How to Play a Good-Aligned Character

[Kaptin Keen]

Okay... And what makes poison worse than a sword, or a bow, or a ball of magical fire?

I do agree, poison CAN be worse than those, depending on the situation, and should require serious thought before a good person uses it, but that applies equally to any weapon.

Substitute poison for any of the other ways you know you shouldn't kill someone: Remote triggered bomb, setting them on fire, stabbing them to death in their sleep, throwing them naked into a pack of hungry wolves, and so on.

It's essentially the same as twirling your mustache. Don't do, unless evil.

[Lord Raziere]

Substitute poison for any of the other ways you know you shouldn't kill someone: Remote triggered bomb, setting them on fire, stabbing them to death in their sleep, throwing them naked into a pack of hungry wolves, and so on.

It's essentially the same as twirling your mustache. Don't do, unless evil.

.....I like how you protest against "wrong" ways to kill someone but don't actually protest against killing them at all.

by this logic, all wizards who use fireball, sleep and explosive runes, as well as rogues are evil. because rogues entire MO is playing dirty, while a wizard using sleep so that others coup-de-grace them is just being effective, and explosive runes is basically a remote bomb that triggers when someone sees the bomb, and fireball obviously burns people alive.

this also means you can't kill any regenerating monster that needs fire to die. like trolls. meaning killing trolls is inherently evil by this logic, no one good can kill trolls ever, so the world is overrun by regenerating trolls whose weakness is being burned alive or everyone becomes evil from fighting them.

also, by this logic, anyone who summons beasts whether they be druids or wizards is evil because they send animals to kill things for them all the time, so summoners are inherently evil even when they're summoning something like a celestial wolf to eat the face off of a demon.

so yeah. your calling a lot of effective tactics "evil" there.

[Kaptin Keen]

.....I like how you protest against "wrong" ways to kill someone but don't actually protest against killing them at all.

Is that the discussion we're having? No, it isn't. That's why I'm not going there.

by this logic, all wizards who use fireball, sleep and explosive runes, as well as rogues are evil. because rogues entire MO is playing dirty, while a wizard using sleep so that others coup-de-grace them is just being effective, and explosive runes is basically a remote bomb that triggers when someone sees the bomb, and fireball obviously burns people alive.

this also means you can't kill any regenerating monster that needs fire to die. like trolls. meaning killing trolls is inherently evil by this logic, no one good can kill trolls ever, so the world is overrun by regenerating trolls whose weakness is being burned alive or everyone becomes evil from fighting them.

also, by this logic, anyone who summons beasts whether they be druids or wizards is evil because they send animals to kill things for them all the time, so summoners are inherently evil even when they're summoning something like a celestial wolf to eat the face off of a demon.

so yeah. your calling a lot of effective tactics "evil" there.

I've been using real world examples. Have you seen anyone in the real world use fireballs? No. You haven't.

But except for that, using sleep+cdg is definitely evil. Hands down, no holds barred, straight up evil. Wanna know why? I have no idea. But I know that having someone at your mercy, then killing rather than capturing, is evil. Killing anyone who is defenceless is evil.

Effective is often evil. As soon as you let pragmatism rule your decision making, you're pretty much sure to venture into evil land. It just goes straight back to Auschwitz, and ... why is that evil, they were going to die anyways.

Edit: That's actually a as decent a rule as any to live by - am I being pragmatic right now? Then what I'm doing is propably going to lead to an alignment change.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Poison is only considered morally wrong because morality (conveniently) has always favoured the methods of war preferred by the economically advantaged.

In Ancient Greece the honourable method of combat was lines of shield men banging into each other until someone won. The side who could afford to field more shield men usually won.

In Medieval times knightly combat was honourable and crossbows were dishonourable, because knights could afford to spend their lives practising fighting and equip themselves in fancy armour, and then get killed by someone with a crossbow and minimal training.

[Lord Raziere]

I've been using real world examples. Have you seen anyone in the real world use fireballs? No. You haven't.

But except for that, using sleep+cdg is definitely evil. Hands down, no holds barred, straight up evil. Wanna know why? I have no idea. But I know that having someone at your mercy, then killing rather than capturing, is evil. Killing anyone who is defenceless is evil.

Effective is often evil. As soon as you let pragmatism rule your decision making, you're pretty much sure to venture into evil land. It just goes straight back to Auschwitz, and ... why is that evil, they were going to die anyways.

