Post/Author/DateTime	Post
nerdor257 05-16-07, 08:16 PM	Okay, so I decided recently that I want my next character in an upcoming campaign to be the selfish lawyer type. You know, the wise-*** who always ends up defending the extremely guilty but doesn't care, and who can lie his way out of anything while still having an honest reputation. I'd like some recommendations for the character from a mechanics standpoint, because I want more than a rogue with max ranks in proffession (barrister) and bluff. I was thinking beguiler to begin with, but is there anywhere else to go with it afterwards?
Tyraxus 05-16-07, 08:55 PM	True Neutral Half-Elf bard diplomancer. Max ranks in all social skills, modifiers out the wazoo, and throw whatever ranks you can spare into Profession: Lawyer and Knowledge: Law if your DM allows alternate Knowledge skills, and Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty if not (in the period of history most closely paralleling the standard D&D world, lawyers and judges were nobles).
Count_Chumleigh 05-16-07, 09:28 PM	I agree with Tyraxus' opinion generally, and would like to further add that a Rogue--perhaps with the Education feat to allow for access to those pesky Knowledge skills--would also fit the concept quite nicely. I would also reccommend being anything other than a half-elf--as a fan of Rumpole of the Bailey, I find the image of a dwarf barrister most appealing--but I won't, since the half-elf's mechanical bonuses make it as viable as any other race, my hatred for all things elven notwithstanding. I also might reccommend a, well, lawful alignment. [Begin tangent rant] That said, I must ask why you think someone who "always ends up defending the extremely guilty but doesn't care" has to be a selfish liar? If the accused is so obviously guilty, then surely the prosecutor ought to be able to prove the State's case rather easily, well-spoken defense attorney or not. And if a well-spoken defense attorney can utterly derail the prosecution's case, then clearly the accused wasn't that guilty to start with. I'm a lawyer myself--well, law student--and I initially struggled with that concept, but it all boils down to what we in the business call "The Parade of Horribles." Imagine it: If we decide that someone who is "extremely guilty" doesn't deserve a fair trial or competent defense attorneys any more, then it's only a matter of time before anyone the law enforcers think might be guilty--or even "ought" to be guilty, based on the law enforcers' own prejudices--is convicted on the spot and all pretence of law and order is eventually thrown out the windown. Indeed, the "extremely guilty" may well be the most deserving of a fair trial and competent defense attorneys, because if we afford even them a fair trial, then chances are we will afford anyone a fair trial as well. [End tangent rant] Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
nerdor257 05-16-07, 10:05 PM	In response to Count Chumleigh, I don't necessarily think that just because they end up defending them they are inherently bad, but rather I enjoy the concept of someone who finds nothing inherently immoral about defending someone he knows to be guilty of some terrible crime. Not because he believes everyone deserves a fair trial, but because he just doesn't care. And on topic, I agree that it should be a lawful alignment, because, well, that just makes sense.
Dog_As_A_Devil_Deified 05-16-07, 10:07 PM	I'd suggest you need to figure out what your DM's rules are on the criminal justice system of your world if you want to play a lawyer. In a world with Discern Lies, Zone of Truth, Speak with Dead, other divinations and copious numbers of casters...trials may be very different than they are in real life. Also, medieval trials were very different than modern ones (for example, juries were originally composed of witnesses or with people who knew the criminal or victim personally, since they were supposed to be the best judge of guilt and appropriate punishment. Outside of England, juries weren't common at all and, as is still the case today in non-common law jurisdictions, it was the judge's job to determine guilt).
Tyraxus 05-16-07, 10:18 PM	I suggested TN rather than something Lawful because 1)bards can't be lawful, and 2)a Lawful character wouldn't necessarily be able to defend a guilty client, while a neutral one would use the law when it suited him and completely ignore it (in favour of flashy showmanship tactics some lawyers use) when necessary. EDIT: While I agree that everyone ought to have a fair trial, definitely including those that are "extremely guilty," your rant assumes that juries as a whole are competent and more swayed by fact and logic than emotion and stage tactics. The fact of the matter is, just about anybody that can get out of jury duty will, and the people you most want on juries (the most intelligent among society) are the ones best able to conjure an excuse to not serve. So you wind up with lots of juries that aren't thinking so much about the facts of the case and the reasoning behind the prosecution's argument as they are how nice the attorney or defendant seemed, how the attorney approached certain topics, etc., and don't even notice when attorneys use cheap stage tricks and logical fallacies to divert attention from points the other side made that he doesn't have an answer to. Since you're in law training, you either have learned or will learn quickly that the facts of the case don't matter anywhere NEAR as much as the jury's PERCEPTION of the facts of the case. Now, maybe I'm biased. Most of my legal knowledge comes from business law classes and my hobby of studying Constitutional law, so I'm seeing cases that should never have been decided the way they were decided being overturned by higher courts or other jurisdictions (hundreds of millions of dollars in punitive damages for a stroller manufacturer not specifying that a baby should be removed from the carrier before it is collapsed, anyone? Or why not the easy one, that of OJ being found innocent in criminal court yet liable in civil court?), but you can't just assume you'll have a jury smart enough to see through and ignore cheap emotional tactics. And that's not even getting into the topic of negligent or incompetent attorneys. They are indeed out there.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 05-16-07, 10:30 PM	I agree with Tyraxus' opinion generally, and would like to further add that a Rogue--perhaps with the Education feat to allow for access to those pesky Knowledge skills--would also fit the concept quite nicely. I would also reccommend being anything other than a half-elf--as a fan of Rumpole of the Bailey, I find the image of a dwarf barrister most appealing--but I won't, since the half-elf's mechanical bonuses make it as viable as any other race, my hatred for all things elven notwithstanding. I also might reccommend a, well, lawful alignment.I agree with this as well. Except to not e that bards may not be lawful, as per the PHB. Its a stupid rule, but hey it there. Whatcha gonna do. That said, I must ask why you think someone who "always ends up defending the extremely guilty but doesn't care" has to be a selfish liar? If the accused is so obviously guilty, then surely the prosecutor ought to be able to prove the State's case rather easily, well-spoken defense attorney or not. And if a well-spoken defense attorney can utterly derail the prosecution's case, then clearly the accused wasn't that guilty to start with. I'm a lawyer myself--well, law student--and I initially struggled with that concept, but it all boils down to what we in the business call "The Parade of Horribles." Imagine it: If we decide that someone who is "extremely guilty" doesn't deserve a fair trial or competent defense attorneys any more, then it's only a matter of time before anyone the law enforcers think might be guilty--or even "ought" to be guilty, based on the law enforcers' own prejudices--is convicted on the spot and all pretence of law and order is eventually thrown out the windown. [B]Indeed, the "extremely guilty" may well be the most deserving of a fair trial and competent defense attorneys, because if we afford even them a fair trial, then chances are we will afford anyone a fair trial as well. [End tangent rant] Cheers, --Count Chumleigh QFT
BluEnigma 05-16-07, 10:37 PM	Leadership/Thrallherd is a must: you'll need partners and interns for those aid other bonuses for really important cases.
Count_Chumleigh 05-16-07, 10:51 PM	I suggested TN rather than something Lawful because 1)bards can't be lawful, and 2)a Lawful character wouldn't necessarily be able to defend a guilty client, while a neutral one would use the law when it suited him and completely ignore it (in favour of flashy showmanship tactics some lawyers use) when necessary. Respectfully, Tyraxus, I disagree with your second conclusion, although I appreciate your reasoning. Speaking of which, Bards' inability to be Lawful is one of my beefs with the Rules As Written, chiefly because there are such good Bard archetypes out there that scream Lawful alignment. The "standard-bearer" and "church cantor" come to mind, as does the whole idea that the bard's most unique class feature--that is, Bardic Music--benefits the bard's allies in a very lawful-ish manner. That's why I'm glad for the Devoted Performer feat from Complete Adventurer, since it specifically allows Bards to be Lawful, even if only for a specific instance of multi-classing. Actually, this gives me a wonderful idea for a kick-ass D&D defense attorney. Take a human or half-elf Bard--I suppose a gnome would work as well, given that it's their favored class--multiclass it with Paladin (hrm, aasimaar might work too, as would any race with Paladin as its favored class) and take the Devoted Performer feat. Take plenty of ranks in lawyer-type skills, and there you go: you have a two-fisted, sword-toting, armor-clad defense attorney who rides around the countryside defending the accused--any accused, regardless of guilt--to ensure that Justice is Done even after evil has been Smote. This lawyer will defend even the accused he knows to be guilty for no other reason than to see that the court carries out the law right. "If the Law cannot properly persecute a law-breaker," this character would say, "then the Law has not been broken, for there is no Law today." That's what just went through my head, at least. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh P.S. Actually, Tyraxus, I'm not even sure we disagree at all, since you said "necessarily" in your post. So there you go.
Tyraxus 05-16-07, 11:14 PM	Ah, I see what you're getting after. That sounds like an awesome character. As far as "necessarily", I meant that it depended on what kind of lawful you're playing. If it's the stereotypical Paladin-esque "Detect Evil, SMITE!!!!" kind of character (been empowered by the gods and the law to defend and uphold the law, a la Judge Dredd) then you wouldn't be able to defend him. If it's a legal procedure kind of lawful, though, then that would absolutely be the way he handled any situation: yeah, you're guilty, but I'm going to make damn sure you get a fair trial if it kills me." I'm thinking Iella Wessiri from the Star Wars X-Wing series of books here, where she's escorting the man that betrayed her friends to the courtroom and takes a blaster shot to try to protect him because the law must be upheld.
Ceirnian 05-16-07, 11:15 PM	There are rules for being a lawyer in hell (fiendish codex 2 page 25). The required skills you roll on are as follows: Perform (acting), Diplomacy, and Knowledge (the planes). If you want to handle the material plane I suggest getting knowledge local instead of the planes along with perhaps nobility / royalty?
Optimized_Commoner 05-16-07, 11:46 PM	I'm not sure how well this character will fit in with a campaign, so I'll just quickly add that you should chat with your DM first. Secondly, there are many many ways to have a legal system and so far as I know, only 2 of them have speakers for the accused. 1) The modern adversarial system of justice used in America, England, Australia, some commonwealth countries and that's about it. 2) Trial by combat. Your "speaker" swung a sword at your accusers on your behalf. Now, here's an interesting thought. How about you play a character who can do both? They're a superb duelist with their words or their sword. Try to make a character who can be a lawyer within any code of justice. This may be one of the few cases where swashbuckler is an appropriate character class. :P
maharai23 05-17-07, 01:15 AM	True Neutral Half-Elf bard diplomancer. Max ranks in all social skills, modifiers out the wazoo, and throw whatever ranks you can spare into Profession: Lawyer and Knowledge: Law if your DM allows alternate Knowledge skills, and Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty if not (in the period of history most closely paralleling the standard D&D world, lawyers and judges were nobles). I'd go lawful evil. People who knowingly allow innocent men to go free aren't neutral. Neutral would be people who are apathetic to the legal system entirely, or who maintain balance. This character is out to win regardless of right or wrong. That's evil.
Dog_As_A_Devil_Deified 05-17-07, 02:43 AM	I'd go lawful evil. People who knowingly allow innocent men to go free aren't neutral. Neutral would be people who are apathetic to the legal system entirely, or who maintain balance. This character is out to win regardless of right or wrong. That's evil. The system is supposed to run on the basis of "the greater good." Most defense lawyers I know believe very deeply that the only way to promote that greater good is to serve your client to the best of your ability whether that person is guilty or not. There are two kinds of error to consider, after all, the risk of letting the guilty go free and the risk of convicting the innocent. If lawyers allow themselves to become the judge and jury for their clients (as they would be if they "threw" cases where they thought their client was guilty), that would decrease one sort of error, but in the greater scheme of things they'd hurt their innocent clients. How? Because if you knew your lawyer might purposefully screw you if he judges you guilty, you'd never be candid with him. You'd have an incentive to hide facts that look bad, and perhaps lie outright in an effort to deflect your on lawyer's suspicions. After all, your lawyer might misjudge you and voluntarily throw you to the lions. Ultimately, it's so important to be candid with your lawyer, that the communications have a special protected status in the law. Upholding the integrity of the system protects the rights and liberties of the wrongly accused, but at the cost of often allowing the guilty to go free. It's the same reason we have all those criminal procedure rules enshrined in the Bill of Rights (which are more often used as shields by the guilty than they are by the innocent). Those two different sorts of error are inseparably intertwined; try to reduce one, you'll usually increase the other. In order to fully uphold Blackstone's principle "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," you have to be willing to let the guilty walk sometimes. A LN person (and possibly a LG person) can get behind that.
Count_Chumleigh 05-17-07, 02:51 AM	I'd go lawful evil. People who knowingly allow innocent men to go free aren't neutral. I sincerely hope this is a typo on your part.
FloppyLlama 05-17-07, 03:30 AM	Actually, this gives me a wonderful idea for a kick-ass D&D defense attorney. Take a human or half-elf Bard--I suppose a gnome would work as well, given that it's their favored class--multiclass it with Paladin (hrm, aasimaar might work too, as would any race with Paladin as its favored class) and take the Devoted Performer feat. Take plenty of ranks in lawyer-type skills, and there you go: you have a two-fisted, sword-toting, armor-clad defense attorney who rides around the countryside defending the accused--any accused, regardless of guilt--to ensure that Justice is Done even after evil has been Smote. This lawyer will defend even the accused he knows to be guilty for no other reason than to see that the court carries out the law right. "If the Law cannot properly persecute a law-breaker," this character would say, "then the Law has not been broken, for there is no Law today." This post just got favorited. I never favorite things on forums, it's rare a thread gets it and there's never been a case of it happening to a post. This concept is just that awesome. @nerdor: There's a class in the Rokugan campaign setting book that'd be perfect. The Courtier class has everything you'd ever want to be a charismatic diplomat, unrestricted by alignment. True Neutral sounds good as an alignment. You also start off with some extra dough at first level to represent your wealthy background (which fits well for a Lawyer). If you think you've got enough social skills and want to beat on things, just multiclass. To give you an idea of what you get: Anyone lying must make a will save in your presence or you know they are lying. You gain the ability to taunt your opponents, perfect for bringing the jury round to your side and making someone else look bad. Force enemies to use the lowest of intelligence, wisdom or charisma bonus for an opposed check that requires them, use the emotion spell (perfect for judges or juries!) once a day, and even use an ability that has the effect of charm person. There's also a Gossip ability, perfect for getting dirty info on witnesses or prosecutors you want to blackmail shut.
wizarddog 05-17-07, 07:04 AM	I used the Inquisitor Prestige class (CD) for a Prosecutor NPC that was trying to convict a PC of a murder (he didn't commit). He served more like a DA-and even though he knew the PC didn't do the crime he kept at them to A) solve it for him B) if they failed he still could send the PC to jail and close the case.:D
_SIN_ 05-17-07, 08:29 AM	Firstly, I agree with the second post. [Begin tangent rant] That said, I must ask why you think someone who "always ends up defending the extremely guilty but doesn't care" has to be a selfish liar? If the accused is so obviously guilty, then surely the prosecutor ought to be able to prove the State's case rather easily, well-spoken defense attorney or not. And if a well-spoken defense attorney can utterly derail the prosecution's case, then clearly the accused wasn't that guilty to start with. I'm a lawyer myself--well, law student--and I initially struggled with that concept, but it all boils down to what we in the business call "The Parade of Horribles." Imagine it: If we decide that someone who is "extremely guilty" doesn't deserve a fair trial or competent defense attorneys any more, then it's only a matter of time before anyone the law enforcers think might be guilty--or even "ought" to be guilty, based on the law enforcers' own prejudices--is convicted on the spot and all pretence of law and order is eventually thrown out the windown. Indeed, the "extremely guilty" may well be the most deserving of a fair trial and competent defense attorneys, because if we afford even them a fair trial, then chances are we will afford anyone a fair trial as well. [End tangent rant] Cheers, --Count Chumleigh So How'd the [EXPLETIVE] did OJ get away with it? Lawyers! I'm just waiting for the day that you can sue them for not winning your case - if it's not already legal! I remember an incident from a few years back where a bank robber sued his getaway driver - for not fulfilling his contract by 'getting caught'! There was also talk of a 'union' for murderers?.... That's what I thought!! In my books, lawyers and politicians reside in the same boat... ...Now if only we could sink it, this world would be a better place to live in...
Optimized_Commoner 05-17-07, 08:35 AM	There was also talk of a 'union' for murderers?... The human in me goes, Oh dear god our world is insane. The DM in me goes, Oooh, I could make a good adventure out of that.
Raveni 05-17-07, 08:58 AM	It a campaign a few years ago, someone played a politician/lawyer. He ended up working it out stat-wise as a bard with max ranks in perform:oratory and knowledge:law. I don't remember how high his sense motive, diplomacy, or bluff were, but I remember that he did not neglect those either. Not the most lawful of guys, he would use charm person to make people think it would really be in their best interests to tell them the truth. Failing that, he would use detect thoughts or suggestion. Of course, he would use glibness whenever he wanted to talk. :) In the area he "practiced", magic was forbidden during trials, so of course he took metamagic feats to silent or still his spells as needed. His slight of hand was plenty high enough to conceal a spell component or two.
Stumm_Dolch 05-17-07, 01:00 PM	Actually, this gives me a wonderful idea for a kick-ass D&D defense attorney. Take a human or half-elf Bard--I suppose a gnome would work as well, given that it's their favored class--multiclass it with Paladin (hrm, aasimaar might work too, as would any race with Paladin as its favored class) and take the Devoted Performer feat. Take plenty of ranks in lawyer-type skills, and there you go: you have a two-fisted, sword-toting, armor-clad defense attorney who rides around the countryside defending the accused--any accused, regardless of guilt--to ensure that Justice is Done even after evil has been Smote. This lawyer will defend even the accused he knows to be guilty for no other reason than to see that the court carries out the law right. "If the Law cannot properly persecute a law-breaker," this character would say, "then the Law has not been broken, for there is no Law today." This is the next NPC I'm writing up in my pseudo-evil campaign, and his name will be Count Chumleigh... I hope you approve. That's one of the best character concepts I've seen in a long time.
Tyraxus 05-17-07, 09:31 PM	I'd go lawful evil. People who knowingly allow innocent men to go free aren't neutral. Neutral would be people who are apathetic to the legal system entirely, or who maintain balance. This character is out to win regardless of right or wrong. That's evil. (BTW, I'm assuming that you mean "knowingly let guilty people go free...") Emphasis added. How can one unconcerned with right and wrong be evil? That's the very definition of neutral. Here, I'll show you: Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them. So again, why would doing your job regardless of the moral outcome be evil rather than neutral? If he's only taking cases of serial killers so they can go out and kill hundreds more people, you might have a point, but the character is just out for the money, it sounds like, which is neutral. EDIT: If, on the other hand, he's out to uphold the legal system, then he's LN, and needs to find a class other than bard or houserule laawful bards, as has been suggested.
