Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LCD2YOU 03-16-07, 10:55 PM	What does that mean? From a tangent going on a Paladin thread, the spector of ravaging Paladins killing Orc babies, well enough of that. There are these alignment defs: Always, which I read as being either 100% for a Unique creature or 99.9% for a group of creatures. Usually, which has no set number in the MM, but from above and what is given in "Often", I would put that percentage at 70% Often, which is given in the book as being 40% - 50%, so 45% is a nice round number. So you are the DM and from the MM, you monster X is "Usually CE". Ok, just what percentage is CE and then the other alignments as well? Well, I propose these examples: Usually CE, works for LG, CG and LE too: CE = 70% NE = 10% CN = 10% LE = 5% CG = 2% LN = 2% LG = <1% NG = <1% Usually NE, works for NG, LN and CN: NE = 70% LE = 9% CE = 9% N = 7% LN = 2% CN = 2% NG = <1% LG = <1% CG = <1% Often TN TN = 45% NG, NE, CN, LN = 10% each CE, CG, LG, LE = <4% each Usually TN TN = 70% NG, NE, CN, LN = 5% each CE, CG, LG, LE = <3% each Often CE, works for LG, CG and LE too: CE = 45% NE = 25% CN = 20% LE = 5% CG = 5% LN = 3% NG = <2% LG = <1% Often NE, works for NG, LN and CN: NE = 45% LE = 15% CE = 15% N = 10% CN = 4% LN = 4% LG = 1% CG = 1% So what does that all mean? Say your in a party and you spy an orc village. Ok, Orcs are Usually CE so do you think you're going to run into this: CE = 70% NE = 10% CN = 10% LE = 5% CG = 2% LN = 2% LG = <1% NG = <1% So out of 100 or so,you hope to find 3, maybe 4 Good Orcs in the camp? Doubtful. I'd say that by reading the MM, as Orcs are cruel and worse, he good ones have left a long time ago, or they would have been killed. What I am also saying is even with the rules, an Orc camp is 85% Evil. I guess that would make only the babies they only non-evil things there.
Drausktanchache 03-16-07, 11:21 PM	Paladins killing babies? instant loss of paladin powers...no matter what a baby is a neutral thing, so to kill a helpless creature all paladins who participate lose their abilities, no questions.
BlueFlames 03-16-07, 11:24 PM	I'd say 'usually' in the alignment line can mean one of two things.... 1) In a published campaign setting, it means 'usually'. It means that if I was a betting man and a metagamer, I'd be willing to roll the dice (figuratively) and make some basic assumptions about the creature's alignment. Since the point of the thread seems to be another paladin-in-jeopardy, I wouldn't stake a character's paladial credentials on the assumption that a camp of orcs is chaotic evil, though. They could be a band of lawful good outcasts for all I know, on first encounter. If evidence suggests they're typical, evil orcs, however, I'd be inclined to believe it. 2) In a homebrew setting, or a setting I'm unfamiliar with, the alignment line in a monster book doesn't mean a thing. In sci-fi homebrew world 'Z', orcs could be the saviors of civilization on Seti Alpha Four, and elves could be vile, scheming bastards, intent on introducing everyone else to the vaccuum of space. I suppose there are two lessons to be learned here.... The information in the core books only apply to Greyhawk, and even if you're metagaming, 'usually' doesn't mean 'always'.
Morwen 03-16-07, 11:24 PM	Your percentages look just about right, although I'd probably put "always [alignment]" at something like 95-99%. On a side note, if Paladins usually go around killing evil people in regular city society as well, then sure, he can probably kill every Orc he sees, regardless of their actions. That doesn't work in my games though :)
Drausktanchache 03-16-07, 11:27 PM	On a side note, if Paladins usually go around killing evil people in regular city society as well, then sure, he can probably kill every Orc he sees, regardless of their actions. That doesn't work in my games though :) Paladins cannot dishonor themselves by killing a creature/person who is helpless, like a baby, unable to defend themselves... its like a cup of healthy noodles called "instant-loss"...(of abilities)
LCD2YOU 03-16-07, 11:30 PM	Actually, I took this from the 22 pages, and counting, Paladin thread. I was going over just what "Always", "Usually" and "Often" meant when it came to actual percentages of a creature type with respect to alignment.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-16-07, 11:30 PM	So out of 100 or so,you hope to find 3, maybe 4 Good Orcs in the camp? Doubtful. I'd say that by reading the MM, as Orcs are cruel and worse, he good ones have left a long time ago, or they would have been killed. This doesn't actually follow. While the good orcs wouldn't partake in the usual barbarism in thier society, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will a) get huffy and leave or b) get killed for no apperent reason. Just because orc society is CE doesn't mean that they're all random murderers, nor does it mean that they'd kill someone for being Good (in fact, they likely don't have access to the divinations required for this). Good orcs would probably be shuffled into 'trustworthy' roles such as midwife or healer as they've demonstrated that they don't have the propensity for betrayal or taking advantage of weakness that other orcs have (which would make them really bad in those roles).
LCD2YOU 03-16-07, 11:36 PM	This doesn't actually follow. While the good orcs wouldn't partake in the usual barbarism in thier society, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will a) get huffy and leave or b) get killed for no apperent reason.Actually, I disagree. As they would be "good", the idea of having the captives over for, er, on the BBQ, would not sit well with them. They have a choice, leave or participate. My money is on leaving.Just because orc society is CE doesn't mean that they're all random murderers, nor does it mean that they'd kill someone for being Good (in fact, they likely don't have access to the divinations required for this).Shamans do. In any case, their actions would set them apart. Also, I do believe an orc raiding party would be, er, less than pleasant to say the least. As I am also of the opinion, maybe it's still the 1st edition, that orcs have no problem eating other species, that is not a good thing.Good orcs would probably be shuffled into 'trustworthy' roles such as midwife or healer as they've demonstrated that they don't have the propensity for betrayal or taking advantage of weakness that other orcs have (which would make them really bad in those roles).Or everyone's favorite target. While they maybe more trustworthy, I'd say that they will not do 90% of the jobs they are given. "Hey Grog, you do good work and my food is never poisoned. Kill Fregnar and his wife now." Me thinks still they'd be gone.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-17-07, 12:08 AM	Actually, I disagree. As they would be "good", the idea of having the captives over for, er, on the BBQ, would not sit well with them. Where's the random cannibalism coming from? They have a choice, leave or participate. My money is on leaving. Or not participate. Shamans do. Because they'd totally waste spells on philosophical debate instead of the violence they're known for. As I am also of the opinion, maybe it's still the 1st edition, that orcs have no problem eating other species, that is not a good thing.[/QUOTE] So very first ed. Or everyone's favorite target. While they maybe more trustworthy, I'd say that they will not do 90% of the jobs they are given. "Hey Grog, you do good work and my food is never poisoned. Kill Fregnar and his wife now." Like I said before, being evil doesn't mean you're random murderers. That's more of that 1e stuff that doesn't fly in 3e.
Morwen 03-17-07, 12:09 AM	"Evil" does not mean bloodthirsty murderer. For instance, in many cities people in high-ranking societous roles, such as sheriff or tax-manager, would be evil :)
yrogerg 03-17-07, 01:13 AM	Always:The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions. Usually: The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the givne alignment. This may be due to strong cultural influences, or it may be the legacy of the creatures' origin [...] Often The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40-50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common. Maybe it's me, but the glossary seems pretty self-explanatory, particular regarding whether non-Always creatures have said alignment at birth. It's also worth noting that Orcs are Often CE, not Usually. They'd be solidly in the 40-50% range. Personally, given the strong implication in the Often entry, I wouldn't skew things so heavily towards the similar alignments; among an Often NE race, I'd expect something more like another 20ish% split between the remaining E alignments (for a whopping 60-70% Evil), with maybe another 20% Neutral-aligned, and 10% Good. But, since I've yet to meet a DM who's jumped down a player's throat for wanting to play a non-CG Elf (Usually CG)or a non-NG Gnome (Usually NG) I think even this is probably excessive. Ironically enough, Dwarves, the most type-played of the core races, is among the least restrictive: they're only Often LG, but you'd barely know that, the way most people play them.
pres_man 03-17-07, 01:24 AM	Usually CE, works for LG, CG and LE too: CE = 70% NE = 10% CN = 10% LE = 5% CG = 2% LN = 2% LG = <1% NG = <1% Where is the TN percent?
KurenaiYami 03-17-07, 08:46 AM	Where is the TN percent? They didn't care enough to vote, due to lack of conviction.
CharlieRock 03-17-07, 08:58 AM	Actually, I took this from the 22 pages, and counting, Paladin thread. I was going over just what "Always", "Usually" and "Often" meant when it came to actual percentages of a creature type with respect to alignment. Eh, I hardly bother. All orcs are evil (though for some reason in my games the Gobbos rank higher in the CN column then CE).
kelvinaw273 03-17-07, 09:00 AM	This doesn't actually follow. While the good orcs wouldn't partake in the usual barbarism in thier society, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will a) get huffy and leave or b) get killed for no apperent reason. Just because orc society is CE doesn't mean that they're all random murderers, nor does it mean that they'd kill someone for being Good (in fact, they likely don't have access to the divinations required for this). Good orcs would probably be shuffled into 'trustworthy' roles such as midwife or healer as they've demonstrated that they don't have the propensity for betrayal or taking advantage of weakness that other orcs have (which would make them really bad in those roles). I agree. Orcs are not inately evil, but their society (in normal D&D) is. That is not to say that some orcs will not have compassion, or honour. Orcs admire strength, and they respect intelligence (something they generally lack). Orcs with compassion or honour that show it overtly, however, may be driven from the tribe if they show it too often as this encourages "weakness". An orc with these traits would have the potentiol to be "good" within a non-orc environment but would most likely show up as "neutral" on the radar. As for cannibalism, it isn't innately evil. Brutally killing somebody for food is, but actually eating it isn't. Some societies have it as a custom for disposal of the dead where it is done with great respect, although such tribes are declining and usually suffer from Kuru (a form of CJD) and other diseases. Now that's a thought ... are orcs shortlived and less intelligent because they suffer from vCJD? Could casting Cure Disease on orc babies make them grow up to be smart, moral citizens? Personally I like the Eberron orcs ... they are not innately evil, but are treated as the underdogs of society.
yrogerg 03-17-07, 09:20 AM	Eh, I hardly bother. All orcs are evil (though for some reason in my games the Gobbos rank higher in the CN column then CE). You're free to rule zero it, but it's worth pointing out that according to the MM, at least, Good Orcs are probably far more common than Evil (non-Drow)Elves, or Evil Gnomes
CharlieRock 03-17-07, 09:23 AM	Orcs are not inately evil, but their society (in normal D&D) is. D&D has had a change of opinion on Orcs. They first started out as hog-headed dudes (with no STR bonus, btw) that spawned from evil wizards for use as minions and foot soldiers. Now they are under-powered versions of the Hulk. "they're just grey/green guys with big teeth who grow up and misbehave"
terrainmonkey 03-17-07, 09:30 AM	what's the argument here? orcs are evil. period. ALL of them are. men women and children. a blight on the land that needs to be destroyed. vermin. less than human. a paladin would see it this way and take out the whole tribe. that's his duty to his god and the people he is sworn to protect. period. whether the babies are good or not, there is an absolute there that must be adhered to. sure, its a bad thing for the orcs, but oh well. do we mourn for a baby rat when we have to dole out poison to protect our homes? no. so should it be for orcs. they are evil, and must be expunged from the lands. that's how a paladin sees it.
kelvinaw273 03-17-07, 09:42 AM	what's the argument here? orcs are evil. period. ALL of them are. men women and children. a blight on the land that needs to be destroyed. vermin. less than human. a paladin would see it this way and take out the whole tribe. that's his duty to his god and the people he is sworn to protect. period. whether the babies are good or not, there is an absolute there that must be adhered to. sure, its a bad thing for the orcs, but oh well. do we mourn for a baby rat when we have to dole out poison to protect our homes? no. so should it be for orcs. they are evil, and must be expunged from the lands. that's how a paladin sees it. Not in Eberron. Or if he does, he ain't no paladin no more! And if orcs are innately evil by birth, where does that leave half-orcs? Are they half-evil? All evil? Not evil at all? You see, if a half-orc can be good, then an orc can be good. If an orc can be good, then paladins are wrong to kill orc babies ...
CharlieRock 03-17-07, 09:44 AM	Not in Eberron. One of a stack of reasons I don't play that setting. ;)
Euclid 03-17-07, 09:56 AM	So, the fact that it says does not say "always chaotic evil" doesn't factor into this? From talking to my friends who play D&D, orcs are fairly easy to convert to good. Treat 'em nicely, and they won't try to slit your throats in your sleep, and eventually they'll become at least CN, even CG.
CharlieRock 03-17-07, 10:39 AM	From talking to my friends who play D&D, orcs are fairly easy to convert to good. Can you cite the rule regarding conversions?
Euclid 03-17-07, 10:44 AM	Is there one, beyond saying that alignments aren't set in stone?
CharlieRock 03-17-07, 10:46 AM	Is there one, beyond saying that alignments aren't set in stone? Rriiight ... so whatever your friends do in their game has little to no relevance to what happens in anyone elses on that subject. :smirk:
Euclid 03-17-07, 11:03 AM	Not just his. Orcs respect strength, and if the PCs can best him, he'll respect it.
Sadrx 03-17-07, 11:29 AM	This doesn't actually follow. While the good orcs wouldn't partake in the usual barbarism in thier society, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will a) get huffy and leave or b) get killed for no apperent reason. Just because orc society is CE doesn't mean that they're all random murderers, nor does it mean that they'd kill someone for being Good (in fact, they likely don't have access to the divinations required for this). Good orcs would probably be shuffled into 'trustworthy' roles such as midwife or healer as they've demonstrated that they don't have the propensity for betrayal or taking advantage of weakness that other orcs have (which would make them really bad in those roles). I wanted to cast my vote and say this is how I run my games with my more experienced players (being those I don't mind burdening with anything more than a hack-n-slash). I've actually rarely DMed a good PC who would kill Orc non-combatants though, and this isn't from my influence but their own decisions. If the players are willing to treat the alignment of Orcs with question, I'm willing to go that rout too. In addition, it leaves open the possibility for Orc allies, PC-sympathizers, and the like (you need someone to help them out when they're captured).
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-17-07, 11:29 AM	orcs are evil. period. ALL of them are. men women and children. In your game, sure. But the standard game says different. a blight on the land that needs to be destroyed. vermin. less than human. a paladin would see it this way and take out the whole tribe. that's his duty to his god and the people he is sworn to protect. period. whether the babies are good or not, there is an absolute there that must be adhered to. sure, its a bad thing for the orcs, but oh well. do we mourn for a baby rat when we have to dole out poison to protect our homes? no. so should it be for orcs. they are evil, and must be expunged from the lands. that's how a paladin sees it. I think it ironic for someone to say this to be calling the orcs evil. I mean really, this is one of the most stock BBEG speeches I've ever heard. That 'paladin' you're talking about may be a champion of your cause (genocide), but in game terms, he's a Blackguard. The game paladin is Good. Your guy clearly isn't.
Euclid 03-17-07, 11:58 AM	Exactly. Genocide is wrong, period. I mean really, this is one of the most stock BBEG speeches I've ever heard. More Hitleresque.
CharlieRock 03-17-07, 12:10 PM	In your game, sure. But the standard game says different. The standard game doesn't technically say any different. What it says is usually CE. That doesn't mean that "usually with some CG" or "Usually with a few TN". What is meant by "usually" in the book is cultural or inherited legacy (such as elves). You could take this either way. However, elves and orcs share origins (both created after Corellon defeated Grummsh) which would indicate to me that orcs are sually CE due to inherited origins (and what the rest are would change from game to game ,as there is no 'standard' deviation for alignments with that qualifier).
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-17-07, 12:20 PM	I certainly hope you also throw a hissy fit over non-good elves then.
yrogerg 03-17-07, 12:40 PM	The standard game doesn't technically say any different. What it says is usually CE. Actually, it says OFTEN CE, which suggests that CE orcs are actually quite a bit less common than CG Elves.
CharlieRock 03-17-07, 12:52 PM	Actually, it says OFTEN CE, which suggests that CE orcs are actually quite a bit less common than CG Elves. Oh, so your right. Whoops. "Often" ... still doesn't say that any deviation need be more then one step away on the alignment wheel, just that variations are more common than in "usual". (or anything about alignments of the variational types) I think they left this open to interpretation purposefully ,so that I can play them this way, and you that, and neither 'breaking' any rules. Thus, no 'standard' for deviations. (Though I do have one from a 3rd party publisher, which would get me how far here?)
CharlieRock 03-17-07, 12:55 PM	I certainly hope you also throw a hissy fit over non-good elves then. Twas the reason drow were even introduced in the game. ;) And duegar. and (to a lesser extant) svirfneblin.
yrogerg 03-17-07, 01:00 PM	Twas the reason Drow were even introduced in the game. ;) And duegar. Non-Good Gnomes, then? :P
CharlieRock 03-17-07, 01:06 PM	Non-Good Gnomes, then? :P Ninja'd ya! :P
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-17-07, 01:25 PM	Oh, so your right. Whoops. "Often" ... still doesn't say that any deviation need be more then one step away on the alignment wheel, just that variations are more common than in "usual". (or anything about alignments of the variational types) I think they left this open to interpretation purposefully ,so that I can play them this way, and you that, and neither 'breaking' any rules. Thus, no 'standard' for deviations. (Though I do have one from a 3rd party publisher, which would get me how far here?) One step away would still also open CN to them, which still refutes Terrainmonkey's genocidal tirade that started 'all orcs are evil. Period'.
High Octane 03-17-07, 01:47 PM	Often means a slight genetic disposition and a very prodominant cultural tendency towards the ideas and mannerisms that alignment dictates. Usually means a strong genetic disposition and a very strong cultural tendency, usually to the point of religious, to follow the tenements of said alignment. Always means that under normal natural circumstances the subject has no chance of eing anything but that alignment, and only under some of the rarest circumstances are they a step away. Any farther than that is unbelievably rare.
Evil DM Mk3 03-17-07, 01:48 PM	this is how I allways explain it to people. Allways:Exeptions occur only though magic or divnien intervention (is the in my world, not as tight elsewere) Usually:More are than arent. (overall majrity) Often:More are than are any other alignment. (simple majority)
yrogerg 03-17-07, 01:49 PM	Ninja'd ya! :P By which you mean, edited your post after I posted mine? Thus stealing it from the future? I suppose, in a sense, I was ninja'd (http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=060121)
Euclid 03-17-07, 01:50 PM	Often means a slight genetic disposition and a very prodominant cultural tendency towards the ideas and mannerisms that alignment dictates. Usually means a strong genetic disposition and a very strong cultural tendency, usually to the point of religious, to follow the tenements of said alignment. Always means that under normal natural circumstances the subject has no chance of eing anything but that alignment, and only under some of the rarest circumstances are they a step away. Any farther than that is unbelievably rare. Genetic? Hardly. Although aggression can be genetic, morality cannot.
High Octane 03-17-07, 01:52 PM	Genetic? Hardly. Although aggression can be genetic, morality cannot. This is D&D. Anything can be genetic.
kelvinaw273 03-17-07, 01:52 PM	One of a stack of reasons I don't play that setting. ;) It's your nose and your face <shrugs>.
Euclid 03-17-07, 02:02 PM	This is D&D. Anything can be genetic. You are wrong because: proof of possibility != correctness.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-17-07, 02:06 PM	Dragon alignment (though it makes a negative amount of sense) and memory is genetic. Outsiders pass on alignment to half-whatevers despite the fact that they're philosophical constructs But those are the Always guys, who aren't suposed to make any kind of sense.
High Octane 03-17-07, 02:07 PM	You are wrong because: proof of possibility != correctness. You are trying to apply real-world science to a fantasy realm. Although a guideline, not necessarily a limit or even a good rule. When I say genetic, I guess I should have been more clear that that entails more than just DNA, but also divine influence. The Orc God Grummsh is Chaotic Evil, so his power over his own race will push them that way as well. Lets not get into the nature vs. Nurture debate, none of us are qualified to prove that either way especially since its a world that DOESNT EXIST.
AntiDjinn 03-17-07, 02:23 PM	I generally regard "usually alignment X" not as a percentage of any given population, but as: Will be alignment X if normal circumstance prevails. An orc raised by the order of the paladin who carried him off as an infant (rather than running him through) can be lawful good. The being is not hard-wired to be a particular alignment, but he will be unless circumstance influences him to be otherwise. "Usually" also implies that a given creature is capable of changing alignment the way PC's can. The average party of adventurers is "usually chaotic rapacious vindictive" but can behave differently.
Neutronium_Dragon 03-17-07, 02:26 PM	>> I certainly hope you also throw a hissy fit over non-good elves then. > > Twas the reason drow were even introduced in the game. > And duegar. > and (to a lesser extant) svirfneblin. Svirfneblin aren't evil. They're just less cheerful (for good reason). Orcs aren't necessarily evil and destructive in the FR, either. There're at least two groups of them in official sources that I can think of: The odonti and the ones who're living in Thesk. Granted, the majority of them are still nasty work.
Stormbrand 03-17-07, 02:41 PM	what's the argument here? orcs are evil. period. ALL of them are. men women and children. a blight on the land that needs to be destroyed. vermin. less than human. a paladin would see it this way and take out the whole tribe. that's his duty to his god and the people he is sworn to protect. period. whether the babies are good or not, there is an absolute there that must be adhered to. sure, its a bad thing for the orcs, but oh well. do we mourn for a baby rat when we have to dole out poison to protect our homes? no. so should it be for orcs. they are evil, and must be expunged from the lands. that's how a paladin sees it. All that proves to me is that you are unqualified to play a paladin. This is easy to hide behind. good people do not hide behind lies to make themselves more comfortable. Besides, 'less than human' is not justification for murder. Paladins are not mindless bigots. One step away would still also open CN to them, which still refutes Terrainmonkey's genocidal tirade that started 'all orcs are evil. Period'. Correct.
Euclid 03-17-07, 02:46 PM	All that proves to me is that you are unqualified to play a paladin. I concur. Seriously, a BBEG can have the motivation to wipe out every orc, and still be very, very evil.
CharlieRock 03-17-07, 10:18 PM	One step away would still also open CN to them, which still refutes Terrainmonkey's genocidal tirade that started 'all orcs are evil. Period'. Either way, it was left to the individual interpretation of the DM. So TerrainM's statement is just as standard as your is.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-17-07, 10:42 PM	Terrain's is only standard if the entry said Always CE. And don't get me started on the genocide thing.
Ramses III 03-17-07, 10:44 PM	Dragon alignment (though it makes a negative amount of sense) and memory is genetic. This also doesn't apply in Eberron. Whether this fact is relevant or not is up to the reader. I concur. Seriously, a BBEG can have the motivation to wipe out every orc, and still be very, very evil. Genocide as a motivation automatically qualifies the subject as evil; it's never a mitigating factor. Even in the case of orcs.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-17-07, 11:17 PM	This also doesn't apply in Eberron. Whether this fact is relevant or not is up to the reader. This is why if I ever use a published setting, it'll be Eberron.
Ramses III 03-17-07, 11:20 PM	I'm using Eberron for my current campaign. I really like the world; I have most of the sourcebooks for it. I find it refreshing that it breaks from most of the stagnant Tolkien stereotypes that dominate the other published settings, especially in regards to the cultures of the different races. I also love that you can have evil clerics following a lawful good religion.
Euclid 03-17-07, 11:35 PM	EBWOP: Even if you kill genocide of orcs a "holy crusade" that doesn't make it right. I also love that you can have evil clerics following a lawful good religion.That's realistic.
