Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Darklord Greywolff 10-27-04, 09:26 AM	Last night in our campaign we ran into a group of kolbolds in the under dark. I was the first to find them and being a drow character tryed to intimidate them some how it failed (19 on the roll) and I took a spear to the arm, so I decide it time to kill. Incomes the rest of the team. We being a third level party had little trouble taking most and scaring the rest away. My friend caught 2 of them and decided to try and make friends. when I saw the kolbold that he had "befriended" running toward their kobold sized exit hole, I don't speak draconic, I grabbed the kobold. My ally the quickdraws his great sword and threatens me with all his goodly morals (fancy cleric/warrior type from complete devine) to kill me if I don't let the kobold go, even though I have no idea why he is letting it leave after they tryed to kill me. So after 3 rounds of me keeping my weapons sheathed and wondering why a friend that has known me for about 2 months ingame as a loyal partner is trying to kill me, while I am unarmed and the kobold is yet to be hurt, over the kobold that he met 5 min. ago, I take a sword through the chest and die (me and my 8 total hp and his crit on a great sword). I just want to know why I had to die because he irl is a lover of kobolds and can't get past the fact that they are cute and fuzzy to him and not evil little creatures that don't hesitate to kill. I know that if it was any other creature other than kobolds I would still have my character. Worst of all he called my character a coward for not trying to negotiate after taking a spear to the arm. I plan to petition my dm to let me be a ghost and haunt his a$$ other than that I have no idea what to do, any advise. Sorry if its long and ranty but I had to blow off some steam. The only plus side was that when I died I choked the kobold to death with me. :)
Thorak 10-27-04, 10:35 AM	So his character's evil, right? Killing a friend and ally because he won't follow an order, even though he's not hurting anyone by disobeying? Evil. Evil evil evil. Eeeeeeevil. Or maybe just someone who doesn't understand things like 'alignment', 'friendship', 'loyalty', or 'morality'. I don't see how this kind of thing is justifiable unless he's Evil.
illiterate 10-27-04, 10:56 AM	"fancy warrior/cleric type from complete divine" has some splainin' to do to his god over why he killed an ally who had just captured an enemy combatant. I'd petition the dm to alter the guy's alignment. Or find new people to play with. Or, and this would take the complicity of the other players, teach him an object lesson by starting a new character who is a kobold sorceror. The kobold, being sneaky and EVIL, plays nice with the party until he has mr. greatsword alone, then KILLS him and takes his shinys.
Marchen 10-27-04, 10:59 AM	Yeah, this sort of thing is just stupid. No other way to put it. Kobolds are evil, they are monsters. You usually want to kill the monsters, not try and make love to them because you think they are "cute and fuzzy". Scaly and cold-blooded suits them better. It's especially ridiculous that he still wanted to be friends with them after they throw a spear at a party member.
Serraco 10-27-04, 11:50 AM	If you want to haunt him, pick up Ghostwalk. There's some interesting ideas to keep your character going.
markhaus 10-27-04, 11:56 AM	Simply put we are only seeing this from this player's point of view. If the other player has an unwise character w/ a love for kobolds it is not evil to prevent the death of one. As a DM i would allow you to haunt him, but i sure as heck wouldnt punish him for it. It wasnt evil. (the people arguing that the kobold is an evil creature should reread the fact this character is a friggin drow) (by unwise i do not mean low wisdom, i mean the player is rollplaying an unwise character. Many people do this with high wisdoms)
FunkyTrip 10-27-04, 04:53 PM	sounds to me like the usual 14 year old DnDers trying to ruin each other game. :rolleyes: "but maybe he was this... but maybe he was thinking that..." It's crap. It is a party member killing another party member just because he can.
Aerunation 10-27-04, 05:08 PM	I remember those days...... two 12 packs of "surge"(remember that!?!!?), the parent's basement, and 2 day long 'jama parties :cool:
Aluroon 10-27-04, 05:34 PM	What was your alighnment? What was his Alighnment? Your dm started this whole insedent (a 19 intemidate by a drow doesnt scare a kobold in the underdark, gimi a break), and as such is partially responsible. That he allowed another player to murder you character (and that indeed is what he did) shows 1 of two things. Your playing an evil campain, or that the dm is a fool. Why didnt the other party members turn on the guy after he murdered there party memeber for holding a kobold in the air after it stabed him. Im any of my games if a character is killed the rest of the group typically turns on the killer unless there is some valid reason. Think about it this way. You have a friend who has saved your life several times (probubly). Another friend kills him because friend1 took friend2's beer. Insain. Aluroon
Darklord Greywolff 10-27-04, 05:39 PM	First off thanks for replying. Second he was CG and actually said that his god was the god of sports and competition and that his god actualy condoned this act. my dm ate this up (hes not a fan of religion too much). His alignment was dropped to CN. And I was playing my drow as TN going towardc CN or CG. I forgot to add that about 20 min. in game before it happened I helped the entire party down a 70' pit while saving 2 from death(2 people on a rope and a low str check from the holder :) ). And getting a new group isn't gonna happen I've been good friends with these people for about 5 years now. I'm not the type to quit after someone kills me in a foolish act its beneath me. Revenge however isn't :schemes: by the way his wisdom 15 so not dumb by any means.
FunkyTrip 10-27-04, 05:44 PM	What was your alighnment? What was his Alighnment? Your dm started this whole insedent (a 19 intemidate by a drow doesnt scare a kobold in the underdark, gimi a break), On the contrary. a drow (you know, that race that uses most other underdark races as slaves) tries to intimidate one of the most cowardly races: kobolds. He rolls a 19. A normal kobold has hardly any bonus in the opposing roll. Of course that roll will succeed in most cases!
Darklord Greywolff 10-27-04, 05:52 PM	The roll didn't bother me that much. It only meant that I got a chance to kill a few there were only twelve of them. I had the high kill count with 3, and one was post mortis. :D
Morwen 10-27-04, 08:05 PM	I suggest you get your DM to use something else than Kobolds as enemies in the future, otherwise this sort of thing might happen every time ;)
Shard of Suzail 10-27-04, 09:42 PM	Well, as a Drow associating with "exalted clerics", its no surprise you got murdered. It was probably just a matter of time before he found a reason to do the deed. I can understand why the Kobolds werent intimidated. If they had enough numbers and were armed, then they could well be confident enough to ignore threats. Intimidation after one gets chopped up, well, thats much more likely to work. I just think it was a disaster waiting to happen. Drow, exalted characters, ugh and who knows what others. Best to keep out of sight and out of mind if playing a Drow in a standard party. The nail that stands out gets hammered. No revenge for you my lad, chalk it up to experience and move on.
eRaz0r 10-27-04, 10:22 PM	Actually, the spirit of the Exalted Rules suggest that the very last thing an Exalted character will do is commit violence against another. Negotiation comes first, combat next, and EVERY chance to surrender is given. Even if the exalted character believes their foe might be lying when they say they're willing to change their evil ways, they still should give them the benefit of the doubt, accept their surrender, and probably even let them go. An Exalted character would have found a peaceful solution to that situation. In fact, any normal person who believed that the Kobold in question should be released would have done everything in their power to prevent harm from coming to *either* the PC or the Kobold. The presumption that an Exalted character would eventually find a way to kill the drow, especially after that drow has acted in a selfless manner and saved other party members shows a distinct lack of appreciation for any higher thought processes whatsoever. Now someone who held the kobold in the air with a knife to its throat, threatening to gut it like a fish might warrant a stronger reaction than simple negotiation, but simply stopping it from fleeing is not the kind of threat that begets a beheading. The player of the so-called exalted character apparently has no concept of how to portray a character of any alignment other than "Selfish Stupid". Why would anyone want to hang around someone who kills his companions to protect someone he just met (let alone a monster who just tried to kill his friends) is beyond me. I'd convince the other players outside the game to drop him off at the nearest Kobold den and "good riddance". If he likes them so much - lets see if they all like him.
Thorak 10-27-04, 11:10 PM	Simply put we are only seeing this from this player's point of view. If the other player has an unwise character w/ a love for kobolds it is not evil to prevent the death of one. The kobold wasn't in danger of death. It was just being held captive. The act was basically the equivalent of one cop saying to another "Hey, that's a redhead you've got cuffed. I like redheads. Let him go." "No." "*BLAM!*" In no way was killing justified. And who said this cleric was Exalted? I hope he wasn't; if he was Exalted there is absolutely no way to stretch the rules to allow him to remain Exalted. He committed an evil act without provocation. Kaput.
Carkni 10-27-04, 11:56 PM	I agree with the Intimidate check, and even if their boss was way scarier than you, then they'd at least parley in the "My boss will eats us, so we ignore you!" (Damn LOTR films, I can't help but have small creatures have the Gollom voice.) And as for the killing, it depends, but 29 times out of 30 the guy would've lost all Clerical abilities. If it was really a bad thing, I would've permantly stripped him of his powers until he atoned. The other punishment would've been for a few days or hours.
Darklord Greywolff 10-28-04, 12:03 AM	The thing is he wasn't exalted he was a favored soul, if that makes a difference. he was turned to CN and had his domain spell taken away. And my drow wasn't evil he was neutral.
Carkni 10-28-04, 12:09 AM	Well, if he was a human, then he would've been punished more over a Gnome or Dwarf, who deities and themselves think the only good Drow is a dead one. In fact, there's not many races that would receive the maximum penalty. Except Exalted characters.
White rabbit 10-28-04, 12:17 AM	Let's look at this intimidate roll first. 12 kobolds versus 1 drow. A race known for their viciousness, cruelty and knack for taking kobold slaves. They are also a race known for travelling in packs (so many enemies, so many opportunuties for revenge). Depending on what was said, a 19 would have been sufficient to get the kobolds to clear off, if nothing else. Now, let's examine the actions of this cleric. Killing a person of an evil race, who has shown valor and loyalty in his presence for capturing a person of an evil race that you have just met and has tried to kill party members? Evil. No two ways about it, it's an evil act. Take the DM aside and tell him how koblods SHOULD be played. If those koblods have a lick of sense, they'll cut his throat in his sleep and abscond with his equipment.
Darklord Greywolff 10-28-04, 12:46 AM	Problem is that there were 12 to start. His reasoning for the failed intimidate I believe was the 12 to one visible drow. I took 2, the thief took 1, 2 were captured and 4 were picked off by the rest of the group. That means 4 got through there little doggy door to the main lair, which promptly colapsed when we tried to follow. so he did play the kobold correctly for the most part because they took off after a few were killed in very painful ways (i.e 'sploded head).
White rabbit 10-28-04, 01:32 AM	I may have spoken harshly when I had said that about the koblods. Sorry. :blush: I was actually referring to the koblods now in the care of the cleric.
Darklord Greywolff 10-28-04, 01:47 AM	Um they died. when I got stabbed the one I was holding got its throat crushed and the thief stabbed the other one just to spite a$$ that killed me. He's still alive though and completely unharmed.
Sucineri 10-28-04, 03:49 AM	That reminds me of when the wyvern my party's druid was riding attacked my avariel monk. I tried to just get out of the way and it chased me..I tried asking the druid to make it stop..she said I was attacking her wyvern..then I disabled it in the air and sent both the druid and wyvern plummeting into a river. Next thing I know..the rest of the party is attacking me and even though I spend a few rounds saying that I was defending myself, they decided to keep trying to attack me and I ended up killing them all (or rather knocking em to around -9 to -1 (and stablizing them) and taking their stuff while tying them all to a tree and left the party. Sometimes players are just retarded for some reason or another.
Shard of Suzail 10-28-04, 09:11 AM	I salute you Sucineri. Its a rare thing when the party turns on someone and that someone actually managed to overcome them. Though i`m a little concerned as to quite how you managed to mangle a wyvern and then eliminate the entire party on your own (or in fact either of those things). They must have been a bunch of lemons.
markhaus 10-28-04, 11:40 AM	Im just sayin we dont know the exact circumstances. If a drow wants to kill something this player considered cute for no reason, its not evil. It sure as heck isnt good, but it isnt evil. It. is. a. drow. Many good characters would kill him just for existing. If he threatened a kobold (the cutest of the lizard races. I mean, come one, their cowards that bark like lil dogs!) then he deserved what he got. Why didnt he kill the guy who slaughtered the kobold after he killed you? Was he not a drow? Im saying we dont know everything in this circumstance w/o the other player's imput. He may feel that killing a member of a truly evil race was justified to release the poor misguided lil kobold. (even if an evil race helps you that may mean it is just biding its time to slaughter the party in a truly evil way) By the way: I hate drow. This probably colors my posts quite a bit. :D
Thorak 10-28-04, 11:45 AM	Im just sayin we dont know the exact circumstances. If a drow wants to kill something this player considered cute for no reason, its not evil. It sure as heck isnt good, but it isnt evil. It. is. a. drow. Many good characters would kill him just for existing. If he threatened a kobold (the cutest of the lizard races. I mean, come one, their cowards that bark like lil dogs!) then he deserved what he got. He wasn't threatening the kobold. He had captured him, in fact, instead of killing him, which he could have done just as easily. The argument wasn't about the drow not killing the kobold, it was about the drow not letting the kobold go free. A very different thing. Why didnt he kill the guy who slaughtered the kobold after he killed you? Was he not a drow? Im saying we dont know everything in this circumstance w/o the other player's imput. He may feel that killing a member of a truly evil race was justified to release the poor misguided lil kobold. (even if an evil race helps you that may mean it is just biding its time to slaughter the party in a truly evil way) By the way: I hate drow. This probably colors my posts quite a bit. :D I guess it all comes down to "it's OK to lynch the guy with black skin, he's not a real person after all" then, eh? :rolleyes:
markhaus 10-28-04, 03:15 PM	He wasn't threatening the kobold. He had captured him, i said Im just sayin we dont know the exact circumstances. I should have put "if" and forgot to. I guess it all comes down to "it's OK to lynch the guy with black skin, he's not a real person after all" then, eh? ...yes actually. In most places this is exactly what its like. Check out any of the Drizzt books. The only people who trusted him were close friends. and he was the epitome of goodness. The character described is neutral. Racism is harsh towards drow b/c of their society. If you dont want to deal w/ it, dont play a drow. (or an orc, or a half fiend or a gnoll or a kobold or any other evil race)
Derren S. 10-28-04, 04:24 PM	He may feel that killing a member of a truly evil race was justified to release the poor misguided lil kobold. (even if an evil race helps you that may mean it is just biding its time to slaughter the party in a truly evil way) What he believes is irrelevant to alignment. He killed a nonevil creature for no reason. Such things are called murder and are evil. The society might not mind as he killed a drow, but alignment is above race (and even divinity).
eRaz0r 10-28-04, 05:07 PM	...yes actually. In most places this is exactly what its like. Check out any of the Drizzt books. The only people who trusted him were close friends. and he was the epitome of goodness. The character described is neutral. Racism is harsh towards drow b/c of their society. If you dont want to deal w/ it, dont play a drow. (or an orc, or a half fiend or a gnoll or a kobold or any other evil race) Being a Drow is irrelevant. Racisim doesn't justify murder. Not in this world, or that one. Just because some people use such hate-thoughts to justify things to themselves doesn't make them right. Furthermore, if it were a choice between a random drow holding a random kobold, that's one thing. But this drow was part of the party. He saved the half the party from certain death a few minutes earlier. Only the most strident racist would choose to kill a Drow companion over a Kobold Enemy just because he hated drow. Those people are not "good" people. If you don't want to accept that such people are not "good" don't try and play a "CG Cleric" who is one - or you might be in for a nasty Atonement surprise!
Thorak 10-28-04, 06:28 PM	...yes actually. In most places this is exactly what its like. Check out any of the Drizzt books. The only people who trusted him were close friends. and he was the epitome of goodness. The character described is neutral. Racism is harsh towards drow b/c of their society. If you dont want to deal w/ it, dont play a drow. (or an orc, or a half fiend or a gnoll or a kobold or any other evil race) The whole point of that dynamic in the Drizzt books is that it isn't right for people to be treating Drizzy that way just because he has, ahem, black skin. Because it's racist. That drow have black skin isn't likely an accident; it allows for a discussion of racial differences using something easily recognizable to us, skin color, and pointing out that even if most Drow are evil and horrible, it still isn't right to judge them all like that without reason. Though I find it disturbing enough that I make an allusion to lynching a black guy as "ok" and you answer "yes, because".
thepuregamer 10-28-04, 08:38 PM	Thorak, don't mix reality and fantasy. Black people in reality aren't generally evil. There is not a general trend. Drow in fantasy have an obvious trend toward evil. It is not so much as racism without a reason as prejudice and expectations with a reason. Drow are 99.9999% of the time evil. Every time, a group of adventurers find a group of goblins, they do not stop to ask them if they are evil. They would likely ambush them or attack right away. If this cleric guy is seemingly the leader of group and he has hatred of drow, he is very likely to be looking for any excuse to kill a drow that is in their party. He could even think that all the drow's heroics are just him trying to steal his position in the party. Alignment is not so simple as you make it. The drow character doesn't have the words true neutral over his head for everyone to see. Alignment is not a defense or form of protection. So his answer yes to your lynching point is pretty much correct. Killing the drow doesn't make him evil. It makes him untrusting and a control-freak. If the rest of the party didn't turn on him the second he attacked that means they regard him as the leader.
Derren S. 10-29-04, 01:05 AM	Thorak, don't mix reality and fantasy. Black people in reality aren't generally evil. There is not a general trend. Drow in fantasy have an obvious trend toward evil. It is not so much as racism without a reason as prejudice and expectations with a reason. Drow are 99.9999% of the time evil. Every time, a group of adventurers find a group of goblins, they do not stop to ask them if they are evil. They would likely ambush them or attack right away. If this cleric guy is seemingly the leader of group and he has hatred of drow, he is very likely to be looking for any excuse to kill a drow that is in their party. He could even think that all the drow's heroics are just him trying to steal his position in the party. Alignment is not so simple as you make it. The drow character doesn't have the words true neutral over his head for everyone to see. Alignment is not a defense or form of protection. So his answer yes to your lynching point is pretty much correct. Killing the drow doesn't make him evil. It makes him untrusting and a control-freak. If the rest of the party didn't turn on him the second he attacked that means they regard him as the leader. Alignment isn't sunjective in D&D. It doesn't matter what the cleric believes, he murdered a nonevil beeing who helped him so far on his adventure so it is an evil act. Even if he was the only nonevil drow in the world it changes nothing that the cleric did evil when killing him. And clerics have easy means to detect alignment.
thepuregamer 10-29-04, 01:16 AM	I disagree with you there Derren. Alignment if anything but objective. It is very much subjective. The ideas of good and evil are subjective ideas. If your holy cleric stepped onto an ant by accident one day and then later happened upon an ant god, that god would consider him evil but any other god would say, " so what he only killed an ant." It goes the same for pretty much everything else. I think a ton of supposedly good gods would not give a damn if he killed a neutral drow. This would not be considered a damning deed. Even if he isn't actively evil he is still a drow. Anyway, alignments have to do with a mixture of personal understandings and others subjective judgements. What if the cleric sees nothing evil about killing a drow? what if otherwise the cleric tends to the wounded and feeds the poor but goes around killing drow? Does this make him evil? I would say no.
thepuregamer 10-29-04, 01:19 AM	You should also note that he killed a nongood being. Not just a non evil being. A chaotic neutral being who tends toward neither does not matter in the eyes of good or evil.
Derren S. 10-29-04, 06:01 AM	I disagree with you there Derren. Alignment if anything but objective. It is very much subjective. In the real world yes, but in D&D are defined forces which rules apply to everyone equally. The ideas of good and evil are subjective ideas. No, they aren't. What people might think of a person is subjective, but not what alignment this person has. If your holy cleric stepped onto an ant by accident one day and then later happened upon an ant god, that god would consider him evil but any other god would say, " so what he only killed an ant." The ant god will consider him an enemy, but that has nothing to do with the alignment of the cleric. Killing a nonsentient beeing by acciedent without torturing or purposefully putting it at risk is neutral in D&D. It goes the same for pretty much everything else. I think a ton of supposedly good gods would not give a damn if he killed a neutral drow. This would not be considered a damning deed. Yes, it would be. By murdering a nonevil drow the cleric commited murder which is an evil act. The cleric might not realize it, but for alignment everyone is the same, even gods. Even if he isn't actively evil he is still a drow. And? he is a neutral drow. Anyway, alignments have to do with a mixture of personal understandings and others subjective judgements. No, D&D is a black and white world. Alignment isn't subjective but absolute. What if the cleric sees nothing evil about killing a drow? what if otherwise the cleric tends to the wounded and feeds the poor but goes around killing drow? Does this make him evil? I would say no. But that is wrong. Either you allow his good acts to cancel out the evil ones and make him neutral, or he is just evil as he has no respect for live of a certain race. What the cleric thinks of his acts is entirely irrelevant to his alignment. Good and Evil is subjective in this respect what people think of someone, but that is not alignment. Alignment is a cosmic definition what your soul is and is equal for everyone. If alignment would be subjective, evil alignment would be very rare as every dictator and mass murderer thinks for himself that he does good with his acts. (For example Hitler) Every cleric detects alignment the same. If a good cleric casts detect alignment on a dictator he would detect as LE. If a cleric of the LE god of tyranny who believes that only strict order, obedience and the removing of the "unsuitable" from the gen pool can lead the world into a new glorious age cast detect alignment on the same dictator, he would also detect as LE, even though the cleric believes that what the dictator does is good. So, the cleric murderer a nonevil beeing in order to protect an evil beeing which attacked the drow. That clearly is not a good or even neutral act.
thepuregamer 10-29-04, 06:33 AM	But there is an issue here, is killing a nongood sentient creature bad? Because that is what a CN creature is. He is nongood. you have also described him as nonevil. But it goes both ways. Whether you claim alignment in dnd is black and white or not, the idea of good and evil most certainly are created terms. Good deeds and evil deeds are decided subjectively. In dnd, killing on its own is not a characteristic of evil. Killing good creatures is a characteristic of evil. Killing evil creatures is a characteristic of good. Killing neutral characters who get in the way of a good character is not evil. If killing on its own was evil in dnd, there would be no such thing as a good party or good campaign. Everyone would be playing evil campaigns.
thepuregamer 10-29-04, 06:38 AM	So, the cleric murderer a nonevil beeing in order to protect an evil beeing which attacked the drow. That clearly is not a good or even neutral act. This is one interpretation of the event. Another interpretation could easily be that the good cleric killed a neutral drow who was disrupting his leadership in the party. Do note the idea of interpretation. If there were no interpretation required to judge the event, you would be right. Dnd would have a black and white alignment system. But it obviously has some shades of gray.
Derren S. 10-29-04, 06:51 AM	But there is an issue here, is killing a nongood sentient creature bad? Yes, it is. See the BoED for it [...] Killing good creatures is a characteristic of evil. Killing evil creatures is a characteristic of good. Killing neutral characters who get in the way of a good character is not evil. Wrong. Killing a evil creature doesn't make the act good. A evil shopkeeper who surprises his evil wive with her evil love and kills both didn't do good. Killing a neutral person is evil unless you had a reason for it. If killing on its own was evil in dnd, there would be no such thing as a good party or good campaign. Everyone would be playing evil campaigns. If the party breaks into lairs and slaughter the inhabitants only to get their belongings they are certainly evil. There are a few circumstances where killing is neutral, like killing in self defence or protecting innocents, both which do not apply to this scenario, so the killing was evil. Another interpretation could easily be that the good cleric killed a neutral drow who was disrupting his leadership in the party. Then the cleric wouldn't be good. Killing because one disrupts your leadership is LE.
markhaus 10-29-04, 06:58 AM	...my mention of it depends on what the character thought was in reference to whether he feels kobolds are the trod upon race of the world forced into the terrible things they do, and whether he thought the drow was going to torture the poor creature. If he said "Arg, you want to nonviolently capture and incarserate my evil friend" then yes what he did was evil. If he thought to himself "That evil bastard is going to torture the poor creature till it is dead" then he was not evil. My point is we are only hearing one side and cannot make judgement on the cleric based off of it. (you are allowed to kill even good creatures if doing so prevents torture or death of a nonevil creature)
Chasmodai 10-29-04, 07:04 AM	I do not think that race has anything to do with it. As the OP said, the cleric player has something for kobolds (cute, fuzzy creatures or something), which might had biased his viewpoint somewhat. To look at the circumstances - unarmed drow with kobold captive facing down a cleric with a greatsword. The cleric wants the drow to let the kobold go. I don't care how much you hate drows, letting the kobold run down into its hidey-hole is one the worst tactical decisions you can make. The drow, of course, says no. Almost any sensible player would. There is no good reason to be letting go of that kobold (besides the cleric pointing his sword at you). I can only assume he tries to formulate a reasonable discussion with the cleric on why it won't be good to do so. The cleric refuses to listen, gives an unfair ultimatum and kills the drow. While one can argue that the cleric was just looking for a reason to kill the drow (because he was a drow and therefore evil), that doesn't mean he does not fall and become evil himself. A false reason or justification for murder is as bad as no reason at all. At best, the cleric did what he thought was best for the future of the party. At worst, he acted in a way that is unforgivable in any world, including ours.
thepuregamer 10-29-04, 08:36 AM	Except in cases of alignment altering actions, the way this is viewed makes it different. Good characters kill evil people. Good characters kill people they assume are evil. Very often, they do not stop to make sure the people they are attacking are evil. They say, " those men look like bandits" or "there is no such thing as a harmless baby ettin". Supposed chaotic good characters have their own version of what is right and wrong and I don't think that a short time spent adventuring with a drow is going to change the fact that he is a drow for good party members. Drow represent something very specific. It is called evil. The idea of a non evil drow is like one out of several thousand. If in the eyes of the cleric of the party, the drow starts instigating over how things should be done. Especially after the finish of a combat situation, it looks like he is making a power play. Killing the drow was not neccessarily an act of cruelty. It was killing but it was swift as well. It was not prolonged and the guy did not extract any overt enjoyment from it. By the way I am pulling a thousand details out of the air to liven up the description. This is how it could be perceived. Why do you think good races have racial enemies of sorts? Because dwarves expect to be killing orcs and goblins.
Thorak 10-29-04, 08:47 AM	Thorak, don't mix reality and fantasy. Black people in reality aren't generally evil. There is not a general trend. I never claimed as much, I just used terms that could be equally applied to reality to make people think about it. Though to take a mimetic interepretation of the Drizzt books, his racial profiling is representative of "real" racial profiling, and the main thrust of the books is that even if you have actual reasons to hate/fear a racial group, you may be wrong about specific individuals. Drow in fantasy have an obvious trend toward evil. It is not so much as racism without a reason as prejudice and expectations with a reason. Drow are 99.9999% of the time evil. Every time, a group of adventurers find a group of goblins, they do not stop to ask them if they are evil. They would likely ambush them or attack right away. This, as with anything, depends on the situation. If you are in a perfectly peaceful town, and come across a group of goblins happily chatting away in the local pub, and nobody else has a problem with them, you're most certainly being psychotically evil if you attack them, or ambush them as they leave. If you're in a dangerous dungeon with critters trying to kill you, fine, but you can't always assume they're evil. And I'd assume that, after the 2 months or whatever they'd been traveling together, the cleric had figured out that his Drow companion wasn't evil. Again, the situation makes the act unconscionably evil; if he just came across a drow holding a kobold captive, it would be a greyer situation. But his companion? Killing him was evil. If this cleric guy is seemingly the leader of group and he has hatred of drow, he is very likely to be looking for any excuse to kill a drow that is in their party. He could even think that all the drow's heroics are just him trying to steal his position in the party. Alignment is not so simple as you make it. The drow character doesn't have the words true neutral over his head for everyone to see. Alignment is not a defense or form of protection. Alignment is not a defense, but just as much it is not a reason for conviction, either, for the exact same reasons. And that's what the cleric did; "Drow are evil, he's threatening a creature I like, so I kill him". So his answer yes to your lynching point is pretty much correct. Killing the drow doesn't make him evil. It makes him untrusting and a control-freak. If the rest of the party didn't turn on him the second he attacked that means they regard him as the leader. I believe the fact that you approve lynching based on race pretty much sums up my entire point well enough to need no further comment.
markhaus 10-29-04, 09:27 AM	My point was we dont know the circumstances b/c we are only hearing one player's view. Not to say the poster is intentionally lying, but he is kind of biased, meaning his representation of the facts may be biased. To look at the circumstances - unarmed drow with kobold captive facing down a cleric with a greatsword. The cleric wants the drow to let the kobold go. I don't care how much you hate drows, letting the kobold run down into its hidey-hole is one the worst tactical decisions you can make. If this were the case the right answer may be to change the characters alignment and punish him (which apparently the DM did. suggesting that this was probably the correct belief) We are only getting one side (which may very well be the correct one) w/o hearing what the other players side is, a true decision cannot be made. The DM got both sides of the story and probably made the proper decision. On the boards this is simply one players view. Thats all im saying. (and that i hate drow ;) )
a18ffe 10-29-04, 01:18 PM	One sided???? Please markhaus, enlighten us on the possibilities? Any 'thoughts', the cleric had is not a revelant argument. Example Quote from you: ---------------------------------------------------------------- If he 'thought' to himself "That evil bastard is going to torture the poor creature till it is dead" then he was not evil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reason: The drow hasn't done it yet. You can't kill a guy for a murder he has not commited yet. You also can't use these: 1) "Drow's are inherently evil." This one wasn't. He was neutral. 2) "He did not listen to my authority." You do not kill party members if they do not listen to you. Unless you are evil. 3) <continue>
Derren S. 10-29-04, 01:50 PM	Except in cases of alignment altering actions, the way this is viewed makes it different. Good characters kill evil people. Yes, that happens often as as evil often threatens innocents which good want to protect but good doesn't mean that you have to kill evil, only to opose it. Show me in the PHB where good and killing is mentioned together. Nowhere. Only when talking about evil alignments killing is mentioned. Good characters kill people they assume are evil. Now we are getting to the point where paladins fall. Very often, they do not stop to make sure the people they are attacking are evil. They say, " those men look like bandits" or "there is no such thing as a harmless baby ettin". And they are mostly right, but when they are not they do evil and have to deal with the consequences, Why do you think do paladins have detect evil at will? Supposed chaotic good characters have their own version of what is right and wrong and I don't think that a short time spent adventuring with a drow is going to change the fact that he is a drow for good party members. Yes, he is a drow and? For a good person deeds and alignment matters, not race. The cleric might be suspicious, but he can't kill him as the drow is not and does not evil. Drow represent something very specific. It is called evil. The idea of a non evil drow is like one out of several thousand. Thats better than what many other races can be. Drows are usually neutral evil. that means 50% of them are NE. That also means that 50% of them are not NE. If we say that the half of those drow are LE or CE it still leaves 25% of Drow which are neutral or good. You simply can't act based on predjudic and racism and stay good as it is very likely that they are wrong. If in the eyes of the cleric of the party, the drow starts instigating over how things should be done. Especially after the finish of a combat situation, it looks like he is making a power play. A good character would discuss it, a neutral one would hold a vote or try to overpower the drow and only a evil character would murder the opposition especially when they don't threaten and have rescued his live in the past. Killing the drow was not neccessarily an act of cruelty. It was killing but it was swift as well. It was murder and therefore evil. How the drow was killed doesn't change that. It was not prolonged and the guy did not extract any overt enjoyment from it. By the way I am pulling a thousand details out of the air to liven up the description. This is how it could be perceived. Why do you think good races have racial enemies of sorts? Because dwarves expect to be killing orcs and goblins. Because those races often clash in battle as 50% of all orks are CE. But when there is a peacfull living town of notevil orks, the dwarves would do an evil act when they kill them. Its that simple. Alignment transcendence society and race. It doesn't matter if you murder someone from a race where the most members are evil, you still murderer and murder is evil. People might have prejudices against other races, aligment have none. To alignment everyone is the same. And when a person does evil he becomes evil and falls if he is a paladin or cleric even if that person believes he does good. That doesn't matter.
