Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Retromancer 11-22-06, 04:28 PM	here's the deal. I'm playing a chaotic good elf. Now my character buys into the notion of elven superiority. he sometimes makes snide comments at the human and dwarf in the party, and occasionally refers to the half elf as a "half breed." the dwarf is usually too drunk to take offense, and the human in the party is too stupid to recognize that he's being insulted. The half elf takes offense, and the relationship between the two of them is clearly tense. however, while he has his beliefs, he also recognizes them as comrades dispite "not being smart enough to be born an elf." he clearly makes all the efforts to assist the party in slaying evil quite enthusiastically, including spending his extra 4 hours of time awake usually patrolling the city streets for evil when the party is in a town. does this character still qualify as chaotic good even though he clearly has race issues? the second thing that is worrisome is that this character has an immense hatred for drow. (his background reflects this and gives reasons why, though I won't bore you on the details.) He hates drow with a passion beyond any other evil creature. when the party went and slayed a drider that they had been told was controlling spiders to attack a villiage. After the fact, they discovered that the drider was not evil and had been redeemed. Because of my character's immense hatred for drow, he remained unrepentant. he holds fast to the belief that drow are irredeemable, and when pressed on this by the half elf, he told her that she wouldn't understand "because you're not an elf." given this character's hatred for drow, does the chaotic good alignment still apply?
GnomeMade 11-22-06, 04:48 PM	Well, given that the whole race of elves are given to looking down on all other races (even one elf subrace to another) and hating the drow, I don't think he's out of line, he's just being an elf who is particularly rigid in his point of view. However, just as one good act does not make an evil person good, one evil act does not make a good person evil...unless they are a paladin- because paladins don't do things half way. ;) Now, if he goes out and steals drow children and sacrifices them to whatever elven deity he follows, then he really has no place calling himself better than the priestesses who were about to sacrifice those drow children to Lolth. ;)
JasonOrlandoHawk 11-22-06, 04:55 PM	It's called a character flaw, not an alignment change. At worst, a reasonable DM might (rightfully) give you Diplomacy penalties when interacting outside of your race, but that doesn't mean that you cease to be Chaotic Good. Think of it this way: Many of the founding fathers of America, who fought passionately to free the States from the control of Great Britain, still owned slaves. While they believed in Personal Liberty, they didn't exactly hold up to it on all accounts. Does that mean the founding fathers should be viewed as Evil (or, even Neutral) rather than Good? I don't think so. If my memory serves me correctly, Thomas Jefferson even wrestled his entire life with the owning slaves/fighting for liberty issue. Also, never underestimate the possibility for role-playing a change of heart. In LotR, Gimli and Legolas originally have the whole elf/dwarf rivalry going on, but by the end of the series they come to respect one another, and eventually call one another friends. Don't underestimate your ability to have a change of heart.
Sulaco 11-22-06, 05:05 PM	Yes. Racism is a personality trait, not an alignment one. It is an odious personality trait to be sure, but it is still just a personality trait nonetheless. A good PC can be a racist cos a good alignment does not necessitate that he be nice.
Max the Immortal 11-22-06, 05:23 PM	At his level of racism, your character can still be Good. If he were racist to the degree that he felt that the "lesser races" were not deserving of life, freedom, or dignity, then acting according to that attitude would most certainly make him evil.
Retromancer 11-22-06, 05:34 PM	but what of my character remaining unrepentant for slaying a lawful good creature, even after he learned of it's alignment, simply because it was a drider? does that threaten an alignment change, or say if he was a paladin (he's not) would it cause a fall from grace?
Rowan_Whispercloak 11-22-06, 05:41 PM	I would have to say that if racism would make a character or race non-good then there would be very few good dwarves or gnome as both races train every member of their race to be better combatant against the enemies of their race.
Draegun Fury 11-22-06, 06:04 PM	If you knew its alignment before you killed it, then yes it would have been evil (unless it was fair combat). But finding out afterwards and not repenting will not cause a shift in alignment. Really your character is not veiwing it as an individual, but a race, a grouping, and the grouping is evil. Yes this is a flaw in character but not inherently evil. Though one should always seek to forgive. I like the fact that you have posted this question, the same unsurity you are showing here would be great for roleplaying. Perhaps he is unrepentant but out of stubborness, as time goes on have this issue grate inside of him. He knows he should be repentant, but he isn't, its great, use it!
High Octane 11-22-06, 06:59 PM	Barathion, in the D&D mini-movie Scourge of Worlds, was racist against elves, but certainly qualified as good. Kind of a nutso character though. One aspect of a character does not make a person good or evil, as long as it is not his defining characteristic.
mlund 11-22-06, 07:06 PM	Your alignment isn't determined by your racism, or lack thereof. It is determined by how you act on those feelings. You can believe that all life is sacred and precious and still belief that the lives of Elves / Humans / Orcs are the most valuable of them all. You'd save a Human in the same situation as you'd save an Elf, but if you could only save one, you'd save the Elf. Heck, some people believe the lives of their own relatives and friends are more important than those of strangers - though they have no coherent moral reasoning to support those beliefs, only a personal bias or preference. The Elf might actually have some convoluted moral theorem about how Elf lives are integral to the greater good of the world that helps him rationalize his bigotry. - Marty Lund
DarkRhystar 11-22-06, 07:19 PM	but what of my character remaining unrepentant for slaying a lawful good creature, even after he learned of it's alignment, simply because it was a drider? does that threaten an alignment change, or say if he was a paladin (he's not) would it cause a fall from grace? Killing anything simply because of what it is is a bad idea. Now, if that Drider was brandishing a weapon and coming at the party... that's different. It doesn't matter what its alignment is in my opinion. Its alignment could be good, evil, or purple but if it's an enemy... it's still an enemy. To be fair though, my opinion of how alignment should work differs from what is found in books like the BoED.
Man in the Funny Hat 11-22-06, 07:58 PM	Players have a certain obligation to seek ways in which their PC can continue to willingly work with other PC's and AVOID generating too much tension. Your character, for example, rather than putting the half-elf down with comments that he is genuinely inferior, could instead alter his comments to that of feeling sorry for the half-elf "not beeing fortunate like me to be of pure blood" and liking him/her IN SPITE of the fact and thus being WILLING to avoid statements that make the other PC angry. IRL, racism and bigotry is often less a matter of morality and ethics than of sheer stupidity and willfull ignorance. I don't see any reason at all that your PC should change alignments, but DO take the opportunity to make it plain that for all your PC's talk of Elven superiority he IS ignorant, bigoted, and clearly fallible in this regard. Just realize that there's no need to hit that nail too hard. ALL annoying or tedious behaviors and mannerisms, no matter how wonderfully roleplayed and in-character they may be, can easily become a DETRIMENT to the game in general if demonstrated too insistently, for the simple fact that they ARE annoying, irritating, abrasive, etc. IRL, we put up with dull, annoying and even despicable people all the time because, to keep it short, that's just the way it is. I have no reservations in saying that NOBODY who plays D&D cares to have to put up with the same thing in roleplaying for FUN. A little bit can go a VERY long way...
Max the Immortal 11-23-06, 02:17 AM	In the case of the slain drider, I would say that the elf could still think he did the right thing ("An enemy is an enemy, and for gods' sake, he was a drider!"). Learning that even a drider can be Good should have an effect on his attitude, though; even if it's just a small step in a less bigoted direction ("I guess they're not ALL bad.").
Azezel 11-23-06, 04:48 AM	In most D&D worlds, good and evil are real, objective and quantifiable things. Fundamental forces of the universe. That your character found one good Drider is hardly a cause to change his mind about Drow, the simple and objective fact of the matter is that Drow are Evil. your character found the 1/1'000 Drow who was not Evil, but that does not change the facts. You could count the number of Good Drow on the fingers of one hand and still have spare to pick your nose, so while your Elf might feel a twinge of guilt about that particular death he would almost certainly kill the next Drow he meets without hesitation. Put simply, the fundamental nature of the universe justifies his racism in the same way that our universe justifies my opinon that elephants are bigger than mice. As for the more general, 'Elves are better than whatever you are', it's not a very nice opinion, but judging by Elven values, it is probably true. Judging by Orcish standards, Orcs rock! Dwarves are fairly sure they've got things just right. Point is, Racism is a subjective thing and not inherrantly Evil - it's what you do with it. Your Elf is justified in killing a Drow on sight because Drow are so overwhelmingly Evil. Even if he hated Dwarves, he would not be justified in killing on sight, because almost all Dwarves are Good.
The White Sorcerer 11-23-06, 08:18 AM	Unless the drider was hostile and a threat, then killing it was a very evil act.
Sulaco 11-23-06, 09:21 AM	but what of my character remaining unrepentant for slaying a lawful good creature, even after he learned of it's alignment, simply because it was a drider? does that threaten an alignment change, or say if he was a paladin (he's not) would it cause a fall from grace? No. There is no reason whatsoever that good cannot kill good and evil cannot kill evil, and feeling bad about an act does not make it any better or worse.
The White Sorcerer 11-23-06, 11:03 AM	There is no reason whatsoever that good cannot kill good But there should be a reason for doing it.
CaoSlayer 11-23-06, 11:51 AM	¿What do you say about most literature relation between dwarves and elves?
CaoSlayer 11-23-06, 11:52 AM	No. There is no reason whatsoever that good cannot kill good and evil cannot kill evil, and feeling bad about an act does not make it any better or worse. Yes, there are two good reasons: Law and War.
The White Sorcerer 11-23-06, 12:21 PM	Yes, there are two good reasons: Law and War. So those are reasons that prevent good from killing good and evil from killing evil? How, exactly?
CaoSlayer 11-23-06, 12:25 PM	ummm, sorry, I misreaded you because the double negation so I understood the oposite. Still, law usually prevent people from killing each other, ever in a chaotic evil society if a familiy it is found guilty trying to wipe out another, will be doomed.
Sulaco 11-23-06, 01:47 PM	But there should be a reason for doing it. Yes, there should. However, "being a Drider" (aka. "Always chaotic evil") is generally a good enough reason. Also, just cos someone is of a good alignment does not mean they cannot also be an enemy of other good characters.
Sulaco 11-23-06, 01:47 PM	Yes, there are two good reasons: Law and War. Er, wha? :confused:
CryoSilver 11-23-06, 02:02 PM	Good characters can certainly be racist, in summation.
CelineSSauve 11-23-06, 02:52 PM	I have to say yes. I am curently playing a racist Human Cleric of Pelor who was a slave to Orcish Slavers in his youth. He now gives everything the benifit of doubt but that's clearly given to the "civilised" races more full than others. Ex: He keeps calling the Kobolt in the group a Lizard and only goes to his aid half-heartedly. He kept the half-Orc until close watch until the other Druid in the party (a Human) turned on my Cleric and started a fight. The half-Orc took my part and now the Cleric calls him by his first name and would trust him with his life. He doesn't feel superior in this case, only that all "savage" creature are evil until proven non-evil, though to be fair the Lizard does keep going on about how tasty Gnomes are. :rolleyes:
dark_knight0034 11-23-06, 03:21 PM	good or evil lawful or chaos is all determend you the back ground of the character. what is good for one person can be bad for another. if your character was raised that all drow and driders should died no mater what than for you not to kill it when you had the chance would be evil. In a game i was in I played a drow that was slowly haveing an alignment chance dew to the kindness of other characters in the game. My best friend started in the game a lot later and brought in a character of good alignment who had sworn to kill all drow on sight. before anything could be done he killed me. even if they would have been able to talk to him he would have still had to kill me even if i had been lawful good at the time. if he hadnt he would have had alignment problems because not killing me would have been evil for him. good or evil is all in how your character looks at life. In todays world if you sacrifice a person to the gods its evil. 2 or 3 thousand years ago if was the highest in good works.
