Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Aliandrin 09-14-06, 03:43 AM	Upon reading the Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness alignment sections that detail what is good and what is evil, I really still find myself completely stumped. First question, is alignment on the good/evil axis inherently inclusionary(good characters should do good acts, evil characters should do evil acts) or exclusionary(good characters should NOT do evil acts, evil characters should NOT do good acts)? Because if it isn't one before the other, it's very possible to be both good and evil. An action can very well fall into both categories at once, such as an act that is Helping Others, Personal Sacrifice - and - is also under the category of Serving Evil. Suppose a Demon tells a person to help him. Book of Exalted Deeds suggests that "good is not necessarily stupid" and recommends that a good character not help those who are "evil or working at cross purposes to their own goals". But what if the choice is made to do so? Apart from being stupid, is it both good and evil? What of the character who routinely makes personal sacrifice for anyone and anything who asks determined to make those sacrifices even for the evil - in fact especially for the evil, because they are the ones who most likely demand sacrifice from others. Is that character evil and selfless(! ? !), or just good and stupid? Second question, both BoED and BoVD emphasize actions and consequences over intent. "Does the objective definition of Evil imply that intent plays no part in determining what is good and what isn't? Only to a degree." What of the person whose actions almost always cause evil he never intends, or the villain who can't stop botching his plans and ends up helping everyone else? Where inner alignment (intention) is almost always the opposite of outer alignment (actual consequences caused) either because of stupidity or manipulation or both, what is the character? What of the unfortunate cleric who spends his life healing others who all somehow turn out to do horrible acts of evil, and the poor soul finally kills himself because he sees what was going on from his healing, only it turns out that the next day, twenty innocent dying children were to show up for help from him. Every action he has done has caused evil and harm, but his every intent was altruistic and self-sacrificing. Where does he go when he dies - does he become a larva? If consequences decide what is evil, and since the DM has almost complete control over consequences, he can make the most virtuous Paladin evil just by throwing ripples onto actions. According to BoVD (Intent and Context), as long as the possibility of such consequences are understood, the act is evil when those consequences happen. DM - "Did your character know that beings like the one you saved have free will?" Paladin'sPlayer - "Yes." DM - "So you understood that the Human could very possibly choose to do the evil that occurred." Paladin'sPlayer - "Yes." As long as the character understands the possibility of the consequence, the act is no longer accidental, but negligent. It is only a very sad added truth that if given a choice to do something or not do it, both choices are probably reckless and negligent by those definitions, and it is very easy for a DM to impose consequences on either choice that make it an evil act. Not that every DM would, just that I feel it's a very sorry situation if in the D&D world, circumstance and the universe itself control a character's alignment, and not the character. Question three, what of a conflict of a character's two alignment components? The Book of Exalted Deeds admits that they exist, and that a character handed a choice between turning over a criminal to a legitimate authority who will torture the criminal and letting him go commits an evil act by turning the prisoner over. Certainly it's a chaotic act to just let the prisoner go, isn't it? I know most people will argue that you can "find a way" to do neither, and will even post replies stating how this could be done. Please don't, that's not what the question is about. The question is simply this: How does one keep one's character Lawful Good when faced with situations where over and over he must decide between a chaotic act and an evil one? Do not say there are no such situations, even if what I've posted isn't the best example. And even if there were such ways to weasel around every problem like this - and I don't deny that with each member who posts giving me a +2 to my intelligence check to defeat the problem, it might be possible - not every character (or player) will be smart enough to see them, and expecting them to be nigh-omnipotent around a gaming table where fifty people aren't taking time to take ten on their intelligence checks, is unreasonable. On the spot, when your character can't find a way around choosing between Chaos and Evil on a routine basis, how do you keep him Lawful Good? Recap: 1. The person selflessly sacrificing for an evil creature or god, not to get anything in return, is what alignment? 2. The person whose intentions are always good but the consequences of his actions are always evil, is what alignment? 3. How do you keep a character Lawful Good if he is routinely faced with a yes-or-no choice between Chaos and Evil? Is it even possible to have two non-neutral alignment components in a hypothetical hostile universe that always makes you choose? Does the character control his own alignment or do circumstances and fate?
Callista 09-14-06, 04:13 AM	1. He's evil; he's serving the ideal of evil itself. This assumes that he's not serving the evil creature in hopes of redeeming it. Being selfless is not always Good; it just means you aren't working for yourself. A Lawful Evil character can easily be selfless for the cause of evil. 2. He's Good, but he's pretty stupid not to try to figure out why everything he does seems to go wrong, or to try to prevent it. If he's deliberately not trying to figure that out, then he's slowly shifting to evil because he's allowing his good intentions to turn out badly. If things turn out wrong despite his best efforts, something is likely going on behind the scenes, and he'd better go find himself a good diviner to find out what. And if nothing is going on behind the scenes, I want to find his DM, because such bad luck shouldn't happen to anybody without a decent reason. 3. That's what the Atonement spell is for. When an imperfect character chooses between two actions that embody the two opposites of his alignment, he is doing something he doesn't want to do and already regrets. If such a character is caught in a situation like this, he can go to a cleric and request an atonement, probably complete with some sort of reparation for what he did (though it was forced by circumstance). The atonement, then, is not just to make up for what he did, but to help him live with himself after it happened.
Aliandrin 09-14-06, 04:31 AM	What if that character is selfless in all ways, not just for evil, but including being selfless toward evil? Is this even possible or do the predefined alignments just totally barr such a character from existance? Edit, A Lawful Evil character can be selfless for the cause of evil, but can he be selfless in other ways too?
