OOTS #1239 - The Discussion Thread

[skim172]

You've linked the wrong comic. You want the previous one for that quote.

Yes, but while that comic has a great punchline, it doesn't include the explanation about dropping two portable holes - A and B - into each other to remove oneself from the universe, so I thought if I didn't link the latter page, it would just look like I was just making a crude joke that had no relevance.

[danielxcutter]

It’s also pretty in line with gygax views especially later on when he became quite bitter. I won’t go into specifics as it’s been discussed many many times on the forums, but his views tended to ignore the need for Good in LG.

I... see, then.

[dancrilis]

I... see, then.

I wouldn't be experienced in his ways as others but I believe his paladins were effectively land owning nobles - so judge, jury and executioner on their land (or on their liege lord's land).

They were good in the sense that they were working for the betterment of society and lawful in that they had rules they followed and which they were accountable too - but if a goblin village settled on your land without permission and started raiding around them, yes you can absolutely wipe them all out including the children and no you don't need to worry about why they showed up in the first place unless that also becomes your problem.

[danielxcutter]

I wouldn't be experienced in his ways as others but I believe his paladins were effectively land owning nobles - so judge, jury and executioner on their land (or on their liege lord's land).

They were good in the sense that they were working for the betterment of society and lawful in that they had rules they followed and which they were accountable too - but if a goblin village settled on your land without permission and started raiding around them, yes you can absolutely wipe them all out including the children and no you don't need to worry about why they showed up in the first place unless that also becomes your problem.

Well that's not super Evil I guess? It still seems less bad than the stuff the old Sapphire Guard got up to before O-Chul joined.

[Fyraltari]

Well that's not super Evil I guess? It still seems less bad than the stuff the old Sapphire Guard got up to before O-Chul joined.

Mass-murder isn't more acceptable when you do it at home rather than at somebody else's.

[dancrilis]

Well that's not super Evil I guess? It still seems less bad than the stuff the old Sapphire Guard got up to before O-Chul joined.

Personal opinion - he gets a worse wrap then he deserves for alignment stuff.

Effectively the game came out of wargaming where two (or more) players have an army and roll dice (or use another method) to determine who wins - 'do my elves beat your orcs clatter clatter clatter got a six so yes', when world building there was your side and the other side - adventurers fight monsters and bandits so monsters and bandits are evil.

It wasn't intended to deal with 'insert whatever real world issue you are thinking of here' but as it got more popular and particularly in more recent years when it effectively went mainstream people decided that it should be more complex 'why are there bandits, and what causes intelligent beings to loot and burn villages' then it was intended to be - they then look back and judge the early game based on their particular more modern view of the game.

But others might have a different take on things.

[danielxcutter]

I think it's fair to say that people hadn't had time yet to think of the implications.

[KorvinStarmast]

It’s also pretty in line with gygax views especially later on when he became quite bitter. I won’t go into specifics as it’s been discussed many many times on the forums, but his views tended to ignore the need for Good in LG.

If you actually do read the AD&D 1e PHB, and the AD&D 1e DMG, you will note the "you cannot do this are you are no longer a paladin" clause: iot is very explicit. Mind you, there is the atonement discussion in the DMG that allows a way back if a Paladin falls, but it's not a "free, I win" button. It requires the DM to arrive at a suitable path of redemption. Again, you'll find that lawful and good are both necessary to be a paladin. When he threw in the Cavalier in Unearthed Arcana, codes and restrictions increased even more and a Paladin had to be a Cavalier class first under that framework.

His later remarks were somewhat a response to the idiocy that somehow, in a game where combat is often a center piece, people had taken the attitude of "if you kill you can't be good" (which is inane) but in defense of his critics, he also quoted Chivington - which I found disturbing when I read that post (IIRC it was on dragonsfoot).

Nethack has/had the same problem as a lot of dungeon crawls; the only way to keep score simply was via body count, gold count and treasure count. That's a limitation of Computer games. And I'll repeat that element: it's about keeping score, and getting stuff (leveling up?) when you score a certain number of points.

