Exalted moral dilemma

[FireLance]

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?

And there's the crux of the matter. If you're running a game for exalted characters, it should never be necessary to commit an evil act to accomplish good ends. Exalted characters should reject the course of evil, even if it is convenient and "for the greater good", in favor of the path of good which is more difficult, but ultimately more rewarding. At least, it is in my games.

 

[Psion]

Has anyone here read The Ringworld Engineers?

For me, I guess the question boils down to "would exalted characters behave like Teela the Protector?"

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

But is it exaclty blackmail if, instead of saying, "give me the mcguffin or I spread your secrets all over the city," you say "It's come to my attention that you're involved in some rather despicable liasons. There are a lot of concerned parties who really should know how they're being cheated (upon?), but I understand that you're not wholly given over to darkness. So, here's the deal, mend your ways, cut off those liasons, and help me to defeat evil X and there will be no need for me to tell anyone. After all, telling them wouldn't undo the harm that has been done and would do more harm it you truly begin walking the right path. On the other hand, if you continue down your current path, I shall tell those involved. Either way, your dark liasons and shady dealings are going to stop. However, you can choose to stop them now and become a better person or you can allow them to drag you down. Make your choice."

Alternatively, you could follow the schlock mercenary logic and say "it's not blackmail if they don't wait for me to make a demand." ("I hear you've got my secrets, would you be willing to take this nifty mcguffin in exchange for keeping your mouth shut?"/"Why, yes. I would. However did you know my price?" ) Oh wait, you can't--exalted characters don't get to read scholck mercenary-- oh well.

 

[saethone]

yes, that is blackmail still

and exhalted is not the same as good

but you got close with that one.

"but you're not lost yet. mend your ways, cut off those liasons, help me defeat the evil x"

if he doesn't agree, it depends on what kind of liasons they are. if they are illegal, turn him in, but make sure the jailers are't going to tell anyway. make sure he knows this, and try to convert him as per the exalted book. it would take a minimum of a week to do this though, so money is a more preffered method

being 'neutral' on a law/chaos axis doesn't affect his methods. torture, blackmail, breaking and entering, etc, are always evil. no question about it. even if its for a greater good, its evil.

being neutral good as opposed to lawful good just means, if theres some weird legal process you would have to go through before you can arrest someone who you *know* committed a crime (i.e. witnessed) then you go an arrest him because the legal system is bullcrap, then turn him over to the authorities, it has othing to do with blackmail torture etc


what would you think if someone blackmailed you? if the pope said you had to give up the most important thing in the world to you so that a secret of the catholic church would stay secret, or he would tell about a dark secret about you...what would you think of him?


edit: also, another pretty much direct quote from boed - Exhalted is not just the absense of evil. its an active attempt to be good, make good, and spread good

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Hmmm. I was thinking it was still close enough to blackmail myself, but only because of the "help me defeat the evil x [by giving me mcguffin Y]" part of it. That is no longer offering him the opportunity to preserve his reputation by becoming worthy of it but rather asking him to do something for you in return for the more generous treatment. As for the rest of it, though, I don't see that any character, exalted or otherwise would have a duty or an obligation to protect the shady merchant's reputation. If the guards tell that he was involved in illegal stuff, they're doing they're jobs. If the character tells, he's doing his civic duty. The proposed deal (absent the questionable part--it's probably legitimate for an exalted character to ask for it afterward, but not while in the process of giving him a chance to clean up his act because that would be (at least implied) quid pro quo for the preservation of his reputation) is not a lawful one, but I don't think that precludes it from being a good or exalted one. "I'm here to give you a chance to reform before the law gets its hands on you; reform and there's no need for the law to get involved--otherwise, I'll let things take their course" seems to be in the D&D tradition of neutral or chaotic good (in as much as there is anything coherent in the law/chaos axis).

