|
Post by Munroe on Feb 12, 2008 13:05:55 GMT -5
I never said what the paladin would shift.I was talking of the caster. If anyone travels with a known raiser of undead, well they obviously condone it. I suppose, what it read like, was that saving non goodies is not a good act.. which of course; is wrong I just think the act of summoning undead (which shifts the whole parties alignment) would out weigh the fact that he just saved everyone in doing so. Because its an unspeakable horror (or so I would imagine it would be the Darkest of all things, like torture) and no matter for what purpose the shift should be overall evil. thats from the dead center as I see it, and being the impartial outsider. (which i consider being neutral or 50/50) That no good act would outweigh raising dead. while understanding where you said he gains some good points, and then he looses them thus the caster not shift at all; I think the raising of undead overpowers the good act. not sure exactly, but book of exalted deeds (or its reverse, can't remember now,) may have some information of whether or not how to weigh evil/goodly acts. I'm sure darkharp has a reference LOL... and to refer to your last paragraph. he still summoned an undead, thats been said over and over. Which leads to what I was trying to say earlier. A mage obviously has other options of what to summon. So he picked undead over nice cushy elemental or direbear? hence why its an evil act, because in his casting where he picked disturbing the dead, over calling an "goodly" summon. Thus his evil shift. Oh I agree that his choice of casting an evil spell grants him an evil shift. I also believe his choice of keeping someone or several someones from dieing grants a good shift. I was wondering how much of a shift each act gets and if that balances out to neutral or not. So if the neutral mage only has a create undead spell left he is better off letting the party live or die under their own power in order to maintain his neutral status? I guess that makes sense in a way. I would have thought just letting someone die when you can possibly prevent it would be an evil act. But things die in nature every day and eventually it is everyones turn to die. Thoughts? The major thing you're kind of overlooking in regard to this caster with the spell remaining to create undead is that he chose, in advance, to prepare the spell to create undead (or selected it as a sorcerer when selecting spells). He could have prepared a non-evil spell instead. Of course most Evil spells aren't Corrupt spells (which have repercussions for just preparing them). However, I don't think D&D considers summoning undead to be the worst thing ever. The Dread Necromancer base class in Heroes of Horror just has a requirement of Non-Good, not Evil-only. It says most are evil but some balance their use of Evil magic with good intentions and can maintain neutrality.
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Feb 12, 2008 13:35:52 GMT -5
Oh I agree that his choice of casting an evil spell grants him an evil shift. I also believe his choice of keeping someone or several someones from dieing grants a good shift. I was wondering how much of a shift each act gets and if that balances out to neutral or not. So if the neutral mage only has a create undead spell left he is better off letting the party live or die under their own power in order to maintain his neutral status? I guess that makes sense in a way. I would have thought just letting someone die when you can possibly prevent it would be an evil act. But things die in nature every day and eventually it is everyones turn to die. Thoughts? The major thing you're kind of overlooking in regard to this caster with the spell remaining to create undead is that he chose, in advance, to prepare the spell to create undead (or selected it as a sorcerer when selecting spells). He could have prepared a non-evil spell instead. Of course most Evil spells aren't Corrupt spells (which have repercussions for just preparing them). However, I don't think D&D considers summoning undead to be the worst thing ever. The Dread Necromancer base class in Heroes of Horror just has a requirement of Non-Good, not Evil-only. It says most are evil but some balance their use of Evil magic with good intentions and can maintain neutrality. Are you are saying he gets evil points for not having anything to cast just because he memorized an evil spell that morning? If that is what you are saying then yes I overlooked that. Personally I wouldn't give an alignment shift for memorizing the spell and a second shift for casting the spell.
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on Feb 12, 2008 14:55:07 GMT -5
I'm not saying he gets two shifts, I'm saying he chose to prepare that spell (or chose to learn it if a spontaneous caster) so it being his only remaining spell doesn't mean it shouldn't count as being an evil act to cast it. I'm saying that, just because it is his last spell, doesn't mean it's any less evil if it gets the job done. After all, he chose to walk out the door that morning with it instead of, say, a Summon Monster spell.
