Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tasslehoff220 01-07-04, 11:08 PM	At my last session the group came upon a group of 9 creatures very similar to grimlocks in an undergroud cavern. The paladin's first instinct was to ask me are they evil. No problem there. 3 of the group were. So he told the group's arcane trickster(cn) "Quick, kill them". Meanwhile the groups sorcerer began to talk to them. They described that they were trying to get back to their home in the caverns below and described another (who the pc's were following the long lost track's of, Arack for any who have played or DM'ed The Illithiad trillogy) who had passed by long before. They also mentioned a holy place but when the sorceror enqired about where it was they responded by "why should be tell you where our holy place is?" Immediately the arcane trickster fireballed them. Alignmentwise I had no problem with this but it really annoyed me because he for almost no reason killed any chance of further roleplaying for the session. Other than that I was appauled by the fact that the Paladin had said, kill the group as three of the nine were evil. I dont really know what to do with this. I don't want to strip the paladin of his powers because that would be mean to the player but this seems to go completely against what anyone with a good alignment let alone a paladin should do. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Also any specifics on what constitues the different alignments would be nice too as the group has had some discussion in the past about what constitues different alignments.
Bacon and Eggs 01-07-04, 11:47 PM	Were they activly being evil? Could be that they were carrying around cursed equipment that made them detect as evil. Could be that they were innocents posessed. Doing something based on alignment alone is a big no no for me. There has to be some other motivation. As far as the instant fireball, another big no no. I would cure this by making that character a disturbed NPC with no self control. Sure it makes for a great BBeG, or an interesting character, but not in games that I play in. If there were more of a motivation there besides, "they didn't tell me what I wanted to hear" then I would be more then happy to accept it. And no "cause I'm Chaotic Neutral", just doesn't cut it either.
Mitchell 01-08-04, 02:33 AM	Who knows about the arcane trickster. Don't know his alignment. The paladin was definitely to unconcerned with collateral damage, but wishing to kill the three was potentially within his right, and probably so. The fact that he was willing to sacrifice 6 non-evil beings is the problem. He should have asked why the 6 were travelling with the three evil beings, and even to tell the 6 to stand down, because he had a calling to kill the 3, and if they interfered, then he is within his rights to defend himself. Bottom line, they should have talked more, and the paladin should probably need an atonement. You may deny him his powers for a day or two, as long as they are actively adventuring during this period, and tell him why (in the form of a vision or visit of his diety, or more likely a servant of said diety). This let's him know what is expected of him, and in the future he may be more careful. Alignments, in general, are what they are. How much do you value order? Obeying the laws, organizing plans, setting up a party leader, how to divide treasure? The more characters behave in this fasion, the more lawful they are, the less they care about these things, the more chaotic. There are many more examples of this, but these are usually good starting points. Good and evil are easier. Without getting into the whole exalted thing, does your character value freedom, respect life, and is willing to sacrifice himself to help others? These are traits that define good. If it means certain suicide to do these things, it doesn't make them evil or even neutral to not dive right in, but they should do what they can to help the people in need. Toppling a government that condones slavery may not be the wisest of moves, but buying and freeing the slaves, to the best of their ability would not be unexpected, or even just making sure that they are fed and well treated. For the lawful good character it creates the problem that legitimate authority (law) is promoting slavery (evil). You can ask this question a hundred times, and get nearly as many answers. Alot of people have different takes on the whole thing, so just go with what "feels" right. There are a lot of threads dealing with alignment issues floating around.
20102000 01-08-04, 06:54 AM	I'd temporarly strip the paladins powers as punishment. 6 of the group wern't evil, so he was out of line wanting them dead, without further cause.
Ardan The Avenger 01-08-04, 08:29 AM	Yea, wanting to kill all nine because three were evil is bad juju; temporary power-strip and a show of contrition on his part to wipe away the stain on the Paladin's alignment for Chaotic and wicked desires would not be out of line at all.