Count_Chumleigh 05-17-07, 09:49 PM	@ Floppyllama and Stumm_Dolch: I'm honored. Thank you. And, Stumm, might I request that Count Chumleigh's first name be "Osrick?" It strikes me as the name a sword-and-sorcery lawyer (or loreyer, I suppose) ought to have. @Ravani: Sounds like a neat character, even if it isn't the best representation of my profession as I'd like it to be. Then again, some lawyers do game the system and play merry hell with the rules like that, so there you have it. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
Stumm_Dolch 05-18-07, 08:55 AM	Done!
mike_beavers 05-18-07, 04:37 PM	you and your dm would need to sit down and create the legal system. What I did with mine was to use napleonic code (defendant has to prove innoence), have a group of jurors who are paid to listen, Non allowance of magic in the court room and a list of basic laws and punishments with legalists(lawyers) for both sides. It works after a fashion but you and the dm do need to work something up
mlund 05-18-07, 04:46 PM	Profession (Barrister) That is all. - Marty Lund
bloodtalon 05-18-07, 06:38 PM	i say be N too. look at it from this view point a modern lawyer defends a big time drug lord so he can use the profits from that to help out the poor is that evil even though he helps the poor from being rail roaded but keeps a scum bag on the streets? i would also say he has to be lawful because all the schooling you need to be a good lawyer. and knowing how to be civial in court and having the order personality and note taking to get your client off
FloppyLlama 05-18-07, 07:07 PM	i say be N too. look at it from this view point a modern lawyer defends a big time drug lord so he can use the profits from that to help out the poor is that evil even though he helps the poor from being rail roaded but keeps a scum bag on the streets? Well, that leaves the question of how much poverty is the unfortunate result of drug addiction which is promoted by the drug lord being able to carry out business as usual. It doesn't seem like they want to make a character like that, though. Other than the dough I get the impression that they're apathetic about most other things.
maharai23 05-19-07, 07:56 AM	The system is supposed to run on the basis of "the greater good." Most defense lawyers I know believe very deeply that the only way to promote that greater good is to serve your client to the best of your ability whether that person is guilty or not. There are two kinds of error to consider, after all, the risk of letting the guilty go free and the risk of convicting the innocent. If lawyers allow themselves to become the judge and jury for their clients (as they would be if they "threw" cases where they thought their client was guilty), that would decrease one sort of error, but in the greater scheme of things they'd hurt their innocent clients. How? Because if you knew your lawyer might purposefully screw you if he judges you guilty, you'd never be candid with him. You'd have an incentive to hide facts that look bad, and perhaps lie outright in an effort to deflect your on lawyer's suspicions. After all, your lawyer might misjudge you and voluntarily throw you to the lions. Ultimately, it's so important to be candid with your lawyer, that the communications have a special protected status in the law. Upholding the integrity of the system protects the rights and liberties of the wrongly accused, but at the cost of often allowing the guilty to go free. It's the same reason we have all those criminal procedure rules enshrined in the Bill of Rights (which are more often used as shields by the guilty than they are by the innocent). Those two different sorts of error are inseparably intertwined; try to reduce one, you'll usually increase the other. In order to fully uphold Blackstone's principle "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," you have to be willing to let the guilty walk sometimes. A LN person (and possibly a LG person) can get behind that. I'd say a LG would quickly become a LE if he got behind that. Why? Blackstone's principle breaks down when crime severity goes up. Yes, it's better for 10 guilty pickpockets to go free than 1 get imprisoned... But what about mass murderers? 10 guilty mass murderers back out will mean at least 20 more deaths. Weigh those 20 deaths against the freedom of 1 man. The needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few. And while liberty is one of the most precious gifts known, how does it stack up to life (one of the other core freedoms of the US constitution)? Anyone can say that their freedom is more important than their life, but it starts to lose its meaning when it loses the sacrifice. How does Bob's freedom measure, when compared to the lives of the entire orphanage? Endorsing a system such as that is LN, at best. When I say "at best", I mean that the most idealistic, naive, proponent of that system is LN. Anyone who understands the system for what it truly is, an embrace of the people's freedom over the people's lives and well-being, show's that it leans toward chaos (individual freedom) and against good. A paladin could never exist with this code, because it's the code of the LG to always judge the situation for themselves, and not to rely on others to do the good for them. To support someone that's guilty of evil in evading punishment is an evil act, regardless of how you want to rationalize it away, by speaking of the "greater good". A paladin can't kill an innocent girl, on the grounds that she'll be used in a sacrifice to release the hordes of hell on a town. Why? Regardless of the greater good, a paladin is above moral reproach. A single evil, no matter how minor, is enough. While other LG may not be quite so enslaved by the code, a habit of doing the same thing over and over (lawyering for a while, for example) under the above code, will change you to CN, at best, unless you're truly an unthinking slave to the system. Then your char would be LN (and probably Lawful Stupid, as well, for being blinded to following an order that promotes chaos).
maharai23 05-19-07, 08:12 AM	i say be N too. look at it from this view point a modern lawyer defends a big time drug lord so he can use the profits from that to help out the poor is that evil even though he helps the poor from being rail roaded but keeps a scum bag on the streets? i would also say he has to be lawful because all the schooling you need to be a good lawyer. and knowing how to be civial in court and having the order personality and note taking to get your client off Yes, it's evil. It's decidedly evil. That you use the blood money for a good deed doesn't change that you did an evil act. That's like saying it's ok to rob a bank, as long as you give the money to charity... And schooling is lawful now? Well, with all the training it takes to be a wizard, I guess every wizard in every D&D setting should be Lawful, huh? After all, I'm sure they can all be civil when required... Criminals going free and Innocents being guilty are when the system BREAKS. Blackstone's principle was coming from the standpoint that it's never acceptable to take an innocent's freedom. True. But it's also never acceptable to allow criminals to commit more crime. It's a short-sighted principle that sacrifices the injustice of today for the two to 10 injustices of tomorrow. Making an error either way is either chaotic or evil. Imprisoning an innocent is evil, and letting a criminal evade punishment is chaotic. The question is... Which would you rather be guilty of? Blackstone felt that it is better to be chaotic than evil. Thus, the reason why a paladin cannot be a successful lawyer boils down to the premise: Nobody's perfect. A paladin can allow neither chaos nor evil. Thus, he must be correct every time. A defense attorney could only try his hardest and be LG as long as his innocent criminals that were found innocent outweighed every other circumstance. (trying to get a guilty man off is chaotic regardless of success, failing to get an innocent man off, is neutral if you tried your hardest, and evil if you didn't) Thus, a defense attorney could be LG only if the people doing the arresting are fairly incompetent.
Dog_As_A_Devil_Deified 05-19-07, 08:22 AM	I'd say a LG would quickly become a LE if he got behind that. Why? Blackstone's principle breaks down when crime severity goes up. Yes, it's better for 10 guilty pickpockets to go free than 1 get imprisoned... But what about mass murderers? 10 guilty mass murderers back out will mean at least 20 more deaths. Weigh those 20 deaths against the freedom of 1 man. The needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you have to recognize that reasonable, non-evil,people can disagree, Blackstone's principle is a basis of the legal system in every western nation for a reason. The sixth amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures, for example, or the right to counsel itself applies just as much in cases involving mass murderers as it does cases of drug possession or simple larceny. Your analysis strongly suggests that the entirety of the western world is LE. The rule is not that it's okay to execute a few innocent people, so long as most of those who get the needle jabbed in their arms are guilty. The protections that allow us to receive fair trials don't differentiate on the basis of the severity of the crime, and the reason is because we disfavor punishment of the innocent in every case. If you would actually make your players change their alignments if they disagree with you, then I would suggest (respectfully) that your DMing style may be somewhat harsher than it needs to be. The definition of good and evil in the PHB are not crystal clear in general, and certainly not on this point. Ramsey Clark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey_Clark) didn't represent Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic because Clark is an evil man nor is he an idiot who doesn't realize the harm that releasing a criminal might do. He's clearly a good man who acts on principle. You may disagree with his principles, but reasonable people can and do differ on that.
Eled_the_Worm_Tamer 05-19-07, 10:15 AM	Just hrowing out a thought here, but if a charicter is palatable to play when a flawed and simplistic alighment system says hes 'good' is he any less palatable a charicter when played exactly the same way the system calls him evil? If not who cares what Alinment he is, if the rest of the Group have no prblems and theres no internal strife play what you want to play and let the Dm stick a label on you.
maharai23 05-19-07, 01:08 PM	If you would actually make your players change their alignments if they disagree with you, then I would suggest (respectfully) that your DMing style may be somewhat harsher than it needs to be. The definition of good and evil in the PHB are not crystal clear in general, and certainly not on this point. Ramsey Clark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey_Clark) didn't represent Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic because Clark is an evil man nor is he an idiot who doesn't realize the harm that releasing a criminal might do. He's clearly a good man who acts on principle. You may disagree with his principles, but reasonable people can and do differ on that. Incorrect. I would make my PC's change their alignment if they consistently acted in an evil manner. Period. End of discussion. Good and Evil in D&D are objective. That means every action can be definatively classified as good, evil, or neutral. The job of interpreting the rules and classifying actions is the DM's. Thus, if a player doesn't like the DM's interpretation of evil, there are a few choices available. 1) persuade. 2) suck it up. 3) go elsewhere. That said, when a player brings an idea to me, I explain any possible obstacles, such as this one, that I see, and try to work around it. I offer the opportunity to state cases before game time. Sometimes, a player has to console himself with a different alignment than he expected... But really, aren't alignments just labels of actions? Mechanics of such are generally loose and less important than most. Usually, such labels only apply when a Protection from ___ is cast, or Detect ___. For all you people worshipping western law here, keep in mind, it doesn't have access to divination abilities that DO prove right and wrong. Zone of Truth, Visions, Contact Other Plane, Discern Lies, and a host of other spells can rip the truth out of thin air. In such an environment, it's not that hard to envision that a better legal system could be invented than ours. To slavishly apply the woefully decadent and subjective morality of today into a world which was DESIGNED to be black and white, does a disservice to the world and the game. If you want to make a world where party members can be lawful good as long as they want, as long as they justify how all that killing and plundering random villages is good, be my guest. As for me, killing babies is evil. Imprisoning innocents is wrong. Letting the guilty go free is wrong. Contributing to any of the above is wrong. Knowingly attempting to contribute to any of the above is wrong. Thus, a Lawful and Good character should never represent someone he/she believes guilty. A Lawful and Neutral character should interpret the law's intent and attempt to fulfill that. A lawful neutral character should be about the truth, regardless of the findings. A Lawful and Evil person would have no qualms with locking everyone up, or worse, given the right pretext. Also wouldn't have a problem freeing anyone, given the right pretext. But the mockery of the trial would be preserved. Neutral and good would attempt to find the best way to fulfill the intent of the law, even if the specifics are broken. True Neutral would likely seek truth out, but would be less constrained by the laws. Neutral Evil would attempt to manipulate the court to his advantage, possibly with bribes and intimidation in addition to court theatrics. Chaotic people of all types would believe that free people are better than imprisoned ones. The good would believe in blackstone's principle. The Neutral, that the court is a colossal waste of time, and the evil, he'd be wondering why his lawyer is taking so long getting him off.
FloppyLlama 05-19-07, 02:34 PM	The job of interpreting the rules and classifying actions is the DM's. That's fine, in your game. However you're applying a very strict standard of utilitarian morality to a thread that doesn't have your own players in it. You are attempting to argue with us about how we evaluate morality in our games, nay, you are telling us what is right for us to use as an interpretation of morality in our games, and making accusations: To slavishly apply the woefully decadent and subjective morality of today into a world which was DESIGNED to be black and white, does a disservice to the world and the game. If you think the only black and white morality to exist is yours, I suggest you go read up on ethics on wikipedia or something instead of relying on the dying words of a Vulcan. I suggest you tone it down a bit and contextualize your statements.
Count_Chumleigh 05-19-07, 02:57 PM	Incorrect. I would make my PC's change their alignment if they consistently acted in an evil manner. Period. End of discussion. Good and Evil in D&D are objective. That means every action can be definatively classified as good, evil, or neutral. The job of interpreting the rules and classifying actions is the DM's. Thus, if a player doesn't like the DM's interpretation of evil, there are a few choices available. 1) persuade. 2) suck it up. 3) go elsewhere. [snip] For all you people worshipping western law here, keep in mind, it doesn't have access to divination abilities that DO prove right and wrong. Zone of Truth, Visions, Contact Other Plane, Discern Lies, and a host of other spells can rip the truth out of thin air. In such an environment, it's not that hard to envision that a better legal system could be invented than ours. To slavishly apply the woefully decadent and subjective morality of today into a world which was DESIGNED to be black and white, does a disservice to the world and the game. If you want to make a world where party members can be lawful good as long as they want, as long as they justify how all that killing and plundering random villages is good, be my guest. As for me, killing babies is evil. Imprisoning innocents is wrong. Letting the guilty go free is wrong. Contributing to any of the above is wrong. Knowingly attempting to contribute to any of the above is wrong. Let me get this straight, maharai: you are equating defending someone who has been accused of a heinous crime with "killing babies," "plundering random villages," and other acts of evil. Am I right here? That's certainly what it looks like, especially since the post of yours that I quoted was itself a response to a post claiming that Ramsey Clark was not necessarily evil for defending Hussein and Milosevic. If this is truly the case, then the easiest way to ensure someone would get put away for life (or maybe just plugged twice in the back of the head in the alley behind the courtroom) would be to accuse them of something heinous, regardless of what they actually did. Clearly, since people accused of heinous crimes do not deserve a fair trial or a competent defense attorney, anyone who is accused of anything heinous will either be saddled with a bumbling imbecile for a defense attorney or a competent lawyer who outright despises his client and takes active steps to see that the person he has been charged with defending gets the worst sentence he could possibly get. However, since I don't want to derail this thread any more than it already has been, I will stop myself before I go any further. I believe that, under the D&D rules as written, a Lawful Good individual could knowingly defend a guilty client, or at least a client he believes to be guilty. It's all about making sure the system works right and provides legitimate, intelligible reasons for putting people away. Such lawyers would in all likelihood not compromise the majority of criminal defense "lore-yers," but there ought to be at least one or two. Also, the thing about using magic to determine innocence or guilt is that spells like zone of truth can be resisted with a simple Will save, and other spells either require costly material or XP components or are too high in level to justify having a cleric or wizard attached to every county court for the casting thereof. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
maharai23 05-19-07, 05:13 PM	That's fine, in your game. However you're applying a very strict standard of utilitarian morality to a thread that doesn't have your own players in it. You are attempting to argue with us about how we evaluate morality in our games, nay, you are telling us what is right for us to use as an interpretation of morality in our games, and making accusations: I'm applying the CORRECT interpretation of a set of RULES in a SYSTEM. Not morality. For that, look in a college classroom or the dictionary, for you'll not find it anywhere else. Even there, you'll just find a definition. We can argue philosophy all day, but this isn't about philosophy. It's about a freakin' game, and a toolset of rules. I approach this no differently than I would a conflict on grappling. I read the rules, and apply simple common sense to the rest. Doing an evil act is evil. Straightforward. Assisting someone perform an evil act is evil. Straightforward. Keep in mind, both of these qualify as evil whether you know you're doing it or not, in D&D. That's because acts are objective. They are not subject to the viewpoints of the person doing them, only the right or wrong of the act. That's what objective is. Assisting an evil man evade punishment for his actions is evil. Also straightforward. Now I'm not saying that one is more or less evil than another. However, in a world of OBJECTIVE morality, this is true. This is true regardless of how many of you wish it to be otherwise, or how many of you rationalize it to be the way you want it to be. Thus, if a law prohibits an evil act, and a "lawyer" attempts to defend someone who is guilty of it, whether he knows it or not, he is assisting someone evade punishment for an evil act. It doesn't matter whether he's robbing that store to feed an orphanage... It doesn't matter if he's in it for the greater good. He's still committing the lesser evil. This is why it is SO difficult to be a paladin. If you think the only black and white morality to exist is yours, I suggest you go read up on ethics on wikipedia or something instead of relying on the dying words of a Vulcan. I suggest you tone it down a bit and contextualize your statements. My morality is hardly black and white. However, that's not what's on trial here. D&D morality is. And it, by the PHb, IS black and white, in a very simple way. Whether that way is balanced or not is not on debate here. If you don't like it, make your house rules to fix it. But the set of guidelines in the book are straightforward, as is the objective nature of the realm and it's actions.
maharai23 05-19-07, 05:16 PM	Let me get this straight, maharai: you are equating defending someone who has been accused of a heinous crime with "killing babies," "plundering random villages," and other acts of evil. Am I right here? That's certainly what it looks like, especially since the post of yours that I quoted was itself a response to a post claiming that Ramsey Clark was not necessarily evil for defending Hussein and Milosevic. If by "equating", you mean "putting the same applicable label on", then yes. By the same token, I say that oranges and planet earth are both round. That doesn't mean they're of the same magnitude. Oh, and ramsey clark may not have been evil. However, if he defended a guilty man with the intent to free him, then by technical D&D rules, he performed an evil act, or a chaotic one, or both.
maharai23 05-19-07, 05:23 PM	Also, the thing about using magic to determine innocence or guilt is that spells like zone of truth can be resisted with a simple Will save, and other spells either require costly material or XP components or are too high in level to justify having a cleric or wizard attached to every county court for the casting thereof. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh Ah, but we attach a worth to every innocent man's freedom equal to more than ten convicted men's freedom. Is that worth also less than a 4th level spell? How about a 5th? At what point does the economics allow for it to be good to start letting criminals free and putting the innocent behind bars? If we're talking objective morality, we can't be doing economic morality. There's no price tag on freedom.
FloppyLlama 05-19-07, 06:20 PM	It's about a freakin' game, and a toolset of rules. I approach this no differently than I would a conflict on grappling. I read the rules, and apply simple common sense to the rest. Funny that you don't cite rulebooks then. ""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." Doesn't sound very much like our lawyer. They aren't hurting, oppressing or killing anyone. You're making a connection that cannot rationally be made: by defending an accused killer in court, one causes the deaths of further innocents. This is untrue. The killer causes the deaths of further innocents. Nothing within the concept of "defends an accused killer" implies "accused killer kills innocents". The killings are a choice made by the killer entirely independent to the actions of the Lawyer. Furthermore, your interpretation of "the law is a legitimate means by which to prevent evil, and anything which prevents the government from imprisoning people who are killers is evil" smacks of a Lawful Good approach, which is no more valid in D&D rules than a Chaotic Good approach. Doing an evil act is evil. Straightforward. Actively assisting someone perform an evil act is evil. Straightforward. Fixed. Of course, the Lawyer's actions don't fit that at all, given the previous PHB definition of "Evil". Not anymore than "selling an accused murderer bread is assisting further murders by not making them starve" Assisting an evil man evade punishment for his actions is evil. Also straightforward. Why? Where is this stated in the rules that you believe you are arguing within? It doesn't even fit into your "Assisting someone perform an evil act" clause considering these are past-tense evil actions in question. Once again though, assisting a man evade legal punishment for his actions being evil is something not specified in the PHB that I can find. If you'd like to point me to the passage, though... And it, by the PHb, IS black and white, in a very simple way. Whether that way is balanced or not is not on debate here. If you don't like it, make your house rules to fix it. But the set of guidelines in the book are straightforward, as is the objective nature of the realm and it's actions. Please cite these guidelines. So far, you've made up statements. And concerning Divination magic: I fail to see how this changes anything. Quite obviously, this constitutes evidence for the accused's guilt and should be brought into the trial. This does not bypass the need for a legal defense anymore than "The murder weapon was found in the accused's possession". Especially considering I'm not aware of any divination magic that is foolproof. Several of them have the distinct chance of failure and some can produce innacurate answers as opposed to no answers at all.
bloodtalon 05-19-07, 07:12 PM	Maharai23 by your logic only priest and paladins shoudl be judge hury and executioner. only pormblem we did it a few times here namely the salem witch trials and the spanish inquiastion (I know i spelled it wrong) guess what happen more people were murdered by the good and noble priest the by Hitler and Stalin combined some where in the neighbor hood of 40 million people becasue they were judege by priest instead of by thier peers so maybe it is better in the long run to let the evil out then try to destory it and contain it the system of law where people have defenders is flawed but it is the best we have better to be considered innocent until proven guilty then in most countries guilty until proven innocent
maharai23 05-20-07, 05:08 AM	It's simple. If the legitimate way to punish evil is laid out in law, and you are circumventing that punishment by ensuring that someone who DOES a crime doesn't get punished by it, you are, by proxy, endorsing that crime. Supporting evil is evil. That falls in the common sense. The rules apply to define the original evil acts. The point we're arguing above is more in the common sense realm. At, least, I THOUGHT it was. Perhaps it turns out that common sense isn't so common.
maharai23 05-20-07, 05:13 AM	Maharai23 by your logic only priest and paladins shoudl be judge hury and executioner. only pormblem we did it a few times here namely the salem witch trials and the spanish inquiastion (I know i spelled it wrong) guess what happen more people were murdered by the good and noble priest the by Hitler and Stalin combined some where in the neighbor hood of 40 million people becasue they were judege by priest instead of by thier peers so maybe it is better in the long run to let the evil out then try to destory it and contain it the system of law where people have defenders is flawed but it is the best we have better to be considered innocent until proven guilty then in most countries guilty until proven innocentAnd you have fallen into the trap of arguing real world morality. Morality isn't the subject here. I'll grant you the comparison when you show me the following things in real life: A human casting a fireball spell successfully. An ogre. A fire-breathing dragon. A monk who is immune to arsenic. When you can show me these, I'll agree that this is a world steeped in magic, where such inquisitions have the weight of divine truth. Otherwise, you're comparing apples and tractors.
maharai23 05-20-07, 05:16 AM	Maharai23 by your logic only priest and paladins shoudl be judge hury and executioner. only pormblem we did it a few times here namely the salem witch trials and the spanish inquiastion (I know i spelled it wrong) By my logic, the most accurate system should be used. If that's priests and paladins, so be it. If not, then good alignments and government are something that rarely mix. I never said a lawful good society is the ideal. I would need to for your logical premise to be true. There's where you and I ware different. Our founding fathers in the US were decidedly Chaotic. They believed in strong government, and that no government should be allowed to take freedom from the people. A view decidedly not shared by monarchy. I support a society based on individual freedom and choice, which would be a chaotic good society.
