First situation: Evil. Betrayal, deceit, Murder, violating the flag of truce, abuse of magic, abuse of power.
Second situation: Well played, neutral at best and worse. If the wizard didn't ask, and didn't check but accept that pile as their pile of loot it's up to them to decide what they want to do with it. He choose to risk it and wear them without making sure they are clean. The good character didn't make him, didn't even suggest he would want them, simply allowed them to go into the pile. "Gave him enough rope to hang himself" isn't a crime, and is a standard tactic of Good characters. Would the "good thing" to do been warning them that it had problems? Yes, however it isn't necessary or obligatory.
Just a clarification, the wizard from the evil party did identify the item. However, since his check didn't exceed by 10 the DC, he mistook it for a normal magical item, instead of a cursed one.
Just a clarification, the wizard from the evil party did identify the item. However, since his check didn't exceed by 10 the DC, he mistook it for a normal magical item, instead of a cursed one.
So it's a "He screwed up" situation? No ones fault but his own then. He took the item, he took the contract to abide by the item.
Just a clarification, the wizard from the evil party did identify the item. However, since his check didn't exceed by 10 the DC, he mistook it for a normal magical item, instead of a cursed one.So it's a "He screwed up" situation? No ones fault but his own then. He took the item, he took the contract to abide by the item.
I know, but by doing this, the NG characther is basically putting everyone in jeopardy by willingly compromising the safety of one member of this uneasy alliance. This could also have dire consequences for both groups should his mischief be discovered. Remember he actually proposed the split and proposefully put the cursed item on the other group's pile. As they did not know the nature of the item and were under the presumption of a fair deal (mostly due to the paladin on the player's side), they accepted it.
Buyer beware.
Beyond that Adventuring is a dangerous business. As the movie quote goes: "He knowingly endangers himself"
The wizard obviously has confidence in his abilities. From a character point of view the sorcerer may actually have an inferiority complex when it comes to wizards since her magic is home grown instead of the school taught form, so she maybe second guessing her own opinion on it being cursed.
Granted that's a bit of role play that has not been presented in this case, however it would definitely change our opinions on if it is good/neutral/evil.
Personally the second case is one I would let ride as neutral. I could see anyone doing it good, neutral, or evil and as such it reads neutral to me.
Now if the sorceress had purposefully hidden the fact that the item was cursed (maybe with a non detection spell or misdirection spell) then I would agree that it was an evil act. As it stands she just didn't help him. Not a good thing to do, but not evil either, or we all probably fit under the evil category.
Okay, so...
I'm going to have to make a few assumptions about this whole first scenario. First, I'm going to assume that the goblin warlord was not a nice fellow, and that strolling in, kicking down the door, and killing his minions and then him (without first using magic to convince him to take off his armor) is not evil. Second, I'm going to assume that the party showed up with the intent to kill the goblin warchief, and that they didn't slaughter all his minions and start fighting him out of self-defense. I'm also going to go ahead and assume that any attempts made to redeem the goblin warchief and turn him to not needing to be killed (up until the fight got to the point where charm person was cast) had failed.
That leaves two possibilities: Killing the warchief is good, it's neutral, or the secret bonus possibility...it's actually evil even though it doesn't involve betrayal.
For it to be a good thing, the goblin warchief likely does some evil stuff; consistently and thoroughly. For it to be neutral, the warchief probably doesn't understand the consequences of his actions (unlikely) or has some seriously extenuating circumstances that make him not so heinous that killing him doesn't inherently improve the world.
So if it's perfectly okay to kill the goblin warchief when he knows you're going to do it and will likely continue doing all the evil stuff he planned on doing if you don't kill him, why the hell would the fact that you cast a spell that temporarily got him to trust you be evil? Killing him is either a good thing or a bad thing, and the dictate for that is the reason the character is doing it. Charm Person doesn't redeem him, it just makes him kind of gullible for a while. All we know about the goblin is that he doesn't try to kill his friends, and he trusts them enough (after some sense motive checks) to expect healing. After the couple hours duration of Charm Person, he might even catch on to having been manipulated by magic and be even worse, committing vile acts of true depravity the next time around.
As far as I'm concerned, the context is absolutely crucial, but only with regard to the characters' goals in killing the warchief (the ends). Were they killing him to save innocents? That's probably good. Were they killing him because he was eating all the sheep for the town? Maybe that's good, but probably neutral. Pure survival, really. Were they killing him because they just like killing things? That's evil, even if everyone in town wanted him dead because he was eating all the sheep and killing innocents. Even if he received a fair trial and this was an acceptable form of execution, if the characters are doing it because they like to kill things, it's still evil (for them, not necessarily for those who ordered it). If they are killing him because he has phat l00t and they want it...still evil.
Telling a known killer that you're going to give him a horse and let him go if he just frees the hostages and then casting Slay Living the moment you have a chance isn't evil. It's barely chaotic, if it's allowed by the rules of your society.
The reason everyone hates Judas (and Dante even gave him his own circle in hell) is that he betrayed the ultimate innocent, which is pretty darn evil. Betrayal is cool. Double-agents are awesome. Undercover cops are great in movies. Heroes trick villains. Maybe the hero secretly tapes the villain's confession before the cops bust in. Maybe he swaps the villain's bullets for blanks. Maybe he gives the villain a backpack full of t-shirts instead of a parachute. That's what they do. Not every hero does it so blatantly, and many have specific codes of honor that disallow that...Which is why there's another axis of alignment. If I saw a paladin (or any lawful good character) try this Charm Person stunt, they'd be suffering the full force. But it's not inherently evil. It's all in why they were there in the first place.
A few more examples:
Hero kills dragon - maybe evil, maybe good, not enough context.
Hero kills white dragon that had been attacking town - probably good.
Hero kills gold dragon that never did anything worse than leave a bunch of half-dragon spawn without a father - probably evil.
Hero kills only chromatic dragons - probably good.
Hero kills only metallic dragons - probably evil.
Hero kills chromatic and metallic dragons, but his family was killed by a white dragon - tragic, but probably evil.
Hero kills only chromatic dragons, but his family was killed by a white dragon - probably still evil, if just motivated by revenge. If he's only fighting ones that have attacked towns, that might be a little more good, if he's consciously choosing to go after them. If he's just fighting them because they are the only ones that he can find...still evil.
