Player Dilemma

[genshou]

Unless, of course, you are talking about the real world, in which everything is morally relative, since other cultures have different moral codes relative to ours (some of which, I suppose, may not view killing human children as evil. Aztecs maybe?)

Lord Pendragon, you have stated multiple times in this thread that the real world is a world of moral relativism–but isn't that a dogmatic statement? I would argue the strong sense of ethical objectivism (aka Absolutism)–yes, cultures and individuals may have differing moral outlooks, but good and evil and what constitutes moral rights and wrongs are immutable, unchaging, timeless; beyond human control. Our own interpretations of them, and a specific culture's desire to accept these absolutes, is what is relative. What Hitler did is morally wrong and evil no matter what any individual or culture chooses to state to the contrary. It seems you agree with me on this point about genocide as well as a few other widely recognized acts of the most insidious wickedness (rape, murder, esp. murder of children who cannot yet be truly accountable for their actions), which indicates to me that you follow a different school of thought than you state. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that your beliefs adhere more to the weak sense of ethical objectivism than they do to either the strong or weak sense of moral relativism.

Simply stating that the concept of moral relativism is the correct one is a philosophical no-no. Consider the words of Bertrand Russel, from The Problems of Philosophy, Chapter 15 (Oxford University Press, 1912):

Many philosophers, it is true, have held that philosophy could establish the truth of certain answers to such fundamental questions. They have supposed that what is of most importance in religious beliefs could be proved by strict demonstration to be true. In order to judge of such attempts, it is necessary to take a survey of human knowledge, and to form an opinion as to its methods and limitations. On such a subject it would be unwise to pronounce dogmatically; but if the investigations of our previous chapters have not led us astray, we shall be compelled to renounce the hope of finding philosophical proofs of religious beliefs. We cannot, therefore, include as part of the value of philosophy any definite set of answers to such questions. Hence, once more, the value of philosophy must not depend upon any supposed body of definitely ascertainable knowledge to be acquired by those who study it.

 

[genshou]

I agree. Others don't.

Trawl through past threads on the topic... there is a very vocal camp who maintain that not only can a paladin smite someone just because they have the Evil alignment, they have an obligation to do so.

Link: Does evil mean Evil? Is a paladin free to act against evil?
Link: Paladins in 3.5, why?
Link: Should there be Repercussions for This? (opinions wanted)

-Hyp.

I have read these threads in the past. The crux of the matter is that D&D is a world of Absolutism–Good (or [Good] if you prefer) is not a universal principle, it is an absolute. But as I explain in my last post above to Lord Pendragon, the absolute of "Good" and what a society or religious grouping perceives as "Good" can differ due to imperfections in human thought. The paladin's goal is to strive for that which is more Lawful Good than anyone else's Lawful Good–the absolute that is the very essence of the alignment. While you or I might be *mostly* Lawful Good but have a few vices, a paladin is striving for perfection.

Sepulchrave handled this nicely in his Tales of Wyre campaign with the schism in Oronthon's church between the advocates of mercy (Good) and justice (Law). This seems to be a paradox in real-world Christianity as well, though there are ways to explain how the two balance one another within the context of a being possessing Divine Nature. However, explanation of this would not only cause real-world, irrelevant-to-the-discussion religion to intrude upon the discussion at hand, but would use the very dogmatic approach I shun in my post to Lord Pendragon above. Thus, I shall set aside this concept for the purpose of the discussion at hand.

A paladin is not required to be perfect; any philosopher who believes in the possibility of a perfect man (and by man I mean human, mortal, sentient) is a fool. As only Oronthon himself in Sepulchrave's campaign possesses the perfection required to balance between Law and Good, any paladin serving under Him must sit on one side of the fence or the other. Thus, the individual's dogma–and therefore their interpretation of moral absolutes–is defined solely by the realm of the Lawful Good alignment in which they reside. It is not so much a question of "is it merciful to the goblin children" or "is it just?", but instead a question of how the needs of both spheres are met, and which side the paladin shies toward.

I challenge someone to take what I just wrote and use the mystical powers of brevity to make it half its current size.

 

[Storyteller01]

So, someone who has a history of wickedness, but who has honestly repented and will sincerely be a powerful force for good, still detects as evil. The Paladinbot is required to ignore his potential for changing the world for the better (any appropriate divination will reveal that allowing him to live will enrich thousands of lives, since his change of heart is sincere and his power is undeniable), because right now, despite his newly discovered good intentions, he goes ping.



-Hyp.

Sounds like Clint Eastwood's character in 'Unforgiven'...

So, if we can use an example, how would a pali detect him (his rep was that he killed for as little as looking at him funny) during his previous gunslinger career? How about after he met his wife? How about during the movie? And last, when he 'gained revenge' in the last scene?

This isn't an attack. I thought this debat could use a focus.

 

[Shining Dragon]

So, someone who has a history of wickedness, but who has honestly repented and will sincerely be a powerful force for good, still detects as evil. The Paladinbot is required to ignore his potential for changing the world for the better (any appropriate divination will reveal that allowing him to live will enrich thousands of lives, since his change of heart is sincere and his power is undeniable), because right now, despite his newly discovered good intentions, he goes ping.

Since you're describing alignment as a record of past acts, even after the former villain has begun performing good deeds, there's still a period of time that he'll read as evil before eventually passing into neutral territory. Regardless of how good he is in his heart, that history means he has to avoid crossing the path of any Paladinbots, or he will be immediately attacked.

-Hyp.