Dog_As_A_Devil_Deified 05-20-07, 06:21 AM	My morality is hardly black and white. However, that's not what's on trial here. D&D morality is. And it, by the PHb, IS black and white, in a very simple way. Whether that way is balanced or not is not on debate here. If you don't like it, make your house rules to fix it. But the set of guidelines in the book are straightforward, as is the objective nature of the realm and it's actions. First, a niggle, I would point out that I did not throw paladins into the mix myself. Paladins (and exalted characters) live by harsher moral strictures than the average LG person. I said that some LG people might get through life appealing to the "greater good," but I am more sympathetic to the notion that paladins might have a harder time if their gods demand absolute perfection from them. (I'm inserting headings after the fact simply because this post became longer than I expected, so I feel the need to break it up a bit to make it vaguely readable. :D) Objective Morality and the Greater Good More to the post above, while the PHB does say that good and evil are objective forces, it does not say that their identity should be determined by the DM in accordance with his or her personal beliefs and ultimately without regard for the players views (save to the extent they can convince the DM to chance his or her personal beliefs through force of argument). That is why I say that your DMing style may be harsher than it needs to be, as you apparently (if I read you correctly) force your personal (and perhaps "real world") views on your players in all your campaigns. Also, more importantly, nothing in the PHB says that considerations of the "greater good" cannot be taken into account, nor does the existence of "objective morality" suggest that one cannot formulate a moral system based on the "objective" greater good. For example, arithmetic is objective, but you occasionally have to add things together to find your objective answer. A Though Experiment—Showing that the 'Greater Good' Can Be an Objective Standard Let's say you are playing a number-game where certain players are restricted to "acting in ways that produce positive results." Suppose a player takes an action—a single action—and the result of that action is four real integers, -6, +6, +7 and +9. One way one could interpret the "positive results" rule is to say "Aha! You received a negative number, therefore you violated rule." That is an objective way of applying that rule since -6 is objectively a negative number. Another way that one could run the game is to say that when multiple results arise from a single action, that one sums the numbers, or perhaps one averages them. Assuming we average them, (-6 + 6 + 7 + 9)/4 = +4. Since +4 is positive, one could conclude "Aha, the net result is positive, therefore the player has complied with the "positive only" rule with respect to that action. Since that +4 is objectively positive, that is still an objective rule. Assuming we posit a "scale" of morality that runs from -10 (very evil) to +10 (very good)—with neutral running let's say from -3.333 to +3.3333 on the scale—a +4 would be an objectively "good" result in a "greater good" sense. If the "single action" is the decision to defend an accused mass murderer, it is easy to see how that one action could have multiple results. Nothing in the PHB's text precludes looking at the overall effect of the action (i.e. determining whether the action served "the greater good") in determining its objective alignment. An Aside—Are You Sure You Don't Use Some Sort of "Averaging" Yourself? (I am curious, suppose a paladin intervened to try to get a court to spare a mass murderer's life, and simply imprison him. Since there is always a chance the murderer will escape from prison and kill again, isn't a paladin seeking leniency committing an evil act under your interpretation? After all, the paladin may be showing "respect for life" (the killer's) but at the same time a side effect of leniency is the increased risk of harm to innocents in the event the killer escapes prison. In that sense it's no different than seeking the killer's acquittal; if a killer is wrongly acquitted, there's really only a chance (albeit perhaps a high chance) that he will kill again, not a certainty of it. The only difference is in the chance of harm to innocent life (low in one case, high in the other), not in the quality or type of risk those innocents face. I'm wondering if there's not some level of "averaging" in your moral structure of the same sort I suggest above that might account for why a paladin leniency for a killer isn't committing an "evil" act on balance. Or do you see them both as evil acts?) Some Other Objections You May Have to the "Greater Good" Now, I suspect your argument may ultimately turn on one of two points. First, perhaps you simply hate the "greater good theory" and prefer the rule that requires one to look at each individual outcome of a given act, not an accumulation. That's absolutely a justifiable interpretation of the PHB. It's not necessarily the only justifiable interpretation of the RAW, given how vague the RAW is, but it's eminently defensible. Second, it may simply be that you feel that releasing a criminal is always so heinous that you cannot conceive of any circumstances in which any kind of "averaging" could turn so terrible an act into a net positive. In that case, you may agree with the "greater good" theory in concept (which might explain why arguing for leniency might be okay), but simply deny that defending accused murderers *is* in the greater good. What is a Player Hinestly Believes An Action is Good, But He's Mistaken The second point suggests a new question: What is the role of expectations and subjective belief in your game on alignment related matters? Suppose who defend a man you are subjectively convinced is innocent (perhaps you think he's being framed...and, of course, divinations that the courts might use are not always foolproof). You get him acquitted, and it later turns out he was guilty. He goes on to kill hundreds of people? Is your action evil? Suppose the reason you thought he was innocent, was his insanely high Bluff score and your zero ranks in Sense Motive? Suppose you think he committed the crime. You argue for life imprisonment and you genuinely believe he will never escape...but he does and he harms innocents. Evil? Suppose you think he did it and you prosecute him, arguing to a judge that he should be killed. You in and he's eventually executed. Then you find out he was innocent. Did you just lose your paladin status over that mistake? Suppose you didn't prosecute him, you simply attacked him thinking he was a dangerous killer, and you slew him in combat with your own hands; then you find out he was innocent...evil? Suppose you think he probably committed the crime, but your sure that the judge has a personal bias against him and the defendant's not being given a fair chance to present contrary evidence? Can you defend him then? Suppose you win the case and he turns out later to have been guilty? It seems to me that if you don't take players' subjective beliefs into consideration, you get some odd results. (For example, the PC helps someone thinking that someone is good, but it turns out that the guy is evil, making the PC's giving aid to him an "objectively" evil act.) If you do take the PC's subjective, good faith, beliefs into account, then why not this: Suppose you think a murderer did it, but that by vindicating that man's right to a fair trial you are ultimately (i) helping to save the lives of thousands of wrongly accused people (who may also get fair trials based on this shining precedent) and (ii) encouraging everyone in the kingdom to see the legal system as fair and honorable (thus (A) discouraging vigilantism, and thereby saving even more lives and (B) helping to ensure that only the actually guilty get punished)? If the PC striongs believes all of tyhis, even if he's wrong, are you sure that's evil? Suppose the PC honestly believes that the gods will ensure that, if the trial is fair, that the judge or jury will reach the correct result...he "trusts the system to get it right." Is representing the killer evil then? You could be wrong in that belief, but entirely sincere.
Serrin 05-20-07, 06:26 AM	Three words: Power Word: Objection.
Count_Chumleigh 05-20-07, 11:01 AM	Maharai23 by your logic only priest and paladins shoudl be judge hury and executioner. only pormblem we did it a few times here namely the salem witch trials and the spanish inquiastion (I know i spelled it wrong) guess what happen more people were murdered by the good and noble priest the by Hitler and Stalin combined some where in the neighbor hood of 40 million people becasue they were judege by priest instead of by thier peers so maybe it is better in the long run to let the evil out then try to destory it and contain it the system of law where people have defenders is flawed but it is the best we have better to be considered innocent until proven guilty then in most countries guilty until proven innocent Please, don't invoke Hitler. Or the Spanish Inquisition. Or Stalin. That's childish, not to mention just unwise. Especially since the advent of Godwin's Law. And actually, by maharai's logic, anyone who is so much as accused of any crime, especially a particularly heinous one, should immediately go to jail and perhaps be executed, since both defending a guilty person and letting an innocent person go free are evil acts. (He's had ample opportunity to correct or explain what I and others had pointed out looked like an obvious typo some posts back, but hasn't, so I can only assume he meant what he said.) Here's the thing: just because you're accused of something, doesn't necessarily mean you did it. That's what trials are for: proving whether the defendant did what the prosecution says he did. Here's the other thing: just because it may seem obvious that a particular defendant is guilty, that defendant has not somehow lost his right to a fair trial. The prosecution still has to give intelligible, coherent, reasonable evidence of why it thinks the defendant is guilty. But, of course, that has nothing to do with D&D, which, like so many games, involves so many "extralegal" activities that even the basics of a legal system are left out of the rulebooks--even for most campaign settings, where such rules would be most appropriate. Not that I'm complaining. I get enough legal rules and policy questions at school as it is; if my dwarf drummer Ognir ever had to deal with the legality of all the murder-cults he's foiled and dungeons he's looted, the fine line between fantasy and reality (which is exactly what every legal policy argument is) would become too blurred and I would very quietly snap. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
maharai23 05-20-07, 11:30 AM	First, a niggle, I would point out that I did not throw paladins into the mix myself. Paladins (and exalted characters) live by harsher moral strictures than the average LG person. I said that some LG people might get through life appealing to the "greater good," but I am more sympathetic to the notion that paladins might have a harder time if their gods demand absolute perfection from them. You're right. I threw paladins into the mix. Why? Because the "Paladin test" is the simplest litmus test of whether an act violates the ethos of law and good. If a paladin can't do it, it does. Objective Morality and the Greater Good First, objective morality is antithetical to the "greater good". The "greater good" is used to justify evil acts for noble gains. Arguing for the "greater good" is arguing that the ends justify the means. Now, with that preface, let's continue, shall we? More to the post above, while the PHB does say that good and evil are objective forces, it does not say that their identity should be determined by the DM in accordance with his or her personal beliefs and ultimately without regard for the players views (save to the extent they can convince the DM to chance his or her personal beliefs through force of argument). That is why I say that your DMing style may be harsher than it needs to be, as you apparently (if I read you correctly) force your personal (and perhaps "real world") views on your players in all your campaigns. D&D, at it's core, holds a few tenets. 1) Each player controls a number of characters, typically 1, allowed by the DM, perhaps through group consensus. 2) The DM, as moderator and storyteller, controls EVERYTHING ELSE. That's not PHb, that's DmG. Of course the PhB won't go into details on the responsibilities of the DM. It's called the PLAYER's Handbook for a reason. Also, more importantly, nothing in the PHB says that considerations of the "greater good" cannot be taken into account, nor does the existence of "objective morality" suggest that one cannot formulate a moral system based on the "objective" greater good. For example, arithmetic is objective, but you occasionally have to add things together to find your objective answer. Math is objective. Very objective. But you're trying to throw a little smoke and mirrors up here. Let's assume good is positive and evil is negative. The example we are showing here is that the benefit of the fair trial outweighs the bad of defending committers of evil acts occasionally. If we were to write this using our math, we have simple ways to determine magnitude. (fair trial benefit) (defending evil) (Net gain good) 10 + (-3) = +7 By this, we show three things, merely by even SUPPORTING greater good. 1) Fair trial's benefit outweighs the evil of defending evil. I will concede that point. 2) The end result of this is a net gain towards an ordered society. I will concede that point. 3) The person defending the guilty is committing an evil act, albeit to a lesser degree. Textbook example of "Greater Good". A Though Experiment—Showing that the 'Greater Good' Can Be an Objective Standard Let's say you are playing a number-game where certain players are restricted to "acting in ways that produce positive results." Suppose a player takes an action—a single action—and the result of that action is four real integers, -6, +6, +7 and +9. Flawed premise. The action of the lawyer is one result: -6. The actions of the rest of the court are +6, +7, and +9. Thus, the court is good, though the individual members need not be. One way one could interpret the "positive results" rule is to say "Aha! You received a negative number, therefore you violated rule." That is an objective way of applying that rule since -6 is objectively a negative number. And that's incorrect application of objectivity. You are confusing facts with smoke and mirrors. Read above. The lawyer's ONE ACT of defending the guilty is evil. The one negative result. Other people actively act to prosecute, judge, and sentence him. There are your three positive results. Thus, if anything you have Every other part of the system being good to allow for the one evil in the name of liberty. You could only argue your point if the same lawyer that defended the guilty also did everything else in that court. You're arguing for the goodness of the court. I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the clearly evil act of the one lawyer in the court. Another way that one could run the game is to say that when multiple results arise from a single action, that one sums the numbers, or perhaps one averages them. Assuming we average them, (-6 + 6 + 7 + 9)/4 = +4. Since +4 is positive, one could conclude "Aha, the net result is positive, therefore the player has complied with the "positive only" rule with respect to that action. Since that +4 is objectively positive, that is still an objective rule. True, and in your example, the player is the court, not the lawyer. Again, that point is conceded. Proper application the numbers is required for objectivity to have any meaning. Assuming we posit a "scale" of morality that runs from -10 (very evil) to +10 (very good)—with neutral running let's say from -3.333 to +3.3333 on the scale—a +4 would be an objectively "good" result in a "greater good" sense. If the "single action" is the decision to defend an accused mass murderer, it is easy to see how that one action could have multiple results. True. If the accused is guilty, the single action of defending that mass murderer would likely be around a -6. If the accused is innocent, likely a +4. Why lower? Setting a mass murderer on the street to deprive the lives of many is worse than attempting to ensure the liberty of one person is good. That is where we are subjective, and there is room for argument, in the magnitude. The + or -, that's objective. Nothing in the PHB's text precludes looking at the overall effect of the action (i.e. determining whether the action served "the greater good") in determining its objective alignment. The overall effect of murdering a child could be to spur the town to eliminate a nearby cave full of orcs that have been preying on caravans, killing many. The end result is good. The greater good meets the exact same litmus test as your previous example. Is the act of murdering that child justifiable to a good character as a good act? This is the point you're arguing. Merely by associating a negative number to the lawyer's defense, you admit that that one action is evil. Every other positive result comes, once again, from someone else. Thus, all the evil actions lie with that lawyer. Character rationalization that his evil act will be balanced to a good result BY OTHERS is irrelevant to the strict guidelines of DnD. An Aside—Are You Sure You Don't Use Some Sort of "Averaging" Yourself? Nobody's perfect. I do try to eliminate it, when the averaging of one person's grade is determined using the rest of the class's test scores, though. (I am curious, suppose a paladin intervened to try to get a court to spare a mass murderer's life, and simply imprison him. Since there is always a chance the murderer will escape from prison and kill again, isn't a paladin seeking leniency committing an evil act under your interpretation? After all, the paladin may be showing "respect for life" (the killer's) but at the same time a side effect of leniency is the increased risk of harm to innocents in the event the killer escapes prison. In that sense it's no different than seeking the killer's acquittal; if a killer is wrongly acquitted, there's really only a chance (albeit perhaps a high chance) that he will kill again, not a certainty of it. The only difference is in the chance of harm to innocent life (low in one case, high in the other), not in the quality or type of risk those innocents face. I'm wondering if there's not some level of "averaging" in your moral structure of the same sort I suggest above that might account for why a paladin leniency for a killer isn't committing an "evil" act on balance. Or do you see them both as evil acts?) You're now arguing that there's no difference between acquittal and prison, on the grounds that someone "might escape in the future"??? Now, you're really reaching. The act of the paladin in that instance is to attempt to: 1) give the opportunity for redemption through mercy and respect for life. Sounds good so far. 2) provide for the safe exclusion of the individual from society through incarceration. Sounds both lawful and good. To take the possible future consequences of that mercy, balanced with that precaution, would be to average the Paladin's good act using the potential future actions of the murderer. Once again, you're getting the Paladin's test scores by averaging the murderer's grades. Except in this instance, you're averaging grades for tests that haven't even been taken yet. Some Other Objections You May Have to the "Greater Good" Now, I suspect your argument may ultimately turn on one of two points. First, perhaps you simply hate the "greater good theory" and prefer the rule that requires one to look at each individual outcome of a given act, not an accumulation. That's absolutely a justifiable interpretation of the PHB. It's not necessarily the only justifiable interpretation of the RAW, given how vague the RAW is, but it's eminently defensible. Second, it may simply be that you feel that releasing a criminal is always so heinous that you cannot conceive of any circumstances in which any kind of "averaging" could turn so terrible an act into a net positive. In that case, you may agree with the "greater good" theory in concept (which might explain why arguing for leniency might be okay), but simply deny that defending accused murderers *is* in the greater good. I'm not arguing greater good at all. I have no problem with it, though it rarely falls to good men to determine it. If usually falls to Neutral men who dream of good, but realize that they must get their hands dirty to get it. The greater good of the court system in place that you describe is undeniable. The individual evil of one cog in that system is also undeniable, by the same reasoning. That one cog in the system is the lawyer. One lawyer in a courtroom is always committing an evil act, one is always doing a good act. Either the prosecutor is on the side of right, or the defense, not both. In every case, either the prosecutor is trying to convict the innocent, or the defense is trying to acquit the guilty. It's balanced by the other lawyer, and hopefully tipped to good by the judge/jury's correct decision. Thus... Greater good. But evil is still committed in the name of fairness to the accused, due to ignorance of his guilt or innocence. What is a Player Hinestly Believes An Action is Good, But He's Mistaken Then, if he's a paladin, he can atone. If not, no big. The rules for paladins specifically lay out "accidentally" committing acts of evil. The single truest test that could be done in a D&D world for judging is a pair of paladin lawyers, each with a phylactery of faithfulness. Bam. Surefire solution right there for a perfect D&D justice system. See, once the rules are clearly defined, a la D&D combat rules, they can be worked within. The second point suggests a new question: What is the role of expectations and subjective belief in your game on alignment related matters? There isn't and role for subjectivity. Actions are objectively good and evil in D&D. That's D&D, both commentary by authors, and listed. Suppose who defend a man you are subjectively convinced is innocent (perhaps you think he's being framed...and, of course, divinations that the courts might use are not always foolproof). You get him acquitted, and it later turns out he was guilty. He goes on to kill hundreds of people? Is your action evil? Suppose the reason you thought he was innocent, was his insanely high Bluff score and your zero ranks in Sense Motive? Then you're ignorant, and you contributed to evil. Congratulations. Nobody's perfect. Granted, the DM that would do this to a player is a real jerk. I don't ever set up a situation that the player is designed to fail, unless it's a status quo combat encounter, and the PC's have the ability to evade. Suppose you think he committed the crime. You argue for life imprisonment and you genuinely believe he will never escape...but he does and he harms innocents. Evil? Nope. You can't judge the action of imprisoning him with the fact that he'll eventually circumvent his prison unless he has a history for doing such. Even so, seperating a criminal from society isn't evil. Anyone who aided him escaping would be, however. Suppose you think he did it and you prosecute him, arguing to a judge that he should be killed. You in and he's eventually executed. Then you find out he was innocent. Did you just lose your paladin status over that mistake? Suppose you didn't prosecute him, you simply attacked him thinking he was a dangerous killer, and you slew him in combat with your own hands; then you find out he was innocent...evil? Question. If you believe the ruler of a city is in league with an evil lich, and kill him, and are wrong, did you do evil? If you're right, and there was no time for a trial, were you evil? Yes. and No. Killing innocents is evil. Your PC's ignorance merely shows his/her failure. Again, see above for jerk DM. And it's not evil because while he was denied due process, he was correctly punished for his transgressions. While skipping due process is certainly unLAWFUL, it's not evil, because ultimately, the right and wrong is objective, and executing a traitor to the crown, working against the welfare of the people, when done for that reason, is good. Suppose you think he probably committed the crime, but your sure that the judge has a personal bias against him and the defendant's not being given a fair chance to present contrary evidence? Can you defend him then? Suppose you win the case and he turns out later to have been guilty? It seems to me that if you don't take players' subjective beliefs into consideration, you get some odd results. (For example, the PC helps someone thinking that someone is good, but it turns out that the guy is evil, making the PC's giving aid to him an "objectively" evil act.) If you do take the PC's subjective, good faith, beliefs into account, then why not this: correct. This is why one evil act does not make someone evil in D&D. It's also why many evil people believe they're good. Suppose you think a murderer did it, but that by vindicating that man's right to a fair trial you are ultimately (i) helping to save the lives of thousands of wrongly accused people (who may also get fair trials based on this shining precedent) and (ii) encouraging everyone in the kingdom to see the legal system as fair and honorable (thus (A) discouraging vigilantism, and thereby saving even more lives and (B) helping to ensure that only the actually guilty get punished)? If the PC striongs believes all of tyhis, even if he's wrong, are you sure that's evil? Suppose the PC honestly believes that the gods will ensure that, if the trial is fair, that the judge or jury will reach the correct result...he "trusts the system to get it right." Is representing the killer evil then? You could be wrong in that belief, but entirely sincere. Supporting the right to a fair trial is a good act. Being that specific cog that defends the wrong guy is an evil one. By that guideline, if you support the right to a fair trial, you take a step towards good. If you defend the wrong guy, that's a step towards evil. There, you can argue LN. If you, however, do not support the fair trial, but try to always get your client off on a point of pride, and use the trial to do it, then you're LE, maybe NE, depending on how you break the rules. There is where a player has decisions to make that affect his alignment. Not his beliefs on a specific situation, but his active support on why it's necessary. Thus, a LE player and a LN player could both be given the same cases, the same results, and play their alignment well. The difference is, "I'll get you off, don't worry," and "I'll do my best; we'll get to the bottom of this." Oh, and keep in mind. Sincerity does not equal good. One of the big objective phrases is, "Ignorance is no excuse."
maharai23 05-20-07, 12:14 PM	And actually, by maharai's logic, anyone who is so much as accused of any crime, especially a particularly heinous one, should immediately go to jail and perhaps be executed, since both defending a guilty person and letting an innocent person go free are evil acts. (He's had ample opportunity to correct or explain what I and others had pointed out looked like an obvious typo some posts back, but hasn't, so I can only assume he meant what he said.) Incorrect. By my logic, in a D&D setting, it is a necessary evil for the greater good. Yes, evil can be advocated for the greater good. It's still evil. Nowhere did I say that a character shouldn't be evil. That was YOUR assumption. Here's the thing: just because you're accused of something, doesn't necessarily mean you did it. That's what trials are for: proving whether the defendant did what the prosecution says he did. Here's the other thing: just because it may seem obvious that a particular defendant is guilty, that defendant has not somehow lost his right to a fair trial. The prosecution still has to give intelligible, coherent, reasonable evidence of why it thinks the defendant is guilty. I'm well aware how trials work in real life. This isn't. In D&D, I have the luxury as a DM of knowing the innocence or guilt of every NPC in my game beforehand. I don't need a trial. I determine the actions of my characters, I know it. Do the players need a trial to show these things? In a city setting, certainly. Is the part of the lawyer evil? Definately. Thus, in an imperfect society, you must use a bit of evil to seperate the evil from the good. Or do you think that trying to get a mass murderer off without punishment is a good act? Is it neutral? Rather than stand against my views, and standing against something is SO easy... How about you stand for yours? But, of course, that has nothing to do with D&D, which, like so many games, involves so many "extralegal" activities that even the basics of a legal system are left out of the rulebooks--even for most campaign settings, where such rules would be most appropriate. Not that I'm complaining. I get enough legal rules and policy questions at school as it is; if my dwarf drummer Ognir ever had to deal with the legality of all the murder-cults he's foiled and dungeons he's looted, the fine line between fantasy and reality (which is exactly what every legal policy argument is) would become too blurred and I would very quietly snap. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh And amen to that. The legal issue shows a dark underside of society... Of corruption necessary in the system. If that's the campaign you want, great. If not, stay away from it.
