Alignment Question

[Artoomis]

I just thought of a great way to handle this. First, some background:

Modern war has a concept known as "Rules of War." This is a legally binding set of rule for what is acceptable in war and waht is not, and includes the Gevena Convention and other things as well. It has rule such as churches may not be targetted normally, nor may Red Cross vehiocles or personnel, and pilots may not be shor at from the ground when parachuting, but troops when parachuting may be attacked while descending.

Anyway - to prevent this issue from being an on-going pain in your rear, you may want to consider published some from of "Rules of Good Adventuring" for your group. this would set out what is and is not "allowed" - putting players on notice for what acts would be considered evil and/or chaotic.

You might include things like:

Spoils:

1. When outside of civilized areas, any goods discovered while adventuring are generally considered as belonging to the discovering party.

2. When foes are slain, all their goods belong to those who defeat them.

Captives:

1. Every effort should be made to bring captives to justice - alive.

2. Captives may be summarily executed if:
a. There exists a policy of "shoot on site" for whatever reason - be they bandits, known evil monsters, etc.
b. If they are non-intelligent beings such as animals.
c. If they represent a threat too great to keep under control as captives.

Well, you get the idea. A few written guidlines might help, if you are really struggling with this.

 

[Artoomis]

Since this is the Rules forum, let me quote the SRD:

Good vs. Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil.

Law and Chaos

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, and a lack of adaptability.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.

People who are neutral with respect to law and chaos have a normal respect for authority and feel neither a compulsion to obey nor to rebel. They are honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral.

I hope that helps.

 

[Felix]

Artoomis, your heading: Captives, Section 2, Atricle C, is a ridiculously elastic clause. Not that this was a final draft but just an idea, any code like this is bound to have problems when it comes to judgement calls.

Also, what if they don't want to be good? The LN mage, the N druid: should they give a damn about these rules? Would they be punished by alignment change if they broke them? No evil in a campaign party I can understand, but to disallow Neutral?

 

[KarinsDad]

Also, what if they don't want to be good? The LN mage, the N druid: should they give a damn about these rules? Would they be punished by alignment change if they broke them? No evil in a campaign party I can understand, but to disallow Neutral?

I disallow neutral and evil PCs in my campaigns. Only good PCs allowed.

It is Heroic Fantasy, not hack and slash.

The players know that and expect to get rewarded (experience, storyline, treasure) when they go above and beyond heroically and expect to possibly get trashed if they act non-heroically. This is dependant on circumstance. I do not keep track of every little misdeed, but if they constantly do questionable actions, sooner or later some NPC or groups of NPCs will notice and there will be repercussions of some sort, be it reputation, being hunted, whatever based on situation.

Also, fellow PCs will object to evil actions, so it tends to be self policing.

 

[Samothdm]

kreynolds, I do understand what you're saying. And, yes, I was (am) messing up the interpretation of "law" vs. "good" and "evil."

But, as was just pointed out above from the SRD:

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

So, to my mind:
1) They had incapacitated the brigands (these are a mixture of human and half-goblin brigands) with the sleep spell.
2) They had other options rather than immediately resorting to "Let's slit their throats!".
2a) Tie them up and come back for them later (post an NPC guard to watch them)
2b) Take them with them until they got back to civilization
2c) The cleric player could have chatted with them, tried to show them the error of their ways, and tried to convert them to his faith (religion plays a big part in my campaign - yes, this is more of a role-playing thing than an alignment thing, but a "good" cleric might see this as an alternative to slitting their throats, right?)

I understand your point that what is seen as "good" to someone might be seen as "evil" to someone else, and you think that it's the player's interpretation of how his character would view those acts that should count.

But, ultimately, I would use the "average person" test. Would the average person in my world believe that slitting the throats of sleeping people is evil? In my world (ie, maybe not in your campaign world) the average person would see that as evil.

Maybe that is a "utopian" society, but that's how I see my campaign world.

 

[Felix]

I'm not so sure that Good = Heroic.

Samothdm, if you look a little further down the SRD description of G v E, you will notice that Neutral, which this theif is, adjudicates by personal relationship. These fellows had just attacked with intent to kill, so there is not much of a relationship there to influence the rogue to save their lives.

Will the cleric and paladin object and possibly bonk the rogue's noggin for slitting throats? Sure. That is a different matter entirely.

 

[bensei]

IMHO you get in all the trouble, if you argument the way:
-> First define alignment, then design character according to this alignment.
If one takes it the other way around:
-> First design character, then decide which alignment could describe this character the best (or the least worst) way
there is a lot less problems with that.

After all, the whole alignment story is just a technical issue, which is important for some cleric spells and other technical stuff.

What is really important is how the player wants his character to be like. And if a player wants to play a character which is essentially good hearted, but on the other hand extremely opportunistic and sees it as okay to perform coup-de-grace-techniques in a battle, then let this player play his character!
Well, then one has to find an alignment which fits - and well, chaotic neutral fits quite well, doesn't it?

But you know what the character is like - and that is what counts in roleplaying, not a 3x3-matrix of alignment descriptions.

(EDIT: too many typos)

 

[kreynolds]

OK. Let me just get this off my chest. If anyone interprets this...

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

...literally, then your games are gonna go nowhere fast. Taking that at face value means:

1) No hurting of yourself.
2) No hurting of your enemies.
3) No hurting of your evemies even if they are hurting you.
4) No hurting of your enemies even if they are going to kill you.
5) No hurting of your enemies even if they are going to kill you, your family, and your dog.
6) No hurting of your enemies even if they are going to kill you, your family, and your dog, then cook all of you and eat you.
7) No hurting of your enemies even if they are going to kill you, your family, and your dog, then cook all of you and eat you, but save some of you and your family's "special" parts for mucho fun at a later date.

That statement in the SRD, and the corebooks, is useless without a brain attached to it.

 

[kreynolds]

I understand your point that what is seen as "good" to someone might be seen as "evil" to someone else, and you think that it's the player's interpretation of how his character would view those acts that should count.

No. You don't see it. But it's not your fault. Very few people can look at good and evil or right and wrong with absolute neutrality, so I can't blame you for not being able to.

Generally, in a campaign, what is good and evil is decided upon by the DM, mostly because he sets the mood of the world. But, that's why I'm so picky about DMs I game with. I don't want to play in Barbi-happy-go-lucky-world where good and evil are predetermined and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what you, the player, think about it. Personally, I prefer a flexible environment, but that's just me.

But, ultimately, I would use the "average person" test. Would the average person in my world believe that slitting the throats of sleeping people is evil? In my world (ie, maybe not in your campaign world) the average person would see that as evil.

I can't stress enough how that doesn't matter. A law does not make something evil. A majority of shared viewpoints doesn't make something evil either, which brings us back to that perspective thing.

Maybe that is a "utopian" society, but that's how I see my campaign world.

And that's fine, but you should make that clear before anyone even sets their dice down on your table for the first time.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm not so sure that Good = Heroic.

If not Good, what is?

Neutral?

Evil?

Lawful?

From the SRD:

Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.


Heroic is generally defined as helping others, even if it means sacrificing your own life.

Out of the basic 5 alignment definitions (Good, Evil, Neutral, Lawful, Chaotic), only Good matches that. A Lawful Neutral character may lose his life doing his duty and may be called a hero for that, but that is not the true definition of a hero, rather that is a bit of a mis-nomer. A true hero helps others, even if it is not within the scope of his duty to do so. A LN character helps others as part of his duty or honor, but typically not if those do not require it.


And, I'd rather have a campaign of PC Heroes than one of PC Mercenaries any day. Just my preference.