And law/chaos works on its own.
A sadist kills someone - almost certainly evil, may or may not be chaotic/lawful.
A sadist kills only people who have committed serious crimes - almost certainly still evil, but definitely lawful.
A sadist kills whenever they feel like it - Still evil, probably chaotic.
A sadist only kills blonde women - evil, probably lawful, even if no codified laws exist against blondes.
A sadist only kills blonde women...for a while, then switches to brunettes to throw the heroes off the trail and think it's someone else - still evil, but chaotic.
Someone gave the example of plundering nearby kingdoms to improve your own as an example of an evil act. Well, what's the nearby kingdom like? Historically, this was pretty commonly accepted through polite society. Privateering is a tradition of *just that*.
Whom, precisely, are the PCs plundering? Are they robbing highwaymen that are robbing the members of their own kingdom? Are they robbing the trade routes of a foreign power that deals primarily with agents of an unjust dictator that is taxing his citizens more than they can bear? Do they then take that money and redistribute it among the citizens of the kingdom the dictator was taxing? Really now, is Robin Hood evil?
In my good/evil=ends and lawful/chaotic=means generalization, the ends are not the goblin's death. The ends are what the characters hope to gain from the goblin's death. That's what actually matters.
This is a role-playing game that codifies killing things. Pages upon pages describe ways to resolve whether PC A or Monster B kills the other. There is very little covering the why, and that's where the role-playing comes in. It is the absolute key component to establish whether killing something is good/evil or lawful/chaotic. I think we all agree on that.
Betraying Hitler (Stalin, Osama bin Laden, the Joker, a random drug dealer, or Voldemort) = good, probably. Betraying Jesus (your family, Superman, Abe Lincoln, a cop, or your country) = evil, probably. But it's all chaotic. And there are tons of exceptions. And the only way to know is WHY.
And seriously, as someone else pointed out, there are plenty of ways to take out your foes using disabling magic that aren't evil per se. Sleep, maybe, then a coup de grace? Don't know how many hit dice the warchief had. What about disarms? If you take his weapon, and he can't fight back except with nonlethal damage, are you allowed to kill him? What if you knock him down to -2 hit points? Does letting him bleed out count as evil? If he stabilizes, is it evil murder (instead of a good and just killing) to just stab him again? What if he got hit by petrify, turned to stone, and then the PCs shattered him? What if, after the goblin warchief is killed in a fair fight, the heroes destroy all pieces of the body they can obtain to make resurrection spells more difficult? Is that suddenly evil, because poor dead goblin can't protect his old body? Or is it good, helping prevent anyone from (easily) bringing him back to continue his horrible ways?
Let's get something straight. The goblin only lowered his guard because of a temporary spell, not free will. That's not murder, that's tactics. Good job by your players (the chaotic ones, anyway).
Actually, the more I think about it, the more likely it is that the cursed item identification bit is at least a little evil, depending on exactly what the PC felt the rival party was likely to do. If he thought they would try to kill the party later, or take whatever they were searching for and do great evil with it, then it's probably good or neutral at worst. If he was just doing it to screw that particular guy over and didn't think the rival party were really dangerous to anyone (even if, fundamentally, some of them they were evil...you can't just go killing everyone for being evil...sometimes they're just selfish and cruel but don't do anything worse than raise selfish and cruel kids), especially if he felt the truce could hold if everyone on his side played fair, then it's probably just evil.
Chaotic, though, definitely. Either way.
Okay, so...
I'm going to have to make a few assumptions about this whole first scenario. First, I'm going to assume that the goblin warlord was not a nice fellow, and that strolling in, kicking down the door, and killing his minions and then him (without first using magic to convince him to take off his armor) is not evil. Second, I'm going to assume that the party showed up with the intent to kill the goblin warchief, and that they didn't slaughter all his minions and start fighting him out of self-defense. I'm also going to go ahead and assume that any attempts made to redeem the goblin warchief and turn him to not needing to be killed (up until the fight got to the point where charm person was cast) had failed.
All incorrect assumptions, for the record.
For it to be a good thing, the goblin warchief likely does some evil stuff; consistently and thoroughly.
No. Killing a creature is never inherently good unless the creature is a supernatural evil (devil, demon, etc).
[
All incorrect assumptions, for the record.
Um no. Many of those assumptions were in fact correct: The goblin warlord in question is not a nice fellow, and the party did show up with the intent to kill the warchief and his minions.
Those are the easiest assumptions to prove true so I'll stick to that, but even some of the others could be the case as well...
unless this was your game that you were GMing and you have more information to provide that has been left out?
Um no. Many of those assumptions were in fact correct: The goblin warlord in question is not a nice fellow, and the party did show up with the intent to kill the warchief and his minions.[
All incorrect assumptions, for the record.
The assumption was that killing him was a good act because he isn't a nice fellow, which is wrong. The characters also do not show up to kill that goblin or his minions; they're after the goblin's boss.
The assumption was that killing him was a good act because he isn't a nice fellow, which is wrong. The characters also do not show up to kill that goblin or his minions; they're after the goblin's boss.Um no. Many of those assumptions were in fact correct: The goblin warlord in question is not a nice fellow, and the party did show up with the intent to kill the warchief and his minions.[
All incorrect assumptions, for the record.
Except that's one assumption, not all the assumptions.
1 =/= all
And calling him out on just the last one and skipping all the other assumptions then saying that all the assumptions are incorrect as record doesn't really stand.
Except that's one assumption, not all the assumptions.
1 =/= all
He enumerated three assumptions:
First, that killing the goblin is a good act because the goblin wasn't a nice guy. This is a false assumption.
Second, that the party's whole goal is to kill the goblin. This is a false assumption.
Third, that all attempts to redeem the goblin had failed. This is a false assumption.
Three enumerated assumptions, all false.
Except that's one assumption, not all the assumptions.
1 =/= all
He enumerated three assumptions:
First, that killing the goblin is a good act because the goblin wasn't a nice guy. This is a false assumption.
Second, that the party's whole goal is to kill the goblin. This is a false assumption.
Third, that all attempts to redeem the goblin had failed. This is a false assumption.
