# 101 moral dilemmas for good characters



## MerakSpielman (Oct 10, 2002)

There are those situations where the characters (assuming they are good in this case) are really perplexed and can't decide what is the "right and good" course of action. Or post situations that, no matter what he does, the paladin will lose his paladinhood. If you actually used the situation, also mention what the characters really did.

Please, debate as little as possible.


1 - (the classic) Does the party kill the crying kobold young and the females cowering over them? They all detect as evil. 

_What my party did_: Yes. They decided kobolds were inherently evil and that letting them live is like failing to wipe out as much of a disease as you can when you have the chance.

2 - A paladin (NPC) is approached by a party that, paradoxically, detects as some good/some evil. They all seem to be aware of each others nature. The city has been over run with demons coming out of a portal which only a paladin or cleric can close. They tell him they want to close the portal and need his help. He has tried to get to it before but knows that the portal is too well guarded for a single paladin to get near enough to close it. He needs the partys help if he want to save the town, but some of them are evil and his code forbids him from helping them.

_What he did_: Agreed to help us. He concluded that losing his Paladinhood was a worthy price to pay for saving the town, and he could always go up against the evil party members after the larger crisis was averted.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 10, 2002)

The Kantian classic in D&D terms:

The Lawful Evil secret police ask the Lawful Good party members if they know where a wrongly accused man is hiding. In fact, they do: he's hiding in their house. Do they truthfully answer, condemming the wrongly accused man to capture and death? or do they lie, thereby thwarting the law?


----------



## Tonguez (Oct 10, 2002)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> *1 - (the classic) Does the party kill the crying kobold young and the females cowering over them? They all detect as evil.
> *




I take it this is a house rule since in 3e the Detect Evil Spell only detects Evil Creatures (ie those with an Evil Subtype), Undead, Evil Elementals and Priest of Evil Gods not Alignments...


----------



## Tiberius (Oct 10, 2002)

There's always the situation of a paladin (or other LG type)wandering into a town where the local legitimate authority has made a law saying that all citizens and visitors must own slaves for the duration of their stay (or if this isn't evil enough for you, sacrifice babies to dark gods).  Does the paladin (or LG type) obey the law and perpetrate an evil, or break the law to avoid the evil?

-Tiberius


----------



## MerakSpielman (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: 101 moral dilemmas for good characters*



			
				Tonguez said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I take it this is a house rule since in 3e the Detect Evil Spell only detects Evil Creatures (ie those with an Evil Subtype), Undead, Evil Elementals and Priest of Evil Gods not Alignments... *




Really? I guess we've been using that houserule for, well, ever. Maybe we didn't bother reading the description that well, assuming it was the same as the 2nd ed spell.

We're on #5 next.


----------



## Femerus the Gnecro (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: 101 moral dilemmas for good characters*



			
				Tonguez said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I take it this is a house rule since in 3e the Detect Evil Spell only detects Evil Creatures (ie those with an Evil Subtype), Undead, Evil Elementals and Priest of Evil Gods not Alignments... *




Um... where exactly does it state that this is the case?

I think it's pretty clear that the spell detects creatures of evil alignment, but after reading the rules, the spell doesn't specifically state its case one way or the other.  

-F


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Oct 10, 2002)

Detect Evil
Divination
Level: Clr 1, Rgr 2
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 ft.
Area: Quarter circle emanating from the character to the extreme of the range
Duration: Concentration, up to 10 minutes/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

The character can sense the presence of evil. The amount of information revealed depends on how long the character studies a particular area or subject:

1st Round: Presence or absence of evil.

2nd Round: Number of evil auras (creatures, objects, or spells) in the area and the strength of the strongest evil aura present. If
the character is of good alignment, the strongest evil aura’s strength is "overwhelming" (see below), and the strength is at least twice the character's character level, the character is stunned for 1 round and the spell ends. While the character is stunned, the character can’t act, the character loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, and attackers gain +2 bonuses to attack the character.

3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. If an aura is outside the character's line of sight, then the character discerns
its direction but not its exact location.
Aura Strength: An aura’s evil power and strength depend on the type of evil creature or object that the character is detecting
and its HD, caster level, or (in the case of a cleric) class level.

Creature/Object Evil Power
Evil creature HD / 5
Undead creature HD / 2
Evil elemental HD / 2
Evil magic item or spell Caster level / 2
Evil outsider HD
Cleric of an evil deity Level
Evil Power Aura Strength
Lingering Dim
1 or less Faint
2–4 Moderate
5–10 Strong
11+ Overwhelming


If an aura falls into more than one strength category, the spell indicates the stronger of the two.

Length Aura Lingers: How long the aura lingers depends on its original strength:
Original Strength Duration
Faint 1d6 minutes
Moderate 1d6 X 10 minutes
Strong 1d6 hours
Overwhelming 1d6 days

Remember that animals, traps, poisons, and other potential perils are not evil; this spell does not detect them.
Note: Each round, the character can turn to detect things in a new area. The spell can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1
inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it.


----------



## Tonguez (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: 101 moral dilemmas for good characters*



			
				MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> *Really? I guess we've been using that houserule for, well, ever. We're on #5 next. *




Yep common misconception and its a pity since the new spell makes things like the kobold slaying even more fun because the Kobolds don't detect as evil its just a cultural stereotype


*okay #5The Will of the Gods* 
The local Good aligned natives just happen to worship a NE Fiendish giant eel and give it a yearly human(oid) sacrifice

Should the PCs intervene and stop the sacrifice? Slay the 'god'?
Does it matter if the sacrifice is a goblin or an elf?

*# 6 Orcs have rights too*
The party encounters a orc hunting party and kills them
Later the Orc villagers come to the town Sheriff and put in a complaint about the murder
The PCs are hired to investigate the murder only to discover that they are the guilty murderers - now what do they do?

*# 7 Baby's Day Out*
A baby giant/tarrasque whatever has wondered off into the city and is now causing havoc breaking things, squashing people and upsetting the Kings parade

DO the PCs kill it? or try and led it to safety?


----------



## River (Oct 10, 2002)

The key to a good moral dilema is "Do the ends justify the means.

4.  The party arrives to save the vilage from the evil mage and are attacked by the dominated villagers.  Do they kill villagers to get at the mage?

5.  Don't make it kobolds, make it the human families of the savage barbarians who have been raiding and slaughtering the local villagers for generations...

6.  A new drug that slowly turns its users into horrible abominations is destroying the countryside.  Will the players become dealers in the drug to infiltrate the organization that deals it.

Will the players USE the drug.

7.  A mother fleeing an angry mob of torch weilding villagers.  She is pursued by a mob dedicated to killing her and her 1/2 fendish infant.  The mother is evil the child is not...  Do the players help her?  What if it means fighting the townsfolk?

8.  The <not evil> heir to a wicked and warlike kingdom is trying to turn his kingdom around.  To appease his generals he must fight one last battle, the destruction of a city.  If he fails his generals will kill him.  Do the players help and help the new king de-fuse his warlike kingdom, even if it means participating in an atrocity?

