Alignment

[Mark CMG]

Perhaps the "orks" were good and the troll was evil but had some form of nondetection on him, and all of the monsters thought you were an evil party?

 

[That Darn DM]

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.

Okay, first: The first D&D universe was Arneson's Blackmoore. That did not have clear cut good and evil. Read the City of the Gods. The second universe was Greyhawk, Gygax's creation a few months later. Gygax was infamous about ambiguous alignments, as seen in the Temple of Elemental Evil and the good prince turned vampire. Players are not punished, but the murdering of the good prince is known as an ignorant evil act.

Now, you started to talk about a Forgotten Realms god, which is like the fifth setting. Eberron and Planescape are terribly ambiguous and are "part of the D&D world". Hell, Planescape is a part of the Forgotten Realms world, as seen by the Great Modron March.

D&D is anything but clear cut. Every game is different and there is no right way to play Good and Evil.

To steal a quote from Planescape.

"It all depends on where you stand."

Not going to argue "What Aragorn would do", but I agree he would kill the Urak'hai. That doesn't necessarily Aragorn is an avatar of Law and Righteousness. He's a hero, yes, and he's a Lawful Good character, but he can also be selfish and human. His choices weren't always Lawful Good. That's one thing I do find odd about arguments about Paladins: Do Paladins have to be blank expressioned, unfeeling instruments of law. I mean, I read in a third edition book that a Paladin finds two demons loving one another (Think it was a succubus and an inccubus). The book raised the conflict that the Paladin must choose to kill the demons (which are usually irredeemable) or respect their love. That confused me, since I thought that Paladins should destroy Demons on sight, but the book lead me to believe that there are other tenants for Paladins other than "DESTROY ALL EVIL" (or what appears to be evil, in this case).

They used detect evil, didn't find a trace of evil on it. This must mean he either had a magical item or effect on him (Which a detect magic might have been good to check for) or he wasn't evil. Trolls are generally evil in D&D, but that doesn't mean this one was evil, especially in someone else's game. It doesn't matter if all trolls are evil in your game or most games, the players have more evidence than not that the troll is neutral or good and as a show of thanks for aiding them, they kill this troll. We don't know if the troll was actually good or neutral or even evil, but a generalization is still wrong and to carry out a sentence without even questing thing is more akin to chaos than law.

Injustice somewhere is injustice everywhere; that troll did not receive justice, which is a tenant for Paladinhood, especially for Tyr "The Even-Handed".

Good and Evil will forever be philosophized and I've seen more arguments break out on Alignment than anything else. D&D is very vague and every setting presents a different view on what it is. I don't even bother with the in-game system of alignment and go with something more along the lines of world views (such as a political system--communist, republican, democratic, socialist etc.) as that's easier to handle).

Anyway, this argument has gone on long enough. I've seen your opinions and I understand where you are coming from, but I politely disagree. I think that is fringe logic and I see you have your opinions and I have mine. I wish many happy D&D games to everyone. xD

EDIT: Page 7 of the Book of Exalted Deeds. Mercy and onward. That is the clear cut definition of Good if I ever saw one.

 

[TanisFrey]

Aragorn would have nursed the Orc back to health if Gimly or Legos did not out right kill it. Gimly and Legos would have at least not interfered with Aragorn nursing of the Orc. Aragon would have then tried to use that orc to negotiate peace with the other orc, knowing that it would most likely just delay any attack by the orcs on Gondor. Aragon perfected peace but saw the warfare as being necessary at times.

Interesting Side note:

In the 1ed DragonLance campaign book they had a chart with good on one end and evil on the other. It had 10 divisions within each 3 alignments and 10 divisions between each one that were shaded gray. A bold line was within the gray region that separated good from neutral and neutral from evil. When a new PC was started you placed their name in the middle of their choose alignment. When the committed they a good or evil act the DM moved their place on the number line. When they entered a gray region the god sent a warring to reform their ways. The warring took the form of a -5 to hit and saves. If the character did not reform their ways and passed the bold line they jumped into the middle of the next alignment and were stuck there for a game section, then lost the -5 penalty. It was a formalized way for a DM to decide when a PC changed an alignment. They should have applied this to the Lawful-Neutral-Chaos axis also.



Also I always thought that they should create a second set of alignments to handle animals, true neutral just does not cover them properly. One axis would be Predator-Omnivore-Herbivore and the other axis would be Aggressive-Passive-Shy. Yes, one can find examples of all 9 animal alignments in the our world.

