Detect Evil at will?

[CMonkey]

The recent thread on Paladins has reminded me of something.

Consider the paladin's ability to detect evil at will. Now in the iconic adventure this is rarely used as the contents of a dungeon, at least those portions of it which are hurling themselves, screaming and foaming onto your waiting swords, are invariably (and patently) evil.

But Birthright is/can be different: courtly intregue, political ambition and subtle manouvering conspire to make discovering who is your friend and who is your enemy as much, if not more of a challenge as 1d6 Orcs in a 30ft square room. That is until the Paladin arrives and just tells you which ones are evil.

In my campaign, Paladins Know Bloodline at will instead. Is this a worthy variant for the BRCS?

[Kalien]

Do you have any rationale behind why Paladins have an ability to Detect Bloodline rather than Detect Evil? It doesn't seem to tie in with being a holy champion of good to me, so I was just curious. :)

An alternative that you might want to consider to limit the paladin's ability to detect evil is to change it from at will to a number of times per day equal to 1 + charisma modifier.

[CMonkey]

Originally posted by Kalien
Do you have any rationale behind why Paladins have an ability to Detect Bloodline rather than Detect Evil? It doesn't seem to tie in with being a holy champion of good to me, so I was just curious. :)


Well, originally it was Detect Undead, but given that most undead are obvious and those that aren't can hide it I changed it so the Paladins could scour the world for the taint of Azrai. (I have a character who is mid-change into an Awnsheglin and it has made his life a bit more interesting on occation <evil grin>).

CM.

[Ariadne]

A paladin WITHOUT detect evil at will? No, no and no. I have no problems to ad detect undead and detect bloodline, however ;)

[irdeggman]

IMO it's needless tinkering. Paladins have always had this ability and there is no real reason presented to remove it.

Paladins also have a moral code and the indescriminant use of this ability is like a search without probable cause. Also using the ability requires concentrating and since it's a spell-like ability it does generate an attack of opportunity.

If this issue is a paladin walking into a regent's court and identifying everyone in the room who is evil - well that would violate his moral code in just about any set of circumstances I can think of.

No, this is really a case of a DM applying sufficient amount of role-playing restrictions on players. There would have to be consequences of the paladin's actions.

I agree with Kalien in that adding (or swapping) detect bloodline is arbitrary in its application as presented.

[CMonkey]

Originally posted by irdeggman
Paladins also have a moral code and the indescriminant use of this ability is like a search without probable cause.
My worry is the moral code of a Chaotic Good paladin is going to be flexible enough to allow this.

CM.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by CMonkey



Originally posted by irdeggman
Paladins also have a moral code and the indescriminant use of this ability is like a search without probable cause.
My worry is the moral code of a Chaotic Good paladin is going to be flexible enough to allow this.

CM.

Believe it or not the chaotic good paladin has the same moral restrictions that the lawful good one does in this case (with the one exception of alignment-based ones (lawful vs chaotic only). Again, always did (look in the 2nd BRB or BoP to check this one out). The chaotic one is less on talking things out and more on settling it by "agressive negotiations" and probably wouldn't be invited to the court as more than an "ornament" since the paladin would be board out of his mind and look for excuses to leave.

[CMonkey]

Originally posted by irdeggman
Believe it or not the chaotic good paladin has the same moral restrictions that the lawful good one does in this case (with the one exception of alignment-based ones (lawful vs chaotic only).
If that is the case, I concede the point, but nothing in either book that I can find states that - can you give me a more specific reference?

Also, given that (a) with any luck there will be more players of 3rd edition BR that have not played 2nd edition than just me and (B) 3rd edition has an example of a CG paladin-like prestige class (the Holy Liberator) without such limitations and further, Monte Cook describes CG paladins as:

Sometimes a champion of good focuses on the individual and defends his right to freedom against tyranny as much as he struggles against evil. This knight rarely belongs to an order and creates his own code of conduct as he goes along.
I really think a section on the different paladin's codes would be a valuable addition to the BRCS.

CM.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 6:40 AM


> Paladins also have a moral code and the indescriminant use of this
> ability is like a search without probable cause.
> If this issue is a paladin walking into a regent`s court and identifying
> everyone in the room who is evil - well that would violate his moral
> code in just about any set of circumstances I can think of.

If he`s the paladin of a civil libertarian god, maybe. AFAIC, the
inquisition is a good organization, driving out the evils which will corrupt
a society from within. The purpose of the paladin having such as power as
detect evil is precisely so that in a circumstance like a court, he can be
aware who is his enemy. Its easy enough to mask alignment (its a 2nd level
spell and its effect lasts 24 hours), so its not like you`ve given a window
into everyone`s hearts.

Failing to identify the evil individuals in the room is the violation of the
code here.

The spell description, upon which the power is based, is binary. One is
evil or not evil. I don`t find that very helpful, with the possible
exception of the cleric. Without making recorse to the Book of Hallowed
Might again, certainly the DM can go by the numeric descriptors in the spell
listing and modify them by the circumstances. They offer level as a
modifier. How evil is the character (roughly, if not with numeric
precision), and what is he actually doing. The spell calls for pretty vague
answers, and it should not be so reliable that a player can run to the PHB
and try to calculate the NPC`s level based on his aura in one encounter.
Vague descriptions lend themselves to interpretations by the DM.

One of my favorite examples of this kind of power is seen at the begining of
Phantom Menace, when Obi Wan Kenobi senses something wrong, but the feeling
is "elsewhere, elusive". Yeah, the very powerful evil master mind is just
that. These are his lackies.

One could adopt the notion of alignments extending into one another, so that
like a Christian theologian, you could still find evil (original sin) in a
generally good person. Only the perfect character radiates no evil.
Perhaps every time the paladin checks someone out he detects low grade evil.
Common pettiness, selfishness, pride, and envy all regsister a faint evil.
In order for someone to stand out from the noise they need to be actively
evil, not just willing to be brutal when occasion presents itself.

Another way to look at this is that everyone is neutral unless activly doing
something. Consider the fellow who would not shirk to knock down an old
lady who was in his way. Give him the slightest cause and he will draw
weapons and kill you. You happen upon him sleeping by the road side (this
is the kind of thing people used to do all the time, but adventurers never
seem to do). Does he radiate evil? He may not have done harm to anyone for
days, because no one provoked him. He`s not thinking anything, he`s asleep.

Now consider the Neutral character who is activly performing an evil deed,
or at least an act that will clearly do harm. He has sufficient
justification for his purposes, but he totally lacks compassion in this
matter. Does he radiate evil?

If you go into a court and detect evil, you`re going to find out who is up
to no good, but failed to mask their alignment. There are three stages to
the detection process. Use them all. The general who does not bother to
take prisoners, despite the general convention to do so, may radiate evil,
but it may be generalized and not specific. Off the battlefield he may
engage in no specific evil acts.

Dim and Faint readings ought to be common enough that they are par for the
course. At the next level evil may be detectable, but not specific. Or it
may be specific but difficult to relate to what you observe. "you have a
vison of a battle, its a nasty business and no quarter is being given" tells
you something, but you don`t know whether the general in the room is a
butcher, or whether the chancellor over there is planning to thow the
eastern marches into war. Is it past or future? Who committed what
specific evil act?

