I think the essence here is the application of evil to the Order of the Black Robes. Having discussed this with some of my friends over the past few days, here's a distillation of this line of thinking.
I think the black robe represents a willingness to do evil more than evil itself. Those things often dovetail, but not with any certainty.
I mean, I'm a mayor. There's a magical critter haunting my town. I ask for help from the nearest tower, and if they send a black mage, sure, he'll be creepy, but I'm not expecting him to rob my coffers and steal my children. Assuming I'm reasonably cosmopolitan. And that may be the rub - The Orders consider themselves to be the most cosmopolitan of institutions. And it's a necessary balance. Black robes mean you may truck with devils, but you'll do so to further the interests of magic. Black means you'll take risks that others won't. A Black Robe who goes on a killing spree is probably more likely to be hunted down by his fellow Black Robes, since they don't need those sorts of headaches.
The usual response to seeing a Black Robe (or Red, for that matter, since Red is saying "I'm willign to do everything a Black Robe would do, I'm just less likely to") should usually be suspicion, but the city that bars its gates to Black Robes because "They're Evil" is marked as the city of idiots for a number of reasons.
First, the rest of the Conclave is unlikely to tolerate it, and will withdraw othe rmages. Second, the Black Order themselves can bring you a lot of pain. And third, and this is most critical, Black Robed mages wear the robes willingly. Even the most chaotic evil of mages, if they're a Black Robe, has submitted to the rule that they will wear their colors openly. And the return for that MUST be the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, all Black Robed mages become renegades, and if that happens, the whole Tower system goes straight to hell. They can't defend themselves without the Black Robes, and it will be such a large body of wizards, that trying to enforce the laws would be suicide.
Cheers,
Cam
and acknowledged that they do not have the strength or desire to resist it.
Also Wizards with simple ruthlessness about them and scientiffic desire that transcends morality will be attracted to the Black Robes.
In other words a multitude of reasons.
I'm admittedly biased playing an "honorable" Black Robe with his own code of morality but I've also played one of the mad dog killer types as well.
In addition to Raistlin, Fisty,, and Dalamar (Azalin from Ravenloft would also fit in well to the Black Robes without thinking he's a 'bad guy')
THERE ARE those who I imagine are those who'd rob your treasury and leave the entirety of the village to burn. The Conclave may not approve if it turned more people against magic but if there were no survivors....only the White Robes would want to send someone to kill you.
One objection I do have though...
[Black means you'll take risks that others won't.]
No it doesn't.
There's things Black Robes may do that Whites and Neutrals would not like try to kill Takhasis and steal her power or suck life energy out of elves for potions of immortality (and neutrals might do it under certain circumstances)
but Blacks can just as easily include cowards and people who'd take one look at the village monster say "sorry" and run.
I also take note in my campaign that only the most powerful black robe wizards necessarily "flaunt" their allegiance to evil or do not fear persecution. Quite a few simply go out in 'normal' clothes and wear Black Robes at the Tower or when conducting official business where their status as a black robe is important
It's just the field is much more developed for such
Originally posted by Cam Banks
I think the black robe represents a willingness to do evil more than evil itself. Those things often dovetail, but not with any certainty.
No, I think that just means they are smart about how they do evil. For example, they don't go fireball cottages, but they do scheme and use any means necessary to fullfill those schemes. They understand consequences. However, that's par for the course of any successful villain, whether he be a thieves guild master, a mercenary captain which the typical blackrobe may command or serve. We don't not assume that they randomly go on killing sprees because they are evil, so why do we assume it of the black robes unless we 'neutralize" them, if you'll pardon the pun?
I mean, I'm a mayor. There's a magical critter haunting my town. I ask for help from the nearest tower, and if they send a black mage, sure, he'll be creepy, but I'm not expecting him to rob my coffers and steal my children. Assuming I'm reasonably cosmopolitan.
Perhaps not, but you'll want him to leave as soon as possible. You don't want to provoke him, because anyone who is a member of the order of high sorcery is probably more powerful than anyone you have in your community. You'll be wary of doing any deals with him, and be glad to see him leave. If it becomes necessary, you'll summon a mob to deal with him.
However, maybe the black robe finds this small village appealing. The land is fertile and there are lots of strong backs and pretty girls. So you figure, this is a good place to settle... and rule. You may decide that you will use threats and intimidation to establish yourself, backed with a display of magical power. You may, being well aquainted with evil, use magical divinations to discover the evil that members of the village do and blackmail them. You may decide to do favours for people, who are wary of you at first, but find your promises too tempting to turn down.
In any case, soon the village is calling you Lord Magus, paying obscene amounts of taxes, cringing when your ruffians swagger around town. Their spiritual leader is a cleric of Hiddukel, who was summoned by you to administer to your people. The villages prettiest girls are being used to satisfy the sexual demands of demons who in turn are doing you favours.
So what is a white robe going to do when he comes through, or grows up in this village? Well, he's going to see people suffering, and he is going to act. He isn't going to say "Well shucks, this is his territory, and he is a brother mage". No, the battle is on.
Now, assassination isn't in the white robes' nature, though they will kill a black robe in the heat of battle. So unless the black robe does something overtly stupid (which may in his arrogance) then the white robes hands are tied. So the white robe has to work deconstructing his power base, and putting some steel back in the spines of the villagers. When he drives me away (if he hasn't killed or hung me) he has an enemy. I hate him for what he has done, he hates me for the same.
So yeah, things are awkward when we to the conclave together.
