101 moral dilemmas for good characters

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I have yet to find a ruling or house rule that will cover this issue.

A nice justification for why detect alignment spells and abilities don't work on mortals is that redemption and falling are both strong possibilities for the changeable minds and souls of mortals. Only outsiders and those enfused with the power of a diety are axiomatic enough to have such an aura.

I don't know if your players would accept that after years of having their uber-radar make their decisions for them, but it may be worth a shot.

 

[Tonguez]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 101 moral dilemmas for good characters

You're saying that a creatre with an evil alignment is not an evil creature? You'll need a pretty good rules quote to convince me of that one...

Thats Right Because a Human has an Evil alignment does not make it an Evil Creature and same goes for Kobolds

EVIL is a subtype attached to Creature descriptions so a Hell Hound for instance has subtypes Evil, Fire and Lawful.

The Spell also states that it detects Cleric of Evil Gods - which tends to suggest that it detects the cleric because of her worship not because of her alignment. Ironically the only mention of alignment in the spell refers to Good Alignment...


Elder-Basilisk
I agree that using the suggestions without context is not good for the game and continuity. But both of the scenarios listed have been used imc in which admittedly concepts of good and evil are not so clear

the Orcs were hunting party of a culture which sometimes engaes in raids (think Highland scots).

The PCs had been sent out to hunt bandits.
they spotted the orcs and assumed they were the bandits. That night they try to sneak in and subdue the orcs, the rogue decides to knock out an orc but fails, gets caught and a fight ensues

as for the Eel god, the gnomes worshipping it do so because the Eel is beneficient to them (brings good weather and good fishing), in return for which they sacrifice an occasional goblin. If they fail to sacrifice it might cause bad weather (Weather Control) or even eat one of them. However the gnomes accept this (as they have done so for centuries)

The Humans are new arrivals in the area and only become involved after one of the human villagers tresspasses on the gnome burial grounds and is going to be sacrificed for the offense.
Luckily the PCs negotiated there way through this one but have to give half there annual harvest to the gnomes over the next 5 years

Other Dilemas and yes I have used these

The PCs must retrive Artifact X from the Cave of Horrors (otherwise there whole country will perish), the only way to reach it though is for someone to give their life (either they voluntarily sacrifice one of their number or kill one of the NPC followers.
IMC the Fighter sacrificed himself. The suprise I had in store was that when the Artifact was later used the Outsider that appeared was the Celestial form of the Fighter now elevated to Tribal Guardian)

A Fiendish Barbarian has been attacking the sons of local chieftain, he has imprisoned 2 of them. The PCs investigate only to learn that the Barbarian is infact the chieftains eldest son abandoned at birth because of his feindish taint. He only wants recognition by his parents as legitimate heir...

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Re: Detect Evil:

It's a pain to arbitrarily judge. I find the spell to be tantamount to a super radar.
Evil NPC eating lunch. "He's evil, smite him!!!"
then what? the government will bring up that the pc's disobeyed the law. The PC's returns a "ask a priest to detect evil on him". Makes for a most annoying circumstance.

I have yet to find a ruling or house rule that will cover this issue.

I have run the spell as detecting evil alignments since day 1 and it's never presented a problem in any of my campaigns. Simply being evil (of low magnitude--faint, moderate, or dim evil auras) is rarely an excuse to smite someone. I've always made it clear that there are lots of evil people out there some of whom cheat their customers, some of whom betray their friends, some of whom promise their heart to many women (or men) without ever meaning it, and some of whom are hungry for power. Those don't all deserve death and even for those that do, it's rarely practical to simply smite them then and there on that basis. (If the PCs tell the law--"Detect Evil on him, you'll see", the most likely response is "It's a little late for that now, isn't it--need I remind you that there's no law against being evil but there is one against murder. Will you come peacefully?") The other good reminder for PCs is that weak evil could be:
1. A 2nd level evil cleric
2. A weak polymorphed evil outsider
3. A 10 hd disguised dragon
4. A 10th level necromancer
5. A 10th level evil fighter
6. A first level evil commoner

Smiting first and asking questions later may work (absent all legal considerations) with options 1, 2 and 6 but options 3, 4, and 5 are likely to result in a TPK.

Moderate Evil is even worse. It could be:
1. A 12th level evil fighter
2. A weak demon or devil
3. An 8th level vampire fighter
4. A 20th level necromancer
5. A 10/10 fighter/Ravager
6. A 7th level evil cleric
7. A 15th level aristocrat who's known for betraying friends
8. A 12th level expert who's prosperity and location on the city council is due to his ruthless and underhanded business practices.

