Great - Now *I* Have a Paladin's moral dilemma - Sunless Citadel spoiler

[enrious]

Oh come on now, this argument just wouldn’t hold water in most D&D worlds. Good and evil are very real, often tangible forces in the world, and to call them abstract is using real world logic in a world where necromancers live forever and dragons can sleep with whales. Besides, I have trouble believing that a good person would not take such an “ends justify the means” stance like that.

Also, as a ranger, shouldn’t he be appalled by the idea of using undead creatures to fight for him? I might be wrong on this one, people’s views on rangers being so random and distant from one another as they are ever since they “got the shaft” in 3e. Even if his being a ranger has no bearing on this, his being good should prevent him from using creatures now animated by pure negative energy.

The paladin did a bang up job in my opinion, by the way.

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what vision the player has with regard to the character.

I can see an aasimar ranger or an aasimar sorcerer. An aasimar ranger/sorcerer seems a bit strange to me but hey whatever floats your boat. Not all of us choose to play iconics.

I think the player percieves the aasimar as being some sort of "planar ranger" (his words) that knows of the planes and has a hard time dealing with the "boring" world of Faerun.

When I pointed the whole nature thing to the player, he replied something to the effect that his ranger had a different view on the matter than your typical ranger. *shrug* So long as he remains consistent I have no problem with how he chooses to run his ranger. It's just not your daddy's ranger I guess.

Look at it from the paladin's point of view - the aasimar can deny that good and evil exist and can even have a haughty attitude with regards to the gods.

Kelemvor gets the last laugh.

 

[enrious]

Sounds like you are having a wonderful time in the adventure right now One thing, as far as the slippery slope of party cohesion goes, have you the player talked to the other players (especially the planetouched one) and the DM about what's going on and to make sure everyone is in agreement that everything is happening "in game" and "in character" and that there should be no RL hard feelings? If everyone understands that it's all roleplay and fun, then go for it !

Oh absolutely, and as I said, this isn't the first time. We agree that were this real life, the two characters would be at each other's throats.

I think you are doing a great job of playing that Pally, wish I were in your group! Loved the "Pat Robertson and Billy Graham" remark

Thanks.

I think the look he had was even better than what he said.

 

[FireLance]

Enrious, you can chalk up another "great roleplaying" comment from me.

Just a few suggestions, now:

1. If you're adventuring in FR, rangers need a divine patron too (it's stated somewhere in the FR rulebook). So, you can try to get the ranger's church on your side as well, especially if he picks a good or nature aligned patron like Mielikki, Silvanus, Selune or Eldath. If he serves Malar, that's another problem, of course...

2. Challenge the ranger to a duel of honour. If you win, you get to destroy the whistle. Pray loudly to Kelemvor to bless your efforts before the duel. If it is the will of the DM^H^H gods, you might find yourself buffed with divine favor at 20th caster level.

3. Pending an official, higher-level investigation into the nature of the item, you could just destroy any zombies created by the whistle. Although you can't destroy the item yet, you can contain its evil.

By the way, even unintelligent undead like skeletons and zombies do radiate evil. According to the description of detect evil in the PH, undead register at HD/2.

 

[enrious]

Enrious, you can chalk up another "great roleplaying" comment from me.

Thanks. I'd like to point out that I don't think it's just me. I probably spent more time in thinking about the character but the others are developing thier personalities. The Tymoran cleric is a fun loving gambler while the aasimar is an aloof person.

I think the accolades are just because I'm the one posting.

Just a few suggestions, now:

1. If you're adventuring in FR, rangers need a divine patron too (it's stated somewhere in the FR rulebook). So, you can try to get the ranger's church on your side as well, especially if he picks a good or nature aligned patron like Mielikki, Silvanus, Selune or Eldath. If he serves Malar, that's another problem, of course...

IIRC, the aasimar made mention of Shaundakal but the paladin has no knowledge of ranger's patron requirement nor of the ranger's patron.

Besides, FRCS p.26 states that FR rangers don't have to choose a patron until lvl 4, which is a long way away. While most choose before then, they aren't required to - and I have no idea one way or the other if he has.

2. Challenge the ranger to a duel of honour. If you win, you get to destroy the whistle. Pray loudly to Kelemvor to bless your efforts before the duel. If it is the will of the DM^H^H gods, you might find yourself buffed with divine favor at 20th caster level.

