Alignment Situations I

[Olive]

here's my opinion.
situation A: All would probably stabilise them, and then take them to the guards (providing the guards aren't super evil or anything). Stabilising is obvious, but why would a CG character take them to the guards? because it would be stupid not to of course!!! leaving dying people in the street is dumb. if the theives aren't well known as such then they could tell the guards you you tried to rob them! All sorts of possibilities exist for parties who don't follow up on their actions.

Situation B: I can't tell from what you;ve told me here. Where is the party? are they in more danger? etc.

Anyway, just thought I'd say that I reckon that people who think that chaotic means suffering from ADD need to think harder about alignment.

 

[RigaMortus]

But we aren't discussing law here, we're discussing morals. So whether or not the guards have the lawful right to kill and you do not is immaterial. To illustrate my point, consider that doctors currently have the lawful right to perform abortions, yet many still argue that they are, morally speaking, murderers.

No, there are two facets to this. The questions asked involved Law/Chaos as well as Good/Evil. The Good thing to do is to not kill the giant, spare him as you would want to be spared in his place. Now we get to the Lawful/Chaotic part of the equation. Do you leave him be (Chaotic) and walk away? Or do you hand him over to the authorities (Lawful)?

Sorry, but I don't quite follow the analogy of the doctor/abortion thing as it relates to this. I'm sure it does relate somehow, but I don't see it. Sorry...

This is a very compelling argument for why turning over the giant to the guards would be the Lawful thing to do, but when determing the Good of an act, law becomes irrelevant.Let me rephrase it, then. The situation would be different if the adventures know that the authorities can safely contain the fire giant, and thus judgement is a real option. So long as the situation is thus, that the guards will almost certainly kill the giant, my assertions stand.

Again, it isn't the adventurer's responsibility or problem any longer. They subdued the menace and now the guards (or whatever authorities are current available, perhaps Wizards who can use magic to banish the fire giant) will deal with them according to their own laws.

This is an entirely different issue. Sometimes we do things that aren't morally clean, and sometimes we believe those things are worth the moral cost. If I kill a man who is threatening to kill my mother, I've commited a morally culpable act, but may still find it worth it. I've placed my mother's life above her assailant's. Is that Good? No. But I'd still do it again and again. As I said, this really has no bearing on the issue at hand...Yes, but they cannot simply "pass the buck" and absolve themselves of responsibility.

Yes, it is a Good act (as DnD defines it, we are still talking in game terms, right?). You protected an innocent from someone committing an evil act. If there was no other way, then you did the right thing. If the murderer surrendered, and you killed him anyway, it would be "evil". If you were able to subdue the murderer easily, but instead used lethal force and killed him, it would be "evil".

Consider this: my brother has threatened his girlfriend that if he learns that she has cheated on him, he'll kill her. He's serious, and I believe he'll do it. I then learn that the gf cheated on my brother, and shortly afterward my brother asks me: did my gf cheat on me?

I have a choice: I can tell him the truth, or I can lie. If I tell him the truth and my brother kills his gf, would you argue that I am blameless in the gf's death?

If your answer is "yes," then we simply have different ethical views. If your answer is "no" then look at the fire giant scenario again, because it's the same thing.

This is not the same thing. First off, if your brother told you this and you genuinely beleived him, I think the first thing to do would be to talk to him. Get him to listen to reason. Tell him, if such a thing ever happened (Heironeous forbid) it's not worth killing her over. If you felt that he could not listen to reason, I would get someone else involved. Other family members, a shrink (not the spell, the doctor) or the authorities if necessary. If you are willing to beleive he is willing and capable of murder, you should do something about it right away.

This would occur even before the gf tried to confide in you.

I do not think you are responsible for the actions of others. If I purchase a magic potion from an evil Cleric (whom I did not know was evil, nor did I have any way to find out on my own) and that evil Cleric used the money I payed him to purchase a magic wand, and then proceeded to use that wand to kill innocent people, would I be to blame?

