| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| de Fontak12-14-04, 04:55 AM | In my last session I had made up some romeo and juliet story. Two dragonmarked characters of different Houses (Thuranni and Orien) expected a child, but their Houses didn't want the child to be born. The lovers sought help with the lawful good artificer in the party. He really wanted to help them, but the lawful good fighter disagreed with him. Now my question: what is lawful good in this situation? Or is it just what your own morale code is? And can't chaotic characters have their own morale code too? |
| MarkB12-14-04, 05:10 AM | Don't let a character's alignment dictate their range of action in a situation like this, especially not in Eberron. A character's alignment stems from his personality, not the other way around, and their actions in exceptional situations like are likely to be similarly exceptional. In this situation, I don't think lawfulness is particularly relevant in any case. The Houses may have their own rules for internal discipline, but those rules have no actual legal standing (so far as I've read), so no character not a member of the Houses in question needs to assume those rules take precedence over the actual laws of the land. |
| ThanisKartaleon12-14-04, 06:07 AM | Now my question: what is lawful good in this situation? Or is it just what your own morale code is? And can't chaotic characters have their own morale code too? Well, I believe there *is* some sort of law against mixed blood in the houses, to prevent aberrant marks. However, we're dealing not with a LN alignment, but LG. The Law/Chaos axis deals with ethics: If you believe everyone should get a fair deal, you're thinking lawfully, if you are more inclined to think that fighting fair is a useless concept, you're thinking more chaotically. The Good/Evil axis deals with morals, the second thoughts to ethics (so of course a chaotic character can have a moral code. It's ethics they lack). It's against the law for dragonmarked blood to mix.... but is it right to deny love? The situation you present should cause LG characters some consternation, and essentially they must choose ethics or morals in this case. Clever players will find a way that satisfies both morals and ethics, and that is what role playing is all about. Bonus XP for that player. ^^ Just my 2 crowns |
| Thyrwyn12-14-04, 07:15 AM | Kudos to ThanisKartaleon for a great response! While I thought that the prohibition against house intermarriage was more of an accepted social code rather than a law, that doesn't change the dilemma for the lawful character: what is ethical is often dictated by what is socially acceptable. [opinion]By our natures, people are part of more than one contract, code, law and tradition. Very often these diverse obligations come into conflict with each other. In these situations, the lawful character would be driven to find the most accomodating solution, the solution that satisfies the most obligations the most completely, while remaining within their moral context (good vs evil). The chaotic character, faced with such etical considerations, would be more likely to pick the solution which 'felt' right, without about the fallout, again, while remaining within their moral context. [/opinion/] an example, from the 80's mini-series, Shogun: A foreigner (european) has been stranded in early 1800's feudal Japan. He has been given a household and staff. Longing for the tastes of home he hangs a pheasant after a hunting trip and commands that the bird is to be left alone until he returns. The sight of a dead animal hanging from the proch rafters is spiritaully and socially offensive to the entire household, but none of them may remove the bird because the 'lord' has given a specific instruction not to. The penalty for disobeying one's lord was death - though the foreigner did not know that. So, there were two competing obligations: the spritual obligation to avoid dead animals and the the social, legal obligation to obey one's lord. An elderly member of the staff takes down the bird and buries it. It had been dead too long, in their opinion to be eaten. The household guards behead him for disobeying their lord. The old man knew this would happen. The guards knew this would happen. The entire household knew this would happen, but the Japanese were an extremely lawful people (as a rule). There were two competing obligations: the spritual obligation to avoid dead animals and the the social, legal obligation to obey one's lord. The old man destroyed the bird because someone needed to protect the household from the perceived spiritual pollution; knowing that whoever destroyed the bird would be killed, the old man did it because it would spare some younger person. The foreigner was furious that an old man had been put to death for destroying his dinner. He thought the whole situation was monstrous! To him, neither the bird nor the act of disobedience was worth a man's life. Old man: Lawful Foreigner: Chaotic |
| Splendide12-14-04, 07:25 AM | Er, what? Why is the foreigner chaotic in that scenario? Disagreeing on the extent of the punishment levelled doesn't mean he's chaotic. On the original topic, its entirely possible for two Lawful Good characters to disagree on moral grounds as far as appropriate action to take. There's no universal code of law or good that all agree on, just general ideas. |
| Beleriphon12-14-04, 07:31 AM | In my last session I had made up some romeo and juliet story. Two dragonmarked characters of different Houses (Thuranni and Orien) expected a child, but their Houses didn't want the child to be born. The lovers sought help with the lawful good artificer in the party. He really wanted to help them, but the lawful good fighter disagreed with him. Now my question: what is lawful good in this situation? Or is it just what your own morale code is? And can't chaotic characters have their own morale code too? I think the more important point here isn't lawfulness but the idea of good. If a character is good I can't see them off hand agreeing to throw the couple to the wolves. At any rate |
| ThanisKartaleon12-14-04, 07:32 AM | Kudos to ThanisKartaleon for a great response! Well, thank you! :D I've been playing paladins for almost a decade now, I would hope I've got a good hold on their alignment. ^^ My latest endeavour is a Keleth T'Vrule, a tiefling with both eladrin and devil blood (obviously the fiendish bloodline is much more dominant). Since he gets his sense of ethics from his evil side of the family and his morals from his chaotic side, things get a bit tricky to balance. He's level 12 now and has recently picked up a Phylactery of Faithfulness (oh such a needed item for him!). One of the greatest moments was when my DM told me that Keleth had just narrowly avoided losing his paladinhood - and I had planned it that way without him knowing! :) |
| de Fontak12-14-04, 07:45 AM | The Law/Chaos axis deals with ethics: If you believe everyone should get a fair deal, you're thinking lawfully, if you are more inclined to think that fighting fair is a useless concept, you're thinking more chaotically. I still find this hard. What is fighting 'fair'? Fair is IMO a morale thing. |
| de Fontak12-14-04, 07:47 AM | Maybe nice to know how the story ended: The party took the couple to a deserted isle in Xen'drik, where they might be safe. |
| TranquilDarkness12-14-04, 07:50 AM | In the Shogun-example nothing can be said about the alignment of the foreigner; the old man could well be lawful good, sacrificing himself for the benefit of a household. The matter at hand however revolves around the beliefs of the two lawful good characters - what law or what codes do they uphold? And what are the consequences for the couple in love if the characters do not help? If either of them upholds Dragonhouse traditions, he will not support the couple but might protect them from harm. If either of them upholds the doctrine of a religion supporting love he will aid the couple in love, while trying to work together with the Houses involved. As has been said, many choices are legitimate, but it all depends on the characters and situation. Good luck :) |
| ThanisKartaleon12-14-04, 07:56 AM | I still find this hard. What is fighting 'fair'? Fair is IMO a morale thing. Okay, here's a situation to illustrate it: You are fighting a villain, and losing. If you lose, innocent people will be killed. You are fighting on a beach, and know that if you can kick some sand in his eyes, he'll fall back and you can lunge for the killing blow. The lawful character would not do this, the chaotic character would. |
| TheRedRobedWizard12-14-04, 08:49 AM | I think you're confusing "Lawful" with "Lawful Good with Exalted Feats". In the above example: Given the opportunity to kick sand in the eyes of ones opponents... Lawful Good: Probably Not. Neutral Good: Probably Not. Chaotic Good: Probably Not. Lawful Neutral: Maybe Neutral: Sure. Chaotic Neutral: Sure. Lawful Evil: Yes. Neutral Evil: Yes. Chaotic Evil: Yes. Allow me to explain. The LG probably wouldn't, but there is precedent for them to do so. The NG and CG characters would probably not do this becuase, well, they're good. Unless there wasn't another way to win. In that case, they would probably do it. The LN might mostly because there isn't a rule against it. The N and CN would because in the grand scheme of things, one person kicking sand at another is barely significant. The LE would because there's no rule against it (ie. no actual rules of fighting codified for this circumstance), if there was, he would find a way to twist the rule so that it only applied to fights that didn't take place on a beach. The NE and CE would have no qualms about it. Realistically, even a Paladin could kick sand in an opponents eyes, because nowhere in the Official Paladin Code is there anything about "fighting fair". If your opponent is an irredeemable evil, what's to stop you from pulling out all the stops to bring him down? Smite Evil is really just the ultimate "Sand in the Eyes" manuever. How fair is it that you get supernatural abilities to slap around your enemies more effectively? Under the "Lawful Creatures don't kick sand" logic, Paladins wouldn't use Smite Evil unless the opponent possessed Smite Good. That makes for a far less useful Paladin. The Law/Chaos axis deals with ethics: If you believe everyone should get a fair deal, you're thinking lawfully, if you are more inclined to think that fighting fair is a useless concept, you're thinking more chaotically. Actually, that point is up for debate. During the American Revolution, the Colonists were generally more Chaotic than Lawful, according to the mythological stories anyway. Yet they wanted a "fair deal" for everyone, not like the Lawful British government with its oppressive taxes and unfair rules. Ethics is more a Good/Neutral/Evil concept than a Law/Neutral/Chaos concept. For example, a Chaotic Good character believes that everyone should be given a fair shake, whether the laws support him or not. The Lawful Evil character generally thinks people with better ability to "work the system" should be given a fair shake; everyone else is just a stepping stone for him to get to more power. I guess it all comes down to how you were raised. A lot of people I know grew up in a "Lawful = Good, Chaotic = Evil" household. Most people who broke any laws were automatically evil, no matter the reasoning for breaking the law. This is sustained in books like Dragonlance, wherein the Knights of Takhisis were "good guys" because they were Lawful. When the KoT stopped being Lawful, they became "bad guys". The Legion of Steel is a primarily Chaotic organization, which is looked down upon by both the other Knightly orders (Knights of Solamnia and Knights of Tahkisis) because they let anyone in who wants to fight oppression. They are "bad guys" to a lot of the populace, because they don't follow the rules. Sorry to go off on such a tangent, but I tend to get a bit worked up on the Ethics = Law/Chaos point. This is not a personal attack at anyone, just a structureless rant. [tl;dr - Lawful != Good. Chaotic != Evil. This is not Dragonlance (read: the land of black and white morality, where all things Lawful are good, even if they're evil, and all things Chaotic are evil, even if they're good.), this is Eberron.] -TRRW |
