Paladins

Tetsubo wrote:
>
>         That last line was for humors sake.
>
>         But at one time I had many, many thoughts that could be described as
> 'evil'. I never acted on them however. I don't consider myself evil, now
> or then. But if having evil thoughts makes a person evil... then I was.
> Which is why I consider acts to be of much greater import than thoughts.

But did you not act on those thoughts because you were afraid of the
consequences or because you knew that actually acting on those
thoughts would be Wrong.

John

Baird Stafford <baird.TakeThisOut@newstaff.com> writes:

> In article <gjd549$r34$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> Tetsubo <tetsubo.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> We could argue that thinking evil thoughts is bad for a person. And I
>> would agree. But you don't arrest, charge, try and possibly convict a
>> person for those evil thoughts.
>
> Depends on the laws of a lawful society. If the law says that thinking
> evil thoughts is a capital offense, then it's a capital offense.


NO, NO, NO.

It can't be hammered at enough: Lawful in D&D has *nothing* to do with
the laws of the land. Otherwise a Paladin could be constrained to
follow Evil laws.

Lawful has to do with a respect for order and tradition over
individual judgment. The fact that this usually leads to being
law-abiding is a side effect.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 07:46:46 -0500, Tetsubo <tetsubo DeleteThis @comcast.net>
wrote:

>Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
>> Tetsubo <tetsubo DeleteThis @comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Mart van de Wege wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tetsubo <tetsubo DeleteThis @comcast.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Evil is about actions, not intent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The rules disagree with you.
>>>>
>>>>Evil is about attitude. If you think it is okay to enslave or kill
>>>>sentient beings for your own purposes, you're Evil; even if you don't
>>>>actually do the enslaving and killing right now.
>>>>
>>>>Mart
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> In your campaign perhaps, but not mine.
>>
>>
>> Well, the amount of house rules you allow in your campaign is up to
>> you, of course.
>>
>> But the above is the starting point: the rules.
>>
>> Mart
>>
>
> What if the 'evil' person *never* acts on his impulses? Never. How
>could you define such a person as evil?

Depends on why he never follows through with what he thinks, but
"Cowardly evil" is the most likely explanation.

According to RAW, actions are presumed to flow from alignment, and to
demonstrate alignment. It's what lies behind them that determines
alignment.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:02:18 GMT, "Shawn" <shawn520.DeleteThis@telus.com> wrote:

>"LL" <Lorenz.Lang.DeleteThis@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>news:gje1r0$gnu$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> That's what Neutral is for...
>>
>> LL
>
>Yeah but 3.5 alignments are simplistic, and as DM you have license to change
>these details.

Sure.
But as soon as you do so, you're stepping away from RAW. The default
assumption for most conversations here is that (unless specified
otherwise) we're talking about RAW so that we may can come closer to
a common frame of reference.

Otherwise, we end up in the situation of two geeks speaking different
jargons that just happen to have the same words - we make no sense to
each other, and communication of any kind just doesn't happen.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:03:23 -0500, Tetsubo <tetsubo.RemoveThis@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Undoubtedly my interpretation. Who else's would I care about?

Begs the question... why bring it up in a forum where it's expected
that others will be offering up their opinion?

> A Paladin that kills a person because they detect as Evil would be
>committing murder. Not a good way to keep your paladinhood.

A the very least it's reckless behavior. There are a number of
plausible reasons why someone who's not Evil would detect as such, and
even if one accepts the notion of "Paladin can kill Evil folks just
for being Evil" (which I find sketchy myself), one who does so runs
the risk of, say...killing Frodo on his way to destroying the ring.

Allen Wessels wrote:

> In article <gjeo1l$3fc$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> Tetsubo <tetsubo DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Allen Wessels wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <gjd549$r34$1@news.motzarella.org>,
>>> Tetsubo <tetsubo DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> A baddie can fantasy all he wants about evil acts. But until he commits
>>>>those acts, he hasn't *done* anything evil. He can create all the plans
>>>>he wants. As soon as he begins to act on them however, the Paladins of
>>>>the world get to stomp him.
>>>>
>>>> We could argue that thinking evil thoughts is bad for a person. And I
>>>>would agree. But you don't arrest, charge, try and possibly convict a
>>>>person for those evil thoughts.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your definition is circular. They're not evil if they don't commit an
>>>evil act because acting evil is how you define evil.
>>
>> That isn't circular. If they don't act in an evil manner, they
>>effectively aren't evil. Even if they *really* want to be bad.
>
>
> So The Emperor radiating pure malice is less evil than Luke wanting to
> take apart Vader because Vader taunted him?
>
> My intuition disagrees.

Does either act on these impulses? If not, neither is acting in an evil
manner. They may well 'ping' a Paladins senses of course. One doing so
much more strongly then the other.

