Post/Author/DateTime	Post
paladin_omega 08-27-06, 12:24 AM	There is a little debate in our party as to whether my character is evil because of something I did recently. Let me set the scene. We arrive at ruin in a jungle while on the trail of some Emerald Claw. There is one Emerald Claw soldier at the entrance. He knows he can't stand a chance against the party so he doesn't provoke a fight. After a bit of questioning (in which he proclaims he is lead by a powerful vampire) my Warforged cuts the Emerald Claw soldier down with his Armblade. The soldier doesn't try to defend himself but my character didn't care. He sees Emerald Claw as some douches that have crossed our paths way too many times and have proven themselves evil in my eyes. Also I didn't want to happen to us what happened in Saving Private Ryan where the German soldier which was spared comes back and is a royal pain in the ass. Shouda killed em but had to be nice. lesson learned I say :D DM seems to think (and one other player) that this was cold blooded and that I need to be using the evil descriptor. I seem to think that my character is Chaotic Good, but after taking the alignment test on the wizards site apparently the character is Neutral Good. BTW in the test when asked if i would kill a guard I answered that i would and i still came out with a good descriptor. In my defense I didn't kill an innocent, and it's not like my character has no disregard for life. He would still run into a burning building to save a cat :). Who thinks I should be evil? Thanks in advance!
Charles Phipps 08-27-06, 12:28 AM	The Emerald Claw is a member of an Al-Quaida equivalent group. What you did is murder alright but it's an evil act rather than something that makes you evil. Plus, the fact that he's a guard that might later become a problem makes it a neutral act at best.
jamvid 08-27-06, 12:43 AM	I agree with Charles, what you did wasn't really good (you killed someone that didn't fight back) or bad (the guard was actively participating in an actively evil organization), it was smart I'd go with neutral, maybe lawful
Nived 08-27-06, 12:44 AM	There's a strong case that its an evil act. Though changing your character to evil for this one act might be a bit extreme. You were pretty justified and I assume that this was an extraordinary circumstance. You are a good person (tin man) in most aspects of life, but you were built to be an effective soldier, its the training. You're not evil, you're smart. If you 'delighted' in killing him. You'd be evil. Being cold and detatched about it makes you a soldier.
Yare 08-27-06, 03:11 AM	Most civilized societies have laws against murder (killing in self-defense isn't murder). If you believe that there are occasions when the law must be broken, then you are "chaotic". If you break the law for what you perceive to be the greater good, then you're good. If you do it to ensure your personal safety, then you're probably neutral. If you do it out of revenge, spite, or different group affiliations, you're evil.
Hellcow 08-27-06, 03:19 AM	Also I didn't want to happen to us what happened in Saving Private Ryan where the German soldier which was spared comes back and is a royal pain in the ass. So you killed a helpless prisoner because he might inconvenience you in the future? In my opinion, if someone is completely helpless and is not in a position to do you harm, and is in fact cooperating with you - yes, killing him is an evil act. Certainly, he's a member of an evil organization. But do you know why? Do you know what circumstances led him to become a member, or what he's personally done over the past? He may be fighting you, but does he have a family depending on him? Does he serve the Emerald Claw because his village was massacred by Thranes and he believes the Claw is the only force that will give him the vengeance he seeks? Even if he is evil, could an act of mercy cause him to reconsider his own path? Setting all these questions aside, in MY campaign, good and evil are basically questions of empathy and altruism. Good is a matter of putting others' feelings before your own, setting aside your own personal needs in favor of those of another. Evil is putting your needs first and not caring about the pain or suffering this causes to others. So yes, in my opinion, what you did was kill a helpless person because it was expedient... and that's an evil act. If he'd been killed in battle, that's the fortunes of war, and when it comes to defense of self or nation, alignment is often set aside; in the Last War, you can bet that many good people fought other good people. But once your prisoner has surrendered, there's other ways to neutralize him. Now, with all of that said, should this act make you evil? In my opinion, no. The point of Eberron is that good and evil are a spectrum, and people shift from day to day. Good people CAN do evil things, and evil people can do good things. So killing one prisoner wouldn't make you evil in my campaign, especially if you had absolutely no way to restrain him, your mission was critically important, and you simply couldn't take the risk that he would alert others. But it is the first step towards an evil alignment, and if you made a habit of killing helpless people when other options are available, yes, I'd say that would make you evil. It's important to remember that in Eberron, "possessing the alignment evil" does not make you a monster... because as you've said, you might still be someone who would still run into a burning building to save an innocent. That Emerald Claw guy you killed might have been willing to run into a burning building to save an innocent Karrn. He might have given all of his pay to charity. He might not even have been evil himself; you don't have to be evil to serve an organization with evil goals. Being evil means that you are someone who is comfortable performing evil acts on a regular basis, and that you will feel no compunctions about killing that helpless prisoner, and that you'd do it again in a heartbeat... but it doesn't stop you from doing good things as well. Just as having a good alignment means you can still perform an evil act when it is necessary... but I'd expect some remorse and a desire to find a better solution in the future.
cancerousmango 08-27-06, 03:29 AM	It's only evil if you scrawl something vulgar onto his face after you kill him.
Shady314 08-27-06, 04:36 AM	I'd say unless he was mentally handicapped in some way, which should become obvious when you spoke to him, then he knew there were risks when he joined a violent extremist organization. Even assuming Eberron has some sort of geneva convention equivalent I doubt that the Emerald Claw is included under it. Did he just accept this guard position for a ruthless and murderous group and expect it to be like any other job? Remember this is the EC. Not some city watchman or something. Not a misguided Blood of Vol temple guard that has no clue. You only join the EC with the intent to cause people harm. At least from everything I've read of the EC so far. Whether they do it out of a sense of nationalistic pride probably doesn't matter much to the victims. Join the EC to do violence (usually to innocent people!) and then expect fine treatment if you cooperate just because you're outnumbered and outgunned? I don't think so. Now I'm not trying to say you can do evil to evil all the time and be good but I believe people take responsibility for the actions they choose regardless of their motivations and accept the consequences. Of course I'm a neutral person. Sounds like the character in this instance also was. Sounds like he was dispassionate and logical in his reasoning (assuming taking him prisoner was too much of a hindrance to the mission) to kill the guard. This again to me says neutral. Depending on how critical the mission was and how much of a hindrance he could be you could argue it was chaotic good. But a good person would always TRY "within reason" not to kill. I agree one act, unless it is a real doozy, should never completely shift your alignment.
Eled_the_Worm_Tamer 08-27-06, 08:26 AM	Was the act evil? posibly, you could have turned him over to the Sharn city watch, for example, or shanghy'd him onto a ship leaving port. Should any one Evil act change a charicters alighment? No, not even if you were a paladin. Now if yo act in an evil matter consistantly and over time, performing evil acts on a regular basis and ignoring opertunitys to do good, yes that would make you evil, though you should definately pass through neutral first.
Just another user 08-27-06, 08:55 AM	Not evil, but certainly is enough to shift you alignement to neutral, imho, or so near to it that it would not make a difference. But, said that, so what? Unless you are a paladin there is no difference for your character if he is chaotic good or chaotic evil.
Siran Dunmorgan 08-27-06, 03:51 PM	The game definition of evil revolves around the character's treatment of "innocent" creatures or characters. The rules themselves do not define "innocence" so this is begs something of the question; I tend to use Pete Abrams' definitions of innocence: "not in control." Given that the person killed had, at the time, surrendered his fate to the party, then yes, under the Rules As Written, this was an evil act, and something that an ostensibly good character should not have undertaken without compunction. Does that make the character evil? No. Of course not. But it is the kind of action that will, in a sense, haunt the character for the rest of his life, as long as he remains otherwise ostensibly good. Alternatives available for the Dungeon Master to reinforce this point include returning the dead guard as a zombie or—if the Dungeon Master is particularly interested in driving home the point—ghoul; remember, we are speaking of an organization with little compunction about using create undead more or less on a whim. In a campaign given to subtle irony, the Dungeon Master might consider using the same body over and over again, i.e., someone follows along after Emerald Claw battles and throws animate dead on whatever bodies happen to be lying around: it just happens that the same poor mook gets animated over and over again for the party to cut down. —Siran Dunmorgan
paladin_omega 08-27-06, 03:56 PM	Awesome, thanks guys I'm going to take this back to the my DM and the other players, so they can chow down on this info. It's always good to get an option from gamers which are not directly related to our group. I like the argument that when i killed i did not delight in the kill and that I was cold and detatched. I told my DM that I was being efficient soldier when i did this because I'm "Battle Hardened" (1st level Substitute Warforged Fighter Level). I think this ads a bit of flavor to my character anyways. I hate the fact that in my gaming groups we almost always play goody two shoes to the end.
Hellcow 08-27-06, 04:13 PM	Even assuming Eberron has some sort of geneva convention equivalent I doubt that the Emerald Claw is included under it. Remember that in OUR world, the Geneva Conventions DO apply to terrorists (obviously much debated, but still legally true). But to me, the issue is not about LAW. It's not "Is there something in the Code of Galifar that says you can't kill a prisoner." It's a question of empathy and morality. This man has surrendered. He is in a position where he cannot hurt you. His life is in your hands. He may have other people who depend on him. For you to simply kill him, if other options are available, is a selfish act that shows a lack of empathy for other living creatures... and thus, in my mind, an evil act. Again, not one that should shift your alignment on its own. But evil. Self defense? Great. If he's about to kill someone else? You're acting to defend someone. But if he's surrendered and is compliant, you are killing him in cold blood when there are other options available, and again, in my mind that's evil. then he knew there were risks when he joined a violent extremist organization. Sure... like dying in battle. But he surrendered. That means that he believed in the concept of surrender and showing mercy to a defeated foe (or at least professed to). It's the Golden Rule. If you kill a helpless and defeated foe, you imply that you believe that if you ever surrender, your opponents are justified in killing you. By sparing the person's life, you're saying that this is the right thing to do and what you hope he'd do if your positions were reversed. Even if you believe that he wouldn't, it's still the GOOD thing to do. That's the thing about the Saving Private Ryan example. Sparing the prisoner is the GOOD action. Unfortunately, the prisoner was evil, and he took advantage of it. But killing him on the assumption that he might do something evil is abandoning the concept of mercy as a virute and stooping to evil in the name of expediency. Being good is DIFFICULT. It's far easier to be evil, because good people are going to have to take actions that frequently place themselves at risk or where they can be taken advantage of by evil people. In my opinion, there's far more evil people than good people in the world today. Frankly, evil is more a part of human nature, while good is something we need to strive for... to overcome self interest. Showing mercy to someone who may pose a threat to you later is taking a risk. But it's a good act, putting the inherent value life ahead of your own self-interest, and hoping that one act of mercy may inspire another. You only join the EC with the intent to cause people harm. Perhaps... but why are you willing to cause harm, and WHAT people are you willing to harm? You may join the EC because you believe in the glory of the Queen of Death. You may do it because you believe that your country is being led astray by foolish politicians and that only Vol can restore it to glory. You may do it because your family was massacred by Thranes and your heart demands vengeance - and the EC is the only path that will give you that. Or you may do it because you feel that all of the Five Nations are hopelessly corrupt, and must be wiped away to create a new, pure order. In some of these cases, the person is pure evil. But in others, he might wish to avoid unnecessary death. He might very well accept YOUR surrender. He might run into a burning building to save a Karrn child. Add to this the fact that the Blood of Vol believes death itself is the greatest abomination in creation, and I think there's every chance that many EC people might prefer to spare the lives of prisoners. The EC people believe that they ARE at war, and won't hesistate to kill in this struggle. But that doesn't mean that they'll all kill innocents or helpless prisoners. WITH ALL OF THIS SAID... The Emerald Claw is intended to fill the role of black-hat villains in the game. When you encounter the Emerald Claw, you aren't supposed to have to stop and say "I wonder if they're up to something bad." They are pulp villains. However, just because opposing the Emerald Claw is the right thing to do 99% of the time doesn't mean that every member of the EC deserves to die. I maintain that killing a helpless opponent who has surrendered and is cooperating with you (answering questions, etc) is an evil act. Sparing his life is dangerous, but that's part of what makes it a good act: you are taking a risk in the name of mercy. Killing them in battle? No problem. Killing a prisoner? I'd at least expect some remorse... and if you feel no remorse when killing a helpless person, that's when I'd say you're on the slide towards evil. I'll just point out that this is one of the reasons you can have evil people in a generally good organization like the Church of the Silver Flame, and why you can CERTAINLY find evil people in the Dragonmarked Houses, King's Dark Lanterns, etc. It's not that no one's ever noticed that they are evil... it's that in Eberron, evil is part of human nature. An effective spymaster WILL be evil, more often than not, because the nature of his job often requires him to take morally questionable actions. It's back to Aurala being the good warmonger and Kaius being the evil man seeking peace. Kaius' goals serve the GREATER good... but he is utterly ruthless in what actions he is willing to take, and thus he personally is evil. It doesn't matter that his actions may, ultimately, save the lives of hundreds of thousands... again, that in the long term he is doing good. He, personally, is willing to order or perform murders, massacres, and similar acts and feels no remorse for doing so, in the name of that greater good. For Khorvaire as a whole, Aurala may be a villain and Kaius a hero; but in terms of their personal alignments, Kaius is unquestionably evil. His noble aspirations don't change that inherent, coldblooded ruthlessness that is the core of his personality... and thus, his personal alignment. Like Kaius, you may DO good, and you may be driven by noble goals. The question is the methods you will employ to accomplish those goals... and those may make you evil. (and that was about ten times longer than it had to be...)
