What would you have done?

[Mallus]

A few quick thoughts...

1) "Alignment violations" don't exist anymore (except for paladins and maybe priests). Alignment in descriptive, not proscriptive. You don't 'punish' good-aligned chars. for evil actions. You simply note the change in their alignment if it becomes a pattern of behavior.

2) What do you mean by "the campaign addresses moral issues"? When I use that phrase, I mean "I throw moral quandries at the players and dispassionately watch how they choose to navigate them." You seem to be saying "I give my players moral quandries where I've decided what the moral course of action is, then punish the players if they deviate from what I think is right".

4) Reducing the party's XP for the encounter is a hamfisted way handling things. In-game actions should have in-game repurcussions.

5) Who cares what the vet said? Its not relevent. Unless the PC's are playing US military personnel.

 

[dreaded_beast]

I would have a talk with my players. In my opinion, a DM's and player's opinion of what a specific alignment can and can not do often do not agree. I don't agree that good-align PCs would torture or out-right kill prisoners, but that is just my opinion. Also, it depends on the campaign style. If it's a gritty and dark campaign, then I would probably allow good align characters to act in such a fashion, since that is the chosen campaign style.

To that end, I would let them know what actions I consider acceptable or unacceptable for the alignment they have chosen to play. If they don't agree, then we can always work something out, but in the end the DM has to be the finally call, and of course being fair and reasonable about it.

 

[WayneLigon]

It sounds like there was just the threat of torture. Threats are empty unless someone means to back them up. If they were serious about starting to torture the prisoners, i'd say you would be justified in being angry. But it doesn't sound like they did. If you suspected they were serious, some mention of it right then is the best thing to do. Emails are very impersonal and it sounds like it was written when you were really angry. Never do that. Instead, I'd say you should have set aside some time at the beginning of the nest game to air your questions and concerns.

On the other hand, I can see their side of it even if they are Good. You don't mention if there were other options available to them, either. They offered the veteran the deal, and he didn't take it (and I would expect he would not, given that he's an old veteran). I wouldn't expect the mage to take it, either.

I assume you assumed they would take the Zhent's prisoner? If they take them prisoner, they risk the prisoners escaping and killing them, plus all the problems that having prisoners around entails.

If they are surrounded by enemies and trying to sneak around, I don't see they have much choice, bad as that choice is.

The only thing I could think of would be leaving them tied up in such a manner that the party could make good their escape before the soldiers got free. The mage pretty much has to die, regardless; he knows their faces and distinquishing marks, which he can feed to a diviner.

 

[Henry]

Like I said in an earlier post, even the most moral and just character will kill when he must.

The question in the above situations is: Must he?

In the example of the CN throat-slitting rogue, he's killing remorselessly, in cold blood, but because they are evil enemies, it's only by the barest of margins that it would be all right to me.

In the Spiderhaunt Woods example, I think that what the players may have reacted to more was your accusing tone - it may be that personal insults is what turned them defensive - not being there we wouldn't know. This is why Crothian's advice to "keep it in-game" is sage advice indeed. Alignment drift is not out of the question, but not over one incident.

It's when the characters clearly step over the line (killing innocents, harming non-combatants) that evil alignments are more warranted. Again, don't tell the character to change anything - just note the alignment change on your notes, and act on it.

 

[Greylock]

Well, my party, all shades of good, ran into a situation where we had to milk our opponents for crucial info regarding a most vile Lich. And we knew pretty early on it was going to probably sink into some sort of "persuasion". As luck would have it, we were able to conduct the question-answer session in the presence of an ally, an adult dragon. First fellow we questioned was evasive and insulting, and we were trying to decide what to do next when the dragon decided he'd had enough of the conversation. Snap, gulp, fellow #1 was never talking again, but fellow #2 suddenly had much to say. When we were done, there was some question as to how we would detain him as we went about our official business. Mr Dragon, once again, offered his services. He volunteered to watch the wanted man until we could return, and to keep him tethered, bit off one of his legs.

I'm sorry, what was the question again?

Oh yeah, where there's a will, there's a way, and even a good party can get away with some things, if they played smart. I wouldn't have continued harping on the way the game went after it was over, but an alignment shift, or lessened XP (not very much, though) would be a suitable consequence for playing stupidly.

 

[Gentlegamer]

What you did wrong was have the three prisoners defy the party. They should have talked (the Goodness of the prisoners would cow them into submission . . . think Faramir interagating Gollum).

 

[Mallus]

They should have been ashamed, not offended. Their "good" characters acted in a textbook evil fashion, and you called them on it. They were in the wrong, not you.