You're starting to drive of the road here. I don't recall in DND (or at least the 3 corebooks) anything regarding this ephemeral / transitory period between the changing from one alignment to another. Perhaps I've missed it. Perhaps I've misinterpreted the very objective way DND treats alignments. Perhaps the games of DND I've played were shallow exercises of fun that didn't cover such deep and meaningful philosophical topics and thus were a waste of my time because they didn't enlighten me on the nature of society.

But if I'm not mistaken then you're starting to introduce your own houserules and I cannot really respond to your arguments. I get the feeling that you're throwing examples in front of me that would never, ever be encountered in an actual DND game to support your arguments (and if one was the handling would be left up to the DM since dedicating rules to such a rare occurence would be a waste of space).

So a Paladin goes around smiting evil where ever it may be found? That's their job. If a DM wants to play mind games and throws some evilly-aligned kobold babies and, when the Paladin smites them, removes their powers because of the "evil" (as interpreted by the DM) they've done then the DM should consider whether screwing the Players over is worth the aggravation that is sure to follow.

So how about that repentant villain. Are you saying that he shouldn't they face justice (via the characters slaying his sorry arse) for the acts of ultimate evil they've committed throughout the campaign? Or does a sudden change in alignment mean that all is forgiven and everyone's now best of buddies. A DM who pulled such a thing, in my honest opinion, surely only knows how to destroy the campaign they've carefully crafted over the months of play, ruining the final confrontation that the Players have been waiting for.

But as I said before. If the DM wants to set down the type of campaign they want to play and how they're going to treat alignments (if its necessary) then that changes things. At least I now know how to play a Paladin and (hopefully) aren't surprised when the sh*t hits the alignment fan.

But if you want to play it that way, more power to you.

 

[genshou]

But if I'm not mistaken then you're starting to introduce your own houserules and I cannot really respond to your arguments. I get the feeling that you're throwing examples in front of me that would never, ever be encountered in an actual DND game to support your arguments (and if one was the handling would be left up to the DM since dedicating rules to such a rare occurence would be a waste of space).

Alignment change rules are not a waste of space, nor are they such a rare occurrence as you seem to believe. The shifting of alignment over the course of a campaign is something that should happen more often. Characters can evolve and change the same way that real people do. If alignments existed in what many would refer to as the "real world" (I prefer to call it the "somewhat-more-easily-definable as a state of quasi-realness among theories of alternate existence and other 'fifth dimension schtick' world", or simply "Realm of Mushakelingerishnabooderism"), IF they existed here, I would have changed alignments several times in the last few years before finally settling in a nice, comfortable Neutral Good. Also, rules for alignment change are in the rules already–specifically, in the Dungeon Master's Guide (at least in the 3E version, can't say whether or not you 3.5 nuts are so fortunate as to have said rules).

 

[Hypersmurf]

You're starting to drive of the road here. I don't recall in DND (or at least the 3 corebooks) anything regarding this ephemeral / transitory period between the changing from one alignment to another. Perhaps I've missed it.

I asked whether, post change-of-heart, he still has an evil alignment or not. Your answer was that 'many a good deed' is required before he stops pinging as evil. You introduced the transitory period, not me.

Are you saying that he shouldn't they face justice (via the characters slaying his sorry arse) for the acts of ultimate evil they've committed throughout the campaign?

I'm saying that Detect Evil doesn't know whether or not he's already faced justice. Detect Evil doesn't know whether his acts of evil were ultimate, or just enough to tip the scale - the strength of his evil aura is based on his hit dice, not on how black his heart is. A Neutral Evil Fighter-10 who bathes in the blood of small children and runs a corporation devoted to the gnomish slave trade registers as Faint Evil; a Neutral Evil Fighter-11 who was only ever barely Neutral Evil and is one charitable donation away from True Neutral registers as Moderate Evil.

Is the sentence for evil acts always death?

Even if the answer is yes, if someone has already been put to death and been punished for their evil, and is working their way post-resurrection towards Neutrality, after swearing off evil forever, is it right to kill them again?

-Hyp.

 

[Shining Dragon]

Alignment change rules are not a waste of space, nor are they such a rare occurrence as you seem to believe. The shifting of alignment over the course of a campaign is something that should happen more often.

I am a firm believer that players should have no decision as to what alignment their character is (other than at character creation where they specify what alignment they wish their character to be). Unfortunately most of the time such a belief causes aggravation as Players usually have other thoughts on the matter.

Characters can evolve and change the same way that real people do. If alignments existed in what many would refer to as the "real world" (I prefer to call it the "somewhat-more-easily-definable as a state of quasi-realness among theories of alternate existence and other 'fifth dimension schtick' world", or simply "Realm of Mushakelingerishnabooderism"), IF they existed here, I would have changed alignments several times in the last few years before finally settling in a nice, comfortable Neutral Good. Also, rules for alignment change are in the rules already–specifically, in the Dungeon Master's Guide (at least in the 3E version, can't say whether or not you 3.5 nuts are so fortunate as to have said rules).

Its been a while since I picked up my 3E DMG (and I don't have DND 3.5) so obviously I'll need to refresh myself on such rules. But as I mentioned previously, a DM changing the alignments of the characters usually is meet with the Player's protests as such decisions are usually based on the DM's interpretation of how a particular aligned character should act and the Player's interpretation can be very different.

I'd go so far as to suggest that the alignment system really needs to be dropped from DND - but there are a lot of alignment specific things in DND (spells, items, etc) that are familiar friends and their absence would make the game less "DND'ish".

 

[hong]

See, this entire thread could have been avoided if people would just ban goblin children.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

See, this entire thread could have been avoided if people would just ban goblin children.

But if goblin children are outlawed, then only outlaws will have goblin children.

 

[Hypersmurf]

See, this entire thread could have been avoided if people would just ban goblin children.

The dwarf did that. It's what started the whole mess.

-Hyp.