|
Post by kaltorac on Sept 8, 2007 11:54:08 GMT -5
More and more nowadays I see supposedly good aligned characters using spells and poisons that in the past most would question. I am also not singling any one PC out even though a few will think so anyhow. That being said ... I'll ramble and rant some.
Poison seems to be the topic with a greater leeway though. Some supposedly good PC's play it off as using "natures defenses" to aid against an enemy. Evil PC's just wink and say "uhm ... right ... us too" and wander off snickering. In my own mind, I could see playing a ranger perhaps that used one specific type of "poison" when facing his favored enemy because of the advantage it gave him against them. a drow hunter might let's say use centipede venom carefully gathered in the woods or caves to cause greater harm to the minds of drow and drider wizards. perhaps a bee or spider venom to sap an orcs stregth or health. It's when PC's of a good aligned nature use it with indiscretion on just about any foe the come upon I wonder if they are truly as "good" as they say. Not an inditement on anyone, this is more my own personal belief. I also think that poison has become a substitute for those PC's that can't read scrolls or cast a flame enchantment on their blades.
As far as "evil" spells go. Spells like "Wail of the Banshee" and "Finger of Death" are used by many good aligned mages because of their impact not only on the enemy, but more so I think because they do not risk others in your party. These are usually the same mages who in the past tossed lesser and greater missile storms instead. With the "nerfing" of some spells I think they've simply gone to the next most effective spell in their minds and have adopted an ends justifies the means mentality in it's regard. At the same some PC's that toss death magic like rice at a wedding are appalled by someone that would wait in ambush on a road for an enemy to pass. Cleric and mages using both "Protection from Good" and "Protection from Evil" as Buffs for their party do so to avoid collateral dammages to their group when the start casting scare and fear on their enemies. Whatever happened to fireballs and icestorms and .... oh .... right ... those take planning and forethought. You need to be well organised and scout ahead ... come back ... tell the mage where the enemy are hiding ... let the mage do his thing before you rush in or risk getting singed. Nevermind .... my mistake ... easier to just let them come into our midst and slay them all with a scream. *coughs* A good scream though.
Is it just me? Perhaps I simply expect more from the"good guys".
|
|
|
Post by Nevajas on Sept 8, 2007 12:33:59 GMT -5
Personally, I've never seen the massive death-magic use in the parties I've been in. I don't doubt it's happening, but it's not as wide-spread as your post may make it seem. The casters that I most often party with plan ahead and take advantage of characters' scouting abilities to know when to use the massive fireball spells and when to use something less indirect.
That being said, you bring up an interesting point with poisons. Personally, I think the "evilness" of poison use is completely dependent on the circumstances. Is it necessarily evil to resort to poisoning your blade when you're outnumbered by Zhent soldiers and your retreat has been cut off? What about when you and well armed, well equipped party invade an orc cave with every intention of killing all resistance and taking all loot? In a battle against an invading army? Against that same invading army's water supply? I think it's subjective enough to not merit a blanket rule. but it is a morally gray enough that good-aligned character should defiantly think twice before they us it.
|
|
|
Post by kaltorac on Sept 8, 2007 12:45:31 GMT -5
Having a high level PC as my main PC accounts for much of what I say too. Lower level mages just can't do what alot of what I've seen yet. And I admit, poison is a gray area. It just seems to me that all too often it's used without regard to any stigma that may be attached.
Don't know .... this is why I put it out there though ... to get more input from others.
|
|
|
Post by catmage on Sept 8, 2007 12:59:21 GMT -5
I'd like to point out that neither finger of death nor Wail of the Banshee have the Evil descriptor, and that while both carry the death descriptor, such is not exactly an indication of evil. Just because it kills quickly doesn't mean it's "evil", since no one seems to be concerned about Implosion and Destruction, both of which accomplish basically the same thing as FoD and Wail.
