Alignment

[sutivnn]

Poor troll, this is ridiculous. If my character was in the party he would confront his comrades and even accuse the paladin of being a phony.

I think the Paladin and the Cleric all need an atonement spell to prove that they have sincerely repented before they can use their divine powers again.

Seriously, the way most of the party acted was so absurd, I wouldn't consider them Lawful Good at all. Sounds like something Cyric would do.




__________________
nội thất fami nội thất 190, noi that fami và noi that 190

 

[Rakusia]

umm there was no paladin and the cleric was a dissenter

 

[Crust]

I've always found alignment difficult to juggle with my players. Some have their own opinions of what are good and evil acts. For example, the stalker of Kharash in my group believes that the wanton slaying of anything that bears an evil alignment is a good act. I disagree. Others might agree with my player. It's caused me to regret allowing Exalted Deeds altogether. It's my opinion that murdering a murderer (even slaying a helpless devil or demon) is evil, but opinions vary. It's not easy, especially given the, as I call it, “Neverwinter Nights mentality,” where enemies are enemies and role-playing takes a back seat (or is stored in the trunk) in favor of farming XP and hording magical items.

Given the OP's situation (especially the use of detect good and the "surprise" appearance of the troll, a classic foe of all adventuring parties), I'd chalk up the encounter as a moment of supreme ignorance on the part of the party. I'd find it interesting to allow the situation to dawn on the PCs, that they slew a troll that meant to help them, slaying a non-evil creature in blind ignorance based on appearances. Like others have suggested, when a troll comes within arm's reach of a party of adventurers, the conditioned reaction is to use fire and acid immediately. Stepping forward to shake hands, whether the troll is evil or not, could be dangerous. After all, bears aren't evil, but I wouldn't approach one of those under any circumstances. I wouldn't attack it either unless I felt threatened, and I imagine party members felt threatened by the troll.

I don’t often stop my players and say, “That’s an evil act. You can’t do that,” but I have warned players about that and watched things unfold. Concerning the OP’s situation, I wouldn't penalize any PCs outright for that encounter (stripping paladinhood or exalted feats, for example), but I would sit back and carefully weigh individual reactions to the slaying of a non-evil troll. Some of my players would respect and understand the gravity of their actions. Others wouldn't care. That would color how I proceed with future encounters, especially with NPCs who would judge the PCs and hold them accountable, such as a local druid or party of rangers who had already befriended the non-evil troll. Perhaps that druid (or some other NPC friend of the troll) might confront the PCs and either scold them or attack them outright for upsetting the delicate balance and slaying a troll just because it's a troll. Could be some interesting role-playing.

 

[Celebrim]

I've always found alignment difficult to juggle with my players. Some have their own opinions of what are good and evil acts. For example, the stalker of Kharash in my group believes that the wanton slaying of anything that bears an evil alignment is a good act. I disagree. Others might agree with my player.

The main thing is that everyone agrees to agree with the DM. And hopefully the DM has some idea what he's talking about or at least has an internally consistant definition.

It's caused me to regret allowing Exalted Deeds altogether.

A terrible evil book, IMO. Not only is it mechanically unsound, it's often philosophically unsound as well.

It's my opinion that murdering a murderer ...is evil, but opinions vary.

I very much agree. Murder is not justice. And I have been a big defender of the poor troll who as far as we can tell isn't even a murderer. And anything that is merely "usually" evil to me is both possibly redeemed and maybe even redeemable and so deserving of every reasonable chance.

(I'd apply the label "usually evil" to humanity to be quite frank, and so to me the great irony is some generally evil species ruthlessly slaying some other generally evil species in the name of self-righteous good. Most adventurers strike me as little more than bandits.)

However, I do disagree on one count:

(even slaying a helpless devil or demon)

I believe in what I call 'full palette fantasy worlds'. That is to say that in a fantasy world there ought to be black, and white, and every shade of gray in the middle. In order to really have a full palette there must be the shades of gray occupied by trolls and humanity, but there must also be things that occupy white and black and which are truly those things and not merely particularly pale or dark shades of grey. To me philosophical outsiders represent something categorically different from mortals with their moral ambiguities and free will. Philosophical outsiders aren't merely humans with bumps on their head and wings on their back, but actual embodiments of certain ethical postions. A devil or demon isn't merely evil; it is Evil. In the full palette world, there are some things which are unredeemably evil and which it is never wrong to oppose and there are some things which are not unredeemably evil and so generally wrong to prejudge.

