I like alignment

[Amphetryon]

I need you to demonstrate that taking an assignment from a quest-giver of some sort at face value equals "not roleplaying," please. I need to understand how it is roleplaying SOMETIMES and not roleplaying other times, when exactly the same action is taken by the players.

[Callista]

I need you to demonstrate that taking an assignment from a quest-giver of some sort at face value equals "not roleplaying," please. I need to understand how it is roleplaying SOMETIMES and not roleplaying other times, when exactly the same action is taken by the players.

Any Good character (acting in character) will kill someone only if they have a very good reason to believe that that person deserves death. I think you misunderstood me when I said "face value"--I meant that the quest was indeed what it seemed to be, not that the party took it on without question. Only a very naive adventurer would do that, especially if they were Good-aligned and being asked to kill sentients. Good-aligned people are usually very careful when it comes to killing, and will check to be absolutely sure that the killing is justified and there aren't any better alternatives. Even non-Good parties don't survive long if they don't make sure they can trust the people who hire them to tell them the truth about what they're doing.

Their ability to detect deception successfully depends on the characters. Grok the Stupid Half-Orc is much more likely to be fooled than most, but he's not doing something evil unless he knows that he's killing innocents and does it anyway.

[Amphetryon]

Any Good character (acting in character) will kill someone only if they have a very good reason to believe that that person deserves death. I think you misunderstood me when I said "face value"--I meant that the quest was indeed what it seemed to be, not that the party took it on without question. Only a very naive adventurer would do that, especially if they were Good-aligned and being asked to kill sentients. Good-aligned people are usually very careful when it comes to killing, and will check to be absolutely sure that the killing is justified and there aren't any better alternatives. Even non-Good parties don't survive long if they don't make sure they can trust the people who hire them to tell them the truth about what they're doing.

Their ability to detect deception successfully depends on the characters. Grok the Stupid Half-Orc is much more likely to be fooled than most, but he's not doing something evil unless he knows that he's killing innocents and does it anyway.

That's not misunderstanding, it's not adding words to your thought which you didn't put to the post. I didn't read what you didn't say. You said "at face value", not "after doing due diligence." It also still depends on the success of their investigations; if they fail at Gather Information or get fooled on their Sense Motives (which seems especially likely at low levels), they're now committing Evil despite due diligence.

It's also not addressing the question of "why is accepting a quest sometimes roleplaying, and sometimes not roleplaying, given that in both cases, it's accepting the quest and no additional parameters are provided to make this judgment."

[hamishspence]

Taking all of what was ever written on alignment on an "official" book and assuming everything is simultaneously true (without realising said books were written by different people at different times, and that those people did not, in fact, had the time to check that the stuff they were writing was fact-checked or internally consistent with other sources) is logically unsound.

How do we know that the people "did not have the time to check that the stuff they were writing was fact-checked or internally consistant"?

Especially when the books regularly make references to each other?

(I do not consider material from Book of Exalted Deeds or Book of Vile Darkness as sufficient evidence on their own, due to my opinion of those particular books regarding alignment.)

A few bad calls don't make the whole of the books "invalid evidence"- especially when other books use them as the starting point.

[JadePhoenix]

How do we know that the people "did not have the time to check that the stuff they were writing was fact-checked or internally consistant"?

Especially when the books regularly make references to each other?

Obviously, you don't.
Sincerely, I think the problem is that most people in this forums simply don't know much about how alignment works in D&D. It grants no attack bonus, it fuels no infinte loops, so the optimizers of old haven't checked it, meaning everyone else has to actually read the stuff to know it.
So we end up with stuff like "BoED is crap because it says poison is evil", which clearly means people haven't read the book (it doesn't even say poison is evil, it says using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act).
I've seen so often people saying that 'written fluff is crap' in these forums that I wonder why they play D&D at all, if everything is so bad.

[Kish]

This is correct. (I do not consider material from Book of Exalted Deeds or Book of Vile Darkness as sufficient evidence on their own, due to my opinion of those particular books regarding alignment.)

"There is no evidence against what I'm arguing. And I consider the books that do have evidence invalid, because I don't like them." Have to laugh.

[JadePhoenix]

"There is no evidence against what I'm arguing. And I consider the books that do have evidence invalid, because I don't like them." Have to laugh.

