I have to say this is one of the best, non-confrontational discussions I have ever seen on any forum.
Good job, guys and gals.
Actually if you take some non-canonical books into concideration Jesus was neutral (he pushed a friend off a roof, killing him, then revived him and killed him, and revived him again when he started to explore his divine abilities), you can even argue that God is LN in nature. (Again a big theological and moral thing, not going deep into it.) As far as the Succubus baby, I say 'yes' the baby is neutral. If a Pally scoops him up later and raises him in a good environment he'd be just as apt to be good. He grows up with the Succubus and in an evil environment then being evil has a greater propensity to occur.
Seems most people are of the opinion that nurture heavily outweighs nature.
Chaotic Evil is the alignment of all babies.
Someone claimed that normal human alignment is Neutral.
I agree partially. I'd say they are inclined towards Neutral EVIL.
*Cynical*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's questions like this make me just want to toss out the alignment system entirely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At what point does a baby become a person and everyone lose interest in their well being? XD
|
So, we have the GM stating he warned the Player, who went ahead with the Holy Smite (? or whatever it was).
The rest of this debate is meaningless: Player warned of consequences went ahead regardless.
Player THEN whines about consequences and derails game with hours long argument about infant alignment, is how I read it played out.
Innocent=/=good.
Babies, having no capacity for making moral choices, must perforce be Neutral.
I can't believe this thread has gone on for 159 posts. Really? There's this much "Twist The Rules To Save Babies" animus? Seriously?
Gah.
Actually, the GM had a specific opinion about the baby's alignment, while some of the players had another shared specific opinion about it.
Both were different. The GM did not tell the player beforehand that the spell he would use could kill an innocent (ie, not Evil) baby.
The PC's intent was most definitely not to kill the baby. Thus he was most definitely NOT warned of consequences.
IMO, the GM should have been more precise in stating that the Cleric's opinion of "if it dies it means it was Evil, and thus OK for Good PCs to kill" was WRONG and that a Neutral creature too could be killed by the spell.
Apparently, this was not done. Thus the PCs had no doubt that the spell would kill the baby only if it deserved to die (ie, was Evil). I imagine the shock they got from realizing that the spell killed the innocent baby not because it was Evil, but because the GM considered it Neutral, an opinion that was not shared by the players (who thought an innocent baby Good).
No Good PC ever wants to kill an innocent baby. Thus I can most easily understand arguing long and hard with the GM about this.
What the spell does is stated pretty explicitly in the text. The main trouble here is the disconnect between player knowledge and character knowledge.
Someone cast a spell and the baby died. On this side of the GM screen we can clearly see it's because Holy Smite also smacks neutral creatures and babies are listed as neutral. On the other side of the GM screen, in the world inhabited by the characters, there are three possible interpretations:
1. A wise and knowledgeable character, who has succeeded in both a Knowledge Arcana check and a Knowledge Religion check, explains that "Holy Smite" also smacks neutral beings and that babies are also, unfortunately, neutral beings. The child's death was caused by an incompetent cleric. (The truth.)
2. A less wise and knowledgeable character fails both the Knowledge Arcana and Knowledge Religion checks and declares two things which are not true but sound like they should be true: That "Holy Smite," being holy, must logically only smite evil things, and that babies, being made of sugar and spice and everything nice, are pure goodness incarnate unless there's something seriously wrong, like someone slipping an antichrist into the mix. Taking these two false premises to their logical conclusion, he declares that the Holy Smite has killed the baby because the baby was evil, and aside from saving everyone from the BBEG, the spell saved everyone from little Damien.
3. A character with no knowledge of arcana or religion relies on the evidence of his own eyes: Some jerk cast a spell which killed the BBEG and the baby too. And while killing the BBEG is fine, this in no way excuses killing the baby.
This all said, the GM should make it clear to the players what the spells are going to do so they can adjust their character's actions rather than just having to roll with it.
The paladin tries to save both of them, though the price be his own life.
The answer of a true paladin!... Then if you were sure that you can save only one, even with the sacrifice of your own life? I exchange you your life for the baby’s OR the wise good old man’s? If you don't pick only one, both of them die but you live. Be a paladin and choose!
Honey badgers, according to the rules, are "neutral."
I rest my case.
So,....."neutral" wink wink....nod....nod.....paladins can't smite......continue with the dismemberments at will......
Of course honey badger is neutral. Honey badger doesn't give a s***, what alignment would you call that?
|
So, we have the GM stating he warned the Player, who went ahead with the Holy Smite (? or whatever it was).
The rest of this debate is meaningless: Player warned of consequences went ahead regardless.
Player THEN whines about consequences and derails game with hours long argument about infant alignment, is how I read it played out.
Innocent=/=good.
Babies, having no capacity for making moral choices, must perforce be Neutral.
I can't believe this thread has gone on for 159 posts. Really? There's this much "Twist The Rules To Save Babies" animus? Seriously?
Gah.
This is pretty much how it played out. I was told I was being dumb, and the player even lied to an absentee player about how things went down. Specifically, he stated that he wasn't warned and I wouldn't allow him to take it back.
When he declared that he was casting Holy Smite, I looked at the rules and declared that the infant was in the AOE. I was then told that I was being dumb and that if the baby died, it was an evil baby. I declared that it was neutral. I looked at the AP and checked the stat block of the parents, which said they were neutral. Then I read the entries for the various alignments and it was a no-brainer to declare NEUTRAL. It was repeated that if the baby dies, it is evil. Dice were rolled, and things got really ridiculous. I then questioned myself as to why I would play in/DM for such an immature group of players. Seriously.
|
|
So, we have the GM stating he warned the Player, who went ahead with the Holy Smite (? or whatever it was).
The rest of this debate is meaningless: Player warned of consequences went ahead regardless.
Player THEN whines about consequences and derails game with hours long argument about infant alignment, is how I read it played out.
Innocent=/=good.
Babies, having no capacity for making moral choices, must perforce be Neutral.
I can't believe this thread has gone on for 159 posts. Really? There's this much "Twist The Rules To Save Babies" animus? Seriously?
Gah.
Actually, the GM had a specific opinion about the baby's alignment, while some of the players had another shared specific opinion about it.
Both were different. The GM did not tell the player beforehand that the spell he would use could kill an innocent (ie, not Evil) baby.
The PC's intent was most definitely not to kill the baby. Thus he was most definitely NOT warned of consequences.
IMO, the GM should have been more precise in stating that the Cleric's opinion of "if it dies it means it was Evil, and thus OK for Good PCs to kill" was WRONG and that a Neutral creature too could be killed by the spell.
Apparently, this was not done. Thus the PCs had no doubt that the spell would kill the baby only if it deserved to die (ie, was Evil). I imagine the shock they got from realizing that the spell killed the innocent baby not because it was Evil, but because the GM considered it Neutral, an opinion that was not shared by the players (who thought an innocent baby Good).
No Good PC ever wants to kill an innocent baby. Thus I can most easily understand arguing long and hard with the GM about this.
I certainly agree that the players intent was to not kill the baby. (Keep in mind that this player has a history of interpreting the rules contrary to both what I understand and what the rules say in <mostly> plain English...and is not afraid to get into heated debate.) :-)
The spell is very clearly written, and both the player and character should be fully aware that it affects Neutral creatures. Therefore, even in the event that I didn't warn them, it's on the player/character for being careless. At the very least, knowing that the spell affects NEUTRAL creatures, other steps should have been taken both by the player and the character. At the end of the day, it boils down to a careless player.