It depends on the style of the game.
In my campaign, the bard's used charm person to lead people to the authorities, not to a quick death. If the DM's flexible enough to actually role play on the fly, then yes, using charm person to kill someone is an evil act. If it's a beer and pretzels, kick down the door style game, then, no it's not an evil act. Nobody's going to have the patience for the role playing necessary to use charm person in a good manner.
In D&D act are supposed to be judged objectively, thus everything that will lead the balance to tip in favor of good will be registered as good... If the baby you just killed swiftly while he slept turn out to be a futur evil god you just made a good act (but you better be sure of yourself, cause if the baby was not going to be an evil god you just comitted a truly evil act, even if you think it was the right things to do).
Trying to reform him would be a very, very very good act (and a loyal one) but a very risky one too (protecting and releasing an evil god on the world is not a good act, even if you think it was, objectively it's not).Killing someone after charming him because it's easier like that is not an evil act if the person you killed was a truly evil person... It is, however a very chaotic act, while giving him to the authorities (who will surely condemn him to hang until death anyway) is a Lawful behaviour, not especially a good act... That has nothing to do with beer and bretzels... :p
Now I have to say that your typical highwayman will not register as evil, and I houserule that most character are neutral in my campaigns, only truly good and truly evil people are "Evil", same with "Lawful/Chaotic".
So my players have no problem in using charm/kill tactics on truly Evil people while they usually take highwaymen and such "low-evil" people to the justice if they can (if they can't they strip them and release them in their underwear... :D ).
The same with torture, torture is evil but if you have tried everything else and still have'nt find the information to save the world then torturing the Evil guy should not shift your alignement, provided you have trully tried everything else it's not even a chaotic act... ;)
If you go too quickly or too often toward torture then this will become an Evil act (and a huge chaotic act too) because sooner or later you're going to torture the wrong guy... :p
|
Ah yes, good old applying logic and moral standards to dnd alignment issues.
See the thing about dnd is that it is considered a good and objectively moral action to kill evil beings and take their stuff. Thus I see that anything that doesn't pass a moral event horizon (which in this case is going out of your way to make something suffer), isn't by the game to be considered evil.
Not in the rules, and not in practice in most games I played/witnessed.
Good people kill out of necessity, and circustances, such as protecting the innocent or to bring justice. Killing someone JUST BECAUSE it's evil, it's evil or chaotic, not good. Otherwise, a paladin entering a town would just turn on detect evil and slaughter anybody that signal as evil.
But if you want to judge the objective morale of an act you have to play like that, or else it's not objective...
If a Paladin got in an Evil killing spree in town I will make him fall... Not from being evil but for being chaotic... :p
And usually truly evil people in towns will have something to change their alignement, or else the first cleric who pass will tell the authority who will spy on him to find what he's in for, and who would let an evil person as a mayor ? or having any power in the city for that ?
In my games a highwaymen will not register as evil... Mostly because high level real highwaymen does not exist (he might have choose this way like robin hood for a purpose though), a level 10 human NPC attacking people on the road is a bit ridiculous, he can go to a village, take what he need and no one can stop him, it's easier that way and less hazardous... In fact at this level he can make a "big coup" from time to time and buy a comfortable house to settle somewhere, that's better than camp in the forest :p
So usually when mu players are level 10 and they encounter higwaymen they know they are really, really more powerful than the bandit, and this is where they can truly act as "Lawful Good" people... ;)
When you know that the 5 guys trying to kill you cannot make a scratch on you while a half-slap from you can kill these poor guys they usually have a natural tendency to let them live and teach them a lesson... While when facing a really tough BBEG they will resort to all means to kill him in order to save the world, surprise attack, treachery etc... :)
I firmly agree that teabagging, unless first invited cordially and sincerely, is indeed evil.
Where I disagree with you is that your hunter of evil described above, or perhaps just your limited description of him, is neglecting two things typically associated with the forces of good in fantasy:
1) the chance for redemption.
