-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Synovia
Whether or not stealing is EVIL is entirely based on context. Wrong has no meaning in this discussion.
There are a number of common English words which mean something significantly different as D&D game terms.
"Good" and "Evil" do not happen to be among them. Far too frequently, someone argues that "Good" and "Evil" in D&D have nothing to do with any real-world person's understanding of morality. They're always wrong and it's always annoying.
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Synovia
When the occupation for the player is wandering adventurer/murderhobo, then yeah, having a moral conniption over a theif robbing someone after you just killed an entire village of orcs is, yeah, a bit silly.
Good doesn't mean you impose your beliefs on others. Having a bit of an issue with the theif doing it? Fine. But there's no reason that two characters dissagreeing on what is right/wrong/acceptable should lead to bloodshed. People disagree all the time and don't kill each other.
Can't say I have ever killed an entire village of orcs in my game, but whatever floats your boat. Good most certainly means calling someone out when they behave badly. Doesn't mean it needs to lead to bloodshed. If my character sees Mr. Rogue pickpocketing Farmer Joe he/she is going to call him out and tell him to stop it or he can find a new partner once he gets done running from the guards when my character turns him in. This goes for my lawful good paladin AND my chaotic neutral rogue.
My chaotic neutral rogue isn't going to steal from someone that can't afford to lose the money. That is both unnecessarily cruel and thinking small time. He/she may think differently about the rich merchant. In such instances, I don't ever confront the other characters in my party with my behavior and force them to make a moral choice unless they have shown a willingness to go along with such things in the past. That is being a bad person and a bad thief.
When a good person sees bad bahavior like their friends grabbing their keys after downing a twelve pack and does nothing, that is a sign of weakness and a willingness to supress their morals for the sake of social convenience. It isn't a sign of what good people should find acceptable. I have done that kind of thing myself in life, but it doesn't make me feel good about myself and it usually leads to a lower opinion of the person in question. Enough of that behavior and it leads to me having a former friend.
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kish
why is "rogue" being treated as "someone who compulsively breaks the law"?
Why villafy the rogue when its a common trait in all PCs (inc Paladins)
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thialfi
Can't say I have ever killed an entire village of orcs in my game, but whatever floats your boat. Good most certainly means calling someone out when they behave badly.
No, it does not at all.
Again, good doesn't mean you're a cop.Robin Hood, for example, is a good character. He kills, he steals, and he behaves badly.
Quote:
Doesn't mean it needs to lead to bloodshed. If my character sees Mr. Rogue pickpocketing Farmer Joe he/she is going to call him out and tell him to stop it or he can find a new partner once he gets done running from the guards when my character turns him in. This goes for my lawful good paladin AND my chaotic neutral rogue.
A good character may do that. A character doesn't have to do that to be good.
Quote:
My chaotic neutral rogue isn't going to steal from someone that can't afford to lose the money. That is both unnecessarily cruel and thinking small time. He/she may think differently about the rich merchant. In such instances, I don't ever confront the other characters in my party with my behavior and force them to make a moral choice unless they have shown a willingness to go along with such things in the past. That is being a bad person and a bad thief.
When a good person sees bad bahavior like their friends grabbing their keys after downing a twelve pack and does nothing, that is a sign of weakness and a willingness to supress their morals for the sake of social convenience. It isn't a sign of what good people should find acceptable. I have done that kind of thing myself in life, but it doesn't make me feel good about myself and it usually leads to a lower opinion of the person in question. Enough of that behavior and it leads to me having a former friend.
Again, the word bad has no meaning in this context. GOOD AND EVIL are the words that are relevant, because they are defined terms within the context of the game.
This is not an argument about your morality. Its not a morality discussion at all. Its a discussion of how characters are required to act by their alignements. At no point in the PHB or DMG's descriptions of the alignment does it say that a Good character has to report things to the authorities, or try to stop a crime. Thats something that would fall on the lawful spectrum.
Plenty of people are good, but are weak. They're AFRAID to speak up. That doesn't make them evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hamishspence
"context" can make the difference between evil and not evil for a lot of acts- but it's not clear if "stealing" is one of them.
What should the default presumption be?.
Context is the most important thing in EVERY act. Killing can be a [GOOD] act if the person killed is [EVIL], just as stealing can be a [GOOD] act if it prevents greater [EVIL], etc.
Is stealing a sword from a shop to fight the dragon thats going to kill the whole town an [EVIL] act?
