The Gaming Den

Voss at [unixtime wrote:1188002437[/unixtime]]But, sorry, still lost.
Killing things is what heroes do.

What about heroes in movies and comics that only end up temporarily injuring the bad guys by knocking them out but not killing them? Or when it comes to inanimate objects, even industrial steel is no more than dust in the wind?

What, that crap? That shit only existed because the major comic book companies bent over and let the McCarthy communist paranoia-inspired Comics Code sodomize them on a regular basis.

For fvcking decades.

A very thoughtful thread. I enjoyed every page. However as an immoral, heathen pagan and nihilist I must not step in this moral morass.
I'd spout Nietzche till my fingers rub to the bone.

However, sorry to mention anime again but OnePiece comes to mind when considering the lifespan of heroes/villains and the option of sparing lives. And by the way I refer to the comic form, not the show. *retch*
Time and time again, every main character and most of the villains are brutally bashed or savaged and either by being spared or simply sheer pluck have revived again. All this, without Ressurection. The moral shift, from 'villain' to 'ally' might not be Good Vs. Evil but it's possible at a simple level; no charming, no 'alignment quest', no high level magic. They heal, they have a change of heart, and re-prioritize.
Probably would be handled through roll-less gaming in most campaigns, but maybe there's house rules for this?

Not many characters die in that series, even though they all take a beating within inches of their lives at some point(s).
Giving the victors more direct control over the end-result of combat, like "I'll leave them at 0 HP" rather than "Aw shit I just dealt 150 damage and they vaporized" might allow both better story continuity/development and moral dynamic.
Whether for good or evil, the option NOT to kill a character yet subdue them, and not with Subdual Damage, would allow greater distance between Those That Kill With Abandon, Those That Kill Mercifully, Those That Kill Reluctantly, and Those That Simply Do Not Kill Anyone.

Couldn't truly tell if each OnePiece character's recovery was from self-will or merely allowed by the opponent (pulled punches), but in D&D and d20 I'd like to see less dependence on magic for self-improvement.
Atonement, I'm looking at you.

Arg.. headache. Hope that made sense in some weird way

Who suggested that? Was it here or on Nifty?

It was, I think, a house rule--something like, "If you reduce someone to less than 0 hp you can say what happens to them." In other words, that could mean you leave them bloodied, humiliated, and defeated but still breathing yet unable to come after you; you end the combat with your sword at his throat, small nick oozing blood, and able to soliliquize to your heart's content, and it'll be cool enough that he won't come after you no matter what you actually say; you clonk him on the head with your sword hilt, leaving him unconscious; or you ram him in the face your mighty sword. Whatever. You fucking won--what happens next is--and should be--your call.

And, really, wouldn't that be enough for the beholder to A) spend eons contemplating his useless existence; or B) immediately upon your departure start plotting his revenge; or C) consider that maybe--just maybe--your way of life is better than his because you beat the crap out of him?

Winning should be worth something, and it could be worth more than just taking his stuff and writing down the XP on your character sheet. It might have meant making a dent in the world's evil because you totally kicked its ass!

Hey_I_Can_Chan at [unixtime wrote:1188043301[/unixtime]]But the example you really want? The one who shows you what a super-guilt-trip having super-powers would actually be? Who actually, if memory serves, rescues a damn kitten? Astro City's The Samaritan. Really. He is what you want as your example.

Yeah, for serious. His "personal life" consists of getting to enjoy the fractions of a second it takes him to fly from one crisis to another.

Also,

There's a reason why the Treaty of Versailles is considered an abject fucking failure instead of being one of the greatest articles of peace of our time. If you STOP the war, rather than treating the underlying conditions, you're just sowing the seeds for a new conflict.

Actually, the Treaty went out of its way to SOW the seeds for new conflict. Seriously, if France and England had settled for "just stop the war" that would have been a HUGE improvement, and we probably would not have seen WWII in Europe.