Kakerate 10-29-04, 01:54 PM	So the cleric said he was doing good for his god!? You actually typed that. The cleric is definitly out of line and I'd say he has just lost his good alignment. I'd also say you could haunt him, but I'd rather have you raised as a skeleton and armed to the teeth with magic gear, then sent to get vengeance by the cleric's god. I mean it says alot when the PC's kill each other. They are a team and to kill each other is like killing fellow workers or schoolmates. I mean I never liked this Daniel Kid but If I killed him for a stupid reason like because he was black(he was white but this is just an example) I have done an evil act, no question about it. The Cleric had all day to discuss letting the Kobold go free, especially becuase the Drow showed no signs of hurting the kobold. I think that just because the cleric is predjudice carries no weight. Where the Salem witch trials(that killed people who were thought to do evil, or might do evil) or the conspiritors who killed Caesar doing good, I think not. Where as when the cleric can show no tolerance for a drow and kills shows that the cleric does evil. The cleric cant just kill because he doesn't get his way. That is what I think happened.
markhaus 10-29-04, 03:11 PM	One sided???? Please markhaus, enlighten us on the possibilities? Any 'thoughts', the cleric had is not a revelant argument. It is onesided b/c one person in this situation has posted this thread. We do not know what the situation was b/c we are only hearing one side. If the drow slaughtered off a village before this incident, we dont know. My point is that we only heard one side AND i said the player was probably right b/c his DM knocked the clerics alignment to CN. As we are only hearing one side it may be biased. Judges dont often hear one side of the argument and say "Yeah, that guys guilty" they would like to hear whether the man they shot was armed or threatening them. In this particular case we (as the "peanut gallery") have only heard one side and can make judgement based solely off this one biased source. That is what my posts have been in regards to. Possibilities that he may not have mentioned: His character has tortured prisoners in the past. Whether the kobolds were willfully doing these things Whether the cleric had a good feeling that the drow would torture someone. A paladin doesnt wait for the drow to slaughter the village. By preventing violence one proves true goodness. Now many of you will (once again) take what I am saying out of context. What i am saying is that the DM was probably right, as is this PCs viewpoint. But we cannot simply condemn someone based off onesided testimony. (and i hate drow ;) )
The_Dark_One 10-29-04, 03:29 PM	Let's look at this intimidate roll first. 12 kobolds versus 1 drow. A race known for their viciousness, cruelty and knack for taking kobold slaves. They are also a race known for travelling in packs (so many enemies, so many opportunuties for revenge). Depending on what was said, a 19 would have been sufficient to get the kobolds to clear off, if nothing else. Maybe your attempt to Intimidate worked all too well. Maybe they were convinced that you were just trying to stall them until the other Drow arrived to kill or enslave them. Maybe they decided to take out the one Drow they could see and then run away... :mymy:
Kakerate 10-29-04, 03:43 PM	A paladin doesnt wait for the drow to slaughter the village. By preventing violence one proves true goodness. but if he just kills them for what they would have done with no factual evidence(the cleric) had none as far as we were told, then he would be doing evil. but if the palidin gets hold of plans to kill the village or he overhears them talking(or intimidates one into talking) then the palidin has every right to take first strike. To do otherwise is evil and not just. I see the cleric had time to discuss(intimidate) the Drow. By not doing so he forfeits any (good) cause for killing the Drow. Just because he killed the Drow out of spite(hate for their race) does not make it ok!! Was Adolf Hitler doing good by killing Jews!(he was definitly predjudice against them)HE WAS CERTAINLY NOT DOING GOOD! So how can you say its ok for the cleric to kill for that reason. How! Now if the drow was threatening the kobold the cleric should have done Non-leathal damage to try to save both of them, but most of all to All I am saying is that the cleric was not being good, he committed and evil act, and his fellow party members were accomplices because they did nothing to stop the crime. If your holy cleric stepped onto an ant by accident one day and then later happened upon an ant god, that god would consider him evil but any other god would say, " so what he only killed an ant." The ant god will consider him an enemy, but that has nothing to do with the alignment of the cleric. Killing a nonsentient beeing by acciedent without torturing or purposefully putting it at risk is neutral in D&D. Commands from the gods determine what is good and evil. I cant state it any other way. I would like to hear someone elses opinion though. Which gods determine this? I have no Idea. All I know is when someone follows a god doing good is doing it their gods way. For when you have no god(or dont worship one) Helping others is good, while harming others is evil. When is harming ever good? You can do good by harming someone but you still have to harm them. Harming others is evil. Harming even an ant is evil. If you are Osama bin Laden(then you think it(harming others) is good but it is still evil).
eRaz0r 10-29-04, 03:50 PM	You should also note that he killed a nongood being. Not just a non evil being. A chaotic neutral being who tends toward neither does not matter in the eyes of good or evil. Completely incorrect. The act of killing someone who is not a threat is an absolutely evil act, in the world of DnD. Like the real world, there are a few defenses to the charge of Unlawful Killing. 1/ Self Defense, or the Defense of another. 2/ Diminished responsibility. 3/ Accident. If the Cleric honestly believed that the drow was a credible threat to the kobold, then he could justify his actions as defense of another. But it was obvious that the Drow was already in negotiations about the fate of the evil Kobold (who was a known enemy) and therefore not a credible threat. Honestly, your views of morality are somehwat skewed. "Good" != "slaughter those who are not good", even in DnD.
eRaz0r 10-29-04, 04:09 PM	A paladin doesnt wait for the drow to slaughter the village. By preventing violence one proves true goodness. Now many of you will (once again) take what I am saying out of context. What i am saying is that the DM was probably right, as is this PCs viewpoint. But we cannot simply condemn someone based off onesided testimony. (and i hate drow ;) ) A group of people wade into your home and slaughter your family. Were they Good ? or Evil? circumstances I omitted : You and your family are Drow. How about now ? Were they doing Good, or Evil ? More circumstances I omitted : You and your family were all NG splinters from Drow society, and minding your own business, but the humans were a band of bandits looting your treasure. Changed your mind ? Ok, so what if it changes and you were all NE Drow who, simply because you've been out of circulation for a while, haven't tortured anyone for years, but might possibly do so, if circumstances permitted... But the humans are still bandits looting your treasure. Guess what? It doesn't matter that your alignment says "NE". It matters that the people who killed you did so without provocation (other than their own greed) and with no thought to protecting others. It's still evil to kill people without just cause. Racism and prejudice are never just cause for murder. It's that simple. A true paladin would not take it upon himself to seek out Drow because they might slaughter a village. If it were probable that nearby Drow had made threats against the village in return for tribute, he might consider negotiation before wholesale slaughter. If he was certain (and he'd have to be damn certain) that the Drow would go through with their threat, then strategically he might consider a swift, surgical pre-emptive strike to forestall greater casualties on either side. In any case, a true paladin would find the decison of a first strike a difficult one to make because of the possibility that his actions might provoke the remainder of his enemies to greater fervor against the innocents he is sworn to protect, in retaliation. But I hold paladins up to a code approaching sainthood. Not everyone understands that the Paladin isn't just a class with some cool abilities.
Aluroon 10-29-04, 04:12 PM	Drow are 99.9999% of the time evil. Very, Very wrong. Example: Worshipers of Eilistraee. Example: (Yeh I've g2 use it) Drizzt! So I would put it more at 80% Evil, 10% Neural, 10% Good. Just needed to say that. Aluroon
eRaz0r 10-29-04, 04:20 PM	Commands from the gods determine what is good and evil. I cant state it any other way. Not in DnD. Alignment is above the gods. Gods don't tell you what is good, just what is good for them... An evil God might convince his worshippers that doing Evil is good for him, and therefore, for them. But DnD doesn't bother saying that this stuff is "good". Moral relativity isn't a philosophy that works in DnD. Gods have Alignments, which tell you how their morals work in an absolute scheme. Detect Evil wouldn't otherwise work on anyone who fervently believed they were doing good, but was truly doing evil. Of course, whether morality in the real world is relative or absolute is irrelevant to DnD. Detect Evil really works. People who perform actions that are evil, show up as evil. It doesn't matter that they believe their actions to be good, or whether a God told them to do something and that it was good to do so. If the act falls into a list of things marked as "evil" it is so. Some wiggle room is left for things like being duped, dominated or mistaken, but if you intend to perform a certain act, and you know what the effect of that act will be, and that act is labelled as "evil", then it was evil you performed.
markhaus 10-29-04, 04:21 PM	A group of people wade into your home and slaughter your family. Were they Good ? or Evil? circumstances I omitted : You and your family are Drow. How about now ? Were they doing Good, or Evil ? More circumstances I omitted : You and your family were all NG splinters from Drow society, and minding your own business, but the humans were a band of bandits looting your treasure. Now you are getting the idea. If the drow were torturing everyone in a 10 mile radius to death the adventurers were justified. But what if the spirits of these drow omit this tiny lil fact? What if they tell you that they were minding their own business when a group burst in and slaughtered them. Earlier I said: Now many of you will (once again) take what I am saying out of context. What i am saying is that the DM was probably right, as is this PCs viewpoint. But we cannot simply condemn someone based off onesided testimony. As such we cannot condemn this cleric w/o knowing his side of the story. And many times people wander into a kobold's home and then slaughter their people. Are they evil for trying to kill the adventurers? Are the adventurers evil for killing them? w/o knowing the full situation any judgement you make is faulty. As we cannot know the full situation in this case we cannot reasonably make assumptions as to the innocence or guilt of either party member.
Kakerate 10-29-04, 04:43 PM	Not in DnD. Alignment is above the gods. Gods don't tell you what is good, just what is good for them... An evil God might convince his worshippers that doing Evil is good for him, and therefore, for them. But DnD doesn't bother saying that this stuff is "good". Moral relativity isn't a philosophy that works in DnD. Gods have Alignments, which tell you how their morals work in an absolute scheme. Detect Evil wouldn't otherwise work on anyone who fervently believed they were doing good, but was truly doing evil. Of course, whether morality in the real world is relative or absolute is irrelevant to DnD. Detect Evil really works. People who perform actions that are evil, show up as evil. It doesn't matter that they believe their actions to be good, or whether a God told them to do something and that it was good to do so. If the act falls into a list of things marked as "evil" it is so. Some wiggle room is left for things like being duped, dominated or mistaken, but if you intend to perform a certain act, and you know what the effect of that act will be, and that act is labelled as "evil", then it was evil you performed. Yes I totally agree, but what I meant was that without St. Cuthbert, Pelor, and the rest of the Goodies is that the people in D&D wouldn't know it to be evil to do evil things had the good gods said its ok to kill( they can only do good because they decided what good is for everyone and Evil is not doing their set of good things. Evil is what the gods Erthnull, Vecna, Weejas decided it was evil ) otherwise there would be no good and no evil for how are the principles they both depend on based(there is nothing to base good on if no one decides what is good and what is evil).
eRaz0r 10-29-04, 04:56 PM	As such we cannot condemn this cleric w/o knowing his side of the story. Actually, there's little he can say that can justify the murder of a companion other than to contradict what actually took place. On the face of it : Group of companions enter a dungeon - their purpose : adventure. they fall into a hole, during which the Drow saves the group from certain disaster, proving himself to be at least somewhat concerned for the groups welfare. They come across creatures who they fight. Perhaps they were the agressors, perhaps they were defending themselves against territorial creatures who thought them intruders. Either way, it's not exactly good to kill Kobolds who were minding their own business. It's not truly evil unless it was their intention to slaughter them all for their treasure. During this fight, several character slay several Kobolds. At the conclusion, the Drow has captured a Kobold which he doesn't wish to release for fear that it will simply regroup with its friends and come against the whole group later. The Cleric, for reasons unclear, decides to kill the Drow presumably because he will not let the Kobold go simply on the clerics order. How, would you say, could the Cleric put a non-evil face on this ? Perhaps the Drow has shown his selfish evil nature in the past? That contradicts the Drow-players story outright. Perhaps the Cleric had some reason to believe the Drow couldn't be reasoned with ? Maybe. but his inability or unwillingnes to explain or justify his desire to free the Kobold was also unreasonable. If one enforces one's own unreasonable decisions on others through killing them - that's evil. I really don't know what the Cleric could add (other than "that's not the way it happened at all!") to salvage his alignment description. And many times people wander into a kobold's home and then slaughter their people. Are they evil for trying to kill the adventurers? Are the adventurers evil for killing them? The adventurers are probably evil, except insofar as they might be defending others (exacting justice for past evils known to be committed may not be evil, but might not be strictly good, either). Certainly if their intention was "lets kill some nasty kobolds and take their treasure" - that's evil. No doubt about it. Of course we like to gloss over that when we play because it's not usually as much fun to play saints as it is to play sinners :D even deluded self-righteous "I'm really on the side of good" sinners. The Kobolds are not evil for defending themselves in the slightest. Although their previous actions and dispostion might make them evil, that is strictly irrelevant to the question in hand : was it evil for them to defend their homes? No it was not. w/o knowing the full situation any judgement you make is faulty. As we cannot know the full situation in this case we cannot reasonably make assumptions as to the innocence or guilt of either party member. Unless the "full situation" contains information that contradicts the information we have, I have no problem making a call on the nature of an act. It's really very black and white. Only when there are some issues of doubt or contradiction would more information actually change my assessment. But I'm perfectly convinced that most people are not "good" under the DnD alignment system. At best, they're neutral, looking out for themselves and willing to work with others for mutual benefit. Few people are self-sacrificing enough to warrant the DnD label "Good". Don't forget - even if the Cleric thought the Kobold was in real danger, he could have easily used non-lethal damage instead of lethal damage on his companion. That would have ended the situation without bloodshed. There was no need for a death here. What the Cleric did was Evil.
The_Dark_One 10-29-04, 04:58 PM	or the conspiritors who killed Caesar doing good, I think not. Actually, I'm pretty sure Caesar had it coming. He was trying to turn a Republic into a dictatorship run by him. If that doesn't merit death, nothing does.
Kakerate 10-29-04, 05:02 PM	And many times people wander into a kobold's home and then slaughter their people. Are they evil for trying to kill the adventurers? Are the adventurers evil for killing them? w/o knowing the full situation any judgement you make is faulty. As we cannot know the full situation in this case we cannot reasonably make assumptions as to the innocence or guilt of either party member. I beg to differ. If a paladin walks on kobold land and the kobolds attack him, he has the right to defend himself. The kobolds had their chance to reason with him, and unless he is disgracing their land(taking a dump in their well or other such damaging actions) then they made a mistake by making assumptions and attacking the party. Now if you were to walk up to my house and knock on the door, I cannot leagally shoot you untill I have warned you and show you my weapon and give you time to leave and during that time you show no signs of leaving and no signs of being able to leave. Now if I kill you it is called manslaughter and I will go strait to jail. Though shooting you isn't the best(goodest) thing I can do I am doing evil to harm(shoot). So then I say that a palidin defending himself is more a neutral act as long as he is not trying to kill them. I dont think that killing is an option for a paladin. Really. I think that paladins get no pull as to poison on their weapons so why for killing? I think it is becuase paladins are also punishers of evil. So they can Judge evil how they wish based on what that evil has done. That does not give a paladin the right to single out a creature and kill it because it is evil. It has to do evil first. Paladins may also feel it is honerable to fight evil to the death so that evil may die honerably. Neither of these reasons apply to what was said by markhaus about not knowing the full situation, but I'm pretty sure the cleric should punish the drow without killing him. And if the Drow did evil before then the cleric should have punished him then but not now for no reason. What reason could the cleric have for KILLING the drow? The cleric is committing such an evil act as this and loosing his alignment over it and you say "oh well their might be a reason for it"! Well let me say this," I dont care if the cleric can think up one! That is because in my book doing what was done constitutes evil and makes no sense to me. I doubt the cleric PC had any worthy reason for killing the Drow." And if you can think up one Lets hear it! :D
White rabbit 10-29-04, 05:05 PM	Killing neutral characters who get in the way of a good character is not evil. So fireballing a group of neutrals who happen to be near an evil person is justified because the evil one died? Sorry, that just don't fly. Every attempt must be made to seperate the evil one from the neutrals before nuking them all. You also said that the cleric was protecting his position of authority as leader of the group. Where did the original poster say that the cleric was the leader? In either case, that is no justification for a good cleric to kill a neutral party member that he has had the past 5 months to study and see if he was good, neutral, or evil. Assuming that's the case, it's still an evil act. NO MATTER THE RACE.
eRaz0r 10-29-04, 05:09 PM	Yes I totally agree, but what I meant was that without St. Cuthbert, Pelor, and the rest of the Goodies is that the people in D&D wouldn't know it to be evil to do evil things had the good gods said its ok to kill( they can only do good because they decided what good is for everyone and Evil is not doing their set of good things. Evil is what the gods Erthnull, Vecna, Weejas decided it was evil ) otherwise there would be no good and no evil for how are the principles they both depend on based(there is nothing to base good on if no one decides what is good and what is evil). This belief sounds like it comes from a common misconception in the real worlds : that morality is what some external authoritarian figure decides it is. In the case of DnD, the Gods didn't decide what was good and evil and tell everyone what that was - they are held to a higher absolute. This is supported in the real world through several moral philosophy systems which derive an absolute moral system Deus In Absentia. That is to say : you don't need a god to tell you what is right. What is Right is absolute. Whether or not moral philosophers in the real world have successfully developed absolute moral systems without the need for a deity, happens to be irrelevant in DnD, though. The rules of the game define what is good and what is evil, in absolute terms. The Gods, being just another figment of the game, are subject to these labels as much as the PCs and the Monsters are. Vecna and Bahamut and Pelor can't just suddenly get together one day and change what's good and evil. They can try and tell everyone that what Vecna does is now called "good" and what Pelor says is now "evil', but it changes nothing. The game, at a higher level, would still refer to those things by their original names.
Krelios 10-29-04, 05:16 PM	Okay, this discussion is officially frightening if even half the people here believe the BS they're spewing... It. is. a. drow. Many good characters would kill him just for existing.Those characters would have their alignment shifted a step toward chaotic and a step toward evil. The only people who kill someone because of the way they look are psychopathic serial killers. Even more frightening are how many people agree with this. If a "good" cleric murders an ally that he knows is not evil (and this Drow was in fact helping them and saving their lives, so it goes a bit beyond that), it is an EVIL act. There's no two ways about it. The fact that he murdered the Drow who was simply restraining a monster that attacked him rather than explaining his reasoning to the Drow makes it a CHAOTIC act. The DM was exactly right in moving his alignment from CG to CN and striking some of his powers (at least for a while). Since this is a cleric of Kord (best guess given the description) Kord would probably strip ALL of his powers until an atonement spell was cast since treachery and murder aren't exactly his cup of tea as a "protector of the weak." To sum it up... Just because the PC was playing a black character does NOT make it okay to murder him... Sheesh.
Kakerate 10-29-04, 05:21 PM	Actually, I'm pretty sure Caesar had it coming. He was trying to turn a Republic into a dictatorship run by him. If that doesn't merit death, nothing does. Ah but there was no "proof". He may have just as easily gone with the republic. Anyway you think about it he wasn't exactly doing evil untill he has planned it or has done it and there is proof.
markhaus 10-29-04, 05:28 PM	To sum it up... Just because the PC was playing a black character does NOT make it okay to murder him... Sheesh. you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Do you even know what races the people who are speaking on these boards are? I thought not. Simply put drow are not black people. They are an evil underground race who's favorite pasttime is going to the surface to slaughter peace loving forest elves. It would be more like killing an SS officer then a black person or jew. Actually, no. There is no realistic analog to the drow race. They are a fantasy race that is 99.99% evil. For the most part killing drow is always justified. Many good characters attacked Drizzt before they realized either A: who he was or B: that he was actually good. My posts have been in relation to the fact we dont know what went on with the kobolds, drow and cleric. The kobolds may have simply been defending their homes. In which case releasing them is the good thing to do. They may also have been mindcontrolled. You say it isnt right to kill the drow, but we dont know all the facts b/c we are hearing this from the player who played the drow.
Kakerate 10-29-04, 05:33 PM	Okay, this discussion is officially frightening if even half the people here believe the BS they're spewing... Those characters would have their alignment shifted a step toward chaotic and a step toward evil. The only people who kill someone because of the way they look are psychopathic serial killers. Here! Here! I second that. although I would consider it a step directly to evil and chaotic, plus I'd deem it an insane act of violence. I think that what is right is what is right. No need to determine where it came from. What is right is right and thats what I'm gonna do untill its wrong. And I say that because the gods in D&D only do good or evil with their powers they are what PROVES what is good and evil. The D&D people of the world would know no good or evil standards otherwise. The D&D gods are the cause of this evil. One who does not worship a god will be doing evil if they harm. Do you have any proof that I'm wrong in thinking that eRaz0r? Remember that forcing someone or telling or helping someone do evil is just as evil as doing it yourself if not more so. I dont know where you got this idea that (good is just good and everybody just has always known that from the start by themselves Bull^#$%)
Kakerate 10-29-04, 05:36 PM	You say it isnt right to kill the drow, but we dont know all the facts b/c we are hearing this from the player who played the drow. TELL ME AND THE OTHERS ON THIS BOARD HOW TO MAKE IT RIGHT TO KILL THE DROW! PLEASE! they could have done non-leathal or talked it out. Killing is no answer. Otherwise I see no reason to even consider your point.
Kakerate 10-29-04, 06:01 PM	It would be more like killing an SS officer then a black person or jew. Do you have proof this person did evil? If so state it. I may be wrong but the criminal who just got out of jail did pay for his crime so even though he may be evil I can not just punish him for how he feels or thinks. I need proof of an evil act to judge him. Even if he is an SS officer.
Sucineri 10-29-04, 06:03 PM	Let me give 2 views of racism based on what 'their' races have done.. There is still quite a high percent of white people that lock their car doors when they see black people walking down the street. Now they aren't killing the black people..but they are suspicious of them, it's slightly justified as long as you keep it to yourself (ie..locking your door and going about your business). A lot of white people deep down believe that a black guy will steal your car, jack your purse, break into your house, etc unless you lock the door or tell them to go away. In the example, white people are showing a neutral alignment..they are just trying to protect their interests..but they aren't trying to harm others because of what they believe. In the immediate days after 9/11 many muslim americans or even americans that LOOKED like they MAY come from the middle east were beaten and/or killed because of what 'their people' did to the USA. These people acted in a truly evil way..beating people up because of what OTHER people did is just wrong. Both these examples are racism..varying degrees, but they are still racism. Now as far as '99.99%' being the same as 'always' is not right. 'Often' is 40-50%. 'Usually' is 50% (or more..so I would say 50-60%). 'Always' I would say it more around the 75-90%..but not any more than that. So Orcs and Drow and Fire Giants and so on CAN be non-evil, people just don't give a crap if they are or not when they kill them..and that's racism.
eRaz0r 10-29-04, 07:40 PM	I think that what is right is what is right. No need to determine where it came from. What is right is right and thats what I'm gonna do untill its wrong. And I say that because the gods in D&D only do good or evil with their powers they are what PROVES what is good and evil. The D&D people of the world would know no good or evil standards otherwise. The D&D gods are the cause of this evil. One who does not worship a god will be doing evil if they harm. Do you have any proof that I'm wrong in thinking that eRaz0r? Remember that forcing someone or telling or helping someone do evil is just as evil as doing it yourself if not more so. I dont know where you got this idea that (good is just good and everybody just has always known that from the start by themselves Bull^#$%) I'm unsure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that Gods tell everyone what right and wrong are ? That what is morally right for a worshipper of a God is different than what is right for someone who has no belief in a deity (or at least, pays them no mind) ? If that is correct, then if my chosen deity tells me it's good to kill all drow, all the time, with or without provocation... then that is good and right for me. But if I suddenly choose not to believe in that god (or any) , killing Drow without provocation suddenly becomes wrong ? Isn't that just saying morality is relative ? That whoever you worship, or wherever you grew up governs what is right for you, and not necessarily what's right for me ? In the absolute world of DnD, that is not correct. The moral system of DnD is defined in the alignment system and any relative beliefs are just that: beliefs. Finally, I never said everyone knows what is right automatically. You aren't born knowing it, and while your language is offensive, your observation is correct : that's Bull^#$%. However, whatever one knows or believes to be good or evil is irrelevant. In DnD, good and evil are well defined. They don't vary according to ones knowledge or beliefs. You may believe you are doing good because your God told you it was good to rampage across the country raping and pillaging. But you (and your God) would be wrong. And please - if you're going to insult me, at least have the decency to understand what I'm saying first.
Palin the Wizard 10-29-04, 08:08 PM	At its heart, 'killing' is a Neutral act. Animals kill for food. Only circumstances will modify the act towards Evil or Good. However, fact is, most of the time, those circumstances will point towards Evil. A killing can never be a Good act, unless the act purposefully protects the life of others. Killing evil creatures are not automatically a Good act... If it was, we'd have tons of orcs who suddenly are Good (orcs generally only follow the strongest leader--ie., the one who kills the opposition). That'd be weird.
Thorak 10-29-04, 11:22 PM	It would be more like killing an SS officer then a black person or jew. Being an SS officer wasn't a crime, after WWII. Engaging in war crimes was. Note that they had big, public trials for war criminals after the war. They had to be proven guilty of war crimes before they were killed. So yes, killing someone for being an SS officer would be evil. What if he joined the SS because he secretly disagreed with the policies, and thought he could work more good from within than without? It happened. Heck, look at Schindler, there's even a Hollywood movie if you don't want to do research. He wasn't an SS officer, but he was a factory owner producing war supplies. Killing based on an arbitrary designation is evil. Being a Drow doesn't mean he's killed others. It means it's likely, yes, but that's hardly proof. That's like saying "We know 3 of the 4 people in this room are serial killers, so we'll just kill all three of you to be sure." There's at least a 75% chance that each one of them had killed many others, after all. But you're still killing an innocent for no good reason.
thepuregamer 10-30-04, 01:49 AM	Ok this thread has gotten silly. This is not a real life senario. Everyone who pulls out their racism cards or genocide cards are being stupid. The holocaust or slavery are not useful comparisons to this issue. Jews were not evil people in general. There is nothing to point to this. Killing hordes of jews was an obviously evil thing to do. But drow are not black people. That is also a extremely flawed example. They are an inherently evil race. The drizzt books cannot really be used as an example of the drow being 80% evil 10% neutral and 10% good. No these are what is known as random occurences. Rare events. It ends up being a race that is 99% evil and 1% other. Now I will admit that I have very little to go on to show that this cleric has not done an evil act. So my previous post was filling in holes in the story. The idea of perception is valid because although you claim that dnd puts alignment in black and white a person decides where each incident lies. Alignment is very much a description of a characters morals and personality. So if a character truly thinks he is doing good, he is either good or mentally unstable. He either sees the world in from the perspective in the phb or some other view. Now Markhaus is right. We do not have all the facts. And there are circumstances that move this act between good and evil. If the cleric doesn't trust the drow to keep his hands off the kobald, he is doing what he thinks is right to protect the kobald from the drow. In dnd, races carry obvious connotation whether you like it or not. You cannot have your party go up to every drow and say, hey are you good? Except for a paladin who has detect evil at will, other groups go off of their person understandings of things. A good character who kills a person they believe to be evil is not committing an evil act. They are making a mistake. I will continue this idea another time but it sorta goes like this. You can't call something black and white when people are the ones who decide which side things fall on.
Derren S. 10-30-04, 02:22 AM	Everyone who pulls out their racism cards or genocide cards are being stupid. Then why have you started using it? The drizzt books cannot really be used as an example of the drow being 80% evil 10% neutral and 10% good. No these are what is known as random occurences. Rare events. It ends up being a race that is 99% evil and 1% other. Try to prove it and you will see that you are wrong. 50% of the drow are NE, the rest can be of what alignment they wan. And when you look at the FR, look at the thousand and thousands of nonevel, surface living Elistaree folowers. Now I will admit that I have very little to go on to show that this cleric has not done an evil act. Because he did do an evil act. The idea of perception is valid because although you claim that dnd puts alignment in black and white a person decides where each incident lies. No. Alignment are cosmic forces like deities are. It can be worshiped. Belief has nothing to do with it. Try to prove taht it does. Alignment is very much a description of a characters morals and personality. Yes, ab absolute description, not a subjective one. So if a character truly thinks he is doing good, he is either good or mentally unstable. Or he is evil and only things he is doing good. He either sees the world in from the perspective in the phb or some other view. But only the PHB perspective counts, no matter what the person believes. Now Markhaus is right. We do not have all the facts. But from what we know we can say that it was an evil act and it is extremly unlikely that the cleric can explain his behavior. And there are circumstances that move this act between good and evil. If the cleric doesn't trust the drow to keep his hands off the kobald, he is doing what he thinks is right to protect the kobald from the drow. And he thinks wrong and he still does evil. His personal believe don't influence alignment. Or do you think Hitler was good? By your example he was good as he thought he was doing the right thing. In dnd, races carry obvious connotation whether you like it or not. You cannot have your party go up to every drow and say, hey are you good? Sure you can, the problem is does the party believe him? But it it possible. Except for a paladin who has detect evil at will, other groups go off of their person understandings of things. Or use sense motiv or let the cleric cast detect spells. rtc. A good character who kills a person they believe to be evil is not committing an evil act. He is doing evil, if the person is not evil and there is no reason to kill him. They are making a mistake. A mistak which may cost him ihis alignment. I will continue this idea another time but it sorta goes like this. You can't call something black and white when people are the ones who decide which side things fall on. But people don't decide, Good and Evil, which are real forces in the world do. Show me in the PHB where it says that personal believe influences alignemnt.
DrWorm 10-30-04, 03:41 AM	I can only find my 3.0 PHB, but here this seems to support the idea of an non-subjective morality in D&D: While acknowledging that good and evil are objective terms, not just opinions... page 88 when speaking about neutral characters. So while you may make good and evil sujective in your campaigns, it is not the standard for D&D.
Thorak 10-30-04, 01:23 PM	Ok this thread has gotten retarded. This is not a real life senario. Everyone who pulls out their racism cards or genocide cards are being stupid. The holocaust or slavery are not useful comparisons to this issue. Jews were not evil people in general. There is nothing to point to this. Killing hordes of jews was an obviously evil thing to do. But drow are not black people. That is also a extremely flawed example. I wasn't claiming any of the above, I only raised the skin color issue because you are being racist. You're judging an individual by what you think of others of his kind. That's racism. They are an inherently evil race. The drizzt books cannot really be used as an example of the drow being 80% evil 10% neutral and 10% good. No these are what is known as random occurences. Rare events. It ends up being a race that is 99% evil and 1% other. Got a source for those numbers? The MM says they're "usually" NE. This means that more are NE than any other alignment. Probably over 50% are NE. But 99%? That's a stretch. It's more accurate to say the "always XXX" alignments are the ones with the rare, unique exceptions. The "usually XXX" alignments have numerous, uncommon but noticeable, exceptions. Now I will admit that I have very little to go on to show that this cleric has not done an evil act. So my previous post was filling in holes in the story. The idea of perception is valid because although you claim that dnd puts alignment in black and white a person decides where each incident lies. Alignment is very much a description of a characters morals and personality. So if a character truly thinks he is doing good, he is either good or mentally unstable. He either sees the world in from the perspective in the phb or some other view. Now Markhaus is right. We do not have all the facts. And there are circumstances that move this act between good and evil. From a personal perspective. D&D good and evil are defined absolutely, though. A guy who thinks he's killing demons to save the world, but is really killing innocents, isn't Good in D&D; he's Evil. Despite what he believes. If the cleric doesn't trust the drow to keep his hands off the kobald, he is doing what he thinks is right to protect the kobald from the drow. If the cleric doesn't trust the drow, then he can demand the drow turn the kobold over to someone else. Or they can argue about what to do with the kobold. It doesn't justify killing the drow for not doing what he wants, since the kobold wasn't in any immediate danger. In dnd, races carry obvious connotation whether you like it or not. You cannot have your party go up to every drow and say, hey are you good? Except for a paladin who has detect evil at will, other groups go off of their person understandings of things. A good character who kills a person they believe to be evil is not committing an evil act. They are making a mistake. I will continue this idea another time but it sorta goes like this. You can't call something black and white when people are the ones who decide which side things fall on. Except, in D&D, people aren't the ones who decide. D&D alignment is absolute; PHB page 103; "Good and Evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are forces that define the cosmos." Good and evil are defined, and objective, not subjective. It even uses the term "objective" with regards to good and evil in discussing neutrals on the next page. The party can't ask every drow they encounter if they're Good or not. But they can act on reasonable assumptions, rather than pure unadulterated racism, as you disturbingly recommend. If the Drow attack you, defend yourself. If you're in the middle of a Drow encampment or city planning a raid, assume they're hostile. But if a Drow shouts "no, I am not like my brethren, I wish to escape this horrid place! Let me help you!" it would be an Evil act to then kill them. Just like it would be if you came across a group of Elistraee (sp?) worshippers who smiled invitingly and asked if they could aid you in any way. Or if you've been traveling with said drow for 2 months and he's become an ally. Racism is bad. Whether it's in D&D or the real world. And yes, judging every Drow to be a horribly evil creature is being racist. Sure, most of them are, but it's not a given. Ignoring exceptions because you want to kill them all is Evil.
thepuregamer 10-30-04, 06:14 PM	You guys are missing the obvious point I have been getting at the whole time. Who decides what is an alignment change? Is it absolute forces of the dnd world or the dm? In fact it is a dm's interpretation of these absolutes that decides what is and is not an evil act. So in fact it is not so absolute because a person with subjective thinking decides how to apply these ideas. I have also explained that real world racism is not so good a comparison because there is not the same general trends in people. Anyway, the thing about drow's alignment %'s is interesting because the I don't know where I would go to find it. I was just assuming that it was 99% evil. The mm says nothing about it really except the patron drow deity is lolth which doesn't bode well for your 50% mark. Anyway your 50% point cannot be affirmed but it is doubtful that it would be that low. And in fr, the followers of ellistrae if ranking in the thousands are a very small part of the drow population in fr. As a drow city in the underdark is many many times that number and their are several drow cities. Anyway as long as a dm decides where an action lies in terms of alignment, it is not so objective at all.
Derren S. 10-30-04, 06:35 PM	You guys are missing the obvious point I have been getting at the whole time. Who decides what is an alignment change? Is it absolute forces of the dnd world or the dm? The Dm is the absolute force in the D&D world. In fact it is a dm's interpretation of these absolutes that decides what is and is not an evil act. So in fact it is not so absolute because a person with subjective thinking decides how to apply these ideas. Yes, and what this person believes is absolute. if the DM thinks that what the cleric did was evil then it was evil no matter what the player of the cleric thinks. So the alignment is abolut and is set by the DM. I was just assuming that it was 99% evil. The mm says nothing about it really except the patron drow deity is lolth which doesn't bode well for your 50% mark. Anyway your 50% point cannot be affirmed but it is doubtful that it would be that low. Like your 99% is very doubtful that it would be so high. And in fr, the followers of ellistrae if ranking in the thousands are a very small part of the drow population in fr. As a drow city in the underdark is many many times that number and their are several drow cities. And now there are some drow cities less. And guess with which drow the surface races have more contact to? The surface living good drows or the underdark living evil drows? Anyway as long as a dm decides where an action lies in terms of alignment, it is not so objective at all. Wrong. One and only one instance (the DM) decides about alignment, so the DMs word on it is absolut. But you are moving to a meta level which has nothing to do with the original problem. D&D morality is absolut. The cleric can't excuse himself by saying that he thought that he does good as alignment is absolut. And this absolut alignment is set by the DM who has as only instance control over it.
thepuregamer 10-30-04, 06:40 PM	derren you still miss the point. I was not argueing that dm's do not decide what is evil and what is good. Rather I was saying that many dm's might decide differently on where things lie in the spectrum of good and evil. So that an issue which is as you say is absolute is actually often very subjective. So that the line of good and evil has a bit of room to move around when different dm's where those lines stand.
