Hey all,
I know that many GMs and players have struggled with questions such as the one I'm about to ask for a long time, but I thought I would throw it out there again to get a feeling for what others think.
Let me outline the scenario. The party was working with one kingdom and was summoned by the king to discuss an important matter. They were travelling with a caravan to the kingdom with a group of civilians and a single guard. During the night (they didn't bother to set up any watches) a small band of assassins (in name only, not the prestige class) entered the camp and killed all of the civilians in the caravan and attacked the guard. They were not able to kill the guard without alerting the party and a battle ensued. The assassins only did non-lethal damage to the party and only when they had no other choice and were focused on killing the guard. The lead assassin shouted to the party "This battle does not concern you, stand down" and the party responded by telling the assassins that they would not stand down and that the guard was part of their party. Eventually the assassin's knocked the guard unconscious and one of the party members stood over his body, to protect it. The assassin's moved in and killed the guard while he was unconscious.
Now, a little bit of backstory regarding the assassins. They were employed by a neighboring kingdom. They were told and were led to believe through a lot of behind the scenes discussion (which I revealed to the players afterward through a discussion with the assassins) that the party was in grave danger. They were told that they were either being held against their will by the guard and the caravan or that they were being escorted back to the King who would execute them. The assassins were also told that the King had planned to use information that the party had to obtain an incredibly powerful artifact that could be used to destroy hundreds of thousands of lives and put him in power as the supreme ruler of the land.
So, the question: Were the assassins or those who hired them evil?
On one hand, killing an unarmed and unconscious man can be seen as an evil act. However, the intentions behind it were, in my opinion, good. They believed that they were working toward preventing a holocaust. The assassins themselves were following orders to a T. They were told to rescue the party, using any force necessary, and to leave no witnesses so there would be no evidence as to who was involved. So, that leaves me thinking that at minimum, the assassins were lawful neutral in their acts and those who hired them were either simply "Good" or possibly chaotic good. What are your thoughts?
EDIT: I should add that one of the players firmly believed that the actions of the assassins and their government were evil with no question and that their alignment should be evil. He was playing a paladin, so I can understand from an in character perspective of being upset at killing an unconscious guard and the civilians...however he took it out of character and explained that he couldn't trust me as a GM if I was disagreed that their actions made all involved characters evil in alignment.
.however he took it out of character and explained that he couldn't trust me as a GM if I was disagreed that their actions made all involved characters evil in alignment.
Explain this part again please.
.however he took it out of character and explained that he couldn't trust me as a GM if I was disagreed that their actions made all involved characters evil in alignment.Explain this part again please.
Essentially, the player believed that the actions taken by the government and those hired as assassins made the alignment of the characters involved 100% evil. I disagreed and explained (out of character) that they believed they were doing what they needed to do in order to preserve thousands of lives, even if that meant killing a few people along the way.
I argued that their actions put them more toward neutral and maybe even good, but in no way did it make them of the "evil alignment".
A small explanation of my view.
It is evil! It is not bad but evil.
Probaly Lawful Evil.
Lawful Evils are not doing things to be evil but are prepared to do anything to accomplish their goal. Royal assasins are fighting often for greater good but killing helpless/innocent wittness is still evil.
They do it because their loalty is unending and prepared to do anything for the king.
A small explanation of my view.
It is evil! It is not bad but evil.
Probaly Lawful Evil.
Lawful Evils are not doing things to be evil but are prepared to do anything to accomplish their goal. Royal assasins are fighting often for greater good but killing helpless/innocent wittness is still evil.
They do it because their loalty is unending and prepared to do anything for the king.
Actually, Lawful Evil has a strict set of morals (if we're going by the book), and Neutral Evil will do whatever it takes, but I'm getting ahead of myself.
The assassins were acting to save lives, first and foremost. Put the paladin in this situation: A goblin village is raiding a human village. You are told they need to be wiped out to put an end to it, and that they have human prisoners, who they're probably going to kill. In truth, the goblins haven't been raiding at all and the humans are a couple of adventurers who came into their village looking for trouble. If the paladin goes in there and tries to save them, killing goblins who get in his way, it's not an evil act, but it's definitely not good. Killing innocents is something folks don't typically forgive. Therefore, since he was trying to do good (save lives), but was acting under false pretenses, the evil and good cancel one another out, and in his opinion he may need to atone for his mistake. If killing just anyone is evil then gotta say, no paladins would be adventuring. Killing someone under false pretenses, however, is neutral. It's not really the kind of thing you forgive, but your intent was not behind it, therefore you had no reason to do it (Acting in your self-interest, AKA Evil), therefore it is not an evil act.
they believed they were doing what they needed to do in order to preserve thousands of lives, even if that meant killing a few people along the way.
