Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Agback" data-source="post: 1206465" data-attributes="member: 5328">G'dayWell, others have pointed out that the fact that these monsters had the bodies of children is neither here nor there. They were diabolists and murderers, not innocents, and the paladin deserves kudos for basing his judgements on realities rather than appearances, while the barbarian is a rank sentimentalist.Here are what seem to me to be the crucial questions:1) Was there any clear indication that the children could be saved? Christian (and Buddhist) ideas of goodness are based on the proposition that everyone, no matter how evil, can be redeemed, and therefore mercy is the essence of goodness. The same is not true in D&D. In the milieu in which the paladin has grown up, many evil things just have to be killed, and mercy is an unwarranted risk.2) Was it clear that the monsters could be contained once they knew that their cover was blown? The paladin had resisted one domination attempt, but there might be others, and he had to sleep sometime. Would it have been better for him to wait until the monsters dominated a few burly monks and forced him to fight innocents? Was there even a hint that there was any way to suppress their power over weak minds?If the answers are 'no', I don't think you can ping the paladin for being evil: he's just clear-sighted, strong-minded, and practical. His duty was to protect innocent lives, eg. the monks and others whom the monsters potentially threatened. Within the terms of D&D alignment killing non-innocent monsters is not evil, it is just an ethically neutral means to an end. (I think this makes D&D 'Good' hateful, but that's just me.)As for lawfulness, I don't see that it requires the paladin to blindly follow directions when circumstances have changed and the orders no longer relate to the real situation. Unless there was clearly some dependable means to keep the monsters in the abbey, the cardinal's instructions were simply out of date, and there was no disrespect to his authority in not wasting opportunities and effort striving to achieve the impossible.If the Emperor tells you to advance to the east, engage the Prussians, and drive them back over the Rhine, but if the Prussians have moved since he had intelligence, and are now to the north, and moving west to effect a junction with the British, what is an honourable, trustworthy, reliable, respectful officer to do? Go east, and fail to engage? Go north-east, and drive the Prussians west instead of east? Go north-west? Waste eleven hours sending for fresh orders?Anyway, it sounds to me as though you are expecting a different sort of Good from what is defined in the PHB. If Good is heroically merciful, if Good is sentimental about things that look like children, if Good always gives Peace at least one chance--then your players deserve to be told this before they commit to playing a paladin or cleric. And you have to make sure that this sort of Good does not turn out in your campaign to be Stupid.Regards,Agback</blockquote>

Verification