| TricksterGod12-14-04, 09:45 AM | Sand in the eyes, fighting fair, chaos and law... I do believe good is a bit more about fighting fair rather than lawful. However, lawful is about fighting honorably. The difference? Kicking sand in someone's eyes can be perfectly fair. It is not, however, generally considered honorable. The 5' tall, slender courtier who's about to get his head smashed in by a 6'6" mountain of a man will be doing a perfectly fair thing by kicking sand into the fellows face. While the now semi-blinded fellow might scream "Fight fair," it's quite apparent that his version of fighting fair is "Don't do anything that takes away my quite obvious advantage over you, you scrawny piece of mace-pulp to be." It would, however, be a decidedly unhonorable thing to do, by most interpretations. And by that same token, the honorable thing isn't always a fair thing. What would be fair about that scrawny courtier and that burly warrior facing man-to-man in an arena, sword in hand, no tricks allowed, to the death? A lawful good character is likely to fight both honorably and fair, while a chaotic good character is likely to fight fair, but not particularly honorably. In regards to the initial post... Yes, chaotic characters can have their own moral code. Even ethics. It's just that these tend to be more individual-oriented, of a slightly more independent, possibly to the point of disruptive, bent. As for the situation at hand about the star crossed lovers and how lawful good plays into that, I believe the artificers and fighters reactions are both valid, to a degree. While this is a matter of simplification, I think it's simply a matter of which part of their alignment each favor. The artificer tends a bit more towards good (help the couple do something that isn't particularly evil) while the fighter leans slightly more towards law (respect the traditions of the Dragonmarked Houses). The lovers, as mentioned, aren't doing anything particularly horrible, but, conversely, the Dragonmarked Houses ban on inter-House marriage does, at least, have its reasons for existing. Both artificer and fighter are more or less acting appropriately within their alignment, even if they might be slightly favoring one part of it over another. I don't think I'd particularly worry about it in this situation. Besides, outside of a paladin, an infraction here or there really isn't a big deal. |
| de Fontak12-14-04, 10:23 AM | I think you're confusing "Lawful" with "Lawful Good with Exalted Feats". In the above example: Given the opportunity to kick sand in the eyes of ones opponents... I don't consider kicking sand in someone's eyes as an evil act :D It would, however, be a decidedly unhonorable thing to do, by most interpretations. I more degree on this one. I don't think I'd particularly worry about it in this situation. Besides, outside of a paladin, an infraction here or there really isn't a big deal. I don't worry about alignment, but sometimes my players do and quarrel :) . They say to each other: 'hey, you're supposed to act ....' |
| Gurv12-14-04, 11:18 AM | I just ended a non-Eberron game, with a surprisingly similar situation. The players (3 paladins) have been dealing with two immortal sorcerers of epic power. Every time they die, they are reincarnated into newborn children; they then mature at an accelarrated rate. They finally discover a means to end the immortality: the two are actually one spirit, and all that needs to be done is to capture the two souls in the same vessel, merging them back together and ending the reincarnation cycle. In the last scenes of the game, they have captured both sorcerers, still as relatively powerless children. The discussion about killing children is long over and the choice to sacrifice them for the good of the world has been made, with the input of the gods. The problem is now this: one of the sorcerers has been reincarnated into the youngest paladin's newborn son. To save the world (epic sorcerers are so destructive when they know they're immortal), the child must die. In the most dramatic scene I've ever DMed, the paladin father prepared to sacrifice his own son...and then vanished into the ethereal plane via a magical item, fleeing with the child towards the ancient sorcerers impregnable fortress. Left with no means to follow, and a window of opportunity rapidly closing before the sorcerer's power is restored, the oldest paladin prayed for forgiveness, and activated an evil artifact he was carrying to be destroyed. The artifact, capable of killing a named being over any distance did its work, and the paladin using it lost his powers instantly. The ex-paladin found his brother and the infant, said a prayer, and finished the required sacrifice. He then placed the child's body with that of its father, fell to his knees and prayed. When the last paladin reached them, he found the father and child as the other had left them, and found the oldest paladin nearby, fallen on his own sword. That is my campaign's story of lawful good, and how two paladins killed one another in order to do what they thought was right. |
| Thyrwyn12-14-04, 11:29 AM | [QUOTE=Splendide]Er, what? Why is the foreigner chaotic in that scenario? Disagreeing on the extent of the punishment levelled doesn't mean he's chaotic.[QUOTE] Maybe, in my attempt to be brief, i failed to illustrate the example thoroughly. The foreigner, even after he understood why the old man was killed, would rather have thrown the social contract out the window, than execute a man for doing what he thought he had to do. He wouldn't have punished the old man at all - it was just a bird. It wasn't just the punishment - the foreigner couldn't understand why it was an issue at all. It was just a bird. So the old man disobeyed him - who cares? He had a reason. That was good enough as far as the foreigner was concerned. Regardless of law, regardless of tradition, regardless of social order or social contract, regardless of everything - the foreigner would have been willing to let the issue drop. Had the old man been punished with a slap to the face, the foreigner would have been upset. That is why I say he was Chaotic, although I would be willing to concede Neutral, based only on the given example. As to the case of the house-crossed lovers: lets look at the specifics. She was already pregnant. Unless you have house-ruled some means of aborting the child, the only way the houses could prevent the birth of the child would be to kill the expectant mother. I do not see any way that a lawful good character (the fighter, in this case) could stand aside. I definitely see him slipping towards LN if he informs House Orien of their whereabouts, knowing that the House Orien wants one of them dead. That would be saying that life means nothing when it stands against the soicial order, especially when that life has already been exiled from the social order in question. [[[I will imploringly request that we avoid the moral implications of abortion]]] |
| Docrailgun12-14-04, 01:30 PM | In my opinion, "Lawful" simply means that one thinks that generally following the rules is the best way to fulfill one's ethos: good, neutral, or evil. So, a Lawful good character thinks that laws are the best way to give the most good for the most people... but those laws have to _do good_, rather than just follow laws for law's sake. That's Lawful Neutral. Lawful Good characters can certainly fight against what they feel are unjust laws. The Sharn book has an example: a group of lawful giants in Xen'drik may have a rule that when newcomers visit them, the giants must choose one of those newcomers and eat them. A lawful character from that culture might follow the law, but a Paladin from Sharn is unlikely to believe that this law is just. Lawful Neutral characters, as mentioned above, follows the law for Law's sake, not because it does anythong for anyone in particular. Personally, I thinl "Lawful Neutral" is what most people play as "Lawful Good", that is: an annoying and nosy goody-goody who demands that everyone follow their narrow idea of right and wrong, and attack those who disagree. Well, I don't think lawful good characters are like that. They're good, so they want what's best for others. They believe that people living together in civilized harmony is the best way. Lawful Evil characters, on the other hand, think that laws exist to help _them_. They could care less how laws and rules affect others, so long as they are beneficial to the evil character. Of course, the evil character may be actively malign as well. In fact, Lawful Evil characters may be the most "lawful" of all characters, as they actively encourage laws that they like, and want to influence the process of law, where LG characters might find themselves opposing unjust laws. In my last session I had made up some romeo and juliet story. Two dragonmarked characters of different Houses (Thuranni and Orien) expected a child, but their Houses didn't want the child to be born. The lovers sought help with the lawful good artificer in the party. He really wanted to help them, but the lawful good fighter disagreed with him. Now my question: what is lawful good in this situation? Or is it just what your own morale code is? And can't chaotic characters have their own morale code too? |