Alignment is mutable, and can be changed simply by beginning to behave in a new way... so why wouldn't the "good guy" offer the "bad guy" at least one chance to change?
To quote the Doctor "...stop this, or I'll stop you."
2) the "good guy" has rules to follow
Instead of thinking "I'd better sneak in there and slit his throat while he is asleep so that he doesn't get away and do more evil," a truly good individual might think "Okay, I'm after a wizard... good thing I have this spell resisting armor and a stone enchanted with dimensional anchor," (or some higher level equivalent of equipment).
Then, the Paladin could enter the evil Wizard's bedroom and wake the Wizard up for a summary trial, with execution if it proves necessary.
Well, it depends, what if you have to teabag him without consent to save the world or kill an evil god ? :D
For the redemption thing : I agree, if you have the time and if it's not too risky a good person should try this... If the world is at stake or the whole good/evil balance then taking a chance is not necessarily the good thing to do... If you succeed I do agree that would be a tremendous victory for the Good side, but sometimes the best is the ennemy of the good, cause if you failed then this will be the end of the world... Are you going to take your chance ? ;)
For the rules I agree too, in fact if Asteldian Caliskan was playing in my game he will surely be a Freedom Paladin, a CG Paladin, not a LG one. :)
|
In my games a highwaymen will not register as evil... Mostly because high level real highwaymen does not exist (he might have choose this way like robin hood for a purpose though), a level 10 human NPC attacking people on the road is a bit ridiculous, he can go to a village, take what he need and no one can stop him, it's easier that way and less hazardous... In fact at this level he can make a "big coup" from time to time and buy a comfortable house to settle somewhere, that's better than camp in the forest :p
True, but he does not know that...He does not have a character sheet that tells him that he can valtz into a village and just take stuff because most guards cannot scratch him and he can sneeze on them in order to kill them. What he sees are men in armor with swords and polearms. And he does not want to die. That is why he wayalys people on the roads. Because they are not that well protected. You cannot judge NPCs from a PC perspective...it does not work that way.
Still waiting for actual proof of this.
Yeah is there room for two in the waiting lounge?
See the thing about dnd is that it is considered a good and objectively moral action to kill evil beings and take their stuff.Still waiting for actual proof of this.
Well, since that's what the gods do (apart maybe for the inevitable goddess of life/cure etc.) , and since it's their gods who will judge people after their death then I think it's proved... :p
The fact is that, objectively, it is a Good act to kill an Evil person (taking their stuff might be subject of discussion though). Provided that the person is truly Evil that is, because that will make the force of Good stronger and the force of Evil weaker (that's true especially if the Evil person was a priest of an Evil God ;) )... In fact letting him live can be an Evil act if this lead to the Evil forces to reinforce... ;)But there's only few people who are trully evil (a goblin is not recording as evil with a detect evil spell, unless he has more than 5 level). And killing him will not be recorded as a good deed... More, if one of my player found some goblins sleeping in the forest and decide to kill them coldly he will gain a huge chaotic bounce and a little evil shift (Well, I use points to keep track of alignement and "low-evil" guy only take a quarter, then half-damage from Smite while truly Evil one take double depending of where they are on the chart, only high level true believer of an evil god and outsiders can be considered truly Evil and take the double damage ;) But that's my houserule so...)
The Vietnamese massacre was not ordered by the unit's hierarchy, and there's a huge difference between killing and raping and torture... :)Yet twenty six of them were charged for doing just that as they obeyed the order from their commander. So once again, you might want to have a bit of a longer think about how all that works out...
Actually, any Soldier, right down to the freshest recruit can refuse to obey an order to kill 'unlawfully'. If they DO carry out the order they can be charged. So you are flat out wrong. LOAC is your friend.
You can make the point without saying the other person doesn't know anything, or using their disagreement with you as evidence that they don't know anything. Examples make your case better than insults.
Actually, any Soldier, right down to the freshest recruit can refuse to obey an order to kill 'unlawfully'
And in the best army this is going to result in you being blacklisted. In many armies around the world this will result in you being shot. They're already digging a mass grave and there's always room for one more.