Hellcow 08-27-06, 04:19 PM	I hate the fact that in my gaming groups we almost always play goody two shoes to the end. The thing that's interesting to me is that I see a lot of posters saying "We're going to play an evil campaign", or like this, "We're always good." The point to me is that you can play an evil character without wanting to conquer the world. Kaius is an excellent example of an evil person who is pursuing a noble course of action. Eberron is inspired by pulp and noir, and noir is filled with heroes of questionable morality. Sam Spade is actually a VERY disturbing guy, on many levels. Essentially, I don't think that people should feel that they have to play characters of good alignment in order to play heroes... or that they have to play characters of evil alignment in order to be villains.
Yare 08-27-06, 04:31 PM	Remember that in OUR world, the Geneva Conventions DO apply to terrorists (obviously much debated, but still legally true). This is actually a common misconception. Convention III, Part 1, Article 4A subsection 2 states: Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: ... (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Simply translated, if you don't wear a uniform and/or do not carry your firearms openly, you aren't protected under the Geneva Conventions as a prisioner of war. It's right there in black and white. This doesn't only apply to resistance soldiers and terrorists, however. US special forces operatives, spies, etc... who do not wear uniform are also not covered under the Convention. It's not my place to say whether or not PoW status should be extended to cover these cases, but the original writers of the Geneva Convention probably had a reason for excluding them. So if you want to apply the Convention to this, you have to ask: "Was this soldier clearly wearing a uniform or other distinguishing symbol? Was he wearing his weapon openly?", if he was, then the OP probably broke the Convention. Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.
Hellcow 08-27-06, 04:40 PM	This is actually a common misconception. I make no claims to legal expertise, and I certainly apologize for making a misleading statement. I was basing my statement on this newspaper article, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100094.html) which states that the US Supreme Court has ruled to extend this protection to terrorism suspects in custody. However, given that the Geneva Conventions are an artifact of our world, and that in my opinion the question of whether something is covered under the GC is actually irrelevant to whether or not it is an objectively good or evil act (not to mention that I don't think the OP was acting in service of a government himself) I hope that we don't have to get into a more indepth discussion of the GC... although I appreciate the clarification.
Yare 08-27-06, 04:48 PM	Thanks for posting that article! I was unaware that the US had opted to extend PoW protection. Maybe there's hope for our country yet. ;)
Ricohard_Draconis 08-27-06, 06:39 PM	I find that in most cases if you have to ask yourself: was this an evil act? then it normally is...
Shady314 08-27-06, 06:48 PM	I find that in most cases if you have to ask yourself: was this an evil act? then it normally is... I haven't noticed this at all. People ask that sort of question all the time and everyone seems to have a different answer. I think the real argument is how you see the GOOD descriptor in the alignment. Obviously I see GOOD differently than Hellcow. I think you can still justify the good descriptor of an alignment especially Chaotic Good without following a paladin level code of goodness. The only character that should feel obligated to extend mercy to every single individual that may ask is a Paladin. Hellcow said someone might join the EC and expect it to carry risks like "dying in battle" but not being killed when you surrender? I guess we see the EC differently. I was under the impression it was a terrorist organization that tended to target civilian infrastructure. That it tended to never show mercy to non-Karrns and Blood of Volists. Not a full military force that marched onto a field of battle.Or that they had much of any kind of code of honor. I dont see an armed lvl 1 warrior fighting an unarmed lvl 1 commoner or poisoning a well to be doing battle as a proud soldier of Karnath. And I really don't buy the idea that WHY they chose to murder civilians matters much at all. I don't think a warforged former soldier of any nationality would see an EC member as any kind of equal and I don't think all GOOD characters have to show utter compassion and mercy to such a creature. But if you wanted to add more moral ambiguity to the EC I could easily see that. Let them be a recognized resistance movement against King Kaius that targets military industry and follows a code of honor. But as Hellcow said I thought they were meant to be one of the less morally ambiguous groups. There's a reason I always play Chaotic Neutral. It's freedom.
Thwyvylyn 08-27-06, 07:12 PM	I've run in a campaign that was based on Sin City (but set in Sharn), and our Dm said that alignments wouldn't even exist for that game. Too bad it died on us...
Hellcow 08-27-06, 07:28 PM	The only character that should feel obligated to extend mercy to every single individual that may ask is a Paladin. If you think I'm saying otherwise, you've missed my point, Shady. What I'm saying is that showing mercy is, genarally speaking, a good act. Taking the life of a helpless person is an evil act. But a good person can perform an evil act! What makes the paladin stand out is that the paladin is REQUIRED to follow a very straight path. I believe that the character in question could be lawful good and still commit the action that he did. Many of the templars in the purge of lycanthropes were good people and were forced to kill people who might have been innocent. But I would expect the killer to feel remorse for his actions, and to do it because he feels he has no other option. Meanwhile, an evil character will do it and not think twice about it; the person is an enemy, and it's convenient. Eberron is all about shades of gray, as described on page 250 of the ECS. No one - except perhaps outsiders and paladins - follows one single path of behavior all the time. The character's alignment reflects the strongest, dominant traits of his behavior. But a good person can take evil actions and an evil person can be a hero, without shifting their fundamental alignment. In this case, if the character feels no remorse and truly believes that killing a helpless enemy is always the right solution to ensure that the enemy doesn't come back and give him trouble later, I would be inclined to make him evil, or at best neutral. But that won't necessarily stop him from doing heroic deeds and for protecting the people he considers his allies and friends. This is why detect evil is not so useful in Eberron. Because, in my opinion, someone who is dedicated to fighting the Emerald Claw but is willing to torture his foes and kill helpless prisoners on a regular basis will in fact have an evil alignment. So a paladin will sense this person as being evil... but he nonetheless is fighting the enemies of the paladin and protecting the innocent. It's more like Jedi and the force; "there is much darkness in this one." Doesn't mean he's a monster, it means he's more comfortable and prone to performing certain acts than someone else might be. The big thing in my mind is the difference between killing in defense of yourself or others... and killing in cold blood. In my opinion, the chaotic good person won't think twice about killing in battle - but still should feel qualms about killing a helpless foe. Not because it's against the law, but because it's a cruel and inhumane act. On the other side of the spectrum, the chaotic evil person may take pleasure in sure an act. Now, some people might seize on that and say "Isn't that a third category? Wouldn't it be that the good person feels remorse, the evil person feels delight, and the neutral person just doesn't care?" In my opinion, no. When we're talking about something as momentous as taking a life, feeling nothing doesn't make you neutral; it's a final act with potentially severe consequences. Evil is a spectrum, and fine, you're not as far down as the gleeful killer, but you've still sent a soul to oblivion. Turning that around, I'll also point out that comparing the Lawful Good and Chaotic Good person, I see the Chaotic Good barbarian as a gleeful brawler, always willing to start a tavern brawl; but again, there's a difference between raising a few bruises and killing someone. Bruises will heal, and it's great to let off some steam. But death is more serious. And if a chaotic good barbarian started a brawl for fun, hit someone too hard, and happened to kill him? I'd expect him to feel remorse. IMO, many settings would consider people that I call evil to be neutral. I draw a finer line because I *like* alignment to be less clear-cut, and for detect evil and detect good to not be the final word on everything. It's certainly not a style of play that works for everyone, but as I prefer things weighted towards mystery and noir, I find that it adds a nice level of complexity to things. But hey there's a reason I always play Chaotic Neutral. It's freedom. And my point is that you have freedom whatever alignment you are. Unless you're a paladin, you can always do whatever you want. However, if you follow one path particularly strongly, you'll end up with a particular alignment. That's why I don't use neutral much; because I feel it's difficult to walk a perfectly neutral path without veering one way or the other... at least, using my standards. So as I said, there's a lot of people I make evil who would probably be neutral elsewhere.
Edymnion 08-27-06, 07:46 PM	Yes, long story short, it was indeed an evil action to kill a surrendered opponent in cold blood. But you know what? Who cares? Unless you start making a habit of mowing down innocents, it doesn't mean a damned thing. Your alignment is not going to shift because of one action (and any DM that insists an alignment shift over something as minor as this needs to reread the alignment rules), there are not going to be any mechanical repercussions (you're not a paladin that swore an oath not to do it), and there will likely be no roleplaying repercussions (they are indeed Eberron terrorists, most people will be happy to have one less of them in the world). So ultimately, it doesn't matter one way or the other if it was Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, Blue, Red, Wet, Dry, Smooth or Wrinkled. It was, and in the end it isn't important. At all.
igotsmeakabob!! 08-27-06, 07:53 PM	Evil act? Yes. Evil alignment? Not yet.
Hellcow 08-27-06, 07:56 PM	Or that they had much of any kind of code of honor. Bear in mind that when the EC first started in Karrnath, it was actually a chivalric order. Obviously that's not true now, but there are still SOME members who hold to these old traditions. Likewise, many of the members join because they believe that the Queen of Death will bring their nation to the position it deserves. As for never showing mercy to non-Karrns? Most won't. But that still doens't make it a good act to kill them. Again, one of the things that makes good GOOD is that you will do what you believe is RIGHT... again, the Golden Rule. I will treat you as I want people to treat me... NOT how I expect you will treat me. Especially because, while MANY members of the EC are brutal killers, this prisoner might be one of the few with a sense of honor, who seeks to restrain the others. He might have joined because he thought it was a noble cause, only to find that he is more and more horrified by what he has been drawn into - and he's surrednered in the hopes that this is his chance to escape. You don't know. And if you kill him, it doesn't matter any more: he's just dead. The average BoV soldier is willing to target civilians. He is willing to kill helpless people in the name of his cause, and to do so without remorse. In other words, he is evil. But that doesn't make killing him after he has surrendered GOOD. Opposing him and stopping his evil plans is unquestionably a good act. Imprisoning him in the hopes of rehabilitating him is most likely a good act (as opposed to simply imprisoning him for the sake of keeping him out of the way, which is more neutral). Killing him just because you're vaguely concerned that he might come back to haunt you if you show him mercy? Not so good. Again, the EC are supposed to be the bad guys, and you should never feel bad about fighting them. Stopping people from doing evil? That's good. But again, the methods you use in doing it may be sufficient to make YOU evil. You can be a hero and still have an evil alignment. But at this point, I think I've expressed my view at far greater length than makes any sense, and I have a game to run in 15 minutes, so I will try to go back to lurking and resist the urge to post.
Hellcow 08-27-06, 07:59 PM	Evil act? Yes. Evil alignment? Not yet. Which is, in a sentence, what it took me four pages to say. ;)
paladin_omega 08-28-06, 12:21 AM	Evil act? Yes. Evil alignment? Not yet. :) Well I don't want my character to become evil so i'll show a little restrain next time and say "Pull out your weapon and fight me!" if they don't then i'll "think" about restraining them.
Shady314 08-28-06, 01:52 AM	If you think I'm saying otherwise, you've missed my point, Shady. What I'm saying is that showing mercy is, genarally speaking, a good act. Taking the life of a helpless person is an evil act. But a good person can perform an evil act! What makes the paladin stand out is that the paladin is REQUIRED to follow a very straight path. Sorry to misrepresent your argument. I agree with the gist of it. Evil can do good and vice versa. Absolutely agree. I think where we are differing is that I do not feel that "execution" (which is pretty much what the player's warforged did) is automatically an evil act. For example in my Eberron I gave the Sentinel Marshals the power to execute certain criminals with legal authority if they are determined to be too difficult to take alive and too dangerous to leave alone or those sentenced to death but too impossible to extradite. Obviously THAT argument will never be settled especially on a message board so I'll just part amicably. Still have MUCH respect for you and I definitely see where you're coming from.
Hellcow 08-28-06, 02:10 AM	Obviously THAT argument will never be settled especially on a message board so I'll just part amicably. Yes... obviously this really isn't the place for a discussion of whether the death penalty is inherently evil or something like that, and I don't mean to turn this into that. And I certainly understand your point of view, so I'm happy to let the matter stand as is. However... For example in my Eberron I gave the Sentinel Marshals the power to execute certain criminals with legal authority if they are determined to be too difficult to take alive and too dangerous to leave alone or those sentenced to death but too impossible to extradite. See, in my mind, that's a different situation. If you can't capture the person alive, that's fine. Again, you should never have to feel bad about fighting the EC, even if you kill their people in the process. That's fighting to defend others. The point is that in this situation they HAD captured him alive. So that brings us to "Too dangerous to leave alone." Is that actually the case with this person? If we're talking about the powerful vampire lord, I'd be more likely to say yes - this is a deadly person who will easily escape restraints and. This fellow, on the other had, is some random mook. Is he really too dangerous to just knock out and tie up? Sure, he might be found and freed, but can he really do that much harm? And beyond that, my point is that if you feel the answer is "Yes", then kill him. You gotta do what you gotta do. I'm saying that I expect the good person to feel remorse for doing it - to hate the fact that there's no other way, but to say "We just can't afford to let you live - our mission is too important. May the Sovereigns forgive me."... as opposed to "Eh, who gives a :censored:. Just kill the creep and let's get moving." But I have to agree with Edymnion: at the end of the day, who cares? The point is that in Eberron, being evil isn't a crime. It doesn't make you a monster. If you're a ruthless, cold-blooded killer who would happily murder every EC soldier in his sleep given the chance (after all, they'd do the same with you), I'd make you evil. But how many people are going to criticize you for fighting the Emerald Claw? Again, you're like Kaius - a ruthless person fighting for a noble cause. So what if you're not a paragon of moral virtue. You're working for the [i]greater[i] good, and that's much bigger than your personal alignment... which, as it turns out is evil. If other people don't like your methods and you get burned by the holy avenger... so what? You know your cause is just. And now I'll finally shut up. But thank you for the response, Shady. We're not entirely on the same page, but I do understand your position.
