Interesting dilema with alignment.

Re: Re: Re: Interesting dilema with alignment.

SableWyvern said:

Interesting moral dilema when you realise you've got the wrong guy....

Click to expand...

If I had to get the info fast, and I knew he was evil and had the info and not getting to info would cause terrible suffering to others...

And I know... And I know... I always KNOW.

green slime said:

Good guys do not torture people.

Not for any reason, really.

That's not saying that a person who is Lawful Good, would never, ever torture someone. Put anyone under enough duress and they'll do all sorts of wierd things.

This doesn't alter the basic fact that Torture is NOT a good act.

If you are using an absolute moral scale, you can't waffle about these things, or there is nothing differentiating good from bad apart from personal outlook.

But if you want to give your players carte blanche to come up with "reasonable" and "logical" reasons why morally reprehensible acts are just and good, feel free...

Click to expand...

I would agree that torture is never nice. Much like war. But to call it a categorically evil act, _especially_ in a setting that does not necessarily equate to real-world morality, is something that I cannot agree with.

While there may well be an absolute morale scale (I believe there is one), anyone would be hard pressed to proves that they know now exactly what it is.

While I personally would be hard pressed to torture someone, I can certainly visualise circumstances where it may be necessary, and even the right thing to do. Not nice, maybe not even good, but not necessarily evil either. Maybe, a necessary evil. Which, IMHO, is something that most good characters could perform without alignment based repercussion (paladins and the like possibly excepted).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting dilema with alignment.

MythandLore said:

And I know... And I know... I always KNOW.

Click to expand...

Oh.

Alright then.

I think that a CG character would possibly do it depending on the situation, if the guy had info that could save the world, I can see a CG guy doing this, CG fight for good no matter what. Laws bedamned, it's for the greater good. If he just wanted to find a bookie or the thief who stole his wallet, a knife would be a bit much for CG but not CN, just rough 'em up a bit in the lesser cases.

Good guys can't torture?

I don't think I can agree with that. Can they enjoy torture? NO. Can they use torture under unusual circumstances AND as a last restort? Yes.

Family, innocents, large numbers of people are in danger. I see no problem with pummelling a guy till he talks.
(Mind you NG and CG are elligible. LG - Might be a problem, just depends on the moral/legal laws followed)

Constant and consist torture, without first trying other methods, or to "find" the dragon hoard (greed) will definitely cause some alignment changing.


As always,

Taren Nighteyes

To quote the PHB:

Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a
commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks
out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy
and who protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good.
Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Neutral Good: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He
works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Jozan, a cleric who helps others according to their needs, is neutral
good.
Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias toward or against order.

Chaotic Good: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him.
He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He
hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may
not agree with that of society. Soveliss, a ranger who waylays the evil baron's tax collectors, is chaotic good.
Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.

So I think it really depends on the situation. It's not a question that can be answered Yes or No.

LG: The Paladin believes this person is a murderer and is asking where this person's cronies are. The laws of the land dictate that any measure that brings about justice can be used. So this "torture," as some of you have put it, is not illegal in this land. The Paladin is doing his/her best to bring a murderer to justice. In this case, strictly ruleswise no, it's not an evil act.

NG: Pretty much the same, but the character is doing the best he/she can do to bring a killer to justice.

CG: Does what they want.

It's all situational. It also all depends on the moral compass of the DM. If the DM thinks that is torture, than odds are it will be considered an evil act in game. If the DM understands why it's being done, odds are it won't be.

Its called Chaotic

with chaotic characters the rules for the most part are out the windaw...Its like a cop who wants to find a kidnap victim so he beats the hell out of the suspect to get the info. The end result is good but the means are by no meanls lawful...

"Good an evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos" - Player's Handbook, page 87, right after an example of a holy book in the temple of Pelor that has the power to tell the alignment of those who kiss it.

But then it goes on to say on the same page:

"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character." and goes on to describe how good characters can lose their temper or have a greedy streak and how neutral characters can be inspired to perform noble acts.

On page 88 "If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that your character's alignment has changed to match her actions"

So alignment has tangible consequences, is supposed to be an aid to roleplaying, and changes are determined by the DM based on the character's actions, not the player.

If I were the DM, I'd rule that holding a knife against someone's throat in a tavern setting is chaotic, not necessarily evil. Stabbing an innocent in the hand is somewhat evil though, and very Chaotic, as its very likely that there are laws against that kind of behavior in a town setting. There's a certain "dishonorable" feel about it as well that makes it very Chaotic in my mind, regardless of written laws. After a couple of such instances, I'd change the alignment of the character, which may have repercussions if they are paladins or monks.

Could a Lawful Good person commit a chaotic or evil act? Sure.

Other DMs might rule differently, and it's clear from the PHB that it's ok for them to do so. One evil act, and they can change your alignment to evil, or maybe they would wait for several serious evil acts. It's a very subjective system. My advice to anyone playing a class with alignment restrictions is to try to get your DM's opinion on how to play that alignment, and a feel for their tolerance, and maybe to get a phylactery of faith, if a paladin.

Since nobody's come out and done so yet, I'll chime in and say I think the whole alignment situation is really silly anyway, and shouldn't be used as more than a guide or descriptor, not a mechanic, and certainly not something to base character reactions on.

The only possible exceptions I can see to this are outsiders, who are mechanically good, evil, lawful, etc. depending on their type, and paladins. Other than that, I play pretty fast and loose with alignment, and typically prefer to eliminate detect alignment type spells as much as possible.

Still haven't found a really good substitute for the smite abilities, except smite hostile intent, or smite enemy, but IMO it's worth it to be a little fuzzy there rather than have to play with strict alignment rules. As far as I'm concerned, most actions are very difficult to plot on a dual axis graph of alignment anyway.

Taren Nighteyes said:

Good guys can't torture?

I don't think I can agree with that. Can they enjoy torture? NO. Can they use torture under unusual circumstances AND as a last restort? Yes.

Click to expand...

I'm with Taren.

Torture, intentionally inflicting pain & suffering on another living creature, is evil. Torturing is an evil act.

Can a "good " character do an evil act and still be "good"? I'd say yes.

But then, the way I see it a character's "Alignment" is an indication of their general behaviour and moral outlook. If I live my life striving to obey the law, protect the innocent and nurture the needy, but resort to one evil act in an emergency, to save an innocent life... I think I'd still be "Lawful Good". (I would lose my paladinhood, but thats a seperate issue).

If I starting making it a habit to do evil things to save innocent lives, then I think my alignment would probably not stay LG.

People seem to put a lot of emphasis on isolated acts of "evil", without considering the effects of the "good" acts the character performs, on their alignment. Does one desperate act erase dozens of self-sacrificing/heroic good deeds?