9.  The players stumble upon a plague that turns elves into creatures of the far-realms.  <adds the template.>  The disease is easily transmitted and totally uncureable.  The aflicted are otherwise normal <except when the occassionaly turn into slimy tentaceled masses.>  The aflicted elves feal compeled to travel and spread the disease.  Do the players stop them?  What if that means killing them?

What about the elven party member who becomes afflicted?  does he continue to adventure knowing that he afflicts any elf he meets? 

10.  The players kindom is invaded by a powerful empire determined to enslave the population.  The kindom possess a powerful artifact capable of firing massive flame strikes hundreds of yards across.  However, when the weapon is used the sun forever dims a tiny bit...  This weapon has the power to doom the world to perpetual darkness.  Do the players use a weapon that permenantly darkens the world to save themselves?  Even once?

If they use the weapon once or twice, what happens when it becomes necessary to use it again?  and again?

At what point does it become better to accept slavery?

River


----------



## roytheodd (Oct 10, 2002)

Here's the crux of my next campaign: 
A local earl has a deal with a hag that made his firstborn child a son. To make it so, the hag cut a deal with a demon - the price of the deal is the earl's second born son. The earl refuses to pay now that he has a second son and the demon is threatening to enter the material plane and wreak havoc. The hag, trying to prevent this, begins kidnapping and feeding other souls to the demon. The PCs think the hag is up to no good and try to stop her. As the game progresses they will learn of the demon and the deal with the earl and really not know who to side with or what is good and what is evil. Dilemma is good.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Oct 10, 2002)

There's a big difference between setting up fun and interesting dilemmas and intentionally screwing good players. Some of the suggestions so far, if not carefully done are simply intentionally screwing players of good (or lawful) characters.

Playing D&D isn't fun if the world suddenly turns arbitrary and capricious so that the DM can say "Hahaha, you're not good anymore or you're sentenced to death." 

For instance


> #5 The players slaughter an orc hunting party



Why? Are orcs generally or occasionally peaceful in this world? Does the hunting party attack the PCs? Are they armed for war and pursuing a young girl?

If the campaign has so far been set up in a B&W comic book style so that orcs are inherently chaotic and evil, it doesn't make sense for them to suddenly become law abiding citizens. It's also worth noting that the "innocent" orcs should react differently to the PCs than marauding bandits. To just assume that the last band of marauding villainous orcs the PCs killed are suddenly law abiding citizens of a little hamlet whose sheriff asks the PCs to track down their murderers seems rather arbitrary.



> The local Good aligned natives just happen to worship a NE Fiendish giant eel and give it a yearly human(oid) sacrifice




This also has problems. Nobody *just happens* to worship anything. The character of a people is always affected by what they worship and how they worship it. There are also different ways and different reasons to worship. People may worship out of fear because if they don't the god will destroy the village or destroy their fishing boats as they gather food (the most likely reason in this case). They may also offer sacrifices as bribes to manipulate or appease a god. They may also offer sacrifices as an indication of gratitude or love. All of these will have different consequences for the people who do so and their character. Since you've already established that these people are "good" that will have a definite impact on how they view the eel.

This specific situation sounds like the classical Perseus and Andromeda or Theseus and the minotaur situation where the people don't want to make the sacrifice but do so because they fear total destruction if they don't. In that case, they would be grateful to the PCs for destroying their oppressor (although they might attempt to discourage the PCs from attempting to kill it or might feebly assist the eel against the PCs because they think the eel will prevail and fear that it will destroy them if they are seen to aid the PCs).

In any event, any account like this needs to take the nature of good and evil into account and not simply treat them as if they were the names of opposing teams.

Since my contribution should be at least partially positive here's one more:

*#11 Is the enemy of my enemy my friend* 
The PCs have been fighting two allied evil forces for a while. Both forces are truly vile, inflicting suffering and torture upon their people and their enemies alike. However, recently Evil Force N betrayed Evil Force C and is attacking it mercilessly. Evil force N is winning at the moment but is stretched quite thin. Evil force C asks the PCs for help.

If the PCs help evil force C, they will enable it to survive and may make it much easier to defeat evil force N. If the PCs and Evil force C defeat evil force N together, will the PCs then turn on and attack their erstwhile ally?

If the PCs refuse to help evil foce C, it will be destroyed but evil force N will be more powerful and more difficult to destroy--if it is possible at all.


----------



## MerakSpielman (Oct 10, 2002)

Thanks Elder-Basilisk, that was insightful.

To be honest, I was hoping for more doable ideas, or ideas that had been done in other people's campaigns and the reactions of the party to the situation.

Why am I looking for these things? People love to post stories, and I love hearing them. Also, this allows DMs (including me) to steal good plot ideas.

So post on, good folks!

BTW, we're actually on #17 now.


----------



## der_kluge (Oct 10, 2002)

I just LOVE these kinds of things - 

I think we're on #17

#17 A rogue (probably neutral) wants to join a thieves guild for protection/training/etc.  He is asked to burgle a house to show that he is qualified to join.  The house is owned by a well-known noble family.  While the nobles are away, the rogue breaks in, and begins scrounging around looking for stuff.  In his search, he finds a secret door leading to a basement where some slaves are currently fastened to torture devices.  The slaves, once ungagged, tell the rogue that the owners are into the dark arts, and the slaves are forced to endure horrendous torture for their dark experiments.  
  Does the rogue free the slaves, and try to rat out the noble and risk being charged with burglary?

#18 The PCs are asked to kill a local necromancer who is raising a small army of undead in the swamp (or suitable location).  The PCs travel there, find the tower, defeat hordes of undead, and finally encounter the vile necromancer - who is a woman that is about 9 months pregnant.
  Do the PCs kill the necromancer and her unborn child - who could grow up to be a paladin under the right circumstances.  Does she even have a normal baby?  What to do, what to do?!

#19 In ENWorld's Encounter contest a while back, I submitted an NPC I called the "Goddess".  She is an enchantress that, through bluff, and suggestion abilities, has convinced a small village of peasants that she is a miraculous healer.  The entire village pays her tributes and offerings for her precious "healing" magic.  The PC encounters her and recognizes her as a charlatan.  Attempting to exile her, or kill her, causes the villagers to rise up with pitchforks and torches to protect their "Goddess"!


----------



## 0-hr (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: 101 moral dilemmas for good characters*



			
				Tonguez said:
			
		

> *
> Yep common misconception and its a pity since the new spell makes things like the kobold slaying even more fun because the Kobolds don't detect as evil its just a cultural stereotype:*



 You're saying that a creatre with an evil alignment is not an evil creature? You'll need a pretty good rules quote to convince me of that one...


----------



## Ghostwind (Oct 10, 2002)

Here's a moral dilemma that came up in my group once time.  While in a dungeon where drow controlled most of it and has set up a community, the party encounters, or rather surprises, two 0-level drow children.  Do you let the children live or kill them because they are drow and inherently evil?


----------



## ArcOfCorinth (Oct 10, 2002)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 1 - (the classic) Does the party kill the crying kobold young and the females cowering over them? They all detect as evil.
> ...





