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 agree on that part, but with that statement your spoiler carries no weight.
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.
Evilness has no bearing on whether the creature would keep its word or not, and the party has no way to tell how lawful a particular creature is, either the goblin or the fighter (unless someone memorized detect law that day, which would probably be the first time in history it was memorized).
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.
Please, argue your point, but don't wind down into a semantics argument. In this case, Right is 'that which is in my alignment'. In the case of a NC, it's whatever is expedient. In the case of Neutral, it's whatever is convenient. In the case of LN, it's whatever is convenient without being dishonorable or breaking the law. For LG, it's whatever is good and lawful, and convenience be hanged. For NG it's whatever is Good, and to heck with laws or freedom. For CG, it's whatever is Good and to heck with what's lawful. For LE it's whatever is good for me without breaking my code of honor. For NE it's whatever is good for me so long as I don't get cacked for it. And for CE it's whatever is good for me and bad for everyone else.
I agree on that part, but with that statement your spoiler carries no weight.
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.
Which is exactly my point. It's clearly an evil act to kill the fighter. The rules make no exception for alignment of the slain. The party had no way of knowing the fighter would keep his word. Thus, it is clearly an evil act to kill the goblin, as they have exactly the same surety of betrayal with the fighter as they do with the goblin.
....
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.
I don't claim to contend that the act is a Good act, merely that it would not be an evil one, and thus not out-of-bounds. Killing an opponent bent on the destruction of your person, the persons of your family and the populace as a whole when he happens to be helpless cannot be an evil act if the game world posits the existence of level 10+ good-aligned Fighters, it's an unreasonable contention to suggest otherwise.
~Doskious Steele
It's exactly the same action. The PCs don't know that the human prisoner won't betray them; in fact they've just as much reason to believe that he will as with the goblin.Completely different situation, and that would be very much an EVIL act. BUT it's irrelevant.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 **
No, goblins are a race of sociopathic killers. read the entry.
Turning him into the authorities, as he's aware of what it implies, would be a moral act. Killing him would be vigilantism, which isn't moraly wrong is some situations, in some settings.
You're all just being green about the goblin because of it's "sentience". If it were a rat you certainly wouldn't have any moral compunctions about it. My problem with the whole thing is that the people aren't Looking at it from every angle. They're imprinting their opinions of what is good and evil on the situation while telling others they're wrong.
So if a Rogue sneak attacks something, killing it before the creature is aware of the rogue or able to defend itself, that becomes evil as well? I smell heaping piles of hypocrisy, and the odor is NOT pleasant.
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.
Well, prior it says that good characters respect "innocent life". A goblin is by no means innocent, and if it attacked them or had anything to do with an attempt on their lives... The rules IMPLY that they're within their rights to kill it.
Another point to be considered is intention. Did the players do it for the safety of the town or just out of irritation? Intent is important when determining the alignment of an action.
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.
I really do agree with you that killing him is more expedient, and may ultimately prevent future evil at the hands of the Goblin king - hence killing him in a fight to prevent him from achieving his goals is no issue whatsoever.
Killing him after he's defeated and helpless - when he is no longer a threat and no longer capable of achieving those goals - is not consistent with a 'good' alignment.
I agree on that part, but with that statement your spoiler carries no weight.
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.
It's an example that's out of context.
....
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.
I don't claim to contend that the act is a Good act, merely that it would not be an evil one, and thus not out-of-bounds. Killing an opponent bent on the destruction of your person, the persons of your family and the populace as a whole when he happens to be helpless cannot be an evil act if the game world posits the existence of level 10+ good-aligned Fighters, it's an unreasonable contention to suggest otherwise.
~Doskious Steele
But if it is not 'good', how is it consistent with 'chaotic good'? Even a neutral act is out of the scope of that alignment.
Another point to be considered is intention. Did the players do it for the safety of the town or just out of irritation? Intent is important when determining the alignment of an action.
This I can agree with whole heartedly, just doing it to avoid having to deal with him because it's a hassle, that's evil. Doing it because they honestly felt very afraid for their lives if they didn't? Probably not evil, but not good either. Doing it because they were irritated at him and just wanted to kill him, pretty bloodthirsty and evil.
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.Evilness has no bearing on whether the creature would keep its word or not, and the party has no way to tell how lawful a particular creature is, either the goblin or the fighter (unless someone memorized detect law that day, which would probably be the first time in history it was memorized).
In that case, your position seems to be that any death of one mortal entity at the hands of another mortal entity is an Evil act (please correct me if I'm wrong). This perspective seems to be a gross distortion of the Alignment system in a game which relies on the ability of the PCs to defeat opponents and simultaneously not get bogged down in the details of handling an excess of prisoners, which most players of the game would find both tedious and exceptionally frustrating. I cannot believe that the game is designed to present players of Good aligned characters (the primary focus of the game concept) with the choice between either dealing with Alignment Violations several times each game session or the necessity of dealing with the tedium of resolving the status and disposition of enemy combatants without killing them.
I assume that the game is designed to allow the players to have fun, which your interpretation of the Alignment system, when expanded to a logically consistent universe, seems to hinder.
~Doskious Steele
Well, prior it says that good characters respect "innocent life". A goblin is by no means innocent, and if it attacked them or had anything to do with an attempt on their lives... The rules IMPLY that they're within their rights to kill it.
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.
You're right - it says two different things:
"good characters and creatures protect innocent life..."
"good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings..."
The second is clearly broader - innocent is not mentioned. Pick and choose? Or try to satisfy both? (this opens the door for some leeway, maybe)
But, in the chaotic good section, it says a chaotic good character is "kind and benevolent" - not exactly murderous.
Uh, wow. Over 40 posts since I last posted.
I repeatedly resisted assessing whether killing the goblin was good/evil compared to just chaotic. The assumptions were required to do that. Give me different assumptions and you might end up with a different view. But it's really still dependent on the characters.
However, I'm glad to see a little more support for the full axes here on the good/evil/lawful/chaotic scale, even if (collectively) we're all a little hung up on the first two.
No one has really commented on the idea that the character's goals, or at least what they expected to result, is the big qualifier for the alignment of their actions. To me this seems simple, but profound.
It's also a little unfortunate, because it leads one to want to create, perhaps, too many dictators trampling the serfs for "the greater good" but, used sparingly, could be really interesting. I'm really tempted to have a serial killer join a party, now. But I fundamentally feel that because alignments are real, the first time the Paladin casts "detect evil" stuff starts going wonky. I haven't looked at undetectable alignment magic in a long time.
