Evil or just.........mostly evil?

[Artoomis]

A general note on Good vs. Neutral vs. Evil

"Good" is the hardest alignment to play because there should be no compromises, generally speaking. A lot of behavior is simply not justifiable. When a "Good" character starts justifying how the ends justifies the means he starts down that slippery slope to alignment change.

For example, a "Good" character who is forced to allow a village to be destroyed by the dragon should try and stop the dragon. Inability to stop the dragon and the "live to fight another day" justification for leaving is legitimate (you don't have to be "stupid"), but it should really, really bother that PC and give him nightmares, etc., while it might not bother a neautral or evil character in the least.

With "Neutral" and "Evil" almost any behavior can be justified.

 

[irdeggman]

A general note on Good vs. Neutral vs. Evil

"Good" is the hardest alignment to play because there should be no compromises, generally speaking. A lot of behavior is simply not justifiable. When a "Good" character starts justifying how the ends justifies the means he starts down that slippery slope to alignment change.

For example, a "Good" character who is forced to allow a village to be destroyed by the dragon should try and stop the dragon. Inability to stop the dragon and the "live to fight another day" justification for leaving is legitimate (you don't have to be "stupid"), but it should really, really bother that PC and give him nightmares, etc., while it might not bother a neautral or evil character in the least.

With "Neutral" and "Evil" almost any behavior can be justified.

I agree with this assessment. It is based on the "definitions" of alignments from the WotC books (not even the "extreme" ones BoVD or BoED). Other interpretations are not based on the book definition and are therefor really not a "rules" issue.

It should be noted that in these definitions it is relatively easy for an evil character to "pretend" to be good (and it is often the case in adventures) but it is almost impossible (well extremely difficult at least) for a good character to "pretend" to be evil.

There are settings were the distinctions between alignments is more grey and they specifically state that. Dark Sun is one of the best examples of this. In the revised 2nd ed material they describe alignments in terms of "water" and survival.

 

[KarinsDad]

The "good" PC should be waiting for the neutral monster to attack, or simply bypass it, if possible. It's part of what makes playing a "good" PC a bit harder.

The creature is just living its life. The PCs are the ones invading the swamp. Even if a Good PC does wait for the neutral creature to attack, the Good PCs are still the "home invaders" and the neutral creature is still dead at the end of the encounter. The Good PCs still intentionally traveled to the swamp. How is this really that different than an Evil Rogue who invades a merchant’s home, gets surprised when the man is at home, and kills him? The only difference is the reason for invading. The Good PCs presumably travel into the swamp to accomplish a good goal, but the end result is still that an innocent neutral creature gets killed.


DND discusses good alignment, but the entire adventuring and CR system and magic item system is designed around killing.

When being attacked, there often isn't time to do Detect Evil and make sure that the good PCs are justified in killing the creature attacking them. The game is really not designed for this.

Getting back to the OPs original post, it is interesting how many people stated that this was an evil act when these same people have probably played "Good PCs" that go around killing creatures. For example, I suspect that most players of Good PCs have had one or more encounters at some point in time in a Thieves Guild or a Temple to an Evil Deity where every single (non-captive) creature found there was automatically killed on sight. No questions asked. Justification by Location.

Some do. Those who don't are really playing closer to Neutral than Good.

I opine that with the CR system designed with the expectation that PCs will have certain levels of wealth and magical equipment at certain levels, that very few players actually play their Good PCs as genuinely altruistic.

This is not a condemnation, it is an observation on how the game has a dichotomy between its alignment system and its CR/wealth/item systems. The game really does not have a real good reward system for not killing. For example, Vow of Nonviolence in BoED is practically impossible to play.

 

[Artoomis]

The creature is just living its life. The PCs are the ones invading the swamp. ...

True, but animals and monsters territory need not be given the same repect as people's homes - not in a normal "good" alignment.

When being attacked, there often isn't time to do Detect Evil and make sure that the good PCs are justified in killing the creature attacking them. The game is really not designed for this.

Treu, but once attacked it no longer matters - it's self-defense then.

...that very few players actually play their Good PCs as genuinely altruistic.

Yes, but pure altruism is not necessray to be "Good."

... For example, Vow of Nonviolence in BoED is practically impossible to play.

