Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-09-03, 11:17 AM	Okay, forget Good and Evil with thier capital letters and pointless cartoon struggle in an eternal headlock like Popeye and Bluto. are there any just plain good people around? People who: - Won't kill someone who hasn't actually provoked them - Who won't shoot the hostage because they don't think they're responsible. - Who Doesn't think killing something is the correct response to being suspicious. - Who thinks children don't deserve to die no matter the parents - Who doesn't hide behind flawed spells to wheedle out of something they know is wrong. - Who actually respects sentient life in all its forms? Are all of these things neutral? If they are, I'd say neutral is the only good between two flavors of evil.
Chobemaster 10-09-03, 11:19 AM	Only if you allow the gelatanous template :) I know what you mean, though, and I think it's possible to be good aligned without being an extremist.
Salla 10-09-03, 11:24 AM	Yes. That describes every character I play, in every game and game system.
Leap 10-09-03, 11:24 AM	As regards Neutral as the only genuine good........................ http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97859
NobodyReadsThis 10-09-03, 11:26 AM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland People who: - Won't kill someone who hasn't actually provoked them - Who won't shoot the hostage because they don't think they're responsible. - Who Doesn't think killing something is the correct response to being suspicious. - Who thinks children don't deserve to die no matter the parents - Who doesn't hide behind flawed spells to wheedle out of something they know is wrong. - Who actually respects sentient life in all its forms?] Wow, describes the neutral good druid I play in Prizmik's D&D campaign. http://www.geocities.com/leaves_or/kenohki-grin.txt
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-09-03, 11:37 AM	Shoot, Hecubhan, my sorc does all the things and he's Lawful bloody frickin' Evil. good Person != Good aligned. bad person != Evil aligned. I would have just hoped more 'Good' people would be good. Leap -- good thread Nobody -- Someone missed the 'o' again didn't they?
bitnine 10-09-03, 11:40 AM	I once played a character like that. His name was Ago Locke, and he was a wizard. He had ideals like never comprimising one's ideals and bringing the guilty to justice. He'd rather die having done the right thing rather than corrupt himself in order to live. He believed that justice was a different and nobler thing than vengeance. (One example was when he found that a fellow party member was evil after committing a naughty act, he cast Bestow Curse on said character - all but eliminating his spellcasting ability - with the intent to bring him to a proper trial.) I had him pegged as LG, but mebbe I was playing that alignment wrong. He certainly didn't light babies on fire.
Salla 10-09-03, 11:40 AM	Val very eloquently describes much of the outlook of a Good character, simply and quickly. A tip of the ol' Paladinly topper to Mr. Ashland for describing how a Good character should act.:tiphat:
Mike the DM 10-09-03, 11:42 AM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Are there any just plain good people around? People who: - Won't kill someone who hasn't actually provoked them - Who won't shoot the hostage because they don't think they're responsible. - Who doesn't think killing something is the correct response to being suspicious. - Who thinks children don't deserve to die no matter the parents - Who doesn't hide behind flawed spells to wheedle out of something they know is wrong. - Who actually respects sentient life in all its forms? Seems like a no-brainer to me - that's how I play my Good-aligned characters, at least, and it's a measure of what I expect from the good-aligned PCs of my campaign-world. Good gives quarter, takes prisoners, eschews torture, respects life, protects innocents, believes in redemption, and gives charity, even when it may be detrimental to its own long-term interests, because Good also has hope. That doesn't make Good stupid - it's just that being Good isn't necessarily easy. Some players like to insert their own moral relativism into their game's definition of Good, not realizing that moral and ethical relativity is a neutral attribute in game mechanics. I don't think of this as a game problem - I think of it as a RL problem that spills over into the game. (Certainly much of what's happening in the RL world today gives license to moral and ethical relativists.) As far as D&D, I definitely give role-play bonuses for playing one's alignment, and those are some of the things that I expect from my Good-aligned players.
Luminous Crayon 10-09-03, 11:51 AM	Interesting. This is why I like your point of view, Mr. Ashland: you challenge the notion that "good" means "zealous, sanctimonious, prejudiced, and merciless."
Leap 10-09-03, 12:28 PM	I hope that is how I play - hell, I hope that is how I live!!!!
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-09-03, 01:23 PM	But, many will point out, and be correct, that the game mechinic says I am wrong. But the book, its okay to jack creatures with evil alignement, kill and loot your enemies even when they haven't have a chance to react (that's more dishonorable than anything), scramble dragon eggs if they're not metallic and generally do things a plain good person wouldn't. Don't get me wrong, this is basically adventuring behavior (loot, smite, then run like hell). I like playing bad people. I just don't get how Good alignment doesn't necessarily equate to good person. As I said one session while DMPCing as Vaal; "hey, we're all bad people. Selfish, vengeful and covetous. You may have better aspirations, maybe even do what's morally well and good. But don't try to tell me that you're not fighting because you don't want to die. If you aren't you're not human or demihuman. you're a machine -- and just as bad as the ones that try to kill us every Infreno-burned night"
NobodyReadsThis 10-09-03, 01:58 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Nobody -- Someone missed the 'o' again didn't they? Nope. Due to goading by another poster and bias from on high because I frequent Nifty, I managed to get banned. :bored:
Chobemaster 10-09-03, 03:08 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland But, many will point out, and be correct, that the game mechinic says I am wrong. But the book, its okay to jack creatures with evil alignement, kill and loot your enemies even when they haven't have a chance to react (that's more dishonorable than anything), scramble dragon eggs if they're not metallic and generally do things a plain good person wouldn't. Don't get me wrong, this is basically adventuring behavior (loot, smite, then run like hell). I like playing bad people. I just don't get how Good alignment doesn't necessarily equate to good person. Yeah, the presentation of alignment keeps getting worse. Pretty soon, someone will prove that Al Queida is good. Maybe you were on the right track after all. I just don't let rules lawers or hedge-philosophers overrule my own sense of right and wrong. Works for us.
NobodyReadsThis 10-09-03, 03:10 PM	Originally posted by Chobemaster Yeah, the presentation of alignment keeps getting worse. Pretty soon, someone will prove that Al Queida is good. Maybe you were on the right track after all. I just don't let rules lawers or hedge-philosophers overrule my own sense of right and wrong. Works for us. This strikes me as an irony. As a rules lawyer, I am unsure how ye could rules lawyer the dictates like that. *shrug*
Chobemaster 10-09-03, 03:46 PM	Originally posted by NobodyReadsThis This strikes me as an irony. As a rules lawyer, I am unsure how ye could rules lawyer the dictates like that. *shrug* Not *totally* sure I get this post, if it means "how can someone rules lawyer that" I was referring to the "proofs" floating all around espousing the virtues of the Paladins of Toastytot, where one sentence in the PHB proves that any action is good if the target is evil.
bitnine 10-09-03, 04:03 PM	Originally posted by Chobemaster Not *totally* sure I get this post, if it means "how can someone rules lawyer that" I was referring to the "proofs" floating all around espousing the virtues of the Paladins of Toastytot, where one sentence in the PHB proves that any action is good if the target is evil. Yes, I believe that is what he's speaking of. To direct attention to the basis of such, here is a list of books that you can check out at your local library. Just take a look. It's in a book. Smiiitiiing baaabiiees... I think you got the recent ones. (Note that some of these weren't specifically defended as actions undertaken by a Paladin, but each and every one was defended as falling within the Good/LG alignment.) I do, however, have links for the interested: Killing a tribe of goblins in order to take something that you want (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99337) Killing a naga who's chatting with the party out of the blue (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100421) Plotting to kill someone because of their race/slitting their throat (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95256) Killing things that detect as evil as soon as you detect evil (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100011) Killing babies by lighting them on fire out of spite. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99182) :king: And of course, supplimentary threads on the paladin issues as follows: Scary Paladins (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=103383) Instasmite Paladins (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=103069)
Flashypants 10-09-03, 04:11 PM	In the first post you state that we should "forget Good and Evil with their capital letters and pointless cartoon struggle in an eternal headlock like Popeye and Bluto," but what you are doing in this thread is a variation of this idea. You are trying to make good and evil into the colors of black and white, just maybe not the same way the the game rules do. D&D supports the idea that there are four forces in the world (L,C,G,E) and each has its polar opposite. When something is neither of the two opposites it is neutral. This works for many D&D games because it works with the rules, such as detection and protection spells, but it is not really very realistic and I think it is this that you are having a problem with. If you are not comfortable with the alignment system then you should simply loosen up you ideas of what good and evil is. In real life there are large gray areas and there can be in the game too. In the real world no one (or very few) believe and try to be an evil person but it is just that everyone has a different idea of what being a good person is. Your definition of a good person is quite rigid as is the standard game definition. Just use alignment as a loose guideline and you can have a great variance of personalities and outlooks even among characters with the same alignment. For instance, I play a paladin in my current campaign who is by the game rules a Lawful Good character. He is a zealot as are most paladins, but he doesn't fit in with your ideas of a "good person." He kills goblins in their dens and in the wilderness without mercy. Women and children are not spared his wrath because to him, his deity and most of society, all goblins are evil and their nature cannot be changed. Destroying evil is an act of good and therefore justified. It is an evil act to allow one mercy, because to do is to allow the spread and prosper of evil. The same goes for the other "evil" races though humans and demihumans are not naturally evil and therefore capable of repentance and so should be apprehended and tried for their crimes. To me as a player there is a great deal of gray area in the alignment system we choose to use, but to my paladin, in the game world, it is black and white. Goblins are evil and he and his purposes are good. It might feel to some that killing "innocent" children and women is not an honorable act and therefore out of sync with the Lawful alignment, but the honor is found in the character's strict adherence to his principals, his faith in his deity and his willingness to do whatever it takes to further the cause of good, which, in his eyes, is the extermination of evil. In the same game world, there could exist another LG paladin, probably of a different deity that looks at the world very much like your "good person" does. One that gives quarter to any creature intelligent enough to accept it. He is good because he want the best for all things and he is lawful because he holds firm to his beliefs and always acts with honor. I believe that both these characters are Lawful Good and as long as the DM agrees with this somewhat looser form of alignment, then it can make the game more dynamic and realistic. The tradeoff is that it makes the DM consider whether any use of alignment detection and protection effects work on a particular character or creature. My paladin mentioned above doesn't bother to use his detection ability on things he "knows" to be evil, but the other paladin might use his ability on every creature he meets and might still try to negotiate and convert a creature detecting as evil. I would be willing to bet that both characters mentioned above would detect as Good. That's all I have to say, about that. Good subject. Flash
YRM 10-09-03, 04:18 PM	I never thought that even a Paladin should have to play his character like "The Tick", or a mean version of "The Tick". Paladins can be good leaders who follow the just law of their rulers (or find/work to impose, a good and just ruler). A paladin doesn't necessarily have to report the party rogue for doing something necessary for the party survival... they don't have to lack common sense. A paladin isn't going to capture every one of the 4,345,213 orcs born yesterday and bring them to trial. Stereotypes of races in D&D actually do hold some truth. You usually know what to expect most dwarves to be like in a city of dwarves... similarly, a band of orcs that's been raiding a caravan trail isn't likely to be sorted out for the one individual who may have had second thoughts. A paladin probably wouldn't kill the orc children, but then again, he may not have a choice. The closest thing we have to orcs in real life, if you think about it, are bands of cave dwelling terrorists, who would gladly strike out at civilians any time that attacks against armed forces or leadership is out of their reach. Because the are defeated militarily before they even begin, yet they refuse to acknowledge any time they start a war and then lose it, these terrorists would simply strike out and inflict pain where-ever they can hit that isn't as fanatical as them (even their own neighbors). Now, if you're a member of a strike team, ferreting out murderers in their holes... do you stop to try to capture a 14 year old that's shooting at you? I wouldn't... my fellow soldiers would be at risk if I held back. So the kicker with orc, goblin, and other races is, if the women and children aren't attacking, you probably should take a path other than butchering them. What that could be? I mean, any male child orc you let live is going to grow up and probably rape and pillage some other poor village right? So a paladin or other lawful good entity would possibly try to start a mission or know of one that could take in these orphans and try to teach them a trade and teach them respect of other life. Remember, your party would probably not be out hunting a band of goblins or bugbears if said goblinoids were living peacefully in a prosperous little village selling flowers and apple pie to weary travelers. In a campaign that I play, my Lawful Good Half-Orc Monk actually dislikes Orcs, because he was abandoned and never knew either parent, but the best guess of any of the Dwarves who condescended to raise him was that his mother was a human in a caravan that was attacked... so he blames orcs for not knowing his mother. At the same time, I have made attempts, at least a few times per session, to use subdual damage to capture enemy forces and turn them over to authorities when such a thing is possible and won't put my friends in the party at risk by leaving an obviously evil enemy at our backs. This character almost always uses subdual attacks vs any member of a race considered to have the potential for good (elves, gnomes, halflings, half-orcs, lizardmen, dwarves, humans, half-elves, etc.) I might make exceptions against known murderers or the like.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-09-03, 04:32 PM	My good person/bad person dichotimy isn't anything like the alignment system. All I'm observing is that Good and Evil in game terms have the same basic MO except Good has the Powers the Be ensdorement behind it. I mean look at the spell Holy Word, yeah, it'll dice up Evil real good, but it'll also do the same (at half damage) to neutral. But casting it is a Good action. Now, I contend that a good person wouldn't call the bloody thing down on anyone simply because they aren't going to risk collateral damage. A good person can even be Evil. There are plenty of selfish scum-rats who wouldn't let the bad guys kill hostages to save himself. Nor would he feel too good about going hog wild stabtastic into a goblin warren. At the same time, a bad person can be Good. They do things in the name of the greater good that would sicken a good person. They're the guys that have no problem with dicing kids, merchants, or a random guy on the street because they had a hunch (that's all DE is) that they were Evil. Now, its not anything that has mechanical consequences (like the alignment system). But IC, a detect *thump* Paladin is a bad person to the kids of the guy who detected as evil and especially to the Watch who are sworn to protect the citizenry of a town. At the same time, Goliath the consensus builder is a good person to his citizenry, who benefit from the roads, libraries and low rent housing developments, but he's Evil based on the fact that he's skimming from the town, tortures prisoners and is in reality a Black Dragon who's smart enough to realize that happy citizens = full coffers = happy Golitah.
bitnine 10-09-03, 04:34 PM	Originally posted by Flashypants Women and children are not spared his wrath because to him, his deity and most of society, all goblins are evil and their nature cannot be changed. Destroying evil is an act of good and therefore justified. It is an evil act to allow one mercy, because to do is to allow the spread and prosper of evil. Congratulations. I offer thee a position in the Knighthood of Toastytot.
Mike the DM 10-09-03, 05:57 PM	Stepping away from the whole IG alignment question, let me see if I understand you correctly... ...it's wrong to use force to fight bad people - a good person does not pick up a sword to defeat a real and present danger, because that would make the person no different from a bad person? ...a bad person who hides behind good works isn't really a bad person - as long as their manipulation of others is screened by their beneficial actions, they don't deserve to be exposed as bad people and their manipulations thwarted? If I'm not reading this correctly, please let me know - I'm honestly not sure if I'm 100% getting your point. If I am, then I'd have to disagree to some extent. In the first case, I would argue that being good doesn't mean being weak - it does mean using force as a last option, not a first, and only that force which is necessary to overcome resistance. I would also say that it proscribes the use of force indiscriminately. Where force is warranted, however, I don't think that good needs to pull its punches if the threat is sufficiently grave. Using force in defense of innocents comes to mind. In the second, the fact that a despot makes the trains run on-time doesn't make graft, torture, and so on acceptable in most cultures, unless those s/he rules are as depraved as the despot is, of course. I think most of us can point to examples of popular leaders who are still lying scum.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-09-03, 06:05 PM	No, thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying that its wrong to use force against someone unprovoked. If you do that, you're a bad person. We aren't talking about actual threats here, we're talking about someone showing up under DE. They haven't done anything in your knowledge to warrent an attack. In the second case, the lying scum leader, he's still got check in his done good box and the citizens mostly likely love him (in my Goliath example anyway). The skimming, prisoner torture (the hallmark of a good leader in early medeval life, actually) and such would just be transgressions. Look at my first post and ask yourself; are these qualities of a good person? a Good (aligned) person? Those two questions yield very different answers based on the book.
Mike the DM 10-09-03, 06:17 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland No, thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying that its wrong to use force against someone unprovoked. If you do that, you're a bad person. We aren't talking about actual threats here, we're talking about someone showing up under DE. They haven't done anything in your knowledge to warrent an attack. Gotcha - thanks for making that clear. I agree completely. The "doctrine of pre-emption" is the refuge of scoundrels, IG or OofG. As far as the second, while it might be argued that the dragon may be loved by its people, torture, graft, and (I'm assuming) murder are hardly mitigated by what are still deep-down fundamentally manipulative and selfish motivations. But that's just how I'd play. I will say that that's how "smart evil" should be played - black robes and blood sacrifices are great theatre, but smart evil keeps its cards close to the chest. That's what makes it so fun to play and so difficult to defeat. Some of my favorite BBEGs "hide in plain sight," like your buddy Goliath. Thanks again for clearing that up for me. Post-script: I took a look at the PHB 3.5 today and I don't see anything there to suggest that your definition of good and the PHB definition of Good are at odds with one another. I think there are some players who attempt to apply their own moral relativism to the game, not making the distinction between Good and Neutral, but that's just me. What am I missing in the books?
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-09-03, 06:29 PM	Oh, Goliath is still an Evil son of a dragon, just to everyone he meets and interacts with -- he's a good person. And should anyone try to kill him, knowing what he has done, and will continue to do for his cash cows --er-- people, especailly since no one else could do half as much for them, then they are a bad person. On another thread, we discussed a Paladin being able to 'take down' a legitamate government because one run by 'evil creatures' can never be legitamate in his eyes. Now, this was even if this evil creature was duly and entirly fairly elected and if removing him would doom his little kingdom to dirt farmin'. I don't think a good person would endanger the livelyhood of an entire kingdom like that. This is sort of like Popeye and Bluto crashing through a movie screen that was playing Citizen Kane. Yeah, they're funny, but they're in the way of something good right now.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-09-03, 06:33 PM	look at the Paladin's code and the 'alignment' entry in the monster manual. They should still be there even in 3.5. Also take a look at the Gold Dragon and Lammasu, two Homicidal Good creatures. If you want to see some really big examples, check out the much quoted thorn in my side the BoVd, which suggests using Holy Word to see who's good and who's evil (note that you'll also bust up some neutrals with the spell)
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 06:46 PM	Ashland you have misplayed/aligned your characer. Your lawful evil character if played according to the tenets of his alignment could not have respected life in all its forms. Lawful evil by definition seeks to gain advantage of some form over other life forms. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-09-03, 07:02 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot Ashland you have misplayed/aligned your characer. Your lawful evil character if played according to the tenets of his alignment could not have respected life in all its forms. Lawful evil by definition seeks to gain advantage of some form over other life forms. The key here is semantics. Hecubhan respects their life. Why? Because its hard to get dead people to do as they're told. He's more of a manipulator than anything, but make no mistake, everything he does is for himself, his younger sister, or his father. He abhors needless death and distruction because they're conspicuous.
was_fired 10-09-03, 07:16 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot Ashland you have misplayed/aligned your characer. Your lawful evil character if played according to the tenets of his alignment could not have respected life in all its forms. Lawful evil by definition seeks to gain advantage of some form over other life forms. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot Strange seems to me that Goliath is evil and played correctly. He views the people as a means to his own power and pleasure. He feels no need to kill them since they don't do anything which annoy him enough to justify removing the pleasure he gains. He also gets a huge amount of political power which he can use to expand his empire. I don't recall it being stated he respected life in all its forms. He does however respect his property which these people are. Would he kill an outsider who visits his kingdom? Unlikely he is smart and any smart creature knows the surest way to die is to appear evil and give a band of adventures the moral authority to slay you. Even if adventures try to come in to his land claiming they want him dead what aid will they recieve? So long as he keeps his people happy they will protect him from their own kind. A paladin might not have qualms with killing a black dragon but no matter how you play it a paladin can not get away with plowing through a living wall of his supporters most of which are just average people protecting their leader out of their own free will. As the old saying goes, "The god of supreme goodness and protection called. He said that whole slaughtering the village thing was out of line. That and you lost your powers."
Mike the DM 10-09-03, 07:17 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Oh, Goliath is still an Evil son of a dragon, just to everyone he meets and interacts with -- he's a good person. And should anyone try to kill him, knowing what he has done, and will continue to do for his cash cows --er-- people, especailly since no one else could do half as much for them, then they are a bad person. On another thread, we discussed a Paladin being able to 'take down' a legitamate government because one run by 'evil creatures' can never be legitamate in his eyes. Now, this was even if this evil creature was duly and entirly fairly elected and if removing him would doom his little kingdom to dirt farmin'. I don't think a good person would endanger the livelyhood of an entire kingdom like that. I guess that's where we diverge - I would argue that if 'evil' acts are the primary means of supporting the 'good' lifestyle of the populace, then the despot is a legitimate target, regardless of the despot's popularity, effectiveness, or legitimacy. How the paladin or others "take down" the kingdom, or the dragon, is what separates good from evil. "Dooming the kingdom" isn't an absolute - very rarely is anything an either/or proposition. Certainly the paladin or whomever help the populace replace the evil despot with an equally effective, legitimate government - actually, that sounds like a great campaign idea... In any event, using evil means to a good end is not good, IMHO. I wrestled with this in my last campaign-world - a principality ruled by a lawful evil prince who commanded the actions of an order of paladins sworn to protect the throne. The paladins and their allies were forever treading a delicate line between their oath to the prince and their responsibilities to do justice, not tyrrany. It wasn't easy to adjudicate by any means, but it was interesting. I do agree that the whole "evil races" thing is a wash - stepping back into the game mechanics for a moment, I don't believe most sentient humanoids are born with a particular alignment - there may be a biological predisposition and there is definitely a strong and pervasive cultural influence, but only spirits, undead, and outsiders have alignments that can fit the "always" def as provided in the various books (which still provides a little wiggle room). I don't think anyone with a good alignment modifier can act indiscriminately against goblins, drow, and so on.
Cabren 10-09-03, 07:42 PM	Originally posted by Flashypants but the other paladin might use his ability on every creature he meets and might still try to negotiate and convert a creature detecting as evil. And immediately loses his powers for showing mercy to evil. There is only one good alignment, and it isn't this happy peaceful BS that some keep talking about. People like that die quickly because they are too weak, and they can definitely never be paladins. The second you can tolerate the presence of evil, you are neutral, not a good character.
Sir Neil 10-09-03, 08:54 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland [Are there any] People who: - Won't kill someone who hasn't actually provoked them - Who won't shoot the hostage because they don't think they're responsible. - Who Doesn't think killing something is the correct response to being suspicious. - Who thinks children don't deserve to die no matter the parents - Who doesn't hide behind flawed spells to wheedle out of something they know is wrong. - Who actually respects sentient life in all its forms? You just described every PC my group's ever played. :) Even when I ran a White Wolf campaign.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-09-03, 09:06 PM	MiketheDm: no one ever said that anyone was using evil to promote said good lifestyle. He's promoting a good lifestyle for his citizenry and is evil. The two are mutually exclusive.
OGRE-MJC 10-09-03, 09:46 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Okay, forget Good and Evil with thier capital letters and pointless cartoon struggle in an eternal headlock like Popeye and Bluto. are there any just plain good people around? People who: - Won't kill someone who hasn't actually provoked them - Who won't shoot the hostage because they don't think they're responsible. - Who Doesn't think killing something is the correct response to being suspicious. - Who thinks children don't deserve to die no matter the parents - Who doesn't hide behind flawed spells to wheedle out of something they know is wrong. - Who actually respects sentient life in all its forms? Are all of these things neutral? If they are, I'd say neutral is the only good between two flavors of evil. Vaal, that is because you have a impossibly high bar for good in your game. each one of the points that you bring up is good (and Good), but from your posting on other threads, the lengths that you go to maintain ideological purity is the main reason folks disagree with you. Either someone has to agree with you 100% or they are 100% wrong and are babykillers, or mass murderers, or whatever. Lighten up some and folks might be more receptive to what you are saying. I'm not trying to flame you, I'm trying to answer your question.
bitnine 10-09-03, 09:55 PM	Originally posted by OGRE-MJC each one of the points that you bring up is good (and Good), but from your posting on other threads, the lengths that you go to maintain ideological purity is the main reason folks disagree with you. Either someone has to agree with you 100% or they are 100% wrong and are babykillers, or mass murderers, or whatever. Well... when you say what good is, it probably should be pure. When you talk about a good character, you can go as far to realize that they will not exclusively do good acts. Painting the ideal is different than expecting the character to live it - it's an ideal, after all. However, from the previous threads that he's been drawing from, baby killing, mass murdering, torture, summary executions, throat slitting, et al have all been painted as things that are 'good.' Many people embrace that - apparently.
was_fired 10-09-03, 10:09 PM	Originally posted by Cabren And immediately loses his powers for showing mercy to evil. There is only one good alignment, and it isn't this happy peaceful BS that some keep talking about. People like that die quickly because they are too weak, and they can definitely never be paladins. The second you can tolerate the presence of evil, you are neutral, not a good character. I really hope you are kidding or attacking the idea of good in D&D because that is a rather sick way to go about life. Ones knowlege is fininite and in turn the morality of an action can not be determined based on effect since then we would have no control over the morality of our actions invalidating the concept of morality itself. Thus a paladin who sees an evil shopkeeper ought to understand that their knowlege of this person is limited and in turn they have no right to rob this person of his life and any chance he has to be moral. Now should the paladin know this shopkeeper is going to destroy the world and they have no other way of stopping them then by all means kill him. I also have to wonder if that attidude is real how much of it has to do with evil DMing. Where no action goes unpunished no matter how good or evil. DM, "You see a street unchin" Paladin, "I slay him since the last one I helped tried to destroy the world. The one I ignored before that transformed into a powerful demon and tried to enslave a city. The one before..." DM, "Thats nice but I don't see your point. Now back to the game. He lies dead on the ground and then rises as a half-fiend ghost with 5 levels as a fighter and attacks you!" Paladin, "I turn the ghost" DM, "The ghost is destroyed but you have lost your paladin hood again because this ghost was destined to save the world against a powerful evil and he only tried to kill you because you killed him. I win!"