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Synovia
Context is the most important thing in EVERY act. Killing can be a [GOOD] act if the person killed is [EVIL], just as stealing can be a [GOOD] act if it prevents greater [EVIL], etc.
It takes more than just the person being Evil to make killing a good act- or even a nonevil act for that matter. "Murder" is defined as Evil in BoVD and Fiendish Codex 2- and there are plenty of ways in which killing an Evil person can qualify as murder- if there's not other justifying factors.
Other justifying factors might include "Self-Defence" or "Defence of Others".
Some acts might qualify as "always Evil" regardless of the context, like "Harming or Destroying Souls" or possibly "Torture" or "Using Evil Magic".
Though even here, there will be a scale- with "using Evil Magic" being very minor and "inflicting indescribable torture" being very major, in FC2.
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hamishspence
It takes more than just the person being Evil to make killing a good act- or even a nonevil act for that matter.
No, it doesn't. Killing an [EVIL] outsider is a non-evil act. All the time. Every time.
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Synovia
No, it doesn't. Killing an [EVIL] outsider is a non-evil act. All the time. Every time.
Nitpick: That's only okay because of the [evil] subtype tag, not just because the fiend has an evil alignment; and is, in fact, a good act because it reduces the amount of evil in the plane the fiend is on. Being evil and being made of evil are two subtly different things.
Unfortunately killing in D&D is morally subjective. There are always circumstances that swing it one way or the other.
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kelb_Panthera
Nitpick: That's only okay because of the [evil] subtype tag, not just because the fiend has an evil alignment; and is, in fact, a good act because it reduces the amount of evil in the plane the fiend is on. Being evil and being made of evil are two subtly different things.
Unfortunately killing in D&D is morally subjective. There are always circumstances that swing it one way or the other.
Of course killing is morally subjective. Thats the whole point here. Most of the people on this thread are arguing that killing and stealing are always [EVIL]
Its awesome how people just ignore syntax, ignore what they're actually reading, and just pretend they're seeing whatever they want to argue with.
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Synovia
Of course killing is morally subjective. Thats the whole point here. Most of the people on this thread are arguing that killing and stealing are always [EVIL]
Its awesome how people just ignore syntax, ignore what they're actually reading, and just pretend they're seeing whatever they want to argue with.
I agree. I was just clarifying your statement. After all if you stab a tiefling in the back of the head while he's eating his dinner because he pinged on detect evil, and for no other reason, you've just committed murder, an evil act. If you do the same thing to a succubus because your true-seeing revealed it to you, you get a free pass because it had the [evil] descriptor tag. You might have a problem with some by-standers if you can't prove she was a demon though.
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Synovia
No, it doesn't. Killing an [EVIL] outsider is a non-evil act. All the time. Every time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kelb_Panthera
I agree. I was just clarifying your statement. After all if you stab a tiefling in the back of the head while he's eating his dinner because he pinged on detect evil, and for no other reason, you've just committed murder, an evil act. If you do the same thing to a succubus because your true-seeing revealed it to you, you get a free pass because it had the [evil] descriptor tag. You might have a problem with some by-standers if you can't prove she was a demon though.
If you walked into A'kin the Arcanaloth's shop and murdered him as a paladin, you could try to use that argument. But in any game I run, you'd be making that argument as a fighter without bonus feats, not as a paladin, because you would have fallen for murdering someone who has not demonstrably harmed anyone. The same applies to killing a random succubus just because you happened to see what she is.
However, stealing from people is always harming them, whether it's evil or not. The paladin's code explicitly states that the paladin must punish those who harm or threaten innocents. As long as the person being stolen from cannot be demonstrably shown to be non-innocent, they are by default, innocents. Therefore the paladin is obligated to punish anyone stealing from them. Not because stealing is evil, but because theft unquestionably harms the victim of the theft by depriving them of the product of their work, whether that be money, food, or some other thing.
Even ignoring the paladin's code, it's not too reasonable that most good characters would be inclined to ignore someone indiscriminately stealing. Stealing from a merchant can cause them serious harm - if you steal an expensive magical item from them, this may cause their business serious harm. Perhaps even make them go bankrupt, if enough of their capital was invested in it. Would any good character be ok with making innocent people lose large quantities of money, possibly lose their business? It might be justifiable if this was the only way to stop some greater problem, but in the case of just random indiscriminate theft, it's certainly not justified.