>
>
>>>But I can have zombies commit evil acts all day and they're never evil?
>>
>> Correct. A zombie is an animated corpse. It has no intent, no reason,
>>no mind. Is an animated chair evil? No. Neither is a skeleton or zombie.
>>Now the person that ordered the zombie to commit evil acts, he's shown
>>that he is evil.
>
>
> Excuse me? You said intent doesn't matter. If attitude doesn't matter,
> Zombies are evil.

A zombie is an animated corpse. Without reason, without a mind without
the capacity for intent. It can't be evil. Any more than a baseball bat
is evil.

>
>
>>>Evil is about intent.
>>
>> Evil is about actions. What you do is more important than what you
>>think about doing. By your definition I have, at points in my past, been
>>evil. Even though I never committed a truly evil act. I may have broken
>>nine of the ten commandments, but I never killed anyone.
>
>
> You want it to be about acts because you have contemplated evil acts
> before. Good isn't necessarily nice. Seriously onsidering executing an
> evil act is evil. Good doesn't compromise it's judgement to make you
> feel better about yourself.
>
> And like I said, if it's just about evil acts, then I bring everyone to
> apocalypse with the cumulative effects of making them do good in steps
> that lead them to the Abyss.
>
> All the while enjoying the benefits of being on the good side, and all
> the Celestials have to help me because I'm a "good guy".

You are forgetting that we have the capacity for reason. We aren't
automata. Someone is bound to see the pattern in your plan. Which has
been enacted by you, which means that you have shown you are evil. Which
is when the Celestial hammer comes down on you.

>
> - Allen


--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP

Kaos wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:02:18 GMT, "Shawn" <shawn520.TakeThisOut@telus.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"LL" <Lorenz.Lang.TakeThisOut@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:gje1r0$gnu$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>
>>>That's what Neutral is for...
>>>
>>>LL
>>
>>Yeah but 3.5 alignments are simplistic, and as DM you have license to change
>>these details.
>
>
> Sure.
> But as soon as you do so, you're stepping away from RAW. The default
> assumption for most conversations here is that (unless specified
> otherwise) we're talking about RAW so that we may can come closer to
> a common frame of reference.
>
> Otherwise, we end up in the situation of two geeks speaking different
> jargons that just happen to have the same words - we make no sense to
> each other, and communication of any kind just doesn't happen.

Which is what I think is going on hear. We seem to be talking past each
other. Well not you specifically.

--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:21:01 +0000 (UTC), Patrick Baldwin
<pax RemoveThis @osmium.mv.net> wrote:

> I wonder though, is there a degree of detectable Evil that
> requires immediate action if you're a paladin? If you're
> hanging out in the tavern, waiting for your fellow adventurers
> to arrive before you set off on your latest mission, and you
> notice a guy in the corner who pings Evil like he was an 18th
> level undead demon cleric.
>
> It seems that, as a paladin, you Must Do Something.

Consider this:
the guy's a chaotic good ranger, infiltrating an evil cult with the
help of an artifact or spell that masks his true alignment.*

Or, he's Frodo on his way to Mount Doom.

Granted, one might reasonably call the DM a dick for a set-up like
that. But they seem good enough reasons to discourage just Smiting
away even then.

* though TBH I don't recall offhand if the core set includes such
items or spells.

In article <gjg17v$ag3$1@news.motzarella.org>,
Tetsubo <tetsubo.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:

> You are forgetting that we have the capacity for reason. We aren't
> automata. Someone is bound to see the pattern in your plan. Which has
> been enacted by you, which means that you have shown you are evil. Which
> is when the Celestial hammer comes down on you.

Why is someone bound to see the pattern of my plan? If I keep everyone
busy doing acts of good, good is most likely going to let its guard down
because things are going well.

And besides, how do you figure I'm the one creating evil? Every single
act you see has someone else as the actor, and everything says the
outcome is good. Except of course for the end result.

It's the whole point of evil genius.

- Allen

In <slrnglm2i4.8uv.keith.davies.DeleteThis@kjdavies.org> Keith Davies <keith.davies.DeleteThis@kjdavies.org> writes:

<snip>

>noting that RAW I don't think you can *have* undead demons -- all the
>undead templates apply to 'not outsiders', and demonic-type templates
>are all inherited -- and not too many undead have children

Blood Fiend - Fiend Folio?

--
Remove any bits of tatt after the at in my address to reply

Tetsubo wrote:
> Allen Wessels wrote:
>
>> In article <gjd549$r34$1@news.motzarella.org>,
>> Tetsubo <tetsubo.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> A baddie can fantasy all he wants about evil acts. But until he
>>> commits those acts, he hasn't *done* anything evil. He can create all
>>> the plans he wants.

