Looking for some collective introspection.
The scenario from last night's game:
Our 10th-level party has entered a ruined temple in search of a group of evil clerics. We enter a trap door in the floor and are immediately ambushed by 6 members of sect of worshipers of Asmodeus. During the ensuing fight, my neutral good Mystic Theurge, hellbent on gathering the whereabouts of a missing affiliate from this group, worries that all of the clerics of Asmodeus will be slaughtered and we won't have a chance to interrogation one of them.
I cast hold person on one of the clerics -much to my surprise she fails her save. Taking advantage of her paralyzed state, I cast "Crystalline Memories" from Complete Mage on her. In shorthand, this spell is identical to "Detect Thoughts" in that you must study the target for 3 rounds. At the end of this period, a crystalized form of their memories emerges from their head, dealing 2d8 points of damage and 2 points of INT on a failed will save. The caster may then grasp this crystal at any point during the next 24 hours and read the thoughts contained therein.
The point of casting this particular spell was simple -with this adversary in the middle of combat and sure to be slaughtered by the fighters in my party in the frenzy of the fight, I sought to preserve precious knowledge of their intentions with the retention of the crystalzed memories.
Here's the rub. On the third round, on the iniative turn just before mine, the evil cleric finally makes a save against the hold person, just as the last of her party falls to my companions' blades. She drops her sword and gives up. My turn is immediately after this, and the "Crystalline Memories" spell takes effect -she fails her will save again and this crystal bursts from her head, dealing 11 points of damage and -2 INT.
My character reaches forward and plucks the crystal from the air, proud that he has just secured the knowledge we sought from this individual.
Well, you'd have thought I just kicked a crippled puppy, because I get all of these horrified looks from the other players and my DM.
In any case, the admittedly grisly appearance of this spell earned me these condemning looks from my group and, most importantly, my DM started to question my alignment choice (NG) and expressed the opinion that I had just committed an evil act. I could not have known that the DM was going to have this prisoner tell us everything when she surrendered -I didn't use my combat rounds trying to predict the future and instead acted to gather and preserve the information we sought. In fact, if I had not have cast hold person on her she probably would not have even survived -she was ignored in combat since she was held.
I'm a little torn on how I should have proceeded. Yes, a crystal bursting from someone's skull containing their memories is a little gruesome, but isn't any more or less evil than burning someone to a crisp with a fireball. (the spell contains no [evil] descriptor) My DM was of the opinion that I should have immediately dismissed the spell the second she dropped her sword, and that my actions basically amounted to torturing a captive. Of course, the rest of the party rushed to this EVIL CLERIC'S aid and dropped a maximized heal spell on her to undo the damage I caused, earning a protesting wtf? from yours truly. Then they let her go.
Up for debate is the following: Was this act evil? Was it outside the scope of my neutral good aligment? Does anyone else have any problems with the imagery this spell conjures when it is perfectly acceptable for clerics to cast ring of blades and flay people to death?
I figured this might get some debate going and I'm ready to hear it...
Thanks, guys!
Fleece
Its up to your DM in the end..but I'd say, evil act. Slaughtering someone with this spell would've been all fine but she was unarmed and had given up. It wouldn't warrant an alignment shift in my campaign unless this was the start of a trend for the character, but if I was you, I'd seek some sort of atonement for your character's deeds.
Maybe get some cool plot out of it with your DM?
yes. but it wasn't slaughter... as described the best it ammounted to was a kick in the face damage-wise given the fact that it is a 10th lvl campaign.
Director of Game Development
|
....Of course, the rest of the party rushed to this EVIL CLERIC'S aid and dropped a maximized heal spell on her to undo the damage I caused, earning a protesting wtf? from yours truly. Then they let her go....
Not that this part has any bearing on your question at hand, but to be fair, only one member of the party dropped the healing from the companion spirit and we quickly tied her up after she passed out after the crystal came out. We let her go to follow her since she wasn't giving up any real information when the rogue lost her at the city gates on a horse. I think Swift was trying to heal her so shift her a bit back on our side so I could question her (+18 diplomacy).
As I said, none of that has any real bearing on your previous actions. I agree that you were kinda stuck in a situation that you really couldn't predict. The only thing is that once she gave up, you could have left her to me, but I understand that you didn't know her real abilities and we could have lost her with a word.
The other thing about violence from either weapons or spells is that the main difference is whether you are in combat or out of combat. If she was actively fighting us at the time the crystal shot out of her head I don't think anyone would have blinked an eye, but I think you might have already said that.
