D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
Granted what we did could hardly be called 'good', but I would have called it more neutral than outright evil. A tough one, sorry for the length. Opinions?
"kills, steals and betrays others to gain power." The definition of chaotic evil in the PHB. There isn't even room for debate.
Forgive me, but is a forum not, by definition, a room for debate? Besides, I disagree. I imagine if this was evil of any kind, it was lawful or neutral evil, certainly not chaotic.
Maybe it would be easier to analyse if the actions were broken down.
Theft - It could be argued that it's evil, but I tend to think of it as more selfish and lazy. There are occasions when it could be evil, as when stealing medicine that is known to be needed, to heal the sick in a village.
Watching the wagon get attacked, then killing whatever goblins survived - Certainly not a good act, but definitely expedient from a military standpoint. If your goal is to obtain something that is carried by the wagon then why have to fight TWO enemies in order to get it, when you could just pick up the pieces after they are done killing each other? Expedience isn't evil, per se.
Killing the teamster - First you have to put aside the concept that killing is evil, or else the characters commit evil on a daily basis. They gave him a chance to live. He refused to be swayed, and so he was killed. The manner in which this was performed was pretty straight forward, other than the incident in which the fighter had an attack of conscience. His death was expedient and only became necessary when he refused to co-operate. It wasn't frivolously done, nor was it done for mere sport.
Means and motive go a long way to determining the alignment of an action. "If you're Unaligned you don't actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don't go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope of reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others."
That pretty much says it all right there, but then you get into dieties and ethos. Is cutting down a few million hectares of forest good, or evil? An environmentalist or follower of Corellon or Melora would say yes, but a follower of Erathis would say that it's laudible.
Forgive me, but is a forum not, by definition, a room for debate? Besides, I disagree. I imagine if this was evil of any kind, it was lawful or neutral evil, certainly not chaotic.
Oh, please point out which act was lawful:
-Not reporting a plot to murder the guards and steal the shipment.
-Plotting to instead murder whichever side won and steal the shipment.
-Threatening and extorting the driver for reporting to the local law authorities the thieves who stole his shipment.
-Murdering the driver to cover up the theft of his shipment.
While you're at it please indicate a line that doesn't show a gross lack of concern for innocent life, in other words, isn't also evil.
Killing the teamster - First you have to put aside the concept that killing is evil, or else the characters commit evil on a daily basis.
Not at all. You simply have to put aside the modern Western idea of humanitarian universalism, that everyone is part of one Community. Violence has always been generally acceptable directed toward that which is Other. Kin groups, tribal extended kin groups, your village, your nation, all these might be considered your Community and killing within your Community is generally considered evil *with exceptions. Particular provocations, a ritualized system for violence, etc* In any Points of Light setting, just about everything outside a Point of Light is going to be considered Other to the population of that Point. All those things, including the monsters, aren't part of the Community and violence against them is going to be generally understood and tolerated. In no few situations, such violence against particular Others will probably even be formally sanctioned. But what is permitted and ethical wrt Others is a far cry from what is permitted and ethical against your own.
Not at all. You simply have to put aside the modern Western idea of humanitarian universalism, that everyone is part of one Community. Violence has always been generally acceptable directed toward that which is Other. Kin groups, tribal extended kin groups, your village, your nation, all these might be considered your Community and killing within your Community is generally considered evil *with exceptions. Particular provocations, a ritualized system for violence, etc* In any Points of Light setting, just about everything outside a Point of Light is going to be considered Other to the population of that Point. All those things, including the monsters, aren't part of the Community and violence against them is going to be generally understood and tolerated. In no few situations, such violence against particular Others will probably even be formally sanctioned. But what is permitted and ethical wrt Others is a far cry from what is permitted and ethical against your own.
I was writing an essay already. Going into the concept of social constructs would have been a little over the top
In any Points of Light setting, just about everything outside a Point of Light is going to be considered Other to the population of that Point.
This applies... how? Which part was "other", the driver, the guards or the shipment meant for the city? Or do you mean "other" means everything that isn't the party, so the party is legitimized in taking any action at all against anything outside the party (outside which would include each other's family members, friends, neighbors, contacts, children etc. of course)
"I raped your mother and sister last night and fed them to my dog." "Oh, thats okay, I killed your dog this morning and thats what you had for breakfast." "Oh." "Hey, lets go burn down that town and take their gold." "Now you're speaking my language!"
