Post/Author/DateTime	Post
locksley92 03-27-06, 12:52 PM	We all know that alignments in Eberron are meant to be blurred and the customary alignments changed. But it also says that paladins must remain true to certain ideals I'm just throwing this out there. Let’s say that in a secluded corner of Sarlona, there was an isolationist paladin order. This isolationist group was lawful good but its doctrines would be considered evil by the paladin orders of Khorvaire or Sarlona. Perhaps they believed that all beings outside their villages were to be beaten and sacrificed to their god Ghar-Vah [an aspect of Dol Arrah]. I know in Heroes of Horror, they present ideas for behavioral alignment, but that is not exactly what I want. Does this mean that the alignment of these paladins should be made following the morals and ethics of their culture or the generally accepted ideas of Khorvaire? Should they be considered evil? Would a Khorvairian paladin lose his abilities for attacking these isolationist Paladins? I can’t help but realize a parallel to the real-world ideas of England. They were horrified by how Indians [from India] burned women at the stake at the death of their husband and they immediately banned it. But to most Indians, it was entirely normal.
Siran Dunmorgan 03-27-06, 01:27 PM	Alignment in Eberron is as defined by the Player's Handbook, e.g., lawful good in Eberron is the same as lawful good in Dungeons & Dragons generally, and behaviorally manifests as respect for life and an orderly society. One effect of this is that morality is not relative, or even subjective: every society defines "good" and "evil" in exactly the same way. Consequently, an order of paladins whose obligations include the beating and sacrifice of innocents is a contradiction of the restrictions of the paladin class; such a thing could not exist in an orthodox Dungeons & Dragons setting, including Eberron. Note, by the way, that while every society defines good and evil in the same way, they may differ wildly on the definitions of "right" and "wrong," e.g. some actions that are evil may also be right, and some actions that are good may also be wrong. In Eberron, for example, the Children of Winter are unequivocally evil: they exist to bring on destruction, even of the innocent. However, their actions may be right, in the sense of serving a much longer term, and presumably greater, good.[1] But the restrictions of the paladin class don't make this distinction: they're based on the definition of good, which is invariant both across and within Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings. —Siran Dunmorgan [1] The renewal sought by the Children of Winter may be the same event as the turning of the Age as forseen by the Kalashtar, but their respective methods of achieving it are wildly at odds.
jonthegm 03-27-06, 01:54 PM	You can draw analogies however you want, but it doesn't change that in Eberron, while alignments are "grey" (really only in the fact that there's no 'default' alignment for any race), the alignment system is still concrete. Using a spell with an evil descriptor is an Evil act. Murder is evil. (Killing is different) Corrupting the innocent is evil. Etc. Evil is pretty clear, Law/Chaos is a little more relative, but I'd still rule that breaking someone out of prison without trying to go through The System first would be a chaotic action. All the "grey" alignment in eberron means is that the whole world trends more towards neutral.
Quoriil 03-27-06, 02:09 PM	Using a spell with an evil descriptor is an Evil act. Is it? I've seen this statement start fights all over the "I made my paladin PCs kill babies..." threads in the DM area. I always thought that it was myself but I don't know if there is any text to directly support it. If anyone knows where the RAW on this might be please share! :)
DarkWarriorKarg 03-27-06, 02:40 PM	It never says that at all. It just means, in a normal DnD game, good clerics can't cast protection from good and evil clerics can't cast protection from evil. Nothing prevents a good wizard from casting protection from good. THAT is how the spell "interacts" with alignments. casting doomwatch does NOT turn you evil. LG Bone Knights CAN animate dead.
Dlgood 03-27-06, 03:43 PM	LG Bone Knights CAN animate dead. Where does it say that they can?
locksley92 03-27-06, 03:52 PM	One effect of this is that morality is not relative, or even subjective: every society defines "good" and "evil" in exactly the same way. While I accept your explanation I think that morality is actually relative. An orc society I doubt would have the same impression of killing (which some people mention as an evil act) as a society of Humans. For some orcs that could be greeted with indifference perhaps even applauded. Does this make them evil? But then again, you may be right about right and wrong (no pun intended). Maybe that is what I am thinking. Next question, how do you determine whether the motives of alien creatures like the Daelkyr are "right or wrong" or "good or evil"? How do you decide their alignment based on these extraneous measures? Last, right, in my mind, should influence good in some ways; or the other way around. Back to my original idea: this Paladin order knew no other way of life; it would be entirely possible that this is what their culture believes is 'right' and consequently, what is 'good'. I would like to note that I haven't ever said they did anything that would automatically make them evil in circumstances out of their control. They never cast an evil spell, nor do they did they ever corrupt the innocent. I would now like to make a parallel to someone in the world of Eberron: the Ghash'kala. It is my understanding that the paladins of the Ghash'kala kill anything that comes out of the Demon Wastes, evil or not. Even adventurers. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Siran Dunmorgan 03-27-06, 04:54 PM	While I accept your explanation I think that morality is actually relative. An orc society I doubt would have the same impression of killing (which some people mention as an evil act) as a society of Humans. For some orcs that could be greeted with indifference perhaps even applauded. Does this make them evil? Go back and look at the definitions of good and evil in the Player's Handbook. Killing, in and of itself doesn't make them evil. A lawful good society can condone—for instance—the practice of dueling between peers, i.e. more or less evenly matched duelists. Murder or other offense against persons innocent of any relevant evil is itself an evil, under the definition; this is the reason why the entry requirements for the Assassin prestige class have an alignment restriction. Again: the definitions of good and evil are invariant and objective in Dungeons & Dragons. But then again, you may be right about right and wrong (no pun intended). Maybe that is what I am thinking. Next question, how do you determine whether the motives of alien creatures like the Daelkyr are "right or wrong" or "good or evil"? How do you decide their alignment based on these extraneous measures?The same way—exactly the same way—that you do for a humanoid. It's not relative: the daelkyr don't believe that what