This isn`t an ohm-meter of evil.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[La_Mirah]

I&#39;m going to go out on a limb here and say that a paladin&#39;s Detect Evil ability is not very useful in a court setting. Consider an assassination random event; Should the paladin lock up the castle and go around detecting evil., he would eventually get a list of suspects (evil people), but there is no guarantee that any of those suspects actually has anything to do with the attempt. If your assassin is a chaotic good character that considers himself a freedom fighter, he might feel more than justified in taking out a perceived tyrant for the greater good of it all. If paladins can break into an orog lair and kill everyone there on the ground that they&#39;re warlike monsters that would have done the same if they had the opportunity and STILL remain lawful good and guiltless...

Being evil does not equate with being guilty. Considering the sheer amount of plots and secrets going around the average Cerilian court, there isn&#39;t much a paladin could do with that kind of information.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Jun 29 2003, 12:40 PM
IMO it&#39;s needless tinkering. Paladins have always had this ability and there is no real reason presented to remove it.

Paladins also have a moral code and the indescriminant use of this ability is like a search without probable cause. Also using the ability requires concentrating and since it&#39;s a spell-like ability it does generate an attack of opportunity.

Completely your opinion... :D

What I always wanted to know (O.K., it might be of topic), but if a spell-like ability is activated mentally (you only need to think of it, no gestures or something), how do they provoke an attack of opportunity? Your "victim" does not really recognize what you&#39;re doing, or not? :huh:

[CMonkey]

If a spell-like ability is activated mentally (you only need to think of it, no gestures or something), how do they provoke an attack of opportunity? Your "victim" does not really recognize what you&#39;re doing, or not?
I always pictured it as a short period of internal reflection and then a mental "push" - thus your focus is entirely internal and not on the threats around you: "He&#39;s not moving - get him&#33;".

Or more grotesquely - how aware are you of your surroundings when you are straining for a really big poo? :blink:

CM
(Today I will mostly be attempting to get myself banned from the forums :unsure: )

[Arjan]

Originally posted by CMonkey@Jul 3 2003, 12:51 PM
CM
(Today I will mostly be attempting to get myself banned from the forums :unsure: )
all you have to do is ask :)

arjan

[irdeggman]

Generating an attack of opportunity doesn&#39;t mean that the opponent has to take it, it just means that the opening is there.

The point is that the character engaged in the activity (for example using a spell-like ability) is distracted and hence has generated an opening.

Remember that in order to take advantage of the AoO a character has to be within melee reach when the action occurs - e.g., you can&#39;t move up and attack. B)

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Jul 3 2003, 04:35 PM
Generating an attack of opportunity doesn&#39;t mean that the opponent has to take it, it just means that the opening is there.

The point is that the character engaged in the activity (for example using a spell-like ability) is distracted and hence has generated an opening.

Remember that in order to take advantage of the AoO a character has to be within melee reach when the action occurs - e.g., you can&#39;t move up and attack. B)
ThatI did understand, but how does the opponent knows, that he can use his attack of opportunity?

Well, the argument: "Look, he stares, hit him...&#33; makes sense to me...

[irdeggman]

Basically when engaged in melee 2 characters are eyeing each other sensing an opening. It doesn&#39;t have to be an overt opening, just one that a combatant would sense. There wouldn&#39;t be any discussion involved since only the character in melee reach would have the opportunity to act - i.e., someone across the room wouldn&#39;t be able to point it out to him.

[shadow]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]

I believe someone using a spell-like ability is vulnerable to an attack of opportunity because they must let their guard down to concentrate on using the ability, thus lessening their defensive capability. Any situation in which a defender must let their guard down can result in an attack of opportunity.
Ok, let me weigh in on the detect evil thing. Imo, keep it simple. Detect evil should do exactly as the spell states; no more, no less. It detects creatures or objects of evil alignment. Unless you&#39;re dealing with a cleric, outsider, undead, or elemental, a creature&#39;s evil power is very generalized and doesn&#39;t give much of a clue to the creature&#39;s true power. Consider that any evil-aligned creature (not of the types listed above) of HD/lvl 1-9 gives off only a faint aura, and those of lvl 10 all the way to 24 character levels still give off only a moderate aura&#33; So NPCs of evil persuasion must be well into the epic levels to command a strong aura of evil power. And an overwhelming aura- forget it for any mortal non-cleric :lol: So, as you can see, detect evil doesn&#39;t give a whole lot of info on how big a threat a creature might be.
Instead, the purpose of the paladin&#39;s detect evil ability is to have a kind of early-warning radar system to identify potential enemies in unfamiliar territory or settings. Paladins are almost always obvious to the villians; therefore, the paladin must have a way to immediately identify potential threats before he gets a knife in his backside. However, this kind of info is primarily only of use to the paladin and those allies who unquestioningly trust his judgement. A palidin is unlikely to walk into a court and immediately call out all the bad guys in front of everyone, or even to the regent behind closed doors for the simple reason that the palidin may not be believed, and his naming of names may not be appreciated.
After all, the regent in this example doesn&#39;t have the luxury of consulting the Player&#39;s Handbook, reading over the paladin class description and detect evil spell, and then coming to the logical conclusion that the paladin must be correct. Unfortunately, we GMs and players engage in this kind of metagame thinking way too much. The paladin names names, and the DM figures he has no choice but for his NPC regent to act accordingly on the paladin&#39;s statements; after all, it&#39;s coming from a paladin, right? And everyone knows they don&#39;t lie. Or do they?
Fact is, most people of Cerilia, even pious ones, aren&#39;t all that familiar with what a paladin can and can&#39;t exactly do. If the DM puts himsel inside the head of our regent facing this diabolical dilemma of a paldin naming his most trusted seneschel as evil swine, the regent will react as any normal human being would- emotionally and illogically. The heavier the emotional investment the regent has in his advisor or whatever, the less likely he will be prepared to accept the palidin&#39;s accusation(s). There is also the matter of the regent&#39;s pride, or the fact that he hears similar accusations about this and that courtier every day; so why should the paladin be taken any more seriously? There are a hundred different factors that could come into play, meaning each such situation needs to be role-played out. But on the whole, unless the paladin has the ear of the regent who&#39;s court he has just scanned to pick out evil-doers one, two, and three, he is probably best served by keeping his mouth shut and the information to himself and his comrades, lest he commit a serious diplomatic faux pas.
And as has already been mentioned, any villain worth his salt is going to take precautions against detection. After all, paladins aren&#39;t the only ones who can cast detect evil.

[RaspK_FOG]

An attack of opportunity is what it says, and not any mystical action; when you use a spell-like ability, drink a potion, or otherwise provoke an attack of opportunity, as the phrase implies, you provoke someone to attack you, since now you leave an opening that you previously did not&#33;

Consider the following situation... When a paladin tries to detect evil, he is not paying attention to incoming blows, but to identifying any source of evil, thus distracting him from combat. Any combatant can realise when an opening is made as easilly as you can realise that someone does not focus his eyes on you, for example. If you were drinking a potion, you would raise the vial to your lips, not paying much attention to your opponent, since you have to raise your chin as well... And so on&#33;

[Arjan]

Originally posted by Ariadne+Jul 3 2003, 05:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ariadne @ Jul 3 2003, 05:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--irdeggman@Jul 3 2003, 04:35 PM
Generating an attack of opportunity doesn&#39;t mean that the opponent has to take it, it just means that the opening is there.

