Good and bad deeds - a mini-game for paladin and BG peity gain?

[Opustus]

Paladins and blackguards have to go through a lot of piety often due to using their divine feats. This can make things especially painful to non-war paladins/blackguards or lead to a chore of spamming Yarrow leaves if Hearth and home paladin/blackguards etc.

A way for paladins/blackguards to raise piety could be a mini-game that has them doing good and bad deeds for which they're rewarded in divine juice. This is a thread for thinking of features to this game! This is of course purely fictional if the devs aren't looking to make this kind of a change, but I thought it'd be fun to see what we could come up with. The mini-game would have the classes questing for good and evil deeds with other players on their journeys.

I'll start:

Smiter: For paladin, every smitten evil target grants piety. For blackguard, any smitten target grants piety, regardless of alignment.

Redeemer/Punisher: For paladin, using lay on hands on a wounded ally or against an undead grants piety. For blackguard, using inflict pain against an enemy or on your summon grants piety.

Cure/Poison: For paladin, recovering ability point loss from an ally grants piety. For blackguard, applying poison to a blade grants piety.

[strong yeet]

This sounds like a really sick idea. I wonder if it's possible to hook these things into stuff like Smite considering that they're pretty hard-coded, but even so the base idea of "bonus" piety from toying with certain features of your class is hella cool and I'm definitely into it.

[Hinty]

Smiting is not a good act.

Resolving things without having to resort to smiting is a good act.

Smiting is, if anything a net neutral act.

Giving piety for using remove disease when it actually removes something might be nice. And at the very least adding Lay on Hands to the healing methods that grant peity for hearth and home would be nice.

[strong yeet]

Smiting is not a good act.

Completely unsubstantiated and unsupported by canon Killing evil creatures or people in the process of doing evil things is NOT EVEN CLOSE to neutral in the cosmic sense (as in, Good and Evil being tangible forces of reality), it is absolutely, unequivocally, good. This post smacks of viewing the setting through a contemporary lens of right and wrong -- which is, you know, not a bad thing from a certain way of looking at it, but regarding this topic it's not exactly constructive or correct.

But Good and Evil in the Realms aren't necessarily right, and wrong in the real world. I think that's a very important distinction.

Not to derail the thread or anything...

[Aodh Lazuli]

Words.

Applause

[-XXX-]

Giving piety for a smite that connects is a neat idea! But piety should suffer for failed smites too!

And yes, the concepts of good and evil in D&D are set to make things more straightforward for players, but what gets a little bit awkward here is that the vast majority of characters seem to be magically aware of what is objective good and objective evil as well - that's why you often see a banite being damned by society for doing something that a tyrran paladin would get a second, third ...seventeenth chance to redeem themselves for

[Hunter548]

Giving piety for a smite that connects is a neat idea! But piety should suffer for failed smites too!

And yes, the concepts of good and evil in D&D are set to make things more straightforward for players, but what gets a little bit awkward here is that the vast majority of characters seem to be magically aware of what is objective good and objective evil as well - that's why you often see a banite being damned by society for doing something that a tyrran paladin would get a second, third ...seventeenth chance to redeem themselves for

That might have something to do with the fact that the Banite has chosen to serve a deity that wants to conquer the world and oppress most of the people in it. They've decided this is a good thing to support.

It's entirely realistic and natural for someone like that to be cut zero slack.

[-XXX-]

That might have something to do with the fact that the Banite has chosen to serve a deity that wants to conquer the world and oppress most of the people in it. They've decided this is a good thing to support.

It's entirely realistic and natural for someone like that to be cut zero slack.

It's more about paladins getting away with virtually anything because "they good guyz"

[Ork]

It's more about paladins getting away with virtually anything because "they good guyz"

HRM. My paladins always got called "False" whenever I smote deserving bad guys. I took it as a sign I was doing something right. :>

Anyways. I like the idea for the mini-game. Paladins & BG that choose non-war&destruction deities have the impossible task of raising their piety, and they consume piety like hotcakes.

