RigaMortus
Explorer
Ferret said:
Yeouch... So how does this make you any better than the thugs that tried to rob/kill you?
Ferret said:
Again, how does killing him make you any better than the fire giant?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Alignment Situations I
- Thread starter Sarcoth
- Start date
Yeouch... So how does this make you any better than the thugs that tried to rob/kill you?
Again, how does killing him make you any better than the fire giant?
Mercule
Adventurer
You can justify almost any response on the Law/Chaos axis.
Situation A: The group is attacked by a group of thieves right outside a city. The thieves are easily subdued. Some are unconscious and bleeding to death.
Question 1: What should the healers do?
Any good would probably heal them. I don't think L/C matters here.
Alternatively, Law could justify not healing them because it's an unnecessary drain on resources. Chaos because they don't think the individuals are deserving.
Question 2: Should the group take prisoners and turn them in at the local guard?
What else are they going to do with them? That's important. Also, is the city guard "good"?
Law is going to be most inclined to the brigands over to the watch regardless. On the other hand, if they've been given any legal power that could apply (even if the jurisdictions overlap), they would be well within bounds to mete out justice on their own.
Law could also apply the law of their homeland, order, religion, etc. to every situation. In that case, they'd do whatever was called for ("thieves should die, I kill them"). They could also deal a "favor of the gods" scenario and leave them dying, although that probably isn't a good act.
Chaos would probably turn them in just because it's a hassle to deal with it themselves. Unless the chaotics think that the brigands are deserving of death for their crimes, in which case, they may go ahead and coup d'grace.
The thing to keep in mind here is that "chaotic" != "stupid". Even if they completely believe the brigands should die, they will probably not do it themselves if it's illegal. The cost/benefit ratio is too high. Chaotics do not usually disobey laws simply to "stick it to the man".
On the other hand, even though chaos may take into account what the legal _repurcussions_ of their actions are, they don't incorporate the _legality_, as such, into their decisions. If the chaotic believes the brigands should live (or die) and the law says otherwise, he'll weigh the _punishment_ of his disobedience against his values and decide based on that.
Situation B: The group is attacked by 2 Fire Giants. One is taken down and then the other cries surrender.
Question 1: How should they react?
Question 2: The group paladin already determined they were evil. Would this change how the group should react?
Of course, the base line is as for the brigands. The only differences depend on whether the giants are innately evil.
It depends on beliefs about rehabilitation, which is neither lawful nor chaotic. I have to believe that killing a creature that could be converted with any reasonable effort qualifies as a non-good act.
If fire giants are inherently evil (a campaign-world decision), then there is no reason not to kill the fire giant. Of course there's always the function reasons like the giant has information, or a show of mercy may beget mercy and avert a war, etc. But we're talking morality here.
About the only difference here is that, if a treaty exists, the lawful would be inclined to take prisoners because the treaty dictates. A chaotic would only care because of the loss of life that would follow the breaking of the treaty.
If the fire giants could be rehabilitated, then most good characters would spare the giant. Whether they turned the giant over to the autorities would depend on a number of factors. Lawfuls would look to what was stipulated in the law or his order's beliefs. Chaotics would simply consider what was "good".
Situation A: The group is attacked by a group of thieves right outside a city. The thieves are easily subdued. Some are unconscious and bleeding to death.
Question 1: What should the healers do?
Any good would probably heal them. I don't think L/C matters here.
Alternatively, Law could justify not healing them because it's an unnecessary drain on resources. Chaos because they don't think the individuals are deserving.
Question 2: Should the group take prisoners and turn them in at the local guard?
What else are they going to do with them? That's important. Also, is the city guard "good"?
Law is going to be most inclined to the brigands over to the watch regardless. On the other hand, if they've been given any legal power that could apply (even if the jurisdictions overlap), they would be well within bounds to mete out justice on their own.
Law could also apply the law of their homeland, order, religion, etc. to every situation. In that case, they'd do whatever was called for ("thieves should die, I kill them"). They could also deal a "favor of the gods" scenario and leave them dying, although that probably isn't a good act.
