Roleplaying/Alignment Dilemmas

[Q'alooaith]

Ahh, but here come's the crunchy centre of the drunkard paladin problem..


When you start drinking your judgment start's to become impaired, and denial, such a great thing that it is, let's you think your not even getting drunk and even if you are you can handle it..

Before you know it your waking up in a puddle of your own vomit on the floor wondering how you got there and why there's a twelve peice marching band making it's way though your head, playing off key to boot.


Does drinking too much make you evil? Does drinking too much make you a criminal?

No and no.


Even the faithfull can be weak, a drunkard paladin might not be desirable, but he could be one of the best paladin's about, while only lapsing into drink when he's got nothing to do..

[ 11-18-2004, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Q'alooaith ]

[Riftmaker]

Yeah, but how often do you find Paladins that have *nothing* to do?

Almost never.

About the whole fee thing, I still think my idea is the best.

I agree with Six about the NG thief deal.

I also think that it's kinda retarded that all of those bandits can cast mage spells, and no wizard shows up. Then again, given the equipment their parties have, how are we to know they didn't go and buy "liscences"?

In regards to Six's points....

I doubt Amn has a set of edicts against Drow...what would they do when Drizzit shows up? Send the whole City Guard to get slaughtered? If they make an exception for one Drow (obvious, as Drizzit shows up in Amn at least once, and doesn't get any hassle), why can't they make exceptions for others?

Also, why doesn't Vikki's magic resistance counter the Flame Strike....for that matter, why do drow cast all these nasty spells at each other and none of them get stopped?

Also, I doubt Vikki really knows how human nations go with trials and such, while recounting her adventures after she left the Underdark, I can't recall a single incident where she went into a city. As far as I know, she spent all of her time in the country, where people make their own laws.

As a Drow, I think she would be proud to claim that she did commit those crimes. Also, Drow have a nasty habit of taking the credit for someone else's work. To a drow, it would be considered cowardice to deny such things. Probably why she doesn't.

You really don't have any evidence that the execution IS legal. You have plenty that it ISN'T. Besides, Amn, being a Lawful city (rife with corruption, but yes, mostly Lawful) wouldn't let a priest of Beshaba conduct an execution. Despite having a nice big temple of Talos, (doesn't EVERY city have at least ONE evil temple?), they also have temples to most of the neutral deities, and a lot of the good ones as well. One evil temple does not an evil city make.

Anyways...moving on to the whole magic liscence thing.

Priests of Cyric can cast Mage spells? Since when?

As for the Liches, I doubt the Cowleds really have the firepower to take them on. They would lose so many mages to them that it would become rather pointless to even bother. Besides, Liches are content to remain in their own domain, and just kill hapless adventurers.

About the whole drunken paladin thing.

A paladin follows a certain way of life. This permits him to have a good time when he's not on some righteous quest (hey, look at Keldorn), but I don't think a paladin would be an alchoholic. Because a paladin follows a strict doctrine in all of his daily life, this doctrine wouldn't allow him to drink excessively.

However, anti-paladins (Lawful Evil types) would probably quite often have lots of fun with alchohol.

[Cerek]

The AD&D comic series dealt with the drunken paladin issue. The party leader was a paladin who also had a serious drinking problem. While it didn't affect his alignment or "paladinhood", he was considered something of a disgrace to the class. He also ended up losing his physical strength in the 1st issue when he attacked an evil wizard or fighter (or figher/mage). He had pulled a major drunk the night before and his reflexes were slowed - allowing his foe to strike him with a Rod of Smiting. This reduced his physical strength to 3!!!

Shortly thereafter, he was given a set of Gauntlets of Ogre Power by the mage that assembled the party that traveled through the comic series...and he did eventually redeem himself and regained his natural physical strength.

So it doesn't necessarily contradict the class or alignment rules for a paladin to get drunk, but it does impair them (as it does everybody else) and paladins are supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard than most other classes.

[Cerek]

Here's another dilemma I thought of from the game.

When you accept the commission from the temple of your choice to have the statue made by the visiting artist, do you keep the precious metal yourself to create a powerful weapon later on...or do you keep your promise to the temple to deliver the metal to the artist?

I would think that Chaotics and Evil characters would have NO problem keeping the metal for themselves. I think the only ones that would have any dilemma would be the Lawful Neutrals and Lawful Goods (and perhaps Neutral Good as well). The reason the Lawfuls would have a bit of a dilemma is that they have basically given their word to the temple leaders to secure the services of this renowned artist and to provide him with the material he requests. And a Lawful character considers their word to be their bond. A Neutral Good may not feel as obligated to keep their word, but still might not "feel right" about "cheating" the temple.

Thoughts and opinions?

[Riftmaker]

What's the benefit of keeping the material...money?

[SixOfSpades]

Originally posted by Cerek: When you accept the commission from the temple of your choice to have the statue made by the visiting artist, do you keep the precious metal yourself to create a powerful weapon later on...or do you keep your promise to the temple to deliver the metal to the artist?

Hm. Well, when I play, I neatly sidestep the moral issue entirely, by refusing to let Cromwell cheat me. I keep the real Illithium for myself, deliver the alloy to Sarles, and the reduced EXP I get from that is what I think I would get if I used 4 pounds (of the 200) for Cromwell, and gave the other 196 pounds to Sarles.

But, to answer your question, I would deliver the real illithium if I was a Priest of Helm, Lawful Priest of Lathander, or a Paladin. Any other character would despise Sarles as a spoiled, overrated sap, whose only motive for refusing to work in anything but "unobtainium" is merely to hog the spotlight. Any REAL sculptor would just work in gold, or simply gild the statue afterwards, for Pete's sake, gold doesn't tarnish either.

