Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ShadowDragon8685 07-24-05, 09:08 PM	Okay. So my DM is a longtime friend, but he's gone too far here. He puts our group of starting level 10 characters (don't ask,) in a city, arriving off a boat. Apparently, this is city is LN, because I have to use an untrained Intimidate roll to get my CG Lillend through Customs because they said she was indecent. (I'm REALLY glad for that Circlet of Persuasion and the cloak of charisma, whew.) So, we go on, and suddenly there's green-eye-glowing gnolls popping out of a manhole cover, chucking firebombs at buildings, and calling us traitors when we try to stop them. We kill two, capture the third unconcious, and try to put the fires out. We work hard, and then there's more fires going on. Giving up on trying to stop the fires, we start abusing the fact that two of us were Outsiders with resistance 10 to fire, which immunized us from the blazes, to try and rescue people. So we spend the hours from then (sunup) to sundown rushing into blazes naked (our nonmagical clothes had long-since burnt off, in a 9d6 firebomb attack on us, thank god for resistances and saves,) and pulling people out. As we're getting to the next blaze, about two dozen city guard show up and tell us to back off or be arrested, with the threat of an 'elite unit' to back them up. They say they're not allowing any nonhumans NEAR the blazes. After the back-down, with my character giving a speech about being made of the stuff of the Good planes and this being an outrage, we soon find out why. The firefighting teams have been attacked by all manner of non-humans, including those with Good descriptors, like the Half Celestial who pops out of a manhole in an alley near us. We heal her up, thinking she was fighting the monsters, when it turns out she was fighting the HUMANS. At this point, everything that is D&D about this game is dead for me, instantly. Half Celestials do not participate in acts of genocide, or in the murder of children. There's apparently been this stuff going on all day, with creatures that are widely known as Good, including Celestials, lieing to the firefighting teams about wanting to help, then slaughtering the firefighter teams so the blazes continue, and murdering people. After this, I complain to the DM, and he starts going on an alignment argument with me, with two other 'gray area' people saying that it was an Evil act to not murder one child to save a thousand. I dunno. It just infuriates me, sickens me. It goes beyond just the D&D alignment system. That kind of thing makes me not want to game with these people at all, let alone continue to play this abortion of a game. Am I overreacting? It just... Ugh.
Dalar Ragnos 07-24-05, 09:43 PM	Have your Lillend leave this obviously corrupt civilization and go live in the wilderness. As a temporary replacement character, roll up a tiefling warlock (or better yet, an Erinyes or Succubus) and claim to be doing "good" deeds while you stab babies and kick puppies. Eventually your DM will realize that he's stood the natural order on its head. Satire can be quite useful for conveying your point. So can mockery.
Salla 07-24-05, 09:46 PM	Alignment is a very tricky, very complicated, very convoluted game mechanic. In many ways, it is the least logical element of an abstracted system, and apparently you and your DM have very different ways of viewing it. In some games, the classic 'Paladin killing orc whelps' is Kosher, because they're born evil, they'll live evil, and they'll die evil. In some games, it isn't. Some games are black and white, some are grey, and some are plaid. One thing to remember is that Celestials are free-willed beings. They have the capacity to make moral choices, and sometimes those choices are wrong. Or, they can be misinformed, tricked, coerced, or flat-out charmed, or they may just be overzealous, or perhaps it's the simple fact that he doesn't emphasize alignment at all, and even creatures listed as 'always' being an alignment can drift (a la Eberron). They might *not* be Good. Additionally, it sounds like your initial impression of the town was off; it sounds more like LE, with a heavy 'tyranny on the nonhumans' vibe, though admittedly I only have one side of the story. Assuming you and your DM are still on speaking terms, I strongly advise that the two of you sit down and discuss exactly what alignment means to each of you. While the DM's word is final (whether he's right or not), it may lead you to, at the very least, an understanding.
celtredleg 07-24-05, 10:07 PM	some times people turn alignment into angels on a pinhead argument. You take some of these evil to one is good for many arguments way past rationality. I am with you. Burning kids in the name of good sure sounds evil to me. Have a serios OOG talk with the DM. Explain you simply arnt going to play in an evil disgused as good campaign..but you still want to play. I have walked on friends campaigns before when they went in a direction I didnt want to go. We stilled played in other games, just not that one. I have had people walk on me for dtyle differences. Doesnt have to end friendship, but if you stick in a campaign you really hate, it does stain things
JadeFox 07-24-05, 11:12 PM	Now hold on, this is a less then fair represntation of what happened. Let me break this down. He puts our group of starting level 10 characters (don't ask,) in a city, arriving off a boat. Apparently, this is city is LN, because I have to use an untrained Intimidate roll to get my CG Lillend through Customs because they said she was indecent. (I'm REALLY glad for that Circlet of Persuasion and the cloak of charisma, whew.) The indecent thing was just an excuse because your description said "A lawfull person would consider her indecent." My origonal plan was just some minor trouble over bringing food into the city that might have grain deseases or something. Minor trouble with customs is an excellent way to bring together a party I've found. So, we go on, and suddenly there's green-eye-glowing gnolls popping out of a manhole cover, ALL Gnolls have glowing eyes. Look at their picture in the MM. Their like cats, their eyes reflect bright light. So, we go on, and suddenly there's green-eye-glowing gnolls popping out of a manhole cover, chucking firebombs at buildings, and calling us traitors when we try to stop them. We kill two, capture the third unconcious, and try to put the fires out. We work hard, and then there's more fires going on. Giving up on trying to stop the fires, we start abusing the fact that two of us were Outsiders with resistance 10 to fire, which immunized us from the blazes, to try and rescue people. Fairly accuraate. The party could have done it if they had a "decanter of endless water" or somesuch, but their options were basicly limited to spitting on the fire. So we spend the hours from then (sunup) to sundown rushing into blazes naked (our nonmagical clothes had long-since burnt off, in a 9d6 firebomb attack on us, thank god for resistances and saves,) and pulling people out. Given that these Gnolls had quite a bit of class advancment, but no real magic, such a firebomb was not out of their pricerange. If any observers wonder just what that device was, send me a PM. As we're getting to the next blaze, about two dozen city guard show up and tell us to back off or be arrested, with the threat of an 'elite unit' to back them up. They say they're not allowing any nonhumans NEAR the blazes. After the back-down, with my character giving a speech about being made of the stuff of the Good planes and this being an outrage, we soon find out why. The firefighting teams have been attacked by all manner of non-humans, including those with Good descriptors, like the Half Celestial who pops out of a manhole in an alley near us. We heal her up, thinking she was fighting the monsters, when it turns out she was fighting the HUMANS. The half-celestial assumed the party (which had a lot of non-humans) was on her side, and they assumed she was on their side, leading to the memorable line. "Well, time to run." When the half-celestial realized she'd walked into the middle of a hostile formation. ---------------------------------------------------------- One thing to remember is that Celestials are free-willed beings. They have the capacity to make moral choices, and sometimes those choices are wrong. Or, they can be misinformed, tricked, coerced, or flat-out charmed, or they may just be overzealous, or perhaps it's the simple fact that he doesn't emphasize alignment at all, and even creatures listed as 'always' being an alignment can drift (a la Eberron). They might *not* be Good. Exactly. She could have been tricked. Or, since she is of the good subtype, she could be some kind of twisted unholy evil and would still show up as good. The point is, they DON'T KNOW.
