How many times...?

[ThirdWizard]

Ahh, so its perfectly clear. Good characters do good all the time, evil characters do good and evil things as they see fit, and neutral characters dont actually exist, because if they perform an evil act, they are evil. Gotcha.

There are neutral actions.

(Beat me to it.)

 

[Felix]

You can do non good, non evil acts.

I thought the idea behind neutral was disassociation of the morality of the act from the decision process as to if the character would perform that act. A neutral character certainly can do Good or Evil acts; he just won't do them (or not do them) because they're Good or Evil acts.

If act A is Good:
A Good character will do it because it is Good.
An Evil character might do it because it makes him seem good, and that makes it easier for him to do Evil. Or he might not do it because it's not Evil.
A neutral character might do it for some other reason: monetary reward; the ladies will love him for it; he's got nothing else to do.

If Act B is Evil:
A Good character won't do it because it's Evil.
An Evil character will do it because it furthers his Evil ends.
A Neutral character might to it because it's pragmatic.

Of course Neutral characters can commit Good or Evil acts and still be Neutral; they just can't do them because they're motivated to do Good or Evil: because they're not ... they're Neutral!

 

[Elf Witch]

Can you say big overreaction. This was what a commoner and you are what level? Are you telling me that you could not have used your weapon to do subdual damage and knocked her out?

That would have shown the masses that you meant business. Now it is possible you have scared all the town folk into behaving because they fear you or they may be planning to stick a knife in your back when you are sleeping to get rid of the evil that has come to their village. If I was DMing then I woul simply have the town find some "good" hero to come in and rid the town of the "evil" cleric that had taken it over.

town folk " he melted old Maude's face right off with his foul god's magic"
good hero "what! What weapon was old Maude weilding a mace was she a powerful old witch?"
town folk " she was throwing garbage at him" "please help us"

 

[JohnSnow]

A crazy old lady is throwing garbage at you. You are not under any real threat. Do you:

A) Ignore it. After all, it's only annoying. You can put up with disrepect.
B) Attempt to restrain her without injuring her if at all possible.
C) Stop her from injuring you in an efficient, but neithe viscious nor cruel way.
D) Burn her face off to stop her.
E) Kill her because she's annoying.

A is truly good. Saintly good.

B is probably still good. If you need to subdue her for other reasons (like you've been ordered to impose order), this is the appropriate course for a GOOD character.

C is the neutral approach. She's a problem and needs to be stopped, but you don't have to go overboard.

D and E are both evil. D may be more restrained than E...but it's still evil.

Warnings don't change the moral nature of the basic act. They're really more a law-chaos thing than a good-evil thing.

And justifying a vicious or cruel act as being okay because it was the "pragmatic" thing to do is the recourse of evil characters. That's their excuse. Most people don't do evil just to "do evil." They do it because it's pragmatic (that is, the most convenient action for THEM). Helping someone is good. Not helping them is neutral. Harming them is evil.

It's really very simple.

 

[Felix]

Can you say big overreaction?

Let's see...

If I was DMing then I woul simply have the town find some "good" hero to come in and rid the town of the "evil" cleric that had taken it over.

Big overreaction.

Yep. I can say it.

Ignore it. After all, it's only annoying. You can put up with disrepect.

A is truly good. Saintly good.

It is specifically Saintly Good to ignore disregard and disrespect for law-enforcement in an area whose previous law enforcers have been wiped out?

It is specifically Saintly Good to allow a woman who might very well be unable to control herself roam about freely in a place devoid of law besides yourself?

It is specifically Saintly Good to do this in front of a mob who has just recently stopped doing the same thing, thus treating them to a showing that you will do nothing when spat at and cursed?

If Order is what you're trying to restore, then turning the other cheek doesn't work. If you only ever turn the other cheek, you're the wrong person to try to restore order. Maybe you don't kill her, but you do something.

 

[JohnSnow]

If I was DMing then I woul simply have the town find some "good" hero to come in and rid the town of the "evil" cleric that had taken it over.

Big overreaction.

Nope. Good DMing.

It's a reminder to PCs that there are consequences for their actions. It's actually more productive than getting into a prolonged argument with the player about the moral implications of burning someone's face off for throwing garbage at you.

I mean, does anyone actually think a rational society wouldn't conclude such an individual was a dangerous, unstable menace?

 

[Felix]

rational society

Was this rational society recently throwing trash and insults at the folks who have arrived to help them?

Was this the rational society that lives with the old woman but did nothing to stop her from doing what she was doing even after they all realized that it was better that the PCs be allowed to help them?

Want good DMing? As soon as the PCs move from saying, "Ma'am, control yourself." to "Ma'am, we will use force against you." have a relative or neighbor of the old woman come in and restrain her. That's better DMing. If the crowd understands why they themselves should stop, they understand why she should stop. They know her, they live with her, they should have a part in getting her to shut up.

 

[JohnSnow]

If Order is what you're trying to restore, then turning the other cheek doesn't work. If you only ever turn the other cheek, you're the wrong person to try to restore order. Maybe you don't kill her, but you do something.

Good is not concerned with issues of order.

I'll repeat that. "Good" is not concerned with issues of order. That's LAWFUL Good.

Turn the other cheek is a perfectly viable option for a good character. For a character trying to restore order, as you said, something more is necessary. Attempting to restrain her without injuring her is that something. Yes, that may mean you put yourself at some risk - even considerable risk.

Let's see...grapple to restrain her?


(PCs gathered around unconscious old lady)

PC1 (Good): "Geez Joe, you didn't have to hit her!
PC2 (Neutral): "What? I stopped her, didn't I? She's not throwing trash anymore is she? Besides, she'll be fine."
PC3 (Evil): "You shoulda burned her face off."

 

[Felix]

Good is not concerned with issues of order.

The PCs were sent in to restore order. That's part of the mission, if not part of the characters' alignments. If a Good character decides that his alignment does not allow him to concern himself with issues of order, he shouldn't have taken the job.

And I understand what lawful means enough that you don't need to capitalize it.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Was this the rational society that lives with the old woman but did nothing to stop her from doing what she was doing even after they all realized that it was better that the PCs be allowed to help them?

Perhaps they saw the PCs as an occupying force. Often townsfolk are wary of new men sent in by some distant ruler or other such governments who are far removed from their own situations. It is very reasonable for them to not appreciate the "helpful" PC presence in this instance. Overcoming this obsticle is a good challenge for the PCs to overcome.

Burning off her face keeps them afraid and it can be a good way to show force and to keep control over the populace as long as you're willing to put down any further insurections in the same way. It's also Evil.

But, occupying forces (or those perceved to be) are often seen badly, even if they have good intentions. The villiagers forming a mob to run them off isnt' good, and neither is trash throwing. So, the PC burns the woman's face off. I think it is entirely appropriate for the villiagers to try and mount some sort of insurrection against he PC's seeming tyrany over them.