Pocket Plane Group
BG2 Completed Mods => Virtue => Topic started by: SimDing0™ on December 24, 2004, 05:12:06 AM
-
Heheh. I like that Kish can't bring himself to recommend Virtue, what with its GROSS INCONSISTENCY.
-
Heheh. I like that Kish can't bring himself to recommend Virtue, what with its GROSS INCONSISTENCY.
Can't bring myself to? Interesting phrasing you've got there.
-
Well it WAS your idea in the first place. :)
-
Yes. I still think the concept is a good one.
-
But the implementation is GROSSLY INCONSISTENT?
-
Without quite so many capital letters, but yes.
This is a bit off-topic for this thread, isn't it? We should probably move to the Virtue forum...if you think we have any to say on the subject that we haven't already.
-
Having moved the thread, I just feel I should put a bit of context on it.
The apparent inconsistency is that murdering Rayic Gethras incurs a Virtue penalty while killing the hostile monsters in the Underdark doesn't. Feel free to add to that, since I wouldn't want to be accused of inaccurate paraphrasing. :)
-
Which hostile monsters? The Illithid you are sent to kill by Imrae? The inhabitants of the Soul Gem? The Balor? The Kuo-Toas? Or the followers of Ghaundadaur perhaps?
In the last case, there might be some shadow of a point present, but you don't really have all that much choice in the matter, as opposed to the Rayic situation.
-
I think there's a little more depth to the inconsistency argument, because as Kish points out, you're sent to kill an Elder Orb by the Matron Mother, for example, which is something of an evil quest. On the other hand, I contend that the beholders are hostile anyway, whether or not you're doing the quest, and whether or not you're disguised as a drow, and attacking things on sight doesn't inspire much sympathy.
-
Matron Mother Ardulace: Sends you to kill the beholders, kuo-toa, or illithid for her. You might know nasty things about their races, though I would certainly hope that anyone who is prepared to justify killing them based on that doesn't let Viconia join the party.
Edwin: Sends you to kill Rayic Gethras. You do, at that point in the game, know very nasty things about the Cowled Wizards. Being a Cowled Wizard, unlike being a beholder/kuo-toa/illithid, is a matter of choice--having chosen to join an evil organization. (And don't say anything about P&P--the Cowled Wizards in BG2 are pretty obviously evil.)
In both cases, you have the option of killing the person who gives you the quest instead. Going on either quest is thus entirely voluntary; I contend that both or neither should have Virtue penalties.
However, that's also only one of two major inconsistencies I see. The other one is that you lose Virtue if you say, while you're dreaming, "I deserve power because of who I am!" but not if you say, while you're awake, to Jaheira, "My place is as the Lord of Murder and yours is to serve as my slave!"
Previous discussion of the dream Virtue hit (http://forums.pocketplane.net/index.php?topic=15650.0), and previous discussion of the Rayic Gethras/beholders difference (http://forums.pocketplane.net/index.php?topic=15735.0).
-
It should be noted that the latter issue regarding the dream is a design decision in a DM-type role. My interpretation of the dreams differs from Kish's, and as of yet I haven't found the arguments compelling enough to indicate that one opinion is more valid. In my interpretation, therefore, which a fair number of people seem to share, the handing is consistent.
The Rayic/Beholders argument is kicking around on page 3 or so of the link Kish gave. If anyone feels they have new material to add or queries, feel free to voice them. Justifying decisions is what this mod's all about, so I think I should have to justify my choices in making it too. :)
-
The BG2 interpretation of the Cowled Wizards doesn't seem particularly evil to me - they seem more like lawful neutral. They remind me of a wizardly version of the priesthood of Helm, or something ;).
Also, what if you accept Ardulace's mission but intend plan to betray her and inform the beholders, kuo-toa, or illithid of her plan? BG2 doesn't exactly allow that possibility...
-
The BG2 interpretation of the Cowled Wizards doesn't seem particularly evil to me - they seem more like lawful neutral. They remind me of a wizardly version of the priesthood of Helm, or something ;).
Let's see. Use a Tenser's Floating Disk, and get grabbed off the street, to disappear forever without trial. Your loved ones will never learn what happened to you. The Cowled Wizards don't answer even to the already-corrupt government of Athkatla, and when they discover an innocent man is the key to accessing the giant sphere that offers them a chance to enhance their power, they send a goon squad to bring him back dead or alive.
Interesting concept of Lawful Neutral you got there.
Also, what if you accept Ardulace's mission but intend plan to betray her and inform the beholders, kuo-toa, or illithid of her plan? BG2 doesn't exactly allow that possibility...
Seeing as how you 1) may not have a common language with the beholders or kuo-toa, and 2) look just like a known enemy of theirs, I'd say any PC who tries that is well past stupid and located firmly in "I started with an Intelligence of 2 and sacrificed a point of Intelligence in the dream in Spellhold" territory.
-
Let's see. Use a Tenser's Floating Disk, and get grabbed off the street, to disappear forever without trial. Your loved ones will never learn what happened to you. The Cowled Wizards don't answer even to the already-corrupt government of Athkatla, and when they discover an innocent man is the key to accessing the giant sphere that offers them a chance to enhance their power, they send a goon squad to bring him back dead or alive.
Interesting concept of Lawful Neutral you got there.
Let's see. They're willing to sacrifice a vast number of themselves to stop a troublesome mage. They run an asylum out of no apparent personal benefit for themselves, rather because they see the inmates as "deviants" who could harm society. They leave said inmates alive rather than execute them.
Interesting concept of evil you got there :P.
Seriously, here's the official description of Lawful Neutral characters:
Order and organization are of paramount importance to characters of this alignment. They believe in a strong, well-ordered government, whether that government is a tyranny or benevolent democracy. The benefits of organization and regimentation outweigh any moral questions raised by their actions. An inquisitor determined to ferret out traitors at any cost or a soldier who never questions his orders are good examples of lawful neutral behavior.
To me, that fits most of the in-game Cowlies to a tee. Certainly a LN character would be quite happy to commit every action you mentioned in your post (no morals, remember?). Obviously no organization (outside of certain religious institutions such as druidic circles and paladin orders) will ever have a universal alignment which is shared by ever single member, however.
-
Seeing as how you 1) may not have a common language with the beholders or kuo-toa, and 2) look just like a known enemy of theirs, I'd say any PC who tries that is well past stupid and located firmly in "I started with an Intelligence of 2 and sacrificed a point of Intelligence in the dream in Spellhold" territory.
...except they attack you even if you don't look like a drow. I know, I know, "a tragic misunderstanding". Just like killing Aerie in the circus because she's an ogre.
-
Kish: To add to the not-entirely-evil view of the Cowled Wizards, the law is that you cannot use magic in Athkatla - the wizards give you one warning/chance which is more generous than you have given them credit for. It's only if you break the law again that they whisk you away. I'm not sure who passed the law in the first place, but if you enter a city, you obey its laws whether you deem them fair or not. Otherwise, clear out, or try a coup. Anyway, the point is that you are given fair warning - then a (corrupt) workaround. If the wizards see you abusing this workaround, they don't let it pass by unnoticed.
For Valygar - he technically was not an innocent as he was on the run for killing members of the cowled wizard organisation. I can't remember if this turned out to be a complete lie on the part of the wizards (ie Valygar never killed any cowled wizards), or whether it was only a part-truth (ie Valygar killed them because they were going to kill him). If it was the former, then Valygar is innocent. If it's the latter, then Valygar too might incur several virtue hits as he, being a stalker, probably had a few other options for escaping his captors rather than killing them outright. The cowled wizards understandably might not give a damn whether this murderer lives or dies.
-
To me, that fits most of the in-game Cowlies to a tee. Certainly a LN character would be quite happy to commit every action you mentioned in your post (no morals, remember?).
Eh, I don't agree that LN means having no morals, necessarily. The definition you gave doesn't specifically say "no morals", and even if it did, there are more than a few definitions for the alignments (even official definitions) floating around out there. Whether the Wizards really are LN or LE, well, I won't get into that. However, as for locking people up because they believe they really are deviants who are harmful to society? I have to wonder if that really *is* the reason people are locked up in Spellhold, or just a rationalization to put them there (there is a difference).
For Valygar - he technically was not an innocent as he was on the run for killing members of the cowled wizard organisation. I can't remember if this turned out to be a complete lie on the part of the wizards (ie Valygar never killed any cowled wizards), or whether it was only a part-truth (ie Valygar killed them because they were going to kill him). If it was the former, then Valygar is innocent. If it's the latter, then Valygar too might incur several virtue hits as he, being a stalker, probably had a few other options for escaping his captors rather than killing them outright. The cowled wizards understandably might not give a damn whether this murderer lives or dies.
Yes, but they decided to take him dead or alive before he killed the Wizards--at least, I got the impression that they came to take him to open the Planar Sphere, and Valygar killed them out of self defense. So he really was an innocent man, at least at first, and his "innocence" was only lost after he tried to defend himself from the Wizards. Did he have to kill them? We don't know that--maybe, maybe not.
Also, remember that Tolgerias has no qualms about killing you after *you* get inside the Planar Sphere, as if it's his Sphere by right.
-
Let's see. They're willing to sacrifice a vast number of themselves to stop a troublesome mage. They run an asylum out of no apparent personal benefit for themselves,
...presuming, of course, that you define "having the populace of Athlatka afraid of them," "making their enemies disappear," and even, "being able to perform experiments on helpless prisoners with no moral limitations" as "no benefit."
They leave said inmates alive
...and perform hellish experiments on them...
rather than execute them.
Interesting concept of evil you got there :P.
I see you're avoiding talking about Valygar entirely, except, indirectly, with your blithe and unsupported assertion that a LN character would be happy to commit every action mentioned in my post. You're also ignoring the fact that they break the law when it benefits them, as with sending goon squads after Valygar.
Seeing as how you 1) may not have a common language with the beholders or kuo-toa, and 2) look just like a known enemy of theirs, I'd say any PC who tries that is well past stupid and located firmly in "I started with an Intelligence of 2 and sacrificed a point of Intelligence in the dream in Spellhold" territory.
...except they attack you even if you don't look like a drow.
Does that have something to do with NiGHTMARE's proposed scenario?
Kish: To add to the not-entirely-evil view of the Cowled Wizards, the law is that you cannot use magic in Athkatla - the wizards give you one warning/chance which is more generous than you have given them credit for. It's only if you break the law again that they whisk you away. I'm not sure who passed the law in the first place, but if you enter a city, you obey its laws whether you deem them fair or not.
Huh? By that assertion, the Underground Railroad was...evil?
There's also the little matter that while they give the PC a warning, they don't do that for everyone--most notably, Imoen.
For Valygar - he technically was not an innocent as he was on the run for killing members of the cowled wizard organisation.
In self-defense, he tells you. Of course, Valygar might be lying. He lies all the time, right?
I can't remember if this turned out to be a complete lie on the part of the wizards (ie Valygar never killed any cowled wizards), or whether it was only a part-truth (ie Valygar killed them because they were going to kill him). If it was the former, then Valygar is innocent. If it's the latter, then Valygar too might incur several virtue hits as he, being a stalker, probably had a few other options for escaping his captors rather than killing them outright.
What?
You are claiming, seriously, that Valygar should have Virtue hits because he killed people who came to his house to force him to open the Sphere for them and/or die?
If Sim concurs with that, they this whole argument is rather pointless, isn't it? The PC should have Virtue hits for killing most of the denizens of the Underdark, and, indeed, 90% of the enemies in the game--all the ones that it is possible to avoid killing.
The cowled wizards understandably might not give a damn whether this murderer lives or dies.
*scribbles in notebook* Someone...who...kills...in...self...defense...murderer. Got it.
Allowing that for the moment, for the sake of argument. Would it alter the fact that the wizards tried to, at the very least, force Valygar to open the Sphere for them to increase their power? They sent wizards after him before he had "lost his innocence" by defending himself. He was innocent then even if your concept of "innocent" doesn't extend to someone who defends himself by killing.
-
Kish is right--there are certainly benefits to being the only legal spellcasters in Athkatla (if not all of Amn), even if you ignore the fact that they were--apparently--performing unethical experiments on the prisoners in Spellhold. Who is there, then, to challenge their power? What better way to get rid of your enemies (or merely potential enemies) than simply to consider them "deviants" and have them locked up with no recourse whatsoever?
-
Here's my argument as it stands, since the thread is becoming fragmented with stuff about Valygar and the Underground Railroad.
The beholders attack you on sight regardless of your appearance. They make no attempt to warn you or to communicate. Hence, killing them is self-defence. On top of this, attacking things on sight regardless of their intent or appearance is evil. As for the drow illusion, if the player is expected to hold off attacking Aerie in ogre form or incur a Virtue hit (ogres being as much of a danger to humans as drow to beholders), why do the beholders get special treatment? Additionally, if beholders can assume all drow are going to be evil and hostile, I can assume all beholders are going to be evil and hostile... and I should be able to attack Saladrex and kill him without Virtue penalty. So if you want consistency, either the beholders are evil, or I should remove the Virtue penalty for killing Saladrex. (Note: Please, please, someone start another thread if you want to talk about Saladrex some more. This one's going to be confusing enough.)
