Paladins in Sunless Citadel (UPDATE)

[LuYangShih]

Perhaps, but I am arguing from the standpoint of the rules as written. Alignment is supposed to be an objective measuring of a characters given morality and beliefs. If it becomes subjective than you are no longer following standard D&D rules.

As for the Merchant, I would ask a qualifying question as to whether or not he was NE or simply had tendencies towards the alignment. If offered an opportunity to kill for profit, with the assurance he would face no repricussions for the act, would he do it? If yes, he is NE. If not, he simply has tendencies towards the alignment.

Arravis, I do not see the point in "agreeing to disagree". There is no better way to ruin a good argument. There are winners and losers in debates, which is part of the fun. Competition brings out the best in people, and I for one am really enjoying discussing this.

 

[Arravis]

LuYangShih, to put it bluntly, I think this is a debate you've lost.

As you point out in D&D alignment isn't subjective, good is good and evil is evil, regardless of your point of view (btw if you go by what's in the PHB alignment descriptions, your vision of a paladin falls into the Lawful Evil category). Anyway, none of the issues I've brought up in this debate deal with subjective alignment in any form. It seems that you want alignments to be extremes where only a few fall on either end of the spectrum and 95% of the populace falls in the neutral category. This just isn't the case in D&D. As was stated by AnthonyJ, alignments in 3rd edition are pretty broad. The bigger definitions of alignment in 3rd edition have nothing to do with subjective alignment, they simply paint with a wider brush. "Evil" is defined as more than simply murdering, raping, etc... a number of lesser offenses also are "evil" by the current rules system. You only seem willing to consider the most extreme crimes as evil and everything else as neutral. What comes across in your posts is a view of good and evil that's more in keeping with 1st edition and not with the current system.

As far as "agreeing to disagree", I've done this because I feel I've done all I can without simply repeating the same points over and over. If I had more issues to bring up on this, I would, but I think I've more then successfully defended my views and I'm pleased with the results. Can I convince you of them? Probably not, but the internet is full of all kinds of people and if one tries to convince everyone all the time, it will end only in frustration.

Now, if you come up with some new ideas on your arguement, I'll gladly give my opinions on them. Anyway, it's been a good debate overall .

 

[Trainz]

I wish you were my player. I absolutely love stuff like this. I can think of all sorts of fun things to do with a kobald follower. Were I you, I'd ask the DM to give Meepo a level of sorcerer. Imagine the fun you could have with him then!

I wish I WAS your player.

I'll have my DM read this.

 

[AnthonyJ]

Uquot

Perhaps, but I am arguing from the standpoint of the rules as written. Alignment is supposed to be an objective measuring of a characters given morality and beliefs. If it becomes subjective than you are no longer following standard D&D rules.

In what way am I being subjective? I've defined it as objective for any given game world -- however, different DMs may choose to use different objective definitions...

As for the Merchant, I would ask a qualifying question as to whether or not he was NE or simply had tendencies towards the alignment. If offered an opportunity to kill for profit, with the assurance he would face no repricussions for the act, would he do it? If yes, he is NE. If not, he simply has tendencies towards the alignment.

Sorry, you can be evil without killing people.

 

[ogre]

Being the masterful threadender that I am, I will add my 2 cents....

First let it be know that I have read this entire discussion.
Second, I agree with LuYangshih.

I run an Elf Paladin who slays those who detect as evil, unless wisdom dictates otherwise. For example: if I'm in a city, I don't go and cut someone down if I detect evil, I leave the direct confrontation to the law, unless immediate action is required.
If I'm in the wilderness or on a road, I will confront them and become judge, jury and executioner. My DM calls this 'Road Justice'. heh This PC has a belief, his god grants him the vision to see into the souls of evil beings. It is his job to release these souls so that they will be free from the land of the living. He says a quick prayer, that the evil souls will be guided by his god so that they may return to the prime as good beings. He is not blood thirsty, he is actually quite pleasant and generous, lawful and patient. I do not run him as a social worker, he is run like a warrior of truth and justice and purges the land of ALL evil. That's how I play him.