ShadowDragon8685 07-24-05, 11:28 PM	The indecent thing was just an excuse because your description said "A lawfull person would consider her indecent." My origonal plan was just some minor trouble over bringing food into the city that might have grain deseases or something. Minor trouble with customs is an excellent way to bring together a party I've found. Nearly[/b] indecent. Nearly. Not actually there! If you're nearly dead, do we toss you in a box and bury you? ALL Gnolls have glowing eyes. Look at their picture in the MM. Their like cats, their eyes reflect bright light. I wasen't saying they were wierd or anything. I just said they were green-eye-glowing. Fairly accuraate. The party could have done it if they had a "decanter of endless water" or somesuch, but their options were basicly limited to spitting on the fire. We had about ten Unseen Servants bucket-brigading water from the harbour, just across the street. That should've had some effect... Given that these Gnolls had quite a bit of class advancment, but no real magic, such a firebomb was not out of their pricerange. If any observers wonder just what that device was, send me a PM. I would very much like to know what that device was. Potion of Fireball or something? o.o Exactly. She could have been tricked. Or, since she is of the good subtype, she could be some kind of twisted unholy evil and would still show up as good. The point is, they DON'T KNOW. You can't trick a Half-Celestial into aiding and abetting the murder of children. Peroid, end, FULLstop. And you did not tell us this was an Ebberonish world where we'd be finding Evil Silver Dragons and stuff. Had I known this beforehand, I would have declined to play.
JadeFox 07-24-05, 11:33 PM	Nearly[/b] indecent. Nearly. Not actually there! If you're nearly dead, do we toss you in a box and bury you? The customs inspector was just a prude. We had about ten Unseen Servants bucket-brigading water from the harbour, just across the street. That should've had some effect... It had an effect, yes. But that's not enough to stop a dry wharehouse, a cloth shop, and a ships carpenders store from going up. I would very much like to know what that device was. Potion of Fireball or something? o.o Slighly modified Fire Seeds spell, adapted for the Wiz/Sorc spell list of course. You can't trick a Half-Celestial into aiding and abetting the murder of children. Peroid, end, FULLstop. Under the by-the-book rules, yes you can. By RP'ing......yes you can.
Salla 07-24-05, 11:53 PM	You can't trick a Half-Celestial into aiding and abetting the murder of children. Peroid, end, FULLstop. Yes, yes you can. Angels gotta fall somehow, after all. "They're not really children ... they're demonspawn, hidden amongst the populace to (evil deed, evil deed, evil deed)." A little illusion magic, a good Bluff check, maybe a glibness spell, and you can sell a Lich a Holy Water Smoothie. And that's disregarding Suggestion or outright Domination. (Heck, the Celestial might not have even been a Celestial, now that I think about it (okay, I know it was, but at the time, I would have suspected that the Celestial was not what it seemed, had I been playing.)) Besides, NPCs acting foolishly to advance the plot is a staple of fantasy literature and gaming since even before Lex Luthor declared war on Superboy for the unpardonable sin of making him ... BALD. AAAAT any rate, this goes back to something else I've recommended to many a DM. ALWAYS create a house-rules sheet and basic theme outline, both to ensure workable characters and to avoid drawing a player into a game they won't like. For example, I've been told to just 'make a character' before, and approximately 1/3 of the time, the character concept doesn't work because I had no information on just what kind of game it was ("I don't think my pacifist LG Vow Of Poverty Cloistered Cleric is going to work in a 'team of battle-hardened, anything-for-money mercenarys' game, Jim."), or later on simply realized the game wasn't for me ("Sorry, I don't play Evil characters ... I'm out.").
wonlee76 07-25-05, 12:35 AM	You know, I understand half-celestials have the "always good (any)" line next to their alignment but mindless zombies have the "always neutral evil" line next to their alignment. Basing your opinion on what the alignment of a creature is from the MM is a form of meta-gaming and should be taken with a grain of salt. There could be quite a few reasons why the half-celestial might not be good aligned (fallen NPC, DM's Homebrew world that doesn't recognize the alignment limitations of the monsters in the MM, etc.). Or it could be the half-celestial was tricked in some way and doesn't realize he/she did something bad. In either circumstance, before making a call on whether the half-celestial was not acting in alignment without at least learning the whole story.
nephtis 07-25-05, 02:48 AM	I have to admit I would have suspected creatures acting against their 'obvious' alignment being a DM plot hook. As said before, possibly unknowing/tricked into this behaviour. Or, being suspicious, I wouldn't even take for granted that this half-celestial was really what she seemed to be. How about an evil creature posing as a paragon of good? I would give this story another chance, find out what's really going on in this town!
