Signup
Welcome to... Canonfire! World of GreyhawK
Features
Postcards from the Flanaess
Adventures
in Greyhawk
Cities of
Oerth
Deadly
Denizens
Jason Zavoda Presents
The Gord Novels
Greyhawk Wiki
#greytalk
JOIN THE CHAT
ON DISCORD
    Canonfire :: View topic - Alignment and Class Starting Options
    Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion
    Alignment and Class Starting Options
    Author Message
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 06, 2011
    Posts: 201
    From: South Africa, Cape Town

    Send private message
    Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:47 am  
    Alignment and Class Starting Options

    I was taking a look at the rules for alignment last night and it lead me to wonder how other DMs deal with alignment.
    Are there groups that ignore alignment ? Are there DMs that track alignment? What alternative rules are there for alignment?

    I was considering having all my players start out as neutral until the end of 3rd level. I would track alignment WRT L - N - C and G - N – E, based on the characters actions over the first 3 levels. When they achieve 4th level they then get given there alignment that I had been tracking.

    The shortfall of this option is how to deal with classes that need specific alignments ?

    This then lead me to another idea that limits character class choices for the first 3 level to only fighter, cleric, magic-user, thief and psionicist.

    Which then would take care of the alignment problem.

    So giving it some more thought ….

    I came up with the following the base classes levels would still count towards/as your preferred class. They only difference is that you would still need to have actual levels as paladin to gain access to selected class skills achieved at x level, but once you have unlocked those skills your fighter class stack with your paladin levels to determine the overall effectiveness of the power. (hope that makes sense – does in my head) Happy
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: May 12, 2005
    Posts: 933
    From: Woonsocket, RI, USA

    Send private message
    Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:29 am  

    The 0-level PC rules in Greyhawk Adventures do pretty much exactly what you describe. You may want to check that book out.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 06, 2011
    Posts: 201
    From: South Africa, Cape Town

    Send private message
    Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:40 am  

    I have seen the rules, thanks for the tip Smile

    They just never read very well .... IMO
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:16 am  
    Re: Alignment and Class Starting Options

    DarkHerald wrote:
    I was considering having all my players start out as neutral until the end of 3rd level. I would track alignment WRT L - N - C and G - N – E, based on the characters actions over the first 3 levels. When they achieve 4th level they then get given there alignment that I had been tracking.


    I like the thought. Cool

    I've been writing a series of short stories for CF entitled "That Infamous Key." In it, my characters do not "wipe out," nor even "decimate" the Green Daggers -- a thieves guild. Many familiar with the actual magazine module might ask -- why?

    Because that's not how "Good" characters behave.

    "Let's go in and kill 'em and beat 'em up 'til they tell us what we want to know" is an "Evil" attitude, not a "Good" one, nor even a "Neutral" one.

    So your idea sounds good to me. See how your players respond and react to each event of their "young" campaigning career and then tell them what alignment their character actually is. In letting their characters behave as they, themselves, truly would will be insightful to you. You'll learn a lot about them. Evil Grin

    I remember when I first started playing, I'd suggest a particular course of action and my DM would have to explain to me that "that" wasn't how a (insert alignment) character would behave in that situation. (I was trying to be "evil" at the time.)

    So your idea is right on track. I like it. Cool
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:08 am  

    As Mystic-Scholar alluded to, you may end up needing to answer an awful lot of questions from, at least, some of your players if you go this route. If you let them choose their alignment from the beginning, you only need to point out to them once in a while when a course of action doesn't fit wtih their selected alignment choice. If they know their alignment will be assigned by you at a set time in the future, some won't care much what alignment you assign (probably the Chaotic Neutral players Razz ), but those players wanting to play classes with strict alignment requirements (eg. Paladins, Monks, Druids) may frequently second guess themselves and ask you every time they need to make a decision how it will affect their alignment. This will be the result of the uncertainty of the end result being in the hands of the DM. Therefore, I'm a bit leery of such a strategy.

    As a player, I'd much rather choose my own alignment and allow the DM to tell me on rare ocassions when s/he believes my actions do not fit well with my chosen alignment. That way, on those rare ocassions, I have the opportunity to explain myself. Your suggested method will leave you judging each player's actions all the time and the player will either have to explain him- or herself each and every time they do something (slowing game play down terribly) or hope you understand all the reasons why they are making such a decision without taking the time to explain it to you. As a DM, I'd avoid such attempts to play God. Wink

    I think it's better to just explain the alignment system to the players before the game begins to be sure they understand it. I use real-world examples as best I can, but make it clear that such examples don't fit perfectly in this fantasy world. For example, it's easy to show how dictators are usually lawful evil and democracies are (in theory) neutral good, but how do you provide a real-world example of a chaotic government? There may be chaotic nations, but the governments themselves (even battling warlords) aren't chaotic themselves.

    Let the players decide, then question them when you think it necessary and correct them or hold them accountable when they consistantly fail to follow through with their choice.

    SirXaris
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 22, 2007
    Posts: 77
    From: Denton, Tx

    Send private message
    Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:46 am  

    If you are playing 3rd ed you could write up the other classes as prestige classes. I've seen examples in various places of the bard, ranger, and paladin done in that way.
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 20, 2008
    Posts: 594


    Send private message
    Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:24 pm  

    I will let someone else reply for me, on this subject:

    "The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good. "

    Gary Gygax
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 10, 2003
    Posts: 1234
    From: New Jersey

    Send private message
    Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:12 pm  

    Alignments for starting characters I can see your system working DH. However I don't like the prestige classes. I prefer kits from 2e modified from how they where. Kits have different requirements much like minimum or maxium ability scores or skills that must be taken to qualify for said kit.