You can make the point without saying the other person doesn't know anything, or using their disagreement with you as evidence that they don't know anything. Examples make your case better than insults.
Thanks, but we'd already been down that path.
Exapmles given, examples refuted, point cleared up for them.And in the best army this is going to result in you being blacklisted. In many armies around the world this will result in you being shot. They're already digging a mass grave and there's always room for one more.
Erm, ok...
We are talking about 'good guys' here, you know, ones signed up to concepts like Geneva Convention, not Uncle Hutu's militia. There's a bit of a difference there don't you suppose?
Those 'good guy armies', ie the ones being discussed, are covered by concepts such as LOAC and other minor details about what is and what isn't a vlaid target... and no, you wont get blacklisted for failing to engage the carload of unarmed civilians as they are driving away, no matter how much some General wanted you to.
In Uncle Hutu's milita (the thing we are not discussing) you'd have a great point, but as we aren't discussing groups who are happy to hack people up with machetes and eat them, like in interesting places, such as Liberia, so...
Feel free to point out where going against an unlawful order (in breach of LOAC) has resulted in the troops being 'blackballed' in the last while.
Erm, ok...
We are talking about 'good guys' here, you know, ones signed up to concepts like Geneva Convention, not Uncle Hutu's militia. There's a bit of a difference there don't you suppose?
Those 'good guy armies', ie the ones being discussed, are covered by concepts such as LOAC and other minor details about what is and what isn't a vlaid target... and no, you wont get blacklisted for failing to engage the carload of unarmed civilians as they are driving away, no matter how much some General wanted you to.
In Uncle Hutu's milita (the thing we are not discussing) you'd have a great point, but as we aren't discussing groups who are happy to hack people up with machetes and eat them, like in interesting places, such as Liberia, so...
Feel free to point out where going against an unlawful order (in breach of LOAC) has resulted in the troops being 'blackballed' in the last while.
Mmmh I don't like discussing real life morale, cause, you know, YMMV... It's a lot simplier in D&D where, when you are a follower of a demon you don't think you are the pinnacle of all virtue, you know you are evil and you like that ;)
In a real life war each camp are sure to be the good guy... And they are sure they do the good things... Usually it's the winner who's right... :p (I personally think that if you come to war you failed, I'm for the disuasion thing, for me the best soldier is the one who can stay at home cause there's no war to fight ;) )
In D&D when an army of undead lead by a lich attack you know who's the good guys and you know that the bad guys don't think they are the good ones... (well in this case most of the army don't even think at all :D )
That's the difference between subjective morale and objective morale... objective morale is way easier to handle... :)
|
As others have mentioned, context is everything and we don't have any here.
On the face of it, fighting (say) 4 against 3 and then 4 against 1 is no more (or less) evil than fighting 4 against 4 would have been.
However, D&D morality is not the same as real life morality. It amuses me to note that it is usually the Good guys who slaughter people because the opponent failed their ad hoc alignment test; Evil people tend to be more relaxed on the issue.
Other than that, who the heck cares whether an act is evil or not? In 99% of the games I've played, writing "NG" on my character sheet has led to more pain for my character (due to smites, blights and the like) than writing "NE" would have done. If the DM wants to keep switching my alignment about based on his interpretation of D&D morality, that doesn't bother me.
(Caveat - unless playing a paladin, of course; however, I'd never play a paladin unless the DM agreed to warn me in advance when he considered an action might be in breach of the Paladin's Code of Conduct)
|
|
See the thing about dnd is that it is considered a good and objectively moral action to kill evil beings and take their stuff.Still waiting for actual proof of this.
Well the fact that paladins, the embodiments of good, are supposed to kick horrendous amounts of ass might be proof enough for you. However its a truth baked into the setting. The whole game (in its default state) is good heroes killing objectively evil creatures and taking their stuff. This is what DND / pathfinder is, and its what it has always been.