Cheers,
Cam
Why wouldn't a crafty, guileful white robe attempt to assassinate a powerful black robe if the possibility and need arose?
It would only seem intelligent to use subterfuge and "underhanded" techniques that would present, in the end, the least risk and possibility of injury. A full out battle, with blazing fireballs and crackling lightning bolts- that very well might arise between two wizards under these circumstances (such as during the WotL)- would hurt anyone nearby. Including innocents.
Logically a white robe would want to avoid such a situation.
So, I pose my question again- Why wouldn't a white robe resort to assassination?
That's why the Legion of Steel exists in Contrast to the Knights of Solamnia.
Why wouldn't they (assuming we're both talking about the WoHS)? They are not bound by a code of honor or moralistic behavior, save the dictates of the Moon Gods. And to my knowledge, assassination isn't covered in the laws of High Sorcery.
While assassination isn't outlawed by the White Robes or probably Solinari, it does suggest a certain moral ambiguity which is out of keeping with a White Robe. Premeditated murder, what ever the situation, is generally considered an Evil act - killing in self defence, or the defence of others, on the other hand is sometimes necessary.
Arranging an assassination - for whatever reason - is definately premeditated murder, the White Robe just doesn't "pull the trigger" personally.
To comment on the difference between the Legion of Steel and Knights of Solamnia, the Legion has a degree of moral ambiguity that the Knights lack, they are not bound by a code of honour and are not necessarily "good" individuals.
Just my two cents.
Let's say Micah Longbeard, a White Robe, comes to the aforementioned small town.
He sees the suffering of the people in the hands of the Black Robe. What does Mr. Longbeard do?
He checks with his superiors whether or not the Black Robe's actions would brand him a renegade. If yes, he confronts the Black Robe (possibly with the backing of some renegade hunters from the Conclave). If not, he confronts the Black Robe in an attempt to bring said evil wizard to justice and to free the people of the town.
But!
Micah Longbeard, a White Robe, comes to the aforementioned small town.
All is in order, the people seem happy, everything is fine, nothing is ruined. Then he sees the Black Robe. What does Mr. Longbeard NOT do.
Confront the Black Robe and say something like "Dude, black be your robes, so thou art my enemy indeed. Have at thee!" He has absolutely no reason whatsoever to act against the Black Robe.
Just as the Elves favor stealthy, I might say guerilla tactics, the Solamnics favor "honorable" straightforward, standard medieval tactics on the battlefield (save the use of dragons, of course). Neither show any inclination toward evil.
So, a white robe who chooses to use assassination to get rid of a black robe, instead of an outright battle (with the potential to hurt many nearby innocents), is no different from an elf or Steel Legionairre who chooses to attack his enemy from the cover of shadows, trees, shrubs, etc.
And I don't think a comparison to premeditated murder is very fair. I was using the clausal statement if there was a need, I wasn't speaking of in any situation. So, if the need was because of a war, such as if the White Robes had decided they wanted to rid themselves of one of the black robes helping to create draconians during the War of the Lance, I don't see how that would be murder. Rather, it's a fair move, and a good tactic, to use during a war.
Originally posted by The White Sorcerer
Confront the Black Robe and say something like "Dude, black be your robes, so thou art my enemy indeed. Have at thee!" He has absolutely no reason whatsoever to act against the Black Robe.
And this is assuming the Black Robe's superiors in the Order don't get to him first.
Conclave Black Robe: "What are you doing?"
Black Robe Tyrant: "...taking over this town of future laborers and harem members?"
Conclave Black Robe: "No you're not. We've had our agents and connections in this town for the past fifty years, you idiot. You come along and take it over, and not only do the wizards get blamed for taking over another town and look bad, especially us, but you toss all of our evil plans of networking and resource management out the window."
Black Robe: "...but these women are so pliable..."
Conclave Black Robe: "Get your mind out of the gutter. If you want minions, go round up some goblins and terrorize Lemish, or something. Quietly."
Cheers,
Cam
Declaring war on all Black Robes may be an open invitation to haing the Black Robes unit and kill you and maybe have neutral help
But White Robes do not necessarily feel that there is any reason to preserve Black Robe wizard's lives
Ditto for White Robes from black
They *MAY* show politeness and save their lives in armies they work for, which is a good way to improve your reputation
But I doubt its mandated.
Originally posted by Shadowalk Nimblefeet
And I don't think a comparison to premeditated murder is very fair. I was using the clausal statement if there was a need, I wasn't speaking of in any situation. So, if the need was because of a war, such as if the White Robes had decided they wanted to rid themselves of one of the black robes helping to create draconians during the War of the Lance, I don't see how that would be murder. Rather, it's a fair move, and a good tactic, to use during a war.
Yes, but the response is "if there was a need". If there is such a "need" to rid the town/world of the black robe is he going to head off to the closest major city, track down an assassin, pay that assassin to attempt to kill the black robe - which seems pretty thought out, ie. premeditated - or is he going to personally attempt to kill the black robe immediately & try to minimise casualties while doing so - there are plenty of attack spells which do not affect multiple targets after all eg. Magic Missile, Melf's Acid Arrow, Scorching Ray etc.
The danger to the townsfolk that you posited in the earlier example (the Black Robe taking over the town) is working on the assumption that both mages flail around with fireballs etc. If the assassin fails to kill the black robe do you think that he (or she) would fail to respond with overwhelming magical force just because the assassin isn't a mage? I somehow doubt it. So in hiring an assassin all the White Robe has done is send in an assassin with no ability to counter the Black Robe's magic - a White Robe can at least counterspell!