Derren S. 10-30-04, 06:46 PM	derren you still miss the point. I was not argueing that dm's do not decide what is evil and what is good. Rather I was saying that many dm's might decide differently on where things lie in the spectrum of good and evil. So that an issue which is as you say is absolute is actually often very subjective. So that the line of good and evil has a bit of room to move around when different dm's where those lines stand. Still, that is a meta problem and has nothing to do with the D&D game world. In this world alignment is absolut. That some DMs decide differently that others is clearly shown in this thread, but that doesn't matter. For their game only their opinion counts and thus for their game their opinion is absolut. D&D isn't a world wide MMRPG. It is a game for a small group of people, so what happens outside of their group doesn't influence their game at all (Except for living campaigns)
Thorak 10-30-04, 08:13 PM	Yes, the DM's interpretation is absolute, as far as his game is concerned. This in no way means D&D alignment is less objective. It just means a DM is free to use Rule 0 to contradict what the core alignment system is. It does not mean alignment, in the core rules, is subjective. And yes, 50% is probably too few, unless that's how many are NE (I could see a bunch being CE, and LE as well, so it's not claiming 50% are good). 99% is too much, however. It's probably somewhere close to 10% of all Drow are Good. The remaining 90% are probably 60-70% Evil, and 20-30% Neutral. These seem a bit more balanced, anyway. And by that analysis, 1 in 10 drow are Good. So you should be making sure of their intent before you hew into them. Heck, even if it's 99 out of 100 people, I don't see it as condonable. "I'm sorry ma'am, your husband was being held captive by 99 terrorists. So we just bombed the complex. We killed 99 terrorists, though, so it's OK, right?" Uh, no.
Sucineri 10-30-04, 08:33 PM	This is the 2nd thread that thepuregamer is in where he says there are no rules or nothing written about something when there is. Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions. Usually: The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the given alignment. This may be due to the strong cultural influences, or it may be a legacy of the creatures' origin. For example, most elves inherited their chaotic good alignment from their creator, the deity Corellon Larethian. Often: The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40-50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common. Drow are usually Neutral Evil. Therefor 51% of them can be evil. Doesn't give anyone just cause to just kill them on site. Even a Paladin would know they are turnable from evil. IF Drow were always Neutral Evil, then things may be changed..because that means they are very rare..still means they may be turnable..but also means it is highly unlikely. Case I believe is closed as far as alignment.
thepuregamer 10-30-04, 08:43 PM	If the DM applies the rules, then he will apply them from his own understanding. His understanding is likely subjective. From game to game the a DM's application of alignment will change. So it doesn't matter if you consider the rules themselves to be objective because a dm's perception of the event is what decides where an action decides for issues of alignment.
thepuregamer 10-30-04, 08:51 PM	Sucineri, no need to get mean. Usually means more than 50%. I said before that I assumed it to be a very high %. But truth is that they do not say specifically what % it is. It could be anything between 51% and 99%. Anyway this does not mean that 51% of them are evil. It means that 51% of them are neutral evil. There are 8 other specific alignments right.
Sucineri 10-30-04, 10:31 PM	I meant 51% as being neutral evil, not generally evil, heh..sorry bout that. And what's up with you making post after post instead of just editting since yours was the last post anyway? :P And the RAW makes the official rules..which is what we are dealing with here. If the DM changes the rules then it is 'house rules', not RAW. So by RAW..alignment is 100% objective.
thepuregamer 10-30-04, 10:57 PM	Sucineri, RAW doesn't cover how the DM perceives the situation. And there is the same net effect whether I just keep editing the same post over and over again or just make new posts. Anyway so atleast 51% are neutral evil and then nothing else is mentioned. So one could assume several things. Either the rest is partitioned equally among the other alignments or it isn't. If it isn't well we cannot determine anything. If it is equally partitioned, then the other 8 alignment types take up 6.125% each. So evil gets atleast 63.25% of all drow and at most virtually all of the population is evil with minor exceptions. This is all the statement "usually neutral evil" tells us.
Insane Pixie 10-30-04, 11:12 PM	I suggest you either go up to the DM and tell him about your prob with the illogical party member, and if he doesn't do anything, kill the illogical guy once more and leave the group.
White rabbit 10-30-04, 11:15 PM	A DM's "interpretion" alignment is the only one that matters. The player's is inconsequetial. And certainly any other DM's makes no difference IN HIS CAMPAIGN. But really, any DM I know would say that this player had done wrong, no excuses. You do not gack your party members when they have placed their own lives in danger to save his teammates and proven themselves trustworthy over the capture of a kobold in this manner. The cleric overreacted. If he had thought him to be evil, he could have easily cast a detect evil to find out. He certainly had plenty of opportunities.
Insane Pixie 10-30-04, 11:22 PM	Maybe he's just a lonely cleric...kobolds are kinda cute in a horrificly ugly sort of way.
Thorak 10-31-04, 12:32 AM	Sucineri, RAW doesn't cover how the DM perceives the situation. And there is the same net effect whether I just keep editing the same post over and over again or just make new posts. Anyway so atleast 51% are neutral evil and then nothing else is mentioned. So one could assume several things. Either the rest is partitioned equally among the other alignments or it isn't. If it isn't well we cannot determine anything. If it is equally partitioned, then the other 8 alignment types take up 6.125% each. So evil gets atleast 63.25% of all drow and at most virtually all of the population is evil with minor exceptions. This is all the statement "usually neutral evil" tells us. I'll just note in amusement that this means my "60-70% Evil" statement earlier is therefore amusingly accurate, considering I was just as clueless to the actual rules on "usually" alignments. 63.25% being right in the middle. Consider this; that means that 1 in every 3 drow are probably not evil. That seems to make the "You're drow, therefore you should die" argument ridiculously horrid. That's like saying "We know 2 of you are murderers. So we'll just execute all three to be sure."
White rabbit 10-31-04, 12:45 AM	Maybe he's just a lonely cleric...kobolds are kinda cute in a horrificly ugly sort of way. :mymy: :mymy: I... have no response to that...
thepuregamer 10-31-04, 01:12 AM	Thorak, you are slightly off. 63.25% of drow are evil at the very least. So if we were to take a middle of the road view like 75% drow are neutral evil, then 25% is divided between 8 alignments. Making 81.25% of all drow evil. So a middle ground view sets them up at 8 out of every 10 drow as evil. A extreme view sets them at nearly all evil with 1/ 1000 as nonevil and a minimalist view sets them as 6/10 evil. Just to make things clear. That is how it would work out numbers wise. But I got these numbers by setting up conditions myself. I do not pretend to say these numbers come specifically from anywhere. The only number we get for sure is that atleast 51% of drow are neutral evil. That is all we know for sure. The rest is very intepretable. Which is what I have been saying all along. Anyway, I think that most ways to look at the clerics action lead us to think that the cleric has done an evil act. I don't claim that things can be interpreted in any fashion. I agree that the phb sets very specific guidelines for alignment. But perception can and does allow for minor differences in how a situation will effect a characters alignment.
White rabbit 10-31-04, 01:31 AM	All right, let's assume 51% of all drow are NE, leaving 49% other. Now, of the remaining 8 alignments, two are evil. Assuming that evil is the accepted norm of drow society, let's assume that those two take the majority of what's left, making it 51% NE, 12.25% CE, and 12.25% LE. Now, 3 of the remaining aligments have no good in them whatsoever. Let's assume that they take the majority of the remaining population, with the following breakdown being 4.08% LN, 4.08% TN, and 4.08% CN. That leaves just 12.25% of the entire drow population to be pooled out among the good alignments. And that's a generous assumption. Taking all that into account, how does that justify a good cleric killing a neutral member of the party that has risked his life for them, just to save a kobold from being captured by the drow? Answer: IT DOESN'T.
Derren S. 10-31-04, 02:19 AM	Even if 99,9% of all drow are evil that wouldn't change anything. The drow the cleric killed wasn't. Even if he was, the act of capturing a kobold which attakced you doesn't justify murder.
Thorak 10-31-04, 12:03 PM	Thorak, you are slightly off. 63.25% of drow are evil at the very least. So if we were to take a middle of the road view like 75% drow are neutral evil, then 25% is divided between 8 alignments. Making 81.25% of all drow evil. So a middle ground view sets them up at 8 out of every 10 drow as evil. A extreme view sets them at nearly all evil with 1/ 1000 as nonevil and a minimalist view sets them as 6/10 evil. Just to make things clear. That is how it would work out numbers wise. But I got these numbers by setting up conditions myself. I do not pretend to say these numbers come specifically from anywhere. The only number we get for sure is that atleast 51% of drow are neutral evil. That is all we know for sure. The rest is very intepretable. Which is what I have been saying all along. Anyway, I think that most ways to look at the clerics action lead us to think that the cleric has done an evil act. I don't claim that things can be interpreted in any fashion. I agree that the phb sets very specific guidelines for alignment. But perception can and does allow for minor differences in how a situation will effect a characters alignment. You're making numbers up again. With absolutely no basis for them. And it's irrelevant. Just modify my comment to fit. IMHO, it doesn't matter whether we're talking about a group of 3 people, 10 people, or 100 people, all but one of whom are mass murdering psychos. It's not a Good act to kill everyone, knowing you're killing an innocent man in the process. And that's the same mindset you're taking when you assume that all Drow are evil and kill them on sight.
thepuregamer 10-31-04, 01:34 PM	Thorak, don't act like I am claiming these are real numbers. I am saying that we have no real way of telling beyond the statement usually. That is all I said. But lets look at your examples. Killing thousands upon thousands of evil drow and then killing 1 neutral or good drow at the same time would be what kind of act? Was just killing the thousands of evil drow, a righteuous act? What if it were a crusade and at some point a warrior killed a good or neutral drow? I agree that may be an evil act. Does that make the character who killed him evil? I would say it would move his alignment a step toward a more evil alignment. But what about the net effect of all the righteous actions previously done? Wouldn't they move the characters alignment a few steps toward good? Wouldn't that make the net effect 0 in dnd terms? I am just posing questions here. You guys can give me the answers.
Thorak 10-31-04, 02:13 PM	Thorak, don't act like I am claiming these are real numbers. I am saying that we have no real way of telling beyond the statement usually. That is all I said. While implying that your numbers were somehow 'better' than those using the 51% mark, with absolutely no evidence to support your point. But lets look at your examples. Killing thousands upon thousands of evil drow and then killing 1 neutral or good drow at the same time would be what kind of act? Evil. Was just killing the thousands of evil drow, a righteuous act? Depends, what did they do to deserve it? Evil isn't a crime. If you're killing them because they might do something to deserve it, you're as bad as they are. What if it were a crusade and at some point a warrior killed a good or neutral drow? Religious or political zealotry is no excuse to condone evil. I agree that may be an evil act. Does that make the character who killed him evil? I would say it would move his alignment a step toward a more evil alignment. Depends on how he feels about it. If it was a mistake, and he deely regrets it, perhaps not. If he feels "that's the price you have to pay..." then yes. Evil. No question. He's decided killing innocents is OK as long as evil people die too. How is that not evil? But what about the net effect of all the righteous actions previously done? Wouldn't they move the characters alignment a few steps toward good? Not necessarily. There's no sliding scale based on actions. It has to do with motivations. A blackguard can give a starving child 5 gold pieces for food. If he intends to then gain the child's trust to do horrible things to him/her. Or is doing so in plain sight of older, similarly starved children, because he wants to incite them to violence against the helpless child. Etc. The good act is entirely irrelevant; it's the motivations that make the difference to the character. If he feels it's "ok" to kill an innocent, then he's Evil. Whatever the reasons may be. D&D alignment isn't about offsetting evil with good. You don't get to remain neutral by saving three kids from drowning to offset the three you brutally and slowly murdered the night before. You brutally murdered three kids. You're Evil. Unless you start to entirely repent what you've done and will never do it again; this will change you to Good. And killing innocents because it's too inconvenient to pick them out from the bad guys is Evil. It's saying that killing innocents is OK. I could care less what the justification is, because IMHO there is no justification. Killing innocents is wrong and Evil. Regardless of why you might think you need/should do it.
thepuregamer 10-31-04, 03:06 PM	Thorak, go flame somewhere else. I never meant that my numbers were better. I was saying that 51% neutral evil was the lightest way a person could take the statement drow are usually neutral evil. I was saying it could be a whole slew of other things. The drow could be 99% evil or 80% evil. I was actually showing that naming any specific number had no value. A players alignment changes due to their actions. If you do good deeds, you are showing your move toward good. So a character who commits one evil deed is not instantly evil but rather on the path to evil. He could do things that constitute getting off said path to evil as well. In dnd actions balance out. If you read pg. 103 and 104 of the phb you will see that kind of intent. Pg. 103"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straightjacket for restricting your character... A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has, even if that's not lawful or good behavior." pg 104 "Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the dm may decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions." Now both of these quotes do not tell me exactly who is right or who is wrong, but I see them as explaining things a bit here. A good character can have qualities that are not quite good. This sounds similar to a good character can do evil things. There intent must be to do good the majority of the time. But one evil act does not condemn the person in dnd terms. An evil person would "start" to become good if he were to change his ways. It is the same for a good person. I don't think this clerics one evil act would make them evil. It would be a marker of where he started becoming evil but I do not think the one evil act overrides all past actions. This is about it I think. If I were DM, I would say to the cleric's player that if he wants to remain good he has to watch his actions because he has started down a different path.
Derren S. 10-31-04, 03:39 PM	I don't think this clerics one evil act would make them evil. It would be a marker of where he started becoming evil but I do not think the one evil act overrides all past actions. That depends on the evil act and what the cleric did was very evil. Also he is a cleric and if his god doesn't like what the cleric is doing he can remove the power from the cleric even if his alignment is still good.
Thorak 10-31-04, 04:25 PM	Thorak, go flame somewhere else. Where, and how, did I ever flame anyone on this thread? I only pointed out that your numbers were as baseless as anyone else's. A fact, which in no way was flamy towards you, just a comment on your argument. I never meant that my numbers were better. I was saying that 51% neutral evil was the lightest way a person could take the statement drow are usually neutral evil. I was saying it could be a whole slew of other things. The drow could be 99% evil or 80% evil. I was actually showing that naming any specific number had no value. [/quote] And then using a specific number you chose yourself in making your further points. 75%, I believe, was what you stated was "middle of the road". My point being we don't know if it's a trail, a road, or an 8 lane highway. A players alignment changes due to their actions. If you do good deeds, you are showing your move toward good. So a character who commits one evil deed is not instantly evil but rather on the path to evil. He could do things that constitute getting off said path to evil as well. In dnd actions balance out. If you read pg. 103 and 104 of the phb you will see that kind of intent. You mean the same pages 103 and 104 that say things like "A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by it's alignment"? That seems to pretty firmly void your view that it's actions, and not attitude, like I said. Pg. 103"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straightjacket for restricting your character... A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has, even if that's not lawful or good behavior." Yes. But we're talking about something that is the definition of Evil. Killing an innocent. If the Good character doesn't have a problem with it, his alignment isn't properly written down, he's Evil. pg 104 "Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the dm may decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions." And choosing to slaughter innocents when your alignment is Good pretty firmly shows you're not playing your character the "certain way" a Good character should. Now both of these quotes do not tell me exactly who is right or who is wrong, but I see them as explaining things a bit here. A good character can have qualities that are not quite good. This sounds similar to a good character can do evil things. There intent must be to do good the majority of the time. But one evil act does not condemn the person in dnd terms. An evil person would "start" to become good if he were to change his ways. It is the same for a good person. I don't think this clerics one evil act would make them evil. It would be a marker of where he started becoming evil but I do not think the one evil act overrides all past actions. This is about it I think. If I were DM, I would say to the cleric's player that if he wants to remain good he has to watch his actions because he has started down a different path. It doesn't condemn them. I wouldn't say just killing the Drow would be enough. But if they thought they were right, as opposed to feeling massive guilt and remorse, that would start to represent an alignment shift. Alignment isn't dictated by actions, but in how one's attitudes percieve those reactions. Here, the cleric shows no remorse for killing an innocent, non-evil ally. That's Evil. Not the killing. The showing of no remorse.
Darklord Greywolff 11-01-04, 04:11 AM	I talked to my dm and got the following: I can't haunt the cleric. On the plus side he is letting me start at level 4 instead of 1 to make up for my friends A$$holeishness, which has been a constant thing throughout the campaign. I apoligize if I am being biased it is unintentional but I was quite P\Oed by the death. and finnaly about the alignment issues 69.7562% of all statistics are made up on the spot. :D
DaveReaves 11-01-04, 04:48 AM	pg 104 "Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the dm may decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions." That’s exactly right, and according to page 105, a Chaotic Good character is described as kind and benevolent, he hates it when people try to intimidate others. When your party member (and assembly friend) tries to hold the kobold, you may not like his tactics and argue with him over his choices, but your not going to kill him. Now taking a look at Chaotic Neutral, it says he follows his own whims, and is an individualist first and last. That’s much more what happened here. Also probably not the first time, but it got a little extreme here. This situation got out of hand in game, the DM probably should have put his foot down before the murder for the sake of progressing the game and saving hurt feelings. As far as thinking it’s ok to kill drow because 99.999% are evil... (or 50% or 51%, the numbers are getting ridiculous, the actual number its irrelevant, the only important thing is that its not 100% evil with no ifs, ands or buts) lets move it to another situation. You walk into a tavern run by a drow in a human city. The drow says "What will you have to drin... wait a second, let me deal with this real quick." He then runs to a wall just in time to catch a kobold sneaking out of a hole near the back of the room. The drow grabs the little guy by the tail and a human walks up to him, draws a sword, and tells the drow to let the lizard go, or else. The drow says "No, he's a threat to my business!" The man chops the drow in half. The man has committed an evil act. The bartender’s alignment and/or race had nothing to do with how evil an act it was. If the bartender had pulled out a knife and was going to kill the kobold, then someone should have put a stop to his evil act, by restraining or him (good) knocking him unconscious or doing nothing (neutral) or possibly killing him (neutral, but straddling evil.) Something should also be said about adventurers finding a kobold lair and massacring the lot of them. I would say evil. But when you hear the towns folk talking about how much livestock the kobolds kill and how many people were hurt last night trying to defend the sheep, then the adventurers go put an end to the menace of the town, only to be meet with spears and slings as they walk up to a cave entrance, then the kobolds are attacking unprovoked (both a town and the PCs) and are probably going to be slaughtered. But then when their leader is found unarmed, quivering with fear, and pleads for mercy, then its going to be evil to kill him (as it would be evil to kill any of his followers that you meat along the way under similar circumstance)
markhaus 11-01-04, 09:30 AM	To sum how this could have not been evil into points: Pt. 1: Kobolds and drow are both evil races, so racism has nothing to do with this. Pt. 2: If the kobolds were justified in attacking the drow then he has no right to detain or kill them. (if they are mind controlled or are defending their territory they are justified in attacking. or if the drow did something terrible to them) Pt. 3: The drow may or may not have killed prisoners in the past, the cleric may have been preventing this from happening again With these points you can see how the cleric might have been justified (the DM saw what happened and knew the circumstances and ruled the cleric changed alignments. So the point is moot. Edited for spelling. :D
thepuregamer 11-01-04, 10:36 AM	You got it right the first time, the word is moot.
eRaz0r 11-01-04, 06:17 PM	The racism point isn't moot, since you were the one talking about how the cleric may have been justified for killing the drow because of the clerics possible racist prejudices. Furthermore, restraining an assailant is never evil. If someone attacked you and you captured them, that's not evil. If they weren't hostile to you before you captured them, then it's probably not good (running around grabbing people who did nothing to you is not very nice), but if someone was fighting with you and you defeated them and took them prisoner, that's not an evil act. In fact, I'd argue that it's a nicer thing than wholesale slaughtering your assailants, which is the default DnD activity. It doesn't matter if the Kobolds were dominated (which is, BTW, highly unlikely), nor even if they were coerced at the point of an Ogres sword. Capturing someone who just tried to kill you isn't evil. That includes anyone who decides to defend their territory with a shoot-first-ask-to-leave-later policy. There's such a thing as double-jeapardy. If the Drow has previously killed or tortured prisoners, then that was the time to have that little conversation. "Listen, Drizzle, the rest of us have been talking, and we're kinda concerned how you quartered that last Kobold there while we were interrogating it. I mean, he had just told us the entire layout of these caverns and we were thinking of letting him go. It wasn't really necessary for you to drink the blood from his severed wrist either... " etc etc. If the Cleric was willing to let that sort of thing pass in the past, what gives him the right to respond with violence now ? Nothing. He has to be judged only on his current actions. According to what we know he was not threatening the Kobold prisoner, nor did it sound like he ever engaged in torture. So please refrain from inventing excuses that don't exist. There's no circumstance other than the Drow player actually lying to us that can change the nature of the Clerics actions to be non-evil.
markhaus 11-02-04, 10:13 AM	Those points were interdependent. If the drow had the bad habit of killing prisoners it is better to kill him. "Well thats evil when you could just talk to him" some might say. Well if someone enjoys killing prisoners then they may kill you in your sleep for being a nice guy. There are so many circumstances that could have made this justified IMO. It was not, however, as the DM changed the player's alignment to chaotic nuetral and removed his some of his power. I guess we are just going to have to disagree. In my opinion outright lying and omission can both alter what the circumstances were. In this particular case the cleric was not justified, his alignment was changed, so any arguing about whether a similiar circumstance would be moot. The racism point isn't moot, since you were the one talking about how the cleric may have been justified for killing the drow because of the clerics possible racist prejudices. I hate drow. My "racism" towards a race of creature defined as "always" evil colors my posts. IMO always doesnt mean 41% or 66% or 90%. It means always. The drizzt books alter the perceptions on Drow b/c there are 2 or 3 good drow described in it. Twinks ever since have raised that number to a sizeable amount. So going off the Monstrous Manual (ignoring Eberron) any wholesale slaughter of Drow or Illithid is wholly justified b/c they are ALWAYS evil. This cannot be compared to real world situations b/c there are no real world races that are ALWAYS evil. This is not a matter of perceptions, its in the friggin rules. They did this so people wouldnt argue that maybe the person their fighting is being misled or is justified. Simply put they want to remove the possibility of confusion as to the enemy and make a fantasy setting w/ clear cut evil.
Derren S. 11-02-04, 11:19 AM	If the drow had the bad habit of killing prisoners it is better to kill him. "Well thats evil when you could just talk to him" some might say. Well if someone enjoys killing prisoners then they may kill you in your sleep for being a nice guy. Then the drow would be Evil and not CN. That the drow was CN meant that he doesn't kil prisoners for fun and doesn't murder comerades in their sleep. You seem to forget that. I hate drow. My "racism" towards a race of creature defined as "always" evil colors my posts. IMO always doesnt mean 41% or 66% or 90%. It means always. The drizzt books alter the perceptions on Drow b/c there are 2 or 3 good drow described in it. Twinks ever since have raised that number to a sizeable amount. Look into the MM. Drow are usually NE. That means a majority are evil, but there is also a relativly large group of them ehich is N or even G. So going off the Monstrous Manual (ignoring Eberron) any wholesale slaughter of Drow or Illithid is wholly justified b/c they are ALWAYS evil. This cannot be compared to real world situations b/c there are no real world races that are ALWAYS evil. This is not a matter of perceptions, its in the friggin rules. They did this so people wouldnt argue that maybe the person their fighting is being misled or is justified. Simply put they want to remove the possibility of confusion as to the enemy and make a fantasy setting w/ clear cut evil. Before I would rant, I would read the "friggin rules" first. Drow are usually NE, not always.
thepuregamer 11-02-04, 01:19 PM	Actually if the drow is chaotic neutral, he would be the kind of character to follow whatever his present whims are. If you are a random character which means you are unpredictable, then the cleric likely wouldn't trust you with the care of the kobald. So if he can't trust you to do something he can expect. killing the drow is possibly the quickest way of securing the kobalds safety. The kobalds safety being the clerics primary concern at that moment. Anyway, I still think that drow are almost all evil. If the majority of them are neutral evil, then there is the obvious trend toward evil. I suspect that the rest of them would be chaotic evil and lawful evil. Its like saying that the phb elf who is usually chaotic good would then have equal ammount of everything else. That is very unlikely. It is more likely that the phb elf is spread almost entirely(99%) through the area of good. Even if this was an evil act, it doesn't make the cleric evil. Do note that the cleric did not become evil but became CN. So I am obviously right about that part. If he were to kill a drow and then save a village, he would be considered good again. In dnd, the deeds balance out.
Derren S. 11-02-04, 03:28 PM	Actually if the drow is chaotic neutral, he would be the kind of character to follow whatever his present whims are. If you are a random character which means you are unpredictable, then the cleric likely wouldn't trust you with the care of the kobald. So if he can't trust you to do something he can expect. killing the drow is possibly the quickest way of securing the kobalds safety. And what have we all learned from star wars? the quick and easy way leads to the dark side. Only because it is quick doesn't mean it is good. Also the kobold was in no imediate danger which required to cleric to act and even if, killing the kobold in this case wouldn't be evil as the kobold attacked them first. The kobalds safety being the clerics primary concern at that moment. Entirely irrelevant. Anyway, I still think that drow are almost all evil. If the majority of them are neutral evil, then there is the obvious trend toward evil. But there are still many drow which aren't evil. I suspect that the rest of them would be chaotic evil and lawful evil. Then they would be Always Evil (any) like angels (only evil), but they aren't That means that a sizable number of neutral or good drow exist. Its like saying that the phb elf who is usually chaotic good would then have equal ammount of everything else. That is very unlikely. How do you know? It is more likely that the phb elf is spread almost entirely(99%) through the area of good. No, then they would be always good (any). Even if this was an evil act, it doesn't make the cleric evil. Do note that the cleric did not become evil but became CN. So I am obviously right about that part. If he were to kill a drow and then save a village, he would be considered good again. In dnd, the deeds balance out. It depends. Not all acts weigth the same. As someone has said, "there is a reason why Clelestia is a mountain and the Abyss is a pit". When you do evil you have to work hard to find redemption.
thepuregamer 11-02-04, 03:36 PM	I suspect you are pulling the wrong lessons from star wars. The real lesson to be learned is when to stop making movies. Hmmmm, perhaps after the first trilogy they should have stopped. Otherwise, the force example is stupid. As in the original trilogy, the redemption of the father came in one act. Not a long fight uphill. His act of redemption was both killing the evil emperor and protecting someone important to him. Well the cleric in this case, kills the drow and protects the kobald which he considers important. Seems like a parallel case to me.
markhaus 11-02-04, 05:35 PM	That means that a sizable number of neutral or good drow exist. a sizeable number? In all of D&D how many have you heard of? (ignoring the millions of Twinks out there) I was mainly going off the description of drow from 2nd and 3rd ed. I admit that it says usually NE in their racial statistics. This obviously suggests that there are oodles of good drow :ayyyy!: Anyhoo, the kobold is the center of the argument that there could be mitigating factors (which there werent since the DM decreed that the cleric changed his alignment... meaning this is all hypothetical) If the drow regularly tortured prisoners and was about to do bad things to a kobold who's home he has barged in and killed several of his friends, and the cleric befriended the kobolds and realized the mistake they made. Then killing the drow was justified (as would killing a human. Though killing a neutral drow is better then killing a good drow). Thaz all im sayin. There could have been good reason to kill the drow. Well warranted and within the good alignment (if there arent circumstances where killing a drow is good then im afraid my campaigns do not conform to your view of the world). The DM determined that the alignment changed. That is why the point is moot. Many good campaigns I have run have revolved around genocide against the evil drow (climaxing at the death of Lloth). P.S. I am mainly running this hypothetical situation to explain how it would be possible for the threadstarter to leave out important tidbits w/o lying, and for the cleric to have done a not evil action.
Derren S. 11-02-04, 05:35 PM	Well the cleric in this case, kills the drow and protects the kobald which he considers important. Seems like a parallel case to me. No, that would be equal to Vader killing Luke to protect Palpatine. If the drow regularly tortured prisoners and was about to do bad things to a kobold who's home he has barged in and killed several of his friends, and the cleric befriended the kobolds and realized the mistake they made. Then killing the drow was justified (as would killing a human. Though killing a neutral drow is better then killing a good drow). Stick to what happened. i could also make up hundereds of situations where it is good to kill a drow, but none of them happened. Fact is, the drow adventured with the cleric, fact is that the drow rescued the live of the cleric in tha past, fact is that the drow wasn't evil, fact is that the kobolds attacked the drow. All these facts together say that it is evil to kill the drow. There could have been good reason to kill the drow. Well warranted and within the good alignment (if there arent circumstances where killing a drow is good then im afraid my campaigns do not conform to your view of the world). Only when the things didn't were as they were. Under this circumstances killing the drow was evil. You forget that we are talking about an actual example. P.S. I am mainly running this hypothetical situation to explain how it would be possible for the threadstarter to leave out important tidbits w/o lying, and for the cleric to have done a not evil action. Ah, so whats your basis four your assumption that the threadstarter decieved us? Did we come so far that we have to question everything which is said in this forum? Ok, now when someone opens a threat my first reaction will be to scream liar untill he can prove that what he has written is the truth, is it that what you want? The thredstarter reported what happened in his game and gave no reason to disbelieve that. Only because you are proven wrong you can't just accuse people of lying and decieving.
Insane Pixie 11-02-04, 05:39 PM	Cleric tried to protect kobold. Kobold tried to escape. PC grabs kobold. Cleric kills PC to protect kobold. Cleric is no longer good, per-say. Other PC was not evil, per-say. Good killing good equals evil. Cleric killed good. Cleric is evil. End of discussion.
thepuregamer 11-02-04, 06:00 PM	The cleric didn't kill a good character though. He killed a CN character. And he apparently isn't evil if the DM ruled he became CN from the action
DarkFerret 11-02-04, 06:06 PM	Cleric tried to protect kobold. Kobold tried to escape. PC grabs kobold. Cleric kills PC to protect kobold. Cleric is no longer good, per-say. Other PC was not evil, per-say. Good killing good equals evil. Cleric killed good. Cleric is evil. End of discussion. I have to agree with him. A good character kills another good character; thats evil (expecially because it was a party member!).
Derren S. 11-02-04, 06:07 PM	It was a bit bad formulated. The cleric killed an innocent. And as you said actions balanced out in D&D, so maybe did the previous good actions of the cleric protect him from becoming CE? That the DM made him only CN doesn't mean tthat killing the drow was a neutral act. The fact that this single action changed the alignment strongly shows that it was a very evil act.
thepuregamer 11-02-04, 07:49 PM	But the drow was not an innocent. He was not good. Being a party member does not make a character innocent or good. I mean since everyone here has used rasalvatore comparisons, what about the one where entreri and jarlaxle team up with cadderly and his troupe. They were in a party together for a while to accomplish the same goals and they opposite alignments. The cleric cared more for the kobalds than the drow who was in his party. A character's alignment does not float above their heads. The cleric could have been suspicious of the drow and trusted the kobalds over the drow. He seemed to think the kobalds were the innocent in this scenario. So from the cleric's point of view, he was protecting the kobald from a unpredictable drow. When you are dealing with an unpredictable element, quickly dispatching the enemy is the surest way to protect the kobalds. The intent of the blow is unknown. We know the cleric's threat, but the actual hit was a kill because of a random circumstance( a crit). The intent may have been to knock him unconscious. So it is doubtful that the drow is innocent as he is of chaotic neutral alignment. An alignment described as following one's whim with no care for good or evil. Without innocence there is no evil act. Without a sure intent, there is likewise no evil act. The star wars example I made still stands valid as well. Vader is allied with the emperer but turns on his ally to protect someone he cares about. The cleric is allied with the drow, but turns on his ally to protect someone he cares about( the kobald).
Insane Pixie 11-02-04, 08:02 PM	But the drow was not an innocent. He was not good. Being a party member does not make a character innocent or good. I mean since everyone here has used rasalvatore comparisons, what about the one where entreri and jarlaxle team up with cadderly and his troupe. They were in a party together for a while to accomplish the same goals and they opposite alignments. The cleric cared more for the kobalds than the drow who was in his party. A character's alignment does not float above their heads. The cleric could have been suspicious of the drow and trusted the kobalds over the drow. He seemed to think the kobalds were the innocent in this scenario. So from the cleric's point of view, he was protecting the kobald from a unpredictable drow. When you are dealing with an unpredictable element, quickly dispatching the enemy is the surest way to protect the kobalds. The intent of the blow is unknown. We know the cleric's threat, but the actual hit was a kill because of a random circumstance( a crit). The intent may have been to knock him unconscious. So it is doubtful that the drow is innocent as he is of chaotic neutral alignment. An alignment described as following one's whim with no care for good or evil. Without innocence there is no evil act. Without a sure intent, there is likewise no evil act. The star wars example I made still stands valid as well. Vader is allied with the emperer but turns on his ally to protect someone he cares about. The cleric is allied with the drow, but turns on his ally to protect someone he cares about( the kobald). A) It's kobold. B) If the intent of the blow was to knock him out, he would have used a non-lethal attack, such as an unarmed strike. C) Even if the Drow is a CN, he was still innocent, and to add to that, was unarmed, making his murder even more unjust.
thepuregamer 11-02-04, 08:13 PM	1. So what if he protecting a kobald. He is attacking a drow. A drow in terms of general trend is far worse than a kobald. 2. a nonlethal strike is unlikely to hit. So the only way guaranteed to protect the kobald, is to make a lethal strike. 3. Yeah, chaotic neutral drow are not innocent. neutral isn't innocent.
White rabbit 11-02-04, 08:35 PM	An alignment described as following one's whim with no care for good or evil. Without innocence there is no evil act. This could also describe a child's alignment. A child too young to know the difference between good and evil wouldn't factor that into any of his actions. Are they not innocent? Very few creatures are born into their alignment. They grow into them over time.