I see them as equally wrong, just in different ways.you know you could run a very interesting campaign where there was a rule that killing ANYONE who is sentient is considering evil no matter the circumstances.
not only that killing someone immediately taints you with the aura of an evil alignment.
I know there is a monk build/alternate class that works off of this. I believe UM actually says, "this monk will probably take a lot of grapple feats and use ropes or chains to tie up their enemies." The role play for it seems a little bland though.
Personally, i'd just be evil if my GM ran a campagin like this.|
|
Personally, i'd just be evil if my GM ran a campagin like this.I see them as equally wrong, just in different ways.you know you could run a very interesting campaign where there was a rule that killing ANYONE who is sentient is considering evil no matter the circumstances.
not only that killing someone immediately taints you with the aura of an evil alignment.
That is because it would go against the fundemental structure of the game.
If the chamred chap is good yes
If the charmed chap is neutral maybe
If the charmed chap is evil no
For my playstyle this is an okay place to start, then apply judgment based on the circumstances and remember alignment is a means to an end based on very, very broad strokes & not solely a straight jacket meant to give the DM a reason to trip up his or her players.
good and evil combined.
Killing a person that was no longer a threat and effectively incompasitated and could easily be dealt with in a less violent manner, in my opinion is an evil act. If there was no way to permanently restrain him and he would pose a serious threat in the future I could see it being done but with great reluctance.
I somewhat agree with this.
It's definitely an area that will always come down to a matter of perspective and, I think, circumstance.
That said, I doubt I'll probably be able to adequately explain my viewpoint on this, nor do I think taking a ton of time to do so is worth it for the purposes of a game and the resulting back and forth, but...killing a person who has tried to murder you and will probably try and do so again at a later date if given the chance would probably not be considered all that evil an act throughout most of human history.
Guidelines that should be followed by good alignments as I see them. My opinion.
1) Good should avoid killing (especially sentient creatures) at all cost only resorting to killing when there is no better less violent option or when it is necessary (say to provide food, etc.). A respect for life is part of being good.
2) Good should try to redeem evil when possible, killing only when redemption/neutralization is not an option.
3) Good will sacrifice personal gain and even safety to alleviate the suffering of others.
I see all of this as a valid way to play the good alignment, but not the only valid way to play the good alignment.
Short version: I think mercy and justice are both very good-alignment concepts/ideals, but they're competing/contradictory ideals. Your version only allows for the extreme mercy end of that spectrum.
|
Well the fact that paladins, the embodiments of good, are supposed to kick horrendous amounts of ass might be proof enough for you. However its a truth baked into the setting. The whole game (in its default state) is good heroes killing objectively evil creatures and taking their stuff. This is what DND / pathfinder is, and its what it has always been.
You keep stating that it is an 'objectively Good act' without any actual proof. All you do is state that it is that way.
The fact that Paladins can kill Evil creatures without falling means it is not an Evil act. You can't use that as proof it is a Good act because it can also be a Neutral act.
|
|
Well, since that's what the gods do (apart maybe for the inevitable goddess of life/cure etc.) , and since it's their gods who will judge people after their death then I think it's proved... :p
The fact is that, objectively, it is a Good act to kill an Evil person (taking their stuff might be subject of discussion though). Provided that the person is truly Evil that is, because that will make the force of Good stronger and the force of Evil weaker (that's true especially if the Evil person was a priest of an Evil God ;) )... In fact letting him live can be an Evil act if this lead to the Evil forces to reinforce... ;)
The problem with stating that it is 'objectively a Good act' means you need to be able to prove it with actual evidence.
'The gods do it' is not evidence of it being a Good act any more than 'Paladins can do it' is. You're forgetting that acts can be Neutral too, not just Good and Evil. Which means you have to prove it cannot be an Evil OR a Neutral act to kill an Evil person.
I don't think anyone here can find me an reference stating that killing Evil is a Good act. I'm sure many in-game religions would claim that, but I doubt that would prove it. I'd peg such a religion as Neutral rather than Good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion it is an evil act, not necesarily an act that makes your alignment drop in one try, so yea good characters could get away with it if they feel sufficiently bad about it.