Mine rounded the kobolds up and took them back to a mine they owned. With the help of a few good natured dwarven mothers, they're raising the kobolds to be neutral good. They escaped with about a dozen babies and more than fifty eggs. This brings me to a question...how long does it take kobolds to mature?

The kobold mothers all died in combat. They were religious zealots worshipping a black dragon and fought the PCs on sight.


----------



## ArcOfCorinth (Oct 10, 2002)

Here's one.

#19

 After a battle with drow warriors, only one drow is left alive. He looks at this fallen brethren and then surrenders to the party. The elven ranger in the party refuses to accept this (drow is one of his favored enemies and he believes the only good drow is a dead drow), stating the drow should simply be killed. The drow is obviously evil _but_ like anyone else, he doesn't want to die. He has already casted away his weapons and is now passive. There are other drow in the area. If the drow is allowed to live free, he'll simply go to that group and continue his evil acts. If they capture him, they can bring him to justice...but what if he escapes? Also, there isn't any real reason to punish the drow. The PCs are tresspassing in his domain and his party merely attempted to stop this. The drow is evil, but there's no real proof that he's committed an evil act. The PC have a dilemnia. Do we murder him while he's unarmed and peacefully surrendering? Do we allow him to go and risk him alerting more drow to our presence or stab us when we turn our back? Do we tie him up and drag him along with us? What if he gets free? What if he gets free while we're in a dire situation? Is this all a ruse?


----------



## Infinite Monkey@Work (Oct 10, 2002)

A comment on the situations where you encounter normally evil races and then have to decide whether to kill them or not.  IMC, I wrote a creation story detailing how certain evil races, mostly the common ones like Orcs and Goblins, are actually warped versions of the good races, and can be 'unwarped' by convincing them to become good.  As such, killing them is inherently evil unless it is a serious us or them situation.


----------



## Kyramus (Oct 10, 2002)

TKiryn, the hardest part with this question is that evil creatures, according to the spell will be detected.

in second edition, evil intentions is what makes a creature evil.

also most of the entries on monsters state alignment as something.
Kobolds show as usually lawful evil.
so the question should be, are newly born babies automatically get the designation of LE? if not, how old do they have to be to become designated LE?

It's a pain to arbitrarily judge.  I find the spell to be tantamount to a super radar.
Evil NPC eating lunch. "He's evil, smite him!!!"
then what? the government will bring up that the pc's disobeyed the law. The PC's returns a "ask a priest to detect evil on him".   Makes for a most annoying circumstance.

I have yet to find a ruling or house rule that will cover this issue.


----------



## Nail (Oct 10, 2002)

Re: _Detect Evil_
    The spell detects evil creatures.  Creatures are designated evil by their alignment.  Therefore the spell detects creatures who have an evil alignment descriptor.  What's the problem?  <shrug>

Re:Moral dilemmas

#20)  PCs save a human child from bandits, and return her home.  Through hints and circumstance, they find out the child ran away because she was about to be sacrificed by the townsfolk.  The PCs stop the townsfolk....only to find that the townsfolk need to sacrifice one of their own every so often, or else they turn into ravening CE were-beasts...... (Swiped and modified from Stephen King story).  What to do?

_What my PCs did_:  The story took quite awhile to develop.....when the finale came, they were shocked...the look on their collective faces as they put the final piece in place was priceless.  After ferocious intra-party debate, they ended up taking the girl away and leaving the townsfolk to their fate.  We still talk about that one.....

#21) PCs were attacked (and eventually captured) by NG bounty hunters, who take particular pains to avoid seriously injuring th' PCs.  The Bounty hunters explain to the PCs what they had done wrong, and why they were being taken back for trial.  The PCs know they are being framed, and they know the trial is rigged by an arch-nemesis.  Do they try to escape, even if that means killing one or more of the bounty-hunters?  Do they instead go and try to clear their name?

_What my PCs did_:  They concidered it a no-brainer.  *Of course* they try to escape!  ...And what's a dead bounty hunter or two amongst friends?  There's always _resurrection_, right?

#22) PCs hired to clear out a small community of rock trolls that have been raiding nearby farms.  The DM is *stupified* when th' PCs take th' trouble to talk to the rock trolls first, before slaughtering them.  Although trust is scarce, the trolls try to convince th' PCs of their lack of food and the defensive and non-lethal nature of the raids.  _Detect Evil_ does not show the trolls to be evil.......

_What my PCs did_:  They had the trolls at their mercy...could've mopped th' floor wit' 'em, mostly due to superior preparation and strategy.  Instead, against the strenuous objection of the fighter and the druid of the group, they decided to believe the trolls story and do some further investigations back at town.  Of course, this means they let the trolls go......


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Oct 10, 2002)

Kyramus said:
			
		

> *I have yet to find a ruling or house rule that will cover this issue. *




A nice justification for why detect alignment spells and abilities don't work on mortals is that redemption and falling are both strong possibilities for the changeable minds and souls of mortals.  Only outsiders and those enfused with the power of a diety are axiomatic enough to have such an aura.

I don't know if your players would accept that after years of having their uber-radar make their decisions for them, but it may be worth a shot.


----------



## Tonguez (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 101 moral dilemmas for good characters*



			
				Ki Ryn said:
			
		

> * You're saying that a creatre with an evil alignment is not an evil creature? You'll need a pretty good rules quote to convince me of that one... *




Thats Right Because a Human has an Evil alignment does not make it an Evil Creature and same goes for Kobolds

EVIL is a subtype attached to Creature descriptions so a Hell Hound for instance has subtypes Evil, Fire and Lawful.

The Spell also states that it detects Cleric of Evil Gods - which tends to suggest that it detects the cleric because of her worship not because of her alignment. Ironically the only mention of alignment in the spell refers to Good Alignment...


*Elder-Basilisk*
I agree that using the suggestions without context is not good for the game and continuity. But both of the scenarios listed have been used imc in which admittedly concepts of good and evil are not so clear

the Orcs were  hunting party of a culture which sometimes engaes in raids (think Highland scots).

The PCs had been sent out to hunt bandits.
they spotted the orcs and assumed they were the bandits. That night they try to sneak in and subdue the orcs, the rogue decides to knock out an orc but fails, gets caught and a fight ensues

as for the Eel god, the gnomes worshipping it do so because the Eel is beneficient to them (brings good weather and good fishing), in return for which they sacrifice an occasional goblin. If they fail to sacrifice it might cause bad weather (Weather Control) or even eat one of them. However the gnomes accept this (as they have done so for centuries)

The Humans are new arrivals in the area and only become involved after one of the human villagers tresspasses on the gnome burial grounds and is going to be sacrificed for the offense.
Luckily the PCs negotiated there way through this one but have to give half there annual harvest to the gnomes over the next 5 years

*Other Dilemas* and yes I have used these

The PCs must retrive Artifact X from the Cave of Horrors (otherwise there whole country will perish), the only way to reach it though is for someone to give their life (either they voluntarily sacrifice one of their number or kill one of the NPC followers.
IMC the Fighter sacrificed himself. The suprise I had in store was that when the Artifact was later used the Outsider that appeared was the Celestial form of the Fighter now elevated to Tribal Guardian)

A Fiendish Barbarian has been attacking the sons of local chieftain, he has imprisoned 2 of them. The PCs investigate only to learn that the Barbarian is infact the chieftains eldest son abandoned at birth because of his feindish taint. He only wants recognition by his parents as legitimate heir...