The point is that the character engaged in the activity (for example using a spell-like ability) is distracted and hence has generated an opening.

Remember that in order to take advantage of the AoO a character has to be within melee reach when the action occurs - e.g., you can&#39;t move up and attack. B)
ThatI did understand, but how does the opponent knows, that he can use his attack of opportunity?

Well, the argument: "Look, he stares, hit him...&#33; makes sense to me... [/b][/quote]
sorry for the test posts in the thread, but i have to try to get rid of the embedded html tags.

Arjan

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by CMonkey@Jun 29 2003, 07:31 AM
I really think a section on the different paladin&#39;s codes would be a valuable addition to the BRCS.

CM.
Good point.

This is something best handled in the Atlas, which is including a write up on the different temples. Ariadne, since you&#39;ve already done substantial work on Cuircean&#39;s churches how about adding something concerning paladins? Which temples support paladins, how their code of conduct differs/is the same - something along those lines would fit in really well.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by irdeggman+Jul 7 2003, 02:07 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (irdeggman @ Jul 7 2003, 02:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--CMonkey@Jun 29 2003, 07:31 AM
I really think a section on the different paladin&#39;s codes would be a valuable addition to the BRCS.

CM.
Good point.

This is something best handled in the Atlas, which is including a write up on the different temples. Ariadne, since you&#39;ve already done substantial work on Cuircean&#39;s churches how about adding something concerning paladins? Which temples support paladins, how their code of conduct differs/is the same - something along those lines would fit in really well. [/b][/quote]
Hmmmmmm..... Good idea. I will think of it.

At first I would say, any CG temple (sect) supports paladins. At the church of the "Chosen of Khirdai" paladins will be renegates, I think (same as CG clerics)...

[Osprey]

Leave Palidin abilities alone, and change the Enhanced Sense ability ( a Major power, supposedly) to allow scions of Anduiras to Detect Evil at will&#33; It&#39;s a level 0 cleric spell, so don&#39;t shortchange the blood ability&#33;

Oops&#33; My bad - it is a 1st level spell.
-Osprey (7/29)

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Jul 25 2003, 02:46 PM
Leave Palidin abilities alone, and change the Enhanced Sense ability ( a Major power, supposedly) to allow scions of Anduiras to Detect Evil at will&#33; It&#39;s a level 0 cleric spell, so don&#39;t shortchange the blood ability&#33;
Actually it&#39;s a 1st level Cleric spell not a 0-level, unless 3.5 has changed that.

But your point is pretty good in the fact that the Anduiras&#39; ability is the weakest of the group for that ability. Some of the effects will need to be changed with 3.5 rules, I know that track is no longer a feat so this will require some revision so it will definitely be looked at for better balancing.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by irdeggman+Jul 25 2003, 09:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (irdeggman @ Jul 25 2003, 09:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Osprey@Jul 25 2003, 02:46 PM
Leave Palidin abilities alone, and change the Enhanced Sense ability ( a Major power, supposedly) to allow scions of Anduiras to Detect Evil at will&#33; It&#39;s a level 0 cleric spell, so don&#39;t shortchange the blood ability&#33;
Actually it&#39;s a 1st level Cleric spell not a 0-level, unless 3.5 has changed that.
[/b][/quote]
I&#39;m really sure, they didn&#39;t.

(IMO they did change no single spell to a useful new version, but they added several new were you can discuss if they are this good compared with the "combined" version of 3.0).

[CMonkey]

Well it happened.

My new paladin player assigned to the OIT was being sounded out by the acting Patriarch ("You&#39;re a good boy, you really like following orders don&#39;t you? You&#39;ll behave if we decide to, for example, excommunicate the Diem and attempt to take his domain won&#39;t you?") and who also happens to be an agent of the Big Bad.

Hmm, he&#39;s distracted. Detect. Ooo, evil&#33; Smite it&#33;

Sigh.

CM.

[kgauck]

ge -----

From: "CMonkey" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 3:30 PM





> Well it happened.



How is it that said acting patriarch simultaneously got as far as he did

without being detected and then was tripped up by this paladin? My sense

would be that either 1) the acting patriarch has fooled others and will fool

this one, 2) the acting patriarch can fool no one, including the paladin, or

3) there is some special reason that there is an exception to the general

rule.



When the PC is the first person to make what seems like a rather obvious

discovery using pretty common means, it seems rather Potomkin.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[UncleHyena]

I can see where this discussion could quickly break down into a discussion of the essential nature of good and evil...

For my money, a "Detect Evil" spell would very seldom be useful in a court setting. It would probably pick up someone who was about to do something horrific strictly for his own benefit, or just because he was crazy, but it wouldn&#39;t pick up run of the mill duplicity, because most political duplicity is sincere and well intentioned. Politicians are usually convinced they are doing the best thing when they tell lies to the people; the salesman who lies through his teeth is simply doing his job to the best of his ability, and so on.

In short, "Detect Evil" is NOT "Detect Lie" or "Detect Enemy". It would only be of marginal use in a court setting, and probably doesn&#39;t need to be resatricted.

Uncle Hyena

[kgauck]

ge -----

From: "UncleHyena" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 6:56 PM





> I can see where this discussion could quickly break down into a

> discussion of the essential nature of good and evil...



I like your Augustinian solution here, but clearly the text facors the

Manichean, since the spell description is clearly based on the latter

interpretation. Motive is entirely irrelivant according to the text.

Alignment combines with character level to produce an intensity of evil.



The central problem with the rules in this case is that they don`t work well

in court. While a motive element certainly has a part to play in the

solution, I think there should also be an ability to conceal one`s thoughts

or motives as well. If players could ever interact with Torias Greene (and

paladins in Talinie are as popular as anywhere else) it would be neccesary

for him to be able to send them into a trap (an evil act supported by evil

motives) without tipping off the players. If Torias an a unique NPC, we can

dispence with an explanation of how it works and just rule that he cannot be

detected. But, if there are various evil priests all over doing this kind

of thing, some mechanism is required. I rather think Spell Resistance is

the best model.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Trithemius]

> Well it happened.

>

> My new paladin player assigned to the OIT was being sounded

> out by the acting Patriarch ("You`re a good boy, you

> really like following orders don`t you? You`ll behave if we

> decide to, for example, excommunicate the Diem and attempt to

> take his domain won`t you?") and who also happens to be

> an agent of the Big Bad.

>

> Hmm, he`s distracted. Detect. Ooo, evil&#33; Smite it&#33;

>

> Sigh.



I hope the acting Patriarch`s guards arrested him shoirtly afterwards.

Or rather killed him. Why did this cleric (I assume he was a cleric) not

have Undetectable Alignment in effect? It would seem to be sensible?



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

[ConjurerDragon]

b:



>----- Original Message -----

>From: "UncleHyena" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

>Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 6:56 PM

>

>The central problem with the rules in this case is that they don`t work well

>in court. While a motive element certainly has a part to play in the

>solution, I think there should also be an ability to conceal one`s thoughts

>or motives as well. If players could ever interact with Torias Greene (and

>paladins in Talinie are as popular as anywhere else) it would be neccesary

>for him to be able to send them into a trap (an evil act supported by evil

>motives) without tipping off the players. If Torias an a unique NPC, we can

>dispence with an explanation of how it works and just rule that he cannot be

>detected. But, if there are various evil priests all over doing this kind

>of thing, some mechanism is required. I rather think Spell Resistance is

>the best model.