If your character has a problem, that's his own thing, but the only evil spell mentioned was protection from good, which is off limits to good aligned clerics because of the rules regarding alignment for the cleric class. Wizards, however, are not held up to those rules, so a good mage is free to cast a spell with the Evil descriptor, though they might risk slipping into neutral or full blown evil if they did.
As for poison use, that's mostly situational, but if you're going for a big exemplar of good or Exalted character, then poisons are off limits, since they cause pain and injury every time they are used, and can't discriminate between good and evil.
|
|
|
Post by kaltorac on Sept 8, 2007 13:12:05 GMT -5
I agree Catmage ... perhaps my point is more that both spells are from the school of Necromancy. I've known of many PC's that were and are shunned or even reviled for that as a specialty regardless of whether or not they've used spells such as create undead. I hear ... "well ... he's a evil because he's a Necromancer" all the time .... yet see PC's casting those same spells without a thought to there own actions is all. Just seems the pot too often calls the kettle black.
*wanders off and considers carefully how he'll handle creating his LG Necromancer* hm......
|
|
|
Post by EDM Entori on Sept 8, 2007 13:14:12 GMT -5
to point out cats comment before, neither spell is evil, and some of us have taken the hard way to finding that out. Negative energy is no more evil then said positive energy which from my understanding is conjuration magics.
Even certain goodly aligned gods have necromancy as a major sphere of influence..
heck poison is well.. gray, and I won't comment on that. But frankly those mass death, and death effect spells, are not used lightly. IMHO, and well what else compares to the amount of destruction they cause?.. if I personally RL was a solider, and was against many folk who wanted to kill me, I don't want my friends getting hurt. hand grenades all the way!..even cooler if you can drop said grenade at ones feet and not feel the consequences.
Alot of scripting makes use of Mass effect spells useless, take fighting a big pack of orc.. you drop an ice storm, it does very little damage relatively and you got the -whole- pack riding your butt, and if your entire party dies, you the mage is the one to blame. like summons and timestop. some people get annoyed with you using them.. timestop especially as well things just walk over and kill us anyways
anyways back to the point is, its no more evil then using another spell or 10 spells to kill your enemy, either way their ending up dead. as well, its a quick death rather then blasting them with fire acid and ice.. arrows and swords.. some would call that a mercy..
just points of thought..
ent
edit: theres also some people who now admit to calling the kettle black.. and regret it and have apologized IC...*wanders off to go flying*..nough said
|
|
|
Post by Masterbard Alyster Darkharp on Sept 8, 2007 13:28:29 GMT -5
I'll go ahead and chime in here, as a player of a true neutral character. I can and -will- use magic that shifts alignment towards evil, if I am pressed to do so. I always mention later IC that it isn't something I would choose to do, nor something I am comfortable doing. Then again, you don't have to be comfortable with everything you are pressed to do for survival. Darkharp is very much a survivalist, if that means using magic that is evil, or is considered evil, well..thems the brakes. On the other hand though, he is a character who believes very much in atonement, and practices it. For every act of evil he has to resort to, you can watch closely and see that he -will- do something to balance it. It all goes back to the means to an end thing, which doesn't make 'evil magic' right, but it does make it acceptable, at least in the eyes of most characters, if the situation calls for drastic measures. As for as poisons, Darkharp has an instrest in them that is mostly academic, but..you can bet if he needed to, he would use them to gain an edge over -the right- enemy, but not just any enemy. I realise I haven't said much of use..but, perhaps I have given a true neutral opinion on both poison and evil magic.
