PDA

View Full Version : Alignment question



MichielHagen
2009-02-23, 09:27 AM
I have a question about alignment.

Imagine a Demon who has tortured and murdered hundreds of people. This time he is at it again, he has captured a small child. The party tracks down the demon and defeats it, but before they slay the demon, he mentions to the party that if they slay him, the child he has captured will certainly die, if not found. If they let him go, he will let the child go.

Lets assume that the child is indeed still alive and the chances are slim it will be found without the demons help. Let's assume there is some way to make a fair exchange, that the demon can teleport somewhere at the same time the child is teleported to safety.

Character A thinks:
"This demon has slayed many people, we cannot set it free, it is almost certain more people will suffer if we do. We will do anything we can do to save the child after slaying the demon, but even if the child has to be sacrificed to make it happen, he will be slain, right here, right now!"

Character B thinks:
"I cannot let this child die, we will set the Demon free and save the child. After that we will hunt the demon down again!!"

What alignment would you give character A, and what character B.

I have an opinion about this, but i do not want to bias other readers right now with it.

xPANCAKEx
2009-02-23, 09:44 AM
at a guess
a= LN ... maybe LG?
b= CG

Satyr
2009-02-23, 09:48 AM
I don't think that those options are the relevant fact, but the attitude towards it (yes, I know thet intenally, morals in D&D are supposed to be objective. But as that doesn't make any sense, this is best treated with complete ignorance). The relevant question is of the attitude of the character towards the scenario. A character who hates himself for sacrificing the child and becomes a tormented wreck through it or a character who let the demon go but hating it is more interesting - and therefore superior - to any unambiguous position.

That said, the only "good" way out is to find a ways to sacrifice yourself instead of the child or potential future demon victims. Everything else is just aan easy way out.

Neithan
2009-02-23, 09:56 AM
I agree. A character could chose both options regardless of alignment.
Evil characters would have no problem with A, and neutral characters see it as neccessary. Good characters might not like it and have a lot of second thoughts about it, but chosing to do so would not be evil in any way, in my opinion.

Option B seems kind of irresponsible, as the demon will surely kill lots of other people before he's tracked down again. An evil character might be okay with this, if it's the child he's interested in, a neutral character might also.
A good character could also chose this option, because he simply can't do what option A requires. But again, he would probably have a lot of second thoughs about chosing this option.

But wich option to chose is rather uneffected by alignment, in my opinion.

KillianHawkeye
2009-02-23, 10:02 AM
Character A thinks:
"This demon has slayed many people, we cannot set it free, it is almost certain more people will suffer if we do. We will do anything we can do to save the child after slaying the demon, but even if the child has to be sacrificed to make it happen, he will be slain, right here, right now!"

Character B thinks:
"I cannot let this child die, we will set the Demon free and save the child. After that we will hunt the demon down again!!"

They are both (probably) some flavor of good. (LG, NG, CG, we don't have enough information to determine that.) They just have different priorities.

Two people with the same alignment aren't going to always react to a situation in the same way. There's a lot more that goes into someone's personality and decision-making processes than your alignment. In fact, your alignment doesn't determine your decisions or actions at all. Rather, it is your actions and decisions which determine your alignment.

At the end of the day, slaying a demon and saving a child are both Good acts. And regardless of the consequences of choosing one over the other, it's impossible for us to measure which option is "more Good" than the other.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-02-23, 10:07 AM
Either could have nearly any alignment. All six Good and Neutral alignments seem most appropriate. The three Evil alignments would work just as well, but would require more specific motivations.

Alignment does not dictate how you react to a situation - personality does. Alignment is not personality, even if D&D and D&D players especially use it as a replacement for it. Your scenario reveals nothing specific about alignment.

MichielHagen
2009-02-23, 10:30 AM
In my opinion both options at the very least tend towards good. An evil character should not care as much for the additional deaths or the death of a child.

If i replace the word "Demon" with "Murderer" and maybe "Slay" with "Imprison" i would be very inclined to say the option A would be Lawful. Which would make option B tend more towards the chaotic side.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-02-23, 12:19 PM
In my opinion both options at the very least tend towards good. An evil character should not care as much for the additional deaths or the death of a child.

What? Why wouldn't they? They absolutely could. Take almost any real evil person you can think of and put them in the situation with people of the right color, nationality, and social class in peril, and they'd care a hell of a lot. Maybe not because they're compassionate or kind, but they'd care.

This view of alignment seems stunted and simplistic, and is exactly what I mean when I say D&D players use alignment as a replacement for personality. If you start your thinking from alignment instead of personality, you end up with cardboard characters with no motivations. This is especially true of evil characters.

Evil characters do evil things, or do things for evil reason (both courses of action and reasoning you suggest are perfectly compatible with evil reasons/motivations). They don't have to have an antisocial personality disorder (and characters with such disorders don't have to be evil-aligned).


Neither option is Chaotic or Lawful, and either option can be both. You can be lawful and dogmatic about the greater good, destroying the demon at the cost of a life to prevent further loss of life; or you can be Chaotic and do it because you want to. And you can be either alignment, or neither, and do it for any other reason. Similarly, you could be Lawfully dogmatic about saving everyone, or Chaotically focused on the value of individuals. Alignment isn't the how, it's the why (and not even the biggest component of that).

Riffington
2009-02-23, 01:00 PM
I just wandered into an alignment debate and agreed with almost everyone.

I think I'll go buy a lottery ticket now.

Shpadoinkle
2009-02-23, 07:21 PM
Character A seems CG to me, but someone of almost any alignment could have that exact throught process for any one of a million reasons, some good, some evil.