Edit: That's actually a as decent a rule as any to live by - am I being pragmatic right now? Then what I'm doing is propably going to lead to an alignment change.

too bad, your talking about a game where you go into dungeons and kill people. real world matters jack squat.

teaming up is pragmatic,y'know whats also pragmatic? not dying while protecting your friends and allies. pragmatically putting up an actual shield to block an attack than take it yourself, thats so evil. killing an unfeeling murderous psychopath before they launch that attack is just SO EVIL. armor? evil, since it so pragmatically protects people from damage. I suppose we should add ambushing the enemy to the evilness as well, since its pragmatically taking them surprise? but wait weapons is more pragmatic than using our fists. weapons are evil.

obviously the only way to fight evil is by fighting them with only your fists with no armor, challenging them to honorable combat in an open field with no environmental advantages to exploit and just punch them repeatedly, using absolutely no tactics whatsoever. pure force without any finesse is the only goodness you can rely on. just punch them until they die, the only good way to kill evil: with your fists without using your brain at all. monk is the only class that can be good aligned! but only if they never use Stunning Fist. that renders the enemy defenseless, we can't have that. they need to be able to defend themselves so that they can potentially kill me then go forth to kill more people.

[Kaptin Keen]

real world matters jack squat.

They are examples.

You don't accept real world examples in your make-belive discussion? Ok.

[Dragonexx]

"You shouldn't have to think about it." is one of the most stupid and offensive points you can possible take. Considering that doing the opposite of that is why we have a modern society with modern values at all, it's astonishingly ignorant and blatantly anti-intellectual.

[Tinkerer]

It's essentially the same as twirling your mustache. Don't do, unless evil.

My god, apparently my roommates are evil people. They both compulsively twirl their moustaches when thinking about things.

[Kaptin Keen]

"You shouldn't have to think about it." is one of the most stupid and offensive points you can possible take. Considering that doing the opposite of that is why we have a modern society with modern values at all, it's astonishingly ignorant and blatantly anti-intellectual.

Hm.

Almost all the laws you approve of will align with gut feeling. Almost all the ones you disapprove of derive from pragmatism.

Clearly, that's opinion, but I really do urge you to check. Of course, you might be one of those who consider something like the 'three strikes' law a masterstroke of modern law. In which case I expect you twirl your mustache too.

But I see what you're trying to say (I think). Lynch mobs also responded to gut feeling. That, however, is taking it out of context. I also said 'anything you wouldn't tell your mother about', among other things. 'Anything you need to think of a way to justify'.

So please, if you want to be outraged, please at least know what I'm saying first.

I maintain: Morals are largely selfexplanatory and intuitive. But I will grant you hate makes people do things that - in the moment - might seem selfexplanatory and intuitive. However, they wont go home at the end of the day and brag to their mothers that 'yea, we lynched that guy and no mistake. Ain't no way he'll look at another man's woman that way ever again!'

Or if they do, they'll do so while twirling their mustaches. And propably their mothers will do the same.

My god, apparently my roommates are evil people. They both compulsively twirl their moustaches when thinking about things.

Almost certainly.

Not to be confused with beard stroking. Important distinction.

[JNAProductions]

So let me ask you this-you clearly have to think before using poison. Do you have to think before stabbing someone to death? Because again-that's something D&D adventurers do ALL THE FLIPPING TIME.

[denthor]

So let me ask you this-you clearly have to think before using poison. Do you have to think before stabbing someone to death? Because again-that's something D&D adventurers do ALL THE FLIPPING TIME.

Please understand I have a deep unbridled distain for the paladin class. I am irrational towards it.

One of the very little used rules is a paladin can not strike first. 2nd edition.

If you opponents use deadly force it is considered justified to return such force.

So to your question never start the fight always react.

[JNAProductions]

Please understand I have a deep unbridled distain for the paladin class. I am irrational towards it.

One of the very little used rules is a paladin can not strike first. 2nd edition.

If you opponents use deadly force it is considered justified to return such force.

So to your question never start the fight always react.

You see a man with an axe, terrorizing a group of people. He's clearly intent on killing them, and they're helpless to stop him. He has not attacked you, though-do you attack him? Is that a good thing to do?