|
|
|
Post by Quadhund/Greenhouse on Sept 8, 2007 13:40:12 GMT -5
Heheh this discussion teeters on a being VERY philosophical. I expect more from our "good" guys too. As in, is killing even right? What ever happened to mercy? But I digress. Given the nature of D&D, there is the dichotomy of good and evil. This eliminates the gray area. As such, spells have good and evil descriptors. While one could argue that a good spell could be used for evil purposes, it is still inherently evil. One should roleplay accordingly. Things less tangible in terms of good and evil, as you mentioned, being poisons, are a bit harder to define if they are good or evil. I would argue that they are not (though the fact that blackguards and assassins receive use poison as a free feat presents a strong arguement). I perceive poison as just another tactical advantage use. If we were going to begin lumping such things, what about traps, darkness/ultravision use, sneak attack, crippling strike, flameblade/darkfire... and one could even extend this to + on weapons. So these things are not inherently evil, so much as what they are used to accomplish as evil. A good aligned rogue can fight dirty, ambush, and backstab and still be a good person, unless he is using it on babies
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 8, 2007 14:11:06 GMT -5
Since all my characters, ever, have been good-aligned I have put quite a bit of thought into this issue.
I have some difficulty with the end-justifies-the-means argument because, philosophically, it seems to me that it can lead you to do things that are, frankly, overtly evil, if you think that they may eventually lead to some good outcome. That strikes me as obviously wrong.
However, I wish to address the argument that the use of poisons is by its nature evil:
Now, I agree that poisons do cause pain and injury every time they are used. So does Ice Storm. So does Melf's Acid Arrow. So does whacking someone in the shoulder with your battleaxe, or shooting an arrow at them. Is bludgeoning your enemies to death with large chunks of ice acceptable, and shooting them in the leg so they can't run away and then putting an arrow through their eye acceptable, but poisoning them before you bludgeon/slice/stab them to death is not acceptable? The distinction seems artificial to me.
If I poisoned my enemies and then chuckled and took notes as they writhed in agony, well, that would be one thing. I think if I wanted to portray an evil character I might do exactly that. But if my character uses poison (and she does), she's doing it to weaken the enemies that she's already planning to kill. She's just making the killing go faster.
She doesn't approve of vampiric arrows, though, and she doesn't approve of animate dead spells. So obviously she (or I?) has some questions about what is morally appropriate in battle.
Call it what you will, "hunting" or "training" or "patrolling" or "exploring", we all know it's going to involve slaughter, and lots of it. This game, and consequently the lives our characters lead, is by its nature plagued with messy moral conundrums. If we believe that inflicting pain on any being is inconsistent with the life of a good-aligned fantasy character, then we'd better all stop adventuring and sit around in the inn and drink tea.
I'll bring the biscuits. And berries! mmmm!
|
|
|
Post by Mythinite on Sept 8, 2007 14:43:43 GMT -5
I see poisons as a weapon deployed by cowards, generally shady characters and people who just fight dirty. That evil characters might find pleasure in inflicting needless pain on their victims before death is just icing on the cake that is the moral choice good aligned characters have to make as to whether they condemn the use of poisons as "dishonorable" and "immoral" or not. As to using poisons, necromancy and non-aligned spells in general it's pretty much the same deal. The actions aren't inherently evil but it can be rather shady business in which case good aligned characters might have to take a step back and say "Yeah okay, you might just have saved our lives by poisoning and draining the life from our obviously evil enemies but couldn't you just use a sword the next time?". Or just make sure to pray extra hard for the poor souls who lost their lives in such a horrible way...
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Sept 8, 2007 14:44:48 GMT -5
Bah doesn't everyone know there are no good characters or evil characters? Just neutral characters with high opinions of themselves and low opinions of others.
