PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Alignment and the Slaughter of Hired Goons



Altair_the_Vexed
2009-09-29, 09:54 AM
Here are a few questions that is directly relevant to the D&D game I'm running, but perhaps is interesting and applicable in D&D in general.
The D&D game that I run is a little non-traditional, in that the heroes' adversaries are usually not "monsters". The heroes are most often pitted against the (non-evil) hired agents of an Evil Political Leader.

D&D assumes there is a clear line between Good, Evil and the Neutrality in between.
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

For another example - look at the Matrix movies. Various soldiers and police officers are killed by the heroes in the Matrix, aside from the Agent programs. When you get killed in the Matrix, you're really dead - those are humans that the heroes of the Matrix movies are killing, whose only evil act is to be less enlightened than the heroes.

So - here are the questions: Is it "good" to kill hired guards in order to get to the Big Bad Guy? How many hired guards does one have to kill to be doing "evil"? Assuming that one must use deadly force to get past the hired guard to do the "good" goal of killing the Evil Bad Guy, what would constitute "killing without qualms if doing so is convenient"?

EDIT: Clearly, there are no perfectly right or wrong answers to these questions. I'm looking for a discussion, not a definitive answer. Centuries of philosophy haven't given us definitve answers for good and evil. :smallbiggrin:

(To any of my players wandering through: this is an open question - I'm not judging anyone. You're not all playing good alignments, anyway.)

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-29, 10:09 AM
For another example - look at the Matrix movies. Various soldiers and police officers are killed by the heroes in the Matrix, aside from the Agent programs. When you get killed in the Matrix, you're really dead - those are humans that the heroes of the Matrix movies are killing, whose only evil act is to be less enlightened than the heroes.


Tangent here, seeing as I'm a fan of the movie.

1: Everyone still plugged into the Matrix is at risk of being taken over by one of the Agents. If they could have avoided killing them, they would have, but leaving them alive is risky business, and not a good idea. Doing so effectively leaves a wide-open teleportation effect for every agent near the pods, allowing them to gate in and gate out at their leisure. Killing an agent is far harder than killing a cop for those who've taken the Red Pill, as demonstrated by Morpheus' fight with Smith and Trinity's intro in the first movie, along with her psuedo-death in the second. Living is kinda difficult when your greatest enemy is capable of being literally anyone within a +60 billion population, especially in a city as dense as the one the Matrix takes place in. That's an awful lot of agents capable of popping up at any particular moment.

2: The Animatrix covered sparing people quite nicely, and showed that even rescuing them is risky business. The detective short is my reference here.

Telonius
2009-09-29, 10:11 AM
This (http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/clerks.html) pretty much covers it for me:


BLUE-COLLAR MAN: Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt, but what were you talking about?
RANDAL: The ending of Return of the Jedi.
DANTE: My friend is trying to convince me that any contractors working on the uncompleted Death Star were innocent victims when the space station was destroyed by the rebels.
BLUE-COLLAR MAN: Well, I'm a contractor myself. I'm a roofer...(digs into pocket and produces business card) Dunn and Reddy Home Improvements. And speaking as a roofer, I can say that a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs.
RANDAL: Like when?
BLUE-COLLAR MAN: Three months ago I was offered a job up in the hills. A beautiful house with tons of property. It was a simple reshingling job, but I was told that if it was finished within a day, my price would be doubled. Then I realized whose house it was.
DANTE: Whose house was it?
BLUE-COLLAR MAN: Dominick Bambino's.
RANDAL: "Babyface" Bambino? The gangster?
BLUE-COLLAR MAN: The same. The money was right, but the risk was too big. I knew who he was, and based on that, I passed the job on to a friend of mine.
DANTE: Based on personal politics.
BLUE-COLLAR MAN: Right. And that week, the Foresci family put a hit on Babyface's house. My friend was shot and killed. He wasn't even finished shingling.
RANDAL: No way!
BLUE-COLLAR MAN: (paying for coffee) I'm alive because I knew there were risks involved taking on that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky. (pauses to reflect) You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault. A roofer listens to this...(taps his heart) not his wallet.