| Kid SixXx12-14-04, 01:59 PM | In my last session I had made up some romeo and juliet story. Two dragonmarked characters of different Houses (Thuranni and Orien) expected a child, but their Houses didn't want the child to be born. The lovers sought help with the lawful good artificer in the party. He really wanted to help them, but the lawful good fighter disagreed with him. Now my question: what is lawful good in this situation? In this particular situation, as well as considering what happened to Romeo & Juliete at the end of the play, I think the LG character's decision was acceptable. The two members of the respective houses had to know the consequences of falling in love, as well as realize that if they had a child, their offspring would be born with a death sentence, and that in the attempt to prevent cross-house relations or the formation of an Aberrant Dragonmark, House Thuranni and House Orien would most likely kill the parents as well. Certainly not helping would grate at the conscience of a good person, but if he is also Lawful, who is that person to opposed established societal codes that he should be fully aware of? The LG person would not help the pair escape. Instead, he'd rely on the system and try to get the system to show the couple some semblance of mercy. If I were the LG person, I'd help the couple hide, but not escape the jurisdiction of whatever place they were, and then do my best to secure the exile of the couple by attempting to convince the houses to show leniency, especially since there is a child involved Hopefully, I'd be successful, as the alternative would weigh heavy on my heart. |
| ThanisKartaleon12-15-04, 06:16 AM | TricksterGod summarized a good deal of my feelings on this, but I still feel I should clarify. I respectfully disagree with you, RRW I think you're confusing "Lawful" with "Lawful Good with Exalted Feats". In the above example: Given the opportunity to kick sand in the eyes of ones opponents... Lawful Good: Probably Not. Neutral Good: Probably Not. Chaotic Good: Probably Not. Lawful Neutral: Maybe Neutral: Sure. Chaotic Neutral: Sure. Lawful Evil: Yes. Neutral Evil: Yes. Chaotic Evil: Yes. Allow me to explain. The LG probably wouldn't, but there is precedent for them to do so. The NG and CG characters would probably not do this becuase, well, they're good. Unless there wasn't another way to win. In that case, they would probably do it. The LN might mostly because there isn't a rule against it. The N and CN would because in the grand scheme of things, one person kicking sand at another is barely significant. The LE would because there's no rule against it (ie. no actual rules of fighting codified for this circumstance), if there was, he would find a way to twist the rule so that it only applied to fights that didn't take place on a beach. The NE and CE would have no qualms about it. Your chart makes kicking sand look evil, but you contradict yourself here with the LE example. What if, before the combat, the duelist had indeed agreed, no sand to the eyes. Now of course, the LE character would just find another way to do it, but that's how LE is. But if he had agreed, he would not kick sand. It would be against his ethics. And why wouldn't a Chaotic Good character kick sand? To quote the Book of Exalted Deeds (which should have been called the Book of Eladrins and Some Other Stuff, 'cause Eladrins rule.): Their chaotic bent makes them somewhat unpredictable, although they can be relied upon to avoid any evil act. Unlike archons, however, they are not preoccupied with avoiding even the appearance of evil. So kicking sand is a "dirty trick," and some bystander might even say, "Dude, that's evil." However, it is definitely a more chaotic act, perhaps a darker one, but not hardly evil. To make another example of Chaotic Good, Batman is probably the king of "dirty tricks," but you wouldn't say he was anything but good. Realistically, even a Paladin could kick sand in an opponents eyes, because nowhere in the Official Paladin Code is there anything about "fighting fair". If your opponent is an irredeemable evil, what's to stop you from pulling out all the stops to bring him down? Smite Evil is really just the ultimate "Sand in the Eyes" manuever. How fair is it that you get supernatural abilities to slap around your enemies more effectively? Under the "Lawful Creatures don't kick sand" logic, Paladins wouldn't use Smite Evil unless the opponent possessed Smite Good. That makes for a far less useful Paladin. Okay, not fighting "fair," as TricksterGod has remarked, but honorably. It's honorable to use Smite Evil, because if the opponent had, instead of doing all the horrible things he's probably done in life, sat down and prayed, and done acts of good, he might have gotten Smite Evil too. It's not the Paladin's fault the villain choose not to gain these holy powers. And actually, in the Official Paladin Code, you must be Lawful Good. As both you and I have pointed out, a Lawful Good character would not kick sand. It's just not an honorable thing to do. So, sand bad, smite good :) Actually, that point is up for debate. During the American Revolution, the Colonists were generally more Chaotic than Lawful, according to the mythological stories anyway. Yet they wanted a "fair deal" for everyone, not like the Lawful British government with its oppressive taxes and unfair rules. Ethics is more a Good/Neutral/Evil concept than a Law/Neutral/Chaos concept. Well apparently they didn't keep the wording from 2nd edition, but in the 2nd edition PHB they specifically stated that the good/evil axis was morals and the law/chaos was ethics. Since they didn't bring that wording to 3rd edition, I guess I can't use that argument. However, Google dictionary definition says that ethics are a set of principles for right conduct, while it outright states that morals are goodness or badness of character. *shrugs* IMHO, morals are what you use to make a decision, and ethics are what you use to carry that decision out. |
| ThanisKartaleon12-15-04, 06:21 AM | blargh! Server hiccough while posting... my second double-post, btw |
| Thyrwyn12-15-04, 09:02 AM | I'm gonna disagree on the whole 'kicking sand' thing: it is not, inherently, unlawful. Would it be unlawful to kick sand in the face of an opponent who has ambushed your camp and is between you and your weapons? Would it be unlawful to kick sand in the face of fiendish spider who seems to be impervious to your sword? There are some circumstances where kicking sand in your opponents face may be considered cheating, but there are many, many more where it would not be. It all depends on if there is an established, known code of combat and if you are dealing with a duel or a fight. An chivalrous knight might be expected to dismount to fight on foot after dismounting an opponent in a joust. Among the horse nomads, however, no one would ever be expected to voluntarily fight on foot. Fighting fair can mean many things. Now, just to reverse the perspective a little - could there be a lawful character who would never, under any circumstance, kick sand in the face of their opponent? Sure, many people hold themselves to a higher standard - but that does not mean that all lawful characters would not do so. |
| shadowpavement12-15-04, 09:27 AM | I think it's important to note that "fairness" does not mean that everyone is treated equaly. "fairness" means that everyone gets what they need, it is a relative term. from the dictionary - Being in accordance with relative merit or significance: She wanted to receive her fair share of the proceeds. In the context of a fight, I would say that what is fair is anything needed by one side to defeat the other side. Just a thought. |
| Euangelion12-15-04, 09:41 AM | For a good example of "lawful" fighting, consider the movie The Princess Bride, especially the duel between Inigo (sp?) and Wesley/Dread Pirate Roberts. As Wesley points out, Inigo is "more than fair" is allowing him time to recover from his climb up the Cliffs of Insanity. There wasn't any law of the land that called for Inigo to do it, it was out of his own sense of honor. A similar thing happens in the next battle between Fezzik (sp?) and Wesley. Fezzik could have easily killed Wesley by hitting him the head with a rock, but he chooses to miss, because it wasn't very sportsman-like. In both cases, they would rather lose and possibly die than fight dishonorably. I think a sense of honor is at the heart of a lawful character, even lawful evil (both Inigo and Fezzik were kidnappers for hire, after all) more than just obeying the laws of the land. A lawful character acts lawful even when there aren't any laws. If they don't, they're probably more neutral when it comes to the law-chaos spectrum. Edit: so I disagree with Shadowpavements definition of fighting fair. |
| TricksterGod12-15-04, 11:20 AM | I'm gonna disagree on the whole 'kicking sand' thing: it is not, inherently, unlawful. Would it be unlawful to kick sand in the face of an opponent who has ambushed your camp and is between you and your weapons? Would it be unlawful to kick sand in the face of fiendish spider who seems to be impervious to your sword? There are some circumstances where kicking sand in your opponents face may be considered cheating, but there are many, many more where it would not be. It all depends on if there is an established, known code of combat and if you are dealing with a duel or a fight. An chivalrous knight might be expected to dismount to fight on foot after dismounting an opponent in a joust. Among the horse nomads, however, no one would ever be expected to voluntarily fight on foot. Fighting fair can mean many things. Now, just to reverse the perspective a little - could there be a lawful character who would never, under any circumstance, kick sand in the face of their opponent? Sure, many people hold themselves to a higher standard - but that does not mean that all lawful characters would not do so. Keep in mind... 1) Most people are True Neutral 2) Alignment infractions aren't a big deal for anyone other than a monk or paladin or the like. And, even then, only the paladin really has to worry about never doing certain kinds of acts. A monk can do any number of chaotic acts, so long as their lawful ones remain in the majority. Heck, so can a paladin, excepting for what the code of chivalry disallows. 3) Just because something is lawful, doesn't meant that a lawful character does it. Going back to the second example, most lawful characters behavior is typically lawful, not always lawful. 4) If it means much, my general opinion on lawful is doing or not doing what is expected of you. So, for example, if society generally believes that kicking sand in someone's face is all right, it's essentially all right for that person to do in a fight. Before anyone brings up subjectivity and alignment here, I'll state that I believe the objective take on lawfulness essentially comes down to doing what's expected of you in a given society. I mention this because I also feel an internal, personal code of honor is essentially a chaotic thing. Thus, the knight who refuses to dismount might be chaotic even while the horse nomad who similarly refuses to dismount remains lawful. Similarly, society at large probably doesn't care about whether the knight kicks sand into a spiders eyes, nor for that matter would it necessarily for the fellow to get to his weapons - presuming that was pretty much the only reason he was doing it. Of course, this is all a bit of an over-simplification, but I already go on too long... |