Three enumerated assumptions, all false.
On number one he didn't say it was a good act he said it was not an evil act .
The party didn't show up to kill the goblin? What were they going to do invite him to tea? The OP Stated that was their goal, they in fact did bust down the door and try to kill him, were in the act of killing him and had a spell make it easier for them.
Did any attempt to redeem the goblin succeed?
They only made to truce to save their own hides, not because they really wanted a truce. I don't think its anymore immoral than any other type of deception during a battle. If that is evil then stabbing someone in the back is evil since that involves deception, even though its of a different type, and eventually that charm person would have worn off. I am willing to bet once the goblin realized he had been duped he would have the PC's head if he could get them.Utterly beside the point. The fact the goblin (an evil creature) would have done it to them is the strongest argument that it was an evil act.
If Good can do the same thing Evil can do, but it's not evil because they are Good, you might as well hand out shirts at random to every character. Those that get a halo shirt are good, those that get a horn shirt are evil, and those that get a blank shirt are neutral.
Once everyone has their shirts, they can all break up into teams and murder loot and pillage while the GM calls after them, "Ok everyone, run along and have fun storming the castle!"
My point was that the move was not made to make a deal but to make sure they wont die, and as soon as they got away he would be after them again. Only a fool leaves enemies behind him that are strong enough to hurt him. They would have only ended having to fight him again. Definitely pointless and dangerous.
On number one he didn't say it was a good act he said it was not an evil act .
Which is incorrect, because it is an evil act if there are alternatives.
The party didn't show up to kill the goblin?
No, their goal is the goblin's boss, as I said.
Did any attempt to redeem the goblin succeed?
No, because two of the party decided to murder the goblin in cold blood during a truce negotiation.
Just having alternatives is not enough to make the killing of another person evil. There are always alternatives, including just laying down and dying yourself.
Otherwise every time someone kills someone else in D&D it would be 'evil' which is not the case. This is not black and white -- good or evil, neutral exists in this game.
On point number 2: Still not giving it to you. Unless you can speak as a player or the DM you really don't know what the party was doing there or what their goals were.
On point number 3: Then all attempts to redeem the goblin had failed. Please note it was never mentioned why they failed, only that they had.
To those that said the action was evil, what should they have done? Remember he(goblin) was only cooperating because he was under a spell, not because he had a real change of heart.
This is the way I see it:
The goblin: "You know when this spell wears off you guys are in trouble"
PC: "We know, but since we have your trust we have to wait. We can't fight you at a disadvantage."
The goblin: "Fair enough, you've been warned"
I know that conversation did not take place, but that is how I saw it.
Okay, so...
I'm going to have to make a few assumptions about this whole first scenario...
With reference to this particular post, I have to say that I cannot agree more with these sentiments.
The trouble that the Alignment system fails to address out-of-the-box is the problem of *scale*. While one can put the scenario of the charmed evil-aligned guy persuaded into a truce and bluffed out of his armor in a tidy white room and examine it without any context at all and conclude that <hands-covering-mouth-gasp> it was an Eeevil act, the same thing can be done with any action (or inaction) that one cares to construct.
Example: "Well, you've fallen as a Paladin because you negotiated a better room rate at that wayside tavern two weeks ago (because it was all you could afford). Because you paid less for the room, the innkeeper didn't have enough money to buy food this week, had to sell his halberd, and was therefore defenseless against- and killed by the raiders that you were hunting in the area, who eluded you and attacked the inn."
I can demonstrate, using similar phrases to the ones that have been used to describe the first scenario, that the Paladin has been involved in an Evil act (and said construction should be elementary to those people who have been employing said verbiage).
Inaction is harder and less plausible, but can be managed, given the correct sequence of events.
In the case of the goblin warlord, I concur that if the party was engaged in an assault to kill the warlord and his cronies from the outset (in defense of the town/settlement/etc.), that the overall mission was a Good undertaking (defending those lives in town who are incapable of defending themselves). It is not unreasonable to think that, Charm Person notwithstanding, the goblin warlord had no intention of packing up and heading home, but would instead, if un-checked, remain a danger to the community the Players were defending. It follows, therefore, that while regrettable, his death saved lives, and as such is not in-and-of-itself an evil act, in the larger context of the world-at-large. Especially since most creatures affected by Charm magics will remember with clarity that they have been charmed, it can be argued that the truce-under-charm was exceptionally temporary. (To be sure, if the Players had talked him down to a permanent truce in the absence of Charm magics and *then* killed him, that would be an evil act, since they would have abated the threat to the town and would be killing on their own hook, as it were, but this is not the case.) I cannot make an argument that killing the Goblin was a Good act, for a life *was* lost. The act of killing the warlord was at worst, however, a neutral act undertaken in the pursuit of a Good end (the defense of the town), and was probably a good act in the sense that it not only defended innocent lives but also diminished evil.
In general, in my opinion, it is up to the GM to frame his or her examination of the Moral (or Ethical) implications of any particular action by the PCs in the proper context, and not arbitrarily limit the scope of consideration to the local action, but allow more global motivators to be taken in context. The other important thing to note about the Alignment system in this RPG is that it is an abstraction that is not wholly meant to mirror moral and ethical perspectives in the real world. The traditional Patriarch God of the Elves has a near-genocidal perspective on Orcs but is Lawful Good in alignment. Real-world morality analysis does not exactly apply to this game.
(I'm presently playing an 11th level Druid with a Vow of Poverty, and have spoken in depth about the Alignment system with my current GM, whom I hold in very high esteem. My character has killed opponents in the past, and will undoubtedly continue to do so in the name of Good, standing against the advance of Evil and thwarting the plans of the wicked. It's Unnecessary Death that runs the risk of the Evil Act.)
~Doskious Steele
To those that said the action was evil, what should they have done? Remember he(goblin) was only cooperating because he was under a spell, not because he had a real change of heart.
Tie him up and store him in the bathroom, then take him back to Sandpoint to stand trial. And yes, there is a bathroom in this particular lair, heh.
My point was that the move was not made to make a deal but to make sure they wont die, and as soon as they got away he would be after them again. Only a fool leaves enemies behind him that are strong enough to hurt him. They would have only ended having to fight him again. Definitely pointless and dangerous.