Chaos would probably turn them in just because it's a hassle to deal with it themselves. Unless the chaotics think that the brigands are deserving of death for their crimes, in which case, they may go ahead and coup d'grace.
The thing to keep in mind here is that "chaotic" != "stupid". Even if they completely believe the brigands should die, they will probably not do it themselves if it's illegal. The cost/benefit ratio is too high. Chaotics do not usually disobey laws simply to "stick it to the man".
On the other hand, even though chaos may take into account what the legal _repurcussions_ of their actions are, they don't incorporate the _legality_, as such, into their decisions. If the chaotic believes the brigands should live (or die) and the law says otherwise, he'll weigh the _punishment_ of his disobedience against his values and decide based on that.
Situation B: The group is attacked by 2 Fire Giants. One is taken down and then the other cries surrender.
Question 1: How should they react?
Question 2: The group paladin already determined they were evil. Would this change how the group should react?
Of course, the base line is as for the brigands. The only differences depend on whether the giants are innately evil.
It depends on beliefs about rehabilitation, which is neither lawful nor chaotic. I have to believe that killing a creature that could be converted with any reasonable effort qualifies as a non-good act.
If fire giants are inherently evil (a campaign-world decision), then there is no reason not to kill the fire giant. Of course there's always the function reasons like the giant has information, or a show of mercy may beget mercy and avert a war, etc. But we're talking morality here.
About the only difference here is that, if a treaty exists, the lawful would be inclined to take prisoners because the treaty dictates. A chaotic would only care because of the loss of life that would follow the breaking of the treaty.
If the fire giants could be rehabilitated, then most good characters would spare the giant. Whether they turned the giant over to the autorities would depend on a number of factors. Lawfuls would look to what was stipulated in the law or his order's beliefs. Chaotics would simply consider what was "good".
Sarcoth said:
LG = Bind up the wounds so they won't die.
NG = Bind them up, maybe heal them if they are hurt real bad.
CG = Heal them as much as we can. Demonstrate mercy to these guys, maybe they'll pick up on it.
LG = ABsolutely. We can't just let them run around.
NG = Well, if there isn't a pressing mission then we could. As long as the local laws aren't too rough. I mean some places they'll get hung. After the thumping we gave them I think they learned thier lesson.
CG = No way. First we are going to be stuck for HOURS answering questions. Second, they'll either kill them, which is overreaction for what they did, or let em off too easy. We'll just tell them if we ever catch them trying to mug people again we won't be so easy on them.
LG = Take his weapons, secure him. Interrogate him. If he cooperates, then we must keep our word and either take him with us or release him when he's no longer a threat.
NG = We'll calm him down and ask him a couple questions. Then we can let him go. I mean I'm not about to murder him and we don't exactly have anyway to drag around a fire giant, so what else we going to do?
CG = We'll see if he talks. Then we'll give him a chance to join us. He could turn around and help the good guys for a change if someone just gave him a chance.
LG = Not at all. Everyone assumes giants are naturally evil anyway
NG = Not at all. Everyone assumes giants are naturally evil anyway
CG = You gonna listen to a paladin? Those guys are so tight they squeak when they walk!
Mercule
Adventurer
Ferret said:
Now this reaction always torques me.
CG and LG are equally good. (Actually, IMHO, LG is _less_ good, but that's irrellivant.)
The major difference between the two is that LG tries to do good by enacting/following laws and stucturing society and groups, while CG tries to do good by reducing structure.
Personally, I think the CG is _less_ likely to kill out of hand because they are less likely to make generalizations. A CG is more likely to accept that a single member of an evil race could be (or become) good.
Last edited:
Dark Eternal
First Post
Sarcoth: Thanks for starting this thread! It's extremely informative, having a chance to see the ways that others would deal with this situation. All the people that I game with have, over the years, developed pretty much parallel concepts on the alignment issues, and it's fascinating to see how people with differing views on the question would respond.
Now, to address your questions:
Question 1: What should the healers do?
