If it was that easy to hold on to him he would have been able to savage the town(s) so many times.
I honestly can't figure out what you are getting at with this statement, it seems to not really comment on the thing you're quoting.
However, since it has 'easy' in it, I'll assume you thought it had something to do with 'It's not easy to hold onto him'.
a) When he tries to escape, kill the SoB. If he's trying to avoid justice, he's no longer surrendered. Feel free to not only kill him, but kill him dead with a shot to the head. No one ever said you have to let them break free. The same with the Druidess above, if she's trying to get away, she's fair game. She's no longer captured or surrendered, she's actively trying to escape justice.
b) I'll just reiterate, who ever said being Good was Easy? If good was easy, we'd all be good and there'd be no wars (or D&D, since we'd not have the concept of good/neutral/evil.
Exactly. The whole point of being good is doing the [bold]right[/bold] thing, instead of the easy thing. It's not right to slit the throat of someone who has surrendered. That's killing because it's more convenient than taking them for trial. Now, when they try to escape, they're fair game. If they sit quietly on the way back to trial, or even if they don't try to escape but taunt the party the whole way, but don't dominate someone to free them or in any other way try to enact their escape, a good party has to take them to the proper authorities.
This line of posting started with the situation being that the villian keeps repeating the same crime. If it were easy to catch him/her there would never have been any repeats.
I will ask another question. Is it good to allow innocents to suffer when you have a chance to ultimately stop it. That line about protecting innocents seems to have gotten lost in the debate.
I guess my question is which one takes precedence?
Do not forget, I am not saying killing a helpless villain that has surrendered is a good idea, but unless he is 100% neutralized he is still a valid combatant.
If he is a caster gag him, tie his hands, take away his spell component pouch. If he is a physical combatant tie him up, and take away all his items. At that point he is no longer a threat. If he has surrendered and these precautions are completed killing him is wrong.
Yes, This. +5.
We have agreement at last. Never meant to say once he dropped the knife he was allowed to run away, then he's fleeing justice, take him down with an arrow to the back of the head.
If he surrenders, you do whatever you have to do to secure him, and if he tries to get free, he's no longer surrendered and you stab him until he quits trying to escape or until he quits bleeding, whichever comes first.
The idea is not to spare his life, the idea is not to get dragged down to his level. :)
In the original thing with the Goblin. If you tried to take him into custody and he started fighting, you whack him hard and fast. If he survives that, tie him up and bring him in, otherwise go about your way with a clean conscience. The thing that tipped it for me was, again, we're going to help you, you can trust us, I'm a priestess of Good Goddess Glenda, who is sweetness and light and would not like me to do THIS! Not only betraying a truce and lieing with intention to murder but invoking your goddesses name to do it. That's a lot of bad karma.
You have to be of sound mind to agree to a truce. That is why I consider the truce to be invalid, and I dont see the truce as broken. If you get me to agree to anything when I am drunk, half-asleep, and so on its not a real agreement, because if you knew I would say yes you would not have tried to convince me while I was in that state of mind. If agreeing to a truce is valid while you are not coherent, then agreeing to anything else is valid also.
Edit:changed anytbing to anything
But the Goblin wasn't under mind control or unable to properly judge. Charm Person just positively predisposes a being to like the caster: the Goblin would have felt friendly towards the caster, and been inclined to trust her (genuine) offer of truce. But he wasn't compelled or even really pushed to take it. Besides that, the offer of the truce was genuine from the caster.
Now, the two characters who convinced him, under the guise of truce, to make himself vulnerable and then killed him, had no magical influence over him, and took advantage of a real truce offered by their party mate. That's betrayal of the truce, of their comrade, and murder (because the fighting had stopped by mutual agreement). It wasn't a false truce when it was offered, it was betrayed by the caster's own fellows. That is most certainly evil.
But the Goblin wasn't under mind control or unable to properly judge. Charm Person just positively predisposes a being to like the caster: the Goblin would have felt friendly towards the caster, and been inclined to trust her (genuine) offer of truce. But he wasn't compelled or even really pushed to take it. Besides that, the offer of the truce was genuine from the caster.
Now, the two characters who convinced him, under the guise of truce, to make himself vulnerable and then killed him, had no magical influence over him, and took advantage of a real truce offered by their party mate. That's betrayal of the truce, of their comrade, and murder (because the fighting had stopped by mutual agreement). It wasn't a false truce when it was offered, it was betrayed by the caster's own fellows. That is most certainly evil.
Absolutely :)
Whether or not the goblin is magically induced to enter the truce, the cleric and fighter weren't. They chose to do what they did with no magical compulsion.
edit: oops, I misread your post a little - my point is an additional one, I suppose, though I agree both with what you wrote and with what I thought you wrote
While it has been said before, I want to bring back that it isn't what someone does (or does not) that make him/her good or evil, but rather how they will live with it .
There ARE situations when evil is almost a necessity. There are situations where the line between fighting evil and committing an evil act is VERY thin. Sooner or later, PCs will commit an evil act.
The difference between the good character and the evil one is that the good character will ultimately feel bad about it and the evil one will get some twisted satisfaction about doing evil stuff. The neutral character knows it is wrong but can easily rationalize the mistake/necessity of the act and sleep just as well that night.
I think that making parallels between real life and D&D is treacherous. D&D has realities that we, citizen of so called developed countries, do not experience. The worst thing that threatened my homestead this summer was a bunch of raccoons, the occasional skunk and some unseen night-critter that scared the shit out of me.
That being said, evil remains just as evil, but the interpretation of the act can be slightly different. In North America, killing a man is a crime but manslaughter is not the same crime as murder. Such interpretations of culpability probably exist in the D&D world, and are probably slightly different from setting to setting (Forgotten Realms vs Dark Sun comes to mind).
The best is to discuss it within our gaming group and come to a consensus (or at least a definition). Actually, defining what's good and what's evil is the easy part; the real challenge is to do the same thing with Law vs Chaos...
'findel
I have been copying my post all day. The one time I dont do it the forum eats a post.
I refuse to type it again, but here is what I found:
After looking in the BoED and the BoVD the act was evil since no evil act, no matter what the means is ever justified. A good character if he cares about his good alignment/exalted status will never willingly commit an evil act.
Example: Villain is captured multiple times. He kills millions of people. He is defeated(again). If he ask for quarter it must be given. If someone is charmed or dominated they are to be treated like a prisoner.(BoED pg 10)
Example2: The world is about to be plunged into chaos and darkness. You can cast an evil spell that will kill the BBEG before the ritual is completed or you can let him succeed. If you cast the spell you have committed an evil act.
---------------------------------------------------------
My take on it:
I think its selfish to put your exalted/good status over the lives of those you are choosing to protect. I understand that part of being good is accepting you can't use the same tactics the other guy is using, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do, and the game should account for that.
I have been copying my post all day. The one time I dont do it the forum eats a post.
I refuse to type it again, but here is what I found:
After looking in the BoED and the BoVD the act was evil since no evil act, no matter what the means is ever justified. A good character if he cares about his good alignment/exalted status will never willingly commit an evil act.
Example: Villain is captured multiple times. He kills millions of people. He is defeated(again). If he ask for quarter it must be given. If someone is charmed or dominated they are to be treated like a prisoner.(BoED pg 10)
Example2: The world is about to be plunged into chaos and darkness. You can cast an evil spell that will kill the BBEG before the ritual is completed or you can let him succeed. If you cast the spell you have committed an evil act.