And a perfectly fine point it is, and very true.
For a non-Good party.
Good is held to a higher standard. Just as a Paladin can't kill the helpless goblin once his friend has issued a truce, a Good party can't either. A neutral/neutral chaotic or evil/evil chaotic party could, and there would be no reason for them not to. A good party (of any alignment) can't. The goblin has agree'd to a truce, however he was forced into it.
If he'd been at the point of a sword and said 'Parley', the Good party would have to accept that as a good faith agreement, anything else and they are not Good. If they then murdered him after insisting that if he wants to 'Parley' he has to disarm and disarmor himself, that is again, EVIL.
The whole concept of Good is you do what is right, not what is expedient. Neutral and Evil do what is expedient, what is selfish. Good does not.
I'm inclined to go with the majority view (at least for point 1)
Act #1: Evil (and likely out of bounds for the alignment).
But there are a couple of things that give me pause:
The two who deceived the goblin and broke their words are chaotic good.
Good/evil may not be exactly the right question here - rather the issue is whether the characters acted in accordance with their alignments, which is potentially more complex than just "good" vs. "evil".For a lawful good character, this would be wrong on two counts, they broke their word (not lawful), and murdered an unarmored sentient being (not good). So, the act would be incompatible with alignment.
For a chaotic good character, this is wrong only on the latter count (murder = evil = not good), but not keeping their word is in keeping with (or certainly doesn't contradict) their chaotic nature.
Which aspect of alignment takes precedence? If it's a logical intersection, then this was out-of-alignment even for Chaotic good characters, since it was chaotic but not good. If it's a logical union, then the act was not out of bounds for the alignment. If it's some other logical relationship, then it would depend on what the relationship was.
I think I've always played alignment as a logical intersection (so this would be out-of-alignment), but I don't have my books here and am not sure how the rule actually reads (or if this point is explicitly addressed).
Act #2: neutral, maybe evil.
Are there restrictions on good aligned characters knowingly giving out a cursed item? This is essentially what happened. The character knew it was cursed, and gave it to someone else.
This is not consistent with "good".
Is it evil? Maybe. If giving out a cursed item is evil by definition, then yes (again, no books here...). If not, then since the character really didn't try to harm anyone directly, maybe it's not evil either.
So I would call this one either neutral (i.e., not explicitly good or evil) or evil, depending on what the rules say about...
This is all so hideously wrong. Seriously, if we're going to be THAT restrictive on the morality of killing...well, let me put it this way.
If I follow the reasoning that's being put forward, any time you let an enemy below 0 bleed out you're committing an evil act. You have the power, normally, to bring that creature back to 0 or more in order to prevent it from dieing. If we look at it like the way are with the goblin then we're all mass murdering sociopaths who have absolutely no regard for the inherent value of life, because if we DID we wouldn't go around letting "bad guys" bleed out on the ground. I mean, seriously, that bandit may well have had 3 kids and a wife and a dependent father.
You're arguing over the morality of the kill in a game where it's the main means of XP gain. It was a monster. It attacked them. If it had been paralyzed with magic would it have been wrong for them to kill it? It's not like they were killing innocents, breaking any form of law, or being perverse.
So what if they had left the goblin alive? He may have terrorized other travellers. He may have trailed them, hunting them at a distance, waiting for them to be weak before striking the killing blow. The way I see it, they had Three options;
1. Leave the creature alive, leading potentially to the deaths of other good creatures, or there own. (arguably an evil act, or at least criminally negligent)
2. Take it hostage and keep it with them. Constant Surveillance over something they'd probably have had to kill eventually anyway.
3. Kill it.
To those that said the action was evil, what should they have done? Remember he(goblin) was only cooperating because he was under a spell, not because he had a real change of heart.Tie him up and store him in the bathroom, then take him back to Sandpoint to stand trial. And yes, there is a bathroom in this particular lair, heh.
Very good, exactly. Tieing him up and taking him back to stand trial would have been the epitomy of Good, and exactly what the Paladin would have done (one hopes). Even bonking him on the back of the head and knocking him out would have been fine, it's the cold blooded murder that turns it Evil.
To those that said the action was evil, what should they have done? Remember he(goblin) was only cooperating because he was under a spell, not because he had a real change of heart.Tie him up and store him in the bathroom, then take him back to Sandpoint to stand trial. And yes, there is a bathroom in this particular lair, heh.
The minute they try to tie him up he would become violent, which would have resumed the fight, and led to the same conclusion.
The minute they try to tie him up he would become violent, which would have resumed the fight, and led to the same conclusion.
Not if he's unconscious or if he agrees to it (charmed, remember).
My point was that the move was not made to make a deal but to make sure they wont die, and as soon as they got away he would be after them again. Only a fool leaves enemies behind him that are strong enough to hurt him. They would have only ended having to fight him again. Definitely pointless and dangerous.And a perfectly fine point it is, and very true.
For a non-Good party.
Good is held to a higher standard. Just as a Paladin can't kill the helpless goblin once his friend has issued a truce, a Good party can't either. A neutral/neutral chaotic or evil/evil chaotic party could, and there would be no reason for them not to. A good party (of any alignment) can't. The goblin has agree'd to a truce, however he was forced into it.
If he'd been at the point of a sword and said 'Parley', the Good party would have to accept that as a good faith agreement, anything else and they are not Good. If they then murdered him after insisting that if he wants to 'Parley' he has to disarm and disarmor himself, that is again, EVIL.
The whole concept of Good is you do what is right, not what is expedient. Neutral and Evil do what is expedient, what is selfish. Good does not.
That is a hideously inaccurate generalization to the nature of Good. Any General would by that definition be evil. The ends do indeed justify the means from time to time. A paladin, servant of the greater good, would have realized that the results of his actions can be like a snowball effect. Who are YOU to decide what's right, as long as we're on the topic?
No. The decision is left to the morality of the players.
Remember you're dealing with a race of degenerate sociopathic killers that are a plague on the face of the planet. You would be foolish to extend trust to such a creature... (and if it were being played correctly it WOULD betray that trust immediately). Being good doesn't mean you need to be stupid.
Where in your moral equation does the good of the many come into play? When do the potential losses of an action make the murder of an individual morally acceptable?
