Also on a side note, the only story line that really matters in-game is his girlfriend's. We seem to be characters in her story.
For example, if a paladin of Heironeous were to wage a holy war against a horde of orcs, this would be an act of evil, regardless of the fact that the paladin is lawful good and orcs are usually chaotic evil
To certain extents i think your DM is right, Alignment is subjective.
That paladin waging war against the orc's is wrong especially if the orcs were just minding there own business and that paladin brought the war to them simply because they're orcs. then its a hate crime.
Also on a side note, the only story line that really matters in-game is his girlfriend's. We seem to be characters in her story.
This is just wrong of him.
have the group let him know how they feel in a non-threatening way. if that doesnt work,
i would suggest if you dont like his campaigns find another DM or play group
For example, if a paladin of Heironeous were to wage a holy war against a horde of orcs, this would be an act of evil, regardless of the fact that the paladin is lawful good and orcs are usually chaotic evil. How is this justified?
Flip that around. Orcs wage a holy (unholy?) war on humans. Is that evil?
Now, why is a paladin automatically good when committing attempted genocide, and why are the orcs evil? Because you're accustomed to orcs = evil = I can kill them without repercussions and paladin = good = can do no wrong. I agree with your DM on this one.
Flip that around. Orcs wage a holy (unholy?) war on humans. Is that evil?
Now, why is a paladin automatically good when committing attempted genocide, and why are the orcs evil? Because you're accustomed to orcs = evil = I can kill them without repercussions and paladin = good = can do no wrong. I agree with your DM on this one.
this guy puts it way better than i did
kudos to him
Also, the DM thinks that slaughtering your party is evil, but if you do it in the name of your god, then it is justified (his words). So basically, by blindly following the will of your respective god, you are free and clear. But this statement contradicts his previous statements. That is my main problem.
Our problem is that now the only viable alignment available to us is neutrality which cuts down on the story element of D&D severely in my opinion
I think he should draw himself a map of his world and label the different regions with an alignment that best describes the overall morality of that region and try to use that alignment as "neutral" and adjust it's residents behavior accordingly.
By D&D definitions, destroying evil is a good act. Therefore, by a strict definition, a paladin waging war against orcs is good - provided the vast majority of those orcs are evil. It doesn't matter if they were just sitting around being evil to each other - the fact of their evilness makes killing them good by definition.
This is, obviously, a simplistic, black-vs.-white ideology (and, admittedly, a somewhat extreme example of it) but it is, at its core, the D&D alignment system.
Now, I've played in D&D games that threw alignment out entirely and they went perfectly well. Orcs were bad guys, not because they had "evil" written on their stat block, but because they did things the PCs objected to. My guy didn't have "good" on the character sheet, but he was altruistic and put his life on the line to protect those in need - characterictically good traits.
If your GM isn't enforcing the alignment rules, just ignore them - and play your PC as you want to play him. Nothing's stopping you from playing a noble, honorable, good-hearted holy warrior (paladin), or a carefree, whimsical, generous-but-fickle sorcerer (CG).
The part about the GM's girlfriend is more worrisome - sonds like it's time for Captain Talk-To-Each-Other to make an appearance.
If the players would prefer the "normal" black and white alignment as described in the 3.5 rules, then they should simply ask as a group to go back to using them.
You can cite as reasons that it is simpler to understand, and thus makes for a more enjoyable game experience for you, and that it makes abilities like Paladin Smites very random and subject to the DM's call at any given time (I assume).
You should also mention that you feel he gives too much attention to his girlfriend's character. Sometimes a campaign can drift toward one character over the others if that character talks more, does more things, or just attends the most sessions. Still something to be avoided, but it can't always be (such as all NPCs have talked to one character but have never met the others).
Assuming the DM spends time out of game with her, I think he may be confusing "spending time" with "she does the most, attends the most, talks the most, is interested the most in the game" etc. subconsciously, and should be alerted to that trend in a calm and civil manner.
The players just have to do a bit of detective work to know who they should smite. I mean, a paladin just smiting an orc walking down the street on sight would probably lose his powers for doing that. A paladin smiting an orc when he sees the orc about to sacrifice a baby in a ritual is probably fine.
Then show him the Crusader, Incarnate, and any other class that has to play a certain alignment, and receives benefits for doing so.
If he can justify removing a balancing factor on all of those without changing the entire idea from the ground, up, then he can do away with alignments as a whole. If not, then he is doing this to screw people playing an alignment-based class like Druid, Paladin, or Incarnate. Which means he needs to stop and think.
Alignments in DnD are a physical force, a part of existence. Demons, Devils, and even the Archons are all born into their alignments, and know no other way to act until they cease being what they are. Which means that they have to deny their entire existence just to become neutral.
While the gods themselves are very capable of ignoring their own alignments from time to time without consequence (save for Paladin gods or similar deities), lesser beings are not able to do so. The very planes they stand on have a unified view of the alignments (LG is your standard Paladin, CE is your standard Demon) and can affect anything and everything native to the plane in question as soon as an alignment shift happens.
How do I know this? Devil becomes CE. He is no longer a Devil, but a Demon. Everything he was has changed to suit his new alignment (even his immunities and summon ability change to suit his new views). This is the reason alignments exist, to separate one entity from another.
The same thing happens to every single Outsider but Slaads. Demons who become LE become Devils. Yugoloths who become anything but NE shift sides in the Blood War.
Archons, Eladrin, and Guardinals are also restricted by their own alignments, but the Upper Planes aren't as accepting of a traitor to the alignment. If a Lantern Archon becomes CG instead of LG, he ceases existing. His personalty is subsumed into the Upper Planes, and he is reborn as a Coure. No memory of his former life, no idea that anything even changed.
As I said above, Slaads are the exception. They can act either for good or evil as they see fit, and very rarely risk an alignment shift. Some Slaads have decent morals. Others throw their lots in with the Tanar'ri. Still more prefer to act on the very existence of Chaos, and are living embodiments of Limbo. Limbo very rarely turns its inhabitants into something other than corpses or deformed shells of their former selves (via Polymorphing shenanigans). It has no view on anything but Chaos, and as such allows far more lenience with the actions of the Slaads than the other planes. That doesn't mean they have no fear of repercussions, however. They too are subject to the morales of the planes until they become gods in their own right. Mechanus sees to that.
Inevitables are constructs, and are not bound by any alignments as such. They do, however, have a strong tendency towards the Law, and enforce it as the individual Inevitable sees fit (which, oddly, never seems to conflict with the views of other Inevitables).
Now, for those who are asking where I am getting the asinine and completely BSed ideas from, I'm a DM who takes a strong view on the Planes as the arbiters of their alignments. It isn't the Gods who are in control of the planes, after all, no matter how Divinely morphic the plane is. This is the ideas from one DM, and YMMV, but this is what I am sticking with.
[thread=928865]What part do actions play in being good or evil?[/thread]
Alignment is judged by both intent and actions, but in the end is supposed to be objective.
By D&D definitions, destroying evil is a good act.
Really, are demons and devils that spend all there lives in the Blood War aware of this.
Destroying evil is simply not an inherently evil act.
Flip that around. Orcs wage a holy (unholy?) war on humans. Is that evil?
Now, why is a paladin automatically good when committing attempted genocide, and why are the orcs evil? Because you're accustomed to orcs = evil = I can kill them without repercussions and paladin = good = can do no wrong. I agree with your DM on this one.
Who started the war, though? The Orcs or the Paladin?
Cool. Ask him about the spells Holy Word, Dictum, Blastphemy, Animate Dead, Bestow Curse, and anything else with an alignment descriptor.
Then show him the Crusader, Incarnate, and any other class that has to play a certain alignment, and receives benefits for doing so.
If he can justify removing a balancing factor on all of those without changing the entire idea from the ground, up, then he can do away with alignments as a whole. If not, then he is doing this to screw people playing an alignment-based class like Druid, Paladin, or Incarnate. Which means he needs to stop and think.
I doubt alignment restrictions of classes are meant as balance factors.
Regarding the spells, that's pretty simple: Since almost all alignmental spells are used primarily by divine casters, they just get keyed to the stuff the deity opposes.
Who started the war, though? The Orcs or the Paladin?
Does it matter? Eye For An Eye is usually not considered the epitome of goodness.
Quote:Who started the war, though? The Orcs or the Paladin?
Does it matter? Eye For An Eye is usually not considered the epitome of goodness.
It can. If the Orcs start a war, and a powerful enough Paladin goes up after several years of fighting and just smites things until the war is over, he is probably acting within his alignment.
Now, our DM is bringing his knowledge of philosophy and morality into the story which makes the game more and more problematic because the story has become convoluted and unnecessarily over-complex. Now the players and I feel less integrated into the story just because we do not understand. I agree with some of you on the fact that his ideas could work but the real problem is that he is failing to make his ideas work and it has become more of a hindrance.
Plus, you’re right about the whole thing about his girlfriend being a bigger issue. In past campaigns, the players and I have enjoyed the DM’s games because he’d involved our back stories into the games and makes sessions more about us, so we feel more integrated into the plot. Now, the DM is fleshing out his gf’s story and neglecting ours. This along with the morality aspects just pushes us away and makes us ask “why should we do anything in game if in the end it doesn’t really matter?”
Who started the war, though? The Orcs or the Paladin?
The Elves. 2 birds, 1 stone.
Flip that around. Orcs wage a holy (unholy?) war on humans. Is that evil?
Now, why is a paladin automatically good when committing attempted genocide, and why are the orcs evil? Because you're accustomed to orcs = evil = I can kill them without repercussions and paladin = good = can do no wrong. I agree with your DM on this one.
Because Orcs Are in fact Evil. This is akin to arguing the morality of stopping the influenza virus, or wiping out the cockroach population from a building.