Lapak
2009-09-29, 10:32 AM
As with most alignment questions, it's not something that can be summed up with a 'yes' or 'no,' but depends heavily on the circumstances.

1: Did the party have an alternative approach available to them that would have allowed to spare the guards? Did that approach carry additional risks, and if so, how great were they?

2: What are the consequences of failure? Killing an guard who is unwittingly protecting the guy who is about to open a Permanent Gate to the Nine Hells in two minutes is different than killing the guard on your way out of the treasure room.

3: How much danger would there be in subduing rather than killing the guards? Did the PCs stop and stabilize dying guards when they could, or pass them by?

All three of these factor into the 'convenience' factor you mention. If avoiding the guards would require that I hide out overnight in a sewer with an equal chance of success and I don't, I'm sacrificing them for convenience. If avoiding the guards means surrendering my arms to them and allowing them to take me to the Bad Guy as a prisoner, hoping I'll still be able to stop him but making it extremely unlikely? That's not convenience I'm giving up.

If the PCs try to convince the guards about the truth while they're fighting them, if they try nonlethal tactics, if they stop and stabilize their enemies whenever they have the time to do so, if they avoid combat when they can, all of these are mitigating factors that make the act of killing what guards they have to more Neutral and less Evil, because they are not doing it except in the most desperate circumstances.

In the Matrix, all three points are weighted heavily towards killing being the only viable move. The risk of nonlethal is immense because of Agent takeover; the risk of failure is death and a significant loss of mankind's available resources as a species; and they would have to avoid literally every other person in the Matrix to avoid it. Add to that the fact that they run rather than fighting whenever possible and you have some pretty significant mitigation - but they're still probably more Neutral in outlook than Good.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-29, 10:55 AM
As usual, it's not so much the exact action that's good or evil as why it's done.

Killing someone can be a good act or an evil act, even if they are a hireling. Do your PCs know they are merely unaware pawns? Are the PCs attempting to minimize deaths? Do the PCs take obvious pleasure in doing so?

Bonus points if you bring in an innocent guards family somehow. See what your PCs do when they deal with the survivors of their collateral damage.

jiriku
2009-09-29, 11:00 AM
So - here are the questions: Is it "good" to kill hired guards in order to get to the Big Bad Guy? How many hired guards does one have to kill to be doing "evil"? Assuming that one must use deadly force to get past the hired guard to do the "good" goal of killing the Evil Bad Guy, what would constitute "killing without qualms if doing so is convenient"?


There's more than one answer to these questions, depending on your code of ethics and worldview. Thus, an easy solution is to ask your players how their characters would answer these questions. The players with deep, complex characters will give you serious and useful answers. The players with shallow or cardboard characters won't, but they aren't interested in roleplaying complex alignment issues anyway.

Altair_the_Vexed
2009-09-29, 11:11 AM
Clearly, there are no perfectly right or wrong answers to these questions.
I'm looking for a discussion, not a definitive answer. Centuries of philosophy haven't given us definitive answers for good and evil.

I don't buy the "no contractor working for evil is innocent" argument - it was made for a joke, I know, but I'm sure it'll come up again. If you take that sort of logic to its conclusion, you're getting close to terrorist attitudes, where everyone is a legitimate target. I doubt we could call that "good".

Tyndmyr
2009-09-29, 11:22 AM
If the goons are working for him knowing of his evil, well...innocence is mostly out the window.

And let's not forget the other axis of the alignment...what sort of law governs this in their environment? If they're killing people knowingly involved in illegal stuff, it's much easier to presume evil intent.

Godskook
2009-09-29, 11:37 AM
As usual, it's not so much the exact action that's good or evil as why it's done.