Last thing I'll add, since things are moving quick, is the text for Chaotic Good characters:
Chaotic Good: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.
Still feels right. I like some Batman/Jack Bauer in my Chaotic Good party members (except Pallys).
But if it is not 'good', how is it consistent with 'chaotic good'? Even a neutral act is out of the scope of that alignment.....
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.
I don't claim to contend that the act is a Good act, merely that it would not be an evil one, and thus not out-of-bounds. Killing an opponent bent on the destruction of your person, the persons of your family and the populace as a whole when he happens to be helpless cannot be an evil act if the game world posits the existence of level 10+ good-aligned Fighters, it's an unreasonable contention to suggest otherwise.
~Doskious Steele
Is brushing your teeth in the morning a Good act? Is putting on your shoes? What about making breakfast? Are they Evil? If they're not Evil, and not Good, does that make them Neutral? Regardless, if they're not Good acts, by your statement, would these things not be "out of the scope of" any Good-aligned character, and if so, what does my Paladin do about food this morning? ^_^
~Doskious Steele
Uh, wow. ...
No one has really commented on the idea that the character's goals, or at least what they expected to result, is the big qualifier for the alignment of their actions. To me this seems simple, but profound.
...
I heartily second this line of thought!
Is brushing your teeth in the morning a Good act? Is putting on your shoes? What about making breakfast? Are they Evil? If they're not Evil, and not Good, does that make them Neutral? Regardless, if they're not Good acts, by your statement, would these things not be "out of the scope of" any Good-aligned character, and if so, what does my Paladin do about food this morning? ^_^~Doskious Steele
Ha! I was talking to someone earlier today about the logical fallacy someone used earlier (Because the goblin would do the same, it *must* be evil) and he mentioned brushing your teeth. Nice point, and one I forgot.
Also, helpless =/= innocent. I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to avoid killing innocents, but still go ahead and do it whenever you think it's justified, and still qualify as good.
And while it doesn't apply to every world, in mine (based on Forgotten Realms 'cause I still have a bunch of FR books...but my players change certain things...like almost half the gnolls in the High Forest are dead), the criminal justice system is pretty primitive, so if it's more serious than getting thrown in the stocks, it's probably a severed limb or death. And there aren't exactly a lot of law-enforcement outside of the big towns that can deal with anything an adventuring party would be handling.
Edit: Err...the point of that being that live capture of Goblin Warchiefs is kind of unproductive, and only done by the real zealous redeem-y sorts.
Is brushing your teeth in the morning a Good act? Is putting on your shoes? What about making breakfast? Are they Evil? If they're not Evil, and not Good, does that make them Neutral? Regardless, if they're not Good acts, by your statement, would these things not be "out of the scope of" any Good-aligned character, and if so, what does my Paladin do about food this morning? ^_^~Doskious Steele
Ha! I was talking to someone earlier today about the logical fallacy someone used earlier (Because the goblin would do the same, it *must* be evil) and he mentioned brushing your teeth. Nice point, and one I forgot.
Also, helpless =/= innocent. I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to avoid killing innocents, but still go ahead and do it whenever you think it's justified, and still qualify as good.
And while it doesn't apply to every world, in mine (based on Forgotten Realms 'cause I still have a bunch of FR books...but my players change certain things...like almost half the gnolls in the High Forest are dead), the criminal justice system is pretty primitive, so if it's more serious than getting thrown in the stocks, it's probably a severed limb or death. And there aren't exactly a lot of law-enforcement outside of the big towns that can deal with anything an adventuring party would be handling.
Well, your latter comment is more suited to address the Law/Chaos implications of potential death-dealing than the Good/Evil-ness of the acts, but it does serve to bring into light the fact that there are canonical examples of Good-aligned towns, cities, and nations in D&D publications that have the Death penalty for certain actions, which gives further support to the contention that Good characters are expected to revere and protect innocent life, but may not be as restricted in their dealings with (for lack of a better counterpoint) guilty lives.
I was remiss in my earlier post about brushing teeth and the like - I should have asked: if these are Good acts, why isn't there a Good-creep effect in D&D society as presented? There are several neutral and evil aligned political units where I'm sure that some of these activities go on from day to day... (Thay, for example, in the Forgotten Realms). I apologize in general for failing to present a fair and balanced run of questions.
~Doskious Steele
Is brushing your teeth in the morning a Good act? Is putting on your shoes? What about making breakfast? Are they Evil? If they're not Evil, and not Good, does that make them Neutral? Regardless, if they're not Good acts, by your statement, would these things not be "out of the scope of" any Good-aligned character, and if so, what does my Paladin do about food this morning? ^_^~Doskious Steele
Good points! Aside from the bacteria in one's mouth (and I hesitate to be *that* pedantic), acts like brushing your teeth do not impose on the life of another - possibly their happiness if they come into close proximity - and so, in my view, do not qualify as morally relevant.
But, the definition of what is moral and what is not I would expect to be deity dependent. So if you worship a chaotic good deity of healthy teeth and strong hair, it may well not be appropriate to neglect either.
(your mileage may vary - I'm not sure how serious I am being right now :)
Well, your latter comment is more suited to address the Law/Chaos implications of potential death-dealing than the Good/Evil-ness of the acts, but it does serve to bring into light the fact that there are canonical examples of Good-aligned towns, cities, and nations in D&D publications that have the Death penalty for certain actions, which gives further support to the contention that Good characters are expected to revere and protect innocent life, but may not be as restricted in their dealings with (for lack of a better counterpoint) guilty lives.
With 40-something posts after my last Wall of Text, I didn't want to start writing another one and end up with 20 more in between, so I've been trying to address people's comments sort of scattershot, which doesn't track as well, especially without quotes for each one. I quoted yours because it was right there, and all I had to do was clear some text out, not spend five minutes Ctrl-Cing and Ctrl-Ving and hitting preview to make sure it's all readable with my comments.
Someone was talking about how killing helpless opponents is evil (which is a logical disconnect for me...it's cool to hit him down to -1 hitpoints and presumably cool to take him from 1 HP to -CON HP in a single blow, but not to just finish the job when he's at -1 HP?) so I responded.
Someone was talking about trying to capture him live, and while it would be Good to try to avoid killing him (potentially) and Lawful to try to turn him over to the authorities (potentially); in my world both attempts are probably completely fruitless, and you end up holding a goblin chieftain hostage to take him to the nearest town where they'll probably just kill him anyway (without a trial).
