Age old question: Handling of prisoners

[Celebrim]

I think it does. Players can only operate according to the knowledge they are given by the DM;

Really? In my experience that is never the case.

not even Paladins can be held accountable for things that they have no way of knowing.

Did I say that they could? I note that you are the one being contridictory here, since later in your reply you say: "for which "ignorance" is no excuse". Well, is or is not ignorance an excuse?

I think that holding characters to moral standards that the DM not only hasn't explained, but refused to explain, is fundamentally and grossly unfair.

First of all, who is holding the characters to anything? I haven't yet applied any sort of consequence to these actions, so how have I been 'fundamentally and grossly unfair'? And the first line consequences would probably be, "A good spirit or divine servitor tries to explain to you what you have done."

The characters whose alignments we're concerned with are members of a Good-aligned religious organization; if their actions were contrary to the teachings of that organization, or contrary to the will of the gods they serve, they should have known that in advance.

Yes. And this is especially true since I largely allowed the characters to make up the gods and religious organizations that they served when they created their background.

If the Good-aligned gods are not the final arbiters of morality in the campaign world, then the players need to be aware of this if issues of morality are going to be significant in the campaign.

No, they don't. Who or what if anything is the final arbiter of morality in the universe is a campaign level secret. Moreover, it is something that really intelligent people within the game world disagree over. Some would argue that the good aligned gods are the final arbiters of morality. Others would argue that they themselves are only embodiments of some higher principle intrinsic to existance. Others would argue that its defined within the minds of all sentient individual regardless of stature and only exists there. This is something people in the game world don't know, so there is no way that the PC's could know for certain. I'm not even sure I know what the final arbiter of morality is in the campaign world, though I have some guesses.

In that case, the race of the goblins is no longer a factor, and the issue should be considered as if these were human cultists.

I agree.

The question then becomes a matter of what the PCs' options were; morally, there's no difference between killing them and hauling them back to town for the townsfolk to kill, so it's a matter of whether it is better to kill them or set them free.

I agree.

and if they did not know, it is because the gods themselves have been ambiguous on the point.

Indeed. It's not generally known by the mortal public what alignment the gods are, and there is sometimes significant debate over that even within a particular gods priesthood. One of my players plays an assassin for the goddess of beauty. He belongs to a secret organization whose very existance would horrify most of the church's clergy and which would like bring about a violent schism that could only be put down by the deity herself. I'm not at all clear on which side she would come down in that case, but I am clear that both sides have a reasonable belief that they are acting in a good fashion as best as they understand it.

We're playing D&D, not Mao. The players are expected to be able to know the rules in advance.

These things aren't rules. Saying that you get to know the alignments of the gods, the origin of the universe, and the fundamental nature of sentient species in advance is like saying you have a right to know the layout of dungeons and the particular powers of the Hand of Vecna. These are secrets which may or may not be revealed over the course of the campaign.

I haven't seen anything inherently Chaotic in their actions; the ethical axis has no bearing on this discussion.

I don't want to argue with you about any additional things, but it seems clear to me that taking the law into your own hands and appointing yourself jury and executioner is inherently chaotic whatever else it is. Feel free to disagree.

Yes, it is-- because if they treated him as a person, it means they recognized him as a person.

They recognized the cult leader as a person as well. They'd had dinner with her and shared wine with her. They'd had conversations with her before they knew what or who she was. No, I'm more concerned here with whether never even considering that the goblins might be people is more depraved than admitting that they are but in the interest of the greater good thinking that they should die.

This is a deliberate and knowing Evil act...

This is a deliberate and knowing treacherous act. I'm not sure that the treachery makes the murder any worse than the other ones, and if anything the other two were in colder blood, but I do take note of the fact that you seem to consider treachery worse than murder. (See below.)

That's irrelevant. They live in a world where such evidence exists.

Are you sure?

If someone was threatening to unleash biological or nuclear weapons against my people, I would absolutely support killing them without a single doubt or reservation. I would kill them, and I would kill anyone that supported them, and I would kill anyone-- no matter how innocent-- who got in the way.