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Feb 12, 2008 15:18:51 GMT -5
I'm saying he chose to prepare that spell (or chose to learn it if a spontaneous caster) so it being his only remaining spell doesn't mean it shouldn't count as being an evil act to cast it. I'm saying that, just because it is his last spell, doesn't mean it's any less evil if it gets the job done. After all, he chose to walk out the door that morning with it instead of, say, a Summon Monster spell. Yeah I know that. That is why I gave him an evil shift in the example below for casting the spell. According to my understanding of what Entori is saying in his post the evil done by creating the undead (we all agree that action is evil) "out weigh the fact that he just saved everyone in doing so" and "no matter for what purpose the shift should be overall evil". I neither am agreeing nor disagreeing with this. I am just playing devils advocate to see if after a few questions he still firmly believes it. If I understand what Entori is saying correctly then the person will be less evil for letting the group die than he would be for attempting to save them by this method. Or if inaction has no alignment shift then he wouldn't get any shift at all for their deaths. I could be totally misunderstanding what Entori is saying though.
|
|
|
Post by EDM Entori on Feb 12, 2008 15:46:21 GMT -5
*nods to rich*
|
|
|
Post by EDM Entori on Feb 12, 2008 15:50:33 GMT -5
I'm not saying he gets two shifts, I'm saying he chose to prepare that spell (or chose to learn it if a spontaneous caster) so it being his only remaining spell doesn't mean it shouldn't count as being an evil act to cast it. I'm saying that, just because it is his last spell, doesn't mean it's any less evil if it gets the job done. After all, he chose to walk out the door that morning with it instead of, say, a Summon Monster spell. to elaborate my opinion on this more, if he chose to prepare an evil spell he definitely deserves the shift. He could be saving the most purest paladin in the process, he still deserves the shift. (paladin example used to show purity and goodness) Just because it is the last spell left prepared; does it make the action any less evil? He still spent his time preparing to summon the dead, to walk. To my mind that eliminates any good done. and as rich mentioned he would not be granted such a shift by letting them die, simply would not gain a good shift. though this is in -this- situation of undead, to my mind it holds a special "Evilness" that sends one to a "special hell reserved for child molesters and those that talk at the theater."
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Feb 12, 2008 16:17:32 GMT -5
Just because it is the last spell left prepared; does it make the action any less evil? He still spent his time preparing to summon the dead, to walk. I think I've said the whole time that casting create undead is an evil act. Do you really mean that if a caster creates one undead they are forever evil with no chance of redemption? They only get evil shifts in alignment now?
|
|
|
Post by EDM Entori on Feb 12, 2008 16:32:33 GMT -5
well I'm not saying you said otherwise. and was directed to Monroe.
and my opinion is limited to this situation.
he may turn around and raise his friends from the dead, and use non evil aligned spells and save the day earn some good points. just saying the change will happen. however, yes he can redeem himself, but if say he continues on that path to and eventually gets, say 100 evil. I mean by that point I personally I think that redemption to be a bit rare.
|
|
|
Post by ancientempathy on Feb 12, 2008 16:38:17 GMT -5
Clerics of Jergal can be lawful good. Controlling Undead I think gives you a shift to evil. If its not condoned by the church, by their divine lord, then should there really be a shift? Furthermore Jergal can have paladins. Would a paladin of Jergal complain upon seeing an undead being controlled by one of the churches priest, given if the right conditions are met?
Those questions are mostly rhetoric and food for thought. =) Though feel free to post a response to them hehe
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Feb 12, 2008 16:52:34 GMT -5
Controlling undead isn't the same as creating undead. Creating undead is listed as an evil spell in DnD. The spell Control Undead does not have the evil descriptor.
Commanding undead is not a spell but a divinely granted ability.
So unfortunately those two acts do not compare.
Although if this thread was about the role-play associated with these abilities, I'm sure many characters wouldn't consider the actions any different than creating an undead.
|
|
|
Post by ancientempathy on Feb 12, 2008 16:58:24 GMT -5
I know well the difference of creating undead versus controling undead, but in my drugged state of relaxation; I merely neglected that thought ;D so, oops! Thanks for pointing that out
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Feb 12, 2008 16:59:22 GMT -5
Here is some more fuel on the fire.