Lafarallin 08-28-06, 02:11 AM	:) Well I don't want my character to become evil so i'll show a little restrain next time and say "Pull out your weapon and fight me!" if they don't then i'll "think" about restraining them. Well another issue here is if the person is no match for you it is still pretty "cruel." Imagine a 12 year old raised in an evil organization. He emulates those around him. You toss him a sword and say fight me! You hack him down easily as you knew you would. This is hardly a good act and isn't really a solution to the above issues. Even if it was a grown adult, you obviously wouldn't challenge them if you thought you would lose. Also if you start fighting the person and begin losing, you'd most likely have your group jump in and help you kill them. I think in either scenario you're really not skirting the issue of killing someone who is not posing an immediate threat. I'm in law enforcement and this kind of reminds me of the definition of "deadly force" and what actions justify the use of "deadly force." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Deadly Force: The intentional use of a firearm or other instrument, the use of which is likely to cause death. Justification to use deadly force: That behavior which has caused or imminently threatens to cause death or great bodily harm to you or to another person(s). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In order for an officer (in my neck of the woods) to use "deadly force" you would have to be able to justify it. In the scenario described by the O.P.; an officer who did that would not only be unjustified, but would also be convicted of murder. Now this is all defined by modern day, American laws. Granted the laws in Eberron aren't necessarily the same. I think the theme is similar though. Some things are justified and some things aren't. Just my two cents though, everyone can run their campaigns anyway they want.
Shady314 08-28-06, 02:37 AM	The point is that in this situation they HAD captured him alive. So that brings us to "Too dangerous to leave alone." Is that actually the case with this person? If we're talking about the powerful vampire lord, I'd be more likely to say yes - this is a deadly person who will easily escape restraints and. This fellow, on the other had, is some random mook. Is he really too dangerous to just knock out and tie up? Sure, he might be found and freed, but can he really do that much harm? First let me say I agree with what you said especially with the fact certain circumstances warrant different considerations. I WAS imagining the scenario with the guard being too dangerous to leave alive. I assume any mission a PC is on will turn out to be pretty durn important after all. And usually those missions take them to far off out of the way places where police are hard to find. :D If they were city watchmen or had a simple means of turning him over to the authorities or similar I would have been harsher. :) I take a slight exception with the idea that the Good act is to leave a person you know nothing about except that he joined the EC, which one can only assume is VERY VERY likely to make him a VERY dangerous person, unharmed and unguarded and then leave him at your back and hope he doesn't get away. :uh-huh: I think he could do a GREAT deal of harm. Report to superiors and get reinforcements there. Give your description out which could be followed by attempted assassinations. Ambush you from behind at a critical juncture. Or worst of all just go off and do something evil to random innocents while he makes a desperate getaway. But I can be very cruel that way. :evillaugh
Hellcow 08-28-06, 06:30 PM	Imagine a 12 year old raised in an evil organization. He emulates those around him. That's essentially the point to me. There are going to be people in the EC because their parents were in the EC and it's what they know. There are people in it because they believe it's the only force that will give them justice against actions taken by another nation (again, the Karrn whose village was destroyed in a Thrane attack). And hey, if you're a Thrane yourself, sparing that last guy's life may be the key to proving to him that Thranes aren't the monsters that he's always believed them to be. Essentially, the question is whether you believe that redemption is possible, and if so, if mercy can inspire change. Most members of the EC will be die-hards. It's unquestionably an extremist organization, and it's an organization that serves an evil purpose. Again, I have no problem with using all necessary force to stop whatever plan they're up to. But it's back to Lafarallin's example; there's a difference between using deadly force to prevent someone else from killing, and from killing a helpless person who currently poses no threat. Because while that person might be an irredeemable monster, he might also be a decent person who's taken the wrong path - and your act of mercy could be the pivotal step that changes that. Again, I don't think you HAVE to spare him to be good (unless, of course, you're a paladin). But I think that choosing to spare him is unquestionably a good action. It's a humanitarian impulse that places the value of life above your own well-being, and that places faith in the concept that redemption is possible and mercy is a virtue. Killing him may be convenient, and it may even be necessary; but it is ending a life, removing any chance for redemption, and potentially having disastrous consequences on the people who are dependent on this person (who may have a family, children, etc). So again, I think it's an evil act. But sometimes evil acts are necessary. An evil act may make the world a better place. Again, depending on the circumstances, the OP may have done exactly what he needed to do. I'm just saying that in my campaign, the fact that it's necessary and serves a greater good doesn't automatically make the action itself good.
Lafarallin 08-28-06, 09:40 PM	Essentially, the question is whether you believe that redemption is possible, and if so, if mercy can inspire change. I agree with this 100%. Mercy and compassion are two inherently "good" things; however, a "good" person can be consumed by anger and commit murder. Also, an "evil" person can have a moment of compassion and spare someone's life. This is my first time running a campaign in Eberron, but I really feel this is the difference between this world and others. The alignments aren't black and white but shades of gray. The character in the O.P.'s story could definately be a good guy. His anger and hatred though led him to perform an inherently "evil" act. This doesn't make the character "evil"; however, the character best be careful he does not become that which he hates.
ChimericalWolf 08-29-06, 05:25 AM	So a paladin will sense this person as being evil... but he nonetheless is fighting the enemies of the paladin and protecting the innocent. It's more like Jedi and the force; "there is much darkness in this one." Doesn't mean he's a monster, it means he's more comfortable and prone to performing certain acts than someone else might be. Mr. The Cow, would you, in the light of this statment, feel secure in removing a Paladin's "...never knowingly associate with with evil characters..." Clause? Something along the lines of "This man would be better served by my example then by my absense."
Ozymandias V. 08-29-06, 06:04 AM	It wasn't evil. If he didn't want to be slain he shouldn't have joined a cult known for murdering people and pursuing evil goals. That automatically makes him a deadly threat as he wouldn't be associating with them if he didn't believe in their cause. :/
Lafarallin 08-29-06, 11:49 AM	It wasn't evil. If he didn't want to be slain he shouldn't have joined a cult known for murdering people and pursuing evil goals. That automatically makes him a deadly threat as he wouldn't be associating with them if he didn't believe in their cause. :/ Funny how different people view things as good and evil. I'm sure there are a lot of people that think the USA fit into the same description you just gave. Sometimes inherently "good" organizations do "evil" things and vice versa. The Catholic Church is a prime example of this and is reflected almost eerily in the Church of the Silver Flame. I don't think anyone could argue that any common religion preaches murder and rape. Most have very good morals and guidelines (whether you believe them or not). However, much evil has been wrought in the name of religion. On the flip side, much "good" has been done in the name of religions. An unidentified (just so I don't turn this into a verbal war) country in a past war was clearly "evil" in my opinion. Many of the people that lived there followed the countries leader even though many of them were "good" people. Many "good" achievements and scientific advancements came out of that country, as they pushed for better technology for war. So sometimes "good" an come from "evil". Bah...I could go on and on. The point is you can't label a whole organization as "evil" just because the majority of the people are "evil." You can't stereotype everyone in an organization because you disagree with their perceived beliefs. People do not fit neatly into categories.
Hellcow 08-29-06, 01:01 PM	If he didn't want to be slain he shouldn't have joined a cult known for murdering people and pursuing evil goals. Again, I disagree. Killing an evil person is not necessarily a good act. It's choosing a different path that MAKES you good, instead of just doing exactly what the other guy would do to you. Beyond that, you have the question of why the guy joined the group, and what he considers their motives and purpose to be. It's not like the EC hands out a little orientation packet at the start saying "Welcome to the Emerald Claw! Just so you know, we'll be murdering innocents!" Taking the example of the EC member whose village was wiped out by Thranes, he would tell you "I am a soldier, and NO Thrane is innocent!" He might actually balk at killing a helpless Talenta halfling because this has nothing to do with his motivation for being in the group; however, his bosses, knowing this, would tend to deploy him in operations in Thrane. Very few people SEE their own actions as evil. In all liklihoood, the majority of members of the Emerald Claw believe that their unquestionably evil acts are nonetheless somehow justified, such as the person who believes that all Thranes deserve to die for what they've done to his country. You can certainly say "All members of the EC deserve to die for what they've done"... but at that point, you are now standing in the boots of this EC soldier, prepared to kill someone because of what they comrades or leaders have done. Again, there's a good chance the soldier would kill you if given the chance. But will you do what you think he - an evil man - would do to you? Or will you do what you'd like him to do? Mr. The Cow, would you, in the light of this statment, feel secure in removing a Paladin's "...never knowingly associate with with evil characters..." Clause? I would be willing to weaken it, to say that the paladin could associate with the individual under the following circumstances: 1. If the paladin actively seeks to indentify the source of the associate's evil behavior and help him change it... in the example of the Karrn given above, to show to him that Thranes aren't all monsters, and that a Thrane peasant doesn't deserve to die for the actions of a Thrane soldier. 2. If the paladin feels that progress is being made - that this is not a hopeless cause. If the PC is completely ignoring him and continuing to perform evil actions, I think you have problems. Yes, this person could benefit from the paladin's presence... but is he? 3. If the paladin is able to prevent serious evil acts from occuring. As I've said before, an evil character can serve a greater good. A character could torture a prisoner to get information that may save thousands. But a paladin couldn't stand by and let the character torture. Whether or not he is allowed to associate with the evil character he would need to step in and prevent things like this from occuring. And in my opinion, a paladin would have to step in and prevent another PC from killing a helpless prisoner. Point two is critical. I wouldn't go along with "Oh, Joe's evil, and whenever we need to torture someone we just lure the paladin away and Joe does his thing." If the paladin feels that Joe is unrepetant and shows no indication of change, then he shouldn't go along with it. The Church of the Silver Flame has more evil people than it does paladins; following the "PC classes are rare", paladins are actually exceptional and far and few between. The Church of the Silver Flame MAY have inquistors who torture those who must be tortured, and those people will of necessity (in my opinion) be evil. A paladin who learns of this will protest this behavior to the cardinals, say that it besmirches everything the Flame stands for, and so on; even though it's part of his own church, the paladin wouldn't say "Oh, that makes torture OK", and would not associate with such an inquistor. Of course, again, the cardinals KNOW this... and would do everything in their power to keep the paladin from ever encountering the inquisitor. So, do I think a paladin could associate with an evil person serving a good cause? Yes. But only if he feels that the person can and will be turned to the light, and if he actively works towards that purpose. In otherwords, if someone WANTS to play an evil character, and being a socipathic bastard is central to his character idea, as a DM I wouldn't put him and a paladin PC in the same party for a long term campaign. Short-term? Great, and there's room for some good roleplaying here. But long-term, if the one PC *wants* to be evil and has no intention of being swayed, there will be problems down the road.
Kreistor1 08-29-06, 02:04 PM	Eberron is intended to present Pulp Noir stories. We can ignore the Pulp part of that for this subject, but the Noir, which comes from Film Noir, we cannot. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Film Noir: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_noir Film noirs tend to revolve around heroes who are more flawed and morally questionable than the norm... Certain archetypal characters appear in many film noirs—hardboiled detectives, femmes fatales, corrupt policemen, jealous husbands, intrepid claims adjusters, and down-and-out writers. Bars, lounges, nightclubs, and gambling dens are frequently the scene of action. The movies are seen as depicting a world that is inherently corrupt. Rather than focusing on simple "black and white" decisions, film noirs tend to pose moral quandaries that are unusually ambiguous and relative Characters that do pursue goals based on clear-cut moral standards may be more than willing to let the "ends justify the means." That should be enough. I think it conveys a point, though not my point. Film Noir is a bad place for the classic Paladin. The police are corrupt. The damsel in distress is corrupt. Anyone the Paladin associates with is going to be corrupt. Nothing is ever as it seems. In that mold, we have to give the Paladin a huge break in terms of his Code, or no Paladin player will feel anything except the constant pain of being in moral quandary after moral quandary (some players love that, others hate it). Nothing about Eberron is cut and dry. The Blood of Vol is evil. Or is it? It really did save Karrnath from losing the Last War: a Karrnathi Paladin wouldn't see the Blood of Vol as inherently evil. What I would argue for is the removal of certain elements of the Code that pertain to associations. First, associating with "evil" characters is inevitable in Film Noir and should not be held as a limit in the code in a game where Film Noir will be used as inspiration. Second, the definition of "evil" needs to be changed. Film Noir blurs all the lines of good and evil, meaning you now have Good, okay, neutral, wrong, and Evil, and you can add other shades of grey in between those. You need to push the definition of evil further from Neutral, or else there just are too many people the Paladin can not associate with. I would argue, for instance, that Neutral Greedy (which often is really on the border of chaotic evil) should be a neutral alignment in a Film Noir universe, allowing the Paladin to associate. What the Paladin should be denied association with are big "E" Evil, not little "e" evil. Petty criminals and con men are evils. Gangsters and drug dealers are Evils. ____________ On the specifics of the case mentioned above, yes, what the Paladin did broke his Code.Specifically... a paladin’s code requires that she ... act with honor(not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth) and help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends) The murder of a helpless individual is a dishonorable act. It is akin to using poison. You also lied, which is also dishonorable. Taking someone's surrnder is telling them that you are no longer threatening them if they ensure they can't threaten you. They give over their weapons to ensure they aren't a threat, and you guarantee their safety. That guarantee was a lie, since you decided to kill him after he placed himself honorably in your care. Also, the Emerald Claw soldier, without a means to defend himself, is now someone in need. You have put him in that position. You must, therefore, help him. You may predict that the character will do evil in the future, but that is not you helping them do evil. You are not helping them do evil by guaranteeing their survival. Any act of kindness could potentially be turned back on you by anyone, not just someone you think of as evil. Now, I will say this: I never let a Paladin player accidentally lose his paladinhood. If he is going to perform an evil act that will cost him his status, I ensure he knows the act will do so before he chooses to roll the dice. I think it is clear from the above that I don't think the same as a lot of people: I don't expect my players to know inherently how I will interpret a particular act.
