[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 224 KB, 868x1400, Ivy_SCIII_Concept_01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10576397 No.10576397 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

Should a paladin be able to live in a discipline-focused BDSM lifestyle without falling?

Would a paladin be able to accept a chaotic barbarian slave in a BDSM master-slave relationship without falling?

Would a paladin be able to be a slave to a chaotic barbarian in a BDSM relationship without falling?

Should paladins be able to summon angels, trumpet archons, or certain other humanoid celestials as divine mounts?

>> No.10576414

The answer to all of these:

If his/her god approves, then yes.
If his/her god does not approve, then no.
That is all.

>> No.10576418


yes to all

if it is consensual

any act of oppression over ones free will can make him fall

>> No.10576444

Depend on the God of the Paladin.

>> No.10576471

/r/ing paladin w/ redeemed succubi, drow, etc. chained up in his/her dungeon awaiting the punishment for their past misdeeds.

>> No.10576519

1. So long as you are still morally "good" andd follow the religious rights of your order.

2. Depends if the orc is willing, or being "trained" by your order.

3. Sure, Just stay good and orderly.

4. Noooo.... unless you mean a sexual mount, then perhaps.

>> No.10576545
File: 47 KB, 839x500, Alicia the insanely epic paladin.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

When in doubt, ask yourself.

What would Alicia do?

>> No.10576556

Acquire bitches

>> No.10576575


Only if it's a female paladin

>> No.10576591
File: 306 KB, 1240x1176, Way of the Paladin .png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Does a Gunslinger-Paladin sound cool or mary sue?

>> No.10576621

OP is trying too hard or is an idiot for the first 3 questions. For the 4th, no since you can't ride them.

>> No.10576624

I played masochistic "paladin-style-knight" (not D&D game). I had no problems with my order or god. Pain is just test of my faith. And I pass this test rather well.

>> No.10576627
File: 85 KB, 1137x764, Alicia's updated party of win and god.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.10576668

% guns in hands of paladins world wide.

If you are in the 5% range, YES.

>> No.10576687

Play as Vash and carry on

>> No.10576700

Vilesseth strained feebly against her chains as the robed Sisters of the Shackle led her down the stone corridor. She knew there was no breaking the cold iron bonds, but it was like scratchilng an itch. She just had to. It made it all the more fulfilling.

The succubus obediently followed her jailers as they continued on, the cold sweat of anticipation beading on her goosepimpling skin.

She had waited for this moment for days. The waiting was perhaps the hardest part. Being locked in her cell,, bound and rendered immobile, unable to do anything but wait....it was true torment. But she knew that she deserved it. She welcomed it. Her suffering was her salvation.

One of the Sisters opened the heavy iron door, and ushered the fiend into the torture chamber.

Dame Malexiel was waiting inside. The paladin was clad in her ceremonial armor, small silver plates and black leather straps, crisscrossing over her perfectly toned body, covering her most exquisite parts while hinting at so much more, and covering her head save for her proud, angelic face and a ponytail of flame-red hair.

She gently stroked the cat-o'-nine-tails she held before her, and considered the latest soul she had rescued from the clutches of damnation. "Are you prepared?" she asked, her voice ringing with an even measure of cold discipline and considerate empathy.

Vilesseth nodded silently, burning devotion in her eyes.

The Sisters dragged her to the manacles hanging from the ceiling, locked her wrists within them, and bound her arms high, binding her so that she was lifted from her feet and left hanging and helpless..

>> No.10576703
File: 67 KB, 600x495, heinkel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

reporting in

>> No.10576711

What is the best class for a Gunslinger-Paladin concept in DH?

Arbitrator/Scum/Assassin/Guardsman/something else?

>> No.10576716



>> No.10576721


As much as I love her, there's no fucking way I could call her LG if Crossfire is canon.

>> No.10576728

Arbitrator, Gunmetal City origin, Justice Not Law background.

>> No.10576778


The succubus simply hung there as the Sisters left the room. She could hear the clicking of Malexiel's boots on the stone behind her, but she could not turn herself to see her. Attempting to would have broken the rules anyway.

She waited for what must have been an hour. She kept silent the entire time, a momentary shudder of the anticipation of the first strike was all that betrayed her eagerness for what was to come.

She heard the whistle of air being displaced a fraction of a second before her back went white-hot with searing pain, and biting cold soreness the next instant, as the many tipped strands of the cat-o'-nine-tails lashed her back between her clipped wings. She cried out in agony and ecstacy, her legs jerking up and twisting against each other as another blow graced her shoulders, then her backside.

She was dripping now. Sweat only accounted for most of what now pooled on the floor underneath her, as the juices of arousal began to run down her thighs.

>> No.10576876


The cold iron tips of the lash scored into her flesh again and again. The remains of her wings twitched wildly with each strike. Her arms reflexively lifted her ever so slightly with each hit before she went limp once more. Her skin was burning all over with desire, her back was aflame with agony.

The whipping stopped, and the paladin slowly paced around the succubus, stepping before her penitent prisoner. She took Vilessieth's chin in her hand and lifted her head to look her master in the eye. A genuinely warm smile graced the holy warrior's face.

"You are doing well. Continue to suffer gladly, and you will earn your first rings this night."

The succubus smiled, her eyes tearing now not from the pain but from the joy of the boon she was to be granted. She would have cold iron driven into her now hardened nipples so long as she mastered herself. So long as she mastered her base desires....

Malexiel ran a gloved hand down the succubus' neck, carressing one breast before pinching and twisting the nipple until a piercing squeal was drawn from the fiend's lips. Her fingers continued downward, tracing the tips along her navel, down to the edge of Vilesseth's womanhood. She pulled her hand away after just barely brushing the bright, pink clitoris, glistening with the fiend's arousal.

The denial was part of the punishment. Malexia stood back for a moment, watching and waiting as the succubus shuddered with her instinctual desires.

>> No.10576894


Isn't feeding the lusts of a succubus an evil act? She's clearly into S&M, and this is hardly helping- Just making her get off. Conversion would likely be immersion in holy water, lots of prayers, the ritual severance of her wings with a silver blade, that kind of thing.

It usually ends in the subject's annhilation, but that's the point.

>> No.10576921

The whole section 13 Iscariot Lawful Evil in D&D, and Lawful Good in morally relativistic setting.

>> No.10576954


I hardly think morality can apply to Hellsing- Considering how most of the cast is AWESOME mass-murderers. The Regenerator is what paladins dream of being, however. Father Anderson is *awesome*, as is Walter.

>> No.10577005

>What is the best class for a Gunslinger-Paladin concept in DH?

Battle Sister with Wrath of the Righteous?

>> No.10577065


Then, without warning, the paladin stepped to the side to pull out a piece of equpment Vilesseth had never seen before. She knew what it was. She had simply never seen it put to use by the Sisters.

It was a "horse". The wheeled, triangular platform was lined with cold metal, etched with divine runes. Those runes glowed softly as the horse was drawn near the fiend.

Vilesseth was afraid for just a moment, afraid of failure. Afraid of letting her mistress, and herself down, of having to start over. But she steeled herself. They had been building towards this. She had to be ready for this trial.

Malexiel grasped the succubus by the throat, llifting her up just enough to slide the horse beneath her. She then let her down softly.

The fiend gasped, an aching, primal sound, as she felt the cold iron edge press into her. It set her loins aflame with pain and pleasure. Her wetness was already running down the slopes of the device when Malexiel locked her ankles in place upon it.

The paladin looked her slave in the eyes. Tears and sweat soaked her body. Her lips quivered her voice faint as she tried to stifle her moans. Malexiel kissed her softly upon the lips, to let her know that she was not alone.

"Now begins the Litany of the Edge. For twelve hours you must remain, unfulfilled and without release. You remember the prayer?"

Vilesseth nodded weakly.

"Then join me in it." It was an order, firm and unyielding.

>> No.10577072


Villeseth stuttered the first few words, but it became easier. She spoke as Malexiel spoke. The words lifting her spirit and soul so that it could become something more than what it had been. Every error in the recital earned her ten lashes upon her breasts. It helped cast her thoughts and desires in clear contrast. She had faith in Malexiel. She had faith in the woman's goddess. Now she had to find faith in herself as well.

She never came, until the hours had passed and Malexiel allowed her to climax. The orgasm was far more fulfilling, far more powerful than any she had felt in her centuries as a slave of evil.

That night, as the cold, icy pain of cold iron piercing her nipples drew cries of glorious suffering from her lips, she felt as if her spirit had been elevated further from what she had been.

The thought kept her heart and soul warm as she hung from the ceiling of her cell, wrapped from head to toe in leather straps, weights bearing prayer scrolls hanging from the rings that acknowledged her first steps towards the reward of Heaven.

>> No.10577104

And this is why I love 4th edition,

Sure why not. You got your powers because we GAVE THEM TO YOU, not because some snoopy good watched you in your bedroom and agrees with your missionary position antics.

>> No.10577105

And this is why I love 4th edition,

Sure why not. You got your powers because we GAVE THEM TO YOU, not because some snoopy good watched you in your bedroom and agrees with your missionary position antics.

>> No.10577107


Eh taming the lusts really.

Besides, redemption through destruction is no fun at all.

>> No.10577126


I don't know. There seem to be a number of 3.5 and earlier deities that would be down with the concept in different ways.

>> No.10577139

what the fuck? why does this thread even exist? if you think your character wants those things, you probably shouldn't be playing a paladin.

or d&d. most likely you're more at home playing FATAL.

>> No.10577149


This is far too romantic and palatable to be done in FATAL.

>> No.10577154


How are paladins and bondage not compatable?

>> No.10577172

if they had to ask such retarded questions, most likely they only like the beating part of BDSM and couldn't ever comprehend the actual romance between a dedicated dom and sub.

it. is. silly.

>> No.10577183

nigga, you best be trolling.

>> No.10577202


Prove where it's not compatable. Use sentences.

>> No.10577205

Whoever posted that story, just so you know

I masturbated to it.

>> No.10577222


That makes it all worthwhile.

I kind of want to write up that order of priests/paladins now......:(

Maybe there's a different set of rituals needed for different types of evil outsiders. There would certainly have to be a different set for evil mortals, just so they could survive the process.

LG goddess of justice, redemption, and punishment maybe?

>> No.10577223


I always believe a paladin is a divinely-infused warrior...But the LG only alignment doesn't quite make sense. Technically, any God, even the evil ones, could empower a champion in the same way, for various purposes- And all you need to do is 'reflavor' the abilities.

Good paladin = vs Evil
Lawful Neutral = vs Chaos
Chaotic Neutal = vs Law
Evil = vs Good

Only True Neutral deities, who don't give a shit, don't get paladins.

>> No.10577255

I can't even begin to imagine the face of a Lawful Good deity when the worshippers asks for spells to make SANCTIFIED SEX-TOYS.

