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

[Malachite]

The Paladin does not have WBL within the SRD, and within realistic gameplay, that 10% you are allowed to keep

Can I ask where you're getting this? I can't see anything like that in the SRD, and can only assume you're taking the idea of tithing (that is, setting aside 10% of your income for God) and completely getting it the wrong way around.


Guys, the logical contradiction isn't whether or not it's right to kill a succubus paladin, it's the idea that a demon - a being of composed of pure, elemental evil - can be good aligned. If they were good aligned, they would no longer be creatures of pure, elemental evil! It all comes down to some game designer thinking "Hey, I want to make a hot, sexy, controversial paladin, so what if I made a good succubus?" without really thinking things through. It's like saying "I'm going to make some green jelly, but red!"

[Hiro Protagonest]

RAW: The Paladin only knows the conditions of the Strawman. It becomes his responsibility if executing the Succubus to help the orphanage. He does not know who to contact, where it is, or whether he can actually convince anyone to help it out. A Paladin, following the PHB code to the letter, does not have spare coin to give an orphanage he just found out about.

...

That's Vow of Poverty, not paladin. Paladin just has to help. That could be as little as giving 5 GP to an orphanage.

WBL is RAW. It's right there in the DMG, and it isn't in one of those "variant rule" sidebars.

As for your scenario? I say he kills the succubus. If it's a local orphanage, any average citizen in town would know where it is. Then he donates 2000 GP of his massive WBL to the orphanage, which, given that a farmer can feed his entire family on one silver piece a day, will help the kids stay fed for a hundred days or so, easily long enough for him to go kill some more monsters, watch as his wealth increases exponentially, then come back and donate much more money. For his entire life, he could go around the countryside facing random encounters and easily support the orphanage and the town on that alone.

And last of all, the paladin's code says "punish those who harm or threaten innocents", which the succubus is most definitely doing. It doesn't say "prevent innocents from dying". So we get into whether his actions are an evil act. So we turn to the BoED/BoVD. Which state that letting a fiend live is always an evil act. But, as far as I can tell from all the quotes in these discussions, doesn't state "if innocents die as an indirect result of an action, it is an evil act".

[Kelb_Panthera]

Can I ask where you're getting this? I can't see anything like that in the SRD, and can only assume you're taking the idea of tithing (that is, setting aside 10% of your income for God) and completely getting it the wrong way around.


Guys, the logical contradiction isn't whether or not it's right to kill a succubus paladin, it's the idea that a demon - a being of composed of pure, elemental evil - can be good aligned. If they were good aligned, they would no longer be creatures of pure, elemental evil! It all comes down to some game designer thinking "Hey, I want to make a hot, sexy, controversial paladin, so what if I made a good succubus?" without really thinking things through. It's like saying "I'm going to make some green jelly, but red!"

No sir, I'm afraid the rules of the game contradict you on this one. The fiendish codexes describe how fiendish creatures are made of pure malevolance, and MotP talks about how all outsiders are made up of the stuff of their planes, and how, in-turn, each of the outer planes is made up of the raw stuff of alignments. Changing how you think doesn't change what you're made of.

I have no idea how the fellow you quoted thinks WBL works. That's why I never addressed that particular point.

[Menteith]

Now for the flaws in the hypothetical: what's the paladin's motivation for attacking the demon? Why didn't he change his mind when he, inevitably, found out that the demon was good? Why wouldn't he do everything in his power to prevent the eventual decline of the city? Why are the peasants staying there to starve when they know that their benefactor is gone? How in the blazes did an entire town come to trust a frickin' demon?

Without all of the proper context, all there is to fall back on is mechanics.

- The Paladin's motivation is that it's a Demon, and he once read a book that said it was a good thing to kill demons no matter what.

- He didn't change his mind because the book told him what he was doing was a good thing, no matter how much logic and circumstance might disagree.

- The Paladin might have tried, but lacked the power and capabilities of the immortal, super powered being who'd been there for centuries.

- The peasants might not starve, but they're going to be driven from their homes and lose everything. The city is likely to be invaded by a powerful tribe of evil Goblins who were nonviolently held at bay by the Demon (Lets say it's a LG Balor with Vow of Nonviolence, who uses Power Word: Stun and grappling to stop conflict). The Fiend came to be trusted when it saved the city from an invading army generations ago, and has always fairly and honorably defended the city, and helped everyone grow in a [Good] way, teaching them and offering guidance when asked. Think of what an Archangel would do, only it's an enlightened Balor.

