What would you have done?

[Voadam]

I meant what I said. You'll note that I didn't say you had to run your games that way.

I don't always run games where the characters are out to do Good. Sometimes they're just in it for the pursuit of the characters personal agendas.

But saving innocent lives, be it an individual, a family, a village, a kingdom or the world is serious business. Whatever gets the job done is fine by me.

Interestingly, even with this lax interpretation of alignment, I can scarcely recall an incident of torture ever cropping up in our games. I think there have been occasional threats and there have certainly been an execution or three and a memorable branding. But virtually nothing in the way of torture.

If a player began to have his character torture the bad guys for important information on a regular basis, I'd ask whether it was all "just for the common good" or whether the PC was starting to take any sense of satisfaction or pleasure in the suffering of these evil doers. If the answer was yes then I'd likely slide their alignment toward Evil.

Well then think about the implications of what you said. Anybody who is evil deserves whatever they get.

So even if the good person turns evil from his sadistic enjoyment of torture to get information out of the person, or even if the torture is just for the evil torturer's jollies unconnected to any other purpose, the torture victim deserves it if they are evil.

So evil should not just be stopped, but evil people deserve anything to any degree that is done to them? Rape, torture, any wrong of any degree done to them is a just desert? Given that it may not be good to do these things is it just for an evil person to inflict an unrestricted amount of evil as long as the victim is also evil? As an observer should you look on and say "that is just" no matter whether a punishment has any proportion or connection to the wrong?

Your position seems a binary split where there is a class of people upon which any evil done is just. That view is what I am taking exception to. Justice applies to everyone, and requires limits of what can justly be done to wrong doers.

Killing bad guys in D&D seems morally fine to me. Saying "They are evil so they deserve whatever evil of any amount is done to them" seems wrong and can easily pervert justice.

 

[Rel]

So evil should not just be stopped, but evil people deserve anything to any degree that is done to them? Rape, torture, any wrong of any degree done to them is a just desert? Given that it may not be good to do these things is it just for an evil person to inflict an unrestricted amount of evil as long as the victim is also evil? As an observer should you look on and say "that is just" no matter whether a punishment has any proportion or connection to the wrong?

Your position seems a binary split where there is a class of people upon which any evil done is just. That view is what I am taking exception to. Justice applies to everyone, and requires limits of what can justly be done to wrong doers.

I'm not sure that I'm entirely getting your point.

If a PC tortures an NPC for the sheer enjoyment of it then that is Evil in my opinion and I'll make no bones about telling the player that.

If this is being roleplayed by the player as a one-time transgression and a chance for a "stared too long into the abyss/I've become that which I sought to destroy, etc." moment of character building then I'll take it for that and enjoy the chance for the player to work through the character's guilt and redemption. But until that redemption is complete then I still regard the PC as Evil and there is every chance that he may suffer further consequences by anyone who is aware of what he did. After all, he's become Evil and deserves whatever he gets.

If this is being roleplayed by the player as a new habit of the PC then I'll inform the player that, while I can appreciate that sometimes good people turn very bad, torture is not something that I wish for our gaming to revolve around on an even semi-regular basis. As such he'll need to decide whether he wants to go for the option I've discussed above or have the character shifted to NPC status (and probably suffer a rather ill fate in the near future because, being Evil, he deserves whatever comes his way and I'm a vengeful god).

So I'm not trying to imply in any way that "torture for fun" is free of consequences for the PC's. Far from it.

However, if the PC's are confronted with an NPC who has vital information that will save lives that are in the balance, and if this NPC is some kind of fanatic who absolutely will not part with the information, and if the PC' have no magical means of extracting that information from the NPC, and if they resort to torture, then I'm not going to beat them to death with the Alignment Stick. No XP penalty, no divine retribution, no alignment slip. The worst they'll face is their own conscience, some angry retribution by whatever faction(s) the fanatic NPC is aligned with and perhaps a bit of shock and horror by the locals at the terrible sorts of lengths these characters will go to in order to preserve the lives and safety of innocents.

That is a fairly unlikely string of "if's" that I've never encountered in-game. But if I did then that's the way I'd handle it and without blinking.

Again, this may have a lot to do with what I think it takes to become really, truly Evil in my games. You've got to be BAD, VILE SCUM to get there. And once you're there then your life, comfort and dignity are not worth a bucket of warm spit to those who would see the innocent protected.

If I have in some way missed the larger point of your argument then I apologize. If you care to try and clarify it for me further then I'll be happy to respond in kind.

 

[Rel]

Let me add an addendum that just occurred to me to my post above:

It could be that you're misunderstanding my position to mean that not only would a party of PC's be justified in such actions but that these actions would constitute "justice" in a larger society. I feel no need to contend that because I find the question moot.