This thread is not only retarded, it is an example of the reason why people think people who play D&D are freaks.

>> No.10577268


I can imagine it. It'd be a giant DO WANT face.

Or perhaps a sort of annoyed 'Why the fuck didn't i think of that" face.

>> No.10577280


Deities get horny too. Downright freaky at times.


Besides, what is it about sex and implements related to it that conflicts with law and goodness?

>> No.10577291

True Neutral gods don't just 'not give a shit', they just aren't Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic.

They can have VERY strong beliefs that just don't fall into typical alignment factors.

Ioun is an Unaligned (AKA Neutral) god. A Paladin of Ioun would be Unaligned and believe in the spread of knowledge, and want to eliminate Vecna's followers. Not because they're evil, but because they want to hoard knowledge and keep secrets.

>> No.10577294


paladins are servants of god, for one, and in most rulebooks are restricted to lawful good alignment. there is nothing lawful about taking a slave. there is nothing good about beating a person. that he/she enjoys it is not the issue. a paladin played correctly simply would not do these things, or even want to do them.

>> No.10577298


> I can't even begin to imagine the face of a Lawful Good deity when the worshippers asks for spells to make SANCTIFIED SEX-TOYS.


______________ the Iron Maiden. Cold, dominant face, but fair, just, and caring. I need a good name for her. Writing this shit up for later.

>> No.10577307


Oh wow. lern2BDSM while you're at it.

>> No.10577320


>> No.10577321

This thread makes me realize how much DnD needs a BDSM-oriented deity. Some kind of divine dominatrix.

Do either of those sex splatbooks have one of those?

>> No.10577336

4th Edition, Paladins don't have to be LG, they have to START at their deity's alignment. They can then change alignment because they already have their powers. The gods don't care enough to take them away, or just can't.

3rd Edition, you stray from LG, you lose your powers. Unless you switch to one of the other alignment Paladin options presented by everybody and their mom over the course of 3E, including Dragon Magazine, an official source.

>> No.10577355

Instead they get Druids.

>> No.10577361

So in 3E, they started with "Paladins are always LG" and slowly learned that that's dumb and changed it.

Then for 4th they made it utterly not matter at all. Kind of an over-compensation?

>> No.10577376

>nothing good about beating a person

I suppose smite evil doesnt count as beating?

>> No.10577386

It's influence from Eberron.

Churches can be corrupt. A church can't be corrupt if all of the sudden your leader is stripped of his powers because he smacked around a hooker.

You KNOW at that point that he's corrupt and you cut him from the church.

This provides the points-of-light setting with more darkness, because even your church may be corrupt.

...And because that evil Paladin is still smacking you with Radiant damage.

>> No.10577393


So would the alignment of the god determine which sex toys they'd sanctify?

>> No.10577394


True. But 'Smite Vecna's followers' is more nebulous than smite good, smite evil, and so on.

>> No.10577422

>A Paladin of Ioun would be Unaligned and believe in the spread of knowledge

So a paladin of Ioun could spread sexual knowledge, travelling from town to town, using their knowledge to improve other peoples sex lives?

>> No.10577438


Good gods tend to go for stuff like dildos and vibrating eggs.

With an Evil god, you're more likely to end up with bondage gear. Or spiked anal beads.

>> No.10577443


I like the sound of it. Something that could be cold and welcoming all at once.

It's the name of a plane already though, for us 3.5fags.

I'll probably go with a variant, keeping the general sound.....hm....


I don't think they did, amazingly enough. But yeah, the imagery works great.

>> No.10577456

currently in a pathfinder campaign, with GM's approval i've picked up a CG paladin of freedom as a cohort and a lover, but it is the GMs discretion. My CG priestess has been a victim of rape in the past, or what could be described as rape if she thought of herself in terms of a human being, and not a willing vessel to serve her goddess's divine will. that's how i play my divine caster, that's the position i'm coming from in my argument.
the whole "my gods will is for me to take a lover who enjoys being humiliated and getting beaten" thing just isn't working for me.

>> No.10577458


Nah, good gods get the bondage gear too, and spikes.

Evil gods get shit like the Pear.

Look THAT up. Now THAT is an evil-aligned tool.

>> No.10577460

Depends on your edition. 2e through 3.5/pathfinder, I would say that doing weird shit like this would not be very paladin-like.

ADHD edition allows you to do whatever, because in this day and age it is wrong to tell retards to shut the hell up and behave.

I find a church dedicating an entire sub-order to redeeming sex-crazed demons through BDSM weirder than a singular paladin's perverse sex-drives though.

>> No.10577475

>there is nothing good about feeding an orphan. that he/she enjoys it is not the issue.

>> No.10577497

>nothing lawful about taking a slave
>unless slavery is legal where you are
>which makes it part of the LAW

>> No.10577527

Good gods get things like fluffy handcuffs, vibrators, edible body spread, that sort of thing.

Neutral is standard bondage gear.

Evil is blatantly lethal torture devices.

>> No.10577564


I don't think you properly understand BDSM or any of those related activities.

It's not about 'slavery', or 'beating the shit out of someone'. It's about a relationship of trust between two consenting people, one or both of whom amy enjoy a degree of pain, gaining a significant degree of pleasure from it.

Honestly? A strict relationship of trust, with rules and boundaries imposed during the act of producing pleasure for both parties, both for their pleasure and safety? Sounds pretty Lawful Good to me.

>> No.10577581


We don't want to fucking know.

>> No.10577606

No, you don't want to know, because you'd rather be content in ignorance than be proved wrong.

>> No.10577609

I've done some googling.
Could you post an image of said "Pear"?

>> No.10577615
File: 13 KB, 320x319, 1189010864954.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

LAW comes FAR under good for a paladin. A paladin would NEVER own a slave, because slavery is EVIL.

I am so fucking tired of moronic dickweeds who thinks a paladin can do whatever the fuck he wants as long as the local laws says so. A paladin would NEVER follow an evil law, and I would make him fall faster than your fat ass mother re-entering the atmosphere if he did not start working to subvert the law and decapitate the tyrant(s) that allowed this TODAY.

Fuck. An advanced giant half-shitdragon/half-poopelemental golgotha with extra dickcheese could not taint the paladin more than your kind.

OP: Die in a fire

>> No.10577629

I'm actually curious.

>> No.10577631


Then why the flying fuck are you even participating in this thread at this point? If the subject matter offends you, hide the damn thread.
If you are otherwise opposed to factual accuracy in a discssion that requires it, and not misguided perceptions, GTFO and hide the damn thread.
If you are just being an asshole, go fuck yourself. Adults are trying to stat stuff here.

>> No.10577645

I don't have a picture, but I can describe it.

It's a pear-shaped metal object with a screw at the narrow end. The thicker end is inserted into a body cavity (mouth, anus, vagina) and the screw turned, which causes the thicker end to expand and tear open the orifice into which it has been inserted.

>> No.10577648


We understand you're in that kink. That's great. Just don't bring it into the whole mess, which gives me the image of a neckbeard jacking his cock raw to pictures of Ivy. I believe you're trolling, but the idea that you might actually believe it is so terrifying, so chilling, it makes me want to back away slowly.

I bet you think Gor is the height of fantasy fiction, too- And before you act offended, I'd like you to know that you're incredibly creepy.

>> No.10577655

>Should a paladin be able to live in a discipline-focused BDSM lifestyle without falling?
Yes. Sounds like a lawful sort of activity to me, though safewords would be obligitory to maintain the 'good' part.

>All the rest
No. That sort of close association with a chaotic character is not kosher in my games; no more so than a NE rogue slave, however willing. The only exception: they are the slave, and are actively pursuing an alignment change. And even then, its a job for a cleric, not a paladin.

Stat wise, angels are a lot tougher than standard pally mounts, so you would need to balance that. Fluff wise, I don't have a problem with summoning them, though calling them 'mounts' would probably only work if you have a BDSM religion that would have outsiders among its ranks :)

>> No.10577656

Read the >>10576591 copypasta on how to be a Paladin. The rest will be learned.

>> No.10577660

Paladins could own slaves depending on the setting. They just wouldn't treat it like shit.

Equality, while considered honorable by modern day statndards, is not a 'good' trait.

>> No.10577670

This is, of course, assuming slavery even IS evil. Voluntary slavery happened throughought history and was far from an evil thing.

>> No.10577672


Who's 'adults'? You're talking about sex toys, and giggling to yourself like a kid at a dirty joke. Last I checked, half of the posters were freaked out.

>> No.10577685

Not as bad as I imagined. It's like an extreme buttplug or ballgag.

>> No.10577686


Time to calculate anal circumference, amirite?

>> No.10577707

>I bet you think Gor is the height of fantasy fiction

Not at all. I'm a male sub, so the idea of women being inherently weak and kept as rape-slaves is disturbing and repellent in the extreme.

>> No.10577716

No, it IS as bad. It's not a sex toy, it's a medievil torture device.

>> No.10577720


First: "Slavery" hasn't been considered anywhere near evil for hundreds of years.
Second: Actual slavery, such as done by the Romans and Greeks, is absolutely nothing like the chattel slavery practiced in the American South. *That* is unequivocably evil, whereas the classical version of it was a legitimate social contract, entered into either by a destitute willing party, or as a means of debt-collection. In both cases, the "Slaves" had well defined rights and responsibilities, and for all intents and purposes teh only thign that was restricted was their prospects for advancment and political representation. They were paid, fed, housed and clothed to strict standards, by law, at their master's expense.

Third: you have absolutley no idea what you're talking about. So please, would you kindly either get some actual facts into your brain, or shut the fuck up.

>> No.10577748

Paladins are exemplar. They lead by example.
Good can be an incremental thing. In a society where brutal treatment of slave is normal, a Paladin might treat his slaves kindly, teaching them to read or reading the Bible to them and eventually freeing them after a period of service.

>> No.10577750


That makes it so much worse, and for all the wrong reasons.

>> No.10577763


ITT: Conservative, repressed assholes.

>> No.10577792

Jackson was revered by many of the African-Americans in town, both slaves and free blacks. He was instrumental in the organization in 1855 of Sunday School classes for blacks at the Presbyterian Church. His second wife, Mary Anna Jackson, taught with Jackson, as "he preferred that my labors should be given to the colored children, believing that it was more important and useful to put the strong hand of the Gospel under the ignorant African race, to lift them up."[15] The pastor, Dr. William Spottswood White, described the relationship between Jackson and his Sunday afternoon students: "In their religious instruction he succeeded wonderfully. His discipline was systematic and firm, but very kind. ... His servants reverenced and loved him, as they would have done a brother or father. ... He was emphatically the black man's friend." He addressed his students by name and they in turn referred to him affectionately as "Marse Major."[16]

>> No.10577794


Generalize much? Not all of us are perverts.