| TricksterGod12-15-04, 11:47 AM | In both cases, I'd say that's more a matter of Inigo and Fezzik being good, not lawful. I'd peg both as chaotic good; the kidnapping and the like was the chaotic, their general sense of fair-play and decent conduct good. Considering both let Vizzini do their thinking for them, it's not hard to see the both of them being duped into some things without realizing the full details behind it. Though, admittedly, I could probably do with seeing the movie again to refresh my memory. But neither came off as lawful and both came off as good (or neutral but tending towards good). For a good example of "lawful" fighting, consider the movie The Princess Bride, especially the duel between Inigo (sp?) and Wesley/Dread Pirate Roberts. Edit: so I disagree with Shadowpavements definition of fighting fair. Hmm...I'm also semi-inclined to disagree with it...let's see, though... "In the context of a fight, I would say that what is fair is anything needed by one side to defeat the other side." Agree. Disagree. If the only way to defeat someone is to cut the rope they're climbing (to go back to the Princess Bride), well, sure, that's fair. If that's the only way. However, if that's not the only way, that's definitely not fair, as it completely eliminates the possibility that your opponent can defeat you; that is, he's not getting his "fair share of the proceeds." What's fair is still, to a degree, about evening the odds. It's not about completely, absolutely swinging things in your favor. Otherwise, not everyone is getting what they need, not everyone is getting a chance for success. |
| Kid SixXx12-15-04, 12:15 PM | I tend to agree with Euangelion's assessment. While it is certainly stupid or suicidal to give up one's combat advantage (especially if it's a specialty), I think there is a difference between fighting "fair" and playing to one's strengths. Lawfulness, IMO, is more applicable to one's attitude about combat, rather than the combat itself, or one's specialty. I don't think a LG ranger / archer would stop bow-sniping a members of a goblin patrol simply because he somehow felt he had an unfair advantage over his enemies. OTOH, if the goblins showed signs of retreat or surrender, and the ranger decided to kill them all anyway, then "lawfulness" could come into question. |
| TricksterGod12-15-04, 02:02 PM | I tend to agree with Euangelion's assessment. OTOH, if the goblins showed signs of retreat or surrender, and the ranger decided to kill them all anyway, then "lawfulness" could come into question. I see nothing inherently unlawful about shooting retreating goblins in the back. Again, I believe this is more a matter of good or evil. |
| Kid SixXx12-15-04, 03:51 PM | I see nothing inherently unlawful about shooting retreating goblins in the back. Again, I believe this is more a matter of good or evil. I have to disagree slightly. I think that even a NG or CG ranger would fire at the backs of retreating goblins, as they probably have the point of view that the only good goblin is a dead one. Meanwhile a LG ranger might have a "they seem to have had enough" clause in his moral code which would cause him to "allow" the goblins to retreat. The LG ranger would realize that dead goblins sometimes make poor messengers, and those wounded goblins that retreated would probably tell their kinfolk not to requent the grove of that particular ranger. Giving quarter is not necessarily a good trait, but IMO, it does have some place in a code of "ethics" whether the person be good, neutral, or evil. I could see a LE villain sparing his injured foes on the battlefield, if only to torture them later on while the are his prisoners, or make slaves of them. Meanwhile, LG paladins of the Silver Flame gave no quarter whatsoever to the lycanthropes during the infamous Purges, but their act from a certain point of view could still be construed as LG, as the paladins felt they were liberating the lycanthropes from their "curse" the best way the paladins knew how (as well as keeping other humanoids by being infected by lycanthrope by lowering the base number of lycanthropes), and not necessarily committing genocide. |
| TricksterGod12-15-04, 07:38 PM | I have to disagree slightly. I think that even a NG or CG ranger would fire at the backs of retreating goblins, as they probably have the point of view that the only good goblin is a dead one. Meanwhile a LG ranger might have a "they seem to have had enough" clause in his moral code which would cause him to "allow" the goblins to retreat. Bullhockey. Mercy is a trait of good, not law. The idea that the only good goblin is a dead one isn't a trait I would ever ascribe as being a good one in somebody. Now, if they have the thought that, by letting those goblins live, they'll probably just wind up finding folk unable to defend themselves and take advantage of them, well, sure, they might shoot them in the back. But that's something that any form of good might think and, if anything, is a touch more lawful than chaotic, as chaotic generally implies a touch more self-reliance where law usually brushes on the idea that the community should always be kept in the forefront of ones thoughts. Meanwhile, LG paladins of the Silver Flame gave no quarter whatsoever to the lycanthropes during the infamous Purges, but their act from a certain point of view could still be construed as LG, as the paladins felt they were liberating the lycanthropes from their "curse" the best way the paladins knew how (as well as keeping other humanoids by being infected by lycanthrope by lowering the base number of lycanthropes), and not necessarily committing genocide. But the paladins of the Silver Flame did give quarter. They didn't kill good lycanthropes. They were the ones who, if they could, would rather cure the lycanthropy by removing the curse rather then killing the host. Because unlike the rest of the church, the paladins had to be good. They weren't allowed any exceptions, like a cleric would be. A number needed to benefit from atonement for what they did. A perusal throught the Keith Baker FAQ should turn something like this up; right now I'm feeling lazy, though. I'll make it a point to look it up, though, should further disagreement occur. In either case, mercy is a good trait, not a lawful one. |
| Euangelion12-15-04, 10:40 PM | One aspect of this discussion that I think needs to be fleshed out more is that there are basically two different ways of being "lawful good," or any alignment other than true neutral. You could differentiate them by using the terms "lawful good" and "good lawful," the difference being which of the two alignment axis is the primary focus of the individual or group. For example, a "good lawful" person is primarily focused on law, socially and/or individually (which is another polarity that the alignment system could take into account if they wanted it to be even more complicated!), they believe that promoting moral goodness is the best way to achieve a well-ordered, lawful society or to live a well-ordered lawful life. On the other hand, a "lawful good" person is primarily concerned about moral goodness in society and/or in their personal life, they just believe that keeping and promoting a lawful society and living a lawful, honorable life is the best way to achieve that end. According to this description paladins, by the way the class is constructed, are clearly "lawful good" and not "good lawful." How so? Because they detect evil and smite evil, they do not detect chaos and smite chaos. They are concerned about promoting and advancing the cause of good, using law as a way of doing so. To remain paladins they must be lawful, but being lawful is not their primary focus, being good is. Often when paladins are played in a manner sometimes called "lawful stupid" it is when they are being played as "good lawful" or even really "neutral lawful" not "lawful good." This distinction can be drawn out most clearly for all of the corner alignments, lawful good, chaotic good, lawful evil, and chaotic evil. In this case, I would argue that many of the lawful evil clerics of the Church of the Silver Flame are actually "evil lawful," primarily concerned about maintaining the laws of the land and order in society, and being willing to use fear, intimidation, and even torture to achieve that end. (Even neutral itself can be looked at in at least two ways, either as an absense of concern about the good/evil axis or the law/chaos axis, or as a concious effort is maintaining a balance between good/evil and/or law/chaos.) I think many times when the issue of alignment is being discussed in D&D circles, these two different ways of looking at the same alignment is really at the heart of the many differences of opinion that arise. (Edited immediately after first posting for additional content and for grammar issues.) |
| Sarlax12-15-04, 10:53 PM | I think that even a NG or CG ranger would fire at the backs of retreating goblins, as they probably have the point of view that the only good goblin is a dead one. That's not possible. Flat racism that produces people who murder fleeing sapient creatures has no place in a good person's mind. "Alignments are blurred" doesn't mean you have baby-eating angels, Detect Evil won't register homicidal maniac, Paladins can cheat and steal, or that barbarians can multiclass into monks withou penalty. It means that stereotyping alignments won't work in Eberron. A red dragon might be a paladin (lawful good, of course). A vampire could be true neutral. A swarm of beholders might be chaotic good philanthropists. Alignments are still real in Eberron. They're a bit more flexible, but not so much that good beings both believe that an entire race needs to be exterminated *and* act accordingly. Now, this is somewhat seperate from the issues of "Is it evil to kill a retreating creature?" Well, it's evil to kill an entirely helpless creature, but then this raises issues with things like state executions. But if an enemy that you know to have committed evil is fleeing, you're probably safe killing them as they try to escape. But all good characters should probably be uncomfortable with the act, and I'm pretty certain no paladin would do it unless they creature was evil by nature, such as rakshasa. |