Maybe being a cleric of Asmodeus in your dm's campaign doesn't mean what it means in my own. Maybe they're just a bunch of harmless goths and not active agents of a great evil. Even so, I'm with you here. It just doesn't sound all that severe. I'd talk with your DM about how s/he expected you to act. Maybe just pick a less ugly spell next time. I was initially nonplussed over the "let her go" remark, until the poster above cleared it up.
I just wanted to follow up Daigle's post with the observation that the initial shock and horror and "Ohmygodthatspellmustbeevil" reaction of the other players came from the imagery of the spell, not from the perspective of "How could you do that to an unarmed opponent?"
The fact that the spell went off on an unarmed opponent was almost an afterthought after the initial shock of "what did you just DO to her?" wore off. Everyone was looking at me in digust when I described the spell, and the impression of the group and our DM was that the spell was obviously evil and that the nature of the spell wasn't something that a good character would do...the initial reaction wasn't about it happening to an unarmed opponent -it was that the casting of that specific spell itself wasn't a good act.
And yes, the 11 points of damage was more like a smack across the jaw in a 10th level campaign...
Fleece
|
Definitely no worse than neutral. The spell was initiated when the fight was ongoing. No action was taken to damage the enemy after the surrender. Also, the surrender was offered but I didn't see any claim that it had been accepted yet.
The inaction might be problematic if your character were a paladin or exalted. It might be problematic if the enemy were a controlled ally. Neither of those applies.
That said, alignment is only a very small part of the description of a character. It's entirely possible for two characters to be indisputably lawful good (for instance) and have entirely incompatible definitions of right and wrong in some cases.
|
In the campaigns I run, neutral good and neutral evil are the "purest" form of their respective alignments. There is no concern for the ethos of law/chaos - a Neutral good character will act at all times to further the overall good ( with some obvious leniency for human nature).
That being said, there are a myriad of ways that "the overall good" can be pursued. Allow me to give two examples of the far extremes of neutral good.
1- A kindly, benevolent, old healer who has never failed to offer healing services to any that need it. In one instance, he helps to nurse a severely wounded blackguard back to health even though said blackguard has promised to kill everyone in the town.
2- An uptight, censorious town alderman who beats his own children whenever they curse or violate his code of morals. Unwilling to ever consider extenuating circumstances, (they are excuses of the weak). the ultimate good must be considered at all times. He would try, sentence, and imprison the blackguard in question before he could hurt the village.
As long as the character can explain the rationale behind their decision and the rationale is compatible with NG, I would allow the actions. Used poorly, alignment can be a real negative influence on the game.
|
As long as the character can explain the rationale behind their decision and the rationale is compatible with NG, I would allow the actions. Used poorly, alignment can be a real negative influence on the game.
I had a much longer post about why the action described by the OP would not be evil, but then decided not to post it; it was too long winded and too vague. I come back and find this gem. No need for me to post now.
QFT.
I would say it was not evil, but I do think it was inconsistent with a Neutral Good alignment. The reason I see it that way is because you dealt damage to an opponent who had surrendered, and it was on purpose, though for an admittedly pragmatic reason. I'd say it was "Neutral Callous" and if I were your DM I'd just caution you that if you made a habit of it you might find yourself on your way to True Neutral. I think realistically everyone has a bad day every now and then, and maybe this was just an off day for your character.
Now, as mentioned above, if your character had been Exalted then I'd be really concerned. But as it is I'd just chalk it up to, "Meh, she was an evil cultist and yeah, I went a bit overboard. I'll try to do better next time."
Since you cannot dismiss the spell once the three round duration is up your actions weren't evil even if the cleric surrendered before your turn. After you finish concentrating on the target the spell takes effect, regardless of what you want. The magic has already penetrated the cleric's mind. If she had surrendered before the concentration period then your actions could be morally questioned since you decided to keep the spell going regardless. It sounds like it was just unfortunate timing on your part (or possibly the DMs).
I'm surprised the DM was horrified. He should have known what the spell did before you cast it and lectured you on it then.
In truth this spell is no more evil than any other spell. It's no worse than crushing somebody to death with a giant hand, electrocuting them with a bolt of lightning, or poisoning them to death with magical vapors.
I think it's evil because the adversary had been rendered combat ineffective (how she died, gruesomeness, etc. is far less important): at that point, if you stick to your good-aligned morals, then you cannot kill her-- before she lost the ability to join battle, its a combat death, killed in battle; once she cannot fight, it's murder. Murder = evil.
When does murder not = evil?
When no one dies.
If you read the full description, you'll see that the evil cleric did not die as a result of this action. She was at full hit points for a CR 10-ish encounter and took 11 points of damage and a -2 INT penalty.