>Kenneth Gauck

>kgauck@mchsi.com

>

>

In the Players Secrets of Talinie he is listed as having an Amulet of

proof against detection and location and a ring of mind shielding.

Perhaps the author intended him to go undetected with that items.

bye

Michael

[kgauck]

ge -----

From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>

Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 11:33 PM





> In the Players Secrets of Talinie he is listed as having an Amulet of

> proof against detection and location and a ring of mind shielding.

> Perhaps the author intended him to go undetected with that items.



Having everyone walk around with magical items is fine, I suppose. John

Machin suggested Undetectable Alignment. Personally, I`m not a big fan of

putting a specific arrangement of magical items on every villian, or

assuming everyone magics up before they are seen in public. All of that

really limits a villian. Some other solution must be out there.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Eosin the Red]

gnment detecting spells but give Paladins a "Spider

Sense" when evil is about. Nothing exacting but enough to put them on their

toes.



Randy

----- Original Message -----

From: "Kenneth Gauck" <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>

To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>

Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 1:15 AM

Subject: Re: Detect Evil at will? [36#1764]





> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>

> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 11:33 PM

>

>

> > In the Players Secrets of Talinie he is listed as having an Amulet of

> > proof against detection and location and a ring of mind shielding.

> > Perhaps the author intended him to go undetected with that items.

>

> Having everyone walk around with magical items is fine, I suppose. John

> Machin suggested Undetectable Alignment. Personally, I`m not a big fan of

> putting a specific arrangement of magical items on every villian, or

> assuming everyone magics up before they are seen in public. All of that

> really limits a villian. Some other solution must be out there.

>

> Kenneth Gauck

> kgauck@mchsi.com

>

>



>

> Birthright-l Archives:

http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

>

>

[Green Knight]

l Evil clerics...the paladin can`t just go around smiting every evil sod he meets - especially when the he`s a rankign church member.



While the patriarch is evil - does that mean he`s an enemy of his own faith?



Of course he`s not, and the paladin will give him due respect, even if they disagree on some points.



B

>

> Fra: Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>

> Dato: 2003/07/27 Sun PM 10:47:10 CEST

> Til: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

> Emne: Re: Detect Evil at will? [36#1764]

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "CMonkey" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 3:30 PM

>

>

> > Well it happened.

>

> How is it that said acting patriarch simultaneously got as far as he did

> without being detected and then was tripped up by this paladin? My sense

> would be that either 1) the acting patriarch has fooled others and will fool

> this one, 2) the acting patriarch can fool no one, including the paladin, or

> 3) there is some special reason that there is an exception to the general

> rule.

>

> When the PC is the first person to make what seems like a rather obvious

> discovery using pretty common means, it seems rather Potomkin.

>

> Kenneth Gauck

> kgauck@mchsi.com

>

>

>

>

>

>

>



Cheers

Bjørn



-------------------------------------------------

WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no

-------------------------------------------------

[Green Knight]

lerics and paladins register as strongly evil. The evil courtier might register as slightly evil, but what the hell does that mean?



The paladin might feel slightly uneasy around the man, but unless he actually does something...



Besides, there are probably a lot of evil-aligned people out there, and the paladin can`t really keep track of them all.



>

> Fra: UncleHyena <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

> Dato: 2003/07/28 Mon AM 01:56:47 CEST

> Til: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM

> Emne: Re: Detect Evil at will? [36#1764]

>

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=1764

>

> UncleHyena wrote:

> I can see where this discussion could quickly break down into a discussion of the essential nature of good and evil...

>

> For my money, a "Detect Evil" spell would very seldom be useful in a court setting. It would probably pick up someone who was about to do something horrific strictly for his own benefit, or just because he was crazy, but it wouldn`t pick up run of the mill duplicity, because most political duplicity is sincere and well intentioned. Politicians are usually convinced they are doing the best thing when they tell lies to the people; the salesman who lies through his teeth is simply doing his job to the best of his ability, and so on.

>

> In short, "Detect Evil" is NOT "Detect Lie" or "Detect Enemy". It would only be of marginal use in a court setting, and probably doesn`t need to be resatricted.

>

> Uncle Hyena

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>



Cheers

Bjørn



-------------------------------------------------

WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no

-------------------------------------------------

[irdeggman]

It is my firm belief that a temple will take on the alignment of its leader. Look at the real world equivalents. Now this might not be an immediate thing but it will happen over time if only due to the fact that the leader will draw in people of like mindeness and lose those who don&#39;t feel the same way.

Now in the example given the "leader" is only an acting leader and not the "true" leader of the temple.

Also just because a character is evil doesn&#39;t mean he does stupid things. The description of the text on how he is talking to the paladin clearly expresses ideals that are contrary to Haelyn&#39;s doctrine (regardless of the temple) and are also not very lawful in intent so he is probably in deep doo-doo in regards to the "loyal" followers of the temple.

Green Knight points out that good clerics and paladins radiate strongly good, (Actually he said that they register as strongly evil - I assume this was a typo) actually this depends. In 2nd ed yes in 3rd ed they would have an aura strength equal to their class level (actually only the cleric is listed but I&#39;d say that the paladin is the same for this case) so it may or may not be a strong aura. (They&#39;d have to be 5th level or higher for that). This is also punctuated by the fact that in 3rd ed evil clerics can no longer turn paladins.

Also to point out something that is vastly different between the 2 editions - a paladin does not detect evil intent anymore, only evil (as per the spell). The spell description does not include anything pertaining to intentions only to alignment.

[kgauck]

ge -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 5:07 AM





> It is my firm belief that a temple will take on the alignment of its

leader.



I view temples as political organizations just like any other, composed of

competing factions. The faction represented by the leader may grow

stronger, or at least more confident, but the temple will continue to

reflect each of the various parties which compose it. When I devise parties

for a temple of Haelyn I go through the typical faction building exercise,

who gets along best with the landed ruler, or who with A and who with B, who

thinks X is the greatest threat and who thinks Y is the greatest. And so

on. I also see three poles, the CG, the LG/NG and the LE/LN poles. When

possible, I try to associate alignments with factions and factions with

alignments. Overlap is expected. If a fourth faction is evident, then two

are liabble to be LG, one a LG/LN, and one a LG/NG faction. Each faction

has its powerbase, its agenda, and so forth. These are closely aligned, but

differences clearly exist.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Trithemius]

ving everyone walk around with magical items is fine, I

> suppose. John Machin suggested Undetectable Alignment.

> Personally, I`m not a big fan of putting a specific

> arrangement of magical items on every villian, or assuming

> everyone magics up before they are seen in public. All of

> that really limits a villian. Some other solution must be out there.



Regarding Torias Griene I like to think that Eloele at least has

specific magics that pertain to deceiving people. The followers of

certain horrible gods in HeroWars have specific magical skills that are

used to fool followers of other gods who would like very much to root

them out. I think that Undetectable Alignment is just the boring vanilla

D&D equivalent of the "Hide from Enemies" magic.