Kradlo 09-14-06, 10:28 AM	One of the things standard in D&D is alignment. Barring house rules to the contrary, alignment in D&D is not a subjective thing. While in the real world, very few people may think of themselves as evil (they'll find ways to justify almost any action), in D&D you can determine if a person, creature, or object is evil by means of the spell or spell-like ability detect evil. The Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness are WotC's look at the extremes of these alignments. For an objective alignment system, they detail what Wizards deems good and evil. As with any set of rules, the GM is free to modify it as his campaign dictates, but barring that it establishes what is good and what is evil. Healing is not necessarily a "good" act. An evil cleric healing his evil half-ogre minion after defeating a paladin isn't on the path to heaven, though it will make employer-employee relations better. A good cleric that provides healing to any in need is being good. If one of the people he's helped does something evil, a good cleric should seek him out to stop the evil acts, whether by word (i.e., Diplomacy) or deed (i.e., a +2 shocking burst heavy mace to the head). Patching them up when they're injured is good, but a bit of proselytizing and a lecture on morality is going to come with the healing. As for the would-be villain whose deeds always end up for the best, I played a character like that once. He was viewed as a hero by the people, when in truth he was just looking out for his own interests. Lack of competence won't change your alignment, but it may change whether those of your alignment want you on their side. My final advice is to decide for yourself what you want for your campaign. You've got the default in your hands, but you can always Rule Zero otherwise if you feel it will help your campaign.
Tzor 09-14-06, 11:05 AM	Recap: 1. The person selflessly sacrificing for an evil creature or god, not to get anything in return, is what alignment? 2. The person whose intentions are always good but the consequences of his actions are always evil, is what alignment? 3. How do you keep a character Lawful Good if he is routinely faced with a yes-or-no choice between Chaos and Evil? Is it even possible to have two non-neutral alignment components in a hypothetical hostile universe that always makes you choose? Does the character control his own alignment or do circumstances and fate? 1. Stupid. Actually I would call him neutral, since I'm assuming that he knows that the promotion of the evil creature/god will not help the greater good and in fact will harm the people in general. Then again he doesn't care much for himself either. Hopefully he's lawful, or else he's a LOOSER. 2. Looser. Assuming that he knows that his consequences are evil and still does it then he is neutral. A good person knows when not to act. 3. Depends. Paladins are simple: Good trumps Law. (You get de-paladined for a single evil act, while you have to go so far as to change your alignment before you get de-paladined on the caos side.) For others it depends on which you place first. Some might place Law above Good, but they would start to drift towards neutrality. Some might place Good above Law, but they would start to drift towards a different neutraility. Generally speaking, however, evil harms good more than chaos harms law.
CryoSilver 09-14-06, 11:12 AM	I would urge you not to use BoED/VD as an alignment guide; that's kind of like forming your opinions of liberals and conservatives based on Ralph Nader and Adolf Hitler.
pres_man 09-14-06, 02:15 PM	1. The person selflessly sacrificing for an evil creature or god, not to get anything in return, is what alignment? Lawful Insane? Seriously though, he is evil, most likely Lawful Evil. 2. The person whose intentions are always good but the consequences of his actions are always evil, is what alignment? Probably neutral, but possible good. I think all depends on how much he could foresee the consequences of his actions. If he shows mercy to an orc (a good act) and that orc later murders some children (an evil act), well you can't really hold him responsible for the orc's later actions. Now if this had happened with the same two more than once, then he might be held responsible knowing that the orc will murder again. 3. How do you keep a character Lawful Good if he is routinely faced with a yes-or-no choice between Chaos and Evil? Is it even possible to have two non-neutral alignment components in a hypothetical hostile universe that always makes you choose? Does the character control his own alignment or do circumstances and fate? Alignment is defined when there are choices, otherwise everybody would be neutral since most actions people take are neutral ones (eating, sleeping, pooping, breathing, etc). It is when given a choice between a good act, a neutral act, and an evil act that alignment shows its colors. A good person would choose the good act most of the time, a neutral person would choose the neutral act most of the time, and an evil person would choose an evil act most of the time. If a good person is in a situation where the only choices are evil or neutral, the good person will try to minimize the evil by choosing the neutral act. For a LG person faced with only a chaotic or evil choice, I would say would probably choose the chaotic one mainly because I feel good versus evil is a stronger opposition then law versus chaos.
Torp 09-14-06, 05:00 PM	Another interesting case study here would be the selfish (=evil) guy who chooses good because he benefits from it. Much like the would-be villain who ends up helping those he seeks to dominate, the consequences of his actions are almost always good. Through manipulation of those who notice his good deeds, he sets himself up as a great hero, and reaps the benefits of this status. Because he needs to keep up the appearance of goodness to continue to reap the rewards of his heroic reputation, he will do good deeds even when the immediate benefits are less for the good deed than the bad deed (after all, a thousand gold is less worth than being worshipped as a hero by an entire community, with all the benefits (from the best food and board the community has to offer, for free, to a source of help and henchmen if in need, to the loving admiration of the towns young women (or men)). Is such a "hero", who does good for all the wrong reasons, really good? In my book, he's not. But I'm not the author of the Alignment system, and truth be told, I would prefer to be without it. At least as it stands today, in D&D. As for the 3 scenearios put forth by the original poster, I'd say that the first, assuming he is self-sacrificing towards all creatures, regardless of alignment, should be considered the ultimate good of the D&D alignment system (it is, after all, based on a christian moral system, and Jesus was a self-sacrificing guy who helped anybody in need, and sacrificed himself for everyone). The second is probably good. His actions are good, and they're done in good intent, but the indirect consequences of his actions are bad. The "if you're aware that something bad could happen from the action, but do it anyway" only applies to the direct consequences of the action, or obvious and highly probable indirect consequences, as far as I'm concerned. The third is, as the above poster stated, not a true choice. Still, I'd count any choice towards a change of alignment. Just not as strongly as a choice with actual choice. Oh, and choosing the lesser of two evils must be considered a good choice in such a sceneario.