But yeah, I don't see how you can rigidly interpret good/evil for killing and the like and end up with a gameworld with characters instead of caricatures.
Edit: added a semicolon.
Here's my two cents, though I largely agree with what RicoTheBold and some others said earlier.
Now tricking and killing the Warchief while he's under the affect of Charm Person is certainly dishonourable, but I don't think it's evil. They also apparently had every reason to believe that they might die if they pursued honourable combat, which ultimately doesn't help anybody they may have been trying to protect.
I'm curious though, if killing the Warchief by tricking him while charmed was evil then what would a good or even neutral alternative have been under the circumstances?
I agree with a lot of what you say, but I'll just try to address one of your cents.
i think a good or neutral alternative would have been to disarm him, maybe immobilize him - make sure that he remains no longer a threat - short of killing him. Leaving him helpless and in a deadly situation might be just as bad, but possibly consistent with 'neutral'.
If he should become a threat again, he's fair game.
I think it's fairly difficult to apply modern moral codes (with an emphasis on sanctity of life) to game situations. I think medieval codes of chivalry and the like may be more appropriate. (Of course, I am no expert on either, and certainly also no philosopher!), but I wouldn't think that killing is always evil, and particularly not so if done in the context of any reasonable rules of engagement, but killing a helpless combatant does not seem to fit any definition of 'good' that I can think of.
Thinking they might die if they pursued combat is a really good reason to avoid combat. But there are other options besides killing a helpless combatant - for example, make sure he stays helpless long enough for the party to get away / recover their strength.
Is brushing your teeth in the morning a Good act? Is putting on your shoes? What about making breakfast? Are they Evil? If they're not Evil, and not Good, does that make them Neutral? Regardless, if they're not Good acts, by your statement, would these things not be "out of the scope of" any Good-aligned character, and if so, what does my Paladin do about food this morning? ^_^~Doskious Steele
Good points! Aside from the bacteria in one's mouth (and I hesitate to be *that* pedantic), acts like brushing your teeth do not impose on the life of another - possibly their happiness if they come into close proximity - and so, in my view, do not qualify as morally relevant.
But, the definition of what is moral and what is not I would expect to be deity dependent. So if you worship a chaotic good deity of healthy teeth and strong hair, it may well not be appropriate to neglect either.
(your mileage may vary - I'm not sure how serious I am being right now :)
A degree of levity is commendable as it touches on this exceptionally sensitive subject, and I can assure you that my Cleric of Jeff, the God of Biscuits will take a very serious view on breakfast.
You make an excellent point, however, in your distinction between acts that impose on the life of another and acts that do not. I'm willing to accept the moral irrelevancy of the acts that I've mentioned heretofore on that basis.
I do have intermediary acts, however, that bear consideration: The act of emptying a chamber pot out of a second-floor window, the act of balancing a full bucket of water on one's head on the way back from the well, the act of herding several cows down a main road into town, and the act of juggling objects of fractionally dangerous properties (mass, pointy-ness, etc -- bowling pins or daggers for example) in a marketplace for one's livelihood -- are any of these Good, Evil, or Neutral acts, inasmuch as mishaps or bad judgment while undertaking any of them could have a serious (potentially fatal) impact on the life of another? The chamber pot could slip out of your hands, or could cause someone to slip on the contents on the ground outside the window. The bucket could spill, or fall on someone if one were jostled, and maim or drown another. The cattle could stampede at an unexpected noise, or at (perhaps accidental) provocation from the herder. The juggler could make a mistake, or try to engage an audience member he thought was ready but who was in actuality not, or have someone stumble into the path of his juggling. What about if the juggler was blindfolded, does that change the alignment of the act of his juggling?
The points I'm trying to get at are that (1) for many behaviors, intent matters greatly to the determination of the alignment of an act and (2)
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character.In previous publications, alignment has been described as a general guiding compass that serves to indicate a general tendency towards behaviors that are loosely grouped. Alignment (from the conversations I've had with many GMs, players, and the occasional game designer) is a loose categorization of the way a character will tend to behave in general, and more emphatically how a character feels and what sort of outlook a character espouses. To decry actions that are only one step away from a stated alignment as "out of bounds" based on that stated alignment seems rather removed from this principle, especially considering the fact that Deities will accept, support, succor, and provide aid to Clerics *within one step of their alignment*.
(A cleric's alignment must be within one step of the alignment of her deity.)
~Doskious Steele
...... If he should become a threat again, he's fair game......
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand - exactly when did the charmed evil Goblin Warlord still bent on the wholesale slaughter of the population of a village and surrounding countryside *stop* being a threat?
I'm not trying to be sassy or contrarian - it's late and I may have missed something! ^_^
~Doskious Steele
Is brushing your teeth in the morning a Good act? Is putting on your shoes? What about making breakfast? Are they Evil? If they're not Evil, and not Good, does that make them Neutral? Regardless, if they're not Good acts, by your statement, would these things not be "out of the scope of" any Good-aligned character, and if so, what does my Paladin do about food this morning? ^_^~Doskious Steele
Good points! Aside from the bacteria in one's mouth (and I hesitate to be *that* pedantic), acts like brushing your teeth do not impose on the life of another - possibly their happiness if they come into close proximity - and so, in my view, do not qualify as morally relevant.
But, the definition of what is moral and what is not I would expect to be deity dependent. So if you worship a chaotic good deity of healthy teeth and strong hair, it may well not be appropriate to neglect either.
(your mileage may vary - I'm not sure how serious I am being right now :)
A degree of levity is commendable as it touches on this exceptionally sensitive subject, and I can assure you that my Cleric of Jeff, the God of Biscuits will take a very serious view on breakfast.
You make an excellent point, however, in your distinction between acts that impose on the life of another and acts that do not. I'm willing to accept the moral irrelevancy of the acts that I've mentioned heretofore on that basis.I do have intermediary acts, however, that bear consideration: The act of emptying a chamber pot out of a second-floor window, the act of balancing a full bucket of water on one's head on the way back from the well, the act of herding several cows down a main road into town, and the act of juggling objects of fractionally dangerous properties (mass, pointy-ness, etc -- bowling pins or daggers for example) in a marketplace for one's livelihood -- are any of these Good, Evil, or Neutral acts, inasmuch as mishaps or bad judgment while undertaking any of them could have a serious (potentially fatal) impact on the life of another? The chamber pot could slip out of your hands, or could cause someone to slip on the contents on the ground outside the window. The bucket could spill, or fall on someone if one were jostled, and maim or drown another. The cattle could stampede at an unexpected noise, or at (perhaps accidental) provocation from the herder. The juggler could make a mistake, or try to engage an audience member he thought was ready but who was in actuality not, or have someone stumble into the path of his juggling. What about if the juggler was blindfolded, does that change the alignment of the act of his juggling?