Orcs are enherently evil and violent.
The reason the paladin wages holy war on them is because of their evil actions. What do the Orc's eat? They don't plant farms of corn. They don't raise cattle for food. Orcs raid and pillage, murder and burn. A tribe of Orcs is generally a war-tribe of CE Orc warriors bent on destruction.
Yes, if they happened upon a village of NG Orcs planting crops then the Paladin would be remiss for his actions. But this would raise many an eyebrow at most gaming tables who would ask.
Why does my class even have a BAB?
Orcs are in the Monster manual, as they are MONSTERS. They are not just misunderstood or only violent because of racial prejudices against them force them to join gangs. They are just trying to fight "the man" and shuck off oppression.
The paladin wages holy war against the Orcs to protect the innocent peoples that the orcs prey upon. he holds them accountable for evil actions of murder, pillaging, oppression, slavery, torture, butchering innocents for amusement etc etc. The paladin brings justage to their savagery.
The motive of the Orc's holy war is the worship of destruction, the advancement of pure evil, the unholy evil deity they worship. The Paladin's motive is to protect the good and innocent. The truth is that the orcs are the aggressors and the Paladin is the defender of justice.
Also if that is the DM's take, that evil isn't evil, then he should not have allowed Paladins as a class option for players. The paladin's purpose is to fight evil, if evil is not evil then there is no purpose for the Paladin class.
Orcs are enherently evil and violent.
No, Orcs are culturally evil and violent. Demons are inherently evil and violent.
Because Orcs Are in fact Evil. This is akin to arguing the morality of stopping the influenza virus, or wiping out the cockroach population from a building.
Orcs are enherently evil and violent.
The reason the paladin wages holy war on them is because of their evil actions. What do the Orc's eat? They don't plant farms of corn. They don't raise cattle for food. Orcs raid and pillage, murder and burn. A tribe of Orcs is generally a war-tribe of CE Orc warriors bent on destruction.
This is assuming, of course, that you disregard the stated premise that capital-g Good and capital-e Evil don't exist.
My point was that if you remove the usual black-and-white D&D morality, than if a paladin goes out and starts a holy war against the orcs, he's doing evil, no matter how he justifies it. Starting a war to wipe out a race, in the name of his gods or otherwise, is an act of evil, even though by the normal D&D system a paladin can "do no wrong" because they're paragons of virtue.
And even in the normal alignment system, if a paladin goes out and tries to wipe out all the orcs, is that still Good? Men, women, and children of the orc race, wiped out because their entry says "Usually evil"?
Now, that's the fluff side of things--taking out alignment there is fine. However, I should have specified that I didn't favor this side of the argument and was just presenting an example; as Sinfire Titan pointed out:
Cool. Ask him about the spells Holy Word, Dictum, Blastphemy, Animate Dead, Bestow Curse, and anything else with an alignment descriptor.
Then show him the Crusader, Incarnate, and any other class that has to play a certain alignment, and receives benefits for doing so.
If he can justify removing a balancing factor on all of those without changing the entire idea from the ground, up, then he can do away with alignments as a whole. If not, then he is doing this to screw people playing an alignment-based class like Druid, Paladin, or Incarnate. Which means he needs to stop and think.
...there are mechanical issues as well. If the DM can handle that, go for it, but I'd be wary about doing that. I just wanted to point out that the example problem wasn't, in fact, a problem.
After thinking about it, I feel the alignment problem we're experiencing isn't really a cause of our problems but rather a symptom. You see, Feral, myself, the rest of our party, and our DM all go to the same college. Every weekend or so we play just to unwind and forget about classes and assignments for at least a day. In the past, we all enjoyed our DM's past campaigns because they were simplistic yet enjoyable, we knew that we are the good guys and we're going to stop the bad guys.
I think that you, Feral Druid and any other players who feel as you do need to sit the DM down and say: "Look dude, we play d&d to get away from real life. If we wanted to deal with the complexities of moral relativism, we'd be in your philosophy class. We play D&D because we can't kill the people that frustrate us in real life; the health insurance agents, the overly critical and stuck up professors, the hockey team who gets drunk every weekend and adds $1000 to the communal student dorm bill. We play d&d so that we can let out our frustration on villains and morons, and not only get away with it but be praised as Good heroes. Oh yeah, and leave your dick out of the game. If your gf wants to play that's fine but she needs to give up the spotlight once in a while. If she wants to be the star of the show she can go audition for the school play's lead role."
Now if your DM is a reasonable guy, your game will get better after this talk. If not, designate or find a new DM.
TS
My point was that if you remove the usual black-and-white D&D morality, than if a paladin goes out and starts a holy war against the orcs, he's doing evil, no matter how he justifies it. Starting a war to wipe out a race, in the name of his gods or otherwise, is an act of evil, even though by the normal D&D system a paladin can "do no wrong" because they're paragons of virtue.
And even in the normal alignment system, if a paladin goes out and tries to wipe out all the orcs, is that still Good? Men, women, and children of the orc race, wiped out because their entry says "Usually evil"?
But then, that wasn't the OP's example. He just said the paladin might "wage a holy war against a horde of orcs". Nothing about who started the war, nothing about the Paladin's motivation, and nothing about genocide-- in my opinion, not enough information to decide whether it's evil or not.
Genocidal massacres of women and children tends to draw stern disapproval from the powers of good. Targeted strikes against brutal and aggressive leaders in order to eliminate the threat to others is both more effective and more moral.
its that kind of behavior that leads them to becoming blackgaurds
its that kind of behavior that leads them to becoming blackgaurds
I assume you refer specifically to the genocidal massacring? I ask because you quoted an entire post with 2 complete opposite kinds of behaviour.
But then, that wasn't the OP's example. He just said the paladin might "wage a holy war against a horde of orcs". Nothing about who started the war, nothing about the Paladin's motivation, and nothing about genocide-- in my opinion, not enough information to decide whether it's evil or not.
True. However, "waging" war usually implies that you started it, as opposed to simply "declaring" war; holy war usually implies a "total war" like an Islamic jihad or the Christian Crusades, where the land was attacked, held, and subjugated; and the second point would imply slaughter of the orcs because, really, that's the stereotypical Lawful Stupid paladin--"Kill them all just because they're evil!" I admit, though, that it's a matter of interpretation and that it wasn't the best phrasing.
and the second point would imply slaughter of the orcs because, really, that's the stereotypical Lawful Stupid paladin--"Kill them all just because they're evil!"
This raises something I object to.
"Just because they're evil" as if evil is a default right. This depends upon your definition of evil. My interpretation of evil is torture and murder and deliberate cruelty, normally for personal gain or enjoyment. Evil left unfought will harm victims.
Killing someone "just" because they are evil is the same as killing someone "just" because they make a habit of willingly destroying lives and causing suffering without good cause. The same as killing them "just" because they are coming to burn your fields and slaughter your family.
Evil which hasn't hurt anyone or done anything wrong is Neutral, not Evil. A DM will rule things differently if they like but all that does is make the alignment meaningless.
Once upon a time I was in the habit of 'silly evil' - which is Evil alignment without any Evil behaviour. This was back in my teenage years where evil was cool and necromancer's rocked (now we know that terromancers rock...). But the thing was, I wanted 'evil' alignment for coolness sake and as a lisence to create undead and summon demons and such.
Many DMs do 'silly evil' because they play the roles of bad guys - and most DMs are still human and uncomfortable portraying the savage brutality and abuse which makes realistic evil. Take a look at criminals - the thug who robs a charity shop, the mafioso who kills an innocent child because their father/mother was not giving them money, or who disfigures an attractive woman as a way of controlling her. These are people DMs feel too much distaste for to want to play the role of.
So we make Evil alignment a little lighter, so we don't have to deal with the things which disturb us too much.
If your DM actually embraces moral relativism, he forfeits his ability to argue that anything is immoral. He cannot argue that slavery is wrong, or that the genocide is evil. He cannot argue that feeding the poor is good, or that saving a child's life is right. To the moral relativist the ethical worth of any act is completely subjective.
If your DM is a moral relativist then he has no basis to argue whether or not your actions are good or bad. You, as someone with a moral standard, can place your actions above contradiction by your DM simply by declaring them to be good. In order for your DM to argue, he would have to acknowledge that what you did was intrinsically not good and as such would define good and bad in his world.
If he does so define morality in his world, good for you. If he does not, then remeber this axiom and you should be fine: If the moral worth of every action is subjective, then I can do no evil so long as I strive to do good.
This raises something I object to.
"Just because they're evil" as if evil is a default right. This depends upon your definition of evil. My interpretation of evil is torture and murder and deliberate cruelty, normally for personal gain or enjoyment. Evil left unfought will harm victims.
Killing someone "just" because they are evil is the same as killing someone "just" because they make a habit of willingly destroying lives and causing suffering without good cause. The same as killing them "just" because they are coming to burn your fields and slaughter your family.
Evil which hasn't hurt anyone or done anything wrong is Neutral, not Evil. A DM will rule things differently if they like but all that does is make the alignment meaningless.
Once upon a time I was in the habit of 'silly evil' - which is Evil alignment without any Evil behaviour. This was back in my teenage years where evil was cool and necromancer's rocked (now we know that terromancers rock...). But the thing was, I wanted 'evil' alignment for coolness sake and as a lisence to create undead and summon demons and such.
Many DMs do 'silly evil' because they play the roles of bad guys - and most DMs are still human and uncomfortable portraying the savage brutality and abuse which makes realistic evil. Take a look at criminals - the thug who robs a charity shop, the mafioso who kills an innocent child because their father/mother was not giving them money, or who disfigures an attractive woman as a way of controlling her. These are people DMs feel too much distaste for to want to play the role of.
So we make Evil alignment a little lighter, so we don't have to deal with the things which disturb us too much.
