Death and Retirement
- Status
Zweischneid
First Post
Thats quite a bit specific, don't you think?
A Beholder likely wouldn't be spared, even if it's only sitting in his own dungeon, one the PC's likely invaded.
Similarly, an NPC Dwarf who joins a group and registers evil on a Paladins Sense Evil (or who commits obviously evil acts while taggin along the party) would clearly be the target of much suspicion (what are his real motives? who are his superiors? Is he spying on us? Is he misleading us? etc..)
An evil PC on the other hand is not subject to this, even though the PCs really shouldn't be able to tell the difference between an NPC and a PC
(i.e. a mechanical distinction, not one of the in-game-world)
Well, in other words, a PC attacking another one would be the most extreme case.. there are, obviously hundreds of different degrees of warped, metagame-influenced behaviour that could (and do) appear before this ultimate act of PvP.
nimisgod
LEW Judge
Zweischneid said:
Hence the qualifiers: Often and Usually. From what I've seen in LEW, Evil PCs participate in adventures like Good and Neutral ones do. Their methods and motives might be different, but they also work toward a determined goal.
Yeah. When something is shooting death rays from its many eyes just because my party's passing through, then my characters aren't always obliged to "spare" it.
I think that it is possible to be suspicious of someone without being blatantly so. Anyone who has been ripped off by PvP behavior before would be suspicious of other PCs, maybe even moreso than NPCs.
But some people would rather just not worry about what is believable or not. They would rather just play a game of D&D rather than look over their shoulders every few seconds.
Zweischneid
First Post
Well, I feel that evil PCs where allowed to LEWord without the needed thought or considerations as to what that implys (i.e. the Resurrection Issue for one seems to prove the point), and that there should be more clear guidelines somewhere (like the rule Knight Otu mentioned and which sort of answered my question anyways) on this board on how interaction between evil & good PCs should be resolved.
If it is expected in ENW that a goodly Characters (including, but not limited to Paladins) go slaying neutral beasties without a second thought and share the tale at the campfire with their evil companion at night with a good drink and a good laugh, it should be noted somewhere IMO. (like i.e. good cordial relations among players are more important than consistant roleplaying, metagaming does not incurr exp penalties, etc, etc..).
In a pinch, those things might have heavy impacts on the game (like a Paladin loosing his said class, a combat encounter being overcame too easily because of collusive metagaming not accounted for by the ECL, etc..)
In any case, they greatly affect how people play their characters.
There are so enough rules and conventions here on secondary tidbits like starting character points or magic item distribution to satisfy the most hairsplitting tax lawyer; but nothing on Alignments?
I mean the judges certainly wouldn't wave through a few points/gold more or less, an only loose description of a magic sword or new feat without a thorough check of the costs, exact stats, effects, etc.., I assume? (No matter how well it's grounded in roleplaying).
No agreement whatsoever exists on the touchy issue of morality, which IMO can cause alot more grievances than an unbalanced feat or overpowerd PrC. That is an oversight I kinda felt worth mentioning.
That, I guess, is my point.
Last edited:
A historical perspective:
Early editions of D&D were very rigid with respect to game concepts such as "race", "class" and "alignment". A magic-user couldn't wear armor because, well, because it wasn't allowed, that's why! An elaborate back-story developed that metal fouled up magic to "explain" this game mechanic, which required another backstory to explain how metal didn't foul up spells cast by a multi-class magic-user, which required another backstory ad infinitum.
As RPGs in general evolved, D&D (or D20, as you prefer) evolved along with it, to the point that the mechanics are much less rigid. It's less of "that's forbidden, and don't ask the man behind the curtain why", and more of, "Ok, you can do that, but there's a trade-off, and here's what it is..."
I feel that although the use of alignment as a game mechanic lags behind the development of some of the other aspects of the game, it nonetheless is moving in the same direction and for the same reason. Old editions had a prohibition against Paladins so much as adventuring with evil PCs for a single adventure, and even restricted them to adventuring with neutral characters "for a limited duration and only for a good cause". I suspect that came from Gary Gygax, who brought so much of his own views to the game that some of this practically became dogma.