>> No.10577803


Jackson's family owned six slaves in the late 1850s. Three (Hetty, Cyrus, and George, a mother and two teenage sons) were received as a wedding present. Another, Albert, requested that Jackson purchase him and allow him to work for his freedom; he was employed as a waiter in one of the Lexington hotels and Jackson rented him to VMI. Amy also requested that Jackson purchase her from a public auction and she served the family as a cook and housekeeper. The sixth, Emma, was a four-year-old orphan with a learning disability, accepted by Jackson from an aged widow and presented to his second wife, Mary Anna, as a welcome-home gift.[17] After the American Civil War began he appears to have hired out or sold his slaves. Mary Anna Jackson, in her 1895 memoir, said, "our servants ... without the firm guidance and restraint of their master, the excitement of the times proved so demoralizing to them that he deemed it best for me to provide them with good homes among the permanent residents."[18] James Robertson wrote about Jackson's view on slavery:[19]

Jackson neither apologized for nor spoke in favor of the practice of slavery. He probably opposed the institution. Yet in his mind the Creator had sanctioned slavery, and man had no moral right to challenge its existence. The good Christian slaveholder was one who treated his servants fairly and humanely at all times.

>> No.10577814


>I bet you think Gor is the height of fantasy fiction, too

Okay, you really don't get BDSM at all.

Seriously, most members of the subculture will tell you that Goreans are doing it wrong.

>> No.10577847


Correct. However, there appear to be some in this thread who appear to be willfully ignorant as to the actualities of what goes on in such relationships, to the detriment of this thread. Therefore, it is prudent to attempt to correct their misinformation, and to call them out on their shit.

Besides which, this is 4chan. A significant degree of perversion is part and parcel of the whole experience.

>> No.10577854
File: 27 KB, 350x443, richard-boone-western.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

> Gunslinger
> Paladin
> Have Gun, Will Travel

>> No.10577856
File: 1.32 MB, 1932x2576, Muzeum_Ziemi_Lubuskiej_-_Muzeum_Tortur_-_Gruszka.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


The bottom end goes in the vagina/anus while closed.

That's a picture of it when it's open.

>> No.10577863

ITT: People confusing BDSM "slavery" with actual slavery.

>> No.10577881


I never really liked that word. I like getting tied up, I don't have season tickets to the conventions or anything.

>> No.10577895


It's the same guy saying all the pro-BDSM. Y'all being trolled, guys.

>> No.10577909


Actaully, it looks like three guys to me. But still.

>> No.10577918


Which is a legitimate but understandable error, considering the lengths BDSM lifestylers can and will go to blur that distinction.

>> No.10577924

Fuck it. The Iron Maiden is getting a full write-up by this weekend at least. Submitting the Bondage domain list and such for critique when it's done.

It's going to be serious, as respectful of the subculture this outsider can manage, so tell me if I'm doing anything wrong. (writefag author for the fic above here, as well. If anything doesn't mesh, let me know please)

>> No.10577934

People keep making "cultures" out of sexual fetishes. It's pretty dumb, but then again, humans are just jerks.

>> No.10577937


More accurately, it's the extremists who get publicized and end up being all vocal about it, while the sane and safe onesend up copping all the negative flak alongside them.

>> No.10577938


For current lack of a better word, at least. You know...

>> No.10577948


There's totally nothing wrong with that.
At the same time, there really IS a sort of subculture here, united by its fondness for activities that are shocking if not horrifying to most of the population.

I went to my first convention last winter. Really, I'd never had any interest in the 'scene' or 'culture' before that, but you just can't help but enjoy being around people who 'get it'.

>> No.10577951


The answer to all of those questions is yes...

if they happen to be a paladin of a goddess of BDSM

>> No.10577963


I, along with it-looks-like-three-other-guys, eagerly await your results.

>> No.10577966



wait, a domain based on bondage? why not one for furfags and pedophiles, too?

ITT: book of erotic fantasy shit.

>> No.10577978


I don't think many people survived the experience. Definitely a tool of evil.

>> No.10577984

I'm not sure what an iron maiden has to do with BDSM. I am only familiar with the casket full of spikes that was used to kill people. If there is a BDSM prop with the same name I am not familiar with it...

>> No.10577989

>Paladins lead by example
>Good can be an incremental thing

>Jackson was nice to his slaves
>Completely ignored the fact that Jackson was a genocidal maniac when it came to American Indians, and disobeyed the Supreme Court so he could go murder some more

>> No.10577999


Because one is healthy, one is LOLWUT, and one is deviancy.

>> No.10578001


Because you're making false associations, being utterly hyperbolic, and furfags and pedos have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Are you quite finished?

>> No.10578009


Thinking about this- D&D is where 'good' and evil can be defined clearly. Won't a paladin be a great- But boring- sexual partner, who prefers vanilla sex, committs to a serious relationship, and calls back? Because that kind of goes in hand with it, right? S&M is for the evil guys- Spikes and so on.

>> No.10578013


I believe it was the name of the story. Strict, armoured paladin dominatrix redeemer = Iron maiden.

>> No.10578014

You just go back to stewing in your butthurt, kid.

Yea, it sounds really quite interesting. I'm playing WoD and Rogue Trader at the moment so unfortunately I don't think I'll be getting a chance to test one out for a while, though.

>> No.10578021

>Completely ignored the fact that Jackson was a genocidal maniac when it came to Orcs, and disobeyed the Supreme Court so he could go murder some more.
Sounds right to me.

>> No.10578030


Okay, guy above does have a point, even so; Would there be a domain for each possible kink? Let's say homosexuality- As an alternate lifestyle. Would there a domain related to it?

>> No.10578031


But that has nothing to do with the traditional alignment definitions. It's a preconception, just like all those people who read things into the Paladin's code of conduct that are not, and never have been there.

>> No.10578036

...You honestly think sexual kinks between two consenting adults can be labeled as 'evil'? Even in a morally objective universe like DnD, that's just farcical.

>> No.10578042


Only if your running D&D according to the mores of the Saturday morning cartoon.

Hell, Forgotten Realms is vanilla D&D and shit be kinky as fuck up in that place.

>> No.10578046

Paladins aren't perfect. They do what they THINK is right. Even if we think they're wrong.

>> No.10578051


I once saw a hentai pic of an iron maiden which, instead of spikes, had a bunch of vibrators on the inside. That'd be pretty expensive, though.

>> No.10578055


Show me the rule that says I can't be LG and not be allowed to wear black spiked armour with the images of skulls emblazoned on it.

>> No.10578060


Hey, if anyone can come up with a domain for reacharounds, I'd love to see it.

>> No.10578067

I wouldn't class Homosexuality as a 'kink' or a 'lifestyle'. It's just a part of who you are, like Hetrosexuality, and particular fetishes or lifestyles are then added atop of that.

>> No.10578071


All the "Bigby's magic hand" spells are domain spells.

Domain power is "mage hand" at will.

>> No.10578077

Well, there are spells that can leave you tied up and blind, and there isn't one that makes you gay.

Well, Mind Rape.

>> No.10578083


That would turn you to jelly.

>> No.10578084

You can be homosexual and not a part of the homosexual subculture.

The domain would cover the subculture. Which has a variety of it's own subcultures...

>> No.10578089


A psion could probably make you gay with his mindrapery.

>> No.10578098


It's just the title name of the goddess, named for the imagery more than any relation to the device.

I hope to have something up at about midnight tonight. Can't promise though.

>> No.10578102


It does give a whole new meaning to the phrase "go climb a wall of dicks", however.

>> No.10578107

Iron Maiden is a well known tool of medieval torture.

Her title should be more akin to "The Leather Lady" or "The Lady in Leather" or something.

>> No.10578139

It was also the nickname (well, it was the Iron Lady, but only because she was far too old to be a Maiden) given to Margaret Thatcher, an old British Prime Minister. I think that's more where the name is being drawn for.

>> No.10578150


It's also heavy metal. Does that necesarially invalidate it being the name of a goddess who happens to be the patron of bards, screaming, pyrotechnics and black leather pants?

>> No.10578178

I support that Goddess.

...Primarily because she got totally wasted and can't stand on her own.

>> No.10578181


It seems more apt as some kind of initiation rite to become a paladin in this case doesn't it? Also, those paladins would probably end up being said as having a buttplug up their ass (as opposed to a stick).


Perhaps "The Leather Bound Lady"?

>> No.10578206

I think I actually prefer The Iron Maiden. I think it sounds a bit more serious, like a genuine deity.

>> No.10578222


Perhaps "The Iron maiden who is bound liberally in tight leather and has her fancy tickled by telling naughty boys that they are, in fact, very naughty boys"?

>> No.10578237

I like it

>> No.10578292


It's a bit long winded though, isn't it?

>> No.10578336


More long-winded than any of Pelor/Hieroneous/whoever's ad-nauseam titles and decorations?
That can be her full name, whereas common usage is simply "The Iron Maiden". Done.

>> No.10578393

Pelor, The Burning Hate


>> No.10578412


> It seems more apt as some kind of initiation rite to become a paladin in this case doesn't it? Also, those paladins would probably end up being said as having a buttplug up their ass (as opposed to a stick).

Fuck, I'm stealing this for the write-up with your blessings, whether you give them or not. :D

>> No.10578482


Speak for yourself.

I consider myself a staunch kink-advocate and enjoy talking about this sort of thing on forums, but BDSM in D&D (as you're imagining it) is REALLY stupid.

For one thing, BDSM today is about using the cruel power imbalances of our past as a model for relationships. It only works BECAUSE real slavery is something we have no experience with- we've just always been told that it's bad, so it tickles our naughty-bone in a safe and (often) healthy way. The OTHER reason it works, I firmly believe, is because it satisfies a deeply human need for lordship and/or servitude which in modern western society is otherwise marginalized or outright repressed.

Try to stick that shit into an ACTUAL quasi-medieval culture and you'll find that this 'subculture' has no conceivable reason to exist. Its like trying to introduce a shonen otaku subculture to feudal Japan.

If (for whatever reason) you want a BDSM-themed D&D game, you want a game with ACTUAL slavers and whippings and forced erotic servitude. But your "BDSM paladin" hinges on the idea that there isn't any real slavery or real abuse- that it's all in fun (which is a recursive pretense- pretending to pretend).

>> No.10578488

There's some doujin that has a girl climbing a wall of dildos...

>> No.10578505

It's probably going to be simply The Iron Maiden for short. It ties into her origins, and her self-inflicted suffering. It's not a literal iron maiden of course, but it runs with the theme.

Quick short, simple, incomplete alignment sample breakdown:

LG followers of the Iron Maiden recognize the importance of strict rules and trust. They often work to guide others towards a healthy balance of their lusts and proper order. Their pursuits are as much a ongoing test and exercise of will and responsibility as it is for pleasure.

LN follwers of the Iron Maiden recognize the improtance of strict guidelines to live by. The goddess' path offers stability and order, and seduces others towards a less chaotic, dangerous way of life and love.

