PDA

View Full Version : Echoes from the Heavens: The Good Thread



sonofzeal
2010-04-11, 06:34 PM
In honour of Darklord Xavez's thread, I've decided to make a parallel threat for Good characters. I play all alignments in my games, but I have a lot of experience with Good characters in particular. I also study philosophy and ethics in the real world, so hopefully I can bring a bit of that to the table here too.

I can answer question (not all, but many) about the rules surrounding Goodness in D&D, I can give advice about how to play Good characters well, I can provide some guidance for mixed-alignment parties, and I can help resolve ethical dilemmas. Feel free to ask any Good-related question, answer questions other people are asking, and share general musings.


Just to get the ball rolling - does anyone have stories about making mixed-alignment parties work?

cupkeyk
2010-04-11, 07:45 PM
I play a shifter war veteran (Longtooth shifter 11, G) in a 4e eberron game. I try to role play him with a gulf war syndrome. He looked for help by joining the druidic traditions of the eldeen reaches which I paralled with jainism and hinduism. I find killing very difficult. I have advised my dm that I will deal only nonlethal damage to any creature that I have identified as having the natural keyword and any other creature whose nature I can identify as intelligent enough to be convinced into good. I try to keep as much rope as possible so i can tow bad guys into jail. I believe that by preventing my opponents from achieving their dharma(by killing them) and not helping them towards it(by not educating them), I am accumulating negative karma and thereby I am kept from freeing myself from the cycles of reincarnation.

My problem is that my teammates kill their opponents. Not only that, they also kill my prisoners. I have tried talking to my party mates into the benefits of keeping our opponents alive, like decimation and diplomacy, information gathering etc; but they think keeping things alive is too much micromanagement. Its not even that they help me or anything. Sometimes they are just cruel. The strange thing is that these are the same peopel that killed my 3.5 bard off for taking a city hostage when its high level lord refused to commit suicide in the town square for my amusement(during an evil campaign: I will start killing 40 peasants every minute until you concede to my demands) because I was too evil. I feel sometimes that they are just lazy role players. Is there a way to convince my party mates that I may be missing?

Glimbur
2010-04-11, 08:01 PM
I'm in a somewhat unusual 3.5 game. We're using e6, but also advanced d20 casting. Spellcasting is not Vancian, but saving throw based. Each level of spell has a DC, modified by its normal casting time and material and XP cost. There's no built-in limit to what level of spell you can cast, the question is how hard you can cheese out your spellcasting. This means that we have a person in our party with two levels of wizard who is capable of casting Wish. Also, we're in space.

That's all background. There are people in the universe we are in who can do Impossible things. Our party monk has Impossible control over hair, the aforementioned wizard eats souls, and we have also met someone who can freeze a person in time with a gaze attack with no save. Single target, thankfully.

There are extra-dimensional forces trying to destroy our universe, and take all the souls and "purify" them. We have decided this is bad, so we are teleporting around and generally making a mess of things. We have a spaceship.

There is another group with the same goal as us but different methods. One thing they do is hunt down people with Impossibilities and recruit them. If the recruits refuse, they are killed and their souls are captured. These souls let an operative use the Impossibility. We got in to a fight with some of their operatives, and won. We took the souls back out of the device they use to hold them, and returned the people we liked to life.

Then there was Barry the Beholder. His Impossibility was the gaze that freezes someone in time. He was quite a jerk, as most beholders are. We had several options with him:
1)releasing him to be a jerk with spacefaring beholders.
2)giving his soul back to the organization to use.
3)using his soul ourselves.
4)killing him.

We suspected that our foes would be able to catch his soul and use it if we killed him, and in any case he has a strong power. So, what should we have done?

We ended up putting his soul in one of the operatives from the well intentioned extremist organization and recruiting him.

sonofzeal
2010-04-11, 09:33 PM
I play a shifter war veteran (Longtooth shifter 11, G) in a 4e eberron game. I try to role play him with a gulf war syndrome. He looked for help by joining the druidic traditions of the eldeen reaches which I paralled with jainism and hinduism. I find killing very difficult. I have advised my dm that I will deal only nonlethal damage to any creature that I have identified as having the natural keyword and any other creature whose nature I can identify as intelligent enough to be convinced into good. I try to keep as much rope as possible so i can tow bad guys into jail. I believe that by preventing my opponents from achieving their dharma(by killing them) and not helping them towards it(by not educating them), I am accumulating negative karma and thereby I am kept from freeing myself from the cycles of reincarnation.