For you types who are staying out of the whole evil vs. good bit, I'll throw some law vs. chaos into the mix.
Is an assassin who takes a contract to kill someone being lawful (for following his contract) or chaotic (assassinating someone is against the law)?
|
|
|
Post by ancientempathy on Feb 12, 2008 17:00:10 GMT -5
Here is some more fuel on the fire. For you types who are staying out of the whole evil vs. good bit, I'll throw some law vs. chaos into the mix. Is an assassin who takes a contract to kill someone being lawful (for following his contract) or chaotic (assassinating someone is against the law)? Wouldn't that just be placed on the neutral spectrum?
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Feb 12, 2008 17:01:23 GMT -5
I know well the difference of creating undead versus controling undead, but in my drugged state of relaxation; I merely neglected that thought ;D so, oops! Thanks for pointing that out Don't worry about it.
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Feb 12, 2008 17:03:33 GMT -5
Here is some more fuel on the fire. For you types who are staying out of the whole evil vs. good bit, I'll throw some law vs. chaos into the mix. Is an assassin who takes a contract to kill someone being lawful (for following his contract) or chaotic (assassinating someone is against the law)? Wouldn't that just be placed on the neutral spectrum? Maybe... or maybe not...
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 12, 2008 17:23:34 GMT -5
Is an assassin who takes a contract to kill someone being lawful (for following his contract) or chaotic (assassinating someone is against the law)? I always have more trouble (ok, a lot more trouble) with lawful/chaotic, but my vote is for lawful.
|
|
|
Post by Grozer on Feb 12, 2008 17:56:28 GMT -5
For you types who are staying out of the whole evil vs. good bit, I'll throw some law vs. chaos into the mix. Is an assassin who takes a contract to kill someone being lawful (for following his contract) or chaotic (assassinating someone is against the law)? Lawful is not lawful in the sense of obeying govermental laws, which so many equate it with, it CAN be but its not necessarily the same. Meaning someone who is lawful may be following a strict code of order, discipline or structure, honoring their word or command.... and yes the example I will use is the Zhentarim (any military organization for that matter). An assassin honoring his/her agreement/contract is being lawful.
|
|
|
Post by ancientempathy on Feb 12, 2008 17:57:52 GMT -5
I like Grozer's statement a lot. Its clear and straight =) And it just makes good sense too
|
|
|
Post by catmage on Feb 12, 2008 18:24:48 GMT -5
For you types who are staying out of the whole evil vs. good bit, I'll throw some law vs. chaos into the mix. Is an assassin who takes a contract to kill someone being lawful (for following his contract) or chaotic (assassinating someone is against the law)? Lawful is not lawful in the sense of obeying govermental laws, which so many equate it with, it CAN be but its not necessarily the same. Meaning someone who is lawful may be following a strict code of order, discipline or structure, honoring their word or command.... and yes the example I will use is the Zhentarim (any military organization for that matter). An assassin honoring his/her agreement/contract is being lawful. I'd say they are behaving lawfully as long as they stick to only killing the person specified, and those who get in the way of carrying out the contract. If he stabs the mark's guards to death in the process, for example, he's lawful, because the guards are an obstacle. If he burns down the inn the guy is sleeping in, or casts fireball in the middle of a crowded street to get the mark, he's behaving chaotically, because all of those other people had nothing to do with the contract, and the assassin almost certianly has less destructive means of carrying out the hit.
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on Feb 12, 2008 19:01:28 GMT -5
I disagree with the whole thing about summoning undead being the worst kind of evil. It's not a good thing to do, but it's certainly better than conspiring with devils to corrupt a society, or even, on a more mundane level, poisoning a well to kill a town.
So then the question is, is creating an undead more evil than killing someone? I would say it isn't. Killing someone is a worse evil than creating undead. Is killing someone a worse evil than keeping undead around? Maybe not. Keeping undead then would be worse than creating undead.