CharlieRock 03-18-07, 07:56 AM	Svirfneblin aren't evil. They're just less cheerful (for good reason). No one said they were. We did discuss non-Good gnomes though (which svirfneblin qualify as ). Terrain's is only standard if the entry said Always CE. And don't get me started on the genocide thing. He said orcs were evil. Not just one specific brand name. Just evil. LE and NE can be included, making them 'often CE'.
kelvinaw273 03-18-07, 09:26 AM	He said orcs were evil. Not just one specific brand name. Just evil. LE and NE can be included, making them 'often CE'. Unfortunately it also means they can be CN and N, which are non-evil. And while a group of orcs may have a collective alignment of CE, that does not preclude individuals within orc society from being lawful or good - or at least neutral. Therefore they are not all evil, therefore killing them all becomes an evil act in and of itself. Paladins who take part in genocide, welcome to the world of being a sh**y fighter!
yrogerg 03-18-07, 09:51 AM	He said orcs were evil. Not just one specific brand name. Just evil. LE and NE can be included, making them 'often CE'. Meh, there *are* also "Any Evil" alignment entries. If Orcs, as-written, were intended to only be evil, I kinda suspect that's what their entry would say.
yrogerg 03-18-07, 09:52 AM	No one said they were. We did discuss non-Good gnomes though (which svirfneblin qualify as ). Right-o. And that's why, as a DM, if any of my players want to play a non-Good Gnome, I insist that they take a heavy level adjustment.
terrainmonkey 03-18-07, 09:57 AM	well, i go away for a day and come back to this. glad i could add some fodder for you fellas in an otherwise dry alignment debate. since i started playing this game, orcs have been evil. sorry to be gygaxian about it, but that's the way it goes. there are no "Good" orcs. they have always been at war with the societies of good. the above tirade is how i play my paladins. ruthless killing machines sent out by thier gods and man to destroy evil, no matter the guise. it is imperative for all good peoples and those of civilized societies to fight against the evil hordes of darkness. orcs are one manifestation of this darkness, hence under no circumstances should they be ignored. all of them must be put to the sword, and that includes the younglings. i hate to do it, but that's how it goes in my campaign. if you leave a baby orc to survive, or try to redeem him (which in itself is a hopeless and foolish cause) he will try to come back and destroy you. slaughter and rapine is in thier blood. you may as well ask them not to breathe. so when a paladin in my campaign comes upon a nest of sleeping orc children, he is honor bound to destroy the nest, as these creatures are less than man, and represent a threat to good peoples everywhere. and there is no falling from grace, as i rule this to be an act of good, and a necessary act for a paladin to take.
Euclid 03-18-07, 10:11 AM	Then why are there so many good half-orcs? Rather more than there are good half-demons. Seriously, don't elves view humans the same way, oftentimes? And Paladins shouldn't even consider genocide. Of any species, it is an evil act, even if you call it a holy crusade. slaughter and rapine is in thier blood. you may as well ask them not to breathe.I'd swear this was in a Nazi speach in reference to Jews. And it doesn't even make sense. Why would they turn on someone who has raised them, and treated them well? Unless, of course, they object to your slaughter of the others of their species. Which is a kind of reasonable, even good motivation. Genocide is evil after all, so preventing it should be good. Right?
terrainmonkey 03-18-07, 10:42 AM	Which is a kind of reasonable, even good motivation. Genocide is evil after all, so preventing it should be good. Right? yes, genocide is evil. but genocide against a verminous horde of creatures that lack a good, ordered society is not. genocide against thinking peoples is bad, and i'm not espousing that. what i'm getting at is that the orcs in this case are mockeries of life, and represent a threat to good and rational peoples everywhere. this isn't about race. if it were humans we were talking about, then no, the paladin would fall. as one would think that raising the baby humans would bring about change. but with orcs, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. even if you try to bring up the orc baby in a good ordered society, there is still going to be problems. i'm just being matter of fact about it. let's face reality (as far as one can in a fantasy game) and look at the facts. 1. say a paladin goes into a cave, kills the adult males who are trying to kill him, and finds a clutch of babies. 2. now we have a debate. he could A slay them all and send them back to gru'umsh, B take them all back to a civilized ordered society nearby and put them in a convent, or C leave them to die. 3. a and c are the easiest ways to handle the situation. but C. comes with a problem as well. leaving them to die means they will fight against each other for dominance, feasting on the fallen for food, and in another 4 or 5 years when they reach maturity, they'll be back to thier old habits and killing innocents again. so clearly C is out. 4. B is not an option. first you have to deal with the scorn of the local townsfolk being inundated with orc babies. humans are threatened by orcs, and here's this do gooder paladin with noble intentions bringing a bunch of orc babies to our homes for us to feed and nurture. no. more often than not the townsfolk will deride the paladin for his foolishness and silly ideals, then, when he's not around, take care of the matter themselves. therefore, the easiest, most expedient way to deal with the problem is for the paladin to take them out right then and there. it's a horrible thing, but it needs to be done. sure, it's sad, but in the end, a good and ordered society stands strong, free of the menace that may rise again. its the only realistic answer that makes any sense.
Kobold_Avenger 03-18-07, 10:50 AM	what's the argument here? orcs are evil. period. ALL of them are. men women and children. a blight on the land that needs to be destroyed. vermin. less than human. a paladin would see it this way and take out the whole tribe. that's his duty to his god and the people he is sworn to protect. period. whether the babies are good or not, there is an absolute there that must be adhered to. sure, its a bad thing for the orcs, but oh well. do we mourn for a baby rat when we have to dole out poison to protect our homes? no. so should it be for orcs. they are evil, and must be expunged from the lands. that's how a paladin sees it. Got it backwards! replace the orc with elf and the argument is correct. DEATH TO THE ELVES!
Archon515 03-18-07, 10:52 AM	Just had a question that seems to relate to this topic. If, for example, a monster says "Always Neutral," does this mean that the alignment could be "Neutral Evil" or "Neutral Good," or only just "Neutral?"
CharlieRock 03-18-07, 11:03 AM	Just had a question that seems to relate to this topic. If, for example, a monster says "Always Neutral," does this mean that the alignment could be "Neutral Evil" or "Neutral Good," or only just "Neutral?" That would be 'neutral' unless adressed further in the monster description.
CharlieRock 03-18-07, 11:05 AM	Right-o. And that's why, as a DM, if any of my players want to play a non-Good Gnome, I insist that they take a heavy level adjustment. Well, you asked. :rofl:
Euclid 03-18-07, 11:08 AM	more often than not the townsfolk will deride the paladin for his foolishness and silly ideals, then, when he's not around, take care of the matter themselves.True, but that is an evil act by the townspeople. but C. comes with a problem as well. leaving them to die means they will fight against each other for dominance, feasting on the fallen for food, and in another 4 or 5 years when they reach maturity, they'll be back to thier old habits and killing innocents again. so clearly C is outIs this situation unique to orcs? If you leave ANYONE in the wilderness as a child with no one to raise them, they'll wind up pretty brutal. even if you try to bring up the orc baby in a good ordered society, there is still going to be problems.But will the problems be from the orcs or from the actions of the other townspeople. but genocide against a verminous horde of creatures that lack a good, ordered society is notBut when illithids do it against species they view that way, they are evil. Interesting.
Khoran 03-18-07, 11:27 AM	yes, genocide is evil. but genocide against a verminous horde of creatures that lack a good, ordered society is not. genocide against thinking peoples is bad, and i'm not espousing that. Oh, but you are. Orcs do think. You're average Orc has Intelligence 8, meaning is capable of thought, it's just stupider then your average human. Orcs are "evil" because of their culture. They are raised in a simplistic, barbaric society where they are raised to be brutal and monsterous. However; lets say you were to take it out of the enviorment at a young age, most likely when it was a baby, and raised it to be good. It would then, by logic, become good. Orcs are not inherantly evil, they are just raised to be such.
CharlieRock 03-18-07, 11:42 AM	Oh, but you are. Orcs do think. You're average Orc has Intelligence 8, meaning is capable of thought, it's just stupider then your average human. Orcs are "evil" because of their culture. They are raised in a simplistic, barbaric society where they are raised to be brutal and monsterous. However; lets say you were to take it out of the enviorment at a young age, most likely when it was a baby, and raised it to be good. It would then, by logic, become good. Orcs are not inherantly evil, they are just raised to be such. But Orcs in older editions were spawned by evil wizards for the sole purpose of serving as their minions. In fact, this is not far from the 'new' origins where Orcs were created by Grummsh for the purpose of exacting revenge on elves. Remember deities are more active in D&D life then how they might generally be thought of by our societies.
yrogerg 03-18-07, 11:48 AM	But Orcs in older editions were spawned by evil wizards for the sole purpose of serving as their minions. In fact, this is not far from the 'new' origins where Orcs were created by Grummsh for the purpose of exacting revenge on elves. Remember deities are more active in D&D life then how they might generally be thought of by our societies. By "previous editions", you mean First, right? That had already been discarded by Second Edition, AFAICT.
Khoran 03-18-07, 11:55 AM	But Orcs in older editions were spawned by evil wizards for the sole purpose of serving as their minions. Yes, but this is no longer the case. Remember, Bards also used to be Druidic Loremasters in older editions if memory serves. In fact, this is not far from the 'new' origins where Orcs were created by Grummsh for the purpose of exacting revenge on elves. Remember deities are more active in D&D life then how they might generally be thought of by our societies. Where are you getting this from, if I may ask? I'm looking over my Monster Manual and it dosn't say that this is how or why they were created. Most it mentions on their religion in relation to their society is "Their deities teach them that all other beings are inferior and that all worldly goods rightfully belong to the orcs, having been stolen by others"
kelvinaw273 03-18-07, 12:10 PM	Bottom line, folks, is that orcs are what you make them. But most people would agree that orcs have the potentiol to not be evil. I believe the Paladin approach to be epitomised by what Professor T. (the ULTIMATE authority on traditional orcs) says through the mouth of Gandalf the Grey: "For myself, I pity even his [Souron the Dark Lord's] slaves." Orc babies? No Paladin could kill them and not fall, period. The young are born innocent.
Stormbrand 03-18-07, 12:15 PM	I think this view is going too far, and is likely to get the thread locked. since i started playing this game, orcs have been evil. sorry to be gygaxian about it, but that's the way it goes. there are no "Good" orcs. they have always been at war with the societies of good. the above tirade is how i play my paladins. ruthless killing machines sent out by thier gods and man to destroy evil, no matter the guise. it is imperative for all good peoples and those of civilized societies to fight against the evil hordes of darkness. orcs are one manifestation of this darkness, hence under no circumstances should they be ignored. all of them must be put to the sword, and that includes the younglings. i hate to do it, but that's how it goes in my campaign. if you leave a baby orc to survive, or try to redeem him (which in itself is a hopeless and foolish cause) he will try to come back and destroy you. slaughter and rapine is in thier blood. you may as well ask them not to breathe. so when a paladin in my campaign comes upon a nest of sleeping orc children, he is honor bound to destroy the nest, as these creatures are less than man, and represent a threat to good peoples everywhere. and there is no falling from grace, as i rule this to be an act of good, and a necessary act for a paladin to take. 'Ruthless killing machines' - that totally demeans the concept of the class. paladins should be better than random destroyers. Paladins are supposed to be Lawful Good, not bloodthirsty inquisitors whom the innocent fear. Orcs have been the staple bad guy since 1st Ed, a role they fit well. Room for exceptions exist. If you want to CHANGE or HOUSE RULE your campaign to make orcs irrideemable, that is your business, do not try to pretend that is how we should view it. Honestly, your speech is pretty scary. People have commented that it sounds Hitleresque. I refuse to accept anything based on that kind of morality. STOP SAYING LESS THAN MAN! - It is getting really offensive. 1 - It is a subjective opinion, a personal judgement. An assertion, you have yet to conclusively demonstrate your strange claim. 2 - Your claim does not mean anything. You have yet to establish a connection between 'less than man' and 'valid for extermination.' Any 'superior race' has to damn well act like it, not use claims of blood to justify atrocities. 3 - Judging worth by race over actions falls pretty solidly under Lawful Evil. Prepare to be smoten! Ironically, what amuses me about your view is how well it matches with the dogma of Grummsh. Need I say more? yes, genocide is evil. but genocide against a verminous horde of creatures that lack a good, ordered society is not. genocide against thinking peoples is bad, and i'm not espousing that. what i'm getting at is that the orcs in this case are mockeries of life, and represent a threat to good and rational peoples everywhere. this isn't about race. if it were humans we were talking about, then no, the paladin would fall. as one would think that raising the baby humans would bring about change. but with orcs, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. even if you try to bring up the orc baby in a good ordered society, there is still going to be problems. i'm just being matter of fact about it. let's face reality (as far as one can in a fantasy game) and look at the facts. 1. say a paladin goes into a cave, kills the adult males who are trying to kill him, and finds a clutch of babies. 2. now we have a debate. he could A slay them all and send them back to gru'umsh, B take them all back to a civilized ordered society nearby and put them in a convent, or C leave them to die. 3. a and c are the easiest ways to handle the situation. but C. comes with a problem as well. leaving them to die means they will fight against each other for dominance, feasting on the fallen for food, and in another 4 or 5 years when they reach maturity, they'll be back to thier old habits and killing innocents again. so clearly C is out. 4. B is not an option. first you have to deal with the scorn of the local townsfolk being inundated with orc babies. humans are threatened by orcs, and here's this do gooder paladin with noble intentions bringing a bunch of orc babies to our homes for us to feed and nurture. no. more often than not the townsfolk will deride the paladin for his foolishness and silly ideals, then, when he's not around, take care of the matter themselves. therefore, the easiest, most expedient way to deal with the problem is for the paladin to take them out right then and there. it's a horrible thing, but it needs to be done. sure, it's sad, but in the end, a good and ordered society stands strong, free of the menace that may rise again. its the only realistic answer that makes any sense. Shall we go through this. yes, genocide is evil. but genocide against a verminous horde of creatures that lack a good, ordered society is not. genocide against thinking peoples is bad, and i'm not espousing that. what i'm getting at is that the orcs in this case are mockeries of life A clear example of how evil people think. Describing the targets as verminous and a 'lesser race' are all evil premises. ALL genocide claims the target has no right to live. Would you torture a kitten? this isn't about race. if it were humans we were talking about Then it is about race. one would think that raising the baby humans would bring about change. but with orcs, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. even if you try to bring up the orc baby in a good ordered society, there is still going to be problems. Of course, because we humans have no aggression in us what so ever :rolleyes: . There have been problems with humans raised in a good ordered society. Adolf Hitler himself was raised in the Wiehmar Republic. Your nature-nurture case is unfounded, simply claimed. Another thing you fail to do is define 'good, ordered society." - a phrase you throw around too freely not to explain. 4. B is not an option. first you have to deal with the scorn of the local townsfolk being inundated with orc babies. humans are threatened by orcs, and here's this do gooder paladin with noble intentions bringing a bunch of orc babies to our homes for us to feed and nurture. no. more often than not the townsfolk will deride the paladin for his foolishness and silly ideals, then, when he's not around, take care of the matter themselves. 1 - All of the problems stem from evil acts from the townsfolk. 2 - The townsfolk look on noble intentions with contempt, such as their perception of the paladin trying to do the right thing as 'foolishness and silly ideals.' therefore, the easiest, most expedient way to deal with the problem is for the paladin to take them out right then and there. Easy and expedient do not mean right. Often the easiest, expedient way is the evil, short-sighted way. A common choice in the world is between what is right and what is easy. To be a paladin is to choose right every time. a good and ordered society stands strong, free of the menace that may rise again. its the only realistic answer that makes any sense. Show me this good and ordered society. Is it the one where townsfolk scorn honour and compassion and murder babies when the paladin is not looking? Suffice to say this is the society I would fight against. So I am signing up to serve Warchief Thrall.
johnhansen 03-18-07, 12:43 PM	Play Orcs as Evil to the core if you wish or as free love hippies if you wish. Play Paladins as the hand of their god if you wish or as genital lovers of peace if you wish. But please for goodness sake stop using 21st century morality in a setting that in almost every other way is 14th century. Or at lest be aware you are doing it.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-18-07, 12:47 PM	Since the who murdering psycho paladin thing as it pertains to orcs stems directly from 1e's attempts to ripp off LotR, I'll point this LotR quote out too: "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." -- Gandalf, The Fellowship of the Ring
kelvinaw273 03-18-07, 12:57 PM	Play Orcs as Evil to the core if you wish or as free love hippies if you wish. Play Paladins as the hand of their god if you wish or as genital lovers of peace if you wish. But please for goodness sake stop using 21st century morality in a setting that in almost every other way is 14th century. Or at lest be aware you are doing it. We are aware, thank you, and what your paladins do as consenting adults behind closed doors is nothing we want to know about ;) A lot of twentieth century morality is based on very ancient philosophy. Just because it wasn't practiced in the fourteenth century does not mean it was not upheld as an ideal. Just because a lot of people agree on something does not make it right. If the villagers mock the paladin's efforts, they aren't nice people. If there are good orcs out there, at some point they will be discovered. To draw a parralel, the Samaritans were a group looked down upon as less-than-nice when the story of the Good Samaritan was told (that's why it was so named - it showed that there is good in all people). As such, priest of Ilmatar might tell the story of the Good Orc as an example that not everybody from a reviled minority is evil. The truly enlightened and moral (and this should include clerics and paladins) will know of these things, be they from any age and era.
yrogerg 03-18-07, 01:11 PM	Play Orcs as Evil to the core if you wish or as free love hippies if you wish. Play Paladins as the hand of their god if you wish or as genital lovers of peace if you wish. But please for goodness sake stop using 21st century morality in a setting that in almost every other way is 14th century. Or at lest be aware you are doing it. Unless 14th-century Europe had a) better healthcare than the 21st century, b) a class of roving super-wealthy supergeniuses and Olympic athletes called "Adventurers", or c) Ninjas and Samurai, I'm going to hazard to say that D&D is NOT the 14th century. Given the fact that D&D really *is* a mish-mash of a half-dozen different historical eras with lots of sci fi and fantasy cliches thrown in, along with mythological creatures from myriad *wholly different* cultures (I mean, really: Couatls? WTF?) and a Vancian magic system tacked on, there's no reason to assume that 14th-century moral standards are the most applicable. Besides, at very least, those of us who play D&D *are* familiar with modern morality, which make it easier to use those standards without slipping into a faulty caricature.
robertliguori 03-18-07, 01:17 PM	Play Orcs as Evil to the core if you wish or as free love hippies if you wish. Play Paladins as the hand of their god if you wish or as genital lovers of peace if you wish. But please for goodness sake stop using 21st century morality in a setting that in almost every other way is 14th century. Or at lest be aware you are doing it. I'm sorry, but in D&D, morality is morality. It is absolute. In any D&D setting, including paladins, kicks you completely and totally out of any historical moral perspective. Swords and plate mail does not mean Divine Right of Kings and feudalism if there is magic, too. In D&D, there is magic. There are clerics who can commune with the essence of absolute Good, and if they start working against it, they lose their magical powers to kill people and break things and heal other people and repair other things. Church corruption does not exist. Lots of 14-century elements are not supported by the D&D mechanics.
CharlieRock 03-18-07, 03:33 PM	By "previous editions", you mean First, right? That had already been discarded by Second Edition, AFAICT. I'll take your word for it. I never played 2ed. Yes, but this is no longer the case. Remember, Bards also used to be Druidic Loremasters in older editions if memory serves. Where are you getting this from, if I may ask? I'm looking over my Monster Manual and it dosn't say that this is how or why they were created. Most it mentions on their religion in relation to their society is "Their deities teach them that all other beings are inferior and that all worldly goods rightfully belong to the orcs, having been stolen by others" Right: "Monster Type:Humanoid (Common) An orc is an ugly humanlike creature, and looks like a combination of animal and man. Most orcs are shaped like humans, but many have bestial facial features and teeth." The picture has a dude with a hog head. (and a spear.) Monster Manual pg.76 (1987). goes on to say that orcs hate all living things ,but especially elves. They will attack each other 75% of the time unless a stronger leader is present. As to the story of their origins (involving Grummsh) that is what WotC puts out as their descriptive text in many of their books. Find stuff on Grummsh (likely Deities and Demigods, I don't have it available at the moment.)
Khoran 03-18-07, 03:58 PM	I'll take your word for it. I Right: "Monster Type:Humanoid (Common) An orc is an ugly humanlike creature, and looks like a combination of animal and man. Most orcs are shaped like humans, but many have bestial facial features and teeth." The picture has a dude with a hog head. (and a spear.) So, being ugly = being evil? Man, someone should tell the Dwarves that they're all evil then. Monster Manual pg.76 (1987). goes on to say that orcs hate all living things ,but especially elves. And everyone hates orcs and will attack them whenever they find them and can win. K, so everyone is evil. Also, wouldn't you be angry if the Elves god gouged out the eye of your god. Seems perfectly logical that the Orcs would hate Elves to me. They will attack each other 75% of the time unless a stronger leader is present. Because civil wars never happen when there is a weak or unfit leader in any other society right? As to the story of their origins (involving Grummsh) that is what WotC puts out as their descriptive text in many of their books. Find stuff on Grummsh (likely Deities and Demigods, I don't have it available at the moment.) I'll have to take your word for that. I don't own that book.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-18-07, 05:03 PM	I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that 3e's MM supercedes the 1987 MM.
Johnny_Angel 03-18-07, 05:17 PM	In one of my homebrew campaigns I have elves as being a LE Nazi-like empire bent on proving they are the "better race," and Orcs are CG rebels. As for non-homebrew campaigns, one of my favorite characters was an Orc Monk I played as in a game as a player.
Erato 03-18-07, 05:33 PM	.... sorry to be gygaxian about it, but that's the way it goes....... i hate to do it, but that's how it goes in my campaign. If you don’t want it to be this way (and it almost sounds like it), why are you doing it? It’s your campaign, things are as they are because you want them to be that way. I hate it when people try to pretend that their way of playing is inevitable. ‘Your epic wizard/archmage has to bow down to the lord of the village, that’s how it was in the Middle Ages’ ‘Women have been oppressed historically, so of course my hawt elven Amazon NPCs in chainmail bikinis will be raped, humiliated, raped, abused, raped, talked down to, and raped :drool: This is an authentic campaign world, so I have to do it.’* I understand the desire for simplicity. Historically, all attempts to simplify the world have resulted in catastrophes, so saving the simplicity for gaming is probably healthy. (As long as you’re aware that replacing the word ‘orc’ with a real group of people, will turn your tirade into something most fascists will consider too radical). Just don’t act like it’s something you have to do. Most people prefer George R. R. Martin to Terry Goodkind, and D&D seems to be headed in that direction (Eberron). You don’t have to like it, but denying it wont get you anywhere ;) * I’m not targeting you specifically. It just seems to be a trend to use the excuse ‘it might suck, it might even worsen the game, but that’s how it was in (insert historical period or older D&D edition) so that’s what we’ll do’.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-18-07, 07:43 PM	Terrainmonkey, whatever you do, you're lucky you don't lose your Paladin powers. Things is, this is the 21st century and we have 3.5 Edition now, and by those rules, nothing you said is true. Just a great, big pile of ********. My bet is that you luckily found a DM that is as much of a sociopath as the Paladins you think you are playing.
johnhansen 03-18-07, 07:58 PM	Terrainmonkey, whatever you do, you're lucky you don't lose your Paladin powers. Things is, this is the 20th century and we have 3.5 Edition now, and by those rules, nothing you said is true. Just a great, big pile of ********. My bet is that you luckily found a DM that is as much of a sociopath as the Paladins you think you are playing. I agree, except it is the 21st century.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-18-07, 08:10 PM	I agree, except it is the 21st century. Fixed.