    I use the rules as they are perhaps start with good,neutral, or evil and determine lawful or chaotic tendencies. What you could do is all Paladins must be good and in order to raise your level above 3rd level your character must have portrayed lawful tendencies with in a good alignment to maintain the class. Options the character can retain 3rd level paladin and try again to attain lawful tendencies to his good alignment or admit failure and instead become a fighter instead.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 21, 2003
    Posts: 200


    Send private message
    Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:29 pm  

    In my game it all comes down to Character Concept at the start and then modified by how the character is played during the game. The only classes that have to worry about Alignment are basically Paladins ( must try to stay as true to Lawful Neutral as possible) and Clerics who are not so much tied to an alignment as to the tenets of their religion. You have to do certain things to serve your god after all. Other than that it comes down to what the player does with their character. if they do evil things they are perceived and treated as evil. If they do good they are treated as such. Alignment in my game is very malleable and comes down to consequences for your actions. Also being good is not necessarily, Umm good. If you deal with evil characters and NPCs more often then you will get a worse reaction from them if your too good and vice versa
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 06, 2011
    Posts: 201
    From: South Africa, Cape Town

    Send private message
    Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:41 pm  

    Argon wrote:
    Alignments for starting characters I can see your system working DH. However I don't like the prestige classes. I prefer kits from 2e modified from how they where. Kits have different requirements much like minimum or maxium ability scores or skills that must be taken to qualify for said kit.


    Argon, I would like to hear more about your KIT options and how you use them.
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:31 am  

    After reading over my earlier post, it seems to me that I may have come across as raining on your parade, DarkHerald. If that is true, then I am very sorry.

    I think your idea has lots of merit. I just want to point out what I see as your main obstacle. That being, as the DM, you don't want to take any more choices than necessary out of the hands of the players. I can foresee that you will have endless arguments as soon as you assign alignments that the players don't agree with or like. If you can come up with a solution for that problem, your golden. Happy

    SirXaris
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 06, 2011
    Posts: 201
    From: South Africa, Cape Town

    Send private message
    Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:45 am  

    SirXaris wrote:
    After reading over my earlier post, it seems to me that I may have come across as raining on your parade, DarkHerald. If that is true, then I am very sorry.


    I am a big boy I can take a knock on the chin Wink Seriously though no worries, all comments are welcome.

    With the alignment idea I was intending to be upfront with my players so from get go they would be aware of how alignment would work and how it would impact there character options later.

    With this information inhand players are still in controll of there characters alignment, so they need to watch there step. The system will work on a point system that tallies up to give a score at the end of each session and that score will be plotted on the chart. This system will carry on being used during the course of the game beyond 3 level to keep playes in check and there alignments will be updated every 4 levels. If there alignment shifts one category and is corrected before the character levels up then there is no penalty. However if the character hasn't corrected his alignment shift by the next level he will have some sort of penalty until he does. If his alignment shift is severe then then loss of spells, class abilites etc are immediate.

    I am still busy with the idea and I need to proceed with caution ...

    Once I have collected some more of my thoughts I will post some more.
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 20, 2008
    Posts: 594


    Send private message
    Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:40 pm  

    I was going to chime in again here, but my hate of 3E shines too strong. I will only say ugly things unless I reign myself in.

    Characters are not conscious of their alignments or their levels. If a player's motivation is to fill in bigger numbers on a character sheet, you have failed as a DM. The best parts of playing a character do not go on the character sheet. The best part about being a DM is telling your story, not juggling around a bunch of rules to entertain people. The whole Save VS. DM policies of 3E made me a bitter person regarding it.

    Fighter, Mage, Priest, and Thief are good enough to describe any character from any fiction in terms of the harsh mechanics of game-reality. Everything else that defines them is off-paper.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 01, 2007
    Posts: 699
    From: On a Cape on the East Coast

    Send private message
    Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:31 pm  
    Prestige Bards

    Cyrusalthantas wrote:
    If you are playing 3rd ed you could write up the other classes as prestige classes. I've seen examples in various places of the bard, ranger, and paladin done in that way.


    Actually, in Unearthed Arcana, they had a variant for exactly this ... prestige bards, and paladins and rangers, as well. Not a bad variant, IIRC. It's a very Westeros/Song of Ice and Fire feel to me. ... and also, you might look at Dragon Magazine issue #307, for the ideas for this type of situation where they present Westeros as a playable setting. Another wonderful resource, I like that issue for all of the material presented in it.
    _________________
    Owner and Lead Admin: https://greyhawkonline.com<div>Editor-in-Chief of the Oerth Journal: https://greyhawkonline.com/oerthjournal</div><div>Visit my professional art gallery: https://wkristophnolen.daportfolio.com</div>
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 06, 2011
    Posts: 201
    From: South Africa, Cape Town

    Send private message
    Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:10 pm  

    chaoticprime wrote:
    I was going to chime in again here, but my hate of 3E shines too strong. I will only say ugly things unless I reign myself in.

    Characters are not conscious of their alignments or their levels. If a player's motivation is to fill in bigger numbers on a character sheet, you have failed as a DM. The best parts of playing a character do not go on the character sheet. The best part about being a DM is telling your story, not juggling around a bunch of rules to entertain people. The whole Save VS. DM policies of 3E made me a bitter person regarding it.


    Each to his own.

    There are a number of things that characters are not conscious of in the game. When a player writes down on his character sheet, "Neutral Good" then I expect him to play his character in that manner and within the guide lines of the alignment to the best of his abilitie (give or take a little). BUT when that same player plays a "Lawful Neutral" character in the same manner, then I have an issue with that. He clearly doesn't have the understanding of the different alignments.

    To often players choose things for their characters WRT class, alignment, race and end up playing the character the same way they played there last assortement of characters.

    A large portion of the players that I have encountered over the years do exactly this, they are more Roll-Players than Role-Players, and this seems to be a lot more common of the younger generation gamer - The "console" generation

    Yes a lot of rules have there failings and lots of different folk like different things. Both old school and d20 have there bonus and penalties. I personaly like d20, but I prefer the power that AD&D game the DM, as there wasn't a rule to cover every option. This allowed the players to use there imaginations more and explore possibilites that they would normally not consider. Now what you get with d20 is "I bluff the town guard" Umm where is the part that you role-played it out? Then the DM would say make a roll and becuase of your role-playing add +3 to your roll or he would just play the success out if he felt that it was sufficient and a roll was not needed.

