What would you have done?

[Pielorinho]

Okay, on rereading the OP, I'm realizing that the Zhentarim specifically came there to ambush the PCs, so they wouldn't have learned point #1 from the encounter, and likely wouldn't have learned point #3. Points #2 and #4 are likely, though--and it can be bad news when the enemy learns specifics about your group's makeup. Consider how your players plan and plot an encounter when they know the forces they'll be fighting, and consider that the Zhentarim would likely do the same.

Daniel

 

[twofalls]

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.

That was rather unnecessarily insulting.

I will be honest in saying I tend to fall on the "harsh justice" side of the fence.

I'm assuming everyone here is being honest, otherwise this conversation is rather pointless... and I'm not sure it hasn't started to get there already since its obvious that few opinions are going to be swayed. I wouldn't say your harsh justice was any more or less valid than what I was expecting of my group of gamers. However I also wouldn't expect someone who doesn't know me, or who hadn't gamed with me for years and years to understand or be much concerned with the style of game I ran, which was firmly established at the time.

I do respect that you feel my in game reaction was overly harsh, though I don't agree with you. I do agree with you that my out of game reaction was overly harsh, and frankly am going to stop belaboring it as I've said so about four times now in this post.

With regards to the village, the Zhents were a threat to it only indirectly as they wanted to capture the PC's, and the PC's were on a mission to save the village.

 

[twofalls]

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!"

Hehehe

Points #2 and #4 are likely, though--and it can be bad news when the enemy learns specifics about your group's makeup.

This is true. Overwhelming force had in fact been sent into the woods to find this group as what the Zhents were after was the Sword of the Dales which the group was carrying. This relic would, if in Zhent hands, lend credibility to the man they had set on the throne of Daggerfalls and solidify their claims to those lands. Still, as Heroes I would have (and still do) expected them to take the risk and do the right thing. The right thing apparently being what we don't agree on here.

 

[Pielorinho]

With regards to the village, the Zhents were a threat to it only indirectly as they wanted to capture the PC's, and the PC's were on a mission to save the village.

I apologize for missing this if you've already said it, but what was threatening the village?

And am I right in thinking that if the PCs failed in their mission, the village would almost certainly be destroyed?

And am I right in thinking that if the Zhents succeeded in capturing the PCs, the PCs would almost certainly fail?

And am I right in thinking that, by interrogating the captives, the PCs drastically decreased the chances of the Zhents' success?

And am I right in thinking that, if the Zhents had been able to get a detailed description of the PCs' batttle tactics, it would've drastically incrased the chances of the Zhents' success?

Finally, am I right in thinking that the PCs' actions would not expose them to censure from their rulers?

Sorry for all the questions, but this is the trail of logic that I'm following. I understand that you disagree with it, and that's cool--but personally, part of the fun of moral complications in games is, I think, the disagreements. If you set up moral dilemmas, I think there's gotta be plenty of room for players to reach different defensible conclusions about appropriate behavior.

Daniel

 

[John Morrow]

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.

As I've said in other alignment threads, I think the redeemability of Evil creatures can make a large difference in how the PCs are expected to deal with intelligent Evil creatures. For whatever it's worth, my game has both kinds of Evil and I try to let the paladin in the group have some idea of which kind he is dealing with through his Detect Evil.

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.

I think that whether Evil is irredeemable or not is a campaign setting choice. And it's one that will have a large impact on the feel of a setting.

Out of curiosity, have you ever had the PCs let an Evil character go and have that Evil character use their freedom to cause mayhem?

Either way, neither one of them was unredeemable.

Do your players know that?

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. [...] Any of those options would have been acceptable to me.

There is a law school lesson that sometimes applies to GMs. Never ask a question if you don't already know the answer.

Did I communicate that to the group? No. Should I have... yes, as an alternative to exploding on them in an email.

I think you need to communicate that to the group before you let them do something that's going to upset you or your game. But I think part of the other problem is that the differences in morality that wwere involved went beyond the characters and setting and were between player and GM. And that's where I learned an important lesson discussing controversial social issues online. People of good character can sometimes support things that you think are horrible and that can happen due to the smallest differences in assumptions and slightest shift in priorities. This touches on that article I posted, too.