---------------------------------------------------------My take on it:
I think its selfish to put your exalted/good status over the lives of those you are choosing to protect. I understand that part of being good is accepting you can't use the same tactics the other guy is using, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do, and the game should account for that.
I don't want to dispute your opinion, I think it was very well said (mine might be similar on this narrow point, but that's beside the point I'm about to make).
Doesn't the game account for this? I mean, the character is free to choose any action at all, with appropriate consequences/reactions depending on the circumstances and what the action was.
If you're suggesting that there should be no consequences for evil acts in certain situations, then I disagree - consequences are part of the game.
If a player wants more latitude in their allowed tactics, why not play a neutral character?
The game does not dictate that the characters must be good, only that there may be consequences for good characters who do evil.
My take on it:I think its selfish to put your exalted/good status over the lives of those you are choosing to protect. I understand that part of being good is accepting you can't use the same tactics the other guy is using, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do, and the game should account for that.
I can agree with you that it would be selfish to do it to protect your alignment. If that is all you are doing it for, then you are commiting and evil act. :)
But, as I said before, within the game Good is a very concrete thing, and certain actions are Evil, no matter what. You can't make them unevil (like the Evil spell thing, no matter why, it's Evil).
I think its selfish to put your exalted/good status over the lives of those you are choosing to protect.
Which bring us back to the old "At which point do The Joker's murders start becoming Batman's fault?", but that's a can of worms better left unopened I think.
While fantasy makes it easier on the player by making races inherently "good" and "evil" (it's fair to assume the evil orc warlord is only surrendering to be let off the hook but will be back to no good as soon as he can, let the Paladin kill him and be done with it), it's up to us how much we want to dumb our games down. Take magic for example, start labelling spells as "evil" and not only you take choice away from the player... also, it's dumb, how is it more evil to kill someone with a Finger of Death than charring him to a crisp with a Fireball? (officially, the worst death is by burning, all your nerves screaming at the same time).
Is it evil to animate the bodies of dead guards to protect an orphanage from hungry gnolls? Hell! Were those guards still around, they'd themselves give their consent!
Is it evil NOT to kill a noble who happens to be a serial killer and who you know will bribe his way through court to be back home by dinner time? IT IS! Crimes are not only committed by act, there're also crimes by omission, you don't kill this piece of garbage and the blood he spills as soon as he's back on the street will be in -your- hands.
Now Batman? Well, he's not stupid, he knows what's going to happen every time he brings Joker back to Arkham, but in his case it's about self-conviction, to him there's a line, a line he's not willing to cross, because once you kill your first person, the second becomes easier, and so becomes a downward spiral... for the greater good perhaps, but at the cost of losing -yourself-, and -that- is the only price Bats is not willing to pay.
I think the good/evil thing was written out in such a rigid form to avoid debate(at the table), and I agree with an evil act being an evil act, no matter what(at the table), but to say a truly good person will think "playing fair*" is the right thing even if it means the end of the world, does not sit well with me.
*feel free to replace this with whatever fits better
I think the good/evil thing was written out in such a rigid form to avoid debate(at the table), and I agree with an evil act being an evil act, no matter what(at the table), but to say a truly good person will think "playing fair*" is the right thing even if it means the end of the world, does not sit well with me.
*feel free to replace this with whatever fits better
It wouldn't sit well with me either.
I'm not sure what alignment that would make us in game terms, so the only thing I can offer is that this philosophy of life may not be compatible with all 9 game alignments, and maybe not all of the good ones.
(personally, I wouldn't penalize even a lawful good character much in this situation - maybe a sidelong glance from the deity, or a metaphysical slap on the wrist; maybe the paladin would fall, but atonement would be quite easy)
I think the good/evil thing was written out in such a rigid form to avoid debate(at the table), and I agree with an evil act being an evil act, no matter what(at the table), but to say a truly good person will think "playing fair*" is the right thing even if it means the end of the world, does not sit well with me.
*feel free to replace this with whatever fits better
It wouldn't sit well with me either.
I'm not sure what alignment that would make us in game terms, so the only thing I can offer is that this philosophy of life may not be compatible with all 9 game alignments, and maybe not all of the good ones.
(personally, I wouldn't penalize even a lawful good character much in this situation - maybe a sidelong glance from the deity, or a metaphysical slap on the wrist; maybe the paladin would fall, but atonement would be quite easy)
The Paladin's god isn't upset with him, he was unconscious.
The Cleric's Goddess however, is going to be seriously torqued off. Her cleric commited an Evil act using her name. If the cleric had just promised healing and then done the deed, the Goddess might be upset and withhold prayers until an atonement is done. But, using their name to commit an Evil act has a tendency to seriously Torque off Good Deities.
I think the good/evil thing was written out in such a rigid form to avoid debate(at the table), and I agree with an evil act being an evil act, no matter what(at the table), but to say a truly good person will think "playing fair*" is the right thing even if it means the end of the world, does not sit well with me.
*feel free to replace this with whatever fits better
It wouldn't sit well with me either.
I'm not sure what alignment that would make us in game terms, so the only thing I can offer is that this philosophy of life may not be compatible with all 9 game alignments, and maybe not all of the good ones.
(personally, I wouldn't penalize even a lawful good character much in this situation - maybe a sidelong glance from the deity, or a metaphysical slap on the wrist; maybe the paladin would fall, but atonement would be quite easy)
The Paladin's god isn't upset with him, he was unconscious.
The Cleric's Goddess however, is going to be seriously torqued off. Her cleric commited an Evil act using her name. If the cleric had just promised healing and then done the deed, the Goddess might be upset and withhold prayers until an atonement is done. But, using their name to commit an Evil act has a tendency to seriously Torque off Good Deities.
The game holds the players to a much higher standard than I realized. By the rules the OP's situation and the end of the world being prevented by evil means are both "bad".
By the way I DM the armor off would have gotten a pally in hot water, but a cleric would get a warning, maybe in the form of a dream.
In the "save the world" scenario the paladin and cleric would get off scot free.
The game holds the players to a much higher standard than I realized. By the rules the OP's situation and the end of the world being prevented by evil means are both "bad".
By the way I DM the armor off would have gotten a pally in hot water, but a cleric would get a warning, maybe in the form of a dream.
In the "save the world" scenario the paladin and cleric would get off scot free.
Yeah, that's sort of the problem with making Good, Evil, Law, Chaos and Neutrality concrete, measurable, discernable, detectable natural energies. As soon as they get that real, everything get's hammered into one of the alignments or mixed alignments.
As to the OP's scene, I'd only punish the Paladin if he were conscious, he wasn't. The CG Ranger I'd have put a mark down for him for commiting a (moderately) Evil act. The Cleric on the other hand, would have been in serious hot water. She took a moderately Evil act and did it in her deities name. That seriously torques off Good deities. It would have required an Atonement spell, and some other RP to fix it up. A lot would have depended on how the player played it out of course. True remorse would have sufficed with a 'Don't you EVER use my name again to do Evil! Oh, and don't do evil again either!' from the Goddess (plus the whole loss of most/some abilities). Plus the mark by her name.
I keep marks when a character acts out of alignment, and if I get enough of them, I pull them aside and discuss it with them. Usually either they change how they are acting or agree and their alignment gets changed. The best example was a player made a CG Marshall and ended up being in charge of the group of players. Problem was, they were all Chaotic (CG or CN). So it was like riding herd on cats. Finally, I had to pull him aside and tell him he was acting more lawful than chaotic. He agreed, and his character changed from CG to CN.