Most certainly there could be (and indeed are in most games) societies where "torture for fun" is an accepted practice. But these are Evil societies with little real idea or care for the concept of "justice" anyway.

In a "good" or "just" society as presented in D&D, if they were confronted with the situation described above (the "Fanatic Captive" scenario I'll call it) then there are dozens upon dozens of ways of resolving it without resorting to the ugly and unreliable method of torture. Scrying, mind reading, Zone of Truth, simply executing the captive expediently and Speaking With Dead, not to mention the varieties of Augury and Divine Communion available to the Cleric types are all probably available in a civilization of any size to speak of. It would seem vanishingly rare to have to resort to the brutal inefficiency of torture. And thus it would probably not even be considered as an option, not because doing so would be unjust but simply because it would not be necessary.

Now it could also be that such "Fanatic Captives" would be a rare bird too. If history has shown that if you don't give up the info they want then they'll just kill you and Speak With Dead, winding up with it anyway, then there's no point (unless you're into the whole "death before dishonor" kind of thing) in witholding the information in the first place. If such magic is commonplace then it is silly for an NPC to pull the whole "Name, Rank and Serial Number" deal when confronted by a group obviously armed with a level of magic typically sufficient to pry loose your secrets with ease. Better to cooperate and hope for mercy. If you're alive then at least you have some hope of thwarting your captors later.

So here's a question: If the GM confronts an obviously mid-level party with a "Fanatic Captive" who refuses to talk on the assumption that the PC's don't have access to any of the dozens of ways of getting the info they want magically, is he metagaming against the players for the sake of presenting a moral dilemma?

 

[Ds Da Man]

But saving innocent lives, be it an individual, a family, a village, a kingdom or the world is serious business. Whatever gets the job done is fine by me.

For some reason I'm getting a Jack Nickelson "You want the truth, you can't handle truth" flashback.

As beating the poor dead horse, execution is not always an evil act, and executing Zhents in the Spiderhaunt may be a quicker, better way to go then getting jumped and drained by spiders while your hands were tied.
I guess I always think of the wild west, where a horse thief, and any accomplices were hung on the spot. I would also think that being a soldier of type for a regent or king would be given the right to try and execute on the spot, Judge Dread style. But hey, your game as long as your having fun, and your players are aware of how you interrpret good/evil, so be it!

 

[John Morrow]

I think my objection moved through a series of emotions, from initial suprise and disbelief, to outrage when they defended it the way they did, to disgust as I dwelt upon it afterwards.

If you haven't read that article yet, you still might want to. The disgust suggests that's your anterior insula was kicking in and playing a role in your assessment.

The gist of the article is that moral decisions are often a contest between the rational cerebral cortex, which makes cold utilitarian decisions of the sort your friends were making, and the anterior insula, which makes an emotional assessment based on empathy and produces feelings of disgust that can supercede the cold rational decision. A person can make very different moral assessments of situations with the same utilitarian parameters (e.g., sacrifice one life to save five) by adjusting a person's emotional distance from the person sacrificed and their involvement in the sacrifice (e.g., killing a friend or a stranger, letting them die or causing them to die, etc.). The researchers claim that they can predict the sorts of moral choices a person will make based on which of those parts of their brain responds more strongly.

That's why I think part of the problem is that by role-playing the NPCs that were killed, your empathy for them was a lot stronger than your friends, who were probably looking at them as faceless Stormtroopers. As a result, you had a very different moral assessment of the situation than they did. It doesn't mean they were monsters or you were out of your mind. It just means that their decision was coldly utilitarian and impersonal while your decision was empathetic and emotional.

 

[D+1]

I was beside myself as a GM, I couldn't believe that my party of "Heroes", all friends of mine who are 30 - 35 in age would behave in such a barbaric manner when claiming to play good characters.

And yet you claim that your campaign "addresses moral issues"? I would have thought that would include not just having characters who are blindly, robotically, devoted to their alignment, but freely and openly examining the fallout of what happens when characters perform questionable, even heinous acts as well.

But really your first mistake seems to have been your failure to distinguish between fantasy and reality; between the PLAYERS themselves and the CHARACTERS they portray in the game.

I let them have it, but good. I ended the game session, told them that I thought their behavior was cowardly and reprehensible and asked for an explanation.

What you should have done was not demand explanations but proceed to inform them of and apply consequences for their acts.

In point of fact there are VERY few characters for whom there can be said to be any such thing as an "alignment violation". It's limited to characters who are themselves limited by their class to a SPECIFIC alignment or type of alignment in order to continue in the class or retain class abilities. Alignment in 3E is description.