I'm inclined to sig this.

[Taelas]

"There is no evidence against what I'm arguing. And I consider the books that do have evidence invalid, because I don't like them." Have to laugh.

I'm glad you're amused. Tell me, why should I take extremely poorly written material as evidence for anything?

While neither book is completely useless (there are things in both I have no problem with), they are so inconsistent regarding alignment that I cannot take it at face value.

In the same manner that I don't accept sample characters as evidence of anything, because they are so notoriously poorly fact-checked that any inconsistency could be for any reason whatsoever.

Book of Exalted Deeds describes how using poisons that deal ability damage is evil because of the unnecessary suffering that it involves, then introduces ravages which does the exact same goddamn thing, but only towards Evil People, so they're Totally Fine and Good, Y'all. How the hell does that even start to make sense? Torture is fine if it's against Evil people? Talk about Unfortunate Implications.

Book of Vile Darkness doesn't have something as outrageous as that, but the way it describes every somewhat-questionable act ever as EVIL after complaining how Evil is overused and should only be used for a "dark force of destruction and death" that "tempts souls" and "perverts wholesomeness and purity" ... urgh. I also had to facepalm at their treatment of fetishes and addictions. Evil? Really? Good grief. I guess Ilmater should really change his alignment to Neutral Evil, given what they say about masochism.

Go on, tell me: Why should I accept anything either book says about alignment? They don't handle the subject with any amount of sense.

[AntiTrust]

Book of Exalted Deeds describes how using poisons that deal ability damage is evil because of the unnecessary suffering that it involves, then introduces ravages which does the exact same goddamn thing, but only towards Evil People, so they're Totally Fine and Good.

In the very next line it does mention that its not really doing the same thing as poison. It's forcing evil creatures to have physical manifestations of the evil in their hearts. Poisons, with the exception of drow poison, don't bring out anything in anybody, they simply wrack people with pain indiscriminately and the suffering it causes is thus "undue", while the ravages and afflictions section fall into the "due" suffering category (that phrase "due suffering" still sounds bad though I'll admit) I suppose because it only works on those with an evil alignment. I will say that a quick google search of ravage and affliction don't come up with what I think they were going for, but I honestly can't think what words would really describe what those abilities are trying to do.

[Amphetryon]

In the very next line it does mention that its not really doing the same thing as poison. It's forcing evil creatures to have physical manifestations of the evil in their hearts. Poisons, with the exception of drow poison, don't bring out anything in anybody, they simply wrack people with pain indiscriminately and the suffering it causes is thus "undue", while the ravages and afflictions section fall into the "due" suffering category (that phrase "due suffering" still sounds bad though I'll admit) I suppose because it only works on those with an evil alignment. I will say that a quick google search of ravage and affliction don't come up with what I think they were going for, but I honestly can't think what words would really describe what those abilities are trying to do.

"Undue" appears to be a value judgment based entirely upon the writer's opinion of what Good is. Causing someone pain and suffering despite the fact they've never directly harmed you, your family, or anyone you can personally name simply because they tripped the Evil-o-Meter could just as easily be called "undue" suffering within the moral framework BoED provides, without changing anything other than the Ravages.

[willpell]

Torture is fine if it's against Evil people? Talk about Unfortunate Implications.

As long as there is no way to force someone's Detect Evil to register a false positive, there shouldn't be anything too unfortunate about this. No-one will register as Evil if they have never done anything that qualifies as Evil. Orcs and the like are "usually" Evil; it's not regardless of their behavior. The only creatures which can't ever stop being evil are things like Demons and (arguably) Undead, where it's literally impossible for them to exist without exerting an Evil influence on everything around them. If someone is behaving as if they were Good and it isn't all just a dirty trick, they will actually become non-Evil eventually (admittedly Detect Evil isn't written as registering degrees other than those based on character level, but it would be a poor DM who wasn't willing to downgrade your Evil aura over time if you're trying really hard to improve, and anyway Evil creatures that aren't undead or clerics are usually Faint auras anyway unless they're extremely powerful).

Book of Vile Darkness doesn't have something as outrageous as that, but the way it describes every somewhat-questionable act ever as EVIL after complaining how Evil is overused and should only be used for a "dark force of destruction and death" that "tempts souls" and "perverts wholesomeness and purity" ... urgh.