To me the world gets remarkably simplier (and less interesting) when one class of being or the other drops out. A world where everything evil, feral, and montrous of form was in fact merely a variant demon, and so Evil and always good to slay and oppose is too simple for my taste. A world were everything is merely a human in other form, and so possessing human free will, human emotions, human desires, and deserving of whatever benefit of the doubt a human should give to other humans is likewise too simple for my taste.

If you are going to pull out a word like 'demon', it should me incarnated evil as the word implies. It shouldn't merely mean, 'a usually vile being but still possessing basically human traits'. Demons don't experience the full range of human emotions, failings, and potential nobility. They are simply Evil. It's not nuanced or interesting to say that demons are nuanced, because we've got Trolls and Goblins and what not to occupy all those grey areas. If we move demons into the grey area, we've left black completely off the pallette.

 

[Crust]

I appreciate your response, Celebrim, and I know exactly what you mean. There is definitely a black and white opposition in the D&D world. The existence of alignment is evidence of this.

What I'm suggesting in my own campaign is something I have to handle delicately, because my players would agree with you (not that I disagree with you). When I take my campaign into Hell (soon), I want the PCs (in particular the paladin and any exalted PCs) to understand that if they start acting like devils or if they endorse such behavior in their companions, they'll suffer the consequences one way or another. If an exalted PC slays a helpless devil, that PC might develop a taste for killing for the sake of killing. If an exalted PC tortures a devil for information, that PC might develop a taste for torture, which could carry over to more than just devils.

As George Orwell suggests in 1984 , "The object of torture is torture." My games are heavily influenced by ideas like that. Whether it's a devil, an orc, or an innocent child, torture is torture, and that behavior poisons the torturer as much as it harms the victim. I want to convey the idea that PCs could become the thing they most despise if they're not careful. A truly exalted paladin would probably rather die than decapitate a helpless devil. Granted, it's a devil, and the Monster Manual is clear on its alignment and behavior, but the paladin has still slain a helpless foe, which is at the very least cowardly and at worst murder. Even if the paladin spares the devil and is eventually killed by the same devil later on, at least the paladin has retained his soul and can expect paradise in the afterlife. Of course, the player running the paladin might not like that. And I'm generous enough to reward players for behaving like, in my opinion, a true paladin. Who's to say that the slain paladin won't be restored to life by his/her deity simply for behaving in a truly exalted fashion? That same paladin could be returned to life more powerful than before (as a half-celestial, granted a holy avenger, etc.) with the intention of continuing the righteous battle against evil.

As Gandalf once said, “…do not be so eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.” That was true in Gollum's case, who was evil to the core and nonredeemable in my opinion. Bilbo spared Gollum, and many of my players would definitely not have spared Gollum. Even the paladin in my group might require a raised eyebrow from me in moments like that, as the player will assume that Gollum will do something evil in the future and must be rubbed out just in case (which is evil in my opinion).

It's a bit daring, and there might be some grumbles, but that's the price of being a paladin or having exalted feats and/or prestige classes in my campaign. Some of my players seem to forget that they're exalted and that those benefits are overpowered and must be weighed against strict role-playing. I have to deal with exactly what you're talking about, Celebrim, and it's hard to juggle. Alignment has always been hard to juggle for me, and when morals and influences vary at the table, I often wonder how the game would change if I cut out alignment altogether.

 

[Celebrim]

Crust: I think that there are two separatable ideas here.

If an exalted PC slays a helpless devil, that PC might develop a taste for killing for the sake of killing. If an exalted PC tortures a devil for information, that PC might develop a taste for torture, which could carry over to more than just devils.

I agree, but that's a separate point. It's not impossible that something which is itself not evil, could have a corrupting influence on someone so that it becomes evil for them. Suppose we argue that flogging a convicted criminal as a payment for their crime (as opposed to the slower torture of confinement) is morally neutral. It still might be the case that it is a thing greatly to be avoided because the act of flogging may encourage one to take pleasure in cruelty, which is certainly evil. Or suppose the consumpsion of alchohol is something that we want to argue is morally neutral. It still might be something which for someone is greatly to be avoided because for them it encourages them to drink until the point of drunkenness, which many will agree is evil.