This might be the only LG Balor in history, who's the gentlest, kindest individual, who has never done wrong and only desires to help and care for those in the world, and who has the means to actually help. And you're arguing that it's a [Good] act to murder it because....?

[Malachite]

the reason why i built my scenario the way i did is that the Succubus is clearly being Evil, but you cant kill her lest you comit an evil act.

A guy walks up to your house holding a knife. He tells you that he's tied someone up on an abandoned building somewhere, and if you don't let him stab your family, he'll leave them to starve. He's clearly being Evil, but you can't refuse open the door for him, otherwise you're committing an Evil act by leading to the death of the kidnapped person...

Except you wouldn't be. You are not the cause of the other person's difficulty, and the fact that this guy has the power to keep them alive does not give him the right to cause the deaths of others. The best thing you can do in this situation is stop him killing anyone else and try to find the kidnapped person before they starve.

EDIT:

No sir, I'm afraid the rules of the game contradict you on this one. The fiendish codexes describe how fiendish creatures are made of pure malevolance, and MotP talks about how all outsiders are made up of the stuff of their planes, and how, in-turn, each of the outer planes is made up of the raw stuff of alignments. Changing how you think doesn't change what you're made of.

Kelb, that's my point - a creature of 'pure malevolence', 'made up of the raw stuff of their alignments' should not be capable of thinking in another way, just as something made of iron cannot be water.

[toapat]

Again there are flaws in the hypothetical, but I'll answer anyway. Mechanically, yes, killing the demon is a good act. Morally no of course not, but that's the rub. Mechanical alignment and the social construct of morality are related, but not the same thing.

Now for the flaws in the hypothetical: what's the paladin's motivation for attacking the demon? Why didn't he change his mind when he, inevitably, found out that the demon was good? Why wouldn't he do everything in his power to prevent the eventual decline of the city? Why are the peasants staying there to starve when they know that their benefactor is gone? How in the blazes did an entire town come to trust a frickin' demon?

Without all of the proper context, all there is to fall back on is mechanics.

Like I said, if you want to discuss mechanics, I'll do everything I can to show my point. If you want to discuss morality, that's all just opinion anyway and neither of us can be definitively right or wrong.

{{scrubbed}} The Scenarios that you didnt build had all the context required, because the decision you make has direct consequences. Kill the Succubus, the Orphanage cant feed the children today, Kill the Demon, .

The Abyssal-American wanted a bit of power, so he wanted people to trust him

He does that by helping them out with odd jobs

He does this long enough that they come to respect him

As they come to respect him, they put him in charge

In charge, he learns that the best way to say in charge is to keep doing what he was doing.

Because he founds a pretty stable town, people travel to that town

that town becomes a city

The Demon becomes a Lord

He is happy, because he has power (Evil) and does random things (Chaotic).

PHB description of paladin says you donate 90+% of your earnings to charity. The Code in the same book reinforces that.

...

That's Vow of Poverty, not paladin. Paladin just has to help. That could be as little as giving 5 GP to an orphanage.

WBL is RAW. It's right there in the DMG, and it isn't in one of those "variant rule" sidebars.

Vow of Poverty is 1% of WBL kept, Paladin Code is 10%, but the horse eats 11% worth of food.

[kyoryu]

^Good Example. One book says that creatures with a [Evil] Descriptor should be pitied for not being able to understand Love.

the reason why i built my scenario the way i did is that the Succubus is clearly being Evil, but you cant kill her lest you comit an evil act.

Except, I don't see it that way. Heck, she's committing Evil acts as part of her job (draining innocent men to death).

Bad things happen. Failing to prevent bad things from happening doesn't make you Evil.

Now, admittedly, I'd ask what was up with the Paladin if he just walked away from the orphanage afterwards. I'd even understand if he didn't kill the succubus. But I just don't see it as an Evil act.

Same with the warg example. The man obviously has the right to self defense, and that's not evil, since he didn't provoke the attack in any way. (It's not necessarily Good, either, it's probably Neutral).

[Kelb_Panthera]

- The Paladin's motivation is that it's a Demon, and he once read a book that said it was a good thing to kill demons no matter what.

- He didn't change his mind because the book told him what he was doing was a good thing, no matter how much logic and circumstance might disagree.

- The Paladin might have tried, but lacked the power and capabilities of the immortal, super powered being who'd been there for centuries.