I think the good/evil thing was written out in such a rigid form to avoid debate(at the table), and I agree with an evil act being an evil act, no matter what(at the table), but to say a truly good person will think "playing fair*" is the right thing even if it means the end of the world, does not sit well with me.
*feel free to replace this with whatever fits better
It wouldn't sit well with me either.
I'm not sure what alignment that would make us in game terms, so the only thing I can offer is that this philosophy of life may not be compatible with all 9 game alignments, and maybe not all of the good ones.
(personally, I wouldn't penalize even a lawful good character much in this situation - maybe a sidelong glance from the deity, or a metaphysical slap on the wrist; maybe the paladin would fall, but atonement would be quite easy)
The Paladin's god isn't upset with him, he was unconscious.
The Cleric's Goddess however, is going to be seriously torqued off. Her cleric commited an Evil act using her name. If the cleric had just promised healing and then done the deed, the Goddess might be upset and withhold prayers until an atonement is done. But, using their name to commit an Evil act has a tendency to seriously Torque off Good Deities.
Sorry I wasn't clear - for the paladin in "this situation" I meant in the generic "save the world" situation, not this specific one that started this thread. Though I hope "commit evil or the world is over" does not become a generic situation! Cliched I'd maybe be ok with.
Yeah - the cleric is in hot water for sure! I think the question is: What consequences would matter to the fighter? There don't seem to be any - even an alignment change wouldn't be a big deal, would it?
I keep marks when a character acts out of alignment, and if I get enough of them, I pull them aside and discuss it with them. Usually either they change how they are acting or agree and their alignment gets changed. The best example was a player made a CG Marshall and ended up being in charge of the group of players. Problem was, they were all Chaotic (CG or CN). So it was like riding herd on cats. Finally, I had to pull him aside and tell him he was acting more lawful than chaotic. He agreed, and his character changed from CG to CN.
This is confusing to me (not that these issues are terribly clear to begin with....) - if a character is consistently acting more lawful than chaotic, how does a change from CG to CN resolve the problem?
typo?
Sorry I wasn't clear - for the paladin in "this situation" I meant in the generic "save the world" situation, not this specific one that started this thread. Though I hope "commit evil or the world is over" does not become a generic situation! Cliched I'd maybe be ok with.
Yeah - the cleric is in hot water for sure! I think the question is: What consequences would matter to the fighter? There don't seem to be any - even an alignment change wouldn't be a big deal, would it?
No direct consequences, which is why I usually require less 'marks' against a melee/arcane type than a divine type. They don't have that direct link to god to help them stay on target. And, eventually, they keep doing evil deeds, I hold out my hand and say 'Sorry, you just slipped from NN to NE, roll up a new character'.
In this instance though, the Goddess is probably Torque'd off enough to just fizzle any spell the Cleric casts on the Fighter until he's done some atonement as well (either the spell or some RP). And if she has allies, they might do the same. There could even, if she is friendly with the god he worships, some bad luck for him down the road. He might be turned away from a temple of his god because her Goddess put out the word he is unrepentant, or, if he dies, his god might decide not to let him return, afraid he will go down the path to evil if he's allowed to return and be tempted further.
I keep marks when a character acts out of alignment, and if I get enough of them, I pull them aside and discuss it with them. Usually either they change how they are acting or agree and their alignment gets changed. The best example was a player made a CG Marshall and ended up being in charge of the group of players. Problem was, they were all Chaotic (CG or CN). So it was like riding herd on cats. Finally, I had to pull him aside and tell him he was acting more lawful than chaotic. He agreed, and his character changed from CG to CN.This is confusing to me (not that these issues are terribly clear to begin with....) - if a character is consistently acting more lawful than chaotic, how does a change from CG to CN resolve the problem?
typo?
Nope, He wasn't acting lawful all the time, just when it came to dealing with the group or higher ups in his command. He was just as chaotic when it came to dealing with townsfolk etc on his own. Basically, he hadn't gone all the way lawful, just was acting lawful more than chaotic, but not by a huge amount. That puts him in the middle, or Neutral in my book.
Plus, I tend not to jump people 2 alignments. I figure someone Good doesn't jump straight to Evil without going through Neutral (unless something really weird happens). Same with Law vs Chaos, usually people who are at one extreme swing through the middle towards the other end.
Now, if he keeps acting more and more lawful and less and less chaotic, I'll probably pull him aside again.
I keep marks when a character acts out of alignment, and if I get enough of them, I pull them aside and discuss it with them. Usually either they change how they are acting or agree and their alignment gets changed. The best example was a player made a CG Marshall and ended up being in charge of the group of players. Problem was, they were all Chaotic (CG or CN). So it was like riding herd on cats. Finally, I had to pull him aside and tell him he was acting more lawful than chaotic. He agreed, and his character changed from CG to CN.This is confusing to me (not that these issues are terribly clear to begin with....) - if a character is consistently acting more lawful than chaotic, how does a change from CG to CN resolve the problem?
typo?
Nope, He wasn't acting lawful all the time, just when it came to dealing with the group or higher ups in his command. He was just as chaotic when it came to dealing with townsfolk etc on his own. Basically, he hadn't gone all the way lawful, just was acting lawful more than chaotic, but not by a huge amount. That puts him in the middle, or Neutral in my book.
Plus, I tend not to jump people 2 alignments. I figure someone Good doesn't jump straight to Evil without going through Neutral (unless something really weird happens). Same with Law vs Chaos, usually people who are at one extreme swing through the middle towards the other end.
Now, if he keeps acting more and more lawful and less and less chaotic, I'll probably pull him aside again.
I see where you're coming from now - thanks!
edit: oops. nope, I'm still confused. Could this be seen as a change to neutral good? It's also just one step, but the law/chaos/neutral axis seems more relevant in this case than the good/neutral/evil one (of course, I don't know much about the situation).
In this instance though, the Goddess is probably Torque'd off enough to just fizzle any spell the Cleric casts on the Fighter until he's done some atonement as well (either the spell or some RP). And if she has allies, they might do the same. There could even, if she is friendly with the god he worships, some bad luck for him down the road. He might be turned away from a temple of his god because her Goddess put out the word he is unrepentant, or, if he dies, his god might decide not to let him return, afraid he will go down the path to evil if he's allowed to return and be tempted further.
I like it! Consider these ideas shamelessly stolen! :)
I see where you're coming from now - thanks!
edit: oops. nope, I'm still confused. Could this be seen as a change to neutral good? It's also just one step, but the law/chaos/neutral axis seems more relevant in this case than the good/neutral/evil one (of course, I don't know much about the situation).
LOL,
Sorry, it was a typo. :) I saw CN and was thinking it was GN. He went from CG to NG (sorry, my bad). :)As to stealing the idea, run with it. :)
The game holds the players to a much higher standard than I realized. By the rules the OP's situation and the end of the world being prevented by evil means are both "bad".
Yay Catch-22 huh?
I'm quoting an entire post, which I don't like to do, especially when the contain quotes of previous stuff I wrote. I'm tucking it behind a spoiler button, just for the sake of tidiness.
Lies are chaotic. Could be evil or good, depends on the usual factors I keep harping about. But lying is not inherently good or evil. It's inherently chaotic. You're just not separating the axes.