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mnemnosyne
Even ignoring the paladin's code, it's not too reasonable that most good characters would be inclined to ignore someone indiscriminately stealing. Stealing from a merchant can cause them serious harm - if you steal an expensive magical item from them, this may cause their business serious harm. Perhaps even make them go bankrupt, if enough of their capital was invested in it. Would any good character be ok with making innocent people lose large quantities of money, possibly lose their business? It might be justifiable if this was the only way to stop some greater problem, but in the case of just random indiscriminate theft, it's certainly not justified.
Indeed. A Good character should have issues with people randomly stealing from "innocent" folks. If they don't, maybe they should be Neutral, or even Evil.
That doesn't mean they have to *act* on those impulses. Having to grin and bear it when your normal instincts are screaming against what is going on is an excellent roleplaying opportunity - these types of conflict are the core of much drama in fiction. Played right, breaking the typical behavior can actually reinforce how important it is to the character, while giving them more depth.
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mnemnosyne
If you walked into A'kin the Arcanaloth's shop and murdered him as a paladin, you could try to use that argument. But in any game I run, you'd be making that argument as a fighter without bonus feats, not as a paladin, because you would have fallen for murdering someone who has not demonstrably harmed anyone. The same applies to killing a random succubus just because you happened to see what she is.
However, stealing from people is always harming them, whether it's evil or not. The paladin's code explicitly states that the paladin must punish those who harm or threaten innocents. As long as the person being stolen from cannot be demonstrably shown to be non-innocent, they are by default, innocents. Therefore the paladin is obligated to punish anyone stealing from them. Not because stealing is evil, but because theft unquestionably harms the victim of the theft by depriving them of the product of their work, whether that be money, food, or some other thing.
Even ignoring the paladin's code, it's not too reasonable that most good characters would be inclined to ignore someone indiscriminately stealing. Stealing from a merchant can cause them serious harm - if you steal an expensive magical item from them, this may cause their business serious harm. Perhaps even make them go bankrupt, if enough of their capital was invested in it. Would any good character be ok with making innocent people lose large quantities of money, possibly lose their business? It might be justifiable if this was the only way to stop some greater problem, but in the case of just random indiscriminate theft, it's certainly not justified.
That's just it though. Fiends aren't people. They harm all that is innocent and pure by their very existence. They are literally made of hate, slaughter, rape, and all that is harmful to good; given physical form. Unless you're actually on one of the lower planes (and often even then,) any outsider with the [evil] descriptor is an invader, there to kick puppies and eat babies. They cannot be reasoned with and they cannot be allowed to stay. If you catch one off guard, and murder it, you've furthered the cause of good in the multiverse.
Also, just because you didn't see mister arcanoloth harm anyone, doesn't mean he never did.
If paladins in your game can't fight incarnations of evil, by any means necessary, your campaign world is doomed.
If it helps you can think of it like this: Good and Evil are at war. Fiends are enemy combatants that are too dangerous for capture. As a Good soldier, you have standing orders to kill these foes on sight. Enemy sympathizers (read evil creatures without the [evil] tag) are to be rehabilitated, or captured for rehabilitation if possible. Do not make first strike against enemy sympathizers. Paladins are like special forces with their own operations guidelines that they must follow, without violating the standing orders of all soldiers on the side of Good.
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Synovia
Is stealing a sword from a shop to fight the dragon thats going to kill the whole town an [EVIL] act?
Yes. (You can probably guess I don't go for utilitarianism, huh?)
Better would be to ask the shopkeeper to let you use the sword.
However, even a Good character might do so. That doesn't mean that the act isn't Evil. But a Good character would try to compensate the shop owner after the fact - either by paying him outright, returning the sword, etc.
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Synovia
No, it doesn't. Killing an [EVIL] outsider is a non-evil act. All the time. Every time.
Except when it would qualify as Murder.
"Murder is an Evil act" may override "Kiiling a fiend is always a Good act" from BoVD.
Nonevil fiends certainly exist- in fact, WoTC statted out a fiend paladin, no less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mnemnosyne
If you walked into A'kin the Arcanaloth's shop and murdered him as a paladin, you could try to use that argument. But in any game I run, you'd be making that argument as a fighter without bonus feats, not as a paladin, because you would have fallen for murdering someone who has not demonstrably harmed anyone. The same applies to killing a random succubus just because you happened to see what she is.
This would work quite well in a Sigil-centric campaign- where fiends and celestials interact relatively peacefully in the city. There, you might find them arguing, but generally you won't find them fighting each other.
Some fiends are more loose in their alignment than others- Cambion Demons, who are less human than half-fiends, but still have some human blood, have as much as 10% of their population be nonevil, according to Expedition to the Demonweb Pits.