This applies... how? Which part was "other", the driver, the guards or the shipment meant for the city? Or do you mean "other" means everything that isn't the party, so the party is legitimized in taking any action at all against anything outside the party (outside which would include each other's family members, friends, neighbors, contacts, children etc. of course)
"I raped your mother and sister last night and fed them to my dog." "Oh, thats okay, I killed your dog this morning and thats what you had for breakfast." "Oh." "Hey, lets go burn down that town and take their gold." "Now you're speaking my language!"
Or, "We broke into this house and took a machete to everyone in it, then took their stuff." The difference is that the house is a hole in the ground. Is it much of a difference?
This applies... how? Which part was "other", the driver, the guards or the shipment meant for the city? Or do you mean "other" means everything that isn't the party, so the party is legitimized in taking any action at all against anything outside the party (outside which would include each other's family members, friends, neighbors, contacts, children etc. of course)
"I raped your mother and sister last night and fed them to my dog." "Oh, thats okay, I killed your dog this morning and thats what you had for breakfast." "Oh." "Hey, lets go burn down that town and take their gold." "Now you're speaking my language!"
Other would almost always apply to monsters, and would frequently apply to anyone from foreign parts. Neither the guards or the driver would be Other. Letting the guards die can fall into Unaligned because it's an act of omission instead of comission, and because the party would face unnecessary physical risk by helping them. Letting them die isn't nice, but it it seems more flavored toward unaligned than anything evil. Killing the goblins is unaligned or good because they're Other. Killing the driver, OTOH, was a cold-blooded act of commission against a member of the player's community, in a situation where little to no physical risk was posed to the players. The worst they faced was some potential social difficulties they might have to avoid in the future (like avoiding guards). Under this sort of framework, that would definitely be an evil act
It is of course possible to envision the community being limited to the self or the party, as you reference. A character played that way would almost certainly get labelled Evil for being a sociopath, in a socially constructed world.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 8th July 2009 at 10:19 PM..
Letting the guards die can fall into Unaligned because it's an act of omission instead of comission, and because the party would face unnecessary physical risk by helping them.
Not reporting a planned ambush/murder is certainly illegal in modern laws and I would also view as evil. However under some perverse morality where taking no action to save a life isn't evil or anti-social merely "unclassified" I'd still call it evil to profit from it. "Hey, I heard they're going to car bomb the department store." "Oh, hey, lets rob the bank down the block while everyone is distracted picking up the bodies!" *high five* "While we're at it, lets set a camera up on the building across the street to get pictures of the blast and we can sell them to the papers!" *air guitar*
So does attacking someone who has their back to you, that is no imediate threat to you or your party fall in line with being of good alignment? Even if they are evil creatures? Or am I confusing lawful good with good?
Zero doubt in my mind that he did the right (and good) thing. If there are evil, murderous savages running around out there, it's in the public interest to eliminate them. There are no manly rules for combat, and even if there were evil slavers wouldn't be following them. It's a far better act to run them down than it would be to just let them escape and continue their evil acts on another day.
So I'd say that chasing down the hobgoblins = good.
Letting the hobgoblins escape = neutral.
-Not reporting a plot to murder the guards and steal the shipment.
-Plotting to instead murder whichever side won and steal the shipment.
-Threatening and extorting the driver for reporting to the local law authorities the thieves who stole his shipment.
-Murdering the driver to cover up the theft of his shipment.
While you're at it please indicate a line that doesn't show a gross lack of concern for innocent life, in other words, isn't also evil.
Just to define my terms, i'm saying if it was evil, it would be lawful evil or neutral evil, as opposed to chaotic evil. Only by virtue of the fact that it was a calculated and selfish act, but not a random one.
To elaborate: I agree accepting the task in the first place was not a 'good' act. However, if we had not intervened, the town would have received NONE of the shipment. We ensured it got half by risking our own necks killing goblins.
Further, the guy who ordered the shipment was a murdering rapist. Just to put it in perspective, we hated him. I see this as a mitigating factor.
As far as i'm concerned, plotting to kill goblins is not an evil act. We had no intention of murdering any of the men from the outset.
From my point of view, we were offering the teamster a pretty good deal. Had we not been there, he would be dead already, and all his shipment stolen. We saved his life, took a little payment and asked him to keep schtum about it (from a certain perspective)
Murdering him, ok you got me. But the point is, I think a lot of people in the same situation would have done a similar thing. The guy left us with the choice of: prison (a fair trial being out of the question) or murder him. The DM deliberately put us up **** creek without a paddle or a raft.
One question I am surprised no one has asked yet of the OP;
What if the halfling was not telling the truth? After all, if the hobgoblins where slave traders wouldn't they have tried to capture the players as well instead of running?