Now, I do understand the other arguments presented here, and would even run this PC much different if that was how the DM viewed it. But, I think the main thing here is:
Is evil evil? And is the paladins ability an insight that comes direct from his god to cast judement? Or is it more of a feeling, an inkling to curb your actions and simply give you a guideline on how to act?
Either way is valid in my book, but it really must be the DMs decision. I also think that the core D&D game expects alignment to be black and white. Evil is eevil. When I DM I place 80% of the civilized population in a neutral alignment, only 10% respectively are either evil or good.

One final thing, I think adding real-world examples to define alignment is like trying to put a square in a round hole.

Good debate guys! It was fun and a learning experience! Plus, you kept it civil. Thx.

 

[LuYangShih]

LuYangShih, to put it bluntly, I think this is a debate you've lost.

I disagree.

As you point out in D&D alignment isn't subjective, good is good and evil is evil, regardless of your point of view (btw if you go by what's in the PHB alignment descriptions, your vision of a paladin falls into the Lawful Evil category).

Actually, no. You seem to be misinterpeting strong action as Evil. Lawful Good characters are the "Crusaders" according to the PHB. Waging a Crusade against Evil and its influence. The Paladin only emphasizes this trait all the more.

Anyway, none of the issues I've brought up in this debate deal with subjective alignment in any form. It seems that you want alignments to be extremes where only a few fall on either end of the spectrum and 95% of the populace falls in the neutral category.

In a fantasy D&D world, a good deal of the population will fall under my definition of Evil. You seem to be much more forgiving than I am, actually. I suspect more people would be Evil by my definitions than yours.

This just isn't the case in D&D. As was stated by AnthonyJ, alignments in 3rd edition are pretty broad. The bigger definitions of alignment in 3rd edition have nothing to do with subjective alignment, they simply paint with a wider brush. "Evil" is defined as more than simply murdering, raping, etc... a number of lesser offenses also are "evil" by the current rules system.

Yes, but almost no one is a paragon. You can commit lesser Evil and still remain Neutral, and the same is true for Good actions. To a lesser extent, this is also true of Good and Evil characters, who are capable of performing actions on the opposite end of the alignment. Their overall character determines their final alignment, however.

You only seem willing to consider the most extreme crimes as evil and everything else as neutral. What comes across in your posts is a view of good and evil that's more in keeping with 1st edition and not with the current system.

No, I consider only people who are truly willing to harm and destroy others to further their own interests as Evil. Most people are at least a little greedy, selfish, or uncaring. This is why the majority falls under the Neutral definition. Most people never reach a decision on a moral basis to live their lives by, whether that be helping others, or stepping on them.

As far as "agreeing to disagree", I've done this because I feel I've done all I can without simply repeating the same points over and over. If I had more issues to bring up on this, I would, but I think I've more then successfully defended my views and I'm pleased with the results. Can I convince you of them? Probably not, but the internet is full of all kinds of people and if one tries to convince everyone all the time, it will end only in frustration.

But your views are not in concordance with the standard rules. Furthermore, they handicap characters such as Paladins in your world from being truly effective adventurers. Paladins are Crusaders in a holy war against the forces of evil. You apparently see them as something else.

Now, if you come up with some new ideas on your arguement, I'll gladly give my opinions on them. Anyway, it's been a good debate overall .

Shall we define our standpoints, then? Good does not neccessarily require mercy in all cases. Indeed, I think a wise standpoint for a Good character would be to realize that he is simply bringing justice to Evil creatures for the crimes they have commited. He need not feel compelled to forgive them, as that is not his duty. Mercy should only be applied when it is thought the Evil creature one is facing truly feels remorse or regret over his actions, and wishes to change.

You cannot change another unless they wished to be changed, after all. If an Evil character shows no remorse or regret, and cannot understand why you judge them, than they are not deserving of mercy. It is thus the Paladins duty to destroy such creatures both to prevent any further harm they do, and as punishment for the Evil they have committed.

PS

And yes, this has been a good debate so far.

 

[AnthonyJ]

I disagree.

Actually, no. You seem to be misinterpeting strong action as Evil. Lawful Good characters are the "Crusaders" according to the PHB. Waging a Crusade against Evil and its influence. The Paladin only emphasizes this trait all the more.

Historically, this is probably true; the Crusaders were not particularly admirable people. However, I admit that the historical figure is not who the D&D paladin is modeled on; it's more modeled on certain types of idealized knight.