Edit: oh and also, can we get a section (in the Tome of Virtue or wherever) about how horrifically terrible Honor is, as a concept and a "virtue"?

Oh, come on now. Honor is only terrible if you don't prize violence.

Hey_I_Can_Chan at [unixtime wrote:1188105059[/unixtime]]Who suggested that? Was it here or on Nifty?

It was, I think, a house rule--something like, "If you reduce someone to less than 0 hp you can say what happens to them." In other words, that could mean you leave them bloodied, humiliated, and defeated but still breathing yet unable to come after you; you end the combat with your sword at his throat, small nick oozing blood, and able to soliliquize to your heart's content, and it'll be cool enough that he won't come after you no matter what you actually say; you clonk him on the head with your sword hilt, leaving him unconscious; or you ram him in the face your mighty sword. Whatever. You fucking won--what happens next is--and should be--your call.

And, really, wouldn't that be enough for the beholder to A) spend eons contemplating his useless existence; or B) immediately upon your departure start plotting his revenge; or C) consider that maybe--just maybe--your way of life is better than his because you beat the crap out of him?

Winning should be worth something, and it could be worth more than just taking his stuff and writing down the XP on your character sheet. It might have meant making a dent in the world's evil because you totally kicked its ass!

Ah OK Nice house rule. But the whole proposal was from me, not someone else, carried over from AD&D days when (from my recollection) it was easier to arbitrate the end of an encounter.
(Jeez, glad someone understood that.. was written damned late and I had a vague idea, didn't quite come out as intended but all's well...)

In 3.0/3.5 there's that "Death's Door" rule that most gamers follow, that 'going below 0 HP means dying'. I wanted to see options for 'going below 0 HP means dying... if the victor chooses to kill or maim the loser'.
Probably simple to do.
But the options for "good" or "honorable" characters would be greater, etc.

Beholders seem the type to hold grudges and resort to despicable inhumane (yet appropriate) methods of revenge, which makes a PC willing to convert such abominations to 'good' seem.. uh... bonkers. IMO.
It's like converting a shark to 'the honorable ways of justice'; it's biologically impossible. But this is fantasy, and if one wants any 'monster' to have a shred of remorse or restraint, then sure have them 'become good'.
Most players I've met like their nasty monsters inherently evil and ugly... makes for easy killing and no justification why.

"Cmon, something that ugly is just begging to die."

From page 1: "because roleplaying evil is a hard thing to do"

Okay, I have to disagree with this. Roleplaying evil is MUCH easier than roleplaying good in the D&D system, simply because under the D&D alignment rules THERE ARE NO SHADES OF GREY. Well, I guess there are in the Grey Guard (which should really be Evil. Seriously. It tortures people.) but overall if you're Good you don't go have sex with a prostitute ('cause that's evil, apparently), and if you're Evil you can't love someone. Or so D&D canon puts it, anyway. Playing Johnny Evilguy is easy - you just walk around kicking puppies and take the clearly morally wrong decision at every turn, 'cause if you exhibit shades of grey or compartmentalization of any sort then you'll get bitchslapped for not roleplaying your alignment. Another thing to keep in mind is that D&D largely defines Good and Evil in terms of what you can and cannot do - and most of these are unqualified by the requirements of the situation. The Book of Exalted Furries provides the best example of this; specifically, the Apostle of Peace. He's not allowed to harm ANYTHING. So, basically, if faced with a situation in which he runs into a genocidal madman with the power to kill a million innocent civilians, he can't even smack him or he'll lose the abilities of most of his ENTIRE CLASS.

And that's fvcking stupid.