Rathje 07-25-05, 04:14 AM	I think you're over-reacting. No two settings are identicle, and that means some will have half-celestials that won't be do-gooders. As mentioned above, it could be a plot-hook. Individuals can always vary from the norm. What are your stats at? Level 10? Oh, looks like we've got some people above the usual Level 1 Commoner. Could've been a major NPC and part of the entire campaign. The Half-Celestial could've had countless experiences that pushed it towards evil. Then there's magic.
A Man In Black 07-25-05, 05:14 AM	And you did not tell us this was an Ebberonish world where we'd be finding Evil Silver Dragons and stuff. Had I known this beforehand, I would have declined to play. In defense of Eberron, exemplars of an alignment (including non-native outsiders) are still always (whatever). Dragons just don't have the racial tendencies toward specific alignments, is all.
Dalar Ragnos 07-25-05, 12:34 PM	After a little consideration... how hard would it be for a BBEG to start using a Helm of Opposite Alignment on a bunch of Half-Celestials? That's a plot hook if ever there was one... and it would certainly explain the events in the OP.
Lycanthromancer 07-25-05, 12:47 PM	It could be a Dragon Disciple Marilith (with the wings), parading around, looking like a well-endowed lillend with a few extra appendages...All it would take would be a Hat of Disguise or some other way to cast Alter Self at will... You probably should talk to the DM. S/he should allow your party a fair amount of victory, else the game won't be fun at all. If s/he punishes you for creative thinking (unless the creativity was obviously...faulty), then that should definitely be an issue...
ShadowDragon8685 07-26-05, 02:19 PM	I just can't buy that being made into an OBVIOUS ACCESORY TO GENOCIDE by killing firefighters trying to put out blazes that are killing children is something a Good creature could be conned into. Magically compelled, perhaps. Helm of Opposite Alignment, maybe. But not conned into. That would take an Epic bluff check of Godly proportions. Olidamarra should have a hard time making this check.
Gurthoron 07-26-05, 02:56 PM	Well, its simple really. That half-celestial must have been a fallen character. Try to ascertain its alignment through magic. (or OOC by asking the DM) If he says evil, fine. If he says good, hes a dip$hit and you should tell him to reread the alignment examples in the PHB. If this sort of thing continues, I would suggest just leaving the city. Possibly heading for the good aligned planes, or just somewere else. If your DM is gonna throw stupid plothooks like this at you, your best option is to leave the game. Your second best is to ignore the plothooks. And hey, you were acting CG because you could not bear to fight against your non-human compatriots. (damn stupid racist DMs) No, you are not overreacting. The fact you have not already taken steps to leave the game or screw it up seems to me a little underreacting. But I go to extremes when I get angry.
The Great Alchemist 07-27-05, 03:53 AM	I think that not only are you over-reacting but you're metagaming. Who is it your character knows for sure that the creature is what it appears, or that there aren't mitigating circumstances, or that the townsfolk aren't creatures of evil, or the the celestrial isn't supernaturally controlled or afflicted, or that the celestrial doesn't have free will. You seem to expect all beings in your DM's world to perfectly coincide with their book description so that your ability to make metagame assumptions wont be hindered. That seems to me to be against the spirit of role playing.
pres_man 07-27-05, 06:36 AM	You seem to expect all beings in your DM's world to perfectly coincide with their book description so that your ability to make metagame assumptions wont be hindered. That seems to me to be against the spirit of role playing. They don't have to be perfect, but if it is a celestial and it is acting in an obviously evil fashion then that is similiar to a saying a were-wolf, when it shape shifts it becomes a badger. "So it is actually a were-badger?" "No it is a were-wolf." "Then shouldn't it turn into, you know, a wolf?" "What!? Are you metagaming!"
nyysjan 07-27-05, 06:46 AM	They don't have to be perfect, but if it is a celestial and it is acting in an obviously evil fashion then that is similiar to a saying a were-wolf, when it shape shifts it becomes a badger. "So it is actually a were-badger?" "No it is a were-wolf." "Then shouldn't it turn into, you know, a wolf?" "What!? Are you metagaming!" there may exist one or two celestials that are actually evil hence the term 'fallen' half celestials alignment is "always good (any)" Monster Manual Chapter 7: Glossary Alignment: Always: It is possibly for individual to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions EDIT- the were-wolf might be a druid and using wildshape ;)
JadeFox 07-27-05, 11:03 AM	I just can't buy that being made into an OBVIOUS ACCESORY TO GENOCIDE by killing firefighters trying to put out blazes that are killing children is something a Good creature could be conned into. Magically compelled, perhaps. Helm of Opposite Alignment, maybe. But not conned into. That would take an Epic bluff check of Godly proportions. Olidamarra should have a hard time making this check. I have allready stated that the BBEG DOES have an epic bluff and diplomacy modifier, not to mention magic-mind-control up his sleeves. It is <i>easily</i> possible. Well, its simple really. That half-celestial must have been a fallen character. Try to ascertain its alignment through magic. It's a half celestial, it has a subtype. It shows up as NG no matter what alignment it really is. If he says evil, fine. If he says good, hes a dip$hit and you should tell him to reread the alignment examples in the PHB. If this sort of thing continues, I would suggest just leaving the city. Possibly heading for the good aligned planes, or just somewere else. If your DM is gonna throw stupid plothooks like this at you, your best option is to leave the game. Your second best is to ignore the plothooks. And hey, you were acting CG because you could not bear to fight against your non-human compatriots. (damn stupid racist DMs) No, you are not overreacting. The fact you have not already taken steps to leave the game or screw it up seems to me a little underreacting. But I go to extremes when I get angry. No need to throw insults, thank you. Please keep this civil. I think that not only are you over-reacting but you're metagaming. Who is it your character knows for sure that the creature is what it appears, or that there aren't mitigating circumstances, or that the townsfolk aren't creatures of evil, or the the celestrial isn't supernaturally controlled or afflicted, or that the celestrial doesn't have free will. You seem to expect all beings in your DM's world to perfectly coincide with their book description so that your ability to make metagame assumptions wont be hindered. That seems to me to be against the spirit of role playing. Exactly. They don't have to be perfect, but if it is a celestial and it is acting in an obviously evil fashion then that is similiar to a saying a were-wolf, when it shape shifts it becomes a badger. "So it is actually a were-badger?" "No it is a were-wolf." "Then shouldn't it turn into, you know, a wolf?" "What!? Are you metagaming!" Obviously it was a werewolf with a magic item of <I>Polymorph Self</i>.