Rayic warns you to leave his premises before attacking. Hence, the player is given an obvious choice to avoid conflict. We are not shown Rayic doing anything evil ingame (and if attacking an intruder after fair warning is evil, then maybe I *should* put those Virtue hits for Valygar in), and as NiGHTMARE mentions, membership of an organisation with some evil tendencies (let's assume they're evil, or at least that some of their members are evil) doesn't necessarily mean that an individual is evil. Rayic MIGHT be evil (perhaps it's even likely, given that he's high up in the hierarchy), but charging Aerie in the circus tells us that killing someone without knowing the full circumstances incurs Virtue penalties. Thus, if we don't KNOW Rayic is evil, he should be treated just as much an innocent as Aerie.
-
I would also point out that being sent on a murder mission is not the only way to encounter the beholders, illithid etc...
In my first game I was simply exploring and chanced upon their lairs before even going to see Adalon.
-
...presuming, of course, that you define "having the populace of Athlatka afraid of them," "making their enemies disappear," and even, "being able to perform experiments on helpless prisoners with no moral limitations" as "no benefit."
The in-game Cowled Wizardss don't appear to particularly care what the populace of Athkatla think of them (they're apparently even happy for other government officials, such as members of the watch, to disapprove of them), no mention is made of any enemies of the Cowls, and I don't recall anyone in BG2 saying that they conduct experiments on the inmates - there's a lab in Spellhold, but for all we know it was constructed by Irenicus. The talk by some of the inmates of "tests" appear to be in reference to what Irenicus is doing to them.
...and perform hellish experiments on them...
See above. IIRC this is just an assumption on your part, though perhaps I'm wrong.
I see you're avoiding talking about Valygar entirely, except, indirectly, with your blithe and unsupported assertion that a LN character would be happy to commit every action mentioned in my post.
If you're going to accuse someone of ignoring parts of your post, you may want to check that you don't do that exact thing yourself ;). You forgot to address the issue of the Cowled Wizards being entirely willing to sacrifice themselves to stop Irenicus - not something any evil character (be it LE, NE or CE) would be entirely happy about doing.
If LN characters aren't willing to commit every act mentioned in your post, perhaps you would care to explain why not? I see no reason for it myself. But I will address each and every point, if you so wish it:
Grabbed off the street, to disappear forever without trial: if every single judge in the country witnessed a person committing a crime, would a trial really be neccessary? Even if so, a fair trial certainly wouldn't be possible. Cowled Wizards appear to have an innate ability to detect unauthorized magic used in Athkatla (since they automatically appear if the player casts a spell); meaning that if a non-licensed mage is using magic in the city, the Cowled Wizards will already know of his guilt without needing to waste time and money on something which has a pre-determined outcome.
Your loved ones will never learn what happened to you: If the Cowled Wizards truly believe that they're doing good by locking the "deviants" away, they'll hardly want to allow for the possibility of their prisoners spreading the deviancy to others, will they? Hundreds of years ago in the real world, there was a similar attitude towards insanity, yet that doesn't make all the wardens of medieval mental asylums evil (though many were, of course).
The Cowled Wizards don't answer even to the already-corrupt government of Athkatla: So? In pnp the Church of Ilmater doesn't answer to the government of Calimshan, and in fact many of the church officials are considered outlaws because they give to sanctuary to escape slaves. Does that make them evil?
Sending a goon squad to bring Valyhar back dead or alive: how do we know the Cowled Wizards didn't originally offer Valygar some sort of deal, but he was so outraged by the suggestion he turned around and killed them in cold blood? Okay so he's good (though our in-game character has no way of knowing that - given his magical background, Valygar may even be able to fool Detect Evil and similar spells), but there may be a "magical curse of rage" on him or something, which he conveniently doesn't know about. We just don't know the circumstances of the encounter.
Also, how do we know that Teos isn't working for his own personal gain, rather than for the good of his organization as a whole?
You're also ignoring the fact that they break the law when it benefits them, as with sending goon squads after Valygar.
How is this breaking the law? BG2 establishes that the Cowled Wizards have been given full authority by the government to operate exactly as they see fit, just like for example the Spanish inquisition or the witchfinder generals.
Huh? By that assertion, the Underground Railroad was...evil?
I think he's saying that if you break a law (no matter whether the law was written by a pure and just government or an evil and corrupt one), the people responsible for upholding said law aren't neccessarily evil themselves.
There's also the little matter that while they give the PC a warning, they don't do that for everyone--most notably, Imoen.
Those were extraordinary circumstances, though. The number one priority of Athkatla is trade (I think this is specified in-game several times, if not please forgive me for introducing a pnp elemenet ;)), and an unlicensed mage had just destroyed part of the most important trading point in the city. Several of their members had just been killed.
I think it's safe to say they were rather... annoyed at that point, and wanted to set an example (in fact, doesn't even one of them specifically say they want to make an example?) to show that such behaviour will not be tolerated. If it had been some little back street brawl then Imoen would probably have gotten away with it, but it was a major incident with dozens of witnesses.
*scribbles in notebook* Someone...who...kills...in...self...defense...murderer. Got it.
IMHO someone who kills in self defense when he could have escaped or overpowered his attacker(s) in some other way is a murderer, yes. My reasoning is that in a situation where killing isn't your only option, the act of killing wouldn't actually be self defense.
-
The beholders attack you on sight regardless of your appearance. They make no attempt to warn you or to communicate. Hence, killing them is self-defence.
And if the PC goes there to kill them for Ardulace...how will the PC ever know what they would have done otherwise? That's the essence of my point.
Let's presume, for the moment, that the beholders are evil. Then, let's take a hypothetical situation. Spying a random stranger hurrying past you, you draw your sword and cut him in half, planning to rob him. Now, let's suppose that, like Shroedinger's cat, the man has a coinflip's chance of being in one of two states, or rather, one of two people. If the coin comes up heads, he's a completely ordinary man who works as a butler, and has never done anything particularly good or particularly evil. If the coin comes up tails, he is a vile necromancer who plans to poison the city's water supply in an hour, and your rather...uncivilized actions have saved thousands of lives.
So, would you say Virtue penalty if the coin comes up heads and Virtue bonus if it comes up tails? Or Virtue penalty if it comes up heads and nothing if it comes up tails? Or...well, you can imagine all the permutations. My answer would be: Virtue penalty either way. Having inadvertently saved lives, or having inadvertently killed someone who deserved death, says nothing about the kind of person you are; having set out to kill and rob a man motivated solely by desire for his money does. Similarly, what the beholders do in any set of circumstances other than "the PC gets sent to kill the beholders by Ardulace" is relevant to the virtue of a PC who sets out to kill them for Ardulace only if the PC can somehow know about it.
If you would give any answer other than "Virtue penalty regardless of which way the coin falls," I don't think I need to say more about why the Virtue mod doesn't have my recommendation. I can, however, make a friendly suggestion that you avoid Knights of the Old Republic like the Black Plague.
-
And if the PC goes there to kill them for Ardulace...how will the PC ever know what they would have done otherwise? That's the essence of my point.
The PC can easily have entered the Beholder Hive beforehand. And it's not fair to assume the PC's motivations during Ardulace's quest. A PC who wants to negotiate with the Beholders, Kua-Toa, or Mind Flayers shouldn't incur a Virtue hit. Stupid, I hear you cry; but stupid is not evil. And again, I refer you to the Aerie situation, because consistency dictates that the Beholders are behaving evilly if they attack someone just for looking like a drow. And if something is evidently evil and attacking me, I don't expect to incur a hit for killing it.
If you would give any answer other than "Virtue penalty regardless of which way the coin falls," I don't think I need to say more about why the Virtue mod doesn't have my recommendation. I can, however, make a friendly suggestion that you avoid Knights of the Old Republic like the Black Plague.
I'd say you get a Virtue penalty either way. So you agree that killing Rayic should incur a Virtue penalty? Because as far as I can tell, that's the argument you've just offered.
Since your next reply will simply demand that I justify this claim:
Killing someone at random incurs a Virtue penalty whether or not they are evil. We can take Rayic as "someone at random", because we've got nothing to tell us either way.
However, now let's return to the beholder argument. I'm not justifying killing them on the basis that they're evil. I'm justifying killing them on the basis that they attack you first with their being evil as the sole justification behind their attacks.
-
The in-game Cowled Wizardss don't appear to particularly care what the populace of Athkatla think of them (they're apparently even happy for other government officials, such as members of the watch, to disapprove of them), no mention is made of any enemies of the Cowls, and I don't recall anyone in BG2 saying that they conduct experiments on the inmates - there's a lab in Spellhold, but for all we know it was constructed by Irenicus. The talk by some of the inmates of "tests" appear to be in reference to what Irenicus is doing to them.
Irenicus mentions that Wanev also tortured the prisoners, presumably through unethical experiments. Of course, he could be lying, and it's not like the word of Irenicus is beyond reproach, but at the same time it's hard to doubt (the truth is still the truth no matter how despicable the teller is).
And it's always an advantage to be able to use magic freely when other people can't; then you are largely free to do whatever you want.
If you're going to accuse someone of ignoring parts of your post, you may want to check that you don't do that exact thing yourself ;). You forgot to address the issue of the Cowled Wizards being entirely willing to sacrifice themselves to stop Irenicus - not something any evil character (be it LE, NE or CE) would be entirely happy about doing.
Well, there are such things as evil armies, and not all warriors therein are people who've been pushed into it...you have a point though.
If LN characters aren't willing to commit every act mentioned in your post, perhaps you would care to explain why not? I see no reason for it myself. But I will address each and every point, if you so wish it:
I just want to say this: It is rarely a good idea to assume every person of a particular alignment will be willing to do (or refrain from doing) the same thing. That, and I've always found alignments to be dodgy to begin with, especially the 2E definitions of them.
Grabbed off the street, to disappear forever without trial: if every single judge in the country witnessed a person committing a crime, would a trial really be neccessary? Even if so, a fair trial certainly wouldn't be possible. Cowled Wizards appear to have an innate ability to detect unauthorized magic used in Athkatla (since they automatically appear if the player casts a spell); meaning that if a non-licensed mage is using magic in the city, the Cowled Wizards will already know of his guilt without needing to waste time and money on something which has a pre-determined outcome.
I think what is being disputed here is the idea that the law itself is unjust. Using a magical disk to carry your things does not, in itself you a menace to society, which is why I believe that the whole "deviance" argument is really just a rationalization for being able to lock away magic users and throw away the key. If one can assert that the CWs really *are* acting for the good of society, than one has to be able to explain why any use of magic whatsoever makes a mage a danger to society, and why being a CW somehow makes you not a danger to society, or a deviant.
Also, how do we know that Teos isn't working for his own personal gain, rather than for the good of his organization as a whole?
Tolgerias, not Teos.
We don't know that he isn't just working for himself, but I don't believe that is how it was presented in the game...after all, if you are a mage the CWs will step in anyway and try to take control of things, even though the Sphere (which belonged to Lavok) was handed over to YOU, not the Cowled Wizards. It seems fairly obvious to me that the CWs do care very much about the sphere, and they want to be the ones in control, even if the sphere nominally belongs to you.
It's possible that they would be upset if people were killed to get control of the sphere, but I find that very, very hard to believe.
How is this breaking the law? BG2 establishes that the Cowled Wizards have been given full authority by the government to operate exactly as they see fit, just like for example the Spanish inquisition or the witchfinder generals.
I thought the dispute was whether or not the CWs are evil, not lawful... ???
Those were extraordinary circumstances, though. The number one priority of Athkatla is trade (I think this is specified in-game several times, if not please forgive me for introducing a pnp elemenet ;)), and an unlicensed mage had just destroyed part of the most important trading point in the city. Several of their members had just been killed.
I think it's safe to say they were rather... annoyed at that point, and wanted to set an example (in fact, doesn't even one of them specifically say they want to make an example?) to show that such behaviour will not be tolerated. If it had been some little back street brawl then Imoen would probably have gotten away with it, but it was a major incident with dozens of witnesses.
Surely though, if the CWs are so adept at seeing exactly what magic is used, and how, wouldn't they realize that all Imoen did was cast a magic missile at Irenicus? If there was a dispute here, doesn't that take us back to "they should get some type of trial"?
IMHO someone who kills in self defense when he could have escaped or overpowered his attacker(s) in some other way is a murderer, yes. My reasoning is that in a situation where killing isn't your only option, the act of killing wouldn't actually be self defense.
Right, but maybe killing *was* his only option. Since we don't know, the point is moot.
-
Read at own peril. It makes no sense. :(
I feel suitably toasted. By the way, this post is just to clarify some points in my previous post- I'm not looking for a huge argument or even a response.
Various rebuttals:
In self-defense, he tells you. Of course, Valygar might be lying. He lies all the time, right?