- The peasants might not starve, but they're going to be driven from their homes and lose everything. The city is likely to be invaded by a powerful tribe of evil Goblins who were nonviolently held at bay by the Demon (Lets say it's a LG Balor with Vow of Nonviolence, who uses Power Word: Stun and grappling to stop conflict). The Fiend came to be trusted when it saved the city from an invading army generations ago, and has always fairly and honorably defended the city, and helped everyone grow in a [Good] way, teaching them and offering guidance when asked. Think of what an Archangel would do, only it's an enlightened Balor.

This might be the only LG Balor in history, who's the gentlest, kindest individual, who has never done wrong and only desires to help and care for those in the world, and who has the means to actually help. And you're arguing that it's a [Good] act to murder it because....?

If the paladin took down the balor, how is it he didn't have the power or wealth to protect the town? A high level adventurer's gear could easily fund nearly any program you could think of, all he's got to do is go to another, bigger, city to cash-out. Hell, he could buy a candle of invocation and replace the balor with a solar. Problem solved.

What you're talking about isn't making a paladin fall for commiting evil. It's making a paladin fall for failing to successfully deal with the consequences of his actions. Again, he should only fall if he didn't try.

[Malachite]

No sir, I'm afraid the rules of the game contradict you on this one. The fiendish codexes describe how fiendish creatures are made of pure malevolance, and MotP talks about how all outsiders are made up of the stuff of their planes, and how, in-turn, each of the outer planes is made up of the raw stuff of alignments. Changing how you think doesn't change what you're made of.

Kelb, that's my point - a creature of 'pure malevolence', 'made up of the raw stuff of their alignments' should not be capable of thinking in another way, just as something made of iron cannot be water.

[Menteith]

If the paladin took down the balor, how is it he didn't have the power or wealth to protect the town? A high level adventurer's gear could easily fund nearly any program you could think of, all he's got to do is go to another, bigger, city to cash-out. Hell, he could buy a candle of invocation and replace the balor with a solar. Problem solved.

No, you're not allowed to sidestep the question. In such a situation, do you believe that it's a good act to try and murder this creature? Even if the Paladin doesn't succeed, was their attempt (in full knowledge of what would happen) a [Good] action? Don't dance around the issue we're discussing - Is it right to kill a paragon of goodness solely because of their origins? You don't need increasingly elaborate situations to answer that - just say yes or no.

[toapat]

No, you're not allowed to sidestep the question. In such a situation, do you believe that it's a good act to try and murder this creature? Even if the Paladin doesn't succeed, was their attempt (in full knowledge of what would happen) a [Good] action? Don't dance around the issue we're discussing - Is it right to kill a paragon of goodness solely because of their origins? You don't need increasingly elaborate situations to answer that - just say yes or no.

Simply, NO.

The Alignment System is pretty crap, Rigid, but Well DEFINED.

Moralty of Actions is Subjective entirely, AND DOES NOT RELY AT ALL ON DESCRIPTORS.

Good: Something that helps others.

Evil: Something that helps only one person.

Lawful: Doing things within law or without significant variance when presented the same scenario

Chaotic: Doing things as you please.

[Malachite]

PHB description of paladin says you donate 90+% of your earnings to charity. The Code in the same book reinforces that.

Vow of Poverty is 1% of WBL kept, Paladin Code is 10%, but the horse eats 11% worth of food.

Again, where are you getting this from? The PHB description of the paladin (for 3.5, at least) says nothing of the sort, and nor does the code. Furthermore, the horse lives in the celestial realms for the majority of its life and can find its own delicious grass.

[Lord_Gareth]

Guys, the logical contradiction isn't whether or not it's right to kill a succubus paladin, it's the idea that a demon - a being of composed of pure, elemental evil - can be good aligned. If they were good aligned, they would no longer be creatures of pure, elemental evil! It all comes down to some game designer thinking "Hey, I want to make a hot, sexy, controversial paladin, so what if I made a good succubus?" without really thinking things through. It's like saying "I'm going to make some green jelly, but red!"

They've published a succubus paladin. More importantly, they've published numerous fallen celestials. Planescape is chock-full of neutral-aligned examples of both. One of the cornerstones of D&D's assumptions is that sapient beings are possessed of freedom of will; if a demon literally could not choose to take any action other than that which was harmful and corrupting, it'd be little worse (morally) than a viper or a tiger.