I personally don`t like to have a lot of "invisible" evil villains. The

coolest antagonists I think are "visible"; people with ideas that the

players would, in other circumstances, agree with. ;)



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

[kgauck]

ge -----

From: "John Machin" <trithemius@PARADISE.NET.NZ>

Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 8:12 AM





> Regarding Torias Griene I like to think that Eloele at least has

> specific magics that pertain to deceiving people. The followers of

> certain horrible gods in HeroWars have specific magical skills that are

> used to fool followers of other gods who would like very much to root

> them out. I think that Undetectable Alignment is just the boring vanilla

> D&D equivalent of the "Hide from Enemies" magic.



All true, but is this power a class feature, a special Eloele feat, or an

especially good spell?



> I personally don`t like to have a lot of "invisible" evil villains. The

> coolest antagonists I think are "visible"; people with ideas that the

> players would, in other circumstances, agree with. ;)



While I too like villains to be out in the open, and my players rather

dislike Torias, I also like the villains to be even more villainous than the

players know. If Griene is to be uncovered for what he is, I`d rather it be

because PC`s put together information from a series of encounters and foiled

plots, not because someone walks into his presence and knows his deepest

secrets. The evolving discovery of who is behind things and why is more fun

than confronting the Gorgon.



I do, for example, have the White Witch out there, but I don`t do very much

with her, because 1) I don`t want to play a Viking X-files, and 2) super

secret enties are limited by their own super secretness.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Osprey]

Regarding evil and good in court settings...
It&#39;s been my impression since I first got into Birthright that there&#39;s a fair mix of good and evil in Cerilia, including within court and regent circles. This being the case, a palidin or cleric could detect evil all day. So what? So you know that the neighboring baron is evil. What are you gonna&#39; do about it? Anyone with at least a rank or more in Knowledge: Nobility (which should be most courtiers in Anuire) knows that there are plenty of "evil" people out there. Is that the same as being a criminal? Absolutely not. It might mean you shouldn&#39;t trust the guy (or lady), but that&#39;s not an unreasonable use for a palidin&#39;s or cleric&#39;s abilities.
Particularly regarding the followers of Haelyn, there&#39;s evil and there&#39;s justice. How just is it to start a fight with someone just because "they&#39;re evil, I sensed it&#33;" Put that in any kind of realistic setting, and it sounds ludicrous. If the roleplaying gets that bad, the DM and players need to sit down and have a little chat about politics.

[Osprey]

Regarding Villains:
I was almost tempted to start a new thread for this one, but I wanted those who began the discussion to not miss the replies.
The issue of visible vs. invisible villains in Birthright is a really poignant one. I&#39;ve always wondered if villains and evil regents like Guilder Kalien and Gavin Tael are widely known as such, or if they do a good job of disguising their darker deeds.
Bearing in my mind that my only real source material is the original 2ndEd. Boxed Set and the D20 Playtest, my impression has been that these kinds of regents (in Anuire, at least) have their dirty little secrets but tend to come across as more neutral in demeanor. This makes sense if one assumes that few Anuireans really like having an obviously evil ruler, and that neigboring "good guy" lords would gang up on the evil ones very quickly if things got blatant. Not to mention dealing with rebellions and sabotage would be a constant problem for such regents given the general Anuirean attitude towards evil. Haelyn is their patron deity, after all, and this sets a Lawful Good standard of living as the default cultural attitude, with perhaps a Lawful Neutral leaning due to Anduiras and the alignment of the leading powers in Anuire (Avanil, Boeruine, the Western Imperial Temple, etc.).
Beyond that, it&#39;s just bad politics to be noticeably evil in most settings. Who trusts a known traitor? Who will make an alliance with such a person? It&#39;s fine for ancient evils like the Gorgon to be blatant villains - they&#39;re so powerful that nobody can really do anything about it. But for Gavin Tael, a concerted effort by most or all of his neighbors against him could be disastrous. So I imagine he&#39;d have to play a careful game of bluff and intimidation, and conceal some of his more nefarious activities. No one thinks he&#39;s either nice or unambitious, but that&#39;s a far cry from naming him a villain.
On the other hand, villains who exist in the wilds and fringes of civilization can do or be whatever they want. That&#39;s why they&#39;re on the outskirts, right? It&#39;s the ones surrounded by do-gooders who have to watch their step.

-Osprey

[geeman]

3 +1200, John Machin wrote:



>I think that Undetectable Alignment is just the boring vanilla D&D

>equivalent of the "Hide from Enemies" magic.



When PCs, however, have access to equally boring "Detect Enemies" magic

what better solution is there?



>I personally don`t like to have a lot of "invisible" evil villains. The

>coolest antagonists I think are "visible"; people with ideas that the

>players would, in other circumstances, agree with. ;)



I would agree with that, though can be a difficult thing to pull off

sometimes. I like having a nice range of enemies in a campaign; some that

are clearly meant as cannon fodder, others that are insidious and difficult

to define. Generally, the latter motivates and pulls the strings of the

former, but that`s the kind of thing the players have to find out for

themselves.



Gary

[Trithemius]

l true, but is this power a class feature, a special Eloele

> feat, or an especially good spell?



At the most basic level, it is Undetectable Alignment. If people have

created specific classes (or prestige classes) based around the worship

of certain gods of the Cerilian pantheon then perhaps they could be

included as class features. Undetectable Alignment, as it is, is

available to pretty much every cleric of the requisite level. I`m not

saying that this is a good thing, but it is the current situation.



> I do, for example, have the White Witch out there, but I

> don`t do very much with her, because 1) I don`t want to play

> a Viking X-files, and 2) super secret enties are limited by

> their own super secretness.



Oh agreed :)



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

[kgauck]

ge -----

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 5:15 PM





> When PCs, however, have access to equally boring "Detect Enemies" magic

> what better solution is there?



Ultimatly, I think the solution involves a skill check or some other kind of

check. Getting basic information should be easy, getting secret information

should be difficult. Spells can provide clues, but too much information

short circuts mystery. This should be a sword and shield issue, there is

information seeking and defense against same.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[ryancaveney]

Gary wrote:



> At 01:12 AM 7/29/2003 +1200, John Machin wrote:

>

> >I think that Undetectable Alignment is just the boring vanilla D&D

> >equivalent of the "Hide from Enemies" magic.

>

> When PCs, however, have access to equally boring "Detect Enemies" magic

> what better solution is there?



The obvious solution is to prohibit all boring detect enemies magic!

That`s the one I use. IMC, no native-born Cerilian who has not been

obviously bloodformed into an awnshegh would register *at all* on Detect

Evil. This makes the power nearly useless (well, I suppose if it was

dark, and the Gorgon was nearby, you could figure out where he was and run

away), but I think that is necessary to have anything like the political

intrigue which IMO should be at the heart of a Birthright campaign.



> others that are insidious and difficult to define. Generally, the

> latter motivates and pulls the strings of the former, but that`s the

> kind of thing the players have to find out for themselves.



One of the things I very much like about Birthright`s focus on the world

of politics is that it greatly increases moral ambiguity: the game of

thrones is not for the faint of heart or lily-livered goody-two-shoes.

As the Pirate King of Penzance put it,



When I sally forth to seek my prey

I help myself in a royal way

I sink a few more ships, it`s true

Than a well-bred monarch ought to do.

But many a king on a first-class throne

If he wants to call his crown his own

Must manage somehow to get through

More dirty work than *ever* I do!