Thorak 11-02-04, 09:33 PM	The star wars example I made still stands valid as well. Vader is allied with the emperer but turns on his ally to protect someone he cares about. The cleric is allied with the drow, but turns on his ally to protect someone he cares about( the kobald). He turns on his ally because he's realized that some things are more important than power, especially since his power is only earned at the cost of being the Emperor's guard dog. In other words, he's betraying his normally LE alignment, and changing to a Neutral or Good version thereof. As the Cleric, here, is betraying his normal Good alignment, and swinging towards Evil. That's the difference. The betraying an ally bit is Lawful, not Evil. Especially when you've decided said ally is Evil, and you don't want to be.
Sucineri 11-02-04, 09:49 PM	As far as the Star Wars example.. Emperor is evil. Darth is evil. Luke is good. Darth destroys Emperor to save Luke so then.. Emperor is dead. Darth is neutral (redeemed from evil, but not good). Luke is good. In D&D you can't switch from good to evil in one action or even a couple actions. *Party finds evil kobolds. *Drow is the first person to take an action by intimidating the kobolds (possibly into making them too scared to fight and either stand down or run away.) *Fight ensues. *It is kobolds vs the party. *End of combat and enemies of the party are running away *Cleric makes a friend (but is still considered an enemy of the party). *Kobold tries to run away. *Drow catches the escaping enemy of the party. *Cleric turns on party by killing Drow. *Cleric is turned from Good to Neutral. THAT is how you need to read it, you need to read each part seperately by what exactly happened, you over complicate it when you read it as a whole. The way I wrote it out (which is the order in which things happened) shows that the Cleric of the party went against the wishes of the party, therefor alignment is fine to be changed. Now about the racial alignments.. So because elves are usually chaotic good you say you think 99% are good of some sort? What kind of crack are your smoking? If anything it would mean that MOST of the remaining that are NOT Chaotic Good are either Chaotic OR Good (CN, CE, LG, NG). With the rare exceptions who fit in with the other alignments (LN, TN, LE, NE). So to me I would see the Drow who are 'usually neutral evil' as the majority (51% or more) are NE, and MOST of the remaining that are NOT Neutral Evil are either Neutral (L-C Axis) OR Evil (NG, TN, LE, CE). With the rare exceptions who fit in with the other alignments (LG, CG, LN, CN). I hope you see what I am trying to say here..ONLY monsters that come from planes in which the plane effects the alignment of the being would you find 99% of anything, but normally 'Always' should mean around 95% or more.
Derren S. 11-03-04, 01:13 AM	But the drow was not an innocent. He was not good. He was innocent. Neutral is the default alignmnt. The dhow did nothing which would earn him a death sentence. Being a party member does not make a character innocent or good. But beeing neutral does. I mean since everyone here has used rasalvatore comparisons, what about the one where entreri and jarlaxle team up with cadderly and his troupe. They were in a party together for a while to accomplish the same goals and they opposite alignments. The cleric cared more for the kobalds than the drow who was in his party. Thats the problem of the cleric and the reason why he became CN. A character's alignment does not float above their heads. But a cleric has many ways to find it out. And even if the cleric didn't know, the alignment is still there, so this is irrelevant. The cleric could have been suspicious of the drow and trusted the kobalds over the drow. He seemed to think the kobalds were the innocent in this scenario. What the cleric thought is irrelevant. Intention and action counts.[quot€] So from the cleric's point of view, he was protecting the kobald from a unpredictable drow. [/quote] Irrelevant. What the cleric wanted doesn't matter in this case, what the cleric did does. When you are dealing with an unpredictable element, quickly dispatching the enemy is the surest way to protect the kobalds. The intent of the blow is unknown. The intent is quite clear, it was a lethal attack. We know the cleric's threat, but the actual hit was a kill because of a random circumstance( a crit). The intent may have been to knock him unconscious. No, it was a normal attack and normal attacks have the intention to kill. So it is doubtful that the drow is innocent as he is of chaotic neutral alignment. Explain? Everyone is innocent untill he does evil and can't redeem himself. Innocent and CN work perfectly together. An alignment described as following one's whim with no care for good or evil. But doing more good that evil, so that he is neutral. One question to you, would it now be ok to mercilessly kill the cleric as he is now also CN? Without innocence there is no evil act. Without a sure intent, there is likewise no evil act. The star wars example I made still stands valid as well. Vader is allied with the emperer but turns on his ally to protect someone he cares about. The cleric is allied with the drow, but turns on his ally to protect someone he cares about( the kobald). Only that unlike in Star Wars, the one the cleric cares for is the evil aggressor and he betrays the people which trust him. Neither are good actions but evil.
Kakerate 11-03-04, 09:00 AM	I have to agree with him. A good character kills another good character; thats evil (expecially because it was a party member!). The Cleric was a traitor to the party member. The drow probably trusted the cleric wouldnt kill him or he(the drow) would have acted differently. PC) TRAITOR!! BACKSTABING CLERIC! (drow dies)
thepuregamer 11-03-04, 12:07 PM	Not knowing the difference between good and evil is not innocence but ignorance. Do note also that being neutral means that you have done equal ammounts of good and evil and thus lean toward neither. Neutrality has nothing to do with not knowing the difference between good and evil just not caring. There is no innocence here. Also, note that the kobalds are not the aggressors but the defenders. Many stories are there of random adventurers walking into an elvin forest only to be surrounded by elves. All of them having arrows at the ready. The difference between elves and kobalds in this scenario is that elves are more intelligent, brave, and civilized than kobalds so it makes sense for cowardly creatures to attack intruders coming into their home. Also the cleric sees the kobalds as innocent and the drow as unpredictable at best. How one can say that this does not factor into intent, I have no idea. It is the very core of his intent. The cleric is not killing a good character. Neither is he killing without reason. He is killing to protect those he considers to be innocent. Probably also cute and fuzzy. Also, there is no reason to suspect a bond of trust has grown between those two people. Being party members does not mean being friends. It barely means being allies unless you are allies for other purposes. Being a party member means that you are adventuring together with someone. They could easily be together for practical reasons only.
Thorak 11-03-04, 01:14 PM	Not knowing the difference between good and evil is not innocence but ignorance. And any character with better than a 2 Int can be assumed to know the difference Do note also that being neutral means that you have done equal ammounts of good and evil and thus lean toward neither. Neutrality has nothing to do with not knowing the difference between good and evil just not caring. There is no innocence here. Or it means that they believe a balance of good and evil is necessary for the world to be optimal. Or they're indifferent to whether either is more important than the other. In fact, those are the two PHB definitions of Neutral. While yours isn't listed anywhere. And, frankly, it's silly. Pulling two kids out of a raging river doesn't mean I get to go kill two other kids to even my alignment out. If I think it's OK to be killing innocent kids, I'm Evil. Regardless of how I'm justifying it to myself. Also, note that the kobalds are not the aggressors but the defenders. Many stories are there of random adventurers walking into an elvin forest only to be surrounded by elves. All of them having arrows at the ready. The difference between elves and kobalds in this scenario is that elves are more intelligent, brave, and civilized than kobalds so it makes sense for cowardly creatures to attack intruders coming into their home. The difference being, I assume, that the kobolds attacked on sight with deadly intent, while the elves in your example merely threatened violence if they weren't cooperated with. If the kobolds had drawn bows but not fired, and asked the PCs to leave because they had no quarrel with them, it would be evil for the PCs to attack them. Similarly, if the elves just started shooting anyone coming into their forest, they would be Evil. Also the cleric sees the kobalds as innocent and the drow as unpredictable at best. How one can say that this does not factor into intent, I have no idea. It is the very core of his intent. The cleric is not killing a good character. Neither is he killing without reason. He is killing to protect those he considers to be innocent. Probably also cute and fuzzy. The cleric is killing someone for no reason but a misguided personal belief. That's Evil. It doesn't matter if I think the world only keeps going if I kill a virgin every day and bathe in her blood; I'm not Good if I'm doing that. I'm horribly, horribly Evil. And insane. Even if I'm justifying it to myself by believing I'm saving the world each time I do it. Also, there is no reason to suspect a bond of trust has grown between those two people. Being party members does not mean being friends. It barely means being allies unless you are allies for other purposes. Being a party member means that you are adventuring together with someone. They could easily be together for practical reasons only. They don't have to be friends. But they do have to trust each other to be a party. Otherwise, you won't sleep because you're watching to make sure they don't knife you, and you'll never turn your back on them, etc, etc. It's unworkable unless there's some level of mutual trust. This is true whether the party is Good, Neutral, or all Chaotic Evil. And that mutual trust was violated by the Cleric in stabbing the Drow.
thepuregamer 11-03-04, 02:05 PM	But doing more good that evil, so that he is neutral. Hey thorak, I was responding to this quote when I said that neutral was doing equal ammounts of good and evil. My statement is essentially true as well. A neutral character does not side with one or the other although a neutral character could easily do both. So actually I am right and you are attacking arguements that aren't even in this thread. Also you are wrong in assuming that there is trust between the members of the party. You are correct in saying that for a party to function well there needs to be trust, but that does not imply that trust exists in all parties. Obviously this party which has no trust has not functioned all that well because the cleric did not trust the drow. If he had, he would not have killed him. Your assumption of trust holds no ground.
Sucineri 11-03-04, 04:41 PM	Also you are wrong in assuming that there is trust between the members of the party. Obviously this party which has no trust has not functioned all that well because the cleric did not trust the drow. If he had, he would not have killed him. Your assumption of trust holds no ground. Actually you are too assuming that the group had no trust before this moment. There has been no evidence that the cleric didn't trust the drow before this specific instance. Gamer..what you like to do it pull examples from all over the place to try to justify your arguments..but your arguments never work with the subject you are trying to justify. ONLY look at the situation at hand..which I pointed out in the post at the beginning of this page.
thepuregamer 11-03-04, 05:20 PM	As far as the Star Wars example.. Emperor is evil. Darth is evil. Luke is good. Darth destroys Emperor to save Luke so then.. Emperor is dead. Darth is neutral (redeemed from evil, but not good). Luke is good. In D&D you can't switch from good to evil in one action or even a couple actions. *Party finds evil kobolds. *Drow is the first person to take an action by intimidating the kobolds (possibly into making them too scared to fight and either stand down or run away.) *Fight ensues. *It is kobolds vs the party. *End of combat and enemies of the party are running away *Cleric makes a friend (but is still considered an enemy of the party). *Kobold tries to run away. *Drow catches the escaping enemy of the party. *Cleric turns on party by killing Drow. *Cleric is turned from Good to Neutral. THAT is how you need to read it, you need to read each part seperately by what exactly happened, you over complicate it when you read it as a whole. The way I wrote it out (which is the order in which things happened) shows that the Cleric of the party went against the wishes of the party, therefor alignment is fine to be changed. So this is your arguement? I will show you the weaknesses sucineri. If you watch star wars to the end, you will realize that vader's one action redeemed him. His ghost is with the light side at the end. Not neutrality but good idiot. your second point is weak too. Who intimidates the kobalds hmmm? A drow. yes a drow. What is a kobalds understanding of drow? Well they are the strongest and scariest form of evil. The way the kobald see it. A drow comes into their home and threatens them and you think they should send the drow away? If they did that to every drow that happened onto their home, their community of kobalds would be enslaved. So, your ask questions first, shoot as a last option point is moot. No kobald would insult a drow by standing up to him and then let the drow walk away to bring back reinforcements. So in fact the party is wrong for attacking a kobalds village. the kobalds are in the right since they are defending their home from what they believe is destruction or enslavement. Third, like I have said, there is no obvious bond of trust between these party members. The fact that the cleric is willing to side with a kobald over the drow makes this pretty obvious. In fact, the rest of the party does not avenge their drow buddy either. If he had forged a bond of trust and friendship with them over the time he was with them, they would have avenged him. Meaning no bond of trust and no friendship. So since the path you take to your final point is shaky and weak at best, there is nothing holding your final point together. So this is not true by your arguement, "Cleric is turned from good to neutral". I think you are the one smoking something because your post is rather psychedelic.
Sucineri 11-03-04, 06:11 PM	your second point is weak too. Who intimidates the kobalds hmmm? A drow. yes a drow. What is a kobalds understanding of drow? Well they are the strongest and scariest form of evil. That has nothing to do with RACE at all. The drow in the party was the one that USED A SKILL to intimidate the Kobolds. Hell, a halfling could have done it too and by your reasoning then the halfling would be the strongest and scariest form of evil. This has nothing to do with race, but the use of a SKILL. Third, like I have said, there is no obvious bond of trust between these party members. The fact that the cleric is willing to side with a kobald over the drow makes this pretty obvious. In fact, the rest of the party does not avenge their drow buddy either. If he had forged a bond of trust and friendship with them over the time he was with them, they would have avenged him. Meaning no bond of trust and no friendship. Since we are all 'assuming' things to make it out way..then MAYBE the party is thinking (after watching the Drow get MURDERED in front of them) that they better not do anything against the Cleric or they will also get killed. Ever think of that? If you are part of a bank robbery and someone gets shot, nobody just runs up to the gunman, they think they will get shot as well. I think you are the one smoking something because your post is rather psychedelic. The reason I made the post 3 colors is because I have 3 completely different points to make and if it was all black then it might have gotten confusing. If you watch star wars to the end, you will realize that vader's one action redeemed him. His ghost is with the light side at the end. Not neutrality but good idiot. Okay..then Vader was maybe more NEUTRAL while he was Vader than EVIL. I mean he started out as Anakin who was good, and was tipping over into the realm of evil (which tips you into the Neutral alignment). You can sense throughout the whole movie that Vader isn't pure evil..he hesitates on acting quite a lot (other than dealing with his own stupid lackeys). Oh..and just like the last thread we argued in..you had to be the first to start the name calling. I am saying you are extremely ignorant and narrow minded. But I won't call you an idiot.
Thorak 11-03-04, 07:26 PM	Hey thorak, I was responding to this quote when I said that neutral was doing equal ammounts of good and evil. My statement is essentially true as well. A neutral character does not side with one or the other although a neutral character could easily do both. So actually I am right and you are attacking arguements that aren't even in this thread. Except that you said that "neutral was doing equal amounts of good and evil", and that's wrong. Unless you can provide evidence that this is true. As I said, neutral is defined as indifference to or belief in the necessity of both. Not in balancing the two one-for-one. So if by "right" you mean "have absolutely no basis for the claims you make in defiance of the PHB definition", and by "aren't even in this thread" you mean "directly quoted from you", then yes, I agree. Also you are wrong in assuming that there is trust between the members of the party. You are correct in saying that for a party to function well there needs to be trust, but that does not imply that trust exists in all parties. Obviously this party which has no trust has not functioned all that well because the cleric did not trust the drow. If he had, he would not have killed him. Your assumption of trust holds no ground. My assumption of trust does hold ground. Because it's irrelevant that the cleric is insane. The Drow trusted the cleric not to kill him, because to do so would be evil and/or insane. He was wrong to trust him, obviously, but he did. Yes, the cleric is an untrustworthy guy any character of mine would have either turned over to the guard (if possible), killed (if I wasn't Good aligned or had a trigger temper), or at the very least stripped of all items of value and bound and gagged until we could deal with it more permanently. He's not a member of the party; he's a wildcard who will kill anyone he disagrees with. My trust argument is perfectly valid. You're just assuming the cleric is part of the party and is trusted. Which, if he is, is only because the rest of the party are, frankly, idiots.
Kadasbrass 11-03-04, 07:50 PM	Now that five pages had been made in an argument with only one side being present without all details of the account, perhaps I being the 'cleric' in question should give a full account of the event. It is also easy to say someone should be evil based on one single mistake is made without examining all the facts. I will first explain my behavior during the whole campaign and in the second part explain in full details the event in question. Part 1 I am playing a chaotic good favored soul. Now based on my behavior of this whole campaign I have been playing overwhelming good character, with one previous case, and that is with the group rogue (who is playing the rogue as a con artist) who has done his best to lie when ever possible and indirctly lead to the death of NPC who was with the group, and because of his tendency to lie I wanted to cut his tongue out so he couldn't do it anymore. Also we were sent by the 'great city' of Foxhole to capture him and bring him back for his crimes of treason. Being as good I am a good character I do not enjoy killing creatures, during this whole campaign I have made a effort to either use Diplomacy or open channels of comunication before using force unless the creature(s) in question shows lack of interest or an inability to use logic, or shows a clear and present danger. Also being as I am good, when it arises I bury corpses I come across unless there a question on time or it is expressed that is not the tradition of a member of the race. I also very rarely take items off a corpse or take those items that belonged to them. With the only two cases being where I did not following policy was when the sole surviving dwarf of a group of them we were traveling with offered me a lighter armor one of the slain dwarfs had used. I also walk into a enemy camp, used diplomacy to make them friends, and later when the drow tries to do the same and gets capture, I free him, and two other people being held, by trading in two Rings of substance (one of which waes mine, the other was the drows sinc ehe gave it to me fore going into their camp) to gain all their freedoms. He would go back with the intention of attacking the guard to get the rings back, after I told him he had no right whats so ever to go back after I had gained his freedom in a bargain with the guard. Having done so, he ruined my relation with the army I was spying on to gather information and personally angered me. Later we are in the spine of the world, looking for the lost ruins of mithral hall, at night we get attacked by a group, with one of the few people not attacked being the drow (the other being the rogue), with the drow saying it looks like the work of drow and then saying it wasn't since some of the attacks didn't appear to be drow. I leave the group afterwards on my own to find my own answers, because the group has no other plans, other then go back the way we came or spend the next two hunderd years searching the spine of the world for a place we don't even know exist. After that I find a mage able to use divination to comfirm that at lest part of the group that attacked us was drow, and with the fact that the drow in our group wasn't attack I begin to question his trust. Part 2 Now let us go to the event in question. We were traveling blindly through underdark, with no clue what where we are to go, and we are looking for a group of drow that attack us in the night and stole the piece of a map we had to the holy grail. The rogue came back after scouting ahead after coming through a heavily trapped area and graps the drow and goes off ahead, latter we all hear fighting. (What happens, that my chacter does not know, is that the drow walked in and threated the kobolds to give up because there were more of 'us,' and by us he met more drow, and the kobolds decided to attack) I see the drow using magic missle on the kobolds, the rogue hiding, and I shout in draconic that we mean the kobolds no harm. Since we are traveling blindly through out the underdark I want to get as much information as possible. The rest of the group comes in and begins to fight I try to tell them to stop. Shortly afterwards the kobolds begin to flee, I should in common to my group that anyone that attacks a kobold that gave up fighting will face divine punishment. The kobolds never attacked me, I heal one badly wounded to try and get questions out of it, he deson't talk I go over to another one. During this I know the dwarf charged at the fleeing kobolds but cannot comfirm wither he attacked them, same with the rogue, be I do see a magic missle fly over my head and head the fleeing kobolds. I try to get the other kobold to talk, give it some of my food, but it doesn't talkl because it is watching the drow take everything off the kobold I healed and kicking it. I tell the kobold (no one knows what I'm saying since its in draconic) that "I wouldn't let any of them do it harm." in an effort to get it to talk, like before he doesn't so I tell him he can go home, he runs off and I shout for no one to do anything to him. The drow however, ignoring what I said, goes after the kobold and graps him, ignores me again when I tell him to drop it. Considing the drow beat up the other kobold, is bleeding a little, and attacked the fleeing kobolds, I have no choice but to conclude the drow either likes to kill things or seeks revenge. I swing at him (and missed) in a effort to get him to drop the kobold and defend him self, but he then uses it as a shield. Using a living creature as a shield was a final straw, so I cast Sanctuary on the kobold and tell the drow to drop it two more times, since my oath is on the line, the drow had no intention of droping it, and my spell was about to wear off I swinged at him and hit for 16. I will ament I should of done nonlethal, but was unfamilar with the rules and didn't know it could be done with any type of weapon. My intention was to knock him down to the point he would fall over unconsince, so I could cast vigor on him so he wouldn't die, but wouldn't also wake up right away to give me enough time to give the kobolds the drows money and grap both by the neck and toss them both in their hole before anyone else tried the same. I rolled my max damage by mistake and killed him. Edit: Adding the following section ------------------------------------- After I killed the drow, the rogue went up to the last kobold, start speaking in undercommon, kobold didn't speak back, and the rogue used his psionic power to kill it. He turn around and said 'the kobold said "he was going to kill us all and consume our flesh,"' even tho the kobold didn't say anything (Worse con artist ever {rogue wanted me to kill him so he could begin a new character}). I began walking towards the rogue (with the intention of killing him and ending the whole campaign) but the dwarf, who owned the rogue, steped between us and begun sweet talking me (he rolled a 17 Diplomacy and I rolled an opposed 2) I had no choice but to not kill right at that moment :tantrum: and I'm not going to kill him in his sleep or anything like that (means gotta find a new reason to kill him) ---------------------------------------------------------------- I shall now conclude this post with the the definition of good, evil, chaotic, and chaotic good from core book to point out that my actions were not evil, and that they follow completly within the terms for good and chaotic. Revised (v.3.5) System Reference Document http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/Description.rtf “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. “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. “Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them Chaotic Good, “Rebel”: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society. Edit: Added section I forgot, fixed spelling error
eRaz0r 11-03-04, 07:54 PM	Oh Please, people ! Drop the Star Wars references. The fact that GLucas decided that Vaders rather lame actions at the end of ROTJ would redeem him from the dark side and into the light bears NO WEIGHT on this argument. Mr Lucas has demonstrated time and again that his grasp of moral issues through film is tenuous at best, and downright damaging at worst. Sheesh, his films don't even admit there is a gray side at all. And his screwed up equivalence of any strong emotion (even love!) with the dark side indicates the man himself has some serious issues of his own to deal with. To refer to this film-maker as an ethical compass demonstrates a moral bankruptcy I find hard to fathom. Do some research. Start by typing "Moral Philosophy" into Google and go from there. Then, after you've read about Kant, Hume, Utilitarianism, Moral Relativity vs Absolutism, Free Will vs Determinism vs Indeterminism, and a hoard of other topics, come back with a cogent argument that can stand up to a real dissection.
Insane Pixie 11-03-04, 08:02 PM	Oh Please, people ! Drop the Star Wars references. The fact that GLucas decided that Vaders rather lame actions at the end of ROTJ would redeem him from the dark side and into the light bears NO WEIGHT on this argument. Mr Lucas has demonstrated time and again that his grasp of moral issues through film is tenuous at best, and downright damaging at worst. Sheesh, his films don't even admit there is a gray side at all. And his screwed up equivalence of any strong emotion (even love!) with the dark side indicates the man himself has some serious issues of his own to deal with. To refer to this film-maker as an ethical compass demonstrates a moral bankruptcy I find hard to fathom. Do some research. Start by typing "Moral Philosophy" into Google and go from there. Then, after you've read about Kant, Hume, Utilitarianism, Moral Relativity vs Absolutism, Free Will vs Determinism vs Indeterminism, and a hoard of other topics, come back with a cogent argument that can stand up to a real dissection. :eek: :clap:
Sucineri 11-03-04, 08:21 PM	Kadasbrass - Thank you very much for explaining your side of the story. So now that we have FACTS to base our information on then I would say that there was no reason for the alignment switch to neutral. You didn't know there was a subdual damage rule which is fine..BUT the kicker is that the Drow has been known to not give a crap about what you say. I had a group that was basically the same way..I was the DM..my friend played a VoPeace monk and the rest of the party wasn't vow of peace..so in a fight he would knock creatures out and then when a couple monsters ran away he went running to catch them to ask questions and the rest of the party decided to slaughter the ones he knocked out. I can completely see where you are coming from now..BUT there are a few topics that I need to make a comment on.. I also walk into a enemy camp, used diplomacy to make them friends, and later when the drow tries to do the same and gets capture, I free him, and two other people being held, by trading in two Rings of substance (one of which waes mine, the other was the drows sinc ehe gave it to me fore going into their camp) to gain all their freedoms. He would go back with the intention of attacking the guard to get the rings back, after I told him he had no right whats so ever to go back after I had gained his freedom in a bargain with the guard. Having done so, he ruined my relation with the army I was spying on to gather information and personally angered me. He gave you the item to hold onto, and you gave it away in return for him being freed..it is totally justifiable that he would want HIS item back because he doesn't think it was right for you to trade something of his away like that. While it is also justifiable on your side that you also make up for it (to you) that you trade away your own item as well. But still..you traded away one of his items that it seems he would not have traded away, and he thinks that is wrong so he works to change it. ..at night we get attacked by a group, with one of the few people not attacked being the drow (the other being the rogue), with the drow saying it looks like the work of drow and then saying it wasn't since some of the attacks didn't appear to be drow. I leave the group afterwards on my own to find my own answers..After that I find a mage able to use divination to comfirm that at lest part of the group that attacked us was drow, and with the fact that the drow in our group wasn't attack I begin to question his trust. Maybe the Drow just didn't want to attack one of their 'brothers'..doesn't mean his was in on it..you didn't say whether or not the Drow actually participated in the fight to draw them away though. Now let us go to the event in question. Let's..from what I read then yes you are totally justified on hitting him because for one you saw evidence that he ignored your request (seeing a magic missile)..AND he used the kobold as a shield..plus you didn't know the subdual rules..which I can understand. So I would say that your DM needs to change your back to Chaotic Good, the alignment switch was not called for.
markhaus 11-03-04, 09:38 PM	Ah, so whats your basis four your assumption that the threadstarter decieved us? Did we come so far that we have to question everything which is said in this forum? Simply put yes. The earlier post by the cleric confirms that judgements cant be based on one-sided stories If what the cleric said is true (and since it coincides w/ what the drow said, and failed to mention certain things) then the DM was wrong to change his alignment. The DM might actually want to offer the nonlethal damage option if the player didnt know. (though the drow might hold it against the cleric... death is sometimes the best option) Not to say w/ certainty that the cleric is saying everything, but it sounds more like the full truth then what the drow said.
Thorak 11-03-04, 09:42 PM	Since I've been razzing on your fairly hard, I'll give my 2 copper on your own account of things. I also walk into a enemy camp, used diplomacy to make them friends, and later when the drow tries to do the same and gets capture, I free him, and two other people being held, by trading in two Rings of substance (one of which waes mine, the other was the drows sinc ehe gave it to me fore going into their camp) to gain all their freedoms. He would go back with the intention of attacking the guard to get the rings back, after I told him he had no right whats so ever to go back after I had gained his freedom in a bargain with the guard. Having done so, he ruined my relation with the army I was spying on to gather information and personally angered me. So, you traded away an item of his without his permission, and his getting it back angers you because of it's incidental effects. This is just a conflict of personality; you didn't really have the right to give away his ring, and he didn't really have the right to ignore your efforts with the army. But neither act was evil. Just because he didn't listen to you doesn't mean he was "wrong". (What happens, that my chacter does not know, is that the drow walked in and threated the kobolds to give up because there were more of 'us,' and by us he met more drow, and the kobolds decided to attack) I see the drow using magic missle on the kobolds, the rogue hiding, and I shout in draconic that we mean the kobolds no harm. Since we are traveling blindly through out the underdark I want to get as much information as possible. The rest of the group comes in and begins to fight I try to tell them to stop. Shortly afterwards the kobolds begin to flee, I should in common to my group that anyone that attacks a kobold that gave up fighting will face divine punishment. The kobolds attacked. The drow was perfectly justified in defending himself. To the point of ensuring he kills them as they retreat, so they can't regroup and attack again. Your order was ill-thought-out and he was perfectly right to ignore you, since you were ignorant of the actual situation. I try to get the other kobold to talk, give it some of my food, but it doesn't talkl because it is watching the drow take everything off the kobold I healed and kicking it. I tell the kobold (no one knows what I'm saying since its in draconic) that "I wouldn't let any of them do it harm." in an effort to get it to talk, like before he doesn't so I tell him he can go home, he runs off and I shout for no one to do anything to him. The drow however, ignoring what I said, goes after the kobold and graps him, ignores me again when I tell him to drop it. Considing the drow beat up the other kobold, is bleeding a little, and attacked the fleeing kobolds, I have no choice but to conclude the drow either likes to kill things or seeks revenge. No, you do have a choice. Another alternative is "the Drow was attacked by the kobolds, and was ensuring that he did as much damage to them as he could, to lessen the chance that they would regroup and attack again". This fits perfectly with everything your character saw. Unless your character is being racist and deeming the Drow to be in the wrong just because he's of an evil race (which kobolds, incidentally, are as well). I swing at him (and missed) in a effort to get him to drop the kobold and defend him self, but he then uses it as a shield. Using a living creature as a shield was a final straw, so I cast Sanctuary on the kobold and tell the drow to drop it two more times, since my oath is on the line, the drow had no intention of droping it, and my spell was about to wear off I swinged at him and hit for 16. Using the kobold as a shield was smart. You obviously don't want the kobold hurt, so he's trying to interpose it so you won't attack him. Of course, you abandon all your previous claims of not wanting to injure the kobold when you risk doing just that by attacking the drow, again. I will ament I should of done nonlethal, dut was unfamilar with the rules and didn't know it could be done with any type of weapon. My intention was to knock him down to the point he would fall over unconsince, so I could cast vigor on him so he wouldn't die, but wouldn't also wake up right away to give me enough time to give the kobolds the drows money and grap both by the neck and toss them both in their hole before anyone else tried the same. I rolled my max damage by mistake and killed him. Or you could have punched him. Unarmed attacks are nonlethal. You chose to stab him with a spear. I don't see how that's justifiable. I shall now conclude this post with the the definition of good, evil, chaotic, and chaotic good from core book to point out that my actions were not evil, and that they follow completly within the terms for good and chaotic. You showed little to no repsect for the Drow's life, you weren't in any way kind and benevolent, and you've several times in the story you yourself provided shouted orders at people and tried to make them do what you want them to; something CGs supposedly detest. So you're not playing Good, though you are playing somewhat Chaotic. The DM was right to change your alignment; if this is how your character acts, he's not CG. CN is closer, and I wouldn't rule out CE, depending on why your character was helping the enemy.
markhaus 11-03-04, 09:47 PM	A big guy walks up to your friends and says "Hey do this or me and my evil friends are gonna rough you up" you attack. Your evil b/c your are kobolds. That makes sense Using human shields: always a good act. Im sure Thorak, your view of good and evil is strangely skewed. (its racism against Drow, but not kobolds... double standard anyone?)
Kadasbrass 11-03-04, 09:58 PM	The DM did change his mind. Maybe the Drow just didn't want to attack one of their 'brothers'..doesn't mean his was in on it..you didn't say whether or not the Drow actually participated in the fight to draw them away though. The reason I didn't mentition anything was because my character did't really know what happened. I will however explain what happened and point out what I did know and didn't know. Here is what my character knew. As everyone went out to sleep, the rogue was up and about, the drow was keeping watch, since I only needed two hours of sleep and after spending a week (or was it a month?) searching one single freakin mountain for the 'mythic' mithral hall, I went out and about to search the surround area, theres always the chance some clues can only been seen at night. I think I see something moving in the darkness, but find something, later I hear someone pull out the great sword and cast light on it (only thing had I was willing to cast light on, didn't want to cast it on my armor to give them a better target... I shout that I know your out there, then I got hit by a number of darts, about three of them and managed to roll above twenty for each of my fort saves. Since I'm human and can't see anything I drop to the ground to buff that I've been poisoned and knocked out, hoping they reveal themselfs. Then one of the secondary effects managed to knock me sleep and I later awoke in camp. This is what happened while I was asleep, most of which my character never know or asked about since when I did awake 6 of the 7 npc dwarfs was dead and that became a more important issue. When I left, the rogue woke the dwarf up that 'owns' him (While we try to recapture him, some dwarfs someone bought the rights to him and went out and got him themselfs for their own purpose), to try and get me in trouble, dwarf tells him off and goes to sleep. The drow then hears my shout and runs there, sees the dart and believes it a drow dart so he does something that means to the drow that he doesn't have any issues with them. He then drags me back to camp where he finds out the dwarfs were dead and about this time everyone wakes up or is waken up (except me) and find out that everyone that was sleep that wasn't dead that was was a dagger stuck in the ground next to their head (Whats the odds of that many critical 1's being rolled...) They begin talk wildly about who would do a attack, sometime around here I wake up. I find out the dart in me is a drow type weapon, by the drow, but he says it looks like a non drow group, since they did just a sloopy work, thats trying to make it look like drow. We find out at this time the dwarfs had a piece of a map that lead them to this region but the rest was missing. I try asking questions to find out if there any way to find out what happened to the other half such as, from whom did the map come from, any old family members that know of the map, questions like that. All of them are in vain. I also try saying that maybe theres two groups trying to get the map piece, one drow, and one another. But noone pays any attention to me. We now are a dead end, could either continue searching mountains, which is a waste of time. Or could go back the way we came, but still won't help since didn't come across mage shops that could provide help on the matter. I decide to leave the group at this point since its hopeless, I know theres a ocean to the west, that theres many large wealthy cities there, and where there are large wealthy cities there powerful mages, and where their powerful mages theirs seers and divinationist and the sort. However I would end up in longstaddle and get help from the Harpals (sp?) who find out that the dart that one of the darts on me (and took with me) was indeed used by drow. To make a long story short at this point The Harpals give me a map, their not sure if its real or not, but it points out a tunnel to underdark, I go there, comfirm it and come back and run into the party again. The party went to another dead end, told to go to longstaddle for help, they get stopped a few days because they get imprissioned when some of them begin looting a group of dead elfs and more elfs come by. They find me, we head to underdark. I like to point out at this time, that our DM has a real cruel side at times. This rogue we have, he realived he goofed up to much at the start by lieing too often, that no one trust him. That he wanted to start a new character and tried to get himself killed but the DM not only won't let it happen, he is forcing him to live now, tho for a reason I'm not a liberty to say yet. That the rogue followed us to an city when he was ordered to stay after offending the commander, and when we got ahold of him he bluffed he was on a quest to find the holy grail and since the half of the group that found him rolled natural ones on their sense motive they believed him (thats how the first NPC got killed, the bard didn't have info to tell the enemy since she only know there was quest for it, they cut her arm off when she wouldn't talk in prison and died in a frenzy during a escape temp.) The DM then invoked his cruelty and we find out that there was a quest for the holy grail and we somehow got drafted for it trying to get the rogue back and we run into the drawfs, and now you know the rest of the story
Kakerate 11-03-04, 10:08 PM	I swing at him (and missed) in a effort to get him to drop the kobold and defend him self, but he then uses it as a shield. Ok, just one thing wrong with this. He hasn't hurt this kobold yet. I agree I would be very angry with the Drow, but that doesn't justify taking a swing at him now. Especially since it appears you have let him act this way too often to begin with. Always remember to be Mr strick/ Mr morals and get your respect first. Then, after others see your ideas for the good they do be a little leinent with your freinds. I see it as your fault that the kobolds were attacked in the first place. YOU have the morals to abide by, which means your opinion drives the group. You cant just let mr chaotic do whatever he wants without you overview. Forshame cleric. Forshame. How come you didn't reprimand the rest of the party for their actions? You attacked the Drow. Granted he needed to be punished but violence is not the answer in this case. Look what violence did. It killed the kobold and the Drow. That drow was your responsibility. I see it as your fault this happened. This is why paladins dont hang out with Creatures who are CN. Have a clue. You had it coming when the drow disobeyed your order the first time.