That said, another possibility (I'm not certain it would work for exalted characters) would be to find something he values more than the mcguffin, buy it, and use that as leverage--somewhat similar to the way the Count of Monte Cristo used his money to ruin his enemies fortunes. If you hold enough of his debts to exceed his liquid assets, and can call them all in, you're pretty likely to get the mcguffin. If you did it right, it would be perfectly legal, but it's still not nice. In order to make it acceptable for an exalted character, you would probably have to make sure that, unlike the Count, you actually want the assets/debts that you are buying and that you can work it out as a business deal that has a purpose other than hurting the merchant if he doesn't acceed to your wishes. That way, you wouldn't just be doing it to gain power over him or to hurt him, both of which might be precluded as exclusive motivations by exalted status. (If they're excluded as primary motivations, you're pretty much hosed).

yes, that is blackmail still

and exhalted is not the same as good

but you got close with that one.

"but you're not lost yet. mend your ways, cut off those liasons, help me defeat the evil x"

if he doesn't agree, it depends on what kind of liasons they are. if they are illegal, turn him in, but make sure the jailers are't going to tell anyway. make sure he knows this, and try to convert him as per the exalted book. it would take a minimum of a week to do this though, so money is a more preffered method

 

[Sejs]

"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."

Evil will always win, because good is dumb.

"Well, sorry your family, friends, everyone you cared about, and everyone you've ever known, spoken to, or even seen had to die like that. I just couldn't possibly tell a lie. But I feel the deaths of thousands of innocents is an acceptable sacrifice in exchange for my being able to walk the moral highroad."

 

[FireLance]

Evil will always win, because good is dumb.

"Well, sorry your family, friends, everyone you cared about, and everyone you've ever known, spoken to, or even seen had to die like that. I just couldn't possibly tell a lie. But I feel the deaths of thousands of innocents is an acceptable sacrifice in exchange for my being able to walk the moral highroad."

As mentioned, this will only happen if the DM sets it up so that the PCs have to tell a lie to avert a catastrophe. And if the DM sets it up that way, he shouldn't have exalted characters in his game in the first place.

"Evil will always win, because good is dumb" is a fine tagline for a game where Good is caricatured as self-righteous, delusional and ineffective. It might even be the way the real world works (although I have faith that it doesn't ). However, it has no place in a game with exalted characters, unless the players really enjoy hopeless causes and failing all the time. In a game with exalted characters, the decision to act in good ways may be incovenient, but it should be right.

 

[saethone]

thats the real world, though, not dnd

in dnd, if a dm is allowing exalted characters, then there is a way around it. there has to be, or you have a horrible, evil dm

 

[Darrin Drader]

I am playing a NG druid who just gained exalted status. Then the idea comes up for our group to blackmail a big city merchant that has an item that we need. The merchant is known to be shady/underhanded but not necessarily evil.

What I am wondering is whether an exalted NG person would have a problem with things like blackmail, breaking and entering, stealing, etc?

Yes, absolutely. Trust me on this one.

 

[dungeon blaster]

As mentioned, this will only happen if the DM sets it up so that the PCs have to tell a lie to avert a catastrophe. And if the DM sets it up that way, he shouldn't have exalted characters in his game in the first place...In a game with exalted characters, the decision to act in good ways may be incovenient, but it should be right.

I agree. Let's use the "telling a small lie vs. world being destroyed" example. According to the BoED, telling the lie would be wrong, regardless of the consequences. So, obviously an exalted character cannot tell the lie. However, allowing the world to be destroyed is also an unexalted act and so the exalted character cannot allow the world to be destroyed. For this character, it is a lose-lose situation (assuming there isn't an alternative that would allow the character to retain his/her exalted status). This is simply not fair to the player of the exalted character. So it seems that the DM's choice is: a) have exalted characters but always present them with a solution in which the character can remain exalted, or b) allow for moral dilemmas, but not allow exalted characters. I think moral dilemmas where there isn't a "right" choice are FAR more interesting than exalted characters, so I'd rather just not have them in my game.