Is doing evil towards a good end still evil?
Preston Becker
for the full story) some 1st level characters ran into twenty small
scaly black skinned humanoids who were in two army style troops with
shieldmen in the first rank and spearmen in the second. The creatures
yelled "Put down your weapons!" One of the party attacked them on sight
with his bow, even though they had never met their kind before. The
creatures threw javelins at the bowman and he fell. Again they said
"put down your weapons" but the two closest party members charged. They
were knocked out while the rest of the party was still several rounds
away. The creatures bound the wounds of the fallen party members,
saying "Stay where you are or we will kill them. Give us your money and
weapons and you can leave." The party started to negotiate. One party
member threw some gold their way. The Mage started talking, and the
creatures agreed to let the party go in exchange for payment. The next
round the mage cast sleep on them and the party charged. Only about
half the creatures were slept, and again they said "Stay where you are
or we will kill them." The party continued forward. They slit the
throat of one PC, and said again "Stop!" The party didn't, so the
creatures killed the second PC, then retreated taking the two fallen
PCs' packs. Those PCs that were left were in heavy armor and could not
catch the retreating creatures.
Now, here is the question. I contend that attacking the creatures
without provocation was definitely stupid and possibly evil, while
attacking them after making a deal with them was possibly stupid and
definitely evil. Some of the party members think it was not evil. What
do you guys think?
James W.
Hmm.. deception with intent to kill= Evil. It dosen't matter wether the
PC's think they were evil or not. Ask a serial killer, h/sh/e will
beleive themselves justified or misunderstood, not evil.
--
"If the boss had a console screen option, I'd be watching a memory test
at this point... "
-BOFH
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Nostromo
And their collective alignment, as close as I can put it, is CS. Chaotic
Stupid...
--
"The measure of (mental) health is flexibility (not comparison to some 'norm'), the freedom to learn from experience...to be influenced by reasonable arguments...and the appeal to the emotions...and especially the freedom to cease when sated.
The essence of illness is the freezing of behavior into unalterable and insatiable patterns." - Lawrence Kubie
aly_b...@my-deja.com
James W wrote, "Hmm.. deception with intent to kill= Evil... (snip)"
I would say that it depends. Imagine that a group of fifty or so
bandits has set up camp near a village, their next target. The lone
hero who is in the village knows where the camp is. He also knows that
the bandits will slaughter all of the male population, while raping and
enslaving the female villagers.
The "good" option would be to charge in to the bandit camp in a frontal
assault and die very quickly leaving the villagers to their fate.
The "evil" but smarter option would be to disguise himself as a bandit
and sneak into their camp in order to poison their water supply in
order to kill them all, or soften them up for an assault the next day.
Who is the more evil, the hero who saves the villagers or the hero who
places his honour above the lives of innocents?
Regards,
Gaz
James W.
I agree. The act itself is evil, the goal is good. Here is where it
depends on the character, te god, and the setting. Do the ends justify
the means? If so, all is forgiven and life goes on. Shady, some
atonement needed. No, the overall act is evil.
a LG god will say no.
A NG god will balance the acts and decide
A CG god will likely say yes.
A TN god will act more like the NG god but more objectively.
All the evil gods are inverse.
Just my take on it. Replace god with church or society as needed.
--
"If the boss had a console screen option, I'd be watching a memory test
at this point... "
-BOFH
Zombie
just wouldnt listen. I would say it was an evil act to attack after making
the deal. It would not suprise me if the mage was buying some time for his
spell.
Zombie
Preston Becker <NOPOTTEDMEATpr...@udel.edu> wrote in message
news:38AB9CA8...@udel.edu...
azothath
> yelled "Put down your weapons!" One of the party attacked them on
sight
> with his bow, even though they had never met their kind before. The
> creatures threw javelins at the bowman and he fell. Again they said
> "put down your weapons" but the two closest party members charged.
They
> were knocked out while the rest of the party was still several rounds
> away. The creatures bound the wounds of the fallen party members,
> saying "Stay where you are or we will kill them. Give us your money
and
> weapons and you can leave."
sounds like NG bandits...
> The party started to negotiate. One party
> member threw some gold their way. The Mage started talking, and the
> creatures agreed to let the party go in exchange for payment.
> The next
> round the mage cast sleep on them and the party charged. Only about
> half the creatures were slept, and again they said "Stay where you are
> or we will kill them." The party continued forward. They slit the
> throat of one PC, and said again "Stop!" The party didn't, so the
> creatures killed the second PC, then retreated taking the two fallen
> PCs' packs. Those PCs that were left were in heavy armor and could
not
> catch the retreating creatures.
sounds like the GM was being awfully nice, or the creatures only wanted
the money and weren't interested in getting hurt.
> Now, here is the question. I contend that attacking the creatures
> without provocation was definitely stupid and possibly evil, while
> attacking them after making a deal with them was possibly stupid and
> definitely evil. Some of the party members think it was not evil.
What
> do you guys think?
to be honest, I wasn't there and so don't have all the details. It's
very hard to decide what's good/evil and if there is sufficient cause to
act in a deadly manner. I'd suggest you ask your GM, as his opinion is
the one that counts in game terms, and how your character feels. If you
think(as your character) it was evil, then it's evil. You might also
consult with the cleric in your group, or a priest at your local church
of your PCs faith. To be honest - this is a great opportunity to define
what the group feels is within moral bounds and what is not. Roleplay
it!
My best exmple is to imagine what SheRa or a zen monk might do in the
situation. These are extreme examples of LG and TN respectively.
--
/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/
can it be? Azot...@AOhell.com ! (that's aol...)
azothath
uhh - I'll take the other choice (the one not given) - lol...
>
> I agree. The act itself is evil, the goal is good. Here is where it
> depends on the character, te god, and the setting. Do the ends justify
> the means? If so, all is forgiven and life goes on. Shady, some
> atonement needed. No, the overall act is evil.
>
> a LG god will say no.
> A NG god will balance the acts and decide
> A CG god will likely say yes.
>
> A TN god will act more like the NG god but more objectively.
>
> All the evil gods are inverse.
>
> Just my take on it. Replace god with church or society as needed.
>
rather than trying to pidgeon hole the alignments, I'd say there are a
few absolutes. Killing is one of them. BTW - one can only kill a being
that has "free will" or an IWC average in game terms.
Is killing evil? YES, with or without intent. All creatures are
responsible for their actions. How evil is up to the particular faiths
involved and the circumstances.
IMO;
Forgiveness is GOOD.
Honesty and truthfullness are GOOD.
Giving/Charity(helping others in need without expectation of reward) is
GOOD.
Killing is EVIL.
Corruption and Lying/Dishonesty are EVIL.
Subjugation of others is EVIL.
note, that the converse of the absolutes is not necessarily ascribed to
the opposite alignment. Thus (NOT Killing) is not necessarily GOOD, and
(NOT Forgiveness) is not necessarily EVIL.
Purity, innocence, faithfullness are neither good nor evil but can
acquire aspects of both. Creation/destruction can be complex, but
generally they are neither good nor evil. Creation of Life is generally
held as a GOOD thing, though it's really more natural than good.
--
/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/
can it be? AlignmentsR`UsAzo...@AOhell.com ! (that's aol...)
Khun Kao
stupid and evil, then it was stupid and evil. It is for the party to
role-play, and the GM to officiate. Each person has their own
character concept, ie-their beliefs are skewed a particular way. The
GM should then make rulings based on their characters alignments and
the church they belong to.
As an example of penalties for doing something that your character
should not do, based on alignment and religion, I play a Crusader of
Tempus. Our party ran across a wagon that was part of a caravan we had
happened across in another town. The wagon had a broken wheel. My
character knew a little bit about wheels and was helping the caravan
members Jerry-rig the wheel to get them to the next town to seek real
repairs. The other cleric in the group cast "Detect Evil" and found
that the caravan members were all slightly evil, the wagon master
definately evil, and whatever was in the wagon was so evil that he
turned white as a ghost and almost fainted.
When this was brought to my attention, my characters first reaction
was "So what? They are not bothering us." However, the "leader" of our
band of adventurers decided that we had a right to know what was in the
wagon. They of course told us where to stick it, and a fight ensued.
We were getting our butts KICKED! We were all on the verge of death,
so my character cast a Wish spell that he had with an amulet that had
been awarded to him. I wished the situation away (long story for
another post) and we found ourselves traveling down the same road,
intact and unharmed.
Tempus himself appeared before me and punished me for the cowardly act
of avoiding battle. I may no longer wear a helmet, cannot trim my hair
or beard, I cannot utter Tempus' name nor reveal my holy symbol, I no
longer have access to any spells above 3rd level, and can only cast
those at the same level that the punishement was given to me at. (4th
level, if I remember correctly, I am now 8th). As you all can well
imagine, casting spells without your holy symbol and not being able to
utter your god's name poses a lot of problems.
To atone, I must travel to the center of the Anarouch Desert to find
the source of the evil that was within the wagon, capture one of the
people there, and bring them to Silvery Moon to be interrogated. Only
then will I be granted my full rank and abilities as a Crusader of
Tempus.
I would therefore suggest that these characters who dealt evilly with
those humanoid creatures are due some similar punishment, either from
their deity, or the GM himself for infringement of alignment. Unless,
of course, they can successfully argue what they did.
Also, this should be done through role playing. The character who felt
the course of action was evil and stupid should now find himself with
serious reservations towards his traveling companions...
--
Brooks C. Miller, playing...
Derrick Jordan
Warrior Priest of Tempus
Michael Brown
Power Word: Duh.
-Michael
Larry Mead
[snip]
: Now, here is the question. I contend that attacking the creatures
: without provocation was definitely stupid and possibly evil, while
: attacking them after making a deal with them was possibly stupid and
: definitely evil. Some of the party members think it was not evil. What
: do you guys think?
Well, it was certainly stupid and got more idiotic as the PCs refused each
and every request to cease. Attacking without provocation is a chaotic
act, not necessarily evil.
DMgorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead Ph.D. (Lawren...@usm.edu)
Eschew Obfuscation! Espouse Elucidation!
www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html
Trainz
Yeah ! Another never-ending alignment thread !
Larry Mead wrote:
>
> Preston Becker <NOPOTTEDMEATpr...@udel.edu> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> : Now, here is the question. I contend that attacking the creatures
> : without provocation was definitely stupid and possibly evil, while
> : attacking them after making a deal with them was possibly stupid and
> : definitely evil. Some of the party members think it was not evil. What
> : do you guys think?
>
> Well, it was certainly stupid and got more idiotic as the PCs refused each
> and every request to cease.
Indeed.
> Attacking without provocation is a chaotic
> act, not necessarily evil.
I don't agree. Bashing a beggar (attacking without provocation) is an
evil act. The party was indeed provoked (put down your arms).
I think that if the setup indicates it (meeting beasts in a dungeon
where your where previously attacked by all sorts of monstrosities), you
are in your right to suspect that they will likely do the same, and not
giving away your weapons can be a life or death situation (what will
they do after you are unarmed ?).
Making a deal and then attacking the beasts is not evil IMO, but
chaotic. Respecting one's word is more a factor of Law-Chaos than
Good-Evil IMO. That you have a good reason for breaking the deal is
another thing altogether.
This can be confusing, but I think that alignment is secondary in your
case, the stupidity and ego of the whole party is the first thing that
pops to mind...
Now COME ON ! Two of your mates are down, the beasts propose to let you
go (thank the DM for that), and you bash them. That's just plain
suicidal.
--
______________________________
/| Trainz |
| |
| Music composer |
| You may download my songs at|
| http://www.e-mtl.com/trainz |
/ /
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Kern
<NOPOTTEDMEATpr...@udel.edu> posted the following:
>Now, here is the question. I contend that attacking the creatures
>without provocation was definitely stupid and possibly evil, while
>attacking them after making a deal with them was possibly stupid and
>definitely evil. Some of the party members think it was not evil. What
>do you guys think?
It depends on your "world view" of evil. If you think that these
creatures are redeemable, then the act was certainly evil.
However, it is possible to hold the view that evil humanoids are
inherently evil, and only in the most rare and unusual cases (or not
at all) would there be any kind of repentance or turning away from
evil. In that case, I don't think it would have to evil to trick them
and kill them (although some people might consider it so).
Aside from that, though, what if the party members did not believe
that the creatures would honor their agreement? I wouldn't trust
kobolds to release party members for money. It wasn't like the
monsters were just standing there doing nothing, they were threatening
two of the party members.
-Chris
BardValerian
the PCs to disarm. Unless the PCs were in a ' goodly aligned ruled land' AND
these humanoids were a patrol AND it were regular practice for the patrol to
disarm travelers before talking with them, i'd have done much the same as the
PCs did. HOWEVER, first i'd want to know *why* we needed to disarm. "Put down
our weapons? Why? On who's authority?"
The situation would have been much different if the PCs were in...say the dales
and a group of elven archers came up to them and asked them to disarm (at least
it would be if *I* were playing a PC in that situation).
If i were in "hostile" territory and a group of humanoids did the above, i'd
tell the the little buggers to toss off!
So, in short, without more info on the situation, i'd *assume* they were not on
friendly ground and reacted with self preservation in mind (though a better
tactic than "charge" would have been more... advantagous).
valerian
~
flint wizard
bad guy for ransom. The heroes just charge in cave after cave and kills
anything. A Paladin could be leading the party and in the name of
greater good kills anything that detects evil. Ironically, when the
party members are outmatched and out gunned, the evil bad people give
the party members numerous attempts to walk away alive but with less
cash. The double standard is always ridiculous.
It's a double standard because had the situation been reversed, the bad
guys would be considered evil. So in the real scenario, the good guys
would also have to be considered evil.
DMs forget to think if the player characters would ever offer the bad
guy their life for money.
Preston Becker wrote:
>
> In our last game (see http://udel.edu/~prawn/Journal.html#troops
> for the full story) some 1st level characters ran into twenty small
> scaly black skinned humanoids who were in two army style troops with
> shieldmen in the first rank and spearmen in the second. The creatures
> yelled "Put down your weapons!" One of the party attacked them on sight
> with his bow, even though they had never met their kind before. The
> creatures threw javelins at the bowman and he fell. Again they said
> "put down your weapons" but the two closest party members charged. They
> were knocked out while the rest of the party was still several rounds
> away. The creatures bound the wounds of the fallen party members,
> saying "Stay where you are or we will kill them. Give us your money and
> weapons and you can leave." The party started to negotiate. One party
> member threw some gold their way. The Mage started talking, and the
> creatures agreed to let the party go in exchange for payment. The next
> round the mage cast sleep on them and the party charged. Only about
> half the creatures were slept, and again they said "Stay where you are
> or we will kill them." The party continued forward. They slit the
> throat of one PC, and said again "Stop!" The party didn't, so the
> creatures killed the second PC, then retreated taking the two fallen
> PCs' packs. Those PCs that were left were in heavy armor and could not
> catch the retreating creatures.
>
Henry Link
> for the full story) some 1st level characters ran into twenty small
> scaly black skinned humanoids who were in two army style troops with
> shieldmen in the first rank and spearmen in the second. The
creatures
<SNIP>
> Now, here is the question. I contend that attacking the creatures
> without provocation was definitely stupid and possibly evil, while
> attacking them after making a deal with them was possibly stupid and
> definitely evil. Some of the party members think it was not evil.
What
> do you guys think?
The question of the party being evil or not is irrelevant. Beasts that
are so stupid that they fight against overwhelming forces, knowing
they will almost certainly lose, then refuse to bargain with said
overwhelming forces, then break their word when said overwhelming
forces are still obviously in control - the laws of natural selection
as evinced by Darwin should be allowed to take hold, and the fates
should be invoked for good dice rolls when the new set of dumb beasts
are created. Maybe they'll even show sentience the next time around!
--
"C'mon, August!"
-Henry
Tuatha dé Danaan
>The "good" option would be to charge in to the bandit camp in a frontal
>assault and die very quickly leaving the villagers to their fate.
>
>The "evil" but smarter option would be to disguise himself as a bandit
>and sneak into their camp in order to poison their water supply in
>order to kill them all, or soften them up for an assault the next day.
>
>Who is the more evil, the hero who saves the villagers or the hero who
>places his honour above the lives of innocents?
To use a novelizations, "Pools of Darkness"...IIRC:
the paladin knew there was no way to defeat that army, and the bad guy
wouldn't fight him fair..so he snuck in and killed him
now the diety struck him into undead to attone *shrug*
but in a Krynnish Tale, a knight knew the nasty nasty DragonArmy top
general was leading an army in and would be unopposed..it was basically him
holding the pass alone against it...
...not to mention the knight was old and sick..
..so the knight played a delaying tactic, got captured, and infected the
whole army with the plague while they 'questioned him'. The knight in this
case was rewarded in the afterlife...
Germ warfare, assasination, all considered 'evil', but for 'greater good'.
And even the dieties have trouble debating the validity of that.
Way i always figured it, Ends don't justify the means, but the means don't
justify the ends either.
If there is no better alternative, it's okay. But if a better 'gooder'
alternative meas exists, use it.
Tuatha dé Danaan
>party members are outmatched and out gunned, the evil bad people give
>the party members numerous attempts to walk away alive but with less
>cash. The double standard is always ridiculous.
*grin* in my current party, we sually let one survivor go to spread our
rep...
the one who tells us the most info get's to be it. We even give them a
meal, and a knife and directions to town ;-)
then again, we aren't good guys either, so *shrug* i gess it's just
furthering your point
>It's a double standard because had the situation been reversed, the bad
>guys would be considered evil. So in the real scenario, the good guys
>would also have to be considered evil.
>DMs forget to think if the player characters would ever offer the bad
>guy their life for money.
