Player Dilemma

[DevlinStormweaver]

HOw do you call waiting to the paladin had turned his back, breaking in through the back window " with speed and agility "

 

[Grugni]

I call it tactical planning and execution of an act...

well yer chubby enough in yer armor to block the door.. .


Grugni

 

[Haradim]

if the paladin wishes to test my mettle on the matter we would likely engage in mortal combat...

I hope you are aware that many a campaign (and group) has been dissolved over such attitudes and bad party mixes, RP or not.

Be very careful...

 

[Shining Dragon]

This isn't a campaign villain. This is a guy who happens to be in the same tavern as the PCs, who has been very very bad, but has had a change of heart. He's met this girl, and wants to be a better person to impress her.



He isn't admitting anything to anyone. He knows he's killed, and stolen, and lied, and been an evil person. He wants to make up for that. But it's not society's idea of punishment he's interested in. He's performing his own penance - this is a personal redemption.

-Hyp.

Honestly? The guy would be evil and it'd take many a good deed for him to stop pinging as evil.

Else every evil villain who has caused untold suffering to the masses (virgin sacrifice, baby eating, voting green...) and is about to get their comeuppance from a group of shiny do-good heroes would be able to immediately change their alignment, swear off evil and be untouchable - and then you have characters who have to discuss whether killing this newly minted goodie-two-shoes is an evil act or good.

I'd just prefer to avoid the philosophy and have fun. Others may prefer otherwise.

 

[Haradim]

Else every evil villain who has caused untold suffering to the masses (virgin sacrifice, baby eating, voting green...) and is about to get their comeuppance from a group of shiny do-good heroes would be able to immediately change their alignment, swear off evil and be untouchable - and then you have characters who have to discuss whether killing this newly minted goodie-two-shoes is an evil act or good.

I think the reference is to a character that has honestly changed (or is changing), not one that flip-flopped for convenience sake.

 

[rgard]

Thankyou RGARD, for giving me some advice. I hadn't meant for the post to become this long. I am planning on speaking to the partry in our next gaming session, and I will warn the dwarf that i will not torelate him attacking defensly beings.

You are most welcome. I didn't read all of the posts in response to yours, but those I did read didn't give you any specific suggestions.

Good luck with this.

Take care,
Rich

 

[Shining Dragon]

I think the reference is to a character that has honestly changed (or is changing), not one that flip-flopped for convenience sake.

Who said such a villain had flip-flopped? Facing immediate death and an eternity in some hell tortured by many devils could change the heart (and alignment) of anyone. Whether the change sticks is another question entirely.

And what if you're talking about a character. Lawful Good but decides to act out of alignment and when questioned the Player just says that they've decided to be Chaotic Evil instead. Is an alignment change that easy? Does alignment change with a declaration or with alignment-specific acts?


These arguments about alignment keep cropping up. A Player chooses their character alignment but proceeds to act against the character's stated alignment and pouts when the DM calls them on it, saying that its their character and the DM doesn't have any say about what's written on the character sheet. Alignments are trouble, especially when a DM starts allowing less than strict interpretation or characters act against a strict interpretation of alignment.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Who said such a villain had flip-flopped? Facing immediate death and an eternity in some hell tortured by many devils could change the heart (and alignment) of anyone. Whether the change sticks is another question entirely.

So, someone who has a history of wickedness, but who has honestly repented and will sincerely be a powerful force for good, still detects as evil. The Paladinbot is required to ignore his potential for changing the world for the better (any appropriate divination will reveal that allowing him to live will enrich thousands of lives, since his change of heart is sincere and his power is undeniable), because right now, despite his newly discovered good intentions, he goes ping.

Since you're describing alignment as a record of past acts, even after the former villain has begun performing good deeds, there's still a period of time that he'll read as evil before eventually passing into neutral territory. Regardless of how good he is in his heart, that history means he has to avoid crossing the path of any Paladinbots, or he will be immediately attacked.

-Hyp.

 

[genshou]

So, someone who has a history of wickedness, but who has honestly repented and will sincerely be a powerful force for good, still detects as evil. The Paladinbot is required to ignore his potential for changing the world for the better (any appropriate divination will reveal that allowing him to live will enrich thousands of lives, since his change of heart is sincere and his power is undeniable), because right now, despite his newly discovered good intentions, he goes ping.

Since you're describing alignment as a record of past acts, even after the former villain has begun performing good deeds, there's still a period of time that he'll read as evil before eventually passing into neutral territory. Regardless of how good he is in his heart, that history means he has to avoid crossing the path of any Paladinbots, or he will be immediately attacked.

-Hyp.

The fact is, anyone who has their paladin walk down city streets going ping, ping, ping just looking for someone to smite without justification other than "well, he detected as evil" is not living up to even the barest form of expectations on a paladin. You can't just smite someone because they have the Evil alignment.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The fact is, anyone who has their paladin walk down city streets going ping, ping, ping just looking for someone to smite without justification other than "well, he detected as evil" is not living up to even the barest form of expectations on a paladin. You can't just smite someone because they have the Evil alignment.

I agree. Others don't.

Trawl through past threads on the topic... there is a very vocal camp who maintain that not only can a paladin smite someone just because they have the Evil alignment, they have an obligation to do so.

Link: Does evil mean Evil? Is a paladin free to act against evil?
Link: Paladins in 3.5, why?
Link: Should there be Repercussions for This? (opinions wanted)

-Hyp.