Alignment Question

[Lord Ben]

In my campaign I played a LG fighter who was the x-cohort of a Paladin of Heironious that was killed by a cleric of Hextor. Well, we're in a bar and I see this Cleric of Hextor, I knew I couldn't take him in a fair fight so I wanted to ambush him outside of town (I was an archer, that was good tactics to eliminate a potentially huge threat to peace), anyways the DM said that would turn me neutral so I didn't do it. That was the last time I ever played a good character with that DM... I feel that eliminating evil threats is more important then "fighting fairly" I smite evil, not reform it. He had his whole life to repent, today is the day of judgement!! I bring justice, I don't call for repentance. Anyhow, I was forced to:

A: Break character and do something I wouldn't.
B: Break alignment.

Both options suck.

The Cleric in the party negotiated surrender with some giants and another member thought they should just kill him. After the party left he returned and killed them. The DM turned him evil and he never returned.

The players should have some say in alignment descriptions. What's next, smite evil only does subdual damage? Another option would be to have some NPC's surrender and keep their word. If they release someone and trust them to just leave and they reattack that's your fault as a DM. If you want the players to spare that 4th level fighter who was sleeping then don't have him turn on them the minute he gets a chance. If you do then don't blame them when they kill him.

In my campaign Paladins are there to fight evil that others can't or won't. That's their overriding goal is making sure communities are safe.

 

[Artoomis]

Lord Ben:

LG characters, in particular, should be facing very tough choices. In the case of the Clric of Hextor, the LG fighter should be facing the choice of how to deal with him - but the answer must be "honorable" or the LG fighter is not really LG.

Kill all evil no matter how, is NOT LG - that's more like CG.

If you go back and look at the alignment descriptions, there is pretty good guidance in just a few sentances.

 

[AuraSeer]

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

Maybe I should've explained more clearly, because it looks like I didn't get my point across.

In the real world, good and evil may depend on perspective. But in the game, Good and Evil exist as tangible forces that have an undeniable effect on the world. If the DM judges a certain act to be evil, then as far as the game world is concerned, it really is evil. Celestials, the physical representation of goodness, will disapprove of that act. Characters in the world can reliably contact their dieties, ask about the morality of the response, and get an unequivocal response.

Imagine two people with completely opposing viewpoints and behavior patterns. Each thinks he is completely morally correct in all things. IRL when this happens, all we get is arguments and wars, and there's no objective standard to judge by. In D&D on the other hand, a clerical True Seeing can read their auras and tell objectively who's good and who's evil. And after a D&D character dies, someone could travel the planes and find out where their soul ended up.

Out of game, the player can argue with the DM as to whether the act is evil. The DM may listen or not. But in game, the character can only make rationalizations to himself. His thoughts have no bearing on the order of the universe. Evil acts (as judged by the DM, via the gods or whatever) will give him an evil alignment, even if he thinks he's being good (or neutral).

 

[KarinsDad]

In the real world, good and evil may depend on perspective. But in the game, Good and Evil exist as tangible forces that have an undeniable effect on the world. If the DM judges a certain act to be evil, then as far as the game world is concerned, it really is evil. Celestials, the physical representation of goodness, will disapprove of that act. Characters in the world can reliably contact their dieties, ask about the morality of the response, and get an unequivocal response.

Imagine two people with completely opposing viewpoints and behavior patterns. Each thinks he is completely morally correct in all things. IRL when this happens, all we get is arguments and wars, and there's no objective standard to judge by. In D&D on the other hand, a clerical True Seeing can read their auras and tell objectively who's good and who's evil. And after a D&D character dies, someone could travel the planes and find out where their soul ended up.

Out of game, the player can argue with the DM as to whether the act is evil. The DM may listen or not. But in game, the character can only make rationalizations to himself. His thoughts have no bearing on the order of the universe. Evil acts (as judged by the DM, via the gods or whatever) will give him an evil alignment, even if he thinks he's being good (or neutral).

Absolutely!

In the real world, evil is relative.

In the game world, evil is relative to what the DM says it is and is extremely tangible. Ditto for good. Ditto for neutral.

 

[KarinsDad]

LG characters, in particular, should be facing very tough choices. In the case of the Clric of Hextor, the LG fighter should be facing the choice of how to deal with him - but the answer must be "honorable" or the LG fighter is not really LG.

Kill all evil no matter how, is NOT LG - that's more like CG.

This is a very difficult thing for some players to grasp, even for us who think we get it.

It is usually easy to understand evil vs. good. It is usually easy to understand law vs. chaos. But, when you mix them together, people sometimes get confused.

I would have agreed with Lord Ben's DM and Artoomis. Ambush is not an honorable or lawful action for a Lawful Good character. It could, however, be a totally lawful action for a Lawful Evil character. "We always ambush our enemies. That's how we have always done it. It's a tradition." Extremely lawful. Just evil as well.

However, it is sometimes difficult to see that an action can be lawful for a Lawful Evil character, but not for a Lawful Good character.