Interested2 at [unixtime wrote:1188186072[/unixtime]]From page 1: "because roleplaying evil is a hard thing to do"

Okay, I have to disagree with this. Roleplaying evil is MUCH easier than roleplaying good in the D&D system, simply because under the D&D alignment rules THERE ARE NO SHADES OF GREY. Well, I guess there are in the Grey Guard (which should really be Evil. Seriously. It tortures people.) but overall if you're Good you don't go have sex with a prostitute ('cause that's evil, apparently), and if you're Evil you can't love someone. Or so D&D canon puts it, anyway. Playing Johnny Evilguy is easy - you just walk around kicking puppies and take the clearly morally wrong decision at every turn, 'cause if you exhibit shades of grey or compartmentalization of any sort then you'll get bitchslapped for not roleplaying your alignment. Another thing to keep in mind is that D&D largely defines Good and Evil in terms of what you can and cannot do - and most of these are unqualified by the requirements of the situation. The Book of Exalted Furries provides the best example of this; specifically, the Apostle of Peace. He's not allowed to harm ANYTHING. So, basically, if faced with a situation in which he runs into a genocidal madman with the power to kill a million innocent civilians, he can't even smack him or he'll lose the abilities of most of his ENTIRE CLASS.

And that's fvcking stupid.

It's the other way around, actually. Evil is easier and cooler to play because you can do whatever the fvck you want. You can seriously go around saving the world and as long as you are dressed in black and have long monologues about how you want to end the world yourself and noone else can have it you are good (or, rather, Evil) to go.

Good means that some options are removed.
Evil means you can do whatever you want.
Neutral means jack shit.

That's the D&D alignment in a nutshell. You can behave indistinguishable from a Paladin and because once you burned an orphanage without evacuating it you have Evil written on your sheet. But if the Paladin so much as thinks of hitting the guy who raped his wife he gets god-slapped. Because he is supposed to gather evidence and take him to court and the gods apparently value robots and not humans.

I like the Atonement for Paladins at low levels, but it really shouldn't even be necessary.

Besides, Evil is fun. Especially an intelligent, charismatic PC that is also Chaotic Evil. The look on other players' faces is priceless when they realize the alignment.

Edit: typo

Ignoring BoEF [good] in core D&D really is about finding [evil] people and looting their corpses. This doesn't make much sense if you think about it. Either you ignore that or you get a definition of [good] that is logical and have the whole group agree to it.

If alignment is going to be more than a hat that characters wear you can't rely on anything other than a pre-agreed definition. Unless you happen to know two people who share the same morality. Note that [good] doesn't need to resemble any real-world philosophy, it just needs to be self-consistent and the whole group has to agree to use it.

PS: Whats with BoED = BoEF? Aside from the guardianal based PrCs I don't remember there being anything particularly furry about it. Not that I looked closely. Vow of Poverty and Vow of Peace are retarded additions to a D&D game.

Draco_Argentum at [unixtime wrote:1188204989[/unixtime]]Whats with BoED = BoEF?

Something like 3/4 of the new gods/celestials are furries. ALL the celestial paragons are humanoid animals. The book is so full of furries it could be called "Furries Are Good Too!" and I wouldn't blink.

A cat is fine too....

Um, yes. I wonder if it's tied into the whole "Animals are a part of nature, and thus, can't actually decide to do something evil, and are thus Good! Despite that making them Neutral, as per their alignment, and that theory working just as well on unintelligent undead and... um... animals are nice and cuddly!" thing.

I mean, look at Druids. They get all kinds of shinies in Book of Exalted Furries, but they get almost nothing in Book of Vile Body Piercings.

Interested2 at [unixtime wrote:1188186072[/unixtime]]From page 1: "because roleplaying evil is a hard thing to do"

It's not that roleplaying evil is "hard." Roleplaying evil is actually easier to do than roleplaying good in some ways. The problem is that people have a general poor understanding of evil. it's not all that important when they are on the receiving end of it, but it becomes important when they are on the giving end of it.

In a nutshell, evil is the promotion of self at the expense of others. Killing innocents to save yourself or to increase your power is evil. Killing puppies for the sake of killing puppies isn't evil; it's a waste of time! (Unless you derive some sort of sick pleasure from killing puppies in which there is something to be said for self satisfaction being self centered and thus it might be somewhat evil.)

