Adjudicating Exaltedness

[Artoomis]

...It can be an extremely rude awakening to a player to be held to a code of conduct not spelled out in the rules, and it does not seem like this player has been told that there is anything unexalted about intimidation. Thus, I would most definitely not punish them. They can't be blamed if the DM has not said anything about it until now.

As I said, the way I would play it is to warn that the action the PC is about to take is not within the bound of being "exalted." One could debate endlessly about many individual acts, the key is to not penalize a player, but give them a chance to decide if they really want to the PC to step outside the bounds of exaltedness or not.

Personally, I'd say even threatening a character with torture is not a good act, and therefore not "exalted." Remember that an "exatled" character is often at odds with the rough-and-tumble world within which he or she lives and lives by a higher standard.

My rule of thumb is that if you are uncertain (even a small doubt) if an act is appropriate, then the act is almost certainly outside the bounds of "exatled" character's required behavior.

Basically, if you have to ask,"Is this okay? then the answer is "no."

But... the player should always receive a warning. No player should ever get blindsided by an after-the fact ruling that an act was not within the bounds of exalted behavior. There is, otherwise, just too much personal opinion involved to be fair.

 

[moritheil]

My rule of thumb is that if you are uncertain (even a small doubt) if an act is appropriate, then the act is almost certainly outside the bounds of "exatled" character's required behavior.

Basically, if you have to ask,"Is this okay? then the answer is "no."

But... the player should always receive a warning. No player should ever get blindsided by an after-the fact ruling that an act was not within the bounds of exalted behavior.

Ah. I take the opposite assumption - anything not explicitly forbidden is permitted.

I don't tend to assume that DnD morality can or should correlate to real-world morality, or even make sense. (The use of poison is evil . . . but the use of poison that affects only evil creatures is not only good, but exalted! Yes, I'm aware that the ontological argument covers it, but this is still enough to cause cognitive dissonance for many.)

In any case, I see that practically, we both agree on how to handle the situation at hand.

 

[Artoomis]

Ah. I take the opposite assumption - anything not explicitly forbidden is permitted.

I don't tend to assume that DnD morality can or should correlate to real-world morality, or even make sense. ...

The Book of Exalted Deeds does not agree with you.

"...The standards expected of good characters in D&D, especially those who lay claim to an exalted status, bear much more similarity to modern sensibilities about justice, equality, and respect for life than do the actual medieval world that D&D is loosely based on, and that is quite intentional..."

There is a big difference between what is "acceptable" and what is "good,' and even more so for an "exalted" character.

In any case, I see that practically, we both agree on how to handle the situation at hand.

For sure.

 

[moritheil]

The Book of Exalted Deeds does not agree with you.

Actually, my line of reasoning is perfectly in keeping with the BoED.

The statement you quote is that it bears more similarity to modern morality - not that it in fact bears a close similarity, or worse, is the same (and it is the last case that I strenuously object to.) While I admit certain superficial similarities, ultimately I take what is and is not exalted behavior from the rules themselves, not from ill-defined preconceptions of morality inherent in the mind of the DM or players. The latter path is tantamount to forcing rules obligations on players for things that are not in the rules.

Perhaps an analogy will help: between the astral plane and the prime material plane, I would say that the material plane "bears more similarity" to reality - and yet due to fundamental differences like matter being composed of the four classical elements rather than chemical elements, even the material plane of DnD fails utterly at being truly like reality. Mistaking one for the other is something that could happen at a cursory glance, but no scientist would be fooled if he or she suddenly found himself in the DnD world. Basic experiments would yield different results.

There is a big difference between what is "acceptable" and what is "good,' and even more so for an "exalted" character.

I don't agree, or rather, I don't think you take my meaning. That which is not good is not acceptable for an exalted character, because they are supposed to be paragons of good. Are you not saying, when you hold up a certain sort of behavior as unexalted, that it is unacceptable in an exalted character?

 

[Artoomis]

...I don't agree, or rather, I don't think you take my meaning. That which is not good is not acceptable for an exalted character, because they are supposed to be paragons of good. Are you not saying, when you hold up a certain sort of behavior as unexalted, that it is unacceptable in an exalted character?

Let's take the example at hand.

Is threatening someone to get information a "good" act? Certainly not. Is it "evil?" Perhaps, perhaps not - maybe only neutral. However, if one is "exalted" one holds oneself to the highest standards of good behavior and does not even do such questionable acts as threatening someone to get information out of them.

I suspect we could debate this forever and get nowhere. Fortunately, in any particular game it is the DM who decides, and hopefully he or she will follow our joint advice and not "blindside" a player.