Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nonlethal Force" data-source="post: 3671413" data-attributes="member: 35788">But see, that's just the point.  According to WotC materials they're not irredeemable!  They are corrupt.  They are almost always by default evil.  But not irredeemable.If in your campaign they are irredeemable, then there is little wrong with smiting a demon/devil on sight because what else is it good for?  But in general D&D as written by WotC, there is a chance for redemption.  If a demon/devil has done nothing wrong that you are aware of by eyewitness or even story account, there is always a chance.And in some respects, I think this goes even deeper than just whacking them.  It goes to motivation behind the game in general.  If playing the game is just about creating cool combat characters that can whack stuff, then who really cares?  Go whack 'em and have fun.But if the players around the table want to have a deeper and more rounded experience full of the possibility of moral angst regarding their decisions and their impact upon the world around them, then they should be allowed to have that as well.  From the OP, the fact that a discussion about this broke out signifies that the players are doing more than just hack and slash.  Since fiends can be redeemed (no matter how remote the chance) in a general 3.5 WotC campaign, it sounds like a beautiful set-up for moral angst to me!And for the record, even in my D&D I still support the "unjustified killing for the sake of killing is questionable."  There are many paths to righteousness (since we are talking about good/paladins here).  Not many of them involve ending life without justification.  This is true even in the case of a fiend.  You can banish it back to its own plane of existance.  You can capture it and take it to authorities that can handle it and potentially redeem it.  This type of thinking won't fly in a hack and slash game, but in a game that the players want to do more than just kill, this is the stuff that good stories and campaigns are made of.I don't think that people are having trouble accepting the default version of fiends (except for the fact that you keep seeming to think that they are irredeemable and you dismiss the chance for redemption so easily).  I also don't think that people have been putting up red herrings and straw men.  It isn't the defaults that people are having trouble with.  The trouble is coming at a moral level, not a game mechanics level.  I do think it is legitimate to put into question if slaying anything without provokation is honorable.  I think it is legitimate to put into question whether good can enter into a truce with evil in order to defeat another evil.  And of course its corollary ... can both parties in the truce still maintain their original alignment stances.I'm about 5 hours from Philly (In a generally northwest direction).  I'm about 3 hours to Pittsburgh (In a generally northeast direction).</blockquote>

Verification