*sigh* you reminding me of a player in one Vampire campaign...trigger happy
lout...favourite line was "i shoot it"...he was so reflexive about it, he
shot a bird just because it landed within his vision..don't think diplomacy
was even in his vocabulary
BTW don't foget, the 'protagonist' (party) doesn' hafta be a 'good
guy'...anti-heroes rock! *grin* (c.f. "The Slayers")
R. Serena Wakefield
<snip>
>Now, here is the question. I contend that attacking the creatures
>without provocation was definitely stupid and possibly evil, while
>attacking them after making a deal with them was possibly stupid and
>definitely evil. Some of the party members think it was not evil. What
>do you guys think?
Let me put it this way: if there is a paladin the party, he is now a
fighter.
Let's see if I understand this correctly.
1. Soldiers of an unfamiliar army who outnumber the party told the
PCs to put up their weapons, and the PCs attacked. So far this is
only stupid, not evil.
2. The humanoids kill one PC, and now the fighters charge. Again,
stupid, but not necessarily evil.
3. The fighters are taken as hostages. The humanoids behave in an
obviously lawful manner, give the party reason to trust their
intentions (by binding their hostages' wounds), and offer the party
terms. The PCs negotiate -- and then break the truce. This is an
unquestionably chaotic act; I would say it was chaotic neutral.
4. The mage sleeps SOME of the humanoids, but humanoids remain who
have PC hostages and say they are willing to kill them. The PCs
charge. By disregarding the lives of their fellows in order to
preserve their money pouches, the PCs are acting in a chaotic evil
manner (i.e., every man for himself). The only way this could
possibly be justified is if the PCs think the humanoids are bluffing
(in which case risking their buddies' lives could be viewed as chaotic
neutral with evil tendencies).
5. The humanoids kill one PC. There is still one hostage left. At
this point, if they continue attacking, the PCs KNOW FOR A FACT that
their other comrade will die ... and attack again anyway. In other
words: they're not merely willing to let their friend die, but they
simply don't care. Pure chaotic evil and it's time for voluntary
alignment changes.
In short -- you are absolutely right. The actions of this PC party
were stupid, brutal and evil. They attacked without provocation,
broke the terms of a negotiation, and disregarded the lives of their
fellows, all for no good reason (I don't even see any "good end" here,
they were unwilling to give up their money to save their friends'
lives).
Faced with a situation like that, I would change the humanoids' race
to lawful neutral (if it wasn't already; that's how they were acting)
and make them allies or soldiers from the next big city the characters
come across ...
--
R. Serena Wakefield (ser...@xena.com)
Visit Serena's Gaming Dojo at http://welcome.to/serenasdojo
RANDOMLY GENERATED THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
Believe nothing, dare all.
Llorac
#1)
Krask (LG), leader of the scaly black skinned dudes: "Okay, men the bandits
that have been raiding our village, slaying, stealing and raping, are around
here somewhere. Stay alert. There! Who are they?" He tells his translator,
"Tell them we don't want to fight." Translator shouts, in common, "Put down
your weapons!". (Attack transpires.)
Krask consults with his second in command, "What do you think?"
She responds, "They seem pretty stupid. Such a feeble attack...what were
they thinking? I don't think they're capable of the raids. Let's just search
them, for evidence, then go."
Translator relates this to the party, "Give us your money and weapons and
you can go." A party member tosses some gold in their direction, and
negotiations begin...
Krask gives the translator a puzzled look, "What the...?"
The translator responds, "They are trying to bribe us."
Krask mutters, "Unbelievable, these are the bandits, then! Fine, let's take
them in."
#2
The archer (LG) believes that all land creatures with scales are
monstrosities, as unnatural as undead...and evil. (Scales are for fish.)
#3
The archer (LG), that started the fight, was a pirate in his youth. He has
since been 'converted' by a roaming priest. It is his belief and
understanding that an order to "Put down his weapon." is a demand for
complete surrender, and ultimate death...unless you happen to have family of
status, and can be ransommed. As such, for freedom, for good, and for the
law of the land...one must fight. And so, he did.
The mage (CG), being a smart dude suspects there may be some
miscommunication, and the party is out maneuvered and out numbered. The
archer has over reacted, the situation is getting messy. But, he isn't
willing to be robbed, either. Solution, cast sleep on them, and get the hell
out of here. His low wisdom doesn't help him realise the rest of his own
party will see it as an opportunity to "win" the confrontation.
Others in the party (Good) support their friends actions. Sheep, for the
most part. :)
Okay...so, this isn't likely close to what really happened. The point is,
the actions themselves are questionable. What motivations did the
character's have? Encourage role play rather than arguing about
interpretations of alignment...an argument that will never ever ever end. :)
Ask for explanations, justification, motivations, etc. etc.
Preston Becker wrote:
> In our last game (see http://udel.edu/~prawn/Journal.html#troops
> for the full story) some 1st level characters ran into twenty small
> scaly black skinned humanoids who were in two army style troops with
> shieldmen in the first rank and spearmen in the second. The creatures
> yelled "Put down your weapons!" One of the party attacked them on sight
> with his bow, even though they had never met their kind before. The
> creatures threw javelins at the bowman and he fell. Again they said
> "put down your weapons" but the two closest party members charged. They
> were knocked out while the rest of the party was still several rounds
> away. The creatures bound the wounds of the fallen party members,
> saying "Stay where you are or we will kill them. Give us your money and
> weapons and you can leave." The party started to negotiate. One party
> member threw some gold their way. The Mage started talking, and the
> creatures agreed to let the party go in exchange for payment. The next
> round the mage cast sleep on them and the party charged. Only about
> half the creatures were slept, and again they said "Stay where you are
> or we will kill them." The party continued forward. They slit the
> throat of one PC, and said again "Stop!" The party didn't, so the
> creatures killed the second PC, then retreated taking the two fallen
> PCs' packs. Those PCs that were left were in heavy armor and could not
> catch the retreating creatures.
>
Preston Becker
the creatures should know the players were evil, from thier actions.
All the players could tell, thaving never encountered them before, was
that the creatures were lawful.
Chris Kern wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 02:00:56 -0500, Preston Becker
> <NOPOTTEDMEATpr...@udel.edu> posted the following:
>
> >Now, here is the question. I contend that attacking the creatures
> >without provocation was definitely stupid and possibly evil, while
> >attacking them after making a deal with them was possibly stupid and
> >definitely evil. Some of the party members think it was not evil. What
> >do you guys think?
>
Preston Becker
> PCs did. HOWEVER, first i'd want to know *why* we needed to disarm. "Put down
> our weapons? Why? On who's authority?"
Exactly. I expected there to be roleplay. SInce threre were 20 of them
and few of the party members, I expected the party to negotiate, and
perhaps to pay a few gold to be allowed to pass in peace. But they
didn't say anything at all, they simply attacked.
Preston Becker
again. I told them that they should also think that the creatures will
have a new plan too. For example, as soon as the mage starts talking,
they will fill him full of javelins, since the has shown himself the
most dangerous. Also, since the PCs have already shown that they don't
care about part members taken hostage, the next time PCs fall in battle
they will be slain. Lastly, I asked the party: if they thought YOU
would car about your party members taken hostage, does that mean they
will care about their party members taken hostage? Then the corollary
of that question is: is it evil to use hostages like that?
Preston Becker
> The archer (LG) believes that all land creatures with scales are
> monstrosities, as unnatural as undead...and evil. (Scales are for fish.)
> The archer (LG), that started the fight, was a pirate in his youth. H
That would have been fine and within the realm of role-play, but that
isn't how it happened
>Solution, cast sleep on them, and get the hell out of here.
Nope, the mage counted before and knew he could only get some of them.
He cast sleep anyway.
> character's have? Encourage role play rather than arguing about
> interpretations of alignment...an argument that will never ever ever end. :)
I appreciate your input. I agree with you. I wanted the whole exercise
to be one of role-play. THe party was confronted with a obviously
superior force who tried a dozen times to parley. The party refused. In
the absence of role-play, and with everyone's agreement that the party's
actions were rash, there is nothing left to discuss but whether it was
good or evil. My intention in posting this question was not to start an
endless debate on alignment. I want the players to have some sort of
consequences for their actions, for example, maybe the people back in
town heard about it and now the players are unwelcome there. THen maybe
the party has to do something to redeem themselves later. THen when they
become heroes, it will be all the sweeter. In order to create this kind
of plot for future role-play, I want to know if others on this list
agree that what the party did was evil or not.
Preston Becker
> fighter.
The paladin was unconscious at the time, but before the mage cast his
spell, I said that the Paladin would probably take exception, were he
around.
Peter Seebach
R. Serena Wakefield <ser...@xena.com> wrote:
>1. Soldiers of an unfamiliar army who outnumber the party told the
>PCs to put up their weapons, and the PCs attacked. So far this is
>only stupid, not evil.
I disagree. Did they have *ANY REASON AT ALL* to believe that the "hostiles"
were actually evil, or were doing anything but asking for a peaceful parley?
No. So, I'd say "evil". Prejudice like that ("Oh, look, they aren't built
the same way we are, kill 'em") is evil.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
Varsil Savai
>Hello all
>
>James W wrote, "Hmm.. deception with intent to kill= Evil... (snip)"
>
>I would say that it depends. Imagine that a group of fifty or so
>bandits has set up camp near a village, their next target. The lone
>hero who is in the village knows where the camp is. He also knows that
>the bandits will slaughter all of the male population, while raping and
>enslaving the female villagers.
>
>The "good" option would be to charge in to the bandit camp in a frontal
>assault and die very quickly leaving the villagers to their fate.
>
I'm sorry, but this isn't the "good" option. This is one of many
dumphuck options, along the lines of "I sell my sword, and then hang
around in town till the bandits get here", and "I tie a rock to my
foot and jump in the well to see how long I can hold my breath".
>The "evil" but smarter option would be to disguise himself as a bandit
>and sneak into their camp in order to poison their water supply in
>order to kill them all, or soften them up for an assault the next day.
>
_A_ "good" option would be to disguise oneself as a bandit, sneak into
their camp, defeat the bandit leader, disguise oneself (I'm assuming
that there's some disguise ability available here) as the bandit
leader, and send the bandits off to do something more productive, like
raiding a nearby band of orcs...
>Who is the more evil, the hero who saves the villagers or the hero who
>places his honour above the lives of innocents?
>
I think my "good" example beats your "evil" example.
Remember kids: Just because you disagree with an idea doesn't mean
you have to represent that idea with the dumbest possible
manifestation of it.
"You can't possibly be as dumb as that makes you look"
-Source Unknown (Help pls!)
Shannara
R. Serena Wakefield <ser...@xena.com> wrote in message
> Pure chaotic evil and it's time for voluntary alignment changes.
>
If you're using AD&D gaming rules, generally it takes more than 1 action (or
a set of actions in one situation) to change an alignment.
Shannara
Khun Kao <khu...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:88hpv7$ols$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
------------
But don't forget that the players also have choices to make when this kind
of punishment ensues. For example, I play a CG cleric character who is
extremely independent. If she were punished for doing the best she could in
an impossible situation such as you narrate in the above, she would politely
tell her goddess that she was no longer worthy of serving her. After all,
being a fighter isn't so bad ... and she would take that option rather than
accept a punishment that would seem, to her, unfair in the extreme.
If you push the players too far away from the characters they want to play,
don't be surprised if they rebel in dramatic ways.
My suggestion to the original poster would be, if your group is thus far
more attuned to the combat aspect than to the role-playing aspect, get them
into it first in a non-combat situation. If they are used to greater
interaction in the towns, taverns, etc., they will know more what is
expected of them, and it is a great way to get them thinking about
alignment, good, evil, etc. before it becomes a melee situation.
azothath
azothath <Azot...@aol.com> wrote:
> rather than trying to pidgeon hole the alignments, I'd say there are a
an addendum to the above post -
BEFORE I get blasted for giving contrary advice in this thread, realize
that there are several dynamics at work, different viewpoints, my
opinion on the matter, that alignment is a fuzzy thing, and faith
without contradiction(assymmetry is a better word) is like, well,
something without nothing. <eg>
I feel #1 the player should consult with GM via in game priests and his
party. He also needs to keep his character's moral view a part of his
specific church dogma and background, as is appropriate. Thus we have
the PCs viewpoint.
The GM MUST have a rather good idea as to what's going on and have his
ideas as to what good and evil are in his game, and with respect to each
pantheon. If the GM is not clear and consistent on this, what hope does
a player have? Snap decisions in this area usually have bad long
term results. The GM should not directly disclose his opinions on the
matter, but should work through authorial fonts (NPCs). It's much more
fun this way and it keeps the players guessing, as different NPCs will
have different opinions on the matter... Thus the posting above is both
my opinion and a GMs view. Is there a difference? LOL.
as an aside - -
I have to say, personally, in the gamers description in the original
post, I would have killed the party off (a special thanks to the guys in
the "Save while Sleeping vs Fireball" thread that said I was a really
generous GM <eg>). I think they would have learned a valuable lesson,
and had the priveledge of generating new characters! Bet ya the
scenario would run differently with the second character set, though
some players are a bit slow... I'm sure after three or four character
sets they'd claim the encounter was a mismatch and that I was unfair
(insert my laughter and agreement here) but I'd have to ask, "So, what
did you learn? besides that life's unfair and I'm a penis-head (lol)."
I think that the GM who let them off easy is going to pay for his
mistake. Just wait....
--
/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/
can it be? Azot...@AOhell.com ! (that's aol...)
Mark....@reading.ac.uk
azothath <Azot...@aol.com> wrote:
> rather than trying to pidgeon hole the alignments, I'd say there are a
being
> that has "free will" or an IWC average in game terms.
> Is killing evil? YES, with or without intent. All creatures are
> responsible for their actions. How evil is up to the particular
faiths
> involved and the circumstances.
Hahaha! You can't possibly tell me that AD&D, or indeed *any* fantasy
system, can possibly support deontological morality. If that's the
case, EVERY SINGLE PC who has ever played the game is evil: after all,
they've all killed monsters, they've all stolen treasure, and a
fair number worked for people who have subjugated others (kings).
Consequential morality is the ONLY way anything like that can be
involved in these games. Based on this, evil and good can be only
defined by what the consequence are.
So, in Aly's example, it would be entirely moral for the hero to
poison the bandits. What it *might* not be is terribly heroic.
However, if the campaign flavor is heroic, then the GM should be
prepared to allow the fighter a chance in a full-on assault against the
group of bandits (although he'd need some preparation, or to find some
allies, first); if the GM does NOT allow this, he is not enabling a
heroic campaign and the "hero" - now just a regular person who wants to
help fight the bandits - can poison them if he wishes.
R. Serena Wakefield
wrote:
>In article <38ac4afe...@news.gate.net>,
>R. Serena Wakefield <ser...@xena.com> wrote:
>>1. Soldiers of an unfamiliar army who outnumber the party told the
>>PCs to put up their weapons, and the PCs attacked. So far this is
>>only stupid, not evil.
>I disagree. Did they have *ANY REASON AT ALL* to believe that the "hostiles"
>were actually evil, or were doing anything but asking for a peaceful parley?
>No. So, I'd say "evil". Prejudice like that ("Oh, look, they aren't built
>the same way we are, kill 'em") is evil.
I was actually assuming that it was the "put up your weapons" part
that caused the PCs to attack, not the appearance of the troops. But
I agree, if it was pure racial prejudice motivating the attack, that
IS evil (and I would have been a lot less gentle with the PCs, too).
--
R. Serena Wakefield (ser...@xena.com)
Visit Serena's Gaming Dojo at http://welcome.to/serenasdojo
RANDOMLY GENERATED THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
A gentlemen holds the door while his wife carries in the
groceries.
Peter Seebach
R. Serena Wakefield <ser...@xena.com> wrote:
>I was actually assuming that it was the "put up your weapons" part
>that caused the PCs to attack, not the appearance of the troops.
Attacking someone for asking you to put up your weapons is pretty weird.
Normally, you'd at least *start* to comply, while asking them who they
were. Certainly, attacking at that point is wrong; how do you know
the troop you're facing isn't a bunch of lawful good militia?
azothath
Mark....@reading.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <88hlgi$l7h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> azothath <Azot...@aol.com> wrote:
> > rather than trying to pidgeon hole the alignments, I'd say there are
a
> > few absolutes. Killing is one of them. BTW - one can only kill a
> being
> > that has "free will" or an IWC average in game terms.
> > Is killing evil? YES, with or without intent. All creatures are
> > responsible for their actions. How evil is up to the particular
> faiths
> > involved and the circumstances.
>
> Hahaha! You can't possibly tell me that AD&D, or indeed *any*
fantasy
> system, can possibly support deontological morality. If that's the
> case, EVERY SINGLE PC who has ever played the game is evil: after all,
> they've all killed monsters, they've all stolen treasure, and a
> fair number worked for people who have subjugated others (kings).
yes - people do evil things... and remember that we're talking from a
gaming perspective of totally GOOD (which is why I use caps)(not real
life, as my views are different for that). Odd that no one noticed that
LOVE and HATE we're accidently left off the list....
As GM you're also faced with the aspects of different pantheons ad
their respective moral positions and value systems. This argues some
form of moral relativism on the GMs part. I feel it's best to develop
some guidelines for each pantheon, and take faiths/churches/dieties on a
case by case basis.
We also have ALIGNMENT perpectives, which are generalised. ALIGNMENT
also must involve pantheon specific ideas as to the specific actions
that are considered moral, and this happens in the course of play. IMO
ALIGNMENT perspectives are mostly from the viewpoint of ultimate GOOD,
EVIL, LAW and CHAOS, and NEUTRALITY(CENTERDNESS). And in this thread
we're mainly talking about ALIGNMENTs, not pantheon morality, it's a
subtle difference.
