What would you have done?

[John Morrow]

My personal opinion is that once you blow up a planet, I'm not shedding any tears if you get bent over by the Rancor monster on Viagra.

I should also point out that in the course of the comedy movie Trading Places, a villain essentially suffers this punishment for crimes far less evil than blowing up a planet and it's played up for laughs. While there are plenty of valid reasons for being bothered and shocked by this sort of thing, it's not uncommon for movies to play on the fact that plenty of people easily fall into the line of thought that villains deserve whatever they get. People are even willing to laugh at it. In fact, James Bond long maintained a PG rating by having James Bond crack jokes as bad guys died all sorts of horrible deaths.

I think that mindset can be summed up by a saying of someone I used to work with. "Shouldn't 'a' been there." Basically, if they weren't doing Evil things and weren't working for the bad guys, nothing horrible would have happened to them. I don't personally agree but I think quite a few people have a sense of Karma that does work like that.

 

[jim pinto]

Thanks for the notes, Mr. Morrow.

Good points. Let me expand my point.

A self-righteous paladin is going to run around killing and judging in his gods name. But this isn't LG, this is LN. LG sets a higher standard. It does not choose between ends and means. It chooses BOTH.

The prisoners were tied up. Period. Yes. They get taken back to justice. To await trial for their peers to make a decision. Don't play a Lawful character setting lofty ideals for society if you don't believe in this. Don't play a good character that respects life, if you're going to kill people who are tied up.

The vet did nothing AT THE MOMENT to warrant being murdered. Eventually he would have been executed, maybe. Or maybe. Just maybe, a wizard somewhere could have extracted mountains of information from him for use later. And allow HIM TO ATONE.

Killing the VET says that the PCs know better than anyone, what should happen to this guy.

Now, the mage deserved what he got. Maybe more. Zhent mages suck and that's that. And in this case, he even tried to invoke magic that could have flattened the entire party. Who knows. But the vet did nothing more than recite him name, rank, and serial number.

And he was murdered. He was tied up (a pre-meditated act), and then killed without compulsion. It ain't manslaughter.

Modern descriptions aside, the LN character is more bound by means then the LG character. Unless these PCs have been appointed "justificators" by the courts, they don't have the right to behave in this manner.

And the CG character has a lot of explaining to do. Because his means are certainly always "wacky", but his end is doing the right thing. CG can't justify kicking people in the nuts, unless he himself believes that getting kicked in the nuts is a good thing. "Oh yeah. In my village, we do it all the time."

For LN, the end isn't nearly as important as they way he goes about it. "These Zhents have to face justice. I don't care what the courts decide, but they will be brought before our leaders."

But this is what I love about a discussion like this, is the absolute moral gray of the situation. There's really no one way to look at this. And I want, from what I've read, most everyone is responding in a mature manner. Keep the debate coming, guys.

I do have one question for two falls... what was their mission? Were they told they were to exact the king's law? If so, that brings a lot of this into question. And perhaps they weren't so vile after all.

However, my character (Mr. Morrow), would have demanded we take them prisoner. And yes, cart them around. Because that's what Paladins do to people who have surrendered and/or been captured. If he tries to escape and draws a blade, however... well... wrath of the gods and all that.



Good debate, guys.

 

[John Morrow]

Yes he will hang them. No, he is dispensing Justice and IMO this is consistant with his Paladin's code. He must protect the meek, and though he dislikes executions this is his decision. He as the ruler of Shadowdale DOES have the moral duty to met out death as punishment. This gets into moral muddy waters, but that was my decision as a GM at the time of the game. I'd do the same now.

What I'm really trying to get to is the moral authority issue vs. the helpless issue. I want to understand what the problem really is because it has implications beyond your sprecific example.

They later learned that the Innkeeper was hung by the Governor of the town, and his 13 year old son and only relative Johnathon was sent to Darkhold as a slave. They also learned from the Freedom Riders that the Innkeeper was in fact NOT a collaborator for them. Now the PC's are also searching for Johnathon when they get to Darkhold. No, not all my stories end up with fairytale endings.

Fair enough. I'm getting the feeling that one of the problems on the other side is impatiences. In my experience, it's reasonable to demand a tremendous amount of patience from soldiers and law enforcement officials but a lot of players don't enjoy frustration. So when they are put into a frustrating position, they'll sometimes choose the most direct way to resolve an issue, wether that's violence, torture, or blurting out what they think to an NPC. In fact, I think one of the things that makes RPGs (as well as violent computer games) so popular is that they let people solve problems with direct and often violent solutions, something that they can't do in their everyday lives.

 

[Rel]

CG can't justify kicking people in the nuts, unless he himself believes that getting kicked in the nuts is a good thing. "Oh yeah. In my village, we do it all the time."

I gotta tell you, Jim, this is among the most bizarre things that I've read this whole thread. But I appreciate it nonetheless.