LG = The correct response varies depending on the laws of the kingdom where the assault took place, which my lawful good character would have made an effort to learn in essence as soon as entering the kingdom. Assuming typical laws, the dying thieves should be stabalized, and the entire group should be securely restrained.
NG = The dying thieves should be stabalized, and all the wounded treated to ease their pain. The thieves should be securely restrained, and the leader, if identifiable, should be healed to the point where he can be interrogated, using magic if necessary. He should be carefully questioned - using magic to prevent deception, if possible - to determine his and his followers motives. The proceedure from that point would be contingent on what was learned from the interrogation.
CG = This would vary considerably depending on the individual motivations of the character in play. At the very least, the thieves would be stabilized. Some CG characters might try and reform / convert / recruit the thieves, in the hopes that they may learn a better way of life.
Question 2: Should the group take prisoners and turn them in at the local guard?
LG = Almost certainly; local laws may, of course, provide otherwise.
NG = If the thieves prove to be acting from simple criminal motives, yes. If they are acting from need or due to poor circumstance, most likely not.
CG = Only as a last resort - the local law enforcers will not likely do anything to make the situation better, regardless of the circumstances.
Question 1: How should they react?
LG = Unless doing so will almost certainly compromise the surviving party members, the giant's surrender must be accepted. It would not be improper to place conditions on accepting the creature's surrender, however.
NG = If the party is able to defend themselves adequately from the surviving giant, then accept the surrender long enough to negotiate terms. Otherwise, or if the giant refuses to accept equitable terms of surrender, subdue it.
CG = Again, the reactions depend on the particular character. In general, if one or more party members were killed by the giant, refuse the surrender, and kill it. Other reactions, depending on circumstance, would include accepting the surrender or subduing the giant.
Question 2: The group paladin already determined they were evil. Would this change how the group should react?
LG = Most likely, no. Very few lawful societies prosecute creatures based on how they detect to divination magic. Some exceptions are obviously possible, however.
NG = If the creature has been unequivocably identified as evil, then it is probably best to subdue it first and ask questions later, rather than accepting its surrender. Evil creatures are, in general, treacherous and untrustworthy.
CG = Perhaps; as usual, its a matter of circumstance and the character's personal motivations.
That's my 2 cp. for now.
Now, to address your questions:
Question 1: What should the healers do?
LG = The correct response varies depending on the laws of the kingdom where the assault took place, which my lawful good character would have made an effort to learn in essence as soon as entering the kingdom. Assuming typical laws, the dying thieves should be stabalized, and the entire group should be securely restrained.
NG = The dying thieves should be stabalized, and all the wounded treated to ease their pain. The thieves should be securely restrained, and the leader, if identifiable, should be healed to the point where he can be interrogated, using magic if necessary. He should be carefully questioned - using magic to prevent deception, if possible - to determine his and his followers motives. The proceedure from that point would be contingent on what was learned from the interrogation.
CG = This would vary considerably depending on the individual motivations of the character in play. At the very least, the thieves would be stabilized. Some CG characters might try and reform / convert / recruit the thieves, in the hopes that they may learn a better way of life.
Question 2: Should the group take prisoners and turn them in at the local guard?
LG = Almost certainly; local laws may, of course, provide otherwise.
NG = If the thieves prove to be acting from simple criminal motives, yes. If they are acting from need or due to poor circumstance, most likely not.
CG = Only as a last resort - the local law enforcers will not likely do anything to make the situation better, regardless of the circumstances.
Question 1: How should they react?
LG = Unless doing so will almost certainly compromise the surviving party members, the giant's surrender must be accepted. It would not be improper to place conditions on accepting the creature's surrender, however.
NG = If the party is able to defend themselves adequately from the surviving giant, then accept the surrender long enough to negotiate terms. Otherwise, or if the giant refuses to accept equitable terms of surrender, subdue it.
CG = Again, the reactions depend on the particular character. In general, if one or more party members were killed by the giant, refuse the surrender, and kill it. Other reactions, depending on circumstance, would include accepting the surrender or subduing the giant.
