Alignment

[Dross]

However, the reasons aren't what really matter. What matters is the consequence.

If the consequence for Good or Evil is all that matters, why would you not then make sure that the consequences of your actions are what you want them to be, Good or Evil? So make sure that the consequence of killing the OP's troll is good or evil (through this i've become unsure as to the Lawfulness of the act, but am still convinced as to the Evilness). Which would take some understanding of why the troll killed the orcs and thus aided the party. And I've always left open the possibility that you might still need to kill the troll anyway.

If a Troll of unknown alignment joins combat between a Good party and any other creature, and, during that combat is slain, the Good party is effectively "torching the Evil city with slaves in it". It is for the betterment and protection of a greater number of Good persons than it harms.

I feel that you are talking about: The ends justify the means. If the end is good then it is Good (and given what we know of the situation we can't actually say that the city we just torched is Evil)
I'm talking about about: The good will not lower themselves to some means to achieve their goals, while the evil are happy with the means if they get to the ends they want.

To bring this into a real world scenario that might be easier to understand for some, assume a tyrannical dictator holed himself up in a bunker with twelve of his trusted, also tyrannical allies (generals, scientists, or what-have-you), and one benevolent, altruistic scientist who is being held hostage. It is still a Good act to destroy the bunker and thereby everyone in it because it is for the betterment of the greater Good. Killing the good scientist is regrettable, but necessary. It is Chaotic Good to destroy this bunker. It is Lawful Good to send a strike team to extract the good man and kill the evil men with more precision tactics.

I'd argue that Law/Chaos is not the axis being used here but Good/Evil. Any alignment could want to destroy the bunker for a variety of reasons.
For a LG/NG/CG person/group, they would want to do so after saving the hostage. If they couldn't save the hostage then some might decide the collateral damage does not aid the greater good (and try something else) while others would destroy the bunker but feel bad for the hostage while others would say it was a necessary evil and sleep well.

My question to you is this, if a Red Dragon flew overhead and torched half of your enemies in a combat, landed and proceeded to torch things (other than you), would you attack that Red Dragon?

I'll answer this but remember that "Always Evil" is different to "usually Evil" (i.e. for the former the motivation is likely be more self centered than to offer aid altruistically) in an "SRD" world.

Few of my Good to Neutral PCs would blindly attack a Red Dragon in such a situation. They'd wonder what is going on (as you mentioned before, PCs know that alignment guarding spells/items are available, so are polymorph, illusions, geas/quest, divine intervention, etc thus things are often not what they seem).
Options for them:
(besides not getting too close to the dragon just in case )

• Be careful not to include RD in areas of effect, but continue the fight
• not continue but watch the fight
• just run away (not likely to get far though),
• prep for battle with a red dragon and then talk (and maybe then fight).

Any PC with a hatred of RD I would have to think whether the hatred overcame other sensibilities (and this could be a flaw for any alignment, even Good).

Battling the RD right away (or after prepping) would only occur for Evil and maybe N/CN (unsure of LN) PCs seeking to gain advantage (hey, dragon armour).

 

[baradtgnome]

To bring this into a real world scenario that might be easier to understand for some, assume a tyrannical dictator holed himself up in a bunker with twelve of his trusted, also tyrannical allies (generals, scientists, or what-have-you), and one benevolent, altruistic scientist who is being held hostage. It is still a Good act to destroy the bunker and thereby everyone in it because it is for the betterment of the greater Good. Killing the good scientist is regrettable, but necessary. It is Chaotic Good to destroy this bunker. It is Lawful Good to send a strike team to extract the good man and kill the evil men with more precision tactics.

Interesting how folks can see this so differently. First assumption made is the good the benevolent scientist might bring is less than the evil the dictator and allies bring. I would expect good characters to agonize over risking or finally deciding to accept his demise.

Secondly - I would see the Lawful & Chaotic actions flipped from what you propose. Some of you might recognize this text from AD&D

Law generally supports the group as more important than the individual, while chaos promotes the individual over the group.​

I would expect the CG character to favor the a strike team of volunteers who would risk their lives to save the scientist. I would expect the LG character to propose the greater good of all is gained with the unfortunate loss of the scientist.

 

[Alexander123]

Just a small note.

Since trolls are considere second class citizens, if at all, and generally you can easily convince the authorities that the troll was trying to attack you, the crime should not be punished and the persons alighnment should not change.

 

[Jacob]

In the D&D universe, Good and Evil are clearly cut, defined, and enforced. There isn't any gray area in D&D, in terms of morality/philosophical ramifications, nor should their be. There is no need to justify any act. It is Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, or Neutral, or a combination of Law/Chaos/Neutrality and Good/Evil/Neutrality. It is never Good AND Evil, it is never Lawful AND Chaotic.
To the Good people of the D&D universe, Trolls have no rights. They eat children, they steal sheep, they ambush the helpless. They are the equivalent of venomous spiders in the real world. You stomp them to death and hope you don't get bitten when you do it.
You don't pull it's legs off (the spider equivalent of beating a troll into unconciousness) and then ask if it's going to bite you or not.