My first thought was, what the hell is he talking about?!

But my second thought was, my next character is going to be a CG Rogue who uses this line regularly:

"Wow. Nice sneak attack. You got that guy right in the kidney."

"Oh yeah. In my village, we get stabbed in the kidney all the time. And we like it!

 

[twofalls]

Have you or would you want to run an entire game where all of the heroes were grey heroes without any Good "conscience" sidekicks to keep them from getting too dark?

Nope.

 

[Pielorinho]

The prisoners were tied up. Period. Yes. They get taken back to justice. To await trial for their peers to make a decision. Don't play a Lawful character setting lofty ideals for society if you don't believe in this. Don't play a good character that respects life, if you're going to kill people who are tied up.

It seems to me that you're assuming here that the tied-up soldiers were no threat. As I argued in a previous post, they were a threat. If they described the PCs to their Zhent allies, then the gnomish village stood a greater chance of falling; if the PCs carted them around, then the gnomish village stood a greater chance of falling. So the fact that they were tied up didn't make them no longer a threat.

And they were a threat, not by their essence, but by their acts: it was because they'd chosen to be part of an organization that would hunt down and murder heroes that they found themselves in this predicament. They'd set up an ambush in an effort to murder the heroes, and they found themselves in this predicament. They'd chosen to be a threat.

Modern descriptions aside, the LN character is more bound by means then the LG character. Unless these PCs have been appointed "justificators" by the courts, they don't have the right to behave in this manner.

I think you're looking at it through modern eyes. As I've said before, in many fantasy milieux, there's a frontier justice that takes precedence, due to the relative powerlessness of the courts. If someone attacks you, then they've removed themselves from the protection of the law, and you do have the legal right to dispose of them as you see fit. Twofalls has already said that the PCs had not received instruction to the contrary, had never received guidance on how they were expected to deal with prisoners; and so I think it's entirely in-keeping with a LG perspective to believe that the frontier justice model applies instead of the courtroom justice model.

And the CG character has a lot of explaining to do. Because his means are certainly always "wacky", but his end is doing the right thing. CG can't justify kicking people in the nuts, unless he himself believes that getting kicked in the nuts is a good thing. "Oh yeah. In my village, we do it all the time."

This sounds as if it's arguing for all CG characters to be pacifists. Am I missing something here?

Daniel

 

[twofalls]

I do have one question for two falls... what was their mission? Were they told they were to exact the king's law? If so, that brings a lot of this into question. And perhaps they weren't so vile after all.

Their mission was self appointed. They were trying to save Lord Randal Morn from being tortured to death, and having seen first hand the evils in Daggerfalls and Daggerdale as a whole (from previous adventures) they wanted to see the Zhents influence there ended. They also hated the Zhents from their previous adventures (the Black Network and the Zhentarim have been the primary bad guys the entire campiagn) and wanted to strike as many blows against them as they could. They knew they were flying into a trap with the Sorceress because she kept sending them dreams about what she was doing to Lord Morn to get them to come to her (for her own nefarious ends).

They also encountered this strange little besiged Gnome village called "Stompenhouder" in the Spiderhaunt Forest, defended it against a night attack from both living and unliving Spiders and Ettercaps, and were treated as heros there. They met an ancient Gnome Druid who was the elder of the village and who revealed their truenames to them and told them that their destinies were tied up with the Gnomes of the village. The village Champion was given over to them as their guide and comrade (played by one of the PC's with lots of secret background handed over to him) to the Sorceress' tower.

The PC's Lord is Amcathra Morngrym, Paladic ruler of Shadowdale. He gave them the mission only to find the kidnapped girls and return them to Shadowdale and in return would spare the lives of the slavers. He gave them no powers of authrority to dispense justice within the Dale, and couldn't empower them outside of the Dale in other soverigens lands at any rate.

 

[John Morrow]

A self-righteous paladin is going to run around killing and judging in his gods name. But this isn't LG, this is LN. LG sets a higher standard. It does not choose between ends and means. It chooses BOTH.

In theory, yes. In practice, you can't always have both because Lawful means are indifferent to Good and Evil ends, much as Chaotic means are indifferent to Good and Evil ends. As such, both strongly Lawful and strongly Chaotic means can be used for Evil ends as well as Good ends. For example, a Paladin might swear an oath that prevents them from doing something Good down the road. Yes, you can legitimately argue that such situations can be an opportunity for good role-playing and drama, there will be situations where the choice is binary -- e.g., stay true to your oath or let hundreds of people die. Torture the bad guy to try to find out how to stop his doomsday device that will destroy the world or let the world be destroyed. How does a paladin resolve such situations and how does choosing the Lawful part not sacrifice the Good part?

By the way, there are plenty of more subtle real-world examples but I don't want to start a political debate. Let's just say that it's been my experience with real-life political positions that it's not always possible to square one's desired means with one's desired ends and that leaves you with a choice. Pick one at the expense of the other.