Thorak 11-03-04, 10:19 PM	A big guy walks up to your friends and says "Hey do this or me and my evil friends are gonna rough you up" you attack. Your evil b/c your are kobolds. That makes sense Using human shields: always a good act. Im sure Thorak, your view of good and evil is strangely skewed. (its racism against Drow, but not kobolds... double standard anyone?) You're misinterpreting. A big guy walks up and says "You are surrounded. Give up and you won't be hurt." Attacking him may not be evil, but it certainly doesn't make him defending himself evil either. Nothing about either account I've seen says the Drow did anything but claim that the kobolds were surrounded by enemies. If they were in a hostile dungeon-crawl (which they were) this is a perfectly good tactic, and a way to minimize unnecessary casualties. Unless the kobolds decide to attack anyway, in which case you're hardly a bad guy for attacking them. As for the human shield; human shields work because the 'wielder' assumes the guy he's trying to fend off won't attack. If I captured an enemy, and one of my friends said "let him go, or else", I'd say "screw you". If my friend then tried to kill me (which the cleric did, attacking with a weapon), damn straight I'd stick the enemy in the way. If he's so concerned about the enemy, maybe he'll stop. How is that evil? It's probably not Good, but the Drow was Neutral. So he's not acting out of alignment. And it didn't justify killing the drow. The kobold wasn't in any immediate danger, so there was no reason for the cleric to attack.
thepuregamer 11-03-04, 10:39 PM	That has nothing to do with RACE at all. The drow in the party was the one that USED A SKILL to intimidate the Kobolds. Hell, a halfling could have done it too and by your reasoning then the halfling would be the strongest and scariest form of evil. This has nothing to do with race, but the use of a SKILL. If you are part of a bank robbery and someone gets shot, nobody just runs up to the gunman, they think they will get shot as well. You can sense throughout the whole movie that Vader isn't pure evil..he hesitates on acting quite a lot (other than dealing with his own stupid lackeys). Oh..and just like the last thread we argued in..you had to be the first to start the name calling. I am saying you are extremely ignorant and narrow minded. But I won't call you an idiot. By the way, I was not the one to start the name calling sucineri. I believe you were with a remark like this one. "So because elves are usually chaotic good you say you think 99% are good of some sort? What kind of crack are your smoking?" My supposed name calling was only in reply to your targeting me. Anyway, in reply to your first comment. Are you saying it does not matter who makes the threat? Well maybe you are right in terms of skill modifiers. But what does the skill describe itself as. Well the last line of the flavor text says this, "Intimidation includes verbal threats and body language." So first off, your drow comes into someone else's home and threatens them. To the kobalds, psychologically it makes a difference whether or not a halfling or a drow is the one making the threats. Kobalds have real experiences with drow. These experiences are most surely bad. They have every reason to kill a person who comes into their home to threaten them. To them, threats from a drow are very real. Threats from a drow, mean enslavement and death. There are very few stories that I know of where attacking the aggressor is wrong. So when you say, intimidate is just a skill, I laugh. In terms of game mechanics, I agree entirely. You follow the rules of the skill. But that is just to see whether you scare them. But there are very real roleplaying consequences when a drow threatens kobalds in their own home. I also find it funny that you compare this group to bank robbers. Because we all know that band robbers hold the strongest of ties. If there were a bank heist and one of the robbers killed someone. The other bank robbers might not like it but then again they aren't going to die for someone they don't know or care about. Your example implies that the rest of the party neither knows nor cares about the drow enough to risk their lives. where are the bonds of trust or friendship there? Your little point about Vader is also funny. You start to claim he is not pure evil but neutral or something. Yet then you say that his dealings with his lackeys do not matter. That is like saying that the clerics dealings with the drow do not matter. That only his actions toward those he cares about matter. It as if you have switched sides or something and you didn't want anyone to know. Anyway, I think you just don't like the fact that I prove you wrong point by point. So then you get viscious and target me. Well, the funny thing is since I don't know you, your insults don't matter to me. If I got upset over every anonymous person's mean comment I likely wouldn't go online.
Kadasbrass 11-03-04, 10:51 PM	Posted by Thorak The kobolds attacked. The drow was perfectly justified in defending himself. To the point of ensuring he kills them as they retreat, so they can't regroup and attack again. Your order was ill-thought-out and he was perfectly right to ignore you, since you were ignorant of the actual situation. As long as their fighting, it perfect justified, even when he attacked them retreating I won't hold it to him forever, but I draw the line there. But once you strip it off everything and Then begin kicking it, I'm going to be a bit angry, and a real person not going to behave rationally and think clearly, speacially when their a chaotic character. There always comes apoint where everyone just explodes, where even minor things they would of normally tolerate just add up and become major things. Posted by Thorak No, you do have a choice. Another alternative is "the Drow was attacked by the kobolds, and was ensuring that he did as much damage to them as he could, to lessen the chance that they would regroup and attack again". This fits perfectly with everything your character saw. Unless your character is being racist and deeming the Drow to be in the wrong just because he's of an evil race (which kobolds, incidentally, are as well). Look their kobolds, the only way in for them is a single tunnel (which is partly caved in now) most of the remaining group was there, if they begun attacking the kobolds would be coming up in two single file lines and get massacred, but the two kobolds in our room were no longer a threat, there was no reason for him to go after the one I sent back. Further more, while in underdark, we have enough out there trying to kill us without going around trying to kill everything we come across and giving the region a reason to unite against a passing by group, the kobolded I talked to knew someone that knew the surrounding area but was to scared to bring him out, I was hoping that if we showed them we were not here for a blood tristhy hunt that we could get them around to out side. I know kobolds are evil, but if evil was enough reason to comdemn someone to death, or I could justife go into any city, cast detect evil, find someone that was detected and kill them and they say their evil. That is not enough reason or I could of said the drow was evil when I first saw him and killed him then and be justifed. I am willing to give most creatures the benefit of the doubt first. Creatures do change, and lets say years from now, this colony of kobolds could of become good on the action of a single person. Posted by Thorak Using the kobold as a shield was smart. You obviously don't want the kobold hurt, so he's trying to interpose it so you won't attack him. Of course, you abandon all your previous claims of not wanting to injure the kobold when you risk doing just that by attacking the drow, again. Whats why I casted Sanctuary on it, to make it less likely I would hurt it, and to be techincal I said to it 'I would let none of them bring you harm.' And here is something I forgot to include before, I was in a rush then and will include it now, this doesn't help my case anywhy, but I will not give anyone the chance to say my account is not complete, when I say something happened I try to make it as truthfull as possible and then make my case outside of it and I will edit it into my orginal account. After I killed the drow, the rogue went up to the last kobold, start speaking in undercommon, kobold didn't speak back, and the rogue used his psionic power to kill it. He turn around and said the kobold said "he was going to kill us all and consume our flesh," even tho the kobold didn't say anything (Worse con artist ever {rogue wanted me to kill him so he could begin a new character}). I began walking towards the rogue (with the intention of killing him and ending the whole campaign) but the dwarf, who owned the rogue, steped between us and begun sweet talking me (he rolled a 17 Diplomacy and I rolled an opposed 2) I had no choice but to not kill right at that moment :tantrum: and I'm not going to kill him in his sleep or anything like that (means gotta find a new reason to kill him)
thepuregamer 11-03-04, 11:11 PM	Thorak, Kadasbrass' post pretty much frees him from all evil charges. Does anyone notice that all my previous assumptions have turned out correct? That possibly they were the more logical assumptions hmmm? Well the drow has a history for ignoring the cleric's wishes. He goes off ahead of the group and threatens a group of kobalds. He tells them they are surrounded by drow, they should surrender. What do you think this means to the kobalds? They assume that menzoberranzan needs more slaves or they need fodder for a war. The drow should have run away after making a threat like that. He had no right to come into their home and kill them. When the cleric arrives, the drow keeps hurting and killing the kobalds even though the battle is pretty much over. The cleric is trying to reach a peaceful solution with the kobald, but the drow is torturing one right in front of him. Then he goes after the other kobald when it runs away. The cleric has absolutely no reason to trust this drow. This drow sounds more evil than neutral to me. The cleric obviously had great reason to think the same. So the drow deserved to die. Apparently Thorak, you assumption of trust in this group was flat out wrong. You have nothing. And when you get rude you get stupid because you were wrong in insulting me. Especially when you say this, "Except that you said that "neutral was doing equal amounts of good and evil", and that's wrong. Unless you can provide evidence that this is true. As I said, neutral is defined as indifference to or belief in the necessity of both. Not in balancing the two one-for-one. So if by "right" you mean "have absolutely no basis for the claims you make in defiance of the PHB definition", and by "aren't even in this thread" you mean "directly quoted from you", then yes, I agree." What do you think doing equal ammounts of good and evil means? Well it means not leaning toward one or the other. Which is basically the description of the all the neutral alignments. A neutral character can do good things but it doesn't make him good. He does not desire to do good. He could occassionally do evil things, but there is no desire to do evil. A chaotic neutral character is unpredictable. So if you try to prove your points by being an idiot, you will find that you prove very little in the process except that you are an idiot. So once again, I resort to name calling 2nd. Thank you for the good time.
Derren S. 11-04-04, 06:47 AM	Thorak, Kadasbrass' post pretty much frees him from all evil charges. Hardly. Well the drow has a history for ignoring the cleric's wishes. Thats called chaotic. He goes off ahead of the group and threatens a group of kobalds. He tells them they are surrounded by drow, they should surrender. As opposed to simply attacking the kobolds? A smart and good move when you are in the underdark. Definately not evil. What do you think this means to the kobalds? They assume that menzoberranzan needs more slaves or they need fodder for a war. Still better than death The drow should have run away after making a threat like that. He had no right to come into their home and kill them. Which obviosly wasn't his plan as he tried to intimiate them into surrendering. When the cleric arrives, the drow keeps hurting and killing the kobalds even though the battle is pretty much over. Which is not evil. The kobolds attacked him and he made sure they didn't came back or get reinforcments from a bigger tribe. The cleric is trying to reach a peaceful solution with the kobald, but the drow is torturing one right in front of him. Yes, the torturing is something any G person would stop. Then he goes after the other kobald when it runs away. Stop fleeing prisoners. Still not evil. The cleric has absolutely no reason to trust this drow. Trust has nothing do do with alignment. This drow sounds more evil than neutral to me. No. Except for torturing all his acts were neutral. And he doesn't let himself be ordered arround by the cleric which is chaotic. The cleric on the other hand sounds more L than C. The cleric obviously had great reason to think the same. The beautyful thing is that clerics don't need to think about that. They have detect spells and when they don't use them it is their fault. So the drow deserved to die. Why? He wasn't evil. And when you really want to say that evil deserves to die then the kobold deserves to die too. Especially when you say this, "Except that you said that "neutral was doing equal amounts of good and evil", and that's wrong. Unless you can provide evidence that this is true. As I said, neutral is defined as indifference to or belief in the necessity of both. Not in balancing the two one-for-one. There are two definitions of neutral, indifference and balancing. Both are in the PHB and therefore valid. So if by "right" you mean "have absolutely no basis for the claims you make in defiance of the PHB definition", and by "aren't even in this thread" you mean "directly quoted from you", then yes, I agree." I suggest you read the PHB before making such accusations. While the drow strained the relationship, there was no reason for the cleric to kill the drow as except for the torturing the drow didn't do evil and the torturing could have been prevented by other means (for example the mentioned sanctuary). The cleric killed a neutral creature to protect a evil one. Knocking the drow out would have been enough. That alone should make clear that the act was evil.
Thorak 11-04-04, 07:32 AM	As long as their fighting, it perfect justified, even when he attacked them retreating I won't hold it to him forever, but I draw the line there. But once you strip it off everything and Then begin kicking it, I'm going to be a bit angry, and a real person not going to behave rationally and think clearly, speacially when their a chaotic character. There always comes apoint where everyone just explodes, where even minor things they would of normally tolerate just add up and become major things. Yes and yes, but having a hissy fit about people not doing things your way is not a justification for killing them. At least, from a Good perspective; it's perfectly valid for an Evil character. Look their kobolds, the only way in for them is a single tunnel (which is partly caved in now) most of the remaining group was there, if they begun attacking the kobolds would be coming up in two single file lines and get massacred, but the two kobolds in our room were no longer a threat, there was no reason for him to go after the one I sent back. Except to interrogate him. Which could be incredibly useful. And isn't evil. Further more, while in underdark, we have enough out there trying to kill us without going around trying to kill everything we come across and giving the region a reason to unite against a passing by group, the kobolded I talked to knew someone that knew the surrounding area but was to scared to bring him out, I was hoping that if we showed them we were not here for a blood tristhy hunt that we could get them around to out side. Which is why, when the Drow captures him, you explain your goal to the Drow and hope to convince him. You don't stick your spear in him until he stops moving. I know kobolds are evil, but if evil was enough reason to comdemn someone to death, or I could justife go into any city, cast detect evil, find someone that was detected and kill them and they say their evil. That is not enough reason or I could of said the drow was evil when I first saw him and killed him then and be justifed. I never claimed this. I claimed it was justified because the kobolds attacked. I am willing to give most creatures the benefit of the doubt first. Creatures do change, and lets say years from now, this colony of kobolds could of become good on the action of a single person. Yes, it's possible. But here-and-now, they attacked your ally, and when he captured (instead of just killing) one of them, you thought that was somehow a capital crime. The alignment of the kobolds is immaterial, really. Whats why I casted Sanctuary on it, to make it less likely I would hurt it, and to be techincal I said to it 'I would let none of them bring you harm.' And Sanctuary doesn't affect you; it affects opponents. And it's incredibly hypocritical to try and protect the kobold's life, when he's not in any direct danger of dying, and then stab your friend to death. And here is something I forgot to include before, I was in a rush then and will include it now, this doesn't help my case anywhy, but I will not give anyone the chance to say my account is not complete, when I say something happened I try to make it as truthfull as possible and then make my case outside of it and I will edit it into my orginal account. After I killed the drow, the rogue went up to the last kobold, start speaking in undercommon, kobold didn't speak back, and the rogue used his psionic power to kill it. He turn around and said the kobold said "he was going to kill us all and consume our flesh," even tho the kobold didn't say anything (Worse con artist ever {rogue wanted me to kill him so he could begin a new character}). I began walking towards the rogue (with the intention of killing him and ending the whole campaign) but the dwarf, who owned the rogue, steped between us and begun sweet talking me (he rolled a 17 Diplomacy and I rolled an opposed 2) I had no choice but to not kill right at that moment :tantrum: and I'm not going to kill him in his sleep or anything like that (means gotta find a new reason to kill him) 1> Diplomacy wouldn't have stopped you. It would have made you friendly to the Dwarf, but if you felt strongly enough to be murdering supposed friends, a little chat wouldn't stop you. 2> So, you won't kill allies in their sleep, but you will kill them for disobeying you, or trying to capture an enemy. If anything, your character is sounding more and more Lawful Evil, since you're incredibly free with killing your friends, and you're issuing an awful lot of obey-or-die orders to the party. Sure, you had reasons to kill him. Everyone has reasons to kill anyone they kill. It's what those reasons are that show your alignment. Here, the only reasons I can see are that he disobeyed your order, and for some reason had a problem with him capturing instead of killing an enemy, the latter of which he would have been perfectly justified in doing even if he were Good. Your reasons for killing your ally come off as LE or NE, rather than anything even remotely Good. That you were angry or irrational doesn't matter; people who get angry and kill their friends for not doing what they want are evil. Thorak, Kadasbrass' post pretty much frees him from all evil charges. Does anyone notice that all my previous assumptions have turned out correct? That possibly they were the more logical assumptions hmmm? And your assumptions were irrelevant to the alignment the cleric was demonstrating then, and still are now. Well the drow has a history for ignoring the cleric's wishes. He goes off ahead of the group and threatens a group of kobalds. He tells them they are surrounded by drow, they should surrender. What do you think this means to the kobalds? They assume that menzoberranzan needs more slaves or they need fodder for a war. The drow should have run away after making a threat like that. He had no right to come into their home and kill them. He didn't come to their home and kill them. He tried to force them to surrender without a fight. He failed, and they attacked. I'd agree the Drow bungled the situation, but he was hardly acting Evil, or out of character, in doing what he did. He was justified, the kobolds were justified. When the cleric arrives, the drow keeps hurting and killing the kobalds even though the battle is pretty much over. The cleric is trying to reach a peaceful solution with the kobald, but the drow is torturing one right in front of him. Then he goes after the other kobald when it runs away. The cleric has absolutely no reason to trust this drow. This drow sounds more evil than neutral to me. The cleric obviously had great reason to think the same. The drow is trying to demoralize and finish off as many of the enemy as possible, to reduce the likelihood of them regrouping and counterattacking. When your enemy retreats, that doesn't mean you have to or should let them go. And the drow wasn't torturing anyone. He kicked a single kobold. Hardly out of character for a CN, and while the cleric might dislike the act, it's hardly justification for killing. So we have a drow who defended himself and tried to ensure the fight ended, rather than letting the enemy regroup, and was angry and kicked one of the surviving enemies. And we have a cleric who then stabbed him through the heart for it. How, exactly, is a minor assault worthy of capital punishment, again? How is the Drow more evil than the cleric? So the drow deserved to die. Apparently Thorak, you assumption of trust in this group was flat out wrong. You have nothing. And when you get rude you get stupid because you were wrong in insulting me. Especially when you say this, "Except that you said that "neutral was doing equal amounts of good and evil", and that's wrong. Unless you can provide evidence that this is true. As I said, neutral is defined as indifference to or belief in the necessity of both. Not in balancing the two one-for-one. So if by "right" you mean "have absolutely no basis for the claims you make in defiance of the PHB definition", and by "aren't even in this thread" you mean "directly quoted from you", then yes, I agree." What do you think doing equal ammounts of good and evil means? Well it means not leaning toward one or the other. Which is basically the description of the all the neutral alignments. A neutral character can do good things but it doesn't make him good. He does not desire to do good. He could occassionally do evil things, but there is no desire to do evil. A chaotic neutral character is unpredictable. So if you try to prove your points by being an idiot, you will find that you prove very little in the process except that you are an idiot. So once again, I resort to name calling 2nd. Thank you for the good time. Doing equal amounts of good and evil means you're insane. Saving a child's life doesn't mean you get to go out and murder another, to 'even the score'. The two accepted interpretations of Neutral are indifference to Good and Evil, or a belief in balance. And what 'balance' means is that both good and evil are necessary for the world to keep going. It doesn't mean you need to engage in perfectly equal amounts of each. It means you understand that people like murderers, while horrible, are necessary at one level; they keep people on their toes and keep them from getting complacent. I also don't see how I resorted to name calling. I said you were wrong, and IMHO you clearly are. And I then, somewhat facetiously I'll admit, said that if you meant the exact opposite of what you said, then I agree. But being facetious isn't an insult. So congratulations on jumping into name-calling. You'll forgive me if I don't see any reason to taint my argument by responding in like manner. I repeat again; your comments regarding neutral alignments defy what the PHB defines them as, and have no support in the RAW. They are not an act-by-act even scoreboard. If anything, that describes insanity, not neutrality.
thepuregamer 11-04-04, 11:13 AM	And your assumptions were irrelevant to the alignment the cleric was demonstrating then, and still are now. He didn't come to their home and kill them. He tried to force them to surrender without a fight. He failed, and they attacked. I'd agree the Drow bungled the situation, but he was hardly acting Evil, or out of character, in doing what he did. He was justified, the kobolds were justified. The drow is trying to demoralize and finish off as many of the enemy as possible, to reduce the likelihood of them regrouping and counterattacking. When your enemy retreats, that doesn't mean you have to or should let them go. And the drow wasn't torturing anyone. He kicked a single kobold. Hardly out of character for a CN, and while the cleric might dislike the act, it's hardly justification for killing. So we have a drow who defended himself and tried to ensure the fight ended, rather than letting the enemy regroup, and was angry and kicked one of the surviving enemies. And we have a cleric who then stabbed him through the heart for it. How, exactly, is a minor assault worthy of capital punishment, again? How is the Drow more evil than the cleric? Doing equal amounts of good and evil means you're insane. Saving a child's life doesn't mean you get to go out and murder another, to 'even the score'. The two accepted interpretations of Neutral are indifference to Good and Evil, or a belief in balance. And what 'balance' means is that both good and evil are necessary for the world to keep going. It doesn't mean you need to engage in perfectly equal amounts of each. It means you understand that people like murderers, while horrible, are necessary at one level; they keep people on their toes and keep them from getting complacent. I also don't see how I resorted to name calling. I said you were wrong, and IMHO you clearly are. And I then, somewhat facetiously I'll admit, said that if you meant the exact opposite of what you said, then I agree. But being facetious isn't an insult. So congratulations on jumping into name-calling. You'll forgive me if I don't see any reason to taint my argument by responding in like manner. I repeat again; your comments regarding neutral alignments defy what the PHB defines them as, and have no support in the RAW. They are not an act-by-act even scoreboard. If anything, that describes insanity, not neutrality. Ok the first line I will tear up for you is the one I have boldened. So the drow hasn't come into the kobalds' homes and killed them? I was pretty sure that he actually had killed some. For the drow to remain of a good or neutral alignment, he shouldn't have killed any of the kobalds. It is like saying that a man has the right to self defense if he goes into another man's home and threatens into giving up his money while brandishing a bat. If the man didn't actually mean his threat, then he has no right to defend himself. He can run away but if it is an evil act to search someone out to threaten them and kill them. This drow is apparently not so neutral. The cleric is right to side with the kobalds because they are right in this situation. The drow is wrong. The drow continues to do evil to them even after they are defeated. It is funny how in your mind, the act of kicking someone while they are on the ground is perfectly ok. Just because kicks are nonlethal damage doesn't mean that it isn't physical torture. Hell you should watch some movies. Half of hollywood's torture scenes involves beating the crap out of someone. So first of all, the drow was wrong to kill them when they attacked him. He was wrong to kill them when they ran away. He was wrong to detain the kobald who was running away. And wanting to stop them from regrouping is not a justification for killing or torturing. If he was afraid of the kobalds regrouping, he should have left the area. Then the act of using a kobald as a meat shield is the final straw. Using living creatures as shields can only be considered evil. It is a lack of care for life and there is no way to justify it. So this is all that the drow has done and just in this one circumstance. It makes perfect sense for the cleric to side with the kobalds. If a good person wants to prevent acts of evil done unto others, he would be very willing to stop this drow who in the cleric's mind is apparently showing his true colors. You are also confused about my statement about alignment. A chaotic neutral character would not lean toward good or evil. You seem to think that means that neutral characters can't do good or evil. How does that work? Please enlighten me. Does this neutral character travel to the mountains and isolate himself from the world? Otherwise he would be constantly doing small acts of good and evil to everyone around him. A chaotic neutral character could easily see the world as divided into his friends and family and those he does not care about. He could easily rush to save his sister from drowning in a well and at the same time have no issues with killing someone if he had to. He would not search out people to kill because he has no desire to. Killing might not even need happen. The equalizing of good and evil actions could all be minor ones. He lends a friend enough money for a meal but doesn't expect anything back. Or he steals dinner from the home of a random person. Your weird belief that doing both good and evil requires special mental states is funny. I have already read the alignment pages of the phb by the way. They cover personality and intent. They do not cover actions over the course of a life. They talk about tendencies. Well I am talking about actual actions. A chaotic neutral character has nothing impeding them from doing good or evil. They go out of their way to do them. It is as if there is no pattern. So don't tell me I am confused or saying opposite things when you are just twisting my words. And if by facetious you meant this ," rude and insulting" then I guess you are right. You were being facetious. But if you meant this, "Playfully jocular; humorous: facetious remarks" then I would have to disagree because that sounds nothing like the remark you made in that earlier post.
thepuregamer 11-04-04, 11:30 AM	Quote: Me What do you think this means to the kobalds? They assume that menzoberranzan needs more slaves or they need fodder for a war. What he said in reply: Still better than death. Which obviosly wasn't his plan as he tried to intimiate them into surrendering. Which is not evil. The kobolds attacked him and he made sure they didn't came back or get reinforcments from a bigger tribe. So Your arguement is that the kobalds should have surrendered to the drow and accepted a fate slavery? Wow I love this arguement. It rules in ways I cannot begin to comprehend. Anyway, the threat was not an evil act. But if the threat failed, the drow has no right to come to the home of the kobalds and commence killing them. If they attack him because they expect death or enslavement from a slew of drow, then he should run away. His plan failed, if he wants to remain even neutral he has to leave. But he decides to kill them. Then he tortures one(a very little bit I am not going to call it the most horrible act ever, I am just categorizing the act) So in fact we are not dealing with a neutral drow but an evil drow and you guys are correct, if the cleric wanted to confirm his suspicions he could have cast detect evil. But it was pretty clear who the offender was here and the drow showed no signs of repentence for his deeds. He could care less for the kobalds. So the cleric decided that the drow was not the kind of party member he wanted. You guys are right on this concept. A party member should be trustworthy. Well the cleric doesn't have any of those. I think he should go find some(side quest).
Derren S. 11-04-04, 11:37 AM	So the drow hasn't come into the kobalds' homes and killed them? I was pretty sure that he actually had killed some. Yes, in self defense For the drow to remain of a good or neutral alignment, he shouldn't have killed any of the kobalds. The drow is allowed to defend himself. It is like saying that a man has the right to self defense if he goes into another man's home and threatens into giving up his money while brandishing a bat. If the man didn't actually mean his threat, then he has no right to defend himself. If the man who owns the house pulls out a crossbow and starts shooting like crazy you bet that he is allowed to defend himself. He can run away but if it is an evil act to search someone out to threaten them and kill them. The drow didn't search them out to kill them. Big difference. And it is also evil to kill the intruder. This drow is apparently not so neutral. He is, on the darker side of neutral but he isn't evil. You just don't want to accept that. The cleric is right to side with the kobalds because they are right in this situation. No, they aren't and neither is the cleric. The drow is wrong. Wrong, but not evil. The drow continues to do evil to them even after they are defeated. Killing fleeing enemies isn't evil[/quote] It is funny how in your mind, the act of kicking someone while they are on the ground is perfectly ok. [/quote] Ok? No. Evil (in a D&D sense)? No. Just because kicks are nonlethal damage doesn't mean that it isn't physical torture. Hell you should watch some movies. Half of hollywood's torture scenes involves beating the crap out of someone. One kick != "beating the crap out of someone". And HW movies aren't a great source of accurate information. So first of all, the drow was wrong to kill them when they attacked him. No. When you are attacked, you have the right to defend yourself. He was wrong to kill them when they ran away. No. That was not nice but tactically totally acceptable and not evil He was wrong to detain the kobald who was running away. No. Taking enemies prisoner is a normal thing and actually it is a good thing compared to kill them. And wanting to stop them from regrouping is not a justification for killing or torturing. Yes it is (for killing). If he was afraid of the kobalds regrouping, he should have left the area. And beeing chased by the kobolds who know the area much better than them? Then the act of using a kobald as a meat shield is the final straw. I call it a reflex. When a party member suddenly starts hacking you and you are only holding a kobold which the cleric wouldn't harm it is sensible to place the kobold between yourself and the cleric. The drow didn't capture the kobold for this purpose and didn't provoke the cleric into attacking while holding the kobold. when yo Using living creatures as shields can only be considered evil. [/quite] Not in this circumstance.[quote] It is a lack of care for life and there is no way to justify it. [quote] The kobold was an enemy, not an innocent. Also the drow didn't activly put the kobold in harms way, he only reacted in defense.[quote] So this is all that the drow has done and just in this one circumstance. Yes. Thats why he is CN. It makes perfect sense for the cleric to side with the kobalds. If a good person wants to prevent acts of evil done unto others, he would be very willing to stop this drow who in the cleric's mind is apparently showing his true colors. Yes, a good character would stop him. But not by killing him. that would make you evil and the cleric did exactly that. [quote]So Your arguement is that the kobalds should have surrendered to the drow and accepted a fate slavery? Wow I love this arguement. It is a possibility. It rules in ways I cannot begin to comprehend. So I am finally near your line of argumentation? Anyway, the threat was not an evil act. But if the threat failed, the drow has no right to come to the home of the kobalds and commence killing them. First, where do you get the idea that this was the kobolds home? Second, no. But if the kobolds attacked you with the intention to kill, you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force. If they attack him because they expect death or enslavement from a slew of drow, then he should run away. Or the kobolds should. But they choose to fight His plan failed, if he wants to remain even neutral he has to leave. No. To stay neutral he mustn't attack, but defending is fair game. Also the kobolds didn't even gave him the chance of leaving. But he decides to kill them. No. The kobolds decided to kill the drow. The drow only reacted in defense. Perfectly neutral. Then he tortures one(a very little bit I am not going to call it the most horrible act ever, I am just categorizing the act) So in fact we are not dealing with a neutral drow but an evil drow Wrong. That was hardly torturing and the only evil thing the drow did. All other actions were neutral. and you guys are correct, if the cleric wanted to confirm his suspicions he could have cast detect evil. But it was pretty clear who the offender was here and the drow showed no signs of repentence for his deeds. His neutral (and strategically intelligent) deeds. He could care less for the kobalds. So the cleric decided that the drow was not the kind of party member he wanted. Still no reason to kill the drow. You guys are right on this concept. A party member should be trustworthy. Well the cleric doesn't have any of those. I think he should go find some(side quest). Or leave the group altogether as he is in the minority. But starting to kill all party members because he doesn't like them is evil, even you must accept that.
thepuregamer 11-04-04, 12:01 PM	Yeah, I felt like copying and pasting this time. Quote: Originally Posted by thepuregamer So the drow hasn't come into the kobalds' homes and killed them? I was pretty sure that he actually had killed some. Yes, in self defense Quote: For the drow to remain of a good or neutral alignment, he shouldn't have killed any of the kobalds. The drow is allowed to defend himself. Quote: It is like saying that a man has the right to self defense if he goes into another man's home and threatens into giving up his money while brandishing a bat. If the man didn't actually mean his threat, then he has no right to defend himself. If the man who owns the house pulls out a crossbow and starts shooting like crazy you bet that he is allowed to defend himself. Quote: He can run away but if it is an evil act to search someone out to threaten them and kill them. The drow didn't search them out to kill them. Big difference. And it is also evil to kill the intruder. Quote: The cleric is right to side with the kobalds because they are right in this situation. No, they aren't and neither is the cleric. Quote: The drow continues to do evil to them even after they are defeated. Killing fleeing enemies isn't evil[/quote] It is funny how in your mind, the act of kicking someone while they are on the ground is perfectly ok. [/quote] Ok? No. Evil (in a D&D sense)? No. Quote: So first of all, the drow was wrong to kill them when they attacked him. No. When you are attacked, you have the right to defend yourself. Quote: He was wrong to kill them when they ran away. No. That was not nice but tactically totally acceptable and not evil Quote: And wanting to stop them from regrouping is not a justification for killing or torturing. Yes it is (for killing). Quote: If he was afraid of the kobalds regrouping, he should have left the area. And beeing chased by the kobolds who know the area much better than them? Quote: Then the act of using a kobald as a meat shield is the final straw. I call it a reflex. When a party member suddenly starts hacking you and you are only holding a kobold which the cleric wouldn't harm it is sensible to place the kobold between yourself and the cleric. The drow didn't capture the kobold for this purpose and didn't provoke the cleric into attacking while holding the kobold. Quote: Using living creatures as shields can only be considered evil. [/quote] Not in this circumstance.[quote] It is a lack of care for life and there is no way to justify it. [quote] The kobold was an enemy, not an innocent. Also the drow didn't activly put the kobold in harms way, he only reacted in defense.[quote] So this is all that the drow has done and just in this one circumstance. Yes. Thats why he is CN. Quote: It makes perfect sense for the cleric to side with the kobalds. If a good person wants to prevent acts of evil done unto others, he would be very willing to stop this drow who in the cleric's mind is apparently showing his true colors. Yes, a good character would stop him. But not by killing him. that would make you evil and the cleric did exactly that.[quote] Ok first off, if you go to a mans house and threaten him. You are the aggressor. His act of pulling out a crossbow and firing is self-defense. In the case of the kobalds, the drow represents enslavement. So their attacking him right away is justified. But the drow came to them and threatened them. Just so you know, there is no such thing as it being ok to kill someone who is right in attacking you. A robber enters a store waving a gun and asks for all the money in the register. The store owner pulls out a gun and shoots at him. The store owner is acting in self defense. The robber would never be declared as justified in shooting the store owner even if the store owner shot first. If the robber had come without the intent to kill, the only good thing he could do was run away. It is the same with the drow and the kobalds. His threat failed because they were more afraid of enslavement than death. If the kobalds attack him to defend their home, than he is in the wrong. He is not justified in killing them because he searched them out and threatened them. They did not like his threat and they attacked. This is a pretty simple situation. Issues of tactics have nothing to do with good and evil either. Just because it is tactically better for him to kill and detain the kobalds so they won't regroup doesn't make it right to kill and detain the kobalds. Oh and I find it funny that you call it a reflex for the drow to use the kobald as a shield. A reflex right. An act so natural he doesn't even need to think about it. He just puts the kobald in harms way. Well you just said it all for me. It is a reflex for the drow to commit evil acts and act carelessly toward life. The cleric has seen the drow's actions. All the recent ones have been evil. The drow has done evil unto the kobalds. It is right for the cleric to side with the kobalds. Killing the drow is also justified because he has been doing evil alot lately. He kills the drow to protect the kobalds from him. He was not the one who made the final descision. He gave an ultimatum and the drow ignored it. The cleric gave the drow a chance.
