Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Shade_Damara 05-28-06, 03:37 AM	So, we have been having a debate on and off in the group I DM for about a certain Book of Vile Darkness, the Angel Wing Razor. The campaign is a half-celestial campaign (all pcs are half-celestial, actually working fairly well and I haven't had to adjust monsters to give good fights) and none of their alignments are any worse than Neutral Good...however... They discovered two artifacts in a chest after a lengthy battle with an Effigy, one was a good aligned sword named Judgement's Blade, no problems there. The other was a the non-aligned Angel Wing Razor. So I figured that a party of half-celestials would seek to destroy the sword, being as it was sharpened on the wings of Celestials and used to combat the forces of good. What did the party do? "Hey, that's a pretty good sword, lets give it to the Paladin." I was shocked and I wasn't exactly the only one. Bemused, I decided to let things play out as they would and it just got all the more interesting. Before long (another session and an online forum later) one of the characters in the party left the party, another thought it was a stupid thing to do, two others thought there was nothing wrong with keeping the sword and a ruling body of Celestials (The Celestial Council) hated the idea but let them keep it for their own reasons which I can't reveal here in case any of the players are reading. I thought the debate a very healthy thing and it hasn't done anything to hurt the campaign, but I was interested to see what sort of debate it would spark here. Is the act of keeping the sword a bad one? Should the sword be destroyed because of all that it represents or used by a good aligned Paladin? Now, having posed the question I will give you the results. The party traveled to a mountain range and encountered a Bronze Dragon with a fetish for dice. Several long and unimportant conversations with the as usual talkative dragon later and they discovered a vilely evil Necromancer they had dealt with in the past had rescently come this way in search of the Book of Vile Darkness. He had gone to a wizard's tower at the direction of the dragon (which of course had no idea where the book was, but was hoping to kill two birds with a single stone) which had long been abandoned and was now the favored perch of a Red Dragon that made the Bronze's life hell. The party went there, fought the Necromancer and had alot of bad things happen to it. The Necromancer insta-killed the party's Sorcerror and then proceeded to plane shift both the Paladin, with the Angel Wing Razor of course, and the fighter to...the Abyss. What was left of the Cleric and Barbarian (wielding Judgement's Blade) killed the Necromancer. Of course they quickly discovered the Necromancer had several spells cast on him at the time and his body was teleported somewhere and presumed revived. So now, the Angel Wing Razor was in the Abyss. The Paladin and Fighter died (naturally) and next session the Cleric, with help from a friend of Draconic nature, traveled to the Abyss, grabbed the corpses and traveled back. The corpses were devoid of all their equipment (most importantly the Angel Wing Razor). So now the amazingly powerful Angel Wing Razor resides in the Abyss, in the hands of a very happy Demon that happened to be traveling by when discovering two dead adventurers. So the question is, NOW what do you think of their decision to keep the sword? What do you think is likely to happen as a result of the Demons getting ahold of it (actually its a very specific demon with a name and a title ;) ).
stealth_monkey 05-28-06, 04:09 AM	Hindsight is always 20/20 The party did nothing wrong in keeping the sword, depending on the paladin's personal view on things, he may be of the opinion that it's better to use the tool for good, so that the celestial's deaths were not completely in vain rather than simply destroy it, serving nothing. This is not necessarily a "wrong" point of view. As to what would happen with the demon, there's nothing that probably could be done about it, life would just go on
Shade_Damara 05-28-06, 04:13 AM	I tended to side with both portions of the argument. I could see how it is perfectly fine to decide to use the sword for good but then again in a world populated with alot of half and full celestials, it could also brand you as evil or just amazingly offensive walking around with such a weapon, rather like walking through the streets of Israel with a Swastica arm band on. The Paladin had an interesting solution to that by simply using gloves of storing.
KJW 05-28-06, 08:46 AM	From the party's perspective I can see a reasonable argument for using the weapon, though the argument as has been proved out is flawed. The weapon may not be evil, but its origins and purpose are clearly evil. The end result should have been easily foreseen and this the Celestial Council should hold them accountable. The paladin should be punished for using the weapon, they have a higher code of conduct and using this weapon clearly violates it, but he is dead so leave the punishment for the afterlife. The real issue is whether the party could have foreseen the sword falling into the hands of evil...as one PC did foresee this then the party did foresee it so thus they should be held accountable. Stupidity is not a defense in this case, especially with an artifact. My problem is that plane shift requires joined hands to work and this scenario while resulting in a predictable end smells of DM railroading. I have no problem with the end result, but it does seem more than a little forced upon the players. So little problems on both sides of the screen.
zlatko 05-28-06, 09:05 AM	Isn't Angel Wing Razor an evil artifact(+5 vorpal longsword that cuts through everything)?! Sharpened on the wings of dead and captive celestials. Plane shifting (how?) the paladin with the artifact into the abyss? Angels saying it's OK for the paladin to use the artifact? And now a demon has it? Smells like Railroading.
gimby 05-28-06, 09:16 AM	As for the morality of the use of the weapon- there is precedent in the Executioners Axe in BoED- A weapon which had been used to exectute a extra-good person and is presented as an Exalted relic.
Bob Loblaw 05-28-06, 10:12 AM	It sounds like you've got an interesting scenario set up there. It doesn't sound like railroading at all. The party made a mistake by keeping the weapon. Someone more powerful wanted it. This happens all the time. There's always a bigger fish in the pond and they found that fish. I think that the council should now require the party to find the sword and destroy it. Plane shift only requires willing creatures to hold hands. It says nothing about unwilling creatures. There is a Will save for those who are unwilling. I can see a council allowing the party to keep the artifact. We don't know the reasons they have. Maybe the head of the council is actually in league with the demons and he wanted to set up this scenario. Maybe they were testing the party and things got out of hand. Maybe they felt the party could handle it. We don't have all the answers so claiming railroading is rather insulting to his DMing campabilities. Besides, sometimes you get railroaded whether you like it or not. It happens in real-life, so I can see it happening in the game too.
Always-Late 05-28-06, 12:49 PM	So you're redeeming an evil weapon. What's wrong with that? What if he had lost the Goodly Sword of Ultimate Goodly Goodness +10 Merciful Vicious Holy Burst Flaming Shocking Icy Brilliant Energy Longsword in the Abyss? That'd be rather bad, wouldn't it?
STAT 05-28-06, 01:01 PM	So you're redeeming an evil weapon. What's wrong with that? What if he had lost the Goodly Sword of Ultimate Goodly Goodness +10 Merciful Vicious Holy Burst Flaming Shocking Icy Brilliant Energy Longsword in the Abyss? That'd be rather bad, wouldn't it? The man has a point here.
Witch 05-28-06, 01:04 PM	The man has a point here. It depends on how your morality is based. Is it action-based? Is it intent-based? Is it result-based? There are many options. Some condemn this - others will not.
Shade_Damara 05-28-06, 01:07 PM	Well the crys of railroading are rather...interesting. I had nothing to do with what the party did with the sword, save for putting it in the chest in the first place as a possible side quest. Plane shift is perfectly acceptable against unwilling persons, as someone already stated, it simply requires a will save. He had two uses of the spell and instead of taking multiple rounds to kill the fighter and paladin (two of the most dangerous party members to him) he shifted them somewhere they wouldn't be coming back from. I can tell you some of what the Celestial Council wanted, they were hoping the use of the sword would draw forth its creator and that the party could then kill him, unfortunately for them, that didn't exactly happen. It seems that the debate is as lively here as it has been thus far in reality. Even weeks after it happened party members are still bringing it up occasionally. There were other reasons for the Council, but seeing as that could reveal subplots, its best I hold on stating those. Personally I can see redeeming the sword through good, but I also still see it as, if nothing else, an icon of pure evil as far as Celestials are going to be concerned. They haven't yet dealt with the Council again (they went about as far away from the Council as they could on a quest) but they will if they ever plan on going back to their base of operations.
shadowfox628 05-28-06, 01:18 PM	From what I can tell, he isn't railroading. Just because he sent the Palaidn and Fighter to another plane doesn't mean there wasn't a save against it (just to say, I'm never quite sure about spells... Never played a spellcaster before). Anyway, it is an interesting set of events. In my book, it would be a good thought to try to redeem the reputation of a sword, to change it from evil to good. I would suspect lots of hate for them using it, though... However, it may teach them something: don't use weapons made out of your own kin.
