Alignment Question

[kreynolds]

But, as heroes I think that they should be setting an example.

Honestly, what kind of example you think their characters should be setting doesn't have much bearing on alignment. As long as they're playing their alignments, there's no problem.

Random acts of violence should not be permitted.

Says who? Besides, there was nothing random in the rogue's actions. They were cold, yes; calculated, yes; effecient, yes; evil, no.

There's a neutral good cleric in the group, and a lawful good paladin (he wasn't here at this past session, though). I don't think they'd agree that slitting the throats of defenseless prisoners wasn't evil.

Of course they wouldn't agree. Know why?

They're GOOD.

2) In a "real-world" scenario, if somebody came up to you on the street and got into a fight with you, would you slit his throat after knocking him unconscious?

That depends on the guy that hit me and how many witnesses are standing around at the time.

No.

That's awfully presumptuous. You don't know what I would do. You also don't know what your player's would do. If I or your players do something that you thought we wouldn't do doesn't make it wrong or evil either.

I can't imagine this rogue's defense when brought before a magistrate being "Well, Your Honor. He was evil." That's just not going to cut it.

He would never say that. Know why? You asked him why he cut their throats out of game. He responded out of game. Out of game responses very rarely hold up in game.

Perhaps I should have the law crack down on these players a little more often.

Perhaps. After all, in most territories, murder is murder anyways.

"Good" characters should not just attack evil NPCs without provocation just because the NPCs are evil.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Now if they were "Lawful", that would be different.

Maybe I'm being a little too literal on this one.

I think so. Try being a little more liberal instead of literal.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

Re: It's up to the GM

You could set the standard of evil as enjoying killing, but it would be impossible to judge in play. And Paladins killing evil regardless of circumstances would be the same as evils killing good guys regardless of circumstances -- what you end up with is essentially two "gangs" with identical morality who simply kill each other on sight and have absolutely no other reason.

Well, I have to admit that it is merely my personal attempt to clarify how alignment works. I simply define good as being compassionate and having a general respect for life and dignity. I define evil as being cruel, deriving enjoyment from the suffering, humiliation, and degradation of other living beings.

So, you're right in a sense, that the conflict between good and evil does resemble, on one level, a conflict between two rival gangs. But the resemblance is only in the fact their BEHAVIOR may be similar. Their reasons for doing what they do would be entirely different. The forces of good only kill if they regard it as necessary for some eventual state of peace, prosperity, etc. But the forces of evil might enjoy killing, feel empowered by it, or at least view it as a means to eventual dominance, so that they can tyrannize or humiliate others.

I think this approach is more flexible and workable than a system that defines individual acts as being good or evil, regardless of context.

 

[AuraSeer]

Oh, I thought of something else I want to add, unrelated to my previous post.

You've told the player that killing helpless enemies is evil. He has a rationalization for why he thinks it's not. However, history and literature are replete with examples of evil people who no doubt thought their actions were justified.

Here's a purely hypothetical situation: say there's a medical procedure that some people think is evil. A doctor makes her living performing that procedure. Some guy decides to put a stop to that, so he buys a sniper rifle and murders the doc. Either the doc or the guy could be evil; or maybe both, or neither. I'm sure both of them felt completely justified in their actions.

Another hypothetical: say there's some kind of militant group that hates a certain nation. They want to strike at their enemy, but they're too weak to attack head on. So a bunch of idiots hijack a plane and fly it into a building, killing themselves and thousands of innocent civilians. To do something like that, they'd have to be awfully sure of their own goodness, but I doubt the rest of the world would agree.

My point (and I do have one) is this. Nobody wakes up in the morning and says, "I think I'll go out and be evil." Most people think they have valid reasons for doing what they do. So even though the PC doesn't think he's evil, you should feel free to flip his alignment to CE as soon as you think it's appropriate.

 

[kreynolds]

say there's a medical procedure that some people think is evil.