HamHam 09-14-06, 05:30 PM	When it comes to alignment, it's simplest to just go with your instincts. Does it feel good? Does it feel evil? You're more than likely going to be right.
Aliandrin 09-14-06, 05:57 PM	I have two people saying that the selfless person who simply doesn't descriminate based on alignment is evil, and one person saying he is the ultimate good. And the person who just always has his actions turned to crud by their consequences - let's say for the moment there's nothing he can do to avoid it, it's not a curse he can remove, he's just naturally cursed - if he's evil then a person has no control over their own alignment. Is that what you're trying to say, that you can keep yourself good when fate is in your favour, but when things all turn to crud, you become chaotic and evil? People seem to be agreeing that a routine choice to do chaos in lieu of evil where there is no other choice will make the Lawful Good character drift toward neutrality on the lawful/chaotic axis. This is a horrfying thought to me... Does it really mean that the universe acn set up these situations repeatedly and foce-defrock your Paladin as soon as he becomes chaotic? Not that anyone would, I am simply made sad by the idea that it's possible. It makes me feel as if it's only by the luck of having a DM who shields you from those choices that you can keep your Paladin in good graces and not constantly need atonement.
Torp 09-14-06, 06:34 PM	You still don't understand? Well, that's because you're listening to me and my advise, coloured by a whole lot of things and not the rules of the system... :D My advice, in the end, would be to go with HamHams advice.
King Bulba 09-14-06, 07:03 PM	When it comes to alignment, it's simplest to just go with your instincts. Does it feel good? Does it feel evil? You're more than likely going to be right. Note you said "more than likely" but that does mean you will be wrong every now and then. One of the things standard in D&D is alignment. Barring house rules to the contrary, alignment in D&D is not a subjective thing. To bad it makes no sense and no two people can ever agree to what is good or evil even if you tryto follow the rules. Objective alignment in DnD = retarded. Enough said! Guess we can hold out for 4th edtion and hope it replaces objective alignment with something that makes more sense.
Aliandrin 09-14-06, 07:37 PM	The "if you're aware that something bad could happen from the action, but do it anyway" only applies to the direct consequences of the action, or obvious and highly probable indirect consequences, as far as I'm concerned. What if the man knows that his actions' consequences will all be twisted towards evil? In my original post, I gave a good scenario of what he might do if he can't break the curse - he finally realizes what is happening and kills himself to prevent further evil that he knows he can't help but cause. Of course this is twisted towards evil too - it now turns out that the day after he killed himself, twenty dying and totally innocent a pure children show up to be healed by him. It seems to me that in this case, the evil consequences are both obvious and highly probable, the man simply cannot escape those consequences no matter what he does.
Amon_WinterfallIV 09-15-06, 03:41 AM	D+D alignments try to be objective, and wind up being contradictory. However, it must be pointed out that they boldly tried to explain this concepts even though they are not even agreed upon IRL. These questions have been asked for millenia, and while we might make progress, its probably not possible to find an acceptable universal ethic code. The alignment system as presented in BoED and BoVD occasionally leads to wildly weird rulings, and it has a pronounced IRL bias (Vow of Chastity = Good? Icky = Evil? Ravages good and diseases Evil?) I'd start off with: --the means and the ends both matter --Rules against killing others should be much looser than IRL; this is a fighting game. Murder is wrong, killing innocents is wrong, but there should be wider latitude for killing the guilty. (Halfling bandits robbing a merchant wagon would not deserve death IRL, but in D+D that's probably fair game) --Cruelty, harming innocents, causing Suffering without benefit, and needlessly violating the dignity of others are Evil. I believe that done correctly, D+D ethics are actually going to be much looser than IRL. Consider it a massive philosophical exercise: Build your own moral code!
pres_man 09-15-06, 11:43 AM	One thing it always seems to me that a lot of people don't understand is that alignment in D&D is suppose to be an objective mechanic (yeah we all know that right), but it is defined subjectively in its absolute sense. The books give general guidelines as to what each alignment is, but they don't give specifics. This is where the subjectivity comes in, each group (or at the very least each DM) has to define exactly where the lines are drawn. But once those lines are drawn, it is generally assumed that those are followed objectively. So within a specific game/group, alignment should be treated objectively, yet between different games/groups there is going to be some subjective differences. As for two people not being able to agree, I have hardly found that the problem for the great majority of issues. There may be one or two very specific very limit issues that there may be some debate. But I haven't in personal experience run into situations where someone is trying to justify putting babies on pikes while praying to Gruumsh as a good act. If you really have people having such wide views on what is good or evil, then I would seriously consider if one or more of them have "issues".
HamHam 09-15-06, 11:48 AM	Note you said "more than likely" but that does mean you will be wrong every now and then. Question is does anyone notice? Alignment is really only important when players and DMs disagree about it. When that happens, I suggest the following simple guidelines: 1) When it's a matter of roleplay, allow rather than disallow. 2) When it's a matter of mechanics, disallow rather than allow. 3) Paladin codes fall under Roleplay.