My problem is that my teammates kill their opponents. Not only that, they also kill my prisoners. I have tried talking to my party mates into the benefits of keeping our opponents alive, like decimation and diplomacy, information gathering etc; but they think keeping things alive is too much micromanagement. Its not even that they help me or anything. Sometimes they are just cruel. The strange thing is that these are the same peopel that killed my 3.5 bard off for taking a city hostage when its high level lord refused to commit suicide in the town square for my amusement(during an evil campaign: I will start killing 40 peasants every minute until you concede to my demands) because I was too evil. I feel sometimes that they are just lazy role players. Is there a way to convince my party mates that I may be missing?
This may be more of a player-group issue than an alignment thing. Many players aren't up for the level of commitment that keeping enemies alive entails. Many people see the game time as a chance to unwind in some solid Good-vs-Evil simplicity, where killing bad guys dead is what the heroes do. I don't think I'd call them "lazy roleplayers", but they might be seeking something different out of the game than you are, and that this is the source of your disagreement.

Ask yourself what you, as a player, want from the game. When you have an answer to that, ask them and the DM, and see if you guys can work out an understanding.

sonofzeal
2010-04-11, 10:08 PM
Then there was Barry the Beholder. His Impossibility was the gaze that freezes someone in time. He was quite a jerk, as most beholders are. We had several options with him:
1)releasing him to be a jerk with spacefaring beholders.
2)giving his soul back to the organization to use.
3)using his soul ourselves.
4)killing him.
....complex.

See, to my understanding there's two layers that go on for D&D morality here. One is "deontological", the concept that there are a series of rules out there and that breaking any of them, for any reason, is an Evil act. Taint mechanics back this up, as well as any read through of Fiendish Codex 2 or Book of Exalted Deeds. The clearest rule that would come into play here is "no murder", so #4 would be considered an Evil act. You could ask your DM whether "do not exploit souls" is also one of the rules for him, but remind him that Incarnum specifically exploits souls and specifically allows for Good users. The details of how his soul would get "used" may impact this, though. This may rule out #2 and #3, if the exploitation of souls in this way becomes an Evil act.

But that doesn't explain everything. Devils, for example, canonically use souls to power their empire, and very good souls are highly prized. This implies to me that souls can accumulate goodness, in the same way that we know that they accumulate taint and evilness. I'd also argue that this is best understood in the context of Virtue Ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics), where actions are judged not by objective rules but by motive. By acting in accordance with a virtue ("bravery", "compassion", "honesty") you build up that virtue within yourself. The Devils, then, are seeking these highly Virtuous souls, and trying to get them to break enough rules so that they go to Evil in the end.

Thus, you could ask yourself WHY you want to do each of those things, not looking for possible justifications but for actual motive. If you want to kill him because you don't like him, that's bad... but if you're sincerely worried about the lives he'd cost if he were free, then there's virtue there. Note that the result is the same either way, that this is by no means an argument that the ends justify the means. There's a place for that in the real world, certainly, but it explicitly does not fit into D&D morality.

As a result, actions can be simultaneously Good and Evil. Or neither. Evilness is judged by violation of rules, Goodness by following virtuous motives. As such, I think you definitely avoided Evil, and I'll leave speculation about whether your motive was virtuous for now. I think Option #1 might have been a perfectly good solution as well, at least ethically, in that it also avoids evil and (probably) captures a virtuous motive.

Hope that helps.

CockroachTeaParty
2010-04-11, 10:30 PM
I find that when most people want to play an evil character, they wind up playing just a more selfish, scruple-less, or mercenary character than normal. They rarely get downright proper evil, and as such, I tire of it quite quickly.

To a lesser extent, this happens with good characters. Usually, if someone's playing a good character, what they're really playing is a 'nice' character.