But my original point still stands. When Gandalf said, "…do not be so eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.", he certainly wasn't speaking of the Balrog. Gollum was himself a free person who had been corrupted, not a being of thought who had had its nature set in immortal and ageless time.

And I disagree with you about Gollum's irredeemable nature as well. If Sam hadn't stirred from his sleep, and spoken a hasty and angry word because he was angry at himself for haven fallen asleep, then I don't believe Gollum would have been lost. It came down to a knife's edge with Gollum, and he almost made it.

On the whole though I quite agree with where you are going philosophically. As I said before, most adventures actions don't match their good alignments. Most adventurers actions tend to match either the gamist expendiency or moral expediency of the actors playing the game. Adventurers tend to do whatever is most expedient at the time with little regard to good or evil except in as much as they assume 'Good' essentially means 'my side wins'. I can quibble a little with you about the symmantics or the details, but to the extent that you seem to be wanting to encourage deeper reflection on the sort of actions players usually take I'm behind you 100%. I'm just not entirely sure demons and devils are the best vehicle for that, since the moral equivalency argument ('if you do that, you'll be just as bad as they are') just about never applies in that case. To argue that snuffing out a demon is evil is about like arguing that snuffing out ones anger, pride, envy or lust is evil because that's not merely what they promote, that is what they are - incarnated vice. To argue that the paladin can't kill the demon is like arguing that the paladin can't kill his own evil urges. If you aren't to kill them, what exactly are you to do with them? Is it morally evil to treat a disease with antibiotics when the disease is just beginning, or must you wait until its at its moment of strength and the fight is fairer?

If we were talking trolls or something I might be more on board without any qualms.

However, back to what I said at first, just because something isn't evil doesn't mean it can't be made evil or encourage evil.

 

[frankthedm]

Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness or escape from captivity to continue their evil deeds.

Talk about getting...

 

[Rakusia]

Talk about getting...

total waffles

 

[Sekhmet]

Was away for several days and unable to continue this conversation due to that. This is the collected response over the last few days.

Demons have duties? Once again, you're defining everything lawful terms.

It is the duty of Demons to obey the laws of the creator of their race. They are bound to Calling spells, they are bound to the deals that they make with summoners. They are bound to combat Devils in The Blood Wars in Baator, and their hatred for eachother is well known. These are cosmic laws they are bound to.

You seem to have confused the motivation... just a tribe fighting for its cut, differing only in superficial trappings.

In the D&D universe, Good and Evil are not regional concepts. Dwarves are generally Good, Drow are generally Evil. If you are an Evil Drow living in an Evil Drow city, torching a Good Dwarf city is always Evil.
If you are a Good Dwarf torching an Evil Drow city, it is always Good.

This is, again, because Good and Evil are not regional. Just because one country thinks mass sacrifice and cruelty is a good thing to do does not make it Good in that country. Unlike in the real world, where some places may feverently believe that they are doing the Good thing while another country believes they are doing Evil things.

Good and Evil are not philosophies in the D&D Cosmology. They are hard coded laws of the universe set in place by the Overgods and enforced by the Gods.

Maybe, but I'm thinking not. One of the traits of Lawful is honour, and striking down someone from behind that is helping you does not strike me as honourable. If "Usually CE" allows for Good trolls, then it becomes beholden on Good people to find out why the troll is apparently helping them

It was never evident that the troll was there to help the PCs. He came, he destroyed, he was destroyed. That he attacked (probably) much weaker Orcs who had not threatened him attests to his Evil nature.

I would question that on at least one level. Paladins performing an Evil act loose their paladin status but don't if they perform a Chaotic act. A Neutral Good PC, especially a Cleric, would need to consider Good v Evil above Law v Chaos.

A Cleric of an LG God must act in an LG manner. Neither Good nor Law should take precedent. However, it is not always possible to do both the Lawful and the Good thing, and it is never Good OR Lawful to do nothing about an injustice, so one must act. To do the Lawful OR the Good thing is necessary. In the D&D Cosmology, the four extremes are equal. A Cleric has a little more leeway than a Paladin does, since a Cleric will not fall if his alignment shifts slightly.