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-09-03, 10:17 PM	Originally posted by was_fired Thus a paladin who sees an evil shopkeeper ought to understand that their knowlege of this person is limited and in turn they have no right to rob this person of his life and any chance he has to be moral. There it is :bow: :bow:
canamrock 10-09-03, 10:27 PM	Indeed. Technically, D&D morality is more or less a type of Hume-like moral calculus in action. Detect Evil does NOT detect if the person is becoming more evil or atoning for past evils. Someone who judges with incomplete information is misguided at best and in fact evil himself if he acts in awareness of this lack of full evidence.
OGRE-MJC 10-09-03, 10:42 PM	Originally posted by bitnine Well... when you say what good is, it probably should be pure. When you talk about a good character, you can go as far to realize that they will not exclusively do good acts. Painting the ideal is different than expecting the character to live it - it's an ideal, after all. However, from the previous threads that he's been drawing from, baby killing, mass murdering, torture, summary executions, throat slitting, et al have all been painted as things that are 'good.' Many people embrace that - apparently. And I'm not one of them, but there has been a few threads on "grey morality" where I have agreed with him 98% and said where I differed on the 2% and been lumped back in with the mass murderers, and etc. All I'm suggesting is a less aggressive aproach. It's the tone of "If you don't agree with me then you're wrong." that I'm trying to tell him about. I think that if he'd tone down the hostility and word-twisting that his words would have a lot more impact.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-09-03, 11:12 PM	I never lumped you in with anyone, actually. I tended not to worry too much about you is the thing. My focus was always those who though it was an absolute necessity for 'Good' to brutalize evil. I thought we had, in fact striaghtened out our differnces and resumed my questioning of the others.
bitnine 10-09-03, 11:19 PM	Originally posted by canamrock Indeed. Technically, D&D morality is more or less a type of Hume-like moral calculus in action. Detect Evil does NOT detect if the person is becoming more evil or atoning for past evils. Someone who judges with incomplete information is misguided at best and in fact evil himself if he acts in awareness of this lack of full evidence. You mean that Hubert the Near Formerly Evil Prince might have, after deciding witnessing some great acts of compassion and kindness, might be on the way to the temple to receive the Atonement spell and try to turn over a new page in his life when the Paladin outside drives a pointy hunk of metal into his eye?
Mike the DM 10-09-03, 11:22 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland MiketheDm: no one ever said that anyone was using evil to promote said good lifestyle. He's promoting a good lifestyle for his citizenry and is evil. The two are mutually exclusive. 10-4. I think I'm slooowly getting it... After all of this, I'm really curious to see what comes out in BoEG! :confused: <------ Mike the None-Too-Bright DM
Ulorian 10-09-03, 11:54 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Okay, forget Good and Evil with thier capital letters and pointless cartoon struggle in an eternal headlock like Popeye and Bluto. are there any just plain good people around? People who: - Won't kill someone who hasn't actually provoked them - Who won't shoot the hostage because they don't think they're responsible. - Who Doesn't think killing something is the correct response to being suspicious. - Who thinks children don't deserve to die no matter the parents - Who doesn't hide behind flawed spells to wheedle out of something they know is wrong. - Who actually respects sentient life in all its forms? Are all of these things neutral? If they are, I'd say neutral is the only good between two flavors of evil. I haven't read a single post other than yours in this thread, but i am wholly in your court. Good all the way!
bitnine 10-10-03, 12:06 AM	Originally posted by Mike the DM After all of this, I'm really curious to see what comes out in BoEG! So am I... From what I've seen in the excerpt... Well, it looks neat. Very neat.
Super Draco Whitewind 10-10-03, 01:20 AM	Personally, as fas as Vaal ash goes, and his whole allignment removal project goes, it is certainlly interesting as a concept to me. this thread takes however the fine lines between of good and evil, and takes trivial ideas. personally, there are are no absolutes truly in D&D. I've seen necrumancers raise armies of skeletons from a local graveyard to stop an oncoming barbarian horde. I've seen paladins Weild intelligent evil blades against their own users, (making good will saves too to allow such actions) Personally, the whole concept of allignment is somewhat grey. i use allignments as tags, and labels, and means for keeping character concepts within bounds of themselves. personally, I could NEVER play in Vaal's game. not knowing what is good or evil technically simply isn't a great way to play. it further encourages gaming for the sake of numbers and power. allignment is a whole seperate dimension when it comes to a character, and one i definitly value as a Player and DM. Those are my thoughts ~Draco
Gothic_Demon 10-10-03, 05:19 AM	I think I could play in Vaal's game, if he'd let me... Anyway, I agree there are no absolutes of morality in DnD, regardless of the 9 stock alignments, and there should not be, as far as I am concerned. I don't think the knowledge of good and evil is required to enjoy the game or to play properly. The issue only comes into play when the DM punishes a player whose actions fall into morally grey areas without forewarning them that they are skating on thin ice in his game. The DM (and there does seem to be too many of these) who says "Well, as far as I'm concerned, that was an evil act and now you've lost your Paladin-hood", are probably not giving their player enough fore-warning of the consequences of their actions (burning babies aside). I don't think you need full knowledge of what's considered Good and Evil to choose to things that are good or evil. Nor do players need to define their characters with an alignment for that character to be Good or Evil. Alignment is a tag, a tool, and not a role-playing tool but simply a way for the DM to decide if certain spells work against you. It isn't required really. Remember, a rose by any other name would still have thorns.
Leap 10-10-03, 07:39 AM	I wonder................what would be the impact of removing the "Detect Evil" power and replacing it with a set of alignment descriptions that could actually serve as decent guide to behaviour?
Arilou_skiff 10-10-03, 07:49 AM	Originally posted by Cabren And immediately loses his powers for showing mercy to evil. There is only one good alignment, and it isn't this happy peaceful BS that some keep talking about. People like that die quickly because they are too weak, and they can definitely never be paladins. The second you can tolerate the presence of evil, you are neutral, not a good character. Actually there are THREE good alignments. And you are *wrong* NOT showing mercy is *evil* read the Paladin's Handbook for Power's Sake! And yes, they can die quickly, but that doesen't mean they aren't good. Also, "not tolerating the presence of evil" does NOT mean "kills evil on sight"
Leap 10-10-03, 08:43 AM	"Actually there are THREE good alignments" Pedant! :)
Sir Neil 10-10-03, 09:24 AM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland My focus was always those who though it was an absolute necessity for 'Good' to brutalize evil. The best evidence to counter the "must brutalize" faction are the silver dragon and ki-rin (OA). (Especially the ki-rin.)
Brknlf 10-10-03, 10:30 AM	Originally posted by OGRE-MJC And I'm not one of them, but there has been a few threads on "grey morality" where I have agreed with him 98% and said where I differed on the 2% and been lumped back in with the mass murderers, and etc. All I'm suggesting is a less aggressive aproach. It's the tone of "If you don't agree with me then you're wrong." that I'm trying to tell him about. I think that if he'd tone down the hostility and word-twisting that his words would have a lot more impact. I'm in agreement with OGRE-MJC on this one, Vaal has a mentality that if you don't agree 100% with him you're just plain wrong. He also has a bad habit of insulting people who don't agree with him 100% (with his cynical retorts and comments about Popeye and Bluto). On other threads, people can say orcs are evil, they were created by an evil god and they all worship this evil god who wants to kill every other sentient race on the face of the earth. Vaal will condone them by saying that even so, if the paladin kills the evil orc, they are completely in the wrong, they are evil and that does not embody the spirit of good. Then Vaal uses this as a step to go off complaining about the D&D alignment system. No one is forcing him to use it and no one is arguing that he shouldn't change the alignment system to suit his tastes. On the other hand, he's trying to force his interpretation of the alignment system on every other poster on the boards.
Salla 10-10-03, 10:45 AM	A Paladin should do something about evil ... however, that doesn't mean he automatically has to kill it. 'Detect and Dissect' Paladins don't stay Paladins in my game for long ... I have even begun the creation of a questionnaire that I'm going to make people fill out before playing a Paladin. "Is killing goblin children acceptable?" Yes? You can't play a Paladin. Next concept! "Is someone pinging on your Detect Evil acceptable cause for violent action?" Yes? Bzzt, the Price Is Wrong. Try again. "Is the first thing you do when you hear the word 'Drow' or 'Necromancer' draw your sword?" Bzzt. Thank you, here's your Rice-A-Roni, better luck next time. (Seen this one happen recently ... that guy is *so* screwed.) Paladins do not simply 'do the right thing' with a Machiavellian 'ends justifying the means' tag on the end. They must do the right thing IN THE RIGHT WAY. Violence is the LAST resort of the Paladin, not the first. They do not initiate violence save in the face of immediate, irrefutable danger to themselves or others. Creatures, no matter what their ancestors may have done or been, are responsible solely for their own actions and cannot be held responsible for the actions of their forebears. Both of these rule out the 'killing goblin children' bull$*@( that people who have no idea how to play a Paladin keep trotting out. These are acts of undeniable, obvious, blatant, cruel EVIL that nobody should tolerate occuring in a game AT ALL, much less by someone who's supposed to be the definition of a Hero.
bitnine 10-10-03, 10:50 AM	There's another discussion about something similar going on in the classes board, and this caught my eye: What is a paladin? He is an unrationally motivated extream crusader. He is one who believes he is granted a higher purpose to bend the world to his version of morals. He isn't for freedom but for subjugation of his way of life. Thus he swaths a bloody path of pain and hate and loathing though he 'thinks' he is doing good. Lawful good in itself isn't bad. However, when you add in the dynamic of extremity that the paladin lifestyle entails then it tips the scales. He is so far right that it actually becomes left and in essence he is now Lawful Evil. Crushing those that will not bend to his order and will. Which is why the paladin is a hypocrite and sensible people realise such. Also, it may come as a shock to you but I have played a paladin, but the moral ambiguiety just unnerved me. But I was mistaken, the halfling was the first monster playable race. However, the truth is that the paladin is the first monster playable class. Unlike any other class where you have a broad spectrum of morals and beliefs the paladin isn't afforded one. In fact in order to play a paladin accurately you have to be mentally unstable (character wise, think Joan of Arc only you don't necessarily need religion but it helps). Wow. This dude seriously doesn't like Paladins.
Flashypants 10-10-03, 11:07 AM	Originally posted by Cabren And immediately loses his powers for showing mercy to evil. There is only one good alignment, and it isn't this happy peaceful BS that some keep talking about. People like that die quickly because they are too weak, and they can definitely never be paladins. The second you can tolerate the presence of evil, you are neutral, not a good character. Its not "mercy to evil." You get this character wrong. This character believes in every being's ability to feel compassion and the inherent good in all things. It might be naive, especially in a fantasy world, but I don't see the argument for this character being neutral when the greater "good" is his number one belief. He has dedicated himself to the philosophy of good, it’s just not the smiter of evil philosophy of my other example. And it is not "hi, evil being, how about we just shake hands and be on our way?" It’s more of "change your ways or feel the sting of my righteous arm." Sure this paladin might run into a lot of trouble when someone he is mentoring in the ways of good turns on him and his party, but this is some of the fun in roleplaying, and allows for the character to learn and grow by experience as real people do. And that’s all I have to say about that. Flash
Salla 10-10-03, 11:32 AM	Originally posted by bitnine There's another discussion about something similar going on in the classes board, and this caught my eye: Wow. This dude seriously doesn't like Paladins. Let me guess, that would be one Lye Blackthorne ... ignore him, he's a troll and many of his posts have me questioning his mental health and connection to reality. (More simply: "That boy just ain't right.") Now ... the people that Mr. Blackthorne describes are NOT PALADINS. NOT. Let me say that one more time for emphasis.NOT . Those are BLACKGUARDS. Geez.
Flashypants 10-10-03, 11:38 AM	If you people think that paladins can only be played one way you are mistaken. Sure in some campaigns the DM might decide that all paladins in his world are the overly righteous or that they only resort to violence as a last resort, but this doesn't have to be the way it is. There can be differing paladin philosophies and still make the lawful good alignment. I would agree that paladins are set into their personalities by their class more than any other character, but there is still room for uniqueness of personality. Here are just a few examples off the top of my head: The Average: Believes that some creatures are inherently evil (fiends and most evil races) and in need of smiting, but others (humans and demihumans) can be redeemed. The Smiter: Pompous and self righteous, he kills anything he deems to be evil. The Avenger: Has a grudge against a certain evil type or types and smites them with impunity while considering quarter for most others. The Humbled: Is unsure about his abilities and wishes to prove himself either in combat against evil or as a missionary of conversion. The Deathwished: Charges everything evil because he believes it is the greatest honor to die smiting. The Faithful: Has a chosen deity and follows that god's philosophy to the letter. The Justicar: Follows a LG king or government religiously and does what he's told to fight the evil enemies of his liege. The Converter: Would rather change an evil being, but will smite when all else fails. As far as I'm concerned these are all viable paladin characters and I'm sure there are many more. And that's all I have to say about that. Flash
bitnine 10-10-03, 12:38 PM	Originally posted by Brknlf On other threads, people can say orcs are evil, they were created by an evil god and they all worship this evil god Well, the assertion that an entire non-outside sentient race is evil and each one of them deserves to die merely by merit of that race is a fairly large statement in itself. I suppose that you could make it so that in your game every last orc is invaritably evil, and even the women, children, and infirm deserve death without question. However, Vaal might be drawing a little bit more from the description in the books, which don't have any intelligent nonoutsider race Always any alignment. (There are certainly character examples as well from sources, like that orcish general who was honored for being a nice guy in the FRCS.) So... And correct me if I'm misrepresenting here, I think a part of his issue might be statements that seem to represent the idea that race alone is enough to condemn a person to death - or even a single casting of DE, for that matter.
was_fired 10-10-03, 03:55 PM	Originally posted by Flashypants I would agree that paladins are set into their personalities by their class more than any other character, but there is still room for uniqueness of personality. Here are just a few examples off the top of my head: The Average: Believes that some creatures are inherently evil (fiends and most evil races) and in need of smiting, but others (humans and demihumans) can be redeemed. The Smiter: Pompous and self righteous, he kills anything he deems to be evil. The Avenger: Has a grudge against a certain evil type or types and smites them with impunity while considering quarter for most others. The Humbled: Is unsure about his abilities and wishes to prove himself either in combat against evil or as a missionary of conversion. The Deathwished: Charges everything evil because he believes it is the greatest honor to die smiting. The Faithful: Has a chosen deity and follows that god's philosophy to the letter. The Justicar: Follows a LG king or government religiously and does what he's told to fight the evil enemies of his liege. The Converter: Would rather change an evil being, but will smite when all else fails. As far as I'm concerned these are all viable paladin characters and I'm sure there are many more. Flash They all are valid imo and more than welcome in my campaign but I also made it so alignment spells only effect creatures with that alignment subtype so I don't have to pay as much attention to good and evil just their churchs code. Hell I have one church dedicated to enslaving most of the world, one which thinks aberations are evil so they smite those rather than evil, one which is busy crusaiding to wipe out all demons across the planes, and one which believes so strongly in personal rights their paladins are not allowed to kill.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-10-03, 05:27 PM	Ah, some unprovoked attacks on me. How nice. I try very hard to be as polite as possible with people. But when faced with staunch opposition, sometimes the hammer is better than the pen. That said, I try to work within the system on other people's threads and when they were wrong by the book, I did call them on it. Particularly on the race threads where people took the stance that generally 'evil' means its okay to destroy every last member of a given race. To date, I believe this is the only thread where I've used the Popeye/Bluto analogy. Before, I tended to use Captain America and the Red Skull, but someone corrected my limited knowledge of comics so its no longer valid. If you have problems with me, take it up with me on IM or my forums and stop the attempted public flogging. I will not even honor these attacks with a report. If you want me to leave so badly, there are more civil ways of doing so.
Sir Neil 10-10-03, 08:09 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland I will not even honor these attacks with a report. I will. Instead of slamming Vaal and putting words in his mouth, certain individuals should try discussing things with him. He's right here, for Pholtus' sake! You might make a new friend. Flashypants There can be differing paladin philosophies and still make the lawful good alignment. Very true. I get so frustrated when I see DMs trying to layer on unnecessary restrictions.
Brknlf 10-13-03, 10:07 AM	I try very hard to be as polite as possible with people. I wasn't making a personal attack against you, if I was I would have used unkind words like calling your style of play a Popeye vs Bluto affair, which I didn't. I was agreeing with OGRE-MJC that you are very aggressive in supporting your opinion on the interpretation of D&D alignments. Before someone says I'm just making this up again, here is the stuff I'm talking about: The first sentence in this thread: Okay, forget Good and Evil with thier capital letters and pointless cartoon struggle in an eternal headlock like Popeye and Bluto. This is a personal attack against anyone playing a game where it is ok for a good aligned person to kill an evil aligned person. No one has attacked your style of play /personally/ that I'm aware of. They may have disagreed with the way you interpret alignments in your campaign but they have never made a childish comment such as likening your campaigns to childrens cartoons. Now, let's look at another thread Vaal has started, (sarcasm) For all of you who think its Good to kill Evil (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100298) . This was a very sarcastic thread that he started to take a pot shot at anyone who thought that killing evil was a good act (don't throw me in this group, I don't agree that killing evil is a good act and I'm not defending that style of play - but I'm also not taking the time to insult the players who enjoy that style of play). This other thread is a sarcastic spell he offered, there was nothing serious about this other than maybe to see who would respond to the thread as if he were offering a real spell. Here is the biggest piece of sarcasm in his initial post, taking a shot at anyone who uses [good] spells to harm evil: Material component: Your sense of decency and respect for living things (consumed at casting) In the post he defends his right to take pot shots at other people on the boards: That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to take pot shots at psycho-killers though. He is likening anyone who outright attacks evil without justification as a psycho-killer. I put none of these words in his mouth, nor am I trying to insult him. I am agreeing with OGRE-MJC that Vaal is aggressive in defending his points (to the point of making up entire new threads to take pot shots at people he does not agree with). This is even after he admits that his interpretation of alignment does not jive with the alignment system in the books. I have not called him any names or said he plays wrong or said his campaigns would suck to any degree. They would probably be very interesting to participate in if his campaigns were half as well thought out as some of his posts on the boards here.
bitnine 10-13-03, 12:01 PM	Originally posted by Brknlf This is a personal attack against anyone playing a game where it is ok for a good aligned person to kill an evil aligned person. Hm. Perhaps you and I have different definitions of "personal attack." I tend to take it to mean an attack on a person, and not include attacks on ideas that a person might have. For example: I think that punishing a character with contrived metagame situations in order to compensate for a player's use of a game feature that the DM find unbalanced to be near-horrific (see Brick Solution, the). I think it's horrible, shortsighted, and terribly shortchanges the players, not to mention often immature and gratuitous. In fact, I'd consider it to be one of the worst solutions that one could find to a problem, as it supplants other ideas that could actually constructively bridge whatever gap is being faced. The above is an attack on an idea/action. (All right, it might just be heavy criticism, depending on how you evaluate things - add: "It's stupid as all hell," at your option.) People might hold that idea or undertake that action. That does not make it a personal attack. Because, as the name "personal attack" might suggest, generally you need to target an attack at a person to have it be a personal attack. And as far as I've seen, I haven't seen any poster on this board called a babykiller or whatnot (in these threads, at least). Except for maybe me. If I'm mistaken, please point me in the right direction.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-13-03, 03:15 PM	And the Popeye/ Bluto thing? Its a Drew Cary paraphrase of a Adam Sandler quote. Sandler: I don't know, If I don't figure this out, we're just going to end up locked in mortal combat -- just like Captain America and the Red Skull Cary: Oh, Mimi? I figure we'll end up in an eternal headlock, just like Popeye and Bluto. So why'd I say it? Both are battles that can never and will never be resolved. And thus are pretty much pointless when you consider that. Some one told me on another thread that Cap and Red Skull got out of thier fight in that stasis bubble thing in the Secret Wars, so my analogy wasn't valid anymore. So, I used Drew Cary's version because I doubt anyone will ever update Popeye. BTW, how exactly is attacking an idea personal? Like I said, if you've got problems with me, take it up with me off the boards. I tire of wasting precious bandwidth patting the flames off my good 'net suit.
Sereno 10-13-03, 04:00 PM	Originally posted by Mike the DM I guess that's where we diverge - I would argue that if 'evil' acts are the primary means of supporting the 'good' lifestyle of the populace, then the despot is a legitimate target, regardless of the despot's popularity, effectiveness, or legitimacy. How the paladin or others "take down" the kingdom, or the dragon, is what separates good from evil. "Dooming the kingdom" isn't an absolute - very rarely is anything an either/or proposition. Certainly the paladin or whomever help the populace replace the evil despot with an equally effective, legitimate government - actually, that sounds like a great campaign idea... Sounds a lot like Ursula K. LeGuin's short story "Those Who Walk Away" (sp?) where a utopian society exists solely because one member (a child) of that society exists in utter misery, constant terror, and forever locked in a dark, filthy closet. Some people, when they find out, "walk away" because they can't continue to live knowing that their goodness is at the expense of someone else. These, I believe, would be the LGs. Others stay, taking the "well it's good for society as a whole -- or for the greater good" Then, of course, there's David Gemmell's bloodstone series with the concept "Evil lives in a pit, and sometimes it's necessary to get down into the pit to fight it." -- he's a master of "dark" or reluctant heroes.
Donnavin Snowolf 10-13-03, 08:56 PM	Then, of course, there's David Gemmell's bloodstone series with the concept "Evil lives in a pit, and sometimes it's necessary to get down into the pit to fight it." -- he's a master of "dark" or reluctant heroes. Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh That he is, God bless him, that he is. Though he's got the most amazing light heroes as well. Druss is the best example of a Paladin I can think of.
Demon Lightfoot 10-13-03, 09:11 PM	Originally posted by Donnavin Snowolf Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh That he is, God bless him, that he is. Though he's got the most amazing light heroes as well. Druss is the best example of a Paladin I can think of. Not familiar with Druss, but IMNSHO, the best example of a Paladin is Elizabeth Moon's Paksenarrion of Sheepfarmer's Daughter, Divided Allegiance and Oath Of Gold (collectively called The Deed of Paksenarrion) fame.
MalakiTyrel 10-14-03, 01:43 AM	I completely agree with Vaal. I was completely disgusted by the whole jerk/idiot thread and several similar threads debating alignment and what was permissable. I have never been the type of player or DM that felt that "the ends justify the means". It seems that Vaal is of a similar idea. I have always felt that playing a good aligned character meant that the character was held to a higher standard--namely the standard of good. It is hard to be good because of the sacrifice it takes to always do the right thing--even, nay especially, when the right thing goes against your base instinct. Evil is the easy alignment to play because you simply become ego-centric and begin to give in to all of the base emotions and motivations to achieve what YOU want and say to hell with everyone else. Good on the other hand is the self-sacrificing alignment which focuses on the greater good first then what you want second. To me, Vaal (and several others on this thread) appears to be frustrated with the idea that any action by a good aligned character that is made against an evil aligned character is automatically a good action regardless of how reprehensible it is. This idea has been put forth repeatedly (in various forms) over the last month or two on a large number of threads. This idea also is counter to the idea of "goodness and decency" which good aligned characters are supposed to represent in the opinion of many. In my opinion (which I have stated on other similar threads) is that some actions, no matter who they are committed by or who they are committed against, are always evil. These actions should not ever be taken by good aligned characters without serious repercussions. On the flip side, I feel that there are some actions which are always good. To answer your original question Vaal: every good aligned character I have ever played acted like the one described in your intial post. When I DM/GM, good characters are expected to act like that as well. I am all for "greyness" in morality when it is appropriate to a campaign. The problem with that is that the "grey" area of morality isn't represented by the good alignments. It is called neutral. And if you want to play a "grey" character, then you should be playing a neutral alignment. Further, there are some who have boasted actions of "good" characters who are really evil characters operating under the veil of goodness.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-14-03, 02:50 AM	I'd hate to lower your opinon of me, in the intra-game (NPC reactions to events), sometimes the ends do justify the means. That just means its okay, not necessarily good. For example, you come across a guy asleep on the road who you know (via divinations) will absolutely, possitivly kill an entire family the next morning. Do you stab him in the neck as he sleeps? Most likely. Was it a Good action? Not IMO. You stabbed a guy in his sleep. But its okay because you knew he was going to do something. but don't call it good, you did just kill a man and divinations are never 100% accurate.
