Test of Virtue

[Ronia Sun]

I have a player in my campaign who has chosen the "test of virtue" feat on his path to becoming blessed. The character is a paladin, so he's already pretty damn virtuous, and I'm at a bit of a loss what to do for the test.

However.

The paladin is *also* a werebear. We're playing him as a true lycanthrope on the grounds that a.) he was infected at an extremely young age and b.) the werebear who infected him was a good man who stuck around once they learned the cure wasn't working to help the kid learn to control his abilities.

Some possibilities there, I suppose, but I'm stumped. I dislike the idea of a 'test of virtue' being as easy as "continue to be a good paladin and don't do anything Bad."

So, anyone got any good ideas for a test of virtue? (Other characters in the party may be taking this feat eventually to qualify for the Heroes of Light prestige classes, and I'd like to come up with individual tests.)

[DeepShadow of FoS]

All I can think of is something along the lines of meeting a creature that appears to every respect to be evil, but sparing it because it begs for mercy or whatnot.

I know, this comes into the "good-aligned isn't necessarily stupid" debate, but it's an idea seed. Perhaps the creature isn't evil, just unnatural or perhaps even just an animalistic predator. What's the name of that catwere from CotN: Werebeasts? She might be a good one; she's violent and powerful but in her heart she's jut an animal, no more evil than a pit bull raised to kill.

[Jasper]

I would put the paladin down a path very similer to what he experianced as a child. Upon defeating a group of evil natural werebeast he comes upon a type of Lycathrope "nursery' with a newborn werecreature lying in a crib of bone and fur.

The Paladin now has a delmema- Kill the child and rid the world of a potential threat
or
Let the child live with the knowledge that it needs constant supervison or it will become a killing machine.

It falls on the old "Can you change the nature of a man" addage.

[Ronia Sun]

Hmmm. Those are some interesting ideas! Thank you, Jasper and Deep SHadow.

The evil creature begging for mercy may work particularly well on the party's ranger--especially if the creature was a lycanthrope. The ranger is a shifter, but doesn't realize what she is. She thinks she's some form of infected lycanthrope and so fears and hates the 'beast' in her. (Needless to say, she was a little pissed when the bespectacled, unarmored young paladin turned into a seven foot werebear. He had to do some fast talking to avoid getting shot with a silver arrow...) Although she has already spared the life of another infected lycanthrope (a loup-garou), it was because it was clear the man took steps to neutralize his threat when he was in the grips of his other self. Her reaction when faced with someone like that werecat might be a little more difficult. Likewise if faced with an infected child.

However, it might become more difficult if they were presented with a "There but for the grace of God go I" sort of scenario: someone much like the paladin, or the ranger, in every respect, but who has truly given into their loneliness and bitterness. Perhaps someone who is committing evil acts, but who has not yet wholly succumbed to evil's grip...

I like the ideas thus far, they've certainly got my brain working! More, please!

[alhoon]

Ahem... Killing a child so that it doesn't become a monster? No good char can do that. It is an infant. Yes, you know it may become a killing machine. Yes, you know that if you fail many innocents will be killed. You raise your sword and... you cannot bring it down. Especially when you're a creature like that, so you know there is a different path than slaughter.

Still I believe that taking the risk to raise the child is a good test. Everlasting.

[Gemathustra]

Ahem... Killing a child so that it doesn't become a monster? No good char can do that. It is an infant. Yes, you know it may become a killing machine. Yes, you know that if you fail many innocents will be killed. You raise your sword and... you cannot bring it down. Especially when you're a creature like that, so you know there is a different path than slaughter.

How very Abrahamic.

[Ronia Sun]

My players would never even consider killing a child. Not a living one, anyway. Toben the Many possessing a child's corpse would probably be another matter, but a lycanthrope child would meet no harm at their hands. I can see them raising the child, teaching it to control its powers--as the paladin was--or questing for a cure, but I really don't think killing the kid woul ever even cross their minds.


Fact is, playing a good character doesn't just mean not doing bad things. Nor does it mean smashing anything remotely evil. Good means you're going out of your way to help others, showing compassion even to those whose deeds are evil.

I think, perhaps, that's the direction I'm going to go with the test of virtue. Being good is what these characters do, so perhaps it'll simply have to be further proof of their purity. I dunno. This is shaping up to be an interesting discussion, though!!

[alhoon]

Fact is, playing a good character doesn't just mean not doing bad things. Nor does it mean smashing anything remotely evil. Good means you're going out of your way to help others, showing compassion even to those whose deeds are evil.

You'll be surprised as how many times I have seen people disgreeing with this. Paladins usind detect evil and attacking anything evil on sight with murderous rage.
A Good cleric of Tyr punching to unconsiousness a commoner for speaking to him rudely.
A neutral mage casting magic missile and killing a 8-years old, street urching for trying to steal from him. The boy was starving. Yeah, he wasn't a good mage but still that is an evil acti not a neutral act.

[Pariah]

Alignment can be an irritating thing. I know in the beginning of the previous campaign I was playing in, I was playing a druid hunting down what I believed to be a shapeshifter who murdered my family, and it was all I was doing. My life goal was her death, and I did whatever I could to gain more and more power.

Thus, I was slipping towards the Dark Powers and was gaining some serious abilities over my party members. But they didn't mind anything I did. "Siegfried's just different...he's really a good guy." So, as my final test to prove myself for the power, I had to kill an innocent. I was a predator, nothing personal, so I just walked up and snapped a man's neck. Party didn't care.

"He's still good, he's still good."