[Cerek]

All of these discussions have rekindled my desire to play again, so I loaded my solo bard game last night. As luck would have it, he has just entered the Government District for the 2nd time (already payed the "fee" to the Cowled Wizards so I can cast my spells), so I decided to run through the Viconia Execution scenario again.

One thing I have to admit is that I usually play the sound off and rarely read all the dialogue. So I didn't realize the cleric conducting the execution was evil also. After running through the encounter again, here are my observations.

1) The fact that the cleric conducting the execution worships "The Maid of Misrule" is a BIG hint that this execution isn't "officially sanctioned" by the proper authorities. My earlier argument that - perhaps - the lawmakers had granted authority to one of the local temples for their clerics to mete out punishment to those who violate any religious-based laws still has merit - but I seriously doubt this "authority" would be granted to a representative of an evil diety. Most likely, it would be a cleric of Lathandar.

2) The fanatic/cleric does say that Viconia's race is reason enough to kill her. When Vikki denies the charges, he says "You're a drow. That alone is reason enough". Even a Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good PC would have to wonder about that statement.

3) There is an Amnish Guard standing outside the prison and watching the execution. He also makes no move to intervene - so his actions would seem to imply that this execution is being permitted by the authorities even if it isn't officially sanctioned by them.

4) In my opinion, the most compelling hint that this "execution" isn't right is the fact that even the simple-minded Minsc speaks out against it. Minsc has a very clear-cut, "black-and-white" view of what is good and what is evil. If HE can figure out this execution isn't right, then that should be a BIG clue to the PC that they should intervene.

5) Jaheira's objections are also very telling. She would have an inbred hatred towards drow in general based on her race - yet even SHE speaks up in defense of Vicionia. If she can put her racial hatred aside and say the execution is wrong, this should also be a BIG clue to the PC.

My Lawful Good Vampire Slayer will still let Viconia fry, but that's because she's every bit as arrogant and prejudiced as Anomen and believes that HER way is the right way - PERIOD.

But I think there is sufficient cause for ANY class and/or alignment to intervene on Viconia's behalf after seeing everything that is going on with the "execution".

[Neomi]

It seems this topic comes up over and over again in scattered threads, and I'm glad it was started as a topic of its own.

The problem as I see it is that we have people arguing from two points of view (ok, as many different points of view as there are people, but basically two):

When role playing the game (any RPG whether paper, computer, whatever)...

1. Put yourself as much into the role and consider how you should or would act given a particular ethos or "alignment", without considering the outcome of these actions in terms of game play. i.e. act out your chosen alignment and if it means you miss out on an item (Lilacor, upgraded MoD, etc.) or quest (thieves guild), SO BE IT.

2. Try to come up with a rationale to explain why your character should or would act in such a way as to complete task A or obtain item Z, given a particular alignment. i.e. play the game and create a story that supports why you killed Quallo's friend or allowed Viconia to fry or screwed over some snobbish artist or murdered a member of the Cowled Wizards.

These are two completely opposite approaches to role-playing, and I'll freely admit that I have used each one depending on my mood. The problem is in having a debate people come from different perspectives. One can "justify" virtually any action from any perspective, it just takes some creative storytelling.

Note that in general, the alignment restrictions seem most obvious for "good" characters because it's kind of hard to justify cold-blooded murder or thievery other than to use the blanket statement that it's for a "higher cause". The question here is, do the ends justify the means? i.e. does simply having good intentions allow you to act in a way that is immoral? As they say, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

For neutral or evil role-players, the justifications are sometimes more simple: you help Nalia so that you can loot her castle (are "good" players justified in looting her castle?), you kill the slavers so that you can rub out the opposition, you protect the poor town of Umar just for the monetary reward, etc.

Of course, the point about what the character knows and doesn't know (not to mention replay knowledge) is a whole other topic of disagreement that also determines how role-playing decisions are made...

[Q'alooaith]

I think the whole idea of alinment is a little off..

I'd much rather just be scored on how Good or Evil I was in %, so you could be 45% good and 55& evil, making you neutral with some evil tendances..

Same with with law and chaos..

D&D alinements are just too inflexible to say "Lawfull good's do thing's this way"

And anyone saying "You are Chaotic Evil, so you must do this" is so very misstaken, it's all about roleplaying your char and how they would react, with the alinement telling you how the cosmos view's you and your action's, not how you should act.

[ZFR]

Originally posted by Q'alooaith: I think the whole idea of alinment is a little off.. I'd much rather just be scored on how Good or Evil I was in %, so you could be 45% good and 55& evil, making you neutral with some evil tendances.. Same with with law and chaos.. D&D alinements are just too inflexible to say "Lawfull good's do thing's this way" And anyone saying "You are Chaotic Evil, so you must do this" is so very misstaken, it's all about roleplaying your char and how they would react, with the alinement telling you how the cosmos view's you and your action's, not how you should act.

Exactly! Just as I said in my post. But you put it in a better way.
Each character is unique.
Saying "how would a neutral good react to incident X?" is a mistake.
Saying "How would Mr. Smith (who happens to be neutral good) react to incident X?" is better. But he would react so because he's Mr. Smith and not because he's neutral good.

So when you ask how would a lawful good good character react to something we cannot answer you. Because we do not know anything about that character and just because he's lawful good tells us nothing. You made the character you should know. If you think he would react so and so then that's how he will react. We can give you answers on how we think our lawful good characters would react but it's possible that there would be completely opposite reactions from characters who are all lawful good.

[ 11-19-2004, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: ZFR ]