As for using an assassin during a war - yes, that potentially is a "fair" move, although again I'd argue that using an assassin (who is probably more inclined to side with the Black Robe anyway) is an EVIL act (not just chaotic as you suggest). By defination a White Robe is inherently a Good Person (ie. has an alignment containing Good) and in D&D terms wouldn't commit and evil act - or at least if being played according to alignment shouldn't. In the D&D worlds "ends do not justify the means" (for more information on this you should check the Book of Exalted Deeds).
While I could see a Red Robe or a Black Robe doing this I'm afraid I just can't see a White Robe doing it, chaotic or otherwise - at the very least it is sending another person into danger - and I'm pretty sure that in the situation you described above the White Robe would want to be sure that the situation was taken care of personally rather than entrust it to a paid assassin.
People can and often do commit acts against their alignments. They are just violations of what people "know is right". Lord Soth was Chaotic Evil but he in the "tales" novels still protected that girl, a very good act.
If the White Robe was a coward he could send an assassin to kill the Black Robe
A knight of solamnia could stab a man in the back
It wouldn't change their alignment if motivated well (it doesn't justify the mean but it DOES mitigate)
Oh boo hoo really on the poor Black RObe
Originally posted by Shadowalk Nimblefeet
Yet, it seems as though you are assuming that all white-robes are lawful good- which is reinforced with the example of the Knights of Solamnia vs. the Legion of Steel. It is not so much an ambiguity on the axis of good and evil, but one on the axis of law and chaos.
Just as the Elves favor stealthy, I might say guerilla tactics, the Solamnics favor "honorable" straightforward, standard medieval tactics on the battlefield (save the use of dragons, of course). Neither show any inclination toward evil.
So, a white robe who chooses to use assassination to get rid of a black robe, instead of an outright battle (with the potential to hurt many nearby innocents), is no different from an elf or Steel Legionairre who chooses to attack his enemy from the cover of shadows, trees, shrubs, etc.
Just as using the 'Knight of Solamnia vs. Legion of Steel' example might be flawed would be the 'elves vs. Solamnic' example. There is a difference between an 'honorable act' and an 'act of good'. While I am not disagreeing that a White Robe might feel that having a Black Robe assassinated is a necessary act, it does not change the fact that it would be an 'evil act' in itself. While he might feel no shame nor regret to his actions, he is bound to a god that holds certain ethical boundaries that would. The stain on his soul would be there, even if he psychologically blocked it out. If the person was capable of hiring such people to carry out his own work was of the White Robes, then either the Test was flawed and didn't reveal the person's true character, or the White has become too jaded, tainted, or swayed by the world around them and needs to rethink his wardrobe selection. The Knights of Solamnia have become more accepting of the White Robes, but I would put money on it, that if they learned that a White Robe had a particularly villainous Black Robe assassinated and saved dozens of innocent lives in the process, the Knights would still disapprove of the hiring of an assassin and consider it 'dishonorable'.
And I don't think a comparison to premeditated murder is very fair. I was using the clausal statement if there was a need, I wasn't speaking of in any situation. So, if the need was because of a war, such as if the White Robes had decided they wanted to rid themselves of one of the black robes helping to create draconians during the War of the Lance, I don't see how that would be murder. Rather, it's a fair move, and a good tactic, to use during a war.
There are three differences in the Robes other than a mere color choice. The first is the fields of magic that they choose to study. The second is the deity that they are tied to. The third is the one that is far more personal. It is a set of tenents in which that person lives. Certain lines of ethics are drawn. Exclude the concept of morality. Morality is deteremined by others. Ethics are what sets individuals apart. If the person is capable of plotting the premeditated murder of another for whatever reason, that crosses most of those lines. Almost every single person is brought to those "character building moments" where we see the lines that we drawn and a goal on the other side. It is those moments when we decide whether to step over those lines or find another way, that are the exception, not the rule. Sure a White Robe might have a Black Robe murdered. It is an evil act. Either he feels no guilt and isn't suited for the White; or he does, and he has to attone for it - both to society (if it is known) and to himself (which usually reverts to society). Just because someone does one thing that would be evil, it doesn't make them 'evil', just as capable of it as everyone else.
Correlanthias
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
Alignments arn't geas,
People can and often do commit acts against their alignments. They are just violations of what people "know is right". Lord Soth was Chaotic Evil but he in the "tales" novels still protected that girl, a very good act.
If the White Robe was a coward he could send an assassin to kill the Black Robe
A knight of solamnia could stab a man in the back
It wouldn't change their alignment if motivated well (it doesn't justify the mean but it DOES mitigate)
Oh boo hoo really on the poor Black RObe
I agree that Alignments are not a geas (personally I tend to DM them with a lot of latitude), however as Correlanthias said, a White Robed WoHS is bound to a "Good" diety and therefore is also bound to a certain ethos - or he is no longer a White Robe.
While a White Robe may consider an assassination, he knows that it is wrong and that his diety would not approve as it goes against the general ethos laid down by his diety (ie. promote magic, good magic in particular, and secondly "good" in general). He may wish to organise such an act, but as a member of the White Robes he wouldn't - as it is wrong and he knows it.
If he did, actively arranging the assassination of the Black Robe - which IMO is an EVIL act - rather than confronting the Black Robe directly or perhaps trying to find some other way of dealing with the problem, he would (in my campaign) probably shift his alignment towards neutrality at the very least - the reason being that he has deliberatly chosen to go against the ethos that is one of the basic underpinings of his order - and the diety that order is dedicated to.