It does matter what the characters do. Actions can be good/evil/lawful/chaotic...otherwise Paladins wouldn't lose class abilities for committing evil acts. RAW.
Going to set my phone down and try to sleep now.
As long as we're making up rules, Lawful means you can only have sex for procreation, yeah yeah, that's the ticket. And you can't eat fish on friday!
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.Can you direct me to the passage where it says *anything* about lying and honesty? (Trustworthiness doesn't count, because "Yes, your majesty, you look wonderful" or "I'm doing good, How are you" have nothing to do with trust, and yet both are common lies)
Honor is respect and code (Written law) following, Trustworthiness is doing what you say you are going to do, and the others are self-explanatory.
Hm. I'm sorry for whatever slight against your existence you perceive from this debate. My brevity was not intended to offend, merely to expedite the cessation of typing on my phone so I could get to sleep. Saying I'm "making up rules" is, well, accusing me of lying. For the most part, people through this thread have remained respectful (if vociferous in their disagreement) of my views. I'm not sure if you are actually trying to question my integrity or are just being snarky, but I've tried to make it clear where I'm literally following what's written and where I'm making interpretive judgement calls. My stance on the good/evil of an act being dependent on the character's motives is clearly interpretation. It isn't spelled out so directly as to not require some measure of interpretation, otherwise this thread would likely have ended some time ago. Even with that, the concept of lies/honesty falling on the law/chaos axis is quite specifically stated. If you are trying to question my interpretation of the rules, the following will hopefully convince you that my reasoning is not baseless. If you are, in fact, just shooting for snark, then perhaps my rebuttal will convince you to choose your targets more carefully or at least make sure you're right, first. Oh yes, countersnark (unless you were just not believing me, in which case I apologize...maybe).
As to where in the rules it refers to lying and honesty, the answer is sadly from the paragraph immediately before the one you quoted and the one two paragraphs after the one you quoted. I really don't know if you skipped them or are choosing to ignore them in the hope that somehow I skipped them. I'm going to reproduce the entire section describing Law vs. Chaos (behind another spoiler tag), including what you listed. I'm listings the relevant parts in bold, for those that don't want to read the entire thing. What nexusphere quoted is in italics.
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
This seems fairly straightforward to me. You specifically asked for where it says anything about "lying" and "honesty." Since it specifically uses "honest" and "lying" in there, I'll hope you spot me the "y" in honesty. Lying is chaotic, truthfulness is lawful. The consequences of such may well be good or evil, but lying to a demon trying to hunt your family down is chaotic, not (necessarily) evil. Lying about your identity to an avoral to obtain some sweet reward intended for someone else is chaotic and (probably) evil.
In addition, here is a relevant rule that demonstrates the existence of aligned acts, that is acts with an associated alignment. Again, the relevant pieces are highlighted in bold, but the entire text is reproduced to demonstrate its context.
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.
Moving on...
Backstabbing as a Rogue would be an evil act as it can only be done using trickery and deceit. It doesn't even give the target a chance to defend themselves against it.False on all three counts:
1. It isn't an evil act.
2. It can be done through other methods than trickery or deceit, most commonly by simply timing your attacks with a companions so that both can't be defended against at once (ie, flanking).
3. You can defend against sneak attacks the same as any other attack rolls.4. You didn't agree to parley.
5. You didn't invoke the name of Good Goddess of beauty (your own goddess) to prove you aren't lieing.
Point 1 isn't actually countering an argument, it's just disagreeing with the thesis the arguments support. That's fine, but listing it as a numbered point makes it seem like it's something else. Really, points 2-5 are in support of 1, not independent of it.
Point 2 doesn't address whether or not a sneak attack performed through the benefit of trickery is evil, which is the crux of the issue.Point 3 doesn't separate the analogy from the original situation. Anyone can defend against attacks from their friends, even without their armor. As stated before, Charm Person shouldn't grant much more than a surprise round.
In this case, I'm willing to at least kind of agree with your argument. Being flat-footed is, by definition, not being allowed to defend yourself. This, I believe, is the situation Decorus meant, rather than sneak attacks performed by flanking. If we stick to sneak attacks obtained through trickery/deceipt, the bulk of the point Decorus was aiming for stands.
Point 4 is kind of a major sticking point in the philosophies of this thread. If the truce is only obtained through magic manipulating the thought process of the enemy, is it a real truce? I say no, others have agreed and disagreed to their own thoughts. It still doesn't actually address whether a sneak attack performed through the benefit of trickery and/or deceipt is actually evil except by the fiat that breaking parley is evil, and other trickery/deceit is left unaddressed. I still feel this is chaotic, not (necessarily) evil, and in this specific circumstance, I don't think it changes the good/evil of the attack at all, only how chaotic it is.
Point 5 is kind of an arbitrary judgement. Is lying and including your god's name in the process always evil? Again, I say it's chaotic and not (necessarily) evil, and in this specific circumstance, I don't think it changes the good/evil nature of the act of attacking. Whether or not the god wants to act on it is a separate issue altogether. They're allowed to be arbitrary.
Yeah, that's sort of the problem with making Good, Evil, Law, Chaos and Neutrality concrete, measurable, discernable, detectable natural energies. As soon as they get that real, everything get's hammered into one of the alignments or mixed alignments.
I refuse to accept that, which at least pretty much just starts as mandatory denial on my part. If I can't find a way to make it all internally consistent then I have to throw out too many rules for my taste. That being said, I appear to actually believe it's not the case, either. I posted previously on the importance of the separation of being evil/good/chaotic/lawful and doing evil/good/chaos/law. Enough of the latter can affect the former, but they are separate concepts. Spells and in-game effects will almost always refer to the former, not the latter. A generally neutral/neutral guy who cheats on his wife isn't subject to Smite Evil during the evil act. Paladins with "detect evil" up aren't going to see the effects on the aura of the adulterer, even they witness the act itself. Only something that fundamentally changed the nature of the man would be significant to register within the concrete, measurable, discernable, detectable natural energies. So kinda like midichlorians...the mechanism itself is kinda stupid, but you want the Force to work...just don't think too hard about it. Fortunately, magically harnessable negative/positive energy isn't anywhere near as stupid as midichlorians.
What's interesting here is with reard to the rest of your post concerning the consequences and the attitude of the cleric's god I don't really disagree. I have no problem with the god feeling he abused the use of her name, especially if she is lawful (I don't actually know off the top of my head; I use a different pantheon). As this entire debate indicates, different characters/NPCs/players will see things very differently and act accordingly. Even if, outside the game, I don't think the cleric did evil, I won't deny that it's possible the god thinks that. I was also confused on the change from CG to CN instead of NG, but that has already been addressed.
On a different subject...to those discussing the whole "is killing baby goblins evil" issue, the short answer is almost certainly. The characters may be convinced the goblins will only do bad things, but children are innocents until their actions demonstrate otherwise. There are circumstances where I could see the act not actually being evil, per se, but those would be few and far between and aren't really in line with the intent of the question.
As for the rest of the posts, I'm starting to see a dearth of new ideas, which saddens me somewhat. I'll likely try to avoid taking the time to post again, since I keep spending too much doing so and I have other things needing doing. I'll probably try to read more, so if anything irks me enough or jolts me into a new thought process, I may be compelled to offer another opinion. If I don't post again, I'd like to thank everybody again, especially MDT, Zurai (even though we didn't agree on pretty much anything), Decorus, Seabyrn, Doskious Steele,
And I mean everybody. If you didn't get mentioned, that doesn't mean I didn't find your thoughts interesting, it just means I forgot shortly afterward. I forget many things though, so don't take it personally!