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
A hypothetical for those that say stealing is always evil:
A beggar steals a day-old loaf of bread from a well-to-do baker twenty minutes before the baker discards his day-old stock, not knowing that if he'd simply waited twenty minutes he could have picked it up out of the gutter for free, just to feed his starving children.
Has he committed an evil act?
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kelb_Panthera
A hypothetical for those that say stealing is always evil:
Has anyone here actually said that?
The thread-starting question was about a paladin's reaction when a rogue in the same party enters a city and "just starts stealing around." So it seems to be much less a matter of some people saying "stealing is always evil" than a matter of some people saying "stealing is NEVER evil and only a ridiculously anal paladin/hall monitor/narc could have a problem with it."
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kelb_Panthera
A beggar steals a day-old loaf of bread from a well-to-do baker twenty minutes before the baker discards his day-old stock, not knowing that if he'd simply waited twenty minutes he could have picked it up out of the gutter for free, just to feed his starving children.
Has he committed an evil act?
If it was, it would be minuscule- much less evil than, say, "channelling negative energy" or humiliating someone.
"stealing from the needy" is the kind of stealing called out as a Corrupt act in FC2- lesser kinds of stealing might be much lower on the scale, if they register at all.
I figure that "provide a justification for it not being evil in this case" should be the default principle here, though.
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hamishspence
"Murder is an Evil act" may override "Kiiling a fiend is always a Good act" from BoVD.
Unless you take an action being good or evil as not mutually exclusive... which makes alignments a little wall-eyed...
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kelb_Panthera
A hypothetical for those that say stealing is always evil:
A beggar steals a day-old loaf of bread from a well-to-do baker twenty minutes before the baker discards his day-old stock, not knowing that if he'd simply waited twenty minutes he could have picked it up out of the gutter for free, just to feed his starving children.
Has he committed an evil act?
Yep. A pretty minor one, though.
He could have asked the baker for the bread, too.
Again, Good people can commit Evil acts. The difference is under what circumstances they will do so, the "degree" of Evil, whether they try to atone in any way, whether they only do so as a last resort, etc.
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hamishspence
Except when it would qualify as Murder.
"Murder is an Evil act" may override "Killing a fiend is always a Good act" from BoVD.
Nonevil fiends certainly exist- in fact, WoTC statted out a fiend paladin, no less.
This would work quite well in a Sigil-centric campaign- where fiends and celestials interact relatively peacefully in the city. There, you might find them arguing, but generally you won't find them fighting each other.
Some fiends are more loose in their alignment than others- Cambion Demons, who are less human than half-fiends, but still have some human blood, have as much as 10% of their population be nonevil, according to Expedition to the Demonweb Pits.
Why does, "murder is always evil," take precedence over, "killing fiends is always good?" Both are true aren't they? Why not the otherway around? As for half-fiends: they're also half mortal. The mortal side, and typically the lack of an evil descriptor make them exempt from my use of fiends in this disscusion. I would be comfortable with the good of the one negating the evil of the other and calling it neutral. As for sigil, the outsiders there operate peacefully because they have to, because The Lady of Pain would show everyone the door if they didn't.
I'm not familiar with cambions. Do they have the evil subtype?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kyoryu
Yep. A pretty minor one, though.
He could have asked the baker for the bread, too.
Again, Good people can commit Evil acts. The difference is under what circumstances they will do so, the "degree" of Evil, whether they try to atone in any way, whether they only do so as a last resort, etc.
I can certainly see this as a chaotic act. "My freedom and wellbeing are more important than the rules." How is it evil though? No one was harmed. No one showed flagrant disrespect for life. No one was degraded. I just don't see it.
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kelb_Panthera
I can certainly see this as a chaotic act. "My freedom and wellbeing are more important than the rules." How is it evil though? No one was harmed. No one showed flagrant disrespect for life. No one was degraded. I just don't see it.
The baker was harmed, or at least would have been, according to the information the beggar had. Admittedly, it was a minor harm, and did more good than harm. But as I said, I reject utilitarianism.
The beggar deliberately and willfully violated the rights of the baker. That's a (very, very, very) minor Evil act.
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Glyphstone
I love that site... so much!
Spoiler
Show
He's a time-tossed chivalrous househusband on the wrong side of the law. She's a foxy psychic nun on the trail of a serial killer. They fight crime!
