Hi all,
I have a situation where several of my PCs seem to be intent on collecting the heads of their enemies. More specifically the skulls of their enemies so they may clean them and have an everburning flame put inside the skull top make lanterns...
None of the PCs are Evil and the main instigator is Lawful Neutral (The party tends to be Lawful Neutral / Chaotic Good).
We are playing the AOWAP and they got the idea from the rumour about Fixx's head being left in Smenks bed...
The party was ambushed by the towns main thugs, who beat them up and killed one of the PCs in the process (who did ignore a blatant DM hint that this was a beating and not a TPK and decided attacking the halforc barbarian after being given a surrender ultimatum was a good idea...) and stole some of their gear. This put the thugs on their hit list for revenge.
So far they have beheaded two of the thugs they have defeated (coup de grace both, one after unconcious from wounds, the other after unconscious from poison), currently they're claiming revenge and intimidation as the reasons behind the decapitations.
They also captured the remaining two thugs, got the info from them and released them to run away to the Free City...
I can live with the decapitations, (a little unnecessary I feel, but that's my own personal preference admittedly) and sure in the heat of combat and elation at having defeated the barbarian may have lead to the LN instigator ignoring the rest of combat to hack the head off ... but planning to have the skulls polished and turned into lanterns seems a little to borderline for me.
The question really is:
Are they acting in an Evil/Out of Alignment way and looking at Alignment change?
Am I letting personal bias get in the way of my DM judgment?
Any help with this would be appreciated
Cheers
B
Are they acting in an Evil/Out of Alignment way and looking at Alignment change?
Yes.
Am I letting personal bias get in the way of my DM judgment?
No.
If you do not run an evil campaign, do not allow evil actions. You must also make sure that all of the players are comfortable with these actions. Something similar happened in one of my games and it did irreparable damage to my game after one of my players quit, saying he felt uncomfortable with what the others were doing. However, don’t let me affect your judgement; just do what you think is fair.
Are they acting out of alignment? Of coarse. Have you ever seen a good person who had skulls for decoration? Mounted trophies, yes, but mounted trophies of things like dragons and such. Actually, decorating with skulls is something I would say a chaotic evil character would do, though any evil could do it. Nop, your not letting your own prefferences get in the way of your DMing. And they are most deffinatly crazy. Revenge is no reason to take and use the skulls of your enemies for decoration.
I've always played by the rule:
character actions dictate character alignment as opposed to character alignment dictating character actions.
Doesn't sound evil to me; depends on the culture; many cultures have displayed trophies of fallen enemies and punishments of criminals; you could always have the place they live enact an ordinace about it; or have local clergy lean on them about respect for the dead and such; have a few spirits of the dead tied to the skulls haunt them which they can't get rid of my any means of putting the bodies to rest properly; start mixing with the dead and all kinds of evil and undead could be unleashed. You are the only one that knows the culture of your world; act accordingly; try not to be to biased by many of the responses you read here based on our culture of extreme respect for the dead and the basic fact that it is illegal to own any human remains and display it as a private collector. Just the thought gives me the willies in real life.
Also consider the Law/Chaos ramifications. It may be considered murder to coup de grace someone once they are incapacitated. While harsh justice may fit a LN character, killing a helpless opponent may breach the line between self-defense and murder and there may be ramifications, depending on your campaign. And this does depend on how many witnesses there were to that action. Keeping human remains as a trophy strikes me as somewhat callous, but in Tibet it's something that has been done. So consider the characters' culture when deciding on that.
I've said it before and I will say it again... just don't use alignments. If its good enough for Monte Cook, its certainly good enough for me...
Cheers
Llowellen
|
The act of collecting the skulls and displaying them is not necessarily evil, but in this case, it probably is borderline.
The motivation behind it does matter to some degree, and in this case it seems to be a lot about revenge which is not a "good" motive.
In any case, I'd probably not worry about it. You did a good job of getting them to really hate an enemy. Now that they've gotten their revenge, they'd like to gloat a little. I don't think you can blame them. PCs are supposed to be heroic. Getting a beat down is not why most of them are coming to the table.
But, it worked for the game in part because they've gotten their revenge. They can forget their humiliation because the one that humiliated them is a trophy they're carrying around.
Basically, I think it means you made the story work and while they may be going a little overboard, I don't think there is anything wrong with their actions as long as they know the difference between fantasy and reality.
Is the Predator evil because it hunts, kills, and displays humans as trophies? Humans certainly would think so.
