(Discussion) Red Wizards and Paladins Code of Ethics Issue

[Mithreander]

These are some pulled posts from a debate that occured in one of the starting adventures. It brings to the surface some issues, and I think that the content should quickly be ran over and decided upon.

-creamsteak



OoC:*Stops looking for his players handbook* Damn! I forgot about that discription in the players handbook! I've played by my houserules (Being a paladin does not make him less of a person. It makes him more of one. He has more tools to make judgements on the purity of people, and with that insight, tends to be better prepared then others when facing adversity. But without an action, they can NOT judge an evil person. I have NPCs who are evil, but do more good then their counterparts. Why? They are fighting their nature, and in their fight, tend to do more good then those that are just naturally good.) for so long, that I forget about the shortsightedness of WotC's publications. I am going to make a call for THIS adventure, because it's my place to do so. A paladin MUST have a code of honor, but it does not have to be the same as that in the players handbook. With that in mind I would change the code that a paladin cannot travel with anyone evil, to a paladin can not travel with a person that practices evil. Note: This rendition of the rules is for this adventure only. The paladin's god or lord really wants him to help the people of Fallon.

[Lichtenhart]

Originally Posted by Lichtenhart

[OOC: Well the Red Wizards are now an official PrC that is in the SRD so we can have them. We can't have Thay though. Janos, if possible try to make their land quite different from FR Thay.

OOC: No I was wrong. They are in the DMG but not in the SRD. So we can't have them. Well we can have all sorts of slaver wizards, only you can't call them 'Red Wizards'. I suggest we edit it out to a new name.

[Creamsteak]

Obviously, there can be no "Red Wizards of Thay" in this game. That's a given, no question. The words "Red Wizard" are pretty general, and when I see them, I don't necessarily think of the Realms Prestige Class.

I'm fine with leaving their class in the setting, however, setting up a heritage for such a prestige class would have to be dealt with by some creative individuals that have an interest in seeing Living Enworld do well. Really, I'd rather we created our own prestige classes.

So, I need some comments from a couple people to re-affirm my opinion one way or the other.

[Lichtenhart]

Originally Posted by Mithreander

OoC: Thebis-Ra, please note the we are NOT in a world with the red wizards of they. Keep your background, but do the rest of us a favor and create a simular, but unique group that could exist in this world. ENWorld is rather new and needs help in these areas. Thanks!

Originally Posted by Janos Audron

[OOC: We *are* in a world with Red Wizards, since I was allowed to DM an adventure with 2 of them. One of them is currently in the Red Dragon Inn.]

Originally Posted by Mithreander

[OoC: If that's the case, then could you please inform us where They is? I find it unrealistic that they would be in this world and find that the ENWorld judge made a mistake. But I'm not them, so... have you added an entry HERE or anyone else for these geographically challenged wizards?]

Originally Posted by Janos Audron

[Does it even matter where Thay is? It doesn't affect your adventure, merely my background. It isn't in walking distance. Janos Teleported here, Thebis travelled several years before he got here.]

Originally Posted by Mithreander

[OoC:Not to me, I happen to work in a copy-right enfrigement office (though very indirectly), and if ENWorld were to try to publish anything from the developement of this world, they would not be able to do so with the Wizards of They there. It violates the publication rights of WotC that now own the Forgotten Realms setting. I was just looking out for possible problems in the future, that's all. Nothing personal.]

Originally Posted by Lichtenhart

[OOC: Well the Red Wizards are now an official PrC that is in the SRD so we can have them. We can't have Thay though. Janos, if possible try to make their land quite different from FR Thay.]

Originally Posted by Lichtenhart

OOC: No I was wrong. They are in the DMG but not in the SRD. So we can't have them. Well we can have all sorts of slaver wizards, only you can't call them 'Red Wizards'. I suggest we edit it out to a new name.

This is how the discussion went. I too would like LEW to be as original as it can get, but we cannot force Janos to change his background and adventure. A compromise is in order.
I think in the future we'd better let the judges discuss these things before someone working on them and introducing them in the game.

CS, can you please put Mithreander's second post back in Fallon's thread, or at least the in game part of it?

[Mithreander]

I'd like to add that I read the 3.0 players handbook discription of a paladin and found it to say that a paladin can not travel with an evil individual for an extended period of time. THis is paraphrased, since I don't have the book infront of me. I doubt that they have changed the discription of a paladin much from 3.0 to 3.5, but if I'm wrong, could someone please inform me. Thanks!

[Uriel]

The whole issue of the Red Wizards, a Faerun derived PrClass, but an 'official' one (Gee, thanks for this grey area, WotC) shouldn't be that big a deal.
Janos merely needs to change the name of the Wizards to something original, which allows for creativity on his part. He gets to create a cabal of Evil Mages, not just lift them from Faerun. I don't see any real arguments on his part as being needed or forthcoming regarding this.
He knows that we are trying to create an Original setting, free of other Setting-based material. I'm sure that he will cooperative (once more, he gets to create an entire Evil Wizards Cabal).

