Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ainaelin 04-19-04, 06:48 PM	Hello, everyone. I hope you are all enjoying your games and your day and night. We had a debate with some friends yesterday about the Paladin's code of Honour. There's a player, whose character, Allenor, is a Paladin of Tyr in the Realms. We met 2 orcs in town (rightful citizens of the town) who were harassing a local barmaid. We subdued them and handed them over to the authorities, but we only then discovered they were Evil (thanks to the Paladin's Detect Evil Class feature). It was too late for him to do anything, but then he said he should have killed him, because they were Evil. To him (if I understood rightly), being Evil makes them outlaws and he should kill them wherever and whenever he could. As Evil creatures, they forsake any right they might have to life. I think that being rightful citizens of the town, they are bound to the Law at the same conditions. If they break the Law, they must be tried just like anybody else, and them being Evil has nothing to do with it. They must be punished for their acts, not their intentions. I am plainly aware that in D&D, Good, Evil, Chaos and Laws are not abstracts concepts like in real life, but what do you think about the issue? Thanks for your opinions. :)
Veton 04-19-04, 08:07 PM	Ah, a Detect *Thump* Paladin... He could kill them. But then he would lose his paladin status as he did an evil act himself. Paladins DO NOT HAVE TO kill an Evil creature, they just need to stop them from doing whatever evil deeds they are doing it.
Eldren 04-19-04, 08:19 PM	Paladins aren't required to kill an evil creature, although depending on how hard-assed your Dungeon Master is about Paladins being restricted via their alignment, they may or may not be able to kill, by personal choice, when they detect someone as having an Evil alignment. For the most part, general common sense consensus is that Paladins ought not to go around using Detect Evil all the time, and then on-the-spot wasting those who detected as evil. In general, the Paladin ought to only cause harm to an Evilly-aligned being when said being is committing a crime against Good. In other words, if they're committing an evil act, then they're fodder for the Paladin's justice, but if they're evil, and otherwise just minding their own business, there shouldn't be a lot the Paladin can do besides glower at them. In the case you're talking about specifically, the right thing was done by handing the orcs over to the local authorities. So long as the established law of the land isn't actively evil, most Paladins are honor-bound to obey it and submit to it while inside the boundaries of its jurisdiction. They have to often rely more on the Good side of their alignment, as opposed to the Lawful side, when they're out in the wilderness, where there is no set law established. If the Paladin had killed the orcs for harrassing the barmaid, it would be a pretty dicey situation. If said harrassment were taking the form of actual physical harm coming to the woman, then the Paladin would have been fully justified in rising, drawing his weapon, and lopping both orcs' heads off. If the harrassment, however, merely took the form of ongoing inappropriate commentary, light touches to her sensitive regions (derriere, general groin area, chest, etc.), and things like that, then the Paladin should have done what they did: Step in, subdue the criminals, and turn them over to local law enforcement so that appropriate punishment was dealt (this is, of course, presuming that unwanted suggestive advances are outlawed in the town; in most medieval towns, barmaids had to put up with the fact that they'd be constantly groped, prodded, and suggestively leered at and spoken to through the entirety of their shift; even in the 21st Century, in some of the seedier city bars, the waitresses have to put up with this, minus the groping, and in some cases even that still happens). Paladins have some leeway in how they can act, but should apply a lot of common sense. You can't wantonly slay someone because their moral ideology disagrees with yours. At least, you can't wantonly slay them solely because their moral ideology disagrees with yours. When their actions start to disagree with your moral ideology, a Paladin has significantly more leeway in deciding how to act, and is generally presumed to be operating well within the restrictions of their class and alignment by, at the least, knocking the villain unconscious. In the adventuring wilds outside of a city, a Paladin rarely bothers with subduing an opponent unless there's good reason. If it's gone far enough for a Paladin to get physically involved, and if a weapon is drawn, then someone's going to die unless one of the two decides discretion is the better part of valor (a polite way of saying "unless they run"). While adventuring, a Paladin ought to generally attempt to not instigate hostilities, but should be more than willing, once hostilities have started, to end them by as efficient and brutal a means as is possible.
ehrin 04-19-04, 08:36 PM	If the LAW and all the GOOD people in the society have decided that yes indeed, anything that detects evil on the Paladin's radar should be immediately killed, then by all means, the Paladin should slay them. If, on the off chance that society has decided that you should only be punished for your ACTIONS, and not your moral code, and that the punishment should be in relation to the crime, then the paladin is neither LAWFUL nor GOOD in deciding to play judge, jury and executioner for such things.
Loftower 04-19-04, 09:26 PM	Am I wading into another Paladin thread? I guess I am. I think this all depends on your take on the Evil alignment. Alignment is so widely interpreted that I will not even attempt to go to the official rules. To me the question boils down to this: what does alignment mean in your campaign? If everyone must act on their alignment to maintain it, then the Paladin might have the right to smite. The only clear case would be: if the only way that a being can be “Evil” is to do something truly vile and deserving of death, or be a habitual abuser at a lower level who would also deserve death under a just law. I don’t think many people play this way. If the Paladin can detect Evil on someone who has only performed minor evils, perhaps rarely, then the detect should not be a good enough indicator for a death sentence. Similarly, if a being can be Evil without actually performing an Evil act, then the Paladin would definitely not have the right to attack. This is further complicated by the possibility of a “false positive”, that is, is it possible for the Paladin to perceive Evil on someone who is not themselves Evil? Possibly under the influence of Evil, possessed by a devil, carrying an Evil item, or something to that effect. If there is a reasonable chance of a Paladin being wrong then you need more evidence. There are many cases in the modern world of things deemed ‘evil’ which are not punishable at all. Most ‘evil’ deeds are not punishable by death. I can not think of a single society in the history of the real world where all ‘evil’ deeds were punishable by death. So stealing neighborhood cats, stewing them and serving them at the bar as ‘goat stew’ might be Evil, but do you consider it to be ‘just’ to slay the person guilty of this? Would the Paladin’s Detect ability highlight this person? The answers to those questions should be the same if the Paladin has the right to attack all the Evil he or she detects. If the being is guilty and deserves death, the Paladin may execute judgment (IMHO). On the other end, Veton and others are correct. Paladins do not have to kill every Evil creature that they encounter. That would be stupid and unplayable in most campaigns. I do not see how a Paladin can be restricted by the laws of a particular society. If the local laws are just then the Paladin should submit to them and use them at every opportunity (thus strengthening the rule of just law). If, however, the laws of the land violate the Paladin’s code, then the code must come before all, even if the Paladin could expect censure or more severe punishment for those actions. If the Paladin is required, or even permitted, to use the local laws as a guide then the Paladin’s code is of little value.
Salla 04-19-04, 09:52 PM	It's a common misconception that 'lawful' means 'law-abiding'. To a degree, that's true ... but by the PHB, it also includes 'honor, trustworthiness ... and reliability'. However, a Paladin is under *no* obligation whatsoever to follow an injust law or government. Slavery may well be legal in some lands; the Paladin is under no restriction to support it. The same with discrimination or oppression. Now, another note is that a Paladin's first priority when facing almost any evil character is that of REDEMPTION. Any being which can make its own choices in life can choose to become good rather than staying evil. Generally, though his varies by DM, Outsiders and Undead are incapable of redemption, so there's no hope there. The Paladin did the right thing with the orcs; he prevented them from causing trouble, subdued them, and handed them to the authorities. The Punishment must fit the crime; the Orcs were simply harassing the barmaid, not killing her, so they did not deserve to die. All beings have a right to life, and nobody should understand this better than the Paladin. Any good character, and especially a Paladin, should only kill if there is no other option. The Paladin in this example was, well, exemplary in his actions.
Nom 04-19-04, 11:54 PM	Originally posted by Salla Now, another note is that a Paladin's first priority when facing almost any evil character is that of REDEMPTION.Uh, no. According to the PH 3.5, the Paladin's first priority when facing an evil character is to "help those in need" and "punish those who harm or threaten innocents". Some paladins may include redemption in this list (either by player choice or by the campaign world), but it's certainly not a requirement mandated by the PH.
Bloodtide_the_Red 04-20-04, 12:22 AM	Any absolute is going to get a paladian in trouble. Sure it's easy to say two orcs are evil and he must kill them...but what about everyone else? There is a lot of evil in the world.... Your 'average' merchant or shopkeeper is out to make money and a great many have little problem cheating. This is very common(even in our world). Lies are an evil act, right...and telling lies to get someone to do something or buy something is evil as well, right? Lots of city guard types and goverment types fall under Lawful Evil. As would bankers, moneychangers and such. A LE person would take away a house from a poor family if they did not pay the rent. It's an evil act(tossing a family out in the street), but it's totaly within the law(and it's a fair and good law too). And on and on....... BT
Salla 04-20-04, 01:09 AM	Originally posted by Nom Uh, no. According to the PH 3.5, See: Book Of Exalted Deeds.
Bedevere 04-20-04, 03:56 AM	About one third of any balanced population is evil. If the paladin was meant to kill all evil on sight, then the following would happen. 'Detect evil' on random passer by. He is evil. Paladin attacks the man, killing him mercilessly, in the middle of the main street of the capital city. (peasant) "He's killed the Mayor! Call the Guard!" (paladin) "No, its alright, he was evil!" (peasant) Oh. Ok, then. Alternatively, replace the last line with "And killing random passers by in the street isn't?" Evil exists in all levels of life. The guy down the video store who charges you the late return fine because of two minutes is evil. (assuming he doesnt feel guilty about it...) I know a few taxi drivers who are so selfish on the roads, that I am sure they'd come up evil on the paladinometer, but until their driving gets someone killed, I wouldn't say they deserve death for their acts. To summarise, there is a word for going round killing people for living their lives differently to your own. That word is..... EVIL
Ainaelin 04-20-04, 04:35 AM	Originally posted by Bedevere About one third of any balanced population is evil. If the paladin was meant to kill all evil on sight, then the following would happen. 'Detect evil' on random passer by. He is evil. Paladin attacks the man, killing him mercilessly, in the middle of the main street of the capital city. (peasant) "He's killed the Mayor! Call the Guard!" (paladin) "No, its alright, he was evil!" (peasant) Oh. Ok, then. Alternatively, replace the last line with "And killing random passers by in the street isn't?" Evil exists in all levels of life. The guy down the video store who charges you the late return fine because of two minutes is evil. (assuming he doesnt feel guilty about it...) I know a few taxi drivers who are so selfish on the roads, that I am sure they'd come up evil on the paladinometer, but until their driving gets someone killed, I wouldn't say they deserve death for their acts. To summarise, there is a word for going round killing people for living their lives differently to your own. That word is..... EVIL Even in D&D, there is a "Neutral" alignment to define most of the behaviours you described...
Naeron 04-20-04, 05:55 AM	Originally posted by ehrin If the LAW and all the GOOD people in the society have decided that yes indeed, anything that detects evil on the Paladin's radar should be immediately killed, then by all means, the Paladin should slay them. If, on the off chance that society has decided that you should only be punished for your ACTIONS, and not your moral code, and that the punishment should be in relation to the crime, then the paladin is neither LAWFUL nor GOOD in deciding to play judge, jury and executioner for such things. Except that in 3rd edition you only get an Evil alignment for committing evil acts. If an NPC only thinks its ok to kill innocents for pleasure, but lacks the commitment to do so then they remain Neutral. This means that if someone detects as evil they will usually have committed enough evil acts to become, and stay, evil. Thus they should always be considered candidates for punishment. However the detection of Evil cannot differentiate between the currently evil, those who have repented and are on the path back to neutrality and creatures with the evil subtype that have other alignments (a rare occurrence but it can exist). So on the whole the best course is to view those who detect as evil with great suspicion but only use force against them if you catch them in an evil act or have knowledge of recent evil acts with no sign of repentance. But in all of this the punishment meted out should always be within the framework of justice (not necessarily the law of the land although in Good and Neutral countries these often intersect). So if a Paladin catches evil orcs harrassing someone in town then the appropriate action is almost certainly to capture them and hand them over to the authorities. Catching them in town endangering the lives of innocents would be grounds for lethal force. Outside the boundaries of civilisation, which is beyond the areas where the laws are enforced then the Paladin is less bound by the law and more by their personal sense of justice. A lot of talk is made of redeeming evil opponents but under the core rules there is no mechanism to do this. Even the atonement spell can only change alignment if the target wishes to do so of their own free will. The fact is that if these Orcs had been in this, presumably good/neutral, town for any length of time and had been obeying the rules and living as normal citizens (because they wanted to rather than for an evil motive) then they will not have been debasing or destroying innocent life and would have moved towards neutral.
Nom 04-20-04, 05:56 AM	Originally posted by Salla See: Book Of Exalted Deeds.And was covered above. The BoED is a campaign expansion adding non-core rules fitting a particular milieu. Ergo, Paladins played according to BoED (perhaps - I haven't read it) should be concerned about redemption first and foremost. However, according to the PH it's a non-issue. Side challenge: find 'mercy' or 'redemption' used in the context of LG anywhere within the PH. In the DMG, 'mercy' is mentioned in passing in the Greyhawk campaign setting as an attribute of Celestia (the focal LG plane).
Bedevere 04-20-04, 09:21 AM	Originally posted by Ainaelin Even in D&D, there is a "Neutral" alignment to define most of the behaviours you described... Lets see. Killing random people in the street? The video store guy who is taking pleasure in the misfortune of others? The taxi driver who is not only a thoughtless, agressive driver, but actually enjoys the sound of other peoples horns, as it means he's given them a scare. My examples were only intended as a guide, not as a proof, but I cant see how any of them could be counted as neutral. They may not be world destroying evil, but nobody ever said evil had to be a megalomaniac plotting to murder an entire kingdom. Just someone willing to profit at the expense and/or suffering of others. My point is that someone can be evil without ever actually doing anything that would warrant a death sentance. It is possible to be evil without ever breaking a law. It is even possible to be evil without people having the slightest idea. The stereotypical image of a politician who is all charity work and kissing babies in public, and shutting down the orphanage in private, is a prime example. The public love him, because he makes sure they all hear good things about him. He just keeps all his dirty work well hidden.
Ainaelin 04-20-04, 09:50 AM	Originally posted by Bedevere Lets see. Killing random people in the street? The video store guy who is taking pleasure in the misfortune of others? The taxi driver who is not only a thoughtless, agressive driver, but actually enjoys the sound of other peoples horns, as it means he's given them a scare. My examples were only intended as a guide, not as a proof, but I cant see how any of them could be counted as neutral. They may not be world destroying evil, but nobody ever said evil had to be a megalomaniac plotting to murder an entire kingdom. Just someone willing to profit at the expense and/or suffering of others. My point is that someone can be evil without ever actually doing anything that would warrant a death sentance. It is possible to be evil without ever breaking a law. It is even possible to be evil without people having the slightest idea. The stereotypical image of a politician who is all charity work and kissing babies in public, and shutting down the orphanage in private, is a prime example. The public love him, because he makes sure they all hear good things about him. He just keeps all his dirty work well hidden. And I agree with your general point, but not with all the exemples... To me, the taxidriver you described at first was but a bully Neutral character. The guy down the video store who charges you the late return fine because of two minutes is Neutral. Probably Lawful Neutral, somewhat fanatic, and probably enjoying it a little, but being mean is not Evil. Just as is it said in the PhB, someone who is not COMMITED to either Law, Chaos, Good or Evil, is Neutral. You have to actively pursue one cause to be of that alignement... If you are wavering, acting so-so, you're most of the time Neutral.
Thorak 04-20-04, 10:38 AM	To provide another easily-understood character type that qualifies as Evil but not worthy of execution; the greedy merchant. He'll cheat you if he can, he always starts his haggling far too high, and his main goal is to get the most money he possibly can out of each sale. Now, nobody's forced to buy from him, and he probably doesn't have much return business, but his actions and intent are all about bettering himself at the expense of others. That's Evil. But does he deserve to die just because he's finagled people into overpaying a few times? And as for Naeron's claim that you have to commit Evil acts to be Evil; from the PHB, page 103, under Alignment: A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by it's alignment; So, your alignment is based on your morality and beliefs. It doesn't say a darn thing about what you do. A Lawful Good character, given a choice between killing an innocent or having 1000 other innocents die by his inaction, could choose to kill the innocent (an Evil act) and not change alignment. I don't necessarily agree that it's the 'right' choice (and I've already exhausted the debate in another thread, please don't start it again), but it's his reasons for choosing it that determine his alignment, not his actual act.
Ainaelin 04-20-04, 10:51 AM	Originally posted by Thorak A Lawful Good character, given a choice between killing an innocent or having 1000 other innocents die by his inaction, could choose to kill the innocent (an Evil act) and not change alignment. True for a LG character, but a Paladin would lose his Paladin Status until he atoned for it, since he'd have knowingly performed an Evil Act. He would still remain a LG character. That's the hard path of the Paladin... And I'm not even speaking of an Exalted Paladin, those are plain crazy! :P
Bedevere 04-20-04, 01:03 PM	Originally posted by Ainaelin To me, the taxidriver you described at first was but a bully Neutral character. OK, my original description of the taxi driver was not quite what I meant it to be. However, anyone whose spent a lot of time in cities probably knows taxi drivers like this. the 'I own the road, everyone else get out of my way' type. No way are these guys neutral. The guy down the video store who charges you the late return fine because of two minutes is Neutral. Probably Lawful Neutral, somewhat fanatic, and probably enjoying it a little, but being mean is not Evil. As I said, the central point of this example is whether they enjoy charging the fine or not. I've known a guy that would charge someone while apologising, because, in his own words, 'a rule is a rule'. Lawful neutral behaviour. A Lawful Good person would at least be willing to hear why the person was two minutes late, and would more likely overlook the letter of the rule, in favour of the spirit of the rule. Lawful evil though, rubs its hands in glee, cackling something like 'mwahahahaha, more money in the till. these fools should pay more attention to the time!' I know this example is not the best one possible, but it was my intention to illustrate how a 1st level commoner can be just as evil as a 20th level blackguard. Evil is an equal opportunity lifestyle. It welcomes everyone with open arms. It just doesn't mention the knife in its hand until too late...
Crossover-Chronicler 04-20-04, 02:00 PM	Originally posted by Salla See: Book Of Exalted Deeds. AFAIK, in any case in which a supplement and a core book disagree, the core book takes precedence. It's unproductive to expect a paladin to live up to a rulebooke he doesn't necessarily possess.