LCD2YOU 11-23-06, 03:28 PM	Yes. Let's be sure here. They aren't racists but speciesist(sp?). Hating members of your own species is almost always self-destructive and stupid.
Vestigial_Thumb 11-23-06, 03:36 PM	Let's be sure here. They aren't racists but speciesist(sp?). Humans, Dwarves and Elves are of the same species. The other races are probably the same species as humans, too (they haven't tried interbreeding as far as I know, so I can't be sure).
Sulaco 11-23-06, 04:19 PM	"Racism was not a problem on the Discworld, because — what with trolls and dwarfs and so on — speciesism was more interesting. Black and white lived in perfect harmony and ganged up on green." ~ Terry Pratchett :)
Derren S. 11-23-06, 04:31 PM	As soon as the character starts to oppress or kill because of racism it is evil. And even with "lesser" racism, the character must do some very good deeds to balance that out or he would be neutral. And killing the drider was an evil act unless done is self defense. That is probably not enough to make him evil but probably neutral depending what else he does.
LCD2YOU 11-23-06, 04:38 PM	Humans, Dwarves and Elves are of the same species. The other races are probably the same species as humans, too (they haven't tried interbreeding as far as I know, so I can't be sure).I'd say they'd be more of a "Ring Species". Humans can (and will - if some of the people I know are any indication) mate with Elves is given. While I don't see Humans and Dwarves or Humans and Halflings (does that seem so wrong to anybody else but me?) creating little Half-Dwarves. As for Dwarves, what other race would want to? Orcs will try to breed with anything. Although I'm not sure if the act in more than a few cases is actually "breeding".
Braids 11-23-06, 05:32 PM	I always rule that Racism is not evil, but that Bigotry is.
Retromancer 11-23-06, 06:08 PM	I always rule that Racism is not evil, but that Bigotry is. explain.
Sulaco 11-23-06, 06:15 PM	explain. I'm curious too. Racism means one believe his own race to be superior to others, bigotry means stubborn intolerence of other races, creeds or beliefs. How is that so different and so much worse?
Andrew_980 11-23-06, 06:20 PM	Disliking others is fine, even for the good guys, it is the abusing, harming, ect that gets rid of your good label in a hurry.
Braids 11-23-06, 08:57 PM	explain. Racist actions are simply acting as though you are superior. Bigoted actions are those based on hatred of somebody for differences. So, an elf is not evil because he feels he is superior to humans, but the elf that hates humans for being inferior and acts on this hatred is.
The White Sorcerer 11-23-06, 11:42 PM	However, "being a Drider" (aka. "Always chaotic evil") is generally a good enough reason.. Um, no, it isn't. Besides, the character in this case KNEW that the drider wasn't chaotic evil, or any other form of evil.
pmurray@bigpond.com 11-23-06, 11:52 PM	Yes. Racism is a personality trait, not an alignment one. Eh? Alignment is all about personality - what kind of person you are. However, I'd answer the OP by saying that you can be good and yet also racist if you are bought up ignorant. A good person can hate drow if they are honestly convinced that drow are uniformly evil. But if they should actually meet some drow, and discover that they are a mixed bunch ... Having said that - you don't need to hate something in order for it to be a "favoured enemy". You can simply take the warrior's attitude - the drow are my foe and foes of my clan. The favoured enemy simply means that you have made a study of their strengths and weaknesses as foes.
Retromancer 11-24-06, 12:59 AM	Eh? Alignment is all about personality - what kind of person you are. However, I'd answer the OP by saying that you can be good and yet also racist if you are bought up ignorant. A good person can hate drow if they are honestly convinced that drow are uniformly evil. But if they should actually meet some drow, and discover that they are a mixed bunch ... Having said that - you don't need to hate something in order for it to be a "favoured enemy". You can simply take the warrior's attitude - the drow are my foe and foes of my clan. The favoured enemy simply means that you have made a study of their strengths and weaknesses as foes. I never said that it was a favored enemy. I'm not a ranger. I'm a ninja. I just can't stand drow. and we did only find out that the drider was good after the fact. We basically went into it's cave, forced it to fall back into it's deepest room, and killed it. when it fell to 0 hp, it fell, started to say something, but we just got ides of march on her ass. fun adventure. But I didn't realize until this thread that my DM was kind of being a dick. The entry in the MM says "always chaotic evil." trying to guilt trip us for killing such a creature is kind of a dick move wouldn't you say?
CryoSilver 11-24-06, 01:05 AM	Shrug and move on with life. Your hatred of driders justifies the killing still. "Even if this one was good, it's children wouldn't have been; I've done a good thing"
Derren S. 11-24-06, 01:11 AM	Your hatred of driders justifies the killing still. Not really. As I said killing the drider was an evil act. Personal believe has nothing to do with alignment.
CryoSilver 11-24-06, 01:16 AM	It justifies it in your character's mind; he would feel no guilt, even if it was an evil act, is what I meant.
Pidmon 11-24-06, 01:34 AM	Not really. As I said killing the drider was an evil act. Personal believe has nothing to do with alignment. How is killing a drider an evil act? Is all killing for you evil? If so, how can you even be an adventurer and not have to kill at some point?
The White Sorcerer 11-24-06, 01:48 AM	The entry in the MM says "always chaotic evil." Metagaming.
The White Sorcerer 11-24-06, 01:51 AM	How is killing a drider an evil act? Several factors must be considered. Was the drider hostile? Was it a threat? Did the characters have any reason to kill it aside from it's race? I could just as well say "How is killing a commoner an evil act?"
CryoSilver 11-24-06, 02:08 AM	Except that driders are pretty much always evil
Slayer_5 11-24-06, 02:13 AM	Holy crap!!! D&D is not meant to be this pseudo-psychological type game. Good and Evil are quantifiable parts of the universe, just as real as our gravity, or the light spectrum. D&D is about GOOD (or neutral) creatures kicking evil ass and STEALING (in a good way) it's stuff. And then moving on to kill more. You can not say that acting on the "MM" is Metagaming. The books are there to give us an understanding of how the world works. People will know what creatures are good and which are evil. ESPECIALLY in D&D's 80's cartoon styled world. If it lives in a cave, looks like a spider, and is dark in colour, it DEFINATELY needs it's as kicked and it's stuff stolen, NO EXCEPTIONS. If this Drider really was good, it shouldn't be living in a cave, and shouldn't be blackish purple, otherwise it is asking to be killed. D&D is not real life. D&D is He-Man. He-Man never asked whether Skeletor was beaten as a child, He-Man didn't care if his villains were "Just following orders", no, Skeletor lived in a cave, and that was reason enough to get his ass kicked. Alignment is there to allow mindless slaughter. If one went out and killed a Nazi, but found out that he was a good Nazi, has the person done something evil? No! Even if you found out ahead of time that the Nazi really was a "good person", is he out doing Nazi things? Does he live in a cave? If so, he needs his ass kicked, and his stuff stolen. Because that is what good people do.
JoAT 11-24-06, 02:23 AM	Holy crap!!! D&D is not meant to be this pseudo-psychological type game. Good and Evil are quantifiable parts of the universe, just as real as our gravity, or the light spectrum. D&D is about GOOD (or neutral) creatures kicking evil ass and STEALING (in a good way) it's stuff. And then moving on to kill more. You can not say that acting on the "MM" is Metagaming. The books are there to give us an understanding of how the world works. People will know what creatures are good and which are evil. ESPECIALLY in D&D's 80's cartoon styled world. If it lives in a cave, looks like a spider, and is dark in colour, it DEFINATELY needs it's as kicked and it's stuff stolen, NO EXCEPTIONS. If this Drider really was good, it shouldn't be living in a cave, and shouldn't be blackish purple, otherwise it is asking to be killed. So... Because it's purple, and lives in a cave, it deserves to die? Man, purple cave-dwelling puppies need to fear you. D&D is not real life. D&D is He-Man. He-Man never asked whether Skeletor was beaten as a child, He-Man didn't care if his villains were "Just following orders", no, Skeletor lived in a cave, and that was reason enough to get his ass kicked. I'm fairly certain that the whole wanted to conquer and enslave Eternia thing, and the death and destrcution he longed to inflict on countless lives had something to do with it. Not to mention the fact that, once a week, he sent someone to try to kick He-man's ass. Alignment is there to allow mindless slaughter. If one went out and killed a Nazi, but found out that he was a good Nazi, has the person done something evil? No! Even if you found out ahead of time that the Nazi really was a "good person", is he out doing Nazi things? Does he live in a cave? If so, he needs his ass kicked, and his stuff stolen. Because that is what good people do. Gotcha. Killing dark skinned dwarves is good.
CryoSilver 11-24-06, 04:11 AM	I don't like dogs. Purple cave-dwelling dogs are fairly high on my "kick" list.
Derren S. 11-24-06, 07:53 AM	Good and Evil are quantifiable parts of the universe, just as real as our gravity, or the light spectrum. Yes, and thats why killing the drider was a evil act as the drider was good. That normally driders are evil does not matter as you killed a good creature which simply is evil. How is killing a drider an evil act? Is all killing for you evil? If so, how can you even be an adventurer and not have to kill at some point? Killing a good creature for no reason is certainly evil. Killing itself is also mostly a evil act unless there are redeeming circumstances like self defense, defense of others and killing an evil creature.
LCD2YOU 11-24-06, 07:54 AM	Killing a Drider just because they are a Drider with no other reasons, is not good. Knowing that Driders are "ALWAYS CE", aka never knowing one that wasn't being evil - sucking the life out of sentient beings, and seeing one of them doing evil then killing them is different.
Vestigial_Thumb 11-24-06, 08:57 AM	Yes, and thats why killing the drider was a evil act as the drider was good. That normally driders are evil does not matter as you killed a good creature which simply is evil. The alignment of the killed has nothing to do with it.
Sulaco 11-24-06, 09:37 AM	The alignment of the killed has nothing to do with it. QFT. An act is good or evil on it's own merits, not based on the alignment of the victim.
Derren S. 11-24-06, 11:06 AM	The alignment of the killed has nothing to do with it. So? Then you can't use "driders are evil" as excuse as, like you said, doesn't matter. That would mean killing a drider (which doesn't attack you) is the same as killing a paladin or a random commoner. And is killing random commoners evil or not?
Sulaco 11-24-06, 11:56 AM	So? Then you can't use "driders are evil" as excuse as, like you said, doesn't matter. That would mean killing a drider (which doesn't attack you) is the same as killing a paladin or a random commoner. And is killing random commoners evil or not? Ah hyperbole, my old friend, we meet again. Killing a drider is not the same as killing a paladin or a random commoner. This is patently self-obvious. Let us return for a moment to the actual drider-related issues at hand, which seems to have slipped somewhat from the: "When the party went and slayed a drider that they had been told was controlling spiders to attack a villiage. After the fact, they discovered that the drider was not evil and had been redeemed. Because of my character's immense hatred for drow, he remained unrepentant." This act was not evil. It matters not at all that the drider was "redeemed." The PC's honestly believed that they were doing good, protecting innocents, by this act. If the foe had turned out to be a paladin or a commoner it still would not have been evil. They were acting in what they though was a selfless and altruistic manner. Once they discovered they were in error they will probably feel pretty darn lousy about it, but the fact that one of them did no does not make him evil Of course killing random commoners is evil. The point is that it matters no one whit if said random commoners were good or evil. The act of wandering the countryside slaughtering peasants is in and of itself an evil act, the alignment of the peasants does not matter.