[Opustus]

I don't think there needs to be a categorical bad guy and good guy definition insofar as player characters are concerned, although paladins and BGs tend to set the opposite boundaries for that spectrum. Only the planar good and evil are pretty much indisputable; saying that smiting a bad player character would be a good act is a crude oversimplification and might stymie something that other players are trying to create through their characters. I can see paladins wanting to convert or reason with followers of evil deities and that open, unprovoked hostility might be a breach to many nobler ideals, whether contemporary or olden. My point is, if evil players want to interpret evil as a more nuanced question than where one places in the alignment chart, the paladin players should reciprocate this as a possibility for RP. Paladins should, in my humble opinion, in order to contribute to more interesting RP than baddies and goodies PKing each other, actively try other approaches to dealing with evil. Another case in point is that on Arelith nobody really seems to die, so what use is constantly killing someone if it won't resolve the problem? The tendencies of the paladin should also reflect the tenets of their main god.

[Ferret Roll]

Another case in point is that on Arelith nobody really seems to die, so what use is constantly killing someone if it won't resolve the problem?

This should never factor into a character's decision-making, unless we want to devalue the effect of death in the server even further. Characters should never be certain IC that they or their enemies will return after a death.

Only the planar good and evil are pretty much indisputable; saying that smiting a bad player character would be a good act is a crude oversimplification and might stymie something that other players are trying to create through their characters.

Paladins should, in my humble opinion, in order to contribute to more interesting RP than baddies and goodies PKing each other, actively try other approaches to dealing with evil.

This would be a very good argument in another server. On Arelith, the trouble is that many tend to be overly nice when dealing with villainous characters (See the abundance of easily accepted Underdark races taking to life on the surface with only a small amount of easily stifled opposition). We've drifted quite far away from anything resembling the 'war' of good vs evil on the server, so far that many of the isle's residents would probably be regarded as either insane or dim-witted elsewhere in the Forgotten Realms setting.

Hostile RP should not default to PvP, but there should always be a looming concern of, "This guy has every reason to kill me, and I need to tread carefully" when dealing with the militant side of either good or evil. Militant good is often subjected to strange treatment considering the setting, as shown by Ork's comment:

HRM. My paladins always got called "False" whenever I smote deserving bad guys. I took it as a sign I was doing something right. :>

Paladins are heroic figures who protect the weak and smite the wicked. There are source books that go into detail of how kings and nobility are thrilled to have such figures working with them, specifically because of how good it makes them look to the public to be seen associating with paladins. Because the commoners know that the paladin will step forward to defend the town against monsters when they try to stir trouble - not give the monsters a sermon and serve them a cup of tea.

[Opustus]

To emphasise my previous comment, I'm not trying to tell others what paladins should do or be, but I'm arguing for a wider and more permissive interpretation of good and evil and how they affect respective character dynamics. Paladins smiting bad guys is a paladin thing to do, but there should be enough breathing room for other kinds of paladins to flourish without OOC accusations of interpreting the class wrong. There shouldn't be an absolute orthodoxy of paladin RP and it certainly shouldn't be enforced by a mob of players. I hate to my guts the kind of oppressive and inhibiting pack mentality that certain players would be simply wrong in how they choose to portray their characters and their salient qualities; they might have very interesting ideas, they might enjoy the way they choose to play their characters and so on.

"This should never factor into a character's decision-making, unless we want to devalue the effect of death in the server even further. Characters should never be certain IC that they or their enemies will return after a death."
Why not? Should our characters be expected to just ignore the fact that nothing really seems to remain dead? I think allowing the knowledge that death is rarely permanent to affect character decisions might generate other solutions to conflict. Also, for the record, I've played my main character as fully cognisant of the semi-irrelevance of death, which has led to her seeking other options, such as negotiations and agreements with parties she would never parley with had she the option to clear up the issue with violence.