Well, we've established what your standards are.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

First of all, who is holding the characters to anything? I haven't yet applied any sort of consequence to these actions, so how have I been 'fundamentally and grossly unfair'? And the first line consequences would probably be, "A good spirit or divine servitor tries to explain to you what you have done."

You said yourself that you weren't sure whether or not you should apply consequences, and your previous comments seemed to indicate that you were leaning in that direction.

No, they don't. Who or what if anything is the final arbiter of morality in the universe is a campaign level secret. Moreover, it is something that really intelligent people within the game world disagree over.

If really intelligent people within the game world disagree over it, that means it's inconclusive-- and the only way that it could remain inconclusive for so long is if the characters whose powers rely upon that morality have received no guidance in the past. Punishing the characters for those actions now would mean changing the rules of your campaign world specifically to punish them, which strikes me as inherently abusive.

If you won't tell them how morality works in your game, you can't punish them for failing to read your mind.

These things aren't rules. Saying that you get to know the alignments of the gods, the origin of the universe, and the fundamental nature of sentient species in advance is like saying you have a right to know the layout of dungeons and the particular powers of the Hand of Vecna. These are secrets which may or may not be revealed over the course of the campaign.

If your powers depend on upholding a Code of Conduct, you have a right to know what that Code of Conduct is. If you want the gods to be ambiguous, then you have to allow the people that serve the gods to be ambiguous, too.

No, I'm more concerned here with whether never even considering that the goblins might be people is more depraved than admitting that they are but in the interest of the greater good thinking that they should die.

Do you know what cows think about?

This is a deliberate and knowing treacherous act. I'm not sure that the treachery makes the murder any worse than the other ones, and if anything the other two were in colder blood, but I do take note of the fact that you seem to consider treachery worse than murder. (See below.)

I don't see any murder here. Everyone they killed, including the escaping prisoner, they had perfectly legitimate justification to kill. And yes, I do consider treachery to be worse than murder.

Well, we've established what your standards are.

I'm not Good and I know I'm not Good. But pick any government on Earth and threaten them with nuclear weapons, and I can guarantee that the civilian casualties to their response will number at least in the hundreds. Even a Good-aligned person would have no other choice.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I mean, they've pretty much validated the Goblin Assassins opinion of them thus far.

You could have the goblin assassin start talking them up. Let the party hear the goblin telling someone else how evil and ruthless the group that he's traveling with are. That'll make 'em proud.

 

[ExploderWizard]

A group of predominantly Goof PCs just captured a couple of enemy soldiers.

Perhaps if your PCs were not so silly their enemies would treat them with more respect.

 

[Celebrim]

You said yourself that you weren't sure whether or not you should apply consequences, and your previous comments seemed to indicate that you were leaning in that direction.

I'm trying to put myself in the heads of the deities involved. How do they feel about this? What would they do? I have a sense that they would not be entirely happy. I have a sense as a DM that the actions of the characters are indistinguishable in most ways from the actions that the characters would take were their characters evil, and that this is not ideal.

If you won't tell them how morality works in your game, you can't punish them for failing to read your mind.

I can see you have a considerable chip on your shoulder. I bellieve its clear that I've given them considerable hints, clues, and outright statements about how morality works. I believe that to a certain extent this is irrelevant, because I think the players are smart enough to know that they are playing their character as ruthless and merciless without me having to tell them, "You know that was pretty ruthless and merciless." I believe that it is very clear that I haven't been swift to punish anything, and moreover that I don't even consider first order consequences of disappointing a good deity known for compassion and mercy and the like to be swift and painful punishment. Unlike the PCs, the diety is supposed to be emboding nearly perfect goodness, so the question is more like, "What gentle chastisement will the deity first resort to?"

It should be equally clear that I'm allowing a certain amount of amguity in the servants of good because the mortals aren't perfect embodiments of goodness and some leeway on that grounds is assumed. Good people, even honest and sincere ones, don't always act rightly.

Loss of clerical powers or the like is not going to occur by surprise in my game. Please just drop the sterotyping.

Do you know what cows think about?

Mostly grass and other cows.

I don't see any murder here. Everyone they killed, including the escaping prisoner, they had perfectly legitimate justification to kill. And yes, I do consider treachery to be worse than murder.