Thorak 04-20-04, 02:15 PM	Originally posted by Ainaelin True for a LG character, but a Paladin would lose his Paladin Status until he atoned for it, since he'd have knowingly performed an Evil Act. He would still remain a LG character. That's the hard path of the Paladin... And I'm not even speaking of an Exalted Paladin, those are plain crazy! :P I argued that exact point actually in one of the recent paladin threads, when one guy insisted on the "Kill one innocent, or the BBEG blows up the world" scenario, I insisted that the only Paladin-worthy thing to do was the undiscovered third option, like offering himself in the innocent's place, or something other thing I can't think of without a more complete description. But killing the innocent is Evil, and therefore no Paladin could do so and remain a Paladin. But a LG character could. He'd probably feel tremendously guilty and horrible about it for the rest of his life, but it wouldn't necessitate an alignment change, just a loss of paladin powers.
Ainaelin 04-21-04, 04:32 AM	Exactly, Thorak. :)
Naeron 04-21-04, 06:29 AM	Originally posted by Thorak <snip> And as for Naeron's claim that you have to commit Evil acts to be Evil; from the PHB, page 103, under Alignment: So, your alignment is based on your morality and beliefs. It doesn't say a darn thing about what you do. A Lawful Good character, given a choice between killing an innocent or having 1000 other innocents die by his inaction, could choose to kill the innocent (an Evil act) and not change alignment. I don't necessarily agree that it's the 'right' choice (and I've already exhausted the debate in another thread, please don't start it again), but it's his reasons for choosing it that determine his alignment, not his actual act. I disagree, that single statement is a description of what alignment is and it is attitude, not belief that is used. So a person's attitude to random murder defines their alignment not solely their beliefs about random murder. A Good person believes that random murder is wrong and is willing to make personal sacrifices to prevent them. An Evil person can believe either way but is happy to carry them out. A Neutral person can also believe it is right or wrong but their attitude is that they wil not make sacrifices to prevent one or to carry one out. Attitude governs the probability of perfoming an act not the inherent belief in whether an act is right or wrong. Every other single mention of alignment on the Good-Evil and Law-Chaos axis all talk about what how the person acts not what their underlying beliefs are. [Edit] I want to clarfiy this in saying that a single evil belief by someone whose other beliefs as Neutral would mean they are Neutral. And as it is acts that alter alignment someone raised with solely evil beliefs who only ever committed Neutral acts would shift to a Neutral alignment (and yes some of their attitudes would probably alter). Originally posted by Thorak <To provide another easily-understood character type that qualifies as Evil but not worthy of execution; the greedy merchant. He'll cheat you if he can, he always starts his haggling far too high, and his main goal is to get the most money he possibly can out of each sale. Now, nobody's forced to buy from him, and he probably doesn't have much return business, but his actions and intent are all about bettering himself at the expense of others. That's Evil. But does he deserve to die just because he's finagled people into overpaying a few times? This merchant would not be evil what you have illustrated is neutral unless you mean by cheating thathe is tricking his customer by selling a bad product disguised as a good one or takes the money and doesn't deliver the product. He is not forcing someone to buy at the high price he wants to sell at only trying to sell at the highest price he can get. Bettering yourself is a Neutral or Good principle and unless you are harming others it does not become an Evil act. It's also not overpaying, it is still only charging the highest price that the customer is willing to pay. The merchant and the customer arrive at a price the both are willing to live with otherwise there would not be a sale. An evil merchant is one who gains a complete monopoly on a vital commodity (e.g. grain) and then charges prices that poorer people just cannot pay, thus they starve and the merchant is causing suffering and debasing life. This is an evil act.
sidekick 04-21-04, 08:39 PM	ARGH, seed what happens when you start a paladin thread? Now all we're going to see for the next month is paladin threads about eating babies etc... Anyway, I reckon the problem here is the player of the paladin has not quite sorted out his worship of Tyr right. His god has no eyes, is missing a hand and is still concerned about getting justice for all. That patience, there is reason he is aligned with Ilmater and Torm. [edit] - expansion no this. These three gods represent the lessening of suffering, justice, duty, good, patience & lastly martial might to pursue and protect these causes. [edit] I reccommend that one of you downloads the deities do's and dont's, and looks at the Tyrian paladin orders, and get this player to read F&P. There was no need to detect evil on these guys, they just got caught in the act. Detecting evil on random people is not polite or productive. And just because someone is 'evil' does not mean the paladin has the right to slay them. That's both childish and silly. One alternative is to change the Paladin's detect evil ability to detect evil intent. That way they can't pick up on even the most sadistic ruler if all thier thinking about is thier groceries or planning the next grand ball. That makes a Paladin use that ability a bit smater. Encourage Lawful Good, not Lawful Stupid.
Thorak 04-21-04, 11:07 PM	Originally posted by Naeron I disagree, that single statement is a description of what alignment is and it is attitude, not belief that is used. So a person's attitude to random murder defines their alignment not solely their beliefs about random murder. A Good person believes that random murder is wrong and is willing to make personal sacrifices to prevent them. An Evil person can believe either way but is happy to carry them out. A Neutral person can also believe it is right or wrong but their attitude is that they wil not make sacrifices to prevent one or to carry one out. Attitude governs the probability of perfoming an act not the inherent belief in whether an act is right or wrong. Every other single mention of alignment on the Good-Evil and Law-Chaos axis all talk about what how the person acts not what their underlying beliefs are. [Edit] I want to clarfiy this in saying that a single evil belief by someone whose other beliefs as Neutral would mean they are Neutral. And as it is acts that alter alignment someone raised with solely evil beliefs who only ever committed Neutral acts would shift to a Neutral alignment (and yes some of their attitudes would probably alter). Someone's attitudes are their beliefs. You can't have an attitude about random murder without having beliefs about it, and then your attitude will be defined by those beliefs. If you think it's a great thing, you'll do it, and you're evil. If you think it's a horrible thing, you won't, and you're good. In a nutshell, there are shades of grey this obviously doesn't touch on. But attitude is belief. It's defined by your morality, not your actions in pursuit of that morality. This merchant would not be evil what you have illustrated is neutral unless you mean by cheating thathe is tricking his customer by selling a bad product disguised as a good one or takes the money and doesn't deliver the product. He is not forcing someone to buy at the high price he wants to sell at only trying to sell at the highest price he can get. Bettering yourself is a Neutral or Good principle and unless you are harming others it does not become an Evil act. It's also not overpaying, it is still only charging the highest price that the customer is willing to pay. The merchant and the customer arrive at a price the both are willing to live with otherwise there would not be a sale. An evil merchant is one who gains a complete monopoly on a vital commodity (e.g. grain) and then charges prices that poorer people just cannot pay, thus they starve and the merchant is causing suffering and debasing life. This is an evil act. Deliberately milking more than the item is worth, minus the appropriate markup that pays the merchant's living wage, is Evil. Because it harms the consumer by forcing them to pay extra for no benefit. Your other examples are certainly more evil, but IMHO it's the difference between a mass murderer, and that guy around the corner who likes to beat women up. Sure, the mass murderer's worse, but the woman-beater's a pretty Evil guy too.
Naeron 04-22-04, 05:10 AM	Originally posted by Thorak Someone's attitudes are their beliefs. You can't have an attitude about random murder without having beliefs about it, and then your attitude will be defined by those beliefs. If you think it's a great thing, you'll do it, and you're evil. If you think it's a horrible thing, you won't, and you're good. In a nutshell, there are shades of grey this obviously doesn't touch on. But attitude is belief. It's defined by your morality, not your actions in pursuit of that morality. I disagree and can give an example, I can, and do, believe that certain things that are currently illegal and whose consumption or possession is judged a punishable offense should not be, but my attitude is that because society as a whole has gone the other way it is right and correct that people should be punished and right that I do not do these things. I believe one thing but my attitude about the subject is in opposition. I think you are just plain confusing confusing belief (an idea that you believe to be true, especially one that forms part of a system of ideas) and attitude (the way that you behave towards someone or in a particular situation). So a Nuetral person can have the beleif that <x> is right but their attitude to <x> is that they will not make the effort to carry out <x>, and <x> in this case can be a good act or an evil act. And their remains the simple statement that it is repated actions of a given alignment that are ruled to be the source of alignment change. So an person raised in a truly LE society who starts with an LE alignment but who moves to a LN town and only ever really commits LN acts will become LN under the core rules. Originally posted by Thorak Deliberately milking more than the item is worth, minus the appropriate markup that pays the merchant's living wage, is Evil. Because it harms the consumer by forcing them to pay extra for no benefit. Your other examples are certainly more evil, but IMHO it's the difference between a mass murderer, and that guy around the corner who likes to beat women up. Sure, the mass murderer's worse, but the woman-beater's a pretty Evil guy too. But no force is involved, the consumer is not being forced to pay in the general example. They are able to freely decide whether the price coming out of the haggling is one they are willing to pay, and they are freely able to approach another merchant for a lower price. The line is crossed to evil when you are forcing someone to pay too much for a necessity that only you can supply.
Thorak 04-22-04, 05:54 PM	Originally posted by Naeron I disagree and can give an example, I can, and do, believe that certain things that are currently illegal and whose consumption or possession is judged a punishable offense should not be, but my attitude is that because society as a whole has gone the other way it is right and correct that people should be punished and right that I do not do these things. I believe one thing but my attitude about the subject is in opposition. I think you are just plain confusing confusing belief (an idea that you believe to be true, especially one that forms part of a system of ideas) and attitude (the way that you behave towards someone or in a particular situation). So a Nuetral person can have the beleif that <x> is right but their attitude to <x> is that they will not make the effort to carry out <x>, and <x> in this case can be a good act or an evil act. And their remains the simple statement that it is repated actions of a given alignment that are ruled to be the source of alignment change. So an person raised in a truly LE society who starts with an LE alignment but who moves to a LN town and only ever really commits LN acts will become LN under the core rules. Not choosing to do something you believe in because the society around you disagrees isn't a measure of your morality. It's a measure of how lawful you are. You, specifically, are lawful, because despite what you personally believe, you put the beliefs of society ahead of your own. Someone with the exact same beliefs, who decides to act on those beliefs in defiance of the law, would be chaotic. But here, we have two different 'beliefs'; first, about the substance in question, and second, about how the legality of using it should affect you. If you believed that society shouldn't control your actions, you'd use the substance. If you believe that society's rules come first, and you will simply work within the society to legalize the substance, then you're lawful. But it's the beliefs that make the alignment, because those beliefs are what prompt your decisions to act a certain way. As for your repeated claim that repeated actions determine alignment; I request a source. I've checked both the PHB and the DMG; neither specify actions as the source of alignment. In fact, they respectively cite 'moral and personal attitudes' and 'changes of heart' as the determining factors. Sure, most of their examples are of actions, but those actions represent the influences of the underlying beliefs which create the alignment in the first place. And it's easier to discuss concrete actions than motive. But this doesn't mean that an insidious BBEG who gives a lot of money and aid to a village to make the people love him in furtherance of his dastardly plot is suddenly made more Good by his Good actions; they were done with Evil intent. But no force is involved, the consumer is not being forced to pay in the general example. They are able to freely decide whether the price coming out of the haggling is one they are willing to pay, and they are freely able to approach another merchant for a lower price. The line is crossed to evil when you are forcing someone to pay too much for a necessity that only you can supply. Sophistry. Deliberately misleading someone as to the value of something you're selling them is Evil. Because it financially hurts them to the merchant's benefit. Perhaps they have been misled rather than forced, but that doesn't make any difference. It's just as Evil to tell someone there's a vast treasure in that cave while neglecting to mention the dragon as it is to force them into the cave under force of arms, demanding they bring out the treasure or die trying. The means aren't important; it's the attitude that the other person exists only to be used by yourself that makes it Evil.
Naeron 04-23-04, 06:21 AM	Originally posted by Thorak Not choosing to do something you believe in because the society around you disagrees isn't a measure of your morality. It's a measure of how lawful you are. You, specifically, are lawful, because despite what you personally believe, you put the beliefs of society ahead of your own. Someone with the exact same beliefs, who decides to act on those beliefs in defiance of the law, would be chaotic. But here, we have two different 'beliefs'; first, about the substance in question, and second, about how the legality of using it should affect you. If you believed that society shouldn't control your actions, you'd use the substance. If you believe that society's rules come first, and you will simply work within the society to legalize the substance, then you're lawful. But it's the beliefs that make the alignment, because those beliefs are what prompt your decisions to act a certain way. I looked belief and attitude up in my dictionary and I found: Belief: "acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty" Attitude: "a feeling or opinion about something or someone, or a way of behaving that is caused by this" Attitudes are all about real things and govern how a person will act. Belief is a deeper thing and relates to concepts but they are not the same. An obvious example is that it is correct to talk about someone's beliefs about the existence of UFO, but to talk about someone's attitude about the existence of UFO's would be invalid. This is illustrated in the 3.5 SRD. "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others." So a Neutral person shares much the same beliefs as a Good person that killing the innocent is wrong. Their attitude to the act of killing the innocent is different in that they will will not make sacrifices (actions) to save others. Originally posted by Thorak As for your repeated claim that repeated actions determine alignment; I request a source. I've checked both the PHB and the DMG; neither specify actions as the source of alignment. In fact, they respectively cite 'moral and personal attitudes' and 'changes of heart' as the determining factors. Sure, most of their examples are of actions, but those actions represent the influences of the underlying beliefs which create the alignment in the first place. And it's easier to discuss concrete actions than motive. But this doesn't mean that an insidious BBEG who gives a lot of money and aid to a village to make the people love him in furtherance of his dastardly plot is suddenly made more Good by his Good actions; they were done with Evil intent. From the 3.0 PHB Alignment Chapter, as I only have the 3.5 SRD: "If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that your character’s alignment has changed to match her actions." There you are, your alignment changes if you act in a way apprtopriate to another alignment. And the BBEG is performing an Evil act when he gives the money. He is manipulating the innocent for self-serving evil purposes. No action (that does not inherently contain an aligned element as a part of its definition has an alignment). Killing is unaligned. Killing a non-innocent to save the life of an innocent is Good. Killing for personal pleasure is Evil. Giving Money to an orphanage is Unaligned. Giving money to better the lives of the orphans is Good. Giving Money so people won't suspect you of being the BBEG. Sex is unalinged but Rape is evil (because is debases the innocent by its very definition). Originally posted by Thorak Sophistry. Deliberately misleading someone as to the value of something you're selling them is Evil. Because it financially hurts them to the merchant's benefit. Perhaps they have been misled rather than forced, but that doesn't make any difference. It's just as Evil to tell someone there's a vast treasure in that cave while neglecting to mention the dragon as it is to force them into the cave under force of arms, demanding they bring out the treasure or die trying. The means aren't important; it's the attitude that the other person exists only to be used by yourself that makes it Evil. Not sophistry , the merchant is not deliberately misleading the customer of the value of the item, that would happen when the merchant is the purchaser much along the lines of the scum who trick old people into parting with valuable antiques by saying they are worth about 50 pounds. What the merchant is doing in your example is getting the highest price that the customer is willing to pay. Greed is not an evil thing in and of itself (again from the 3.0 PHB " A lawful good character may have a greedy streak") . Every merchant maximises profits and haggles hard, for the simple reason that it is the sole way they have to ensure future financial security. Selling at a high price is placing equal value on the customer and the merchant in that the transaction occurs at a price that BOTH parties can accept. The line is crossed when necessities (not luxuries) are always priced at a level that denies them to the poor, thus directly causing suffering. There is a fundamental difference between making a profit and profiteering.
Thorak 04-23-04, 11:22 AM	Originally posted by Naeron I looked belief and attitude up in my dictionary and I found: Belief: "acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty" Attitude: "a feeling or opinion about something or someone, or a way of behaving that is caused by this" Attitudes are all about real things and govern how a person will act. Belief is a deeper thing and relates to concepts but they are not the same. An obvious example is that it is correct to talk about someone's beliefs about the existence of UFO, but to talk about someone's attitude about the existence of UFO's would be invalid. This is illustrated in the 3.5 SRD. "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others." So a Neutral person shares much the same beliefs as a Good person that killing the innocent is wrong. Their attitude to the act of killing the innocent is different in that they will will not make sacrifices (actions) to save others. But a neutral person doesn't share the same beliefs about helping others that a Good character does. You're insisting that 'attitude' is more consistent with actions than beliefs. Even using your own definitions, 'attitude' is feelings and [/i]opinions[/i]. Which sounds a heck of a lot more like beliefs than actions. And yes, it also says the 'way of behaving caused by these', but that doesn't mean someone's alignment is decreed by their actions. It means their actions are caused by their beliefs. You would have it that actions create attitude, which your definitions in no way support, though the reverse, according to them, is true. From the 3.0 PHB Alignment Chapter, as I only have the 3.5 SRD: "If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that your character’s alignment has changed to match her actions." There you are, your alignment changes if you act in a way apprtopriate to another alignment. Yes. Because the DM, typically, only has your actions to go by. But the actions are determined by the beliefs and motivations. If your LG character is killing innocents for fun, he's probably not LG. His killing of innocents didn't change his alignment, though. The fact that he thinks it's O.K. to do so did. And the BBEG is performing an Evil act when he gives the money. He is manipulating the innocent for self-serving evil purposes. No action (that does not inherently contain an aligned element as a part of its definition has an alignment). Killing is unaligned. Killing a non-innocent to save the life of an innocent is Good. Killing for personal pleasure is Evil. Giving Money to an orphanage is Unaligned. Giving money to better the lives of the orphans is Good. Giving Money so people won't suspect you of being the BBEG. Sex is unalinged but Rape is evil (because is debases the innocent by its very definition). Actually, Killing others is defined as an Evil act. Obviously, some leeway is needed on this, and generally PCs can defend themselves against hostilities and the killing is thus unaligned, not because the killing itself wasn't evil, but because the PCs had no desire to kill, only to preserve their own lives. Likewise, donating money is a 'personal sacrifice' to 'help others'. It's a Good act. It can, however, be done for absolutely vile reasons. But again, donating the money is Good, but the BBEG doesn't change alignment because his intent is Evil. The bit you quoted earlier about the DM changing alignment based on actions means that, if this BBEG were a PC and he kept donating to charity, saving others, and generally being a nice guy, the DM would question his alignment choice. If he then revealed his master evil plan, and the DM agreed that he was acting with evil intent, then his alignment would remain untouched. Not because his actions don't deserve a change; because his intent guiding the actions has not. Not sophistry , the merchant is not deliberately misleading the customer of the value of the item, that would happen when the merchant is the purchaser much along the lines of the scum who trick old people into parting with valuable antiques by saying they are worth about 50 pounds. What the merchant is doing in your example is getting the highest price that the customer is willing to pay. Greed is not an evil thing in and of itself (again from the 3.0 PHB " A lawful good character may have a greedy streak") . Every merchant maximises profits and haggles hard, for the simple reason that it is the sole way they have to ensure future financial security. Selling at a high price is placing equal value on the customer and the merchant in that the transaction occurs at a price that BOTH parties can accept. The line is crossed when necessities (not luxuries) are always priced at a level that denies them to the poor, thus directly causing suffering. There is a fundamental difference between making a profit and profiteering. In my example, the merchant was deliberately misleading the customer. I apologize if I didn't make that clear enough. I was trying to use exactly the kind of antique dealer you mentioned as my example. As for 'greed', from the 3.5 PHB: A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has, even if that's not lawful or good behaviour. Emphasis mine. Greed encourages chaotic and evil behaviour, or at least non-lawful and non-good. If the character can maintain his beliefs about what's right and resist his urges, he remains LG. If he succumbs to his urges freely and starts stealing things, he's probably becoming CE. Yes, a LG character can haggle for a good price, and try to not get ripped. But if he's haggling with the intent of ripping off the merchant, he's acting with evil intent.