It sounds like you subscribe to the belief that intentions alone are what determines someone's moral status (Kant held the same belief- look him up for further clarification).
The problem with this outlook is that D&D encourages a morally objectivist view, or the view that intentions play next to no role in your actual alignment, but instead the results of your actions in the grand scheme of things is what does. This is evidenced by two facts:
One, believable villains never think they're doing evil. Therefore, under the Kantian view, big believable villains would never be subject to the paladin's Smite ability, which is clearly tailored for just such a thing.
Two, D&D has a panel of deities with fairly rigid codes of conduct, and each is associated with an alignment. Since no rational being would willingly name itself evil, we must assume that the universe itself is labeling them as such. If, in this universe, even the deities cannot escape being associated with particular alignments, mortals certainly cannot, no matter what they think of themselves.
So in the end, while their intentions are good, the killing of innocents has, at least in the present, labeled them as some form of evil.
SNIP On one hand, killing an unarmed and unconscious man can be seen as an evil act. SNIP They were told to rescue the party, using any force necessary, and to leave no witnesses SNIP
Both of the above items are evil acts for the most part. Good people do not try and hide what they thought they were doing in good faith. Also a helpless guard could be tied up to confirm for the party the truth of what the attackers where saying.
From your description I would say both sides are at least a little evil or at a very minimum misguided
Remember that many people do something they believe is for "the greater good" but that in reality, they are still doing something harmful or malicious to someone. And generally, most accept that when it comes to morality and ethics, the end does not justify the means (though of course in a game you've got some leeway).
And an evil person killing an evil person doesn't make the first evil person good. Else the demons and devils fighting the Blood War would continually be performing "good" acts.
Remember also that the rulebook has fairly good guidelines for judging what is good and evil for the GAME's intents and purposes. Whether you want your personal idea of good and evil to override the game's guidelines is for you as a GM to decide alone.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. (DQ's note: "profit" can include stopping a disaster, as you are protecting yourself/your own interests]Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
I think "Ends justify means" is LE type thinking.
While good can do evil; that doesn't make it good. You only change alignment with repeat actions (exceptions DMG says rarely change in a single act like repentent Assassin who gives life for party no longer evil).
So the act was evil. Are the "assassins" evil? Could be (would need to know prior deeds), but the act was evil.
King does this regularly means king was evil.
|
A character thinks that a guard is keeping his victims under control. One of those victims attempts to protect the guard, claiming that they're in a party together, and thus not being forced to follow.
At this point, especially with the guard being unconscious, a good character would stop and tie the guard up. Not try to finish off the obvious non-threat. Especially with one of the *victims* providing protection for that person.
So the particular assassin who killed an unconscious man instead of bringing him back for interrogation... yah, he's probably evil.
The other big issue here is with them killing all the civilians. You're not going to find a lot of non-evil people who show up at a caravan and start killing the civilian passengers first to get them out of the way.
Also, detect alignment anyone?
The paladin can cast detect evil and KNOW whether or not these guys are evil in a second. Characters may occasionally take an action outside their alignment without changing to that alignment.
However, I don't think that particular clause covers wholesale murder of unconscious uninvolved passengers.
Orders about "leaving no witnesses" isn't something you can ask from people as a good person, nor is it something a good person would be willing to accept.
Basically, decide how morality works in your world. Is it detect evil classic, polarized into two absolutes? If so, then even if they weren't before, all the assassins would now be evil by participating in the murder of civilians to *leave no witnesses*.And the person who ordered it isn't Lawful good, though he personally might think of himself as a good person.
If you're running shades of grey, then they might *might* be neutral. Certainly not good.
