Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Samothdm" data-source="post: 2144139" data-attributes="member: 5473">I promised myself I wouldn't get dragged into a long discussion on alignment again, but this one's been fairly civil and most of the posts are pretty thought-provoking.&nbsp; It's interesting to read different people's reactions.&nbsp; I agree with that, and thought I had indicated that in my posts.&nbsp; I'm not sure expediency is an excuse for killing and maintaining a non-evil alignment.&nbsp; No, not according to the rules, but within the context of my campaign the players knew that they were going to be playing heroes.&nbsp; I don't &quot;limit&quot; my definitions of good and evil, right and wrong, to what's written in the SRD and neither do my players.&nbsp; There's a certain amount of judgment, common sense, and life experiences that shapes our views on stuff like this which is why I talked about it with my players before the campaign started.All good questions and in some campaigns the answers would be different.&nbsp; 1) Were the bad guys evil?&nbsp; Irrelevant.&nbsp; The group did not have the magical means available to determine this, but it's irrelevant.&nbsp; The alignment of the victim is not the driving factor here.&nbsp; The actions of the characters are what determines how I, as the DM, view them on the good-evil axis and the law-chaos axis.&nbsp; At least, that's how it is in my campaign.2) What does it mean if they were evil?&nbsp; See above.&nbsp; 3) Were they innocent?&nbsp; They were guards.&nbsp; Had they hurt people?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; Were they &quot;just doing their job&quot;?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; Is that an excuse for them to not be punished?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; Is that justification for slitting their throats while they are incapacitated?&nbsp; That's up to the individual character in question to decide, but I think there comes a point where, outside of the &quot;self-defense&quot; aspect of normal D&amp;D combat, the systematic execution of helpless (remember, they are all magically asleep and unable to defend themselves or plead or beg for mercy or whatever) a person crosses the line toward what is &quot;necessary&quot; (defending one's self, one's property, or one's family/friends) and what is &quot;expedient&quot; or just easier to deal with (e.g., &quot;It's too much hassle to spend the time to tie these guys up.&nbsp; I'm just going to slit their throats and leave the bodies here&quot;).&nbsp; Based on past interactions with the authorities and various hints I had dropped (&quot;The mayor happens to mention that there's been a rash of murders in the streets lately.&nbsp; Apparently someone's taking vigilante justice and we need to put a stop to it!&quot;), they would know.&nbsp; Also, they were told to &quot;peace-bond&quot; their weapons upon entering town, so they knew that, legally, they shouldn't be using them.&nbsp; Yeah, yeah, I know.&nbsp; &quot;But, you said the character was CN!&nbsp; He doesn't have to obey the laws!&quot;&nbsp; I'm not sure what you're getting at here.&nbsp; They were trying to infiltrate someone's palace to find a clue to a murder mystery they were trying to solve.&nbsp; That was the objective.&nbsp; To get into the palace, the sorcerer character used his sleep spell on the guards.&nbsp; They all failed their Will saves and fell asleep.&nbsp; The characters started to go into the palace to search for clues when the CN Rogue character stops and starts slitting the guards' throats.I would accept an explanation of why this character thought it was necessary.&nbsp; I would accept, &quot;These guards work for the lord who raped and murdered my kid sister!&quot;&nbsp; I would accept, &quot;I have a personal vendetta against these guys because of...[whatever]&quot;.&nbsp; Some kind of in-character reason to kill these guys.&nbsp; I could try to work with that.&nbsp; What I wasn't willing to accept was, &quot;I'm chaotic neutral.&nbsp; I can do whatever I want.&quot;&nbsp; That's a cop-out.&nbsp; The character is using the description of the alignment to define his actions, and that's not what it was intended for.He was starting to until the other party members intervened.&nbsp; I'm not sure how this is relevant, though.Was he cruel?&nbsp; I guess it depends on whether you think slitting someone's throat with a knife while they are asleep is cruel.&nbsp; It's quick, and therefore less painful than, say, burning him to death.&nbsp; Are there relative levels of cruelty?&nbsp; Can a person be &quot;kind of&quot; cruel?&nbsp; He got nothing out of killing them.&nbsp; Neither pleasure nor remorse.&nbsp; Just the emotionless slitting of their throats.Did he go out of his way to kill them?&nbsp; Given that the guards were asleep and likely to remain so while the characters infiltrated the palace, got the info they needed, and make a quick escape, I would judge that he went out of his way.&nbsp; I did that.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; We talked about it as a group, and then I talked to the individual player directly (as mentioned in my first post).&nbsp; We covered that one above.&nbsp; We did that as well.&nbsp; We talked about morally gray and ambiguous issues.&nbsp; There are situations that are created to &quot;test&quot; a character just because we all think it's interesting to see how the characters would react.&nbsp; This was not one of those times.&nbsp; The &quot;parameters&quot; of alignments are relatively easy to explain in my game.&nbsp; We are playing a heroic fantasy game where actions dictate alignment.&nbsp; Do not use alignment as an excuse for your actions.&nbsp; Rather, we will judge by your actions what your character's moral and ethical alignment is.&nbsp; Certain characters (paladins, and to a lesser extent druids and monks) will have consequences if they fail to act according to their moral or ethical restrictions.