Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?

[Kish]

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,

I'd ask "Why do you believe that?" except I know, from past experience, that the answer would be question-begging.

You can repeat that as many times as you like. It will still be insupportable and easily refuted by glancing inside a Player's Handbook. Good and Evil mean the same things in D&D they do in real life. The descriptions of "Good" in the Player's Handbook are descriptions of what is morally right in a default D&D society, not the descriptions of what aligns with "green energy" or some such rot.

[The Random NPC]

I'd ask "Why do you believe that?" except I know, from past experience, that the answer would be question-begging.

You can repeat that as many times as you like. It will still be insupportable and easily refuted by glancing inside a Player's Handbook. Good and Evil mean the same things in D&D they do in real life. The descriptions of "Good" in the Player's Handbook are descriptions of what is morally right in a default D&D society, not the descriptions of what aligns with "green energy" or some such rot.

Seeing as how we haven't yet defined Good and Evil in real life, I don't know how it will be easily refuted. Oh sure, individual actions have been more or less defined, and everyone "knows it when they see it" but the only "definition" we have is to compare the action in question to past actions that we know are good and see if they are similar.

[Kish]

Seeing as how we haven't yet defined Good and Evil in real life, I don't know how it will be easily refuted. Oh sure, individual actions have been more or less defined, and everyone "knows it when they see it" but the only "definition" we have is to compare the action in question to past actions that we know are good and see if they are similar.

That's why there are many, many pages of text across many D&D supplements about what good and evil are. Even contradictions, sometimes.

What is easily refuted by a glance at the alignment section of the Player's Handbook is the claim that Good and Evil in D&D are not fundamentally the same as conceptual good and evil, right and wrong in the real world.

' Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. '

These are statements about morality, not about Green vs. Red energy. You will never find, in any D&D 3.xed D&D book*, any indication that something is a good act in D&D without also being what the writer considers morally correct, or an evil act without also being what the writer considers morally incorrect.

*This is hedging not because I know of such indications in 1ed and 2ed--I don't--or because I believe them to be likely to exist--I don't--but merely because my knowledge of 1ed and 2ed is not nearly great enough to feel confident in asserting a negative for them.

[Kelb_Panthera]

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.

I'm not. Detect evil is not a comprehensive analysis of a potential target. It should never be used as the sole basis of an attack. In fact, I generally ignore persons that pings as faint, in a civilized setting. Since the succubus paladin does ping on all detection spells, that would be a very good reason to confront her verbally before attacking.

Even though they don't have to be evil in any way other than having the Evil subtype? That's...a rather appalling argument.

It would be disturbing to discover, after the fact, that the fiend I killed wasn't actually of an evil mind, but I will have rid the world of the concentrated evil energy that held its body together, nonetheless; and that's a good thing. Edit: I suppose that, in that sense at least, it is a red energy v green energy kind of thing.

Alignment and morality/ethics are undeniably related. That doesn't mean they're the same thing. One is a rules construct that sometimes creates a dissonance with the other, social, construct.

[Kish]

The only "dissonance" I've ever seen demonstrated, is people wanting Good and Evil to be meaningfully different from Right and Wrong.

You had stated that "fiends don't count as people." If you wish to stand by that assertion even while acknowledging that they can be good, then we have nothing further to discuss.

[Mando Knight]

I'm not. Detect evil is not a comprehensive analysis of a potential target. It should never be used as the sole basis of an attack. In fact, I generally ignore persons that pings as faint, in a civilized setting. Since the succubus paladin does ping on all detection spells, that would be a very good reason to confront her verbally before attacking.

A Detect Evil would ping that she's got a Strong Evil Aura up until she hits Paladin 5, which would make her 11 HD for an Overwhelming aura. Neutral Clerics of Evil deities would also get marked at a similar strength, however.

[hamishspence]

It would be disturbing to discover, after the fact, that the fiend I killed wasn't actually of an evil mind, but I will have rid the world of the concentrated evil energy that held its body together, nonetheless; and that's a good thing.

There's a Savage Species ritual that can replace the "concentrated evil energy" with "concentrated good energy"- while there is a risk of killing it in the process, it is possible for the being to survive it.