In my personal opinion, there is no ruler anywhere in Cerilia who

qualifies as particularly "good" in a simple-minded alignment sense,

especially the ones who are actually good (in the sense of competent at

their job) rulers! In my Cerilia, the principle that a good prince is a

person who sacrifices his own personal innocence to protect his people by

any means necessary is widely regarded as obviously true.





Ryan Caveney

[kgauck]

ge -----

From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 5:55 PM





> The obvious solution is to prohibit all boring detect enemies magic!

> That`s the one I use. IMC, no native-born Cerilian who has not been

> obviously bloodformed into an awnshegh would register *at all* on Detect

> Evil.



I have no problem with powerful law aligned characters being able to detect

that an informant is unreliable, or a powerful good character being able to

detect that a specific applicant to the party will not be committed to the

spirit of the crusade. Power over the chuckle head in a bar selling death

sticks, yes. Power over the chancellor, no.



> One of the things I very much like about Birthright`s focus on the world

> of politics is that it greatly increases moral ambiguity: the game of

> thrones is not for the faint of heart or lily-livered goody-two-shoes.



I rather regard good alignment as the Machiavellian lion, and lawful

alignment as the fox.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Trithemius]

PCs, however, have access to equally boring "Detect

> Enemies" magic what better solution is there?



Which deity in BR should have this magic? I don`t know of any vigiliance

deities in BR. In HW followers of the chaos-smiting deity can try to

sense chaos-evil; followers of the pole-star/watchmen deity can try to

detect hidden enemies that approach from afar. I don`t think that these

magics should be generic, but rather specific.



It is also useful in situations like these if magic isn`t an

"autosucceeding" thing. HeroWars has magic treated as a stat like

everything else, unlike D&D.



D&D is not good :



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

[Trithemius]

bvious solution is to prohibit all boring detect enemies

> magic! That`s the one I use. IMC, no native-born Cerilian

> who has not been obviously bloodformed into an awnshegh would

> register *at all* on Detect Evil. This makes the power

> nearly useless (well, I suppose if it was dark, and the

> Gorgon was nearby, you could figure out where he was and run

> away), but I think that is necessary to have anything like

> the political intrigue which IMO should be at the heart of a

> Birthright campaign.



Or get rid of alignments! >:D



> In my personal opinion, there is no ruler anywhere in Cerilia

> who qualifies as particularly "good" in a simple-minded

> alignment sense, especially the ones who are actually good

> (in the sense of competent at their job) rulers! In my

> Cerilia, the principle that a good prince is a person who

> sacrifices his own personal innocence to protect his people

> by any means necessary is widely regarded as obviously true.



Just like the Scorpions from L5R?



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

[Trithemius]

timatly, I think the solution involves a skill check or

> some other kind of check. Getting basic information should

> be easy, getting secret information should be difficult.

> Spells can provide clues, but too much information short

> circuts mystery. This should be a sword and shield issue,

> there is information seeking and defense against same.



Sadly magic in D&D is a terribly terribly boring affair.



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

[kgauck]

ge -----

From: "John Machin" <trithemius@PARADISE.NET.NZ>

Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:37 AM





> Sadly magic in D&D is a terribly terribly boring affair.



Agreed. Much in need of change. I have really like the ArM system, and

with some adjustments (don`t want Hermeticism in Cerilia) will probably use

it as the magic system of my next campaign.



D&D seems to be best suited to fighters and rogues. I am satisfied with

combat (taking my homebrew into account). Its magic that vexes.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

3 +1200, John Machin wrote:



>Which deity in BR should have this magic? I don`t know of any vigiliance

>deities in BR. In HW followers of the chaos-smiting deity can try to

>sense chaos-evil; followers of the pole-star/watchmen deity can try to

>detect hidden enemies that approach from afar. I don`t think that these

>magics should be generic, but rather specific.



Paladins` ability to detect evil at will was pretty much the most

ubiquitous example, though the detect spells are pretty easily available,

and that`s the kind of thing that characters _would_ make a magic item out

of given its obvious utility.... Anyway, the solution most folks seem to

prefer here is to limit access to that ability or to make it less effective

as in a skill check, either of which are apt IMO. I`m starting to think a

combination of those with a third option makes the most overall

sense. That is, making the nature of "good-evil" and "law-chaos" more of a

system of allegiance rather than the simplistic alignment system. Point

values in various allegiances would fit into both limited use and

difficulty of detection by giving the system some sort of target numbers.



Gary

[Trithemius]

eed of change. I have really like the ArM

> system, and with some adjustments (don`t want Hermeticism in

> Cerilia) will probably use it as the magic system of my next campaign.



I think RL "hermetica" is better than Ars Magica "hermetica" w.r.t BR.

That being said, I don`t mind the Arts as they are, I just don`t find

that things like Parma Magica and the Houses work well.



> D&D seems to be best suited to fighters and rogues. I am

> satisfied with combat (taking my homebrew into account). Its

> magic that vexes.



I`m not wild about combat myself ;)

I think Ars Magica does it okay anyways.



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by The Green Knight@Jul 28 2003, 10:07 AM
Clerics and paladins register as strongly evil. The evil courtier might register as slightly evil, but what the hell does that mean?

Well, in 3.5 Edition clerics and paladins have a stong alignment aura, right, but this aura is related to the deity, not him.

A LE cleric of Healin would still radiate a LG aura, I fear (confusing, but normally clerics can only be a step from their deity anyway). The only exeption is, if the deity is neutral, then all non-neutral clerics radiate their alignment as an aura...

So IMO the LE Patriarch wouldn&#39;t be detected by the paladin.

[ryancaveney]

John Machin wrote:



> Or get rid of alignments! >:D



Well, yes, precisely! That is, I still use the alignment notation as one

part of a shorthand roleplaying description of NPC personalities, very

possibly with a reputation vs. reality slant (e.g., everybody *thinks*

this guy is LG, but he`s really NE at heart, and has hired a good PR firm;

or everybody thinks she`s CE, but she`s really NG with enemies who tell

terrible stories about her), but it doesn`t have any game mechanical

reality for me at all, except in the most extreme cases of super-powerful

fanatic extraplanar beings or awn/ehr-sheghlien. It`s not only about

power -- powerful dragons don`t have detectable alignments, because their

power does not come from their ethical philosophy (though you can still

magically detect, "Uh, there`s something *really powerful* some distance

away in that general direction"); a minor awnshegh, however, is moderately

detectable *as evil* only because most of its power derives precisely from

being a part of The Big Evil (TM).



> > In my personal opinion, there is no ruler anywhere in Cerilia

> > who qualifies as particularly "good" in a simple-minded

> > alignment sense, especially the ones who are actually good

> > (in the sense of competent at their job) rulers! In my

> > Cerilia, the principle that a good prince is a person who

> > sacrifices his own personal innocence to protect his people

> > by any means necessary is widely regarded as obviously true.

>

> Just like the Scorpions from L5R?



I don`t know L5R. Kenneth correctly identifies me as one who reads

Machiavelli very appreciatively. Part of the issue with morality is how

much of it is really a smokescreen, a set of comforting lies we tell each

other and ourselves to hide our darker motives and desires. There is

often a vast gulf between the way people describe their actions and the

way they really act -- one reason so many people get so upset by old

Niccolo is that while writers about morality usually try to restrict

themselves to pleasant fantasies ("wouldn`t the world be a much nicer

place if everyone acted like this") about how we would prefer to *imagine*

that we behave, Machiavelli described how people *actually* behave.