As the other game mechanics evolve, so should our outlook on alignment. What is the purpose of a paladin? Why is a paladin special? Why do paladins have powers that other classes don't have? Well, all classes have abilities that other classes don't have, so maybe paladins aren't so "special" after all. In earlier editions of the game, there was a distinct advantage to some character classes. In 3.5, no class really has an advantage over any other, save for a particular (perhaps preferred) style of game play. So, since a 3.5 paladin has much less of an advantage over a 3.5 fighter than does a 1.0 paladin over a 1.0 fighter, there is less need to balance the classes by restricting the paladin class in 3.5. That doesn't mean that alignment is meaningless to a 3.5 paladin, just that it need not be so rigidly interpreted as to provide a "balancing" disadvantage.
A paladin is an agent of his or her deity, charged with representing and championing law and goodness on the prime material plane. That's enough, right there! Could a paladin accompany an evil PC (known to the paladin to be evil) on an adventure? Well, what's the purpose of the adventure, and what's the likely outcome? If the whole motivation is for the paladin to "get phat lewt", then it seems a perversion of the game mechanic. If the purpose is for the paladin to attempt to change the alignment of the evil character, not only should it not be forbidden, co-adventuring should be encouraged! Finally, it may be necessary for the paladin to accept the services of an evil character in order to accomplish some greater good. Does this "taint" the paladin to an unacceptable level? Which is better, to scrupulously avoid all evil, or to do the most good that is possible? This sort of moral dillemma is perfect for the game, and can make for very good role play. Ultimately, the narrative should be king...is the story of the adventure worth telling?
I've been pondering writing up an evil character for LEW, one that is truly vile. That's a long-range activity, since I'm fine with one character right now and would probably bring in a non-evil psionic character if I felt obliged to start a second one. But I usually play goody-two-shoes type characters, and thought it worthwhile to consider a walk on the dark side as a useful adjunct to the LEW narrative. I got to thinking about how a truly evil PC would fit into this game, and took into consideration some of the previous discussions on +ECL races, having "traveling papers" to get into cities, etc. I concluded that it was viable, since all the traditional earmarks of evil PC's would be an anathema to an evil character in LEW...and I'm talking about PvP, intra-party theft, that sort of thing. Do that, and even if your character doesn't wind up in the city jail, he'll spend an awful lot of time at the Inn trying to find both an employer and a party who will have him.
No, in LEW, an evil character has to be more subtle. Going on adventures with good types suits him just fine...but while they're motivated by saving the princess or enhancing their reputation, he'll be motivated by sheer greed or political ambition. He won't backstab a party member, but an elaborate political betrayal that takes several adventures to arrange will be right up his alley. He won't pick pocket other PCs or steal from their packs, but he'll be all too happy to report that there was nothing of interest in the alcove of the ruined monestary while secretly slipping the remains of the gold candelabra into the folds of his cloak. Against that background, why shouldn't there be a way for good and evil PCs to associate? In RL, people are forced to associate and deal with others who they consider untrustworthy, unreliable, or unsavory every day. Why must LEW be any different?
Early editions of D&D were very rigid with respect to game concepts such as "race", "class" and "alignment". A magic-user couldn't wear armor because, well, because it wasn't allowed, that's why! An elaborate back-story developed that metal fouled up magic to "explain" this game mechanic, which required another backstory to explain how metal didn't foul up spells cast by a multi-class magic-user, which required another backstory ad infinitum.
As RPGs in general evolved, D&D (or D20, as you prefer) evolved along with it, to the point that the mechanics are much less rigid. It's less of "that's forbidden, and don't ask the man behind the curtain why", and more of, "Ok, you can do that, but there's a trade-off, and here's what it is..."
I feel that although the use of alignment as a game mechanic lags behind the development of some of the other aspects of the game, it nonetheless is moving in the same direction and for the same reason. Old editions had a prohibition against Paladins so much as adventuring with evil PCs for a single adventure, and even restricted them to adventuring with neutral characters "for a limited duration and only for a good cause". I suspect that came from Gary Gygax, who brought so much of his own views to the game that some of this practically became dogma.
As the other game mechanics evolve, so should our outlook on alignment. What is the purpose of a paladin? Why is a paladin special? Why do paladins have powers that other classes don't have? Well, all classes have abilities that other classes don't have, so maybe paladins aren't so "special" after all. In earlier editions of the game, there was a distinct advantage to some character classes. In 3.5, no class really has an advantage over any other, save for a particular (perhaps preferred) style of game play. So, since a 3.5 paladin has much less of an advantage over a 3.5 fighter than does a 1.0 paladin over a 1.0 fighter, there is less need to balance the classes by restricting the paladin class in 3.5. That doesn't mean that alignment is meaningless to a 3.5 paladin, just that it need not be so rigidly interpreted as to provide a "balancing" disadvantage.