    So whether you like Alignment, different class options, its not really the point, the point is .... does the option that I am asking carry any merit.?
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 06, 2011
    Posts: 201
    From: South Africa, Cape Town

    Send private message
    Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:17 pm  

    Alignment, like race and class was another tool to help player distiguish there characters from one another.

    So my Chaotic Neutral Dwarven Fighter is different from my Neutral Good Elven Priest, in many ways.

    My alignment rule that I am trying to come up with is more of a guide for players to adhere to. To help keep them true to there choosen alignment of play. The player is still fully in control of his alignment he just has to be more conscious of his actions.
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 20, 2008
    Posts: 594


    Send private message
    Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:11 am  

    Break it down this way.

    Say everyone has rights. Whether or not your character chooses to uphold those rights dictates his alignment. It can be a very clear system of adhering to alignment.

    Every person has:

    the right to live,
    the right to own property,
    the right to be paid for his labor,
    the right to due process,
    the right to legal representation,


    These are just basic examples. Rights and Duty are the two halves of Law. Rights only exist because they are upheld by those with the duty to do so.

    Each alignment degree has an accompanying list of rights;

    Moral and decency rights = Good
    Legal rights = Lawful
    Neutral does not care.
    Amoral and indecency = Evil
    Anarchy = Chaos
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 11, 2009
    Posts: 379
    From: Verbobonc

    Send private message
    Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:55 pm  

    Chaotic Prime, your contemp for 3E+ warms my heart.

    I always regarded alignment as a reflection of the character's behavior. I always looked at the moral and ethical abstraction of the alignment system as more of a guide for the DM than anything else. The AD&D construct is actually very similar to a Nolan Chart.

    So, the way I always handled alignment was that the players could state their character's alignment when they were created, and attempt to play it. If they played it well, so be it, and they would see an XP award (though never explicitly given). If not, a note would be made and they would start drifting towards an alignment that more accurately reflected how they were being played. However, the character would never be notified of his actual alignment. If it was conflicting with a class requirement, the character would find his abilities reduced, or perhaps have a counseling section with a member of the clergy. If there was a difficulty with using an item based on alignment, it would manifest itself as an inability to use it. Of course, a character's reputation would get around as well, and if he paid attention, maybe he would see how others viewed his actions.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 13, 2006
    Posts: 654
    From: Frinton on Sea England

    Send private message
    Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:55 am  

    Alignment has gradually decreased in usage IMC as the years have gone by. In the early days I was fairly "on it" as a DM and, as we were younger, I think I needed to be as there were more than a few instances of wayward Paladins and Rangers that required a little "ahem, cough" style reminders before the threats of loss of Paladinhood began.

    As time went by we still used it, and I gave rewards to those that played the alignment well but tended to not get overly critical of those that were a little "variable".

    Now, though, I don't use it at all. The characters do what the characters do and stand or fall by their actions and how those actions are perceived by others. This also helps in spreading a little uncertainty as players can't just identify x, y or z as being "evil" or "good". What will be interesting is seeing how my 13 year old behaves without the guidance of the alignment structure we had when we were that age. An interesting incident occured recently when he ordered the slitting of 3 unconscious Orcs' throats and I reminded him afterwards that they were real living beings and that such acts often beget similar ones. He spent a good while mulling that one over and I wonder what will happen if and when a similar situation arises.
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:11 pm  

    I can appreciate Dark Herald's point; If a person claims to be "this," then he/she is expected to act like "that." It helps to keep "weird" players "in check."

    What do you do with a player who -- from the beginning -- claims to be "good" and then, out of the blue, decides he's going to sacrifice another person to Tharizdun?

    Still, alignment is just a "guide" for game play. For instance, can there really be a "good" Thief?

    In any and every country on Earth, thieves are sent to prison. Period. Many here might feel "merciful." But that because they haven't broken into your home . . . yet.

    But in the game we have "good" thieves. Weird, eh? So alignment is just a guideline . . . because even thieves have their morals; things they will not do, a "line" they will not cross -- as individuals. But there's nothing wrong with a DM expecting and insisting that his/her players act in accordance with their declared alignment.

    Do your thing Dark Herald. Cool
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:31 pm  

    Mystic-Scholar wrote:

    But in the game we have "good" thieves. Weird, eh? So alignment is just a guideline . . . because even thieves have their morals; things they will not do, a "line" they will not cross -- as individuals.


    What about real-life equivalents of Laura Croft or Indiana Jones? Such people could be good people who may be accused of 'stealing' things from others. And real-life equivalents of assassins like James Bond. I sure hope that at least the majority of CIA operatives and equivalents in other nations are good, despite being assigned missions to infiltrate organizations like Al Quaeda and assassinate their leaders.

    Perhaps, in real-life, such actions necessarily require a bit of de-sensitivity which would move a person's alignment from good to neutral, but I still think that in a fantasy setting, it is very believable to have thieves and even assassins that work for goodly nations or just on their own congnizance against evil nations like Iuz, the Great Kingdom, the Scarlet Brotherhood, etc.

    SirXaris
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 13, 2006
    Posts: 654
    From: Frinton on Sea England

    Send private message
    Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm  

    Totally agree with Mystic's last comment.

    If you think that the game will benefit from having a strong guide as to expected character behaviour then your rules approach will work well. Who knows, maybe in time the leash could be loosened.

    I'm not well known for my liking for political correctness but I think changing the name of the class from Thief to Rogue was a good move for the reasons cited above; unlike demon/devil being sacrificed for Tanarri/Baatezu, which was pathetic.
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:23 pm  

    SirXaris wrote:
    What about real-life equivalents of Laura Croft or Indiana Jones? Such people could be good people who may be accused of 'stealing' things from others.


    They're thieves and would be imprisoned in the countries they "steal" in. Real world countries don't always "honor" the laws of their neighbors. Egypt has been trying to recover their artifacts from England and others for years. Confused

    SirXaris wrote:
    I sure hope that at least the majority of CIA operatives and equivalents in other nations are good, despite being assigned missions to infiltrate organizations like Al Quaeda and assassinate their leaders.


    True enough, except you're actually talking about "government employees."

