Roleplaying/Alignment Dilemmas

[Q'alooaith]

She's not meant to be killed by a flamestrike, that's just the effect that play's..

Even it she was attacked my a flamestrike the pile of wood would set alight and thus she would be killed anyway even if she resisted the spell itself..

Quick point..

The clerics only crime he can call forth is spying, which he say's while telling you he's killing her because she is drow, is that not reason enough!

The fact you can't look at the fanatic's faces does limit how you play it out, with a DM there to tell you that the men with the sword's are practicaly foaming at the mouths would be a big givaway don't you think..

You could argue half orcs are evil and should all be killed because they are related to orcs..

[LennonCook]

Originally posted by Riftmaker: Again....a retort.... An advanced society like Amn would know that Drow have magic resistance. Why rely on magic to preform executions on magic resistant races? What if the spell is absorbed by the magic resistance? Pretty soon the authorities would become the laughing stock. It would make MORE sense to execute Drow by a physical means, rather than a magical means. Also, if the Amnish authorities actually did let clerics execute by Flamestrike, why choose a deity that has no temple in the city? I haven't been looking too hard, but I don't see any temples of Beshaba anywhere...

Drow, I believe, are meant to loose their magic resistance on the surface. I think that they are also very skilled and influential in magic. Drow are weak against fire (as they are to sunlight). Here is the reason, then, for executing Viconia via flamestrike: to humiliate her. One of her race's greatest elements is being used to kill her. They don't just want to kill this drow, they want to publically humiliate it.

Re "would a lawful character save her", I saw "it depends". Lawful, to me, means that the character follows a set of strict rules and values above their own personal thoughts - these are not necesarily the laws of the land. For example, a Paladin is lawful - why? Do they necesarily follow the Amnish law? No. They follow the laws set down by the god they worship. If these conflict, and they take the god's way, does it make them any less "lawful"? From the land's point of view, yes it does. From the god's point of view, it could make them even more lawful.

As I've said before, there are different levels of "roleplaying":
Bad roleplaying: "This way gives me more experience"
OK roleplaying: "I am a chaotic neutral Elvin Assasin, so I do this"
Good roleplaying: "I am Jeb, the human sorcerer. I think this, this, and this, so I do this."

In other words, in a roleplaying discussion thread, we can't pigeon-hole the alignments as the only evidence for what a character would do. Alignment can be a matter of perspective. Therefore the question shouldn't be "Would a lawfully aligned character let Viconia die?", because arguments can easily be presented both ways, and there is no right answer: two different lawful characters might follow a different law, and so do a different thing. Rather, the question should be "What would this character do?", and that is often a question that only the person playing them can answer.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: Unfortunately, I'm away from my books... But research Beshaba. This is the strongest hint that the execution isn't legit. Anyone living in Faerun would be familiar with Beshaba... and would know right away that Amn does not endorse her in *any* way, shape, or form.

Aaahhhh....but "researching Besheba" actually contradicts one of Riftmakers main arguments - that it doesn't matter what actually happened between your PC and Viconia in BG1 (I didn't let her join the party myself)...what matters is what the GAME ITSELF tells you happened. Other than using the title "Maid of Misrule", there isn't enough information given to the PC to know that Besheba is an evil diety. Also, I rarely turn the sound on when I play the game, because I usually play at night after my family is in bed. So I have to read all the dialogue and it would be easy to overlook something like that.

While a good case HAS been made that the PC could reasonably assume that this particular execution is illegal, I still stand by my assertion that it's quite possible clerics have been given authority to actually carry out executions in Amn.

First of all, only a cleric can cast Flamestrike. And this spell is very effective for carrying out a sentence of being burned at the stake, since the AOE is very limited - affecting ONLY the "target" of the spell without frying innocent bystanders or catching surrounding buildings on fire. Also, there are 3 separate "pyres" built and ready in front of the prison...so this obviously is a pretty normal occurance and is condoned (if not specifically endorsed) by Amnish authorities.

[Cerek]

Here is a new dilemma that my solo bard faced.

In Trademeet, after recovering the artifact from the crypt, do you give it to the High Merchant to avoid any conflict between the two warring families - or do you take the artifact to either Lady Luraxxols or Lord Alikabbar?

I think the game gives sufficient data to figure out that neither of these nobles has an exclusive claim to the item. Of course - if you haven't read a "Walkthrough" - it can be argued that you didn't know giving the artifact to one of the families will cause the other to show up and start a fight.

I have to admit that I allowed my player greed to override my roleplaying in this instance. I wanted Lord Alikabbars elven chain, since it is one of the few armors my bard could actually wear and still cast spells.

So I gave the artifact to Lady Luxarrols (she approached me first) and ended up killing both nobles along with several of their guards. The High Merchant showed up and scolded me for my actions, but I didn't suffer any Rep loss for it and I got the elven chain I wanted. So I marked it up to my bard allowing his personal greed to override his normal attempts at being charming and trying to please as many people as possible.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Cerek: quote: Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: Unfortunately, I'm away from my books... But research Beshaba. This is the strongest hint that the execution isn't legit. Anyone living in Faerun would be familiar with Beshaba... and would know right away that Amn does not endorse her in *any* way, shape, or form.

Aaahhhh....but "researching Besheba" actually contradicts one of Riftmakers main arguments - that it doesn't matter what actually happened between your PC and Viconia in BG1 (I didn't let her join the party myself)...what matters is what the GAME ITSELF tells you happened. Other than using the title "Maid of Misrule", there isn't enough information given to the PC to know that Besheba is an evil diety. [/QUOTE]Gorion was a smart man. The PC grew up in Candlekeep. Faerun is a diverse world with more gods than I can count. I'm sure that Gorion saw to it that the PC recieved a well-rounded education. This would have included a bit of theology.