Optimator 09-15-06, 03:34 PM	I was under the impression that alignment was based on one's morals and/or personal views (i.e. how they view the world) and not their actions. Naturally, an evil person will do evil deeds significantly more often than good deeds and vice-versa for a good person. :twocents:
Shinryouga 09-15-06, 05:54 PM	Also, it needs to be kept in mind that many of the real-life factors that weigh on alignment dont exist in a D&D world. One of the biggest is the afterlife; in D&D, there is one. And while many in RL have faith that there is, D&D worlds just have more concrete evidence of it. In a D&D world, its a provable, testable fact (proven because Raise Dead works). This makes much of the "ultimate punishment" aspect of RL death carry less weight in D&D. Death in D&D isn't the ultimate punishment. Just my two coppers.
Leaves 09-15-06, 08:17 PM	1. The person selflessly sacrificing for an evil creature or god, not to get anything in return, is what alignment? It depends on how much the person knows about the nature of the evil thing. If they have the information to know that the thing is evil, and the intelligence/wisdom to understand that, then it is evil to serve it. But if you are talking about a Good ranger at a distant outpost, who selflessly serves his empire, and dismisses the rumos about the alliance with the demons as propaganda, then he can still be good, and his service can still be a goodly act. On the other hand, if a person can rationalize his service as not actually serving the evil entity, like a mundane healer in an evil army that only wants to save his comrades, that could still be good. Especially if he intends to convert-by-example, so to speak. 2. The person whose intentions are always good but the consequences of his actions are always evil, is what alignment? I think there is a difference between a possible evil outcome, and a probable evil outcome. Even in healing a paladin, there is a possibility that she could turn blackguard. But that isn't an evil act. 3. How do you keep a character Lawful Good if he is routinely faced with a yes-or-no choice between Chaos and Evil? Is it even possible to have two non-neutral alignment components in a hypothetical hostile universe that always makes you choose? Does the character control his own alignment or do circumstances and fate? Lawful does not mean "Full of laws". Lawful characters are expected to adhere closely to their own code of ethics; in the case a lawful good character, that code should be both lawful and GOOD. If the "legitimate" authority is practicing evil, then the lawful good character should not beleive that authority to be legitimate. After all, in DnD evil deities are "legitimate", but lawful good characters don't take orders from them just because they are powerful. If the "legitimate" authority violates the LG character's personal ethics, then the personal code takes precedence, and releasing the prisoner is not a Chaotic act.
King Bulba 09-15-06, 09:15 PM	If the "legitimate" authority violates the LG character's personal ethics, then the personal code takes precedence, and releasing the prisoner is not a Chaotic act. With that example anyone can be lawful, even if they are chaotic in eveyones mind. Chaotic follow their own code too, they just don't care about anyone elses codes. Since their code doesn't match the authority it violates the charaters ethics, then the personal code takes precedence, and releasing the prisoner is not a Chaotic act.
Bulletproof_Condom 09-16-06, 07:53 AM	First question, is alignment on the good/evil axis inherently inclusionary(good characters should do good acts, evil characters should do evil acts) or exclusionary(good characters should NOT do evil acts, evil characters should NOT do good acts)? Because if it isn't one before the other, it's very possible to be both good and evil. Yeah, that's called Neutral. That's most people.
Aliandrin 09-16-06, 01:23 PM	Okay, my main question has been answered. If a person performs self-sacrifice, personal giving, aid, and all those other acts toward evil, then he is evil. Fine, but Evil and Good are the same now. A war between identical forces instead of opposite ones. Presumably there are a lot of characters like my example character, willing to be altruistic towards evil gods/beings. So good and evil behave exactly the same, or at least it is possible that they behave exactly the same, toward others of their own alignment. I quite frankly destest this princible and I believe there should be something inherently different about the way good characters behave towards evil characters and the way evil characters behave toward good ones, and I also think there should be a definitive difference between how good and evil treat their own, otherwise alignment is objective alright, but completely meaningless. But if this is how it is, then so be it.
