taking the man to a trial in at the church would have incurred too much of a risk of him escaping, 'taking out the trash' would be a simple beheading. This was not a simple beheading. Of course, a real question is, why didn't his compatriots do anything? Why did they stand by and 'watch' as a man was dragged to his death?

Asbestos
2008-09-24, 12:40 AM
{Scrubbed}

First off, the ONLY fair comparison between 4e alignment and 3.x alignment is what is presented in the 3.x PHB and what is in the 4e PHB. The Book of Exalted Deeds has specific examples for stuff because apparently people NEED to be told that rape, torture, and wanton murder are somehow bad. Whatever did people do between July of 2003 and October of 2003? Games must have been awash with moral dilemmas!

Now that the snark is out of my system...
Let's compare the 4e PHB to the 3.5 PHB:

4e Lawful Good is STILL 3.5 Lawful Good
Everything that it says in the 3.5 book is in the 4e book except that 4e has the nice caveat that LG does not have to slavishly accept the Law. If the Law is exploitive and tyrannical then it is the LG character's duty to fight it, preferably from within the system. I think that many will agree that this is a good addition.

4e Good is NG and CG
"Good" says you 'can' follow the law, but you aren't bound to it (NG) and that when it becomes exploitive you feel compelled to fight it (CG)

4e Evil is LE and NE
NE in 4e. "Evil characters don’t necessarily go out of their way
to hurt people, but they’re perfectly willing to take
advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what
they want."

NE in 3.5. "A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience."

LE in 4e. "Evil characters use rules and order to maximize
personal gain. They don’t care whether laws hurt other
people. They support institutional structures that give
them power, even if that power comes at the expense
of others’ freedom. Slavery and rigid caste structures
are not only acceptable but desirable to evil characters,
as long as they are in a position to benefit from them."

LE in 3.5 "A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises."

But of course, even though they're basically the same and direct quotes from the PHBs, one is 4e and OBVIOUSLY in 4e 'Evil' means...

Grrrrrrr, mindless monsters. Sociopaths away
Right...

4e CE is 3.5 CE
"Chaotic evil characters have a complete disregard for
others. Each believes he or she is the only being that
matters and kills, steals, and betrays others to gain
power. Their word is meaningless and their actions
destructive. Their worldviews can be so warped that
they destroy anything and anyone that doesn’t directly
contribute to their interests."
vs
"A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal."

And finally we get to what seems to be the biggest bee in your bonnet.

4e Unaligned is, for the most part, LN, TN, and CN.

"A few unaligned people, and most unaligned deities,
aren’t undecided about alignment. Rather, they’ve
chosen not to choose, either because they see the benefits
of both good and evil or because they see themselves
as above the concerns of morality." That IS TN.

"If you’re unaligned, you don’t actively seek to harm
others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of
your way to put yourself at risk without some hope
for reward. You support law and order when doing so
benefits you. You value your own freedom, without
worrying too much about protecting the freedom
of others." That weakly describes LN and CN.


Unaligned does NOT describe "everything" as you say. You don't actively seek to harm others (So it isn't evil), you don't sacrifice yourself because its 'right' (so it isn't good), you can be an actively unaligned individual (gasp! TN), you are selfish (which is what CN really is) but again, not to the point of actively harming anyone (which would be evil by the definitions given)

Some other points:

2) Also wrong. you had knight and crusader. Crusadors embraced any cause, Knights were honorable warriors, while paladins were lawful good embodyiments. hell, clerics were pretty much devine warriors.
A knight is NOT a DIVINE knight. But, neither crusader or knight actually matters here anyway because back in July of 2003 they simply did NOT exist. If clerics are divine warriors... why even HAVE paladins?! You just pointed out how redundant the class has always been! How is a battle focused LG cleric of Pelor different from a LG paladin of Pelor? They stand for EXACTLY the same things except that if one drifts away from Pelor and turns to evil... there are NO rules in the PHB for taking away his powers or for even how they should be punished! And guess what... his powers are much more significant! Wtf, Pelor? At least in 4e Clerics and Paladins are unified in that they are ordained their powers, permanently, by the Church. Also, in 4e, they now represent distinct roles, as opposed to Paladins merely being a less versatile LG Cleric, so why would only Good and Lawful Good gods want divinely powered individuals to serve as the physical defenders of their faiths, making sure that the squishier clerics and followers don't get killed? Apparently in D&D, evil is stupid and shouldn't get its defenders until at least level 5.

Finally, let's take a look at the very last part...




"...and paladins who stray too far from the
tenets of their faith are punished by other members of
the faithful."

never says he opposes torture, just that he is a good diety. Not much there actually in terms of fluff, like most of the edition


Seriously, that's the argument? The 3.5 PHB doesn't say that any of the good gods are opposed to torture either... in fact it doesn't say that any of the evil ones support it, it doesn't even specifically state that torture ISN'T good or IS evil. It doesn't say that good is against rape even! Clearly the 3.5 PHB is allowing for Paladins to rape and torture with impunity and no fear that they may fall to the side of evil. :smallamused:

Bahamut is Lawful Good.
Lawful Good is opposed to the spread of evil and even, evil laws.
Torture is an Evil Act, Laws that allow Evil Acts are Evil Laws
Bahamut is opposed to Torture, be it "Legal" or not!

If someone were preaching a religion and said "Our mission is to protect humanity, wipe away evil, uplift the downtrodden, heal the sick, defend liberty, uphold justice and equality, and be as honorable and noble as possible. Make sure you strive for that everyday of your life... but feel free to rape and torture." Its an inherent contradiction! Rape and torture are evil not because the Book of Exalted Deeds or the Book of Vile Darkness say so but because they are contradictory to the goals and values of "Good"

nagora
2008-09-24, 04:18 AM
If clerics are divine warriors... why even HAVE paladins?! You just pointed out how redundant the class has always been!
Well, interestingly, the connection to a deity is something that came later in the history of the paladin class. Originally, the paladin got their powers from the sheer force of their own innate goodness/lawfulness.

In 1e, Clerics have a much more specific relationship with a deity, whereas paladins are more a generalised champion/inspirer of good deeds. Obviously, individual paladins may well be devoted to a deity, but there's not suggestion that they have to be or that offending said deity will result in the loss of any powers or abilities.

lord_khaine
2008-09-24, 06:45 AM
i honestly cant see how anyone can argue against that act being evil?

as for paladins, i myself allways liked them better when they were imbued with the power of their personal conviction, instead of drawing power from a deity.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-24, 06:49 AM
If taking the man to a trial in at the church would have incurred too much of a risk of him escaping, 'taking out the trash' would be a simple beheading. This was not a simple beheading. Of course, a real question is, why didn't his compatriots do anything? Why did they stand by and 'watch' as a man was dragged to his death?

It sounded more like he did it and two days later (not roleplayed but time progression) he was dead.

No one was willing to stop it because the guy might have deserved a day of it.

Rasilak
2008-09-24, 10:38 AM
Hm, methinks the scene was just played too short, like:

Pally: "Ok, I cut his legs and drag him behind my horse."
DM: "Okay, he's dead after two days."

The player (and his compainons) might have behaved entirely else if the DM really played this out, with the heretic screaming and begging for mercy. The player was just pissed and decided to do something horrible (which is of course a bad thing to do for a Paladin, but not necessarily worthy of falling/smiting), and then perhaps didn't have the chance to think about what he was doing and stop it.
Of course, by 3E standards (I don't konw 4E) what the character did was just plain evil (one could, and does argue about what killing the heretic in a fast and somewhat humane way would be), and probably chaotic too, since a good organisation (which the church of a LG deity is assumed to be) would never deal out a punishment like this or approve of such actions by their agents and followers. 3E rules state that a paladin who wilfully commits an evil act falls, so there's no discussion over what would happen then.
But 4E is an entierly other case. Like stated, they don't fall anymore (which is a great chance for many character concepts that would be plain impossible in 3E). Well it's up to the DM to decide if Bahamut knows about this, what he thinks of this, and how he reacts. I personally would decide that he doesn't know and wouldn't care if he did. Being God is quite a lot of work, you know...
If you want to play the religious order as really good, they should punish the paladin for what he did, and make it perfectly clear that he gets thrown out/put to trial/disposed of (pick one), if he does anything like this again. If the order is mainly lawful, the paladin gets chewed out for killing the heretic (those friggin resurrections are expensive), and maybe a public trial if too many people have witnessed his deeds. Probably the order is a mix of the two, you decide.

nagora
2008-09-24, 11:07 AM
Well it's up to the DM to decide if Bahamut knows about this, what he thinks of this, and how he reacts. I personally would decide that he doesn't know and wouldn't care if he did.
Is Bahamut evil too now?


Being God is quite a lot of work, you know...
Why? I don't see that there's anything that implies that it is inherently a lot of "work"; surely it's a factor of the setting?

Ravens_cry
2008-09-24, 06:43 PM
It sounded more like he did it and two days later (not roleplayed but time progression) he was dead.

No one was willing to stop it because the guy might have deserved a day of it.
Yeah, I can see that. I have played these games, and time could just go "two days later. . ." with no real time for interference.
I don't see how anyone could deserve even a day of such treatment though.
Sure, in a magical world he could be healed, but the pain such torture would inflict can hardly be considered a Good act.

EvilElitest
2008-09-24, 10:11 PM
I'm sorry, EE, evidence points to you having in fact read the words I typed, I mean you even quoted them. But, your responses make it seem like you haven't read. Its QUITE the paradox.

Or i have a different interpretation of the same written material. Like thats ever happened before in history.
My phrases come because


First off, the ONLY fair comparison between 4e alignment and 3.x alignment is what is presented in the 3.x PHB and what is in the 4e PHB. The Book of Exalted Deeds has specific examples for stuff because apparently people NEED to be told that rape, torture, and wanton murder are somehow bad. Whatever did people do between July of 2003 and October of 2003? Games must have been awash with moral dilemmas!