[Tinkerer]

You see a man with an axe, terrorizing a group of people. He's clearly intent on killing them, and they're helpless to stop him. He has not attacked you, though-do you attack him? Is that a good thing to do?

You interpose yourself between the man with an axe and the group of people and demand that he explain himself. In mechanical terms you do that and ready an action for if he charges you. Don't forget this is a world where violent curses exist and the man could be ensorcelled/possessed. Also bear in mind that the key word there is deadly force. The man with an axe is attempting to use deadly force, just not on you.

[Cazero]

Almost all the laws you approve of will align with gut feeling.

And that gut feeling aligning in enough people to end up being proclaimed as a law is no coincidence. There must be some reasons for it, and figuring those reasons would help understanding morality better, wich helps making Good choices.
So the question "why is poison Evil" is not only legitimate, but also crucial. Especialy in the context of the [when stabbing someone in the face isn't] addendum.

Yes, you will eventualy get stuck at a prime proposition that can't be justified (like "harm is bad"). But "murdering someone in their sleep is just bad" is nowhere near that point.

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: Please avoid references to real-world political, historical, or religious precedents when discussing alignment or morality, as always. And while we're at it, remember to debate politely, or this thread will meet the ultimate fates of most alignment discussions.

[denthor]

You see a man with an axe, terrorizing a group of people. He's clearly intent on killing them, and they're helpless to stop him. He has not attacked you, though-do you attack him? Is that a good thing to do?

A paladin must put himself in the line of the ax . Protecting the helpless and accept that until damage to him is taken he can not hot back 2nd edition paladin.

Then he can react in any fashion the situation requires.

Since Lawful Good could mean you guard the dinner party of the elite that have plenty of food why you watch people starve outside the event.

Chaotic good would steal some of the food and give it away.

Neutral good could do either.

[Pleh]

Pleh
Above is 1st post it is in the mind of the DM much like your dawn of civilization is in your mind not the post.

Advice on how to run a good character.

My suggestion no poison.

If you read that first post more carefully, the setting is, "the D&D takes place in is of my friend's design. I don't really know much about it yet, but he said that the premise of the game is that we're fighting dragons and taking their treasure."

Nothing about this information precludes the possibility of a Dawn of Civilization scenario, which means the scope of our answers ought to account for this breadth of possible contexts.

Of course it's in my mind. The point is that it should be in all our minds as a possibility and particularly to illustrate how all the OTHER possibilities might also affect how the morality ends up playing out in the game.

[Kaptin Keen]

So let me ask you this-you clearly have to think before using poison. Do you have to think before stabbing someone to death? Because again-that's something D&D adventurers do ALL THE FLIPPING TIME.

Well. I'm talking about morals, not gameplay.

But in my experience, the question of whether combat is moral or not very, very rarely comes up in RPG's. In general, the situations are pretty black and white, you have to fight the evil people because they're going to take over the world to the detriment of all the good people (and most of the evil people too).

Outside of gameplay, I'd say that manifold reasons exist to make the application of force necessary. Let's say adventurers are something akin to freelance police. In the real world, police are regularly required to assert some form of force to ensure the security of most people, at the expense of a few. This is entirely in it's case: Moreso, it really doesn't require you to think about it, or to justify it.

Now, you will note that police do not use poison, and that when they use various forms of crowd control - be it an irritant like tear gas, water cannon, or a taser, it's generally quite fiercely debated.

If they use tranq darts, there'd be open rebellion.

Because poison is evil. Even if non-lethal.

Now please note that it's an imaginary example. But it serves to illustrate the line between what we're totally ok with - and what we're not. And that's based entirely on ... intuition. Gut feeling.

Clearly, you might disagree with my conclusions. But I'm quite convinced myself =)

@Glyphstone: The line is often slightly blurry. Is it ok to use police as a reference - or should I have used, say, Adeptus Arbites instead?

So the question "why is poison Evil" is not only legitimate, but also crucial.

Yes, I agree. Only I'd argue that poison is evil because we feel so, intuitively. That's sort of my core point here: There is no deeper logic to it. Homo mensura, the world is as we see and/or make it, and human opinion isn't tied to strict rational underpinnings.

[Frozen_Feet]

Four rules for playing, of not good, at least a decent character:

1) Do unto others as you'd want to be done to yourself. Your actions set an example for how it is acceptable for others to act and what you expect of them. If you do not wish for others to act in a certain way, don't do it yourself.

