Exalted moral dilemma

[Psion]

There's a difference between killing somebody actively trying to kill you, and blackmailing somebody to get something you could easily get via other methods.

You could quite easily transpose the words killing and blackmail in the above and have it hold just as true. You are stacking the deck by adding conditions in one that is possible in the other as well. It may be (and some would argue, often is) possible to stop some villainous NPC without killing him, either.

 

[Voadam]

Precisely. Is blackmailing in self-defense or defense of others evil if killing is not?

Is torture? Do means matter?

For exalted D&D characters I would say fighting evil, including killing sentient evil adversaries, for a good reason is an acceptable means to a good end.

Torturing, even for a good reason to accomplish good ends, would not be.

Blackmail seems to fall more along the lines of unacceptable means for an exalted character.

 

[Estlor]

Good is good. The main difference between LG and NG is someone who is LG will try to foster goodness through law and order (or the replacing of corrupt law and order), while a NG will try to foster goodness without regard to the structure of the realm around them. That doesn't give a NG person free reign to do whatever they want. It means they need to do whatever is necessary within the boundaries of morality and social justice.

If the merchant in question is not an evil person or someone actively committing a vile act, they would not resort to blackmail because it is a destructively immoral act. If he is secretly a wicked man, revealing his wickedness to the population would be a priority, but no blackmail attempt would be made in that case.

Breaking and entering and theft, in the eyes of a NG person, would be a justifiably good act if the outcome led to a greater good and reparations were made to the wronged person (in this case, giving him fair-market value for the item during or after the theft or using the item and returning it if that is possible). To a NG person, "theft" and "breaking and entering" are terms invented by a lawful society to categorize things for consistent enforcement of the law. Because the majority of such actions are done from malice, a lawful society attempts to promote avoiding such activities. But to a NG person, said activities done without malice for a noble cause are not wrong because they violate only the artificial law of man, not the absolute law of morality.

My advice - investigate other avenues of obtaining the item. Find out why the merchant won't part with it and judge him on his motives. You might be able to coax the item out of him without resorting to pedestrian tactics. On the other hand, you might have to bash the door down and take it. But an informed, moral judgement made with a clear conscience should be the final outcome.

 

[Blue Sky]

I would say, try other ways first. Find out why he's not dealing with you, and if you can work around those reasons, then do it.

However, should you have no other reasonable methods, then you're at an impasse. As such, say "I understand you are a greedy merchant/using the mcguffin for something else/mad at me for stealing your girlfriend in second grade, and I can accept that. I would like to point out, however, should we retrieve the mcguffin, we'll be out of your hair for quite a while. If not, well if we can't destroy the big evil, we'll work on uprooting the lesser evils, which may make your life difficult. You know, cause we'll have so much free time, and all."

And on another note, where's your rogue? This sort of situation is just the type where he should say, "Hey, I'm goin' for a walk," talk to the merchant himself, and just tell you he got a reasonable offer out of him.

 

[Psion]

Is torture? Do means matter?

For exalted D&D characters I would say fighting evil, including killing sentient evil adversaries, for a good reason is an acceptable means to a good end.

Torturing, even for a good reason to accomplish good ends, would not be.

Even if you alleviate more suffering than you cause by doing so?

Blackmail seems to fall more along the lines of unacceptable means for an exalted character.

Seems to you, perhaps. I don't think it's a given in the least bit.

It seems to me that it is better to intimidate someone out of doing evil that would one day be redeemed, than to kill them and have their soul be damned.

 

[saethone]

i would say its evil

read page 9 on book of exalted deeds - ends and means,

"When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? Is it morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in order to extract vital information that can prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents? any good character shudders at the thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing thousands of deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and a neutral character might easily consider the use of torture in such a circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtuous characters can find themselves tempted to agree that a very good end justifies a midlly evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a major catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe?
In the D&D universe, the fundamanetal answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may acheive."


straight from the horses mouth

 

[Psion]

straight from the horses mouth

Hmmm.

1) I found the discussion of morality in BoED less than compelling.
2) Even if you do accept it at face value, it offers up torture as an example. Okay, what about blackmail? Is making an intimidate check evil?

 

[Falkus]

Even if you alleviate more suffering than you cause by doing so?

How much more suffering? A million people, a thousand people, ten, one, a kitten? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Psion]

How much more suffering? A million people, a thousand people, ten, one, a kitten? Where do you draw the line?

Where indeed.

(Though the rules do seem to suggest a kitten is kosher, unless it's an awakened kitten. )

I make no assertions as two how much pain and suffering is "equalizing". My point is, stemming from the principle that you can't divorce actions from motives when determining their morality (a standpoint that the D&D game would seem to support given that killing does not seem to stain paladins and clerics who do it aplenty over the course of an adventuring career), you can't really say a given action is evil without considering its motives and impact.

Though clearly, various D&D supplements are less than consistent on this.

 

[FireLance]

This is EXACTLY why I don't play with exalted feats/status. It just doesn't make sense.

It depends on the set-up of the universe, which means it ultimately depends on the DM. If the DM wants to run scenarios where the PCs have to commit evil acts in order to achieve their objectives, then that DM should state upfront that paladins and exalted characters should not be in his game.

I actively encourage characters in my games to perform good and exalted deeds, and so I make sure that the PCs can always accomplish their objectives by being good and heroic. Furthermore, even if being good seems inconvenient or impractical, it results in the "best" outcome. In my games, evil acts ultimately result in poor outcomes, even failure.

Yeah, I'm aware of the reality check - events in the real world don't always work out this way. However, the game world that I'm running plays by my rules, and it's a world where Good is rewarded and Evil is frustrated. Players that clue into the way my world works do well. Others - well, if they don't like it, they can always find another DM more willing to tolerate their evil antics.