Derren S. 11-24-06, 02:25 PM	This act was not evil. It matters not at all that the drider was "redeemed." The PC's honestly believed that they were doing good, protecting innocents, by this act. If the foe had turned out to be a paladin or a commoner it still would not have been evil. Totally wrong. In D&D what someone believes is absolutly irrelevant. Good and Evil are real, objective forces and that means that a act is either evil or good. What someone thinks (subjective) does not matter. A person can act with the best for everyone in mind but when he does evil it still is evil.
Sulaco 11-24-06, 03:01 PM	Totally wrong. In D&D what someone believes is absolutly irrelevant. Good and Evil are real, objective forces and that means that a act is either evil or good. What someone thinks (subjective) does not matter. A person can act with the best for everyone in mind but when he does evil it still is evil. Not "totally wrong" actually. You error comes in assuming that cos good and evil are both absolutes that they are the only options. They are not. Good and evil are simply the extremes that frame the grey area between. If every act were only good or evil then the D&D system would feature six alignments rather than nine.
Derren S. 11-24-06, 03:10 PM	Then tell me what makes this act neutral. And don't forget, subjective thoughts (i.e. what the character believes) does not count.
Doodle 11-24-06, 03:35 PM	The fun thing about the people who say that killing the drider was evil.... Any good-aligned cleric/paladin of mine in their campaign would become an Ur-Priest/Blackguard pretty damn quickly. Me.
PiedmonSama 11-24-06, 05:02 PM	D&D is not real life. D&D is He-Man. He-Man never asked whether Skeletor was beaten as a child, He-Man didn't care if his villains were "Just following orders", no, Skeletor lived in a cave, and that was reason enough to get his ass kicked. Even though I disagree with the crux of your argument, that's the greatest thing anyone's said in an alignment debat(ion) thread ever, and I have to ask permission to sig it.
Sulaco 11-24-06, 05:09 PM	Then tell me what makes this act neutral. And don't forget, subjective thoughts (i.e. what the character believes) does not count. And other than arbitrarily and artificially limiting the options in order to get the result you want, why is that exactly? :confused:
Vestigial_Thumb 11-24-06, 05:40 PM	The alignment of an act depends on what the actor (find me a better word) is doing. If the Drider was hostile towards the party, they'd be justified in killing him, even if he was the paragon of Good.
Derren S. 11-24-06, 05:40 PM	And other than arbitrarily and artificially limiting the options in order to get the result you want, why is that exactly? :confused: Are you done dodging and can you simply answer the question? And I don't arbitary limit the options. It is fact that in D&D alignment is not subjective.
Kursk 11-24-06, 07:00 PM	Yes.
The White Sorcerer 11-24-06, 11:39 PM	So they did have a reason to view the drider as a threat? Was the drider still an actual threat? Was it still attacking the village? If not, how recent were the last attacks? Since they had a good reason to consider the drider to be a hostile threat, I'd be okay with the killing, which was caused by a tragic misunderstanding (unless the drider was still attacking the village), if they repented. The one who didn't would at least start slipping towards neutral, if not evil.
Millennium 11-25-06, 12:03 AM	Whether or not a Good character can be racist depends partly on your definition of racism and partly on the degree to which the character believes and practices these things. For example, consider Abraham Lincoln. Few would argue against the idea that he'd be considered Good-aligned, and I wouldn't argue against it either. However, be believed and said more than a few things that would be called racist by modern standards. Some research into him could be very valuable for someone wanting to play a Good-aligned character with some racist traits.
theotherdraxen 11-25-06, 12:34 AM	D&D is about GOOD (or neutral) creatures kicking evil ass and STEALING (in a good way) it's stuff. You're terribly funny, but also wrong. D&D is about heriosm! :fight!: For some, heroics includes moral struggles, and if that's how we want to play D&D, then so be it! Still, props for that. It was awesome.:D The alignment of the killed has nothing to do with it. Unless you were justifying the killing on the grounds of it's alignment. Then tell me what makes this act neutral. And don't forget, subjective thoughts (i.e. what the character believes) does not count. Then all we have are intentionless actions where good and evil could not possibly exist. Alignment is what you believe, so if you aren't including beliefs, then you cannot include alignment. With this philosophy, the act is either unaligned, or TN.
Vaelan 11-25-06, 02:26 AM	It is fact that in D&D alignment is not subjective. This is irrelevant. If I understand Sulaco correctly, he is saying that it was not Evil because the people had good intentions. He is not saying that their perceptions change the forces that define the cosmos or that there is no such force, just that this force is, in his opinion, defined differently than you think it is. While Good and Evil may be objective forces from the player's perspective, their actual definitions are up to the DM since the Player's Handbook doesn't define them explicitly. This thread, and every other thread like it, ultimately comes to arguing something that is purely subjective.
Derren S. 11-25-06, 02:58 AM	Alignment is what you believe, so if you aren't including beliefs, then you cannot include alignment. Good and evil are real forces in D&D and those forces work the same for everyone. SO it doesn't matter if someone believe that he does good. The actions count and when those actions are aligned with evil then they are evil. This is irrelevant. If I understand Sulaco correctly, he is saying that it was not Evil because the people had good intentions. He is not saying that their perceptions change the forces that define the cosmos or that there is no such force, just that this force is, in his opinion, defined differently than you think it is. While Good and Evil may be objective forces from the player's perspective, their actual definitions are up to the DM since the Player's Handbook doesn't define them explicitly. This thread, and every other thread like it, ultimately comes to arguing something that is purely subjective. In D&D actions count, not intentions. An evil act stays an evil act no matter what the person wanted to accomplish. Of course the DM defines what is good or evil, but when killing this drider was not an evil act then killing a random, good, human also is not an evil act.
Xavon 11-25-06, 10:36 AM	Of course a Good character can be racist. Anyone is entitled to their opinions and feelings, right, wrong or stupid. The Good racist will try to hide his bigotry. Instead of being openly insulting or attacking without merit, the Good racist will avoid his hated race and internally deride them.
Man in the Funny Hat 11-25-06, 11:18 AM	Totally wrong. In D&D what someone believes is absolutly irrelevant. Good and Evil are real, objective forces and that means that a act is either evil or good. What someone thinks (subjective) does not matter. A person can act with the best for everyone in mind but when he does evil it still is evil.In D&D what a character believes is in part DEFINED by their alignment. Alignment doesn't DICTATE what they believe (and what they believe doesn't dictate their alignment) but the two certainly has things to say about each other, and therefore what someone believes in D&D IS unequivocally relevant to their alignment and judging their actions in relation to alignment. Yes, good and evil are quite possibly real, objective forces (and note VERY well that just because you and I might handle alignment that way doesn't mean everybody must or should and the game does not REQUIRE nor even recommend that it be handled just so) but that does not enable us to categorize ALL actions as either A or B, black or white, good or evil. A character kills a drider. Is this a good or evil act? NEITHER. It is neutral because there is no framework of reference, especially regarding WHY the act is performed. A character kills an EVIL drider. Good/evil? Still neither because we still don't know WHY. Same result if the drider is GOOD. Just because good is a quantifiable force doesn't meant that ALL forces are quantifiable as either good/evil without additional reference. There is, after all, the possiblity of actions being NON-good WITHOUT being evil. A character kills a drider because he knows that driders are evil creatures, has no reason to even BEGIN to suspect otherwise, wishes to prevent them from doing any more evil, to punish them for what evils they have already done, and for further personal reasons (driders murdered his family, kicked his dog, made another sequel to "Highlander") harbors hatred for driders even beyond that which he holds for all similarly evil creatures. THAT is a description of a GOOD act despite the personal vendetta being served in the act. It then DOESN'T MATTER if the drider is actually evil. The character didn't know that at the time. At the time he was acting in good faith in the best interests of goodliness and virtue. Now it DOES reflect on the characters alignment as regards his reaction upon learning that the drider was, in fact, NOT evil. That the character then has no REGRET does not make THE ACT OF KILLING THE DRIDER an evil act. It MIGHT make a good indicator that the character is moving in that direction or is simply not AS good as might otherwise be perceived. Even if the character knew before attacking the drider that it was good-aligned, it would not be an evil act for the character to kill it. It would be neutral because it isn't as if the character doesn't care if ANYTHING he kills is good or evil - he does. He just doesn't care if individuals of this particular species is good or evil because of his deep personal hatred. It's not GOOD for him to be killing the drider then by any stretch - but it is NOT EVIL either. The characters beliefs MATTER. They are, in fact, the central focus of the alignment considerations here - NOT the alignment of the victim. The alignment of the drider victim is what is actually not particularly relevant in the initial circumstance.
Derren S. 11-25-06, 11:47 AM	It would be neutral because it isn't as if the character doesn't care if ANYTHING he kills is good or evil - he does. He just doesn't care if individuals of this particular species is good or evil because of his deep personal hatred. It's not GOOD for him to be killing the drider then by any stretch - but it is NOT EVIL either. Ah I understand so mass murderers who perform a genocide against a certain race are neutral because killing every member of that race is a neutral act for them.
Evalis 11-25-06, 02:26 PM	Derren please do the following before continuing your arguments: Provide the text from the Players Handbook or DMG (or even the Monsters Manual) that indicates that acts of good and evil in D&D are purely objective in nature, and subjective thoughts play no role. Until then, your line of commentary is simply trolling, or at best, a personal oppinion, and not an absolutist answer, and should be treated as such ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Returning to the real question posed by the OP: Can a character be both 'good' and 'racist' at the same time? The answer to that is 'sort of', and is partially answered in the second subset of a characters alignment. The fact that you have chosen 'chaotic' bodes well for maintaining his alignment of 'good' as he/she is more likely to act prior to thought or contemplation. Without maintaining a steady meticulous habit of clear-planned out responses, it is easy to reason that while your character might be willing to leap into deaths clutches to save a group of wandering elves, he/she would not have the same inclination to take action to protect an orcish village from it's surest doom, because your character has never taken the time to reflect on the relation between the two. However this is a case of 'inaction' and, at worst, is going to push your alignment towards neutral. As long as you maintain your goodly nature towards at least one cause, you would still be considered a good person. Does this mean it is okay for your character to continue to belittle and/or assault others based on their race, and still defend that he/she is a good person? No.. no it is certainly not. Even if that character always did everything in his/her power to ensure that members of his/her race had the utmost level of protection at the characters own expense, actions towards 'lesser' races begins to override this mentally and shifts that characters alignment towards evil. Yet being stupid, and being chaotic can assist in slowing this transition - consider our own world, where we slaughter helpless animals for food, clothing, fun!, and profit. Most people would not even consider this remotely to be an act of evil, and indeed, that ignorance protects them from becoming so. The same could be reasoned for your character. This leads me to the second 'underlying' question the OP had asked: "Could my character be considered evil for slaying a good aligned creature and not feeling sorry about it afterwards?" Of course not! That's like telling a butcher that killing cows is an abuse of his power, and expecting him to throw down his knife and quit the profession. This is even more of a special case in that the D&D gameworld supposes to include creatures that are purely evil and others that are purely good. The DM that you are RPing under most probably should have mentioned to you that in his gameworld there is more grey.. but meh. Your characters beliefs make the action, and the continued reasoning behind his unrepentance acceptable even for a good aligned character. Though I do feel it necessary to comment that the treatment of the other characters (and concequently players) of the game should never reach an extreme where you hide behind the social constructs of the adventuring group in order to bully or belittle them. Especially when they might be trying to save your life. Good people don't do this. It is however fine to roll your eyes, or scoff that a half-elf wouldn't understand any time the situation might warrant it. Even the half-hearted healing to the kobold makes sense. Just make sure the other players understand it is a character thing, and you still fully beleive they - as players - are cool. My 2 cents or $30.. whichever is more ;)
Molitor 11-25-06, 03:20 PM	Well it seems like the waters here are already warm so I shall jump right in. Most people mean bigotry and not racism when they use the term racist. I ask this simple question which culture or race would be better at making a long bow:American Indians or an Eskimo? Or how about who would make better Chinese food a person from China or a person from Ireland. If you can answer one over the other you are a racist. Yet if you believe that Chinese people can't do anything right and you dislike them as a people you are a bigot.