You don't know how truthful, honest or even how good Valygar is when you first meet him. His guileless demeanour could mean he is guileless, or a great actor. The point is that at the time of the meeting, the PC doesn't know anything except that he's killed two CW at this stage - making him a murderer. From the CW's perspective, he's a murderer as two of their number have been sent on an errand and have been killed as a result. I am aware that the orders might have been "Bring this man back to us, dead or alive." But the PC doesn't know this and nor do we.
*scribbles in notebook* Someone...who...kills...in...self...defense...murderer. Got it.
I was using the CW's terminology to describe him, not my own attitude towards murderers, self-defence cases, and such. I don't appreciate the sarcasm either - it's really patronising. I'm not sure if that was your intention, but if not, then I'm letting you know.
What?
You are claiming, seriously, that Valygar should have Virtue hits because he killed people who came to his house to force him to open the Sphere for them and/or die?
This was actually setting up a case that I could disagree with - which currently makes no sense whatsoever, but read on. :)
There was a parallel between the Valygar case and your suggestion that the PC could only be virtuous through avoiding the killing the beholders, etc by killing an entire drow city - that they both had alternatives. If the PC gets a virtue hit for not exercising his/her alternative (which is actually alot more heinous than Valygar's alternative - killing a woman because you don't want to do what she demands of you?), then shouldn't Valygar?
Or looking at it from another perspective (which is actually the perspective I'm taking - hence the negative example in order to demonstrate a point), Valygar was justified in doing what he did - just as the PC is justified in doing what he/she does. There is a choice involved in both cases, but the higher, more virtuous road is i) fraught with extreme danger, ii) irresponsible when it comes to the safety of your comrades (hey, you don't have to take them with you to the various lairs, but they will be exposed to danger if you take the choose to attack the drow city) and iii) pretty much impossible. The basis for the situations is different, but the basis for the response is the same.
And finally, addressing your suggestion of an alternative way to get back the eggs - I don't think that the actions of two people (Ardulace and Phaere) justify the killing of the rest of the drow, particularly those who are just going about their daily business. This of course, leads back to the beholders who are just going about their daily business, which is why I don't usually step into these argumentsl. :)
So hopefully I'm making a little more sense now. If not, then oh well.
-
You don't know how truthful, honest or even how good Valygar is when you first meet him. His guileless demeanour could mean he is guileless, or a great actor. The point is that at the time of the meeting, the PC doesn't know anything except that he's killed two CW at this stage - making him a murderer. From the CW's perspective, he's a murderer as two of their number have been sent on an errand and have been killed as a result. I am aware that the orders might have been "Bring this man back to us, dead or alive." But the PC doesn't know this and nor do we.
Toasting you, or attacking you personally on any level (as opposed to "disagreeing vehemently with what you appeared to be saying"), was certainly not my intention. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.
Your last four words in my quote don't seem to go with the rest of what you've said there. First you're talking about what the PC knows, with a clear distinction between IC and OOC knowledge, and then you jump to OOC, talking about what we know. Other than that, I'm afraid all I can really say to the rest of your post is that, perhaps, I understood neither your previous post nor this one, sorry. If "he technically was not an innocent" wasn't an OOC claim, and you didn't mean that you consider the Cowled Wizard's "not caring if this murderer lives or dies" understandable, then I am afraid your entire initial post went over my head.
As far as "avoid killing the beholders, etc. by killing an entire drow city"--why is depopulating a beholder city less evil than depopulating a drow city? It's not because beholders are not intelligent; they are, on average, more intelligent than drow. It's not because beholders are more uniformly evil than drow; both are the same as far as evilness goes. It's not because there are, actually or conceptually, more victims in the drow city than in the beholder city*; either way, you are wiping out the entire population of a city of a major Underdark race. Because drow are humanoid and beholders have eleven eyes? That's the only reason I can see.
*Except for a different sense of "victims"--there are both slaves and people being tortured for amusement in the drow city, and neither in the beholder city.
-
I will therefore stop digging.
And sorry Kish, my previous post was made rather late at night. Considering how inarticulate my second post was, I might still need to catch up on sleep. :)
I meant:
CW tell you that V has murdered two of their number. To them he is a murderer. To the PC he is a murderer as he/she only has the CW's word to go by. This is IC knowledge.
The final two sentences of that paragraph were from my personal pov to show that I had considered those points. I was anticipating future arguments.
As for the rest: It's beyond my ability to express without a large board and a marker. Sorry to inflict that on you. :)
-
As far as "avoid killing the beholders, etc. by killing an entire drow city"--why is depopulating a beholder city less evil than depopulating a drow city?
I agree with you that there isn't a difference. But you don't have to depopulate the beholder city - just* kill their leader. You do have to depopulate the drow city to escape. It's a question of numbers, and not of eyes.
Could I be arguing under a false impression here? I was told that if you lost your disguise, you'd have to kill every single drow in the city for the gates to open. Or do the gates open automatically, enabling you to make a run for it without killing too many drow?
And thanks for your apology. I'm being oversensitive, but it's hard to tell what tone comments are being expressed in.
* I know, "just" kill their leader. Strictly talking in terms of numbers here.
-
No, the city opens when Ardulace dies. The most virtuous thing for a PC to do, I would say, would be to kill her and then run from the city with the eggs...dealing with any drow who get in the way as necessary, and making sure to rescue the slaves and Dola Fadoon. Because I do see one major difference--the drow started it (by allying with Irenicus and stealing Adalon's eggs). The beholders didn't.
And if you'd support a Virtue drop for proceeding into the beholder city and wiping out the rest of the population once you've already killed the Elder Orb, that would be worth mentioning too, since Sim is currently arguing that there should be no penalty at all for killing all the beholders once you've confirmed they will attack you, whether you look like drow or not.
-
Ah. Okay. Then I see how killing Ardulace is less of a vice than killing the beholders. It does kill the gameplay opportunities though. :-/
And if you'd support a Virtue drop for proceeding into the beholder city and wiping out the rest of the population once you've already killed the Elder Orb, that would be worth mentioning too,
That's my personal view - I try avoiding the rest of the beholders where possible, but I also get that if they attack you on sight, you have to defend yourself. (Valygar alert!) When you're in Umar Hills and the leopard attacks you, is it better to run or to defend yourself?
I don't know - I think my view is clouded by my own prejudice - all these creatures, drow, beholders, etc are evil. We're comparing shades of grey with other shades of grey. It's virtuous to allow a creature to live, but if the creature is evil, then does that make it more ok to kill it? When the Order made a raid upon the giants, were they being unvirtuous? Consistency is really hard to achieve, particularly when virtue is a subjective concept.
-
consistency dictates that the Beholders are behaving evilly if they attack someone just for looking like a drow. And if something is evidently evil and attacking me, I don't expect to incur a hit for killing it.
There you've moved from, "behaving evilly" to "is evidently evil." One of your unstated premises here appears to be, "Since the beholders do this thing that would cause the PC a Virtue drop, the Virtue mod holds that they are evil." Incidentally, how does Solaufein, the non-evil drow who will attack you if he's still in Ust Natha and you turn Ust Natha hostile, fit into your calculations here? He sure doesn't act any better than the beholders in that case; does the Virtue mod hold that he is evil even though we know he is not?
Soo...how big is that Virtue drop for attacking Saladrex, or Aerie the ogre? If a PC with Virtue 20 does either one, where will the PC be after that? If the PC will be evil, then you're consistent in that area. If the PC will be neutral, then the premise I wrote above should state, instead, "Since the beholders do this thing that would cause the PC a Virtue drop, the Virtue mod holds that they are not good." Is it still appropriate to depopulate the city?
Or will the PC be good even after the Virtue drop? In that case, the premise should go, "Since the beholders do this thing that would cause the PC a Virtue drop, the Virtue mod holds that they are not paladins."
I'm curious; is there a Virtue shift for anything the PC can do in the sahaugin city?
It should be noted that the latter issue regarding the dream is a design decision in a DM-type role. My interpretation of the dreams differs from Kish's, and as of yet I haven't found the arguments compelling enough to indicate that one opinion is more valid.
And it's not fair to assume the PC's motivations during Ardulace's quest.
But it...is fair to assume the PC's motivations during that dream?
-
There you've moved from, "behaving evilly" to "is evidently evil." One of your unstated premises here appears to be, "Since the beholders do this thing that would cause the PC a Virtue drop, the Virtue mod holds that they are evil." Incidentally, how does Solaufein, the non-evil drow who will attack you if he's still in Ust Natha and you turn Ust Natha hostile, fit into your calculations here? He sure doesn't act any better than the beholders in that case; does the Virtue mod hold that he is evil even though we know he is not?
With Solaufein, we have greater evidence to go on. There's nothing at all that the beholders do apart from attacking things, even taken out-of-game.
Soo...how big is that Virtue drop for attacking Saladrex, or Aerie the ogre? If a PC with Virtue 20 does either one, where will the PC be after that? If the PC will be evil, then you're consistent in that area. If the PC will be neutral, then the premise I wrote above should state, instead, "Since the beholders do this thing that would cause the PC a Virtue drop, the Virtue mod holds that they are not good." Is it still appropriate to depopulate the city?
A Virtue drop for killing an innocent will take you down to neutral, I think. As for Saladrex or Aerie... I forgot to copy the coding over, so the Virtue drop is something laughable like 2 now, which I should probably change. :) Related questions include: Is killing Saladrex or Aerie the Ogre as evil as killing an Innocent?
Oh, and if Solaufein attacks you along with the rest of the drow, should there be a penalty for killing him?
I'm curious; is there a Virtue shift for anything the PC can do in the sahaugin city?
I... can't remember. This is another good one, though, since you can't get through without destroying one faction, can you?
But it...is fair to assume the PC's motivations during that dream?
I don't see what possible alternative motivation there can be for a PC to take the evil path when it's clear what's going to happen. "It's only a dream" doesn't carry much weight with me because it's been clear from BG1 that dreams tend to result in stuff happening in the real world.
-
But how is the in-game player character supposed to know that the Beholders/Koa-Toa/Illithid don't speak his language? Depending on what quests he completed earlier in the game, he may well have never met a single representative of their race.
He also may well assume that since he can speak to the Drow and Sahuagin, he should be able to speak to other Underdark races as well.
-
There you've moved from, "behaving evilly" to "is evidently evil." One of your unstated premises here appears to be, "Since the beholders do this thing that would cause the PC a Virtue drop, the Virtue mod holds that they are evil." Incidentally, how does Solaufein, the non-evil drow who will attack you if he's still in Ust Natha and you turn Ust Natha hostile, fit into your calculations here? He sure doesn't act any better than the beholders in that case; does the Virtue mod hold that he is evil even though we know he is not?
With Solaufein, we have greater evidence to go on. There's nothing at all that the beholders do apart from attacking things, even taken out-of-game.
Since a PC doesn't get a chance to be disguised as a beholder and infiltrate their hive. But what are the odds of at least one or two odd Solaufein-types being in the beholder city somewhere? Looking at the numbers, I'd say it's a near-certainty.
Soo...how big is that Virtue drop for attacking Saladrex, or Aerie the ogre? If a PC with Virtue 20 does either one, where will the PC be after that? If the PC will be evil, then you're consistent in that area. If the PC will be neutral, then the premise I wrote above should state, instead, "Since the beholders do this thing that would cause the PC a Virtue drop, the Virtue mod holds that they are not good." Is it still appropriate to depopulate the city?
A Virtue drop for killing an innocent will take you down to neutral, I think. As for Saladrex or Aerie... I forgot to copy the coding over, so the Virtue drop is something laughable like 2 now, which I should probably change. :) Related questions include: Is killing Saladrex or Aerie the Ogre as evil as killing an Innocent?
I'd certainly say so. And--oh, what's the penalty for killing Vithal now?
That doesn't answer my question, though. I would say that attacking a group of drow who come into your city while you're already fighting another group of drow and don't speak to you in a language you can understand bears no comparison to attacking a red dragon who you approach in his lair, who quickly speaks to you and establishes no desire to fight, and still less comparison to attacking an ogre who not only immediately expresses nonhostility, but does so in a voice that makes it clear something is weird here, and who couldn't possibly threaten a group of adventurers of your level even if she wasn't trustworthy. But even assessing the beholders the highest Virtue penalty for their actions that you can possibly justify there, if killing Saladrex or Aerie the Ogre makes a good PC neutral, then beholders who attack anyone who looks like drow reinforcements for the war party they're already fighting might be evil or neutral--you, in character in that situation, don't know they're evil. Is it still perfectly Good, in your view, to depopulate their city?
Oh, and if Solaufein attacks you along with the rest of the drow, should there be a penalty for killing him?
Well, as far as you know in those circumstances he's evil. If I was making this mod I'd still say that wiping out the whole city when you don't have to should carry a Virtue penalty...but that is evidently not your view, and would look grotesque put next to the lack of penalty for wiping out the beholders.
I'm curious; is there a Virtue shift for anything the PC can do in the sahaugin city?
I... can't remember. This is another good one, though, since you can't get through without destroying one faction, can you?
You can't...and you can also wipe out both factions.
But it...is fair to assume the PC's motivations during that dream?