> Consequential morality is the ONLY way anything like that can be
> involved in these games. Based on this, evil and good can be only
> defined by what the consequence are.
not true at all, aristotelian absolutes are completly logical and
rational in a game context of ALIGNMENT.
> So, in Aly's example, it would be entirely moral for the hero to
> poison the bandits.
that's an opinion based on your scheme.
> What it *might* not be is terribly heroic.
> However, if the campaign flavor is heroic, then the GM should be
> prepared to allow the fighter a chance in a full-on assault against
the
> group of bandits (although he'd need some preparation, or to find some
> allies, first); if the GM does NOT allow this,
I'm not aware that a GM can or should deny that line of action.
> he is not enabling a
> heroic campaign and the "hero" - now just a regular person who
> wants to
> help fight the bandits - can poison them if he wishes.
>
some good points, but ALIGNMENTs must have a fixed basis for comparison,
while deeds throughout game play are judged by pantheon specific value
systems as best as one can, and small adjustments are made to ALIGNMENT
as time in game proceeds.
Without doubt, a good character description, with psychological profile
and history are better guides and more informative than ALIGNMENT.
Truely in the game context, the only value ALIGNMENT has is for spell
targeting(Protection from EVIL...), very general reactions, and clerical
purposes(where it's more a measure of consistency and faith than
anything else). 99% of the non-clerical/faith based NPCs/PCs will never
be affected by an ALIGNMENT shift (I think it's totally bogus to punish
non-faith based characters for minor ALIGNMENT changes, it's really more
about good role playing). Yes, punish bad/poor roleplaying, but not
rational or reasonable alignment shifts for those not dependent upon it.
--
/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/
can it be? Azot...@AOhell.com ! (that's aol...)
Khun Kao
> But don't forget that the players also have choices to make when this
kind
> of punishment ensues. For example, I play a CG cleric character who
is
> extremely independent. If she were punished for doing the best she
could in
> an impossible situation such as you narrate in the above, she would
politely
> tell her goddess that she was no longer worthy of serving her. After
all,
> being a fighter isn't so bad ... and she would take that option
rather than
> accept a punishment that would seem, to her, unfair in the extreme.
I agree. However, with my character, the church is his life. He is of
the opinion that serving as Tempus's War Priest is the highest calling
of his church, and he cannot fathom doing anything else. If he were
kicked out of the church, he'd probably suicide as opposed to face the
disgrace. But you are right, it is a matter of role-playing your
character as you see fit...
>
> If you push the players too far away from the characters they want to
play,
> don't be surprised if they rebel in dramatic ways.
>
> My suggestion to the original poster would be, if your group is thus
far
> more attuned to the combat aspect than to the role-playing aspect,
get them
> into it first in a non-combat situation. If they are used to greater
> interaction in the towns, taverns, etc., they will know more what is
> expected of them, and it is a great way to get them thinking about
> alignment, good, evil, etc. before it becomes a melee situation.
>
>
Agreed again. I just feel that the party's members need to know that
there are penalties for just going into "hack and slash" mode, unless
your character is just a stupid fighter. Players have to learn, the
hard way if necessary, to actually role-play their characters. Your
above recommendation is perfect, I think. D&D and Fantasy Gaming is
more than rolling dice.
--
Brooks C. Miller, playing...
Derrick Jordan
Warrior Priest of Tempus
HADSIL
comes by and say "drop you weapons" does not mean every goody-goody should obey
without question. Morality does not come into play in this situation. The
players, rightly, felt their characters were affronted. They chose to attack
despite being out numbered and over powered. They were foolish, not evil.
Gerald Katz
No infravision? Therefore you must be human!
HADSIL
>bad guy for ransom. The heroes just charge in cave after cave and kills
>anything. A Paladin could be leading the party and in the name of
>greater good kills anything that detects evil. Ironically, when the
>the party members numerous attempts to walk away alive but with less
>cash. The double standard is always ridiculous.
>guys would be considered evil. So in the real scenario, the good guys
>would also have to be considered evil.
>DMs forget to think if the player characters would ever offer the bad
>guy their life for money.
Teehee.
However, one should also consider that when the good aligned party is on a
mission, as opposed to a dungeon treasure hunting crawl, the bad guys are
usually the minions of the Chief Bad Guy they eventually will face. Just
letting them go is not an easy thing to do since they can inform the Chief Bad
Guy. This is a stereotypical Lawful Good dilemma - what to do with an opponent
who surrenders. Usually such characters would insist they be let go if they
can't be taken along while the Chaotic Good say they should be killed and
Neutral Good decide depending upon the situation.
Peter Seebach
HADSIL <had...@cs.com> wrote:
>Not evil. Stupid? Probably, but not evil. Just because a group of strangers
>comes by and say "drop you weapons" does not mean every goody-goody should obey
>without question. Morality does not come into play in this situation. The
>players, rightly, felt their characters were affronted. They chose to attack
>despite being out numbered and over powered. They were foolish, not evil.
I'd say that trying to kill someone for insulting you, without any knowledge
that they're either intrinsically evil, or planning you or anyone else harm,
is "evil".
Consider: What if those "humanoids" were a bunch of militia, and were lawful
good? They handled an unknown band of marauders the way a party led by a
paladin might try to, given a comparable level of force on each side. They
did *everything* they could to end the conflict as peacefully as possible as
soon as possible.
All the evidence points to the PC's as the ones who decided there was a
combat, rather than a parley.
HADSIL
>Honesty and truthfullness are GOOD.
>Giving/Charity(helping others in need without expectation of reward) is
>GOOD.
>Killing is EVIL.
Then Paladins are the most evil creatures of all the multiverse because they
certainly do a lot of killing.
It is murder that is evil, not the act of killing, in my opinion.
ge...@my-deja.com
> were. Certainly, attacking at that point is wrong; how do you know
> the troop you're facing isn't a bunch of lawful good militia?
Well, they've taken to of your comrades hostage and are using them to
extort money from you. lawful GOOD?! Not.
ge...@my-deja.com
> of plot for future role-play, I want to know if others on this list
> agree that what the party did was evil or not.
Not dropping weapons when commanded to by forces whose intent is
unknown is not evil. In fact it may be considered prudent.
However, attacking said forces who've demonstrated they will kill your
companions and still hold others captive is an evil act - total
disregard for the lives of your "friends"? And why? In order avoid
paying money being extorted. This is VERY, VERY evil.
mya...@yahoo.com
well organized group told two characters to "lay down your weapons." In
a fantasy setting, ripe with bandits, wandering monsters, etc., I would
have to say "lay down your weapons" is not the friendliest way to open
a conversation.
I wouldn't fault the characters for mistaking that some what ambivalent
statement for attacking. But I do wonder why they didn't ask why they
should.
After the bloodshed, I think it was stupidity on both parties part.
However, if the party goes around looking for fights and intentionally
sheds bloods at the slightest glimpse of opportunity, I would say that
THAT is an evil intention.
--Matt
aly_b...@my-deja.com
var...@home.com (Varsil Savai) wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:53:36 GMT, aly_b...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Hello all
> >
> >James W wrote, "Hmm.. deception with intent to kill= Evil... (snip)"
> >
> >I would say that it depends. Imagine that a group of fifty or so
> >bandits has set up camp near a village, their next target. The lone
> >hero who is in the village knows where the camp is. He also knows
that
> >the bandits will slaughter all of the male population, while raping
and
> >enslaving the female villagers.
> >
> >The "good" option would be to charge in to the bandit camp in a
frontal
> >assault and die very quickly leaving the villagers to their fate.
> >
> I'm sorry, but this isn't the "good" option. This is one of many
> dumphuck options, along the lines of "I sell my sword, and then hang
> around in town till the bandits get here", and "I tie a rock to my
> foot and jump in the well to see how long I can hold my breath".
I was referring to the deception part of the previous post. Unless the
hero is as hard as Arnie in "Commando" then deception will be necessary
at some point.
>
> >The "evil" but smarter option would be to disguise himself as a
bandit
> >and sneak into their camp in order to poison their water supply in
> >order to kill them all, or soften them up for an assault the next
day.
> >
> _A_ "good" option would be to disguise oneself as a bandit, sneak into
> their camp, defeat the bandit leader, disguise oneself (I'm assuming
> that there's some disguise ability available here) as the bandit
> leader, and send the bandits off to do something more productive, like
> raiding a nearby band of orcs...
>
This is the problem with general scenarios, people see them
differently. I envisioned the bandits as being quite smart and
ruthless. The hero would have to sneak past, perhaps, half a dozen
sentries to reach the well and poison it. This would be a severe test
of his stealth skills. By wearing a bandit's uniform the hero could
hope to pass casual inspection in the torch light. The hero could then
poison the well (Cooking pot, whatever) and then attempt to get out
alive.
You seem to envision the bandits as the dumbest SoBs in the World. I
can only assume that by "defeating the bandit leader" you mean slitting
his throat. In which case you are killing one person by deception
instead of fifty. Well done, a lower body count. After all, the
leader is going to call for his followers as soon as the hero wakes him
up and challenges him to single combat. Perhaps this incredibly nice
bandit leader will agree to a pillow fight so that the clash of weapons
will not alert his men. The bandit leader will then agree to leave the
camp silently so as not to let his men know that he is to be replaced
(Or the hero can stuff the bandit leader's corpse down his trousers or
some other equally accessible hiding place when they break camp).
Assuming that the hero has some form of disguise better than black
grease paint (Like Arnie in "Predator") then the hero can persuade
"his" men to raid the fiercesome, cannibalistic, extremely poor orcs,
as opposed to the poorly defended village full of great looting and
raping opportunities. If the hero can pull this off, then he's the
greatest bullshitter in the galaxy. Instead of needing an incredibly
hard, Arnie-like, hero to defeat the bandits, your scenario requires
the biggest liar in the galaxy instead.
> >Who is the more evil, the hero who saves the villagers or the hero
who
> >places his honour above the lives of innocents?
> >
> I think my "good" example beats your "evil" example.
As I have argued above, your "good" example is somewhat riskier and
requires far greater natural ability than my "evil" example. With the
lives of a whole village at stake I would plump for my example.
>
> Remember kids: Just because you disagree with an idea doesn't mean
> you have to represent that idea with the dumbest possible
> manifestation of it.
Remember kids, if you are going to slag off someone's dumb idea, don't
do it in an even dumber way.
>
> "You can't possibly be as dumb as that makes you look"
> -Source Unknown (Help pls!)
Sorry, no idea who first said that.
Regards all,
Gaz
Mark....@reading.ac.uk
azothath <Azot...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > involved and the circumstances.
> > Hahaha! You can't possibly tell me that AD&D, or indeed *any*
> fantasy
> > system, can possibly support deontological morality. If that's the
> > case, EVERY SINGLE PC who has ever played the game is evil: after
all,
> > they've all killed monsters, they've all stolen treasure, and a
> gaming perspective of totally GOOD (which is why I use caps)(not real
> life, as my views are different for that). Odd that no one noticed
that
> LOVE and HATE we're accidently left off the list....
Yes, of course, IRL we can and do apply the deontological perspective
on killing, but in RPGs, especially D&D, we don't. Ever played Power
Kill?
> As GM you're also faced with the aspects of different pantheons ad
> their respective moral positions and value systems. This argues some
> form of moral relativism on the GMs part. I feel it's best to develop
> some guidelines for each pantheon, and take faiths/churches/dieties on
a
> case by case basis.
True.
> > Consequential morality is the ONLY way anything like that can be
> > involved in these games. Based on this, evil and good can be only
> > defined by what the consequence are.
> not true at all, aristotelian absolutes are completly logical and
> rational in a game context of ALIGNMENT.
Yes, but the Alignment context also doesn't make sense. Let's see: A
person who's good, and a person who's evil, can both kill a monster
without taking alignment violation. So the act of killing evidently
fits well in both. Now, killing the monster has a whole bunch of
consequences. One is that the monster will be unable to harm innocent
people, which is a "good" consequence. Another is that you can steal
the monster's property, which is probably an "evil" consequence. You
would probably say that a characters alignment would determine which of
these two the character would be thinking of most, but I doubt very much
that a "good" character would turn down the treasure. Even if that is
the case, your perception of an act doesn't change its morality in the
overall system.
> > So, in Aly's example, it would be entirely moral for the hero to
> > poison the bandits.
> that's an opinion based on your scheme.
It is my opinion, within gaming morality. If you are saying it is
immoral to kill others, then the hero cannot kill them without being
immoral, no matter how he does so. If you are saying it is moral to
kill others as long as it has beneficial consequences, then the
consequences will be the same whether the bandits die by poison or by
sword.
Poisoning is *not* heroic. It is also, as some people have
mentioned, a "cop-out" (which seems to be the term for "using
creativity to avoid dice rolling"). However, if the conditions Aly
indicated apply, that a standard attack on the bandits would not be
successful AND COULD NOT BE MADE SO, then..
> > What it *might* not be is terribly heroic.
> > However, if the campaign flavor is heroic, then the GM should be
> > prepared to allow the fighter a chance in a full-on assault against
> the
> > group of bandits (although he'd need some preparation, or to find
some
> > allies, first); if the GM does NOT allow this,
> I'm not aware that a GM can or should deny that line of action.
I agree, but it is possible. It certainly could be done: no other
warriors in town, bandit barricade around the village, bandits strong
enough to wipe the floor with a single hero.
> some good points, but ALIGNMENTs must have a fixed basis for
comparison,
Which, IMHO, is a problem with alignments.
> while deeds throughout game play are judged by pantheon specific value
> systems as best as one can, and small adjustments are made to
ALIGNMENT
> as time in game proceeds.
That's fair enough, although I'm not sure about these "pantheon
specific value systems". Just *try* playing AD&D with a value system
that says killing and stealing is always amoral! Unless you have an
awesome GM, you won't manage it, and if you do, an awful lot of the AD&D
system will be thrown out of the window.
> Without doubt, a good character description, with psychological
profile
> and history are better guides and more informative than ALIGNMENT.
Absolutely agreed.
> Truely in the game context, the only value ALIGNMENT has is for spell
> targeting(Protection from EVIL...), very general reactions, and
clerical
> purposes(where it's more a measure of consistency and faith than
> anything else). 99% of the non-clerical/faith based NPCs/PCs will
never
> be affected by an ALIGNMENT shift (I think it's totally bogus to
punish
> non-faith based characters for minor ALIGNMENT changes, it's really
more
> about good role playing). Yes, punish bad/poor roleplaying, but not
> rational or reasonable alignment shifts for those not dependent upon
it.
Mmm, alignment shifting naturally seems a bit strange to me, and the
business about taking an XP penalty for it seems especially unnatural.
Lots of great tales can be told about fall and redemption, for instance,
and AD&D explicitly penalises you for doing them!
Colin Fisher
> Hahaha! You can't possibly tell me
> that AD&D, or indeed *any* fantasy
> system, can possibly support
> deontological morality. If that's the case,
> EVERY SINGLE PC who has ever
> played the game is evil: after all, they've
> all killed monsters,
Don't be so quick to judge. I've been in Ravenloft campaigns where the
*only* creatures the PC's attacked were undead(and that could be
considered a *good* act for the PC is releasing the soul so it can gain
eternal rest.) Also, killing a monster/NPC in self defense is *not*
evil. You must be able to defend yourself without becoming evil for
slaying the rabid orcs(or whatever.)
>they've all stolen treasure,
Not true again. Gained it as payment? Many do. In my campaigns,
outright stealing(such as wandering into a kobold lair and slaying the
creatures to gain their gold) is evil, but "getting the spoils of
war(i.e. taking stuff from the body of a slain enemy who had intent to
kill you) isn't evil.
>and a fair number worked for people who
> have subjugated others (kings).
Kings are in control but they aren't evil. Some kings don't ask much of
their citizens.
> Consequential morality is the ONLY
> way anything like that can be involved in
> these games.
Consequential morality is the ONLY way to understand evil or good. It's
all based on a subjective view of what's good and evil. There's no
absolutes in morals.
Colin Fisher
azothath
Mark....@reading.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <88jr8v$5c8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> azothath <Azot...@aol.com> wrote:
<snippage for brevity as we converge somewhat>
I'm glad you can see both points, but yes, IMG killing is an EVIL act,
no matter what the reason. Players and I have wrangled over this for
some time, and it basically comes down to the fact that killing is
killing, no matter how or why, it's EVIL to end someone elses life,
that's not your decision to make in the overall scheme of things. This
is why some GOOD saints/avatars talk and try to reason and enlighten
their foes, and seek other ways than slaying. From GOODs point of
view;It is better to harm than to kill, better to redirect than to harm,
and what is better than enlightenment? Every time the players slay a
monster, they commit an EVIL act. Luckily for the players, GOOD will
forgive them their transgressions based upon circumstances. This is
where the feedback control is, otherwise yeah, things would get outta
hand in a "practical" environment. Remember that from EVILs perspective
on the issue, you've killed, done terrible things and are beyond
redemption (a classical lie) and deserve to be punished, yeah, you're
evil too, you're one of us!
I view ALIGNMENT in the classical sense as a summation of the PCs acts
over his life to date. ALIGNMENT must also be based on several
ABSOLUTES, otherwise comparisions would be meaningless. It also must
reflect what the character desires to be. In the beginning ALIGNMENT
has no history and therefore little/no meaning.
I do agree that the XP penalties were overdone, and this is what gets
most people's panties in a bunch, as the penalties are stiff. Like I
said, ALIGNMENT really doesn't enter most character's lives, it's a
minor notation. The only ones that really need to worry about it are
Priests, Paladins, Agents and such. I think generally it's used as an
excuse to penalize some bad players, when you don't want to tell them
that they can't roleplay what's written on the sheet in front of them.