FloppyLlama 05-20-07, 02:42 PM	It's simple. If the legitimate way to punish evil is laid out in law, and you are circumventing that punishment by ensuring that someone who DOES a crime doesn't get punished by it, you are, by proxy, endorsing that crime. Supporting evil is evil. That's the entire problem here! If the legitimate way to punish evil is laid out in law? That's dependent on what defines the character's law vs. chaos axis. That's part of why the axis is there! It's related to the law/chaos axis, it is not related to the evil/good axis. That falls in the common sense. The rules apply to define the original evil acts. The point we're arguing above is more in the common sense realm. At, least, I THOUGHT it was. Perhaps it turns out that common sense isn't so common. Oh, I see, now it's not in the black and white realm of rules, no, it's now in "common sense" apparently. Common sense has no authoritative epistemic claims on the truth. Logical argumentation does. Apparently you are incapable of putting forward a concrete refutation of my points. In D&D, I have the luxury as a DM of knowing the innocence or guilt of every NPC in my game beforehand. I think you are misinterpreting when the PHB says that characters can commit evil without making a conscuous choice that they are commiting evil. What it means is, no matter who good and pristine and holy an insane character finds burning down an orphanage to be, it's still evil. What it doesn't mean is that a character acting to protect someone they have no way of knowing to be evil at that point is commiting an evil act. Why is a snake attacking a Paladin neutral instead of evil? Because it cannot know that the Paladin is Good. By your interpretation of objective morality, any snake attacking a Paladin becomes evil. I suppose one must always Detect Evil before acting around any sentient being then? Wouldn't want to accidentally help them! Might cause you to become evil! I don't know about you, but it seems to me that it's a perfectly Good thing to do to treat people you have no proof of being evil with respect. "Dignity of sentient life" and all that good stuff from the PHB. By my logic, in a D&D setting, it is a necessary evil for the greater good. Yes, evil can be advocated for the greater good. It's still evil. Nowhere did I say that a character shouldn't be evil. That was YOUR assumption. Is it wrong to commit an evil for the sake of the greater good?
Count_Chumleigh 05-20-07, 03:27 PM	It's just so cute watching you think, maharai--like watching a kitten try to open a drawer. So, because you, as a DM, know that an NPC in your game actually committed the crime he is accused of, then a PC Paladin who defended that NPC in court, even if he believed in his heart of hearts that the NPC was innocent, would lose his Paladin powers for now and forever more (well, until he convinced a Cleric to cast attone, I suppose) because he would have just committed an evil act? Because Paladins are apparently the class to turn to for all your alignment-based questions. I guess I must have missed that class. --Count Chumleigh P.S. Is now a bad time for me to say that I've never liked the fact that Paladins can lose their class features for what their friends do? PC Paladin: You were saying something, my long-time friend and associate, Smitty the Surly Innkeeper? Smitty: That's right, PC Paladin. As I was saying, it is a long-standing business practice of mine to overcharge my guests and unfairly discriminate against employees and customers of mine who are of a different race, sex, and/or religion than myself. PC Paladin: Well, that's an unsavory practice there, but I suppose it's your business. Smitty: Also, I just kicked a puppy. DM: BLUE BOLT FROM HEAVEN! YOU JUST LOST YOUR POWERS, PC PALADIN! PC Paladin: Well, dang it all to heck. I guess that means I'm a Blackguard now.
Shaftiel 05-20-07, 04:36 PM	Doh! I just typed a long reply then accidentally deleted it... so here's a shorter one. I think the problem is that those arguing against good lawyers are assuming that there are ways to absolutely determine truth/innocence or guilt in D&D. There aren't; it's much harder than in the real world. Charm person, dominate, dopplegangers, possession, and alter self all mean that even if there were 100 witnesses - even if the accused actually committed the crime - he could be innocent. And for every detection/divination magic there's a counter, in the worst-case scenario wish or miracle to intercept the ask-your-god-directly magic. So 100% certainty, heck, even "beyond reasonable doubt" certainty, is really tough to achieve. The next problem is that the legal system, IMO, is much more to protect people from stupid stuff than mass murderers. Are you really going to want to use contact outer planes to determine the guilt of Bill the Farmer who supposedly stole a horse? Heck no. I mean, it matters a lot to him, as he'll be hung if he did it, but the 10th level high wizard probably has better things to do. Odds are that there will be a zone of truth in the courtroom, he and his accusor will get Will saves, and that'll be that, but if he's really lucky he'll get a fair trial, with a competent defense, before he is hung. This is exactly the kind of thing that low-level LG lawyers are great for: they do their best to sort out the facts so that vast swathes of innocent people aren't unjustly convicted (and, in some cases, executed). With this in mind I've instituted a system of trial-by-combat in my game that I'm hoping will work out. Formal arena, etc, but the twist is that the innocent/correct side gets 4 bonus fighter levels for the duration of the combat from the god of Justice. Enough to make it work 95% of the time but still leave room for tampering or bad luck as an adventure hook. We'll see how it works. -Shaftiel
maharai23 05-21-07, 12:39 AM	That's the entire problem here! If the legitimate way to punish evil is laid out in law? That's dependent on what defines the character's law vs. chaos axis. That's part of why the axis is there! It's related to the law/chaos axis, it is not related to the evil/good axis. Clarification: Assume we're dealing with a Lawful Good government. After all, it's hard to be lawful good when supporting a regime that's not, right? Punishing evildoers for their actions is good. Supporting the specific punishment laid out in law is lawful. Hope that clears a few things up. Actions can be both lawful AND good. Oh, I see, now it's not in the black and white realm of rules, no, it's now in "common sense" apparently. Common sense has no authoritative epistemic claims on the truth. Logical argumentation does. Then use these as my logical premises, and dispute any of them that you will, or accept them. 1) The behaviors laid out in the RAW of the PHb as evil are evil, as defined by D&D rules. 2) Performing one of the behaviors mentioned in point (1) is an evil act. 3) Assisting in the performing of the actions described in point (2) is evil. 4) Endeavors to shield those who have committed acts laid out in previous points from justice is evil. If the above four statements are true, beginning with the RAW in point one, and stating RAW in this instance serves only to define an initial evil act, which, since we are using as "generic evil act that we all agree is evil", isn't necessary to use to prove a point. This ends in the further three points, and, though I believe that point 2 is likely RAW as well, I'll go ahead and state that points 2, 3, and 4 are also common sense. Apparently you are incapable of putting forward a concrete refutation of my points. You had points? All I see is you trying to refute mine, not postulating any of your own. Please, bring out any points you have, I'd love to argue them on their merits. Why are my points being argued here? Because I have the conviction to bring them to the table, rather than dancing around the issue, and not stating reasons for my beliefs. I think you are misinterpreting when the PHB says that characters can commit evil without making a conscuous choice that they are commiting evil. What it means is, no matter who good and pristine and holy an insane character finds burning down an orphanage to be, it's still evil. What it doesn't mean is that a character acting to protect someone they have no way of knowing to be evil at that point is commiting an evil act. Why is a snake attacking a Paladin neutral instead of evil? Because it cannot know that the Paladin is Good. By your interpretation of objective morality, any snake attacking a Paladin becomes evil. News flash: Two paladins can attack each other, and both be in the right. How? One may advocate leaving behind an individual with a broken leg, on the grounds that if they don't, the rest of the refugees will die. Another might say that no, they don't feel it's right to leave someone at the mercy of an evil force. I'm not here to argue the initial evil act. That's for the RAW to decide. The RAW has stated that creatures with animal intelligence don't suffer alignment drift. Thus, even if the bear mauls a campground of kindergardeners, it's not evil. BTW, that insane character you brought up earlier, how is he not an agent of evil? Whether or not he BELIEVES himself to be is subjective. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing whether or not he IS. A player can SAY he's Lawful Good all he wants. If he makes a habit of burning orphanages, he's not. I suppose one must always Detect Evil before acting around any sentient being then? Wouldn't want to accidentally help them! Might cause you to become evil! I don't know about you, but it seems to me that it's a perfectly Good thing to do to treat people you have no proof of being evil with respect. "Dignity of sentient life" and all that good stuff from the PHB. There is a reason Paladins get detect evil, and can use it an unlimited amount of times. For them, not committing evil acts truly matters. For the rest of the world, they can adopt the motto "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." It's simply not as important for other classes, as one act doesn't usually change an alignment. Is it wrong to commit an evil for the sake of the greater good? That's a matter of philosophy and conjecture. I'm not even going to get into the topic of when "good" and "evil" become "right" and "wrong". It's a matter of perspective, that, when in D&D, depend on your character's beliefs. Right and Wrong are subjective in D&D. Good and Evil are not.
maharai23 05-21-07, 01:01 AM	It's just so cute watching you think, maharai--like watching a kitten try to open a drawer. Save your inflammatory comments for those who are actually angered by them. Besides, wouldn't want you being accused of trolling, ya know? Now, onto what you actually tried to SAY: So, because you, as a DM, know that an NPC in your game actually committed the crime he is accused of, then a PC Paladin who defended that NPC in court, even if he believed in his heart of hearts that the NPC was innocent, would lose his Paladin powers for now and forever more (well, until he convinced a Cleric to cast attone, I suppose) because he would have just committed an evil act? Because Paladins are apparently the class to turn to for all your alignment-based questions. Correct. Not for all your alignment based questions, but certainly to the one "Is this act evil?". Upon reading PHb for Paladins, here is the following "class for you". "A Paladin who ceases to be Lawfull Good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities..." " Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, 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." Last part bolded for reference. Assisting someone evade punishment for harming or threatening an innocent would be a "Gross Violation of the Code of Conduct." I guess I must have missed that class. Now you've had it. Cheers. P.S. Is now a bad time for me to say that I've never liked the fact that Paladins can lose their class features for what their friends do? Then don't like it. Make a house rule. Do something to change it in your game. Don't assume that's got any bearing on the actual rules of D&D, though. PC Paladin: You were saying something, my long-time friend and associate, Smitty the Surly Innkeeper? Smitty: That's right, PC Paladin. As I was saying, it is a long-standing business practice of mine to overcharge my guests and unfairly discriminate against employees and customers of mine who are of a different race, sex, and/or religion than myself. PC Paladin: Well, that's an unsavory practice there, but I suppose it's your business. Smitty: Also, I just kicked a puppy. DM: BLUE BOLT FROM HEAVEN! YOU JUST LOST YOUR POWERS, PC PALADIN! PC Paladin: Well, dang it all to heck. I guess that means I'm a Blackguard now. Associates:While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good. I don't see a single thing in there for a paladin losing his powers for the innkeeper committing evil. Only if that innkeeper consistently offends that code, and the paladin continues an association. It'd be much easier to argue your point by showing the paladin arming a citizenry to defend against a goblin invasion, and then several citizens use that weaponry to rob others. That would violate code of conduct above.
FloppyLlama 05-21-07, 01:45 AM	Clarification: Assume we're dealing with a Lawful Good government. After all, it's hard to be lawful good when supporting a regime that's not, right? Punishing evildoers for their actions is good. Supporting the specific punishment laid out in law is lawful. Hope that clears a few things up. Actions can be both lawful AND good. Ok, under that assumption, I can see where you're going. Then use these as my logical premises, and dispute any of them that you will, or accept them. 1) The behaviors laid out in the RAW of the PHb as evil are evil, as defined by D&D rules. 2) Performing one of the behaviors mentioned in point (1) is an evil act. 3) Assisting in the performing of the actions described in point (2) is evil. 4) Endeavors to shield those who have committed acts laid out in previous points from justice is evil. Now, and herein lays the objection inherent in the concept put forward: If a guilty man is let off, then the court/legal system is flawed (we are of course assuming no foul play here) and cannot bring accurate justice and thus could be responsible for executing or imprisoning an innocent. The governmet could be Lawful Good, but in the eyes of the Paladin who is for lack of a better word Uber-Lawful Good, this simply isn't good enough, and (s)he does not consider it legitimate authority. Mind you, this is a high standard, but the concept that was suggested was a little odd in the first place. If we are keeping with the Paladin concept here, I think it would be most accurate that after declaring the legal system an illegitimate and unjust system, the Paladin summarily punish the guilty party of his/her own accord (assuming they are known to be guilty by the Paladin of course). This bypasses 4) and leaves the concept intact. You had points? All I see is you trying to refute mine, not postulating any of your own. I consider attempts at rebuttal points as much as any stand-alone postulate since they tend to contain premises and work towards a conclusion. My apologies for not communicating more clearly. BTW, that insane character you brought up earlier, how is he not an agent of evil? I never said he wasn't. My point in bringing it up and then the animal is to make a distinction: the insane man, regardless of whether he passes subjective value judgments on his actions is evil because he is cognizant and fully aware of the consequences of his actions (I presume, at least. If he's a catatonic, he won't be burning down many orphanages anyway). Animals are not subject to alignment drift according to the rules, and yet may commit otherwise evil acts. This is because they are not at a level of sentience to be aware of their actions and the consequences thereof. The rules seem to indicate that being unable to know or unaware of the exact nature of the situation allows one more leeway than omniscience. There is a reason Paladins get detect evil, and can use it an unlimited amount of times. For them, not committing evil acts truly matters. For the rest of the world, they can adopt the motto "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." It's simply not as important for other classes, as one act doesn't usually change an alignment. Yes, but Detect Evil cannot be on all the time. Thus, a Paladin who "respects the dignity of sentient life" will generally treat people (s)he come's across with at least a minimal degree of respect for their life and (perhaps) liberty. While the Paladin may very well be able to Detect Evil on their client, the presence of an Evil alignment does not serve as evidence for them having commited the crimes being discussed during the trial. They may not in fact be guilty of murder, merely mugging beggars. Those crimes will be dealt with by the Paladin or the Law on a different occasion, and I would argue that a Paladin has an obligation to ensure that no one, not even an Evil being, should be wrongfully accused of a crime.
Dog_As_A_Devil_Deified 05-21-07, 05:33 AM	First, objective morality is antithetical to the "greater good". Not at all..."Objective" merely means that it's determination is not inflouences by personal feelings or interpretation, that it is determined by reference to an outside source and can be therefore held to be a certain ay without room for subjective debate. (In fact, D&D *says* that alignment is objective and then gives fuzzy rules fir what the alignments mean, opening them up to subjective interpretation.) The "greater good" can be objectively determined in precisely the same way as "good" can be determined in your system. Since the greater good can be objectively determined, it can't possibly be antithetical to objectivity. In fact what you are arguing for is not objective alignment, but a sort of "absolutist" alignment. Such an absolute system is the very core of why paladins are not fun to play in many games. In an absolute system, it's too easy to find yourself in a "no in" scenario, where every action you might take has *some* negative consequence. While an absolute system can be objective, it's not the only objective system (nor is it even the hallmark of objectivity, imo). The "greater good" is used to justify evil acts for noble gains. Arguing for the "greater good" is arguing that the ends justify the means. Now, with that preface, let's continue, shall we? D&D, at it's core, holds a few tenets. 1) Each player controls a number of characters, typically 1, allowed by the DM, perhaps through group consensus. 2) The DM, as moderator and storyteller, controls EVERYTHING ELSE. That's not PHb, that's DmG. Of course the PhB won't go into details on the responsibilities of the DM. It's called the PLAYER's Handbook for a reason. Math is objective. Very objective. But you're trying to throw a little smoke and mirrors up here. Let's assume good is positive and evil is negative. The example we are showing here is that the benefit of the fair trial outweighs the bad of defending committers of evil acts occasionally. If we were to write this using our math, we have simple ways to determine magnitude. (fair trial benefit) (defending evil) (Net gain good) 10 + (-3) = +7 By this, we show three things, merely by even SUPPORTING greater good. 1) Fair trial's benefit outweighs the evil of defending evil. I will concede that point. 2) The end result of this is a net gain towards an ordered society. I will concede that point. 3) The person defending the guilty is committing an evil act, albeit to a lesser degree. Textbook example of "Greater Good". Flawed premise. The action of the lawyer is one result: -6. The actions of the rest of the court are +6, +7, and +9. Thus, the court is good, though the individual members need not be. Yet without the lawyer, the court can't function properly, so that's a flawed conclusion on your part. The lawyer isn;'t merely an evil cog in the good machine, he's vital to teh machine operating peroply in the long hall. If your assumptionis correct, then prosecuting is also an evil act. Why? Because prosecutors sometimes make mistakes and send the innocent to jail (and remember, "Ignorance is no excuse" according to you). Executing or imprisoning the innocent no less evil than letting the guilty go free. So, under your absolutist view, all prosecutors are evil, right? In fact, judges also make the same mistakes...it's the JUDGE or JURY who decides guilt or innocence, not the prosecutor or defense counsel (meanwhile the jury is subject to the judge's direction in many ways, and can in certain cases have its verdict set aside by the judge). You can't lay those things wholly at the foot of the defense counsel. If only the judge's ignorance of his error were an excuse! But as you noted, in your view it's not. In any event it's a flawwed bit of logic. It's not that the jury, judge and/or prosecutor are trying to have a fair trial and the defense counsel screws it up. It takes *all four* of them—the judge, the factfinder (either a jury or sometimes the judge himself), the prosecutor *and* the defense counsel—to have a fair trial, because a fair trial is about process and the process only works because each one does its job. If you take away any one of them, the process almost always collapses into unfairness, and you lose all the benefits of a fair trial. And that's incorrect application of objectivity. You are confusing facts with smoke and mirrors. Read above. The lawyer's ONE ACT of defending the guilty is evil. The one negative result. Again. wrong. Unless you want to admit that the prosecutor, the judge and the jury are all evil too, your conclusion makes no sense, because they all make mistakes and those mistakes all have similarly negative consequences (setting the guilty free or condemning the innocent). In fact, the factfinders (juries) can make both sorts of error, so I guess they are doubly evil. In any event, you are proceeding from a houseruled position that the "greater good" can be ignored, and the PHB doesn't say that. The "greater good" is no less objective that the system you are defending. In the exact same ay you determine that consequence A is evil, you can determine that consequence A and B, taken together, are good. BTW, sometimes defense counsel defends the innocent. I think even you would have to admit that that is good (i.e. in those cases here the prosecutor is evil, since he's trying to punish the innocent). If you have a system where only the innocent get lawyers...then guess what that means? Actually (SURPRISE!) it means everyone gets lawyers, because everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I think the reason you condemn defense counsel and never attack prosecutors or judges is that you assume quite the opposite. Other people actively act to prosecute, judge, and sentence him. There are your three positive results. Thus, if anything you have Every other part of the system being good to allow for the one evil in the name of liberty. You could only argue your point if the same lawyer that defended the guilty also did everything else in that court. There are only two positive outcomes, not three: the guilty are punished and the innocent go free. Then there are the aforementioned two negative outcomes: the guilty go free and the innocent are condemned. The factfinders and judges bear the burden of *both* negative consequences and both of the positive results. (In modern trials, the judge bears some heavier responsibility for sentencing the innocent than he does for letting the guilty go free since he could have set the former verdict aside and did not. In the middle ages, the judge was free to set any verdict aside, though.) The prosecutor bears responsibility for punishing the innocent. The defense counsel bears the responsibility for letting the guilty go free. Unless you view their actions in light of the system as a whole, and not in isolation, you are going to ind up condemning each part of the system individually, contrary to your pretense that only one part is bad. You're now arguing that there's no difference between acquittal and prison, on the grounds that someone "might escape in the future"??? Now, you're really reaching. That's not what I was arguing. I was saying that both are "evil," not that both are equally evil. One is clearly a lesser evil than the other. In your absolutist stance though the degree of evil shouldn't matter, unless you are in fact "balancing" the results against some perceived greater good. A lesser evil is simply easier to balance out than a greater evil. Your response suggests clearly to me that that is exactly hat you're doing. You dismiss the similarity out of hand because you want the paladin seeking leniency to be held blameless, even though his act is under your own standard of absolutism "evil" because it has some (small ) evil component of risk to the innocent within it. On the other hand, your view may be to so separate the consequences that his act is not evil and that the "evil" is "letting the criminal escape from prison. (That, though, would make prison guards evil for not doing their jobs very well.) In my view, assuming the guards don't intend the escape, the paladin commits the last volitional act that facilitates the prisoner's escape (and the threat to the public that results). Another way of looking at it is to blame the criminal for committing the absolute last volitional act, the decision to kill, and they are the *only* ones who intended the evil consequence (death of an innocent). I assume you reject that though, as then defense counsel also aren't evil; (since they also don't intend the deaths of innocents any more than those seeking leniency do). To take the possible future consequences of that mercy, balanced with that precaution, would be to average the Paladin's good act using the potential future actions of the murderer. Once again, you're getting the Paladin's test scores by averaging the murderer's grades. You're doing the same to defense counsel. You are laying the consequences of the criminals choice to kill at their feet, in the exact same way I have hypothetically laid them at the leniency-seeking paladin's feet. You're being inconsistent, I am merely pointing out the inconsistency. If you are to "separate acts" such that: -defense counsel defends -fact finders detrrmine the facts of the case -judges judge -prosecutors prosecute, and -that particular paladin seeks leniency then you should also separate out "the killer kills" as a separate consequence not belonging to any of the above, unless they intend it to happen. (Again, though you are forgetting completely about the innocent men ho get executed by prosecutors. because you seem to be assuming that defendant is guilty until proven innocent, rather than the reverse. If they are all guilty, then the actions of the rest of the members of court look a whole lot better and the defense counsel looks a lot worse. Oh, and keep in mind. Sincerity does not equal good. One of the big objective phrases is, "Ignorance is no excuse." Sincerity does not equal good, but if you ignore it your paladins will fall for silly reasons. For example, suppose that the paladin sees a sweet old man being roughed up by some dirty-looking punk kids. The paladin comes to the man's aid and in the fight, the paladin kills one of the kids. It turns out that the young kids were attacking the old man, because the old man committed a crime against them first, and that the kids are good. Surely it does matter that the paladin sincerely believed that the kids were hoodlums, for purposes of stripping away his paladinhood (after all, he unjustly killed one of those kids and aided the evil, but sweet-faced old man.) It seems to me that you have to take the actual beliefs of the player into account in judging his actions. "Sincerity" merely means that he or she honestly believes something. You can be "sincerely" evil, and yet accidentally wind up committing a good act.
