Hehe, a thousand posts is neat... but really, do bring enough real-world religion into it and we could win this message board (surpass all the other threads with our massive post count). It will in time come to be referred to as "The Paladin vs Sleeping Wyvern debacle". =)
Yeah, I'm done here too.
Interesting read from a game design point of view. Like if designing a game from ground up. Learned a lot from reading the post like, do not design class'es around strict alignments, alignments are not enforceable without causing hard problems for players, and people can justify anything.
Design game around all players start off at True Neutral, at 5th level players can keep True Neutral, or choose: Lawful, Chaotic, Good, or Evil. That way if they want to play a lawful person, they do not have to worry about being good or evil. Same for Chaotic. Evil should be easy, and Good will be there for the ""Pricks"" who like taking prisoners, saving the babies, and etc etc, like me.
Also, thinking no humans allowed, do to every game i have seen played, Humans playing humans is a conflict of interest. Always main race in game, always having extra feats and skills, alway using real world stuff to justify whats going on in game. Much prefer high fantasy, were all the major races are monsters, like lizard men, elves, goblins, trolls, who are the movers and shakers of the world.
One more post for the 999 goal :)
Interesting read from a game design point of view. Like if designing a game from ground up. Learned a lot from reading the post like, do not design class'es around strict alignments, alignments are not enforceable without causing hard problems for players, and people can justify anything.
Design game around all players start off at True Neutral, at 5th level players can keep True Neutral, or choose: Lawful, Chaotic, Good, or Evil. That way if they want to play a lawful person, they do not have to worry about being good or evil. Same for Chaotic. Evil should be easy, and Good will be there for the ""Pricks"" who like taking prisoners, saving the babies, and etc etc, like me.
Also, thinking no humans allowed, do to every game i have seen played, Humans playing humans is a conflict of interest. Always main race in game, always having extra feats and skills, alway using real world stuff to justify whats going on in game. Much prefer high fantasy, were all the major races are monsters, like lizard men, elves, goblins, trolls, who are the movers and shakers of the world.
One more post for the 999 goal :)
Not so much that people are against the notion of strict alignments and whatnot, it's just that for every 1 in the "Taking away the paladin's powers and having him fall was completely fair." box, there are 5d20 in the "WTF are you doing behind a screen, you spiteful douche?!" box.
Making a paladin fall is a pretty major event in the game, and more often than not, it is used to "punish" a player for something, and it seems that something tends to be not "obeying" the GM in his interpretation, or foiling a trap or scenario he has been working on.
Give warnings, make a list of things you as a GM do not budge on, discuss what is fair and what is not, as to avoid pitfalls in the future. Not everyone will agree on everything, but everyone should have fun.
On an side note; I do have a "WAH! WAH! I want to be exempt from alignments because I saw this movie and the hero was COOOOOOOOL, even though he was a totally despicable jack-off! So if you don't agree on MY take on alignments as moral ambiguity that allows me to do whatever I want without consequence, I am gonna sulk and not attend the game for a month!"-player... it sucks. So yeah, I know how annoying it can be when players try to weasel out of well deserved alignment slaps.
Good will be there for the ""Pricks"" who like taking prisoners, saving the babies, and etc etc, like me.
The whole "Don't kill the babies" thing would make a LOT more sense to me if I saw goblin/orc orphanages run by good religions in ANY published material. There are few worlds where the PCs are the 'only' good adventurers 'noble' enough to spare that brood of humanoids, and they'll have to do something with them.
Taken further, nearly any humanoid should therefore be found integrated into good societies. They won't even necessarily be small numbers either, given their breeding rates, and assuming that good humanoids will raise good offspring.
Of course, we don't see that much. Kingdoms of Kalamar had LE hobgoblin kingdoms, proving that they, at least, could form a working civilization.
I think most settings, however, seem to assume that creatures like orcs/goblins/gnolls are incapable of such. Having an intelligence of 10 doesn't mean that a creature will think like a human being of INT 10; the concept of alien intelligences is already integrated into D&D. Orcs may well be hardwired to see NO value to any creature that's not an orc (they might learn to fear, but never respect).