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Oct 10, 2002)

Re: Detect Evil:



> It's a pain to arbitrarily judge. I find the spell to be tantamount to a super radar.
> Evil NPC eating lunch. "He's evil, smite him!!!"
> then what? the government will bring up that the pc's disobeyed the law. The PC's returns a "ask a priest to detect evil on him". Makes for a most annoying circumstance.
> 
> I have yet to find a ruling or house rule that will cover this issue.




I have run the spell as detecting evil alignments since day 1 and it's never presented a problem in any of my campaigns. Simply being evil (of low magnitude--faint, moderate, or dim evil auras) is rarely an excuse to smite someone. I've always made it clear that there are lots of evil people out there some of whom cheat their customers, some of whom betray their friends, some of whom promise their heart to many women (or men) without ever meaning it, and some of whom are hungry for power. Those don't all deserve death and even for those that do, it's rarely practical to simply smite them then and there on that basis. (If the PCs tell the law--"Detect Evil on him, you'll see", the most likely response is "It's a little late for that now, isn't it--need I remind you that there's no law against being evil but there is one against murder. Will you come peacefully?") The other good reminder for PCs is that weak evil could be:
1. A 2nd level evil cleric
2. A weak polymorphed evil outsider
3. A 10 hd disguised dragon
4. A 10th level necromancer
5. A 10th level evil fighter
6. A first level evil commoner

Smiting first and asking questions later may work (absent all legal considerations) with options 1, 2 and 6 but options 3, 4, and 5 are likely to result in a TPK.

Moderate Evil is even worse. It could be:
1. A 12th level evil fighter
2. A weak demon or devil
3. An 8th level vampire fighter
4. A 20th level necromancer
5. A 10/10 fighter/Ravager
6. A 7th level evil cleric
7. A 15th level aristocrat who's known for betraying friends
8. A 12th level expert who's prosperity and location on the city council is due to his ruthless and underhanded business practices.

So smiting moderate evil first and asking questions later could be a winable fight (2, 6), an action with tremendous political reprecussions (7, 8), or suicide (4, 5, 6).

Detect Evil may be a super radar but its very sensitivity in 3e inclines it towards false positives. It may very well detect bad guys but it doesn't limit itself to "bad guys you're looking for", "bad guys you can handle", "bad guys no one cares if you kill", or "bad guys who've done anything deserving of death." All it detects is evil alignments--and in my campaigns, that's about 15-50% of any given human city.

Again something constructive:
*#25*The Evil that is Out of Reach

The wizard PC is shopping at the general store and the owner (a powerful man who owns a trading company and is one of the duke's most noted supporters) offers him some gold if he will identify an item for him. When the wizard picks up the item, to identify it, he realizes that it's a +2 sword but merely touching it gives him a negative level. The owner observes the wizard's discomfort (which confirms to him that his sword is infused with Unholy power), thanks the wizard for his effort, pays him well for his trouble and assures him that he'll deal with the sword appropriately. The owner doesn't seem to be harmed in the least when he picks up the sword. What does the PC do?

(In this example, the PC has reason to suspect that the owner is evil--especially if the PC is neutral good, lawful or chaotic characters could draw other conclusions--but no proof.)


----------



## Al (Oct 10, 2002)

I like moral dilemmas when the motive and the result are 'opposite' in alignment.

For example:

Two factions in a kingdom are 'good' and 'evil'.  The kingdom is currently gripped in a civil war.  The 'good' faction want to continue the war, even though it will result in thousands of casualties, because they GENUINELY believe that the people in the revolting provinces would be better administered by them than the rebels.  The 'evil' faction wants to resolve the war peacefully to score political points.

So...do the PC back the 'good' faction and continue the war, or do the back the 'evil' faction and make peace.  The disparity between motive and result is very interesting.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Oct 10, 2002)

But there's only a disparity if the character believes that an honest war is more evil than a dishonest peace.  That's debatable, and I suspect that many characters of the holy warrior persuasion (paladins, clerics, etc) would probably come down on the side of preferring the honest war.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Oct 11, 2002)

Canis said:
			
		

> *But there's only a disparity if the character believes that an honest war is more evil than a dishonest peace.  That's debatable, and I suspect that many characters of the holy warrior persuasion (paladins, clerics, etc) would probably come down on the side of preferring the honest war. *




I don't think that the point is that these are unwinnable situations for good characters. (In that sense, I guess they're not truly supposed to be dilemmas). Instead I think they're supposed to force thought about the moral decisions the characters make since they're not simple black and white--all good or all bad under pretty much any moral criterion people use.

The point of the situation is to force the decision about whether an honest war and the immediate suffering that entails is really preferable to a dishonest peace and the lower level prolonged suffering and degradation that would entail. If characters make a decision the situation has done its job.


----------



## hong (Oct 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 101 moral dilemmas for good characters*



			
				Tonguez said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Thats Right Because a Human has an Evil alignment does not make it an Evil Creature and same goes for Kobolds
> 
> EVIL is a subtype attached to Creature descriptions so a Hell Hound for instance has subtypes Evil, Fire and Lawful.*




You're assuming that "evil aura" equates to "evil subtype". I'm unaware of anything in the rules that supports that assumption.


----------



## ArcOfCorinth (Oct 11, 2002)

Al said:
			
		

> *I like moral dilemmas when the motive and the result are 'opposite' in alignment.
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...




You can make this even more difficult by suggesting that the "good" side's army has been depleted but their coffers are overflowing. In order to continue the war, they've contracted out mercenaries. A vast majority of these sellswords aren't aligned with good. Some are CN, CE, LE and such.


----------



## Kalanyr (Oct 11, 2002)

Since outsiders are the only creatures I've seen with Alignment Subtypes and the spell gives indicators for evil creatures who aren't outsiders, I'd have to agree with those who say Detect Evil works just fine on a 1st level commoner.


----------



## Kyramus (Oct 11, 2002)

Elder basilisk

Thank you, that's what i needed to see. and that clarifies my problem with detect evil.

It shows EVERYONE who is evil, but it doesn't necessarily relate to the PC's.  Not everyone who is shown evil, is against the pc.  The tavern keeper who is unscrupulously watering down his drinks for more profit will show up as evil but not in specific against the pcs.

Thank you, that analogy and examples are exactly what I needed.


----------



## Urbannen (Oct 11, 2002)

I think for many of these moral questions, a pivotal consideration is whether the PC is Lawful or Chaotic.  A LG character would not (I believe) punish, kill, or smite someone of evil alignment unless the character/creature presented a clear and present danger or had actually done something evil.  As someone said, *being* evil normally shouldn't have legal consequences.  Committing most evil acts, however, probably does have legal consequences.    Most authorities are more concerned about what someone actually does, not about the state of their heart (if not, all morally neutral people would also be suspect).    Preemptive strikes against evil seems to be the purvue of CG, I would think.  In most situations, it is easier to attack CE than LE.  