Look, you've made it really easy to characterize your alignment perspective. Whether or not you see murder here is irrelevant. I concur that NPCs with your alignment perspective don't see this as murder. Deities of NG I think certainly do. If by your own admission you 'aren't good', why do you think those that are would see things exactly the way you do?

 

[airwalkrr]

My current campaign is set in Eberron, more specifically the city of Sharn. There are plenty of laws about murder and I expect lawful PCs to follow them unless they have been given letters of marque indicating they have a license to kill. I actually really like how detailed Eberron can be regarding these types of things. It is a very useful aid to players for determining what types of actions are acceptable and to me as a DM to help adjudicate alignment. Of course, down in the bowels of Sharn's seedy underbelly, no one is really going to care if a goblin goes missing, but I still consider killing such a prisoner at the very least chaotic, and unless the goblin is a murdering thief who is highly unlikely to repent of his ways, I still also consider it evil.

Of course, in Eberron, a lot of "monsters" are also considered people. Alignments tend to be grayer than they are in "standard" D&D. But I like that about the setting. It seems to show that other creatures who are intelligent should be allowed the right to determine their own outlook on things, even if it might be heavily influenced by the environment in which they are raised. Saying this, my players have not yet encountered a good-aligned goblin. But killing one who literally poses no threat when it is just as easy to take him to the local prison is not very heroic in my opinion. It's downright dastardly to kill a prisoner.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I can see you have a considerable chip on your shoulder. ... Please just drop the sterotyping.

First things first, I would like to apologize. I am being overly aggressive, and I have little excuse for doing so except that I've been involved in a number of alignment threads recently with people who seemingly enjoy stripping Paladins of their powers at the drop of the hat. I've been projecting that onto your arguments, and I shouldn't be.

I'm trying to put myself in the heads of the deities involved. How do they feel about this? What would they do? I have a sense that they would not be entirely happy.

Yes, I can see that. The issues with the goblins aside, the PCs have been particularly callous in their actions, and if it is intended that the same rules apply to goblins as apply to humans, then the PCs' treatment of the goblins was inexcusable. My objection stems from the perception that you have been unclear-- deliberately unclear-- as to whether or not that is the case.

Unlike the PCs, the diety is supposed to be emboding nearly perfect goodness, so the question is more like, "What gentle chastisement will the deity first resort to?"

Yes, that would strike me as appropriate. If the PCs aren't behaving as the deity prefers, it makes sense to me for the deity to make his intentions clear; I was operating under the impression that you had no intention of doing that.

Good people, even honest and sincere ones, don't always act rightly.

Heh. I actually hold that up as the difference between Good and Exalted characters in my games. Merely Good characters can accept that they do the right thing most of the time and forgive themselves when they don't. Exalted characters agonize over their mistakes until they've found a way to make them right.

It makes a lot more sense to me than the "exalted" vows in the Book of Exalted Deeds that have nothing whatsoever to do with Goodness.

Mostly grass and other cows.

My point is, if you can't tell that something is a person and you aren't given any moral guidance on this point, you can't very well be held accountable for treating it as less than a person. It is not reasonable to assume that Good characters will treat everything like a person until they are given reason not to, especially given the impossibility of proving a negative.

That being said, from what you've described, I think you've given enough evidence that Goblins are at least potentially people that the PCs should be given pause.

Look, you've made it really easy to characterize your alignment perspective. Whether or not you see murder here is irrelevant. I concur that NPCs with your alignment perspective don't see this as murder. Deities of NG I think certainly do.

That's certainly fair. But I think making a definitive statement to that effect means that you have to answer questions which you have said you deliberately refuse to answer; I don't have an objection to your moral standards, just the seeming contradiction between enforcing those moral standards and refusing to specify them. I would generally rule the same way about the incident with the wounded goblins and the human prisoner, as long as the players had been given enough information to make informed decisions about their conduct.

 

[Tharkon]

I don't think I would ever play a Paladin in someone else's game. The sheer lunacy of the restrictions some people place on Paladins-- far beyond anything justified by the rules themselves-- make it impossible to play one in anything other than the strictest Lawful Stupid fashion.