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.

When real human beings have those characteristics, they are often very difficult to redeem or turn to good because they lack the empathy required for good to take root. In practice, very few sociopaths are cured and quite a few go out and do the same horrible things they did before if released in society.

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.

I don't have a mailbox here because I don't have a PayPal account and haven't figured out how I want to get around that to subscribe to this site (which I would like to do). You can respond here or keep your thoughts to yourself. I just thought you might find the answer to why you felt so disgusted by what your friends were doing and reacted so emotionally in that article, since that's part of what you seemed to be curious about.

 

[John Morrow]

I'm assuming everyone here is being honest, otherwise this conversation is rather pointless... and I'm not sure it hasn't started to get there already since its obvious that few opinions are going to be swayed.

For the record, I don't know if I've exactly been swayed (though I am curious about how some of the alternate perspectives will hold up) but it's sure helped me clarify some distinctions in my own game.

 

[twofalls]

This thread is getting so long I'm not sure anymore all of what I've explained, but I will answer your questions. (Note: the below quote has been modified by inserting #'s for ease of responding...

1) I apologize for missing this if you've already said it, but what was threatening the village?

2) And am I right in thinking that if the PCs failed in their mission, the village would almost certainly be destroyed?

3)And am I right in thinking that if the Zhents succeeded in capturing the PCs, the PCs would almost certainly fail?

4)And am I right in thinking that, by interrogating the captives, the PCs drastically decreased the chances of the Zhents' success?

5)And am I right in thinking that, if the Zhents had been able to get a detailed description of the PCs' batttle tactics, it would've drastically incrased the chances of the Zhents' success?

6)Finally, am I right in thinking that the PCs' actions would not expose them to censure from their rulers?

1) The village was threatened by an Undead Sorceress who had multiple motives. She had gained general control of the attitude of the Spiderhaunt woods over centuries, supporting the proliferation of spiders and Ettercaps and bending their natures against humans/demi-humans of all types. The last remaining holdout was a Gnome village that was soon going to collapse from a decades old seige by these creatures. The village itself was surrounded by a sea of web encrusted and infested woods, and the Sorceress's influence was soon to overwhelm them. This same undead Sorceress was the origninator of a plot to lure the PC's to her ruinous tower by baiting them with dreams of the death of Randal Morn whom she had managed to capture. Randal Morn was the last remaining lord with legal claim to the throne of Daggerdale who could ralley the people to overthrow the Zhentarim installed Governor of that land. The Sword of the Dales which the PC's had recovered was a recognized and powerful relic of that lordship, and if they could unite both Randal Morn and the Sword they could potentially overthrow the Zhents in that land and drive them out. (Which they eventually did). The Sorceress wanted the PC's to come to her tower so she could use their life forces to reanimate her dead apprentices and break the enchantment Elminster the Sage had cast upon her trapping her within the ruin. The Zhents were unaware that she had Randal Morn (or that she even existed), they just wanted that sword so they could legitimize their Governor as King of Daggerdale. Zhent agents had at first tried to purchase the sword from the group but were rebuffed, so they resorted to force (like all decent BBEG's). So in taking out the Sorceress the PC's would both save the village and rescue Randal Morn. The Zhent troops of course were a major complication.

2) Yep, almost certianly. The leader of the village was an ancient withered old gnome Druid, and that was his prophecy.

3) The PC's by this time were known enemies of the Zhentarim and were wanted criminals. Prices had been put on each of their heads and a few of their members were suspected Harpers (though they weren't really... not yet at least).

4) Nope, not at all. All the conscript really was able to tell them was the name of the leader of the forces after them (a Zhentarim Mage called Ilthond), a sketchy idea of the forces arrayed against them (three troops of soldiers supported by mages who entered the woods with magical trackers at different locations), and that they were under orders to kill the PC's if possible but recover the Sword of the Dales at all costs.

