Moral Dilemma - What should I do? [Long][My players please keep out]

[bardolph]

I'm generally in the "alignment is goofy, but it helps kick-start roleplaying" camp.

Usually, in these types of situations, I allow each character (in writing) to justify or judge his own actions, according to what he believes is his own alignment. Except in cases of blatant hypocrisy, I usually let it stand.

If, after the arguments are submitted, I still believe that a character was acting "out of his alignment," I would then offer to allow that character to change his alignment to something more suitable.

Sometimes, a character is normally one alignment, but circumstances cause that character to act "out of character" in certain situations. As far as I'm concerned, that's great! It means that the characters have depth and complexity. Sometimes, characters have "life-changing" experiences that cause them to intentionally choose a new alignment.

So far, it has worked. I've never had to "force" an alignment onto anyone (except when someone puts on a helm of opposite alignment...)

 

[Dirigible]

The major problem seems to be lack of inter-PC communication. They should actually formulate a genral plan before indulging in something like this.

1) Certainly, it seems a valid technique to get info. It's nicer than torturing, certainly (unless the dwarf has a really strong bond with the bow). It's certianly un-Kantian to lie in that way, but only a strict Lawful wold object to a mild deception on a mercenary who was hired to kill you.

2) I reckon the crossbow is spoils of victory. I don;t know your groups's treasure distribution protocols, and I'm not sure whether the wizard called personal or group dibbs on the crossbow.

3) What the hell was the fighter thinking? His action seems utterly irrational, so I can;t give you any kind of moral position.

4) The last one's a little more tricky. Killing a prisoner/victim out of frustration like that is usually a bad mistake (my chars have done similar a few times). He was fighting at the time, not bound, and that makes a difference. I don;t think administering a coup de grace in a situation like this is necessarily so bad.

 

[takyris]

1) "You tried to KILL me. Yes, I lied to you about you getting to keep your crossbow. Life is hard. Remember that part where you SHOT me with it?"

2) "You tried to KILL me. I'm leaving you alive and taking your weapon. I expect a thank-you card on important holidays."

3) I can see a few reasons for the fighter to do what he did. Maybe he thought that the dwarf, seeing the odds against him, would grumble and run off. Maybe he wanted to see if the dwarf would grudgingly thank him and leave, or if the dwarf would impotently declare a blood-feud and promise retribution. If you've got somebody who is still going to lunge at your throat even after you've freed him, you've got a mad dog who is gonna keep trying to kill you until you kill him.

4) Same basic logic. Can't say I'd do it myself as a person, but in a D&D world, if it was a matter of having someone who insisted on continuing to try and kill me, forcing me to waste spells HEALING HIM so that he could CONTINUE to try to kill me, and then knowing that I'd have to look over my shoulder while this psycho levels up and hires more friends, then yeah, I think he needs to die.

(In real life, you have other avenues -- the guy can be locked up securely, can't resort to spells to save himself, and won't usually continue to attack in the face of overwhelming odds.)

Can't say I feel hugely sorry for the guy who was part of the squad that attacked by surprise for pay.

 

[S'mon]

It sounds as if the party's general alignment was in the CN-CG area; possibly with some True N, I didn't see any NG or CE behaviour.

 

[The Cardinal]

ditto to all of Takyris' points

 

[Balsamic Dragon]

Hello everyone,

I'm running a game at the moment where the following confusing situation happened. However, the difficulty is in telling people that they have possibly breached their character's alignment - something which is pretty important in this particular game. The situation is so grey in some respects that I'm not too sure myself how to judge it so I'm appealing for a little help here. Let's say that the D&D Alignment system does not help that much.

Bearing in mind that alignment interpretation varies for everyone, here is my view. I deliberately haven't read the rest of the thread before posting this, so it won't color my opinions.

1) Was it right for the rogue to imply that the Dwarf could keep his Crossbow when the party had not agreed to this?

Depending on how strongly it was implied, rather than inferred by the Dwarf, this was an Unlawful action, but not Ungood. Any non-lawful character might do this. A lawful character might get away with it, but only if they really didn't mean to imply a party decision on the matter.

2) Was it right for the Wizard to just take the Crossbow back saying that he had already laid claim to it? Was this stealing anwyay?

Taking a weapon from a captured prisoner who has just tried to kill you is not stealing. This action is acceptable for any alignment. If the party had some sort of treasure dividing system in place, the Wizard might be held to that, if he or she were of a Lawful alignment.

3) Was it effectively a case of "murder" by the fighter who released the captive knowing that he would find his doom below (The dwarf was unarmoured and unarmed at this stage)?

It depends entirely on what the fighter's motivation for doing so was. We don't have enough information to know.

4) Was it murder by the Aristocrat, "killing" the defenceless body on the ground (He did not know that the Dwarf was aready dead but was obviously assuming that he was still alive if barely)?