;D
|
|
|
Post by Laurk on Sept 8, 2007 14:46:44 GMT -5
I would argue that poisons are evil because they take the fairness out of a fight. Granted magic weapons and enchantments also do this, but, to our characters, these are just well made weapons. It still boils down to fair, honest combat. Poison is something that is used from hiding that is ment to cripple or kill a combatant without the need for great skill. Magic is often viewed in the same way my many cultures. The real question boils down to lawful good vs. choatic good to me. or honor. A Paladin abhores using poison because it is a substance that weakens an opponent unfailry giving the attacker an advantage. In NWN its not such a big deal because poisons arent nearly as deadly as they should be. Infact, you cant even die from poison in NWN (or drop below a 3) which drives me up the wall. But to properly RP poison, one would have to pretend that you could be killed with it by a knife in the dark, robbing you of the chance for a fair toe-to-toe fight. While a choatic character of a good alignment could easily justify this as evening the odds so that good people wont be hurt, a lawful person would tend to believe that evil means to a good end rob that good end of anything worth saving. I would suspect the paladin to say: If we must use evil to fight evil, then we are no better than the evil itself. Granted a good fighter would have a differant opinion, but one who truly embraces honor and lawful goodness like a paladin cannot lower themself to these levels, whereas the choatic and neutral good alignments might be willing to use whatever means neccesary to achieve the greater good.
One last point to consider is that in Faerun, it is the gods who dictate what is good and evil, not mortal philosophies. So if the gods such as Tyr and Torm consider poison to be an evil weapon used by cowards and villians... well, then you can expect their knighthoods to have the same view, dispite what the philosophers might believe.
Laurk
|
|
|
Post by Quadhund/Greenhouse on Sept 8, 2007 15:22:53 GMT -5
I would argue that poisons are evil because they take the fairness out of a fight. I think you meant to say that poisons are chaotic Or at least that is what I got from the rest of your writing (to which I agree, tactics more or less determine law/chaos field and the means to which they are employed is good/evil domain).
|
|
|
Post by moulinous on Sept 8, 2007 15:33:07 GMT -5
Would it not depend on the poison? One that causes blindness but will wear off or cause someone to weaken but will wear off is not like one that just causes death which i would see only an evil PC using.
|
|
|
Post by Quadhund/Greenhouse on Sept 8, 2007 15:37:19 GMT -5
Would it not depend on the poison? One that causes blindness but will wear off or cause someone to weaken but will wear off is not like one that just causes death which i would see only an evil PC using. Certainly the instance for use could determine if the intent is good or evil. However, a death poison used to kill a goblin is the same as using a blindness poison to make a goblin easier to kill, imo.
|
|
|
Post by moulinous on Sept 8, 2007 16:00:05 GMT -5
Would it not depend on the poison? One that causes blindness but will wear off or cause someone to weaken but will wear off is not like one that just causes death which i would see only an evil PC using. Certainly the instance for use could determine if the intent is good or evil. However, a death poison used to kill a goblin is the same as using a blindness poison to make a goblin easier to kill, imo. Not if you are going to just blind the beast and not kill it but then again that would be more of aPnP move and not NWN so yes, you are right.
|
|
|
Post by EDM Entori on Sept 8, 2007 16:11:50 GMT -5
laurk has some good points, I think posion is a chaotic/lawful debate just as much as it is good/evil..
anyways its a good debate, but its all up to our characters, if we want to veiw opinions their our characters opinions. and should mean some good rp conflicts, etc..
see yall in game
|
|
starofthewest
New Member
Player of Vestele Laelithar... yes, that woman is all my girlfriend's fault
Posts: 84
|
Post by starofthewest on Sept 8, 2007 16:33:55 GMT -5
Allright, now I know most see my username in topics regarding alignment and sigh, but regardless (and somewhat unsurprisingly), I have a bit to say on this topic.
DM Greenhouse and Kalbaern mentioned having higher expectations of the "good" guys, with considerations to mercy and the neccesity of violence. The server has characters I could point to as examples of this that I feel may be ignored in this comment. For exalted characters like Abby Winters, who has the vow of non-violence, among others, and Vestele, who is committed to mercy, compassion, and forgiveness of those she fights, there is a significant challenge posed by the fact that without full time DM supervision, these things are difficult.
