Alignment and a Prisoner...

[LostSoul]

The party is currently destroying the inhabitants of a temple of Kiaransalee, the drow goddess of the undead. While doing so they find a priestess of Lolth chained to a wall.

If I was neutral, I'd kill her. Edit: er, no, wait... I'd just leave her.

If I was good, I'd try to find some way to save her. It's hard being good. Probably tie her up and take her with the group, making sure she doesn't pray for spells & doesn't try to get out of her bonds (ie. Take 20 on Escape Artist). If she works against the group so much so that it endangers our lives, then I'd kill her.

 

[Dungannon]

In my experience, alignment always has been, and IMHO always should be, a guideline with specifics left to interpretation by the DM running the campaign. I've played with several DMs in the almost-20 years I've been playing D&D and I've never had two who interpreted alignment the exact same way.

If Wraithdrit is willing to cut his Paladin some slack on what constitutes an atonable offense then that's his right as DM. Asking for opinions from other players and DMs on ENWorld to help him form a decision is also his right.

As a Paladin of Eilistraee, I don't see killing a bound prisoner without giving her the chance to redeem/repent as a valid first option. Negotiating a deal where she assists the party in return for her release or turning her over to the archmage are his "best" options.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

There's a first time for everything, it appears. I completely, 100% agree with Kahuna Burger on this--no qualifications added.

Evil is not a team name; evil characters won't necessarily oppose good characters nor will they necessarily ally with evil characters.

ok, here comes a rant of a different color... In these conversations, everyone has to grab the line "lawful good doesn't equal lawful stupid" as an excuse to ignore the paladin's code and play a smite machine. Yet WAY too many game writers and DMs are willing to play any stripe of evil as suicidally moronic. Evil is not automatically the friend of other evil, and evil does not go out of its way to harm good - good just gets in the way of evil being, well, evil and has to be dealt with. You have a senient being who has been at the complete mercy of her enemies for an unspecified length of time. A group of her enemy's enemies show up and offer to free her if she aids them. They are doing exactly what she want's to do! There is NO reason for her to "turn on them" unless she has a serious compuslive disorder to kill people at random intervals. Its a dumb way to play the NPC and takes as bizare a veiw of evil as some people do of good....

So, if you want your players to roleplay instead of racking up kill points, you have to do the same with the NPCs. Ignore what the module says and play the priestess like a rational being based on how the PCs treat her. Think about what her goals should be right now and play them out, don't buy into the silly "all Evil npcs are the enemies of the PCs and attack them without thought" mindset.

End that rant.

Kahuna burger

 

[BSF]

Alignment is interpreted differently by _so_ many people. It is influenced by culture and religion and personal reflections on what is good and evil. In the context of the game, it is hard to treat it as a hardcore mechanic. C'mon, we are talking about applying something universally in a game that we can't even apply universally in the world. Need an example? Is Capital Punishment Good? Is it Neutral? Is it Evil? No!!!! Move the mouse away from the reply button for now. DO NOT ANSWER THAT! Just think about it. I don't want a political flamewar going on. Just consider the differences and understand that Alignment in a game is not a constant Universal Principle. Attempts to make it one would enforce somebody's interpretation of morality as a game mechanic. I don't want that to be driven by WotC. YMMV

I do not see any problem with a Paladin executing a prisoner. What is all this about them being helpless? If you take a prisoner back to town and they are sentenced to hang, are you going to argue that they are helpless and executing them is evil? Please note - I am not saying that a Paladin should always execute a prisoner. Nor am I saying that the Paladin shouldn't investigate other avenues of problem resolution. I just don't think making a Paladin atone for executing any prisoner because they are helpless makes sense.

I also do not understand why a Paladin can't be a judge. It depends on the character! There is no reason why a Paladin _has_ to defer to a cleric. First of all, a Paladin does not need to worship a god! They can revere the Cause of Righteousness. Even if they do worship, they can still be the best equipped to ppass judgement. Knowledge (Religion) is a class skill. As is Diplomacy and Sense Motive. In my campaigns, a Paladin may very well be capable of passing judgement and administering whatever judgement the Paladin decided was best.

Of course, in my campaigns, I would allow a wide variety of different types of Paladins. Not different alignments, but different motivations. Some might pursue Redemption of Evil, with a big stick in case that doesn't work. Some might pursue Justice. Some might pursue protection of the innocents. Some might wage aggressive wars against Evil. Each Paladin can be a little different depending on personality, affiliation, religious influence and occassionally, circumstances.

If the PC's have time, I would second the option of a trial. Especially with Zone of Truth in affect.

If there is not time, and given the nature these specific PC's, offering the Cleric the opportunity to truly repent would be a nice gesture. Give her the chance to repent and if she refuses, execute her. If she agrees, give her magical incentive to stay true to her path.

For another group of PC's, I see no reason why the Paladin couldn't assure she was evil and then mete out justice. Sure, she was captured by somebody else. That doesn't mean she isn't despicably evil and that she didn't commit crimes against Good. If a mass murderer were captured in a neighboring kingdom and the Lord there offers to transfer the criminal to your kingdom for trial and justice, is the Paladin supposed to argue that it isn't honorable?

 

[Clueless]

Alignment can not be seen as a mechanic or a rule as long as the PH states alignment in general terms and with generalities.

If the PHB says all lawful good people would do this and only this given this kind of situation, then you might have a case for alignments being a mechanic and not an abstract.

And even then... My view on the matter:
I'm playing a character not a robot, thank you very much.

[editted for clarity in meaning]

 

[redknight]

I have found that alignment can be a useful game mechanic but only if used equally for all characters. Some claim that LG is the most restrictive but then it is only because the alignments are not enforced equally.

For example, I have seen people penalize a LG character if the character told a lie because it went against his "lawfulness". On the other hand, I have never seen anyone punish a C* character for telling the truth because it went against his chaotic nature.

I could see two solutions. The first would be try and execute the evil priestess on the spot unless she can come up with a alternate solution. Especially if the paladin is of noble birth and is expected to enforce the laws of his land. The second solution would be to leave her chained and once the area is secured, then bring her to the authorities. (Assuming that the authorities aren't corrupt or a hundred miles away.) The paladin has to consider the damage she could cause if she escaped.

 

[baradtgnome]

You poor thing. Would you like a cookie?

I'd be careful about taking a bite out of that cookie

So I am one of those unfortunate DMs that still has not solved world hunger, cured cancer, and has not defined the good vs evil thing well enough in his campaign so that characters aren't confused by these moral quandries. Poor me.

Actually before we switched to 3.0 I had a pretty detailed manifest for the characters that described good & evil IMC. and it was along the lines of beliefs for humandoids (might makes right vs right to life) and pure core good/evil for outsiders. So executing a prisoner without evidence was 'wrong' & executing a demon was 'right'. They saw that in the world they were in, were taught that by their mentors & church leaders, and those that didn't were evil - and subject to the 'rules and punishments' of society.

when 3.0 came out we scrapped all house rules to play the game pure and see if we wanted to change things. I don't know what I was thinking. So in the end, if the bounds are unclear it is my fault as DM. That does not mean that moral decisions shouldn't be difficult. YMMV Rule 0 rocks.