However, the idealized knight is supposed to have all of the virtues. Including Mercy.

But your views are not in concordance with the standard rules. Furthermore, they handicap characters such as Paladins in your world from being truly effective adventurers. Paladins are Crusaders in a holy war against the forces of evil. You apparently see them as something else.

No, the issue is really whether Kobolds are 'forces of evil' or just malicious little pests. There's no question that a paladin should destroy supernatural evil and those who have dedicated their lives to evil. The issue is whether the Paladin should destroy those who haven't done anything particularly bad, but might do something bad in the future.

In terms of 'detect evil', my rule of thumb is that if it has more than a 'faint' aura the Paladin should destroy it. With lesser evils, detect evil is insufficient cause, though it may well still be appropriate for other reasons.

 

[Arravis]

LuYangShih wrote: I disagree.

I think that's clear. The consensus seems to be otherwise though.


LuYangShih wrote: No, I consider only people who are truly willing to harm and destroy others to further their own interests as Evil. Most people are at least a little greedy, selfish, or uncaring.

Yes, a little greedy, selfish and uncaring... the point is if that is what you mostly are (not just a little), you're evil. You don't have to harm or destroy to be evil, you can simply be very greedy and selfish and be evil. This is a core point that you seem to be missing.


LuYangShih wrote: But your views are not in concordance with the standard rules. Furthermore, they handicap characters such as Paladins in your world from being truly effective adventurers.

I, as you can guess, disagree. In my opinion (and again, what seems to be the overall consensus) you're using an outdated idea of alignment that doesn't at all fit the current 3rd edition system. And yes, I'm handicapping Paladins if they believe themselves to be the arbiters of life and death with no real accountability.


LuYangShih wrote: Good does not necessarily require mercy in all cases.

Or in any case, in what seems to be your point of view. You might want to re-read the players or take a look at the SRD:

"“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

"“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

"Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion."

On Lawful Evil: "He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion."

How does your idea of a paladin fit in with the above? A jackbooted merciless zealot that kills any he deems morally unfit doesn't fall any where near the definition of good in 3rd edition.


LuYangShih wrote: Indeed, I think a wise standpoint for a Good character would be to realize that he is simply bringing justice to Evil creatures for the crimes they have committed. He need not feel compelled to forgive them, as that is not his duty.

Justice takes time. You have to know the facts involved and investigate the situation. Justice requires truth. Justice isn't killing a group of kobolds simply cause they detect as evil. Your concept of a paladin hasn't done anything to get at the truth of the matter, only jumped to quick conclusions and is willing to slaughter and kill on those hasty judgments. Additionally, I'm not saying he need forgive them, but he needs to know what the hell he's doing though. Not just act like an idiot and kill first, ask questions later.


LuYangShih wrote: You cannot change another unless they wished to be changed, after all. If an Evil character shows no remorse or regret, and cannot understand why you judge them, than they are not deserving of mercy.

You also can't change if you're dead. You remove any and all chances of redemption with that. Your paladin hasn't even tried. He is, in my view, taking the coward's route. He doesn't want to deal with complex issues so he closes his eyes and blindly swings his sword. That isn't what paladin should be, not even close.

I gather that you and I are working under different assumptions on the nature of morality. You seem to believe that all actions are based on character... I believe that your actions form your character.

Alignment in 3rd edition is a dynamic thing, something that changes based on actions, not something that binds you to do what it requires. From the SRD:
"Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies; so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent."

 

[LuYangShih]

LuYangShih wrote: I disagree.

I think that's clear. The consensus seems to be otherwise though.

Actually the consensus is about even on this issue so far.

Yes, a little greedy, selfish and uncaring... the point is if that is what you mostly are (not just a little), you're evil. You don't have to harm or destroy to be evil, you can simply be very greedy and selfish and be evil. This is a core point that you seem to be missing.

And you seem to be missing my point that unless a persons greed or selfishness is so great that they will harm or destroy others because of it, they are more Neutral than Evil. Again, when determining alignment, I would always ask, "Would this character be willing to destroy other peoples lives (in various ways), so he can attain what he wants?" If no, he is not Evil.