| Kid SixXx12-16-04, 08:27 AM | Bullhockey. Mercy is a trait of good, not law. The idea that the only good goblin is a dead one isn't a trait I would ever ascribe as being a good one in somebody. Feh. Relative alignments in the game or no, the history of the Goblin races on Eberron pretty much shows that overall they are a murderous as their kin in other settings. Making it a point to thin out their numbers in the heat of battle in order to reduce a threat isn't evil, but absolute genocide would be. In battle, the goblins that are lying face-first on the ground cannot ambush you later on, and I would not call a ranger that picked off the fleeing ones an evil person. That's not possible. Flat racism that produces people who murder fleeing sapient creatures has no place in a good person's mind. Since when it it racist to hate goblins? It's an enmity brought along by decades of hostilities, and given the history of the Dhaakani, goblins come by their hatred honestly. People who are not exactly trusting of goblins aren't racist. They are smart. If they are not smart, they wind up in cages like the folks in the Darguun illio from the ECS: Beware of goblins. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/eb_gallery/82117.jpg) Naturally your level of trust will depend on where you are. Out in the wild, you'd probably be wary of any goblins, but in a cosmopolitan area such as Sharn, there'd most likely be a number of perfectly fine, law-abiding goblin citizens that you'd treat with deference and respect as you would any other denizen of the city. But the paladins of the Silver Flame did give quarter. They didn't kill good lycanthropes. They were the ones who, if they could, would rather cure the lycanthropy by removing the curse rather then killing the host. This is not true. Some paladins of Silver Flame tried to aid any potential lycanthropes, but the cure was not always successful. When it was not, then the good lycanthropes (who did not chose exile) were killed along with the evil ones, as per the excerpt from the Silver Flame article from Dragonshards: If a single lycanthrope remained alive, it could pass the curse to others, and they could pass the curse to others, and within a generation the problem could arise anew. Thus all lycanthropes -- even those seemingly innocent and young -- must be destroyed. A handful of paladins found alternatives. Some helped werebears escape to Lamannia, while others sought to cure the afflicted. Unfortunately, the process of breaking the curse is long and involved, and the Keeper of the Flame said that once the curse was set (via changing alignment), nothing could save the victim's soul. And so the templars relied on their silvered swords, cutting out the cancer and praying for forgiveness when innocents fell at their hands In either case, mercy is a good trait, not a lawful one. Again I say, Feh, as there are reasons to spare a person's life that have nothing to do with being good. Showing quarter in & of itself is not a good trait: it is the quality of the quarter that allows you to dress it up and refer to it as "mercy." Giving quarter either shows some semblance of a code respecting the inate worth of living beings (LG), semblance of the respect of social contracts or laws prohibiting the taking of life (LN), or it shows the semblance of sparing life in an effort to exercise control over it later on (LE). All lawful qualities. But all good characters should probably be uncomfortable with the act, and I'm pretty certain no paladin would do it unless they creature was evil by nature, such as rakshasa. I can agree with this to a certain extent, but I don't see how prudent decisions made in battle can be considered to be an alignment-breaking deal. Firing at fleeing goblin raiders would not only thin out their ranks, it would probably send the survivors (if there are any) in full retreat; possibly to never to molest any future travelers. In combat, there's no time for epiphanies of guilt or naïveté about what must be done. Like with the Purges, you make your peace with your regrets after the deed is done, and if you think what you've done is evil, you try to attone. |
| Thyrwyn12-16-04, 10:50 AM | Kid SixXx says: "Giving quarter either shows some semblance of a code respecting the inate worth of living beings (LG), semblance of the respect of social contracts or laws prohibiting the taking of life (LN), or it shows the semblance of sparing life in an effort to exercise control over it later on (LE). " It seems to me that the "innate worth of living beings" fits with this definition of good (not lawful) from the SRD: "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. emphasis mine " Can you be sure that the goblins were not forced to attack you in the first place? Given the nature of goblin heirarchies, no. A good person would hold his shot, risking the chance of facing them again. That is making a personal sacrifice to help others (the fleeing goblins). Shooting a fleeing individual in the back is not a good act: it may be practical; it maybe pragmatic; at times, it amy even seem necessary; but it is not good. Certainly, there are circumstances wherein a good character would do so, but a character that always chose to do so would not be good. Mercy is a trait of "Good", not lawful. |
| Kid SixXx12-16-04, 11:39 AM | It seems to me that the "innate worth of living beings" fits with this definition of good (not lawful) from the SRD Why are you equating respect for life with finding innate worth with life? Certainly an LE person has an inate sense of the worth of living creatures, since he has to realize that dead slaves cannot toil for him, dead captives cannot be tortured for information, and that he may need sufficient manpower / underlings to help him meet his nefarious goals. The LE person knows their worth: he just doesn't necessarily care about the quality of their existance. Quarter being akin to lawfulness is still governed by the SRD, as a debate of whether or not "respect" equates to actual acknowledgement of the relative worth of life is probably a case of splitting hairs. Can you be sure that the goblins were not forced to attack you in the first place? Why in the world would I initially be worried about motive while being attacked by a band of goblins? I would think that self-preservation or defense of my comrades would take precedence over some vain attempt to empathize with raiders that are trying to swarm my position. Near-omniscient queries like that are an unrealistic concern when the din of battle is upon you. Given the nature of goblin heirarchies, no. A good person would hold his shot, risking the chance of facing them again. That is making a personal sacrifice to help others (the fleeing goblins). A good person trained to be combatant would not hold his fire out of altruism. He would probably stop firing if the goblins scurried out of bowshot and not chose to pursue them, but the battlefield is no place for naiveté, and paladins & rangers are aware of that. IMO, the old metagame addage of "Lawful Good" being "Awful Good" stems from such stereotyping and the notion that it is a somehow a requirement that good-aligned combatants deal with every last one of their opponants in a gingerly manner. Mercy is a trait of "Good", not lawful. Mercy is quarter tempered with compassion. There is nothing intrinsically benevolent about sparing someone's life if you're not overly concerned about what happens to that life afterwards. Deciding not to kill someone or show quarter is either an exercise of discipline tempered with compassion (aka "mercy"), adherence to a code, or display of power in an attempt to enforce control over the lives you spared, IMO. |
| Sarlax12-16-04, 01:46 PM | Since when it it racist to hate goblins? It's an enmity brought along by decades of hostilities, and given the history of the Dhaakani, goblins come by their hatred honestly. All of them? Even the quori have good creatures in their race: look at the kalashtar. If you can have good vampires, how can you simply declare that all goblins have earned the hate of the humanoids of Khorvaire? People who are not exactly trusting of goblins aren't racist. They are smart. If they are not smart, they wind up in cages like the folks in the Darguun illio from the ECS. That's entirely different from genocidal racism. "The only good goblin is a dead goblin" and "You ought to keep your eye on the Darguun hobgoblin with the bloodied razor-whip and two baby skulls hanging from his belt" are not equivalent sentiments. Hating an entire race for the actions of its worst members or even for a plurality of its members is racism and it is evil. Watching your back around members of a culture known for slavery and murder is prudent, but hating all members of that race is simply racist. This is not true. Some paladins of Silver Flame tried to aid any potential lycanthropes, but the cure was not always successful. When it was not, then the good lycanthropes (who did not chose exile) were killed along with the evil ones, as per the excerpt from the Silver Flame article from Dragonshards: If a single lycanthrope remained alive, it could pass the curse to others, and they could pass the curse to others, and within a generation the problem could arise anew. Thus all lycanthropes -- even those seemingly innocent and young -- must be destroyed. A handful of paladins found alternatives. Some helped werebears escape to Lamannia, while others sought to cure the afflicted. Unfortunately, the process of breaking the curse is long and involved, and the Keeper of the Flame said that once the curse was set (via changing alignment), nothing could save the victim's soul. And so the templars relied on their silvered swords, cutting out the cancer and praying for forgiveness when innocents fell at their hands You ought to note that it's the paladins who found alternatives. You can't have the supernatural power of a paladin unless you're lawful good. Many paladins would have fallen during the Inquisition. Keith Baker's confirmed that even in Eberron, lycanthropy will change you're nature. Whether or not the Keeper of the Flame says, "The soul is destroyed," doesn't make it true (it's false), nor does it excuse murder. Note this phrase especially: And so the templars relied on their silvered swords, cutting out the cancer and praying for forgiveness when innocents fell at their hands." The fighters, warriors, experts, monks, and clerics could kill innocents "freely" without supernatural consequence. But paladins can't. A paladin participating in the purge of a wererat family might decide to scan for evil, only to find that it's radiating from the priest on his right as he slits the throat of a mother with a silver rapier. The paladins knew exactly how evil the purge was, at least when it was happening in their presence. They may not have understood why, especially when the Church has been telling them at the highest levels that this needs to be done, but they knew it was evil. A paladin would have to make a choice. If he supports the Inquisition after detecting its evil, he'd fall, losing his powers. This need only happen once. If the paladin doesn't instantly understand his fall, his loss of Detect Evil only fuels his capacity for evil, as he no longer can sense its presence. If he rejects the killing, he can do was your quoted piece describes: help the lycanthropes escape or be cured. That's what he must do. He can't help the church find lycanthropes to kill unless he verifies that they're actually evil. He can't just leave the church because his powers can be put to use saving innocent lycanthropes. His only option, if he wishes to remain a paladin, is to help the innocent and to help turn the Church from its horrible Inquisition. Note the language of the analogy as well. That's the same kind of terminology that Nazis used when purging "inferior races." Evil societies often resort to this kind of thinking, that the society is a body of which individuals constitute nameless, insignificant portions that need to be surgically removed for the good of the whole. After WW2, when war criminals were on trial, many S.S. were offended by the moral judgements against them. They felt that the very burden of guilt they bore for their actions should absolve them, as though they were doing some loathsome but necessary deed for the good of the world. "It was our duty." I agree with this to a certain extent, but I don't see how prudent decisions made in battle can be considered to be an alignment-breaking deal. Firing at fleeing goblin raiders would not only thin out their ranks, it would probably send the survivors (if there are any) in full retreat; possibly to never to molest any future travelers. I agree that prudence has a larger place in combat. And while it's possible that shooting down fleeing creatures might discourage them from attacking again, any person should be able to consider the possibility that such tactics might just antagonize them. If two goblin brothers are forced into ambushing travelers by a hobgoblin who then dies in combat, they'll probably flee on their own. But what if one of the brothers is shot in the back of the head as they run? How will that improve reactions? It can just as easily send survivors looking for vengeance or escalating the scale of attacks as it might scare them off. |