Thorak 11-04-04, 12:37 PM	Ok the first line I will tear up for you is the one I have boldened. So the drow hasn't come into the kobalds' homes and killed them? I was pretty sure that he actually had killed some. For the drow to remain of a good or neutral alignment, he shouldn't have killed any of the kobalds. It is like saying that a man has the right to self defense if he goes into another man's home and threatens into giving up his money while brandishing a bat. If the man didn't actually mean his threat, then he has no right to defend himself. He can run away but if it is an evil act to search someone out to threaten them and kill them. The kobolds attacked first. He merely challenged them and demanded surrender. Not an evil act, and not an evil act either to defend one's self when they don't surrender. Taking your analogy, which you're misusing, it's like you're a soldier in enemy territory and go into a civilian's house, and tell them to surrender and you won't hurt them. So they grab their guns. Is it wrong for the soldier to kill the civilians? No. It's self defense. Context, man. The party is in enemy territory, they can't assume everything's hunky dory. This drow is apparently not so neutral. The cleric is right to side with the kobalds because they are right in this situation. The drow is wrong. The drow continues to do evil to them even after they are defeated. It is funny how in your mind, the act of kicking someone while they are on the ground is perfectly ok. Just because kicks are nonlethal damage doesn't mean that it isn't physical torture. Hell you should watch some movies. Half of hollywood's torture scenes involves beating the crap out of someone. I never said it was a good thing to do. I said it was perfectly in keeping with a Neutral alignment. And that, while the Cleric can quite easily have problems with it, it in no way justifies the cleric killing the Drow. Since I want to do the next bit sentence-by-sentence, but keep it together, my comments are the red bits interspersed. So first of all, the drow was wrong to kill them when they attacked him. Nope, he demanded surrender, and the kobolds attacked him first. Self-defense. He was wrong to kill them when they ran away. Why? What's Evil about not letting an enemy retreat? He was wrong to detain the kobald who was running away. Again, why? How is capturing an enemy Evil? And wanting to stop them from regrouping is not a justification for killing or torturing. Here I disagree. In a combat situation, letting your enemy regroup is incredibly bad tactics. Letting the enemy run away without harrying them is stupid, not evil. And a single kick to the ribs does not equal torture. If he was afraid of the kobalds regrouping, he should have left the area. That doesn't help, the whole point of 'regrouping' is that you track down and kill the enemy after you've done so. Then the act of using a kobald as a meat shield is the final straw. Using living creatures as shields can only be considered evil. It is a lack of care for life and there is no way to justify it. Justification; he knows the cleric cares more about the kobold's life than his own, so interposing the kobold should make the cleric stop. Same reason criminals take hostages to keep the police from shooting them. It's only evil if you're using them to absorb actual attacks; if you're doing it to try and keep a fight from starting, it's not Evil. So this is all that the drow has done and just in this one circumstance. It makes perfect sense for the cleric to side with the kobalds. If a good person wants to prevent acts of evil done unto others, he would be very willing to stop this drow who in the cleric's mind is apparently showing his true colors. And there's a large difference between "stopping" and "killing in cold blood because he doesn't do exactly what you say right away." You are also confused about my statement about alignment. A chaotic neutral character would not lean toward good or evil. You seem to think that means that neutral characters can't do good or evil. How does that work? Please enlighten me. Does this neutral character travel to the mountains and isolate himself from the world? Otherwise he would be constantly doing small acts of good and evil to everyone around him. A chaotic neutral character could easily see the world as divided into his friends and family and those he does not care about. He could easily rush to save his sister from drowning in a well and at the same time have no issues with killing someone if he had to. He would not search out people to kill because he has no desire to. Killing might not even need happen. The equalizing of good and evil actions could all be minor ones. He lends a friend enough money for a meal but doesn't expect anything back. Or he steals dinner from the home of a random person. Your weird belief that doing both good and evil requires special mental states is funny. I have already read the alignment pages of the phb by the way. They cover personality and intent. They do not cover actions over the course of a life. They talk about tendencies. Well I am talking about actual actions. A chaotic neutral character has nothing impeding them from doing good or evil. They go out of their way to do them. It is as if there is no pattern. So don't tell me I am confused or saying opposite things when you are just twisting my words. Well, all of the above is entirely contrary to your earlier comments, and I quote; "Do note also that being neutral means that you have done equal ammounts of good and evil and thus lean toward neither" Being neutral doesn't mean you've done equal amounts of good and evil. It means you don't care about whether an action is good or evil, or that you think both are necessary at certain times. Which is what you're saying above, but not in the original quote I have been correcting. And if by facetious you meant this ," rude and insulting" then I guess you are right. You were being facetious. But if you meant this, "Playfully jocular; humorous: facetious remarks" then I would have to disagree because that sounds nothing like the remark you made in that earlier post. Which remark? The one where I essentially said "If by saying A, you really meant Z, then I agree", I don't have a sweet clue how you see that as rude or insulting. I didn't say anything about you, didn't use any derogatory terms, didn't even imply anything nasty. So where's the insult? At least, I assume it's not because I implied that I disagree with you. Because I've been saying that fairly explicitly as well, and not in a rude way. I didn't imply anything nasty about you (or anyone else). I didn't put words in your mouth. I didn't even insult your argument, and I've done that in the past in some threads. So I frankly am completely baffled how you find "If by saying A, you meant B, I agree" an insult. Since I just see it as a facetious way of phrasing "I disagree with A, because IMHO it's B". In the entirely "playfully jocular" meaning of facetious.
Kakerate 11-04-04, 01:03 PM	Killing is evil. Those who kill are evil. End of story.
White rabbit 11-04-04, 03:30 PM	The only thing that saves the cleric from turning evil is that the player didn't know about the subdual damage rules. Perfectly understandable, and the DM wasn't doing his job, if he hadn't made sure that the cleric was aware it was an option. As for that whole Star Wars thing, I'm sorry, but Vader was evil. You don't kill off an entire planet on the orders of the Sith lord without some repurcussions. Having said that, I must also point out that the jedi were'nt actually good. They were there to preserve the balance. A TN force if I've ever heard of one. They only seemed good because they were the only organized force that fought off the sith and evil in general. In any case, neither apply to this situation.
thepuregamer 11-04-04, 04:01 PM	Light side not good? Well thats too bad.
thepuregamer 11-04-04, 04:01 PM	Killing is evil. Those who kill are evil. End of story. How does one make a lawful good paladin then?
thepuregamer 11-04-04, 04:17 PM	The kobolds attacked first. He merely challenged them and demanded surrender. Not an evil act, and not an evil act either to defend one's self when they don't surrender. Taking your analogy, which you're misusing, it's like you're a soldier in enemy territory and go into a civilian's house, and tell them to surrender and you won't hurt them. So they grab their guns. Is it wrong for the soldier to kill the civilians? No. It's self defense. Context, man. The party is in enemy territory, they can't assume everything's hunky dory. Well, all of the above is entirely contrary to your earlier comments, and I quote; "Do note also that being neutral means that you have done equal ammounts of good and evil and thus lean toward neither" Hey thorak, go back to page 1. You will see although not instantly that your arguement has no substance. Since it is not severely obvious I will point out the holes. The drow went out to scare the kobalds into surrendering. He anticipated his being drow would help him scare them. This means that he knew what effect his being drow would have on the kobalds. Obviously his attempt to scare them into surrendering failed. Yet he marched into their camp as a drow and planned to take advantage of it. Well they reacted in fashion. They attacked him. He did not come into their home and say, "surrender and no harm will come to you." He tried to scare them into surrendering using their knowledge of drow. Well that means that they expected him kill or enslave them once they surrendered. In this scenario, only they are right in fighting. The drow is not. He threatens them with death and enslavement and the only thing making that act itself not evil was that he didn't entirely mean it. Yet if he didn't mean it, he should have ran. Killing them was an evil act. He sought them out and killed them. Not the other way around. So if your supposed soldier came into a civilian house and said, "surrender and I won't hurt you but I get to rape your wife and you have to endure physical labor for me". That would be a more accurate comparison. The soldier has no right to defend himself in this situation. Killing these civilians would be wrong. It would be evil. Anyway, lets forget about the other arguement because it does not further the thread and is a waste of time.
markhaus 11-04-04, 04:20 PM	Misunderstandings seem to be the best rule of thumb here. Good people kill people. Sorry its true. I know in an ideal world this is not the case, but d&d is full of nasty critters like kobold and drow for good people to slay. The clerics act was not evil. It was not good. It was neutral. The DM was convinced and (as i argued earlier) the drow tried to omit info for sympathy. Sadly this happens often in the real world as well as d&d. P.S. The diplomacy roll was a crock, but you might want to leave this as water under the bridge till the next time the rogue does something evil. Then use it against him later
Kadasbrass 11-04-04, 04:34 PM	I'm not holding it against the DM for my lack of being familar with the rules, we (try to) take turns DMing and in the past when this has happened other times, the DM has done things such as made it so some near by wizards makes it impossible to either attack or kill (personally I would of had a deity stop the attack). I did ask if it was at all posible to go back and redo it and he said no. 1> Diplomacy wouldn't have stopped you. It would have made you friendly to the Dwarf, but if you felt strongly enough to be murdering supposed friends, a little chat wouldn't stop you. We use Diplomacy as more of a persuasion type skill in addition to making friendly. And do use it at times to claim people down in a blood thristy frenzy. > So, you won't kill allies in their sleep, but you will kill them for disobeying you, or trying to capture an enemy. If anything, your character is sounding more and more Lawful Evil, since you're incredibly free with killing your friends, and you're issuing an awful lot of obey-or-die orders to the party. First off I'm not allowed to be lawful, its a house rule appearently, no matter what I do, it somehow can be tied into chaotic. Second, killing someone in their sleep would be evil, and I haven't being playing the character as a evil character. Your trying make the case, based on one event, that someone is evil. If thats the case, does an evil person doing one good thing make them good? No, no if ands or buts. With that being said, a evil act should not go unpunished, and in this case, one action is not enough to change an alignment. However I was punished, but before going into the punishment, let me give you bit of information for when we created our characters. The DM allowed us to write background storyes, and gave us bounses based on them, I wrote in my that I was blessed by the local deities, the DM then said I get a extra spell per day for each spell level for being blessed. Because of my actions, some of deities were displeased and I lost my extra spells per day as a result. Edit: Feeling guilty for my actions, I did drag his corpse till I found a place I could cover it up (to rocky to bury) with his items (Reaching a esimated total of 26k+ value in known items I've buried so far this campaign).
bitnine 11-04-04, 04:42 PM	I swing at him (and missed) in a effort to get him to drop the kobold and defend him self, but he then uses it as a shield. Using a living creature as a shield was a final straw,Heh, I like that. Using a creature as a living shield was the final straw, because he was putting in danger of being hit, eh? Although the only danger is that you'd keep attacking. But because of that danger, you had no choice but to keep attacking.and I'm not going to kill him in his sleep or anything like that (means gotta find a new reason to kill him)That's the hallmark of a good aligned character there, I must say!
Kadasbrass 11-04-04, 04:52 PM	I'm not going to lie, I added that in because as a player, I want to kill him, he has gone beyond the call of duty in being annoying this campaign. If you played with us, you would understand. For my character to kill him, I as a character have to have a new reason to kill him, I as a player am waiting for a reason to show itself. The character is good, the player is evil.
DrWorm 11-04-04, 05:05 PM	I'm not going to lie, I added that in because as a player, I want to kill him, he has gone beyond the call of duty in being annoying this campaign. If you played with us, you would understand. For my character to kill him, I as a character have to have a new reason to kill him, I as a player am waiting for a reason to show itself. The character is good, the player is evil. Actaully I would not. Any game where party memeber start killing each other is over IMO. If I am the DM I dissolve the party and tell everyone to make new characters. If I am a player I leave the party and wait for the next campaign. D&D is not a competition; when it becomes such it ceases to be a fun game and results in subborn arguments such as the one that is occuring in this thread. Is is really so hard to work as a team? Does the party really need a bullying leader who is quick to kill anyone who questions his authority? Not in my games. Of course these are not my games, so have fun killing each other. It makes the DM's job easier...no monsters.
Supercilious 11-04-04, 05:21 PM	Stab his character in the back, with your new one. In fact, make your new character a LG Paladin who heard of the ruthless slaying of a certain innocent Drow, and tell him that he is being punished for the evil of his ways, and then kill him.
Kadasbrass 11-04-04, 05:27 PM	Also the rogue wants to die, he has been trying over a month to get killed now so he could start over because he realized he sucks, and the DM does not want him to die, he been doing it as a punishment to the rogue, in fact he added a reason to keep the rogue alive so he has a good reason to keep us from trying to kill him to punish the rogue player even more. 35% of the time the rogue says someone we as a group have to make a sense motive check, its at the point we all get a plus 10 or 20 misc mod because he lies so often we just refuse to believe him. Sadly this is an imporvement compared to the way it was few weeks back.
White rabbit 11-04-04, 06:12 PM	Also the rogue wants to die, he has been trying over a month to get killed now so he could start over because he realized he sucks, and the DM does not want him to die, he been doing it as a punishment to the rogue, in fact he added a reason to keep the rogue alive so he has a good reason to keep us from trying to kill him to punish the rogue player even more. 35% of the time the rogue says someone we as a group have to make a sense motive check, its at the point we all get a plus 10 or 20 misc mod because he lies so often we just refuse to believe him. Sadly this is an imporvement compared to the way it was few weeks back. There's a simple solution to that. Keep the rogue as an NPC and let the player start over. If the player is having so little fun that he's actively trying to get his character killed, then there's something wrong. Ask the DM if this is acceptable.
Kadasbrass 11-04-04, 06:46 PM	The DM won't and frankly I side with him, the rogue will be given the chance to start another some time (He has the character already drawn, in fact its been waiting for around 4 or 5 weeks now, DM told him he can start a new one aslong as he endured this part), but let me give you the honest truth. If the player was a character he would be the type with 18 int and a wisdom score equal to 4, he gets a idea and thinks its better then any other one, and when you prove him wrong he goes into a 'if' list trying to claim that well if this hadn't happened and ect blah blah blah. Example his 'newest' idea is that if he multiclased a figther, rogue, cleric, sorcerer, puting one level in each one evenly up to level 20 starting with fighter that he would have a unbeatable character. Plainly not seeing the fact that he would only be able to cast a few 3 level spells as a cleric and a few 2nd level spells for sorc, and thats not including the fact he won't cast any 2nd level spells at all for either caster till after 10th character level... Plus the fact that now every single ability is almost equaly important, with none of them worth it to dumb that 8 you get when you roll 5 good numbers, or realizing their are better combinations or that there is no character that is completely unbeatable. We said fine lets go ahead, we'll all make a level 20 character and fight (not all at the same time) and his first react was 'while I need somewhere to hide so I can hit you when your not looking...' You can clearly see why the DM is punishing him, if he going to make a dumb character he going to have to realize he can't change it every time and start off with a new one at the same level. The player is immune to all forms of reasoning and this is the only way we can make him realize his mistake. Boy have we gotten off topic
Thorak 11-04-04, 06:47 PM	Hey thorak, go back to page 1. You will see although not instantly that your arguement has no substance. Since it is not severely obvious I will point out the holes. The drow went out to scare the kobalds into surrendering. He anticipated his being drow would help him scare them. This means that he knew what effect his being drow would have on the kobalds. Obviously his attempt to scare them into surrendering failed. Yet he marched into their camp as a drow and planned to take advantage of it. Well they reacted in fashion. They attacked him. Exactly. The kobolds attacked him, they were the ones initiating violence. Everything else is a perfectly in-character tactic a good or neutral character could use to try and avoid having to kill the kobolds. I fail to see how you stating the kobolds attacked him makes my argument have no substance, considering my argument is based on that fact. He did not come into their home and say, "surrender and no harm will come to you." He tried to scare them into surrendering using their knowledge of drow. Well that means that they expected him kill or enslave them once they surrendered. In this scenario, only they are right in fighting. Yes, they are. I never said the Kobolds were wrong to fight the Drow. I said their attacking him enabled the Drow, morally, to fight back without it being murder. The drow is not. He threatens them with death and enslavement and the only thing making that act itself not evil was that he didn't entirely mean it. Yet if he didn't mean it, he should have ran. Killing them was an evil act. He sought them out and killed them. Not the other way around. Did he actually threaten them with death and enslavement, or is that something you're assuming they thought because the character was a Drow, and that's what they'd expect? If he just demanded surrender, then he hasn't threatened them with "death and enslavement", and I haven't seen that mentioned in either account. He demanded surrender. The kobolds refused, and attacked. He defended himself. None of this is evil. Conflicts like this often aren't. It's clear the Drow wasn't being very Good. But he's Neutral, he doesn't have to be. If he'd walked in and just started killing kobolds, that would be evil. If he intended to enslave or kill them after they surrendered, that would be evil. Merely demanding surrender, however, is not, if that's all he wants, which is the implication I've gotten from the actual accounts. So if your supposed soldier came into a civilian house and said, "surrender and I won't hurt you but I get to rape your wife and you have to endure physical labor for me". That would be a more accurate comparison. The soldier has no right to defend himself in this situation. Killing these civilians would be wrong. It would be evil. No, it wouldn't be a more accurate comparison. The Cleric's account, which we must assume is the most damning perspective since he's the one with the beef, only states that the Drow "walked in and threated the kobolds to give up because there were more of 'us'..." He's not threatening to do anything, he's just demanding surrender. So your adding comments of rape and slavery is fabricating untruths to try and support a case because the actual events, as recorded by the 'accused', aren't as nasty as you'd need to make your case. The accurate comparison is the soldier walking in and threatening them to give up because there's "more of us". He's not doing or threatening anything else. If soldiers (like the drow in this case) are known for abusing and being nasty, it certainly wouldn't be evil for the civilian to defend himself. But it also isn't evil for the soldier to demand surrender. Just because other soldiers are nasty, and he's hoping their acts will cow these civilians because he isn't capable of it, this doesn't make him evil. It makes him devious and crafty. And a great example of a Neutral alignment, willing to do some nasty stuff (lie, demand surrender of potential, not known, enemies) to try and avoid worse stuff (having to kill the kobolds). Neither of them are evil. The kobolds because they're operating from a mistaken impression, and the drow because he's defending himself and didn't do anything to deserve death. And even if he did start the fight, that still wouldn't justify his Good 'friend' stabbing him in the chest for not following an order. Even if the Drow were evil, and all this was the worst possible case, that's still no justification for a supposedly Good character to stab them to death in cold blood. If the Drow were about to kill the captured Kobold, sure. But he's not. He's just holding him. Though I agree witht he general gist of the thread; that campaign got out of hand and should be cancelled, or at least started over with new characters. None of my comments should be taken as criticisms of the respective players, since people can play their characters any way they like. If they don't act the alignment they thought they were, then the DM can adjust it. In this case, I think the Cleric was acting more CN than CG, and that's fine. Nothing wrong with a CN Cleric. He's just not Good.
thepuregamer 11-04-04, 07:27 PM	This is where you are wrong. I didn't say that the drow threatened them saying he would enslave them. I said that he threatened them. That he thought he would have an advantage because of their perception of drow. He knew they were attacking because they thought he was just like all the other drow and that surrender meant death and enslavement. I adding murder and enslavement to the list of threats the drow made. The guy does not specify. But you soldier would be wrong if he entered a civilians home pretending to be one of the bad soldiers. He is assuming that their misunderstanding will help him. So when it does not, it is all his fault. The kobalds attack because they believe they are being threatened by an evil drow. The civilians would attack because they believe they are being threatened by murderous soldiers. The drow or the soldier in these examples in responsible for the misunderstanding. He caused them to attack. They attack with the belief that they are defending themselves from a murderer. The drow or the soldier has no right to defend himself in these scenarios. He has the right to flee. I am not saying he couldn't defend himself. He did but this is just him confirming what he really is to those he threatened. He is an evil drow. It is pretty simple. there is one thing I agree with you on. This campaign sounds pretty much ruined. One guy is a character he doesn't want to be. He can't change. The party isn't cohesive. Nothing works, it is likely not a good experience.
Kadasbrass 11-04-04, 07:40 PM	Your still making your jugdement on a single action, and I greatly disagree, outside of the event in question I've been playing the character more LG or NG then CG or CN. And the DM concluded that both the Drow and me were trying to spite each other, that the drow was trying to annoy the cleric and got what was comming to him and then took my bonus spells away saying I shouldn't had killed him.
markhaus 11-04-04, 07:42 PM	Torturing a POW makes the cleric justified in preventing the drow from further torture. Especially after realizing the understanding the cleric attempted to let the kobolds go and the drow attempted to recapture the kobold (violently im guessing). The drow was in the wrong (I understand his actions, but still in the wrong). The cleric was not in the wrong (i wouldnt go so far as to say he was in the right, but he didnt deserve his alignment change). The campaign isnt ruined. I have played in campaigns w/ far worse and everyone had fun. the cleric may want to leave the party if it is full of people who torture and murder kobolds for kicks (once the fighting stops killing a POW is murder). This is not a good party. (the rogue sounds worse then the drow)
Kadasbrass 11-04-04, 07:54 PM	Look the rogue doesn't want to be a rogue no more, but since he has to be he is making the best of it and enjoying what he can, it just he took a creature when a level adjustment of two and hasn't leveled yet because he tried playing it as more of a con artist, wasn't allowed to go on the first mission (legally) since he annoyed the commander and part of the army, when found by the mission lied to it, then one lie lead to another and they all caught up with him, now that most everyone has leveled and can fight harder stuff he can't fight anything without getting hit on his way in and being nearly killed. Now his group that contained the rogue (him), a drow, 2 cleric like classes, monk, ranger and 7 dwarfs has been reduced to: Me, him, and a ranger that has yet to roll a track check above 5 in the last 4 weeks (which is why we really wanted those kobolds alive). And his trap finding skills usually includes setting half the traps off by mistake. And the last dwarf got killed off at night, not sure how considing we got stuck in a dead end with a caved in tunnel (rogue and his uber trap skills :rolleyes: )
Thorak 11-04-04, 09:12 PM	This is where you are wrong. I didn't say that the drow threatened them saying he would enslave them. I said that he threatened them. That he thought he would have an advantage because of their perception of drow. He knew they were attacking because they thought he was just like all the other drow and that surrender meant death and enslavement. "He threatens them with death and enslavement..." Add in your two examples, of an armed robber threatening a storekeep and a soldier threatening to rape and enslave a civilian, and I think I'm justified in saying that you did say that the drow was threatening to enslave them. You may have meant that this is what the kobolds suspected was his intent, but that's irrelevant to what the Drow actually did. And even more irrelevant to the Cleric's actions. I adding murder and enslavement to the list of threats the drow made. The guy does not specify. But you soldier would be wrong if he entered a civilians home pretending to be one of the bad soldiers. He is assuming that their misunderstanding will help him. So when it does not, it is all his fault. The kobalds attack because they believe they are being threatened by an evil drow. The civilians would attack because they believe they are being threatened by murderous soldiers. The drow or the soldier in these examples in responsible for the misunderstanding. He caused them to attack. They attack with the belief that they are defending themselves from a murderer. The drow or the soldier has no right to defend himself in these scenarios. He has the right to flee. I am not saying he couldn't defend himself. He did but this is just him confirming what he really is to those he threatened. He is an evil drow. It is pretty simple. So if someone jumps to a conclusion based on superficial appearance, they're justified in their actions based on that conclusion even if it's not true? We're back to racism; you're declaring that because somebody looks like B, you can kill them without finding out if they are actually B. Insert whatever you like in as B; "evil drow" or what have you. Just to show the ridiculous lengths this goes to, insert "wanted felon" in there. Just because someone looks like a wanted felon, you can kill them if they order you to surrender? I'm sure if they're actually an undercover cop, you're going to get in all kinds of trouble. Neither the Drow nor the Kobolds were very Good. But neither were either very Evil. Both, IMHO, were neutral. And it's indifferent anyway to the issue with the cleric. Even assuming the worst, from what Kadasbrass has given us as his character's perspective, the situation is that he's got a fairly violent Drow ally who's captured a creature the Drow clearly sees as an enemy, but the Cleric doesn't believe really bears the party ill will. So the cleric demands the Drow let the kobold go. The Drow, confused because the kobolds were trying to kill him and letting them go is ridiculous, when they can at least be questioned, refuses. This we know; it's how the two parties described it. At this point, the cleric is not justified in killing the Drow, or attacking with deadly force and intent (even if you didn't know about subdual damage, you probably knew about unarmed strikes, or at least should have thought that attacking with intent to kill was too much and kept talking). He sees a Drow he mistrusts who has captured a Kobold who may not deserve punishment. So discuss it, and level a threat that if he harms the kobold, you will take it out of his hide. Stabbing at him with a spear, though, isn't justified; if the Drow were holding a knife to the kobold's throat and about to kill him, you might have been. But the kobold's in no direct immediate danger, so killing your ally is both hypocritical (violently dealing with someone you have problems with because they're too violent) and an overreaction. If you really wanted a CG Cleric. If you wanted a cleric with the freedom of morality to act as you did, you wanted a CN cleric. Which is fine, and your act falls in there dandily. I'm not saying you "lost" at D&D because you played "wrong", I'm saying that you either misunderstood what CG entailed and weren't acting properly, or mistakenly assigned CG to a character it doesn't fit, if you believe your actions were justified from the character's perspective. Which, given how new to the system I assume you are (since you aren't familiar with all the rules yet) isn't anything to be concerned about. Just to learn from. To reiterate; using markhaus' wording; the cleric was justified in stopping the drow from what he might have percieved as torturing a POW. But there wasn't any torture going on right then, so there wasn't any time-critical need to act immediately by attacking; from the perspective of a Good character, stabbing your ally was not justified. Stopping him from torturing the kobold would have been, but you overreacted.
Kadasbrass 11-04-04, 09:59 PM	Look, I never said the drow was overly violate the whole campaign, just during that one encounter was he, otherwise he was just a little reckless at times. I'm not that new to D&D, started palying the real game in Late July/Early August, been familar with the basics in terms of classes and feats and spells for longer then that from Neverwinter Nights, but I only looked at the basics in combat. I swung at him with the intention of knocking him out if hit, or if missed to install the fact that, though he has shown no intention to listing to me, that what I said, I ment, and was going to enforce. I gave him three full rounds after he turned around to make a choice, after which I swung again because I'm not going to wait forever for him to make a decision. I'd like to also point out in most games its not a wise choice to completly ignore the healer when he says something.
Derren S. 11-05-04, 01:29 AM	I'd like to also point out in most games its not a wise choice to completly ignore the healer when he says something. Using your position of power to order you party members arround. Very CG.... And when the drow behaved ok the rest of the time you clearly have no right to kill him. You killed the drow because one action (which wasn't even evil) s don't wonder that you loose your alignmnet because of this one action.
Sucineri 11-05-04, 02:53 AM	Derrin, it wasn't based off of one action..it was based off of the drow constantly not going along with the cleric's wishes..no matter if the wishes were right, in the cleric's mind it was a culmination of instances. gamer..I don't understand you at all sometimes. You talked about how the kobolds are thinking the drow is going to enslave them and all this because he is a drow..when in FACT we really don't know what the kobolds were thinking. And yes, the drow used a SKILL..he didn't automatically intimidate them because he a drow and they are kobolds, he still had to use the skill. Now substitute drow for halfling with the same modifiers and all that stuff in the intimidate skill and you would come down to the EXACT same situation. It was based off of the use of a skill, not off of the fact the Drow was a Drow in the underdark. This is more about DM interpretation of results, so yes, the DM could have said that they are freaked out and afraid of drow enslavement and that would be fine, but the DM's interpretation could have done the same thing with the halfling. What I need you to do is STOP ASSUMING anything, the ONLY way you will be able to know any of this stuff is if the DM himself shows up and tells exactly what the kobolds were thinking, and what the kobolds would be thinking if the exact same skill at the same modifiers and stuff were used with every race substituting the drow. I am trying to be in the middle here, I can see it from both sides a lot better than you seem to be able to accomplish. When you are dealing with this situation you have to go off of explained FACTS. We have for 'proof'..what the drow said happened, and what the cleric said happened. So that is ALL we can look at, no interpretations, no assumptions based on outside influences. Yes, I too made an assumption, but an very logical assumption based of facts. Drow had cleric hold his item. Drow is captured and cleric trades drow's item for drow. Drow didn't want cleric to get rid of his item and wants it back. See? The Italicized part is my assuption, but it is a pretty good assumption based on the situation. So stop playing devil's advocate for the kobolds..it isn't about what the kobolds did or thought, it is PURELY about what happened with the drow and cleric.
Fawkes 11-05-04, 03:05 AM	You clearly need a new DM, and need to stay away from any game that other player is in.
Darklord Greywolff 11-05-04, 03:55 AM	1. When did I say any thing about enslavement. My direct quote to the kobolds was "What are you doing here." not "I will make you all my slaves." You assume too much. 2. I Was playing the kobold shield as a reflexive action. If you don't believe me then let me get a 2 handed sword and swing it at your head and see what you do. 3. What if I said I was a high elf and not a drow. 4. Unfortunatly Kadas is right worst rogue ever. 5. I might have been blowing off steam when I kicked the kobold. It wasn't the best choice but I was in character. As for stripping it you don't let a murderer keep his gun when you send him to jail.
Sucineri 11-05-04, 04:07 AM	Darklord..did you use the intimidate skill at any point in the encounter?
Thorak 11-05-04, 07:27 AM	I swung at him with the intention of knocking him out if hit, or if missed to install the fact that, though he has shown no intention to listing to me, that what I said, I ment, and was going to enforce. I gave him three full rounds after he turned around to make a choice, after which I swung again because I'm not going to wait forever for him to make a decision. So you're stating that, effectively, you disagreed with him because he didn't listen to you. So you aimed a (again, effectively) gun at his head and waited 18 seconds for him to comply, and then pulled the trigger. How is that a Good act? You reacted with lethal force. Even if you didn't mean to kill him, you're attacking him with a lethal weapon. Murderers don't get off because they only meant to wing their target. And again, I'm not criticizing you the player. With a different character, this might have been completely justified from their viewpoint. But that character wouldn't have a Good alignment, and that's my point. I'd like to also point out in most games its not a wise choice to completly ignore the healer when he says something. And a lack of wisdom is reason to kill him? Darklord: Thanks for confirming what I suspected about the situation.
markhaus 11-05-04, 09:16 AM	Yeah, if a paladin tells a necromancer not to raise the dead and then the necromancer does it, the paladin is evil b/c he is just killing someone for not listening to him. This thread is full of faulty logic and left out information. The DM made the proper decision in reinstating the clerics alignment. The DM is probably an unbiased judge and made the right decision. You can argue your own personal morals all you want (killings bad. Paladins shouldnt be good. dont be racist towards evil races. etc.) This is d&d, the DMs morals are what matter.
Kadasbrass 11-05-04, 10:10 AM	Using your position of power to order you party members arround. Very CG.... When you annoy someone who you should at lest pay a minimal amount in respect to, your going to suffer either directly or indirectly. How is that a Good act? You reacted with lethal force. Even if you didn't mean to kill him, you're attacking him with a lethal weapon. Murderers don't get off because they only meant to wing their target. And again, I'm not criticizing you the player. With a different character, this might have been completely justified from their viewpoint. But that character wouldn't have a Good alignment, and that's my point I am willing to ament that my action was the wrong and I made a mistake. However even good guys make mistakes and are reckless at times, but to say someone is evil based off a single action is not enough. If this entire event was left out during a retelling of the rest of this whole campaign, it would be clear I was playing a character that was beyond the call of duty in terms of good even if a bit reckless. Even with my actions included during the event in question, the best fit alignment is still CG, without the one event then NG is the best fit. If you focus to much on a single action you lose the truth in the greater picture. You talked about how the kobolds are thinking the drow is going to enslave them and all this because he is a drow..when in FACT we really don't know what the kobolds were thinking. And yes, the drow used a SKILL..he didn't automatically intimidate them because he a drow and they are kobolds, he still had to use the skill. Darklord..did you use the intimidate skill at any point in the encounter? He did, it was just it had a reverse effect, he intimidated them so much they thought there was a group of drow coming to take them off (think he rolled a 15 or higher not including intimidate) so they decided they weren't coming alive. And also in conjuction with what Sucineri said, that what the kobolds were thinking are not important for this argument.