You and your DM should read [FONT=&quot]Paladin’s Code (Quintessential Paladin II, page 88), and agree on a code before the creation of the Paladin character.[/FONT]

2) After a fight with some human cultists, the leader of the human cultists had been mortally wounded and was clearly dying. Not content to just let her bleed out, one of the PC's went over and cut her throat.

If they were strongly good-aligned they could spend a cure minor wounds and thus save a human life. Isn't every human life, even an evil one, word more than a single orison? Or even then, a DC 15 Heal check (with a +2 bonus of another character can make a DC 10 Heal check), would work as well.

I readily accept the behavior from the neutral members of the party, but I'm not sure how I feel about the good aligned members either engaging in it, or just standing around turning a blind eye to it.

If they are of different alignments yet never get into an argument about it then something is wrong. If they get along all the time they're probably the same alignment. If they're not the same alignment, they're bound to get into an argument about it. Although it might also be that the different players have different concepts about morality and ethics. I read about this in the Quintessential Paladin II as well, what is evil and what isn't. Especially important when your players can Detect Evil at will. Personally I think even a neutral character wouldn't kill another human being if that particular being posed no immediate threat. But he wouldn't go out of his way to save his life if it had not benefit for himself either. Then again, he could also be neutral cause he does either of the two half of the times, in which case he is probably insane and that would fit Chaotic Neutral (not implying all Chaotic Neutral characters are insane).

In all of these cases it comes down to making sure all players and the DM are equally aware of and agree on what is considered moral or ethical and what is not, otherwise alignment becomes a big haze.

You could also reverse the entire thing and set some rules, evaluate the PCs and their behavior and then assign them an alignment.

 

[Celebrim]

If they were strongly good-aligned they could spend a cure minor wounds and thus save a human life. Isn't every human life, even an evil one, word more than a single orison? Or even then, a DC 15 Heal check (with a +2 bonus of another character can make a DC 10 Heal check), would work as well.

To be honest, this is what I had expected to happen. I expected it not only because it was the noble thing to do, but because it was the practical thing to do. Healed up, the cult leader could have potentially provided significant clues and insight. With her dead and with several other oppurtunities for clue gathering missed or overlooked, the party was left with few leads to work with and is still mostly in the dark about the nature of their foe. In fact, they'd have been completely in the dark were it not for the actions of an intelligent NPC (which almost felt like cheating to me) they had with them.

However, that's not what happened. Instead the Chaotic Neutral trending Chaotic Evil character decided in a fit of vengence to finish off the unconscious and bleeding foe. To be sure, at this point the villain had been responcible for murdering a group of innocent priests, wide spread arson resulting in the death of scores of people, and setting lose a goblin war party in the city, plus had just killed a well like NPC right in front of them as well as single handedly nearly killing the whole party after a wild fight and chase around a massive foundry complex that had lasted more than 10 minutes and involved probably 20+ rounds of combat. So they had plenty of reason to be emotionally worked up and hate the villain. However, there was no argument or discussion about the coup de grace.

The mitigating factor here is that even the 'good guys' in the town would have barely treated her any better and arguably worse once they'd learned she was a witch (a sorcerer). Ordinary commoners and experts (most of the town in otherwords) have pretty much no chance of dealing with high level arcane spellcasters unless they are absolutely ruthless. As such, society has evolved standards of behavior with respect to evil spellcasters that are extreme by any sort of real world standard, but in the real world we don't have to deal with individuals who have earth shattering power even when unarmed and imprisoned. Sorcerers in particular are often treated very inhumanely because you can't cripple them by just taking away their books and reagents. The wider society lives in pretty much utter terror of things like Charm Person and Bestow Curse, and magistrates generally consider it their higher duty to protect the public from abusive spellcasters regardless of the moral cost or niceties. Magistrates don't usually bother with taking spellcasters in. They poison them in their sleep, because they know that one spell might well wipe out most of the watch.

So, in other words, if they healed the cult leader and then turned her over to the authorities, the most likely result would have been that they'd have broken her fingers with a hammer and pulled her tongue out with hot iron tongs before some sort of speedy trial followed by painful public execution (usually burned alive). Considering the damage inflicted on the town and the fact that much of the clergy that might have preached mercy were dead, there wouldn't have been many voices of protest against that. It would have been considered justice, albiet of the rough sort necessary when dealing with witches, necromancers, diabolists and the like.