With rules regarding the killing of spawns and prohibitions against leaving spawns or dealing with them in a way that leaves them alive (and thus adding lag to the server), as well as the AI scripting that means enemies will attack until either they or the PC's are slain... without the use of fear magic, there is no non-violent way to deal with spawns while travelling. Obviously rangers and druids have some recourse when it comes to animals, with animal empathy, but even a character with many many skill points invested in persuade is helpless to stop the orcs from attacking him or her, if a DM is not present to oversee the situation.
Now, for me, the way I deal with the situation is to have Vestele adopt a mercy in one hand, sword in the other... her voiceset reflects this and I rp her as offering her enemies "surrender", and when that fails extolling her companions that "we have no choice". But, if during the course of an unavoidable battle, her enemies were to thrown down their weapons, of course Vestele would give quarter - she could do no other and retain her alignment.
With regards to the use of poison: a paladin cannot use or allow to be used any poison whatsoever in the course of battle or travel, or they will lose their paladinhood. They must "act with honor", and not using poison of any kind is specified in the players handbook as an example of a deviation from the paladin code. The book of exalted Deeds states:
"Using a poison that deals an ability damage is an evil act because of the undue suffering it causes in the process of incapacitating or killing an enemy."
Poisons which cause blindness, paralysis, or sleep are not inherently evil, though they are often utilized by evil creatures and characters (such as the Drow sleeping poisons). The book also offers an alternative to poisons, called ravages, that are not evil and have a variety of mostly benign affects against evil creatures. Obviously, as DM Greenhouse has alluded to, blinding, paralysing or sleeping a creature and then slaying it as it lies helpless or stumbles about blindly is a different kettle of fish altogether, and individual circumstances should be judged with regards to intent and outcome.
When it comes to good and evil magic, as discussed in the previous topic and confirmed by DM Munroe, unless the spell has an evil descriptor in the core rulebook or sourcebook it comes from, it is not an evil spell. Individual characters or groups may find some spells distasteful or against their principles... Elminster, a Chosen of Mystra, has a special distaste for mind dominating enchantments, for instance, as well as only using a disintegrate spell in the most dire of circumstances, because he finds the spell "unfair". But, this doesn't mean that there are any IG consequences for the players or characters who use such spells beyond social ones... and as Kalbaern is suggesting there are some spells that might have greater social stigma than others within certain groups. All in all, if good or neutral aligned characters check with the party they are travelling with if they feel there might be objections to a spell, that would probably be the best course of action with regards to alignment and social dynamic.
|
|
spacecowboy16739
New Member
(CG) College Student 6 / Bard 8 / Rogue 2 / Mastermind 1
Posts: 80
|
Post by spacecowboy16739 on Sept 8, 2007 17:54:00 GMT -5
Heheh this discussion teeters on a being VERY philosophical. I expect more from our "good" guys too. As in, is killing even right? What ever happened to mercy? But I digress. Risking a hijack, I'm going to point out here (as someone who's played an Exalted character) that NWN simply does not allow for the playing of an Exalted-type character. You can't do subdual (unless the DMs script it in), and you can't do All-Out Defense. Also, there's absolutely no way to use the AWESOME Sacred Vow rules, that actually create a method for playing an amazing good-aligned non-combatant in a combat situation (sounds weird, I know, but it's awesome when you walk in a room and people stop fighting). Back on topic: Poisons are not by themselves evil. They are equipment. No mundane item can be, by itself, evil. Torturing someone is an evil act, but torturing someone so they reveal the plans to kill thousands is a justified and (eventually) good act. So the torturer's implements (as long as they are mundane and not magically enchanted) are not by themselves evil. The way they are used is evil. Spells, also, are really neither good nor evil UNLESS they have the appropriate descriptor. Positive Energy is not defined as Good, and Negative Energy is not defined as Evil. EVER. They are energy from the two appropriate elemental planes (check the D&D cosmology), which are separate from the Upper and Lower planes. And even Evil spells can be used for Good purposes. The absolute best example I've ever seen in mainstream media of a LG character is actually Jack Bauer, from the series 24. You won't believe me at first, but you will later on. You'll see.
|
|
|
Post by ancientempathy on Sept 8, 2007 18:27:58 GMT -5
With said comment up above, would it be acceptable to role play an exalted character, or a character that is following such a course?