The points I'm trying to get at are that (1) for many behaviors, intent matters greatly to the determination of the alignment of an act and (2)
PRGRD Additional Rules wrote:
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character.In previous publications, alignment has been described as a general guiding compass that serves to indicate a general tendency towards behaviors that are loosely grouped. Alignment (from the conversations I've had with many GMs, players, and the occasional game designer) is a loose categorization of the way a character will tend to behave in general, and more emphatically how a character feels and what sort of outlook a character espouses. To decry actions that are only one step away from a stated alignment as "out of bounds" based on that stated alignment seems rather removed from this principle, especially considering the fact that Deities will accept, support, succor, and provide aid to Clerics *within one step of their alignment*.
PRGRD Additional Rules wrote:
(A cleric's alignment must be within one step of the alignment of her deity.)~Doskious Steele
Funnily enough, as I was reading your post and thoroughly enjoying the examples I was thinking to myself - "but surely intent also matters!".
So I totally agree with your point 1.
For point 2, I don't mean to say that "out of bounds" necessarily incurs too serious a penalty. An occasional slip is just that. But a consistent pattern of such behavior may ultimately be more consistent with a different alignment. And these are certainly matters of degree (see my first posts about the difference for this act for a lawful good vs. a chaotic good character).
I did not know that about the cleric, but even if a deity would still support a cleric one step away from the deity's alignment, would a change of alignment be inappropriate if the character consistently acted one step away from their professed alignment? Then it's just one more step for no more support, not two (assuming the cleric started at the same alignment as the deity).
An interesting aside regarding previous editions - long ago there was a concept of "diametrically opposed" alignments. Under those rules, the killing of a lawful evil creature by a chaotic good one under any circumstances would be perfectly appropriate (in my nostalgia-tinted view), and may even be cause for celebration as a furtherance of the deity's goals. Surely barbaric times.
In previous publications, alignment has been described as a general guiding compass that serves to indicate a general tendency towards behaviors that are loosely grouped. Alignment (from the conversations I've had with many GMs, players, and the occasional game designer) is a loose categorization of the way a character will tend to behave in general, and more emphatically how a character feels and what sort of outlook a character espouses. To decry actions that are only one step away from a stated alignment as "out of bounds" based on that stated alignment seems rather removed from this principle, especially considering the fact that Deities will accept, support, succor, and provide aid to Clerics *within one step of their alignment*.
True, true! The paladin in my party actually worships a Lawful Neutral god, the Red Knight from the Forgotten Realms set, whose portfolio is strategy, planning, and tactics. I think she'd appreciate the strategy, just a little. The paladin might get off with a warning, just on those grounds. But he almost picked a god (also LN) of Death, which would kinda imply a pally that wouldn't shy away from deciding it was just the chieftain's time to go, in terms of killing.
In both of these cases, the Paladin is at far more risk of suffering due to chaotic behavior (lying, or the complicit participation in a lie) than evil behavior. And even then...
...... If he should become a threat again, he's fair game......I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand - exactly when did the charmed evil Goblin Warlord still bent on the wholesale slaughter of the population of a village and surrounding countryside *stop* being a threat?
I'm not trying to be sassy or contrarian - it's late and I may have missed something! ^_^
~Doskious Steele
When he was charmed and disarmed and no longer fighting and no longer had any surviving minions. That does not sound like an immediate threat - I'll grant a possible future abstract threat.
Maybe I'm assuming too much?
When he was charmed and disarmed and no longer fighting and no longer had any surviving minions. That does not sound like an immediate threat - I'll grant a possible future abstract threat.Maybe I'm assuming too much?
I think that begs the question: Was the party there to deal with an immediate threat (which we'll define as less than the duration of a charm person spell for that level, or somewhere less than or equal to 20 hours, for the sake of example), or the possible future abstract threat of 20+ hours later?
Dollars to donuts it's the latter.
When he was charmed and disarmed and no longer fighting and no longer had any surviving minions. That does not sound like an immediate threat - I'll grant a possible future abstract threat.Maybe I'm assuming too much?
I think that begs the question: Was the party there to deal with an immediate threat (which we'll define as less than the duration of a charm person spell for that level, or somewhere less than or equal to 20 hours, for the sake of example), or the possible future abstract threat of 20+ hours later?
Dollars to donuts it's the latter.
Yes, but an armed force bent on your destruction, I would think, qualifies as a threat to be dealt with. I'm not a tactician, but this seems reasonable to me in a medieval/game situation. Once that threat has been neutralized, as in this case, even if not slaughtered to the last living soul, to me it becomes a different situation.
One Goblin, however kingly, cannot invade very much. If he picks up a weapon again in 20 hours time, at that point he is again a threat. If he has the sense to skulk away to fight another day, then he is not a threat until he returns in force. If he skulks away and the PCs chase him (maybe not likely in this case, given their weakness), it could go either way: If he puts up a fight and dies in the process, so be it. If the PCs shoot him in the back, then I think it falls under "not good".
I'm not sure I fully understand your question though - I'm not sure that at the end of 20 hours time the goblin will again be an immediate threat (which I think you assume, and which can't influence why the party was there in the first place) - it may depend on how he responds, or if the party is still in the vicinity. Did I misunderstand something?
When he was charmed and disarmed and no longer fighting and no longer had any surviving minions. That does not sound like an immediate threat - I'll grant a possible future abstract threat.Maybe I'm assuming too much?
I think that begs the question: Was the party there to deal with an immediate threat (which we'll define as less than the duration of a charm person spell for that level, or somewhere less than or equal to 20 hours, for the sake of example), or the possible future abstract threat of 20+ hours later?
Dollars to donuts it's the latter.
From the statements provided (mostly in spoilers) above, I can conclude that I am fairly conversant with the subject matter, and am confident in saying that even if the party was initially engaged in dealing with an immediate threat, the Diplomacy checks made by the Enchantress should have developed the very solid existence of a semi-abstract future threat, if such developments had not been apparent prior to the exchange. At the very least, the party should have gotten an impression that the Warlord would attempt to gather more Goblins and have another go if he could escape - I got that impression just from his title. One usually doesn't call oneself "Warlord" unless one means it in fantasy RPG, and with goblins trying to snack on villagers, one would tend to err on the side of caution anyway, it seems to me.