This is very important, and can't be emphasized enough(Tyndmyr, you're ninja has leveled!). There's very few things, even in D&D, that are explicitly good or evil*. 'Why' matters, a lot. Even more confusingly, often times there's more than one 'why' at play. For instance, Belkar kills things primarily because he likes killing, and that's his personally primary 'why'. However, through out 90% of the comic, the things he kills are "Roy Approved", providing him with a secondary 'why', that in a way authorizes his normally evil desires, making them neutral-good as long as he stays within the guidlines(which he does as long as Roy is alive).


*If you said [good] and [evil], read up on malconvoker before trying to correct me on this one.

jiriku
2009-09-29, 11:58 AM
Your mileage may vary if your campaign has a different emphasis, but...

The typical D&D campaign world doesn't effectively model good versus evil except in black-and-white fairy tale terms. This is an environment where good and evil are objective qualities that register with a detect spell.

That's important - modern morality generally holds that people are not inherently good or evil, but have to potential to take actions that are good or evil. D&D states that people themselves are inherently good or evil, but enough directed behavior can change that state.

Example:
Belkar is objectively a bad person even as he saves the world, and the only reason the whole world doesn't know about it is that he carries a sheet of lead with him. He can help little old ladies across the street and give bread to the poor, and he'll still register as neutral evil even in the act of dispensing charity.


D&D is also a world in which life is cheap. People who routinely butcher dozens or hundreds of sentient beings while operating under no flag and pursuing no greater cause, for no purpose other than to rob and pillage, are idolized like rock stars. Every adventurer is a mass murder on a scale to make Charles Manson blush.

This lends itself to a very simplistic solution to moral issues. Are some people opposing your goals? Well, kill them. Were they evil? Ok, they were, that means they deserved it. Good job, you're a hero. No, they were good aligned? Bad boy, you're a villain. If you weren't evil before, it's probably time for an alignment change.

Counterpoint:

I'm not trying to say that killing people is the best/only solution to a problem within D&D, or that killing people might not have in-game consequences from other NPCs who object to it. But from a moral standpoint, D&D's traditional stance is that killing evil creatures who oppose your goals is usually appropriate for good beings, and killing good creatures who oppose your goals is usually appropriate for evil beings.


Is this an overly simplistic moral universe? Yes. But it's the approach the designers have generally taken to answer the question "How can the PCs be the good guys when they're generating such a high body count?"

hamishspence
2009-09-29, 12:06 PM
an alternate one is:

"the monsters are raiding civilization from their bases in dungeons, and adventurers are heroically risking their lives to save others from this, with profit being only a secondary motive."

hamishspence
2009-09-29, 12:09 PM
*If you said [good] and [evil], read up on malconvoker before trying to correct me on this one.

I did. It states quite clearly that malconvokers are immune to the normal repercussions of casting [evil] spells. And even then, only [evil] soummoning spells.

BoVD and FC2 both confirm this- that casting an [evil] spell is by default an evil act, though BoVD phrases it as

"You can get away with casting a few evil spells as long as you do not do so for an evil purpose, but the path of evil magic leads swiftly to corruption."

Akal Saris
2009-09-29, 02:29 PM
It's best not to think about it too much in my opinion. Most monsters are just born inherently evil, while people who work for the evil bad guy are probably neutral at best - and there's not really any alignment issues with killing neutrals within D&D.

As Captain Brannagan says, at least with evil you know where they stand, but not those damned shifty neutrals...

(Who knows what darkness in a man's heart makes him turn neutral?)

Gnaeus
2009-09-29, 02:35 PM
Most people would agree that Nazism was evil. Most people would agree that fighting to beat them was overall good. (Leaving aside proportionality concepts, nuclear weapons, firebomings, etc. I mean the physical liberation of occupied Europe).

I use this because this is the closest the world has come to agreeing to what "Evil" is.

Leaving aside political leaders and guys working in concentration camps, the average soldier in the trenches was not evil.