I don't see what possible alternative motivation there can be for a PC to take the evil path when it's clear what's going to happen. "It's only a dream" doesn't carry much weight with me because it's been clear from BG1 that dreams tend to result in stuff happening in the real world.
So it's not about not wanting to assume the PC's motivations, but only wanting to assume them when the alternative possibility for the PC's motivations is something you find unconvincing? Well, then there we stand, because, "You might think you're going to talk to a group you don't have a common language with and to whom you look like a known, brutal, and treacherous enemy" carries no weight with me at all.
-
That doesn't answer my question, though. I would say that attacking a group of drow who come into your city while you're already fighting another group of drow and don't speak to you in a language you can understand bears no comparison to attacking a red dragon who you approach in his lair, who quickly speaks to you and establishes no desire to fight, and still less comparison to attacking an ogre who not only immediately expresses nonhostility, but does so in a voice that makes it clear something is weird here, and who couldn't possibly threaten a group of adventurers of your level even if she wasn't trustworthy. But even assessing the beholders the highest Virtue penalty for their actions that you can possibly justify there, if killing Saladrex or Aerie the Ogre makes a good PC neutral, than beholders who attack anyone who looks like drow reinforcements for the war party they're already fighting might be evil or neutral--you, in character in that situation, don't know they're evil. Is it still perfectly Good, in your view, to depopulate their city?
As you know from chat, I wasn't aware that the Beholders were already fighting a war party. This clouds the issue somewhat, because it's less evident that they're both evil and hostile.
I've been thinking, however. Should a player who's read up on the Monster Manual (or Elminster's Compendium, if you want to be less tongue-in-cheek) and learned that Beholders and Illithids are evil be penalised for killing them? It seems to me that if they're documented as evil, I'm entitled to assume that they are unless anything proves otherwise.
While I remember, I'd also like to raise the issue of what should happen if you Detect Evil and all the beholders show up with red blobs.
I'd certainly say so. And--oh, what's the penalty for killing Vithal now?
Vithal is... the imprisoned mage? I forget what happens.
You can't...and you can also wipe out both factions.
Should a Paladin be forced to fall to proceed?
So it's not about not wanting to assume the PC's motivations, but only wanting to assume them when the alternative possibility for the PC's motivations is something you find unconvincing? Well, then there we stand, because, "You might think you're going to talk to a group you don't have a common language with and to whom you look like a known, brutal, and treacherous enemy" carries no weight with me at all.
I'm saying that any PC who takes an option that kills a load of commoners in a dream which, as far as they know, is potentially going to affect the real world, isn't thinking about their actions. Motivation isn't significant here. Whether I want to use the power to blow kisses or destroy the world, the potential consequence is what I'm looking at.
-
That doesn't answer my question, though. I would say that attacking a group of drow who come into your city while you're already fighting another group of drow and don't speak to you in a language you can understand bears no comparison to attacking a red dragon who you approach in his lair, who quickly speaks to you and establishes no desire to fight, and still less comparison to attacking an ogre who not only immediately expresses nonhostility, but does so in a voice that makes it clear something is weird here, and who couldn't possibly threaten a group of adventurers of your level even if she wasn't trustworthy. But even assessing the beholders the highest Virtue penalty for their actions that you can possibly justify there, if killing Saladrex or Aerie the Ogre makes a good PC neutral, than beholders who attack anyone who looks like drow reinforcements for the war party they're already fighting might be evil or neutral--you, in character in that situation, don't know they're evil. Is it still perfectly Good, in your view, to depopulate their city?
As you know from chat, I wasn't aware that the Beholders were already fighting a war party. This clouds the issue somewhat, because it's less evident that they're both evil and hostile.
I've been thinking, however. Should a player who's read up on the Monster Manual (or Elminster's Compendium, if you want to be less tongue-in-cheek) and learned that Beholders and Illithids are evil be penalised for killing them? It seems to me that if they're documented as evil, I'm entitled to assume that they are unless anything proves otherwise.
A character who read in a book that illithid and beholders and kuo-toa are all evil isn't wrong to kill them? That has interesting consequences if applied to some real-world books. Or to the indoctrination sessions drow get in which they learn that all non-drow are evil.
While I remember, I'd also like to raise the issue of what should happen if you Detect Evil and all the beholders show up with red blobs.
Mostly, my response is contained here:
If I was making this mod I'd still say that wiping out the whole [drow] city when you don't have to should carry a Virtue penalty...but that is evidently not your view, and would look grotesque put next to the lack of penalty for wiping out the beholders.
But I'd also like to mention that magical detection methods, like real-world polygraph tests, are unreliable. Irenicus could have easily cast a Wish that would make everyone in the Underdark who would consider helping you glow red to Detect Evil; it would have been child's play for him.
Vithal is... the imprisoned mage? I forget what happens.
He asks you for help dealing with the guardians of the three portals. You battle a Greater Air Elemental, Greater Earth Elemental, and Greater Fire Elemental. He traverses the planes and brings back treasure hidden there. Afterward, he offers you the Rod of Absorption. You can talk him into giving you more. Afterward, you can demand he hand over still more. He will refuse, telling you that, as he traversed the planes, he took the majority of the risk and is unwilling to reduce his own share of the treasure. You can let him leave with more than half of the treasure, or you can kill him and take it all.
-
A character who read in a book that illithid and beholders and kuo-toa are all evil isn't wrong to kill them? That has interesting consequences if applied to some real-world books. Or to the indoctrination sessions drow get in which they learn that all non-drow are evil.
I'm not convinced that a Drow who's killed an elf because he's been taught that they're evil and seen them behaving in evil/hostile ways should incur a Virtue hit. Is it really their fault that they've been given incorrect information throughout their lives?
But I'd also like to mention that magical detection methods, like real-world polygraph tests, are unreliable. Irenicus could have easily cast a Wish that would make everyone in the Underdark who would consider helping you glow red to Detect Evil; it would have been child's play for him.
This seems rather far-fetched as justification to me. I'm sure magical illusions can account for any number of weird circumstances in the game. In any case, even if it is an illusion, a Paladin who encounters some hostile Beholders that he's been warned are very evil, casts Detect Evil and finds that... guess what, it looks like they ARE as evil as everyone makes out, and kills them shouldn't really incur a Virtue hit.
Should Ajantis take a Virtue hit for attacking you?
He asks you for help dealing with the guardians of the three portals. You battle a Greater Air Elemental, Greater Earth Elemental, and Greater Fire Elemental. He traverses the planes and brings back treasure hidden there. Afterward, he offers you the Rod of Absorption. You can talk him into giving you more. Afterward, you can demand he hand over still more. He will refuse, telling you that, as he traversed the planes, he took the majority of the risk and is unwilling to reduce his own share of the treasure. You can let him leave with more than half of the treasure, or you can kill him and take it all.
Right, I'll add a penalty for killing him, if there isn't one already.
-
I think a person's intentions are what's important when considering virtue, not neccessary the reality of the situation. If someone kills a person or creature they believe in all their hearts to be evil but who actually isn't, the virtue drop should only occur if and when they find out that their victim wasn't evil.
-
By the way, in the MM, neither Beholders nor Ilithids are described as always evil (and neither are drow), and it is certainly possible for a mind flayer to be LN or TN, or in rare cases, NG. The same is most likely true for beholders--like Kish said, they may be creepy looking but they are certainly sentinent beings who are on average just as intelligent as mind flayers, and more intelligent than drow. So, just like drow, these creatures aren't born with one specific alignment.
It's true that most of these beings are evil, but the same exact statistics are true for drow. I agree that it isn't necessarily any more evil to kill every drow in the city than to kill every ilithid and beholder in the Underdark.
-
But I'd also like to mention that magical detection methods, like real-world polygraph tests, are unreliable.
This seems rather far-fetched as justification to me. I'm sure magical illusions can account for any number of weird circumstances in the game. In any case, even if it is an illusion, a Paladin who encounters some hostile Beholders that he's been warned are very evil, casts Detect Evil and finds that... guess what, it looks like they ARE as evil as everyone makes out, and kills them shouldn't really incur a Virtue hit.
Should Ajantis take a Virtue hit for attacking you?
But someone who goes to Rayic's house, casts Detect Evil near him, then kills him when he glows red still gets a Virtue hit. Consistency?
-
He's still not trying to disintegrate you. Plus, I'd have no problem shifting Rayic's alignment to Lawful Neutral or something, but since Oversight is what I rely on for my alignment codings, it's hardly my choice. :)
It's true that most of these beings are evil, but the same exact statistics are true for drow. I agree that it isn't necessarily any more evil to kill every drow in the city than to kill every ilithid and beholder in the Underdark.
Right, but the point I'm making is that if evil is the norm, then I think when you encounter a load of creatures that are trying to use their magic ray weapons on you, the assumption you're going to make is that they're evil.
-
It's very rare that I ever explain my point perfectly when I make the mistake of posting in this sort of topic, but I figured I'd try it again. :)
As explained in chat either yesterday or the day before, Sim is apparently arguing that vigilanteism is evil, and--this seems contradictory--that people are innocent until proven guilty.
Rayic Gethras is evil. A real-world corrupt police officer is evil. If this man is an opponent of a criminal, who then hires a bounty hunter to kill said man, is the bounty hunter evil or not? Neither the cop nor Gethras got a trial, or a chance to prove their innocence.
Then there's the city of beholders, and real-world examples won't work all that well, but anyways. Stalin hires a group of adventurers (heheheh) to infiltrate Nazi Germany and assassinate a german officer (not SS, or anything totally evil like that), and bring his eyeball back, for the construction of a super eyeball tank. The adventuring party agrees, on account of them trying to bring down the evil communist empire by returning the super eyeball tank plans to the British, who developed it in the first place. Once they get to Germany, dressed as Russian soldiers, the Germans attack them, they depopulate the entire German city, and return to Stalin. THEN when Stalin brings the plans for the super tank before his engineers, he gives them the wrong plans, because the adventuring party secretly swapped them! The engineers become outraged and destroy Stalin, and then proceed to depopulate Russia.
So the first example is that vigilanteism is bad, and the second is that a person seemingly agreeing with Ardulace/Stalin may very well have pure motives at heart. They're only words, after all.
-
He's still not trying to disintegrate you. Plus, I'd have no problem shifting Rayic's alignment to Lawful Neutral or something, but since Oversight is what I rely on for my alignment codings, it's hardly my choice. :)
And I would have no trouble shifting the alignments of 10% or so of the beholders to some shade of Neutral, and one or two of them to some shade of Good. The only reason Oversight doesn't do this is because they're all clones of the same .cre and I figured it would be more trouble than it's worth. If we're going to argue based on "but they glow red, which justifies killing the monsters with all the eyes although it doesn't justify killing the man in the S.S. uniform," perhaps that was a mistake.
Where does glowing red fit into your examples, Jesse? I mean, neither the bounty hunters who go to kill the corrupt police officer, nor the adventurers who go to infiltrate Nazi Germany, can detect evil. Remember when you reply, I said that magical detection methods shouldn't be used to justify anything--but Sim thinks they should. For the beholders. And not for Rayic.
I'd say you've made your point perfectly well. As long as you were agreeing with me, not Sim. The group of adventurers in your example wiped out an entire German city, guilty and innocent alike, so that they could cut out the eye of a German officer who wasn't established as evil. Then they did something that led to Stalin's death anyway. Obviously, they should have just killed Stalin to begin with.
As for the other part of your example, if "vigilanteism is bad," there should be a Virtue hit for killing anyone it's possible to avoid killing. Vongoethe? Korgan? Lehtinan? Mae'Var? Not one of the people you kill in the game gets a trial. Vigilanteism is bad? Vigilanteism is what adventurers do. When Lord Jierdan's agents kidnap Garren Windspear's child, (remember, you don't know Lord Jierdan is a dragon at the time, you just think he's a corrupt nobleman) do you call 911 or do you break* into his house? The fundamental premises of BG1 and BG2 both are about acts of vigilanteism--think about it: Seek out the Armored Figure to avenge Gorion's death, and rescue Imoen/kill Irenicus.
*Figuratively speaking. Yes, I know the door isn't locked; no, that doesn't alter my point in the least.
-
Beholders living in hives are always evil, without exception. If a beholder happened to born good or neutral (which I've no doubt does happen, though it would be an extremely rare event), it would undoubtedly be killed without question by the rest of the hive. Of course a good or neutral beholder could thereotically be born outside of a hive, but the chances of that are so remote there's most likely only one or two non-evil Beholders in the entire Forgotten Realms.
The beholders are a hateful, aggressive and avaricious race, attacking or dominating other races, including other beholders and many of the beholder-kin. This is because of a xenophobic intolerance among beholders that causes them to hate all creatures not like themselves. The basic, beholder body-type (a sphere with a mouth and a central eye, eye-tipped tentacles) allows for a great variety of beholder subspecies. Some have obvious differences, there are those covered with overlapping chitin plates, and those with smooth hides, or snake-like eye tentacles, and some with crustacean-like joints. But something as small as a change in hide color or size of the central eye can make two groups of beholders sworn enemies. Every beholder declares its own unique body-form to be the "true ideal'' of beholderhood, the others being nothing but ugly copies, fit only to be eliminated.