Myself I could see this as LN or LE. They did what they though had to be done for the greater good. It simply was a necessary evil to them so to me it comes off as LN which I think is a scary AL to be honest.
|
I would go with Chaotic Neutral. Only because I'm equating teleological 'ends justify the means' reasoning as Chaotic. Murdering the guards was not Good, but might not be completely Evil since it was uncertain if the guards were innocent or not. That's the only reason I don't mark them scum of the earth. Misguided, perhaps, not necessarily Evil. The ones who sent the assassins? Evil, especially if they misled their pawns intentionally.
The paladin can cast detect evil and KNOW whether or not these guys are evil in a second.
Only if the 'assassins' are higher than 5th level I think, or their auras would not be strong enough to register.
See 'Aligned Creature' entry on the table at the bottom of the page.
LG all the way. MAYBE CE.
The assasins:
They are following orders, giving a tendency towards law. went the extra mile to kill a downed foe making them more lawfully inclined. lawful is a good guess.
They kill people. not orc, not bandits. People. Good is out of the question. They showed no particular maliciousness or ruthlessness so I would hesitate to make them evil. Neutral seems a good fit.
so I guess lawful evil. reliable, honest, dependable. flexible moral ethos. Good alignment for an assasin for hire (or a professional)
a good rule of thumb though is be cautius of the phrases 'ends justify the means', 'Greater good' or 'Necessary evil'. these are the most common phrases used when an evil person is trying to appear good (even if it's a justification for themselves)
Batts
|
so I guess lawful evil. reliable, honest, dependable. flexible moral ethos. Good alignment for an assasin for hire (or a professional)
a good rule of thumb though is be cautius of the phrases 'ends justify the means', 'Greater good' or 'Necessary evil'. these are the most common phrases used when an evil person is trying to appear good (even if it's a justification for themselves)
Total agreement.
If someone's job description includes 'kills people without flinching,' you can just forget about putting a G under alignment.
If your leader knows that you are just the sort of guy he can trust with orders to go forth and kill people, there's a clue-by-four that other people have figured out that there isn't a 'G' in your alignment box too.
|
At the risk of starting a flame war, I'd bring up two points:
A good discussion of the Nuremburg Principle - "I was only following orders" can be found here:
http://everything2.com/title/I+was+only+following+orders
In a low tech, high fantasy game, the Ruler's power is often absolute, so there is not going to be an overarching body of law that would make a King's orders illegal. A Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil NPC would follow this orders. A Good NPC, regardless of their view of law and authority would not.
Ruthless acts of modern governments are often considered Evil by other nations, and in many cases they are also illegal. This, in a game world makes those who participate in those actions LN, LE and in some cases NE.
War is hell people, an if you talk to those who have been involved in any conflict the break down of morality (in themselves, war buddies, enemies etc) scars people for life. Evil is often done by ordinary people in dire situations. In the game world it is easier to delineate good vs evil in a simplistic way. If you and your players want some moral ambiguity in your gameplay, have a good chat about what defines good and evil in your world.
Because it is a game, I tend towards doing evil makes the character evil, regardless of intention. Players can have aims of honour, integrity, sacrifice and doing good against all forms of evil without the reality of risking life, limb and financial security. I reward players who protect the innocent, minimise collateral damage (scar off or take down opposing foot soldiers with non-lethal damage) and seek to reform evil doers (those who can be redeemed) rather than slay. For those that take 'the end justifies the means' approach to good, there is always the twist of unintended consequences...
Weather it is evil or not will depend on person to person. I think the real problem here is that one of the players, the player of the paladin is saying he won't trust the GM anymore because the GM made a ruling he doesn't like basicialy.
I think this is indeed the bigger issue.
A lot of good information here. I wanted to add a couple of points.
1. These "assassins" weren't assassins by trade necessarily. They were simply ordered on a special mission from their government. So this isn't something they do on a day to day basis.
2. The question isn't really whether or not the act in and of itself was evil. But merely whether or not this act (alone) would cause someone to show up as evil if detect evil was used against them.
Weather it is evil or not will depend on person to person. I think the real problem here is that one of the players, the player of the paladin is saying he won't trust the GM anymore because the GM made a ruling he doesn't like basicialy.I think this is indeed the bigger issue.
Yes, it is the bigger issue. I think that the player was under the impression that I fully expected the party to follow the assassins blindly after the fact. However, that simply wasn't the case. The party decided not to follow the assassins, and I had planned for that and was ready with more story in that direction.
|
|
2. The question isn't really whether or not the act in and of itself was evil. But merely whether or not this act (alone) would cause someone to show up as evil if detect evil was used against them.