NG followers of the Iron Maiden are understanding and accepting, recognizing that not all are comfortable with their heart's desires. They seek to guide these souls, helping them find peace with their urges while guiding them along a safe path.

>> No.10578514

What if your D&D setting abolished slavery in the past? This Goddess, who used to be the Goddess of slavery, found her worship going from slavers, to evil demihumans, to people reliving the old culture through sexualized ritual?

>> No.10578524


I remember that. That was the end of the obstacle course, I think. What was that called again?

>> No.10578534

I wish I knew. Could take that and turn it into the indoctrination ritual.

>> No.10578588


You mean a setting where enslavement and/or forced sex is not a frightening and immediate reality to the commonfolk?

In other words, no knolls, no drow, no orcs, no mind flayers, no beholders, no aboleth, no nongood fey, no demons, no...

>> No.10578693


>>10578588 again,
For what it's worth, the idea of a 'kink goddess' who used to be an actual slave-goddess is actually pretty cool.

The thing is, D&D is already riddled with BDSM/gothic trappings, and what you're trying to do is remove all of them somehow (which would make it barely D&D), then introduce them again in a more watered-down form (which would be less hot/kinky than if you just hadn't removed them in the first place), all so that you can play out modern conventions based on ancient ideas in an ancient context.

Why would you do this? So that you can pretend to be someone good who is pretending to be someone naughty, instead of just pretending to be someone naughty?

>> No.10578709

>In other words, no knolls, no drow, no orcs, no mind flayers, no beholders, no aboleth, no nongood fey, no demons, no...

Gnolls, first off. Also, Gnolls and Orcs would likely be kept at bay by the nation's military - Both are races with civilizations, and common people generally have little interaction with them.

Drow, Mind Flayers, Beholders, and Aboleth, are all Underdark races. The Underdark is DEEP underground - Common people will go their entire life never even seeing one of these, many probably never even HEARING about them.

Demons have more important things to do than enslave common people, and non-good Fae are like ghost stories - Sure, they may be real, but mostly just scary children's stories.

>> No.10578735

>kinky slaves and BDSM
>goddess of sexy times

Helotry of Xiombarg anyone?

>> No.10578739

If this issue ever comes up in your games, you seriously need to get out of the basement.

>> No.10578757


Steal away! I know I'd join an order of paladins that required you to wear a buttplug most of the time, those things are oddly exciting once they're in you...

>> No.10578775

Most D&D games never touch on slavery except in a "This evil race has slaves. This evil nation has slaves." sort of function.

Most D&D games never touch on this. If they do, it's usually because a player says "How much does one cost?" typically about five seconds before the Paladin says "I draw my hammer."

Having a Goddess that used to be a god of slavery who is now a god of BDSM isn't removing, altering, and replacing - It's altering and explaining.

You know, the same thing most campaign settings do with every god they have.

>> No.10578808


So you're imagining a utopian retreat in the setting, where the horrors we're still discussing DO still exist, but they're so far removed from memory and this particular populace is so decadent that they might as well not.
(Yes, I'm aware of the modern-western-culture parallels there, but if the rest of this world is anything like standard D&D then the contrast is far more dramatic than modern Somalia or South America).

The real question, then, is what in the fuck are the adventurers doing there? Not only is there less adventure here than in the rest of the setting, there's also less kink.

>> No.10578834


Most PCs don't really dwell on slavery because most games aren't about kink. But it's still there. You're still removing it, and replacing it with something less kinky.

>> No.10578854

No, I'm talking about the Points of Light assumption - Your standard cities are the light - There is darkness out there, but things are light here.

Adventurers go out into the darkness, while common folk stay in the light.

>> No.10578870

Slavery isn't a kink in most games. If it's present in a non-sexual game, it's economic rather than sexual. Thus, ignored.

>> No.10578898


Perhaps I don't understand the 'points of light' premise very well. I was under the impression that this was about a setting with points of relative security surrounded by relative anarchy, and the actions of the PCs and similar forces of good were important in maintaining said security.

In other words, the PCs go off to fight gnolls, and when they come back to town they find a populace who are scared of gnolls. Because if the PCs had LOSt against the gnolls the gnolls might have kept going and sacked the city.

>> No.10578929


That's exactly what I meant, yea. They don't dwell on slavery as something glamorized or sexualized.

>> No.10578987

You are clearly unimaginative.
Consider the following:

The shifting of alignments includes the training of the to-be-redeemed to redirect, control, and sublimate their vices/sins/failings.
In the case of the succubus, due to being 'made of evil' and 'sex incarnate', part of the punishment involves the punishment of the lusts and the destructive impulses that accompany.
While BDSM may grant pleasure, in the case of the succubus, it still brings a focusing pain that provides an alternate means of honing her attention on the lessons of the deity in question; it is corporal punishment on a more intimate, directed scale, and if the deity allows for the application of just, restrained physical punishment, then it is still appropriate.
Once the application of cold iron, per the contributing writer's speculations, has occurred, this provides a constant, physical reminder of the restraint and disciplined needed to cast off her base nature and earn her redemption. While the constant pain functions as a reminder of her lust for punishment, it is also a conditioning to turn those sinful and destructive tendencies upon her self, with the additional catalyst of serving as a recursive sort of physical chastisement.
In time, the separation of the pleasure from pain is taught, and of good pleasure from bad pleasure, with many potential sources of good pleasure being such things as learning, helping others, and even putting the needs of others above one's self in a purely selfless manner.

>> No.10578992


Actually dudes, I need to bail. Sorry if it sounded like I was trying to ruin your fun; I'm actually just super-interested in this sort of thing (and the varying approaches to it) because I've been working on a few kinky fantasy/scifi stories to pitch to various smutty e-book publishers.

>> No.10579017

>>10578987 continued

Were I a betting man, I could see this succubus, with her piercings and her strength of lusts perhaps never being fully tamed, but turned instead entirely into a driving motivation and force behind her conversion, ending up looking like one of those 'death seeker' Sister-types from 40K, naked save for cold iron piercings, and strips of prayer scrolls of linen, either with new wings or retaining the scars of the originals, and being very...'emphatic'...about her service, enjoying it in ways that to the uninformed eye might be inappropriate, but because she's focusing so heavily on being dutiful, and because she's become entirely devoted in her redemption, she at least has the self control to know that she cannot indulge, and she would only accept a reward if her 'handlers' grant it.

>> No.10579024

Most settings don't have airships or spellscars or whatever, either. It's a change to the setting, yes. Settings are different. Those differences are what make them unique.

The addition of a god of sexualized slavery, not a big deal.

And if people want to play in an erotic D&D game, that god wouldn't be out of place in their setting.

Today, in the modern era, there is slavery going on. It is a horrible thing, repugnant, and terrible.

And people still get off on erotically playing it out.

>> No.10579142

Love to see a Book of Erotic Fantasy type supplement come out for 4th Edition. Even if it's just a free PDF type of thing.

>> No.10579150


Slavery is still going on and still horrible in the modern world, but it's very far removed from modern western culture. Going to somalia and meeting a real sex slave would absolutely ruin the average kinkster's day.

The problem isn't the existence of sexualized slaver, it's sexualized slaver that's not directly associated with evil. Hell, even in the real/modern world- as different as it is from anything quasi-medieval- I STILL don't think that BDSM would exist if there were actual alignments.

BDSM happened because people rejected society's morality completely, and were drawn to a thing because it seemed "bad" (which they found sexy), then explored it fully and found that it wasn't harmful to anyone if practiced safely, and are now striving to re-introduce it to the rest of society as a healthy and morally faultless behavior.

That kind of ethical pirouette simply wouldn't happen in a world where good and evil were black and white.

>> No.10579244

Respectfully, I disagree, though not completely - I think it's true, that genuine sexual slavery would be an abhorrent thing outside of a BDSM context, but I think that there would be those who would want to toy with the notion without succumbing fully to evil and without it being a full-on Slippery Slope. I believe it would, more aptly, be something done by a suitably irreverent deity of physicality or hedonism, with the very notion being seen as utterly infuriating and offensive to true deities of slavery, who see those who 'play' with the themes therein as effete poseurs.

Also, it would mean that servitors of such offended deities would hold a special place for dealing with those who 'play with things they truly don't appreciate or comprehend'.

>> No.10579255

Error found!
>if there were actual alignments.
There aren't actual alignments in D&D, either. The alignments are an abstraction so that WE can see what a creatures general leanings are. A Chaotic Evil anarchist rapist might still see a Lawful Evil pedophile and murderer as a monster - Just because they're both evil doesn't mean they're the same depth of evil.

It's a gray scale with 9 / 5 categories covering LARGE areas of the scale, not a black-and-white issue.

For example, in 3rd Edition, a Succubus who repents and becomes Lawful Good still carries the Evil subtype and a Paladin can Smite Evil her all day long.

However, just earlier that day, she was giving food to orphans and donating to the poor and curing the ill.

D&D alignment isn't very black and white AT ALL, and if you treat it as if it is, you're not following the spirit of the system.

>> No.10579305

Imagine the lawful good deity of BDSM who absolutely hates non-consenting slavery. His/Her Paladins seek to destroy true slavery, while practicing consenting sexual slavery in their 'off-time'.

>> No.10579317


You keep saying that. I'm not quite sure you know what it means.

Anyway, this has been a fascinating thread so far, please continue to talk, even if the christfag keeps trashing you.

>> No.10579348

>There aren't actual alignments in D&D, either. The alignments are an abstraction so that WE can see what a creatures general leanings are. A Chaotic Evil anarchist rapist might still see a Lawful Evil pedophile and murderer as a monster - Just because they're both evil doesn't mean they're the same depth of evil.

The existence of alignment exemplars and entire planes of existence devoted to alignments seems to refute that. There quite literally are beings of pure Law in existence, for example. That's not to say that the ordinary person carries an internal banner in their head saying "I'm Lawful Evil" and doesn't have their own moral code or qualms, but alignment itself is objective.

>> No.10579382

There are also beings of pure fire, water, light, etc in the setting.

Just because things are dedicated to a concept mean that the concept is locked into a single form.

After all, I've never see someone play a Lawful Earth character, or a Light Water character.

>> No.10579389

I buy a slave.

Is that an evil act?

>> No.10579396

Are you kidding? ALL Dorfs are Lawful Earth.

>> No.10579432
File: 19 KB, 139x174, Derro_-_Brom.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

We would like words with you.

>> No.10579455

You're no dwarf lad. Best be movin' yer arse outta here.

>> No.10579491


That must confuse the hell out of the slavers.

>> No.10579494


Without refuting anything that you've just said (and, in fact, heartily congratulating you for realizing that alignments aren't a straight-jacket), I'm going to tell you that it is actually a bit more complicated than that.

Alignment is a passive label. It doesn't directly affect how people act. However, it is a passive label *which the people in the game world know about and have access to*, which means it must have a TREMENDOUS indirect effect.