1) No, because if you don't establish what is good and what is evil, you can't expect an objective system to work. I can easily justify both torture and murder, and i can make a faulty argument for rape (not one that the characters would do but wht NPCs would). What is murder? What defines torture? What classifies as rape? Are we using real world defentions, cultural ones, our own or some ominpresent one? That is never explained, and whil in 3E it is explained really badly, then expanded upon in later books, in 4E this isn't even explained. Good's denition is basically "does what he thinks is right" Lawful good is "that but hardcore" evil is a sociopath, and CE is a sociopath after watching 300


Now that the snark is out of my system...
Let's compare the 4e PHB to the 3.5 PHB:
we just did


4e Lawful Good is STILL 3.5 Lawful Good
Everything that it says in the 3.5 book is in the 4e book except that 4e has the nice caveat that LG does not have to slavishly accept the Law. If the Law is exploitive and tyrannical then it is the LG character's duty to fight it, preferably from within the system. I think that many will agree that this is a good addition.

No its not. Without NG and CG, LG is meaningless. LG in 3E is just another ideal of goodness, compared to NG and CG. What 4E does is it takes one ideal of good, and makes it absoulte, which is not a good addition, its a travisty, it just makes the distenction useless. LG is no different from normal good except its more hardcore, so its existence is pointless, even by the 4E's alignment systems standards. you can't say 3E and 4E are the same when one actually presents you with options while the other gives you arbitrary differences


4e Good is NG and CG
Why? Can the target audience of 4E not handle the complexity? Why have LG when you don't have that? Why? Good can only be handled in two ways? what makes LG so special, its description is pretty much the same as normal good. I mean for that matter, why even make the changes in the first place, its just arbitrary changes that have no reasoning behind them and render the alignment system pointless


"Good" says you 'can' follow the law, but you aren't bound to it (NG) and that when it becomes exploitive you feel compelled to fight it (CG)

recall in 3E, where good was one happy general category on its own, with three subcategories, while instead we have one category, and another hard core version

4e Evil is LE and NE
NE in 4e. "Evil characters don’t necessarily go out of their way
to hurt people, but they’re perfectly willing to take
advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what
they want."
[/QUOTE]
And because
1) they apparently can't work with any other group at all
2) and the rest of the description
has them being pretty much sociopaths, who also don't go out of their way to hurt people. Evil now means sociopath

Again, why lose the other catgories

NE in 3.5. "A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience."
NE is about selfishness, but it can still work with other people easily. The 4E evil is basically a sociopath, while the 3e is just somebody focused on their own self interest. Heck, the Knan could be NE


LE in 4e. "Evil characters use rules and order to maximize
personal gain. They don’t care whether laws hurt other
people. They support institutional structures that give
them power, even if that power comes at the expense
of others’ freedom. Slavery and rigid caste structures
are not only acceptable but desirable to evil characters,
as long as they are in a position to benefit from them."
there is no lawful evil in 4E


LE in 3.5 "A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises."
again, why group them, what have them not be different, why have CE as different. Its arbitary and weakens the game.

Also evil can't work with people

But of course, even though they're basically the same and direct quotes from the PHBs, one is 4e and OBVIOUSLY in 4e 'Evil' means...

Different context



4e CE is 3.5 CE
"Chaotic evil characters have a complete disregard for
others. Each believes he or she is the only being that
matters and kills, steals, and betrays others to gain
power. Their word is meaningless and their actions
destructive. Their worldviews can be so warped that
they destroy anything and anyone that doesn’t directly
contribute to their interests."
vs
"A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal."
again, meanenless as the other evils don't exist anymore, for no logical reason other than "Its too complicated



And finally we get to what seems to be the biggest bee in your bonnet.

4e Unaligned is, for the most part, LN, TN, and CN.

"A few unaligned people, and most unaligned deities,
aren’t undecided about alignment. Rather, they’ve
chosen not to choose, either because they see the benefits
of both good and evil or because they see themselves
as above the concerns of morality." That IS TN.

"If you’re unaligned, you don’t actively seek to harm
others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of
your way to put yourself at risk without some hope
for reward. You support law and order when doing so
benefits you. You value your own freedom, without
worrying too much about protecting the freedom
of others." That weakly describes LN and CN.



why make the change? Why cut the game down? Why make it on barely defined group. And no that is not TN, because TN covers more ground. Unaligned is simply " I don't care" or "any moral problem taht the system can't handle its taking one aspect of the aligniment and making it the norm, when the system can handle more and better. Arbitary changes towards simplicity, because apperently players can handle complication. The new ailgniments aren't the same, they simply resemble popular sterotypes

[QUOTE]
Unaligned does NOT describe "everything" as you say. You don't actively seek to harm others (So it isn't evil), you don't sacrifice yourself because its 'right' (so it isn't good), you can be an actively unaligned individual (gasp! TN), you are selfish (which is what CN really is) but again, not to the point of actively harming anyone (which would be evil by the definitions given)

So Unaglined is commoners then? Why not have neutral or what not? Its just simplification. Also it is actually not neutral, because neutral can still be dedicated to a cause, while unalignied is instead a very narrow simplistic view of neutral where they don't involve themselves in anything



A knight is NOT a DIVINE knight. But, neither crusader or knight actually matters here anyway because back in July of 2003 they simply did NOT exist.
1) Crusador is. Knight is close enough for the concept
2) So? They are still part of the game with their own ideal. THe paladin's ideal was that of dedicating themselves to being teh perfect embodiment t of Law and Good combined. The fact taht the new ideals came out is irrelevant, the paladin has no obligation to support taht kind of character


If clerics are divine warriors... why even HAVE paladins?! You just pointed out how redundant the class has always been! How is a battle focused LG cleric of Pelor different from a LG paladin of Pelor? They stand for EXACTLY the same things except that if one drifts away from Pelor and turns to evil... there are NO rules in the PHB for taking away his powers or for even how they should be punished! And guess what... his powers are much more significant! Wtf, Pelor?
your points would make more sense if you actually read the description of the paladin. Clerics are devoted to a god. Paladins are not. see the relgion section in the PHB, come one, it isn't that hard, why does everybody not get that part. A cleric's morals and powers are decided by a god, and so are held to a different stand for each god. A paladins is held to the aligniment itself, which is beyond the whims of any specific god. Paladins aren't fighting knights of gods, so your entire arguement is utterly void.


Seriously, that's the argument? The 3.5 PHB doesn't say that any of the good gods are opposed to torture either... in fact it doesn't say that any of the evil ones support it, it doesn't even specifically state that torture ISN'T good or IS evil. It doesn't say that good is against rape even! Clearly the 3.5 PHB is allowing for Paladins to rape and torture with impunity and no fear that they may fall to the side of evil.
Since when did i give the impression the 3E phb handled aligniments properly. They had a clear standard for alginiment but never explained it. 4E doesn't fix that problem, despite the fact it was clearly one of the largest issues with alignment, the poor presentation. 4E not only didn't fix this problem (see don't care) but made it worst by making alignments more vauge and most simplified.
in the end, alignments are utterly useless


Bahamut is Lawful Good.
Lawful Good is opposed to the spread of evil and even, evil laws.
Torture is an Evil Act, Laws that allow Evil Acts are Evil Laws
Bahamut is opposed to Torture, be it "Legal" or not!

Apart from slavery, there are no established evil acts.


If someone were preaching a religion and said "Our mission is to protect humanity, wipe away evil, uplift the downtrodden, heal the sick, defend liberty, uphold justice and equality, and be as honorable and noble as possible. Make sure you strive for that everyday of your life... but feel free to rape and torture." Its an inherent contradiction! Rape and torture are evil not because the Book of Exalted Deeds or the Book of Vile Darkness say so but because they are contradictory to the goals and values of "Good"


1) the values of goods have no specifics
2) and relgions have never been contraditing in history right?
from
EE

Asbestos
2008-09-24, 11:32 PM
I can easily justify both torture and murder, and i can make a faulty argument for rape

Oh PLEASE do. You can't just say something like that and not expound on it, so, show everyone how easily you can justify them. Oh! Also please explain why Slavery is the ONLY evil act. If its because its the "Only thing they explicitly mention in the PHB as something evil" then just don't bother responding at all. That argument is dead.


Also evil can't work with people
What?! Explain that. It seems that 'exploiting others for personal gain, regardless of the harm done to others' fits VERY WELL.



I especially like the "there is no LE in 4e" part. How can I spell this out any easier? All of the alignments of 3.5 exist in 4e! The only ones that I stumbled over are LN and CN. "Good" is effectively "NG and CG" and "Evil" is "LE and NE" I even gave you extremely clear examples of where the language is describing the same things! How is that you can't see the LE in the 4e "Evil"? You even quoted it!

LG is only meaningless without some general Good, Evil, and CE. *gasp!* They have all that! You don't need to explicitly have NG and CG, if you think they do, please explain WHY. Why do we NEED 9 alignments?
I don't know why they officially got rid of the 9 alignments, but they are for the most part still there. Its mind-boggling to me that you are completely incapable of seeing this. Why don't you just come out of your philosophical closest and say "I'm a moral nihilist and unless 4e presents me with moral 'facts' I will continue to apply my nihilism to it. I am incapable of accepting that things can be 'good' or 'evil' unless someone has explicitly defined said things for me as they are beyond my comprehension." We can be done with this then!