Eldren 04-24-04, 02:29 AM	For those who want to quote and/or reference the Book of Exalted Deeds, while we've established that it's a non-Core book, and thus in cases of contention is superceded by the Player's Handbook, also realize that even if you're using the Book of Exalted Deeds in your campaign, there's a difference between a Paladin and an Exalted Paladin. The two books aren't contradictory in their definition of a Good alignment, it's just that you can be "just Good", as per the PHB, or you can be Exalted, which calls you to a higher standard of Good. Being Exalted doesn't do much more than give you some role playing guidelines, but it also makes you eligible for Exalted feats. You can lose your Exalted status but still remain a Paladin. Likewise, it's a lot easier to regain Exalted status than it is to return to being an active Paladin once you've fallen from the grace of that class.
Steelwill 04-24-04, 12:53 PM	Not even getting onto subjective vs objective Good/Evil, the Paladin is of Lawful Good alignment. If he can only satisfy good by killing the orcs, but breaks legitimate Law by denying them a trial, he wouldn't. At least not if he can satisfy both Good by turning the Orcs in, AND Law by granting them a trial for their actions. The Paladin doesn't serve just one alignment descriptor, he serves both Law and Good. To kill the orcs when the Law dictates that they have rights like anyone else, would at best be a Chaotic Good act (objective good/evil) at worst it is chaotic evil (subjective good/evil). If the Paladin finds himself in the moral predicament whereupon he faces a decision where EITHER Good OR Law must be served, well...no one said playing a Paladin was easy, but I personally would try to serve Good first, in such a situation. As far as compulsions, the Paladin is not forced to do anything, at least not externally, but the Paladin does represent the class that lives by a moral code, and exemplifies his beliefs. If there is any class in the game that is a zealot, he is it. Perhaps also the Monk, but they seem to be having less difficulties with moral/code issues than Pally's these days. I would think in the original posters givin situation, if the player of the Paladin really thought that destruction of the Orcs was required to satisfy his beliefs, he wouldn't off the cuff slay the Orcs in the face of the Law (he has more respect for the Law than that) but he would go to the trial and make every effort to convince the Judge/Jury/ whatever that it is in the best interests of the forces of Good that these Orcs be put to the sword. Considering that a Paladin's word is sacrosanct, that would most likely hold ALOT of sway with any Judicial Officials, or possibly help ferret out that corrupt political figure that has been secretely supporting the Orcs in the town(Plot hook). In summary, a Paladin's strong belief system doesn't mean he needs to act out of compulsion or without reason, just always in pursuit of his ideals. My 2 cents.
D+1 04-24-04, 01:52 PM	Originally posted by Ainaelin To him (if I understood rightly), being Evil makes them outlaws and he should kill them wherever and whenever he could. As Evil creatures, they forsake any right they might have to life. I think that being rightful citizens of the town, they are bound to the Law at the same conditions. If they break the Law, they must be tried just like anybody else, and them being Evil has nothing to do with it. They must be punished for their acts, not their intentions. I am plainly aware that in D&D, Good, Evil, Chaos and Laws are not abstracts concepts like in real life, but what do you think about the issue? The Paladins Code is: Be Lawful Good Lose class abilities if you commit Evil Respect legitimate authority Act with honor Help those in need Punish those who harm or threaten innocents [/list=1] Killing those who merely detect as evil is generally going to fall under the shadow of #3. In most civilized areas you aren't going to be allowed to just kill anyone who passes by simply for what their alignment is. HOWEVER, when legiitimate authority is absent for reasons such as,[list] Not having time to fetch legitimate authority to a scene to exert that authority before Bad Things will happen The authority is NOT legitimate You are beyond the reach of a legitimate authority, as with being in the wilderness or in uncontrolled regions of a kingdom then yes, merely being evil is enough for a paladin to be allowed to kill them. NOTE WELL: that doesn't mean the paladin is COMPELLED to kill them, only that there's nothing evil in his doing so at that time. It is quite apparant, however, that even then it would be FAR better if the Evil individual were known to have done Evil deeds or was witnessed as doing Evil. Leaving open at least the possibility of redemption of evil individuals is more admirable than blind, unthinking, unCAREing slaughter of all that is Evil. Some people really like to hammer home the redemption thing but D&D Paladins are CLEARLY not social workers nor policemen; they are judge/jury/executioners for those times and places when judge, jury, and/or executioner is absent. If everywhere you go in your campaign world Evil individuals are supposed to be captured alive, tried in court, imprisoned and then exorted to redemption for the remainder of their lives then there is no place whatever for Paladins in that campaign. Paladin powers are about protecting themselves and others from evil and KILLING evil - NOT about forcibly converting alignments from evil to good. The #1 clause in the Paladin Code is to be LG. Reading the PH about Good alignment people note that it "implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." There are those who insist that "respect for life" means that paladins really aren't supposed to KILL, which is a lot of twaddle because it's based on Real Life, Modern Day laws, mores, and philosophy, not upon a pseudo-medieval fantasy environment where a Paladin IS the law often as not. Core D&D really describes a world where Paladins are useful, even necessary, because law, social mores, and philosophy DON'T fill the void that Paladins do. Then there's the "Alignment Trap" crowd. The ones who set up situations of "kill one innocent life in order to save 10,000". RULE #1 IS: if the DM knows what choices will be EVIL and what choices will be GOOD then the Paladin does too. Paladins are not supposed to be IGNORANT of how to stay LG. The DM is an ABSOLUTE WANKER to punish a player/character after setting up a situation where the PC is trying to GUESS at a correct answer. You CANNOT commit evil if you're doing it unintentionally. MOTIVATION matters when it comes to alignment. If the DM sets up a situation of "kill one to save 10,000" then he's offering the player a choice between being a tortured soul for having to sacrifice the innocent for the greater good, being a tortured soul for not being able to think of an option that will save both the 1 and the 10,000, being a tortured soul for FAILING at some means to save either the 1 or the 10,000, etc. See the pattern there? It is a virtual NO-WIN situation for the character. The vast majority of his options SUCK, and whatever he tries is likely to have an outcome that also sucks. BAD DM-ing in my book. And unless the paladin is the one who SET UP the situation where 1 must be sacrificed to save 10,000 he can hardly be held responsible if one IS sacrificed to save 10,000. Blame rests with the instigator of the situation - and with the DM who put it into his campaign. Same with the infamous "orc babies" scenario. That's a DM who is looking for an EXCUSE to trip up the paladin in his alignment/code or is too clueless to realize that there just isn't much fun and interest to go around watching a Paladin set up a nursery for orc babies that he undoubtedly SHOULD kill in the first place, as distasteful as that may be. Why distasteful? Just because they're babies doesn't change the fact that their alignment is Evil and if allowed to live are VASTLY unlikly to change, but it makes killing HELPLESS evil creatures no less of a horrible OBLIGATION. Just remember - the situation will ONLY come up because the DM PUT IT THERE. The blame for any such scenario rests squarely on the DM, never EVER the PC or the choices they make.
D+1 04-24-04, 02:13 PM	Originally posted by Thorak Actually, Killing others is defined as an Evil act. Obviously, some leeway is needed on this, and generally PCs can defend themselves against hostilities and the killing is thus unaligned, not because the killing itself wasn't evil, but because the PCs had no desire to kill, only to preserve their own lives. Killing is not evil. MURDER is evil. Simply note the difference and you don't need to torture the system with "leeway". You're undoubtedly referring to the PH where it says "Evil implies... killing others." But that makes killing others no more a defined evil act than assuming that the statement "Good implies... respect for life" defines good-aligned characters as being forbidden to kill. If you were to read just one sentence further you'd note that it qualifies the phrase "killing others" by discussing those who have no compassion for others and kill without qualms and for mere convenience. That's followed by a sentence with yet FURTHER qualification, discussing those who kill for sport, or out of duty to evil masters.
Thorak 04-25-04, 12:50 AM	Originally posted by D+1 Killing is not evil. MURDER is evil. Simply note the difference and you don't need to torture the system with "leeway". You're undoubtedly referring to the PH where it says "Evil implies... killing others." But that makes killing others no more a defined evil act than assuming that the statement "Good implies... respect for life" defines good-aligned characters as being forbidden to kill. If you were to read just one sentence further you'd note that it qualifies the phrase "killing others" by discussing those who have no compassion for others and kill without qualms and for mere convenience. That's followed by a sentence with yet FURTHER qualification, discussing those who kill for sport, or out of duty to evil masters. The way I choose to interpret it is that the PHB is referring to the motivations and intent. If someone is intending to kill someone else, that's evil. If someone's intending to defend his friends against hostile enemies, to the death if the situation calls for it, that's not evil. It's one thing to take on a quest to stop the evil archmage. It's quite another to take on an assassination of the same archmage, and whether it's done by poison, a knife in the dark, or big burly warriors with magical backup barging in, it's still assassination if the intent is to kill. If the intent is to stop, and killing is the only possible avenue, then the Good people can regretfully do what's needed. Because, like you pointed out, taking the "killing is evil" too far means Paladins can't exist; their abilities are focused to combat, and killing anything would involve loss of their powers. Which is ridiculous. I don't think we're at a disagreement; I just think we're using different terminology for pretty much the same thing. D+1; killing someone just because of their alignment is Evil. For the reasons above, having the goal of your action being killing is Evil. Now, you might make a case for imprisoning anyone who detects as Evil, and if they resist arrest then killing them if necessary, but I still think that's infringing on the 'dignity of other sentient beings'; a Good trait. As for the 'alignment traps'; they're simple. The 'kill one to save 10,000' is easy; don't kill the one. The paladin isn't directly responsible for the deaths of the 10,000, and he can't commit an evil act, which killing the one certainly would be. Find the third choice; there either is one, or your DM is an idiot. As for the 'orc babies'; I'd certainly whack any paladin who killed them. They're not a threat, they won't be a threat any time in the near future, their alignment isn't defined and therefore they may be able to be reared to be Good, and they're entirely helpless. Same goes for the helpless Orc woman who just wants to get the heck out of Dodge with the babies; let her go. She's not a threat, and even if she and the babies might be a threat in the future, that doesn't condone killing the innocents now. Evil critters can be just as innocent as Good ones, even more so. And killing innocents is Evil. Sure, it doesn't make as much statistical sense, but if you look at the world as a balance book, you're probably Neutral. Good is about taking the higher, and more difficult, path.
D+1 04-26-04, 02:17 AM	Originally posted by Thorak The way I choose to interpret it is that the PHB is referring to the motivations and intent. If someone is intending to kill someone else, that's evil.But simply intending to kill doesn't even begin to adequately address motivation. WHY do you intend to kill? Self defense? Revenge? Sport? Duty? Achieving a greater purpose more important than ANY individual life? Again, you only need to distinguish between murder and mere killing and it eliminates these additional questions regarding motivation. Because, like you pointed out, taking the "killing is evil" too far means Paladins can't exist; their abilities are focused to combat, and killing anything would involve loss of their powers. Which is ridiculous. I don't think we're at a disagreement; I just think we're using different terminology for pretty much the same thing. Yep. My terminology is accurate and correct. :) D+1; killing someone just because of their alignment is Evil. NO! Not in D&D - which is NOT real life. You CANNOT equate alignment with REAL LIFE because alignment has no direct, real-life equivalent. Alignment addresses religion, philosphy, sociology, morals, ethics and more. It's a shorthand conglomeration of all those influences. It is a guideline to players for the actions of their characters when the PLAYER cannot or will not decide themselves. But to be useful it has to substitute for pages and pages of description of PRECISE beliefs of the character with regard to religion, philosophy, etc. As for the 'alignment traps'; they're simple. The 'kill one to save 10,000' is easy; don't kill the one. The paladin isn't directly responsible for the deaths of the 10,000, and he can't commit an evil act, which killing the one certainly would be. Find the third choice; there either is one, or your DM is an idiot. Well, "the DM is an idiot" often goes without saying when alignment becomes a PROBLEM. To be fair it's a problem only because 30 years and a dozen editions later the current rules still fail to adequately describe it's purpose and application within the game. But killing an innocent in a good-faith attempt to serve a SHOCKINGLY greater good (1 vs. 10,000) is NOT evil because that killing is NOT murder - it's an unwilling sacrifice of an innocent life and there IS a difference. Again, motivation matters in questions of alignment. As for the 'orc babies'; I'd certainly whack any paladin who killed them. They're not a threat, they won't be a threat any time in the near future, their alignment isn't defined and therefore they may be able to be reared to be Good, and they're entirely helpless. And that's fine - if that's how you define it for your campaign - but that's not the default. The default is that they ARE evil, even if they aren't old enough to perpetrate evil like a fully-grown orc, and although their evilness isn't graven in stone (alignment = USUALLY CE; not alignment = ALWAYS CE) it is every bit as reliable that the orc will not change alignment as it is that the PALADIN will not change alignment. It simply means that the DM by default may present them as having alignments other than CE. Unlike, say, Evil outsiders which the core rules by default expect the DM to never present them with alignments other than what is stated in the MM. Paladins have the ability to Detect Evil because Evil beings can be RELIED upon to continue to be Evil, and therefore the ability to detect it is highly useful. But paladins DON'T have the ability to CONVERT Evil creatures. There isn't even the shadow of a hint of how to do so anywhere in the game without heavy-handed, railroading, expensive magical effects. There isn't a hint that it should be TRIED much less EXPECTED. Evil creatures can, in a great many instances, be killed simply because they are evil. Can you let them live? Yes. You can also let them starve to death or take them to the VERY large Home for Orphaned Evil Tots. Either is acceptible. What ISN'T acceptible are arguments that PREVENT a Paladin from swiftly and mercifully executing evil creatures that he comes across. You wouldn't bat an eyelash at a paladin who kills a helpless baby Red Dragon, Manticore, or Beholder. Just because an Orc is humanoid doesn't alter the basic D&D tenets of how you can/should treat it based on its alignment. Same goes for the helpless Orc woman who just wants to get the heck out of Dodge with the babies; let her go. She's not a threat, and even if she and the babies might be a threat in the future, that doesn't condone killing the innocents now. And there's your mistake. They AREN'T innocents - they are merely helpless. You don't necessarily HAVE to slaughter them, and depending on other circumstances you might NOT be free to slaughter them - but if all other factors are equal, YES, you may slaughter them. As a paladin you shouldn't RELISH such opportunities but it is, in a sense, one of the distasteful aspects of your job to swiftly and mercifully execute the otherwise helpless spawn of Evil creatures. Evil critters can be just as innocent as Good ones, even more so. And killing innocents is Evil. Killing innocents is Evil. Evil creatures - by definition! - are NOT innocents. If the DM expects the Paladin to SPARE the baby orcs then those baby orcs had damned well better not be Evil - they should be NEUTRAL to PROPERLY reflect what the DM claims to be their "innocent" nature. If they are EVIL then their nature HAS been determined, it is reliable, and it is a paladin's DUTY to eliminate them more than it is to convert them, or simply HOPE that their alignment will inexplicably reverse itself. Sure, it doesn't make as much statistical sense, but if you look at the world as a balance book, you're probably Neutral. Good is about taking the higher, and more difficult, path.But the difficulty of the path does NOT lie in being UNABLE to determine what is "Good" or "lawful" when your entire existence is to further the very ends of "Good" and "lawfulness". That which is Good and Lawful is pretty self-evident and the rules do not really muddy that aspect of alignments at all. It is quite self-evident that in a standard D&D world Evil creatures can be killed by Good creatures simply because they ARE Evil. You don't have to run the game that way, but it IS how it was intended (Good guys killing the Evil guys and all that?), and it IS the way that eliminates rather than creates all these "problems" with alignment.
Ainaelin 04-26-04, 06:52 AM	So, D+1, a Paladin does not need to think at all? If he detects Evil, he can kill without qualms, since he has been made a Paladin for that purpose, is that it? And when he realises that he has been deceived, and that someone has been able to fool him into detecting a false aura on every cleric of that temple of Ilmater, and he has killed them all, despite their pleading for their lives and trying to protect the orphans they were taking care of, he still says that he had detected them as Evil, and he had done what had to be done, and he is not responsible for being fooled, and anyone could be? Do your paladins say that? Is that how you see a Paladin, D+1? A machine-to-kill-Evil? He cannot THINK? A Soldier who is not responsible for his acts, because he was ALLOWED (by his god, his status, whatever) to kill Evil whenever he detected it? Yes, Alignment in D&D is and has always been an attempt at being a convenient way to summarize the moral and philosophical concepts as are Good/Evil and Law/Chaos. Like any summary, it does not begin to grasp the many meanders and complexities and layers of such concepts. So they tried to resolve this by affecting an ABSOLUTE status to those concepts. An EVIL creature, is not Evil relative to some concept, it is EVIL, and that's it. This is how it was supposed to be in D&D. Even then, many players were not satisfied by such simplicity and over-manicheism, and TSR (and Wizards after them) have tried over the years to explain and expand the concepts behind each alignment. In D&D 3.0 and 3.5, Alignment is still Absolute, allowing such abilities as Smite Alignment, Detect alignment, and Protection from Alignment, but still fails to resolve many situations. By the way, putting a player in a dilemma is not being a stupid or crual DM ; dilemmas have always been a way to add depths to a character, be they qualms, regrets or pride for having solved a bitter situation. Dilemmas are a tool. If you do not want your character to have qualms, play a CE character, they do not question much of theiir actions...