| Kid SixXx12-16-04, 02:30 PM | Even the quori have good creatures in their race: look at the kalashtar. If you can have good vampires, how can you simply declare that all goblins have earned the hate of the humanoids of Khorvaire? That's comforting, but from a realistic standpoint, we all know that the overall actions of a society or a set of beings (in the case of vampires & the Dal Quori) tends to damn the individual. While it's possible that you'll run across a good vampire, it's lunacy not to keep your stake and garlic close by if you're expecting an encounter with one. One goes into a situation expecting the norm, not the exception. That's entirely different from genocidal racism. "The only good goblin is a dead goblin" and "You ought to keep your eye on the Darguun hobgoblin with the bloodied razor-whip and two baby skulls hanging from his belt" are not equivalent sentiments. I agree to a certain extent, but it's not like goblins announce their political affiliations or place of heritage when they are attacking caravans or putting villages to the torch. Not too many people will really care about what particular place a goblin is from when they are defending themselves from local raiders or waging war against the hordes of Darguun. In those situations all goblins will be the enemy, and people would do well to keep their harsh sentiments against the goblins, unless the goblins (or a sizable population of them) actually took steps to reconcile themselves. If the goblins actually strove to break the stigma of their evil by earnest trade or somesuch, yet people still clung on to old enmity, then that would indeed be bad. Hating an entire race for the actions of its worst members or even for a plurality of its members is racism and it is evil. No it's not. Dwarves do it in other settings in consideration to goblins, and even the Elves are openly known to despise the Drow in another setting. And the worst members of some Goblin hordes or Drow houses are pretty horrific in their evil. All this and Elves & Dwarves are still considered good on the whole, so I don't see how Eberron's relativity of alignment would make this any less true. We're not talking about racism. We're talking about enmity with a species of beings that for the most part (relative alignment taken into consideration), delight in being malicious towards their fellow sentients. Feeling pangs of contempt for them even in the most general sense is certainly not evil, and I said before, even that can be relative. I can still despise the murderous Durgaan goblins, and still respect and admire my fellow professor from Morgrave University that happens to be a goblin, because that particular fellow has taken obvious steps to show that he can transcend the brutish nature of his Durgaan peers. The professor is an exceptional goblin, though. He is not the norm, and I should not expect his acumen from every other goblin I meet, especially those with daggers in their hands. Watching your back around members of a culture known for slavery and murder is prudent, but hating all members of that race is simply racist. Again, I'll just have to agree to disagaree. A paladin participating in the purge of a wererat family might decide to scan for evil, only to find that it's radiating from the priest on his right as he slits the throat of a mother with a silver rapier. Philosophically I can agree with this but mechanically I cannot as the PHB states thata a cleric will radiate the alignment of his deity and not his own. Dispensing with that particular rule and judging the situation on it's own merit, I can see your point and I concur that a Paladin should never question his own faith, but he should always question the motives of those that claim to profess that faith. He would do a disservice to his church if he did not oppose all foes of the faith, whether they be the typical rivals of an evil sect or corrupt heretics or blasphemers in his own backyard. Paladins are not made, they are chosen, and as such they have a very special responsibility to society and to their faith. Even with such gifts, they are still suspect to the normal foibles that all mortals are, and I don't think that every stern decision that they make should necessarily send them packing for atonement. Such metagame stereotypes are the primary reason why some people think that paladins are boring do-gooders that cannot embrace a woman without having their chastity called into question. ;) Note the language of the analogy as well. That's the same kind of terminology that Nazis used when purging "inferior races." Jews don't change into ravenous beings during a full moon and feast on sentient flesh. This is an apples to oranges analogy. The Silver Flame church did not think that the lycanthropes were inferior. They felt that the curse made lycanthropes a spirtual threat to other sentients, and I cannot say that they were far off the mark even though I do feel that they were overzealous in their overall course of action. But what if one of the brothers is shot in the back of the head as they run? How will that improve reactions? It can just as easily send survivors looking for vengeance or escalating the scale of attacks as it might scare them off. Such is the brutality of combat. No one ever said that the conclusion of conflict did not bear a price, or have tragedy attached to it. And again you're asking someone in the heat of battle to make an omnicient call and suddenly be graced with insight he'd normally not have. Goblins don't tend to announce their family ties before they attack, so it's unlikely that a ranger would realize the consequences of putting an arrow through that last fleeing goblin who just happened to be the son or the brother of the surviving raid leader. |
| TricksterGod12-16-04, 02:44 PM | No, actually, you're wrong. They detect as both. Philosophically I can agree with this but mechanically I cannot as the PHB states thata a cleric will radiate the alignment of his deity and not his own. ... Even with such gifts, they are still suspect to the normal foibles that all mortals are, and I don't think that every stern decision that they make should necessarily send them packing for atonement. Such metagame stereotypes are the primary reason why some people think that paladins are boring do-gooders that cannot embrace a woman without having their chastity called into question. ;) ... Jews don't change into ravenous beings during a full moon and feast on sentient flesh. If by stern decision you mean evil then, yes, every paladin does need to be sent packing for atonement. They're only allowed chaotic actions that don't grossly violate the code of conduct. Not to mention that your typical werebear doesn't feast on sentient flesh, either. I'd reply in more depth, but right now I just don't care enough. Suffice to say, I disagree on nearly every point you made. It's just easier to point out the ones where you are, quite indisputably, wrong. Like the alignment, evil action, and werebear thing. |
| Kid SixXx12-16-04, 02:50 PM | No, actually, you're wrong. They detect as both. Thanks for your clarification as I don't have my books with me. I'd reply in more depth, but right now I just don't care enough. Suffice to say, I disagree on nearly every point you made. That's your opinion and nothing says you're not welcomed to it, or shouldn't express it. Not caring enough to reply suits me fine, as that means that there is one less set of comments I will have to either concur with, or offer a rebuttle to. |
| Zucrous12-17-04, 12:43 AM | For op, I seem to think that lawful is a strong will to do what one thinks is right. Sort of like a code. While a lawful character might turn in a party member for stealing, he will also if he sees it being right vouch for him. A good example and one that I use often in honor, you can have an evil character that still follows a code of honor (good example evil dude in blade trinity) they dont nessecarily have good morals, they just stick to them like glue. Being lawful does not mean that you are a prick, and it isnt a road that you cannot deviat from, it is a bunch of differant roads that you cannot deviate from, if you want to keep your alignment. I am more of a person that thinks that yoru alignment doesnt dictate your actions your actions dictate your alignment. Hence why I like eberron. |