It would be silly to expect the bonuses offered. That is my opinion. This should be done for the RP flavor it can add.
With that, my paladin has taken a vow of abstinance. I'm looking into making him take other vows, should he find someone suitable of teaching him such in the future, and how to go about it accordingly. The holier the paladin the better, I find.
And if I see any paladin use poison, I'll be knocking at their door with a gigantic clump. Me smash.
|
|
|
Post by EDM Neo on Sept 8, 2007 18:30:00 GMT -5
There already are exalted characters, I think... just that they don't get the bonuses. Abby's the prime example of this. She has so too many vows for me to count.
And, not much else to say on the topic that hasn't already been said.
|
|
|
Post by ancientempathy on Sept 8, 2007 18:35:12 GMT -5
Think someone could pin a topic somewhere about "Paladinic Expectations?" I've managed to acquire the Players Handbook, which I will be looking into more thoroughly when I can, and if and when I can I'll try to get ahold of the Book of Exalted Deeds once again. I used to have it in the past but I got rid of it for whatever reason.
But a pined forum topic that gives at least some basic expectations would be of big help to people wanting to role play paladins, while the player throughout their gameplay can role play to acquire more lore like I have been doing. And by the way I'd like to add, this community with their established DMs have been doing a more-than-good-job at teaching me. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Masterbard Alyster Darkharp on Sept 8, 2007 18:41:30 GMT -5
There already are exalted characters, I think... just that they don't get the bonuses. Abby's the prime example of this. She has so too many vows for me to count. And, not much else to say on the topic that hasn't already been said. *ahem* I am an exalted bard!
|
|
starofthewest
New Member
Player of Vestele Laelithar... yes, that woman is all my girlfriend's fault
Posts: 84
|
Post by starofthewest on Sept 8, 2007 18:47:26 GMT -5
OK, Spacecowboy, which DnD 3rd edition rulebook are you quoting to refute the Book of Exalted Deeds with regards to poison? I didn't see any actual refutation of that sourcebook's comments. As for playing an exalted character, the book of Exalted Deeds specifies that violence is not nherently evil, so long as the three components of it (intent, method, and end result) are not evil. Look, I'm not going to be nitpicky, but citing a TV series based on RL as an example of DnD alignment is one of the most unhelpful things you can do. The DnD universe and rules system, morally speaking, is much more black and white than that of the real world. So if you can find something in a rulebook dealing with poisons that contradicts what I quoted from the Book of Exalted Deeds, I'll agree with you, but I personally play an exalted character, I rp the restrictions of 3 of the vows without any of the benefits, and find it very rewarding.
Your comments on torture are just incorrect in the DnD rules. Torture is always evil. The ends do not justify the means when it comes to DnD alignment. Characters who choose to commit themselves to the ideals of good that a "G" in your alignment block represents do not have the luxury of an ends justifies the means mindset. This is not an argument, this is stating a fact. Good characters cannot torture, and remain good. Good characters cannot be consistently merciless, and remain good. Good characters cannot be consistently greedy, or selfish, or refuse aid, and remain good. There are specific expectations of good characters that, even if they do not meet them all the time, they should strive for. An evil action or spell with the evil descriptor can never be used for good in terms of the DnD alignment morality system. Period.
|
|
|
Post by Mythinite on Sept 8, 2007 19:08:53 GMT -5
which DnD 3rd edition rulebook are you quoting to refute the Book of Exalted Deeds with regards to poison? I think it was more a slightly nitpickish philosophical statement rather than to quote any rules. Obviously poisons in themselves aren't evil, they're just a dead substance and hopefully don't show up on the Detect Evil radar. Creating and using them is the evil part. Well, that's what I think anyway. Which reminds me... If the use of poison is an act of evil then shouldn't any good character who finds a vial of poison on their adventures dispose of it properly rather than sell it to the highest bidding merchant? I mean, how gullible do they have to be to believe that it's all being spent on killing those pesky rats...