Living in Faerun for 18-some-odd years and not knowing about its gods is like not knowing about its major geographical features, surrounding countries, oceans, constellations, things like that. And Beshaba is a deity widely feared... I wouldn't make this argument for all deities (I don't expect the PC, or many people here, to know who Sharess is, for example) but it's a fair bet that the PC is familiar with Tymora and Beshaba, Lathander, Helm, Tyr, Torm, Oghma, Selune, Shar, Sune, Chauntea, Talos... The list goes on. Converse with the priests in the Temple District: "I've heard that Helm is a stern and uncaring deity." Nobody tells the PC this, it's just something they've picked up.

One last thing... Beshaba is mentioned in the book "History of the Fateful Coin." You deliver that book to... What's his name... Firebead Elvenhair... In Beregost. Surely the PC flipped through it before delivering it.

Just because the information isn't given to the PC doesn't mean the PC doesn't know it. The thief PC is never "told" how to pick a lock, the paladin is never "told" about their own god, the ranger is never "told" about monsters... So how did they select a racial enemy? Stuff happens before that fateful day in Candlekeep.

[ 11-26-2004, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]

[Malthaussen]

I have always contended that the D&D alignment rules are such an inaccurate means of modelling human behavior that they are laughable... they were only put into the game originally for poor "play balance" reasons to begin with.

Operating within the rules, however, there are a couple of pointers to consider. If Keldorn is in the party when Vikky is threatened with execution, he gives a big hoo-rah and crowds forward to get a front seat. And Keldorn is a paladin, the epitome of LG by the rules. Ergo, one might conclude that, as Keldorn lives in Amn and knows all the ins-and-outs of the society, Vikky's burning is not only legitimate but something to be cheered, for the LG-inclined player. (Of course, individual gradients of LG behavior may modify this; your milage may vary)

The fact that a cleric of Basheba is presiding over the execution, IMO, has no relevance. The execution is occurring in front of the HQ and prison of the Watch of Amn. There are other pyres ready to cook other felons. There are Amnish guards present who watch over the execution and fight the player if he attempts to stop it. It is therefore inconceivable to me that this execution is being carried out without the acquiescence of the Amnish authorities, and thus it is "lawful" insofar as that designation has any meaning.

Very well, but is it "good?" I will again refer to the reactions of the good NPCs to give a hint. Aerie and Keldorn are all for it, but Misc cannot bear to see a former comrade killed. This would appear to be the crux of the matter: Minsc, and the PC, know that THIS drow is "different," whereas the other good NPCs who have never met Vikky think she should burn. If we consider that a NG or CG character can indulge in situational morality, then the execution of Vikky can be construed as evil, based on the information known to the character from his BG1 adventure. But an LG character is stuck, so far as I can see, because he has less flexibility in ignoring laws for the convenience of good.

Bottom line: an LG character should let Vikky burn (and she screams real good, too). Others are free to act as they will.

-- Mal

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Malthaussen: I have always contended that the D&D alignment rules are such an inaccurate means of modelling human behavior that they are laughable... *snip* Bottom line: an LG character should let Vikky burn (and she screams real good, too). Others are free to act as they will. -- Mal

Your self-contradictions aside, I disagree with any blanket statement like that. Personally, I think Keldorn is more than a little racist, but that's just me. You can't say "The LG paladin says this"... but you can say "The man with the mind of a child thinks this" or "The highly prejudiced and judgemental man says this" or "The Harper thinks this."

[ 11-26-2004, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]

[Q'alooaith]

Ahem, the guard does not stop fight you if you stop the execution, you'll note he's a fanatic not a guard.

You'll see a lot of people wearing armor that are not part of the city guard, also he's not a guard model and so on..

Now the guard will attack you if you hit him with spell's or attack him first..

[Malthaussen]

Are you snide by profession?

I state right after the first part of what you quote "Operating within the rules, however..." Thus negating any self-contradiction. In other words, I don't like the rule, but if one must use it, what follows is to be considered.

Secondly, I state "Of course, individual gradients of LG behavior may modify this; your milage may vary." ie, one LG paladin or character may see things this way, others may not.

As you style yourself a "pedantic mistress of language" I should think you would not miss such nuances in a text.

That having been said, I agree with you. I mention the reactions of other characters only as one form of indicating how a character may react.

In the D&D style of alignment rules, LG characters are more than a little inflexible: if one interprets law or good in idiosyncratic ways, they are considered not "really" LG. An LG character must uphold law at the expense of good, if a choice must be made, or else how would he differ from an NG or CG character?

-- Mal

[Q'alooaith]

Law's change, does that mean in retropect that a LG char might have acted in a NG or CG way, or if they where following your idea of LG, they might have been acting CE if a law was to be changed..

Rather than seeing Lawfull char's as people who follow a nations law, see them as people who follow a moral set of law's, Stealing is thus wrong, unlawfull.

Somone who follow's a code of honnor is lawfull in alignment, even though that code might be in dissagreement with local laws.

Lawfull alignments are not about law's, but people who follow a code of honnor, the code will vary from person to person and is based on the second part of their alignment, a LE's code might make it imoral to attack an unarmed opponent, while a LN might go so far as to make it imoral to attack somone who's not threatening, while a LG's code might make it wrong to attack anyone who's defencless no matter how much they get on your nerves.


So lawfull aligned persons do not live by the word of law, but by a code of honnor.