    "Government" makes the laws and enforces them. They tend not to arrest thieves and assassins who work for "them." Working for their governments doesn't make such thieves or assassins "moral" though. They are still in violation of International Law. Let them get caught working in another country . . . then watch what happens. Wink

    Though you are not alone in hoping that they are successful in their undertakings. Wink

    But the Thieves Guild of Greyhawk isn't a government agency . . . inspite of the fact that they actually run the city.

    Just food for thought. Happy
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 11, 2009
    Posts: 379
    From: Verbobonc

    Send private message
    Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:42 pm  

    On a different note, did anyone every make use of alignment languages? I thought the whole idea a little odd and discarded it.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: May 12, 2005
    Posts: 933
    From: Woonsocket, RI, USA

    Send private message
    Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:40 pm  

    tarelton wrote:
    On a different note, did anyone every make use of alignment languages? I thought the whole idea a little odd and discarded it.
    I've come full circle with alignment languages: I used them at first, then decided they were odd and dropped them. Eventually I realized that dropping alignment languages stripped the assassin of a class ability and reinstated them. My interpretation of them is that they're varying forms of religious jargon, useful primarily for identification purposes and theological debate, with their roots in the pure languages of the respective planes (tongues which in later editions of the game were named Abyssal, Infernal, Celestial, etc.).
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:56 pm  

    @ Mystic-Scholar

    True enough. My point is simply that a person with thieving or assassination skills could, in a fantasy setting, be of any good alignment if they developed their skills and use them against evil for the benefit of good. Certainly, you wouldn't condemn a Rogue character who infiltrates the Scarlet Brotherhood and uses his or her position to cause strife within the organization in order to limit its successes against goodly nations of the Flaness? In the real world, there was a CIA/FBI agent in the USA back in the 1950s-1970s who did that very thing in the KKK. He rose as high as Grand Vizier or something, about the third ranking member of the entire organization. He passed on enormous amounts of intel to the government during the years he was in that position and when he finally was ordered to bring things to a head, he and the government used all the information he had gathered to bring down many of the top-ranking members in one fell swoop. Was he evil because he used the skills of a Thief to accomplish his goals?

    It isn't the tool, but the use to which it is put that determines whethter it is ethical or not. Of course, some Paladins may disagree with that statement. Wink

    SirXaris
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 13, 2006
    Posts: 654
    From: Frinton on Sea England

    Send private message
    Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:14 am  

    Even when I was using alignment in a fairly strict manner I never used alignment tongues. Assasins I gave a kind of cant which was fairly universal.

    3e certainly tidied things up on the language front.

    At the risk of being a party pooper the kind of debate going on here, as interesting as it is, is part of the reason I went with a classless system for my game.

    It also depends which version of the game you're playing;

    AD&D says; "The profession of a thief is not dishounourable, albeit is neither honourable nor highly respected in some quarters". It goes on "All thieves are neutral or evil, although they can be neutral good (rarely), and of lawful or chaotic nature. Most thieves tend towards evil."

    Interesting that whenever I saw write ups of Tolkien characters in magazine articles Bilbo and Frodo were always thieves.

    Pathfinder says; "Life is an endless adventure for those who live by their wits. Thieves, gamblers, fast-talkers, diplomats, bandits, bounty hunters,, explorers and investigators might all be considered Rogues." Alignment; Any.

    Amazing what happens when you change a name.
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 20, 2008
    Posts: 594


    Send private message
    Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:35 am  

    I believe that if a character kills with premeditation for reasons less than the safety of himself or others, he is evil. This does not apply to assassination. There is no justification for an assassination being an act of good. It is still a premeditated killing. The point of being good is to find an alternative to killing. That is why the villains have it easier.

    When a band of PC's bust in on the Slave Lords and demand they stop their evil activities and the Slave Lords reply by attacking the PC's, the PC's are fighting in self-defense. They may be fully aware the situation would likely come to blows, but they had to try another anyway. The law says its wrong to kill people, and morality agrees--that is what it means to be lawful good.

    This is why "the forces of evil" exist. They are the monsters, all evil, who dwell in the dark places preying on mankind. Ridding the world of creatures with evil immanent is not like defeating a band of human thieves. Human thieves are governed by the law, monsters are not. When a party of PC's enters an area where evil creatures are known to dwell is a separate act than hunting down a gang of thieves, it is a fight for survival. Good and Evil enemies are in a perpetual war. There is an assumed hostility that supersedes the choice of whether or not to fight. A band of human thieves is not evil inherent, they make the choice to perform evil acts. A band of goblin marauders, however, made no such choice. There is nothing to them but evil. In an encounter with goblins, a party of PC's of any alignment will wind up in a fight. Evil preys upon all alignments. In an encounter with evil human thieves (humans not being inherently evil), there is a choice each side must make before a fight will begin.

    The alignment of a PC often gets thrown aside claiming "self-defense." As a DM, I encourage heroes to apprehend incapacitated enemies to stand trial. This is another reason for carrying rope. A paladin delivering coup de graces on fallen enemies is wrong. Shooting an arrow into the back of a fleeing enemy is also wrong (as the motivation of the character is very likely XP gain, rather than playing within his alignment).

    What does this all mean? It is okay to kill monsters as they are evil, and will never try not to be. It is okay to kill humans, elves, dwarves, etc only as long as they are able and willing to kill you first. Once such an enemy is defeated, it is evil to end their life without the application of a lawful or chaotic act. A lawful act would be tying them up and hauling them back to town. A chaotic act would be tying them up and leaving it to chance if they are discovered by a wandering patrol.

    Playing your alignment is as much about what you choose NOT to do. Killing a guy when he's down is evil, there is no way to say it is not. Killing a monster when its down, however, is not evil. That is the difference between men and monsters. Even the most evil human being can be made to atone for his sins. The most evil monster can be made to recognize that its actions are considered sinful by humans, but that is all. Such races as the drow are born evil. Its their nature.
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:42 am  

    @Choaticprime

    I agree with your point of view for the most part. I will say that in my own campaign, Drow have as much agency as their High Elven kin. They just have a much more difficult time choosing goodness over evil because of the society in which they are raised.