Collecting trophies FROM YOUR OWN RACE (or other "free people" races) does suggest a certain level of savageness (which I think leans toward chaos rather than evil). I think the surviving members of that hit squad would consider those actions brutal and barbaric, which is a slippery slope to "evil" in their minds. What the PCs did was wrong, and thus evil. It certainly benefits their situation to consider the PCs' actions evil. The PCs would obviously disagree. It's all about interpretations. A lawful good paladin is pure evil to the orc maurader being cut down.
As a DM, if the PCs continued to behead their victims, I might have some dark god/goddess visit them in a dream or through a fiendish servant and let the PCs decide which path they take. Make it clear that their actions are considered evil by some higher power rather than certain mortals who are flawed and ignorant. It's hard to disagree with gods. Of course, the irony is that in most campaign worlds, the gods are also prone to error. Use that.
Morally speaking, it could be argued that beheading your foes and displaying their skulls as trophies is an evil act. Logically speaking, perhaps it's wise to show your enemies (who would eagerly behead you if given the chance) that you mean business. After all, when fighting the devil, be a devil yourself, or you can't win.
Or so they say...
okay, if you are using the strict by the rules alignment system, then yes, they would be considered evil. coup de grace on an incapacitated enemy is wrong to a certain extent. outside of civilization, you can say okay. in town, knock them out and take them to the law for justice. collecting heads? yeah, while it does show the enemy you mean business, it also is a bit barbaric. it is not something a lawful neutral person would do though, and i really don't want to get off on another alignment thread here so just take this as opinion. chaotic good? no i don't see this being a good act. chaotice neutral maybe, CE? yes. i would sit the party down and say, okay, enough is enough. you guys screwed up, you've had your revenge, now let's stop with the head taking nonsense and go on with the game. the next player who wants to take a head will take an alignment hit. then stick to your guns and do it. i know i wouldn't want to play in a group who would stoop to this kind of action. it's not neccessarily "heroic" which is what the basis of this campaign arc is supposed to be.
Now, granted, all of the above is my opinion. i know there are several different play styles out there, and i've done my share of campaigns both good and evil in my time as a dm. this sounds like something an evil party would do, that's all i'm saying.
my next campaign is going to be sans alignments just to see how it all works out.
I have a situation where several of my PCs seem to be intent on collecting the heads of their enemies. More specifically the skulls of their enemies so they may clean them and have an everburning flame put inside the skull top make lanterns...
That's not Evil, just macabre.
The party was ambushed by the towns main thugs, who beat them up and killed one of the PCs in the process (who did ignore a blatant DM hint that this was a beating and not a TPK and decided attacking the halforc barbarian after being given a surrender ultimatum was a good idea...) and stole some of their gear. This put the thugs on their hit list for revenge.
Vengeance is not necessarily Evil, though it can easily open the door. I would also submit to you that no one is under any obligation to accept a "beating and not a TPK" or a "surrender ultimatum," no matter how good of an idea the DM thinks it would be to do so. Self-defense is not a concept limited to TPK situations.
So far they have beheaded two of the thugs they have defeated (coup de grace both, one after unconcious from wounds, the other after unconscious from poison), currently they're claiming revenge and intimidation as the reasons behind the decapitations.
Well, coup de graces are never Good (because Good respects life and allows for the possibility of redemption), but they aren't necessarily Evil, either. Also, one can be Good without being perfectly Good, so the mere fact that they have decided to try using fear and intimidation against their enemies doesn't require any change in alignment.
They also captured the remaining two thugs, got the info from them and released them to run away to the Free City...
That was certainly Good of them.
I can live with the decapitations, (a little unnecessary I feel, but that's my own personal preference admittedly) and sure in the heat of combat and elation at having defeated the barbarian may have lead to the LN instigator ignoring the rest of combat to hack the head off ... but planning to have the skulls polished and turned into lanterns seems a little to borderline for me.
As I said before, there's nothing inherently Evil about desecrating the remains of an already dead creature. It is distasteful, grotesque, and morbid, but to call those traits "Evil" is to make the same mistake the Book of Vile Darkness did in deciding that body-piercing is Evil. Matters of personal taste are neither Good nor Evil.
The question really is:
Are they acting in an Evil/Out of Alignment way and looking at Alignment change?
No, I don't think so. Their actions warrant keeping a close eye on them (especially the Good characters), but certainly don't call for an alignment change at this point.
Am I letting personal bias get in the way of my DM judgment?
A little bit. But you're to be commended for recognizing the fact. :)
Hi all,
..,
Are they acting in an Evil/Out of Alignment way and looking at Alignment change?Am I letting personal bias get in the way of my DM judgment?