~Doskious Steele
...... If he should become a threat again, he's fair game......I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand - exactly when did the charmed evil Goblin Warlord still bent on the wholesale slaughter of the population of a village and surrounding countryside *stop* being a threat?
I'm not trying to be sassy or contrarian - it's late and I may have missed something! ^_^
~Doskious Steele
When he was charmed and disarmed and no longer fighting and no longer had any surviving minions. That does not sound like an immediate threat - I'll grant a possible future abstract threat.
Maybe I'm assuming too much?
I may have missed something, but I never saw anyone say he was disarmed. I only saw that they got him to remove his armor.
When he was charmed and disarmed and no longer fighting and no longer had any surviving minions. That does not sound like an immediate threat - I'll grant a possible future abstract threat.Maybe I'm assuming too much?
I think that begs the question: Was the party there to deal with an immediate threat (which we'll define as less than the duration of a charm person spell for that level, or somewhere less than or equal to 20 hours, for the sake of example), or the possible future abstract threat of 20+ hours later?
Dollars to donuts it's the latter.
Yes, but an armed force bent on your destruction, I would think, qualifies as a threat to be dealt with. I'm not a tactician, but this seems reasonable to me in a medieval/game situation. Once that threat has been neutralized, as in this case, even if not slaughtered to the last living soul, to me it becomes a different situation.
One Goblin, however kingly, cannot invade very much. If he picks up a weapon again in 20 hours time, at that point he is again a threat. If he has the sense to skulk away to fight another day, then he is not a threat until he returns in force. If he skulks away and the PCs chase him (maybe not likely in this case, given their weakness), it could go either way: If he puts up a fight and dies in the process, so be it. If the PCs shoot him in the back, then I think it falls under "not good".
I'm not sure I fully understand your question though - I'm not sure that at the end of 20 hours time the goblin will again be an immediate threat (which I think you assume, and which can't influence why the party was there in the first place) - it may depend on how he responds, or if the party is still in the vicinity. Did I misunderstand something?
The burden of proof that the Goblin Warlord categorically will not, under any circumstances, be a threat if he should live and escape must fall to those who would extend to him that opportunity. Unless the characters are in possession of proof that the entire threatening force is dealt with (i.e. that the Warlord doesn't have any reserve troops, has no secret arsenal, has no relatives within a few days' travel, etc.), how are they justified in potentially putting the lives of all of the villagers at risk by allowing the Warlord the chance to escape? The characters cannot know for certain what resources the Warlord might have remaining (unless they have targeted truth magic, which I very much doubt), and as such would be irresponsible to assume that the threat represented by his forces was abated.
Put another way: you're not sure that at the end of 20 hours time the goblin will again be an immediate threat; are you sure enough that he will not be an immediate threat that you're willing to gamble the lives of the innocents back in town on your assessment? (And even if you are, isn't the gambling with innocent lives also a not-good act?)
It strikes me that the act of killing the goblin shows a greater regard for the innocent lives in town than does the act of providing the opportunity for him to escape and return.
~Doskious Steele
Edit: Also note that not-good acts =/= evil acts.
When he was charmed and disarmed and no longer fighting and no longer had any surviving minions. That does not sound like an immediate threat - I'll grant a possible future abstract threat.Maybe I'm assuming too much?
I think that begs the question: Was the party there to deal with an immediate threat (which we'll define as less than the duration of a charm person spell for that level, or somewhere less than or equal to 20 hours, for the sake of example), or the possible future abstract threat of 20+ hours later?
Dollars to donuts it's the latter.
Yes, but an armed force bent on your destruction, I would think, qualifies as a threat to be dealt with. I'm not a tactician, but this seems reasonable to me in a medieval/game situation. Once that threat has been neutralized, as in this case, even if not slaughtered to the last living soul, to me it becomes a different situation.
One Goblin, however kingly, cannot invade very much. If he picks up a weapon again in 20 hours time, at that point he is again a threat. If he has the sense to skulk away to fight another day, then he is not a threat until he returns in force. If he skulks away and the PCs chase him (maybe not likely in this case, given their weakness), it could go either way: If he puts up a fight and dies in the process, so be it. If the PCs shoot him in the back, then I think it falls under "not good".
I'm not sure I fully understand your question though - I'm not sure that at the end of 20 hours time the goblin will again be an immediate threat (which I think you assume, and which can't influence why the party was there in the first place) - it may depend on how he responds, or if the party is still in the vicinity. Did I misunderstand something?
Not having troops does not make him less dangerous. He could easily serve as a general under one of the other kings while leading their forces since from what I gathered when I played it there were X number of goblin kings working together.
When he was charmed and disarmed and no longer fighting and no longer had any surviving minions. That does not sound like an immediate threat - I'll grant a possible future abstract threat.Maybe I'm assuming too much?
I think that begs the question: Was the party there to deal with an immediate threat (which we'll define as less than the duration of a charm person spell for that level, or somewhere less than or equal to 20 hours, for the sake of example), or the possible future abstract threat of 20+ hours later?
Dollars to donuts it's the latter.
Yes, but an armed force bent on your destruction, I would think, qualifies as a threat to be dealt with. I'm not a tactician, but this seems reasonable to me in a medieval/game situation. Once that threat has been neutralized, as in this case, even if not slaughtered to the last living soul, to me it becomes a different situation.
One Goblin, however kingly, cannot invade very much. If he picks up a weapon again in 20 hours time, at that point he is again a threat. If he has the sense to skulk away to fight another day, then he is not a threat until he returns in force. If he skulks away and the PCs chase him (maybe not likely in this case, given their weakness), it could go either way: If he puts up a fight and dies in the process, so be it. If the PCs shoot him in the back, then I think it falls under "not good".
I'm not sure I fully understand your question though - I'm not sure that at the end of 20 hours time the goblin will again be an immediate threat (which I think you assume, and which can't influence why the party was there in the first place) - it may depend on how he responds, or if the party is still in the vicinity. Did I misunderstand something?
Sorry for quoting the whole thing. I tried to leave the thread and go to sleep, so now I'm posting from my phone, which lacks elegance in editing capabilities.