I would place the general act of assassination at Neutral Evil. Strict adherence to a detailed contract or some other strange code of ethics about the murder may move a particular assassin into the Lawful category.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowCatJen on Feb 13, 2008 12:46:06 GMT -5
Definitely back up this statement. Lawful doesn't necessarily mean "follow the local law". In some lands "local law" can contain rights to owning slaves, something someone of Lawful Good alignment should/would find abhorrent, but someone of Lawful Evil alignment would take advantage of. So then the question is, is creating an undead more evil than killing someone? I would say it isn't. Killing someone is a worse evil than creating undead. Is killing someone a worse evil than keeping undead around? Maybe not. Keeping undead then would be worse than creating undead. I'm going to have to disagree with this. In a very general sense -- especially in D&D fantasy -- killing someone is not an evil act. The motivation behind killing someone can dictate if it's evil or not. What is evil is taking that dead body and raising it up again as undead to use as a tool. It contains a bit of heartlessness and also disrespect to the person who once lived in that body. It is an act that can very much lack any sort of compassion on the part of the caster.
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on Feb 14, 2008 7:19:49 GMT -5
Definitely back up this statement. Lawful doesn't necessarily mean "follow the local law". In some lands "local law" can contain rights to owning slaves, something someone of Lawful Good alignment should/would find abhorrent, but someone of Lawful Evil alignment would take advantage of. So then the question is, is creating an undead more evil than killing someone? I would say it isn't. Killing someone is a worse evil than creating undead. Is killing someone a worse evil than keeping undead around? Maybe not. Keeping undead then would be worse than creating undead. I'm going to have to disagree with this. In a very general sense -- especially in D&D fantasy -- killing someone is not an evil act. The motivation behind killing someone can dictate if it's evil or not. What is evil is taking that dead body and raising it up again as undead to use as a tool. It contains a bit of heartlessness and also disrespect to the person who once lived in that body. It is an act that can very much lack any sort of compassion on the part of the caster. Yes, you're correct. Killing people and things is done among all alignments. I was not specific enough in my context of killing someone. Murdering someone to make them undead is more evil than making a corpse undead. In that same vein I still say that keeping undead is more evil than making undead because one is a singular act while one is ongoing. So in that same reasoning, someone who creates undead from a corpse temporarily then destroys it is less evil than both someone who murders someone to make undead and less evil than someone who creates undead and keeps the undead indefinitely. I agree that creating undead is evil. I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing that it's not the worst possible evil.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowCatJen on Feb 14, 2008 12:58:15 GMT -5
Yes, you're correct. Killing people and things is done among all alignments. I was not specific enough in my context of killing someone. Murdering someone to make them undead is more evil than making a corpse undead. In that same vein I still say that keeping undead is more evil than making undead because one is a singular act while one is ongoing. So in that same reasoning, someone who creates undead from a corpse temporarily then destroys it is less evil than both someone who murders someone to make undead and less evil than someone who creates undead and keeps the undead indefinitely. I agree that creating undead is evil. I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing that it's not the worst possible evil. Oh! Yes, okay, now I get ya. Right, creating undead is not the worst possible evil, IMO. Granted, it's pretty bad, but there are worse evil acts that can be commited on the living. *nodsnods*
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Feb 14, 2008 15:15:36 GMT -5
Grozer I'm stealing your comment from the other thread to make a comment here and shamelessly keep my thread growing. Side note... interesting to note the mob/mafia -organization- would be considered a lawful alignment. Does it make sense for their to be any conflict between to groups if they are of the same alignment? If the mob and the "legal government" are both lawful why should they be in conflict? How many people on FRC determine their enemies by alignment? How many of you have hunted down someone you believe has a similar alignment to you and why?