Thorak 04-26-04, 09:39 AM	Originally posted by D+1 But simply intending to kill doesn't even begin to adequately address motivation. WHY do you intend to kill? Self defense? Revenge? Sport? Duty? Achieving a greater purpose more important than ANY individual life? Again, you only need to distinguish between murder and mere killing and it eliminates these additional questions regarding motivation. Yep. My terminology is accurate and correct. :) Self defense - no intent to kill. Forced to do so to protect your life. Revenge - Welcome to evil-dom Sport - Welcome to psychotically evil-dom Duty - If you seek the killing as a part of duty, you are at best neutral. If you are forced to kill in your duties, you didn't intend to kill in the first place. A greater purpose more important than any individual life - if you're forced into it, you hardly intended to kill. Though I also disagree that there can ever be a 'greater purpose'. The 'greater good' is always an excuse to do Evil. It's never used to support Good acts. In D&D or the real world. NO! Not in D&D - which is NOT real life. You CANNOT equate alignment with REAL LIFE because alignment has no direct, real-life equivalent. Alignment addresses religion, philosphy, sociology, morals, ethics and more. It's a shorthand conglomeration of all those influences. It is a guideline to players for the actions of their characters when the PLAYER cannot or will not decide themselves. But to be useful it has to substitute for pages and pages of description of PRECISE beliefs of the character with regard to religion, philosophy, etc. I didn't mention the real world. And in D&D, 'killing others' is defined as implying Evil. In the PHB. Hence my statement. Well, "the DM is an idiot" often goes without saying when alignment becomes a PROBLEM. To be fair it's a problem only because 30 years and a dozen editions later the current rules still fail to adequately describe it's purpose and application within the game. But killing an innocent in a good-faith attempt to serve a SHOCKINGLY greater good (1 vs. 10,000) is NOT evil because that killing is NOT murder - it's an unwilling sacrifice of an innocent life and there IS a difference. Again, motivation matters in questions of alignment. Yes. There is no 'intent' to kill. It was a situation that was forced. And, again, the 'greater good' is always an excuse for evil. A Paladin might get away with it, if it's a minor infringement. An Exalted character never could. The 'greater good' is never the 'most Good' option. And there's almost always another choice, where you can save the 10,000 without sacrificing the 1. And that's fine - if that's how you define it for your campaign - but that's not the default. The default is that they ARE evil, even if they aren't old enough to perpetrate evil like a fully-grown orc, and although their evilness isn't graven in stone (alignment = USUALLY CE; not alignment = ALWAYS CE) it is every bit as reliable that the orc will not change alignment as it is that the PALADIN will not change alignment. It simply means that the DM by default may present them as having alignments other than CE. Unlike, say, Evil outsiders which the core rules by default expect the DM to never present them with alignments other than what is stated in the MM. Because they're 'usually CE', this means they can be raised to not be CE. And besides, the orc babies are innocents regardless. It doesn't matter if they're lawful good or chaotic evil; they're still helpless innocents. Paladins have the ability to Detect Evil because Evil beings can be RELIED upon to continue to be Evil, and therefore the ability to detect it is highly useful. But paladins DON'T have the ability to CONVERT Evil creatures. There isn't even the shadow of a hint of how to do so anywhere in the game without heavy-handed, railroading, expensive magical effects. There isn't a hint that it should be TRIED much less EXPECTED. Evil creatures can, in a great many instances, be killed simply because they are evil. Or perhaps they can Detect Evil to be more certain of the justification for their actions. Killing something just because of it's moral base is Evil. It's absolutely arbitrary, and the victim hasn't necessarily done a thing to deserve the punishment. A paladin can't walk through the marketplace skewering every greedy merchant and vicious-minded beggar child he comes across, just because they detect as evil. Can you let them live? Yes. You can also let them starve to death or take them to the VERY large Home for Orphaned Evil Tots. Either is acceptible. What ISN'T acceptible are arguments that PREVENT a Paladin from swiftly and mercifully executing evil creatures that he comes across. You wouldn't bat an eyelash at a paladin who kills a helpless baby Red Dragon, Manticore, or Beholder. Just because an Orc is humanoid doesn't alter the basic D&D tenets of how you can/should treat it based on its alignment. Yes, yes I would bat an eye. Treating something based on it's alignment is Evil. If there's a red dragon that's been peacefully slumbering in it's cave for 2,000 years, has never harassed anyone, and just wishes to be left alone, it would be an Evil act to go in there and kill it. The only motivations I can think of for that kind of act are greed, in which case you're killing for money which is evil, or 'preventative measures', which are perhaps the most insidiously evil thing there is, insidious because it claims to be for Good. There has to be a reason to kill something, and the critter's general moral tendencies aren't reason enough. And there's your mistake. They AREN'T innocents - they are merely helpless. You don't necessarily HAVE to slaughter them, and depending on other circumstances you might NOT be free to slaughter them - but if all other factors are equal, YES, you may slaughter them. As a paladin you shouldn't RELISH such opportunities but it is, in a sense, one of the distasteful aspects of your job to swiftly and mercifully execute the otherwise helpless spawn of Evil creatures. Explain how baby orcs would not be innocents. They're not even capable of reliably feeding themselves, I seriously doubt they're capable of any kind of evil actions. And if they haven't done any evil, they're innocents. Whether they would do evil is an entirely separate issue. Which is your confusion. Killing innocents is Evil. Evil creatures - by definition! - are NOT innocents. If the DM expects the Paladin to SPARE the baby orcs then those baby orcs had damned well better not be Evil - they should be NEUTRAL to PROPERLY reflect what the DM claims to be their "innocent" nature. If they are EVIL then their nature HAS been determined, it is reliable, and it is a paladin's DUTY to eliminate them more than it is to convert them, or simply HOPE that their alignment will inexplicably reverse itself. But the difficulty of the path does NOT lie in being UNABLE to determine what is "Good" or "lawful" when your entire existence is to further the very ends of "Good" and "lawfulness". That which is Good and Lawful is pretty self-evident and the rules do not really muddy that aspect of alignments at all. It is quite self-evident that in a standard D&D world Evil creatures can be killed by Good creatures simply because they ARE Evil. You don't have to run the game that way, but it IS how it was intended (Good guys killing the Evil guys and all that?), and it IS the way that eliminates rather than creates all these "problems" with alignment. If you're going to claim that alignment only comes from actions, then baby orcs could not possibly be evil; they can hardly do any actions at all. If you're going to claim that orcs are inherently evil, and thus the babies are evil, then it certainly is possible that something can be Evil and yet still be a complete innocent. That's what being an innocent means; free from guilt. It's hard to be guilty of anything when you haven't done anything in the first place. Perhaps in your world Evil critters can be slaughtered just because of their general Evil morality. Heck, let's have paladins as guards on every corner, and let's kill anyone who's not good, because even being Neutral means they're one step away. But that's too harsh, so let's just imprison the neutrals, and kill the evils. Ahh, a world where you fear for your life just because you're selfish. Such a lovely, Good place. That was sarcastic. If you missed it. There's a book you should read. It might enlighten you as to how evil the 'greater good' can be. A little text by George Orwell called 1984.
Ainaelin 04-26-04, 10:21 AM	Originally posted by Thorak There's a book you should read. It might enlighten you as to how evil the 'greater good' can be. A little text by George Orwell called 1984. History as well. Some guy named Hitler claimed that his actions were for the greater good... He was not the first, and certainly not the last...
Naeron 04-26-04, 12:53 PM	Originally posted by Thorak But a neutral person doesn't share the same beliefs about helping others that a Good character does. You're insisting that 'attitude' is more consistent with actions than beliefs. Even using your own definitions, 'attitude' is feelings and [/i]opinions[/i]. Which sounds a heck of a lot more like beliefs than actions. And yes, it also says the 'way of behaving caused by these', but that doesn't mean someone's alignment is decreed by their actions. It means their actions are caused by their beliefs. You would have it that actions create attitude, which your definitions in no way support, though the reverse, according to them, is true. The point I was making is that semantically beliefs invariably relate to concepts, to intangibles, whereas attitudes are held about more concrete things. While there are overlaps where you can use both terms they mostly apply to terms that can define both concepts and activities. By what is in the PHB a Neutral can share exactly the same beliefs about killing the innocent as a Good person (i.e. that it is wrong), they can share exactly the same attitudes about personally killing the innocent in that they would never do so. Where they differ is that the attitude (not belief because here we are affecting the way they act) of the Neutral person will not stretch to making personal sacrifices to stop the killing of the innocent by another. The PHB makes it fairly obvious that they would prevent the killing of an innocent if it involved no level of personal sacrifice, just as a Good person would. It is solely the way they will act in certain situations that differs, this is not a belief it is an attitude. You seem to be saying that belief = attitude = alignment. What I am saying is that beliefs shape attitudes which shape alignment. That means that in general terms for Good and Evil people your model is accurate, but for neutral people there can be a difference between belief and attitudes because when it comes to personal sacrifice, they lack the commitment to take a stand which shapes their attitudes and their actions beyond simply their beliefs. A Neutral can believe that it should be Ok to do something evil but by lacking the commitment to actually ever do it they gain a neutral attitude because they personally will never do it. By moving from the abstract concept to the actual commission their position is altered. Originally posted by Thorak Yes. Because the DM, typically, only has your actions to go by. But the actions are determined by the beliefs and motivations. If your LG character is killing innocents for fun, he's probably not LG. His killing of innocents didn't change his alignment, though. The fact that he thinks it's O.K. to do so did. Actually, Killing others is defined as an Evil act. Obviously, some leeway is needed on this, and generally PCs can defend themselves against hostilities and the killing is thus unaligned, not because the killing itself wasn't evil, but because the PCs had no desire to kill, only to preserve their own lives. Likewise, donating money is a 'personal sacrifice' to 'help others'. It's a Good act. It can, however, be done for absolutely vile reasons. But again, donating the money is Good, but the BBEG doesn't change alignment because his intent is Evil. No, Donating money is, in itself, an unaligned act, in the same way eating or killing is an unaligned act (the statement evil implies killing does not semantically imply that killing implies evil, putting aside the fact that the PHB provides the reasons for which evil kills, all of which are evil). The motive for performing these acts gives their alignment. The donations the BBEG made were evil acts because they were done for evil reasons. The LG character who is killing innocents for fun is committting evil acts, and yes this would be almost certainly be because his attitudes to killing innocents has changed. But it could be that the only evil attitude that the LG person has is that killing innocent dwarves is acceptable. Every other belief and attitude they possess could still be LG. But the fact that they commit evil acts swings them away from good. Its quite clear in the PHB that it is the acts that you take that change your alignment. Yes this would normally be linked to a change in attitude but it need not be a change in all your attitudes. Originally posted by Thorak The bit you quoted earlier about the DM changing alignment based on actions means that, if this BBEG were a PC and he kept donating to charity, saving others, and generally being a nice guy, the DM would question his alignment choice. If he then revealed his master evil plan, and the DM agreed that he was acting with evil intent, then his alignment would remain untouched. Not because his actions don't deserve a change; because his intent guiding the actions has not. In my example, the merchant was deliberately misleading the customer. I apologize if I didn't make that clear enough. I was trying to use exactly the kind of antique dealer you mentioned as my example. As for 'greed', from the 3.5 PHB: No, by the simple fact that these "good" actions were committed to decieve and debase innocent life and for an evil cause it makes the acts themselves Evil. Everything that the PC did was evil, not good. I accept that in a case where the merchant sets out to deliberately cheat the customer that would be evil. But I hope you will accept that a merchant who is greedy and simply bargains for the highest price they can set would only be Neutral if they do. Originally posted by Thorak Emphasis mine. Greed encourages chaotic and evil behaviour, or at least non-lawful and non-good. If the character can maintain his beliefs about what's right and resist his urges, he remains LG. If he succumbs to his urges freely and starts stealing things, he's probably becoming CE. Yes, a LG character can haggle for a good price, and try to not get ripped. But if he's haggling with the intent of ripping off the merchant, he's acting with evil intent. You have just illustrated that Greed is neither Good nor Evil, just the point I am arguing. It is how the greed manifests itself, the aligned actions that you take, that make it aligned. The greedy LG who always bargains hard for the best price in all things is being LG until they cross over that line to harming or debasing innocent life. If they give to charity rarely and sparingly they do not cease being LG. If they steal or cheat to gain money then they start to drift because these are not, as you said, lawful or good acts.
Naeron 04-26-04, 01:28 PM	Originally posted by Ainaelin So, D+1, a Paladin does not need to think at all? If he detects Evil, he can kill without qualms, since he has been made a Paladin for that purpose, is that it? Yes he can kill without qualms if he detects evil, to be more accurate this means that as far as a Paladin is concerned being evil is, in and of itself, an attribute that allows them to mete out death. However, and this is the big However, the fact that someone detects as evil does not mean that the Paldin should kill them. Detect Evil cannot inform the paladin whether someone is on the path to redemption, which they have a duty to encourage, so a Paladin should always consider the attitude and actions of the evil person when making their judgements, this is where a good persons commitment to protecting life plays a part. If someone is evil and is committing evil acts then yes the Paladin can kill them without a qualm. If they detect as evil but show any signs of regret or a desire to seek redemption then a Paladin would be wrong to kill them (this change of heart is much greater than an opponent throwing down their sword and saying "save me"). If they detect as evil but the Paladin has no information about the acts they have recently committed then they should try and establish whether the person is on the path away from evil or not. But this is always a judgement call, if the Paladin believes that by killing an evil being they will be protecting the innocent or punishing those who have harmed innocents then they can do so. Originally posted by Ainaelin And when he realises that he has been deceived, and that someone has been able to fool him into detecting a false aura on every cleric of that temple of Ilmater, and he has killed them all, despite their pleading for their lives and trying to protect the orphans they were taking care of, he still says that he had detected them as Evil, and he had done what had to be done, and he is not responsible for being fooled, and anyone could be? Do your paladins say that? This is one of those DM "hose the Paladin traps" writ large. If the paladin, based on all the information they had to hand and the observations they personally made and having detected evil, decided that all those Clerics of Ilmater were actually evil (something that should be a monumentally difficult task) then yes they could kill them without falling for the act. Nowhere does it say that a Paladin has to be infallible. If the truth comes out the Paladin must experience guilt and try and right the wrong otherwise they would fall. Not for making a terrible mistake but for not understanding that what they had done was a terrible mistake after they understand the truth. Originally posted by Ainaelin Is that how you see a Paladin, D+1? A machine-to-kill-Evil? He cannot THINK? A Soldier who is not responsible for his acts, because he was ALLOWED (by his god, his status, whatever) to kill Evil whenever he detected it? Yes, Alignment in D&D is and has always been an attempt at being a convenient way to summarize the moral and philosophical concepts as are Good/Evil and Law/Chaos. Like any summary, it does not begin to grasp the many meanders and complexities and layers of such concepts. So they tried to resolve this by affecting an ABSOLUTE status to those concepts. An EVIL creature, is not Evil relative to some concept, it is EVIL, and that's it. This is how it was supposed to be in D&D. Even then, many players were not satisfied by such simplicity and over-manicheism, and TSR (and Wizards after them) have tried over the years to explain and expand the concepts behind each alignment. In D&D 3.0 and 3.5, Alignment is still Absolute, allowing such abilities as Smite Alignment, Detect alignment, and Protection from Alignment, but still fails to resolve many situations. By the way, putting a player in a dilemma is not being a stupid or crual DM ; dilemmas have always been a way to add depths to a character, be they qualms, regrets or pride for having solved a bitter situation. Dilemmas are a tool. If you do not want your character to have qualms, play a CE character, they do not question much of theiir actions... Yes alignments are absolutes in D&D, and that is the whole point. Someone with an Evil alignment is Evil and thus the enemy of all that is Good. So a Paladin is able to kill them for the single absolute fact that they are Evil. Where a Paladin must think and use their judgement is whether killing is the best Good Act among the options available.
Beamup 04-26-04, 01:42 PM	The detect *thump* Paladin depends fundamentally on a wrong assumption. That Detect Evil is reliable. It is fooled by a simple 2nd level spell - misdirection. It's quite easy for an evil wizard or sorcerer (even a low-level one) to make random peasants detect as evil. Detecting as Evil doesn't mean they are Evil, so summary executions are right out even if you believe being Evil automatically warrants execution.