Kelvar, I think you nailed it and your post is the most in line with what I have been thinking. Evil? No -I didn't rape, murder or even maliciously injure someone. It was an attempt to keep important information about a missing NPC from slipping away at the blade of one of our warriors. The combat just happened to end exactly 6 seconds before I acted. "Neutral Callous" just nails it...thanks, man!
Also, I should mention that our DM is of the perpetual habit of dismissing -1 to -9 dying enemies as dead. More often than not, we can never find a "dying" enemy around to heal and interrogate in the aftermath of a battle, so that might explain a lot as to why that commonly-used route isn't really available -we're really wary of relying on that little 'tool.'
|
|
I think it's evil because the adversary had been rendered combat ineffective (how she died, gruesomeness, etc. is far less important): at that point, if you stick to your good-aligned morals, then you cannot kill her-- before she lost the ability to join battle, its a combat death, killed in battle; once she cannot fight, it's murder. Murder = evil.
quick point, the spell wouldn't be fatal. More the equivalent of one solid sword strike. Also, the spell was already in effect. When cast, it was during combat but the end result occurred exactly when the battle ended. It was a matter literally of a few points of initiative according to the OP.
I think it's evil because the adversary had been rendered combat ineffective (how she died, gruesomeness, etc. is far less important): at that point, if you stick to your good-aligned morals, then you cannot kill her-- before she lost the ability to join battle, its a combat death, killed in battle; once she cannot fight, it's murder. Murder = evil.
I guess I might not be clear on a couple of points. I thought it didn't kill her--and she was able to be healed by your companions--without needing Raise Dead or Resurrection. So all you did was *hurt* a prisoner, not kill? Or am I mistaken?
Also, was there any way you could have ended the spell *before* she surrendered? Or was it just set in motion, she surrendered then the spell does its thing before you can stop it? The answers to these questions would provide important nuances, IMHO.
|
|
Sorry--I've deleted the previous post; I misread and thought the cleric had died as a result of the spell...
In this case, I'd say no; not evil, because there was no evil intent (and I'm reading a little into this). Like Kelvar asks, was there a moment to collapse the spell or take a different action? I would say, how your character acts after this, and how the action affects him will determine whether or not it becomes evil; you know, dark side corruption and all that...
I think Phil brings up a really, really important point I had not considered:
He's absolutely right regarding the nuances of that spell. The spell goes off when the concentration period ends. It had been cast in the midst of combat and the end of the concentration period just happened to fall 1 unfortunate initiative pip after she threw down her sword. The effects of that spell, as well as any morale consequence, were decided 3 rounds before she threw down her sword, back when she was trying to gut our warlock, and the option of dismissing the spell was not even available.
If I cast that spell out of combat on a bound prisoner, then we'd be having a totally different conversation right now, for sure...
Fleece
I think Phil brings up a really, really important point I had not considered:
He's absolutely right regarding the nuances of that spell. The spell goes off when the concentration period ends. It had been cast in the midst of combat and the end of the concentration period just happened to fall 1 unfortunate initiative pip after she threw down her sword. The effects of that spell, as well as any morale consequence, were decided 3 rounds before she threw down her sword, back when she was trying to gut our warlock, and the option of dismissing the spell was not even available.
If I cast that spell out of combat on a bound prisoner, then we'd be having a totally different conversation right now, for sure...
Fleece
Although all you would need to do is stop concentrating on the spell for her not to be effected if she surrendered before your final round of concentration.
|
Director of Game Development
|
Nearly completely off-topic but...
I just looked up the spell to see if it was capable of being dismissed and noticed that it's a 2nd level spell that does the same thing as detect thoughts (another 2nd level spell) plus physical damage and ability damage. Oh yeah, and it has a casting time of a swift action compared to the standard action of detect thoughts and you can hang on to the thoughts for 24hrs. Holy s~$&!
But regarding the topic of my original search, you couldn't dismiss it because you could have just stopped concentrating on it. So, the "spell just ran it's course" argument kinda falls flat.
( Fleece, I'm not busting your chops about this. I'm just doing what I can to keep this thread running. Since the announcement, threads have been dropping off the radar kinda quickly, forced down due to a bunch of long-term speculative BS.)
I agree with Phil and Fleece.
I think the line was in "Fist of the Northstar": I've already killed you. You just haven't died yet.
Alright, I broke open my copy of Complete Mage, and it seems to me that if the cultist surrendered before your turn, and you had already been concentrating for three rounds, then...the die is already cast. What else can you do? Do you interrupt the DM with "Ooh ooh ooh!!! I stop concentrating as an Immediate Action"? The more I think about this, the less culpable your character seems...