Good and evil has nothing to do with moral right and wrong. Consider the example mentioned about using the service of a prostitute. In fact, if one was an exceptionally good tipper (here's enough money to pay for a year's worth of college tuition) one can argue that the placing of the need of the other over the need of self was in fact a "good" act.

The Paladin really is a separate issue because the paladin is an extreeme case in terms of class alignments on the good/evil scale. You almost have to compare them to demons and devils, who are the embodyment of evil. You think a devil is ever going to sacrifice anything of himself for innocents? Never. Because they are the extreeme cases.

But one minor nit pick. That "gather evidence and take him to court" isn't about good/evil it's about law/chaos and frankly paladins don't loose powers for a single chaotic act.

Animals have a 2 Int. The same should be true for unintelligent undead. Note that just becuse something radiates evil doesn't mean it is evil. It's a fun flaw of the detect spells which people tend to forget.

If you Bestow a Curse on someone, Detect Evil will actually show them as being [Evil] (because it will pick up the [Evil] effect - the spell, which is sitting on them). If they're a simple peasant, then when the Paladin smites them, how's he to know the Smite failed and they simply died due to having their 2 HP reduced by 2d6+(1.5*Str)+(2*PA)?

Bestow Curse is awesome for cursing people to be beaten up by paladins.

Koumei at [unixtime wrote:1188229515[/unixtime]]If you Bestow a Curse on someone, Detect Evil will actually show them as being [Evil] (because it will pick up the [Evil]

It does? I don't see [EVIL] on the SRD but it could be a error in the SRD.

If this was so you are talking about a 5th level cleric or 7th level wizard to cast the spell which basically means a moderate aura. My general paladin philosophy is to taunt / admonish faint auras, challenge moderate auras, attack strong auras and weigh options carefully on overwhelming auras.

Koumei at [unixtime wrote:1188229515[/unixtime]]If you Bestow a Curse on someone, Detect Evil will actually show them as being [Evil] (because it will pick up the [Evil] effect - the spell, which is sitting on them). If they're a simple peasant, then when the Paladin smites them, how's he to know the Smite failed and they simply died due to having their 2 HP reduced by 2d6+(1.5*Str)+(2*PA)?

Bestow Curse is awesome for cursing people to be beaten up by paladins.

That's funny, but I believe on going by the intention of rules rather than by-the-letter. Paladin detecting is meant to sniff out evil foes, not innocent peasants under curse, and if it can't do that properly then something is wrong and must be worded more carefully.

Aside, that's funny and I'd abuse it whenever there are paladins nearby if such a thing were possible....

That would have to be one dumb paladin to outright smite a peasant without interaction first.
Even Diplomacy and Sense Motive enough to figure out the target's true intentions. No need to smite without double checking, and if the player does then they are downright foolish and should probably play Barbarian for that style of game.

Odd, I could swear curses were [Evil]. Yet Deathwatch IS. Someone's on crack, here, and I don't think it's me.

Maybe it was just in the Book of Vile Body Piercings, but my groups thought it made sense that cursing someone was evil, because "Spoooooky curses, wooooooo...." (and the assumption that you didn't do it to give your foe a penalty, you did it to screw someone over for the rest of their day to day life).

At any rate, it shouldn't work like that, but as we know, things often work in ways they shouldn't. Though it looks like this one might not work in ways it shouldn't, but only because the spell doesn't have the tag.

And unfortunately, most paladins I've seen would Smite on sight. Generally, I don't screw paladins about, I just say "No, they piss me off and they rely too much on alignment things that don't work. Play something else. As an added bonus, you'll be competent for your level by not being a paladin."

But one character of mine, a Warlock, did make fair use of that, to point out that Detect Evil is heavily flawed, and just because someone pings as evil, doesn't mean they are. I think we all know why she was convincing them of that.