If this were so, you literally couldn't raise orc orphans to be good. This kind of thinking sort of robs them of free will (i.e. 'always evil'), but that's sort of like saying an Aboleth is 'always evil'. They literally think differently. Remember that orcs (heck even elves) aren't humans in rubber suits. They have differing physiology, which will affect their behavior and shape their society. I'm no expert on sentience, but I'm pretty sure that capacity for (what we consider) good behavior isn't one of the requirements. Heck, if you assume that orcs were made by the orcish gods (which is a valid premise in many worlds), this capacity was probably left out deliberately.
Obviously this draws some ugly parallels to the racist thinking of our own history - many of the above arguments were indeed applied to justify the slavery and oppression of africans/jews/slavs/etcetera. However, we know (now) that all of the above are the same species. Goblins are not the same species as humans. Neither are orcs, despite the ability to interbreed (a lot of things can interbreed in fantasy settings, but still orc /= human /= elf). Things like bane weapons if nothing else highlight the differences.
So creatures of different species think differently. Does that change how they get treated by 'good' people? Much as a 'good' person should want to apply their views in a totally equal fashion - they may want to raise/reform orc babies into useful members of society, if it simply isn't possible, only tragedy will result.
So, like anything else, GM consultation is required. Can they be redeemed from 'evil, orcish ways'? Are they just (slightly dumber, more aggressive) human babies with green skin? Or are they fundamentally different and incompatible with civilized society? A fair GM should answer these questions before he makes the players decide to kill or spare a brood of humanoid children.
|
A fair GM should answer these questions before he makes the players decide to kill or spare a brood of humanoid children.
A good GM should be upfront about how it works in his world and whether or not these situations will come up before the game ever starts, really. Many players simply aren't comfortable at all with baby killing and genocide, even and especially when it's "justified" ingame.
|
|
I though James said he would never publish any non-evil drow. That does not affect home games of course, but for official purposes I thought all drow were evil.now about your drow statement: it is correct in part. Yes, they must all be killed. But no, there are none that don't deserve to die. in Golarion, when regular elves perform acts of evil that are so vile and irrevocable that they have no chance to ever find the Brightness, they turn into drow.Non-evil drow exist in Golarion canon, actually.Second Darkness AP, Chapter 1 "Shadow in the Sky," Foreword, page 5:
"The drow of Golarion are not to be trusted. They worship
demons. They’re slavers and sadists. They perform hideous
experiments on innocent victims. The drow are back to
being evil, in other words."
Be that as it may, there's a Chaotic Neutral drow in Golarion material.
IIRC, James' foreward was more about undoing some of the villain decay that happened to drow society over the years, and recommending that players please put off playing good drow until after Second Darkness.
The whole "Don't kill the babies" thing would make a LOT more sense to me if I saw goblin/orc orphanages run by good religions in ANY published material. There are few worlds where the PCs are the 'only' good adventurers 'noble' enough to spare that brood of humanoids, and they'll have to do something with them.
Good will be there for the ""Pricks"" who like taking prisoners, saving the babies, and etc etc, like me.
Actually, at the cultural levels in most D&D worlds, you would be hard put to find any orphanages. Some in the big cities run as charitable institutions (more like workhouses to us, in order to help pay for themselves) and elsewhere orphans would be cared for in local temples and churches, or adopted into related families, if at all.
State care? very unlikely, although it can happen and is usually oriented in a way that directly benefits the state as soon as the children are of age. If people aren't caring for their own race too well, they aren't going to be caring for other races at all.
However, that it is something lacking in a world is not necessarily a bad thing, because you can make it the goal of PCs to provide such. The idea of PCs arguing with local government about establishing an orphanage for orcs so that (a) the 'innocent' children do not die and (b) the army then has a pool of expendable troops for future wars might be an interesting campaign plot.