they do is good. They just genuinely don't care whether it's good or evil. The quori are a better example: moral relativists would say that what the quori are doing is good—that is, that the quori percieve it as good. But moral relativism isn't substantiated by the Dungeons & Dragons system: good and evil are defined independently of society. Thus, in Eberron-by-the-Rules-As-Written, if asked, a quori would respond that its actions are evil, but that they were the right thing for the quori. In standard Dungeons & Dragons—Greyhawk, say—when someone looks at a Pit Fiend, do they claim that its actions are good? A moral relativist would claim that yes—in Pit Fiend society, torturing your enemies before eating them alive, then raising them up out of your feces so that you can do it again is a good thing to do. But they'd be wrong in saying this, because Pit Fiends are the very incarnation of lawful Evil. They're defined by their evil. In Eberron, it's harder to see that the same thing applies to the daelkyr or the quori, because they are the incarnations of madness and dream, respectively, rather than evil. And, in fact, it's possible for the daelkyr to do good. But they are evil because they deliberately take actions that they know are to the detriment of innocent life with no corresponding, immediate benefit. Again: in Dungeons & Dragons, under the rules, there is no moral relativism. We can argue right and wrong all day and all night, but good and evil are clearly defined. Last, right, in my mind, should influence good in some ways; or the other way around.You're correct: right generally incorporates the concept that right actions result in good eventually. The scenario that I use to illustrate this involves the Children of Winter. Let's assume for a moment that some absolutist sect of the Children of Winter is correct in the assertion that ultimate good will come about as a result of the death of every innocent on Eberron. Then, clearly, the right thing to do, the action that will eventually result in the greatest good, is to undertake a campaign of extermination of the innocent. Every single action undertaken by the Children of Winter in this campaign is by definition evil, but immesurable good comes of it in the end, and, therefore, many folks (presumably not the ones targeted for extermination) would say that it is right. A paladin (whose unswerving dedication is to objective good, not relative "right") would claim that despite the good that came of it, the price was still too high. Back to my original idea: this Paladin order knew no other way of life; it would be entirely possible that this is what their culture believes is 'right' and consequently, what is 'good'. I would like to note that I haven't ever said they did anything that would automatically make them evil in circumstances out of their control. They never cast an evil spell, nor do they did they ever corrupt the innocent. I would now like to make a parallel to someone in the world of Eberron: the Ghash'kala. It is my understanding that the paladins of the Ghash'kala kill anything that comes out of the Demon Wastes, evil or not. Even adventurers. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. The issue with respect to the Ghaash'kala is that anyone capable of surviving the Wastes long enough to actually emerge from them is not innocent a priori. If the Maruk Ghaash'kala encountered an actual innocent and were convinced of that innocence, they would probably permit that person's passage. For instance, let us suppose that a patrol of Maruk Ghaash'kala paladins encountered seven dwarves bearing a gold-and-glass casket containing the sleeping form of a young human girl, and that the dwarves were able to offer proofs that the casket prevented the influence of the Wastes from affecting the girl, the paladins would probably allow the girl to pass—or take her on themselves—while detaining, restraining, or killing the dwarves. This latter point deserves some consideration: the Ghash'kala prevent the influence of the Wastes from entering the rest of the world. They even regard themselves as tainted in this regard, and for this reason do not leave the Wastes. If, for example, encountering this patrol of paladins, our typical band of stalwart heroes were to withdraw, back into the Wastes, the patrol would allow them to do so, because they are good, and are, in fact, inclined to mercy. Indeed, if, instead of attempting to leave the Wastes, the adventurers were to join the Maruk Ghash'kala, that too would be permitted, if the adventurers were able to provide some sort of bona fides to the paladins. Thus, the analogy to the hypothetical order of murderous paladins does not hold: the hypothetical order murders innocents without cause and without mercy. —Siran Dunmorgan
Edymnion 03-27-06, 07:35 PM	Let’s say that in a secluded corner of Sarlona, there was an isolationist paladin order. This isolationist group was lawful good but its doctrines would be considered evil by the paladin orders of Khorvaire or Sarlona.Doesn't matter, because if it did, every culture would be Lawful Good. Good and Evil are definate things in D&D. Your point of view on the subject doesn't matter. You may think its perfectly good and acceptable to kill every last orc you see just because its an orc, but that doesn't make it good. You are killing a sentient being for no other reason than the fact it is a certain race. Thats Evil. Good *MUST* respect every sentient being's right to life. They must put the well-being of others before themselves. Evil characters do not respect any other creature's inherent right to life. They do not care who they hurt as long as they get what they want. It doesn't matter if they're doing it for a good reason, the actions and the viewpoints still make them evil (hence how you can have evil characters being integral parts of good causes, because they will use harsh methods to get the job done).Where does it say that they can?Where does it say they can't? Alignment is not a straightjacket. Being Lawful Good does not mean you are incapable of doing anything with the Evil descriptor. And unless you can find somewhere that says "Only Neutral or Evil Boneknights are capable of using Animate Dead", then Lawful Good BK's can do it just as well as anybody else.
shironiku 03-27-06, 07:49 PM	Edymnion posted pretty much everything I was going to say, so I'll just say "hear hear!" and second his points. :) In my campaign, I change characters' alignments based on their actions in the game, and I don't tell them that it has changed. My justification for this being that characters wouldn't do these things unless they thought they were the right thing to do. If they committed an evil act in a fit of passion and then repented later, that's a different story. Alignment is a mechanic to help characters interface with certain elements of the rules (spells, magic items, etc.). So in that respect, alignment is based on perspective. When the so-called LG wizard can't pass through a Circle of Protection from Chaos, or takes way more damage from a Holy Sword than he should have, then he can have his moment like Michael Douglas at the end of Falling Down ("I'm the bad guy?").
