Exalted moral dilemma

[Rokes]

THE DM's response.

As the DM for Cvrinn, I can't help but take a small amount of offense to the assumptions recently made that I've given the players only one choice for obtaining the said item. However, that offense is very small, and I'm actually quite enjoying this thread, and all the views presented within.

A bit of background:

Two of the party’s members (not the druid) are twins and sons of a well-known artifact merchant. They are both neutral, and were raised to join their fathers adventuring parties to retrieve items of value from "those who no longer needed/wanted/deserved them." Essentially, a shop driven by tales of treasure who fund expeditions to find and eventually sell the items.

While this shop, named "Your Loss, Our Find," is well-known, they are far from a big operation. They specialize mostly in exotic hard to find items. The merchant that the party is dealing with is the "Wal-mart" of the city. They sell everything, from armor, to weapons, to jewelry, even beef jerky! The sons of this Merchant also used to bully the twins growing up, as the Merchant was much better off, and of a quite superior mind-set. As you can see there is a deep hatred (jealousy) for this other shop.

The item in question belonged to a wizard of some power. This item was lost years ago, but now a friend of that wizard is asking this party to retrieve the item which is believed to be in the Merchant's possession in order to gain a key that the party requires. Attempts to locate the object via the spell of the same name have failed around the Merchant's shop/residence. Several characters have attempted to talk to the shop lackeys about the item, with none of them having a clue what they are talking about.

Responding to some earlier comments, I'm not going to tell Cvrinn what actions he can and can't do with his Exalted status. I will, however, revoke his status if he commits a deed that warrants it. It is up to him as a player and a character to decide what he feels is appropriate, it is my job to let him know what Ehlonna thinks..

I am of the opinion that through proper atonement, any status can be restored, but the requirements for the atonement (in this case) will be more than a simple 5th level spell.

All said, twofalls actually hit the nail on the head. I won't say on which post, but he's of the right mind. Let's just say, in my game, there is always more going on then what it seems to be...

 

[saethone]

/\ told ya there was another way

 

[Rokes]

Update...

Well it turns out that the Druid didn't use his incriminating evidence to blackmail the merchant. Instead he joined the rest of the party in breaking into the shop in a search for the item.

So far it hasn't turned out too good for them, as the rogue (yes the halfling rogue *sigh*) fell into a pit and had his head crushed. Don't worry though, there was a mop and bucket near the bottom of the pit for the "clean up crew."

So now the question is:

"Is breaking into someone's house to steal an item that may ultimately lead to a greater good, an exalted act?"

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yes.

 

[Rokes]

Yes.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would disagree. Personally I'm trying to stay neutral on this subject, but I'm interested in other points of view.

 

[Xath]

The way my DM runs exalted is that it's incredibly difficult to keep because it's so incredibly powerful.

For example, my character lost her exalted status for allowing a foe to bleed out in a battle "to the death." She would have lost the status for finishing him off as well.

Ultimately, it's up to the DM.

Breaking and entering is inherantly unlawful, and if the character was Lawful, I'd say that warrants losing Exalted status.

But as long as they didn't hurt anyone, or intentionally damage property, I'd say that the overall good outweighed the cost of lax morality.

 

[the Jester]

With exalted characters, if you have the slightest twinge of doubt about it, count on it being something the character would have a major problem participating in.

 

[Voadam]

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

Exalted seems a lot like paladin power. It can be lost by doing evil. To me this implies the special good power requires a certain state of spiritual purity that can be disrupted by performing evil or certain unsavory acts, even in good causes.

I don't think it is a contradiction in terms to say it is possible to do an evil action for a good end.

So the question then is not a utilitarian one of ends (evil resulting from torture balanced against good from information gained) but whether the action on its own disrupts the necessary condition for the power.

So a paladin can torture for a good end, he simply loses his paladin powers. And blackmail as a method seems to also fall under the category of improper methods for exalted to use and maintain the spiritual purity for supernatural good powers.

Killing evil to stop it seems to be a neutral method of stopping the evil in a D&D context, while torture and blackmail seem more dark side, working off of fear, humiliation, and pain.

 

[The Great Bear King]

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.

If the druid's god was Lawful Good I say permantley strip him of exhalted status. If your druid's god is Neutral Good suspend his exhalted status for a day or so. If he is Chaotic Good
suspend his exhalted status untill he intentional blabs about what he blackmailed the merchant for.

"Chaos will always win, because order is dumb."

 

[D-rock]

Responding to some earlier comments, I'm not going to tell Cvrinn what actions he can and can't do with his Exalted status. I will, however, revoke his status if he commits a deed that warrants it. It is up to him as a player and a character to decide what he feels is appropriate, it is my job to let him know what Ehlonna thinks.. ...

Geez, this seems kind of unfair, you would think that somebody that is regarded as the highest ideal of his alignment should know when he does something that violates it. At the very least he they should have a way of finding out what is considered right and wrong. Especialy, since it is highly within the DM's judgment that runs the game, just look at many of the post on this thread dissagre with each other.