Thorak 04-26-04, 01:59 PM	Originally posted by Naeron The point I was making is that semantically beliefs invariably relate to concepts, to intangibles, whereas attitudes are held about more concrete things. While there are overlaps where you can use both terms they mostly apply to terms that can define both concepts and activities. By what is in the PHB a Neutral can share exactly the same beliefs about killing the innocent as a Good person (i.e. that it is wrong), they can share exactly the same attitudes about personally killing the innocent in that they would never do so. Where they differ is that the attitude (not belief because here we are affecting the way they act) of the Neutral person will not stretch to making personal sacrifices to stop the killing of the innocent by another. The PHB makes it fairly obvious that they would prevent the killing of an innocent if it involved no level of personal sacrifice, just as a Good person would. It is solely the way they will act in certain situations that differs, this is not a belief it is an attitude. If the good and neutral person's beliefs about the worthiness of making personal sacrifices were the same, they'd do the same thing. It's the beliefs about things like personal sacrifice and such that make the difference between alignments. In your example, the two character's beliefs are vastly different. The Good guy believes that he should risk his own life to save another. The Neutral guy doesn't think it's worth the risk, putting his life on the line for some other guy, they might both die and that's even worse. Entirely different beliefs. I don't see how there's any difference between the terms 'belief' and 'attitude' in this context. You seem to be saying that belief = attitude = alignment. What I am saying is that beliefs shape attitudes which shape alignment. That means that in general terms for Good and Evil people your model is accurate, but for neutral people there can be a difference between belief and attitudes because when it comes to personal sacrifice, they lack the commitment to take a stand which shapes their attitudes and their actions beyond simply their beliefs. A Neutral can believe that it should be Ok to do something evil but by lacking the commitment to actually ever do it they gain a neutral attitude because they personally will never do it. By moving from the abstract concept to the actual commission their position is altered. And I still say that you're making an artificial distinction between 'beliefs' and 'attitudes'. They're two words for the same thing. You're artificially making 'beliefs' refer only to the really fuzzy concepts. Beliefs can be intricate and complex as well, and that seems to be the role you're trying to fit 'attitude' into. Though for what it's worth, I do agree that some neutrals lack any distinct beliefs (or attitudes, whichever term you prefer) in certain areas Good people do. A Good person, for instance, believes that it's worth risking his life to try and save another's. A Neutral person isn't likely to do so unless there's some other reason as well; no sense risking another life in a possibly futile effort, let alone his. No, Donating money is, in itself, an unaligned act, in the same way eating or killing is an unaligned act (the statement evil implies killing does not semantically imply that killing implies evil, putting aside the fact that the PHB provides the reasons for which evil kills, all of which are evil). The motive for performing these acts gives their alignment. The donations the BBEG made were evil acts because they were done for evil reasons. The LG character who is killing innocents for fun is committting evil acts, and yes this would be almost certainly be because his attitudes to killing innocents has changed. But it could be that the only evil attitude that the LG person has is that killing innocent dwarves is acceptable. Every other belief and attitude they possess could still be LG. But the fact that they commit evil acts swings them away from good. Its quite clear in the PHB that it is the acts that you take that change your alignment. Yes this would normally be linked to a change in attitude but it need not be a change in all your attitudes. Not in all your beliefs, no. But some beliefs must have changed; Good people don't think killing innocents is OK. The dwarf-killer in question doesn't share that belief, and hence is not good. No, by the simple fact that these "good" actions were committed to decieve and debase innocent life and for an evil cause it makes the acts themselves Evil. Everything that the PC did was evil, not good. I accept that in a case where the merchant sets out to deliberately cheat the customer that would be evil. But I hope you will accept that a merchant who is greedy and simply bargains for the highest price they can set would only be Neutral if they do. Sure. A greedy merchant's Neutral, or even possibly Good. I was only referring to those whose greed causes them to cheat their customers. You have just illustrated that Greed is neither Good nor Evil, just the point I am arguing. It is how the greed manifests itself, the aligned actions that you take, that make it aligned. The greedy LG who always bargains hard for the best price in all things is being LG until they cross over that line to harming or debasing innocent life. If they give to charity rarely and sparingly they do not cease being LG. If they steal or cheat to gain money then they start to drift because these are not, as you said, lawful or good acts. The difference is that on the one hand, the character is resisting what his urges are telling him. And that belief that control and resistance to greed is necessary is a contributing factor to their Good alignment. While an Evil character's materialism and tendency to hoard shows that they accept that urge and welcome it. The urge, greed, encourages evil. It's the character's beliefs and attitudes about that urge that help define their alignment.
Ainaelin 04-27-04, 06:04 AM	Originally posted by Naeron [...] Well, I guess we have different interpretations of many things... - In the Paladin description, under "associates", it is said that a Paladin will never willingly ASSOCIATE with an evil character... Nothing is said about killing them. - in the Code of Conduct entry, they say that the Paladin is required to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents". Again, nothing is said about killing all that is detected as Evil. - In the Good Vs. Evil entry, it is written that Good implies (among other things) "a concern for the dignity of sentient beings". I interpretate this as preventing a Paladin from killing without a good reason (and detecting Evil is not a good reason to me; I know it is for you). - Under the Lawful-Good entry, they say that " a LG character hates to see the GUILTY go unpunished". It really says GUILTY, but they do not define what guilty is. Is it being simply Evil, or having done things Evil? Is an Evil baby orc guilty and deserving of death? Is an orphan under a "Misdirection - Evil" effect guilty? That is my interpretation of the Code of Conduct of a Paladin : they must not kill without proof if it can be prevented (subduing a foe is a better solution most of the time), and Detect Evil is not proof enough... Witnessing is not a proof, as Illusions can easily deceive a Paladin. WQhen they have the choice between killing and suvduing, they must always choose subduing... Otherwise, they are being careless with the law and could end up with having problems with their God...
Naeron 04-27-04, 06:27 AM	Originally posted by Thorak If the good and neutral person's beliefs about the worthiness of making personal sacrifices were the same, they'd do the same thing. It's the beliefs about things like personal sacrifice and such that make the difference between alignments. In your example, the two character's beliefs are vastly different. The Good guy believes that he should risk his own life to save another. The Neutral guy doesn't think it's worth the risk, putting his life on the line for some other guy, they might both die and that's even worse. Entirely different beliefs. I don't see how there's any difference between the terms 'belief' and 'attitude' in this context. The point I was making is that the Neutral and Good people have identical positions about the killing of innocent people in general and about preventing such killings when no self-sacrifice is involved. They differ only when it comes to making a personal sacrifice to prevent such a killing. Originally posted by Thorak And I still say that you're making an artificial distinction between 'beliefs' and 'attitudes'. They're two words for the same thing. You're artificially making 'beliefs' refer only to the really fuzzy concepts. Beliefs can be intricate and complex as well, and that seems to be the role you're trying to fit 'attitude' into. And I still say you are equating two words which do not have the same meaning. Belief has a definite meaning, that of "knowing that something is true" it is something that is held by a person and nowhere defines any link to how the person will act. Attitude does include such a definition but only as part of its own definition and also includes defining how you will act. By its dictionary and common usage meanings Beliefs are only what you think and Attitudes are how you think and act about something. Just to pull some definitions of the net: Belief: "any cognitive content held as true." Attitude: "a complex mental state involving beliefs and feelings and values and dispositions to act in certain ways." An attititude is only partially formed from beliefs, and adds in feelings, values and dispositions to act in certain ways. A Belief can exist in isolation of any of these other things. An attitude can only exist as a composite of all of these things. So I believe that I am correct in my earlier statement that belief shapes attitudes but that the attitude you have about something does not always derive from your belief, it is modified by other factors. Originally posted by Thorak Though for what it's worth, I do agree that some neutrals lack any distinct beliefs (or attitudes, whichever term you prefer) in certain areas Good people do. A Good person, for instance, believes that it's worth risking his life to try and save another's. A Neutral person isn't likely to do so unless there's some other reason as well; no sense risking another life in a possibly futile effort, let alone his. I say that Neutrals share the same beliefs about the sanctity, value, worth etc of innocent life and the same attitude about saving life where personal sacrifice is not involved but have a different attitude where sacrifice is involved because their different belief about self-sacrifice modifies their attitude. Originally posted by Thorak Not in all your beliefs, no. But some beliefs must have changed; Good people don't think killing innocents is OK. The dwarf-killer in question doesn't share that belief, and hence is not good. Sure. A greedy merchant's Neutral, or even possibly Good. I was only referring to those whose greed causes them to cheat their customers. The difference is that on the one hand, the character is resisting what his urges are telling him. And that belief that control and resistance to greed is necessary is a contributing factor to their Good alignment. While an Evil character's materialism and tendency to hoard shows that they accept that urge and welcome it. The urge, greed, encourages evil. It's the character's beliefs and attitudes about that urge that help define their alignment. I disagree that Greed in and of itself is aligned, a Good person can be greedy, but in a manner that manifests itself in the desire to gain wealth without harming others, they will still actually make sacrifices to help others but would prefer to do so in a way that enriches themselves. For example they would prefer to offer employment to the needy rather than simple charity. An evil person can also be greedy but their greed manifests itself as enriching themselves at the expense of others. (Of course we are talking monetary greed here, a Good person could be greedy foodwise with no problem as long as they pay for the food they eat).
Naeron 04-27-04, 07:00 AM	Originally posted by Ainaelin Well, I guess we have different interpretations of many things... Obviously :) Originally posted by Ainaelin - In the Paladin description, under "associates", it is said that a Paladin will never willingly ASSOCIATE with an evil character... Nothing is said about killing them. - in the Code of Conduct entry, they say that the Paladin is required to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents". Again, nothing is said about killing all that is detected as Evil. Of course it never says that a Paladin cannot kill them, if you accept that punishing can include killing then under what I feel if the correct interpretation of how alignments are attained then to be evil a person must have done evil, which is defined a debasing or destroying innocent life. This is the real reason that our views are diverging. From what is in the PHB I read that to detect as evil a person must have done evil in sufficent and recent amount to warrant that alignment. Someone born evil who has only committed Neutral acts over the past months would become Neutral because the PHB states that acts change alignment and if the paladin sees an evil being in a non-evil settlement who is acting non-evil that should immediately bring the consideration of impending alignment change and redemption to the Paladin'd mind. So a village of Orcs that is not raiding and pillaging, nor murdering, beating each other but cooperating to survive in a harsh environment would IMC be Neutral, as the worship of Gruumsh would not make them evil (which is why CE deities can have CN clerics). This would be very rare because Orc society IMC follows a standard model of inevitable brutality towards and, debasement of, its members so remains evil. So a being that (truly) detects as evil has done enough harm to the innocent to warrant an evil alignment, and has not done enough acts of other alignments in the intervening period to warrant an alignment change. Originally posted by Ainaelin - In the Good Vs. Evil entry, it is written that Good implies (among other things) "a concern for the dignity of sentient beings". I interpretate this as preventing a Paladin from killing without a good reason (and detecting Evil is not a good reason to me; I know it is for you). - Under the Lawful-Good entry, they say that " a LG character hates to see the GUILTY go unpunished". It really says GUILTY, but they do not define what guilty is. Is it being simply Evil, or having done things Evil? Is an Evil baby orc guilty and deserving of death? Is an orphan under a "Misdirection - Evil" effect guilty? A being that is Evil should be punished for the harm that is done to others. I am only addressing beings that are evil and in my first post I also addressed the fact that evil beings may be on the path to redemption or redeemed but with the Evil subtype which will never be shown on detect evil, this is why I said that although detecting evil can give cause for using force it is not true that it should give cause, it is the detection of evil and witnessing of evil acts that gives the proof that force is appropriate. In a world where magic exists there is always the possibility of magic being used to fool detection or the physical senses but I am taking it as a given that we are not talking about whether a Paladin is right to kill someone under a false alignment spell (the shouldn't) or based on crimes they have not committed (they should not) or if the person is dominated (they should not), but in cases where the target actually is evil, these other cases are obviously excluded by the paladins code and alignment when it comes to protecting the innocent etc. The evil baby question is a completely invalid construct. A baby is not self aware and the PHB clearly says "creatures incapable of moral action are neutral", Orc Babies are always Neutral. The proper question would be relating to Orc children, obviously at some stage an Orch child becomes capable of moral action. If those actions are evil they become evil, if not they gain another alignment. So Evil Orc children (probably the stronger adolescents who are already debasing the weak) should be punished, whether lethal force is an appropriate punishment is a different matter. Originally posted by Ainaelin That is my interpretation of the Code of Conduct of a Paladin : they must not kill without proof if it can be prevented (subduing a foe is a better solution most of the time), and Detect Evil is not proof enough... Witnessing is not a proof, as Illusions can easily deceive a Paladin. WQhen they have the choice between killing and suvduing, they must always choose subduing... Otherwise, they are being careless with the law and could end up with having problems with their God... Solely subduing a foe who deserves punishment is a non-LG act, it removes the punishment that a LG person supports. Taking time to return them to civilisation to stand trial is not LG because any reasonably formulated law in a fantasy society places the death penalty for these acts (because prisons just don't exist as we have them) and outside the boundaries of civilisation there is no other Law than the personal code. I cannot see any justification to say that a Paladin need only use nonlethal force if lethal force can also be used. Nonlethal force should be used when the Paladin has doubts as to whether a punishment of death is appropriate or if they cannot be sure of the targets actual guilt (e.g suspect that dominate or other magics may be a factor). I have always argues against the Detect - Smite Paladin. At the least a Paladin should be Detect - Evaluate - Judge - Smite If Appropriate but this is a valid approach.
Ainaelin 04-27-04, 08:44 AM	OK, I agree on the Orc baby, it should be Neutral, and the Evil child has probably done some harm, even though we do not know which, and maybe not something deserving of death. - Punishing does not mean killing. A paladin must punish, but it (the citation I gave) does not say the that he must kill. - On the topic of subduing, my explanation was not precise enough, and by subduing, I meant to subdue and bring to the authorities for judgement. In D&D, there are means to know the truth, even if they are not everything-proof : Zone of truth, Suggestion, Domination, psionics etc... and THAT should be the default course in my opnion, considering my interpretation of the morals of a Paladin. I understand you do not share this opinion, and consider Paladins are judges themselves, who are able to act as THE authority in most cases. Am I right in my understanding? :)
Thorak 04-27-04, 09:11 AM	Originally posted by Naeron The point I was making is that the Neutral and Good people have identical positions about the killing of innocent people in general and about preventing such killings when no self-sacrifice is involved. They differ only when it comes to making a personal sacrifice to prevent such a killing. And my point is that the fact that their positions differ on the issue of self-sacrifice means that their positions are entirely different. Just like an Evil person's only differs in that they will kill an innocent to their benefit. You can't on the one hand call it an 'identical position' and then claim that the massive difference revolving around self-sacrifice isn't part of the position to begin with. This is why alignment isn't split up into smaller sub-sections; everything is tied together into a relatively cohesive unit. And I still say you are equating two words which do not have the same meaning. Belief has a definite meaning, that of "knowing that something is true" it is something that is held by a person and nowhere defines any link to how the person will act. Attitude does include such a definition but only as part of its own definition and also includes defining how you will act. By its dictionary and common usage meanings Beliefs are only what you think and Attitudes are how you think and act about something. But they can mean the same thing. And my point is that beliefs guide actions just as much as the theoretical attitude guides the actual attitude. Different terms, same thing. And the eventual, real-world result in both cases is directly drawn from the mental part, the belief aspect of attitude. Evil people don't accidentally hurt others, they do it because they believe they can/should. Just to pull some definitions of the net: Belief: "any cognitive content held as true." Attitude: "a complex mental state involving beliefs and feelings and values and dispositions to act in certain ways." An attititude is only partially formed from beliefs, and adds in feelings, values and dispositions to act in certain ways. A Belief can exist in isolation of any of these other things. An attitude can only exist as a composite of all of these things. So I believe that I am correct in my earlier statement that belief shapes attitudes but that the attitude you have about something does not always derive from your belief, it is modified by other factors. Feelings, values, and dispositions are all representative of 'beliefs' as well, though. If I 'feel' that killing is wrong, I 'believe' that killing is wrong. I also have a 'value' that killing is wrong, and am 'disposed' to think poorly of killing. Each of those sentences means the same thing, that my mental processes do not view killing as a desirable thing. It's not that 'belief' is the one term I'm insisting we use; it's that all these terms in the end refer to the exact same thing; the character's mental and emotional beliefs/values/dispositions/feelings/attitudes. Actions are only important in the way they display these mental and emotional characteristics. I say that Neutrals share the same beliefs about the sanctity, value, worth etc of innocent life and the same attitude about saving life where personal sacrifice is not involved but have a different attitude where sacrifice is involved because their different belief about self-sacrifice modifies their attitude. Their belief that it's not worth it to give of themselves is in and of itself a different belief about the "sanctity, value, worth etc of innocent life". A Good person thinks it's worth more than his own life, a Neutral person thinks it's worth less, and an Evil person thinks it's worthless. Again, you can't claim it's the same belief on the one hand while stating that there's massive differences on the other. I disagree that Greed in and of itself is aligned, a Good person can be greedy, but in a manner that manifests itself in the desire to gain wealth without harming others, they will still actually make sacrifices to help others but would prefer to do so in a way that enriches themselves. For example they would prefer to offer employment to the needy rather than simple charity. An evil person can also be greedy but their greed manifests itself as enriching themselves at the expense of others. (Of course we are talking monetary greed here, a Good person could be greedy foodwise with no problem as long as they pay for the food they eat). I'm not saying greed is by definition Evil. I'm saying greed is an urge that encourages evil. If a Good character lets their greed rule their choices, they're going to fall down the slippery path into Evil. If they can resist it and try to limit how it affects their judgement, they can still be Good. The urge isn't itself aligned, no, but accepting it wholeheartedly is. Similarly, a Good person can have a nasty violent temper they try to control. If they give in to it and just beat the living tar out of anyone who annoys them, they're not Good any more.
Derren S. 04-27-04, 09:47 AM	I can't belive that there are still people who really belive that a paladin who mindlessly kills anything evil without researching if this evil deserves killing fullfils its code. What about a thief who steals for personal gain. Is he evil? Yes but not evil enough to deserve to be killed and when a paladin kills him because he showed up as evil the paladin looses his power. Or what about a 10 year old bully who steals from his parents and beats other children? He is also evil but a paladin who kills him will fall. Or the merchant who really cheats his customers. Does he deserves death? No. And although he is evil killing him isn't good, its also evil because the evil was too minor to deserve death. If there is a chance that the evil person can be redeemed the paladin has to take this chance and not to mindlessly kill him. The "respect for live" a LG character has says so.
Naeron 04-27-04, 10:06 AM	Originally posted by Ainaelin OK, I agree on the Orc baby, it should be Neutral, and the Evil child has probably done some harm, even though we do not know which, and maybe not something deserving of death. - Punishing does not mean killing. A paladin must punish, but it (the citation I gave) does not say the that he must kill. - On the topic of subduing, my explanation was not precise enough, and by subduing, I meant to subdue and bring to the authorities for judgement. In D&D, there are means to know the truth, even if they are not everything-proof : Zone of truth, Suggestion, Domination, psionics etc... and THAT should be the default course in my opnion, considering my interpretation of the morals of a Paladin. I understand you do not share this opinion, and consider Paladins are judges themselves, who are able to act as THE authority in most cases. Am I right in my understanding? :) I agree with your first point to a degree, that is why I was clear that while a paladin can kill this does not mean that they should kill. Being LG means that the punishment should be appropriate. I consider that a Paladin can act as a judge, Lawful does not mean law-abiding it means following a set of rules. These can match exactly, which is why the Paladin respects legitimate authority but they do not necessarily overlap. A Paladin can ignore laws that are nor LG, just or that go against their code without any penalty. And outside the bounds of civilisation there is no "Law" there is the Code (which certainly has many of the same constructs). But when you look at the Laws that would probably exist in most fantasy societies they would prescibe that the penalties of acts such as brigandage, murder, human-sacrifice is death and lacking a modern legal system would allow the public to carry out those penalties. What the Paladin must and does accept is that if they punish the innocent then they should be punished themselves as appropriate. With great power comes great responsibility. Remember that in many Feudal societies the Nobility and Church often had the legal right to dispense justice for certain crimes and could pass that right onto others.