Recently, I've tried playing characters who are sincerely, truly, actively good. Being good should not be a picnic. It means self-sacrifice, a willingness to forgive insults or slights to honor, a desire to genuinely help people, and to redeem people who are evil. Not because you hate them, but because you sincerely wish them to have a better life, and make the world a better place.

It sounds corny, but in a game like D&D, that can be extremely difficult to pull off, especially when you're off grave robbing, bar fighting, and looting the corpses of the slain.

I've very rarely ever seen a truly Good character, much like I've rarely seen a truly Evil one. It would seem most players err on the side of neutral. Neutral/Indecisive, Neutral/Ignorant, Neutral/Dismissive, and Neutral/Bewildered seem to be the most common alignments in many of my RL games.

sonofzeal
2010-04-11, 11:59 PM
I find that when most people want to play an evil character, they wind up playing just a more selfish, scruple-less, or mercenary character than normal. They rarely get downright proper evil, and as such, I tire of it quite quickly.

To a lesser extent, this happens with good characters. Usually, if someone's playing a good character, what they're really playing is a 'nice' character.

Recently, I've tried playing characters who are sincerely, truly, actively good. Being good should not be a picnic. It means self-sacrifice, a willingness to forgive insults or slights to honor, a desire to genuinely help people, and to redeem people who are evil. Not because you hate them, but because you sincerely wish them to have a better life, and make the world a better place.

It sounds corny, but in a game like D&D, that can be extremely difficult to pull off, especially when you're off grave robbing, bar fighting, and looting the corpses of the slain.

I've very rarely ever seen a truly Good character, much like I've rarely seen a truly Evil one. It would seem most players err on the side of neutral. Neutral/Indecisive, Neutral/Ignorant, Neutral/Dismissive, and Neutral/Bewildered seem to be the most common alignments in many of my RL games.
This is true. I find most people play their characters pretty selfishly, regardless of alignment. One problem is that strong opinions and beliefs can drag the campaign in different directions, and not all groups are cool with that. To be "sincerely, truly, actively good" like you describe is going to have a major impact on the campaign.

I've played one character like that, a radical pacifist Healer. It was a pretty RP-heavy game, but it worked well. She didn't try to make decisions for everyone, or force them to follow her ethics, but there was always an eye out for that. It's been very freeform though, so I had opportunity to pursue interests aside from the party on occasion too, and that worked.


If you really want to do this, you'll need to find an appropriate campaign. Make sure the rest of the players know you'll be playing a holy type and that the DM's willing to give you some freedom in that direction. And talk through some of your ideas of D&D morality ahead of time. Make sure there aren't going to be any "gotcha" traps, where every choice leads to an Evil act, but encourage him to make some of the Good choices difficult. A situation where your character has some official authority over the group might help, but you could also be dedicated to some Good power that has instructed you to be with these people if you don't want that pressure and tension. In line with my previous post, try to pay attention to both avoiding objectively evil acts, and trying to find virtuous motives and discarding unvirtuous ones, even in small things like how you talk to people.

If you try this... best of luck, and tell me how it goes. :smallsmile:

CockroachTeaParty
2010-04-12, 12:17 AM
I actually got the chance to play a Mega Good character in a rather short lived RL game. It would have kept going, but I moved at the end of that summer...

Anyway, I was playing an azurin healer/human paragon//good incarnate in a gestalt game, going for Apostle of Peace. Full-blown Vows of Poverty, Nonviolence, and Peace.

It was quite interesting. She was all but untouchable in combat, but all she could really do was either heal people, or Aid Another to provide minor bonuses. I gave her the Lucky Dice soulmeld eventually, to provide some more minor boosts.

She was eventually going to take a level of Marshal, to get some extra party buffing boosts up, or, if she met a good dragon, perhaps take a level of dragon shaman, going full Incarnate on one side of the gestalt.

Oh, Luna Soryu... so much was planned for her. I was trying to get the Saint template, as well.

Highlights of her short-lived career included:

Nursing a wounded, bewildered, feral wolf back to health, which summarily became a bonus animal companion (which eventually gained the Celestial template).

Leaving common folk in slack-jawed awe as they looked upon her radiance (she had a visible halo, and often appeared like an Astral Deva thanks to Incarnate Avatar).

