Post/Author/DateTime	Post
john_carlos 09-28-04, 10:00 AM	I wanted to get everyones take one this. If you had a good church, and it believed in using the occasional discrete method of eliminating an enemy of the church, would a player character (senior clergy) member of the church be violating his ethos (LG) if he attempted to contract of a "hit" on someone who wasn't necessarily evil (CN) because he believed it to be in the best interest of the church? What if the one doing the contracting was a paladin? :mymy: And what if the hit was placed on a fellow party member? Would the DM be justified in stripping the member of his paladinhood?
Thorak 09-28-04, 10:21 AM	I wanted to get everyones take one this. If you had a good church, and it believed in using the occasional discrete method of eliminating an enemy of the church, would a player character (senior clergy) member of the church be violating his ethos (LG) if he attempted to contract of a "hit" on someone who wasn't necessarily evil (CN) because he believed it to be in the best interest of the church? Yes, yes, and again, yes. Killing someone because it benefits your cause is an evil act. The only way killing and Good coincide is if doing so protects other people. By which I mean physically saving their life. Not "That guy is preaching about another god!" What if the one doing the contracting was a paladin? :mymy: He loses all Paladin abilities. Even if the hit fails. Both because it's not Good, and it's most certainly not honourable. And, unless assassination is legal (a possibility I ignored above because it might be), because it's in no way lawful. And yes, I know "lawful" isn't always "following the law". But if it's the paladin's church, then the church laws are his personal ethos. And if he disagrees, he wouldn't be calling for a "hit". [/quote]And what if the hit was placed on a fellow party member?[/quote] Not only a fallen paladin, but one I would force to go through heck to atone. Not to mention thwapping the paladin's player upside the head for being a difficult unfriendly tool. Would the DM be justified in stripping the member of his paladinhood? More than justified. The action certainly wasn't Good, definitely wasn't honourable, and almost certainly (but possibly wasn't) entirely contrary to his lawful nature.
CzarGarrett 09-28-04, 12:20 PM	Ditto to Thorak.
Fendoan 09-28-04, 01:04 PM	it believed in using the occasional discrete method of eliminating an enemy of the church The DM controls the ideals of the church. If this is how the DM set it up, then the church, and presumably the deity approve of certain things. Discrete could in fact mean assassinations, or they might just include kidnappings, intimidation, etc. As such, a PC, even a Paladin would be fully in line with the church and ethos to hire people out to perform an acceptable act for the church, unless the church requires it be performed by members to ensure no bounds are overstepped. The church and religion can still be LG, even if it has the quirk that it does a few things outside of the law for greater good. someone who wasn't necessarily evil (CN) because he believed it to be in the best interest of the church This is probably taking it a step too far. If I were DM: The church will eliminate enemies through less than lawful means. I.e. the Demon-summoning warlock who has avoided capture by the guards may be visited in the night by the church's assassin. But they wouldn't kill off the old lady who won't sell her land, but her family would, so they can build a new temple which would greatly benefit the people of the city and the church. That would just be an evil and selfish act by the church. As a player, the Paladin should have made sure to speak with the DM about this, role-played as prayers to his deity, or council meetings with other high ranking clergy. The church probably doesn't let any single person make such a serious decision without consulting someone.
Lord_BloodMoon 09-28-04, 01:08 PM	Depends on the deity...and the morals and such of said church guy. Several examples from real history can be seen where a ranking official of Roman Catholic Church committed an act that certainly wouldn't be "good christian" and got away with it. However...the way that they usually got rid of opposing chruch people and such was through inquisitions. Of course, I think inquisitors are evil...but that's just my take on it. But there are loopholes that would allow for a LG guy to be rid of a guy he didn't like...that are still defined as proper within the church. Whether or not LG is another question (launching an inquisition for sole purpose of killing people, definitely not LG...launching an inquisition to find the clergyman summoning demons...probably LG)
Thorak 09-28-04, 01:24 PM	The DM controls the ideals of the church. If this is how the DM set it up, then the church, and presumably the deity approve of certain things. Discrete could in fact mean assassinations, or they might just include kidnappings, intimidation, etc. As such, a PC, even a Paladin would be fully in line with the church and ethos to hire people out to perform an acceptable act for the church, unless the church requires it be performed by members to ensure no bounds are overstepped. The church and religion can still be LG, even if it has the quirk that it does a few things outside of the law for greater good. A church and faith can, maybe be LG, depending on how they're conducting these assassinations (they'd have to be doing so according to a strict procedure and only against those who they cannot stop any other way who are acknowledged as a danger not just to the church, but greater society as well.) A Paladin, however, is held to higher standards than even the high priest of his faith. And they're different standards than those of his faith. It might be perfectly Lawful for him to go along with the assassination. Maybe. But it almost certainly wouldn't be Good, even for the other clerics, but they can get away with it because they're not required to act Good at all times with no exceptions. They can do evil things for greater purposes. A Paladin can't. Not without losing his powers. And even if you decided it was both Lawful and Good that he do so, it wouldn't be honourable, and thus is still a breach of the Paladin's Code of Conduct. Paladins walk a very fine line. Most people, so long as they're mostly on the "right" side of it, are LG (or whatever). A Paladin, however, cannot step one inch over the line, ever. Not and remain a Paladin, at least without Atoning.