[danielxcutter]

If you actually do read the AD&D 1e PHB, and the AD&D 1e DMG, and you note the "you cannot do this are you are no longer a paladin" clause (though there is the atonement discussion in the DMG that allows a way back, but it's not a "free, I win" button) you'll find that lawful and good are both necessary to be a paladin. Likewise, when he threw in the Cavalier in Unearthed Arcana, codes and restrictions increased even more.

His later remarks were somewhat a response to the idiocy that somehow, in a game where combat is often, people had gone all "if you kill you can't be good" (which is inane) but in defense of his critics, he also quoted Chivington which I found disturbing when I read that post (IIRC it was on dragonsfoot).

Nethack has/had the same problem as a lot of dungeon crawls; the only way to keep score simply was via body count and gold count and treasure count. That's a limitation of Computer games.

I suppose that becomes more prominent the more you flesh your opponents out as actual characters.

[Dion]

I think it's fair to say that people hadn't had time yet to think of the implications.

Agreed. The whole concept of good and evil was pretty new in 1974, and was mostly an academic discipline limited to a few French university professors.

it’s really a pretty amazing thing that Gygax had even heard of it.

I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Gygax for introducing the concept of good and evil to all of us.

[Fyraltari]

Agreed. The whole concept of good and evil was pretty new in 1974, and was mostly an academic discipline limited to a few French university professors.

it’s really a pretty amazing thing that Gygax had even heard of it.

I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Gygax for introducing the concept of good and evil to all of us.

May I (extended) sig that?

[Dion]

May I (extended) sig that?

Feel free!

Though if I were honest I’d give it a 50/50 chance of changing to {scrubbed}. It turns out the French are real-world people. As an American, learning this was a big surprise for me.

(Also, because because I turn into a bit of a jerk in alignment arguments, and I need to learn to breath deeply and think about the comic strip and Star Wars.)

[Fyraltari]

Though if I were honest I’d give it a 50/50 chance of changing to {scrubbed}. It turns out the French are real-world people. As an American, learning this was a big surprise for me.

It's okay, I'm still not 100% you people aren't some sort of giant TV show.

[Dion]

It's okay, I'm still not 100% you people aren't some sort of giant TV show.

Not everything is on TV in America.

But everything that matters is on TV.

[pendell]

If you actually do read the AD&D 1e PHB, and the AD&D 1e DMG, you will note the "you cannot do this are you are no longer a paladin" clause: iot is very explicit. Mind you, there is the atonement discussion in the DMG that allows a way back if a Paladin falls, but it's not a "free, I win" button. It requires the DM to arrive at a suitable path of redemption. Again, you'll find that lawful and good are both necessary to be a paladin. When he threw in the Cavalier in Unearthed Arcana, codes and restrictions increased even more and a Paladin had to be a Cavalier class first under that framework.

His later remarks were somewhat a response to the idiocy that somehow, in a game where combat is often a center piece, people had taken the attitude of "if you kill you can't be good" (which is inane) but in defense of his critics, he also quoted Chivington - which I found disturbing when I read that post (IIRC it was on dragonsfoot).

Nethack has/had the same problem as a lot of dungeon crawls; the only way to keep score simply was via body count, gold count and treasure count. That's a limitation of Computer games. And I'll repeat that element: it's about keeping score, and getting stuff (leveling up?) when you score a certain number of points.

I think this is the One you're talking about

UPDATE: The question Gygax was answering.

Gary,

I had a situation come up. The group had been ambushed by a group of Ogres, and managed to fight them off and capture the remaining one. They questioned it(By tying it upside down and hanging it by its feet from a tree.) They learned that it was part of the assualt group that had just attacked a keep some days before. And this PC group was part of the defense of the keep. The paladin in the group, once finding out that no more harm will come from this tribe. That this is the last ogre, decides to execute the Ogre. Their mission is to get to the highfolk, and thus they dont have time to drag a ogre to authorities. Its clear the ogre will only slow them down. The Dwarf who was doing the questioning, gets pissed at the Paladin for jumping in and finishing off his prisoner. Walks over to the Paladins horse and ...

Phoebewedh walks over to Ivric's horse and slits its throat.
"Don't tarry when you run to catch up with us.
If you ever so much as interfere with my prisoners again I will gut you like a pig and feed you to my boar. " he says to the paladin.

