Moral Dilemma - What should I do? [Long][My players please keep out]

Hello everyone,

I'm running a game at the moment where the following confusing situation happened. However, the difficulty is in telling people that they have possibly breached their character's alignment - something which is pretty important in this particular game. The situation is so grey in some respects that I'm not too sure myself how to judge it so I'm appealing for a little help here. Let's say that the D&D Alignment system does not help that much.

THE CHARACTERS
The following characters were involved:

The Cleric
The Druid
The Rogue
The Aristocrat
The Wizard
The Fighter

I won't tell you their alignments as I do not wish to colour your perceptions of their behaviour.

THE SITUATION
The group was ambushed in a particularly nasty encounter. A group of mercenaries was paid to do away with the party as they were asking questions where they shouldn't be. A few thugs, a beast master with a couple of Krenshar pets, a damn nasty leader and a couple of snipers later and the party just managed to kill them off with their lives barely intact.

However, one Dwarven sniper was left alive and so the party wished to interrogate him to find out who was after them. He was hog-tied in an upper room and the Aristocrat went about his intimidating ways with a little bit of support from the Wizard while the rest of the party remained downstairs recovering from the encounter. Of particular interest was the Crossbow that the Dwarf had a certain level of attachment to. Something was said and at that moment the Dwarf escaped his bounds and backed up into a corner in a defensive stance. The situation was still under control.

However, at this point, the fighter came up the stairs, saw that the situation was going poorly (or so he thought) and said something inappropriate that sent the Dwarf silly and so a fight ensued with the Dwarf being knocked out and hog tied again - but this time a little bit more securely by the Rogue who had ventured upstairs to see what all the fuss was about.

The Aristocrat, absolutely disgusted with the interference by the fighter (things were going well with the intimidation, the fighter just didn't sense it) repaired downstairs with the wizard who was also disgusted with the interference (this was the second time that the fighter had stuffed up a perfectly good negotiation). They took the Crossbow with them - and had the Cleric identify that it was indeed magical.

Meanwhile the Rogue and Druid - who was also a Dwarf - went upstairs to see if they could assist in someway. The Druid gave the Dwarf some healing bringing him around. It quickly became apparent that he was saying nothing until the Crossbow was given back to him. The Rogue went downstairs and asked if he could borrow the Crossbow for a moment to which the Wizard said OK.

Using the Crossbow and the Druid, the Rogue was able to get the Dwarf to mumble a few useful items of information. However, in doing so, he implied that he could keep the Crossbow and the group would leave him alone. They both went downstairs to tell the party the information they had gathered leaving the Crossbow on the other side of the room to the tied up Dwarf. The wizard asked where the Crossbow was to which the rogue said it was still upstairs. The wizard upset with this went upstairs and fetched the crossbow (the dwarf had edged half way across the room to the sitting Crossbow) before coming back down. However, the foul-mouthed screams of vengeance issuing from upstairs from the enraged Dwarf could be clearly heard by everyone.

The fighter looked at the party and said "I'll fix this" as he went upstairs. The Aristocrat shaking his head, still unhappy about the whole situation said sarcastically "oh great, let's just kill him shall we".

The fighter went upstairs and rather than knocking him out or killing him, he released him from his bindings. The berserk dwarf flies down the stairs and starts looking for the wizard who took his Crossbow, smashing the Cleric on the way through. In short order he was left a bleeding mess on the ground by both the Wizard (who has a sword) and the Aristocrat. [At this stage, the Dwarf is on -8]. The Cleric in sheer horror leaves the building. The Aristocrat holds his sword to the Dwarf's throat and says "shall I end this debarcle and put this Dwarf out of his misery?"

Everyone at this stage is obviously shocked at what has happened while some are weighing up the prospect of leaving behind an enemy who is part of a mercenary guild who can hunt them down.
Seeing no obvious response the Aristocrat runs the Dwarf through claiming to be "putting him out of the misery that had been inflicted upon him." [At this stage, the Dwarf was actually dead but the Aristocrat did not know this.]

The party leaves the building both disturbed by events and fearful of the repercussions that could possibly ensue from their actions.

However, in this are quite a few dilemmas that are so tangled, I wanted to get some further opinions on before I acted.

1) Was it right for the rogue to imply that the Dwarf could keep his Crossbow when the party had not agreed to this?
2) Was it right for the Wizard to just take the Crossbow back saying that he had already laid claim to it? Was this stealing anwyay?
3) Was it effectively a case of "murder" by the fighter who released the captive knowing that he would find his doom below (The dwarf was unarmoured and unarmed at this stage)?
4) Was it murder by the Aristocrat, "killing" the defenceless body on the ground (He did not know that the Dwarf was aready dead but was obviously assuming that he was still alive if barely)?