Count_Chumleigh 05-21-07, 01:46 PM	First, maharai, if you’re going to accuse me of trolling, at least have the sand to actually do it. I get the feeling that you think I’m supposed to somehow be grateful for you, O Mr. Magic Internet Man, for having the mercy to spare me the shame of maybe not being able to post on an internet forum for a while. (Also, if trolling is an evil act, does that mean you’ve just committed an evil act by allowing me to potentially troll threads in the future? Perish the thought!) Second, I am now going to present a number of scenarios involving, among others, Mike McPaladin (everyman paladin), Lezek Skullduggery-Jones (an unfortunately named half-orc drifter), and Euclid Townsfolk (tinsmith and spokesman for the unruly mob). For each scenario, I would like you to identify where, if at all, Mike McPaladin becomes a fallen Paladin for having committed an evil act: 1) As Mike McPaladin is strolling through a small border town he is not native to, he espies a baby in its carriage. He draws his sword, runs the baby through, and burns down the inn—which, for the record, is on the other side of town and nowhere near the Eddie Izzard routine he’s now got in his sword-arm—just for the lulz. And then he kicks a puppy. 2) As Mike McPaladin is strolling through a small border town he is not native to, he overhears a commotion in the distance. Making his way to the source of the noise, he espies Lezek Skullduggery-Jones fleeing for his life from an unruly mob armed, as most unruly mobs are, with pitchforks, torches, and a noose. “Hold on a minute, here,” Mike McPaladin says in his most authoritative voice as he steps between the mob and its now-cornered intended victim. “Just what is going on right now?” “That dirty half-breed over there,” says Euclid Townsfolk, the unruly mob’s official unofficial spokesman, “is an apple thief! He stole an apple from Goody Whemper’s apple cart. We’re going to string him up good.” Mike almost can’t believe his ears, since a hanging is rather a harsh punishment for stealing an apple. He gives Lezek a cursory glance via detect evil and, upon seeing nothing, asks of the crowd, “Did any one of you actually see him do it?” “Well … no one here,” answers Euclid at length. “Then maybe you should at least find someone who did before stringing this man up,” says Mike. “You run along now.” Unbeknownst to Mike McPaladin, however, Lezek Skullduggery-Jones actually is an apple thief—specifically, a Chaotic Neutral one—and is even now planning his next great petty apple heist. 3) As Mike McPaladin is strolling through a small border town he is not native to, he overhears a commotion in the distance. Making his way to the source of the noise, he espies Lezek Skullduggery-Jones fleeing for his life from an unruly mob armed, as most unruly mobs are, with pitchforks, torches, and a noose. “Hold on a minute, here,” Mike McPaladin says in his most authoritative voice as he steps between the mob and its now-cornered intended victim. “Just what is going on right now?” “That dirty half-breed over there,” says Euclid Townsfolk, the unruly mob’s official unofficial spokesman, “is a murderer! He ran Goody Whemper over with her own apple cart. We’re going to string him up good.” That’s a serious charge, so Mike gives Lezek a thorough application of detect evil, which turns up blank. He then turns back to the crowd and asks, “Did any one of you actually see him do it?” “Well … no one here,” answers Euclid at length. “Then maybe you should at least find someone who did before stringing this man up,” says Mike. “You run along now.” Unbeknownst to Mike McPaladin, however, Lezek Skullduggery-Jones is a Junior Lurker with the local Assassins’ Guild, and his latest assignment was to kill Goody Whemper. While he may not have passed his test with flying colors, he certainly did just pass—aided, no doubt, by a decent Bluff check and the amulet of proof against detection disguised with a permanent version of whatever that spell is that makes magic items appear normal that he won off a passing adventurer in a game of cards some years back. 4) As Mike McPaladin is strolling through a small border town he is not native to, he overhears a commotion in the distance. Making his way to the source of the noise, he espies Lezek Skullduggery-Jones fleeing for his life from an unruly mob armed, as most unruly mobs are, with pitchforks, torches, and a noose. “Hold on a minute, here,” Mike McPaladin says in his most authoritative voice as he steps between the mob and its now-cornered intended victim. “Just what is going on right now?” “That dirty half-breed over there,” says Euclid Townsfolk, the unruly mob’s official unofficial spokesman, “is an apple thief! He stole an apple from Goody Whemper’s apple cart. We’re going to string him up good.” “An apple thief, you say?” responds Mike. “Well, don’t let me stop you.” In point of fact Lezek Skullduggery-Jones had never stolen any apples from anyone—he was allergic, even—but that didn’t stop the hanging any. 5) As Mike McPaladin is strolling through a small border town he is not native to, he overhears a commotion in the distance. Making his way to the source of the noise, he espies Lezek Skullduggery-Jones fleeing for his life from an unruly mob armed, as most unruly mobs are, with pitchforks, torches, and a noose. “Hold on a minute, here,” Mike McPaladin says in his most authoritative voice as he steps between the mob and its now-cornered intended victim. “Just what is going on right now?” “That dirty half-breed over there,” says Euclid Townsfolk, the unruly mob’s official unofficial spokesman, “is an apple thief! He stole an apple from Goody Whemper’s apple cart. We’re going to string him up good.” “An apple thief, you say?” responds Mike. “Well, don’t let me stop you.” The town proceeds to string up Lezek, who just happened to be an apple thief after all. 6) As Mike McPaladin is strolling through a small border town he is not native to, he overhears a commotion in the distance. Making his way to the source of the noise, he espies Lezek Skullduggery-Jones fleeing for his life from an unruly mob armed, as most unruly mobs are, with pitchforks, torches, and a noose. “Hold on a minute, here,” Mike McPaladin says in his most authoritative voice as he steps between the mob and its now-cornered intended victim. “Just what is going on right now?” “That dirty half-breed over there,” says Euclid Townsfolk, the unruly mob’s official unofficial spokesman, “is a murderer! He ran over Goody Whemper with her own apple cart. We’re going to string him up good.” “A murderer, you say?” responds Mike. “Well, don’t let me stop you.” In point of fact, Lezek Skullduggery-Jones did not murder Goody Whemper. But that didn’t stop the hanging any. 7) As Mike McPaladin is strolling through a small border town he is not native to, he overhears a commotion in the distance. Making his way to the source of the noise, he espies Lezek Skullduggery-Jones fleeing for his life from an unruly mob armed, as most unruly mobs are, with pitchforks, torches, and a noose. “Hold on a minute, here,” Mike McPaladin says in his most authoritative voice as he steps between the mob and its now-cornered intended victim. “Just what is going on right now?” “That dirty half-breed over there,” says Euclid Townsfolk, the unruly mob’s official unofficial spokesman, “is a murderer! He ran over Goody Whemper with her own apple cart. We’re going to string him up good.” “A murderer, you say?” responds Mike. “Well, don’t let me stop you.” The townsfolk proceed to string up Lezek Skullduggery-Jones, who, it just so happened, had murdered Goody Whemper. Third, the trouble with the compartmentalized approach to Alignment that you are advocating, maharai, is that it necessitates determining whether any given action is evil, or good, or chaotic, or lawful, or neutral. And since you seem to think Paladins are the ideal test case for alignments—no doubt because the consequences for doing an evil act are immediate for that class, although I’m not sure how you’ve gotten around the fact that D&D isn’t run by a computer program that automatically calculates these things, but by a human being who may choose to invoke the Dread Serpent Common Sense and wing it most of the time—that means Paladins must be falling left and right for the strangest of reasons Suppose, for instance, that Mike McPaladin walks into a butcher shop that is owned by a standard-issue evil cultist who is using the profits garnered from his shop to finance some evil spell or another—let’s say he wants to commission a middling demon of some fashion to cause general mayhem and destruction. Does the Mike McPaladin fall from grace if he buys a steak from that butcher, since his custom has allowed an evil scheme to come to fruition, even if Mike was wholly unaware of that scheme? What if the butcher is away meeting with other cultists, and the person who actually sells Mike the steak is the butcher’s non-evil apprentice, who isn’t even aware of his master’s cult, let alone a member of it? What if Mike buys the steak, but before the butcher can use the profits to buy whatever fell reagents he needs for his summoning ritual the shop gets robbed? Would Mike be committing an evil act were he to, at the behest of a legitimate authority, capture the burglar, return the butcher’s money, and see to it that the burglar was prosecuted to the full extent of the law? Heck, let’s take this even further: why isn’t birth an evil act, since there would be no evil men and women if no one was ever born—not to mention the lack of otherwise non-evil persons to aid evildoers by seeing to it that an angry lynch mob doesn’t kill them just because they don’t like their kind ’round here. Paladins have a hard enough time as it is already; I hardly think it needs to be the case that they might fall for buying a pack of smokes.
Shaftiel 05-21-07, 02:55 PM	I'd say he ALWAYS loses his paladinhood. Just to be safe. Wouldn't want the players to actually dare to play one of the core classes now, would we? Again though, you go back to my point, which is the one you originally made (if I understand the gist of Blackstone's principle): you can never be 100% sure who is innocent or guilty, no matter how much magic you have, so you do your best to give them a fair trial. This is both lawful and good. This whole thread was well written but somewhere towards the end I got lost; it seems now that it's fallen towards the endless argument of paladins killing babies, RAW good v evil, etc etc, which isn't nearly as interesting as the value or morality of a modern legal system. And which I've never seen anyone change their mind on. No offense, Count_Chumleigh. -Shaftiel
Count_Chumleigh 05-21-07, 03:04 PM	This whole thread was well written but somewhere towards the end I got lost; it seems now that it's fallen towards the endless argument of paladins killing babies, RAW good v evil, etc etc, which isn't nearly as interesting as the value or morality of a modern legal system. And which I've never seen anyone change their mind on. No offense, Count_Chumleigh. -Shaftiel <sigh> And you're right, of course. That's why internet arguments are like winning the Special Olympics: everyone gets juice and a cookie at the end. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
maharai23 05-21-07, 09:58 PM	Let's make this really simple again. Premises are listed above. Premise 4, assisting someone evade a good punishment is an evil act. Check. That the lawyer doesn't know if each specific instance is like that is irrelevant, as he can reasonably know that he will do it sooner or later, due to the nature of the system. Thus, the lawyer is not a deluded fool. Check. Thus, the lawyer knows that from time to time, he will either prosecute good people, or defend guilty. Both evil acts. Thus, the lawyer is AWARE that he is committing evil. He just doesn't know exactly when. Aware. Check. Evil. Check. Yes, a paladin will reject the system. He has to. He cannot afford the luxury of a single evil act. As I said, however, well-meaning non paladins will endorse such a system. But, for the reasons above, they must know that they will occasionally be forced to do things that are wrong. It's the nature of the beast. Therefore, assuming the points above, we have someone who IS capable of knowing his evil, who IS doing evil sometimes, and who IS doing it for a greater good end (ideally). That falls within the boundaries of Lawful Neutral certainly. Not Lawful Good. If he's just in it for himself, then there aren't good acts balancing the evil. Thus, Lawful Evil. I'm not arguing whether the system is good, or bad. Personally, I think the alignment system could be improved. Some of the suggestions some of you have placed on how you think it is, are really good ideas. But they're not the way it is. The way it is, is pure, is simple, and is black and white. The specific evil acts are opening to interpretation, but supporting evil is always evil. That's why I've stayed away from words like "right", "wrong", "should".... These are indicators that one is inserting personal beliefs into the system. Inserting emotion into it clouds judgement. Being objective means checking that at the door.
Count_Chumleigh 05-22-07, 12:01 AM	Let's make this really simple again. Premises are listed above. Premise 4, assisting someone evade a good punishment is an evil act. Check. That the lawyer doesn't know if each specific instance is like that is irrelevant, as he can reasonably know that he will do it sooner or later, due to the nature of the system. Thus, the lawyer is not a deluded fool. Check. Thus, the lawyer knows that from time to time, he will either prosecute good people, or defend guilty. Both evil acts. Thus, the lawyer is AWARE that he is committing evil. He just doesn't know exactly when. Aware. Check. Evil. Check. I'm tempted to comment on how I find this to be a thoroughly incomprehensible response (especially the part where, if you are indeed responding to the Mike McPaladin Saga, you imply that a lynch mob chasing an accused apple thief who may or may not have actually stolen the apples in question is "a good punishment"); or how, if the alignment of a series of actions involving a series of actors can be broken up and compartmentalized such that each actor's specific, individual actions are either good, evil, chaotic, lawful, or neutral, then sooner or later you will have to answer the question of whether a Paladin would fall for using Combat Expertise to boost his armor class when fighting the BBEG (because he would have hit and possibly killed him but for that -5 to hit, rather than allow the villain another round to teleport or plane shift away); or how your posts don't make sense when put next to each other (it's evil to let innocent people go free, and yet prosecuting "good" people is an evil act); or any number of things, really (given how easy it is for Paladins to fall under your system, I imagine there must be, like, three Paladins left in your campaigns, for instance). On the other hand, I've realized by now that I have become that which I hate: a gamer nerd in an internet argument. Even worse, I'm a snarky gamer nerd in an internet argument. Therefore, I give up. Congratulations, maharai23, you win. You win the whole internet. Enjoy your cookie and juice now; I know I will. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh P.S. Mmm, juice.
maharai23 05-22-07, 12:41 AM	I'm tempted to comment on how I find this to be a thoroughly incomprehensible response (especially the part where, if you are indeed responding to the Mike McPaladin Saga, you imply that a lynch mob chasing an accused apple thief who may or may not have actually stolen the apples in question is "a good punishment"); or how, if the alignment of a series of actions involving a series of actors can be broken up and compartmentalized such that each actor's specific, individual actions are either good, evil, chaotic, lawful, or neutral, then sooner or later you will have to answer the question of whether a Paladin would fall for using Combat Expertise to boost his armor class when fighting the BBEG (because he would have hit and possibly killed him but for that -5 to hit, rather than allow the villain another round to teleport or plane shift away); or how your posts don't make sense when put next to each other (it's evil to let innocent people go free, and yet prosecuting "good" people is an evil act); or any number of things, really (given how easy it is for Paladins to fall under your system, I imagine there must be, like, three Paladins left in your campaigns, for instance). On the other hand, I've realized by now that I have become that which I hate: a gamer nerd in an internet argument. Even worse, I'm a snarky gamer nerd in an internet argument. Therefore, I give up. Congratulations, maharai23, you win. You win the whole internet. Enjoy your cookie and juice now; I know I will. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh P.S. Mmm, juice. Mike McPaladin? If you are going to have the tendency to spout random things, at least do the rest of us the courtesy of explaining your random hodgepodge reasoning. I left the punishment open. Obviously the punisment should fit the crime. I did not define said punishment, so you instantly assume that my "ideal punishment" for pickpockets and shoplifters is lynching!? That's usin' the ol' noggin, let me tell you. As for your other argument. No. The individual action of parrying attacks is not in itself good or evil. ONCE AGAIN, you are grading the paladin by the BBEG's actions. It's enough to oppose. You don't need to succeed, and you don't even need to have the bast plan. To stand up to evil is enough. That's what good is all about. Stopping evil. As long as your actions reflect that. you're fine. Now, on the other hand, if you consider each court case an encounter, then in each encounter, a good character would attempt to find the truth. Blindly defending someone, whether they are guilty or innocent, is against the ethos. That fits in with the LN and LE ethos just fine. Not LG. LG involves taking a stand against evil. It does not involve accepting that occasionally, you'll have to defend it. If each trial is an encounter, then each player has the opportunity to do the following: 1) support the correct party 2) support the incorrect party 3) not take any stand 1) can be good 2) cannot be 3) is more a true neutral/apathetic stand. I'm sorry that you're that which you hate. I don't know how to make it any simpler. It's a direct If A, then B relationship. At least, it was until you started counting numbers while the real issue is the alphabet.