    Your points do bring up a question, though. How would you categorize beings like Iuz, Drelnza the vampire, or even Iggwilv herself?

    Is Iuz, as a demi-god of evil, capable of repenting? Drelnza may be more easily dismissed by saying that once she became a vampire, she became a 'monster' and lost her capacity for agency. Has Iggwilv hardened her heart to the point that it is stone and can never be turned from evil?

    More importantly, how much should good characters risk in order to give such individuals a chance to repent? Should they risk their own lives by giving up a chance to strike first when doing so will obviously cost the lives of many more innocents when evil is once more victorious?
    Perhaps a real-world example will help. When is a pre-emptive strike by a 'good' nation a 'good' thing to do?

    I'd like to point out that as I grew older (and more mature Wink ) I learned to play my paladin in a manner like you describe above. He always admonishes his opponents to surrender and repent and offers them a fair trial if they will do so. He fights defensively as long as doing so doesn't risk the lives of others, but will continue his admonition to surrender while fighting to kill if innocent lives, or the lives of himself and his adventuring companions, depend upon it.

    SirXaris
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 20, 2008
    Posts: 594


    Send private message
    Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:35 pm  

    A good nation will preemptively strike to remove the reigns of power from an evil dictator. Through a show of force meant to greatly diminish the resources of an evil overlord, the good nation may then issue a request for surrender.

    In the case of Iggwilv, who is probably as strong or stronger than the sum of her minions, the issue of demanding her surrender would require a much greater show of force. Imagine the goal of a PC group is to apprehend Iggwilv and have her put on trial for her crimes. Imagine the spells that would be necessary to research and prepare. To defeat Iggwilv without killing her would be a monstrous task, but such an endeavor would be a truly epic display of good triumphing over evil. Before spell-like abilities (which require absolutely no components, gestures, or words) capturing Iggwilv would be a matter of cutting off her escape (dimensional anchor) and beating her **** then binding her appropriately and sticking her BDSM **** in a prison cell. In 3.0 and up, you would have to knock her around, leave her at -9 HP, and stick her in an instance of Gentle Repose or something. Maybe have rotating shifts of casters generating a Magic Circle Against Evil in a barrel she has been crammed into. I do not care how evil she is now; she gained that evil by choice and pursued it for power. Take away that power, and torture the crap out of her, and she'll repent.

    Drelzna is a vampire. Building a prison for a vampire is easy in a world proliferate with magic. Greyhawk is the exact kind of setting where an order of clerics specializing in sun/light magic would be founded to imprison a vampire forever. Keep her in a dark cell with a system of mirrors projecting sunlight as a barrier to keep her in. At night, the monks take over with their magicks. I think that's cool stuff. Rehabilitation would only be a possibility if her vampirism were removed.

    Iuz, however, is unlikely to be capable of imprisonment in any less of a way than previously applicable to him. Once he signed up for demi-godhood, he became effectively "bronzed" by evil. He may once have chosen evil as his path, but now he is become it. There is no true earth equivalent to an evil so infallible in its intent that it can act in no other way than to be evil. Imagine trying to make a shark surrender. Only through dominate force of arms can it be overcome, and it would never stop trying to kill its captors. Iuz is evil such that even they who would defeat him would be sickened by having had dealt with him, even if it was to trap him. Let gods joust treat with gods. A true strike against Iuz would be to fight against and destroy his minions. Take away his armies. The detriment of evil is that they are evil--they are not united by the bonds that all who are good share. They do not think that life has value; they do not have the fear for the sake of others that shows the goodness in them. They care for only for their own lives.

    @SirXarsis - Characters cannot even begin to demand repentance of an evil until they are thoroughly restrained. The enemy must have been bested and imprisoned.

    As I mentioned above, heroes with the intent of capturing an evil enemy must always strike first. Not for assassination purposes, but to control the enemy's resources so to make it possible to capture them.

    Like battling Godzilla, battling Iggwilv would require a plan, some heroics, and a lot of shenanigans.
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:16 pm  

    chaoticprime wrote:

    @SirXarsis - Characters cannot even begin to demand repentance of an evil until they are thoroughly restrained. The enemy must have been bested and imprisoned.


    I agree with all that (everything you wrote above the short part I quoted). However, the difficulty comes in what you wrote below:
    Quote:

    As I mentioned above, heroes with the intent of capturing an evil enemy must always strike first. Not for assassination purposes, but to control the enemy's resources so to make it possible to capture them.


    When talking about making pre-emptive strikes, you refered to the enemy's resources. Such resources include armies, as you specifically mentioned. Armies are made up of individuals and many times those individuals and those in command are individuals with agency. Destroying Iuz's armies thus requires the killing of those with agency and it would be silly for agents of good in a fantasy setting such as GH to refuse to consider the possible assassination of 'resources' like Jumper, et al as a valid tactic in the fight against evil.

    Even in the real world, though we say that we (the USA) doesn't engage in assassination, we still engage the enemy in battle with the intent to kill until they surrender and we don't always give the enemy a chance to repent and surrender before we strike to kill. Just look at the tactics used in Afghanistan today or those of any past war. It is simply not always possible for a 'good' person to give their evil opponent one last chance to surrender and repent before being destroyed.

    SirXaris
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 20, 2008
    Posts: 594


    Send private message
    Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:13 pm  

    First things first.

    "...would be silly for agents of good in a fantasy setting such as GH to refuse to consider the possible assassination of 'resources' like Jumper, et al as a valid tactic in the fight against evil."

    How so? How is assassination more valid than simply capturing said "resource?" If it comes down to combat, a defeat need not end in death, but capture and imprisonment. Either way leads to a controlled resource. An assassination is a premeditated murder. No agent of good would ever plan the death of another person.