[Malachite]

They've published a succubus paladin. More importantly, they've published numerous fallen celestials. Planescape is chock-full of neutral-aligned examples of both. One of the cornerstones of D&D's assumptions is that sapient beings are possessed of freedom of will; if a demon literally could not choose to take any action other than that which was harmful and corrupting, it'd be little worse (morally) than a viper or a tiger.

Yes, and we've already established that WotC have published quite a lot of contradictory material. A being of pure malevolence who becomes non-malevolent is no longer a being of pure malevolence. Likewise, a being of pure good who becomes non-good is no longer a being of pure good. To assert that they are is to make a logical contradiction.

That's why we have this crazy situation where it can appear that killing a good evil creature is simultaneously good and evil.

[Kelb_Panthera]

No, you're not allowed to sidestep the question. In such a situation, do you believe that it's a good act to try and murder this creature? Even if the Paladin doesn't succeed, was their attempt (in full knowledge of what would happen) a [Good] action? Don't dance around the issue we're discussing - Is it right to kill a paragon of goodness solely because of their origins? You don't need increasingly elaborate situations to answer that - just say yes or no.

You're demanding that I ignore the fact that the neither the paladin, nor anyone else for that matter, knows what will happen in the future anymore than you know how I'll respond to your next post.

But since you demand an answer, Yes. In the case of fiends it is a good act to kill them, even if they're a solar's best friend ever, solely because of their inherent makeup.

That's the mechanical rules. If you want my opinion on the morality of it, I don't care. My opinion is no more valid than yours. I'm not going to argue morality, only mechanics. Besides, arguing the morality of it might skirt dangerously close to breaking forum rules.

[Kish]

Yes, and we've already established that WotC have published quite a lot of contradictory material. A being of pure malevolence who becomes non-malevolent is no longer a being of pure malevolence. Likewise, a being of pure good who becomes non-good is no longer a being of pure good. To assert that they are is to make a logical contradiction.

Because celestials who become evil and fiends who become good have no precedent outside of D&D, and the examples of them in D&D are as obscure as the succubus paladin rather than--say--including fallen celestials as rulers of levels of the Nine Hells.

There is a logical contradiction in the concept, "Sapient creature of pure good/pure evil." If they can't make choices, then they're not sapient. D&D has, for at least a very long time, taken the stance that celestials and fiends still have moral choice.

[Lord_Gareth]

Because celestials who become evil and fiends who become good have no precedent outside of D&D, and the examples of them in D&D are as obscure as the succubus paladin rather than--say--including fallen celestials as rulers of levels of the Nine Hells.

There is a logical contradiction in the concept, "Sapient creature of pure good/pure evil." If they can't make choices, then they're not sapient. D&D has, for at least a very long time, taken the stance that celestials and fiends still have moral choice.

And if they don't, then they're more accurately incapable of morality, which would make 'em more like golems and less like, you know, good or evil beings.

[Malachite]

OK, so the contradiction is between free will and being composed of pure good/evil. There's still a logical contradiction in how they are written, and that's why it seems to be simultaneously right and wrong to kill them off-hand. Your conclusion of whether or not it's right to kill fiends on sight depends on which side of that contradiction you discard and which you maintain.

Also, lack of free will does not necessarily mean neutral. A zombie with nothing but a ravening hunger for living flesh is mindlessly evil.

[hamishspence]

I think of it as not so much "made of evil" as "contains some evil energy". makes more sense in the context of them being able to change.

On chromatic dragons, BoED is a bit less harsh than BoVD- it states they're "not entirely beyond salvation"

So it may be a case of BoVD being the stand-out- the exception rather than the rule- with Monte Cook taking a less nuanced approach than other authors.

[Kish]

Also, lack of free will does not necessarily mean neutral.

Indeed not. "Neutral" still requires a mind. Lack of free will logically means no alignment at all.

A zombie with nothing but a ravening hunger for living flesh is mindlessly evil.

You're at once arguing that WotC publishing non-evil fiends should be ignored for being goofy (...and completely ignoring me pointing out that they hardly invented the idea...) and that "this mindless creature which does its creator's bidding but happens to be an animated corpse has a different alignment than this mindless creature which does its creator's bidding but happens to be made of clay/stone/iron/multiple corpses" makes sense.

Either "WotC sez so" is authoritative, zombies are evil, and none of your objections to the succubus paladin are valid. Or "WotC sez so" is not authoritative. Pick one.

[hamishspence]

Dragon zombies and zombie dragon have different alignments. Dragon zombies (MM) are NE like other zombies.