IMG I also use Elan (in the same way as Stormbringer does), this lends
an extra dynamic to the ALIGNMENT game. It also allows a hard number
for divine intervention rolls, and for Clerics, this never drops below
(2xlevel)%. If the elan is below the roll but the roll is under 2%,
then minor help will be given, unless the god >wants< to interfere. If
the roll is under elan, than at least an agent of the god will be sent,
generally of (2xlevel of priest)HD range. Of course, in both cases,
sometimes the help goes unnoticed by the character...
--
/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/
can it be? Azot...@AOhell.com ! (that's aol...)
MATT KARI
"Tuatha dé Danaan" wrote:
>
> mok...@home.com (MATT KARI) wrote in <38AD462B...@home.com>:
>
> >Accepting a surrender and then killing the prisoners is CG?
>
> And accepting the surrender of a murderer, and then releasing him into a
> unsuspecting village of women and children, is lawful good?
No that is stupid and non-lawful. Treating the prisoner fairly (no
torture, sufficient food and water) is LG. Giving the murderer a
fair trial and executing him is LG, if the punishment is just and
the trial is fair. I said nothing about releasing the prisoner.
Why would you? That would be absolute madness.
Also, remember the original context. The characters are slitting
throats because they find the prisoners *inconvinient*. I saw nothing
in the post saying they have evidence of wrongdoing at all. Maybe
the prisoner they caught is a LG mercenary who is only involved
so he can earn gold for his disabled mother. Maybe he has no
knowledge or involvement in any evil deeds at all. But no,
the party is going to cut his throat and dump his body. Boo, hiss
that's evil.
No respect for life, no respect for justice, no respect for fairness.
> *snicker* Lawful Good doens't equal lawful stupid.
> It basically means that rules and structure as opposed to chaos, for the
> greater good of society,..
>
> i fear LG more then CE. CE does evil in the name of selfishness. LG
> does it in the name of a 'higher morality' and feels vindicated at his
> actions. Not only that, he can sway others to follow his lead.
>
> Ever read Jordan's Wheel of Time? The Children of Light seem to be LG,
> and they are the Spanish Inquisition reborn.
>
> Now, consider this...you are attempting to defeat the evil warlord
> necromancer lich whatever, who is trying to take over the worl, release
> the demon god into the Prim, whatever...
>
> you fight some of his troops, and now have a general under his command,
> prisoner, along with his elite troops...
>
> Morally...you have a prisoner. He is evil.
>
> If you keep him alive you either have to take him somewhere to be
> imprisoned, and leave a capable fighter as guard..therby taking time
> from you fighting main baddie (which may be critical) and costing you an
> able bodies fighter (guard), supplies (feeding him). Also, if he
> escapes, you know have a enemy in your 'base camp', and in the midst of
> unsuspecting people.
>
> If you take him WITH you, it's your rations he's using, a man you have to
> gaurd him with, and a liability in combat. If he escapes, he can nail
> you in your slumber, or betray your more recent activities/plans to the
> baddie.
>
> If you release him, he can slay again, rejoin the baddie (strengthening
> you opponent), forewarn your oponent, and give intelligence on you.
>
> So...is it GOOD to do ANY of the above? Not in my opinion.
> Quick slitting of the throat, dilema solved.
Doing this is sometimes required due to desperate circumstances.
That doesn't in any way make it lawful and good. A better solution
is to have a quick trial and administer *JUSTICE* in a fair manner.
And in any case, a LG should be prepared to defend his actions
to a higher authority, with acceptable reasons for his deeds -
especially if it included murder of a prisoner.
> I remember a military friend telling me about how it's better to wound
> oponents then kill them, since it forces them to devote men to treating,
> and caring, and transporting PLUS gets rid of the soldier you shot.
>
> So logistically, in a war, prisoners unless to be hostages, bad idea.
> And since people like the talk of the 'greater good', then when fighting
> evil, slay the prisoner or support the greater evil ;p
>
> >you serious? This is a CE act (i.e: murder most foul).
>
> And HOW is it NOT evil to slay the same person in 'fair combat'??
>
> If you are a far greater swordsman, the orc with a blade might as well be
> helpless, so it's still 'murder most foul'.
>
> If the orc is far greater in power, then it's suicide (also 'evil').
>
> Therefore, the only way to NOT do murder and be evil, is to only
> challenge people of the same level, with the same weaponry and skill.
> Any 'advantage' or 'disadvantage' makes it 'evil'.
>
> In or out of combat, the act is the same: the extinguishing of a life.
> You can extemporize all you want, but the point is, you are still killing
> a creature of sentience. The only way to make the act a 'good act' is if
> by killing him, you prevent him from doing any future harm to other
> sentient creatures (who must be sentients who do not harm other sentients
> *grin*).
>
> So, unless you are killing a killer (generic reference, also including
> other 'evil acts'), it's evil.
>
> If you are killing a killer, it's a good act, regardless.
> >If you must, refuse the surrender and keep on fighting.
>
> Now that's bringing in *honesty*.
> Lying to a gullible opponent doesn't make it a total evil *grin*
>
> What if you were that Bard Kit, where you can put on a razzle-dazzle
> blade display? You face down the evil warlord, do the blade flash, and
> in a voice promising much pain, demand his immediate surrender.
>
> His nerve cracks, and he surrenders. You slit his throat *shrug* simple.
And, at the risk of being repetitive, sometimes their are no correct
answers. You do the best you can and face the full consequences later.
Say this situation is as bad as you are trying to paint and slitting his
throat is the "best" option. If you are a LG then you damn well be
willing
to admit to the deed and accept a just punishment. And any non-evil
shouldn't be using such a tactic against unknown quantities, such as
random bandits and soldiers.
>
> 'cuz if you didn't, his troops would later attack, freeing him, and the
> warlord would then raze the town and enslave the villagers for his
> humilation. And you wouldn't be able to stop him, since you really suck
> with the blade..
>
> "I say again..*drop* *your* *sword*." {P.B.}
>
> *grin*
>
> > A player of a CG or NG
>
> Please note, 'Good' is not only in the domain of the bleeding heart
> politically correct. Hel, sometimes i wonder if they aren't really
> Lawful Evils subverting our culture. My favourite novelization would be
> Sparhawk from the Elenium. He and his would slay an uarmed for who
> barred their path, kill trolls (who are sentient but evil) for SPORT, and
> are for most peoples opinion PALADINS!
>
> Sorry, but if i had Sauron by the gonads, no way am i letting him live to
> see sunset..i wouldn't get to see sunrise if i did *grin*
Mark....@reading.ac.uk
azothath <Azot...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <88k6v8$ed4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Mark....@reading.ac.uk wrote:
> I'm glad you can see both points, but yes, IMG killing is an EVIL act,
> no matter what the reason. Players and I have wrangled over this for
> some time, and it basically comes down to the fact that killing is
> killing, no matter how or why, it's EVIL to end someone elses life,
> that's not your decision to make in the overall scheme of things.
> This
> is why some GOOD saints/avatars talk and try to reason and enlighten
> their foes, and seek other ways than slaying.
> From GOODs point of
> view;It is better to harm than to kill, better to redirect than to
harm,
> and what is better than enlightenment? Every time the players slay a
True. However, do you have fighters in your group? What do they do
when they are faced with danger?
Also, count how many pages there are in the DMG and PHB of rules
governing combat and killing damage.
Now count how many deal with conversion, psychological effects,
enlightenment. Also count how many would enable a monster or other
enemy to be "harmed" sufficiently to be unable to attack. (I've never
seen AD&D run with any impairment rules. They're dead or not.)
> monster, they commit an EVIL act. Luckily for the players, GOOD will
> forgive them their transgressions based upon circumstances. This is
> where the feedback control is, otherwise yeah, things would get outta
> hand in a "practical" environment. Remember that from EVILs
perspective
> on the issue, you've killed, done terrible things and are beyond
> redemption (a classical lie) and deserve to be punished, yeah, you're
> evil too, you're one of us!
Yes, true. However, the fact that a person is forgiven doesn't change
that the act was bad, it just means that they may have redeemed
themselves for it by circumstances. If an Evil-aligned character is
forgiven for the evil things they did, they do not become Good-aligned
(unless they did significantly Good things in order to earn forgiveness,
of course), and the things they did don't stop being evil.
The thing that I find notably is that this is all well and good as a
moral perspective, but AD&D tends to shove duty-bound morality into the
*rules*. For example, "Casting Animate Dead is an evil act." And I
know Good players who have used it, and when asked, replied exactly
what you've said: "It's evil - Yea, so is killing a monster.
Circumstances." The rulebook can't on one hand enforce morality on
action, while basing significant portions of the rules on an act which
in any morality-on-action system would also be evil!
> said, ALIGNMENT really doesn't enter most character's lives, it's a
> minor notation. The only ones that really need to worry about it are
> Priests, Paladins, Agents and such. I think generally it's used as an
> excuse to penalize some bad players, when you don't want to tell them
> that they can't roleplay what's written on the sheet in front of them.
Yea, Clerics should certainly be worrying about morality (assuming
they have enough options available that doing so would be meaningful,
which they don't in some modules)
> IMG I also use Elan (in the same way as Stormbringer does), this lends
> an extra dynamic to the ALIGNMENT game. It also allows a hard number
> for divine intervention rolls, and for Clerics, this never drops below
> (2xlevel)%. If the elan is below the roll but the roll is under 2%,
> then minor help will be given, unless the god >wants< to interfere.
If
> the roll is under elan, than at least an agent of the god will be
sent,
> generally of (2xlevel of priest)HD range. Of course, in both cases,
> sometimes the help goes unnoticed by the character...
What's "Elan"? Is there a net.sup somewhere with this in? It sounds
interesting.
Robert Baldwin
<bru...@delaware.infi.net> wrote:
>
>
>Peter Seebach wrote:
>
>> In article <38ac4afe...@news.gate.net>,
>> R. Serena Wakefield <ser...@xena.com> wrote:
>> >1. Soldiers of an unfamiliar army who outnumber the party told the
>> >PCs to put up their weapons, and the PCs attacked. So far this is
>> >only stupid, not evil.
>>
>> I disagree. Did they have *ANY REASON AT ALL* to believe that the "hostiles"
>> were actually evil, or were doing anything but asking for a peaceful parley?
>>
>> No. So, I'd say "evil". Prejudice like that ("Oh, look, they aren't built
>> the same way we are, kill 'em") is evil.
>
>Paladin sensed and shouted out "evil intent" near the beginning of this, and they
>were humanoids, who have a well-earned reputation for attrocities (is it evil to
>distrust polka-dot people if it is historical fact they've slaughtered with
>abandon? Reminds me of the "AD&Dfamous last words" list entry "You bigot! They're
>elves! So what if they're black?" :)). So prejudice doesn't really enter into
>this, I think. See elsewhere in the thread for the gritty details and my
>(player-supplied) analysis of our motives.
Indeed. Assuming you use the paladin's Detect Evil ability as
written, then the fact that the beings were evil is justification for
not surrendering. As they allready had weapons drawn on the party, it
is not the party which is initiating the use of lethal force.
The simple fact is that AD&D (and much of fantasy in general) works on
the premise that some races *are* Evil. If that is the nature of
your world-setting, then defending yourself made perfect sense.
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>
>
>Preston Becker wrote:
>
>> Now, here is the question. I contend that attacking the creatures
>> without provocation was definitely stupid and possibly evil, while
>> attacking them after making a deal with them was possibly stupid and
>> definitely evil. Some of the party members think it was not evil. What
>> do you guys think?
>
>I went to the web site, and read the long version. Let me be sure that I
>understand what happened.
>
>The party was separated and at less than full strength when accosted by an
>armed force with superior numbers and possibly superior training. They
>immediately attacked. (1 stupid point.) The kobolds offered to break off
>hostilies, the party attacked (1 stupid point.) The rest of the party gets
>there, assesses the situation, some party members comply with the kobold
>demands, others attack. (1 stupid point.) The party attempts to negotiate
>with the kobolds, then attacked during the parley. (1 stupid point, since
>the kobolds have hostages.) The kobolds execute a hostage. The party
>continues to attack (no stupid point, they're committed now) and the kobolds
>execute the remaining hostage (1 stupid point for the kobolds, never kill
>the last hostage) and the party's horses (no stupid point, they can come
>back to eat them later). The kobolds withdrew in good order, despite some
>casualties.
At what point did the paladin ID the kobolds as Evil?
>So far, the party has 4 stupid points, while the kobolds have 1. My usual
>threshold is 3 stupid points to qualify as an overall stupid action. The
>kobolds, however, showed a remarkable (especially by the standards of an
>adventuring party) degree of tolerance and coordination. I'd try to join
>the kobold tribe, they seem to have their act together.
>
>As for evil, I wouldn't classify what the party did as evil. Cowardly,
>foolish, ineffective, and counterproductive, perhaps, but not evil.
<shrug> The distinction between "heroic" and "foolish" is frequently
very fine. A party with a paladin, resisting superior numbers, can
qualify as heroic. Simply attacking all opposing forces is, well,
less than smart.
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>In article <20000218004606...@ng-cu1.news.cs.com>,
>HADSIL <had...@cs.com> wrote:
>>Not evil. Stupid? Probably, but not evil. Just because a group of strangers
>>comes by and say "drop you weapons" does not mean every goody-goody should obey
>>without question. Morality does not come into play in this situation. The
>>players, rightly, felt their characters were affronted. They chose to attack
>>despite being out numbered and over powered. They were foolish, not evil.
>
>I'd say that trying to kill someone for insulting you, without any knowledge
>that they're either intrinsically evil, or planning you or anyone else harm,
>is "evil".
They *did* pull weapons on the party first. It seems quite reasonable
(absent the claim of a paladin that they were Evil) to assume that the
party is facing bandits. Armed robbery justifies armed resistence.
>Consider: What if those "humanoids" were a bunch of militia, and were lawful
>good? They handled an unknown band of marauders the way a party led by a
>paladin might try to, given a comparable level of force on each side. They
>did *everything* they could to end the conflict as peacefully as possible as
>soon as possible.
Possibly. But the original demand was not "Halt!" it was "Drop your
weapons!". Demanding that the pc's stop could have lead to dicussion.
Demanding that a party of adventurers *disarm* means demanding that
they effectively surrender. That is a distinction worth noting.
>All the evidence points to the PC's as the ones who decided there was a
>combat, rather than a parley.
I disagree. It was, at least, an easy mistake to make, based on the
demand made.
Tuatha dé Danaan
>>righteous about it...LG always for some reason inspires the thought of
>>"Divine Right" and 'Christianity" for me.
>A funny thing to say... Are you a caring person? Are you a criminal, or
>do you obey the law? Do you drive on sidewalks for the fun of it, or do
>you actually watch out for pedestrians/bicyclists/etc...?
umm..i refuse to answer those questions, cuz well..i watch out for
pedestrians, but the rest..well, there's stories for each, but not having
to do with the thread, so *grin*
what i meant by those is when you look at history, almost on war was ever
fought by people beleiving they were evil. A lot were fought by people
in the name of 'good' and 'righteousness' and religon. Hence why Lawful
Good 'an ordered way of being good' brings to mind intolerence and the
like. Concept like weeding out the 'evil', 'saving the heathens', and
so forth.
Much prefer the idea of NG or CG. LG just makes me think of how 1984
probably got it's start.
Or Ikari Gendou from Evangelion: Lawful to the max, and does everything
for the greater good. Yet a highly dispicable manipulative man.
>Most of my friends qualify as LG, and I do too.
have you taking any of those 'alignment tests'? The tests asks some
nasty choices, and i tend to have to agree with them: it's easy to be
good when you never have a hard decision with limited
options...personally i came out as the darker shade of neutral with
chaotic tendancies.
You might be surprised how 'selfish' a person can really be when it comes
down to it
>If you obey the law and
>are a decent/caring person, you are LG
Nope. Neutral. If you go out and give more of yourself then you keep,
you are LG. If you balance them, LN.
> IMO, LG is actually more flexible than CG.
now THIS i'm curious about..
> A CG not only
>doesn't care about the law is, he would violate it without a second
>thought to do good.
true, so how is LG, constrained by the laws, more flexible? *curious*
>the law would not occur to him. The concept of punishment to enforce
>respect for the law is a foreign concept for a CG character.
hmm...sounds a bit too bleeding heart.
i always viewed CG as thinking people don't need rules for their every
action, but that their heart has the moral compass to see them thru. BUT
they still view those who harm others as an evil that needs rectifying,
and by whoever at hand can (not requiring a lengthy process to 'validate'
it...the truth is enough of a condemmer, and anyone who honours the truth
able to carry sentance.)
>The LG character, on the other hand, has no problems with the fellow in
>the stocks. He is suffering, sure, but his punishment is necessary
that i can agree with tho. the LG would sleep better that night, knowing
the system once again is preserving the peace and holding evil at bay..
>But LG's are not straightlaced by their law-abiding ways.
no, that would be pathetic.
"I'm sorry, Sir Mage, but we have to get permission from the guild before
you can cast that spell. See..we are in sight of the city walls, so
clearly Bylaw 1253 "No unauthorized spell casting within city limits"
applies... you'll just have to wait before you can try to detect magic on
that dagger."
>CG people are unable to organize groups of people, and lead by charisma
how does a Chaotic Good church (CG diety) ever run then?
