Viconia on the stake (LG Paladin)

[Lord Elden]

so taking Viconia into the party should cause you to fall from a roleplaying point of view, though not in the game itself.

Not all sins makes the Paladin fall. I can't recall if having an evil character makes you fallen but somehow I doubt that, especially if it's temporary (escort her away). But of the choices in the game I think it's best to leave her (as she manages to come to safety on her own anyway).

Burning her without provocation is evil and should cause you to fall.

Yes, I agree, that's the worst choice you can do.

Setting her free to do evil in the future would cause you to fall, or at least you would need to atone for your misdeeds.

I cannot agree with that, you cannot blame her for crimes that haven't been done yet. That's liking saying you are guilty because you don't put everyone with tendencies to evil acts (chaotic neutral for instance) because they might commit evil acts in the future. You cannot predict the future.

Theres no right answer, though the capturing her and having a trial and then killing her is the LG thing to do.

For what crimes do you capture her? Being an evil aligned person without doing any evil acts cannot be punishable. Unless you have witnessed any of her crimes or the government has her wanted you cannot bring her into justice based on her skin colour. As I said, there are minor evil acts that does not justify killing. Besides, it's hardly YOUR job to deal out the sentence if she's found guilty of anything (in case you bring her to the law).

[D. Sauzi]

Not all sins makes the Paladin fall. I can't recall if having an evil character makes you fallen but somehow I doubt that, especially if it's temporary (escort her away).

Interesting discussion that is, the 3.0 PHB states 'A paladin may not knowingly associate with people of evil alignment.' Associate is a tough word in those circumstances, is escorting her to court associating?
We had a similar discussion in PnP lately, in which a kobold wanted to guide us toward Goblin warrens, and whether the kobold (being evil) is allowed to guide the party, which includes a Paladin.

For what crimes do you capture her? Being an evil aligned person without doing any evil acts cannot be punishable.

Hmmm, i think it is punishable to be evil, Hence spells like detect evil and such, and being Evil is truly being evil, someone who steals at a candy shop, will not sound the detect evil alarm, in my opinion, he's just on his way to neutral, maybe even still good (though unlawful). The point is more whether the right punsihment for evil characters is death, but punishment is definitely in place, even if only for the thoughts of doing evil acts. Because she will, she is of evil alignment.

[Barren]

someone who steals at a candy shop, will not sound the detect evil alarm, in my opinion, he's just on his way to neutral, maybe even still good (though unlawful)

Yes.... But a child who steals candy is often doing it in order to gain social approbation from his peers, which shows a lawful tendancy...

[Lord Elden]

Interesting discussion that is, the 3.0 PHB states 'A paladin may not knowingly associate with people of evil alignment.' Associate is a tough word in those circumstances, is escorting her to court associating?

I've never played PnP (unfortunately) D&D, but I've read some of the rulebooks (mostly the handbook for the paladin). Isn't the DM allowed to interpret or change some rules? I would anyway say that associate is more than just escort, it's something that goes on for a longer time.

Hmmm, i think it is punishable to be evil, Hence spells like detect evil and such, and being Evil is truly being evil, someone who steals at a candy shop, will not sound the detect evil alarm, in my opinion, he's just on his way to neutral, maybe even still good (though unlawful). The point is more whether the right punsihment for evil characters is death, but punishment is definitely in place, even if only for the thoughts of doing evil acts. Because she will, she is of evil alignment.

Perhaps stealing wasn't quite the right example. If you steal for yourself I still would consider it evil, but if you steal for a good cause you could be unlawful good.
However, I would say the system doesn't work very well in the game (CRPG), if you're CN and do evil acts you're still not evil, how come? Or if you're an evil aligned character that never do any evil acts, why should you be punished?
Notice that if you use Detect Evil within the city, there are many evil non-important characters around, notably the nobles. Should they be punished just because of their alignment? If you attack them you'll end up loosing reputation, because you have no right to attack them. You can't claim they've done any evil either.
If you could follow them around until they did something evil or talk with them in order for them to reveal their former evil deeds...
Perhaps a flexible system would be better: if you're a good aligned person you must do considerably more good deeds than evil to maintain that alignment (the only part in the game that simulates a similar idea is the falling of Rangers and Paladins, however the reputation must drop significantly in order for that to happen) and vice versa, being an evil goody-two shoe should affect your alignment to shift towards neutral and in time from that to good. IIRC Planescape: Torment had something similar.