Gothic_Demon 10-14-03, 07:10 AM	Druss, the man with the big, evil, demonic axe and a bloodthirst almost as big? Maybe not quite a paladin... (PS. I've read the Druss books, and his back story, but he's no paladin.)
bitnine 10-14-03, 09:26 AM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland For example, you come across a guy asleep on the road who you know (via divinations) will absolutely, possitivly kill an entire family the next morning. Do you stab him in the neck as he sleeps? Most likely. Was it a Good action? Not IMO. You stabbed a guy in his sleep. But its okay because you knew he was going to do something. but don't call it good, you did just kill a man and divinations are never 100% accurate. Indeed. I don't think that I can stress enough that good/evil isn't a measure of how valid an action is for a character to take, or that they've done nothing wrong as a player for properly portraying their character (even a good character at times) taking a nongood action. One thing that gets brought up now and again was, "Look at my character and motiviation, are you going to tell me that I should have done something different?" Well, no. Oftentimes some of these actions (granted the less extreme ones than paladins lighting babies on fire) are completely appropriate for a character. However, that has very little to do with whether they are a good act or not.
Leap 10-14-03, 09:44 AM	Malakai – Evil is the easy alignment to play because you simply become ego-centric and begin to give in to all of the base emotions and motivations to achieve what YOU want and say to hell with everyone else. Good on the other hand is the self-sacrificing alignment which focuses on the greater good first then what you want second. Personally, I think the sacrifice notion is misleading; Good should be about sharing, and ‘sacrifice’ should be made clear as to be being only about giving up worthless ‘[b]private[b]-centeredness’ in favour of ‘pretty much happy to share’, instead of the whole “Good is about being a martyr” approach that WOTC advocates through the use of “. 'Good' implies altruism, …. [and] Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others….[including] … strangers who are not related to him” in the PHB. Sharing also implies a mutuality, which means you only share with those who share back; meaning you do not treat non-Goods (those who have serious problems with sharing) in the same way as you treat Goods (despite all the claims on this board that a Paladin must treat CE orcy boy the same as CG elfy boy (or girl – this is an equal opportunities rant ;) )) - although they do generally want Lawful Goodness to spread around the world and slaughtering all non-goods you meet is hardly a sound measure in this regard!! Sharing breeds unity and inclusiveness, it brings people together, whilst sacrifice/martyrdom as a way of life only weakens and destroys (Visions of Crack Suicide Squad and Kamikaze Highlanders from Monty Python spring readily to mind :) and it is woefully misleading of WOTC to base “Good” around this concept! ).
Flashypants 10-14-03, 02:32 PM	Originally posted by MalakiTyrel I am all for "greyness" in morality when it is appropriate to a campaign. The problem with that is that the "grey" area of morality isn't represented by the good alignments. It is called neutral. And if you want to play a "grey" character, then you should be playing a neutral alignment. Further, there are some who have boasted actions of "good" characters who are really evil characters operating under the veil of goodness. I take a little looser view of alignment in my campaigns because it has been my experience that if the DM takes a view of good as being this "love all things," wimpy philosophy that Vaal and MalakiTyrel advocate, it causes players to always choose neutral alignments. Maybe most of my previous players were immature but lets be honest. Very few players want to play a goody-two-shoes who never attacks a creature without immediate threat. I never allow evil alignments in my game but it seems as soon as I tell my players this they all choose neutral alignments (TN or CN most often). Personally, I hate it when all but one of my players is neutral and it seems to me that with Vaals idea of good this problem would be even worse. I choose a little loser view of alignments to allow a little more freedom for the good characters in my game. I would rather that my good characters be allowed to slaughter creatures that are usually evil without jeopardizing their alignments than force all my players to take neutral alignments so that they don't feel like they are cemented into a certain way of acting with every being they come across. The last thing I want to say is that D&D is a game. It is supposed to be fun. I believe that most people would consider playing the overly good character just not very fun and that in a game with this tight of alignment restriction most players would chose to play a neutral (or evil) character just so they can have more fun. And that’s all I have to say about that. Flash
ManTimeForgot 10-14-03, 05:57 PM	In answer to your threads topic Ashland: No there are no good people out in here D&D land, or there must be extremely few. If the answers in the Lye Blackthorn morality thread are indicative of anything, then there are no good people, only neutral and evil people. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-14-03, 06:09 PM	You know, I've been thinking... maybe its just adventurers. It takes a very hard person to go raid ancestoral tombs, loot the fallen, and leave them unburied. On another thread we talked briefly about the viablility of a pacifist in an adventuring role. I'd think the 'norms' (read pesantry) would often fall into the good person end of my dichotomy. More rarely, some adventurers, mostly bards, druids and spellcasters would also fall into this. Thats not to say that the others can't, but the might makes right stereotype sort of hurts them from my standpoint.
MalakiTyrel 10-14-03, 07:03 PM	For the sake of brevity, I probably didn't explain some things as well as I should have in my previous post. Personally, I think the sacrifice notion is misleading; Good should be about sharing, and ‘sacrifice’ should be made clear as to be being only about giving up worthless ‘[b]private[b]-centeredness’ in favour of ‘pretty much happy to share’, instead of the whole “Good is about being a martyr” approach that WOTC advocates through the use of “. 'Good' implies altruism, …. [and] Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others….[including] … strangers who are not related to him” in the PHB. Leap, I don't disagree with this. Self sacrifice can take many forms. I simply chose the word 'self-sacrificing' to emphasize the difference in focus of the motivations between good and evil. There are many ways which good aligned characters can help others. Not every good character will choose to help others in every way possible. But there is some effort required to put others first because it is not human (or demi-human) nature. That effort, by nature, is self sacrifice. For example, you come across a guy asleep on the road who you know (via divinations) will absolutely, possitivly kill an entire family the next morning. Do you stab him in the neck as he sleeps? Most likely. Was it a Good action? Not IMO. You stabbed a guy in his sleep. But its okay because you knew he was going to do something. but don't call it good, you did just kill a man and divinations are never 100% accurate. Personally Vaal, I don't think a good character would stab him as he sleeps. A neutral or evil character would but I don't think a good character would. Even if it did happen, I would agree that it is not a good action. I think the good action (and therefore the proper action of the good character) would be to stop the guy at the time of his actions. If the divination was accurate enough for someone to positively know that he would do this, then it should be enough for the good hero to be know where to be and when and prevent the murder. I am not an advocate of the idea of condemning someone before they commit an action. As you said, divinations are never 100% accurate. There is a theory that states that simply possessing knowledge of a future event alters that future event. So by knowing what was going to happen changes the action simply because you can take steps to prevent the action from occuring. Otherwise, I don't think we disagree much on philosophies (at least from what I have read in your posts) though I may have generalized your ideas too much. For that, I apologize. I take a little looser view of alignment in my campaigns because it has been my experience that if the DM takes a view of good as being this "love all things," wimpy philosophy that Vaal and MalakiTyrel advocate, it causes players to always choose neutral alignments. Maybe most of my previous players were immature but lets be honest. Very few players want to play a goody-two-shoes who never attacks a creature without immediate threat. Flashypants, I don't recall ever advocating a "love all things", wimpy philosophy. I think that the alignments can be played loosely and still be played well. However, many of the situations presented on the various alignment debate threads are gross violations and not "loose" interpretations. I am all for loose interpretations. However, I do not delude myself into thinking that any action taken by a good character is automatically good. Basically, I follow the philosophy of "if it has to be justified, then it isn't really good." If an action is in the grey area, that is exactly what it is--grey, i.e. neutral. I do not believe that good characters should be "wimpy" nor stupid. I do believe that they should afford others (of all alignments) the same level of respect (or lack of). I detest the "detect, thump" paladins and similar types of characters. I do not feel this is "good" roleplaying nor is it good roleplaying, if you get my meaning. I choose a little loser view of alignments to allow a little more freedom for the good characters in my game. I would rather that my good characters be allowed to slaughter creatures that are usually evil without jeopardizing their alignments than force all my players to take neutral alignments so that they don't feel like they are cemented into a certain way of acting with every being they come across. I agree with this to an extent. I do not however feel that allowing Good characters to walk into a town and slaughter a half-orc blacksmith simply because half of him is a race that is "usually evil" is a good idea either. That is what I have been trying to point out on the various threads. The idea of Good and Evil are absolutes. They are the black and white of the alignments. Grey morality (i.e. subjective morality) is a neutral trait. If a player is incapable of portraying a character who looks at the world in black and white (and react accordingly) then they probably are better off playing neutral characters anyway. That isn't a limitation of yours as GM, it is their limitation as a player. The last thing I want to say is that D&D is a game. It is supposed to be fun. I believe that most people would consider playing the overly good character just not very fun and that in a game with this tight of alignment restriction most players would chose to play a neutral (or evil) character just so they can have more fun. I disagree. I have had a lot of fun playing characters who are "overly good". It is a challenge to play someone whose morality is more rigid and reacts to the world much better than I could hope to on a regular basis. I have also had a lot of fun playing neutral characters and evil characters as well. I think the amount of fun one derives from a character is dependent upon that players ability to roleplay the character well in a given campaign. I think it has little to do with whether or not they are held accountable for actions they take that go against their stated alignment.
Donnavin Snowolf 10-14-03, 08:30 PM	Originally posted by Gothic_Demon Druss, the man with the big, evil, demonic axe and a bloodthirst almost as big? Maybe not quite a paladin... (PS. I've read the Druss books, and his back story, but he's no paladin.) Sure, the Axe was evil. Snaga was a bad bad thing. But consider Druss was the only person that could use it without being corrupted by the power. In the end (of one of the books, the chronicles I think) Snaga makes Druss's wife look like a frothing demon beast. But it doesn't attack him, Druss comes to his senses, and tosses Snaga into the inferno below, completely exorcising the demon from the axe. That sounds like the act of a Paladin to me. Now he didn't have the Lay on Hands, Disease immunity, or special mount (although, the mount was special if you could even make him get on it.) But all in all, he didn't do bad things. He was mislead once, when he crossed the world to get his wife, who'd suffered amnesia and lead a happy life with a man that loved her. But he didn't know that. So he fought and killed the man he believed enslaved her. If you think about it, even in his backstory he was a paladinish man. He was never scared of anything, and anyone nearby him had more courage than before. The battle of Skeln Pass he rallied, and everyone flocked to him. He certainly wasn't hesitant when it came to a battle, and had no qualms about fighting and death, but he didn't kill because it was fun. The bloodthirst was all in the axe, so was the evil. Druss was a born warrior, and he didn't even want to be that. He tried his hand at farming, he just failed, cause fighting the enemy was in his blood. That and he was a big fan of the underdog. Not familiar with Druss You are missing out man. 1st book is Legend, and it starts at the end. The only one I'd avoid was The First Chronicals of Druss the Legend. It wasn't so good.
Flashypants 10-15-03, 02:17 PM	First of all, thanks for replying to my post. Please allow me to reply to your reply because there are a couple things I would like to defend and things I would like to clear up. I would like to recant my statement that your philosophy of good is wimpy. I was only trying to get your attention. It was an exaggeration of how I really feel about your ideas of good. Though I have some problems with some of the posts on this thread and their "if you don't act like this, you are not good" ideals. I am all for loose interpretations. However, I do not delude myself into thinking that any action taken by a good character is automatically good. Basically, I follow the philosophy of "if it has to be justified, then it isn't really good." If an action is in the grey area, that is exactly what it is--grey, i.e. neutral. It is not that I think that any action taken by a good character is a good act either. I didn't say I did. I don't allow my good characters to do anything they want as long as they can justify it. Our ideas differ in what constitutes a "gray area." Some of your "gross violations" might be gray areas to me. I don't know without having a list of your "violations." I detest the "detect, thump" paladins and similar types of characters. I do not feel this is "good" roleplaying nor is it good roleplaying, if you get my meaning. You can detest this all you want, but it doesn't make it any less viable in the right campaign. I don't agree with detecting evil on a sleeping human and killing it while it sleeps. That is neither honorable nor good. You think it is not good roleplaying to attack things a paladin knows to be evil? Roleplaying is taking on a role of a character and acting as a real person would act. Well, if we take a look at how real people act, there is very little "real good" in the world. Take a look at history and how many atrocities were committed in the name of good. There are many examples of waging war and destruction and very few examples of "lets all get along and do what is best for everyone." Take the Crusades for example. European knights raided the fairly peaceful Saracens, capturing their cities, forcing many to convert or die, and killing thousands of soldiers and civilians alike. This was for the cause of good. Maybe you don't see it as good, and really neither do I. But replace the Saracens with vile, blood thirsty orcs who had taken over the "holy land" hundreds of years earlier and it is definitely good. See, orcs and the other evil races give the worlds of D&D evil scapegoats for good characters to come down on and allowing this type of thing is more realistic because things like this really happened. I do not however feel that allowing Good characters to walk into a town and slaughter a half-orc blacksmith simply because half of him is a race that is "usually evil" is a good idea either. I don't agree with this either, but then half-orcs are extremely rare in my campaign world and I don't allow half-orc PCs without special permission from me. In my world and the world I play a character in, half-orcs are never seen in towns. They are hated universally and they don't live like normal member of the populace. Most (99.9%) are the result of rape (usually orc men raping human women but there are other possibilities) and if they are not aborted or killed at birth, they are taken from their mothers and raised by clergy in monasteries or temples to spare them from the harsh eyes of the people (think Quasimodo the hunchback). A half-orc that happens to be raised by orcs is likely to be just like them and treated by human society in the same way as an orc would (with a sword). Orcs are monsters, not valued members of society. I have had a lot of fun playing characters who are "overly good". It is a challenge to play someone whose morality is more rigid and reacts to the world much better than I could hope to on a regular basis. ... I think the amount of fun one derives from a character is dependent upon that players ability to roleplay the character well in a given campaign. I'll have to agree with you on this, but it is my opinion that many roleplayers are not mature enough to play a character like this and if they are forced to, they will not have fun. Lets be honest, a majority of roleplayers are at least 50% munchkin. They grew up with computer and video game RPGs and watching action movies and this is how they want to run their characters. Without thought to morality or in-depth character development. I know there are plenty of mature groups out there that really like to get into their roles and develop deep characters. But if you just put up an anonymous poster for players at your local game store and take the first 5 players to call, you would be horrified by their playing style. There are players in my group on both sides and I adopt a little looser view of alignment so that I don't have an entirely (or mostly) neutral party. I know it can be fun to play "good" characters. I've played a LG necromancer that had slowly changed her alignment from LE before beginning play and then had to deal with her chosen specialty school and became extremely depressed every time she cast a necro spell. She had gained "respect" for all living things and it clashed with her magic (I love flawed characters). I played another character that was a LG Cleric/Monk that was a complete pacifist. He would never hurt a living thing and used spells and grapple (pin) attacks to subdue opponents. He had a hard time with the violence of other characters and eventually left the party. And that makes my final point. If Good is as good as this post seems to make it out to be, why would one of these good characters continue to adventure with a neutral party? That’s all I have to say about that. Flash
MalakiTyrel 10-15-03, 04:56 PM	You think it is not good roleplaying to attack things a paladin knows to be evil? Roleplaying is taking on a role of a character and acting as a real person would act. Well, if we take a look at how real people act, there is very little "real good" in the world. Take a look at history and how many atrocities were committed in the name of good. There are many examples of waging war and destruction and very few examples of "lets all get along and do what is best for everyone." I both agree with this and don't agree with this, Flashypants. Let me explain, I do feel it is good roleplaying for Paladins to fight against evil. I do not feel it is good roleplaying for them to attack and kill a merchant because he "detects" as evil. The best way I can explain my view on this is to say that while paladins are dedicated to fighting evil, they are also bound by a code of honor. One should not supercede the other, IMO. I also feel the same way about other good aligned characters. There are a number of atrocities throughout world history that were committed in the name of "good". However, that does not make them any less evil. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." If a character is truly good they will realize the danger of going down this slippery slope. Because of that (and their good alignment) they will take a different approach. I am not an advocate of "good intentions equals good deed". If an act is evil, it does not matter to me the intentions behind it. I judge the characters by their actions. If they are constantly committing atrocities they are evil regardless of what is written in the alignment line of their character sheet. While a player may start out with a LG character, I have no problems adjusting the alignment if they are constantly taking actions which go against the alignment. IMO, it is entirely possible to have a LE character deluding himself into thinking that he is working for the side of good (and believing he is LG) all while he is committing atrocities in support of "good" but is actually furthering the cause of evil. This type of character isn't good and, IMO, is the worst kind of evil. The Crusades, the Holocaust, and the treatment of the Native Americans, are all examples of this misguided notion of what is good. In fact, holy wars of any type fall into this area, IMO. I guess the best way to explain it is that I use alignment to illustrate not only the views of a character about the world but also the methods that character uses to further those views. And that makes my final point. If Good is as good as this post seems to make it out to be, why would one of these good characters continue to adventure with a neutral party? Let me answer this question like this... James Bond is probably the best example of a LN character in mainstream entertainment. He does things which are morally wrong (such as assassinations) but he does these things serving the greater good (protection of England). He spends little time worrying about the implications of his actions and will do what ever is necessary to complete his mission. Many players try to play a good aligned character the same way. The problem is that Bond isn't a good aligned character and what the players are emulating is a LN character. If that is what they are playing, then that is what their alignment should be, IMO. Is Bond a hero? Yes, he is. Does he serve the side of good? Yes, he does. Would a good aligned character work with him? I would say yes. Would they agree on methods or actions? Not all of the time. Now, there are a number of reasons why a good aligned character would adventure with a neutral party (or vice versa). Having a common goal is the biggest. However, that is not the only one. Genuine friendship is another. Now, I have friends who have different idea about things than I do. That difference doesn't preclude me from hanging out with them or being their freind. It simply means that in certain situations I will react differently than they will. The same should be said of characters in game. The reasons a party adventures together are entirely up to the party members (and their players).
Lord Deadite 10-15-03, 05:16 PM	In a non d20 campaign I play a character named Wren one punch, named because he has so excellent unarmed attacks. Well last night we wanted to sneak into a temple and we heard a few musicians getting high in the temple garden. Another player wanted to use deadly force to kill the poor sods, who were simply there to supply music at a feast. I managed to beat two musicians unconcious and another player had cast sleep, so I tied them up, stuffed a herb down their throat that would leave them in a long slumber, but also gave them another herb to provide nutrician for several days. We wore their outfits to gain entry and we were forced to kill the evil cult's jailor. The musicians were suspected, because we had been disguised as them, so I left them a note telling them the story, in case they awoke unaware of the cult's changed perspective towards them. My character is probably CG, but i do feel he shouldnt go around killing people, directly or indirectly. Such as through starvation, because he didnt bother to leave food for his prisoners. He'll try to avoid combat by talking, but if he is threatened he will beat them silly. Because my character is not a paladin, I consider killing very evil people to be better than to bring them to jail. Where they will probably receive an execution anyway. LG people should allways try to bring culprits to justice. Which does not include killing a pick pocketing commoner. If you dont think that's fun to play, then dont play LG. Simple.
Flashypants 10-15-03, 08:49 PM	Again let me reply. I do feel it is good roleplaying for Paladins to fight against evil. I do not feel it is good roleplaying for them to attack and kill a merchant because he "detects" as evil. The best way I can explain my view on this is to say that while paladins are dedicated to fighting evil, they are also bound by a code of honor. One should not supercede the other, IMO. Hold on here. I don't advocate the killing of humans that detect as evil. Humans have laws to protect their own and as a Lawful member of human civilization, a paladin must respect those laws. The paladin is likely to challenge him to a legal duel and investigate or watch him for crimes in order to bring him in to justice if he refuses to duel. In some societies, just detecting as evil might be enough to put someone away (think Minority Report and other utopian SciFi). On the other hand, can we really expect a Lawful Good government, even one run by a paladin, to pass laws protecting the lives of the orcs and hobgoblins in the surrounding hills? Do you think a LG ruler would punish someone for killing an orc he found sleeping in a cave deep in the forest? Not bloody likely and IMO if someone runs his LG D&D governments like this, he is not living up to the standard game world. Orcs, goblins, bugbears, kobolds all live outside the laws. You don't bring them to trial. They are given executions in the field. I judge the characters by their actions. If they are constantly committing atrocities they are evil regardless of what is written in the alignment line of their character sheet. I judge characters by their actions too. But I think our ideas of what is good, is different. In the real world, I believe your ideas of good are correct, but in D&D, against orcs and other evils, things are different. They are the spawn of evil. Created by evil gods, they are marauding destroyers of civilization and eaters of man flesh. Most (but not all) "evil" committed against evil is good. The Crusades, the Holocaust, and the treatment of the Native Americans, are all examples of this misguided notion of what is good. I agree, but the Saracens, the Jews and the Native Americans were (or are) not orcs, nor goblins, nor any other horrible creatures created out of evil. They were men, created by the same maker (or whatever you believe) with all the same basic human rights that should not have been trampled on. In a fantasy world, the evil races exist so that good characters can act as human history shows as reality and still be good. This is a game, and we are dealing with fictional EVIL creatures. I say, let their heads roll. Now, I have friends who have different idea about things than I do. That difference doesn't preclude me from hanging out with them or being their friend. It simply means that in certain situations I will react differently than they will. The same should be said of characters in game. The reasons a party adventures together are entirely up to the party members (and their players). I agree with your last statement here. If you can justify the party being together then play on. But, you cannot compare your differences with your friends in real life to the point I was trying to make with the statement you responded to above. It is not as though you are a person who would only resort to violence as a last resort and your friends are vigilantes who murder anyone they thoroughly believe has committed a heinous crime. At least I hope not. I assume you are talking about differences in political views or that you don't drink and they like to go out a party, or something equally simple. The point I was trying to make is this. If a "good" character only resorts to violence after all other options have been eliminated and his "neutral" companions always attack evil beings on sight... If the "neutral" companions kill orc babies to stop them from becoming evil adults and the "good" hero would rather they be spared because they are innocent... If the "neutral" characters assassinate a ruler for the greater good and the "good" character feels assassination is immoral... How can you rationalize these characters being friends and traveling together? Finally, here is another question for all of you. If a character kills all evil beings it finds, a few neutral creatures either out of defense or by accident, and never kills any good creatures, how can the character's ultimate alignment be anything but good? I'm not saying there is no answer to this question. I just want to see it. That's all I have to say about that (for now). Flash
MalakiTyrel 10-15-03, 10:41 PM	Hold on here. I don't advocate the killing of humans that detect as evil. Humans have laws to protect their own and as a Lawful member of human civilization, a paladin must respect those laws. The paladin is likely to challenge him to a legal duel and investigate or watch him for crimes in order to bring him in to justice if he refuses to duel. In some societies, just detecting as evil might be enough to put someone away (think Minority Report and other utopian SciFi). Maybe you didn't advocate the killing of humans, Flashypants. However, I never said the merchant was human. I merely said he was evil. You also did advocate my earlier example of simply killing a half-orc blacksmith for being part orc. I am not talking about field exectutions of obviously evil beings. I am talking about walking into a town and detect, thumping all whom the paladin feels deserves it. Lethal force does not bother me when it is warranted. But, using it simply because it is available reeks of corrupted power. I agree, but the Saracens, the Jews and the Native Americans were (or are) not orcs, nor goblins, nor any other horrible creatures created out of evil. They were men, created by the same maker (or whatever you believe) with all the same basic human rights that should not have been trampled on. In a fantasy world, the evil races exist so that good characters can act as human history shows as reality and still be good. This is a game, and we are dealing with fictional EVIL creatures. I say, let their heads roll. I don't think the race of the target validates an action. In a given campaign, if orcs are the enemy and have a history of aggression agaignst a heroes race, I can see where the meetings would be hostile. But, the idea of slaying a creature solely because of its bloodline (outside of outsiders, demons, undead, etc) is something a good aligned being would not do, IMO. But, you cannot compare your differences with your friends in real life to the point I was trying to make with the statement you responded to above. Actually I can. However, my point was in response to your question of why anyone would adventure with them. People can be friends with people who have differing views and solutions to problems. People have different approaches to solving problems. In D&D that is partially represented by alignment. But, I would say that if a character's first instinct is "kill 'em all, let the gods sort 'em out" then that character isn't, by definition, a good character. Killing a being simply because of its race (again, excluding demons, etc) is not the "good" way to approach things. Killing a being simply because you think it might, one day in the future, do something bad is wrong. Now, I am speaking in very general terms. I am not saying that any good character who battle evil and uses lethal force is not good. I am simply saying that there are times when lethal force is not only not necessary but also would be considered a bad thing to use. I expect my players to do a little more work as far as roleplaying goes than to simply play a detect, thump paladin or any similar type of character.
bitnine 10-15-03, 11:33 PM	Originally posted by MalakiTyrel I don't think the race of the target validates an action. Well, at least a couple of times, the quote has been brought up: Originally stated by the SRD He [an evil character] condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. But I'm sure that they meant it to apply to good characters as well.