[flower]

To emphasise my previous comment, I'm not trying to tell others what paladins should do or be, but I'm arguing for a wider and more permissive interpretation of good and evil and how they affect respective character dynamics. Paladins smiting bad guys is a paladin thing to do, but there should be enough breathing room for other kinds of paladins to flourish without OOC accusations of interpreting the class wrong. There shouldn't be an absolute orthodoxy of paladin RP and it certainly shouldn't be enforced by a mob of players. I hate to my guts the kind of oppressive and inhibiting pack mentality that certain players would be simply wrong in how they choose to portray their characters and their salient qualities; they might have very interesting ideas, they might enjoy the way they choose to play their characters and so on.

"This should never factor into a character's decision-making, unless we want to devalue the effect of death in the server even further. Characters should never be certain IC that they or their enemies will return after a death."
Why not? Should our characters be expected to just ignore the fact that nothing really seems to remain dead? I think allowing the knowledge that death is rarely permanent to affect character decisions might generate other solutions to conflict. Also, for the record, I've played my main character as fully cognisant of the semi-irrelevance of death, which has led to her seeking other options, such as negotiations and agreements with parties she would never parley with had she the option to clear up the issue with violence.

Because respawn is clearly ooc and mechanical way. And if i am not mistaken, if someone devaluete death, DM can step in IG to prove him wrong.

If player chooses to play that death does not matter, we will get into silliness which will never end.

1) Why to defend from raiders? Let them kill you, you will respawn

2) Why shoudl ever someone be collared? When knows if dies, respawn?

3) How would you lead faction wars?

4)¨Why should ever anyone obey any guards? You make troubles, They kill you, you respawn, rofl.

5) Why should anyone fear anything? If you die by random you will go and respawn

6) Would be ever anyone a hero? Self sacrifice when you know, you are respawned?

We then get into silliness, when you challenge someone into duel and follows epic proclamation "Even my death will not stop me!". My willingness to play with such player drops to near zero.
Or when you ambush someone and he shouts "Go ahead, kill me! i will walk into light and revive again."

Characters should always treat death seriously, act like that. That you respawn is purely OOC thing. The best approach is to consider the event leading to death as closed, and not return to it. Say, you were lucky, barely getting to life again. And not hold elaborate lenghty philosophy why characters never die, because it is mechanical non story aspect.


And it is true i met a paladin, who was plotting behind people's back, making up lies on my character and friend of it, trying to stir troubles. But paladin is general class played by many people and saying or implying most of them play like that is nonsence.

[strong yeet]

Characters should always treat death seriously, act like that. That you respawn is purely OOC thing. The best approach is to consider the event leading to death as closed, and not return to it. Say, you were lucky, barely getting to life again. And not hold elaborate lenghty philosophy why characters never die, because it is mechanical non story aspect.

this 1000000000000000 times

[Vrass]

I woud be hesistent to say smiting is a good act. Yes in the earlier versions of D&D it would count as those had very little besides black and white morality. Later versions though make it clear that killing evil beings is not always a good act nor treating all members of a race as necessarily evil. When i play good characters (which i never do anymore) i use the Book of Exalted Deeds as my bible. Canon establishes it as the final and definitive source on the nature of good and anything not in it is as far as im concerned not kosher. I would suggest reading it if one truly wishes to play a good character and not just a smiter. I see far to many so called good toons doing evil IC and justifying it by saying they are the good guys. Thats one of the reasons my character does not like good aligned characters IC, he sees them all as hypocrits and just as bad as the evil dudes.

All that aside though i think the poster's idea is a good one.

[Queen Titania]

Characters should always treat death seriously, act like that. That you respawn is purely OOC thing. The best approach is to consider the event leading to death as closed, and not return to it. Say, you were lucky, barely getting to life again. And not hold elaborate lenghty philosophy why characters never die, because it is mechanical non story aspect.

this 1000000000000000 times

I want to stress this as well. Not treating death seriously has been one factor in not raising some otherwise quality players RP bonus.