Shade_Damara 05-28-06, 01:29 PM	Yep, there was a will save, which they could have passed, but, well, didn't. The plot involving a demon after the sword actually came up after the session when I was working on the next adventure as a good way to show that actions have consequences that can affect the party and presenting them the problem of cleaning up their own mistake. Honestly, if you were a powerful Demon in the Abyss and saw the Angel Wing Razor and other magical equipment on two adventurers, are you telling me you wouldn't get it? You wouldn't go for the vile +5 Vorpal Longsword? I know I would. The characters have ended up all over the place on this debate. The Paladin, oddly, has stayed out of it since that first session, especially after being resurrected and having lost the sword. I've been considering any sort of punishment for the Paladin and very nearly took her abilities away but after long consideration I decided that since she had only once even used the sword and that when she did it was to attack a rather evil Necromancer, she hadn't really broken any of her oaths. The Half-Orc Barbarian is actually rather annoyed by the entire situation and no longer trusts the Cleric and Paladin.
celtredleg 05-28-06, 01:45 PM	The problem to me is timeing. All decisions can turn out bad. You just have to make what seems the best one at the time and go from there. While the method to make it was certainly evil, there does not seem to be any actual evil in the item itself. It can be used for good or evil. So useing it for good seems a good thing. As has been said, loseing any powerful magic item to the abyss is bad. I dont think anyone is going to advocate never carrying any powerful magic around with you as you never know when some derainged Necro is going to pop you there and now the abyss is just that much more powerful. I dont see that with the info they had at the time they could have possibly know the end to which they would eventualy come. So how then could it be considered an evil act?
STAT 05-28-06, 01:59 PM	Yep, there was a will save, which they could have passed, but, well, didn't. The plot involving a demon after the sword actually came up after the session when I was working on the next adventure as a good way to show that actions have consequences that can affect the party and presenting them the problem of cleaning up their own mistake. Honestly, if you were a powerful Demon in the Abyss and saw the Angel Wing Razor and other magical equipment on two adventurers, are you telling me you wouldn't get it? You wouldn't go for the vile +5 Vorpal Longsword? I know I would. Yeah but that could be said about any weapon as Always-Late pointed out. Oh look some dead guy has a +5 axe of uberness as a demon I totally want that. What difference does it make if that item is a super awesome evil item or just a plain old super awesome item?
1CentSage 05-28-06, 02:03 PM	This is a debate that has kept real world philosophers busy since before the word philosophy was even defined. Should you base your actions on principal, or its (likely) result and up to what point justifies the result the means? With respect to your example it seems to me that the answer that you gave to your players is that they maybe should have acted more according to principles than outcome. While this would be a good story of classical tragic heroes that helped evil by trying to defeat it, I think this is not a good idea to solve the issue in a game. To me this smacks a bit of teaching the players a lesson, which in my experience most players don not like at all (if it becomes obvious to them). I did this a lot of times to my own players in the past, but try to keep away from it now. In your example, I would at least give them the opportunity to retrieve the sword in a heroic manner. I would bet, they try to destroy it this time and if not ...
evilviper77 05-28-06, 02:18 PM	From the party's perspective I can see a reasonable argument for using the weapon, though the argument as has been proved out is flawed. The weapon may not be evil, but its origins and purpose are clearly evil. The end result should have been easily foreseen and this the Celestial Council should hold them accountable. The paladin should be punished for using the weapon, they have a higher code of conduct and using this weapon clearly violates it, but he is dead so leave the punishment for the afterlife. The real issue is whether the party could have foreseen the sword falling into the hands of evil...as one PC did foresee this then the party did foresee it so thus they should be held accountable. Stupidity is not a defense in this case, especially with an artifact. My problem is that plane shift requires joined hands to work and this scenario while resulting in a predictable end smells of DM railroading. I have no problem with the end result, but it does seem more than a little forced upon the players. So little problems on both sides of the screen. These kind of posts really bother me. Someone who thinks his opinion is the only one that is correct and that all other's are "flawed". The OP said it was a non-aligned weapon, and the statement of wanting to use it for the good now(considering it was such a powerful sword) is a more than valid arguement i can agree with, even though i tend to also lean toward the side of they needed to destroy/seal it away (mostly because of they fact they were half-celestial). These kinds of posts make me think of people who (w/o using cardinal directions) would sit in a circle out in an open field and try to argue with each other which way the grass was blowing, always believing their direction(as in right, left, forwards, backwards, etc) to be right and the non-agreeing others wrong.
Shade_Damara 05-28-06, 03:26 PM	Oh I can assure you its not punishment. I thought about the dilema about as long as the players did, if not longer, and found that I was rather neutral on it as I've said before. The players do have a chance to "rescue" the sword as it were in a heroic manner in the quest they are currently on. I wasn't going screw them out of the chance to get it back just because they lost it in the first place. I must admit though I rather expected what the last poster believes to be the outcome. I thought they would see the item and destroy or re-seal it, but they didn't which has opened a whole new story line for them to explore. I thought at first after they decided to keep it that I had made a mistake by placing a powerful artifact like that into the game, but its turned out to open all sorts of opertunities both for me as a DM and the players.
KJW 05-28-06, 05:08 PM	These kind of posts really bother me. Someone who thinks his opinion is the only one that is correct and that all other's are "flawed". The OP said it was a non-aligned weapon, and the statement of wanting to use it for the good now(considering it was such a powerful sword) is a more than valid arguement i can agree with, even though i tend to also lean toward the side of they needed to destroy/seal it away (mostly because of they fact they were half-celestial). These kinds of posts make me think of people who (w/o using cardinal directions) would sit in a circle out in an open field and try to argue with each other which way the grass was blowing, always believing their direction(as in right, left, forwards, backwards, etc) to be right and the non-agreeing others wrong. Have you read the description of how this weapon is made in the BoVD, wherein it is listed as an artifact? Please do it is quite enlightening. This is a powerful weapon made by evil, through evil means, it is intended to slay celestials, perhaps it does not radiate evil but that doesn't mean its a good thing to possess. The DM has even said it marked the party as evil by possessing it, though it was specifically not evil. One PC said "I am leaving the party because this is a bad idea," and in the end the party lost the weapon which ended up in the hands of a demon in the Abyss....hmmm it seems that the party made a major mistake. You can rationalize their decision, but the end result was easily foreseeable so the party was basically greedy and foolish. They had a weapon of evil, though not evil, and decided because it was super powerful to use it, which means that it would attract the attention of evil one way or the other. The party was incapable of retaining the weapon, despite its power and evil now has it. Seriously, the party screwed up, no matter how you look at it. In this case, with what we know, it is obvious the party made a mistake. We may differ on the extend of the mistake, maybe it was just tactical, maybe it was moral, but in the end they erred. As the OP has said though it really has opened up possibilities, if the party, what remains of it, tries to recover the weapon then they are learning from their mistake and that makes a great story. Redemption for a mistake is a staple of fantasy and good roleplaying. Adventuring parties are not expected to be perfect, we all as players make mistakes, its best though to admit a mistake and learn from it. It will be interesting to see what the players do now, try to recover the sword as atonement, or just move on. Shade_Damara do post what your players do next.
Shade_Damara 05-28-06, 09:24 PM	I will attempt to, but it may be weeks before I know the outcome. They have a relatively large dungeon to go through and then the Abyss and a BBEG they have encountered before. Eventually however I will know =).