| Sarlax12-17-04, 01:14 AM | That's comforting, but from a realistic standpoint, we all know that the overall actions of a society or a set of beings (in the case of vampires & the Dal Quori) tends to damn the individual. Yes, people tend to judge individuals by societies. That has nothing to do with good and evil. There's also a degree of difference between judging people by their society and thinking they're all better off dead. If the goblins actually strove to break the stigma of their evil by earnest trade or somesuch, yet people still clung on to old enmity, then that would indeed be bad. Really? The burden is on the victims of hate to earn the trust of those who hate individuals because of their race? All this and Elves & Dwarves are still considered good on the whole, so I don't see how Eberron's relativity of alignment would make this any less true.[quote] Eberron's relative alignments is exactly what makes this an issue. In Torial or Oerth, goblinoids are just hordes of evil marauders. They're cookie-cutter monsters. In Eberron, they might be good. That's why it's even worse to pre-judge them as universally evil. [quote]Feeling pangs of contempt for them even in the most general sense is certainly not evil, and I said before, even that can be relative. Occasional contempt isn't evil, but that's different from "The only good goblin is a dead goblin," and very different from the intent to kill all of them. The professor is an exceptional goblin, though. He is not the norm, and I should not expect his acumen from every other goblin I meet, especially those with daggers in their hands. There's a difference between expecting excellence and hating the entire race. Again, I'll just have to agree to disagaree. Really? If hating every member of a racist isn't racist, what is? Philosophically I can agree with this but mechanically I cannot as the PHB states thata a cleric will radiate the alignment of his deity and not his own. Priests in Eberron aren't always clerics. Experts are much more common. The warriors, rangers, and fighters slaughtering good weretigers will register as evil. Even with such gifts, they are still suspect to the normal foibles that all mortals are, and I don't think that every stern decision that they make should necessarily send them packing for atonement. Actually, that's exactly what happens. SRD: Ex-Paladins - A paladin who ... willfully commits an evil act ... loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate. Jews don't change into ravenous beings during a full moon and feast on sentient flesh. Granted. Neither do all lycanthropes. And again you're asking someone in the heat of battle to make an omnicient call and suddenly be graced with insight he'd normally not have... so it's unlikely that a ranger would realize the consequences of putting an arrow through that last fleeing goblin who just happened to be the son or the brother of the surviving raid leader You're taking that out of context. What I said was a reply to your statement that killing fleeing enemies was rational because it could dissuade them from future attacks. My reply was that they could easily react differently, so it's not specifically rational to kill them as they flee. I never made demands for precognitive powers. |
| TheEarlOfEssex12-17-04, 01:25 AM | **clears his throat** Gentlemen, I am in the process of devising a table which I think could resolve this conflict of opinions - I shall post an exert below. Would Character A kick in sand in Character B's eyes? Lawful Good Chaotic Good Lawful Good No No Chaotic Good No Yes and so forth... |
| TheEarlOfEssex12-17-04, 01:35 AM | DISCLAIMER: It is not guaranteed that said table will make an ounce of sense. |
| Thyrwyn12-17-04, 07:43 AM | Why are you equating respect for life with finding innate worth with life? The term innate implies inherent - that is to say objective value; not value to you, but value in and of itself. A good character believes that life has value: not from your standpoint, but in and of itself. That is what respect for life means. Why in the world would I initially be worried about motive while being attacked by a band of goblins?We're not talking about initially. I would think that self-preservation or defense of my comrades would take precedence over some vain attempt to empathize with raiders that are trying to swarm my position. Near-omniscient queries like that are an unrealistic concern when the din of battle is upon you.Self preservation is no longer an issue: you are no longer being attacked or swarmed and the din of battle is no longer upon you - they are fleeing. A good person trained to be combatant would not hold his fire out of altruism.Why not? One's alignment is determined by one's efforts, not one's training. Altruism is a trait of 'good', as defined by the alignment system. One's training does not re-write the SRD. Per the SRD: "Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient". Actions which evince a disregard for life are evil. Killing the goblins now, so you may not have to fight them later evinces a lack of compassion and a willingness to kill others - just because it is convinient. Training won't change that. You have mentioned that "alignment is relative" in Eberron several times; it isn't. The definitions of the various alignments haven't changed from the core rules. What has changed in Eberron is that a) Clerics no longer have to maintain an alignment that is no more than one step removed from that which they choose to worship, and b) a creature's race no longer determines their alignment. Nothing else has changed. Alignment in D&D is (still) objective: it is defined by the core rules and the SRD. . . .the battlefield is no place for naiveté. . . You are not talking about being naive. You are talking about abandoning one's ideals whenever it is more convenient to ignore them. Ideals are, well, ideal. An ideal may be hard for a character to live up to, but that doesn't change the nature of the ideal itself; it means the character isn't 'perfect'. Few characters are and there is nothing wrong with that. . Killing someone you don't have to isn't 'failing to be good' it is actively evil. IMO, the old metagame addage of "Lawful Good" being "Awful Good" stems from such stereotyping and the notion that it is a somehow a requirement that good-aligned combatants deal with every last one of their opponants in a gingerly manner. Again, we are not talking about every opponent - we are talking about people who are running away. |
| Kid SixXx12-17-04, 08:24 AM | Yes, people tend to judge individuals by societies. That has nothing to do with good and evil. And yet you say that since I distrust goblins as a whole based on the bloody and strife-filled entirity of goblin history, (as well as the fact that throughout Eberron's history, when goblins come to your doorstep in large numbers, they are rarely interested in peace), I'm being racist and evil. Really? The burden is on the victims of hate to earn the trust of those who hate individuals because of their race? Really? Even goblins on Eberron have historically been malicious maruauders. Since when is the burden on me to suddenly embrace them? I'd think the burden would be on them to prove that they've abandoned their aggressive ways before I start letting them into my cities. Since we're drawing analogies from WWII I suppose I'll add my own, since it seems you wish to be to the goblins what Neville Chambers was to the Nazi's. Granted. Neither do all lycanthropes. Jews also don't bear a curse they can transmit to others, regardless of whether or not the recipient wishes to be made a lycanthrope. You're taking that out of context. What I said was a reply to your statement that killing fleeing enemies was rational because it could dissuade them from future attacks. My reply was that they could easily react differently, so it's not specifically rational to kill them as they flee. I never made demands for precognitive powers. Emphasis on could. If the goblins are allowed to flee, most likely they'd regroup for another attack. They tried once, so they'd probably try again, and possibly with superior numbers. After all, their first attack failed, and since I was benevolent enough to let them live by not shooting at them as they fled, I've given them the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and return with superior numbers, provided that I don't do my best to elude them. Thanks to my "mercy," I've given the goblins the opportunity to finish the job they could not do earlier, as well as displayed my general combat tactics (thus losing my combat edge). I can see your point, and if I were a good-aligned ranger I would still most certainly would press my combat advantage as best I could. If the goblins began to flee, I'd certainly keep peppering them until they got out of bowshot, perhaps even missing a couple times on purpose, but defintitely making sure that there was a severe demoralizing effect on them to ensure that they thought twice about crossing my path again. |
| Kid SixXx12-17-04, 08:32 AM | The term innate implies inherent - that is to say objective value; not value to you, but value in and of itself. A good character believes that life has value: not from your standpoint, but in and of itself. That is what respect for life means. I can accept this definition Self preservation is no longer an issue: you are no longer being attacked or swarmed and the din of battle is no longer upon you - they are fleeing. And it's my job to make sure that they continue to flee and not come back with superior numbers. Why not? One's alignment is determined by one's efforts, not one's training. Altruism is a trait of 'good', as defined by the alignment system. One's training does not re-write the SRD. Per the SRD: "Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient". Actions which evince a disregard for life are evil. Killing the goblins now, so you may not have to fight them later evinces a lack of compassion and a willingness to kill others - just because it is convinient. I think you're asking a warrior to be a saint on the battlefield, and in active combat, precious few are saintly. That is sad but true. I don't see how pressing a combat advantage suddenly displays a disregard for life, especially considering that if I had an overwhelming regard for life, I probably wouldn't have trained in the martial craft in the first place. The soldier has always been an interesting anomoly: one who trains in combat in the hope that he does not have to fight. However, when he does fight, such combat should be decisive and come to as quick and absolute a resolution as possible. You are not talking about being naive. You are talking about abandoning one's ideals whenever it is more convenient to ignore them. No I'm not. I'm talking about making sure that a band of goblin brigands does not return to harass me again, possibly to return with bugbear cousins or somesuch. Again, we are not talking about every opponent - we are talking about people who are running away. We're talking about marauders who are running away that engaged me in earnest combat, and may return with reinforcements to finish me off if I don't make certain that they are dissuaded from doing so. I've started to notice that my rebuttles are getting away from the premise of the post, so I'll retire from this discussion as not to hijack a servicible thread. |