As for the baby kobold question:  

I do not think that babies can make moral decisions.  Unless a baby has a subtype of Evil, it should have an effective alignment of N, for the same reason that animals do.  I would guess that intelligent creatures develop their alignment at some point during their late childhood or adolescence.  I guess that creatures like kobolds and dwarves develop their "normal" alignments because of cultural and not genetic reasons - surely part of being an intelligent, sentient creature includes the potential to make one's own moral choices.   Slaughtering baby kobolds could not then be considered a good act, although it might fall under the purvue of utilitarian neutrality.  

Using _detect evil_ as an excuse to kill people doesn't seem very "good" to me.  It does make sense to say that detect evil only detects the followers of an evil deity.  It seems that Good/Evil is often only used to create a source of conflict in campaigns, anyway.  The example of the Good and Evil warring factions is illustrative of this, I think.  Are Good and Evil forces of the universe embodied by deities, or do they describe actions taken by intelligent creatures?  D&D uses them both ways, but not always very effectively.


----------



## MerakSpielman (Oct 11, 2002)

RECOUNT - I think we're on number

28: (I just thought of this one - I'm pretty sure we would all consider it evil, but I thought I'd post it anyway)

The party is hired to track down a man who has raped a local villager and gotten her pregnant. The man (Bob), when discovered, is hideously ugly and has a severe speech impediment. He claims, after surrendering, that he is the _only_ descendent of the king of a long forgotten kingdom. It was fortold by a God that a descendent of this king would one day rise up to save the world from the clutches of Ultimate Evil. Bob goes on to claim that he needed to insure that he reproduced to make sure that the prophecy would be fulfilled, but his ugliness and speech impediment made it impossible to even function in society, let alone woo a woman and marry her. Though nobody else has heard this legand, he believes utterly that he just insured the survival of the world and is willing to face the consiquences. Did Bob do an evil thing?
EDIT: to make it an actual player dilemma: Bob says he can prove it if they follow him to his family tomb hundreds of miles away. Do they follow him for his proof, or turn him in to the local authorities?


----------



## Gez (Oct 11, 2002)

Only outsiders may have alignment subtype. So "evil creatures" (mentionned by the spell, aura strength HD/5) who are not evil outsiders (HD) nor evil clerics (HD) nor evil elementals (HD/2) are necessarily evil creature without alignment subtype. Like, an evil human or elf or kobold.

Kyramus, the answer to your question (are kobold babies evil ?) lie in the introduction of the MM. It explains the various categories of alignment frequency. "Always" means the alignment is inherent. From birth, to death. Unchangeable. Exceptions are the stuff of legends, maybe one in a million are possible. All other frequencies are cultural matters. Kobolds are usually evil because they are raised to be evil. This means that kobold babies, their education not finished, are probably still neutrals; and that even if they are already evil, they can be redeemed and taught another way.

As for paladins randomly detecting evil and smiting everyone who "bips on the radar", that's an example of utterly poor roleplay, and the best way for the paladin to be stripped of his paladinhood (remember the thing about respect for life, tolerance, redemption and mercy ? If someone is wicked inside but not considered guilty of anything, the paladin should try to make that NPC amend himself, or at least discover why he's tainted by evil before hitting him on the head while shouting "in the name of justice, I smite thee because you're nasty !").

Usually, being evil is not a crime; it is performing evil acts that is (usually). Now, since alignment is how you behave, someone who's evil probably has made something for that. But the paladin should at least discover what, and get the criminal to repent, rather than bluntly attack on sight without any valid accusation.

And for all dilemna based on unjust laws and paladins... A paladin must serve a lawful good Ideal of Justice -- that is not the same thing at all to human (or dwarf, or orc...) institutionnal justice. If a law say that visitors must sacrifice a baby to Zgubuluth the Dark One before they can enter the city of Zgubuluthopolis, a paladin would never consider this law to be a just and valid law. Furthermore, the militians asking him to comply would be evil (they couldn't be something else and enforce such a vile (and stupid) law); and the paladin's code expressely interdict him to associate with evil people. Obeying evil guards is associating with them, in a way. And it is unlikely a paladin would enter in such a city for something else than cleansing it, so he wouldn't have a law-abiding behavior at all.

Remember, the lawful alignment is a metaphysical notion. That's not a barrister's work. That's not obeying laws. Furthermore, disobeying laws is a duty each time the laws are unjust. If a paladin don't understand that, he's not lawful good; he's lawful stoopid. A last note on this topic, I don't understand why people always seems to believe the lawful tenet of a paladin's alignment is more important to him than the good one. Ultra-lawful behavior is a trap set by devils to turn paladins into blackguard, that's the first, second, third, fifth, seventh, eighth, etc. until last lesson teach in each paladin academy... Oh well. _My_ paladin always see alignment switch to NG as an honorable and wise retirement; but switch to LN as a proof of short-sightedness and an excuse to intolerance. They also have a much easier time to atone if they have stayed good than if they don't. But maybe that's just me.

So, I don't buy the "gestapo" scenarii (number 3 and 4).

About scenario 1: That's a valid one. However, the party was wrong, kobolds are not _inherently_ evil, they're just culturally predisposed to evilness. If there was a paladin in that party, he would have receive a reminder about mercy, redemption, and tolerance from his deity, were I the DM.


Scenario 5: I have trouble picturing good-aligned citizen worshipping something evil. Alignment is what you do, if they have evil practice, they are evil. However, in such a case, I think the only good behavior is to slay the beast, or at least convince the villagers of the wickedness of this cult. For a trully good party, it should not matter if the sacrifice is an elf or goblin.

Scenario 6: In a world where orcs can go to a human village in order to put a complaint to the human sheriff, it's a bit unlikely PCs who knew where they are attack orcs on sight. So, either the orcs have attacked them first (and it's a case of legal self-defense), or the PCs are total strangers, ignoring of the laws, customs, and policies of the place -- unlikely the kind of guy that are given a police's job to do. However, rather than a formal complaint, the orcs may instead ask for reparations, arguing that they were not hostile and that the humans have broken the truce. The dilemna for the PCs would then be: should they go to the orcs and plead guilty to save the village from reprisal, or just let the villager face the consequence of their own acts, maybe helping them fend off the orcs ?

Scenario 7: A baby tarrasque ? Depending on the level, PCs should either try to kill it or flee to another continent. A baby giant ? Capture would be morally preferable, followed by an investigation to discover why the giant mother let her kid wander alone.

Scenario 8 (River 4): Killing villagers to save them would be self-defeating.

Scenario 9 (River 5): Where's the difference, actually ?

Scenario 10 (River 6): Usually, players don't infiltrate these kind of network. They kill or capture and seek documents... 

Scenario 11 (River 7): Good players could help the woman escape and hide her, but would definitely insist on knowing a bit more on what's going on. If the evil woman is not found guilty of anything, just of having birthed a freak, they should help her move to another region (if the baby's not evil, it's not an half-fiend baby, just a freak -- half-fiends are always evil, see the MM). If she has committed crime, adequate justice should be done (adequate don't necessarily means "burn her at the stake").