He'd be Evil and should (RAW) detect as such,
way before the first Evil act.

>>> As soon as he begins to act on them however, the
>>> Paladins of the world get to stomp him.

Correct. Although knowing the Evil enemy and being prepared
to act as soon as he tries to act would be okay.

>>> We could argue that thinking evil thoughts is bad for a person.
>>> And I would agree. But you don't arrest, charge, try and possibly
>>> convict a person for those evil thoughts.

IRL? Of course you do. Planning certain Evil acts *is* punished
in many countries.

>> Your definition is circular. They're not evil if they don't commit an
>> evil act because acting evil is how you define evil.
>
>
> That isn't circular. If they don't act in an evil manner, they
> effectively aren't evil. Even if they *really* want to be bad.
>
>>
>> But I can have zombies commit evil acts all day and they're never evil?
>
>
> Correct. A zombie is an animated corpse. It has no intent, no
> reason, no mind. Is an animated chair evil? No. Neither is a skeleton or
> zombie. Now the person that ordered the zombie to commit evil acts, he's
> shown that he is evil.

It depends on the cosmology of the campaign world.
What animates the corpse or chair and what harm is done to the
soul which belongs to the body (in the case of a zombie or skeleton)?

So there are some reasons, why a skeleton/zombie could be Evil:

If the animation process requires Evil magic, tapping into Evil powers,
the zombie/skeleton might be tainted by Evil too.
There are magic items that detect as Evil, why not these animated
"objects"?

If the corpse is animated by a real Evil, e.g. a lemure or other lesser
Evil "spirit". BTW lemures are mindless and Evil too.

If the soul of the (ab)used body is harmed/tortured as long as the
body "suffers" from the animation.

>>
>> Evil is about intent.
>
>
> Evil is about actions. What you do is more important than what you
> think about doing.

You can be forced or tricked into Evil actions or simply err.
Without Evil intent, you're not Evil.
Looking at the actions is only neccessary when you want to know the
alignment of PCs in the game. Often players (want to) act differently
from their stated alignment.

Take Belkar from OotS: he's Evil long before he actually commits a
truly Evil act. He didn't act upon his Evil intentions/alignment,
because he feared the consequences IMO. He was under control of
Roy and the other characters because he felt he needed them more
than they him.

> I did more than covet my neighbors wife.

You coveted his dog? :-]

*smack*
That's the sound of ole MSB's TMI stick hitting your head.

LL

Kaos wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 07:46:46 -0500, Tetsubo <tetsubo RemoveThis @comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Mart van de Wege wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tetsubo <tetsubo RemoveThis @comcast.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mart van de Wege wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Tetsubo <tetsubo RemoveThis @comcast.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Evil is about actions, not intent.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The rules disagree with you.
>>>>>
>>>>>Evil is about attitude. If you think it is okay to enslave or kill
>>>>>sentient beings for your own purposes, you're Evil; even if you don't
>>>>>actually do the enslaving and killing right now.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mart
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In your campaign perhaps, but not mine.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, the amount of house rules you allow in your campaign is up to
>>>you, of course.
>>>
>>>But the above is the starting point: the rules.
>>>
>>>Mart
>>>
>>
>> What if the 'evil' person *never* acts on his impulses? Never. How
>>could you define such a person as evil?
>
>
> Depends on why he never follows through with what he thinks, but
> "Cowardly evil" is the most likely explanation.
>
> According to RAW, actions are presumed to flow from alignment, and to
> demonstrate alignment. It's what lies behind them that determines
> alignment.

Yep, only PCs pose a problem, because the DM has to reverse the process.
He doesn't know the true intentions of the PCs, because he can't read
the players' mind. Some players have difficulties to really play their
stated alignment. Most common are the "Good, so kill all Evils"-Paladin
and the "Evil, so kill and betray everybody"-Rogue.

LL

Shawn wrote:
>
> "LL" <Lorenz.Lang DeleteThis @invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:gje1r0$gnu$1@news.motzarella.org...

<snip>

>> That's what Neutral is for...
>>
>> LL
>
> Yeah but 3.5 alignments are simplistic, and as DM you have license to
> change these details. We are playing 4.0 now, and really alignments
> there seem to be meaningless, and so I generally ignore them.

I tend to ignore 4.0 completely...

> But in 3.5 I allowed my alignment system to be relative,
> and hence paladins could smite other paladins of different gods

By RAW you were playing it wrong.

> (kind of similar to how
> medieval muslims and christians both thought they were following the
> right way and the other was wrong)

Argh, please don't compare DnD alignment to real world religions or
certain followers of certain religions from certain times.
It's leading nowhere, at least not to a better understanding of
alignment.

LL