BenTGaidin 05-28-06, 09:47 PM	They had a weapon of evil, though not evil, and decided because it was super powerful to use it, which means that it would attract the attention of evil one way or the other. The party was incapable of retaining the weapon, despite its power and evil now has it. Seriously, the party screwed up, no matter how you look at it. In this case, with what we know, it is obvious the party made a mistake. We may differ on the extend of the mistake, maybe it was just tactical, maybe it was moral, but in the end they erred. But by that same reasoning, shouldn't they not keep _any_ powerful weapons, because bad guys would see them and say "Hey, I want that!"? It seems almost cliche that the villan(s) would want to steal something powerful from and turn it against the party. Personally, I'd say they screwed up not by not destroying it, but by not making it more difficult for evil to use. For example, if it's allowed in your campaign... enchant it a la Holy weapons so that those of evil alignment get negative levels from picking it up. If you can go further, a la the Book of Vile Darkness (though Good, of course) and have it blast evil alignments for damage when they try to touch it, so much the better. (I'm sure that, if the players can't do it themselves, at least _someone_ on the Celestial Council could be persuaded to help them in such an obviously good task.) Besides, it'd be funny to have a bunch of demons wandering around the Abyss with scorched hands from trying to pick up what they _thought_ was a Vile weapon. *grins*
Shade_Damara 05-28-06, 09:55 PM	That would have been highly amusing, but they didn't think to do any of that. They certainly have allies with the ability to do so though.
STAT 05-28-06, 10:02 PM	But by that same reasoning, shouldn't they not keep _any_ powerful weapons, because bad guys would see them and say "Hey, I want that!"? It seems almost cliche that the villan(s) would want to steal something powerful from and turn it against the party. I agree but everyone seems to be ignoring this point. I also think it's a pretty big kink in a few people's arguements here. Personally, I'd say they screwed up not by not destroying it, but by not making it more difficult for evil to use. For example, if it's allowed in your campaign... enchant it a la Holy weapons so that those of evil alignment get negative levels from picking it up. If you can go further, a la the Book of Vile Darkness (though Good, of course) and have it blast evil alignments for damage when they try to touch it, so much the better. (I'm sure that, if the players can't do it themselves, at least _someone_ on the Celestial Council could be persuaded to help them in such an obviously good task.) Besides, it'd be funny to have a bunch of demons wandering around the Abyss with scorched hands from trying to pick up what they _thought_ was a Vile weapon. *grins* I'd agree but how exactly does one accomplish this? I'm pretty sure you can't add magical properties to an already magical item and we're talking about an artifact here. It'd probably take wish/miracle level intervention to accomplish that which, you'd think wouldn't be so hard for a bunch of half-celestials.
Shade_Damara 05-28-06, 10:08 PM	At that point they didn't have wish or miracle (although they did a session or two later). I'm not sure if you can do anything to an artifact short of those spells, I'm not even positive those spells are capable of altering a major artifact.
Drachasor 05-28-06, 10:21 PM	Have you read the description of how this weapon is made in the BoVD, wherein it is listed as an artifact? Please do it is quite enlightening. This is a powerful weapon made by evil, through evil means, it is intended to slay celestials, perhaps it does not radiate evil but that doesn't mean its a good thing to possess. The DM has even said it marked the party as evil by possessing it, though it was specifically not evil. One PC said "I am leaving the party because this is a bad idea," and in the end the party lost the weapon which ended up in the hands of a demon in the Abyss....hmmm it seems that the party made a major mistake. You can rationalize their decision, but the end result was easily foreseeable so the party was basically greedy and foolish. They had a weapon of evil, though not evil, and decided because it was super powerful to use it, which means that it would attract the attention of evil one way or the other. The party was incapable of retaining the weapon, despite its power and evil now has it. Seriously, the party screwed up, no matter how you look at it. In this case, with what we know, it is obvious the party made a mistake. We may differ on the extend of the mistake, maybe it was just tactical, maybe it was moral, but in the end they erred. As the OP has said though it really has opened up possibilities, if the party, what remains of it, tries to recover the weapon then they are learning from their mistake and that makes a great story. Redemption for a mistake is a staple of fantasy and good roleplaying. Adventuring parties are not expected to be perfect, we all as players make mistakes, its best though to admit a mistake and learn from it. It will be interesting to see what the players do now, try to recover the sword as atonement, or just move on. You are putting in a particular theme to the game that isn't necessarily there at all. Maybe this is how things work in your games, but that doesn't mean it is how this works in the games other people play. If the DM/players have a theme that things made by/for evil always end up in evil hands or end up doing evil, then you have a point. However, it seems pretty clear the party had no way to expect this, and if the DM constantly forces such things on the party (without them knowing it is always inevitable), then that is Railroading. Making a game about a theme like this requires the active participation of the players and their agreement to such a theme, otherwise the DM does them a tremendous disservice, and is going to end up with some angry players. On the other hand, you could have a theme about redemption and purification. In this case having such an evil weapon could be part of this process and theme, and it falling into evil hands is a story-based setback, but part of the overall theme of redemption. The point is that this is exactly the opposite of the way you think things "have to be". Of course, judging by the OP's statements it doesn't seem like such themes (and perhaps not any thematic elements) are the primary driving force in this game. As far as I can tell it is just plain bad luck that the got sent to the Abyss (though it is very unclear how they died). It is possible there was some railroading going on, which would be bad. However, there is nothing inherently wrong with keeping such a weapon (though parts of its history are unseemly). As many have said any weapon that was that potent would have resulted in the same thing. In fact, an identical weapon (mechanically) with a different history would have been taken. It seems the DM though is not playing a game heavily focused on wether or not the players make the proper moral decision (rather it seems to be a classic good vs. evil game in which players are pretty much assumed to make moral decisions). Nor does it seems like some story element was overriding other concerns. Nor does it seem like the DM felt the result (getting sent to the abyss) was somehow the most realistic thing to have happen. Rather it seems like bad luck and potentially bad planning led to the loss of the sword, which they can still get back. The game, and perhaps I am wrong here, seems to be more focused on giving the players challenges to overcome. The sword was a mere side-element and perhaps minor challenge (e.g. when the DM thought they would destroy it), but is now leading to a different set of challenges that the party has to deal with. ---to the OP--- So it doesn't seem to me that the party did anything really wrong with the sword...in fact few things they could have done really seem wrong. Deciding to use it was unexpected, and resulted in some NPCs being a bit disgusted and offended, but it doesn't seem like the PCs suffered any real in-game penalties. That all seems fine to me and in step with the rest of the game. It does seem like asking for our opinion on the PC's decision is a bit unrelated to the actual game that is being run though. A bit. Hmm, it seems to me that when the players get the sword back there are a few options you have at the table. For one you can decide you don't want them to keep it (too powerful and unbalancing), then you'd have to come up with a reason and way for it to be destroyed. On the other hand you could decide they need to go on a quest to redeem the weapon, which could result in an interesting adventure and series of challenges. Seems like the players might be more happy with the latter. Of course you could do a bit of both, having a quest to redeem the weapon resulting in it losing some of its power (to make it more in-line with the sort of weapons the party should have). -Drachasor
Bob Loblaw 05-28-06, 10:22 PM	But by that same reasoning, shouldn't they not keep _any_ powerful weapons, because bad guys would see them and say "Hey, I want that!"? It seems almost cliche that the villan(s) would want to steal something powerful from and turn it against the party. I agree but everyone seems to be ignoring this point. I also think it's a pretty big kink in a few people's arguements here. It isn't cliche so much as classic (and the reverse is actually the standard). I could make an argument that everything is cliched. Throughout history and legends the bad guys have always searched for things that the good guys had. Sometimes the got it, sometimes they died trying, sometimes there wasn't anything to get. If the party can seek powerful items that they know the bad guys have, why can't the reverse hold true? I would like to see the party's progress Shade_Damara. It seems like an interesting story/quest they could be on now.