Nope. Changing alignment requires a trend, not an individual act. Good characters can commit Evil acts, but too many and they shift to Neutral.
2. The question isn't really whether or not the act in and of itself was evil. But merely whether or not this act (alone) would cause someone to show up as evil if detect evil was used against them.Nope. Changing alignment requires a trend, not an individual act. Good characters can commit Evil acts, but too many and they shift to Neutral.
TriOmegaZero, thanks for that chart posted above. From a strict rules standpoint, this addresses the issue.
Unfortunately, the damage is done. The player no longer feels that I'm competent enough to run the game and has dropped out. It's unfortunate because he's a good player.
EDIT: I do have plans for his character though that involve him not ever knowing who to trust and eventually going a little crazy for it. Some day, he'll be back as a villain for the party to face. ;)
|
|
wait wait wait- were these people career assassins (ie. did the deed on a regular basis) or was this a one-time thing that they were tricked into doing? I wouldn't be so fast to pass judgment on them from such a small description. After all, Batman is LE, NE, and CE (as well as N, CN, LN, NG, CG, and LG), lest you all forget ;P. The thing that I think gets most people is that when they think of alignment-shifts, they think of the paladin and his amazing ability to lose every one of his powers from a single evil act. That's not the case, because there doesn't need to be any shift for the paladin to lose powers, just a breach of code. These people were obviously (in my humble opinion) at the very least neutral before this started if not good because they were setting out to save the PC's lives along with thousands of others. The act of killing the civilians who they believed were evil (in a merciful way, actually- coup de grace in the sleep is painless as long as they fail the save) does not make them evil. Case in point, they would probably be horrified to learn that they were misled like that.
Of course, we use alignment as a judge of how the character thinks and acts in our games, not how the universe sees him.
EDIT: okay, a couple of my questions answered. And might I add "wow"? He left because of a silly alignment debate? Not to be one to throw stones, but that seems extremely childish
EDIT EDIT: Batman!
|
2. The question isn't really whether or not the act in and of itself was evil. But merely whether or not this act (alone) would cause someone to show up as evil if detect evil was used against them.Nope. Changing alignment requires a trend, not an individual act. Good characters can commit Evil acts, but too many and they shift to Neutral.TriOmegaZero, thanks for that chart posted above. From a strict rules standpoint, this addresses the issue.
Unfortunately, the damage is done. The player no longer feels that I'm competent enough to run the game and has dropped out. It's unfortunate because he's a good player.
EDIT: I do have plans for his character though that involve him not ever knowing who to trust and eventually going a little crazy for it. Some day, he'll be back as a villain for the party to face. ;)
He needs to get the sand out of his nethers. Moral ambiguity is something that a paladin is expected to deal with. Their strict alignment requirement often places them in situations where they have to make a difficult decision without a clear cut law-chaos, good-evil designation.
I personally feel these "assassins" would have a LN alignment. They were soldiers following orders in what they would have seen as a war. Not only that, but it seems they genuinely believed that what they were doing was right and wasn't evil.
wait wait wait- were these people career assassins (ie. did the deed on a regular basis) or was this a one-time thing that they were tricked into doing? I wouldn't be so fast to pass judgment on them from such a small description. After all, Batman is LE, NE, and CE (as well as N, CN, LN, NG, CG, and LG), lest you all forget ;P. The thing that I think gets most people is that when they think of alignment-shifts, they think of the paladin and his amazing ability to lose every one of his powers from a single evil act. That's not the case, because there doesn't need to be any shift for the paladin to lose powers, just a breach of code. These people were obviously (in my humble opinion) at the very least neutral before this started if not good because they were setting out to save the PC's lives along with thousands of others. The act of killing the civilians who they believed were evil (in a merciful way, actually- coup de grace in the sleep is painless as long as they fail the save) does not make them evil. Case in point, they would probably be horrified to learn that they were misled like that.
Of course, we use alignment as a judge of how the character thinks and acts in our games, not how the universe sees him.
EDIT: okay, a couple of my questions answered. And might I add "wow"? He left because of a silly alignment debate? Not to be one to throw stones, but that seems extremely childish
EDIT EDIT: Batman!
They weren't necessarily "tricked" into doing it. They were simply told that they were serving their country by doing it and that the fate of the party as well as thousands of lives (and their own province for that matter) depended on them completing their mission.