My point is that thinking the goblin won't be a threat for the probably only 5 hours, tops (what level 20 character casts charm person as their emergency spell?), is that stopping, waiting around for the goblin to lose his spell-induced friendship...it's stupid. Not evil; stupid. He's what, going to renounce his ways? Institute an "I liked you for a few hours, so I'm going to rethink my career path" policy? He's going to Try to escape or try to kill them. What do you do, wait to see if he picks up a weapon and then start unloading on him with readied actions? Seriously now. They came to deal with the goblin boss, had to cut a swath through some goblin minions, and they're just going to pack up and leave because the only spell they got to do anything is one that gives false impressions? Are they going to avoid the entire illusion school now, too? Or just avoid any illusions that give enticing offers...
An enemy that has or will soon have the capacity to do you harm is a threat. In the (computer) security world, if you can easily deal with a threat you just go ahead and do it. If he does any more wicked goblin deeds, they'll be on your paisly-print conscience if you don't deal with him.
Kill the goblin, otherwise you'll just be back tomorrow and he'll kill your spellcaster first.
If he does any more wicked goblin deeds, they'll be on your paisly-print conscience if you don't deal with him.
Kill the goblin, otherwise you'll just be back tomorrow and he'll kill your spellcaster first.
Exactly what I was thinking. I apologize for the length of my posts, I tend to try to express my thoughts in general terms (which takes more space).
Interestingly, when I posed the initial description to a few friends (that of a cornered warlord, minions dead, charmed, and bluffed out of his armor to be killed, all in a clean white room with no context at all), they each replied with little to no hesitation that the action was indeed evil. When I subsequently provided the context of said warlord + minions terrorizing and slaughtering a town of innocent people, they each almost immediately shifted their position to various shades of neutral-with-good-tendencies. These people are close friends, all of whom I admire as both good players (skill-wise) and Good people (morals-wise).
The absence of context is seductive in the pursuit of labeling an action "Evil" I think. Interesting.
~Doskious Steele
P.S. I'm sorry if I'm fueling the fires that feed someone's insomnia; the truth is that I can't manage to get to sleep either... ^_^
I may have missed something, but I never saw anyone say he was disarmed. I only saw that they got him to remove his armor....... If he should become a threat again, he's fair game......I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand - exactly when did the charmed evil Goblin Warlord still bent on the wholesale slaughter of the population of a village and surrounding countryside *stop* being a threat?
I'm not trying to be sassy or contrarian - it's late and I may have missed something! ^_^
~Doskious Steele
When he was charmed and disarmed and no longer fighting and no longer had any surviving minions. That does not sound like an immediate threat - I'll grant a possible future abstract threat.
Maybe I'm assuming too much?
Sorry - I meant a more obsolete use of the verb 'disarm', which I believe refers to taking off armor (the "arms" in question) not to removing weapons, though it's possible I mis-used it.
An interesting analogy presented itself to me in relation to the case of the Charmed Goblin Warlord; I draw this from real life, and as such it is not a perfect analogy, but it may serve to highlight some points.
Picture the following scenario: An undercover FBI agent poses as some sort of underworld element, and as a result manages to corner and cuff a known serial killer. The killer is eventually given a lethal injection and dies. (I'm abstracting the aspects of the Criminal Justice System out of this analogy inasmuch as my interest lies in the Good/Evil spectrum rather than the Law/Chaos spectrum, and I view the American courts as agencies of Law only for the purposes of this analogy.) Here we have a case where a Hero (the FBI Agent) causes a Villain (the serial killer) to perceive the Hero as a friend, and as a result is able to catch the Villain off guard, ultimately resulting in the Villain's death.
It is my belief, from family stories and historical records, that the FBI agent would sometimes be viewed by US citizens as doing Good, and almost never be viewed by US citizens as having acted Evilly.
From the commentary in the first half of this thread, it seems clear that, when evaluated in the manner the posters suggest, the FBI agent *has* acted Evilly, and might see distasteful or negative repercussions as a result of this heinous act.
I find that the two scenarios are remarkably similar, and I feel confident that many people who hasten to label the PCs as doers of an Evil act would hesitate at the thought of similarly categorizing the FBI agent.
Thoughts?
~Doskious Steele
Edit: Thoughts of my own: for this analogy to be sound, the perspective on the FBI agent should be that of a neutral third party, such as Alien Observers, or the Swiss. The perspective of the protected population pollutes the proposal peremptorily. Still, I don't think the Swiss would see the FBI agent as a doer of Evil deeds.
...... If he should become a threat again, he's fair game......I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand - exactly when did the charmed evil Goblin Warlord still bent on the wholesale slaughter of the population of a village and surrounding countryside *stop* being a threat?
I'm not trying to be sassy or contrarian - it's late and I may have missed something! ^_^
~Doskious Steele
Ultimately, I think that's the point that isn't coming across. The goblin was Charmed, it wasn't an innocent.
If killing a "helpless" person is evil, then killing someone under the effects of Hold Person is evil. Or Sleep. Or smashing a Petrified person. Is a CDG an evil act? I don't remember reading that anywhere...
What if you Dominated a creature and made it walk into lava? Or how about making it defend you against something that will clearly kill it (a charging Dragon), with you obviously not giving it any defensive or healing magic? Are these evil acts?
These have been considered a normal tactic before, and not touted as "Evil Groups Only". Should we have had an alignment discussion in that Color Spray thread, where it's described as "taking out" a bunch of goblins?
Or is it the deception that does it? But then that begs the question... should we make Feinting in combat evil? How about Disguise/Bluff, pretending not to be a threat, and thus getting an attack in with their guard down (flatfooted)?
Calling killing a Charmed creature an evil act sets a precedent that makes many normally acceptable combat tactics "not allowable by Good players", and should be a sign that we shouldn't be treating it this way.
Simply put.. the reasons given as to why this would be an evil act, say that many more things are evil acts that weren't considered so before.
It's possible this may still be an evil act, however not because of the reasoning given so far. And I'm inclined to think this *isn't* an evil act, but rather a chaotic one.
Not having troops does not make him less dangerous. He could easily serve as a general under one of the other kings while leading their forces since from what I gathered when I played it there were X...
All he has to do is *harm* another innocent and you've failed.
Is this literally the difference between killing the creature while it was Charmed into thinking you were it's friend, and letting the spell go before doing the same thing only without him dodging?
I have to ask again.. how is this *at all* any different from CdG a sleeping or held creature that was hit with a spell in combat?
If he does any more wicked goblin deeds, they'll be on your paisly-print conscience if you don't deal with him.
Kill the goblin, otherwise you'll just be back tomorrow and he'll kill your spellcaster first.