2) Eye for an eye. This is a corollary to the above: what others do to you, it is permissible to do to them in equal measure.

3) Never turn a blind eye to evil. A fancier name for this is altruistic punishment. That is, if someone breaks conditions of co-operation by acting in an evil manner, you will cease to co-operate yourself even if it costs you.

4) In face of repention, let mercy pass for justice. This is the exception to the above: if someone honestly expresses regret for what they have done and wishes to make amends, it is permissible to turn the other cheek and stop punishing them.

If you want to play an evil character, here are the forms of evil you will get by breaking or inverting the above four rules:

1) Hypocrisy and double standards: you will permit yourself actions that you would not permit for others. You will expect and demand behaviour from othera that you don't demand from yourself.

2) Injustice: your reactions to actions are disproportionate to one direction or the other. You will either punish crimes of others too harshly or let them off with too little.

3) Spinelessness and corruption: you will allow evil from other when it is beneficial to you and allow more aggressive people to walk all over you when resisting them would be inconvenient or frightening to you

4) Mercilessness and vengefullness: no grudge is ever forgotten and no conflict ever resolved as you keep punishing slights from here to eternity.

---

As a matter of fact, most groups of PCs are all of hypocritical, unjust, spineless and merciless, in regards to NPCs if not other PCs. This is a form of ingroup-outgroup distinction, where for mostly metagame reasons terms of co-operation are extended only to other PCs. Many problems between players happen when the above four rules are broken within the ingroup.

Paladins are hated because their code extends the above four rules to NPCs, hence breaking the ingroup-outgroup distinction and making other PCs valid targets of rules 2) and 3) for slights committed against NPCs.

Thieves and Chaotic Neutrals are hated because they break the four rules within the ingroup.

GMs are hated because the asymmetric positions between GMs and players make players liable to accuse the GM for breaking the four rules in a metagame sense whenever and NPC does so in the game.

[Kaptin Keen]

most groups of PCs are all of hypocritical, unjust, spineless and merciless

I've never seen that. In 30 years of playing role playing games. Of course, it's entirely possible that the one constant in all those games - me - is what's keeping it from ever happening.

I can't even play evil in (computer) games designed for it. Even when I decide that 'this time I'm going to play evil, to see what difference it makes.'

[Frozen_Feet]

Let me guess, Grand Theft Auto wasn't your favorite game as a kid?

[Knaight]

Effective is often evil. As soon as you let pragmatism rule your decision making, you're pretty much sure to venture into evil land. It just goes straight back to Auschwitz, and ... why is that evil, they were going to die anyways.

"We're just better than these people so we can do whatever we want to them" is textbook intuitive thinking. "They killed your cousin, so for revenge you get to kill their cousin" is textbook intuitive thinking.

But I see what you're trying to say (I think). Lynch mobs also responded to gut feeling. That, however, is taking it out of context. I also said 'anything you wouldn't tell your mother about', among other things. 'Anything you need to think of a way to justify'.

Lynch mobs also had plenty of people who's mothers approved of it in them, a statement also true of plenty of other social ills. Mob violence is also a pretty textbook case of something not likely to have been specifically justified, what with it involving a bunch of people quickly caught in the moment.

The context doesn't actually help here. Intuitive morality generally just defaults to a cultural standard, and cultural standards have included all sorts of atrocious behaviors, along with all sorts of atrocities being routinely considered as an intuitive response. Changes to these cultural systems that made them better required actual thinking.

With that said, the tempering effect of an overall culture on said thinking can very much be a good thing.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Now please note that it's an imaginary example. But it serves to illustrate the line between what we're totally ok with - and what we're not. And that's based entirely on ... intuition. Gut feeling.

You keep asserting this, but that doesn't make it true. There's all sorts of behaviour modern first world people would consider intuitively morally reprehensible, which has been perfectly normal and accepted for vast majorities of human history.

[Kaptin Keen]

Let me guess, Grand Theft Auto wasn't your favorite game as a kid?

I loved the racing - but no, I couldn't get myself to drive over civilians.

Lynch mobs also had plenty of people who's mothers approved of it in them

But likely they weren't too proud of it after. They didn't go home and tell their old mom.

You keep asserting this, but that doesn't make it true.