LCD2YOU 07-27-05, 11:53 AM	now go away and let the children play. :devil: Alignment is a very tricky, very complicated, very convoluted game mechanic. In many ways, it is the least logical element of an abstracted system, and apparently you and your DM have very different ways of viewing it. In some games, the classic 'Paladin killing orc whelps' is Kosher, because they're born evil, they'll live evil, and they'll die evil. In some games, it isn't. Some games are black and white, some are grey, and some are plaid.What I see too many times is arguing the RAW on this board. Now going with the RAW is fine, but too many times they contradict. It is so bad that I think even the Core Rules Books contradict each other. I prefer my games and alignments plaid as complex choices with no clear "this is better than that" makes for more drama. The tension of trying to do the right thing when the right thing is so murky and complex and no choice leaves the person feeling "right", is my idea of the correct atmosphere of a DnD game. One thing to remember is that Celestials are free-willed beings. They have the capacity to make moral choices, and sometimes those choices are wrong. Or, they can be misinformed, tricked, coerced, or flat-out charmed, or they may just be overzealous, or perhaps it's the simple fact that he doesn't emphasize alignment at all, and even creatures listed as 'always' being an alignment can drift (a la Eberron). They might *not* be Good.If you read and follow the BoVD the Arch-Fiend Beeazulbul(sp?) was once a solar who fell from grace. It is not uncommon. One can also say that powerful beings like them can see "into the future" much better than a mere mortal. For the most part, many adults can look at a playground full of kids and see the bullies, the cliches and where the group is going pretty accurately, especially if they don't know the children. I would say the long existing Celestials see mortal races much like children. Additionally, it sounds like your initial impression of the town was off; it sounds more like LE, with a heavy 'tyranny on the nonhumans' vibe, though admittedly I only have one side of the story.<Sarcasm is on>What's wrong with that? That is the way things should be!</Sarcasm is off>I have a group in my world that to each other they are the epitomy of LG. They help each other, they follow the dictates of their God without question and so on. Their God is merciful, just and everything you would ever want in a deity. However to "non-believers" they will slaughter, take slaves, torture, etc. To their religious creeds, anyone not with them, not just in outlook on life, is against them. Their God requires that they convert all they come into contact with. If they don't they are excommunicated and the knives come out. So what alignment are they? Rest assured they despise undead, the clerics channel positive energy, cures and healing are relatively common place for even the most lowly of their citizens. Position is based solely on merit and the person's "innate goodness" to the community as a whole. They just think others who worship "false gods" are to be converted or killed. Assuming you and your DM are still on speaking terms, I strongly advise that the two of you sit down and discuss exactly what alignment means to each of you. While the DM's word is final (whether he's right or not), it may lead you to, at the very least, an understanding.This is the part I'm talking about. How dare you use common sense! :D Still, that is one of the best ideas I've read.
The Great Alchemist 07-27-05, 02:08 PM	LCD2YOU, I agree with you about moral ambiguities and shades of gray. In the game worlds I've designed there are groups not unlike the ones you described who kill non-believers. I think that kind of situation really allows characters to role play morality, If things are two blacn and white with regards to alignment, then alignment almost doesn't have a meaning any more. The game becomes about people in white fighting people in black.
spoogemonkey 07-27-05, 02:36 PM	yes, yes, it would certainly be simpler if bad guys were forced to wear black hats, and then good guys white hats.... but then those darned Grey Hat guys show up and spoil the party! It just seems like you don't know what is going on. Let it play out. What is it about this town that Celestials and gnolls don't like? Or maybe they just have common enemies... or this part of town has the plague and the only way to get rid of it is to burn it out. Have you met Anybody that seems friendly? Then THEY are most likely the BBEG..... hahahahahaha.... If it were ME.... I'd just leave town.... and go somewhere that isn't messed up. And I would have my character ANNOUNCE it outloud. "Bye-bye Messed-up town - this just ain't the place for me." And if this town was important to the DMs plot..... Whoops! He/She will have to scramble.