*shrug* then again, i've trouble figuring on why any person would ever
serve an evil diety when they KNOW what awaits them when they die, so CE
churches don't really work for me weither (especially since WISDOM a
pre-req for a priest)
>CG king would be lost without a LG/LN minister to add order to his
>chaos.
ahh.the good old Senchesal/Advisor
>To me, a CG character is a sort of benign anarchist, suitable for people
>who either don't have much contact with society as a whole, such as
agreed. oh, also a recluse who lives on the edge of town, the mage
forever in his studies, etc.
> LG characters, on the other hand, can come from anywhere,
>from farmers to knights, princesses to bakers, soldiers to merchants.
or even a well run farm ;-)
Tuatha dé Danaan
> Mmm, alignment shifting naturally seems a bit strange to me, and the
>business about taking an XP penalty for it seems especially unnatural.
>Lots of great tales can be told about fall and redemption, for instance,
>and AD&D explicitly penalises you for doing them!
agreed. in one of mine, a player was good, but the only way to defeat a
certain part of the campaign (long campaign) was to use an item they
*knew* made the wielder evil...so she used it, and evil she
became..player's playing her evil well..
...but the player before becoming evil knew she would become so, and told
the party to somehow get her 'good' again...trouble is, now she doesn't
*want* to be 'stupid' (i.e. good). So part of the campaign is the party
trying to subtly bring her to 'good'. She's almost neutral now
i can't see the xp penalty making sense. Introspection, headaches, and
maybe a penalty for a few days when self-doubt gnaws and you start to
regress...but a full out "only learn half as much"??
so rather then just knock it, anyone got any ideas on how to rectify it?
(e.g house rules)
Tuatha dé Danaan
<8EDE8A15...@news-server.carleton.ca>:
>If the humanoids had a right to be there (ie. it was their territory)
>then the PCs should have been hauled back to a civilization and
>imprisoned after whatever proceedure is seen as just by the local
>culture. Of course, an orc who murders humans is given summary
>execution, so maybe something similar is in order here.
>
*laughing* you reminded me of a character i was had..a paladin sent to
slay a dragon.
upon entering the cave and challenging the dragon, a parley ensued, and
the dragon claimed to own the land. Asked to proove it, the dragon
produced a deed written by some long-turned-to-dust king, granting him
title from the land from the lake to the mountain , etc.
Turns out the village lay right in the middle of the dragons territory,
and the village hunters were taking HIS game.
So, returning to the village, i served notice to the village they were
being evicted *grin* they didn't like it...and attacked...oh
well...Paladin and dragon vs town. Hardest part was deciding what to do
with the orphans (and no, letting the dragon have an after-battle snack
was NOT an option ;p )
Tuatha dé Danaan
<38ADABED...@delaware.infi.net>:
>Demanding we lay down our armor as well as weapons strikes me as a bit
>much, though (sure, a good guy could demand you not be able to harm
>them, but expecting you to strip off your defenses? How many people
>insist on that unless the armor has magical properties they know
>about?).
i've only ever done that once, and the character died soon after when
they attacked
ever since then, the most i'll do is sheath a sword, never surrender it.
(exception: entering the hall of my liege-lord, or some other 'good'
place where i know they'll honour the truce)
Tuatha dé Danaan
>For the record, I wasn't claiming we knew they were kobolds (they did
>make some statement to that effect so we'll probably know what kobolds
any Gnomes in the Party? Or Dwarves?
Gnomes have an ingrained racial hatred and bonus to killing kobolds,
and while draves only get it to the larger goblinkind (orcs, etc),
dwarves tend to know kobold and have non-amicable interaction with
them...
either way, if Kobolds are good, dwarven characters and gnomes should at
least be told. Possibly also any rangers or druids. Bards also should
be aware, since songs of the kobold scourge would never be composed in
the realms where kobolds are of nobler spirit
Tuatha dé Danaan
>> And accepting the surrender of a murderer, and then releasing him into
>> a unsuspecting village of women and children, is lawful good?
>fair trial and executing him is LG, if the punishment is just and
>the trial is fair. I said nothing about releasing the prisoner.
>Why would you? That would be absolute madness.
trials weren't common for a long time. No laws until Babalyon, andno
real legal system with lawyers(that i know..corrections anyone?) untill
England in the middle Ages.
so what to do with 'baddies' before justice system? no trials...
i don't recall seeing many court houses...
as for ''releasing' i refer to chance for allowing him to escape, or
worse, if youy try for a 'modern justice system', parole the guy. Even
then.,.
if truly years pass by in a blink to an elf, how long do you jail an
elven murderer? How about lizardmen and their shorter life expectancies?
and a lich? sure he's undead, but freedom of choice and all to be one, so
that's not the point, but if we just lock him up, he''l kill again in 600
years...
and where do you imprison them? if it's unclaimed wilderness where then?
or if you are in Zhentish territory, you *can't* since it wasn't a crime
to begin with in that evil place...
>Also, remember the original context. The characters are slitting
>throats because they find the prisoners *inconvinient*.
now, if it's just inconvient, then well, it's inconvient.
in war was practise of many places to kill the bodies to make sure no one
was fakings, not take prisoners, etc.
i don't think of it as a good act, but not an evil act either. merely
pragmatism.
>in the post saying they have evidence of wrongdoing at all.
now if there is no wrong doing, then the attack would be evil.
if they were attacked, then the fighting and resultis neutral.
if there was wrong doing, the motive is good, result, neutral
>the prisoner they caught is a LG mercenary who is only involved
>so he can earn gold for his disabled mother. Maybe he has no
>knowledge or involvement in any evil deeds at all. But no,
>the party is going to cut his throat and dump his body. Boo, hiss
>that's evil.
*grin* sorta. 's why it's a good thing to interrogate the prisoners...
but to quote: "Ignorance is no defence before the law"
i'm not saying their action is good, just not evil either.
neutral is all i think it is. nothing is really black and white
>> So...is it GOOD to do ANY of the above? Not in my opinion.
>> Quick slitting of the throat, dilema solved.
>Doing this is sometimes required due to desperate circumstances.
Yup, and in that case, the neutral act is okay.
But if you make if your HABIT, then you aren't good anymore, you slip
toward neutral. And if you start to enjoy it, towards evil.
Of course, that's relative too...theirs a BirthRight character, the elven
ranger, who's convinced he's good, his people follow him, and his racial
enemy is Humans. He thorougly enjoys killing humans. In any other
circumstance then his that would be loss of ranger status and make you
evil (i think he is considered evil in the book tho). Personally i'd put
him at neutral or even somewhat good still..
>That doesn't in any way make it lawful and good.
Nope. don't think i claimed lawful tho. Just not evil.
>is to have a quick trial and administer *JUSTICE* in a fair manner.
agreed. Only trouble is, who's unbiased enough to be fair?
how do you allow a mage to defend himself verbally?
how do you gather the proof, since there might not be obvious proof in
defence?
all in all rural justice or dungeon justice just sucks
>And in any case, a LG should be prepared to defend his actions
>to a higher authority, with acceptable reasons for his deeds -
>especially if it included murder of a prisoner.
yup..and "i'm sorry your highness, just well..was a long campaign, and i
didn't feel like being booged down with prisoners, to like, i just
clocked them with my mace and moved on. Pretty sure they were only evil
ones tho "
isn't gonna cut it for a knight in my world.
>And, at the risk of being repetitive, sometimes their are no correct
>answers.
reptitive? nope. i think that's the missing part of the threads:
sometimes you just CAN'T do good. And just 'cause it's not good, doesn't
make it evil. or at least not a 'necessary evil'.
>Say this situation is as bad as you are trying to paint and slitting his
>throat is the "best" option. If you are a LG then you damn well be
>willing to admit to the deed and accept a just punishment.
Damn right. And suffer guilt about it, since you'll be panged for nights
to come with 'i KNOW i coulda done something different..if i just ...'
>And any non-evil
>shouldn't be using such a tactic against unknown quantities, such as
>random bandits and soldiers.
Translation: the slaying of prisoners should be an act of desperation,
not of convienence. ;-)
Tuatha dé Danaan
>> Killing is EVIL.
>> Subjugation of others is EVIL.
then good never see's second level without an alignment change
and any society that enforces laws is evil.
once again, why absolutes don't always work
(betcha thought i'd say 'absolutes never work' ;p )
Preston Becker
> fact that the beings were evil is justification for not surrendering. As they all
> ready had weapons drawn on the party, it
> is not the party which is initiating the use of lethal force.
Let me clarify a few things about what happened. First, the creatures approached with
spears and javelins. Those can't be sheathed. Are you "initiating the use of lethal
force" by merely carrying a weapon? If so, then everyone with a polearm is doing so.
Second, the paladin detected evil intent in the creatures after a bowman in the party
had already killed one of the creatures. At that point, they had some serious evil
intent towards the bowman who had slain their friend. In fact, they threw their
javelins at him the next round. As for "surrendering," The party saw them and opened
up with thier bows. The creatures wanted the bows put down.
Preston Becker
Robert Baldwin wrote:
> At what point did the paladin ID the kobolds as Evil?
>
The paladin detected evil intent after the bowman dropped one of the creatures.
The creatues had evil intent towards the bowman, and they dropped him next
round. Then they stopped attacking.
Preston Becker
> They *did* pull weapons on the party first. It seems quite reasonable (absent the
> claim of a paladin that they were Evil) to assume that the party is facing
> bandits. Armed robbery justifies armed resistence.
Nope. The creatures appoached in formation carry spears, which can't be sheathed.
AFTER the party dropped one of thier number, they told the party to drop thier
weapons. Just because you see antother group approaching and they don't like it when
you kill one of them doesn't make them bandits.
> Possibly. But the original demand was not "Halt!" it was "Drop your
> weapons!". Demanding that the pc's stop could have lead to dicussion.
> Demanding that a party of adventurers *disarm* means demanding that
> they effectively surrender. That is a distinction worth noting.
Agreed, but the PCs were told to drop thier weapons after they had slain one of the
creatures. Also, the party was at least 100 feet away from the creatures. The
creatures wanted to gurantee thier own safety. The party could have picked up their
weapns and had many rounds to fire if the creatues had charged.
> I disagree. It was, at least, an easy mistake to make, based on the demand made.
>
Now that you know more of the story, has this opinion changed?
R. Serena Wakefield
Danaan) wrote:
>mok...@home.com (MATT KARI) wrote in <38ADF105...@home.com>:
>>> And accepting the surrender of a murderer, and then releasing him into
>>> a unsuspecting village of women and children, is lawful good?
>>fair trial and executing him is LG, if the punishment is just and
>>the trial is fair. I said nothing about releasing the prisoner.
>>Why would you? That would be absolute madness.
>trials weren't common for a long time. No laws until Babalyon, andno
>real legal system with lawyers(that i know..corrections anyone?) untill
>England in the middle Ages.
The earliest period in which AD&D can be played IS Babylon. If you're
running a campaign set too much before that you won't HAVE a
lawful/chaotic axis, because there won't be an organized society to
defend or oppose the idea of.
And a trial doesn't necessarily mean the modern
DA-and-defense-attorney business. Taking a man in irons before the
king and letting him plead his case is a trial, even though it doesn't
have lawyers, a jury, or necessarily even laws. If you have a good
man on the throne who adheres to the law and wants the best for his
people, that is a lawful good trial.
>and where do you imprison them? if it's unclaimed wilderness where then?
> or if you are in Zhentish territory, you *can't* since it wasn't a crime
>to begin with in that evil place...
If you're in Zhentish territory then you've got a problem. But there
aren't always easy answers for good alignments. The easy answers are
the province of evil.
If I were a paladin in Zhentish territory with a prisoner, I would
have NO CHOICE other than to cart him along with me in chains. I
can't let him go, since that would violate my good alignment, and I
can't just kill him offhandedly, because that would be choosing
expedience over justice and that is Evil.
>>Also, remember the original context. The characters are slitting
>>throats because they find the prisoners *inconvinient*.
>now, if it's just inconvient, then well, it's inconvient.
>in war was practise of many places to kill the bodies to make sure no one
>was fakings, not take prisoners, etc.
Yes, and it was evil. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Good people do
evil things when they have no choice.
>>in the post saying they have evidence of wrongdoing at all.
>now if there is no wrong doing, then the attack would be evil.
>if they were attacked, then the fighting and resultis neutral.
>if there was wrong doing, the motive is good, result, neutral
Doing evil for the sake of good is not neutral. It is evil. "The
road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
>>And any non-evil
>>shouldn't be using such a tactic against unknown quantities, such as
>>random bandits and soldiers.
>Translation: the slaying of prisoners should be an act of desperation,
>not of convienence. ;-)
That's the crux of the matter -- an act that ends the lives of others
purely for the convenience of one is EVIL.
As is racial prejudice, incidentally ...
--
R. Serena Wakefield
Visit Serena's Gaming Dojo at http://welcome.to/serenasdojo
RANDOMLY GENERATED THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
Things that tick are not always clocks.
HADSIL
>you serious? This is a CE act (i.e: murder most foul). What would
>your reaction be if your character surrendered to a CG ranger, and
>promptly had their throat cut? Would you think the DM was playing
>the alignment correctly?
>
I see your point. I do know that Neutral characters often advocate this, but I
have seen Chaotic Goods go along with it. I guess I'm not talking about a
formal surrender with terms but the fact after a tough combat the party is
finally the victor but one or two bad guys are still left due to being Held or
Sleep; in other words, they were "captured" as part of the combat. They
didn't say "we surrender".
Since players aren't supposed to know other characters' alignments I accept the
possibility that those whom I thought were Chaotic Good weren't. In any case,
my experience of this is of some time ago so my memory is fuzzy. I shall
partially take back my statement.
My apologies.
HADSIL
>that they're either intrinsically evil, or planning you or anyone else harm,
>is "evil".
The party was not being insulted; they were being confronted by copmlete
strangers. The party felt threatened. They could have fealt they were being
captured or robbed. They were in the right in terms of not liking the
situation; they just chose poorly in solving the situation by attacking. I
still feel the decision to attack was foolish, but that act had no morality
clause. As for attacking after surrendering, I never got the feeling the
surrendering was serious on their part, merely a ruse in the hopes of their
opponent's letting their guard down. It just simply didn't work. Plus, they
were upset that things weren't going their way, and their emotions got the
better of them so that they were not thinking clearly. They were foolish, not
evil in my book.
>Consider: What if those "humanoids" were a bunch of militia, and were lawful
>good? They handled an unknown band of marauders the way a party led by a
>paladin might try to, given a comparable level of force on each side. They
>did *everything* they could to end the conflict as peacefully as possible as
>soon as possible.
>
Irrelevant (to me). Just because someone attacks a paladin does not make the
attacker evil. The party still has no idea who these strangers were. They
felt threatened. They refused to listen to the strangers or accept their word.
That was their choice. Their decision to fight instead of talk was a wrong
choice.
HADSIL
>I
>agreed was stupid. My question was about attacking them after they had
>already
>shown mercy to fallen party members by binding their wounds, and after they
>had had
>already agreed with the party spokesperson to let the party go in peace in
>exchange
>for some treasure. Attacking them at that point was definitely stupid. All
>agree. My question for you, HADSIL, is: was it evil?
>P
>
I still say no. As I've written in another posting, at that point of the
scenario, the party's emotions were riled. They were angry. They were upset.
They simply were not thinking. I did not get the feeling their surrender was
genuine. I got the feeling it was simply a tacticul ruse in hopes of trying to
get the strangers into a false sense of security. The "good" acts the
strangers showed was irrelevant to the party. The strangers had confronted
them in an unfriendlt manner. Their minds were set not to expect anything
friendly from them from that point on. The situation was certainly chaotic and
crazy. It got way out of hand.
aly_b...@my-deja.com
Daoine...@SoftHome.net (Tuatha dé Danaan) wrote:
>
> > Mmm, alignment shifting naturally seems a bit strange to me, and
the
> >business about taking an XP penalty for it seems especially
unnatural.
> >Lots of great tales can be told about fall and redemption, for
instance,
> >and AD&D explicitly penalises you for doing them!
>
a
> certain part of the campaign (long campaign) was to use an item they
> *knew* made the wielder evil...so she used it, and evil she
> became..player's playing her evil well..
>
> ...but the player before becoming evil knew she would become so, and
told
> the party to somehow get her 'good' again...trouble is, now she
doesn't
> *want* to be 'stupid' (i.e. good). So part of the campaign is the
party
> trying to subtly bring her to 'good'. She's almost neutral now
>
> i can't see the xp penalty making sense. Introspection, headaches,
and
> maybe a penalty for a few days when self-doubt gnaws and you start to
> regress...but a full out "only learn half as much"??
>
> so rather then just knock it, anyone got any ideas on how to rectify
it?
> (e.g house rules)
>
Hello all,
The AD&D alignment rules can be very useful as a means of giving the GM
a quick idea of how monsters and NPCs will react in certain
situations. I also happen to think that players should be exempt from
following these rules. The players should be able to play their
characters in any way they want. The rules are not even that useful
for PCs anyway.
The alignment rules restrict players to just nine different types of
behaviour, whereas there are far more different types than that. One
good example is a computer RPG featuring an ascetic monk warrior, a bad
ass plate armoured killing machine that thinks that dropping litter is
a capital crime, as well as a sensual priestess seeking to experience
all that the World can offer. They are all very different characters,
yet they are all Lawful Neutral. This actually makes sense within the
context of the definition of Lawful Neutral, but in this case alignment
gives absolutely no guidance as to how the three characters will act in
certain situations.
One easy way to get a strong character performance is to base it upon a
famous example. My cleric is based upon Judge Dredd. He will do all
he can to protect innocent people, but he will have absolutely no
qualms about brutally torturing "bad guys". I selected LN in an
attempt to get around the alignment rules, and apart from the GM
protesting my use of the Animate Dead spell ("But the rules say that
it's evil") I have been able to play the character my way.