Beholders will normally attack immediately. If confronted with a particular party there is a 50% chance they will listen to negotiations (bribery) before raining death upon their foes.
There is, however, a relative of beholders called spectators, which are always Lawful Neutral. They're said to be creations of the god Helm.
Another relative of the beholder, the spectator is a guardian of places and treasures, and capable of limited planar travel. Once it is given a task, the spectator will watch for up to 101 years. It will allow no one to use, borrow, or examine an item or treasure, except the one who gave it its orders. The spectator has a large central eye and four smaller eye stalks protruding from the top of its hovering, spherical body.
-
Beholders living in hives are always evil, without exception. If a beholder happened to born good or neutral (which I've no doubt does happen, though it would be an extremely rare event), it would undoubtedly be killed without question by the rest of the hive. Of course a good or neutral beholder could thereotically be born outside of a hive, but the chances of that are so remote there's most likely only one or two non-evil Beholders in the entire Forgotten Realms.
Annnnd where would that be from? Since what you've quoted says much the same thing about beholders as the Monstrous Compendium entry on drow says about drow.
-
It's from the Monster Manul. Sorry, forgot to say ;).
One difference you've got to remember is that drow are humanoids, and have thoughts and feelings which we as human are reasonably capable of understanding. Beholders, on the other hand, are completely alien - and we therefore aren't understand the full extent of how their minds work.
-
Not where is your quote which makes beholders sound a lot like drow from--I've read that, too. Your not-quoted extrapolation that every beholder in a hive, unlike every drow in a city for some mysterious unstated reason, is pure eeeeeeeevil...where is that from? From a book, or from inside your head?
One difference you've got to remember is that drow are humanoids, and have thoughts and feelings which we as human are reasonably capable of understanding. Beholders, on the other hand, are completely alien - and we therefore aren't understand the full extent of how their minds work.
Ah, yes, of course. As I said some ways back--because drow look like us and beholders have eleven eyes, it's more okay to kill beholders than to kill drow.
-
Not where is your quote which makes beholders sound a lot like drow from--I've read that, too. Your not-quoted extrapolation that every beholder in a hive, unlike every drow in a city for some mysterious unstated reason, is pure eeeeeeeevil...where is that from? From a book, or from inside your head?
If a slight difference in skin colour or eye size would make two Beholders sworn enemies, I rather thinking having a radicially different outlook on life would have far more serious consequences... So to answer your question, a logical assumption from my head based on words from a book.
As I already said, the reason a good or neutral beholder wouldn't exist in a hive is because the evil beholders would kill them. It's not exactly easy to hide a completely different moral code from every single person around you, especially as you would first need to learn that you had to hide the fact in order to survive.
Scenario: human enters hive, beholders kill said human within seconds. Beholder junior asks why they needed to kill the strange creature. Likely outcome of secenario: beholder junior joins human in death.
Ah, yes, of course. As I said some ways back--because drow look like us and beholders have eleven eyes, it's more okay to kill beholders than to kill drow.
Where did I say that was my point? Answer: I didn't, in any way, shape or form. This isn't the first time I've seen you accuse people of saying or thinking something that wasn't the case, and it isn't even the first time I've been the victim of it either...
Anyway, my point was simply that we can try to place ourselves in the role of Drow because they are somewhat like us... but doing the same for a Beholder isn't anywhere near as feasible. We cannot understand their motivations or methods because we're nothing like them. The same is true of Celestials and the Lawful Good gods, so would me saying that we can't fully emphasize with such beings mean I thought they were evil and deserving of death as well? No, of course it wouldn't.
-
There was a supplement called something to do with Beholders that talked a lot about their society, I don't have it to hand but it is doubtless somewhere at Uni. ;)
I remember it saying essentially:
- Beholders show a great deal of differences as a race (size, pigmentation, shape etc).
- Beholders living together in hives tend to share very similar characteristics (the aforementioned size, pigmentation, shape etc).
- Each beholder believes itself to be the perfect representation of the Beholder ideal; I think this is something they are born with.
- Beholders consider all other races inferior to them and will tend to kill them or use them as slaves; and only rarely will they work with them. Note this applies to the illithid, kuo-toa and drow too. ;)
- Beholders will attack and destroy beholders who are different from them (in size, shape etc...) pretty much on site, believing them vile mutants who taint the beholder race.
- Beholders will even kill their young as soon as they hatch if they appear too different from their parents.
- In short, each beholder sees itself as perfect and will kill or enslave anything it deems inferior.
I would concur with NiGHT that a beholder who did not fit in idealogically with other members of the hive would have to leave very quickly... Though I do not know what might happen if one was to be alone essentially since birth. Examples of loner beholders include the Xanathar... This is a creature working with some Thieves' Guild in the Forgotten Realms. A bunch of them serve the Church of Bane, too. Anyway, uh, I'd think that pretty much every Beholder in a hive is Evil, and most of the outcasts/loners are too.
Spectators are LN, yeh, I am not sure of their origins but will try and find out if it was indeed the Church of Helm. I do not think they associate with other Beholders, in any case despite ingame graphical representations they are meant to be a lot smaller and weaker than true Beholders.
I don't know how official Gauths are or if they live with true beholders.
Eyeballkin beholders are (I think) LE; note these are not part of mainstream Beholder society but are bred by Evil spellcasters as familiars.
Death Kiss beholders were (again, this is from memory) bred by the Phaerimm to fight Beholders. I dunno if they live in hives, but again, they're Evil.
Death Tyrant beholders are CE undead creatures and serve their creators (mostly the Church of Bane, I think).
(I am not really making a point about Virtue, just Beholder ecology) :)
To try and make a Virtue-related point: If the PC knows anything about Beholders, then I do not think killing them should incur a Virtue hit. Especially when they are hostile from the outset.
-
I never said they're always evil without exception, I said the evil ones would kill the non-evil ones.. backed up by strong evidence from the monster manual (see my point that they kill any beholder which isn't like themselves, which you conveniently ignored).
-
As I already said, the reason a good or neutral beholder wouldn't exist in a hive is because the evil beholders would kill them. It's not exactly easy to hide a completely different moral code from every single person around you, especially as you would first need to learn that you had to hide the fact in order to survive.
Scenario: human enters hive, beholders kill said human within seconds. Beholder junior asks why they needed to kill the strange creature. Likely outcome of secenario: beholder junior joins human in death.
And that all applies to drow too. Doesn't it? Except, of course, for your assertion that beholder thought processes are alien in a way drow thought processes aren't...but you haven't supported that, either.
The same is true of Celestials and the Lawful Good gods, so would me saying that we can't fully emphasize with such beings mean I thought they were evil and deserving of death as well? No, of course it wouldn't.
Not unless you said, "They're always evil without exception," beforehand, and then brought up this "nothing like us and we can't understand their motivations" stuff to support it.
Andyr--again, where is the big difference between beholders and drow? What of what you've quoted isn't equalled by drow?
-
A drow wouldn't kill another drow simply because the other drow happened to be slightly different from themselves. She would kill the other drow because the other drow had insulted or humiliated them or someone in their house, had committed blasphemy, or the death of the other drow would gain them power.
-
Oh, most of it I guess would apply to drow too, though they're perhaps not as prone to random acts of war on other drow cities. I think drow are phyisologically less varied as a race than beholders. But yeh, the general argument about them being an Evil race is true. I don't think there should be a Virtue penalty for killing drow in the City.
Hmmm. Do Paladins have to swear not to kill the unarmed as part of their code? If so, perhaps killing the unarmed Drow (barkeep etc) could incur a Virtue hit.
-
Yeh, I guess so. In that case, uh... ignore me. ;)
For what it's worth, I remember reading that of the races mentioned the Kuo-Toa are the one with the highest proportion of nonevil members. I'd say there was a decent chance that at least some of the ones you meet would be Neutral-aligned.
-
I'm sure the drow bartender is armed. "Unarmed drow" is nearly a contradiction in terms.
You know, I thought about phrasing that question as "what doesn't apply to drow, aside from chitinous skin?" :P
Drow do make war on other drow cities, and would do so more often if they weren't usually kept busy with each noble house making war on other noble houses.
Oops. Sorry, Andyr. This is posted below your reply because I was revising it when you posted.
-
Heh, wondered why the posts seemed swapped round.
Were you advocating a Virtue penalty for slaying the illithids (after they've captured you), for agreeing to, or not at all?
-
I am advocating consistency. Going after any Underdark denizens for Ardulace is morally equal to going after Rayic Gethras--perhaps a little worse, as Rayic is wearing evidence (if perhaps not conclusive evidence) of a choice to be evil. There should be a Virtue penalty for both or neither.
I am not saying that there should be a Virtue penalty for wandering into the illithid city without knowing it's there and killing your way out, or for wandering into the beholder or kuo-toa areas and killing all the creatures there--whether I think any of these deserve a Virtue penalty is a separate issue; it's not inconsistent with Sim's handling of the rest of the game. I'm also not saying anything about the hypothetical (and, as far as what actually happens in the game, impossible) situation where the PC wanders into Rayic's house without being sent there by Edwin. Taking Ardulace's quest, however, is at least as evil as taking Edwin's quest to kill Rayic.
-
Even if you know that Beholders, Illithid and Koa-Toa are almost always evil in nature, and that by refusing the quest you will probably be unable to retrieve the eggs of a Silver Dragon, a creature which is noble and good?
-
And I would have no trouble shifting the alignments of 10% or so of the beholders to some shade of Neutral, and one or two of them to some shade of Good. The only reason Oversight doesn't do this is because they're all clones of the same .cre and I figured it would be more trouble than it's worth. If we're going to argue based on "but they glow red, which justifies killing the monsters with all the eyes although it doesn't justify killing the man in the S.S. uniform," perhaps that was a mistake.
It's also a mistake not accounting for the monsters trying to disintegrate you. You're only taking half my argument. If someone is evil and attacking me on sight, whyever they're doing it, I wouldn't have much of a problem with killing them. If someone is evil but doing nothing (or asking me to get out), I'd certainly think twice.
-
The group of adventurers in your example wiped out an entire German city, guilty and innocent alike, so that they could cut out the eye of a German officer who wasn't established as evil.
Poor analogy. Maybe "wiped out an entire German army barracks who were trying to kill them".
-
Right, but the point I'm making is that if evil is the norm, then I think when you encounter a load of creatures that are trying to use their magic ray weapons on you, the assumption you're going to make is that they're evil.
You're right, but what I'm arguing against is the idea that it is somehow more evil (no matter what) to wipe out an entire drow city. Over the past few years, the drow as an entire race have grown more and more sympathetic (because of Drizzt and other characters, as well as the increased popularity of the race), and that's one reason why some people seem to believe that one should stay their hand when dealing with drow as opposed to most other evil races. That, and the simple fact that the drow are anthropomorphic whereas mind flayers and beholders are not.
If mind flayers or beholders had become super popular the way drow are, had been anthropomorphic, and had members of their race that were not only good but also iconic (as that term goes), would wiping out a whole city of them be considered more evil than it is now, out of fear that your PC might unknowingly kill a non-violent LN mind flayer or a LG beholder who dreams of being a paladin? It's important to remember that before the drow became so popular, they were thought of as a monstrous race, and the thought of one of them fighting for goodness and right was almost unthinkable. Now, who blinks an eye when they come across a LG drow paladin? So my point is, what makes mind flayers and beholders so much more monstrous and rapacious and unsympathic than drow? Our fickle perceptions of them...
-
Oh. Well I'm not in favour of a Virtue drop for clearing out the Drow city if they all turn hostile either.
-
Beholders living in hives are always evil, without exception. If a beholder happened to born good or neutral (which I've no doubt does happen, though it would be an extremely rare event), it would undoubtedly be killed without question by the rest of the hive. Of course a good or neutral beholder could thereotically be born outside of a hive, but the chances of that are so remote there's most likely only one or two non-evil Beholders in the entire Forgotten Realms.
But like I said, there was once a time when good drow were almost unthinkable, as well. I admit I don't have an exact quote, and I dislike speaking for other people, but I believe RAS originally intended for Drizzt Do'Urden to be the only good drow in all of Faerun, and wasn't overly happy about an entire faith based around good drow (ie. Eilistraee). And in the earlier books, the way RAS wrote Drizzt seemed to suggest that the author himself believed that Drizzt might well have been the only good drow in the world, or--at the very least--an extremely rare example. Even in the newer books, Drizzt has yet to stumble upon a conclave chock-full of good drow that share his own ideals.
-
[
As I already said, the reason a good or neutral beholder wouldn't exist in a hive is because the evil beholders would kill them. It's not exactly easy to hide a completely different moral code from every single person around you, especially as you would first need to learn that you had to hide the fact in order to survive.
The drow similarly will kill other drow they perceive as weak (as in "too good or gentle"). Drizzt had to do exactly the very things you mentioned a beholder would have to do, and he survived for a few decades inside Menzoberrazan before he eventually had to leave.