No agrument here. The problem is that they were trying to argue both sides of a viewpoint without distinguishing them. It is a slippery slope; every thoughtlessly cruel word has the potential to push people toward the moment when they snap and stop caring about others, but it takes an awful lot of such pushing, and you certainly aren't Vile if all you've ever done is be snippy at people who didn't deserve it. It's called Detect/Smite/Protection-From Evil, not Detect/Smite/Protection-From Jerk. (If only Jerks could be detected, smote, and protected from IRL.)

I also had to facepalm at their treatment of fetishes and addictions.

Addictions certainly are tools of Evil, though the Evil is not the person who suffers them but the one who causes him to - the pusher who gets him to try a drug against his better judgment, the dealer who mercilessly exploits the addict's desperation, the crimelord who makes the stuff knowing what it can do and distributes it to whoever will pay without thought of the consequences (it's not impossible to sell drugs only to people you've vetted as responsible users, but it's very hard to turn an immense profit while doing so, and the majroity of druglords and cartels are just after buckets of money, so I'd say at least "evil" if not "Evil" is a fair cop). As for fetishes, that's much more questionable, but not entirely wrong-headed. By definition, a fetish (as opposed to a kink, which is often called a fetish but this is casual and inaccurate use of legitimate medical terminology) is the inability to have a healthy sexual attraction to an entire person, because you care only about whatever you fetishize. It's objectification and dehumanization, it's unhealthy, and it's not the same as consensually engaging in sensual edgeplay or whatnot. Anyone who actively tries to talk people out of being satisfied with loving, healthy relationships (which may or may not include kink aspects) and into having a mad obsession with some "ultimate thrill" that can only be satisfied by utterly disregarding conventional morality - yeah, at least a little Evil. Story of O is not about a mentally stable individual behaving appropriately and in a holistic fashion for the benefit of all society.

[AntiTrust]

"Undue" appears to be a value judgment based entirely upon the writer's opinion of what Good is. Causing someone pain and suffering despite the fact they've never directly harmed you, your family, or anyone you can personally name simply because they tripped the Evil-o-Meter could just as easily be called "undue" suffering within the moral framework BoED provides, without changing anything other than the Ravages.

Well the whole alignment system is by its nature a value judgment, but the point I was making is that its distinct from poisons in that it can only effect those with the evil alignment so his statement that it does "the exact same thing" really isn't true, it can't effect any non-evils. BOED doesn't add the qualifiers "you must know them, they must have harmed you personally, etc" because curiously enough you then wouldn't be able to seek justice for the john doe that was murdered merely because you didn't know him.

Now what I find interesting in that section is where it talks about damage, it says that you add their charisma modifier to the damage listed on the table. So the fighter who is evil, but dumped charisma will take less damage than the one who didn't. I guess maybe because the more charismatic you are the more likely you are to spread your beliefs to others? I'm honestly not sure what they were going for with that.

[Callista]

I agree that the poison use issue is a flaw in the alignment system, and I houserule it as unaligned when I DM. I consider poison's association with Evil to be a flaw because it is inconsistent with the rest of the alignment system, but I also understand where it came from.

Poison use is against the paladin's code, and has traditionally been so ever since paladins were defined as a class. That has associated it with Evil, though in reality poison use is more dishonorable than anything else.

Poisons are also associated with chemical warfare, something that in most real-world countries is considered inhumane because of how much suffering it causes. (Look up mustard gas or sarin or any number of chemical weapons. Scary stuff. Even some otherwise ruthless people won't touch it.)

The trouble with the viewpoint that poison is evil, is that there's no reason why poison would be any more evil than many other strategies one might use in combat, such as a Fireball, a flask full of acid, or a Fear spell, which also cause a good deal of distress for the enemy. Intimidating the enemy can even be the point, because you can save a life by forcing someone to surrender.

So the way I houserule poison is that only if something would be Evil if you did it without poison, is it also Evil if you use poison to do it. So, if you used inhaled poison in the middle of a crowd of civilians, that would be Evil. If you used poison designed to torture someone, that would be Evil. On the other hand, a poisoned blade is not Evil unless you use it to kill someone who doesn't deserve to die. Using disease as a weapon is practically always Evil because of how it spreads to the innocent.