Count_Chumleigh 05-22-07, 01:09 AM	Mike McPaladin? If you are going to have the tendency to spout random things, at least do the rest of us the courtesy of explaining your random hodgepodge reasoning. For gods' sake, man, at least have the decency to know when you've won. Pretending to read other people's posts would be a good idea, too. To facilitate this, I provide you, for the second time now, the Mike McPaladin Saga (it's a long'un, though, so you might want to bring a snack): I am now going to present a number of scenarios involving, among others, Mike McPaladin (everyman paladin), Lezek Skullduggery-Jones (an unfortunately named half-orc drifter), and Euclid Townsfolk (tinsmith and spokesman for the unruly mob). For each scenario, I would like you to identify where, if at all, Mike McPaladin becomes a fallen Paladin for having committed an evil act: 1) As Mike McPaladin is strolling through a small border town he is not native to, he espies a baby in its carriage. He draws his sword, runs the baby through, and burns down the inn—which, for the record, is on the other side of town and nowhere near the Eddie Izzard routine he’s now got in his sword-arm—just for the lulz. And then he kicks a puppy. 2) As Mike McPaladin is strolling through a small border town he is not native to, he overhears a commotion in the distance. Making his way to the source of the noise, he espies Lezek Skullduggery-Jones fleeing for his life from an unruly mob armed, as most unruly mobs are, with pitchforks, torches, and a noose. “Hold on a minute, here,” Mike McPaladin says in his most authoritative voice as he steps between the mob and its now-cornered intended victim. “Just what is going on right now?” “That dirty half-breed over there,” says Euclid Townsfolk, the unruly mob’s official unofficial spokesman, “is an apple thief! He stole an apple from Goody Whemper’s apple cart. We’re going to string him up good.” Mike almost can’t believe his ears, since a hanging is rather a harsh punishment for stealing an apple. He gives Lezek a cursory glance via detect evil and, upon seeing nothing, asks of the crowd, “Did any one of you actually see him do it?” “Well … no one here,” answers Euclid at length. “Then maybe you should at least find someone who did before stringing this man up,” says Mike. “You run along now.” Unbeknownst to Mike McPaladin, however, Lezek Skullduggery-Jones actually is an apple thief—specifically, a Chaotic Neutral one—and is even now planning his next great petty apple heist. 3) As Mike McPaladin is strolling through a small border town he is not native to, he overhears a commotion in the distance. Making his way to the source of the noise, he espies Lezek Skullduggery-Jones fleeing for his life from an unruly mob armed, as most unruly mobs are, with pitchforks, torches, and a noose. “Hold on a minute, here,” Mike McPaladin says in his most authoritative voice as he steps between the mob and its now-cornered intended victim. “Just what is going on right now?” “That dirty half-breed over there,” says Euclid Townsfolk, the unruly mob’s official unofficial spokesman, “is a murderer! He ran Goody Whemper over with her own apple cart. We’re going to string him up good.” That’s a serious charge, so Mike gives Lezek a thorough application of detect evil, which turns up blank. He then turns back to the crowd and asks, “Did any one of you actually see him do it?” “Well … no one here,” answers Euclid at length. “Then maybe you should at least find someone who did before stringing this man up,” says Mike. “You run along now.” Unbeknownst to Mike McPaladin, however, Lezek Skullduggery-Jones is a Junior Lurker with the local Assassins’ Guild, and his latest assignment was to kill Goody Whemper. While he may not have passed his test with flying colors, he certainly did just pass—aided, no doubt, by a decent Bluff check and the amulet of proof against detection disguised with a permanent version of whatever that spell is that makes magic items appear normal that he won off a passing adventurer in a game of cards some years back. 4) As Mike McPaladin is strolling through a small border town he is not native to, he overhears a commotion in the distance. Making his way to the source of the noise, he espies Lezek Skullduggery-Jones fleeing for his life from an unruly mob armed, as most unruly mobs are, with pitchforks, torches, and a noose. “Hold on a minute, here,” Mike McPaladin says in his most authoritative voice as he steps between the mob and its now-cornered intended victim. “Just what is going on right now?” “That dirty half-breed over there,” says Euclid Townsfolk, the unruly mob’s official unofficial spokesman, “is an apple thief! He stole an apple from Goody Whemper’s apple cart. We’re going to string him up good.” “An apple thief, you say?” responds Mike. “Well, don’t let me stop you.” In point of fact Lezek Skullduggery-Jones had never stolen any apples from anyone—he was allergic, even—but that didn’t stop the hanging any. 5) As Mike McPaladin is strolling through a small border town he is not native to, he overhears a commotion in the distance. Making his way to the source of the noise, he espies Lezek Skullduggery-Jones fleeing for his life from an unruly mob armed, as most unruly mobs are, with pitchforks, torches, and a noose. “Hold on a minute, here,” Mike McPaladin says in his most authoritative voice as he steps between the mob and its now-cornered intended victim. “Just what is going on right now?” “That dirty half-breed over there,” says Euclid Townsfolk, the unruly mob’s official unofficial spokesman, “is an apple thief! He stole an apple from Goody Whemper’s apple cart. We’re going to string him up good.” “An apple thief, you say?” responds Mike. “Well, don’t let me stop you.” The town proceeds to string up Lezek, who just happened to be an apple thief after all. 6) As Mike McPaladin is strolling through a small border town he is not native to, he overhears a commotion in the distance. Making his way to the source of the noise, he espies Lezek Skullduggery-Jones fleeing for his life from an unruly mob armed, as most unruly mobs are, with pitchforks, torches, and a noose. “Hold on a minute, here,” Mike McPaladin says in his most authoritative voice as he steps between the mob and its now-cornered intended victim. “Just what is going on right now?” “That dirty half-breed over there,” says Euclid Townsfolk, the unruly mob’s official unofficial spokesman, “is a murderer! He ran over Goody Whemper with her own apple cart. We’re going to string him up good.” “A murderer, you say?” responds Mike. “Well, don’t let me stop you.” In point of fact, Lezek Skullduggery-Jones did not murder Goody Whemper. But that didn’t stop the hanging any. 7) As Mike McPaladin is strolling through a small border town he is not native to, he overhears a commotion in the distance. Making his way to the source of the noise, he espies Lezek Skullduggery-Jones fleeing for his life from an unruly mob armed, as most unruly mobs are, with pitchforks, torches, and a noose. “Hold on a minute, here,” Mike McPaladin says in his most authoritative voice as he steps between the mob and its now-cornered intended victim. “Just what is going on right now?” “That dirty half-breed over there,” says Euclid Townsfolk, the unruly mob’s official unofficial spokesman, “is a murderer! He ran over Goody Whemper with her own apple cart. We’re going to string him up good.” “A murderer, you say?” responds Mike. “Well, don’t let me stop you.” The townsfolk proceed to string up Lezek Skullduggery-Jones, who, it just so happened, had murdered Goody Whemper. Third, the trouble with the compartmentalized approach to Alignment that you are advocating, maharai, is that it necessitates determining whether any given action is evil, or good, or chaotic, or lawful, or neutral. And since you seem to think Paladins are the ideal test case for alignments—no doubt because the consequences for doing an evil act are immediate for that class, although I’m not sure how you’ve gotten around the fact that D&D isn’t run by a computer program that automatically calculates these things, but by a human being who may choose to invoke the Dread Serpent Common Sense and wing it most of the time—that means Paladins must be falling left and right for the strangest of reasons. Suppose, for instance, that Mike McPaladin walks into a butcher shop that is owned by a standard-issue evil cultist who is using the profits garnered from his shop to finance some evil spell or another—let’s say he wants to commission a middling demon of some fashion to cause general mayhem and destruction. Does the Mike McPaladin fall from grace if he buys a steak from that butcher, since his custom has allowed an evil scheme to come to fruition, even if Mike was wholly unaware of that scheme? What if the butcher is away meeting with other cultists, and the person who actually sells Mike the steak is the butcher’s non-evil apprentice, who isn’t even aware of his master’s cult, let alone a member of it? What if Mike buys the steak, but before the butcher can use the profits to buy whatever fell reagents he needs for his summoning ritual the shop gets robbed? Would Mike be committing an evil act were he to, at the behest of a legitimate authority, capture the burglar, return the butcher’s money, and see to it that the burglar was prosecuted to the full extent of the law? There. Would you like some more juice now?
FloppyLlama 05-22-07, 01:32 AM	Mmm, juice. Seconded. Thus, the lawyer knows that from time to time, he will either prosecute good people, or defend guilty. Both evil acts. Thus, the lawyer is AWARE that he is committing evil. He just doesn't know exactly when. Aware. Check. Evil. Check. By this reasoning, we can argue the following: It is wrong to give false information when I am aware of it. If I give information, it is inevitable that I will eventually give false information. Therefore, I am aware that I am giving false information. Therefore giving information is wrong. Why doesn't this make sense? Because in any given case I am not necessarily aware that I am giving false information! Here's a further problem: it is fallacious to assume that they will at some point defend a guilty client. It is entirely possible that they end up getting only innocent clients. Furthermore, even if the Lawyer accepts that the chance of a guilty client is a distinct possibility, this does not make them aware with any given client that the client is guilty. In fact, this is the very fact that makes the defense attorney necessary. Your argument fails to apply because alignment only applies in specific scenarios, and therefore it is the awareness in the specific scenario that constitutes whether or not it is an offense.
maharai23 05-23-07, 12:35 AM	For gods' sake, man, at least have the decency to know when you've won. Pretending to read other people's posts would be a good idea, too. To facilitate this, I provide you, for the second time now, the Mike McPaladin Saga (it's a long'un, though, so you might want to bring a snack): There. Would you like some more juice now? Ah, now I see why I was unfamiliar with it. It has ZERO bearing on anything remotely resembling a point concerning this. Plus, it has fallacies in it. It's interesting, really, your special olympics analogy. You forget one possibility though. Sometimes, the people there have to help the "special" kids out and tell them the right way to do things. They're the same people that serve the juice. It's not my fault you can't comprehend simple logic. P.S. On a side note, for someone who hates being a snarky troller, you do it SO well. Hypocrisy is so entertaining to watch. Run along now.
maharai23 05-23-07, 12:50 AM	Seconded. By this reasoning, we can argue the following: It is wrong to give false information when I am aware of it. If I give information, it is inevitable that I will eventually give false information. Therefore, I am aware that I am giving false information. Therefore giving information is wrong. Why doesn't this make sense? Because in any given case I am not necessarily aware that I am giving false information! Here's a further problem: it is fallacious to assume that they will at some point defend a guilty client. It is entirely possible that they end up getting only innocent clients. Furthermore, even if the Lawyer accepts that the chance of a guilty client is a distinct possibility, this does not make them aware with any given client that the client is guilty. In fact, this is the very fact that makes the defense attorney necessary. Your argument fails to apply because alignment only applies in specific scenarios, and therefore it is the awareness in the specific scenario that constitutes whether or not it is an offense. You really don't get it, do you? I mean, I try and I try, and you keep grasping at straws. Let me break it down for you. We'll say a lawyer, in his career, defends 20 clients. Assuming a 50% guilt rate (assuming cops do their job, it's actually much higher, but low guilty numbers help you, so I'm goin' conservative here), this means the following. The chances of getting all innocent clients in the first 5 is 3.1%. The chances of all innocents for the first 10 is 0.09% All innocents in the first 15 is 0.003%. All innocents in all 20, a remarkably short lawyer career, is a whopping 0.000095%, or roughly 1 in 10,000,000. I think that's means the other 9,999,999 in 10,000,000 qualifies as a bit better than... how did you put it? Ah yes... a "distinct possibility." It's closer to an "overwhelming probability", or a "nearly assured event". Those are the odds you're suggesting when you say that it's possible for someone to get only innocent clients. Bear in mind, if, in a court, you show that there is a 1 in 10,000,000 chance that they didn't do it, that qualifies as beyond a "reasonable doubt". Other statements that meet your criteria for "possible". 1) Everyone in Texas who plays the lottery wins, on the exact same day. 2) A hurricane destroys buildings in a Louisiana town in such a manner so that the aerial view of the aftermath looks exactly like a "Pac Man" board. 3) You dissasemble a watch, throw it out the window into a tornado and 15 seconds later, the watch flies back in, properly assembled, and set to the correct time. Now that we're done playing in the realm of astronomical odds, can we get back to business? An intelligent lawyer, knowing that defending the guilty is pretty much a foregone conclusion, will know that he is supporting a system wherein he has to protect the guilty. He is not deluding himself in the least. He may RATIONALIZE it by saying it's for the greater good, or whatever other argument you want to give, but that doesn't change the fact that he does it, and he knows he does it. He knows that from time to time, he's advancing the cause of evil. You can try to "well, by your logic" all you want. Go for it. After all is said and done, EVERYTHING I have just said is still 100% true. Well, to be fair, 99.999905% true, allowing for your 1 in 10,000,000 long shot. Why do I believe this? Nobody's tried to argue against any of those point. Nobody's disputed a single point I've made. They've just tried to misapply my logic in stupid situations and put words in my mouth. Believe me, I can express myself perfectly fine. I don't need your help. Stick to your own points, rather than trying to confuse the situation by trying to tell me mine. P.S. Where you screwed up my arguement is when you made your final supposition, "Therefore, giving information is wrong." First, we're not arguing right and wrong here. I thought I made that clear, but I'll say it once more for clarity. WE ARE NOT ARGUING RIGHT AND WRONG. WE ARE DISAGREEING OVER GOOD AND EVIL. Further, even if we were to assume that giving false information is evil, and giving true information is good, then we can assume that if you give UNVERIFIED information as true, you're opening yourself up to the possibility of doing evil, and you should know it. That's exactly what's happening in the courtroom. The lawyer is representing a client as innocent when he/she doesn't know, thus opening herself/himself up to all sorts of "supporting evil" possibilities, and since most good characters can't advocate supporting evil, it's not something a GOOD character would do. Note, this is not about a right/wrong. This is about, would a good character do this? The answer in undeniably a resounding NO. But go ahead... Respond with "by your logic" again. I love being told what my logic is.
Count_Chumleigh 05-23-07, 02:32 AM	opening yourself up to the possibility of doing evil This is where you and I disagree, maharai. For me, alignment is about the interplay between action and intent rather than consequences and constructive notice. Of course, I also don't think acts are good, evil, chaotic, or lawful, but rather that characters in D&D are, so that also influences my thinking. Here's what I mean: alignment does not determine what a character in D&D does, so much as why the character does it, and also possibly how. A good character can kill a goblin as easily as an evil character, for instance, but the characters' reasons for it may be entirely different. The good character is more likely to kill the goblin in the defense of someone else, while the evil character is more likely to kill the goblin out of spite or solely for personal gain. This is not to say that I think alignment dictates actions by any means. Rather, I think that a character who does acts for a certain reason often enough is of whatever alignment most suits the reasons for committing the action. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh P.S. And just to get the obligatory baby-killing argument out of the way, I pose you this rhetorical question: Can you name one Good reason to kill babies?
Oakes 05-23-07, 04:32 AM	Besides the skills that have been recommended, luck and reroll feats fit in well. I've played this kind with a homebrew class, and things in Complete Scoundrel and the Fatespinner (Complete Arcane) PrC seem like they would work well.
FloppyLlama 05-23-07, 05:35 AM	You really don't get it, do you? You absolutely fail to understand any of the things I am saying and your attempts at refutation reduce to mere question begging (for instance, the fact that you resort to probabilistic arguments in response to an argument which claims that questions of probability are irrelevant in this case). Your attempts at pointless distinctions, straw man and your ability somehow ignore objections that are bludgeoning you in the head makes you impossible to have any sort of constructive discussion with. The so-called objective foundation for your concepts of "Good" and "Evil" is not presented by you, as you fail to cite RAW in any way. It's not worth arguing with your interpretation of "Good" and "Evil" if you claim it is more than an interpretation, and refuse to back this up. This is especially obstructive because a point of emphasis on your part appears to be that we are discussin "Good" and "Evil", two terms which you have failed to define. If they are significant enough for you to use caps lock, I am suprised you refuse to define them and especially surprised that you refuse to cite RAW in order to do so. Have a nice day.
maharai23 05-23-07, 05:54 AM	This is where you and I disagree, maharai. For me, alignment is about the interplay between action and intent rather than consequences and constructive notice. Of course, I also don't think acts are good, evil, chaotic, or lawful, but rather that characters in D&D are, so that also influences my thinking. Here's what I mean: alignment does not determine what a character in D&D does, so much as why the character does it, and also possibly how. A good character can kill a goblin as easily as an evil character, for instance, but the characters' reasons for it may be entirely different. The good character is more likely to kill the goblin in the defense of someone else, while the evil character is more likely to kill the goblin out of spite or solely for personal gain. This is not to say that I think alignment dictates actions by any means. Rather, I think that a character who does acts for a certain reason often enough is of whatever alignment most suits the reasons for committing the action. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh P.S. And just to get the obligatory baby-killing argument out of the way, I pose you this rhetorical question: Can you name one Good reason to kill babies? To answer: If it's an atropal. Though I don't usually go for baby killing. Alternately, if the baby is a font of magical power, linked to its life force, set on something similar to overload, and threatening to destroy half a continent, and no casters are available that have anti magic zone present? I'm sure there are several good reasons to kill babies... for example, if one wants veal. It's never a good action, however. And I disagree with intent. Intent can only alter ambiguous actions. It doesn't matter how much a character BELIEVES the nunnery is a secret temple to a dark god, burning it down, with all the nuns inside, is still evil. Intent doesn't change the nature of an action. At best, it may shift it one step, and that's pushing it. And that shift would only be for determining the alignment shift, not for determining the nature of the action. It's still a chaotic act, though it may cause alignment shift as a neutral action, if the reasons are right. That, in my opinion, is a house rule however, albeit one that I use.
Count_Chumleigh 05-23-07, 09:40 AM	Your attempts at pointless distinctions, straw man and your ability somehow ignore objections that are bludgeoning you in the head makes you impossible to have any sort of constructive discussion with. For me, alignment is about the interplay between action and intent rather than consequences and constructive notice. Of course, I also don't think acts are good, evil, chaotic, or lawful, but rather that characters in D&D are. I disagree with intent. Intent can only alter ambiguous actions. That's it. It's time for the snarky post, because I officially don't care anymore. Ah, now I see why I was unfamiliar with it. It has ZERO bearing on anything remotely resembling a point concerning this. Plus, it has fallacies in it. And how kind of you it was to point them out for me. Now that I know what all of these fallacies were and am confident that you didn't just skip past that big, scary block of text that might possibly demonstrate how silly your premises are and continue this masterful trolling of yours (which, I will be the first to admit, I fell hook, line, and sinker for), I can perhaps not be such a big stupid-head in the future. It's interesting, really, your special olympics analogy. You forget one possibility though. Sometimes, the people there have to help the "special" kids out and tell them the right way to do things. They're the same people that serve the juice. Ah, but you don't see those people winning the Special Olympics, do you? Plus, it would be really unfair if the Special Olympics volunteers could compete. They could just take all the juice for themselves. It's not my fault you can't comprehend simple logic. It sure isn't, Mister Magic Internet Man. And let me tell you what, I'm so plum stupid that I actually think it isn't necesarily an Evil act in D&D terms to defend someone who's been accused of a crime, even if that person happens to be objectively guilty! Heck, I'm so dumb, I still don't know how a lawyer is supposed to know if his client is guilty or innocent at the time he takes the case, or what he's supposed to do if he takes a case and then finds out his client is guilty later on, maybe because the client's been lying to him this whole time. Believe it or not, I'm so dumb that I think changing a client's plea to guilty and asking the court for leniency are the surest thing the lawyer could do in a situation like that and still be good, but of course that would mean the lawyer is still evil, since he is trying to prevent a good sentence from being carried out rather than fulfilling his ethical duty to defend his client to the fullest of his ability to prevent the justice system from becoming a mere travesty wherein defendants are presumed guilty from the moment they're accused--handily removing any need for the police to investigate and providing them with ample incentive to just grab the first person whose face they don't like off the street and throwing the book at him--and are actually encouraged to lie to their attorneys in the hopes that they won't be abandoned the moment some lawyer who fancies himself a good person abandons them when he thinks it's more likely than not that they're guilty. Yup, I'm that blasted simple. P.S. On a side note, for someone who hates being a snarky troller, you do it SO well. Hypocrisy is so entertaining to watch. Run along now. Well, gosh, Mr. Magic Internet Man, I sure don't know about this "Hypocrisy" you like to watch--I can't find it on my TV listings, probably because I don't subscribe to any of them smart-people channels--but I guess that doesn't matter, 'cuz I'm just so dang-blasted dumb. I'll tell you what I do know, though: I sure do love this juice. Are you sure you don't want some, maharai23? After all, you won the internet argument. Oh, hey, wait a minute, I just found this thing I think you might have been talking about right before you said you liked to watch Hypocrisy: I've realized by now that I have become that which I hate: a gamer nerd in an internet argument. Even worse, I'm a snarky gamer nerd in an internet argument. Now, I know I'm so skunk-stompin' stupid that I can't understand basic logic, so please try and bear with me here. But it seems to me that I never said I'd become a "snarky troller," only that I'd become a snarky gamer nerd in the middle of an internet argument. And it also seems to me that just because someone happens to be good at something, doesn't mean they have to like being good at something. I also don't see how that post and my apparent "snarky trolling" can't be reconciled by the possibility that maybe I just can't help myself, especially when bolstered by the anonymity of the internet. Can you imagine how dumb that must be? I'm sure you can, because you're so logical, Mr. Magic Internet Man. Heck, Mr. Magic Internet Man, maybe I could be a plenty snarky person in real life, but not the kind of person who likes to stoop down to being snarky over the internet to someone who I'll never meet and honestly don't care for or about one way or t'other (and who doubtless shares the same opinion of me). Maybe it reminds me too much of that gangly fella I went to school with not too far back, whose pride and joy was posting mean things on his MySpace account about the girl he thought dumped him (but hadn't, since they'd never actually dated) and pulling her dorm's fire alarm three times in one night. Maybe I don't want to associate myself too much with the guy who got himself thrown out of the same college twice and has an arrest record. Of course, this is all theoretical, you understand. And none of it matters, either, because I'm so hopelessly incompetent I sure as shootin' can't see all the fallacies in my post. Heck, I'm too dense to even see all the fallacies you pointed out in the Mike McPaladin story! Why, to my primitive, simian mind it's almost as though you never even commented on the story at all, other than to dismiss it out of hand, which is so easy to do. So for the last time, have some juice. You deserve it.
maharai23 05-23-07, 04:11 PM	That's it. It's time for the snarky post, because I officially don't care anymore. Now that I know what all of these fallacies were and am confident that you didn't just skip past that big, scary block of text that might possibly demonstrate how silly your premises are and continue this masterful trolling of yours (which, I will be the first to admit, I fell hook, line, and sinker for), I can perhaps not be such a big stupid-head in the future. You're still doing it. For somone bemoaning his own self-professed stupidity, you certainly keep doing the same thing... again... and again. If you're gonna take the high road and say that it's not worth it, show your words sincere by following up with your silence. Believe it or not, I'm so dumb that I think changing a client's plea to guilty and asking the court for leniency are the surest thing the lawyer could do in a situation like that and still be good, but of course that would mean the lawyer is still evil, since he is trying to prevent a good sentence from being carried out rather than fulfilling his ethical duty to defend his client to the fullest of his ability to prevent the justice system from becoming a mere travesty wherein defendants are presumed guilty from the moment they're accused--handily removing any need for the police to investigate and providing them with ample incentive to just grab the first person whose face they don't like off the street and throwing the book at him--and are actually encouraged to lie to their attorneys in the hopes that they won't be abandoned the moment some lawyer who fancies himself a good person abandons them when he thinks it's more likely than not that they're guilty. Yup, I'm that blasted simple. Ethical duty? Let me get this straight. If you know, 100%, that your client did it, it's ETHICAL to try to get someone you know to be a criminal off? My, but ethics are strange these days. The proper course of action is to withdraw from the case. As long as we're modeling this after the US court system, we might as well throw that bit in too. There's always an out for a good character. Some choose not to see them, and so they make the bad choices good. Of course, the GOOD person wouldn't be good after about 10 or so cases. He'd likely be neutral with good intentions... From second guessing those close cases, wondering if he did the right thing, unsure whether or not that man he got off was REALLY innocent... See, that's the thing with Good people. They have a conscience. It'll eat away at them when they have to do the wrong thing over and over, even for the right reason. Eventually, they'll know what they're doing, and they'll know why, and they'll be satisfied with both. And that's Lawful Neutral. That's about all in your post that approached on topic, so I'm leaving it at that.