Just like killing a sleeping opponent is not a neutral action. Chaotic Neutral does not mean that you delve heavily into evil or good, just because your actions are random. You cannot just ignore the neutral portion of Chaotic Neutral because it is expedient. The character is neither good, nor evil. Hence, he should not act in those manners, especially in the extreme.

But, it's sometimes hard to see this.

 

[Lord Ben]

Lord Ben:

LG characters, in particular, should be facing very tough choices. In the case of the Clric of Hextor, the LG fighter should be facing the choice of how to deal with him - but the answer must be "honorable" or the LG fighter is not really LG.

Kill all evil no matter how, is NOT LG - that's more like CG.

If you go back and look at the alignment descriptions, there is pretty good guidance in just a few sentances.

I choose to disagree. LG tell the truth, I didn't lie about anything. I didn't say "lets duel in the morning" and then kill him in his sleep. They also believe in structure instead of chaos. I believe in a structured society. It's the best way to care for people. People who disrupt that or who want to enslave them should be eliminated. Nowhere does it say I'm limited to full frontal assults in broad daylight. Before playing LG or a Paladin I'll ask the DM what it means to him. If he's overly narrow I won't play one.

In my campaign they're allowed to fight against evil in the best way available while helping people. As long as they don't harm any good people it's fair game. If I were to have a paladin track down an evil PC in my game I'd deliver them a note like this "Dear Sir, I'm dispatching several of my best Paladins to bring justice to you for your act of evil in desecrating and looting our temple. I hope you atone before they arrive and return what you have stolen or provided funds for their replacement. You will not recieve a second warning." When the Paladins arrive they can do what they want. There is no "Hark, I challenge thee to a duel!"

 

[Lord Ben]

Lawful - believes in a structured society or order.
Good - Seeks to help people.

What did I violate? Was it honorable? No, but that's not what I was going for. I was engaging a superior foe, and could have possibly beat him using superior tactics. Since the DM limted me to breaking alignment or letting him walk away and do more evil I let him do more evil.

Screw it from now on, I can do more good by being my CN Dwarven Ftr/Bbn then my quasi-paladin LG fighter.

Duels are all good in a movie where the good guy always wins, but in the real world threats should be eliminated. Paladins live in the "real" world and some things are to be expected.

 

[Artoomis]

Lord Ben:

"I couldn't take him in a fair fight so I ambushed him"

That's an "ends justifies the means" argument - a very good one for CG or NG alignments - for LG, the means is just as important as the ends.

A LG character would normally NOT ambush the bad guy in this manner - though he certainly would be free to exercise discretion (he's not stupid, after all) - and perhaps even find a worthy champion to fight the cleric. Among other things, he's taking the law into his own hands.

This sort of argument leads to chaos:

Evil is bad. Order is good. Things that are evil and threaten the social order should be eliminated by any means possible - even if outside the law. Boy, oh boy, does sound like CG/NG to me.

A few key words from the "Law" and "Good" alignments may help:

Honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability; close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, and a lack of adaptability.

Altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings; personal sacrifices to help others.

Hmmm..... Put those together and I just don't see "Gee I can't beat him in a fair fight, so I'll cheat..."

 

[Ristamar]

Ambush is not an honorable or lawful action for a Lawful Good character. It could, however, be a totally lawful action for a Lawful Evil character. "We always ambush our enemies. That's how we have always done it. It's a tradition." Extremely lawful. Just evil as well.

Well, since this thread is all about opinions, I'll throw in mine.

Personally, I don't see why a Lawful Good character wouldn't set up an ambush. Sure, many might not, certain orders might forbid or discourage it (like the Knights of Solamnia), but to say all Lawful Good PC's would avoid ambush tactics is a bit silly, IMO.

This topic reminded me of one of the NPC's in the old Karameikos box set. A female paladin. One of her mottos was something along the lines of "good does not mean 'stupid'..." She wasn't afraid of using allegedly 'underhanded' tactics when dealing with evils that threatened her safety, her king, or her country.

Of course, as many have already pointed out, much of it comes down to a matter of perspective.

 

[Artoomis]

Well, since this thread is all about opinions, I'll throw in mine.

Personally, I don't see why a Lawful Good character wouldn't set up an ambush. Sure, many might not, certain orders might forbid or discourage it (like the Knights of Solamnia), but to say all Lawful Good PC's would avoid ambush tactics is a bit silly, IMO.

This topic reminded me of one of the NPC's in the old Karameikos box set. A female paladin. One of her mottos was something along the lines of "good does not mean 'stupid'..." She wasn't afraid of using allegedly 'underhanded' tactics when dealing with evils that threatened her safety, her king, or her country.

Of course, as many have already pointed out, much of it comes down to a matter of perspective.

Ah, but there is a difference between an ambush out in the boonies somewhere (something akin to being in war zone) and the attitude of I just met the big baddie in town - "I can't beat him in a fair fight, so I'll ambush him as he leaves town."

I trust you see the difference? The first is tactics, the second is more like murder.