Well, killing a dead body is never "murder". But while crimes are judged by both intent and result, alignment issues usually should only consider intent. The Aristocrat's excuse of "putting the Dwarf out of his misery" sounds like an attempt to show that the action was defensible by a Good alignment. However, this seems sketchy to me. I see this action as being motivated more Neutrality than Goodness. If the Aristocrat has a Neutral Good alignment, it might be more defensible. If the Aristocrat has a Chaotic or Lawful Good alignment, and has a particular world-view or code that might explain this, then I would let it slide. If the Aristocrat just did it out of frustration, I would give a minor alignment warning. I often find that giving someone a bad dream about the event serves this purpose well, and can be done entirely in character, in game.

Balsamic Dragon

 

[Ao the Overkitty]

Slightly off topic, but I'm interested in the fact that someone is playing an Aristocrat. Are they playing the DMG Aristocrat, or some 3rd Party Incarnation, or are they simply a combination of different PHB classes with some spice thrown in there?

Thanks,

- Rep.

Aristocrat is actually a semi decent class, if you look at it.

You get all simple & martial weapons, along with armor and shields (so you're as good as a fighter type in that regard). Good Will save (unusual for a fighter type). 3/4 BAB, 4 skill points and a nice skill list. Oh, and a d8 for hit points.

In the political game i play in, we have a very slightly altered Aristocrat class. At 1st and 5th level, you can select a "special" Aristocrat ability from the following list.

+1 BAB
know 3 cantrips off of any list (can cast each one once per day)

Most of the group has one or two levels of Aristocrat. The rogue took the class to gain the weapon & armor proficiencies without losing all of her skills (and gained a few cantrips). The fighter took a level to gains some skills while keeping his full BAB. The monk took a couple of levels for the different skills and the BAB (and weapon profs).

Not a class to take more then a few levels, but a decent complementary class to your main class in our campaign.

 

[Voadam]

None of these actions alone would be sufficient to switch an alignment.

That should only happen for consistent change in behaviour or much more drastic actions (betraying your patron good god and assaulting one of the god's priests to get in good with the evil members of the party qualifies).

A good character can do evil actions and remain good. Only consistent or major evil actions will swing a character's alignment. Minor sins are not enough to turn a good character evil.

If none of the PCs are a paladin or other prc where one evil action results in loss of class abilities then I wouldn't be worried about their actions that much.

 

[the Jester]

1) Was it right for the rogue to imply that the Dwarf could keep his Crossbow when the party had not agreed to this?
2) Was it right for the Wizard to just take the Crossbow back saying that he had already laid claim to it? Was this stealing anwyay?
3) Was it effectively a case of "murder" by the fighter who released the captive knowing that he would find his doom below (The dwarf was unarmoured and unarmed at this stage)?
4) Was it murder by the Aristocrat, "killing" the defenceless body on the ground (He did not know that the Dwarf was aready dead but was obviously assuming that he was still alive if barely)?


Herremann the Wise

Well, Herremann, here are my answers... YMMV, as always.

1. The rogue can imply all he wants. If he made actual promises (not implied promises) to the dwarf and he's lawful, he's slipped, but other than that, he could be any alignment.

2. This depends on the standard in your campaign. Do the pcs routinely loot defeated enemies? Then it's probably not stealing in their minds. Was there a law against what they did where they were? Then anyone who was LN probably slipped a little, but it's easily justified (in this case) as self-defense (we need to keep our enemy from shooting at us again). (Though a LN character would prolly argue that they should've taken the dwarf to the authorities instead of holding him themselves.) If the wizard laid claim on the crossbow without going through the party's usual treasure division system then he probably slipped away from Lawful too.

3. The fighter didn't kill the dwarf, the dwarf effectively committed suicide. The fighter sorta knew what would happen, but I'd say he acted in a pretty neutral manner (it doesn't sound like he attacked the dwarf after he let him go). Letting him go- if his intent was truly to let the dwarf go free- was actually a pretty nice thing to do; it's not his fault the dwarf squandered his opportunity.

4. Yep, this was murder. Maybe an evil action, but arguably neutral as self-defense. Almost certainly against any laws in the area, so again this slips the character away from Law.

So I'd say the situation is very complex, but not enough to change anyone's alignment, just shift the character's position within his alignment a little. Since there's no paladin I don't think you have anything to worry about at this point.

Now if this became a pattern, I'd say the Lawful members of the group would shift to ethically Neutral (NG, N, NE).

 

[caelvar]

Here`s another one for you all ; COTSQ (a real meatgrinder!) and the party are nearing the city of Maerymidra,having lost friends to the drow along the way. They defeat an illithid & it`s allies inc. 2 dominated female drow . The 2 drow are knocked out during the fight, all other nasties are slain. The drow are tied up,revived & dispel magic used to remove any lasting effects of the domination spell. So far so good ,but............
After finding out what we could about the layout of the city & anything else useful (which wasn`t much ; the 2 dark elves having been illithid-slaves since before the upheavals in the city ), we had to decide their fate.
Silke (priestess of Eilistraee ) advocated keeping them with us to try to convert them to goodness.Celysse (female bard & devotee of Sharess ) agreed,feeling she could learn about drow culture from them in "intimate" detail (she could have been a consultant on BOEF !).Kalin the sorcerer said they must be slain painlessly ,whereas Zeon the warrior monk argued they should be released into the underdark to find their own fate . Thorgrim Bloodaxe, the party`s one-dwarf ravening horde said he didn`t give a ****.
Who`s right ?