I have to agree to the wow he left. Feeling. But honestly if he left because of this, I think in the long run it is for the best. Cause I think he would have likely found something eventually he didn't like and have dropped out anyways. A pity but it happens.
Sadly yes. If he's willing to drop the game over something as minor as this, I think it's probably in your best interest that he's gone now rather than later.
alignment = action+subject+intent.
Is killing wrong?
Is killing a woman wrong?
Is killing a woman trying to sacrifice a child to a demon evil?
All three factors are needed to determine if an action is good or evil.
How come the first two questions ask if it is wrong, and the third asks if it is evil? I think that is a pretty large change in the nature of the question in addition to the circumstance that you are giving.
I would probably answer if you are a good person yes, yes, and yes. Killing is something that it should be hard for a good person to go about doing, especially given such vague questions. Subdual, negotiation, and non-lethal methods should be tried sooner than lethal options by good characters in a number of situations.
However, alignment is not simply about the actions but the way that those actions do make you feel afterward as well. Atonement (not the spell, but the concept) is an important part of alignment, at least I think so.
I guess to the original question that the OP asked, I could see the guards being Neutral or Evil performing that act, however, I think that it would be likely that some of the group was evil and would have a hard time with one of them being good. If the kingdom believes in using such methods, it is likely to end up with a number of evil guards working for them and so they would have them in a group like that. If there was a good guard in the group, I would expect him to likely be either a chaplain for the group trying to offer forgiveness or perhaps a member of the group perceived as very weak by the others.
Like numerous other posters have put up, in war you have to do terrible things. War numbs you to a lot of the atrocities that you commit or endure, that generally involves devaluing a human (or other type) of life. I think that can be a hallmark of evil.
However, even if these once good and neutral people turn towards evil during war time, it does not mean that they would not seek redemption or forgiveness later on, allowing them to swing back towards their original neutral or good alignments.
From what I have seen Good is a tough alignment to be, though in many of the games it seems to get hand waved. Many heroes that we watch on TV are evil and do evil things all the time, but they do them for good reasons. Like other posters have put up, being evil doesn't make you dedicated to some cause of evil, it is simply a vague description of what lengths you are willing to go to for the job to get done.
Anyway, this discussion brought my wife and I to talk about something that happened this weekend at our game.
In my group this weekend the party encountered a troll that was going to eat a human. The party attacked the troll to protect the forester. The troll kept trying to back away and protect its meal while attacking and signaling for the group to leave it alone. When the troll recognized that the group was a superior opponent, it ran away. Members of the group (some good, some neutral, some evil) ran after the troll and subdued it. Once it was subdued the good character killed it.
Looking at the situation, I cannot see a reason why a good character would have killed the troll. The troll was trying to feed itself and the group chased the person that it thought was its dinner into its trap. Upon arriving at the scene the group made no attempt to talk to the troll or scare it away while protecting the downed forester. The group then fought it, and the creature ran from the group. So the PCs accomplished their decided goal of saving the forester, however, they then hunted the creature down and killed it.
The evil character I think was fully in character with his desire to kill the creature. The neutral character I could see wanting to see it dead, but certainly that is a bit of an evil motivation as killing a fleeing enemy seems to be to me. The good character who actually killed the troll I certainly think should be moved closer to neutral (not becoming neutral, but having me notice that action and see if the behavior continues). Two other characters allowed the creature to run away once it realized it was not going to win the encounter. The two that allowed the troll to run are both good aligned.
I think that I should talk to the group next week about that scene out of character, and I know that the two characters who didn't kill the troll took notice of the behavior of their companions.
I don't know what other folks think of that and if I'm off base in my thoughts of where that should be.
Happy gaming.
Barator
Agreed (with Andrew R).
If these "assassins" are willing to kill people they believe are innocent, then they have fallen down the path of "breaking some eggs for an omelet" alignment (Evil).
If they were led to believe that these people were not innocent, and in fact contributing to the eventually deaths of many people, then they were at worst Neutral.
Since they killed people in their sleep instead of subduing them or finding an alternative to needing to kill them off, then it's at least *not* a Good act. However, I could see a Good person agreeing that this was the only recourse, and still retaining their Good alignment (but starting down the path of Neutrality if this keeps up).