I explain to the character that this is not a good act(the dwarf.), I am thinking that he needs an alignment change to CN from this act. Furthermore killing a Paladin of Heironeous's warhorse isn't going to sit lightly with the paladin, and likely a duel to the death will take place here. What would you do in htis situation(the dwarf is CG).

That is wasn't the paladin's warhorse makes the matter less serious, but only marginally so. the paladin's honor was besmirched by the dwarf, and as the DM I would call that to the attention of the player of the paladin if there was less than great umbrage taken. To allow the incident to pass without punishing the offending dwarf would be a dark stain on the honor of the paladin.

Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old addage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before thay can backslide :lol:

Cheers,
Gary

The fact that he's got a smiley at the end suggests he's joking, and I'm not quite sure how to take that. *As written*, he seems to be writing Paladins as if they were nobles of the middle ages, concerned for honor, perfectly willing to kill commoners for slights to their honor and justified in doing so. Although in fairness I don't think anyone of any alignment would simply let it pass if you murdered their horse in front of them.

Killing surrendered prisoners was a big no-no in 1974. It was a no-no in 1945. Hell's bells, it was a no-no going back as far as we've had articles governing warfare. Not just from altruism but from rational economics. Noble prisoners can be ransomed while common prisoners, if they aren't willing to change sides, could be put to forced labor. The attitude Gygax of killing evil so they wouldn't back slide sounds like a parody of the Spanish Inquisition, or something from the bad old days of the medieval era.

No one at my table kills surrendered prisoners and, outside of severe mitigating circumstances, keeps an LG alignment. It is an evil act even if it is absolutely necessary (can't guard prisoners, deep in enemy stronghold, can't take them along and don't have any other way to neutralize them). That would have been my attitude in the 1980s as well. The only reason it wouldn't have been in the 70s is because I was too young to run a table at that point.

Thing about Gygax -- the attitude he describes is realistic if you're roleplaying paladins as medieval crusaders. The question is, who are you playing D&D with, and what for? Are you trying to recreate a medieval world with medieval attitudes a la the Society for Creative Anachronism, or are you preparing young adolescents with the attitudes they will need to deal with the real world they live in?

Gygax looks like he's going for #1. Clearly Rich Burlew is more interested in #2.

Although, again, that smiley suggests he may have been ironic or joking. Maybe someone who knows more about the context can shed more light.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Fyraltari]

No one at my table kills surrendered prisoners and, outside of severe mitigating circumstances, keeps an LG alignment. It is an evil act even if it is absolutely necessary

To clarify: at your table, anyone commiting any evil acts loses their good alignment or is killing surrendering foes a special case? Or did you mean "kills" as in "usually kills" rather than "kills once"?

[KorvinStarmast]

Thing about Gygax -- the attitude he describes is realistic if you're roleplaying paladins as medieval crusaders. The question is, who are you playing D&D with, and what for? Are you trying to recreate a medieval world with medieval attitudes a la the Society for Creative Anachronism, or are you preparing young adolescents with the attitudes they will need to deal with the real world they live in?

Gygax looks like he's going for #1. Clearly Rich Burlew is more interested in #2.

Fine reply, thanks.

[pendell]

To clarify: at your table, anyone commiting any evil acts loses their good alignment or is killing surrendering foes a special case? Or did you mean "kills" as in "usually kills" rather than "kills once"?

As a rule , it takes a pattern of evil acts for me to rule a character as evil, not a single act. Although one act is enough , if it's sufficiently horrific and without mitigating circumstance or necessity. For instance, V would be evil in my book after Familicide. Even a saint who had never committed a single evil or even neutral act would have fallen to true neutral for that, and V's no saint.

Killing a surrendered prisoner is an action that is higher on the evil scale than many, in my book, because 1) It is the willful taking of intelligent life, which cannot be done lightly. "For who takes a life, it is as if they destroyed the world entire, and if one saves a life, it is as if they saved the world entire." 2) It is a betrayal of trust. A combatant surrenders on the understanding that you will take them into custody and not simply murder them outright. Real-world police have an expression: "In my custody, in my care." Murdering those in your care is a betrayal both of your duty and their trust. So it's worse than mere killing, by a lot. At least to me.