I do have a few questions that largely went unaddressed. Given how wordy my posts are, that's not a surprise, but I'm still curious what everyone's thoughts were on them.
On a slightly different tack, to all those talking about how the goblin wasn't that much of a threat, I'm kind of wondering who cares? If you're attacked by a couple of level one goblins and you're level 20, do you only attack them with the butt of your sword and knock them out just because they're not a threat to you? Does your alignment factor into that at all? Maybe they aren't a threat to you, but they're still a threat to someone and it seems kinda irresponsible, like leaving a mountain lion that just ate a family alive and free instead of putting it down. The mountain lion didn't even understand its actions, whereas the goblins (by definition of int 3+) did. Go ahead and squish the goblins.
[...]
Again, what if Suggestion were used instead? What if they used an illusion of a hot goblin warchieftess (totally not a word, but too awesome to not use) and had the illusion convince him to take off his armor for some hot goblin lovin'? What if they summon a succubus to charm him, and she goes ahead and kills him? What if someone grapples him and teleports hundreds of feet in the air, then lets go when the goblin breaks the grapple (and drifts safely to the ground due to a Feather Fall effect while the goblin falls at 9.8m/s^2)?
Whether the magic is applied directly for the spell effect or indirectly for the consequences of the spell effect is a distinction that is only relevant for whether or not spell resistance applies.
Exactly what methods of trickery provided here are evil and which aren't? I'm hoping for a description of any rationale behind it, because they seem pretty similar to using Charm Person to me, and they apply more specifically to this situation and these judgement calls, which hopefully will help avoid the kind of unrelated arguments that have been brought against other analogous situations that people have brought up.
You know, I somehow managed to not grasp before now that you were the cleric in question. I am humbled by your willingness to discuss your actions - and by your kind words in the post - I will try not to fail to do them justice! I had forgotten to address a few things, which I can try to rectify now, though I am fading quickly into tiredness.
Excerpts from previous RicoTheBold post:
On a slightly different tack, to all those talking about how the goblin wasn't that much of a threat, I'm kind of wondering who cares? If you're attacked by a couple of level one goblins and you're level 20, do you only attack them with the butt of your sword and knock them out just because they're not a threat to you? Does your alignment factor into that at all? Maybe they aren't a threat to you, but they're still a threat to someone and it seems kinda irresponsible, like leaving a mountain lion that just ate a family alive and free instead of putting it down. The mountain lion didn't even understand its actions, whereas the goblins (by definition of int 3+) did. Go ahead and squish the goblins.
[...]
This I think falls under standard rules of combat, and so squishing the goblin is ok. He might not be able to kill you, but you wouldn't want to get blood on your fancy high-level clothes/armor (really, how would you explain to your party that a lowly goblin made you bleed?). So even though not really a threat, a combat situation is in effect, which warrants bloodshed. Since the goblin chieftain was no longer actively trying to engage in combat, he was not an immediate threat. And, in my view, no longer much of a more general threat to the village either. I certainly wasn't the DM here (you probably knew that, I guess!), but I can't believe the goblin chief would have been dumb enough to immediately attack/invade when the charm wore off. Whether he would ultimately do so is another question.
Again, what if Suggestion were used instead? What if they used an illusion of a hot goblin warchieftess (totally not a word, but too awesome to not use) and had the illusion convince him to take off his armor for some hot goblin lovin'? What if they summon a succubus to charm him, and she goes ahead and kills him? What if someone grapples him and teleports hundreds of feet in the air, then lets go when the goblin breaks the grapple (and drifts safely to the ground due to a Feather Fall effect while the goblin falls at 9.8m/s^2)?
Whether the magic is applied directly for the spell effect or indirectly for the consequences of the spell effect is a distinction that is only relevant for whether or not spell resistance applies.
I was too distracted earlier by the image of the hot goblin warchieftess to respond! And I plan on using this phrase now as often as possible :)
These are good questions (similar to the sleeping/magically held ones), that I am not sure I have a good answer for, and may attempt a distraction while I think... Look! Hot goblin chieftess over there!
The only answer I can give is that to me, the difference is that a negotiation was ongoing, and the good characters had promised to heal him - lying is ok by their alignment, but why not steal his armor and force a surrender?
In battle, an illusion to gain a tactical advantage would be an ok tactic for a (chaotic) good character (not sure about lawful, now that I think about it...). As would suggestion, hold, etc. But it would depend a bit on the timing - a coup de grace immediately following a hold spell (before the character could really think about it, and might still be 'in combat' in their mind), I would not consider a problem. After time to deliberate though, I would view it differently.
Exactly what methods of trickery provided here are evil and which aren't? I'm hoping for a description of any rationale behind it, because they seem pretty similar to using Charm Person to me, and they apply more specifically to this situation and these judgement calls, which hopefully will help avoid the kind of unrelated arguments that have been brought against other analogous situations that people have brought up.
I think the trickery isn't evil. It's chaotic (or neutral), and perfectly ok. It's the killing of an essentially defeated (and currently not fighting) opponent that I can't reconcile with 'good' (I might be able to reconcile it with neutral, if neutral means 'sometimes evil, sometimes good'). I hope I would be consistent across these various situations.
Tricking the goblin out of his armor was quite a brilliant move. But, instead of attacking and killing him at that point, he could have been reminded that he's out of his armor, that there's no way he can defeat the party now (as proven, though it might not have been as obvious beforehand), and that maybe he should surrender fully and keep his life? If he acts like he discovered the trick and raises his weapon against the cleric/fighter, then attack him and enjoy the advantage gained through trickery. Just my view on what would be a 'good' act in conjunction with the 'chaotic' one (I'm sure there are others that I haven't thought of).
Anyway, thank you for a very interesting puzzle - I haven't thought this much in a long time!
|
Yeah but ask the paizo staff if there are any good drow....
This is actually covered in Second Darkness. There are no "good drow" because they get beaten into submission, or turned over to the flesh crafters to become Drider, deemed too stupid to be part of the better race.
You can't function under the concept that a monster is going to be that one in a million exception to it's natural alignment. You can't cast detect alignment on everything you fight, and you can't pass judgement on EVERY action a character makes. Every character makes dozens of actions each game that could be interpreted in different manners.
As is pointed out, its a fairly larger population than 1 per 1,000,000
So just wanted to add either the must messed up or most evil thing my players ever done.
I come with the bad idea of creating a somewhat realistic bandit situation that was not going to be PG-13. A group of bandits who took over a town, murdered off all the old and all the males and just kept the women. So the PCs come across this horrible place while escorting a noble to a far off city.
They come along this town. They find out what is going on and than just looked at each other and said well we do not want to worry about them. Things will sort it self out.
So to motivate them I sent a women who escaped begging them to come and help them. They have her mother captured with her sister.
So a debate breaks out on the merits of helping them. Most of it thou was what to do with Jocelyne(the women who escaped.) They never bothered to call her by her name and just kept calling her Rapey. So the final solution was stated by our Ranger as this,"if we kill her we wont change her status, she still will be a victim."
They took the option of not killing her, just kidnapping her. One of my players was a thri kreen and asked if her charcter could well mate with her.
At this point I realized a few things. One my players have some issues. Two I need players.
|
If you get me to agree to anything when I am drunk, half-asleep, and so on its not a real agreement, because if you knew I would say yes you would not have tried to convince me while I was in that state of mind.