That is exactly my point.
Orcs are stated to be evil, alignment-wise. What are the chances that they are all, down to the last orc, cruel-hearted, murdering raiders? Women and children, too? When was the last time the entire orc race went on a murderous rampage, destroying and pillaging and raping and robbing and murdering? When was the last time the orcs did something truly evil, and not just something the humans don't like?
Lawful Stupid paladins, and many other character types, attack orcs "just because they're evil." Human, elven, dwarven, etc. society says they're evil. There's no proof, most of the time; no justification as to why they're evil; no consideration that it might be a stereotype applied to vilify them. No, orcs are evil, so they must, each and every one, be murdering, torturing, pillaging arsonists, so we're going to go wipe them out with a preemptive strike because our biased morals say they're "evil."
As you might have guessed, I also run more shades-of-gray games than the black and white good/evil conflict. Any race that is actually 100% Evil-with-a-capital-E would be far too disturbing to use in an actual game; thus, anything less than that doesn't deserve a "Kill the orcs, they're all the bad guys" attitude, and if a player of mine were to start a war against the orcs "just because," that would be stopped very fast.
This is assuming, of course, that you disregard the stated premise that capital-g Good and capital-e Evil don't exist.
And murdering a defenceless old lady for the fun of it wouldn't be evil, nor a crime then?
Evil and Good exist, capital and otherwise.
Of course there are shades of goodness and corruption, but that is really the realm of neutral.
Orcs are Evil, because they are violent tribes that slaughter innocent people, loot pillage and destroy villages, enslave captures, etc etc, these are Evil actions with a capital E.
it's a misconception, is the Paladin killing orcs simply because they are evil, or is he killing them because they are doing evil. The answer is generally that Orcs are doing evil, it is a rare exception.
Perhaps orcs within a civilized populace might not be evil, but that is a far cry from the norm. There is a very good reason why the choice of languages in the list of Elfs, Dwarfs, Humans, haflings and gnomes include the Orc language, because they tend to learn the languages of their enemies as well, and orcs are their enemies for a good reason.
My point was that if you remove the usual black-and-white D&D morality, than if a paladin goes out and starts a holy war against the orcs, he's doing evil, no matter how he justifies it. Starting a war to wipe out a race, in the name of his gods or otherwise, is an act of evil, even though by the normal D&D system a paladin can "do no wrong" because they're paragons of virtue.
As said he rallies against the orcs in the defence of the innocent because of the orc's evil actions. If the orcs are not commiting evil then this is a different stroy, again a farming colony of peaceful NG orcs should be and would be left alone by a Paladin. But in general Orcs pose a threat to innocent life the world over.
And even in the normal alignment system, if a paladin goes out and tries to wipe out all the orcs, is that still Good? Men, women, and children of the orc race, wiped out because their entry says "Usually evil"?
NO, they are wiped out because they do evil You are forgetting that the paladin is fighting the holy war because he is bringing justice and defending the good and innocent. That is the Paladin wipes out the orc infestation in the forest because the orcs are raiding nearby villages full of good people, burning crops (which brings starvation to the peoples of the land) murdering the innocent and defenceless farmers dragging their children off to use as slaves and to offer as blood sacrifices to Gruumsh and raping their women as playthings. They eat the flesh of elfs, raw while they are still living and screaming......
sorry, tell me again about the subjectiveness of good and evil and how the paladin's holy war is racial profiling.....
Now, that's the fluff side of things--taking out alignment there is fine. However, I should have specified that I didn't favor this side of the argument and was just presenting an example; as Sinfire Titan pointed out:
...there are mechanical issues as well. If the DM can handle that, go for it, but I'd be wary about doing that. I just wanted to point out that the example problem wasn't, in fact, a problem.
And I agreed with you, but I wanted to point out that in such a game, where allignment had no meaning and evil was subjective, where killing off hordes of evil orcs could be construed as being an evil act, that in such a subjective world, Paladins are out of place and the DM should not allow them to be chosen, or else alter them considerably for his game.
The Paladin is as much a symbol and concept as he is a class. A Paladin is supposed to be the emodiment of Good, the knight in shining armor that saves the kingdom from unspeakable Evil, Valorous due to his unshakable faith, more virtuous then even priests, divinely charged by a god who is a perfect being incapable of doing wrong, etc etc etc. insert romantic image here.
Therefore saying that the Paladin fighting a holy war against the CE orcs is evil is simply profound. In a world of such subjectiveness of good and evil a paladin should not exist, a paladin has no place. the Paladin is just a fairy tale, in a game that is esentially a fairy tale.
Orcs are Evil, because they are violent tribes that slaughter innocent people, loot pillage and destroy villages, enslave captures, etc etc, these are Evil actions with a capital E.
The same can be said for humans, this doesn't mean that all humans are evil. In human history native americans, african tribes, european villages, and asian nomads have done these things, but humans aren't evil.
Perhaps orcs within a civilized populace might not be evil, but that is a far cry from the norm. There is a very good reason why the choice of languages in the list of Elfs, Dwarfs, Humans, haflings and gnomes include the Orc language, because they tend to learn the languages of their enemies as well, and orcs are their enemies for a good reason.
This can vary between campaigns. I have had campaigns where orcs are just another race that make up society/societies. Most of the complications arise when people think of Orc as a definitive label, rather than a race.
As said he rallies against the orcs in the defence of the innocent because of the orc's evil actions. If the orcs are not commiting evil then this is a different stroy, again a farming colony of peaceful NG orcs should be and would be left alone by a Paladin.
Exactly
And I agreed with you, but I wanted to point out that in such a game, where allignment had no meaning and evil was subjective, where killing off hordes of evil orcs could be construed as being an evil act, that in such a subjective world, Paladins are out of place and the DM should not allow them to be chosen, or else alter them considerably for his game.
If the roles were reversed, and a lone Orc went through villages waging a holy war in order to prevent the murderous humans from attacking their tribes and encroaching upon there land your viewpoint would be completely different. The only thing that really changed was the race in which the character was identified. Most people tend to think Orc = monster and Human = good. Again if you consider Orc as just another race, then they paladin is comitting genocide.
(There of course may be games where Orcs are all ravenous murdering creatures who **** and murder for entertainment, but you must realize there all also games where they are some what intelligent beings with a culture)
And I agreed with you, but I wanted to point out that in such a game, where allignment had no meaning and evil was subjective, where killing off hordes of evil orcs could be construed as being an evil act, that in such a subjective world, Paladins are out of place and the DM should not allow them to be chosen, or else alter them considerably for his game.
I agree. That is why I generally do not allow Paladins in my games. There is also no Detect spell.
Ditch the DM. Either leave the group or have someone take over the helm. Probably the most effective way for this DM to get better is that he needs to sit in as a player with a good DM. If you just continue to let him DM he more than likely won't change on his own and given the fact that he is young, immature, and in love means that talking to him about it won't do much good. As for switching over to 4th edition, while you may not have the same problems as you do now you will most definitely have problems with this person as a DM.
True. However, "waging" war usually implies that you started it, as opposed to simply "declaring" war; holy war usually implies a "total war" like an Islamic jihad or the Christian Crusades, where the land was attacked, held, and subjugated; and the second point would imply slaughter of the orcs because, really, that's the stereotypical Lawful Stupid paladin--"Kill them all just because they're evil!" I admit, though, that it's a matter of interpretation and that it wasn't the best phrasing.
I just looked up the word "wage". The one that applies to war means "to carry on or to engage in". Neither of these necessarily implies instigation.
A "holy war" is a war that's fought largely (or solely) on the basis of religion. These can be problematic IRL, but in D&D it's relatively easy for church officials to determine the will of their deity, using spells such as Commune and Contact Other Plane. Heironius, the deity mentioned in the original post, is a Lawful Good deity of honor and justice. He's unlikely to instruct his followers to engage in an evil and unjust war.
As for the last bit... Stereotypes arent necessarily accurate, and the OP didn't give any indication that this particular Paladin was the sort you described.
For example: Ignoring ye olde phb and looking at the real world, most of us understand what the difference is between Law and Chaos, between a united regulated order and a disharmonious unbound cacophony......
Why did they burn down the city, **** my wife, kill my children, and burn my crops down? I am so sure it's just because they are misunderstood.
Humans are just as "evil" as orcs. Just look at our history man. We have no right to claim moral superiority simply by being "human." We as individuals can only claim to be superior by demonstrating it thru our higher moral standards and our actions.
I'd take a kind orc over a murderous human as a neighbor anyday.
One of the biggest fallacies is the attempt by many to completely anthropromorphize other non-human species and give them the same goals and hopes as humanity in general. If the person who does this is a moral relativist, they are being a hypocrite. By saying that human desires are what all desire then they are superimposing their beliefs onto others.
One way to play DnD is to have it that there are species and races that ARE evil to the core. That Evil, a real force in many fantasy worlds, can ingrain itself into the psyche, soul, DNA, spirit or whatever you use in a being. So many different species like Orcs can be "born evil".
You can have it that "evil bipedal creatures" are born in litters of 4 to 6. "Good" members of their species, which are as rare as one can get without being absurd, are those without evil ingrained in their being could only survive if they were not born in said litter. The problem may be that this species don't always feed their offspring. That means the litter mates eat each other. Usually the smallest, weakest and "nicest" are eaten first as they are the easiest. As this species is born with teeth, even the mother could have problems. The current ruler of a major clan of this species could be revered as a God because he ate his way through his mother after killing his siblings in the womb.
As for "women and children" with this race, they have no idea of goodness. The "women" are just as mean and the "children" are not like children as we humans see it. They grow quickly and live to hurt others. As they had no issue with eating siblings, just think what they'll do to you. You are either a source of food or amusement and many times the two are synonymous with this species. A Paladin going in and slaughtering them is doing the world a good deed.