Let's not even go that far. Let's say those theives in scenario 1 win the battle, and do not kill you. Instead, they rob you blind, and use your money/items/etc. to harm other people. Are you to blame?

I should think not.

 

[Pants]

Again, it isn't the adventurer's responsibility or problem any longer. They subdued the menace and now the guards (or whatever authorities are current available, perhaps Wizards who can use magic to banish the fire giant) will deal with them according to their own laws.

What if the Fire Giant later breaks free and kills everyone in the town because the guards weren't able to contain it? Would the adventurers be responsible for those deaths since they brought the giant to the town? Or would they be absolved from any guilt, because it wasn't there problem anymore?
It seems to be a bit risky to turn the giant in to the local authorities UNLESS the party knows that the guards can safely contain the giant.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The authorities can clearly deal with a single giant in SOME manner - or else the settlement would not exist at all, not with a stronghold of giants nearby.

Lord Pendragon - your latest example is nothing like the problem in question. To make it similar, you would have to not know how your brother would react, just know that he'd be unlikely to take it well. That's significantly different from the situation you presented.

Furthermore, your brother would have to be a police officer or some other form of authority.

Then the situation would have to be something closer to knowing that a murderer was on the loose. It has to be something which is against the law, and within the jurisdiction of your brother.

Then you have to change that 'on the loose' bit to 'the murderer has been personally captured by me, here he is'.

You would have to have some form of evidence that he's a murderer.

You would have to be handing him over to someone whom you don't personally know.

So, if you consider yourself lawful and you arrested a murderer, and had evidence which could be raised against him, would you hand him over to the police?

That's the question.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Originally posted by Kamikaze Midget
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?

Because for a Chaotic Good person, freedom is as important as doing the Right Thing. In fact, they're most often synonymous. Keeping them tied up and helpless wouldn't be the Right Thing to Do because it deprives them of any choices of their own. It totally disintegrates their individual rites, and makes the enforcer become an agent of outside law -- something that a person who's concerned with Freedom wouldn't want. You're no better than a piggy policeman if you keep them tied up, and since that represents everythign that's WRONG with society, you naturally wouldn't want to do it.

It's important to a Chaotic Good person to preserve the freedoms of all involved. The fact that the theives surrendered means that they've already reconsidered their lives at least enough to throw themselves on a stranger's mercy. Taking prisoners means that they'll be put in a safe place until the conflict dies down, and they can be released again, ostensibly not to do the same thing. If they do steal again, than that is their free choice, just as it is the free choice of the town they steal from to hire some less ethical adventurers to do away with the problem...this is why Evil Adventurers exist. There are some things that towns want done that Good Guys just wouldn't like doing.

Also, if the theives repeated the strategy, they'd become known for it, and it wouldn't work.

A Good person would allow mercy, and a Chaotic Good person would allow mercy individually, and preserve their inalienable right to choose to do the wrong thing, until the chooser fails to repent (which effectively happens the next time they try it, or the time after that). To a Chaotic Good person, those individuals that may be killed due to this one person's wrong choice are unavoidable -- some will die. But They must live and die in freedom, not in bondage.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

So, if you consider yourself lawful and you arrested a murderer, and had evidence which could be raised against him, would you hand him over to the police?

That's the question.

No it's not. For goodness' sake. Okay, let me try to lay it out without using any examples, since those seem to get me into trouble.

Adventurers have control of a giant. If they reasonably believe that turning him over to guards will result in his death, then they are partially responsible for his death.

Adventurers have control of a giant. If they believe that their actions whatever they may be will directly result in the giant's death, then they are partially responsible for the giant's death.

The fact that they are giving the giant to guards makes no difference, because we are dealing with the Good/Evil, moral axis. The fact that the law of the land says the guards are empowered to kill the giant makes no difference.

Legality is meaningless. Only morality. And if the adventurers know that what they do will mean the giant's death, then they have to share the blame for that death.