Shade_Damara 05-28-06, 10:43 PM	To Drachasor: The theme is actually more one of rebuilding, the "planet" was devestated a cataclysm that occured sixty years prior to the game happening and hasn't quite recovered yet. They got the sword while clearing an area of monsters that posed a threat to a local town. I'm just interested to see what everyone thinks, considering the debate that has been going on in the party. Thus far the debate is going the same way. By the time the players are faced with the sword again they are going to be around 22nd or 23rd level so it won't be overpowered anyway. Your right about the options they have though, this should prove very interesting. I'll try and keep everyone informed as to what is going on. Right now they have two more levels of dungeon to clear before they get to the portal to the Abyss...assuming they survive the Beholder, Shadow Dragon and Lava Worm first.
FeceMan 05-28-06, 10:58 PM	Well the crys of railroading are rather...retarded. Fixed.
Shade_Damara 05-28-06, 10:59 PM	lol...nice. It seems to me there are people on this forum that go looking for Railroading where it doesn't always exist.
KJW 05-29-06, 10:03 AM	Alright, time for a logic exercise... The party is good, this has been established, and this is the basis of my analysis, please remember this. They have just acquired the Angelwing Razor... Wizard: "The magic from this item is overwhelming it is some sort of artifact." Bard: "I believe this to be the Angelwing Razor...it was honed on angelwings, by Urgaril an elf wizard for the purpose of slaying gold dragons." Fighter: "So it's evil?" Paladin: "No, I detect no evil." Fighter: "So it's not evil?" Wizard: "Uncertain, there are many magics that can conceal evil, it may merely be protected by such magic." Paladin: "True and judging by its origins that may well be the case as it was honed on angel wings, I suspect you may be right." [Considering that the sentence before this entry in BOVD says that the items that follow are the most powerful items of evil anywhere in the cosmos, one has to assume that this is the case.] Fighter: "But if its not evil we could use it right?" Bard: "Well a lot of people have owned this weapon over the ages and none of their stories came out that well." Wizard: "Plus it is easily recognized, once we start using it word will spread and others will want such a weapon." Fighter: "But destroying it would do the same thing, alert others to its presence and draw them to us." Paladin: "Well then let's give it to one of the good churches or some other organization to deal with, they have more resources." Bard: "Great idea and they can give us some equipment in exchange, they would be happy to pay well to have this weapon off the streets." Wizard: "Sounds like a plan." There you go the ideal solution...
Nyaz 05-29-06, 10:28 AM	Correct me if I'm wrong, plane shifting can only work on more than one creature if they join hands (i.e. are willing). Besides, plane shifting requires a lot of preparation and a rod specifically keyed to that particular plane which is almost impossible to come by. Not quite the thing one finds roaming around his basement or has a bag full of, if you get what I mean. :) So the cries of "railroading" aren't really as retarded as you might have thought. Not to pose other questions like: Why did the party get in possession of such a powerful weapon? +5 vorpal whatever is pretty hard to find, I'd imagine. If the weapon itself is not vile or evil, what's the problem with the paladin using it? If a bad guy has a +2 flaming axe which he used to kill innocent commoners in the neighbouring village, and the PCs defeat him, why not use that same axe for good purposes? It still deals the same damage against evil foes. If the Razor has such a bad reputation, why did the Council of Angels (or whatever) agree with them using it? Surely Angels know what's OK and what's not? As for the sword coming into demonic possession, there was hardly a way to predict that this would happen (by shifting into the Abyss) when they were taking it. So the act wasn't evil. How could they have known that the evil necromancer would shift their a***s to (no less than) the Abyss itself?
DeathsAudit 05-29-06, 11:23 AM	I have heard that Nazi research on Jews during WW2 is the founding of our knowledge of how long you can go till hypothermia sets in, is using this knowledge evil?
Shade_Damara 05-29-06, 01:24 PM	Nyaz: The Council had them keep it for a few reasons, some of which I can reveal and already have. The primary reason was in hopes of drawing out its creator to kill, assuming he was still alive. The other reason, which I can't tell you, is something entirely different. Most of the questions you asked are questions the party should have asked and tryed to discover the answers to, but never has. As for "railroading" as people like to attempt to place in this scenario, its getting rather annoying. A. Railroading would imply I knew the outcome before it happened, I had no idea what would come of the battle with the Necromancer nor did I decide what happened after the Razor appeared in the Abyss untill long after the session (days). B. The Necromancer in question has been to the Abyss before, specifically to get certain items he needed to craft a drug. He would go again and it makes perfect sense for him to be carrying the rods required. C. The Necromancer in question did not plane shift both of them at the same time, he plane shifted one on one turn and one on the next as suggested when I said he had two uses of the spell. He had run out of instant kill spells and needed something to get rid of two of his biggest threats quickly. All of this is perfectly legal and none of it speaks of railroading. The Necromancer wasn't just some guy they came across, he is an NPC with a large amount of background story and preperation put into him, all of which was done long before the party found Angel Wing Razor. So, new thread rule: If your going to post about railroading, do it somewhere else. It has been clearly stated this was not a case of railroading multiple times by myself and others, arguing railroading is just going down a path that has already been examined four or so times before and is thus not required. Death: That was also discussed in the party and I found highly interesting. It was also suggested by a party member that carrying the Angel Wing Razor would be rather like carrying a Swastica around Israel, likely to offend large numbers of people.
The man they call Boxhead 05-29-06, 01:40 PM	Given the OP's responses as DM, I can't really fault the party for their actions. They tried to use a valuable tool that fell into their hands that seemed to be relatively evil free. Most magic items that the PCs acquire in a typical game were either made by evil characters or at very least have been wielded by evil characters for some period of time. The magic item rules do not go into the exact creation methods of every item, but one could imagine that an item crafted by an evil cleric may have to go through some kind of evil ritual before it is completed. On the other hand, if I were playing a character with an angelic parent (as would be the case for these PCs), I would probably have something to say about the items use. I mean, it's knid of like saying that the item is proven sharp by cutting through as many servants as possible (as some Katana stories go). Good characters should take issue with this, IMO.
Shade_Damara 05-29-06, 01:48 PM	That's sort of what I was thinking. I was quite stunned when most of the party didn't bat an eye at what they had decided to keep. There are only two things I really fault the party for, the first was not trying to discover more about why the Council wanted them to keep the blade and the second was in not seeming to care about the origions of the weapon at all. A few members of the party spoke out at the next session and that's when the debate started, but when they first found it the party sort of reacted like: "Oh hey look, a +5 vorpal long sword." I was quite happy when debate started the next session though and it has been quite interesting to see a nearly identical debate spark up here (minus characters refusing to be around the sword of course). Your right about most magical items though and I think all too often we can forget that sort of thing when entering a debate like this one.
KJW 05-29-06, 03:08 PM	I have to say that Shade_Damara has adequately explained the plane shift so there really is no railroading here. I think a lot of us when reading his first post were worried by two players being plane shifted at once to the Abyss...this is NOT what happened as he has explained the wizard had TWO plane shifts memorized and made his touch attacks, I assume avoided the attacks of opportunity, cast the spell, and in two round after both PCs failed their saves sent them to the Abyss. This was not railroading, but clever spell use by the NPC. Really at this point the real issue is what the PCs will do, I think they made a mistake, either morally if they were good alignment, or tactically if they had been any other alignment. I am really curious if A) they try to get the sword and B) what they do with the sword then.