(Most paladins still won't use most poisons. Poison use is dishonorable--a sneaky tactic many Lawful characters would abhor. Some paladins do use drow poison or Strength/Dex poison to bring criminals to justice though, and a paladin with shades of gray, such as a Greyguard or Shadowbane Inquisitor, might be pragmatic enough to do so during the course of a declared war.)

The Book of Exalted Deeds isn't really the origin of this inconsistency. It goes straight back to the Player's Handbook, and to earlier editions. When they wrote the BoED, they tried to stay true to the PHB while still allowing Good characters to use poison-like substances, and that resulted in the Afflictions and Ravages. I honestly don't blame the trouble on the BoED authors; it's a problem that's been around since the first edition. The Book of Exalted Deeds has some extremely useful discussions of what Good means, and I consider it a valuable resource for role-playing. Just houserule the poisons, and you're golden.

Now what I find interesting in that section is where it talks about damage, it says that you add their charisma modifier to the damage listed on the table. So the fighter who is evil, but dumped charisma will take less damage than the one who didn't. I guess maybe because the more charismatic you are the more likely you are to spread your beliefs to others? I'm honestly not sure what they were going for with that.

The stronger your force of personality, the harder your conscience can prod you when it's awoken.

[Lady Serpentine]

So... Going on the 'undue suffering' thing, can someone provide a reason that using, say, a poison that damages DEX, causes more suffering than one that simply does massive damage, and could, for all we know, be much more unpleasant in its effects?*

And, if the Ravages are specifically designed to target Evil characters and are thus 'due suffering', why isn't it not an Evil act to use such toxins on those known to be Evil?

(Also, for that matter, how is burning someone alive with a Fireball not causing undue suffering?)

*For example, the DEX-damaging potion might simply dull their reflexes and make them have less energy, while the one that does severe damage could make their skin permeable and cause them to start bleeding out through it, presumably rather painfully.

Edit:

(Most paladins still won't use most poisons. Poison use is dishonorable--a sneaky tactic many Lawful characters would abhor. Some paladins do use drow poison or Strength/Dex poison to bring criminals to justice though, and a paladin with shades of gray, such as a Greyguard or Shadowbane Inquisitor, might be pragmatic enough to do so during the course of a declared war.)

Why is it dishonorable to be sneaky, though? If someone chooses to try to kill you, why should you give them a better chance at doing so? Especially if one follows their own code, which paladins can do.

[Callista]

So... Going on the 'undue suffering' thing, can someone provide a reason that using, say, a poison that damages DEX, causes more suffering than one that simply does massive damage, and could, for all we know, be much more unpleasant in its effects?*

And, if the Ravages are specifically designed to target Evil characters and are thus 'due suffering', why isn't it not an Evil act to use such toxins on those known to be Evil?

(Also, for that matter, how is burning someone alive with a Fireball not causing undue suffering?)

*For example, the DEX-damaging potion might simply dull their reflexes and make them have less energy, while the one that does severe damage could make their skin permeable and cause them to start bleeding out through it, presumably rather painfully.

Yes, I agree with you here. It all depends on the effects of the poison: Is it torture, or is it more of a dizzy stupor or muscle weakness? I guess a Good-aligned person would still use a Ravage if they could, because it won't hurt any innocents that it contacts--if you can get one, it's better than a poison, just because there's less chance of accidentally exposing non-Evil bystanders. No sense in taking that risk if you don't have to.

Why is it dishonorable to be sneaky, though? If someone chooses to try to kill you, why should you give them a better chance at doing so? Especially if one follows their own code, which paladins can do.

Paladins can follow their own codes, but it has to be LG, which means they believe in honor. Part of honor includes giving your opponent a fair fight, which means no poison. There might be exceptions, especially among paladins who are fighting to immobilize criminals, or paladins in situations like Thanh where the only way to protect those under their care is to use stealth.

The average paladin is moderately Lawful, strongly Good; so if it comes down to it, he'll choose to let go of honor and use poison if it's the only way to do Good--but he won't like having to do it. Personality-wise, the sort of people who become paladins prefer to meet an enemy on level ground, face-to-face, and fight honorable duels. But most of them are realistic enough to know that their honor is not the most important thing in the world--that others are more important than their pride. That's why paladins with a big pride issue are the most vulnerable to falling. Just look at Miko and her serious holier-than-thou attitude--if she'd had more humility, she might not have fallen.