&nbsp; I can't answer that because some of them read the boards and that's kind of a campaign secret.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&quot;Organized&quot; warfare is different from a group of &quot;adventurers&quot; taking assignments in town for money or on behalf of a patron.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Samothdm, post: 2144139, member: 5473"] I promised myself I wouldn't get dragged into a long discussion on alignment again, but this one's been fairly civil and most of the posts are pretty thought-provoking. It's interesting to read different people's reactions. I agree with that, and thought I had indicated that in my posts. I'm not sure expediency is an excuse for killing and maintaining a non-evil alignment. No, not according to the rules, but within the context of my campaign the players knew that they were going to be playing heroes. I don't "limit" my definitions of good and evil, right and wrong, to what's written in the SRD and neither do my players. There's a certain amount of judgment, common sense, and life experiences that shapes our views on stuff like this which is why I talked about it with my players before the campaign started. All good questions and in some campaigns the answers would be different. 1) Were the bad guys evil? Irrelevant. The group did not have the magical means available to determine this, but it's irrelevant. The alignment of the victim is not the driving factor here. The actions of the characters are what determines how I, as the DM, view them on the good-evil axis and the law-chaos axis. At least, that's how it is in my campaign. 2) What does it mean if they were evil? See above. 3) Were they innocent? They were guards. Had they hurt people? Yes. Were they "just doing their job"? Yes. Is that an excuse for them to not be punished? No. Is that justification for slitting their throats while they are incapacitated? That's up to the individual character in question to decide, but I think there comes a point where, outside of the "self-defense" aspect of normal D&D combat, the systematic execution of helpless (remember, they are all magically asleep and unable to defend themselves or plead or beg for mercy or whatever) a person crosses the line toward what is "necessary" (defending one's self, one's property, or one's family/friends) and what is "expedient" or just easier to deal with (e.g., "It's too much hassle to spend the time to tie these guys up. I'm just going to slit their throats and leave the bodies here"). Based on past interactions with the authorities and various hints I had dropped ("The mayor happens to mention that there's been a rash of murders in the streets lately. Apparently someone's taking vigilante justice and we need to put a stop to it!"), they would know. Also, they were told to "peace-bond" their weapons upon entering town, so they knew that, legally, they shouldn't be using them. Yeah, yeah, I know. "But, you said the character was CN! He doesn't have to obey the laws!" I'm not sure what you're getting at here. They were trying to infiltrate someone's palace to find a clue to a murder mystery they were trying to solve. That was the objective. To get into the palace, the sorcerer character used his [i]sleep[/i] spell on the guards. They all failed their Will saves and fell asleep. The characters started to go into the palace to search for clues when the CN Rogue character stops and starts slitting the guards' throats. I would accept an explanation of why this character thought it was necessary. I would accept, "These guards work for the lord who raped and murdered my kid sister!" I would accept, "I have a personal vendetta against these guys because of...[whatever]". Some kind of in-character [i]reason[/i] to kill these guys. I could try to work with that. What I wasn't willing to accept was, "I'm chaotic neutral. I can do whatever I want." That's a cop-out. The character is using the description of the alignment to define his actions, and that's not what it was intended for. He was starting to until the other party members intervened. I'm not sure how this is relevant, though. Was he cruel? I guess it depends on whether you think slitting someone's throat with a knife while they are asleep is cruel. It's quick, and therefore less painful than, say, burning him to death. Are there relative levels of cruelty? Can a person be "kind of" cruel? He got nothing out of killing them. Neither pleasure nor remorse. Just the emotionless slitting of their throats. Did he go out of his way to kill them? Given that the guards were asleep and likely to remain so while the characters infiltrated the palace, got the info they needed, and make a quick escape, I would judge that he went out of his way. I did that. :) We talked about it as a group, and then I talked to the individual player directly (as mentioned in my first post). We covered that one above. We did that as well. We talked about morally gray and ambiguous issues. There are situations that are created to "test" a character just because we all think it's interesting to see how the characters would react. This was not one of those times. The "parameters" of alignments are relatively easy to explain in my game. We are playing a heroic fantasy game where actions dictate alignment. Do not use alignment as an excuse for your actions. Rather, we will judge by your actions what your character's moral and ethical alignment is. Certain characters (paladins, and to a lesser extent druids and monks) will have consequences if they fail to act according to their moral or ethical restrictions. I can't answer that because some of them read the boards and that's kind of a campaign secret. :) "Organized" warfare is different from a group of "adventurers" taking assignments in town for money or on behalf of a patron. [/QUOTE]

Verification