Popinjay 05-29-06, 03:17 PM	There is nothing wrong with using the sword. Even if it is evil aligned. What does more good for the world? Destorying an evil item removes one evil thing from the world. Using an evil item against evil beings uses evil against evil and will probably remove many evil things from the world. So long as the sword itself does not have an evil influence on the players, it is simply a tool that happened to be made in an evil way or used for evil things in the past. After all, what is the greater good? Destorying that which is evil, or turning evil on its head and bringing good out of it nonetheless? It seems to me that good comes from good naturally enough. But to bring good from evil, that is a rarity that should be rewarded. BTW: You said "nothing worse than neutral good". Do you mean to say that chaotic good is somehow worse? A chaotic good character is just as much good as a lawful good one. Perhaps more so because her duties are not divided between goodness and the law. Poppinjay
KJW 05-29-06, 03:33 PM	There are some scary interpretations of good alignments in this thread, as often is the case, people are confusing neutral practicality with good morality. Good is not the easy or practical route, it is the moral high ground. Good is not easy and sometimes it is not practical, but that is the nature of good. Now by the rules a paladin isn't supposed to associate with evil individuals ... read the PHB it's there, then how do you all justify him using an evil weapon? The weapon may not be unholy, but it clearly is evil, it is an evil artifact from BoVD. The paladin is consorting with an evil artifact, because it is powerful. That is neutral practicality not good morality by D&D standards. Sure the party could redeem the weapon...that would be good, but that is not what is happening here, the party is merely using the weapon, because it is powerful, and they lost it in the process to the forces of evil. Hmmm...makes you think about the wisdom of keeping such an item.
Shade_Damara 05-29-06, 09:28 PM	I was unclear on the alignment a bit because I couldn't remember exact alignments at the time. What I meant was that the farthest from good alignment in the party involves the word neutral, although I'm quite certain that character died awhile back. I don't have all my stuff on hand to look it up right now. My belief is that they will attempt to get the Sword back and then continue to use it, just based on previous actions. Of course getting the sword back will be difficult at best, considering Grazzt has it in his possession right now. Hopefully I'll remember to update everyone on what happens. I should know more by the end of the week, we have a huge convention coming up this weekend, the first day of which my group is dedicating to roleplaying, which means my DnD campaign, another guy's DnD campaign in which I play a Shadowcaster (fun class btw, try it sometime) and the Star Trek roleplaying game. So they may not have reached it yet, but they will be close and I will pose the question to them as to what their plans are involving the sword, if they have any at all.
Popinjay 05-29-06, 10:26 PM	There are some scary interpretations of good alignments in this thread, as often is the case, people are confusing neutral practicality with good morality. Good is not the easy or practical route, it is the moral high ground. Good is not easy and sometimes it is not practical, but that is the nature of good. You are confusing good with lawful. A lawful character might have a code of conduct that prevents her from taking an action that will maximize goodness if it compromises here principles. Therefore a lawful good character might refuse to use the sword because of its source. I think of lawful good characters almost like Kantians. They tend to think in terms of absolute rules of right and wrong. A lawful good character believes that order and codes of conduct are intertwined with goodness. Such a character tends more towards sure punishment for evil-doers than mercy. A neutral good character, however, wants to maximize goodness. If laws or principles do this best, then fine. If ignoring laws and principles does this best, then that is fine too. Think of them as good consequentialists . Utilitarians would be a good model, although a good character need not be THAT self sacrificing. A chaotic good character believes that freedom is an essential part of maximizing goodness and therefore would prefer not having laws or codes of conduct as to having them. They also seek to maximize good, but they see restraints on freedoms and choice as bad in themselves unless absolutely necessary. A chaotic good character would likely tend more towards mercy and believe in redemption more than a lawful good one. You can see a chaotic good character as a consequentialist, much like a neutral good one, but they are suspicious that laws and codes lead to the best consequences. A neutral good or chaotic good character could use the sword with no moral dilemma. Furthermore this isn’t simply a matter of practicality. The more powerful a good player becomes the more wrongs she expects herself to right. Her life might be much easier without such power, but, having the power she feels she must use it to improve the world. Sure, a player COULD keep a weapon merely because doing so was practical or because it increased her own personal power, but that is not the only reason to keep such a weapon. If the weapon serves as a powerful tool to relieve suffering and to defeat evil doers CG and NG characters not only can take it, but they would probably would feel a duty to keep and use the sword if doing so is likely to have good consequences. Further, even a lawful character might see that if the sword was forged by harming good beings then using the sword for good would at least be bringing meaning to those lost lives. If enough good is done with the weapon then those people who died in its forging were able to contribute to that good. To destroy it unnecessarily is to spit on their graves. [At least this is a very reasonable argument for a good player to make.] A DM should be careful not to enforce his personal conception of right and wrong onto everybody else. So long as the characters have moral arguments (preferably consistent ones), they should be given the benefit of the doubt (so long as they stay true to their second alignment as well). Two good characters could disagree about the right thing to do. Is it okay to sleep with that willing tavern wench, or get drunk in celebration, or gamble, or "fight dirty". A good character is not required to answer these questions in any particular way. But generally a CG or NG character shouldn't have a problem with these things so long as harm is not done, and a lawful good character should only have a problem with them if they go against a personal code or the law. The major thing I would say good characters have in common is that they all value the lives of others. They are all in some way willing to make sacrifices for the sake of others (and not just for what they will personally receive from helping others). In essence, a significant part of their nature is altruistic. Evil characters on the other hand can be thought of as egoists. They care most about their personal power, wealth, and glorification than anything else. If an evil character helps another character at a significant cost to herself she does so because she thinks she may benefit personally from doing so. Neutral (between good and evil) could either be interpreted as somebody who is in between those two positions or who is outside of them. That is to say someone that primarily looks after herself but is willing to help others altruistically if the costs are small enough may legitimately be called neutral. Alternatively, a neutral character could be somebody who does not place a particularly high value on persons one way or another and instead has dedicated herself to something else (perhaps protecting a particular area of forest for a druid, or preserving knowledge, or works of art). As for evil characters, I think it is important for a GM to keeping mind that most evil people do not think of themselves as evil. Villians shouldn't go around talking about their "evil" plans. I won’t give an example of each evil alignment here, except to say: Ayn Rand is lawful evil. Poppinjay
Bob Loblaw 05-29-06, 10:37 PM	Ayn Rand is lawful evil. http://smiliesftw.com/x/dogkeke.gif
Shade_Damara 05-29-06, 10:43 PM	Nice description of alignments. I think I have a few players that should read this post. On the note of alignments, the Cleric that spoke out the most for keeping it was Chaotic Good.
Verelor 05-29-06, 10:49 PM	The Lord of the Rings taught us that we shouldn't use inherantly evil objects such as the One Ring and Nuclear Weapons even for the immediate good; it always curves back around to destroy us.
Vaelan 05-29-06, 11:22 PM	The Lord of the Rings taught us that we shouldn't use inherantly evil objects such as the One Ring and Nuclear Weapons even for the immediate good; it always curves back around to destroy us. Irrelevant. The DM ruled that it is not an inherently Evil object. Also, nobody has established that it "always" curves back around to destroy us.
Drachasor 05-29-06, 11:34 PM	The Lord of the Rings taught us that we shouldn't use inherantly evil objects such as the One Ring and Nuclear Weapons even for the immediate good; it always curves back around to destroy us. :ahem: Note the code conduct says "advertising or promoting a business or commercial site" is prohibited behavior! We've got an eye on you Tolkienistas with your literary agenda! -Drachasor
BenTGaidin 05-30-06, 01:38 AM	I'd agree but how exactly does one accomplish this? I'm pretty sure you can't add magical properties to an already magical item and we're talking about an artifact here. It'd probably take wish/miracle level intervention to accomplish that which, you'd think wouldn't be so hard for a bunch of half-celestials. I've no idea - that's why I added "if your campaign allows," which should have expanded to included "and your character's (or easily reached allies) resources allows". Ah, well... *grins* I still think the characters were fine, even though they didn't think of doing that; as it wasn't a specifically evil/vile weapon, I'd think that would make it's use a morally neutral act, just like any other normal weapon. (Although, considering its history, rubbing angelic noses in it might not be a good idea; keeping in wrapped in a scabberd when possible would be wise.) But yeah, I'm also interested in seeing how things _do_ end up for the characters, and what the party ends up deciding about it, once they're at that point. PS - Bob, yeah, 'classic' was more the word I was looking for. Thanks!