Obviously the threat of retribution and being hunted down by a determined mercenary Marksman was not appealing - and lets face it, the ambushers did actually attack first.

I suppose what I would like some responses on is: what sphere of Alignment would you say the members of the Party would have to be to justify their actions in this affair?

Thanks in advance and Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Hmm...

Difficult to judge without knowing the alignments involved, since the actions are acceptible to some alignments and not others. But let's see...

1) Unless the rogue is a strict lawful character, I don't see a problem with this. Lying may not be a wonderful thing to make a habit of, but it's not inherently evil. A paladin couldn't get away with this; a rogue probably can.

2) Again, unless the wizard is strictly lawful good or lawful neutral, there's no problem with this. And frankly, even if he is lawful good/neutral, you could make an argument, since A) he never promised to give it back, and B) it's fairly foolish to offer a weapon to an imprisoned enemy.

3) Okay, now we're getting into the meat of things. If the fighter is of good alignment, he definitely violated his alignment doing this. Releasing an enemy like that might have been justified if the fighter believed his companions were going to inflict horrible tortures upon the dwarf. However, he (according to what you've written) had no reason to think so, and even then, letting the dwarf go unarmed/armored is hardly doing him a favor. If the fighter is neutral or evil, this isn't necessarily a violation, but it was certainly not a good act.

4) This one will probably get you the most disagreement, but yes, I'm going to have to vote "murder." The foe was helpless, the party had proven several times already that they were capable of taking him alive, and--as you implied that this took place in a civilized area--turning him over to the proper authorities was definitely an option. Now, if the aristocrat actually represents the law in these parts, you might be able to argue that he was following the laws and dispensing justice as he is permitted to do so. However, this is an extremely unlikely circumstance, and even if it were true, the dwarf would have to be guilty of something that warranted the death penalty, in a culture with no guaranteed right to trial.

In short, the aristocrat acted (or so it seems) out of frustration, nothing more, and this would qualify to me as an evil act. Even if it might not be under some circumstances, the way in which he went about it invalidates that possibility.

Herremann the Wise said:

Hello everyone,

1) Was it right for the rogue to imply that the Dwarf could keep his Crossbow when the party had not agreed to this?
2) Was it right for the Wizard to just take the Crossbow back saying that he had already laid claim to it? Was this stealing anwyay?
3) Was it effectively a case of "murder" by the fighter who released the captive knowing that he would find his doom below (The dwarf was unarmoured and unarmed at this stage)?
4) Was it murder by the Aristocrat, "killing" the defenceless body on the ground (He did not know that the Dwarf was aready dead but was obviously assuming that he was still alive if barely)?

Herremann the Wise

Click to expand...

1) It was right of the rogue- but it was stupid of him not to tell the party.
There might be some issue, but thats personal if this is a party that views all discovered objects as property to be divided up.

2) That's stealing. In D&D, its often part of the game and glossed over as such.

3) That's a little distant. You could argue he was an accomplice.

4) With a cleric standing next to him? I'd say yes. Putting him out of his misery is something you do when death is certain.

I'd call the whole situation a really bad day. All the characters were playing fast and loose with their behavior, but it isn't time to start calling alignment changes. It would be a good time to send a slick demon to try to seduce them to the dark side.

Their alignment collectively is Adventurer-Neutral. The rogue might be neutral good, the cleric was so inactive that healing is probably not a primary calling of the faith.

First up: What do you mean by "right"??

Herremann the Wise said:

1) Was it right for the rogue to imply that the Dwarf could keep his Crossbow when the party had not agreed to this?

Click to expand...

I'd say a neutral act.

2) Was it right for the Wizard to just take the Crossbow back saying that he had already laid claim to it? Was this stealing anwyay?

Click to expand...

If it was merely implied, then there's not really a contract here. So no. Further to that, the wizard wasn't part of any agreement.

3) Was it effectively a case of "murder" by the fighter who released the captive knowing that he would find his doom below (The dwarf was unarmoured and unarmed at this stage)?

Click to expand...

Did he know for sure that the dwarf would go bonkers? To me this just seems like stupidity.

4) Was it murder by the Aristocrat, "killing" the defenceless body on the ground (He did not know that the Dwarf was aready dead but was obviously assuming that he was still alive if barely)?

Click to expand...

Yeah, it was murder. OTOH, it could probably be justified as self defense.

Obviously the threat of retribution and being hunted down by a determined mercenary Marksman was not appealing - and lets face it, the ambushers did actually attack first.

I suppose what I would like some responses on is: what sphere of Alignment would you say the members of the Party would have to be to justify their actions in this affair?

Click to expand...

No change to alignments. Unless there was intent behind the actions you described, then pretty much the whole lot is neutral.