Scenario 12 (River 8): I rather expect players will try to slay the generals...

Scenario 13 (River 9): That disease don't seems that bad, if it just induce wanderlust... What do you mean by "creature of the far realms" ? If they became mindless babbling multitentacled monstruosities with a non-euclidian shape, whispering secrets so perverse everyone around is compelled to enter a blood orgy, they should slay them. If they stay something normal, where's the problem ?

Scenario 14 (River 10): From start. Destroying all life is not a way to be free. Resistance would be the way to go, big centralised, slave-based empire are very vulnerable to guerilla tactics and civil insurrections.


Scenario 17: Were I the rogue's player, I would try to frees the slave and disappear in the shadow. I would give a false identity if some captive would want to know me to thank me afterward. And in fact, I would even encourage the freed captive to loot the noble house as a "reparation", so that my own burglary could pass unseen. Investigation would reveal that the slaves have escaped themselves and then pillaged the house as an act of revenge (and a way to have something to pay new clothing and a night at the inns). In other words, I would use them as a digression if possible.

Scenario 18: Pregnant or just bloated-fat ? In the fury of the combat... If they meet her in a non-conflicting situation ('cause, pregnant or not, if you're attacked by a woman raining fingers of death and other attack spells on you, you fight; and after a real fight it's more than probable there would be an accidental aborption as a result), they should capture her, strip her of her spellbooks and components, enquire a bit about the father, and bring her to justice at the town.

Scenario 19: Why attempting to kill her ? The PCs should rather try to discover if she has indeed the healing powers she claim to have, demonstrate the fallacy of her illusion ("see, that guy who got his left arm torn apart by a boar charge... He seems to have a left arm anew, but he can't use it, and your own hand would pass through it if you try to touch it...") and then see how the villager react.

Scenario 1bis (Ghostwind's): That's the same as the first, the kobold one (except with drows).

Scenario 1ter (ArcOfCorinth's "19"): That's an improvment on the first one. However, the prisonner could probably be brought to the surface, and judged by people having suffered from drow incursions (surface elves, dwarves, anything...) as a prisoner of war (there's a perpetual war, right ?) and judged for the crime of his race (that's not something very in accordance with XXth century western ideals of justice, but that's what you can expect in a typical fantasy world).

Scenario 20: The best thing to do would be looking for a cure to that curse, and hoping they could find it before the next transformation. Alternatively, they could get the villagers preemptively imprisonned in individual cells before they get changed in werebeast, and release them once the transformation is over (or at least, once the cure is found). That would require convincing someone of power to lend a prison for that, and convincing the villagers of accepting that emprisonment (something that's probably possible, unless they're completely rotten).

Scenario 21: Hehe... I understand what your PCs have done, especially if they can't imagine obtaining a fair trial. This depend on the political power of the archnemesis, but if he made this move, he's probably influent enough to avoid a situation where the PCs would turn the trial into a trial against him for label !

Scenario 22: Gah ? That ain't classic D&D trolls, that's sure.

Scenario 23: Quite nice as a dilemna... Myself, I'm rather the kind of people who will explain that it's a king's duty to sacrifice himself to his country..

Scenario 24: The PCs should simply explain their found to the barbarian chieftain. That's not a dilemna for the PC, but for him.

Scenario 25: Not a real dilemna again. What should the wizard do, except getting a restoration spell to get rid of the negative level ? Maybe warning several people (like concurrents of that man, some good churches official, and maybe the duke) that they have reasons to suspect the man is not really reliable.


Some dilemnas of my own: 
The PCs are travelling with an evil artifact they need to destroy (a basic divine quest-type adventure).
As they are on their road, they see a kobold running, chased by a pack of gnolls. First dilemna, do they act ? They did. They stopped the gnolls. One of them called reinforcement, however, and an ogremage and some other troops came (including a boosted bugbears and plain ogres). Some PCs were captured, and the evil artifact fall in the ogremage's hand. Now, the second dilemna was about talking. The ogremage guessed that the artifact was dangerous, and wanted to know more about it before trying to release it from its chest. He proven much civil (that is, he didn't intended on torturing the captured PCs), and made clear that he simply wanted answers in reparation for his slain gnolls and escaped kobold slave. The artifact in question is an elfbane intelligent weapon with an overwhelming ego, able to dominate nearly every wielder into going into its genocidal quest. The ogremage sure would not have wanted to have its ego crushed by that of a mere weapon if he knew the artifact's effect, but was ignorant and very curious about the thing the PCs carried. The dilemna was between "should I give him the answer he want, and become more useful as a dish than as a prisoner, or should I take the risk curiosity will take the better of him and turn him into an anti-elf crusader ?" (both captured PCs were elves, by the way). Actually, they refused to answer. One prisoner faked stupidity and claimed not to be aware of what the other were carrying (obvious lie), the other tried to use magic to escape, failed, and deemed too dangerous and uncooperative, was eaten.


----------



## Kyramus (Oct 11, 2002)

Here's a link for those of you who have been following the detect evil discussion within this thread.
It's a chart of what the creatures, spells, outsiders and undead will give as a result through detect evil.

http://www.geocities.com/kyramus/storage/DetectEvilChart.rtf

No there are no babies in the chart, but I will re-read the MM to see what it states.  Thanks for that tidbit of info.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Oct 11, 2002)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> *RECOUNT - I think we're on number
> 28: (I just thought of this one - I'm pretty sure we would all consider it evil, but I thought I'd post it anyway)
> 
> The party is hired to track down a man who has raped a local villager and gotten her pregnant. The man (Bob), when discovered, is hideously ugly and has a severe speech impediment. He claims, after surrendering, that he is the only descendent of the king of a long forgotten kingdom. It was fortold by a God that a descendent of this king would one day rise up to save the world from the clutches of Ultimate Evil. Bob goes on to claim that he needed to insure that he reproduced to make sure that the prophecy would be fulfilled, but his ugliness and speech impediment made it impossible to even function in society, let alone woo a woman and marry her. Though nobody else has heard this legand, he believes utterly that he just insured the survival of the world and is willing to face the consiquences. Did Bob do an evil thing?
> EDIT: to make it an actual player dilemma: Bob says he can prove it if they follow him to his family tomb hundreds of miles away. Do they follow him for his proof, or turn him in to the local authorities? *




My Lawful Good characters: "Well she's pregnant now and what's done is done. It appears that your line will survive you now. But what you did was evil and no prophecy or excuse can expiate that. You will pay for your crime in accordance with the laws of this land. If you have any last confessions before they hang you, I'll be staying at the Laughing Manticore."

I think that such Quasimodo/Caliban type characters are supposed to kidnap a woman and force them into a kind of common law marriage rather than simply rape them aren't they? At least that's the feeling I get from the stories I've read.

Anyway, the following isn't really a dilemma but can make for an interesting situation where the PCs aren't really comfortable outright opposing the evil force.