Wolfwood2 03-28-06, 03:26 PM	In my campaign, I change characters' alignments based on their actions in the game, and I don't tell them that it has changed. My justification for this being that characters wouldn't do these things unless they thought they were the right thing to do. If they committed an evil act in a fit of passion and then repented later, that's a different story. Alignment is a mechanic to help characters interface with certain elements of the rules (spells, magic items, etc.). So in that respect, alignment is based on perspective. When the so-called LG wizard can't pass through a Circle of Protection from Chaos, or takes way more damage from a Holy Sword than he should have, then he can have his moment like Michael Douglas at the end of Falling Down ("I'm the bad guy?"). In my experience, this results in the player arguing with the GM about how his character hasn't been doing anything evil and the DM is screwing with him unfairly. And if the DM then comes back with, "But he did this, this, and this," the player will come back with that he didn't think those things were evil and what is he supposed to be, a mindreader, and there will be hurt feelings all around. It really bites to be playing what you think is a good or neutral character and have the DM suddenly slap you with calling the character evil. The biggest (usually unspoken) reason for this is that if the player hasn't been getting direction from the DM, he's probably playing the PC according to his own real life perception of what is good or evil. And if the GM says that's evil, then it's like he's saying the player is a bad person. But hey, maybe it's different for your group. Leads to trouble IME.
Vharuck 03-28-06, 04:27 PM	In my experience, this results in the player arguing with the GM about how his character hasn't been doing anything evil and the DM is screwing with him unfairly. And if the DM then comes back with, "But he did this, this, and this," the player will come back with that he didn't think those things were evil and what is he supposed to be, a mindreader, and there will be hurt feelings all around. It really bites to be playing what you think is a good or neutral character and have the DM suddenly slap you with calling the character evil. The biggest (usually unspoken) reason for this is that if the player hasn't been getting direction from the DM, he's probably playing the PC according to his own real life perception of what is good or evil. And if the GM says that's evil, then it's like he's saying the player is a bad person. But hey, maybe it's different for your group. Leads to trouble IME. However, lucky for us, what's Good and Evil in the game can be looked up in a book.
Dlgood 03-28-06, 05:23 PM	Alignment is not a straightjacket. Being Lawful Good does not mean you are incapable of doing anything with the Evil descriptor. And unless you can find somewhere that says "Only Neutral or Evil Boneknights are capable of using Animate Dead", then Lawful Good BK's can do it just as well as anybody else. Actually, you're right. Lawful Good Bone Knights can Animate Dead just as well as anybody else. They just shouldn't do it if they want to remain Lawful Good. Casting an evil spell (e.g. Animate Dead) is an evil act (among other sources, see ECS p35) and a good character's alignment is going to change if they keep doing it. That's certainly how I'd DM it. It's just a question of how many times, how many HD of undead the character animates before shift from LG to LN. And what omens/warning signs I can send them that they can either heed or ignore. It's particularly important with a Paladin/Bone Knight. (With the 'Higher Standard for Paladins in Eberron') They class description already says that such a character can never again take a level of Paladin because association with undead forever taints them. They also can't Smite Evil or Remove Disease. If I were DM'ing, it's a legitimate question to me whether the first use of Animate Dead costs the Paladin abilities. While Alignment isn't a straightjacket, it's also not an insignificant thing. The Prc description speaks specifically to the struggle of playing bone knight and not slipping over the edge... and if the 'Good' character goes around animating the dead without feeling conflict in that, then no... they aren't good.
gweision 03-29-06, 09:00 AM	Yes, but if the Bone Knight animates dead for a good cause, then does that necissarily mean that the Bone Knight becomes Evil, or that it is an act of Evil? Actually, you're right. Lawful Good Bone Knights can Animate Dead just as well as anybody else. They just shouldn't do it if they want to remain Lawful Good. Casting an evil spell (e.g. Animate Dead) is an evil act but you should allow for some discrepencies, like the LG cleric who Animates Dead to remain LG if the cause was good and the PH says that and Evil act comited without the knowledge of the player (ie lycanthrope, charm ect) then they can return to good with the help of an Attonement spell
DarkWarriorKarg 03-30-06, 01:07 PM	It's particularly important with a Paladin/Bone Knight. (With the 'Higher Standard for Paladins in Eberron') They class description already says that such a character can never again take a level of Paladin because association with undead forever taints them. They also can't Smite Evil or Remove Disease. If I were DM'ing, it's a legitimate question to me whether the first use of Animate Dead costs the Paladin abilities. Actually, by becoming Bone KNights, they forgo all possible future progression as a paladin. They have already fallen from grace. It's in the PrC description.
AvonRekaes 03-30-06, 03:48 PM	Casting Animate Dead is in and of itself an Evil Act (ECS pg 35). For game mechanics that are strict about evil acts, such as a Paladine's CoC, one evil act is sufficient to trigger consequences. Lets take a multiclass Paladin/Cleric who Animates Dead to raise his fallen comrades as a shield so his surviving companions can retreat to saftey. The fallen soldiers are already dead, so he's not sacrificing anyone and he's doing his best to ensure that those he is in charge of are safe. Obstensibly, this is a good act. He still looses his paladin powers. Even in Eberron. Casting Animate Dead is evil, is evil, is evil. There are no ifs ands or buts about it. (Again, ECS pg 35). One single evil act will trigger the mechanics behind his CoC and strip him of his paladin powers. Is he evil? Absolutely not. One single evil act (for the most part), just isn't enough to force an alignment change across the spectrum, skipping straight over Neutral. So is he neutral? No, probably not. One act probably still isn't enough to change alignment, and mitigating circumstances say that he was still acting in a Lawful Good manner (protecting his remaining troops), even if the specifics of his actions were not. That is probably the best example I can come up with that supports "Alignments aren't straightjackets" AND "Paladins are held to a higher standard". Can a LG cleric cast Animate Dead and remain LG? Sure, if he was acting in a LG manner doing so (And I'd probably allow the cleric to use that tactic over and over and over, so long as it was in a continued interest for others, without slipping into LN.). But Paladins must still obey their Code.