Actually that's not true, well, I mean I understand and actually agree its true and we aren't dealing with american law here so kind of invalid for arguments point, but I'm just warning you, in real life, if you make a contract while drunk and half asleep you will be held to that contract in a court of law, legal precedence was set in a case where a neighbor got drunk with a couple and while they were drunk talked them into writing up and signing a contract selling their land to him. The courts upheld the contract when the couple fought it in court, so just don't go thinking you can use that drunk and half asleep to get out of anything. It may be immoral as hell for the person doing the pursuasion, but you'll be held to your actions. Once again, DnD ins't US law so this isn't an argument for the discussion, just an off topic warning to be careful who you trust and what you do while drunk.
|
|
I'm quoting an entire post, which I don't like to do, especially when the contain quotes of previous stuff I wrote. I'm tucking it behind a spoiler button, just for the sake of tidiness.
** spoiler omitted **Hm. I'm sorry for whatever slight against your existence you perceive from this debate. My brevity was not intended to offend, merely to expedite the cessation of typing on my phone so I could get to sleep. Saying I'm "making up rules" is, well, accusing me of lying. For the most part, people through this thread...
Okay way too long to respond in detail, I don't think lying is evil. Lie lie lie lie lie, all day long to your little hearts content. It's when you kill and how that is evil, if it's self defense, he poses an immediate threat, that it's not evil. You can't say well I'll kill him now because as soon as the spell wears off he'll be a threat again, because anyone can be a threat eventually where do you draw the line, if you can kill because someone will be a threat in 4 hours when the spell wears off, what about killing a child because when they grow up in a few years they will most likely come after you for killing their father (the evil murdering dickwad to you, but daddy to him) so is it okay to just kill the kid now?
And that doesn't mean that I'd say you can't do it, or even that I'd punish you for it, I'm of the opinion that good people can and will do evil things all the time, but that if they show consistent willingness to repeat the actions that's when you change their alignment to nuetral.
|
|
A funny thing about D&D that I have often discussed with my players is that in a D&D world morality is entirely objective. The very planes themselves are made of and run on a system that Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are absolutes that exist and can be both quantified and detected. Therefore in a D&D world, unlike in the real world, the act is always the thing. Animating a skeleton is always an evil act even if you are planning to command it to pet puppies and help out at an orphanage. And showing mercy is always good, even if it is for the most depraved bunny-rabbit-rapist that ever lived (with the exception of Evil outsiders). D&D has a black and white system for what, in real life, is an incomprehensibly complex spectrum of grays. An individual group is certainly welcome to play their game with a more realistic moral scale, involving intent, whether or not the person feels guilty afterward, etc. Personally if I want to explore such concepts in a game I will stick with White Wolf, but to each his own.
In the original situations presented I would rule as follows. The first situation was a highly chaotic, moderately evil act. The alignment and intentions of the victim are irrelevant; he was tricked through the use of magic and false pretenses(chaotic), and murdered while essentially helpless (evil). Killing an enemy in battle is a neutral act. Killing said enemy when he is no longer a direct threat is evil. Enough to make the characters change their alignments to Chaotic Neutral? No, unless they make a habit of such things. Enough to piss off the cleric's Good deity and require atonement? Probably. Enough to put a burr in the paladin's saddle when he wakes up and finds out about it? Certainly.
The second situation was highly chaotic, and petty/short-sighted as well, but not inherently evil. D&D tends to focus on the immediacy of the act, in this case not informing the wizard that the item was cursed, and not the potential long-term consequences, such as the chance that the cursed item will bring further danger to the entire party.
I am currently running Rise of the Runelords myself, and my group just finished Burnt Offerings. One of my PC's a Chaotic Neutral Shoanti Barbarian/Sorcerer, performed an act that I considered evil in the previous session. Without giving out spoilers I will say that a long-standing foe was downed by this PC and the rogue (also CN) out of sight of the rest of the party, who were busy fighting another enemy. The rogue ran back to join in the other fight, but this PC took the opportunity to finish off the fallen foe because said foe had insulted him earlier. According to D&D morality binding the guy's wounds and bringing him in to face justice would have been good (and lawful). Leaving him to bleed out or stabilize on his own would have been neutral. But bashing his head in as he lay unconscious and dying because he was angry at the guy, especially while his friends were risking their lives upstairs, was most definitely evil, and enough to earn him a hefty helping of Wrath for later. ;)
My two cents, hope someone likes them.
What I find particularly interesting about this thread, is that aside from the enjoyable discussion, I've come close to changing my mind several times.
For the record, I still think the characters acted evilly in situation #1.
But I've almost been convinced it was neutral a few times - the arguments have not been easy to dismiss.
But here's one that keeps me thinking it's evil (I don't remember if it's been brought up already - my apologies if I'm being redundant):
What if the situation had been reversed? What if the goblins, including a sorcerer, had captured the last surviving PC, charmed him into a cease-fire, and then under a flag of truce attacked and killed him.
Would the goblins have committed a good (or even neutral) act? If so, would the goblins be acting outside of their alignment (assume that it's evil)?
I would say it's still evil. It's expected for goblins to do this, because they're evil.
Can it be seen as a good act for the PCs because they're 'good' (and the goblins are evil)? If this is made relative - that is, the same act that is 'good' for a good-aligned individual is 'evil' for an evil-aligned individual - doesn't it open a huge can of paradoxical worms for the alignment system? (I'm struggling to think of one - maybe this has been covered already?)
Personally, I think that 'good' and 'evil' are absolutely defined in game terms as written - that is, an act is good or evil no matter the alignment of the attacker or the victim. This seems easier to implement and work with in the course of a game.
Yes it does open a bag of paradioxical worms in the alignment system, and that's because wether or not an action is evil depends HEAVILY on the circumstances influencing it. You cannot, as a DM (if you're any good) just make a cuff judgement on good and evil like that. You have to take the circumstances into consideration.
And I don't know where all this nonsense of "absolutely" defined comes from....if you read The Great Beyond you'll see that Heaven is only MILDLY law and good aligned while Hell is MILDLY law and evil aligned.
Oh, and torturing the druid is ok? That's the very WORST form of moral hypocrisy.
The Cleric's Goddess however, is going to be seriously torqued off. Her cleric commited an Evil act using her name. If the cleric had just promised healing and then done the deed, the Goddess might be upset and withhold prayers until an atonement is done. But, using their name to commit an Evil act has a tendency to seriously Torque off Good Deities.
Clearing up a bit; the cleric did not explicitly use her name to convince the goblin. He did say he would use his god's magic (cure something wounds) to heal him. The fact that it was a cleric of a good deity was enough to convince the goblin that no foul play was intended.
While it has been said before, I want to bring back that it isn't what someone does (or does not) that make him/her good or evil, but rather how they will live with it .
There ARE situations when evil is almost a necessity. There are situations where the line between fighting evil and committing an evil act is VERY thin. Sooner or later, PCs will commit an evil act.
The difference between the good character and the evil one is that the good character will ultimately feel bad about it and the evil one will get some twisted satisfaction about doing evil stuff. The neutral character knows it is wrong but can easily rationalize the mistake/necessity of the act and sleep just as well that night.
I think that making parallels between real life and D&D is treacherous. D&D has realities that we, citizen of so called developed countries, do not experience. The worst thing that threatened my homestead this summer was a bunch of raccoons, the occasional skunk and some unseen night-critter that scared the s@** out of me.