YamiSouru 11-25-06, 03:34 PM	certainly. by the nine hells looks at a average kobold pc who is of good alignment. The kobold could still hate most other races but would realise that "hey..these other people can help me stay alive longer then if they wernt around...i guess ill work with them if i have to.." Now as for the subject of alignments not being a part of someones ways of thinking...true and untrue. For example lets look at the children of winter in the Eberron campaign setting. They beleive that to save the world they must first destroy it so it can be reborn. Their GOAL is a good intention, Save the world from those who would seek to corrupt it and what not.However their METHODS are not and thats what gives them their non good alignment. As for the killing the drider thing? Did the party have problems with driders before? Did the drider try to surrender? If so has the party been forced to deal with npcs who have surrendered and when their gaurds were down attack them? How recent were the latest attacks? When was the drider converted to good? How was the drider converted? See lots questions need to be answered before I myself can give a direct answere. Untill then all i can say is their are circumstances to everything and those circumstances are very often the difference between a good and evil act.
Derren S. 11-25-06, 03:47 PM	Derren please do the following before continuing your arguments: Provide the text from the Players Handbook or DMG (or even the Monsters Manual) that indicates that acts of good and evil in D&D are purely objective in nature, and subjective thoughts play no role. Book of Vile Darkness page 5 where it explains quite clearly that good and evil in D&D are objective forces and also clearly says that subjective alignment is a variant not supported by standard D&D rules. Also just a little thinking leads to the same conclusion as if alignment would be subjective in D&D all teh detect spells would not work (show a different result depending on the caster) and a paladins smite evil would always work as all enemies are evil to him.
Pidmon 11-25-06, 08:49 PM	Provide the text from the Players Handbook or DMG (or even the Monsters Manual) that indicates that acts of good and evil in D&D are purely objective in nature, and subjective thoughts play no role. Emphasis mine. BoVD is none of the three asked for, and isn't part of the source rules assumed to be in every campaign until explictly stated otherwise. Heck, it's even out of print over here in Australia - my DM and friend had to work hard to find it, and even so he's still not planning on using it or the BoED any time soon.
pmurray@bigpond.com 11-26-06, 12:34 AM	So... Because it's purple, and lives in a cave, it deserves to die? Man, purple cave-dwelling puppies need to fear you. In D&D, puppies are not purple and never live in caves. IRL, sometimes, but not in D&D.
OneWinged4ngel 11-26-06, 12:36 AM	I say a Good character can be racist. Racism doesn't even have to refer to something like "I hate people of this race," it's quite simply prejudice. Having any preconceptions about a person because of their race is racism. Plenty of people are racist to varying degrees (including many ignorant people who will vehemently declare themselves unprejudiced or liberal or whatever). Especially in a world where races really are a different species, racism seems like it would be unavoidable, and to an extent justified. Indeed, when you look at a caterpillar, would you judge it on the same level as you would a human? Of course not, you would view it as inferior and unable to feel like you, etc. Dragons may see humans that way. In fact, dragons are very commonly presented as quite racist, and view themselves as a supreme race. However, they can still get the Good alignment. It seems pretty evident that racism does not preclude the Good alignment, and indeed I find the idea that it would rather narrow-minded. What determines whether you're Good, Neutral, or Evil is how that, and the rest of your personality traits, opinions, etc, manifests.
Derren S. 11-26-06, 04:31 AM	Emphasis mine. BoVD is none of the three asked for, and isn't part of the source rules assumed to be in every campaign until explictly stated otherwise. Heck, it's even out of print over here in Australia - my DM and friend had to work hard to find it, and even so he's still not planning on using it or the BoED any time soon. The part of the BoVD I quoted does not add anything which isn't already in teh core rules, it mearly explains it better then the short paragraph in the PHB and is therefor valid even if you don't use and BoVD material.
pres_man 11-26-06, 12:32 PM	A good drider is as likely as a good pit fiend or good red dragon or an evil hound archon or an evil bronze dragon. How likely is it? Well the MM does not say, but it does say how likely it is for a creature with "always" to be of any different alignment. I would suggest that the farther from the standard alignment, the less likely. Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignments, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions. "... but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions." I think it is pretty clear that assuming such a creature is of the given alignment is not an evil act or "racist". It is like seeing a rattlesnake and assuming it is poisonous, it is not close minded to think so, it is smart to. Now, I think the thing that most be most damaging is the "good" character not feeling bad about killing a non-evil creature. Heck I feel bad when I run over a squirrel, I would think that the elf should feel at least as bad as that, though he would probably manifest it in a similiar fashion as how I would react. That is with statements like, "Stupid drider, if he was good, why didn't he have an escape plan? He had to know that this bound to happen." Basically justify it as the fault of the one killed, but really is just an effort cover-up his guilt.
JoAT 11-26-06, 01:50 PM	Quote: In D&D, puppies are not purple and never live in caves. IRL, sometimes, but not in D&D. What about puppies with the dark template? And living in the underdark? Certainly odd and hard to find, with all those bonuses to hide, but hardly evil... Hmmm.... Dark Puppies from the Underdark + dogsitting PCs... I think I have my next adventure. At least, until the paladin finds them, and smites them for being both purple and living in a cave.
Evalis 11-27-06, 12:13 AM	Just to clear matters here, yes the Book of Vile Darkness does say that good and evil are objective factors in dungeons and dragons on page 5. No it is not one of the core rulebooks, but that's fine. However.. on page 6... It goes on to explain that just because creatures can have an absolute alignment does not mean that motivations fail to serve a role in shaping them. It even provides a scenario with a paladin climbing a cliff that could cause an avalanche on innocents being a good/evil/neutral act, depending on his knowledge at the time. If he 'knew' it would kill innocents then it's evil, if he didn't then it was neutral, if it was to SAVE someone and he didn't know others might die, then it was good. The variant of subjective forces of good and evil refers to shades of grey in alignment and objectives, allowing for 'evil' people to not truly classify as evil, but rather bases the level of 'evil' on their deeds at the time. There are even examples of good paladins/clerics fighting other good paladins/clerics that have conflicting morale views. Really though, the idea of completely objective alignments, while allowing for a fun kick the door in style of play, prevents real personal growth that could be obtained out of this social activity. Forcing the players to have their characters make morale choices, rather than simply which sword to hack their enemies with, allows for a much more involving form of play, and hey.. might even get the person playing to have a thought or two about how good and evil are truly defined. Oh.. and now that I took the time to look it up.. the Book of Vile Darkness provides the exact scenario our character participated in with the slaughter of that Drider. He is still good, even if unrepentant. ..though perhaps a little tainted by the event anyway.. my 2 cents. or $30, whichever is more ;)
turalisj 11-27-06, 12:25 AM	Here's something to soak up. Most of the signers of the declaration of independance had slaves. Most US presidents up to Lincoln had slaves. Oh, and the alignments in dnd are supposed to be GUIDELINES. This means that sure, the paladin is LG. But that doesn't mean he can't believe in some amount of freedom while adhereing to set laws. I've played an LG skarn soulborn who hated gnomes, dwarves, haflings, and any creature that was shorter than him. Which included just about anyone under large size. Yet I still kept my alignment. :D
pres_man 11-27-06, 01:12 AM	Really though, the idea of completely objective alignments, while allowing for a fun kick the door in style of play, prevents real personal growth that could be obtained out of this social activity. Forcing the players to have their characters make morale choices, rather than simply which sword to hack their enemies with, allows for a much more involving form of play, and hey.. might even get the person playing to have a thought or two about how good and evil are truly defined. Huh? How good and evil are defined has nothing to do with what type of game is being played (high roleplaying versus high combat). And characters can certainly have big moral issues, even if the players know that alignment is objective in the game and where the absolute boundaries are, the characters do not necessarily.
Vaelan 11-27-06, 06:04 AM	In D&D actions count, not intentions. I don't see anything in the PHB that supports this. Would you care to point out what I'm missing? It certainly would be nice if these alignment discussions were actually in the realm of objectivity, but I'm not willing to take your word on it.
Derren S. 11-27-06, 08:28 AM	I don't see anything in the PHB that supports this. Would you care to point out what I'm missing? That all the PHB talks about are acts? Especially on page 104 where it says "If a character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment , ... If intent counts you again have subjective alignment as many evil people intent to do good. But that simply doesn't work in D&D.
The White Sorcerer 11-27-06, 08:41 AM	Why intentions count: Because even intentions can have objective alignments. An orc warlord razes a village to get sacrifices for his demon master, which he views as the right thing to do. Alignment of the act and of the intention? Both evil.
Derren S. 11-27-06, 09:35 AM	An orc warlord razes a village to get sacrifices for his demon master, which he views as the right thing to do. Alignment of the act and of the intention? Both evil. Then please tell me an intention which makes razing the village a not evil act.
Sulaco 11-27-06, 09:36 AM	Ah I understand so mass murderers who perform a genocide against a certain race are neutral because killing every member of that race is a neutral act for them. MitFH's post was excellent. He explained in great detail precisely why this was not an evil act. If all you take away from it is an opportunity to make a single hyperbolic reply then I must assume that discussing this matter any further with you is entirely pointless as you are simply ignoring any and all posts, no matter how logical or salient, that you disagree. You are so stubborny set in your position and that is your perogative, but I beg of you, please stop with the hyperbole and sarcasm like this; it does nothing to foster any further meaningful discussion and may even be construed as trolling.
Sulaco 11-27-06, 09:40 AM	Then please tell me an intention which makes razing the village a not evil act. Well, adventurers raze villages all the time, it's just that most of them are in caves and full of green-people.
Derren S. 11-27-06, 09:55 AM	it does nothing to foster any further meaningful discussion and may even be construed as trolling. As your posts do? MitFH has explained a lot but I simply do not agree with it. When killing someone of a certain race is neutral when you don't care if he is good or evil, then killing all members of that race without caring if they are good or evil is also neutral. So either genocide is neutral or there somewhere is a fine arbitrary line between neutral mindless killing and evil genocide. Well, adventurers raze villages all the time, it's just that most of them are in caves and full of green-people. And?
pres_man 11-27-06, 11:04 AM	Then please tell me an intention which makes razing the village a not evil act. If a group of individuals set up their village on land owned by another group. The destruction of such a village (though not necessarily the slaughter of all in it) would not necessarily be an evil act. That all the PHB talks about are acts? You mean like: A creature's moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: ... Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. ... Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies. The part you quoted was to inform the players that talking the talk was not good enough, you need to also walk the walk. **Warning RL reference**This is similiar to a religion that teaches that you can't save yourself by doing good deeds, only by accepting a savior. This religion does not say that good deeds are not important, but you should do them because you are filled with the spirit of goodness, not because you are trying to prove you are good. Likewise a character in D&D who is suppose to be LG, does lawful and good deeds not because he is trying to prove he is lawful good, but because he so filled with goodness and lawfulness that it is the general mindset of his. He acts LG because he wants to, not because he is forced to. If intent counts you again have subjective alignment as many evil people intent to do good. But that simply doesn't work in D&D. Not exactly. You seem to be implying it is an all or none. Either alignment is based solely on intent or solely on the act. This is not the case. Intent has a part to play. It is why good characters can kill, as can evil characters, the killing isn't what determines if it is good or evil, it is the intent. The method will also play a part, for example, quick deaths are usually "better" than a more torturous death.