So if the drow have no qualms about killing other drow whom they believe are too good, why should anyone assume there are good drow inside a city, while at the same time assuming that there are only evil beholders or mind flayers in their own respective cities?
PS: Drizzt was also almost killed at birth because of his lavender eyes. I recall that his family thought he might have been born blind, and if that was the case he would have been dead. So there you go: drow will not necessarily be merciful to another drow who is different from themselves...
-
As you said, the drow would kill another drow because they percieved it as weak... but beholders would kill another beholder simply it was slightly different (and that difference could easily be something which is actually an advantage, such as the ability to cast Time Stop or Meteor Swarm from one of it's eye stalks).
If a matron mother started committing charitable acts, her house would rebel against her because she was blaspheming against their god and showing a weakness of character, not simply because she was acting differently than the norm. Every drow in a single city has personaliy which is distinctive from every other drow, whereas in a beholder hive even a trained psychiatrist would be hard pressed to tell any two individuals apart (besides the hive mother and other elders).
Also, drow are a "natural" race, whereas beholders are said to be born of evil gods (in the Forgotten Realms, this would be Bane).
BTW I'm pretty sure that Elistrae was around long before the first Drizzt novel...
-
As you said, the drow would kill another drow because they percieved it as weak... but beholders would kill another beholder simply it was slightly different (and that difference could easily be something which is actually an advantage, such as the ability to cast Time Stop or Meteor Swarm from one of it's eye stalks).
If a matron mother started committing charitable acts, her house would rebel against her because she was blaspheming against their god and showing a weakness of character, not simply because she was acting differently than the norm. Every drow in a single city has personaliy which is distinctive from every other drow, whereas in a beholder hive even a trained psychiatrist would be hard pressed to tell any two individuals apart (besides the hive mother and other elders).
Also, drow are a "natural" race, whereas beholders are said to be born of evil gods (in the Forgotten Realms, this would be Bane).
BTW I'm pretty sure that Elistrae was around long before the first Drizzt novel...
I'm *not* so sure about that, myself. Remember that Qilue (the Chosen of Mystra who worships the drow goddess) was created long after the other six were, I believe by Steven Schend. I don't know the date of this, though. The first Drizzt novel came out in 1988.
Weren't the elves created by Corellon, anyway? And I do believe the reason drow are the way they are is because they were cursed by Corellon--that, and they fervently follow an evil goddess. So why is there such a huge difference between this heritage, and the heritage of a race created by evil gods? ??? I still don't see why beholders are arbitrarily more evil than drow.
-
I'd imagine that it would be far easier to turn from the path laid before you by a non-creator god, than it is to turn from the path a god created your entire species to follow. In other words, it's a case of religious doctrine vs. the very nature of the species.
As you yourself pointed out, Drow were not always evil. I'm not sure what the typical alignment of drow was before Lloth's betrayal, but at worst it was most likely chaotic neutral. Beholder's, on the other hand, have always been evil, and were intended to be evil when they were first created.
In the real world, human beings are capable of having differing beliefs than those who raised them, but we're obviously incapable of experiencing emotions and using abilities that our bodies are physically incapable of - indeed, I doubt most people could even comprehend an emotion they could never experience, or an ability they lack ("seeing" in sonar, for example). For a beholder to be good, it would need to be a mutant... and in a race which detests even the slightest of differences, it would need to be one of the fastest learners and finest actors ever born to survive for very long.
So what exactly are the chances of an individual which is a mutant, an extremely fast learner, and an exceptionally fine actor? Infintesimally small... though not impossible. Perhaps one in every ten generations or so, in the entire world?
-
Even if you know that Beholders, Illithid and Koa-Toa are almost always evil in nature, and that by refusing the quest you will probably be unable to retrieve the eggs of a Silver Dragon, a creature which is noble and good?
Yes, even if you "know" that judging the morality of intelligent creatures by their species is ethically viable instead of reprehensible, and that you're more likely to retrieve the eggs unharmed by running errands for Ardulace than by walking down the hallway, killing the egg guards, and grabbing the eggs. Maybe especially if you "know" that.
-
The main problem is that you're trying to apply real world ethics to a fantasy setting where no-one (or at least very few people) actually shares those beliefs. Virtue isn't about what we consider virtuous, it's about what people in the Forgotten Realms consider virtuous. In that setting, monsters are monsters, and any "good" representative of that race is a freak of nature, and are so rare that none have ever been recorded in the history books.
There are good Drow in the world - the player character has probably already met Drizzt, and if not he's most likely heard of him. He's probably heard of Qilue and the goddess Eilistraee, too. The player, on the other hand, will have never heard of a good beholder, illithid or koa-toa - simply because they're thousands of times rarer than good drow (otherwise, why haven't we heard of any?)
So the PC will aprobably know that drow can be good, but all he'll know of beholders, illithd and koa-toa - if anything - is that they're monstrous inhabitants of the Undardark, and perhaps some of their customs and habits (none of which are exactly pleasant). So to the PC, those drow door guards could very well be good people - but the beholders, illithd and koa-toa are monsters. If he's already met the illithid under Athkatla, he'll have all the more reason to want to attack them.
I suppose next you'll be arguing that quite a few demons and devils sponsor orphans and keep cute fluffy kittens as pets too? And that the "supposedly evil" gods like Shar and Bane arent that bad when it comes down to it..
-
The main problem is that you're trying to apply real world ethics to a fantasy setting where no-one (or at least very few people) actually shares those beliefs. Virtue isn't about what we consider virtuous, it's about what people in the Forgotten Realms consider virtuous.
Ah ah. Reputation is about what people consider Virtuous. Virtue is supposed to be about what is virtuous. If Sim agrees with you and only means it to reflect what Realms people believe to be virtuous, then he fundamentally misunderstood what I was suggesting, and thus it shouldn't be so surprising that the mod he produced doesn't have my recommendation.
will have never heard of a good beholder, illithid or koa-toa - simply because they're thousands of times rarer than good drow (otherwise, why haven't we heard of any?)
We haven't? Murdane talked about good and neutral illithid, Andyr about good and neutral kuo-toa, but I guess you didn't read those posts. Drow, rather than the other races, get written about, to the extent that people make jokes like, "Now the whole species consists of nothing but Chaotic Good rebels, yearning to throw off the reputation of their evil kin (who don't really exist)"--because drow are sexier than spheres of eyeballs, fish-people, or squid-people.
-
I would be cautious about the PC having assumed knowledge of famous Realms NPCs. :)
It is true that you have met Elminster and may have met Drizzt, but not others like Qilue... For example, in the novels I am reading at the moment Wulfgar manages not to be recognised by many people when he's out and about, and Artemis Entreri mentioning the name Drizzt to the Calimport halfling thieves' guild leader gets an effective reply of 'who'?
Likewise, I do not think that all PCs would have knowledge about the deities. Certainly those like Azuth, Mystram Oghma, Gond and Deneir from time in Candlekeep, and probably those common in towns and followed by NPCs by association (Helm, Lathander, Shar etc). But a minor deity such as Eiliastree... maybe not.
-
But who in the Forgotten Realms decides what's virtuous or not? Ao most likely, and I doubt he'd consider someone slaying creatures which that person believes with all their heart to be evil to be non-virtuous.
People in this thread may have talked about non-evil Illithid and Kuo-Toa, but I've never once seen them mentioned in any official D&D material, and definitely not in-game.
-
I think the sourcebooks say a minority of Kuo-Toa are Neutral; and some of their Prestige Classes in 3E allow Neutral as an alignment prerequisite.
About what is virtuous, it has also occured to me that characters in Salvatore's novels (Drizzt and associates) frequently go and kill Evil creatures (giants, etc) after tracking them, without prior evidence they have/will done anything wrong.
-
I'd imagine that it would be far easier to turn from the path laid before you by a non-creator god, than it is to turn from the path a god created your entire species to follow. In other words, it's a case of religious doctrine vs. the very nature of the species.
The point I was trying to make, though, is that the history of the drow race is just as laden with magic and evil and divine intercession as the beholder race is, if not more so. If that's "natural", well, I suppose it would be helpful to agree on what the definition of "natural" is.
Like the drow, neither the ilithids nor the beholders are born with an alignment, or else ilithids would be always Lawful Evil rather than usually Lawful Evil, and beholders would be the same way--always Lawful Evil. They are not, however, which means that beholders aren't born with a specific alignment (like dragons), so I disagree that a good beholder or ilithid would have to be a mutant to be good.
Besides, like I said before there was once a time when the idea of a good drow was almost unthinkable. As I see it, the only reason why good drow are so much more conceivable is because our perceptions of them have changed, and drow heroes have--as a result--become more and more believable.
-
There are good Drow in the world - the player character has probably already met Drizzt, and if not he's most likely heard of him. He's probably heard of Qilue and the goddess Eilistraee, too. The player, on the other hand, will have never heard of a good beholder, illithid or koa-toa - simply because they're thousands of times rarer than good drow (otherwise, why haven't we heard of any?)
My guess is because there isn't as much of an impetus to write about them. The drow have become very popular, and WotC wants the book department to publish novels that will be popular and sell. The drow sell. And yes, that's partly because of their sexiness (as Kish pointed out). Beholders and Illithids just aren't as sexy, and people do prefer protagonists who are conventionally attractive.
But just because there aren't any novels starring an illithid or a beholder hero doesn't mean they can't exist. Heck, in the Book of Exalted Deeds there is even a LG Mind Flayer monk as an example of a redeemed villain. So who says we haven't heard of any?
Also, there is nothing to prevent a PC from hating or mistrusting drow. He or she can even hate and/or mistrust Drizzt; it's not like Drizzt is a Realms-wide celebrity and is absolutely welcomed and trusted everywhere. Even Silverymoon lets him in secretly because drow aren't welcome there (in a city famous for it's tolerance). Finally, the religion of Eilistraee is far from being well known and understood. Many people think it's just another drow trick, and even the devotees of Eilistraee aren't quick to trust drow--good drow are aware that most of their kind is evil and devious and wouldn't have a qualm about taking advantage of them.
-
The fact that a certain percentage of members of a typically Evil race (such as Beholders) might be of non-Evil alignment does not necessarily mean that killing those members would be nonvirtuous. If the race is, by all accounts, known to have a vast majority of Evil representatives, then charging into a Beholder lair and killing the lot of them is about as dishororable as executing a murderer and thus dooming his intestinal bacteria (who are presumably True Neutral) to certain death as well. If the Gauth you just killed happens to have been Chaotic Good, then oops, okay, honest mistake, but how the heck were you supposed to have known? If the Gauth didn't want to be killed by Good-aligned people, he shouldn't have been hanging out with (and fighting alongside) Evil-aligned people.
By the time the PC reaches the Underdark, let's say they have an 90% chance of already having met the Spectator Beholder (Lawful Neutral), and a 65% chance of progressing far enough into the Unseeing Eye plot to learn that a Beholder(s) is behind it all. Therefore, the PC, regardless of class, alignment, or other in-game knowledge (such as Good Drow or the various pantheons) pretty much knows the following things:
1) Most Beholders are Evil, actively take part in plots to kill and maim innocents, and always attack the party on sight.
2) Some few Beholders are non-Evil--these few do not attack unless attacked themselves.
So, in the event that the party wanders into the Southern Tunnels at random, they will be immediately attacked by the two Beholders there, and defend themselves. They will then send out their Thief and learn that they are in a lair full of Beholders, who are clasically Evil, a judgement which is further supported that they are already Hostile, in keeping with the Beholderkin of the Unseeing Eye. This can be backed up by a Detect Evil, if the party contains a Paladin. As the Thief does not spot any non-Hostile Beholders (in keeping with the Spectator), the party is perfectly within their rights to (correctly) presume that slaying the lot of them would be a terrific blow for the force of righteousness. I defy anyone to give an example of a righteous action that is at the same time nonvirtuous.
In the event that the party intentionally enters the Southern Tunnels at Ardulace's suggestion, the only difference is that the party has the foreknowledge to presuppose the alignment of their targets. I fail to see what is so morally reprehensible about saying, "Ah, we could go kill some evil monsters! Okay, let's go." The fact that you're doing the bidding of someone Evil is irrelevant to the fact that you are performing a Good deed. And if you happen to kill a Good-aligned Beholder or two because they tried to bite your head off, that hardly shows a faulty ethical structure on your part.
The Virtue hit, if any, should come when you hand the blood (of whatever race) over to the Matron Mother, because you know that she will use it to summon a powerful Demon to the Prime Material, with the intent of using it as a weapon against the Good Elves.
I am opposed to any changes in Virtue, good or bad, that result simply from killing things. Killing the residents of the Souther Tunnels is no more nonvirtuous than killing the Fallen Paladins is virtuous--in both cases, your actions do not show any strong moral leanings one way or another. (I'm aware that the Fallen Paladin quest currently gives a Virtue bonus. I disagree with this.) In contrast, wiping out the Lair of the Unseeing Eye does deserve a Virtue bonus, because it shows mercy for those who are weak-minded where religion is concerned, which is essentially the same as protecting those who are weak-armed where Trolls are concerned.