It won't be a fiend anymore, though.

I'm not familiar with cambions. Do they have the evil subtype?

Yes. And the Chaotic subtype, the Extraplanar subtype, the Abyss as their native home, and are considered Demons.

[Math_Mage]

It really doesn't matter how the paladin and rogue choose to work out this issue (ignorance, longstanding beef, whatever) as long as they think about it and don't let this antagonism define their interaction. Really, I'd view it as more of an asset in helping to develop a meaningful relationship than if the characters had no points of tension.

Wait, the conversation has long since moved on to the "succubus paladin" vs. "incarnation of evil" debate. Never mind.

[Kish]

The OP never responded to anything anyone posted here. I'm not thinking he needs an answer to the question (anymore, if he ever did. ).

[Kelb_Panthera]

A Detect Evil would ping that she's got a Strong Evil Aura up until she hits Paladin 5, which would make her 11 HD for an Overwhelming aura. Neutral Clerics of Evil deities would also get marked at a similar strength, however.

Yes. And?

There's a Savage Species ritual that can replace the "concentrated evil energy" with "concentrated good energy"- while there is a risk of killing it in the process, it is possible for the being to survive it.

It won't be a fiend anymore, though.

At which point I'm no longer in favor of her immediate dispatch being a good act.

Yes. And the Chaotic subtype, the Extraplanar subtype, the Abyss as their native home, and are considered Demons.

A-okay for immediate kill.

It may be worth noting that "killing" an outsider on any but its native plane doesn't actually destroy it.

Edit:

New thought! Why is it that the succubus paladin hasn't undergone the ritual to become a Sanctified Creature?

[The Random NPC]

She wants to prove that she can be good on her own, not because of a magic ritual.

[Math_Mage]

She wants to prove that she can be good on her own, not because of a magic ritual.

Something something PRIDE something something. Something something TRULY GOOD something HUMILITY something something.

[Kish]

This is something of a Catch-22. If good and evil are about her actions, then there's no reason for her to need to perform the ritual; she is good whatever her subtypes.

If they're about Red vs. Green energy, I don't recall reading that pride is particularly Red or that humility is particularly Green in any D&D book.

(To be marginally less snarky, the Savage Species ritual strikes me as coming from a fundamentally different attitude than the writeup of the succubus paladin. They're both in the same game system, but I look at "Why doesn't this fiend who reformed because she chose to, undergo this magical sea-change from another book?" the same way I look at, "How do blackguards interact with Paladins of Tyranny and Slaughter?"--as pointless questions. Depending on the individual group's choices, fiends can reform at will or can reform with magical aid; depending on the individual group's choices, blackguards exist or alternate-alignment paladins do.)

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is something of a Catch-22. If good and evil are about her actions, then there's no reason for her to need to perform the ritual; she is good whatever her subtypes.

If they're about Red vs. Green energy, I don't recall reading that pride is particularly Red or that humility is particularly Green in any D&D book.

(To be marginally less snarky, the Savage Species ritual strikes me as coming from a fundamentally different attitude than the writeup of the succubus paladin. They're both in the same game system, but I look at "Why doesn't this fiend who reformed because she chose to, undergo this magical sea-change from another book?" the same way I look at, "How do blackguards interact with Paladins of Tyranny and Slaughter?"--as pointless questions. Depending on the individual group's choices, fiends can reform at will or can reform with magical aid; depending on the individual group's choices, blackguards exist or alternate-alignment paladins do.)

Sanctified creature isn't the ritual from SS. It's an aquired template in BoED. It only requires the casting of a sanctified spell and entails no risk of death.

[hamishspence]

While the template discusses the loss of subtypes like tanar'ri or baatezu, at the same time it states that it cannot be applied to creatures with the Evil subtype.

The spell, however, doesn't state it can't be cast on creatures with the Evil subtype.

So it's not clear what happens to such a creature- maybe its alignment changes to match that of the caster (as specified) but it doesn't gain the template?