In the real world, countercultures must reject conventional morality, and they keep their chins up by remembering that conventional morality isn't based on anything. In D&D, that's not true. Yes, human beings are still human beings, that's true. But it's also true that alignments are real cosmic forces, and humans (being humans) are going to be greatly influenced by this fact.

In a world where demons enslave people and angels liberate those slaves, the sorts of people who become obsessed with slavery are not going to be Good people. It might even be true that you CAN live a faux-slave/domsub/BDSM relationship in this world and still be Good-aligned, but how would people discover this?

>> No.10579503
File: 248 KB, 1000x674, Duergar_Abduction_by_BenWootten.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

But we count, right?

Lawful Earth!

>> No.10579512
File: 98 KB, 1000x1000, Daemonette 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.10579515

how the fuck has this thread not attracted out resident bdsm slut?

>> No.10579524

>Should a paladin be able to live in a discipline-focused BDSM lifestyle without falling?
As long as such perversity isn't against his faith.
>Would a paladin be able to accept a chaotic barbarian slave in a BDSM master-slave relationship without falling?
Uhhh...I doubt it.
>Would a paladin be able to be a slave to a chaotic barbarian in a BDSM relationship without falling?
I don't think so.
>Should paladins be able to summon angels, trumpet archons, or certain other humanoid celestials as divine mounts?

>> No.10579557

I imagine many of them when X culture that practices legal slavery finds that hey, we aren't all evil!

And then they realize that hey, buying a slave doesn't make me evil. Heck, even capturing slaves only seems to have a tendency to make people neutral.

>> No.10579578

Don't make me repost the Ivy mask comic.

>> No.10579586

That's because they're not normally combinations* - what does it mean to be Lawful Earth, anyway?. A LN Earth Elemental? Earth isn't an alignment. In the D&D/Planescape cosmology (admittedly, 2E/3E; no idea about later), you have beings of pure alignment (and of pure element/energy), and they are literally composed of the essence of the alignment. Daemons/Yugoloths are personifications of pure Neutral Evil, for example. They're not just dedicated to the alignment, they're actual physical instantiations and they draw their power directly from their alignment; that's basically the point of them.

Additionally, your point about there being beings of pure fire etc. in the setting doesn't advance your argument, as they are objective things that have instantiating entities.

*There are the archomentals which are normally described as specific, iconic Evil and Good aligned elementals, but I don't believe they're supposed to represent a being composed of the alignment, merely a heavily alignment-influenced elemental.

>> No.10579592

because she's off getting a cock rammed up her ass or something

>> No.10579597


This guy actually has a good point; that "ethical pirouette" CAN happen, it just takes longer and requires a grander scale.

An entire nation turns to evil practices, accepts slavery, etc, etc. Generations later, countercultural forces within that nation realize that they can be good- can even become righteous clerics and paladins- without abandoning all of their nation's traditions.

>> No.10579619

>Should a paladin be able to live in a discipline-focused BDSM lifestyle without falling?
Should be possible.
>Would a paladin be able to accept a chaotic barbarian slave in a BDSM master-slave relationship without falling?
Depends on the deity. Possible with most of them, but some really hate chaos.
>Would a paladin be able to be a slave to a chaotic barbarian in a BDSM relationship without falling?
Depends on the deity. Possible with most of them, but some really hate chaos.
>Should paladins be able to summon angels, trumpet archons, or certain other humanoid celestials as divine mounts?
Probably not, as they don't have the ability to carry the paladin's weight.

>> No.10579626


That's what this Iron Maiden chick is starting to sound like.

>> No.10579647

That's the point. How can you make a distinction between alignment and elements, when they follow the same trends?

They all have planes dedicated to them, they all have beings formed of them, and they're easily detectable via magic.

Alignment in the world is still not solid. Like I said, a Succubus will ALWAYS detect as evil. A True Neutral cleric of a Neutral Evil god throws off their God's aura, and will detect under Evil but not be smiteable.

Even in the world, they know that it's not 100% reliable - Thus, not black and white.

>> No.10579652


>In a world where demons enslave people and angels liberate those slaves, the sorts of people who become obsessed with slavery are not going to be Good people. It might even be true that you CAN live a faux-slave/domsub/BDSM relationship in this world and still be Good-aligned, but how would people discover this?

Angels that share the kink let mortals know, "Hey, it's okay. Just follow certain rules..."

>> No.10579654

I'd picture that the distinction between slavery and BSDM-slavery would be better be expressed as the distinction between forced slavery and voluntary indentured servitude with far less restriction of what the servant can be subjected to in their time of service.

>> No.10579659


Are you discussing 4e? The paladin's deity doesn't matter in 3e or AD&D. Paladins can be atheists.

In 3e, a paladin can only accept minions and cohorts who are lawful good. This doesn't mean that they can't have super-kinky relationships with chaotic barbarians, though...

Actually, this raises some interesting questions about paladins in the military. Can a paladin not lead a unit of conscripts with neutrals in it? I presume that those conscripts are ACTUALLY serving the nation, not the paladin in any private sense, and that the rule wouldn't actually imply unless we were talking about some private militia or mercenary band.

>> No.10579674

I've been saying that sort of thing the whole time. Evil populace loses their evil edge, drifts into neutral, drifts into good, still realizes that several of their customs aren't morally repugnant if preformed with consent.

Thus, a God who shifts alignment following her worshipers, instead of worshipers shifting to follow their god.

>> No.10579682
File: 61 KB, 480x300, iron_maiden_logo_eddie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.10579698


I don't think you understand what 'black and white' means in this context.

A creature is always, always, ALWAYS either "Good", "Neutral", or "Evil". That makes alignments real, objective, and black-and-white. No buts, no arguments, that's that. There are countless complications which can be piled atop that, but they don't change the fact that a creature's personal alignment can only be one of the three.

>> No.10579717


Don't forget the necessity of laying out restrictions and boundries between the slave/master. The master should be absolutely forbidden to go past what the slave is comfortable with, according to this religion.

>> No.10579721

>Are you discussing 4e? The paladin's deity doesn't matter in 3e or AD&D. Paladins can be atheists.

As fervent crusaders in their chosen cause, paladins must choose a deity. Paladins choose a specific faith to serve, as well as an alignment. You must choose an alignment identical to the alignment of your patron deity; a paladin of a good deity must be good, a paladin of a lawful good deity must be lawful good, and a paladin of an unaligned deity must be unaligned. Evil and chaotic evil paladins do exist in the world, but they are almost always villains, not player characters.
Paladins are not granted their powers directly by their deity, but instead through various rites performed when they first become paladins. Most of these rites involve days of prayer, vigils, tests and trials, and ritual purification followed by a knighting ceremony, but each faith has its own methods. This ceremony of investiture gives a paladin the ability to wield divine powers. Once initiated, the paladin is a paladin forevermore. How justly, honorably, or compassionately the paladin wields those powers from that day forward is up to him, and paladins who stray too far from the tenets of their faith are punished by other members of the faithful.

(From the DDI Compendium)

4E Paladins MUST have a Deity, they MUST match their Deity's alignment when they first gain the class.

They can then change after that, lose faith, whatever.

But to BECOME a Paladin, you once believed in, worshiped, and followed a god's alignment.

>> No.10579730

A Lawful Good Succubus will detect as Lawful, Good, and Evil.

Have fun figuring out why this person is Lawful Goodevil.

>> No.10579742

I have to admit, I have no clue what you're trying to say. There is a being composed of pure evil, and that there are spells which can objectively tell you what some thing's alignment is (not just what you think of their values, their objective alignment) and you think that's evidence for this:
>There aren't actual alignments in D&D, either. The alignments are an abstraction so that WE can see what a creatures general leanings are.

Sorry, not following. There clearly are actual alignments inside the world, and they clearly are something beyond merely an abstraction to help us understand what's going on when meta-gaming.

That a being can change its alignment has no bearing on whether alignment actually exists in D&D. The alignment is reliable, and the spells are reliable for what they check for - the presence of Evil, which the Succubus is composed of. Just because the Succubus isn't mentally Evil has no bearing on alignment existing.

>> No.10579777

I kind of see these guys steering away or rescueing people from illicit sex trades towards more socially responsible, legal avenues.

Like say they would be more than willing to bust up a brothel that ran on forced prostitution, but they would be accepting of something like willing temple prostitutes, or just "clubs" as they would exist in whatever setting you're dealing with.

They could be people that kind of weird your more conventional good churches out, but they undeniably do good work.

>> No.10579811

The Succubus isn't Lawful Goodevil. The Succubus is Lawful Good, but is physically composed of Evil energies, which is why detect spells pick up on it. This is loosely analogous to how an elemental is composed: a fire elemental is composed of pure fire, but as it is sentient, it has a mentality that's potentially tangential to its composition. Hell, it works for people to. Humans in D&d are composed of stuff (probably a combination of all elements and a certain amount of positive/negative energy depending on how young/old/ill/healthy we are), and the alignment is something aside from that composition.

>> No.10579821


She isn't Lawful EvilGood, she's Lawful Good. You just said that she's Lawful Good, in the very post which I am now quoting. It was the first thing you said about her. Which is why I refuse to believe that you don't understand this.

She will always detect as evil, just like a wand of Protection from Good will always detect as evil. Your confusion seems to stem from the fact that there is an overlap between material alignments and personal alignments (i.e, the same spell that detects evil people also detects evil things, and some people who are good/evil/neutral people are ALSO good/evil things too). I would try to clarify it for you, but frankly, I'm not sure how to make it any simpler than it already is.

>> No.10579834


I use the Sanctified template to get through that headache, although leaving it provides some nice ideas for some games.

"No, I'm really good! Seriously! See! Orphan saving?"


"Alright so I have a vag full of vile hate. WE ALL HAVE OUR BAGGAGE."

>> No.10579840

Alignment, as well as the spells created to detect alignment, were created for player and DM guides. Sure, you cast Detect Evil, and that guy is evil. You can smite him, but just because he lusts for other people's wives and holds back from acting on it doesn't make smiting him a good act - It's evil, because he's done nothing wrong.

When you Detect Evil on that LG Succubus, she detects as evil. Even if she's a Cleric of a LG god. She'll detect as evil no matter what, thanks to having that evil subtype.

Just because something is one alignment, doesn't mean it won't appear to be others, or such things.

Alignment isn't locked, it's flexible and can be deceived. Just like having a Strength 16, it's a stat to serve as a guide and a game mechanic.

>> No.10579847

As a completely separate note, I'm somewhat amused that there's someone else arguing along the same lines as me with a remarkably similar writing style.

>> No.10579884

I could see such a deity being emphatically supportive of the protection of voluntary prostitutes, with Qedeshot from Testament among her mortal servitors. Then again, I could see this through the Pathfinder lens of some 'working girl' having gone inexplicably through the Star Stone test, and now has all of her servitors effectively linked to her, so that that the temple prostitutes literally serve as physical communion with the deity.