So what I look for is:
1. A pattern of evil acts
2. The degree to which an action is exceptionally evil or horrific.
3. The degree of mitigation , or of necessity (killing a prisoner when you're in the middle of a stronghold where stealth is critical is different from torturing one to death in the safety of your own castle. Torturing the BBEG's minion to find out where the Doom Macguffin is when the world has two rounds to continue existing is different from torturing the BBEG's grand niece for pleasure, just because you can).

One act is enough if it scores exceptionally high on 2 but low on 3.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[danielxcutter]

I think this is the One you're talking about

UPDATE: The question Gygax was answering.





The fact that he's got a smiley at the end suggests he's joking, and I'm not quite sure how to take that. *As written*, he seems to be writing Paladins as if they were nobles of the middle ages, concerned for honor, perfectly willing to kill commoners for slights to their honor and justified in doing so. Although in fairness I don't think anyone of any alignment would simply let it pass if you murdered their horse in front of them.

Killing surrendered prisoners was a big no-no in 1974. It was a no-no in 1945. Hell's bells, it was a no-no going back as far as we've had articles governing warfare. Not just from altruism but from rational economics. Noble prisoners can be ransomed while common prisoners, if they aren't willing to change sides, could be put to forced labor. The attitude Gygax of killing evil so they wouldn't back slide sounds like a parody of the Spanish Inquisition, or something from the bad old days of the medieval era.

No one at my table kills surrendered prisoners and, outside of severe mitigating circumstances, keeps an LG alignment. It is an evil act even if it is absolutely necessary (can't guard prisoners, deep in enemy stronghold, can't take them along and don't have any other way to neutralize them). That would have been my attitude in the 1980s as well. The only reason it wouldn't have been in the 70s is because I was too young to run a table at that point.

Thing about Gygax -- the attitude he describes is realistic if you're roleplaying paladins as medieval crusaders. The question is, who are you playing D&D with, and what for? Are you trying to recreate a medieval world with medieval attitudes a la the Society for Creative Anachronism, or are you preparing young adolescents with the attitudes they will need to deal with the real world they live in?

Gygax looks like he's going for #1. Clearly Rich Burlew is more interested in #2.

Although, again, that smiley suggests he may have been ironic or joking. Maybe someone who knows more about the context can shed more light.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

That sounds like it was more the "back then" LG type rather than what we think paragons of morality should be today.

To be fair, I suppose it differs from setting to setting, but I don't think that mindset works in D&D like at all. At least not any more. Maybe it did in Gygax's day, actually.

[Dion]

To be fair, I suppose it differs from setting to setting, but I don't think that mindset works in D&D like at all. At least not any more. Maybe it did in Gygax's day, actually.

Here’s the thing you forget: the alignment rules are absolutely awful. Just Awful.

Everyone argues about them. People have been arguing about them for 45 years.

The ambiguity, contradictions and sheer stupidity of the alignment rules is part of what makes D&D fun for some people.

Because it turns out that some people really like to argue.

It may be true that you don’t like to play with people who argue about alignment, so you don’t play with those people. But theres an immense difference between saying “I choose not to play D&D with people who argue about alignment” and “people don’t argue about alignment anymore”.

[KorvinStarmast]

As a rule , it takes a pattern of evil acts for me to rule a character as evil, not a single act.

That's how I've seen it done for most of the time I have played, and is my rule of thumb as a DM. Exception are stuff along the lines of V's familicide: something so monstrous that it somewhat boggles the mind.

The ambiguity, contradictions and sheer stupidity of the alignment rules is part of what makes D&D fun for some people.

Because it turns out that some people really like to argue.

Which gets to be very tiresome very quickly. (by the way, nice post). I have a personal rule that's been in place (though its roots are from early in the hobby) since the mid 00's, which is to ask bluntly:

"Are we here to play or argue?"

If the answer is argue, I pick up my stuff and leave until people want to play again.
If I am a player, that barely matters (at the moment).
If I am the DM or GM, it occasionally gets people's attention.

