Alignment

[Jacob Marley]

The act was Lawful and Evil. They killed a helpless being that acted as an ally. Not enough to do an alignment shift, but some restless nights as they have bad dreams.

Also it depends on what god the Cleric or Paladin worships, to see if they loose some or all their class abilities.

Anditch, what is the setting and what gods to the characters worship?

Yeah, I could see a paladin or cleric of Pholtus not having much of a problem with killing the troll. Though Pholtus is very much an exception to the general rule.

They consider questions of morality to be secondary to faithfulness to Pholtus and his One True Way. They seek the destruction of chaos, darkness, and evil, in that order. While some individual Pholtan paladins can be as merciful as paladins or Pelor or Heironeous, doubt and mercy are not considered virtues in their tradition, and many believe them to be weaknesses.

 

[Celebrim]

When the question is whether an act in the game of Dungeons and Dragons is good or evil in the context of what the game defines good and evil is, I think it is important not to conflate it with our own definitions of good and evil.

We don't agree on much, but I think you are spot on in this thread.

It is my opinion that the different takes on what it means to be 'good' are the biggest obstacle to peoples understanding of the alignment system.

The way I look at it is that the D&D alignment wheel attempts to be objective without being judgemental. Each of the different philosophies is given equal place and equal oppurtunity to present its point of view. From the perspective of each of the nine alignments, they possess The Truth, and from their perspective each of them holds the place of highest honor on the wheel. To a certain extent, even the Evil alignments belief their view and outlook is the one that is Correct and Proper, and that the further you depart from this Right view the more Wrong you are. Thus, a person holding the Lawful Evil view believes in his own righteousness and goodness, and believes what is called Good is actually weakness and the promotion of weakness. The Lawful Evil character looks down from what he believes is his highest purchase on the wheel and sees Chaotic Good, and for him Choatic Good embodies all that is wrong with the world and all that must be stamped out before a just world can be created.

The problem I typically have with players is that some come to the table with the same sort of perspective but are unwilling to rotate the wheel so that what they have been arbitrarily labeled as is upright in their mind but instead try to rotate the descriptions. So, a person coming to the table with a view described as Chaotic Neutral, rather than championing that view as what is most True and Correct and rotating the wheel such that CN is top most, insists that I rotate the descriptions so that what the game describes as Chaotic Neutral is described as Neutral Good, and so on and so forth until Lawful Neutral is put in what they see as its proper place of Neutral Evil.

Now, if they are happy to - either as themselves or on behalf of their imagined character (and too many players can't keep this straight) - defend some perspective that claims some alignment other than Neutral Good truly define good whether it Lawful Good is more good than Good or Nuetral Evil is the only true good, then generally this produces no confusion and all is well in the D&D universe. But if the player comes in and starts fighting over the labels, then that's where the alignment system will actually break down.

My advice is simply describe the character's philosophy, and find out how your DM labels this. If your DM labels "rational pursuit of one's self-interest" as Good, then you know from that how to rotate the wheel. And if your DM labels "Rational pursuit of one's self-interest" as Chaotic, then you know from that where to rotate the wheel. Provided your DM has spent time figuring out a non-contridictory distribution of labels, you should be good.

 

[That Darn DM]

The troll, if it were looking for an easy meal, it would have taken a party member. He had to jump over the party to get to the larger number of orcs, instead of grabbing one of the party members from behind. Refusing to attack the closer, unsuspecting target shows signs that the troll could be an ally.

I don't have qualms with the PCs being cautious, because it very might well be a trap. They took down the troll. That's not Lawful or Good or Evil or Chaotic. It's smart and cautious. My problem is they murdered the troll without hesitation.

One of Tyr's tenants was mercy, thanks to Torm. A Paladin of Tyr would be judged, in my game. I don't know Tyr as well as I would like, but I'm not a FR kind of guy.

Alignment has long been an issue to people because it is ground in harsh philosophy. I'm a believer in the inherent value ideal. Every life has a worth. The question is, does one have more value than another. When you kill someone, you take away their rights as a human being.

You can translate that into D&D and say, the troll's rights were taken away. His crime: being born a troll. That's an evil act.