That's a tough one, all right, though it is only against humanoids, and non-lethal damage is allowed, and you can atone for breaking the vow, if you do. It's playable, but not easily. Of course the book is intended to be that way.

 

[KarinsDad]

True, but animals and monsters territory need not be given the same repect as people's homes - not in a normal "good" alignment.

Where is this written in the alignment section?

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.

Doesn't respect for life include all life? Not just "people's" lives?

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

An animal has an Intelligence score of 1 or 2. A creature of humanlike intelligence has a score of at least 3.

Doesn't many Neutral Monsters have an Intelligence of at least 3?

Not the Hydra, but others.

Treu, but once attacked it no longer matters - it's self-defense then.

This really sounds like a justification. The ends justified by the means.

Good PC: "Sure we invaded their turf, but they attacked, so we killed them."

 

[moritheil]

This is not opinion. This is called out as a rule in BoED. Players do not have to play their good PCs as stupid. BoED page 5 and 6.

What intelligent person does not have the ability to think of the possibility that someone who fell in a couple of rounds ago may not have drowned yet? If it's been 3 rounds, that's 18 seconds . . . even not counting the fact that dwarves are known for their stamina, the average person in 3.5 can hold their breath longer than that without having to make any kind of check.

I'm not asserting that the char ought to know the exact amount of time that someone can hold their breath, but some rough idea of how long people can hold their breath like that ought to be pretty common knowledge.

In all fairness, if the DM didn't remind the player of that fact, the DM dropped the ball. So I don't think the player should be penalized - but taking the OP's question at face value, my answer remains that sitting around and thinking about something, then stepping on someone who quite reasonably could still be alive and pushing them down further, when you have no need to do so, is an evil act.

 

[KarinsDad]

What intelligent person does not have the ability to think of the possibility that someone who fell in a couple of rounds ago may not have drowned yet? If it's been 3 rounds, that's 18 seconds . . . even not counting the fact that dwarves are known for their stamina, the average person in 3.5 can hold their breath longer than that without having to make any kind of check.

I'm not asserting that the char ought to know the exact amount of time that someone can hold their breath, but some rough idea of how long people can hold their breath like that ought to be pretty common knowledge.

Careful. Holding your breath in DND is half CON if performing actions underwater. So, most typical PCs can only hold their breath from 4 to 8 rounds if they are underwater in quicksand and trying to escape. It is not unheard of for a PC to wonder if another one is dead underwater that quickly. It's not as if they have a Stopwatch in such an emergency situation.

Not only that, but the action of stepping on the dwarf from a rules perspective does nothing.

Effects of Quicksand: Characters in quicksand must make a DC 10 Swim check every round to simply tread water in place, or a DC 15 Swim check to move 5 feet in whatever direction is desired. If a trapped character fails this check by 5 or more, he sinks below the surface and begins to drown whenever he can no longer hold his breath (see the Swim skill description).

Characters below the surface of a bog may swim back to the surface with a successful Swim check (DC 15, +1 per consecutive round of being under the surface).

From a rules perspective, there is no "depth underwater" considerations. There is merely whether the PC is underwater or not. The DCs for escape would be the same regardless.

 

[moritheil]

Careful. Holding your breath in DND is half CON if performing actions underwater.

Six rounds for the average dwarf, two or three of which had passed. A difference like that ought to be notable for the character, though, as I said before, if the DM didn't say anything, one can't really blame the player. You say "careful" as though I'm making a mistake, but I don't see anything wrong.

It is not unheard of for a PC to wonder if another one is dead underwater that quickly. It's not as if they have a Stopwatch in such an emergency situation.

I assume that PCs generally know how much time has passed. After all, if you allow your PCs to fight for their lives for 10+ consecutive rounds and still know when their spells are going to end, it can't possibly be too distracting to keep basic track of time. If you don't allow your PCs to remember when their spells end, then that's consistent; it's just not how I see things done in most campaigns.

Not only that, but the action of stepping on the dwarf from a rules perspective does nothing.

From a rules perspective, there is no "depth underwater" considerations. There is merely whether the PC is underwater or not. The DCs for escape would be the same regardless.

This is valid. However, it sounds like the DM ruled (or houseruled) that it did indeed have an adverse effect. This is also something he should have pointed out beforehand, then.