These questions ARE NOT answered, implicitly or explicitly, in the rulebook of a RPG. This is an ages old, hotly debated philosophical point and regardless of what anyone says there's no "good" answer to it. You couldn't honestly say that a good being WOULDN'T choose to kill it...but I certainly wouldn't say that ALL good beings would.
My point was that the move was not made to make a deal but to make sure they wont die, and as soon as they got away he would be after them again. Only a fool leaves enemies behind him that are strong enough to hurt him. They would have only ended having to fight him again. Definitely pointless and dangerous.And a perfectly fine point it is, and very true.
For a non-Good party.
Good is held to a higher standard. Just as a Paladin can't kill the helpless goblin once his friend has issued a truce, a Good party can't either. A neutral/neutral chaotic or evil/evil chaotic party could, and there would be no reason for them not to. A good party (of any alignment) can't. The goblin has agree'd to a truce, however he was forced into it.
If he'd been at the point of a sword and said 'Parley', the Good party would have to accept that as a good faith agreement, anything else and they are not Good. If they then murdered him after insisting that if he wants to 'Parley' he has to disarm and disarmor himself, that is again, EVIL.
The whole concept of Good is you do what is right, not what is expedient. Neutral and Evil do what is expedient, what is selfish. Good does not.
Now I will admit I am going on past villains I have faced, but I dont see any other option, and none has been presented to me. Sometimes you have to do that which you do not want to do. He could have been a more reasonable villain and backed down, but since he was planning on murdering an entire town I doubt it, and the action was neutral at worse. If he would have escaped somehow they would have wished they had killed him. If the heroes wish to risk their lives it is up to them, but since they are fighting for the town, they have to consider that also. I am sure they would not want to be the one to tell any towns person they had a chance to stop the goblin that killed their family member.
If they had already tied him up then it would be evil if he gave a voluntary surrender, but this case is nowhere near that.
Very good, exactly. Tieing him up and taking him back to stand trial would have been the epitomy of Good, and exactly what the Paladin would have done (one hopes). Even bonking him on the back of the head and knocking him out would have been fine, it's the cold blooded murder that turns it Evil.To those that said the action was evil, what should they have done? Remember he(goblin) was only cooperating because he was under a spell, not because he had a real change of heart.Tie him up and store him in the bathroom, then take him back to Sandpoint to stand trial. And yes, there is a bathroom in this particular lair, heh.
No, No, No! "Tying him up and taking him back to stand trial would have been the epitome of -" Lawfulness. The Paladin would have advocated this solution, I'm sure, he's Lawful Good. Chaotic Good characters are more prone to making their own judgments from what I understand, and I have to say that deciding to end the life of a clear and present danger to the lives of not just the party but also the lives of the residents of Sandpoint seems like a pretty non-evil act to me, regardless of how friendly the magic makes him right now.
~Doskious Steele
Very good, exactly. Tieing him up and taking him back to stand trial would have been the epitomy of Good, and exactly what the Paladin would have done (one hopes). Even bonking him on the back of the head and knocking him out would have been fine, it's the cold blooded murder that turns it Evil.To those that said the action was evil, what should they have done? Remember he(goblin) was only cooperating because he was under a spell, not because he had a real change of heart.Tie him up and store him in the bathroom, then take him back to Sandpoint to stand trial. And yes, there is a bathroom in this particular lair, heh.
Yeah, that makes sense...because the goblin would even really UNDERSTAND the LAWS you're subjecting him too. Technically, anyone that can't understand the moral implications of what they've done can't be held legally responsible. It will end its days in terror and confusion. Congratulations, you've just tortured the creature. Better to have killed it, and been done with it.
Who are YOU to decide what's right, as long as we're on the topic?
The rulebook, in this case.
Remember, good and evil in D&D are not abstract, mutable concepts. They are specifically defined and are specifically detectable by mortals. "Evil" is defined as killing, especially if it's merely convenience that spurs you to kill. This is a textbook case of "it's more convenient to kill him, so let's do that", which is defined by the game as an evil act.
The minute they try to tie him up he would become violent, which would have resumed the fight, and led to the same conclusion.Not if he's unconscious or if he agrees to it (charmed, remember).
Charm person is not dominate person. Dominate = you do what I say
Charmed = We are friends. Just because someone is your friend that does not mean you let them tie you up.
Yeah, that makes sense...because the goblin would even really UNDERSTAND the LAWS you're subjecting him too. Technically, anyone that can't understand the moral implications of what they've done can't be held legally responsible.
The goblin in question has a 10 intelligence. It's perfectly capable of understanding the moral implications of what it's done and can be held legally responsible.
The minute they try to tie him up he would become violent, which would have resumed the fight, and led to the same conclusion.Not if he's unconscious or if he agrees to it (charmed, remember).Charm person is not dominate person. Dominate = you do what I say
Charmed = We are friends. Just because someone is your friend that does not mean you let them tie you up.
It does mean you can convince them to turn themselves in, though. Especially since you've already handled his entire tribe (you have to go through pretty much the entire tribe plus some extras just to get to this particular goblin).
Who are YOU to decide what's right, as long as we're on the topic?The rulebook, in this case.
Remember, good and evil in D&D are not abstract, mutable concepts. They are specifically defined and are specifically detectable by mortals. "Evil" is defined as killing, especially if it's merely convenience that spurs you to kill. This is a textbook case of "it's more convenient to kill him, so let's do that", which is defined by the game as an evil act.
I guess the issue now is whether or not the act was convenient or necessary. I think it was necessary. The description of goblins for this world makes them even less civilized than the other goblins of D&D. You turn your back and you get stabbed. You let them go, and they thank you by bringing friends along. I think it was necessary to keep the town safe, and they could have tried to capture it, but that just puts another party member in danger. Taking prisoners is one thing, but taking prisoners that don't want to be taken is a different matter altogether.
Who are YOU to decide what's right, as long as we're on the topic?The rulebook, in this case.
Remember, good and evil in D&D are not abstract, mutable concepts. They are specifically defined and are specifically detectable by mortals. "Evil" is defined as killing, especially if it's merely convenience that spurs you to kill. This is a textbook case of "it's more convenient to kill him, so let's do that", which is defined by the game as an evil act.