Leap 10-16-03, 04:15 AM	Vaal – You know, I've been thinking... maybe its just adventurers. It takes a very hard person to go raid ancestral tombs, loot the fallen, and leave them unburied. Gotta agree with you there Vaal. That is also something to question Tomb Raider and Indy Jones on as well…………. Wonderful thing, Colonialism. It gives us the right to shaft other cultures under the cause of “its for you own good”. LE anybody? Malakai – Leap, I don't disagree with this. Self sacrifice can take many forms. I think WOTCs understanding of ‘sacrifice’ creates a great deal of the problem with alignment (and indeed leads to so much ‘evil’ in the name of ‘good’ because by its nature it is divisive and thus adds to the privacy-centeredness that evils egotism comes from – essentially sacrifice (self-abandonment) tends to feed egotists by giving them easy fodder). I don't think the race of the target validates an action. In a given campaign, if orcs are the enemy and have a history of aggression against a heroes race, I can see where the meetings would be hostile. But, the idea of slaying a creature solely because of its bloodline (outside of outsiders, demons, undead, etc) is something a good aligned being would not do, IMO. There are 2 types of campaign approach; conservative (which has evil being an irredeemable nature embedded in Orcs / undead etc – in the Tolkien mould) and liberal (which includes Orcs in the category of sentient critters who can be good within a world more like our own (no inherently evil sentient beings (in truth the two terms (inherently-evil / sentient) are mutually incompatible)) just some cultures that create evil beings). Flashypants – replace the Saracens with vile, blood thirsty orcs who had taken over the "holy land" hundreds of years earlier and it is definitely good. See, orcs and the other evil races give the worlds of D&D evil scapegoats for good characters to come down on and allowing this type of thing is more realistic because things like this really happened Not really comparable considering the Saracens treated those they defeated far better than either Orcs or crusaders! Orcs in DnD are at least a valid target (hmmmmm considering the treatment of those they defeated, so, by and large, were the crusaders!!!). Bitnine – He [an evil character] condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. Interesting. By that standard, WOTC are distancing themselves from Tolkien and by those standards Legolas and Gimly would be LE!
Addi83 10-16-03, 08:38 AM	Actually, what you described is mostly neutral. Most people in the real world are neutral, basically ok people, who aren´t malicious or even really hurtful unless provoked, and would put themselves in danger to save a friend or family member. Basically wish others well, as long as they don´t have to do that much about it themselves. (There are varied degrees of this, but I believe this is the main line) Now, Good people on the other hand will go out of their way and/or put themselves in danger to help anyone who is in danger and really needs help. That doesn´t mean that they can be abused easily, but probably more easily than neutral (and certainly more easily then evil) people. Good people get angry when they hear about evil deeds and want to put an end to them (some deeds of course are so evil that neutral and even lesser degrees of evil people would also be outraged, like pedophilia for example) The difference: Evil persons might put themselves in danger to save their own child or their own grandmother, because there are such varying degrees of evil. Some evil people might eat their own child. Neutral people would put themselves in danger to save friends and family, and maybe anyone whos need was really dire, or someone especially vulnerable, like a child. Good people would put themselves in danger to save anyone who needs it and is not obviously using them (even then they might get involved if the danger was real "what are we gonna do, let him die?") Good does not equal stupid, but gullability in a good person is probably more apperant than gullibility in a neutral person, because the good person wants to help, and has to decide who really needs their help, while an evil person wouldn´t even consider it, so the question of stupid/gullible never comes up with them.
MalakiTyrel 10-16-03, 09:58 AM	well said, Addi83.
Lord Deadite 10-16-03, 10:21 AM	"This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who!" Now then, let's continue. Orcs are evil, most humans know that and accept that as a undeniable fact. The saracenes were equally foul and evil in the eyes of the europeans. So things are exagerrated others are flat out lies, but in D&D, the nature of orcs can not be anything else than evil. But that's not what this is about. Orcs arent the only beings with an evil allignment. Alot of humans are evil alligned aswell, Good characters should not simply try to kill them, people change, orcs do not. Give them a chance to atone and repend. You are evil, so I'll kill you = not a good act. Thou shalt not kill, didnt stop the crusaders, but I wouldnt call them good. Even today US apache helicopters are blessed by priests. Nothing has changed in the nature of humanity, we often delude ourselves into thinking we are rightious and good.
bitnine 10-16-03, 10:28 AM	Originally posted by Lord Deadite The saracenes were equally foul and evil in the eyes of the europeans. So things are exagerrated others are flat out lies, but in D&D, the nature of orcs can not be anything else than evil. Yes, because when they alignment entry for orcs states Usually Evil, even though the percentage given in the MM for that entry is 40-50% of the race having that alignment, they probably meant to say Always Evil, though no humanoid race in the MM is locked into an Always alignment. And, of course, it also states that half-orcs have no good/evil tendancies, but I think it's safe to simply assume that they are invariably evil as well.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-16-03, 10:31 AM	Isn't this just an extension of the historical doctrine of humanity to dehumanize, then demonize others to make it 'okay' to kill/enslave/infect with various deseases? Sort of a 'Libidinous Blacks' or 'The Noble Savage' for use vs. orc/kobold/dragon-kind?
Leap 10-16-03, 11:03 AM	Addi83 – Actually, what you described is mostly neutral. Erm…where? Good people on the other hand will go out of their way and/or put themselves in danger to help anyone who is in danger and really needs help. This makes me think of an example from a film (Earthquake or something like that) where some people are trapped in an underground railway carriage and lava is creeping towards and past their carriage; one daft beggar decides to melt his way into the lava in order so save someone else. I’m sorry but that is not ‘good’ is just ‘foolish’. It’s the kind of nonsense that feeds egotism by making a resource of yourself. By all means try to save the people, but to go that far is just a real no-brainer (for both yourself AND wider society). It is based on fundamental lack of self-worth. Goods says “you are worth more than me, have what is mine”, Neutral says “hey, buddy, wanna share a pizza” and evil says “I spat on you bit of pizza so I can have that bit as well”. Good, as stands, is just a ready made “animal bread to want to be ate” (Hitchhikers anyone?) for evil to consume and teaches only that they consider it fine to think of people as resources.
Cabren 10-16-03, 11:15 AM	Which sums up why there is only one valid kind of good alignment. And it isn't the idealized BS that some talk about. It's violent, dangerous, and helps people by eliminating any possible problem before it might become a threat. That's it.
bitnine 10-16-03, 11:19 AM	Originally posted by Cabren Which sums up why there is only one valid kind of good alignment. And it isn't the idealized BS that some talk about. It's violent, dangerous, and helps people by eliminating any possible problem before it might become a threat. That's it. The Knighthood of Toastytot thanks you for your support.
Cabren 10-16-03, 11:25 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot No there are no good people out in here D&D land, or there must be extremely few. If the answers in the Lye Blackthorn morality thread are indicative of anything, then there are no good people, only neutral and evil people. Probably because the wimpy goody-two-shoes all died at the hands of creatures that are more than happy to take advantage of their stupidly self-imposed weakness.
Sereno 10-16-03, 11:38 AM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Isn't this just an extension of the historical doctrine of humanity to dehumanize, then demonize others to make it 'okay' to kill/enslave/infect with various deseases? Sort of a 'Libidinous Blacks' or 'The Noble Savage' for use vs. orc/kobold/dragon-kind? I completely disagree with this concept. I believe there's absolutely no need to 'dehumanize' orcs/kobolds/dragons as THEY AREN"T HUMAN in the first place. They're monsters! We aren't discussing 'just another type of person' here ... they ARE different from the normal society which (let's face it) are "human"; dwarves, elves, halflings as far as the game is concerned are all just variations of humans when you come right down to it. The closest "real world" example of this would be shepherds vs. wolves. In olden days, the shepherd's livelihood (and likely his LIFE) was dependent upon his flock. Not ALL wolves attack and eat sheep, but they USUALLY do. Shepherds used to kill wolves on sight, if they could, because it was really an US vs. THEM ... and THEM were dangerous killers. We now have the luxury of myriad methods of protecting our herd animals so there's no need to kill wolves and, in fact, now we try as hard as we can to protect them ... but the D&D world isn't the US in the 21st Century! Not only are the people (Humans, Elves, Dwarves...) STILL dealing with all of the problems that earth humans had to deal with (animals, weather, etc) and in addition, they've got MONSTERS .... REAL MONSTERS to deal with....
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-16-03, 11:46 AM	Originally posted by Sereno I completely disagree with this concept. I believe there's absolutely no need to 'dehumanize' orcs/kobolds/dragons as THEY AREN"T HUMAN in the first place. They're monsters! We aren't discussing 'just another type of person' here ... they ARE different from the normal society which (let's face it) are "human"; dwarves, elves, halflings as far as the game is concerned are all just variations of humans when you come right down to it. Dwarves, Elves, Halflings and the like have thier own societies, aside from humans. They are no more human than orcs are (there are both half elves adn half orcs after all) Orcs, kobolds and the like do have sentient, working societies. They aren't just roving animals (like the wolves that attacked flocks were most often rogues from a pack), they are living sentient humaniods. So, yeah, I think my example works. Its a mechanism to make it okay to kill them. At least in the mind of the guy with blood on his hands, who is no longer a filty murderer, but rather a 'soldier for good'. Feh. Unprovoked murder is still murder when we're talking about sentients.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-16-03, 11:48 AM	Originally posted by Cabren Which sums up why there is only one valid kind of good alignment. And it isn't the idealized BS that some talk about. It's violent, dangerous, and helps people by eliminating any possible problem before it might become a threat. That's it. Humans are capable of far more evil than any kobold. I say burn 'em all and let the gods sort 'em out -- in fact, lets kill every living thing, just in case some wacky druid awakens it.
Leap 10-16-03, 11:54 AM	For those of you taking the Meta-Human Rights Activist stance of "Orcs are people too", please go back to my post on the previous page and consider the two styles of campaign (conservative and liberal), please!
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-16-03, 12:02 PM	Ah, but you used Tolkien as a reference. Don't make me quote Gandalf's view on killing.
bitnine 10-16-03, 12:08 PM	Originally posted by Leap For those of you taking the Meta-Human Rights Activist stance of "Orcs are people too", please go back to my post on the previous page and consider the two styles of campaign (conservative and liberal), please! I'm going to call them bleeding-heart and murderlicious, because I think those names are more fun. Anyways, I think that something that I've been running with is that much of the material that I've read doesn't quite support a purely mederlicious approach towards the game. Things from hearing about how an orcish general was honored as a cool dude in teh FRCS (apparently) or the alignment breakdown for half-orcs in the books included. I realize, of course, aren't portrayed as hard-core bleeding-heart in many modules and other sources as well, but the strongest lean towards the murderlicious line has been more towards popcorn bust-down-the-door themed play in what I've seen. Of course, you can choose to polarize things into a purely murderlicious setting, but you still have to wonder if Gimli and Legolas (given your example) would have killed a defenseless orcish matron and then roasted her babies over a spit. If they killed every orc they met and every orc they met tried to kill them, that doesn't go to show that they'd kill every orc they met if the orcs weren't trying to kill them. (Of course, you can further alter things so that you erase any notion of noncombatants from the books to better circumvent those wussy bleeding-heart issues; which, I suppose may be what some of y'all have done.) However, I am teh looking forward to the BoED: This book is all about how to make a good alignment mean something, and how to live up to the ideals implied in that alignment. The Book of Exalted Deeds is intended for mature players because it deals with tough questions of ethics and morality in a serious manner. It's intended to help players and Dungeon Masters wrestle with hard in-game issues: Is it okay to slaughter every drow I see and sell their goods on the open market? How do I wrest information from enemy prisoners without compromising my alignment? Is there any hope for the orc whelps in the stronghold, or should we slaughter them, too? Many players would just as soon overlook these questions, believing they detract from the fun of the game. There's nothing wrong with that. For groups that want to address these issues, however, the Book of Exalted Deeds opens the way. (Apparently the BoED at the very least takes a bleeding-heart enough approach that it terms torture and infanticide to be "tough questions" and not "no brainers" as you might see in a fully muderlicious setting.)
Leap 10-16-03, 12:09 PM	"Ah, but you used Tolkien as a reference. Don't make me quote Gandalf's view on killing." No...NO...NOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooo oooo!!!!!! :D
Leap 10-16-03, 12:23 PM	Vaal – “Of course, you can choose to polarize things into a purely murderlicious setting, but you still have to wonder if Gimli and Legolas (given your example) would have killed a defenseless orcish matron and then roasted her babies over a spit.” Well, the Rohirrim were hardly selective………………………. In Muddle earth (ooops! ;) ) Orcs are inherently evil, whilst Gollum was not (thus gollum was given the chance to achieve redemption that was not available to Orcs). I am increasingly of the opinion that LG is/should-be about being part of a society in which people behave in an honest and decent way towards each other but have no requirements to act so towards non-LG. This means respecting other LGs who are not part of your community, but not those dodgy folk who are not LG. Yes I realise that heads me towards detect *thump* and away from BoED…………..
Sereno 10-16-03, 12:50 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Dwarves, Elves, Halflings and the like have thier own societies, aside from humans. They are no more human than orcs are (there are both half elves adn half orcs after all) Orcs, kobolds and the like do have sentient, working societies. They aren't just roving animals (like the wolves that attacked flocks were most often rogues from a pack), they are living sentient humaniods. So, yeah, I think my example works. Its a mechanism to make it okay to kill them. At least in the mind of the guy with blood on his hands, who is no longer a filty murderer, but rather a 'soldier for good'. Feh. Unprovoked murder is still murder when we're talking about sentients. I don't mean that they're like 'genetically' Human :rolleyes: ... Dwarves, Elves, Halflings might have their own societies ... but they are the default "people" of every stock D&D setting and most fantasy novels, too. It's almost always THEM (the people) against the MONSTERS. Sure they don't always like each other, but they still band together to defeat evil when it rises. Sure Orcs and kobolds have societies, they are (reasonably) intelligent and social MONSTERS ... but that doesn't make them "people". Illithids and beholders have societies, too, that doesn't make them "people" either ... nor does it remove the evilness with which they are steeped. I'm not in the camp of "kill 'em all, they're evil," and I don't believe in D.E./kill at all ... but I think you've gone WAAAAAY down the wrong path here. If good societies must be reduced to "waiting until something attacks them" before they can act in a manner YOU feel to be justified ... they'll eventually be wiped out by attrition. If Orcs raid a town, and the citizens don't send a party out to find the Orc's lair and kill them or drive them off, the town won't last long.
Sereno 10-16-03, 12:53 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Humans are capable of far more evil than any kobold. You base this on what? :rolleyes:
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-16-03, 01:11 PM	Life span: Humans 1HD kobolds 1/4 HD who do you think will live to see level 10?
Leap 10-16-03, 02:38 PM	If kobold breed and mature at least 4 times faster than humans....I beg to differ ;)
bitnine 10-16-03, 02:43 PM	Originally posted by Leap If kobold breed and mature at least 4 times faster than humans....I beg to differ ;) Meh, Humans are capable of more anything than Kobolds. Those sad, sorry, pathetic kobolds. Aw. If nothing else, it's a question of ineptitude.
Arilou_skiff 10-16-03, 03:34 PM	Orcs live outside the law yes, just like eg. native american tribes or tartar tribes lived outside the laws of the respective governments (american and russian respectively) that claimed their territory. I tend to view orcs/bugbears etc. etc. as (usually) nastier versions of those societies: Their society is based on the rule of the strong and raiding is considered a good way to get what you want, that does not mean however that treaties cannot be made with orcs, just that they generally speaking aren't trustworthy. Orcs are nasty and one ought to keep their eyes on them, but simply killing them is *wrong* and as for saying Orcs are not members of society... Take the Vast in the FR, or Athkatla in Amn, where something like 5% of the populace are half-orcs, and even several full-orcs can live with no problems.
bitnine 10-16-03, 03:36 PM	Originally posted by Leap Vaal – Yes I realise that heads me towards detect *thump* and away from BoED………….. Erm, I'm not Vaal. Also, yeah, the BoED even has a disclaimer: The Book of Exalted Deeds is for players who aren't satisfied by slapping a good alignment label on their character and then acting no different from the neutral characters in the party. This book is all about how to make a good alignment mean something, and how to live up to the ideals implied in their alignment. So I suppose it isn't for everyone.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-16-03, 03:52 PM	Originally posted by bitnine Erm, I'm not Vaal. But isn't there a little Vaalingrade in all of us?
bitnine 10-16-03, 04:07 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland But isn't there a little Vaalingrade in all of us? If there is, I'm suing you for sexual harassment.
Flashypants 10-16-03, 04:46 PM	MalakiTyrel Maybe you didn't advocate the killing of humans, Flashypants. However, I never said the merchant was human. I merely said he was evil. You also did advocate my earlier example of simply killing a half-orc blacksmith for being part orc. Hold on there. Now you are splitting hairs. If you don't say that a merchant or any typical town dweller is of a race other than human, the automatic default is for the readers to assume it is a human. And please don't miss quote me about killing the half-orc blacksmith. You said I do not however feel that allowing Good characters to walk into a town and slaughter a half-orc blacksmith simply because half of him is a race that is "usually evil" is a good idea either. If you review my previous post in response to the above, I said exactly "I don't agree with this either, but then half-orcs are extremely rare in my campaign world and I don't allow half-orc PCs without special permission from me. In my world and the world I play a character in, half-orcs are never seen in towns." Please review that post and get my full view of how half-orcs are treated in my campaign. It is not very nice, but it is more realistic in a medieval fantasy setting than allowing them to be integrated members of society. And yes I know that the default D&D world considers half-orcs valued members of society, but I started my game in 2nd Ed many years ago when half-orcs were niether a standard character race, nor very common as NPCs. I am talking about walking into a town and detect, thumping all whom the paladin feels deserves it. I'm not advocating this either. As I said before, towns and cities, created by humans or elves or dwarves or another race not born of evil have laws and those laws must be respected by your paladin. Even if those cities and laws allow orcs and other evil races into town as any other race (not likely and pretty silly, IMO) then the laws must protect them too. They can only be arrested for known crimes (barring a very abnormal justice system where detection spells can determine guilt). I don't think the race of the target validates an action. In a given campaign, if orcs are the enemy and have a history of aggression against a hero’s race, I can see where the meetings would be hostile. I my campaign orcs are horrible and evil enough that almost all meeting with them are hostile and their race does validate an aggressive action unless there are exceptional circumstances to warrant an other course. Violence is the default for orc behavior and adventurers are encouraged to respond in kind. Actually I can (compare differences with friends) . However, my point was in response to your question of why anyone would adventure with them. People can be friends with people who have differing views and solutions to problems. People have different approaches to solving problems. I'm sorry but this was an inadequate response to my point. I agree that people can have varying views and ways of handling citations, but this different? You totally sidestepped my example and didn't address my question. Here it is again: "If a "good" character only resorts to violence after all other options have been eliminated and his "neutral" companions always attack evil beings on sight... If the "neutral" companions kill orc babies to stop them from becoming evil adults and the "good" hero would rather they be spared because they are innocent... If the "neutral" characters assassinate a ruler for the greater good and the "good" character feels assassination is immoral... How can you rationalize these characters being friends and traveling together?" Now, I am speaking in very general terms. I am not saying that any good character who battle evil and uses lethal force is not good. I am simply saying that there are times when lethal force is not only not necessary but also would be considered a bad thing to use. Good. A little progress. I agree with you. There are times a when the use of force would not be a good thing. But in a fantasy world, against evil races such as orcs and hobgoblins these situations are much more rare than they are against races not born out of evil such as humans and elves. Sure, it is not good to wade in and slaughter weaponless, surrendering orcs, but executing them later for their previous crimes after a quick trial is justice. It might be brutal justice, but that’s what the middle ages were, and most D&D campaigns are based loosely on that time period. And in a fantasy game where there is a definite, well known afterlife of some sort, how bad is it to send orcs back to their evil gods? Leap There are 2 types of campaign approach; conservative (which has evil being an irredeemable nature embedded in Orcs / undead etc – in the Tolkien mould) and liberal (which includes Orcs in the category of sentient critters who can be good within a world more like our own (no inherently evil sentient beings (in truth the two terms (inherently-evil / sentient) are mutually incompatible)) just some cultures that create evil beings). Half right. I agree with most of this and its what I've been saying for awhile now on this and other threads. There can be different approaches to this matter. I happen to follow the first type (mostly) in my campaign but allow good characters in my game to act as though the second type was in effect. I can do this because of your inaccurate statement that inherently evil and sentient are incompatible. The definition of sentient according to Webster is "of or capable of feeling; conscious." That’s fine, but what if orcs only (or almost only) feel negative emotions such as hatred and greed. Wouldn't this then make them near irredeemable? At least enough to support both types of your campaign approaches? Not really comparable considering the Saracens treated those they defeated far better than either Orcs or crusaders! Orcs in DnD are at least a valid target (hmmmmm considering the treatment of those they defeated, so, by and large, were the crusaders!!!). Hey! I'm not comparing the Saracens to orcs. I said REPLACE. Replace the fair and decent people of the Holy Land with "vile, blood thirsty orcs" and there is more justification for the Crusades. I was advocating crusades against orcs in a fantasy game. I know the history and the nature of Saladin and his men well enough, thank you (third Crusade is the most interesting and well known). Lord Deadite I agree with your statements if I understand you correctly. Is this right?: Killing orcs: 99% of the time is good Killing humans: only when necessary demands; capture being better bitnineYes, because when they alignment entry for orcs states Usually Evil, even though the percentage given in the MM for that entry is 40-50% of the race having that alignment, they probably meant to say Always Evil, though no humanoid race in the MM is locked into an Always alignment. Wrong. Good sarcasm, but not quite right. The entry for orcs in 3.5 says "Often Chaotic Evil." You are right about the 40-50% part, but your biggest mistake was leaving out the Chaotic part. Lets say 50% of orcs are chaotic evil. What percentage then is Neutral Evil and what percent is Chaotic Neutral? What percentage is Lawful Evil? What percentage is Lawful Good? I would say the further you get from their "often" alignment the less chance there is of them being of a given alignment. Isn't this just an extension of the historical doctrine of humanity to dehumanize, then demonize others to make it 'okay' to kill/enslave/infect with various deseases? Sort of a 'Libidinous Blacks' or 'The Noble Savage' for use vs. orc/kobold/dragon-kind? Yes, it is. But in the D&D game there are truly evil creatures to perform these acts on, making them good. I'm sorry but you are defending the rights of EVIL, FICTIONAL creatures. CabrenWhich sums up why there is only one valid kind of good alignment. And it isn't the idealized BS that some talk about. It's violent, dangerous, and helps people by eliminating any possible problem before it might become a threat. That's it. Wrong. Though I do advocate the righteous smiter type of good, it is not, NOT, the only type of good allowed. The type of good Vaal and MalakiTyrel are advocating is perfectly valid and should be able to coexist with the other. Sereno Yes! Yes! You get it! I commend you, brother. VaalAh, but you used Tolkien as a reference. Don't make me quote Gandalf's view on killing. Right, both types of good exist in Tolkien so why not in D&D. Gandalf doesn’t like killing, but Gimli and Legolas would kill orcs anywhere for the greater good. (They would not roast orc babies over a spit). They are all good characters, just Gandalf holds himself to higher standards. Both these types of good characters can exist in my campaign. Everyone Hey, no one addressed my question from the end of my last post. Here it is again. Please respond If a character kills all evil beings he finds, a few neutral creatures either out of defense or by accident, and never kills any good creatures, how can the character's ultimate alignment be anything but good? I'm not saying there is no answer to this question. I just want to see it. And that’s all I have to say about that. Flash
MalakiTyrel 10-16-03, 06:16 PM	I'm sorry but this was an inadequate response to my point. I agree that people can have varying views and ways of handling citations, but this different? You totally sidestepped my example and didn't address my question. Here it is again: "If a "good" character only resorts to violence after all other options have been eliminated and his "neutral" companions always attack evil beings on sight... If the "neutral" companions kill orc babies to stop them from becoming evil adults and the "good" hero would rather they be spared because they are innocent... If the "neutral" characters assassinate a ruler for the greater good and the "good" character feels assassination is immoral... How can you rationalize these characters being friends and traveling together?" Flashypants, I wasn't trying to sidestep your question. I was trying to answer it. Perhaps I was a little too general and didn't address it well enough. While I think your example is a little extreme, I'll play along. In your example, there could be a number of reasons why these two adventure together. First, they could have been ordered to. Perhaps they are part of a team of "troubleshooters" working for the local Noble and tasked with combating whatever threatens that nobles land. Second, they could have been genuine friends who grew up together. Third, perhaps they are tasked with some sort of quest. Fourth, maybe they share a common enemy and have joined force to combat that enemy. Why a party adventures together can be as simple as "because they are all pc's" or as complex and varied as the characters themselves. Also, no one ever said that all parties get along well all the time. Inter-party conflict can add greatly to a campaign since it adds the the imersion element. Conflicts like the one you presented could tear a party apart if fighting orcs was the focus of the campaign. But, if it was something which only came up rarely then it could be an opportunity for great roleplaying. Again, I am speaking in general terms. As I stated once before, one has to play within a given campaign. What can be party building conflict in one campaign can be party destroying conflict in another. I my campaign orcs are horrible and evil enough that almost all meeting with them are hostile and their race does validate an aggressive action unless there are exceptional circumstances to warrant an other course. Violence is the default for orc behavior and adventurers are encouraged to respond in kind. The key words here are "in my campaign". While orcs may be vile, despicable creatures who attack humans on sight and eat elf babies raw in your campaign that does not mean that is the way orcs are portrayed in all campaigns. We have already seen how Arilou Skiff treats them and similar demi-humans in his (I assume "he" so my apologies if I am wrong) campaign. So what is "right" in your campaign (in regards to treatment of orcs) would be wrong in his. Again, we are speaking in general terms. However, I have a hard time accepting that, in any campaign, it is acceptable to slaughter women, the elderly, and children simply because of their bloodline. That, to me, does not define good behavior. In a way, it does go back to what Vaal said about the dehuminization of others. The US government did it to justify their treatment of both the Native Americans and African-Americans. While you are correct in saying that we are talking about fictional races, we are also talking about SENTIENT races. With sentience comes the possibility of choice. With the possibliity of choice comes the possibility of self-determination. With the possiblility of self-determination comes the possibility of change. If a DM portrays orcs as mindless and bloodthirsty monsters to be killed on sight and serve no other purpose than to provide xp for the party, then it is not only acceptable but expected for the party to kill them on sight. However, if a DM is portraying them as they should be (i.e. as truly sentient beings with a culture and individuality) then killing one on sight is no less evil than killing a human (or other pc race) on sight. It is a difference in perspective. Are orcs (and similar races) like a shark with no capacity for compassion or comprehension of right and wrong and live just to kill? Or are they near equal to humans in their intelligence, culture and diversity? This seems to be why we are disagreeing. You seem to be debating from the former perspective where as I am debating from the latter. Hey, no one addressed my question from the end of my last post. Here it is again. Please respond If a character kills all evil beings he finds, a few neutral creatures either out of defense or by accident, and never kills any good creatures, how can the character's ultimate alignment be anything but good? I'm not saying there is no answer to this question. I just want to see it. Depends on how he is killing them. Is he slaying them in their sleep? Is he fireballing large areas and catching innocents in the blast? Is he using poison (for a paladin)? Is he offering to help them, then backstabbing them after they accept? Is he killing children because of who (or rather "what") their parents are? Is he killing out of a sense of vengeance or blind hatred? There are a number of ways that the character you describe can be an alignment other than good. In some instances he could even be evil--say a CE mage destroying other evil mages who would take or try to usurp his power. EDIT: Flashypants, after reading over the previous page again, I realize that you did not advocate the killing of the half-orc. Please accept my apologies for saying you did.