Exactly what I was thinking. I apologize for the length of my posts, I tend to try to express my thoughts in general terms (which takes more space).
Interestingly, when I posed the initial description to a few friends (that of a cornered warlord, minions dead, charmed, and bluffed out of his armor to be killed, all in a clean white room with no context at all), they each replied with little to no hesitation that the action was indeed evil. When I subsequently provided the context of said warlord + minions terrorizing and slaughtering a town of innocent people, they each almost immediately shifted their position to various shades of neutral-with-good-tendencies. These people are close friends, all of whom I admire as both good players (skill-wise) and Good people (morals-wise).
The absence of context is seductive in the pursuit of labeling an action "Evil" I think. Interesting.
~Doskious Steele
P.S. I'm sorry if I'm fueling the fires that feed someone's insomnia; the truth is that I can't manage to get to sleep either... ^_^
Let me respond to you both at once. Yes, it may be stupid. To paraphrase Spaceballs, that's why evil always wins (because good is dumb). :)
To elaborate, the good guys let the villain go to fight another day (or put him in jail), the bad guys try to kill the good guys, but fail through ineptitude. If comic books have taught me nothing else of morality, they have taught me this!
I still maintain that once the warlord is defeated - even if not killed - he does not present the same threat as before.
Even in the context of the evil acts by the goblin, I'm not sure. Yes, the PCs could kill him, and remove the threat for sure (unless raise dead, resurrection, re-incarnate, etc. were somehow available to the dead goblin). That would probably be for the greater good.
But for me, that doesn't make killing an un-armored, currently non-threatening sentient being somehow not evil. While he is still charmed, convince him that he should go visit his cousin 5000 miles away. Leave and regroup, attack again if he (the goblin) shows signs of hostility or is trying to regroup his forces.
I don't think, but am not sure, that a future evil act committed by the goblin is on the PCs conscience, if killing him while he was helpless would have constituted an evil act on their part. The PCs have no control over what the future goblin does. They control themselves only, and to kill him while he is under their power does not seem consistent with definitions of 'good'.
...... If he should become a threat again, he's fair game......I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand - exactly when did the charmed evil Goblin Warlord still bent on the wholesale slaughter of the population of a village and surrounding countryside *stop* being a threat?
I'm not trying to be sassy or contrarian - it's late and I may have missed something! ^_^
~Doskious Steele
Ultimately, I think that's the point that isn't coming across. The goblin was Charmed, it wasn't an innocent.
If killing a "helpless" person is evil, then killing someone under the effects of Hold Person is evil. Or Sleep. Or smashing a Petrified person. Is a CDG an evil act? I don't remember reading that anywhere...
What if you Dominated a creature and made it walk into lava? Or how about making it defend you against something that will clearly kill it (a charging Dragon), with you obviously not giving it any defensive or healing magic? Are these evil acts?
These have been considered a normal tactic before, and not touted as "Evil Groups Only". Should we have had an alignment discussion in that Color Spray thread, where it's described as "taking out" a bunch of goblins?
Or is it the deception that does it? But then that begs the question... should we make Feinting in combat evil? How about Disguise/Bluff, pretending not to be a threat, and thus getting an attack in with their guard down (flatfooted)?
Calling killing a Charmed creature an evil act sets a precedent that makes many normally acceptable combat tactics "not allowable by Good players", and should be a sign that we shouldn't be treating it this way.
Simply put.. the reasons given as to why this would be an evil act, say that many more things are evil acts that weren't considered so before.
It's possible this may still be an evil act, however not because of the reasoning given so far. And I'm inclined to think this *isn't* an evil act, but rather a chaotic one.
Great questions! I'm going to defer to less sleepy heads to answer them :)
Ultimately, I think that's the point that isn't coming across. The goblin was Charmed, it wasn't an innocent.
If killing a "helpless" person is evil, then killing someone under the effects of Hold Person is evil. Or Sleep. Or smashing a Petrified person. Is a CDG an evil act? I don't remember reading that anywhere...
What if you Dominated a creature and made it walk into lava? Or how about making it defend you against something that will clearly kill it (a charging Dragon), with you obviously not giving it any defensive or healing magic? Are these evil acts?
These have been considered a normal tactic before, and not touted as "Evil Groups Only". Should we have had an alignment discussion in that Color Spray thread, where it's described as "taking out" a bunch of goblins?
Or is it the deception that does it? But then that begs the question... should we make Feinting in combat evil? How about Disguise/Bluff, pretending not to be a threat, and thus getting an attack in with their guard down (flatfooted)?
Calling killing a Charmed creature an evil act sets a precedent that makes many normally acceptable combat tactics "not allowable by Good players", and should be a sign that we shouldn't be treating it this way.
Simply put.. the reasons given as to why this would be an evil act, say that many more things are evil acts that weren't considered so before.
It's possible this may still be an evil act, however not because of the reasoning given so far. And I'm inclined to think this *isn't* an evil act, but rather a chaotic one.
I agree with your analysis right up to the end bit where I have a very minor quibble... The Good/Evil axis is independent of the Law/Chaos axis, and thus your statement regarding the act being "chaotic rather than evil" is not wholly representative. I can see this act having a full alignment-implication-value of Chaotic Neutral. It's not evil *and* is chaotic. I can see an argument that could be advanced for the action being a Chaotic Good act, but it's an exceptional stretch and I don't personally endorse it (and will therefore not advance it here).
~Doskious Steele
Regarding the "kill of convenience"...
I defy someone to explain to me how what they did was more convenient that asking him to let them go on their way?
Talking vs rolling Bluff checks with potential to fail, and then casting a spell and hoping to roll enough damage/high enough for a CdG to work?
I'm sorry, but that's not what it meant by "convenience".
The line in the Evil description means that they have no problem with killing someone if it's easier to do so to get what they want. Killing a shopkeep instead of paying for your goods, etc.
Killing the Goblin because he was killing them right up until they hit him with a spell to stop him is fine. Killing him because he killed a lot of people is fine.
Killing him because he has a nice weapon that you want... now that's getting into the evil line, especially if all you had to do was ask him if you could hold it (in his Charmed state).
People are saying that Good/Evil doesn't care about the alignment of the creature killed. Fine. But Good/Evil doesn't care about laws either. Just because something is unlawful, doesn't make it evil.
Not bringing the Goblin to justice, and killing the murderer yourself isn't an evil act, but rather an unlawful one.
