Book of Exalted Deeds - Exalted feat question

[Nail]

.... an exalted character instead will try to get them in a fair fight or redeem them or whatever...Now a couple of orcs could maybe escaped.....Those orcs get reinforcements and, as a vengance they raid my home...I loose my family in that raid...

First: this is NOT an "alignment" thread. This is a thread about Exalted characters. There is a large difference between those two topics.

Second: An exalted character has no difficulty crushing Evil where it exists. "Stupidity" doesn't enter into the discussion.

Third: Your scenario above sounds Great! Interesting, even! What will an exalted character do, knowing the Evil orcs that escaped may come back? Will he stay around guarding the place for some indefinite period? Will he seek out these Evil orcs and prevent them from returning? We he seek aid from local political and religious leaders in his fight to protect the farmer?

And what will the exalted PC do if, as you propose, the farmer loses his family as a result of the exalted PCs actions?

All of that sounds like great stuff for heroic games.....and, if that's not to your taste: Fine! Don't be exalted! Easy enough!

...just go back to killing things and taking their stuff. It's [Good], don't ya know.

 

[Trainz]

Allow me to retype the relevant section in the BoED (p.9) that defines an exalted characters dilemmas:

ENDS AND MEANS

[...] Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom: "I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my purity." For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause. After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character can hang on to her exalted feats.

Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats the purity of the good's character's soul as a commodity (like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger than the individual character. What the character sees as a personal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, in evil's favor. The consequences of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscionable.

Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them, no matter how great the need.

I think that sums it up pretty much. In your campaign, you might allow a character to slay defenseless evil critters to save innocents to keep their exalted status (and more importantly, access to their exalted feats), but that would be a house-rule. A per the BoED, you can't.

 

[Nail]

What an excellent summary! Thanks, Trainz!

 

[Saeviomagy]

Hi, Saeviomagy!

Please don't base your arguments on verbal injuries, because that's as rude as you normally sound.

I'm sorry. I'm trying right now to express how I would feel as a player if the DM told me that executing a foe when there are extenuating circumstances immediately made my character evil.

I can't. I really can't. I suppose I could say that you were being a bad DM. Does that help any?

And: I've done the thing you "seriously doubt". I've shifted the alignment from neutral to good for a PC who single-handedly rescued a child - in the midest of a fight - from the grasp of a demon, risking his own life for that of the child's.

No, you've NOT done what I seriously doubt. Read it carefully.

I said
"bumped his alignment immediately to good for risking his life for another member of the party."

Another member of the party. Someone who has willingly exposed himself to risk. Someone who would most likely do the same for you.

If the child in question was an innocent, with no ties to the party member, and the demon was giving some serious trouble, then great! Good alignment shift.

If the child in question was the guy's son - maybe not.
If the child in question would guarantee the destruction of the world and everything on it if he's not saved from the demon - certainly not.

If the child in question was a foe, certainly.

If the child in question was a useful ally, probably not.

This transfers across to the other end of the spectrum.

Kill a foe? No shift.

Kill a helpless foe? Most likely no shift
Kill a foe who, though currently helpless, will be a serious threat if released? No shift.

Kill a helpless innocent because doing so saves the world? Probably no shift.

Kill a helpless innocent for fun? Straight to evil.

Finally - note that in every evil incident above which has "probably no shift", that means that your exalted status is gone, gone, gone.

To remind you: That was an unauthorized

Which makes it a chaotic act, not a more evil act. Did you make the PC chaotic too?

execution of a defenseless and helpless prisoner.

A prisoner who is a fighting man himself, who was willing to risk his own life to take away yours. And the alternative to killing him is to risk your own life. It comes really, really close to being self-defense. Far too close for me to justify an alignment shift off of a single incident.

I don't know what you think is good, if you are so lax about alignment.

 

[Scharlata]

I'm sorry. I'm trying right now to express how I would feel as a player if the DM told me that executing a foe when there are extenuating circumstances immediately made my character evil.

I can't. I really can't. I suppose I could say that you were being a bad DM. Does that help any? [...]

Hi, Saeviomagy!

Accepted, and no, it doesn't help , because that is just a very subjective point of view (as mine, too).

Your listing of the different actions towards alignment shift is debatable, too. Your chain of argumentation towards the prisoner-question seems to be the status quo of the US-american prisoners-of-war-approach. It seems to postulate that as soon as a foe is a prisoner in the hands of the party, the party is in an out-ouf-normal-moral-conduct situation. That should NOT hold true.

The end never justifies the means. That's my point of view.

I agree more (most, to be precisely) with the above mentioned chapter ENDS AND MEANS posted by Trainz.

Kind regards

 

[Apuglisi]

That is what I meant in one of my posts...

They tried to put all the moral and points of views we have in Real Life into a fantasy game...

In my eyes, in fantasy (and following all that i had read) things are far more clear than in Real Life where we have a lot of grey shades...
We value life per se (at least most of us)...But I dont think that is the same in a fantasy world (no matter what a book may say)

Not saying I am right, you are wrong...Just expressin my point of view

 

[Diirk]

Alignment shifts shouldn't occur after just 1 action anyway, imo.. they should act as a sort of moral summary of the character. Almost always does the good thing? good alignment. Does some good, some evil ? neutral. Does neither good or evil? neutral. Usually takes the evil way out? evil.

Of course if you usually did the good thing but occasionally did the evil thing, that'd probably be neutral too... its alot easier to be neutral than good, or evil. same thing with lawful vs chaotic.

So a fighter or whatever who kills a helpless prisoner... sure thats an evil act. But unless he did it repeatedly it would be more of a moral slip up... an act he isn't too proud of and maybe agonizes over at some lengths.

 

[Nail]

Alignment shifts shouldn't occur after just 1 action anyway, imo.. .

Yep!

...and, if this were an alignment thread, it would be an appropriate, on-topic answer.

But: this isn't an alignment discussion. (Pause for a moment and mull that over.)

It's a discussion of the rules surrounding the Exalted descriptor, introduced in the WotC book "Book of Exalted Deeds". The text in that source is specific, and the outcome of even one evil action is not in doubt: the PC looses his/her exalted status.

 

[Apuglisi]

I dont think killimg a helpless prisoner is evil...

It would depend on who is that prisoner...An orc, goblin, kobold, gnoll, ogre, ettin, troll, etc...I would kill them in any form and would not considre it an evil act because they are evil..

Again, is just a fantasy point of view...nothing to do with how we act in Real Life.
Those creatures are evil and eliminating them should not be a problem at all.
In my experience are things like that that end with people not wanting to have a good character because Dm's end putting so many stonrs in the road that is not worth the effort

 

[Trainz]

I dont think killimg a helpless prisoner is evil...

It would depend on who is that prisoner...An orc, goblin, kobold, gnoll, ogre, ettin, troll, etc...I would kill them in any form and would not considre it an evil act because they are evil..

No, it's not an evil act.

But it's not EXALTED either. You know goody-two-shoes ? Exalted = goody-two-thousand-shoes.

SO... in order to bring this thread back on topic...

We have solved my player's conundrum. With that done, I invite you to think of other situations that, although clearly not evil, would make an exalted go "mmmm"...