    "Even in the real world..." There is no Lawful Good in the real world. In Greyhawk there are tangible deities to make people believe in a guaranteed afterlife and to grant them hope to back their choices. Lawful Evil is the alignment of every nation in our real world. America is certainly not a good nation, alignment wise. No facet of our reality is a standard for any comparison to GH, there is just too much impossible difference. Thought, in fact, every conflict the United States has been on the attacking side of, began with negotiations detailing the surrender of power or the cessation of hostilities of the subject nation. We even warned Japan before dropping the nukes.

    "It is simply not always possible for a 'good' person to give their evil opponent one last chance to surrender and repent before being destroyed." I agree. But that does not mean good should just resort to assassination as the point of least resistance.

    The ultimate point of my argument is this: In any situation where an evil person has been defeated, a good party would choose to capture and imprison him over putting him to death on the spot.
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:41 am  

    chaoticprime wrote:

    The ultimate point of my argument is this: In any situation where an evil person has been defeated, a good party would choose to capture and imprison him over putting him to death on the spot.


    Ideally, I admit you are correct.

    I will also agree that no nation on earth seems to be 'good'. However, I believe that the concept of the Constitution of the United States itself is Lawful Good and the Bill of Rights is Chaotic Good, the balance being Neutral Good - balancing the rights of individuals against what's best for the majority. In practice, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but the Consitutional system with the Bill of Rights seems to have limited the results by limiting the power.

    SirXaris
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 11, 2009
    Posts: 379
    From: Verbobonc

    Send private message
    Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:28 am  

    I think that the argument we are having is over ends and means.

    Good end: Iuz defeated!

    Means: Remove Bonehart, defeat Iuz armies, bansih Iuz to the Abyss.

    So what would be the "good" means to remove the Bonehart?
    Well, engineering Vayne's defection would have a hsort term result, but he would just be replaced. Besides somehow capturing them and bringing them to trial in Chendl, most actions owuld have to be of a violent and lethal nature. Even setting them against each other culd be considered an "evil" act, though it would doubtless save the lives of many Furyondians and allow further progress against Iuz.

    In the end, do we end up with "the good of the many, outweighs the good of the few, or the one" (Yes, I am ripping this off from Star Trek II)?

    If the "good" method is taken, it could lead to a long-term stalemate, or a battle with Iuz' forces where they hold the advantage. Even if good wins, their loses might be high. However, a more "evil" or cunning approach might save far more lives in the long run.

    I do not propose to have an answer to these questions, but these are real world questions as well. Do we do a little "evil" for a greater "good'? Was bombing Germany and Japan in WWII an "evil" means to a "good" end? Or, in Greyhawk terms, was the "scouring of the Vesve" an evil means to good ends (secruing Furyondy and Highfolk)? Did an "evil" means make the end no longer good?

    My head now hurts from the metaphysics.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 06, 2011
    Posts: 201
    From: South Africa, Cape Town

    Send private message
    Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:41 am  

    Quote:
    My head now hurts from the metaphysics.


    So does mine ... Confused
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 20, 2008
    Posts: 594


    Send private message
    Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:48 pm  

    Well, without Iuz as a figurehead, the evil nature of his minions would get the better of them and they would cannibalize themselves. Evil, by its very nature, is selfish and greedy. The post-Iuz power vacuum would cause all worthy subordinates to fight for supremacy. However, as Iuz is a demi-god, and the god of his minions, his shoes would be nonrefillable.

    However, as I believe that the Circle of Eight prefers to have Iuz sitting right where he is to balance the good and evil on Oerth, it is a moot point.
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 11, 2009
    Posts: 379
    From: Verbobonc

    Send private message
    Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:37 pm  

    So do "good" characters always have to give an opponent the chance to surrender? Does that courtesy extend to Jumper's low-level guards and minions? What if the character's are staging an ambush... kind of negates the whole element of surprise idea there. The alternative is the characters giving a pro-forma "Surrender!" request as they are killing their opponent.

    The way I look at it, especially if you are post-Great Northern Crusade, Jumper is a hostile commander in a war zone. He is not some dead-beat with an outstanding bench-warrant for drunk-in-public who the characters corner at the local inn. I would argue that specifically targeting a key enemy commander, call it what you will, is not in itself an evil act.
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 20, 2008
    Posts: 594


    Send private message
    Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:31 pm  

    tarelton wrote:
    So do "good" characters always have to give an opponent the chance to surrender? Does that courtesy extend to Jumper's low-level guards and minions? What if the character's are staging an ambush... kind of negates the whole element of surprise idea there. The alternative is the characters giving a pro-forma "Surrender!" request as they are killing their opponent.

    The way I look at it, especially if you are post-Great Northern Crusade, Jumper is a hostile commander in a war zone. He is not some dead-beat with an outstanding bench-warrant for drunk-in-public who the characters corner at the local inn. I would argue that specifically targeting a key enemy commander, call it what you will, is not in itself an evil act.


    Yes, good characters give their enemy a chance to surrender before combat. Those enemies that survive a subsequent engagement are spared.

    In an ambush where the deterrent is superior arms, it is absolutely typical for the enemy to be forced to surrender in light of his disadvantage.

    I never said targeting a specific enemy was evil, only premeditating his murder was.

    I am done arguing the same points again and again. The "what ifs" I keep seeing and "examples" of how I am wrong do not depict good characters. Even in the above you put "good" in quotes which denotes that they are not in fact good at all.

    Good characters find another way. That is that. There are no good nations. If you kill someone when you do not have to, you are not good. If there is ANY OTHER alternative to killing, good characters do that. If not, they ARE NOT GOOD CHARACTERS!
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 13, 2006
    Posts: 654
    From: Frinton on Sea England

    Send private message
    Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:57 am  

    This discussion highlights the difficulties of tracking alignment as a DM.

    One man's freedom fighter and all that.
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:16 am  

    Yes. And, though I've learned many good life lessens from role playing, the main point of it is that it is fun. I don't want my players to have to worry about giving every single opponent a chance to surrender. If they decide to go after Iuz, they will have to first defeat Jumper, et al. Before they confront Jumper, they must go through a host of lesser minions. It is not possible for them to stop and give every single minion they encounter on their way to Iuz a chance to surrender. Even if many of them would accept the offer, the party has no way to take them into custody.