He's a Nobel prize-winning Amish gentleman spy who hides his scarred face behind a mask. She's a ditzy punk archaeologist who believes she is the reincarnation of an ancient Egyptian queen. They fight crime!
He's a Nobel prize-winning gay boxer with a mysterious suitcase handcuffed to his arm. She's a violent psychic angel descended from a line of powerful witches. They fight crime!
He's a bookish Republican inventor with acid for blood. She's a pregnant impetuous angel with her own daytime radio talk show. They fight crime!
He's a bookish flyboy paranormal investigator trapped in a world he never made. She's a bloodthirsty Buddhist advertising executive who dreams of becoming Elvis. They fight crime!
He's an otherworldly albino househusband who hangs with the wrong crowd. She's a cold-hearted tempestuous vampire with a flame-thrower. They fight crime!
He's an impetuous white trash messiah plagued by the memory of his family's brutal murder. She's an elegant thirtysomething femme fatale from out of town. They fight crime!
He's a gun-slinging arachnophobic inventor looking for 'the Big One.' She's a mentally unstable punk queen of the dead from a family of eight older brothers. They fight crime!
He's a leather-clad Amish dog-catcher on the hunt for the last specimen of a great and near-mythical creature. She's a beautiful mutant mercenary with a knack for trouble. They fight crime!
Okay that's enough.
For now. >_>
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kyoryu
The baker was harmed, or at least would have been, according to the information the beggar had. Admittedly, it was a minor harm, and did more good than harm. But as I said, I reject utilitarianism.
The beggar deliberately and willfully violated the rights of the baker. That's a (very, very, very) minor Evil act.
That's absurd. The baker was in no way harmed. His business lost nothing. He lost nothing. As for violating his rights: assuming he was in a nation that even grants him any rights, rights and their violation are on the law-chaos ethical axis, except wherein they intersect with good-evil's moral points of whether or not someone is done injury, their ability to live is deliberately impaired, or they are degraded.
If a magistrate has a right to torture any citizen that touches him without permission, is a person committing an evil act by restraining him from exercising that right and letting the peasant escape?
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kelb_Panthera
Why does, "murder is always evil," take precedence over, "killing fiends is always good?" Both are true aren't they?
Not possible. One must override the other, unless murdering a fiend could be both good and evil.
Quote:
Why not the otherway around?
There is no way to prove, by the letter of all the rules published for D&D, which one takes precedence.
The question is, which makes more sense? That killing a succubus paladin would be a good act, or that murder is always evil including when it's the murder of a creature with the Evil subtype?
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
You want a Explination of Evil? Read Start of Darkness. The real bad guys? The Paladins and The Lich.
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kish
Not possible. One must override the other, unless murdering a fiend could be both good and evil.
There is no way to prove, by the letter of all the rules published for D&D, which one takes precedence.
The question is, which makes more sense? That killing a succubus paladin would be a good act, or that murder is always evil including when it's the murder of a creature with the Evil subtype?
TBH I'm not even sure that the succubus paladin is legal. I know that at least some of those Fight Club monsters were illegal. I'm honestly not sure how to look at knifing her. I doubt even the force that granted her power would be quite sure how to call that one. In the other 99.999999% of cases I personally think that the fiend ganking wins. Even with D&D's absolutist alignment system some things are gray. :smalltongue:
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kelb_Panthera
TBH I'm not even sure that the succubus paladin is legal. I know that at least some of those Fight Club monsters were illegal. I'm honestly not sure how to look at knifing her. I doubt even the force that granted her power would be quite sure how to call that one. In the other 99.999999% of cases I personally think that the fiend ganking wins. Even with D&D's absolutist alignment system some things are gray. :smalltongue:
Alignment
Always - The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for the individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions. (MM1 p305)
I vaguely recall that "always" means 99% of a population, but I may be miscalling it. Regardless, fiend ganking doesn't win, as it's possible for them to not be evil, and killing people just because they ping the Detect Evil radar or because members of their race are generally Evil is murder.
EDIT
Nor is being Evil, in most places, a crime. A person can be an Evil individual who's in control of themselves and maybe kicks their dog sometime. An Evil person might break the windows on a church and sell booze to children. An Evil person might be a miser who charges people more money that they need to. That doesn't make murder ok. If you know that an individual is guilty of something, then one takes the appropriate action. If through inaction, you believe that others will come to harm, you take appropriate action. That's it.