fhilbrandt 03-30-06, 04:05 PM	In the PHB, evil is defined simply as placing self-interest above the interests of others, i.e., altruism. Per that definition, nearly everyone you meet in Eberron will probably give you a positive hit on a Detect Evil. By that definition, Good characters will be rarer than ticks on a gorgon. :P
aelryinth 03-30-06, 05:08 PM	Hardly. Most people will do things for others as long as they don't have to sacrifice for themselves. This is inherently neutral. People willing to sacrifice for others are doing good deeds...which by definition includes most people who have friends, family, and especially children. By this definition, most people should give you a 'good' hit. Ergo, alignment is spread all over the place. It's the one you adhere to most which defines you. ==Aelryinth
shironiku 03-30-06, 05:22 PM	I think we need to ask ourselves why Animate Dead and similar spells have the Evil descriptor. Magic itself is a tool; you could create a horde of zombies and have them build an orphanage. Good act, evil spell. What makes a spell evil is the nature of the energies involved. Animate Dead utilizes negative energy. It's right there in the name: negative. Bad. Evil. Undead creatures, even so-called mindless ones such as zombies and skeletons, are by their very nature evil, because they are suffused with evil energy. What animates a zombie or skeleton? Is it the soul of its former owner? Is it a malign spirit? Or is it some strange manifestation of the caster's will? The answer is never clearly spelled out for us, but the consequences of using the magic is. Evil spell, evil act. It's corruption of the spirit by contact with evil energies, like the Dark Side in Star Wars. It's important to remember that Good and Evil aren't just philosophies or points of view in the D&D world. They are real, tangible energies in the D&D world.
locksley92 04-03-06, 06:16 PM	To all you nay-sayers out there, I found a hint at what I mean to say: everyone look at page 126 in the Sharn book under Alignment and Justice. Specifically the second paragraph beginning by "Yes, she can-if she has a good reason for it." Locksley
Vegepygmy 04-04-06, 07:56 PM	but you should allow for some discrepencies, like the LG cleric who Animates Dead to remain LG if the cause was goodA single evil act will not cause an otherwise-perfectly-good character to change alignment, so no "allowance" needs to be made for your hypothetical cleric. A LG cleric who casts animate dead (which is normally not possible, but can happen in Eberron) is committing an evil act. Yes, he may be doing it for Good reasons, but the act is nonetheless evil. The cleric should be appalled at himself for doing it, and stricken with remorse. It goes against everything he believes in and stands for. But will it change his alignment? No. (At least, not unless he keeps on doing it.)
fhilbrandt 04-06-06, 10:42 AM	Does Animate Dead have an Evil descriptor? If so a Good cleric, no matter what his deity, cannot cast it. The ECS states that pretty clearly.
nyysjan 04-06-06, 11:49 AM	Does Animate Dead have an Evil descriptor? If so a Good cleric, no matter what his deity, cannot cast it. The ECS states that pretty clearly. page number, paragraph, section, where does it state it (i'm not disputing your claim, it's just annoying to have to read the whole book to check for myself)
jonthegm 04-06-06, 12:01 PM	page number, paragraph, section, where does it state it (i'm not disputing your claim, it's just annoying to have to read the whole book to check for myself) I don't know what he's talking about, but page 35 says: A cleric's status within her church is usually more important than her relationship to her deity, who is—at best—a distant patron. Therefore, a cleric's alignment need not remain within one step of her deity's alignment. A cleric can cast spells with any alignment descriptor. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, and a good cleric's alignment may begin to change if she repeatedly casts such spells, but the deities of Eberron do not prevent their clerics from casting spells opposed to their alignments. This rule supersedes the information in Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells on page 33 of the Player's Handbook.
Edymnion 04-06-06, 06:50 PM	But will it change his alignment? No. (At least, not unless he keeps on doing it.)Even if he keeps doing it, his alignment does not automatically change. Alignment is a reflection on the way the character sees the world, and it does not change until that viewpoint also changes. The Lawful Evil cleric of the Silver Flame is evil because he thinks its okay to torture people to get confessions, or that skimming off the top for his own pockets is okay. He is evil because he doesn't see any problems with what he is doing. A Lawful Good character can raise dead all he wants, as long as he keeps in mind the fact that what he is donig is wrong, and that he only does it because it needs to be done to protect the innocent. Just because it has the Evil descriptor does not mean the caster MUST become evil, just that it is a temptation to evil. As long as the caster actively resists the temptation, and does his best to do what is right, he won't turn Evil. We're talking about a Bone Knight here, not a Paladin. The Paladin cannot do Evil because it is against his code to do so, not because of his alignment.
Dlgood 04-06-06, 07:09 PM	The Lawful Evil cleric of the Silver Flame is evil because he thinks its okay to torture people to get confessions I think that this is where we disagree. The Lawful Evil cleric is evil - not just because he thinks torture is okay - but because he actually tortures people. A Lawful Good character can raise dead all he wants, as long as he keeps in mind the fact that what he is donig is wrong, and that he only does it because it needs to be done to protect the innocent. But this may well be the justificationfor why the Lawful Evil cleric tortures. In order to provide security in dangerous times, the Evil cleric has to be the one who does unpleasant things. If alignment is divorced from a character's actions then it very quickly loses any meaning. Just because it has the Evil descriptor does not mean the caster MUST become evil, just that it is a temptation to evil. As long as the caster actively resists the temptation, he won't turn evil. Nope. But he won't be good anymore. He'll turn Neutral. Why? Because if a character is repeatedly animating the dead, then one seriously has to question whether they really believe that it's wrong. If it's so wrong, and you feel so bad about it, why keep finding opportunities to do it? That caster clearly isn't resisting temptation. Or, inasmuch as the character is 'actively resisting temptation' - the caster is failing to succeed in doing so. Just as the character is failing to uphold the Good alignment. Again, that doesn't mean they have to be Evil. Conveniently, we have Neutral.
