Veritas Assaults - The Morality

[Gurkak]

So when Veritas agents kill good Legion soldiers, for whatever reason, they become evil and thus it is acceptable to kill them, right?

No, they've commited an evil act but they're not evil yet. Self-defense is morally moot it doesn't shift, but if you're actively hunting down people you know are not foul to the core as say a paladin always would be able to tell -- then you start shifting faster than you can say Baalzebub. Being lawful and good becomes tricky very fast, it's not just duty it's compassion as well. If you don't excercise the latter you're LN, or if you follow orders/duty to an extreme LE.

[GodBeastX]

2) I wouldn't even classify Veritas as chaotic. There's a large portion of them that want to overthrow the establishment... and replace it with their own establishment. They are anti-Sundren-rule, but I wouldn't say that makes them unlawful when it comes to alignment. They might believe in hierarchy, order, or rule -- just not the current rulers. I wouldn't throw the entire organization under the alignment of chaotic.

Intent vs Action Phantom. Using chaos to form a new government is still chaotic. Drow, for example, have a chaotic government because it's all based on chaos, although it's still an establishment.

Guerilla warfare is chaotic by it's nature, and they are seeking to cause chaos in the Sundren establishment. That isn't to say their successes won't bring about lawful endings, but just cuz you're chaotic now doesn't mean you have to stay that way.

[GodBeastX]

No, they've commited an evil act but they're not evil yet. Self-defense is morally moot it doesn't shift, but if you're actively hunting down people you know are not foul to the core as say a paladin always would be able to tell -- then you start shifting faster than you can say Baalzebub. Being lawful and good becomes tricky very fast, it's not just duty it's compassion as well. If you don't excercise the latter you're LN, or if you follow orders/duty to an extreme LE.

Killing good doesn't make you evil per se. It's not as black & white as people would like to think:

"If you kill evil you're good and if you kill good you're evil."

Take for example Devils and Demons, Devils don't shift good for killing demons and vice versa.

This is why I personally do not believe in Good assassins and cannot condone the argument people use for them. "What if you're assassinating evil?" it doesn't matter. It's the way you're going about it.

If a veritas poisons a drink and gives it to a soldier, evil. If a veritas challenges the soldier in combat, this isn't necessarily evil. Same outcome, a dead soldier, but the means are different.

[Nil]

The problem with a PR campaign, is that if someone starts spouting off propaganda against the government, or for the Veritas, death is usually the result. Even when the Veritas has been encouraged to seek a peaceful solution with the Legion, the emissary was strung up and put on display with out much hesitation. Most people don't know the history, either IC or OOC (although there is a nice little post in the Public Knowledge Forum that pretty much sums up why), so they assume that the Veritas are just a bunch of thugs, not really the real rulers of the land. (some dm can correct me on that, but as far as I've ever found, that is the case -- they were backstabbed by the arbiters who took control for themselves)

A PR campaign doesn't require people to stand in Sundren "preaching the troof" or anything. What about leaving fliers around, or starting rumors, etc. Another option is to "right wrongs" among the poor. Perhaps the Veritas could help farmers who've been ravaged by Threat2Sundren#145 and explain to them how under Veritas rule things would be better because... There are alot of things that can be done to improve public opinion that don't involve putting your advocates directly in harm's way (well, there is some risk, but not noticably more than simply being a member of the Veritas).

[The Almight Red]

Intent vs Action Phantom. Using chaos to form a new government is still chaotic. Drow, for example, have a chaotic government because it's all based on chaos, although it's still an establishment.

Guerilla warfare is chaotic by it's nature, and they are seeking to cause chaos in the Sundren establishment. That isn't to say their successes won't bring about lawful endings, but just cuz you're chaotic now doesn't mean you have to stay that way.

To be honest, I think this line of discussion can't result in any sort of majority understanding. Because the Law/Chaos creation of D&D is so muddled by differing and contradictory information from the sourcebooks themselves, it can't be dictated by any objective proclamation.

The Law/Chaos pole is seriously just subjective in the end, and opinionated. Each DM has their own ideas on it. Each player has their own ideas on it. Each designer of the damn game has their own ideas on it, then represented in their sourcebooks and supplemental material.