CharlieRock 03-18-07, 10:17 PM	I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that 3e's MM supercedes the 1987 MM. It probably does. Doesn't mean you can't import the old-school orcs. And besides, somebody asked when I mentioned those kinds. Also, wouldn't you be angry if the Elves god gouged out the eye of your god. Seems perfectly logical that the Orcs would hate Elves to me. He had it coming.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-18-07, 10:27 PM	What you do in your own game is none of my concern as long as you're not trying to present it as RAW.
johnhansen 03-19-07, 12:21 AM	What does that mean? From a tangent going on a Paladin thread, the spector of ravaging Paladins killing Orc babies, well enough of that. There are these alignment defs: Always, which I read as being either 100% for a Unique creature or 99.9% for a group of creatures. Usually, which has no set number in the MM, but from above and what is given in "Often", I would put that percentage at 70% Often, which is given in the book as being 40% - 50%, so 45% is a nice round number. So you are the DM and from the MM, you monster X is "Usually CE". Ok, just what percentage is CE and then the other alignments as well? Well, I propose these examples: Usually CE, works for LG, CG and LE too: CE = 70% NE = 10% CN = 10% LE = 5% CG = 2% LN = 2% LG = <1% NG = <1% Usually NE, works for NG, LN and CN: NE = 70% LE = 9% CE = 9% N = 7% LN = 2% CN = 2% NG = <1% LG = <1% CG = <1% Often TN TN = 45% NG, NE, CN, LN = 10% each CE, CG, LG, LE = <4% each Usually TN TN = 70% NG, NE, CN, LN = 5% each CE, CG, LG, LE = <3% each Often CE, works for LG, CG and LE too: CE = 45% NE = 25% CN = 20% LE = 5% CG = 5% LN = 3% NG = <2% LG = <1% Often NE, works for NG, LN and CN: NE = 45% LE = 15% CE = 15% N = 10% CN = 4% LN = 4% LG = 1% CG = 1% So what does that all mean? Say your in a party and you spy an orc village. Ok, Orcs are Usually CE so do you think you're going to run into this: CE = 70% NE = 10% CN = 10% LE = 5% CG = 2% LN = 2% LG = <1% NG = <1% So out of 100 or so,you hope to find 3, maybe 4 Good Orcs in the camp? Doubtful. I'd say that by reading the MM, as Orcs are cruel and worse, he good ones have left a long time ago, or they would have been killed. What I am also saying is even with the rules, an Orc camp is 85% Evil. I guess that would make only the babies they only non-evil things there. Even if Orcs are a often CE, so Gnolls would have been a better example I think the concept is worth thinking about. Personally I think a paladin would arrest any of the Gnolls who surrendered no matter what their alignment and let the judge do the sentencing. But with Gnolls and most any other humanoid most of the adult males would have died in battle before any Gnolls would have surrender.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-19-07, 12:30 AM	Arrest them an sentence them for what? 'Living while Gnollish'? 'Attempting to Repel a Home Invasion Without a License'?
johnhansen 03-19-07, 12:56 AM	Arrest them an sentence them for what? 'Living while Gnollish'? 'Attempting to Repel a Home Invasion Without a License'? No, what ever the Gnolls did that fits with how Chaotic Evil is described on page 106 of the Players Handbook. If the Gnolls had never done any unlawful or evil why would the Paladin have been sent out to arrest them? And if no Gnoll had ever done any unlawful or evil why would the MM have their alignment as usually chaotic evil?
Ramses III 03-19-07, 01:19 AM	I'm sorry, but in D&D, morality is morality. It is absolute. In any D&D setting, including paladins, kicks you completely and totally out of any historical moral perspective. Swords and plate mail does not mean Divine Right of Kings and feudalism if there is magic, too. In D&D, there is magic. There are clerics who can commune with the essence of absolute Good, and if they start working against it, they lose their magical powers to kill people and break things and heal other people and repair other things. Church corruption does not exist. Lots of 14-century elements are not supported by the D&D mechanics. One more reason I use Eberron as the setting for my D&D games: church corruption does exist. Clerics and other divine casters aren't limited to the alignment of their religion. (Yes, paladins do still have to be lawful good.)
Ramses III 03-19-07, 01:26 AM	Most people prefer George R. R. Martin to Terry Goodkind, QFT. Goodkind is a hack.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-19-07, 01:27 AM	If the Gnolls had never done any unlawful or evil why would the Paladin have been sent out to arrest them? And if no Gnoll had ever done any unlawful or evil why would the MM have their alignment as usually chaotic evil? Paladins aren't cops. They don't go out to arrest people. When properly presented, they seek to promote goodness and the spread thereof while defending the innocent from the forces of evil. None of this entails them acting as the Mayberry PD with Barney Fife replaced by the Zodiac killer.
johnhansen 03-19-07, 01:28 AM	One more reason I use Eberron as the setting for my D&D games: church corruption does exist. Clerics and other divine casters aren't limited to the alignment of their religion. (Yes, paladins do still have to be lawful good.) PLus you get robots:D ;) :D
johnhansen 03-19-07, 01:30 AM	Paladins aren't cops. They don't go out to arrest people. When properly presented, they seek to promote goodness and the spread thereof while defending the innocent from the forces of evil. None of this entails them acting as the Mayberry PD with Barney Fife replaced by the Zodiac killer. Paladins are Lawful not just Good. The compassion to pursue good, the will to uphold law, and the power to defeat evil-
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-19-07, 02:11 AM	That's not what lawful means at all...
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-19-07, 02:12 AM	and the power to defeat evil- ...or at least murder its wife and children in thier beds.
johnhansen 03-19-07, 02:34 AM	Vaal you seem to want to argue about paladins killing babies, why I don't know. I just like the idea of creatures who are CE approximately 70% of the time acting CE and not TN. But thats just me enjoying RAW.
johnhansen 03-19-07, 03:22 AM	CE = 70% NE = 10% CN = 10% LE = 5% CG = 2% LN = 2% LG = <1% NG = <1% Interesting. but how about this for creatures with a usually CE CE 70% NE 13% CN 13% LE 2% TN 1% all others combined 1%
pres_man 03-19-07, 06:39 AM	PLus you get robots:D ;) :D Warforged are not robots! They are androids. ;)
yrogerg 03-19-07, 07:56 AM	Vaal you seem to want to argue about paladins killing babies, why I don't know. Probably because terrainmonkey's rant consisted of precisely the claim that Paladins should run around killing babies. I just like the idea of creatures who are CE approximately 70% of the time acting CE and not TN. But thats just me enjoying RAW. A population that's 70% CE would not consist of solely individuals who all act CE, though. In fact, 70% of the individuals would act CE, and the rest would act non-CE. That's not even an issue of RAW; that's a grade-school introduction to fractions. (However, it *is* also RAW:P ) (The way you said it, it sounds more like you think Usually means that each individual acts CE most of the time. Which is silly.)
LCD2YOU 03-19-07, 08:02 AM	Actually, it says OFTEN CE, which suggests that CE orcs are actually quite a bit less common than CG Elves.You are correct. In the Paladin post, I took it for granted when I posted that my Orcs are Evil and you stated then that I changed "Usually Evil" to "Always Evil". I had forgotten what Orcs were but I thought that you knew what you were talking about and I used what you wrote. I will not make the mistake that you're acurate again.
LCD2YOU 03-19-07, 08:03 AM	...or at least murder its wife and children in thier beds.Who says that?
Cantankerous 03-19-07, 08:33 AM	To the original question: Usually really only means "more than half the time". Anything over 50% would be "usual". That said I like the basic set up here. I've always seen the "Always Evil" term as meaning always to any meaningful percentage. If one in one thousand, or even one in several hundred are exceptions to the rule that still, for me, proves the rule quite sufficiently. I've used often to represent about 30-40% and usually to represent about 60%, but that's just me. Nor do I find flow charts for degree of deviance to be useful except on a very limited "local" level. With me it's too dependant on the surroundings. As a for instance, an Orc being raised in a tribe that resides in an area where it is basicly surrounded by say, smaller Chaotic Good Elven communities, would probably tend more towards CN or even CG, still prizing Chaos strongly but not as openly disdainful of Good. In such a region the alignment lay out of Orcs might be more like the following: CE:55% CN:15% CG:10% NE:06% N:05% NG:04% LE:03% LN:01%> LG:<01% Again, it's area dependant so that if the same tribe is surrounded by strong and strongly LE states it might well be more like: CE:51% LE:33% NE:09% CN:01% CG:01% N:01% NG:01% LN:02% LG:01% Or, as on one of the Nine Worlds (my long running campaign), there might be an entire continental area where Orcs as a cultural average are VERY strongly CG, while they wre almost uniformly strongly CE elsehwere on that world. As a side note, on that same world the Elves are usually LE as Hell, sometimes quite literally, as many of the Elven nations openly worship the Nine Infernal Lords of Baator. The point of all this is that your neighbors often have a very great influence on your own cultural identity and it could stand to be factored in. Isshia
CharlieRock 03-19-07, 08:35 AM	What you do in your own game is none of my concern as long as you're not trying to present it as RAW. All RAW says is that they are often CE. It has no guidelines (save my own) what the un-often orc's alignment is.
Cantankerous 03-19-07, 09:35 AM	All RAW says is that they are often CE. It has no guidelines (save my own) what the un-often orc's alignment is. Yeah gods is this ever correct! And I for one am very glad of it too. I'd hate to have my creativity completely squealched without disregarding the rules and this would certainly help to do it. Isshia
CharlieRock 03-19-07, 09:48 AM	Yeah gods is this ever correct! And I for one am very glad of it too. I'd hate to have my creativity completely squealched without disregarding the rules and this would certainly help to do it. Isshia Then I don't see how RAW requires me to have a Good aligned orc (or group of orcs.) "Good Orcs" are a novelty. A 'twist' on the stereotype that was introduced as far back as '89 (when FASA Corp. first published Shadowrun. Yes I played the heck out of it.) That novelty has worn thin on me. Eberron isn't bringing up anything 'new' when it purposes that orcs are evenly distributed among the alignments. Or whatever it is that the "Have you hugged an Orc today" DMs are talking about when they refer to Eberron as being exceptional with it's depiction of orcs.
Cantankerous 03-19-07, 09:55 AM	Then I don't see how RAW requires me to have a Good aligned orc (or group of orcs.) "Good Orcs" are a novelty. A 'twist' on the stereotype that was introduced as far back as '89 (when FASA Corp. first published Shadowrun. Yes I played the heck out of it.) That novelty has worn thin on me. Eberron isn't bringing up anything 'new' when it purposes that orcs are evenly distributed among the alignments. Or whatever it is that the "Have you hugged an Orc today" DMs are talking about when they refer to Eberron as being exceptional with it's depiction of orcs. It doesn't. Atleast not Core RAW, which is all that we can really discuss in a worthwhile manner on a non-Eberron board. As far as '89 goes, Hell, I'd had orcs that were LG and Elves that were NE as far back as '79 and back before the ethical matrix (Law v Chaos) was added had Good Orcs and Evil Dwarves running around. It's not about novelty, since there is "nothing new under the sun" anyway, but rather about variety. I'll be damned if anyone is going to mess with my right to variety. :cool: Isshia
CharlieRock 03-19-07, 10:14 AM	It's not about novelty, since there is "nothing new under the sun" anyway, but rather about variety. I'll be damned if anyone is going to mess with my right to variety. :cool: Isshia I didn't have to resort to the novelty of twisting stereotypes to achieve variety. (well, not too often anyways *looks over the campaign map and spots the 'arabian dwarf kingdom'*)
Cantankerous 03-19-07, 10:23 AM	I didn't have to resort to the novelty of twisting stereotypes to achieve variety. (well, not too often anyways *looks over the campaign map and spots the 'arabian dwarf kingdom'*) Here the question isn't "haveing to resort to" it, but rather not avoiding it simply because it was a twisted stereotype. Although, admittedly, a part of it may have been because I was subconsciously trying to get closer to "usually chaotic evil" than "always chaotic evil" with orcs as a race in my campaign. Isshia
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 03-19-07, 10:24 AM	Who says that? The OP.
LCD2YOU 03-19-07, 10:33 AM	The OP.Uh, I did?
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-19-07, 11:03 AM	Well the entire original post is more or less trying to get enough wiggle room out of the fact that Usally isn't Always to once again justify the Lawful Evil approach to playing a Paladin. And terrainmonkey's rant didn't help. His post is clearly in the 'slaughter innoncent in thier sleep' camp. If these are the ways people in the world regard orcs, its no wonder they're kill humans on sight -- because humans are psychopaths.
LCD2YOU 03-19-07, 11:21 AM	Well the entire original post is more or less trying to get enough wiggle room out of the fact that Usally isn't Always to once again justify the Lawful Evil approach to playing a Paladin. And terrainmonkey's rant didn't help. His post is clearly in the 'slaughter innoncent in thier sleep' camp. If these are the ways people in the world regard orcs, its no wonder they're kill humans on sight -- because humans are psychopaths.Oh wow. You got that? Slaughtering things? Seems as I remember the Orcish God loves slaughter. A case of "blame the victim". Just for S&G, that is not what this Thread's about. Interesting. All I was doing was showing that even in a grouping of "Often" or "Usually" Alignment "X", it does not mean that you're going to find a lot of alignments A, B or C. If a race, or actually a species, is skewed to be a particular alignment, You're going to find a majority of the ones who aren't in a close orbit to the main alignment of the species.
kelvinaw273 03-19-07, 02:30 PM	Deary me, l;et me bring attention back to a few issues: On the one hand we have the arguments for genocide of Orcs: They are EVIL. On the other, we have the argument that they are not ALL EVIL. Now let me ask, if alignment represent what a creature does, what have orcs done to become evil? OK they live in a brutal, strongest-takes-all society and they have real b*****d of a god who supports this mentality. But to be chaotic evil you have to have done chaotic and evil things. Chaotic can mean impulsive, and orcs are not know for their restaint, the problem is the Evil bit. And here we have a paradox: To be Evil, an orc must have done evil things, like murder and torture. If an orc has been raised in orc society and not met any other humanoid (not unlikely as orcs seem to live in isolated locales only accessibly by teams of crack adventurers) who is there to do this to but other orcs? And if you murder another or orc who is presumably also evil, have you actually done an evil act? Now if the orc you did things against wasn't evil, then you have done an evil act, but that means that all orcs are not necessarily evil, even within orc society ... Either way, orcs can't all be Evil. Now your paladin might be justified in killing all the evil orcs he finds, but if he kills one non-evil orc, he is a murderer and loses his powers. It like saying "all ravens are black". You only have to find one white raven to be proven wrong.
Eric888 03-19-07, 03:44 PM	Sure, D&D is a world of free will, and orcs can become stalwart soldiers of the light, but games run the risk of becomning degenerate when exceptions of alignment are made when a group of orcs jump out of the bushes armed with swords, the players should not be bogged down with hesitancy since they are unsure if they are evil or not. they should be allowed to assume that they are evil. it may not be entierly realistic, but it is more fair to the core roots D&D. if players are worried about being speciest, remind them that the good people are at war. orcs are like enemy combatants within your lines. sure, some may be spies or defectors, but that should not get in the way of a soldier trying to do his job. use 'always' and 'usually' as guidelines for how apropriate it is to introduce an exception into your game, but be careful that players don't start second guessing every encounter.
Eric888 03-19-07, 03:46 PM	Sure, D&D is a world of free will, and orcs can become stalwart soldiers of the light, but games run the risk of becomning degenerate when exceptions of alignment are made when a group of orcs jump out of the bushes armed with swords, the players should not be bogged down with hesitancy since they are unsure if they are evil or not. they should be allowed to assume that they are evil. it may not be entierly realistic, but it is more fair to the core roots D&D. if players are worried about being speciest, remind them that good people are at war. orcs are like enemy combatants within your lines. sure, some may be spies or defectors, but that should not get in the way of a soldier trying to do his job.
Erato 03-19-07, 04:06 PM	Sure, D&D is a world of free will, and orcs can become stalwart soldiers of the light, but games run the risk of becomning degenerate when exceptions of alignment are made. This is so true when a group of orcs jump out of the bushes armed with swords, the players should not be bogged down with hesitancy since they are unsure if they are evil or not. they should be allowed to assume that they are evil. it may not be entierly realistic, but it is more fair to the core roots D&D. And when a group of humans jump out of the bushes armed with swords, the players should not be bogged down with hesitancy since they are unsure if they are evil or not. Self-defence is self-defence, and unless you’re exalted, killing to save your own life is not Evil. Slaughtering defenceless creatures that haven’t done anything wrong (that you know of), when they have already surrendered and you have no indication, except their race, to suggest that they’re Evil, is Evil – unless, perhaps, if they’re Evil outsiders, in which case it’s more like neutral (self-defence).
CharlieRock 03-19-07, 04:17 PM	Either way, orcs can't all be Evil. Now your paladin might be justified in killing all the evil orcs he finds, but if he kills one non-evil orc, he is a murderer and loses his powers. It like saying "all ravens are black". You only have to find one white raven to be proven wrong. See, here's the thing. I make the world, and all the ravens. In absense of regulation by RAW, I wouldn't be counter to being as 'standard' as anyone who makes only white ravens with red horns and green eyes. By the by, I made a species of tigers that are green. The MM doesn't specify color, and I wanted to see if anyone called one "Cringer". Still standard.
yrogerg 03-19-07, 07:32 PM	You are correct. In the Paladin post, I took it for granted when I posted that my Orcs are Evil and you stated then that I changed "Usually Evil" to "Always Evil". I had forgotten what Orcs were but I thought that you knew what you were talking about and I used what you wrote. I will not make the mistake that you're acurate again. Well, *I* usually make it a point to double check the MM before starting a new thread. I didn't need to refer to the MM to point out that Orcs aren't Always Evil. All I was doing was showing that even in a grouping of "Often" or "Usually" Alignment "X", it does not mean that you're going to find a lot of alignments A, B or C. If a race, or actually a species, is skewed to be a particular alignment, You're going to find a majority of the ones who aren't in a close orbit to the main alignment of the species. I'm actually going to still disagree, because if this *were* the case, and upwards of 95% of "Often CE" were still of the Evil alignment, that effectively moots the "Usually/Always Evil (any)" alignments that are also presented in the MM; by pointing out that exceptions are *common* among Oftens, the implication largely seems to be a *much* flatter distribution than "Usually Evil (any)".
CharlieRock 03-19-07, 10:25 PM	I'm actually going to still disagree, because if this *were* the case, and upwards of 95% of "Often CE" were still of the Evil alignment, that effectively moots the "Usually/Always Evil (any)" alignments that are also presented in the MM; by pointing out that exceptions are *common* among Oftens, the implication largely seems to be a *much* flatter distribution than "Usually Evil (any)". Not really. Always evil (any) could mean literally 1/3 CE ,1/3 NE, 1/3 LE. Often Evil (whichever) could mean 1/2 ,1/4, 1/4. Without invalidating or rendering moot the above more equal distribution.
Eightbitmage 03-20-07, 02:40 AM	Not really. Always evil (any) could mean literally 1/3 CE ,1/3 NE, 1/3 LE. Often Evil (whichever) could mean 1/2 ,1/4, 1/4. Without invalidating or rendering moot the above more equal distribution. This is true, but wouldn't it make more sense for it to be 1/2 1/4 1/4 CE, NE, CN, than CE, NE, LE?
Cantankerous 03-20-07, 04:14 AM	... when a group of orcs jump out of the bushes armed with swords, the players should not be bogged down with hesitancy since they are unsure if they are evil or not. they should be allowed to assume that they are evil. it may not be entierly realistic, but it is more fair to the core roots D&D. ... Thankfully alot of the stupidity of earlier editions of D&D are being done away with. Yes, the PCs should be as aware that these folk may not be Evil as if they come on a group of humans or elves or whaever in the same situation. This is one of the very many areas wherein D&D has vastly improved as it has aged. No longer is it "ok" to play a mindless killing machine and call yourself Good, or heroic, or anything of the kind. Finally this genre is growing up a little and I for one am seriously gratified to see it. Isshia
kelvinaw273 03-20-07, 07:05 AM	when a group of orcs jump out of the bushes armed with swords, the players should not be bogged down with hesitancy since they are unsure if they are evil or not. they should be allowed to assume that they are evil. it may not be entierly realistic, but it is more fair to the core roots D&D. if players are worried about being speciest, remind them that good people are at war. orcs are like enemy combatants within your lines. sure, some may be spies or defectors, but that should not get in the way of a soldier trying to do his job. No it shouldn't. The question does have relevance however if you beat the orcs and some try to surrender, the same as if a bunch of humans ambush you with swords. Once they are down, do you kill them? What if they try to surrender? If they are evil or not can make a big difference to a paladin in a hurry ...
CharlieRock 03-20-07, 08:18 AM	This is true, but wouldn't it make more sense for it to be 1/2 1/4 1/4 CE, NE, CN, than CE, NE, LE? Not necessarily. DM's liberty in interpretation. Say, I wanted a race of communist (LE) humanoids. Under my interpretation ,the orc would be a candidate. If you wanted a race of warrior-mercenaries (CN) you could find orcs to be a candidate under your interpretation. RAW allows both. Even if popularity favors one over the other.
kelvinaw273 03-20-07, 12:17 PM	Not necessarily. DM's liberty in interpretation. Say, I wanted a race of communist (LE) humanoids. Under my interpretation ,the orc would be a candidate. If you wanted a race of warrior-mercenaries (CN) you could find orcs to be a candidate under your interpretation. RAW allows both. Even if popularity favors one over the other. I agree in DM's liberty of interpretation, I just don't find black-and-white statements such as "all orcs are evil" as believable. Paladins are meant to epitomise compassion as well as retribution, you lost that side completely when you run the Smite-O-Matic type, and it becomes two dimensional.
mlund 03-20-07, 12:40 PM	Truly Old School orcs were practically lifted right out of Tolkien. They were twisted, artificial mockeries of sapient creatures that existed only to slaughter and destroy the world of men and elves. Those kinds of Orcs were "Always Evil" and could be violently disposed of without much remorse. Like with most things lifted from Tolkien, orcs were changed when Dungeons and Dragons revised itself and ran screaming from the lawyers of the Tolkien estate. The "modern" interpretation of orcs has almost nothing to do with their origins other than the fact that their patron god is a cosmic force of absolute evil identified by a lone eye. Modern Orcs just aren't the same as Old School Orcs. They actually have a moral capacity to be something other than Evil (even if the majority never do). - Marty Lund
elondir 03-20-07, 12:55 PM	I believe they mentioned some things about orcs mingling with humans in the last few pages of The Apocalypse Stone where they introduced the changes from 2e to 3e (some orcs were horrified by the brutality during the End Times, while the half-orc population swelled during the orc banditry). It also explained 9th level divine spells (making up to the mortals after being cut off from them), dwarven wizards (super-secret traditions finally revealed), the appearance of sorcerers (people who had to learn a few magic tricks on their own to survive without society), and the change in multiclassing (people had to become more adaptable to survive).
Eightbitmage 03-20-07, 02:45 PM	Not necessarily. DM's liberty in interpretation. Say, I wanted a race of communist (LE) humanoids. Under my interpretation ,the orc would be a candidate. If you wanted a race of warrior-mercenaries (CN) you could find orcs to be a candidate under your interpretation. RAW allows both. Even if popularity favors one over the other. Actually I don't really agree with the fractions you used, I was just trying to point out that logically it makes sense for creatures that are chaotic evil most of the time to go no more than one step away in either alignment axis. I think an orc can be LE, I also think they can be LG, but logically a majority of the non-chaotic evil ones should be about evenly split between Neutral evil and chaotic neutral. Not to mention their lack of an evil subtype, an always stipulation and the fact that they have an int, wis and cha score.
LCD2YOU 03-20-07, 02:52 PM	Actually I don't really agree with the fractions you used, I was just trying to point out that logically it makes sense for creatures that are chaotic evil most of the time to go no more than one step away in either alignment axis. I think an orc can be LE, I also think they can be LG, but a majority of the non-chaotic evil ones will be about evenly split between Neutral evil and chaotic neutral.I think that's about right. However, I think the Good-Law Axis is stronger than the Law-Chaos Axis when it comes to divergence from the "Often" or "Usual" alignment. But in any case, a creature will be far more likely to be just 1 step away from their species "common" alignment than two and two steps is far more likely than three steps or more. For a species that is "Usually CE" even with a population of 1000 the amount of LG examples would be able to be counted on both hands with fingers to spare.
Amon_WinterfallIV 03-20-07, 03:59 PM	OK, campaign liberty aside. Gruumush is a CE deity, and as I understand it, either the only god leading the Orcs, or the leader of an Orcish Panthenon. As a CE deity, he inspires his followers, the orcs, to become Chaotic and Evil. So, Orcish Society moves in that direction. Thousands of years?(Campaign Liberty noted again) later, the Orcs are very often CE, because that's how their god wants them to be. So, what if Gruumush were killed and replaced with a LG Orcish Deity? That would probably shift the orcs over to LG over time. The point is that Orcs are probably CE for social reasons; not from any inborn traits. A paladin who decides to kill all Orcs to thwart evil should instead seek to kill all clerics of Gruumush (an Evil deity). If the Paladin ever decides that killing children is morally upright, he should walk off being a paladin before he falls.