Sulaco 11-27-06, 01:05 PM	As your posts do? Yup. And? And what? You asked for an example of when razing a village is not evil and I gave one. Indeed in your assessment that killing evil is always good, then PCs razing villages of evil creatures is not only not an evil act but is decidedly a good one. I ask again, that if all acts are either good or evil then why are there nine D&D alignment rather than just six? Good and evil are absolutes but they are not the only options, rather they are the extreme endpoints of a line with a lot of shades and degrees in between.
Chrono Nexus 11-27-06, 01:21 PM	And what? You asked for an example of when razing a village is not evil and I gave one. Indeed in your assessment that killing evil is always good, then PCs razing villages of evil creatures is not only not an evil act but is decidedly a good one. Come on, they are goblinoids... all goblinoids are evil! Oh, wait, I am being racist... but my sheet says I am lawful good!? :eek: Being racist is evil. So is lying, hating, and killing- people do these things without turning into blackguards, so I think racism could be seen as a lesser evil. My latest pc is a racist high elf. He looks down on other races, and sees them as stupid and unintelligent, barely a cut above the animals (his int is 23). He felt the same way about the other players in the group, but eventually he learned to trust and rely on the them as team mates and friends. He still holds that elves will one day rule the world, but he puts his bias aside for furthering the mission of the team (saving the world).
Derren S. 11-27-06, 01:39 PM	And what? You asked for an example of when razing a village is not evil and I gave one. No. First, Only because adventurers do it it is not automatically good. Second, I asked for an intention which makes razing a village not evil but you gave a situation (village is evil). That is something completly different.
Sulaco 11-27-06, 01:48 PM	No. You only threw some words into the room. Only because adventurers do it doesn't mean that it isn't evil. Also I asked for a intention which makes razing a village not evil but you gave a situation (village is evil). That is something completly different. You lost me, man. You asked, I answered. I am not sure what else you are looking for.
Derren S. 11-27-06, 01:55 PM	We are discussing here that the intention also (partially) determines the alignment of an action. That means there must be an intention which would make razing a village a not evil or even good act regardless of who lives in this village. You example modified the situation (village is evil) but had nothing to do with the intention of the one who razed the village. Or more specific, tell me which intention of the attacker would make razing a village inhabitat by neutral creatures of a single race a neutral or good act.
Chrono Nexus 11-27-06, 01:59 PM	Well obviously destroying evil makes people good... I mean, the entire divine domain of Good is chucked full of antievil spells.
The White Sorcerer 11-27-06, 02:02 PM	Then please tell me an intention which makes razing the village a not evil act. Can't think of one, to be honest. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
Derren S. 11-27-06, 02:07 PM	Can't think of one, to be honest. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Deciding that Evil action + Evil intention = Evil is not that hard ;) The problem, what we are partially discussing here, is what happens if the act and the action have different alignments or, what some people propose, only intention counts.
pres_man 11-27-06, 02:23 PM	Or more specific, tell me which intention of the attacker would make razing a village inhabitat by neutral creatures of a single race a neutral or good act. By razing do you mean killing all of the inhabitance and destroying the village, or just burning down (destroying) the village, but not necessarily harming the inhabitance. Because the second is what razing means. Good reason for razing a village: A disease is in the village, and though the people may be cleansed the disease will live on in the buildings and such, the only way to destroy the disease for good is to burn down the village. (see flooded homes for RL evidence of this) (Lawful) Neutral reason for razing a village: The village was built on land already owned by others, the village inhabitances are trespassers. Their homes are destroyed and they are driven out to reclaim the land.
Derren S. 11-27-06, 02:26 PM	I always assumed that razing includes killing. And as Sorcerers example includes sacrifices to a demon I think that is also what he meant.
Sulaco 11-27-06, 02:52 PM	We are discussing here that the intention also (partially) determines the alignment of an action. That means there must be an intention which would make razing a village a not evil or even good act regardless of who lives in this village. You example modified the situation (village is evil) but had nothing to do with the intention of the one who razed the village. Or more specific, tell me which intention of the attacker would make razing a village inhabitat by neutral creatures of a single race a neutral or good act. Why do you insist on adding an increasing number of qualifiers and limitations the this scenario, and the discussion at large, in order to get the result you want? Okay, the village of neutrals has damned a local river. The damning has caused massive flooding, killed thousands, and lead to rampant disease. The stubborn neutrals say the only way they will leave is if their village is razed to the ground. A band of adventurers accepts the mission to flatten and burn every structure and break the damn. The neutrals, who were originally forced into a settlement by an evil overlord decades earlier, see this is a sign from their gods and return to their peaceful nomadic ways in harmony with nature. Everyone wins, no one dies, good previals. The end.
Vestigial_Thumb 11-27-06, 02:58 PM	I feel like I have to say this in every thread, but I'll say it again for those who don't know. Don't confuse good with Good (note the capitalization) or evil with Evil. A good person is Good-aligned, but a Good person is not necessarily good. That is, Good people can be (and are often) crazy zealots that kill Evil on sight, raze villages and eat orc babies. Counterintuitively, this does not work the same for evil and Evil. Rather the opposite. An Evil person is evil, but an evil person is not necessarily Evil (Evil being the tangible universal force). EDIT: The forces of Good are arrogant, self-righteous bastards. That's why I hate them.
Warpclaw 11-27-06, 03:38 PM	I always treated raze to mean totally destroying all the structures in the area. Typically this can only be done by killing all the defenders first, so it can be confused easily. As to the previous argument, one thing to take into account is that the prejudice mentioned by the OP is based in fact. For example, I could say that D&D Orcs have tusks. Since this is around 99% true, this statement is correct in almost any case. There is no racism, or, more properly, specism, in this saying this. The same thing goes with Drider, if the vast majority are pure, unadulterated, child sacrificing evil, then it is fairly safe to assume that when the villagers say that the Drider who lives nearby is sending spiders to attack them, then that is the case. Especially when the method of attack also fits with the Drider. Saying that it is racist or wrong to make assumptions based on facts is nonsense. "Everyone should celebrate their differences, and yet everyone should be perfectly equal and make no assumptions about the differences we are supposed to celebrate, which aren't really there because we're all the same, so no one is better that anyone else. That way, no one's feelings get hurt!" That kind of garbage doesn't make much sense on Earth, let alone Oerth. Trying to equate a rather skewed modern morality with a world that is filled with unredeemable monsters who would rip off your head and make your skull into a wine glass as soon as look at you, is a completely untenable position. You have to change your mindset to play D&D, that is part of the roleplaying process. The party is guilty only of not using Detect Evil on it before attacking, and since it appears that they were not given reason to doubt the creature's Evil, they aren't guilty of much. As for the Elf, he is acting in character with the general Elven mindset. Non-Elves are inherently inferior, and anything to do with Drow is lower than dirt. He's acting a little more harshly than most would, but it a fair assumption that if, say, the Elven Army had been called in instead the party, they wouldn't have second thoughts either. That puts him right in line with the typical Elvish moral philosophy, which the RAW tells us is Chaotic Good. So, to answer the question, killing something, of which the vast majority are totally evil, and then finding out later that it wasn't evil, is not an Evil act. It certainly isn't a Good act, but this kind of accident cannot be classified as Evil, even a Paladin isn't that morally fragile.
Derren S. 11-27-06, 04:07 PM	Why do you insist on adding an increasing number of qualifiers and limitations the this scenario, and the discussion at large, in order to get the result you want? Because things is not as simple as you want them to be. When you want to show that Racism, which includes blind killing, is not evil then you have to find a situation where intent makes an evil act non evil. Okay, the village of neutrals has damned a local river. The damning has caused massive flooding, killed thousands, and lead to rampant disease. The stubborn neutrals say the only way they will leave is if their village is razed to the ground. A band of adventurers accepts the mission to flatten and burn every structure and break the damn. The neutrals, who were originally forced into a settlement by an evil overlord decades earlier, see this is a sign from their gods and return to their peaceful nomadic ways in harmony with nature. Everyone wins, no one dies, good previals. The end. You again modified the situation so that the village is evil (causing death and suffering) and made it so that non of the villagers were killed (unlike the drider in the OP)
pres_man 11-27-06, 04:21 PM	then you have to find a situation where intent makes an evil act non evil. What evil act? You seem to be trying to simplify everything yourself. You are starting from a position that it was evil. Instead you need to show it was evil.
Derren S. 11-27-06, 04:30 PM	What evil act? You seem to be trying to simplify everything yourself. You are starting from a position that it was evil. Instead you need to show it was evil. That killing a good creature "just because" is evil? Or that razing a village is evil?
Pidmon 11-27-06, 04:38 PM	Um, I thought the original discussion was more about bigotry than capital R Racism - a more concentrated form of 'acceptable' elven prejudice. Where'd you decide that it's time to talk about Racism under modern day terms? And as Warpclaw stated, making assumptions about another species with the use of provable facts (in D&D at least) can't be racist... Would it be racist to say that dogs tend to be more playful than cats? Racist to say that flies are annoying pustles of the evolutionary ladder who are too stupid to do the job assigned to them by evolution and nature? Racist to say that sunflowers tilt towards the sun? That trees grow?
pres_man 11-27-06, 04:53 PM	That killing a good creature "just because" is evil? Just because? What do you mean by that? Because the party felt like killing something and it was handy? Because the creature is a member of a ... not species, they don't breed ... race, no still wrong ... kind(?) that is always evil, and the chance of them not being evil is the same chance as a demon not being evil? And the chance of them harming innocents is the same chance as a random demon harming innocents? That "just because" or something else? I don't think anyone is claim it is a good act to kill a creature because it belongs to a "kind" that is always evil, but doing so is not evil, unless ... the party knew for certain, without any doubt what so ever that this creature was innocent and was actively trying to do good. Only under those circumstance could one say that killling it was evil. Since the OP has clearly said that this was not known in advance, then it is impossible to show that it was evil to kill it. Or that razing a village is evil? Destroying a village is not necessarily evil. Q: A village was destroyed, was it an evil act? A: Impossible to determine given the limited information available.
The White Sorcerer 11-28-06, 12:25 AM	The point I was trying to make: Even if you, subjectively, think that your action, intention, and motivation are good, they can still be, objectively, evil. Also, "razing" is the wrong word. Sorry, english = not my native language. What I mean in the warlord's case is "Attack village, kill those who can resist, capture those who can't, burn village, steal stuff."
Derren S. 11-28-06, 01:12 AM	So ignorance protects from evil acts? A paladin that never uses detect evil on members of an evil race can kill them all without fearing to fall while a paladin who does use detect evil and finds a nonevil member of that race has to do diplomacy and stuff? And thanks White for clarifingy it. Now lets see if the others find a intention to make that not evil.
Retromancer 11-28-06, 02:03 AM	Hey, Derren and Sulaco. I'd just like to say, thanks for totally hijacking my thread. you pricks.
Chrono Nexus 11-28-06, 02:30 AM	Hey, Derren and Sulaco. I'd just like to say, thanks for totally hijacking my thread. you pricks. Ah! Sexism! Can a good character be sexist? Haha... evil in DnD is mechanically a force in the world, it is actually a real substantial thing. Roleplay-wise it is totally subjective, so why argue over it? It changes nothing. Racism can stem both ignorance and hate (and often both). And we all know that hate leads to evil, and evil leads to suffering! So racist people are sometimes evil, and sometimes misinformed. Therefore, a character can be both racist and good, but not for long if what they hate is good. Good meaning roleplay good, not universal good.