Zombie dragons (Draconomicon) are N- possibly because it was published early in 3.5 and they may not have gotten the memo about even mindless undead now having an Evil alignment.

[Malachite]

Indeed not. "Neutral" still requires a mind. Lack of free will logically means no alignment at all.

You're at once arguing that WotC publishing non-evil fiends should be ignored for being goofy (...and completely ignoring me pointing out that they hardly invented the idea...) and that "this mindless creature which does its creator's bidding but happens to be an animated corpse has a different alignment than this mindless creature which does its creator's bidding but happens to be made of clay/stone/iron/multiple corpses" makes sense.

Either "WotC sez so" is authoritative, zombies are evil, and none of your objections to the succubus paladin are valid. Or "WotC sez so" is not authoritative. Pick one.

I'm not arguing on their say so. The zombie may not have a choice, but it is animated by necromantic magic (definitively evil, though poorly explained as to why) and under a constant compulsion to maim and kill (ie. commit evil acts). The golem is animated by unaligned magic and has no compulsion other than to follow commands.

On the idea of not inventing the idea, I assume you're talking about angels and demons. While there's actually not all that much information on them in the Bible, neither are asserted to be made of pure good/evil and the fact that they can and did choose between good and evil implies that they are not composed of pure good/evil.

To restate my position once again before bed - a being composed of pure evil has no capacity to be good and so destroying such a being can only be good. If a being has the capacity to choose between good and evil, it cannot be purely evil and therefore it is not necessarily right to destroy it - further investigation is needed. WotC creates the logical contradiction by saying demons/devils are both composed of pure evil and capable of choice, leading to differences in opinion of how they should be treated depending on which one of two incompatible statements the decision-maker chooses to uphold. Either position requires rejecting some information and so cannot be said to be superior to the other.

[The Random NPC]

I'm not arguing on their say so. The zombie may not have a choice, but it is animated by necromantic magic (definitively evil, though poorly explained as to why) and under a constant compulsion to maim and kill (ie. commit evil acts). The golem is animated by unaligned magic and has no compulsion other than to follow commands.

On the idea of not inventing the idea, I assume you're talking about angels and demons. While there's actually not all that much information on them in the Bible, neither are asserted to be made of pure good/evil and the fact that they can and did choose between good and evil implies that they are not composed of pure good/evil.

To restate my position once again before bed - a being composed of pure evil has no capacity to be good and so destroying such a being can only be good. If a being has the capacity to choose between good and evil, it cannot be purely evil and therefore it is not necessarily right to destroy it - further investigation is needed. WotC creates the logical contradiction by saying demons/devils are both composed of pure evil and capable of choice, leading to differences in opinion of how they should be treated depending on which one of two incompatible statements the decision-maker chooses to uphold. Either position requires rejecting some information and so cannot be said to be superior to the other.

I don't see how what you are made of can force you act a certain way.

[Menteith]

I don't see how what you are made of can force you act a certain way.

^

There's nothing legally stopping a [Fire] subtype character from entering the Cryomancer PrC, or from casting [Water] spell, and there's nothing stopping a Lich from casting spells that use positive energy.

You're demanding that I ignore the fact that the neither the paladin, nor anyone else for that matter, knows what will happen in the future anymore than you know how I'll respond to your next post.

But since you demand an answer, Yes. In the case of fiends it is a good act to kill them, even if they're a solar's best friend ever, solely because of their inherent makeup.

That's the mechanical rules.

I can make an educated guess at what will happen if I try and stab a child. I can predict what will occur when I try and murder a champion of good. So yeah, I guess I technically don't know the future, but I know basic causality regarding murder. Here's our disagreement, as I understand it. I'm just going to lay out what I believe is going on, and I'd like you to correct me on areas I may be misunderstanding.

1) Your argument is that [Good] and [Evil] in D&D are dissociated from actual morality, and instead represent cosmic forces that have tendencies to align themselves with what a normal person sees as good or evil.

2) What is [Good] and [Evil] is mechanically defined in several books, most notably the Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness. There are detailed lists about what is [Good] and [Evil] in these books, and one of the acts that is unambiguously [Good] is the destruction of an [Evil] outsider, regardless of what alignment that outsider actually has.