Flashypants 10-17-03, 02:54 AM	Thanks again for responding. You satisfied my questions and my challenges in your last post very well and made some strong arguments. That being said, I still take issue with some of your statements. Allow me to respond in turn. I'm not going to quote your entire answer for my "can you justify this party." You answered it justly and adequately. As I said in an earlier post "if you can justify the party being together then play on." The problem lies in my question. What I intended was a generic adventuring party that met in a tavern during the first session and is not bound by any outside force or obligation. It might seem a little unfair to put this kind of restriction on this question, but I contend that the characters in my example would not grow as friends because of their differences in philosophy. One "good" character would not be able to stay with four "neutral" characters that constantly offends his morals as per my examples without some outside force keeping them together. I can't even see life long friends staying together without the "good" character slowly changing his alignment to neutral or at least two of the "neutrals" being influenced to good. Internal conflict is often fun if your group is mature enough to handle it, but the extremeness of the good alignment advocated in this thread I believe would not allow one good character to adventure with a group of neutrals. A balanced party of neutrals and goods is more likely to stay together and provides for a little of the inter-party conflict that can be so fun. Conflicts like the one you presented could tear a party apart if fighting orcs was the focus of the campaign. But, if it was something which only came up rarely then it could be an opportunity for great roleplaying. But if it is not orcs, it is gnolls, or drow, or illithids, or red dragons, or manticores. I have been using orcs as an example. It doesn't have to be the same evil beings in every encounter to make the "good" character upset about the actions of his "neutral" companions. Most D&D campaigns have conflicts with many evil beings even without having a true "focus" on any of them. But alas, there are many ways to play and if you can find some reason for a party to stick together, even a party that would realistically be stretched to the limit, so be it. Rule Zero proceeds all. The key words here are "in my campaign". While orcs may be vile, despicable creatures who attack humans on sight and eat elf babies raw in your campaign that does not mean that is the way orcs are portrayed in all campaigns. We have already seen how Arilou Skiff treats them and similar demi-humans in his (I assume "he" so my apologies if I am wrong) campaign. So what is "right" in your campaign (in regards to treatment of orcs) would be wrong in his. Absolutely. I've stated many times that this is the way I do things in my game, and I respect the choice for any DM to run things the way he wants. This posting is my attempt to understand your strict point of view and challenge your ideas by presenting my own. When we are done here, we will both still play the way we believe is the best way and that is the way it should be. Score two for Rule Zero.If a DM portrays orcs as mindless and bloodthirsty monsters to be killed on sight and serve no other purpose than to provide xp for the party, then it is not only acceptable but expected for the party to kill them on sight. However, if a DM is portraying them as they should be (i.e. as truly sentient beings with a culture and individuality) then killing one on sight is no less evil than killing a human (or other pc race) on sight. It is a difference in perspective. Are orcs (and similar races) like a shark with no capacity for compassion or comprehension of right and wrong and live just to kill? Or are they near equal to humans in their intelligence, culture and diversity? You make me sound like a kick-in-the-door, hack and slash, detect and smite type of player. You should be able to tell by my previous posts that I'm not that type of DM and I'm half offended by your statements here. My orcs are NOT mindless beings only to be killed for experience, but they ARE generally bloodthirsty and evil. Do they have no compassion or comprehension of right and wrong? Yes they do. But "right" to them is destruction of anything good and "wrong" is being too weak to do your part to destroy civilization. Do they have the ability to adopt human standards of right and wrong? Yes, but only 1-5% of them will ever understand it enough to change their nature. Are they near equal to humans in their intelligence, culture and diversity? No. The average human alignment is True Neutral because there is equal numbers on both sides. Humans are the most diverse race in the game. That is the reason their favored class is "Any" and the reason they get an extra feat and skill points. No other race is as diverse. Most other races have some standard alignment and a tight niche that their culture fits in the game world. Each race has some members that are outside the norm, but they are simply exceptions with varying degrees of rarity, generally getting more rare the further the character gets away from the racial archetype. Depends on how he is killing them. Is he slaying them in their sleep? Is he fireballing large areas and catching innocents in the blast? Is he using poison (for a paladin)? Is he offering to help them, then backstabbing them after they accept? Is he killing children because of who (or rather "what") their parents are? Is he killing out of a sense of vengeance or blind hatred? Great! Looks like I need more focus on this question too. What I intended is what we have been discussing all along. The character is a fighter (or paladin) that slays, with a sword, all evil creatures he comes across. If the fighter is Chaotic and has no sense of fairness and honor he should have no problem using poison or slaying evil creatures in their sleep or deceiving evil creatures (not good/evil issues, IMO). He might kill an occasional neutral creature in self-defense or because they are working with evil creatures, but he never kills innocents who happen to be in the combat zone by accident. He would never even consider attacking or otherwise harming a good creature because he is on their side (not a villain, killing off his rivals). There, can you say that this character is not good? Here is another thing for you to consider. A character begins the game as a Chaotic Good character and kills orcs indiscriminately. By shear luck he always happens to kill evil orcs (that have all committed heinous acts) even though he sometimes ambushes them and kills them before they even know he is there. Then, one day, a Chaotic Good orc that is innocent of all normal orcish atrocities comes by. The character ambushes this orc from cover without knowing the orc was good. Does the character lose his good alignment? Would it not be a great roleplaying opportunity when the character finds out that the orc was a good guy? He would be mentally tortured by the fact that he had done something wrong and the character might be more cautious in the future. Is it permissible to allow this to happen naturally without any alignment change for this character? Would you demand that this character begin the game with a neutral alignment because of his recklessness when attacking orcs? Could he later become good after learning this lesson? I hope I made this question clear and focused enough. Please read and respond. Thanks. That's all I have to say about that. Flash
Arilou_skiff 10-17-03, 07:27 AM	Am I correct in assuming you treat Evil Orcs as "fair game" for the "Detect=Thump" than evil humans? If so, why?
Leap 10-17-03, 07:34 AM	Bitnine – Erm, I'm not Vaal. :embarrassed: Oooops, sorry!! :D Also, yeah, the BoED even has a disclaimer: quote: The Book of Exalted Deeds is for players who aren't satisfied by slapping a good alignment label on their character and then acting no different from the neutral characters in the party. This book is all about how to make a good alignment mean something, and how to live up to the ideals implied in their alignment. So I suppose it isn't for everyone. Mee-OOWW!!! Saucer of milk?! If the BoED ( I keep thinking it means Book of Evil Darkness!!) has yet more of the fluffy “Orcs are people too” approach I predict it will only fuel arguments, not solve any. Those people who try to be nice to Orcs are like those people who try to be nice to Piranha; “sooner or later they are going turn around and bite you” (Sheridan, Cptn John J, Babylon 5 :) ) – its their nature, like that of the scorpion who gets to ride across the river on the back of an animal (I’m sure you were all told that as kids?!!)…………….at least that’s the way I play it. If you begin to have them as sentients you need to do so in a setting like Al-Quadeem (where everyone does not expect orcs to be bad). Flashypants – I happen to follow the first type Me to. but allow good characters in my game to act as though the second type was in effect. I can do this because of your inaccurate statement that inherently evil and sentient are incompatible. The definition of sentient according to Webster is "of or capable of feeling; conscious." That’s fine, but what if Orcs only (or almost only) feel negative emotions such as hatred and greed. Wouldn't this then make them near irredeemable? At least enough to support both types of your campaign approaches? Yeah, I know I disagree with the dictionary on that, and am probably thus being a bit misleading with the use of the word ‘sentient’………….but I included in sentience an inherent sociality and right to autonomy. Hey! I'm not comparing the Saracens to orcs. Sorry; did not mean to imply that you did!
bitnine 10-17-03, 09:40 AM	Originally posted by Leap If the BoED ( I keep thinking it means Book of Evil Darkness!!) has yet more of the fluffy “Orcs are people too” approach I predict it will only fuel arguments, not solve any. More than likely. Or it just might be largely ignored by some. With fellows like this: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/iw_Fist_of_Raziel.jpg Being a mascot for the holy order the Fists of Raziel (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20031012a), they probably taking the controversial stance that orcs and members of other free-willed races can choose the path of good, despite the fact that a majority of their kind does not. It might even take the more extreme position that it isn't a good act to kill creatures on the sole basis of race (despite the convenience), particularly kiling innocent and good creatures in cold blood because of their race. It might even go completely to the extreme and lose the support of Toastytot by announcing that it's not a good act to slaughter babies. Then again, maybe they mentioned the question: Is there any hope for the orc whelps in the stronghold, or should we slaughter them, too? As a preface to the "HELL YES YOU SHOULD!" that they're about to impart. But if you run with orcs and other races of their ilk competely lockstep into an alignment, you probably should expect some clashes, as that's orcs in D&D are not the same as orcs from LotR, and while often been presented as enemies and opponents, they do, at least in D&D, have the free will that most of the races have. Hm. It's about following a higher call than the lure of gold and experience points, wrestling with tougher choices than which monster to kill first or what magic item to buy with newfound loot, and doing the kinds of heroic deeds that make a difference in the game world.
Arilou_skiff 10-17-03, 10:38 AM	Originally posted by bitnine More than likely. Or it just might be largely ignored by some. With fellows like this: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/iw_Fist_of_Raziel.jpg Being a mascot for the holy order the Fists of Raziel (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20031012a), they probably taking the controversial stance that orcs and members of other free-willed races can choose the path of good, despite the fact that a majority of their kind does not. It might even take the more extreme position that it isn't a good act to kill creatures on the sole basis of race (despite the convenience), particularly kiling innocent and good creatures in cold blood because of their race. It might even go completely to the extreme and lose the support of Toastytot by announcing that it's not a good act to slaughter babies. Then again, maybe they mentioned the question: As a preface to the "HELL YES YOU SHOULD!" that they're about to impart. But if you run with orcs and other races of their ilk competely lockstep into an alignment, you probably should expect some clashes, as that's orcs in D&D are not the same as orcs from LotR, and while often been presented as enemies and opponents, they do, at least in D&D, have the free will that most of the races have. Hm. Orcs *are*people too, there is no greater difference between orcs (usually CE) and elves (usually CG), goblins (usually LE) or dwarves (usually LG) from the pov of a human. Orcs are people too, they're just usually evil people.
Demon Lightfoot 10-17-03, 12:04 PM	This has been a funny thread to read! Originally posted by Arilou_skiff Orcs are people too, they're just usually evil people. Truer words have hardly ever been posted here. We do have to remember that the default orc lives by raiding, robbery, murder slavery and rape. They encroach upon civilized settlements, attempting to conquer as much territory as they can in order to support their rapacious, evil lifestyle (unless this has been significantly changed for 3.5...in which case y'all are on y'own). They (to paraphrase David Gerrold) don't bathe, they pick their teeth in public, scratch themselves openly, beat up little old ladies, make rude gestures in traffic and fart unapologetically in elevators. They aren't shopkeepers, farmers and blacksmiths.* They're more like corporations.** I don't have a problem with killing, even slaughtering, the combatants (except possibly when they surrender and throw themselves on the mercy of the PCs), but exterminating the non-combatants is a gruesome, if not evil, act. bitnine: Elderly orcs? I thought that when an orc showed weakness, age or infirmity, they ate 'em. *They usually have better treasure. :D **With swords and axes. :D :D
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-17-03, 12:18 PM	Originally posted by Leap If the BoED ( I keep thinking it means Book of Evil Darkness!!) has yet more of the fluffy “Orcs are people too” approach I predict it will only fuel arguments, not solve any. I have the sinking feeling that the BoED is going to go the same way of unrealism as the BoVD and go 'kill all monsters! Its LG to do so! Burn their homes, drink thier blood and wipe them from the face of the earth! Bwahahahahahahaha!' I hold out very little hope for actual good people when the prevailing winds say genocide and vengence. :nonono:
Arilou_skiff 10-17-03, 12:55 PM	Originally posted by Demon Lightfoot This has been a funny thread to read! Truer words have hardly ever been posted here. We do have to remember that the default orc lives by raiding, robbery, murder slavery and rape. They encroach upon civilized settlements, attempting to conquer as much territory as they can in order to support their rapacious, evil lifestyle (unless this has been significantly changed for 3.5...in which case y'all are on y'own). They (to paraphrase David Gerrold) don't bathe, they pick their teeth in public, scratch themselves openly, beat up little old ladies, make rude gestures in traffic and fart unapologetically in elevators. They aren't shopkeepers, farmers and blacksmiths.* They're more like corporations.** I don't have a problem with killing, even slaughtering, the combatants (except possibly when they surrender and throw themselves on the mercy of the PCs), but exterminating the non-combatants is a gruesome, if not evil, act. bitnine: Elderly orcs? I thought that when an orc showed weakness, age or infirmity, they ate 'em. *They usually have better treasure. :D **With swords and axes. :D :D How many people play elves as truly good, all the time? Not many. Elves are as good as orcs are evil.
bitnine 10-17-03, 01:07 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland I have the sinking feeling that the BoED is going to go the same way of unrealism as the BoVD and go 'kill all monsters! Its LG to do so! Burn their homes, drink thier blood and wipe them from the face of the earth! Bwahahahahahahaha!' That would be awesome. I need to come up with a little logo for paladinhood. I think it would be an armored figure standing astride a mound of charred infant corpses, holding up a pregnant orcish woman by the hair whilst putting his blade to her throat. Maybe give him a little halo or somesuch. And, of course, the emblem of Toastytot emblazoned on his armor.
ZebRaderJedi 10-17-03, 01:27 PM	Howdy folks, Just finished reading through all of this - very good discussion! Artman and I set up our Frieden homebrew together years ago, with me DM'ing the backstory and him the present with the current PCs. We also geographically split the world, where I put together the political landscape of the South, and Artman the North. I am a PC in the Current Age, Artman was a PC in the Backstory (the parents of the current PCs). (Just for reference;) ) In Frieden, we go for the Liberal approach cited previously. That is, Sentients of all kinds have all kinds of alignments. Even Lycanthropes aren't "locked in" to the "typical" alignment of said beasty - so CG Wereboars, TN Werewolves? Bring it on... One of the nations in the South is ruled by Goblins, with a sizeable humanoid population (hobgoblin, orc, bugbear, ogre, kobold, etc). In this nation, LE is the "standard" alignments - but that doesn't mean it's okay for PCs to attack goblins on first sight - since they COULD just be merchants trying to earn a living, not necessarily a raiding party. The Evil just means they're greedy... Some other "evil" nations surround the PCs homeland of Frizia, with wars popping up every few decades. For our group, this alignment-relativism works out pretty well. We've gotten into trouble a couple of times, when riding into a town and seeing dozens of humanoids (with weapons) milling about, we blindly attacked. Not realizing that it was a border town of the Maglub nation! Ooops... PERSONAL alignments have also been interesting in this world. My PC is LN, focused more on the "Discipline" than the "Law of the Land". A warrior-cleric is CG, willing to smite on one hand, but also lend a helping hand to the poor & downtrodden. Another one is a crunchy-granola type Ranger-Druid, NG, happy to help all the little animals etc - but with an edge against giants. Hey "crunchy liberals" can be racists too! I've gotten into a little sticky situation, where as King of Frizia I returned as a conquering war hero, to find my 1/2 brother sitting on the throne. After much deliberation, and the meddling of a Tyrite Paladin, it was either: 1) Kill the brother and resume Kingship 2) Surrender the throne and move on What would a LN person do? I played him as waffling back and forth. He tried teleporting/exiling his brother on a far-off island, but he royal wizard put the kybosh on that pretty quick. After more deliberation, with the intent of keeping the throne, my PC sent one of his more ruthless guards to off the brother, just to get it done with. That plan also failed, so instead of continuing down the path of the darkside, I ended up surrendering the throne and traveling the lands Neutral alignments IMHO are great to play for this reason alone. In the proper sense, as LG, I would have played my PC much differently - setting up councils, hugging my brother, crying on his shoulder, blablabla. As LE I would still be King.... Gotta go for the grey. I don't necessarily agree that "true good" is Neutral, since the way we play "true good" is Good, with all the things Vaal lists usually applying. Sure, there are zealots, but there also nice evil people. I guess there's a bit of grey in most of the NPCs... Whew, sorry to start rambling there! Just wanted to share some insight from our longest running game. Personally, I never cared much for alignment - in one of our other campaigns, set in an Oriental Adventures world with the first visitors from space (bless you, Dragonstar Campaign Setting and the SWRPG), I've eliminated it. The PCs insist on writing down what they think they are, but there Actions count more than stated intent. (I am using the FP / DSP as a "moral indicator" - assuming Neutral until Good or Evil is decided by the PCs actions). Interestingly, one is leaning towards the Dark, the other the Light. This interaction is gonna be great! Anywho, that's my 2 cents. Cheers, and thanks again for a really interesting thread that made my lunch hour fly by! Zeb
Flashypants 10-17-03, 01:48 PM	Here's a question right out of the DMG. How real is your fantasy? If you play your game with a strict definition of good, and under that definition you define every creature born with a soul (Usually Evil or not) to be a person not to be discriminated against in any way. And you demand that your good characters act without racism or prejudice against all such beings. If you force your players of good characters to defer to understanding and compassion against beings that are known for having very little of those things in return. Well then, your fantasy is not very real. Let me elaborate. These ideals that you support are relatively new here in the real world. The ideas of equal human rights for all men and women on Earth has really only started being adopted within the last 200 years and is still not nearly perfected. When the American forefathers wrote "all men are created equal" did the slave owners really mean it? In the real world, we are only talking about human beings, not monsters created by evil gods. The Middle Ages were a brutal and dark time, and so was all human history previous to them. Good was defined by what benefited you and your people, without thought to the well being and rights of the neighboring barbarian raiders. A Moor caught in central Europe without a diplomatic convoy in the 13th century would likely be arrested and thrown in a cell if not attacked and killed outright. Life and society was so fragile that people could not risk an enemy in their mitts and would often preemptively strike at neighboring peoples for fear that, if they did not, they would be the ones being invaded. Wipe them out, breed them out, convert them through threat of violence. It was "do this" or have it done to you. Even the historic characters that are the basis of the paladin class such as Joan of Arc and legendary ones such as Arthur’s knights lived by this way of life and were destroyers and sackers of cities. It is not pretty, but this is the time period our fantasy takes place in. Certainly there have always been a few "good" people in history who have spoken out for human rights, but these people are not heroes in the D&D sense of the word. They were pacifists and martyrs that spawned religious movements and inspired passive resistance and whose teachings never really caught on or were corrupted to fit the brutal way of life. To be fair, we don't play in the real world. D&D is a fantasy where the game master creates the reality for the players and their characters and you should be able to do this anyway you want. But, in D&D, most of our enemies are races created by evil gods to destroy the civilizations of men and elves. It is a world even more dangerous and brutal than the historical middle ages. The people, "good people," of this fantasy world should fear and hate their enemies with the same conviction and methods of their historical counterparts. The game gives us truly evil enemies, which are NOT human, to treat as our ancestors treated their unfortunate human antagonists. If you hold to the strict ideal of good presented at the beginning of this post... If you demand that your players play good characters with the "orcs are people too" approach then your world has one of two problems. Either people with a good alignment are as rare as the historical few who advocated peace and understanding for all men... or... Your fantasy is not very real. And that's all I have to say about that. Flash
bitnine 10-17-03, 01:56 PM	Being popular doesn't make something right. D&D posits a world of objective morality. It doesn't matter if people can't comprehend that orcs are people, or if they think that women should be traded, bought and sold, and locked away if they're too much trouble. In a world with objective morality, right is right and prevailing beliefs don't impact that. In days of old, for example, they might have decided that stabbing children in the face was the epitome of sainthood. Popular as that may have been, and as much as the people of the time may have thought of it as a great and noble thing to do, that doesn't make it a good act. (If anything, it speaks to the prevailing alignment of the society. Though I suppose if you assume that the various atrocities and brutal acts that were historically committed necessarily define good acts, that's one thing. But, as some might state, just because people thought they were doing good at any point of time, doesn't make that objectively good, no matter how popular or prevelent that school of thought was.) Either people with a good alignment are as rare as the historical few who advocated peace and understanding for all men... Yes, I suppose it's either that or burning children alive because of their race. I mean, there's got to be absolutely nothing in between those two ideas, it's just one or the other. Man, now I really am very sorry that no one told me what a false dichotomy was in that other thread. Ah well, I'm sure that whatever they are, they can't crop up too often.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-17-03, 02:09 PM	If we go by those guidelines, women shouldn't be allowed as PCs becasue they we subjugated in mideval times. I'm sorry, but DnD is not mideval times Circa earth. With the existance of magic and hundred year old critters you can talk to on a daily basis, not to mention societies that have existed for thousands of years, you'd think people would have reached some ofrm of social enlightenment.