And thus the fatal flaw of your argument, "some people". It's all about perspective.

Another hypothetical: say there's some kind of militant group that hates a certain nation. They want to strike at their enemy, but they're too weak to attack head on. So a bunch of idiots hijack a plane and fly it into a building, killing themselves and thousands of innocent civilians.

Uhmmm...that's not very hypothetical at all, but I digress...

To do something like that, they'd have to be awfully sure of their own goodness, but I doubt the rest of the world would agree.

That's just it. They believe we are evil. We believe they are evil. We believe we are right. They believe they are right. It's all a matter of perspective.

My point (and I do have one) is this. Nobody wakes up in the morning and says, "I think I'll go out and be evil."

Huh?

Most people think they have valid reasons for doing what they do.

Right. But who decides which reasons are valid? You? Hell no. I don't care of you're the DM or not. In some cases, yes, someone might have a pretty silly or stupid reason for doing what they did, but most of the time, it's not your place to decide whether or not those reasons are "valid".

Remember, those people that fly planes into buildings supposedly had "valid" reasons as well. I don't think they did, but there's that perspective thing again.

So even though the PC doesn't think he's evil, you should feel free to flip his alignment to CE as soon as you think it's appropriate.

Just make sure you know what you're doing when you do it, otherwise you'll just piss somebody off.

 

[Stalker0]

Auraseer brings up a really good point, a lot of time one's actions being evil or not depends on perspective. So does that mean detect evil would also be based on the caster's perspective?

What perspective does "magic" have in what's good and evil.

 

[Samothdm]

Right. But who decides which reasons are valid? You? Hell no. I don't care of you're the DM or not. In some cases, yes, someone might have a pretty silly or stupid reason for doing what they did, but most of the time, it's not your place to decide whether or not those reasons are "valid".

Whose place is it then?

I understand what you're saying from a "real world" standpoint, but I'm not sure how this holds as far as adjudicating alignment in-game, however. As the DM, am I not responsible for ruling on whether or not someone is following his/her alignment choice?

In this case, based on the rules I've set up for my world (the players know, or at least they should have read from my website, the laws and rules of the country in which they are in) it's quite clear that slitting the throats of these people is evil. I know that the character in question isn't actively making a "choice" to be evil.

But, that can be carried too far. Every time he did something, he could say, "Well, my character wouldn't think that's evil." There is too much potential for abuse there. That's why there are alignment guidelines, right?

[Edited to actually spell "you're" correctly - can't believe I did that!]

 

[Artoomis]

Whose place is it then?

I understand what your saying from a "real world" standpoint, but I'm not sure how this holds as far as adjudicating alignment in-game, however. As the DM, am I not responsible for ruling on whether or not someone is following his/her alignment choice?

Absolutely!! All you have to do is be sure not to "blindside" them. They need to know what you consider to be evil acts, and when it is "okay" for a neutral character to do an evil act.

If you make sure that's clear, you should have no problems.

 

[Speaks With Stone]

I must admit that my philosophy classes I took in college are far from recent, but . . .

Why is it okay to kill the bad guys in a stand up fight and bad to kill them when they can't hurt you? Sounds like tactics. It's not fair, so it sounds like good tactics.

A sense of fair play is great for movies and comic books, but in real conflicts of life and death, they fall apart. Generals make careers out of finding unfair advantages and applying overwhelming force against their opponents. Anything you can do to gain an advantage you do. Almost. In our world we have the Geneva Conventions and other treaties that limit certain weapons considered to be too horrible. Use of chemical and biological warfare is considered "evil" these days. Killing an enemy with bombs and missles from a range that cannot be defended or retaliated is considered good TV.