Herremann the Wise said:

1) Was it right for the rogue to imply that the Dwarf could keep his Crossbow when the party had not agreed to this?
2) Was it right for the Wizard to just take the Crossbow back saying that he had already laid claim to it? Was this stealing anwyay?
3) Was it effectively a case of "murder" by the fighter who released the captive knowing that he would find his doom below (The dwarf was unarmoured and unarmed at this stage)?
4) Was it murder by the Aristocrat, "killing" the defenceless body on the ground (He did not know that the Dwarf was aready dead but was obviously assuming that he was still alive if barely)?

Click to expand...

First off, I don't see any inherent evil behavior in anything done in the situation. If everyone thought they were doing the right thing then it can all fall nebulously into good. The dwarf was an attempted murderer so its hard to feel real sorry for him. Furthermore, he was a captive of war and so any weapons he had seem forfeit.

Now on to other more specific matters..

1) Did the rogue intentionally lie or was he misleading or was he mistaken. Chaotic and Neutral good characters would IMO not have as big a problem with lying if they felt the ends was necessary. Lawful Good characters would probably not lie about such an item but might make misleading statements, “Let’s see how cooperative you are before we see about letting you have your crossbow back.” In the end, the intention and exact wording are important if you want to be strict on sticking to an alignment.

2) If the party beat the dwarf while the dwarf was trying to kill them, only a fool would rearm him. It is customary for defeated foes, individual and armies, to lose their weapons before being allowed freedom. If the wizard claimed the crossbow and the party knew about it then I am not sure its an alignment issue at all.

3) If a prisoner is released and he then tries to kill you it is hardly “murder” to defend yourself. Most people when released would scheme to get their property back, not make a suicide attack. You can hardly fault the fighter for the poor choices of an NPC, though from a players perspective, releasing the dwarf seems dumb. But still not an alignment issue.

4) If someone rushes at you, trying to kill you and you are armed and defend yourself and the result is a dying opponent, it hardly seems murder. If the aristocrat truly killed the dwarf out of pity it is not necessarily evil.

Mouseferatu said:

3) Okay, now we're getting into the meat of things. If the fighter is of good alignment, he definitely violated his alignment doing this. Releasing an enemy like that might have been justified if the fighter believed his companions were going to inflict horrible tortures upon the dwarf. However, he (according to what you've written) had no reason to think so, and even then, letting the dwarf go unarmed/armored is hardly doing him a favor. If the fighter is neutral or evil, this isn't necessarily a violation, but it was certainly not a good act.

Click to expand...

I think I disagree. If you try to kill someone, are captured, tied up, interrogated, and then released, going berserk and attacking the people who already kicked your ass twice, with you unarmed & they fully armed, is just plain stupid. I don't see why there was any reason for the fighter to expect the dwarf to turn out to be insane.

IMO, suicidal attacks over an item that isn't something like the One Ring is insane; a sane dwarf who really really liked his crossbow would nod, thank the fighter for his reasonableness, leave, find some pals, get some more gear, and scheme to get his weapon back. The dwarf is the one that chose to ignore the guy that untied him, go downstairs, and attack a bunch of armed people.

The only way I'd call the fighter's actions Eee-vil would be if he somehow compelled the dwarf to fight a completely unfair duel. Seems like it was all on the dwarf, though.

PS: As for the aristocrat giving the guy the coup de grace -- whether or not it was evil, it certainly seems like it was dumb. It could certainly be interpreted as murder by local authorities, and it was done rather publically. The aristocrat may just have earned himself some legal troubles.

Questions and Consequences

First off, it seems that there should be more to this story. Is there a reason the Dwarf engaged in what must have been an obviously suicidal attack? Was the party blocking his escape? Did they threaten him? Was he simply convinced that they were too inherently dishonest for him to trust them not to shoot him in the back?

I'm pretty much in agreement that the rogue acted dishonestly and chaotically, but not evilly. His behaviour seems consistant with a CG type of alignment. Lawful good types or paladins would not likely make any offers that they don't intend to keep. If the rogue offered the dwarf his crossbow back in exchange for information and received that information then the rest of the party would likely be bound by that promise if they're inclined to keep their words in the first place. If they are more like Robin Hood then Sir Galahad they'd be perfectly willing to bend the truth a bit.

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the difference between an implied verbal agreement and an ironclad contract. The issue with morality and ethics is the spirit of the rules, not the letter of the law. If the rogue says, for example, "Do you want your crossbow back? Then you'd better tell us what we want to know..." then it's clearly implied that there's some reward to the prisoner for divulging information.

