Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

Karond wrote: You can do evil acts as long as it prevents greater evil acts, don't mind the subjectivity!

Actually, you cannot. Book of Exhalted deeds explicitly states that. Well, you can but it will be still evil, and if breaking any vows is involved, evil has greater effect than whatever good has come from it.

Karond wrote: It's not too difficult to see that if pretty much all mortal actions are tied to a deity's domain of some sort, and certain actions are only embodied by irrevocably evil deities, then those actions must be absolutely evil in the world because to perform them taints the world with actions that embody evil deities. Such as, for instance, use of poison.

Err... not quite.

Deity dictates what is "right" and what is "wrong". That is dogma. "You should do this and shouldn't do that" kind of thing. "You should kill someone every day, because it is right thing to do" - dictates bhaal, for example.

The universe dictates what is "good" and what is "evil". That is universal forces of good/evil in action.

A paladin (going back to the topic) will be subject to both deity's dogma and universal laws and several other laws as well (lord, duty, etc).

"Right thing to do" != "good-aligned thing to do".

Karond wrote: Apparently an evil action can be non-evil if it prevents a greater evil. An example to the OP, poison isn't evil to use as long as it kills evil people.

Not quite. Book of exhalted deeds covers that. Killing evil creature is not a good deed.

Karond wrote:how do I know those goblins aren't on the path of redemption?

You talk to them. You put them all into magical sleep, nonviolently capture them all, and then interrogate. If you barged into their cave with weapons out, you were planning to kill them since the beginning.

Why have you barged into cave? Were you investigateing some rumors of disappearances, attacsk and such? Or were you simply looking for for something to try your new sword on? That's kinda important.

Fair enough on the deity thing. As for your book of exalted deeds, that quote in the spoiler you presented showed the opposite. It's not evil to murder an non-evil individual if it will prevent the town from getting poisoned.

Karond wrote:Fair enough on the deity thing. As for your book of exalted deeds, that quote in the spoiler you presented showed the opposite. It's not evil to murder an non-evil individual if it will prevent the town from getting poisoned.

The book of exhalted deeds clearly states that it is not a good thing to do as well. And if you break your vows in process, it will be still very bad thing to do.

Also check the text I added.

Also it would be nice if you skipped pleasantries and just bluntly said what are you trying to prove here. No system made by humans is perfect. Which is why, in case of trickier matters, we call upon higher power called "DM".

---

In my opinion, extremely good aligned character would feel very sad if he fails to save everybody and redeem every villain. haven't ever seen anyone trying to play that, though.

Bluntly, I'm not arguing against any system. I'm just pointing out what you guys are saying isn't coherent with any single system. Every morality system has good and bad sides to it, my whole argument basically boils down to NegInfinity among others picking and choosing from several. That's what the spoiler quote did as well. That's relative morality, not absolute despite the claims, and it just brings confusion.

End rant.

At a minimum I would say in bgtscc poison and flank attacks are not evil since assassin is available to good alignments (as are other classes that allow sneak attack damage). If poison is inherently evil shouldn't the "must be evil" rule for assassin's still be in effect? In addition should the use poison feat only be available to evil alignments?

chad878262 wrote:At a minimum I would say in bgtscc poison and flank attacks are not evil since assassin is available to good alignments (as are other classes that allow sneak attack damage). If poison is inherently evil shouldn't the "must be evil" rule for assassin's still be in effect? In addition should the use poison feat only be available to evil alignments?

What you have in good alignments is "avenger", which started as 1st april joke. Basically a kind of spy.

Assassins generally expected to murder someone in order to join assassin's guild.

The whole thing started with discussing paladins (of red knight), and stabbing people in the back (with holy avenger) apparently looks as very non-lawful-good behavior for many people.

The issue is not whether backstabbing and poison are evil. The op wanted to use them as paladin.

Karond wrote:Bluntly, I'm not arguing against any system. I'm just pointing out what you guys are saying isn't coherent with any single system. Every morality system has good and bad sides to it, my whole argument basically boils down to NegInfinity among others picking and choosing from several. That's what the spoiler quote did as well. That's relative morality, not absolute despite the claims, and it just brings confusion.