The 4e Paladin, btw, is given powers by a deity. If it matters so much to you, why don't you just call them "Divine Knights" and call only LG ones Paladins? I think that maybe, WotC thought it was odd that a number of "Divine" characters had NO connection to anything divine! Perhaps thats also why Druids are now 'primal' and rangers no longer cast spells. Divine has now been implicitly defined as something related to divine Powers. Unless "Conviction" is added as a power source I don't see the old "I believe in the concepts of Law and Good SOOOO hard that I get super powers!" type of paladin ever existing.


Your response to my "what if" is ludicrous. The point is that allowing rape and torture is in direct conflict with the stated values of the hypothetical religion. It was an effort to simplify the argument. It doesn't matter that contradicting religions exist! Saying that they do isn't a point for you, its just demonstrating that you failed to grasp the purpose of the hypothetical.

Yahzi
2008-09-25, 12:12 AM
Why don't you just come out of your philosophical closest and say "I'm a moral nihilist
I'm pretty sure he already has. The handle "Evil Elitist" might be the first clue. :smallbiggrin:

But, like all moral nihilists, he is only one for purposes of argument. Underneath all that is a perfectly ordinary person who reacts to real-world injustices with automatic, reflexive distaste.

I've mentioned before that psychology has a "scale" of moral development, from the lowest (fear of punishment) to the highest (universal rights). This scale really operates off two principles.

The first is inviolate: for humans, at least, "morality" basically devolves to "fairness."

The second principle is the width of the circle you apply fairness to:

NG - Universal Rights - everyone.
LG - Social Contract - your society (not just a kingdom, but a race or culture)
CG - Peer Approval - your friends/peers (like your fellow nobles or townsmen)
LE - Desire for Reward - those that can benefit you
CE - Fear of punishment - those that can hurt you
NE - Sociopathic - nobody (not even yourself!)

So NG treats everybody fairly, while LG treats everybody that agrees to play by the rules fairly. CG will break the law for their friends, since friendship is more important than law. LE doesn't go out of its way to cause pain, but won't care how much you hurt if they profit. CE is a barbarian thug waiting for an excuse to start a fight. NE is Hannibal Lecter. (Most human beings are CG).

I think if you view D&D alignment through this perspective, it makes a lot more (real-world) sense. And it gives a mechanic for deciding if a character is operating in accordance with their alignment, by identifying their relationship with the target. CG characters can cheat strangers, but not their fellow villagers, while CE players should be chastised for not taking advantage of those who are weaker than them.

Under this scheme, the paladin was not NG (pure good), since he did not treat the heretic the way he would want to be treated. He really isn't LG, since he already had the heretic under the law. And he isn't even CG, because his fellow paladins will be disgusted with his actions. He gained nothing from it, so he's not LE. That just leaves CE: he abused a person simply because that person could not resist him.

Shadowtraveler
2008-09-25, 01:31 AM
Well, just how despised are heretics in this world? And does the Paladin's code of honor (RP-wise, not cruchwise) apply to heretics?


I wouldn't make him Evil just for that, though. Not if it's just that one time and/or due to circumstance (it is completely dickish, mind you).


Now, if he does this on a regular basis, he'd be Evil.

nagora
2008-09-25, 04:09 AM
The 4e Paladin, btw, is given powers by a deity. If it matters so much to you, why don't you just call them "Divine Knights" and call only LG ones Paladins? I think that maybe, WotC thought it was odd that a number of "Divine" characters had NO connection to anything divine! Perhaps thats also why Druids are now 'primal' and rangers no longer cast spells. Divine has now been implicitly defined as something related to divine Powers. Unless "Conviction" is added as a power source I don't see the old "I believe in the concepts of Law and Good SOOOO hard that I get super powers!" type of paladin ever existing.
I'm much happier with that last case than with a model where gods give powers away and then can't take them back. The former is fantasy, the latter is stupid.

Indeed, the new so-called "paladin" actually imples that there is no ongoing connection to anything at all and the character doesn't even have to have conviction anymore either!

Riffington
2008-09-25, 06:57 AM
Yahzi: did you really just translate Kohlberg's theory on the stages of moral development into D&D alignments? You're going to run into some problems with this, you know...

nagora
2008-09-25, 07:07 AM
Yahzi: did you really just translate Kohlberg's theory on the stages of moral development into D&D alignments? You're going to run into some problems with this, you know...

He already did with his list of alignments. For one thing he has conflated Lawful and Good, a tiresomely common error. He has carried this through to make LE less evil than CE or NE.:smallsigh:

Yahzi
2008-09-25, 09:52 AM
Yahzi: did you really just translate Kohlberg's theory on the stages of moral development into D&D alignments? You're going to run into some problems with this, you know...
Like what?


He already did with his list of alignments. For one thing he has conflated Lawful and Good, a tiresomely common error. He has carried this through to make LE less evil than CE or NE.
It's such a common error that 4e gave up and made it explicit. The idea of "good" is inextricably bound up with the idea of "consistency," for humans at least. And the idea of Law as a moral force independent of good or evil is simply silly. Law/Chaos is not a separate moral axis. Human beings only have one moral axis.


He has carried this through to make LE less evil than CE or NE.
I thought that was generally the case already. Doesn't everyone say, "Well at least LE will obey the rules sometimes, while CE is just crazy!" At least that was always the way it was in our game worlds. I'd be interested in hearing how it might be different. (Usually people think of LG as higher than NG, so I am surprised you didn't mention that.)

It is true that I've put the alignments in a line, instead of two lines, and that I've put Neutral (pure) at the top and bottom, and that I've totally lost the silly alignments like LN (robot) and CN (psycho). (Actually in my world animals show up as CN and magic constructs detect as LN). But I think that makes more sense, anyway.

mangosta71
2008-09-25, 10:43 AM
Actually, paladins are still required to follow the same alignment as their deities. If a paladin's alignment shifts, I think that his DM would be justified in stripping the character of his powers until he fixes things with his god.

Historically, a number of methods of execution were designed to be long and painful (being drawn and quartered, for example). This was done in an attempt to give the person being executed an opportunity to confess his crimes and repent before death. I would expect a character in a fantasy setting to be familiar with such methods (which include being dragged behind an animal until killed), so the paladin has no IC excuse for not knowing that his treatment of the prisoner was potentially lethal. The question becomes: was he doing it out of spite, or as an attempt to let the villain realize the errors of his ways and make some sort of peace with the gods? If the latter, in a medieval world, the paladin's action would not be considered evil.

I'm reminded of the fall of Aridhol/Shadar Logoth. Fighting evil in and of itself is not necessarily a good act.

Asbestos
2008-09-25, 10:48 AM
It's such a common error that 4e gave up and made it explicit. The idea of "good" is inextricably bound up with the idea of "consistency," for humans at least. And the idea of Law as a moral force independent of good or evil is simply silly. Law/Chaos is not a separate moral axis. Human beings only have one moral axis.
I agree with this, L/C is definitely secondary to G/E. A CG individual wouldn't try to bring down a non-evil system just because its a system, good is higher than chaos. The C part just defines how they'd bring down an evil system.



I thought that was generally the case already. Doesn't everyone say, "Well at least LE will obey the rules sometimes, while CE is just crazy!" At least that was always the way it was in our game worlds. I'd be interested in hearing how it might be different. (Usually people think of LG as higher than NG, so I am surprised you didn't mention that.)
I don't see LE as 'evil lite'. CE is the psychopath, dangerous at the individual level, but they'll never rise up as a group and spread terror across the globe. LE is the 'justified' evil, the hegemony that actively seeks to eliminate and oppress groups that it sees as 'unfit' or that have views in conflict with its own. LE is the much more insidious evil that convinces others it isn't evil long enough to move in and conquer them. LE is capable of genocide, CE can only dream of it.



It is true that I've put the alignments in a line, instead of two lines, and that I've put Neutral (pure) at the top and bottom, and that I've totally lost the silly alignments like LN (robot) and CN (psycho). (Actually in my world animals show up as CN and magic constructs detect as LN). But I think that makes more sense, anyway.
Yeah, I never liked LN or CN either. I pretty much used CN and N for what now is "unaligned", ie the individual that isn't going to take any side but their own but has no desire to harm or destroy, though they sometimes must in order to look after their personal interests. LN was just... well, it was used when the rules forced me to use it, like if I wanted to be a monk that wasn't crusading for good or evil.





All this having been said, has anyone ever played a campaign where the DM has explicitly banned Evil characters? If people are playing evil to just act out sociopathic fantasies, like hamstringing people that irritate them and dragging them behind horses :smallwink:, then I can understand the purpose of the ban. Has anyone ever played, or encountered, the 'Heroic' evil? The evil that fights evil and fights for what's 'right' but in a less than morally acceptable way? Think Dr. Doom or Magneto in their less destructive moments or possibly Ozymandias in the Watchmen.

nagora
2008-09-25, 11:13 AM
I've totally lost the silly alignments like LN (robot) and CN (psycho)
Neither of which is an accurate characterisation of those alignments. LN: pursues goals as member of a group because they believe that pooled resources give benefits the individual can not obtain; tries to get by without harming others or particularly getting in others' way. Examples include: model railway societies, knitting circles, and most other real world clubs.

CN: refuses to compromise on their personal goals; regards the advantages of working as a part of a group as being less than the disadvantage of having to water down one's own ideas. As with LN, won't go out of their way either to help or hinder others. Examples include most artists and the sort of people whop build models of the Eiffel Tower out of matchsticks. I know lots of people who would be CN and none of them are psychos.

I can understand why you dislike the alignment system as you are playing it, but it has no obvious relation to the actual alignments in the game.


CE is the psychopath, dangerous at the individual level, but they'll never rise up as a group and spread terror across the globe.
I would suggest that the vast majority of dictators are CE - I can't imagine Stalin ever taking a back seat for the good of the party, for example. If you're at the top of the heap, setting up a LE system below you is a great way to keep your rivals under control.