And while she doesn't expect to be satisfied, those who succeed gain her boon. She actually enjoys the release and loss of control of others.

...which has nothing to do with the BDSM deity concept, unless we look at alliances between the Whore Goddess and the Iron Maiden...

>> No.10579891

>Angels that share the kink let mortals know, "Hey, it's okay. Just follow certain rules..."
That sounds like an awareness mascot or something, like Smoky the bear or McGruff the crime dog.

Only instead of, "take a bite out of crime!" its', "stay safe, sane, and 'sentual!"

We could call her/him/it Kinky the safety angel, and it would be a stylized cartoon seraph with a collar and a great big smile. The leash is held by someone just outside the image.

I think this could catch on.

>> No.10579906

If you had a "Detect Alignment" spell, and you cast it on her, it would return "Lawful, Good, Evil"

If you cast Detect Good, she'd show as Good. Detect evil, she shows as Evil.

Heck, cast Detect Neutrality, and it's the first one she doesn't show up under, really confusing things.

People in the D&D world would know that this is magic, it can be tricked, it can be wrong, it's not 100% correct all the time. It's also showing them how a person is INSIDE, not outside. A person who acts nice but is evil inside will show as evil, even if they've never committed an evil act and only done good things - Because they're still evil at heart, but put on a good show.

Detect Alignment is sketchy at best, if you think about it for more than a couple minutes.

>> No.10579921


>> No.10579933

I have a hard time seeing how Smite Evil can be in itself an Evil act. Maybe if the intentions are evil, perhaps, but that's really going into weird places...

Again, the material composition has nothing necessary to do with alignment's existence, or of the alignment of the composed. Just because it may detect in a peculiar way doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Hell, in order to detect it has to exist in some form, and existing as a weird non-actual generalisation of someone's personality would be a very odd way for a divination spell to act. Also, if it wasn't actual and objective, a detect spell should return different results relative to who uses the spell and their personal alignment.

As for the strength thing, I think you're too hung up on the names and descriptions we have, and are conflating the name for a thing with the thing itself. People probably don't go around calling themselves Lawful Good, just as they don't say they have 16 Strength, but that doesn't mean they aren't actual properties of things. Yes, to an extent, the *name* "Lawful Good" is a pure abstraction and probably doesn't exist in the D&D, but the thing it describes (Lawful Good) does.

>> No.10579958


>That sounds like an awareness mascot or something, like Smoky the bear or McGruff the crime dog.



>> No.10579993

I kind of like this goddess having a strong alliance with a good god/dess of marriage.

It doesn't have to be an easy relationship between them, just a relationship.

Here's a tough one though. Torture is generally seen as an evil act by a lot of folks. Of course the torture involved with these people wouldn't really be torture, in that sense. But would they have a different outlook on actual torture than most good folks? More open to it, or might they actually be even more disgusted by it as a mockery and abuse of one of their goddess' gifts?

>> No.10580013

Right. Alignment doesn't exist in the game universe. It's a game mechanic.

A Cleric who casts "Detect Good" isn't getting a return of "Good. Good. Good. Blank. Good. Blank. Blank." They're getting returns of glowy auras which they have taken to signify that this creature, item, or magical effect has an essence which we have discovered through years upon years upon years of research to be common among people of a generally good people.

It's NOT black and white, it's VERY gray scale. Like how a Cleric's aura of whatever grows stronger as they gain levels. Cleric A isn't necessarily more good than Cleric B, he's just more infused with energy which they've taken to be generally good.

>> No.10580015

No to the first three. Not for any moral reasons, but because Erofaggotry like this is not welcome at the table.

Also a fetish is not a lifestyle. If you've taken it to the point of being one, get a fucking life.

>> No.10580021
File: 448 KB, 1200x870, 1275624591750.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

(misplaced my SUMMON THE PORN.jpg)

>> No.10580024

Smite Evil isn't an evil act. The act of attacking a good creature without reason is the evil act. Detect Evil isn't evidence.

>> No.10580078


The Goofus and Gallant of sexual kink safety?

>> No.10580080

The aura getting stronger has nothing to do with... anything? Cleric A's aura is the same type as B, and that's the significant part.

If it's an evil creature, the smite evil won't work. If it's an evil creature, it's not a good creature, so it doesn't fall under "attacking a good creature without reason". Detect Evil is evidence, because that's what it's for. It's not infallible evidence due to the availability of ways to fool it, but it is still pretty good. Doing such a thing wouldn't necessarily be Evil, just fairly stupid, and probably morally neutral unless there are other factors involved.

>> No.10580089


As much as I hate to say it...no, it kinda is. You don't get an evil aliment for no reason.

If you were just the not give a fuck type, you'd be neutral, not evil.

>> No.10580108

One of the two always, ALWAYS takes things 'too far'.

One does bondage with silk scarves. The other whips out the belts, shackles, and chains.

One requests their partner announce their release; the other makes them beg for it.

One plays up obedient subservience - the other plays up being a 'difficult' submissive.

>> No.10580121


I hate to say it but this has potential educational value.

>> No.10580122

LG Succubus is both Good and Evil. Just because she's made of evil energy doesn't mean she's not a Good creature.

LG Succubus is in the middle of town, talking to commoners. Paladin walks up, detects evil because he's cautious - Succubus shows up as evil The Paladin doesn't have at-will Detect Good, so he rolls with it, runs through the crowd shouting "I'll save you!" and smites the LG Succubus who was trying to convince the commoners to donate what food they could to the local orphanage.

That, to me, sounds like an evil act. He attacked needlessly, without evidence, because of some magic that didn't work properly.

His powers would null out, and he'd have to repent.

...Which isn't that hard, and might just be a small donation made to the church.

>> No.10580140

A Lawful Good Succubus has the Evil subtype still, and will always detect as Evil even though she's Lawful Good. She doesn't have the Evil alignment. She's a very good person, in fact. Her race, however, is tainted and reflects as so under proper magical screening.

She'll also detect as Good, however.

>> No.10580155

If you're a paladin and you just go around DETETAN AN SMITAN then you are failing it hard.

Step 1 is always, ALWAYS, "find out what the fuck is going on". NO EXCEPTIONS. Talk first, shoot questioners later.

>> No.10580163

It sounds like a Good act, actually; Neutral at worst. Just stupid. Paladin was clearly trying to save someone, and took reasonable precaution (a) it's a Succubus and (b) detect evil. He didn't take enough evidence and acted like a bit of a moron, but he clearly wasn't doing anything deliberately cruel, nor was he being obviously Evil.

>> No.10580168


That is...debatable. Due to it being what she's fucking MADE of, her evil-bits might over-ride the good parts, for detecting, at least.

>> No.10580169

Even presented with a demoness and a group of helpless commonfolk?

That sounds like a pretty damn dangerous situation to me.

>> No.10580177
File: 21 KB, 300x498, 177536-fall_from_grace_large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.10580178

He attacked a good creature who was doing good things with other good people.

If he had attacked a human, it would be an evil act.

No matter what the race of the GOOD person doing GOOD things is, it's EVIL to attack it just because you THINK it might be evil.

>> No.10580182

In true morality, Evil requires one to be fully aware that what one is doing is WRONG AND BAD and do it anyway. People who do what they BELIEVE is honestly the RIGHT THING TO DO are not evil, just incredibly misguided.

D&D works on objective morality. Randomly attacking someone just because you THINK they MAY be "evil" is bad. Very very bad. Especially when you're sworn not only to be a nice person, but to UPHOLD THE MOTHERFUCKING LAW.

>> No.10580195


I'm 178, not 182, btw.

>> No.10580219

Of course you're not me. I'm me.

>> No.10580264

You forgot the intent. Intent matters an awful lot in any moral system, but I personally thing that D&D involves intent a great deal. His intent was to save people from an evil being, he was justified in believing that was doing and he wasn't performing inherently evil acts to do so (i.e. he wasn't torturing babies under some mistaken belief). If he attacked a human who was believed by all and sundry to be one of the most evil people in existence and capable and likely to kill or steal the souls of anyone nearby after having used detect evil as well just to be sure, that wouldn't be an evil act. That description doesn't even scratch the surface of the Evil a Succubus is capable of. It's perfectly reasonable for the Paladin to think that the Succubus is a threat and act accordingly.

>> No.10580279

Serve the public trust
Protect the innocent
Never arrest or harm a senior member of SF Darkhorse Bondage Club

>> No.10580290

If intent matters, alignment isn't a black-and-white system. If intent doesn't matter, that Paladin just preformed an evil act.

The situation is meant to show the flaws of the Alignment system when you bring it in-universe, vs. the effects of just assuming that the alignment system is flexible and gray, and a player/DM aid rather than an in character lock.

>> No.10580345

Regardless of intent, the paladin murdered a good person/creature/thing with only circumstantial evidence

That might not be enough to get god-booted out of his paladin gig, but that's enough to be put in a back office doing paperwork while his less foolhardy coworkers go killing dragons and rescuing princesses and engaging in kinky bdsm sex with princesses and/or dragons.

He's totally never going to get promoted, either.

>> No.10580356

That doesn't follow at all. Intent matters, but is not the be-all and end-all. You're assuming some false dilemma where either only intent matters in actions or intent doesn't matter at all.

If a devil saves someone's life so that he is able to force them into a Faustian deal and cause untold suffering, the saving isn't a good act, even if it might have been under other circumstances. Equally, if a person is intending to bring world peace and love but that requires torturing an entire alternate world, the intent doesn't prevent it from being an evil act.

Also, killing is not an Evil act in and of itself in D&D anyway, it's Neutral, as evidenced by pretty much all societies, Good alignment exemplars, literature on Good in D&D splatbooks, and by the fact that it would make self-defence evil as well. If killing is itself neutral, but some acts of killing are clearly not, then it must then come down to intent and surrounding circumstances to cast alignment leanings upon it.

>> No.10580374

Circumstantial evidence such as it being 99.999(lots)% likely that the being was incredibly dangerous and evil? That doesn't sound all that circumstantial. And again, even if it was circumstantial, even if it was, that makes it a stupid action, not an Evil one.

>> No.10580393

If intent matters, alignment is not black and white.

Attacking a GOOD creature is an EVIL act.

Is attacking a GOOD creature for a GOOD reason an EVIL act?

Is casting an EVIL spell for a GOOD reason an EVIL act?

Because by the rules, casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is an Evil act, even if you cast it to save a life. No matter what. Intent doesn't matter. (By the rules.)

>> No.10580403

That's... not very good. Your standards for "real" morality would disqualify Hitler from being evil, among many others. In fact, it'd take away almost everyone except people who actually thought of themselves as being evil, and almost no one does.

Attacking to subdue wouldn't have been evil. Killing was. The paladin falls.