Flashypants 10-17-03, 02:25 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland If we go by those guidelines, women shouldn't be allowed as PCs becasue they we subjugated in mideval times. I'm sorry, but DnD is not mideval times Circa earth. With the existence of magic and hundred year old critters you can talk to on a daily basis, not to mention societies that have existed for thousands of years, you'd think people would have reached some form of social enlightenment. Did you not notice my mention of Joan of Arc? There were female heroes in history, though they were rare. Are female characters as prominent in your campaign as male characters? Are there more female players in your gaming groups than there are males? It might not be in the same proportions as history, but I bet the male to female ratio in your games is 3/1 or worse. Maybe the removal of sexism, because it has nothing to do with a threat to life or society, is the enlightenment you speak of. I contend that brutal orcs would not be treated as well as human women in a fantasy world. And that's all I have to say about that. Flash
bitnine 10-17-03, 02:32 PM	Then you can draw historical acts of good-defining behavior from our world's crusaders. Which makes a whole lot of stuff "good." Leaving particulars aside, not all of these "good" acts were committed against orcs.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-17-03, 02:33 PM	Actually, the female/male ratio is 4 females to 3 males excluding my manly self. The same ratio in leaders on Ere is (humanoids) 14 females to 23 males, (non-humanoids) 4 females to 6 males Like I said the game is not Earth based by any stretch of the imagination. And maybe thats a good thing. And if you think women aren't a threat to life, you haven't met Nyx ;)
Flashypants 10-17-03, 02:55 PM	Bitnine D&D posits a world of objective morality. Really? I ws under the impression that the entire game was subjective. I hate having to bring up rule Rule Zero all the time. Alignment, as all rules, is all up to DM inturpretaion. If anything, it speaks to the prevailing alignment of the society. This was my point. If you take the view of good that is strict that enemies are treated as equals, then in your game, the "prevailing alignment of society" must be neutral and good characters are extremely rare. Yes, I suppose it's either that or burning children alive because of their race. I mean, there's got to be absolutely nothing in between those two ideas, it's just one or the other. Hey, I'm all for grey areas. I've been advocating a looser view of good on this post than you people. Your ideas of good in D&D (the orcs are people too and they have equal rights approach) is not conducive to either a balanced alignment system or a realistic presentation of the game world. That was my point. That being said, if you can make it work and it doesn't bother your players to play in such a world, so be it. And I don't advocate the burning of orc babies. That is cruel and torturous. I'm just saying that in some campaigns it might be permissible for some good characters to quickly send the orc child back to its evil deity quickly and painlessly for the greater good. Now I'll let you come down on me for this one. And that's all I have to say about that. Flash
Flashypants 10-17-03, 03:05 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Actually, the female/male ratio is 4 females to 3 males excluding my manly self. And if you think women aren't a threat to life, you haven't met Nyx ;) Well, let me tell you that your gaming group is an exception. If you have ever been to a large gaming convention and counted the sexes you would know that the ratios are quite skewed. And, I know that women are dangerous (I've had some tough times myself). But, aside from fantasy Amazons, they (human and demihuman women) seldom raid cities, slaughter innocents, and eat children and orcs of all sexes do. Hence there is very little reason for them to be persecuted as they were in our own history. That's all I have to say about that. Flash
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-17-03, 03:05 PM	I've not seen a single thread in which the paladin gave a flying rat's wombat about whither or not thier target felt pain or not. Just superficial, mindless, and most often needless killing.
bitnine 10-17-03, 03:11 PM	Originally posted by Flashypants Really? I ws under the impression that the entire game was subjective. I hate having to bring up rule Rule Zero all the time. Alignment, as all rules, is all up to DM inturpretaion. This was brought up in another alignment thread: And so even out of game the morality of D&D becomes subjective. Because the "Objective" morality of D&D in my game isn't the same as the "Objective" morality of D&D in yours. In the first instance a particular campaign has objective morality, it just dosen't match someone else's campaign. The DM determines Universal law. You may think you know what that law is, and you can *try* to play a lawful good character according to what you think is Lawful and Good. However, if you do not follow the Universal definition of Lawful and Good you won't be a Lawful Good character. And unless you're a Paladin (or possibly Monk, Barbarian or Cleric) you likely won't know one way or another that you're alignment isn't what you thought it was.
Flashypants 10-17-03, 03:19 PM	Originally posted by bitnine Then you can draw historical acts of good-defining behavior from our world's crusaders. Which makes a whole lot of stuff "good." Leaving particulars aside, not all of these "good" acts were committed against orcs. Look, I'm not saying that all acts done in the name of "good" in our history were truly good. I don't advocate violent acts against non-evil races posing no threat to the people. I'm saying that in a kill or be killed type of world, the people (even good people) would consider their previous aggressors to be an imminent threat that needs elimination. Even if a perceived threat is eliminated in this way out of fear and misunderstanding, this is occasionally going to happen. People are not perfect, even in a fantasy world, and their good causes are not going to be perfect. Innocent orcs are so rare that you can't punish a good character when he kills one in order to protect human society. That is the beauty of having these races. They are overtly evil aggressors that need to be defended against in any necessary fashion. And that's all I have to say about that. Flash
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-17-03, 03:23 PM	thats how a lot of people play them, but usually evil just means more are evil than not evil. Most people play them like Urak-hai, whom, by the way don't have children.
bitnine 10-17-03, 03:31 PM	Originally posted by Flashypants Innocent orcs are so rare that you can't punish a good character when he kills one in order to protect human society. That is the beauty of having these races. They are overtly evil aggressors that need to be defended against in any necessary fashion. Heh. Some people have taken a harsh reaction against that sort of view. Not so much myself. Originally posted by Incenjucar Am I the only one who finds the idea of racism as a fantasy that you pay money to play out a little disturbing? Well... trying to find a set of cardboard cut-out "bad guys" that it doesn't raise any sort of question to kill isn't anything new. Entertainment has constantly been on the lookout for catagories of individuals that it's completely acceptable to kill. Movies and games and the like have often used nazis and criminals and terrorists as such throwaways. So if you're running your game as popcorn action, I don't think I'd read into it all that much - or at least any more than I'd read into the trend at large. However, there's certainly nothing in the core books where it states that the game is strictly antropocentric and to sharpen your axe on the skulls of hobgoblin children, eh?
Flashypants 10-17-03, 03:43 PM	Vaal I've not seen a single thread in which the paladin gave a flying rat's wombat about whither or not thier target felt pain or not. Just superficial, mindless, and most often needless killing. Well, that's because all of you do-GOODers always quote it as "burning babies." This is not accurate. You responded to my post on the Hobgoblin Babies thread where I described a paladin who does "a quick severing of their spinal column and perhaps and decent burial." So don't say that you have not seen this before. You have. If there was a better way to dispatch them, that would be better. Without magic, or an accomplished apothecary (lethal injection?) a paladin has but one choice. Another thing, how come no one has responded to my last post on the Hobgoblin Babies thread? The DM determines Universal law. You may think you know what that law is, and you can *try* to play a lawful good character according to what you think is Lawful and Good. However, if you do not follow the Universal definition of Lawful and Good you won't be a Lawful Good character. And unless you're a Paladin (or possibly Monk, Barbarian or Cleric) you likely won't know one way or another that you're alignment isn't what you thought it was. This statement is true if by "Universal", you mean the "DM's universe." Players should ok all characters, their class, race, alignment and how that alignment is perceived. This is often not done before beginning play but if the player is playing outside of his alignment according to the DM's perceptions then the DM should allow them to change the character's alignment or the player should change the way he is playing the alignment. And that's all I have to say about that. Flash
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-17-03, 04:03 PM	To be fair, I said 'thread' not 'post'.
Flashypants 10-17-03, 05:43 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland To be fair, I said 'thread' not 'post'. Well, no. There are not entire threads dedicated to the humane execution of babies. There are only threads started by players such as yourself that claim everyone is a monster because they are torturing and burning babies of evil races alive. Your cause exaggerates this type of play, when it might just be more humane to give these unfortunate souls a quick death. And that's all I have to say about that. Flash
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-17-03, 06:19 PM	I didn't ask that. If you got here late, may I recommend reading the first post. I'm asking if there are any just good people, who won't do that kind of stuff no matter what.
Flashypants 10-17-03, 09:25 PM	Here is a little story for all of you. I hope you like it. There once was a paladin named Morrel who gained his divine powers through his own will and swore fealty to the Good King Konshéenshus in a large city. Morrel believed that all living creatures born on the world were capable of redemption and repentance. He believed that all creatures were products of their upbringing and the young of evil races such as orcs and hobgoblins could be taught love and compassion for all other living things. Morrel believed that all beings had rights that must be upheld above all else. One day, Morrel heard that Güdston, a small human village on the edge of the kingdom, needed some help. It seems that they were being attacked by gnolls from the surrounding hills and most of the town’s men had been killed. If the gnolls were not stopped soon, the people of the village would surely not survive the winter. Morrel decided that saving this village would be a great task for his first mission of good. He left immediately for the frontier. The good people of Güdston were very happy to have a savior and a hero there to deliver them from evil. They immediately told him the horrible stories of the raids on the town and attacks on hunting parties in the forest when the beasts gave no mercy. Morrel promised to rid the good people of their problem in one way or another and soon left Güdston and went into the hills to find the lair of the gnolls. As he rounded a bend he was spotted by a gnoll sentry outside a cave and the guard raised the alarm for the entire clan. Morrel tried to parlay with them and ask them to leave the good people of Güdston in peace but they rushed his position with anger. Twenty or more adult gnolls, men and women, came crashing down on poor Morrel. But Morrel was well trained and had the blessings of good. The gnolls threw themselves at him and he slew them all while shedding a tear for each death he wrought. When the last of the beasts finally slid from the paladin’s sword, Morrel decided to investigate the cave for any survivors. There, inside the cavern, he found six young gnolls ranging from about the size of a newborn child to a six-year old human. Even though the older ones bit and clawed at him, he rounded them all up and marched them back towards Güdston. Those that could not walk, he carried in his arms. Surly the good people of Güdston would take these innocent little gnoll children in, and raise them with love and compassion to mold them into good-natured members of the community. But when Morrel arrived in Güdston with his young innocents and people rushed to meet him, he was shocked by their reaction. Women fainted in the streets and the people were angry. "Why have you brought these foul beasts into our town?" they cried. "They were probably fed the flesh of our murdered families!’ they exclaimed. "Please take them from here immediately and kill them," they pleaded. But Morrel would have none of it. He didn’t understand these people’s reactions. He assured them that the gnoll children were not products of their nature, but could be raised to be good and friendly creatures. At this suggestion the town’s people became irate and demanded that Morrel take the children from the town immediately, even threatening to draw weapons and slay the gnolls themselves. Morrel had no choice but to take the children away from Güdston. Morrel quickly walked with the children to the next village on the way back to the city. He thought that the good people of Güdston were just in great grief and fear, and that they would come to their senses in time. Surly the good people of Virtuville would have compassion for these poor orphaned beasts. But there, at Virtuville, he met with the same reaction. People did not want those "monsters" in their town, young and innocent or not. Still, even in the interior where gnolls have not attacked for the past 60 years, the good people of Virtuville were fearful of innocent creatures. Morrel and the young gnolls were again chased out of town. The same or similar reactions were found at the next three villages. Morrel was confused, but he was near the city where people were rational and compassionate. Surly they would see that these poor little creatures were not bound to be monsters simple by the tales of their race. As Morrel approached the city gates, the guards on duty lowered their spears and told Morrel that he could not take those creatures into the city. "Only if they were dead or caged," said one. "You can’t take live monsters into the city without adequate restraints," said the other. "They are not monsters," he replied. "They are innocent children." The two guards glanced at each other with confused looks on their faces. "They are murderous beasts, sire," one responded. "By law, they cannot enter the city without special consent from the king." Morrel was confused again, but he expected that the laws were there to protect the good people of the city. No bother, he knew the king personally and the king was a good man. Surly he, in his infinite wisdom, would allow the gnoll children into the city and would likely provide for their care through his own coffers. Morrel immediately asked for a courier and sent a message to the king explaining the situation. After awhile four of the king’s knights returned to the gate with a message from the king himself. "I cannot allow monsters such as gnolls, of any age, into my city, and I am quite upset that you have brought such creatures so far into my kingdom. The good people of the city would revolt if they knew I was raising beasts such as these within the city limits. I have instructed these fair knights to take them from you and now I ask that you immediately return to your quarters at the barracks to rest from your journey." Signed – Good King Konshéenshus Morrel was very confused but he would always do what his good liege instructs of him. The knights took the children from him outside the wall and he walked slowly through the gate. As he passed the last knight he asked what they were going to do with those children. "We’ll take them out into the fields, dispatch them quickly and mercifully and bury them as the laws of this good land decree," the knight answered. Morrel was no longer confused. He had a revelation. Morrel realized that there was no "good" like he had idealized. There was no "good" people of Güdston. There was no "good" people of Virtuville. There are no "good" people in the city. The knights of the kingdom were not "good" and King Konshéenshus was not a "good" man. Morrel realized that he himself was the only truly "good" being that he had ever seen. He then asked himself a question. "If I’m the only "good" person, which side do I fight on when I fight for other people?" Morrel looked at the knights as they herded the gnoll babies toward their deaths. He hated the knights for what they were about to do. "If I slay these men and save the gnoll children, am I still good?" Morrel realized that there was no answer to his dilemma. The world was a horrible place, full of only evil. There was no good. Not even in him. He could not kill these men, nor could he let the gnoll children die. Neither choice could be the right. Then Morrel realized what he had to do. He dug his heels into the cobblestone street and faced the departing knights. The paladin quickly drew his sword… and ran it through his own heart. And that’s all I have to say about that. Flash
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-17-03, 10:19 PM	The moral: peasants are ignorant and prone to fear. Thank you for that. Sometimes there is no good way out. A six year old gnoll could, however been left to lead the youngsters to safety. He most likly would have remebered the human who spared he and his den-mates.
Flashypants 10-17-03, 10:51 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland The moral: peasants are ignorant and prone to fear. Thank you for that. Sometimes there is no good way out. A six year old gnoll could, however been left to lead the youngsters to safety. He most likly would have remebered the human who spared he and his den-mates. The moral of the story is there is very little room for your type of good in a fantasy setting. When you are as strictly set into your high ideals of good as you are, there is no way out and the majority of the world around you (if it is done at all realistically) is neutral or even evil. How can characters of your good alignment defend the public when the public is not at all good? And I said the largest gnoll was the size of a six-year-old human child. Because gnolls live shorter lives and grow upwards of 7 1/2 feet tall it is likely that the gnoll in question was closer to three years old. Even if their cognitive capacity matures faster as well, they have lessor intelligence than a human. Ignoring that, do you expect that a 3ft tall child with the mind of a 6-year-old could take care of himself and his five younger cousins? He might survive by killing the others and eating their flesh. I think this is more likely. And how would he remember the human who slew his entire clan? I'm sorry, but this story illustrates my point perfectly. And that's all I have to say about that. Flash
Haradim 10-17-03, 11:26 PM	Originally posted by Flashypants the majority of the world around you (if it is done at all realistically) is neutral or even evil. Actually, from what I have gathered over my time here, most DMs actually do go about things this way, where most people will waver around Neutral, dipping periodically into both Good and Evil. How can characters of your good alignment defend the public when the public is not at all good? Again, as I have gleaned from various posts here, most people in gameworlds seem largely unconcerned about Good and Evil, focussing upon and even defending whatever option lets them live their lives most comfortably, and with the least evident threat. I am of the opinion that most people are actually no aware of what is actually Good, or actually Evil; they will use good and evil to describe things much the same way we do in real life (ie, 'police are good' and 'tyrants are evil'), even if that isn't the actual alignment of a given cop or tyrant. We basically label things good and evil based on how closely we agree with whatever is in question, and I expect the average peasant is no different. Good aligned PCs that aim to defend the public tend to do so because they believe in the ideals of Good, or are of a particular nationality, or what have you. They don't stop doing so simply because most other people (even those they defend) are not Good; this is something most G characters will be well aware of very quickly, and it doesn't seem to stop anyone.
ManTimeForgot 10-17-03, 11:35 PM	"When you are as strictly set into your high ideals..." Thank you Flashypants for proving to the world just one more time that the most common alignment is true neutral in both a fantasy setting and in the real world. So like I said earlier Ashland, the answer to your prompt is no. There are no good people out here, only people who aspire to be good and those who are too pragmatic to care about morality. Why would a "Mother Theresa" even bother posting here when she is so strictly set into their high ideals, that they would be out in the world in helping people? I think posting for a truly good person would seem trivial at best, and at worst, a crime for not being out helping people. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-17-03, 11:49 PM	Posting? I'm not talking about the boards, I'm talking about the game world.
Flashypants 10-18-03, 12:17 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot Thank you Flashypants for proving to the world just one more time that the most common alignment is true neutral in both a fantasy setting and in the real world. See, I don't see it that way. Yes, I am being pragmatic but the philosophy of good presented on this thread is not practical. It isolates good far too much. I set a looser view of good for my game world to make it more realistic and so that a fair proportion of the population (humans and demihumans) are good. I just can't stand the idea that there isn't at least one third of the people that are good. And I can't rationalize a paladin of this "high good," fighting to support a world that is just plain bad in his eyes. How can he fight for good when, for all practical purposes, there is no good? What are the heroes fighting for if there really is no good in society at large? What is worth saving in a world like that? The ideas of good presented in this thread are just not realistic nor conducive to a cohesive game. It is not that I don't allow this type of good in my game. It is just that it's not the only good, because it doesn't work as the only good. Some characters may aspire to these high ideals, but that doesn't mean the over zealous paladin is any less viable. And that's all I have to say about that. Flash
ManTimeForgot 10-18-03, 01:22 AM	That's pragmatism showing for you. Why fight for a people that are not good? Why fight a war that is unwinnable? Why fight battles that cannot be won because the enemies numbers are too great? These are all the questions a true paladin must ask theirself. This is why a paladin is supposed to only be .01% of the population in D&D and is probably significantly less in real life. This fight is fought in order to show an example to others with the smallest hope in mind that such an example might make a difference. Each person who chooses good as a result of the actions of a paladin is one less person making this world a bad place. Each time a paladin defeats a foe of the good, a small part of this world is made a better place. This world might not be perfect, but it is in the fighting that the world is made a better place. It is exactly this reason that sloth was considered a deadly sin by the Catholic Church. One person fighting for good is not enough; all people must. The paladin chooses to lead the way, because if no does lead, no one will act. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Flashypants 10-18-03, 02:07 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot This is why a paladin is supposed to only be .01% of the population in D&D and is probably significantly less in real life. This fight is fought in order to show an example to others with the smallest hope in mind that such an example might make a difference. Each person who chooses good as a result of the actions of a paladin is one less person making this world a bad place. Each time a paladin defeats a foe of the good, a small part of this world is made a better place. This world might not be perfect, but it is in the fighting that the world is made a better place. Ok. I guess I can buy that. But if .01% of the population are paladins, what percentage of the population are not paladins but still have good alignments? These last few posts have been of the idea that a great majority of the population is neutral. Bellow is a graph of the alignment ratios in a campaign using this thread’s view of the good alignment. I really can’t be sure from this thread where exactly the evil divider comes in, but this does not look like a balanced alignment system. Good......................Neutral....... ................Evil --I--------------------------------------I----- ggnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnneeee Shouldn’t it look more like this? Good......................Neutral....... ................Evil -------------I----------------I---------------- ggggggggggggnnnnnnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeeeee Are there really so few good aligned characters in your game? Are things so bad that 90% of all your NPCs are either neutral or evil? Is this how the game is supposed to be?
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-18-03, 02:28 AM	There are less evil ones too. I don't use alignment, but to really be considered good or evil in the eyes of the universe, you have to be more than just a nice person, you have to be good. You also have to damn well prove you're evil, none of this born good or evil stuff. you have to be plotting to injure thousands to get in the lower eschelon of evil. IMC, There are Palneswalkers who are sacrificing immortality to hold planes together and others who make a living off of collapsng entire planes full of billions of lives for thier mana. Just bein' an orc doesn't cut it for 'deserves to die' evil. And calling yourself a warrior of Good while climbing a mound of corpses does not make you good.
Demon Lightfoot 10-18-03, 03:35 AM	Originally posted by Arilou_skiff How many people play elves as truly good, all the time? Not many. I don't know that I agree with this conclusion, nor am I certain that it's entirely relevant. Also, what is "good", per se? :D Elves are as good as orcs are evil. Well, yeah. And orcs are usually depicted as disgustingly evil. :D
Haradim 10-18-03, 03:36 AM	Originally posted by Flashypants Are things so bad that 90% of all your NPCs are either neutral or evil? Is this how the game is supposed to be? Why does a majority population of Neutral characters mean anything is 'bad'? All it means is that their primary interest is supporting their family (perhaps), and living relatively peacefully. It seems very appropriate to me that your average peasant is more pragmatic than Good, and too decent in general to be Evil. When the best you can expect from life is to stay away from untimely death, and to sire decent children, it just isn't worthwhile to go to either 'extreme'; life is usually hard enough for peasants without having a cause to uphold. Edit: Sorry if this post isn't really clear. It's late 'round these parts.
MalakiTyrel 10-18-03, 04:57 AM	Going back a little ways, Flashypants... You make me sound like a kick-in-the-door, hack and slash, detect and smite type of player. You should be able to tell by my previous posts that I'm not that type of DM and I'm half offended by your statements here. I never meant to offend you. Please accept my apologies for doing so. I merely wanted to illustrate a point by highlighting two extremes. Most people probably run their games somewhere in between the two examples I gave though they may lean closer to one or the other. You do seem to lean more towards the first and I am definitely more of the second. Most people don't run a historically accurate campaign world. I have never played in a campaign set in medieval Europe. Most campaigns that I have known of may have some things based on medieval cultures or economy but none are otherwise accurate representations of history. While it may be historically accurate to play in a campaign where a Moor is killed on sight, it is neither a representation of good behavior nor a representation of the typical D&D campaign. If you were to play a historically accurate campaign then all races other than Human would be out (they didn't exist) and probably 95% of the MM would have to be scrapped (they didn't exist either). If anyone wanted to play a historically accurate campaign they probably wouldn't be playing D&D. So, while your points about the Dark Ages are accurate, they don't apply to the vast majority of D&D campaigns. In regards to your question about the alignment of a campaign world, I would say a "realistic" ratio of alignments would put between 50% and 75% of inhabitants (namely civilians) somewhere in the Neutral range. The other 25-50% would be more or less evenly split between good and evil. PC's by their very nature would be more likely to be somewhere in the good or evil alignments. Now, lets examine a world very loosely based on Tolkiens LotR trilogy--you have a world with the following humanoid races...humans, elves, dwarves, haflings, and orcs. There is probably a small percentage of half-elves and half orcs for varying reasons but no real settlements for either one. However, the humans, elves, dwarves, and orcs all have various settlements--some with vastly different cultures--and are in varying levels of aggression against their neighboring countries and the other races. Now, in this world there may be a number of varying sub-races of orcs separated mainly by appearance, size, and culture. Some might be outright aggressive but others may not. I would say that in this world is closer to the "typical" campaign world than historical medieval Earth. In some campaign worlds, the orcs might not have a defined country but instead might be divided up into various tribes and clans attempting to establish an area of their own. In other campaign worlds, the orcs might have established dominance and own most of the land with the other races trying to simply survive. A big percentage may be somewhere between these two examples. Regardless of differences from campaign world to campaign world, interaction with another sentient race should force humans to re-examine how they apply morality and to who. Let me give another example....let's take the Star Wars universe (another d20 product, well known, has a vast number of sentient species playable, and similar to D&D in its "high adventure" formula). There are species which openly feud with other, species which hate each other, and species which get along well. However, idividuals are free to act however they want against any of the other species--even the ones they should hate. This is all pretty "realistic". However, part of the evilness of the human Empire is the condemnation of non-humans and it poor treatment or outright enslavement of non-humans. What is my point? Exposure to other sentient races or species should force humans to disavow the notion that any one is "born evil". Self-determination is a part of true sentience. Self-determination means that you have a choice to be evil, good, or neutral. Now, evilness can be reinforced and taught just as racism is. The evilness of orcs (and other, similar D&D creatures) is more of a cultural thing than a bloodline thing. Good aligned characters will know this almost instinctively. Why? Because they believe in the sanctity of life and that things can be done a better way. Good characters in D&D are the idealists. They are the ones who seek a better way, either for themselves or everyone. You can't have "idealists" running around and beheading half-orcs for no reason other than their bloodline. One pretty much excludes the other. Paladins and clerics are best utilized in campaigns against various undead and abominations. Think Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, or the movie "Vampires" by John Carpenter. Paladins, in general, shouldn't be focused on ridding the world of orcs. It goes against their philosophy. They will be at odds with the powers that be because their philosophy should not allow them to slay every orc they come across. The situation you described with the gnolls and paladin is a great example of what can happen when the LG hero's philosophies clash with the general publics'. Paladins are not good at moral ambiguities because of their rigid view of the world and how it should function. That is the part of the difficulty of the LG alignment and why paladins lose their powers if they fall.
Arilou_skiff 10-18-03, 07:17 AM	Originally posted by Demon Lightfoot I don't know that I agree with this conclusion, nor am I certain that it's entirely relevant. Also, what is "good", per se? :D Well, yeah. And orcs are usually depicted as disgustingly evil. :D It is relevant because, apparently orcs are *evil* all the time, and since elves have the same ratio of alignment (but good instead) they must, logically, be *good* all the time...