That being said, evil remains just as evil, but the interpretation of the act can be slightly different. In North America, killing a man is a crime but manslaughter is not the same crime as murder. Such interpretations of culpability probably exist in the D&D world, and are probably slightly different from setting to setting (Forgotten Realms vs Dark Sun comes to mind).
The best is to discuss it within our gaming group and come to a consensus (or at least a definition). Actually, defining what's good and what's evil is the easy part; the real challenge is to do the same thing with Law vs Chaos...
'findel
I think that most PC's have a higher body count by the end of a campaign then any serial killer in history, and almost none of them EVERY show any REGRET about killing the "bad guys".
Yes it does open a bag of paradioxical worms in the alignment system, and that's because wether or not an action is evil depends HEAVILY on the circumstances influencing it.
Not in D&D, it doesn't. Once again, the ends do not justify the means. D&D has an absolutely defined alignment system.
I think that most PC's have a higher body count by the end of a campaign then any serial killer in history, and almost none of them EVERY show any REGRET about killing the "bad guys".
That's why I think that making parallels between alignments in the game and morality in real life is a very treacherous road...
Yes it does open a bag of paradioxical worms in the alignment system, and that's because wether or not an action is evil depends HEAVILY on the circumstances influencing it.Not in D&D, it doesn't. Once again, the ends do not justify the means. D&D has an absolutely defined alignment system.
Not true. Look at The Great Beyond.
According to that logic a creature with the Good descriptor would be UNABLE to commit an evil act. Angels would NEVER fall from grace.
No it's not quite so absoulte, I think.
Not to mention, the idea of an absolute moral expression like that would render the role playing portion of things a little pointless.
I think that most PC's have a higher body count by the end of a campaign then any serial killer in history, and almost none of them EVERY show any REGRET about killing the "bad guys".That's why I think that making parallels between alignments in the game and morality in real life is a very treacherous road...
I don't know. The best stories are the ones where the characters are the most involved, and they're not likely to bend to unrealistic, restrictive prohibitions on human behaviour. It's one of the WORST cases of deus ex machina.
Not true. Look at The Great Beyond.
According to that logic a creature with the Good descriptor would be UNABLE to commit an evil act. Angels would NEVER fall from grace.
No it's not quite so absoulte, I think.
Not to mention, the idea of an absolute moral expression like that would render the role playing portion of things a little pointless.
You're equating "Absolute" with "Unable to do otherwise". That's a ... very strange equation.
Just because an act is considered evil by the cosmos doesn't mean a good creature (even an angel) cannot commit it. It doesn't even mean the good creature will change alignment.
You can still have plenty of awesome roleplay with absolute moral expressions. In fact, the roleplay is much better that way than if you consider being good a valid reason to genocide anything that's evil. As someone else (mdt?) said earlier, "good" and "evil" aren't teams. You're not allowed to kill anything just because it's "on the other team". Good is an alignment. It's how your character interacts with the world around him. If your "good" character regularly slaughters foes under flags of truce, he's not actually a good character. You've mislabeled him. He's actually a CN or CE character.
I don't know. The best stories are the ones where the characters are the most involved, and they're not likely to bend to unrealistic, restrictive prohibitions on human behaviour. It's one of the WORST cases of deus ex machina.
I completely agree. However some of the most powerful stories involve moral dillemmas, where generally good characters are forced to make difficult decisions. If the moral restrictions are not there, there is no dilemma, and hence, no drama.
What I find particularly interesting about this thread, is that aside from the enjoyable discussion, I've come close to changing my mind several times.
For the record, I still think the characters acted evilly in situation #1.
But I've almost been convinced it was neutral a few times - the arguments have not been easy to dismiss.
But here's one that keeps me thinking it's evil (I don't remember if it's been brought up already - my apologies if I'm being redundant):
What if the situation had been reversed? What if the goblins, including a sorcerer, had captured the last surviving PC, charmed him into a cease-fire, and then under a flag of truce attacked and killed him.
Would the goblins have committed a good (or even neutral) act? If so, would the goblins be acting outside of their alignment (assume that it's evil)?
I would say it's still evil. It's expected for goblins to do this, because they're evil.
Can it be seen as a good act for the PCs because they're 'good' (and the goblins are evil)? If this is made relative - that is, the same act that is 'good' for a good-aligned individual is 'evil' for an evil-aligned individual - doesn't it open a huge can of paradoxical worms for the alignment system? (I'm struggling to think of one - maybe this has been covered already?)
Personally, I think that 'good' and 'evil' are absolutely defined in game terms as written - that is, an act is good or evil no matter the alignment of the attacker or the victim. This seems easier to implement and work with in the course of a game.
Yes it does open a bag of paradioxical worms in the alignment system, and that's because wether or not an action is evil depends HEAVILY on the circumstances influencing it. You cannot, as a DM (if you're any good) just make a cuff judgement on good and evil like that. You have to take the circumstances into consideration.
And I don't know where all this nonsense of "absolutely" defined comes from....if you read The Great Beyond you'll see that Heaven is only MILDLY law and good aligned while Hell is MILDLY law and evil aligned.
Oh, and torturing the druid is ok? That's the very WORST form of moral hypocrisy.
I think zurai just made the points quite well - that in the game 'good' and 'evil' are defined such that they can be absolutely quantified. And Laurefindel's warning is appropriate - real life and reality are far, far messier. What you said in your first point is an appropriate argument for real life concerns. That said, even in game, I think a DM should take the circumstances into consideration, not with respect to whether an act is evil, but with respect to what the consequences are for an evil act by a 'good' character (if any, depending on the circumstances).
I truly don't understand what you mean about the druid. Have I said it's ok to torture Druids?
That seems out of character for me....
I don't know. The best stories are the ones where the characters are the most involved, and they're not likely to bend to unrealistic, restrictive prohibitions on human behaviour. It's one of the WORST cases of deus ex machina.
I fully agree with this too - but different characters have different expectations (restrictions might be the wrong word - it's not that the characters can't perform a particular act, just that there may be consequences for doing so) - with different consequences for that matter.
I don't know. The best stories are the ones where the characters are the most involved, and they're not likely to bend to unrealistic, restrictive prohibitions on human behaviour. It's one of the WORST cases of deus ex machina.I think that most PC's have a higher body count by the end of a campaign then any serial killer in history, and almost none of them EVERY show any REGRET about killing the "bad guys".That's why I think that making parallels between alignments in the game and morality in real life is a very treacherous road...
I agree... I just don't see what that has to do with what I said?
I'm all for character involvement, on the contrary. However, my reality is very different form my character's. I don't see myself ending the life (directly or indirectly) of 15 sentient beings before Christmas. However, as you said, my character may kill more creatures than a (real) serial killer over a year. While the tenets of good and evil remain the same, the context is very different. That's why I think that making direct parallels between D&D adventurers and facts from our western, so-called civilized lifestyle is not very helpful in the alignment discussion.
I don't know. The best stories are the ones where the characters are the most involved, and they're not likely to bend to unrealistic, restrictive prohibitions on human behaviour. It's one of the WORST cases of deus ex machina.I think that most PC's have a higher body count by the end of a campaign then any serial killer in history, and almost none of them EVERY show any REGRET about killing the "bad guys".That's why I think that making parallels between alignments in the game and morality in real life is a very treacherous road...I agree... I just don't see what that has to do with what I said?