The book merely expanded on good and evil. It was optional for the feats and what not, but the first chapter was almost an essay on the nature of good in the D&D world and better defines it than the PHB or DMG. It was just expanding on what good and evil are and what is expected of good. Actually, the PHB says good is a "respect for life". Make of it what you will, but you say it's very defined when it's barely a page long, then I find a 3.X book that better covers the 3.X rules, then you say "That's not core", even though your first example was a Forgotten Realms deity. That's kind of a double standard.

The book expounds on a philosophical debate that has been going since Plato. The book is mechanically flawed and poorly written.
Tyr, while not a part of the D&D Cosmology, is presented in the Deities and Demigods book (pg195) as a part of the extended pantheon (Not an FR pantheon or book).
Defining an abstract idea such as the real world idea of Good is impossible. The PHB does sets the rules for Good in in the D&D Cosmology, and that is what is important.

In a case where it is impossible to do the Lawful and Good thing, one must choose either of the two options. The party chose the Lawful course of action.

The Lawful good Cleric was played by me and I was totally against the troll slaying ( Hence why I am here writing this) also dont know where the lawful good paladin came from, Never mentioned this. No Pally in group.

I brought the idea of the Paladin into the thread to bring in a pillar of LG behaviour. A Cleric has more room to wrestle with his alignment on minor issues than a Paladin does, and since this is clearly alright behaviour for a Paladin, it must be okay for a Cleric as well.

 

[Crust]

Thanks for the feedback, Celebrim. You've given me some things to consider as I weigh my portrayal of Hell.

*This may be a bit off topic, but I tried to keep it about alignment*

I also appreciate your take on LotR. Perhaps Gollum was capable of being redeemed given enough time and patience. I might add that like Smeagol, even the balrogs started out as "blank slates" of sorts that were corrupted by Melkor (perhaps the only being in Tolkien's universe who was truly the embodiment of "evil" or "discord" given the Music of the Ainur). Even Boromir was corrupted by his father's expectations and the pressures of society (dealing with Mordor, losing power to Aragorn, etc.). Smeagol strangled Deagol almost immediately upon seeing the Ring, and one can only imagine what made Smeagol such an easy student of violence and murder. It wasn't the Ring. If Smeagol were good, he'd have let Deagol have his ring much like Aragorn let Frodo leave the Fellowship. Boromir falls somewhere in the middle I think.

Concerning Gandalf and the balrog, clearly the balrog forced initiative (to use a gaming term), which in turn forced Gandalf to "deal out death in judgment," and perhaps Gandalf knew that he'd return from death as Gandalf the White, being awarded greater power by Manwe or Iluvatar for his sacrifice (like my paladin example I mentioned earlier, coming back more powerful than before for his righteous sacrifice). I wonder how things would have turned out if the balrog let the companions flee across the bridge. Would Gandalf have left the balrog alone? After all, Gandalf didn't attack the balrog at the bridge. He just destroyed the bridge, and the balrog forced Gandalf into combat afterward.

By comparison, a paladin in Hell (I'll be using parts of that module, by the way) might not rush at every spinagon and lemure he sees, hacking them down just because they exist (which would ultimately be futile). In that case, the object is killing not making the multiverse a safer place (a delusion created in the mind of the soon-to-be fallen paladin). However, when a pit fiend pounces and the paladin is wary, with actions readied and his wits about him, all bets are off and the paladin is defending himself and his friends as opposed to killing devils for the sake of killing. When the object of killing is killing (even killing devils), that's entering into the realm of evil. That's the delicate line I'm going to try to walk as my epic campaign enters into Hell. Some of my players with exalted PCs already understand this, but a few have the, as you say, "my side wins" mentality, and I'm trying to work with that a little bit given the information in Exalted Deeds.

I understand that devils are "always LE" and that they are evil incarnate, but in my campaign, that's all poetry and propaganda. What devils are does not make the act of killing any less serious. When fighting devils, the true danger is becoming a devil yourself, almost as if the evil present in Hell will seep into the PCs if they're not careful. I suppose that sums up what I'm going to tell my players before we enter Hell.

Your points about LotR (and everything else) are valid and give me something to think about in class, Celebrim, as I teach The Hobbit through The Silmarillion, and my take on those books changes every year.