Tzor 01-08-04, 09:00 AM	We need to look at this from a different perspective. I often find that often not everyone is aware of the same important details. 1) The group came upon a group of 9 creatures. This starts the encounter. 2) The paladin wanted to detect evil. As far as I know, the paladin's ability is as the spell. That means that it takes 3 rounds to determine that there are 3 evil ones. One to detect evil in the first place, another to detect the general strength, and the third to detect evil auras. That is 2 to 3 rounds (depending if the people being detected were surprised or not and the detect evil began on the surprise round) for the the potential evil do so something. From the description it is hard to tell if this rule was followed, but from the notion that the sorcerer started talking to them, it is clear that they didn't attack on sight. 3) Sorcerer talks to them 4) Paladin tells AT to "kill them" and AT fireballs them. Now this is fascinating, either one of two things just happened, and neither is good. Either the sorcerer was talking to them from a distance, in which case he would have to talk loudly, loudly enough to be heard by the entire party, or he is close enough that the AT would definitely notice him and might get in the range of the fireball, if circumstances were not optimal. I think there is a good probability that there were misunderstandings around the table about the current situation and what was known and what was not known, so the following should be seen in that light. Never penalize the player's character for misunderstandings of the current situation, because communication requires a speaker and a listener. If after the third round of detect evil, the evil has not attacked, it would be wrong to simply "attack them," especially if only some of them were evil. The proper thing, for a paladin, would be to challenge the ones he sees that are evil. This is exceptionally true when there is current active dialogue, "What do you mean we have to talk to them? The last creature we talked to ate half the party!" (1st ed AD&D DMG) I think this is a clear case of misunderstanding here, so I can't see how "punishment" is appropriate. Instead a good discussion of the basic question of should a paladin initate an attack against evil beings within a group of non evil beings who have not outright attacked after the time it took to determine who was evil, as opposed to issuing some sort of challenge to the evil ones. Detect evil is not without its flaws. (It cannot, for example, distinguish whether it is an evil person or a non-evil person wearing evil armor.) It is, like sense motive, an important tool to determine the current situation, but cannot be used as an excuse to attack on sight. Attacking the entire group, because they don't look human and are associated with a few who are evil is definitely wrong, especially if they are into dialogue and not combat. Once this is discussed and understood the paladin may himself suggest a penalty. Guilt, and not punishment, is a better teacher for future behavior.
Bacon and Eggs 01-08-04, 09:51 AM	It's called profiling. But profiling is a bad thing isn't it?
mephestron 01-08-04, 12:18 PM	Profiling deals with sterotypes and using it in lieu of observation, however detect spells in dnd are far different. Detecting evil allows you to see the moral bent of someone. While yes this should only be a tool it is far different then just assuming all orcs are moral cespools and deserve death. How this differs is that in RL cops cant tell if the person in the car is a 'bad apple' they have to go with experience and what they see, however a paladin would be able to imediately to see if this person is a possble danger (evil inclined) or not. It makes a world of difference but yeah i agree that the Pally shouldnt of shot from the hip and declared violence without some further proof. However he is more justified than a RL cop assaulting a minority for nor particular reason.
tasslehoff220 01-08-04, 12:23 PM	Everyone who posted so far, thanks for the advice. I talked to the player and since the characters are in a position where they have no chance of getting an attonement spell cast I dont think I will require one. Also the paladin has not made a habit of these transgressions. I think I will however temporarily take away his power to detect evil as that was the power he used for the transgression.
mephestron 01-08-04, 12:25 PM	that seems like an excellent suggestion, it will allow him to further work on determining intent without the 'crutch' of detect evil.
Rorroh Fiendhugger 01-08-04, 02:07 PM	I have to agree with mephestron here. I'm amazed at how many don't seem to care about the fact that the paladin destroyed (or had them destroyed, in this case) creatures without question JUST because they were evil. A person who rounds cute fury kittens and slaughters them all in a giant massacre for fun is probably evil, but that doesn't make him worthy of death. Or if an evil person commited a crime, and he got punished for it (thrown in jail for instance), and then meets the paladin after he has finished his punishment, he would still radiate evil. People's alignments CAN change, just because they are evil at one point doesn't mean they'll never change. I'm sure Drizzt was born evil because of his society, but he changed into good. My bottom line is, unless the paladin actually caught the creatures committing a crime, or had proof of them commiting a crime, he should definately be punished for such behaviour, doubly so for killing innocents in the process, and maybe even trippling because he was fully aware that they would die, and even if the evil ones deserved to die, there was no reason a non-AoE spell couldn't have killed them just the same, without killing the innocents.
fables 01-12-04, 10:00 PM	Heres my 2 cents. It is okay for good characters do destroy evil. If you "know" they are evel. By deed, some detection spell or by thier destcription from MM (like a Devils alignment : Always Lawful Evil). I mean this is an action/rpg. DM's have to give characters monsters to kill/defeat. But good characters must show some concern for the innocent bystandards. Also, DM's should warn/question good characters of evil deeds they are considering. When the Paladin said "quick kill them" The DM should interrupt and say to the Paladin something like "are you sure you want to say that". Also. Mitchell mentions something about slavery being Evil. It doesn't have to be. If you treat your property with respect and care, why should you be considered evil? I say you could have a good slaver/owner.