Shady314 08-29-06, 03:23 PM	The OP's character is not a paladin. His username just happens to use the word paladin.
Lafarallin 08-29-06, 03:26 PM	The OP's character is not a paladin. His username just happens to use the word paladin. Nobody said the OP's character was a paladin. They are merely replying to ChimericalWolf's post and question therein.
ArcTan 08-29-06, 03:38 PM	The essence of noir was created in the hardboiled detective fiction of Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett, so here's an extended quotation from Chandler's "The Simple Art of Murder" (required reading for anyone who wants to tell a mystery story in any form, even in the context of an RPG campaign): "But down these mean streets must walk a man who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid. The detective in this kind of story must be such a man. He is the hero; he is everything. He must be a complete man and a common man and yet an unusual man. He must be, to use a rather weathered phrase, a man of honor -- by instinct, by inevitability, without thought of it, and certainly without saying it. He must be the best man in his world and a good enough man for any world. I do not care much abou this private life; he is neither a eunuch nor a satyr; I think he might seduce a duchess and I am quite sure he would not spoil a virgin; if he is a man of honor in one thing, he is that in all things." It doesn't fit the somewhat corny D&D stereotype of the Paladin, but if you want the *idea* of the Paladin in pure noir form, that's it. Think Commander Vimes from Discworld, or Detective Hartigan (the "last honest cop") in Sin City. He's surrounded by evil, sure; in his world it's impossible not to associate with evil. But he never *accepts* evil. He's never okay with the darkness in his world -- he fights against it in all the ways that he can. He'll deal with the muggers and pimps and slumlords but he'll maintain as much distance as he can; he'll never enjoy being around them, and he'll never succeed in fully masking his anger and contempt at the lives they lead and what they have let themselves become. He will have associates who are more tarnished than he is, but he will never stop trying and hoping for a way to pull his friends out of the muck, to carve out an island of justice and safety in the mean streets. The *world* sees Good and Evil as relative and mutable, but he doesn't. He never can -- it's not in his blood. The Paladin can't be the knight-in-shining-armor stereotype in a noir campaign, of course not. But he *can* still be every inch the Paladin that a Paladin should be, in principle -- be the shining example of something pure and good beyond what the world expects. In fact, he almost has to be -- the point of noir, what makes noir artistic in Chandler's mind, is presenting the potential for human redemption, even ultimate human redemption -- of saintliness -- in the worst of human environments. I would never want to actually play in a noir campaign where the point was "We're all evil amoral bastards" -- noir is about the tragic, heroic struggle of a noble soul against the evil around him. Sam Spade wouldn't kill some poor bastard who'd answered his questions, not even if he was tied up with one of the nastiest gangs in the city. He'd curse to himself and end up brooding over it later, but he'd up dragging the poor sucker into the cops or else letting him run back into the mean streets, there to join the other screwed-up stories of the cold city. In fact, this is what typically *happens* when some nasty, snivelling thug answers Sam Spade's questions, didn't you notice? The hardboiled PI frequently encounters tons of horrible bastards working for all kinds of other horrible bastards, and yet he never succumbs to becoming like them -- his interest is in finding the truth and protecting the innocent, not in vengeance. Interestingly, it's the *fact* that noir is such a dark environment that means noir heroes much more naturally develop a Paladin-like deontologist sense of ethics than a utilitarian one -- the noir world is one where consequences *don't matter*, where no matter how hard you try the bastards always win. In such a world, the only solace a good person can take in his situation is that *at least he isn't a bastard*, even if he loses in the end.
Shady314 08-29-06, 03:42 PM	Nobody said the OP's character was a paladin. They are merely replying to ChimericalWolf's post and question therein. Kreistor1 specifically said in this specific case (IE the OP's situation) "what the paladin did broke his code." Then went on to list how the act broke a paladin's code. I didn't see the relation to associating with evil. Unless the point was that a paladin should not associate with anyone that would break the code paladin's follow. Which I doubt is his point. Otherwise a paladin could travel only with paladins.
Lafarallin 08-29-06, 04:08 PM	If a paladin acted like the character did in the original post, he should without a doubt, lose his paladinhood. I don't think many would argue otherwise. It was a "cruel" and "evil" act; however, I don't believe it was enough to completely change someone's alignment. More importantly though, why couldn't it? I personally find penalizing someone for roleplaying changes in a character's views and morals unnecessary. This is just good roleplaying. I think very few people start life with the same exact beliefs and morals they end life with. Change can be fun in roleplaying. The point of the thread was to ask though, if the scenario described was "evil". I think we can clearly argue it was not "good", and definately falls into the "evil" category. What does this mean? Well nothing really. Just seems like the aforementioned character might be willing to do "whatever" it takes to destroy those he views as "evil". What comes next? Will he sacrifice a few good people in a building to burn down an Emerald Claw headquarters with hundreds of members inside? This all sounds like good storyline and fun roleplaying to me.
Hellcow 08-29-06, 04:41 PM	Film Noir is a bad place for the classic Paladin. I agree, though I think ArcTan raises many good points on the subject. Nonetheless, a heavily noir campaign will be a terrible place for someone who wants to play a classic paladin, as you suggest. However, it is up to the DM to decide just how noir a campaign is. Eberron was intended to catch the feel of Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Maltese Falcon... two very different campaigns. If you're playing the grimy inquisitive campaign based around the Boromar-Daask war in Sharn? That's going to be a tough place for the paladin (though you could still get a little Elliot Ness going on). On the other hand, if your campaign is all about fighting the Emerald Claw in Xen'drik, racing to get ancient artifacts before they fall into evil hands? There's a little more room for black-and-white there, if that's what the DM wants. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indy carries a gun. He doesn't hesitate to shoot the Nazis trying to get the Ark. But if I was watching the movie and a Nazi soldier (not one of the main villains, just a guard) surrenders and provides Indy with information, I would be shocked if Indy just shot him in the back of the head. I'd expect him to pistol-whip him, take his gun, and move on... because Indy is a good guy. He'll kill when he has too, but he'd rather not. And yes, it's quite possible that later we'll see that guard show up again and cause trouble. But sparing his life is still a good act. With that said, excellent posts ArcTan and Kreistor1. The noir side of Eberron is something I enjoy and try to bring into my campaigns whenever possible. However, it isn't for everyone... and you aren't somehow inherently flawed if you prefer to avoid the darker aspects of the world. You're just missing the chance for some very interesting scenarios. ;) (And yes, despite his handle, I do not believe the OP was a paladin, or my responses would have been quite different.)
Skeetweasel 08-29-06, 05:32 PM	great thread
Kreistor1 08-29-06, 05:56 PM	Ironically, I can't yet play Eberron as Noir as I want to. My players aren't the rogueish type, so they don't solve the mysteries of Noir well. I have to play up the Pulp side, which really only makes it closer to classic DnD. *sigh* Indiana Jones will have to do for now. Arctan, I do understand that Film Noir has its roots in the PI novel, but Film Noir expanded far beyond that in the latter half of its recognized era. Heroes darkened as the genre developed, to the point that "the ends justify the means" became acceptable for the protagonist. It was sometimes impossible to see a difference between the hero and the villain. Now I can accept that most people will want to run or play the first decade of Noir than the second. But in any interpretation... noir is about the tragic, heroic struggle of a noble soul against the evil around him. is not true. That may be what Chandler himself was aiming for, but Chandler was not the only participant in the genre. Others turned the hero into the anti-hero, using as they committed attrocities of their own in trying to halt the attrocities of the villain. Obsession and blindness to one's own role in making the situation worse are also a part of Noir, just not so much a part of the first decade of Noir. Noir can be about what you mention, but it isn't the edge of the envelope. Noir allows for a much broader spectrum. Do I suggest playing that part of the spectrum? Heck, no. That is something that requires all of the players to know intimately thereby intentionally act to the genre, which far too few are capable of. The DM alone can't create a game like that and make it work: he needs the players to do their part, and not go overboard while balancing on the railing. It's just too easy for a game based on that model to fall into "Marv killing cops" when it should be "Dwight driving bodies to the pits".
Zeitgeist 08-30-06, 06:46 PM	I'm one of Paladin Omega's party members. I'm the artificer that keeps the warforged going, and the one who made the +1 Keen Armblade he used to mow down the EC. Here's some more info to consider: 1. The warforged regularly threatens NPCs (constant use of the Intimidate skill). We frequently have to talk him out of following through on his threats. 2. This was the first time anyone surrendered to the warforged. We have no precedent of how he treats prisoners. 3. We regularly loot corpses. We have chased down fleeing enemies to ensure there would be plenty of corpses to loot. As you can see, we are morally ambiguous at least. The warforged, however, is morally malfunctioning. You remember HAL the computer from 2001? Give him armor spikes, and you have our warforged. He can be totally evil, but he'll think he's good the entire time. The next implanted item I'm making for the warforged will be a modified Phylactery of Faithfulness. I'm calling it, "Mordenkainen's Moral Compass."
Lafarallin 08-30-06, 07:28 PM	I'm one of Paladin Omega's party members. I'm the artificer that keeps the warforged going, and the one who made the +1 Keen Armblade he used to mow down the EC. Here's some more info to consider: 1. The warforged regularly threatens NPCs (constant use of the Intimidate skill). We frequently have to talk him out of following through on his threats. 2. This was the first time anyone surrendered to the warforged. We have no precedent of how he treats prisoners. 3. We regularly loot corpses. We have chased down fleeing enemies to ensure there would be plenty of corpses to loot. As you can see, we are morally ambiguous at least. The warforged, however, is morally malfunctioning. You remember HAL the computer from 2001? Give him armor spikes, and you have our warforged. He can be totally evil, but he'll think he's good the entire time. The next implanted item I'm making for the warforged will be a modified Phylactery of Faithfulness. I'm calling it, "Mordenkainen's Moral Compass." It sounds like your group is neutral if not leaning towards evil. There is nothing wrong with this...but just play what you are. Nothing you have told me makes me believe any of you are good aligned. The statement I highlighted above leads me to believe you're whole group is neutral if anything. Chasing down and killing fleeing enemies just for more loot and all.
Siran Dunmorgan 08-30-06, 11:08 PM	Remember: this is Eberron. Good and Evil have objective existence here, but, unlike many other worlds, Good and Evil are not identical to Right and Wrong. —Siran Dunmorgan
ArcTan 09-01-06, 10:46 PM	Remember: this is Eberron. Good and Evil have objective existence here, but, unlike many other worlds, Good and Evil are not identical to Right and Wrong. —Siran Dunmorgan Er, what is this supposed to mean? It sounds like just words. Unless you're saying that in Eberron people with a Good alignment can do bad things, and that you have the whole idea of the Angels actually being tyrannical and evil but not Evil because the moral energy of the universe is wrong about morality or something. Which is a can of worms I don't wanna open up and isn't actually indicated by anything in Eberron. If you mean that it's possible to do something Evil in service of the greater Good, I sort of agree, but I think that the definition of this is open to a huge amount of moral debate, depending on whether you're Lawful or Chaotic Good, or even on whether you're really Good at all instead of being Neutral or Evil but claiming that a Neutral goal is a Good one.