Count_Chumleigh 05-23-07, 04:33 PM	Besides the skills that have been recommended, luck and reroll feats fit in well. I've played this kind with a homebrew class, and things in Complete Scoundrel and the Fatespinner (Complete Arcane) PrC seem like they would work well. Those sound like good ideas for a "TV lawyer" build in the vein of Perry Mason or Jack McCoy, for whom everything happens to fall into place and witnesses confess to just the right thing at just the right time. Action Points from Eberron might also work well for this sort of character, if, like me, your DM allows action points to be spent to allow Cool Things to happen. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
Tyraxus 05-23-07, 04:33 PM	Ethical duty? Let me get this straight. If you know, 100%, that your client did it, it's ETHICAL to try to get someone you know to be a criminal off? My, but ethics are strange these days. The proper course of action is to withdraw from the case. As long as we're modeling this after the US court system, we might as well throw that bit in too. There's always an out for a good character. Some choose not to see them, and so they make the bad choices good. No, the ETHICAL thing to do would be fight not to get him off, but to make the prosecution prove the case. I agree with you that lawyers would most likely be lawful neutral, but can you not at least agree that in a world where protections of the law are paramount, the GOOD thing to do would be to uphold the system? If prejudice is evil, then would not the application of equality before the law be good, and worth fighting for even in the event that one believes one's client to he guilty? Like I said, I agree that lawyers are LN, but could you please quit misstating what people are saying and throwing hay and fish all over the place?
Oakes 05-23-07, 07:27 PM	Those sound like good ideas for a "TV lawyer" build in the vein of Perry Mason or Jack McCoy, for whom everything happens to fall into place and witnesses confess to just the right thing at just the right time. Action Points from Eberron might also work well for this sort of character, if, like me, your DM allows action points to be spent to allow Cool Things to happen. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh What he said. It's also good fun for your party Paladin to shout "Smite Evil!", allowing you to shout "Objection!" when things call for a reroll. Certainly look into Law and influence-oriented spells as well, such as Dictum or Suggestion. For this reason, Clerics make good choices for supernatural Lawyers the same as they do Inquisitors. When you have divination, the power of an alignment, and the ability to summon a paralegal (sylph or otherwise), you're bound to win a few cases.
FloppyLlama 05-23-07, 07:41 PM	What he said. It's also good fun for your party Paladin to shout "Smite Evil!", allowing you to shout "Objection!" when things call for a reroll. Thanks alot. Now I'm going to have to make an "Ace Attorney" Prestige Class based on that idea, with abilities centered around shouting out "Hold it!", "Take that!" and "Objection!" while striking dramatic finger-pointing poses. Because that mental image is just too good to leave in fluff alone.
Shaftiel 05-23-07, 11:22 PM	We'll say a lawyer, in his career, defends 20 clients. Assuming a 50% guilt rate (assuming cops do their job, it's actually much higher, but low guilty numbers help you, so I'm goin' conservative here), this means the following... The problem with your arguments - including this one - throughout this discussion is that they have vast oversimplifactions of most D&D situations. Let's assume that 100% of the clients are guilty, just for the sake of argument. Even in this case they would need representation unless 1) The laws are perfectly Lawful and Good 2) The person passing judgement has absolute knowledge of all aspects of the situation and all individuals involved in the situation, and 3) The person passing judgement is not only absolutely Lawful and Good, but possesses the infinite Intelligence to process all the data and infinite Wisdom to reach the perfect decision EVERY TIME These are obviously impossible, absurd criteria. It doesn't work. So even if the clients are 100% guilty, the punishments will not fit the crime 100% of the time. By your own arguments a paladin who refuses to represent someone who is then given an excessive punishment (state-sanctioned murder) has committed an evil act and is therefore stripped of paladinhood. Unless non-actions are not considered evil in your game, in which case paladins should just do nothing, which is what I'm sure the designers intended. Your definitions of good and evil, and the requirements for paladins, are absurd except in the most simplistic of situations. The "actions suporting evil" clause has already been covered: by your argument, if you buy anything that at some point during its production has been handled by an evil person, you are supporting an evil person and therefore committing evil. As for your specific hatred for "greater good," this is entirely your opinion and not supported by the RAW anywhere I can find it. I rule that greater good >> individual good, and this fits the definitions of good and evil as set forth in the RAW. Either way works, as the RAW is absolutely silent on this, but you keep bringing up your OPINION on this as though it were fact. Now, for FloppyLlama & Count_Chumleigh: Assuming a reasonably LG society where all of the lawyers are paladins, how would you handle the following two situations? This is for one of my campaigns... 1) A defense attorney uncovers evidence that his client is, most likely, guilty after all. Dropping the client will mean either an unfair trial or simply passing him on to another paladin who will face the same dilemma, so it's not really an option. 2) One of the sides in a case realizes that they are vastly more skilled than the opposing side (an attorney with +34 Diplomacy, for example) and as a result it is not shaping up to be a fair trial. -Shaftiel
Count_Chumleigh 05-23-07, 11:49 PM	Now, for FloppyLlama & Count_Chumleigh: Assuming a reasonably LG society where all of the lawyers are paladins, how would you handle the following two situations? This is for one of my campaigns... 1) A defense attorney uncovers evidence that his client is, most likely, guilty after all. Dropping the client will mean either an unfair trial or simply passing him on to another paladin who will face the same dilemma, so it's not really an option. 2) One of the sides in a case realizes that they are vastly more skilled than the opposing side (an attorney with +34 Diplomacy, for example) and as a result it is not shaping up to be a fair trial. Ooh, all lawyers are paladins? That's just rough, man; poor paladins. Well, I'll see what I can do, although keep in mind that my position throughout this thread has merely been that it is possible for a Lawful Good person--perhaps even a paladin--to knowingly defend a guilty client. Well, enough with the apologetics; let's get down to bid'niss. Question One If it's "not really an option" to drop the case, naturally the paladin/attorney will have to keep it. The most ethical thing I can think of for the palattorney to do would be to confront his client about the evidence and ask, point-blank, if the client is guilty. Because it is unethical to lie in your client's favor, now would also be the time to advise and/or pressure the client to change his plea to "Guilty," especially if the evidence would be convincing to other people. Perhaps some sort of plea-bargain could be reached with the prosecution. Of course, there's always the chance that the client refuses to change his plea, in which case the palattorney is nonetheless (assuming a legal system similar to the United States) ethically bound to continue to represent his client and his client's requests for as long as the client will have him. It's entirely possible that the client might request a new lawyer if the palattorney keeps pestering him to plead guilty in light of the new evidence. Question 2 You know, sometimes you're Johhny Cochran, and sometimes your best witness is Mark Fuhrman. In all cases, the palattorney is required to present the best case he can make in good faith for his client. If his best just isn't enough, then it just isn't enough. If the palattorney is really desperate, I suppose he could wait for the prosecution to make some kind of mistake in its statement of the case or presentation of evidence and move for a mistrial, or perhaps even ask the judge to recuse himself, if such a thing even exists in the campaign world. (Pro Tip: in the real world, judges recuse themselves so rarely, especially when asked to do so by the losing side, that it may as well not exist in our "campaign setting.") If the palattorney is really really desperate, maybe he could insist on trial by combat, I suppose. But in all likelihood, he's going to lose, which happens from time to time. Now, if you're asking for campaign advice, here's what I have to say: let the PCs find evidence that pokes holes in the uber-lawyer's case, and make sure there's a sturdy chandelier in the court room, the better to swing from dramatically during the inevitable courtroom brawl. Hope that helped, --Count Chumleigh
FloppyLlama 05-23-07, 11:53 PM	Now, for FloppyLlama & Count_Chumleigh: Assuming a reasonably LG society where all of the lawyers are paladins, how would you handle the following two situations? This is for one of my campaigns... 1) A defense attorney uncovers evidence that his client is, most likely, guilty after all. Dropping the client will mean either an unfair trial or simply passing him on to another paladin who will face the same dilemma, so it's not really an option. 2) One of the sides in a case realizes that they are vastly more skilled than the opposing side (an attorney with +34 Diplomacy, for example) and as a result it is not shaping up to be a fair trial. -Shaftiel 1) It really depends on the degree of incrimination of the evidence. As long as the Paladin can conjure reasonable doubt despite the evidence, then the Paladin can reasonably defend their client further. If the Paladin is unable to conjure reasonable doubt then they should continue to defend their client as best they can. This may very well result in failure, but that is a necessary part of the trade. As long as a Paladin complies with a policy such as: "Defending my client consists of raising objections and provide contrary evidence wherever it is relevant. If, after careful consideration, the prosecution has argued nothing objectionable and there is no evidence they have failed to consider, then objecting or presenting evidence is not a part of defending my client" now would also be the time to advise and/or pressure the client to change his plea to "Guilty," especially if the evidence would be convincing to other people. I was unaware as to whether or not you could change a plea mid-trial. If that's the case, you can tack this on to my response. 2) Considering how diplomacy works, I think it's an innapropriate mechanic to keep in such circumstances. I would severely limit what it can accomplish (while still making it applicable). For instance, changing a Juror's (or Judge) attitude to Helpful will merely make them very likely to consider your argument. It will not necessarily make them agree with it.
Count_Chumleigh 05-23-07, 11:56 PM	1) It really depends on the degree of incrimination of the evidence. As long as the Paladin can conjure reasonable doubt despite the evidence, then the Paladin can reasonably defend their client further. If the Paladin is unable to conjure reasonable doubt then they should continue to defend their client as best they can. This may very well result in failure, but that is a necessary part of the trade. As long as a Paladin complies with a policy such as: "Defending my client consists of raising objections and provide contrary evidence wherever it is relevant. If, after careful consideration, the prosecution has argued nothing objectionable and there is no evidence they have failed to consider, then objecting or presenting evidence is not a part of defending my client" 2) Considering how diplomacy works, I think it's an innapropriate mechanic to keep in such circumstances. I would severely limit what it can accomplish (while still making it applicable). For instance, changing a Juror's (or Judge) attitude to Helpful will merely make them very likely to consider your argument. It will not necessarily make them agree with it. Yeah, that too, especially the bolded part. Sorry, gang, I'm knee-deep in a case note tonight, and I can only use my good writing on one project at a time. And the one that determines whether I make Law Review wins over gaming. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
FloppyLlama 05-24-07, 12:03 AM	Yeah, that too, especially the bolded part. Sorry, gang, I'm knee-deep in a case note tonight, and I can only use my good writing on one project at a time. And the one that determines whether I make Law Review wins over gaming. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh Best of luck. I mean, not that you'd need luck. Just. Yeah, you know what I mean. :)
maharai23 05-24-07, 04:46 AM	No, the ETHICAL thing to do would be fight not to get him off, but to make the prosecution prove the case. I agree with you that lawyers would most likely be lawful neutral, but can you not at least agree that in a world where protections of the law are paramount, the GOOD thing to do would be to uphold the system? If prejudice is evil, then would not the application of equality before the law be good, and worth fighting for even in the event that one believes one's client to he guilty? Like I said, I agree that lawyers are LN, but could you please quit misstating what people are saying and throwing hay and fish all over the place? No, I cannot agree that. The LAWFUL thing to do would be to uphold the system. The GOOD thing to do would be to uphold the rights of the innocent whilst punishing the guilty. If you had proof that your client did it, it would be best served if that proof was given to the prosecution, at a minimum. But that's not lawful, as it violates the intent of the legitimate system. And if prejudice is evil, then every D&D character ever to exist is evil. How many of us have killed a goblin without a second thought, or attacked a drow on sight? That's judging the evil of a character based on a racial stereotype, which is discriminatory and prejudice. Certain things that are wrong in real life aren't in DnD. You have to learn to accept that. The application of equality and fairness promote order, and are lawful. The correct application of actions based on a person's innocence or guilt (for those creatures that aren't ok to stereotype, such as demons and chromatic dragons), is good. When the two match, then you can have law and good together. When they don't, you can't. That's not hay and fish. That's breaking it down to the lowest common denominator, and judging by that... Not judging the goodness or evil of the lawyer's action by the overall result of the court. If we did that for everything, then someone who attempted to murder someone, and missed, and hit the other assassin behind him would have done a good deed. The intent is there, for you intent people, the attempt was there (called target and rolled), but the success just wasn't. Failure doesn't make something good, and equality isn't respect for life. It's respect for fairness and order, which is a lawful concept. Thus, again, LN.
maharai23 05-24-07, 05:09 AM	1) It really depends on the degree of incrimination of the evidence. As long as the Paladin can conjure reasonable doubt despite the evidence, then the Paladin can reasonably defend their client further. If the Paladin is unable to conjure reasonable doubt then they should continue to defend their client as best they can. This may very well result in failure, but that is a necessary part of the trade. As long as a Paladin complies with a policy such as: Then your paladin just lost his powers. If the person in charge of attempting to ensure that the accused is innocent can't find enough evidence to have a reasonable chance of innocence, he is now knowingly attempting to free a man he believes to have committed an evil act. Willfull violation of the paladin code, congrats, you're a fighter without bonus feats. "Defending my client consists of raising objections and provide contrary evidence wherever it is relevant. If, after careful consideration, the prosecution has argued nothing objectionable and there is no evidence they have failed to consider, then objecting or presenting evidence is not a part of defending my client" Ok, you've broken down the basics of the defense. All true. However, if a prosecution did what was called for in that "If", there would be no need for a defense, and you're doing nothing. A rare occurrence, to be sure. But, since, in that instance you do nothing, it can be thrown out. After all, "no action" is neither good nor evil. So, in all the cases where you do SOMETHING, you raise objections which violate the rules of court. That could be Lawful Neutral, sure. Presenting evidence that could point to innocence is certainly lawful, but is it good or evil? That depends on the guilt or innocence of the client, as supporting an evil act is evil. And this is an active attempt to provide information to prove innocence. The other (objection) is merely stopping information that shouldn't me considered. Providing evidence is taking a stand. Again, things are said, but nothing is refuted, no points made that can actually stand up. Everything you said is true (well, except for upholding a system being good... the only thing it is, is lawful, as a system is merely a way to keep order), but it doesn't conflict with what I have to say. In fact, the bulk of what you said is proof of what I'm saying.
mac1dsr 05-24-07, 07:29 AM	Not to interrupt a perfectly silly argument. Playing attorneys can be sweet, I ran a Lawful Evil prosecutor - who would prosecute the innocent. Prosecuting the innocent simply frightened individuals into fearing the appearance of violating the law, therefore upholding the greater good. The character was even a bigger hero than the local Paladin - the Paladin would not torture kids to find out where the local thief was, but Asteria was ready to pluck some fingernails. The populace loved her, she brought ORDER, which made their life safer, well for the most part. (Score one for Thomas Hobbes). Wait, isn't prosecuting innocent people, not lawful? Well no, since the society used juries, only juries could decide guilt or innocence, so one did not necessarily have to commit the action, as long as the process was done properly order will be maintained, juries not actions determine guilt (taste the evil). Also, I fail to see how a Palattorney would necessarily lose their abilities. The RAW specifically states (PHB p87) "Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straightjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can be quite different from each other." and (PHB p88) "'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." - Okay those are 3.0 but I doubt that changed too much between editions. Knowing that one would be forced to do things that may be "evil" and then risk one's powers in exchange for protecting a system that is essentially good and maintains the dignity of sentient beings is the uber example of altruism. Also according the rules as written we have three other statements: 1. An animal rampaging through a campsite does not have it alignment affected because it is immune to alignment drift, but rather it is immune to alignment drift because "they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior." (PHB 88) That seems to imply that good and evil are largely a result of intention rather than action. 2. Killing a goblin is an evil act according to the D&D rules, "dignity for sentient creatures" not dignity for good creatures. Luckily, it clearly states on page 87 that few people are consistent, and that occaisional breaks or weaknesses are not incompatible with an alignment (specifically LG in the last paragraph on the page). 3. Paladins do not lose paladinhood for committing an evil act. A paladin loses paladinhood if she (PHB 43) "willfully commits an evil act." There again we get to intent. To willfully commit evil one must know that it is in fact evil. In addition, this idea of objective good and evil acts is only mentioned in the PHB as how certain neutrals perceive the world {(PHB 88). In fact the players handbook make several allusions to subjective interpretations of alignment. Examples: "willfully evil" (PHB 43) "personal philosophies" (PHB 87) "Dogs may be obedient and cats free spirited,but they do not hav the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic." (PHB 87) specifically rules out "acts" as the basis of alignment. Willfull violation of the paladin code, congrats, you're a fighter without bonus feats. Also not in the rules, the Paladin must commit a "gross" (that is large) violation of the paladin code, willfull is for committing evil. So it is likely that a Paladin could willfully not donate to the poor, if that would prevent him from being able to make some other sacrifice. (PHB 43)
Count_Chumleigh 05-24-07, 12:44 PM	I cannot agree. I agree.
wrecan 05-24-07, 01:12 PM	No, I cannot agree that. The LAWFUL thing to do would be to uphold the system. The GOOD thing to do would be to uphold the rights of the innocent whilst punishing the guilty. I am reminded of a quotation from Robert Bolt's A Man For All Seasons (http://www.sff.net/people/Geoffrey.Landis/quotes/allseasons.html): Roper: "So now you'd give the devil the benefit of law?" More: "Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?" Roper: "I'd cut down every law in England to do that." More: "Oh, and when the last law was down, and the devil turned on you, where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? "Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake." In my opinion, Sir Thomas More is both lawful and good. It is not the either/or proposition that maharai23 seems to believe it is. If you had proof that your client did it, it would be best served if that proof was given to the prosecution, at a minimum. But that's not lawful, as it violates the intent of the legitimate system. If breaking the law weakens a system that protects the innocents then breaking the law protects neither the law nor innocents. Good need not be so short-sighted.