| kisama12-17-04, 01:45 PM | I used to be a big fan of the Paladium alignment system. Mainly because when I first read it, I felt it was a godsend. Finally, an alignment system which presented clear-cut examples of what a character could and could not do given the belief system. The problem with the system though is that it quickly lead to metagaming. The aberrant npc was always evil, there were no shades of grey in the system. The alignment debate in D&D has been ongoing for as long as I can remember playing in 1979. Hell, even when there were only 3 alignments, you still had these arguments. What strikes me as odd, is that WotC have strived with each revision of D&D to remove ambiguity and make the rules as clear as possible and yet, the alignment system, THE SINGLE OLDEST TOPIC OF DEBATE IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THIS GAME, still remains to this day. Looking at the 3.5 players handbook, we find: "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others. Note the key words here guys: implies, and some. In all these posts you all seem to forget that these rules are generalizations. An evil character can still love his/her mother, can still have close, loving relationships and good characters can still hunt deer for for sport. "Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. "Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice but more often is a personality trait, that is recognized rather than being chosen. Again, key words: implies and may. Again, these are not hard core rules of behavior, they are rather guildlines in how a character behaves under normal circumstances. Looking at some examples: The shogun argument. This whole argument is really a bad example. You see, the old man was actually Neutral Evil. What we don't know here is the old man had a drinknig problem, beat his wife constantly in the first 5 years of their marriage, and had a gambling habit. What we do know is he had to follow the law of the land because it was not within his capability to disobey the law, he was old, weak, lived his life as a serf, and probably never owned his own land. We can't assume what his alignment was, in fact, his actual alignment is moot point. What's important, is the actions he took and their consequences they had on the people in the rest of the story such as the Noble. Kicking sand in your opponent's face. Ok so show me where in the PC handbook, it says being Lawfull Good means you give up your basic instict for self-preservation? First off, the two of you are in combat, how you got to this point is actually a better measure of alignment than what happens during the combat. Again, what we don't know is that the lawfull good person gave this bad guy every opportunity to surrender peacefully before the fight started. He pleaded with him to surrender and warned him that should it come to blows, no quarter would be given. The bad guy waivered that right, so now it's a fight to the death, innocent lives are at stake, the bad guy is trying to kill the good guy, the good guy, being human, does not want to die which is completely understandable. The good guy is loosing and you're telling me he would not use every means available to gain back the upper hand to win the battle. That's utter crap. If you want a really good example of this kind of thing. Go watch the knife fight at the end of Saving Private Ryan. After the german kills the america soldier in what had to be the ugliest knife fight scene I ever watched, you could SEE he was really affected by it. That was a perfect example of alignment blurring at it's best. Both the german and the american were good people, however they were at war and were doing their jobs. The german did what he had to to survive the fight and at the end, it affected him deeply. He is disgusted by his actions and you can see it, but he also had to do what he had to do to survive. You see this on the look on his face when he confronts the other american on the stairs afterwards. He really is shaken by what happens. That's storytelling at it's finest. I think Eberron is a great step in the right direction for D&D. Take alignments, blur the heck out of them, and force players and DM's to actually think for a change rather than jump to the knee-jerk reactions about the npc's based on alignment. In fact it would not surprise me if they decided to throw alignments out of the game completely. At least it would finally put an end to 30 years of debates. :) With respect to the original post. Forget alignments for a second. Two people were in a relationship which according to society was an abomination. Their actions have consequences on their standings in their families, they need to live with that as a couple. You need to think about whether these consequences will have an impact on the players (maybe a war between dragonmark houses could errupt from all this...) One player wanted to help the couple. His actions will have concequences according to the beliefs of their society and his beliefs. These consequences will later have an impact on the group (more opportunity for adventure). The other player wanted to stop the relationship. His actions will have consequences according to the beliefs of one of the members of the group. These consequences will later have an impact on the group (perhaps they two players could role-play this rivalry their characters have). Your job as DM is to look at both paths in the decision tree and to advance the story. Instead of focusing on the rules, look at the big picture and ask yourself if the player's decisions give you any opportunities to generate new directions for your campaign to go in. Don't get caught up on the rules, the rules are just a set of guidelines, it's the story your telling which is the most important part of the game. |
| TricksterGod12-17-04, 04:54 PM | I think you're asking a warrior to be a saint on the battlefield, and in active combat, precious few are saintly. That is sad but true. I don't see how pressing a combat advantage suddenly displays a disregard for life, especially considering that if I had an overwhelming regard for life, I probably wouldn't have trained in the martial craft in the first place. The soldier has always been an interesting anomoly: one who trains in combat in the hope that he does not have to fight. Also note that most soldiers would tend towards law and neutrality, not chaos and good. Furthermore, there are any number of reasons that a good character might shoot a retreating goblin in the back. It might be, for example, that the goblin already attacked, thus proving it's a murderous thing and its defeat here probably won't change that. The point is that it won't be something like "The only good goblin is a dead goblin." Yes, a good character can have a thought like that - only paladins are never allowed an evil act - but it will still be an essentially evil thing in an otherwise decent persons heart. It's not pressing the advantage that's bad, it's the reason for doing so that you first mentioned. Not to mention that if anyone is going to judge someone by their society, it is less likely to be the neutral or chaotic individual, and more likely to be the lawful one. A judgmental mindset is brought up in the description of law and the title attached to lawful neutral is "Judge." As for the soldier anomoly thing, no, it's not much of one. There are those who train in the hopes of not fighting but, typically, that's the exception, not the rule. Plunder and conquest have most usually been the reason, or at the least, having something that pays. And to Kisama: Most of this hasn't revolved around whether or not a good or evil individual can do a lot of these actions. Also, there have been plenty of concessions about circumstances and how they can change just what or what not is acceptable. Most of the debate here, as I see it, is less about what certain people can do or get away with and more as to what constitutes law, good, evil, etc. And a lot of its taken more into account motivation, less action itself. Although that has been drifted from in the past few posts...ahh well. |
| Kid SixXx12-17-04, 05:05 PM | Most of the debate here, as I see it, is less about what certain people can do or get away with and more as to what constitutes law, good, evil, etc. And a lot of its taken more into account motivation, less action itself. Although that has been drifted from in the past few posts...ahh well. I thought you didn't care enough to reply to my comments any longer? ;) And yes, the thread has begin to meander away from it's initial premise, and I take responsiblity for my part in steering it off course. Apologies to de Fontak for my social blunder. |
| TricksterGod12-17-04, 05:48 PM | I thought you didn't care enough to reply to my comments any longer? ;) I didn't say any longer, I'd said "right now." I nearly never say I'll excuse myself from doing something at a later date, because there's always bound to be something that pulls me back in again. |
| Sarlax12-17-04, 06:12 PM | And yet you say that since I distrust goblins as a whole based on the bloody and strife-filled entirity of goblin history, (as well as the fact that throughout Eberron's history, when goblins come to your doorstep in large numbers, they are rarely interested in peace), I'm being racist and evil. You continue to misrepresent my statements. What I said was that hating individuals for the actions of a plurality of their race is racist, and that hating an entire race is evil. Remember the original idea I responded to:I think that even a NG or CG ranger would fire at the backs of retreating goblins, as they probably have the point of view that the only good goblin is a dead one. That's the objection I have. That's an evil thought. We can easily make a comparison to our own world. Are "Arabs" evil? Well, they're "widely known" for being terrorists, being cruel to their own people, having a fanatic religion, and wanting to simply destroy the freedom of others. Is the only good Arab a dead Arab? Absolutely not. The goblinoids might suffer under evil governments, as many humans have on earth for generations. Regarding the humans who come from these corrupt and violent nations, is it good to simply hate all of them because of what one believes about their culture? Since when is the burden on me to suddenly embrace them? I'd think the burden would be on them to prove that they've abandoned their aggressive ways before I start letting them into my cities. Again, this isn't what I said. What I said is that while its prudent to withhold trust until it's earned, it's racist and evil to hate races and to hate individuals because of your views about their race. Emphasis on could. If the goblins are allowed to flee, most likely they'd regroup for another attack. They tried once, so they'd probably try again, and possibly with superior numbers. That's entirely possible. That makes this kind of decision strategically justified, but not morally justified. Preemptive killing isn't good. Depending upon the thinking of the soldier in question, killing fleeing goblins can be neutral or evil. If he's killing them to avoid further combat in a dispassionate way, it's probably neutral. However, if he's killing them because it's convenient and he believes, "The only good goblin is a dead goblin," it's certainly evil. I can see your point, and if I were a good-aligned ranger I would still most certainly would press my combat advantage as best I could. If the goblins began to flee, I'd certainly keep peppering them until they got out of bowshot, perhaps even missing a couple times on purpose, but defintitely making sure that there was a severe demoralizing effect on them to ensure that they thought twice about crossing my path again. Missing on purpose without making it obvious is probably the best thing a good warrior could do (except for capturing one and spending a lot of time persuading the goblin to live the good life); as you say, it could demoralize the bandits and scare them away from robbery. But simply killing them as they flee "because goblins are an evil race" is itself evil. |