An interesting analogy presented itself to me in relation to the case of the Charmed Goblin Warlord; I draw this from real life, and as such it is not a perfect analogy, but it may serve to highlight some points.
Picture the following scenario: An undercover FBI agent poses as some sort of underworld element, and as a result manages to corner and cuff a known serial killer. The killer is eventually given a lethal injection and dies. (I'm abstracting the aspects of the Criminal Justice System out of this analogy inasmuch as my interest lies in the Good/Evil spectrum rather than the Law/Chaos spectrum, and I view the American courts as agencies of Law only for the purposes of this analogy.) Here we have a case where a Hero (the FBI Agent) causes a Villain (the serial killer) to perceive the Hero as a friend, and as a result is able to catch the Villain off guard, ultimately resulting in the Villain's death.
It is my belief, from family stories and historical records, that the FBI agent would sometimes be viewed by US citizens as doing Good, and almost never be viewed by US citizens as having acted Evilly.
From the commentary in the first half of this thread, it seems clear that, when evaluated in the manner the posters suggest, the FBI agent *has* acted Evilly, and might see distasteful or negative repercussions as a result of this heinous act.
I find that the two scenarios are remarkably similar, and I feel confident that many people who hasten to label the PCs as doers of an Evil act would hesitate at the thought of similarly categorizing the FBI agent.
Thoughts?
~Doskious Steele
Edit: Thoughts of my own: for this analogy to be sound, the perspective on the FBI agent should be that of a neutral third party, such as Alien Observers, or the Swiss. The perspective of the protected population pollutes the proposal peremptorily. Still, I don't think the Swiss would see the FBI agent as a doer of Evil deeds.
I'll try to tackle this one more before I go to bed...
I think "ultiimately" is the key word here. The FBI agent is not actually doing the killing.
If the FBI agent performed the lethal injection himself in the field, he would probably be investigated for bad conduct (not sure what the official term is) - he may be cleared, depending on the circumstances, or could be charged with murder, if (e.g.) the serial killer had surrendered to him.
In the actual example you give, the government is performing a legally sanctioned act. (you may agree or disagree with the death penalty, that is immaterial). The FBI agent is not responsible for the actions of the government - how could he be? The FBI agent is delivering the killer to justice, to be determined by the court system. It may be a slam dunk case, but the FBI agent is not judge, jury, and executioner.
(too sleepy now to think or type more - I can take this up again tomorrow if you object to what I've put here :)
I agree with your analysis right up to the end bit where I have a very minor quibble... The Good/Evil axis is independent of the Law/Chaos axis, and thus your statement regarding the act being "chaotic rather than evil" is not wholly representative. I can see this act having a full alignment-implication-value of Chaotic Neutral. It's not evil *and* is chaotic. I can see an argument that could be advanced for the action being a Chaotic Good act,...
Yes, I agree.
The choice of words was because I was meaning where we are putting the emphasis. It is more important that it was a Chaotic act, than that it wasn't an Evil act. Whether it was evil or not would need more information on the state of the person's intentions, and from the limited information that we got about it, I'm inclined to believe it was at least not evil (they weren't looting and pillaging the "oppressed" goblins, etc).
But for me, that doesn't make killing an un-armored, currently non-threatening sentient being somehow not evil. While he is still charmed, convince him that he should go visit his cousin 5000 miles away. Leave and regroup, attack again if he (the goblin) shows signs of hostility or is trying to regroup his forces.
I don't think, but am not sure, that a future evil act committed by the goblin is on the PCs conscience, if killing him while he was helpless would have constituted an evil act on their part. The PCs have no control over what the future goblin does. They control themselves only, and to kill him while he is under their power does not seem consistent with definitions of 'good'.
Just to address these points, until you have proof of the absence of threat from the goblin, how is he non-threatening, given the fact that the Goblin race is described in this context as inherently threatening to human civilization *and* that he has not necessarily given up on his goals vis-a-vis the town? Even if you persuade him to start out on that 5000 mile trip, as soon as the Charm wears off (in 1 hour-per-caster-level) he'll remember that he doesn't like you, will probably dislike you even more due to the charm effect that he will remember, will abandon his 5000 mile trip, and will return to find the players or the villagers (possibly with more goblins, possibly just slyly waiting in ambush and killing people) and eat them. Also remember that, in the setting that this takes place in, <generic D&D game world>, if one were to capture the goblin and bring it back to town, the villagers (most of whom are probably good- or neutral-) would very likely kill it without trial. "It's a Goblin, it deserves to die." By definition, the goblin shows hostility by existing, pretty much.
While there are rules that address the redemption of evil NPCs, these rules are contained in the 3.5 sourcebook Book of Exalted Deeds, which is not generally employed in normal play. BoED also addresses the Alignment system in greater detail, and has a section regarding Violence and how it relates to being "good." Since the BoED is not open source, I cannot reproduce the exact text from page 9 in this forum, but the gist is that Violence is OK and not inherently evil provided that it is directed against evil, has good motivations, avoids targeting innocents and non-combatants (e.g. women and children; former combatants do not fall into this category), and avoids excessive cruelty or suffering. I think that the case of killing the Warlord satisfies all of those conditions - he is evil, it serves to protect the town and the party, the warlord is neither woman nor child, and it is not torturous nor does it inflict prolonged suffering (inasmuch as it was accomplished via standard attacks within the framework of combat - surprise round et. al.).
Since the act of killing the Goblin is demonstrably *not* an evil act, it seems to follow that truly good characters would have something on their conscience in the event that the Goblin escaped (to wreak more havoc), especially since he is a known evil entity, and as such it is reasonable to think that evil actions will figure prominently in any future plans or udertakings. This is especially the case because the PCs *do* have a measure of control over the future actions of the Goblin - they can decide if he gets any.
~Doskious Steele
|
Yes, but adventurers are, ultimately, the judges, jurors and executioners.
Varisia, a place populated by monsters that few NPCs are high enough of a level to bring to justice, let alone hold them in a cell to await trial (which there really wouldn't be for an evil, murderous goblin) outcome=same. The poor, defenseless murderously evil goblin would be executed and have his head staked outside town as a warning to any other goblins.
So yes, defenseless or not, kill the freaking goblin! If you choose to let him go, anything he does falls solely on your head. Doing nothing is not a release from responsibility. Also, if you did bring him back to town "To face justice!", they'll probably just stare at you as if you were slow, slit the goblins' throat and go "That's what our justice is around here."
So there really isn't an alignment question. Frankly, I'd give 'em double xp for cunning and guile.