This brings us to the last point -- consequences. To those in the outside world, the fact is that the party took a prisoner and killed him in cold blood. If anyone witnessed the end of the battle they might have seen the party take a prisoner and later depart with a magic new crossbow and leaving a dead dwarf behind. If this sort of behaviour keeps up, the party will eventually become known as a group that takes no prisoners. You might hint to them that if this keeps up the party's foes will very likely fight to the death rather than be captured and summarilly killed anyhow. It also means that the wizard will have to break out the detect thoughts spells for interrogation because a reputation for not livign up to your promises means you have nothing with which to bargain.


As far as what alignments the party has, none could be lawful. A lawful character would not make promises that he does not mean to keep, would not make snap decisions without consulting the rest of his team, and would not sulk because he's annoyed with his partners.

The aristocrat and the fighter are not good. They took no precautions to safeguard the life of a helpless prisoner. The fighter simply cutting him free without a plan for what to do with him WAS a recipe for disaster. The aristocrat's slaying him seemed like a petty, childish act. There's no reason he couldn't have tried to stabilize him and turn him over to the proper authorities for an appropriate punishment. The group dynamic seems strongly chaotic to me. Although they have a common problem, they approach it as individuals. Lawfulness, to me, at least implies working as a group and deferring to authority.

That's my four cents.

Herremann the Wise said:

1) Was it right for the rogue to imply that the Dwarf could keep his Crossbow when the party had not agreed to this?

Click to expand...

Neutral, if anything. If the Rogue expected the party to yield the crossbow, or tried to hold true to his statement, Lawful even. If he deliberately lied, it's more Neutral than Lawful. Definitely pushing away from Lawful though. Not inherently good or evil.

2) Was it right for the Wizard to just take the Crossbow back saying that he had already laid claim to it? Was this stealing anwyay?

Click to expand...

Depends on how you define looting and reparitions in your campaign. Was making Germany pay for reparitions in WWII Lawful, Good, Neutral, Evil, or Chaotic?

I would say generally it has no effect on alignment.

3) Was it effectively a case of "murder" by the fighter who released the captive knowing that he would find his doom below (The dwarf was unarmoured and unarmed at this stage)?

Click to expand...

Murder? No. No alignment shift.

Dumb? Yes. If the Fighter has a high Wisdom score, the player deserves an XP penalty for not playing the character right. Otherwise, no effect.

4) Was it murder by the Aristocrat, "killing" the defenceless body on the ground (He did not know that the Dwarf was aready dead but was obviously assuming that he was still alive if barely)?

Click to expand...

The Dwarf attacked, and showed no intention of not attacking again. At worst, self-defense. At best, forethought into the situation - he might have attacked again, he might have brought another group to try and kill the party.

I don't think any of these actions deserve alignment shift.

For the record (and a bit of insight), I don't think a Paladin lying and or interrogating a prisoner is against their code either. Torturing, yes. And a Paladin probably would have insisted any rightful possessions be returned, seeing as how the Rogue gave his word. But lying is not inherently good or evil.

A little more info

Thanks everyone who has taken a look at this situation.

There is a little bit more to the story why the Dwarf acted the way he did but as the players did not know of it, I thought that such information was extraneous for this forum - suffice to say that the captive had reasons for his apparent suicidal behaviour.

I suppose the one piece of information that I missed was the intelligence of the fighter. If he ever gave up swinging a bastard sword, he'd easily have the intellect to study and become a wizard. As such, I assume that he was playing his character intelligently - out of game I know he was. This is why I am concerned for his actions - him fully knowing that the Captive "needed" the Crossbow back and that an inevitable fight would ensue.
While being unarmed and unarmored, he could still cause damage.
Should the Aristocrat and Wizard have dealt "subdual" damage rather than real?
Did the Fighter know that the others would act this way?
As such was it a death sentence by releasing him?

Perhaps the other item of significance is the Pirate City that all of this is happening in. There is effectively no law except the law of the streets outside the Old City which is where all this is taking place. The sight of dead bodies in the street is more the sign of a busy night rather than an impending social catastrophe. As such, the "authorities" are purely the wits and weapons of the people involved.

As for the Aristocrat, he is actually masquerading as a courtesan of talent and verve so the perceptions of this character are somewhat varied. His perspective was that the repeated knocking out and questioning of the fellow was cruel and unnecessary. His spurt of intimidation was going to be enough to get the Dwarf to squeal before the Fighter blundered in (again)!

As far as what their actual alignments are, all are "good" except the Aristocrat who has just suffered a setback (at least I am thinking this) in his path to redemption.

Anyway, if there are anymore thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Slightly off topic, but I'm interested in the fact that someone is playing an Aristocrat. Are they playing the DMG Aristocrat, or some 3rd Party Incarnation, or are they simply a combination of different PHB classes with some spice thrown in there?

Thanks,

- Rep.