Good will be there for the ""Pricks"" who like taking prisoners, saving the babies, and etc etc, like me.The whole "Don't kill the babies" thing would make a LOT more sense to me if I saw goblin/orc orphanages run by good religions in ANY published material. There are few worlds where the PCs are the 'only' good adventurers 'noble' enough to spare that brood of humanoids, and they'll have to do something with them.
Taken further, nearly any humanoid should therefore be found integrated into good societies. They won't even necessarily be small numbers either, given their breeding rates, and assuming that good humanoids will raise good offspring.
Of course, we don't see that much. Kingdoms of Kalamar had LE hobgoblin kingdoms, proving that they, at least, could form a working civilization.
I think most settings, however, seem to assume that creatures like orcs/goblins/gnolls are incapable of such. Having an intelligence of 10 doesn't mean that a creature will think like a human being of INT 10; the concept of alien intelligences is already integrated into D&D. Orcs may well be hardwired to see NO value to any creature that's not an orc (they might learn to fear, but never respect).
If this were so, you literally couldn't raise orc orphans to be good. This kind of thinking sort of robs them of free will (i.e. 'always evil'), but that's sort of like saying an Aboleth is 'always evil'. They literally think differently. Remember that orcs (heck even elves) aren't humans in rubber suits. They have differing physiology, which will affect their behavior and shape their society. I'm no expert on sentience, but I'm pretty sure that capacity for (what we consider) good behavior isn't one of the requirements. Heck, if you assume that orcs were made by the orcish gods (which is a valid premise in many worlds), this capacity was probably left out deliberately.
Obviously this draws some ugly parallels to the racist thinking of our own history - many of the above arguments...
Well, there are worlds where things have been done differently, and published worlds at that.
The main setting for GURPS fantasy had (and I believe still has) a bunch of Crusaders from the real world Crusades getting shunted through a dimension gate into a fantasy land with fantasy races, but still act like medieval Catholics and get the idea of converting the heathens and bringing them the "good word." Rolling along to the play setting from this back history, human players can get an interesting surprise from their perspective to find that the bishop is a goblin.
Actually, at the cultural levels in most D&D worlds, you would be hard put to find any orphanages.The whole "Don't kill the babies" thing would make a LOT more sense to me if I saw goblin/orc orphanages run by good religions in ANY published material.
Good will be there for the ""Pricks"" who like taking prisoners, saving the babies, and etc etc, like me.
True, but any society that considers itself mostly LG/NG should probably have them. I can see LN ones having them to keep kids off the street, and LE ones as basically labor farms.
State care? very unlikely, although it can happen and is usually oriented in a way that directly benefits the state as soon as the children are of age. If people aren't caring for their own race too well, they aren't going to be caring for other races at all.
You hit the nail on the head with that one. But, paladins, at least in theory, should be caring about all of the above. I'd expect a lot of paladin orders to BE orphanages. That said, they probably aren't filled to capacity with orc babies.
I'm going to jot that down as a good story element Helic. Thanks.
No charge. As long as it's a sisterhood of archery paladins that ride ostriches.
In my world they're called 'chocobos'.
Right, chocolate ostriches. ^_^
|
I though James said he would never publish any non-evil drow. That does not affect home games of course, but for official purposes I thought all drow were evil.now about your drow statement: it is correct in part. Yes, they must all be killed. But no, there are none that don't deserve to die. in Golarion, when regular elves perform acts of evil that are so vile and irrevocable that they have no chance to ever find the Brightness, they turn into drow.Non-evil drow exist in Golarion canon, actually.Second Darkness AP, Chapter 1 "Shadow in the Sky," Foreword, page 5:
"The drow of Golarion are not to be trusted. They worship
demons. They’re slavers and sadists. They perform hideous
experiments on innocent victims. The drow are back to
being evil, in other words."Be that as it may, there's a Chaotic Neutral drow in Golarion material.
** spoiler omitted **
IIRC, James' foreward was more about undoing some of the villain decay that happened to drow society over the years, and recommending that players please put off playing good drow until after Second Darkness.
