What would you have done?

[twofalls]

I'm not sure it will help, as folks here have very strong opinions on the subject matter at hand, but let me inject into the conversation my take on evil, and remind everyone again that these people are long times friends of mine and long time players. I see a lot of the same arguments being presented by new posters to this thread so I'd also like to encourage new folks who are interested in "voicing" in to actually read this, admittedly verbose thread all the way through before they restate what has already been said before them.

There was NO Paladin in the game at that time, only a NG priest of Lathander and a fighter who wished to begin down the exhaulted path and was thinking of joining a holy order as a paladin. There were aslo a CG Elven Mage, a CG Dwarven Warmain, A CN Priest of Tempus, and N pure fighter. The CN priest of Tempus is John, the war vet, who was not present at the session.

In my game Alignment Detection spells only work on supernatural creatures. A gnome mage who happens to be a spellcaster isn't supernatural. A Gnome mage with wings, innate spell abilities, and who breathes fire is PROBABLY supernatural. Undead, Outsiders, Abberations, Dragons, etc are without question supernatural. So the option to cast Detect evil on the prisoners and then kill them based on that intelligence wasn't possbile, nor would it be acceptable only because no creature (with the general exception of those before mentioned supernatural critters) is unredeemably evil.

Example: The party unknowingly hired a self serving CE ranger to guide them into the Stormhorn Mountians. He guided them into an ambush which they barely survived. (This was after the incident that started this thread.) The PC's captured the Ranger after a chase and took him prisoner, disarmed him and forced him to complete the task they hired him for. They treated him with unsusual kindness while doing so (they didn't baby him, but in similar circumstances the Ranger would have killed them and the fact that they weren't taking vengence on hiim impressed him deeply). When he completed the task, it was decided that he would be released without pay and given a warning to change his ways or be branded an outlaw. The Priest of Lathander had been talking to him during their travels and showed him kindness and consideration to the point that the Ranger (who had never known such treatment) agreed to abandon his ways and even returned to Shadowdale (the PC's base of operations) and turned himself in, seeking guidence and Counciling at the Temple of the Morning Dawn. The PC's met him later in Shadowdale a changed man. He hadn't turned into a priest or gone all holy, but he had bought a plot of land and was trying his hand at farming. Evil isn't unredeemable.

The two Zhent warriors are citizens of Zhentil Keep where military service is mandatory. The Vetran was a career man while the boy was a conscript. Neither had any choice about serving though the Vet had chosen to try to make something of himself in the military, so I guess you could argue that he was evil because he chose to remain in service. You could also argue that he didn't have many other options as it was his only proffesion... but whatever. The PC's didn't have time to get into deep background on either prisoner, but the players know me well enough to know that I have either studied or designed cultures behind the major players in my campiagns. Either way, neither one of them was unredeemable. It was asked several times what it was I had expected of the PC's... and I can't say that I had any expectations, only that I didn't at all believe they would slaughter them like farm animals. March them back to the Gnome village for holding? They didn't because it was a two day trip and they felt pressured for time. Keep them in bond and take them along, they were nervous about doing that because again, they were in a hurry. Tie them up and put them in the hunters shack until their comrade in armes found them? THAT wasn't even discussed. Any of those options would have been acceptable to me. Did I communicate that to the group? No. Should I have... yes, as an alternative to exploding on them in an email. I did actually wait two days before sending the email to calm down. When I wrote it I wasn't frothing at the mouth, but I was still quite upset. Lesson learned on that score.

Okay, my take on evil. Enjoying the pain of others, disgregard for the sanctity of life, a willingness to harm others for spite/greed/lust/power/etc, or in the terms of the game a moral predisposition due to the nature of the being in question (see list in third paragraph). All this is getting rather academic.

The original purpose of the thread was just to see if there was anyone else who agreed with me that what the PC's did was wrong, and I've recieved that answer, or if I was entirely out in left field.

John Morrow, I haven't read your article, but I promise that I will and will PM you what I think of it sometime today.

[Edited for spelling]

 

[Storm Raven]

Which is exactly why the corner alignments are unstable. Good and Evil are issues of ends while Law and Chaos are issues of means. When a Paladin has a choice between Lawful means and Good ends, which should they pick?

Both. No one said being Lawful Good was easy.

In the real world, that's largely because of uncertainty and incomplete information. Part of my point is that fantasy games reduce or eliminate the uncertainty and incomplete information that causes us to need trials and protections for the accused in order to ensure justice. But why bother with rules of evidence and a right to not incriminate yourself when guilt can be determined simply by asking the accused, under the influence of various spells that determine truth, "Did you do this crime or not?"

And further, what is the appropriate punishment if you did. However, even when we know that the accused is guilty - say he is caught red-handed in the act on vidoetape on national television - we still go through the process of a trial. Why? Because the means matter.

It's not a matter of turning the tables. It's a matter of swiftly achieving justice. What is the purpose of mercy, a trial, and rights?