Gedrin 11-28-06, 02:45 AM	There are two distinct forms of racism in the typical D&D world: The first kind is much like RL racism. Elves and Dwarves hating each other is a good example. They're both generally good folks, but they are very different. It's fine to prefer one or the other, but hate is going to far. The second kind is when a human hates a Mind Flayer on sight. See, the human probably isn't objecting strictly to the fact that the Flayer is a squid-faced creature of the underdark. It's the fact that Mind Flayers eat the brains of sentients that winds up being the issue. Same goes for Drow and the fact that most humans, in typical worlds, only are exposed to the Drow when they wake up in the morning to find several villagers dead. Sure, some Illithids and Drow, maybe 10%, won't try to kill you when they see you, but 9 times out of ten...they're bad news and it's just not sane to give them the benefit of the doubt (AKA first shot with poison or mind blast).
The White Sorcerer 11-28-06, 03:34 AM	Now lets see if the others find a intention to make that not evil. I certainly hope not. That would be disturbing.
Derren S. 11-28-06, 03:47 AM	I certainly hope not. That would be disturbing. But that is what they argue. That killing has no alignment and only become alignet by the intention.
The White Sorcerer 11-28-06, 04:42 AM	But that is what they argue. That killing has no alignment and only become alignet by the intention. Killing as an isolated act (meaning that the only intention and motive is to commit the act) is, I think, evil. This is where intentions and motives come to play. Also, circumstances and methods. Mostly, in a hero's life, the intentions, motivations, and circumstances of killing makes it a good act overall. Let's get back to the drider case. There are still some things that I'd like to be made clearer, but here's how I see it: Act: Killing of drider. Intention: The slaying of a dangerous monster. Motivation: Gold? Or perhaps, the good of the villagers? Circumstances: The drider had changed its ways and become good. The characters did not know this, and likely had reason to believe the drider was still a threat. Methods: Eh, as long as they didn't torture the drider or something similar, this doesn't really matter. Overall: Killing the drider can't be seen as a good act in any way. It was a tragic misunderstanding. No alignment shift. However... One of the characters feels unrepentant, feeling that the drider deserved to die simply because it was a drider. Who cares if it's good, it's a drider! Start shifting to neutral, depending on conduct in the past. I hope I'm making some sort of sense here.
pres_man 11-28-06, 09:55 AM	So ignorance protects from evil acts? A paladin that never uses detect evil on members of an evil race can kill them all without fearing to fall while a paladin who does use detect evil and finds a nonevil member of that race has to do diplomacy and stuff? I assume this comment is direct at me? Well then sure, if a very simplistic way of looking at it, that is the case. Of course the issue is more complicated then your statement makes it out to be. There is a difference between a character turning a blind eye to something and a person not having the opportunity to learn something. What we are talking about is what would a reasonably good adventurer do. Let's look at the situation objectively. The "victim" was a drider. Driders are evil creatures that are created by an evil goddess from evil followers. Practically all driders are evil, the chance of finding a non-evil drider is the same chance as finding a non-evil demon. The party was told this particular drider was making spiders attack a village. So we see the party had every reason to believe that the creature was evil. This sounds more like a DM morality trap, where he doesn't like how the party took care of the drider and so does a quick switch-a-roo after the battle, "Oops the drider wasn't evil after all, you guys screwed up." If the drider had been non-evil then some hints should have been dropped, as well as having the drider act in a way during the battle to try and indicate it (non-lethal damage, pleads for them to stop and listen to him, tries to withdraw from combat, etc). But really, comparing a drider to say a halfling commoner is both disengenious and silly. Halfling are not created to be evil pawns of evil deities, driders are. If a party saw a demon, they should not be expected to have to ask it, "Are you one of those 1 in 1,000,000 [conservative estimate] demons that is not evil?" That would be ridiculous, same thing with a drider. Now a party could act the same way towards an orc, they could, but there would probably be more serious consequences, as the likelihood of an orc (in a standard game) being good is almost infinitely greater than a drider being good. I am curious though, how did the party learn after the fact he was not in fact evil?
Derren S. 11-28-06, 10:06 AM	The victim was a non evil creature and killing it was a evil act. That the PCs were tricked into killing it doesn't change that. It explains it and maybe makes the act less evil if you want, but not neutral as a good creature still has been killed..
pres_man 11-28-06, 10:12 AM	The victim was a non evil creature and killing it was a evil act. That the PCs were tricked into killing it doesn't change that. It explains it and maybe makes the act less evil if you want, but not neutral as a good creature still has been killed.. So if you were a DM for a group that had a paladin, you would enforce that he would fall for killing the drider, despite it being impossible for him to know that the drider was not in fact one of the normal 999,999 out of 1,000,000 driders that are evil? Wow, got to say, I've heard enough bad things about those types of "gotcha" DMs, to lose any respect I might have for someone that would actually suggest that is how they would play.
Derren S. 11-28-06, 10:30 AM	So if you were a DM for a group that had a paladin, you would enforce that he would fall for killing the drider, despite it being impossible for him to know that the drider was not in fact one of the normal 999,999 out of 1,000,000 driders that are evil? Did the paladin willingly perform an evil act? No, because he didn't knew that it would be evil (unless he uses a phylactery of faithfulness and then he woudl fall).
The White Sorcerer 11-28-06, 10:40 AM	So if you were a DM for a group that had a paladin, you would enforce that he would fall for killing the drider, despite it being impossible for him to know that the drider was not in fact one of the normal 999,999 out of 1,000,000 driders that are evil? Impossible? What about detect evil?
pres_man 11-28-06, 10:49 AM	Impossible? What about detect evil? If he had a reasonable amount of time to use it, sure, that goes back to my point about willfully ignoring information versus not being to get it. Yet using detect evil takes time, and can be decieved, especially by spellcaster, which driders tend to be. But the impossible comment was made in response to Derren S. comment, "... were tricked into killing it ..." If they were truly tricked then it wouldn't have been possible for them to determine the truth. ... but not neutral as a good creature still has been killed. Please provide evidence proving that the killing of a good creature no matter what the circumstances is, is always an evil act. As a counter, here is what it usually means to be evil: Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Nope, not in this case. Though the group seemed to not have much (or any) compassion for the drider, they were there due to their compassion for its "victims" (the local village being attacked). Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport Again, not in this case. The party was not strolling, then decided they wanted to kill something. A drider happened by on its flower picking walk and then killed it not to stop its evil from continuing but because they wanted to kill something and it was convienent. or out of duty to some evil deity or master. Neither was involved here on the players part, unless you count Corellon* as an evil deity, considering he cursed all drow for their following Lolth. He remains alert to any taint of evil among the elves, and he seeks to stamp out any evil influence the moment it appears. Corellon played a leading role in the schism that ultimately resulted in the banishment of the drow underground.
Derren S. 11-28-06, 12:17 PM	Please provide evidence proving that the killing of a good creature no matter what the circumstances is, is always an evil act. Book of Vile Darkness page 7 Evil Act: Murder (killing for personal gain or perverse pleasure which imo includes racism) Only exception: Killing an evil creature.
Vestigial_Thumb 11-28-06, 12:20 PM	Book of Vile Darkness... Stop right there.
Derren S. 11-28-06, 12:40 PM	Stop right there. Oh yes. When it goes against your opinion it is not allowed in the discussion. And people accused me of arbitrary limiting things...
Vestigial_Thumb 11-28-06, 12:47 PM	Oh yes. When it goes against your opinion it is not allowed in the discussion. And people accused me of arbitrary limiting things... The Book of Vile Darkness contradicts Core RAW on this issue and is not stated to override it. Therefore, Core RAW is more right. Furthermore, murder is killing, not the other way around. And stop with the ad hominems.
Derren S. 11-28-06, 12:57 PM	The Book of Vile Darkness contradicts Core RAW on this issue and is not stated to override it. Therefore, Core RAW is more right. Furthermore, murder is killing, not the other way around. Please show me where the BoVD contradicts core in this issue. But ok. If you want to believe that killing someone only because you think he is bad is ok then do so.
Vestigial_Thumb 11-28-06, 01:04 PM	Please show me where the BoVD contradicts core in this issue. So it doesn't on this issue (there are others where it is wrong). But it only states murder is Evil. Murder in D&D means killing an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose (in real life, it's just a legal term). That falls under the definition of Evil in Core RAW. Killing for other reasons (self-defense, defense of others, etc.) is not Evil. Point is, you didn't need to invoke the BoVD, but you did. Luckily, you invoked a passage that didn't contradict the RAW. :) But ok. If you want to believe that killing someone only because you think he is bad is ok then do so. Blatant straw man and ad hominem. Personally, though, if I don't like something I'd rather see it die than remain to irritate me, but that's just me.
Derren S. 11-28-06, 01:11 PM	So, and when someone kills a creature because of racism what is it "legal" killing or murder?
Vestigial_Thumb 11-28-06, 01:26 PM	So, and when someone kills a creature because of racism what is it "legal" killing or murder? All killing is legal in nature. Back on point. Say an Orc on crystal meth breaks and enters Bob's family's house, intent on raping, stealing and killing. Bob is generally a pacifist and would under any other circumstance try to subdue the criminal. He can subdue the Orc, something he would normally do to anyone breaking into his home (it's a hassle, though, and his family could get hurt). But he could also kill the Orc, which he wouldn't do to anyone else (less trouble, more guilty conscience). He would never do this to anyone else. However, Bob is slightly prejudiced against Orcs. Bob ends up killing the Orc. He primarily wants to defend his family, but there's also the prejudice that makes him kill the Orc. Was Bob justified in killing the Orc? His racism was the ultimate reason he killed the Orc. However, he saved himself and his family. Good act, or an Evil one?
Derren S. 11-28-06, 02:00 PM	Good act, or an Evil one? Good act because the orc was evil.
pres_man 11-28-06, 02:02 PM	Did the paladin willingly perform an evil act? Let us assume it is an evil act, I don't conceed it is, but let us for the sake assume it is. Then basically what you are saying is that it is an evil act that has no effect on one's alignment. Whereas I am claiming it is a neutral act. Frankly I see this as distinctions without differences. Was Bob justified in killing the Orc? His racism was the ultimate reason he killed the Orc. However, he saved himself and his family. Good act, or an Evil one? Neutral.
Palin the Wizard 11-28-06, 02:04 PM	No. There is no reason whatsoever that good cannot kill good and evil cannot kill evil, and feeling bad about an act does not make it any better or worse. To be fair, if the character had been a paladin (and continued with the same acts in the same order), he should have fallen (he still wouldn't turn evil, though). Otherwise I agree, Sulaco. A Good character can be an adversary every bit as much as an Evil character can (though usually there will be a fair amount of ignorance involved).
Derren S. 11-28-06, 02:05 PM	Let us assume it is an evil act, I don't conceed it is, but let us for the sake assume it is. Then basically what you are saying is that it is an evil act that has no effect on one's alignment. Whereas I am claiming it is a neutral act. Frankly I see this as distinctions without differences. Neutral. It has an effect on the alignment, but one evil act does not alter someones alignment. Kill a single good drider and your alignment will mostly stay the same. Kill a whole village full of good driders and you deserve an alignment shift.
The White Sorcerer 11-28-06, 02:06 PM	Good act because the orc was evil. Really? Quote where it says that. Also, Bob had a chance to avoid taking the orc's life and chose not to take it.