You can slice it anyway you want. Justifying that it's what his god wanted him to do. That it hadn't really proved itself as a friend, but if you're going to believe that, then you really should write down what your ideals of what good and law are and hand them out as house rules. I'm not saying my way of thinking is correct and your's is incorrect. I'm saying I don't agree with it at all and that's not how I see good or lawful.

 

[baradtgnome]

... the cleric then casts on the troll detect evil. Finds no evil. ....

I think the answer is also found in the party's own behavior. What cast detect evil at all if the intention was to kill the troll? Somebody in the group was not sure killing the troll was appropriate.

There are many quandaries about alignment in D&D games. I find it best if the DM sets forth examples of how alignment performs in their world. Stories the characters have read, actions they have seen leader type NPCs take, Paladin codes of conduct, etc.

If you replace the troll with a demon, or with a human hunter, you get a different answer entirely. (in exaggeration of course)

 

[Sekhmet]

Alignment has long been an issue to people because it is ground in harsh philosophy. I'm a believer in the inherent value ideal. Every life has a worth. The question is, does one have more value than another. When you kill someone, you take away their rights as a human being.

You can translate that into D&D and say, the troll's rights were taken away. His crime: being born a troll. That's an evil act. [/b]

You can slice it anyway you want. Justifying that it's what his god wanted him to do. That it hadn't really proved itself as a friend, but if you're going to believe that, then you really should write down what your ideals of what good and law are and hand them out as house rules. I'm not saying my way of thinking is correct and your's is incorrect. I'm saying I don't agree with it at all and that's not how I see good or lawful.

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.

 

[Diamond Cross]

So if a Troll went an alignment change would it still be a Troll?

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

I strongly, strongly disagree with this. If you go around murdering troll infants and children in their sleep for the greater good as your only goal in life, you're Evil. Sure, it probably does make for a better world, realistically. You can be Evil by using Evil actions against Evil creatures.

As for Aragorn, I simply can't imagine him attacking an Uruk-hai who defended him, Gimly, and Legolas against orcs while still in the midst of the ambush. I think that even if the Uruk-hai went down against the orcs, he'd check him and do his best to nurse him back to health. Aragorn was an honorable man, and I think he'd feel a debt to any creature that fought by his side.

 

[Celebrim]

Trolls have no rights. They eat children, they steal sheep, they ambush the helpless.

So do many humans, does this make them the equivalent of venomous spiders in the real world?

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.

It's a core tenent of many of the people in this universe that there is a battle between good and evil, and it is a core tenent of many of the worlds philosophies that people are "usually" or "always" evil beings. Yet if these real world philosophies adopted the policies you say are good, would you call them good?

I honestly don't understand what either 'good' or 'evil' mean as you describe it. So far as I can tell, they are just tribal labels under such a description.

You are telling me that there is no situation in which the above murder wasn't justified? It was a troll, and so deserving of death? It doesn't matter to you if perhaps it wasnt' a troll, but the victim of some hag's curse - which suitably explains why the troll wasn't acting trollish? It doesn't matter to you if the troll is the sworn servant of a god aligned diety, and the means by which the deity plans to redeem a significant portion of the troll race from the bondage to some god of chaos and evil that they now serve?

"Could you imagine Aragorn beating an Uruk-hai into submission and then asking it nicely if it was there to kill him?"

In the situation we are describing now, I can't imagine Aragorn beating the Uruk-hai into submission. Seriously, the whole story of The Lord of the Rings was about the providential effects of mercy. Bilbo and later Frodo spare a monsterous cannabalistic murderer who deserves death, because neither of them feel just in striking him when he is helpless and defenseless. And you are telling me that you think story is about ruthlessly slaying the enemy just because they are the enemy? Are you sure you aren't misjudging Aragorn's character?

 

[Sekhmet]

I strongly, strongly disagree with this. If you go around murdering troll infants and children in their sleep for the greater good as your only goal in life, you're Evil. Sure, it probably does make for a better world, realistically. You can be Evil by using Evil actions against Evil creatures.