|
|
|
Post by catmage on Feb 14, 2008 15:42:17 GMT -5
Grozer I'm stealing your comment from the other thread to make a comment here and shamelessly keep my thread growing. Side note... interesting to note the mob/mafia -organization- would be considered a lawful alignment. Does it make sense for their to be any conflict between to groups if they are of the same alignment? If the mob and the "legal government" are both lawful why should they be in conflict? How many people on FRC determine their enemies by alignment? How many of you have hunted down someone you believe has a similar alignment to you and why? It makes perfect sense for groups of the same alignment to be in conflict. One of Tiamat's specific foes in the FR cosmology is Bane, and Gargauth actively undermines all the evil faiths to build his follower base. All three are LE, and all three would gladly wipe the other two off the face Toril. Just because you think alike doesn't mean you'll work towards the same goal. You just take similiar roads in getting to your own plan. I've never specifically targeted a PC foe because of alignment, beyond Ailren saying every chance he gets that chaotic beings are scum, which might make characters that follow a chaotic outlook. But then, that generally only causes problems if they acknowledge chaos as Ailren does, as the source of Demons, Slaadi, and Eladrin. And finally, Ailren has hunted down people I know for sure have matched his alignment at the time, and he's gone out of his way to help people who were of opposing alignments. The reason? He's a mean spirited dragon boy who'll kill most anyone if he's promised gold. What alignment they have doesn't matter to him, unless he assumes that the mark is of a specific alignment, in which case he'll use weapons or spells that protect him or deal more damage to that alignment, like any other person with sense and access to such things.
|
|
|
Post by Helgrin Granitesoul on Feb 14, 2008 15:44:53 GMT -5
I base who I go after based on height!
|
|
|
Post by brian333 on Feb 14, 2008 20:58:10 GMT -5
Does it make sense for their to be any conflict between to groups if they are of the same alignment? If the mob and the "legal government" are both lawful why should they be in conflict? How many people on FRC determine their enemies by alignment? How many of you have hunted down someone you believe has a similar alignment to you and why? If both are lawful organizations with different laws, then there will be a natural conflict resulting. For the mobster, a stool pigeon should be slain in a graphic manner. For the U.S. Government, a stool pigeon is given a new identity, money, a good job, and police protection. Same guy, same act, applied to two different sets of laws. I do not consider alignment, I consider actions. When kasur went after Padrin, the only thing I as a player knew was that Padrin was an epic character and would probably kill Kasur the first time he broke wind, but from Kasur's PoV, he had a bound prisoner and was dragging him in the direction of Redmist. (Thanks Padrin for not breaking wind that day!) I still don't know Padrin's alignment, and don't much care. To me, that's his player's problem. Perhaps that indirectly answers the third question?
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on Feb 23, 2008 7:48:19 GMT -5
Fiendish Codex 2: Tyrants of the Nine Hells has a list of actions that are termed "corrupt" and a list of "obeisance", and assign a point value to both that are applied to a character. In this rule set up, any lawful character with nine or more corruption points, or any evil character with a similiar number of obeisance, goes to Baator. It also gives game terms for removing those points. Ignoring the afterlife and redemption part could be used as a guideline for dishing out evil or law points. The corrupt acts and thier value on the point scale is Using an evil spell : 1 Humiliating an underling: 1 Engaging in intimidating torture(Basically, threating to torture): 1 Stealing from the needy: 2 Desecrating a good church/temple: 2 Betraying a friend/ally for personal gain: 2 Causing gratuitous injury: 3 Perverting justice for personal gain: 3 Cruel or painful torture(1d6+1 or 1d4 points of damage): 4 Excruciating torture(1d8 +2): 5 Murder: 5 Sadistic torture (2d10 +3): 6 Cold blooded murder: 6 Murder for pleasure: 7 Indescribable torture(2d20 +5): 7 Obeisiant points are earned as follows Swearing fealty to a leader you know: 1 Swearing fealty to a leader you've never met: 2 Disciplining an underling: 2 Resolving a dispute through lawful means: 2 Quietly accepting a legal judgement against you: 2 Performing a lawful act of corporal punishment: 3 Following a rule you consider stupid: 3 Aiding a superior to your own detriment: 3 Swearing fealty to a devil(Likely could be replaced in non evil ways by any Lawful outsider): 4 Obeying a leader you don't respect: 4 Performing a lawful execution: 5 Granted, it wouldn't be a perfect system, and would require coming up with parallels in good and chaos, but it's food for thought. An evil spell is only worth 1 point here. Going by this rating system I guess we would have part of the answer for the undead and saving lives question. Now how many points toward good is saving lives? And why couldn't they have this type of system worked out in the DM's guide? Saving someone live is not necessary a good act. It depends on who save that person and on who is saved. You can be evil and save your companions because if you don't you will die too. The things that matter at this point is why you are saving them. I doubt the NWN game is able to determine the characters true intentions.
|
|