OT: Narf has gone looney and wants to GM.(Edited2)

[NullAshton]

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.p...76&postcount=6

So... dang... awesome...

[narf poit chez BOOM]

It is awesome.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Finally! The alignment debate is solved!

[Jack Simth]

NullAshton said:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.p...76&postcount=6

So... dang... awesome...

Yeah, it's nice and all, but... well ... a low-bias, intelligent opinion is one of the things pastors are for. The clergy in the story ... did their job. I may just be spoiled, but I don't find that particularly surprising.

Oh, and Narf? That doesn't solve the alignment debate, as most alignment debates get into specifics. For instance: is the guy that animates one skeleton (casts an spell) and has it farm food for orphans (usually considered a good thing) for the rest of eternity good, netural, or evil aligned? Is the guy that maintains his personal "no pork" code Lawful or Chaotic when he refuses local tradition that requires him to eat some bacon on his way out of town?

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Well, first of all, we have to figure out why animating a skeleton is evil. Using your explanation, an animated skeleton would be the tortured soul of some poor sap shoved into a dead body.

Now, assuming the necromancer knows this, what he has done is tortured someone to provide food.

Assuming this someone is an innocent, we may then assume that D&D heavens aren't that safe. Now, to reduce it to basic morality, there is Means and Motive.

The Means is the torture of an innocent to provide food for starving children.

The Motive is then most likely (Assuming the best possible motive) the desire to provide food for the living. Assuming the best possible motive, this person will then be racked with guilt over their actions until they resolve it. The best possible resolution is that they accept that it is wrong, but that they are committing a smaller wrong to right a greater wrong.

I cannot see any possible way this would not result in the eventual assumption of expedience as the ultimate morality. This is, in D&D terms, Neutral.

Therefore, the resulting morality on the D&D axis would be Neutral.

In my real world terms, expedience above all else is just another evil, as evil comes from lack of balance - In this case, in motivations. Note that I do not say that expedience in and of itself is bad - It isn't.

[Jack Simth]

... and then later, a Paladin (Sir Evilbane of Goodton) comes across the situation, and becomes fully briefed on it. The spirit inhabiting the undead asks for blessed release; by his Code, the Paladin can't not choose.

DM type 1 decides that if he destroys the undead, releasing it's trapped soul from continual torment to it's just reward, then the orphanage no longer has a food supply, so the orphans starve (the orphanage isn't very strong - can't hold on to valuable items such as a Sustaining Spoon, or a big wad of gold, to support the orphanage after the Paladin leaves). Paladin committed an evil act, and falls. The correct action would be to let the situation lie.

DM type 2 decides that if he does not destroy the undead, then he's knowingly and willfully permitting a continuing evil (the continued torture of an innocent), and falls (the orphanage isn't very strong - can't hold on to valuable items such as a Sustaining Spoon, or a big wad of gold, to support the orphanage after the Paladin leaves). The correct action would be to destroy the undead.

DM type 1 is a reasonable person - he's made a judgment call on which is the worse.
DM type 2 is a reasonable person - he's made a judgment call on which is the worse.

Unless the DM flat out tells the player he's a type 1 or type 2 DM (or 3 or 4 - get to that later; whether that's by an Augury, a Phylactery of Faithfulness, or OOC talking), the Paladin has basically a 50/50 chance of falling (unless he's a mind-reader) given a type 1 or 2 DM.

Now, a DM type 3 (me, when I was DMing) recognizes the dilemma, and will maintain the Paladin's standing no matter which way he chooses (possibly provided the paladin clearly thinks about the situation).

DM type 4 (the child of an unmarried rodent) grins evilly and causes the Paladin to fall no matter what he does.

Type 4 DM is unreasonable; types 1-3 are reasonably reasonable individuals. Unless Paladin knows, in advance, which type of DM he's dealing with, he's got a 50/50 chance of simply falling.

Alignment debates primarily spring from where the gray areas (specific actions) run across absolutes (such as the Paladin's Code).

[narf poit chez BOOM]

The correct action would be to release the undead and then provide for the orphanage in some continueus manner.

[Jack Simth]

Yes, but unless the Paladin is loaded, very inventive, and/or willing to retire the character (to farm), that solution only exists if the DM puts it there.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Any character above first level is, by definition, loaded.

Failing that, few paladins exist in a vaccuum.

And let me note that the paladins' code is not supposed to be easy.

[Jack Simth]

There's different kinds of loaded.

He can't leave a big wad of cash at the orphanage - it'll be stolen. Likewise, he can't leave a food-producing item at the orphanage, as it, too, is very valuable.

With the undead, nobody wants it (not edible, can't sell it, less dangerous ways for a necromancer to get skeletons, and so on), and it defends itself from most threats.

In order for money to make a proper solution, he needs to leave something more along the lines of a golem; a Flesh golem is the least expensive, at 20,000 gp - but requires casting an Evil spell. A Clay golem is next up at 40,000 gp, but it goes Berserk fairly easily, and doesn't go un-berserk. An Iron Golem will do the job admirably, but runs at 80,000 gp (curiously, less expensive than a Stone Golem at 90,000 gp... which is odd, as the Iron Golem has a higher CR, and is equal or better in all vital statistics; the only advantage of the Stone Golem is that it's faster to repair).

If he's got a 14th Wizard and Cleric buddy handy that are willing to blow 3,000 xp, some Animated Objects will do the job (or he can hire it done; but the Permanency, as a 5th level spell at caster level 14, with 3000 xp as a component, has a market price of 15,700 gp - over the "not generally available" purchase threshold. A minimal casting of Animate Objects, also required, is 660 gp. Potentially duplicatable by a single Polymorph Any Object from a Wiz-15, at 1,200 gp, depending on DM ruling - all this, however, assumes there's an appropriate caster in range for hire, which only exists at the DM's discretion).