[strong yeet]

I woud be hesistent to say smiting is a good act.

"Good is not nice, polite, well mannered, prudish, self-righteous, or naïve, though good-aligned characters might be some of those things. Good is the awesome holy energy that radiates from the celestial planes and crushes evil. Good is selfless, just, hopeful, benevolent, and righteous."

Book of Exalted Deeds, page five.

[Sockss]

Why is objective good and evil so hard to comprehend?

A paladin isn't an SJW. A paladin caves in evil skulls.

[Vrass]

Yes BOED does say good fights evil im not trying to say it does not but it also stresses that good should be better then evil when dealing with others even if those people are evil themselves. Justice should be tempered with mercy and respect for life and dignity. If your character is pillaging a goblin tribe and during that trip you come across defenseless infants and decide to slay them then you are committing murder objective good and evil or no. And if that's what objective good and evil is then i want no part of it nor does my character.

At anyrate enough on this debate... the point of the post was for good and evil deeds gaining piety for paladins and blackguards. I think such is a great idea.

[Hinty]

I never said that Good should never kill evil, or that killing evil was an evil act.

My message was merely that Good does not use violence as the first response. With the exception of evil outsiders (because they are beings of pure evil, there is no redeeming them) a Paladin should aways give the bad guys a chance to surender. Paladins do not get smite because it is their job to obliterate evil without exception. They get smite because there are times when evil does not relent.

[flower]

Goblins, gnolls and alike are not mostly treated like humanoids for majority of people….you folks, mix in too mch view of 21 century into the fantasy game.

[Opustus]

About the death thing: I wasn't talking about the devaluation of death as such, but about our characters being cognisant of the fact that death is rarely permanent and how it might affect their courses of action. I think there is a vast difference between the two. A paladin is trying to remove evil or counteract it. If he knows that killing the evil will not make the evil go away for good, but that more plots and acts of evil will follow despite the smiting of said evil, he might consider a different course of action. It's that simple, and I cannot conceive how it would be detrimental to anyone to RP that out. That said, it is completely fine and admirable if one decides to play her paladin as a me-smite-evil-in-the-face pally, but not everyone has to and, in my opinion, we should support a diversity of paladinhood.

Again, I want to double emphasise it, it's not your bloody job to decide for others how to roleplay their paladin right, it is the player's job. Stop being so damn judgmental and smug about having the paladin shtick right and give other people space to have their own fun.

[flower]

About the death thing: I wasn't talking about the devaluation of death as such, but about our characters being cognisant of the fact that death is rarely permanent and how it might affect their courses of action. I think there is a vast difference between the two. A paladin is trying to remove evil or counteract it. If he knows that killing the evil will not make the evil go away for good, but that more plots and acts of evil will follow despite the smiting of said evil, he might consider a different course of action. It's that simple, and I cannot conceive how it would be detrimental to anyone to RP that out. That said, it is completely fine and admirable if one decides to play her paladin as a me-smite-evil-in-the-face pally, but not everyone has to and, in my opinion, we should support a diversity of paladinhood.

Again, I want to double emphasise it, it's not your bloody job to decide for others how to roleplay their paladin right, it is the player's job. Stop being so damn judgmental and smug about having the paladin shtick right and give other people space to have their own fun.

It is not about how to play a paladin. It is about you putting in that chracters have lore noone dies permanently, which is purely mechanical thing, damaging the server and role play onto it.

[sad_zav]

HRM. My paladins always got called "False" whenever I smote deserving bad guys. I took it as a sign I was doing something right. :>

same

[Ork]

Man this certain did become a "paladins are doing it wrong" thread, didn't it? Took literally one post to really hammer that nail home. Clearly there are opposing views of what it means to be a Paladin. Can a Paladin smite first ask questions later? yes. Can a Paladin look for alternatives prior to smiting? yes. But if my SMITE doesn't fail - that's by god a good act & it would be nice if it got piety.