Edymnion 04-06-06, 07:53 PM	Nope. But he won't be good anymore. He'll turn Neutral.Neutral is not an in-between place where you stick "Sometimes I do good, sometimes I do evil" characters. Neutral has specific traits, none of which are "I do good and evil in equal amounts". Why? Because if a character is repeatedly animating the dead, then one seriously has to question whether they really believe that it's wrong. If it's so wrong, and you feel so bad about it, why keep finding opportunities to do it?Why does the Silver Flame cleric that thinks its wrong to murder people still whip out the lethal damage when their life is on the line? Raising Dead as a last ditch thing isn't that big of a deal. This isn't a video game where you've got this little meter that you add/subtract to every time you do a good/evil deed. Alignment is a lot deeper, and a lot more shallow than a lot of people think.
Vharuck 04-07-06, 12:55 AM	Your actions and mentality should not be separated and examined, but examined in conjuntion with one another. If your mentality is good, you shouldn't repeatedly perform evil actions. Your actions are a product of the situation and your subjective view and interpretation of the situation (the pattern of perception is known as a person's schema).
Siran Dunmorgan 04-07-06, 01:06 AM	Do we believe that in Eberron specifically (though something of the kind may apply to other settings) that Evil (the substantive, measurable thing) is produced by people doing evil, or do people do evil because they have an overabundance of Evil already? Similarly for Good: is good something that we make by our actions—as we can make electricity by rubbing a cat with a piece of amber—or do we do good because we are suffused by the "force of Good"? —Siran Dunmorgan P.S. Personally, I'm of the opinion that it works both ways: a person suffused by Evil is more likely to do evil, and thereby generate even more Evil. Similarly, an otherwise neutral person suffused with Good is inclined to do good, and thereby generate more Good. The tough part is measuring the change in the local Good/Evil ratio. But an adept/artificer with Craft Wondrous Item, detect good, and detect evil should be able to come up with a device not entirely unlike a Geiger counter for detecting Good/Evil auras. Such an artificer working closely with House Sivis might even be able to come up with a stripchart recorder, so that people can see the fluctuations in the Good and Evil of an area over the course of a day.
Vegepygmy 04-07-06, 12:08 PM	Because if a character is repeatedly animating the dead, then one seriously has to question whether they really believe that it's wrong. If it's so wrong, and you feel so bad about it, why keep finding opportunities to do it?While there is no bright-line rule on exactly how many castings of animate dead will tip the caster over into changing alignment, Dlgood has correctly identified the issue here. Casting an Evil spell is an Evil act. Period. Your motives may be wholly Good, but that does not make the act any less Evil. And someone who repeatedly and/or frequently performs Evil acts is (this really should not come as any surprise) Evil, even if he has only the purest of Good intentions. Of course, this seeming contradiction only arises in those rare situations where an act is metaphysically Evil (like casting Evil spells). Most acts are not intrinsically Evil; they are deemed Evil (or Good) based on the actor's motives. Killing someone, for example, can certainly be Evil (murder for hire, just as an example). But it can also be Good (shooting a mad bomber to prevent him from blowing up hundreds of innocent bystanders). Casting an Evil spell is a special case, however, that can never be Good, no matter what your reasons for doing it.
Siran Dunmorgan 04-07-06, 04:58 PM	Casting an Evil spell is a special case, however, that can never be Good, no matter what your reasons for doing it. Well, sure—it manipulates and enhances the Evil in the world, i.e. the substance of Evil. Animating the dead may be the right thing to do, but to do it with negative energy requires Evil. Thus, it's possible to do great good with Evil tools. Note that there are ways of becoming undead that (apparently) do not require Evil: becoming a ghostly dragon guardian, for example, yields a ghostly dragon (an undead) but the transformation can be undertaken by good-aligned dragons with no apparent effect on their alignment—or, at least, the effect is not mentioned in Draconomicon. I suspect that this is explained by ghosts being tied to the ethereal plane, rather than Mabar. Conversely, in Eberron, the spells that create Deathless have the [Good] descriptor. This implies that creating deathless manipulates and enhances the Good in the world. Returning the topic to Paladins, it's interesting to think of a cleric/paladin of the Undying Court, and his personal crusading army of deathless. The Priests of Transition might have something derogatory to say about it, but if the cleric/paladin were convinced that his mission required an army of deathless, there's nothing in the alignment or code of conduct restrictions that would stop him. —Siran Dunmorgan
King_Bulba 04-07-06, 07:41 PM	I have a question for this topic. Where does it say Paladins lose their powers in eberron? I dont think it makes sense because the gods are absent and divine power comes from faith. The gods will not pull their powers for doing good or evil. The RAW may state differently but as we all know RAW and logic don't always match. Slightly off topic... As for alignment I personally think Eberron should change to subjective morality/alignment system. You already see it all over Eberron. The silver flame sure does ALOT of autocities for a LG church. Killing off all lycanthopy is evil in my book since with a little effort they can be contained and helped. Karrnath uses undead to boalster their army, that sure is evil according to standard DnD rules. Dont get me started on the Elves hehe. If you look at it from their perspective though they are not doing evil. This could be implimented quite easy to keep game mechanics still functioning. Detect evil becomes detect evil(silver flame) where the silver flames stance on good is used. Gods have listed discriptions and that could be easily used to adapt their morality into thier stance on alignment. I personally think this is a more flexable alignments system that has less confusion because the current alignment system is quite blurry for something that is supposed to be specific. A monks lawful and a paladins lawful are two totally different things, as well as the druids neutral and the neutral stated in the PHB alignment section. My opinion at least, and quite a drastic change but I think it is more playable and has less confusion. It doesn't makes sense to me to have an objective good since there are many gods and they would never agree to a standard, they would never compramise on matters of what they think is right or wrong. As is, a lot of people will do what they think is good and they are told by their DM that they are doing evil according to the RAW and are punished. IMO Capitalists are LE according to the discription in the PHB alignment system and most Americans will call themselves capitalists and consider themselves good. At least with subjective morality the system is more realistic and flexable. Well I know probally most will disagree with me but at least my opinion is out there.