While I may not immediately shift his alignment, I would certainly remove Solinari's influence on his magic and if he didn't find some very major way to atone I would continue to have his magic effected as Solinari attempts to reign in his wayward child, or until the Wizard decides to switch to a different Order that better suits his ethical and moral outlook - or is cast out as a Renegade.
Nothing rankles a DM more than a player character being a coward. It frankly puts the adventure in the hands of the DM to resolve a storyline if a player effectively "hires an adventurer" to do what a player is supposed to do.
The problem is unfortunately "hiring an assassin" is exactly what player characters are told to do all the time in every day shape or form essentially.
If the players are summoned by Lord Gunther and told to go forth and slay Raistlin Majere for X crimes against humanity. Two things are going to happen....1. They are going to die and so is Gunther 2. They are going to set out to do so because he's a pestilance on the land.
This will include a paladin as well if they are numbered in the group.
Did Saint George lose his paladin status when he went out to slay the Dragon? The Dragon in AD&D certainly is deserving of every rights an powerful foe is.
But its not the case because in AD&D killing is a neutral act. One might even argue that AD&D is Biblical in morality. Murder is strictly differentiated from Killing.
Yes, hiring an 'assassin' is an evil act.
Sending forth a party to 'go forth and slay the dreaded wizard Tim is not.
What is the difference?
I could summarize the points but in AD&D it would probably be cowardice on the Mage's part, it would be defying Fate (the DM), it would be enriching an evil individual (an assassin), it would be helping a evil trade flourish....
Aside from the fact it screws up an adventure should the White Robe send forth a paladin to do it, he's not doing anything wrong either.
I'm forgiving of good because I want good not to be 'perfect'. The Kingpriest in my mind kept his lawful good alignment because in my games he walked the edge of ignorance (All Ogres are absolutely evil with no chance of redemption) and sparking things beyond his control (murder of neutral races)
Derek Crownguard who nearly derailed Sturm, King Lorac, Denubis, the list goes on and on of individuals who don't exactly reak of being shining vessels of glory but were well intentioned individuals who screwed up because of fatal flaws
Let's look at Crysannia as a player character
* Is in a party with a Black Robe Wizard-check
* Participating in pointless war against two 'good nations' for plunder-check (you too Camaron!)
* Plotting to usurp natural order of being-check
The very questions in this thread were brought up in "Tales of the Reign of Ishtar" (I believe) when a Knight of Solamnia confronted a minotaur.
What if the White Robe was a 3rd level wizard and the other person in town was Fisty's apprentice Halsiform the Nasty 23rd level evil bad guy and the assassin was Sir Tim the Supreme Chemoshian 25th level Assassin who only works for massive amounts of money
If the White Robe set out to destroy both of them, used his wits to set them against each other, helped minimize the damage, and destroyed the survivor....I would probably say. "Good game and oh what a clever white robe you are"
The End doesn't justify the Means but sometimes someones going to get hurt and you're going to end up messing someone over somehow.
It's the Ogre's Choice
Kill a Little Girl who just happens to have Takhasis's soul in her about to emerge
or
Let Takhasis come in and kill everyone
The white robe kills the little girl, according to certain morality structures....needs to go black. Is it warranted? No because life sometimes sucks and you need to choose between evils.
Camaron didn't until the very end and he's still good.
I also want to point out I run the Gods of Magic and Towers of High Sorcery very specifically.
Suffice to say the Gods of Magic NEVER remove your wizardry unless you are a disgrace to it and not promoting magic. Raistlin was promoting magic and even if he would destroy Paladine he was still promoting it (either that or he got his own supply of it at that point)
Solanari may dissaprove but magic is sturdier than clerical magic. f done for a good reason (i.e. he was just too scary) its sad but if the end result was for the good....the gods are forgiving/verrrrry long before they judge you in Krynn. Even if the DM is not.
He has the Order of the White Robes to handle his punishments Sol does...and like it or not its political in nature. The current head of the White Robes might say "Anything that promotes good magic is alright with us but red mages and black mages can kiss our posterior's hems. Promote good"
These White Mages teach magic to good people, work with Knights, and as far as everyone is concerned under his leadership are effectively at war with the Black Robes/stay out of the way Red Robes or get useful
Another White Robe leader might emerge who wishes to promote magic above all things. He insists Mages work to save other mages, not fight if necessary, and submit judgements to the Conclave on all behavior before taking action
They are wizards first, heroes second
Both are good.
Summarized if they are still heroic despite their one evil act, I can't say its justified keeping them black robes or red.
I mean what *IS* the point of forcing an alignment change if after hiring the assassin they are the next adventure rescuing puppies?
I mean it devalues the game to make a yoyo effect
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
actually I've always stated that any wizard that wants to kill another wizard can do so without reprisal outside of the Towers of Wayearth.
Declaring war on all Black Robes may be an open invitation to haing the Black Robes unit and kill you and maybe have neutral help
But White Robes do not necessarily feel that there is any reason to preserve Black Robe wizard's lives
Ditto for White Robes from black
They *MAY* show politeness and save their lives in armies they work for, which is a good way to improve your reputation
But I doubt its mandated.