Derren S. 11-28-06, 02:08 PM	Really? Quote where it says that. By the way paladins work. They mercilessly kill evil creatures and stay good which means killing evil is a good act.
Vestigial_Thumb 11-28-06, 02:09 PM	Neutral. I'm inclined to say Good because he committed a decidedly Good act by saving his family with the primary motive of saving his family, but the ulterior motive of disliking Orcs. The racism kind of falls in the shadow of the act itself and its primary motive, don't you think?
Sulaco 11-28-06, 02:12 PM	I feel like I have to say this in every thread, but I'll say it again for those who don't know. Don't confuse good with Good (note the capitalization) or evil with Evil. A good person is Good-aligned, but a Good person is not necessarily good. That is, Good people can be (and are often) crazy zealots that kill Evil on sight, raze villages and eat orc babies. Counterintuitively, this does not work the same for evil and Evil. Rather the opposite. An Evil person is evil, but an evil person is not necessarily Evil (Evil being the tangible universal force). EDIT: The forces of Good are arrogant, self-righteous bastards. That's why I hate them. No no no no no! Don't confuse people with more double-meanings! You assume that everyone will understand what you mean but the difference indicated by the essential capitlaization will be lost on many. To summarize VT's point: good can be nasty, evil can be nice.
The White Sorcerer 11-28-06, 02:15 PM	By the way paladins work. They mercilessly kill evil creatures and stay good which means killing evil is a good act. And that makes the orc evil how? Also, quote the text that says paladins mercilessly kill evil creatures.
pres_man 11-28-06, 02:16 PM	I'm inclined to say Good because he committed a decidedly Good act by saving his family with the primary motive of saving his family, but the ulterior motive of disliking Orcs. The racism kind of falls in the shadow of the act itself and its primary motive, don't you think? I think the fact that he was protecting his own family does not make the act good, it doesn't stop it from being good, it just doesn't play a part on the alignment of the action. People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. Emphasis mine.
Sulaco 11-28-06, 02:18 PM	Because things is not as simple as you want them to be. When you want to show that Racism, which includes blind killing, is not evil then you have to find a situation where intent makes an evil act non evil. It is you who are arguing for the simplistic "everything is good or evil, no exceptions" approach, not I. Racism does not include "blind killing." Besides, if this killing were indeed "blind" then that means it is being done without any qualifying factors such as race. You again modified the situation so that the village is evil (causing death and suffering) and made it so that non of the villagers were killed (unlike the drider in the OP) I modified nothing. The village is not evil, they are neutral. Neutrals can do both good and evil, that's what neutral means in the D&D alignment system. They did something that was good for them - damning the river to create a lake for fishing and for irrigation - that also had an unfortunate negative result for others. You said "razed the village" not "killed everyone." I predict that you will now further modify the parameters of your argument in order to illicit the precise response you desire as your previous attempts have had the unfortunate effect of proving that position wrong.
Derren S. 11-28-06, 02:18 PM	And that makes the orc evil how? Oh, I misunderstood you. But do you really have to ask why an ork who breaks into houses to steal the valuables and to rape and kill the inhabitants is evil? I predict that you will now further modify the parameters of your argument in order to illicit the precise response you desire as your previous attempts have had the unfortunate effect of proving that position wrong. And as I thought you don't really read what other people write. That or "gaining sacrifices for a demon" which was the objective of the "razing" in the original post, is entirelly peacefull and bloodless in your mind.
Derren S. 11-28-06, 02:20 PM	double post
Sulaco 11-28-06, 02:26 PM	Hey, Derren and Sulaco. I'd just like to say, thanks for totally hijacking my thread. you pricks. Hey Retromancer, I'd just like to say that it isn't your thread and that swearing, insults and personal attacks are a CoC violation. You might want to edit that post before you get an official warning from the WizOs bacause of it.
Sulaco 11-28-06, 02:35 PM	Impossible? What about detect evil? What, so now a paladin must detect evil every single time he encounters a creature just in case that inherently evil creature might happen to be the one-in-a-billion exception, or else the paladin will fall? Sorry, but that just doesn't fly. NPC: Ademon before just appeared beside the king! Slay it noble paladin! Paladin: Just a sec, let me Detect Evil on it first. NPC: Are you kidding? It's a Balor, and its eating a baby! Paladin: Yes, it seems evil but it might just be a misunderstanding. >splat< NPC: Oh no, the king is dead! Paladin: Yup, the Balor is evil all right. I can attack it now. :rolleyes:
Derren S. 11-28-06, 02:38 PM	The paladin could of course first bring the king to safety but that would ruin the example, wouldn't it?
Vestigial_Thumb 11-28-06, 02:56 PM	To summarize VT's point: good can be nasty, evil can be nice. Pretty much.
Sulaco 11-28-06, 02:58 PM	And as I thought you don't really read what other people write. That or "gaining sacrifices for a demon" which was the objective of the "razing" in the original post, is entirelly peacefull and bloodless in your mind. I do read what other people write, but as you made no indication to what post you were specifically referencing I assumed, since your post was in repsonse to mine, that you were referencing the scenario that I wrote. If this is not the case then it is simply a miscommunication and is certainly no cause to be rude.
Sulaco 11-28-06, 03:05 PM	The paladin could of course first bring the king to safety but that would ruin the example, wouldn't it? Nope. The paladin, apparently, msut always satrt every encounter by using detect evil lest he fall. For all he knows the king is deathly ill and the Balor is actually his king's healer who has the only cure but who has been balefully polymorphed. Whisking the king away would cause him to perish and thus would be evil, right? You never can be too careful. ;)
Derren S. 11-28-06, 03:12 PM	Ah the "1 round kill" disease. I see. But if the king dies anyway in 1 round does it really matter if the Balor kills him or not?
archcomponent 11-28-06, 03:39 PM	By the way paladins work. They mercilessly kill evil creatures and stay good which means killing evil is a good act. This is the sort of thing that people overlook. The paladin is a holy warrior, not a holy guidance councilor. They work to rid the world of evil, and kill evil without mercy. And this includes members of an evil race. They are champions of the forces of good, and all that they do is in its service. They are relentless and merciless in destroying evil, and this is no evil quality or fault of theirs. This does not mean that there cannot exist agents of good who attempt to take a softer approach and convert evil creatures. So long as they do not endanger innocent lives with their approach, this is fine. However, no matter how many hugs and warm feelings they may proclaim, their existance does not make the above nongood.
Sulaco 11-28-06, 04:01 PM	Ah the "1 round kill" disease. I see. But if the king dies anyway in 1 round does it really matter if the Balor kills him or not? Sorry, mate, you lost me on that one. :confused:
Sulaco 11-28-06, 04:04 PM	This is the sort of thing that people overlook. The paladin is a holy warrior, not a holy guidance councilor. They work to rid the world of evil, and kill evil without mercy. And this includes members of an evil race. They are champions of the forces of good, and all that they do is in its service. They are relentless and merciless in destroying evil, and this is no evil quality or fault of theirs. I have been saying that many times over for a very long time now. I think what it comes down to is that many folks just don't really get paladins. A paladin is a not a cop, catchpole, guidance counsellor, or agony aunt, he is a footsoldier in the war against evil and chaos and he does the hard things that need to be done in fighting that war. Being nice is pretty damned far down the list of useful soldierly skills.
blackjackg 11-28-06, 04:25 PM	I have been saying that many times over for a very long time now. I think what it comes down to is that many folks just don't really get paladins. A paladin is a not a cop, catchpole, guidance counsellor, or agony aunt, he is a footsoldier in the war against evil and chaos and he does the hard things that need to be done in fighting that war. Being nice is pretty damned far down the list of useful soldierly skills. See, I really don't know where you get this from. Nowhere in the Paladin's description does it even suggest that the Paladin is without mercy, compassion or courtesy. In fact, it comes very close to saying the opposite. From the SRD: Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. The PHB goes into more detail. The long and short of is that Paladins are expected not just to be warriors, but also the uplifters of the weak and moral touchstones for the party (and the community). Why else would they get Cure Disease as a class ability? This is not to say that this is the only way to play a paladin. It's fair to say that you could play a paladin whose only goal is to destroy everything evil. But to say that a paladin who shows mercy to his enemies or attempts to convert them is not being roleplayed correctly? That's just presumptous, ignorant and wrong.
archcomponent 11-28-06, 04:42 PM	I have been saying that many times over for a very long time now. I think what it comes down to is that many folks just don't really get paladins. A paladin is a not a cop, catchpole, guidance counsellor, or agony aunt, he is a footsoldier in the war against evil and chaos and he does the hard things that need to be done in fighting that war. Being nice is pretty damned far down the list of useful soldierly skills. Exactly! Perhaps a caveat that the role of a paladin is a straight and narrow path, that it does not cover all of the agents of good would be helpful for people to grasp this. The Paladin's primary purpose is destroy evil wherever he may find it, with his cheif dalliance being to protect the innocent. Usually the two align, but a Paladin should not be the one sitting in a temple healing wounded when he can help it - someone else should take that role so that he can go out and battle evil. Besides, really, mercy is chaotic. It is giving someone other than what they deserve, a consideration of an individual above a system or the whole. Good does not preclude mercy, and in fact, one of the key reasons neutral good characters would see themselves as a 'pure' form of good is their ability to show such considerations and so temper their judgements. Maybe you'll even say this this makes non-Paladins necessary and NG (and CG) a healthy force to exist for the benefit of the whole. That does not mean a Paladin needs to stop and do their job for them. Plus, a paladin can commit CG and NG acts very easily, and in the case of NG probably routinely, without any trouble, so long as it does not shift his alignment away from LG. Some hug-happy evil-redeeming empathizing character may be good. His role is not the role of the Paladin - a narrowing calling, a specific devotion to the forces of good. This does not mean that the Paladin ceases to be good when he does not dispense hugs and instead smites evil and tears its scourge from the world without hesitation. This does not make him nongood - he is just a specific (valid and pure) form of good. Of course, when that compassionate and merciful individual goes so far as to provide consideration for an individual at the expense of the safety of the innocent, he begins to depart from being Good. If you stop someone from destroying a demon so you can have a heart-to-heart in an unlocked church and it tears out of there and murders an orphanage, you have strayed. Oh, and just for those who have not read the books too closely: "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good."
Sulaco 11-28-06, 05:17 PM	See, I really don't know where you get this from. Nowhere in the Paladin's description does it even suggest that the Paladin is without mercy, compassion... Good thing I didn't say anything to the contrary then, isn't it? ...or courtesy. Where does it mention courtesy? This is not to say that this is the only way to play a paladin. It's fair to say that you could play a paladin whose only goal is to destroy everything evil. But to say that a paladin who shows mercy to his enemies or attempts to convert them is not being roleplayed correctly? That's just presumptous, ignorant and wrong. Again, I said nothing to the contrary. Showing mercy or not showing mercy are choices that each paladin can make on a case-by-case basis using his own wits as well as his code of conduct as a guide. This is a personality issue, not a class-based one. I did not state or suggest that there is only one correct way to play a paladin, indeed I am arguing against that rather limited and utterly erroneous misconception, and I think it rather disingenuous to sugges otherwise and to implicitly insult me while doing so. A apaldins only goal is not to destroy evil, it is to destroy evil and chaos. This does not dictate how he comports himself whiel doing so, however. Just cos this is his only goal does not mean he is a rampaging sociopath while seeking to acocmplish this goal. He can strive for this goal and still be a paragon of social grace while doing so. Again, alignment and class do not dictate personality.
turalisj 11-28-06, 10:11 PM	The problem with most people who play paladins, they play them as they smite anything in site, holier than thou crusader of thier diety. Before the 'knight' base class came along, the paladin was the knight. The paladin represented the knight in shining armor who rode atop a horse, charging into battle against evil dragons and demons. If a paladin is meant to smite choas, then why not give it the ability to fit that flavor text? However, most of this is a personal view point, so I guess you can ignore this rant....