This is a far cry from the world we live in. It is a widely held belief that a person can choose their lot in life. There is a struggle between nature vs. nurture and how much each affect the being but I won't go into that. In many societies those who we can define as "evil" in DnD can be considered "mentally unbalanced", "unaware of what they did", "insane", "have a mental condition", etc. Does that mean in the world of the moral relativist that evil is a form of a mental disorder? Can it be cured with a Heal spell?
So if one wants a world where "evil species" are just misunderstood and forced into evil due to marginalization from other species and those species lust for natural resources (making Elves the absolute worst elitists and truly despicable beings who take whole forests for themselves) go ahead.
I find that very PC.
And the orcs don't understand why the humans sometimes do the same thing. They go into orc villages, and they burn, and pillage, and kill the children. And heck, sometimes they even do it without provocation!
But you're describing something that is not an Orc. You can call these creatures Orcs and say they look ugly, are prone to violence but don't do what many Orcs of fantasy do, namely pillage, kill, ****, etc. for fun and food.
Humans are just as "evil" as orcs. Just look at our history man. We have no right to claim moral superiority simply by being "human." We as individuals can only claim to be superior by demonstrating it thru our higher moral standards and our actions.
As Orcs don't exist you're right. But in fantasy literature, Orcs are the horrid humans you rail against. In literature, the Orcs are the stand in for all the cruelty that humanity has done to itself. So it can be said that Orcs are the humans you speak about when you say humanity is evil.
I'd take a kind orc over a murderous human as a neighbor anyday.
Only if you anthropromorphize Orcs, which I do not.
I agree. That is why I generally do not allow Paladins in my games. There is also no Detect spell.
I've found that many who ban Paladins do so as they can't balance their idea of Paladins being defacto "cops" with issues of legality, jurisprudence, courts, etc., in a game when these things really don't exist in 99% of the world and in the part where it does exists, Paladins make better judges than 99.9% of the people in the cities whose job it is to do just that.
In a fantasy world where evil is EVIL and good is GOOD and they are both bent on destroying/ridding the world of the other, Paladins are the ones that go out and rid the world of EVIL.
Talk with them, and explain what you think is wrong about his current game. Don't go at it alone though, get other players to back you up (which seems like you can) and discuss.
But if talking fails, there is but one choice left.
The Holy Hammergun
This isn't real life, it's just a game, so you can't apply those beliefs to this fictional world. What is the point of having an alignment system if it doesn't matter.
Key words "fictional world"... I'm sure your DM takes pixies and giants and wizards at face value, so there's no reason he can't go along with D&D's definitions of good and evil, knowing (in his mind at least) that good and evil are no less fictional than pixies.
If you think a character is too complex or hard to define on either the good/evil axis or the law/chaos axis, then you make them neutral.
Unforunatly, people often make the mistake of slapping a neutral alignment on someone and thinking they can do anything. Completly random actions are chaotic, and acting with complete disregard for people's life and well being is evil.
That is exactly my point.
Orcs are stated to be evil, alignment-wise. What are the chances that they are all, down to the last orc, cruel-hearted, murdering raiders? Women and children, too? When was the last time the entire orc race went on a murderous rampage, destroying and pillaging and raping and robbing and murdering? When was the last time the orcs did something truly evil, and not just something the humans don't like?
Lawful Stupid paladins, and many other character types, attack orcs "just because they're evil." Human, elven, dwarven, etc. society says they're evil. There's no proof, most of the time; no justification as to why they're evil; no consideration that it might be a stereotype applied to vilify them. No, orcs are evil, so they must, each and every one, be murdering, torturing, pillaging arsonists, so we're going to go wipe them out with a preemptive strike because our biased morals say they're "evil."
As you might have guessed, I also run more shades-of-gray games than the black and white good/evil conflict. Any race that is actually 100% Evil-with-a-capital-E would be far too disturbing to use in an actual game; thus, anything less than that doesn't deserve a "Kill the orcs, they're all the bad guys" attitude, and if a player of mine were to start a war against the orcs "just because," that would be stopped very fast.
Aye! This is why Paladins have Detect Evil. ;)
Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, make great sense and really add to a game.....so long as you dont rely on the PHB to define them for you :D , nor ignore the "Evil" label of monsters and not play them as actively such (which often happens)
So, the alignment system works just fine as long as you completely ignore the rules for it?
And the orcs don't understand why the humans sometimes do the same thing. They go into orc villages, and they burn, and pillage, and kill the children. And heck, sometimes they even do it without provocation!
Humans are just as "evil" as orcs. Just look at our history man. We have no right to claim moral superiority simply by being "human." We as individuals can only claim to be superior by demonstrating it thru our higher moral standards and our actions.
I'd take a kind orc over a murderous human as a neighbor anyday.
No, Humans are distributed pretty evenly across all alignments. Sometimes they do good, sometimes they do evil, and sometimes they're just trying to get by.
Orcs are "often Chaotic Evil". Which means that your average Orc is meaner, more belligerent, and more selfish than your average Human.
Yes, Humans do evil things sometimes. But Orcs do evil things most of the time. To say otherwise-- that Humans and Orcs are equally evil, or that Humans are even worse-- is to directly contradict the written rules on how Humans and Orcs, as populations, behave.
There is of course the distinction of good meaning you're willing to make sacrafices or endanger yourself to help others and evil meaning you're willing to harm others for your own gain or enjoyment. The distinction does not mean you're nice to everyone or not.
Also, an Orc's CE is not the same as a Demon's CE.
I just looked up the word "wage". The one that applies to war means "to carry on or to engage in". Neither of these necessarily implies instigation.
A "holy war" is a war that's fought largely (or solely) on the basis of religion. These can be problematic IRL, but in D&D it's relatively easy for church officials to determine the will of their deity, using spells such as Commune and Contact Other Plane. Heironius, the deity mentioned in the original post, is a Lawful Good deity of honor and justice. He's unlikely to instruct his followers to engage in an evil and unjust war.
As for the last bit... Stereotypes arent necessarily accurate, and the OP didn't give any indication that this particular Paladin was the sort you described.
Like I said, that was mostly based on my interpretation of things as they occur in fantasy; your opinion may differ.
And murdering a defenceless old lady for the fun of it wouldn't be evil, nor a crime then?
It would indeed. However, you don't punish someone because they are more likely to murder a defenseless old lady because of their culture/race/whatever.
Orcs are Evil, because they are violent tribes that slaughter innocent people, loot pillage and destroy villages, enslave captures, etc etc, these are Evil actions with a capital E.
Orcs as a culture may do those things. Each individual orc, acting on its own, is not guilty of the crimes of its culture as a whole and is not inherently Evil. Disposed towards evil, yes; always evil, no.
it's a misconception, is the Paladin killing orcs simply because they are evil, or is he killing them because they are doing evil. The answer is generally that Orcs are doing evil, it is a rare exception.
Perhaps orcs within a civilized populace might not be evil, but that is a far cry from the norm. There is a very good reason why the choice of languages in the list of Elfs, Dwarfs, Humans, haflings and gnomes include the Orc language, because they tend to learn the languages of their enemies as well, and orcs are their enemies for a good reason.
As said he rallies against the orcs in the defence of the innocent because of the orc's evil actions. If the orcs are not commiting evil then this is a different stroy, again a farming colony of peaceful NG orcs should be and would be left alone by a Paladin. But in general Orcs pose a threat to innocent life the world over.
And if you go out to an orc town and start killing them left and right, how do you know that it isn't that peaceful NG community? When they start fighting back, is it because they are the murderous, evil bastards they typically are, or is it because they are NG and you just waltzed in and started killing them?
NO, they are wiped out because they do evil You are forgetting that the paladin is fighting the holy war because he is bringing justice and defending the good and innocent. That is the Paladin wipes out the orc infestation in the forest because the orcs are raiding nearby villages full of good people, burning crops (which brings starvation to the peoples of the land) murdering the innocent and defenceless farmers dragging their children off to use as slaves and to offer as blood sacrifices to Gruumsh and raping their women as playthings. They eat the flesh of elfs, raw while they are still living and screaming......
sorry, tell me again about the subjectiveness of good and evil and how the paladin's holy war is racial profiling.....
Orcs do not raid, pillage, ****, plunder and murder. Certain groups of orcs, yes. Individuals, probably. The whole race? No.
We might as well invoke Godwin while we're at it: The Nazis in Germany killed many Jews in the Holocaust; are you and I just as guilty because we are of the same race? The United States government killed many Native Americans and took their land; are you and I just as guilty because we are of the same race? How could we be guilty, if we weren't born at the time and did not commit the atrocity? In the same way, just because orcs might be more likely to commit evil doesn't mean you can lump them all together.
And I agreed with you, but I wanted to point out that in such a game, where allignment had no meaning and evil was subjective, where killing off hordes of evil orcs could be construed as being an evil act, that in such a subjective world, Paladins are out of place and the DM should not allow them to be chosen, or else alter them considerably for his game.
The Paladin is as much a symbol and concept as he is a class. A Paladin is supposed to be the emodiment of Good, the knight in shining armor that saves the kingdom from unspeakable Evil, Valorous due to his unshakable faith, more virtuous then even priests, divinely charged by a god who is a perfect being incapable of doing wrong, etc etc etc. insert romantic image here.
Therefore saying that the Paladin fighting a holy war against the CE orcs is evil is simply profound. In a world of such subjectiveness of good and evil a paladin should not exist, a paladin has no place. the Paladin is just a fairy tale, in a game that is esentially a fairy tale.
I agree with this as well, but if the OP's DM uses paladins in a shades-of-gray game and he asks for help, we can only work within the given scenario.