The means are their own purpose. That you fail to understand this means that you don't understand the Lawful mindset.

Is letting an Adolf Hitler sit in a jail cell for months awaiting trials and appeals that will only lead to an inevitable conclusion really more merciful than simply executing him? Doesn't the fact that not only Hitler but other Nazis killed themselves rather than surrendering suggest that maybe it isn't?

Well, except that only a handful of hardline Nazi's killed themselves, and many others surrendered. Were they summarily executed? No, we held the Nuremberg trials, even though for many of them guilt was a foregone conclusion. Why did we do this? Because the western allies were unwilling to behave like uncivlized barbarians, and the process is as important as the end. As Churchill said "a dictator must not merely be defeated, he must be seen to be defeated." Killing the BBEG by lopping off his head in the middle of a swamp while his hands are tied behind his back is evil, almost by definition.

And let's not forget in the original situation that the characters did show mercy (they didn't simply kill the prisoners immediately), gave them an opportunity to start repenting by telling them what they wanted to know, and kept their word when one of the prisoners did tell them what they wanted to know (he wasn't executed, as promised, but was shown mercy and released). The Evil prisoners were given an out.

And yet they still killed their prisoners. That makes their acts (in this case) evil. Sure, the real world has moral shades of grey, but, as you have pointed out, D&D doesn't.

 

[Storm Raven]

To be honest, while this is a perfectly reasonable view of what Good is, I don't think it is justified by the RAW, unless you go by the Book of Exhalted Deeds.

Really? From the SRD:

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

 

[Goblyn]

Which is exactly why the corner alignments are unstable. Good and Evil are issues of ends while Law and Chaos are issues of means. When a Paladin has a choice between Lawful means and Good ends, which should they pick?

Hey, I can field this one. It's in the PHB description, but easy to miss. A paladin may digress when it comes to Law, and may atone but only loses his status if he knowingly commits an evil act.

Many people miss this, I think: "A paladin loses his status for committing evil, not chaos. Only if he does it enough to warrant an alignment shift will it cause him loss of status.

On second thought, this is peripheral to the argument anyway given that I don't think that there were any paladins in the original example.

 

[TheEvil]

Really?
From the SRD:
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
[/i]

Yup, that is part of the paragraph I read before posting. No where do I see anything that states that good people treat evil people the same way they treat good or neutral ones. I also don't see anything that indicates that justice doesn't include execution or vigilante justice. I certainly don't see anyting that indicates would not kill those who would kill them.

As I also said, certainly that is one way to see good and is certainly a valid way to play a good character. I just don't see it as the only way for a good character to behave.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Also, there's the matter that "Lawful" does not - and cannot - equal "Legal." Therefore, claiming that a Paladin should be concerned with turning over captured badguys to the authorities is not a requirement of a generic Paladin.

A Paladin who is executing someone whom he has deemed to be deserving will do so in a particular manner. He's Lawful - there is a right way to do it. He won't caper about, he won't tease the condemned, he wont torment or play with the comdemned.

But that does not mean the Paladin cannot set the condemned down on a log, give him a few moments to make his peace, and render judgement then and there.

 

[Pielorinho]

The two Zhent warriors are citizens of Zhentil Keep where military service is mandatory. The Vetran was a career man while the boy was a conscript. Neither had any choice about serving though the Vet had chosen to try to make something of himself in the military, so I guess you could argue that he was evil because he chose to remain in service. You could also argue that he didn't have many other options as it was his only proffesion... but whatever. The PC's didn't have time to get into deep background on either prisoner, but the players know me well enough to know that I have either studied or designed cultures behind the major players in my campiagns. Either way, neither one of them was unredeemable. It was asked several times what it was I had expected of the PC's... and I can't say that I had any expectations, only that I didn't at all believe they would slaughter them like farm animals. March them back to the Gnome village for holding? They didn't because it was a two day trip and they felt pressured for time. Keep them in bond and take them along, they were nervous about doing that because again, they were in a hurry. Tie them up and put them in the hunters shack until their comrade in armes found them? THAT wasn't even discussed. Any of those options would have been acceptable to me.

I guess i don't see it like slaughtering farm animals, because farm animals are killed regardless of their guilt or innocence, and their death serves a functional purpose, not a preventative purpose.

In this case, the PCs had to weigh the foreseeable consequences of their actions.
1) If they marched the captives back to the gnome village, many innocent people might die because of their decision.
2) If they kept them in bond and carried them along, many innocent people might die because of their decision, as their captives slowed them down and attempted to escape.
3) If they tied them up and put them in the hunters shack, many innocent people might die because of their decision, as the captives' allies found out about the PCs' plans.
4) If they executed them, it's far less likely that many innocent people might die because of their decision.

Now, if the execution of the prisoners is beyond the pale, then none of that matters: the ends don't justify the means. But my point is that in many fantasy milieux, the PCs are in a position to exact "The King's Justice": they may perform field executions as part of their job.