[Snipehunt]

CS, I agree about the name "red wizard," it seems pretty generic, but the "Thay" has to stay out, and the Red Wizard prestige class isn't OGL (AFAIK-it's not in the SRD). I don't think we should let people use anything resembling the FR background, etc.

I'd rather have our own prestige classes, too. But the DMG prestige classes are pretty universal - I can't imagine not having arcane tricksters, shadowdancers, etc. My 2 cp's: keep the SRD PrC's (which doesn't include Red Wizard).

Maybe add some Living Enworld flava - i.e., Loremasters can study at the Arcane College of X, Duellists can train at the L'Avandian Fencing Academy, Eldritch Knights are supported by the Grey Elves of Whatever, and so on.

[Uriel]

I do hope we are using the PrClasses from the DMG, as well as a few from other sources.

I had already set up Eldritc Knights, Theurges and Horizon Walkers in Rivenblight (where there are a lot of Grey Elves, oddly enough Snipehunt).

I agree on making our own, though.

[Mithreander]

I had assumed that the only prestige classes to be used were from the SRD, thus:

1. Arcane Archer
2. Arcane Trickster
3. Archmage
4. Assassin
5. Blackguard
6. Dragon Disciple
7. Duelist
8. Dwarven Defender
9. Eldritch Knight
10. Hierophant
11. Horizon Walker
12. Loremaster
13. Mystic Theurge
14. Shadowdancer
15. Thaumaturgist

This is the list that I was presuming we were using as well (was I wrong?) and should we post this someplace for those that do not know there is a difference between the material in the corebooks and the SRD?. As for prestige classes made by us... that's another nut to crack open!

[Creamsteak]

[Watch it please, if you have a post not specifically related to this thread topic, at least be kind enough to either put it in general discussion, or if it's much larger, give it a new thread. I just split off some posts from this thread.]

[Thels]

The PrC's found in the 3.5 DMG are those listed by Mithreander and the Red Wizard of Thay. Since going by the SRD was already decided earlier, that makes things simple, he's out

IMHO, the Red Wizard is included more as an example for creating realmrelated PrC's than as a usefull PrC in generic DnD. It also has requirements that aren't available in generic DnD, like Tattoo Magic.

Anyhow, since LEW is all about custom player options, Janos could come up with his own order of evil magi. I wouldn't call them Red Wizards though. Using Red Wizards will get too restrictive as a lot of stuff is attached to them (including opposing PrC's etc...).

As for Paladins and Evil, that's something debatable too. IMHO, characters don't radiate evil just because their alignment is evil. They actually have had done an obvious evil act in the past in order to be detectable by abilities such as 'detect evil'. This way, paladins could travel around with characters with evil alignments, but if those characters start killing people without reason, animate dead without authorization, etc..., they are clearly evil, and paladins can no longer accompany them. Exception: Clerics worshipping an evil god and Blackguards attain an Aura of Evil right away, so they're clearly evil.

[Lichtenhart]

Originally Posted by Thels

As for Paladins and Evil, that's something debatable too. IMHO, characters don't radiate evil just because their alignment is evil. They actually have had done an obvious evil act in the past in order to be detectable by abilities such as 'detect evil'. This way, paladins could travel around with characters with evil alignments, but if those characters start killing people without reason, animate dead without authorization, etc..., they are clearly evil, and paladins can no longer accompany them. Exception: Clerics worshipping an evil god and Blackguards attain an Aura of Evil right away, so they're clearly evil.

IMHO, if have never done any obvious evil act in the past, they should not be of evil alignment. I think PHB is quite clear saying that evil pc are out there to do what they want at the expense of others and they really do it, they don't simply consider it. If thinking evil things is sufficient to be evil, then all the DMs in the world are evil.
A character who would sometimes commit an evil act is still neutral IMHO.

[Venus]

When DOES a character become Evil? After enough evil acts? When their intentions are evil? When even thinking of evil?
If a character can not become before they have acted that way, and people do play an evil character, then everyone should have some sort of background in which they point out these evil acts. As Thebis-Ra's story isn't evil in my eyes, he IS evil, in which case the paladin shouldn't be allowed to travel with him.

Now my point is; does the character have the right allignment? His intentions are evil, but his acts (as far as described) are not. Which would make him lawful neutral with evil intentions or something, or maybe even lawful good with evil intentions. The point of Detect Evil is to reveal the person's true being, which way a paladin at lvl1 can easily see through bad lies and such. At higher levels, when people get the ability to avoid detect evil, Sense Motive becomes more important for the Paladin to avoid working with the wrong people.

If you make it so a paladin can not judge a person without witnessing their actions, what use is Detect Evil at that point? If someone Evil does not radiate an aura before they act that way, why are they evil in the first place? I think the problem with this debate is more the way the allignment has been used than a problem with the Code. Why is one Evil again? Oh yeah, because they are acting evil more than they act good. The Paladin, a defender of Good, cannot travel with this person. This seems perfectly logical to me, unless the Paladin decides to take time and show the person the path of Good and keep the Evil person on the Good path. Now this can be very hard for a player to deal with; why listen to this Paladin, he can easily be ignored.