Question 2: The group paladin already determined they were evil. Would this change how the group should react?
LG = Most likely, no. Very few lawful societies prosecute creatures based on how they detect to divination magic. Some exceptions are obviously possible, however.
NG = If the creature has been unequivocably identified as evil, then it is probably best to subdue it first and ask questions later, rather than accepting its surrender. Evil creatures are, in general, treacherous and untrustworthy.
CG = Perhaps; as usual, its a matter of circumstance and the character's personal motivations.
That's my 2 cp. for now.
Last edited:
Grayswandir
Just a lurker
Sarcoth said:
LG = Heal them. Bind them. Then we'll take them to the guards.
NG = Drek. Well, we can't just let them die. Okay, I suppose I should heal them, and then, LG, if you want - Hey! CG, get back here!
CG = Fight's over? I'm bored now. I'm wandering off to the tavern.
LG = Of course. As a holy paladin of Somebody-Or-Other, such is my sacred duty.
NG = You know, that's a good idea, but it's terribly impractical.
CG = Bah-pssh. Why bother?
LG = Very well, foul creature, as a holy paladin of Somebody-Or-Other I am honor-bound to accept your surrender. But know that if you break your bond you shall feel the wrath of my god.
NG = Sigh. You and your pets.
CG = Wait. These guys have been killing however many innocent villagers, they attacked us, and you're letting this one surrender? I say we frag him now.
LG = Even had my god, the holy Somebody-Or-Other, not told me incontrovertibly that these creatures were minions of darkness, still giants are known to be evil and this band is known to be exceptionally foul. The laws of justice do not bend to circumstance.
NG = Right. We already knew they were evil by their actions.
CG = Hello? They attacked us. Duh. I still say we frag this one.
Grayswandir
Just a lurker
I also like some of the other responses here. Really, it depends on the individual characters in question. Everyone has a different take on what law / chaos means to them. I suppose that applies both in and out of game.
Okay...here is my take on the two scenarios?
Scenario 1. The Thieves.
a. Should the healers bind them?
LG= Bind their wounds, disarm them and then heal them to consciousness
NG= Bind their wounds, disarm them and then heal them to consciousness
CG= Bind their wounds, disarm them and then heal them to consciousness
b. Should they be brought to justice?
LG= Sure. The law is generally the best tool for criminals, though the LG character would try to ensure fair and measured trial.
NG= Depends. If the authorities are generally benevolent, then fine. If not, then the NG character would probably either take them to the nearest 'benevolent' community, or if that is not practical, hear them out on the spot and make a judgement.
CG= No. The authorities are no better than anyone else. Hear them out and make a judgement there and then. However, if that judgement is that they should be imprisoned, probably best to turn them in (unless you or a trustworthy contact has a private jail in the vicinity).
Scenario 2. Fire Giants
a. Should they accept the surrender?
LG= Definitely. A surrendering opponent must be respected under the 'rules' of combat. He would ensure that they were returned to justice, or if not possible, the LG character would 'try' him on the spot and take appropriate action.
NG= Yes. The death of a surrendering opponent is a needless death. Try to ensure that he cannot harm others in the future by non-lethal means if possible. Otherwise, let him go and hope for the best.
CG= Yes. Hear him out and then act as to what you believe is appropriate.
b. What if he's evil?
LG= No difference. Turn him in or try him on the spot. Being evil in itself is not a crime.
NG= Again, no difference. An evil fire giant can repent.
CG= Depends. If there are nearby settlements, it might be best to kill him. If it's a random wilderness encounter, then no change.
Scenario 1. The Thieves.
a. Should the healers bind them?
LG= Bind their wounds, disarm them and then heal them to consciousness
NG= Bind their wounds, disarm them and then heal them to consciousness
CG= Bind their wounds, disarm them and then heal them to consciousness
b. Should they be brought to justice?
LG= Sure. The law is generally the best tool for criminals, though the LG character would try to ensure fair and measured trial.