Flashypants 10-18-03, 04:56 PM	Awe, my worthy opponent has returned. Let us clash once more. You do seem to lean more towards the first and I am definitely more of the second. I don't consider myself to be towards the first. I support rich roleplaying in all my games. I support good characters to be roleplayed the way you demand your good characters to be, but I also allow the righteous smiter view of good in my campaign. Don't get me wrong. Most good characters fit somewhere in between these to views of good, but that doesn't discount the two extremes. My real argument here is I beleive that your tight view of good is too strict and both unrealistic and against the default of good for the D&D game. In your last post especially, you seem to claim that your ideas of good are the correct, default view in the game. This post will attempt to discount that. But first let me take some of the other things you said in your last post. You seem to always put some kind of twist on what I've been saying. I didn't advocate playing your D&D game on historical Earth like you implied. And I didn't advocate adding Moors or the like to your D&D game and have them be attacked anywhere. I was simply making a comparison of how people treated their enemies in historical times to how people in a fantasy game would likely treat their enemies (orcs, not Moors). I was doing this same thing with the story I wrote and how the "good" people were treating the paladin with his gnoll babies. This is realistic, right? Is 90% of the population then neutral? Even 75%? Not if we take a look at the D&D rule books. But we will get into that a little later. You also made a comparison with Tolkein, though "very loosely." I agree that Middle Earth is closer to the "typical" campaign world than historical medieval Earth because it actually has fantasy races. I don't think that anyone can argue that these novels were not the original basis for the D&D game, but I think you inaccurately represent these works in some of your statements. If you have to do it loosely, it's not a very good comparison. Do you think that if an orc was caught sneaking around Rivendel or a human town, people wouldn't run screaming and come back with pitchforks and swords? It is the same example as my Medieval Moor. It matters little how aggressive the particular orc's clan is. In Middle Earth and in most D&D world (including the default Greyhawk world) orcs are very well known for being destructive, evil beasts that love to eat humans and elves. People, good people, will always fear and hate them. Regardless of differences from campaign world to campaign world, interaction with another sentient race should force humans to re-examine how they apply morality and to who. I'm sorry, but this statement is pretty ridiculous. It is not a realistic view of how people view each other, especially in a low tech, uneducated, medieval world. And were not talking about differences in skin color or culture. We’re talking about races that have extreme differences in appearance, world out-look, and obvious, evident religions dedicated to deities that created each of them. Take Tokien for example. The races of humans, elves, and dwarves don't really get along and avoid each other for ages at a time. They are not generally enemies because they are all good enough to not be aggressive towards another, yet they unite in arms when evil (the orcs) rises up to threaten them. Occasionally, through personality faults such as greed, the good races come into conflict. Look at the war that almost happens at the end of The Hobbit. The dwarves, humans and elves are ready to tear each other's throats out. Are they not good? The dwarves are greedy as is very common among that race. The humans feel that they are entitled to a part of the treasure because Bard killed Smaug and the elves were there to aid the men who had lost their homes. They sure didn't have a fair understanding of each other. Can good have conflicts with other good like this? Were these three groups neutrally aligned? What became of their alignment when the orc army showed up and the three united against the evil? Were they then good or still neutral? It just doesn't make any sense to put such a tight restriction on good alignment in a world such as this. Understanding of other cultures and peoples in the real world is directly related to education level and I see no reason why it shouldn't be the same in fantasy. Unless your game world has a school in every village and universities in every city, it makes little sense to have any but a few enlightened individuals be the kind of good you advocate. Even in the rare university city it is unlikely to be taught that orcs are people too deserving of the same respect as everyone else. That would bring up questions like "then why aren't they admitted to this school" and "how come they aren't allowed into the city?" How could you answer these questions? Your example of Star Wars is also not a good example. Though the system is D20 there is no alignment. Oh, good and evil are fairly black and white in respect to the light and dark sides of the Force, but individual characters are not beholden to act a certain way unless they are Force users. You don't have to measure acts of good and transgressions to evil for most characters in this game. People in that game do what is necessary. A scoundrel character might try to be "good" and respect life of all kinds, but that has no bearing on the game rules if he does or doesn't. The other thing that divides creatures in the Star Wars universe and in D&D is the cosmology and the origins of creation. Their are no true gods in Star Wars and you can assume that more of the sentient beings evolved naturally on their respective planets. There are no races created by evil and none created out of good. The Force is not a creator though it does provide life to the universe. The midiclorians (sp?) conceived Anakin Skywalker and he might have had a destiny, but they didn't make him evil out of the womb. Essentially, in Star Wars, everything is born neutral, with complete free will and are mostly products of their environment. In D&D, where you have gods aligned to different ideals (good and evil) creating the races and planes aligned in the same way, there is a great deal of predisposition built into the creatures placed on the world. How much self-determination do you have when you and your entire race was created by an evil deity? I'm not saying that you have no self-determination. I'm just saying that it is not a comparable amount to a world like the Star Wars universe where there are no creator deities. Paladins and clerics are best utilized in campaigns against various undead and abominations. Think Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, or the movie "Vampires" by John Carpenter. Paladins, in general, shouldn't be focused on ridding the world of orcs.[QUOTE] I agree that it is much easier to rationalize the slaying of these guiltless evil enemies, but it doesn't mean that orcs are not a valid enemy for paladins. Orcs can even be a focus for a paladin's wrath, if the orcs are played right by the DM.[QUOTE]It goes against their philosophy. They will be at odds with the powers that be because their philosophy should not allow them to slay every orc they come across. Awe, the powers that be. That’s what I'm talking about. Lets assume that by "powers that be" you mean the deity of the paladin. I realize that not all paladins need to have a deity, but lets just use the default Greayhawk deities as an example. If we look at the descriptions of good and evil deities in Deities and Demigods we can find how the game treats the highest standards of good. We find the following statements in quotations under Dogma for the listed deity in said book. GOOD Corellon Larethian- GC Elven deity of War: "He also remains alert to any taint of evil among the elves, and he seeks to stamp out any evil influence the moment it appears." – Does this sound like a good character under your definition? He "stomps" out evil influences as soon as it appears. He doesn't ask questions before smiting, even among his own people. Heironeous– LG Human deity of Valor, Justice, Honor, and War. He is the quintessential paladin deity and arch-enemy of the evil war deity Hextor: "Heironeous expects his followers to uphold the the highest ideals of chivalry and justice and to treat adversity as a challenge to be met and overcome, just as evil should be overcome." – He advocates the smiting of evil and doesn't whine about individual rights as long as evil is destroyed and the overall justice is done. Kord– CG Human deity of Strength and Courage: "His teachings say that the strong and fit should lead the weaker, and that bravery is the greatest quality anyone can have, ruler and citizen alike. Everyone should scorn cowardice, says Kord." – This deity is willing to trample the rights of people based on their physical strength, yet is good. He says that if you are not strong and brave, you should not lead the people. Does he advocate the smiteing of evil creatures that are physically weak? And with a deity’s lofty ideals, would Kord see mercy to evil as cowardice to do one's duty? Moradin– LG Dwarven deity of War: "Moradin is an adamant defender of the dwarven people he created and the principles of law and good. He teaches ... loyalty to clan, leader, and people, and of meeting adversity with stoicism and tenacity. He tolerates no taint of evil among the dwarves; it was he who drove the derro and duergar out of the dwarven community." – Moradin fights evil with stoic indifference and tenacity, not caring for the rights of the evil he fights. He tramples the rights of evil derro and duergar by forcing the out of their homelands. EVIL Gruumsh– CE Orc creator and orchish god of War and Territory: "Gruumsh demands that his followers be strong, that they cull the weak from their numbers, and that they take all the territory Gruumsh thinks is rightfully theirs (which is almost everything). He tolerates no sign of friendliness from his people. Unceasing warfare is his creed..." – This is the deity of the orcs. This is what orcs are born from and what they are born to do. Both the deity and his people are the enemies of man and the deities listed above. Erythnul– CE deity worshiped by many evil races, god of Hate, Malice and Slaughter: "Erythnul is a brutal deity who delights in panic and slaughter. In savage lands, evil barbarians, gnolls, bugbears, ogres, and trolls commonly worship him. Erythnul admonishes his followers to shed blood for its own sake, to covet what is not theirs, and to destroy anyone who would deny them anything. He further urges them to bring ugliness and strife to pleasant locales. Foes who cannot be killed should be maimed, and that which cannot be stolen should be destroyed." – This deity may have created many of the evil races. Even worse than Gruumsh, the creature that are spawns of this god should be put down with impunity to stop the spread of their foul taint. Do you think a ruthless evil deity would create an evil race and give it total free will to alter its alignment? NO! Evil is part of their nature and it takes a lot of will and a great deal of defying your nature to break from the god that created you. There are many more deities of both good and evil in Greyhawk, but these are the extremes that illustrate my point. There are other good deities that are not so militant or spiteful as these, and there are evil deities that are not so violent and foul as these. I'm trying to show that good alignment is not as bright white and you make it out to be and evil is not as dark black. There is some grey area on both sides of the "perfect grey" of neutrality. It is just lighter on one side and darker on the other making one good and the other evil. I could quote another D&D book to illustrate my point, but I’ll leave it at this for now.
ManTimeForgot 10-18-03, 05:21 PM	I'm not saying Flashy that there are no good people in my games. I'm also not saying that there are no good people in real life, but if in game reflects the break down in real life, then this is roughly what the alignment break down in a game should look like. True Neutral: 60% (your average citizen) Chaotic Neutral: 10% (Free spirited citizens, whimsical etc). Neutral Evil: 10% (Criminals of this world, arrogant, self-serving) Lawful Neutral: 7% (mostly because of the military) Chaotic Good: 5% (Vigilante is easy; total devotion to good: Hard) Lawful Evil: 5% (mostly corrupt politicians and corporate owners) Neutral Good: 2% (Not too many "Mother Theresa's" out there) Lawful Good: 1% (subset of which at 1% of total are paladins) There are lots of good deities for sure, but you know lots of neutral people worship good deities. Why would a neutral person who wasn't insane want to worship some evil punishing deity (I am restricting this question to humans, because racial deities are something of the exception, and don't really have a good comparison to real life)? Neutral people worship good deities because it is comforting to "know" that a father/mother figure is up there in the heavens watching over you. Good and Evil deities exist in such numbers as they do to represent the clash between good and evil at an epic scale. The forgotten realms would be nothing more than a glorified soap opera if the deities didn't get involved (still kinda is even with the deities). Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
MalakiTyrel 10-18-03, 06:55 PM	You also made a comparison with Tolkein, though "very loosely." I agree that Middle Earth is closer to the "typical" campaign world than historical medieval Earth because it actually has fantasy races. I don't think that anyone can argue that these novels were not the original basis for the D&D game, but I think you inaccurately represent these works in some of your statements. If you have to do it loosely, it's not a very good comparison. Flashypants, I was not trying to represent Tolkien's work. If you will re-read the post you will see that I merely said that the majority of D&D campaigns are closer to a loose representation of his work than the historical medieval period of Earth. My comparison of the typical D&D campaign to a loose adaption of Tolkien's work is better than your comparison to historical fact. I'm sorry, but this statement is pretty ridiculous. It is not a realistic view of how people view each other, especially in a low tech, uneducated, medieval world. And were not talking about differences in skin color or culture. We’re talking about races that have extreme differences in appearance, world out-look, and obvious, evident religions dedicated to deities that created each of them. And the same was said about every non-white culture by medieval Europeans. Understanding of other cultures and peoples in the real world is directly related to education level and I see no reason why it shouldn't be the same in fantasy. Unless your game world has a school in every village and universities in every city, it makes little sense to have any but a few enlightened individuals be the kind of good you advocate. Even in the rare university city it is unlikely to be taught that orcs are people too deserving of the same respect as everyone else. That would bring up questions like "then why aren't they admitted to this school" and "how come they aren't allowed into the city?" How could you answer these questions? Why were there no Native Americans in early school systems in the US? Because the Native Americans were tribal. They did not want to give up their culture to integrate into white society. The same reasoning could be given as to why orcs and other, similar races, wouldn't be represented in a D&D school. Your example of Star Wars is also not a good example. Though the system is D20 there is no alignment. Oh, good and evil are fairly black and white in respect to the light and dark sides of the Force, but individual characters are not beholden to act a certain way unless they are Force users. You don't have to measure acts of good and transgressions to evil for most characters in this game. People in that game do what is necessary. A scoundrel character might try to be "good" and respect life of all kinds, but that has no bearing on the game rules if he does or doesn't. Actually Star Wars is a great example. Let me explain why....SW is a game and saga of science fantasy not science fiction. SW has its roots in Tolkien as much as it does in the Kirosawa films. It has the same black and white ideology that D&D does. In the SW d20 game, every character is aware of their corruption level. You do measure acts of good and evil for all characters even non-force users. Acts of good gain force points which can be used to affect die rolls. Acts of evil gain Dark Side points which measure how far along the path of evil your character is. This is true of all characters not just Force Users. Awe, the powers that be. That’s what I'm talking about. Lets assume that by "powers that be" you mean the deity of the paladin. Actually, my reference to the "powers that be" was in reference to the governments of the area not the gods. A paladins rigid view of good/evil and law/chaos will put him at odds with many of those who control the lands. Mantimeforgot gave pretty good percentages for the breakdown of good, neutral and evil in a typical society. He also made a great point about neutral people worshiping a good diety. I am not saying that orcs and gnolls aren't usually evil. They make great adversaries so don't think that I don't use them as such. However, I treat their "evilness" as more cultural (since they "commonly" worship evil dieties) than by blood. If it was simply the blood flowing in their veins that made them evil, no half-orc could be good because of the same blood present in him/her. No, the cultural teachings that is the base of an orcs evilness. they are taught ot be a certain way. It is reinforced thruogh their culture and their worship of evil dieties. That does not exclude them from choosing another path however since they are sentient. The interesting thing about this argument is that some of the same behavior which makes orcs evil is being accepted as "good" for humans--sweeping condemnation of an entire race based on bloodline, attacking and killing on sight, generally bloodthirsty behavior, and cultural reinforcement of aggressive behavior. kind of makes you wonder who is good and who is evil doesn't it?
Flashypants 10-18-03, 07:44 PM	Your break down might be right for your game, but it is not congruent with the standard, default D&D game world. For one thing, the idea of good presented by this thread is not right for epic heroes. Mother Theresa doesn't make a very good fantasy hero and that is my point. I gave the list of deities and their views as examples of their how their alignments can be played. This is how the game portrays these alignments, which means that the way you wish to play the good alignment is no the same as the default. Your definition of good is just too strict. Period. You say that only 1% of the population is Lawful Good. The default population of dwarves is Lawful Good. Does this make sense with your alignment breakdown? If you rationalize this into working for your game, shouldn't a great number of paladins be dwarven? The default alignment for gnomes is Neutral Good. Does this mean that most gnomes (more than 50%) act like Mother Theresa? You breakdown implies that only 8% of the population has an alignment of Good. Does this make sense knowing that more than 50% of all dwarves, elves, and gnomes are supposed to have good alignments? If you define good the way this thread does, it is impossible to have these percentages. The reason humans have an alignment of true neutral alignment according to page 104 of the 3.5 PH is because that is the average human alignment. This is not because the great majority is True Neutral. It is because there is balance between all three alignments on both the L/C and G/E axis. This is a contribution to the fact that humans are the race with the greatest diversity. And are there no Chaotic Evil characters in your game?
Flashypants 10-18-03, 08:33 PM	I merely said that the majority of D&D campaigns are closer to a loose representation of his work than the historical medieval period of Earth. Yeah and I was stating that Tolkien used a system of good and evil closer to the one I advocate. I asked a lot of questions in that paragraph. Can you answer them adequately?. And the same was said about every non-white culture by medieval Europeans. Yes, exactly. That was my point when I used historical examples. If this was what was done in history. If this is human nature, how can you remove it from a medieval fantasy game and say it's a realistic representation? Why were there no Native Americans in early school systems in the US? Because the Native Americans were tribal. They did not want to give up their culture to integrate into white society. The same reasoning could be given as to why orcs and other, similar races, wouldn't be represented in a D&D school. This is just silly, man. How about the answer that orcs and other, similar races are bloodthirsty, evil beasts that hate humanity and generally have no interest in learning. They would tear the city apart and burn down the school, killing and cooking the students. You can't claim that orcs choose not to attend school because they want to "preserve their culture." That's ridiculous. Oops. You're right about the Force points for all characters thing in the Star Wars RPG. I have the book, but I've never actually played. But that really wasn’t my point. What about my points about deities and creation in D&D as opposed to SW? In SW all creatures are born without attachment to an alignment based on their creator. Address that. Actually, my reference to the "powers that be" was in reference to the governments of the area not the gods. A paladins rigid view of good/evil and law/chaos will put him at odds with many of those who control the lands. Ok. Let us take a look at this. According to the DMG page 138, 35% of power centers in cities and towns are Lawful Good. This means that paladins should get along fine in lands at least 35% of the time. A total of 40% of all power centers are good. If "good" in these power centers are under the definition you advocate, 40% of the cities and towns in your world would be perfectly integrated and allow orcs, goblins, gnolls and even red dragons to come and go as they please. Equal rights for all beings in 40% of the world. Is that how your game is? Do the leaders of 40% of your countries and kingdoms pass laws to protect the rights of the orc raiders outside the city walls? I doubt it. Face it, man. Good in D&D is not the idea of good you want it to be.If it was simply the blood flowing in their veins that made them evil, no half-orc could be good because of the same blood present in him/her. If it was simply the blood flowing in their veins that made them evil, no half-orc could be good because of the same blood present in him/her. For one thing, a half-orc is also half-human and therefore has a better chance not to be evil. This would depend on how it was raised (which culture. The PH states that the "usually" alignment for half-orcs is Chaotic Neutral (pg 104). It probably gets it's Chaotic nature from the inborn nature of its orcish parent. It might as easily get the Evil side, but this doesn’t make useable PCs according to the rules. No, the cultural teachings that is the base of an orcs evilness. they are taught ot be a certain way. It is reinforced through their culture and their worship of evil deities. That does not exclude them from choosing another path however since they are sentient. This is completely up to the DM. The MM glossary states under Alignment that "Often" means "The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture..." In my game, I take the nature approach because they are created by an evil deity for the purpose of causing death and destruction on the creations of the good deities (which includes humans).The interesting thing about this argument is that some of the same behavior which makes orcs evil is being accepted as "good" for humans--sweeping condemnation of an entire race based on bloodline, attacking and killing on sight, generally bloodthirsty behavior, and cultural reinforcement of aggressive behavior. kind of makes you wonder who is good and who is evil doesn't it? No. Because I define it as black and white. The creations of evil gods are as a general rule "evil" and the creations of the good gods are generally "good." Somehow the humans, more than any other race, got complete free will and chooses their path more than any other.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-18-03, 10:18 PM	The idea of good presented by this thread was not aimed directly at epic heros. I asked if there were any actual good people in DnD land because people keep portraying good as a rather brutal lifestyle. As if to be good, you have to visciously stab evil critters for no better reason than 'they're evil'.
ManTimeForgot 10-18-03, 10:39 PM	That break down is for humans only flashypants. I can't say anything about the population of elves because I have never met an elf, I have never interacted with an elf society, and I have never read anything about elven societies. The same goes for dwarves, gnomes, halflings, etc. But I have talked with humans, I have known probably several thousand, I am readily a part of a human society, and have studied human societies fairly extensively. That is what the rough D&D break down of alignment would for human society. This based off an alignment/level synopsis and graph that was part of the 2ed high level campaign book and off my own knowledge of how the majority of people act. I am a psychology major and observing how people act is something that comes naturally to me. If you showed me a dwarven society, then I might be able to tell you what their break down is roughly. On the topic of Mother Theresa: No neutral good character would make a good adventurer. Adventuring simply would not appeal to this kind of person. Neutral good goes out of their way to make people's lives better. An adventuring party simply does not do this often enough for most neutral good characters. Furthermore, Mother Theresa is a classic example of Neutral good, this is why I chose her in my earlier post. That post was meant to show and compare real life break down of alignment to what would be in a game if the game were to mirror real life. Not too many people are any where near the level of Mother Theresa. As such there aren't that many Neutral Good individuals 2% roughly speaking. That is where my figure comes in. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Arilou_skiff 10-19-03, 10:11 AM	GOOD Corellon Larethian- GC Elven deity of War: "He also remains alert to any taint of evil among the elves, and he seeks to stamp out any evil influence the moment it appears." – Does this sound like a good character under your definition? He "stomps" out evil influences as soon as it appears. He doesn't ask questions before smiting, even among his own people. Heironeous– LG Human deity of Valor, Justice, Honor, and War. He is the quintessential paladin deity and arch-enemy of the evil war deity Hextor: "Heironeous expects his followers to uphold the the highest ideals of chivalry and justice and to treat adversity as a challenge to be met and overcome, just as evil should be overcome." – He advocates the smiting of evil and doesn't whine about individual rights as long as evil is destroyed and the overall justice is done. Kord– CG Human deity of Strength and Courage: "His teachings say that the strong and fit should lead the weaker, and that bravery is the greatest quality anyone can have, ruler and citizen alike. Everyone should scorn cowardice, says Kord." – This deity is willing to trample the rights of people based on their physical strength, yet is good. He says that if you are not strong and brave, you should not lead the people. Does he advocate the smiteing of evil creatures that are physically weak? And with a deity’s lofty ideals, would Kord see mercy to evil as cowardice to do one's duty? Moradin– LG Dwarven deity of War: "Moradin is an adamant defender of the dwarven people he created and the principles of law and good. He teaches ... loyalty to clan, leader, and people, and of meeting adversity with stoicism and tenacity. He tolerates no taint of evil among the dwarves; it was he who drove the derro and duergar out of the dwarven community." – Moradin fights evil with stoic indifference and tenacity, not caring for the rights of the evil he fights. He tramples the rights of evil derro and duergar by forcing the out of their homelands. EVIL Gruumsh– CE Orc creator and orchish god of War and Territory: "Gruumsh demands that his followers be strong, that they cull the weak from their numbers, and that they take all the territory Gruumsh thinks is rightfully theirs (which is almost everything). He tolerates no sign of friendliness from his people. Unceasing warfare is his creed..." – This is the deity of the orcs. This is what orcs are born from and what they are born to do. Both the deity and his people are the enemies of man and the deities listed above. Erythnul– CE deity worshiped by many evil races, god of Hate, Malice and Slaughter: "Erythnul is a brutal deity who delights in panic and slaughter. In savage lands, evil barbarians, gnolls, bugbears, ogres, and trolls commonly worship him. Erythnul admonishes his followers to shed blood for its own sake, to covet what is not theirs, and to destroy anyone who would deny them anything. He further urges them to bring ugliness and strife to pleasant locales. Foes who cannot be killed should be maimed, and that which cannot be stolen should be destroyed." – This deity may have created many of the evil races. Even worse than Gruumsh, the creature that are spawns of this god should be put down with impunity to stop the spread of their foul taint. Do you think a ruthless evil deity would create an evil race and give it total free will to alter its alignment? NO! Evil is part of their nature and it takes a lot of will and a great deal of defying your nature to break from the god that created you. There are many more deities of both good and evil in Greyhawk, but these are the extremes that illustrate my point. There are other good deities that are not so militant or spiteful as these, and there are evil deities that are not so violent and foul as these. I'm trying to show that good alignment is not as bright white and you make it out to be and evil is not as dark black. There is some grey area on both sides of the "perfect grey" of neutrality. It is just lighter on one side and darker on the other making one good and the other evil. Just a point: Did anyone note that all the good powers where *defensive* in nature? Moradin is a "Defender of the dwarven peoples" (DEFENDER, not attacker!) Corellon didn't kill the drow, he banished them in the hope of them learning a lesson. Heironous demands that "The highest principles of chivalry are upheld", well these include (no ****!) NOT HARMING NONCOMBATANTS! What i see as a common thread is that the Good deities defend, the evil ones attack. Gruumsh created the Orcs, yes, but just like elves do not always follow Corellon not all orcs follow Gruumsh: Not all humans follow their own deities either. Erythnul did *not* create any of teh races that worship him (exception being some strains of undead) he is *worshipped* by them, he is not their creator. (the Bugbears have their own creator-deity, evil barbarians are created by homever created the other humans and the probably creator of the Gnoll race is Yeenoghu) Orcs are no more bound by their deities than elves, and evil elves are dime-a-dozen.
Flashypants 10-19-03, 03:10 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot [B]That break down is for humans only flashypants. I can't say anything about the population of elves because I have never met an elf, I have never interacted with an elf society, and I have never read anything about elven societies. The same goes for dwarves, gnomes, halflings, etc.We are talking about the D&D game here, or did you forget that? You have never read anything about dwarven and elven societies? They might not be real, but if you are here posting to a D&D message board, I would be willing to be you have read something about how these cultures are supposed to be like. Have you read the races chapter in the PHB? Have you read the elven and dwarven entries in the Monster Manual? Have you read anything about orcish society? Your statements in your last post are ridiculous and as a gamer... read the books and use your imagination! This based off an alignment/level synopsis and graph that was part of the 2ed high level campaign book and off my own knowledge of how the majority of people act. I am a psychology major and observing how people act is something that comes naturally to me.I can't find this alignment synopsis and graph in my 2nd Ed High Level Campaigns. Where is it? Not only that, but alignment definitions change with every edition of the game. Chaotic Neutral in 2nd Ed was pretty much restricted to lunatics and maniacs. But I'm not saying that your breakdown was incorrect based on your ideas of what good should be. I'm saying that your idea of what is "good" is incorrect, which in turn makes your alignment breakdown erroneous. And I've taken several college psyc classes myself and I don't even remember any definitions of good and evil, nor do I remember any statistics as to how much of the world population fell into these groups. If you showed me a dwarven society, then I might be able to tell you what their break down is roughly. Don't be a moron. No neutral good character would make a good adventurer. Adventuring simply would not appeal to this kind of person. Neutral good goes out of their way to make people's lives better. Oh, really? That seems odd considering that it is there in the game to be used by PC adventurers. What does the PH say under Neutral Good? "Jozan, a cleric who helps others according to their need, is neutral good." Is Jozan, the iconic cleric, not an adventurer? Is he Mother Theresa? The PH also says about Pelor, Jozan's neutral good deity, "(the) adversary of all that is evil. He is the most commonly worshiped deity among humans... The mace is his favored weapon." He sounds like Mother Theresa too, doesn't he? The fact is that you are not using the correct idea of good. In order to play the alignment system that the game rules advocates, you need to readjust your ideas. That being said, Rule Zero precedes all. I just want you to know that you are playing outside the norm.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-19-03, 03:24 PM	Originally posted by Flashypants Don't be a moron. Okay, I think you've had enough. You were having a pretty good debate here, but thats it.