kelvinaw273 09-16-06, 04:04 PM	You ask some difficult questions, don't you? I think that intentions DO matter, but they do not carry the same weight as consequences. Book of Exalted Deeds suggests that "good is not necessarily stupid" and recommends that a good character not help those who are "evil or working at cross purposes to their own goals". But what if the choice is made to do so? Apart from being stupid, is it both good and evil? What of the character who routinely makes personal sacrifice for anyone and anything who asks determined to make those sacrifices even for the evil - in fact especially for the evil, because they are the ones who most likely demand sacrifice from others. Is that character evil and selfless(! ? !), or just good and stupid? Can you give an example? If the character has a demanding friend that they help out a lot, just because that person they are helping is evil does not make their deeds evil. Consider each deed in isolation: is it an evil deed (eating babies, raping virgins etc) or is it a neutral or good deed (finding an item, nipping down to the shops for groceries etc.). If the deeds are toward an ultimate evil goal that the character is unaware of, they are not evil deeds in and of themselves as the character percieves them. If they are done with the intention of 'turning' the evil charadcter by showing them a better way, they may be considered good deeds even. Second question, both BoED and BoVD emphasize actions and consequences over intent. "Does the objective definition of Evil imply that intent plays no part in determining what is good and what isn't? Only to a degree." What of the person whose actions almost always cause evil he never intends, or the villain who can't stop botching his plans and ends up helping everyone else? Where inner alignment (intention) is almost always the opposite of outer alignment (actual consequences caused) either because of stupidity or manipulation or both, what is the character? What of the unfortunate cleric who spends his life healing others who all somehow turn out to do horrible acts of evil, and the poor soul finally kills himself because he sees what was going on from his healing, only it turns out that the next day, twenty innocent dying children were to show up for help from him. Every action he has done has caused evil and harm, but his every intent was altruistic and self-sacrificing. Where does he go when he dies - does he become a larva? If consequences decide what is evil, and since the DM has almost complete control over consequences, he can make the most virtuous Paladin evil just by throwing ripples onto actions. According to BoVD (Intent and Context), as long as the possibility of such consequences are understood, the act is evil when those consequences happen. DM - "Did your character know that beings like the one you saved have free will?" Paladin'sPlayer - "Yes." DM - "So you understood that the Human could very possibly choose to do the evil that occurred." Paladin'sPlayer - "Yes." As long as the character understands the possibility of the consequence, the act is no longer accidental, but negligent. It is only a very sad added truth that if given a choice to do something or not do it, both choices are probably reckless and negligent by those definitions, and it is very easy for a DM to impose consequences on either choice that make it an evil act. Not that every DM would, just that I feel it's a very sorry situation if in the D&D world, circumstance and the universe itself control a character's alignment, and not the character. Again, confine the view to that the character is aware of at that time: the argument that by helping somebody he does not know and may later do evil makes the character responsible for the evil they do holds no water. Saving a life is defined as a good act. What the person whose life you saved does afterwards is their choice, and you may oppose them or aid them as you see fit, but the act itself is still good because you also gave the person the choice to NOT do evil, and showed them a better path. That they did not choose it is not the paladin's responsibility, he cannot make those decisions for others. Look to the immediate consequences of the actions, if you look to far ahead with too many factors the good character has no control over, you end up unable to do anything. Further, just because intention is less important than consequences, it is not unimportant. Once again, look to the immediate cause and effect: A character decides to rob a coach, which is an evil act. The fact that this ends up serving the greater good is not the characters intention OR AWARENESS, merely their own greed. As such it is the decision to rob the coach using deadly force that is the deed that should be judged, not the subsequent actions over which the character has no control. Another example, the character who allways tries to do good is still good, though they may become convinced that they are evil if they keep failing, this is not the case. The important thing is not that they failed to stop the maiden being eaten by the dragon, but that their action was to try to stop the dragon. The action is more important than the intention - you cannot hold a character responsible for consequences beyond their scope of vision at that time. You CAN hold them responsible for consequences they can see coming for their actions. For Example: the Knight goes to rescue the maiden from the dragon and fails, and the dragon wipes out the knight's homeland in revenge. If the latter action is one the knight had no inkling would occur, then they are not responsible. If the knight was aware of the possible actions of the dragon, then they are partially responsible. How they balance the conflicting goals is what makes for good roleplay. Question three, what of a conflict of a character's two alignment components? The Book of Exalted Deeds admits that they exist, and that a character handed a choice between turning over a criminal to a legitimate authority who will torture the criminal and letting him go commits an evil act by turning the prisoner over. Certainly it's a chaotic act to just let the prisoner go, isn't it? I know most people will argue that you can "find a way" to do neither, and will even post replies stating how this could be done. Please don't, that's not what the question is about. The question is simply this: How does one keep one's character Lawful Good when faced with situations where over and over he must decide between a chaotic act and an evil one? Do not say there are no such situations, even if what I've posted isn't the best example. And even if there were such ways to weasel around every problem like this - and I don't deny that with each member who posts giving me a +2 to my intelligence check to defeat the problem, it might be possible - not every character (or player) will be smart enough to see them, and expecting them to be nigh-omnipotent around a gaming table where fifty people aren't taking time to take ten on their intelligence checks, is unreasonable. On the spot, when your character can't find a way around choosing between Chaos and Evil on a routine basis, how do you keep him Lawful Good? For the final choice, there is a reason these are not computer games. For every yes and no there should also be a maybe. Initially I would break down the decision thus: 1) How much evil might the criminal do if released? 2) How much evil will be done to them if turned over to the authorities? 3) What is more important to the character, the rule of good or the rule of law? 4) How prepared are the authorities to negotiate? Under (1), if the criminal is a thief who stole food because they were hungry, I would judge them easily releasable. If they are a serial killer who tortures their victimns to death, I would feel that the greater good may be served by turning them in. (2) Are they due to be executed for stealing bread, or hung, drawn and quartered for mass murder? How bad is the pounishment compared to the crime - remember that paladins are compelled to oppose unjust laws. Under (3) that character has to decide if they are more Lawful than Good or vice verse. Paladins are clearly more Good than Lawful - their lawful alignment must be kept, but they lose their powers if the commit a single evil act, regardless that their alignment stays the same. Lastly (4), the authorities may be open to negotiation. Example: Lord Cram the Bloodthirsty: Aha! A noble knight has returned Fred the Knave to face justice for his theft of my ring (and killing two serving wenches, but they don't count)! How may I reward you, good sir? Sir Simin the Shiny: All I ask my lord is that Fred be given a fair trial and if convicted and condemned, slain swiftly and humanely. Lord Cram the Bloodthirsty: <grumbles> Oh all right, spoilsport ...