Thorak 11-05-04, 10:34 AM	Yeah, if a paladin tells a necromancer not to raise the dead and then the necromancer does it, the paladin is evil b/c he is just killing someone for not listening to him. The difference being the paladin knows the necromancer is Evil, and he's stopping the Necromancer from doing an evil thing. Whereas, in the situation we have here, the cleric does not know the Drow is Evil (if he does know his alignment, he knows it isn't), and the Drow is not engaging in an evil act. He demanded surrender and tried to bluff his way through it, of probable enemies (the kobolds). It failed, they attacked, he defended himself. Afterwards, he vented some anger on one of the ones his ally had healed, by kicking it. And then he captured another. None of those are Evil. The closest thing to an Evil act by the Drow was kicking the kobold, and it would only have stepped over the line if he'd tried to kill it. Which he didn't. The Drow's actions were perfectly in line with his CN alignment. This thread is full of faulty logic and left out information. The DM made the proper decision in reinstating the clerics alignment. The DM is probably an unbiased judge and made the right decision. I agree, especially since Kadasbrass is saying he may have made a mistake. Characters can make mistakes and not have alignment changes. But they have to regret them. Up till now, I'd been arguing assuming that the cleric felt justified and "right" in his action, which he wouldn't, if he were CG. You can argue your own personal morals all you want (killings bad. Paladins shouldnt be good. dont be racist towards evil races. etc.) This is d&d, the DMs morals are what matter. No, it's where the D&D morals matter. If the DM is using a different morality set, then he's houseruling, and nothing anyone could say on these boards could be relevant. And by D&D morality, the Cleric's act was not Good, possibly Neutral depending on how goaded he was, and possibly Evil. This, however, does not necessarily mean the Cleric is now Evil, since he may have made a mistake and knows he went too far. My only point was that the act wasn't one compatible with a CG alignment. Either he has to wish he did something different, or his alignment should be different. Not because the character is being punished or something ridiculous like that, but if you're going to play a "do what I say or I might flip out and kill you" cleric, you probably want to be Neutral if not Evil. D&D alignment. Detailed in the PHB. That's what I, at least, have been arguing about. If you wanted my personal opinion, it would have been entirely different, but I'm separating my personal morality from what I'm applying to the character.
bitnine 11-05-04, 10:55 AM	Derrin, it wasn't based off of one action..it was based off of the drow constantly not going along with the cleric's wishes..no matter if the wishes were right, in the cleric's mind it was a culmination of instances.Yeah, it's just a case of those pesky "Obey my will or be destroyed," Chaotic Good characters.
markhaus 11-05-04, 12:55 PM	But they have to regret them. Up till now, I'd been arguing assuming that the cleric felt justified and "right" in his action, which he wouldn't, if he were CG. I apologize. I thought you felt the cleric needed an alignment change b/c of the action. I agree remorse is needed if you accidently kill a party member who isnt that evil. (Nonevil characters can still animate dead, but a paladin might not feel remorse for killing the True Nuetral necromancer)
Derren S. 11-05-04, 01:15 PM	I apologize. I thought you felt the cleric needed an alignment change b/c of the action. I agree remorse is needed if you accidently kill a party member who isnt that evil. (Nonevil characters can still animate dead, but a paladin might not feel remorse for killing the True Nuetral necromancer) That was not accidently. When you annoy someone who you should at lest pay a minimal amount in respect to, your going to suffer either directly or indirectly. This should be the final proof that your cleric certainly isn't CG if he thinks like that.
markhaus 11-05-04, 01:23 PM	I thought he said he didnt want to kill the drow, he just got a "lucky" roll. If you try to knock someone out and kill them accidently, it is accidental homicide (IMO)
bitnine 11-05-04, 01:43 PM	I thought he said he didnt want to kill the drow, he just got a "lucky" roll. If you try to knock someone out and kill them accidently, it is accidental homicide (IMO)I'd be sure to remember that the next time I stab someone to death.
markhaus 11-05-04, 02:38 PM	I'd be sure to remember that the next time I stab someone to death. riiiight... :ahem: why did you quote me in that post? your response had nothing to do with my post and seems like kind of a red herring :thinks: is this to say that when someone tries to knock someone out it is the same as trying to kill them? if so you need help if you were trying to say the guy wasnt trying to knock out his fellow party member you need to reread his posts.
Derren S. 11-05-04, 02:43 PM	if you were trying to say the guy wasnt trying to knock out his fellow party member you need to reread his posts. There are better words to describe swinging a, what was it? Great sword? At full force at someone than "try to knock down". Kill and mutilate come into mind. Even without knowing the subdual rules there are many ways to stop the drow. Grapple, trip, bull rush, casting a spell at the drow...
bitnine 11-05-04, 02:48 PM	why did you quote me in that post? your response had nothing to do with my post and seems like kind of a red herring :thinks:Naw, I was just thinking of how an argument that you were "just" trying to knock someone out flies a little less when you are swinging a big honking sword at them. It might be a bit different if it were an unarmed strike, or trying to wrest the held critter away (with the disarm action). But if you're running above dimished capacity, the argument that you were "just trying to knock them out" with your sawed-off isn't going to quite fly.
markhaus 11-05-04, 03:01 PM	In his posts he mentioned he didnt know about nonlethal. He could be swinging a fish and kill the drow b/c it would do lethal. Weapon type doesnt matter. Unarmed is insane unless you have imp unarmed (which woul do lethal). The drow getting an attack of opportunity is not fun stuff. Yes he should have tripped (AoO), or grappled him (AoO). the player is unfamiliar w/ nonlethal combat. He stated that in his posts. The DM should have offered him other options (his character might know more then him)
bitnine 11-05-04, 03:43 PM	In his posts he mentioned he didnt know about nonlethal. He could be swinging a fish and kill the drow b/c it would do lethal. Weapon type doesnt matter.Yes, the player didn't know about nonlethal damage. That doens't mean that he doesn't have the capacity to know that stabbing someone with a greatsword might kill them. Saying, "It's all I could think to do to definately put him down at the time," isn't the same as saying "I had no idea that I'd actually kill him!" [Edit: Think of someone explaining to a policeman why they just blew someone away with a double-barreled shotgun. The might say: "In the heat of the moment, I just knew I needed to stop him! And it was all I could think to do to shoot him in the face with my sawed-off. I really didn't want to kill him, but he had to be stopped." That's not the same thing at all as: "Yeah, I didn't know what else to do but to shoot him in the face. So I figured that might not kill him." /Edit]
Sucineri 11-05-04, 06:44 PM	You don't "stab" someone with a greatsword by the way. You basically swing it like a baseball bat. If he knew about subdual rules he could have done the same thing with the broad side of the sword. And telling a cop "I shot him in the face but didn't want to kill him" is stupid. Now if you said "He was coming at me and I fired the gun trying to make him stop! I didn't mean to kill him!" then it might get you less of a charge than murder.
Kadasbrass 11-05-04, 06:47 PM	This should be the final proof that your cleric certainly isn't CG if he thinks like that. There is a difference before player and character. As a player I merely pointed out that in every game that if you go out of your way to annoy a healer that your going to find out the hard way it was a bad idea, normaly indirectly. Either cleric will not heal you as soon they should (or would), or pretend didn't see you get hit as often, depending on the game; you may not get revived, ect ect. Yes, the player didn't know about nonlethal damage. That doens't mean that he doesn't have the capacity to know that stabbing someone with a greatsword might kill them. Saying, "It's all I could think to do to definately put him down at the time," isn't the same as saying "I had no idea that I'd actually kill him!" [Edit: Think of someone explaining to a policeman why they just blew someone away with a double-barreled shotgun. The might say: "In the heat of the moment, I just knew I needed to stop him! And it was all I could think to do to shoot him in the face with my sawed-off. I really didn't want to kill him, but he had to be stopped." That's not the same thing at all as: "Yeah, I didn't know what else to do but to shoot him in the face. So I figured that might not kill him." /Edit] The only way a single hit would of been fatal was if I had rolled a max, a 1 out of 36 chance. The odds were that the damage more then likely knock him out. Their was a slim chance of it being fatal, but if I did not act and the Drow did kill it, I would as a good person face a alignment change by not proventing someone in front of me from commiting a evil act. Even in real life, non lethal can sometimes be fatal. Example: two weeks back in Boston a woman in a post-game riot, got hit in the eye by a rubber bullet (I believe it was a rubber bullet anyhow or something similar met to be non lethal) and died as result. Also while we're on it, did this make the police evil? No because they had to serve the greater good, and anytime they try to break up a riot, even with normal night clubs, there is always the chance someone may get fatally wounded, unlikely but always possible. In real life if someone is waving around a gun and pointing it at people while confronted by police and shows no intention of giving up, leaving the police no choice but to fire, and we find out latter the gun was a fake, does that make a police evil? No it doesn't, because from what they saw, they had to assume that not shooting was a bigger risk then shooting As I said before, you cannot focus everything on a single action of single person. Hindsight is always 20/20, to come to the truth you most examine the events as they happened, and those leading up to them, and the intentions of thoses involved, and how they percieved the actions of the rest. Other wise your conclusion is inaccurate and incomplete.
Kadasbrass 11-05-04, 06:57 PM	There are better words to describe swinging a, what was it? Great sword? At full force at someone than "try to knock down". Kill and mutilate come into mind. Even without knowing the subdual rules there are many ways to stop the drow. Grapple, trip, bull rush, casting a spell at the drow... And during a game its easy to sit down, write down a list of options and make a plan of a attack. When your talking about 5 second rounds I prefer to make decisions as if I had 5 seconds to make them, other wise I have the luxury of time.
Thorak 11-05-04, 11:37 PM	And during a game its easy to sit down, write down a list of options and make a plan of a attack. When your talking about 5 second rounds I prefer to make decisions as if I had 5 seconds to make them, other wise I have the luxury of time. And you sat down, and decided to swing a really big nasty deadly weapon at your supposed friend with lethal force, because you didn't want him to hurt the kobold and he wasn't listening to you (or hurting the kobold). IMHO, this is silly. An unarmed strike attack, a nonviolent spell, a Trip attack, a Grapple, all of these would have been fine, and if you weren't aware of those as options then you haven't read the PHB carefully enough. Using a weapon to deal non-lethal damage isn't an obvious rule, but most of those are. And for those condemning the unarmed strike for mechanical reasons like AoO; the Drow is (at least I would rule) Grappling the kobold. When Grappling, you don't threaten any squares, and thus can't take any AoOs. An unarmed strike is a perfect option here, or a Trip. Even without the Improved feats. And again, folks, let's not confuse Kadasbrass with his character. It's fine to discuss what effect his cleric's action had on the cleric, but none of this affects the actual player. He may also be confused about alignments in some things, as I suspect, in which case we should try and help him out, not decalre that he's playing "wrong" or something. That's why DMs can change a character's alignment in situations like this; not because it's a punishment, but because sometimes a player doesn't "get" the intricacies of alignment and plays their character in such a way that another alignment would fit better. No need to punish them, just tell them to change CG to CN and go on your way, it has very little in-game effect in most cases.
Kadasbrass 11-06-04, 01:17 AM	And you are still trying to state a single action is enough to change someone alignment. Alignments are based on their general behavoir and not single actions, otherwise alignments would shift on a hourly bases. But if as you say, a single mistake is enough to change someones alignment to that which it is not, that a single 'evil' action makes me something other then what I was. That if I am no longer good, then why should I continue to be something I am not? That if the values I up hold are no longer enough for me to be that for which I was, then why should I up hold them hence forth if they do me no just? But if as you claim, that single action makes someone evil instead of good in the face of all other deeds. For if I am at worse evil as you claim, and at best neutral in response. Then perhaps I am long overdue to play the part of which you claimed I am. For surely if you are with out a doubt that I am in no way good, then surely I must then be evil. Instead of helping the weak, I shall enslave them to my will. Instead of passing by all wealth but a basic minimal to survive on, I shall become invested by a greed without end. Instead of sharing with thoses in need, I shall take what they yet have. Instead of trying to be a beacon of light and hope in the Underdark, I shall become a tyrant of the sort that even the darkest foulest creature did not know possible. Instead of respecting life, I shall worship the dead and hunt the living for sport. Instead of using the justice of the sword when left with no other choice, I shall go forth and slay all that stands before me. For Thorak has spoken without a doubt, for as he says: I was not good; then I must be evil.
Sucineri 11-06-04, 03:22 AM	Well..I too see your character as being more neutral than good..the reason being is that in your description of what happens..you are making judgement calls FOR other people and then getting angry when they don't follow your rules. Unless they named you leader of the group, then they REALLY don't have to follow your every word if they think they can do something (to their own minds) better. The drow might think you are an idiot for giving away his item then you complain that he wants his item back when it wasn't your right to give away his item in the first place. It doesn't matter that you are trying to work out a peaceful thing with this group you gave his item to..the fact during this is that YOU gave away HIS item and he wants it back. Then with the Kobolds..maybe your cleric has a kobold fetish..doesn't matter, if the rest of the team still feels they are a threat then they really don't have to listen to you even if YOU think you know best. You aren't them..they may think you are insane for releasing beings that have been aggressive with them. So to me it isn't so much about 1 thing that changed your alignment..it's that you seem to be playing like a dictator in a "do what I say because I know more than you" roles.
markhaus 11-06-04, 06:07 AM	This is not a case of whacking someone for "not doing what you told them". If someone is about to kill/maim/torture someone, you are justified in trying to stop them. You are not whacking them for "not doing what you told them" He feels his character wouldnt have dropped his sword to stop the drow, i dont blame him. His DM cant think it was too terrible either. (a suggestion of nonlethal from the DM would have been nice, but if the drow is anything like some of the people i play w/ he would have killed the cleric in his sleep. Not something a DM usually wants to deal w/) A truly heinous action can change your alignment in one moment(i do not feel this was even bad enough to warrant neutral- he accidentally killed a colleague to prevent him from commiting evil- and then felt remorse) Of course I have to mention again that we are hearing only one side (this time the clerics)
Derren S. 11-06-04, 07:04 AM	This is not a case of whacking someone for "not doing what you told them". If someone is about to kill/maim/torture someone, you are justified in trying to stop them. You are not whacking them for "not doing what you told them" Do you have a proof that this was about to happen? As it stands the drow only held the kobold. No maiming, torturing killing, so the only theing what the drow has done is not listened to the cleric. He feels his character wouldnt have dropped his sword to stop the drow, i dont blame him. His DM cant think it was too terrible either. (a suggestion of nonlethal from the DM would have been nice, but if the drow is anything like some of the people i play w/ he would have killed the cleric in his sleep. Not something a DM usually wants to deal w/) It seems though that the drow is not like players you have in mind. A truly heinous action can change your alignment in one moment(i do not feel this was even bad enough to warrant neutral- he accidentally killed a colleague to prevent him from commiting evil- and then felt remorse) Of course I have to mention again that we are hearing only one side (this time the clerics) The drow didn't commit an evil act. And the killing wasn't that accidental. Also, do you know if this was the only CN/CE act the cleric did? From what the player said there weere more acts, although not as strong as this.
markhaus 11-06-04, 08:44 AM	The FS (favored soul) in question said: I see the drow using magic missle on the kobolds, the rogue hiding, and I shout in draconic that we mean the kobolds no harm. Since we are traveling blindly through out the underdark I want to get as much information as possible. The rest of the group comes in and begins to fight I try to tell them to stop. Shortly afterwards the kobolds begin to flee, I should in common to my group that anyone that attacks a kobold that gave up fighting will face divine punishment. In this case he is saying do what i want "or else" be I do see a magic missle fly over my head and head the fleeing kobolds. He did not attack the drow though he said he would. drow take everything off the kobold I healed and kicking it The drow tortures a prisoner in front of another prisoner (understandable IMO but the cleric may think differently) "I wouldn't let any of them do it harm." Unfortunately he gave his word to protect the kobold and intends to keep it, arguably good (though more lawful IMO). he runs off and I shout for no one to do anything to him he had given his word, which he felt was binding. He was trying to allow the kobold to go free b/c it was the right thing to do Considing the drow beat up the other kobold, is bleeding a little, and attacked the fleeing kobolds, I have no choice but to conclude the drow either likes to kill things or seeks revenge. He establishes that he fears for the kobolds safety (at this point nobody knows the alignment of the kobolds or drow) I swing at him (and missed) in a effort to get him to drop the kobold and defend him self, but he then uses it as a shield. Not really a good act Using a living creature as a shield was a final straw, so I cast Sanctuary on the kobold and tell the drow to drop it two more times, since my oath is on the line, the drow had no intention of droping it, and my spell was about to wear off I swinged at him and hit for 16. A bad situation. I would consider both the FS and the drow to be using "neutral" actions, or mildly evil. Not enough to warrant an alignment change. Can someone point out other evil things he has done? I may have missed them in these posts. (giving away peoples rings to save their lives is good. Taking their items and leaving them to die is "not good") he also felt repentant. Which means even if his alignment changed (from a compilation of this and past infractions) and he lost his powers, he could go get an atonement spell. If he didnt do other evil things then his alignment shouldnt change (a good person can do neutral things and good things. He is not limited to ALWAYS taking the good route) Not even a pali would lose his alignment in this situation IMO (unless he had detected the kobolds as evil... ok i guess a pali would have lost it b/c the kobolds would probably ping as evil and a pali should check since they get detect evil unlim times/day)
Thorak 11-06-04, 12:45 PM	And you are still trying to state a single action is enough to change someone alignment. Alignments are based on their general behavoir and not single actions, otherwise alignments would shift on a hourly bases. But if as you say, a single mistake is enough to change someones alignment to that which it is not, that a single 'evil' action makes me something other then what I was. That if I am no longer good, then why should I continue to be something I am not? That if the values I up hold are no longer enough for me to be that for which I was, then why should I up hold them hence forth if they do me no just? But if as you claim, that single action makes someone evil instead of good in the face of all other deeds. For if I am at worse evil as you claim, and at best neutral in response. Then perhaps I am long overdue to play the part of which you claimed I am. For surely if you are with out a doubt that I am in no way good, then surely I must then be evil. You misunderstand. I'm not describing the alignment of your character. I'm describing the alignment of the action, and therefore what alignment your character would be if they thought they done right. My last post was just pointing out that your reason, of only having 5 seconds to decide, isn't a valid one to make the action Good in any way, or mitigate the nastiness of it. You don't get to say, as a cop, "Well, my buddy had caught my friend, and didn't let him go. And I thought he might eventually hurt my buddy, though he wasn't right now, so I shot my buddy in the head." Because it's wrong. And this assumes that the captee was a friend of yours, which this kobold was not. If your character thinks he did the right thing, he's Neutral if not Evil. Because he places the life of an ally as worth less than his orders to that ally. If your character is remorseful and somewhat shocked at his overreaction, then he can remain Good. Otherwise, his attitude represents a shift away from Good alignment. Not the act, but how he feels about it. Instead of helping the weak, I shall enslave them to my will. Instead of passing by all wealth but a basic minimal to survive on, I shall become invested by a greed without end. Instead of sharing with thoses in need, I shall take what they yet have. Instead of trying to be a beacon of light and hope in the Underdark, I shall become a tyrant of the sort that even the darkest foulest creature did not know possible. Instead of respecting life, I shall worship the dead and hunt the living for sport. Instead of using the justice of the sword when left with no other choice, I shall go forth and slay all that stands before me. For Thorak has spoken without a doubt, for as he says: I was not good; then I must be evil. I never said you must be evil. I said the act was neutral, if not evil. Your character's eventual alignment depends on how they feel about the act; if they think they did the right thing, their alignment is shifting away from Good. I personally think the act was horribly evil. You thought, based on little evidence but racial prejudice, that the Drow might, at some point, hurt the kobold who was part of the group that had just attacked him. This is fine, not very nice, but fine. The problem comes from your reaction; you didn't try to stop him, you didn't try and discuss it with him, you resorted almost immediately and with no warning to full lethal force. Anywhere else, we call that murder. You intentionally killed another being for no immediate reason. But this all describes the act, not your character.
bitnine 11-06-04, 02:43 PM	I personally think the act was horribly evil. You thought, based on little evidence but racial prejudice, that the Drow might, at some point, hurt the kobold who was part of the group that had just attacked him.You might not having been paying attention, but after the cleric started attacking the Drow, he tried to use the kobold as a human shield - so the cleric had no choice but to attack the Drow to relieve that danger to the kobold! It was, after all, the last straw.
delroland 11-06-04, 04:30 PM	Well, it seems to me that this thread has degenerated into what thepuregamer (incorrectly) believes and (unsuccessfully) tries to defend, and the rest of us, which disagree with him (for the most part). So I ask you: What is our "Opinion of thepuregamer" alignment? Usually think that thepuregamer is wrong, or Always think that thepuregamer is wrong? The inherent flaw with his argument is that all of his conclusions require the assumption that the DM is using house rules which specifically support his arguments. The logical assumption, under Occam's Razor, is that the rules are used as written, unless it is EXPLICITLY stated by the DM that something else is the case. Since such an asserion has not been explicitly stated, it is most likely that the rules are being used as written, and those rules state that alignment is objective. I mean, if we all based our lives on remote possibilities, we would never drive cars for fear of dying in an accident, or we would reelect George W. for fear of another terrorist attack. Oh, wait...
delroland 11-06-04, 04:32 PM	If your character is remorseful and somewhat shocked at his overreaction, then he can remain Good. But only after receiving an atonement and undertaking a suitably humiliating and difficult quest.
thepuregamer 11-06-04, 04:50 PM	Delroland, don't be lazy. If you want to debunk my arguement point out all the things that are weak. I won't mind. But I am not going to argue against you when I am not sure what I am supposed to target. But, you are just mistaken about the alignment thing. I already explained myself on that perfectly well. The RAW on alignment are objective. But using them to determine a character's alignment makes them far less objective. A DM is the one who perceives a character's actions. Different DM's will see actions in different ways. There are no rules on how a DM is supposed to interpret what he sees or how he thinks. Different DM's will see different intent or motivation for the same actions. They will also see different actions as either justified or not. There is nothing hard to understand in this arguement. It is very simple. The fact that the same action can be argued to be on different sides of alignment is very much proof of what I am saying above.
delroland 11-06-04, 05:01 PM	I see the drow using magic missle on the kobolds, the rogue hiding, and I shout in draconic that we mean the kobolds no harm. Since we are traveling blindly through out the underdark I want to get as much information as possible. The rest of the group comes in and begins to fight I try to tell them to stop. Shortly afterwards the kobolds begin to flee, I should in common to my group that anyone that attacks a kobold that gave up fighting will face divine punishment. So, instead of assuming that your non-evil party was defending themselves against creatures that tend to be evil, you assumed that the non-evil party was simply slaughtering a bunch of "helpless" armed, probably evil creatures. And in the heat of battle, one stranger running in, shouting in a language the party doesn't understand for the kobolds to stop fighting, is going to make them stop? And when the kobolds flee, most likely to get reinforcements, you threaten the party for taking a tactically sound action? This sounds like self-delusion as opposed to simple ignorance. The kobolds never attacked me, I heal one badly wounded to try and get questions out of it, he deson't talk I go over to another one. During this I know the dwarf charged at the fleeing kobolds but cannot comfirm wither he attacked them, same with the rogue, be I do see a magic missle fly over my head and head the fleeing kobolds. At this point, it seems to me that you are just looking for an excuse to start a PvP fight. If you want to start it, then the consequences fall on you. I try to get the other kobold to talk, give it some of my food, but it doesn't talkl because it is watching the drow take everything off the kobold I healed and kicking it. I tell the kobold (no one knows what I'm saying since its in draconic) that "I wouldn't let any of them do it harm." in an effort to get it to talk, like before he doesn't so I tell him he can go home, he runs off and I shout for no one to do anything to him. Maybe the drow was kicking the bastard for stabbing him in the ribs instead of running away. Not evil, and definitely in character, something which should have not surprised you, and something which you have obviously tolerated in the past. Also, you gave the party NO FOREWARNING that you were going to release the kobold, BECAUSE YOU WERE SPEAKING IN DRACONIC! What did you expect them to do? Cheer the kobold on? The drow however, ignoring what I said, goes after the kobold and graps him, ignores me again when I tell him to drop it. Considing the drow beat up the other kobold, is bleeding a little, and attacked the fleeing kobolds, I have no choice but to conclude the drow either likes to kill things or seeks revenge. If the drow wanted to kill the kobold, why did he grapple it? Why didn't he just magic missle it, or stab it with his short sword or rapier, or shoot it with his crossbow? Jumping to false conclusions is not an aspect of having a high Wisdom. I swing at him (and missed) in a effort to get him to drop the kobold and defend him self, but he then uses it as a shield. Using a living creature as a shield was a final straw, so I cast Sanctuary on the kobold and tell the drow to drop it two more times, since my oath is on the line, the drow had no intention of droping it, and my spell was about to wear off I swinged at him and hit for 16. He took no lethal action against the kobold, which he could have VERY EASILY done while you were talking to him. So you got impatient, and tried to kill him, or at least subdue him with lethal force. I will ament I should of done nonlethal, but was unfamilar with the rules and didn't know it could be done with any type of weapon. My intention was to knock him down to the point he would fall over unconsince, so I could cast vigor on him so he wouldn't die, but wouldn't also wake up right away to give me enough time to give the kobolds the drows money and grap both by the neck and toss them both in their hole before anyone else tried the same. I rolled my max damage by mistake and killed him. Killing the drow was a possibility, one you were willing to take. You took the action, so you should suffer the consequences. And I didn't know that clerics of Kord had thieves among their ranks, ones which were willing to steal from their battle-tested allies and give to complete strangers with a decent chance of being wholly evil. You have not provided justifications; you have provided excuses. And, contrary to the base word, excuses do not excuse evil actions. Like using lethal force against allies who attempt to capture foes, when there were other options available. Ogres are no less evil just because they are stupid and know no better. So it is with your (should be ex-) cleric of Kord. If I were the rogue, I would kill you in your sleep before you found an excuse to kill me as well. Then I would hide the body and blame it on the avenging spirit of the murdered drow.
delroland 11-06-04, 05:11 PM	Delroland, don't be lazy. If you want to debunk my arguement point out all the things that are weak. I did, but apparently you are too ignorant to see it. :rolleyes: But, you are just mistaken about the alignment thing. I already explained myself on that perfectly well. The RAW on alignment are objective. But using them to determine a character's alignment makes them far less objective. A DM is the one who perceives a character's actions. Different DM's will see actions in different ways. There are no rules on how a DM is supposed to interpret what he sees or how he thinks. Different DM's will see different intent or motivation for the same actions. They will also see different actions as either justified or not. There is nothing hard to understand in this arguement. It is very simple. The fact that the same action can be argued to be on different sides of alignment is very much proof of what I am saying above. Any DM is free to interpret the rules. But unless they change the rules, they work as written. You are assuming the DM in question changed the rules, because he could have. That is a very big assumption, one which you have proven incapable of providing the one specific actual example to support your statements. The simplest answer is almost always the best. Which do you think is simpler, using the RAW, or altering them as you see fit, with house rule after house rule? No one is saying that a DM can't interpret as they see fit; instead, we are suggesting that they usually use the RAW rather than make a bunch of changes. Let me break down your argument to its simplest form: Premise: The RAW can be changed and interpreted by each individual DM as they see fit. Conclusion: The only correct ruling that a DM can make is that the action is not evil, and the character does not suffer alignment shift. These two ideas are wholly contradictory to each other, and if you can't see that, well, then I have nothing further to say to you.
DaveReaves 11-06-04, 05:17 PM	You might not having been paying attention, but after the cleric started attacking the Drow, he tried to use the kobold as a human shield - so the cleric had no choice but to attack the Drow to relieve that danger to the kobold! It was, after all, the last straw. Seems to me that attacking someone who is using a hostage as a human shield is endangering the shield more than the hostage taker. Recklessly attacking the drow when the kobold was clearly in the way (no other way to describe "human shield" other than in the way of being attacked) was irresponsible (and defeats the purpose of trying to save the kobold.) It was a reckless decision that led to the death of a party member. You also have to remember that the attacker is a cleric, a chosen disciple of a deity whom the deity in trusts with great power. Perhaps an alignment shift was a little much (assuming that this is not the normal routine for the cleric) but there is a good chance on divine retribution in the form of loss of power or a curse of some type. Delroland suggests the atonement spell, and I can't think its a perfect solution to the problem. As a mater of fact, his quest should be to find a way to return the life to the drow so that he can apologize for his actions.
thepuregamer 11-06-04, 05:47 PM	Delroland, I am not talking about redefining the RAW. I am talking about the DM interpreting the situation. That involves interpreting the individual actions and the intent behind those actions. Those things have nothing to do with house ruling. I am not saying that they redefine alignment as they see fit. The rules on alignment do not change. I never said anything otherwise. Premise: The RAW can be changed and interpreted by each individual DM as they see fit. Conclusion: The only correct ruling that a DM can make is that the action is not evil, and the character does not suffer alignment shift. This is not my arguement. I am saying that situations can be intrepreted in different ways by a DM. I also did not say that the only correct ruling was that the character does not suffer an alignment shift. I am saying that I interpret it as the character should not suffer an alignment shift. I just back up my interpretation point by point of the story. I am trying to say that one correct ruling would be that the action is not evil and the character does not suffer an alignment shift.
Sucineri 11-06-04, 06:19 PM	I'm not gonna fight gamer right now since Delroland has that being taken care of right now..what I am here to say is that I just realized something in the cleric's story. He mentions how there was a drow attack in the middle of the night and that the drow wasn't attacked and the cleric thought it was suspicious.. ..THEN he goes on to say that during the kobold attack he shouted in draconic (which the other characters might not know) to the kobolds and was not attacked..that ALSO seems might suspicious if you don't know draconic. This argument alone seems to tell me (in game) that the drow was framed for the attack and that the cleric was leading the kobolds against his own group.
Realms Walker 11-06-04, 07:04 PM	The Exalted character was just wrong in his actions. No two ways about it. With that being said I am absolutely confused as to what his god is. *Quote*Second he was CG and actually said that his god was the god of sports and competition and that his god actualy condoned this act*Quote* God of jocks and brain dead fools?
Kadasbrass 11-06-04, 10:14 PM	The deity is Kord, I call him Provasta for storyline flavor (Deities have different names in different places). And as I said before this argument is over, I have decided to be evil. After working so hard to try and devote myself to a good cause and then finally snapping, I will make my way slowly to Lawful evil. If upholding my values is no longer enough to be good, but neutral instead, then surely abandoning them should (with a little help) shall make me that which you claim I am, pure evil. This is because, when it comes to good verse evil, eveything I percieve to be black or white, and nothing grey. As a result I will not be neurtal on this axis as it be. And if I cannot be good, then evil I shall be. This will be even more flexible, given what I know is coming up in the campaign, an evil act has to be comminted to continue on, and this will make it all fit better. Most of us here can agree, first to go was my respect towards life, and with this shall come, many benefits in sight. In an campaign where my only quarrel has been, lack of experience, starved I have been. Now slowly and surely, all life shall end. For all that I will slay, more power I shall gain. What perhaps shall next go? But be my lack of wealth. For me, I shall claim, all that I may, and no longer shall I take, what merely I needed. For with Greed's investition, the more I shall have, the less need I have of that which was named virtue. Where I shall go next, that I can not say. But this I do know, I have most of you here to thank, for allowing me to see, the errors of my ways. :schemes:
delroland 11-07-04, 02:22 AM	Delroland, I am not talking about redefining the RAW. I am talking about the DM interpreting the situation. That involves interpreting the individual actions and the intent behind those actions. Those things have nothing to do with house ruling. I am not saying that they redefine alignment as they see fit. The rules on alignment do not change. I never said anything otherwise. Premise: The RAW can be changed and interpreted by each individual DM as they see fit. Conclusion: The only correct ruling that a DM can make is that the action is not evil, and the character does not suffer alignment shift. This is not my arguement. I am saying that situations can be intrepreted in different ways by a DM. I also did not say that the only correct ruling was that the character does not suffer an alignment shift. I am saying that I interpret it as the character should not suffer an alignment shift. I just back up my interpretation point by point of the story. I am trying to say that one correct ruling would be that the action is not evil and the character does not suffer an alignment shift. Then why are you telling others that they are wrong? I mean, according to you, you are just stating your opinion, but when someone says that they feel the character should turn to evil, you are the first to say, "No, no, no!" How do you expect anyone to respect your opinion when you not only won't respect theirs, but also constantly contradict yourself? The deity is Kord, I call him Provasta for storyline flavor (Deities have different names in different places). And as I said before this argument is over, I have decided to be evil. After working so hard to try and devote myself to a good cause and then finally snapping, I will make my way slowly to Lawful evil. If upholding my values is no longer enough to be good, but neutral instead, then surely abandoning them should (with a little help) shall make me that which you claim I am, pure evil. This is because, when it comes to good verse evil, eveything I percieve to be black or white, and nothing grey. As a result I will not be neurtal on this axis as it be. And if I cannot be good, then evil I shall be. This will be even more flexible, given what I know is coming up in the campaign, an evil act has to be comminted to continue on, and this will make it all fit better. Most of us here can agree, first to go was my respect towards life, and with this shall come, many benefits in sight. In an campaign where my only quarrel has been, lack of experience, starved I have been. Now slowly and surely, all life shall end. For all that I will slay, more power I shall gain. What perhaps shall next go? But be my lack of wealth. For me, I shall claim, all that I may, and no longer shall I take, what merely I needed. For with Greed's investition, the more I shall have, the less need I have of that which was named virtue. Where I shall go next, that I can not say. But this I do know, I have most of you here to thank, for allowing me to see, the errors of my ways. :devil Hey, if you want to take out your mistakes on the campaign, go for it. I would expect no less from one who doesn't even know the basics of the English language. But don't be surprised when your DM lays the almighty smack down on you. And if the OP is still reading this thread, I strongly suggest that you convince the rogue's player that it would be in the best interest of the character to kill the cleric before things get messy. PS Perhaps you should change your home location to "Land of the Free, Home of the Illiterate"...
markhaus 11-07-04, 08:24 AM	delroland said: creatures that tend to be evil, Like drow Maybe the drow was kicking the bastard for stabbing him in the ribs instead of running away You think this isnt evil yet you think the cleric stopping the drow from torturing a kobold is evil. :rolleyes: (just to mention that I dont think either action is evil. Both are neutral w/ the stopping of torture slightly leaning to good and the torture slightly leaning to evil) This circumstance has been concluded by the DM by punishing the FS to a minor extent. Let us all have faith in his DM to do the right thing the drow who started this thread is long gone. he wanted to complain and get sympathy by omitting facts. He did, so now he isnt responding b/c he feels better about himself and doesnt want to argue w/ a bunch of people.