Any help with this would be appreciated
Cheers
B
Thier being evil. In my opinion the Chaotic Good has to rethink alignment. I would wait on the LawfulNeutral characters. But if they continue behaving in that maner then they may be evil. Taking heads and turning them into lanterns is evil if you ask me.
Nothing wrong with using your own bias. In the end when it comes to moral and ethics thats all you got. Your the DM go for it. If the players are consistantly acting evil then swing thier alignment. I have long been one to let alignement change as a character grows and develops. I often discuss this with my players. Most players in my campaign start as neutral and move toward one alignment or another as the game is played. Some characters may have number of alignments through the game.
I'd say there would need to be a motivation, but yeah, evil. Unless they come from a culture where the norm is collecting trophies, or unless they were told to "bring the head of so and so to me" it seems evil.
But the fact they are decorating/lighting them seems to indicate bad intent.
The comments about the moral position of these characters depending on their culture are interesting. Can entire cultures be labeled good or evil, lawful or chaotic? The tenor of many of the comments here suggests that cultures have diplomatic immunity from moral judgements. Is it possible to take multi-cultural tolerance so far that we abandon all hope of identifying objective moral values? In the plane of Absolute Good, do the celestials say to one another, "Well, from Nerull's perspective, he's good?"
Whether it is acting out of alignment or not is irrelevant. They did it in town. If the town guard finds decapitated bodies, even if they are of criminals, they are most likely going to investigate. OK they find the PC's base decorated with the skulls of the decapitated bodies...Hmm...even if it isn't an evil act, I don't think the magistrate will look kindly on people going around decapitating other people in his city. Murder is against the law of the city, I assume. The PC's are going to have a devil of a time proving they killed the thugs in self defense if they haven't notified the authorities of the killings, and then went out of their way to mutilate the bodies, decapitate them, clean the skulls and use them as lanterns. The magistrates are most likely to see the group as needing to be imprisoned or killed for their brutal killing spree.
If they do it more than once....you got serial killers on your hands.
I wouldn't penalize them in a metagaing kind of way, but I would definitely penalize them in game.
"What do you mean, 'We're the bad guys.'?"
Whether it is acting out of alignment or not is irrelevant. They did it in town. If the town guard finds decapitated bodies, even if they are of criminals, they are most likely going to investigate. OK they find the PC's base decorated with the skulls of the decapitated bodies...Hmm...even if it isn't an evil act, I don't think the magistrate will look kindly on people going around decapitating other people in his city. Murder is against the law of the city, I assume. The PC's are going to have a devil of a time proving they killed the thugs in self defense if they haven't notified the authorities of the killings, and then went out of their way to mutilate the bodies, decapitate them, clean the skulls and use them as lanterns. The magistrates are most likely to see the group as needing to be imprisoned or killed for their brutal killing spree.
If they do it more than once....you got serial killers on your hands.
I wouldn't penalize them in a metagaing kind of way, but I would definitely penalize them in game.
"What do you mean, 'We're the bad guys.'?"
Interestingly enough Diamond Lake is a fairly corrupt town and the normal authorities probably wouldn't pay too much attention to it. Balabar Smenk, however, could use their actions to further his own goals. Smenk could easily use these actions to blackmail the PC's into doing his dirty work, after all the PC's seem like heartless thugs. Or if they don't cooperate, he can just start a smear campaign against them. This would make him a better person in the eyes of Diamond Lake's residents.
Smenk easily has more resources than the party. If they want to behave like that everyone will fear them. I can't see Allustan supporting that behavior. Smenk could pretty much shut down the town to the PC's. And it wouldn't stop the campaign by locking them up.
I'd say this is a little over the top but I'd not be making them chaotic evil just based on this incident. Wait and see what they do. Maybe make an alignment graph for each player and start using it to see were your players end up.
I'd say it doesn't matter too much. Perhaps they're fans of over-the-top violence rather than reaping realistic repercussions of their actions. What I'd do is to have NPCs react to them based on what they know; if the PCs walk through town with orc skulls dangling from their waist, people are going to think they're some kind of madmen.
The comments about the moral position of these characters depending on their culture are interesting. Can entire cultures be labeled good or evil, lawful or chaotic? The tenor of many of the comments here suggests that cultures have diplomatic immunity from moral judgements. Is it possible to take multi-cultural tolerance so far that we abandon all hope of identifying objective moral values? In the plane of Absolute Good, do the celestials say to one another, "Well, from Nerull's perspective, he's good?"
The Nerull thing is a little absurd. On the other hand, I could claim that to the archons, everyone ie evil.