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Menteith
Alignment
Always - The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for the individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions. (MM1 p305)
It seems the Succubus Paladin is Legal. However:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MM 308-309
Evil Subtype: ... any affect 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. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by menteith
I vaguely recall that "always" means 99% of a population, but I may be miscalling it.
That's right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by menteith
Regardless, fiend ganking doesn't win, as it's possible for them to not be evil, and killing people just because they ping the Detect Evil radar or because members of their race are generally Evil is murder.
You realize that, if the fiend isn't evil, he'll ping on one of the other detect x spells unless he's TN?
Quote:
Originally Posted by meneith
EDIT
Nor is being Evil, in most places, a crime. A person can be an Evil individual who's in control of themselves and maybe kicks their dog sometime. An Evil person might break the windows on a church and sell booze to children. An Evil person might be a miser who charges people more money that they need to. That doesn't make murder ok. If you know that an individual is guilty of something, then one takes the appropriate action. If through inaction, you believe that others will come to harm, you take appropriate action. That's it.
I agree that putting sword to face just because a person is evil is unnacceptable. I could care less if it's criminal, and with alignment detection being first level spells there very well could be places it is.
I'm saying that, for the purposes of mechanical alignment, fiends don't count as people, because they are incarnations of evil. Mind you, that's not evil the outlook or philosophy, but evil the universal force opposed to good in both senses of the word.
If you step away from the mechanics, alignment becomes too subjective in any area that's even vaguely gray.
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kelb_Panthera
You realize that, if the fiend isn't evil, he'll ping on one of the other detect x spells unless he's TN?
And also on Detect Evil. Cast any alignment detection spell on a succubus paladin, you'll get "yes." But then, there are lots of ways to make a magical detection method give a false reading, so I'm real unclear on why you're treating "pings on Detect Evil" as having any moral significance whatsoever.
Quote:
I agree that putting sword to face just because a person is evil is unnacceptable. I could care less if it's criminal, and with alignment detection being first level spells there very well could be places it is.
I'm saying that, for the purposes of mechanical alignment, fiends don't count as people, because they are incarnations of evil.
Even though they don't have to be evil in any way other than having the Evil subtype? That's...a rather appalling argument.
-
Re: Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kish
Has anyone here actually said that?
The thread-starting question was about a paladin's reaction when a rogue in the same party enters a city and "just starts stealing around." So it seems to be much less a matter of some people saying "stealing is always evil" than a matter of some people saying "stealing is NEVER evil and only a ridiculously anal paladin/hall monitor/narc could have a problem with it."
No one has said stealing is never evil, and several posters have said the exact words you're questioning anyone having said.
It would help if you actually read this thread before commenting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kyoryu
The baker was harmed, or at least would have been, according to the information the beggar had. Admittedly, it was a minor harm, and did more good than harm. But as I said, I reject utilitarianism.
The beggar deliberately and willfully violated the rights of the baker. That's a (very, very, very) minor Evil act.
Its an act that breaks the local laws. Its not an evil act. Again, real world morality has no intrinsic value in D&D. What is good and evil is not the same thing as right and wrong, and are completely set by the campaign setting.
It could be argued that the baker not stealing the bread is harming his family, and is thus an act of evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kish
so I'm real unclear on why you're treating "pings on Detect Evil" as having any moral significance whatsoever.
\
There is no moral significance, because there is no moral significance anywhere in the game. This is not a question of morals. Its a question about what is EVIL and what is GOOD. Not what is right and wrong. These are two completely different things.
Morals are irrelevant. Your morals don't exist in the D&D world. Walking up to someone and stabbing them in the face on Earth is a bad, illegal, etc act. If they're a fiend, in the D&D world, its a GOOD act.
What is moral or immoral on this planet means absolutely nothing in the context of D&D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kyoryu
Yes. (You can probably guess I don't go for utilitarianism, huh?)
Better would be to ask the shopkeeper to let you use the sword.
However, even a Good character might do so. That doesn't mean that the act isn't Evil. But a Good character would try to compensate the shop owner after the fact - either by paying him outright, returning the sword, etc.
You're confusing GOOD and LAWFUL here. A lawful character would feel the need to reimburse the shopkeeper. A chaotic good character would say "Screw it. Take the sword, it'll help"
Robin Hood is a chaotic good character. He steals from the Sheriff of Nottingham all the time. He doesn't return things, he doesn't offer to pay, he doesn't appologize, and yet, hes still good, and the acts hes doing, are still good.
You're confusing good, and Lawful.
If you're doing something that you think helps people, its a good act in the D&D system. Period. (if the PHB is to be believed).