But even so you didn't proceed very sensibly in the midst of the events of the game. If you're going to apply penalties or punishments for alignment violations by those characters who are required to maintain a given alignment then you need to warn them as soon as you see the possibility, warn them again if they persist, and then ALLOW them to proceed regardless of what you think about it. Why? BECAUSE FIRST AND FOREMOST IT'S NOT YOUR FREAKIN' CHARACTER AND THUS IS NOT YOUR CHOICE OF WHAT THE CHARACTER SHOULD, OUGHT TO, OR WILL DO. Because alignment is NOT in the game for you to use to whack PC'S over the head with when they do things YOU don't think they ought to do.

Your place then as DM is to merely note the change in the characters behavior, warn the players of potential fallout from their actions (because it IS possible, even probable, that they aren't serenely contemplating all the moral implications of their characters actions at the moment despite the fact that your campaign "addresses moral issues") and then apply such consequences as are needed and desired. In fact, it makes for BETTER roleplaying if they AREN'T as slavishly devoted to maintaining their alignments as you seem to think they ought to be. They are playing their CHARACTER, not their characters ALIGNMENT. It is good roleplaying when characters actions are not DICTATED by alignment but instead actually do vary according to the circumstances in the game AIDED by alignment when the player is attemting to keep the characters behavior reasonable and consistent.

I was told that even American soldiers would do such if in the same situation (in enemy territory, hunted, and in need of intelligence). We have a two campaign US war vet in our game group, but he was absent that day to refute these claims (which he did do later in absolute disgust). Everyone went home and I fumed over it for some time.

Well it's certainly not an excuse if that's what you mean. A stressful survival situation and pitched emotional involvement doesn't give tacit permission to ignore morality, but it certainly can contribute to states of mind where people will behave in a manner that is quite contrary to what they otherwise would if they could dispassionately examine their situation.

I wrote an email to the group explaining that every good character in the game was in alignment violation, and that I was only going to award 1/4 xp for the fight they had worked so hard at during that session.

I assume of course that at the very outset of the campaign you warned all the players that any behavior contrary to their chosen alignment, regardless of circumstance or contributing factors, would in fact be grounds for such punishments and penalties? And you realize of course that if you actually DID do such a thing you openly discouraged if not effectively ruled out the possibility of fallen paladins, redeemed villians, or indeed any such MORALLY ORIENTED roleplaying of a characters changing values.

The neutral character didn't have a history of such behavior so I wasn't going to doc him xp unless it became habitual. I wasn't going to force alignment changes over just one incident, but the priest and the aspiring Paladin (wasn't a Paladin yet) needed to atone for their actions.

No. They didn't. Unless you were running some kind of house rules that required it for their class? An ACTUAL paladin would have to atone in order to regain his paladinhood (because quite rightly he'd have lost it immediately in the incident) but there's no formal requirement for an aspiring paladin to atone. Priests aren't much different. Unless the details of the chosen deity's priests include maintaining a specific alignment or standard of behavior you don't have a formal need to obtain an atonement spell for acts which may well be singular aberrations and not willful misdeeds, etc.

That doesn't mean there aren't still CONSEQUENCES for their acts, but this is definitely ad hoc punishment you were throwing down.

I was later told that my reaction to the situation had offended my friends on a personal level, and that several of them had thought about leaving the game group entirely after my email went out.

And quite right too. In particular, in a game which purportedly emphasizes questions of morality to refuse to let players put their characters into situations that ACTIVELY EXPLORE those questions of morality, and furthermore to PUNISH them for it when they do with email and in-person diatribes against the PLAYERS you got off VERY lightly. In fact it was YOU who seem to have crossed the line throughout the whole incident, not them.

What would you have done?

Made it clear at the outset of the campaign what was REQUIRED of players and their characters in matters of alignment. Questioned the players when it seemed to me that their characters actions might be ill-considered by the PLAYER given the possible consequences. Warned the players of possible consequences, probably citing the specific consequences if necessary to be sure they knew full well what they were getting into. Applied consequences after the incident, including changing alignments of those characters who may have more or less permanently crossed the line. Expected (and openly stated my expectation) of roleplaying that dealt appropriately with the gravity of the incident. And of course if they players lived up to those expectations and made the game more dynamic and interesting as a result of it all rather than rail against them I'd have PRAISED them for their efforts.

At least, that is what I HOPE I would have done. In practice in my own campaigns when this kind of incident has come up I haven't always been as proactive about it as I would claim to expect from other DM's, but then neither have my players ever even come close to threatening to walk out on me over such incidents.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Interesting thread.