I disagree. The fact that your whole counter argument rests on one published CHAOTIC NEUTRAL drow further reinforces my belief that in Golarion drow are/should be evil. You can't always blame adventure authors from diverging a little from the campaign narrative: they must have the ability to apply a bit of artistic license when they want to. However, in Golarion, drow are debased and utterly evil. You can do what you want in your campaign, but don't hold your breath about future products showcasing good drow.
Well here is what I think after joining in with Pathfinder society newly I read this whole thread because it reflects of a good moral debate which is relevent in reality as well as the gaming world.
So hey everyone Ive been a gamer for ten years now and I love pathfinder.
Anyways back to the original debate:
Wyverns are immune to sleep. Therefore Wyverns do not sleep like normal beings, they sleep like elves, dragons, and outsiders on other planes. That is that they do not sleep they rest with full awareness of their surroundings, atleast that's how non-sleeping creatures have been painted in very old DnD my father played and the way I have always played.
If it is immune to sleep that means that it can't sleep at all, even if it fails a save which means therefor they do not sleep.
I would just bring this up at the table and laugh about it haha this sounds like something I would do.
I realize this doesn't really settle a debate about a creature that can sleep but in this particular arguement the sleeping wyverns is null and void, because the wyvern was aware and just let itself die I guess hahahah
At conventions, I tried to refer to Drow PCs as renagade Drow. They seemed offended so I stopped saying it. My point is, good Drow should be renagades. They left Drow 'society' because they hated it. They chose to get away from it and never go back. They do the opposite.
Now I'm going to say this side discussion belongs in General Discussion where I no longer dare to tread.
It's a sure fall to read this thread
Ah, the knowledge and information, contained here is this thread shill lead to your corruption and downfall.
Well here is what I think after joining in with Pathfinder society newly I read this whole thread because it reflects of a good moral debate which is relevent in reality as well as the gaming world.
So hey everyone Ive been a gamer for ten years now and I love pathfinder.
Anyways back to the original debate:
Wyverns are immune to sleep. Therefore Wyverns do not sleep like normal beings, they sleep like elves, dragons, and outsiders on other planes. That is that they do not sleep they rest with full awareness of their surroundings, atleast that's how non-sleeping creatures have been painted in very old DnD my father played and the way I have always played.
If it is immune to sleep that means that it can't sleep at all, even if it fails a save which means therefor they do not sleep.
I would just bring this up at the table and laugh about it haha this sounds like something I would do.
I realize this doesn't really settle a debate about a creature that can sleep but in this particular arguement the sleeping wyverns is null and void, because the wyvern was aware and just let itself die I guess hahahah
This, alongside the fact that there is no chance that they might be asleep in the AP, along with the logical fallacy that a pair of wild beasts that have eggs/children to protect sleep at the same time without one staying alert, which is something that hardly ever happens in nature, much less should happen with a feral creature that has a rather high intelligence as far as feral creatures go. Combine this with the fact that it was nigh impossible according to the AP to spot the wyverns in the first place.
Looked like a paladin-trap, smelled like a paladin-trap, tasted like a paladin-trap, so I treated it as a paladin-trap.
But, I don't really care anymore. GM has proven himself a decent sort, and paladin player is cool with it, so there is no more fuel for silly internet rage :P
There is, however, always more fuel for another: *Squeeeak!*
Posting this thread was an evil act ;)
|
|
You can do what you want in your campaign, but don't hold your breath about future products showcasing good drow.Why wait? There already is one in the NPC Gallery. Played by James Jacobs! :P
again, you fail to impress me, and reinforce my position on drow MUST be evil:
"Izorah used reincarnate to give the child
a second chance at life, restoring her in the form of an aquatic
half-elf and naming her Shensen. Izorah then retired from the
adventuring life to raise Shensen as her own daughter.