Euclid 03-20-07, 04:08 PM	I'm inclined to go with the NE: 1/4 CE: 1/2 CN: 1/4 side of the arguement. It doesn't make much sense to have many lawful orcs, for the same reason that it doesn't make much sense to have many good ones.
wrecan 03-20-07, 05:29 PM	I personally go witht he following analysis. (Please note this is my own house rule. I don't expect this to be taken as literal truth) Assumptions: It's easier to shift towards neutrality than away from it, because it's easier to take no position than to hold an extreme one. It's easier to shift to an extreme ethos than an extreme morality and easier to shift to neutrality from an extreme morality that an extreme ethos, because the moral requirements are more stringent than the ethical ones. It's easier to be chaotic than lawful, as lawfulness requires discipline It's easier to be evil than good, as good requires an element of self-sacrifice Each step away from the standard alignment is equally hard to attain. Then I rank the ladder of alignment shifting from dominant alignment to least-likely alignment. The alignment ladders are: CG-CN-NG-TN-LG-CE-LN-NE-LE CE-CN-NE-TN-LE-CG-LN-NG-LG CN-TN-CE-CG-LN-NE-NG-LE-LG LE-LN-NE-TN-CE-LG-CN-NG-CG LG-LN-NG-TN-CG-LE-CN-NE-CE LN-TN-LE-LG-CN-NE-NG-CE-CG NE-TN-CE-LE-CN-LN-NG-CG-LG NG-TN-CG-LG-CN-LN-NE-CE-LE TN-CN-LN-NE-NG-CE-LE-CG-LG These alignments are then numbered from 1 to 9 in order. An equal percentage of each remainder fits the category, with the final remainder being placed back into the main population. I use the average population percentage given. For "often" races, the mean is 45%. For "usual" races, the mean is 75% Then I do the math (rounding down, remainders added to the dominant alignment). Often: 47 24 13 8 4 2 1 1 0 Usual: 76 18 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 These percentages always work pretty well to me. Any category that is zero is so unique as to be almost as rare as an Always aligned creature not of that alignment. ("Always" aligned creatures require magical interference to change alignments. So every instance of a differentiated "always" aligned creature is specifically written into the plot.) Note that children are always TN in my world, and people can't even take alignment until they reach the Adult age category. What does this mean? In a 100-individual band of often CE orcs, you might have 3 good members (assuming they weren't killed or run off). They are probably miserable and will likely surrender at the first opportunity. In a 200-individual tribe of usually chaotic evil gnolls, you wouldn't have a single good-aligned or lawful-aligned member. (My one exception is often True Neutral communities. I up the LG contingent to 1 per 100, rather then zero, and drop the TN contingent by 1.) Something else to keep in mind: Although humans are often neutral (probably), their communities in most standard fantasy settings are mostly populated by the PC races (gnomes, dwarves, halflings, half-elves, half-orcs, gnomes), and these races tend more to good alignments than to evil ones. (Dwarves-often LG, Elves-usually CG, Gnomes-Usually NG, Halflings-Usually TN). Only half-orcs, which, if they follow their orc heritage are often CE, skew to the evil side, though this is partly offset by half-elves who would tend to be usually CG, like their elven parentage. This means multiracial humanoid communities would skew towards goodness (and slightly leaning to chaos thanks to the half-orcs and half-elves). This could be adjusted for by allowing other humanoids to live amongst them. Cityscape suggests the usually lawful evil hobgoblins. Personally, for multiracial communities, I would shift all races slightly towards the center. Races that are usually an alignment would become "often" that alignment in a diverse community (so even halflings become merely "often" TN in a diverse community). Races that are "often" an alignment would instead shift one step closer to the community alignment (and retain the "often").
CharlieRock 03-20-07, 05:47 PM	I agree in DM's liberty of interpretation, I just don't find black-and-white statements such as "all orcs are evil" as believable. Seems just as believable to me as the rest of it (dragons, magic, etc.) If I wanted believability, I would play Twilight:2000 or something. :D Edit: Orc is not the imaginative invention of Tolkien. Orcs figured into fantasy/folklore long before LotR. We get the term from OE 'orke' (same word we get the name 'ogre' from. Are orcs and orgres related? Maybe in true fantasy, not in D&D.) 'Orke' descends from the latin 'orcus' which literally means 'from hell'. (making the orca the 'whale from hell' ,I suppose.) Is it a stretch of the imagination that a race that is 'from hell' entirely evil? Not so much, for me.
Euclid 03-20-07, 06:14 PM	Seems just as believable to me as the rest of it (dragons, magic, etc.) If I wanted believability, I would play Twilight:2000 or something. :D Edit: Orc is not the imaginative invention of Tolkien. Orcs figured into fantasy/folklore long before LotR. We get the term from OE 'orke' (same word we get the name 'ogre' from. Are orcs and orgres related? Maybe in true fantasy, not in D&D.) 'Orke' descends from the latin 'orcus' which literally means 'from hell'. (making the orca the 'whale from hell' ,I suppose.) Is it a stretch of the imagination that a race that is 'from hell' entirely evil? Not so much, for me. That is stretching it so far it isn't funny. Are all orca whales evil? What does this mean? In a 100-individual band of often CE orcs, you might have 4 good members (assuming they weren't killed or run off). They are probably miserable and will likely surrender at the first opportunity.But a good number of neutral ones.
wrecan 03-20-07, 06:21 PM	Yes. And? Are you under some misimpression that "neutral" means "innocent"? A 100-strong band of orcs that has eliminated its good/LN contingent would have: 67 evil (48 CE, 14 NE, 5 LE) and 33 neutral (25 CN, 8 TN) In comparison, that 200-strong tribe of gnolls that has eliminated its good/LN contingent would have: 162 evil (151 CE, 10 NE, 1 LE) and only 38 neutral (36 CN, 2 TN) But those neutral orcs and gnolls aren't "nice". They're still bloodthirsty marauders. They CN ones just enjoy the destruction and the true neutral ones are in it for the glory and profit. They just haven't killed an innocent yet (but have likely assaulted and robbed innocents). (The older orcs and gnolls might consider them a bit "green", bloodbath virgins, if you will.)
Euclid 03-20-07, 06:46 PM	So, given an orc warband, the number of neutral aligned orcs in it will decrease over time, regardless of them getting killed? And that being a greedy marauder doesn't involve destruction of innocent life, regardless of actual killing? And that if an innocent archer is shooting at you, who are neutral, nigh, even good, it is evil to kill him? Yes. And? Are you under some misimpression that "neutral" means "innocent"? No. I'm saying that that by no means justifies wholesale genocide.
wrecan 03-20-07, 06:54 PM	So, given an orc warband, the number of neutral aligned orcs in it will decrease over time, regardless of them getting killed? No. The warband stats presume they are warring. That's what warbands do. During war, some of the orcs die. Some of them shift from neutral to evil. And child orcs back at the encampment reach adulthood, are handed a weapon and replace the orcs that have died, eagerto earn their "evil stripes" but, so far, lacking the opportunity. A band of orcs that is not engaging in typical orc behavior should not have typical orc alignments. (Maybe that was a band formed by all those non-evil outcasts.) And that being a greedy marauder doesn't involve destruction of innocent life, regardless of actual killing? It will, eventually. At that point, the marauder becomes evil. It all depends on what they're doing in the mean time. And that if an innocent archer is shooting at you, who are neutral, nigh, even good, it is evil to kill him? Depends on how your DM defines "innocent". I don't equate innocent and good. For me, innocent means "without guile". Children and noncombatants would be innocents to me, not good-aligned archers. But your DM (if you had one) might apply a different definition. No. I'm saying that that by no means justifies wholesale genocide. I think it's all very context-specific. Orcs, particularly warbands that are 2/3 evil and 0% good, are not sitting around sipping tea, waiting for adventurers to show up and slaughter them. They're out marauding.
Euclid 03-20-07, 07:06 PM	I think it's all very context-specific. Orcs, particularly warbands that are 2/3 evil and 0% good, are not sitting around sipping tea, waiting for adventurers to show up and slaughter them. They're out marauding.Perhaps, but the whole species, as terrainmonkey was advocating? That's an evil act right there. An interesting BBEG motivation, especially in a party with elves or people who for some reason have a reason to dislike orcs as a whole. And, if the threat is high enough, possible post-mortem benifits from Gruumsh. He'd be grateful.
wrecan 03-20-07, 07:09 PM	Perhaps, but the whole species, as terrainmonkey was advocating? I agree with you on that, particularly, as I stated, orc children are never evil and, in fact, would be considered innocents in my game. I disagree with terrainmonkey a lot, by the way. Edit: Hold on. Terrainmonkey hasn't posted in like three pages. Are you still arguing his (obviously delusional) point? Another clarification for my game Creatures that are "often" an alignment have no natural predilections to any alignment, but have that alignment due to cultural considerations (usually enforced by a god... such as gruumsh). Creatures that are "usually" an alignment are that way due to a combination of nature and nurture. So a gnoll child brought up in a Church of LG Pelor is still likely to become LE at maturity, but has a significantly greater chance of becoming LN or LG than a standard gnoll.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-20-07, 07:13 PM	Once more with feeling: EVIL DOES NOT MEAN MURDEROUS.
wrecan 03-20-07, 07:17 PM	Once more with feeling: EVIL DOES NOT MEAN MURDEROUS. It means destroying or debasing innocents and debasing is something worse than using magic to enslave people to sacrifice themselves for your well-being. I refer you to the current paladin debate thread for rules citations.
yrogerg 03-20-07, 08:44 PM	Another clarification for my game Creatures that are "often" an alignment have no natural predilections to any alignment, but have that alignment due to cultural considerations (usually enforced by a god... such as gruumsh). Creatures that are "usually" an alignment are that way due to a combination of nature and nurture. So a gnoll child brought up in a Church of LG Pelor is still likely to become LE at maturity, but has a significantly greater chance of becoming LN or LG than a standard gnoll. Actually, that's pretty much *exactly* what the MM says about "usually" and "often", and is really the default, not something particularly specific to your game. Except that the MM also elaborates by calling Often alignments the result of "weak" cultural influence, and describes exceptions as "common". (And truth be told, the differences between CG and NG, and CE and NE, are often so minor that they can barely be termed "exceptions") That said: But those neutral orcs and gnolls aren't "nice". They're still bloodthirsty marauders. They CN ones just enjoy the destruction and the true neutral ones are in it for the glory and profit. They just haven't killed an innocent yet (but have likely assaulted and robbed innocents). (The older orcs and gnolls might consider them a bit "green", bloodbath virgins, if you will.) The big problem I see is that your "neutrals" are a *lot* closer to the PHB's description of "evil" than it is to the description of "neutral": People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them. A "CN" character that's motivated by *destruction* isn't CN, either; that ideal finds its champions in the Abyss, not Limbo.
terrainmonkey 03-20-07, 10:55 PM	Edit: Hold on. Terrainmonkey hasn't posted in like three pages. Are you still arguing his (obviously delusional) point? Delusional, huh? :D Here's the thing about this "always", "often", "seldom", "Sometimes", "Generally" debate. it's pointless. why even have these stupid modifiers in front of the alignment. when you get rid of those things, it makes this whole argument moot. so if it says, "mostly" Chaotic Evil, take away the mostly. done. easy peasy. besides, do you really need to have lawful good orcs? keep the stereotype and have fun killing the evil dreaded monsters in the caves already. i mean you guys have gone around the bend over and over about this for what? to come back to the same disagreement? there's really no need to make out the charts and percentages to prove a point. there's no reason for it. IMC my orcs are chaotic evil. period. they live their lives for slaughter and destruction and enslaving the forces of good. i keep with the stereotype because it's easy. rarely, if ever, have i used the "orc baby and the paladin thing" because it's a situation that has no correct answer and no wrong answer. it's a nebulous argument from the beginning because either way is right. i wouldn't fault a PC for slaughtering them all, and i wouldn't fault him for walking away. it's all about the role playing of the paladin. I personally have played a paladin who had done this and didn't fall because i justified it. the thing is, if it works for your campaign, do it. if it doesn't, then don't. i just object to being labelled a racist or a nazi or whatever else i've been called on this thread. apparently it is very hard to make an argument here without getting blasted.:)
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-20-07, 11:33 PM	keep the stereotype and have fun killing the evil dreaded monsters in the caves already. MAny people enjoy a game with a bit more (say... any) nuance than that. I personally have played a paladin who had done this and didn't fall because i justified it. More thna likely the DM either agreed with Genocidal Good an alignment, or lacked the cajones to make Hannibal the Paladin fall as he should. i just object to being labelled a racist or a nazi or whatever else i've been called on this thread. No one said you were those things. Just that you stole a couple pages from thier playbook with that genocidal, clearly evil tirade.
Eightbitmage 03-21-07, 12:39 AM	Here's the thing about this "always", "often", "seldom", "Sometimes", "Generally" debate. it's pointless. why even have these stupid modifiers in front of the alignment. when you get rid of those things, it makes this whole argument moot. so if it says, "mostly" Chaotic Evil, take away the mostly. done. easy peasy. Yeah, and anyone playing a non-lawful good dwarf should man up and play the stereotype. All he is doing is contributing to a pointless argument. The fact that there are modifiers IS the entire argument. Simply saying that dropping the modifiers ends the argument and so we should do it is not a valid point. Thats like saying "I'm right you're wrong, lets just accept it and move on, its easier than discussing ideas."
terrainmonkey 03-21-07, 07:44 AM	Yeah, and anyone playing a non-lawful good dwarf should man up and play the stereotype. All he is doing is contributing to a pointless argument. The fact that there are modifiers IS the entire argument. Simply saying that dropping the modifiers ends the argument and so we should do it is not a valid point. Thats like saying "I'm right you're wrong, lets just accept it and move on, its easier than discussing ideas." you misunderstand. here's the thing: up until 3rd ed, there were no alignment modifiers. every monster had a set alignment. the DM was free to either use the alignment as written or change it to suit his campaign. the PCs were safe with the knowledge that if they met an orc, they could assume it was an evil creature and smite it, without having a debate about it. this worked for a lot of people. it was simple and wasn't really a debatable issue. orc=evil=dead orc. this was the standard unless the DM made adjustments on his own and decided to throw a wrench into the works with a neutral good or other type of orc. but he did it on his own. there wasn't a nebulous modifier in the book that gave him permission. he just did it. if you want to have lawful good orcs in your game, by all means do it. you want to have lawful evil demontainted dwarves, do it. i'm talking about NPCs here, not PCs. everyone knows they can be whatever alignment they want. but in keeping with tradition, and just to make things easier, MY PCs can rest easy knowing that every orc, kobold, gnoll, or whatever is evil, and there's no debate so they can get to slaying. it works for the story i'm telling, and it works for the 5 or 6 hours that i tell a tale for these yahoos. it's just a game after all. how you play it is your prerogative. i feel no need to add any more complexity to the mix by throwing in societies of lawful good orcs just so i can screw over my players or a paladin in my party out of spite. i like to keep things moving, easy, and less complicated. and i've never heard any complaints yet.
CharlieRock 03-21-07, 08:06 AM	MAny people enjoy a game with a bit more (say... any) nuance than that. You call it nuance. I call it novelty. An old, worn out novelty. :bored:
wrecan 03-21-07, 08:57 AM	you misunderstand. here's the thing: up until 3rd ed, there were no alignment modifiers. Yeah, the game improved. but in keeping with tradition, and just to make things easier, MY PCs can rest easy Who cares? Was this thread "What does Usually Chaotic Evil mean to terrainmonkey"? No. Did your first post in this thread make clear that your pronouncement was about your weird little throwback gaming style? No. You made statements as if that was the way everybody should play and you're quite simply wrong on that point. The rest of us have no problem with modifiers to alignment. i like to keep things moving, easy, and less complicated. and i've never heard any complaints yet. Bully for you. Irrelevant to anybody else.
wrecan 03-21-07, 09:03 AM	Actually, that's pretty much *exactly* what the MM says about "usually" and "often", and is really the default, not something particularly specific to your game. Well, the pretty much is the key. i didn't want people thinking I was giving thema verbatim statement of the rules. What I wrote is my gloss on the rules. The big problem I see is that your "neutrals" are a *lot* closer to the PHB's description of "evil" than it is to the description of "neutral" I think that neutral creatures living in a community outnumbered two-to-one by evil creatures (and absolutely devoid of good creatures) are going to be closer to the evil side of neutrality than the good side. So, that's entirely intentional. A "CN" character that's motivated by *destruction* isn't CN, either; that ideal finds its champions in the Abyss, not Limbo. But individuals don't exist in a vacuum. A CN person can theoretically be motivated by destruction if he hasn't yet destroyed any innocents. That person finds himself in Pandemonium, which is where I assume all the CN and TN orcs in an otherwise evil band of orcs will end up in the afterlife.
Eightbitmage 03-21-07, 10:55 AM	PCs were safe with the knowledge that if they met an orc, they could assume it was an evil creature and smite it, without having a debate about it. I don't think I've ever seen a debate about killing an orc before. Every time I've seen an orc it was either trying to kill the party or random folk, or NOT trying to kill the party or random folk. In the former case my PCs go into smite mode, in the latter they don't, no confusion, no debate, and its simple. Its the same as meeting a human doing those things only they might be afraid that the orc is more LIKELY motivated by evil considering their place in society. The point of the modifiers is to give you wiggle room for alignments. There is no reason to lock every race in as a particular alignment. In my experience people who judge based on actions rather than appearance make better heroes in stories. i'm talking about NPCs here, not PCs. everyone knows they can be whatever alignment they want. Why would a PC orc be allowed to be good while NPC orcs are always evil? throwing in societies of lawful good orcs just so i can screw over my players or a paladin in my party out of spite. Nobody has advocated that, with or without that motivation.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-21-07, 01:02 PM	You call it nuance. I call it novelty. An old, worn out novelty. :bored: Three dimensions are 'novel'. Excuse me a moment... AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, wait, you were serious. Let me laugh harder.
LCD2YOU 03-21-07, 04:15 PM	Okay Val, Just for S&G, how do you handle the DnD fact of no "Good Aligned" Orc Gods? Would not the Shamans and Clerics of said Evil Gods keep the populace in line? How does one stay neutral and still worship an Evil God when they are so pervasive in th culture?
DaidojiTaidoru 03-21-07, 04:38 PM	Okay Val, Just for S&G, how do you handle the DnD fact of no "Good Aligned" Orc Gods? Would not the Shamans and Clerics of said Evil Gods keep the populace in line? How does one stay neutral and still worship an Evil God when they are so pervasive in th culture? Because they're just going through the motions? Or that tribe doesn't have a shaman or cleric? Or some Paladin who wasn't a murdering maniac converted them all to Kord or Pelor? Assuming an Orc tribe has a cleric is a big assumption. Assuming that cleric is a cleric of Grumsh is less of an assumption but still possibly wrong.
kelvinaw273 03-21-07, 05:10 PM	You call it nuance. I call it novelty. An old, worn out novelty. :bored: Like always having evil orcs as sword fodder, and never any moral questions about slaughtering them all. Old and boring, and not even a novelty now or at any time. Sorry, I like my games with more shades of grey than black and white. Maybe if you just ruyn hack'n'slash games, that's all you want. I don't, and I don't enjoy playing in them either.
Stormbrand 03-21-07, 05:13 PM	Once more with feeling: EVIL DOES NOT MEAN MURDEROUS. Correct. Evil is worse. Three dimensions are 'novel'. Excuse me a moment... AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, wait, you were serious. Let me laugh harder. Please show some dignity when posting.
High Octane 03-21-07, 07:28 PM	Please show some dignity when posting. He was quoting Bender. Quoting Futurama on a Dungeons and Dragons board arguing over the definition of a term in the game, dignity left a LOOOOONG time ago.
CharlieRock 03-21-07, 08:21 PM	Three dimensions are 'novel'. Excuse me a moment... AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, wait, you were serious. Let me laugh harder. Well ,I'm sorry you seem to have problems imagining evil characters as having three dimensions. Sorry, I like my games with more shades of grey than black and white. Maybe if you just ruyn hack'n'slash games, that's all you want. I don't, and I don't enjoy playing in them either. Why is it that if someone is evil the game is automatically 'hack-n-slash'? Does your thinking-n-planning end when someone evil shows up. "Okay, stop role-playing guys. Something evil is on the map."
ted_the_mindflayer 03-21-07, 08:45 PM	Hmmm I believe most if not all orcs are evil in the D&D morality sense. Just think of how many PCs are titled towards evil when playing good characters. Then imagine a world where raping a prisoner is not only accepted but highly expected (with taunts of manhood, and questioning of hetrosexuality) But having said that i think a good orc could live in an evil enviroment like a sex slave owner/ hip hop artist named "Goblin pit rap!" . :P LOL A LG orc may not be strong willed enough to not do it and later he would cry in his 10' by 10' room with a chest in the middle :D BTW: Gruummsh and his patheon are very into not supporting orc morality from catching on. It would be very diffcult to go aganist all religon preaching death and destruction of other or you.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-21-07, 11:09 PM	Okay Val, Just for S&G, how do you handle the DnD fact of no "Good Aligned" Orc Gods? Would not the Shamans and Clerics of said Evil Gods keep the populace in line? How does one stay neutral and still worship an Evil God when they are so pervasive in th culture? Same way I went to church every Sunday until I was 10; I can appear to worship without actually believing. You will note that only clerics of a give deity are required to share his alignment. All the other worshippers can be as devout or secular as they choose. Correct. Evil is worse. Okay, sure. Whatever. Please show some dignity when posting. This doesn't even make any sense in context. Well ,I'm sorry you seem to have problems imagining evil characters as having three dimensions. Oh, an evil character can have three dimensions, but a game where everything is black and white is as two-dimensional as your computer screen.
kelvinaw273 03-22-07, 12:13 AM	Why is it that if someone is evil the game is automatically 'hack-n-slash'? Does your thinking-n-planning end when someone evil shows up. "Okay, stop role-playing guys. Something evil is on the map." You've lost me there completely ... why would role-playing stop just because evil has shown up in my game? In my game you spend some time figuring just who the bad guys are, if anyone, or else you know the other side aren't all bad guys, but you have a job to do. What I was referring to was that "All orcs are Evil" is a mindset that lends itself to "Hack'n'slash" games because it does away with moral ambiguities and allows paladins to slaughter mercilessly. In short, having absolute alignments is great for hack'n'slash style games and not so great for good role-playing opportunities. It has nothing to do with evil cropping up on the radar in a game where it isn't all black and white. Start killing as soon as evil shows up and the odds are you will end in up in jail for murder, awaiting trial and probably execution. "Ye who battle with monsters beware, lest ye become a monster ..."
High Octane 03-22-07, 04:02 AM	Well ,I'm sorry you seem to have problems imagining evil characters as having three dimensions. Honestly, I dont think D&D characters really have to have as much intricate depth as people seem to want. D&D characters are meant to be fantastic (In the "in fantasy" sense) and thus are expected to be larger than life. D&D characters are supposed to be exaggerated and romantic, and thus can be limited to their idioms.
CharlieRock 03-22-07, 08:12 AM	Oh, an evil character can have three dimensions, but a game where everything is black and white is as two-dimensional as your computer screen. Not really. Yojimbo did quite well (as well as it's clones Fistful of Dollars ,and Last Man Standing.) It was even filmed in B&W! :D You've lost me there completely ... why would role-playing stop just because evil has shown up in my game? In my game you spend some time figuring just who the bad guys are, if anyone, or else you know the other side aren't all bad guys, but you have a job to do. What I was referring to was that "All orcs are Evil" is a mindset that lends itself to "Hack'n'slash" games because it does away with moral ambiguities and allows paladins to slaughter mercilessly. In short, having absolute alignments is great for hack'n'slash style games and not so great for good role-playing opportunities. It has nothing to do with evil cropping up on the radar in a game where it isn't all black and white. Start killing as soon as evil shows up and the odds are you will end in up in jail for murder, awaiting trial and probably execution. "Ye who battle with monsters beware, lest ye become a monster ..." The only way that lends to Hack-n-Slash gaming is if you have a cast limited to only the PCs and some orcs. What if the orcs had a well-hidden spy ;placed to open up the town gates just past midnight and let the (entirely evil) orc army in? Well now you have an entire army of evil guys and still can't hack-n-slash your way out of it. In Othello you knew who was the bad guy right off the bat. Well, Othello himself didn't. But Iago was still a great ,three-dimensional, Evil, villain. There is always a bad guys presence in great stories. If all your stories do to hook interest is cloud the actual indentity of the bad guy ,then that is just unimaginative DMing. And no amount of reliance on nickel and dime novelties is going to save it from that fact.
