Alignment Situations II

[Sarcoth]

The last discussion was a good one and I appreciate all the responses. It gave me a lot to dwell on.

Course, I think some people missed my addition on the Fire Giants, so I'm going to repost that question with the additional information.

How do you think each of these alignments (LG, NG, CG) would react in the following situation(s):

Situation A: A city is under seige by dozens of fire giants and 100's of other creatures (fire dwarves & elementals). The party has already fought about 4 fire giants and lived...barely. It is already known that these creatures are evil and they have killed 100's of people throughout the town. The group is attacked by another 2 Fire Giants. One is taken down and then the other cries surrender.

Question 1: How should the party react?
LG =
NG =
CG =

If you would like to see the Alignment Situations I discussion, go here: http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46181

 

[apsuman]

The answer depends upon the situation.

If the nearest local bit of civilization could handle a fire giant prisoner then turning him over is probably be the best GOOD option.

If the local population could not handle the fire giant, then killing it is a possible GOOD action.

A creative group might be able to find a way to not kill the giant. Say a charm person, or polymorph, or teleport, and geas are all spell based solutions.

If you were assulting the Fire Giant stronghold (I know you were not in you example) then securing him with ropes hanging from the highest tree. On the idea that he could not escape until your attack were clearly underway.

g!

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Most certainly slay the giant.

This is war and there is no Geneva Convention to determine how prisoners are treated. The resources required to keep the FG under control are not worth the effort.

Anyone who thinks the FG should be taken to the city as a prisoner should consider one particular fact. The city is under seige. Odds are it is isolated, so food and other supplies are going to be low and quite valuable. How can you justify imprisoning and FEEDING a FG. The food to feed him could feed a dozen or more people in the city.

 

[Sarcoth]

The above situation was part of my last session.

We've been on the same day in the campaign for over 2 months (RL). We've taken down a few fire giants, yet they keep popping up all over. We have also lost a few party members to these things.

My character was somewhere else when this happened, but the NG character in the group cast Smite Evil on it (or something) and it was killed. Another player, LG was saying we shouldn't have killed it. Not sure what the LG player was suggesting we do with it, but he had some problems with it being smited.

My character is CG and I felt I would agree with the situation, but I also think that even a LG would do the same. We've lost party members to these things and they are killing 100's of people. I don't think letting it live is viable since it has many more allies still in the town and taking it with us is out of the question.

Thanks for the responses.

 

[RigaMortus]

Most certainly slay the giant.

This is war and there is no Geneva Convention to determine how prisoners are treated. The resources required to keep the FG under control are not worth the effort.

Anyone who thinks the FG should be taken to the city as a prisoner should consider one particular fact. The city is under seige. Odds are it is isolated, so food and other supplies are going to be low and quite valuable. How can you justify imprisoning and FEEDING a FG. The food to feed him could feed a dozen or more people in the city.

This is completely wrong. You do not need a Geneva Convention to "do the right thing".

It seems like you want to kill the giant because it is convient to do so. You can't contain him, you can't feed, he might escape and hurt others... All viable concerns, but being a Good guy, it is up to YOU to figure this stuff out. Could magic help here? What resources do YOU have available? You can't be Good only when it is convient for you to be good, that isn't how it works.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

Most certainly slay the giant.

This is war and there is no Geneva Convention to determine how prisoners are treated. The resources required to keep the FG under control are not worth the effort.

Anyone who thinks the FG should be taken to the city as a prisoner should consider one particular fact. The city is under seige. Odds are it is isolated, so food and other supplies are going to be low and quite valuable. How can you justify imprisoning and FEEDING a FG. The food to feed him could feed a dozen or more people in the city.

It's astonishing how many people seem to think that executing prisoners for convenience sake is a morally good act in war. Just because you can't feed your enemy doesn't mean that you can just kill them all, Geneva convention or no Geneva convention.

As to alignment based response -

All good alignments would seek to avoid execution for expediency's sake. The only way execution might enter the equation is for war crimes - an LG response - however, this would probably need a trial.

LG - might be willing to release the FG if it swears to quit the field, forfeit all treasure and not return to the siege. If it made these oaths and then returned to the siege, then all future calls for mercy from the attackers could be legitimately ignored as ruses, at least until the siege is lifted.

NG & CG - similar to LG but with an increasing likelihood of doing something to guarantee that the FG complies with its oaths - like cursing it or hamstringing it, thereby permanently crippling the giant and making it impossible for it to attack again.

The truth of this seems to be that war makes it hideously difficult to stay good morally. The great tragedy of war is that survival requires that a little evil be done by everyone. Maybe this is a good lesson for us all.

To quote the author of The ShortTimers, the book that Full Metal Jacket was based on, "War is ugly because the truth can be ugly and war is very sincere. War never says 'Only joking!'"

 

[I'm A Banana]

Situation A: A city is under seige by dozens of fire giants and 100's of other creatures (fire dwarves & elementals). The party has already fought about 4 fire giants and lived...barely. It is already known that these creatures are evil and they have killed 100's of people throughout the town. The group is attacked by another 2 Fire Giants. One is taken down and then the other cries surrender.

Question 1: How should the party react?
LG = Accept the surrender, but let it be known that under such martial law, the life of the giant is not garunteed. They will attempt to stop riots against the giant, but most likely the penalty for endangering and/or killing citizenry is harsh, at best -- death is likely to follow, but it shouldn't be dealt with on the battlefield, if it can be avoided, and, if possible, if the giant is (truly) repentant, it could be recruited.
NG = Accept the surrender. Not that anybody else has to. You might want to warn it that the chances of it dying painfully are quite good, as the citizenry may not have the same level of morality...though you'll probably feel compelled to defend it.
CG = Accept the surrender, at least until the giant becomes a threat again. If it does, then you can at least have a case that he was just using surrender to get on your good side, and.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

I still think it's more of a character by character basis, but if these were my characters, I think it'd go like this.
LG = "I cannot accept your surrender, pick up your weapon and defend yourself." Then I'd give them a moment to pick up their weapon before resuming the attack.
NG = "No."
CG = I'd go ahead and finish killing the giant. "That's for my brother. Bastard." Alternatively, may have him dig his own grave, then kill him, but quickly.

It's a bit different, but the fact of the matter is that the giant is simply too dangerous to deal with. Now, maybe if I could shrink him and put him in stasis or something, we'd be able to deal with it. But I've found that no matter how much the single act may be good, the outcome may be worse. And in a world where I've probablly had to wade through the blood of my enemies many a time, I'd have a hard time sympathising with the giants at all. Especially if a town's been taken down.

Finally, I have to metagame it some. There's a point where the moral questioing just isn't fun anymore. That's when you make a decision and go with it. And I simply wouldn't want to deal with the giant as a player.

 

[David Argall]

no big difference

The situation as given is largely ruled by practical considerations, not the moral ones of alignment. You need to change it some to get a difference based on morals and alignment.

Thus, if the giant was a diplomat who had been granted safe passage to bargain, and the giants attacked as you talked, our LG might well say you agreed to his safety, so he goes free, which our chaotic might be quite unconcerned about keeping his word and feel that preventing the evil the giant will do is a more important point.

 

[Sarcoth]

I think the next time something like this happens in my game, I'll just let the other Good characters deal with it. I personally think it's a death trap and won't want the thing anywhere near me. Best to let the other Good characters learn the hard way I guess.