Shensen, freed of her drow lineage both physically and
spiritually, grew up a devout worshiper of Sarenrae, but one day
a band of Thrune soldiers tried to claim Izorah’s grove for the
Chelish government."
again, you fail to impress me, and reinforce my position on drow MUST be evil:You can do what you want in your campaign, but don't hold your breath about future products showcasing good drow.Why wait? There already is one in the NPC Gallery. Played by James Jacobs! :P
Hay now, i like drow. I even had a whole campaign world built around them as Neutral cat worshipers of Gord Rex Felix, god of cats, drow, and ambidexterity.
True, this was before someone over wrote a goody too shoes drow in the Realms of the Forgotten. But drow, by RAW, dont have to be evil.
Barbarian: *sees an elf child, attacks, kills it and start eating the corpse*
Paladin: "BY ALL THE GOOD GODS! WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?"
Barbarian: *munch* "I was hungry, and the elf child looked weaker than me."
Paladin: "I cannot abide such evil! I must kill you to save the other elven children!" *draws his sword, smites the barbarian, but deals normal damage*
Barbarian: "Naw, it's cool, I got Int7, see? So I am neutral. After all, I AM hunting for food, just don't need to care about if what I am eating is a sentient being, and get to act like a stereotypical demon through a loophole now."
Paladin: "Oh... f**!." *falls for dishonorably attacking a neutral sentient creature out of convenience since it MIGHT attack other elven children later*
This made me lol like I've never loled before.
Still, an interesting read, this thread.
|
It is obvious, from the OP's own post, that the problem lies in letting a paladin commit what the GM considers to be a breach of the code without warning the player of the consequences beforehand.
The GM supplies the players with the description of what surrounds them, up to and including the description of what actions will cause a paladin to lose his powers. Without this info, the players are just advancing blind.
Letting the player rely on his own sense of what constitues a breach of the code and what does not, and then punishing him for guessing wrong is hardly fair.
It is obvious, from the OP's own post, that the problem lies in letting a paladin commit what the GM considers to be a breach of the code without warning the player of the consequences beforehand.
The GM supplies the players with the description of what surrounds them, up to and including the description of what actions will cause a paladin to lose his powers. Without this info, the players are just advancing blind.
Letting the player rely on his own sense of what constitues a breach of the code and what does not, and then punishing him for guessing wrong is hardly fair.
Then, there are players who will push and bend the letter of every rule, then when you call them on it, they will say "Really, I didn't think that was evil..."
That said, I think it was an evil act, but the paladin should get off with a warning like loss of powers until he can atone.
If loss of powers is a 'warning' I'd hate to see the punishment.
Punishment would be loss of powers with no chance to atone.
I figured as much.
The severity of the warning would determine how hard it was to get his powers back.
Nice warning -> powers comes back then next day after he prays and repents.
Harsh warning -> The paladin has to go on a quest to save the orphaned wyverns and find them safe new homes. Wyverns being wyverns this would be a very unfun quest. For the paladin at least, I think the rest of the group would find it hilarious.
If loss of powers is a 'warning' I'd hate to see the punishment.Punishment would be making the player read line by line every Paladin Thread!!!! *Shivers*
Allocating that punishment alone would cause a paladin to fall.
That sounds reasonable. The 'you are in danger of losing your blessing' warning comes before the paladin does something wrong then?
I don't know. Part of me thinks that eliminates the benefit of items like the Phylactery of Faithfulness. If the DM is expected to warn the paladin anytime they might be stepping out of line, then why even have an item like this?
Now, if it was something that should be obvious to the character, but it isn't obvious to the player, then a knowledge(religion) or wisdom check might be in order. Plus, it is a good way to make use of those checks.
|
|
again, you fail to impress me, and reinforce my position on drow MUST be evil:You can do what you want in your campaign, but don't hold your breath about future products showcasing good drow.Why wait? There already is one in the NPC Gallery. Played by James Jacobs! :PHay now, i like drow. I even had a whole campaign world built around them as Neutral cat worshipers of Gord Rex Felix, god of cats, drow, and ambidexterity.