A CG individual wouldn't try to bring down a non-evil system just because its a system, good is higher than chaos.
Wrong. The CG character belives that CG is better than LG (or else they'd be LG), so in the absence of anything worse to fight then they will try to "make the world a better place" by causing revolts in LG/LN countries in an effort to bring in a CG government. Why would they not work to make the world better in their eyes? That makes no sense.

Asbestos
2008-09-25, 11:23 AM
Wrong. The CG character belives that CG is better than LG (or else they'd be LG), so in the absence of anything worse to fight then they will try to "make the world a better place" by causing revolts in LG/LN countries in an effort to bring in a CG government. Why would they not work to make the world better in their eyes? That makes no sense.
Yeah, but how are they bringing out these revolts in LG systems? If they have to cross into evil then they won't accomplish a revolution, at best they can like... petition or attempt to initiate sit ins and stuff, but they aren't going to riot. Also, if the system is LG and without evil or exploitation, who is going to join them?


As for the bit about dictators being CE, I suggest you read "Talk of the Devil" by Riccardo Orizio. All the former dictators that Orizio interviews take the stance that they were actually acting for the Greater Good. Baby Doc says he was championing for equality, Mengistu says he was fighting chaos, the Hoxhas believed they were following the Party line and that chaos destroyed socialism in Albania, rather than their system destroying that nation as a whole.

nagora
2008-09-25, 11:28 AM
Yeah, but how are they bringing out these revolts in LG systems? If they have to cross into evil then they won't accomplish a revolution, at best they can like... petition or attempt to initiate sit ins and stuff, but they aren't going to riot.
They might in a LN setting, but are unlikely to in a truly LG setting, although I can see how it could happen.

Also, if the system is LG and without evil or exploitation, who is going to join them?
Er... other people who agree with them that LG may be nice, but CG is better? Even some NG's might feel that there's too much bias to Lawfulness - too many police, too much surveillance for your own protection.

Don't underestimate the passion of CG, it's just as strong as any other alignment.

mangosta71
2008-09-25, 11:28 AM
I would suggest that the vast majority of dictators are CE - I can't imagine Stalin ever taking a back seat for the good of the party, for example. If you're at the top of the heap, setting up a LE system below you is a great way to keep your rivals under control.

Except that they're working with the system. LE people place themselves above others for the express purpose of exploiting the organization. This includes personal gain. Nowhere in the description does it say that a LE individual must take a back seat, or give up personal power for the group.


Wrong. The CG character belives that CG is better than LG (or else they'd be LG), so in the absence of anything worse to fight then they will try to "make the world a better place" by causing revolts in LG/LN countries in an effort to bring in a CG government. Why would they not work to make the world better in their eyes? That makes no sense.

What? Why would ANY good person revolt against a benign government? If the people are happy and not being oppressed, why should a CG character care? Leading a revolt (in which people will be killed) to overthrow a good government is not a reasonable thing for a CG person to do.

nagora
2008-09-25, 11:34 AM
Except that they're working with the system. LE people place themselves above others for the express purpose of exploiting the organization. This includes personal gain. Nowhere in the description does it say that a LE individual must take a back seat, or give up personal power for the group.
A character who is not willing to compromise their own goals for the group is not lawful; they're chaotic.


What? Why would ANY good person revolt against a benign government? If the people are happy and not being oppressed, why should a CG character care?
Because their definition of oppressed is different from yours.


Leading a revolt (in which people will be killed) to overthrow a good government is not a reasonable thing for a CG person to do.
I'm not sure I see why. Good tries to maximise the good, Law and Chaos disagree on how to do that and the disagreement can be violent when one side or the other becomes frustrated at what it sees as attempts to prevent that maximum being reached. I'm not saying it would be common - the chaotics are more likely to simply leave but they might not for any number of normal human reasons.

Asbestos
2008-09-25, 11:35 AM
Curse you Nagora, you ninja'd me while I was editing :smalltongue:
And I agree with mangosta71 but will add my own bit, unless chaotic=delusional they won't rebel against a LG system. They will however be the first to rebel if said system starts to slip.

mangosta71
2008-09-25, 11:40 AM
I'm not sure I see why. Good tries to maximise the good, Law and Chaos disagree on how to do that and the disagreement can be violent when one side or the other becomes frustrated at what it sees as attempts to prevent that maximum being reached. I'm not saying it would be common - the chaotics are more likely to simply leave but they might not for any number of normal human reasons.

So, Robin Hood would revolt against King Richard just because King Richard is lawful? Sorry, but I don't see that happening. Ever. I think that a good person would be of the opinion that the innocent lives lost in a revolt (and there has never been, nor will ever be, a revolt in which innocents do not die) outweigh whatever benefits having a less structured society brings.


unless chaotic=delusional they won't rebel against a LG system. They will however be the first to rebel if said system starts to slip.

Absolutely.

nagora
2008-09-25, 11:44 AM
You are both assuming that people are 100% rational and 100% in possession of the facts 100% of the time. Misunderstandings happen and LG and CG can certainly get on each others' nerves enough for trouble to break out. Is that Good behaviour? Probably not. Does that stop it happening from time to time? No.

EvilElitest
2008-09-25, 11:46 AM
Oh PLEASE do. You can't just say something like that and not expound on it, so, show everyone how easily you can justify them.

Um, i already did. In the last quote actually. You know, where you responded only two small out of context parts and didn't actually respond to anything else
On the subject of double standards, how come when i respond to everyone of your statements with a massive wall of text, i'm accused of not expanding upon my words nor have my commented even acknowledged, let along responded too. And yet, you seem to have no problem responding to two out of context phrases, without out backing them with anything more than "your right, because i say so". Now i know you read the rest of my points, so i'm confused about 2 things
1) Why did you not think that my other responses were worth responding too. I acknolowaged them, as well as making other points. in fact, both of the things you've quoted make a lot more sense in context
2) Why do you need need to expound upon your statements, while i do? Its seems just a little odd

How about some new justifications

Torture
How about Bud White's methods, or Dirty Harry? You beat a total evil sociopath (because you know that is what evil is in 4E) in order to get information. Think about all those innocents who would suffer if you don't find out where his buddy serial killer baby kicker is with fantastical bomb that sucks their souls into hell where they are forced to watch bad movies for entirety. your god will allow a few dirty tricks, just in extreme situations. For the greater good, remember.

Murder

well hte big bad isn't near by, how do i hurt him? Wait, i know, i'll destroy his nation from within. Ok, reasoning with these commoners isn't worth it, i don't know their culture and we look different, and they are fanatically loyal to this evil cause. Kill them, destory their farms, salt the ground. The evil emprie can function without food right
ok, a few innocents die, but many more life right?

Rape

meh, i'm not going to justify it, but what about events where one person is unaware or in control (drunk, charmed, Domonic Deegan, gah no)






Oh! Also please explain why Slavery is the ONLY evil act. If its because its the "Only thing they explicitly mention in the PHB as something evil" then just don't bother responding at all. That argument is dead.

Remarkable. you sir, must be a genuis. You see, in my poor little ignorent mind, i was of the understanding that declaring and point deaddead without backing in an argument actually didn't prove anything other than using empty words, but apparently i'm wrong. /snark

Now if you disagree fine, but actually show the respect (you know, the thing your accusing me of not having) to back up and expound upon your statements (you know, the thing i'm supposedly not doing)


What?! Explain that. It seems that 'exploiting others for personal gain, regardless of the harm done to others' fits VERY WELL.
Well in 4E all evil people are Sociopaths. in 3E, being evil is a totally legitmate thing. The Khan would be evil. Henry the VIII would be evil. Cotez would be evil. It doesn't mean your a heartless monster, just that you do evil things

in 4E, well heartless monster

i'd say more, but i actually already did


I especially like the "there is no LE in 4e" part. How can I spell this out any easier?
responding directly maybe?


All of the alignments of 3.5 exist in 4e! The only ones that I stumbled over are LN and CN. "Good" is effectively "NG and CG" and "Evil" is "LE and NE" I even gave you extremely clear examples of where the language is describing the same things! How is that you can't see the LE in the 4e "Evil"? You even quoted it!
And as i said, its arbitrary. Why do i need to say this again when i already did and your just repeating yourself


LG is only meaningless without some general Good, Evil, and CE. *gasp!* They have all that! You don't need to explicitly have NG and CG, if you think they do, please explain WHY. Why do we NEED 9 alignments?
1) because that is what the system is founded upon, ahd without that it doesn't function
2) Because the changed are arbitrary and without purpose. Why have LG and CE and non of hte rest. Why? Give me a damn explanation other than "its better that way"



I don't know why they officially got rid of the 9 alignments, but they are for the most part still there. Its mind-boggling to me that you are completely incapable of seeing this.
Maybe if you responding to my comments directly you'd get a different picture, rather than repeating what you already said



Why don't you just come out of your philosophical closest and say "I'm a moral nihilist and unless 4e presents me with moral 'facts' I will continue to apply my nihilism to it.
Look up the word nihilist, because i don't think it means what you think it means. Actually, i know it doesn't mean what you think it means. Through i have to give you kudos for making me a nihilist for having hte audacity to disagree with 4e and you. I missed hte part where i deny the point of existence, but i'm sure i'll get their


I am incapable of accepting that things can be 'good' or 'evil' unless someone has explicitly defined said things for me as they are beyond my comprehension." We can be done with this then!
Strawman? I expected better


The 4e Paladin, btw, is given powers by a deity. If it matters so much to you, why don't you just call them "Divine Knights" and call only LG ones Paladins? I think that maybe, WotC thought it was odd that a number of "Divine" characters had NO connection to anything divine! Perhaps thats also why Druids are now 'primal' and rangers no longer cast spells. Divine has now been implicitly defined as something related to divine Powers. Unless "Conviction" is added as a power source I don't see the old "I believe in the concepts of Law and Good SOOOO hard that I get super powers!" type of paladin ever existing.

