What would you have done?

[twofalls]

Oh, I'm not saying ransoming isn't a viable alternative in this situation for the PCs, but would the Zhents have ransomed for the Enlisted? I seriously doubt it. Also, did you TwoFalls make the Lords wishes known on these subjects? The military is TRAINED to handle these situations, and had developed these rules throughout many years of combat. And to be clear, I say that a LG character in these situations should have taken the high road, but if the LG are always going to be punished for doing what someone else considers wrong, you probably won't have any LG players in future events. Each of us have our own version of what should and shouldn't have happened, and just because my DM thinks his own morals should be mine, I shouldn't be punished.

(I too served in the military from 92-96, so Im very aware of military procedures)

No offense friend, but read the thread. I've answered this over and over.

Edit: Actualy, no worries, I think I'm done with this thread. It's repeating itself because its so large now. I just wanted to defend Warlord in my last post.

 

[Ds Da Man]

Agreed, though its been a joy to read this great thread. Morality is always a point of view subject that causes people to debate. I am glad you and your group worked it out.

I'm outta this thread also!!!

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

IMO their behaviour was inappropriate for D&D Good alignment. It also says something unpleasant about their likely behaviour on a real battlefield. I have to say though that for most of human history it would have been considered normal. I wouldn't have docked XP but I'd have changed all the Good alignments to Neutral. Paladinhood? Fuhgeddaboutit.

If the characters had been evil, and they had decided not to kill the prisoners (lack of interest, perhaps), would you have changed their Evil alignments to Neutral as well? How does one questionable act shatter your alignment enough to change the way that metaphysics itself (ie. your susceptibility to spells) changes with respect to you? We are to understand, then, that the world is predominantly populated by Neutrals, since one non-good (and/or non-evil) act shatters that house of cards known as Good Alignment?

A paladin, I can understand. They've taken vows, and they toe a hard line. But there was no paladin, only a paladin-wannabe. He hasn't taken vows, and isn't in a position to fall.

But, as they say, alignment is not a stick with which to beat your players. It's descriptive, not prescriptive. Which means, if the character consistently behaves in a manner suitable for a specific alignment, and that alignment isn't what's on the sheet, an alignment change is probably in order. If the character every now an again tends toward neutrality, well, maybe he's not as intently Good as Bob the Paladin, but he's still more or less good. Alignment isn't a binary (trinary? nonary?) condition. It's a description of a general tendency to act.

I really don't understand the whole "oh, you did one bad thing, now you're Neutral" attitude. As much as I am fond of the alignment system, it's one of the things I'm always being frustrated by in various gaming groups. If someone's playing Chaotic Good, you can expect them to bleed into Neutral Good and Chaotic Neutral a bit, probably represented by acts such as these, where some specific circumstance causes them to compromise or temporarily forget their principles because something important is happening.

The funny thing is, you don't see this attitude for Law and Chaos. I've never heard a DM say "oh, your Chaotic character decides to work with the local government to protect the farmers from trolls? I'm afraid that's a lawful act, so I'm going to have to rule that your character is Neutral now." It's a double-standard, and it makes no sense.

Good characters are at the mercy of the DM's interpretation of their alignment, but no other characters are. If the DM and the player disagree on what constitutes maintaining a good alignment, it will cause trouble, but no other alignments cause that problem. This kind of behaviour, that is, punishing the players for having characters that aren't two-dimensional, discourages them from playing Good characters. Might as well play Neutral, because they're going to end up that way anyway as soon if they're forced to step out of line just once by an irresolvable moral dilemma.

 

[Pielorinho]

People in this thread keep arguing for the application of a medieval mindset to this situation.

On the contrary, as I've said, I think we're talking about applying a fantasy mindset to the situation, a sword-and-sorcery one, a D&D one. In the real world, you're not allowed to go to another country and start killing people unless you're a member of a military force; doing so violates all sorts of conventions. In a sword&sorcery world, that's common and accepted behavior, as long as the folks you're killing are bad guys. There's a different mindset.

I agree that I could have been clearer about what should have been done with the prisoners, what the expectations should have been. I don't tell the players that I expect them to not pull down their pants and flash ladies in waiting while attending court balls. I don't tell the players that I expect them not burn villages and put all males over 12 to the sword while in enemy territory to hurt the opposing government. I don't tell my players that if the Priest of the God of Lathander starts to create undead that he will loose his priestly abilities, rather I kind of expect them to know all this. I can see where this particular situation is more ambiguous and needed clarification, but I didn't that at the time.

I think you see this, but it bears emphasizing: all the other things you mentioned run counter to a sword&sorcery milieu. They're things that no good guy in a S&S milieu ever does. The execution of bad guy prisoners by good guys is something that's fairly common in S&S stories. Thus the ambiguity, which you recognize.

Daniel

 

[Rel]

This kind of behaviour, that is, punishing the players for having characters that aren't two-dimensional, discourages them from playing Good characters. Might as well play Neutral, because they're going to end up that way anyway as soon if they're forced to step out of line just once by an irresolvable moral dilemma.

You know, Dr., I don't find you all that Awkward.

 

[John Morrow]

Edit: Actualy, no worries, I think I'm done with this thread. It's repeating itself because its so large now. I just wanted to defend Warlord in my last post.