A paladin is an agent of his or her deity, charged with representing and championing law and goodness on the prime material plane. That's enough, right there! Could a paladin accompany an evil PC (known to the paladin to be evil) on an adventure? Well, what's the purpose of the adventure, and what's the likely outcome? If the whole motivation is for the paladin to "get phat lewt", then it seems a perversion of the game mechanic. If the purpose is for the paladin to attempt to change the alignment of the evil character, not only should it not be forbidden, co-adventuring should be encouraged! Finally, it may be necessary for the paladin to accept the services of an evil character in order to accomplish some greater good. Does this "taint" the paladin to an unacceptable level? Which is better, to scrupulously avoid all evil, or to do the most good that is possible? This sort of moral dillemma is perfect for the game, and can make for very good role play. Ultimately, the narrative should be king...is the story of the adventure worth telling?
I've been pondering writing up an evil character for LEW, one that is truly vile. That's a long-range activity, since I'm fine with one character right now and would probably bring in a non-evil psionic character if I felt obliged to start a second one. But I usually play goody-two-shoes type characters, and thought it worthwhile to consider a walk on the dark side as a useful adjunct to the LEW narrative. I got to thinking about how a truly evil PC would fit into this game, and took into consideration some of the previous discussions on +ECL races, having "traveling papers" to get into cities, etc. I concluded that it was viable, since all the traditional earmarks of evil PC's would be an anathema to an evil character in LEW...and I'm talking about PvP, intra-party theft, that sort of thing. Do that, and even if your character doesn't wind up in the city jail, he'll spend an awful lot of time at the Inn trying to find both an employer and a party who will have him.
No, in LEW, an evil character has to be more subtle. Going on adventures with good types suits him just fine...but while they're motivated by saving the princess or enhancing their reputation, he'll be motivated by sheer greed or political ambition. He won't backstab a party member, but an elaborate political betrayal that takes several adventures to arrange will be right up his alley. He won't pick pocket other PCs or steal from their packs, but he'll be all too happy to report that there was nothing of interest in the alcove of the ruined monestary while secretly slipping the remains of the gold candelabra into the folds of his cloak. Against that background, why shouldn't there be a way for good and evil PCs to associate? In RL, people are forced to associate and deal with others who they consider untrustworthy, unreliable, or unsavory every day. Why must LEW be any different?
azmodean
First Post
In short, LEW should be different because we want it to be fun. If it is determined that having to worry about evil PCs betraying you detracts from the overall fun of the game, then that behavior should not be allowed. (Not making any statements as to what is or is not detracting from the game, just the rationale)
Dexerion
First Post
wow. and to think, my first lew character which i created last night is evil. *deceptive giggle*
I ultimately think that there should be no guidelines on how evil and good PCs interact. I think that if a paladin is in a party with a evil rouge that is determined to save a princess, that it should be okay. I also think that if a paladin discovers that the cleric of the group is of his god's mortal enemey, that the paladin should be allowed to challenge the cleric in combat.. ect. I think the only guidelines should be decided by the dm for the sake of his storyline and between the players involved for the sake of their characters. If some rouge backstabbs a party I don't think he should suffer some mechanical setback or be 'banned' from lew. He will suffer enough reprecussions just trying to find a new group and running from the surviving members of the party or any law that may find out about his evil action. besides, any mature role players knows that if he continuely does things to purposely challenge the parties ability to continue the quest, that nobody will want to continue playing with him/her.
on the death issue. I really think this north tower is a bad idea. death should be final for PCs of lower level. The cost should remain as is so that a whole party will have to quest and pitch in if they want to raise a friend, which they will usually not do. Also, debt to joe or a cult is also not good. Why would they spend over 10,000gp on dimonds to raise some adventurer they barely even know? In joe's case, that is probably more than 1/2 his tavern's yearly income even with its renound fame.
So death should be as final as the word implys. I think that if it were so easy to resurect a character, this would take a lot of legitimacy from the rouge that runs away at 1hp and the paladin that choses to fight it till the end for his gods glory.