To the guy that robbed and killed everyone for the shipment;
I would have not said evil at first maybe but once he killed an unarmed and already injured man because that man was going to turn him in to the authorities, evil. Maybe not chaotic but neutral evil at the very least.
From my point of view, we were offering the teamster a pretty good deal. Had we not been there, he would be dead already, and all his shipment stolen. We saved his life, took a little payment and asked him to keep schtum about it (from a certain perspective)
Murdering him, ok you got me. But the point is, I think a lot of people in the same situation would have done a similar thing. The guy left us with the choice of: prison (a fair trial being out of the question) or murder him. The DM deliberately put us up **** creek without a paddle or a raft.
You could have dropped him off far enough away from town for you to get there, complete your business, and get out. You could have tied him up and just held him prisoner until everything was done. You could have knocked him unconscious and left him on the side of the road with a days worth of rations.
Not reporting a planned ambush/murder is certainly illegal in modern laws and I would also view as evil. However under some perverse morality where taking no action to save a life isn't evil or anti-social merely "unclassified" I'd still call it evil to profit from it. "Hey, I heard they're going to car bomb the department store." "Oh, hey, lets rob the bank down the block while everyone is distracted picking up the bodies!" *high five* "While we're at it, lets set a camera up on the building across the street to get pictures of the blast and we can sell them to the papers!" *air guitar*
Except that it would seem your logical construct doesn't allow for the concept of "unaligned." Someone who is unaligned will potentially use a situation for his own benefit. If he knows that there's a riot going on, he'll go out and try to get himself a new widescreen out of a broken store window. If he sees someone drop a wallet 5 steps in front of him, he'll take it and empty it rather than returning it.
An unaligned individual may not go out of his way to help someone else. If he knows of a planned robbery or murder, that doesn't effect him, then he's likely to let what happens, happen. If there's a reward for the capture of the criminal, it's a relative who is the target, or he thinks that he might be the next on the list, then he'd report it.
You're adding the concept of breaking the "law" into "evil", which clearly from the descriptive text does not apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theshard
You could have dropped him off far enough away from town for you to get there, complete your business, and get out. You could have tied him up and just held him prisoner until everything was done. You could have knocked him unconscious and left him on the side of the road with a days worth of rations.
Or they could have done the expedient thing in order to protect their own freedom, which was to kill the person who threatened it, because they didn't want to put themselves out by having to deal with the burden of a prisoner. An unaligned person will generally take the path of least resistance, whereas a good or evil person won't necessarily. If they had killed the teamster out of hand or tortured him in order to obtain his compliance, then their actions would undoubtedly be evil to me. That they offered an option other than death first is the break point to me.
Or they could have done the expedient thing in order to protect their own freedom, which was to kill the person who threatened it, because they didn't want to put themselves out by having to deal with the burden of a prisoner. An unaligned person will generally take the path of least resistance, whereas a good or evil person won't necessarily. If they had killed the teamster out of hand or tortured him in order to obtain his compliance, then their actions would undoubtedly be evil to me. That they offered an option other than death first is the break point to me.
The character may not be an "evil" but the act in and of itself is evil. There were numerous ways to handle the situation without killing the man. But just to make sure, the dragonborn used his breath weapon reducing the remains to a pool of aicdic goo. Evil is often a downward spiral.
What if the halfling was not telling the truth? After all, if the hobgoblins where slave traders wouldn't they have tried to capture the players as well instead of running?
Well, it is possible the Halfilng was l ying, but I see nothing meaningful about the Hobgoblins running. They could have seen the party was more than a match for them and went to go get help.
Except that it would seem your logical construct doesn't allow for the concept of "unaligned."
I think some of us need to make it clear that we don't consider breaking the law inherently evil, yet still recognize that the intent of many laws is to discourage evil acts. We understand that the law has no direct connection with good or evil, only a connection between actions and legal consequences. We aren't arguing that breaking the law is evil, but that certain acts are evil regardless of the law. I think that distinction could be lost in some rebuttals.
Someone who is unaligned will potentially use a situation for his own benefit. If he knows that there's a riot going on, he'll go out and try to get himself a new widescreen out of a broken store window. If he sees someone drop a wallet 5 steps in front of him, he'll take it and empty it rather than returning it.
It sounds like you're trying to say that evil actions don't make a person evil so long as the evil act was easy to do. Good characters go out of their way to do good, so evil people must go out of their way to do evil? I can follow the logic there, though not agree with it. Or are you trying to say that stealing another person's money and robbing a merchant during a riot isn't evil? I can't understand or agree with that. I'm human though, so maybe I'm dense, missing the obvious or having trouble following logic that's beyond me at this time.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