I strongly disagree with this. Wizards of all Robes have an oath to preserve magic and help it prosper. This means you don't go about killing fellow wizards without reason. While declaring that you have a war against the black robes is probably not justification enough to brand you a renegade, it is certainly going to be met with a lot of frowns and concerned/wary/hateful looks from members of the white/red/black robes. If you started going around and killing off Black Robes, for no other reason than that they had black robes, you would be branded a renegade, and probably end up dead. As it is said: "All members are brothers within his order, and each order is a brother within the tower" (roughly...I don't remember it entirely). Declaring a war against *one* Black Robe or even a very particular group is fine. When you declare war against *all* Black Robes, then you are taking the position that this Order of Magic shouldn't be there, and that is against the principles of the WoHS. You've effectively declared war against the WoHS, and if an outsider started killing of members of any one order, and saying he was out to do that (and was being quite effective, mind you), then the orders would band together to stop this person. So would they stop a member if they did the same. It's ok to loathe an individual, and even want them dead, but it isn't ok to want one of the Orders to cease.
All things being equal, a White Robe would save the life of a Black Robe. All things being equal, a Black Robe will save the life of a *significant* member of the White Robes. Assuming they aren't in a battle or set against each other. The Black Robe might be insulting and spiteful, but he has an oath to Magic, and letting a prominent member of any order die, would be failing that oath...unless it was in self-defense. Letting a low ranking member of another order (or even his own) die however....that could happen quite easily for a Black.
I would direct you to the 2nd edition campaign setting, wherein it says that when a Black and White Robe meet when they are on opposite sides in a war, then they will probably fight to the death. However, if they have no specific reason to attack each other (say the White Robe happens upon a Black that is not harming anyone), then they are quite likely to sit down, discuss magic, and share notes. First and foremost, Black Robes are devoted to achieving mastery and power in magic. They aren't all after simply power....afterall, the Test weeds out those that aren't devoted to magic first. Wizards that are devoted to their own power first and magic second are either renegades, soon to be renegades, dead, Raistlin, or some combination.
-Drachasor
Suppose the Black Robe is poisoned in this way, and will suddenly die in 2 days if he isn't given the antidote. The White Robe then spends those two days frantically trying to convince the Black Robe to stop what he is doing. He fails, and so he doen't give the Black Robe the antidote. I am tempted to say he has done good through unusual means. It was better than laying waste to the countryside and town with magic.
-Drachasor
There is no Reason that Palin Majere has any need or desire to sit down and 'shoot the breeze' with Ariakan the Second (referring to the Black Robed Wizard who killed the First and became Emperor) just because he wears the Black Robes.
In fact even were he not at war with Ariakan and he chanced upon the man he would no doubt kill him for his many crimes in the past. Outside of the tower there is no obligation that the two can't immediately begin a duel to the death.
The loyalty of Mages are to the Cause of Magic and the Causes of Good, Evil, Neutrality second....theoretically.
Take note I never said that the elected White Robes WERENT in a state of war as well with the Black Robes. Its entirely possible that elected government was during the War of the Lance or the War of Huma.
Wars that come close to being Armageddon frankly.
Outside of the Tower(s) during such conflicts with the gods it becomes a frank NECESSITY to kill first and ask questions later. It isn't really GOOD for magic but Solanari and Nuitari throw their lots behind dad and mom as they've shown when push comes to shove.
If one side is pushed to the brink of Oblivion during the War (say if outisde the towers every white mage is killed)
Well boo hoo the Black and Red Robes say, Solanari will make more. The Black Robes and Red Robes know a time will come when there is a less fierce competition going on and the Test will always produce more white robes.
That's why I believe its important to take note the Politics of the Order heads.
Imagine if Raitslin or Ariakan had been head of the Black Robes!
Campaign note:
In my games I had a Black Robed Wizard who maintained his eternal youth by drinking the blood of thirteen babies every 100 years. He'd done this three times already and it was common knowledge.
Nearly every white robe alive had sworn an oath to kill the man out of sheer moral repugnance and many a neutral (even a few black)
However he lived 24/7 in the Tower of Wayreth and by the laws of the Conclave (penalty of renegade status) his flesh was not to be harmed and thus he only left when he had to do the ritual itself which the conclave had decided could not be performed in the tower for sanitary concerns.
Another conclave might have branded him a renegade for striring up massive ill resentment against wizards (but he did it in secret so they had no reason too since the Blacks and Reds acknowledged his freedom to do so over the White's objections)
THIS is how I run the Tower
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
The problem is unfortunately "hiring an assassin" is exactly what player characters are told to do all the time in every day shape or form essentially.
I must admit, I'd actually thought something along those lines myself
Seriously though, while I realise that it is a double standard and probably a bit harsh I still feel that hiring an assassin - being someone who makes a living by slaying people for money - is an evil act. Hiring a band of adventurers does live them the option of finding another way of resolving the situation - potentially without killing the villain (something I try and encourage in my PCs).
You are also right about the DL gods being very forgiving.
many masonic and secret orders had a law which stated that in times of war a brother from an enemy country would be treated as a brother in the lodge, but in the field were to be slain as the officer of the member ordered.
The White Robes dislike killing; if they really want to use agressive magics alot, they wouldn't have qualified for the White Robes in the first place. But even when they have no other choice but to use force, with the possibility of deaths, they will do so reluctantly and never as a first choice.
Telling people you disagree with their behaviour by having an assassin place something sharp in something soft is not the way of good people. It is not the way of White Robes. No excuse.
And, perhaps, the white robe might use more precise attacks without area effects- but the black robe very well might not, he might rather show the white robe the devastation that can be caused if you mess with him. The black robe is willing to use such psychological warfare, and that could very well cause any white robe to rethink attacking him in the open.