Kadasbrass 11-07-04, 11:53 AM	Hey, if you want to take out your mistakes on the campaign, go for it. I would expect no less from one who doesn't even know the basics of the English language. But don't be surprised when your DM lays the almighty smack down on you. And if the OP is still reading this thread, I strongly suggest that you convince the rogue's player that it would be in the best interest of the character to kill the cleric before things get messy If the rogue manages to kill me, I would be impressed. Second I should explain that thought I said before that we're in the underdark, what I never said is that we have no choice but to go forward. To go forward, we must pass a unlimited amount of traps, and the rogue in question is rarely able to disarm those traps. When it comes to 'the basics of english.' You'll be surpised what counts as english these days. However, when I feel in a very evil mood, I like to write with a poetic point of view. But I can understand, that someone as shortsighted as you, being unable to see, other peoples points of view. As for taking out my mistakes, perhaps you have yet to pick up the irony in what I have said.
thepuregamer 11-07-04, 12:13 PM	Then why are you telling others that they are wrong? I mean, according to you, you are just stating your opinion, but when someone says that they feel the character should turn to evil, you are the first to say, "No, no, no!" How do you expect anyone to respect your opinion when you not only won't respect theirs, but also constantly contradict yourself? Well it goes like this. My opinion is that they are wrong in their interpretation. My opinion is not absolute though. The fact that I think they are wrong does not mean they cannot interpret it that way. The funny thing is none of this argueing matters. It is not like it will decide anything. Like if we all agree on whether the cleric's actions should warrant an alignment change. It wouldn't matter. If the DM thought it warranted an alignment change, it would matter.
delroland 11-07-04, 01:38 PM	The funny thing is none of this argueing matters. It is not like it will decide anything. Like if we all agree on whether the cleric's actions should warrant an alignment change. It wouldn't matter. Then why are you still arguing? If it doesn't matter, then you should simply stop arguing. If the rogue manages to kill me, I would be impressed. One coup de grace and it's all over for your character. Don't ever go to sleep.
delroland 11-07-04, 01:43 PM	Like drow The difference here is that the party knows the specific drow they are dealing with is not evil, whereas they don't know anything about the kobolds, but generally speaking, kobolds ARE evil. And kicking a monster once in the ribs out of anger is not torture. The cleric didn't even raise a finger to that; he was too busy making nice-nice with the evil monster. Also, the drow did not grapple the kobold and start torturing it; he was trying to prevent it from escaping. So how was the cleric preventing the torture of anything?
Thorak 11-07-04, 01:44 PM	You might not having been paying attention, but after the cleric started attacking the Drow, he tried to use the kobold as a human shield - so the cleric had no choice but to attack the Drow to relieve that danger to the kobold! It was, after all, the last straw. "Alright, men. The bank robber has grabbed a human hostage. Open fire!" Grabbing a human shield isn't an evil act, unless you're deliberately interposing them between you and active fire you know won't stop. If you're doing it to try and keep someone from attacking, it's not evil because you're (in theory) not endangering them; the other person is if they attack. Otherwise, you're implying that cops should start shooting like mad at criminals who take human shields. Which is effectively what the cleric did, here. But only after receiving an atonement and undertaking a suitably humiliating and difficult quest. Only if they're a Paladin or Exalted. Which the cleric was neither, IIRC. Alignment outside those things is a lot more flexible. If upholding my values is no longer enough to be good, but neutral instead, then surely abandoning them should (with a little help) shall make me that which you claim I am, pure evil. This is because, when it comes to good verse evil, eveything I percieve to be black or white, and nothing grey. As a result I will not be neurtal on this axis as it be. And if I cannot be good, then evil I shall be. I hope you're making this decision because you A> agree with myself and others about how your character's act wasn't Good, B> think your character would believe he did the right thing, and C> are therefore willingly changing his alignment to reflect his changing attitudes. If you mean it sarcastically, as the first line "If upholding my values is no longer enough to be good" implies, you need to reread the arguments. The problem wasn't upholding your values. It was how you chose to uphold them. By killing someone in cold blood who wasn't an immediate threat to anyone. Which is a Neutral act, if not Evil. If you wanted to stop the Drow, there were plenty of non-violent, or at least non-lethal ways to do so, none of which you used. My point has always been that if you think your character was acting perfectly CG, you misunderstand alignments, and that in that case, your alignment is more truly CN. If you agree the act wasn't a Good one, then you can choose to either go along with an alignment change willingly (as I'm toying with the idea of with my current Paladin, so I clearly don't think it's "wrong"), or have your character repent their act and be slightly horrified at the depths their rage sunk them to. Upholding values = good. Committing murder to do so = evil.
feartheinvinceblehamster 11-07-04, 01:54 PM	some stuff from the BoED could help!!! 1. come back as the thingamagig that is an exact copy of the cleric, with all his gear, and kill him :D 2. come back as the crazy deathless obsessed with killing the thing that killed them, the one with the punish the guilty or whatever 3. come back as a celestial paragon...okay, maybe not :confused: and from other books 4.come back as a death knight and kill him :) 5.elistaere is really, really ticked off at the cleric, congrats!!! she makes your soul into a astral deva and you just SLAY that cleric :schemes: 6. get raised 7. as already stated, become a ghost :ghosted: 8. wait... it is brilliant!!!! become a vampire and suck his blood!!!! :devil:
Kadasbrass 11-07-04, 02:47 PM	One coup de grace and it's all over for your character. Don't ever go to sleep. I only need two hours of sleep, but I'm 'asleep' for six, who can really say when I'm really asleep or not... (since something is coming around when we're in a blocked tunnel and kills someone with us, I'm nnot going to get alot of sleep as it is.) I hope you're making this decision because you A> agree with myself and others about how your character's act wasn't Good, B> think your character would believe he did the right thing, and C> are therefore willingly changing his alignment to reflect his changing attitudes. If you mean it sarcastically, as the first line "If upholding my values is no longer enough to be good" implies, you need to reread the arguments. The problem wasn't upholding your values. It was how you chose to uphold them. By killing someone in cold blood who wasn't an immediate threat to anyone. Which is a Neutral act, if not Evil. If you wanted to stop the Drow, there were plenty of non-violent, or at least non-lethal ways to do so, none of which you used. My point has always been that if you think your character was acting perfectly CG, you misunderstand alignments, and that in that case, your alignment is more truly CN. If you agree the act wasn't a Good one, then you can choose to either go along with an alignment change willingly (as I'm toying with the idea of with my current Paladin, so I clearly don't think it's "wrong"), or have your character repent their act and be slightly horrified at the depths their rage sunk them to. My message on top of page 8 and the one before it, do not take them at face value, for what they underline I shall explain later. Consider them a thought invoking exercise for the time being. As for turning evil, or remaining good, from where I stand now I could do either of them. I rather be good, but if it is agreed I shouldn't, that my actions cannot possibly been good (that even tho good intented, but poorly executed which in the end makes them evil), then I will slowly sink into evil. I have done some thinking on wither my actions were good or evil or nuetral and have come up with two conflicting answers, I will explain more into this later at a better time. I have been playing more neutral (more good then evil in the nuetral range) since then, but that doesn't mean much yet, since there hasn't been alot going on since then. I said before that I dragged the drows corpse till I found suitable place to bury it (This being done out of guilt for my actions), what I didn't say is that the place I found was a 20 or 30 foot drop and instead of dossing the body down there (as the DM said I could) I used rope to lower it. I did wake up once when the ranger and rogue were talking, ranger said he was getting images and something was trying to urge him to attack me in his sleep (he has a cursed ring of suggestition that though it lets him us it three times aday, anything said to him, if used on a simimar manner, is considered a suggestion on him), and since I had woken up, I said to him; next time something messes with his mind that he should mess back with theirs.
Thorak 11-07-04, 03:34 PM	As for turning evil, or remaining good, from where I stand now I could do either of them. I rather be good, but if it is agreed I shouldn't, that my actions cannot possibly been good (that even tho good intented, but poorly executed which in the end makes them evil), then I will slowly sink into evil. I have done some thinking on wither my actions were good or evil or nuetral and have come up with two conflicting answers, I will explain more into this later at a better time. Exactly. Your character's future alignment will be determined by how he chooses to react to what he's done. I personally believe the act was in no way consistent with a Good alignment (though there's apparently disagreement), but even if it were horribly Evil, if your character knows it was horribly and deeply regrets it, his alignment need not change. Though situations like this make for great character development, they unfortunately tend to devolve into party frag-fests, when it involves one PC killing another. Which is why people are saying "coup de grace him in his sleep". That gets mentioned in absolutely every single one of these conflict threads sooner or later. That said, you mentioned you only "sleep" for 2 of your 8 hours. I heartily suggest preparing a Hold Person, preferably Quickened if possible, just to nail whoever might try the coup de grace bit. Especially since, when Held, they're helpless and thus vulnerable to a CdG themselves.
delroland 11-07-04, 04:55 PM	Though situations like this make for great character development, they unfortunately tend to devolve into party frag-fests, when it involves one PC killing another. Which is why people are saying "coup de grace him in his sleep". That gets mentioned in absolutely every single one of these conflict threads sooner or later. That said, you mentioned you only "sleep" for 2 of your 8 hours. I heartily suggest preparing a Hold Person, preferably Quickened if possible, just to nail whoever might try the coup de grace bit. Especially since, when Held, they're helpless and thus vulnerable to a CdG themselves. Hey, he opened up the PvP can of worms; turnabout is fair play. Oh, and for the record, the last time I had to DM a PvP situation, the attacking player had his greatsword break on a wall, ricochet, and pierce him straight through the neck. And the last time I as a player was attacked in a PvP situation, I was killed and reincarnated, and afterwards I found the other character, beat her in the head with a shovel, and sold her into sexual slavery to a bandit horde. So, as you can see, I am not a huge fan of inner-party conflict.
thepuregamer 11-07-04, 05:11 PM	Hey, he opened up the PvP can of worms; turnabout is fair play. Oh, and for the record, the last time I had to DM a PvP situation, the attacking player had his greatsword break on a wall, ricochet, and pierce him straight through the neck. And the last time I as a player was attacked in a PvP situation, I was killed and reincarnated, and afterwards I found the other character, beat her in the head with a shovel, and sold her into sexual slavery to a bandit horde. So, as you can see, I am not a huge fan of inner-party conflict. Wait, so you are not a fan of inner-party conflict but you appear to be a participant in it. A heavy participant.
Kadasbrass 11-07-04, 05:46 PM	That said, you mentioned you only "sleep" for 2 of your 8 hours. I heartily suggest preparing a Hold Person, preferably Quickened if possible, just to nail whoever might try the coup de grace bit. Especially since, when Held, they're helpless and thus vulnerable to a CdG themselves. I said before that I was a Favored Soul, but since kept getting called a cleric I left it go by, so I can only cast the few spells I know. I just really really hold a strong dislike of the perpare spell system. Second attacking someone while their helpless would begin to lead towards a darker side of neutral I just not ready to go down yet... But if he tries to attack me while I'm helpless (or thinks I am) that will open another can of worms. Off chance, whats the DC for an Lobotomy? I should also point out that the person playing rogue will try to roll the dice (I know that it says automatically hit, but he will still try to roll) and he will roll a 1 and Coup de Grace his leg or something by mistake (He never ever takes 10 or anything on simple task, because he might 'miss something important'). Hey, he opened up the PvP can of worms; turnabout is fair play. Was thinking same thing about the worms. At this point should my character get killed I won't hold it against anyone, does not mean I won't fight back, doesn't mean I won't kill them in the process either, but should I die it will give me a chance to start over and maybe rejoin the orginal campaign, which has a central figure based on my first D&D character (I'm not sure if its same one or an family member since it messes up the whole story line of history) And lets not forget the most important fact, the rogue would rather me kill him, since he could then could play another fighter since its the only class he knows how to (correctly) play... :rolleyes:
Sucineri 11-07-04, 06:33 PM	Well, whatever DOES happen...whether you kill the rogue (defending yourself), or the rogue kills you (in your sleep) or if anyone kills anyone else..don't become a child and take things out of character.. MEANING..if the rogue kills you, don't make a character specifically to kill the rogue, and if you kill the rogue and he makes a new character just to kill you, then just leave the group. Once it turns into the kind of game where everyone out of game is making every choice they have based off of killing another player's character then the game has no more value at all.
thepuregamer 11-07-04, 07:25 PM	I agree Sucineri, the idea of PvP party conflict seems to waste time. If I were a DM I would really be against it. So no reincarnated characters because they most often serve only one purpose. Revenge. No ghosts either. I prefer the idea of dead people remaining dead. Not a big fan of ressurections.
Kadasbrass 11-07-04, 10:20 PM	Look I said if I get killed I not going to make another character to come back and hunt them down, for one thing that alone would be metagaming and the DM would make sure it didn't happened, second it be a waste of my time since there are so many other clases I'd like to try out (If the warlock from complete arcana looks nice when it comes out, wouldn't mind getting bumped off). Just for the record the DM placed the drow back into the orginal campaign (whats left of it) from before the rogue got us on this darn holy grail thing. He started off at the 4th level as a human fighter. Personally I rather be on the orginal campaign, considering the main guy in it is based off my first D&D character, not sure if its some family member (same surname) or same guy (I we met him along our travels and looks alike). Outside of game, I know there been an army (of good heros) gathering against him, and he appeared to have destoryed at lest one village.
Darklord Greywolff 11-08-04, 12:36 AM	Yeah I like my new fighter. and to be honest I'm really glad not to be trapped in the underdark with them. since they are pretty much stuck (I was the way out :D ). And Kadas is right about the rogue couping his leg if he took the automatic hit he might miss something (no clue about the take 10 or 20 rule even after repeated explanations). I refuse to metagame to help the rogue and have him kill kadas it would give him a sence of self worth. If I could have haunted him I wouldn't be vengful just spiteful. No sleep for a month can take it toll hehe :schemes:
Kadasbrass 11-08-04, 01:11 AM	Gasp you mean those nightmares the ranger go to kill me weren't from you? :rofl: I will say this, when I heard them tell your fighter they were there together to hunt someone down, I was pretty sure it was to hunt me down, when they said their looking for Traviswalker, I wanted to be back on the orginal campaign (one more reason I want to kill the rogue, or at the very lest somehow manage to tatoo a silence and zone of truth spell on his tounge that goes into effect everytime he tries to lie) When all else failes, there is still Unindentified Flying Rogue process: Step one grap a rogue (You will need at lest two or more people to handle your unnatural seven foot freak of nature rogue). Step two find a trap that has at lest two swinging blades, with one projectiong from opposing walls or floor and ceiling. Step three toss rogue directly into the trap. If done correctly there is no step four, other wise repeat process till results are suitable. (Generaly speaking, suitable refers to the point in time in which the rogue is no longer indentifable). Warning: This process might not make things better, but you will feel better for 6 minutes. Results may vary. People with weak stomachs should not use UFR, UFR is not for everyone, you should consult your DM wither UFR will work for you. When there are no suitable rogues around, any small or sneaky type of person can be used: halflings, gnomes, bards, kobolds, badgers, illusionists, Half Dragon Squirrels (handle with care).
Darklord Greywolff 11-08-04, 01:27 AM	Gasp you mean those nightmares the ranger go to kill me weren't from you? I will say this, when I heard them tell your fighter they were there together to hunt someone down, I was pretty sure it was to hunt me down, when they said their looking for Traviswalker, I wanted to be back on the orginal campaign (one more reason I want to kill the rogue, or at the very lest somehow manage to tatoo a silence and zone of truth spell on his tounge that goes into effect everytime he tries to lie) Trust me I tryed to haunt you but this was all the dms doing. A$$h0le is always taking my fun away. and If you try that when I play my rogue I will steal your pants and beat you to death with them both in and out of game.
Snommelp 11-08-04, 12:35 PM	Wait, so you are not a fan of inner-party conflict but you appear to be a participant in it. A heavy participant. Just because a soldier goes to war does not mean that soldier is a fan of the war. With inner-party conflict, you defend yourself, plain and simple. Besides, these two examples say to me that measures were taken to keep PCs from killing each other. The DM even went so far as to have the offending player pull a one-in-a-billion suicide maneuver rather than letting one PC kill another. As for the other example, nobody ever said that the character was good, and retaliation of this sort looks like a good deterrent to me. The offending character wasn't killed, but was still punished for her actions. As for this rogue whom you both hate, I say use him as an orcish trap detector: throw him into a room and see how many traps go off. :devil:
Black Viper 11-08-04, 02:36 PM	okay, here is a better version of the story.......... I am the rogue in the party, and my character has acted like a complete fool for the entire campaign so far (i.e. I bluffed everyone into believing I was in search of the Holy Grail) anyways, they discovered my lie and were in search of me to take me back to the king to whom they were in service to. when they found me I was in custody of some dwarves who bought me from the king. The party members then joined our group and we went searching for the holy grail. Flash forward many nights to the night of the incident...... We were in the underdark and I had just gone down a rope that was being held by my dwarven master. The dwarf handed the rope to our ranger and began going down, but the ranger did not make a sufficient rope check and dropped the rope. The drow, seeing that the dwarf was going to plummet to his doom, dived after the rope to grab it and use levitate to stop him from falling. He missed the rope, but still enacted his levitate so that he would not fall. I used my spell so that the dwarf would not take any damage upon getting to the bottom of the tunnel. The drow then proceded back up to the top of the tunnel and brought down the rest of the party members. (he had levitate for 10 min) After we were all down, being the Rogue, I naturally went first and the drow followed behind. I hid and moved silently into a larger chamber and observed the kobolds in there. i then sneaked back out and informed the group of what was inside. The drow then entered the chamber and I also entered hiding and moving silently. The drow made the intimidate with a roll of 19 and it was fruitless. Like he said he was on the receiving end of a spear thrown by one of the kobolds. He proceded to attack back and before he could kill one I used concussion and sploded one pretty good. Then he killed one and the "cleric in question" entered into the cave. The drow killed his 2nd one and I greatly wounded one with another concussion. by this time most of the kobolds were fleeing and we were trying to pick them off before they could escape because if a kobold gets away, chances are that 20 more will come back with it. The cleric started talking to the two remaining kobolds in draconic, which was a language that none of us knew except him. After talking for a bit, the kobold gets up and dashes towards the exit the other kobolds took. The drow, thinking that the kobold was escaping, grabs hims and holds him so he cannot get away. The cleric yells to put him down, and the drow asks "why?". The cleric responded with a stern "Put him down!" The drow started backing away and I stepped in telling the cleric to back down, we just want to know why he said let him go. The dwarf told me to come over by him and sit down, which I obeyed because he is my master. Then the cleric pulled the greatsword and threatened the drow with it. As you know, he ended up killing him with the greatsword which caused the drow to have a muscle spasm which crushed the kobolds neck, killing it. I stood up and walked over to the other kobold when the dwarf was listening to the cleric and ranger argue. I asked the kobold what was through the passage and also what was said between the other kobold and the cleric. I asked nicely at first saying I wouldn't harm him, but he would not answer, so I started to threaten him. After giving him several tries, I cut off the kobolds head. The cleric was slightly perterbed and was thinking about punishing me, although he did not draw his weapon. The dwarf told me to return and so I did. The cleric told the dwarf that I should be punished for what I did because killing the kobold was wrong, the dwarf told the cleric to back down because I am his responsibility. (btw, the dwarf is run by the DM) Like greywolffe said in his first post, the cleric lost his spells initially, but then the DM decided that it was not out of alignment to do so, so he got his spells and stuff back. If I would not have been a lvl 1 character with only 1 hit point left I would have tried to stop the level 3 cleric from attacking the drow, but I was nowhere near capable of doing so. Also, I stated to the DM that my character was going to grab the kobold if the drow hadn't of done it, and he said that he would have had the dwarf do it if we hadn't done it, yet he still sided with the cleric about it being a "good" thing to do. Just another version of the story......
delroland 11-08-04, 02:46 PM	After that, is there anyone who still thinks the cleric was not in the wrong for killing a fellow party member?
markhaus 11-08-04, 02:48 PM	After this latest version I am more inclined to side w/ the DM in taking away his powers for a short time. Not b/c it was evil so much as stupid and arrogant. This latest version is different from the first two. W/ 3 variations (the drow's and rogue's being very similiar) I have to say: The DM is really the only person who can make an educated judgement b/c he was there, unbiased, and already punished (sort of) the favored soul. EDIT: I mean really stupid
Darklord Greywolff 11-08-04, 02:52 PM	I'd like to point out that Black Viper is the least inclined party member to lie. Both Kadas and I have been calling him an idiot for the entire campaign. He is equaly hateful towards both of us :D
Thorak 11-08-04, 03:09 PM	Black Viper's account also meshes well with what I've been saying. Evil act. Not necessarily evil character, though.
thepuregamer 11-08-04, 04:19 PM	Man, I think it is impossible to rule on this. We have 3 different stories. You would think that guys from the same game could agree on a story. I mean, now the drow strangles the kobald in his death throws? I think these three guys should get together and then come back with a complete story.
Derren S. 11-08-04, 04:37 PM	I mean, now the drow strangles the kobald in his death throws? As Darklord said in his very first post... Before complaining that these storys are different, maybe you should read them first and you will see that Darklords and Black Vipers stories match pretty much.
Thorak 11-08-04, 05:04 PM	As Darklord said in his very first post... Before complaining that these storys are different, maybe you should read them first and you will see that Darklords and Black Vipers stories match pretty much. And that Kadasbrass' varies only in relatively insignificant details. Considering, even just by his account, he kills an ally for not following his order to drop the kobold, a creature who had just been captured after attacking said ally. The points I raised in my posts are relevant regardless of which perspective you want to talk about.
archsage 11-08-04, 05:27 PM	Well after reading ALL 5 pages...../sigh. There have been some very valid points and there have like all things been some ppl that take the what if this was the case and what if that occured before and the leprechaun coulda stole my pants. But that isn't the case. There is no room for assumptions. Play the game with the facts given otherwise stay on the bench. The point is the action was evil. The justification was not there. The fact is that the drow captured (not killed, not tortured) there was no form or torture occuring at this pt (kick a downd kobold is not torture. Repeatedly kicking a down kobold cause he won't give you info is torture). The drow could have killed and not captured but that wasnt the case. According to Viper the cleric didn't even give a valid reason to let the kobold go. The drow used the kobold as a shield because he thought the cleric wouldn't attack if the kobold was in danger of his (the cleric's) attack. Which wasn't the case because he (the cleric) swung any way causing the death of the drow and the kobold. The only justifications i've heard are fictitious. Except kadasbrass which may in his eyes be playing his char right. The fact is the killing was evil. He might not have needed his alignment changed but he did need some punishment and the spell revocation was a good idea. Until he repented, or the "god" thought he learned his lesson. I know my view will more likely be flamed by ppl who need to realise that this is my opinion. I would like every1 to know that i've taken all views into account and am not saying that any1 was wrong in their view, because given different situations their view could theoretically be correct. But face it they're still theories none the less. Also if ppl would take other ppls opinions as just that opinions then there would be no reason for flaming....and the threads wouldn't get to be this BIG. Given the facts of 3 different ppl Kadabrass was in the wrong by killing the drow. Yet he also expressed his view that he felt bad about what he did. Regardless it was an evil act and he was punished (though it was revoked). Kad has even expressed this. Summary: Act was evil though intentions & beliefs were not. Alignment change not necessary unless character continues these kind of actions. Some form of punishment is required though if even for a short time (which apparently occured). Any who that's my 2 cents ^^. Have a nice day and flame away :D
Sucineri 11-08-04, 07:39 PM	Summary: Act was evil though intentions & beliefs were not. Alignment change not necessary unless character continues these kind of actions. Some form of punishment is required though if even for a short time (which apparently occured). Act was evil, intentions were evil (killing an ally to save a new "friend"), beliefs were evil (do what I say or you will be sworded). An evil character can believe is intentions are good while still being evil. This whole thing is about one big evil act. And although Kad seems to be being a crybaby about "I don't wanna be neutral! There is no middle ground! Waaaaah!" He should shift from CG to CN. Now LE..because it was one situation that caused the shift. Now if he goes on to murder everyone in the group then he can go ahead and shift towards evil again, but as it is..he should be CN and lose any Good Alignment benefits.
archsage 11-08-04, 08:10 PM	i don't really think his intentions were evil since he said he didn't intend to kill him (although he did). And i'll give you the beliefs part because it all came around to the fact that he threatened the drow w/ violence just because the drow didn't listen to him.
Kadasbrass 11-08-04, 09:47 PM	Look there is a much better way to make the argument. This has been turned into a gaint cause and effect: He did something therefore he is evil because blah blah blah. The most important thing to look at is: "Would a truely good person have done the same action?" The answer to that is no. However another important thing that must be asked is: "Would a truely neutral person have done the same action?" The answer is also no, because a neutral person wouldn't feel complied towards good or evil enough to do something about it. "Would a truely evil person have done the same thing?" The answer is yes and no, I evil person would have different reasons for doing so, but they generally have no problem with killing people. This is something that cannot be made to fit easily onto a alignment scale. You will be unable to fit the little square object into the circle or triangle shaped holes without 'reshaping' the hole or the object in the process. There is no alignment that this fits into, because the nine alignments are not designed to be based on single actions. They are based on the general being of a person. The action can be considered chaotic evil, while at the same time the intention of the action was lawful good at the same time. If you try to put the both together you end up with true neutral, but neutral isn't the answer because I neutral person wouldn't of done it either. Therefore you must include more then just the single action in question to reach a correct answer. Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting Chapter 5, Deities, Pg 233 Deity Format section, Alignment subsection The deity's alignment is the most common alignment evidenced by the deity. Just as evil deities can act benignly to advanced their cause, good deities sometimes need to be cruel to save something of importance, and so a deity's alignment is just a guideline. (It then goes on with the usual rule of a cleric still needing to be one alignment away from the deity's alignment as in the players handbook, except a few deities may permit alignments more then one step away) "Would a truely good person have done the same thing?" Yes, but only if cause was something of importance. And the importance in this case is something that can be argued every which way, and to some degree has already been argued. However this will ultimately end up as more opinion then fact no matter which side it takes since it has gone on for so long already. So let us continue with more to be considered Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting Chapter 5, Deities, Pg 232 Worship section, Sins and Penance subsection Some members of the clergy believe their deities watch over every act, thought, and consequence of the deeds of every mortal worshiper. Most priest, however, see their deities as judging mortals only on the deeds or acts plus the obvious intent rather than ultimate consequences. A cleric or druid who commits a minor offense against her deity or ignores portions of the deity's dogma is guilty of a sin. He has to do some penance appropriate to the seriousness of the sin in order to remain in good standing with the church, other clerics or druids, and the deity. Paladins, rangers and other divine spellcasters are held to this standard (to a less exacting degree) also (It then goes over the type penances needed based on the severeness of the sin) This now takes us to the ultimate question, that being "What is the alignment of Jervic Sevelt, the Favored Soul?" The action in question was evil, but a good person is willing to perform a evil act for a important cause. Inaddition to the act, the obvious intention must be included, but the ultimate consequences need not be included. Thus the only thing that is left to argue over in order to make final judgement is wither or not my actions were for an important cause, and wither my intention was good or evil. For if I had important enough cause to perform them and my intention was good then I am completely within the terms for CG. Otherwise a good person would not have performed them and thus I would not of been a Good aligned character when the action was performed.
Snommelp 11-08-04, 10:38 PM	Look there is a much better way to make the argument. This has been turned into a gaint cause and effect: He did something therefore he is evil because blah blah blah. The most important thing to look at is: "Would a truely good person have done the same action?" The answer to that is no. However another important thing that must be asked is: "Would a truely neutral person have done the same action?" The answer is also no, because a neutral person wouldn't feel complied towards good or evil enough to do something about it. "Would a truely evil person have done the same thing?" The answer is yes and no, I evil person would have different reasons for doing so, but they generally have no problem with killing people. This is something that cannot be made to fit easily onto a alignment scale. You will be unable to fit the little square object into the circle or triangle shaped holes without 'reshaping' the hole or the object in the process. Actually, I'd say that this particular action fits very nicely into a Lawful-Evil shaped hole. Actions do have alignments, so to speak; however, one action should not be enough to completely flip around a character's alignment (unless the one action is putting on a helm of opposite alignment). Then again, this single action was so very charged with evil that I could see the justification for a slip down to neutral from good, and I can definitely see a need for the character to be punished by his Good god.
Thorak 11-08-04, 10:41 PM	That's a good argument, Kadasbrass, but it works two ways, especially in D&D. Good intentions aren't enough to make an act Good. Especially if the reasons behind the act are incredibly faulty. If someone is insane, and thinks they need to kill all elves because they're really demons trying to devour the world, then they're not Good just because their intent is to save the world. They are Evil, because they are genocidal maniacs. Of course, they believe they are doing the right thing. But here's the tricky part; "right" and "good" are entirely different concepts. The "right" thing for an Evil character to do, when confronted with a dying man in an alley, is to take a quick look around to see if he's being observed, and then take the man's purse. After all, he's dying, he doesn't need it any more, and better you take it than anyone else. Perfectly justified and "right" to an Evil character. But a Good character would be horrified that the guy wasn't running screaming for the guards or trying desperately to save the man's life. Because, to him, that's what would be "right". I don't claim those are the only possible "right" actions for either. Just descriptive of the dichotomy I'm talking about. Thus, it's perfectly possible for the Favoured Soul to think he did the Right Thing. While shifting away from a Good alignment.
Kadasbrass 11-08-04, 11:12 PM	That is one thing that the books are very unclear on. Good and evil, and chaotic and lawful can be switched when viewed relative to a single persons point out view. For a chaotic evil drow can may consider himself lawful good by fulfilling the wishes of Lolth, but compared to a absolute and universal scale he is considered chaotic evil. So for the purpose of this case let it all be done to a absolute scale. But the problem is I don't fit neatly into it because I would fall inbetween chaotic good and choatic neurtal and there is no alignment inbetween and trying to use the best fit isn't going to work as well either. Now I will bring in for my defense the purpose of my thought invoking exercise on the top of page 8 and the post before it, and that was to show to be fit into the evil alignment my character would have play the reverse of nearly everything the character does. That also the character has to strongly a belief to be considered neurtal on the good vs evil axis. Perhaps a new system needs to be made for alignments or a small revision (or we could wait and see if WotC Website does a 4 part article on Alignments next week). Personally I'm leaning towards plan C, where I lose my character sheet, and make a new one. Perhaps a character can be both CN and CG during a short period, long enough to prove wither he is truely one or if not, give him enough time to firmly adjust and change to the another alignment.
Snommelp 11-08-04, 11:22 PM	So for the purpose of this case let it all be done to a absolute scale. But the problem is I don't fit neatly into it because I would fall inbetween chaotic good and choatic neurtal and there is no alignment inbetween and trying to use the best fit isn't going to work as well either. Actually, there is an alignment between CG and CN. It's Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies. You have to act good to be Good, but you can be Neutral and still do good things.
markhaus 11-09-04, 07:58 AM	It's Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies. Why not chaotic good w/ nuetral tendencies ;) This was definately a chaotic act, anybody who thinks its lawful to first swing at the guy holding the hostage, then cast sanctuary on the hostage AFTER swinging needs to rethink what lawful and chaotic mean. Not to say that stupid acts are chaotic neutral, this act just happened to be stupid AND chaotic neutral. He was punished, no need to draw this out. i assume he has recovered his powers by now and everyone is happy (including the player playing the dead drow who is now a live fighter)
Thorak 11-09-04, 09:07 AM	That is one thing that the books are very unclear on. Good and evil, and chaotic and lawful can be switched when viewed relative to a single persons point out view. For a chaotic evil drow can may consider himself lawful good by fulfilling the wishes of Lolth, but compared to a absolute and universal scale he is considered chaotic evil. So for the purpose of this case let it all be done to a absolute scale. But the problem is I don't fit neatly into it because I would fall inbetween chaotic good and choatic neurtal and there is no alignment inbetween and trying to use the best fit isn't going to work as well either. Now I will bring in for my defense the purpose of my thought invoking exercise on the top of page 8 and the post before it, and that was to show to be fit into the evil alignment my character would have play the reverse of nearly everything the character does. That also the character has to strongly a belief to be considered neurtal on the good vs evil axis. Perhaps a new system needs to be made for alignments or a small revision (or we could wait and see if WotC Website does a 4 part article on Alignments next week). Personally I'm leaning towards plan C, where I lose my character sheet, and make a new one. Perhaps a character can be both CN and CG during a short period, long enough to prove wither he is truely one or if not, give him enough time to firmly adjust and change to the another alignment. The problem is that, regardless of what a character thinks their alignment might be, it's defined absolutely in D&D. A chaotic evil character might think they're the lawful good saviour of humanity. If they eat elf babies every day just for fun, though, they're horribly horribly evil. It doesn't matter if they believe elves are no different than deer. Or that they save a human every day, and give lots of money to the poor. They're Evil with a capital E. This is what I was trying to get at with my comments separating "right" from "good". A character may think it's right to kill another person, in a certain situation. But whether or not it's good isn't based on the character's beliefs or opinions, in any way whatsoever. It's defined absolutely, independently of the character's beliefs. All a character's beliefs matter is in determining whether or not they're Lawful; do they have firm beliefs they strictly follow? If yes, they're lawful. It has almost nothing to do with whether or not they're Good or not.
Snommelp 11-09-04, 10:59 AM	Why not chaotic good w/ nuetral tendencies ;) Because Good is more rigid than Neutral. Of course, you could call him CG with Neutral tendencies if you want, but I think this act dragged him a bit further down the alignment scale than that. *shrug* This was definately a chaotic act, anybody who thinks its lawful to first swing at the guy holding the hostage, then cast sanctuary on the hostage AFTER swinging needs to rethink what lawful and chaotic mean. Not to say that stupid acts are chaotic neutral, this act just happened to be stupid AND chaotic neutral. He was punished, no need to draw this out. i assume he has recovered his powers by now and everyone is happy (including the player playing the dead drow who is now a live fighter) They're saying (and I was too) that it was Lawful because he delivered an ultimatum and acted on it. However, I can see your point.