Again, arbitrary simplication. You disagree, fine, but back up your argument


Your response to my "what if" is ludicrous. The point is that allowing rape and torture is in direct conflict with the stated values of the hypothetical religion. It was an effort to simplify the argument. It doesn't matter that contradicting religions exist! Saying that they do isn't a point for you, its just demonstrating that you failed to grasp the purpose of the hypothetical.
1) And yet they are used in real life, how about that
2) Simplify the argument, hypothetical? What are you doing? I have the decencty to respond to what you say, give me the same respect
from
EE

Riffington
2008-09-25, 11:48 AM
Like what?


1. Kohlberg's stages refer to a type of reasoning that is content-independent. Good vs Evil is very content-dependent. Thus, children who like seeing others smile and hate seeing them sad, who always listen to their parents and their Good Deity may be Good while at Stage 2 or 3 of development. In contrast, a priest of Hextor may be evil at Stage 5.

2. Making a stage "higher" than another rests upon the fact that all intelligent beings progress in the stages in order, and prefer reasoning of their own or 1 higher level. If there are intelligent races that are predisposed to prefer "lower" levels then there are no levels and the theory is worthless.

3. Many evil people throughout history have reasoned at high levels. The Unaruner prepared/sent lots of explosive runes according to reasons explained in his manifesto; this was evil, but his reasoning is brilliant and clearly meets criteria for Stage 5 (or 6 if you believe in it).


Doesn't everyone say, "Well at least LE will obey the rules sometimes, while CE is just crazy!"


Dictators may or may not be LE; Hitler certainly was. A mere bully could be CE.

mangosta71
2008-09-25, 11:50 AM
You are both assuming that people are 100% rational and 100% in possession of the facts 100% of the time. Misunderstandings happen and LG and CG can certainly get on each others' nerves enough for trouble to break out. Is that Good behaviour? Probably not. Does that stop it happening from time to time? No.

Of course they don't always see eye to eye. But planning and executing a revolt takes time. During which good characters would be trying to resolve their differences non-violently. They would both realize that they're trying to work for the greater good, which encourages cooperation and peaceful resolution amongst themselves.

Crafty Banana
2008-09-25, 11:55 AM
This thread (which has been a cracking good read, by the way), pretty much sums up exactly why I don't like the alignment system. The problem, for me at least, is that the D&D alignments are not, in any meaningful way, tied to an actual system of morality. It divides people into good and evil, without giving an overriding system for deciding what makes some acts evil and others good. Without that, you can pretty much argue forever about how to map the alignments onto the actions of characters.

Take the Book of Exalted Deeds, for example. It implies that it would permissible to tell a lie to avert a disaster, but that states that using magic to rob a creature of its free will is fine, as long as you don't injure it whilst doing so. What makes deceit an inherently evil act, whilst full on mind-rape is fine for a good cause?

I should say, I don't mean that it doesn't give examples of acts that are good or evil. But because it doesn't explore the underlying justifications (and saying 'because hurting people is bad' isn't a justification, you need to explain why hurting people is bad), they are ultimately hollow.

Asbestos
2008-09-25, 11:57 AM
You are both assuming that people are 100% rational and 100% in possession of the facts 100% of the time. Misunderstandings happen and LG and CG can certainly get on each others' nerves enough for trouble to break out. Is that Good behaviour? Probably not. Does that stop it happening from time to time? No.

I can sort of see this...

LG government: "We need to levy a tax."
C elements of society: "Boo! Hiss!"
LG government: "The tax is so that we can build an aqueduct to bring enough water to all of our citizens"
CG: "Oh, that's better, so long as everyone gets what they need, is there some other way you can get this money? can we let the market handle this perhaps? let's take a vote."
CN: "Boo! hiss! I have water, I shouldn't have to pay for someone else!"
CE: "Boo! hiss! Down with taxes! If people don't have water its their own fault! If you're going to tax anyone I should get the money, my problems are more important than anyone else, especially more so than those worthless scum that can't find their own water, let nature take its course! Heck! let's just drive those jerks out of town, that way we can keep our money and water, and take their things!"

The lawful elements though...
LG: "Awesome! we should do as much as we can to help those less fortunate"
LN: "Tax? Okay, here's my money"
LE: *schemes to be the contractors of said aqueduct, draw out its construction as long as possible, and milks the taxpayers for all they can in the name of public works*

chiasaur11
2008-09-25, 01:45 PM
I can sort of see this...

LG government: "We need to levy a tax."
C elements of society: "Boo! Hiss!"
LG government: "The tax is so that we can build an aqueduct to bring enough water to all of our citizens"
CG: "Oh, that's better, so long as everyone gets what they need, is there some other way you can get this money? can we let the market handle this perhaps? let's take a vote."
CN: "Boo! hiss! I have water, I shouldn't have to pay for someone else!"
CE: "Boo! hiss! Down with taxes! If people don't have water its their own fault! If you're going to tax anyone I should get the money, my problems are more important than anyone else, especially more so than those worthless scum that can't find their own water, let nature take its course! Heck! let's just drive those jerks out of town, that way we can keep our money and water, and take their things!"

The lawful elements though...
LG: "Awesome! we should do as much as we can to help those less fortunate"
LN: "Tax? Okay, here's my money"
LE: *schemes to be the contractors of said aqueduct, draw out its construction as long as possible, and milks the taxpayers for all they can in the name of public works*

Makes sense.

Which is no mean feat in an allignment debate.

Johel
2008-09-25, 02:15 PM
I can sort of see this...

LG government: "We need to levy a tax."
C elements of society: "Boo! Hiss!"
LG government: "The tax is so that we can build an aqueduct to bring enough water to all of our citizens"
CG: "Oh, that's better, so long as everyone gets what they need, is there some other way you can get this money? can we let the market handle this perhaps? let's take a vote."
CN: "Boo! hiss! I have water, I shouldn't have to pay for someone else!"
CE: "Boo! hiss! Down with taxes! If people don't have water its their own fault! If you're going to tax anyone I should get the money, my problems are more important than anyone else, especially more so than those worthless scum that can't find their own water, let nature take its course! Heck! let's just drive those jerks out of town, that way we can keep our money and water, and take their things!"

The lawful elements though...
LG: "Awesome! we should do as much as we can to help those less fortunate"
LN: "Tax? Okay, here's my money"
LE: *schemes to be the contractors of said aqueduct, draw out its construction as long as possible, and milks the taxpayers for all they can in the name of public works*

Best alignement sum up ever.
The LN might be a bit more tricky than what you said but I lack words to describe it. Imo, he would hand over his money only if the tax is already in application but otherwise, he will first want to hear a logical justification. An more down to earth argument like "The water will beneficiate to local economy" or "It will allow to increase health and hygiene" but not "Poor thirsty people will get a drop".

Starbuck_II
2008-09-25, 03:07 PM
Dictators may or may not be LE; Hitler certainly was. A mere bully could be CE.

What?
How can a "mere" bully be CE? I doubt that very much.

Being a jerk to others isn't evil. It is actually very nuetral. Evil is more than being mean.

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-25, 04:47 PM
What?
How can a "mere" bully be CE? I doubt that very much.

Being a jerk to others isn't evil. It is actually very nuetral. Evil is more than being mean.

It's also about being selfish too, and deciding that the feelings of others are less important than your own.

Personally, I try not to argue what's lawful and what's chaotic. It seems to me that a chaotic person could act totally lawful for long periods of time if their government stresses individual rights and/or conforms to the chaotic individuals beliefs. A lawful person might behave in chaotically in a country where tradition is thrown to the wind and laissez-faire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire) and anarchy is the order of the day. Since those two examples can and probably would happen in the same country I've come to the conclusion that lawful and chaotic is more or less subjective to the character's perspective in the world.

Good and evil are much more objective and easy to judge, IMO. Just use the Golden Rule as yardstick in most cases. :smallsmile:

hamishspence
2008-09-25, 04:51 PM
Forgotten realms, Town bullies are NE in alignment, in Dales section of 3rd ed campaign guide.

Evil does not mean kill-crazy. Many Evil NPCs in various D&D sources are at the "tight-fisted merchant" "town bully" "Scheming noble" level.

kjones
2008-09-25, 05:18 PM
Having just read through this entire thread... combining an alignment argument with an edition war? What were you people thinking?

If somebody started arguing that the Monk could have tortured the guy more effectively than the paladin, we'd have the perfect storm of Internet fights.

Yes, yes, I know, no monks in 4E...

nagora
2008-09-25, 05:24 PM
What?
How can a "mere" bully be CE? I doubt that very much.

Being a jerk to others isn't evil. It is actually very nuetral. Evil is more than being mean.
Bullies are the classic CE. Annoying others and taking their stuff because it's fun (or easier than getting your own stuff/doing your own work) is straight down the line evil, even if it's small time.

Ravens_cry
2008-09-25, 05:24 PM
I agree, Evil is about being a selfish prick. Not so much the level of prick-i-tude, as the consistency of it. If someone is making a lifestyle out of it, then they are evil. The OP seems to say this was but one incident of many. And I am sorry, but you can make a game with a universe that says ' and oh. . . Nice Dude, God of Ultimate Goody-Goody-Goodness, approves death by torture without due process' I still don't think it makes it right. Maybe in that universe it would be, but I hardly think it fits the universe this comes from. The guy threatened his family yes,but how many suspects have bad mouthed the cop who arrested them? Does that give the cop the right to murder them in what has to be one of the most painful ways possible? I doubt it.

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-25, 05:41 PM
Having just read through this entire thread... combining an alignment argument with an edition war? What were you people thinking?