Good characters are supposed to have respect for life, as the default option anyway. If you have been tortured by boggards your opinion on boggards might be drastically different, but without a good backstory or having ur choices limited by circumstances it would be evil.
Alot of factors come into an act, but 'using' someone to your benefit before killing him is sufficiently ruthless and calculating to be considered evil in most cases.
Killing evil or neutral creatures isn't an evil act by default, it depends on what the characters motivations are to kill it, just saying it is evil is not good enough.
Alot of factors come into an act, but 'using' someone to your benefit before killing him is sufficiently ruthless and calculating to be considered evil in most cases.
But there you're assuming you're using them to specifically your benefit rather than in service of justice or some greater good.
The end doesn't always justify the means, but, sometimes it pretty much does.
|
|
Well, since that's what the gods do (apart maybe for the inevitable goddess of life/cure etc.) , and since it's their gods who will judge people after their death then I think it's proved... :p
The fact is that, objectively, it is a Good act to kill an Evil person (taking their stuff might be subject of discussion though). Provided that the person is truly Evil that is, because that will make the force of Good stronger and the force of Evil weaker (that's true especially if the Evil person was a priest of an Evil God ;) )... In fact letting him live can be an Evil act if this lead to the Evil forces to reinforce... ;)
The problem with stating that it is 'objectively a Good act' means you need to be able to prove it with actual evidence.
'The gods do it' is not evidence of it being a Good act any more than 'Paladins can do it' is. You're forgetting that acts can be Neutral too, not just Good and Evil. Which means you have to prove it cannot be an Evil OR a Neutral act to kill an Evil person.
I don't think anyone here can find me an reference stating that killing Evil is a Good act. I'm sure many in-game religions would claim that, but I doubt that would prove it. I'd peg such a religion as Neutral rather than Good.
Well the thing is, in dnd, the wishy washy morality that we have in the real world, Ie that we don't actually know what is good and what is evil, we as humans have to decide for ourselves. Philosophical inquiry and ethics and laws are essentially meaningless, just because if Bob the Paladin's evil sense tingles, you are objectively and metaphysically a bad person.
I never said that killing evil creatures was inherently good. I just said that inherently good beings are allowed to kill evil beings while still being an avatar of good. I don't think that means that killing an evil creature can ever be considered objectively wrong.
TlDR: Dnd's having absolute and identifiable good and evil is stupid.
It is intensely important to all alignment discussions that people have an in-depth understanding of moral relativism. If you don't, you'll end up arguing till you're blue in the face with someone who will counter-argue until they're red in the face. Then you just end up with purple blotches. Your idea of good, and my idea of good are, more than likely, completely different than one another, because you didn't grow up with my parents, in my house, in my town (unless you're my brother/sister). It is absolutely impossible to argue the "nature" of good, versus the "nature" of evil if there has never been a clearly defined set of standards for the two.
And NO! the alignment text in any RPG book does not clearly set an argumentative standard for the true (meaning absolutely certain) standard or archetype of good. There have been alignment discussions (many of them on these messageboards :P) for as long as there has been an alignment system. When it comes right down to it, what is good and evil will (and must) be determined by the players and the GM prior to any campaign. Asking for "good vs. evil" advice from people on messageboards is like going to the library and asking a stranger in the Mystery section:
Adult content alert!
|
|
Also, define 'is'.
I never said that killing evil creatures was inherently good. I just said that inherently good beings are allowed to kill evil beings while still being an avatar of good. I don't think that means that killing an evil creature can ever be considered objectively wrong.
TlDR: Dnd's having absolute and identifiable good and evil is stupid.
Okay, I misunderstood your meaning and conflated it with Loengrin's statements.
Totally agree with your TLDR, which is why I gutted alignment in my games. I do think that killing an evil creature can be objectively wrong depending on the nature of evil in your game, however.