 

[RigaMortus]

What if the Fire Giant later breaks free and kills everyone in the town because the guards weren't able to contain it? Would the adventurers be responsible for those deaths since they brought the giant to the town? Or would they be absolved from any guilt, because it wasn't there problem anymore?
It seems to be a bit risky to turn the giant in to the local authorities UNLESS the party knows that the guards can safely contain the giant.

I most certainly would NOT bring the giant to the town. After it was subdued and I was sure it would be out of awhile, I'd tell the local authorities about it. Maybe leave a few members behind to make sure someone doesn't come by to mess with the subdued giant. It's really hard to say without more info. Did this battle take place in a dungeon? In a giant stronghold? Out the outskirts of town? How far away from the closest civilized settlement? Were the giants inside the town, killing people? All these are factors in how I would handle the treatment of a hostile fire giant who surrendered to me.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

No, there are two facets to this. The questions asked involved Law/Chaos as well as Good/Evil.

I'm aware that the original questions involved both axes, but I am not and have not been arguing about the Law/Chaos axis. I've argued that some actions that people have attributed to Chaotic-Good aren't Good, but I'm not arguing any points about Law/Chaos.

The Good thing to do is to not kill the giant, spare him as you would want to be spared in his place. Now we get to the Lawful/Chaotic part of the equation. Do you leave him be (Chaotic) and walk away? Or do you hand him over to the authorities (Lawful)?

Good points. But what I'm trying to say is that, if you know that the authorities will kill the giant, (regardless of whether you think they have the right or justification to do so,) then your actions are tantamount to killing the giant yourself. So by handing the giant over to an entity that you know will kill the giant, you can't claim you've done something Good, unless you can claim that killing the giant is a Good act. The fact that someone else actually does the deed doesn't allow the adventurers to keep their hands clean.

Sorry, but I don't quite follow the analogy of the doctor/abortion thing as it relates to this. I'm sure it does relate somehow, but I don't see it. Sorry...

*sigh* I guess that I'm just bad with analogies. The point is that although the doctor performing the abortion is lawfully empowered to destroy the fetus, some people strongly believe that it's immoral. The point was that legality does not add to any argument of morality. The two are independent. So the fact that town guards are involved doesn't matter when discussing the morality of the adventurers and the giant.

Again, it isn't the adventurer's responsibility or problem any longer. They subdued the menace and now the guards (or whatever authorities are current available, perhaps Wizards who can use magic to banish the fire giant) will deal with them according to their own laws.

The laws of the guards don't matter. Again, I'm not trying to argue legality.

Yes, it is a Good act (as DnD defines it, we are still talking in game terms, right?). You protected an innocent from someone committing an evil act. If there was no other way, then you did the right thing. If the murderer surrendered, and you killed him anyway, it would be "evil". If you were able to subdue the murderer easily, but instead used lethal force and killed him, it would be "evil".

If his killing my mother is an evil act, how is my killing him a good act? Say my mother threatened to kill his sister. By your reasoning he's doing Good to kill my mother and protect his sister. If he's doing Good to kill my mother, how can I be doing Good to kill him? Killing is evil, in real-life and in game-terms. Sometimes an adventurer may consider it a necessary evil, but it is evil nevertheless. And the adventurers cannot escape that by simply forcing someone else to make the choice to kill the giants.

This is not the same thing. First off, if your brother told you this and you genuinely beleived him, I think the first thing to do would be to talk to him. Get him to listen to reason. Tell him, if such a thing ever happened (Heironeous forbid) it's not worth killing her over. If you felt that he could not listen to reason, I would get someone else involved. Other family members, a shrink (not the spell, the doctor) or the authorities if necessary. If you are willing to beleive he is willing and capable of murder, you should do something about it right away.

I presented the scenario as an ethical puzzle, not as a "what would you do?" Of course if this actually happened, you'd handle it differently. Don't ignore the moral question by trying to argue the details. Would you tell your brother, or would you lie to him, and why?