Kingside_Bishop 09-28-04, 03:42 PM	That's definitely along the lines of a true lawful action, so it would violate the ethos of a good religion (even if it doesn't violate the dogma of the church, which brings up all kinds of interesting possibilities). Thorak brings up a good point: atonement. Since it's not an evil act, he could atone. That sort of thing is great for roleplaying, especially with a paladin. I'd allow it, but have the character in question need to atone after contracting the hit. But since the church does this sort thing occasionally anyway, make it easy for the character to find someone to help them atone.
thinkhard 09-28-04, 03:56 PM	I'd say it is evil. But as mentioned, thats why churches have inquisitors. So someone else can do the evil! The Eberron Campaign setting book gave a good example of a possible Inquisitor for the Silver Flame being lawful evel, but worshiping a good deity because he thought his extreme tactics helped the church in the long run. Inherently (i think) the act of killing another person solely to advance a cause or even protect an institution from defamation is evil. Now say, if the guy destroyed a temple, or killed a priest or priestess, the act of calling a hit on him (while underhanded) is a more neutral act of revenge/vigilante justice (unless said church is an administer for justice in its area). I wouldn't say it would violate a Paladin code of conduct in that sense. But personally, I think a Paladin might rather do the killing himself, unless he's not capable of doing it. But hey, I can't tell you how to play your character. Oh, and btw, In my campaigns I have effectively a zero tolerance policy for PVP. I just dont like it when the party explodes like a keg of gunpowder, and that usually starts with one PC killing another PC.
HamHam 09-28-04, 04:14 PM	1) You know what this made me think of? Those psycotic catholic hit squads from Hellsing. Or even Hellsing itself. 2) I hate DnD alignment. I'll just reiterate that in case anyone doesn't know by now. 3) A Paladin (or church) that performed such actions would still call itself good. Would it be good? I don't really care, since imho, which is of course always right, alignment is 100% subjective. 4) Regardless of what the Paladin's alignment would or would not be, he will still keep his powers. It's really quite simple: the clergy, especially the higher end one, probably communicates with the church's god, since gods are usually far more available in DnD than RL. Therefore, the only way they would condone such tactics would be with the approval of their god. If the god approves of this, there is no reason he/she would take away a Paladin's powers for carrying out them out. Therefore, the only situation under which a Paladin should lose his powers would be one were the upper clergy was ordering these things in defiance of the god's wishes, in which case none of them should still have their powers either.
thinkhard 09-28-04, 04:25 PM	I dunno about that....many church members who even have some sort of special powers don't even get them from a divine source. A church isn't entirely made of clerics and paladins. And also, many churches are corrupt and abuse their position or take on practices not favored by their god. A CoC exists only for those who can be stripped of powers by their god, and a paladin following his CoC is not in constant communication with his god, nor his church. I think the class is called Divine Emissery or something, its a class out of manual of the planes. Anyway, this class can directly communicate with its god, which is considered a rare ability. So most decisions are made by interpreting a set up dogma or attempts at divination. And neither of those options are full-proof. Like i said before, a good church can still have evil members anyway. There isnt an evil detector at the door that destroys them as the walk in...which is an interesting idea...mwuahahah.
DragonsArt 09-28-04, 05:12 PM	Depends on the deity...and the morals and such of said church guy. Several examples from real history can be seen where a ranking official of Roman Catholic Church committed an act that certainly wouldn't be "good christian" and got away with it. Got away with it... hmmm... interesting choice of words. When faith is involved, rewards (and punishments) usually aren't fully dealt out until the game is over and you're dead.