End rant.

*shrugs shoulders* IMO, what you get in D&D is as clear cut as you can get while still having idea of good and evil. The quote I provided was an ultimiate example of possible complexity, used to demonstrate what can happen in the game and what should you do with it.

As long as it is product of human being, you will not get any system that is always in 100% consistent in every possible scenario, because main talent of human race is making mistakes and blunders. If you want perfect totally logical system, then it does not exist.

I advise to keep in mind at all times that the whole system is abstraction/model in order to make games possible where outcome of "smite evil" can be quickly decided without spending several hours in philosophical discussions about meaning of life of a sewer rat.

In general, for better system you would need to discard idea of good and evil completely, and operate in "gray morality" (as it is done in shadowrun), while maybe keeping law vs chaos. However, such idea is less likely to become widespread, because people like their options to be clear cut "this is a bad guy, I'm a good guy, so I kill bad guy and do a good deed and will feel good about it, yay", and d&d ideals are so deeply ingrained into the lore and the universe that it would be hard to get rid of them. You'd need to drop entire FR setting and make a new world or something like that...

Karond wrote: That's relative morality, not absolute despite the claims, and it just brings confusion.

I do not think so. Book of exhalted deeds and book of vile darkness in addition to the single material provide many pages describing what is good and what is evil, in detail and with examples. There is no confusion. The system is fairly clear cut as long as you read through the whole material (player handbook, book of vile darkness and book of exhalted deeds).

You're also appear to be trying to avoid issue of good and evil being physical force.
In black and white morality: If I encounter a monster in dungeon char can throw detect alignment (not available on this server) on it, or smite it. If it shows up as evil, then the monster has already been judged by the laws of universe and is guilty of evil deeds in the act. However, if the smite is not working, then something strange is going on, and it is time to talk. There is really not much of an issue in case of alignments. So there is no such thing as "killing npc monsters". If it is not attacking, there is little reason to fight it. If it is attacking, char can defend himself. A good aligned character can even attempt to walk through the cave you mentioned in non-violent fashion. So there is really no relative issue you're trying to point out. It isn't there.

Also, the thing to keep in mind is that Book of Vile Darkness is DM material. So example I provided was explaining to DM how to judge situation of this kind. Players job is to act the character. DM's job is to fall that character when appropriate and being able to explain logic behind it.

P.S. Honestly, I think that at this point there is nothing left to say about the topic.

There is an avenger class in kaedrins, not in bgtscc. In bgtscc they changed assassin to allow good. I think we need to remember that a class is not the same as guild affiliation. You don't have to be in an assassin guild to have the assassin class and I doubt you must have the class to be in the guild...

chad878262 wrote:There is an avenger class in kaedrins, not in bgtscc. In bgtscc they changed assassin to allow good. I think we need to remember that a class is not the same as guild affiliation. You don't have to be in an assassin guild to have the assassin class and I doubt you must have the class to be in the guild...

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp? ... /20070401a
"Kaedrin" avenger is identical to assassin.
Pnp assassin is evil. If your assassin is not evil, then you're avenger.

Otherwise what is your excuse for studying art of murder for so long?

NegInfinity wrote: P.S. Honestly, I think that at this point there is nothing left to say about the topic.

Yes.

All morality systems are consistent. Most people may not be, but a system is 100% logical. Every system has flaws in that each morality type will produce opinions that are not especially flattering though. If you invoke a term like absolute however, it signals a pretty clear set of definitions of what's always good and what's always evil. Everything else is a relative view of morality (that grey zone). There's nothing bad with having an absolute alignment system. The only bad thing is claiming it's absolute when the examples are relative (and your opinions, most likely).

End of discussion for me

Karond wrote: So already there are inconsistencies in these rules.

Stop. Right. There. The inconsistencies are purely in your mind. There is the matter of intent. One had no intent; the other did. Even in RL that makes a difference.

Karond wrote: All morality systems are consistent.

Err, no.