Leaves 09-16-06, 06:17 PM	With that example anyone can be lawful, even if they are chaotic in eveyones mind. Chaotic follow their own code too, they just don't care about anyone elses codes. Since their code doesn't match the authority it violates the charaters ethics, then the personal code takes precedence, and releasing the prisoner is not a Chaotic act. Chaos follows their own goals, they use any means necessary to accomplish those ends. A chaotic person places no limits on what is acceptable behavior; his only concern is whether any course of action will be effective. For a lawful character, the ends don't justify the means. The lawful character must choose the course of action that is most noble, not whatever is easiest.
kelvinaw273 09-16-06, 11:00 PM	Chaos follows their own goals, they use any means necessary to accomplish those ends. A chaotic person places no limits on what is acceptable behavior; his only concern is whether any course of action will be effective. For a lawful character, the ends don't justify the means. The lawful character must choose the course of action that is most noble, not whatever is easiest. I disagree about 'ends justifies the means' - that is a good/evil not a law/chaos distinction. Chaotic characters prefer liberty, freedomand a lack of structure for a variety of reasons. They don't like rules and rely in intuition. Chaotic characters DO have limits on acceptable behaviour, they just do not draw the lines based on what everyone else thinks. Lawful characters prefer logic and structure to their lives. They use reason rather than intuition, and like sets of rules that clearly define what is right and what is wrong. For example, a Chaotic Good and a Lawful Good character will both place a high value on life. The Lawful Good character however wil try to impose rules 'for the good of all' whereas the chaotic good character would argue that personal freedom is more important. The Lawful Good character is likely to be offended by those that act and dress differently to the norm. The chaotic good character is likely to shrug and say it's their decision. When asked to judge if a particular action is good or evil, the LG character will consult the rule book while the CG character will vote with his heart. However, both are likely to disagree with the concept that the 'ends justifies the means'. That is more of a lawful evil statement, wherein the final goal requires sacrifices to be made to achieve it (as long as they are someone elses, usually). A chaotic evil character would not even bother to justify themmselves.
Aliandrin 09-17-06, 02:52 AM	Under (1), if the criminal is a thief who stole food because they were hungry, I would judge them easily releasable. If they are a serial killer who tortures their victimns to death, I would feel that the greater good may be served by turning them in. (2) Are they due to be executed for stealing bread, or hung, drawn and quartered for mass murder? How bad is the pounishment compared to the crime - remember that paladins are compelled to oppose unjust laws. Under (3) that character has to decide if they are more Lawful than Good or vice verse. Paladins are clearly more Good than Lawful - their lawful alignment must be kept, but they lose their powers if the commit a single evil act, regardless that their alignment stays the same. Let us assume a result of serial killer and death sentence - and the guards are unwilling to negotiate at all. Here is what I would set up were I DM. 1. If the character goes to the guards and attempts to negotiate, the guards are initially one step below hostile towards the criminal and adjusting their attitute to one step above helpful (because if they let him go, they will suffer at the hands of the tyrant king, probably with their lives) to make them release (fanatic attitude required) or even not torture (helpful) the criminal. Ad hoc +10 DC for adjusting the attitude toward another recipient of the attitude instead of yourself, to which the Knave (-3 Cha bonus, no Diplomacy ranks) adds another +5 to the DC, -2 for a failed Aide Other check, -3 for his Charisma Bonus. If the Paladin even suggests to the king he not enforce his rules of torture (anyone under the king will explain that this is to learn of further crimes and expose conspirators, DC 10 Knowledge Local will reveal that it works and keeps the people safe and theft-free) the king simply kills you. He's epic, and he can do that. The knowledge local would also reveal the king's policy towards naysayers of his laws - King asks for advise, never allows it to be dumped upon him unsolicited. 2. It is more good to let the person go, rather than let him face (even possibly) undeserved torture - says so in the BoED. However, if you let him go, your character is roughly 80% sure that he will go around murdering. Thus letting the man go is 80% likely to be an evil act as well as a chaotic one - and you need the Atonement just for the chaotic side. You must now decide between probably killing innocents and definitely torturing the guilty - these are both irrevocably evil. You may not simply let the man go and follow him around, or have him followed. That's not only harassment but in this town, illegal infringement upon privacy. Assuming the guards don't find out you caught him and why - you still go to jail for attempting to intrude upon an (they think) innocent man's privacy. If the guards do know you had him and why, you are beheaded - the town charter makes it clear what happens to suspected criminals. Save your character.
Bulletproof_Condom 09-17-06, 06:18 PM	You cannot allow a serial killer to go free if you are Lawful Good. Can Not. You turn him over to the authorities and plead for a humane execution. If that fails, you repent. Consider taking action to restore a just government.