    Perhaps I'm finally agreeing with Chaoticprime in that in the real world, law enforcement can almost always offer the bad guys a chance to come peacefully. In fantasy worlds like D&D, this is simply not the case, so good and evil must necessarily have, at least slightly, different definitions. Smile

    SirXaris
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 06, 2011
    Posts: 201
    From: South Africa, Cape Town

    Send private message
    Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:39 am  

    The issue I have is not with the moral side of alignment and I am more looking for away to "Guide/force" players to play each character they have differently, which always starts out well but then all characters end up the same.

    The moral issues of alignment is another story.

    This thread has indeed been a valueable read and thanks to all for there posts.

    Death could be there absolution ....

    Things were very different then to things today, life was harder and things were not painted in pretty colours.

    It was either you are or you aren't, no in betweens. You upheld the laws of the land and thus were reward with protect of the king or you didn't and you answered for your actions.

    Look at the movie Excailbre from 1984 that is pretty much how I see most fantasy settings in particular Greyhawk. The knights upheld the law of the king and the law, but then too knew when it was time to kill.
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:49 am  

    DarkHerald wrote:
    Things were very different then to things today


    And therein lies the dilemma for many. Evil Grin

    Too many today want to play the game (or write the game) with 21st century thinking. Such thinking has no place in my game.

    I watch modern movies that are supposed to take place centuries ago . . . but they all "speak" with modern day expletives. I do not think people living back then even "knew" such words.

    In a biography of Benjamin Franklin I just finished, many of his detractors accused him of "inventing" words. The words in question are now words we use everyday.

    Too much "21st century" in today's gaming.

    But that's just me. Wink
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 20, 2008
    Posts: 594


    Send private message
    Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:48 pm  

    Following with my original point about alignment, how I force my players to stick within theirs without it becoming an issue is that they just accept what rights they give to the people their characters meet.

    Good characters respect the right to life, property, and to be exempt from interrogation. They also do not finish off dying foes (monsters excluded). Chivalrous characters take such actions further by not attacking while an enemy is not ready, not attacking from behind, etc.

    I do not set up these as laws, but as the morality a good character should just have. Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral prefixes essentially mark the difference of procedure for how the above rights are observed. As I do not allow neutral or evil characters in my game, they are a moot point for me. A neutral character has no reason to adventure--he's neutral, and an evil character is a bad guy. Alignment is not a tool, it is a background feature.

    Good = PC's; Neutral = NPC's; Evil = Villains. There is no reason to complicate alignment any more by adding in perspective and shades of gray. Good people don't murder or take advantage, that's all there really needs to be to it.

    Lawful = Good PC's who believe in the law of the land; Chaotic = Good PC's who believe in karma; Neutral = Good PC's who believe in logic.

    Lawful Good characters love structure. Accomplishing a task in the manner the law dictates is their goal. There is no feat being chaotic can accomplish that being lawful cannot. There is a right way to do things, and a fast way.

    Example of a Lawful Good character: Sherlock Holmes - Holmes is a misogynist, a drug-addict, and given to wanton insults at the expense of other people. He lives strictly within the law, however. The law is his spider's web; foiling evil within its constraints is his absolution. Sherlock Holmes will deceive anyone to solve a mystery, but will do them no actual harm. Sherlock Holmes will kill you if you try to kill him first. Once his enemy is defeated, he will have him arrested rather than putting him down.

    Chaotic Good characters believe that "Everything works itself out in the end." Picking the pocket of a rich man and giving that money to a poor man is just leveling things out. The rich man is really no less rich, but the poor man is much better off. The character broke the law with his act, but he harmed little and helped a lot. There is no point dwelling on how to do something, it'll work itself out in the end.

    Example of a Chaotic Good character: Rooster Cogburn (True Grit) - Rooster is a gunfighter, a thief, and a man of the law, but he is not a lawman. He believes in a higher power that judges men, but he does not address its standards or limitations. He'll steal from a thief and he'll shoot a murderer at the slightest provocation. He'll kill to save a life, or kill to avenge a life taken, but only if the man he's killing has his boots on.

    Neutral Good characters believe in directness of action. They do not seek permission to enter private property if they're on a mission. A neutral good character rights wrongs as efficiently as possible.

    Example of a Neutral Good character: Brian Mills (Taken) - Brian Mills is a father, a patriot, and a murderer. In pursuit of his goals he will stop at nothing. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Murderers, rapists, and kidnappers who stand in his way will be killed. A wounded enemy will not be slain unless he again takes up arms. Those of agency who may assist him yet choose not to (an evil act) are not exempt from his wrath. If he catches you in the process of committing a crime punishable by death, he will skip right to the end.

    These are how I see the alignments of good. I feel I am pretty spot-on. Alignment is not a reflection of moral fiber, but of your respect for other people. A lawful good character can swear constantly and mainline heroin at every opportunity (if heroin is not illegal), but he will not harm another person for any reason save to protect the life of himself or others.
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:01 am  

    chaoticprime wrote:
    Example of a Lawful Good character: Sherlock Holmes


    Holmes is my all time favorite, but calling him "Lawful Good" is stretching it just a bit. In several of his adventures he allowed the "guilty" to go free . . . because he thought "the Law" was "wrong" in that particular case.

    A Lawful Good Paladin would have "arrested" the person. Wink

    Otherwise, I like your points. Cool
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 06, 2011
    Posts: 201
    From: South Africa, Cape Town

    Send private message
    Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:23 am  

    I would say he was Neutral Good or even possibly Lawful Neutral, after watching the new British modern version of Holmes.
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:44 am  

    DarkHerald wrote:
    I would say he was Neutral Good


    Correct. When explaining alignment in the game Baldur's Gate II, "they" explain that a Neutral Good person obeys the laws and supports law enforcement agencies. However, they have no trouble over throwing a despot Baron.

    They explain that a Paladin would not do this, because the Baron is the "lawful ruler," even though a despot. The Paladin (Lawful Good) would recognize that he/she did not have the legal authority to remove the Baron. Only the King can do that.

    Holmes has not always "turned in" the legal "criminal," because he felt the "law" was "wrong in this instance."