** spoiler omitted **
Exactly my point. ;)
Someone else posted this but I found it Hilarious.
"Breaking down a dam wall and drowning a horde of rampaging orcs is heroic - drowning the orcs one by one is an alignment change."
I really like this. I will use it when getting into alignments for my homebrew. I have redefined alignments in my homebrew to a moderate extent.
Well, since that's what the gods do (apart maybe for the inevitable goddess of life/cure etc.) , and since it's their gods who will judge people after their death then I think it's proved... :p
The fact is that, objectively, it is a Good act to kill an Evil person (taking their stuff might be subject of discussion though). Provided that the person is truly Evil that is, because that will make the force of Good stronger and the force of Evil weaker (that's true especially if the Evil person was a priest of an Evil God ;) )... In fact letting him live can be an Evil act if this lead to the Evil forces to reinforce... ;)
The problem with stating that it is 'objectively a Good act' means you need to be able to prove it with actual evidence.
'The gods do it' is not evidence of it being a Good act any more than 'Paladins can do it' is. You're forgetting that acts can be Neutral too, not just Good and Evil. Which means you have to prove it cannot be an Evil OR a Neutral act to kill an Evil person.
I don't think anyone here can find me an reference stating that killing Evil is a Good act. I'm sure many in-game religions would claim that, but I doubt that would prove it. I'd peg such a religion as Neutral rather than Good.
Well the thing is, in dnd, the wishy washy morality that we have in the real world, Ie that we don't actually know what is good and what is evil, we as humans have to decide for ourselves. Philosophical inquiry and ethics and laws are essentially meaningless, just because if Bob the Paladin's evil sense tingles, you are objectively and metaphysically a bad person.
I never said that killing evil creatures was inherently good. I just said that inherently good beings are allowed to kill evil beings while still being an avatar of good. I don't think that means that killing an evil creature can ever be considered objectively wrong.
TlDR: Dnd's having absolute and identifiable good and evil is stupid.
I have to disagree with this because I think it's important to have clear lines in certain situations in games. That said I don't think those lines should be drawn in ink because there will always be circumstances that muddy the waters to a considerable extent. Maybe I should say I would rather have clearly identifiable good and evil in my games moreso than absolute.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment thread ahoy. What fun.
Evil isn't that which is not good, evil is that which is actively evil.
Good isn't that which is not evil, good is that which is actively good.
Neutral is that which is neither actively good nor actively evil.
Alignment is both intent and event, although the ratio between the two tends to vary by the scope of event. The scope being the people affected by it.
A palladin who goes around killing goblins in their lairs isn't committing an evil or a good act. The act of killing itself is unaligned, otherwise all predators would be evil (just like in medieval Europe). Why he's killing the goblins matters. Is he killing to put an end to their predations on the local town? To rescue kidnapped children? A good act then. To do the same to receive the posted reward? Neutral, a self-serving act that happens to benefit others. Because he hates goblins with a passion, and can't stand to see one live? Approaching evil quickly, a self serving action that brings active harm, although a nearby town might see less raiding that spring.
Now, a paladin who goes into a goblin lair, defeats the warriors and cheif, spares the women and children, reclaims the goods stolen from the villagers, warns the goblins to "Amend their ways or leave this place, such mercy will not be shown again", warns the villagers to watch for signs of goblins in the area, spends a day training a few strong lads some basic fighting, and returns the stolen goods and spreads half the reward from the village cheif back around to the villagers, is doing a series of good acts, with only the defeats of the warrior goblins and cheif being a neutral act.
To me, good and evil take effort to achieve, and are quite hard to reach through inaction. Deliberate lack of action is different, the very nature of choosing not to act is an act itself. See Batman Begins: "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."
Just like a bad guy with a hostage who threatens the paladin is the one responsible for what happens to the hostage, not the paladin. He chose to take use another life as a shield against his enemy. He chose to disrespect another being's right to live. The paladin is trying to save the hostage, in hoping that he can strike down the villain before he kills said hostage. Granted, this assumes the "bigger plan in motion, villain is buying time" scenario.
tldr: Alignment absolutes work just fine when you realize the alignment grid is just that: a grid. There is space between the lines.