Vegepygmy 04-07-06, 09:24 PM	I have a question for this topic. Where does it say Paladins lose their powers in eberron?In the Player's Handbook. Since nothing in any of the Eberron supplements changes that rule, it stands in Eberron. I dont think it makes sense because the gods are absent and divine power comes from faith.Your conclusion doesn't make sense because your premise is flawed. A paladin's class abilities do not come from "faith." You are, of course, free in your own campaign to rule otherwise, in which case you may need to change some other rules to remain consistent. But per the RAW, an Eberron paladin who knowingly commits an evil act loses his paladin abilities, and there is nothing illogical or inconsistent about that fact. IMO Capitalists are LE according to the discription in the PHB alignment system and most Americans will call themselves capitalists and consider themselves good.Actually, leaving aside all other moral and ethical issues, capitalists (true, "free market" capitalists) would gravitate towards the Chaotic side of the Law-Chaos spectrum. Most would be Neutral on the Good-Evil spectrum, though a sizable number would certainly be Evil. Rarely if ever would they be Good. The reason why most Americans would call themselves capitalists yet also consider themselves Good is not because they believe laissez-faire capitalism is Good, but because we do so many other Good things in addition to (or in spite of) our capitalistic economy. (It's probably worth noting, on this point, that modern America is far more of a socialist nation than a capitalist one.) But if we look solely at capitalistic values...yeah, they're Chaotic and Neutral at best, Evil at worst.
Always-Late 04-08-06, 03:41 AM	(It's probably worth noting, on this point, that modern America is far more of a socialist nation than a capitalist one.)Out of total curiosity, in comparison to what?
King_Bulba 04-08-06, 04:30 AM	But per the RAW, an Eberron paladin who knowingly commits an evil act loses his paladin abilities, and there is nothing illogical or inconsistent about that fact. Well by RAW you are right as I thought but it is inconsistent with the fact that the gods don't interfer with the world. This is a staple of eberron and is proven with corrupt clerics... Clerics get divine power from faith but paladins somehow dont... I think this is an inconsistancy. BTW the rest of this is pretty much off topic ignore if your not interested (It's probably worth noting, on this point, that modern America is far more of a socialist nation than a capitalist one.) That is 100% true about being a hybrid socialist/capitalist state leaning more on socalism but the funny thing is if you say that to most Americas they will act like you have made a personal insult against them. We Americans are drilled at a young age that capitalism is good and communism is bad. People link socialism with communism because they dont know any better even though we don't really follow the capitalist tenents anymore. Laissez-faire has pretty much gone completely out the window. Well we will have to agree to disagree about captialists being chaotic. Capitalism with the market is baised on the idea of compatition. Eveyone tries to exploit everyone else in the market and this brings compatition that is supposed to create balance. The idea is that compatition will arise and lower prices will apear but that does not happen. Some people have more power than others so some get more out of expoilting others. This snowballs because they get more and more power untill they had monopolies. The results im sure we all know with the big five. To stop capitalist we started down the road of socialism by creating laws forcing standards on practically every workplace in America. Capitalism and the market assumes people are greedy and greed has nothing to do with being chaotic, it is nuetral at best but I see it as evil. Well my opinion at least.
King_Bulba 04-08-06, 04:35 AM	Out of total curiosity, in comparison to what? LOL see!
jaydubyadub 04-08-06, 11:33 AM	Ahhhhhh politics. *runs* Personally, my politics lean towards the libertarian PoV - I view socialist programs as a form of injustice... I see the need for taxation but don't respect the wanton and wasteful manner in which the government throws its people's money around. I don't view socialists as evil, however, because of this - I just think their perspective is incorrect. I'm sorry, but no, we're not going to asign D&D alignments to political or religious viewpoints on Earth. That is a very ugly road to take on a forum and would get this thread closed fast. * * * As a funny aside, I once played in a game run by a very very left-wing individual. Our characters never had our own gold or property and lived in a commune. Needless to say, we didn't meet wealth-by-level guidelines, and I noticed how essential the capitalist drive is to the standard RPG model. So irritating. :nonono: As for Paladins, you should use the UA variants if you really need them. I don't think the Paladin needs to have flexible alignment rules or different types, however. They need to stay within the confines of LG and their code... this is flexible enough in-and-of-itself if you're creative enough and have a DM that allows you some breathing room.