Uh no it's not,
This isn't the real world (where its arguable). This is Dungeons and Dragons. Retribution and Righteous Wrath coat the setting and game system all the way through! There's even a class (paladin) that's all about that.
Knights of Solamnia aren't just about defending. They're about wiping the forces of evil off the face of the Earth.
By this logic the War of the Lance is inherently evil. It's splitting hairs and ridiculous to say that if you are ordered in the middle of a WAR to go fight that it's evil, yet does the Commander think when you fight those Draconians you're going to sit down and have alittle chat?
No the objective is to kill them!
[The White Robes dislike killing; if they really want to use agressive magics alot, they wouldn't have qualified for the White Robes in the first place.]
Yes because Solanari is the god of peace, NOT.
[But even when they have no other choice but to use force, with the possibility of deaths, they will do so reluctantly and never as a first choice.]
Quote from my table.
"Fireball coming online Boss."
[Telling people you disagree with their behaviour by having an assassin place something sharp in something soft is not the way of good people. It is not the way of White Robes. No excuse.]
No the excuse is he's an evil ****** whose killed thousands potentially and will kill again.
Again I reiterate this is Dungeons and Dragons, its' a game about adventuring. What you're basically saying is Gandalf can't have sent Frodo on the quest to destroy the One Ring.
"I'm sorry Frodo but you need to put the ring away."
"what? Why can't we destroy it?"
"I'm afraid that would kill Sauron so we can't do it."
"Huh?"
"Well if you should happen to be by mount doom and accidentally drop it, say someone bites your finger off...it's good but we can't really go around killing evil people. That isn't proper."
White Robes are people who are good aligned and practice magic.
That's it.
That doesn't give very much information about their opinions on Rules of Warfare, Personality. Breaking Point, and Whether they'll fail but otherwise live a good and healthy life after any evil actions they did (or maybe are wracked with guilt)
It just means they are inclined towards helping others, mercy, virtue, and protecting others....oh yes and SMITING EVIL
Hypocracy isn't just a flaw, it's a requirement.
Originally posted by carteeg
I did always from LotR's funny at some points. Gandalf informs Frodo how important life is and that dealing out death is not something to be done rashly... and five minutes later he's hacking down a ton of orcs without a second thought. ["This is hurting me more than this is hurting them, Frodo. I'm weeping on the inside. HAVE AT THEM! HUZZAH!"]
Hypocracy isn't just a flaw, it's a requirement.
I think that what is being overlooked here (and in this entire thread) is the context of the situation.
In the quote above Gandalf is saying that life is important - quite rightly so - however, when his own life - and that of his companions - is threatened he is willing to kill in defence - a different context. When talking to Frodo, Gandalf is referring to a situation where Bilbo had Gollum at his complete mercy, he could have, in D&D terms performed a coup de gras. In the situation where Gandalf is laying into the orcs he is defending himself from beings that are trying to kill him.
To relate all this back to the White Robe. If attacked a White Robe would, IMO, be willing to use lethel force in his defence (or the defence of others) - hence fireball etc. are a justifiable act. If a Black Robe is killing or torturing individuals they may confront that mage, perhaps with the rest of their adventuring party, and attempt to slay him - technically this could be an assassination as was pointed out earlier. However, and I think this is where some confusion has crept into this thread, assassination has a certain conatation as an evil act - and hiring a professional killer IMC would be considered evil for the following reason:
If the "good guys" start hiring assassins then it legitimises (in a moral sense) the use of paid killers - whose sole purpose is to kill for profit.
ie. the ends do not justify the means!
Of course when the "good guys" hire an adventuring party to take care of a problem (eg. evil mage etc) could be argued as an assassination - as most PCs will kill the main villain. However, that is the adventuring party's choice - not the person doing the hiring. It could also be argued that when a group of adventurers kill the bad guys their own lives are generally in danger so they killed in self-defence (not to say the PCs never start fights).
What this all comes down to is a moral and ethical situation. D&D is a world of black and white and vigilantism is, to a certain extent, a "good" act when used against evil - however even this can be considered evil - if the means are evil.
Is torture okay when torturing an evil person for infomation? No, as torture is an evil act and ends do not justify the means - especially when in D&D there are magical ways of getting the answers you need.
Is assassination (meaning the hiring of someone to kill someone else) of an evil wizard okay? Again, no - as it is the use of evil means for a good end.
Is hiring a band of adventurers to deal with a problem - in this case an evil wizard okay? In this case (hopefully) yes, as they may find (or will at least try to find (hopefully)) other means of dealing with the situation.
Of course we all know that this is very rarely the case in actual play (although I have had a group like this in the past), and that PCs will generally go in all "guns a blazin'" but the possiblity still remains that they won't.
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
Knights of Solamnia aren't just about defending. They're about wiping the forces of evil off the face of the Earth.
But wait - the last time that Good decided to try and wipe the forces of evil off the face of the earth the guy in charge (the Kingpriest) managaed to bring about the cataclysm - because, from my memory, he demanded that the Gods scour the earth of the evil races.
Wouldn't that indicate that:
The Gods of Good think that wiping the forces of evil from the face of the earth is, in itself evil and hence deserving of punishment?
They had already tried to warn the Kingpriest and clergy of Istar by depriving them of their spells etc so they didn't just blast away - they tried other, less lethel methods first (as one would expect the Good Guys to do).