Finally, the DM asks me for my alignment, which as neutral, and says (aloud) that I'm now neutral evil. The party flipped. "WHOA! SIEGFRIED'S EVIL!?"

Bah, alignments are almost worthless and give too much away.

Anyway...now that I'm done that rant...test of virtue. We can actually use the comparison between my character Siegfried and George Weathermay. George was also jaded and someone close to him betrayed him, thus he was after shapeshifters, but not for vengeance. Siegfried wanted to kill shapeshifters for what they were, George wanted to kill in order to protect his loved ones.

The intent is what makes the difference. Does the character do all these things because he's told to? Because he's paid? Or does he take the initiative to snuff out these threats before they even arise? Does he sacrifice his own personal gain or goals for others?

Another example, if a village was burning and Siegfried/George saw a shapeshifter running away, Siegfried would snub the village and chase after the shifter immediately, while George would more than likely try and help the villagers.

Are you guided by Wrath, or Justice?

[Ronia Sun]

You'll be surprised as how many times I have seen people disgreeing with this. Paladins usind detect evil and attacking anything evil on sight with murderous rage.

Good grief. Can it be that we've all forgotten, in this day and age, what it means to serve the Good? (Granted, it was in a game, but still...!) Sad thought.

I think, perhaps, that I may approach the test of virtue by looking for a true moral dilemma--making the player choose to do something evil for a greater good (the easy path) or sticking to the straight'n'narrow even if it means losing the battle. (ie--losing the battle, but not the war.) I think that's where you can get down to the meaty differences between 'good' and 'neutral' and 'evil'. "The ends justify the means" is not the philosophy of someone who truly seeks to serve Good.

And you know something? I really, really hate the 'neutral' alignment. I think it's crap. 'Neutral' means 'fence-sitter'...and while I accept the shades of grey I cannot, in the end, view neutral as anything but evil-sympathetic. Edward Burke said: "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." That, in a nutshell, is neutrality. Sitting back and saying "it's not my problem." Frankly, if my players pulled that in a game and allowed an evil act to take place, I'd require a Powers Check.


And yeah, the whole 'alignment' concept irritates me. That's why I like Ravenloft--alignment isn't the issue, one's actions are.

Not to mention that I reject the idea of an 'inherently evil' race. That's the one thing that truly annoys me about the D&D concepts, the idea that just because you're a goblin, or an orc, or whatever you're automatically Eeevill. (And the exceptions are just that: the oddballs.) I think that's why Eberron appealed to me--you've got the traditional 'evil' races as part of the cosmopolitan landscape. They're folks, just like everybody else, and the only things likely to be automatically evil are demons and suchlike because they're, well, embodiments of evil.

Sorry, got a bit sidetracked there.

I like the examples of Siegfried (good lord, what was your party thinking, 'He's still good'?!) and George Weathermay. Helping those in immediate danger, even if it means letting a 'bad guy' get away is the action of a good person. Leaving others to die as a justification for capturing an 'evil creature' is NOT.

[alhoon]

About evil races: Orcs, goblins, even giants are not born evil. They are raised in a certain way that makes them evil. Still an orc raised by a loving family will be more violent than the average human raised in the same conditions and the goblin more... cheating.

Evil dragons on the other hand are born with an evil twist. Their psychology etc makes them far more prone to evil acts.

Outsiders are mold out of a certain concept, they are personifications of it.
A demon will be evil. He was created evil.

About neutral alignment: It is how you perceive it. Letting an unknown man burn alive in the fire because you are afraid to help? A neutral act.
Let 3 kids burn alive in the fire because you don't want to spend your protection from fire spell you have prepared? Evil act.

Don't offer a silver while you're rich to a blind beggar? Neutral act. The next guy may drop a coin.
Don't offer a meal to a woman and her baby in your own manor's door while they both seem to die out of starvation and cold? Evil act.

[Ronia Sun]

True, that it depends on interpretation.

Oh, and I totally agree with the 'raised to be bad' thing in orcs, goblins, etc...it just annoys me when I come across entries in the various Monster Manuals and it says "always (specific alignment)" and it's not talking about a demon, devil, or other nasty outsider.

Then again, the nice thing about D&D is that if you don't like it, you can change it.

[ScS of the Fraternity]

Good grief. Can it be that we've all forgotten, in this day and age, what it means to serve the Good? (Granted, it was in a game, but still...!) Sad thought.

Shame on you Ronia, have you no sense of tradition?
The "paladin who is lawful good but behaves chaotic evil" is a time honored ritual of D&D. It is a sacrement of our hobby to riolepaly the murderous, rampaging hordes of goodness. It ranks right up there with playing a half-dragon drow paladin/assassin
For, as the gawds of righteousness have written,
"If thou sayteth "Sinner!" before attacking, thou may slay both puppies and kittens for XP - but only if thou is close to going up a level."

[Ronia Sun]

LOL!!

This is true. (Half dragon drow paladin/assassin? Good grief, that's right up there with the inevitable pirate/ninja...) But then, I've always been a believer in breaking silly traditions.

I consider myself blessed that I have players who also seek to avoid the standard D&D cliches...(of course, I also threatened the paladin's player within an inch of his life if he played the paladin in the 'traditional' fashion...just in case he was feeling lazy...)

[Brandi]

Shame on you Ronia, have you no sense of tradition?
The "paladin who is lawful good but behaves chaotic evil" is a time honored ritual of D&D. It is a sacrement of our hobby to riolepaly the murderous, rampaging hordes of goodness. It ranks right up there with playing a half-dragon drow paladin/assassin...

Don't you mean the drow lesbian stripper assassin?