pres_man 07-27-05, 06:35 PM	It's a half celestial, it has a subtype. It shows up as NG no matter what alignment it really is. Actually by the core rules this is not true. Size and Type: The creature’s type changes to outsider. Do not recalculate the creature’s Hit Dice, base attack bonus, or saves. Size is unchanged. Half-celestials are normally native outsiders. They have the type of outsider, usually outsider [native], no where does it say they have the good subtype. So they would detect as their moral/ethical alignment. the were-wolf might be a druid and using wildshape This is certainly possible. But it is not metagaming to wonder why it is not turning into a wolf. There is some knowledge that can be assumed to be common, that is everybody from the dumbest commoner to the most brilliant wizard know. Were-wolves turn into wolves, and celestials (and half-celestials) are good. That isn't metagame thinking. If you read and follow the BoVD the Arch-Fiend Beeazulbul(sp?) was once a solar who fell from grace. It is not uncommon. I think what you mean to say is it is not unheard of. If it is not uncommon (which by the core rules it is, very much so), then that is something you would need to tell the players in advance. So what alignment are they? I'll tell you want they are not, and that is good (in any form). I would say most likely LE. If you go by the core rules. If it were ME.... I'd just leave town.... and go somewhere that isn't messed up. And I would have my character ANNOUNCE it outloud. "Bye-bye Messed-up town - this just ain't the place for me." And if this town was important to the DMs plot..... Whoops! He/She will have to scramble. Best advice so far. :D
journeyman777 07-27-05, 07:40 PM	Originally Posted by LCD2YOU So what alignment are they? Lawful certainly, but having slaves rules out good right there. Acting purely as law, tradition, or a personal code directs them. Include religious creed in that statement and they might be LN. Their god sounds a bit like Wastri (Bigotry portfolio) However, if the dictates of their god include slaughter, take slaves, torture, etc than that is an evil God and his clerics should not be able to channel positive energy. So, LN at best. These guys are an interesting case and whatever portion of them isn't going out and killing/taking slaves/torturing folks might have a shot at LG, but the society as a whole sounds LN with a LE power center.
LCD2YOU 07-27-05, 07:57 PM	one recognized which religion I was using as my base for these guys and laughed his head off. Another was really peeved at me when he figured it out. That was the problem with these guys though, even the ones who went out, took slaves, subjugated others and generally behaved poorly, when they came back home, they not only thought they were good, but they acted like LG paladins to each other.
journeyman777 07-27-05, 08:11 PM	That was the problem with these guys though, even the ones who went out, took slaves, subjugated others and generally behaved poorly, when they came back home, they not only thought they were good, but they acted like LG paladins to each other.If they acted good because the were convinced of the value and dignity of each person, they wouldn't be going out and "generally behaving vary poorly", now would they? The only other reason to act good is because of a law, tradition, or a personal code that commands it. (And acting purely on that basis is the PHB definition of LN) That is merely acting good (with the emphasis on "acting"), not being good. You do realize that Detect Evil eliminates all notions of subjective morality in D&D, right? BTW: one recognized which religion I was using as my base for these guys and laughed his head off. Another was really peeved at me when he figured it out.If you based them off the religion I think you did, you may find it interesting that I consider them LN as well.
ShadowDragon8685 07-27-05, 08:20 PM	Yeah... Anyway, the thing is... I don't play D&D for an excercise in situational ethics or ethical subjectivity. I play D&D for shining heros whoopiong up on Unholy Vile Evil. Sorry to dissapoint those of you who want a more deep game, but I can suggest you go looking to a philosophy forum? We get enough of that crap in real life. I want to open up a jumbo (Large-sized, specifically) drum of whoop ass and smite the holy hell out of the bad guys. Plus, the Half-Celestial in question is female. I don't... Like it when we have villianous girls, or women dieing. It just... It's one of those things, y'know, like most rape victims woulden't like rape in-game. So you can imagine that puts me in a bind. My character has no reasons NOT to go all Holy Avenger on this accessory to genocide, but it's one of those things that would leave me feeling all wretched inside. Plus, she fled down a manhole that my large-sized Lillend, with the wingspan of an A-10 Warthog, can't get down. All other issues aside, that's kind of a peeve, because all I can do is drum up the Bard Song and let the others handle it.
journeyman777 07-27-05, 08:43 PM	I play D&D for shining heros whoopiong up on Unholy Vile Evil. That, my friend, is the very definition of heroic fantasy. According to the back of the PHB, D&D is heroic fantasy. So, you're in luck. All you need is a DM that follows the suggestions in the PHB and DMG and you should be all set. If you can't find one, buy your current DM the Book of Exalted Deeds. That will settle almost any argument over whether an act is good or not.
ShadowDragon8685 07-27-05, 08:55 PM	Unless of course, he remembers Rule 0. :P
King_Bulba 07-27-05, 08:56 PM	but having slaves rules out good right there. I think there can be situations where you can be good and have slaves, the blanket idea of slavery = evil is old lingering hatred from when the US had slavery imo. Generally slavery is evil I agree but I think there are exemptions. In American culture slavery is evil but not in all cultures. Different people see different things as right and wrong. That is why alignment issues get so complicated; there is no general list of what’s right and wrong because everyone has different lists. Now in a culture where nonbelievers are seen as evil or inferior then taking them as slaves could be acceptable. Peoples dogs are inferior and are slaves to their owners, does that make pet owners not good. People say that you shouldn’t force work on sentient creatures but is there really a difference between more and less sentient creatures? Are you going to draw a line that you have to have an int of 8+ so you can be sentient? When someone says an int of 11 while you says 4 do you not see that as a personal opinion? I don’t draw that line, humans atm can make slaves of just about any animal as long as it’s not a human or endangered regardless of intelligence. A nonbeliever could be seen the same way as the dog, it is an inferior being and therefore you can own it. American culture says that’s evil but not others. Now I would say that we don’t know the circumstances of this Half-Celestial and therefore can’t judge. I have a gut feeling that this Half-Celestial isn't good. There are always exemptions to every rule so that means Half-Celestial can be evil even if its descriptor says always good. Anyway, the thing is... I don't play D&D for an excercise in situational ethics or ethical subjectivity. Then you need to find a group and DM that share the same values. My group has a vast variety of beliefs that don’t match and it creates conflict at times but we work past it. This will happen in real life too and it is important that you recognize other peoples beliefs. There isn’t one standard of right or wrong so you have to accept when people see things differently than you.