But you're describing something that is not an Orc. You can call these creatures Orcs and say they look ugly, are prone to violence but don't do what many Orcs of fantasy do, namely pillage, kill, ****, etc. for fun and food.
So if I call a creature a human, and say they look ugly and might be prone to violence, and that they pillage, kill, ****, etc. for fun and food, is it not a human because that's what orcs are "supposed" to do?
But you're describing something that is not an Orc. You can call these creatures Orcs and say they look ugly, are prone to violence but don't do what many Orcs of fantasy do, namely pillage, kill, ****, etc. for fun and food.
So if I call a creature a human, and say they look ugly and might be prone to violence, and that they pillage, kill, ****, etc. for fun and food, is it not a human because that's what orcs are "supposed" to do?
No.
If one is going to make Orcs completely indistinguishable from humans, good orcs and good humans along with the bad orcs and bad humans, why have orcs at all? What distinguishes orcs save them being "subjectively fugly" to humans (and the corollary is we are just as ugly to them) and perhaps a bit more "raw when it comes to emotions" (as calling them "more bestial" is another subjective human call on a non-human race)?
The thing is Orcs are the "easily defined enemy". As another has pointed out, Orcs are "often CE" which, if memory serves, means that 45%-50% of all Orcs fall into that catagory. That doesn't mean that if 50% of Orcs are CE, the rest of them are equal parts NE, TN, CG even LG. No. I'd say easily that 50% CE, 15% NE, 15% CN, 10% TN, 5% LE (it would be easier to survive if one was LE in a bunch of CE psychos than being CG in the same group) and the 5% that is left over being CG, LN, NG and then LG. Those Orcs are outcasts, generally of their own doing, so they don't get killed. One isn't going to go into an Orc camp and find that up to 5% of the Orcs in there are good aligned. Those Orcs run from both their own and other species as they know they are hunted.
Humans are "often TN" which means that humans are equal parts good/evil and lawful/chaotic. So humans would be more like 50% TN, 10% each of NG, CN, NE and LN with the remaining being around 2.5% each for LG, CG, CE and LE.
Personally, I've changed that and let the players know about it. There is more Good in people than that. To compensate for lesser numbers of adherents going to the evil Gods and Devils/Demons they demand living sacrifices. Then the poor sacrificed soul goes to torment in the afterlife to the evil God it was sacrificed to. That makes evil even more appalling in my game so that their are broad lines and little ambiguity between good in evil in my game.
So from the rules, Orcs are not like humans. That would indicate to me there are fundamental differences between the two species. Of course one can play them very differently and apply PC definitions to the game as well, but I've had enough of PC BS IRL to introduce it as a standard feature in my game or want to play in such a Polly-anish world where we can solve all of our differences by holding hands and signing Kumbaya.
So what does this have to do with the OP's problem? Simple, if a DM is going to change alignment to suit their own ideals, that's fine. If they are going to match RL issues and apply anthropomorphic tags on non-human species that's great for them. When they turn beings infused with evil to "misunderstood creatures who need love", they need to be complete in their moral relativism. They need to understans and realize that their judgment call on player's and their PC's attitude are flawed due to their very nature of the game they are running.
Flip that around. Orcs wage a holy (unholy?) war on humans. Is that evil?
Now, why is a paladin automatically good when committing attempted genocide, and why are the orcs evil? Because you're accustomed to orcs = evil = I can kill them without repercussions and paladin = good = can do no wrong. I agree with your DM on this one.
Because the Paladin can't do evil without losing his powers? If he's still using Lay On Hands, maybe John Q. Orc will finally get the hint that yeah, he's pretty much evil.
Because the Paladin can't do evil without losing his powers? If he's still using Lay On Hands, maybe John Q. Orc will finally get the hint that yeah, he's pretty much evil.
...which once again doesn't work if you remove black-and-white morality. You're assuming that if the paladin is smiting all the orcs, they are evil and thus he will remain good and thus retain all his powers. How do you know that at the first sign of a smite evil against the orcs he doesn't discover that they aren't evil, keep smiting anyway because "everyone knows orcs are evil," and lose his powers?
I realize that orcs are, in the MM, often chaotic evil. I realize that it's useful to have an "always bad guys" race to make things easier. I realize that, in most cases, the paladin smiting the orcs will be Good doing a Good act because orcs are Evil. I'm just saying that if the normal alignment system is removed, you can't assume that the orcs are always evil, you can't assume the paladin will always be right, and you can't assume a number of other things that we're used to with the normal alignment grid.
...which once again doesn't work if you remove black-and-white morality. You're assuming that if the paladin is smiting all the orcs, they are evil and thus he will remain good and thus retain all his powers. How do you know that at the first sign of a smite evil against the orcs he doesn't discover that they aren't evil, keep smiting anyway because "everyone knows orcs are evil," and lose his powers?
Because even the most hard-headed Paladin knows that Smite Evil only works on evil creatures. If he tries to Smite and it doesn't work, it means either that the target isn't evil, or he's lost his Paladin powers.
So, if he tries to Smite an Orc and it's not evil, then he knows that this particular Orc isn't evil, even if "everyone knows" Orcs are evil. So, assuming he's even remotely rational, he'll begin to pursue some other means of resolving the conflict.
...which once again doesn't work if you remove black-and-white morality. You're assuming that if the paladin is smiting all the orcs, they are evil and thus he will remain good and thus retain all his powers. How do you know that at the first sign of a smite evil against the orcs he doesn't discover that they aren't evil, keep smiting anyway because "everyone knows orcs are evil," and lose his powers?
I realize that orcs are, in the MM, often chaotic evil. I realize that it's useful to have an "always bad guys" race to make things easier. I realize that, in most cases, the paladin smiting the orcs will be Good doing a Good act because orcs are Evil. I'm just saying that if the normal alignment system is removed, you can't assume that the orcs are always evil, you can't assume the paladin will always be right, and you can't assume a number of other things that we're used to with the normal alignment grid.
Yes, if the Paladin is a complete moron he will commit an evil act. "Oh, well, Smite Evil doesn't work against these guys, they must be SUPER Evil. Nyuck."
I'm talking about a Paladin that has a functioning, sentient brain and can figure out that if an ability that only works on evil people doesn't work on his target, that the target probably isn't evil.
EDIT: Curses, Ninja'ed by CrimsonDeath! I'd also like to add that I don't run Orcs as the'always-evil' race in my campaign, they are just as diverse alignment-wise as humans, and that I'm running off the Orcs in this specific scenario.
Because even the most hard-headed Paladin knows that Smite Evil only works on evil creatures. If he tries to Smite and it doesn't work, it means either that the target isn't evil, or he's lost his Paladin powers.
So, if he tries to Smite an Orc and it's not evil, then he knows that this particular Orc isn't evil, even if "everyone knows" Orcs are evil. So, assuming he's even remotely rational, he'll begin to pursue some other means of resolving the conflict.
And there we have a picture-perfect example of the kind of Lawful Stupid paladin that started this argument:
For example, if a paladin of Heironeous were to wage a holy war against a horde of orcs, this would be an act of evil, regardless of the fact that the paladin is lawful good and orcs are usually chaotic evil. How is this justified?
It seems that this paladin believes that since Heironius is Good, and paladins are Good, and orcs are Evil, that killing orcs is always Good...even though in this framework paladins aren't always good, orcs aren't always evil, and Heironius can be whatever the hell he wants.
And if you think no paladin would keep killing after smite evil didn't work, I can think of a paladin who also was presented with tons of evidence that people weren't evil, who also thought killing Evil must be Good, and who also drew the absolutely wrong conclusion: Miko, take 2. Keep in mind that that was in a world where detect evil works as normal without the dubious-morality scenario, and she still acted completely irrationally.
So when asking questions like, "Can a paladin do a holy war against orcs?" That is a complex question. Paladins can do no evil, and stay a functional paladin. What is evil in standard D&D? Well the book gives us some indications:
"Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit."
"“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."
Now if the orcs that the paladin is attacking couldn't be considered "innocent", I think we can say he is probably ok, though maybe shaky. In this case he is acting more neutral than good. Remember he has to not only avoid doing evil, but he also must maintain a LG alignment, so just avoiding evil is not enough.
"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. "
"“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."
Now if a paladin in a game can kill an entire village of orcs (assuming some were "innocent") without consequence to his class and/or alignment, then that is totally the DM's fiat. By the rules if the paladin had killed innocents due to be expediant, then he should have fallen.
You don't need moral relativism to say that a paladin wiping out an entire group of orcs (of various ethical and moral actions and viewpoints) would be morally equal to orcs wiping out a human village of the same type of make up. You could just call them both Evil deeds, the difference being the paladin would lose his abilities and the orcs might not (in fact they may be rewarded with new ones).
It seems that this paladin believes that since Heironius is Good, and paladins are Good, and orcs are Evil, that killing orcs is always Good...even though in this framework paladins aren't always good, orcs aren't always evil, and Heironius can be whatever the hell he wants.
How many times do I have to say this? We don't know why the Paladin is fighting the Orcs.
Is he fighting them because he believes they're evil? We don't know.
Is he fighting them because they've been attacking his people? We don't know.
Is he fighting them because they're Orcs? We don't know.
What the OP said is that the Paladin's own and Heironius' Lawful Good alignment and the Orcs' usually Chaotic Evil alignment have no effect on the morality of the Paladin's actions.
And if you think no paladin would keep killing after smite evil didn't work, I can think of a paladin who also was presented with tons of evidence that people weren't evil, who also thought killing Evil must be Good, and who also drew the absolutely wrong conclusion: Miko, take 2. Keep in mind that that was in a world where detect evil works as normal without the dubious-morality scenario, and she still acted completely irrationally.