Interesting idea and quite likely something that the paladin would consider. Of course, in a meta-gaming sense if Kelemvor would grant such a boon then there would be the underlying feeling in the aasimar's player that the DM ganged up against him.

Besides, the paladin believes that the aasimar should give the whistle up on his own free will - it's possible (given the aasimar's independant nature) that he would consider such an boon to be cheating.

Why couldn't everyone be LG?

3. Pending an official, higher-level investigation into the nature of the item, you could just destroy any zombies created by the whistle. Although you can't destroy the item yet, you can contain its evil.

Well, the paladin did attack the one zombie that was summoned but he's more concerned with more being summoned.

I fear that should the aasimar chose to use the whistle again it may be more logical to attack the aasimar - I'm not sure that the paladin would be completely logical and rational when dealing with such a situation.

By the way, even unintelligent undead like skeletons and zombies do radiate evil. According to the description of detect evil in the PH, undead register at HD/2.

Hmm, interesting.

The MM description says that skeletons are always Neutral.

The PH lists modifiers for undead.

My DM (and I were I the DM) would rule that the PH modifier would only count if the undead in question were Evil - it would not apply to Neutral undead.

The spell has a requirement of sorts - Evil present. If the Undead does not present Evil, then that requirement is not met thus Neutral undead would not register.

N Undead - no detection.

E Undead - radiate more evil than alive Evil.

At least, in our campaign.

 

[enrious]

I found the story hour I wrote after the original session - note that I haven't proofed it or anything and I need to write up two more.

I also haven't done any sort of game notes for it or tried any sort of explanation of what's going on - this is intended to be used by the players and DM as sort of minutes for the game.

I've also written in 3rd person limited, which I find to be very difficult but then, I don't know the thoughts of anyone else.

Perhaps it will give some insight into the paladin and aasimar.

 

[Methinkus]

An aasimar ranger/sorcerer seems a bit strange to me but hey whatever floats your boat.

I could see a Ranger/Sorcerer working out, even making a kind of sense, living on your own, lots of time by yourself out in the field, exploring your own potential and even touching on some Mystical Power. Still, I like the idea that all sorcerers can have interesting histories that explain how they were given their powers, plus he is an Asimar, and add to that the loner mystique of a ranger and you have the potential for a very interesting character . . . . but I get the impression that this player hasn’t even offered much in terms of his background that would explain how he came to become what he is today.

A different view? Like a view where nature doesn’t matter? Lifeless abominations can be our friends? Whatever, I’m sure we would all get along if I ever met him, but I’m having a little trouble coming to terms with some of these ideas. . . Planer Ranger? Isn’t there something like that in the MotP?

It's just not your daddy's ranger I guess.

Ha, i got a kick outta this one, my father really was a ranger

 

[FireLance]

Is Creating Undead Evil?

The whole "Is creating undead evil?" question is currently being discussed to death (pardon the pun) in another thread.

My 2cp, for what it's worth:
IMC, the spell animate dead works by trapping the soul of the dead creature and forcing it to move its old corpse around. It is a quick and dirty method, which is why it is a lower level spell than animate object, which would do so using a neutral force.

With respect to the argument that animating the dead is not evil when someone gives permission to have his corpse animated after death, I would consider it similar to a person who wants to give his heart, liver or other vital organ to save a loved one. When self-sacrifice comes into the picture, the line between good and evil does get a little blurred, but the surgeon performing the operation still has to decide whether he is prepared to kill someone to save another. Similarly, the cleric asked to animate a corpse has to decide whether he is prepared to call back the soul and risk chaining it to the corpse indefinitely in order to accomplish whatever task is at hand.

Hence, in my campaign, animating the dead is an evil act and skeletons and zombies radiate evil because of this.

Back to the problem...
IIRC, Shaundakul is a great believer in freedom. Depending on how animate dead works in your campaign, it could be seen as a violation of the corpse's freedom to rest in peace. Maybe you could discuss with the ranger what exactly are his beliefs on the matter.

As a last resort, knock him out and destroy the item. You can always make it up to him later.

 

[enrious]

I could see a Ranger/Sorcerer working out, even making a kind of sense, living on your own, lots of time by yourself out in the field, exploring your own potential and even touching on some Mystical Power. Still, I like the idea that all sorcerers can have interesting histories that explain how they were given their powers, plus he is an Asimar, and add to that the loner mystique of a ranger and you have the potential for a very interesting character . . . . but I get the impression that this player hasn’t even offered much in terms of his background that would explain how he came to become what he is today.