LCD2YOU 07-27-05, 09:16 PM	If they acted good because the were convinced of the value and dignity of each person, they wouldn't be going out and "generally behaving vary poorly", now would they? The only other reason to act good is because of a law, tradition, or a personal code that commands it. (And acting purely on that basis is the PHB definition of LN) That is merely acting good (with the emphasis on "acting"), not being good.No, in the case I created, these people actually were good to each other. It is that they felt that they had to "lift savages" up into a more civilized world. As for slaves, they felt that was actually a good thing. By being their slaves, the "savages" would learn how to be civilized. After 2 or 3 generations of obedient servitude, the descendents would be freed and throughly brain washed and become part of the society that enslaved them. You do realize that Detect Evil eliminates all notions of subjective morality in D&D, right?Only subject to what the DM thinks is going on with the person in question. In my world, "Good" and "Evil" are what your God or Goddess tells you it is. The spells that one casts work accordingly based on the subjective nature of the character. Obviously my cosmology is not Core Rules. BTW: If you based them off the religion I think you did, you may find it interesting that I consider them LN as well.Only one of the largest, though fractured, in the world. The person who was peeved at me started quoting for me why he felt his religion was not just good, but the only truly good anywhere. Then I had him read certain passages and asked what all that was about. He was not happy.
ShadowDragon8685 07-27-05, 09:18 PM	Guys, PLEASE. This is NOT the thread for discussing any RL religions. I don't want a WizO to get Clicky.
journeyman777 07-27-05, 10:07 PM	Only subject to what the DM thinks is going on with the person in question. In my world, "Good" and "Evil" are what your God or Goddess tells you it is. The spells that one casts work accordingly based on the subjective nature of the character. Obviously my cosmology is not Core Rules. If you changed the in-game definitions of good and evil, than what is the point of asking people what alignment the group is? You are no longer working from the same terminology. After 2 or 3 generations of obedient servitude, the descendents would be freed and throughly brain washed and become part of the society that enslaved them.Still sucks to be a member of those 2 or 3 generations. throughly brain washed and become part of the society that enslaved them.Wow, do you consider the Borg to be LG?
The Great Alchemist 07-27-05, 11:07 PM	I think that the idea is not that this society is good, but rather that it is morally ambiguous - like the real world.
journeyman777 07-28-05, 02:24 AM	Quote: Originally Posted by journeyman777 BTW: If you based them off the religion I think you did, you may find it interesting that I consider them LN as well. Only one of the largest, though fractured, in the world. The person who was peeved at me started quoting for me why he felt his religion was not just good, but the only truly good anywhere. Then I had him read certain passages and asked what all that was about. He was not happy. I am now rather certain that we are not thinking of the same religion. Given the lawful bent of your example, the religion I assumed you worked from is anything but fractured. Then I had him read certain passages and asked what all that was about.I suggest you ask those questions of his pastor/rabbai/priest/whatever they are called. It is rather unfair to judge a religion by its lay members. But enough on RL religion, the real question is why you diverged from the alignment system. People deal with enough shades of gray in RL, why bring it into fantasy as well? The entire point of heroic fantasy is that the good guys are GOOD, the bad guys are EVIL, and the GOOD guys win in the end (or at least die heroicly). The alignments don't hamper roleplaying a consistantly played character, so what do you really stand to gain by removing them?
The Great Alchemist 07-28-05, 02:51 AM	I have had alot of fun with morally ambiguous paladin-like characters. One of my favorite characters I've ever had was a varient cleric - a warrior monk of sorts - of a religion that had major similarities to Roman Catholicism. It was dogmatic, monotheistic, militant, etc. The character was a hero, despite breaking from the standard alignments on many occations. Probably primary break from lawful good was his total lack of mercy or forgiveness (his religion taught to kill any wrong doers, including theives and liars) and unwillingness to compromise. I would say that he was alot like Watchmen's Rorschach in many ways. Now, acording to standard D&D alignments I'm not sure where he would fall, some might say lawful neutral and others maybe lawful evil. BUT, despite this, he would give his life to do what he believed to be right and would also risk his life to protect the innocent. I think that flexible alignment made this character fun, made him 3d instead of every other lawful good crusader out there fighting for truth and justice. I think that paladins by the book can be fun to play too, but there are other kinds of good people than paladins, there are other ways that good can express itself than in the players handbook.
journeyman777 07-28-05, 03:08 AM	Rule of thumb: If you aren't sure an act is good, it isn't. If you are sure it isn't evil, but don't know if it's good either, it must be neutral. If you aren't sure that it isn't evil, it probably is. some might say lawful neutral I would agree with them. If he defines what is right by following law, tradition, or a personal code than he is lawful Neutral. You didn't break alignment, you just wrote the wrong one on your sheet.
The Great Alchemist 07-28-05, 03:23 AM	Well, its not that I object to calling my character lawful neutral. I actually never even had an alignment on his sheet, the DM didn't enforce alignments. Its just that in a more standard game of D&D a morally ambiguous character can immediately be idetntified with one simple spell and its not ambiguous any more. Any cleric in D&D knows he's neutral and that his friends are too - he can easily cast a spell to find out. When who is good and who is bad is so easily spelled out I feel that it can limit role playing and character concepts. Not to say that out way of playing is the only way, but its worked really well for us and I would say that its a valid way to play.
journeyman777 07-28-05, 04:08 AM	I agree that it is a valid (though non-RAW) way to play. My problem with it is that is essentially removes the concept of "good vs evil" from the game. You cannot fight evil unless you can identify it and you cannot identify evil unless you can define it. If there is no evil, than there can be no good. This reduces the theme of the game from "GOOD vs EVIL" to just "us against them". I actually find playing without alignments to be far more limiting than playing with them (I have played both ways, so I can speak from experience). Playing without alignments is effectively playing with nothing but LN, N, and CN to choose from because there is no longer any absolute standard for good and evil, only variations on neutral remain. Define the alignments however you wish, but know that one can never remove them entirely. When who is good and who is bad is so easily spelled out I feel that it can limit role playing and character concepts.That character is not obligated to believe that the spell is correct. Few people know enough about magic in general to trust it over their own beliefs. The character may believe that morality is subjective. That still won't make him any less vulnerable to Holy Word/Dictum/Whatever. In fact, the character's reactions to discovering these absolute standards can lead to extremely interesting roleplay. It is when the player or DM decides that morality is subjective that the game suffers. I hereby challenge anyone show me an internally consistant character concept that does not fit within the alignments.