Flashypants 10-19-03, 03:25 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland The idea of good presented by this thread was not aimed directly at epic heros. I asked if there were any actual good people in DnD land because people keep portraying good as a rather brutal lifestyle. As if to be good, you have to visciously stab evil critters for no better reason than 'they're evil'. Well, I don't agree with this either. To be good, you don't have to viciously stab evil beings. But I don't eliminate this from my game, because to a large extent, the rules support and allow this definition of good.
Flashypants 10-19-03, 03:29 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Okay, I think you've had enough. You were having a pretty good debate here, but thats it. What? You going to kick me off for that? He was being overly sarcastic, silly and rude. Maybe your kicking me off, cause I'm right! HAHAHA Oh, I'm sick of proving you all wrong any way.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-19-03, 03:45 PM	The truth is, I don't have that power, but I don't want a flamewar here. I just had to deal with a complete and utter :censored: on another thread and while I'm perfectly content to absorb the slings and arrows directed at myself, I would rather not allow a thread I started to be privvy to that.
ManTimeForgot 10-19-03, 05:13 PM	So flashy you have read sociological texts detailing the functions and interactions within dwarven society? I don't see that anywhere in the races section of the PHB? I'm a moron because I haven't read sociological texts regarding the moral outlook of dwarven society? I guess so; I guess some of us can't be as learned as you Flashy when it comes to reading up on fantasy cultures. I've taken a host of ethics classes which detail what good and evil is all about, and I never said that I had the correct idea what is good. But, I dare say that with examples of an alignment like Mother Theresa, then there cannot be more than a handful of those with good alignment. If the world were comprised of a large number of good people, then this world would be a much better place because corporate owners and politicians would not be evil by majority. Helps others according to their need, and guess what the greatest need inside a society is? The poor, the down-trodden, the homeless: all these things are why a person who is truly neutral good would not wish to adventure (I dare say the rare neutral good individual would, but that is not a majority; I did after all say appeal to, not would not adventure). A truly neutral good individual would be out there healing people, helping them get fed, helping them receive shelter, helping them through hard times: None of these things an adventurer does. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Leap 10-20-03, 06:25 AM	MTF – This fight is fought in order to show an example to others with the smallest hope in mind that such an example might make a difference. Each person who chooses good as a result of the actions of a paladin is one less person making this world a bad place. Each time a paladin defeats a foe of the good, a small part of this world is made a better place. Paladin: “Follow me in a hopeless charge against the Dragons, FOR GOOD!” Crowd: [utter silence, broken only by the occasional cough] Voice from back of crowd: “You first, nutter!” :) This world might not be perfect, but it is in the fighting that the world is made a better place. It is exactly this reason that sloth was considered a deadly sin by the Catholic Church. One person fighting for good is not enough; all people must. The paladin chooses to lead the way, because if no does lead, no one will act. And it has nothing to do with church leaders being part of the landed nobility living off the labour of their servants, or on the fact that toil keeps the rebellious too busy/tired to rebel, or even the fact that “the devil makes work for idle hands” often serves greed (either: work hard and get more, or work hard and get more for me!)? In General – 1) What is it that Orcs DO that means they are thought of as Evil? What is their culture like?
bitnine 10-20-03, 11:07 AM	Originally posted by Leap 1) What is it that Orcs DO that means they are thought of as Evil? What is their culture like? Meh, I'm working on writing some material for D&D orcs: Orcs largely abide by the mandate of their god Gruumsh and live in a tribal society. Gruumsh's teachings at their heart revolve around the single principle of strength being the only worthy power. Gruumsh commands his followers to cull the weak from their numbers, and to take what is rightfully theirs. Which is everything that they can take by virtue of their strength. As a society, they believe that laws are merely dictates handed down by the strong, and should only be followed so long as there is a strength to impose that law. If a leader tells you to do something and he can kill you, than you should do it. If you can kill him, then he has no business dictating anything to you. Gruumsh holds his place over the orcish people not just by virtue of being their creator, but also being revered as the strongest of all orcs. That does not mean that they constantly kill members of their own tribes. True, the weak must die, and any young or otherwise unproven orc that loses a challenge will likely be killed. However, subjugation is a handy alternative to killing, and those members of a tribe who are known to be strong are often merely brought into line by force when a stronger arises. This small cortesy does not often cover members of other tribes. Orcs, in accordance with these ideals, raiding settlements and villages with horrific results. They, as they believe it is their duty, kill everyone they believe to be too weak to be allowed to live. Those who they consider stronger than the rest are sometimes taken as slaves or as trophies (particularly women of a settlement). Even if the raiding tribe doesn't believe that they can hold the land, they will still attack and raze the holdings of others. One of the reasons that Orcs make good fodder is games because of both their culture and beliefs. Manytimes the orcs that adventurers encounter are those who are still young and unproven to their tribe, gathered into a raiding party to go out and collect trophies and prove their worth. These warriors will often follow the questionable behavior of fighting to the death and ignoring retreat as an option. If they turn tail to a fight with a weaker race (i.e. any non-orcish race), they not only may believe themselves not to be worthy of life, but they also face death when they return as a reward for their weakness. Chaotic Evil is the most common alignment within Orcish society. The transatory and often violently capricious nature of their laws and rule combined with the bloody methods of self-promotion (or even surival) give rise to this definite trend. Younger orcs are often hotblooded and almost stereotypically violently destructive, desperate to prove themselves in spectular and brutal displays, both to themselves and to ensure their surival and position in the tribe. Those who live long enough are slightly more measured, even knowing when to bend to the will of another (usually the leader of a tribe) despite their resentment, and knowing the value of keeping their brothers alive and in service to them. Chaotic Neutral is the next most common alignment; those Orcs who worship Gruumsh can go as far to worship him purely as a war deity instead of an evil one (see PHB, page xx). Commonly these Orcs are more focused on their own strength and victory in combat, holding little interest in trying to kill every weak individual. They fight alongside other members of their tribe and are just as ferocious on the battlefield, and are sometimes more dangerous in their ability to work with and trust others - though sometimes considered a flaw. Many times CN members of a tribe focus on challenges, both personal and to the tribe's land by rivals, and meet these with great force. Chaotic Good orcs are somewhat rare within the tribal communities; mostly those who possess this mindset leave, either for civilized lands, or form their own outcast communities where they will. Those who do still remain within tribes often take it upon themselves to be champions of others, both challenging and killing the most cruel of their tribe, and fighting to defend others from aggression, both of outside tribes and infighting within their tribe. Sometimes they go as far as to take slaves in order to shelter them from death or service to another, even releasing them when the oppurtunity arises. Their relatively odd idealism and intratribal conflicts often make them very unpopular, so even if a CG orc manages to become leader and enforce his ways upon a tribe, it is rare that their rule is measure in anything other than days. Nuetral Evil orcs are stereotypically seen as craven within their communities; they show a willingness to serve others when it ensures their survival, and punctuate that relative subservience with gruesome displays when they feel they can do so without retaliation. In many cases, overcompensation drives often them to commit some of the most visibly depraved acts upon others, which they feel is necessary in order to overcome any perception of weakness. Nuetral orcs are difficult to categorize or describe a common example, as there isn't a particular tendancy within the tribal culture. Their motivations are varied, from conflicting ideals to apathy to moderation. Nuetral Good orcs are similar to their Chaotic Good bretheren described above. Many times, NG orcs will avoid taking part in raids of civilized lands, and instead devote themselves to fighting other warring tribes and savage creatures within the wilds. However, conflict with fellows is not uncommon and sometimes inevitable. Lawful Evil orcs are generally those who have a different mindset to match a different set of strengths. Very commonly, a LE orc will take it upon himself to become a follower of the strongest within his tribe and spread his influence while under that protection. Lawful Neutral orc tend to be loners who follow their own odd ideals. While those ideals don't necessarily come into conflict directly with others of their tribe, the seemingly odd and useless compuctions that LN orcs inflict upon themselves are often taken to be signs of weakness by others. If they merely follow this path themselves, it leads to less conflict than if they attempt to force others to abide their sense of honor. Lawful Good orcs are all but unheard of within orcish society. There are a very rare few who attempt to get their fellows to recommit themselves to another cause or follow a different way of life, however, their views are so intolerable to the majority of other orcs, an inability to fight night and day under constant challenges is a consideration that leads to most fleeing or being killed.
Leap 10-20-03, 12:08 PM	Bitnine – I have a bit of a problem with CE critters living in a social set-up; the whole precedent behind CE (whim directed predators – think of how the Wargs appear to relate to each other from the brief glance at the Warg pit in LOTR:TTT) seems antithetical to social living……LE (herding their ‘cattle’) makes more sense (and indeed LE would be far more in line with the meritocratic approach Orcs have in choosing their leaders, and indeed in choosing who survives!). CE is something that Good hunts as and when it rears its head (a werewolf appears in the area, Good folks go out to kill it but do not create an “anti werewolf” crusade – generally. Sporadic danger tends to breed a sporadic response). LE is a whole different kettle of fish though. LE is imperialistic; it seeks to spread its control (because of its sheer dread of an “uncontrolled situation” – in cattle terms, a stampede or a predator stealing from their ‘stock’) and thus bumps against Good communities in a major way. This is not simply a matter of a sporadic predator turning up and carrying off a peasant or two, but is more along the lines of “Helm’s Deep”….rampaging armies seeking to spread and take over and subject.
Xychotic 10-20-03, 01:01 PM	In my active campaign world of Rekeldium, the government itself is mostly LE. Most people are somewhere closely aligned to the forces of the power centers. As is, most humans turn out LN, many are LE, a few are LG, but very few are actually any form of chaotic. Almost all characters of good alignment have serious issues. The government is corrupt to the core, a huge proportion of people behave within complicated social mores but always think about numero uno. The last character that was the kind of good at the beginning of this thread ended up having his arm severed, his wife brainwashed, and himself nearly kicked out of the Order from which he was trained. Actually, he moved toward evil along the course of the campaign. I really like playing the zealous LG that goes around smiting whatever does or is known to do evil things. Um... I guess my good characters don't actually kill goblinoid kids. He might kill if they attack him, but he wouldn't torch an goblinoid hut just because. Ummm.... I guess I'm not going much farther... maybe I'll post something relevant later.... probably not... *fades back into insanity?*
bitnine 10-20-03, 01:31 PM	Originally posted by Leap I have a bit of a problem with CE critters living in a social set-up; the whole precedent behind CE (whim directed predators – think of how the Wargs appear to relate to each other from the brief glance at the Warg pit in LOTR:TTT) seems antithetical to social living……LE (herding their ‘cattle’) makes more sense (and indeed LE would be far more in line with the meritocratic approach Orcs have in choosing their leaders, and indeed in choosing who survives!). Well... there are various examples across a number of books of chaotic evil creatures and characters working together in packs and organizations and having at least forms of different society. Given a moment to think about the basic idea of orcish society, I think you'll find that it matches both ends of each respective axis very well. Orcs follow the "law" just as much as someone forces them to. If they can force someone else to do what they wish, it is "law" as well. There's no such thing as an unpunished crime, as if you "get away" with something, it obviously wasn't a crime. And if you did something, no matter what, that displeased someone else who was stronger than you, than you deserved every bit to suffer the consequences. That would describe a chaotic society. And, of course, the emphasis on taking from others and promoting yourself through the expense of others carries a very strong evil bent. For example, orcish society would have no conception of rape, even in a gender-equal setting. Anything that you could take from another or force them to do is acceptable. In fact, a failing to excersize your will upon others will often be taken as a sign of weakness and lead to others targetting you. One thing to avoid is placing to much emphasis on alignment being more than the some of its parts. Chaotic Evil isn't 'Evil extra strength' - it doesn't denote evil any more than Lawful Evil, nor does it denote more chaos than Chaotic Neutral. The orcish tribes and horde are perhaps the best example of a society painted in the books that is both chaotic as well as evil, and a society to boot. Though indeed infighting is common, tribal disputes perpetual, and the horde, thankfully for most, united and rallied extremely rarely. [Edit: Erm, also note, as I alluded to with those last few statements, that I'm not trying to say that the orcish CE setup is a particularly stable or efficient way to run a society. On the contrary, most sources specifically paint the orcs and the orcish horde as being of great power, yet limited mainly by these very instabilities and inefficiencies; all of the infighting between tribes and the shifts in leadership mean that unless pretty much forcibly united by a great and terrible leader, the horde don't get together to throw down. (That's more or less the picture that, for example, the FRCS sourcebook paints, though they don't use the term "throw down.") /Edit]
MalakiTyrel 10-20-03, 01:57 PM	How much self-determination do you have when you and your entire race was created by an evil deity? I'm not saying that you have no self-determination. Flashypants, you have just as much self-determination as if you are created by a good aligned god. Beings can turn against a good aligned god and become evil just as they can turn against an evil aligned god and become good. Those who are evil seem to be, in your eyes, unredeemable and therefore deserve a detect *thump* paladin yet those who are good are able to commit evil acts without fear of falling. If alignment is justification for acts, why would anyone ever have an evil alignment? As long as they believed they were doing right then they should have a good alignment. If that was the case, even a LE mage could believe what he was doing was right and therefore be classified as LG. So only those who knew they were doing wrong would ever have an evil alignment. By that thinking, no orc should be evil since they believe they are doing right. In that case then the orc would be good and all other races would be evil. I'm sorry, but that is not how alignment is supposed to be applied. Once again, just because a race is viewed as irredeemably evil it does not mean that is the Good viewpoint. It is merely an accepted one. Just because something is accepted does not mean it is a Good view--see Nazi Germany in the 1940's. It was accepted that Jews could be murdered because they were at fault for the decline of Germany. Definitely not a Good view though it was widely accepted. This is just silly, man. How about the answer that orcs and other, similar races are bloodthirsty, evil beasts that hate humanity and generally have no interest in learning. They would tear the city apart and burn down the school, killing and cooking the students. You can't claim that orcs choose not to attend school because they want to "preserve their culture." That's ridiculous. No, my point was this....Orcs and similar races are mostly tribal in nature. They have no desire to be a part of human society. That is not much different than Native Americans not wanting to integretate into White society. It may not be about preserving their culture but it is about not wanting to be a part of another. Not a whole lot of difference there. This is completely up to the DM. The MM glossary states under Alignment that "Often" means "The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture..." In my game, I take the nature approach because they are created by an evil deity for the purpose of causing death and destruction on the creations of the good deities (which includes humans). Once again...key words "in my game". That does not mean everyone takes a "born evil" approach to how orcs and others are. No. Because I define it as black and white. The creations of evil gods are as a general rule "evil" and the creations of the good gods are generally "good." And so do I. You seem to think that my idea of good somehow doesn't work in D&D. Yet, I have played several successful campaigns in which it did. My main idea for good and evil in D&D is that good must be "compassionate and just" while evil is more "lacking compassion and unjust". If a character is good and therefore, just and compassionate, they will not murder but may kill. You have not proven anyone wrong. If anything you have proven Vaal right--that there are few, if any, truly good people left in the D&D world.
bitnine 10-20-03, 02:48 PM	Originally posted by MalakiTyrel Flashypants, you have just as much self-determination as if you are created by a good aligned god. Beings can turn against a good aligned god and become evil just as they can turn against an evil aligned god and become good. Does that mean that if your party came across an elf stabbing some people in the middle of the street, you wouldn't tell them that they should assume that the elf is good (being created by a good god and all), so the people he's stabbing must be evil? ;)
MalakiTyrel 10-20-03, 02:59 PM	No, I wouldn't tell them to assume the elf was good. If playing a good aligned character I would attempt to intervene and sort it out afterwards, though. But assumption of good and evil in that situation has little to do with my good characters actions.
Linthar 10-20-03, 07:14 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland People who: - Won't kill someone who hasn't actually provoked them - Who won't shoot the hostage because they don't think they're responsible. - Who Doesn't think killing something is the correct response to being suspicious. - Who thinks children don't deserve to die no matter the parents - Who doesn't hide behind flawed spells to wheedle out of something they know is wrong. - Who actually respects sentient life in all its forms? You described every character I've played or would want to play. I'd walk out of a game before I was forced to play an evil character. I'm a nice person in real life and that applies to the game as well.
split infinitude 10-20-03, 07:34 PM	Originally posted by bitnine Does that mean that if your party came across an elf stabbing some people in the middle of the street, you wouldn't tell them that they should assume that the elf is good (being created by a good god and all), so the people he's stabbing must be evil? ;) By the time the party figured out exactly what sort of elf it was, whether that particular subtype of elf was good or evil, and whether there was a D&D novel with a good version of that normally-evil elf, the elf would have long since killed whatever it was stabbing and moved on.
Leap 10-21-03, 05:57 AM	Bitnine – chaotic society I know what you mean but I still maintain that this is an oxymoron. Society requires consistent structure, whilst chaos is fundamentally opposed to this. By the argument you use, a battlefield would be classed as a society (which is, I’m sure you will agree, obviously nonsense). CE is far better suited to describing the non-social evil-weevils who live as driven-by-whim opportunist-predators (Vampires, Succubae, Werewolves, etc. – the things that lurk in the misty wooded hills and periodically come down to feed) rather than social nasties who are into organisation sans dignity (LE). Orcs are far more the latter than the former, in my mind; evil nasties driven to conquest and enslavement rather than sporadic slavering beasties from the mists.
bitnine 10-21-03, 11:04 AM	Originally posted by Leap By the argument you use, a battlefield would be classed as a society (which is, I’m sure you will agree, obviously nonsense). Indeed, since I said that orcs are of the Chaotic alignment and yet have a society, I must be saying that all things chaotic constitute a society. I should have caught that one. No wonder they call you "Leap." ;) Society requires consistent structure, whilst chaos is fundamentally opposed to this. Hm, you may be taking the stance that Chaotic means completely chaotic, which I don't necessarily take. Robin Hood, for example, might be a Chaotic Good character. He lives by self-drawn principles, such as taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but also has his own ideas of honor, such as (as perhaps a hypothetical) not harming women, never taking the last coin from even a rich man's purse, and to always throw a feast for his men after a big take. Even if these ideas and principles are sedentary, that is, he doesn't ever decide to start robbing the baroness, taking her last coin and not throwing a feast, this doesn't make him lawful. In fact, he can consistantly abide by Chaotic guidelines. As the PHB describes chaotic alignments: “Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them. Moreover, a society is primarily defined by the culture of its people and the institutions that it possesses. In orcish society, the idea of tribe and chief do not relate to "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability" as Lawful would imply. In fact, it promotes everything listed above under the Chaotic description.
Al2902 10-21-03, 07:27 PM	Actually, if I can stick my neck out slightly, both camps seem to have a fundamental problem. The two camps are polarised into opposing ideologies, without that tempering factor which turns empty zealotry or fanaticism into a coherent force for good: pragmatism. For sake of ease, I shall crudely divide the debate into those who believe it is wrong for good to undertake 'evil' methods (Vaal etc.) and those who believe that good should undertake the defeat of evil (Flashypants et al.) Both have serious problems. Vaal's assertion that good should never undertake 'evil' methods is one which is short-sighted. In the thread about the paladin hostage dilemma, MTF (I think) tried to dichotomise morality from pragmatism. This is unfeasible and dangerous. Pragmatism is not separate from morality, it is an inherent part of morality. It is important here to note that motivation and result are the two predominant aspects of morality in my view. Methodology is a poor third. To take a purist view on methodology might preserve the 'principles' of good, but the principles of good are perverted in the extreme if their successful operation enables evil to thrive. Let us assume that an evil ritual can only be stopped by torturing a cultist to gain information. For ease of reference, it is a simple moral dichotomy: torture the cultist or face the ritual (which causes huge suffering to thousands). The Vaal approach is that in debasing oneself by torture, one become a LN antihero. There is no reason why the absolute pursuit of good ought to be tempered by 'good principles'...moderation in the pursuit of justice in no virtue. The end-result must be considered; so long as the motivation is pure (good prospers), there is no reason why an ends-justifies-the-means mentality is mutually exclusive to a good alignment. Flashypants, by contrast, is too far in the opposite direction. By advocating a purist stance of exterminating evil where it is present, he opens himself to several criticisms. The extermination of the orcish race, merely because they are evil and hate humanity, does indeed debase the good. To justify the attack of another sentient race, there must be both clear intent and clear capabilities of attack. The notion of a 'pre-emptive' strike against orcs can only be morally justified by proving an immediate threat: zealously hunting down and exterminating orcs seems to be at best fanaticism and at worst genocide. Pragmatism has received a bad press in the notion of good alignment debates. It has typically been received openly by the 'neutrals'. It should no longer be. Pragmatism is not an aligned force; it can be good, neutral or evil...it merely affects the capability of realising one's goals. In order to preserve good, good must always be active, seeking to protect the innocents from the assaults of the evil. As soon as protocol and moral codes restrict that, what was once good becomes LN- where *methods* rather than *morals* dictate the course of action. Deliberately bypassing avenues of dispensing justice and good merely because of professed moral reasons is normally merely a case of mindless obedience to an established code: lawful neutral at its worse. The spirit, rather than the letter, of the code of good needs to be followed. Given that motivation and outcome are both good, method is of secondary importance; whilst 'good' methods are preferable, far better that the few clear transgressors are dealt with rather than negligence cause the destruction of innocents. Refusing to do so is not 'good'- it is apathy, lack of conviction or dogmatic obedience of protocol.
ManTimeForgot 10-21-03, 11:40 PM	Exactly why one should not discuss morality in terms of what is pragmatic AI2902. Pragmatism cannot be used to determine what is moral exactly because pragmatism is amoral by nature. I never espoused the belief that one must disregard pragmatism entirely. When its comes to deciding the moral value of human life, I have no further recourse other than pragmatism. 1 life verus 10 lives I choose the 10. But that is only because I am not qualified to make the decision of whose life is more valuable. Who is? But in the cases where lives are not at stake pragmatism must be disregarded in order to determine what is moral. Now this is not to say that doing so would be without negative consequence. Obviously the truly good individual who always takes a surrender to be genuine runs several risks. But slaying the person who surrenders out right is the wrong thing to do. Pragmatism is a matter of using what is logical. Morality, however, is not black and white. As such you cannot simply crunch some numbers or plug actions into a formula to determine what is moral. First rule of the fanatic (to quote John Sheridan of B5): "To become obsessed with the enemy is to become the enemy." Once a good person becomes willing to do whatever takes no matter the cost to eradicate evil, then the "good" person has become evil. That person becomes willing to sacrifice inumerable innocent lives in order to destroy evil. That is evil right there. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Leap 10-22-03, 08:55 AM	Bitnine – Indeed, since I said that Orcs are of the Chaotic alignment and yet have a society, I must be saying that all things chaotic constitute a society. I should have caught that one. They way you described Orc “society” makes it sound essentially identical to a battle rather than a society as such; it is certainly stretching the definition of ‘society’ to include a situation that is so unstable and anti-social (for want of a better word). He lives by self-drawn principles, such as taking from the rich and giving to the poor Or perhaps he was just responding to the injustice of the rich stealing from the poor? ;) Yes I realise that the PHB claims that chaotic society is not an oxymoron (and the PHB is never questioned on here ;) ) but a society is more than a gathering of people/Orcs (oooo I don’t think of Orcs as people! Bad me! Baaaad Me! ;) ) with the primary ‘institutional’ distinction being between predator and prey!
bitnine 10-22-03, 11:21 AM	Yes I realise that the PHB claims that chaotic society is not an oxymoron (and the PHB is never questioned on here ) Well, it should be noted that the Chaotic alignment does not mandate continual change any more than the Lawful alignment mandates stasis. Certain things that change often tend to be Chaotic and things that are static are often Lawful, but this doesn't mean that the alignment necessitates those traits. In fact, given a core idea of Chaos relating to "freedom, adaptability, and flexibility," there's quite a bit of room for (and I'll take a moment to gasp here) even relatively stable societies to emerge, including those with oganic institutions that rely upon the will of the people to enact their decisions rather than previous presidences, set mandates, or codified laws. Given how the whim of the people might be followed rather than a particular leader or standard, I'd wager that as a drawback some of the decisions handed down might be arbitrary or even reckless to the point of irresonsibility. Originally posted by Leap but a society is more than a gathering of people/Orcs (oooo I don’t think of Orcs as people! Bad me! Baaaad Me! ;) ) with the primary ‘institutional’ distinction being between predator and prey! There are other institutions. There's the tribe as a whole and the role of a chief, the clergy of Gruumsh and a high priest for each tribe, and probably a number of self-motivated or appointed positions within the tribe. There's also certainly a culture, as delightful as it may be. And though others within the tribe are expected to prove their strength and have every right to challenge their leaders if they feel themselves stronger, this does not mean that this necessarily happens on a daily basis. It also doesn't mean that a leader needs to slaughter his own people to assert his dominance. It would likely vary from tribe to tribe, but given the intertribal conflicts and the traditional raiding parties that they send out, if nothing else, many members of most tribes are fairly busy.