All I'm saying is that if it was right to kill these creatures/folk while they were able to fight back, what makes it wrong to do it from safety? Isn't that more or less what the State does with the death penalty? If I'm protecting my family/home/village whatever and the raper/pillager/murderer says he's going to finish his work as soon as he finishes his 1 minute nap - I'm not going to let him finish that nap. Taking the law into my own hands is unlawful, but if the ultimate good was accomplished - less killing/raping/pillaging, then I fail to see this as an evil act.

This came up in a recent game but only in passing. All of our characters are in a mercenary company and we routinely kill the color sprayed. We consider it a neutral act. They are just soldiers on the other side and yes, they would do the same to us.

 

[Felix]

Samothdm: what would the Good thing to do in that situation be? Not the Lawful act of bringing them to the authorities, but the Good act of.....what?

Also, you refer to the sleepers as people (humanoids?). Are they brigands, asassans, clerics of an evil diety.... not that it matters; just curious.

From my prospective, were I that rogue that silts throats (and I would slit away), I would invoke the description of the CN alignment in defence: "He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect other's freedom." PHB p. 89. I argue that what the rogue is doing is protecting his future by eliminating a threat which could come back to bite him in the tookus. He is also protecting his identity by not allowing any survivors to report to any superiors what the group's strenths are, or what they look like, etc, etc. IMHO, I think your rogue is tying loose ends, reducing future threats, and playing CN perfectly.

Waking those bad guys up first, THEN coup de grasing them would be Evil. That's just mean.

 

[kreynolds]

Whose place is it then?

The player's. It's his character after all. Your job is to inforce alignment labeling. I'll explain this more in a bit.

I understand what you're saying from a "real world" standpoint, but I'm not sure how this holds as far as adjudicating alignment in-game, however.

It's the same either way. Slitting someone's throat in D&D or the real world is the same, no matter which way you look at it. It could be evil or it could be representative of total neutrality and/or chaotic behavior, but it isn't evil by default. Assuming it's evil by default immediately labels such a game as taking place in a utopian society, where the acts of good and evil are clearly spelled out and all unanimously agree.

As the DM, am I not responsible for ruling on whether or not someone is following his/her alignment choice?

To an extent. Like I said, you have to keep in mind that you're perspective might be different, and you're perspective is the most important since you are the DM. Your perspective decides whether or not someone can use an alignment attuned magic item. Your perspective decides whether or not an alignment attuned spell will protect/effect someone. Your perspective decides whether or not someone can have access to a particular class feature or features, and it also decides whether or not someone loses a particular class feature or features.

Because of all of this, your perspective has the most potential to completely destroy the image of a character, and believe me, the player knows their character far better than you ever will (optimally, anyway).

The trick is that you must be impartial in deciding what is right or wrong and good or evil. You have to look at it with a fair eye. Slitting someone's throat is not always an evil act. It depends upon the circumstances, and that's just one example.

In this case, based on the rules I've set up for my world (the players know, or at least they should have read from my website, the laws and rules of the country in which they are in) it's quite clear that slitting the throats of these people is evil.

You don't understand. The laws of the land and the rules of the country have no bearing at all, whatsoever, in any way, shape, or form, on whether or not something is good or evil. Laws of the lands and rules of the countries determine whether or not something is right or wrong, but never good or evil.

Good and evil is a matter of perspective, the perspective of all involved.

I know that the character in question isn't actively making a "choice" to be evil.

It doesn't matter. If it is against the law of the lands to steal apple pies from people's window sills, that doesn't mean it would be evil to do so. It simply means it's against the law, or wrong, if you prefer.

Sometimes what is against the law and what is evil is the same, but not always.

But, that can be carried too far. Every time he did something, he could say, "Well, my character wouldn't think that's evil." There is too much potential for abuse there. That's why there are alignment guidelines, right?

Alignment guidelines exist for many reasons, some of which include class and prestige class availability, magic items, spells, etc. Technically, it's your job as the DM to determine if an act is evil, but trust me, that most certainly doesn't mean that you're right, as it is all a matter of perspective.

Remember this though, law never equates to good and evil. Never.