*#29: Enter the Inquisition*
In a land neighboring a corrupt empire led by a demonic demi-god, there is a loosely organized land of largely independant fiefdoms--none of which are strong enough to oppose the empire individually and which are not organized enough to oppose it collectively. In this land, there is also a large, semi-religious militant order that is LN bordering on LE. Due to their status as the only standing army able to effectively oppose the empire (and the fact that they could easily annihilate any of the feudal lords if they so chose), their actions are more tolerated by the feudal lords than one might expect.

One day, the PCs are in town when a group of these soldiers ride into town. Looking intently around (detecting evil), they notice three random people whom they sieze, and rapidly erecting a bonfire, burn at the stake as spies of the empire. They then proceed to question everyone in the town under zones of truth to determine who had connections to the "spies."

What do the PCs do? Does it make a difference if two of the people selected were really spies? How about if one was a doppleganger? Or if one were a polymorphed demon? Or a priest of the evil demigod?

This would naturally work even better if you made a specific prestige class modelled on the blackguard but with smite evil and detect evil instead of smite and detect good and Undetectable Alignment as a 1st level class feature (so that the Pseudo-blackguard would not immediately be detected).


----------



## Kyramus (Oct 11, 2002)

Don't ask me why I looked this up.

My research into the detect evil and babies and such led to cognitive and learning abilities of children.

I found that babies are learning constantly from us from the moment they are born.  They eventually make their own decisions around age 6 but are not in any position to be morally evil at that time.  Around 8 or 9 is when they would be considered evil or not evil.

So in the case of the kobold, we need to find out it's life expectancy.  Greyhawk has kobold life expectancy of 135 (http://members.aol.com/CultOfTheDragon/races.html).  So with that in mind, kobolds of about the same age as above do not show that they are LE until they are 8 or 9 years of age.
I think that finally concludes the arguement of killing babies/children to be good or not for myself anyway.

----
Something that is in topic.

Players went into town after a villian that can hide his form via spells or shapechange or other.  Players begin to detect evil and finds that EVERYONE has the presence of evil.  What do they do, kill everyone? Try to find the real villian still through normal methods of observation? 

note: tiny skeletons still emit dim evil.  have tiny vermin skeletons latch on to people's clothing and stay there, with the instruction that they move to another piece of clothing that the person is wearing when they change clothes.  Otherwise they don't do anything else.
Great way to confuse the pc's when they are after a Necromancer's or evil cleric's minion.


----------



## incognito (Oct 11, 2002)

#30

In the course of adventuring a PC dies, and is not raised (hopefully due to bad tactics?).  The PC's backstory included noble birth.  Later, the area Monarch perishes of (muahaha..yet another hook) unnatural causes, and the regent sends a scounting party to find the dead PC.  

A) Do the PCs fess up that the former PC died becasue of poor tactical decision making?

B) the Regent, on finding this out, want to bring the PCs in to determine whether there was malicious intent.  He sends a arresting party which contains members in good standing with teh PCs (although not friends).  Does the party resist, or come along peacefully.

C) Once they have arrived (if they have arived), the Regent wants to have a court.  All sort of ways to test the PCs mettle - will they submit to ahving Zone of Truth cast on them?  Will they submit to being held in a local jail until a jusry can be assembled?  WIll they accept the ruling of the court, if it was fair - but unfavorable. 


#31
Step 1.  Detail a known evil orginization (an evil thieves guild, and evil wizards enclave, something else evil, usually lawful)
Step 2: have the PCs be shopping or talking with a local noble – some PC/ to NPC interaction that is a positive interaction with  the PCs.
Step 3: Enter weak NPC that is a representative of a much the more powerful evil organization (works best if it’s lawful evil, but I have seen chaotic  or netral evil work as well). The NPC tells the noble or shop owner that he must to something distasteful (if a noble – let a lawbreaker off with a light sentence, or punish an innocent)(if a shop owner, under cut some new competition, taking a loss. or use some other unfair business practice – like refusing to sell a local resource to the competing shop).
Step 3a have the NPC say or do something obnoxious to the PCs or the NPC that is humiliating.

What will the PCs do?


----------



## Tonguez (Oct 12, 2002)

Kalanyr said:
			
		

> *Since outsiders are the only creatures I've seen with Alignment Subtypes and the spell gives indicators for evil creatures who aren't outsiders, I'd have to agree with those who say Detect Evil works just fine on a 1st level commoner. *




Just because only Outsiders have been given an Evil Subtype doesn't mean they are the only ones who can have it

It would be quite easy to say (for instance) that the Eye of Fear and Flame is an Undead with Evil Subtype or that the Bog Giant is a Evil Giant or theat the Hell Hound is an Evil Magical Beast (iirc there are Evil Elementals too)

Now an Aquatic Creature is a Creature with the Aquatic Subtype, a Fire Creature is one with the Fire Subtype ergo a Evil Creature must be one with the Evil Subtype

Afterall a Wizard who can cast fireball is not a Magical Fire Creature so why should his CE alignment make him an Evil Creature?...


----------



## Geoff Watson (Oct 12, 2002)

Kyramus said:
			
		

> *
> ----
> Something that is in topic.
> 
> ...




That wouldn't work.
The paladin would notice that the people had tiny evil auras on them, not that they were evil themselves. And how likely are the skeletons to avoid notice? As soon as one is found everyone would check their clothes and get rid of the rest.

Another thing (to the topic in general): Good-Evil is not either-or. There is a lot of room in the middle for neutral people. Most of the 'bad but not bad enough to smite' people like greedy merchants would be neutral. Evil people are really Evil, not just slightly dodgy.

Geoff.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Oct 12, 2002)

Geoff,

I'm sure a sufficently ingenious wizard could create a critter whose only purpose was to suffuse the aura of another creature with its own, making the creature itself hard to detect.

As for the 2nd part of your post, there ARE some of us who don't believe in the middle ground.  Leave us to our heathen beliefs and we'll leave you to yours


----------



## Kyramus (Oct 12, 2002)

Geoff,
read detect evil.
First round is just the presence of evil.
"Hey he's evil."
2nd round, number of auras.
"I sense one evil, it's got to be him"
3rd round: strength and location
"Wait wait, it's only a small evil and it's somewhere on his left pant leg!"

Now how many rounds do the players have before they get tagged with some sort of spell or other??

now that it's on a multiple scale.

first round
"There are several presences of evil. it's the group coming towards us!!"
second round
"every one of them is evil"
third round
"They aren't evil, just something on them, but they sure look mad. "


----------



## Humanophile (Oct 12, 2002)

Hmm.  Brings to mind a good idea.  Maybe a bit too "screw the players", but...

*32)*  Some form of minor demon (or devil, fiend, whatever supernatural evil baddie name you use) has learned a fun new trick.  It can posess people, and while it can subtly influence their actions and perceptions while it's in them, it can't actually control them.  (Read: they still act like them, they won't do anything out-of-character or -alignment, but they act and think a little off.  Kinda like a very minor Charm spell.)  However, the being posessed detects as Evil to all forms of detection, at whatever level of evil aura the demon wants.  Either the party paladin is warned of these beings at some point early in the story, or else he kills a few things that he swears are Horribly Evil, which turn out to be posessed commoners, atones, and learns a solid lesson.