|
|
|
Post by HeatherRae on Sept 8, 2007 19:21:30 GMT -5
Which reminds me... If the use of poison is an act of evil then shouldn't any good character who finds a vile of poison on their adventures dispose of it properly rather than sell it to the highest bidding merchant? I mean, how gullible do they have to be to believe that it's all being spent on killing those pesky rats... I think it depends. There are numerous examples in the real world of poisonous substances being used for perfectly safe, mundane things. Including in medicine - some poisonous substances, when combined with other things, have beneficial effects. Also, some poisonous substances are used by themselves to fight diseases we cannot otherwise cure (cancer comes to mind) . I could very much see there being situations like this in Forgotten Realms, especially given the widespread pursuit of alchemy (which often uses poisons of sorts).
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on Sept 9, 2007 0:22:29 GMT -5
Do the "poisons" characters find actually say poison on them? I don't think my character has ever found any poison, just giant bee venom and mild spider venom and centipede venom. :-)
|
|
|
Post by SlothfulCat on Sept 9, 2007 0:55:17 GMT -5
Poisen: Remember, its not just putting it on your blade to make a fight easier... its slipped into drinks and food to kill. As far as Protection from Alignment... if your wizard casts PFG one minute and PFE the next.. I rather think that would cancel out any alignment shift. As far as mages and fireballs... 1.) Most mage spells cant scratch monsters that are a threat to the fighters damage wise, 2.) many times its simply a matter of playing buff machine isntead of rocket launcher 3.) Only so many spells to go around... In /Aria/'s specific case, she's devoted herself to quality over quantity spells... so I can blow 5 spells off to kill 1 creature or disable it with 1 spell that it needs a 20 to escape and beat it into the ground with her axe... As for the alignmetn discussion... Good doesnt mean saintly... it means youre a good person. Sometimes good people do not-so-good things. This is why its important to consider the whole picture with PCs... yeah, using poisen is evil... but if the PC is feeding the hungry, healing the wounded, protecting the innocent, and so on.. then poisening that rotten baron isnt going to make the PC go from NG to CE in one action... and also why its important for what PCs do, do that is good to be recognized.. both by alignment shifts twoards their own alignment.. good to good for doing good evil to evil for doing evil.... and by RP. ((I mean whats the fun in logging in or even living (from the PC standpoint) if youre in a constant state of being harassed for a flaw?)) Aria is what I view as a PC with the best of intentions, who isnt a saint. Zoriya on the other hand, is a saint or close to it. I mean, how many PCs will with-hold a killing blow on an enemy because they're helpless? (Note that is helpless... as in absolutely unable to even attempt to defend themselves... not unable to do so from lack of ability). But yes.. intention is normally the real mark for good or evil while method is the mark of chatoic or lawful... probably the best statement I've seen all the way through here.
|
|
spacecowboy16739
New Member
(CG) College Student 6 / Bard 8 / Rogue 2 / Mastermind 1
Posts: 80
|
Post by spacecowboy16739 on Sept 9, 2007 8:55:34 GMT -5
Okay. This could pretty easily turn into a flamewar here, so I'm going to try and avert that. Let me clarify my position.
I am a huge fan of the Heroes of Horror style campaign, in which ordinary people are forced to do extraordinary things, and things are rarely as they seem. (Yeah, I love WoD games, too).
My support is drawn from quite a bit of 3.5 material, such as Complete Scoundrel's Gray Guard prestige class; the entire Tome of Magic, espeically Shadow Magic; Complete Adventurer's Vigilante PrC; the Warlock base class from Complete Arcane; and of course the amazing Shadowdancer PrC from the Dungeon Master's Guide. Every single one of these exemplifies a blurring of the line between good and evil.