King_Bulba 04-08-06, 09:09 PM	As for Paladins, you should use the UA variants if you really need them. I don't think the Paladin needs to have flexible alignment rules or different types, however. They need to stay within the confines of LG and their code... this is flexible enough in-and-of-itself if you're creative enough and have a DM that allows you some breathing room. Well the UA veriations are just as inflexable as the normal paladin if not worse. If you ever do a lawful act you screw over your chaotic paladin alignment, it is garbage... Well I need to see your flexable paladins because I have NEVER seen one, law and good conflict way to much. Also going to far in the name of good can turn out to be an evil deed, my psion has done that from time to time. There are always a game breaker since a paladin would turn in 3/4ths of my party over to the authorities, think my pison and cohort would be the only ones who would be ok for the most part. My game has a house rule where they are NG so law and chaos doesn't get in the way of good but still no one wants to play one for the single evil dead disables your character. Also good is ineffeciant, if you let good be in charge evil will take over... WHY? well read my sig! Ack my sig didn't appear. [edit]Dark Helmet: So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb. [edit]
JulesCARV 04-08-06, 09:58 PM	I think a paladin's powers derive from her honor and goodness in a supernatural manner. It doesn't make more sense than evoking fireball, but it doesn't make less sense either. Basically, think of it this way: if you're a rogue, but you get some kind of autoimmune disease that attacks your nerves and causes you to become clumsy (say, cerebral palsy, if an adult somehow got cerebral palsy as an adult after becoming a rogue, although that's a bad example since cerebral palsy is usually in childhood), you won't be able to do your rogue stuff anymore. If you're a fighter, but you sit around on the couch all day drinking beer and eating chicken wings, and never work out, or practice with a sword, for a few years, you won't be able to do your fighter stuff anymore. Now, there are no rules for fighters or rogues losing their abilities. That is because their abilities derive from numerical ability scores. A rogue who got cerebral palsy might have their dexterity reduced from 18 to 6, and thus suffer a -6 to most of their important rogue abilities. A fighter who became very out of shape might have his strength fall from 16 to 10, and constitution fall from 14 to 10, and thus suffer -2 hp per hit die, and -3 to hit and damage. A paladin's abilities, to a large extent, derive from goodness and law. Think of "goodness" and "lawfulness" as ability scores, like charisma. Now think of paladins as receiving bonus feats, along the lines of: Lay on Hands [General] Prerequisites: 15 goodness, 13 lawfulness, paladin level 2nd, must not violate paladin code (such as by lying, using poison, etc.) Benefit: You gain the ability to heal wounds with a touch, equal to your charisma modifier x your paladin level per day, if charsima modifier is at least +1. Special: Paladins gain this feat at 2nd level as a bonus feat. They need not select it. Now, when their goodness drops below 15, or their lawfulness drops below 13, they lose the ability to use that feat, just as if a fighter whose strength dropped below 13 would lose the ability to use power attack. Does this, in real world terms, make sense? No. It does not. However, it makes as much sense as charisma allowing a sorceror to cast magic missile. I should note that I'm not using the standard "it's fantasy! Accept every illogical thing!" excuse, which I frequently regard as wrong. For instance, when people find some kind of probelm with, say, the AC rules, or complain that a bastard sword weighs too much, I find it very unhelpful when people say "hah! You think a bastard sword weighing 6 pounds is weird? Wait until you hear about the spell Lightning Bolt! Now that's unrealistic." Fantasy doesn't mean totally ignoring logic, in my view. In fact, that's one of the things I like about Eberron: Arcane magic is available, so people respond to incentives and use it accordingly. However, the paladin is a goodness and lawfulness-dependent class, just as a sorceror is a charisma-dependent class, regardless of whether the paladin or the sorceror worship any gods, and which gods they worship if they do so. This may seem odd, since "goodness" has only five scores (vile, evil, neutral, good, and exalted), and lawfulness only has three (chaotic, neutral, and lawful), whereas charisma has any score from 3 to 18. This is a supernatural matter, but not necessarily related to the "distant deity" cosmology of Eberron.
jaydubyadub 04-08-06, 10:18 PM	Well I need to see your flexable paladins because I have NEVER seen one, law and good conflict way to much. We're having a healthy debate on this topic in the What's a DM to Do? subforum. It's my personal contention that a LG Paladin / Rogue, while utterly unconventional, is also entirely playable even within the confines of the Paladin's code. There is plenty of room for playing Paladins with different philosophies and viewpoints even within the confines of Lawful Good / the Code. A good starting point is the different non-evil deities themselves. Not every paladin is of Heironeous, or Dol Arrah as the case may be. A Elven Paladin of Corellon Larethian, in addition to having seperate racial substitution levels / abilities from the standard generic pally, is also going to have a different philosophy / perspective. He's still going to obey and respect the laws of non-evil cultures, he's still going to try and impart positive change and help those in need but his worship and his ideology is going to be different, his viewpoint is going to be different, and most importantly from our perspective, his roleplaying cues, the way the character reacts to situations, his speech and mannerisms are going to be different. Now let's whip out Deities and Demigods and see if I can't give a better example. Ah, here we go... imagine a paladin of Aphrodite. :cool:
King_Bulba 04-09-06, 01:30 AM	Thank you for the replys. What you said makes some sense JulesCARV, but I still don't agree with it. My perogative though but at least I will not burdon you with my postings on this topic anymore(on this thread). Cha is force of will and a sorcerer uses this force to get more power into his spells. That makes sense to me. A cleric uses his insight to use his spells more effectivly. That makes sense to me... A paladin gets his spells from Law and being good. I do not see how being good nor lawfull will get you spells. That does not make any logical sense to me. Where does this power come from? If it is faith then as long as you believe you are doing good then you get your power but that is not the case with the paladin. So the paladin is getting his power from something that is activly watching over him but it is not the gods. This makes no sense to me. If it is his own subconcious then he would have to know he was doing is an evil act, but like I said this isnt the case, he loses his powers no matter what. Also what happens when law and good conflict? They do and will conflict which forces the paladin to abandon law for good. If you can be unlawfull then why force it to begin with? Now what makes sense to me? A paladins job is to be good and spread good. As a part of good paladins respects law since generally law is more conducive to life than chaos but does not nessisarly make him lawful since laws are designed to protect people and if it isn't protecting people then it isnt good. This is already seen since evil governments a paladin doesnt respect. This allows good people to be L, N or C dependng on how much is to much. He gets his powers from faith like all other divine sources in eberron meaning he can be corrupted. The gods will not remove his power since the gods don't interfere with the world. I think this makes sense. If you must, your subconcious prevents you from useing your powers if you have done something you know is evil. Though this only makes sense if you know you have done somthing evil. Jaydubyadub how can there be different philosphies of good when you have detect evil? I agree with you but the game mechanics really prevent it. I personally want subjective morality and that would allow different philosophies to exist. A child says "Is putting this deer out of is misery because it is in great pain a good or a bad thing?" The Paladin says "I don't know, let me find out" and kills the deer. The Paladin then says "Well it is an evil act, you know any clerics around who can atone me kid?"