Cantankerous 03-22-07, 08:50 AM	There is always a bad guys presence in great stories. If all your stories do to hook interest is cloud the actual indentity of the bad guy ,then that is just unimaginative DMing. And no amount of reliance on nickel and dime novelties is going to save it from that fact. Not true. Many great stories have no Good guy or Bad guy. Alot of great literature is like history and doesn't demand that everything is dumbed down to the level of idiocy so that anyone can boo the villian and applaud the hero from early on. Good and bad, like Evil and Good, are matters of POV in the real world AND in alot of the truly great literature out there. Who is the bad guy in the Trojan War? Who is the Good guy? Maybe all of the gods and goddesses were the bad guys, as you can make as strong a case for Athena being the "bad guy" there as you can for Ares being one, but that doesn't make the like of Paris or Helen or even noble Hector the "good guy" either. Sometimes it's easy, sometimes not so easy, to tell who is who. Isshia
CharlieRock 03-22-07, 09:17 AM	Not true. Many great stories have no Good guy or Bad guy. Alot of great literature is like history and doesn't demand that everything is dumbed down to the level of idiocy so that anyone can boo the villian and applaud the hero from early on. Personally, I rooted for Alexander the Great. No matter what he did to Thebes. :cool: I rooted for Julius Caeser ,though he broke every law he knew about. I rooted for Cao Cao. There were good and bad guys. You just had to decide where you stood to root for one or the other. In Yojimbo, practically everyone except Gonji was the bad guy. In Heaven and Hell we knew who (just not where) the bad guys were. What we didn't know was how good the good guys were. That Kingo Gondo would actually sacrifice his empire for his servant! In King Rat we know who the bad guys are. It is up to us to root for one or the other type of good guy.
Epicweaver 03-22-07, 09:33 AM	This entire thread revolves around semantics. The campaign world sets the precedence for "slaughter the helpless orc babies". And the campaign world is decided by the DM. So at its root, it's DM fiat. So honestly, it really depends on the background/motivation/divine influence/etc you've sketched up as the racial history... Yes, it could be completely normal for humans to kill orcs and vice versa... but that doesn't necessarily make it a Good act (despite the praise from society). I think Good acts rise above culture and racial boundaries, but that's another one of those things that is really just set for the world by DM fiat. Although, I disagree with TMs genocide rants. I believe it's quite possible to approach a setting in that manner as a DM, so I'm not going to hold it against him for it.... His players know? Good. But I wouldn't expect every new player to just 'know it' without being told. The alignment line is always a suggestion... At it's core, it's all about re-working what's there to suite your campaign/adventure needs... If the Orcs being total-monsters makes the campaign that much better, I say go for it. There are lots of ways to do it. Every DM just approaches it in their own way. I don't think any one way is 'better' then another.
Cantankerous 03-22-07, 11:08 AM	Personally, I rooted for Alexander the Great. No matter what he did to Thebes. :cool: I rooted for Julius Caeser ,though he broke every law he knew about. I rooted for Cao Cao. There were good and bad guys. You just had to decide where you stood to root for one or the other. In Yojimbo, practically everyone except Gonji was the bad guy. In Heaven and Hell we knew who (just not where) the bad guys were. What we didn't know was how good the good guys were. That Kingo Gondo would actually sacrifice his empire for his servant! In King Rat we know who the bad guys are. It is up to us to root for one or the other type of good guy. Since you are familiar with King Rat, how about Tai Pan? Was Gornt the bad guy, or maybe Linc, hey, how about Ian himself? Isshia
CharlieRock 03-22-07, 12:11 PM	Since you are familiar with King Rat, how about Tai Pan? Was Gornt the bad guy, or maybe Linc, hey, how about Ian himself? Isshia They never mentioned Cpl. King's first name in the movie. And Teru Shimada's character was simply "Japanese General". Or, are you talking about the James Clavell novel by the same name: http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~aahobor/Lucy-Day/Images/Covers-50/King-Rat.jpg
LCD2YOU 03-22-07, 01:32 PM	The world is full of evil people who think they are good or at least in a process known as "Enlightened Self-Interest".
wrecan 03-22-07, 01:37 PM	That's neutrality. Evil people often justify their actions in several ways. "They were weak, and the world goes to the strong." "I try to stop, but I can't help myself." "You're hypocrites. Deep down we're all just base animals." "I really don't care what you think. Who are you to judge me?"
Cantankerous 03-22-07, 01:58 PM	Or: "Why the Hell bother. If you are the ultimate exemplar of what is supposedly Good you can slaughter a man for no other reason than his not being innocent on a whim and it's not Evil. So, who cares?" Guys, this just doesn't fit into any reasonable description of good or even simply non-evil (not to use the game terms here, but simple common terminology) behavior in any society that has ever existed. It stretches the term Good so far out of true that it might was well be substituted for gobbledygook. It bears no recognizable meaning at all. Isshia BTW Charlie: The book I was refering to was indeed "Noble House" (set in the summer of '63), who's title I had flubbed on. I
DaidojiTaidoru 03-22-07, 02:00 PM	That's neutrality. Evil people often justify their actions in several ways. "They were weak, and the world goes to the strong." "I try to stop, but I can't help myself." "You're hypocrites. Deep down we're all just base animals." "I really don't care what you think. Who are you to judge me?" Pah, you forgot the most often used one. "It's for the greater good." Though I've always been a fan of it's underused relative, "History will absolve me."
wrecan 03-22-07, 02:08 PM	Guys, this just doesn't fit into any reasonable description of good or even simply non-evil (not to use the game terms here, but simple common terminology) behavior in any society that has ever existed. It stretches the term Good so far out of true that it might was well be substituted for gobbledygook. It bears no recognizable meaning at all. And yet the rest of us seem to have no problem with a rules interpretation that so clearly cuts you to the quick. We don't feel stretched, or "out of true". We recognize the meaning of the words just fine. I guess one Cantankerous person's gobbledygook is another person's perfectly consistent understandable interpretation of the rules.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-22-07, 02:14 PM	Define 'the rest of us'. Because he's right, no reasonable person would consider random murder based on phylosophical differnces 'Good' in any sense of the word.
LCD2YOU 03-22-07, 02:14 PM	The world is full of evil people who think they are good or at least in a process known as "Enlightened Self-Interest".That's neutrality.Of course but after dealing with some high level executives when I worked for the company with the "Death Star" logo, you'd be surprised even how out of touch with reality, oh wait, I remember what you do and where you work. :D Evil people often justify their actions in several ways. "They were weak, and the world goes to the strong." "I try to stop, but I can't help myself." "You're hypocrites. Deep down we're all just base animals." "I really don't care what you think. Who are you to judge me?"The last one is the mark, IMO, of a true fiend.
LCD2YOU 03-22-07, 02:16 PM	Define 'the rest of us'.Wrecan, Charlie, Stormbrand, myself and I dare say _Jayne_Cobb_ and perhaps Matthew77. Di dI miss anyone or include someone who wishes not to be included in the "Evil acts are Good" and "Smite on Sight is a great way to make friends and influence people" group? :)Because he's right, no reasonable person would consider random murder based on phylosophical differnces 'Good' in any sense of the word.If the differences were just a philosophical POV, you'd be correct. But as DnD has it that Good and Evil are real and powerful forces, they are no longer philosophies but ways of life. Good protects Innocent life while Evil destroys or debases it.
wrecan 03-22-07, 03:03 PM	Good protects Innocent life while Evil destroys or debases it. And non-innocent life is left in the murky grey area where -- except in extremes -- the only consequences are pragmatic, not alignment based. What's really odd is Vaal is often arguing against the alignment system altogether, that it should be scrapped. So here we are showing that the alignment system really only matters in extreme situations and suddenly Vaal doesn't like it. "No, the alignment system has to be a straightjacket so I can argue it should be abolished."
Stormbrand 03-22-07, 03:06 PM	If the differences were just a philosophical POV, you'd be correct. But as DnD has it that Good and Evil are real and powerful forces, they are no longer philosophies but ways of life. Good protects Innocent life while Evil destroys or debases it. Agreed. Evil is not a 'valid philosophical outlook', it is the active spread of suffering. It is people getting hurt. This doesn't even make any sense in context. Without knowing that you were quoting Futurama, you seemed pretty mocking of disagreement, which is undignified. Now that I know where the quote was from, you appear less so. Scorn is not a valid tool for debate.
Cantankerous 03-22-07, 04:29 PM	And non-innocent life is left in the murky grey area where -- except in extremes -- the only consequences are pragmatic, not alignment based. Of course this is only true when you only use a small part of the description of what Good is, the one small part that is ill defined enough to support any supposition, and ignore the rest of it entirely as "fluff. Sorry, this is just ridiculous. Isshia
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-22-07, 04:47 PM	So here we are showing that the alignment system really only matters in extreme situations and suddenly Vaal doesn't like it. "No, the alignment system has to be a straightjacket so I can argue it should be abolished." How exactly are you showing that? You're arguing for the right to use it as a hollow justification for murders.
Cantankerous 03-22-07, 04:51 PM	How exactly are you showing that? You're arguing for the right to use it as a hollow justification for murders. No, Vaal, not use it as a hollow justification for murder, it's USE A SMALL PART OF IT as a hollow justification for murder and ignore the rest of it entirely. Isshia
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-22-07, 05:00 PM	No, Vaal, not use it as a hollow justification for murder, it's USE A SMALL PART OF IT as a hollow justification for murder and ignore the rest of it entirely. Isshia Oh, okay. Carry on then.
wrecan 03-22-07, 05:05 PM	Of course this is only true when you only use a small part of the description of what Good is, the one small part that is ill defined enough to support any supposition, and ignore the rest of it entirely as "fluff. No, it works because I read the rules based on their actual definitions, not trying to backtrack into some modern preconception of what you want the alignment rules to say. If you think my reading is flawed, explain how (in the thread where that discussion is occurring). The words aren't magical or complicated. "Implies" does not mean "requires". "Innocent" is not a very complicated word. This isn't rocket science. It's just not intuitive. Sorry I forgive you. ;) How exactly are you showing that? You're arguing for the right to use it as a hollow justification for murders. No, I'm not trying to "justify" anything. I'm just saying that a killing of a non-evil non-innocent individual need not cause a paladin to fall, nothing more. Nobody's "justifying" the murder. A lawful good cleric can kill a non-innocent, non-evil person as well and nobody could even argue that he'd fall because clerics don't fall for a single evil act (were this in fact an evil act, which it isn't). The only justification needed is whether it's in character for the character (PC or NPC) to take the act.
wrecan 03-22-07, 05:09 PM	No, Vaal, not use it as a hollow justification for murder, it's USE A SMALL PART OF IT as a hollow justification for murder and ignore the rest of it entirely. Whose "justifying" murder, Cantankerous? When was that even a topic of either of these threads?
Cantankerous 03-22-07, 05:13 PM	No, it works because I read the rules based on their actual definitions, not trying to backtrack into some modern preconception of what you want the alignment rules to say. If you think my reading is flawed, explain how (in the thread where that discussion is occurring). The words aren't magical or complicated. "Implies" does not mean "requires". "Innocent" is not a very complicated word. This isn't rocket science. It's just not intuitive. I forgive you. ;) Hey, you're the one ignoring almost the entirety of the description given and claiming some sort of highground wherein a single word that you KNOW can't be defined within the context of the game completely negates the entirety of the description that was given IF you abuse it the way you advocate doing. The ENTIRE TEXT is there for a reason. That reason obviously isn't so that it can be entirely ignored on the basis of a single word that they do not define. Unless you are talking about the standard dictionary defintion : 1 a : free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil, in which case you can slaughter anyone other than a young child according to you and it has no alignment repurcussions. Buddy, that is simply, patently absurd. Isshia
wrecan 03-22-07, 05:19 PM	Hey, you're the one ignoring almost the entirety of the description given I'm not ignoring it. Unlike you, I'm actually reading it and I, unlike you, understand what the word "implies" means. The ENTIRE TEXT is there for a reason. Agreed. But not the reason you advocate. The text is there to guide players on the typical behavior of people with a given alignment. That does not mean that is the require dbehavior of people with a given alignment. In a discussion of alignment in which someone asks how an evil person typically behaves, reference to the implications is entirely appropriate. In a discussion about what is required to be evil, those citations are irrelevant. Unless you are talking about the standard dictionary defintion : , in which case you can slaughter anyone other than a young child according to you and it has no alignment repurcussions. I never said such a thing. And I certainly never defined innocent as being limited ot "child". As I've said no less than three times to you (and which you seem utterly incapable of comprehending), repeated killing of non-innocent non-evil people will eventually warrant a change to a non-good alignment, which would involve a fall. Buddy, that is simply, patently absurd. Well, it's a good think I never said it, then. Care to make up more absurd straw men?
kelvinaw273 03-22-07, 05:50 PM	Not really. Yojimbo did quite well (as well as it's clones Fistful of Dollars ,and Last Man Standing.) It was even filmed in B&W! :D The only way that lends to Hack-n-Slash gaming is if you have a cast limited to only the PCs and some orcs. What if the orcs had a well-hidden spy ;placed to open up the town gates just past midnight and let the (entirely evil) orc army in? Well now you have an entire army of evil guys and still can't hack-n-slash your way out of it. In Othello you knew who was the bad guy right off the bat. Well, Othello himself didn't. But Iago was still a great ,three-dimensional, Evil, villain. There is always a bad guys presence in great stories. If all your stories do to hook interest is cloud the actual indentity of the bad guy ,then that is just unimaginative DMing. And no amount of reliance on nickel and dime novelties is going to save it from that fact. Ah, but would Othello have been a good story if Othello knew Iago was bad right from the start? if Iago was an orc, and all orcs are evil, Othello would have known not to trust his 'friend'. I'm not saying that good and evil don't exist; I am not saying that evil people don't exist. I am not saying that you have to debate ethics when a maniac attacks you. I am merely saying that the statement "all orcs are evil, and thus all orcs can be slaughtered with imputnity by good-aligned characters without riskming their alignment, even the helpless babies" is incorrect: Orc babies are innocent as any other young; Orc tribes can have neutral, even good members among them. Evil characters very often do not see themselves as evil; they often see themselves as justified, or wronged, or even as the good guys. "Enlightened Self Interest" isn't neutral, it is the first stage on the step down into evil, because ultimately evil is all about self-gratification without any thought of others. Neutral thinks of certain people first, and not others - a neutral person is Good to his friends and family, Evil to his enemies. A Good person is Good toward friend and stranger both, and Evil to his foes when he cannot avoid it. An Evil person looks after number one, and nobody's interests are allowed to come before his own. Iago was motivated by jealousy, Sauron by ego, the Sheriff of Nottingham was motivated by greed. Most regard the subject of their obsession as 'theirs by right' and believe they were unfairly deprived of it, and anything that gets it back for them is therefore justified. Going into these complexes to work out what the BBEG really wants can be fascinating, if the players care to try. it may not actually help them, but it can be fun.
Cantankerous 03-22-07, 05:58 PM	I'm not ignoring it. Unlike you, I'm actually reading it and I, unlike you, understand what the word "implies" means. Agreed. But not the reason you advocate. The text is there to guide players on the typical behavior of people with a given alignment. That does not mean that is the require dbehavior of people with a given alignment. In a discussion of alignment in which someone asks how an evil person typically behaves, reference to the implications is entirely appropriate. In a discussion about what is required to be evil, those citations are irrelevant. I never said such a thing. And I certainly never defined innocent as being limited ot "child". As I've said no less than three times to you (and which you seem utterly incapable of comprehending), repeated killing of non-innocent non-evil people will eventually warrant a change to a non-good alignment, which would involve a fall. Well, it's a good think I never said it, then. Care to make up more absurd straw men? Man, the way you have things, Jack the Ripper wasn't Evil. All those soiled doves had it coming I guess. They certainly weren't Innocents, so killing them wasn't Evil. Besides, we don't need repeated murders. We only need one. Each. Merchant A: "Did you hear? The Paladin, Sir Smitesalot, lost his temper with the bartender at the Comeback Inn and ran his sword through the mans throat when he refused to take foreign currency!" Scholar B: "Why, that's nothing! Another Paladin, Sir Headuphisrear, gutted a young lady of the evening, a soiled dove, because she was an afront to decent people!" Nobleman C: "Well of course they did. They get to do that kind of thing if they don't do it too often. They're Paladins!" Yeah, that will do wonderful things for their image, as the decription of Paladins calls them, "...the final hope that cannot be extinguished." Lawful Good Warrior D: "Errr, I hope they stay the bloody hell away from my village." Isshia
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-22-07, 05:58 PM	No, I'm not trying to "justify" anything. I'm just saying that a killing of a non-evil non-innocent individual need not cause a paladin to fall, nothing more. Nobody's "justifying" the murder. A lawful good cleric can kill a non-innocent, non-evil person as well and nobody could even argue that he'd fall because clerics don't fall for a single evil act (were this in fact an evil act, which it isn't). The only justification needed is whether it's in character for the character (PC or NPC) to take the act. I'm thinking there's another thread I'm not aware of going on. This one is the one with Terrain_monkey arguing that all orcs should be evil so that its okay to kill them all without question.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-22-07, 06:03 PM	An Evil person looks after number one, and nobody's interests are allowed to come before his own. His interests can still be tied to his friends and family. Choosing the wrong path when protecting or avenging loved ones is the classic birth of a villain.
wrecan 03-22-07, 06:27 PM	Besides, we don't need repeated murders. We only need one. Each. Which is, of course, why I keep saying that DMs should take care of this within the Code of Conduct. All of your examples could easily fall uner the bar against dishonorable combat. It's not like I'm saying your preferred vision of paladins is contrary to the rules. I'm just disagreeing with you as to which rule they fit under Yeah, that will do wonderful things for their image Which is exactly why each paladin order would draft up a Code of Conduct to prohibit it and not rely on general pronoucnements against evil acts. I'm thinking there's another thread I'm not aware of going on Paladin debate thread, down the hall to the right. P.S. I never wanted to debate paladin codes in a thread about the adverbial modifers to alignment in monster descriptions and wouoldn't have, if Cantankerous hadn't decided to get all passive aggressive and import our debate in the Paladin debate thread to this one in post 172. Before then, we were all just agreeing that terrainmonkey needs to calm down. A lot. And dicussing how amazingly insightful my demographics charts were. :)
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-22-07, 06:44 PM	Paladin debate thread, down the hall to the right. Oh. That again. I've grown far too weary of the whole 'Chaotic Evil is the best alignment for a Paladin -- but don't dare call it chaotic evil' thing and its proponents to even fight anymore. I just hope that all those people eventually meet a DM with the cajones to stand up to them and thier 'justification' for detect *thump*.
Kresalak 03-22-07, 07:14 PM	Hey guys, I have a question. How can you argue alignment when it contradicts itself all over the place? I mean, on one hand, the description for Lawful Good says: Alhandra, a Paladin who fights evil without mercy, is Lawful Good. While the description for Evil says: "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Now, I'm pretty sure that if you fight something without mercy, you're going to end up hurting and killing them. So how can Alhandra be both Lawful Good and fit the qualifications for Evil?
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-22-07, 07:17 PM	Alahandra's players shouts down the DM whenever she should rightfully fall. Seriously though, that Alahandra thing is the center of all Evil Paladin debates and nothing will ever change until its gone.
Kresalak 03-22-07, 07:54 PM	What about Gaurdinals, which actually roam the cosmos looking for evil to fight? Furthermore, they have no tolerance for evil, which means no saying "oh, they only fight evil if evil is doing something evil right then."
pres_man 03-22-07, 08:14 PM	I personally go witht he following analysis. (Please note this is my own house rule. I don't expect this to be taken as literal truth) Assumptions: It's easier to shift towards neutrality than away from it, because it's easier to take no position than to hold an extreme one. It's easier to shift ethos (law or chaos) than morality (good-neutral-evil), because the moral requirements are more stringent than the ethical ones. It's easier to be chaotic than lawful, as lawfulness requires discipline It's easier to be evil than good, as good requires an element of self-sacrifice Each step away from the standard alignment is equally hard to attain. Then I rank the ladder of alignment shifting from dominant alignment to least-likely alignment. The alignment ladders are: CG-CN-NG-TN-LG-CE-LN-NE-LE CE-CN-NE-TN-LE-CG-LN-NG-LG CN-TN-CE-CG-LN-NE-NG-LE-LG LE-LN-NE-TN-CE-LG-CN-NG-CG LG-LN-NG-TN-CG-LE-CN-NE-CE LN-TN-LE-LG-CN-NE-NG-CE-CG NE-TN-CE-LE-CN-LN-NG-CG-LG NG-TN-CG-LG-CN-LN-NE-CE-LE TN-CN-LN-NE-NG-CE-LE-CG-LG These alignments are then numbered from 1 to 9 in order. Here is my problem with your distribution. You say: It's easier to shift ethos (law or chaos) than morality (good-neutral-evil), because the moral requirements are more stringent than the ethical ones. Yet looking at, say CE, we see: CE-CN-NE-TN-LE-CG-LN-NG-LG Now notice number 2 and 3, it would appear that it was actually more likely that they would shift morality than ethos. Back on the topic in general. Some have suggested that it would make sense for orcs to be just as likely to be CN as to be NE. There is some validity to that idea. But we have to also consider if one axis is more dominant than the other axis (like how wrecan does in his assumptions above). It might be that due to their nature of creation (created by Gruumsh) that they actually tend towards evil more than tending towards chaos. In that case an all evil clan of orcs, with CE being the most common, would not be that unusual. As for good orcs living in a typical orc clan, I might point out that the PHB says for half-orcs that the ones most likely to live in an orc clan are the evil ones, so I think there is reason to believe that good beings would eventually not feel comfortable staying in a CE society. On the other hand, very little of orc culture follows the females of the society, and it might be that there is a significant CG group of female orcs. Female orcs could prefer chaos to evil, while male orcs prefer evil to chaos, "naturally".
Edwind 03-22-07, 08:53 PM	What if a Paladin came across a half fiend baby?....:eek: I'm not sure...I think this arguement is beginning to just become redundent. If the DM puts the Paladin in a situation involving Orc babies, then the DM WANTS said Paladin to fail (I'm still under the assumption that the topic is still about killing orc babies/orcs usual alignment.). Situation 1. DM:"You find Orc babies, what do you do?" PC:"Ah...I leave them alone." DM""You fail! No Paladinhood for you." PC:"Why?!" DM"Their evil." PC"But their babies..." Situation 2. DM:"You find Orc babies, what do you do?" PC:"Ah...I kill them, their orc so their evil." DM"You fail! No Paladinhood for you." PC:"Why?!" DM:"You just killed babies." PC:"But their orcs..." I see no real way out of it. In that situation a PAUSE should be asked for and the Paladin should talk with the DM about his whole idea on his views about evil and babies and orcs and all that. Then go by that judgment, if it's a fair DM, then your choice SHOULD be the right one (Not killing the babies I would think). Congrats Edwind
CharlieRock 03-22-07, 09:57 PM	BTW Charlie: The book I was refering to was indeed "Noble House" (set in the summer of '63), who's title I had flubbed on. Ah, been meaning to read that one. Havn't yet. :whatsthis
wrecan 03-22-07, 10:12 PM	Alahandra's players shouts down the DM whenever she should rightfully fall. Seriously though, that Alahandra thing is the center of all Evil Paladin debates and nothing will ever change until its gone. Alternatively, people could actually learn what the word "implies" actually means.
pres_man 03-22-07, 10:14 PM	Alternatively, people could actually learn what the word "implies" actually means. Right. But why would we want to do that? When we can get things like: Now, I'm pretty sure that if you fight something without mercy, you're going to end up hurting and killing them. So how can Alhandra be both Lawful Good and fit the qualifications for Evil? So now good people can't hurt or kill evil doers. But hugs are just great.
wrecan 03-22-07, 10:22 PM	Here is my problem with your distribution. Ack. My description was incomplete. I should have written It's easier to shift to an extreme ethos than morality and easier to shift to neutrality from an extreme morality that ethos, because the moral requirements are more stringent than the ethical ones. Sorry about that.