OK, as to the first sentence, are you talking about the characters, or the players? If you mean 'their characters should be ashamed of their actions', then I agree. At least some might be. They choose expediency over morality in a life or death situation. Some people can live that. Some can't, and it haunts them for rest of their lives. Either way, its terrific grist for roleplaying mill.

As for the rest of it... how are players in the wrong for playing their characters in the manner in which they see fit? So they choose to do an evil thing. So what? Its not as if they decided to wreck the campaing out of idle spite. They faced a moral test, intentionally thrown their way, and choose a reasonable, though non-good course of action.

What's the point of a DM engineering moral tests if he or she isn't willing to proceed from either/any possible choice.

 

[twofalls]

A few quick thoughts...

1) "Alignment violations" don't exist anymore (except for paladins and maybe priests). Alignment in descriptive, not proscriptive. You don't 'punish' good-aligned chars. for evil actions. You simply note the change in their alignment if it becomes a pattern of behavior.

I use alignment violations, and my players know that. So between you and I and this thread that is just a play style issue.

2) What do you mean by "the campaign addresses moral issues"? When I use that phrase, I mean "I throw moral quandries at the players and dispassionately watch how they choose to navigate them." You seem to be saying "I give my players moral quandries where I've decided what the moral course of action is, then punish the players if they deviate from what I think is right".

I'm the GM, I set the tone of the game and present the world as I create it and am required to interpret the actions and and desires of the players involved. The players in this game have been gaming with me anywhere from 26 years to 6 years (the newest) and I informed everyone before the game started that I'd prefer they played "Heroes". I did say that they could play whatever they wanted, so long as they didn't choose evil. I have no desire to run evil characters becasue they almost always become divisive in a long campagin. If a player says "I'm playing a good character" and then for 2 years plays that character as a hero, then comes to a situation that is difficult and decides to murder a few helpless soldiers I think I have good precident to say that what they did was wrong.

4) Reducing the party's XP for the encounter is a hamfisted way handling things. In-game actions should have in-game repurcussions.

I respect your right to your opinion.

5) Who cares what the vet said? Its not relevent. Unless the PC's are playing US military personnel.

As the rationalization given to me for their actions being correct and respectable, John's opinion is quite relevent, I don't really understnd your statement.

 

[Ravellion]

In my opinion, if you want moral issues, you have to drop alignment. The reason is that the alignment system primarily supplies a simplified moral system, that allows Good guys and Bad guys to use magic to hurt the other specifically (Smite Evil, Blasphemy etc).

If morally questionable acts happen in the game, the alignment system can quickly hinder this... the system is suddenly asked to be something that it is not. Instead of giving creatures lables to adjucate magical effects, it suddenly is a test for characters. A character can not claim to be both good and eat babies occasionaly as well. This might seem fine, but then you might come into a situation where characters are pushed into survival mode, where they are no longer acting on morals. Are these acts morally reprehensible? Yes, but the motivation to perform these acts was never based on the character's morals to begin with!

Simply put, the alignment system offers several things:
1) A label attached to creatures and monsters, not too different from "fire vulnerability" "incorporeal" or "undead", used to adjucate several mechanicl in game effects.
2) A rough guide to what kind of moral decisions a chracter of a certain alignment most likely would make.

What it doesn'f offer, is a full picturing of possible human behavioural patterns. Perhaps you'd also need a "stress limit" stat, that would show when a character no longer acts morally. A failed check would allow you to act outside the characters usual moral ideas. Paladin's would always make their check automatically . Perhaps you could also add a quirk table "Ichtyophobia: this character must make a DC 25 stress check in order to remain acting under its normal moral alignment when near fish. Otherwise it will act as if it's life is in extreme danger

Rav

 

[Bladesong]

First off I can guarantee this will not, and cannot be resolved here. Everyone will have an opinion, of course, and everyone else will just say "well that is your opinion." Makes you wonder why we bother. I believe everyone feels the need to sway everyone else to their way of thinking.

As for your specific situation: whether I agree with your concept of good and evil is immaterial, but I can say "lighten up." If the players had a good time, everything was fine. When it stops being fun, why come back?

Personally I think they did fine. I agree with the individual that said that the alignments tend to get in the way. Besides, who decides? At one time we said the USSR is evil! Guess what! They believed the USA was evil! Generalizations I realize, but good enough for this discussion. Just like history is written by the victor, who was right and who was wrong is written by the victor as well. Some would argue that letting evil survive is evil in and of itself (another judgment call). I am a firm believer that different situations require different sets of actions. Finally, if you still cannot deal with their actions in that situation, you still have to realize that EVERYONE makes mistakes at times.