True, this was before someone over wrote a goody too shoes drow in the Realms of the Forgotten. But drow, by RAW, dont have to be evil.
I care not about RAW. I care about the essence of the world of Golarion.
|
|
You can do what you want in your campaign, but don't hold your breath about future products showcasing good drow.Why wait? There already is one in the NPC Gallery. Played by James Jacobs! :Pagain, you fail to impress me, and reinforce my position on drow MUST be evil:
"Izorah used reincarnate to give the child
a second chance at life, restoring her in the form of an aquatic
half-elf and naming her Shensen. Izorah then retired from the
adventuring life to raise Shensen as her own daughter.
Shensen, freed of her drow lineage both physically and
spiritually, grew up a devout worshiper of Sarenrae, but one day
a band of Thrune soldiers tried to claim Izorah’s grove for the
Chelish government."
I'd say spiritually refers solely to Izorah's guidance, with only physically referring to the removal of her drowish appearance.
You can interpret the presence of that and the CN drow as "writer's allowance" if you want, but I see it as the authors leaving the door open for non-evil drow for both GMs and players, in accordance to Golarion as written.
Otherwise, they never would have had that CN drow to begin with.
The GM was right. Just take away spell powers temporarily.
It's up to the GM if PCs can be Drow.
Please make it stop.
|
|
You can do what you want in your campaign, but don't hold your breath about future products showcasing good drow.Why wait? There already is one in the NPC Gallery. Played by James Jacobs! :Pagain, you fail to impress me, and reinforce my position on drow MUST be evil:
"Izorah used reincarnate to give the child
a second chance at life, restoring her in the form of an aquatic
half-elf and naming her Shensen. Izorah then retired from the
adventuring life to raise Shensen as her own daughter.
Shensen, freed of her drow lineage both physically and
spiritually, grew up a devout worshiper of Sarenrae, but one day
a band of Thrune soldiers tried to claim Izorah’s grove for the
Chelish government."I'd say spiritually refers solely to Izorah's guidance, with only physically referring to the removal of her drowish appearance.
You can interpret the presence of that and the CN drow as "writer's allowance" if you want, but I see it as the authors leaving the door open for non-evil drow for both GMs and players, in accordance to Golarion as written.
Otherwise, they never would have had that CN drow to begin with.
i'd take it as one needs to be freed of its drow lineage both physically and spiritually in order to be good and/or worship a good god, and by extent, that the drow lineage is truly evil at its core, a taint that cannot be sidestepped by one's moral will... the culmination of Second Darkness chapter 5 was an elf turning into a drow after he committed the one evil act that pushed him beyond redemption. however you can always do whatever you want in your campaign, if you're afraid of black and white statements or if you like to cater to the youngins who like their drow in bubblegum flavor...
|
|
i'd take it as one needs to be freed of its drow lineage both physically and spiritually in order to be good and/or worship a good god, and by extent, that the drow lineage is truly evil at its core, a taint that cannot be sidestepped by one's moral will... the culmination of Second Darkness chapter 5 was an elf turning into a drow after he committed the one evil act that pushed him beyond redemption.
But we still have that CN drow, who was not presented as remarkably strong in terms of spiritual fortitude.
And yep, we do have the Dark Fate, but I don't see how it damns all of their descendants with the sins of the fathers when beings such as tieflings overcome far worse baggage with not-so-seldom regularity.(full disclosure: tiefling paladin player here)
however you can always do whatever you want in your campaign, if you're afraid of black and white statements or if you like to cater to the youngins who like their drow in bubblegum flavor...
I'm curious why you put it like that.
I've seen plenty of exceptions to so-called black and white statements all around Golarion, with references to redeemed fiends and orc(not half-orc, orc) paladins in Golarion material.
And why would drow having a capacity for evil and good make them "bubblegum flavored" and "kid safe"? Drow society in my Golarion is a horrifyingly twisted piece of work, just as presented. But they're not each and everyone hardwired as Always Chaotic Evil. And they certainly aren't so to make them conveniently tagged as a kill-on-sight-even-the-babies race.