I, as you can guess, disagree. In my opinion (and again, what seems to be the overall consensus) you're using an outdated idea of alignment that doesn't at all fit the current 3rd edition system. And yes, I'm handicapping Paladins if they believe themselves to be the arbiters of life and death with no real accountability.

According to the description given in the PHB, Paladins are arbiters of life and death. My view of alignment fits perfectly with the Crusader ideal of a LG character.

Or in any case, in what seems to be your point of view. You might want to re-read the players or take a look at the SRD:

"“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

It is because of those issues that the Paladin must make a stance against evil creatures and keep them from hurting others. The Paladin dedicates his life to protecting others (altruism), keeping them safe from harm (respect for life), and removing any oppression upon them (concern for the dignity of sentient beings). He does all this without expectation or need of thanks or reward, as it is his sacred duty to do so.

"“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

Exactly. This is the type of creatures the Kobolds are, and so they must be dealt with appropiately. The convient path for the Paladin to take in this scenario would be to leave the Kobolds to their machinations, and not take responsibilty for protecting the town of Oakhurst.

"Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion."

Compassion is what drives the Paladin to take sword in hand, and protect innocents who cannot protect themselves.

On Lawful Evil: "He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion."

A Lawful Evil character cares only for furthering his own goals and ambitions. A Lawful Evil character would have no compunction to even consider the fate of the Kobolds or the town of Oakhurst, unless it directly affected himself or any organization he might serve.

How does your idea of a paladin fit in with the above? A jackbooted merciless zealot that kills any he deems morally unfit doesn't fall any where near the definition of good in 3rd edition.

No, but that is not what I am describing.

Justice takes time. You have to know the facts involved and investigate the situation. Justice requires truth. Justice isn't killing a group of kobolds simply cause they detect as evil.

And how is the Paladin in this scenario doing that? As I have said so many times before, I do not believe in using Detect Evil as a license to kill in and of itself. However, it can be used as a deciding factor when taking into account the whole picture. The Kobolds are a threat to nearby innocents in the town of Oakhurst, and are raising a White Dragon who could, given time, become a true terror upon the land. Given that, the fact that they are Evil should motivate the Paladin to making sure they do not have the chance to harm those he is sworn to protect.

Your concept of a paladin hasn't done anything to get at the truth of the matter, only jumped to quick conclusions and is willing to slaughter and kill on those hasty judgments.

I could easily say your concept of a Paladin is so indecisive and unwilling to take action to protect the innocent, that he will never accomplish anything worthwhile. Nor will he ever be a true champion of justice.

Additionally, I'm not saying he need forgive them, but he needs to know what the hell he's doing though. Not just act like an idiot and kill first, ask questions later.

And how is the Paladin doing that? It is not as if he walked into the room, detected Evil, and started cutting down Kobolds left and right. He has taken his time, he has considered his actions, and he is informing his party of the course of action he has chosen to take. A course of action that is just, and wise.

You also can't change if you're dead. You remove any and all chances of redemption with that.

You also remove any chance of the creature harming another innocent again. The Paladin is not duty bound to redeem Evil, especially if that Evil shows no wish to change.

Your paladin hasn't even tried. He is, in my view, taking the coward's route. He doesn't want to deal with complex issues so he closes his eyes and blindly swings his sword. That isn't what paladin should be, not even close.

Again, I could state a similar viewpoint about your version of the Paladin. He is unwilling to courageously face the Evil he confronts and deal with it in an appropiate manner. He is so afraid of the possible Evil he might commit, he never takes the harder path, the righteous path.

I gather that you and I are working under different assumptions on the nature of morality. You seem to believe that all actions are based on character... I believe that your actions form your character.

Alignment is a result of your actions. If a creature detects as Evil it is because he has done Evil.

Alignment in 3rd edition is a dynamic thing, something that changes based on actions, not something that binds you to do what it requires. From the SRD:
"Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies; so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent."

True. Which I myself mentioned in my previous post. If you mean to say that the Kobolds should not be judged because it is possible they can change, I have already responded to that argument.

 

[Arravis]

To avoid rehashing so much of this (which has just been re-hashed again), I'll simply say that mercy and compassion ARE required for goodness... and that doesn't mean only mercy and compassion towards your allies, it means towards your enemies as well.