Violence in the name of Good

[Masterbard Alyster Darkharp]

I recently read this in the Book of Exalted Deeds, and afterwords decided that I should eventually post it here for everyone to read. This subject has been the topic of more than one debate in the past, and this isn't an invitation for another to start; just an absoloute as printed in the official source matierial to go by.

From The Book of Exalted Deeds, page 9-10

[johntherevolator]

Eeek! *Flees and hides*

You don't actually tell people that!!!

Hehe. Makes some good points and sence in that. *nod nod*

[TermaForever]

Only problem is that precludes good characters from smiting things that haven't already attacked a village (most things on FRC that I see...)

[Grozer]

arakdemonblade said:

Only problem is that precludes good characters from smiting things that haven't already attacked a village (most things on FRC that I see...)

Actually it doesnt preclude anyone from doing anything, all its suggesting is that violent acts done for the wrong reasons are an 'evil' act, whether the initiator is good or evil alignment. A good character can seek revenge, but according to the Book of Exalted Deeds that is an evil act... in game this would mean an alignment shift nothing more. I will reiterate what I have said before alignment is a reflection of a characters past deeds it may NOT necessarily dictate how that character will react going forward. People, and likewise characters react based on motivations, goals, beliefs and values not because they are chaotic evil.

[Masterbard Alyster Darkharp]

arakdemonblade said:

Only problem is that precludes good characters from smiting things that haven't already attacked a village (most things on FRC that I see...)

Well, not every good character gets smite. No one is expecting every good character to be a paladin, who are rightly held to a higher standard. Neither is this a statement that says you will shift 50 alignment points for not walking the line.

[ancientempathy]

A very good post and a good reminder. And Grozer's words ring true.

Also, in DnD, certain actions are absolute. Things are -very- Black and White in . It's just how it is.

[EDM Entori]

killing of said evil orcs to stop them from attacking said good town = GOOD ACT ..WOOT!


can I apply that to PC's? *joking grin*

//just kiddin but I like it!

[TermaForever]

No not every good character gets smite but its such a great verb!

And looking at it again I suppose it doesn't preclude much of anything...eh I'll figure it all out later. Too early...just got up...need breakfast..

[SlothfulCat]

grozer said:

arakdemonblade said:

Only problem is that precludes good characters from smiting things that haven't already attacked a village (most things on FRC that I see...)

Actually it doesnt preclude anyone from doing anything, all its suggesting is that violent acts done for the wrong reasons are an 'evil' act, whether the initiator is good or evil alignment. A good character can seek revenge, but according to the Book of Exalted Deeds that is an evil act... in game this would mean an alignment shift nothing more. I will reiterate what I have said before alignment is a reflection of a characters past deeds it may NOT necessarily dictate how that character will react going forward. People, and likewise characters react based on motivations, goals, beliefs and values not because they are chaotic evil.

Actually, it just says its not good. Therefore, it could be neutral which if the god of vengence: Hoar, is LN and not LE.... then I'd highly question the assertion that revenge is evil.

However thank you for posting this Darkharp, I wish I had it a year ago when I had a paladin handed a fallen token on another server for smiting a rapist/serialkiller/assasin PC....

[Grozer]

avieupator said:

grozer said:

Actually it doesnt preclude anyone from doing anything, all its suggesting is that violent acts done for the wrong reasons are an 'evil' act, whether the initiator is good or evil alignment. A good character can seek revenge, but according to the Book of Exalted Deeds that is an evil act... in game this would mean an alignment shift nothing more. I will reiterate what I have said before alignment is a reflection of a characters past deeds it may NOT necessarily dictate how that character will react going forward. People, and likewise characters react based on motivations, goals, beliefs and values not because they are chaotic evil.

Actually, it just says its not good. Therefore, it could be neutral which if the god of vengence: Hoar, is LN and not LE.... then I'd highly question the assertion that revenge is evil.

I dont wish to debate over words however the exact text reads, "revenge is not an acceptable cause for violence", by definition what isnt acceptable is unacceptable and therefore a non-neutral act. So we'll agree to disagree.

Vengence itself isnt evil its the violence in association with taking vengence.... there are many 'legal' and acceptable means of taking vengence that are not considered evil, which is why Hoar who controls the entire domain... and complete range of vengence from violent to non-violent is LN.

[DM Justicar - Creator of FRC]

ancientempathy said:

A very good post and a good reminder. And Grozer's words ring true.

Also, in DnD, certain actions are absolute. Things are -very- Black and White in . It's just how it is.

Kind of a rare occurrence but I am going to totally disagree. Things are not "black and white" in D&D or this campaign. It is a common perception that things *are* black and white but then why would neutral exist?