It's true that when she examined the situation, she misinterpreted information, employed faulty logic, and arrived at an erroneous conclusion. However, when she first received evidence that her initial targets weren't evil, she paused to reconsider her plan, and that was my point.
Middle Earth Orcs
These orcs are monsters, they are spawned for war and know only to follow the will of there dark master(s) and to slaugher & kill. These orcs don't live in peaceful communities, they are bred for battle, the paladin won't ever get a morale dilema over 'innocent' orcs because there are none, he'll never encounter a helpless orc baby or mother because they don't exist. Every orc down to the core will try and kill him.
A paladin facing these orcs won't have morale decisions to make. An orc sees him, he's going to try and main and kill him. They are CE in every sense of the word, just like demons.
Not-all-orcs are butchering monsters - a world where sure 1 in a hundred orcs might not be evil & even amongst such evil there are varying degrees.
Other settings see orcs as more tribal than those found in the above example, they are mostly, nearly always CE - but within CE there are varying degrees of CE, not all CE creatures are butchers, they are more prone to react to situations with random violence and aggression than humans, they are more likely to be out for themselves than any 'greater' good or evil. Orcs are born as helpless babes, and often the women are oppressed in a society led by the strongest most aggresive male.
A paladin in a world of these orcs can't simply walk into a settlement of orcs and start butchering them. Its about a measured response.
In these kind of 'morally' & not so black&white settings I tend to find a persona similar to that of 'Jedi' as a fitting way for how to play a paladin. Sure you can wage war against an aggressive enemy such as an orcish horde, but such wars are never initiated, only in response & defense - once such a conflict has started, this doesn't mean a paladin is stuck defending, strikes into enemies strongholds to cut off the proverbial serpents head happen, but your fight is with those soldiers that serve your BBEG orcish warchief. As for the CE non combatent orcish womenfolk in the BBEG chamber, assuming they cower from the party who has slain there leader & don't draw concealed daggers to attack the party, a paladin would leave them be & send them home.
I kind of think the scene of Annakin Skywalker slaughtering the sandmen women & children after his mother is killed by them as an example of a paladin falling from grace in such a world where there is morale ambiguity, where orcs aren't all tarred with the same 'diabolic' paintbrush - such slaughter is not a measured response.
Situation 1: Orc village is overrun with the screams of many captives pleading for their lives as others are butchered to be eaten. Some of the Orc "children" play football with the heads of victims that their mom's are cooking for dinner. Other groups of children are plotting to kill a small group of Orc kids they just don't like.
The victims that are in cages wallowing in their own filth were taking on raids by Orc warriors that included females. Many of these females have belts and sashes made from the private parts of males captives. Other captives are forced to fight each other or even multiple Orc opponents in their weakened state.
Fights erupt frequently. Many times as there is no sewage disposal, an Orc feels free to relieve themselves in a rivals tent or boot is perfectly fine until it's being done to them. The whole village is nothing but a cesspool with tents springing up on higher ground. The more power and prestige an Orc has in the village, the higher up a hill their tent is. After all, we all know what "trickles down".
There are no trees nor animal life with miles of the camp as the Orcs strip everything and misuse it with no concept of conservation. What was once a fertile filed with hills and trees is a fetid mud hole with a stench that can be smelled for miles.
Situation 2: The Orc village comes into view with rustic, unkempt even primitive yet functional construction. Fields of wheat, barley and oats lay outside the village in haphazard but identifiable areas. Trails criss cross with little or no concern for speed nor ease of movement between trees, fields and out buildings that are spread across the area.
Screams of small, orc children who are playing some sort of "tag your it game" are easily seen and heard throughout the village. Occasionally their screams and laughter become too easily heard when they are close to huts and so they are chased off by older females who don't want to hear their rambunctious noise.
Orc males pull or with the aid of beasts of burden carts along the trails that pass for roads in and out of the settlement. Their carts carry cut wood, cages with chickens or other foul even others as they go to and from in the village.
Ok, for Paladin Sir Enal Ratentive, leading a small army of men, dwarves and a few elves, sees both of those villages. What should he do?
My vote, in a nutshell:
Village 1: Attack and the only survivors are those who ran away.
Village 2: Send a small group and establish relations, make peace if they truly are peaceful, with the village.
Any other thoughts?
There are 2 mainstream ways to perceive Orcs.
Middle Earth Orcs(snip)
Which is pretty much the way I described in "Situation 1:" above.
Not-all-orcs are butchering monsters - a world where sure 1 in a hundred orcs might not be evil & even amongst such evil there are varying degrees.
Other settings see orcs as more tribal than those found in the above example, they are mostly, nearly always CE - but within CE there are varying degrees of CE, not all CE creatures are butchers,
I have a problem with this part. If one is CE, you're CE and all the baggage that comes with it. It's like saying "only a little pregnant". If you are Evil, you've done some pretty horrid things overtime as one action or act doesn't turn you evil. So if an Orc is CE, rest assured they have no qualms about killing you.
they are more prone to react to situations with random violence and aggression than humans, they are more likely to be out for themselves than any 'greater' good or evil. Orcs are born as helpless babes, and often the women are oppressed in a society led by the strongest most aggresive male.
Perhaps. In yours or other worlds, that could be the case. I don't have my orc children or females all that helpless.
A paladin in a world of these orcs can't simply walk into a settlement of orcs and start butchering them. Its about a measured response.
Depends on what he walks into. If the Paladin walks into a village like 1, yes he can. If he walks into a village like 2, you have a point.
In these kind of 'morally' & not so black&white settings I tend to find a persona similar to that of 'Jedi' as a fitting way for how to play a paladin. Sure you can wage war against an aggressive enemy such as an orcish horde, but such wars are never initiated, only in response & defense - once such a conflict has started, this doesn't mean a paladin is stuck defending, strikes into enemies strongholds to cut off the proverbial serpents head happen, but your fight is with those soldiers that serve your BBEG orcish warchief. As for the CE non combatent orcish womenfolk in the BBEG chamber, assuming they cower from the party who has slain there leader & don't draw concealed daggers to attack the party, a paladin would leave them be & send them home.
I disagree. The term "non-combatant" is a modern one. In a semi-feudal/dark ages style game as DnD, everyone fought. Also, if they are truly non-combatants as we understand the word, how did they become CE?
I kind of think the scene of Annakin Skywalker slaughtering the sandmen women & children after his mother is killed by them as an example of a paladin falling from grace in such a world where there is morale ambiguity, where orcs aren't all tarred with the same 'diabolic' paintbrush - such slaughter is not a measured response.
That is true. But such a world must be better fleshed out by the DM.
Many times on these boards, many DMs who have player's lose their Pally's status is due to gotchas. If a Paladin is going to be played in a game where the DM chooses to be moral ambiguous, the responsibility is on the DM's part to instruct their players.
That is why I don't think Int is a dump stat for a Paladin. It is were, if Paladins have 8s in Int, again, you get what you pay for. I truly believe that a Paladin, one of the most restricted classes with some of the weakest benefits needs all 6 stats to be more than "just above average". A PB Paladin is not worth the time, unless you metagame and the DM throws you softballs.
I have a problem with this part. If one is CE, you're CE and all the baggage that comes with it. It's like saying "only a little pregnant". If you are Evil, you've done some pretty horrid things overtime as one action or act doesn't turn you evil. So if an Orc is CE, rest assured they have no qualms about killing you.
Absolutely not, assuming we're discussing either my option 2 on how orcs are or your 2nd example, we're talking about a non black&white world. using fantasy examples rather than star wars, someone like Sauron is a whole lot more evil than wormtongue, both are evil, and yes both might want to kill you, but one is a coward/non combatant (at least in terms of the 2 individuals we're talking about), that doesn't mean a paladin gets a free ticket to kill any evil creature, especially one who poses effectively no threat like a sniviling wormtongue who he's much more likely to bring to justice.
Perhaps. In yours or other worlds, that could be the case. I don't have my orc children or females all that helpless.
It depends on the world, but in some games i run pertaining to the topic at hand, orc females pretty much have one purpose - to breed more orcs - as far as there 'evil' nature goes, it is because they seek the attention of the strongest males (chiefs) to produce the strongest orc children and quite ruthlessly kill & murder other females who get in there way as they strive for attention. Where a human might stay their hand and not beat a child for a minor misgiving, a female orc would not really think twice about it. Orc kids i'd not see playing a game of tag, probably a similar game where they don't 'tag you' more 'beat & bully the weaker kid' as they assert themselves in the tribe.
Depends on what he walks into. If the Paladin walks into a village like 1, yes he can. If he walks into a village like 2, you have a point.
since your alikening your village 1 with my idea of middle earth orcs, i'd agree - though to be honest, a paladin in a ME game I run, wouldn't really get chance to make that choice, since the second he was seen, he'd be attacked by orcs, male, female & children looking to use his head as a new 'football'.
I disagree. The term "non-combatant" is a modern one. In a semi-feudal/dark ages style game as DnD, everyone fought. Also, if they are truly non-combatants as we understand the word, how did they become CE?
I've got to disagree here because what your saying is factually incorrect, not everyone fought in the feudal/dark ages. There were farmers, peasants & serfs, scholars, performers etc who all lived there lives without fighting and had little other than a pitchfork or knife to defend themselves & were at the mercy of any invaders during war or their local lord during peace.
By non-combatant i'm refering to those people who aren't military or militia trained, those level 0 female orcs who don't have any base attack, weapons or proficiencies.
Note, this doesn't stop them being violent amongst one another, that doesn't stop them being filled with hate, jealousy, loathing or anger, being bullys who won't slap a kid on the wrist for trying to steal a loaf of bread but will instead twist & break its neck.
You don't have to be a combatant to be CE.