Oh I could as well, say he's driven into the wilderness when his sorcerer powers manifest and learn to live in and protect the land.

I think you hit it - there hasn't really been much of background info on the character but I'm cool with that because at least it'll be fun learning as I go along.

But one example of what I would consider to be perhaps not well thought out (and that's only my opinion based on a lack of understanding of the character) is that he took his favored enemy to be planars. One the one hand it will serve him in good stead way down the road when we're actually high enough level to go plane jumping, but on the other hand how in the world did a lvl 1/1 aasimar learn enough about planar creatures and develop such a hatred of them?

A different view? Like a view where nature doesn’t matter? Lifeless abominations can be our friends? Whatever, I’m sure we would all get along if I ever met him, but I’m having a little trouble coming to terms with some of these ideas. . . Planer Ranger? Isn’t there something like that in the MotP?

Yeah, well, the paladin has a higher Wilderness Lore than the Ranger (puts head in hands and lets out a sob). Part of the background of the paladin is that he lived as a woodsman/huntsman prior to a bit un unpleasetness with some skellies and zombies that led to the destruction of his family, thus leading him to swear vengence against undead.

I'd considered making him a lvl 1/2 Ranger/Paladin but figured it would be too munchkin and I could reflect the story by taking ranks in Wilderness Lore.

As far as the aasimar goes, the player pointed out probably quite rightly that it's hard for us to tell what his vision is because he's only level 1/1 - he hardly has any spells and fights like a lvl 1 ranger - around 4/4 or 5/5 it'd make more sense. I hope.

Planar Ranger - The character was created before the MotP came out. I know of the Urban Ranger, but not having it in front of me don't know about such a prestige class.

 

[enrious]

Re: Is Creating Undead Evil?

<snip>
My 2cp, for what it's worth:
IMC, the spell animate dead works by trapping the soul of the dead creature and forcing it to move its old corpse around. It is a quick and dirty method, which is why it is a lower level spell than animate object, which would do so using a neutral force.

<snip>

Hence, in my campaign, animating the dead is an evil act and skeletons and zombies radiate evil because of this.

In our campaign, it seems to be that the skellies and zombies themselves are neutral, but the act of creating them is evil. Were a N character to cast an animate dead spell, the character would briefly appear as evil but the skeletons would not.

Back to the problem...
IIRC, Shaundakul is a great believer in freedom. Depending on how animate dead works in your campaign, it could be seen as a violation of the corpse's freedom to rest in peace. Maybe you could discuss with the ranger what exactly are his beliefs on the matter.

Hmm, good idea. Perhaps trying to find some of Shaundakul's faithful for help would be a good idea, but that's dependant on the ranger being a particularly devoted servent.

I'm guessing not.

As a last resort, knock him out and destroy the item. You can always make it up to him later.

Heh, while the paladin would like to, I'm pretty sure that it would be at the least a chaotic act (and that's almost as bad as evil for a paladin) and break the party.

Remember these characters have known each other for less than 3 days - imagine if a stranger clubbed you over the head and stole a magic item but promised you'd recieve compensation for it.

I suspect you'd have your own ways of obtaining compensation.

 

[Kurtz Tote]

Sounds like you are a little too weary of some good old-fashioned inter party conflict....

In your position, I would have forced the issue when the whistle was first used to summon the zombie. At this point I would issue a verdict. Use it again and suffer the consequences. Him merely hanging on to it is not a problem. Its evil, but you know where it is. When/if the character dies, you can always destroy it then. However, if he uses it again then he is spreading the evil. Beat him up and try and destroy it. The ranger has started down the path to evil, and you'll have to decide to make a stand or not. What's next, he'll wield an unholy reaver or summon demons for the greater good? By issuing a public verdict too, everyone in the party will know where you stand. They can decide on their own which side to join should it come to conflict, but you won't just be jumping another player without warning.

I had played a LG cleric a while ago. We had a similar conflict when we came across an "evil" book. Two of the characters wanted to read it and use it. Every fiber in my body shouted out to destroy it. We did fight. I won and destroyed the book. They lost, but lived. It set a tone for the rest of the campaign. Some shaddy acts were committed, some evil things done, but not anywhere near me. And it didn't destroy the party either. One of the two characters involved in the fight was my best friend throughout the campaign. We developed a mutual respect for each other's views, and knew where that threshold was.

The battle for good and evil within the party has made for some great stories in my group. Sure its fun when everyone is on the same side, but it can be great when there is tension too.