FloppyLlama 05-24-07, 03:06 PM	Then your paladin just lost his powers. If the person in charge of attempting to ensure that the accused is innocent can't find enough evidence to have a reasonable chance of innocence, he is now knowingly attempting to free a man he believes to have committed an evil act. Willfull violation of the paladin code, congrats, you're a fighter without bonus feats. Well done taking a paragraph out of context from the entirety of the answer. Ok, you've broken down the basics of the defense. All true. However, if a prosecution did what was called for in that "If", there would be no need for a defense, and you're doing nothing. A rare occurrence, to be sure. But, since, in that instance you do nothing, it can be thrown out. Except that each argument and each piece of evidence as presented by the prosecution must be examined on a case by case basis. The Paladin will not know what sort of arguments the prosecution might make beforehand. The evidence may be incriminating, but the Prosecution might, for instance, argue it was premeditated murder when it was not. That's why in those conditions the Defense Attorney needs to stay on. Guilty his client may be, but not necessarily guilty of all the Prosecution argues. Presenting evidence that could point to innocence is certainly lawful, but is it good or evil? That depends on the guilt or innocence of the client, as supporting an evil act is evil. And the guilt or innocence of the client can only be determined by whether or not there is reasonable doubt as to the client's guilt. That is exactly why I suggested that policy. As long as the Paladin can make relevant objections to the Prosecution's case, the Client cannot be considered guilty of what the Prosecution's case charges.
maharai23 05-25-07, 04:19 AM	The problem with your arguments - including this one - throughout this discussion is that they have vast oversimplifactions of most D&D situations. Let's assume that 100% of the clients are guilty, just for the sake of argument. Even in this case they would need representation unless 1) The laws are perfectly Lawful and Good 2) The person passing judgement has absolute knowledge of all aspects of the situation and all individuals involved in the situation, and 3) The person passing judgement is not only absolutely Lawful and Good, but possesses the infinite Intelligence to process all the data and infinite Wisdom to reach the perfect decision EVERY TIME Agreed on all points. Because something is NEEDED does not mean it is a GOOD action to do. Without villains, there are no heroes. Any good dramatic story NEEDS a villain. Does that make the villain good? These are obviously impossible, absurd criteria. It doesn't work. So even if the clients are 100% guilty, the punishments will not fit the crime 100% of the time. By your own arguments a paladin who refuses to represent someone who is then given an excessive punishment (state-sanctioned murder) has committed an evil act and is therefore stripped of paladinhood. Then the paladin's evil act is in supporting a non-legitimate authority (the paladin's code requires he/she respect legitimate authority. State-sanctioned murder might just be a deal breaker there). Your definitions of good and evil, and the requirements for paladins, are absurd except in the most simplistic of situations. The "actions suporting evil" clause has already been covered: by your argument, if you buy anything that at some point during its production has been handled by an evil person, you are supporting an evil person and therefore committing evil. There's a difference between trying to directly aid a criminal in avoiding punishment for the crimes he has committed, and buying a hammer that was made by an evil blacksmith. The blacksmith's action in making the hammer was not evil. The criminal's action on committing the crime was. There's a difference between purchasing from an evil CHARACTER and supporting an evil ACTION. As for your specific hatred for "greater good," this is entirely your opinion and not supported by the RAW anywhere I can find it. I rule that greater good >> individual good, and this fits the definitions of good and evil as set forth in the RAW. Either way works, as the RAW is absolutely silent on this, but you keep bringing up your OPINION on this as though it were fact. I have no hatred for the greater good. I'm just saying if you do something distasteful or evil for the greater good, it doesn't become good by proxy. It's still evil. The overall effect may be good, but I, as a neutral party, just classify the action, without liking or hating any alignment. That's the job of the moderator. In all fairness, I can see one situation where a LG character could be a lawyer. If he's not a public defender. If the character can choose the cases he accepts, then he has the opportunity to do the research before accepting, thus keeping a clear conscience. Then it's a matter of skill, rather than moral dilemnas. Then it's less Law & Order, and more Perry Mason. Think part lawyer, part Private Eye. That would work fine. Sounds like a good concept for a prestige class too.
Tyraxus 05-26-07, 05:12 PM	I know I shouldn't... *resurrects thread* No, I cannot agree that. The LAWFUL thing to do would be to uphold the system. The GOOD thing to do would be to uphold the rights of the innocent whilst punishing the guilty. If you had proof that your client did it, it would be best served if that proof was given to the prosecution, at a minimum. But that's not lawful, as it violates the intent of the legitimate system. However, can you not conceive of a legal system where the system itself is DESIGNED to uphold the rights of the innocent whilst punishing the guilty? In such a case, upholding the system is both Lawful and Good; lawful (duh) because you're following the system, and Good because you are promoting the cause of protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty. And if prejudice is evil, then every D&D character ever to exist is evil. How many of us have killed a goblin without a second thought, or attacked a drow on sight? That's judging the evil of a character based on a racial stereotype, which is discriminatory and prejudice. Certain things that are wrong in real life aren't in DnD. You have to learn to accept that. "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Sorry, but concern for the dignity of sentient beings sounds like working against prejudice and bigotry to me. This (and my philosophy classes back in college) is why I tend to play neutral characters. The application of equality and fairness promote order, and are lawful. The correct application of actions based on a person's innocence or guilt (for those creatures that aren't ok to stereotype, such as demons and chromatic dragons), is good. When the two match, then you can have law and good together. When they don't, you can't. So I fail to see why you have such a problem perceiving attorneys that are both lawful and good. Think about it this way: if a defense attorney can bring reasonable doubt, especially in a setting where Speak with Dead and other divinations are common, then isn't it possible, POSSIBLE, that his client is innocent? And isn't it better to err on the side of releasing the guilty than executing the guilty?
Kaldric 05-27-07, 12:56 AM	In D&D, Gods exist, and everyone knows it. Divination magic is the most reliable method for answering a yes/no question as to whether the accused should be punished. Guilt doesn't need to be determined at all. You ask the nation's patron god whether the person deserves the punishment, you get a yes or no answer as the god sees fit. At that point, the court, such as it is, doesn't care whether the accused committed the crime. God has told them to punish the accused whether he did it or not, nobody's going to tell them different. And that's what happens in a Good community. In an evil community, the powers that be decide who they're going to punish for whatever they feel like, and a defense attorney doesn't figure into that equation. Even if the community is lawful, the judge is evil, and has most likely been bribed or is personally interested in the verdict. The idea of a defense attorney in D&D is kind of ludicrous anyway. But whatever floats your boat. If your DM will get off on playing mock court, and the other players are enjoying it, more power to you.
maharai23 05-27-07, 01:55 PM	I am reminded of a quotation from Robert Bolt's A Man For All Seasons (http://www.sff.net/people/Geoffrey.Landis/quotes/allseasons.html): Roper: "So now you'd give the devil the benefit of law?" More: "Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?" Roper: "I'd cut down every law in England to do that." More: "Oh, and when the last law was down, and the devil turned on you, where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? "Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake." In my opinion, Sir Thomas More is both lawful and good. It is not the either/or proposition that maharai23 seems to believe it is. Bolded and underlined for proper emphasis. Because in MY opinion, such a person seems less concerned with good and evil and more concerned with fairness and order. His reason is a selfish one at the core, for his own safety's sake, and thus, it shows not wholly good. Further, in real life, this quote reads quite accurate. How about on the Plane of Law. I'm relatively sure even if you were to remove the trappings of law from around those outsiders, the plane wouldn't be blown away in chaos. Why? because unlike real people, such creatures can police themselves. In your example, you seem to have an arguement between a chaotic good, and a lawful neutral. At least, that's MY opinion, as it were. If breaking the law weakens a system that protects the innocents then breaking the law protects neither the law nor innocents. Good need not be so short-sighted. If not killing an innocent child allows it to grow up, suffer a hideous accident, become bitter, and kill thousands, then not killing the child isn't good? The forces of good, as a whole, don't need to be so short sighted. The individual actions, surely, can be categorized. After all, it's possible for a good character to occasionally do evil acts, and stay good. It's when they become coninuous that people realize that the LAW is what protects these people, so we must protect the LAW, even if it means doing things that aren't always wholly good. Lawful neutral, the strongest supporters of the legal system. Keep in mind, another word for "fair" is "balanced". It's a concept of order. If you're arguing "fairness" is good, you barking up the wrong tree. Fairness is neither good nor evil by itself, and only when married with a good action does it become good. To kill everyone in a town, regardless of race, is equally fair to everyone there. To give everyone the benefit of the doubt is equally fair. To save a mine full of trapped people, even the drow, is fair. Not all are good. Not all are evil. But all show impartial, or fair treatment. Impartial, non-biased, that's 100% law. Giving the devil his law is saying that it's more important to be fair than it is to vanquish evil. It's showing that an ordered society protects people, and that is paramount. Prime example: The ruler of a small nation keeps a very tight watch. Police are on every corner, who search any house or person at will. All travel from one area to another is closely monitored, indeed, nobody can walk down the street without a guard knowing about it, and if their activity is deemed disruptive, they can be imprisoned without reason or trial. Now this is an ordered society that protects by stripping away the freedoms of the people. Your lines above ring equally true, for the laws im place allowing such tyrannical treatment keep the chaos at bay certainly. There's no looting or murder or riots, due to the iron hand. Giving the Devil his law is not, in and of itself, good. It is promoting structure. It's saying that the man fears a society without law. That's it. There's no good anywhere in there. Nor, in those broad strokes, is there evil. The philosophy is decidedly neutral.
maharai23 05-27-07, 01:58 PM	In D&D, Gods exist, and everyone knows it. Divination magic is the most reliable method for answering a yes/no question as to whether the accused should be punished. Guilt doesn't need to be determined at all. You ask the nation's patron god whether the person deserves the punishment, you get a yes or no answer as the god sees fit. At that point, the court, such as it is, doesn't care whether the accused committed the crime. God has told them to punish the accused whether he did it or not, nobody's going to tell them different. I disagree. You just described a lawful evil tribe of goblins too. Uncaring over guilt and innocence, uncaring of evil acts. You described a fanatical theocracy, not an alignment. In an evil community, the powers that be decide who they're going to punish for whatever they feel like, and a defense attorney doesn't figure into that equation. Even if the community is lawful, the judge is evil, and has most likely been bribed or is personally interested in the verdict. The idea of a defense attorney in D&D is kind of ludicrous anyway. But whatever floats your boat. If your DM will get off on playing mock court, and the other players are enjoying it, more power to you. That's one form of evil, certainly.
maharai23 05-27-07, 02:01 PM	Now, if you're asking for campaign advice, here's what I have to say: let the PCs find evidence that pokes holes in the uber-lawyer's case, and make sure there's a sturdy chandelier in the court room, the better to swing from dramatically during the inevitable courtroom brawl. And that, I can agree with. Amen for PC's raising a ruckus getting some justice.
Kaldric 05-27-07, 03:17 PM	I disagree. You just described a lawful evil tribe of goblins too. Uncaring over guilt and innocence, uncaring of evil acts. You described a fanatical theocracy, not an alignment. True. By our definition, someone who is 100% certain that a God exists, and is willing to act based on the infallibility of messages from that God, is a fanatic. That describes just about every D&D character or NPC.
wrecan 05-27-07, 09:33 PM	Bolded and underlined for proper emphasis. Because in MY opinion, such a person seems less concerned with good and evil and more concerned with fairness and order. Maybe you should see the play (which is considered a classic of the English language) before judging the character based on a single quotation. His reason is a selfish one at the core No, you're just not getting the subtext from a short excerpt. When he says "my own safety's sake" he is really talking about all of his fellow men. The rest of your post has to be ignored because it is written from a fundamental ignorance of the play. Please go ahead and read it and learn it. The entire play is a discussion of many of the issues being discussed in this thread in a deeper, more philosophical manner than you have managed. (I'm actually pretty surprised that you've never heard of either the play or Sir Thomas More. I am curious -- though you certainly have no obligation to answer my curiosity -- whether you are from a nation in which English and the study of English literature or English history is not prevalent. Again, please feel no need to answer this. I'm just curious.)
maharai23 05-28-07, 12:04 AM	The so-called objective foundation for your concepts of "Good" and "Evil" is not presented by you, as you fail to cite RAW in any way. It's not worth arguing with your interpretation of "Good" and "Evil" if you claim it is more than an interpretation, and refuse to back this up. This is especially obstructive because a point of emphasis on your part appears to be that we are discussin "Good" and "Evil", two terms which you have failed to define. If they are significant enough for you to use caps lock, I am suprised you refuse to define them and especially surprised that you refuse to cite RAW in order to do so. Have a nice day. Ok, I thought I went over this once. Let's run it through once more, in the hopes that you read it this time. 1) There are acts which are evil, as defined and laid out in the PHB. Killing babies, for example. The exact act is irrelevant, however, as any act which qualifies as evil will do. 2) When dealing with an evil act (as set forth in the RAW), if you don't actually do it, but support someone who does, you're assisting evil, and thus committing an evil act yourself. 3) Attempting to assist a character in evading a punishment for his crime is supporting that evil act. 4) Thus, assisting someone who does evil by attempting to free them from capture and punishment is evil. RAW is for defining the original act. Pick any evil act you like, as set forth by the PHB, and as long as it is by the PHb, I'll agree that yes, that act is evil. Everything else is common sense, the most uncommon thing at all here.
maharai23 05-28-07, 12:14 AM	Maybe you should see the play (which is considered a classic of the English language) before judging the character based on a single quotation. Perhaps you should provide more comprehensive context for your arguements, if you're going to make them. Based solely on the information that YOU brought in, he's LN. If his behavior in that text is atypical of him, so be it. But then you're using out of context information to support your arguement, and that's just plain silliness. No, you're just not getting the subtext from a short excerpt. When he says "my own safety's sake" he is really talking about all of his fellow men. I got precisely that subtext. It's still a statement that shows that whatever injustice law may do in defending the devil, the injustice is far greater to not have the law protecting anyone. It is, at it's core, a statement espousing LAW, not GOOD. Thus, you have solid evidence to support that he's Lawful. You don't have such evidence to support that he's good. Or evil. Hence, by the information, he's LN. The rest of your post has to be ignored because it is written from a fundamental ignorance of the play. Please go ahead and read it and learn it. The entire play is a discussion of many of the issues being discussed in this thread in a deeper, more philosophical manner than you have managed. Again, don't bring information into an arguement, if you can't provide correct context. After all, I'm judging you arguement based on the words and evidence YOU provided. Is it my fault that you provided incomplete information? I'm truly sorry, in that case, I'll try to factor in your shoddy arguements in the future and research your subjects for you, so as to see the points that you evidently cannot be bothered to correctly explain. (I'm actually pretty surprised that you've never heard of either the play or Sir Thomas More. I am curious -- though you certainly have no obligation to answer my curiosity -- whether you are from a nation in which English and the study of English literature or English history is not prevalent. Again, please feel no need to answer this. I'm just curious.) Very well, since my nation of origin and my specific literary interests are irrelevant to the actual topic, and are more a poor attempt at derailing the discussion away from good vs evil, and onto a discussion of the merits of literary work, I will feel no need to indulge your curiousity. On a side note, personally, I find minds like Friedrich Nietzsche, Oscar Wilde, Dickins, Thoreau, and the like far more interesting than the average play. However, I don't expect everyone I speak to to have a working knowledge of my own personal intellectual pursuits. If you're providing non-commonly known information, and you provide only a part, and expect everyone to know the rest, you make a foolish assumption. If you were to expect such in an English Lit class, that's one thing... But in a D&D chatroom? Perhaps not everyone shares your specific interests.
maharai23 05-28-07, 12:17 AM	True. By our definition, someone who is 100% certain that a God exists, and is willing to act based on the infallibility of messages from that God, is a fanatic. That describes just about every D&D character or NPC. Oh, but not really. Most people will give that god the same respect that they give a marauding barbarian who demands tribute, or a dragon. The average person gives respect and will do whatever that entity says... While it's paying attention. Then, it's back to farming, with the occasional murmured prayer to a deity for success in specific small acts. True devotion to a religious ideal isn't as common as you'd think. Lip service and laziness is far more common in most campaign settings.
Kaldric 05-28-07, 01:50 AM	We're more concerned with the PC's and the NPC's, about a quarter of which will probably be deity-based. In the Forgotten Realms, arguably the most popular setting, every character has a deity, and the deities are activist. I'm just saying that the average sapient in any campaign is more likely to assume that the cleric of their particular faith is more capable of determining guilt or innocence than what we would consider a fair court. If we want to play that D&D nations are mirror images of the American law system, so be it. I think it'd be funny the first time the orcs sued the PCs for raiding their dungeon homes.
mac1dsr 05-28-07, 01:55 AM	On a side note, personally, I find minds like Friedrich Nietzsche, Oscar Wilde, Dickins, Thoreau, and the like far more interesting than the average play. However, I don't expect everyone I speak to to have a working knowledge of my own personal intellectual pursuits. Saint Thomas More's thoughts are very telling on this topic. He is, after all, a patron saint of lawyers and his classic, Utopia, is probably the definitive work on what D&D considers Lawful and Good (and at the very least fundamental to understanding Nietzsche). And for the record, the "average play" Sir Thomas More is not average, and may have been penned in part by William Shakespeare. Once again, I must go back to the issue. Statement One: For a lawful good character the law is a good (not in the commercial sense or in the sketchy Platonic sense). Statement Two: Destroying or ignoring that which is good is evil. Conclusion: It is perfectly reasonable that a Paladin may aide and abet evil by defending an evil person (or act), if that is his lawful duty, rather than actually committing the evil act of undermining the law.
Kaldric 05-28-07, 02:15 AM	The Paladin wouldn't accept the duty. He's linked to a deity or a pure concept of Law and Good, not temporal authority. Good and Law together. "Law" means having an ordered society, sure. But if he knowingly helps an evildoer escape justice, then he's going to violate his "good" code. And given the rules, he's going to be able to tell whether the defendant is a bad guy or not.
chava 05-28-07, 02:40 AM	Very well, since my nation of origin and my specific literary interests are irrelevant to the actual topic, and are more a poor attempt at derailing the discussion away from good vs evil, and onto a discussion of the merits of literary work, I will feel no need to indulge your curiosity. Actually the topic was - how would I go about building a lawyer-type character using the rules and system of D&D. ... the discussion of law/chaos and good/evil (while highly amusing if your are just reading and not participating) is the derailing of the thread ...
mac1dsr 05-28-07, 03:22 AM	The Paladin wouldn't accept the duty. He's linked to a deity or a pure concept of Law and Good, not temporal authority. Good and Law together. "Law" means having an ordered society, sure. But if he knowingly helps an evildoer escape justice, then he's going to violate his "good" code. And given the rules, he's going to be able to tell whether the defendant is a bad guy or not. 1 Duty (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Duty) is not optional and cannot be accepted or spurned, to treat it as such is clearly chaotic - thus clearly the course the majority of Paladins must take. 2. Baring measures available to any other classes, a Paladin can only determine if a person is evil, not if they are guilty, until 11th level. Or is it an obligation of good to stand by and allow the innocent to be railroaded because they woulda if they coulda? Oh Hell, I give up. Allowing innocents to be punished, and in most D&D worlds that is right up to death, because they may have committed a crime is clearly the good thing to do, because good and evil are determined by the act and innocence and guilt are determined by general intention. Actually the topic was - how would I go about building a lawyer-type character using the rules and system of D&D. ... the discussion of law/chaos and good/evil (while highly amusing if your are just reading and not participating) is the derailing of the thread ... Oh, very well - if we must go back to that. A lawyer would likely be an "expert"-type class, probably a bard - well, expect that anyone who was not lawful would be just as likely to fight from without the system than from within. Actually the best class for a defense lawyer may well be the NPC class expert, but they would suck outside the courtroom. They would likely have Bluff, Intimidate, Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty, Diplomacy and Sense Motive, plus a high CHA. Indeed they would also likely be lawful - I mean they are willing to put up with system. Feats: Negotiator or possibly Persuasive. Paladins would likely be the third best after Bard and Expert, except that pesky alignment problem. Chaotic lawyers would not be unknown, Socrates spoke for himself during his trial - but like many Chaotics, he was charged with denying the divine origins of the law and his defense was essentially, "yeah, so what?" The jury's response was to buy him a drink.
nrg_89 05-28-07, 08:12 AM	A bard, maybe? I mean, if you can cite poetry while your in a court, you'll be good.
wrecan 05-28-07, 08:38 PM	Perhaps you should provide more comprehensive context for your arguements My argument was "This conversation reminds of a quote from A Man For All Seasons" and then I provided the quote that this conversation reminded me of. That's pretty much an a priori argument and more of a semi-humorous comment. It certainly wasn't meant for you to take as an insult. Again, don't bring information into an arguement, if you can't provide correct context. [Monty Python]Argument? I though this was abuse![/Monty Python] Very well, since my nation of origin and my specific literary interests are irrelevant to the actual topic, and are more a poor attempt at derailing the discussion away from good vs evil I told you that you need not answer. It wasn't an attempt to "derail" (which is an odd thing to say since this whole conversation is a derail), but rather a question borne of curiosity. You need not have been condescending when declinign to answer a question that I had already indicated you would have been within your rights to decline to answer. On a side note, personally, I find minds like Friedrich Nietzsche, Oscar Wilde, Dickins, Thoreau, and the like far more interesting than the average play. It's far from an average play and is one of the seminal pieces of English Drama. And while Nietzsche is fine as far as general philosophers go, if you are truly interested in learning about morality and law, I would recommend you read Bentham and Rawls (and A Man For All Seasons), which actually are the seminal philosophers discussing that topic. However, I don't expect everyone I speak to to have a working knowledge of my own personal intellectual pursuits. If you're providing non-commonly known information I hadn't realized that A Man For All Seasons was uncommon (and, despite your ignorance of the subject matter, I still do not think it uncommon). I rather thought it akin to quoting from Hamlet or Death of a Salesman as one of the most honored plays of the modern age, and deservedly a classic of English literature. I apologize for assuming you were familiar with the one play that in the Englsh liberal arts canon that precisely dealt with the issue upon which you appeared to be somewhat educated. Perhaps not everyone shares your specific interests.Clearly not you. C'est la vie.