My party is more evil than your party

[ExploderWizard]

Is that anything like almost illegal in Alabama?

Nope. Badong means bad and wrong. See Kung Pow-Enter the fist for more info.

 

[Humanaut]

My games tend tward PC's in the Neutral corner, few Goods. So if my PC's did that i'd probably just slap my forehead.

Back in highschool, I was a player, our DM was using a one-off from Dungeon Magazine, the one where your PC's shrink. You have to find and destroy the thingy to restore yourself. One of the other guys was for some reason rabidly Pissed Off at the shrinkage and started complaining about "Honey i shrank the F- kids".

At one point, up in the rafters, we were battling a goblin tribe. Said angry player had a Dwarven Fighter and once the warriors were killed, he proceded to chase the women and kid goblins back and forth along the rafters until he had chased them all off, falling to their deaths.

Good times, silly times.

 

[shilsen]

That exactly what I mean Mall and Shil.

Heh! I think it's quite clear that exactly what you mean is very far from what Mallus and I do.

If the question is, "is (this) definitely an evil act or not?" then you have to know the difference between what is evil, and what is not evil.

Yup. And while certain people will agree about good and evil with regard to certain acts, other people will disagree. This thread and (as I noted) human history is proof of that.

So, for example, with the Paladin, the paragon of prior game goodness, the one character type that was universally known as the exemplar of goodness, lawfulness and responsibility...

Have you ever seen the various disagreements on ENWorld about the paladin (see the thread in my sig, for example)? While people may agree about the paladin being an exemplar of goodness, lawfulness & responsibility, what exactly those terms mean and what acts match (or don't) them is up to debate. Look at the historical/literary examples which get trotted out as paladins. Roland was wrathful, proud, racist and generally an idiot. Most of the paladins of Charlemagne were guys who, in modern times, would be very far from heroic. Galahad was as sexist as they come. And so on.

But you're right about one other thing too, words don't mean much by way of difference anymore.

Oh, that's not new. They never did. The Iliad describes characters as different as Hector, Paris, Odysseus, Agamemnon and Achilles as heroes, and within a few centuries, Socrates/Plato are arguing whether they should be. Words - they'll trip you up every time.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The paladin isn't human. He's a Dragonborn with a reptilian retractable hemipenes tucked into his tail. Different biology.

That's simply ridiculous, and would completely destroy my suspension of disbelief.

PHB p35: Dragonborn resemble humanoid dragons. They’re covered in scaly hide, but they don’t have tails.

-Hyp.

 

[Mallus]

PHB p35: Dragonborn resemble humanoid dragons. They’re covered in scaly hide, but they don’t have tails.

Needless to say, we changed a few things...

The paladin looks something like this...

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

well

I think you guys should switch systems and play Big Eyes Small Mouth. It seems more appropriate for your genre.

Ken

 

[the Jester]

So, for example, with the Paladin, the paragon of prior game goodness, the one character type that was universally known as the exemplar of goodness, lawfulness and responsibility, has over time, now become the character type who can throw helpless prisoners out of windows and countenance hacking off prisoner limbs and companions who are incestuous and ejaculating on opponents because, well, "that's just his race talking." It shows a fella really cares. So the Paladin has become nothing more than another version of what, exactly?

The paladin in older editions was a champion of Lawful Good.

Now he's a champion of his deity.

In older editions, there were many many many paladin variants for other alignments.

Now they've all been folded into the "paladin" class.

Doesn't seem too hard to follow to me. Shrug. We've already seen a paladin of Asmodeus in a WotC adventure, and I for one welcome the chance to give evil its champions too. Heck, the DMG even mentions that the powers in the PH are designed with good guys in mind, and suggests that the DM instead give evil clerics and paladins necrotic abilities in place of radiant abilities.

 

[jbear]

Then, from your original post you seem to have mislead us all, presenting their acts with no perspective on the characters background. If people are responding to it, you shouldn't be so surprised. The way you initially presented it has caused this response.

From your vehement defence of their acts it seems to me you believe their behavior is acceptable and entertaining. Which makes me wonder why you brought up the question of their alignment in the first place. If the paladin is simply behaving as those of his culture behave, and his god believes that cutting off a fallen enemy's arms is merciful then it seems like in your world he is probably the paragon of good.

As far as correcting behaviour: the characters will curb their characters own behaviours if they think it will have a detrimental in-game effect. If we show brutality and disrespect to our enemies, our other enemies become more determined to avenge their fallen comrades, striking harder, fighting longer, focusing on us instead of being distracted and easily caught by surprise. Or the tribes skilled trackers use scent to follow them back to the village and slaughter many innocents to leave a message for the pc's. I don't mean 'oh you've been a bad boy, now you will feel the wrath of the almighty DM'. It has a certain logic that if the pc's use these tactics to try and intimidate the rest of the 'evil' gang, and all they achieve is making their task more difficult and dangerous, inadvertantly damaging the same 'innocents' they claim to protect, they are unlikely to use these tactics next time. After one painful/uncomfortable consequence, they will probably think twice about whether it's really worth their while throwing a mutilated hostage through a window.

If the players are going so far that I had to talk to them outside the game, that would be a pretty serious problem as far as I am concerned. I have never had any such problem, but more than likely I simply wouldn't play in a game where that was necessary.

 

[ajanders]

Well, I know a campaign where the PC's were all a bunch of mercenaries that raided a brewery, shot the secretary in the back of the head, slaughtered most of the people inside, took the others hostage, released a chimera, demolished the inside of the building killing the chimera, and then intimidated the master brewer into paying them to cover the whole thing up.
The party leader not only failed to think it that bit of urban mayhem was evil, but regarded it has their best adventure ever because they got paid.
Twice.


Perhaps the real question to ask is if the campaign doesn't use alignment -- even 4ED's Good, Good+...concept -- does your question have any answer?
I don't even think it can be asked.

The question can only be:
"Do these actions accord with the principles of The Cult of the Dragon Within/Church of Bahamut/Confucianism/USMCJ/Rule-based Utilitarianism?"

And the conflicts of a Paladin -- a warrior devoted to a code -- are no longer about "What is Good?" but "How do I reconcile the code from which I draw my power with the exigencies of my personal survival and growth (both of which require killing things and taking their stuff)."

And the character that has those conflicts is no longer a "hero" -- which admittedly, we can't get a consistent definition of -- and is now a lawyer, balancing ethical commitments while they swing their sword.

Somehow, I think something got lost between editions.

 

[roguerouge]

Out of curiosity, how does this thread meet the grandma board requirements, with its discussions of semen, retractable penises, facials of enemies, and references to incest? Shouldn't this be in Circus Maximus or something?