OneWinged4ngel 09-02-06, 01:08 AM	There is a little debate in our party as to whether my character is evil because of something I did recently. Let me set the scene. We arrive at ruin in a jungle while on the trail of some Emerald Claw. There is one Emerald Claw soldier at the entrance. He knows he can't stand a chance against the party so he doesn't provoke a fight. After a bit of questioning (in which he proclaims he is lead by a powerful vampire) my Warforged cuts the Emerald Claw soldier down with his Armblade. The soldier doesn't try to defend himself but my character didn't care. He sees Emerald Claw as some douches that have crossed our paths way too many times and have proven themselves evil in my eyes. Also I didn't want to happen to us what happened in Saving Private Ryan where the German soldier which was spared comes back and is a royal pain in the ass. Shouda killed em but had to be nice. lesson learned I say :D DM seems to think (and one other player) that this was cold blooded and that I need to be using the evil descriptor. I seem to think that my character is Chaotic Good, but after taking the alignment test on the wizards site apparently the character is Neutral Good. BTW in the test when asked if i would kill a guard I answered that i would and i still came out with a good descriptor. In my defense I didn't kill an innocent, and it's not like my character has no disregard for life. He would still run into a burning building to save a cat :). Who thinks I should be evil? Thanks in advance! The problem with this is that alignment shouldn't be jumping around like that. Quite simply, your alignment should be decided by your general personality, rather than a single event. You have to consistently be Evil to get the Evil alignment, and vice versa. A moment of empathy or heroism doesn't make you Good, nor does a moment of cruelty or anger make you Evil. Generally speaking, a single act should never change your alignment. Consistent behavior sets your alignment, not what you did one day. Edit: Looking up, I see that Hellcow already covered this far better than I took the time to... and I agree with Keith's view on the matter. Remember: this is Eberron. Good and Evil have objective existence here, but, unlike many other worlds, Good and Evil are not identical to Right and Wrong. —Siran Dunmorgan Actually, this is exactly the same as EVERY setting with objective alignment (even though often many settings are contradictory on their rulings of what is Good and Evil in their 'objective' system). In any objective system, Good and Evil cannot be equivelent to your views of Right and Wrong, or else it is technically a subjective system, which can't work for rules at all. Eberron just emphasizes that this is the case.
davethebrave371 09-02-06, 04:02 PM	It's been said, but my opinion on good is the point about redemption. If your game includes the ability for a good person to turn evil and vice versa (which every WotC setting does, as written) then a good person is remiss in not attempting to find a method of redemption instead of killing him. If that method needs to be a time-saver option, then you knock him out. Show him the mercy he wouldn't have given you (if you're assuming that he wouldn't have). In my campaign, we have characters who run the gamut from L to C, G to E. No paladins (actually, no divine casters at all, although an old character had a LN BoV Cleric for a Rekkenmark aide ala 5N, and eventually a cohort...but that character and his cohort got abducted by the Dreaming Dark...getting off track). Now, while we have no good divine people, we certainly have members of good alignment, who feel strongly about being good, and frown on actions other members take. However, one of the characters I've felt was the strongest good was a warforged artificer in our group. We had a member of the group (a changeling serving the Cabinet of Faces and the Tyrants) that he perceived as slipping into evil (he was actually LN), and he actually ended up getting kicked out of the group in game when the group discovered his duplicities. Secretly, behind the other characters' backs, the 'forged hired the character to accompany him on a soul-seeking journey he was taking to Xen'drik (the rest of the party assumed he was going alone). Now, the player of the changeling had already made a new character, and the other character was relegated to my DM toolchest by the player...but the player of my warforged knew that he wouldn't just give up on him. So he temporarily retired a much-loved character to redeem what was now an NPC, and took aside the other player for some private RP. I was especially proud of how to-the-hilt he was playing his character, even though as a player he much prefers his 'forged to any of his other ones since (I can tell by the rate at which he cycles through new characters in our game currently). He wouldn't have been evil if he'd just let the guy go. In fact, letting him move on with his life after how he'd betrayed them was hard for some of the people with Good written on their character sheets. They were angry (in character, out of character people were impressed with how he'd pulled it off) and I could have seen them pulling one of those "evil act but we're still good...unless we keep doing it" acts we've been talking about in this thread. But instead, the warforged counseled them to kick him out, and then secretly (knowing he'd meet with disapproval if it was public) let him in on what was to be a solitary, personal experience, in an attempt to get this guy back on track. Of course, the less good characters were all behind eliminating the threat he presented, and I loved them for playing their roles to the hilt too. What it sounds like, to me, is that the OP is taking a test and assuming that's how his character acts, when he should be looking at how his character acts to determine how his character acts. And it sounds like as a player, he is sick of "goody-two shoes" characters, and as an Eberron player, he has every opportunity to be a CE character and not be a raving maniac. None of my players have had mental problems or personality imbalances, but we have had more Neutral and Evil characters than Good ones, in general, and I feel they all have good goals, even if they aren't always bright and shining examplars of their goals.
Siran Dunmorgan 09-05-06, 01:08 PM	Er, what is this supposed to mean? It sounds like just words. Unless you're saying that in Eberron people with a Good alignment can do bad things, and that you have the whole idea of the Angels actually being tyrannical and evil but not Evil because the moral energy of the universe is wrong about morality or something. Which is a can of worms I don't wanna open up and isn't actually indicated by anything in Eberron. If you mean that it's possible to do something Evil in service of the greater Good, I sort of agree, but I think that the definition of this is open to a huge amount of moral debate, depending on whether you're Lawful or Chaotic Good, or even on whether you're really Good at all instead of being Neutral or Evil but claiming that a Neutral goal is a Good one.What is it supposed to mean? We have a world of moral absolutes; we can measure Good and Evil in Eberron. We know that Good is related to certain actions—specifically, acting in defense of innocent life—and that Evil is also related to certain other actions—specifically, acting toward the destruction of innocent life—and that, in game terms, the scale over which good and evil are measured is typically in single encounters. This scale of time, however, is not sufficient to measure the rightness or wrongness of a particular action. It's relatively easy to propose an argument in which every action undertaken by the Children of Winter is evil, e.g., the systematic destruction of all innocent life on Eberron, is followed by a "New Spring" that does indeed result in the greatest feasible good for the whole world. Similarly, it is trivial to envision—and relatively common to find in gaming—situations in which doing good, e.g. preserving the life of an innocent Non-Player Character, results in terrible evil such as allowing a truly evil, torturous villain to escape. Thus, we come to see that there are evil actions that are Right, and good actions that are Wrong. There are two problems with this: first, certain characters—paladins are the usual example, but there are others—are restricted to the set of good actions, regardless of whether they are ultimately proven to be right or wrong. Second, it's mostly useless. If there's no way to tell that an action will prove ultimately right or wrong, then characters may as well act in accordance with their alignment and not worry about it. Oh. Wait. This is Eberron. We do have a way to tell if an action will prove ultimately beneficial or detrimental. The Prophecy. That, incidentally, is why so many struggles have been fought over it. A complete understanding of the Prophecy likewise engenders an understanding of Right and Wrong, including all of the branching factors, e.g. "given that condition X has already happened, one must produce condition Y to ultimately save the world, unless conditions Z, W, and V also occur, in which case one must produce condition T..." Other worlds generally don't have an equivalent of the Prophecy that also does not have a personality associated with it. The existence of the objective Prophecy is one of the elements that sets Eberron apart from other worlds. Thus, we must keep it in mind to remember: this is Eberron, and that here, Good and Evil are not identical to Right and Wrong. But of course, all of these are 'just words' as well. :) —Siran Dunmorgan
Renvale999 09-05-06, 03:49 PM	Now, this is how I see it, so please don't flame me lol. 1. The soldier joined the EC, and was most likely issued a weapon. Now, this implies that you are going to have to defend yourself. It also means you will probably have to take a life if asked/required. Now all of this is implied without actually having to know what you're going to be fighting for. 2. The moment he accepted that responisiblity, his life essentially became forfet for the cause, whether noble or not. The same goes for us soldiers(or disabled vets like me lol). They issued us a weapon, we may very well have to put a bullet in a terrorist, or take one from them or get hit by a road-side bomb. We knew that going into the military when we took our oaths. 3. That being said, we know that if we surrender, there is a good chance we are not going to make it out alive, law or no law. We accept that responibility as soldiers. The Geneva conventions protects our rights, but none of us honestly believe that if we are captured that we're going to get treated well or even kept alive. We'd like to think so, but I even doubt that every terrorist that gives up over in Iraq or wherever is given quarter...if you just saw your buddy get blown up by a bomb, are you really gonna show mercy? 4. All that being said, I believe that the soldier in the EC knew d*mn well what he was getting into. The EC is at war, whether it be with Thrane or with a party of adventurers they've crossed blades with. In conflict, you know that if you give up, even if you're giving up to the "good guys" there is a good chance that you're not going to make it. In summary, I think that good and evil doesn't apply to organizations like the EC(regardless of alignment or whatever), what matters is what you're willing to do for your cause and what is required of you. Your life becomes expendable to the cause. Just my two cents, hopefully I didn't offend anybody.
Kreistor1 09-05-06, 03:54 PM	The attitude of the victim is a consideration of the sentencing phase, not the determination of guilt phase. That the EC soldier expected to be murdered if he surrendered is irrelevant. It is the attitude of the killer that decides whether a crime was committed. In this case, the EC soldier was killed for convenience sake. That isn't good under any interpretation.
Renvale999 09-05-06, 04:15 PM	Sorry I don't see the EC soldier as a victim, he knew what he was getting into when he joined and the moment he got a weapon. War and conflict are ugly, and BOTH SIDES commit acts they may be what people might consider evil, but no soldier on either side is a victim...you know the costs when you join, period.
ChimericalWolf 09-05-06, 04:44 PM	And people know about carjackers. They're in the news, everyone's heard about them. So it's alright to carjack people, 'cause they know the risks and decided to drive anyway.
Lafarallin 09-05-06, 05:17 PM	Sorry I don't see the EC soldier as a victim, he knew what he was getting into when he joined and the moment he got a weapon. War and conflict are ugly, and BOTH SIDES commit acts they may be what people might consider evil, but no soldier on either side is a victim...you know the costs when you join, period. So if a teenager breaks into my house and I catch him, and easily over power him. I have every right to take my gun and blow his head off? Since he knew what he was getting into? I think your morals are a bit different then the norm.
Renvale999 09-05-06, 05:28 PM	I'm not talking about your "normal" crime and punishment, I'm talking about armed conflict....totally different set of rules. You are allowed to kill an enemy soldier, even if he is completely unaware of your presence(sniper for example). Civilians are not allowed to kill someone unless they are attacking us first or we catch them trying to hurt or kill someone else and even then it's up to the courts to decide if we were in the right or wrong... Anyway my apologies to the OP for de-railing the post, and my apologies to everyone else, I am/was a soldier, so I see things a little bit different, and I see the EC as terrorists, and to be honest, I'm hate terrorists. And I don't even use them in my Eberron game for that reason. Anyway please ignore my previous posts so that the orginal topic can be picked back up.
Lafarallin 09-05-06, 05:34 PM	I'm not talking about your "normal" crime and punishment, I'm talking about armed conflict....totally different set of rules. You are allowed to kill an enemy soldier, even if he is completely unaware of your presence(sniper for example). Civilians are not allowed to kill someone unless they are attacking us first or we catch them trying to hurt or kill someone else and even then it's up to the courts to decide if we were in the right or wrong... Have you ever served active duty during times of war? Have you ever been in combat? You seem to speak like you have first hand knowledge of this, so I'll assume you do. You don't recall recent news about American soldiers having been convicted of war crimes for abusing prisoners and/or killing unarmed combatants that surrendered? The O.P.'s scenario would not be an acceptable practice by American forces. Now I'm not being naive enough to say it doesn't happen, but it is not condoned or openly embraced as an acceptable way to handle situations like that. Regardless, you're comparing two completely different things. If you're in a war of course you can kill someone who doesn't know you're there. You don't shout out, "Hey we're ambushing you here. Heads up." This has nothing to do with troops that throw down their weapons and surrender though. As far as derailing the thread, this is exactly the point of the thread. To discuss morals and what is wrong and right or in essence, "Good" and "Evil". This has been one of the few threads that has matured into an intelligent discussion.
Just another user 09-05-06, 06:29 PM	Sorry I don't see the EC soldier as a victim, he knew what he was getting into when he joined and the moment he got a weapon. War and conflict are ugly, and BOTH SIDES commit acts they may be what people might consider evil, but no soldier on either side is a victim...you know the costs when you join, period. Just because he is not a victim it doesn't meant that killing him when he is helpless is not an evil act. It could be convenient, even necessary maybe, but nonetheless it is still evil.
davethebrave371 09-06-06, 09:37 AM	I'm not talking about your "normal" crime and punishment, I'm talking about armed conflict....totally different set of rules. The only reason it's a different set of rules is because the various militaries of the world drill that into their soldiers. The alignment system in D&D is philosophical, metaphysical not the kind of absolute you're talking about (and no absolute is ever absolutely true in any case). The point is that, in D&D, the alignments are clearly defined, and that act is clearly evil. Doesn't make the character evil, but from his posts in this thread, it sounds like he's evil anyway, or at best a teetering neutral. In war, the rules may be subjectively different, even to a large group of people (say, an army), but objectively, alignment still says what is Good and Evil. Though, as Siran pointed out, not what is Right or Wrong.
Shady314 09-06-06, 03:07 PM	The only reason it's a different set of rules is because the various militaries of the world drill that into their soldiers. The alignment system in D&D is philosophical, metaphysical not the kind of absolute you're talking about (and no absolute is ever absolutely true in any case). The point is that, in D&D, the alignments are clearly defined, and that act is clearly evil. Doesn't make the character evil, but from his posts in this thread, it sounds like he's evil anyway, or at best a teetering neutral. In war, the rules may be subjectively different, even to a large group of people (say, an army), but objectively, alignment still says what is Good and Evil. Though, as Siran pointed out, not what is Right or Wrong. D&D GODS say what is right or wrong not the universe any D&D setting is in. Trying to define absolute morality is a futile, frustrating and ultimately dumb waste of time. Especially in Eberron where there are no gods to back up the absolutist pov. If there weren't so many damn spells and abilities linked to it in D&D I'd just completely cut it out. OH and as for your statement that the alignments are clearly defined. :rolleyes: :eek: :rofl: :rofl: Is that why this argument is so eternal throughout DnD? Because it's just SO clear cut? I love that in the PHB each description of the good alignments ends with why it is the BEST to be and each evil why it is the MOST dangerous. Yes it is all VERY clear.