People have wasted last few thousands of years trying to figure out "what is right thing to do" "what is good" "what is evil" or "what makes one a good person". The state of the world we live in pretty much indicate that every single attempt to do that has failed.

Karond wrote: Most people may not be, but a system is 100% logical.

"100% logical" is a poor argument. Logic system operates on sets of rules. Rules are developed by people. And given wrong set of rules, you can reach 100% logical argument that will be still wrong.
Classic example of that was given in Alice in Wonderland. 100% logic that reaches wrong conclusion.

Karond wrote:

NegInfinity wrote: P.S. Honestly, I think that at this point there is nothing left to say about the topic.

Yes.

All morality systems are consistent. Most people may not be, but a system is 100% logical. Every system has flaws in that each morality type will produce opinions that are not especially flattering though. If you invoke a term like absolute however, it signals a pretty clear set of definitions of what's always good and what's always evil. Everything else is a relative view of morality (that grey zone). There's nothing bad with having an absolute alignment system. The only bad thing is claiming it's absolute when the examples are relative (and your opinions, most likely).

Err no. Disagree. Completely. I also agree with thorsson.

I get impression that you haven't read books I mentioned (exhalted deeds and vile of darkness) and inconsitencies you talk about are the ones you percieve due to lack of information, perhaps. It isn't that hard to re-read 40 pages of text that describe good and evil, is it? Grab fiendish codex as well, while you're at it.

The system is very clear cut, very simple and examples you call "relatve" is explained to the last detail, precisely, in absolute terms.

Not sure if you realize that or not, but you were trying to twist whatever people say to prove your point that is... well... something? Not sure why are you trying that, though.

If there's one truly consistent thing in D&D3.5 it is alignment system. Many other things are debatable.

As to the original questions:

Why is the use of Poison considered an evil act? Even in situations where the use of poison results in lives saved; even when the lack of its use can cause widespread disease and destruction, poison is for some reason considered an evil thing. Apparently straight against the face of nature as well, considering all the poisonous and venomous creatures nature has produced, which as we should know, are True Neutral in alignment under the 3.5 system. So why is poison considered evil despite the fact that is seemingly just another part of the system?


Why is Deception in all of its forms including Lying, Feinting, Hiding, Sneak Attack, Silent Omission, and any other form you can think of considered an inherently chaotic, and possibly evil, act? Animals LIVE on deception as a matter of course. Mountain Lions stalk through their territory, looking for an unsuspecting prey to fall on and deliver a critical blow to. Plenty of bird's have the "Broken-Wing Gambit". Combat in general, even that of sentients, relies on deception; feints, hiding, and sneak attacks. Now, I can understand if combat and violence in and of itself was considered chaotic or evil (in fact I'd expect a follower of Eldath to proclaim such things), but according to the rules they aren't. So why is Deception considered inherently chaotic/evil when violence itself isn't?

The use of poison is evil because it is utterly deceptive whether slipped in a drink or used during combat. It's a tool of murder. Using it is something people cringe at. It causes pain, discomfort, confusion, many debilitating effects rendering your opponent helpless. Can it be used to save lives? Maybe but consoling yourself with such knowledge is just lying to yourself. You poisoned someone. It's an evil act. But people lie to themselves all the time. Why would a poisoner be any different?

Lying and silent omission aren't lawful IF questioned by the powers that be, ie: judges, lords, ladies, king, etc. Both of these are reflective in real life courts all the time. Holding back information that may show innocence of the accused is unlawful. You are certain he did the act but have to lie to have him imprisoned. For the better good? Perhaps but you are not the judge. You are the individual. It is not for you to pronounce judgement, it is the magistrates. You are manipulating facts for your own desire.

Assassins can use their talents for good, they can lie wholeheartedly to themselves and others and truly believe they are doing good. But they're evil.

ShineDown wrote: Assassins can use their talents for good, they can lie wholeheartedly to themselves and others and truly believe they are doing good. But they're evil.

Actually, the Assassin on this server can be of any alignment. And it is applied as a generic term of someone that is trained to kill, not just do sneak attacks and sneak around.