Detect evil is not the best way for a paladin to generally go about his day to day business. In the first place it just takes too long; 18 seconds of concentration just to see the evil in front of you. In the second place it's downright rude. Not as bad for the paladin ... or is it really ... consider the SRD "At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell." Now consider the spell; "Components: V, S, DF"

It's like we're talking, we're waving our hands, shoving our holy symbol in front of us ... If this isn't in the list of 101 social fopars you don't do in the city it ought to be. I can't see a paladin doing this without a reason, and I don't see anyone foolish enough to stand even 6 seconds of that kind of bullshit.

Of course when in doubt assume all evil pesants have a convient sheet of lead.

tzor at [unixtime wrote:1188240286[/unixtime]]In the second place it's downright rude. Not as bad for the paladin ... or is it really ... consider the SRD "At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell." Now consider the spell; "Components: V, S, DF"

It's a Spell-like Ability. No Components. Yes, it takes 18s to fully use. But, really, most Paladin players consider th time well spent. As far as I am concerned, Paladins have a problem but Paladin players have a bigger one.

shirak at [unixtime wrote:1188208375[/unixtime. ALL the celestial paragons are humanoid animals.

umm, no they aren't. The lawful good paragons aren't furries, they're androgenous humans. The three chaotic good paragons aren't furries, they're more like elves.


And I was under the impression that the apostle of peace can do nonlethal damage, and in fact had a high level spell that did 20d6 nonlethal damage to everything within a certain range. (Of course, if the bad guy was immune to nonlethal damage, he'd be screwed.)

It's not that roleplaying evil is "hard." Roleplaying evil is actually easier to do than roleplaying good in some ways. The problem is that people have a general poor understanding of evil. it's not all that important when they are on the receiving end of it, but it becomes important when they are on the giving end of it.

If we're talking about actual play instead of alignment…

Playing evil is hard because evil is proactive and has no friends.

You have to do things to play evil, while you have to prevent things to play good.

Good has high powered friends good can trust; evil makes deals high powered folk who can't be trusted.

Playing evil and surviving--especially in D&D--is a pain in the ass because there is so much evil. Evil feasts on itself and good, while good just kicks evil's ass and leaves other good alone.

But that's fundamentally different from a discussion of actual alignment.

Hey_I_Can_Chan at [unixtime wrote:1188255481[/unixtime]]If we're talking about actual play instead of alignment…

Playing evil is hard because evil is proactive and has no friends.

You have to do things to play evil, while you have to prevent things to play good.

Good has high powered friends good can trust; evil makes deals high powered folk who can't be trusted.

Playing evil and surviving--especially in D&D--is a pain in the ass because there is so much evil. Evil feasts on itself and good, while good just kicks evil's ass and leaves other good alone.

But that's fundamentally different from a discussion of actual alignment.

Well put. I had same opinion but couldn't find the words to express that, but you wrote everything I wanted to tell.

shirak at [unixtime wrote:1188248926[/unixtime]]
It's a Spell-like Ability. No Components. Yes, it takes 18s to fully use. But, really, most Paladin players consider th time well spent. As far as I am concerned, Paladins have a problem but Paladin players have a bigger one.

True.

Also, it provokes. So seriously, every time they turn pred-vision on, slap them upside the head (thus disrupting it on a failed Concentration check based on zero damage). When asked why, just say "Instinct. You provoked, I can't help it."

Hey_I_Can_Chan at [unixtime wrote:1188255481[/unixtime]]Playing evil and surviving--especially in D&D--is a pain in the ass because there is so much evil. Evil feasts on itself and good, while good just kicks evil's ass and leaves other good alone.

Not quite. D&D is a game about fighting. Having more excuses to fight just means more XP. Remember Frank's analysis of the renegade wizards of Dragonlance. This is the exact same situation.

If you piss of people and are Evil, they send level-appropriate monsters after you.

If you piss of people and are Good, they send level-appropriate monsters after you.

If they consistently don't send level-appropriate monsters after you there is something wrong with your DM. Either he considers "the story" more important than your characters living and you having fun or he considers "the story" more important than your characters being challenged and you having fun.

Really, there are no functional differences between Good and Evil. It's all semantics.