Popinjay 05-30-06, 02:12 AM	The Lord of the Rings taught us that we shouldn't use inherantly evil objects such as the One Ring and Nuclear Weapons even for the immediate good; it always curves back around to destroy us. 1. When did the LOTR become the ultimate parable on good and evil? 2. The One Ring actually had a corrupting influence which helped to insure that it would cause more evil. A weapon with an evil background that does not have a corrupting influence is hardly the same thing. 3. The message you derrive from LOTR would be incorrect anyway. If Froto did not use the One Ring at certain points in the novels to become invisilbe he surely would have died, and this would have had disasterous results for all of middle earth. Popinjay
Senevri 05-30-06, 04:38 AM	3. The message you derrive from LOTR would be incorrect anyway. If Froto did not use the One Ring at certain points in the novels to become invisilbe he surely would have died, and this would have had disasterous results for all of middle earth. Bah. Step 1. Forge an alliance of all good races. Get Frodo locked up, with the ring somewhere deep in Rivendell Step 2. Put Mordor under siege with your combined armies. Step 3. Nazgul are fast. Feed Frodo to a Nazgul, it starts to fly towards it's master with the ring. Step 4. Take out the Nazgul with a little help from your local friendly Maia. Step 5. Pick up the ring and Giant Eagle it to Mount Doom. I know, easy to say when one knows that certain alliances can be forged. Still... I'd agree but how exactly does one accomplish this? I'm pretty sure you can't add magical properties to an already magical item Simple, if crafting is allowed, and you have Craft magic arms & armor. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#addingNewAbilitie s) and we're talking about an artifact here. It'd probably take wish/miracle level intervention to accomplish that which, you'd think wouldn't be so hard for a bunch of half-celestials. Well, creating Artifacts is something only Gods are supposed to do, generally. However, Half-Angels might have a chance of an audience with beings capable of this. Maybe going through this with "It's going to make it a bit duller" clause, ending up with +5 holy keen longsword, which ignores hardness?
KJW 05-30-06, 08:25 AM	First, there are two discussions here, one involves the Angelwing Razor from BoVD and the other involved the Angelwing Razor being used by the OP in his campaign. They are clearly different, I assumed as he cited BoVD he was using one of the "most powerful items of evil anywhere in the cosmos," but the more I read this thread I think the OP has removed any evil in connection with the item other than its creation. Nothing wrong with that, except that is misleading to those who are referring to the BoVD for the discussion. Popinjay, nice recap of the alignments from the PHB, but your analysis is flawed because you are confusing serving the greater good with good. And you are dwelling too much on the law and chaos dynamic, which is important, and ignoring the good and evil dynamic. Good requires altruism, respect for life, and respect for the dignity of sentient beings, check the PHB. As for the Angelwing Razor (one from BoVD) it is evil, was honed on angel wings, and was forged to slay gold dragons. To use this weapon is to disrespect the dignity of sentient beings, particularly angels and gold dragons. There is no altruism for using this weapon, it just makes it easier for the PCs, and using the weapon shows a lack of respect for life. Here is my point, sure a good character could use this weapon, but using it is NOT a good act. Surely, no one can argue that within the context of D&D morality. Alignment is not based on one act, it is an average over time and it is important to be able to break down the acts. Using the Angelwing Razor is either an evil or, in the absolute best situation, a neutral act. It cannot be rationalized as a good act, not within D&D morality. A DM should be careful not to enforce his personal conception of right and wrong onto everybody else. So long as the characters have moral arguments (preferably consistent ones), they should be given the benefit of the doubt (so long as they stay true to their second alignment as well). Two good characters could disagree about the right thing to do. Is it okay to sleep with that willing tavern wench, or get drunk in celebration, or gamble, or "fight dirty". A good character is not required to answer these questions in any particular way. But generally a CG or NG character shouldn't have a problem with these things so long as harm is not done, and a lawful good character should only have a problem with them if they go against a personal code or the law. The DM has to enforce the alignments. Alignments are part of the mechanics of the game, just look at anarchic weapons, protection from evil, the paladin code, and so forth. A DM who surrenders his duty to adjudicate alignment is not doing his job. Now that said, the DM has to make sure he has a clear understanding of the alignment system and communicate this understanding to his players. Little stuff like sleeping with the tavern wench is not that important, compared to wielding an major evil artifact from the BoVD. Or as I said, in this case an artifact neutered in its evil, by the OP for his campaign, which confuses the whole discussion.
STAT 05-30-06, 11:19 AM	Simple, if crafting is allowed, and you have Craft magic arms & armor. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#addingNewAbilitie s) Umm, you're only allowed to enhance magical items that you personally have crafted, not any magic item. A creator can add new magical abilities to a magic item with no restrictions *Bolding mine Sorry, I should probably have added that exception about enhancing your own magic items to my post but, I figured it was a tangential issue.
Popinjay 05-30-06, 11:51 AM	Popinjay, nice recap of the alignments from the PHB, but your analysis is flawed because you are confusing serving the greater good with good. And you are dwelling too much on the law and chaos dynamic, which is important, and ignoring the good and evil dynamic. Good requires altruism, respect for life, and respect for the dignity of sentient beings, check the PHB. I essentially used the same def for the good alignment. However not that "respect for life" and "dignity of sentient beings" can be interpreted by good players in different ways just as good people can disagree in real life while having the best of intentions. In the case of the sword in question, a good player could make the very strong argument that using it brings MORE dignity to the lives lost in its construction. It allows the deaths of those individuals to cause good in the world. As far as respect for life, a character isnt' considered evil if he or she cuts down a tree or hunts or eats meat or kills in self defense or to save others. It is more of a respect for persons (by which I don't mean humans alone but all races that are both sentient + sapient). No part of your description of good is in conflict with what I said earlier or the clarification I gave of the alignments. And the idea that I am, "confusing serving the greater good with good" is off the mark. If one's ultimate desire is to do good it makes sense to say that one wants to maximize good the amount of goodness done. In that case causing the greatest amount of good IS just good. Doing anything else would actually be morally wrong from such a perspective (e.g. knowingly choosing the lesser of two goods is actually choosing an evil). It is perfectly acceptable, for example, for a good character to let one innocent die to save 1,000 innocents. This doesn't show a lack of respect for life---from a ethical utilitarian perspective it shows a greater respect. If one considers all innocent persons to be equally valuable (utilitarianism would go even further) then saving a thousand is better than saving only one. If one has a choice to save a drowning child or to get to the villiage in time to stop a doomsday device from going off, a good character could consistently choose the second option. Some good characters might prefer the first action. But both are consistent with the D&D concept of good. It is merely a LAWFUL idea that a character can not do something she interprets as wrong in itself even if it causes more good than not. If a character could save an entire villiage by telling one minor lie but chooses not to beause she has a code that says lying is wrong, that speaks more to her lawful nature than to her good nature. Indeed, in such a case she seems to value lawfullness OVER goodness. A NG or CG character might exclaim "What arrogance and selfishness to put your own personal honor or an abstract code above the lives of so many!" As for the Angelwing Razor (one from BoVD) it is evil, was honed on angel wings, and was forged to slay gold dragons. To use this weapon is to disrespect the dignity of sentient beings, particularly angels and gold dragons. There is a strong argument for just the opposite: Using the weapon to fight evil shows respect to the angels killed in its forging by allowing their lost lives to ultimately serve a good end, which is what they would have wanted. This helps to bring dignity both to their lives and deaths. Destroying the sword on the other hand shows the dead terrible disrepect. It is not only to throw away an opportunity to do good, but also to throw away a chance to turn the evil of the swords creation into something good and to make the deaths of the angels used in its construction come to good ends. To use the sword is to fight evil in two ways. First, a character will be more effective at fighting evil by using the sword. Second, bringing meaning to the angels harmed in its creation is itself a good act. To destroy the weapon is just to put evil out of sight and outof mind. To use the weapon for good is to open ones