[Amphetryon]

BOED doesn't add the qualifiers "you must know them, they must have harmed you personally, etc" because curiously enough you then wouldn't be able to seek justice for the john doe that was murdered merely because you didn't know him.

Then how does a Good character know whom they are allowed to harm, or kill? Detect Evil can be fooled, and many Good characters don't have personal, ready access to it in the first place. We're back at "Good can't kill, regardless", it would seem, and that puts a serious crimp in most adventurers' days.

[hamishspence]

Poisons are also associated with chemical warfare, something that in most real-world countries is considered inhumane because of how much suffering it causes. (Look up mustard gas or sarin or any number of chemical weapons. Scary stuff. Even some otherwise ruthless people won't touch it.)

The trouble with the viewpoint that poison is evil, is that there's no reason why poison would be any more evil than many other strategies one might use in combat, such as a Fireball, a flask full of acid, or a Fear spell, which also cause a good deal of distress for the enemy. Intimidating the enemy can even be the point, because you can save a life by forcing someone to surrender.

So the way I houserule poison is that only if something would be Evil if you did it without poison, is it also Evil if you use poison to do it. So, if you used inhaled poison in the middle of a crowd of civilians, that would be Evil. If you used poison designed to torture someone, that would be Evil. On the other hand, a poisoned blade is not Evil unless you use it to kill someone who doesn't deserve to die. Using disease as a weapon is practically always Evil because of how it spreads to the innocent.

I tend to agree. While many natural poisons are pretty agonising (viper venom, various spider venoms, and famously, platypus venom) it's a bit excessive to apply this to all poisons- and apply different reasoning to ability-damaging spells.

I would take the same approach you mentioned to using ravages for that matter- they're just another form of violence, that only affects the Evil- so whenever violence against evil people wouldn't be justified (Eberron Campaign Setting mentions that this can happen- not every Evil person deserves to be attacked) use of a ravage wouldn't be justified either.

Then how does a Good character know whom they are allowed to harm, or kill? Detect Evil can be fooled, and many Good characters don't have personal, ready access to it in the first place.

Just apply real-world logic. Does it qualify as self-defence? Does it qualify as defence of others? Are you in the same sort of position as a police officer who would be permitted to use violence at that point?

[Callista]

Then how does a Good character know whom they are allowed to harm, or kill? Detect Evil can be fooled, and many Good characters don't have personal, ready access to it in the first place. We're back at "Good can't kill, regardless", it would seem, and that puts a serious crimp in most adventurers' days.

That's one of the most painful parts of being a Good-aligned adventurer: Sometimes, you really don't know what the right choice is. You're a fallible individual, and you know all too well that you are capable of making mistakes.

But choosing not to act is also a decision you're responsible for. If you choose not to help, and someone is hurt, then that's on your conscience, just as it would be if you chose to try to help and someone were hurt because of that.

So the best thing a Good-aligned adventurer can do is to use their judgment (and possibly a Phylactery of Faithfulness) and hope that it's enough. And, when it isn't, they try their best to make up for the mistake.

By the way, I'd prefer to re-phrase "Good can't kill, regardless," as, "A Good character doesn't want to commit murder." Good people can kill justifiably. They can also mess up and do Evil things. Evil is out of character for them, it draws them toward Evil alignment, and it leads to guilt and desire to redeem themselves--but alignment is a label on your character's personality, not a limit on the possible actions he can take. If your flawed Good character would do something Evil in some situation, you shouldn't hesitate to let him do it and let the chips fall where they may, maybe even change his alignment toward Evil if that act makes it plain he no longer cares so much about others as he used to. Alignment and actions both depend on personality, and personality can change as your character changes.

[Deophaun]

The whole poison = evil thing is obviously poorly thought out. In the Player's Handbook we have the spell poison that's sole purpose is to poison things, dealing Con damage (which is probably the one type of stat damage that would most directly correlate to increased physical suffering), and yet the spell doesn't have an evil descriptor. Go figure.