Krelios 04-27-04, 10:20 AM	If everyone must act on their alignment to maintain it, then the Paladin might have the right to smite. The only clear case would be: if the only way that a being can be “Evil” is to do something truly vile and deserving of death, or be a habitual abuser at a lower level who would also deserve death under a just law. I don’t think many people play this way. If the Paladin can detect Evil on someone who has only performed minor evils, perhaps rarely, then the detect should not be a good enough indicator for a death sentence. Similarly, if a being can be Evil without actually performing an Evil act, then the Paladin would definitely not have the right to attack. Detect Evil also detects the strength of an aura. Someone who only faintly glows probably doesn't deserve death, but someone with an overwhelming aura almost certainly does. The video store guy who is taking pleasure in the misfortune of others? I've known a guy that would charge someone while apologising, because, in his own words, 'a rule is a rule'. Lawful neutral behaviour. A Lawful Good person would at least be willing to hear why the person was two minutes late, and would more likely overlook the letter of the rule, in favour of the spirit of the rule. Lawful evil though, rubs its hands in glee, cackling something like 'mwahahahaha, more money in the till. these fools should pay more attention to the time!'Ok. Unless the video store clerk purposely set up some sort of fraudulant action (like setting the clocks in the store back 10 minutes so that when you dropped the video off "just in time" it was "9 minutes late") then he's Lawful Neutral. If the video store clerk were willing to listen to your excuses about why your video was late then he's NG (or perhaps CG if it's been more than a couple of minutes). LG characters are still Lawful. The taxi driver who is not only a thoughtless, agressive driver, but actually enjoys the sound of other peoples horns, as it means he's given them a scare. However, anyone whose spent a lot of time in cities probably knows taxi drivers like this. the 'I own the road, everyone else get out of my way' type. No way are these guys neutral. They are inconsiderate--perhaps even rude--but look at a Chaotic Good half-orc barbarian and tell me you don't see a similarity. Being inconsiderate is not the same as being evil. These examples seem to indicate that you don't understand how vile and despicable an evil person can be. The depths of evil go much further than rudeness or punctuality. I recommend the BoVD as a research tool, simply because any of the other books I would suggest would only incite controversy or violate the CoC.
Naeron 04-27-04, 10:28 AM	Originally posted by Thorak And my point is that the fact that their positions differ on the issue of self-sacrifice means that their positions are entirely different. Just like an Evil person's only differs in that they will kill an innocent to their benefit. You can't on the one hand call it an 'identical position' and then claim that the massive difference revolving around self-sacrifice isn't part of the position to begin with. This is why alignment isn't split up into smaller sub-sections; everything is tied together into a relatively cohesive unit. I never claimed that they had an identical position and that it was different. I claimed that they shared 1 belief and 1 attitude and that they had one differing attitude. I defined 1 belief and 2 attitudes that relate to 2 very different situations. You said it yourself beliefs about the worthiness of making personal sacrifices that is the point of difference, not a belief about whether killing the innocent is right or wrong. My point is that their beliefs about the killing of the innocent are identical, both believe that it is wrong. Their attitude to personally killing the innocent is identical, neither will do it. Their attitude when someone else is killing the innocent differs (and it could be a situational difference as a neutral person can risk themselves to save the life of someone they are bound to by personal relationship). That is the only position that is different. An Evil persons attitudes are completely different, their beliefs about killing the innocent are different, their attitude to personally killing the innocent is different and their attitude to someone else killing the innocent is different. So under what I have defined my point is absolutely correct, 2 the same and 1 that is different. If you wish to lump these 3 into 1 that is valid but then I would say that under your definition that Good and Neutral differ to a degree, not that they are entirely different, because some of the multiple beliefs that contribute to forming your single composite attitude are the same, it would be the attitude of an Evil person that is entirely different. Originally posted by Thorak I can't belive that there are still people who really belive that a paladin who mindlessly kills anything evil without researching if this evil deserves killing fullfils its code. If you read the last dozen posts of so you will see that everyone is agreeing that the detect/smite paladin is in the wrong. The current arguments are a semantic one about whether belief and attitude mean the same things and whether being Evil, in and of itself allows a Paladin to mete out approriate sanctions if they determine that the person is truly evil, not seeking redemption etc etc.
Beamup 04-27-04, 10:38 AM	Originally posted by Krelios Detect Evil also detects the strength of an aura. Someone who only faintly glows probably doesn't deserve death, but someone with an overwhelming aura almost certainly does. So a level 20 Fighter who's just a little bit evil (just barely enough to qualify as E instead of N, maybe he pulls the wings off butterflies for fun) is more deserving of death than a level 1 Rogue who murders children by the dozen? Strength of evil aura has NO connection AT ALL to degree of evil, only to HD (and type, e.g. evil outsider or cleric. For other-class humans, it's pure HD). Read the spell.
Ainaelin 04-27-04, 10:46 AM	Thank you, Beamup, I was about to say the same... ;)
Ainaelin 04-27-04, 10:52 AM	Originally posted by Naeron I agree with your first point to a degree, that is why I was clear that while a paladin can kill this does not mean that they should kill. Being LG means that the punishment should be appropriate. I consider that a Paladin can act as a judge, Lawful does not mean law-abiding it means following a set of rules. These can match exactly, which is why the Paladin respects legitimate authority but they do not necessarily overlap. A Paladin can ignore laws that are nor LG, just or that go against their code without any penalty. And outside the bounds of civilisation there is no "Law" there is the Code (which certainly has many of the same constructs). But when you look at the Laws that would probably exist in most fantasy societies they would prescibe that the penalties of acts such as brigandage, murder, human-sacrifice is death and lacking a modern legal system would allow the public to carry out those penalties. What the Paladin must and does accept is that if they punish the innocent then they should be punished themselves as appropriate. With great power comes great responsibility. Remember that in many Feudal societies the Nobility and Church often had the legal right to dispense justice for certain crimes and could pass that right onto others. Actually, I think there are 2 main issues here : - The debate of "what is and what is not Evil" (and Good and Neutral), that you're having with Thorak... - whether one must punish the guilty according to what they did, or if one should punish any Evil with Death... And those might be endless discussions... :rolleyes:
D+1 04-27-04, 12:41 PM	Originally posted by Ainaelin So, D+1, a Paladin does not need to think at all? If he detects Evil, he can kill without qualms, since he has been made a Paladin for that purpose, is that it? No, that isn't it. With respect, you might want to read my statements again a little more closely, because I've addressed EXACTLY that kind of response. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, simply being Evil qualifies you to be killed by a Paladin. However, in the middle of a civilized city, where even Evil citizens can't just be killed on sight without having committed a crime - and being then convicted of that crime - a paladin would have VASTLY different obligations. If a paladin is in the wilderness, beyond the borders of any kingdom, or perhaps even within the kingdom but just beyond where the kingdom bothers to patrol, you'd have much greater freedom of reflexive action. Also, to repeat myself, just because you CAN doesn't mean that you always MUST or even SHOULD. Sad indeed would be the Paladin that always kills blindly without thought or care. Take, for example, the thread that was raging a while back (and actually still is!) about a Paladin and fellow PC's fighting a climactic battle against the Big Evil Guy on top of his tower. The paladin has the BBEG in his grip over the side of the tower - hovering over his certain doom - when the BBEG asks for "help", essentially appealing to the Paladins mercy, respect for life, etc. as if it should OVERRIDE all the crime, evil, pain, and waste that he's perpetrated. The paladin, at that point, IS ALLOWED to simply kill him because he's evil - by letting go, by hacking him to deat as he hangs on, by pulling him up and then performing a Coup de Grace, or any number of other means all of which conclude with his swift death. Now the paladin is ALSO allowed to slap him on the wrist and let him go free with a warning not to be a bad boy anymore (not recommended); or to take him prisoner and drag him back to someplace where he can stand trial for crimes against humanity; imprison him forever by spell; imprison him in a normal prison without trial; force a change of alignment on him with magic and THEN imprison him forever for his crimes, etc. And when he realises that he has been deceived, and that someone has been able to fool him into detecting a false aura on every cleric of that temple of Ilmater, and he has killed them all, despite their pleading for their lives and trying to protect the orphans they were taking care of, he still says that he had detected them as Evil, and he had done what had to be done, and he is not responsible for being fooled, and anyone could be? Do your paladins say that? Yes. Because they AREN'T responsible - the person who TRICKED them is responsible. Example: a paladin accepts a quest to retrieve a stolen, sacred item. He does so, killing many guards in the process. Then after handing over the "sacred" item find out that it is in fact used for summoning demons. The paladin has been tricked - but is the paladin guilty of MURDER for having killed the guards? He should be sad about having done it of course, and take every possible step to reverse the damage done - even though he's NOT responsible for it. The person who TRICKED him is responsible. Same thing applies if the paladin's Detect Evil is spoofed and he kills an innocent. Again, the difference between killing and murder. By the way, putting a player in a dilemma is not being a stupid or crual DM It is if there is no correct answer, or if the player is forced to GUESS at a correct answer without having the first clue that the DM has greatly differing reasoning as to what an acceptible answer is or WHY it's acceptible. Case in point: the orc babies scenario. The player kills the helpless orcs because they ARE Evil. The DM is SHOCKED and claims the paladin himself just committed a heinously evil act. The player is then in turn shocked that the DM considers it Evil to kill Evil creatures. The player makes a good-faith effort at resolving the "dilemma", perhaps not even SEEING it as a dilemma. Who fault is it that the player comes to the wrong conclusion? Why would the CHARACTER not know that IN THAT WORLD HE LIVES IN it is Evil to kill even helpless Evil creatures? That is the fault of the DM, not the player. ALL the blame for it rests with a DM who conducts his campaign in a way contrary to that suggested by the Core Rules treatment of alignment without having informed the players. Even if you believe that there are multiple interpretations don't you think that the player CANNOT be held responsible for the failure of the DM to inform the player of what IS right in his opinion? The BAD DMing is not having set up the moral "dilemma" in the first place, it's for having failed to properly inform his players of his personal interpretation of alignment/morality as it applies to his campaign, and then PUNISHING the player for failing to read his mind. THAT is what is bad DMing, and it is that more than anything else that I rail against in the alignment/paladin discussions.
D+1 04-27-04, 01:17 PM	Originally posted by Thorak The 'greater good' is always an excuse to do Evil. It's never used to support Good acts. In D&D or the real world. No, it can be used in D&D because alignment is descriptive, not proscriptive - it is defined by your actions, not your intent. If you are not intending to do evil you can't - although you could nonetheless be held responsible to one degree or another for the consequences. It's the difference between wanting to do something for the greater good and then doing so, and claiming to want to do something for the greater good and then NOT doing so. An Exalted character never could. The 'greater good' is never the 'most Good' option. And there's almost always another choice, where you can save the 10,000 without sacrificing the 1.I never, ever reference Exalted's, BOED in general, etc. in these discussions. First because not only do I personally not own it, the majority of others don't either. As such I limit my comments to core rules interpretation. The "greater good" may indeed never be the "most good" option, but the DM has ABSOLUTE control over what options are available, feasible, reasonable and their relative chances of success. It is again wrong to punish the player for ever failing to see the "most good" option, or for failing to use it if other nonetheless "good" options are available. Paladins - Core Rules paladins - are not required to always do what is "most good". That means that choosing to sacrifice the 1 IS a viable option unless there's something ELSE that colors that choice. Because they're 'usually CE', this means they can be raised to not be CE. And besides, the orc babies are innocents regardless. It doesn't matter if they're lawful good or chaotic evil; they're still helpless innocents. Not according to the MM. The qualifiers to alignment (always, usually, often) are about the frequency with which you will see that alignment - NOT about the ability for that alignment to change. There is a reference under "always" that it is possible for them to change alignment that is simply there to indicate that despite the "always" qualifier ALL creatures can change their alignment. But that doesn't change aspects of alignment described elsewhere in the rules at all. And again, if the babies are innocent they are NOT Evil, if they are Evil they are NOT innocent. Evil in the alignment defines that for us. Or perhaps they can Detect Evil to be more certain of the justification for their actions. Killing something just because of it's moral base is Evil. It's absolutely arbitrary, and the victim hasn't necessarily done a thing to deserve the punishment. Not so. Alignment is defined by your actions, it doesn't determine your actions. It has to be that way in order for PC's to take action contrary to their alignment. Same applies to everyone else. If your alignment is defined as Evil then even if you're helpless, your moral outlook RIGHT NOW, is solidly, reliably defined and action can be taken based on that. If a DM wants to run a game where otherwise evil creatures are NOT evil until they become older and can actually perform evil deeds then their alignments MUST be non-evil. If there's a red dragon that's been peacefully slumbering in it's cave for 2,000 years, has never harassed anyone, and just wishes to be left alone, it would be an Evil act to go in there and kill it. And it's alignment should then not be Evil. Explain how baby orcs would not be innocents.They are defined as not being innocent by being defined as Evil in alignment. If you're going to claim that alignment only comes from actions, then baby orcs could not possibly be evil; they can hardly do any actions at all. MY point exactly. I don't have any problem with defining orc babies as innocent - provided you give them the APPROPRIATE alignment to describe them as such. Perhaps in your world Evil critters can be slaughtered just because of their general Evil morality. Heck, let's have paladins as guards on every corner, and let's kill anyone who's not good, because even being Neutral means they're one step away. And again, I've already covered that.
Thorak 04-27-04, 07:33 PM	First, one quick comment on the semantic debate I've been having with Naeron; You're saying that Good and Neutral are essentially the same, but that Neutral lacks some of the beliefs of Good, while Evil is entirely different. I can just as easily show that Neutral is just as self-serving as Evil is, they just don't feel that others should be hurt in the process, a relatively minor distinction much like your alternate view. A neutral person can very easily have no problems killing innocents, they just need a darn good reason for it to be worth it, like these innocents are infected with a virulent disease that, if they aren't killed, will spread, infect, and kill thousands. A Good character would have to put them in quarantine and hope that works, and try to find a cure, but a Neutral person is free enough morally to take the safest, and 'best' for everyone, option. My point being that Good, Neutral, and Evil are three entirely separate entities, and Neutral is just as close to Evil as it is to Good. Wether it's from a belief in the necessity of balance, moral ambiguity, or sheer indifference, Neutrality isn't just Good Lite. It's an entirely separate viewpoint, and if you start deconstructing it as you do, you can equally deconstruct the relationship with Evil with the same results. Now for D+1 Originally posted by D+1 No, it can be used in D&D because alignment is descriptive, not proscriptive - it is defined by your actions, not your intent. If you are not intending to do evil you can't - although you could nonetheless be held responsible to one degree or another for the consequences. It's the difference between wanting to do something for the greater good and then doing so, and claiming to want to do something for the greater good and then NOT doing so. I never, ever reference Exalted's, BOED in general, etc. in these discussions. First because not only do I personally not own it, the majority of others don't either. As such I limit my comments to core rules interpretation. Alignment in D&D is not defined by actions; it's defined by attitude. At least, according to the PHB. And any definition of Attitude, as Naeron's provided, includes terms like 'beliefs', 'values', and 'feelings' right along with 'actions', if it even includes the latter at all. Them's the core rules. And before you correct me, you'll probably say that the PHB also says the DM can change your alignment based on your actions. Yes, he can. Because those actions are done based on your character's beliefs and attitudes, and if they're not in accordance with his written alignment, the DM will change it so that it is. But the actions are representative of the underlying beliefs; they don't directly affect alignment in and of themselves. The "greater good" may indeed never be the "most good" option, but the DM has ABSOLUTE control over what options are available, feasible, reasonable and their relative chances of success. It is again wrong to punish the player for ever failing to see the "most good" option, or for failing to use it if other nonetheless "good" options are available. Paladins - Core Rules paladins - are not required to always do what is "most good". That means that choosing to sacrifice the 1 IS a viable option unless there's something ELSE that colors that choice. Any DM that forces his players into the 2 bad choices he wants them to pick between is railroading; that's bad DMing. And even then, any choice done for the 'greater good' is only done to excuse Evil. If the BBEG is going to burn a city down if you don't kill that baby, the most Good option is to refuse and try to find another way, by offering your life in place of the child's, perhaps. If the BBEG goes ahead and burns the city anyway, it's his fault and responsibility, not the PCs. Failure isn't Evil. Willfully killing an innocent is. And before you say it, that's not an aligned action; it's an action caused by the PC's willful attitude. Not according to the MM. The qualifiers to alignment (always, usually, often) are about the frequency with which you will see that alignment - NOT about the ability for that alignment to change. There is a reference under "always" that it is possible for them to change alignment that is simply there to indicate that despite the "always" qualifier ALL creatures can change their alignment. But that doesn't change aspects of alignment described elsewhere in the rules at all. Then apparently you believe that 'nature' is more important than 'nurture' in determining a creature's adult self. I won't start that debate here and I ask that you don't either; it's a massive derailing of the thread. But suffice it to say that I disagree, and the jury is most certainly out on the subject officially. I'm not saying orcs don't have a natural tendency to evil (probably from an innate selfish and brutal nature), but I also think they can learn to control that. And again, if the babies are innocent they are NOT Evil, if they are Evil they are NOT innocent. Evil in the alignment defines that for us. Then either every newborn baby is inherently Neutral, or you're going to have to explain how a helpless baby can be guilty of anything, when it hasn't learned to walk, hold onto anything, or really do anything but eat, eliminate, and cry. If they're not guilty of any actual offenses, they're Innocents. By definition. Their underlying moral tendencies have no relevance to that characteristic. To take another angle; a human baby is an innocent, even if they will grow up to become a serial killer. The only difference between the human and the orc is racial, and innocence isn't determined by race. Not so. Alignment is defined by your actions, it doesn't determine your actions. It has to be that way in order for PC's to take action contrary to their alignment. Same applies to everyone else. If your alignment is defined as Evil then even if you're helpless, your moral outlook RIGHT NOW, is solidly, reliably defined and action can be taken based on that. If a DM wants to run a game where otherwise evil creatures are NOT evil until they become older and can actually perform evil deeds then their alignments MUST be non-evil.[ And it's alignment should then not be Evil. They are defined as not being innocent by being defined as Evil in alignment. MY point exactly. I don't have any problem with defining orc babies as innocent - provided you give them the APPROPRIATE alignment to describe them as such. And again, I've already covered that. Actions are defined by attitude, not action. All a PC has to do to act 'contrary' to their Alignment is to act contrary to their typical attitudes; a generally kind fighter for instance getting fed up and belting a guy in a bar for being rude. The PHB even talks about such slips. I agree that orc babies (or any babies for that matter) should be considered Neutral, but only because their minds haven't developed to the point of being able to have attitudes about anything. An orc toddler, on the other hand, is probably well on his way to being Evil, but he's also probably an innocent, the worst thing he's likely done is pulled the wings off of flies or kicked a dog. He's still innocent of any Evil actions, even though his alignment is thoroughly Evil. By any definition that makes sense, the orc kid is an Innocent. And killing innocents is almost always a baaaaaaad thing. Even if they're orcs.