Alignment is only ever used for a couple of spells and for paladins
anyway. It's not even a necessary mechanic (Except for the reason
given above). When the rules are enforced, most players I know of tend
to pick Chaotic Neutral alignment so they can do what the hell they
want anyway.
My own house rule is ignore it. I suppose that counts as knocking it.
Why should players be assigned meta game consequences for moral
decisions? If they commit evil then the World's police should punish
them, not the rules.
So, in brief. Let the players play without using any alignment rules
at all. Just a suggestion. Do with it as you will.
Regards all,
Gaz
Caffeine
Ah the good ole days. Basically what used to work for our group
was the following line of reasoning. Killing is evil but killing evil is
lesser of two evils ie. no action. It is better to kill an evil-doer NOW
than to let that person/thing do greater evil in the world at large. The
most common example quoted from modern times is the inactivity of the
"Allies" in letting Hitler prior to the Second World War go romping around
Eastern Europe in return for short term peace (this is a very simplistic
interpreatation).
Jon Inge Teigland
news:38ac4afe...@news.gate.net...
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 02:00:56 -0500, Preston Becker
> <NOPOTTEDMEATpr...@udel.edu> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >Now, here is the question. I contend that attacking the creatures
> >without provocation was definitely stupid and possibly evil, while
> >attacking them after making a deal with them was possibly stupid and
> >definitely evil. Some of the party members think it was not evil. What
> >do you guys think?
>
> fighter.
>
> Let's see if I understand this correctly.
>
> 1. Soldiers of an unfamiliar army who outnumber the party told the
> PCs to put up their weapons, and the PCs attacked. So far this is
> only stupid, not evil.
>
> stupid, but not necessarily evil.
>
> 3. The fighters are taken as hostages. The humanoids behave in an
> obviously lawful manner, give the party reason to trust their
> intentions (by binding their hostages' wounds), and offer the party
> terms. The PCs negotiate -- and then break the truce. This is an
> unquestionably chaotic act; I would say it was chaotic neutral.
>
> 4. The mage sleeps SOME of the humanoids, but humanoids remain who
> have PC hostages and say they are willing to kill them. The PCs
> charge. By disregarding the lives of their fellows in order to
> preserve their money pouches, the PCs are acting in a chaotic evil
> manner (i.e., every man for himself). The only way this could
> possibly be justified is if the PCs think the humanoids are bluffing
> (in which case risking their buddies' lives could be viewed as chaotic
> neutral with evil tendencies).
>
> 5. The humanoids kill one PC. There is still one hostage left. At
> this point, if they continue attacking, the PCs KNOW FOR A FACT that
> their other comrade will die ... and attack again anyway. In other
> words: they're not merely willing to let their friend die, but they
> simply don't care. Pure chaotic evil and it's time for voluntary
> alignment changes.
>
> In short -- you are absolutely right. The actions of this PC party
> were stupid, brutal and evil. They attacked without provocation,
> broke the terms of a negotiation, and disregarded the lives of their
> fellows, all for no good reason (I don't even see any "good end" here,
> they were unwilling to give up their money to save their friends'
> lives).
>
> Faced with a situation like that, I would change the humanoids' race
> to lawful neutral (if it wasn't already; that's how they were acting)
> and make them allies or soldiers from the next big city the characters
> come across ...
>
I do agree that the party's actions were Chaotic Evil. But while I would say
that they were VERY Chaotic, I'd only say they were slightly Evil.
And even if the actions of the humanoids were clearly Lawful Neutral, there
simply weren't given the chance to act Lawfully Evil. So I'd simply say that
they were either LN or LE, and that their actions didn't give any hints as
to which they really were.
So I think I'd tell the party that they would have to give you VERY good
reasons not to be forced into a Chaotic alignment. And a Lawful alignment is
simply right out.
They should also carefully consider whether their characters are really
Evil, and would have to give you VERY good reasons if they still want to
remain Good. And an atonement would have to be made in order to stay Good,
as well as anything but Chaotic.
I also don't quite understand the question about "doing evil towards a good
end". The evil they were doing was to risk their friends' lives. So if the
good would be to save their friends' lives, then they would be risking them
in order to save them. Which simply doesn't compute.
IMO they were doing a stupid and very chaotic (and evil) thing towards a
selfish (and thus also maybe slightly evil) end.
Jon Inge Teigland
Shannara
<aly_b...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:88ml6b$co$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
That would never work in my campaign. 1) We have too much fun debating the
questions of good and evil 2) It is a *benchmark* for the players to define
their characters to give them something to base their actions on besides
willful self-interest and gives a consistency to the game.
One thing I think solves a lot of problems with this issue is for the
players & DM of any group to agree on what each alignment IS before they
begin playing, or at the very least, as soon as it becomes apparent that
they are not agreeing on what they are. As you can see from the debate on
this thread, not everybody agrees.
So -- set out the framework for each alignment clearly, and then, if the
players were under a different impression of what the alignments meant, let
them change at that time without penalty. In the game, the DM's vision of
what the alignment means is the one that matters, and if the players
"adjust" their alignment to the DM's definitions without worrying about
whose version is the "official" one, it often makes for a smoother and more
enjoyable game.
**** just a suggestion. Viva la difference!
Jon Inge Teigland
news:w7yr4.7675$lK6.1...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
> Tuatha dé Danaan <Daoine...@SoftHome.net> wrote:
> : mok...@home.com (MATT KARI) wrote in <38AD462B...@home.com>:
>
> : So...is it GOOD to do ANY of the above? Not in my opinion.
> : Quick slitting of the throat, dilema solved.
>
> Murdering a helpless prisoner may be the most expedient path, but it is
> not the path a good character would take.
>
Why do you call it murder??
Why not call it excecution?
The evil general is quite certainly guilty of lots of heinous crimes. Just
because you don't have the time to take him to court and have him sentenced
properly, and have to give him a summary sentence and excecution, doesn't
mean it is murder.
Jon Inge Teigland
Jon Inge Teigland
news:38AF83B1...@delaware.infi.net...
> Preston Becker wrote:
>
> > Second, the paladin detected evil intent in the creatures after a bowman
in the party
> > had already killed one of the creatures. At that point, they had some
serious evil
> > intent towards the bowman who had slain their friend. In fact, they
threw their
> > javelins at him the next round. As for "surrendering," The party saw
them and opened
> > up with thier bows. The creatures wanted the bows put down.
>
Preston. Reverse
> the situation; if a PC was attacked and the rest of his party went
charging after the
> attackers, would that make them evil? So just being shot at should not
have had then
> radiate evil unless they had plans for some sort of evil revenge (i.e.
"We're gonna draw
> and quarter that elf and feast upon his entrails!"), which kind of makes
it a moot point
> anyway. Obviously it's your campaign so this can be different if you want
it to be and I
> won't object, I just don't think it fits with the paladin ability as
described to have
> mere hostility show up with this (after all, those lizard men couldn't
have been feeling
> that charitable towards us earlier, but they certainly didn't detect as
evil). But hey,
> pretty minor quibble either way. Still, gotta get our party rules of
engagement a tad
> ironed out I think, even if I only consider them stupid rather than
actually evil...
>
You have to understand the difference between "evil" and "evil intent". If
you intend to kill a person, irrespectively of whether he wish to surrender
or not, then you're having an "evil intent" towards him. And I wouldn't be
surprised if that was how the kobolds felt against you after you had killed
(or at least tried to kill) one of their friends. This does not mean that
they were generally evil. Being evil would generally be to have "evil
intent" all the time, or for no good reason.
But then I think the paladin's "detect evil intent" ability is pretty bogus
anyway.
Jon Inge Teigland
Jon Inge Teigland
>
> *dryly* I think all of us, this player included, have identified our
actions as
> dumb. I think it was defendably in-character dumb, but still not something
anyone
> with the slightest brains should repeat. I just object to the evil tag
being put
> to it I keep seeing here; sure we can't keep doing this sort of thing or
else we
> are being deliberately reckless with life (something I plan to bring up
next
> session), but this alone should NOT force us to change alignment to evil
like
> I've seen some folks claiming. And for those insisting we should be
changed to
> chaotic alignment, we're already there! :) Ah well, we hopefully learn
from our
> mistakes...
>
I would definately say that your (meaning your group's) actions were evil.
However, they were not extremely evil, only slightly evil. And it should not
be enough to force you all into Evil alignments. However, if any of you (who
were actively participating in it) had any Good alignments before this
happened, you would (if I were the DM) have to give me a pretty good
explanation as to why this was not the way you normally acted, if you didn't
want me to at least put you a solid step towards Neutrality.
I do however think that more than evil, your actions were pretty extremely
chaotic. So any Lawful characters (who were actively participating in it)
would have a VERY difficult time to convince me to let them keep their
alignment.
Jon Inge Teigland
Llorac
Shannara wrote:
> <aly_b...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:88ml6b$co$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > Hello all,
>
[snip]
> > The alignment rules restrict players to just nine different types of
> > behaviour, whereas there are far more different types than that.
Absolutely.
> > Let the players play without using any alignment rules
> > at all. Just a suggestion. Do with it as you will.
Ack. *grin*.
> That would never work in my campaign. 1) We have too much fun debating the
> questions of good and evil 2) It is a *benchmark* for the players to define
> their characters to give them something to base their actions on besides
> willful self-interest and gives a consistency to the game.
Absolutely. We use the alignment rules, to keep our characters 'well defined'.
Since our characters, and the players have very different personalities, it's
useful as, as you say, a 'benchmark'. My bard (NG) could very easily follow the
lead of the mostly lawful party which includes both a paladin and a LG rules
lawyer mage (his character is the rules lawyer, not the player). The challenge
of keeping my bard 'Neutral' is a lot of fun. It adds greatly to the party
dynamics. Without alignment, the departure of the only CG character would have
had significanly less effect.
And ya, debating 'evil' vs 'good' can be a lot of fun. My character wanted proof
that skeletons were evil before agreeing that summoning and/or controlling them
be viewed as evil. He finally, grudgingly, agreed that desecrating the corpses
in that manner isn't a good thing...though still doesn't believe it's evil. The
paladin was vehementantly opposed to it (of course). The mage consulted the
party laws to determine was legal for party members.
Peter Seebach
Jon Inge Teigland <joni...@online.no> wrote:
>But then I think the paladin's "detect evil intent" ability is pretty bogus
>anyway.
The power is "detect evil". It happens that this includes "evil intent"
because of an attempt to eliminate the munchkin trick of spotting anything
with an evil alignment on the character sheet...
Personally, I think it makes mildly more sense, but it's not consistent; in
one paragraph, they'll say that evil-aligned things are detected, in another,
it'll say they're detected if they're leveled, and in another, it says that
they're detected only if intent upon evil actions.
Me, I use a little of each.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
Preston Becker
read this NG, I have made a webpage that contains many of your comments
(http://udel.edu/~prawn/kobolds.html).
I have decided for the purposes of my campaign that the actions of the
players were somewhat evil. This will effect how the creatures treat them
next time, and once word gets around may effect what happens back in town,
for example hiring NPCs or henchmen. I do think that as long as the party
learns from their error and doesn't do similar actions again, there was no
long-term harm done.
Being humiliated by Kobolds, loosing the lives of 2 characters, walking back
to town and having to go bankrupt to pay the temple are all adequate
punishments for their actions.
Thanks again!
Preston
Llorac
> Thanks to all who answered my original post. Since not all of my players
> read this NG, I have made a webpage that contains many of your comments
Woohoo! We is gonna be famous!
> I have decided for the purposes of my campaign that the actions of the
> players were somewhat evil. This will effect how the creatures treat them
> next time, and once word gets around may effect what happens back in town,
> for example hiring NPCs or henchmen. I do think that as long as the party
> learns from their error and doesn't do similar actions again, there was no
> long-term harm done.
>
> Being humiliated by Kobolds, loosing the lives of 2 characters, walking back
> to town and having to go bankrupt to pay the temple are all adequate
> punishments for their actions.
That sounds reasonable and fair. Who let you into this newsgroup? *grin*
Tuatha dé Danaan
<38ae1f42...@news.gate.net>:
>>trials weren't common for a long time. No laws until Babalyon, andno
>>real legal system with lawyers(that i know..corrections anyone?) untill
>>England in the middle Ages.
>
>The earliest period in which AD&D can be played IS Babylon. If you're
>running a campaign set too much before that you won't HAVE a
Not so. you can run *any* time period.
's just majority is played later..
as far as i recall, wasn't Babylonish times around Bronze Age?
and there is stuff for Stone Age. Just not much.
mind you, i'm really not sure on this part
>And a trial doesn't necessarily mean the modern
>DA-and-defense-attorney business. Taking a man in irons before the
>king and letting him plead his case is a trial,
so was also Trial by Arms. Writ of Combat i think it was called..
a trial can take many forms. By that def, he lost the fight, therefore
he's guilty, so execute him.
*shrug* rather primitive thinking, but the concept of 'i beat him,
therefore god was with me, i'm in the right, therfore he's in the wrong
and thus guilty' does enter some people's heads.
'sides, if you *saw* them do the deed (e.g. you beat the bandits
attacking a caravan), what need is there to determine guilt? A trial is
pointless. Cut to the case, administer 'justice'.
>If I were a paladin in Zhentish territory with a prisoner, I would
>have NO CHOICE other than to cart him along with me in chains.
Get's rather awkward if you are 'crusading' and manage to take a whole
group prisoner. A solo Paladin manages to defeat a Zhentish Strike Force
thru skill and luck. It get's rather hard to take them prisoner.
Also, ask a Dales folk about what's the 'good thing' to do to a captured
Zhent.
>can't let him go, since that would violate my good alignment, and I
>can't just kill him offhandedly, because that would be choosing
>expedience over justice and that is Evil.
Maybe. But it can also be administering justice.
What defence does a known murdering Zhent have?
What difference is if you execute him on site, or back in town?
>>in war was practise of many places to kill the bodies to make sure no
>>one was fakings, not take prisoners, etc.
>Yes, and it was evil. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Good people do
>evil things when they have no choice.
ah, but by one persons defination 'an evil act makes a person evil, even
if they have good intention' Therefore good people cannot do evil acts
since they are then evil. After all, they DO have the choice, the moral
high road, of letting the people live, and simply rise against them again
when they strike again.
>Doing evil for the sake of good is not neutral. It is evil. "The
>road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
who says the act is *evil* tho? It can be neutral. Not all action have
a morality ascribed to them. if killing is evil, then so is executing a
prisoner, euthanasia, abortion, hunting, suicide, self-defence, all war,
putting your pet to sleep, etc.
and no fair using my favourite saying ;p
>>Translation: the slaying of prisoners should be an act of desperation,
>>not of convienence. ;-)
>That's the crux of the matter -- an act that ends the lives of others
>purely for the convenience of one is EVIL.
Yes. But if you slay them because you know they are evil and will do
evil again, it's not evil.
>As is racial prejudice, incidentally ...
*blink* not following the last line... you meaning IRL? that (should) go
without saying..
if you mean AD&D, ..famous last words:
"What? You bigot..just because those elves are dark doesn't mean you
draw your sword."
Tuatha dé Danaan
<w7yr4.7675$lK6.1...@iad-read.news.verio.net>:
>: And HOW is it NOT evil to slay the same person in 'fair combat'??
>
>If you honestly don't know the difference between legitimate
>self-defense and cold-blooded murder, then this discussion is pointless.
> I just hope you live _far_ the hell away from me.
let me guess, you are also against capital punishment.
as for legitimate self-defence, i take it all your characters use the
flat of the blade, a mancaatcher and nets, since it's 'easy' to avoid
killing orcs, and kobolds and all that, as long as you don't mind the
'inconvience' of building a multi-acre jail to house them all.
After all, kobolds have 1/2 hit dice, so 1~4 hit points. The broad sword
does 2d4 damage, so with a bit of skill, a 1st level fighter can do
(2d4+2)/2, or 2~4 hit points damage with the flat...
so unless doing evil in the name of expedience, you should never need
slay a kobold...
and before you accuse the ludicrous nature of this, recall goblinkind is
a large plague on humanity, most people tend to be neutral of good, and
there aren't a large amount of goblin-prisons.
also, you can't claim self-defence if you attack a goblin camp, or
explore a dungeon, since you are invading someones home, and THEY can
claim self-defence, not you.
as for far away living, most probably ;-)
Llorac
> Preston Becker wrote:
>
> > Thanks to all who answered my original post. Since not all of my players
> > read this NG, I have made a webpage that contains many of your comments
>
> Woohoo! We is gonna be famous!
*pout* Correction. A bunch of other people are gonna be famous, and I will slink
off back to anonimity.
R. Serena Wakefield
>Shannara wrote:
>> <aly_b...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:88ml6b$co$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>[snip]
>And ya, debating 'evil' vs 'good' can be a lot of fun. My character wanted proof
>that skeletons were evil before agreeing that summoning and/or controlling them
>be viewed as evil. He finally, grudgingly, agreed that desecrating the corpses
>in that manner isn't a good thing...though still doesn't believe it's evil. The
>paladin was vehementantly opposed to it (of course). The mage consulted the
>party laws to determine was legal for party members.
I once saw a lawful neutral necromancer have the other party members
sign living wills giving the necromancer the right to animate them if
it became necessary ... points for style, of course ...
--
R. Serena Wakefield
Visit Serena's Gaming Dojo at http://welcome.to/serenasdojo
RANDOMLY GENERATED THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
Smith & Wesson: the original point and click interface.
R. Serena Wakefield
Danaan) wrote:
>ser...@xena.com (R. Serena Wakefield) wrote in
><38ae1f42...@news.gate.net>:
>>>trials weren't common for a long time. No laws until Babalyon, andno
>>>real legal system with lawyers(that i know..corrections anyone?) untill
>>>England in the middle Ages.