>> No.10580410

Look. This is very simple to understand so please pay attention.

Paladin Detects Evil.
Paladin smites nearest thing that looks vaguely "evilish".
Paladin is a fucking douchewhore cockmuncher.

What this Paladin is doing, in real-world terms as much as I can parallel (I suck at this btw), is he is using his awesome ESP powers to figure out that somewhere in a crowd there is a terrorist, and then attacking the most "terrorist-looking" person without warning, provocation or anything beyond a fucking hunch.

>> No.10580412

Stupidity quite often leads to evil. Not bothering to think about something isn't an excuse to hurt people.

>> No.10580444

The Paladin can focus and get the direct "THIS GUY HERE IS EVIL HOLY FUCK" level of Detect Evil.

To use the example, he's using his ESP powers to see the Terrorist as a Terrorist, but it turns out that he's actually an Ex-Terrorist who's now helping our government fight terrorists, and who may have never actually done any terrorist acts even. He was just born into it.

>> No.10580467

I'm pretty sure it says in one or two books that just killing anyone who registers as evil is itself evil.

>> No.10580470

I know it does, and I'm sorry, but really when you think about it, it's true. You can call Hitler "evil" by OUR standards, by OUR morality, but our morality is subjective.

I'm not saying he wasn't a horrible fucking selfish douchebag who wanted to slaughter millions for ridiculous reasons. Then again, many people throughout history have similarly caused massive loss of life protecting what they thought was worth protecting. Look at the Crusades. Look at just about any time war happens, in fact.

You can't, objectively, call him "Evil". You can call him cruel, selfish, arrogant, self-obsessed, power hungry and the most massive fucking assburger in all of history. But he wasn't "Evil". Killing people in the pursuit of a goal you believe in isn't evil, it's just probably WRONG.

Killing innocent people JUST because you want to, and for no other reason? Now THAT is evil.

>> No.10580485

>If intent matters, alignment is not black and white.
Why? Give me an argument for that, rather than repeating.

>Attacking a GOOD creature is an EVIL act.
If you don't know it's a Good creature and you have every reason to think it's not, I really don't see how that follows. Attacking any other thing is a Neutral act unless shaded by other factors. If I attack the Good creature in self-defence, is that Evil? If so, how does that even make sense?

>Is attacking a GOOD creature for a GOOD reason an EVIL act?
Depends on the reasons and other situations.

>Is casting an EVIL spell for a GOOD reason an EVIL act?
A spell with an [Evil] subtype is an Evil act. It may, however, be easily redeemable due to what it accomplishes, but that depends on the act. Some Evil acts cannot result in ends more Good than the act was Evil.

Intent doesn't matter in this case because the act is definably evil, i.e. it's defined that no matter other circumstances, it's evil. Similar actions would be making a soul into an exemplar outsider of <alignment>, which would always be <alignment>. Most actions and probably almost all mundane actions taken by most beings almost certainly don't fall under that category. It's the surrounding circumstances that make it Good, Evil, Chaotic or Lawful.

>> No.10580536

Your intent is to save the commoners.

Your action is to attack the Succubus.

The Succubus is a Lawful Good Cleric of Pelor who is trying to save orphans by collecting money to put into buying them food.

This, objectively, is an evil act.

If intent matters, it's not an evil act.

If intent matters, the alignment system isn't objective.

If it's not objective, it's not black and white.

>> No.10580602

>Attacking to subdue wouldn't have been evil. Killing was. The paladin falls.
I must admit that I'm at a bit of a loss. I've almost never seen arguments by those claiming that killing in D&D is necessarily evil, as it just so clearly goes against most of the literature involved. Hell, killing an evil aligned evil exemplar outsider (like a Devil) results in a net loss in Evil in the multiverse, and that's just one example.

Also, I'm getting lost in this argument what the Paladin is supposed to be killing. If we're still talking about the Succubus, claiming that the Paladin should be trying to subdue it is ludicrous (as described above regarding probabilities etc.). If it's a human, then it's dubious, and really depends on a variety of factors such as the reasoning the Paladin had and so on.

Again, killing is just neutral.

>> No.10580604

Actually, attacking another being for no reason other than your own desire to is evil. Attacking one for your own survival would be neutral, and doing so in defense of another might be good. That said, there's a difference between attacking and killing; you could attack the succubus in defense of others, but killing her would be going too far.

>> No.10580633

Slaying a dangerous demon is going to far?

I'm pretty sure most churches would be against that line of thought.

>> No.10580637

Here you go, a LG angel delivering love and peace in a....unique manner.


>> No.10580641

As I just said, killing for no reason other than desire is, in fact, evil. Killing has to be justified by another's survival to not be evil.
And yes, you should attack to subdue here. If nothing else, living evil creatures answer questions better than dead ones if you capture one, and then there's the possibility of redeeming them.

>> No.10580653

>dangerous demon
Demon, yes, dangerous no. As the example has clearly shown.

>> No.10580684

Why is it objectively evil? Again, an argument please. All you've done is repeat. Why is objectively evil, and why if there is intent is there no objective evil? If the intent can be objectively judged (which in D&D it presumably can given the existence of the Outer Planes and a cosmological system for sorting people by alignment), then there's no issue, surely?

>Actually, attacking another being for no reason other than your own desire to is evil.
Never said it wasn't.

>That said, there's a difference between attacking and killing; you could attack the succubus in defense of others, but killing her would be going too far.
Why would it be going too far? The Succubus is almost certainly too dangerous to be left alive and is almost certainly evil. By "almost certainly", I don't mean to suggest that there's reasonable doubt - there's no good reason to think it's not evil or not dangerous, but anything is possible. That anything is possible is not good enough reason on its own to think that it is, hence why it's justifiable to act in this manner.

(Note: I'm sidestepping issues regarding whether the Succubus could actually be killed outside of the Abyss, as it's not really relevant.)

>> No.10580687

A Succubus, good or not, is VERY dangerous.

Especially to commoners.

>> No.10580696

You sir do not get to define what evil is and isn't. Evil is subjective to moral and social custom of whoever is using it.

>> No.10580724

Attacking a good person doing good things with other good people is evil.

If the Succubus were instead an elf, there would be no argument here.

>> No.10580732

A succubus is POTENTIALLY dangerous.

So is anyone carrying a gun.

>> No.10580743

The example has shown that it's not dangerous, but hasn't shown that there isn't good reason for any sane person to think it's not dangerous.

As an addendum, subduing would be more Good than killing, but that doesn't mean that killing is Evil. Plus, not all people are capable of meaningfully subduing the Succubus. Unless you're a very powerful Paladin, subduing a Succubus and preventing it from harming anyone is really dangerous and it'd be reckless to do anything other than going for the kill. If you were really powerful, then you still might be wary that you wouldn't be able to contain it indefinitely and prevent it from causing harm. Also, you would have little good reason to think you could redeeming it unless you were Epic, as they are alignment exemplars. Alignment exemplars who have left their alignment are exceedingly, ridiculously, amazingly rare.

>> No.10580747


You just abandoned the context of the argument. You may not be aware of this, perhaps having jumped in from the front page, but we are discussing Dungeons and Dragons.

>> No.10580796

This is why I'm talking about in-game definitions only.

Because of their power?

It's a mixture. Intent alone can't keep you from being evil. Basically, you would have had to believe, via a fair amount of evidence, that this particular succubus was about to destroy the entire town and there was absolutely no time for questioning, and something that large would take a heck of a lot of evidence. Intent is really only supposed to be used to excuse evil actions that are performed completely by accident; i.e. shouting to your comrade in the middle of a battle, and starting an avalanche that engulfs four villages.

>> No.10580797

False analogy. A Succubus is potentially dangerous in the way that someone [carrying a gun, well trained in using the gun, with a history of killing untold people with the gun, a tendency to kill people with a gun without notice if you don't stop the person, is composed of some kind of force that makes it infinitesimally that anything could or would make the person not have that tendency, and there's no good reason to think that anything has changed] is dangerous.

A fiend isn't like a normal person, and that's kind of the point.

>> No.10580805

Back in Planescape, the question of redemption (i.e, whether trying to redeem all fiends is better than destroying them) was a major and divisive issue among celestials. Literally an eons-old debate which was still raging.

However, note that this is a division concerning the best WAY to be good, not a division concerning what's good and what isn't. Killing a succubus and trying to redeem a succubus are both Good acts by the strictest and most straightforward interpretations of 3e RAW.

(Unless the succubus's personal alignment isn't evil, in which case killing her is a bad thing, but also an honest mistake. Please keep in mind that risen fiends are a once-in-a-billion-zillion-lifetimes thing).

>> No.10580814

A demon openly standing in the middle of town is a pretty good reason to assume that she's already taken over their minds.

>> No.10580822

*infinitesimally unlikely

>> No.10580836

As for the part about how anything is possible: that's why you subdue the thing to be on the safe side. If it's impossible and they're trying to kill you (if they're good-aligned, I think they'll be trying to escape your blows and frantically explaining the situation), you can kill them.
Come to think of it, this is why paladins should also be able to use Detect Good at will.

>> No.10580846

Pretty much everything the PCs do is a one in a billion thing.

Which also means that if your Paladin loses their powers as part of attacking the Succubus, your DM has plans for you to go on a quest to regain your powers.

>> No.10580853

i'm sure there are plenty of cases where detect X doesn't work out.

>> No.10580858

A mistake, but a mistake that good have been avoided. Saying "durr, didn't know" doesn't really let you off the hook. Not enough to remove you from paladinhood forever, but you should atone for it at the very least.

>> No.10580869

A powerful succubus for a good god who gets attacked in the street with a bunch of commoners around... Will probably try and take you down to prevent you from hurting other innocent people.

However, defending yourself isn't going to be an evil act, and likely she'll just control your mind instead of kill you.

>> No.10580886

Actually, you wouldn't be defending yourself, you'd be attacking her; that defense doesn't really work.

>> No.10580895

By "defending yourself" I really meant "the succubus defending herself".

Pardon the confusion.

>> No.10580918

>If intent matters, the alignment system isn't objective.

Who gave you that idea?

"Objective morality" means that the universe judges you based on objective criteria that are not up for debate. Your intent, mood, personality, etc. can all be criteria which are used in this judgment. Keep in mind that, in the game world, this is a matter of immutable physics: the precise position of every atom and electron in your skull is open to the forces making said judgment. This is a universe where intent can be analyzed objectively.

SUBJECTIVE alignment is when "I think that this is evil, but you think it's good, and neither of us are wrong".

>> No.10580938

Could have been avoided... if what? If the Paladin had gone up and asked? That's a seriously reckless idea and pretty stupid thing for the Paladin to do, for all the reasons I described above regarding probability of danger and nature of fiends.

Attacking her with the reasonable belief that you were acting in defence of pretty much everyone around her. Self-defence or in defence of others.