On Savage Species- one of the campaign archetypes (Chaotic-Accepting) suggested that in that world, enlightened people may regard even fiends as "the victims of their own psychoses" and capable of change:

With Malice Toward None
(Chaotic/Accepting)
In this campaign model, the prevailing opinion holds that monsters, no matter how foul and evil they may look, are free sentient beings with all the inalienable rights that humans, elves, and every other humanoid species are heir to. The denizens of this campaign are not foolish- they know that many monsters are evil and nefarious. Just the same, they are loath to reject monsters simply because of their origins. The philosophical leaders of this land realize that no medusa or troll really had a choice in how it came into this world, and indeed as oppressed as its upbringing may have been, it is deserving of more sympathy and consideration, not less.

In this world, evil among monsters is largely perceived to be a psychological condition rather than an absolute or genetic one. Most monsters are thought to become creatures of evil or destruction not because of any infernal or diabolic tie, but because of a fear of rejection, loneliness, or some other understandable psychological condition. Even the foulest tanar'ri may in truth be the victim of its own psychoses, and the enlightened people of this world hold out hope that with openness, respect, and even love, the darkest of souls can be redeemed. And who knows? Perhaps they are right.

[Kelb_Panthera]

While the template discusses the loss of subtypes like tanar'ri or baatezu, at the same time it states that it cannot be applied to creatures with the Evil subtype.

The spell, however, doesn't state it can't be cast on creatures with the Evil subtype.

So it's not clear what happens to such a creature- maybe its alignment changes to match that of the caster (as specified) but it doesn't gain the template?

On Savage Species- one of the campaign archetypes (Chaotic-Accepting) suggested that in that world, enlightened people may regard even fiends as "the victims of their own psychoses" and capable of change:

In campaign models like this, I'd probably have to revise my take on this matter, but only if the DM specifically stated that' "the people's belief" is, in fact, true when I decided to play a paladin. I'd be rather irate to have something like that sprung on me unexpectedly.

[Hiro Protagonest]

This is why, if a game insists on having alignment, I just use the color wheel or write down "neutral good" on my character sheet.

[toapat]

Theft: Alignment
Civilian: Evil
Corpse: Neutral
Corrupt Politican to give to the poor: Good

Execution of Person: Alignment
Angel Running a Church: Highly Debatable, anywhere on the spectrum, personnally in my oppinion, this could be a good act, because the angel is performing an evil act, in that he is forcing his will and views on the world onto the mortal plane
Teifling Assassin with Contract to kill the good King: Good
Teifling Assassin Without contract: Evil
Civilian Succubus: Evil

[Starshade]

Well, one of the few things I can think of, is there some D&D tribe/countries who got a potlatch economy, similiar to some Native American tribes?
I mean, if private property barely exists as such in a iron age potlatch tibe, they got a god who have a few paladins, they would understand the laws of other people, just have no religious obligation in their paladin code as such.

[hamishspence]

In campaign models like this, I'd probably have to revise my take on this matter, but only if the DM specifically stated that' "the people's belief" is, in fact, true when I decided to play a paladin. I'd be rather irate to have something like that sprung on me unexpectedly.

There's also the possibility that the belief is true- but the vast majority of people don't hold it, being decidedly "unenlightened".

As to whether the paladin should hold it- DM and player might have to talk it out. The paladin might be more judgemental and hold the belief that "the only good demon is a dead demon"

In some campaigns paladin might even believe "the only good orc is a dead orc"- though they'd be likely to Fall if they actually murder orcs.

[The Random NPC]

Theft: Alignment
Civilian: Evil
Corpse: Neutral
Corrupt Politican to give to the poor: Good

Execution of Person: Alignment
Angel Running a Church: Highly Debatable, anywhere on the spectrum, personnally in my oppinion, this could be a good act, because the angel is performing an evil act, in that he is forcing his will and views on the world onto the mortal plane
Teifling Assassin with Contract to kill the good King: Good
Teifling Assassin Without contract: Evil
Civilian Succubus: Evil

I don't understand what you are trying to say, could you elaborate?

[hamishspence]

He's arguing that Theft is Evil when done from civilians, Neutral when done from corpses, Good when done from someone "corrupt" to "feed the poor".