>>The earliest period in which AD&D can be played IS Babylon. If you're
>>running a campaign set too much before that you won't HAVE a
>Not so. you can run *any* time period.
>'s just majority is played later..
The core books aren't intended to cover anything earlier than the
Bronze Age. If you go any earlier you're going to start having some
very serious problems -- how are there wizards when there's no written
language? How are there clerics when there's no organized religion?
If you want to run in the Stone Age, more power to you, but arguably
you will no longer be playing AD&D, but a close variant thereof.
Similarly, if you are playing in the 20th century, you'll again need
to make so many changes the game will approach unrecognizability.
>>And a trial doesn't necessarily mean the modern
>>DA-and-defense-attorney business. Taking a man in irons before the
>>king and letting him plead his case is a trial,
>so was also Trial by Arms. Writ of Combat i think it was called..
>a trial can take many forms. By that def, he lost the fight, therefore
>he's guilty, so execute him.
>*shrug* rather primitive thinking, but the concept of 'i beat him,
>therefore god was with me, i'm in the right, therfore he's in the wrong
>and thus guilty' does enter some people's heads.
Most medieval courts are probably going to be like that. Hopefully,
though, good-aligned PCs will be able to see past this ... if they
don't, though, well, at least they're roleplaying the medieval
mindset, that's good enough for me.
>'sides, if you *saw* them do the deed (e.g. you beat the bandits
>attacking a caravan), what need is there to determine guilt? A trial is
>pointless. Cut to the case, administer 'justice'.
If you have the authority! Some paladins might, most wouldn't.
Clerics who are a part of the temple hierarchy might; adventuring
clerics probably wouldn't. High level characters of any type might be
the legitimate rulers of their land, but even so, if they don't at
least hold a mock trial before executing their enemies the populace
may lose faith in them.
>>If I were a paladin in Zhentish territory with a prisoner, I would
>>have NO CHOICE other than to cart him along with me in chains.
>Get's rather awkward if you are 'crusading' and manage to take a whole
>group prisoner. A solo Paladin manages to defeat a Zhentish Strike Force
>thru skill and luck. It get's rather hard to take them prisoner.
Again, no one said being good-aligned would be easy. This would be a
moral quandry, and the paladin might well choose expediency. That
doesn't make the action good, though, as there is such a thing as a
necessary evil.
>Also, ask a Dales folk about what's the 'good thing' to do to a captured
>Zhent.
It takes a very Wise paladin to know the difference between what is
good and what is Good. I'm sure the Zhentish would have a different
definition of good themselves ...
>>can't let him go, since that would violate my good alignment, and I
>>can't just kill him offhandedly, because that would be choosing
>>expedience over justice and that is Evil.
>Maybe. But it can also be administering justice.
>What defence does a known murdering Zhent have?
I'm out of my league here, I know nothing about the Realms (if I want
a standard high fantasy world I'll make up my own ...) Are the
Zhentarim all blindly evil, or is it simply that their society is
evil? If the latter, there may well be neutral or even good people in
their armies who are "only following orders."
"Only following orders" is a slippery slope towards lawful evil
alignment, but such individuals can still be redeemed. It would be
grossly unjust to slay them for simple convenience.
Also, it's not a paladin's place to choose the punishment. I'm
assuming that it's possible a given Zhentarim might simply be a thief
or thug, and while they might be willing to kill to further their aims
they may never have needed to do so. Is it right to kill such
individuals when it is still possible to rehabilitate them?
What if the party managed to conquer the whole country and take it
over? The government leaders are all evil. Would it be just to slay
them offhandedly because of it? Wouldn't it be far more Lawful to try
them for their crimes, and see which are truly wicked and which were
shaped by their circumstances?
>>>in war was practise of many places to kill the bodies to make sure no
>>>one was fakings, not take prisoners, etc.
>>Yes, and it was evil. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Good people do
>>evil things when they have no choice.
>ah, but by one persons defination 'an evil act makes a person evil, even
>if they have good intention'
If one accepts that definition. Certainly, some acts are SO evil that
they do qualify (the act of Strahd's that formed Ravenloft is a good
example of this) but for the most part even a wicked act would only
begin the slide.
I would say that all but the most heinous acts would simply make a
good person not-good. If they enjoy doing the act, or a pattern
starts to appear, then we're talking about evil.
Note that this is very different from a paladin's code. A paladin's
code is much more than a lawful good alignment, and many things that
other lawful good characters could occasionally get away would result
in an instant punishment for the paladin.
The circumstance in this thread is a perfect example (yes, I know the
paladin was KO'd at the time, but let's assume that a paladin did that
anyway). Attacking a monster who has a knife at his friend's throat
to protect his money-pouch is a chaotic evil act (accept it for the
sake of the argument, or substitute another act you believe is chaotic
evil if you refuse to do that). If a lawful good fighter did this, it
would be an alignment transgression, but they wouldn't immediately
change alignment to chaotic evil. If a paladin did it, they would
fall from paladinhood -- but again, wouldn't immediately change to
chaotic evil.
If something similar happened again, in similarly extreme
circumstances, they might shift to lawful neutral or even neutral
neutral. It would take a great deal of depravity -- or the
appropriate curse -- to make them shift instantly.
>>Doing evil for the sake of good is not neutral. It is evil. "The
>>road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
>who says the act is *evil* tho? It can be neutral. Not all action have
>a morality ascribed to them. if killing is evil, then so is executing a
>prisoner, euthanasia, abortion, hunting, suicide, self-defence, all war,
>putting your pet to sleep, etc.
We're not talking about simple killing. We're talking about executing
prisoners because they're inconvenient.
>and no fair using my favourite saying ;p
*EG*
>>>Translation: the slaying of prisoners should be an act of desperation,
>>>not of convienence. ;-)
>>That's the crux of the matter -- an act that ends the lives of others
>>purely for the convenience of one is EVIL.
>Yes. But if you slay them because you know they are evil and will do
>evil again, it's not evil.
How can you know the future? It's one thing to kill a man-eating
tiger, as it's not smart enough to be redeemed. But there's nothing
to stop an orc from "seeing the light" and worshipping St. Cuthbert
(it's only a shift from LE to LN). Unless, of course, someone blindly
kills the poor sod without trying to talk to him.
If it's possible for PCs to shift alignment, it's possible for NPCs to
do so. Any creature of Average or greater intelligence has the
potential. Certainly, in the heat of combat people get killed and
it's not evil, but once a combat is over no lawful good character
should even consider slaying the prisoners unless there is a very
good, immediate reason for doing so (example: the prisoner is a
medusa).
>>As is racial prejudice, incidentally ...
>*blink* not following the last line...
Non sequitur.
>you meaning IRL? that (should) go without saying..
>if you mean AD&D, ..famous last words:
>"What? You bigot..just because those elves are dark doesn't mean you
>draw your sword."
Two (three?) words: Drizzt Do'Urden.
tussock
>
> Sorry to have to tell you, but there aren't just two, three, or even
> fourty options. Sit down and think of some. I'm sure you can come up
> with something that is both moral (in terms of alignment) AND
> effective.
>
Tell the villagers to drop everything and follow me. Leave at great speed and
hide (hell, lead a round of prayers while you're hidden). Leave in full view
everything valuable back at the villiage, to encourage the bandits to not
pursue. Later seek help to capture the bandit party (even if it's years later
that it gets done), and help the villagers set up home again.
But if can kill the bandits, I bet I'll get more XP overall.
--
tussock
Most people put clever sounding stuff here in their .sig file.
I don't.
Llorac
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:53:15 GMT, Llorac <azm...@myna.com> wrote:
>
> >Shannara wrote:
>
> >> <aly_b...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> news:88ml6b$co$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> >[snip]
>
> >And ya, debating 'evil' vs 'good' can be a lot of fun. My character wanted proof
> >that skeletons were evil before agreeing that summoning and/or controlling them
> >be viewed as evil. He finally, grudgingly, agreed that desecrating the corpses
> >in that manner isn't a good thing...though still doesn't believe it's evil. The
> >paladin was vehementantly opposed to it (of course). The mage consulted the
> >party laws to determine was legal for party members.
>
> I once saw a lawful neutral necromancer have the other party members
> sign living wills giving the necromancer the right to animate them if
> it became necessary ... points for style, of course ...
*chuckle* I like it. :)
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>In article <20000218004606...@ng-cu1.news.cs.com>,
>HADSIL <had...@cs.com> wrote:
>>Not evil. Stupid? Probably, but not evil. Just because a group of strangers
>>comes by and say "drop you weapons" does not mean every goody-goody should obey
>>without question. Morality does not come into play in this situation. The
>>players, rightly, felt their characters were affronted. They chose to attack
>>despite being out numbered and over powered. They were foolish, not evil.
>
>I'd say that trying to kill someone for insulting you, without any knowledge
>that they're either intrinsically evil, or planning you or anyone else harm,
>is "evil".
It wasn't just an insult. The use of weapons and a demand to disarm
is reasonably perceived as a threat to one's life, IMO.
>Consider: What if those "humanoids" were a bunch of militia, and were lawful
>good?
Did the party have *any* reason to suspect that they *were* militia?
As in "Halt in the name of X"? Uniforms & insignia? Anything?
Looked like a pack of bandits to me, irrespective of race.
They handled an unknown band of marauders the way a party led by a
>paladin might try to, given a comparable level of force on each side. They
>did *everything* they could to end the conflict as peacefully as possible as
>soon as possible.
Assuming that "They" are the humanoids, "they" *initiated* the
confrontation.
>All the evidence points to the PC's as the ones who decided there was a
>combat, rather than a parley.
Looking at the business-end of spears & javelins will help you decide
it's a combat.
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
Robert Baldwin
<joni...@online.no> wrote:
<snip>
>You have to understand the difference between "evil" and "evil intent".
Paladins have the ability to determine whether a being is of Evil
alignment. See PHB2.
If
>you intend to kill a person, irrespectively of whether he wish to surrender
>or not, then you're having an "evil intent" towards him. And I wouldn't be
>surprised if that was how the kobolds felt against you after you had killed
>(or at least tried to kill) one of their friends. This does not mean that
>they were generally evil. Being evil would generally be to have "evil
>intent" all the time, or for no good reason.
Paladins *also* can Detect Evil Intent on the part of non-Evil
aligned beings, as described in the CHB-paladins.
>But then I think the paladin's "detect evil intent" ability is pretty bogus
>anyway.
Indeed. Detect Evil is entirely adequate.
Robert Baldwin
<bru...@delaware.infi.net> wrote:
>
>
>Robert Baldwin wrote:
>
<snip>
>> At what point did the paladin ID the kobolds as Evil?
>
>About the same round their javelins nailed me, so pretty darn early.
<snip>
>> <shrug> The distinction between "heroic" and "foolish" is frequently
>> very fine. A party with a paladin, resisting superior numbers, can
>> qualify as heroic. Simply attacking all opposing forces is, well,
>> less than smart.
>
>*dryly* I think all of us, this player included, have identified our actions as
>dumb. I think it was defendably in-character dumb, but still not something anyone
>with the slightest brains should repeat.
Well, I'm reading into this situation, but it seems to me that the
pc's had good reason to not surrender immediately, and better reason
to keep fighting (the paladin's DE) shortly thereafter. It looks to
me like the *charactes* had every reason to assume that surrender
*could* = being killed, but the DM expected the *players* to "trust"
the DM not to kill the pc's out of hand.
Frankly, it seems to me that some of the blame is the DM's. PC's are
*expected* to fight against the odds; if you want the pc's to *know*
they are overmatched, a pack of kobolds isn't sufficient. And if you
expect the pc's to negotiate, make it clear that they aren't about to
be summarily executed.
I just object to the evil tag being put
>to it I keep seeing here; sure we can't keep doing this sort of thing or else we
>are being deliberately reckless with life (something I plan to bring up next
>session), but this alone should NOT force us to change alignment to evil like
>I've seen some folks claiming.
"adventurer": n. Someone who has made being deliberately reckless with
life a profession.
<g>
And for those insisting we should be changed to
>chaotic alignment, we're already there! :) Ah well, we hopefully learn from our
>mistakes...
That's called "gaining xp's".
<g>
Robert Baldwin
>[snip]
>
>> of plot for future role-play, I want to know if others on this list
>> agree that what the party did was evil or not.
>
>Not dropping weapons when commanded to by forces whose intent is
>unknown is not evil. In fact it may be considered prudent.
>
>However, attacking said forces who've demonstrated they will kill your
>companions and still hold others captive is an evil act - total
>disregard for the lives of your "friends"? And why? In order avoid
>paying money being extorted. This is VERY, VERY evil.
Excuse me?
Not giving in to extortion is Evil?
Feh.
Robert Baldwin
<NOPOTTEDMEATpr...@udel.edu> wrote:
>> Indeed. Assuming you use the paladin's Detect Evil ability as written, then the
>> fact that the beings were evil is justification for not surrendering. As they all
>> ready had weapons drawn on the party, it
>> is not the party which is initiating the use of lethal force.
>
>Let me clarify a few things about what happened. First, the creatures approached with
>spears and javelins. Those can't be sheathed.
I said "drawn" meaning "drawn back, readied for thrust or throw",
which was the impresion I got from your first post. If the spears
were held points-up, javelins still in their quivers, and no immediate
threat was offered, that certainly does not square with a demand to
"drop your weapons".
Are you "initiating the use of lethal
>force" by merely carrying a weapon? If so, then everyone with a polearm is doing so.
*Aiming* a missle weapon at someone certainly implies an intent to use
it. Aiming it at someone while demanding that they drop their weapons
certainly qualifies as aggressive action IMO. And with a clearly
implied threat of deadly force to back it up.
>Second, the paladin detected evil intent in the creatures after a bowman in the party
>had already killed one of the creatures.
Thta was what I asked. When in the sequence the Paladin did his DE.
At that point, they had some serious evil
>intent towards the bowman who had slain their friend.
Duly noting the sequence of events, it is nonetheless true (per PHB2)
that a paladin can detect Evily aligned creatures. It seems that
these *are* in fact Evil creatures.
In fact, they threw their
>javelins at him the next round. As for "surrendering," The party saw them and opened
>up with thier bows. The creatures wanted the bows put down.
It still sounds like the party was given a choice: surrender under
threat of arms or fight. Choosing combat at that point is not
*neccessarily* evil.
Robert Baldwin
<NOPOTTEDMEATpr...@udel.edu> wrote:
>Robert Baldwin wrote:
>
>> They *did* pull weapons on the party first. It seems quite reasonable (absent the
>> claim of a paladin that they were Evil) to assume that the party is facing
>> bandits. Armed robbery justifies armed resistence.
>
>Nope. The creatures appoached in formation carry spears, which can't be sheathed.
>AFTER the party dropped one of thier number, they told the party to drop thier
>weapons. Just because you see antother group approaching and they don't like it when
>you kill one of them doesn't make them bandits.
From your original post:
"The creatures yelled "Put down your weapons!" One of the party
attacked them on sight with his bow, even though they had never met
their kind before."
This seems to say that the pc's had not seen the approaching kobolds
until the call to drop weapons was issued.
>> Possibly. But the original demand was not "Halt!" it was "Drop your
>> weapons!". Demanding that the pc's stop could have lead to dicussion.
>> Demanding that a party of adventurers *disarm* means demanding that
>> they effectively surrender. That is a distinction worth noting.
>
>Agreed, but the PCs were told to drop thier weapons after they had slain one of the
>creatures. Also, the party was at least 100 feet away from the creatures. The
>creatures wanted to gurantee thier own safety. The party could have picked up their
>weapns and had many rounds to fire if the creatues had charged.
Well,yes, if the attack by the pc's was unprovoked and before any
other interaction, that's Evil, and more than a little psychotic.
>> I disagree. It was, at least, an easy mistake to make, based on the demand made.
>>
>
>Now that you know more of the story, has this opinion changed?
<shrug> I'm still unclear on when the pc's were ordered to disarm,
when the pc's attacked and when the paladin realized the evil nature
of the humanoids.
Robert Baldwin
<NOPOTTEDMEATpr...@udel.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Robert Baldwin wrote:
>
>> At what point did the paladin ID the kobolds as Evil?
>>
>
>The paladin detected evil intent after the bowman dropped one of the creatures.
>The creatues had evil intent towards the bowman, and they dropped him next
>round. Then they stopped attacking.
Assuming a paladin's abilities as per the PHB, we now know that the
creatures demanding surrender are Evil. Continuing to fight them at
this point is *not* an Evil act.
Matthew
>On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 01:15:18 -0500, Mike Bruner
><bru...@delaware.infi.net> wrote:
>>*dryly* I think all of us, this player included, have identified our
>>actions as dumb. I think it was defendably in-character dumb, but
>>still not something anyone with the slightest brains should repeat.
>
>Well, I'm reading into this situation, but it seems to me that the
>pc's had good reason to not surrender immediately, and better reason
>to keep fighting (the paladin's DE) shortly thereafter. It looks to
>me like the *charactes* had every reason to assume that surrender
>*could* = being killed, but the DM expected the *players* to "trust"
>the DM not to kill the pc's out of hand.
Considering the first shot/attack was by a PC (archer) I think the
blame lies there.
>Frankly, it seems to me that some of the blame is the DM's. PC's are
>*expected* to fight against the odds; if you want the pc's to *know*
>they are overmatched, a pack of kobolds isn't sufficient. And if you
>expect the pc's to negotiate, make it clear that they aren't about to
>be summarily executed.
Seeing as how the archer shot from the get-go I don't see how the DM
could have known if the PCs were going to negociate or not.
