Evil just isn't as rewading...

Remove all ads!

I think the various forms of "good" are best described not in terms of the (rather ambiguous) law/chaos axis, but in terms of their philosophical foundations:

lawful good - textbook utilitarianism. The description "lawful good characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm" gives it away. Therefore, things like killings a drow just because it is a drow seem to be justifiable for a LG character.

neutral good - still more or less utilitarian, but with a streak of moral relativism. The description excerpt about "the universe is vast and contains many different creatures striving for many different goals" clues us into the relativism part.

chaotic good - moral relativists who just happen to be "good" by nature. "there actions are guided by their own moral compass".


It seems from these descriptions that most if not all of the ambiguous "would a good character do that" moments in the game could be justified whether you choose "yes" or "no", keeping in mind that the missapplication of our moral guidelines (due to lack of knowledge or just plain irrationality) is a basic part of human (and elf, dwarf, gnome, etc.) nature.

 

I'd like to add that Keldorn will also immediately notice that Viconia is a priestess of Shar, one of the most evil deities in the Realms. While there exists a non-evil Farunian order of Shar Worshipers (Darkcloaks), they actually only worship one aspect of Shar, use a different holy symbol, and their ceremonial garb is different.

To make a long story short, casting detect evil isn't necessary since one look will tell anyone with with proficiency in Knowledge:Religion (highly unlikely that Keldorn wouldn't have this) that she is a Nightbringer of Shar and therefore evil. There are no Nightbringers of Neutral alignment.

 

Very good point Drew. I completely overlooked the Shar priesthood thing!

@Fel: if Keldorn is "loaded" with detect evil spells there is no way he could get confused about Korgan being CE and not CN.

I may be biased against Keldorn and Keldorn-like LG characters... Anyway following Nataben1314's example I went back to the descriptions and tried to figure what to make of them:

There is a clear emphasis on justice. Justice means a fair trial, not execution without giving a chance for the culprit to explain and redeem or atone for his/her actions.
For instance, in the Lord of the Rings, Gollum is not killed because Gandalf and the elves believe that they can't take his life: in the chapter 'The Shadow of the Past' Gandalf explains to Frodo that many deserve to die that live while others die while they should live and that it is not his part to judge who shall live or die. He sums it up by saying that anybody can take a life but nobody can grant more life to someone.
What I mean by this digression is that IMHO a LG character is probably not a proponent of death penalty.
At the other end of the spectrum, Minsc (CG) is revolted by the idea of burning Viconia at the stake (agreed Beshaba is an evil deity).

---> LG = Justice for all

and equality before the law whether you're a Drow, a Dwarf or a Halfling. It is not arbitrary. Superman is well aware that Lex Luthor is the villain yet he will not kill him. The end does not justify the means.

The inquisitor comparison is interesting in itself. In opposition to the LG character, the end may not justify the means but morality and conscience are not what guide the actions of such a character. The well being of others is only secondary to the strict observance of rules and laws. There is a certain level of obsession in this alignment.
A Samurai devoted to his lord or a law enforcer can tipify the LN alignment.
A LN character does things by the book. He is not evil because this factor depends on the laws and the governement he/she is following.
A LN character may consider that he or she is serving the greater good and thus justify following orders (orders that a LG character might question).

--->LN = sense of duty

a LN character is dedicated and uncompromising. Think about Judge Dredd as an extreme representation of this alignment for example.

 

Well, the question immediately rises as to why he would bother. After all, it's not polite to go casting privacy-invading spells on everyone you meet. And alignment is a private matter; that's like delving into the depths of your soul to satisfy someone's curiosity. (Viconia's reason being that she's drow; more on that below.) I suppose the necklace of ears might give it away, but somehow I don't imagine Korgan would be wearing that in the presence of a paladin.

That phrase is wrong. Just plain wrong. Putting a subrace, about which much is almost universal, up against an entire race is a very uneven comparison. You could say elf, dwarf, or halfling, and that would work, so long as you're talking about generic characters. But when you get specific, talking about subraces like drow, you've got to look at who they are. Drow are evil. Duergar & Derro (dwarf) are evil. Svirfneblin (gnome) are evil. As such, it's perfectly okay to assume that one of them will almost certainly be evil and be accordingly wary as a result. And such a character, given the choice between a spell that invades their privacy or a sword that invades their insides, will most likely choose the former. Unless, of course, they know that the outcome will inevitably be the latter.

But what chance has a drow for any of those? Viconia is unapologetic, seeing nothing wrong with her acts, as any drow would. Born and raised in a world where such things are commonplace, it takes great morality to not fall into the popular mentality (i.e. Drizzt). The only chance Viconia has is to be molded by a god-spawn, and even in that she's an exception. Do you expect Keldorn to somehow know this? Is the full day he gives her not enough? Hell, he doesn't even demand that she atone or anything (which she wouldn't anyway), just that she leave. I'd say that's pretty damn mellow, when she could just be leaving to go on a killing spree.

And what does Gandalf have to do with Lawful Good? Nothing, AFAIK. (That passage sounds more NG than anything else.) Which makes your assumption wanting at best, faulty at worst.

 

The truth is that Keldorn hasn't act like a true paladin when he attack Viconia and if it were a PnP game, Keldorn would have lose is paladin title.

 

You don't HAVE to fight her. There are dialog options that allow you to get her to walk away. So she wasn't ordered, or at least she doesn't feel compelled to follow the orders if she was ordered.

 

And Korgan may be carrying a lead sheet around as a proof of manhood, or something. It is said that some halflings do that too, rendering a Paladin's Detect Evil useless.