eyes to the reality of evil, face it unafraid, and use it to fight for good. There is nothing that goes against the good alignment in the argument above. True, all good characters might not reason this way. But reasoning this way is consistent with being a good character. There is no altruism for using this weapon, it just makes it easier for the PCs, and using the weapon shows a lack of respect for life. The altruism doesn't come from gaining the weapon any more than it comes from looting gold from a monster. But it isn't evil either. Altruism comes into play when the character USES the weapon or gold in to fight evil to to protect good at some risk to themselves. Here is my point, sure a good character could use this weapon, but using it is NOT a good act. Surely, no one can argue that within the context of D&D morality. Surely it could be, and I believe I have given strong arguments as to why this is so. At least for a NG or CG character. Further defending ones honor or code isn't a good act, it is a lawful act. Therefore if a lawful character refuses to use the sword, even if she knows she will bring about good if she did use it, she is not acting from the good aspect of her nature but from the lawful aspect (except insofar as she believes that law itself is required for goodness, which would be a consistent way to be lawful good). The fact that there are good and evil alignments in D&D does not mean that what is good and what is bad is clear for all to see. It doesn't even mean that it is a black and white worlds where acts are either good or evil. A good character in the world of D&D must struggle with issues of right and wrong, because, just as in our world, following a simple set of rules isn't enough. Life is more complex than that, and no character fully understands everything about his or her world that is relevant to making ethical decisions. The DM has to enforce the alignments. Absolutely. Alignments are part of the mechanics of the game, just look at anarchic weapons, protection from evil, the paladin code, and so forth. It is part of the game mechanic. I agree with that. But paladins are LAWFUL good characters not simply good characters. Just because a paladin would or wouldn't do something doesn't mean that a CG or NG character who does so is breaking with the good aspect of her alignment. Again you are confusing the combined alignments of lawful AND good with what is simply the good alignment. The paladin code might be repugnant to many good characters. Some good characters might think that an extremely lawful LG character does more harm than good with her rigidness depending upon that characters actions. Good characters can disagree on how to best accomplish the good and even on how to distinguish what the good is (within bounds). A DM who surrenders his duty to adjudicate alignment is not doing his job. Here you are knocking over a staw man. I never suggested that a DM should not enforce alignment. I warned against a DM forcing her own narrow concept of good onto players who are being perfectly consistent with the good alignment but dont' happen to choose to do the same thing that the DM would have done if she was playing a good character. Imagine a hard core christian DM complaining that a good character is acting out of alignment because she has premarital sex. Or imagine a vegan DM saying that a character can't be good unless she refuses to eat meat. Without trying to decide if these positions are ultimately correct or incorrect, it should be obvious that legitimately good characters could easily disagree about the goodness of some particular moral princples. What good characters have in common is that they are willing to make sacrifices to help others (altruism), value other persons, and do their best to lead a life that helps others. Little stuff like sleeping with the tavern wench is not that important, compared to wielding an major evil artifact from the BoVD. First the point about sleeping with the tavern wench isn't that it would be only a "little" wrong, but that it is not necessarily wrong at all for a good character who does not manipulate the woman, mislead her, or harm her by doing so. The point is that SOME good characters might believe sex is inherently evil while others believe it is not evil and some might even believe that it is GOOD. If thinking sex is evil is just the result of a convention, a taboo, a dogma, or a personal code, then CG and NG characters can be good and not be so bound. If a character believes that sex may be evuk beause it somehow harms others, then that would be a good/evil issue not a lawful/chaotic one. In order to determine whether a character is acting within her alignment the DM needs to ask her for her justifications and see if she is being consistent or just being an opportunist. And again, wielding something that has an evil history does not make the wielder evil. Suppose an evil necromancer came across a spell accidently that has great curative powers and does not corrupt the spellcaster or beneficiary of the spell in any way. A good wizard who comes to learn this spell would not necessarily be performing and evil act by using it. If she didn't use it she would be passing up a chance to do good. This is true even if the necromancer did all sorts of vile and unspeakable things to gain the knowledge required for the development of the spell. True, SOME good PCs may believe that ultimately no good comes from using something with an evil origin. But such a belief (superstition?) is certainly not required for for a character to have a good alignment. As a non D&D example: Nazi uniforms were created by evil people for evil reasons. However putting on a nazi uniform is not an evil act if one is doing it infiltrate or disrupt nazi plans or to help prisoners escape, and so forth. Again, bringing additional good out of good is a good thing, but bringing additional good out of evil is like two good acts in one. Killing an evil doer to save a village might be a good act. Rehabilitating that evil doer so that she now genuinely wants to prform good acts and make up for what she has done is doubly so. --- Or as I said, in this case an artifact neutered in its evil, by the OP for his campaign, which confuses the whole discussion. That's okay. I take it that we are discussing a larger issue here now than just a artifact in a single campaign. Popinjay
KJW 05-30-06, 12:04 PM	You are still confusing real world pragmatism with D&D ethics. Alright, let's deal with this as clearly as possible: A paladin should not consort with evil individuals, but you are saying that it is alright for a paladin to use as his weapon one of the most evil items in the cosmos? I have said repeatedly that redeeming the artifact is a great idea and this would be a good act, but that is not the situation here. Here we have an evil item that is being used not to redeem it, but because it is powerful and will make killing enemies easier. I have not said this is evil, but clearly this is not good. Remember D&D is about black and white and in this situation using this artifact is not good. For alignment purposes you have to look at the act not the outcome to determine if it is good, neutral, or evil.
Arganis 05-30-06, 12:31 PM	The other was a the non-aligned Angel Wing Razor. Non-aligned you say? Non-aligned!? :bounce:
Popinjay 05-30-06, 12:32 PM	You are still confusing real world pragmatism with D&D ethics. Alright, let's deal with this as clearly as possible: A paladin should not consort with evil individuals, but you are saying that it is alright for a paladin to use as his weapon one of the most evil items in the cosmos? You are confusing doing good with pragmatism. Lots of times good isn't pragmatic at all. And, stop talking about paladins! Paladins are LAWFUL good. Their codes of conduct reflect both aspects of their alignment. But this issue isn't whether using the sword is lawfully good by a paladin's code of conduct, but rather whether it can be neutral good, chaotic good, or good from a lawful perspective other than that of a paladin. For alignment purposes you have to look at the act not the outcome to determine if it is good, neutral, or evil. Firstly, an act intended to bring about good IS looking at the nature of the act not simply the outcome. It is looking at the intention of the actor. Secondly, says who? This is to say that all good characters have to be deontologists. But you seem to be ruling out consequentialist forms of ethics just because you do not like them. Further, by doing so, you are adding additional requirements for the good alignment that you never specified. A good consequentialist can naturally respect the dignity of persons, person's lives, and be altruistic. Indeed, she might find she has an easier time doing so than a deontologist who will enevitably find that sometimes strictly worded moral rules conflict with respecting persons and their lives. I would have a hard time calling a character good if she let mindlfayers enslave a population rather than tell a fib. Such a character would be so much more lawful than good that goodness, for all practical purposes, fades away. From a consequentialist perspective that considers one's intended consequences (not just actual consequences) telling the fib would be a GOOD act if it was intended to bring about good or prevent evil. Popinjay
Solik 05-30-06, 12:47 PM	A paladin should not consort with evil individuals, but you are saying that it is alright for a paladin to use as his weapon one of the most evil items in the cosmos? You have admitted that the DM changed this item, yet you continue to make this same mistake. The weapon was not evil, as ruled by the DM. That changes everything. Evil items weren't just forged in evil ways; they have the essence of evil actually within them. Yes, using such an evil item to do good deeds is still evil; this is obvious by definition. That's not what's going on here.