Examples:
Aggressive Herbivore - Wild Elephants and Rhinos
Passive Herbivore - Most heard animals
Shy Herbivore - deer

Aggressive Omnivore - Bears
Passive Omnivore - Wild Goats
Shy Omnivore - Raccoons

Aggressive Predator - Tiggers
Passive Predator - Lions
Shy Predator - Just how many predator attack through ambush? Lots. Wolfs for one.

 

[That Darn DM]

Aggressive Predator - Tiggers

*Snort*

T-I-Double Guh-ER.

Sorry had to do it. Interesting on the Alignment though.

 

[TanisFrey]

*Snort*

T-I-Double Guh-ER.

Sorry had to do it. Interesting on the Alignment though.

Opps, I was a little too tigger happy with my keyboard.

 

[Aluvial]

Interesting thread. Here's a classic thought problem.

You are in a minecart shaft deep in the bowels of some duergar hell and you see a loaded ore cart coming down the line. You stand at a switch and can allow the cart to travel on one of two paths, the one it is on, or to switch it to a secondary line.

Standing down the original line is your old wizard buddy, intrigued by some rune scratched in the ground. He has his gnarled old back to you and will never see it coming. Do nothing and "Smarty" gets it. This means more XP for you the next time the DM gets around to the new tally, not to mention spliting shares 4 ways instead of 5.

On the other line is a baby duergar who has somehow crawled away from its absentminded mother who is busy whipping her slaves into cleaning up some offal one made in the corner while chained overnight. The mother will probably eat her young anyway if it gets squashed.

There is no time to warn either the wizard or the baby, nor can you stop the cart. You can only either pull the switch, or not.

The question is this: Do you switch the track and kill the innocent duergar infant?

 

[Sekhmet]

Kill the Duergar. Didn't have a second thought about it.

to ThatDarnDM: The 3.x D&D Universe is the one outlined in the core books (DMG and PH). It clearly defines all of the alignments and there are no gray areas. Yes, it is not an all inclusive system, and yes, it has problems, but it is very clear in it's definitions. Disregarding that system and implementing your own (should you be the DM) is absolutely fine, but for the purposes of this thread, because the OP did not mention that he was homebrewing alignments, we have to assume he's using the 3.x D&D Universe's system.

To those saying Aragorn would not kill an Uruk-hai: He killed many. Yes, they were in an opposing army, and yes, they were all trying to kill him. However, some did not directly attack him or his allies before he dispatched them. He struck first on many occasions, because he knew that Uruk-hai were evil; minions of Saruman. That he did not give each Uruk-hai the chance to throw it's weapon down and surrender even once is paramount proof to that.
When an Orc joined combat while Aragorn was already fighting, he dispatched the Orc. He didn't ask to make sure it was his enemy. Can you imagine that? In the middle of a battle field, in a very british manner, "Pardon old chap, I don't mean to be rude but I say, do you happen to be of the opinion that you might want to kill me?"

Let it be known that I am amoral myself, and all I have to go by are the very definitions that have been set by the 3.x universe.

 

[That Darn DM]

Kill the Duergar. Didn't have a second thought about it.

to ThatDarnDM: The 3.x D&D Universe is the one outlined in the core books (DMG and PH). It clearly defines all of the alignments and there are no gray areas. Yes, it is not an all inclusive system, and yes, it has problems, but it is very clear in it's definitions. Disregarding that system and implementing your own (should you be the DM) is absolutely fine, but for the purposes of this thread, because the OP did not mention that he was homebrewing alignments, we have to assume he's using the 3.x D&D Universe's system.

To those saying Aragorn would not kill an Uruk-hai: He killed many. Yes, they were in an opposing army, and yes, they were all trying to kill him. However, some did not directly attack him or his allies before he dispatched them. He struck first on many occasions, because he knew that Uruk-hai were evil; minions of Saruman. That he did not give each Uruk-hai the chance to throw it's weapon down and surrender even once is paramount proof to that.
When an Orc joined combat while Aragorn was already fighting, he dispatched the Orc. He didn't ask to make sure it was his enemy. Can you imagine that? In the middle of a battle field, in a very british manner, "Pardon old chap, I don't mean to be rude but I say, do you happen to be of the opinion that you might want to kill me?"

Let it be known that I am amoral myself, and all I have to go by are the very definitions that have been set by the 3.x universe.