I'm reminded of two sets of issues that tanked the last game I was DMing. One was the moral choices made by the party. It was a 'take the high road' sort of game. They tended to avoid the high road. It wasn't until later that I was able to admit that most of it was because I made the high road difficult. That's one lesson I've carried with me for the last year. I need to reward the players for making the sorts of decisions that work for the game.

The second issue came up after one of the PC's died after the party charged into an ambush. The game was created and annunced as a heroic tactical game with meatgrinderish potential. Into a set of goblin caves, they triggered an alarm, separated, got surrounded by greater numbers and lost a party member before managing to kill the last of the monsers. There was some complaining about losing a character which I transitioned into a discussion about tactics. The discussion led to me getting explosively angry and storming out. What happened? Two of the players expressed the sentiment that "There was absolutely nothing we could have done better. Every decision we made was the best decision possible." And THAT set me off. After that comment, it became me trying to get it through to them that they could indeed do better. While I was citing specific examples from the combat, they were saying "Nope. That wouldn't have helped. We did the best thing possible." Finally, I got so fed up that I blew up. The fact that they flat out refused to acknowledge my opinion as valid on the matter just really jabbed a fork in my already stressed set of emotions. And that was the beginning of the end of that game.

There is this parallel of me stomping out in a rage, wating a few days, then sending out a still angry but less than murderous e-mail to the group. And your descriptions of the emotions you felt seem similar to mine over most of the timespan. Due to that, I'll offer the idea that you may have felt something similar. Is it possible that you weren't just angry about the Character's actions? Could you have been equally or more upset by the way the players defended those actions?

The reason I ask is that my current game is set up with the idea that my players can make whatever moral decisions they want. If the decision is there to be made, any decision made is a valid one (like killing my favorite NPCs). I like to think that I took some of the stuff I messed up on and matured with it. But, despite that, a situation like the above would still set me off.

On moral issues: I kind of feel like, if the choice is there, any answer is acceptable. If I'm not prepared for the players to f*** it up, I don't put it in the game. Any specific decision can be acceptable for the situation. But certain patterns of decisions may not be acceptable for the game. The paladin ruthlessly killed some guy who didn't deserve it, ok, maybe he starts to get a little feedback (noise in the speakers, if you will). The paladin ruthlessly and habitually kills people who don't deserve it? Now that's a problem.

But looking over all of this says one thing to me.

I need to prepare for the possiblity that the characters in my game don't choose to save the world.

 

[Malic]

If they always have to behave in a good and heroic way - which you seem to define to a very high standard if pragmatism in killing 'soldiers of the evil empire' in what seems very like a no win situation is not allowable - how does the game 'address moral dilemmas'?

I appreciate that the game works well for your group. That point just has me confused.

Addressing moral issues in games often (ime) seems to mean putting the characters in positions where there is no obvious right choice. To me a big part of the attraction is palying how the character decides what to do and then how they handle having done things they would rather not do. If it's a game of 'guess what the dm thinks is right or else', won't it either be too easy to find and do the 'right thing', or a frustrating deal in being punished whatever you do when the dm sets a trap for you?

On topic : What would I have done? Well we have different outlooks, this wouldn't have been a problem for me, but it does sometimes happen that real world hot buttons can get hit out of the blue when you're getting into the game. It has happened to me. I think the person who reacts out of proportion is in the wrong, in crossing the boundaries of the game. It sounds like that's what happened to you - I don't really think the characters acted too far out of line, and if it was just an in game problem the consequences would have been in game too. I think the only thing you can do afterwards is to try and explain and apologise to your friends and repair the game making sure everyone is aware what to steer clear of from then on. It sounds like you have long ago done as much of this as appropriate and it has worked for the group. So what I would do now is let it go.

I wish I had been able to fix my own screw up so well, but I think it was the final straw for that game

 

[Runesong42]

What if... to twofalls

Hey, twofalls,

If those three Zhentarim soldiers in your example were orcs rather than humans, do you think your scenario might have played out any differently?

 

[John Morrow]

I found an example from fiction (from the movie The Princess Bridge -- if you haven't seen it, the example contains SPOILERS) that I'm curious about, for those who claim that killing a helpless enemy without a trial is Evil:

Inigo: Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya! You killed my father! Prepare to die! Offer me money!

Count Rugen: All that I have and more. Please...

Inigo: Offer me anything I ask for.

Count Rugen: Anything you want...

Inigo: I want my father back, you son of a b*tch!

...at which point, Inigo plunges his sword into Count Rugen.

Count Rugen is essentially helpless and at Inigo's mercy. He's begging for his life. Inigo doesn't capture him nor bring him to trial. Instead he kills him. Evil? If not, why not. If so, then is Inigo a villain in the movie rather than a hero?