If somebody started arguing that the Monk could have tortured the guy more effectively than the paladin, we'd have the perfect storm of Internet fights.

Yes, yes, I know, no monks in 4E...

Ahem,

A monk could never have done this, as they lack slashing weapons to slice the victims tendons. Not to mention that they would miss because of their poor BAB and MAD, and class features that would encourage them to keep moving around instead of flurriously blowing their attack rolls. Also, Monks suck.








What? I wanna see a perfect storm of Internet fights. :smalltongue:

Ravens_cry
2008-09-25, 05:46 PM
Hold thy tongues oh men and woman of flame, is this scoundrel, this waistral who treads upon this sacred ground, just cause for battle death and destruction? If you wilt have a war, let it be about something of worth, and dignity, let not this bastard son or daughter of ignorance, drive your too heated heads to vile words and shameful talk. Peace my fellow internet warriors, I call for peace. Hold back this tide, do not give in to those base desires. For it is of these things, threads are locked, forums ripped apart in brute civil war.
Peace, I pray, peace.

Asbestos
2008-09-25, 06:31 PM
A monk could never have done this, as they lack slashing weapons to slice the victims tendons.


Kama :smallwink: How else is your monk going to get out of the gullet of the monster that will inevitably eat him? Not that he doesn't deserve it, being a monk.


...:smallsmile:


I'm curious where the OP went... did they get what they wanted out of this mess?

Thane of Fife
2008-09-25, 06:35 PM
A monk could never have done this, as they lack slashing weapons to slice the victims tendons. Not to mention that they would miss because of their poor BAB and MAD, and class features that would encourage them to keep moving around instead of flurriously blowing their attack rolls. Also, Monks suck.

A monk wouldn't have had to. He could have talked some chipmunks into doing it for him.

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-25, 06:43 PM
Kama :smallwink: How else is your monk going to get out of the gullet of the monster that will inevitably eat him? Not that he doesn't deserve it, being a monk.


...:smallsmile:


I'm curious where the OP went... did they get what they wanted out of this mess?

Drama and hyperbole, I think. And we provide sir, we at GiantitP provide.


A monk wouldn't have had to. He could have talked some chipmunks into doing it for him.

YOU CAN'T BUY PARTIALLY CHARGED WANDS OF SUMMON CHIPMUNK!!!

:tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue:

chiasaur11
2008-09-25, 07:20 PM
Ahem,

A monk could never have done this, as they lack slashing weapons to slice the victims tendons. Not to mention that they would miss because of their poor BAB and MAD, and class features that would encourage them to keep moving around instead of flurriously blowing their attack rolls. Also, Monks suck.








What? I wanna see a perfect storm of Internet fights. :smalltongue:

Needs more 3e wizards to be perfect.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-25, 07:51 PM
Bullies are the classic CE. Annoying others and taking their stuff because it's fun (or easier than getting your own stuff/doing your own work) is straight down the line evil, even if it's small time.

Wait, so in D&D Paladins can detect-smite Bullies and stay good? (since D&D's alignment for LG says Alhandra fights evil without mercy)

D&D alignment is more messed up than I thought. :smalleek:

Yahzi
2008-09-25, 08:09 PM
LN: pursues goals as member of a group because...

CN: refuses to compromise on their personal goals;
Those are personality traits, not moral alignments.


I can understand why you dislike the alignment system as you are playing it, but it has no obvious relation to the actual alignments in the game.
Well, the problem is that the alignments in the game have no obvious relation to morality.


I would suggest that the vast majority of dictators are CE
I agree.


Wrong. The CG character belives that CG is better than LG (or else they'd be LG),
Not necessarily. They may think that LG is just too hard for ordinary mortals to adhere to.

In my world the CGs think the LGs are too obesessed with abstracts like procedure and rules to be maximally effective against evil. That doesn't mean they'll overthrow a LG society, although they will act as they see fit to best defend it (even if that means breaking its rules).

Riffington
2008-09-25, 08:16 PM
Wait, so in D&D Paladins can detect-smite Bullies and stay good? (since D&D's alignment for LG says Alhandra fights evil without mercy)

D&D alignment is more messed up than I thought. :smalleek:

Fighting evil doesn't necessarily mean killing it.
Yes, you kill evil serial killers. No, you don't kill evil embezzlers or cat burglars. You certainly don't kill bullies or gossips. You fight these lesser baddies by nonlethal means: imprisoning thieves, putting gossips in stockades, etc.
Additionally, the chance to destroy the evil itself while sparing the sinner is a still greater good. For instance, if you can somehow convince Jayne to stop being a bully and instead gain respect via his charity and noble deeds...

Starbuck_II
2008-09-25, 08:23 PM
Fighting evil doesn't necessarily mean killing it.
Yes, you kill evil serial killers. No, you don't kill evil embezzlers or cat burglars. You certainly don't kill bullies or gossips. You fight these lesser baddies by nonlethal means: imprisoning thieves, putting gossips in stockades, etc.
Additionally, the chance to destroy the evil itself while sparing the sinner is a still greater good. For instance, if you can somehow convince Jayne to stop being a bully and instead gain respect via his charity and noble deeds...

Killing evil isn't wrong so Paladins can smite bullies by what the other posters have said.
Just because there is a better idea doesn't invalidate the other options.

EvilElitest
2008-09-25, 08:46 PM
I can sort of see this...

LG government: "We need to levy a tax."
C elements of society: "Boo! Hiss!"
LG government: "The tax is so that we can build an aqueduct to bring enough water to all of our citizens"
CG: "Oh, that's better, so long as everyone gets what they need, is there some other way you can get this money? can we let the market handle this perhaps? let's take a vote."
CN: "Boo! hiss! I have water, I shouldn't have to pay for someone else!"
CE: "Boo! hiss! Down with taxes! If people don't have water its their own fault! If you're going to tax anyone I should get the money, my problems are more important than anyone else, especially more so than those worthless scum that can't find their own water, let nature take its course! Heck! let's just drive those jerks out of town, that way we can keep our money and water, and take their things!"

The lawful elements though...
LG: "Awesome! we should do as much as we can to help those less fortunate"
LN: "Tax? Okay, here's my money"
LE: *schemes to be the contractors of said aqueduct, draw out its construction as long as possible, and milks the taxpayers for all they can in the name of public works*

ug, alignment sterotypes. All your doing is simply providing trying to validate your view on the system by using your own sterotypes.

CE doesn't mean anarchy. Dudes, really, it doesn't. Nor does it mean an inability to work together, or stupid. It just means CE is willing to do what ever it takes to get waht it wants.

LN doesn't mean obeys societies entirely, just tht they act in a lawful manner and abide in a law like way. The Colonists might be LN.

ect ect ect


Also i think Hitler would be NE



I agree, Evil is about being a selfish prick. Not so much the level of prick-i-tude, as the consistency of it. If someone is making a lifestyle out of it, then they are evil. The OP seems to say this was but one incident of many. And I am sorry, but you can make a game with a universe that says ' and oh. . . Nice Dude, God of Ultimate Goody-Goody-Goodness, approves death by torture without due process' I still don't think it makes it right. Maybe in that universe it would be, but I hardly think it fits the universe this comes from. The guy threatened his family yes,but how many suspects have bad mouthed the cop who arrested them? Does that give the cop the right to murder them in what has to be one of the most painful ways possible? I doubt it.

not quite. Evil means you've commited evil acts in the past and never repented for them at any point. Evil doesn't need standards, it just needs actions/bad intent



And are we just going to recall my latest post yet?
from
EE

Yahzi
2008-09-25, 09:30 PM
1. Kohlberg's stages refer to a type of reasoning that is content-independent.... Many evil people throughout history have reasoned at high levels.
I think you've confused Kohlberg's stages of moral development with something else. I'm not equating morality solely with complex reasoning. Perhaps this link will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development


2. Making a stage "higher" than another rests upon the fact that all intelligent beings progress in the stages in order, and prefer reasoning of their own or 1 higher level. If there are intelligent races that are predisposed to prefer "lower" levels then there are no levels and the theory is worthless.
No, the theory isn't worthless. It explains why Orcs are "usually CE." I realize that might not be what Kohlberg was aiming at, but still. :smallbiggrin:

Asbestos
2008-09-25, 09:52 PM
ug, alignment sterotypes. All your doing is simply providing trying to validate your view on the system by using your own sterotypes.

What? I wasn't addressing you at all or trying to really validate my view... was saying that I could see agreeing with Nagora's view that CG can take issue with LG.

I was fine with just letting you quietly leave, EE... alas!

I called you a "moral nihilist" btw, not a nihilist. There is a difference. Maybe you should look things up before you go and tell people that they don't know what they're talking about.

Oh and, just to be clear, since you never answered, how is this...
"...characters use rules and order to maximize
personal gain. They don’t care whether laws hurt other
people. They support institutional structures that give
them power, even if that power comes at the expense
of others’ freedom. Slavery and rigid caste structures
are not only acceptable but desirable to evil characters,
as long as they are in a position to benefit from them."

Mindless and monstrous? How is this not 'legitimate' evil?

horseboy
2008-09-25, 11:08 PM
It does actively discourage evil play. the game as designed assumes the players are good or at least unaligned. As they worked very hard to remove the normal moral dilemmas, like the paladins code (essentially making the paladin a knight)
Well, given that Paladin is French for knight, I fail to see the problem.


Although, for the record, I feel the act to be evil, and if this sort of thing is the norm, Evil on the report card is reasonable, howzacome I'm the only person who thought of that one time Malcolm Reynolds kicked that guy into the engines?I don't know, I was too busy shouting : "What's in the box?!?!"