Rorroh Fiendhugger 01-13-04, 10:45 AM	Imo the DM shouldn't have to tell the player he's doing/considering doing an evil thing. If a person decides to play a paladin, he should at least know what being a paladin is about, and be willing to roleplay at least the most basics of his class. Also. Mitchell mentions something about slavery being Evil. It doesn't have to be. If you treat your property with respect and care, why should you be considered evil? I say you could have a good slaver/owner. How can slavery not be an evil thing? I think you're thinking about someone who works as a maid/buttler of some sorts. Slavery means a person is taken out of his home(whether this is an actual home or the streets, or wherever he used to live), sold to someone, and then considered that person's property. Unless by some miracle, the slave is an SM freak who loves being someone's slave, he's there against his will, and is probably being beaten, or at the very least locked up/manacled so he wouldn't escape. How this can be considered not-evil is beyond me. And if for some reason, the person isn't manacled/locked up, treated good, and he decides to stay and work for his "owner" out of free will (and because he gets food and shelter in return of his services), he is there out of free will, thus not property, nor a slave.
Addi83 01-13-04, 05:56 PM	Originally posted by tasslehoff220 At my last session the group came upon a group of 9 creatures very similar to grimlocks in an undergroud cavern. The paladin's first instinct was to ask me are they evil. No problem there. 3 of the group were. So he told the group's arcane trickster(cn) "Quick, kill them". Meanwhile the groups sorcerer began to talk to them. They described that they were trying to get back to their home in the caverns below and described another (who the pc's were following the long lost track's of, Arack for any who have played or DM'ed The Illithiad trillogy) who had passed by long before. They also mentioned a holy place but when the sorceror enqired about where it was they responded by "why should be tell you where our holy place is?" Immediately the arcane trickster fireballed them. Alignmentwise I had no problem with this but it really annoyed me because he for almost no reason killed any chance of further roleplaying for the session. Other than that I was appauled by the fact that the Paladin had said, kill the group as three of the nine were evil. I dont really know what to do with this. I don't want to strip the paladin of his powers because that would be mean to the player but this seems to go completely against what anyone with a good alignment let alone a paladin should do. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Also any specifics on what constitues the different alignments would be nice too as the group has had some discussion in the past about what constitues different alignments. I understand that you're trying to be nice, but also, this is clearly an evil act, and the paladin should have to atone. You could be extra nice and just give him a stern warning, but really he should be striiped of his power and classified LN till he atones.
tasslehoff220 01-13-04, 11:00 PM	In the end he temporarily lost his ability to detect evil. I did give him a warning and he understood his mistake but didn't make him atone as the group is far away from anywhere he could get an atonement spell cast for him. Also he is a paladin of Pelor and on a quest to find the meaning of the dwindleing sun so considering the importance of the quest to his god I didn't think a full loss of powers was necessarily completely in line. Maybe I was being lenient but I think fully stripping him of his powers for an extended period without giving him the chance to atone would largely sour the game for him and he would not have a good time playing. It being a game the whole group should have fun but there should also be consequences. That was the dilema and the partial stripping of his power seems to be working as a fair warning for a first offense.
Addi83 01-13-04, 11:56 PM	Originally posted by tasslehoff220 In the end he temporarily lost his ability to detect evil. I did give him a warning and he understood his mistake but didn't make him atone as the group is far away from anywhere he could get an atonement spell cast for him. Also he is a paladin of Pelor and on a quest to find the meaning of the dwindleing sun so considering the importance of the quest to his god I didn't think a full loss of powers was necessarily completely in line. Maybe I was being lenient but I think fully stripping him of his powers for an extended period without giving him the chance to atone would largely sour the game for him and he would not have a good time playing. It being a game the whole group should have fun but there should also be consequences. That was the dilema and the partial stripping of his power seems to be working as a fair warning for a first offense. Hmm... good call. Actually, maybe you could be postponing his atonement in a way, so after the mission is done, he msut go to a temple and face the music.