It is never Evil to kill any one of the "usually" or "always" Evil beings. One of the core tenants of the D&D universe is the battle between Good and Evil.
Could you imagine Aragorn beating an Uruk-hai into submission and then asking it nicely if it was there to kill him?

No.

Alright, so I'm jumping onto on after reading this, because it just makes me head desk. The way I've always seen it, Law, Chaos, Good and Evil are not just ideals, but actual living entities that are in constant battle. PCs and NPCs are the masks which live out this battle while the Gods they represent move their Chess pieces about. They need to live their respective alignment, or that power wanes.

Tyr was spoken of as an example of LG in this situation. He's a God in FR setting, but I feel the need to mention Cyric. As the God of Lies, any time anyone lies...he gets power. You combat that power by not lying. This is why Vecna can't die, because we will always have secrets, which Vecna is the lord over.

If you kill another without cause or just because their race is usually evil when in fact there is just a small portion of goodness in that creature...Evil wins a little that day. So yes, Aragorn failed the powers of Good if he killed a Uruk-hai/Goblin/etc. who was by himself cooking dinner, who didn't attack with the weapon he raised, but only pulled out it in defense because so many jumped to conclusions on him being evil in the past.

Again, that's circumstantial, as all instances of Alignment battles are. That's the point. That's the battle.

 

[baradtgnome]

Since trolls are considere second class citizens, if at all, and generally you can easily convince the authorities that the troll was trying to attack you, the crime should not be punished...

I would concur this is typical in most folks campaigns. The local human authorities would likely be pleased to have the troll eradicated. However, lying to the authorities (telling them the troll attacked you) is not something your typical LG character would do.

...and the persons alighnment should not change.

I don't see how the local authorities view has anything to do with a persons alignment shift. This is the gods domain, not the local authorities. You know, "Give Unto Caesar What is Caesar's and Unto God What is God's"

I don't see how this potential transgression with the troll rates an alignment shift, but I know that others felt differently.

 

[Alexander123]

Lying to the authorities should only change your alighnment if you get caught.

And your alighnment should be known only to people who have knowledge of your actions.

It is more realistic this way, which is the reason why I like Eberron's alighnment system.

In Eberron's alighnment systems since gods don't walk the earth, (or exist) phenomenon like corrupt priests can exist, which exist in reality, where a priest is not punished by his god for immoral actions but can be punished by the state.

 

[baradtgnome]

Lying to the authorities should only change your alighnment if you get caught.

Here is where we have a fundamental disagreement. I am not saying that lying alone must be cause for an alignment shift. However, if a character's core beliefs say lying is bad - lying is just bad; it matters not whether you get away with it or get caught. Nor does it matter whether you did it for a worthy cause. You might be choosing a lesser evil as they say, but if you believe X is bad, then X is always bad.

 

[Alexander123]

It is not an issue of core beliefs.

Good and bad are value judgements with which we judge persons in society but to judge a man as good or bad we need to be aware of their actions.

If a man has commited murder, if you have no knowledge of this, say if he travels to a part of the world where he is unknown, he will be treated as if he had not commited the murder since the people of that part of the world have no knowledge of his action.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Lying to the authorities should only change your alighnment if you get caught.

The perception of your alignment, sure. Your actual alignment, absolutely not.

From the SRD:

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment.

It's his personal attitude, not the perceptions of him at all.

And your alighnment should be known only to people who have knowledge of your actions.

Basically, this is true. Or, of course, anyone that uses a spell to determine that, but I doubt you were objecting to that.

It is more realistic this way, which is the reason why I like Eberron's alighnment system.

No, it's not. You can still play the game with NPCs and PCs not knowing your actual alignment. People do this all the time.

In Eberron's alighnment systems since gods don't walk the earth, (or exist) phenomenon like corrupt priests can exist, which exist in reality, where a priest is not punished by his god for immoral actions but can be punished by the state.

In D&D in general (apparently not Eberron), it makes realistic sense (to a degree) to have priests lose their power if they are corrupt. The god simply cuts power. If you want to imitate life more realistically, then yes, Eberron's setup is more closely related to our life (assuming the setup on Eberron is correct).

It is not an issue of core beliefs.

It is, in fact, exactly that question. Again, from the SRD:

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment.

Good and bad are value judgements with which we judge persons in society but to judge a man as good or bad we need to be aware of their actions.

You're describing other people's perceptions of alignment, not the actual alignment of the individual. Perceptions are indeed shaped by witnessing events, though every alignment is based on personal actions, individually.

If a man has commited murder, if you have no knowledge of this, say if he travels to a part of the world where he is unknown, he will be treated as if he had not commited the murder since the people of that part of the world have no knowledge of his action.

That's probably correct, people wouldn't treat him like a murderer. However, he seems Evil, still, based on the SRD (as long as the majority of his actions line up with murder):

“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.

As far as the SRD is concerned, he's acting in an Evil manner, and is most likely Evil, whether or not the people in the new area know about it.

 

[Rakusia]

if it walks like a duck
if it looks like a duck
if it quacks like a duck

it could be in disguise