It could be argued that the Kingpriest was being punished for his hubris (and to a certain extent he was) but hurling a fiery mountain at Ansalon seems a rather extreme punishment for this act (considering the collateral damage).
Actions of the Kingpriest included genocide (blanket whether guilty or not) not only of hobgoblins, goblins, ogres, minotaurs, thanoi and other evil races descended from the ogre but also dwarves, kender, gnomes and other graystone races.
Hypocritical given Humans are a Neutral race
Also his actions included attempting to control thoughts, attempting to wipe out magic in the land, forbidding the worship of the Neutral and Evil Gods and thoroughly corrupt decadent behavior.
In effect already we've got every single one of the Gods of Evil offended, Reorx has got to be FUMING, Gilean and balance ditto but all the Neutrals are mad about their worshippers no doubt
The Magic Gods are no doubt all for Cataclysm too.
But what probably gets the Gods of Good is the fact all this evil is BEING CARRIED OUT IN THEIR NAME. The Kingpriest asking he be made a divine being was just the last straw.
As far as Paladin and Company's concern is. My guess is the Cataclysm was meant to basically wipe clean the religious slate so they could start over from square one when everything the ishtarians had made of their religion was forgotten
***
Regarding the Smiting of Evil
Paladine's Appendex in Dragons of a Vanished moon indicates Paladine seems very interested in wiping out evil and even Neutrality for Pure Good. He just values the free choice of men to choose good over evil (and accepts the price is evil being chosen sometimes)
Paladine if possible would redeem Takhasis I'm sure and all the rest of the evil gods. They after all are siblings.
Kiri Jonilath however seems much more militant and less about redemption than purging the corrupted taint from the universe with fire and steel. It's a much more fearsome image than Fizban the fabulous.
Its also probably why the gods of evil fear Kiri more than Paladine, even Takhasis. Paladine can be reasoned with. Kiri can't.
I don't think honestly the gods of good would *APPROVE* of going around with a know alignment spell and murdering everyone who came up the Abyssmal side of the alignment chart
BUT this is primarily because it lacks justice and essentially I believe the 'sealing of the pact' in evil ACTION rather than thought.
"Vengeance is mine thus sayeth the Lord" would be something I think Tracy Hickman would say in an annotaton regarding the gods opinions on violence
Evil Souls get their compeuppance by the god's hands
BUT the entire nature of heroic fantasy depends on battling murderers and those a proven nature in combat. No a man who just wears the Black Robe is only hurting HIMSELF (its an arguable "victimless crime")
but for a general dirty fast rule
In my games adventurers are not penalized for enacting "Eye for Eye" execution on those who are threats to people. Actually let me clarrify, I even punish for REVENGE
But in general fantasy villains are unrepentent and their killing is an act of self-defense and the defense of others because death is the only way to stop them.
I 'was' going to state that my own view point of good v. evil differs from the WotC definitions and I tended to use a loose version of my own definitions (but being lenient since I respect my player's opinions on the topic). I had an example where I believed an assassin who was hired by a Lawful Good PC to kill a 'non-evil' NPC (his own Queen) was actually a good action because he intended to and succeeded in saving the lives of thousands by doing so (it prevented a massive war). Doing so would have been a benefit to all with an extremely reduced amount of suffering caused. He did the right thing, therefore it is arguable that he did the good thing.
Then I thought of something. The Knights of Takhisis, the REAL KoT from Ariakan I mean. Not the Dragonarmies Version 2 that Abrena and Targonne put together. Their members honestly believe that the best way to run the world and reduce suffering the world is to impliment their viewpoint onto the people of Krynn. They extinguished crime. Their order makes life safer for those under their rule. Hell, many of them are even 10x more polite (ernestly) than many Knights of Solamnia. They are evil, but they don't believe they are wrong.
Then something clicked in my head. Good and Evil are not the same thing as Right and Wrong... at least using the D&D definitions of Good and Evil. In the case of the the LG PC who murdered his Queen to prevent war, he did the right thing because any other action would have brought suffering to thousands, and he reduced it to only a couple who would have suffered anyway (the Queen's side of the war would have lost, there was no doubt). But it was an evil act because the Queen didn't deserve it. Yes, she insult powerful foreign nations to the point of warfare, but that was because she was an idiot, not evil.
So, as disturbing as this sounds, sometimes doing an evil action may be the 'right' thing to do. Possibly doing a good action may be the 'wrong' thing to do. Peace is good. Warfare is evil. But peace can lead to a decay because conflicts are not allowed to be resolved. Warfare can lead to freedom and resolvement of past simmering conflicts that had been in the long run more painful than even a massive war.
Maybe in the phrase "The ends [don't] justify the means" Good and Evil are what gets applied to the means, and Right and Wrong get applied to the Ends.
Eh, I prefer the phrase "The means don't justify the ends," or better yet "The ends justify the means, but all ends must be considered," where 'all ends' refers to all side-effect results and not just the main targetted result. It lets me sleep at night without my brain hurting... like now.
End results don't matter because no one can understand fully what his actions will bring about so the best thing to do is act with good and clear mind/hope it turns out all right
Summarized for characters...*SPOILERS*
The world's smartest man sets out to rid the world of evil. In order to make truly lasting change and peace he can't attack the symptoms (Crime) but he has to attack the root (even beyond government)
In order to do that he creates a threat to unite the entire world, which hovers on the brink of nuclear war. A threat he murders 3 million people for.
The argumenet of course is, if this is the price for world peace should it have been paid?