Vegepygmy 04-09-06, 01:36 AM	Well by RAW you are right as I thought but it is inconsistent with the fact that the gods don't interfer with the world. This is a staple of eberron and is proven with corrupt clerics... Clerics get divine power from faith but paladins somehow dont... I think this is an inconsistancy.Clerics don't necessarily derive their power from faith, either. See the rules for godless clerics in the PHB. Well we will have to agree to disagree about captialists being chaotic... To stop capitalist we started down the road of socialism by creating laws forcing standards on practically every workplace in America. Capitalism and the market assumes people are greedy and greed has nothing to do with being chaotic, it is nuetral at best but I see it as evil.I say capitalism is Chaotic not because capitalism assumes people are greedy. (It doesn't. It assumes they're self-interested.) "Greed" is a Good-Evil value, not Lawful-Chaotic. No, capitalism is clearly Chaotic because capitalism is based upon individual rights, freedom from burdensome regulation, and so forth. I could go on, but jaydubyadub is right: we're heading into an area of discussion that's not really permitted on these boards. So I'll just leave it at that.
Vegepygmy 04-09-06, 01:42 AM	So the paladin is getting his power from something that is activly watching over him but it is not the gods. This makes no sense to me.There is no sentient force "watching over" the paladin, any more than gravity is "watching over" me when I jump off a cliff and it pulls me to the ground. When a paladin knowingly commits an evil act and loses his special status or jumps off a cliff and plummets to the ground below, those are just the laws of the universe operating. No god oversees them, or decides when they apply (though the DM does). They just do.
Grey_Mage 04-09-06, 03:39 AM	Lawful in the case of the paladin, I always interpreted as being the paladins code of honor. Ive got one written out everytime I make a paladin... includes the thou shall not lie and such things that are mentioned... and then some more that fits the flavor of the diety. Good conflicts with law? I dont see how... its the system... the approach through the proper rules and conduct... its not what you do but how you do it.
JulesCARV 04-09-06, 07:16 AM	I think that the original, Gary Gygax view of alignment is that neutral good is the epitome of good, and someone could be chaotic good or lawful good, and be very, very good, but they couldn't be quite as good as the most good neutral good person, because of the limitations of someone's course of actions. The more current view of D&D designers seems to be that Lawful Good is the epitome of good, and that the person at the theoretical limits of goodness is LG. I find the earlier, original D&D view more appealing, personally. If all you care about is good, why would you care about law or chaos? If goodness and law are real forces -- as they are in D&D, including Eberron -- then it makes sense that perhaps power could be derived from them. Imagine that alignment is a wind, and a paladin is a sailing ship. If the paladin's alignment -- the tack of her sails, so to speak -- are aligned with law and goodness, then she can convert her conviction into a force useful to her. With a given wind, it's possible to go in more than one direction, by adjusting the sails. Perhaps that's where blackguards and variant paladins come in. Also: Remember that the question of whether gods have anything to do with clerical power in Eberron isn't answered with a difinitive "yes" as with, say, Greyhawk, but it isn't answered with a difinitive "no" either. Clerics might just have magic based on their faith, tapping only the power within themselves and nothing beyond -- or maybe not :). That's a somewhat seperate issue from what alignment has to do with the supernatural powers of paladins and blackguards, though.
Vegepygmy 04-09-06, 04:18 PM	The more current view of D&D designers seems to be that Lawful Good is the epitome of good, and that the person at the theoretical limits of goodness is LG.What evidence of this "current view" have you seen?
Jonathan Barrett 04-10-06, 11:44 AM	I think that, given the morale and ethic absolutism of the D&D RAW, any Paladin worth his salt would never be able to leave any particular nation in Eberron or even exist for very long at all without being hunted and burned at the stake by upset villagers or even the various secular or religious agencies at work in the particular nation the Paladin operates out of (a la Joan d'Arc). Think about it, no nation is the same as any other on Eberron (they just got out of a war that lasted a hundred years) especially where its perception and the perceptions of its people are concerned. If some armored tart came into your village and told you that you were working your children to hard or that not disciplining your outspoken wife was wrong, or that gaining and keeping posession when others were starving was wrong and that you were evil and must be Smitten, you and the rest of the town would run the floozy "Paladin" out of town or even string her up. Unfortunately while the Paladin might not have the luxury of fudging her alignment this way or that way, people do and as seen by the various political Capitalism posts and the host of other arguments here, most people would think that they are both good and lawful citizens. What place does a Moral Absolutist (right or wrong) have in such a world of such "clear cut" perceptions?
Vharuck 04-10-06, 12:00 PM	I think people think of the axes incorrectly. Good and Evil are simple enough. Everyone knows what Good means and what Evil means. But Law and Chaos can be misleading. Lawful in the D&D axis has nothing to do with laws. It should be named Order. The lawful character likes things neat and orderly. They don't like surprises, and plan most everything out. Chaos is not so much the attacking of order, as it is the absence of order. You can be Chaotic in a lawful place. You just really don't care about the laws. You think that rules are too stifling, and that no rule could ever truly be right. I mean, everything's different, right? So why use the same rules?