That's why I keep pointing out that it's an opinion.

[Knaight]

But likely they weren't too proud of it after. They didn't go home and tell their old mom.

They made and distributed postcards commemorating the event. Clearly intuitively feeling that this was wrong didn't work here.

[Frozen_Feet]

Relying on intuition for morals is about as usefull as relying on "You know when you see it" for distinquishing colours.

Works fine untill you run into a blind person, a color blind person, or a person who speaks a different language where some color terms are lacking or grouped differently.

Nearly all humans have some degree of moral intuition, but there's quite a bit of variance. Whether said variance is caused by nature or nurture is often a red herring - usually, it's both. It's similar to language: humans intuitively learn how to speak from infancy and we can trace our ability to use language to physiological and genetic level. All the same, particulars of specific languages are largely arbitrary and evolve and propagate through nurture, not nature.

Does the fact that someone might have a different gut feeling from you, invalidate yours? Of course not. But it does raise a question which might sound familiar to you: are things moral because they feel moral, or do they feel moral because they are moral?

For contast, I could intuitively identify red objects by sight long before I had any analytical knowledge of what redness is or how my eyes and neural system work to acquire this knowledge. Being able to approach this question analytically did not make my intuition better or worse at identifying red objects, but it did make it possible for me to explain why, say, a blind person's opinion on what is or is not red is not necessarily on the same level as mine.

[Pleh]

Homo mensura, the world is as we see and/or make it, and human opinion isn't tied to strict rational underpinnings.

But human opinion can be tied to rational underpinnings. It is innaccurate to suggest that all opinions are devoid of rational basis.

Opinions are just ideas that a person elects to adhere themselves to. Nothing prevents a person adopting an irrational opinion (most people do to lesser or greater degrees), but that doesn't make all opnions equally or intrinsically irrational.

But likely they weren't too proud of it after. They didn't go home and tell their old mom.

You'd be surprised.

You keep asserting this, but that doesn't make it true.

That's why I keep pointing out that it's an opinion.

This makes your opinion baseless and lacking substance, devaluing its merit.

Positing baseless opinions usually has the best effect when you frame it in, "I think/feel [insert opinion]."

This starts your statement recognizing its lack of rational defense, so as not to provoke intense rational scrutiny or to give the impression that it is intended to be superior to other opinions that do actually have rational basis (and, should the rationale be found valid, earning greater merit than mere feelings, which are so susceptible to deception).

[PopeLinus1]

When your playing a good character, make sure you don’t make the adventure worse by constantly forcing other players to be good. It gets old fast, and your players will be gone faster than a quickling with Haste cast on it.

[2D8HP]

Advice on how to run a good character.

My suggestion no poison.

.

Okay... And what makes poison worse than a sword, or a bow, or a ball of magical fire?

I do agree, poison CAN be worse than those, depending on the situation, and should require serious thought before a good person uses it, but that applies equally to any weapon.

.
My guess is that this is in reference to the 1978 Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook, which on page 19 gave explicit instructions that "Clerics who are not if evil alignment" were prohibited from using poison.

[Clistenes]

I think non-lethal poisons like paralyzing or sleep poisons would be ideal for taking prisioners and arresting criminals. Policemen, peacekeepers, guards, judicial forces, paladin orders and churchs dedicated to deities of Justice should have no qualms at all to use them and should in fact highly recommend them...

The original Paladin class was heavily based on the Arcturian knights, so they would favor one on one challenges and consider poison to be dishonourable because it would be "cheating"; and a way of cheating accessible to everybody, not just to the guy who got a magical sword from the Lady of the Lake...

But the Paladin class has grown far beyond that. If a Paladin is working as a peacekeeper/judicial police/town guard/whatever, his job isn't to challenge thieves, conmen, rapists, murderers, bandits and the like to singular duel, it is to arrest them and take them alive to the judge, so a tool that allows to take them down faster without killing them and without causing permanent damage should be highly valued.

Heck, even Strength and Dexterity damage poisons should be allowed, since Lesser Restoration isn't difficult to access...

And what works for Paladins, works for everybody else...

As for war... it depends on what you are going to do with your prisioners... if you intend to keep them alive, using non-lethal poison means saving their lives, so it is kosher to me... if you will have to execute prisioners... well, then I guess a good aligned character would rather avoid that moral conundrum and eschew poison...