-
I think you are missing my point. I am not arguing, necessarily, that killing beholders should deserve a viture hit, I'm arguing that killing beholders and/or mind flayers isn't somehow less evil than killing drow (which, apparently, some people believe, for reasons I already mentioned in previous posts). Weren't some people troubled by the idea that "You might kill Soloufein and that wouldn't be fair!"...?
Besides, what exactly do you mean by "righteous"? Some people believe that killing any evil creature is in itself a good act (I believe the BoED seems to believe this), but not everyone does...myself included. Is it really "righteous" to kill a creature who isn't bothering anyone and isn't commiting any evil acts, just because they glow red when you cast detect evil?
-
I think you are missing my point. I am not arguing, necessarily, that killing beholders should deserve a viture hit, I'm arguing that killing beholders and/or mind flayers isn't somehow less evil than killing drow (which, apparently, some people believe, for reasons I already mentioned in previous posts). Weren't some people troubled by the idea that "You might kill Soloufein and that wouldn't be fair!"...?
Sorry, I was kinda replying to the whole thread all at once. True, cleaning out each of the peripheral Underdark maps is just as 'virtuous' as any other, with the only possible exception being the Kou-Toa, since they have the highest probability of other alignments (and, coincidentally, a very high rate of insanity). Apart from that detail, all 4 civilizations are essentially equal, in terms of the morality of killing all members who are hostile to generally-Good adventurers.
So you might kill Solaufein, so what? In a city full of Evil Drow who are going for your jugular, killing a lone guy who happens to be Chaotic Good is every bit as justifiable as killing the guy who collects Halfling skulls. If Sola doesn't declare himself as being a noncombatant in some way, he deserves everything he gets.
Now, the counterargument to that is, obviously, that these people (in all 4 cases) are defending their homes. But honestly, if any member(s) of any of these races suddenly found themselves Dimension Doored into the streets of Athkatla, do you really think they would show mercy to those who were just 'defending their homes?'
And if you're going to take the view that wiping out almost the entire species (which you pretty much have to do if you're doing Ardulace's quest) must certainly be overkill, especially in the case of the Kou-Toa, I reply that you actually don't clear out the whole place: You can't, because it's not on the map. This argument goes into metalogic somewhat, so hold on. We know that what we see of Ust Natha is not the entire place: What, the entire population of a thriving Drow city fits into two noble houses, two Fighter societies, a tavern, a church and somebody's house? Where are their kids? Their workplaces? Their homes, their food, for Pete's sake? No, there has to be more to Ust Natha. This is shown even more clearly in the Svirfneblin settlement: You know the crevasse that you have to cross over to get into the town? Take a good look at it. What do you see? Windows.... going down, many stories down. What we see of the Svirfneblin is literally only the tip of the iceberg.
Now, if BioWare had been completely anal and made maps for the rest of Ust Natha and the other 3 Underdark races, we might have seen rooms where the non-combatants would go. Whether those might be Drow children, insane Kou-Toa bibbling to themselves in a corner, Lawful Good Illithid Monks, or Chaotic Neutral Beholders struggling to overcome the negative stigma imposed by humanoid society, these creatures are the only ones that it would not be virtuous to kill.
On the battlefield, morality takes second place to the fact that you're fighting for your life. The only time virtue comes into play is when the object in question is not a strictly military target.
Besides, what exactly do you mean by "righteous"? Some people believe that killing any evil creature is in itself a good act (I believe the BoED seems to believe this), but not everyone does...myself included. Is it really "righteous" to kill a creature who isn't bothering anyone and isn't commiting any evil acts, just because they glow red when you cast detect evil?
My definition of 'righteous' is "any action that involves intentionally taking suffering and hardship onto one's own shoulders, so that the innocent (those who live and let live, and do unto others as they'd have done unto them) will not have to."
The simple fact that a creature is Evil is not enough to justify killing it. When's the last time you heard of anybody whacking Joluv, even if they didn't want his gear? No, actual Evil deeds are a prerequisite. Thankfully, the game provides lots of them: The occupants of the Guarded Compound head the Athkatla slave trade. The Twisted Rune want to kill you simply for blundering into their headquarters. Mekrath populates his lair with traditionally Evil beings who attack you on sight, and (in his own little way) promotes slavery and mind control. Etc.
But I don't understand your trying to paint the inhabitants of the Underdark as "not bothering anyone or committing evil acts." Let's take a look here: The Drow are staging a raid into the Beholder Hive and have penetrated deep into the Kou-Toa caverns. The Illithid are also at war with the Beholders, and have captured a Handmaiden's daughter and slaughter her guards. The Beholders are spying on the Drow and are....present (for what purpose is unknown) in the Kou-Toa tunnels, and the Kou-Toa have presumably sent a war party against the Illithids. I'd hardly call all that "not bothering anyone." And let's not overlook the fact that the Drow are trying to reopen a path to the surface and make open war upon the Good-aligned surface Elves. And that's if there's no real connection between the Underdark Beholders and Illithids, and their counterparts busily working to destroy the entire city of Athkatla.
-
I'd say both the Unseeing Eye and the Athkatlan Illithd are working to take over the city rather than destroy it.
-
I agree with SixOfSpades here. :)
-
So you might kill Solaufein, so what? In a city full of Evil Drow who are going for your jugular, killing a lone guy who happens to be Chaotic Good is every bit as justifiable as killing the guy who collects Halfling skulls. If Sola doesn't declare himself as being a noncombatant in some way, he deserves everything he gets.
By the way, Soloufein as coded in the game isn't Chaotic Good, he's Lawful Neutral. :)
I also agree with you that the maps of a lot of places don't show you the entire settlement--there is most likely more to Ust Natha and Trademeet and Athkatla and the City-of-Caverns and other places than just what you can see in the game.
But I don't understand your trying to paint the inhabitants of the Underdark as "not bothering anyone or committing evil acts." Let's take a look here: The Drow are staging a raid into the Beholder Hive and have penetrated deep into the Kou-Toa caverns. The Illithid are also at war with the Beholders, and have captured a Handmaiden's daughter and slaughter her guards. The Beholders are spying on the Drow and are....present (for what purpose is unknown) in the Kou-Toa tunnels, and the Kou-Toa have presumably sent a war party against the Illithids. I'd hardly call all that "not bothering anyone."
Most of what you mentioned, you wouldn't know without actually going into the homes of these creatures. So using these reasons as an excuse to attack is meta-gaming. You wouldn't know about the deeds you mentioned until after blundering into their caverns, presumably with the intent to attack them (ie. you attacked first).
Besides, how do you know the Beholders in Athkatla are the same ones from a part of the Underdark under the ocean? That's quite a big assumption to make. Same goes for the illithid under the city...
PS: You took a generalistic statement I made entirely out of context, anyway. ::) It wasn't being applied to the denizens of the Underdark, necessarily, but to beings like Rayic and Saladrex. You should be more careful when you quote other people.
-
I agree with SixOfSpades here. :)
Even with the quote that was taken out of context, and using knowledge the PC wouldn't have to enter the homes of other creatures with an intent to attack?
-
Even with the quote that was taken out of context, and using knowledge the PC wouldn't have to enter the homes of other creatures with an intent to attack?
Boy, willing to go to any lengths to try to take a cheap shot, huh?
Ahem. The post of yours that I took the quote from mentions, as its only operative nouns, Beholders, Mind Flayers, Drow, Solaufein, and Evil creatures in general. In reply to this quote, I spoke of Drow, Illithids, Beholders, and Kou-Toa. And yet you say I'm 'quoting you out of context' because you were actually talking about Saladrex and Rayic Gethras. If you were correct in accusing me of a logical fault, I would apologize.
Since when does any resident of the Forgotten Realms need to walk into a city full of Underdark critters to know that they're Evil and constantly at war with each other? This stuff is common knowledge for anyone with even the slightest bit of interest in the subject--crack open a History of the Drow sometime. Metagaming, my foot.
-
Most of what you mentioned, you wouldn't know without actually going into the homes of these creatures. So using these reasons as an excuse to attack is meta-gaming. You wouldn't know about the deeds you mentioned until after blundering into their caverns, presumably with the intent to attack them (ie. you attacked first).
Not really. If you accept Imrae's quest, you stumble upon not only the Illithid that captured Phaere, but also upon a Kuo-Toa war party deep in foreign territory, attacking you on sight. Attacking the Kuo-Toa leads you to a group of Beholders far out of their own homes, on apparently hostile ground. In the Beholder Lair, you stumble upon a group of drow attacking a lone Beholder and a group of Illithid attacking the Beholders in their own home.
If you then assail the Illithid and Drow cities, you would have good reason for each of the four "mass murders".
Also, I find it odd that a PC who studied in Candlekeep for the first 20 years of his life would not know about the combatant nature of these four races...
-
Maybe "Inhabitants of the Underdark 101" wasn't on his syllabus? :P
-
Not really. If you accept Imrae's quest, you stumble upon not only the Illithid that captured Phaere, but also upon a Kuo-Toa war party deep in foreign territory, attacking you on sight. Attacking the Kuo-Toa leads you to a group of Beholders far out of their own homes, on apparently hostile ground. In the Beholder Lair, you stumble upon a group of drow attacking a lone Beholder and a group of Illithid attacking the Beholders in their own home.
If you then assail the Illithid and Drow cities, you would have good reason for each of the four "mass murders".
Also, I find it odd that a PC who studied in Candlekeep for the first 20 years of his life would not know about the combatant nature of these four races...
I'm disputing the idea that you have the right to kill these creatures simply because they are hostile to each other and warlike (couldn't you then decide to just let them destroy each other, anyway?).
Besides, you only see the drow war party in the Beholder lair if you actually trapse quite a way into it. If you go to the Beholder lair to get the eyeball for Ardulace, you can simply kill the elder Orb right at the entrance and then leave--then is no real reason for you to ever return there, except to kill every creature within and/or take the treasure the beholders are guarding. Neither of those things is an especially good act, unless it really is true that killing an evilly aligned creature is in itself an act of goodness.
PS: Are you even sure that the Beholders in the Kua-toa lair are even there with a hostile purpose? Every time I've played the game, I've never seen them attacking any Kua-toa at all.
-
Killing an evil creature that attacks you on sight may not be an act of goodness, but it certainly isn't evil either. Perhaps if the Elder Orb at the entrance had politely asked you to vacate their humble abode since it was not an edifice of commerce, things might have been different. However, the fact that she Mazes you and Disintegrates your party members is, to me, a good reason to fight back.
After that, we only have to go down one corridor to find the Drow war party, and down one other to find the Illithids.
PS: Are you even sure that the Beholders in the Kua-toa lair are even there with a hostile purpose? Every time I've played the game, I've never seen them attacking any Kua-toa at all.
Valid point. They do have a hostile purpose towards me each time I'm there, though...
-
Killing an evil creature that attacks you on sight may not be an act of goodness, but it certainly isn't evil either. Perhaps if the Elder Orb at the entrance had politely asked you to vacate their humble abode since it was not an edifice of commerce, things might have been different. However, the fact that she Mazes you and Disintegrates your party members is, to me, a good reason to fight back.
Didn't say it was evil. As for them attacking you on sight; well, it makes sense, because you are walking into their sanctuary. :) That's kind of what I've been trying to say. I believe Kish mentioned this before, but it's kind of like if some evil wizard (such as Irenicus) wants to take a part of you for his own purposes--any PC in his right mind is going to fight back. It's perfectly valid, I would agree, to argue that there isn't such a huge difference between that example and killing an Elder Orb for your own purposes (and by extension, Ardulace's). I agree that agreeing to help Ardulace is not in itself an act of good, and it may even be evil.
After that, we only have to go down one corridor to find the Drow war party, and down one other to find the Illithids.
True, but the point is there is really no reason to even go that far unless you either want to kill all the creatures therein, or steal whatever treasure they have.
Valid point. They do have a hostile purpose towards me each time I'm there, though...
But what I'm asking is, are they there with a hostile purpose towards each other?... :)
And even if they are, is that a good reason to simply slaughter them all? If the PC is killing them for being hostile and warlike (instead of getting along happily), doesn't that by extension make the PC rather warlike himself? Maybe the PC does have good intentions, but again, it wouldn't be far from the truth at all to describe such a person as "bloodthristy" because of the methods they are using.
-
Besides, what exactly do you mean by "righteous"? Some people believe that killing any evil creature is in itself a good act (I believe the BoED seems to believe this), but not everyone does...myself included. Is it really "righteous" to kill a creature who isn't bothering anyone and isn't commiting any evil acts, just because they glow red when you cast detect evil?
I think I agree with a lot of what you've said in this thread, but I'm not entirely sure this question is as simple as you think.
It's a bit tricky for us (here in the real world) to apply our intuitions to the case, because we have no equivalent of a "detect evil" spell. Here in the real world, there is fundamentally no way to judge someone's character except by their actions, so we would never want to punish someone who hadn't actually *done* something wrong.