[hamishspence]

That's one of the most painful parts of being a Good-aligned adventurer: Sometimes, you really don't know what the right choice is. You're a fallible individual, and you know all too well that you are capable of making mistakes.

But choosing not to act is also a decision you're responsible for. If you choose not to help, and someone is hurt, then that's on your conscience, just as it would be if you chose to try to help and someone were hurt because of that.

So the best thing a Good-aligned adventurer can do is to use their judgment (and possibly a Phylactery of Faithfulness) and hope that it's enough. And, when it isn't, they try their best to make up for the mistake.

WoTC's Save My Game: Lawful & Chaotic, said pretty much the same thing toward the end of the article, for the paladin:

Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.

applies quite well to any Good aligned character.

[Lady Serpentine]

Yes, I agree with you here. It all depends on the effects of the poison: Is it torture, or is it more of a dizzy stupor or muscle weakness? I guess a Good-aligned person would still use a Ravage if they could, because it won't hurt any innocents that it contacts--if you can get one, it's better than a poison, just because there's less chance of accidentally exposing non-Evil bystanders. No sense in taking that risk if you don't have to.

I can see that. Though, what if the Ravage damages their DEX by means of giving them severe muscle cramps and/or spasms, so that they can't concentrate or move well, and the poison via the dizzy stupor/muscle weakness? Is it better to torture the Evil person but not risk exposing innocent bystanders, or risk exposing them to something that won't really hurt them but not torture the person(s) you're after?

Paladins can follow their own codes, but it has to be LG, which means they believe in honor.

(I agree with the last paragraph, and thus cut it for space, and since I'm not really going to be addressing it, as it all makes sense to me.)

Does it, though? I could make a case for an extremely ordered, non-Chaotic, person who's also intensely Good, and yet doesn't care at all about honor.

Part of honor includes giving your opponent a fair fight, which means no poison. There might be exceptions, especially among paladins who are fighting to immobilize criminals, or paladins in situations like Thanh where the only way to protect those under their care is to use stealth.

Except that, if your enemy is willing to use poison, it doesn't, or at least shouldn't. Why would 'fair' mean denying yourself an advantage your enemy has, so long as there aren't specific moral objections to it?

[SuperPanda]

Ah, the hornets nest.

I don't mind alignment as a role-playing guide, and really unless I have a Player playing a Paladin (and specifically a Paladin) I really just treat it as that 9 times out of 10.

For the purposes of magic I keep track of players alignments and have spells and items respond to them in kind. Generally I find the players don't go too far from their alignments when they know they aren't being held to them for some reason.


Then you get Paladins. The only class in the game with a required alignment and rules for punishing them if they deviate. I always, always, warn a player when they choose to play a Palaidn that they're sending me a signal which says "I want to face moral peril and have one of three outcomes to it. 1) I rise above the darkness and the bleakness of the world because I'm the Hero and sometimes you need a little good old fashion good guy in the mix. (The Captain America / Sir Galahad approach). I'll falter, struggle, but ultimately come out on top and when I do I'll prove to others that it is possible. (The Prince Zuko approach). I will begin as a shining beacon of light, but nothing can withstand the grim-darkness forever. I'll look upon the huddled masses of this world and finally understand... I'll cleanse this world of its ills at any cost and crush the failures of humanity under my boot. (The Darth Vader approach)."

So... someone wanting to play a Paladin who lies to fool people into giving them information, that entraps confessions from suspected criminals, who poisons his blade and sends spies to watch people he suspects of crimes... I think they'd make great Evil Paladins. Doing all the wrong things for all the right reasons, the ends justify the means. I simply don't allow them to do this and still be held up as righteous and saintly.

Now a Lawful Good cleric doing the same things might slip to Lawful Neutral without needing to worry about a fall. A Lawful Good Paladin though, I drop them to LE instead of LN because a cleric is just a man, but a paladin is an exemplar. If a Cleric falters his flock might stray. If a Paladin falters a whole generation of impressionable youths might stray.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I've seen so often people saying that 'written fluff is crap' in these forums that I wonder why they play D&D at all, if everything is so bad.

It's because D&D is the tabletop RPG. Everyone's heard of it. 90% of the time, it's how someone is introduced to the genre. Have YOU ever heard of Strands of Fate?