As fun as this has been, I'm going to go back to my game of The Guild. Hopefully this thread will still be around later when it inevitably crashes on me again.

>> No.10580949

I THINK I'm doing a good thing.

It's not a good thing.

Objective morality smacks me, subjective morality does not.

Attacking a good creature is evil under an objective morality system, if you know it or not.

>> No.10580963

>Pretty much everything the PCs do is a one in a billion thing.

That's not a response to my argument and you know it.

If you could view the entire history of a plane, then for every one demon who claimed honestly that they had been redeemed, you would almost certainly find hundreds of cases of demons claiming falsely that they had been redeemed. And the later cases would probably be far more convincing.

Of course, if you DO want to create a world where no one kills demons and devils for fear that they might not be evil, be my guest. That's not internally inconsistent, it's just incredibly bad gamemastering.

>> No.10580986

Succubi aren't exactly the highest level of demon around. More force could have been justified if it was, say, a glabrezu, but a succubus wouldn't be much of a threat to a high-level paladin.
Also, "reasonable" doesn't quite absolve you of evil. It needs to be closer to "certain."

>> No.10581007

Oh Gygax, you insane evil bastard. LOOK. LOOK WHAT HAVE YOU DONE.

>> No.10581017


That scenario is perfectly plausible.

So is the scenario where you THINK you're doing a good thing, and it is beyond your abilities to know that the end result won't be good, so objective morality DOESN'T smack you.

It's not that thinking it's good makes it good, it's that you are being objectively judged according to intent and mindset as well as according to action. Sometimes well-intended actions will be good, sometimes they won't. The exact breakdown is dependent on the nuances of the metaphysics in question (or, more bluntly, up to your DM), but intent CAN be judged objectively.

>> No.10581034

You would think the succubus would be prepared for such situations somehow, probably not an uncommon mistake. Maybe a signed and embossed scroll from Her god himself? I imagine she is rare enough to get special treatment.

>> No.10581040

The rules don't support you, otherwise casting an [Evil] spell with good intention wouldn't be an evil act.

>> No.10581063

Likely, she would have something to signify this. However, if she still detected as evil, a Paladin would probably assume she was lying.

Paladins should really have had "Detect Alignment at will", but they figured four spells was better than one.

>> No.10581074

Intent doesn't totally cover action, and causing an action deliberately to harm a being that turns out to be good is almost always going to be evil.

>> No.10581097


We're conflating belief with intent here.

If you think it's good (belief) to stab someone else (intent) for their money (motive), you're objectively wrong. If you think it's good (belief) to bludgeon an assassin (intent) to protect your lord (motive), you're objectively right.

In both of the above cases, it may be that the person accidentally kills the person they were attacking- the ACTION then is the same in both cases. This does not mean that they are morally equivalent. The INTENT and MOTIVE matters. The BELIEF does not.

>> No.10581140

You would think the god would whip something up that would be incorruptible evidence of her faith, she is a thing of evil who abandoned her nature and willingly chose his service.

>> No.10581144


That's not true, and you haven't refuted my point. Just because some actions (particularly directly-metaphysical ones) are evil regardless of intent doesn't mean that they all are. In actual fact, the core rules constantly imply that intent or mindset matters ("She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly."; "A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him."; "He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations.", I could go on).

>> No.10581159

That's the DM's choice. We can't assume that. Just the rules.

As a DM myself, I'd say that her new god removes the evil subtype from her when she truly converts. Maybe replaces it with good, but likely just removes the Evil and lets her make her own choices from then on.

>> No.10581172


Risen fiends should switch subtypes just like fallen demons do. Beelzebub certainly doesn't have the [Good] subtype anymore (I've checked).

>> No.10581175


Er, fallen angels, I mean.

>> No.10581253

How about this: Using poison is an evil act, no matter the intent. The Book of Exalted Deeds directly states this, and provides Ravages, good versions of poisons so that good characters can use them.

Poisons are considered evil because they cause undue suffering.

This means that poisoning a demon (if they aren't immune, it's just an example, I'm not all that up on the immunities) is an evil act. Poisoning an evil god is an evil act.

Ravaging them isn't though. Even though it's the same thing, functionally.

Because the alignment system is objective, rather than subjective. Poison evil, no matter the intent.

>> No.10581296

End result of the argument: The Alignment system is broken. It claims to be one thing, then tries to do all sorts of other things it wasn't designed for.

The only real solutions to avoid the troubles are to either say "Leave it up to the DM", or "Fuck alignment."

>> No.10581480

Didn't the one other canon, non evil succubus besides Fall from Grace still ping as evil?

>> No.10581486


I made a mistake in conflating belief with intent.

If you employed poison intentionally, that's evil, no matter whether you think it's evil or not.
If you employ poison UNINTENTIONALLY (have your battleax sundered, grab the rogue's weapon from his dying grasp, don't realize that it's poisoned), that's completely different.

The example that started us off was of a paladin whose intent is to kill an irreconcilably evil being, but who unknowingly ends up killing a rare and precious risen fiend. Whether he thinks it's "good" or "evil" doesn't matter, but what he was actually trying to do DOES matter.

Now, depending on how common risen fiends are in the setting and on whether or not he had reason to suspect, the fact that he went ahead and smote her anyway (i.e. had the full intent of attacking a creature that might not be evil) might be evil after all. That's up to the DM. But intent ALWAYS matters. The concept of an 'evil accident' undermines the very foundations of human morality.

Whether MOTIVE matters is another issue altogether, and is up for debate. The alignment chapter in the core rulebooks strongly implies that it does, while the BoVD outright states that selfish motivation can recolor an otherwise-good act as neutral, but this is another area where I really feel it needs to be up to the DM (and he has to be clear with his players about how he's doing it). Suffice to say that motive CAN matter.

>> No.10581542

>End result of the argument: The Alignment system makes me judge human behavior, which hurts my poor, atrophied hippy brain.

>The only real solution is to play 4e, where alignments work in exactly the same way, but everything is relabeled to make me feel better.

>> No.10581565


I'm pretty sure you can leave it up to the DM or drop alignment without switching to 4E. In fact, I strongly suggest dropping it in 4E, as well.

You, however, are just trying to cause edition drama.

>> No.10581629

The alignment system doesn't make you judge human behavior. It says that a liquid is evil while another is good, that one magical hoo-doo is good while another is evil, and that people only act in nine or five fashions, depending on edition.

I'd rather make those calls myself, and judge if someone is good or evil based on their actions, instead of accidentally smacking a Celestial Fly and suddenly becoming evil.

>> No.10581657


Oh yea, leaving it up to the DM is exactly what you're supposed to do. That's why the PHB rules for alignment are so vague.

Some DMs can't even follow THOSE (vague) rules, however, resulting in some really wonky shit like 'paladins can't break the law' or 'dread necromancers can't donate to charity'.

"(Alignment) is not a straitjacket for restricting your character" has to be the single most overlooked rule in the PHB, and a lot of games have suffered for its absence.

>> No.10581681

Thus the stupid arguments of "The law in this country is to kill someone when you enter our borders. As a Paladin, no matter what you do, you fall."

>> No.10581748

>The alignment system doesn't make you judge human behavior.
Not true.
>It says that a liquid is evil while another is good, that one magical hoo-doo is good while another is evil
>...and that people only act in nine or five fashions, depending on edition.

Hilariously false.
Read it, fucker.

>I'd rather make those calls myself, and judge if someone is good or evil based on their actions,
That's what you're supposed to do. By the RAW. That's your job as DM.

>instead of accidentally smacking a Celestial Fly and suddenly becoming evil.

For the record, I'm the guy who is saying "there is no such thing as an evil accident". There wasn't a single incident, character, or plot printed for 3e or 3.5 (or, in my limited experience, 2e) which even vaguely implied that honest mistakes could influence your alignment. This criticism is based on the idea that "intent can't matter", which isn't actually in the rules, it's just something that some guy in this thread was arguing.

More importantly, one evil act wouldn't change your alignment anyway.
Have you actually read the DMG?

>> No.10581827


A celestial housefly would have an int score of at least 3, and would be able to talk. It wouldn't just be a good 'thing', it would be a good person.

I mean, probably not much of a conversationalist, but still pleasant enough.

>> No.10582468

This is why I've always used Alignments in the way they're implemented in FantasyCraft, even before FantasyCraft was out. It's a philosophy and belief system that can be quantified, even without necessarily being rigidly defined. It can affect and be affected by spells and effects, but intent does make a difference. And much as it may be in DragonStar, one can know alignment, but under the principles of Active Morality, one's innate nature is not admissible in court or justifiable grounds for action, harm, or violence - barring the uncovered evidence is proof of a crime verifiable through physical means.

A necromancer can use animated dead he brought from his homeland to build churches, playgrounds for children, and supply free labor to his new town of residence, and unless it is on the books that one cannot bring animated dead from another region into the town, he's only allowed to be given dirty looks for tacky tastes in professions. So long as he doesn't raise the corpses of the locals, he's in compliance with the law, though he would still be subjected to a state of persona non grata.

Then again, he just might win people over if he's not a total creepazoid; he just will have to go elsewhere to resupply his dead folk or work on other similar projects.

>> No.10582480

Also, what happened to happy BDSM action paladins?

>> No.10582983


It depends.

The sort of indentured servitude the greeks and romans practiced was often used as a punishment, means of redeeming a debt, or becoming a citizen. They often had more rights as servants than they did as peasants, and the servants composed the largest part of the middle class.

>> No.10583132

Murderous Paladin came and ruined our fun.

>> No.10583345

I'm not alone in thinking that "poison == equal" was one of the more ridiculous comments on alignment written in any D&D book ever. Many people I know completely ignore this, especially as Ravages are renamed poisons so the whole exercise is bankrupt. Of course, I'm also in the group of people who houserule lots of non-evil spells back to necromancy, and remove [evil] subtypes from negative energy effects that don't appear to have rhyme or reason. That, and stat up Good Undead/Negative Energy users and Evil Deathless/Positive Energy users.

>> No.10583407

I keep picturing such a paladin as being either a Collared Priest/Bondage Suit Nun who is all appearance, but NO FUN ALLOWED.

Though, more to the point, I picture such an individual as being more of a Pathfinder-style Inquisitor-type. A deity that has both Paladins and Inquisitors, where the Paladins are the enablers of Happy Fun Good Times, while Inquisitors are there to punish BADWRONGFUN. And the clerics are there in the background t instruct, train, and help where needed.

>> No.10583762


How is this different from core D&D? This is exactly the sort of thing I would expect to see in a bog-standard but well-run 3.0 game.

I mean, I'd expect that in MOST non-evil fantasy nations undead would be considered serious contraband, because undead are associated very strongly with evil religions. But that's an issue of setting and not of system; your necro's an arcane caster, he's beholden to no evil gods, and he can do whatever the hell he wants with his magic.

>> No.10585015


Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.