Well, in nuremberg the german soldier guarding the entrance of the camp was not passed on trials... It was the guys that decided to do those horrible thnigs that were judged... ;)
Actually they did and have put camp guards on trial. Convicted them too.
The Vietnamese massacre was not ordered by the unit's hierarchy, and there's a huge difference between killing and raping and torture... :)
Losing control of your men can get you convicted of war crimes. Ask General Yamashito.
Killing in a war is not a crime, raping and torture are... In the army if a general ask you to kill someone you don't ask "why should I kill him ?", you obey... And if this guy you killed was an innocent you're not responsible, the general who gave you the order is...
In time of war discussing an order will surely send you to a martial court (where YOU have to prove you have good reason to disobey ;) )
Killing may or may not be a crime. Killing a combatant in battle is not. Slaughtering prisoners, for example, is. Rape and torture always are. The general giving an illegal order can be convicted. So can the privates that carry out the illegal orders. Nuremburg pretty much eliminated the "I was just following orders" defence.
Totally agree with your TLDR, which is why I gutted alignment in my games. I do think that killing an evil creature can be objectively wrong depending on the nature of evil in your game, however.
So you've thrown out the Alignment system?
How does that work out for you guys?
No longer being able to 'detect evil'? How does Smiting work?
Just curious as I think it could open up some interesting areas.
|
|
I haven't had anyone use Smite anything yet, so I haven't see that side yet. I figure with the limited uses, I'll just let them smite anything.
Overall, I haven't noticed much in the way of effects. They still kill things that attack them, and talk to things that don't. Maybe with players that have more system familiarity it would have a bigger effect.
I like the concept; it irks me when people can just handwave roleplay and any sort of investigative steps or exercise judgment and simply hit the 'detect' button. Mind you, at least my players are all sesnible enough not just to go around killing people because they are evil on the grounds 'that they are evil'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you've thrown out the Alignment system?
How does that work out for you guys?
No longer being able to 'detect evil'? How does Smiting work?
Just curious as I think it could open up some interesting areas.
Not to muscle into your guys' conversation, but I've thrown out alignment in my 3.5 homegames as well. I've spoilered the copy/paste from my houserules google.doc due to length below, if you are interested.
Characters do not need to list an alignment. Their player may act in whatever manner they feel best represents their character’s personality. Likewise, most monsters and NPCs will not list alignments. However, creatures of the following types will still have appropriate alignments: deathless, dragons, outsiders with aligned subtypes, and undead. Paladins will be treated as lawful and good aligned for the purpose of spells and effects that reference alignment, and clerics will be treated as the alignment of their deity under similar circumstances.
Paladins should still follow a set code of conduct as decided between the player of the paladin and the DM and clerics should still follow the tenets of their faith.
While this may seem to lessen the usefulness of many spells and abilities, with a few minor changes game balance is preserved. The paladin’s smite evil class feature is now a general smite which affects any character or creature with an intelligence score of 3 or higher which is acting in a manner, or is philosophically opposed, to the paladin’s core beliefs, doubling its effectiveness on clerics of evil faiths and creatures who are actually of the evil alignment (see above).
Interesting stuff guys. I like the idea, might throw it out there in a later campaign.
Well, in nuremberg the german soldier guarding the entrance of the camp was not passed on trials... It was the guys that decided to do those horrible thnigs that were judged... ;)
The Vietnamese massacre was not ordered by the unit's hierarchy, and there's a huge difference between killing and raping and torture... :)
Killing in a war is not a crime, raping and torture are... In the army if a general ask you to kill someone you don't ask "why should I kill him ?", you obey... And if this guy you killed was an innocent you're not responsible, the general who gave you the order is...