After all there are no rules for ham-stringing, or other permanent injury. Hell, there are no hard and fast rules for death dragging a prisoner. Often the player won't intend to do these things at all, they are just trying to be a tough guy. Occasionally a player will want to do the "go too far and fall" schtick, which can work well with a little work if the campaign suits. And sometimes the player is just being an asshat and there is no thought at all behind his actions, so consequences have to be explained.

I wouldn't have the prisoner die en route without such a discussion unless I was sure that the player was willing to accept the consequences. Alternatively the prisoner's life could be saved by a number of events, or he could be rescued etc etc.

Yeah, this is a total "Are you serious?" moment, where you grab the head spanking rubber chicken and have it ready.


All this having been said, has anyone ever played a campaign where the DM has explicitly banned Evil characters? Has anyone ever played, or encountered, the 'Heroic' evil? The evil that fights evil and fights for what's 'right' but in a less than morally acceptable way? Yes and No, in that order.

Irregardless, it is a dishonourable action. I've had characters who's uncle did something like that and the character was still having to deal with the repercussions of just being related to someone who is so dishonourable by catching all sorts of holy Hell from the order. You can't kill an unarmed captive, especially one in your charge. He should have handed him his sword, grabbed his back up weapon challenge him to a duel for the honour of his love, cut his bonds then promptly run him through. That or just cut his tongue out and made him hold it for two days. What? It's D&D, they've got spells to put it back on.

Yahzi
2008-09-26, 12:04 AM
Yes and No, in that order.
My rule is, the party has to be the same alignment. Otherwise they wouldn't stick together.

Also, NE is right out, since they wouldn't survive the first session.

But I've had great fun with all-evil parties (as long as everyone understands that, eventually, it all ends in betrayal. After all, betraying is all a part of pirating! :smallbiggrin: )

horseboy
2008-09-26, 12:10 AM
My rule is, the party has to be the same alignment. Otherwise they wouldn't stick together.

Also, NE is right out, since they wouldn't survive the first session.

But I've had great fun with all-evil parties (as long as everyone understands that, eventually, it all ends in betrayal. After all, betraying is all a part of pirating! :smallbiggrin: )That's what Paranoia is for. :smallbiggrin:

nagora
2008-09-26, 03:56 AM
Those are personality traits, not moral alignments.
Maybe that's why the Good/Evil axis is called the "moral" axis and the Law/Chaos isn't!


They may think that LG is just too hard for ordinary mortals to adhere to.
That's still "think it's better", you're just giving a reason why they think it's better.

To Starbuck_II: conversion is better than killing (scores 3 points: a loss for evil, a gain for good, and a personal gain for the convertee); a paladin who insists on killing petty criminals (score 1 point: a loss for evil) is not doing good - at least, s/he's not doing as much good as s/he could reasonably be expected to. So that would not normally be acceptable.

As I said earlier in the thread: you can arrive at the same result for differing reasons and by different methods and have a good chance of fulfilling the requirements of any of the alignments. How and why are big components of judging an action.


Well, given that Paladin is French for knight, I fail to see the problem.
As early as 1592 there was a distinction made between Knights and Paladins; a distinction that exists in French too. A Paladin is a knight only in the broad sense that he (originally, of course, women were not allowed to be, well, basically anything) is a sort of knight. What sort of knight? "a knight renowned for heroism and chivalry" (OED). Specific examples of knights referred to as paladins are, obviously, Charlemagne's 12 elite exemplars, and also Arthur's Knights of the Round Table (so described from at least the 1650's).

To call non-good knights "paladins" is to blatantly change the meaning of a word and fly in the face of five hundred years of that word's normal usage in English and more in French, as well as a good old chunk of time in D&D.

"Evil Paladin" is quite literally a contradiction in terms. If WotC don't understand that, then stuff them; it's just more evidence of the low quality of the designers they're employing.

Riffington
2008-09-26, 04:40 AM
I think you've confused Kohlberg's stages of moral development with something else. I'm not equating morality solely with complex reasoning. Perhaps this link will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development


Why don't you just explain what you mean rather than giving the wikipedia link. I've already read Kohlberg (and Gilligan, and Rest) in the original.

Ravens_cry
2008-09-26, 04:46 AM
I don't mind the idea of Paladins of other alignments, you can even keep the title of paladin. I see paladins of being both paragons of the their alignment, and their deity. A living example to the rest of us poor schmucks. Of course, if that god is a God of wanton terror and destruction, then a'terrorizin' and a'destructionizn' that paladin will a'go. Now, a paladin IS the more martial side of a Gods servants on earth, his powers of healing are limited compared to the clerics. Even a cleric who channels negative energy is still a healer of sorts, to the undead mind. A God of fluffy wuffy bunny wabbits and flowers still needs someone to guard those things, mind. Hence, the paladin. However, as good old Uncle Ben said "May, wheres my damn teeth, woman?!"*ahem* He also said, "With great power comes great responsibility." Now, a paladin has the power to be a real bruiser, he is one of the tank classes. AND he gets magic. This class is meant to be a Gods Mortal Badass on Earth. And shouldn't that power mean you have also made a vow,a covenant with that deity? A fluff penalty for going against your word, also means it can be safely ignored if you, the player are an expert DM wrangler. A mechanical, crunchy, penalty, means this becomes harder to brush off. Look at Mikos reaction.She had thought she had been doing the right thing, but it turned out to be wrong, so very, very wrong. Some paladins can seem, and have, an eliiminatory tract that acts as a bag of holding for a ten foot pole, while others face Superman's dilemma, you can't be everywhere at once. This is good paladins mind you. As a Gods representative, it is your duty to Follow that God's will. And I am sorry, play devils advocate all you like, but I don't see the actions of this paladin in line with the teachings of a Lawful Good deity.A) He put a fear ahead of his mission, and B) he chose to execute the prisoner in an extremely horrific and painful fashion in what amounted to, and was torture. I have said this before, but I think some of the priests should start to get nightmares or something, for simply 'slapping him on the wrists'. Yes, I think it is that bad.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-26, 07:06 AM
"Evil Paladin" is quite literally a contradiction in terms. If WotC don't understand that, then stuff them; it's just more evidence of the low quality of the designers they're employing.

But since unearthed arcana: we have had evil Paladins: Slaugthter, tyranny, etc.
So evil Pallys aren't new.

hamishspence
2008-09-26, 07:24 AM
the only books that start to put limitations on what you can do to Evil characters that may not deserve death are Exalted Deeds, Vile Darkness, and Fiendish Codex 2.

Its not so much that alignment is messed up, its that its not clearly defined. And these books define the isues a little more clearly. Most (not all) contradictions can be resolved by the fact that the books were published years apart, by different authors.

ED: Torture is always evil.
Fiendish Codex 2: Murder and torture are both always evil.

nagora
2008-09-26, 08:01 AM
But since unearthed arcana: we have had evil Paladins: Slaugthter, tyranny, etc.
Which edition of UA was that?

So evil Pallys aren't new.
Sure, but I'd much rather that the class was named to evoke the archetype, At the moment, the word Paladin is being used to mean something else. It's like saying "Fighter" when you mean "Assassin".

"Black Knight" would be better or perhaps a more generic "Exemplar" which has a nice hint of "Templar" about it, I think.

hamishspence
2008-09-26, 08:10 AM
3.5 ed Unearthed Arcana.

Dragon magazine did a similar thing, but gave them name, not "paladin of" but Despot, Corrupter, and Antipaladin.

Unlike UA, it didn't just do the extremes, but included NG, N, LN, CN, and NE, as well as the four combined alignment extremes (with paladin excepted, CG, LE, CE)

Unfortunately, while I have the issue with evil holy warriors (312) and every subsequent issue except 319, I do not have 310, with the Nonevil, non LG Holy warriors.

Interesting note, unlike UA ones, and the other two Dragon evil ones, the Despot is penalized only for Chaotic acts, though he cannot change alignment and keep his powers.

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-26, 09:32 AM
Which edition of UA was that?

Unearthed Arcana is a WotC 3.5 D&D sourcebook, much like any one of the Completes or Races of... books. You can even find the evil paladins in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny).

That said, I'm not a fan either. Mechanically they're broken, because they inherit any features from their standard class the UA class doesn't detail and that includes the oft quoted 'Ex-Paladin' section:


Ex-Paladins

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

So a Paladin of Tyranny and Slaughter loses all spells and abilities more or less by default the instant they take any morally weighted action. Which is fine because as hard as it may be at time to stop from doing an evil act, it's about a million times harder to prevent yourself from being forced into a good act, which is what the evil Paladin have to do in their code of conduct.

Meanwhile a Paladin of Freedom is only mechanically possible for creatures with a lawful/chaotic subtype (which would allow them to count as lawful and chaotic good at the same time.) And that's not even going into how wierd it is for Chaotic aligned individuals to have an inflexible moral code and traditions policing their actions.

The variant alignment Paladins are a terrible idea anyway. Lawful good is exemplified in an honorable knightly order who champions good over everything. A chaotic good champion would be something else entirely, something just as good but unrestrained by oaths and rules. It's unlikely to bear any resemblance to a lawful good knight. Personally, I tend to think of Robin Hood as a chaotic good equivalent to a Paladin.

Evil knights have much better routes to power than just swearing themselves to a general malignant evil. In any case, their role is better done by Blackguards.

mangosta71
2008-09-26, 09:38 AM
I've always thought of paladins as champions of a particular god, so the whole restricted to LG thing never sat right with me. I mean, why couldn't an elf choose to be a CG paladin of Corellon? With that definition in mind, I like the way 4e treats them. However, as I mentioned earlier, I think that there should be penalties for acting against his (and his deity's) alignment. For good vs. evil, we can generally use common sense. Torturing a prisoner to death because he was talking trash? Does anyone dispute that this is an evil act? Does anyone think that the paladin's god wouldn't be upset over this (and, judging from the OP's statements) numerous other actions?