    Makes him Neutral Good. Wink
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:01 am  

    I think I'm with Chaoticprime when considering the importance of alignments. I tend to put it this way:

    Good vs. Evil are a person's ethics, or spirituality. This is, generally, what a person, er, individual, considers to be of greatest importance. Law vs. Chaos represents an individual's philosophy regarding the best manner in which to accomplish what is most important to them.

    In other words, Good and Evil are the end and Law and Chaos are the means.

    This still applies to the Neutral alignments, but they (individuals holding neutral alignments) simply don't ascribe as much weight to the portion of their alignment that is neutral. For example, a Lawful Neutral Monk may consider the end that he is working toward to be absolute personal discipline, by which he may attain omnipotent enlightenment. Good and Evil, in his philosophy, become irrelevant or of dimenished importance. He may choose to act evilly or goodly in any particular situation depending only upon how well such act contributes to his strictly disciplined philosophy of ultimate control of his own person.

    A Neutral Good person is concerned primarily with Good, of course, but is unfettered when it comes to a philosophy of how best to accomplish good ends. S/he is perfectly willing to be subject to a goodly authority, but is equally willing to exist in a more anarchic society as long as it promotes weal for all.

    Edit:

    I must disagree with your assumption, Mystic-Scholar, that a Lawful Good individual, even a Paladin, would refuse to remove corrupt authority. After all, doesn't Iuz have as much of a rightful claim to rule his own lands as any other monarch in the Flaness? He was the acknowledged heir to a minor lord of those northern lands that had no king, rose to power by bringing the other lords under his authority, and rules as he chooses. By your reckonning, Paladins may oppose Iuz's expansion into Furyondi and some other realms, but they could not justly unseat him from his throne, nor could they even oppose his invasion of the Bandit Kingdoms as there exist no true kings within that land.

    In addition, I'm sure I've read it in Dragon Magazine articles or even core D&D rulebooks that Paladins not only have the right, but feel the obligation to oppose unjust rulers where ever and whenever they are encountered.

    SirXaris
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Feb 20, 2008
    Posts: 594


    Send private message
    Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:22 pm  

    I believe a Paladin would not physically oppose an unjust ruler who is just that. Now, if that unjust ruler were to go so far as to have gangs of henchmen to bully the surplus population, that is another thing altogether. If the guy has gnarly taxation and just generally does a bad job governing, that is a matter the Paladin can pass on to a higher authority later, offing the guy would just foment chaos. If the actions of a Paladin would lead to a chaotic aftermath, he is failing in his duty. Now if an unjust baron has a goodly son who wants to be good to the people, the Paladin can throw the sumbitch off the highest parapet and put his son in charge.

    As to Sherlock Holmes: I have read every ACD story, and am a huge fan of the Jeremy Brett tv series, and though Sherlock has, on rare occasion, let the guilty party go, the vast majority of the time he does not. Lawful Good is not only observing the law, but seeing that justice is served dutifully. If a guilty person is not deserving of the punishment, that is the law being served, but not goodness. There is very much a thing as unjust laws. Sherlock is lawful good because the law is the reason for his work. I cite the Hound of the Baskervilles. He figured out Stapleton was the villain, yet chose not to act because he had insufficient evidence to convict him in court. He had to first catch him in the act. Were he neutral good, he would have then went and had Watson beat Stapleton about the neck and shoulders with a stiff cane. Neutal good characters do not wait around to get the evidence for a court conviction, once they have proof enough for them they act. "Catching him in the act" is the absolute backbone of Sherlock Holmes stories.

    By the way, thanks to everyone for not turning this into a hostile flame war. I am so used to every debate on every forum I post on turning into a big ball of fire. Kudos to you, gentlemen.
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:22 pm  

    SirXaris wrote:
    I must disagree with your assumption, Mystic-Scholar, that a Lawful Good individual, even a Paladin, would refuse to remove corrupt authority.


    You're not disagreeing with my "assumption," Sir Xaris. If you had read more carefully, you would have seen that I was explaining the description and explanation given in my computer game: Baldur's Gate.

    The game is Hasbro/WotC's Forgotten Realms. The description of Neutral Good and the explanation of what the Paladin would and would not do is theirs.

    It is given and explained when your character is choosing his/her alignment. And for game purposes, its why I always play Neutral Good.

    So, according to Hasbro/WotC -- the people who OWN D&D and WROTE all of your "splat" books -- a Lawful Good Paladin would not remove a supposedly "good" Baron in the Kingdom of Furyondy just because he was a despot. Its not their place.

    You must consider that Iuz is the ruler of an enemy nation (everyone's enemy at that) and that's an entirely different matter. Wink

    @Chaoticprime

    There were two stories -- the titles of which slip my mind at present, but I'll get them for you -- where Holmes DID catch the culprit "red-handed" and did not turn them in.
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:29 pm  

    Mystic-Scholar wrote:
    SirXaris wrote:
    I must disagree with your assumption, Mystic-Scholar, that a Lawful Good individual, even a Paladin, would refuse to remove corrupt authority.


    You're not disagreeing with my "assumption," Sir Xaris. If you had read more carefully, you would have seen that I was explaining the description and explanation given in my computer game: Baldur's Gate.


    My mistake, M-S. Wink

    I've never played Baldur's Gate, so have not seen that definition of Lawful Good before. I assumed it was your own. I'll consider that poor description as Hasbro's corrupt influence on WotC. Razz

    SirXaris


    Last edited by SirXaris on Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
    GreySage

    Joined: Oct 06, 2008
    Posts: 2788
    From: South-Central Pennsylvania

    Send private message
    Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:33 pm  

    Sir Xaris, you know as well as I do that WotC was corrupted before Hasbro! Wink Laughing
    _________________
    Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
    Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
    Display posts from previous:   
       Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
    Page 1 of 1

    Jump to:  

    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum




    Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises

    Contact the Webmaster.  Long Live Spidasa!


    Greyhawk Gothic Font by Darlene Pekul is used under the Creative Commons License.

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
    Page Generation: 0.45 Seconds