CharlieRock 03-22-07, 10:22 PM	Unless you are talking about the standard dictionary defintion : Eww, you might want to use another definition there. Ah, but would Othello have been a good story if Othello knew Iago was bad right from the start? if Iago was an orc, and all orcs are evil, Othello would have known not to trust his 'friend'. Out of all those examples, you pick up on the one I used to show three-dimensionality of evil people. :rolleyes: Fine. Iago did try to use an assassin though. Someone (forgot this guys name) who only interacted with Iago as far as the actual plot was concerned. Make that assassin the orc. I liked Scorpius from FarScape for a 3-D Evil guy, too. (and he was evil :devil: .)
yrogerg 03-22-07, 10:38 PM	I'm not ignoring it. Unlike you, I'm actually reading it and I, unlike you, understand what the word "implies" means. Agreed. But not the reason you advocate. The text is there to guide players on the typical behavior of people with a given alignment. That does not mean that is the require dbehavior of people with a given alignment. In a discussion of alignment in which someone asks how an evil person typically behaves, reference to the implications is entirely appropriate. In a discussion about what is required to be evil, those citations are irrelevant. I don't think I've ever agreed with you more. Here's the question I've raised a few times, though: if the first page of the Alignment section of the PHB defines alignment as a representation of a character's personal philosophy (rather than as a tally sheet of types of actions that character's taken), and you and I are apparently in agreement that the rest of the text is describing "typical" behavior of characters of various alignment, not *necessary* behavior for a character to be of a certain alignment, then why the heck are we disagreeing? And why does LCD2YOU think you share his views (which, AFAICT, have been adamant about a particular action being *required* for an Evil alignment)?
wrecan 03-22-07, 11:13 PM	you and I are apparently in agreement that the rest of the text is describing "typical" behavior of characters of various alignment, not *necessary* behavior for a character to be of a certain alignment, then why the heck are we disagreeing? We are sooo close. The problem is that in between the text that describes alignment as "broad range of personality types or personal philosophies" and the parts of the alignment description that use the word "implies", there is a crucial piece of text that I don't think can be dismissed as mere fluff. Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. This doesn't read as fluff. It doesn't use descriptive text like "implies" This reads as actual rules and I believe should be interpreted as the minimal requirements for acheiving a good or evil alignment, respectively. Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. And I think that's where you and I disagree. You see that as more fluff. I see it as a hard (yet minimal) standard. And why does LCD2YOU think you share his views (which, AFAICT, have been adamant about a particular action being *required* for an Evil alignment)? Because I think he, as do I, sees the quoted text as a rule, and not as descriptive text. In contrast, I believe that Cantankerous and Vaalingrade Ashland see the whole section as hard and fast rules. They read the word "implies" as "requires" and use those words to enforce their preconceived notions of what alignment requires. Cantankerous believes it vindicates his idea that evil can include "mean" and good can fall for being disrespectful to any life. Vaal, thinks that if "implies" is read as requires the whole alignment system is rendered absurd and should be scrapped And if I thought "implies" meant "requires" I'd be inclined to agree.
kelvinaw273 03-23-07, 12:15 AM	His interests can still be tied to his friends and family. Choosing the wrong path when protecting or avenging loved ones is the classic birth of a villain. I agree completely ... the evil character may place another first to begin with, but eventually it becomes all about themslves and their passions. They make one bad decision after another, and slowly fall ... CharlieRock, I agree that Iago was a great three-dimensional villain, but that's just my point. When you make your bad-guys all wear black hats you lose that angle. When all orcs are evil, so that you never have to question whether orcs are deserving of death, you lose the angle of exactly what orcs are; they simply become adventurer fodder.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-23-07, 12:42 AM	In contrast, I believe that Cantankerous and Vaalingrade Ashland see the whole section as hard and fast rules. They read the word "implies" as "requires" and use those words to enforce their preconceived notions of what alignment requires. Cantankerous believes it vindicates his idea that evil can include "mean" and good can fall for being disrespectful to any life. Vaal, thinks that if "implies" is read as requires the whole alignment system is rendered absurd and should be scrapped And if I thought "implies" meant "requires" I'd be inclined to agree. 1.to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated: His words implied a lack of faith. 2.(of words) to signify or mean. 3.to involve as a necessary circumstance: Speech implies a speaker. If Good can be completely bereft of all the things mentioned... in what sense does it 'imply' it? What exactly is your definition of imply? "May, at some rare juncture touch upon?" I'm sorry, but the suggested idea of being sociopathic and murderous is nowhere within the conceivable realm of 'good'. You cannot be mercilous and good at the same time for the same reason a particle cannot be both positively charged and negatively charged in the same instant. You can be good, then fall into bieng mercilous, sure. But once you start being mercilous, you're not good.
pres_man 03-23-07, 12:51 AM	I'm sorry, but the suggested idea of being sociopathic and murderous is nowhere within the conceivable realm of 'good'. There is a difference between killing random people and killing murderous scum. I know that is hard to realize for some. But there is a difference. And in a world where everybody doesn't fall into nicely organized nations and where methods of evidence discover and analysis do not exist, then the putting down of a predator on the innocent is not an evil act. You cannot be mercilous and good at the same time for the same reason a particle cannot be both positively charged and negatively charged in the same instant. Except you can be good and merciless to evil doers. Holding evil doers accountable for the murderous deeds they do has absolutely nothing to do with how you treat other non-evil beings. You can be good, then fall into bieng mercilous, sure. But once you start being mercilous, you're not good. Depends on if you are being merciless to people in general or are you just holding evil murderous scum to the consequences of the choices they made with their free will. Doing the second is not likely to make you stop being good if you are still do other good deeds.
kelvinaw273 03-23-07, 12:55 AM	If Good can be completely bereft of all the things mentioned... in what sense does it 'imply' it? What exactly is your definition of imply? "May, at some rare juncture touch upon?" I'm sorry, but the suggested idea of being sociopathic and murderous is nowhere within the conceivable realm of 'good'. You cannot be mercilous and good at the same time for the same reason a particle cannot be both positively charged and negatively charged in the same instant. You can be good, then fall into bieng mercilous, sure. But once you start being mercilous, you're not good. I concur, with the following qualifier: Good characters can have moment of passion wherein they become 'merciless'. They can be so enraged or inflamed that they throw all ethics to the wind, because, well, everyone has their limit. However these episodes tend to be shortlived and bitterly regretted afterwards, and atoneable. The only person a good person can be systematically merciless to is themselves. So when a paladin "Mercilessly fights evil" thgis does not mean that they fight without mercy for any evil being (remember, evil creatures can repent), it means they do so without thought for themselves, their safety or their own desires.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-23-07, 01:31 AM	There is a difference between killing random people and killing murderous scum. Except they aren't killing someone they know to be murderous scum. They're killing someone who pinged DE, a spell that provides many means of false positives. And even if the target is evil it doesn't mean that they've done anything to deserve death. Except you can be good and merciless to evil doers. No. You cannot. You can be good and despense justice, but justice is only justice in the light of truth and the face of evidence. detect evil is evidence of nothing. ...or are you just holding evil murderous scum to the consequences of the choices they made with their free will. Exactly as a DM should do when a Paladin player slips off th epath of law and good and into detect *thump* mode. When he does this, he becomes murerous scum and suffers the consequence (falling). Also, any death dealt in the name of justice should always be merciful. To brutally savage someone for vengence is not justice; it is atrocity. Its very interesting to me that people so enconsced in the ideals of black and white morality are so rejecting of Four Color Golden Age ideas like 'the person with blood soaked hands is not a good guy or, if he is a good guy, he's trying to repent for his blood soaked past' or 'the guy contemplating genocide is a villain'. I can see these Lawful Evil 'good guys' happily building a mind control device to turn the entire world into mindless drones -- but 'Good' mindless drones.
pres_man 03-23-07, 02:00 AM	Except they aren't killing someone they know to be murderous scum. They're killing someone who pinged DE, a spell that provides many means of false positives. All of which are extremely rare. Might a paladin make a mistake, sure there is a chance, there is also a chance on me winning the lottery also, but I'm not going to spend time worrying about that either. And even if the target is evil it doesn't mean that they've done anything to deserve death. Actually it does. That is what being evil in D&D means. Now, sure as a DM you castriate evil and just make it the mean the bully that used to give nerdy kids swirlies in the bathroom as evil, but realize that you are houseruling at that point. Being evil means you did things that made it so you are destined to be a member of the darkest pits in the afterlife. Look at the creatures that reside there? Are they just people who stole the last piece of pizza or are they the foulest of the foul? No. You cannot. You can be good and despense justice, but justice is only justice in the light of truth and the face of evidence. detect evil is evidence of nothing. Vaal :waits: evidence. What the hell is this now? CSI D&D? That is ridiculous. And yes, detect evil is evidence. It is evidence that the person has been judged by the Universe to be tossed to the pits for what they have done. Might that evidence be wrong? Sure, all evidence has the possibility to be tampered with and wrong. If we are to say we can't act because there may be a 1:1,000,000,000 chance that something might be wrong, then we can't act EVER. You see a guy hack down three people in the street and then rush at you, can't kill him, he might be mind controled, all of that might just be an illusion and a small child is actually in front of you. Exactly as a DM should do when a Paladin player slips off th epath of law and good and into detect *thump* mode. When he does this, he becomes murerous scum and suffers the consequence (falling). If a DM wants to houserule that it is an evil act to take lives of evil doers, great. That should be made clear ahead of time. Of course, the paladin should then invest in Vow of Peace and such, because his fighting days are over at that point. Also, notice noone has ever said that material plane authorities would be fine with a paladin striking down an evil doer. They, like your CSI D&D game, may require "evidence" to justify the action, and even then would think it was their responsibility. So might a paladin run into trouble for slaying an evil doer, even using the core rules. Absolutely, but he wouldn't fall. Also, any death dealt in the name of justice should always be merciful. To brutally savage someone for vengence is not justice; it is atrocity. Why? Is this just some "new-age" thinking that says you can not combine vegence and justice? Why is the idea of an eye for an eye so wrong? Sure in our "enlightened" world it may seem harsh, but in a world with real monsters, it might have its place. Its very interesting to me that people so enconsced in the ideals of black and white morality are so rejecting of Four Color Golden Age ideas like 'the person with blood soaked hands is not a good guy or, if he is a good guy, he's trying to repent for his blood soaked past' or 'the guy contemplating genocide is a villain'. Not sure what you are refering to (sorry not schooled in the "classics"), but it seems like you are saying that killing and being good are incapatible. If that is the case then come on Vow of Peace. Holy Avenger? (avenger isn't that someone that avenges? Isn't that vengence?) That is no weapon for a paladin, a reed switch is what a paladin needs, so he can "punish" those evil doers. Wait is corporal punishment evil also? I can see these Lawful Evil 'good guys' happily building a mind control device to turn the entire world into mindless drones -- but 'Good' mindless drones. *Yawn* if you are not interested in intellicultual discussion, just say so.
Cantankerous 03-23-07, 02:21 AM	Which is, of course, why I keep saying that DMs should take care of this within the Code of Conduct. All of your examples could easily fall uner the bar against dishonorable combat. It's not like I'm saying your preferred vision of paladins is contrary to the rules. I'm just disagreeing with you as to which rule they fit under Which is exactly why each paladin order would draft up a Code of Conduct to prohibit it and not rely on general pronoucnements against evil acts. Wrecan, the problem becomes that a Paladin does not fall for a single breach of his Code of Conduct. He falls for a single act of evil. These Paladins sure CAN, the way you've got things set up, do exactly as described and still be Paladins, although the acts described are about as anti-Paladial/Blackguardish as one might want. Isshia
Cantankerous 03-23-07, 02:28 AM	In contrast, I believe that Cantankerous and Vaalingrade Ashland see the whole section as hard and fast rules. They read the word "implies" as "requires" and use those words to enforce their preconceived notions of what alignment requires. Cantankerous believes it vindicates his idea that evil can include "mean" and good can fall for being disrespectful to any life. Vaal, thinks that if "implies" is read as requires the whole alignment system is rendered absurd and should be scrapped And if I thought "implies" meant "requires" I'd be inclined to agree. Passive agressive anyone? Yeah, tell everyone what I think, in a completely backwards and utterly stilted manner and then claim passive agression on my part? Can you be any more hypocritical? This, on my part ain't passive bub. Get it straight. I have NEVER, in any fashion, ever, indicated that Evil was EVER venial. Your complete refusal to use any part of the description of Good but one word which is not defined in any manner and so allows you to assign to it whatever meaning you want at the moment allows you to continue to play the hypocrit while claiming some sort of moral high ground in which, by your defintion, Jack the Ripper wasn't Evil. Sorry, no. Isshia
kelvinaw273 03-23-07, 03:28 AM	All of which are extremely rare. Might a paladin make a mistake, sure there is a chance, there is also a chance on me winning the lottery also, but I'm not going to spend time worrying about that either. A paladin should worry. If he kills one person who did not deserve death he has performedf an Evil act, and he falls, by RAW. Actually it does. That is what being evil in D&D means. Now, sure as a DM you castriate evil and just make it the mean the bully that used to give nerdy kids swirlies in the bathroom as evil, but realize that you are houseruling at that point. Being evil means you did things that made it so you are destined to be a member of the darkest pits in the afterlife. Look at the creatures that reside there? Are they just people who stole the last piece of pizza or are they the foulest of the foul? There are degrees of Evil, and has been stated elsewhere most creatures that are evil do not think of themselves as such. A character that has been pushed beyond their limits may perform deeds that are evil and gain an evil alignment, but still think of themselves as good. A p[erson may perform a crime of passion and then relent. A man may murder and, in certain judicial systems, perform a kind of atonement by paying a weregild. The character HAS performed an act that may make their alignment evil, but they have also acquitted themselves in the eyes of the law, and hence do NOT deserve death. The paladin who Smite-O-Matics this person is a murderer. Vaal :waits: evidence. What the hell is this now? CSI D&D? That is ridiculous. And yes, detect evil is evidence. It is evidence that the person has been judged by the Universe to be tossed to the pits for what they have done. Strange as it may seem, most judicial systems do require evidence. If Paladins in your game have the right of dispensing justice then they may use their power to detect evil as evidence - but it only takes one fallen paladin to start pointing at people and saying 'they are evil' to make a mockery of the entire system. Even the Salem Witch Trials had more judicial process than that. Generally speaking most judicial systems require more than just an accusation of 'I don't like that person' to condemn somebody to death. They require, for example, that the crime and victim be named, that witnesses be brought forward, that any evidence be examined. Medieval justice may not have been very enlightened but it did actually require some process. Might that evidence be wrong? Sure, all evidence has the possibility to be tampered with and wrong. If we are to say we can't act because there may be a 1:1,000,000,000 chance that something might be wrong, then we can't act EVER. You see a guy hack down three people in the street and then rush at you, can't kill him, he might be mind controled, all of that might just be an illusion and a small child is actually in front of you. Sure, but now you confuse justice with self-defence. If you are attacked by anyone you have a right to defend yourself (usually). If you see the man hack dowmn three people, then throw his weapoon down and beg the gods for mercy for his deeds, chopping his head off there and then is generally considered bad form. If a DM wants to houserule that it is an evil act to take lives of evil doers, great. That should be made clear ahead of time. Of course, the paladin should then invest in Vow of Peace and such, because his fighting days are over at that point. Also, notice noone has ever said that material plane authorities would be fine with a paladin striking down an evil doer. They, like your CSI D&D game, may require "evidence" to justify the action, and even then would think it was their responsibility. So might a paladin run into trouble for slaying an evil doer, even using the core rules. Absolutely, but he wouldn't fall. But he would if he was wrong and they were not evil, and he had the option of NOT killing them very clearly in front of him with no risk to himself or to others. Why? Is this just some "new-age" thinking that says you can not combine vegence and justice? Why is the idea of an eye for an eye so wrong? Sure in our "enlightened" world it may seem harsh, but in a world with real monsters, it might have its place. It may indeed. But ruthlessly extirminating everything that pinbgs on the radar is not justice or even vengeance, it's fanaticism. Not sure what you are refering to (sorry not schooled in the "classics"), but it seems like you are saying that killing and being good are incapatible. If that is the case then come on Vow of Peace. Holy Avenger? (avenger isn't that someone that avenges? Isn't that vengence?) That is no weapon for a paladin, a reed switch is what a paladin needs, so he can "punish" those evil doers. Wait is corporal punishment evil also? They are not incompatible, but when Good must respect life and Killing takes it away, you have to walk a fine line. For a Paladin it is very fine indeed, and Smite-O-Matic can cross it easily.
pres_man 03-23-07, 04:11 AM	kelvinaw273, I responded to your points here in the other thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11862417&postcount=934 I did not want to be responsible for continuing to derail this one.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-23-07, 07:28 AM	Strange as it may seem, most judicial systems do require evidence. If Paladins in your game have the right of dispensing justice then they may use their power to detect evil as evidence - but it only takes one fallen paladin to start pointing at people and saying 'they are evil' to make a mockery of the entire system. Even the Salem Witch Trials had more judicial process than that. Generally speaking most judicial systems require more than just an accusation of 'I don't like that person' to condemn somebody to death. They require, for example, that the crime and victim be named, that witnesses be brought forward, that any evidence be examined. Medieval justice may not have been very enlightened but it did actually require some process. Wait! I know someone who didn't require evidence to torture and kill those he called evil doers -- Torquemada. Truly, there was no greater scion of Law and Good. A true Paladin to the core. Nobody expects the Peloric Inquisition!
wrecan 03-23-07, 08:54 AM	If Good can be completely bereft of all the things mentioned... in what sense does it 'imply' it? The terms "good implies" are not applicable to every individual. The word "implies" means it is talking about a group as a whole. Inidivdual results may vary. So it is wrong to require every good person to adhere to every quality indicated in the implicative language. That precisely why the sentences are prefaced with the word "implies", as opposed to the sentence I rely upon which specirfically does not use that word (or language to that effect) What exactly is your definition of imply? "to contain potentially (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/imply)" I'm sorry, but the suggested idea of being sociopathic and murderous is nowhere within the conceivable realm of 'good'. Nor do I say it is. Someone who goes around sociopathically murdering non-evil, non-innocents is going to be neutral. Someone who kills one non-evil non-innocent is not sociopathic. But once you start being mercilous, you're not good. Umm. What does "mercilous" mean? I can't find this word in any dictionary. (I'm not being facetious. If this was just a misspelling of "mercenary" "mercurial" or "merciless", I apologize.) Wrecan, the problem becomes that a Paladin does not fall for a single breach of his Code of Conduct. He falls for a single act of evil. I don't see this as a problem, unless you want it to be really easy for a paladin to fall, and I see no reaosn why that should be so, in the rules. the acts described are about as anti-Paladial/Blackguardish as one might want. I don't think they are. The problem is you're hangup on what is paladinish and blackguardish. You're the one trying to shoehorn your preconceptions into the game, not I. I'm just telling you what the words mean. You're the one bristling because they don't mean what you thought they did. Passive agressive anyone? Says the man who decided to vent his frustrations in the paladin debate thread into this one, thus derailing what was otherwise a polite discussion. Well done, Isshia. Well done. :clap: tell everyone what I think I prefaced it with "I believe" in an effort to encapsulate the discussion. Really, Isshia, are there any phrases in English you are capable of comprehending, or must every word be defined for you so you aren't mortally offended? Your complete refusal to use any part of the description of Good but one word Actually, I use entire sentences. A paragraph, even. Your inability to comprehend what the word "implies" means continues unabated, however.
Cantankerous 03-23-07, 09:09 AM	I don't see this as a problem, unless you want it to be really easy for a paladin to fall, and I see no reaosn why that should be so, in the rules. I don't think they are. The problem is you're hangup on what is paladinish and blackguardish. You're the one trying to shoehorn your preconceptions into the game, not I. I'm just telling you what the words mean. You're the one bristling because they don't mean what you thought they did. Says the man who decided to vent his frustrations in the paladin debate thread into this one, thus derailing what was otherwise a polite discussion. Well done, Isshia. Well done. :clap: I prefaced it with "I believe" in an effort to encapsulate the discussion. Really, Isshia, are there any phrases in English you are capable of comprehending, or must every word be defined for you so you aren't mortally offended? Actually, I use entire sentences. A paragraph, even. Your inability to comprehend what the word "implies" means continues unabated, however. Oh, I understand implies. to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement It seems however that you don't. You do understand double talk though. Talk about a thing by exclusion, claiming that you don't need to describe or define it, and then claim you've discussed it extensively. Yep, perfect republi-speak. Say nothing of substance and claim you've discussed it extensively. It isn't easy for a Paladin to fall by following the actual RAW, the whole of it, not just the tiny one undefined word you want to follow, UNLESS you are running a "Paladin" based on the morality of Jack the Ripper. But wait. That is what you're advocating, by inference anyway. I don't have to shoehorn anything in. I'm the one using the whole of the description in the RAW, not the one ignoring 98% of it, claiming that everything but the one thing you (mistakenly) thinks supports your point is fluff. Isshia
wrecan 03-23-07, 09:14 AM	Oh, I understand implies. It seems however that you don't. I linked to the Merriam-Webster definition, Isshia. I know you like talking to this shadow-Wrecan who is speaking to you in your head, but the real Wrecan (me) actually answered the question and provided links to the definition supporting it in the actual post that you wuoted (but apparently didn't read).
CharlieRock 03-23-07, 09:22 AM	CharlieRock, I agree that Iago was a great three-dimensional villain, but that's just my point. When you make your bad-guys all wear black hats you lose that angle. When all orcs are evil, so that you never have to question whether orcs are deserving of death, you lose the angle of exactly what orcs are; they simply become adventurer fodder. Only only only if your bad guys are all orcs. If your cast of characters consist of the PCs, some innocent villagers, and an orc army (well, you could end up with Seven Samurai) then it becomes what you described. Some bad guys are just sword fodder. Iago's assassin dude. Some you know are evil. And that still doesn't ease the complications. Scorpius from FarScape. He could easily have been an evil half-orc rogue working for a (mostly LE) human kingdom against a CE orc empire. I have found a limitless supply of stories without using the 'good but misunderstood' orc guys. By the time the orcs show up ,usually the PCs have; a)already done their detective work and are having their final 'showdown' where the bad guy reveals he has orc fighters in his cellar (that's always good for a surprise), or b)fumbled the ball and the bad guy is going to town with his fanatical orc retainers. In showbiz terms ,the orcs are extras. I don't care how shallow they seem. They are there for certain scenes (battles) and fill certain roles (minions). When I watch The Wild Bunch do I wonder if all those bad guys are really bad? No. Because I'm already commited into the story. I just want to know 'what happens next'. P.S. Like, if I'm doing a Sherlock Holmes style campaign. I don't make Prof. Moriarity an orc. I make one (or more) of his henchmen an orc. S.Holmes:"So, Professor. We have finally caught you. Inspector, I believe the evidence you need is in the closet." Prof.M:"Yes, you finally won." Inspector:"We'll just have a look in the closet then ... Argh! An orc!" *Splat!* Watson:"I wonder if that orc is truly evil?" S.Holmes:"That's elemetary, Watson. Run!"
Cantankerous 03-23-07, 09:39 AM	I linked to the Merriam-Webster definition, Isshia. I know you like talking to this shadow-Wrecan who is speaking to you in your head, but the real Wrecan (me) actually answered the question and provided links to the definition supporting it in the actual post that you wuoted (but apparently didn't read). Sure I did. But appearantly while you linked to it, you either didn't read it or can not comprehend it, so for the sake of brevity, I quoted it again. But you know, Webster's also provides a fine and nearly exhaustive defintion of "water", and they often imply that it is wet, but NEVER in that long and nearly exhaustive defintion do they say it straight out. Imagine that! Isshia
wrecan 03-23-07, 09:41 AM	What part of the definition "to contain potentially" do you think I am misunderstanding?
Cantankerous 03-23-07, 09:47 AM	disregard, computer connection glitch
Cantankerous 03-23-07, 09:49 AM	What part of the definition "to contain potentially" do you think I am misunderstanding? See the addition to the post above. About water, and wet and apply that to the first listed and most common defintion for imply from Websters. ;) The obsolte form is listed first, as is common, then the most used in order of their commonality. The one I linked is that most used defintion. Isshia
Cantankerous 03-23-07, 09:50 AM	disreagrd, double post stupid slow internet connection...it's supposed to be broadband
CharlieRock 03-23-07, 10:09 AM	disreagrd, double post stupid slow internet connection...it's supposed to be broadband Kick it! ;)
wrecan 03-23-07, 10:15 AM	You know, you went so long before falling back on your water is wet mantra, I thought we were making real progress. At any rate, I must now remind you again, that my argument is that smite-on-sight is permissible, not mandatory. So long as there is a definition for implies that supports my argument (and I linked to it), my argument is valid. For you to negate my argument, you must show that there is no definition of implies for which my argument works. Second, the definition that Vaal cited and which you so enthusiastically adopted, also doesn't mean "requires": to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement Does "indicate" mean "requires"? Does "inference"? Only "necessary consequence" might, but of course, that's only one of three elements, the others being "inference" and "association". Even using your cited definition, the "implies" sentences are in no way sentences of prerequisites for being good or evil. They are merely statements of behavior that, by inference or association, are indicative of good and evil. So we now have two definitions of "indicates" and they both support my argument. Care to venture a third defintiion?