What I would do, is next time the paladin rests, have him wake up feeling cold and alone. Colors seem less vibrant. When he goes into combat and tries to use his powers, they flat out don't work. He's particularly vulnerable to attacks against his Will defense due to a soul-crushing despair. Maybe it's harsh, but the DM has to let the player know that the gods don't give their power to those who prove themselves unworthy. If he wants to play a paladin of a LG god, he needs to shape up.

Jayabalard
2008-09-26, 09:39 AM
Unearthed Arcana is a WotC 3.5 D&D sourcebook, much like any one of the Completes or Races of... books. It's also a TSR 1e AD&D source book, much like any one of the.... Survival Guides.

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-26, 09:55 AM
I've always thought of paladins as champions of a particular god, so the whole restricted to LG thing never sat right with me. I mean, why couldn't an elf choose to be a CG paladin of Corellon? With that definition in mind, I like the way 4e treats them. However, as I mentioned earlier, I think that there should be penalties for acting against his (and his deity's) alignment. For good vs. evil, we can generally use common sense. Torturing a prisoner to death because he was talking trash? Does anyone dispute that this is an evil act? Does anyone think that the paladin's god wouldn't be upset over this (and, judging from the OP's statements) numerous other actions?

What I would do, is next time the paladin rests, have him wake up feeling cold and alone. Colors seem less vibrant. When he goes into combat and tries to use his powers, they flat out don't work. He's particularly vulnerable to attacks against his Will defense due to a soul-crushing despair. Maybe it's harsh, but the DM has to let the player know that the gods don't give their power to those who prove themselves unworthy. If he wants to play a paladin of a LG god, he needs to shape up.

Well, militant armed defenders of a faith is actually the role of a cleric. A paladin can worship a deity of course, but a Paladins powers (at least in 3.5e) aren't tied to an individual god. Of course, this changed in 4e, which is one of many complaints against it.

The point is, Lawful Good has Paladins: an order of knights bound by codes and traditions. A Chaotic Good order should not be a simple redressing, it should be totally different and reflect different values.


It's also a TSR 1e AD&D source book, much like any one of the.... Survival Guides.

Which also include a 3.5e/4e Survival Guide (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/97807869) if you want to be technical over names. Your point?

Jayabalard
2008-09-26, 10:08 AM
The point is, Lawful Good has Paladins: an order of knights bound by codes and traditions. A Chaotic Good order should not be a simple redressing, it should be totally different and reflect different values.I could not agree with this more.


Which also include a 3.5e/4e Survival Guide (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/97807869) if you want to be technical over names. Your point?The point is that your statement that "Unearthed Arcana is a WotC 3.5 D&D sourcebook" isn't entirely accurate, as your wording seems to imply that's all it is. People who are unfamiliar with early editions of AD&D may or may not know that particular book existed in more than one edition of D&D. Changing it so that "Unearthed Arcana is a WotC 3.5 D&D sourcebook and a TSR 1e AD&D sourcebook" helps clarify why nagora had any confusion in the first place (since nagora is a 1e enthusiast).

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-26, 10:18 AM
My apologies then. I had thought you were trying to be contrary, and wasn't aware nagora was a 1e enthusiast. :smallsmile:

EvilElitest
2008-09-26, 10:33 AM
What? I wasn't addressing you at all or trying to really validate my view... was saying that I could see agreeing with Nagora's view that CG can take issue with LG.

And its based upon sterotypes even so. They can take intissue


I was fine with just letting you quietly leave, EE... alas!

why? I was here first, i actually back my points, and i actually direclty respond to people? How could you possible "let me leave" when
1) You didn't address anything
2) i had already countered what you said




I called you a "moral nihilist" btw, not a nihilist. There is a difference. Maybe you should look things up before you go and tell people that they don't know what they're talking about.
and again, you got the wrong defintion. stop tip toeing around the issues and adress what i have to say directly, this is the second time you've avoided the actual issue at hand by not directly responding to me


Oh and, just to be clear, since you never answered, how is this...
"...characters use rules and order to maximize
personal gain. They don’t care whether laws hurt other
people. They support institutional structures that give
them power, even if that power comes at the expense
of others’ freedom. Slavery and rigid caste structures
are not only acceptable but desirable to evil characters,
as long as they are in a position to benefit from them."
Actually i did, twice. Again, actually responding to quotes



Mindless and monstrous? How is this not 'legitimate' evil?
Because its a narrow 2 dimensional description of a sociopath. And doesn't that claim go against you early argument about evil being unable to interact with good.

Again, i've adresssed waht you've had to say please return the favor



Well, given that Paladin is French for knight, I fail to see the problem.
actually, Chevalier is French for knight. And the real paladins didn't have magic powers if i recall


But since unearthed arcana: we have had evil Paladins: Slaugthter, tyranny, etc.
So evil Pallys aren't new.

Except, those two don't many any sense at all. Never commit a good act? Awful awful decision

The Dragon magazine did a much better job




I've always thought of paladins as champions of a particular god, so the whole restricted to LG thing never sat right with me. I mean, why couldn't an elf choose to be a CG paladin of Corellon? With that definition in mind, I like the way 4e treats them. However, as I mentioned earlier, I think that there should be penalties for acting against his (and his deity's) alignment. For good vs. evil, we can generally use common sense. Torturing a prisoner to death because he was talking trash? Does anyone dispute that this is an evil act? Does anyone think that the paladin's god wouldn't be upset over this (and, judging from the OP's statements) numerous other actions?
The warrior knight for a god is pretty much a cleric. THe point of a paladin is they believe in something beyond the gods,the raw aligniment itself. A CG cleric with a bow is kinda a champion of Correllon as it is

As for what the gods view upsetting, we actually don't know, they don't get much description. If this is like ye old nasty gods, then yes. If we have more "justice without mercy" yes. We only have the sparknotes of the gods



The point is, Lawful Good has Paladins: an order of knights bound by codes and traditions. A Chaotic Good order should not be a simple redressing, it should be totally different and reflect different values.

thank you. Totally, totally seconded.



I don't mind the idea of Paladins of other alignments, you can even keep the title of paladin. I see paladins of being both paragons of the their alignment, and their deity.

1) Diety and Alignment are two different things. THe deitys honor the alignment rules by following them,
2) As gods, well you have clerics for different gods. But for alignments, you can't have the same paladin idea just redone. I admit the idea of an embodyiment for each alignment is great, (well, not evil ones because their is no standard), but it shouldn't be based upon the paladin model
from
EE


from
EE

horseboy
2008-09-26, 12:51 PM
actually, Chevalier is French for knight. And the real paladins didn't have magic powers if i
Chevalier is more a horseman, paladin has authority. They both fight with lances. :smallamused:
Yeah, the paladins did have super powers. Orlando was Achilles reborn, wearing armour solely for ornamentation of station and around The Thing level super strength, ex: Pulling a "kracken" ashore. Bradamante had super human virtue. Not to mention being a woman who could fight better than any man but her brother or cousin. Ruggerio, the Moorish prince, was baptized by Orlando, then married Bradamante (thereby making him a paladin-in-law) was so beautiful that any who saw him fell in love with him. Nice to know there were bishonen even back in the 16th century. Rinaldo shared the same level strength as Orlando, and there was something else, but can't remember.

Asbestos
2008-09-26, 01:36 PM
and again, you got the wrong defintion.
Moral Nihilism:
"is the meta-ethical view that objective morality does not exist"
That's pretty much what you've been arguing this WHOLE TIME.



Because its a narrow 2 dimensional description of a sociopath. And doesn't that claim go against you early argument about evil being unable to interact with good.
Evil IS sociopathic, sociopaths are not mindless and monstrous.
"Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others."
Also, NOTHING in the definition of sociopath says anything about them using laws and rigid systems, specifically, to get ahead. And when did I argue that evil couldn't interact with good? I said that they were in opposition, not that they were like matter and anti-matter.




The warrior knight for a god is pretty much a cleric. THe point of a paladin is they believe in something beyond the gods,the raw aligniment itself. A CG cleric with a bow is kinda a champion of Correllon as it is
And in 3.x a cleric could be a champion of something beyond the gods as well. So a CG cleric could get his powers from the concepts of freedom and good itself. 3.5 Paladins were just lesser versions of clerics with more melee focused abilities and less imagination.


As for what the gods view upsetting, we actually don't know, they don't get much description. If this is like ye old nasty gods, then yes. If we have more "justice without mercy" yes. We only have the sparknotes of the gods
We don't need much of a description about what they find distasteful or not because we do know what alignment they have! Only someone that thinks there are no truths about morality, like say a moral nihilist, would have an issue with this.

Oh, and you're totally right, I never back my points. I haven't been the one actually quoting the source material or anything.

Riffington
2008-09-26, 03:47 PM
Also, to help clarify why many CG people would believe CG is higher than LG:

Suppose I'm sitting on my porch, rocking my new baby to sleep. And my neighbor gets jealous that I have a baby and she doesn't. So she hires a lawyer, who discovers that my porch's building permit is somehow invalid.

A CG judge would tell my neighbor to mind her own business.
An LG judge might do that too, but if the stupid regulation says I have to tear down my porch then he'll make me tear down the porch.

Now, as a CG person, I believe the CG judge was acting more morally than the LG one: common sense should trump dumb regulations.
I'm not asking the Lawful people here to tell me why the LG point of view is really more moral. Just to understand why a CG person would think the CG point of view is more moral.

Jayabalard
2008-09-26, 03:55 PM
Evil IS sociopathic, sociopaths are not mindless and monstrous.Being sociopathic is evil, but not necessarily the other way around: you can be evil without being sociopathic.


And in 3.x a cleric could be a champion of something beyond the gods as well.That's dependant on the setting, so this is not necessarily the case.