Exactly, Kelvar -that's my reading, too. Daigle -I think we are interpreting it differently, but I don't have it in front of me now. I think when you are done concentrating on that spell, which I was, it goes off. I don't feel like you're busting my chops at all. This latter part of the discussion is somewhat of a technicality, since I wasn't aware of that little nuance at the time. I stand by my character's actions -this evil cleric of a profane diety ambushed my party in our attempt to gather information and the actions I took were part of a defensive effort, begun long before the NPC surrendered. Unfortunately, my timing was a bit off and I opted to not attempt to end the spell to achieve our ends.
Something that I did not mention before was that there was somewhat of a 'timeshift' at the end of the combat. When the DM decided to surrender, he ended combat and started into "I'm at your mercy" movie mode. Meanwhile, I raising my hand with this little "there's something going on (the spell) that you should know about." That undoubtedly led to a lot of the blurred line between me being responsible for combat/noncombat actions.
Fleece
I have to go with 'not Evil' on this one. The initial casting of the spell was entirely reasonable, and the time lag between the surrender and the spell actually going off was so small that your character couldn't have had any indication that the surrender was sincere.
Now, if you'd cast the spell out of combat matters would be different.
|
Director of Game Development
|
Something that I did not mention before was that there was somewhat of a 'timeshift' at the end of the combat. When the DM decided to surrender, he ended combat and started into "I'm at your mercy" movie mode. Meanwhile, I raising my hand with this little "there's something going on (the spell) that you should know about." That undoubtedly led to a lot of the blurred line between me being responsible for combat/noncombat actions.
You're totally right. The initiative counter had pretty much stopped at that point and DMG had whisked us away into storytime mode.
|
|
First, if the DM felt the spell was that bad he should have told you that when you wanted to pick it up. Expecting that you might only do it in combat does not seem particularly likely to me.
As for the rest, I guess my Neutral Cleric of Pelor would have been in a lot of trouble.
The first incident was when one of the thugs attacking us wound up with a broken hip. The local guards were content to let him die of exposure (it was winter) on the street. I gave him a choice of a mercy kill or permament residence in monastery of Pelor while he atoned. (He chose atonement and later provided rather valuable information.)
The second incident was the big one. We finally caught up with the evil cleric of Nerull and his slaver flunkies when they ambused us in the underdark. The cleric died, depressing my PC because he didn't get to smite him personally, but the rest surrendered. They tried mocking us because a good cleric was there, and would not let the rest of the party torture them. When the other PCs stopped laughing, they made it clear that they were protecting the bad guys from my wrath, and they had a lot more to fear from me unleashing some justice on the people that had slaughtered a group of Pelorite pilgrims. (They got lucky and wound up negotiating being released with no equipment 50 miles into the underdark.)
Neutral Good means fighting Evil - all Evil, and not with half measures and last minute wimpouts on putting it down permanently.
Evil clerics of Asmodeus get the mega-smite, no matter how many times they surrender. All that means is they get a merciful coup de grace instead of a flame strike or three to kill them. A reasonable choice, but they still aren't walking out of their alive to sit in an escape-guaranteed prison cell somewhere.
2- An uptight, censorious town alderman who beats his own children whenever they curse or violate his code of morals. Unwilling to ever consider extenuating circumstances, (they are excuses of the weak). the ultimate good must be considered at all times. He would try, sentence, and imprison the blackguard in question before he could hurt the village.
As long as the character can explain the rationale behind their decision and the rationale is compatible with NG, I would allow the actions. Used poorly, alignment can be a real negative influence on the game.
Personally, I'd require a little more justification here. I've seen players try to talk Chaotic into being Lawful and Lawful into Chaotic. Just because you think you are Good (or any other alignment) doesn't inherently make you so. So far, it sounds more like a LN character which you have described.
At any rate, back to the topic at hand, I'd say the situation at hand was definitely not an evil act on your part. I'm not super familiar with the spell, but if you truly had no ability to end the thing before it went off, that's an unfortunate consequence. The only one it's unfortunate for, however, is the evil cleric who precipitated the spell upon herself with her actions. Besides, from all I've read, the point wasn't the damage the spell inflicted, but rather the extraction of information. I'd say that if you had this spell at your disposal and a captive who refused to talk, using this spell wouldn't constitute torture (in most cases; again, intent and the amount of focus placed on the fact that it causes pain would be relevant; additionally, if you had the more conventional detect thoughts prepared but still choose to use this spell, that could be considered torture and evil).