If they were doing it because they were told to (and they didn't have a moral objection to it), then they were likely Lawful.
If they had to agree that it was the right thing to do, they were likely Neutral, being motivated more by their moral concerns.
If they agreed to do it because they felt like doing it anyways, then they could even be Chaotic.
.
Honestly, there's motivations for any combination of alignment for each individual "assassin".
Since you know the backstory of how they came to performing their act, you can weed out the ones that don't fit (perhaps they were all more concerned about following orders that didn't contradict their own moral standing).
This one act is overall, fairly neutral. It could be a leaning towards Lawful, and definitely NOT a step towards Good, but I don't particularly see it reinforcing Evil in and of itself.
.
Ultimately, if a character kills an innocent without realizing it, it's not really impacting on his alignment until he is made aware.
If he realizes afterwards that it was an innocent person he killed, then he might make reparations or at least have concern and modify his actions to repair, prevent and seek atonement or justice.
If they find out and go "meh", then yeah... alignment shift is on it's way.
This is what makes it a Roleplaying game, instead of Counterstrike or Frogger. Repercussions for your actions in the game.
How come the first two questions ask if it is wrong, and the third asks if it is evil?alignment = action+subject+intent.
Is killing wrong?
Is killing a woman wrong?
Is killing a woman trying to sacrifice a child to a demon evil?
All three factors are needed to determine if an action is good or evil.
His point is that the first two questions aren't answerable because they don't have all the information. Notice how it changes from just killing, to killing someone who is about to commit an atrocity (and therefore protecting innocent life, a good act).
You need all three, action + subject + intent, to answer an alignment question.
Just saying "Is it Evil to kill someone" is useless in D&D alignments.
Let me outline the scenario. The party was working with one kingdom and was summoned by the king to discuss an important matter. They were travelling with a caravan to the kingdom with a group of civilians and a single guard. During the night (they didn't bother to set up any watches) a small band of assassins (in name only, not the prestige class) entered the camp and killed all of the civilians in the caravan and attacked the guard. They were not able to kill the guard without alerting the party and a battle ensued. The assassins only did non-lethal damage to the party and only when they had no other choice and were focused on killing the guard.
Okay, dumb question but what were you trying to accomplish? Was there something important about the civilians that someone sends a bunch of assassins after them while they are accompanied by a band of adventurers? Concerning the act: Evil but they were tricked into it. Meaning it shouldn't have an impact on their alignment if they try to set it right (yeah, that's hard, I know) and do better in the future.
The lead assassin shouted to the party "This battle does not concern you, stand down" and the party responded by telling the assassins that they would not stand down and that the guard was part of their party. Eventually the assassin's knocked the guard unconscious and one of the party members stood over his body, to protect it. The assassin's moved in and killed the guard while he was unconscious.
Did their orders include that the party mustn't know that they are saved? The moment the party protected the guard they should have seen that either their information was wrong or the party was tricked into coming along. In that moment holding on to their orders without trying to clarify became a completely evil act.
Okay, now that the matter of acts is settled let's look at the alignments. As a GM it's your right to set the alignments to whatever you please as long as it remains logical. It depends on how you envisioned them. How many missions like that did they do? How often did they kill innocents based on orders without proof? That's something only you know. If that's the first time they were tricked like that they could be neutral and your paladin has to live with it. You don't switch alignments that quickly, look at Anakin Skywalker, exterminating a whole Tusken village wasn't enough to get him from annoying brat to lawful evil. If it happened more often they would be evil. The motivation doesn't change the alignment of an action. Otherwise paladins couldn't lose their powers as long as they can find a reason to say that it was for the "greater good".
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html
But there are still beings that have something to say about that...
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html
1. These "assassins" weren't assassins by trade necessarily. They were simply ordered on a special mission from their government. So this isn't something they do on a day to day basis.
2. The question isn't really whether or not the act in and of itself was evil. But merely whether or not this act (alone) would cause someone to show up as evil if detect evil was used against them.
Context is everything. I would say these people were likely lawful neutral, because they are devoted to the rule of law (their nation) and accept what they are told unquestioningly. They do what they feel they have to do, but for good intentions and they do not revel in performing evil deeds - they do what they think is necessary, and no more.
I would certainly agree that they shouldn't show up on a detect evil, although if their nation is evil, or if they start getting a kick out of killing or start doing it unnecessarily, then they will get that way.