In my opinion, and in our campaign things are not black and white and various shades of gray certainly exist. I am hopefully not misinterpreting your statement but I did want to point out that our perception is not that things are not as absolute as one might think.

Regarding alignment shifts the DM team here at FRC is experimenting with a concept that will allow more for player/PC personality rather than hard and fast alignment rules. We are hoping that alignment can be viewed as a guideline to behavior and not as absolute.

The only real reason I felt the need to chime in here was because of the notion that we are entertaining as a DM team that alignment is not an absolute guide to character actions.

Cheers!

[ancientempathy]

I didnt forget about the gray areas =) In fact I think even the Book of Vile Darkness specifically states that no matter what, you'll likely come across gray areas. That's not a quote

I stated the comment poorly, but I was still mindful of the gray areas. Certain things just seem absolute at times, but I suppose that even that can depend upon perception

So no Justi, I dont think you misinterpreted the statement I could have just phrased it a bit better!

[ancientempathy]

And I agree with a statement that's been brought up several times before..

Alignment is not meant to be absolute, just a guideline to things. And that, a characters actions give room to change.

If alignment were to be absolute and a player had to follow that notion and nothing else, then I don't think my Tormtar should have gotten in a relationship with a certain someone lol

[brian333]

grozer said:

... there are many 'legal' and acceptable means of taking vengence that are not considered evil...

Which of these legal and aceptable means are available to PC's?

The trouble is, the only recourse any character in NWN has is violence. If the only option is deemed unacceptable for 1/3 of the characters and undesireable for another 1/3, you are left with 1/3 of the PC's having free reign to do as they like while 2/3 of them are prohibited from doing anything to oppose them.

In ordinary societies the rulers have established laws that take vengeance from the friends and family of the victim and place it in the hands of police and judges in an effort to stop the endless cycle of revenge and counter-revenge. Evil people must either hide their evil, or hide themselves as they are persued by law enforcers. (Even in corrupt soceties only the most powerful are exempt, and then only so long as they can avoid drinking the poisoned coffee or evading the assasin's bullet, which brings us back to the original point, where good folk have to do heinous things when faced with unacceptable evil.)

We in NWN have no such recourse. So, like in the real world, where justice fails people of good intent must do shameful things to survive and protect their own.

[canuckkane]

If I am reading this correctly, (please feel completely free to tell me I'm wrong if I in fact am wrong), then a group of adventurers heading out the east gate of isinhold and delving into the orc caves are in fact not[/i] 'doing good'. Now I am not saying they are committing evil, but... those orcs are not attacking the town, the ones along the road, fine, they attack travelers along the road, but actually entering the cave to slaughter every orc is in fact not[/i] the act one would expect from a paladin for example.

Side note: This is in no way meant to discourage anyone, paladin or otherwise from mercilessly slaughtering orcs, just meant as an example of something a paladin might actually have doubts about doing

[Panros]

One can look at your example in that light Cannuck, however, one can RP their reason in attacking the group of orcs because they have been raiding the road for the past few months. That could justify going in there and taking them out as a good act so they never bother the good people again.

It's the beauty of RP, everything can be reasonably interpreted differently to fit the situation at hand.

In regards to violence in the name of good you need to be instigated into an attack before one can turn to violence. Instigated depends on the situation at hand.

A verbal disagreement in the middle of Isinhold is not a good enough reason to turn to violence for any good character, for example.

[ancientempathy]

Uh well,

Too much thinking is being done into this I think

Depending on the RP between a group of people are two friends, someone could have just said, "Hey, orcs are mobilizing in some caves I scouted, and there were some orcs out of it, attacking travelers already."

That can prompt a paladin to step up and act. He can go to where the orcs are, ask them whats going on, and proceed accordingly afterwards. Paladins don't usually attack out-right unless engaged immediatly. It's difficult to always RP that though, and that's just my view on it

So what friends/players may spur between themselves in terms of dialogue (which is very important in a Role Play setting), plays an important part in whether how they engage the orcs is in a good way, a bad way, or a neutral way

[ancientempathy]

It took me 2 minutes to type out my post. Panros' statement is similar to my own I think, in his beginning paragraph =)

[EDM Entori]

to my opinion killing orcs to prevent them from attacking isinhold (for example) would be a good thing. but leaving women and children alone. (those Invis npcs) and really if a paladin goes to look he is attacked first.

Game on!

[Panros]

ancientempathy said:

It took me 2 minutes to type out my post. Panros' statement is similar to my own I think, in his beginning paragraph =)

I waited until you were almost done with your post before I clicked the Post Reply button. Once again my evil genius is superior!

We were definitely on the same level there and it's cool that you went into it a little more.