An agent of a king that has a conscience, can be Lawful Good and still be trained to kill.
For example, an agent like that that is sworn and follows orders to kill evil drow or orcs, is a Lawful Good Assassin.

But the assassin hasn't sworn a knightly oath to be honorable and a paragon of goodness, altruism and mercy.
That's a Paladin and that's his Code of Conduct.

On the topic in general:

Some deities enable the Paladins to multiclass with Rogue. Torm is one and a hin and gnome deity are the other, I believe.

While they might be allowed to use Sneak Attack, they are forbidden from using poisons.
"Code of Conduct: ...act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison and so forth). ..." - Player's Handbook, page 44.

Sneak Attack is NOT backstabbing. It's hitting where it hurts, like a critical hit but not random. There are Forgotten Realms deities, feats and Prestige Classes that combine Paladin and Rogue abilities.

http://nwn2.wikia.com/wiki/Paladin_orders

"Torm: Paladins of the True God defend the weak, defeat evil, and uphold the high moral standards required for servants of a god who serves bright and righteous Tyr. They may multiclass freely as one other class."

"Arvoreen’s Marchers

Deity: Arvoreen
Multiclass as cleric, fighter or rogue.
An order in Tethyr recognized by the crown, they are highly respected by local humans and halflings alike. From their chapterhouse called Keeperstone they helped Tethyr through its civil war, and continue to keep order and fight monsters."

"Knights of the Shadowy Cloak

Deity: Baravar Cloakshadow
Multiclass as cleric, fighter, wizard (illusionist) or rogue.
This order keeps a low profile in gnome communities and seeks to eliminate goblinoids, kobolds, and other evil humanoids, for these creatures cannot be redeemed. They work secretly so as to not attract attention or retaliation to local gnome communities."

Here is the description of sneak attack:
"Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage."

Finding an opening and striking a vital spot is not dishonorable. Critical hits are random hits that strike a vital spot, a sneak attack means that it's not a random hit.

Also, nowhere does it say that the Paladin must be facing each enemy or vice versa. So you could hit a monster or other enemy when it's distracted (not facing you) and not lose your Paladin status.

Also deception means that you try to deceive someone, which is a chaotic act, like lying or bluffing.

In PnP, if you don't want to kill someone as a Paladin, you don't use poison but you can use a non-lethal (sneak) attack.

In the Book of Exalted Deeds there are also examples of Rogue/Paladins. (page 16 for example)
Or the Slayer of Domiel which is basically a Lawful Good Assassin PrC (p. 73-74): must be Lawful Good, gets Sneak Attack.
"Some slayers also have Monk, Fighter or even Paladin levels."

TL;DR:
Stealth and Sneak Attacks are allowed for Paladins. They're called tactics.
Deception (as in blatantly lying, not illusions) and Poison are not. Those are dishonorable (unlawful) and evil means.

I would say that stealth and sneak attacks are not universally acceptable tactics for paladins. It depends on the deity/order.

Also
Order of the Golden Lion was created after the Time of Troubles and was charged with Pennance of Duty among other things (they guard the temples and aid the churches of deities whose followers Torm's church persecuted during TOT). The reason they may "multiclass as any other class" is because the order was created during the renaissance of Torm's church, after the Time of Troubles, so its members came from various backgrounds. It is no where implied that sneak attacks are an acceptable method for that deity/order simply because some members may have rogue levels. The order is not relevant to our time because pre-tot Torm's church was very rigid.

Since everyone is bringing up the Book of Exalted Deeds when Paladins and alignments are involved, I will repeat this line:

Archaos wrote: In the Book of Exalted Deeds there are also examples of Rogue/Paladins. (page 16 for example)
Or the Slayer of Domiel which is basically a Lawful Good Assassin PrC (p. 73-74): must be Lawful Good, gets Sneak Attack.
"Some slayers also have Monk, Fighter or even Paladin levels."

My point? The people that wrote BoEE, didn't consider Rogue/Paladin multiclasses incompatible and neither did they consider stealth and sneak attacks unlawful and dishonorable.

So I think accepting some stuff from the book and ignoring the others, to be silly.