I believe in giving skilled players hard choices. Best example I can think of right now is for a paladin who is in possession of an enemy combatant who surrendered honorably. This prisoner may know the plans of a very well-known evil person -- let's say he's this Alhoon who leads the Silent Dominion, just for the sake of argument. Of course, being mortal, the prisoner denies any knowledge. The paladin is given the choice between handing him over to an expert torturer to gain the information, or to keep the prisoner safe and potentially be responsible for the deaths of hundreds or even thousands of innocent people.
Oh, and yeah, I used a TV series based on real life instead of a Forgotten Realms book that is only distantly based on real life. So sue me. I don't perceive things the same way as anyone else, and sometimes a lot of what I say doesn't make sense because of that. I sense patterns, rhythyms, and resonances. So when I brought up 24 and Jack Bauer, it's because in season 6 (which is an idiot plot through and through), the character himself goes through developments which mark him as a Lawful Good character who is forced to make hard choices.
And I might point out that if you're roleplaying the restrictions of Sacred Vows without the benefits, you're most likely playing it without the drawbacks, either -- NWN simply doesn't permit the powerful RP encounters that PNP does. If you come across a 16th level evil archmage, and convince him to change his ways: in NWN, you gain XP if a DM is looking; in PNP, you gain the exact same XP as you would have gained for killing him, probably with an additional bonus for creativity. The reason for the Sacred Vow benefits is to encourage players to choose an alternative path. The only exception is the Vows of Poverty and Peace (like Abby pointed out), and the reason for the benefits there is to make up for A) the lack of powerful magical equipment that other characters can use, as with Vow of Poverty, you may have nothing on your person worth more than 50gp; and B) the ability to kill things.
And yes, the BoED includes Ravages and Afflictions instead of Poisons and Diseases. However, they are crafted, purchased, and used in the same ways as poisons and diseases, and they mechanically function in an identical manner. The difference is semantic: they turn the inherent corruption of an evil creature against them, and therefore do not function on non-evil creatures. They still cause undue suffering. Granted, it's in retaliation for suffering caused in the past (Penance Stare, anyone?), but it's still suffering. And therefore, I would argue that their wanton use is still flatly evil.
[EDIT]And I firmly agree with SlothfulCat's last statement above about intention and method vs. law/chaos and good/evil.
And on a final note: the nature of a campaign is always determined by the DMs. If the DMs decide that the morality is always completely clear-cut, then I will do my best to play that way. If the DMs decide that there's always shades of gray, then I will do my best to play that way, too. Either way, I willingly submit to the decisions of the people who brought this amazing world into existence.[/EDIT]
|
|
|
Post by TermaForever on Sept 9, 2007 10:15:42 GMT -5
As far as mages and fireballs... 1.) Most mage spells cant scratch monsters that are a threat to the fighters damage wise, 2.) many times its simply a matter of playing buff machine isntead of rocket launcher 3.) Only so many spells to go around... In /Aria/'s specific case, she's devoted herself to quality over quantity spells... so I can blow 5 spells off to kill 1 creature or disable it with 1 spell that it needs a 20 to escape and beat it into the ground with her axe... That always the one thing i didn't like about playing NWN is that after a certain point most wizards spells just become useless. Fireball after level 15? Don't even bother the thing is just going to shake it off. While FRC is a good server and certainly better than my old one, it still suffers from that. It gets to the point where if a creature is immune to death magic and various disabling spells (undead) and its over about a CR 14 then the wizard is pretty much screwed. (Use to there was always IGM to fall back onto but alas that isn't as effective anymore either) Then you hit epic levels and even that doesn't work anymore. Still at least here they didn't remove the instant death effect to instant death spells and drum up the Monsters' saving throws to something ridiculous... ...end of rant I guess...
|
|