Reducing one of her fellow PCs to tears after he had coup-de-graced a defeated giant monstrous centipede, after explaining the value of all life, no matter how mindless or hungry.

Talking to an angry Yugoloth, who refused to let the party pass without a trial by battle. In the interest of a fair fight, Luna allowed the fiend to buff to his heart's content, and even summon reinforcements, before stepping away and ending the Calm Emotions effect she constantly radiated.

Walking up to an entire fortified base full of bandits, and asking to be let inside to look for a relic. The bandits wasted almost all of their crossbow bolts firing at her (which shattered on her heavenly-fortified skin). During the ensuing combat, she managed an insane Diplomacy check (something like a 50), and convinced the bandits to give up their wicked ways.

By the end of that adventure, she had the makings of her own army of devoted followers. I could picture her, St. Luna, Apostle of Peace, bringing a new era of tolerance, forgiveness, and hope to the world.

TheMerchandise
2010-04-12, 12:51 PM
By the end of that adventure, she had the makings of her own army of devoted followers. I could picture her, St. Luna, Apostle of Peace, bringing a new era of tolerance, forgiveness, and hope to the world.

Yes, before the coming, mysterious macguffin of darkness made its way into the campaign. The evil without reason or creed- simply pure evil. Or so it seemed to be.
My point is, Luna wouldn't have been able to pull a diplomacy check on that. That's where our lovely Mr. Kanji (or however you spell it) and I would've come in. And the crusaderogue fellow as well. Come to think of it, everyone except for Luna doubled as a tank. And everyone was slightly good, not all that selfish, really. We were trying very hard to do this for the people, and subscribed to Luna's craziness on a regular basis. She did, after all, start the battle at the bandit fortress, and we didn't curse her out for it at all.
Though without her, it would have been traditional bs selfish good. She was the foundation of the campaign's feel. I wish more campaigns had characters like that.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-04-12, 02:09 PM
I don't often play good characters. I find it's typically easier to be motivated to go out and treasure-hunt if your character's a bit mercenary in their morals, you know? But in an ongoing campaign where I'm playing no less than five PCs, I decided to challenge myself and play two straight-up good guys. On the other hand... I think I might be coming from a bit of a different place than most on how I see alignment and goodness. It's honestly almost impossible for me to reconcile the combination of pure, objective goodness that somehow equates to our 21st-Century values, and the violence that D&D is based on. It's not that I'm unwilling to accept a fictional universe that works on its own rules, honestly, I just find it shallow.

It's true that in the Middle Ages, they had something called the Just War, used to legitimize Crusades and conquests and what-all, but that's predicated on an idea of goodness very alien to our modern idiom; I don't think many players would be really comfortable in that environment if they took the idea seriously.

With one of my characters in particular, I'm beginning to doubt the Chaotic Good sticker I put on her at the start of the game. She has no problem with the idea of Justified Violence, is prepared to kill without hesitation and little remorse. What's more, she qualifies her own judgement above that of most anyone--not just any peasant can decide if he must take up arms to defend himself. Only she, as an ascetic Psychic Warrior, has the mental discipline and lack of passion to decide when violence is required to protect The Dharma (which we might call "the natural order," which for her is inherently good). You might put it this way: the universe is inherently a unified whole, perceived by humans as many different things; the wholeness of the universe is ultimate goodness; disciplining the mind through meditation and exercise and elliminating egotistical desires allows one to perceive the One, e.g the good. Therefore she, as an ascetic, is better qualified to mete out judgement than anyone else.

Here's the thing: there's no metaphysical guarantee her beliefs are true. This is a setting with multiple, incompatible beliefs about the universe buzzing around and no way to learn which is true (there are four known Clerics in this whole world.) If this Psychic Warrior is wrong, she is spectacularly wrong.

Behaviorally, you usually couldn't tell her apart from most heroic types: risks her life to defend her friends and strangers; never pushes her beliefs on other people; demands justice wherever she sees wrongdoing; avoids unhealthy desire. But she would not hesitate to kill someone on the hunch that they were a threat to the Right Order of Things.

I'm beginning to think this character is more akin to True Neutral. Do you have any thoughts on this, Sonofzeal?