Lafarallin 09-06-06, 03:30 PM	D&D GODS say what is right or wrong not the universe any D&D setting is in. Trying to define absolute morality is a futile, frustrating and ultimately dumb waste of time. Especially in Eberron where there are no gods to back up the absolutist pov. If there weren't so many damn spells and abilities linked to it in D&D I'd just completely cut it out. OH and as for your statement that the alignments are clearly defined. :rolleyes: :eek: :rofl: :rofl: Is that why this argument is so eternal throughout DnD? Because it's just SO clear cut? I love that in the PHB each description of the good alignments ends with why it is the BEST to be and each evil why it is the MOST dangerous. Yes it is all VERY clear. I think you look at human behavior and morals to understand alignments in this game. This game is based on human perceptions. This game and most D&D games are based on western mores and beliefs. That being said, we look at the common accepted mores of western culture. It is wrong to steal. It is wrong to kill. It is wrong to have sexual intercourse with a child. It is wrong to physically abuse someone. It is wrong to take advantage of someone mentally incompetent. It is wrong to practice slavery. It is wrong to use drugs. These are just a few of the common mores of western culture. Yes some people don't believe in the above but the majority of people do. AD&D is based on western culture and reglious beliefs. If someone in the middle east was roleplaying this game they might find some things I would find horrifying, as perfectly acceptable. That is the reason alignment debates can go on forever. As far as this debate goes...we're looking at a scenario where an enemy surrenders putting his life in the hands of the adventurers. Killing the enemy in cold blood is going to be viewed as evil in Western Culture. I'm guessing many in the middle east would disagree. They would probably see nothing wrong with killing their enemy and then dragging them behind a horse all the way back to Sharn. So we're stuck in a debate that really can't be won. If you are going to sway from the general western mores and view things differently, the alignment system as it is defined in most D&D Games is moot. You might as well toss it out the window because like it or not, the alignment system is definately heavily influenced by western culture, religion and laws. EDIT: When I saw laws against changelings impersonating people, I laughed. This is basically mimicking the new laws against "Identity Theft." There are obvious correlations between modern law and fantasy laws.
ChimericalWolf 09-06-06, 03:38 PM	Killing the enemy in cold blood is going to be viewed as evil in Western Culture. I'm guessing many in the middle east would disagree. They would probably see nothing wrong with killing their enemy and then dragging them behind a horse all the way back to Sharn. Disagree. Most people in the Middle East would be just as horrified as us. Main differance is that their crazies have banded together and taken a whole mess of power while we lock ours away. But this is not the place for this discussion, which is more suited for a political board, which I try to avoid. [/derail]
Shady314 09-06-06, 03:44 PM	I think you look at human behavior and morals to understand alignments in this game. So then by your own argument the D&D system is an absolutist moral system based off a relativist moral system. That's not a recipe for disaster. :rolleyes: I'm not going to get into the racist stuff about the Middle East because I really don't see your point. Anyhow to get back on track as evidenced by this very thread alignment is only as absolute as the DM makes it when they enforce it. Even by KB's argument you might sometimes have to kill someone who is currently helpless. The only argument comes in whether this can then be sometimes considered a good action or if it is ALWAYS (re: Absolute) evil. KB said it was always evil but good can get away with it from time to time. I say different circumstances can change what is good and what is evil. This is why some people say the Assassin must always be evil and why others say it is no different than using sneak attack in a surprise round. In Serenity did I find Mal shooting the Operative when he was unarmed and attempting to negotiate an evil act? (Remember it is before we even know the Operative is ruthless enough to kill children offhand) I personally didn't. But some people would argue it was an "intrinsically" evil act. I don't like to get into arguments of intrinsic morality especially with my players so alignment is very very muted in my games.
Lafarallin 09-06-06, 03:53 PM	So then by your own argument the D&D system is an absolutist moral system based off a relativist moral system. That's not a recipe for disaster. :rolleyes: I'm not going to get into the racist stuff about the Middle East. Because I really don't see your point. I didn't say it was absolutist. I said it is based on western beliefs of right and wrong. I didn't say that the western beliefs are "right" and everyone else is wrong. But the game is based on western culture because that is where the original creators are from. If the game was originated in China we'd probably have a far different game. I don't recall making any racist comments. The comment about the middle east was not made in any negative way. I don't judge other cultures. Their views are perfectly justified in their point of view. They have reasons to feel anger towards their enemies and they feel justified in doing so. I'm not judging anyone. If you read more into it, that is your personal feelings not mine. I'm not arrogant enough to say that one culture is right and the other is wrong. Getting back on track. The point I was making is this game is based on western culture, religion and laws. That is pretty obvious. So if you have questions concerning alignment it is pretty easy to look at the action in correlation to the western world. Is this a hard concept to follow?
Lafarallin 09-06-06, 03:55 PM	Disagree. Most people in the Middle East would be just as horrified as us. Main differance is that their crazies have banded together and taken a whole mess of power while we lock ours away. But this is not the place for this discussion, which is more suited for a political board, which I try to avoid. [/derail] I can't speak for a whole nation. I was merely throwing an example out there as how some cultures could view some things differently. If you prefer I'll say people in Japan. I know for a fact they had some interesting ideas on what you could do to prisoners of war. The point is I'm not saying they are right or wrong. I'm just merely trying to show that across the world, some people view things differently. The main point was D&D alignments and such are influenced by western culture.
DragonWatcher 09-06-06, 04:02 PM	D&D GODS say what is right or wrong not the universe any D&D setting is in. Trying to define absolute morality is a futile, frustrating and ultimately dumb waste of time. Especially in Eberron where there are no gods to back up the absolutist pov. If there weren't so many damn spells and abilities linked to it in D&D I'd just completely cut it out. Not quite... right and wrong are subjective values. This is to say that each person (and the majority of people as a society) determine what is right and what is wrong. To the rakshasa, working to free the Rajahs is clearly the RIGHT thing to do. Meanwhile, to the barbarians of the Demon Wastes, preventing the release of the Rajahs is the RIGHT thing to do. Right and wrong are in the mind of the actor as well as those who are affected by the action. What I believe might be a bit closer to correct is that the deities in D&D determine Good and Evil... which according to the Alignment System are indeed absolute cosmic forces which play on the setting on many levels. However, this is still not quite correct. Many outsiders have a subtype of Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos assoicated with them. Those that do are actual embodiments of this cosmic force. It's not that they DETERMINE what is Good or Evil... it's that they ARE Good or Evil. The fact is that Eberron still uses Alignment just like any other D&D setting, and those spells, powers, magic items, etc. are still ingrained into the setting. The difference is that Eberron is the first setting that hasn't tried to intrinsically tie Good to right, and Evil to wrong. It is possible to commit evil acts to promote the right in Eberron... heck, you might even believe that you're a goodguy for doing it, but according to the Alignment System you won't necessarily be a Good guy. Y'know, at one point, someone might have said, "Trying to stat out an inherent characteristic such as Wisdom with an absolute and arbitrary number is ultimately dumb and a waste of time." However, then they realized that they didn't need a relative means to measure instinct and spirituality in relation to other characters, they needed an absolute way to measure it in the setting itself. Without a clearly defined Wisdom Attribute it was impossible to determine how much potential divine casters would have, and what their limits were. Alignments should work the same way. They're a GAME MECHANIC, not a measure of intent, individual values, or real life ethics. Without a clearly defined basis for judging individual acts, the Alignment System becomes nothing more than a frustrating point of contention between players (including the DM) on a regular basis, and while it's certainly tempting to toss it, it's tied so deeply into the game that the side-effects of such an action are usually unexpected and varied. OH and as for your statement that the alignments are clearly defined. :rolleyes: :eek: :rofl: :rofl: Is that why this argument is so eternal throughout DnD? Because it's just SO clear cut? I love that in the PHB each description of the good alignments ends with why it is the BEST to be and each evil why it is the MOST dangerous. Yes it is all VERY clear. I agree that Alignments (or at least the acts that contribute to each Alignment) need to be better defined. That said, I believe that the reason that they never have been is likely the same reason that you site in your argument. People don't like being judged, and for gamers this tends to overlap into not wanting their characters to be judged either. Each person has a slightly different set of subjective values (heck, they could be widely different), and when you start setting down judgements about the possible actions that we might consider, people take it personally... and as I've said, I've seen this extend to judgements based on a character's action. In my games, murder is ALWAYS an Evil act. It might sometimes be the right thing to do (we've all heard that you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs), but the act of killing someone who is either innocent or unable to defend themselves is an Evil act. Stealing is an EVIL act in my games... and I don't even care if the character is stealing to feed themselves to keep from starving. In this particular case, stealing might (again) be the right thing to do, but it's still an Evil act. Now, as a DM, I take the time to go over this kind of information with my players before we start. I don't prevent them from playing Evil characters, but I do insist they play heroes. This means that they're ultimately working towards noble ends... even if their means might be questionable. I also don't believe that a single Evil act will change your Alignment (but hell yes I hold paladins up to the highest standards... and therefore I don't have many players who want to play paladins... but those that do usually do an AMAZING job), but if your character starts to develop a tendency for Evil acts, then I will enforce a shift. My main belief is that it is up to the DM to set out the guidelines before a campaign starts to the best of their ability. At this point, if any players want to make a case for an alternate point of view, they can do so... but ultimately it is up to the DM (as referee) what rules (s)he is going to enforce. If you allow Alignment to be run as a subjective code of ethics and values, I believe you will (without fail) run into arguments about how "My character believes that this is a Good act", or how "If we don't kill the old woman, the city will be destroyed so it must be Good". I would argue that only the smallest percentage of people who regularly engage in Evil acts believe themselves to be committing Evil. Evil people nearly always have a justification for what they do... and to them, it makes perfect sense. Alignment, like any other game mechanic, needs to be clearly defined and consistent to be utilized as a sensible part of a game.
DragonWatcher 09-06-06, 04:07 PM	In Serenity did I find Mal shooting the Operative when he was unarmed and attempting to negotiate an evil act? For what it's worth, I did. However, I believe that Mal from Serenity would be a perfect example of a Chaotic Evil hero. There's not a snoball's chance in Fernia that anyone could convince me that Mal is neutral, let alone Good, but I do believe that he's trying to do the right thing by taking down the Alliance.
ChimericalWolf 09-06-06, 04:12 PM	For what it's worth, I did. However, I believe that Mal from Serenity would be a perfect example of a Chaotic Evil hero. There's not a snoball's chance in Fernia that anyone could convince me that Mal is neutral, let alone Good, but I do believe that he's trying to do the right thing by taking down the Alliance. He's not trying to take down the Alliance. He's just trying to survive, (in the show). I'd peg him at True Neutral, maybe Lawful Neutral. Is he good? Well, he does some good acts. Saving the *****house when payment was not a sure bet? He also never really starts any trouble, he just reacts to it. As for ethics, he expects his crew to obey, he runs a tight ship. But he's a smuggler and a thief. So which part of that is circumstance and what is the man beneath? Figure that out, and you win the prize. And this is all assuming we can peg some of the most complicated characters to a simplistic alignment system, which I'm not sure of.
DragonWatcher 09-06-06, 04:32 PM	He's not trying to take down the Alliance. He's just trying to survive, (in the show). I'd peg him at True Neutral, maybe Lawful Neutral. Is he good? Well, he does some good acts. Saving the *****house when payment was not a sure bet? He also never really starts any trouble, he just reacts to it. As for ethics, he expects his crew to obey, he runs a tight ship. But he's a smuggler and a thief. So which part of that is circumstance and what is the man beneath? Figure that out, and you win the prize. And this is all assuming we can peg some of the most complicated characters to a simplistic alignment system, which I'm not sure of. While I was not going to push the point in reference to Mal, as it is not directly related to the point of the OP's post, I do think that it is an effective example to explain my reasoning. First, let me say that I don't really give much credibility to Neutral in relation to Good and Evil. I honestly believe that sentient beings who make decisions based on personal desire and value, not inherently out of instinct will essentially fall into being aligned with Good or Evil. I'm sure that there are many who would disagree with me... and that's cool, but I'm just mentioning this so that you understand the base from which I make my determinations. Secondly, I believe that it is one's tendencies that determine Alignment, not individual actions. Mal has performed many actions over the course of Firefly, and in Serenity that I would consider to be good. He has a great deal of loyalty, he can be generous, he defends his friends and allies. That said, I see him as having a tendency toward evil: stealing, killing (including murder), intimidation, and taking part in terrorist activities (he might not be actively trying to take the Alliance down, but he's never missed an opportunity to stick it to them when he can). I believe that most of his actions can be justified, but I also don't believe that justifying Evil makes it Good. I actually believe that he has more in common with the Agent than he would ever admit. Sure he might not be willing to sink to the same level of depravity, but he's not above harming others to benefit himself (and his crew). BTW... taking jobs as a smuggler and a theif qualifies as "starting trouble" to me. Again, it's not that I think that he's a monster... I believe that in most cases he's doing the right thing... but he does Evil to accomplish that.