In time of war discussing an order will surely send you to a martial court (where YOU have to prove you have good reason to disobey ;) )
Wow, this is totally wrong. Killing an innocent individual, even if ordered to do so my a senior ranking military official, is still a crime punishable by the UCMJ. Blindly following orders and claiming ignorance is not tolerated in the military. You are expected to have a sense of morality in all that you do. You never saw "A Few Good Men" did you? The marines in that film were ordered to carry out a "Code Red" by a very high ranking official and they were put on trial for the murder of a fellow marine. The murder was an accident and the "Code Red" was only meant to be a form of discipline carried out by the marines, but it went wrong and an innocent individual died. Even though they followed a direct order, they were found guilty for failing to do what was right. The order was wrong and they knew it.
A time of war or not, if you follow unreasonable orders and are tried for them, you can and will be found guilty regardless if you were following a direct command.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Show me a rule or even give me an explanation in what situation a Lawful Good Paladin using Smite Evil to kill an Evil NPC could be considered an evil act ;)
with the above example Paly would smite charmed evil NPC.
and then what Paly loses LG status for comiting an evil act and must atone ? heh I'd like to see that enforced in PFS ;)
Alright, here you go. A tavern is run by a Lawful Evil barkeep. He swindles customers and charges different rates to different customers and is openly racist. He also runs an illegal gaming operation in the back of his tavern and lies on his annual taxes to avoid paying his fair share but he is smart enough about the tax laws that he never technically "breaks" the law, he just hides key information that would make him pay more than what he does.
One day, a paladin walks into the tavern and just so happens to case the place by detecting evil. The tavern owner pings evil on his radar and the paladin draws his sword, smites and power attacks the barkeep simply because he radiated an evil aura and winds up killing him with one shot. Everyone clears the tavern in fear and shouts begin to go out to the city guard to come to the tavern because the owner has been.... MURDERED!!
Yep, paladins do not have card blanche to kill evil at random. At least folks with half a brain and experience in D&D/ PF will play it as such. The paladin has a code of honor and conduct that he must adhere to, and nowhere in the code does it say to completely eradicate all evil from the face of the planet through acts of violence. Justice in a lot of peoples eyes seems to mean death, but that is totally far from the truth. This is where DM discretion comes into play. If any crime committed would be punishable by death, then there would be a huge population decrease on an annual basis and eventually the citizens would not tolerate it. Its called revolution and it has happened plenty of times.
Plus, without any evidence of what crimes the tavern keeper has committed, the paladin is in the wrong for not being able to accurately list what the man was guilty for. Simply being evil is not enough, even in a game that is very hack and slash happy. In my personal opinion, if a paladin discovers that someone is evil, they should feel a sense of obligation to try and turn the said evil character from their ways before condemning them to the extreme extent of the law. Is this not a form of ridding the world of evil? Convincing something not to be evil anymore?
Does it always work? NO. Are there times where death is the only answer? Heck yes! Demons and Devils especially come to mind on this aspect. A paladin should know full well that those creatures are evil incarnate and must be battled with all of his might.
Wow, this is totally wrong. Killing an innocent individual, even if ordered to do so my a senior ranking military official, is still a crime punishable by the UCMJ.
I'm wondering of that poster now completely understands how wrong he was.
I'm also waiting on BNW to come and:
a) Explaining how not carrying out the illegal order will get you blacklisted in the military
and
b) complain that you stated that poster was 'wrong', and thus being so blunt its insulting... thats what I got told.
I guess these are the problems we face when guys play CoD/Airsoft all day and think they are in the military, a lot gets lost in the fantasy realm.
|
It can't be evil....you see according to the "Halflings are the Savoirs of all realities" sourcebook, this happens all the time....Halfling beauty has the effect of a charm spell and then when we do as we always do and completely devistate in combat,any emeny that has witnessed our deific visages were charmed and then dead...yet we are still the ultimate paragons of good....the example that all good races aspire to.
Adult content alert! ** spoiler omitted **Continuation of the adult content via response
** spoiler omitted **
Oh, ho ho! How you missed my point. :)
Continued adult conversation below: