Alignment Situations I

[RigaMortus]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Alignment Situations I

If I drop a thief into a pool with a crocodile and the crocodile chooses to eat him, it doesn't absolve me of moral responsibility because I didn't kill the thief personally. Similarly, if I give a fire giant to guards who have no way to contain him and will therefore most likely kill him, that does not absolve me of the moral responsibility attached to his death.

[edit to addVengeance may be chaotic, but it certainly isn't Good...!

Except that crocodiles react on instinct, where as humans have a conscience. I fail to see your point with this analogy.

You drop the giant, doing enough subdual damage that he will be out for a few hours. Tell the guards about your discovery and let them deal with the giant. You don't know either way if the guards are going to free it, capture it, enslave it, or kill it. So this would be the just and good thing to do. Once the guards react, then you can react. If they kill the thing in your presense, then you can question thier motivations. Why did they do that? Perhaps the guards are corrupt? Evil? Who knows. The point is, up until that point you don't know. So you just did the good and just thing. You are not a guard or protector of the city, so you don't know the correct method of dealing with these creatures. If you were, then you'd know.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

The point isn't why the giant is killed (the croc's instinct or the guard's choice), but that you knew that was the most likely result of your actions. The guards can't contain/reform a fire giant, so most likely they're going to kill it. Delivering the fire giant into most likely lethal hands is only slightly better than simply killing it yourself. The fact that other hands did the killing doesn't absolve you of the moral responsibility.

 

[RigaMortus]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Alignment Situations I

[edit to addVengeance may be chaotic, but it certainly isn't Good...!

What about a Paladin of St. Cuthbert? Are they allowed to be vengeful?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Situation A: The group is attacked by a group of thieves right outside a city. The thieves are easily subdued. Some are unconscious and bleeding to death.

Question 1: What should the healers do?
LG = Bind and heal them, then turn them into the local authorities. Or, if the local authorities condone this kind of thing, commence judgement of them after they wake up -- allow them to present their case, and punish them as appropriate (such as by stripping them of their belongings).
NG = Bind and heal them, then give them a chance to explain why they did it. If they had a good reason, help them find a different way to accomplish their goals. If they were in it for wicked reasons, punish them somehow (but not cruelly).
CG = Bind and heal them, and ask them why they did it. If they did it for a good reason, help them to find a different way. If they did it for a wicked reason, punish them somehow (but not cruelly).

Question 2: Should the group take prisoners and turn them in at the local guard?
LG = Yes. Those who surrender are entitled to Law's due process
NG = Probably. We want to save those we can, and giving them to the authorities means we don't have to deal with them.
CG = Take prisoners, sure, but there's no reason we have to get the constubalry involved in this. And we've gotta let 'em go after they don't pose a threat anymore.

Situation B: The group is attacked by 2 Fire Giants. One is taken down and then the other cries surrender.

Question 1: How should they react?
LG = Accept the surrender, and perhaps turn them in to local authorities, if any exist. Otherwise, just see what you can do to stop them from doing this in the future, too.
NG = Accept the surrender, and see what you can do to make it so they don't have to do this again. Only turn 'em in if they still might pose a threat.
CG = Accept the surrender, see what you can do to stop it, and move on.

Question 2: The group paladin already determined they were evil. Would this change how the group should react?
LG = Nope. They can repent, especially through the proper mediums.
NG = Nope. But you definately don't want to give them any means to follow you -- one surrendered, take advantage of that.
CG = Nope. It's their choice to be evil, though it is the wrong one. Tell them if they try anything else, you probably won't hesitate to kill them.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alignment Situations I

What about a Paladin of St. Cuthbert? Are they allowed to be vengeful?

No. A paladin of St. Cuthbert may act to carry out the vengeance of another (smiting the BBEG that burned down the innocent village), so long as his actions are Good. But hunting down and killing the Chaotic-Neutral thieves who killed his friend is straight out, God of Vengeance or no God of Vengeance. That way likes the Dark Side...

 

[RigaMortus]

The point isn't why the giant is killed (the croc's instinct or the guard's choice), but that you knew that was the most likely result of your actions. The guards can't contain/reform a fire giant, so most likely they're going to kill it. Delivering the fire giant into most likely lethal hands is only slightly better than simply killing it yourself. The fact that other hands did the killing doesn't absolve you of the moral responsibility.

I disagree here. You don't KNOW that the guards will kill him. You can assume that they will if you want to, but you shouldn't assume that the guards will blatantly kill the thing. Since they are guards, they are probably Lawful. As such, they need to abide by the laws. And if you are unsure if the guards are good or evil, then you should detect them. Unless I have first hand knowledge of a guard of Town X as being evil, you have to give the guards the benefit of the doubt.

Should I kill that beggar on the street because one day he might kill someone? After all, poverty breeds crime. I'd be stopping a potential crime by killing that beggar. I could save an innocent person's life, or many innocent people's lives. That is what assuming will get you.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

CG = Take prisoners, sure, but there's no reason we have to get the constubalry involved in this. And we've gotta let 'em go after they don't pose a threat anymore.

Why? If you let the thieves go, they're most likely going to thieve again. And kill in the process of thieving. Why would a Good person choose to allow this?

Aaargh. I can see that if I stay in this thread much longer, I'm going to give myself a migraine.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I disagree here. You don't KNOW that the guards will kill him. You can assume that they will if you want to, but you shouldn't assume that the guards will blatantly kill the thing. Since they are guards, they are probably Lawful. As such, they need to abide by the laws. And if you are unsure if the guards are good or evil, then you should detect them. Unless I have first hand knowledge of a guard of Town X as being evil, you have to give the guards the benefit of the doubt.