People get upset by this because they see themselves in his writings, but

would rather they didn`t. Moral platitudes are largely about maintaining

an illusion of happy cooperation which doesn`t really exist, but many

people prefer not to think about that uncomfortable truth.



Anyway, back to my primary principle of Cerilian statecraft, which is

perhaps best described as "good rulers do good things to good people, and

bad things to bad people." A big part of the way I look at it is a

"circles of kinship" kind of thing: the rules about interactions within

one`s community differ from the rules about interactions with outsiders;

and there are many different sets of communities of which each person is a

part (family, village, temple, clan, country, species, etc.), each with

its own set of rules and corresponding insider / outsider distinctions in

permissible behavior.



The ideal ruler IMO acts NG to his subjects, LG to his allies, CE to his

enemies and LE or TN to everyone else, and IMC everyone understands this.



To draw a parallel to another game world we both know, consider the

Orlanthi attitude to murder. Kill a kinsman, and the hurt can never be

healed. Kill a non-kin fellow Orlanthi, and you`ll have to pay a wergild.

Kill a foreigner, and you get to keep his stuff. Another such example is

found in the _Sartar Rising_ section on kinds of warfare. We try not to

fight other clans within the tribe, or if we do we try to keep it just to

small and mostly bloodless cattle raids and ceremonial champions`

contests. When we fight clans outside our tribe, we try to avoid wanton

slaughter, unless we already have a blood feud with them. Even when

raiding a ancestral feud enemy, there are still a few rules of war we

observe. When fighting foreigners, however, everything is kosher.

Humakt, God of War and Oaths, normally discourages ambushes and prohibits

use of poison and disease spirits in fights between Orlanthi, and punishes

those who break treaties; in fights with outsiders, however, we are

released from these restrictions, indeed in some cases encouraged to

violate them, *because we know outsiders won`t be playing by the rules

either*. They Are Not Us in the strongest sense, so We Owe Them Nothing.



The general principle here is that the morality of an action depends

crucially on the person to whom you do it. This is seen, for example, in

the bible -- compare "thou shalt not kill" with "thou shalt not suffer a

witch to live." How were those seemingly contradictory rules reconciled?

By noting that the unspoken but very real codicil to the first rule is

"one of us", and that witches are defined as "not one of us". The

Crusades were based on similar logic: all sorts of things you shouldn`t do

to fellow christians were just peachy when done to muslims, because They

Were Not Us. Whatever changes in acceptable behavior over time there

have been which are sometimes called "moral progress" (e.g., slavery

used to be universally accepted; nowadays it is widely condemned) is not

really a change in what *actions* are good or bad, but rather a change in

the size of the group to which you`re prohibited from being bad.



This is the original meaning of the word "outlaw" -- a person who is

outside the protection of the laws, and to whom it is therefore legal to

do *anything* at all. If you did something sufficiently terrible, you

would be outlawed -- placed outside the law -- then anyone who wanted to

could freely take your possessions or kill you or whatever else they

desired without fear of punishment. This usage has to do with taking

someone who started as in-group and making them out-group so as to get to

use out-group rules while interacting with them, but it applies equally

well to people who started as out-group. In this kind of system,

vigilante acts are specifically allowed, and sometimes directly

encouraged: when a criminal violates the social contract, they have

declared themselves no longer bound by rules of civilized behavior, and

therefore literally volunteer to be violated against in turn; but those

who strike back at them are not themselves violators because the contract

has already been abrogated by the criminal party. This reasoning is still

present at the core of the justification for the death penalty for murder:

it`s not OK to kill someone, *unless* they themselves have already killed

someone who shouldn`t have been, thereby declaring officially to the world

that in dealing with them, killing is a perfectly acceptable act.



I like my Cerilia with very small in groups and very big out groups, where

people don`t really worry too much about the moral implications of doing

terrible things to outsiders -- after all, they`re *outsiders*. You`re

*supposed* to do terrible things to them, lest they do them first to us!

Of course we`d never do that to our *own* people -- but *they* aren`t

*really* "people". This is perhaps best exemplified in Cerilia by the

Gheallie Sidhe, but in my vision of Cerilia, basically *everyone* thinks

this way. Everyone`s cultural conditioning supplies a set of rules for

deciding who is OK to kill and who isn`t, and every culture has a rather

longer list of "OK to Kill" than "Not OK to Kill".



"It`s Not Cricket" only applies while actually playing cricket -- when

your opponents come prepared to play rugby or ice hockey instead, you`d

best meet them with equal force and ferocity.





Ryan Caveney

[Eosin the Red]

eney"

> Subject: Re: Detect Evil at will? [36#1764]

>

> Well, yes, precisely! That is, I still use the alignment notation as one part of a shorthand roleplaying description of NPC personalities, very possibly with a reputation vs. reality slant (e.g., everybody *thinks* this guy is LG, but he`s really NE at heart, and has hired a good PR firm; or everybody thinks she`s CE, but she`s really NG with enemies who tell terrible stories about her), but it doesn`t have any game mechanical reality for me at all, except in the most extreme cases of super-powerful fanatic extraplanar beings or awn/ehr-sheghlien.



[SNIP]



> "It`s Not Cricket" only applies while actually playing cricket -- when your opponents come prepared to play rugby or ice hockey instead, you`d best meet them with equal force and ferocity.



Wow. Nicely done. These would be my words also if I could articulate this well.



Eosin~Randy

[ryancaveney]

Eosin the Red wrote:



> > From: "Ryan B. Caveney"

>

> Wow. Nicely done. These would be my words also if I could articulate

> this well.



*grin* Thanks!





Ryan Caveney

[Trithemius]

It`s Not Cricket" only applies while actually playing

> cricket -- when your opponents come prepared to play rugby or

> ice hockey instead, you`d best meet them with equal force and

> ferocity.



I`m not sure that this is strictly the case in Anuire. Their chief god

is one who promotes chivalrous behaviour. Now, before someone clever

says something like "the chief god of Western Europe in the Middle Ages

was a merciful deity, etc etc" I would just like to stress that I

personally believe that religion is, if anything, more important to

Anuireans than it was to Western Europeans. Even educated rulers in

Anuire are almost certainly devout.



I like the idea that not everyone is Machiavellian, not quite yet.



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

[ryancaveney]

Gary wrote:



> At 06:31 PM 7/29/2003 +1200, John Machin wrote:

>

> >Which deity in BR should have this magic? I don`t know of any vigiliance

> >deities in BR. In HW followers of the chaos-smiting deity can try to

> >sense chaos-evil; followers of the pole-star/watchmen deity can try to

> >detect hidden enemies that approach from afar. I don`t think that these

> >magics should be generic, but rather specific.