As an isolated incident coming from bad timing, it's not evil. If you began to make a habit of it, it could slide to neutral or worse, but not easily. Additionally, I don't think the description is that bad. It's gruesome, yes, but as others have said, no more than burning someone alive with a fireball. The hole it produces in the skull can't be very large, or it would be "save or die," not "save or take a small amount of damage).
Just my thoughts.
|
I understand all of the rules arguments about it being too late and nothing could be done, etc, but to me, whether or not it was an evil thing for a NG cleric to do comes down to how the character feels about it. In my mind, an evil cleric would revel in having dealt a gruesome deathblow, a neutral cleric would say, "Oh well, it had to be done," but a good cleric would feel a little bad about having killed an unarmed person who just surrendered. It doesn't matter if it really was an evil act or not, but to me, a good person is going to feel a little bad about it anyway. A neutral person makes excuses or figures out a reason why it wasn't evil, but a good person feels kinda' bad about.
IMO, you ought to seek a little atonement, just in case.
|
|
2- An uptight, censorious town alderman who beats his own children whenever they curse or violate his code of morals. Unwilling to ever consider extenuating circumstances, (they are excuses of the weak). the ultimate good must be considered at all times. He would try, sentence, and imprison the blackguard in question before he could hurt the village.
As long as the character can explain the rationale behind their decision and the rationale is compatible with NG, I would allow the actions. Used poorly, alignment can be a real negative influence on the game.
Personally, I'd require a little more justification here. I've seen players try to talk Chaotic into being Lawful and Lawful into Chaotic. Just because you think you are Good (or any other alignment) doesn't inherently make you so. So far, it sounds more like a LN character which you have described.
You know, one of my players pointed out the same thing earlier today after reading the example. I'll clarify by stating that the alderman's code of morals is not necessarily in tune with town law. He would choose enforcement of his morals over enforcement of the law.
At least everyone is able to have a constructive and thought provoking conversation on some of the troublesome uses alignment can be put to in the game. A lot of good stuff has come out of this discussion.
|
|
I would think neutral good characters would avoid using interrogation spells that are unnecessarily cruel, even against worshippers of an evil god. You slay them when they threaten you, but you must still believe those that surrender are capable of redemption. Good casters need to be more careful with their spell choices. A lot of the stuff out there is just macabre versions of perfectly serviceable spells.
As a DM I wouldn't ding you, but I'd make you take a hard look at you spellbook for a little darkness in the margins.
Some of this has been stated so forgive me. What we are talking about is an evil spell verse an evil act. The spell itself is not evil, although certainly more macabre than its cousin Detect Thoughts. It was the act of damaging someone who surrendered that bothered me. We had no idea it was a version of Detect Thoughts. We just saw our Mystic Theurge(basically the cleric of the party) grab a crystal from the air after it exploded from the forehead of an unnarmed prisoner and caused some HP and INT damage. We reacted to unnecessary harm dealt to a captive which is an evil act. The fact that she is a cleric of Asmodeus is less relevant than the fact that she had just asked for mercy by surrendering.
The only saving grace to this incident is a reading of the spell description. It reveals that once concentration is stopped, the crystal forms. The incident suffered from bad timing as you couldn't dismiss or end the spell before the damage was done.
A completely different point that has not been addressed is the fact that you cast this spell on someone who had already succumbed to your hold person spell making her helpless. So is casting a damaging spell or performing a coup de grace on a helpless foe evil because they are helpless? I know I have done a coup de grace once or twice in this game after the hold person was set up.
Discuss
You slay them when they threaten you, but you must still believe those that surrender are capable of redemption.
Sometimes. One can be Good without necessarily believing liberally in redemption. For example, a group of brigands attacks a Good warrior and is defeated. The last one surrenders. The Good warrior would probably be inclined to deal with him in some way (perhaps taking him to the closest jail, or tying him to a tree, or something). However, he may not give a rat's patoot about the brigand's redemption. If he does, that's just dandy. But the Good warrior isn't going to go out of his way to help this enemy.
Going out of your way to help "people" in general, which is part of being "Good," doesn't automatically extend to helping one's foes. If a character is trying to be exalted, then it should. Otherwise, it's open to the personality and specific "type" of Good that a given PC/NPC wants.
In the case of clerics of an evil deity (or power, since Asmodeus isn't technically a god in standard D&D), seeking their redemption isn't necessary to be Good. Causing some pain and damage to the surrendered villain doesn't necessarily constitute anything evil, either, so long as the inflicting of said pain and damage isn't the primary motivation for the action bringing it (i.e., the mystic theurge seems to have had very good reasons to try and get information from the opponent this way; the fact that it dealt damage and an Int penalty to the cleric wasn't a motivation at all).