You're ignoring the fact that we're dealing with a fire giant here. If it were a human, then sure--taking it to the guards is fine, because you can reasonably expect the human to be tried by a court of law and given a fair shake. But we're talking about a fire giant. Human settlements can't handle that. Most likely, the guards are going to kill it to protect themselves. Saying, "well...maybe they won't kill it" when you know they will is denying reality, and that doesn't absolve you of the moral responsibility either.

Let me state also that were the guards we're dealing with here also fire giants--or 20th-level fighters--the situation would change. Then you could reasonably believe that the guards may not kill the giant, and instead try to reform him or inprison him, etc. But in the scenario as given, you can't reasonably believe that the guards--dealing with a soon-to-be-waking fire giant, aren't going to kill it. Because you know they'll probably kill it, you share in the responsibility for its death.

Should I kill that beggar on the street because one day he might kill someone? After all, poverty breeds crime. I'd be stopping a potential crime by killing that beggar. I could save an innocent person's life, or many innocent people's lives. That is what assuming will get you.

Now you're hyperbolizing your examples, which doesn't really prove anything. But I'll play even so.

No, you shouldn't kill the beggar, because you can reasonably believe that this beggar may not commit a crime.

Now let us change the beggar into a unrepentant serial-killer. Should you kill him? After all, you are virtually guaranteed to be stopping a crime by doing so. The answer to this is also no, because you can imprison the serial-killer, and thus also prevent the crime.

Changing it even further, what if we make the unrepentant serial-killer into a dragon? We have no hope of containing it. We have no hope of stopping it from killing again if it so chooses. Should we kill it if we get the chance? Yes.

Of course, we don't know that the fire giant of the above scenario is an unrepentant serial killer, so the question is not so cut and dried. But all of this is immaterial to the moral decision that we (as the adventurers with the subdued fire giant) are facing anyway. The above discussion pertains to the moral decision the guards will make, if we decide to give the giant to them.

Our only concern, as the adventurers, is whether our actions will result in the fire giant's death. If we can reasonably assume that the guards will kill the giant (and I believe we can, assuming a basic humanoid settlement) then choosing to give the giant to the guards is tantamount to choosing to kill the giant. That was my point originally.

 

[Ferret]

Situation A: The group is attacked by a group of thieves right outside a city. The thieves are easily subdued. Some are unconscious and bleeding to death.

Question 1: What should the healers do?
LG = Heal them so they don't die and send them back to the law
NG = Heal them all the way up and let them go, stern warning
CG = Kill, they tried to rob/kill them.

Question 2: Should the group take prisoners and turn them in at the local guard?
LG = Yes
NG = Yes/maybe
CG = no

Situation B: The group is attacked by 2 Fire Giants. One is taken down and then the other cries surrender.

Question 1: How should they react?
LG = Let him run off
NG = Kill him, he is a menace
CG = Kill him, he messed with you

Question 2: The group paladin already determined they were evil. Would this change how the group should react?
LG = Could kill him with same reasons of ng above, or let them run of
NG = Same
CG =Same

 

[RigaMortus]

You're ignoring the fact that we're dealing with a fire giant here. If it were a human, then sure--taking it to the guards is fine, because you can reasonably expect the human to be tried by a court of law and given a fair shake. But we're talking about a fire giant. Human settlements can't handle that. Most likely, the guards are going to kill it to protect themselves. Saying, "well...maybe they won't kill it" when you know they will is denying reality, and that doesn't absolve you of the moral responsibility either.

The point is, that is not your decision to make. The guards have the lawful authority to dispense this type of menace, not you. So if they did choose to kill it, that should be no moral dilemna for you. If you capture a murderer, and he is imprisioned and tried and gets the death penalty, are you responsible for their death? No, because he was tried in convicted and sentanced under the law. That is (or at least can be, depending on your campaign setting) what the guards do. They (might) have the lawful authority to act as judge, jury and executioner. And if they lawfully do not, but do it anyway, then they would be evil, and the adventurer's can deal with them from that point on.

Let me state also that were the guards we're dealing with here also fire giants--or 20th-level fighters--the situation would change. Then you could reasonably believe that the guards may not kill the giant, and instead try to reform him or inprison him, etc. But in the scenario as given, you can't reasonably believe that the guards--dealing with a soon-to-be-waking fire giant, aren't going to kill it. Because you know they'll probably kill it, you share in the responsibility for its death.

And how do you know those guards aren't 20th level fighters? Are you going to ask them? Mr. Guard, what level are you? It is quite simple as I see it. You subdued a major menace. The battle for you is one. You have no further obligation to imprision or kill this creature. This creature's fate is up to the local authorities, ie the guards. If they choose to kill it, do I share in the responsibilty for it's death? No, see the above reply. And even if a character is feeling guilty because of this, I would rather share in the responsibility of it's death than had we chosen not to stop it, and shared in the responsibility of innocent people's deaths.

Our only concern, as the adventurers, is whether our actions will result in the fire giant's death. If we can reasonably assume that the guards will kill the giant (and I believe we can, assuming a basic humanoid settlement) then choosing to give the giant to the guards is tantamount to choosing to kill the giant. That was my point originally.

I agree with your other scenarios except this. And I've already addressed my feeling about it in the two quotes above. The adventurer's are not responsible for anyone else's actions but their own.