From the book of Exalted Deeds (A 3.X core rule book on the nature of good).

MERCY
For good characters who devote their lives to hunting and exterminating
the forces of evil, evil’s most seductive lure may be the
abandonment of mercy. Mercy means giving quarter to enemies
who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion
and even kindness. It is, in effect, the good doctrine of
respect for life taken to its logical extreme—respecting and
honoring even the life of one’s enemy. In a world full of enemies
who show no respect for life whatsoever, it can be extremely
tempting to treat foes as they have treated others, to exact
revenge for slain comrades and innocents, to offer no quarter
and become merciless.
A good character must not succumb to that trap. Good characters
must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how
many times villains might betray that kindness or escape from
captivity to continue their evil deeds. If a foe surrenders, a good
character is bound to accept the surrender, bind the prisoner,
and treat him as kindly as possible. (See Mercy, Prisoners, and
Redemption in Chapter 2 for more about the proper treatment
of prisoners.)
In general, it’s a good idea for the DM to make sure that the
players aren’t punished unnecessarily for showing mercy to
opponents. If every prisoner schemes to betray the party and
later escapes from prison, the players quickly come to realize
that showing mercy simply isn’t worth it. It’s fine for these
frustrations to arise once in a while, but if they happen every time,
the players will rightly give up in frustration.
FORGIVENESS
Closely tied to mercy, forgiveness is still a separate act. Mercy
means respecting the life of an enemy, treating him like a being
worthy of kindness. Forgiveness is an act of faith, a willingness
to believe that even the vilest evildoer is capable of change.
Good characters are not enjoined to “forgive and forget” every
time someone harms them. At the simplest level, forgiveness
means abdicating one’s right to vengeance. On a deeper level, if
an evil character makes an effort to repent, turn away from evil,
and lead a better life, a good character is called upon to encourage
the reformed villain, let the past be past, and not to hold the
character’s evil deeds against her.
Forgiveness is essential to redemption. If those she has
harmed refuse to forgive her, a character seeking to turn away
from evil faces nothing but hatred and resentment from those
who should be her new allies. Isolated from both her former
allies and her former enemies, she nurses resentment and
quickly slides back into her evil ways. By extending forgiveness
to those who ask it, good characters actively spread good, both
by encouraging those who are trying to turn away from evil and
by demonstrating to evildoers that the path of redemption is
possible.

You are right, they do define it clearly.

 

[JamesonCourage]

To those saying Aragorn would not kill an Uruk-hai: He killed many. Yes, they were in an opposing army, and yes, they were all trying to kill him. However, some did not directly attack him or his allies before he dispatched them. He struck first on many occasions, because he knew that Uruk-hai were evil; minions of Saruman. That he did not give each Uruk-hai the chance to throw it's weapon down and surrender even once is paramount proof to that.
When an Orc joined combat while Aragorn was already fighting, he dispatched the Orc. He didn't ask to make sure it was his enemy. Can you imagine that? In the middle of a battle field, in a very british manner, "Pardon old chap, I don't mean to be rude but I say, do you happen to be of the opinion that you might want to kill me?"

He's the thing, though. If it was Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, and they were ambushed by 35 orcs, they would start killing the orcs. If ANY being began to fight on their side -even Saruman himself- I think they would pause long enough after the battle to demand his reason for defending them. They might have weapons at the ready, arrow drawn, and they might demand to know on the spot, but they wouldn't attack him if he was defending them.

And I'm pretty sure the act of jumping in the way of 35 oncoming orcs to kill them before they reach you does indeed count as defending you, at least in appearance.

 

[Animal]

Speaking of Aragorn and uruks, just remember the final battle from the book. He offered human warriors of harad and easterlings to surrender, but orcs received no quarter. they were thoroughly exterminated and scattered. zero tolerance, full stop.
Of course, showing mercy to monsters sometimes happens with Good characters. Especially CG ones, who are not bound by traditions and prejudices and have a more flexible mindset to actually think that not all trolls are enemies. But it is more of a whim. In fact, that excerpt from BoED specifically advices DMs not to punish players unnecessarily for showing mercy to opponents, because, apparently, it is not a generally expected behaviour.

But here's another riddle. Are american soldiers who snipe armed mujahideens and make those preventive air strikes evil? If during the battle one mujahideen shoots another one from a different sect or group and then you shoot him in turn - would anyone think you killed an ally? Are american "adventurers" evil in general, because they go to other countries and kill the not necessarily evil people there?