infideli 09-17-06, 06:53 PM	Only outsiders, gods, and those touched by the gods are Good or Evil or neutral. Mortals and PCs in general DO good and evil deeds. Only the vilest mortal becomes truly Evil: they are tainted, vile, corrupted etc. Pick a word. Only the purest and most noble mortal becomes truly Good: they are exalted, sainted, glorified, blessed etc. Pick a word. In my campaign world, you can detect only the extreme states in a mortal such as utter corruption or blessed exaltation. Other spells can see the history of a person, the pain he has caused, intended... they show what he WAS, not is. Other spells can read the intention in the moment, but not what the person has been. An "evil man" who has led an evil life might come to you on a path towards redemption... a "good man" who once sacrificed an arm to save a city may be bitter after a decade of infirmity and might plot to undo the church he now hates. The curse of mortality and it's only blessing is that people can change. We are free to act in goodly or fiendish ways.. we are free in every moment to fall into darkness or rise out into the light. G
infideli 09-17-06, 06:57 PM	Here's a gaming aid from my campaign site on Good and Evil. http://www.geocities.com/bran_nor/Anointed/ EXERPT... from a newspaper reporter's interview with a mono-theistic church official, an Alder Interviewer: Certainly not, but this talk of evil? Alder Corey: Yes. We know that no man of mortal flesh and spirit is without flaw whether you name it a sin or name it a shame or otherwise. We know that one man’s mortal eyes will look upon another man’s deeds and name them good or ill, but only God may know for sure. No man is perfect in his purity and devotion. If he were, he would be evangelion and not human flesh. Interviewer: We are imperfect, surely, but an evil deed is an evil deed. Evil deeds make an evil man. Alder Corey: I once asked my father, “Is it one lie that makes you a liar, or a perhaps thousand?” I was so young that I did not know how many were in a thousand, but on that very day, my father decided I would tend the Sept. You speak of an evil man: If you saw a man accosting your goodwife, he would be an evil man and you would be just in taking up a yardaxe and felling him. If that man was of the Watch and doing his duty, then he would be the just man and you become a murderer in the eyes of every man and the law. Interviewer: I see. Good or evil deeds may be the identical but change from good to evil in circumstance. A good man may do evil deeds by a flaw in judgment. Alder Corey: But just so? If I look upon a man and wish to do him ill but lack the courage and stay my hand, does this cowardice make of me a man of virtue? By no means. It is not the deed alone, but the heart as well. God alone knows the truth of a soul and the merit or true measure of a man. Interviewer: So God alone may judge a man good or evil? Alder Corey: An evil man? That is every man as all men are composed of both the good and the ill. But as God is the light of the world, there is also darkness. As there are men made holy by the Light, there are men tainted by Darkness. Interviewer: But is that not just another judgment by another man? Alder Corey: Holy is a word and in the same way so is Tainted, so they can be mere judgments. But there is Holiness in the world and there is Taint, regardless of whether mortal eyes gaze upon it or whether a mortal man might name it this or that. To be tainted requires no deed just as the roots of the field require no deed to feed upon fresh waters. Taint is a condition of the soul that –regardless of deeds- feeds the unseen spirit with a darkness that bears nothing but poison fruit, be it in this life or the afterlife. If we speak of evil men, I am one. And knowing this I can seek to purge myself and with full attention do only worthy deeds. If I claim to be a good man, then my evil goes unchecked and grows, perhaps festering to one day taint my soul.
Aliandrin 09-17-06, 09:44 PM	You cannot allow a serial killer to go free if you are Lawful Good. Can Not. You turn him over to the authorities and plead for a humane execution. If that fails, you repent. Consider taking action to restore a just government. And handing over the guard is just as evil - KNOWING he will be tortured. You must repent, over and over and over. You'll have your Paladin powers oh say... For the first minute of each adventure. This is rediculous and you'll soon be permanently stripped of Paladinhood. Are you honestly telling me that circumstance has this kind of power over a good character, to simply force a no-win on him constantly, robbing him of his powers repeatedly until it's no longer possible for him to repent?
infideli 09-17-06, 10:12 PM	One thing it always seems to me that a lot of people don't understand is that alignment in D&D is suppose to be an objective mechanic (yeah we all know that right), but it is defined subjectively in its absolute sense. Good and evil in D&D are absolutely objective: Evil lives and breathes in the fiendish Lower Planes while Good lives and breathes in the celestial Upper Planes. Everything in between is a mix, especially the material planes and their inhabitants. The negative energy plane feeds the Lower Realms and all evil in the universe is touched by it. The positive plane of life touches the Upper Realms and all good reflects it. All physical things are constructed of the 4 elements and animated through the + or - energy interactions. The prime material plane is mixed of all the material elements and the energies, just like people. People also are SOURCES of both positive and negative energy... we feed the Outerplanes with our beliefs and actions (see the consequences in Planscape: towns shifting from one plane to the next, gods dying or changing alignemnt and portfolio as their believers view them and worship differently). Mortals are also touched by + & - energy physically even as they create it astrally... being composed of, influenced by, and creating it all at once. So when it comes to alignment, paladins MUST look at what is manifest as Goodly and Lawful (Seven Heavens) and focus upon integrated thought, deed and intent in accord with it. A devoted servant of demons must seek constantly for the opposite, looking at the cruel and hungry fiends that form his idols and his greatest enemies. Alignment for most is "how I choose to act and how I have acted". For paladins and such restricted/devoted folk, alignment is "How I need to act, and what I intend toward". G