At this point, I play it because I have the books and I'm bored. I don't have a RL group. If a PbP catches my interest, I sign up. I just try to build a character that's good and play the game.

My interest in D&D is waning. But I'll always be here, in the 3.5 section, arguing heatedly.

[Shadowknight12]

How do we know that the people "did not have the time to check that the stuff they were writing was fact-checked or internally consistant"?

Especially when the books regularly make references to each other?

If any other person had asked me that, I'd go book-hunting for examples of egregious contradictions or things that make no sense and the like, clear evidence that writers had no idea how the things they were writing would interact with something another writer had written before or would be writing months from then.

But you know those books better than I do, so I am 100% sure you know exactly what I'm talking about. In fact, the only way I can explain how you can staunchly defend everything written about alignment ever used simultaneously is because you have taken the time to pick out all the inconsistencies and contradictions and either selectively ignoring them or jumping through hoops to stretch their interpretations in a way that makes everything fit together.

So yeah, all the things that do not quite fit with each other and you had to look at them in a certain way or ignore them? That's the evidence I'm talking about.

Also, "making references" is no evidence. I can reference BoVD without having a clue of what's inside because it's the book of evil things. So I can drop it as a reference whenever I'm talking about evil things to encourage sales without having a clue of what the book actually says.

[OracleofSilence]

IExcept that, if your enemy is willing to use poison, it doesn't, or at least shouldn't. Why would 'fair' mean denying yourself an advantage your enemy has, so long as there aren't specific moral objections to it?

What I see here is a potential issue with the interaction of Posion and the good alignment. The Paladins Code states that a Paladin will not use poison. Okay. It does not say, "A Paladin will not use poison, because it is Evil".

The way I see it, this code is not a requirement to be LG, it is a requirement t play the LG version of the Paladin class. The code is a set of requirements that a Paladin follows, not necessarily requirements that set makes them LG, but requirements that their Oath to <insert god here> hinges upon. While the code assigns the use of Poison as dishonorable, that does not mean that a Paladin views Poison use as Evil.

Why the BoVD says poison use is evil however, is beyond me. I mean, why is something like Drow Sleeping poison (it makes you sleep), evil, while repeatedly stabbing a goblin in the kidneys not? I mean, last time i checked, getting PUNCHED in the kidneys was downright agonizing, i would really hate to imagine what stabbed in the kidneys would feel like

[Shadowknight12]

How do we know that the people "did not have the time to check that the stuff they were writing was fact-checked or internally consistant"?

Especially when the books regularly make references to each other?

If any other person had asked me that, I'd go book-hunting for examples of egregious contradictions or things that make no sense and the like, clear evidence that writers had no idea how the things they were writing would interact with something another writer had written before or would be writing months from then.

But you know those books better than I do, so I am 100% sure you know exactly what I'm talking about. In fact, the only way I can explain how you can staunchly defend everything written about alignment ever used simultaneously is because you have taken the time to pick out all the inconsistencies and contradictions and either selectively ignoring them or jumping through hoops to stretch their interpretations in a way that makes everything fit together.

So yeah, all the things that do not quite fit with each other and you had to look at them in a certain way or ignore them? That's the evidence I'm talking about.

Also, "making references" is no evidence. I can reference BoVD without having a clue of what's inside because it's the book of evil things. So I can drop it as a reference whenever I'm talking about evil things to encourage sales without having a clue of what the book actually says.

[Taelas]

As long as there is no way to force someone's Detect Evil to register a false positive, there shouldn't be anything too unfortunate about this. No-one will register as Evil if they have never done anything that qualifies as Evil. Orcs and the like are "usually" Evil; it's not regardless of their behavior. The only creatures which can't ever stop being evil are things like Demons and (arguably) Undead, where it's literally impossible for them to exist without exerting an Evil influence on everything around them. If someone is behaving as if they were Good and it isn't all just a dirty trick, they will actually become non-Evil eventually (admittedly Detect Evil isn't written as registering degrees other than those based on character level, but it would be a poor DM who wasn't willing to downgrade your Evil aura over time if you're trying really hard to improve, and anyway Evil creatures that aren't undead or clerics are usually Faint auras anyway unless they're extremely powerful).

I don't think you understand my point. Torturing anyone, regardless of who is torturing whom, is never a Good act. It is absurd to claim that because the victim is Evil, torture is just right and dandy.