Your paladin player is being an ass, he clearly wants to be running the game by dictating terms to you. With such a player I will usually tell them "You don't know everything that is going on, what people's motivations are or what they think is 'necessary'. Therefore do not assume that you can make instant moral judgements on them: your character kills people, but he isn't evil after all."
Context is everything. I would say these people were likely lawful neutral, because they are devoted to the rule of law (their nation) and accept what they are told unquestioningly. They do what they feel they have to do, but for good intentions and they do not revel in performing evil deeds - they do what they think is necessary, and no more.
I would certainly agree that they shouldn't show up on a detect evil, although if their nation is evil, or if they start getting a kick out of killing or start doing it unnecessarily, then they will get that way.
Your paladin player is being an ass, he clearly wants to be running the game by dictating terms to you. With such a player I will usually tell them "You don't know everything that is going on, what people's motivations are or what they think is 'necessary'. Therefore do not assume that you can make instant moral judgements on them: your character kills people, but he isn't evil after all."
I would agree with this here.
So, the question: Were the assassins or those who hired them evil?
Let's examine their behaviour:
1. They were told to "save" the party from the guard, and to do so by any means. They were also told to leave no witnesses. So far, the assassins' alignment isn't clear, but the orders are assuredly evil. [To compare... "Kill all witnesses" is evil. "Make sure they don't know who you are" is not. The first is about murdering people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The second is about using skills and/or magic for misdirection...]
2. In order to get in, they followed their orders and killed a bunch of unarmed civilians. The murder of non-combattants is assuredly *not* a good act - and the ends can't justify the means. However, this *is* what they were ordered to do. So, we're seeing them tending towards the lower half of the Lawful scale. They might be neutral and just doing as commanded, but they sure aren't *good*.
3. Rather than tell the party "We're here to save you!" and enlisting their help, they told the party to keep out of it, to the point they *fought* the party. Again, I'm not seeing any good in here.
4. At this point, they basically learned that what they were told (when getting their orders) were most likely a load of aurochs dung -- it's possible the party was dominated or otherwise compelled, but rather than trying to find out, they adopted the "kill them all, let the gods sort it out" attitude. We're starting to slide out of Neutral now.
5. When they had the guard down and were facing only the party members they were trying to rescue, they didn't pull back or try to stop the fight - in fact, they deliberately went around a member of the group they were trying to save in order to murder the now-helpless guard. Welcome to Evil land. Population, them. There is no reason they wouldn't have completed their orders (as listed) by bringing in the guard with them. (In fact, if it was about the king and an artifact, bringing in a source of intel would be most useful.)
So, you *could* have a case for LN, assuming they were ordered to kill everyone - it's hard to say because we don't know what else they did - if they were sworn to kill everyone other than the party, then that's what they did, and it's LN. However, if there was anything that was up for debate and they chose to murder, then we're LE. (Also, I would point out that someone who's LN who serves evil masters long enough will likely end up evil himself...)
However, the orders, as I said before, can't be anything but evil.
|
|
A small explanation of my view.
It is evil! It is not bad but evil.
*snip*Actually, Lawful Evil has a strict set of morals (if we're going by the book), and Neutral Evil will do whatever it takes, but I'm getting ahead of myself.
The assassins were acting to save lives, first and foremost. Put the paladin in this situation: A goblin village is raiding a human village. You are told they need to be wiped out to put an end to it, and that they have human prisoners, who they're probably going to kill. In truth, the goblins haven't been raiding at all and the humans are a couple of adventurers who came into their village looking for trouble.
Actually, the paladin DID just commit an evil act. A Paladin's Guilty Conscience is an excellent guide for figuring out if an action is evil - if he feels bad, not just uncomfortable but genuinely bad, it's almost certainly an evil act. Trying to justify their actions is how paladins get into trouble.
In the above example, the paladin did commit an evil act. He did it unknowingly and feels guilty so he doesn't lose his powers, but he needs to go atone and he knows it.
The assassins did commit an evil act. That doesn't necessarily make them evil (as discussed above), but their actions in this specific case were evil.
Odds are good that somewhere down the chain of command there is a villain with "the ends justify the the means" as his mantra.
If you've been told this, then the actions they performed could be seen in a Neutral, possibly even Good light.