The "argue" habit is what drove my son away from D&D when he was in college (early 10's) in the 3.5 era.
He was there to play. As he told me (paraphrased):
"Dad, why can't they play D&D like we did with you as DM?
With you, it was fun, we played. With them, it's all about arguing."

[Petrocorus]

Agreed. The whole concept of good and evil was pretty new in 1974, and was mostly an academic discipline limited to a few French university professors.

Well, as a French, i'm not sure i'd want to dwell into what those French university professors were saying about Good and Evil given how many of them turned out.

[pendell]

That's how I've seen it done for most of the time I have played, and is my rule of thumb as a DM. Exception are stuff along the lines of V's familicide: something so monstrous that it somewhat boggles the mind.
Which gets to be very tiresome very quickly. (by the way, nice post). I have a personal rule that's been in place (though its roots are from early in the hobby) since the mid 00's, which is to ask bluntly:

"Are we here to play or argue?"

If the answer is argue, I pick up my stuff and leave until people want to play again.
If I am a player, that barely matters (at the moment).
If I am the DM or GM, it occasionally gets people's attention.

The "argue" habit is what drove my son away from D&D when he was in college (early 10's) in the 3.5 era.
He was there to play. As he told me (paraphrased):
"Dad, why can't they play D&D like we did with you as DM?
With you, it was fun, we played. With them, it's all about arguing."

Relevant

I'm always up for a good argument --- if by "argument" you mean two very intelligent people disputing each other constructively with logic and reason supported by evidence. Shouting matches and abuse, though, forget it.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[RatElemental]

It’s also pretty in line with gygax views especially later on when he became quite bitter. I won’t go into specifics as it’s been discussed many many times on the forums, but his views tended to ignore the need for Good in LG.

Nethack didn't even have good or evil alignments, there was only Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic.

You could also switch alignments by sacrificing specific unicorn corpses at specifically aligned altars.

[Peelee]

Feel free!

Though if I were honest I’d give it a 50/50 chance of changing to {scrubbed}.

Don't go to Vegas this weekend; the odds were significantly more in favor of me sigging that as well.

[skim172]

It's okay, I'm still not 100% you people aren't some sort of giant TV show.

Ugh, I hate it when these shows decide to have their characters go all meta.

[WanderingMist]

I think this is the One you're talking about

UPDATE: The question Gygax was answering.





The fact that he's got a smiley at the end suggests he's joking, and I'm not quite sure how to take that. *As written*, he seems to be writing Paladins as if they were nobles of the middle ages, concerned for honor, perfectly willing to kill commoners for slights to their honor and justified in doing so. Although in fairness I don't think anyone of any alignment would simply let it pass if you murdered their horse in front of them.

Killing surrendered prisoners was a big no-no in 1974. It was a no-no in 1945. Hell's bells, it was a no-no going back as far as we've had articles governing warfare. Not just from altruism but from rational economics. Noble prisoners can be ransomed while common prisoners, if they aren't willing to change sides, could be put to forced labor. The attitude Gygax of killing evil so they wouldn't back slide sounds like a parody of the Spanish Inquisition, or something from the bad old days of the medieval era.

No one at my table kills surrendered prisoners and, outside of severe mitigating circumstances, keeps an LG alignment. It is an evil act even if it is absolutely necessary (can't guard prisoners, deep in enemy stronghold, can't take them along and don't have any other way to neutralize them). That would have been my attitude in the 1980s as well. The only reason it wouldn't have been in the 70s is because I was too young to run a table at that point.

Thing about Gygax -- the attitude he describes is realistic if you're roleplaying paladins as medieval crusaders. The question is, who are you playing D&D with, and what for? Are you trying to recreate a medieval world with medieval attitudes a la the Society for Creative Anachronism, or are you preparing young adolescents with the attitudes they will need to deal with the real world they live in?

Gygax looks like he's going for #1. Clearly Rich Burlew is more interested in #2.

Although, again, that smiley suggests he may have been ironic or joking. Maybe someone who knows more about the context can shed more light.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

If an act is necessary, then, it cannot be Evil. It may not be Good, but Evil is a willful choice to inflict more harm than is necessary. Killing an enemy that surrendered because you have no other realistic options in the middle of the world-saving mission is not Evil.