5) The Black Network (Zhent Intelligence) already had very good intell on who the PC's were and what they were up to. What they didn't know was the reason the PC's were in the Spiderhaunt (to rescue Randal Morn) and if they had, they would have attempted to beat the PC's to him and killed him immediatly, thus ending once and for all any challenge to their authority in Daggerdale. They had been chasing Randal Morn and his Freedom Fighters for decades.

6) The PC's Lord is the ruler of Shadowdale, Lord Morngrym Amcathra. He is a Paladin of Lathander (which isn't cannon by the way, thats my game's house rules). I think you can do the math on that one.

 

[John Morrow]

Both. No one said being Lawful Good was easy.

It's not a problem when it's difficult. It's a problem when it's impossible. When the situation demands (A) XOR (B), you cannot have (A) AND (B).

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.

We go through the process of a trial because that's how we try to guarantee justice in an imperfect world without paladins and alignments and spells that can detect the truth. That process is designed to protect the innocent from injustices, not to let the guilty go free. The purpose of the double jeopardy prohibition is not to let the guilty walk free but to prevent the innocent from being persecuted by an endless series of trials for the same crime. The purpose of the provision against self-incrimination is not to help the guilty get away with crimes but to prevent the innocent from being tortured to get false confessions. All of those were a reaction to past abuses.

Remember that the SRD says, "A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished." If you don't need the process to insure that the innocent are not wrongly punished (as you do in the real world), then what's the point of the process? And if the paladin puts means before ends, then aren't they being Lawful first and Good second, especially if the process lets the guilty go free to kill again, like it does in the real world?

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

I've lived in Japan. Please don't tell me that I don't understand the Lawful mindset. Take a good look at how the justice system works in Japan. In particular, note the confession rate that police get out of criminals, the percentage of cases that actually go to trial, the way they carry out executions, etc. Lawful? Yup. Good? Well, I'll leave that up to you to decide.

I also fully understand arguments about the merits of having and following tradition. But why would a tradition that resembles the American justice system develop in a quasi-Medieval fantasy setting with a very different history and social context?

I can tell you what purpose various provisions serve in the American justice system and why they are there, from the Miranda Rights and prohibition against double jeopardy to evidence exclusion and the need for warrants. Heck, not putting toops in private houses warrants it's own amendment because it was an important issue at the time in context. But do those provisions make any sense in a quasi-Medieval setting with kings, reliable lie detection magic, scrying, holy warriors, alignments, etc.?

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."

I'd argue that the allies held those trials for the benefit of themselves and their audience, not their prisoners. As such, I don't think it was a matter of Good such much as a matter of pragmatism and self-justification. And contrast the trials in Europe with those in Japan, as well the various criminals let go in both places in exchange for their secrets and scientific knowledge. Lawful Neutral? Perhaps. Simply True Neutral? Possibly. And again go back to the line, "A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished."

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.

Eh. I'm still not persuaded. What difference does it make if he's in the middle of a swamp or in the courtyard of the kings palace after a trial? How does that change the moral calculus, particularly with respect to Good and Evil, of lopping off his head with his hands tied behind his back if he's guilty in either case? How many executions are performed on people who aren't bound or otherwise helpless? If killing someone who is bound or helpless is Evil, then all such executions are Evil. That's a legitimate position to take but hardly the only legitimate position to take.

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.

At worst, by the SRD, it was Neutral which, again going to the SRD, only demands "compunctions against killing the innocent" and assumes that they "lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others." That seems to fit to me. The presence of the Neutral alignment in D&D guarantees that D&D is not simply black and white but, at a minimum, black, white, and 50% gray. And I personally think that's preferable to a binary choice.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Let me begin by saying that I am under no illusion that I qualify for a Good alignment in D&D terms. By my own estimation, I am roughly Lawful Neutral-- while my societal ideals run toward the Good, I have several character flaws that prevent me from being Good myself, and the means by which I would secure the collective good are not particularly compassionate.

From my reading of this situation, the characters acted within their alignments.

Their handling of the Zhent prisoners was not a Good act. They did not show mercy or compassion in dealing with them. However, it was not an Evil act; they were not cruel to the prisoners, nor were the prisoners innocent by any definition. They were enemy soldiers, and servants of an organization known to be Evil.