So smiting moderate evil first and asking questions later could be a winable fight (2, 6), an action with tremendous political reprecussions (7, 8), or suicide (4, 5, 6).

Detect Evil may be a super radar but its very sensitivity in 3e inclines it towards false positives. It may very well detect bad guys but it doesn't limit itself to "bad guys you're looking for", "bad guys you can handle", "bad guys no one cares if you kill", or "bad guys who've done anything deserving of death." All it detects is evil alignments--and in my campaigns, that's about 15-50% of any given human city.

Again something constructive:
#25The Evil that is Out of Reach

The wizard PC is shopping at the general store and the owner (a powerful man who owns a trading company and is one of the duke's most noted supporters) offers him some gold if he will identify an item for him. When the wizard picks up the item, to identify it, he realizes that it's a +2 sword but merely touching it gives him a negative level. The owner observes the wizard's discomfort (which confirms to him that his sword is infused with Unholy power), thanks the wizard for his effort, pays him well for his trouble and assures him that he'll deal with the sword appropriately. The owner doesn't seem to be harmed in the least when he picks up the sword. What does the PC do?

(In this example, the PC has reason to suspect that the owner is evil--especially if the PC is neutral good, lawful or chaotic characters could draw other conclusions--but no proof.)

 

[Al]

I like moral dilemmas when the motive and the result are 'opposite' in alignment.

For example:

Two factions in a kingdom are 'good' and 'evil'. The kingdom is currently gripped in a civil war. The 'good' faction want to continue the war, even though it will result in thousands of casualties, because they GENUINELY believe that the people in the revolting provinces would be better administered by them than the rebels. The 'evil' faction wants to resolve the war peacefully to score political points.

So...do the PC back the 'good' faction and continue the war, or do the back the 'evil' faction and make peace. The disparity between motive and result is very interesting.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

But there's only a disparity if the character believes that an honest war is more evil than a dishonest peace. That's debatable, and I suspect that many characters of the holy warrior persuasion (paladins, clerics, etc) would probably come down on the side of preferring the honest war.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

But there's only a disparity if the character believes that an honest war is more evil than a dishonest peace. That's debatable, and I suspect that many characters of the holy warrior persuasion (paladins, clerics, etc) would probably come down on the side of preferring the honest war.

I don't think that the point is that these are unwinnable situations for good characters. (In that sense, I guess they're not truly supposed to be dilemmas). Instead I think they're supposed to force thought about the moral decisions the characters make since they're not simple black and white--all good or all bad under pretty much any moral criterion people use.

The point of the situation is to force the decision about whether an honest war and the immediate suffering that entails is really preferable to a dishonest peace and the lower level prolonged suffering and degradation that would entail. If characters make a decision the situation has done its job.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 101 moral dilemmas for good characters

Thats Right Because a Human has an Evil alignment does not make it an Evil Creature and same goes for Kobolds

EVIL is a subtype attached to Creature descriptions so a Hell Hound for instance has subtypes Evil, Fire and Lawful.

You're assuming that "evil aura" equates to "evil subtype". I'm unaware of anything in the rules that supports that assumption.

 

[ArcOfCorinth]

I like moral dilemmas when the motive and the result are 'opposite' in alignment.

For example:

Two factions in a kingdom are 'good' and 'evil'. The kingdom is currently gripped in a civil war. The 'good' faction want to continue the war, even though it will result in thousands of casualties, because they GENUINELY believe that the people in the revolting provinces would be better administered by them than the rebels. The 'evil' faction wants to resolve the war peacefully to score political points.

So...do the PC back the 'good' faction and continue the war, or do the back the 'evil' faction and make peace. The disparity between motive and result is very interesting.

You can make this even more difficult by suggesting that the "good" side's army has been depleted but their coffers are overflowing. In order to continue the war, they've contracted out mercenaries. A vast majority of these sellswords aren't aligned with good. Some are CN, CE, LE and such.

 

[Kalanyr]

Since outsiders are the only creatures I've seen with Alignment Subtypes and the spell gives indicators for evil creatures who aren't outsiders, I'd have to agree with those who say Detect Evil works just fine on a 1st level commoner.

 

[Kyramus]

Elder basilisk

Thank you, that's what i needed to see. and that clarifies my problem with detect evil.

It shows EVERYONE who is evil, but it doesn't necessarily relate to the PC's. Not everyone who is shown evil, is against the pc. The tavern keeper who is unscrupulously watering down his drinks for more profit will show up as evil but not in specific against the pcs.

Thank you, that analogy and examples are exactly what I needed.