D+1 04-28-04, 02:09 AM	Originally posted by Thorak Alignment in D&D is not defined by actions; it's defined by attitude. No, it is defined by actions. It HAS to be and I'll tell you why. Players always make the choices for what their characters do. It is IRRELEVANT what their alignment is - the player chooses what their character does. Now that choice will have consequences, which may include changing their alignment, but the alignment never, ever DICTATES what the character will do. Ought to do or should do, or usually does possibly, but it doesn't dicatate actions - actions dictate alignment. It works the same way for NPC's and monsters. The DM uses their alignments as a guideline, a reference for how they ought to, or usually do behave, but it doesn't prevent the DM from having them do things that their alignment DOESN'T suggest they should. But the actions are representative of the underlying beliefs; they don't directly affect alignment in and of themselves. Yes they do exactly that. You can believe as strongly as you want that sacrificing a virgin once a week to your Evil deity is fun, but if you find yourself repeatedly letting them go then your actions are dictating that your alignment is shifting away from evil (at least on that aspect of your belief vs. behavior.) Your actions generally ARE representative of your underlying beliefs as superficially described by your alignment, but it doesn't mean that any time you do just one thing contrary to what your alignment suggests that your alignment changes. Your alignment generally only changes over time as you consistently change your behavior pattern or if it's sudden and drastic it's because you've DONE something sudden and drastic. If the BBEG is going to burn a city down if you don't kill that baby, the most Good option is to refuse and try to find another way, by offering your life in place of the child's, perhaps. If the BBEG goes ahead and burns the city anyway, it's his fault and responsibility, not the PCs. Failure isn't Evil. Willfully killing an innocent is. And before you say it, that's not an aligned action; it's an action caused by the PC's willful attitude. It can be but if all things are otherwise equal it isn't necessarily so. It may be that you've examined every option, the chances for success of each, and the moral implications of it all and come to the conclusion that yes, Mr. Spock must die if it means planet Lame-O will be saved, even though Mr. Spock has never even heard of it, much less done anything to deserve death. I'm not saying orcs don't have a natural tendency to evil (probably from an innate selfish and brutal nature), but I also think they can learn to control that. Which is why their alignment is listed as "Often CE", and that is explained in the MM glossary as "tending toward the alignment by either nature or nurture but not strongly, 40%-50% will have that alignment but exceptions are common." But Evil is Evil. They may change their ways tomorrow, they may never change, they might be evil simply because they were brought up in a cruel society by cruel parents, they may be evil because you believe they are universally hard-wired to be that way. But that's irrelevant - if they are evil then they ARE evil and that makes them creatures that a paladin, by and large, is duty-bound to destroy. Then either every newborn baby is inherently Neutral, or you're going to have to explain how a helpless baby can be guilty of anything, when it hasn't learned to walk, hold onto anything, or really do anything but eat, eliminate, and cry. You win a cigar. Newborn babies - if they are truly innocents - are by definition neutral according the rules. If, however, those babies have evil alignments then you, as DM are dictating that these babies are NOT innocents despite not being able to perpetrate evil. It thinks evil thoughts, it pulls the wings off butterflies as soon as it can grab them, and without having to be TAUGHT to beat up on weaker individuals by its parents or society it wants/needs/yearns to do so. It will roll over in its crib and try to smother its baby brother because he's screaming too loud, or if he gets hold of a sharp object it immediately wants to hurt something with it or damage something with it. It HAS TO because by giving it an evil alignment you DECLARE that it does just that. If they're not guilty of any actual offenses, they're Innocents. By definition. Their underlying moral tendencies have no relevance to that characteristic. To take another angle; a human baby is an innocent, even if they will grow up to become a serial killer. The only difference between the human and the orc is racial, and innocence isn't determined by race. The difference between human and orc is sociological too. You can have differences between racially identical orcs that are sociological. And if you have a baby that is neutral in alignment it is innocent and MAY grow up to be a CE serial killer. IF you have a baby that is CE in alignment it is NOT innocent and is DESTINED to grow up to be a serial killer/mass murderer/tax collector/mime. It's alignment makes that a bankable - but not absolute - certainty. But absolute certainty is not necessary. D&D alignments describe a world with black and white moral absolutes. Evil is reliably evil and can be killed by good simply because it is evil. If you want to run a game with real-world shades of moral grey space and relativism, you are free to do so but D&D is not intended for that. It's intended for good guys killing evil guys without having to worry about Miranda warnings, rules of evidence, or even allowing them a trial. I agree that orc babies (or any babies for that matter) should be considered Neutral, but only because their minds haven't developed to the point of being able to have attitudes about anything. Possible, but not definitely so. The rules do not address themselves to the question of nature vs. nurture except in that you can stress either approach. We all get to pick our poison or even mix/match the two. But unfortunately they do not take the additional step of warning DM's that the question has significant ramifications regarding how players and DMs individually perceive the consequences of their actions regarding alignment. An orc toddler, on the other hand, is probably well on his way to being Evil, but he's also probably an innocent, the worst thing he's likely done is pulled the wings off of flies or kicked a dog. He's still innocent of any Evil actions, even though his alignment is thoroughly Evil. By any definition that makes sense, the orc kid is an Innocent. And killing innocents is almost always a baaaaaaad thing. Even if they're orcs.But when you assign him an evil alignment you are DEFYING the idea that he is an innocent. He either is INHERENTLY evil such that he CAN be evil even though he is yet incapable of actions supporting such an alignment, or else he HAS performed actions, even if minor, that support his alignment. For example, maybe all he HAS been able to do is torture puppies, but at the risk of providing real-world examples that's the kind of behavior that is a warning flag for a possibly very disturbed mind like a serial killer.
Thorak 04-28-04, 09:48 AM	I'll refrain from the quote-fest because it makes the posts godawful long. And I think we're pretty much agreeing on the subject of 'orc babies'; there's no way they could be Evil to begin with. However, you keep insisting that alignment is based on actions. It is not. From the PHB, p. 103: A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by it's alignment. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies . . . People are also not consistent from day to day. A good character can lose his temper, a neutral character can be inspired to perform a noble act, and so on. The first two define alignment. And neither refers to anything physical. They talk about attitudes, personality, morality, and philosophies. These beliefs define alignment, not any actual action. And the last of the three quotes even further supports that, by clearly allowing people to act contrary to their alignment, so long as their general beliefs remain the same; a good character who loses his temper is probably going to feel guilty about it, and the neutral who does a noble act is probably going to be shaky afterwards and wonder why the heck he decided to risk that, while thanking every god he can think of that he made it through his idiocy. Because it's those underlying beliefs and attitudes that define the alignment, not their actions. The only bit that even implies that actions have an effect on alignment is this; Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions. This refers to actions because the DM doesn't know your character's inner attitudes and beliefs, only the player does. But if the LG fighter continually lies, cheats, and steals, he's not acting as a LG character; it probably means the player doesn't understand alignment, and so the DM can change his alignment to reflect what seems to be, based on his actions, his beliefs; that lying, cheating, and stealing are ok. The DMG on changing alignment is clearer; the two examples they provide clearly refer to the the character's beliefs and motivations differing from their written alignment, either because of a lack of understanding on the part of the player as I detailed above, or by a character knowingly having a change of heart and therefore changing their inner motivations. Alignment isn't actions, anywhere. If you're going to insist on it, you're going to have to provide quotes. And I think I've quoted all the relevant bits that could support your case, and shown why they aren't meant to be interpreted that way; especially that one line in the PHB suggesting DMs can change alignment based on actions, the DMG (which is what the DM would be using to determine how to do so) clearly refers to motivations and such behind the actions; the actions themselves are only important for how they show the character's inner qualities.
Ainaelin 04-28-04, 10:23 AM	So, to summarize : - If one declares that alignment is based on actions, then a Paladin CAN kill based on his Detect Evil ability, because detection means guilt. - If one declares that alignment is based on motivations , then a Paladin CANNOT kill based on his ability, since there might well have been no actions to consider that were deserving of death. BUT, some people think that in either case, a Paladin is entitled to kill anyway, since the person is Evil. BUT, some people think that he should avoid killing whenever possible, since he should respect all lives, and give a chance at redemption. BUT... Ok, well, I think the debate is a bottomless pit that is drowning too deep for me now. :embarrass
Beamup 04-28-04, 10:36 AM	Originally posted by Ainaelin - If one declares that alignment is based on actions, then a Paladin CAN kill based on his Detect Evil ability, because detection means guilt. This only holds if you also declare that killing somebody because some Evil person framed them with misdirection or a similar effect, without making any effort at all to determine whether this is the case, is legitimate.
Ainaelin 04-28-04, 11:31 AM	Originally posted by Beamup This only holds if you also declare that killing somebody because some Evil person framed them with misdirection or a similar effect, without making any effort at all to determine whether this is the case, is legitimate. That would have been included in some of the BUTs below, don't know which, probably 5th or 6th... :D But that was not the point of my post, incidentally. Oh, by the way, I know that exactly, since I was the one who introduced the possibility of deceiving the Detect feature of the Paladin... ;)
D+1 04-28-04, 10:48 PM	Originally posted by Thorak Because it's those underlying beliefs and attitudes that define the alignment, not their actions. That's just a chicken-and-egg argument - do you define your attitudes and beliefs by your alignment or determine your alignment by your attitudes and beliefs? If you have one, then basically you have the other. What I'm talking about is alignment and it's actual use within the game. You roll up your character. You pick an alignment that most closely represents the characters beliefs and attitudes, or take the aligment that your character class requires because the class has some general beliefs and attitudes that are required. This does NOT define in any but the most superficial manner your characters beliefs, attitudes, etc. It is merely a shorthand, easy reference for those things - NOT a substitute or ironclad definition. But when it comes to changing your alignment how does it happen? By simply SAYING "Hrothgar the Bulbous is changing his beliefs?" Until you take actions that SHOW your beliefs and attitudes are altered your alignment doesn't change. Now in 3E it's largely a moot point anyway. 95% of the goofiness of punishing characters for not sticking to their alignments is gone, and good riddance. But we still have alignment requirements for some classes and it's your characters actual behavior that determines when/if your alignment changes. For example, take a Paladin who's tired of being goody-two-shoes. He wants to fall from grace with a resounding thud and murder someone in cold blood. He can talk about it all he wants but until he DOES something evil like that his alignment isn't adjusted. Suppose, for example, that he changes his mind at the last minute. He hasn't DONE anything evil except think bad thoughts. Could it not also be that he remains LG and a palading IN SPITE of his thoughts? He should be ashamed for thinking such horrible things, but he's not a fallen paladin because THINKING is not the same as DOING. DM's, npc's, other players and their characters can't generally judge you on your characters thinking - nor should they. They interact with your character and percieve your character based on what he does. But if the LG fighter continually lies, cheats, and steals, he's not acting as a LG character; it probably means the player doesn't understand alignment, and so the DM can change his alignment to reflect what seems to be, based on his actions, his beliefs; that lying, cheating, and stealing are ok. Why "seems to be?" Why not "IS?" Everywhere in the PH it's discussing alignment it's only telling you about what your alignment implies and generally represents. It tells you it's not a straitjacket to restrict your character; you can still choose to dow what you want your character to do without alignment forcing you to do otherwise. But until you DO act, your alignment can and should remain what it was before - a representation of what you've done prior to that. If you take a character who through his whole life has thought of evil, wanted to do evil, and felt that he should do evil and yet he never has - is he evil? How do you know? How does ANYBODY know? Because alignment cannot tell you how your character MUST act then the opposite has to be true - it is how you act that tells you what your alignment is. The DMG on changing alignment is clearer; the two examples they provide clearly refer to the the character's beliefs and motivations differing from their written alignment, either because of a lack of understanding on the part of the player as I detailed above, or by a character knowingly having a change of heart and therefore changing their inner motivations. And it also says "Player characters have free will, and their actions often dictate a change of alignment." It states, "If a player says, 'My NG character becomes CG,' the appropriate response from you is, 'prove it'." I.e., ACT the part and your alignment will change.
D+1 04-28-04, 11:01 PM	Originally posted by Ainaelin So, to summarize : - If one declares that alignment is based on actions, then a Paladin CAN kill based on his Detect Evil ability, because detection means guilt.It doesn't detect guilt. It detects Evil. BUT, some people think that he should avoid killing whenever possible, since he should respect all lives, and give a chance at redemption.The only problem there is when they insist that this is the acceptible path. You most certainly CAN play such a paladin who personally defines "respect for life" as never taking life - but is that REALLY much of a paladin? I have never argued that a paladin MUST ALWAYS KILL EVIL ON CONTACT. But I have argued that simply being Evil makes you a legitimate target for a paladin and only certain circumstances and his freedom to CHOOSE a less-than-lethal fate for you will keep him at bay.
Thorak 04-29-04, 12:15 AM	Originally posted by D+1 That's just a chicken-and-egg argument - do you define your attitudes and beliefs by your alignment or determine your alignment by your attitudes and beliefs? If you have one, then basically you have the other. What I'm talking about is alignment and it's actual use within the game. It's not a chicken-and-egg argument. The PHB defines alignment as set by a character's attitudes and morality. Not their actions. It's actual use within the game is defined by attitude and morality. I'll ask again; provide even a single quote that supports your argument from a core text; I've already quoted a whole pile that support mine. You roll up your character. You pick an alignment that most closely represents the characters beliefs and attitudes, or take the aligment that your character class requires because the class has some general beliefs and attitudes that are required. This does NOT define in any but the most superficial manner your characters beliefs, attitudes, etc. It is merely a shorthand, easy reference for those things - NOT a substitute or ironclad definition. But when it comes to changing your alignment how does it happen? By simply SAYING "Hrothgar the Bulbous is changing his beliefs?" Until you take actions that SHOW your beliefs and attitudes are altered your alignment doesn't change. Almost. If you're roleplaying, you pick the alignment that best represents Hrothgar's attitudes and beliefs. It's not a shorthand. The rules in the PHB allow for DMs to correct people who think it's only shorthand. The rules certainly allow for a player to change their character's alignment by having a 'change of heart', and they also allow a DM to change the alignment if they believe the character's actions aren't in accordance with the alignment they picked. This latter meaning that unless the PC has a darn good reason, the attitudes and beliefs they're playing the character as having aren't what's written on their sheet; the character's alignment doesn't actually change, it's corrected. If Hrothgar is written as CG but continually provokes fights and slaughters people who look at him funny, he was never CG. He's always been CE, and the DM is just correcting that fact. And if he suddenly changes his beliefs and starts protecting and helping people, he's becoming CG. The actions are only important as they reflect the beliefs. Now in 3E it's largely a moot point anyway. 95% of the goofiness of punishing characters for not sticking to their alignments is gone, and good riddance. But we still have alignment requirements for some classes and it's your characters actual behavior that determines when/if your alignment changes. No, it's the DM's belief that the character's behaviour doesn't accurately reflect the proper attitudes and beliefs for that alignment. I suggest you read the DMG rules; I'll quote (again) the relevant bit; Garrett likes to steal valuables from others and does not care about helping people and stopping evil.[/i] Emphases mine. It's not that he steals or doesn't help people, it's the attitudes and beliefs he has about those things. [quote]For example, take a Paladin who's tired of being goody-two-shoes. He wants to fall from grace with a resounding thud and murder someone in cold blood. He can talk about it all he wants but until he DOES something evil like that his alignment isn't adjusted. Suppose, for example, that he changes his mind at the last minute. He hasn't DONE anything evil except think bad thoughts. Could it not also be that he remains LG and a palading IN SPITE of his thoughts? He should be ashamed for thinking such horrible things, but he's not a fallen paladin because THINKING is not the same as DOING. DM's, npc's, other players and their characters can't generally judge you on your characters thinking - nor should they. They interact with your character and percieve your character based on what he does. He doesn't fall until he actually acts because until then, he hasn't truly decided to take that course of action. And if he does so and truly regrets what he's done, he can remain LG, though he'll have to atone to recover his abilities. You'll notice that not staying LG and committing an evil act are two separate causes for a Paladin to lose his abilities. Because actions aren't alignment. Attitude is. And if the Paladin really, truly wants to be a vicious murdering psycho, he'll become Evil all without doing a thing. And fall from grace without committing an evil act at all. Why "seems to be?" Why not "IS?" Everywhere in the PH it's discussing alignment it's only telling you about what your alignment implies and generally represents. It tells you it's not a straitjacket to restrict your character; you can still choose to dow what you want your character to do without alignment forcing you to do otherwise. But until you DO act, your alignment can and should remain what it was before - a representation of what you've done prior to that. Yes. You can still choose to do actions contrary to your alignment. And even then, it doesn't necessarily change, depending on how your character reacts to it. But alignment is very firmly defined as attitude, not action. I've quoted it before, so I don't feel I need to again. If you take a character who through his whole life has thought of evil, wanted to do evil, and felt that he should do evil and yet he never has - is he evil? How do you know? How does ANYBODY know? Because alignment cannot tell you how your character MUST act then the opposite has to be true - it is how you act that tells you what your alignment is. Yes, he's evil. I may not know he's evil, but any paladin would. And not every murderer is Evil, either. Because alignment doesn't dictate alignment; it can demonstrate alignment, but as you've noted, there can be exceptions. And it also says "Player characters have free will, and their actions often dictate a change of alignment." It states, "If a player says, 'My NG character becomes CG,' the appropriate response from you is, 'prove it'." I.e., ACT the part and your alignment will change. This is true only because the DM has to base their decisions based on the character's actions, because they don't know what's going on in the character's head. A character's actions dictate their alignment, but only because the DM only has the player's word for their motivations; if their LG fighter is beating random women for kicks, it's a good bet his alignment needs changing, whether the player wants it or not. And, as the rest of the passage states, alignment changes should typically be slow and gradual; the reason the player has to 'prove it' is because the game isn't meant to allow a character to change whenever they like; that doesn't reflect reality, a person's morality is usually a pretty solid thing. And besides, any book that contradicts the PHB is considered to be in error unless it states explicitly that it is an exception. And since the PHB defines alignment as attitudes, if the DMG is stating it as actions in that one sentence, it only means so in a limited sense, or it's flat out wrong.
sidekick 04-29-04, 12:29 AM	See what i said!!! mark my words this will get outta hand. now, I don't see how killing an prisoner after they have been apprehended for a crime is LG, or in line with paladins. People who kill thieves like that are tyrants, not paladins. Was the situation resolved? Yes, was there any further need for killing? no. The Paladins god (tyr, a god of JUSTICE) would have booted his sorry ass out. or failing that made him redeem with some serious redemption (i'm tired, word list failing). ANyway, detecting evil ain't a good enough reason to kill. He could kill CG NPC's if they were threatening innocents, but not bound and apprehended criminals.