A stronger case can be made that it's a Neutral act (if such a thing can be; "not Good," as in the title of the thread, may be a more accurate term).
Not trying to be argumentative; just illustrating a viewpoint.
A completely different point that has not been addressed is the fact that you cast this spell on someone who had already succumbed to your hold person spell making her helpless. So is casting a damaging spell or performing a coup de grace on a helpless foe evil because they are helpless? I know I have done a coup de grace once or twice in this game after the hold person was set up.
Discuss
No. Delivering a coup de grace on a helpless foe (which virtually every target of a coup de grace is!) isn't an evil act. One could be slaying an evil being as punishment or to prevent it from committing further evil. Again, see my previous post about seeking the redemption of an evil being not necessarily being part of the Good alignment.
If you were walking through the forest one night and stumbled into a camp of hobgoblins, all asleep, with banners of Hextor posted about and cages filled with bedraggled slaves, would you have qualms about killing the hobgoblins where they lie? Or would you seize the advantage and put and end to their vileness?
|
|
Saern, your two examples don't require the good character to do anything demonstrably good by way of restraint or context. He just seems to be good by the fact that he is acting against evil agents. This places no onus on the character at all beside simply being less evil than his opponents. Basically, his goodness is defined by his enemies, not by his own qualities.
That's not good to me. It's convenient. Good deeds should require more than simply killing everything around you. That's just glory.
But this is D&D, so...yeah.
Using a coup de grace against an immobile foe is arguably more benevolent than killing the foe in normal combat. With a coup de grace you can try to take down the foe as quickly as possible so as to minimize his suffering. True, it precludes any opportunity to redeem the villain, but when you're fighting a bunch of bad guys--and fighting for your own life--there is a limit to just how merciful you can be.
Saern, your two examples don't require the good character to do anything demonstrably good by way of restraint or context. He just seems to be good by the fact that he is acting against evil agents. This places no onus on the character at all beside simply being less evil than his opponents. Basically, his goodness is defined by his enemies, not by his own qualities.
That's not good to me. It's convenient. Good deeds should require more than simply killing everything around you. That's just glory.
But this is D&D, so...yeah.
I apologize; I didn't make clear that I was speaking of characters who otherwise conduct themselves as Good-aligned characters. They may well be altruistic, go out of their way to help others, show kindness and compassion and love to many, but have no tolerance for the wicked or evil. While certainly not "exalted," it's still permissible within the bounds of "Good."
I'm trying to take an enemy bunker. I pull the pin on a grenade and toss it into the bunker. The enemies see the grenade and call out "I surrender!" Boom! Am I evil?
The spell was cast on a held person, but hold person is not a reliable restraint under the current rules, since you never know when the person is going to break free. So I don't think the "attack on the helpless person" argument works either.
I don't have the spell in question, but it sounds to me as though this spell is severely overpowered for its level, though. This is why I only allow non-core spells by DM approval--basically the Spell Compendium, etc. are sources for spells that PCs can research, but I don't have the patience to go through the thousand or more spells in the book and mark off which ones are OK as written, which need their level changed, and which are just bad news. It's easier to deal with if I can read the ten spells that the PCs want in their repertoire and make judgements on those only.
It was not evil, though it does seem as if your group and DM want you to play Stupid Good.
Well, if you want the D&D take on Good alignment as compares to Evil, as well as a pretty good game-definition of what constitutes acts of Evil, the Book of Exalted Deeds in the first section should answer the question for you.
If you want to have fun with alignments, as the only "game mechanic" tool for RP in D&D, take a look at the alignment infraction system in HackMaster. HM deliniates in rather finer detail what general acts are alignment-appropriate, as well as how many 'infraction points' one can rack up by performing non-alignment-appropriate actions in character.
I expect to dig out my HM tomes and put together a AI (alignment infraction) system soon, no later than around an average party level of 4th, if not earlier. Not so much as to hose my players, more to keep them on the straight and narrow as appropriate to thier declared alignment. I tend to cut players slack for the first few sessions as they get comfortable with thier characters and adjust to how said character 'fits' with the rest of the group.
(I also am a fan of HM's Honor system, but have as yet to implement a d20 version of it.)
I don't have the spell in question, but it sounds to me as though this spell is severely overpowered for its level, though. This is why I only allow non-core spells by DM approval--basically the Spell Compendium, etc. are sources for spells that PCs can research, but I don't have the patience to go through the thousand or more spells in the book and mark off which ones are OK as written, which need their level changed, and which are just bad news. It's easier to deal with if I can read the ten spells that the PCs want in their repertoire and make judgements on those only.