As for Aragorn, I simply can't imagine him attacking an Uruk-hai who defended him, Gimly, and Legolas against orcs while still in the midst of the ambush. I think that even if the Uruk-hai went down against the orcs, he'd check him and do his best to nurse him back to health. Aragorn was an honorable man, and I think he'd feel a debt to any creature that fought by his side.

The troll did not defend this party, it was a third party of combatant. It did not jump in screaming "I'MA HELP YOU LOL".
If the same had happened to the Fellowship, Legolas would have it pumped so full of arrows that it would be dead before it hit the ground, and added another tally to his list of kills.
Aragorn would not have checked him, nor would he have nursed it back to health. He would have killed him during the combat, as can be evidenced by their being no point during any of their battles where he walked around after a battle and gave cookies and tea to the injured (but not quite dead) opponents.

So do many humans, does this make them the equivalent of venomous spiders in the real world?

Relating a troll (usually evil) to something in the real world (venomous spider) was a way for me to put across the idea that should be held into belief by any Good (D&D) NPC. Squash the troll before it squashes you.
This is the same reason that people hunt Evil Dragons, Demons, Devils, etc.

It's a core tenent of many of the people in this universe that there is a battle between good and evil, and it is a core tenent of many of the worlds philosophies that people are "usually" or "always" evil beings. Yet if these real world philosophies adopted the policies you say are good, would you call them good?

I honestly don't understand what either 'good' or 'evil' mean as you describe it. So far as I can tell, they are just tribal labels under such a description.

You are telling me that there is no situation in which the above murder wasn't justified? It was a troll, and so deserving of death? It doesn't matter to you if perhaps it wasnt' a troll, but the victim of some hag's curse - which suitably explains why the troll wasn't acting trollish? It doesn't matter to you if the troll is the sworn servant of a god aligned diety, and the means by which the deity plans to redeem a significant portion of the troll race from the bondage to some god of chaos and evil that they now serve?

The philosophies of the real world have no bearing on the philosophy of the core D&D universe. In the real world, there is no definition of Good or Evil. Philosophers have been trying to determine these answers for thousands of years, and no one can agree.
The D&D universe spells it out for us. (And yes, if the same applied to the real world, I would be very pleased. There would no longer be moral arguments about things like genocide [can be a good thing], abortion, stem cell research, vegetable states, etc.)

If the troll was actually a human polymorphed somehow into a troll, it would have turned into a human when it died. It did not.

If a troll is (somehow) Good (we would obviously have to talk to that DM to find out), it would have made it's intention very clear when it entered combat. By declaring his intention (to aid the PC's in a dangerous battle), even while fighting the orcs (instead of before entering combat), he could have saved his own life. He did not, and in the same fashion that those who win the Darwin Awards do, he deserve his fate.

In the situation we are describing now, I can't imagine Aragorn beating the Uruk-hai into submission. Seriously, the whole story of The Lord of the Rings was about the providential effects of mercy. Bilbo and later Frodo spare a monsterous cannabalistic murderer who deserves death, because neither of them feel just in striking him when he is helpless and defenseless. And you are telling me that you think story is about ruthlessly slaying the enemy just because they are the enemy? Are you sure you aren't misjudging Aragorn's character?

Aragorn would have killed it. He would not have beaten it into submission, he would have killed it. This is because the Uruk'hai are either "usually" or "always" Evil.
In the end, Frodo kills that monster, and should have from the beginning. However, they decided to use the monster instead of killing it, which, really, is a form of coercion if you think about it, akin to torture.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Aragorn would have killed it. He would not have beaten it into submission, he would have killed it. This is because the Uruk'hai are either "usually" or "always" Evil.

I often disagree with Celebrim, but in this case I think he's absolutely right: your understanding of LotR is not very deep. We can never be absolutely sure what Aragorn would do in any given situation, since none of us are Tolkien, but there's no doubt in my mind that Aragorn would act more in the way Celebrim describes than the way you do.

In the end, Frodo kills that monster, and should have from the beginning. However, they decided to use the monster instead of killing it, which, really, is a form of coercion if you think about it, akin to torture.

Now I'm starting to think you haven't even read LotR. Or are just trolling.