I've found it's the least useful element of D&D to ever differ on, frankly.

[GodBeastX]

Great, then DM rules chaotic. Next question.

[Phantom Lamb]

I would still say their actions are not disorderly. Why are their terrorist acts against the Sundren Government chaotic, but the Black Hand's acts not?

Internally, I'd say their actions do demonstrate hierarchy and order. They aren't loose groups of cells -- they are organized within the mountain. I think there's room within the organization for both sides of that alignment and wouldn't put their group down as chaos from what I've witnessed any more than the BH would go down that way.

That being said, I got no beef with your interpretation

[GodBeastX]

I don't recall any black hand terrorism? I've only seen wars myself. What players do is up to players. Havn't seen any black hand mail bombs I should say, hahah.

Anyway, I wouldn't just say hardcore chaotic, probably more neutral, but I wouldn't call the Veritas lawful, that's what I mostly wanted to say. You'll be hard pressed to consider yourself lawful and a rebel at the same time

[The Almight Red]

Disowning the social ethics (and ramifications of such), I think the morality of slaughtering Veritas is a very palpable and fascinating thing. My old paladin was heavily involved in trying to breed good conscience in people, concerning such.

He didn't go around telling people it was explicitly wrong to go kill them. He told people it was heinous to do it if they didn't have a good reason to do it.

If someone could find a justifiable reason to be on that mountain, he has little reason to admonish them. But if they were up there simply because, 'the Legion says it's ok' then there's something terribly wrong when it comes to moral conscience.

Just because authority tells you it's ok to kill a people, it doesn't make it a justifiable act, morally speaking. It doesn't make it necessarily a wrong act either. Simply put, there needs to be more to it than that.

And while I'm sure a lot of characters do have more reason to it, a lot do not. But you know what? That's ok. Because even if a character doesn't have more reason to it, that's simply how that character is, then.

I entirely recognize a lot of people are on that mountain for OOC reasons. It's just the plain truth. Many people have just entirely admitted it to me, no less. But I don't see it as a problem. Just because they do it for OOC reasons, it doesn't erase the fact they did it IC. So, they then get confronted by it IC, and it spawns IC discussion, consequences, etc.

Many will walk away from the IC conversation to just OOC kill them again, but that's just the way the game works sometimes. But every once inawhile you'll find a character that seems to be impacted by the consideration they are slaughtering hundreds of people on that mountain. And then they'll either recognize a justifiable reason for them doing it, or they'll realize they now had none and have blood on their hands (I remember one character, that my paladin talked to, that realized the latter; it sparked some amazing RP).

Suffice to say, I think in the end this idea of morality is left best to inside the game. It's where the most fun will be had with it. Sure, we might have our opinions about whether the Veritas are moral or not OOC - but that truthfully matters little, because many of us even make characters that don't agree with even our personal beliefs. I love making characters that have dramatically different ethics and mores than myself.

[GodBeastX]

I specifically posted on paladins for a reason. It's no secret that paladins tend to get tons of OOC attacks against them. It's been brought up more than once in various threads that paladins shouldn't be attacking veritas. Today I just happened to post on it.

I just want to help people get an idea of possible motives behind a character's actions. I'd never shove any moral down a character's throat as a DM, you guys all do what you want to do. I just respond to what you do.

However, I do try to help people see differences of opinions in discussions that may lead them to a more opened viewpoint OOC. Hopefully less people will think paladins are poor RP'ers for attacking veritas.

[thaelis]

I entirely recognize a lot of people are on that mountain for OOC reasons. It's just the plain truth. Many people have just entirely admitted it to me, no less. But I don't see it as a problem. Just because they do it for OOC reasons, it doesn't erase the fact they did it IC. So, they then get confronted by it IC, and it spawns IC discussion, consequences, etc.

Couldn't have said it better myself...

[richardleitch5]

*shrugs* i know the Veritas are evil as the legion told me so, IC there has been no good word to any of my PCs about then but plenty of bad storys about evil acts they do. i guess thats the main problem on why so many kill them instread of going to the other hunt zone that has undead DR and crit immune things to kill ^^ still if you want my PCs to stop killing the "evil" Veritas "someone" will have to say something IC, hopefully not some randome evil looking or shady sneak in a mask.