Ridiculous D&D contrivances

[BossMuro]

Probably not, because their method of saving one person probably involves killing a bunch of other people.

In my experience, protecting someone in DnD usually involves killing a lot of people.

[Curmudgeon]

As I'm sure you realize, the problem comes when a PC is so tough that they are (in-game) guaranteed to survive a fall from extreme height. A high level fighter could climb a mile-high cliff, jump off the top, then climb back up again, jump off again, and almost certainly live to tell the tale.

Remember there's at least a 5% chance of death each time, because rolling a 1 on a massive damage save is fatal.

But yeah, a high level fighter is assumed to know how to keep their wits about them when falling, and use the descent time to aim for the fluffy snow/haystack/springy branches/pond/marshy ground that's going to do the best job of ensuring survivability.

[revolver kobold]

Remember there's at least a 5% chance of death each time, because rolling a 1 on a massive damage save is fatal.

Unless you're a Knight, in which case a natural 1 isn't an automatic fail.

[Curmudgeon]

Unless you're a Knight, in which case a natural 1 isn't an automatic fail.

There are also Luck feats, and the Clerical Pride domain. There are ways to buy exceptions to most of the D&D rules; this is no different. Still, most players aren't going to risk killing off their high-level fighters by jumping off cliffs repeatedly. Death is expensive. Not only is there the high cost of True Resurrection, but when your character dies on impact all their possessions become unattended and are likely to get destroyed -- dead characters don't get saving throws.

[Stephen_E]

Probably not, because their method of saving one person probably involves killing a bunch of other people.

So if a party saves a peasant from been killed by 2 dozen orcs by killing most of the orcs they aren't doing a good act?

Stephen E

[Evil the Cat]

Most of the time, the only real gauge of good or evil is going to come down to motive. Did he save the world to defend humanity, or to conquer it himself? Killing orcs to save a peasant will usually be good, but if he killed the orcs because he just doesn't like orcs, then it is closer to evil.

Generally speaking, if an act is done for selfless reasons it is good, if it is done for selfish reasons it is evil. if it can be classified as both, it is probably neutral. Very few acts are by definition truly good or evil: most people would outright classify rape as evil, but in a more animalistic society, that just might be the way things are. Ultimately, 90% of the time, the "why" matters more than the "what". Sadly, adding in crazy or delusional just makes things more complicated.

In the case of the aforementioned Evil Overlord's bodyguards. It depends on if they follow out of loyalty (probably Lawful), because they share his viewpoints (probably Evil), or because they actually believe he is benevolent and doing what is right (possibly Good). If they're outright fanatics, any alignment is possible, though most will wind up having the same alignment as whoever they're serving.

[Faulty]

One thing that kinda ticked me off was how, near the end of 3.5's run, they started recycling pictures from books and changing the captions.

[Draco Dracul]

Obviously I have different views from Chronos, but I'd say mildly good, unless he had a "run away and survive" option which he choose not to use or put off as a last resort. In that case it would increase to strongly good, or even heroically good. Even as a heroically good act it wouldn't automatically cause an alignment shift, although it would be the basis for an alignment shift if the character so choose.

Stephen E

This basically sums up my feelings on this topic. Thanks.

[Stephen_E]

Generally speaking, if an act is done for selfless reasons it is good, if it is done for selfish reasons it is evil. if it can be classified as both, it is probably neutral. Very few acts are by definition truly good or evil: most people would outright classify rape as evil, but in a more animalistic society, that just might be the way things are. Ultimately, 90% of the time, the "why" matters more than the "what". Sadly, adding in crazy or delusional just makes things more complicated.

And as you note even what seems a nobrainer, such as selflessness, is only a general rule. Through the "for your own good" meme it can easily become evil.

I suspect there is really no such thing as an evil act, Evil/Neutral/Good is on;y toggle states based on the infomation you currently have. Thus it is possible to give a brief description of an act and get an alignment opinion of the act, but as you add infomation you can toggle the alignment opinion. Essentailly the alignment of the act isn't based on what actually happened, but on what you thought was happening.

Rescuing the peasant from the orcs is good, but if you knew that the peasant had raped and tortured several orc children it would be evil, but further infomation could again toggle the alignment switch, if you know about it or can resonably be expected to know about it. Note the 2nd part. If you charge into a situation without naking a reasonable attempt to find out what the situation is then you can be held responsible alignment wise for the knowledge that you could have had but didn't. This includes knowledge ignore through arrogance or prejudice.

Stephen E

[Faleldir]

You're all putting way too much thought into the alignment system. Remember, the Talisman Of Pure Good and Talisman Of Ultimate Evil do exactly the same thing, just to different people.

[Roderick_BR]

The debate is that they don't have 2 US to dual-wield. There's no issues with them TWF a US and a Kama or something, the issue is that they're already using their entire body to attack with, and they don't have a second one.

If I'm not wrong, they can use TWF with US, according to that page at the wizard's site. You can even combine TWF with flurry.
But you really want to use TWF, that is a not-so-good feat with monks, the not-so-good class?

[Chronos]

To change the topic off of alignment:

I'm a human, with a below-average Str, and I've never made any sort of effort to train myself to jump better. I can consistently jump about 5 or 6 feet, but no more than that.

Now, according to the rules, I have a total Jump modifier of about -2. This means that if I run and try to jump as far as I possibly can, about 10% of the time, I can't jump at all, and over a third of the time, I should land flat on my face. On the other hand, though, if I'm a bit lucky, I should also occasionally manage to clear as much as 18 feet.