Well then maye you should check the diction on that particular passage : "Good Creatures protect INNOCENT life"... and later "Good IMPLIES Altruism"
Implicit and Explicit are very different things. A goblin is FAR from innocent, and by the word of the book, which is the LAST WAY you should handle morality in a RPG Evil is defined as killing for "Sport or out of duty to some ecil deity or master." The legions of heaven in you're paperbound world REGULARLY commit genocidal acts against inherently evil creatures....and a goblin is inherently evil. It has killed before, it WILL kill again and by letting it live you commit a negligent act, by putting it to trial you commit a cruel act.
It does mean you can convince them to turn themselves in, though. Especially since you've already slaughtered his entire tribe (you have to go through pretty much the entire tribe plus some extras just to get to this particular goblin).The minute they try to tie him up he would become violent, which would have resumed the fight, and led to the same conclusion.Not if he's unconscious or if he agrees to it (charmed, remember).Charm person is not dominate person. Dominate = you do what I say
Charmed = We are friends. Just because someone is your friend that does not mean you let them tie you up.
If he is reasonable, but goblins are chaotic crazy little creatures and logic seems to escape them.
Yeah, that makes sense...because the goblin would even really UNDERSTAND the LAWS you're subjecting him too. Technically, anyone that can't understand the moral implications of what they've done can't be held legally responsible.The goblin in question has a 10 intelligence. It's perfectly capable of understanding the moral implications of what it's done and can be held legally responsible.
Sure, but is it a part of normal society or just a smart goblin? a goblin is a goblin is a goblin.
eah, that makes sense...because the goblin would even really UNDERSTAND the LAWS you're subjecting him too. Technically, anyone that can't understand the moral implications of what they've done can't be held legally responsible. It will end its days in terror and confusion. Congratulations, you've just tortured the creature. Better to have killed it, and been done with it.
You are confusing reality with game reality. Reality (our world) yes, you are right. Game reality? No, you are wrong. Game reality specifies what is and is not Good. It also says that goblin knows that it is evil, and it knows what it did was wrong. There is no GREY area in D&D. There is Good, Evil, Law and Chaos. Even Neutrality isn't really there, Neutrality is not being Good or Evil, it is a conscious choice to not do good for good's sake, and not do evil for evil's sake. Neutral is really mostly just selfish, to be honest, it's says 'I'll do good if it's to my advantage, and I'll do evil if it's to my advantage, and I'll sit over here and be quiet if neither is'. Killing a helpless creature, even an evil one, is one of the big trademark 'EVIL' as in the rules sense things, as stated above. Especially doing so after you have given them a truce.
As far as legally, it depends on the GAME REALITY, not REAL REALITY. Game reality may have it legal to own slaves, or to kill someone for stealing your horse. Without knowing what the laws are in the game world, you can't say it's not legally binding or not.
I guess the issue now is whether or not the act was convenient or necessary. I think it was necessary. The description of goblins for this world makes them even less civilized than the other goblins of D&D. You turn your back and you get stabbed. You let them go, and they thank you by bringing friends along. I think it was necessary to keep the town safe, and they could have tried to capture it, but that just puts another party member in danger. Taking prisoners is one thing, but taking prisoners that don't want to be taken is a different matter altogether.
You described convenient perfectly. It was not necessary. It made their lives easier, but they could easily have just drawn out the truce talks, healed up their party including the two downed members, done their best to convince him to turn himself in, and, failing that, conked him over the head and knocked him out, then tied him up and stored him in the water closet until they were ready to return to town.
Here's an extension of the scenario for you:
The party doesn't actually kill the goblin in this manner, instead easily defeating him in combat. They continue on through the ruins and eventually encounter a human fighter who is working for the BBEG. The fight turns sour and two of the party members are down. The enchantress is desperate and casts a charm person on the enemy fighter and he fails his save. The other two conscious party members convince him to remove his plate armor so they can heal him and instead slit his throat. Evil or not? By your definition, it is not evil, for the same reasons as you give above. However,
I guess the issue now is whether or not the act was convenient or necessary. I think it was necessary. The description of goblins for this world makes them even less civilized than the other goblins of D&D. You turn your back and you get stabbed. You let them go, and they thank you by bringing friends along. I think it was necessary to keep the town safe, and they could have tried to capture it, but that just puts another party member in danger. Taking prisoners is one thing, but taking prisoners that don't want to be taken is a different matter altogether.You described convenient perfectly. It was not necessary. It made their lives easier, but they could easily have just drawn out the truce talks, healed up their party including the two downed members, done their best to convince him to turn himself in, and, failing that, conked him over the head and knocked him out, then tied him up and stored him in the water closet until they were ready to return to town.
Here's an extension of the scenario for you:
The party doesn't actually kill the goblin in this manner, instead easily defeating him in combat. They continue on through the ruins and eventually encounter a human fighter who is working for the BBEG. The fight turns sour and two of the party members are down. The enchantress is desperate and casts a charm person on the enemy fighter and he fails his save. The other two conscious party members convince him to remove his plate armor so they can heal him and instead slit his throat. Evil or not? By your definition, it is not evil, for the same reasons as you give above. However,
** spoiler omitted **
Completely different situation, and that would be very much an EVIL act. BUT it's irrelevant.
Well then maye you should check the diction on that particular passage : "Good Creatures protect INNOCENT life"... and later "Good IMPLIES Altruism"
Maybe you should check your reading glasses, because that wasn't the passage I was referring to. Skip down to the next paragraph. "Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient."
Completely different situation, and that would be very much an EVIL act. BUT it's irrelevant.
Actually, it's the exact same situation from a rules perspective. The rules do not make exceptions for the alignment of the creature being slain.
I'm inclined to go with the majority view (at least for point 1)
Act #1: Evil (and likely out of bounds for the alignment).
But there are a couple of things that give me pause:
The two who deceived the goblin and broke their words are chaotic good.
Good/evil may not be exactly the right question here - rather the issue is whether the characters acted in accordance with their alignments, which is potentially more complex than just "good" vs. "evil".For a lawful good character, this would be wrong on two counts, they broke their word (not lawful), and murdered an unarmored sentient being (not good). So, the act would be incompatible with alignment.