The answer is of course no and there's always other options but there's an expediancy to evil. The fact with enough strength that you can cut through most levels of human rationality to the primal levels of fear/survival that even the densest beings usually submit to
I suppose in some respects that is the nature of evil.
Having said that D&D is not a world of shades of grey (as written - in some campaigns it definately is (and generally the way that I play)) and, according to WotC:
"In the D&D universe, the fundermental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve. A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end, no matter how good still jeopardises her paladinhood." (Book of Exhalted Deeds, pg 9).
Now, this is admitedly from the sourcebook on "Good" in the D&D multiverse and it could be argued that it doesn't apply to DL, that what affects a Paladin shouldn't affect a WoHS etc. These are all valid arguments, but IMO, what it comes down to is, in a universe with definate Forces of "Good" and "Evil" the basic premise of Ends not Justifying the Means stands.
IMC, if a paladin or good Cleric decided to torture an evil wizard for information, I would punish him for a major infraction of his alignment - regardless of what the "end" was. If another class, without ties to a diety of "Good" tried to do this, they wouldn't suffer any penalties although their alignment would probably shift (although I use a graduated alignment system to track alignments (when I use them)).
To refer back to the point about White Robe WoHS, the question on whether evil means would be justifiable to Solinari - the patron of the white robes. By the defination of Good in the D&D context it wouldn't be and I'm pretty sure that Solinari would be peeved at his "Wizard" - Lunitari would probably frown, shrug and carry on. Nuitari would probably smile and say "you go boy!".
This whole debate comes down to what is the meaning of Good and Evil in the D&D universe. Violence is common in D&D, and not inherently evil, but premeditated murder for money (to come back to the assassination topic) is defined as evil and the use of an assassin is therefore an evil act.
I agree that in a world of shades of grey this might not stack up but D&D, and Dragonlance in particular, is rarely a shades of grey universe. How can it be when there are Forces of Good, Evil and Neutrality?
Why he chose the black robes was an entirely different matter and a choice of which god he felt would help his studies the most.
I also had an interesting Black Robe group during the Reign of Ishtar, some of them even had a Good Alignment. They were set against the Gods of Good because of the Kingpriest's actions
The Punisher kills indiscriminately crimminals who fall under his judgement system and arguably is Lawful, Neutral, or even Chaotic Evil depending on how far you want to stretch his definintion of an "innocent man"
(remember the Dolph Lungren movie? If you do I still remember the casino massacre)
Another point in a more realistic sense (I'll use Count Dooku instead of real world modern dictators) is there are in the world individuals who are personally evil yet are effective leaders.
One scene from the Recent Jedi: Count Dooku comic summarizes the situation.
Suribran Tu is dictator of his planet. Dooku wants its enthusiastic loyalty. Weighing in Suibran's effectiveness as a leader vs. his people's hate, he kills him and assumes command as a liberator
He also kills his entire inner circle, their families, generals, and politicians
Which effectively terminates any chance of resistance but also probably gives the race peace.
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
And that is a reference actually I believe to the Tower of Wayreth which I believe is "officially" neutral ground.
There is no Reason that Palin Majere has any need or desire to sit down and 'shoot the breeze' with Ariakan the Second (referring to the Black Robed Wizard who killed the First and became Emperor) just because he wears the Black Robes.
....[and so forth]
But all of your examples are against *individuals.* You have no example where Palin would attack a generic black robe on sight. As I was saying, the default interaction between WoHS inside or outside of the tower is to talk and share magic. Now, if the Black Robe is doing something blatantly evil, or is known to have done so, it might well be different. The point though, is that not all Black Robes go around harming innocents, most, IMHO, do not. To be evil in D&D largely means to be selfish, and Black Robes have a selfish desire for greater and greater magical power. This doesn't require that they harm *anyone* per se (just don't get in their way). Because of this and their love of magic, members of various orders are not going to be openly hostile of each other. They might not be entirely trusting (probably won't, in fact), but that won't stop them from being somewhat friendly, and share magical knowledge. So far as it is in their nature and is wise.
Even in a war, not every Black Wizard is going to be on one side, and as such the White still doesn't have the right to kill any Black Wizard he sees outside of the tower. If that person is leading or part of an army, or attacking innocents, or known to be part of the enemy army, then things are different. All of your examples though, had quite certain particulars that details such affiliations and pasts.
-Drachasor
Originally posted by Halabis
*coughCharlesPhippsisatrollcough*
No, he isn't. Quit the personal attacks.
Cheers,
Cam
I'm also arguing that Black can be more effective in controlling people than White along with even admirable.
This comes from my experience as a Black Robe player
Yes, much ado is made of the brotherhood of sorcerers but while I am saying only that in EXTREMELY rare circumstances is it an attack on sight thing (since wizards can be that many- 90% joining you possibly KNOW the individual serves the Queen of Darkness)
The brotherhood extends only so far
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
(since wizards can be that many- 90% joining you possibly KNOW the individual serves the Queen of Darkness)
They serve/follow Nuitari and magic, much to the Dark Queen's anger. One of the main reasons there are arcane casters in the Knights of Takhisis and that they don't join the WoHS.
Anyhow, I never said Blacks were fluffy bunnies, merely that they and Whites can and do share spells and magic lore with each other....unless there is a good reason why they wouldn't. You don't have to trust someone fully to do that; you need only trust them enough.
-Drachasor
Edit: Last paragraph and PS.
PS. you might have been a bit tired/distracted/hurried/harried when you wrote your last past...it is a wee bit hard to follow in spots.