Elijah Snowcone 09-29-04, 01:36 AM	Gee, I hope nobody assinates me. ;) Even if an assassination furthers the church's goals, the paladin's still in trouble with the god. LG gods simply don't go in for murdering their enemies, that's why their lawful good. If a paladin hires an assassin, he is in effect saying that he doubts his own skills and lacks faith in the power of the church to set things right. (Of course that doesn't bar crusades, killed-during-course-of-arrests, wars, honorable duels, etc.) Or did I just assinate myself?
Watchman 09-29-04, 04:01 AM	On the other hand it seems to be in D&D worlds a fine and respected tradition for about anyone to hire a bunch of ragtag adventurers to clean up their messes, which more often than not involves killing people. Who exactly is being killed varies greatly, but the basic rule of thumb seems to be that even LG people and organizations can "subcontract" tricky issues to freelancers without any further ado. Having a corps of church assasins for the job doesn't really differ much from having a bunch of adventurers do the job, you just don't have to pay them the same way and they're probably more reliable. Mind you, the assasin corps probably specifically isn't good though it may well be very dedicated, and in LG organizations will likely be deeply distrusted and feared by the common priests. Assuming they now even know about those happy dagger-wavers, of course. Nobody said D&D fantasy organizations couldn't be run like modern governements and their "need-to-know only" intelligence agencies...
amethal 09-29-04, 05:10 AM	The only decent argument in favour of retaining alignments in D&D is that it gives rise to discussions like these. Well done on such a string of intelligent posts. Some LG churches are more good than others. It may be ok for some LG churches to hire assassins (rather than just adventurers!) - its up to the DM. I wouldn't allow paladins to act as assassins under any circumstances. Paladins have to be "gooder than good". I would also think that most churches would "protect" their paladins by keeping the very existence of these assassins a secret. A fallen paladin is much less useful to the church, and may even be a threat.
DragonsArt 09-29-04, 07:55 AM	I've given this more thought... things to consider: 1) Do lawful good churches condone killing? Yes. They will even support "crusades" against evil things. In the Realms, there are quite a few instances where good churches have "enemies" that they are constantly at odds with. Not to mention, a good temple hiring a party of adventurers to clear out a local orc tribe that has been raiding won't even see most of us batting an eye. So, we've established that lawful good temples DO hire people to kill. 2) How do you define assassination? If the lawful good church hires a group of adventurers to take out the local orc warlord because he is organizing raids on the people of the area, would we bat an eye or wonder if that's good? Isn't that assassination? Sure, it's more brute force assassination... the adventurers battle their way through orc hordes to finally get to the warlord and kill him. 3) Would a paladin assassinate someone? Let's use the orc warlord example above. Would the paladin "assassinate" him? Sure. He's evil. He's causing suffering. What self-respecting paladin WOULDN'T?! So what are we really arguing about? I think the stereotypical cloak and dagger assassin slipping from the shadows to plunge a dagger into the back of his victim is what's throwing us. I can't picture a paladin doing that... especially not with a poisoned blade. But would a paladin specializing in ranged weapons be a sniper and take out an evil target from 300 (or more) feet with an arrow of slaying? I don't see why not. Would he be an "assassin"? Depends on which side of the arrow you're on. From his standpoint... no. He's doing a surgical strike to take out the enemy leadership and save lives - typical combat tactics. No real difference between using a bow and using a 2-handed sword, except you don't have to wipe of the bow afterwards. On the other hand, the orcs would see it as an assassination. Is it all then subjective? I don't know. Would a paladin do it? I would think so. Would he violate his paladinhood? It really depends on his code. Is taking out someone from 300ft honorable? Good question.