I ultimately think that there should be no guidelines on how evil and good PCs interact. I think that if a paladin is in a party with a evil rouge that is determined to save a princess, that it should be okay. I also think that if a paladin discovers that the cleric of the group is of his god's mortal enemey, that the paladin should be allowed to challenge the cleric in combat.. ect. I think the only guidelines should be decided by the dm for the sake of his storyline and between the players involved for the sake of their characters. If some rouge backstabbs a party I don't think he should suffer some mechanical setback or be 'banned' from lew. He will suffer enough reprecussions just trying to find a new group and running from the surviving members of the party or any law that may find out about his evil action. besides, any mature role players knows that if he continuely does things to purposely challenge the parties ability to continue the quest, that nobody will want to continue playing with him/her.
on the death issue. I really think this north tower is a bad idea. death should be final for PCs of lower level. The cost should remain as is so that a whole party will have to quest and pitch in if they want to raise a friend, which they will usually not do. Also, debt to joe or a cult is also not good. Why would they spend over 10,000gp on dimonds to raise some adventurer they barely even know? In joe's case, that is probably more than 1/2 his tavern's yearly income even with its renound fame.
So death should be as final as the word implys. I think that if it were so easy to resurect a character, this would take a lot of legitimacy from the rouge that runs away at 1hp and the paladin that choses to fight it till the end for his gods glory.
Last edited:
Creamsteak
Explorer
Manzanita said:
Works great for me. No complaints here. I, personally, don't have a great deal of problems with rolling up a new character if I die; though I do understand it when people do.
Creamsteak
Explorer
I love the way Keith Baker described alignment in Eberron in one of the threads in the general discussion forum. I wish I had that post on hand right now, it was perfect for this.
That's totally bogus. As an avid "do-gooder" player, one can be evil or good or neutral and do just about anything given the right convictions. Retreating from a fight isn't a "good" or "evil" act, even if it will most likely result in a number of unnecessary deaths. It could be the only choice that makes any sense, or the only thing your cowardice will allow you to do. Just because "Joe the Exalted Farmer" doesn't help out his best friend and father as a monster eats them isn't evil.
Heroics are not good or evil by definition. I could make some literary references, but generally speaking, I think it's obvious enough. As alignments are, characters that are "lawful vs. chaotic" or "good vs. evil" are not the problem.
We already had an incident where a "paladin" and a "rogue" decided to go at each other's throats over something in the bar that didn't make any sense. The good character wasn't being any better than the evil one. They were both doing something that was seriously detracting from the fun of the game and everyone around them.
Meanwhile, if I'm playing a Blackguard and Gnomeworks is playing a Paladin, and we both have a common goal, I don't see why we can't work together. I also think that, if perhaps, one of them decides that they must challenge the other at some leg in the journey, in a mature and reasonable fashion, that's absolutely fine.
In essence, all I'm trying to say, is that alignments don't directly correlate to potential problems. If there are problem players, we can sit down and talk about the particular problems as they come up. Generally speaking, I think that most people should be willing to give another Player the option to back out from a conflict at all times.
Zweischneid said:
That's totally bogus. As an avid "do-gooder" player, one can be evil or good or neutral and do just about anything given the right convictions. Retreating from a fight isn't a "good" or "evil" act, even if it will most likely result in a number of unnecessary deaths. It could be the only choice that makes any sense, or the only thing your cowardice will allow you to do. Just because "Joe the Exalted Farmer" doesn't help out his best friend and father as a monster eats them isn't evil.
Heroics are not good or evil by definition. I could make some literary references, but generally speaking, I think it's obvious enough. As alignments are, characters that are "lawful vs. chaotic" or "good vs. evil" are not the problem.
We already had an incident where a "paladin" and a "rogue" decided to go at each other's throats over something in the bar that didn't make any sense. The good character wasn't being any better than the evil one. They were both doing something that was seriously detracting from the fun of the game and everyone around them.
Meanwhile, if I'm playing a Blackguard and Gnomeworks is playing a Paladin, and we both have a common goal, I don't see why we can't work together. I also think that, if perhaps, one of them decides that they must challenge the other at some leg in the journey, in a mature and reasonable fashion, that's absolutely fine.
In essence, all I'm trying to say, is that alignments don't directly correlate to potential problems. If there are problem players, we can sit down and talk about the particular problems as they come up. Generally speaking, I think that most people should be willing to give another Player the option to back out from a conflict at all times.
- Status
Similar Threads
