Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Viktyr Gehrig" data-source="post: 2146886" data-attributes="member: 9249">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.</blockquote>

Verification