>

> Paladins` ability to detect evil at will was pretty much the most

> ubiquitous example, though the detect spells are pretty easily available,



But that`s not addressing John`s point. Sure, that stuff is in the PHB,

but not everything in the PHB appears in Birthright. What John is

saying, and I agree with this, is that easy access to detection of enemies

does not fit the flavor of the setting well at all, and as such it is yet

another PHB rule that Cerilia would do better to drop. In the rest of

your post, you seem to agree with this, too... =)





Ryan Caveney

[kgauck]

ge -----

From: "John Machin" <trithemius@PARADISE.NET.NZ>

Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:37 AM





> Or get rid of alignments! >:D



I rather like the idea that order and disorder and good and evil are

tangible forces in the structure of the universe. Players however, aren`t

tied into these, unless they channel divine energy, but they do respect one

or two of these principles. Alignment detection spells are specific

questions posed about the behavior of the character in question. Given his

past and future (auguary need not bother with linear notions of time) which

principles does the character adhear to. Other spells could, and should

detect other kinds of personality answers, such as "would this person

consort with the dead?", "is he greedy?", or "does she respect knowledge and

learning?"



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[ryancaveney]

John Machin wrote:



> Ryan sez:

> > "It`s Not Cricket" only applies while actually playing

> > cricket -- when your opponents come prepared to play rugby or

> > ice hockey instead, you`d best meet them with equal force and

> > ferocity.

>

> I`m not sure that this is strictly the case in Anuire. Their chief god

> is one who promotes chivalrous behaviour.



True. OTOH, I think that Haelyn, having watched Anduiras fight Azrai,

probably has an idea of chivalry which is flexible enough to include some

version of "show honor to the honorable, but none to those who have none."

I really don`t think Haelyn will get too mad at you if you renege on your

offer of safe conduct and slay the Gorgon`s herald, even though he came

under a flag of truce, if the dirty goblin tries to eat some of your

servants. He probably does force you to strike second, but I don`t think

he would prevent you from striking at all.



Or possibly, this is precisely the role Cuiraecen`s followers play in

Anuirean society -- Stormlords are *supposed* to do violent things without

orders, and the god has been known to consort with that shady Eloele, so I

think that if a Haelynite Henry II were to complain about a meddlesome

priest, four Cuiraecen-worshipping knights would be happy to undertake the

task purely of their own volition. =) Call it "plausible deniability".



This becomes a good adventure seed -- a lord wants something done, but as

a good Haelynite he has to prevent himself knowing too much about it or

appearing too involved: enter a loyal guilder to hire an adventuring party

in some dockside tavern, rather than sending official troops.



> I like the idea that not everyone is Machiavellian, not quite yet.



Let`s review the cast of characters, shall we?



Avan and Boeruine are much too powerful and too marked as targets to have

survived this long without being seriously Machiavellian.



Alam, Ghoere, Raenech and Mierelen of Brosengae are "bad guys".



The Mhor might be a paragon of virtue, but he`s really too busy fighting

the Gorgon`s armies all the time to worry too much about it.



Tuor and Moergen probably try to be paragons of chivalry, just to

differentiate themselves from their enemies, but I think that mostly

means they`re likely to lose before too long; but then they surely know

that, as well. OK, Moergen is probably too much an idealist to realize

it, but long experience of Alamie`s treachery should make every Tuor

highly suspicious of anyone trying too hard to seem honorable.



Roesone might be fairly chivalrous, but I think sheer practicality has to

be her watchord, given how badly her enemies overmatch her.



I don`t really have a good grasp on Liliene Swordwraith`s character.



Theocrats, wizards and guilders don`t really count, somehow.



In some ways, I think I can say this seems to imply that Hierl Diem is

trying the hardest to stick with the ancient ideals, which may be why he`s

watched half is patrimony get up and walk away...





Ryan Caveney

[kgauck]

ge -----

From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 6:02 PM





> > I like the idea that not everyone is Machiavellian, not quite yet.

>

> Let`s review the cast of characters, shall we?



I`ll agree that the ideal alignment for a landed ruler is LN. But also

consider Constantine`s refusal to be baptised until he was on his deathbed.

The conventional wisdom of the ancient world was that rulers could not be of

good alignment. Success required too many comprimises. People who did not

have the responsibility of the state could be good, but not rulers.



But let us assume that there is a great power in the universe which rewards

good and punishes evil. Let`s call it Haelyn, Nesirie, and Cuiraecen. Does

this tip the scales of what is possible? Or is it cancled out by forces of

evil, leaving a wise ruler to walk the fine line between them?



Medieval poltical theorists, the proscriptionists, were not alone in wanting

to believe that good behavior brought a reward to the person, and in the

case of a ruler, to the realm. If this principle is true, where if not

Anuire is it evidenced?



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Trithemius]

rue. OTOH, I think that Haelyn, having watched Anduiras

> fight Azrai, probably has an idea of chivalry which is

> flexible enough to include some version of "show honor to the

> honorable, but none to those who have none." I really don`t

> think Haelyn will get too mad at you if you renege on your

> offer of safe conduct and slay the Gorgon`s herald, even

> though he came under a flag of truce, if the dirty goblin

> tries to eat some of your servants. He probably does force

> you to strike second, but I don`t think he would prevent you

> from striking at all.



I think that defending those sworn to you (your servants) from those

that attack them under a flag of truce (I`d say the pesky goblin broke

it already) is totally okay with Haelyn and with chivalry.



> Or possibly, this is precisely the role Cuiraecen`s followers

> play in Anuirean society -- Stormlords are *supposed* to do

> violent things without orders, and the god has been known to

> consort with that shady Eloele, so I think that if a

> Haelynite Henry II were to complain about a meddlesome

> priest, four Cuiraecen-worshipping knights would be happy to

> undertake the task purely of their own volition. =) Call it

> "plausible deniability".



Now this is what I agree with! I think that a lot of Anuireans find that

Cuiraecen`s followers are weird and dangerous and unpredictable; also

they are brave and unhesitating. With Cuiraecen`s people you get useful

people (who are often "good") but are also really really inconvenient at

times. Personally I suspect that most Goblin emissaries from the Gorgon

who pass through Mhoried get killed off quickly by slightly-fanatical

"Chaotic Good" Rangers of Mhoried. :)



> This becomes a good adventure seed -- a lord wants something

> done, but as a good Haelynite he has to prevent himself

> knowing too much about it or appearing too involved: enter a

> loyal guilder to hire an adventuring party in some dockside

> tavern, rather than sending official troops.



Morg`s Boeruine in "Shattered Dreams" did this with me (I was playing as

the Eloeleans). The Archduke went to the privy and his son and my shifty

representative had an interesting chat.



> Let`s review the cast of characters, shall we?

>

> Avan and Boeruine are much too powerful and too marked as

> targets to have survived this long without being seriously

> Machiavellian.



Or having serious power to begin with? If you have giant holdings and a

vast army all you need to be is a good caretaker really. I`m personally

of the opinion that perhaps they got it be being direct. The mighty can

afford to have some virtue after all. Little folks needs to rely on

sneakiness.



> Alam, Ghoere, Raenech and Mierelen of Brosengae are "bad guys".

>

> The Mhor might be a paragon of virtue, but he`s really too

> busy fighting the Gorgon`s armies all the time to worry too

> much about it.



I like the Mhor to be generally good but abole to cause big problems

abuot things by not being as "political" as perhaps someone of his size

should be. I think he also is a bit irrational about Markazor.



> In some ways, I think I can say this seems to imply that

> Hierl Diem is trying the hardest to stick with the ancient

> ideals, which may be why he`s watched half is patrimony get

> up and walk away...



Heirl Diem is mentioned as being pretty sneaky actually :)



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.