NG= Depends. If the authorities are generally benevolent, then fine. If not, then the NG character would probably either take them to the nearest 'benevolent' community, or if that is not practical, hear them out on the spot and make a judgement.
CG= No. The authorities are no better than anyone else. Hear them out and make a judgement there and then. However, if that judgement is that they should be imprisoned, probably best to turn them in (unless you or a trustworthy contact has a private jail in the vicinity).
Scenario 2. Fire Giants
a. Should they accept the surrender?
LG= Definitely. A surrendering opponent must be respected under the 'rules' of combat. He would ensure that they were returned to justice, or if not possible, the LG character would 'try' him on the spot and take appropriate action.
NG= Yes. The death of a surrendering opponent is a needless death. Try to ensure that he cannot harm others in the future by non-lethal means if possible. Otherwise, let him go and hope for the best.
CG= Yes. Hear him out and then act as to what you believe is appropriate.
b. What if he's evil?
LG= No difference. Turn him in or try him on the spot. Being evil in itself is not a crime.
NG= Again, no difference. An evil fire giant can repent.
CG= Depends. If there are nearby settlements, it might be best to kill him. If it's a random wilderness encounter, then no change.
officeronin
First Post
In all cases, bind their wounds if time permits. Clerics devoted to a god of healing might use cure minor on the rough cases. Next, turn them over to the guard (assuming that the guard is not known to be corrupt) unless the PCs have legal powers. CG might be more willing to use them as bargaining chips to secure a deal (or gather info on) the local theives guild.
For the prisoner situation, it's more complicated... Can the mission be accomplished while towing around this dangerous prisoner? Can it be charmed or used in some fashion? LG might want to take it prisoner "to pay for it's crimes", but not at the cost of the greter mission. CG might want to have it under indentured servitude to rebuild the community it destroyed -- and then release it far away. NG might want to convert it. In all cases, they are under no compunction to accept the offer of surrender if the needs of the moment are pressing.
OfficeRonin
For the prisoner situation, it's more complicated... Can the mission be accomplished while towing around this dangerous prisoner? Can it be charmed or used in some fashion? LG might want to take it prisoner "to pay for it's crimes", but not at the cost of the greter mission. CG might want to have it under indentured servitude to rebuild the community it destroyed -- and then release it far away. NG might want to convert it. In all cases, they are under no compunction to accept the offer of surrender if the needs of the moment are pressing.
OfficeRonin
Lord Pendragon
First Post
But we aren't discussing law here, we're discussing morals. So whether or not the guards have the lawful right to kill and you do not is immaterial. To illustrate my point, consider that doctors currently have the lawful right to perform abortions, yet many still argue that they are, morally speaking, murderers.RigaMortus said:
This is a very compelling argument for why turning over the giant to the guards would be the Lawful thing to do, but when determing the Good of an act, law becomes irrelevant.
Let me rephrase it, then. The situation would be different if the adventures know that the authorities can safely contain the fire giant, and thus judgement is a real option. So long as the situation is thus, that the guards will almost certainly kill the giant, my assertions stand.
Yes, see the above reply.
This is an entirely different issue. Sometimes we do things that aren't morally clean, and sometimes we believe those things are worth the moral cost. If I kill a man who is threatening to kill my mother, I've commited a morally culpable act, but may still find it worth it. I've placed my mother's life above her assailant's. Is that Good? No. But I'd still do it again and again. As I said, this really has no bearing on the issue at hand...
Yes, but they cannot simply "pass the buck" and absolve themselves of responsibility.
Consider this: my brother has threatened his girlfriend that if he learns that she has cheated on him, he'll kill her. He's serious, and I believe he'll do it. I then learn that the gf cheated on my brother, and shortly afterward my brother asks me: did my gf cheat on me?
I have a choice: I can tell him the truth, or I can lie. If I tell him the truth and my brother kills his gf, would you argue that I am blameless in the gf's death?
If your answer is "yes," then we simply have different ethical views. If your answer is "no" then look at the fire giant scenario again, because it's the same thing.
Similar Threads