Overpowered!? Ha ha ha ha!
|
|
It was not evil, though it does seem as if your group and DM want you to play Stupid Good.
This is a Stupid Neutral post. The fact that you and your group wanted to discuss the repercussions of this event indicates that the characters follow the challenging path of good. A group that isn't at least a little shocked, but still considers themselves good, is not. They're just as*ho*les with swords: Medieval Navy Seals.
It sounds like you have a good group of roleplayers.
|
|
Where is the indication that a surrendering cleric of Asmodeus, or similar bad guy in such a situation, is interested in redemption?
It takes more than a desperate attempt to save your life in the middle of combat to qualify for an alignment change, or even a vague suggestion of sincerity in wanting to repent.
Barring some additional consideration, all it really shows is an intent to escape immediate justice so as to escape any justice later on. In the face of such, it is not merely irresponsible, but actively not Good to allow such people to simply ride off into the sunset to brutalize other innocents until cut down in the act.
Thank you for the comment, Selk. Yes -I wouldn't trade my group for anything...we have a very good thing going and have had for years now!
In defense of the release of this prisoner, however, I will let you in on that mode of thinking. My character didn't really take part in the final decision because he was pouting over his reprimand, but, in our campaign, the government of Hardby has been compromised, with the city watch and Hardby Mariners being decimated and the jobs outsourced to a merchant lord that has hired orc mercenaries to keep the peace. We've discovered that some devils are wrapped up in this heirarchy as well and suspect that this Asmodeus cult may reach the highest levels of government.
So, it was decided that releasing her to the authorities wouldn't do much good and only result in her freedom. A plan was concocted, outlined by Daigle above, to let her go so that she might be followed to any hideouts in the city, thus revealing her superiors. Instead, she fled, presumably, to Greyhawk and the effort failed...
Fleece
This is a Stupid Neutral post.
LOL. Ok, you want a more meaningful post, very well. The DM screwed up big time by assuming that the party was just going to passive accept the surrender of an evil cultist, he didn't reasonably say, "Is it ok if we break initiative?" As a good DM would, instead he assumed that the alignment of the characters would be a straightjacket for their behaviour.
Accepting the surrender of every evil doer is STUPID. So, let's see, when the beholder surrenders are you going to accept it? How about that vampire? A demon? Also as pointed out by the OPer, there wasn't any organization that they could confidently turn the prisoner over to, does that mean that these good characters have to choose between spending the rest of their lives guarding this dangerous individual or allowing them to go free? That is the type of choices good characters should be forced into by evil cultists that are just trying to save their innocent-blood soaked skins?
As for attacking someone trying to surrender being evil, well here is a few comments in various sources with respect to paladins, which most would agree would be MORE restrictive then a NG mystic theurge.
... Alhandra, a paladin, who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good.
The hound archon hero is a mighty champion of justice, devoted to the pursuit and destruction of evil in all its forms.
The hound archon hero is a paladin.
"Mercy for those that deserve mercy." Sometimes even the righteous can stray from the true path, and thus you must occasionally show compassion. However, mercy for unrepentant evil-doers is tantamount to doing evil yourself.
Some good folk do worry about redemption and such, other good folk worry about protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty. One can subscribe to one outlook without necessarily condemning the other.
They're just as*ho*les with swords: Medieval Navy Seals.
So the implication is that all Navy Seals are jackholes? Well, that comment does explain alot about your views, I think your bias is showing.
Seems like a lot of hullablaloo over a small thing. I wouldn’t have adjudged it “evil”, particularly given all the extenuating circumstances. The key to me is that the action was taken against an evil minion of a major dark deity/devil, etc. There’s not much a non-evil character can do to one of those guys that they themselves haven’t already done to someone else. Almost anything done to them is justifiable, at least from a moral standpoint. Goods (as long as they don’t revel in the pain they’re causing) can look piously down their noses and call it retribution, a small increment of karmic payback, whatever. Neutrals can shrug their shoulders and say/think, “What goes around comes around..” Lawfuls can look at it as justice, at least of a sort, while Chaotics wouldn’t care one way or another.
The NG character doesn’t care about Law/Chaos, so that’s irrelevant. From the Good/Evil side, he didn’t do it maliciously. His intent was not to cause pain for the sake of causing pain. He didn’t do it for self-serving reasons, in that the benefit would have been for the whole party and the larger scope of the good guys “winning”. He was not going to be sole beneficiary at someone else’s expense.