The Great Alchemist 07-28-05, 04:29 AM	You're completely wrong about losing the aspect of good vs evil. In fact, with the game I mentioned there was alot of that. We encountered a Satan-worshiper-like guy who we had to try to stop and he definately had the feel of being a true villain. The many times when my character risked his life and even leaping into the mouth of certain death to help others he certainly felt like a truely good and heroic character. It is my personal opinion that by the book alignment removes role playing, because morality becomes a word on a sheet of paper and interaction with others boils down to one simple spell. Two paladins can't have conflict over different beliefs, someone in the church hierarchy can't rise to a high station if they are an manipulative hipocrit, my morally ambiguous cleric becomes a foolish concept because everybody always knows exactly what is right and wrong as if the characters themselves owned D&D books. As for the challenge, even a square peg can fit into a round hole if you use a big enough hammer.
pres_man 07-28-05, 09:15 AM	Two paladins can't have conflict over different beliefs, Why would that be? Or do you mean just armed conflict? Yes good characters should not be killing each other. Being good means they look out for others. If both sides are looking for a good result for themselves and the other side, it is unlikely they will go to war. someone in the church hierarchy can't rise to a high station if they are an manipulative hipocrit, Clerics can be one step off of their deity, this means there can be clerics of at least 5 different alignments in a single organization (for neutral clerics, 3 for everybody else). my morally ambiguous cleric becomes a foolish concept because everybody always knows exactly what is right and wrong as if the characters themselves owned D&D books. I think you are confusing player knowledge with character knowledge. Yes, by the RAW good and evil are set in stone. This does not stop a character from saying, "We should do [insert typical evil act], because it will stop future evil." Good characters sometimes do evil things, evil characters sometimes do good things. There is no detect alignment for acts only for items/creatures. So a character (not the player) can not necessarily know that an act is evil, unless they have been taught that by their parents/elders/superiors/etc.
ShadowDragon8685 07-28-05, 05:32 PM	It's called an Auguary. Besides, since the DM, not you, is ultimately the arbiter of good and evil, law and chaos, I think it behooves him to have some sort of mechanic set up so that truely Good characters who find themselves in bad situations will know which course of action is Good or not.
LCD2YOU 07-28-05, 06:04 PM	(snip) I hereby challenge anyone show me an internally consistant character concept that does not fit within the alignments.Tough one. Let me try. A character who treat innocents well, even lets minor criminals off with a stern warning. He lets local bullies know that he'll be watching them and they will get the same treatment from them as they give to people around them. Otherwise he or she is an upstanding citizen and save for a few times where he judges a person and usually lets them go, he/she reports all criminal activity. Also, they do give of their time to the poor, even using magic items they may have to cure or otherwise heal up the unfortunate. While they do not venerate a God, they try to be good to others as best they can. However, if he comes across a truly despicable character, child molesters, perverts, used car salesmen, etc. he/she takes the law into their own hands he will torture them slowly, eventually killing them when their mind has gone. He/she will make sure the person they are killing know that it will be slow and take weeks; but they will be begging for mercy within a minute. I'd like to hear your take on this person's alignment.
The Great Alchemist 07-28-05, 07:05 PM	It's called an Auguary. Besides, since the DM, not you, is ultimately the arbiter of good and evil, law and chaos, I think it behooves him to have some sort of mechanic set up so that truely Good characters who find themselves in bad situations will know which course of action is Good or not. I disagree with that course of action. Deciding on your own is the most fun. You take into consideration your character's personal morals, his emotional sensitivity, his goals, his religious beliefs, cultural values, etc. and decide a course of action based on those things. And the course of action taken might differ from another equally moral character. That seems to be alot more fun, much more a matter of role playing, as opposed to "OK, I cast augury, open up the player's guide and BoED and tell me what I should do." LCD2YOU - good example of a morally ambiguous character.
Lycanthromancer 07-28-05, 08:15 PM	For those of you who know who these characters are, have a :cookie: What about Commander Vimes of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch? He is extremely anti-authoritarian, but is in charge of (not to mention owns) a huge portion of the city. He has made it his job to help people (especially the little people), but is not considered a racist/sexist/specieist only because he despises everyone equally. He is usually very rude, but manages to be so in a polite way. Is he Lawful? Chaotic? Neutral? Good? Then there's Richard Rahl, war wizard and Master of D'hara. His thought processes are highly organized, and follows his code of ethics very, VERY strictly, and yet he believes ultimately in freedom for the individual (and his behavior is often seen as erratic because he thinks along unorthodox lines). He also believes in strong government - but only for the protection of individual freedoms. He is willing to sacrifice his life to help "innocent" people, but believes - with every fiber of his being - that mindlessly sacrificing oneself "for the greater good" is the greatest of evils. What alignment is he? These two are very complex people, real or imagined. Detect Alignment would probably short-circuit on them, because they could be defined by any of those alignment-characteristics at any given time. You can't simply say "well, he's Neutral," or "that person is Chaotic-Good," as there are lots of people who have personality traits over a wide range of alignments. A person who is kind as pie to children, who gives of his time and resources to help them prosper, but has a cruel streak a mile wide to animals and non-humans...Is he Good? Evil? It's not as simple as that, really. I don't want to COMPLETELY debunk the idea of G v. E, or L v. C, as there are obviously some things that really are one or another. But people are too complex to be given such simple labels...