If it's not true, then of course the actual act is evil. However, the act is making the one who lied to cause these acts to occur to be evil.
The actual assassins were simply tools for the one feeding false information. As far as the knew, they were performing Good acts (killing evil people to protect the innocent).
.
Look at the Ex-Paladin entry. It specifically mentions "knowingly committing an evil act". This is actually quite telling.
A Paladin can unknowingly commit an evil act and *not* lose his powers.
A character's knowledge is paramount to his alignment. Alignments are how the character acts according to the knowledge he has. Not to how some omniscient observer sees his actions. That would be unplayable... the alignment equivalent of someone changing the rules on you without telling you.
You can only make your decisions based on the information you have.
I agree the actions are questionable, but make sure and turn that same alignment flashlight on the PCs next time they come across an orc camp and don't bother waking up the sentries before killing them... Put them in the same position as these "assassins" and see what they do; I guarantee every good PC group won't see a problem with it.
The orders appear at least superficially to be fairly evil.
The carrying out of those orders seems to be consistent with that, that being evil.
The "leave no witnesses" is pretty common in evil circles. Let's consider the situation where the assassins do save the group and while to escape they run into a sleeping kid herding his sheep in the country side. Apparently by the orders they should make sure the kid is not around to tell someone. That seems pretty evil to me.
Which brings up, what was the make up of the civilians that were killed in their sleep? Were they all men? Men and women? Men, women, and children? Were they obviously non-combatants (kind of hard to prove conclusively given monks and spellcasters)?
The fighting the party and killing someone they are actively trying to protect also seems to be a pretty good indication that these assassins are evil. Neutrals have compunctions against killing innocent people, and given the situation (party protecting the guard) the likelihood the guard was actually innocent is very strong.
As for the player ditching the game, yes that can be kind of childish. Of course playing a paladin brings a lot of alignment issues to the front, which is why I suggest people don't play paladins with DMs they do not strongly trust. Personally I could probably play in a game with about any alignment interpretation, but I can also understand people feeling uncomfortable with some interpretation.
Let's take an absurd analogy. Let's say a GM decided that raping small puppies and setting babies on fire was good. Some people might not feel comfortable playing in such a game world. I'm not saying that is happening here, but experience tells me that if this game had a paladin being played for sometime prior to this, there have already been alignment disagreements prior to this. This was probably the last straw for this particular player.
Speaking of immature behavior, I would suggest to the GM, you should probably avoid the temptation to passively go after the player by making his character a foe for the party. Just have the character ride off into the sunset. Going after the player through their character when they are not present will show your other players that you are going to take these issues personal and it just creates a bad environment.
The Player of the paladin was wrong for accusing the DM of being untrustworthy and leaving the game for something he had no control over. It is not the DM's job to tell the players everything that is happening out of the Ear shot of the PCs. The attackers (assassins in name only) where doing what I believe is a LN act. They where following the orders given them by someone of authority. They didn't question the orders they just did what they where told.
someone above said it too, but LN is a dangerous alignment, because this person will do something they are told with out question. It is as I tell my players the alignment of the perfect soldier!
someone above said it too, but LN is a dangerous alignment, because this person will do something they are told with out question. It is as I tell my players the alignment of the perfect soldier!
Wrong. It is still evil to knowingly kill an innocent person.
Lawful Evil is dangerous because they will follow any order at all.
A Lawful Neutral person would, by game definition, "have compunctions against killing innocent people".
Someone who doesn't care about killing innocent people is the very definition of Evil.
.
However, if they were going by wrong information that told them their targets weren't innocent...
I dont know if killing an 'innocent' is clearly an evil act.
For instance, a soldier who kills what he believes to be opposing soldiers is not inherantly evil because of that act. Even the act of not taking prisoners I do not believe is inherantly evil. By modern western standards it is pretty unsettling, but there were/have been lots of cultures in history where taking of prisoners was not an option, and in fact would be a greater insult to the defeated foe then killing him.
FOr instance, in the OP's situation, does that paladin plan on taking unconcious demons prisoner? How about marauding orcs? I believe a lawful neutral character that has given orders to kill enemies of their state can kill them even when unconcious without being evil if they believe that these enemies are evil themselves. In the OP's situation clearly they did not view the guards as 'innocents' they viewed them as prison guards holding innocent people captive.