Thorak 09-29-04, 10:34 AM	I've given this more thought... things to consider: 1) Do lawful good churches condone killing? Yes. They will even support "crusades" against evil things. In the Realms, there are quite a few instances where good churches have "enemies" that they are constantly at odds with. Not to mention, a good temple hiring a party of adventurers to clear out a local orc tribe that has been raiding won't even see most of us batting an eye. So, we've established that lawful good temples DO hire people to kill. Kill, yes. Assassinate in cold blood? Probably not. It would be a very LG way to deal with a problem by sending out a paladin to challenge and then smite it into oblivion, though. 2) How do you define assassination? If the lawful good church hires a group of adventurers to take out the local orc warlord because he is organizing raids on the people of the area, would we bat an eye or wonder if that's good? Isn't that assassination? Sure, it's more brute force assassination... the adventurers battle their way through orc hordes to finally get to the warlord and kill him. It's not assassination. It's a military strike. 3) Would a paladin assassinate someone? Let's use the orc warlord example above. Would the paladin "assassinate" him? Sure. He's evil. He's causing suffering. What self-respecting paladin WOULDN'T?! So what are we really arguing about? The paladin would kill him. He wouldn't assassinate him. They're not the same thing. I think the stereotypical cloak and dagger assassin slipping from the shadows to plunge a dagger into the back of his victim is what's throwing us. I can't picture a paladin doing that... especially not with a poisoned blade. But would a paladin specializing in ranged weapons be a sniper and take out an evil target from 300 (or more) feet with an arrow of slaying? I don't see why not. Would he be an "assassin"? Depends on which side of the arrow you're on. From his standpoint... no. He's doing a surgical strike to take out the enemy leadership and save lives - typical combat tactics. No real difference between using a bow and using a 2-handed sword, except you don't have to wipe of the bow afterwards. On the other hand, the orcs would see it as an assassination. Is it all then subjective? I don't know. Would a paladin do it? I would think so. Would he violate his paladinhood? It really depends on his code. Is taking out someone from 300ft honorable? Good question. Taking someone out from 300 feet with an arrow of slaying when they don't know you're there isn't honourable, in any way. If they were charging your position, sure. But if they're unaware, you're acting dishonourably. Besides, let's look at a couple dictionary.com definitions for "assassinate", shall we? "To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons" "To kill by surprise or secret assault; to murder by treacherous violence." It's not the same as killing. It's an illegal killing (murder, as opposed to self-defense or wartime killing) by [/i]surprise[/i] attack. Both breach the Paladin's code, and the former certainly would give a LG church moral qualms about doing so.
Shard Blackwing 09-29-04, 11:16 AM	If a "LG" church needs to remove someone they should 1) hire an expert (read: Assassin) very discretly OR 2) train an expert (read: Assassin, with weak devine powers...interesting Roleplay oppertunitys there) very, very discretly they shouldn't have their Palidins do that type of thing, not even for a good cause As far a PvP goes...depends on your campaign, but I'd just not put players in that position, heck I might even have the NPC clercy charge the Palidin with the job of attempting to "convert that damb heathen he travels with"...and I agree with the comment of wackint the player responsible for his char assassinating another player's char, preferibly with the largest avalible stick...
GRAOUH !!! 09-29-04, 12:17 PM	You are comparing history of real churches and heroic fantasy churches ! In no way a "real world" church is "lawful good". Some men in these churches are good some are evil. When an evil man have the power in a church, the things go wrong (inquisitions, personals rights disapear…). It's the same as for a country, a democraty, often based on a "lawful good" vision, doesn't mean that all presidents od this democraty will be "lawful good" ! In heroic fantasy the gods choose to have a direct influence, they act on people before, during and after death. If a lawful good god, as determined in the rules (respect ALL lives and believe that rules are the best solution to ALL situations), have a church and chooses the people that will obey, help (bla, bla) him and what he represents, he wont choose people that are ready to kill people just because this time it's more difficult to respect ethic and moral. A lawful GOOD, neutral GOOD or chaotic GOOD church will never hire an assassin, because it's against its faith and again the words of its god, and because this god will react and punish this act quick (not after death or else). War against orcs. The good church's goal is to negociate the peace, but the problem in this case is that the orcs aren't willing to negociate, if there's a war with orcs, it's because they think they can win. The good people are not stupid, once you know the orcs, you don't lose your time to negociate unless there's something new about their society. So good people are used to kill orcs on sight if they can, same for drows, Illithids and so on. A paladin who decides to hire an assassin will lose all powers and will never be a paladin again before even contacting the assassin. And please remember that there are no "LG church" in real world. Some people in them were sometimes evil, sometimes good but taking wrong decisions. And the respect about laws of real churches depends on the country situation. During wars some people of these churches are great heroes, and some deserve the hell described in their holy book. During peace, some of them gather people around them with the hope, the patience and the goodness, and some gather people around them with the hate, the revenge and intolerance. In heroic fantasy worlds there are "LG churches" and you can't find them in "evil" places where laws are against the "good".