Ainaelin 04-29-04, 05:48 AM	Originally posted by D+1 It doesn't detect guilt. It detects Evil. If you read my sentence carefully, you will notice that there is something before "detection means guilt." :rolleyes: The only problem there is when they insist that this is the acceptible path. You most certainly CAN play such a paladin who personally defines "respect for life" as never taking life - but is that REALLY much of a paladin? I have never argued that a paladin MUST ALWAYS KILL EVIL ON CONTACT. But I have argued that simply being Evil makes you a legitimate target for a paladin and only certain circumstances and his freedom to CHOOSE a less-than-lethal fate for you will keep him at bay. This is subject to interpretation (both yours and mine seem to be valid interpretations). I prefer mine, obviously :D I actually have seen few paladins in game, and the few I saw were like your interpretation. I hated Paladins... A friend of mine recently played a compassionate paladin who tries to resort to violence and killing only when she sees no other solution. She is really popular with our group, has become the leader of the different groups she has been in. Of course, the fact that she is a She, has Lathander as her God and has big boobs (the character, not the player. the player's a He) probably has something to do with her popularity, but most of all, it is due to her compassionate and her deep Goodness, respect for the life of all... She really has changed my vision of the Paladins... So, as far as interpretations are concerned... I still prefer mine. But nobody has ever said that paladins have to be likeable, either, so your interpretation is still valid... I just don't like that version of the Paladin... To me, that's the bad version of a fanatic... and that's more Loyal Neutral than Loyal Good.
DrakeRunner 04-29-04, 03:04 PM	If Alignment is not shorthand for roleplaying, what is it? Detect Evil rarely works for sleuthing. Evil can be a greedy merchant. Doesn't mean he deserves a smite. Evil can be a really bad neighbor. Evil can be a bigotted and self righteous noble. Evil can be a fanatical zealot determined to kill anything he percieves as evil.
D+1 04-30-04, 12:29 AM	Originally posted by Thorak Yes, he's evil. I may not know he's evil, but any paladin would. And not every murderer is Evil, either. Because alignment doesn't dictate alignment; it can demonstrate alignment, but as you've noted, there can be exceptions.Disagree absolutely. Not everyone who KILLS is evil, but everyone who commits murder was either Evil beforehand, or has just become so. I suppose if you were the lenient type of DM you could let a character "get away with murder" and not turn evil, but I'm not that lenient. This is true only because the DM has to base their decisions based on the character's actions, because they don't know what's going on in the character's head. A character's actions dictate their alignment, but only because the DM only has the player's word for their motivations[...]Exactly. They only have the players word for what's going on in the characters head. Their actions, however, they can base decisions on - like change of alignment. Ergo - actions determine alignment. And, as the rest of the passage states, alignment changes should typically be slow and gradual; the reason the player has to 'prove it' is because the game isn't meant to allow a character to change whenever they like; that doesn't reflect reality, a person's morality is usually a pretty solid thing.Just so. But the change IS based on the characters actions, not their attitude. Because a believeable character generally doesn't just wake up and say "I think I'll become LN for the remainder of my life." Their beliefs change over time as the sum of their experiences and learning alters their views. Then their actions change to fit those new views and no longer fit properly with their stated alignment. The beliefs/attitudes suggested by alignment aren't reflected in their actions. The actions dictate a change in alignment, not just the change in beliefs. And besides, any book that contradicts the PHB is considered to be in error unless it states explicitly that it is an exception. And since the PHB defines alignment as attitudes, if the DMG is stating it as actions in that one sentence, it only means so in a limited sense, or it's flat out wrong.It is merely stating that CHANGE in alignment is based on actions. I'll sum it up this way: Your actions determine your alignment. Your alignment IMPLIES a great deal about your attitudes but it does not DEFINE your attitudes in detail. Alignment in and of itself is only 9 very broad categories. Those categories generalize all kinds of detail about disparate subjects - religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, morals, even personality. The player actually defines in detail (though this is seldom needed or desired) those religious and philosophical beliefs and attitudes. Specific aspects of those details might actually suggest very different things about what the characters alignment ought to be which is how two characters of identical alignment can be VERY different. Alignment just pigeonholes the character into a particular box to provide a simple, general reference, that way we don't NEED to refer to the nauseating details all the time. I.e., it's a shorthand. Change what a character thinks, feels, and believes as much as you like, but the reference that players and the DM use to predict and categorize your character actions (his alignment) only changes when his behaviour doesn't fit it anymore. You begin changing your characters alignment by acting differently, not just by believing differently.
D+1 04-30-04, 12:33 AM	Originally posted by Ainaelin So, as far as interpretations are concerned... I still prefer mine. But nobody has ever said that paladins have to be likeable, either, so your interpretation is still valid... I just don't like that version of the Paladin... To me, that's the bad version of a fanatic... and that's more Loyal Neutral than Loyal Good.THAT is an acceptible response. Refusal to admit that even an alternate interpretation is acceptible is why I keep jumping in on alignment/paladin threads.
D+1 04-30-04, 12:48 AM	Originally posted by DrakeRunner If Alignment is not shorthand for roleplaying, what is it? Detect Evil rarely works for sleuthing. Evil can be a greedy merchant. Doesn't mean he deserves a smite. Evil can be a really bad neighbor. Evil can be a bigotted and self righteous noble. Evil can be a fanatical zealot determined to kill anything he percieves as evil.Well it IS a shorthand for roleplaying. But D&D alignments are quite black-and-white. Evil does deserve a smite because they are Evil. Good is allowed and even expected to smite them because they are Good. The actions and intentions of Good are reliable, and even defined as being what in the real world we think of as right and proper. Evil is the opposite; it is reliably defined as being horrible, deviant, unacceptable creatures or behavior that is not to be tolerated but to be removed from the world, generally as swiftly and permenantly as possible. It is only the laudable, merciful aspects of Good in its treatment of others that prevent this from being unthinking exectution in ALL circumstances. Good acknowledges at least the possibility of redemption and thus doesn't always seek to slay evil - even though by rights it can. So the greedy and Evil merchant is allowed to live in a civilized society even though he IS evil, simply because he hasn't been caught red-handed DOING evil. Even when caught he will generally be treated with greater respect and mercy than he deserves. But circumstance and location will rapidly change the way Good reacts to Evil.
Ainaelin 04-30-04, 04:58 AM	D&D is basically a Black-and-White game of Good Vs. Evil, a Manichean game. It has been so for years 'as far as I remember back in the mid 80s when it was called Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (we call that AD&D 1 Ed., now). That suited its basic purpose of fighting monsters and gaining power while exploring dungeons, caves, towers. Some people were not satisfied by that, though, and developped the whole background, created other worlds, devised interesting characters. D&D, for the most part, did not fit well that kind of advanced play, and a LOT of House Rules were designed by both players and DMs around the world, to better fit their style of play. So books af alternative rules were published : Unearthed Arcana for AD&D1, then AD&D2 was out, and Skills & Powers was published, to further the available options for players and DMs. Books for different classes, kits, etc... were also published. All of that had one main goal : give options to players and DMs. Provide rules to manage different styles of play, different interpretations of what roleplaying is and needs to flourish. This debate we have here denies even that possibility : to have different interpretations. I began the debatre myself thinking paladins had only one way of dealing with such problems, and I see now that there are others valid possibilities, even according to the rules, since they are subject to interpretation. Our arguments are not all valid, though, some are moot points, others are self-contradictory, or bite their own tails in an endless circle. One thing I want to say more than everything in this debate, though, is thank you. This debate is very interesting, and most of all, it has remained a very respectful place for discussion, which is very refreshing for such a topic. I am very pleased with this thread. :)
Thorak 04-30-04, 06:53 AM	Originally posted by D+1 Disagree absolutely. Not everyone who KILLS is evil, but everyone who commits murder was either Evil beforehand, or has just become so. I suppose if you were the lenient type of DM you could let a character "get away with murder" and not turn evil, but I'm not that lenient. And anyone who would have no problems killing another for their own gain is Evil. Because their attitude says that murder's OK, and attitude defines alignment. [/b][/quote]Exactly. They only have the players word for what's going on in the characters head. Their actions, however, they can base decisions on - like change of alignment. Ergo - actions determine alignment.[/b][/quote] This is only true for PCs, and only for two reasons: to correct a player who's playing their character as if it were a different alignment than it's written to be, and to make players 'prove' their character has changed alignment before actually changing it. And only because the DM can't take the player's word on it about their character's motivations and attitudes; like the DMG says, this could lead to players changing alignment whenever it's convenient. But alignment, itself, is based on attitudes and beliefs. Arguing that it's based on actions is like arguing that D&D characters have their statistics set by rolling dice. That's how the game mechanics work, but it's not how the statistic itself is created and defined. Just so. But the change IS based on the characters actions, not their attitude. Because a believeable character generally doesn't just wake up and say "I think I'll become LN for the remainder of my life." Their beliefs change over time as the sum of their experiences and learning alters their views. Then their actions change to fit those new views and no longer fit properly with their stated alignment. The beliefs/attitudes suggested by alignment aren't reflected in their actions. The actions dictate a change in alignment, not just the change in beliefs. It is merely stating that CHANGE in alignment is based on actions. As I said above; that's a game mechanic, not a definition. However, your 'explanation' is entirely based on your own assumption. It's just as easy for me to say that "beliefs and morals are so in-ground and basic, it takes a great deal of time and effort for them to be conciously changed." that's just as reasonable, and it explains how alignment actually works. Your actions determine your alignment. Your alignment IMPLIES a great deal about your attitudes but it does not DEFINE your attitudes in detail. Alignment in and of itself is only 9 very broad categories. Those categories generalize all kinds of detail about disparate subjects - religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, morals, even personality. The player actually defines in detail (though this is seldom needed or desired) those religious and philosophical beliefs and attitudes. Specific aspects of those details might actually suggest very different things about what the characters alignment ought to be which is how two characters of identical alignment can be VERY different. Alignment just pigeonholes the character into a particular box to provide a simple, general reference, that way we don't NEED to refer to the nauseating details all the time. I.e., it's a shorthand. Change what a character thinks, feels, and believes as much as you like, but the reference that players and the DM use to predict and categorize your character actions (his alignment) only changes when his behaviour doesn't fit it anymore. You begin changing your characters alignment by acting differently, not just by believing differently. A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by it's alignment; No, sorry, alignment is defined as attitudes and beliefs. Right there. And you've failed to provide any source that defines it as actions. Most of this paragraph is perfectly correct; alignment is a shorthand, it only refers to the general beliefs and not the specifics, etc. But if a character's beliefs suddenly change, their alignment does so as well. From the DMG, last line in the changing alignment section: For instance, it's possible (although unlikely) that the most horrible neutral evil villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately becomes neutral good. His alignment changes, not because of any actions, but because of a 'change of heart'. The actions element is only a game mechanic to make life easier for the DM when dealing with players. Saying that alignment is defined by actions, however, is just as erroneous as saying that three six-sided dice determine how strong a person is. It's true that the game mechanic uses that to work it out, but strength itself isn't defined by dice; it's defined by genetics and training.
D+1 05-01-04, 12:15 PM	Originally posted by Thorak And anyone who would have no problems killing another for their own gain is Evil. Because their attitude says that murder's OK, and attitude defines alignment.To be fair I wasn't presenting a situation where one kills another simply for their own gain - because that would be murder and that would be evil. But alignment, itself, is based on attitudes and beliefs. Arguing that it's based on actions is like arguing that D&D characters have their statistics set by rolling dice. That's how the game mechanics work, but it's not how the statistic itself is created and defined. Alignment, a particular alignment, REPRESENTS attitudes, beliefs, etc. I've repeatedly said so. It is what alignment does - it represents a vague approximation of those elements, often not even with particular accuracy because it IS a generalization and not intended to replace the actual details that a player may devise or that a campaign might dictate. (A player might want his character to play a miserly, almost greedy LG character; a campaign will declare what the followers of a particular deity are at least supposed to believe though the character might not adhere strictly to it.) Alignment is set by the player at the outset by choice, or possibly in whole or in part by the dictate of a character class. However, the particular alignment chosen is thereafter DEFINED for the character by actions. It CHANGES according to actions. Your actions don't redefine LG as a new set of beliefs but it redifines your characters alignment as NOT being LG. Actions DICTATE alignment, ergo actions DEFINE which alignment is correct for a character. Is it possible that you've simply been misreading what I'm saying? As I said above; that's a game mechanic, not a definition. But that quote still says that attitudes are represented by alignment, not that they define it. Attitude may be a component OF alignment and therefore being a particular alignment suggests things about a characters attitude (though still doesn't dictate it). But it is your attitude as actually displayed through actions (what a character does, says, HOW he says it) that dictates whether or not your stated alignment is appropriate. Actions define alignment, or more specifically they dictate it. However, your 'explanation' is entirely based on your own assumption. No, it's based upon the understanding that alignment CANNOT dictate your actions. It only suggests what they ought to be and/or usually are. It is your actions that dictate your alignment. From the DMG, last line in the changing alignment sectionYou will note at least that this is labeled in boldface as an exception. Unfortunately like EVERY edition of D&D ever printed, it is suggesting something contrary or incomplete about alignment. 3E/3.5 is no exception but it at least is vastly superior to all previous editions by removing arbitrary penalty for changing alignment (while simultanously stating that changing alignment to maintain accuracy is good roleplaying). I would suggest reading this exception in one of two ways: The alignment changes immediately but then MUST be reinforced as immediately as possible by actions that demonstrate the change is true and appropriate and not just an arbitrary and temporary tactic. Perhaps it was included as an exception so that a villain hanging by his fingernails CAN have a change of heart, beg for mercy based on that and have his change of heart verified even though normally he would have to ACT first to make a viable alignment change. The one I believe is what was intended. To [i]specify that contrary to what's been stated in paragraphs above that alignment changes CAN be made suddenly. The immediate change of heart being but one example of how the preceeding rules have exceptions and are not intended to be absolutes. Another exception might be that where it states earlier that, "Actions dictate alignments, not statements of intent by players", that magic items CAN change your alignment immediately, or that a player can state the intent, but perhaps be unable to PROVE the change by his actions because his actions are limited - such as a prisoner who changes aligment but never gets out of his cell to be able to take action to functionally perpetrate the change. Saying that alignment is defined by actions, however, is just as erroneous as saying that three six-sided dice determine how strong a person is. It's true that the game mechanic uses that to work it out, but strength itself isn't defined by dice; it's defined by genetics and training.I'm gonna go back over what I've been posting in this thread right now and verify that I haven't actually been misstating myself. Edit: Unfortunately it appears I have. I've been using "define" when I've been intending to state "dictate". As elucidated more clearly in this post (finally) when I've been saying that alignment is "defined" by your actions, I mean that your actions define what alignment is correct for your character. That is that your actions dictate your alignment. It is your actions that determine whether or not your alignment should be changed, and thus better reflect your characters attitudes and beliefs. Sorry if this has been the cause of misunderstanding.
Thorak 05-01-04, 06:00 PM	I can accept that actions 'dictate' alignment for PCs, because the DM has nothing else to go on. But I still believe that this is a game mechanic, and not what alignment really is. You alignment has absolutely nothing to do with what you do. It has everything to do with why you do it, and how you feel about it. If a LG character loses his temper and kills someone in a bar fight, he doesn't become Evil or Neutral, or even start down that road, necessarily. If he liked it, then he will. If he is horrified at his actions and deeply sorry and regretful, he's remaining true to his LG alignment. IMHO, the reasons alignment is dictated by actions for PCs isn't because actions should dictate alignment; it's set up that way to on the one hand allow the DM to change the alignment of players who clearly aren't RPing in line with their written alignment, and on the other hand to force players to work at RPing their character according to the new alignment, rather than just declaring a sudden change every time it's convenient; "Oh, I'm ticked off. I'm turning Chaotic Neutral and killing everyone. Then, I'm turning back LG." No, sorry, try again. For example; I recently had a LN monk character get turned LE by a cursed magical item he slapped on before getting it checked (he was a wee bit impulsive). Before, he balanced everything in his head as to whether it was useful to his eventual goal, and whether it led him down the path to Evil (he was a Tiefling, and saw his Evil heritage as a taint to be fought against, though he could never summon up the morality to be fully Good, it seemed too inefficient.) When he became LE, though, everything stopped being a "Is this a reasonable action?" and started being a "Does this help me?" He was pushy, he was arrogant, and he started hoarding a great deal more loot than he had before. He wasn't hiding anything from the PCs, but if he picked up a magical item, he'd keep it unless someone gave him something of relatively equal value. Before, he'd give it to whoever could best put it to use. His motivations changed, and those in turn dictated that his actions be different than they had been. I had great fun, though the Cleric was smart enough to wait till he was asleep before casting Remove Curse on him to get the darn thing off. My overall point; Alignment itself represents morality and attitude. Not actions. Sure, that morality and attitude dictates your actions, and the DM has the right to change any PCs written alignment if they feel you're playing it wrong based on your actions, but only because those actions are demonstrating a morality and attitude not consistent with the alignment as written. If, say, I were DMing and had a LE PC who constantly donated money to people and helped the party out with a friendly smile on their face, I'd question them about it first. If they said it was because it was the right thing to do, I'd shift them towards Good. If they said it was because the best way to ensure these people would be willing to protect him in turn, and he really, really could use a human shield or 6 on his quest for ultimate power, I'd let him remain Evil, because the attitude isn't that helping others is Good. It's that helping others is the best way to manipulate them into doing what you want.