As for the thinking of something evil, I don't think that should be punishable, although I agree it's wrong. If you think of something evil and then do not proceed to the act I think you have stand against the temptation and there is no need for a penalty. And you cannot claim it's a certainty that acts will follow thought (although the chance is probably higher when evil aligned characters think evil thoughts).

[Magnus]

Free her, of course. She's hot

[D. Sauzi]

hmm, i think i see things differently, lord elden, i think to be lit up as being evil means every thought you have is evil, and not restricted and abandoned by some good other thought, it will be there, and will only not become action if in some way the thought isn't favorable to the evil character.
If this is not the case, the character is (in a similar way you propose) not evil, and will not lit up, for instance because he managed to depress the thought.

As you note, i have more pnp experience than game experience by now, and in those campaigns, what the DM thinks up, is rule. If he says a longsword does d10 damage, it does. In the same way Alignments become much less of filled in spaces, but 2 axis to move along. As you say, you can start out evil, but if you don't do evil, you'll shift towards good.

Considering the game, i'd say your popularity is a better guide to your party's alignment than their combined mean alignment, and i think the 9 hells add a nice part to changing your alignment to the way you're playing.

[Lord Elden]

i think to be lit up as being evil means every thought you have is evil, and not restricted and abandoned by some good other thought, it will be there, and will only not become action if in some way the thought isn't favorable to the evil character.

Well, yes, if all your thoughts are evil than you're probably evil indeed. However, is it punishable to be evil? In my eyes only evil deeds should be punished. Even non-evil character tends to have the occasional evil thought, I don't that person should be punished unless he or she gives in and actually performs the deed.

[cappy]

I confess that I used a cheat so I could get Viconia in my party without having to listen to her her complaining all the time about our high reputation. I conjured up the helm of opposite alignment if I recall correctly (I believe it was a cursed item and couldn't be removed without a remove curse spell, but I was happy to just leave it stuck on her head to have her aligned with everyone else).

[D. Sauzi]

what i tried to say is that having evil thoughts that are suppressed (do not become actions/deeds) are not evil, and as such the person is not evil. An evil person however would in nearly all cases let those thoughts become deeds.

So yes it's punishable to be evil, since then you have let those thoughts become deeds, else you wouldnt be evil (yet).

Note that this way of thinking has some problems with alignment restrictions, like Orcs who are born evil, now that's a bit strange in this view. Though they'd usually start getting evil while pushing their brothers and sisters out of the nest.

[Barren]

Note that this way of thinking has some problems with alignment restrictions, like Orcs who are born evil, now that's a bit strange in this view. Though they'd usually start getting evil while pushing their brothers and sisters out of the nest.

Actually, Orcs aren't born evil in the same way that evil outsiders are. They are made evil by their culture. An orc abandoned at birth and raised by a loving good-aligned human family (or by a kind-hearted monastery of Pelor, or whatever) wouldn't be more inclined towards evil than anyone else.

[Lord Elden]

what i tried to say is that having evil thoughts that are suppressed (do not become actions/deeds) are not evil, and as such the person is not evil. An evil person however would in nearly all cases let those thoughts become deeds.

So yes it's punishable to be evil, since then you have let those thoughts become deeds, else you wouldnt be evil (yet).

Okay, I can agree with that. However, I'd still say there are degrees of evil, theft would be minor. And as I said, in that case it would be better with a shifting alignment system (Arcanum does have an alignment measure that goes from -100 (most evil) to 100 (most good), all evil and good acts alters the position of it.
Besides, the game (BG2) doesn't allow you to do anything with most evil nobles in town, you can sense they're evil but can't do anything about it (killing them will IIIRC lower your reputation).