HamHam 09-29-04, 08:54 PM	Am I only one who finds the whole "DnD is black and white because it's fantasy" rather naive and even... uncreative? That's not fantasy, that's a fairy tale. Fantasy should be as realistic as RL, except for the actual fantasy elements, ie magic and such. Here's a senario: Paladin sneaks into enemy compound, breaks into throne room or whatever, challenges his target, smites him into oblivion, and then escapes before reinforcements arrive. Is that an assasination?
Neoatomic 09-29-04, 09:04 PM	Well typically I would say that cities dont have a whole crap load of churches and in the Dark Ages the Church controlled much of the social action of the people. While an assassination of a person violates the ideals of the church, if they wanted to get rid of some one they would excommunicate them and thus commiting Social Assassination and gets rid of the person with out killing, because the other people of the church would make them outcasts. If the Excommunication failed they would label the person a Heretic and kill them. As long as the victim is a heretic the killing is fine by the Ethos of the Church. That is if the Church is relatively major in the city, which a small town would be and possibly a large town with a racial God.
Thorak 09-30-04, 12:46 AM	Am I only one who finds the whole "DnD is black and white because it's fantasy" rather naive and even... uncreative? That's not fantasy, that's a fairy tale. Fantasy should be as realistic as RL, except for the actual fantasy elements, ie magic and such. Yes. But 'realistic' churches and governments are, almost without exception, Neutral. Hence the truly evil and truly nasty religions of D&D seem fantastical to us, because we haven't seen anything like that. Here's a senario: Paladin sneaks into enemy compound, breaks into throne room or whatever, challenges his target, smites him into oblivion, and then escapes before reinforcements arrive. Is that an assasination? He challenged the target, ergo it wasn't an assassination, since that connotates a surprise attack. It very well might be murder, however. Depends on the target and why the paladin decided to kill him. Not to mention, sneaking in is dishonourable. Which is a breach of the Paladin's CoC. The honourable thing to do would be stand outside the gate and challenge him to a duel, with a nice big public crowd around to A> keep him from siccing his lackeys on you and B> ensuring that if he doesn't show, everyone will learn he's a coward. Or wading through lackeys until he gets to his target. That works too.
xmcknight 09-30-04, 04:33 AM	I wanted to get everyones take one this. If you had a good church, and it believed in using the occasional discrete method of eliminating an enemy of the church, would a player character (senior clergy) member of the church be violating his ethos (LG) if he attempted to contract of a "hit" on someone who wasn't necessarily evil (CN) because he believed it to be in the best interest of the church? What if the one doing the contracting was a paladin? And what if the hit was placed on a fellow party member? Would the DM be justified in stripping the member of his paladinhood? Ok, first I have questions 1. Why did the original paladin in question feel that a fellow player needed to be "removed?" What did that fellow player do? 2. What is the deities view on assination? 3. Was the church and religion in real danger from the other player, or was it preceived? Now, the rest is my own opinion. Please still answer the above questions. I would like to know those answers. A cleric or paladin has started to think thoughts or do things that do not co-inside with their deity. The DM should start dropping hints. One hint I use is that the character gets splitting head-aches when ever he prays. If praying for spells that day, then CON save DC 20 or character gets no spells that day. Also, I start removing abilities or abilities also cause head-aches. If the player does not get the hint and atone for the right things, then eventually all abilities will fail or cause bodily harm when ever they are used. I one time had a very stubburn player, who was a paladin. He wanted to raid an orc village and kill all the orcs. (This particular orc village was made up of crippled and maimed orcs that could barely survive.) Even after all of his powers had been stripped, him receiving neg. wisdom every time he prayed, and every one else noticing and commenting that all his symbols were broken; he continually tried to get the others to help him distroy the orcs. I ended up sending a much higher level paladin to kill the "deserter and blasphimer." I then refused that character to play a paladin again.
DragonsArt 09-30-04, 04:39 AM	Yes. But 'realistic' churches and governments are, almost without exception, Neutral. Hence the truly evil and truly nasty religions of D&D seem fantastical to us, because we haven't seen anything like that. He challenged the target, ergo it wasn't an assassination, since that connotates a surprise attack. It very well might be murder, however. Depends on the target and why the paladin decided to kill him. Not to mention, sneaking in is dishonourable. Which is a breach of the Paladin's CoC. The honourable thing to do would be stand outside the gate and challenge him to a duel, with a nice big public crowd around to A> keep him from siccing his lackeys on you and B> ensuring that if he doesn't show, everyone will learn he's a coward. Or wading through lackeys until he gets to his target. That works too. Is actually SNEAKING into a monster's lair against the code?! Where does it state that? I can't even see sneak attacking as against the code since it's esstentially targetting vital areas. Hitting your opponent unawares might be considered dishonorable. But sneaking into the leaders tent to challenge him... I think that would be allowed.