This situation seems to me to constrain the good aligned dieties that are otherwise mourning the tragedy that occurred here since they at least know the costs and griefs that lead to this point. But what are they going to advise their followers (the PC's) to do that isn't meaningless hide bound instruction? How can they head off this habit the party has gotten into in a productive manner? Which is the same as, how can I head off this habit the party has gotten into in a productive manner (since I don't want a dumb alignment argument to derail play)?

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

If they were strongly good-aligned they could spend a cure minor wounds and thus save a human life. Isn't every human life, even an evil one, word more than a single orison?

To be sure, at this point the villain had been responcible for murdering a group of innocent priests, wide spread arson resulting in the death of scores of people, and setting lose a goblin war party in the city, plus had just killed a well like NPC right in front of them as well as single handedly nearly killing the whole party after a wild fight and chase around a massive foundry complex that had lasted more than 10 minutes and involved probably 20+ rounds of combat.

At that point, showing the villain mercy is neither "noble" nor "practical", it's downright irresponsible. You're not weighing a human life against a 0th level spell, you're weighing her life against the possibility that something like this-- the scores of innocent lives-- could happen again. I accept that my moral perspective doesn't line up with yours, but I simply cannot wrap my head around the idea that a Good person, no matter how saintly, could accept taking that kind of risk with that many innocent lives.

Combine that with the kind of "justice" the "good" people of the town would have given her, and the decision your "Chaotic Evil" PC made-- regardless of his motivation-- wasn't just the most practical course of action, it was the only moral option available.

If there'd been some means of permanently stripping her of her magical abilities and protecting her from the townsfolk, then I could see leaving her alive to try to redeem her; I wouldn't choose to do so myself, but I can see where a Good person might, if he had that option available to him. Given the situation as it occurred in game, it would have been entirely out of the question.

If they are of different alignments yet never get into an argument about it then something is wrong. If they get along all the time they're probably the same alignment.

I have close friends I would consider to be of Good alignment, two of whom I think might qualify as Paladins. I'm capable of playing nice for their sakes, up to the point they need to protect someone else from me or I need to protect them from their own good natures. As long as they're around, they act as a moderating influence on me.

Personally I think even a neutral character wouldn't kill another human being if that particular being posed no immediate threat. But he wouldn't go out of his way to save his life if it had not benefit for himself either.

Strangely, in this regard I suspect I'm less forgiving than you. A Neutral character will go out of his way to save someone's life as long as it poses little risk to him to do so. Hell, for that matter, I'd go out of my way to save someone's life-- even taking risks to do so-- just to benefit my reputation.

Then again, he could also be neutral cause he does either of the two half of the times, in which case he is probably insane and that would fit Chaotic Neutral (not implying all Chaotic Neutral characters are insane).

I wouldn't say that Neutral is a matter of being sometimes Good and sometimes Evil, just like Evil isn't a matter of actively opposing Good. Neutral is a matter of putting other concerns above Good, while still avoiding Evil where possible. Evil is pursuing one's agenda, whatever it is, at the expense of Good.

I could be charitably described as Neutral, mostly because falling too far into Evil would cause me to fail at most of my objectives-- especially preserving the loyalty and well-being of my Good friends.

This situation seems to me to constrain the good aligned dieties that are otherwise mourning the tragedy that occurred here since they at least know the costs and griefs that lead to this point.

Honestly? Give them more redeemable enemies, enemies that they could reasonably save, and if they behave in the same bloodthirsty fashion have the gods intervene then. Send them up against villains who aren't complete monsters, people willing to negotiate when the tables start to turn against them. If the players are still bloodthirsty, then have a talk with them; if they show mercy, reward them.

A lot of the reason that players are bloodthirsty is that they have learned, from gaming experience, that leaving enemies behind them is dangerous. Have mercy and redemption pay off a time or two and show them how their world is improved by it, and they'll usually be more inclined to consider it in the future. (Though, to be honest, some groups find that anti-climactic. Your mileage may vary.) I'd say the best games are the ones where the players are actually torn-- the ones where they're forced to wonder whether or not sparing the villains is the best course of action, and the DM keeps them guessing.