In any case, I find all the rules regarding palandinhood way too strict (it may be my chaotic nature). I prefer to play them as Eddings' Pandion Knights: A defender of good, with a difference. It opens more possibilites that the game allows, and makes me feel better when I join the Shadow Thieves, break contracts with the Cowled Wizards, or slay a whole village of Xvarts (TuTu) just for the kicks.

 

Continuing the zealot/Adalon discussion:

Yes. I'm not arguing that such a thing *is* good, rather that roleplaying a particular type of "good" character may lead to Adalon being considered (by that character) as a perfectly valid target.

Actually I think we are largely in agreement in a lot of ways, but I suspect I was not clear enough initially that my notion was not a blanket statement about alignment, but the roleplaying *perceptions* of a particular character type, from the point of view of that character, not from us as players who have experienced the whole game many times and have built up ideas of context about motives and such like.

Ah, now this I will debate, just a little.

First, I never suggested that Adalon's typically (for a dragon) arrogant manner is an indicator, so "Good=/=Nice", although entirely correct, is irrelevent to my notion.

Second, I'm not convinced what Adalon does is evil, either - which is why I never described it as "evil". But it is dubious. Perhaps not quite "not good", but definately slanted in her own self-interest, and not necessarily in that of the party. She suggests an arrangement that appears to be of mutual interest - but that is stretching the truth somewhat; from certain points of view, it's downright misleading. It is definately in her interest, but not necessarily yours (you're on a tight schedule to recover your soul(s), after all) - although it is a very good point that the last we see of Irenicus prior to meeting Adalon takes place in Ust Natha, which suggests that it's a good place to look, and a good idea to go along with her scheme.

However, the game is outright misleading in that the locked exit is described as "barred by Drow sorcery" or somesuch -- when actually it isn't. It's barred by Adalon. (Although never made perfectly explicit, it can certainly be deduced that her role as "gatekeeper" was to prevent Drow access to the surface; now that the Drow have her eggs, she's playing the opposite game: allowing Drow access while denying it to you!) The conditions for it opening are either fulfilling her egg quest, or killing her. (Is there another?)

Now, you could make the argument that the "door-unlocking-because-she's-dead" is simply a sanity check by the game designers to prevent hasty players from having their game progress become permanently blocked, and it's a very good argument. Adalon's actual dialogue tends to suggest otherwise, however.

It's curious.

 

Fel, you remember the inn in Baldur's Gate where a Pally casts detect evil when the party first goes in and attacks if evil is detected?

Perhaps, although I don't remember subraces being implemented in BG2 (contrary to IWD2).

It sounds NG to you. It doesn't mean it sounds NG to me or someone else, now does it? IMHO the alignment system is way too simple (think about psychology and psychoanalysis).

Which shall it be then, "wanting" or "faulty"? You reach the conclusion that Gandalf "sounds" NG ergo either I'm inarticulate or wrong.
To me it looks like your assumption is no better than mine. I guess you know it all so I must be wrong.

@Luiz: Now that is interesting... I believe most players bear a grudge against Adalon because either you do what you're told and follow the track planned by the programmers or kill it and miss out on the entire Drow city. And most of us don't like being told what to do.

 

Well, there are variations, but that guy is an idiot. Ajantis too, while we're at it. Both belong to a specialty alignment branch of LG known as Lawful Stupid. Think about it, if you saw six adventurers armed to the teeth, and found out that one of them was evil, would you attack them all by yourself?

Define implemented. Is an entire city full of a subrace implemented when all of them follow the subrace's precepts, including a Drizzt knock-off? And Drizzt himself, for that matter.

The parenthetical aside was just an aside indicating a differing opinion, nothing more. The point itself lies in what is out of the parentheses. Who says Gandalf is LG? You could very well come back with "who says he's NG?", but NG is not what's being discussed here, LG is. And unless Gandalf is irrefutably LG (by canon or something), he cannot be used as a definitive example. And considering that Tolkien would likely want to put himself as far away from D&D rules as possible to prevent accusations of stealing material or whatever might be thrown at him, I doubt you'll find such a statement.

 

It would be nigh impossible to prove what Gandalf's alignment would be since this is a matter of conjecture (and disagreement). Funny thing Tolkien didn't give his stats.

I doubt I can quote the "canon" or the Holy PHB or the Holy DMG or even the Holier MM to find evidence of this either.
Since I didn't write any of these, anything I say can't be considered as being "definitive".

Tolkien published The Hobbit in 1937 and The Lord of the Rings in the 1950s decades before Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson created the original Dungeons & Dragons in 1974. So no risk of plagiarism on Tolkien's part.

 

I've always thought of Gandalf as a being beyond good and evil

The thing that's so great about Tolkien is that even though many think that the whole Lord of The Rings is about a battle between good and evil, the way the story's told makes it more a mythology than a morality and mythological characters, such as Gandalf, most often don't have clear pathways which they follow.

Gandalf is against Sauron's plans to enslave the Middle Earth with his power, and he's a benevolent power, but not necessarily good or evil in a straightforward fashion we tend to think of good and evil. The same goes for every one of Tolkien's characters. As they have chosen a side for which they fight for, it's their actions in unseemly situations that define their characters. They are not categorized beforehand as good or evil, and there is always the danger of getting corrupted by power.

The thing about the Hell trials is that it's great you can be turned into a corrupt and evil being, but on the other hand it should've been possible to redeem yourself at some point. When you're already neutral evil it doesn't matter how many good deeds you do, you're still evil. All you can do is fall from grace, but you can't aspire to a higher goal, no matter if you'd be LN or CN. This shouldn't be so, but what can you do about it, the game is rigged.

 

Actually, Svirfneblin aren't evil.

 

Hmm, you seem to be right; what it says is only that there is a misconception that they are evil. Ditto for Derro as well (barring setting tweaks, of course). But my point still stands for Drow and Duergar, most especially the Drow.