Hmm.  If anyone out there wants to actually stat these guys out and make a race of them, might make the world a little more painful for paladins with a Detect&Smite _modus operandi_.

(Edit: added number to keep things nice.)


----------



## Geoff Watson (Oct 13, 2002)

Kyramus said:
			
		

> *Geoff,
> read detect evil.
> First round is just the presence of evil.
> "Hey he's evil."
> ...




Sorry, I thought you meant a peaceful encounter in a town or something. If the group is attacking the PCs, they don't have to worry about detecting evil.

Geoff.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Oct 13, 2002)

Humanophile said:
			
		

> *Hmm.  Brings to mind a good idea.  Maybe a bit too "screw the players", but...
> 
> Hmm.  If anyone out there wants to actually stat these guys out and make a race of them, might make the world a little more painful for paladins with a Detect&Smite modus operandi.
> 
> *




If a Paladin can't trust his god-given powers, why don't you just disallow paladins altogether. I don't understand why so many people want to screw over the paladins, making their powers not work, rigging dilemmas so the paladin loses either way, etc.
Just say "no Paladins in my campaign". It's easier. But I suppose it's more fun to annoy the players.

Geoff.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Oct 13, 2002)

Canis said:
			
		

> *Geoff,
> As for the 2nd part of your post, there ARE some of us who don't believe in the middle ground.  Leave us to our heathen beliefs and we'll leave you to yours  *




Good --- NEUTRAL --- Evil

Does any really play with no Neutral alignment?

Geoff.


----------



## Bookwyrm (Oct 13, 2002)

Why are you making so much work out of Detect Evil?

Try this for size:
Evil (and Good) comes in 2 different brands - Petty, and Great.

Petty Evil is the ordinary, everyday stuff, from thinking something nasty to slaughtering villages in an orgy of bloodlust.  Petty Evil tarnishes the soul, and by extension, Petty Good polishes it.  A tarnished soul can be polished and a polished soul can be tarnished, but the soul itself remains the same.

Great Evil (and Great Good) actually change the soul itself.  Great Evil blackens it and sucks 'light' out of the world, whereas Great Good makes it shine and banishes the 'shadows'.  Great Evil (and Good) are connected with Great powers - gods, demons, etc. (basically anything extra-planar).  So anything that comes from the Planes (eg a demon), or gets it's powers from them (eg a paladin) will reflect this.

So, an evil worshipper would have a (very) tarnished soul, whereas an evil cleric would have a black one.  A self interested merchant would have a slightly tarnished soul (or maybe slightly polished, or even a mottled one), and a paladin would shine like a beacon in the night.

Any problems?


----------



## Chimera (Oct 13, 2002)

Not too much difficulty in a number of these, but some good efforts.

#9 - Elves turning into Scotsmen?  Who will win Wimbledon?

Kobolds live to 135?  Sheesh.  IMC, they're fast breeding vermin who are lucky to see 8 summers.  A 135 year old would be the Ancient Elder UberKobold.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Oct 13, 2002)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> *Good --- NEUTRAL --- Evil
> 
> Does any really play with no Neutral alignment?*




Would if I could, but no one else wants to play that way.  I have managed to tweak the dynamic a little.  It's more like:

GOOD --- neutral --- EVIL 

So close, and yet, so far...


----------



## Zappo (Oct 13, 2002)

Ok, what about this:

The PCs stumble upon a child who fled from his village. They bring him back, and subsequently find out that he escaped because he was to be sent to the evil witch as a sacrifice. They come back, and discover that the villagers must send a children every year or so to the evil witch or she will cast a plague on the town. So they go to the evil witch, and she says that she is forced to consume a child every year or wilt away because of a curse a more powerful witch placed on her. So they get to the more powerful witch, who says that she is unable to remove the curse because the king who paid her to place it would have her killed. At this point, they get to the king, who says that he asked the powerful witch to give him eternal youth, which could only be obtained by stealing life from another witch, because he has no heirs and the kingdom would plunge into chaos the moment he dies, because of five ambitious nobles. The five ambitious nobles each have good alignment and fairly sound political ideas, except that they seem unable to find a middle ground between them, hate each other, believe each other to be evil, and constantly plot. Also, at least two or three of them _have_ to get the throne because a seer prophetized that it's either that or A Great Evil Will Happen. So the PCs get to the seer to know more about this, and discover that she in fact lied to the nobles, and did so under threath of death by a powerful devil she had the misfortune of encountering. Turns out that the devil was really a fallen celestial who...

...assuming that the PCs don't jump at you at this moment, I think it would be neat to roll everything over to the kid from the village having orchestrated everything.


----------



## incognito (Oct 14, 2002)

oka Zappo - a the risk of sounding tounge in cheek;

Your idea is actually really brillant if you can make it turn into a circle with less steps.

5 NPCs, each blames the "next" NPC down the line.  The 5th NPC blames the 1st NPC.

None of them are lying, and all of thier motivations are "suspect"

now THAT's an adventure!  Doesn't hurt if there are a few cross threads too (ie 2 hates 4 and 1 loves 3 - who secretly lusts after 5)

That type-a thing


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Oct 15, 2002)

It's worth considering that some PCs wouldn't jump at the whole "someone else said they'd do something bad to me if I didn't do something worse to someone else" excuse. I suspect that a number of my characters would respond to that by simply tracking down and punishing all five characters on the blame chain. "So the bigger badder eviler villain made you do it? Cry me a river, witchie. You've got about 5 minutes to think of a way to take responsibility for your actions when you face Wee Jas/Kelemvor and then I'm off to kill your bigger badder eviler villain too."

Here's another one for the group:
*Necessary Evils?*

In ages past, a great evil was bound with powerful magics that hold it back from influencing the world of men. The locus of this binding is, by design or treachery, a single individual. If that individual dies, the binding will be broken and the evils will once more be free to roam the world.

All would be good except that the man who is the locus of the binding has been corrupted (or was corrupt to begin with) and is now visiting his own brand of evil on the portions of the world that he can influence (however large or small that may be).

Both the PCs and the villain know this--in fact the villain may flaunt this fact and use it to manipulate people into aquiescing to his evils (for instance, if imprisoned, he goes on a hunger strike to get what he wants--after all he knows the PCs can't let him die. . . or can they?)

This works best when the PCs aren't high enough level to have access to spells like Temporal Stasis and Binding which would give them a pretty easy solution.


----------



## Wizardry (Oct 15, 2002)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *It's worth considering that some PCs wouldn't jump at the whole "someone else said they'd do something bad to me if I didn't do something worse to someone else" excuse. I suspect that a number of my characters would respond to that by simply tracking down and punishing all five characters on the blame chain. "So the bigger badder eviler villain made you do it? Cry me a river, witchie. You've got about 5 minutes to think of a way to take responsibility for your actions when you face Wee Jas/Kelemvor and then I'm off to kill your bigger badder eviler villain too."
> *






Yeah.  That's what I was going to say, as that's what the majority of my characters would do.  So what if the witch is consuming children because of some curse on her?  She's still evil, and it's still horrible for her to be commiting the vile acts she has.  Thus, kill them all and let Tyr sort them out.


----------