I'm kind of reminded of another thread.
It's trendy to try and figure out 'what's wrong' with people who play the game differently than yourself, and assign some funky motivations, like 'powergamers' or 'emo.'
(Given how mechanically more powerful a Paladin is to a Fighter / Blackguard, the 'evul iz moar powarful!11!' meme is hilarious. Since the very beginning of the game, good has always had better rewards, both mechanically in the short-term, and in the whole 'not being tortured for all eternity' afterlife thing.)
Would this be the wrong thread to try and figure out 'what's wrong' with players who *don't* feel comfortable with the idea of redemption, or who aren't comfortable with the idea that there might *not* be a class of person that it's 'okay' to deem unredeemable and good only for guiltless killing?
|
|
I'm curious why you put it like that.
I've seen plenty of exceptions to so-called black and white statements all around Golarion, with references to redeemed fiends and orc(not half-orc, orc) paladins in Golarion material.
And why would drow having a capacity for evil and good make them "bubblegum flavored" and "kid safe"? Drow society in my Golarion is a horrifyingly twisted piece of work, just as presented. But they're not each and everyone hardwired as Always Chaotic Evil. And they certainly aren't so to make them conveniently tagged as a kill-on-sight-even-the-babies race.
I'm kind of reminded of another thread.
if you're curious to know where i'm coming from on this, i'll try to explain in the most concise way i can but i warn you, there's a chance that this could take this thread on a tangent or that i may end up rambling... ;) here it goes:
1. the inability of modern people to accept that there's anything evil and that every debased act in the world has an explanation transcends into their handling of fictitious characters, be it at the game table or when writing a novel. like the girl with a dragon tattoo said to the journalist "he fu&^ing tried to kill you! he's killed dozens of women along the years! not everyone is a fu%^ing victim! he deserved what he got!" (she was referring to the murderer dying in a ball of flame many minutes after a car crash: she could have pulled him out but she just stayed there and watched; the journalist on his moral high ground couldn't come to grasp with the fact she didn't pull the guy out so he could take years in the justice system and etc. etc. etc.)
--> i basically tend to agree that everyone can get a second chance and redeem themselves, but there's folks out there who have time and time again committed evil and nothing will change their ways. in a game where evil is personified, i am in awe that there are still people out there trying the risen fiend, good undead or misunderstood drow angle. it's so passé and unoriginal that it truly stinks as a plot device IMO. "yay we are the buffy generation" i guess... it speaks of an inability for an author to 'get with the program' and develop within a setting rather than always 'fight the man' and try to surprise the reader (and editor) with a sad 'out of the box thinking' idea that's really a way to wrap up a novel by a given deadline due to the lack of a better idea...
2. curses
--> those are different. they are an affliction upon an existing good guy. the guy sees himself become a vampire or a werewolf, and tries to fight this. this kinda plot i generally have no problem with, as it speaks of man's struggle to keep control over his darker side and rein in his primal instincts. it's funny to think that vamps/werewolves are templates rather than a base creature... in general templates can be explained by an event or transformation or accident or experiment gone awry, and thus serve a purpose within a story. however, i tend to have no time with "evil base creature gone good" stories. there are fiends in hell and the abyss, and they are evil mofos. there are wicked dark elves demon worshipper under the earth and they are evil mofos. [insert other base evil creature and location] and they are evil mofos.
I'm kind of reminded of another thread.
Did someone call for Good Necromancy on that thread?
::sparkle, sparkle::
If loss of powers is a 'warning' I'd hate to see the punishment.
I'm reminded of a line from the 1st edition Dieties and Demigod's book. It was under the section for Nike the greek goddess of victory. My quote may not be exact.
"If one of her clerics loses or runs from a battle then they are immediately struck with a bolt of light that deals sufficient damage to kill them."
You only get to be punished once.
Mr. Fishy's guppy can take a lighting bolt.