You don't have to reply (really, I'm not trying to bait you back into the thread ) but I thought of a situation where the heroes in a television show acted almost exactly the same way the PCs in your game did. In the TV Show Firefly, there is a situation very similar to the one you described in the first episode shown by Fox in the US (The Train Job).

(SPOILER ALERT)

At the end of the episode, the Mal (captain of the Firefly) asked the wounded and bound thug Crow to take the money they were paid back to his boss. The thug towers over Mal and tells him to keep the money, because Crow will hunt him down no matter where he goes and kill him. In response, from the shooting script, "He [Mal] kicks Crow back -- and the huge fellow is instantly SUCKED into the engine of the ship. It's very sudden, but the resultant crunching noise goes on for a bit. A beat, and Zoe shoves one of Crow's henchmen in front of Mal." Mal then says, "Now. this is all the money. Niska --" The hencman doesn't even let him finish and agrees to give the money to Niska.

Basically, Captain Mal kicks a bound and helpless man into a starship engine and uses that to terrorize the next henchman into doing what he wants. The key difference between this and the example is that Crow threatened the Captain rather than simply refusing to cooperate. That doesn't change the fact that the person killed was bound and helpless or that the captain was playing judge, jury, and exectutioner, but I'm curious if that threat is enough to give the character the moral justification to kill a helpless and bound thug. I'm not claiming that Mal or the crew of the Firefly is Good. I am curious if people think this makes them Evil.

(END SPOILER ALERT)

 

[gizmo33]

alignment

Ok, I'll take one puff of the the alignment thread crack pipe (oh, is that a Chaotic Evil comment?) and pass it on. I can stop anytime I want, really.

GIZMO'S RULE 1: The players don't get to decide what is good and what is evil, what is lawful or what is chaotic.

It's probably polite (and I strongly encourage), when following rule 1, to tell the players ahead of time before they do something.

To help you decide, as a DM (because you can't make up your mind about every possible action before hand) I'd come up with some general guidelines. Here's the best one:

GIZMO'S RULE 2: Decide whether the ends justify the means.

IMO this is arbitrary, like everything else on this subject. Forget about the real world. Intelligent people come down on either side of Rule 2 and will debate it until the Sun burns out. Once you make a decision on this, it's a heck of a lot easier to judge situations on the fly. Sure, in the real world this is oversimplifying things, but I really think you just won't be able to come to a decision otherwise. If you want, you can follow what your religion, or tribe, or president, or whatever tells you - but ultimately you need to be the authority on this issue on this game. Just like you're the authority on which gods exist that PCs can worship.

So once you decide, make a list of means, or a list of ends, and then consider the general alignment. IMC, I use means, so here's a short example list:

1. killing
2. cannibalism
3. torture
4. use of poison
5. letting people die
6. talking about crack pipes in front of minors

I'm sure you can list 100 more. Write down "evil", "good", "good with an explanation" etc. Next to each. Example "it's ok to kill prisoners if they're evil.". Or maybe, "it's chaotic to kill prisoners without checking with your superiors first". or "It's good to eat people as long as that person is your deceased relative and you're doing so to honor their memory."

Once you have this list, you're ready to judge alignment. And that's your job in a DnD game that uses alignment. So you have to make alignment decisions unambiguously. The rules depend on it. Share the list with the players or don't. In either case, update/expand it as necessary, never forgetting Rule 1.

Be considerate about putting your players into impossible situations. A lawful good paladin in an evil kingdom is either going to have to be evil, or break the law. Don't laugh at players in this situation. Perhaps a paladin from a certain culture would be both lawful and good by commiting suicide at that point? In other cultures suicide would be evil? chaotic? IMO - DMs DECIDE. Death might not be such a bad thing in a campaign that has an afterlife anyway. Who says that a 100 innocents getting destroyed by a nuclear fireball is such a bad thing if they're all going to go to the Seven Heavens afterward and live the rest of eternity in bliss? Sure, it would be nice to stop it, but commiting evil acts to prevent people from going to paradise prematurely might seem a little silly when you consider the cosmic realities of your campaign but *that's what you should do*- consider the cosmic realities - it's your campaign! Don't let the players or the real world be your DM on this or any other issue.

 

[Rel]

Write down "evil", "good", "good with an explanation" etc. Next to each. Example "it's ok to kill prisoners if they're evil.". Or maybe, "it's chaotic to kill prisoners without checking with your superiors first". or "It's good to eat people as long as that person is your deceased relative and you're doing so to honor their memory."

Once you have this list, you're ready to judge alignment. And that's your job in a DnD game that uses alignment. So you have to make alignment decisions unambiguously. The rules depend on it. Share the list with the players or don't.

I like everything else about what you propose, gizmo33, but not that last word there. I think that having an alignment system than can be used against your players when they violate it but then not telling them what the boundaries are is just dirty pool. And I'll take it one step further:

Colaborate with your players when you make up that list. Get their perspectives and have a definition of the various alignments that is consistant within the group. THEN the players can assign alignments to their characacters and have no justification for crying foul when you enforce the guidelines they themselves helped to create.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm not claiming that Mal or the crew of the Firefly is Good. I am curious if people think this makes them Evil.

It was an evil act, in a dark and gritty world. It was mostly shocking to the audience of the show because it was not something that good guys are supposed to do.

 

[Rel]

I am curious if people think this makes them Evil.

No. And if this sort of thing is typical of the series then I might have to buy the DVD.