For a chaotic good character, this is wrong only on the latter count (murder = evil = not good), but not keeping their word is in keeping with (or certainly doesn't contradict) their chaotic nature.
Which aspect of alignment takes precedence? If it's a logical intersection, then this was out-of-alignment even for Chaotic good characters, since it was chaotic but not good. If it's a logical union, then the act was not out of bounds for the alignment. If it's some other logical relationship, then it would depend on what the relationship was.
I think I've always played alignment as a logical intersection (so this would be out-of-alignment), but I don't have my books here and am not sure how the rule actually reads (or if this point is explicitly addressed).
Act #2: neutral, maybe evil.
Are there restrictions on good aligned characters knowingly giving out a cursed item? This is essentially what happened. The character knew it was cursed, and gave it to someone else.
This is not consistent with "good".
Is it evil? Maybe. If giving out a cursed item is evil by definition, then yes (again, no books here...). If not, then since the character really didn't try to harm anyone directly, maybe it's not evil either.
So I would call this one either neutral (i.e., not explicitly good or evil) or evil, depending on what therules say about...
This is all so hideously wrong. Seriously, if we're going to be THAT restrictive on the morality of killing...well, let me put it this way.
If I follow the reasoning that's being put forward, any time you let an enemy below 0 bleed out you're committing an evil act. You have the power, normally, to bring that creature back to 0 or more in order to prevent it from dieing. If we look at it like the way are with the goblin then we're all mass murdering sociopaths who have absolutely no regard for the inherent value of life, because if we DID we wouldn't go around letting "bad guys" bleed out on the ground. I mean, seriously, that bandit may well have had 3 kids and a wife and a dependent father.You're arguing over the morality of the kill in a game where it's the main means of XP gain. It was a monster. It attacked them. If it had been paralyzed with magic would it have been wrong for them to kill it? It's not like they were killing innocents, breaking any form of law, or being perverse.
So what if they had left the goblin alive? He may have terrorized other travellers. He may have trailed them, hunting them at a distance, waiting for them to be weak before striking the killing blow. The way I see it, they had Three options;
1. Leave the creature alive, leading potentially to the deaths of other good creatures, or there own. (arguably an evil act, or at least criminally negligent)
2. Take it hostage and keep it with them. Constant Surveillance over something they'd probably have had to kill eventually anyway.
3. Kill it.
The difference with the morality of killing is the context, as I see it. In a fight, people die - it's expected. Killing a helpless combatant is not a good act - not by almost any definition (I'll make exceptions for undead, evil outsiders, oozes and other mindless creatures intent on destruction).
Game morality is not real life morality, sure. Goblins are evil beings and not human, but they are sentient - per the alignment description, "good" means a respect for sentient forms of life (paraphrased). How is actively killing a helpless being consistent with "good"?
If you want to see sentient evil beings as bags of XP, play a neutral character, or an evil one.
Or defeat them according to morality of the 'good' alignment that's been chosen.
A good character is not responsible for the evil actions of another - that is not under their control - if they commit evil to stop evil, they have still committed an evil act.
Letting an enemy bleed out is not necessarily evil - maybe not good either - it's doing nothing while someone dies, not killing them. That's a difference. (whether it's good or neutral could be debated though - I'm not sure where I stand on that without thinking about it more).
Regarding your three options - I can't say it any better than mdt just did:
The whole concept of Good is you do what is right, not what is expedient. Neutral and Evil do what is expedient, what is selfish. Good does not.
eah, that makes sense...because the goblin would even really UNDERSTAND the LAWS you're subjecting him too. Technically, anyone that can't understand the moral implications of what they've done can't be held legally responsible. It will end its days in terror and confusion. Congratulations, you've just tortured the creature. Better to have killed it, and been done with it.You are confusing reality with game reality. Reality (our world) yes, you are right. Game reality? No, you are wrong. Game reality specifies what is and is not Good. It also says that goblin knows that it is evil, and it knows what it did was wrong. There is no GREY area in D&D. There is Good, Evil, Law and Chaos. Even Neutrality isn't really there, Neutrality is not being Good or Evil, it is a conscious choice to not do good for good's sake, and not do evil for evil's sake. Neutral is really mostly just selfish, to be honest, it's says 'I'll do good if it's to my advantage, and I'll do evil if it's to my advantage, and I'll sit over here and be quiet if neither is'. Killing a helpless creature, even an evil one, is one of the big trademark 'EVIL' as in the rules sense things, as stated above. Especially doing so after you have given them a truce.
As far as legally, it depends on the GAME REALITY, not REAL REALITY. Game reality may have it legal to own slaves, or to kill someone for stealing your horse. Without knowing what the laws are in the game world, you can't say it's not legally binding or not.
Agreed on the legality, but MORALITY is what we're arguing, and it's NOT spelled out in the book. The system is NOT designed to be THAT rigid, and storytelling suffers when it interpreted like that. Immersive, deep stories, do NOT use cookie cutter morality like that. Video Games offer that kind of storytelling, but Role Playing should aspire to be something more. Also remember the MOST important rule, the one about all the rules being mutable.
Besides, that argument actually SUPPORTS killing thge goblin because if we're all cookie cutter to our alignment then the goblin is a hearltess Chaotic Evil sociopath that should be killed just on the basis of being evil.
...I'm inclined to go with the majority view (at least for point 1)
Act #1: Evil (and likely out of bounds for the alignment).
But there are a couple of things that give me pause:
The two who deceived the goblin and broke their words are chaotic good.
Good/evil may not be exactly the right question here - rather the issue is whether the characters acted in accordance with their alignments, which is potentially more complex than just "good" vs. "evil".For a lawful good character, this would be wrong on two counts, they broke their word (not lawful), and murdered an unarmored sentient being (not good). So, the act would be incompatible with alignment.
For a chaotic good character, this is wrong only on the latter count (murder = evil = not good), but not keeping their word is in keeping with (or certainly doesn't contradict) their chaotic nature.
Which aspect of alignment takes precedence? If it's a logical intersection, then this was out-of-alignment even for Chaotic good characters, since it was chaotic but not good. If it's a logical union, then the act was not out of bounds for the alignment. If it's some other logical relationship, then it would depend on what the relationship was.