The prisoners were tied up. Period. Yes. They get taken back to justice. To await trial for their peers to make a decision. Don't play a Lawful character setting lofty ideals for society if you don't believe in this. Don't play a good character that respects life, if you're going to kill people who are tied up.

So all of the societies in a quasi-Medieval fantasy game must abide by the modern American sense of justice, including trial by a jury of their peers, for them to be Lawful? That's not really what ou are saying, is it? And if Paladins don't make exceptions for their respect for life, why are they carrying swords around?

The vet did nothing AT THE MOMENT to warrant being murdered. Eventually he would have been executed, maybe. Or maybe. Just maybe, a wizard somewhere could have extracted mountains of information from him for use later. And allow HIM TO ATONE.

That's plenty of maybes. I suspect that the players interpreted the vets insistence on not talking, even while facing death, as a mark against the possibility that he'd ever atone.

Hmmm. I now wonder if part of the problem here is that the GM, by doing the "name, rank, and serial number" thing, didn't expect the PCs to go through with their threats and was really surprised when they did. Would the NPC had reacted differently if the GM (and NPC) took their threat smore seriously and knew they would go through with it?

Killing the VET says that the PCs know better than anyone, what should happen to this guy.

In the real world, I'd agree with you on this. But most role-playing games are all about vigiliante justice. And vigilante justice is all about saying that the PCs know better than someone else what should happen. If that's not the case, then the GM should familiarize the players with the organization that their PCs belong to and where their authority begins and ends.

But the vet did nothing more than recite him name, rank, and serial number.

He refused to take the out that was offered to him and ignored the ultimatum. They didn't slit his throat for giving his name, rank, and serial number, nor did they slit his throat without warning. Basically, he called their bluff and they weren't bluffing. Was that Good? No. Was it Evil? I think that's the question.

And he was murdered. He was tied up (a pre-meditated act), and then killed without compulsion. It ain't manslaughter.

I think the difference between murder and a legitimate execution is whether the PCs had the moral and/or legal authority to play judge, jury, and executioner. I don't think the modern world provides a very good guide for how these moral issues play out in a fantasy role-playing setting.

Try running around in the real world with some armor and a sword righting wrongs and slaying bad people who fight back and see how long it takes you to get locked up. Most role-playing heroes are vigilantes, whether we call them that or not. These vigilantes already take the law into their own hand. The question is whether that moral authority extends to executions or not. And I think that will depend on the setting and specific situation. But I think there is plenty of room for differing opinions there.

Modern descriptions aside, the LN character is more bound by means then the LG character. Unless these PCs have been appointed "justificators" by the courts, they don't have the right to behave in this manner.

I think that this, too, depends on the setting and situation. What about a setting that doesn't have "justificators" or formal trials by jury? What about operations behind enemy lines? Is a Lawful Good character obliged to give an Evil Overlord over to a LN court in a LN nation and then be forced to suck it up if the verdict is "innocent" on a technicality and the LN society protects against double jeopardy? Why does a holy warrior, enabled by their deity to fight Evil, have to defer to someone else to administer justice?

And the CG character has a lot of explaining to do. Because his means are certainly always "wacky", but his end is doing the right thing. CG can't justify kicking people in the nuts, unless he himself believes that getting kicked in the nuts is a good thing. "Oh yeah. In my village, we do it all the time."

That's not how I read CG at all. In fact, I see chaotic characters as favoring vigilante justice even more over the formal sort.

For LN, the end isn't nearly as important as they way he goes about it. "These Zhents have to face justice. I don't care what the courts decide, but they will be brought before our leaders."

And that's fine, if being "brought before our leaders" is the process for that society. I don't think it has to be. Judge Dredd seems pretty LN to me and he is the judge, jury, and executioner all in one package.

However, my character (Mr. Morrow), would have demanded we take them prisoner. And yes, cart them around. Because that's what Paladins do to people who have surrendered and/or been captured. If he tries to escape and draws a blade, however... well... wrath of the gods and all that.

I'd have no problem with you playing your character like that, if that's the outlook of your Paladin and his organization. I simply don't think that's the only way to play it. Can paladins execute the bad guys in the field if they are not cooperating? I can imagine many situations where I think a reasonable answer is, "yes".

 

[John Morrow]

Nope.

Didn't think so. So were you also worried that if this
sent a precident, that it would make the game darker than
you'd prefer?

 

[twofalls]

Didn't think so. So were you also worried that if this
sent a precident, that it would make the game darker than
you'd prefer?

It may have been a subconcious concern, but at the time I was just reacting. Over the next few days I was just stewing. When the email went out I was just venting.

I collected a fair amount of the World of Darkness materials because I enjoyed reading it, but didn't ever consider running a game in it.