However, I diagress, the point here is that a paladin is not CE, a paladin is lawful good. A paladin knows war but a paladin also knows mercy. A paladin knows to do the right thing for the right reasons, not the wrong things for the right reasons. A paladin isn't someone who is a religious zealot who will follow his pope without question and commit mass murder. He will follow what is good in all things. 'I killed X because I was told too' is never an acceptable excuse for a paladin.
A Paladin will be as ready to help the sick, the poor and needy as much as he is willing to go and strike down or bring to justice an Orc Warchief who is marauding & taking slaves of local villagers. But when the Orc army is destroyed and all that remains are non-combatants, he will stay his hand and let them go (and probably see they have food & water as to not starve), even knowing that they may in years to come have children who spawn yet another orc warlord and the whole cycle may repeat itself, why? because that is what good does & because frankly a paladin is the epitome of everything it means to be both noble and a hero.
There is absolutely nothing heroic or noble in killing non-combatants.
Many times on these boards, many DMs who have player's lose their Pally's status is due to gotchas. If a Paladin is going to be played in a game where the DM chooses to be moral ambiguous, the responsibility is on the DM's part to instruct their players.
I agree 100%, i have played in and DM'd quite a few games where evil is all about different shades of grey, and i'd never dream of altering someones alignment or removing there paladin powers without making it blatently obvious even sometimes warning them ooc that what they are about to do is going to harm or remove there abilities.
It is a complete abuse of DM trust to do that to a player, of course to players who make paladins to RP as religious zealots whos ends justify the means - they deserve exactly what they get.
I doubt alignment restrictions of classes are meant as balance factors.
Regarding the spells, that's pretty simple: Since almost all alignmental spells are used primarily by divine casters, they just get keyed to the stuff the deity opposes.
Does it matter? Eye For An Eye is usually not considered the epitome of goodness.
I'm seeing some modern-day morals and ethics creep into this.
In the middle ages? Eye for an Eye WAS fair. It was part of the code of law for much longer than we've had our "modern" ideals.
Absolutely not, assuming we're discussing either my option 2 on how orcs are or your 2nd example, we're talking about a non black&white world. using fantasy examples rather than star wars, someone like Sauron is a whole lot more evil than wormtongue, both are evil, and yes both might want to kill you, but one is a coward/non combatant (at least in terms of the 2 individuals we're talking about), that doesn't mean a paladin gets a free ticket to kill any evil creature, especially one who poses effectively no threat like a sniviling wormtongue who he's much more likely to bring to justice.
What justice? Whose court? Again the idea that a Paladin is some lawful good peace officer in a 20th/21st century world where there are professional jurists who aren't just the 3rd son of some noble or a friend of a friend who needs a job. Would a Paladin be better than 99.9% of all the judges many of whom may not even be lawful nor good?
Justice where? Why would some country/Kingdom/City State/Village/etc. wish to waste resources on someone that may not have any direct connection to their lands/people? Isn't a Paladin who is away from their lands no less an authority on meting out justice?
In the case of Wormtongue, granted I don't remember him personally killing anyone but he is responsible for the deaths of many and for planning genocide. A Paladin who captures him, reads he's Evil, has no qualms per RAW in dispatching him. "Paladins fight Evil without mercy", check you PHB for that one. Now the Paladin hasn't found him guilty, the universe has. the Paladin is doing their duty.
It depends on the world, but in some games i run pertaining to the topic at hand, orc females pretty much have one purpose - to breed more orcs - as far as there 'evil' nature goes, it is because they seek the attention of the strongest males (chiefs) to produce the strongest orc children and quite ruthlessly kill & murder other females who get in there way as they strive for attention.
Which by RAW, evil destroys or debases life, especially innocent lives, for gain and such. Again an evil orcish woman who only kills rivals is still evil and while they may not go toe to toe in armor and such, if they sense they can do it, they'll be more than happy sliding a dagger upwards right above a person's kidneys. As for rehab and repentance, Paladins are not social workers.
Where a human might stay their hand and not beat a child for a minor misgiving, a female orc would not really think twice about it. Orc kids i'd not see playing a game of tag, probably a similar game where they don't 'tag you' more 'beat & bully the weaker kid' as they assert themselves in the tribe.
Which is evil as per RAW. If that is either "DNA encoded" or by nuture, any society that has that as an ok thing to do is not worthy of surviving. I don't believe in moral relativity.
since your alikening your village 1 with my idea of middle earth orcs, i'd agree - though to be honest, a paladin in a ME game I run, wouldn't really get chance to make that choice, since the second he was seen, he'd be attacked by orcs, male, female & children looking to use his head as a new 'football'.
Yup.
I've got to disagree here because what your saying is factually incorrect, not everyone fought in the feudal/dark ages. There were farmers, peasants & serfs, scholars, performers etc who all lived there lives without fighting and had little other than a pitchfork or knife to defend themselves & were at the mercy of any invaders during war or their local lord during peace.
Point taken but we're not exactly talking a human civilization here now are we?
By non-combatant i'm refering to those people who aren't military or militia trained, those level 0 female orcs who don't have any base attack, weapons or proficiencies.
As I never liked the idea of "Level 0" anything nor the idea that trained armies are full of Level 1 Warriors, I disagree. Also, in a civilization dominated by warriors, the idea that they do not know how to use a weapon is hard to believe.
Again though that is treating Orcs as just another type of human. I prefer Orcs to be truly different. Like an Orc warrior who's also pregnant and likes to fight.
Note, this doesn't stop them being violent amongst one another, that doesn't stop them being filled with hate, jealousy, loathing or anger, being bullys who won't slap a kid on the wrist for trying to steal a loaf of bread but will instead twist & break its neck.
Again, by RAW that is evil and I doubt if they think twice about it or even care to repent. So as they are evil by the universe, why would a Paladin get in trouble?
If the answer is "because they are no threat", how does a Paladin know the female Orc is not a threat? What is and isn't a threat in a world where a mere thought can make one's head explode and silent, non somatic skills can help a wizard summon a demon silently? No weapons? Is a Monk defenseless with no weapons?
You don't have to be a combatant to be CE.
However, I diagress, the point here is that a paladin is not CE, a paladin is lawful good. A paladin knows war but a paladin also knows mercy. A paladin knows to do the right thing for the right reasons, not the wrong things for the right reasons. A paladin isn't someone who is a religious zealot who will follow his pope without question and commit mass murder. He will follow what is good in all things. 'I killed X because I was told too' is never an acceptable excuse for a paladin.
A Paladin also fights EVIL without mercy. While a Paladin doesn't follow some holy man as they are a holy man. Their tools of DE tell them who their enemy is. Any Paladin worth their salt who hears from a high ranking cleric in their own faith who says, "Slaughter X", will check the alignment of that leader. Even if it comes out, "not evil", they will still get to the bottom of it.
On the othre hand, if a Paladin does a DE and detects evil from an individual, that person can be smited, by RAW, on sight. Personally that is a very foolish thing for a Paladin but that is neither here nor there.
A Paladin will be as ready to help the sick, the poor and needy as much as he is willing to go and strike down or bring to justice an Orc Warchief who is marauding & taking slaves of local villagers. But when the Orc army is destroyed and all that remains are non-combatants, he will stay his hand and let them go (and probably see they have food & water as to not starve), even knowing that they may in years to come have children who spawn yet another orc warlord and the whole cycle may repeat itself, why? because that is what good does & because frankly a paladin is the epitome of everything it means to be both noble and a hero.
Noble hero or someone who wants to fight more things as they have blood lust? Feed them? Why? Perhaps if they wanted to renounce their heritage. As for being noble and good, how much horror and evil is created by the Paladin letting known evil get away and harm other innocents?
Hardly the epitome of noble and good in my book.
There is absolutely nothing heroic or noble in killing non-combatants.
But sometimes that is needed. Like Wormtongue. He needed to be killed. He had no intention of reforming. A Paladin would have no problem finding him guilty and executing him on the spot.
The problem I see is that Paladins in many worlds are to be and perform things in a black & white fashion even though they are supposed to operate in a True Color world. If a DM wants to have a Paladin perform comic book style black and white/right and wrong, the DM needs to create a world where things are like that.
As for "noble" and "honorable", here are other ways they should fight then:
1: No ambushing.
2: Announce oneself and what you are going to do.
3: No bow weapons.
There's more. That again is an issue. We can't bring the ideals of Chivalric Knighthood into a DnD game without seriously looking into the ramifications. IRL, there is no magic, demons, psions, etc. A Knight never had to worry about that. To require that a Paladin play as if they were said knight, you are dooming the character unless the DM plays the evil people stupid.
As for "non-combatants" as in those who can do harm, is a 1st level Orc Warrior with leather armor, medium shield and skull cap helm wielding a long sword against a 15th level, AC 30 Paladin wielding a Holy Avenger a fair and noble fight?
I agree 100%, i have played in and DM'd quite a few games where evil is all about different shades of grey, and i'd never dream of altering someones alignment or removing there paladin powers without making it blatently obvious even sometimes warning them ooc that what they are about to do is going to harm or remove there abilities.
It is a complete abuse of DM trust to do that to a player, of course to players who make paladins to RP as religious zealots whos ends justify the means - they deserve exactly what they get.
Well a Paladin doesn't kill on religious principles but on Good/Evil ones.
If a player in my world were to kill based on religion only, they would not be a Paladin long, as in the first swing - but then again I'd take the player aside first and let them know what is going on and that Paladins are not religious warriors but warriors of Good and Law.
What justice? Whose court? Again the idea that a Paladin is some lawful good peace officer in a 20th/21st century world where there are professional jurists who aren't just the 3rd son of some noble or a friend of a friend who needs a job. Would a Paladin be better than 99.9% of all the judges many of whom may not even be lawful nor good?
No, and while not all judges are necessarily good, it does kind of necessitate you are lawful. But this is kind of steering off topic so anyway.