Is this an accurate understanding of your position? I don't want to misrepresent you, so please correct me if I'm mistaken. Here's my counter argument;

1) Outside of a specific line in the Book of Vile Darkness, murdering a good [Evil] creature would be an [Evil] and evil act, instead of a [Good] and evil act. This makes sense to me on both a moral and logical level

2) The Book of Vile Darkness contains numerous statements which are disputed by other sources - for example, the it's possible to redeem an irredeemable Chromatic Dragon. The previous statement is an impossibility, and given that D&D allows for free will (which by nature must allow for alignment changes, disputing the idea of [Evil] creatures always being evil), it seems more likely that the blanket statements about good and evil in the the Book of Vile Darkness are incorrect, rather than the more nuanced alignment viewpoints of later books and sources.

Ask yourself - are chromatic dragons irredeemable? If you said yes, then you have disagreed with the Book of Exalted Deeds, and I would say that you may no longer use the book as a definitive source on alignment. If you said no, then you have disagreed with the Book of Vile Darkness, and I don't believe that one should use it as a definitive source on alignment. I believe that chromatic dragons are redeemable (and disagree with many other points Book of Vile Darkness raises, but this is a clear cut RAW conflict between two books), and I do not trust using a source that's proven to be wrong (to me) as an authority.

I see your argument as an appeal to the authority of the Book of Vile Darkness, and I do not recognize the Book of Vile Darkness as an authority on alignment, either with regard to RAI, nor with RAW (given the impossibilities accepting its authority brings). I doubt we're going to ever come to a consensus on this, but I wanted you to understand what I meant. Does this clarify my position?

[toapat]

Even in the settings where dragons are supposedly permanently aligned with their MM entry, Red Dragons enter contracts with cities as Living Blast Furnaces, so killing them means you just put the entire Ironworkers guild out of business.

[KnightDisciple]

...

That's Vow of Poverty, not paladin. Paladin just has to help. That could be as little as giving 5 GP to an orphanage.

WBL is RAW. It's right there in the DMG, and it isn't in one of those "variant rule" sidebars.

As for your scenario? I say he kills the succubus. If it's a local orphanage, any average citizen in town would know where it is. Then he donates 2000 GP of his massive WBL to the orphanage, which, given that a farmer can feed his entire family on one silver piece a day, will help the kids stay fed for a hundred days or so, easily long enough for him to go kill some more monsters, watch as his wealth increases exponentially, then come back and donate much more money. For his entire life, he could go around the countryside facing random encounters and easily support the orphanage and the town on that alone.

And last of all, the paladin's code says "punish those who harm or threaten innocents", which the succubus is most definitely doing. It doesn't say "prevent innocents from dying". So we get into whether his actions are an evil act. So we turn to the BoED/BoVD. Which state that letting a fiend live is always an evil act. But, as far as I can tell from all the quotes in these discussions, doesn't state "if innocents die as an indirect result of an action, it is an evil act".

He hit this one on the nose.

Vow of Poverty is 1% of WBL kept, Paladin Code is 10%, but the horse eats 11% worth of food.

I just double-checked the D&D 3.5 PHB. There is absolutely nothing at all under the Paladin's code that mentions only being able to keep 10% of their Wealth By Level. There's not even anything about them having to give 10% of their WBL.
I'm honestly curious where you're pulling that notion from. I've never seen RAW support for it.

If you stop and think, the notion makes no sense; if Paladins can only keep 10% of their WBL, they're inherently held back because they won't ever keep up gear-wise with the rest of the party. Considering their poor mechanics anyways...

Point is, Jade Dragon's right. The Paladin can easily work hard and keep the orphanage fed for the rest of his life, and after a time will have enough money to set up a long-term account where the orphanage can live off the interest and such, without needing constant influxes of cash from him, or worse from a murdering creature made of pure evil.

[Gavinfoxx]

Vow of Poverty is 1% of WBL kept, Paladin Code is 10%, but the horse eats 11% worth of food.

What the heck are you smoking? O,o

That is nowhere in the 3.5e or 3.0e rules...

Where do you find such things??

[KnightDisciple]

Even in the settings where dragons are supposedly permanently aligned with their MM entry, Red Dragons enter contracts with cities as Living Blast Furnaces, so killing them means you just put the entire Ironworkers guild out of business.

Source?

I'm genuinely curious where there are Red Dragons contracting their fire breath out. As opposed to just leveling the town and taking everything by force.

[hamishspence]

Forgotten Realms. Hephasteus in the Dark Elf Trilogy is regularly hired to do smelting.

[KnightDisciple]

Forgotten Realms. Hephasteus in the Dark Elf Trilogy is regularly hired to do smelting.

Is he unique, or do other dragons do so? Might be something of an exception that proves the rule.