Shady314 09-06-06, 04:55 PM	Y'know, at one point, someone might have said, "Trying to stat out an inherent characteristic such as Wisdom with an absolute and arbitrary number is ultimately dumb and a waste of time." What was dumb was calling it wisdom. It should have been called piety or something. Now technical minded DMs cannot create a decent cleric that isn't also very wise. And every player of a fighter with a 10 wisdom isn't sure how wise their characters should act. :rolleyes:
Lafarallin 09-06-06, 05:34 PM	Now technical minded DMs cannot create a decent cleric that isn't also very wise. Seems pretty easy to me to make a cleric that isn't wise. Take six stats, roll and place them where they fall. Unlike players, NPC's aren't munchkins and min-maxers. There is no reason there can't be a cleric with a 17 strength, 14 intelligence, 10 wisdom, 10 dexterity, 10 constitution and 18 charisma. Just because this isn't the ideal build and most players always place their highest scores in the main ability score (in their opinion) does not mean this is how every adventurer class character in the world is built. EDIT: Yes I do realize that a cleric with a 10 wisdom could only cast 0 level spells. So what? Not every cleric has to take full advantage of every class ability. The above cleric might not have a whole lot of spells but could be the best at turning undead. Not every character has to be the best at everything. How does this differ at all from a kobold with a 6 strength becoming a fighter?
Shady314 09-06-06, 06:31 PM	Seems pretty easy to me to make a cleric that isn't wise. Take six stats, roll and place them where they fall. Unlike players, NPC's aren't munchkins and min-maxers. There is no reason there can't be a cleric with a 17 strength, 14 intelligence, 10 wisdom, 10 dexterity, 10 constitution and 18 charisma. Just because this isn't the ideal build and most players always place their highest scores in the main ability score (in their opinion) does not mean this is how every adventurer class character in the world is built. EDIT: Yes I do realize that a cleric with a 10 wisdom could only cast 0 level spells. So what? Not every cleric has to take full advantage of every class ability. The above cleric might not have a whole lot of spells but could be the best at turning undead. Not every character has to be the best at everything. How does this differ at all from a kobold with a 6 strength becoming a fighter? A kobold with 6 stength can still fight but poorly. I could have him use ranged weapons and he could still be pretty decent. Otherwise he would be what is commonly referred to as cannon fodder. A cleric that can't cast is not even a cleric. It is like arguing there's nothing wrong with a wizard(PC) class that can only cast cantrips and is level 9. :rolleyes: Sure there could be one out there. But the majority of your NPCs are like this? I don't usually stat out NPCs I don't intend for the PCs to fight. And if they fight them they should provide a challenge. What sort of CR is a cleric with no spells? I don't usually give PC classes to pathetic NPCs either. This guy would simply be a low level adept if I even bothered making him an adept. Most priests are experts after all. If you just meant the cleric is level 1 with 10 wisdom that's fine but he should be spending his level upgrades in his wis or he's a joke. As is he's a poor fighter with a trick or two. I find the more elegant solution to be explaining to any new player the wisdom stat for a cleric is more about spiritual devotion and is purely a metagame mechanic stat that has nothing to do with your ingame personality. You can be a powerful cleric through your piety and not your character's wisdom. But if you want to throw in a bunch of joke NPCs and your players like that I'm not going to stop you. I do recommend calling the character a priest though and not a cleric else every player will ask whythe cleric didn't cast any spells.
Lafarallin 09-06-06, 11:14 PM	If you just meant the cleric is level 1 with 10 wisdom that's fine but he should be spending his level upgrades in his wis or he's a joke. As is he's a poor fighter with a trick or two. But if you want to throw in a bunch of joke NPCs and your players like that I'm not going to stop you. I do recommend calling the character a priest though and not a cleric else every player will ask whythe cleric didn't cast any spells. You think of the game in an entirely different way then I do. You look at numbers only. You do the equation, if X gives me more Y, then I have to max X. I have a friend who has a brother that is mentally disabled. He took special classes through high school and after graduation he went to college. He graduated from college after five years. His intelligence is obviously below average. He isn't going to be a teacher, a lawyer, a doctor, etc... Due to other serious disabilities he will never have a "JOB" period. So why did he do it if he doesn't need it and doesn't gain anything substantial from doing it? Because he wanted to. That is what he dreamed of doing and he believed it was important to accomplish this goal for himself. Is it really that hard for you to see a person become a cleric without having a 10 or higher wisdom? If you believe in god (gods) and really want to spread the word of your faith...do you really think you would have to get tons of spells and powers to do so? Couldn't you use other abilities to spread your faith? Now I'm not saying this is practical but why the heck not? A 1st level cleric is still a better combatant then a commoner and has better saving throws. There are other things to being a cleric too. You just miss the whole point. You see a joke character or a worthless character. I don't. Now granted I expect the majority of clerics that are adventuring to obviously have a moderate or better wisdom. On the other hand I can definately see clerics with 10 to 12 wisdom. Why not? There are all types of people that take certain professions. Some are better at and some are worse. If every cleric had to have a 10 or higher wisdom why isn't this a prerequisite? One would assume since it isn't that there are obviously some people that are all along the spectrum. They have limits on the level of spells you can cast for a reason. But honestly, how many times in your group have you "EVER" seen a cleric that can't cast up to 9th level spells? From the views you are stating I'm guessing it is a rarity for anyone not to be min/max'd in your campaigns. I'm also going to assume that a cleric in your group always spends +1 attribute increase into wisdom. A wizard always into intelligence. A sorceror always into charisma. You and I have very different views of the same game. You seem to stereotype how everyone views this game and how it should be played. You then post like it is the only view. Then when someone states another opinion you blow them off by refering to me as adding "joke characters" to my world. I find this rude and insulting. I don't care how you play your campaign but I respect the fact that your campaign can differ from mine. I guess I would like the same respect back. EDIT: ...and for everyone that keeps saying, "To get the thread back on topic", or similar statements. Drop it all ready. The OP hasn't posted since page one and has obviously moved on. This thread has continued on and has had a lot of good debates and interesting posts. Just let it evolve and let people enjoy the posts for what they are.
Shady314 09-07-06, 05:51 AM	You think of the game in an entirely different way then I do. You look at numbers only. You do the equation, if X gives me more Y, then I have to max X. No I am definitely not a powergamer. As I mentioned I don't even usually stat out NPCs unless I intend for them to be fought. So that cleric they are interacting with isn't level X with 16 wisdom there is just what I want the NPC to be like and be capable of and thats it. So where I am coming from is NOT a numbers standpoint but rather why would I stat out a PC class for an NPC. Which automatically makes them avery important NPC if I don't intend for my PCs to fight them? And if I intend for my PCs to fight them why would I deliberately gimp them for flavor? I don't declare to my players NPC X is a cleric. So if they fight NPC X at lvl 3 and he can't cast any cleric spells do they think they fought some interesting cleric? No they'll think I threw some weak cannon fodder fighter at them. That is where I am coming from. Hopefully this clarifies many points that are brought up later. I have a friend who has a brother that is mentally disabled. He took special classes through high school and after graduation he went to college. He graduated from college after five years. His intelligence is obviously below average. He isn't going to be a teacher, a lawyer, a doctor, etc... Due to other serious disabilities he will never have a "JOB" period. So why did he do it if he doesn't need it and doesn't gain anything substantial from doing it? Because he wanted to. That is what he dreamed of doing and he believed it was important to accomplish this goal for himself. I don't get this real life example. I'm not stopping PCs from taking any PC class they want and gimping themselves as much as they want. If your friend's brother is meant to show an NPC that can accomplish things through sheer perseverance that's great but again I don't see the point. An NPC does whatever you want them to and I am not arguing that. I refer you to my first paragraph. I would not even bother statting this guy out. And he clearly isn't an example of a real world cleric so... I am moving on. Is it really that hard for you to see a person become a cleric without having a 10 or higher wisdom? If you believe in god (gods) and really want to spread the word of your faith...do you really think you would have to get tons of spells and powers to do so? Couldn't you use other abilities to spread your faith? Now I'm not saying this is practical but why the heck not? A 1st level cleric is still a better combatant then a commoner and has better saving throws. There are other things to being a cleric too. To become a CLERIC? Yes. Im the DM and I have to think of this in a metagame sense. As I've said a cleric is a PC class. If I want a temple worker capable of performing minor miracles that is what an adept is for. If I wanted a weaker fighter that's what a warrior is for. A cleric (the PC class) without a 10 or higher wisdom can't cast spells. What kind of a cleric is that? It's a real world cleric not a DnD cleric. I have to seriously disagree with the last sentence. There is nothing else to being a cleric with the exception of the powers granted by your two domains. Running a temple usually falls to an expert or an adept. Fighting can be handled by any class as can proselytizing and faith. A cleric is supposed to be so amazing he/she gain divine spellcasting through their faith. A PC class cleric that can't cast is not doing the one thing that makes them a cleric. Just to be clear when I say cleric I mean the PC class not the profession of "cleric" which I refer to as a priest for clarity's sake in DnD. Oh and basically EVERY class even the other NPC ones is a better combatant than a lvl 1 commoner so this is not much of an argument. :P You just miss the whole point. You see a joke character or a worthless character. I don't. Now granted I expect the majority of clerics that are adventuring to obviously have a moderate or better wisdom. On the other hand I can definately see clerics with 10 to 12 wisdom. Why not? There are all types of people that take certain professions. Some are better at and some are worse. If every cleric had to have a 10 or higher wisdom why isn't this a prerequisite? One would assume since it isn't that there are obviously some people that are all along the spectrum. But people don't "take" the cleric proffession. It is a higher calling like Paladin. You don't go to the temple and train to be a cleric. You train to be a pious expert. A lucky few are so amazing they become adepts and rare breed (mainly PCs) become clerics. ANY PC or NPC class can have faith. Any PC or NPC class can spread the word and run/maintain a temple. A cleric in DnD is more than just a job. I don't think that is the only assumption you can make. Perhaps WoTC simply didn't care if a PC gimped their character or they thought there was no way anyone could take the cleric class and not realize the consequences of a wisdom below 10. I don't think the assumption was there will be high level clerics that can cast only lvl 1 spells. That's crazy. Let me also repeat from my previous post. A low level cleric with a low wisdom is perfectly fine. In fact if you have a cleric NPC fixed at a low level it would actually be more munchkin to give him just enough wis to cast his highest level of spells but then pump his str and con. They have limits on the level of spells you can cast for a reason. But honestly, how many times in your group have you "EVER" seen a cleric that can't cast up to 9th level spells? From the views you are stating I'm guessing it is a rarity for anyone not to be min/max'd in your campaigns. I'm also going to assume that a cleric in your group always spends +1 attribute increase into wisdom. A wizard always into intelligence. A sorceror always into charisma. I rarely play to high levels. I rarely create NPCs with PC classes and especially with high levels in them. You say min/max like it is a bad thing to want a character that does something well. Clearly the real roleplayers must pump their dex and make use of full plate. Or they must make sure everyone of their stats is an odd number and not an odd one. :rolleyes: But to answer your question no not ALWAYS. Usually sure. But sometimes they start off with an odd number in a different stat and pump that first. But it's not a big deal since my complaint was using wisdom/intelligence etc. to describe the stats can make new players feel pigeonholed into stereotypes and behavior. It's been my experience if left to their own devices new players think their cleric must act wise since it's their most important stat. You and I have very different views of the same game. You seem to stereotype how everyone views this game and how it should be played. You then post like it is the only view. Then when someone states another opinion you blow them off by refering to me as adding "joke characters" to my world. I find this rude and insulting. I don't care how you play your campaign but I respect the fact that your campaign can differ from mine. I guess I would like the same respect back. Sorry you got that impression. My argument was actually against stereotypes. That the words wisdom/intelligence/charisma carry real world baggage that can enforce the idea of every wizard being a scholarly bookworm and every sorceror being a ladiesman etc. which I was trying to say I was against. You seemed to attack this idea by accepting it's validity but saying you can just deliberately gimp characters which I don't feel is the best solution. My calling the character a joke wasn't a crack at your character creation and I apologize right now for any offense taken but merely to identify him as a deliberately gimped character. The sort of character that is usually a joke in a setting. HEHEHE My cleric is level 7 and can only cast cantrips how hilarious. etc. and in relation to his poor combat performance. He WILL be a joke in combat that is unavoidable. Cleric CR assumes an acceptable ability to cast spells. Meaning a wisdom high enough to cast the highest spells of your level. A character at lvl 9 with no spellcasting ability in a spellcasting class has to fight much lower level opponents. EDIT: ...and for everyone that keeps saying, "To get the thread back on topic", or similar statements. Drop it all ready. The OP hasn't posted since page one and has obviously moved on. This thread has continued on and has had a lot of good debates and interesting posts. Just let it evolve and let people enjoy the posts for what they are. Seriously. I was hoping to derail this thing off of a millionth incredibly useless morality debate that was over a loooong time ago. So please realize there is no disrepect intended. It is I had hoped a civilized argument/discussion for the sake of broadening perceptions and hearing opposing pov.
