Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Morrow" data-source="post: 1929812" data-attributes="member: 27012">Sure.  But what does "often CE" really mean?  According to the Monster Manual, it means that at least 50% of the creatures have that alignment.  But does that mean that they can be any other alignment?Does it make sense that the "usually" aligned Aboleth, Banshee, Beholder, Cloaker, Cinder Swarm, Derro, Displacer Beat, Hag (various types), Harpy, Lamia, or Mind Flayer would ever be, say, Lawful Good?  Or does it make sense that the "usually" in those cases allow for only a limited set of other alignments?  See below...There are other options, but those would seem to fail the Goodness test, if you apply it to everyone equally, on oppression grounds.  If you don't leave them alone and don't kill them, then what do you do with them?  That's what I'm asking you.The problem is that your examples do not simply describe killing out of convenience.  Your examples describe killing with a cause (self defense in the case of the village and when circumstances benefit them in the second case), which could arguably just be Neutral.  Killing out of convenience means "'Man, how could you do that? You just walked into the house and killed all those people?' And the guy said, 'Well, they was home.'" (Quote courtesy of Richard Pryor.)  It doesn't mean "killing with justification".  Even if they don't like killing to the point where they actively seek to do it, an indifference to killing others is sociopathic.  And I think that you are trying to suggest the existance of "harmless Evil", which, if it isn't an oyxmoron, makes the term "Evil" pretty useless.I don't think Neutral necessarily wants to be Good nor would it be Good if it were easier.  I don't think the definition demands that.  The compunctions could come from wanting to be a better person or it could come from fear of the consequences of killing an innocent person.  That's why I talked about the "Evil Side of Neutral".  The "Evil Side of Neutral" is Neutral out of fear of the consequences of being Evil.  The "Good Side of Neutral" is Neutral because it's too hard to be Good.  There are also other types of Neutral.I read it the first, second, and third times.  If it answered my questions, I wouldn't be asking more of them.  Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result generally doesn't turn out very well.  At least try to re-explain yourself rather than simply cutting and pasting.I just happen to have a database that can answer that question...The following creatures from the 3E Fiend Folio have an "Often Neutral Evil" alignment:Demodand, FarastuDemodand, KelubarDemodand, ShatorThe following creatures from the 3E Fiend Folio have an "Usually Neutral Evil" and "Usually Lawful Evil" alignment:KaortiMaelephantThe following creature from the 3E Monster Manual II has a "Usually Lawful Evil" alignment:Half-Fiend, DurzagonSee my point above about what "Usually" and "Often" means.  In fact, you'll notice that the Half-Fiend template says "Any Evil", thus the "Usually" in "Usually Lawful Evil", in the case of a Half-Fiend, Durzagon, really means "Any Evil".  So why can't the "Usually Neutral Evil" Goblin simply mean that a Goblin can be "Any Evil"?  Does it have to allow for the existence of Lawful Good Goblins?The description of the Evil subtype says:"Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment."In theory, with an Atonement spell, a repentent Erinyes Devil could become a Lawful Good paladin and radiate Good and Evil and be affected by spells that affect Good and Evil, I suppose.  But the point remains that the "Evil" subtype does not necessarily indicate a creature that is behaviorally Evil.You are, of course, evading the point that if that poodle's alignment is then changed to make it's real alignment Neutral, it's subtype will remain Evil because it's Evil subtype is not inherently tied to it's real alignment (as the subtype description clearly specifies).While I think that's one way to interpret Good, I don't think it's the only way.  And I think that approach turns Good into an inherently tragic alignment, which does not really fit with the heroic fantasy approach of the rest of the game.bugbeThe SRD also says that "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life," not all life.  It also says, "Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."  Somehow, I don't think that means a paladin sacrificing their life to stop some villagers from slaying the ogre that has eaten a dozen local children that wandered away from the village.So do you think it would be better for a Paladin to slay a Lawful Good Ghost (the Ghost template can create a crature of "Any Alignment") simply because they are of the Undead type than a Neutral Evil Goblin because they are of the (alive) Humanoid type?Correct.  But does a paladin need an excuse, like protecting a village, in order to justify the destruction of Evil Undead or, indeed, Evil creatures of any sort?Where they "Evil" in the D&D sense?  Also remember that Tolkien was writing from a quasi-Christian perspective, which always allows for redemption through divine intervention.  In fact, I personally oppose the death pentalty on those very same religious grounds.  That doesn't make it true for all sentients in a D&D fantasy setting, though.Which means that even given the choice, offering Wormtongue redemption was ultimately futile.Please note that I don't have a problem with the idea that some Evil can be redeemed (as I've said, my setting has both types).  I also don't have a problem with some Good characters always allowing the possibility for redemption and always avoiding slaying whenever possible.  A pacifist can clearly be Good.  What I'm disputing is that this is the only interpretation that falls within the bounds of Good.Thanks for answering but that's not really what I was asking.  My point was, did it really save him or his soul in the end?I think you are confusing Alignment and Will Save.That's OK.  You haven't convince me, either... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />What I think it lucicrous is to call anything less than Evil "Evil".  As I repeatedly say in my game, Evil is Evil.  It's not simply misinformed, culturally distinct, misguided, badly raised by awful parents, or selfish.  If an alignment can't differentiate between a heartless imp that steals candy from a child and a heartless imp that roasts children for lunch, then I don't think it's a very useful tool.  I don't think one should radiate an Evil aura simply becauase you think unpleasant thoughts that they'll never act on.  Similarly, I think people who radiate Good auras should essentially simply be nice people who do nice things when it's convenient.  I think the norm or standard of the alignment system is Neutral.  I think you have to be something special to be either Good or Evil, Lawful or Chaotic.I understand your point, but I think it depends on why they are cheering.  In most real world cases, I'd probably agree with you.  But the point that ultimately matters is whether a player's paladin can wade into a group of goblins and slay them without feeling anguish for all of the sentient creatures being killed.  While I think that's one possible way to play a paladin and could provide plenty of interesting role-playing possibilities, I don't think it's the only way to play a paladin.  And I don't have a problem with a paladin feeling good after slaughtering the goblins because it's made the world a better place to live rather than feeling awful because of all the sentients he had no choice to slay.  If the focus is on the Evil that has been defeated rather than the loss of life, then I'm not sure cheering is wrong.Not at all.  But I'm not mistaking "good" for "unreasonable", either.  Everyone needs to cope with the implications of their alignment, no matter what it is.  That can mean looking at the positives or dwelling in the negatives.  I don't think that one has to dwell on the negatives to be Good.</blockquote>

Verification