--
Matthew Hickey aka Tiama'at ][ WS/Soc (H) III - Carleton U
matthe...@hotmail.com ][ "Hold On To Nothing
ICQ: 12954569 (Tiama'at) ][ As Fast As You Can" - T.A.
HADSIL
>chaotic. So any Lawful characters (who were actively participating in it)
>would have a VERY difficult time to convince me to let them keep their
>alignment.
>
>Jon Inge Teigland
Even though I'm not involved :-), I'm just wondering if you, as the
hypothetical GM and me the hypothetical player, could simply accept "I just
made a big booboo" as a reason. No attempt to justify it, just an
acknowledgement that it was a big mistake to be taken as a lesson for next time
an analgous situation arises and to then go about it differently, smartly, and
sanely. I can accept this won't do for a Paladin, Ranger, or Cleric and that a
special atonement must be earned.
Gerald Katz
No infravision? Therefore you must be human!
azothath
Mark....@reading.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <88kqsh$s42$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> azothath <Azot...@aol.com> wrote:
> > In article <88k6v8$ed4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Mark....@reading.ac.uk wrote:
<snip>
> What's "Elan"? Is there a net.sup somewhere with this in?
> It sounds interesting.
>
well - you can get the "old" Stormbringer game at a CON or your local
hobby store.
Basically elan is a number 0-99. This represents the number of
"brownie" points a character has with his god/church.
At the character's discretion, an elan roll is made. Character rolls a
d100, if under his elan score, help from his god will be rendered. How
that help comes or what is will cost the character is up to the GM and
the situation at the time. If he rolls under one tenth of his elan,
then his god actually shows up.
The elan score is halved after each attempt, whether successful or not.
If the elan goes above 99, classically, 50 points are deducted and a
boon is granted. This can be the raising of a statistic, the
regeneration of a bodypart, a dream of some future event or the
whereabouts of a mystical magical item. It's really up to the god in
question to grant his faithful worshipper something desireous, and that
will further his cause too! As GM in a more modern game, once elan is
above 50, and if great need is there, I'll subtract some points(10) and
give the character a vivid dream or some small help. Usually I'll tell
the character at the END of the gaming session, not right after I do it!
I've also granted a familiar as a boon, it also requires d4+1 elan a
month to maintain.
To gain elan, the character must do things that are within the theme of
the church/god. The GM must develop a list of 6-15 things that are
worth elan and about 6-10 acts that cost elan, and how much. Usually
you'd get one point for slaying a creature in the name of the god (if he
accepts sacrafice). In battle the PC must shout out "die in the name of
(blank)" and single handedly slay the creature. Some churches will only
take creatures that are vile or antathema to their dogma, others will
take anything with a soul. Attempting to munchkinize this by slaying
worms etc will only lead to disasterous results, as you can't fool your
god. Usually the point value of an act is one or two elan, but some
special acts may go as high as 6 elan.
Needless to say, some acts cost elan, and the score goes down...
I feel that the elan system really gives the clerics a game reason to
act within their faith, and not necessarily in the parties best
interest. It also gives players a number that they can track, and work
towards a boon/wish/miracle. You'd be suprised at how confident a
priest with a 99 elan is...
My only other advise is that you run gods with their interests primary,
and not the characters. Priests are the willing servants of a god,
doing acts for him under their free will (acts that are forced do not
carry the same weight with destiny). If a character asks for a boon,
and something else is granted, let them be thankful that anything
happened and remind them that their god thought this was best. If they
still have a problem, they might need lessons in humility.
--
/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/
can it be? Azot...@AOhell.com ! (that's aol...)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jon Inge Teigland
news:v5Wr4.154$%A3....@ptah.visi.com...
> In article <znRr4.3037$kz6....@news1.online.no>,
> Jon Inge Teigland <joni...@online.no> wrote:
> >But then I think the paladin's "detect evil intent" ability is pretty
bogus
> >anyway.
>
> because of an attempt to eliminate the munchkin trick of spotting anything
> with an evil alignment on the character sheet...
>
I have PHB 2e (not 2,5e), and there it simply says "A paladin can detect the
presence of evil intent".
Jon Inge Teigland
Jon Inge Teigland
news:20000221010004...@ng-fc1.news.cs.com...
> >I do however think that more than evil, your actions were pretty
> >extremely
> >chaotic. So any Lawful characters (who were actively participating in it)
> >would have a VERY difficult time to convince me to let them keep their
> >alignment.
> >
> hypothetical GM and me the hypothetical player, could simply accept "I
> just
> made a big booboo" as a reason. No attempt to justify it, just an
> acknowledgement that it was a big mistake to be taken as a lesson for next
> time
> an analgous situation arises and to then go about it differently, smartly,
> and
> sanely. I can accept this won't do for a Paladin, Ranger, or Cleric and
> that a special atonement must be earned.
>
who took part in this as it was described, I would (if that was your entire
reason) tell you that you were simply not cut to play a Lawful character.
Even though I think your action right there and then was chaotic enough to
warrant a Chaotic alignment, I wouldn't go as far as to for an alignment
change to Chaotic. But I would change it to Neutral.
But since we're talking about 1st (or at least low) level characters, I
would not give you the normal penalty for alignment change. I'd simply say
that you were in the process of setting your alignment, and that your first
choise was wrong.
Jon Inge Teigland
Peter Seebach
Jon Inge Teigland <joni...@online.no> wrote:
>Where does it say what the power is called???
>I have PHB 2e (not 2,5e), and there it simply says "A paladin can detect the
>presence of evil intent".
The power has the same description as the spell.
Note tha there is absolutely no consistency.
From the mage spell:
Characters who are strongly aligned, do not stray from their faith,
and who are at least 9th level might radiate good or evil if they
are intent upon appropriate actions.
So, you can't detect evil intent in low-levels.
The PHB says, about paladins,
A paladin can detect the presence of evil intent up to 60 feet away
by concentrating on locating evil in a particular direction. He
can do this as often as desired, but each attempt takes one round.
This ability detects evil monsters and characters.
Note that the *spell* can only detect evil *intent*, but the *ability*, named
"detect the presence of evil intent", explicitly says it can detect evil
characters.
The Paladin's book gets even more contradictory. First off, it says:
Characters who are strongly aligned, who do not stray from their
faith, and are of at least 9th level might radiate evil if intent
upon appropriate actions.
Fairly hard to detect. Then we get:
If an NPC recently murdered a passerby, the paladin might pick up
evil emanations from the NPC but cannot determine the nature of
the crime.
Which doesn't say "high-level" or anything like that. Perhaps this includes
lower-level NPC's?
Also, we find that:
A high-level character unshakably committed to an evil alignment
may radiate evil even when not specifically planning an evil act
or thinking evil thoughts.
But this can't be exhaustive, because someone who just killed one person and
may even regret it may still radiate evil.
But, here we have the true contradiction:
Degree Typical Sources Sensations
Faint Pickpocket; Slight itch
nonevil bully on tips of
fingers
So, you can detect a nonevil bully. How? Is he intent on bullying? I
thought you had to be 9th level to detect evil if intent on appropriate
actions *AND* strongly aligned, *AND* not swaying from your faith!
How I handle it: Only strongly aligned people, or those actively intent on
evil actions, detect noticably. You can be 0-level and detect evil if you're
slimy enough. And, for convenience, I do distinguish between evil intent
and evil alignment when telling paladins what they sense, simply because the
ability is so confusing otherwise.
Tuatha dé Danaan
>>Not so. you can run *any* time period.
>>'s just majority is played later..
>
>The core books aren't intended to cover anything earlier than the
>Bronze Age. If you go any earlier you're going to start having some
>very serious problems -- how are there wizards when there's no written
>language? How are there clerics when there's no organized religion?
well..don't need organised religons...whole idea of tribe witha totem
spirit they worship...
but the lack of language will kill wizards (unless they become more like
witch doctors)...and well, basically you'd have a party of barbarians..
i've had players go INTO Stone Age for a while, but they were from a
later time, and the idea was to get back somehow...
as a playable campaign tho, i'm not really sure the potential for it...
hmmm...might try it tho, just to see how bad/good it turns out..
>If you want to run in the Stone Age, more power to you, but arguably
>you will no longer be playing AD&D, but a close variant thereof.
depends how much you have to change..
anyone out there tried a prolong session in that age??
>Similarly, if you are playing in the 20th century, you'll again need
>to make so many changes the game will approach unrecognizability.
uh-huh...and *then* you get into the arguements on damage for a M16 vs
xbow, 'is a flamethrower considered magical fire?' etc. Never figured
that was worth it..
except for comedy cameos on lighter one-shot sessions
>Most medieval courts are probably going to be like that. Hopefully,
>though, good-aligned PCs will be able to see past this ... if they
>don't, though, well, at least they're roleplaying the medieval
>mindset, that's good enough for me.
ah, 'k ;-)
in that case your saying that as long as the character believes the
system works, and they considered their character LG, then they should
use the system..
>>pointless. Cut to the case, administer 'justice'.
>If you have the authority! Some paladins might, most wouldn't.
true. however in the starting situation (the think that launched the
thread) they did have a paladin...
but yes, i can agree that the 2nd level thief really isn't 'right' in
administering 'justice'...
>>Also, ask a Dales folk about what's the 'good thing' to do to a
>>captured Zhent.
>It takes a very Wise paladin to know the difference between what is
>good and what is Good. I'm sure the Zhentish would have a different
>definition of good themselves ...
brings up the thought of 'does anyone really think themselves evil?'
i think i remember some line in a novel about a Zhent making an offhand
remark about those evil 'child sacrificing dark god worshiping' people
from Hillsfar
>>What defence does a known murdering Zhent have?
>I'm out of my league here, I know nothing about the Realms (if I want
>a standard high fantasy world I'll make up my own ...)
Personally, my players love the familiarity of the Realms, so i oblige
them. I just wind up carving out sections of the Realms and applying my
own rules there.
Needless to say, people in the Dales are constantly harassed/attacked/
hated by Zhentil Keep, which is a city of evvil murdereds, clerics and
mages...who organised. "Black Network", "High Inquisitors" etc.
> Are the
>Zhentarim all blindly evil, or is it simply that their society is
>evil? If the latter, there may well be neutral or even good people in
>their armies who are "only following orders."
Since promotion tends to be thru murder of your higher-up, ....
Not all there are evil. But members of their army/hierarchy are usually
(neutral at best), and the average resident is a selfish lot. General
alignment of the town is LE i think. I think Realms just wanted a
definable 'evil spot'
>"Only following orders" is a slippery slope towards lawful evil
>alignment, but such individuals can still be redeemed.
true. but it's also not considered a defence for doing evil acts (at
least by 'current' social morality (c.f. Nuremburg Trials)
>It would be
>grossly unjust to slay them for simple convenience.
true. but this aso entirely runs on the principle that people/alignments
aren't black/white, but shades of grey. Or, 'real-world'.
AD&D runs 'high fantasy' where traditionaly, evil is evil, good is good,
and any evil that redeems itself dies the next chapter heroically, and
any good that 'falls' get's slain by good shortly thereafter.
Therefore, when the elf comes across the orc in the elven forest, they
generally neither give, nor show any quarter, avoiding the whole dilemma
(and i can't see a ME elf showing mercy to an orc, or a Silvenesti elf
even considering bringing a draconian back for trial)
>assuming that it's possible a given Zhentarim might simply be a thief
depends. if he's "Black Network" he'd be more then that...
>Is it right to kill such
>individuals when it is still possible to rehabilitate them?
it depends on whether it is the duty of society to redeem it's evil, or
punish it: do we coddle that baddie and give a second chance, or is it
tha gallows for the murderer? Is justice an extension of mercy or a
form of vengance? *shrug* Coming from a place where a serial child
rapist/torturer/murderer just got out after serving 7 years in minimum,
i'm rather in favour of the second.
>What if the party managed to conquer the whole country and take it
>over? The government leaders are all evil. Would it be just to slay
>them offhandedly because of it? Wouldn't it be far more Lawful to try
>them for their crimes, and see which are truly wicked and which were
>shaped by their circumstances?
As in 'evil is a product of it's enviroment and thus excused'?
Mind you in that case a trial as an 'object lesson', and to show 'moral
superiority to the world' would probably be done...it's great PR.
Still on the note of trials, having just read a while back, "Spine of the
World", and seeing Luskan justice at it's finest, i'd tend to think it's
a great mercy to slay the evil on the spot rather then face the tender
mercies of the 'rightful arm of the law'.
>If one accepts that definition. Certainly, some acts are SO evil that
>they do qualify (the act of Strahd's that formed Ravenloft is a good
>example of this) but for the most part even a wicked act would only
>begin the slide.
hence Ravenloft's "Gifts"..the 4-step program to greater power and easier
morals
>If they enjoy doing the act, or a pattern
>starts to appear, then we're talking about evil.
there's a thought..."i slit his throat, but i didn't enjoy it!"
*blink* well if it works for the prez.... (j/k)
>anyway). Attacking a monster who has a knife at his friend's throat
>to protect his money-pouch is a chaotic evil act (accept it for the
>sake of the argument,
nope. i'll accept. Attacking if he thought he could save his friend i'd
put at neutral act (not good unless he thought handing over his pouch
would get his friend killed anyways)
but placing your monetray over your friends life, evil.
>change alignment to chaotic evil. If a paladin did it, they would
>fall from paladinhood -- but again, wouldn't immediately change to
>chaotic evil.
yup..but have major demerits on the karma scale
>neutral. It would take a great deal of depravity -- or the
>appropriate curse -- to make them shift instantly.
i don't think, short of magic you could...
i mean, alignment is your moral code and beliefs (i don't think it's your
actions alone)... so unless the act somehow rewrote your entire psyche,
you merely slide.. i can see one act sliding you over a month or so as
you keep thinking on it, reliving it, nightmares about it, accept it, and
so on... but an instant switch? not without head trauma
>>who says the act is *evil* tho? It can be neutral. Not all action
>>have
>We're not talking about simple killing. We're talking about executing
>prisoners because they're inconvenient.
then we are talking an act plus motive..actus rea and mens rea
and that i'll entirely agree to.
>>Yes. But if you slay them because you know they are evil and will do
>>evil again, it's not evil.
>How can you know the future?
Divination *grin*
AD&D has this wonderful balm for the conscious called 'absolutes'.
there are the odd exception to thru in a twist, but 9999 out of 10000
that crimson coloured dragon is not going to reform.
>to stop an orc from "seeing the light" and worshipping St. Cuthbert
i'd tend to think that the entire orc pantheon would tend to be annoyed
and take personal involvement if you started to convert the 'heathen
orcs'.
>If it's possible for PCs to shift alignment, it's possible for NPCs to
>do so. Any creature of Average or greater intelligence has the
>potential.
AD&D also throws in inherit alignment tendancies tho.
For example, Draconomicon gives the results of raising dragon eggs...
and the alignments are hard as hel to bend...
and if that's a situation where you control the enviroment, and merely
battle heridity, then how so much harder to try and reform a creature who
has had several hundred years to get 'set in his paths'?
>it's not evil, but once a combat is over no lawful good character
>should even consider slaying the prisoners unless there is a very
>good, immediate reason for doing so (example: the prisoner is a
>medusa).
*snicker* racial bias ! ;p
put a bag over her head and tie up her snakes...sheesh...talk about
killing someone for mere inconvienance *grin*
>>>As is racial prejudice, incidentally ...
>>*blink* not following the last line...
>Non sequitur.
a, 'k. missed it first time. my bad.
>>"What? You bigot..just because those elves are dark doesn't mean you
>>draw your sword."
>Two (three?) words: Drizzt Do'Urden.
Yup.
And how many giants did he reform?? he had the skill, he had them
down...he ran them thru.
the pirates he showed mercy to.
also, the 'good' Drizzt, i beleive, showed his prejudice by never slaying
Drow for the longest, but no qualms about the other races.
to keep with that novel series, Cattie-brie had no problem slaying orcs,
goblins, giants, dwarves. But he conscious flared when she slew a human.
Bruenor had no qualms period about goblin-hacking, even murdering them in
their sleep when they were camped by the crystal tower.
Yet all three are considered good, are they not? Selective application
of morality they had...
Tuatha dé Danaan
<38b0917f...@news.rio.com>:
>Indeed. Detect Evil is entirely adequate.
IIRC, the spell "Detect Evil" works on creatures of strong alignment...
a human(oid) doesn't radiate it until about 9th level.
"Detect Evil" as per the spell would basically only pick out nasty tough
NPC, and dragon/extraplanear types:
"This spell discovers emanations of evil, or of good in the case of the
reverse spell, from any creature, object, or area. Character alignment,
however, is revealed only under unusual circumstances: characters who are
strongly aligned, who do not stray from their faith, and who are of at
least 9th level might radiate good or evil if intent upon appropriate
actions. Powerful monsters, such as rakshasas or ki-rin, send forth
emanations of evil or good, even if polymorphed. Aligned undead radiate
evil, for it is this power and negative force that enable them to
continue existing. An evilly cursed object or unholy water radiates evil,
but a hidden trap or an unintelligent viper does not."
That was the priest version of the spell.
As for the Paladin abilty, in 2nd ED PHB, it's:
"A paladin can detect the presence of evil intent up to 60 feet away by
concentrating on locating evil in a particular direction. He can do this
as often as desired, but each attempt takes one round. This ability
detects evil monsters and characters."
So, a detect evil most probably wouldn't pick up the kobolds, however a
Paladin's Detect Evil Intent could (possibly)
P
> *pout* Correction. A bunch of other people are gonna be famous, and I will slink
> off back to anonimity.
Check again, you pouter :) http://udel.edu/~prawn/kobolds.html
P
Llorac
*rofl* I guess any fame is better than none. :)