Lafarallin 09-07-06, 01:58 PM	No I am definitely not a powergamer. As I mentioned I don't even usually stat out NPCs unless I intend for them to be fought. So that cleric they are interacting with isn't level X with 16 wisdom there is just what I want the NPC to be like and be capable of and thats it. So where I am coming from is NOT a numbers standpoint but rather why would I stat out a PC class for an NPC. Which automatically makes them avery important NPC if I don't intend for my PCs to fight them? And if I intend for my PCs to fight them why would I deliberately gimp them for flavor? I don't declare to my players NPC X is a cleric. So if they fight NPC X at lvl 3 and he can't cast any cleric spells do they think they fought some interesting cleric? No they'll think I threw some weak cannon fodder fighter at them. That is where I am coming from. Hopefully this clarifies many points that are brought up later. I don't get this real life example. I'm not stopping PCs from taking any PC class they want and gimping themselves as much as they want. If your friend's brother is meant to show an NPC that can accomplish things through sheer perseverance that's great but again I don't see the point. An NPC does whatever you want them to and I am not arguing that. I refer you to my first paragraph. I would not even bother statting this guy out. And he clearly isn't an example of a real world cleric so... I am moving on. To become a CLERIC? Yes. Im the DM and I have to think of this in a metagame sense. As I've said a cleric is a PC class. If I want a temple worker capable of performing minor miracles that is what an adept is for. If I wanted a weaker fighter that's what a warrior is for. A cleric (the PC class) without a 10 or higher wisdom can't cast spells. What kind of a cleric is that? It's a real world cleric not a DnD cleric. I have to seriously disagree with the last sentence. There is nothing else to being a cleric with the exception of the powers granted by your two domains. Running a temple usually falls to an expert or an adept. Fighting can be handled by any class as can proselytizing and faith. A cleric is supposed to be so amazing he/she gain divine spellcasting through their faith. A PC class cleric that can't cast is not doing the one thing that makes them a cleric. Just to be clear when I say cleric I mean the PC class not the profession of "cleric" which I refer to as a priest for clarity's sake in DnD. Oh and basically EVERY class even the other NPC ones is a better combatant than a lvl 1 commoner so this is not much of an argument. :P But people don't "take" the cleric proffession. It is a higher calling like Paladin. You don't go to the temple and train to be a cleric. You train to be a pious expert. A lucky few are so amazing they become adepts and rare breed (mainly PCs) become clerics. ANY PC or NPC class can have faith. Any PC or NPC class can spread the word and run/maintain a temple. A cleric in DnD is more than just a job. I don't think that is the only assumption you can make. Perhaps WoTC simply didn't care if a PC gimped their character or they thought there was no way anyone could take the cleric class and not realize the consequences of a wisdom below 10. I don't think the assumption was there will be high level clerics that can cast only lvl 1 spells. That's crazy. Let me also repeat from my previous post. A low level cleric with a low wisdom is perfectly fine. In fact if you have a cleric NPC fixed at a low level it would actually be more munchkin to give him just enough wis to cast his highest level of spells but then pump his str and con. I rarely play to high levels. I rarely create NPCs with PC classes and especially with high levels in them. You say min/max like it is a bad thing to want a character that does something well. Clearly the real roleplayers must pump their dex and make use of full plate. Or they must make sure everyone of their stats is an odd number and not an odd one. :rolleyes: But to answer your question no not ALWAYS. Usually sure. But sometimes they start off with an odd number in a different stat and pump that first. But it's not a big deal since my complaint was using wisdom/intelligence etc. to describe the stats can make new players feel pigeonholed into stereotypes and behavior. It's been my experience if left to their own devices new players think their cleric must act wise since it's their most important stat. Sorry you got that impression. My argument was actually against stereotypes. That the words wisdom/intelligence/charisma carry real world baggage that can enforce the idea of every wizard being a scholarly bookworm and every sorceror being a ladiesman etc. which I was trying to say I was against. You seemed to attack this idea by accepting it's validity but saying you can just deliberately gimp characters which I don't feel is the best solution. My calling the character a joke wasn't a crack at your character creation and I apologize right now for any offense taken but merely to identify him as a deliberately gimped character. The sort of character that is usually a joke in a setting. HEHEHE My cleric is level 7 and can only cast cantrips how hilarious. etc. and in relation to his poor combat performance. He WILL be a joke in combat that is unavoidable. Cleric CR assumes an acceptable ability to cast spells. Meaning a wisdom high enough to cast the highest spells of your level. A character at lvl 9 with no spellcasting ability in a spellcasting class has to fight much lower level opponents. Seriously. I was hoping to derail this thing off of a millionth incredibly useless morality debate that was over a loooong time ago. So please realize there is no disrepect intended. It is I had hoped a civilized argument/discussion for the sake of broadening perceptions and hearing opposing pov. Ugh, that is a lot to read and I'm working on homework so my brain is fried. Imaginary numbers?? What the heck are those? I got the main part of the post though. I guess I assumed a lot myself and kind of stereotyped you too. So I'm the pot calling the kettle black. DOH! I'll just reiterate. I feel there can be unwise clerics, weak fighters, clumsy thieves, and ignorant wizards. Sometimes people do things because they are just stubborn and want to do them. Sometimes that is the life they are forced into. They may suck at it but darn it, they are going to do it regardless. I'm not saying these people will be common but hey they are out there. Honestly in my opinion...if you take all the clerics in the land the majority of them should have around 12-14 wisdom. Keep in mind in Eberron NPC's are not normally leveling up like other worlds. Higher level clerics are rare so if a cleric in Eberron had a 10 or 11 wisdom would it really hurt him being at a level 2 cleric? In the end it wouldn't make that much of a difference and maybe that is why he hasn't leveled up?? ;) I just think people always make clerics with 16+ wisdom because they just have to drop the highest score in wisdom. I am not blaming PC's for min/max'ing their characters strengths and weaknesses. Not everyone though who decides to do something is perfectly made to do that. That is the point I was trying to get at. Nothing more, nothing less. If we could say the average NPC cleric has a 12-14 wisdom that means that obviously there are some under that and some above that average. If you believe that every cleric should have 12 or higher wisdom, this would be set in stone. You would have to have a 12 wisdom to be a cleric. Does this make sense or is my brain completely burnt out now?
Shady314 09-07-06, 06:16 PM	I'll just reiterate. I feel there can be unwise clerics, weak fighters, clumsy thieves, and ignorant wizards. Sometimes people do things because they are just stubborn and want to do them. Sometimes that is the life they are forced into. They may suck at it but darn it, they are going to do it regardless. I'm not saying these people will be common but hey they are out there. But from a metagame standpoint only extraordinary people can become a PC class. Weak fighters= warriors. Weak wizards= magewrights. That is supposed to be especially true in Eberron. A guy with 12 int and sheer perseverance will be a magewright. And there is nothing wrong with this guy at all. But if you say he is on equal footing with the PCs (which any PC class NPC should be) he should be equal. And you can play an ignorant wizard with an 18 int. He could be a xenophobic nationalist that thinks anything fronm outside his home nation is not worth seeing or knowing. An unwise cleric can have 18 wis and be a zealot. A clumsy thief can be given low dex but high int and no ranks in sleight of hand, balance or tumble and still be very useful. A weak fighter would probably pursue ranged options in combat since he'd have to also be an idiot to not realize he is not the equal of most in melee combat. Heck this is just a halfling barbarian really or any small race using a combat class. So all these examples can be accomplished without hurting the character's actual ability and usefulness to the party. Honestly in my opinion...if you take all the clerics in the land the majority of them should have around 12-14 wisdom. Keep in mind in Eberron NPC's are not normally leveling up like other worlds. Higher level clerics are rare so if a cleric in Eberron had a 10 or 11 wisdom would it really hurt him being at a level 2 cleric? In the end it wouldn't make that much of a difference and maybe that is why he hasn't leveled up?? ;) Well if you took all the clerics in the land they'd mainly be adepts. But I agree with this. In my post I even pointed out it is a little munchkin to take an NPC stuck at a low level and give him a 12 wisdom so he can cast his best spells and then pump his str and con. And it's a perfect ingame explanation for why this guy is stuck at a low level. I just think people always make clerics with 16+ wisdom because they just have to drop the highest score in wisdom. I am not blaming PC's for min/max'ing their characters strengths and weaknesses. Not everyone though who decides to do something is perfectly made to do that. That is the point I was trying to get at. Nothing more, nothing less. If we could say the average NPC cleric has a 12-14 wisdom that means that obviously there are some under that and some above that average. If you believe that every cleric should have 12 or higher wisdom, this would be set in stone. You would have to have a 12 wisdom to be a cleric. Does this make sense or is my brain completely burnt out now? I am just trying to say that especially in Eberron there is no "average" PC class NPC. PC classes = Extraordinary and you can't just decide to become one if you don't have the actual skills for it. It's not like working hard and becoming a lawyer it's like having the skills to be a top Olympic athlete.
Lafarallin 09-07-06, 10:59 PM	I am just trying to say that especially in Eberron there is no "average" PC class NPC. PC classes = Extraordinary and you can't just decide to become one if you don't have the actual skills for it. It's not like working hard and becoming a lawyer it's like having the skills to be a top Olympic athlete. I guess I look at three types of adventurers. Adventurers, heroes and superheroes. Yes in Eberron the PC's are considered to be extremely special but I don't think this has "ANYTHING" to do with their ability scores. I think this is reflected by Action Points. I'm kind of assuming you think ability scores play a huge part in defining a PC. I just feel this doesn't always have to be the case.
ArcTan 09-08-06, 12:24 AM	I guess I look at three types of adventurers. Adventurers, heroes and superheroes. Yes in Eberron the PC's are considered to be extremely special but I don't think this has "ANYTHING" to do with their ability scores. I think this is reflected by Action Points. I'm kind of assuming you think ability scores play a huge part in defining a PC. I just feel this doesn't always have to be the case. That's what the elite array is for, though.
davethebrave371 09-08-06, 12:34 AM	D&D GODS say what is right or wrong not the universe any D&D setting is in. The setting says Gods may or may not exist, so Gods don't set what is right or wrong in Eberron (unless the DM wants it to, but that's not core, which is what we're arguing here). Trying to define absolute morality is a futile, frustrating and ultimately dumb waste of time. Futile for you, since you don't want it defined, and so won't define it. Frustrating for you, since you don't want it defined, and so don't like others defining it. A dumb waste of time for you, so why are you even arguing? Especially in Eberron where there are no gods to back up the absolutist pov. So why even mention deities above? And also, it isn't that there aren't deities, just that they may or may not exist. If there weren't so many damn spells and abilities linked to it in D&D I'd just completely cut it out. Well, that's fairly obvious from your anti-definition agenda, but arguing within the constraints of RAW is different from going out on your own anti-alignment tangent, when we're discussing it as if it was there. That's a base assumption, unless we're talking homebrew, which we aren't. OH and as for your statement that the alignments are clearly defined. :rolleyes: :eek: :rofl: :rofl: Is that why this argument is so eternal throughout DnD? Because it's just SO clear cut? No, it's an eternal argument because some people understand the alignment system, and some people don't. It's fairly clear to me, but to some people it's murky. Fair enough. But maybe ask for clarification if it's not clear to you, instead of just ridiculing a point without an argument. I love that in the PHB each description of the good alignments ends with why it is the BEST to be and each evil why it is the MOST dangerous. Yes it is all VERY clear. They mean from the point of view of the alignment. No sarcasm needed when expressing confusion, it doesn't hide the fact that you're not clear on a point, it just accentuates the fact that you're trying to mask your confusion, which wastes your time (something you seem not to like, if your statement with the "dumb" descriptor earlier was any indication). Just some advice if you don't want to waste time. Cut to the chase, it's easier, and comes off a little more polite (unless you're me, I always sound like the hole of a donkey, regardless of verbosity levels).
Lafarallin 09-08-06, 01:15 AM	That's what the elite array is for, though. What exactly is the elite array?
Shady314 09-08-06, 05:57 AM	I guess I look at three types of adventurers. Adventurers, heroes and superheroes. Yes in Eberron the PC's are considered to be extremely special but I don't think this has "ANYTHING" to do with their ability scores. I think this is reflected by Action Points. I'm kind of assuming you think ability scores play a huge part in defining a PC. I just feel this doesn't always have to be the case. No I agree with the average, hero and superhero idea. But it's the heroes and superheroes that have PC classes. Average people are NPC classes especially if they suck at their job and are therefore not of the hero and superhero level. If I give someone a PC class they are at a higher standard than "average." If I give someone a PC class but then set their ability scores so they suck at their job then it seems contradictory to me. I'm not saying everyone should have 18 in their primary stat at lvl 1 or anything though. So my disagreement is that it has NOTHING to do with their ability scores. It has a little to do with it. And the elite array... http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/srd/srd_revised_html/Improving_Monsters.html
Mort_Q 09-17-06, 02:17 PM	What exactly is the elite array? I'd also like to know.
ChimericalWolf 09-17-06, 02:19 PM	I'd also like to know. You revive a month-dead thread to ask a question THAT GOT ANSWERED IN THE LAST POST OF THE THREAD. GG, next innernet.
Mort_Q 09-17-06, 02:25 PM	You revive a month-dead thread to ask a question THAT GOT ANSWERED IN THE LAST POST OF THE THREAD. GG, next innernet. No. I revived a month-dead thread so that I could find it easier later... and apparently to **** you off. How am I doing so far?
Shady314 09-17-06, 04:01 PM	I revived a month-dead thread so that I could find it easier later You couldn't just bookmark the page my link brought you too??? :confused:
Elderich 09-20-06, 08:05 PM	Simply translated, if you don't wear a uniform and/or do not carry your firearms openly, you aren't protected under the Geneva Conventions as a prisioner of war. It's right there in black and white.Sorry to get all Off topic on a rather OLD thread, but this is both important and very wrong. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art5 It requires a ruleing by "a competent tribunal." That tribunal has spoken in very recent history. The articals apply. I humbaly suggest if there shall be further debate, it be done elseware.