Some cultures engage in behavior in certain situations that other cultures wold find abhorrent. Evil is a violation of moral standards, usually in the extreme. If your culutre lacks a standard, can your action on that standard be evil?
It isn't about takign multi-cultural tolerance a long way. It is just considering what cultural differences might make actions appear different.
For example, suppose I come form a society where it is an unpardonable act of evil to eat an animal. Does that make someone eating at a McDonald's evil? What if my culture believes that women can't be looked at, because it is evil, and that's my standard? In these cases, you would say 'that's not right. Those things aren't evil.' But I could answer with your immunity to moral judgement comment.
It isn't about immunity to moral judgment. It's about relative consideration of where someone comes from to judge whether their actions are evil. You have to consider the source of their morals to consider whether they are evil.
In this specific instance, most societies would think desecrating a corpse is evil. A savage, barbaric society in a fantasy world might believe, like many people in other cultures, that the body is nothing, and once a persona has died it is basically just another piece of fertilizer, no different than any other. Taking a head as a trophy may not be evil, because the dead guy doesn't need it, and you, by rights, earned it. That isn't neccessarily evil, because he has a different standard.
|
|
The problem with the "moral relativism" on these boards is that the alignment system in D&D is an absolute system.
If something is evil, it is evil whether a good person does it, an evil person does it, a neutral person does it, an orc does it, or a human does it.
Now, a problem most modern Americans have is removing themselves from their cultural bias. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it is generally useful to the conversation if you can recognize your bias and consider the discussion objectively.
Most Americans believe that it is important to follow the laws. Breaking the rules is wrong - thus evil.
Some laws are of course there to keep people from doing evil acts. Some laws are simple rules.
For example, in Junior High we were forbidden to cross yellow lines during the lunch period. Essentially everyone in the school went to the lunch area, and could not go back to the classrooms during lunch. The administration didn't want people without supervision roaming the halls doing whatever they want.
Now, I frequently broke this rule. I often went to play chess in one of the science labs with a teacher. Was it wrong for me to break the rule? The administration would say yes. They don't care that I'm not going to do anything wrong - they have a rule to make sure nobody has a chance to do anything wrong.
My point here is that breaking the rule is a chaotic action, not an evil action. In modern society, however, the distinction is not normally clear. Is choosing not to wear a seat belt an evil act? How about drinking and driving?
I'll tell you that someone who does those things is taking a great risk, and is being very irresponsible. I don't think that it is fair to say that they are "evil". People often do stupid things that hurt others because they are stupid or confused.
Let's face it. Good people do bad things. Good people doing a bad thing doesn't make them an evil person.
Now, a good person who frequently does bad things might not be a good person. Even if they think they are. Sometimes people do a lot of things that they know are wrong, but never realize that they can't do enough good to make up for the evil that they're doing.
But this case is much simpler than real life. While desecrating the dead is something that shouldn't be done in modern society, neither should one seek out dens of evil and slaughter the residents therein. We're not dealing with reality. In the game that is D&D gathering trophies is not a good act. That does not make it an evil act. It is essentially a neutral action unless there are extenuating circumstances.
For example, collecting the trophy from a still conscious prisoner in front of their family probably qualifies as an evil act - not because taking the trophy is necessarily evil, but because increasing the pain and inflicting it on innocent bystanders is evil.
It is very easy to say that an action is either good or evil - that isn't the case. Most actions are morally ambiguous. You wouldn't change a player's alignment because he starts eating his dinner before his comrades sat down would you? We consider that "wrong" in our society. It doesn't make it evil.
Now, not every case is black and white. There are moral complexities to the "objective" system that is D&D. Still, there isn't enough evidence here to call the action evil. It is certainly macabre. It is something most people should find disagreeable. But it isn't something that should force an alignment change or any metagame consequences.
And as a general statement, people need to remember that there are 9 alignments in D&D, not 4. And those "boxes" represent a range that sort of blends into the next box. Someone can be VERY LAWFUL VERY GOOD, of they can be mostly lawful and mostly good. Either way they end up in the Lawful Good box, but one is in the extreme corner as far from the other alignments, and the other is in the corner closer to Neutral Good and Lawful Netural.
The act of taking an enemies skull and using as decoration/trophy is not necessarily evil, but it's definately not good either. Whether it should be defined as evil depends in part on how the world you play in functions. If, for example, what happens with a dead body reflects on what happens to the creature in the afterlife, the act of mutilating a corpse would probably be considered evil.
In any case, there is not only the good/evil aspect to consider, but also the law/chaos. If there's laws or customs against desecrating corpses in your world your player have acted chaotically, and their alignment should perhaps be adjusted accordingly.