Yes, they may have been redeemed. They're human, and humans may change alignment relatively freely. Such redemption would have been a Good act, especially considering the risks involved. However, the failure to commit a Good act, unless it is with callous indifference, is not an Evil act.

Releasing the younger soldier afterwards, though it placed him in considerable peril, was upholding the PCs' word to him, and it gives him a better chance of survival than either executing or leaving him bound. The PCs could have given him a better chance by offering him parole-- allowing him to accompany them unarmed, on his word that he would not attack or give away their position. While risky, this would have been a fairly Good act on their part.

On the other hand, if it led to the extermination of the Gnomish village, would the PCs have been able to forgive themselves?

Because of Lathander's pacifistic ethos, yes, the priest should have been uncomfortable with that, and I do not think it would be out-of-line for Lathander to give him a small vision as a warning.

The consequences for the would-be Paladin should really depend on the deity (or philosophical cause) the character was planning on serving; their ethos would determine how a Paladin should act in that situation. Remember, Paladins are not merely Lawful Good warriors-- they must take goodness a step further than your typical LG Fighter. However, I would not judge their conduct in this situation sufficient to violate their Code of Conduct. If their intended order was among the more gentle orders, I would have also given them a vision.

Of course, receiving visions of your deity's disapproval is actually an encouraging sign for a would-be Paladin. While they must try harder to make up for their failure, it indicates that they are being watched.

If a pattern of similar behavior occurred in the Good characters, they may be sliding towards Neutrality, and their players should be informed of this. The Neutral character is at no risk of sliding to Evil because of acts like this. In any case, unless the characters are particularly battle-hardened, they should probably feel guilty about this-- not because it was an Evil act, but because they'll wonder if they could've handled it better. This is part of being a Good character, of trying to uphold Goodness; you always wonder if you couldn't have done better.

With the exception of strongly alignment-based characters, I do not think there is any justification for XP penalties for out-of-alignment actions; in-game consequences, such as NPC reactions, should suffice-- and even these should depend on the NPC in question. Unlike previous editions of D&D, there are no penalties for changing alignment, and if the more ruthless behavior makes sense for how the character has previously been portrayed, it would not be poor roleplaying. (Though, of course, if such actions are repeated due to situations in-game, it might cause an alignment shift.)

Moral dilemmas are an excellent roleplaying hook, and can make for intense, dramatic roleplaying. However, when they're used as a trap, or when the players are punished for their choices, they contribute to an antagonistic environment.

I've noticed several references to the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness. While they can be useful as a guidepost to D&D morality, I feel I have to recommend against them; from my reading of them, the morality they put forth is cartoonish and unsuitable for a game which involves serious moral dilemmas. By the standards put forth in these books, Exalted characters are impossible, Vile characters are ridiculous, and even the vast majority of heroes and villains are Neutral.

Despite my disagreement with his handling of the original moral dilemma in his game, and my vast disagreement with many of the posters in this thread, I also feel I have to applaud TwoFalls and his gaming group-- alignment arguments are often the nastiest and most personal arguments to be had in a D&D game, and their handling of the conflict showed maturity and good sense. TwoFalls' willingness to admit he took it too far, while maintaining his stance on the issue, is also to be applauded.

 

[moritheil]

The point is that not everyone can agree that those acts were evil, because they apparently involved killing evil people. Depending on your interpretation of a holy warrior's duty, it may or may not be their job to kill evil. That is therefore a possible interpretation that a player could have, which could conflict with the DM's interpretation that the act was evil, and be an honest mistake.

If the DM had given a clear warning such as "You don't detect any evil on these soldiers," then it would be an easier call to make. Of course, the mage, at least, was evil, and dangerous to boot.

You seem to be missing the point of the post: the characters behaved in an evil fashion, the DM pointed this out and their actions had consequences (since he has said he is using an alignment violation system, he docked them xp), and the players got themselves worked into a tizzy and tried to assert that clerly evil acts were, in fact, good.

Or who try to argue that evil acts are, somehow, actually good.