Starchaserva 11-28-06, 11:32 PM	I would say definetly. I'm a bit loathe to bring up Lord of the Rings, but think of the at least subtle animosity between Elves, Humans, and Dwarves, and yet it would be hard to say that any of them weren't good. It's not the fact that you're racist that makes you a bad person, it's both how you act on it, and how you change your perspective. If you learn to overcome your vices to be a good team player, and even care about the representative of the race that you're against, than that's a heroic hallmark. If you're a good person who has to hide his or her proclivities, despite your good guy actions, then you're a tortured hero. A villain would treat them in cruel ways, or would never chose to change his mindset, or perhaps might even let it get worse as time goes on.
High Octane 11-29-06, 03:00 AM	Most of the founding fathers of the United States were probably racist. I would like to think a good bunch of them were good aligned.
archcomponent 11-29-06, 08:18 PM	Most of the founding fathers of the United States were probably racist. I would like to think a good bunch of them were good aligned. Are you saying that a real-life racial group is analogous to an evil race?
High Octane 11-29-06, 08:33 PM	Are you saying that a real-life racial group is analogous to an evil race? .....sure. Why not? Since you are so set in twisting anything I say, I may as well let you have it. Have fun. But I suppose there is some confusion between whether the racism based on simple hateful prejudice (gnomes suck), personal experience (an orc killed his mama), cultural bias (like the elves and dwarves), or actual racial wars (elves and drow).
Retromancer 11-29-06, 08:58 PM	.....sure. Why not? Since you are so set in twisting anything I say, I may as well let you have it. Have fun. But I suppose there is some confusion between whether the racism based on simple hateful prejudice (gnomes suck), personal experience (an orc killed his mama), cultural bias (like the elves and dwarves), or actual racial wars (elves and drow). He hates drow because his background is that he grew up and trained around a region in which elves and drow combat frequently. Drow are the only race that he out and out HATES. other than that, he just believes that elves are just 1000 times more awesome than any other race.
Darkness_Elemental 11-29-06, 09:57 PM	I don't think anyone will argue that racism is a good trait. I further believe that you can't argue that racism is a neutral trait. In its purest form, racism leads people to do terrible, despicable things. In my eyes that makes racism evil. But one trait doesn't make a character evil. A character's alignment is determined by looking at all their traits, to see if their redeaming qualities outweigh their darker traits. At any rate, his apparently mild case of general racism doesn't really register. His hatered of the drow is more worrying, however. It seems to have clouded his judgment with the drider, and his refusal to admit he was wrong is likewise worrying, at least if he was presented with hard evidence. Overall, the character seems to be a pretty good guy, even if he isn't perfect. If he had hard evidence that the drider wasn't evil, however, he may be in danger of slipping down to Neutral.
turalisj 11-29-06, 11:31 PM	Look, it's up to the DM whether or not you can be good and be a racist. I would allow one of my characters to turn around and stab a gnome in the back after the gnome makes a 'your momma' joke, but that's me. However, this arguement, like many on these boards, are subject to what the dm says. But once more this is an opinion. Critique me on your views as you will. *blindfolds self and prepares for the flaming to begin*
arjomanes 11-30-06, 12:51 AM	In a world with evil races, where evil is a real and objective thing, racism against evil races is merely simple instictual self-protection. If you are engaged in war against evil and you happen to kill a non-evil specimen of the evil race .001% of the time, that hardly is evil. Even though one could say it was "racism" that guided your behavior, in a world with objective evil racism = good, if you are racist against evil aligned creatures. This isn't the real world, where it's more difficult to pin down good and evil. Killing a good creature that is a member of an evil race that did not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that it was an anomoly is not evil. It might be a mistake, and if the character is convinced that the creature, in hindsight, wasn't evil after all, then it might induce some guilt. But it also could be so unlikely the character won't really accept that it could have been truly good. As an aside, how did the elf find out the drider wasn't evil? It was killed before it got say what was on its mind. Or was it the bwaahaa gotcha Voice From Behind the DM Screen informing your character that the drider was evil? If the DM just told you, that's merely metaknowledge your character doesn't even have to worry about. In his world, the drider was evil, since it didn't provide any convincing evidence of its goodness. So he has no moral dilemna. So the point of this rambling post is this: if evil actually exists as an objective entity, and some creatures overwhelmingly have evil alignment, it is not evil to be prejudiced against them. It is merely a useful tactic by good creatures. If you want to call it racism, fine; but really racism as we know it in the real world doesn't define this properly, unless you want to make claims that certain real life races are predominately evil. I certainly wouldn't suggest that as a valid option.
Retromancer 11-30-06, 12:52 AM	*snip* Overall, the character seems to be a pretty good guy, even if he isn't perfect. If he had hard evidence that the drider wasn't evil, however, he may be in danger of slipping down to Neutral. we got hard evidence that it was good, but only AFTER we killed it. how would you think that affects it if he still remained unrependant for killing it?
arjomanes 11-30-06, 01:08 AM	Well, if the character concedes that it truly was not evil, and was also good (harmless or benevolent), and still remains unremorseful of killing it, simply because of how it was created, then I would consider that a not-good, and possibly an evil attitude, but still not an evil act. It cannot be an evil act because when it was killed, all that matters is what information they had at the time. If, however, the elf remains unconvinced, through skepticism or even self-delusion, then I would still consider the character having a good attitude, though somewhat ignorant and bigoted. Statistically though, he is still correct in assuming driders are evil. A rare anomaly like this should hardly even register in a sampling of the drider population of the world. Regardless, this incident certainly isn't enough to justify an alignment shift, but it could be a precursor to an eventual shift towards evil if the character continues to kill good creatures in a prejudiced manner. This would be more pronounced if he began killing other creatures that are less likely to be evil, such as orcs or lizardfolk, or halfling commoners. Also if he killed after he became aware of the innocence of his victims. On the other hand, it should be rare for driders to be good in a standard D&D campaign, and it shouldn't affect a character's abilities (like a paladin) if there is a bait and switch involving creatures that the character has every right to suspect to be evil. So I don't see it becoming an issue. One more point: a redeemed drider is not the same as an innocent drider. In most views of law, a being's past actions can still be punished even if the being in question reformed. A real life example: a criminal who repents while in prison still by law must fulfill the remainder of his sentence. Parole and mercy exist within the legal system, but they are not considered rights of the prisoner; they are considered exceptions that can be given or withheld as deemed appropriate. So killing a drider that was evil and became good, could be considered lawful if not good. And some could even consider it good, if not merciful, since the evil actions of the past are being accounted for.
The White Sorcerer 11-30-06, 02:03 AM	how would you think that affects it if he still remained unrependant for killing it? That would mean that the character isn't really evolving. This incident should at least cause some doubts about some of his beliefs.
Papa_duval 11-30-06, 10:39 AM	You might want to consider the difference between prejudice (the belief that someone is not as good as you) and discrimination (acting on those beliefs) There are a great many people in the world who are loving, caring, willing to help others, self-sacrificing, pitying and charitable, and who do it all out of racism (the belief that someone is worse than you, and thus needs helping/pitying etc) An elf could be racist towards dwarves and simply pity them, thinking 'poor short bearded types, they'll never understand the joy of the forests' rather than being racist along the lines of 'Damn dwarves, they're all as bad as each other, total waste of oxygen, someone should have killed them all years ago' both attitudes are racist, but one is definately evil, whilst the other is racism by a person who is good aligned. Its not nice, and it says a lot about the person, but they aren't evil because of it. However, what will change someones alignment in DnD is actions, thus discrimination. How you act with people you feel are inferior to you says a lot about who you are. And when it all comes down to it, Racism generally comes from a few simple sources. Fear (they are all horrible and dangerous and might hurt me) or pity (we are all so good and pure, we live in paradise, how sad that they are flawed and live somewhere horrible)
pres_man 11-30-06, 11:40 AM	If a Grey elf (+2 Int) believes that orcs (-2 Int), is that racism, or merely a fact (from the grey elves perspective)? On average a grey elf is going to have 4 higher intelligence than an orc. Yes some rare smart orcs might be more intelligent then some rare dumb grey elves, but probably 99% of the time the belief is valid. Likewise orcs (+4 str) believe grey elves are wimps (-2 str).
High Octane 11-30-06, 03:35 PM	He hates drow because his background is that he grew up and trained around a region in which elves and drow combat frequently. Drow are the only race that he out and out HATES. other than that, he just believes that elves are just 1000 times more awesome than any other race. Well the reason for his racism is relatively justifiable verse other bases. I say relatively. Anyway, If the guy is how you describe, hes a dick. But most elves are anyway.
archcomponent 11-30-06, 04:56 PM	All right, for those of you who want to continue to use real world racism as a basis for evaluating such actions in game, please answer me the following question: Which real life racial group is as evil as D&D orcs? How about fiends? Any real-life racial group strike you as being that evil? Because unless you think that the people in your real life examples have the same tendancies towards evil that evil races in D&D do, your examples and comparisons are meaningness. Although if that really is what you believe, check the CoC before you reply.
Papa_duval 12-01-06, 05:07 AM	Its not actually racist to hate a race thats actively out to destroy you. Its classed as Racism when it has no basis in fact. For instance, i'm not racist for thinking that dogs aren't as intelligent as humans, nor am i racist for thinking that monkeys should be paid less than humans when employed. If an entire race is evil and out to get you, i think its not racist to not like them. However, i'm an eberron player, where alignment is a lot less black and white, and where race doesn't dictate alignment. (what, an evil gold dragon, a LG black dragon, who would have thought) There is a difference between hating a race that is definately out to destroy and hating a race that just happens to live in the neighbouring country. Of course, the alignment system was designed for children, because only children can think things are so black and white - adults should be able to work with more complex motivations that 'its evil'.
Darkness_Elemental 12-01-06, 12:44 PM	This guy has a couple of things going on. First, he's bought into the idea of general elven supremacy, and expresses this in the form of snide comments directed at his party members. Their may be real differences between races in DnD, but the elves really have no basis for believing that they are truly superior to everyone else. His behavior in this area is so low key, though, that I don't think it should effect his alignment. It's a character flaw, and may make him hard to get along with, but their are more important things to base alignment on than this. The drider incident is one of them. If he didn't know it was redeemed when he killed it, then killing it was probably justified. It was more the drider's responsibility to make sure that people knew it wasn't a threat than the parties responsibility to give every drider they see the opportunity to make the first attack. What worries me is his behavior after the fact is what worries me. I would expect that a good character would experience a certain amount of doubt, soul searching, and perhaps sorrow after something like this. I wouldn't necessarily expect him to change his beliefs, but I would expect him to feel doubt. Keep in mind that he would probably internalize all this, so if anything his companions might see him as being even more irritable than before. On the other hand, if he's truly refusing to admit that it was good, because he can't (won't) believe that it's possible for a drider to be good, then I would say his hatred is blinding him and he's slipping down to neutral. If he believes that whether it was good, evil, or neutral he was fully justified in killing it because it was a drider, end of argument, he may have slipped down to neutral already and may be in danger of slipping to evil. In conclusion, his behavior only shows that their may be a problem. His alignment -good, evil, or neutral- depends on what's going on inside his head, and only the player can decide that.