Justice where? Why would some country/Kingdom/City State/Village/etc. wish to waste resources on someone that may not have any direct connection to their lands/people? Isn't a Paladin who is away from their lands no less an authority on meting out justice?
Referring back to my example, it would be dragging wormtongue before the king of edoras and leave him to deal with him, that is justice to be judged by the very king he betrayed, not the paladin who you are completely right has no authority to dispense such.
In the case of Wormtongue, granted I don't remember him personally killing anyone but he is responsible for the deaths of many and for planning genocide. A Paladin who captures him, reads he's Evil, has no qualms per RAW in dispatching him. "Paladins fight Evil without mercy", check you PHB for that one. Now the Paladin hasn't found him guilty, the universe has. the Paladin is doing their duty.Which by RAW, evil destroys or debases life, especially innocent lives, for gain and such. Again an evil orcish woman who only kills rivals is still evil and while they may not go toe to toe in armor and such, if they sense they can do it, they'll be more than happy sliding a dagger upwards right above a person's kidneys. As for rehab and repentance, Paladins are not social workers.Which is evil as per RAW. If that is either "DNA encoded" or by nuture, any society that has that as an ok thing to do is not worthy of surviving. I don't believe in moral relativity.Yup.Point taken but we're not exactly talking a human civilization here now are we?As I never liked the idea of "Level 0" anything nor the idea that trained armies are full of Level 1 Warriors, I disagree. Also, in a civilization dominated by warriors, the idea that they do not know how to use a weapon is hard to believe.
I find it very easy to believe, there are plenty of examples in our own world of cultures such as african tribes where a very high number of men were trained as warriors & using weapons, yet the women never were.
Paladins fight evil without mercy - that does not translate the same as Paladins kill everything evil or there would not be mention of paladins punishing evil in RAW, there would just be slaying & killing - there are many ways to fight a battle and defeat opponents - a paladin that uses his sword to slay anything evil he comes across is either a) going to fall very fast or b) is living in a very black & white D&D world
Continuing the example - Wormtongue was defeated & brought to justice, what happened ? he was cast out by his king & ultimately at the end of the book, he kills Saruman (sharky). If it were not for wormtongue, Saruman would not of been killed - and this is the classic tale of Good staying its hand and evil turning upon itself.
Hardly the epitome of noble and good in my book.But sometimes that is needed. Like Wormtongue. He needed to be killed. He had no intention of reforming. A Paladin would have no problem finding him guilty and executing him on the spot.
Again, my thoughts are that your paladin would of made an unwise choice (especially since we can read the ending) - of course we both know that wormtongue is allowed to go and later stabs saruman in the shire, killing the wizard, but a paladin who dispenses his own justice when he has an opportunity to bring him before the king is going down the black & white route - which is fine for your run of the mill D&D game.
The problem I see is that Paladins in many worlds are to be and perform things in a black & white fashion even though they are supposed to operate in a True Color world. If a DM wants to have a Paladin perform comic book style black and white/right and wrong, the DM needs to create a world where things are like that.
I'm fine agreeing that D&D suits itself to very black & white scenarios where there isn't much morale ambiguity. They are easier on players who can avoid difficult decisions and tbh often made alot of fun because of the game being a classic tale of good vs evil. In these games, the paladin never gets to fight orc children, because the DM never puts him in that situation, the only evil orcs a paladin meets are bad guys who attack him/are his enemy.
There's more. That again is an issue. We can't bring the ideals of Chivalric Knighthood into a DnD game without seriously looking into the ramifications. IRL, there is no magic, demons, psions, etc. A Knight never had to worry about that. To require that a Paladin play as if they were said knight, you are dooming the character unless the DM plays the evil people stupid.
To me, a paladin is something very different than a knight - i tend to have a view where knights lean towards law, but a knight is neither necessarily good or a paladin.
How many times do I have to say this? We don't know why the Paladin is fighting the Orcs.
Is he fighting them because he believes they're evil? We don't know.
Is he fighting them because they've been attacking his people? We don't know.
Is he fighting them because they're Orcs? We don't know.
What the OP said is that the Paladin's own and Heironius' Lawful Good alignment and the Orcs' usually Chaotic Evil alignment have no effect on the morality of the Paladin's actions.
This looks like it's going to be impossible for one of us to convince the other of his interpretation. When I see the following:
For example, if a paladin of Heironeous were to wage a holy war against a horde of orcs, this would be an act of evil, regardless of the fact that the paladin is lawful good and orcs are usually chaotic evil. How is this justified?
...I take that to mean, effectively, "I'm a paladin, I'm LG, my god is LG, orcs are CE, I should be able to slaughter orcs as much as I want because, well, they're evil and that's what paladins do. My DM says this whole good-evil thing won't work in his game. How dare he deprive me of the right to engage in senseless slaughter as a paragon of justice and virtue!?"
He doesn't make an issue of it being justified "...when they were attacking my people," or anything about "...when my character has hated orcs from childhood," "...when orcs are anathema to Heironius," or anything like that--just that he can't see why he can't just kill them when he's good and they're evil.
I think of it as a DM's responsibility to know whether orcs are in fact warlike and aggressive, or savage and primal (but not necessarily evil), or simply living on a different set of beliefs (like in the Warcraft universe).
And I think that it is also the DM's responsibility to show this to the players, or explain it to them. Same with all the major races.
There is a wide difference between a paladin waging war on "orcs" or "The orcs that are terrorizing our kingdom."
I think of it as a DM's responsibility to know whether orcs are in fact warlike and aggressive, or savage and primal (but not necessarily evil), or simply living on a different set of beliefs (like in the Warcraft universe).
And I think that it is also the DM's responsibility to show this to the players, or explain it to them. Same with all the major races.
I might also suggest it is possible for a paladin to not know that not all orcs are evil, though the player should know. In that case a paladin could in good conscious try to wipe out an entire orc encampment in the mistaken belief that he is destroying "fiendish" creatures. His deity should make it clear to him pretty quick though that his understanding is flawed. "I feel weaker. And I am suddenly filled with terror. What is happening to me? Why have I been forsaken?"
Referring back to my example, it would be dragging wormtongue before the king of edoras and leave him to deal with him, that is justice to be judged by the very king he betrayed, not the paladin who you are completely right has no authority to dispense such.
The paladin's authority to act depends greatly on the situation. In many cases such could be consider disrespecting legitimate authority that is set up to deal with the situation, however it action is nassassery right now a paladin must act.
Further, paladins are not empowered by authorities to act. They have inherent abilities that allow them to find evil and fight it themselves. This applies even more to area where evil is allowed to thrive on its own without action by local authorities.
So, the alignment system works just fine as long as you completely ignore the rules for it?
Pretty much :D They try to re-invent the wheel, by committee...
Law/Order and Chaos are pretty straightforward in the realworld, but it becomes a tangled mess in DnD.
Good and Evil are another matter (as people dont agree with definitions here in reallife-land) but they could have been more clearly described if done in real-world terms. For example:
“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.
This above does not follow. If "“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others" then “Evil” does NOT imply "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". Rather “Evil”, if it is the opposite of “Good”, actually implies the opposite of “Good” and so would mean it "implies Egoism [the opposite of "altruism"], contempt for life [the opposite of "respect for life"]", a lack of recognition of the superiority of value of sapient creatures [the opposite of "concern for the dignity of sentient beings"] and the sacrificing of others for your own advancement [the opposite of making personal sacrifices for others].
I'm seeing some modern-day morals and ethics creep into this.
In the middle ages? Eye for an Eye WAS fair. It was part of the code of law for much longer than we've had our "modern" ideals.
That would make such "Lawful" perhaps, but not a matter of "Good....it is, however, a fairish point though. "Good" appears to be an attempt at putting modern moral theories, like the human rights act, into a quasi-medieval setting.
This above does not follow. If "“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others" then “Evil” does NOT imply "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". Rather “Evil”, if it is the opposite of “Good”, actually implies the opposite of “Good” and so would mean it "implies Egoism [the opposite of "altruism"], contempt for life [the opposite of "respect for life"]", a lack of recognition of the superiority of value of sapient creatures [the opposite of "concern for the dignity of sentient beings"] and the sacrificing of others for your own advancement [the opposite of making personal sacrifices for others].
And if an egotist has contempt for life and the dignity of sentient beings, and sacrifices others for his personal advancement, what do you think he's going to do?
He's going to hurt, oppress, and kill others (since he holds their lives in contempt and has no respect for their dignity). He'll have no compassion for others (as evidenced by his willingness to sacrifice them for his personal advancement) and kill without qualms (once again, out of contempt for life). He may even kill for sport or to appease some dark deity (taking his contempt for life to its logical conclusion).
And if an egotist has contempt for life and the dignity of sentient beings, and sacrifices others for his personal advancement, what do you think he's going to do?
He's going to hurt, oppress, and kill others (since he holds their lives in contempt and has no respect for their dignity). He'll have no compassion for others (as evidenced by his willingness to sacrifice them for his personal advancement) and kill without qualms (once again, out of contempt for life). He may even kill for sport or to appease some dark deity (taking his contempt for life to its logical conclusion).
Yet hurting and killing are regularly done by folks of all alignment, and indeed may do so as service to a deity, whilst oppression can be claimed against many non-evils as well.
Further, there is more to "Evil" than these simple actions... Evil has an essence to it; an "anti-Good" that would be better described as more explicitly such....hence "egotism, contempt for life, denial of the higher position of sapients, and sacrificing others for personal advancement".
To the OP. If you don't like the game, Resign, and start your own, or ask one of the players to DM.
Actually, I have started my own campaign, about six months ago. By the time 4th edition roles around, my current DM will probably want to move on anyway, which is good because he is better at running low level campaigns.