I think it's pretty important to let the players know ahead of time the circumstances under which they may commit violence, especially if these are going to be extraordinary to the genre. It's fine to have a game in which rules similar to the rules of modern warfare apply, but the players need to know that up front.

Daniel

 

[twofalls]

3) If they tied them up and put them in the hunters shack, many innocent people might die because of their decision, as the captives' allies found out about the PCs' plans.

Eh? How are the captives allies going to find out about the PC's plans unless the PC's are silly enough to act like Cartoon Villans and tell them all their plans before tying them up and tossing them into the shack?

My players are rather bright, unlike archtypical cartoon villians.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Were I a player I would have recommended you seek professional help. Any time you take what happens in a game personally there is a problem and it's not on the other side of the DM screen.

As to your reaction, the setting puts the Zhents in a hard light, invoking little pity or sympathy. If I read original post correctly, it was the Zhents who threatened the village. That immediately puts them in the "enemy combatant" category IMO. The mage, invoking a dark god, is an evil enemy combatant.

The actions I would have expected from your characters without knowing anything about them except alignment, race and class would be:

LG fighter: I swear on my honor that you will be unharmed if you cooperate. Failure to cooperate will result in as merciful a death as I can provide.

NG Lathanderite Priest: we shouldn't kill them. Strip them of their gear and leave them with some food and a pocket knife maybe.

N Fighter: They tried to kill us, are part of the attack force, and we're running out of time. Kill 'em or don't but let's get a move on.

CG dwarf: if you'd surrendered instead of fighting to the bloody end I might have a different opinion but if we let you go you'll just cause trouble and I can't have that.

CG elf: I'm with the Lathanderite. We tie 'em up and leave 'em.
(why dfferent answers for CG? They're chaotic, that's why.)

Your reaction, except to the priest of Lathander, was excessive. The priest might need to atone since I think Lathander's a peaceful god and he should have at least argued against killing. The LG fighter, on the other hand, has broken no vows, no torture was done (executions yes, but as field expedient as was possible), and the prisoner who cooperated was let go under reasonable terms.
The rest, well, the dwarf and mage are both chaotic and motivated by the urge to protect the gnomes. There's no way in your campaign for them to know the nature of the Zhent warriors but given the steadfastness of the veteran and the evil god comment by the mage it would be reasonable to infer they are willing participants in the evil campaign making them untrustworthy and irredeemable under the circumstances.

I will be honest in saying I tend to fall on the "harsh justice" side of the fence. I played a Paladin in a game where my order was enabled to enact justice where no legal entities were available. We ended up capturing cultists in a similar situation.

We couldn't cast Detect Lie or any other divinations so I told them they were all proven guilty by their actions and would repent of their evil ways and take the mark of my (justice) god as a sign of their repentance? The ones who said yes I branded their foreheads with my holy symbol. The others I killed by exsanguination. I then let the branded individuals go, unarmed but with enough supplies to make it to the border.

That DM was aghast as well. She didn't expect me to kill them. I asked if we'd brought them back for trial was it likely that they would hang? She said yes. I pointed out that as a duly authorized judge I did the same but without a rope and gave a few of them the opportunity to seek redemption.

 

[Pielorinho]

Eh? How are the captives allies going to find out about the PC's plans unless the PC's are silly enough to act like Cartoon Villans and tell them all their plans before tying them up and tossing them into the shack?

My players are rather bright, unlike archtypical cartoon villians.

I may have overstated this--I dont' expect them to say, "Mwahahaha! Now that you're captured, let us gloat before we leave, feeding you to our pet giant weasel!"

However, think back on the situation. What information could the ex-captives have given to their companions? My guess is that they could've given information along the following lines:
1) Our Evil Plans are immediately threatened by a group of goody-two-shoes! We must immediately respond in force!
2) The goody-two-shoes contain the following members!
3) The goody-two-shoes came from this direction, and headed in that direction!
4) The goody-two-shoes evinced the following capabilities!

All this is information that would've helped the Zhentarim respond in an intelligent, rapid, and possibly lethal manner to the PCs' threat.

In our games, when we're in enemy territory, we often take great measures to hide our presence or leave deceptive clues. When we set prisoners free, we give them specific instructions: "Leave by this path and speak to nobody. Don't ever let us see you again. Hunt only small game, and only enough to live on. Go to this land, and take up a life of farming." We hide bodies; if we can't hide them, we decapitate them in order to make Speak with Dead or Raise Dead more difficult. Prestidigitation can clean up a battlesite.

Our goal is to confuse the enemy and make it more difficult for them to tell where we fought, how we fought, and even whether we fought. When we haven't done this, the enemy often responds to us specifically and in force, and good guys die. The dead good guys aren't always us: sometimes it's our friends, or the innkeeper where we're staying, or the like.

Daniel