The Great Alchemist 07-28-05, 09:12 PM	Why would that be? Or do you mean just armed conflict? Yes good characters should not be killing each other. Being good means they look out for others. If both sides are looking for a good result for themselves and the other side, it is unlikely they will go to war. OK, real world example. Lets say that you have a European paladin, a Templar, who is going to go on crusade. For generations the Muslims have been killing Christians, taking them as slaves, forcing them to convert through torture and oppresion. Some of the most holy sites of Christendom have fallen and the churches have been destroyed or converted to mosques. Finally there is a movement to fight back before Christianity falls to these cruel and fanatical murders. You are going off to face terrible dangers to protect the lives of innocents, to defend your country, to defend your faith - you are going to fight for the glory of God. On the other hand, lets say that you are a Middle Eastern paladin, a Ghazi, who is going on Jihad. The Christians have invaded your homeland, slaughting thousands of innocent civilians. They have desecrated your holy sites, killed your brothers and sisters, brought war and bloodshed to your once peaceful land. They are barbarians who bring ignorance and cruelty wereever they go and bring there terror now to the homeland of your fathers and grandfathers. You are going off to face terrible dangers to protect the lives of innocents, to defend your country, to defend your faith - you are going to fight for the glory of Allah. Now, lets say that this Templar and this Ghazi meet on the field of battle. Will they be friends, will they instantly recognize each other as paladins and servants of goodness OR will they see the other as evil andwith riteous fury throw themselves at the enemy? Even if they don't kill each other, with an absolutist system the possibility of these characters being in conflict would be impossible. They would both be off fighting orcs or something else which is obviously evil.
pres_man 07-29-05, 12:31 AM	Now, lets say that this Templar and this Ghazi meet on the field of battle. Will they be friends, will they instantly recognize each other as paladins and servants of goodness OR will they see the other as evil andwith riteous fury throw themselves at the enemy? First off, neither of the examples you put forth are paladins in the D&D sense. Also I would wager neither is LG, most likely LN. Therefore combat is probably. Though if both are honorable (in a form that the other could appreciate), then if not friends then at least honorable foes. Think of the move "Kingdom of Heaven", how the main character interacted with his foes. Even if they don't kill each other, with an absolutist system the possibility of these characters being in conflict would be impossible. Not impossible, improbable. Assuming we had two LG characters, then yes they probably wouldn't fight, they would seek out a way to setting their difference that was at least a little beneficial to all. Templar: Your people have been enslaving ours and destroying our holy places. Ghazi: Your people have invaded our land and killed our folk. Both together: Oh crude! Well lets see how we can straighten this mess out. Yet people can act out of their typical alignment. This is allowed, though sometimes it leads to a PC seeking atonement and such. They would both be off fighting orcs or something else which is obviously evil. Orcs, obviously evil? Huh?
Antioch 07-29-05, 05:56 AM	I dunno. It just infuriates me, sickens me. It goes beyond just the D&D alignment system. That kind of thing makes me not want to game with these people at all, let alone continue to play this abortion of a game. Am I overreacting? It just... Ugh. You are overreacting. The alignments dictated in the MM are not catch-all absolutes. Angels can be evil, and demons can be good. While its a good idea to maintain these ethical adherences, there is no reason why you cannot deviate, especially for plot considerations. Rather than cry foul at the DM, maybe your PC should be trying to figure out WHY a celestial (or actually, half-celestial) is performing these foul deeds?
nyysjan 07-29-05, 06:46 AM	What about Commander Vimes of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch? He is extremely anti-authoritarian, but is in charge of (not to mention owns) a huge portion of the city. He has made it his job to help people (especially the little people), but is not considered a racist/sexist/specieist only because he despises everyone equally. He is usually very rude, but manages to be so in a polite way. Is he Lawful? Chaotic? Neutral? Good? Lawfull good but not a paladin he follows bot law and personal set of rules, there are some times he goes away from those but so does everyone who isn't a paladin, and he regrets when he does mistakes Then there's Richard Rahl, war wizard and Master of D'hara. His thought processes are highly organized, and follows his code of ethics very, VERY strictly, and yet he believes ultimately in freedom for the individual (and his behavior is often seen as erratic because he thinks along unorthodox lines). He also believes in strong government - but only for the protection of individual freedoms. He is willing to sacrifice his life to help "innocent" people, but believes - with every fiber of his being - that mindlessly sacrificing oneself "for the greater good" is the greatest of evils. What alignment is he? Neutral Good swing between chaotic and lawfull but isn't leaning towards either consistently enough to slip away from netral part DnD alignment can portray anybody, but sometimes the alignment shifts around with the actions taken, Alignment does not guide the actions, actions guide the alignment, and should be chosen with this fact in mind PS. Rorschach from Watchmen was Lawfull Neutral (some would say Lawfull Stupid)
eudas 07-29-05, 10:21 AM	Tough one. Let me try. A character who treat innocents well, even lets minor criminals off with a stern warning. He lets local bullies know that he'll be watching them and they will get the same treatment from them as they give to people around them. Otherwise he or she is an upstanding citizen and save for a few times where he judges a person and usually lets them go, he/she reports all criminal activity. Also, they do give of their time to the poor, even using magic items they may have to cure or otherwise heal up the unfortunate. While they do not venerate a God, they try to be good to others as best they can. However, if he comes across a truly despicable character, child molesters, perverts, used car salesmen, etc. he/she takes the law into their own hands he will torture them slowly, eventually killing them when their mind has gone. He/she will make sure the person they are killing know that it will be slow and take weeks; but they will be begging for mercy within a minute. I'd like to hear your take on this person's alignment. Lawful Neutral, probably. They commit both a copious amount of somewhat good acts and a small amount of very evil acts. These probably balance each other out, leaving primarily the character's focus towards preserving and maintaining the order of society. eudas
pres_man 07-29-05, 12:42 PM	Agreed, probably LN with traits of being psychotic (I mean I don't think anyone could torture someone for weeks without some damage to their mind).