So, no. Not evil. Not by a long shot. I see it perfectly justifiable according to the character’s alignment and your reasoning as given. Throw in the extraneous extenuating circumstances of fractional timing gaffs and I wouldn’t bat an eyelash. You’re good to go in my book.
2- An uptight, censorious town alderman who beats his own children whenever they curse or violate his code of morals. Unwilling to ever consider extenuating circumstances, (they are excuses of the weak). the ultimate good must be considered at all times. He would try, sentence, and imprison the blackguard in question before he could hurt the village.
I have to disagree that this character is either Neutral or Good. The censorious nature of the character, his unwillingness to access extenuating circumstances, and his insistence on trial and sentencing all strongly indicate Lawfulness, not Neutrality.
I would have pegged the character as classical Lawful Neutral, except for the statement that he beats his own children. That's pretty much a clear indication of Evil right there.
So, it has to Lawful Evil for me.
well, your character is not exalted good to be sure, but the act was still good; sacrifice is part of being good; you were endangered while doing this brave act to aquire knowledge that would not be otherwise available at great personal risk both from the event and the after effects from whatever the party decides, but you were steadfast in your goal knowing that this information will lead to purging more evil and saving more people from the cluches of those devoted to bringing about destruction. This act as stated was a chaotic good or nuetral good act; a lawful person would have told the group and preplanned the encounter; a neutral person would only care that good was served and the heck with proprieties; a chaotic person would have decided this was the best course of action at the time given the situation and the gifts from those present; good was served. You could argue that others were free to act but did not; you saw a need and fulfilled it for the greater good; you could argue that you had the power and thus the responibility of obtaining the information for the greater good.
act contrite and pious, say a prayer trying to save those killed from eternity in infamy and pain; tears would help. :) helps if you believe it too for those sense motive rolls.
if you think it necessary, you could donate your treasure from this adventure to charity to show the group you did not do this for personal gain; evil is all about personal gain hehe or duping those into ...uhm, you are conversing with a efreeti after all :)
|
|
My take on this is a bit different than above. I'm not looking at the spell but from what this looks like is a multi-round spell. Sounded like the spell was a swift action but you have to concentrate on the person for three rounds prior? IMHO its a multi-round spell. I've always seen multi-round spells as taking just that. Summon monster has a beast forming for a round who's finished on the next round. Perhaps you even see him fading in or forming like a star trek teleport. Restoration makes you feel slightly better for each of three rounds. Sure, you get no benifit until the spell is complete, but it's actually working for those rounds. Apply that to this spell and your consolidating their thoughts with magic. On that final round its forced into your magic crystal which shoots out of their head.
I'd also tend to say since it was the same the cultist surrendered, she was already feeling the pain. It just didnt hit till she already surrendered. You see this type of thing in movies all the time. So no, in my opinion this wasnt an evil act. I dont see using the spell as evil either. I see it more neutral. Your harvesting the memories to be "read" at your leasure instead of in combat. And your causing a little damage. An unfortunate side affect. If you did it often (over detect thoughts), I would warn you. (And if you were detecting too many thoughts I'd warn you because that can be argued as an "evil" act: invading privacy. Depends on the intent.)
But, thats my two cp.
|
Well, we are talking about a game where Paladins kill people despite the fact that taking a life under any excuse is evil...
The spell probably rates with being mind-raped by a telepath.
Lets see a paladin use it to interrogate and incapacitate criminals...
"You have nothing to fear if you are not guilty." The Paladin rummages through your mind for your innermost secrets...
Well, we are talking about a game where Paladins kill people despite the fact that taking a life under any excuse is evil...
Where is that stated? I have never seen a rule that says taking a life is always evil. Could you provide a source for that?
Yellowdingo; you are way out in left feild; murder has always been considered evil, not killing; until the 20th century nobody considered active warfare between military forces to be evil, you are applying modern political theory and morality to a fanstasy genre set in a time before all of that; where being a soldier of a diety or a professional soldier and military man and a noble was an honorable thing. In the game system there are killings that are moral and just, try not to apply our modern concepts to the fantasty genre; hehe are you going to try to explain the physics of magic next or argue all magic users are evil - they are portrayed that way in a great number of fanstasy stories; it might help if you review the high fantasy genre and set your in game morals accordingly.
also you are appling modern ideas of law and justice, I get the feeling a game run by you would be very frustrating to your players. Hehe I could just see you explaining this to a paladin player and he is like; so I have this big sword; this nice armor; great combat bonus and the ability to smite the enemies for my diety; but if i do it I am evil so to be good i need to just let him kill me so he can be evil and I can die good or I loose my paladin status.