KJW 05-30-06, 01:42 PM	Solik, sorry for the confusion, but there are two separate arguments in this thread. As for the OP's situation, I think we all agree there is no issue as he has made it clear that his artifact is not the same as the one in BoVD and is not evil, thus there is only tactical fault on his players not alignment fault. I was responding to the point made by several others, such as Popinjay, that using an evil item, or committing an evil act, for supposed good purposes can be good. My view is that this is not supported by D&D morality. An evil act is an evil act regardless of one's rationale for it.
Juan Moore 05-30-06, 01:44 PM	Maybe some simplification is in order. The ends never justify the means. How's that? Essentially, even if it means taking up the rusted bastard sword instead of the Angelic Razor Wing, the Paladin would've been better off fighting with "ole rusty." The sword was created with evil intent, blah blah blah. Yeah, it's a sword, but it's an evil artifact. Whereas it might not exude evil, the whole party has angel wings... and personally I'd be a little squeamish about using it. There may be some poetic justice involved by using an evil weapon versus evil... but that's no excuse to really use it. Just saying that if I were the Paladin, I'd be all over destroying it. Using evil to destroy evil is a poor argument and when the evil you're using to destroy said evil falls into evil hands, what did you accomplish? I hope the party has learned something here... when in doubt, destroy it. Volcanoes are great things for that. Playing a Paladin, you need to keep that one line in mind: the ends never justify the means. It doesn't matter how bad the big bad evil guy is, you do it the right way or not at all. If it means your character dies, DO IT. The Paladin is all about self-sacrifice for God and Goodness. Even if it doesn't really accomplish much, even if no one remembers your characters name, you do it because it's the right thing to do. You vanquish the demon using your old rusted bastard sword not because it is easy, but because your alternative is using something inherently evil in purpose and creation. The Paladin is all that is good in the world even if he can be a little snot sometimes. This reminds me of a scene from Babylon 5: Turval: "If I told you to climb a mountian and bring me a flower from the highest point and you will die after completing your task, would that be meaningless?" Minbari: "Of course, it's trival." Turval: "And if there are a million people waiting at the base of the mountian to whom that one flower was a symbol of their freedom and they would follow that symbol and your death into a struggle that would liberate half a billion souls. Would that have a meaning? You see, we create the meaning in our lives. It does not exist independently."
Solik 05-30-06, 01:52 PM	My mistake. Missed the part where he said "Even if it is evil aligned." Popinjay -- all evil-aligned items in D&D have a corrupting influence. The mechanic of this is demonstrated by the fact that using them is an evil act, thus pushing your alignment towards evil. Likewise, all good-aligned items have a purifying influence, with the same mechanic in reverse. It's defined that way in the RAW. Using an evil item for good purposes isn't even a neutral act. It may have good outcomes, but it corrupts the person using it towards evil. It's an interesting moral trap -- the good individual damning himself to save others -- but hardly a fun one to use in games. The books tend to recommend that you not do this to your players. If I ever found one of my players in this situation, I would allow them to use the item, then have a powerful agent of good send a celestial or something to purify the individual and destroy the item afterward as a reward. But only if the player was forced into a choice of "use the evil item or watch people die." Maybe some simplification is in order. The ends never justify the means. How's that? Well, it's completely wrong to start with. We're talking about magical items imbued with the forces of good and evil, not standard moral dilemmas bereft of such things.
Juan Moore 05-30-06, 02:01 PM	There's never anything standard about a moral dilemma. Especially in a fantasy role-playing game. The moral dilemmas really do become about life and death, magic or no. It's really down to how hardcore is the player about the character's perspective on the world. I've been playing for many years now and I've gotten playing a Paladin down to doing the right thing even if it kills him. Of course, it does depend on the situtation (what doesn't?) but still... I'm talking about the using of said magical items imbued with the forces of evil or good. I find it hard to believe that even in a game that the ends would justify the means if you're confronted with a situation like this. I can understand an evil guy just breaking a good guy's holy sword because he's an evil guy like that. I can also understand the good guy breaking the evil sword because he's a good guy like that. But I can't understand the good guy using the evil sword to kill more evil. Or even the evil guy using the good sword to kill more good. It doesn't make sense to me. The ends don't justify the means.
Solik 05-30-06, 02:14 PM	Because it slowly (or not so slowly, depending on its power level and DM judgment) changes their soul due to its nature. It's personality suicide, with potentially eternal consequences, to use an alignment item that is not your own.
Juan Moore 05-30-06, 02:19 PM	Well, I knew that, but it still doesn't really explain using a weapon like the Angelic Razor Wing. Admittedly it's a cool weapon, but seriously... "Dude, what's that?" "It's the Angelic Razor Wing." "Looks like it." "It was made from the wing of an angel." "Oh god, that must have hurt... wait... aren't we kinda like angels?" "Yeah... I hope it was no one I knew." :rolleyes:
Drachasor 05-30-06, 02:39 PM	The ends can certainly justify the means in many moral systems (e.g. Utiitarianism), and that sort of thinking is compatible with D&D morals (such as they are). In fact the D&D system is pretty vague overall so this just emphasizes how critical it is to talk about what the party is going to consider good and evil if this is important to the game or character classes. For example if a Paladin knows for sure that helping out a small village against a lycanthrope will doom the rest of the kingdom (but not the village) to another evil, then he will have to sacrifice the village for the kingdom. This is the situation is pretty comparable to using the angel wing (where the players are not hurting anyone by using the wing). Or using the angel wing as an example...It is very reasonable to expect that using such a powerful weapon will allow the party to overcome much evil and do much good. They can't do anything about how the item was made, but they can put the item to use in furthering good. Since it doesn't have a corrupting influence like the one ring there is no reason to fear it will end up doing evil any more than any of their other magical items. Though, honestly, this really isn't an "end justifies the means" situation, since the only "means" is using a weapon that has a bad history. It isn't like they made the weapon themselves to use for good--though even this could be acceptable under extremely rare circumstances (volunteer angels sacrificing for the great good, etc....and the situation is tricky since such a practice does damage to the celestial community on multiple levels which undermines means advantages). Anyhow, the party has a weapon that is already made...so the only thing they have to deal with is wether to keep using it and do good with it, and destroy it (thereby making sure it never does good--or evil). Choosing to use it is not wrong inherently, they only need to be careful about setting any sort of precedent or misunderstandings that it is somehow ok to make weapons in this manner, but that is not a herculean task since they didn't make the weapon, only found it. -Drachasor
Popinjay 05-30-06, 03:21 PM	Being a B5 fan myself, I like the quote. But it seems to support my point rather than yours. He is making a consequentialist argument.
Popinjay 05-30-06, 03:29 PM	I find it hard to believe that even in a game that the ends would justify the means if you're confronted with a situation like this. I can understand an evil guy just breaking a good guy's holy sword because he's an evil guy like that. I can also understand the good guy breaking the evil sword because he's a good guy like that. But I can't understand the good guy using the evil sword to kill more evil. Or even the evil guy using the good sword to kill more good. It doesn't make sense to me. The ends don't justify the means. Saying "the ends never justify the means" is just a moral platitude. I doubt that anybody believes that this is true in the extreme. For example, if by poking an innocent person with a pin you could save the rest of the wrold from destruction. Quite frankly it seems that only an evil person would refuse to do so. Also suppose there are two sets of bad guys in a campaign and a party of good aligned characters plays one set of bad guys against the other causing confusion and even a war between the two sets of evil forces. This weakens the evil forces so that the forces of good are protected and can win in the end. This is also using evil against evil. But using the bad guys against each other hardly seems to be an evil act. The sword is a tool. Regardless of how it was constructed it could be used in good or evil ways.
Solik 05-30-06, 05:53 PM	The sword is a tool. In this case you are correct because the sword did not have the evil alignment descriptor. That's not true in cases of alignment-based weapons. It is impossible to apply utilitarian arguments with much success there, because you're dealing with objects infused with tangible forces of good and evil -- which is nonsense when viewed from a world of practicality :p