kelvinaw273 09-17-06, 10:44 PM	Let us assume a result of serial killer and death sentence - and the guards are unwilling to negotiate at all. Here is what I would set up were I DM. 1. If the character goes to the guards and attempts to negotiate, the guards are initially one step below hostile towards the criminal and adjusting their attitute to one step above helpful (because if they let him go, they will suffer at the hands of the tyrant king, probably with their lives) to make them release (fanatic attitude required) or even not torture (helpful) the criminal. Ad hoc +10 DC for adjusting the attitude toward another recipient of the attitude instead of yourself, to which the Knave (-3 Cha bonus, no Diplomacy ranks) adds another +5 to the DC, -2 for a failed Aide Other check, -3 for his Charisma Bonus. If the Paladin even suggests to the king he not enforce his rules of torture (anyone under the king will explain that this is to learn of further crimes and expose conspirators, DC 10 Knowledge Local will reveal that it works and keeps the people safe and theft-free) the king simply kills you. He's epic, and he can do that. The knowledge local would also reveal the king's policy towards naysayers of his laws - King asks for advise, never allows it to be dumped upon him unsolicited. Any king or ruler this arbitrary and cruel will be evil, and therefore any person accused by him likely innocent. The "Torturing the criminal protects the people by showing up any co-conspiritors and the people support it" - yeah, right. The criminal names the first three people to come to mind to get the torture to stop. Three more innocent people known by their neighbours to be innocent get arrested and tortured. Resentment against the kjing will be high, the idea that this is supported by any but the senior people it is convenient for (especially when they can 'suggest' to the criminal who helped him) is laughable. People may fear it, but they will not respect it or like it. So you have now moved the goalposts to: The despotic and viciously cruel king has accused a man of murder (who may be the serial killer but is just as likely innocent) whom you have apprehended. Do you hand him over knowing he is likely to be tortured until he accuses others (likely also innocent), let him go (as he is very possibly innocent) or - option three - if you believe him guilty, administer justice yourself? Any paladin worth his salt spending five minutes in conversation with these guards and finding out about this king will very likely be off to organise a revolution, never mind the criminal! 2. It is more good to let the person go, rather than let him face (even possibly) undeserved torture - says so in the BoED. However, if you let him go, your character is roughly 80% sure that he will go around murdering. Thus letting the man go is 80% likely to be an evil act as well as a chaotic one - and you need the Atonement just for the chaotic side. You must now decide between probably killing innocents and definitely torturing the guilty - these are both irrevocably evil. You may not simply let the man go and follow him around, or have him followed. That's not only harassment but in this town, illegal infringement upon privacy. Assuming the guards don't find out you caught him and why - you still go to jail for attempting to intrude upon an (they think) innocent man's privacy. If the guards do know you had him and why, you are beheaded - the town charter makes it clear what happens to suspected criminals. Save your character. As I say above, this town/country is clearly evil if they condone torture and are that absolutely unreasonable about it (object and despite the fact that you are clearly law abiding and intent on upholding justice (you caught and returned the criminal for justice) and they will kill you out of hand), and a paladin is certainly not entitled to be called chaotic just because he opposes them. In fact, I'd demand a paladin fall for NOT opposing such a regime as you describe. The option for the paladin if they feel that (1) the authorities are evil and cannot be negotiated with to not torture the criminal (and this is likely to lead to innocents then being accused and tortured), and (2) the criminal is guilty of the crimes he is accused of beyoind any doubt, then the answer is either to turn to another authority for justice, or kill the person humanely yourself. Then go and organise a rebellion. Vive la revolution!
pres_man 09-17-06, 10:51 PM	And thank you for proving my point. Yes alignment is an objective mechanic, but each group has to lay the exact lines down subjectively. The core books, and even the optional BoED and BoVD are not crystal clear on all situations, nor is it really feasible that they could be. This idea is similiar to scoring in sports, why is a touchdown worth 6 points instead of 5 or 10 or any other number. It is a subjective decision to decide that it is worth 6 points. But once that decision was made then touchdowns are expected to be judged in an objective fashion (whether they are always is another matter). So an objective mechanic defined subjectively. The difference is that with alignment in D&D each group gets to define it.
infideli 09-17-06, 10:55 PM	And thank you for proving my point. We agree.... But I like to read my own typing!:D G
GnomeMade 09-18-06, 12:54 AM	Sometimes you have to admit that circumstances play against you in alignment issues. Good and evil are viewpoints, otherwise you couldn't change alignment magicly by putting on a helmet or drawing a card. They are the way you view the world, which in turn guides what you do in the world. Your viewpoint is determined by what has happened to you. After all, that's why BBEG keeps trying to give you those no win situations where you have to choose between saving your sister and your lover or some perfect stranger from horrrible death and only have time to save one. They want you to acknowledge that there is evil in the world that holds power over you. All those tortures and humiliation tactics are just to show you the point of view that evil is more powerful than good. That's also why you are trying to get the BBEG humane treatment and a fair trial- you are trying to prove to him/her that good still exists and has power over their circumstances. To some a simple act of mercy can shake their whole world view- that all people are really only out for themselves- and that only the weak show mercy- after all, you could have ground him/her into kitty chow but you stopped. "Save your character" is optional. I understand that you get attached to them, but in the end, circumstances can turn even the most pure of heart solar into a vengeful bitter fallen angel, why do you expect a mere mortal has a better chance? If you suspect your DM is hellbent to turn your paladin, then turn her...and remember...your god abandoned you. You found out that good was only illusionary- that people are only out for themselves- that everything you thought was a lie. Feed that DM all the fallen Paladin they ever want or need. If you are lucky, you may even make your most terrifying BBEG for later campaigns. Of course, you may make so terrifying a bad guy/gal that you are banned from being a Paladin ever again. On the other hand, if your character truly believes what they are doing is right, they will have no objections to dying for the cause of good. After all, they are right. They have the full approval of their god, and they have heavens waiting for them. This is assuming of course that your pally actually gave it their all. If, on the other hand, they do decide to turn BBEG serial killer over to be tortured- then everything they just told the BBEG about goodness being more powerful than evil is just a lie. Turning them over to be tortured is just reinforcing the BBEG's world view that evil is rampant and that good is impotent... and while they may have been slowly mulling over whatever you told them, once they are looking forward to being tortured, they will switch to feeling betrayed by even thinking idly about your words. After all, you talked big, but it was BS, like everything else, and they were just being foolish thinking you would be different than any other liar. They will switch their energies to trying to escape and likely never listen to a paladin again, no matter how attractive or charismatic.