I think I've always played alignment as a logical intersection (so this would be out-of-alignment), but I don't have my books here and am not sure how the rule actually reads (or if this point is explicitly addressed).
Act #2: neutral, maybe evil.
Are there restrictions on good aligned characters knowingly giving out a cursed item? This is essentially what happened. The character knew it was cursed, and gave it to someone else.
This is not consistent with "good".
Is it evil? Maybe. If giving out a cursed item is evil by definition, then yes (again, no books here...). If not, then since the character really didn't try to harm anyone directly, maybe it's not evil either.
So I would call this one either neutral (i.e., not explicitly good or evil) or
Ok...but nowhere is that stated as the "Right" thing to do. "Right" is a personal, individual decision and NOT one supported by the alignment system. The rules do NOT support this interpretation of Right.
Very good, exactly. Tieing him up and taking him back to stand trial would have been the epitomy of Good, and exactly what the Paladin would have done (one hopes). Even bonking him on the back of the head and knocking him out would have been fine, it's the cold blooded murder that turns it Evil.To those that said the action was evil, what should they have done? Remember he(goblin) was only cooperating because he was under a spell, not because he had a real change of heart.Tie him up and store him in the bathroom, then take him back to Sandpoint to stand trial. And yes, there is a bathroom in this particular lair, heh.No, No, No! "Tying him up and taking him back to stand trial would have been the epitome of -" Lawfulness. The Paladin would have advocated this solution, I'm sure, he's Lawful Good. Chaotic Good characters are more prone to making their own judgments from what I understand, and I have to say that deciding to end the life of a clear and present danger to the lives of not just the party but also the lives of the residents of Sandpoint seems like a pretty non-evil act to me, regardless of how friendly the magic makes him right now.
~Doskious Steele
The act in question may be chaotic, but it certainly is not good. (I did check the rules, and "chaotic good" is pretty clearly both 'chaotic' and 'good' - the intersection, not the union of the sets) - killing a helpless opponent is not 'good'.
The act is less of a stray from a chaotic good alignment than it would be from a lawful good alignment - but it's still out of bounds for either.
Completely different situation, and that would be very much an EVIL act. BUT it's irrelevant.Actually, it's the exact same situation from a rules perspective. The rules do not make exceptions for the alignment of the creature being slain.
Granted that the rules do not make an exception for the alignment of the slain entity, but they do imply an exception based on said entity's motivations and drives by having a concrete, objectively defined, detectable alignment axis.
greed on the legality, but MORALITY is what we're arguing, and it's NOT spelled out in the book. The system is NOT designed to be THAT rigid, and storytelling suffers when it interpreted like that. Immersive, deep stories, do NOT use cookie cutter morality like that. Video Games offer that kind of storytelling, but Role Playing should aspire to be something more. Also remember the MOST important rule, the one about all the rules being mutable.
Besides, that argument actually SUPPORTS killing thge goblin because if we're all cookie cutter to our alignment then the goblin is a hearltess Chaotic Evil sociopath that should be killed just on the basis of being evil.
Actually, the argument supports it for being Evil. The alignment isn't lockstepped, you don't pick Good and stay Good forever. You pick an alignment and you run with it, and if you make poor choices, or you decide that expediency is more important than putting out the effort to do what is right, you start the long slide down the slope to Evil. An Evil being can change too, can evolve and grow towards Good.
I'm not arguing the Goblin chief in question would have become good, but it's possible, but now we'll never know. And even (if is likely) he never did, that has nothing to do with the state of the two souls that killed him in cold blood. Again, Good has standards, and expediency is very low on that list of standards. If Good were easy, we wouldn't have BBEG's. Evil is easy, evil is doing what is good for you at any given moment and not caring a whit about what it does to others or whether you have to kill someone to get what you want. Sound familiar?
I guess the issue now is whether or not the act was convenient or necessary. I think it was necessary. The description of goblins for this world makes them even less civilized than the other goblins of D&D. You turn your back and you get stabbed. You let them go, and they thank you by bringing friends along. I think it was necessary to keep the town safe, and they could have tried to capture it, but that just puts another party member in danger. Taking prisoners is one thing, but taking prisoners that don't want to be taken is a different matter altogether.You described convenient perfectly. It was not necessary. It made their lives easier, but they could easily have just drawn out the truce talks, healed up their party including the two downed members, done their best to convince him to turn himself in, and, failing that, conked him over the head and knocked him out, then tied him up and stored him in the water closet until they were ready to return to town.
You keep assuming the goblin is going to go along easily.
Here's an extension of the scenario for you:
The party doesn't actually kill the goblin in this manner, instead easily defeating him in combat. They continue on through the ruins and eventually encounter a human fighter who is working for the BBEG. The fight turns sour and two of the party members are down. The enchantress is desperate and casts a charm person on the enemy fighter and he fails his save. The other two conscious party members convince him to remove his plate armor so they can heal him and instead slit his throat. Evil or not? By your definition, it is not evil, for the same reasons as you give above. However,
I actually played the first chapter, and we did let him tag along, but he was not charmed.
The fact of whether or not someone would have given up does not make the act evil. The PC's are not mind readers, and in battle wrong decisions are not an option. The fact that he was repentant means nothing. I dont advocate killing him because of his alignment. The reason was because of his goals. If he was lawful good, and he believed taking over my country(as an example) is a good idea I would kill him. It's not like I am going to think if this evil guy kills me its bad, but if the neutral or good person kills me its ok. At the end of the day I expect to see the end of the day.
Taking prisoners is not a bad thing, but sometimes you have to realize who/what you are dealing with.
If they could have made him completely ineffective so he could not fight back enough to be a threat that is one thing, but as long as he is armed by steel or magic he does not automatically deserve quarter.
Ok...but nowhere is that stated as the "Right" thing to do. "Right" is a personal, individual decision and NOT one supported by the alignment system. The rules do NOT support this interpretation of Right.
I guess you're referring to mdt's statement that I quoted?
You're right - 'right' is not explicitly spelled out. It must be inferred from the principles, which are very clearly spelled out.
I disagree - the rules for a "good" character state that it is not "right" (i.e., outside the bounds of the defined alignment) to kill a helpless opponent - it contradicts the principle of respect for sentient life.