I do not think you are responsible for the actions of others. If I purchase a magic potion from an evil Cleric (whom I did not know was evil, nor did I have any way to find out on my own) and that evil Cleric used the money I payed him to purchase a magic wand, and then proceeded to use that wand to kill innocent people, would I be to blame?

All right, are you actually reading my posts? I've written a dozen times, in italics no less p) that you have to know your actions are going to lead to evil. Not knowing isn't evil. Knowing and ignoring is at least partially evil. Let me (cross your fingers) slightly alter your example:

I see a cleric on the street zapping commoners with a wand of destruction (let it go). Eventually the wand runs out, so the cleric walks over to the wand vendor (conveniently on that same street) and tries to buy a new one. He doesn't have any cash, so he walks directly over to me and says "hey, I'll sell you this potion for $5." I give him the five bucks, he goes over and buys another wand, then starts zapping peasants again. Am I to blame for those deaths?

Not completely, but in part yes. I knew what he was, and I had a darned good idea that he was going to use my money to go over and buy another wand to kill more people. It's exactly the same with the fire giant. The adventurers know that the guards are going to have to kill the fire giant to protect themselves. So giving the guards the fire giant means that they are, partially, responsible for his death.

Let's not even go that far. Let's say those theives in scenario 1 win the battle, and do not kill you. Instead, they rob you blind, and use your money/items/etc. to harm other people. Are you to blame?

I should think not.

Glad to know I'm not the only one giving bad examples in this thread. In your example, the adventurers are a passive element. They have no choice, and one cannot be held morally responsible without free-will. In the fire giant case, the adventurers do have free-will, and thus must be held accountable for their actions.

 

[RigaMortus]

No it's not. For goodness' sake. Okay, let me try to lay it out without using any examples, since those seem to get me into trouble.

Adventurers have control of a giant. If they reasonably believe that turning him over to guards will result in his death, then they are partially responsible for his death.

Ahhh, here's the problem. I don't think the adventurer's would reasonably beleive that the guards would kill the giant. To do so would be assuming. Assuming what? Assuming that the guards are evil, as that is what evil does, kill unwantonly.

The fact that they are giving the giant to guards makes no difference, because we are dealing with the Good/Evil, moral axis. The fact that the law of the land says the guards are empowered to kill the giant makes no difference.

Sure it does. Unless the law of the land is unjust. In which case, you have other concerns (such as overthrowing an unjust ruler with unjust laws) to worry about.

Just to reiterate what I am arguing here...

LG = turn the fire giant into the local authorities, subdue him (non-lethally) if need be.
NG = same as LG, if there is time, and if there aren't other pressing matters at hand.
CG = disarm him, and let him go. Send him away with a warning.

It seems to be that I may have been arguing just the Lawful side of the arguement as to what to do with the fire giants. I was looking at my character's perspective, and since I play a Paladin, he'd want to do the Lawful thing. Letting them go would not be lawful.

Legality is meaningless. Only morality. And if the adventurers know that what they do will mean the giant's death, then they have to share the blame for that death.

Since there are two axis, Law/Chaos and Good/Evil, the Law/Chaos side is JUST AS important as the Good/Evil side. I agree, if the adventurer's knew before hand what the guards would do, they might make other preperations. Yet, without knowing the proper procedure of disposing a surrendering fire giant, the LG person would want to turn him in. NG could probably go either way, but I think they'd lean on turning him in if it is convienient to do at that time. CG might let the fire giant go.

 

[RigaMortus]

But what I'm trying to say is that, if you know that the authorities will kill the giant, (regardless of whether you think they have the right or justification to do so,) then your actions are tantamount to killing the giant yourself. So by handing the giant over to an entity that you know will kill the giant, you can't claim you've done something Good, unless you can claim that killing the giant is a Good act. The fact that someone else actually does the deed doesn't allow the adventurers to keep their hands clean.

I see what you are saying now. My interpretation was that the adventurer's do NOT know before hand how the guards will treat the giant, and I was speaking from a purely LG standpoint (as I would play a LG person).