I'm all for character involvement, on the contrary. However, my reality is very different form my character's. I don't see myself ending the life (directly or indirectly) of 15 sentient beings before Christmas. However, as you said, my character may kill more creatures than a (real) serial killer over a year. While the tenets of good and evil remain the same, the context is very different. That's why I think that making direct parallels between D&D adventurers and facts from our western, so-called civilized lifestyle is not very helpful in the alignment discussion.
I guess I just don't agree with the idea that alignment is as absolute as it's being posited as. You can't just run off of the RAW description as tangible evidence of character morality, which several of you HAVE said repeatedly. Almost nothing is absolutely quantifiable, and if a character makes what they consider the Right decision, and they have a good justification for it, how could you consider it anything other then a good act?
I definately PREFER expectations to restrictions.
If the planes and beings that exemplify the alignments we're talking about aren't absolutely quantifiable, then how could the alignment be?
There are situations that are unquestionably evil, but there's a LOT of grey that the RAW does NOT touch on. The entry's are entirely too small and simple to reasonably express a moral outtake on a characters specific actions during the breadth of a lifetime, and pretending that they're some kind of catch-all failsafe for moral direction is not only ignorant, it's wrong. Morality, and by proxy alignment, can NEVER be allowed to be a black and white issue.
...What I find particularly interesting about this thread, is that aside from the enjoyable discussion, I've come close to changing my mind several times.
For the record, I still think the characters acted evilly in situation #1.
But I've almost been convinced it was neutral a few times - the arguments have not been easy to dismiss.
But here's one that keeps me thinking it's evil (I don't remember if it's been brought up already - my apologies if I'm being redundant):
What if the situation had been reversed? What if the goblins, including a sorcerer, had captured the last surviving PC, charmed him into a cease-fire, and then under a flag of truce attacked and killed him.
Would the goblins have committed a good (or even neutral) act? If so, would the goblins be acting outside of their alignment (assume that it's evil)?
I would say it's still evil. It's expected for goblins to do this, because they're evil.
Can it be seen as a good act for the PCs because they're 'good' (and the goblins are evil)? If this is made relative - that is, the same act that is 'good' for a good-aligned individual is 'evil' for an evil-aligned individual - doesn't it open a huge can of paradoxical worms for the alignment system? (I'm struggling to think of one - maybe this has been covered already?)
Personally, I think that 'good' and 'evil' are absolutely defined in game terms as written - that is, an act is good or evil no matter the alignment of the attacker or the victim. This seems easier to implement and work with in the course of a game.
Yes it does open a bag of paradioxical worms in the alignment system, and that's because wether or not an action is evil depends HEAVILY on the circumstances influencing it. You cannot, as a DM (if you're any good) just make a cuff judgement on good and evil like that. You have to take the circumstances into consideration.
And I don't know where all this nonsense of "absolutely" defined comes from....if you read
Sorry the torture comment was just a general response. not necessarily aimed at you. I can't understand how beating someone to unconsciousness repeatedly to disable them could be considered anything less then sadistic.
You're not beating them to unconsciousness repeatedly. You're doing it once (and even then it's not a beating, it's only going to take one hit). Torture is "the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty". None of that applies to the situation described. In fact, it's quite possible to cause nonlethal damage without inflicting any pain, let alone "excruciating" pain.
I guess I just don't agree with the idea that alignment is as absolute as it's being posited as. You can't just run off of the RAW description as tangible evidence of character morality, which several of you HAVE said repeatedly. Almost nothing is absolutely quantifiable, and if a character makes what they consider the Right decision, and they have a good justification for it, how could you consider it anything other then a good act?
I definately PREFER expectations to restrictions.
Well, me too...
I will re-read my posts just to be sure, but I never intended to suggest that alignments are absolute. I too, prefer expectation over restriction. There's nothing worst than being told "your character would not do that because he is good" or something of the sort. That why I play that the Good vs Evil part of the alignment has a bigger impact AFTER THE FACT, as oppose to the Law vs Chaos part of the alignment that has a bigger impact on your initial reaction.
I do think however, that the principles of good and evil ARE absolutes in themselves, even if within the context (which greatly includes the fantasy setting) the interpretation of the act and the following sense of culpability would differ from me (the player) to them (the characters).
INTERPRETATION is the key word here, and that is why this thread has gone from 1 to over 350 posts in a few days; our interpretation differ. And that is only Good vs Evil; forget about arguing Law vs Chaos!
Again, this is my take on this, which many will not agree with, but I think that you and I are closer in our ways to play alignment than you think.
'findel
I never restrict what my players do based on their alignment, they are utterly free to take any action they want. What I will do is, if they are about to make an action radically different than their alignment, I'll verbally confirm the action. I won't say 'You sure you want to commit an evil act like that Mr. Good Guy?', I do say 'You're sure?'. Usually they stop at that point, and grimace, and respond with 'Oh ****, that would be evil wouldn't it? ****! Ok, no, I don't do that, instead, I ...'. If they confirm it, they do it. As I said earlier, I don't lock their action, but I will adjust their alignment if they keep acting in a different alignment than they have.
The easiest alignment is, of course, CN, since it's pretty much the 'I don't care what anyone else thinks, I'm going to do what I want, I'm just not going to kill babies while doing it' alignment. :) That's usually what people slide down toward, although repeated evil acts tip you over into CE.
I never restrict what my players do based on their alignment, they are utterly free to take any action they want. What I will do is, if they are about to make an action radically different than their alignment, I'll verbally confirm the action.
This. I have no clue where people are coming up with the idea that we're suggesting DMs prevent players from doing things because of their alignment. No one's suggested anything remotely like that.
I never restrict what my players do based on their alignment, they are utterly free to take any action they want. What I will do is, if they are about to make an action radically different than their alignment, I'll verbally confirm the action.This. I have no clue where people are coming up with the idea that we're suggesting DMs prevent players from doing things because of their alignment. No one's suggested anything remotely like that.
I didn't either, I don't think, but it got out there somehow. Figured a clarification was needed.
I guess I just don't agree with the idea that alignment is as absolute as it's being posited as. You can't just run off of the RAW description as tangible evidence of character morality, which several of you HAVE said repeatedly. Almost nothing is absolutely quantifiable, and if a character makes what they consider the Right decision, and they have a good justification for it, how could you consider it anything other then a good act?
I definately PREFER expectations to restrictions.
Well, me too...
I will re-read my posts just to be sure, but I never intended to suggest that alignments are absolute. I too, prefer expectation over restriction. There's nothing worst than being told "your character would not do that because he is good" or something of the sort. That why I play that the Good vs Evil part of the alignment has a bigger impact AFTER THE FACT, as oppose to the Law vs Chaos part of the alignment that has a bigger impact on your initial reaction.
I do think however, that the principles of good and evil ARE absolutes in themselves, even if within the context (which greatly includes the fantasy setting) the interpretation of the act and the following sense of culpability would differ from me (the player) to them (the characters).
INTERPRETATION is the key word here, and that is why this thread has gone from 1 to over 350 posts in a few days; our interpretation differ. And that is only Good vs Evil; forget about arguing Law vs Chaos!
Again, this is my take on this, which many will not agree with, but I think that you and I are closer in our ways to play alignment than you think.
'findel
Yeah I'd imagine. Never had much of a problem with anything you were saying findel, more with MDC and Zurai's assertations about alignment.