Character B seems Lawful Stupid. "ZOMGF t3h eval d00d is gunna hert sum1 RIGHT NAOW, we bettar let him get away so's he can do it some moar in teh futare!"

Even lawful characters (those who aren't really ****ing stupid, anyway) understand that the occasional unexpected or chaotic act has it's place, and in some cases may even be neccesary.

horseboy
2009-02-23, 08:05 PM
Option B is definitely Stupid Good.
Option A I'd say crosses on the Melodrama Shonen axises.
Option C: The party realizes it's a demon and so is lying to them to get away. So they kill it anyway. Then the Ranger breaks out his CSI kit or the druid just shape changes into something with scent tracking realizes that this mud under it's claws "only appears in one place" and proceed down to the abandoned quarry. Why they don't just check the abandoned quarry and all the closed wells first for the kid...
Option C I'd label Genre Savvy Bat-cave.

Raven777
2009-02-23, 09:26 PM
Considering the premise of the problem is that at the time of the confrontation there is absolutely NO way to simultaneously kill the Demon AND save the child:

Both options incur the loss of innocent lives to save other innocent lives. Therefore, the is no "good" way out of this ordeal, only a neutral choice. The alignment related decisions actually lie after the first choice is made.

If the person kills the demon and then tries to find the child, or save the child immediately and then tries to track the demon down before the beast can do any more harm, and even if he fails at these but at least tried, then this person is either some form of Good OR some form of Lawful (committed to prevent evil or to wrap all loose ends in a job).

If he just slays the demon or save the child according to what were his goals in the first place without attempting to deal with the consequences of his choice, the person is probably some form of Evil or Neutral (self concerned and unaware or uncaring of collateral damage).

This is my point of view. like anything related to alignments, everyone else might see things in a completely different manner.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-23, 10:33 PM
Character A thinks:
"This demon has slayed many people, we cannot set it free, it is almost certain more people will suffer if we do. We will do anything we can do to save the child after slaying the demon, but even if the child has to be sacrificed to make it happen, he will be slain, right here, right now!"

This is likely Good reasoning, since it focuses on preventing harm to others. It is unlikely that this is Evil, for the above reason; it is acceptable Neutral reasoning.


Character B thinks:
"I cannot let this child die, we will set the Demon free and save the child. After that we will hunt the demon down again!!"

Any, though less likely Good than Neutral. A Good character would reason as above (The Greater Good) while a Neutral character would allow his personal attachment to the child (or his personal desire to save the child) to override the likely death of other innocents as a concern.

Of course, a Good character that is optimistic of his ability to find the demon again before it kills again; such a character would feel deep guilt after seeing the next village the demon torches.

Y'see, the trick is alignment is about motivation, not action.

Character A is deeply concerned with the lives of others - a Good motivation - while Character B is not. Character B is far more interested in the life of the one he knows rather than the highly probable deaths of scores of innocents; his personal motivations rule over any higher moral concerns.

An Evil Character is unlikely to be concerned with the "lives of others" (though a LE character might be, if the demon was likely to kill more of his power base), though he may be unusually attached to this child - and therefore be willing to sacrifice any number of others to preserve his life.

snoopy13a
2009-02-23, 10:47 PM
Why would the characters believe that the demon is telling the truth:

Character C:

The demon cannot be trusted and has probably already killed the child. I have no choice but to kill him.

MisterSaturnine
2009-02-23, 10:53 PM
In my opinion, they're most likely to be different flavors of Lawful Good, though they could also be two differing takes on Chaotic Good, or Neutral Good--it really depends. The personality and biases of the character have more an effect on the situation than does alignment. At least in this case.

Fiery Diamond
2009-02-23, 11:38 PM
Any, though less likely Good than Neutral. A Good character would reason as above (The Greater Good) while a Neutral character would allow his personal attachment to the child (or his personal desire to save the child) to override the likely death of other innocents as a concern.


I disagree with this. "The greater good" has absolutely nothing to do with the Good alignment - it's merely one way that someone of a Good alignment might view things.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-24, 12:00 AM
I disagree with this. "The greater good" has absolutely nothing to do with the Good alignment - it's merely one way that someone of a Good alignment might view things.

From the SRD

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

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

While it is true that "for the greater good" is not in the description, but "protect innocent life" is. That any Good character would gleefully exchange the lives of dozens of innocents for the possible death of one innocent seems unlikely. Why would they? :smallconfused:

Now, as I said, I was focusing on the rationale of the character. Here he was rationalizing the death of the child for The Greater Good (tm); that is exactly the sort of thought process a Good character would have.

The concept of The Greater Good (tm) is troublesome, of course, but usually only in application. When people appeal to it, they are appealing to Good motives - particularly in life or death situations - but their argument may or may not be accurate. That is where people begin disputing whether a given action really is for the Greater Good, and whether even if it is, the sacrifice is too great all the same. Nonetheless, all Good characters must consider The Greater Good, whether they follow it or not, or they are just putting their personal desires ahead of the life and dignity of other sentient beings.

Dixieboy
2009-02-24, 12:17 AM
Why would the characters believe that the demon is telling the truth:

Character C:

The demon cannot be trusted and has probably already killed the child. I have no choice but to kill him.

Otherwise known as Miko

chiasaur11
2009-02-24, 12:55 AM
Otherwise known as Miko

Wait.

Not unquestionably trusting demons is a mark of insanity now?

I figure assuming anything it says to be unreliable would be common sense.