Addictions certainly are tools of Evil, though the Evil is not the person who suffers them but the one who causes him to - the pusher who gets him to try a drug against his better judgment, the dealer who mercilessly exploits the addict's desperation, the crimelord who makes the stuff knowing what it can do and distributes it to whoever will pay without thought of the consequences (it's not impossible to sell drugs only to people you've vetted as responsible users, but it's very hard to turn an immense profit while doing so, and the majroity of druglords and cartels are just after buckets of money, so I'd say at least "evil" if not "Evil" is a fair cop).

Except they are not describing people who cause or exploit addictions. They describe people who are addicted.

As for fetishes, that's much more questionable, but not entirely wrong-headed. By definition, a fetish (as opposed to a kink, which is often called a fetish but this is casual and inaccurate use of legitimate medical terminology) is the inability to have a healthy sexual attraction to an entire person, because you care only about whatever you fetishize. It's objectification and dehumanization, it's unhealthy, and it's not the same as consensually engaging in sensual edgeplay or whatnot. Anyone who actively tries to talk people out of being satisfied with loving, healthy relationships (which may or may not include kink aspects) and into having a mad obsession with some "ultimate thrill" that can only be satisfied by utterly disregarding conventional morality - yeah, at least a little Evil. Story of O is not about a mentally stable individual behaving appropriately and in a holistic fashion for the benefit of all society.

A sexual fetish is, at the most basic definition, a sexual attraction to something that is not normally considered sexually attractive (regardless of what that something is). What you are describing is paraphilia: when a sexual fetish has a negative impact on a person's life.

[hamishspence]

I don't think you understand my point. Torturing anyone, regardless of who is torturing whom, is never a Good act. It is absurd to claim that because the victim is Evil, torture is just right and dandy.

Common justification "LG means punishing those who harm or threaten innocents- for some crimes, the only proportionate punishment is torture"

Terry Goodkind seemed to use something along those lines when one of his heroes orders a minor villain tortured to death (and says it is merciful compared to the punishment she would have imposed), in Faith of the Fallen.

Except they are not describing people who cause or exploit addictions. They describe people who are addicted.

"Using drugs" isn't in the Evil Acts section though, it's right after that, in a separate section. Possibly in a "it leads to evil behaviour to get the resources to feed the addiction" justification.

If any other person had asked me that, I'd go book-hunting for examples of egregious contradictions or things that make no sense and the like, clear evidence that writers had no idea how the things they were writing would interact with something another writer had written before or would be writing months from then.

But you know those books better than I do, so I am 100% sure you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I really don't. I read the books again and again, and I can't see the "egregious contradictions and things that make no sense"- they all seem to at least make some sense.

[Math_Mage]

Call me when someone finds an internally consistent, readily understandable code of morality that could be systematically integrated into the mechanics of a roleplaying game and that is not vulnerable to abuse.

Till then, I'm perfectly content with the thought that while people can easily abuse the alignment system, they can also use it as the foundation for a complex and nuanced moral compass. Just because you can be Miko doesn't mean we shouldn't celebrate the fact that you can be Roy.

[Shadowknight12]

I really don't. I read the books again and again, and I can't see the "egregious contradictions and things that make no sense"- they all seem to at least make some sense.

I ask you a question. Do you have to actually work to make everything make sense? Do you have to make a (perhaps subconscious) effort to make all the diverse material fit together? Because it's possible that you have done so automatically and are incapable of seeing what we're talking about. If I were to quote you several inconsistencies in books and you were to write several paragraphs on how everything fits together if you jump through logical and philosophical hoops, would that actually make a difference? It's highly possible that the vision of the alignment system that you have developed is so ingrained into you that nothing anyone can bring up can alter it because you have had time to brute-force everything to fit together and you're not even aware of that.

If that's the case, then it's useless to debate anything with you on a fundamental basis, because you are utterly impervious to anything anyone else can say. If I say "Well, BoVD is inconsistent with this and BoED contradicts that" and you go "no, because if you follow this interpretation, it all makes sense!" it's entirely dependant on whether we want to follow your interpretation or not. If we don't, then those inconsistencies don't disappear but you still can't see them, so we end up going nowhere.