Ack! An alignment thread!

[Kahuna Burger]

Evil act... way, way evil... If I was the DM I wouldn't even argue with the player, he would find himself stripped of his clerical powers and in need of an atonement spell, plus quest and serious dressing down from an actually lawful good character.

(comeon, this is Knights of the Dinner Table level stuff... "you can't kill the barmaid, even if you do yell 'die foul temptress' first!")

 

[Thanee]

Good means to value life. Killing everyone on sight, who has a certain evil touch, without question, is not good in my opinion.

Killing should be somewhat of a last resort method for good-aligned characters. Sure, often they are drawn into fights and can't react differently.

And... there are methods to veil one's alignment from divinations. Without having ANY justification, killing someone because a spell said he's evil, is very naive and as has been said numerous times already, surely no good act.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Brian Chalian]

The cleric, therefore, was performing an illegal act, and to be Lawful Good requires the character to follow the laws of the land.

Absolutely false. Surely you've heard of the "paladin in Nazi Germany" paradox that resulted from the Lawful=Law abiding 2e nonsense.

Whether the lammasu is being trespassed upon or not is immaterial. "... on sight." The evil beings could be passing through perpendicular to the lammasu's lair, they could be seeking it out to repent, the thing doesn't care. The lammasu aren't even the only homicidal LG monster, just the most psychotic. Couatls and celestials are close behind, with dragons being the least aggressive (except for the pacifistic OA ki-rin).

Personally, I don't recommend attacking solely on the basis of a detect evil spell, since it can be misdirected.

(DMs, keep in mind that a first level evil person dies when attempting to wield a paladin's sword, no saving throw. If the NPC doesn't deserve that fate, then one mustn't give them an evil alignment.)

 

[Camarath]

Wow... I didn't realize that wasn't in the SRD. I know in 3.0, it was a bonus in the PH (I dunno about the SRD) that only clerics got. "See alignment" wasn't something the arcane casters of the same spell got.

The divine casters can see alignment clause of the spell was removed in 3.5.

 

[Crothian]

This depends too much on the laws of the land the beliefs of the cleric. I can see it both ways depending on how these things interact.

 

[Camarath]

Absolutely false. Surely you've heard of the "paladin in Nazi Germany" paradox that resulted from the Lawful=Law abiding 2e nonsense.

Personally I am not sure what alignment the Nazis would have been since apparently genocide is not an evil act in D&D. After all I don't know how many time my player have one invaded a foreign land, two annihilated it inhabitants including defenseless women and children, and three stolen every thing they could carry. But in D&D just because someone is evil people assume it is good to do evil things them. Personally I think that Good and Evil need to be reclassified as either Right and Wrong or simply Green and Red because when Orcs burn a village that is Wrong but when PCs do exactly the same thing they are Right. I have run games where you would have thought that the only alignment was CE. PCs dislike a NPC’s alignment so they kill him. PCs dislike a NPC’s race so they kill him. PCs dislike a NPC’s attitude so they kill him. PCs dislike the Government officials so they kill them. PCs dislike the laws so they kill the constables. PCs dislike the price at the store so they kill the shop keeper. PCs dislike the food at the inn so they kill the inn keeper. If a PC is walking in a forest and stubs his toe is it a good act to burn the forest down because it is obviously evil since it attacked the him?

 

[Nifft]

This is bordering on House Rules, but I think it's a valid interpretation of the Alignment / Descriptor dichotomy.

IMC, the [Evil] descriptor indicates whether a critter will glow red when the Paladin concentrates.

The "Alignment" line in the Monster Manual (and on character sheets) indicates conduct.

So, I break the confusing "Alignment" trait into:
- Conduct: your mortal actions; and
- Nature: your supernatural affiliations.

A Paladin has both a [Good] descriptor (Nature), and a set of rules to follow to keep that descriptor (required Conduct). Without Divine intervention, Conduct does not determine Nature. In D&D world, Divine intervention is fairly common, though.

-- N

 

[Brian Chalian]

Personally I am not sure what alignment the Nazis would have been since apparently genocide is not an evil act in D&D. After all I don't know how many time my player have one invaded a foreign land, two annihilated it inhabitants including defenseless women and children, and three stolen every thing they could carry.

Well, if you're all having fun... but by the end of your post it sounds like you aren't.

But in D&D just because someone is evil people assume it is good to do evil things them.

Killing is not evil. Killing the innocent is evil. Killing for fun or profit or out of duty to an evil master is evil.

Gary himself on these very boards (April 23, 2003) said,

As far as I am concerned the FRPG is a heroic game form, and thus the base assumption is that the players will be of non-vile stamp. If the GM desires the exploration of malign behavior in the campaign there is no need for printed guidelines in the game.

As you note, the combat with and slaying of creatures is considered by many a bad thing, even when it is a case of good fighting evil. While I don't agree with them, I do think it is unwise to add more ammunition for critics to use against the RPG by including the vile in printed material.

While he is no longer involved with the game, his stance can be seen reflected in both the PH alignments and the MM behaviors.

The "paladin in Nazi Germany" argument, for those lucky enough to either block it from their memory or never encounter it, is simple: Hitler passed a law requiring that all Jews must be killed. When a paladin visits and encounters innocent Jews, does she...
A) Kill them
B) Spare them

A violates Good, making it an Evil act.
B violated the laws of the land, making it a Chaotic act.

So any paladin entering Nazi Germany was unable to take any actions, including non-action, without violating her code or alignment.

Now in 3.x, lawful no longer requires obedience to the laws. At all. EVAR.

 

[Camarath]

Well, if you're all having fun... but by the end of your post it sounds like you aren't.

Most of the time I have fun but a few of my players seem to solve all of their problems with violence and justify it by say that they are good and anything that gets in their way must be evil. That can get tiring especially when other in the group would like to play a less absolute game.

Killing is not evil. Killing the innocent is evil. Killing for fun or profit or out of duty to an evil master is evil.

How does one define innocence? Are you saying that killing to gain loot is evil?

The "paladin in Nazi Germany" argument, for those lucky enough to either block it from their memory or never encounter it, is simple: Hitler passed a law requiring that all Jews must be killed. When a paladin visits and encounters innocent Jews, does she...
A) Kill them
B) Spare them.

A violates Good, making it an Evil act.

Unless of course they are Evil then killing them would be a Good act.

 

[Nifft]

Luckily, in D&D world, a Paladin can pray for guidance. There are also items that can grant the ability to know if your conduct will result in alignment drift.

Thanks to these advances in alignment technology, Paladins need never worry about the Nazi scenario -- the item will tell the Paladin "don't kill the nice people", and he won't. Of course, if the Paladin is truely the sword of his god, that god might drop a hint or two as to what the Paladin's expected to accomplish and what he's supposed to avoid.

Being the Paladin of a silent god would suck.

-- N