Cantankerous 03-23-07, 12:08 PM	You know, you went so long before falling back on your water is wet mantra, I thought we were making real progress. At any rate, I must now remind you again, that my argument is that smite-on-sight is permissible, not mandatory. So long as there is a definition for implies that supports my argument (and I linked to it), my argument is valid. For you to negate my argument, you must show that there is no definition of implies for which my argument works. Second, the definition that Vaal cited and which you so enthusiastically adopted, also doesn't mean "requires": to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement Does "indicate" mean "requires"? Does "inference"? Only "necessary consequence" might, but of course, that's only one of three elements, the others being "inference" and "association". Even using your cited definition, the "implies" sentences are in no way sentences of prerequisites for being good or evil. They are merely statements of behavior that, by inference or association, are indicative of good and evil. So we now have two definitions of "indicates" and they both support my argument. Care to venture a third defintiion? None of them mean that the entire body of text should be ignored because of their presence either though, no matter how much you want it too. I noticed you gamely tried to leave out "necessary consequence", relagating it to might, when you know that necessary and might do not equate, and tried gamely too to double talk out if it by linking it inextricably with indicate and inference even though there is an OR in there... cute again, but no cigar. That thus, because of the ORs there could lso be correctly read as: "to involve... by necessary consequence." Isshia
wrecan 03-23-07, 12:16 PM	None of them mean that the entire body of text should be ignored Not ignored (which I've already told you). Judst read as descriptive text, rather than a requirement. And yes, that's exactly what the definitions (both the one you relied on and the one I relied on) say. I noticed you gamely tried to leave out "necessary consequence" I addressed it directly! It is modified by the conjunction "or". which is non-inclusive. That thus, because of the ORs there could lso be correctly read as: "to involve... by necessary consequence." Yes, but as has been explained to you repeatedly, I don't need every possible definition to fit my argument because my argument is that smite-on-sight is permissible, not required. You're the one claiming it is impermissible, so you're the one who has to show there is no interpretation that allows for it. (Also an argument that's been repeatedly explained to you)
DaidojiTaidoru 03-23-07, 01:24 PM	All of which are extremely rare. Might a paladin make a mistake, sure there is a chance, there is also a chance on me winning the lottery also, but I'm not going to spend time worrying about that either. Misdirection is a second level spell. An item that can cast it once a day is 2160 gold. And in that distopian realm where paladins can murder people solely on the basis of detecting evil, evil people should use those items every day, just for fun.
pres_man 03-23-07, 01:28 PM	Misdirection is a second level spell. An item that can cast it once a day is 2160 gold. And in that distopian realm where paladins can murder people solely on the basis of detecting evil, evil people should use those items every day, just for fun. If you were going to spend that much on an item, an item that might fail, remember misdirection gives the viewer a will save, wouldn't it be smarter to get instead get an item that masks your own aura, than to try and set a paladin up? I mean while you are sitting there laughing that one paladin smote some innocent nob, you missed the other paladin that bum rushed you, yourself.
wrecan 03-23-07, 01:32 PM	Misdirection is a second level spell. To get an innocent to appear evil, the evil person has to remain in sight of the innocent (and thus of the smiting paladin) and himself detects as evil. So he has to use a second misdirection spell. The paladin also gets a Will save against a DC of 12 (if you use an item, as suggested) (four, actually, since it takes three rounds to detect evil on the innocent, and he'll know the gig is up if he saves when scanning the caster for the first time too). A first-level paladin with a +1 Wisdom bonus will fail four DC 12 Will saves only once in 16 times. So it's a really poor plan in which the evildoer can expect to be caught (and smote) 15 times out of 16. And because it's such a poor plan, it's unlikely anybody will do it. It would be easier to use basic glamers to make an innocent appear to be killing a baby.
DaidojiTaidoru 03-23-07, 01:33 PM	If you were going to spend that much on an item, an item that might fail, remember misdirection gives the viewer a will save, wouldn't it be smarter to get instead get an item that masks your own aura, than to try and set a paladin up? I mean while you are sitting there laughing that one paladin smote some innocent nob, you missed the other paladin that bum rushed you, yourself. Undetectable alignment is first level spell (2nd for clerics) that lasts 24 hours thus an item costs 360 gp. 1000 gp if you want the version that doesn't go down to dispel magic, but you can upgrade when you get the cash. But once you have that (or if you can cast it yourself) you're set, so after that you might as well start muddling passerbys auras just in case a Paladin rolls a 1 on his save. 'Cuase your evil. Edit: To wrecan, the range is only for the initial casting. The efects remain even after you leave. As an added bonus undetectable alignment gives no save.
wrecan 03-23-07, 01:35 PM	Undetectable alignment is first level spell (2nd for clerics) You can't make yourself the target of a misdirection spell if you have undetectable alignment. Otherwise, the innocent commoner will not detect as evil (since neither do you). That's not going to trap any paladins. (Although it is a good way for evil people to walk about town and not have to worry about being smote by random paladins.) Edit: You're right. Even so, the trap has a 1-in-8 chance of working. It's still easier to use a glamer to make the commoner look like he's killing a baby. That's only one save to avoid (1-in-2 chance of working), and works even on paladins who don't smite-on-sight. So if I'm not going to make a paladin fall for the illusory baby-killer trap, I'm not going to make him fall for the illusory evil innocent trap.
DaidojiTaidoru 03-23-07, 01:43 PM	You can't make yourself the target of a misdirection spell if you have undetectable alignment. Otherwise, the innocent commoner will not detect as evil (since neither do you). That's not going to trap any paladins. (Although it is a good way for evil people to walk about town and not have to worry about being smote by random paladins.) Edit: You're right. Even so, the trap has a 1-in-8 chance of working. It's still easier to use a glamer to make the commoner look like he's killing a baby. That's only one save to avoid (1-in-2 chance of working), and works even on paladins who don't smite-on-sight. So if I'm not going to make a paladin fall for the illusory baby-killer trap, I'm not going to make him fall for the illusory evil innocent trap. The thing is the glamor requires you be nearby and cast a spell while the paladin is near. Misdirection you just fire off and wait. You'll get lucky eventually. Unless Paladins aren't morons who just attack everything that pings. Detect Evil should be a sign that something is up and cause for suspicion/ internment/ demands for immediate surrender. But straight out attacking them is just a sign that the Paladin is too lazy to check his findings. Which isn't really a respect for life.
wrecan 03-23-07, 01:47 PM	Unless Paladins aren't morons who just attack everything that pings. Or, unless paladins have an organization behind them. 7-in-8 chance to see that misdirection is being used. Does the paladin just forget this factoid and go on his merry way? No. he goes back to the chapterhouse and reports it. Then the paladins start heading out to their local diviner to track down the illusionist. And they send word to the other paladins to hold off on the smite-on-sight until this culprit is tracked down (and smote). Any sorcerer with half a brain, knowing this, wouldn't bother. But straight out attacking them is just a sign that the Paladin is too lazy to check his findings. He doesn't have to. There are plenty of ways to set a paladin trap, even for paladins who don't smite on sight. The ridiculous unlikelihood that some stupid sorcerer is going to set one should be grounds for a fall, any more than the ridiculously small chance that his other senses are failing.
Cantankerous 03-23-07, 01:59 PM	Yes, but Ahh, no. If it CAN be read as "involve... by necessary consequence" then the entire "respect for life" bit BECOMES A REQUIREMENT, which I've explained to you countless times over these few threads. Isshia
wrecan 03-23-07, 02:00 PM	Ahh, no. If it CAN be read as "involve... by necessary consequence" then the entire "respect for life" bit BECOMES A REQUIREMENT Ah, no. That's what the word "or" is for. I'll just toss that onto your ever-expanding vocabublary list, along with "innocent", "implies", "indicates", and "permissible".
EldonG 03-23-07, 03:20 PM	Wow, there's a lot here...but I'd only like to make one simple point for all those that can't see anything but black and white...WOTC has published an orc paladin. If there's an orc paladin...anywhere...then a paladin killing orcs just because they're orcs is a lost cause. Oh...and yes, a sherrif can be evil. And killing him would likely break the LAW...and there goes paladinhood (part of that sticky code, ya know)...unless he had good reason. Seriously, detect evil is not enough.
wrecan 03-23-07, 03:33 PM	Oh...and yes, a sherrif can be evil. And killing him would likely break the LAW...and there goes paladinhood (part of that sticky code, ya know)...unless he had good reason. I doubt any paladin code would consider an evil authority figure "legitimate". Otherwise your sheriff could just order paladins to do evil acts -- "I order you to execute these people and no I will not tell you of what they were convicted, nor, as you know, do I have to under the law." The paladin falls if he obeys (evil act) and falls if he refuses to obey (respect authority). Seriously, detect evil is not enough. Nobody is saying it's the only limit on a paladin. If the code prevents a paladin from smiting all evil, then they cannot do it.
pres_man 03-23-07, 03:34 PM	Oh...and yes, a sherrif can be evil. And killing him would likely break the LAW...and there goes paladinhood (part of that sticky code, ya know)...unless he had good reason. Seriously, detect evil is not enough. Oh, naïveté, so innocent. Law (the alignment) is not about following laws (as in legal issues). Those are two totally different things. Acting illegally (such as killing an evil sheriff) can still be Lawful (the alignment).
EldonG 03-23-07, 04:56 PM	Oh, naïveté, so innocent. Law (the alignment) is not about following laws (as in legal issues). Those are two totally different things. Acting illegally (such as killing an evil sheriff) can still be Lawful (the alignment). Agreed...but...have you never looked at the paladin's code? They are rather given to follow the law of the land. Make note, I wasn't talking about alignment, oh naive one...
EldonG 03-23-07, 04:59 PM	I doubt any paladin code would consider an evil authority figure "legitimate". Otherwise your sheriff could just order paladins to do evil acts -- "I order you to execute these people and no I will not tell you of what they were convicted, nor, as you know, do I have to under the law." The paladin falls if he obeys (evil act) and falls if he refuses to obey (respect authority). Err...no. That's an outright evil act. That's a whole 'nother creature...and far ouside of the legal realm of most sherrifs, might I add.
wrecan 03-23-07, 05:09 PM	Err...no. That's an outright evil act. That's a whole 'nother creature...and far ouside of the legal realm of most sherrifs, might I add. How would you know? You don't know why the sheriff condemned this man to die. Maybe he is an assassin come to slit the lord's throat in the middle of the night. Or maybe he is a peaceful unarmed minstrel caught disparaging the lord's wife in a baudy tale to entertain the peasants and the sheriff's Lawful Evil liege had previous made disparaging his beloved wife a capital offense (and he included it within the same statute that deals with assassination) Both crimes are called "Treason". Either way, assume the sheriff's actions are perfectly legal but only possibly good. The sheriff orders the paladin to execute the man, who has been duly tried and sentenced to death for treason. The paladin doesn't know if the man before him is a vile assassin or simply a harmless minstrel with a loose tongue. Does he comply with the order or not? If not, does he fall for refusing to respect the sheriff's lawful authority? If so, does he fall if the man turns out to be a minstrel?
EldonG 03-23-07, 05:21 PM	How would you know? You don't know why the sheriff condemned this man to die. Maybe he is an assassin come to slit the lord's throat in the middle of the night. Or maybe he is a peaceful unarmed minstrel caught disparaging the lord's wife in a baudy tale to entertain the peasants and the sheriff's Lawful Evil liege had previous made disparaging his beloved wife a capital offense (and he included it within the same statute that deals with assassination) Both crimes are called "Treason". Either way, assume the sheriff's actions are perfectly legal but only possibly good. The sheriff orders the paladin to execute the man, who has been duly tried and sentenced to death for treason. The paladin doesn't know if the man before him is a vile assassin or simply a harmless minstrel with a loose tongue. Does he comply with the order or not? If not, does he fall for refusing to respect the sheriff's lawful authority? If so, does he fall if the man turns out to be a minstrel? Hmmm...and in which society does a sherrif have the authority to order any given citizen to kill someone? None I know of. Kinda wrecks your scenario.
Stormbrand 03-23-07, 06:01 PM	What if a Paladin came across a half fiend baby?....:eek: I'm not sure...I think this arguement is beginning to just become redundent. If the DM puts the Paladin in a situation involving Orc babies, then the DM WANTS said Paladin to fail (I'm still under the assumption that the topic is still about killing orc babies/orcs usual alignment.). Situation 1. DM:"You find Orc babies, what do you do?" PC:"Ah...I leave them alone." DM""You fail! No Paladinhood for you." PC:"Why?!" DM"Their evil." PC"But their babies..." Situation 2. DM:"You find Orc babies, what do you do?" PC:"Ah...I kill them, their orc so their evil." DM"You fail! No Paladinhood for you." PC:"Why?!" DM:"You just killed babies." PC:"But their orcs..." I see no real way out of it. In that situation a PAUSE should be asked for and the Paladin should talk with the DM about his whole idea on his views about evil and babies and orcs and all that. Then go by that judgment, if it's a fair DM, then your choice SHOULD be the right one (Not killing the babies I would think). My choice would be to arrange a surrogate family for the children (since I probably just smited their parents :embarrass ). With a half-fiend, I would find a temple to have it cleansed of unholy influence so it can have a fresh start at life. Except they aren't killing someone they know to be murderous scum. They're killing someone who pinged DE, a spell that provides many means of false positives. And even if the target is evil it doesn't mean that they've done anything to deserve death. No. You cannot. You can be good and despense justice, but justice is only justice in the light of truth and the face of evidence. detect evil is evidence of nothing. Detect Evil is (amazingly enough) evidence of evil. More seriously, it is evidence that the person has done harm in the past (debasing or destroying innocent life) and is of a mind to more harm in the future (for whatever reason). False positives are reasons to investigate before killing. Agreed...but...have you never looked at the paladin's code? They are rather given to follow the law of the land. Make note, I wasn't talking about alignment, oh naive one... Respect Legitimate Authority - which in context would mean opposing the corruption and misuse of that authority, probably replacing the sheriff with someone more worthy.
High Octane 03-23-07, 07:45 PM	Being evil is not a crime. Doing what you did to become evil is the crime. You have to dispense justice correctly for the crime that was commited. Otherwise you are just a vigilante nut with a sword. Thats why Paladins are also lawful as well as good.
CharlieRock 03-23-07, 09:37 PM	If there's an orc paladin...anywhere...then a paladin killing orcs just because they're orcs is a lost cause. There are no orc paladins in my game's world. Nowhere. There are no warforged either, or psionics. Just because it was published in some add-on sourcebook or something doesn't mean it is core RAW or even necessary to play. Edit: WotC has also recently made a Vampire Werewolf character. Another cheap novelty concept. I am under no obligation to allow such as that into my game ,either. (or, the ill concieved succubus paladin.)
pres_man 03-23-07, 10:37 PM	Being evil is not a crime. Doing what you did to become evil is the crime. You have to dispense justice correctly for the crime that was commited. Otherwise you are just a vigilante nut with a sword. Thats why Paladins are also lawful as well as good. Crimes are things defined by societies. So what if evil is done where there is no society. No society means no laws. No laws means there is no crime. Thus the evil deeds were not crimes. And since they were not crimes, then they can't be prosecuted. Thus as long as evil doers act outside of any society with jurisdiction then they have no fear of a paladin being about to smite them unless they just happen to be stopped while doing something.
johnhansen 03-23-07, 11:20 PM	Crimes are things defined by societies. So what if evil is done where there is no society. No society means no laws. No laws means there is no crime. Thus the evil deeds were not crimes. And since they were not crimes, then they can't be prosecuted. Thus as long as evil doers act outside of any society with jurisdiction then they have no fear of a paladin being about to smite them unless they just happen to be stopped while doing something. Evil is also defined by societies.
Kresalak 03-23-07, 11:21 PM	Being evil is not a crime. Doing what you did to become evil is the crime. You have to dispense justice correctly for the crime that was commited. Otherwise you are just a vigilante nut with a sword. Thats why Paladins are also lawful as well as good. Yes, being Evil is not a crime and there's nothing wrong with being Evil in D&D (seriously, 1/3 of all gods will actually reward you in the afterlife for being Evil.) Good, however, is composed of intolerant psychopaths whose sole purpose is to destroy evil. Even if the evil guy is just a jerk, the good guy is required to kill him or else he's not good. If you were able to convince a bunch of evil people that they can get more benefit out of not killing people and working within the law, they could get along fine with society. However, if you brought a bunch of Archons into that society, they would actually ****ing kill the evil people because that's what they do. The purpose of Good is to commit genocide against Evil.
pres_man 03-23-07, 11:34 PM	Evil is also defined by societies. :nonono: In real life perhaps, in D&D, afraid not.
johnhansen 03-23-07, 11:53 PM	:nonono: In real life perhaps, in D&D, afraid not. D&D is a game in our society. The concepts of universal Good and Evil in the game are based from our society.
pres_man 03-24-07, 12:05 AM	D&D is a game in our society. The concepts of universal Good and Evil in the game are based from our society. Are influenced by our society would be more accurate. Morality in D&D is not 21st century western society morality. It is fantasy D&D morality, which is influenced by our societies moralities.
johnhansen 03-24-07, 12:09 AM	Are influenced by our society would be more accurate. Morality in D&D is not 21st century western society morality. It is fantasy D&D morality, which is influenced by our societies moralities. What does "based" mean to you.
pres_man 03-24-07, 12:34 AM	What does "based" mean to you. Based means it makes up the fundamental foundation of the thing, while influenced means that it can be based on something else but its developement can be effected by other things.
johnhansen 03-24-07, 12:53 AM	Based means it makes up the fundamental foundation of the thing, while influenced means that it can be based on something else but its developement can be effected by other things. Good. Now what moral system is D&D based on more than the western moral system that itself was not based on the western moral system.
johnhansen 03-24-07, 12:59 AM	So you are the DM and from the MM, you monster X is "Usually CE". Ok, just what percentage is CE and then the other alignments as well? Well, I propose these examples: Usually CE, works for LG, CG and LE too: CE = 70% NE = 10% CN = 10% LE = 5% CG = 2% LN = 2% LG = <1% NG = <1% Usually NE, works for NG, LN and CN: NE = 70% LE = 9% CE = 9% N = 7% LN = 2% CN = 2% NG = <1% LG = <1% CG = <1% Often TN TN = 45% NG, NE, CN, LN = 10% each CE, CG, LG, LE = <4% each Usually TN TN = 70% NG, NE, CN, LN = 5% each CE, CG, LG, LE = <3% each Often CE, works for LG, CG and LE too: CE = 45% NE = 25% CN = 20% LE = 5% CG = 5% LN = 3% NG = <2% LG = <1% Often NE, works for NG, LN and CN: NE = 45% LE = 15% CE = 15% N = 10% CN = 4% LN = 4% LG = 1% CG = 1% Thought the original start of this post was more interesting than what has been posted lately so here it is again.
EldonG 03-24-07, 11:27 AM	Respect Legitimate Authority - which in context would mean opposing the corruption and misuse of that authority, probably replacing the sheriff with someone more worthy. ...first by attempting to use legal channels, of course. Paladinhood does not grant absolute authority.
High Octane 03-24-07, 11:29 AM	Crimes are things defined by societies. To a paladin, they are defined by a higher power.
pres_man 03-24-07, 02:21 PM	To a paladin, they are defined by a higher power. I am not sure if I would want to label them "crimes", as it might be confused with the legal definition and thus seem a bit arbitrary. Maybe "transgressions", though maybe that is too "soft" of a term. "Offense"? Too subjective sounding? "Outrage" maybe?
CharlieRock 03-24-07, 05:31 PM	I am not sure if I would want to label them "crimes", as it might be confused with the legal definition and thus seem a bit arbitrary. Maybe "transgressions", though maybe that is too "soft" of a term. "Offense"? Too subjective sounding? "Outrage" maybe? Evil?
Stormbrand 03-24-07, 05:48 PM	...first by attempting to use legal channels, of course. Paladinhood does not grant absolute authority. Agreed, but we are now derailing the thread.
HawkTheOne-Handed 03-24-07, 07:25 PM	As much as I loathe orcs and other evil goblinoids (never play in a game where a fellow gamer has a goblinoid pc. Always turn out to be human with a different skin/stats), I can't see the justification behind slaughtering baby orcs. A good person (alignment wise) would leave them to be cared for by the remaining females (can't imagine that they all would fight to the death. Many would grab infants and run or guard the nurseries) or bring them somewhere where the possibility for redemption exists. Certain creatures are irredeemable by pc standards (illithids and giant spiders for example) and I can see how exterminating their nests could be justified. Certain creatures are a genuine threat to all all other sentient beings. Seeking out humanoids for no other reason than the fact that they exist would be an evil act by most standards. Also, can any Paladin players justify why they would murder an otherwise peaceful villager aside from the fact that he radiates minor evil? He may be nothing more than a simple miscreant who cares only about himself and no one else. Hardly a reason for a champion of law and goodness to snuff him. Remember the kingpriest of Ansalon?
LCD2YOU 03-24-07, 07:31 PM	Just had to answer this one.Agreed...but...have you never looked at the paladin's code?Yup, but we have a perfectly good Paladin's Code and more debate on another thread. Why is are these here? I had hoped to get a breakdown of a given species alignment breakdown and where do those that are 2 or more alignments away go as they would almost assuredly be not welcomed?They are rather given to follow the law of the land.So, if the law of the land says, "Eat children", does the Paladin have to follow that?Make note, I wasn't talking about alignment, oh naive one...is you, I'm afraid. Trust me, pres_man has been around for a while.
LCD2YOU 03-24-07, 07:41 PM	As much as I loathe orcs and other evil goblinoids (never play in a game where a fellow gamer has a goblinoid pc. Always turn out to be human with a different skin/stats), I can't see the justification behind slaughtering baby orcs. If you are one who has that Orcs are basically TN but are guided to CE due to religion, that's fine. My baby orcs are not really all that good from the start, but that's my game. Also, Gruumish, the Orc's patron God I don't think likes "good orcs".A good person (alignment wise) would leave them to be cared for by the remaining females (can't imagine that they all would fight to the death. Many would grab infants and run or guard the nurseries) or bring them somewhere where the possibility for redemption exists.Why would they do that? I'd think that they'd be nursing, pardon the pun, the resolve in their kids to be as mean as Gruumish would want them to be.Certain creatures are irredeemable by pc standards (illithids and giant spiders for example) and I can see how exterminating their nests could be justified. Certain creatures are a genuine threat to all all other sentient beings.Agreed but there's always that "weirdo".Seeking out humanoids for no other reason than the fact that they exist would be an evil act by most standards.If one has reason to believe they are all evil, not really. If one has never known a "good" Orc and has only seen the pillaging and destruction left behind from a raid, they'd think that every Orc is "evil" and like Flayers, all need to die to make all feel safer.Also, can any Paladin players justify why they would murder an otherwise peaceful villager aside from the fact that he radiates minor evil?Even radiating evil means he has done some horrid things. What is your definition of evil? Take this to the Paladin thread as we're already talking about it over there. I think you'll find it enlightening.He may be nothing more than a simple miscreant who cares only about himself and no one else.If that were the case, he's not evil. If you're saying he's evil for being a miscreant, does that mean he's going to the lower planes when he dies? Think about it. Anyone who is evil will go to the lower planes to be tormented forever. So if you say "jaywalking" is evil, people who jaywalk will go to Archeron to Pandemonium. So do selfish miscreants go to those planes in your game? No? Then they don't radiate evil.Hardly a reason for a champion of law and goodness to snuff him. Remember the kingpriest of Ansalon?If the person is evil then they are already guilty of very horrid things. Continue this on the Paladin thread if you please.
CharlieRock 03-24-07, 07:42 PM	Also, can any Paladin players justify why they would murder an otherwise peaceful villager aside from the fact that he radiates minor evil? He may be nothing more than a simple miscreant who cares only about himself and no one else. Hardly a reason for a champion of law and goodness to snuff him. Remember the kingpriest of Ansalon? Can any DM justify having a character whose only crimes was selfishness be condemned to the planes of the abyss for target practice by the greater demons? If so, seems pretty harsh a game world (Warhammer FRP anyone?) and a paladin could be just as harsh in such a place. I actually like the style of Warhammer's setting. "Purge the mutant. Kill the alien. Let the slaughter commence." :evillaugh On topic: Another reason I make all orcs evil (not just CE) is that having the team stop to try to negotiate with every orc group they come across slows the game way down. "The orc army is marching towards the town, war drums thundering echoes across the hills." "We ride out under a flag of truce to try and negotiate." This kind of slow-down is detrimental to the pacing of the scenario.
pres_man 03-25-07, 11:14 AM	Reposting some comments that I think got lost when we started getting off topic. Sorry LCD2YOU, I know I was one of the major contributors to the off topic comments. Back on the topic in general. Some have suggested that it would make sense for orcs to be just as likely to be CN as to be NE. There is some validity to that idea. But we have to also consider if one axis is more dominant than the other axis (like how wrecan does in his assumptions above). It might be that due to their nature of creation (created by Gruumsh) that they actually tend towards evil more than tending towards chaos. In that case an all evil clan of orcs, with CE being the most common, would not be that unusual. As for good orcs living in a typical orc clan, I might point out that the PHB says for half-orcs that the ones most likely to live in an orc clan are the evil ones, so I think there is reason to believe that good beings would eventually not feel comfortable staying in a CE society. On the other hand, very little of orc culture follows the females of the society, and it might be that there is a significant CG group of female orcs. Female orcs could prefer chaos to evil, while male orcs prefer evil to chaos, "naturally".