My suggestion is to add to the Code that a paladin CAN travel with someone Evil, but that he should try and keep him from doing Evil. Doing so would be way better than just sending the Evil one away, for this will strenghtened this person's hatred versus Good.
I would keep the way Evil is detected by Detect Evil, but making sure that the allignments are fitting. When Evil is detected it should be a warning, not something to confuse the Paladin (or Cleric, for the matter of detecting) with. People who choose to play Evil should be REALLY Evil in playstyle, not just by putting it on paper. Maybe a DM should see to it that their players play their allignment the right way, or risk an allignment change? This way the Paladin people will learn to trust the Paladin, as he can make sure the people they travel and work with do not have any intentions of backstabbing, stealing, etc.
In the case of Rogier the Paladin and Thebis-Ra the LE Fighter, Rogier detected his Evilness and explained everyone the way someone would radiate such an aura. Now, unless Thebis-Ra was able to deflect this whole story by saying how Good he was, with only one flaw to his Goodness; his hatred versus those Red Wizards. This would NOT make one Evil, but rather Neutral in my eyes. Thus radiating an Evil aura would show the Paladin that this person is hiding something, something big, something which would probably be a big risk to the party. However, Janos told me OoC that he didn't lie about his background, his intentions, etc. The Paladin seems false IC, because the allignment of Thebis-Ra wasnt applied right. If it had been the right allignment (non-evil), none of this would have been a problem.

Just my 2cp. =].

[Janos Audron]

Originally Posted by Venus

blah and:

I would keep the way Evil is detected by Detect Evil, but making sure that the allignments are fitting. When Evil is detected it should be a warning, not something to confuse the Paladin (or Cleric, for the matter of detecting) with. People who choose to play Evil should be REALLY Evil in playstyle, not just by putting it on paper. Maybe a DM should see to it that their players play their allignment the right way, or risk an allignment change? This way the Paladin people will learn to trust the Paladin, as he can make sure the people they travel and work with do not have any intentions of backstabbing, stealing, etc.
In the case of Rogier the Paladin and Thebis-Ra the LE Fighter, Rogier detected his Evilness and explained everyone the way someone would radiate such an aura. Now, unless Thebis-Ra was able to deflect this whole story by saying how Good he was, with only one flaw to his Goodness; his hatred versus those Red Wizards. This would NOT make one Evil, but rather Neutral in my eyes. Thus radiating an Evil aura would show the Paladin that this person is hiding something, something big, something which would probably be a big risk to the party. However, Janos told me OoC that he didn't lie about his background, his intentions, etc. The Paladin seems false IC, because the allignment of Thebis-Ra wasnt applied right. If it had been the right allignment (non-evil), none of this would have been a problem.

Just my 2cp. =].

See, there are large parts untold here. For example, how would Thebis-Ra deal with sleeping opponents? If he has to retrieve an item and the opposition gets hit by a Sleep spell, he'd CDG them, even if they weren't Evil. Thebis-Ra doesn't care about the body count, about collateral damage, he cares about the coin. Just because I tell you a story, and that story is true, doesn't necessarily mean you know the *entire* story...

[Living Enworld Judge]

I see no reason that a Paladin could not travel with someone that was 'Evil' with the intentions of changing that person's outlook towards a more benevolent one. Paladins do not have such high Charisma merely for the purpose of the Power-Game aspect of Divine Grace, if folks understand what I am saying. This is a role playing game, and in the interest of seeing good roleplaying (and not just another 'you are Evil, I am Good, we must fight/oppose one another/whatever) let us move forward and try and get a proper Role-Playing environment off the ground. ENWorld is full of folks that have oppossing Alignments eho have to interact everyday, as does our own World.

Consider this 'Official ENWorld Doctrine'.

Paladins will not lose their abilities/need to Attone.whatever merely for traveling with someone of Evil alignment, providing that they are either
a>Actively trying to sway that person's point of View and Alignment to a more Good, or at least Neutral outlook, or
B>'Watching and/or Guarding' against that person's Evil actions and/or motives.

There may be an issue with just how long the Paladin could travel with the person, though until he was sure that the person wasn't going to 'change their ways' is a good point.

[Macbeth]

That sounds like a very reasonable solution. Glad this discussion finally yielded a decision. Just out of curiosity, which judge posted this? (Not that it matters, just curious. Sounds like it was CS)

There may be an issue with just how long the Paladin could travel with the person, though until he was sure that the person wasn't going to 'change their ways' is a good point.

Are we going to leave the definition of how long a paladin can travel with an evil character up to the individual DM and the judge watching the adventure? That sounds reasonable, and with the judges involved there won't be cases of one DM letting it go indefinately while one will only let them travel (without a conversion of the evil character) for a certain time.


Doubt thou the stars are fire;
Doubt that the sun doth move;
Doubt truth to be a liar;
William Shakespeare, Hamlet. Act ii. Sc. 2.

[Thels]

I'd say, allow the paladin to travel with the evil character as long as:

A) The evil character shows progress of shifting his alignment towards Neutral on the Good-Evil axis.
B) There's quite a chance the Paladin can prevent the evil character from bringing harm in the near future.

[Uriel]

The judge was me, Macbeth.

-Uriel