Similarly, "Executing" someone depends on their actions- Executing even a fiend (if civilian) or an Assassin (if the assassin isn't doing something wrong)- qualifies as Evil- conversely Executing even an Angel is not evil if the angel's actions are sufficiently wrong.

[toapat]

I don't understand what you are trying to say, could you elaborate?

its just a quick breakdown of the morality of the 2 most debated actions in this thread: Theft, and Killing.

the reason I say killing the Angel is a campaign by campaign case, is that the way i look at it, the angel is manipulating people to their will, as to gain power. That is LE, not LG

[hamishspence]

Not necessarily Evil enough to warrant execution though.

Might depend on what the angel was making the church do in the first place.

"Manipulating people to their will, to gain power" is a pretty standard approach of almost any would-be leader- but the manipulations will be non-harmful in the case of characters closer to the Good end of the spectrum.

[toapat]

Not necessarily Evil enough to warrant execution though.

Might depend on what the angel was making the church do in the first place.

"Manipulating people to their will, to gain power" is a pretty standard approach of almost any would-be leader- but the manipulations will be non-harmful in the case of characters closer to the Good end of the spectrum.

I think being dictated your motives and agenda, no matter how good that agenda may be, is still an evil act by the person dictating. A Good aligned leader shouldnt dictate the motives and agenda, but inspire people to follow him and ask them for help in achieving their goals.

[The Random NPC]

Ah, I understand now.

[KnightDisciple]

I think being dictated your motives and agenda, no matter how good that agenda may be, is still an evil act by the person dictating. A Good aligned leader shouldnt dictate the motives and agenda, but inspire people to follow him and ask them for help in achieving their goals.

At some point a person who is a leader will have to "dictate" agenda. That's what being in charge is all about. Someone who suggests and inspires isn't a leader, at best they're a figurehead.

A leader always leads. Part of leading is making decisions and telling other people to follow them.

A Good-aligned leader puts forth a decision, and it's up to his subordinates to decide to follow or not. They could refuse an order, and while there might be consequences (assuming the leader is NG or LG, because order would be important), they wouldn't be terribad. At worst, the subordinate would be free to simply leave the group, or might be "fired".
Meanwhile, an Evil leader forces people through nothing but fear and violence.

Note that this refers to the actual alignment of the leader, not the claimed alignment.

I'm also not sure what being "dictated your motives" really means.

[Kelb_Panthera]

There's also the possibility that the belief is true- but the vast majority of people don't hold it, being decidedly "unenlightened".

As to whether the paladin should hold it- DM and player might have to talk it out. The paladin might be more judgemental and hold the belief that "the only good demon is a dead demon"

In some campaigns paladin might even believe "the only good orc is a dead orc"- though they'd be likely to Fall if they actually murder orcs.

It matters little what the in-world characters believe, as long as the DM has clearly told the players that alignment takes precedence over alignment subtypes, since that's a variant outside of the normal setup.

I wouldn't even mind playing in such a game. Fantasy racism makes for interesting crises of faith or an obvious road to blackguard. IMHO alignment issues can make the game so much more entertaining, and rather dramatically increase verisimilitude if they're handled well (and the rest of your group doesn't mind the occasional monologue. )

[Wardog]

Okay that's enough.

For now. >_>

Spoiler

Show

He's a deeply religious neurotic gangster on the run. She's a disco-crazy snooty nun with an evil twin sister. They fight crime!

He's an immortal Amish cat burglar gone bad. She's a tortured tempestuous politician from a secret island of warrior women. They fight crime!

He's a hate-fuelled misogynist librarian She's a beautiful hypochondriac pearl diver with a flame-thrower. They fight crime!

I also got one that started with:
He's a hate-fuelled zombie gangster who hangs with the wrong crowd.

That would have to be a pretty darn bad crowd.

[hamishspence]

It matters little what the in-world characters believe, as long as the DM has clearly told the players that alignment takes precedence over alignment subtypes, since that's a variant outside of the normal setup.

A variant? I thought it was the norm that alignment could override subtype- for the purpose of determining "who's a villain and who's not"?