EldonG 03-25-07, 02:52 PM	Just had to answer this one.Yup, but we have a perfectly good Paladin's Code and more debate on another thread. Why is are these here? I had hoped to get a breakdown of a given species alignment breakdown and where do those that are 2 or more alignments away go as they would almost assuredly be not welcomed? So, if the law of the land says, "Eat children", does the Paladin have to follow that? is you, I'm afraid. Trust me, pres_man has been around for a while. Ok, firstly, I agree, the thread was somewhat derailed, but mind you, I hardly started that. Secondly, no, of course not. Would you? Silly question, entirely. Thirdly, the length of time someone has been posting on a forum hardly means they do or don't understand basic truths about life...nor does playing D&D...even if they've done it all their lives. I find your correlation amusing, if somewhat shallow... As to your original post...looks pretty good, to me. I tend to run it fairly close to that, myself, though of course, that's just my game. My apologies for assisting in the derail.
pres_man 03-25-07, 04:32 PM	Thirdly, the length of time someone has been posting on a forum hardly means they do or don't understand basic truths about life...nor does playing D&D...even if they've done it all their lives. I find your correlation amusing, if somewhat shallow... If you think basic truths of life can be found playing and discussing D&D, well ...
EldonG 03-25-07, 04:40 PM	If you think basic truths of life can be found playing and discussing D&D, well ... No. Read the post...and, if your english is up to par, you'll see I was shooting down the whole concept...
wrecan 03-26-07, 09:25 AM	Hmmm...and in which society does a sherrif have the authority to order any given citizen to kill someone? None I know of. Kinda wrecks your scenario. The one in which the hypothetical occurs, obviously. So answer the question. The sheriff's usual executioner has the flu. The sheriff knows the paladin, a man of humane mercy, will try to make a condemned man's execution as quick and merciful as possible. Plus, he's the best martial warrior in the shire, so he's unlikely to botch the beheading. The sheriff has the authority to order the paladin to commit the execution and, he points out, if the paladin doesn't do it, the sheriff will do it himself, and he's not as good with a blade. It might take a few whacks. Agony for the condemned man. Even the sheriff (a lawful neutral sheriff working for a lawful evil lord) has no desire to cause this condemned man unnecessary suffering. The condemned man has been sentenced for treason. In this jurisdiction, treason could mean plotting to assassinate the lord or disparaging the lord's wife. The sheriff will only confirm that the man was duly convicted of treason and that's all the paladin is entitled to know under the law. Does the paladin execute the condemned man? If not, does he fall for refusing to obey legitimate authority? If he does, and the man turns out merely to have disparaged the lord's wife, does the paladin fall for having committed an evil act? You cannot have it both ways, EldonG. It seems that you've stuck the paladin into a catch-22.
terrainmonkey 03-26-07, 10:15 AM	Does the paladin execute the condemned man? If not, does he fall for refusing to obey legitimate authority? If he does, and the man turns out merely to have disparaged the lord's wife, does the paladin fall for having committed an evil act? first off, more information is needed about the condemned man. questions need to be answered. the first thing is DE, and if he doesn't ping, then that right there is a reason to say no to said sheriff. the next thing is to ask what the prevailing alignment or laws of the land are. if it is determined that the lord of the land is an evil despot, then that authority is illigetimate and thus the paladin can refuse and ratain his honor. the next thing that has to happen is to talk to the man and find out what his crime is. any high level paladin can cast zone of truth to find out. if the condemned recounts the fact that he was in fact saying bad things about the lord's wife, then that doesn't really count as being an executable offense. thus the paladin walks away or saves the condemned. basically, it is up to the paladin to do the research about the condemned in order to make that decision. if the lord were good, the man was an assassin, and had been convicted of treason in a legitamate court of law, then pally goes on with the execution. if none of these conditions exist, pally walks away or saves the condemned.
wrecan 03-26-07, 10:30 AM	first off, more information is needed about the condemned man. None is forthcoming and, by law, the paladin is not entitled to more. the first thing is DE, and if he doesn't ping, then that right there is a reason to say no to said sheriff. Why? Maybe the man tried to assassinate the lord but is chaotic neutral. what the prevailing alignment or laws of the land are. if it is determined that the lord of the land is an evil despot, then that authority is illigetimate Not according to EldonG, terrainmonkey. any high level paladin can cast zone of truth It's a third level paladin. basically, it is up to the paladin to do the research He has neither the time nor the means to conduct the research. He knows the lord is lawful evil. But let's assume he is not a despot. He is a ruthless lord who stammps mercilessly on dissent, but his regime is not corrupt and the lord himself lives on a humble estate. His taxes are not onerous. He doesn't oppress people who obeys the law, and, in fact, they propser. His one indulgence (and this is why he is evil) is that he includes those who speak sedition amongst the definition of "traitor" such that it is impossoble to know if a condemned traitor truly attempted to overthrow the lord or if he merely spoke out against him.
pres_man 03-26-07, 10:39 AM	I might also point out that wrecan has said the guy had been duly found guilty. Now, I don't know about you, but most executioners don't get to pick and choose who they do their job on. The system tells them who is to be taken care of and they do their job. And the immediate authority is LN, the sheriff, so even if the paladin views the king as illegitimate that might not make the sheriff so.
wrecan 03-26-07, 10:50 AM	Which is exactly why I believe "legitimate authority" to a paladin cannot include laws that punish and harm innocents.
EldonG 03-26-07, 04:00 PM	Ok...let's start with this: It seems words have been placed in my mouth, by sleight-of-hand. A paladin does not have to recognize an evil despot as a legitimate authority...then again, if the 'evil despot' has committed obvious crimes, we have a different situation. Why is it people can't figure out that in a mature game, shades of gray are the rule? Black and white is for kids and comics. Maybe it's simply too difficult for you to understand that a paladin can have a moral quandry, and even one that isn't an alignment trap. I won't derail this thread any longer, except to say this: the paladin in your little alignment trap is definitely going against his vows in slaying an innocent man, and if he's fool enough to believe the garbage ('you're the only man that can swing the axe straight enough') you've put out, maybe he deserves to lose his paladinhood. Again, he's slain a man who he doesn't *know* has committed a crime. Just like the evil merchant down the block, whose only 'crime' is to overcharge and laugh at the beggars as they die in the street. Scum, undeniably, but not an offense worthy of death. But there it is. You've forced him into a gray position, even while claiming they're all black and white. I have a doozy of a question for you: do you have the concept that every paladin must cleanse the world of all the evil they can ever percieve? If you do...sorry, that's pretty pathetic. With that sort of game, they should all be extinct.
EldonG 03-26-07, 04:02 PM	I might also point out that wrecan has said the guy had been duly found guilty. Now, I don't know about you, but most executioners don't get to pick and choose who they do their job on. The system tells them who is to be taken care of and they do their job. And the immediate authority is LN, the sheriff, so even if the paladin views the king as illegitimate that might not make the sheriff so. And a paladin who has become an executioner might as well have gone up to the high priest of his temple and said, "I quit."
wrecan 03-26-07, 04:28 PM	A paladin does not have to recognize an evil despot as a legitimate authority...then again, if the 'evil despot' has committed obvious crimes, we have a different situation. How can a despot commit crimes. By definition, a despot is the law. Why is it people can't figure out that in a mature game, shades of gray are the rule? How come people don't read what we wrote. A narrowly defined good and evil is a game of greys. It's called neutrality. When most people, despicable and noble, are neutrality, there are no detection spells that can cut through the grey. Detect spells are limited only for those instances where you want a clear villain and/or hero. But when evil includes banal evil, you've eviscerated the detect spells. What useful information does detect evil garner when it doesn't take much to be evil? Not much at all. Maybe it's simply too difficult for you to understand that a paladin can have a moral quandry, and even one that isn't an alignment trap. Hey, Eldon, we get that. Maybe it's too much for you too handle thiking outside the box without being obnoxious. the paladin in your little alignment trap is definitely going against his vows in slaying an innocent man, and if he's fool enough to believe the garbage ('you're the only man that can swing the axe straight enough') you've put out, maybe he deserves to lose his paladinhood. Again, he's slain a man who he doesn't *know* has committed a crime. He did commit a crime. in my hypothetical, the man absolutely committed the crime of treason as it is defined in that jurisdiction. You've forced him into a gray position, even while claiming they're all black and white. I never claimed it was black and white. You're the one who staked out an absolutist position when you claimed evil people could constitute "legitimate" authority. I have a doozy of a question for you: do you have the concept that every paladin must cleanse the world of all the evil they can ever percieve? Dude, step back. We're the ones claiming smite on sight is feasible, if unwise, character choice. You're the one who seemed ot be claimng evil people are legitimate authorities to a paladin. And a paladin who has become an executioner might as well have gone up to the high priest of his temple and said, "I quit." Not all paladins follow churches.
EldonG 03-26-07, 05:15 PM	I submit to you that George Bush is evil. And legitimate authority. Too difficult?
Euclid 03-26-07, 05:33 PM	I wouldn't say he is. Try Rove or Cheney instead. Starting a war by misleading people for personal gain? That's evil alright. But we really shouldn't talk about that.
wrecan 03-26-07, 05:33 PM	No, but it's against the Code of Conduct to describe real-life people. Please don't get this thread locked, you two.
A_Wizard_for_Breakfast 03-26-07, 05:36 PM	I don't generally like to get mixed up in debates such as these, but the original subject was interesting and what has followed has been amusing. At any rate, paladins are fanatics. They are all dedicated to some higher power/authority/ideal to such an extent that they derive supernatural powers from it. As such, the deity/ideal that they serve should help define their code and their actions (incidentally, this is why the Paladin has been replaced with the Holy Warrior in my group's games). However, the Paladin's Code has been, somewhat unwisely defined as a blanket assertion. What it does not have is a definition of degree. Imagine a deity called Torg, a lawful good entity whose entire faith/portfolio/etc is dedicated to ridding the world of all evil. A smite-on-sight approach might even be expected of his paladins. These are the armies of good, linking arms and marching across the world to rid it of evil. This satisfies every aspect of the paladin's code and the good alignment. Now imagine a paladin dedicated to Grabdiel, a lawful good deity dedicated to easing suffering and converting, rather than destroying, evil. In this faith, the Paladin's role should be much different. Paladin's are, undeniably martial creatures, so the role could be that of protecting pacifist clerics/pilgrims. Of the church could send paladins into the worst sorts of areas, either to confront evil that has proven un-willing/able to convert or to ease the suffering that the church knows is there. For these paladins, a smite-on-site approach would not work. Killing evil as soon as it is recognized is not in the spirit of their faith. However, they don't have to smite-on-sight to satisfy the paladin's code or their good alignment. Both approaches are alright, depending on the aspects of good and the paladin's code that are stressed by whatever authority/power grants the paladin power.
EldonG 03-26-07, 06:19 PM	No, but it's against the Code of Conduct to describe real-life people. Please don't get this thread locked, you two. True. Actually, it should be left to the idea of the original post, which was on the order of orc demographics...obviously, some think it doesn't work...I tend to be more abstract, but follow similar percentages. Most of my orcs are evil, and tend to play the part of mercenaries in my world. They're ruthless and cruel, but have fought on the same side as paladins on multiple occasions. Demons tend to be the big nasties, and orcs are as much slave fodder to them as humans are. Not that any number of both orcs and humans haven't given in to demons at one time or another.
LCD2YOU 03-27-07, 05:58 PM	Getting back on topic: Some numbers to go over: In the MM, "Often" has a rate of 40% to 50% of said creature to be of that given alignment. To me, that means the creatures in question have a 45%, on average, chance of being the specified alignment. Also from the MM, "Always" means all but a few very select, so that would mean =<100%. Now "Usually" is not defined. As I'd take Usually to be the average between "Often" and "Always". Or (45% + 99%)/2= 72% of any given creature type would be of the specific alignment. Other factors in a creatures alignment that would stick out big time would be their patron or matron God/Goddess. The way the species God/Goddess behaves will be mirrored in the ways of the society and emulated. After all, one's god is always right, correct? So the priests, priestess and or shamans will help enforce the aspects that their Gods give to them to worship. Getting back to "why it's ok fro Paladins to slaughter baby orcs - just kidding", let's use our favorite whipping boys. As the Orcs have a CE God, I'd take it that good Orcs would have a heck of a time in an Orcish camp. The clerics of Gruumish would, IMO, be bullying brutes who'd love to show the "weakness" of mercy, kindness and such. Therefore, you're not going to find any "good Orcs" in an Orcish encampment as they'd leave as soon as they could. Also, as slaughter seems to be a big thing with Gruumish, I'd hold the Orcs to be generally on the evil side as apposed to Chaos. So, for Orcs: CE = 45% NE = 25% CN = 15% LE = 5% TN = 5% CG = 3% LN = 2% NG < 1% LG < 0.1% What that means is not that in any Orc encampment are you going to find those numbers. The average Orc encampent is Evil, at least any Orc old or big enough to swing a weapon at someone else. Any Good or even TN or LN Orc would leave as they'd be most unwanted for anything other than target practice. Even many of your CN Orcs would be loners, finding "no honor", CN IMO have personal honor so slaughtering those weaker (read those who pose no threat) is not an option for their personal honor. Oh, they'll love to fight but want to fight someone who poses a challenge. Therefore they'd leave the "dishonorable wretches" those who who kill those weaker behind in their dishonor. Many of the TN Orcs I could see being part of such a group. So your "typical Orcish encampment", about 85% of them, would have the following break down in alignment: CE 52% NE 30% CN 12% (generally the really stupid ones) LE 6% (not a contradiction, these Orcs are evil but have a group dynamic that as they may be the smaller, weaker ones, they have learned that in a group, they can take out the really big and mean Orcs. This could also be those who "keep the laws", the rules which supposedly govern Gruumish and Orcish society.) A small grouping, about 8% of the Orcs, will be part of the "honorable" CN and TN crowd that I have refering to earlier. Oh, these guys aren't nice, but if you grovel and show you're no threat, they won't kill you just take your stuff. These guys would be generally led by a smarter orc who is not above hiring himself or his group out to be Mercs for any one who offers a "glorious fight". These guys would not be pulling guard duty in a city. Still, I could see the ferocity in which they fight, the blood lust, the recklessness and more adding to the opinion that ALL Orcs are blood thirsty monsters who eat kids. There would be a loose community of about 5%, 1 in 20 of all Orc encampments, orcish tribes or encampments that are CG, most NG and a few CN Orcs. They live and let live. They would not live, by choice, anywhere close to a more "traditional" Orcs. They will help out if they see the need but they would rather be stand offish, namely due to many of the other races wanting to kill Orcs on sight. They would have little trouble understanding why as they have been most likely a target of the more "traditional Orc tribes" more than once. That has 2% of the Orcs being LN and LG. These are special Orcs that would be killed if they ever got to close to Orcish society.
CharlieRock 03-27-07, 06:15 PM	That has 2% of the Orcs being LN and LG. These are special Orcs that would be killed if they ever got to close to Orcish society. There is a race of Good orc (like) characters in the Races of Destiny. I just sub those for when I need an actual 'good' orc. I suppose in a really advanced state of civilization LN (and even LG) orcs could manage to live nearby/inside the settlement. In smaller, clannish settlements though these aberrations wouldn't be tolerated to survive(much less thrive).
pres_man 03-27-07, 06:41 PM	Also, as slaughter seems to be a big thing with Gruumish, I'd hold the Orcs to be generally on the evil side as apposed to Chaos. So, for Orcs: CE = 45% NE = 25% CN = 15% LE = 5% TN = 5% CG = 3% LN = 2% NG < 1% LG < 0.1% What that means is not that in any Orc encampment are you going to find those numbers. Just because orcs as a race may have that distribution, why would it follow that an orc camp would be representative of the race overall. I think that might not be a very legitimate assumption to make. In fact it could be that practically all good and a lot of neutral orcs do not belong to tribes, as they abandon them in favor of trying to make a life somewhere away from the brutally of the "horde".
LCD2YOU 03-27-07, 06:44 PM	Are humans supposedly "Often" or "Usually" Neutral? Alignment Breakdown for "Usually Neutral" Humans: TN = 72% NE, NG, LN, CN = 6% each LG, CE, LE, CG = 1% each Now, if Humans and "Often Neutral" TN = 45% NE, NG, LN, CN = 11.5% each LG, CE, LE, CG = 2.25% each If humans are of a "Usually Neutral Alignment", one or both parts are neutral: TN = 22% NE, NG, LN, CN = 12.5% each LG, CE, LE, CG = 7% each That would make humans just over 26% good or evil and just 47% neutral. Any ideas on this one?
CharlieRock 03-27-07, 06:45 PM	Just because orcs as a race may have that distribution, why would it follow that an orc camp would be representative of the race overall. I think that might not be a very legitimate assumption to make. In fact it could be that practically all good and a lot of neutral orcs do not belong to tribes, as they abandon them in favor of trying to make a life somewhere away from the brutally of the "horde". Very similar to the description of the 'good orc' race in RoD. ;)
CharlieRock 03-27-07, 06:46 PM	Are humans supposedly "Often" or "Usually" Neutral? "Mostly" Neutral. :P
LCD2YOU 03-27-07, 06:46 PM	Just because orcs as a race may have that distribution, why would it follow that an orc camp would be representative of the race overall. I think that might not be a very legitimate assumption to make. In fact it could be that practically all good and a lot of neutral orcs do not belong to tribes, as they abandon them in favor of trying to make a life somewhere away from the brutally of the "horde".Yup, I agree as that is why I wrote this further on down:So your "typical Orcish encampment", about 85% of them, would have the following break down in alignment: CE 52% NE 30% CN 12% (generally the really stupid ones) LE 6% (not a contradiction, these Orcs are evil but have a group dynamic that as they may be the smaller, weaker ones, they have learned that in a group, they can take out the really big and mean Orcs. This could also be those who "keep the laws", the rules which supposedly govern Gruumish and Orcish society.)I do explain that further on down in the post. To follow up, that would mean that 17 out of 20 "Orcish Camps" are evil. Only 1 in 20 Orcish camps would be of a CG with a few NG and some CN. Like I said, these orcs would not be anywhere near another, "traditional" Gruumish worshipping camp if they have any choice in the matter.
LCD2YOU 03-27-07, 06:51 PM	"Mostly" Neutral. :PKeep it up and I'll have you dragged to beautiful "Norfolk, NE". By the Gods I love the mideast. Note: Midwest = Utah, Colorado, Wyoming Mideast = Illinios, Michigan
CharlieRock 03-27-07, 07:23 PM	Keep it up and I'll have you dragged to beautiful "Norfolk, NE". By the Gods I love the mideast. Note: Midwest = Utah, Colorado, Wyoming Mideast = Illinios, Michigan So ... Missouri is a southern state? Ack! I'm being dragged away ...
LCD2YOU 03-27-07, 07:26 PM	So ... Missouri is a southern state? Ack! I'm being dragged away ...Missouri? It is not a southern state, it's in its own little state, of confusion. :rolleyes: In any case there Charlie, what do you think humans would most be like? Any one of the 3 or do you have something else in mind? Are humans more likely to be "good", ie, 25% are good, 60% are of a neutral alignment and only 15% are evil? Any thoughts?
CharlieRock 03-27-07, 07:42 PM	Missouri? It is not a southern state, it's in its own little state, of confusion. :rolleyes: In any case there Charlie, what do you think humans would most be like? Any one of the 3 or do you have something else in mind? Are humans more likely to be "good", ie, 25% are good, 60% are of a neutral alignment and only 15% are evil? Any thoughts? Well, the 'book' answer was "mostly" (in the alignment chapter "most people are neutral"). Mostly has no game meaning so ... ... to me it seems 80% is mostly. A 5% each of LG/LE/CG/CE types (usually with dynamically opposed careers in the various law enforcement professions) with a 17.5% in any given type other than TN (which would have the remainder 10% as it is as "extreme" as the corner alignment types to me). Edit: Picture a hill (transparently) placed over the alignment graph, with a 'volcano's hole' in the top of the hill going approximately halfway down the hill again. The higher the elevation of any point on the hill coresponding to an alignment of the graph below it represents the proportionate number of individuals of that alignment.
LCD2YOU 03-27-07, 07:56 PM	Well, the 'book' answer was "mostly" (in the alignment chapter "most people are neutral"). Mostly has no game meaning so ... ... to me it seems 80% is mostly. A 5% each of LG/LE/CG/CE types (usually with dynamically opposed careers in the various law enforcement professions) with a 17.5% in any given type other than TN (which would have the remainder 10% as it is as "extreme" as the corner alignment types to me). Edit: Picture a hill (transparently) placed over the alignment graph, with a 'volcano's hole' in the top of the hill going approximately halfway down the hill again. The higher the elevation of any point on the hill coresponding to an alignment of the graph below it represents the proportionate number of individuals of that alignment.So you mean it would look something lke this:TN = 22% NE, NG, LN, CN = 12.5% each LG, CE, LE, CG = 7% eachThat has 72% being "Of or completely neutral". Or would it be: TN = 26% NE, NG, LN, CN = 13.5% each LG, CE, LE, CG = 5% each Which is 80% being "Of or completely neutral".
CharlieRock 03-27-07, 11:52 PM	So you mean it would look something lke this:That has 72% being "Of or completely neutral". Or would it be: TN = 26% NE, NG, LN, CN = 13.5% each LG, CE, LE, CG = 5% each Which is 80% being "Of or completely neutral". hmmm LG 5% LE 5% CG 5% CE 5% TN 10% LN 17.5% NE 17.5% CN 17.5% NG 17.5% Like this. 80% off of the corners, with a dip in the middle.
LCD2YOU 03-28-07, 05:11 PM	Another "monster", Dwarves. Your "typical" Dwarf according to the MM is "Often LG". That means they are about 45% of any population being LG. Also, as they are big on tradition and lineage, I can see them being more Lawful than Good, much lik I see the Orcs due to their violent nature being more Evil than Chaotic. So Dwarves: LG = 45% LN = 25% NG = 15% LE = 5% TN = 5% CG = 3% CN = 2% NE < 1% CE < 0.1% I could actually see this being the default for most Dwarven Strongholds. As Law and Good have respect for a person's well being, any Evil Dwarf who hides their true self well enough will be able to walk around and live out their lives in a "typical" Dwarven City.
CharlieRock 03-28-07, 06:07 PM	I think dwarves would have less a tendency to evil (settled areas). They live longer, making the evil nature harder to conceal among the others in the stronghold. It would be hard to do with all that drinking they like to do ,too. Not impossible ,I suppose ,but really hard. Outside of settled areas, I would assume that is where your most likely to run into a 'sour' dwarf.
LCD2YOU 03-29-07, 09:17 AM	Well, even in my ideas of Dwarves I put forward above, 63% are "Good" and about 7% are "Evil". That still leaves 30% being Neutral and 5 of 6 of those who are neutral with respect to Law are LN. Even the "LE" Dwarves I can see being ok with, even chummy with Humans especially Paladins with whom they can "go and slay all the Evil Orcs we can". Many of the LE Dwarves, IMO, are those Dwarves that would put the torch to a structure filled with Orc, Goblin or such species with children inside. This is not murder to them, though Evil as per RAW and many here. It would be to "cleanse the area of their taint." Other possible reasons for a LE Dwarf, who still thinks he's good, is a racial pride that goes way to far. They are gruff, mean and perfectly willing to murder, which they call justified killings of non-dwarves, to make the Dwarven Race stronger.
CharlieRock 03-29-07, 09:29 AM	Yeah. I can see only about 5% being chaotic. That's a low figure for a people that spend about 700 years (???) in a cave system with each other. Can't go getting so drunk you start playing "Support Beam Tipping".
GraveDigger 03-29-07, 01:18 PM	Paladins killing babies? instant loss of paladin powers...no matter what a baby is a neutral thing, so to kill a helpless creature all paladins who participate lose their abilities, no questions. Unless it is a paladin of Tyranny or Slaughter. ;)
EldonG 03-31-07, 03:05 PM	Unless it is a paladin of Tyranny or Slaughter. ;) Heck...I'd think a Paladin of Slaugher would be actively encouraged, yet. :P