If someone glows red in response to a "detect evil" spell, it means that they're...well...*evil*. If they aren't bothering anyone, it's just because they haven't figured out a way to turn such bothering to their advantage yet, or haven't seen an opportunity to get away with it, or something of the sort. If they were really content to just live and let live, they'd be neutral, not evil. An evil alignment is supposed to *mean* something--it's not just a disturbance in your astral aura or suchlike; it means you're a genuinely bad person who would do bad things if you could get away with it and found it advantageous.
So if the beholders glow red (which I think they do) in response to "detect evil", it means one of two things:
1. It's a bug (like the major domo, I presume) which would ideally be fixed (as the major domo is by Oversight).
2. They're really genuinely awful creatures, who probably *would* murder you, even if they ran into you outside their lair, so long as you had something they wanted and/or a toothsome flavor, and so long as they didn't think you could beat them, or summon aid to beat them.
(And yes, I know this doesn't really match Bioware's implementation of, say, Viconia. But I always thought that was a problem--Viconia should be coded as true neutral, not NE. Korgan and (unredeemed) Sarevok, and especially Valen...now *those* are evil NPCs.)
-
All good points, and I'm not denying them, but again it comes down to the question of whether or not is a good act to make a pre-emptive strike against someone simply because they are evil. Even evil people (and creatures) can have neutral tendencies (like Viconia, who says at one point that she wanted to live in peace), and upon thumbing through a lot of sourcebooks, there are a fair number of evil NPCs who probably will do bad things but otherwise seem to live fairly normal lives...there are evil people who are also mothers, fathers, storekeepers, council members, etc. I'm not saying that mind flayers and beholders are going to be this way, but I tend to argue things on principle. If I read a story about an ostensibly good person who assassinated another person because he or she cast a spell and found that person's heart was "evil", I'd probably feel more disappointed than happy.
-
Drow are not born evil the are raised to be evil.
A beholder is born fully grown. They have childhood. They are born evil (execpt for spectral beholders who are born neutral and with a sense of humor)
-
I only assume creatures are born a specific alignment if they are mentioned as being "Always LE" (or NE, or CE, or so forth). I recall that beholders are described as "Usually LE". And even if the beings in question are evil...
1) It is still disputable as to whether or not killing an evil creature is in itself a good act, even if the evil creature in question really was born evil.
and
2) Even if a being isn't born evil, but are evil because of their society, the end result is still the same...
The are some good drow out there, but they are exceptions, not the rule. They are not at all common (even most surface drow are NE according to the FRCS).
-
beholders are listed as always evil can't remember if it was NE, CE, or LE
There are many kinds of beholders of the kinds in this game only the Spectral beholders aren't inherently evil.
Are you going to tell me its not alright to kill every demon you see. Demons are born of evil. They are made from evil infact. In the world of D&D wiping out a beholder nest or a hive of mind flayers is good thing. Lets remember that the beholders, mind flayers, and other monsters are monsters. Lets keep D&D a black and white world and not make it grey like the real one.
I do not want to play D&D and debate the moral question of wiping out a group of creatures that see humans as either food, or slaves.
That sums up beholders and Mind flayers. They see the humanoids of the world as food or slaves. detect alignment can be fooled. So you shouldn't go killing, humans and demi-humans based of that. Also humans and demi-humans have a great capacity for change. You can convert an evil drow to good. Or teach an Orc to be nice.
You can't teach a beholder or a mind flayer to be kind compasionent only magic and rare chosmic events cause these creatures to become good.
Also are we going to start picking apart the lord of the rings for all the orcs they killed?
Anyway our world is a shade of gray. the D&D world is not. Somethings are just born evil in D&D. What makes some adventures grand is when you find that one in a million being who is not like his brothers.
Is killing a demon a good act? I'd say yes. Would you really argue with me on if its wrong to kill a demon.
-
beholders are listed as always evil can't remember if it was NE, CE, or LE
Not according to the MM, if I recall correctly. Beholders and Mind Flayers are usually evil, just like drow. And Lord Kain, I never said it was wrong to kill a demon--you are the one who brought up demons to begin with, not I.
Drow used to be known as "monsters" until recent years--I've been over this before. Orcs and other goblinoids are also known as "monsters" even though they also aren't born evil, and their ways aren't even all that "alien" to the ways of the core races (they are humanoids, not abberations).
I'm not trying to pick apart anything, but I always argue things on principle. If it's OK to kill anything that's considered a "monster", one should think carefully about what is called a "monster" and why. And remember--virtue isn't about what is OK in D&D, it's about what we would consider to be good or evil. Stories about slaying "monsters" and stealing their treasure are common, but does that make such behavior right?
-
Drow haven't been known as "monsters" sense the first printing of Drizzit.
I bring up demons because no one is really going to argure its not ok to kill a demon on principle.
Beholders and Mind Flayers seek to inslave lesser races. Now I remember Mind Flayers and Beholders being listed as always evil. Especially in 2nd edition.
I don't think Virtue is not about applying real world ethics to D&D.
As far as I understand virtue was created to be a better option over reputation. D&D has its own set of ethics. Caught between medieval and modern. Virtue was not created to cause paladins to become fallen from clearing out a lair filled with lawful evil beholders or lawful mind flayers.
Execpt for the spectral beholder. Every beholder you encounter has an evil alignment. Also every single Mind Flayer in the game also has an evil alignment.
If your alignment is evil you have done horrible things or you are planing to do horrible things.
D&D is 90% black and white and only 10% gray. I'd like to keep it that way.
-
Spectator Beholders are always LN, yeh.
Note in D&D alignment terms always doesn't mean the same as in English; it just means really most of the time. Usually, for example, is meant to mean around 60% or something. I don't quite recall, don't have the MM to hand.
-
All good points, and I'm not denying them, but again it comes down to the question of whether or not is a good act to make a pre-emptive strike against someone simply because they are evil. Even evil people (and creatures) can have neutral tendencies (like Viconia, who says at one point that she wanted to live in peace), and upon thumbing through a lot of sourcebooks, there are a fair number of evil NPCs who probably will do bad things but otherwise seem to live fairly normal lives...there are evil people who are also mothers, fathers, storekeepers, council members, etc. I'm not saying that mind flayers and beholders are going to be this way, but I tend to argue things on principle. If I read a story about an ostensibly good person who assassinated another person because he or she cast a spell and found that person's heart was "evil", I'd probably feel more disappointed than happy.
A fair point. I wonder how much of this is just that there is, by real-world, modern standards, a serious problem with the D&D alignment system (or indeed, *any* genuine alignment system, like most, though not all, RPGs have). It might be argued that if you're really troubled by assuming guilt based on a "detect evil" spell, you want a game where evil doesn't have the sort of reality that can be detected with a simple spell--except in extreme cases. Ars Magica, for example, has spells to detect demons*, and spells to tell when someone is lying, and would probably be open to spells to detect hostile intent towards any specific individual, but has no alignment system in the conventional sense. But D&D isn't Ars Magica, and it's hard to have a system like D&D's alignment system without committing yourself to a fair bit of black and white.
*I agree with the poster who said it was fine to kill demons on sight. In most systems, they're the very *essence* of all that is evil. I enjoyed Fall-From-Grace as a character, but she really doesn't make a lot of sense. A LN demon would be like a steel bar with no iron in it; if it's LN (or indeed ever has a compassionate thought) it's ipso facto not a demon, because a lack of compassion is just part of demon-ness.
-
In D&D, if a person or creature is evil, that means he has either already committed evil acts in the past, or would willingly do so in the future (either for pleasure or personal gain). Or most likely both.
-
I've checked the Monster Manual, and neither Beholders nor Ilithids are always LE, they are usually LE. Which means, as far as I see it, that they aren't born with a specific alignment. Killing them isn't the same as killing a demon, because they aren't necessarily made from evil the way fiends are.
As for drow, what you said about Drizzt only reinforces my point that what we consider "monsters" is largely a matter of perception. The MM has no good things whatsoever to say about beholders or mind flayers, but the same exact thing applies to drow. There is no addendum in the drow entry that says, "Even though the drow are a hideously evil race that strikes fear into any being that has ever heard about them, *don't* be surprised if you come upon Chaotic Good rebel drow during your journey. Many drow are turning away from the evil ways of their race, so if you see them, don't strike before having spoken to them first."
Good drow are marginal outcasts at best, and non-existant at worst, depending on the setting of the campaign.
-
Both Beholders and Mind Flayers would notice and take exception if one of their kin broke from the norm.
As I've already mentioned, Beholders would kill another Beholder simply because it had different skin colour, let alone different behavioural patterns. What are the chances of any creature not only learning to pretend to be normal fast enough (i.e. within an extremely short time of being born), and be such an exceptionally skilled actor to emulate the actions of its kin whilst remaining non-evil during every waking hour? A couple of billion-to-one, I'd say :D. As I said, a Beholder growing up outside of a hive stands a much better chance of being non-evil, but that's irrelevant because we're talking about a hive ;).
In order to be non-evil, a Mind Flayer would have to refuse to eat the brains of sentient beings, not use dominated slaves, not obey (or at least find a more peaceful workaround) any evil commands the master brain and senior Illithids gave it, etc. Other Mind Flayers in the same city would consider this an outrage, and at best exile the "non-sentientarian". At worst they would kill it. So again you could encounter non-evil Mind Flayers outside a city, but again that doesn't matter to use because we're discussing Mind Flayers in a city.
-
But as I mentioned before, the drow will kill any good drow in a city as well (and certainly drow suspected of worshipping Eilistraee), and I don't see how that is any less evil than killing others of their kind simply for being different. So in terms of "evillness", I don't see a huge difference between the races, unless drow are more deserving of mercy simply because they are humanoids and less "alien" than beholders or mind flayers.
-
But as I mentioned before, drow are a lot more tolerant of differences of opinion and personality (just so long as inferiors obey their superiors), and it would be a much easier task for a drow to fake being evil than it would be for a beholder or a mind flayer.
BTW a mind flayer who only ate the brains of non-sentient creatures would be extremely easy to spot: just look for the village idiot :P
-
But as I mentioned before, drow are a lot more tolerant of differences of opinion and personality (just so long as inferiors obey their superiors), and it would be a much easier task for a drow to fake being evil than it would be for a beholder or a mind flayer.
To me, the fact that they'll kill their own kind just for being good or weak already makes them egregiously evil though. Even if they are "less" evil than the beholders and mind flayers (and the MM says no such thing), the difference can't be all that great.
-
Not to mention the fact that the PC is highly unlikely to know any of this, anyways. He might know that the majority of beholders and illithid are evil, sure, which is why I don't think it should be a virtue hit to take up the Matron's quest. The PC might intend to scour the underdark until he finds an elder orb that he can prove is evil. It just so happens that when he pokes his head into the beholder lair and finds an elder orb, it won't talk to him, and promptly starts blasting him. I think that absolves him of any wrongdoing, or whatever the phrase is.
Think about what'd happen if he met Solaufein before being turned into a drow. Solaufein might very well try to bargain with him first, but an evil or unthinking PC might attack without hesitation, simply because he's a drow. Or, maybe Solaufein is ordered to kill the PC on a routine patrol. The PC didn't know he was in drow territory, and Solaufein would be inclined not to kill him, but I think he still would. Is the PC evil for fighting a good member of an evil race in self-defense?
That could very well be what would happen with a hypothetical good beholder.
PC agrees to Ardulace's task. Secretly decides to only slay an evil elder orb.
PC, disguised as drow, enters beholder lair to interrogate any elder orbs he finds.
LG beholder sees drow enter his house, and attacks.
PC says "wait!" but realises that against such a powerful foe any hesitation could mean his death, so fights back.
LG beholder bites it.
PC might regret having to slay a LG beholder, but as it is he has no clue that it was LG, and most likely assumes it was evil, then chops off its eyeball.
Virtuous? Maybe not, but the intent was there. Unvirtuous? I don't think so. Misunderstandings are tragic, yeah, but not evil.
-
To me, the fact that they'll kill their own kind just for being good or weak already makes them egregiously evil though. Even if they are "less" evil than the beholders and mind flayers (and the MM says no such thing), the difference can't be all that great.
I'm not saying drow are any more or any less evil than beholders or mind flayers. I'm simply saying the chances of encountering a non-evil drow are many times higher than meeting a non-evil beholder of mind flayer. This is not because there's less chance of a non-evil beholder or mind flayer existing in the first place, but because non-evil drow would find it a lot easier to cover up their non-evil status.
-
There are a lot of good points being made here, and Nightmare, I agree with much of what you are saying. I just don't agree with the idea that drow are somehow more deserving of mercy than the other underdark races, nor do I think that killing them and/or "wiping out" a whole city of them is somehow a greater evil than wiping out the beholder and/or mind flayer lairs.
About Soloufein--he is LN (not CG as he is made to be in the Soloufein mod), and when you talk to him he gives off the impression that he "does what he must", though not always without protest. Therefore, I would agree that if he was ordered to kill the PC for some reason, he would do it without much (if any) hesistation.