*sigh* I guess that I'm just bad with analogies. The point is that although the doctor performing the abortion is lawfully empowered to destroy the fetus, some people strongly believe that it's immoral. The point was that legality does not add to any argument of morality. The two are independent.

Ok, the reason I didn't understand this was because you can not compare this in DnD terms. In the real world, whose to say what is and is not moral? In the DnD world, morality is pre-defined. Things that are immoral are Evil, things that are moral are Good. That is why Detect Evil and Detect Good function as they do. If abortion was unequivically undisputed as being immoral, then it is clearly an Evil act. Anyone who does not think so just has an askewed vision of morality. But again, in DnD, Good/Evil and moral/immoral are pre-defined (at least, they should be).

If his killing my mother is an evil act, how is my killing him a good act? Say my mother threatened to kill his sister. By your reasoning he's doing Good to kill my mother and protect his sister. If he's doing Good to kill my mother, how can I be doing Good to kill him? Killing is evil, in real-life and in game-terms. Sometimes an adventurer may consider it a necessary evil, but it is evil nevertheless. And the adventurers cannot escape that by simply forcing someone else to make the choice to kill the giants.

Ugh... I misread this... If he merely threatened, then no you have no right to just kill him. Sorry, I read this too fast. I read it as, someone was TRYING to kill your mother, like caught in the act. Sorry for the misunderstanding...

If someone merely threatened to kill your mother, I'd probably knock them out (depending on how hot headed I got). The best thing to do is tell the authorities.

Now had you come home and saw this scum assaulting your mom, you have every right to use extreme and lethal force.

Sorry for the mis-reading-ness

I presented the scenario as an ethical puzzle, not as a "what would you do?" Of course if this actually happened, you'd handle it differently. Don't ignore the moral question by trying to argue the details. Would you tell your brother, or would you lie to him, and why?

I'm sorry, I am used to having some form of free-will in DnD. So I would never let it get this far if I could help it. Ever hear the expression, an ounce of protection is worth a pound of cure? Half of the job of a good-guy is to prevent bad things from happening, the other half is to rectify it when they do. This whole thing could be avoided if you take the proper steps. This is a lose-lose question because you are putting unrealistic restrictions on it.

All right, are you actually reading my posts? I've written a dozen times, in italics no less p) that you have to know your actions are going to lead to evil. Not knowing isn't evil. Knowing and ignoring is at least partially evil. Let me (cross your fingers) slightly alter your example:

I see a cleric on the street zapping commoners with a wand of destruction (let it go). Eventually the wand runs out, so the cleric walks over to the wand vendor (conveniently on that same street) and tries to buy a new one. He doesn't have any cash, so he walks directly over to me and says "hey, I'll sell you this potion for $5." I give him the five bucks, he goes over and buys another wand, then starts zapping peasants again. Am I to blame for those deaths?

Not completely, but in part yes. I knew what he was, and I had a darned good idea that he was going to use my money to go over and buy another wand to kill more people. It's exactly the same with the fire giant. The adventurers know that the guards are going to have to kill the fire giant to protect themselves. So giving the guards the fire giant means that they are, partially, responsible for his death.

Yes, if they know ahead of time. Personally, I'd try to subdue the Cleric and then make him tell me how he got Wands of Destruction! Hehe, I had to say something.

$5? What is this weird parchment with a man's face on it? This is no scroll I have ever seen before...

Glad to know I'm not the only one giving bad examples in this thread. In your example, the adventurers are a passive element. They have no choice, and one cannot be held morally responsible without free-will. In the fire giant case, the adventurers do have free-will, and thus must be held accountable for their actions.

Yes, THEIR ACTIONS... Not the actions of the guards. Again, I'll assume they do NOT know the guards will kill them, voila I am correct. You can assume they DO know the guards will kill them, voila you are correct.

Edit - Misspelled some things, and probably still have some typos in there. And fixed voila, thanks Olive!