As a rule , it takes a pattern of evil acts for me to rule a character as evil, not a single act. Although one act is enough , if it's sufficiently horrific and without mitigating circumstance or necessity. For instance, V would be evil in my book after Familicide. Even a saint who had never committed a single evil or even neutral act would have fallen to true neutral for that, and V's no saint.

Killing a surrendered prisoner is an action that is higher on the evil scale than many, in my book, because 1) It is the willful taking of intelligent life, which cannot be done lightly. "For who takes a life, it is as if they destroyed the world entire, and if one saves a life, it is as if they saved the world entire." 2) It is a betrayal of trust. A combatant surrenders on the understanding that you will take them into custody and not simply murder them outright. Real-world police have an expression: "In my custody, in my care." Murdering those in your care is a betrayal both of your duty and their trust. So it's worse than mere killing, by a lot. At least to me.

So what I look for is:
1. A pattern of evil acts
2. The degree to which an action is exceptionally evil or horrific.
3. The degree of mitigation , or of necessity (killing a prisoner when you're in the middle of a stronghold where stealth is critical is different from torturing one to death in the safety of your own castle. Torturing the BBEG's minion to find out where the Doom Macguffin is when the world has two rounds to continue existing is different from torturing the BBEG's grand niece for pleasure, just because you can).

One act is enough if it scores exceptionally high on 2 but low on 3.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Regarding surrendered enemies: I'd say that depends on two factors: the constraints of the current mission, and whether they've betrayed you after surrendering before.

Regarding Familicide: Would it be because of Familicide's scale of destruction, or because V clearly cast it for revenge and pride and not out of any desire to protect V's family? As high as Familicide's scale of destruction was, it's small potatoes compared to what havoc Wish could wreak if used properly (say, generating a large sphere of antimatter, or changing one little thing in the past and letting the snowball effect do the rest, etc.), and Wish is available to any wizard or sorcerer.

[BruceGee]

It may be true that you don’t like to play with people who argue about alignment, so you don’t play with those people. But theres an immense difference between saying “I choose not to play D&D with people who argue about alignment” and “people don’t argue about alignment anymore”.

The alignment rules struck me as dumb back in the very early days of D&D (the 70s). They were one of the things that caused my group to drop D&D for homebrew and other systems. They seem like a crutch for people who don't know how to role-play -- instead of asking "What would my specific character with my specific background do in this situation?" you could just be lazy and ask "What would a Chaotic Neutral Dwarf Barbarian do?"

And then, as you say, argue about it.

I am very glad that people like Rich are deconstructing the entire concept.

[Petrocorus]

Regarding surrendered enemies: I'd say that depends on two factors: the constraints of the current mission, and whether they've betrayed you after surrendering before.

We could also take into account how redeemable is the enemy.
For instance, how any times Batman has arrested the Joker and how many times the Joker has evaded and started killing again?
Batman has a strong no-kill policy, but how many innocent peoples would still be alive if he had killed the Joker after the second or third time?
How many people in Gotham would wish he had done it.

I remember the subject was brought up in some comics. In Kingdom Come, the guy who kills the Joker is praised by the population (which disgust Superman into retiring).

In the context of D&D, if a BBEG surrender before the end but the PC have many reasons (including divination magic) to believe or even know he will kill again at the first opportunity, is the LG Paladin justified into killing him? Would that be OK for a NG or CG character?


Another thing to take into account, is that the BBEG's actions are probably against the law, and some of them are certainly punishable by death. Is it a Good action to simply apply the death penalty for crimes that warrant it according to the law of the place? Has the Paladin not have to do it if he has legal authority ?

[TRH]

Another thing to take into account, is that the BBEG's actions are probably against the law, and some of them are certainly punishable by death. Is it a Good action to simply apply the death penalty for crimes that warrant it according to the law of the place? Has the Paladin not have to do it if he has legal authority ?

Very few jurisdictions allow private individuals to execute people, for just cause or not. That power is usually vested in the state, and I suspect most paladins aren't agents of their state in any capacity.