Thorak 09-30-04, 07:19 AM	Is actually SNEAKING into a monster's lair against the code?! Where does it state that? I can't even see sneak attacking as against the code since it's esstentially targetting vital areas. Hitting your opponent unawares might be considered dishonorable. But sneaking into the leaders tent to challenge him... I think that would be allowed. If you Feint, and then get a Sneak Attack, that'd be perfectly fine. As would flanking. Those are tactical situations. Shooting the guy when he's unaware you're there, however, would not. So it depends on how you're SAing. As for sneaking, I may have been too harsh. IMHO, a paladin could avoid being seen by the guards. And moving quietly so as to not attract attention. But actually hiding behind something? That's fairly cowardly, IMHO, which is dishonourable. I have a mental image of a paladin pausing at a hallway intersection, and watching a guard walk past, then quietly moving behind him down the passage he needs. But if he hears the guard coming and cowers behind a statue, that I don't think he should be able to do.
AngryMonkey 09-30-04, 07:19 AM	Im suprised nobody has mentioned the Slayer of Domiel from the BoED yet. The Slayer of Domiel is not only a LG assassin, but a LG exhaulted assassin. They even get divine spells and divine grace, as well as Detect Evil just the same as the Paladin does. It seems to me that this is pretty good support for LG churches to be allowed to train their own assassins. The D&D alignment system is the culprit in this discussion IMHO. It can be interprited openly enough to encompass nearly all philosophies if you want to, but many DMs interprit it in such a strict and rigid way that there are only 9 personality types in all their games. The fact that the L,E,C and G components have such very mechanical consequences in D&D annoys me as well. Choosing alignments often feels as much like choosing a set of vulnerabilities (like the Blasphamy spell, *shudder*) and advantages as it does choosing a representation of philosophical beliefs.
xmcknight 09-30-04, 07:33 AM	If you Feint, and then get a Sneak Attack, that'd be perfectly fine. As would flanking. Those are tactical situations. Shooting the guy when he's unaware you're there, however, would not. So it depends on how you're SAing. As for sneaking, I may have been too harsh. IMHO, a paladin could avoid being seen by the guards. And moving quietly so as to not attract attention. But actually hiding behind something? That's fairly cowardly, IMHO, which is dishonourable. I have a mental image of a paladin pausing at a hallway intersection, and watching a guard walk past, then quietly moving behind him down the passage he needs. But if he hears the guard coming and cowers behind a statue, that I don't think he should be able to do. There is nothing cowardly about hiding. That is only being careful. A paladin is not stupid. In the instanse you two have set up, the paladin probablly feels that if he is noticed, then his chances of getting to (whoever) are slim to none. When choosing stealth over bravado, he would probably choose stealth. And use stealth to its full extent.
thinkhard 09-30-04, 12:00 PM	I totally agree that a LG church could contract an assassination.... BUT... A paladin doing this (as in the example given at the beginning of the forum) would most likely be a breach of his CoC.
GRAOUH !!! 09-30-04, 01:05 PM	Your problem is that you don't want acting gods in your campaigns. Don't let them be able to be present on the primary plane and you've got a "real church" that can do everything. If the gods can say no and are able to kill the traitors, you can't have a lawful good high cleric paying assassins. Even for governments, kingdoms or "real churches", their assassins (give them the name you want, all armies have a lot of them) are never good guys. They are "lawful", take their responsabilities, but they are evil. Because they are ok to kill on command. In a war, it's different, soldiers fight for their lives most of the time and for a cause, right or wrong. Most of nazis weren't evil people, they were just following the crowd, afraid to be isolated from their society. But it's also true that wars are occasions to see a lot of people on every sides becoming evil beast in no time. Most things in D&D ARE black or white, because the gods are very important and influent in these settings. Remember Dark Sun, it was very different because there wasn't any god interventions. The only gods in Dark Sun were mortals with limited perceptions. Lawful good or chaotic gods are what they are. If they can act on the primary plane they won't accept everything from their followers. If you don't like that, don't put any strong aligned gods. Keep them true neutral or don't let them be able to act on the primary plane, even for spells.