I don't think that normal actions taken towards their defeat (like shooting at them, throwing grenades, etc) would be at all considered evil by most of the world. The slope drops quickly if you start committing war crimes, like shooting them when they are down or surrendered.

taltamir
2009-09-29, 02:40 PM
those people whose "only crime is to be less enlightened" are also trying to kill you!
That hardly makes them innocent victims... Now, ritually sacrificing a child to stop a spell by the BBEG to save many lives? thats moral gray area.
Slaughtering "innocent guards" working for the pure evil who are trying to murder you because its their day job? not evil.

The Neoclassic
2009-09-29, 02:44 PM
Is it "good" to kill hired guards in order to get to the Big Bad Guy?

A: No, but it's not evil either. This is a neutral act.

Justification: We're assuming the guards took this job for the most part out of free will (and have the capacity to make their own reasonable decisions). It'd be a different matter if these were slaves being forced to do this, rather than folks getting paid for it and realizing the freely taken-on risks of their job. Killing those who aren't directly threatening you or others is not something which can be justified as good (at least not when there are any other reasonable options- such as sneaking around or bribing the guards), but since the goal and ends are (I'm assuming) noble, to end suffering or potential great destruction, by killing the BBG, it certainly isn't evil either. However, if you kill them as cleanly as possible, giving them the prayers for the dying and doing everything as kindly as you can, it might lean towards "good." If you torture them and cause them entirely unnecessary suffering in your method of killing, this would lean towards evil.


How many hired guards does one have to kill to be doing "evil"?

A: Why you kill the guards, how you kill the guards, and what alternatives you had to killing the guards is more important than the number of guards you kill.

Justification: See above. If you murder one when you could've easily snuck past him, this is more evil than if you killed three but had absolutely no other way to get to the BBG before he started the Orphan-Eating Plague.


Assuming that one must use deadly force to get past the hired guard to do the "good" goal of killing the Evil Bad Guy, what would constitute "killing without qualms if doing so is convenient"?

A: If one really MUST use deadly force to get past the hired guard, it isn't "killing without qualms if doing so is convenient."

Justification: While I consider alignment to be comprised of motivation, intent, action, and consequences, intent can be hard to see. Motivation in this case is clearly the overriding goal "Kill the BBG." Action is killing the guard, consequence is dead guards. However, what is the PCs' intent? Is it to kill any guards in their way, primarily due to laziness or the desire to see them suffer? Or is it to get past the guards through the most "good" means realistically possible- which might have to be killing them if no other options are readily available. Unless the PCs really didn't look for another way around the guards, they delight in the guards' deaths, or they think absolutely nothing of the ending of life for several humanoid beings (not to mention the impact on their families), this situation you describe wouldn't fall into the category of "killing without qualms if doing so is convenient." Killing when convenient can be non-evil, and even killing without qualms can be non-evil (well, possibly), but usually doing both at the same time would be evil.

Godskook
2009-09-29, 02:53 PM
I did. It states quite clearly that malconvokers are immune to the normal repercussions of casting [evil] spells. And even then, only [evil] soummoning spells.

BoVD and FC2 both confirm this- that casting an [evil] spell is by default an evil act, though BoVD phrases it as

"You can get away with casting a few evil spells as long as you do not do so for an evil purpose, but the path of evil magic leads swiftly to corruption."

If something is explicitly evil(or rather, fully and clearly evil), than Malconvoker couldn't get away with it. So, by plain definition of words, [evil] spells are not explicitly evil. Excepting the malconvoker and saying otherwise is a contradiction of terms.

On the other hand, something being evil by default is a different story. I'd say that killing people is evil by default. However, a default does not require that other interpretations are impossible, and there are many reasons to kill that justify it.

Myrmex
2009-09-29, 02:55 PM
Tangent here, seeing as I'm a fan of the movie.

1: Everyone still plugged into the Matrix is at risk of being taken over by one of the Agents. If they could have avoided killing them, they would have, but leaving them alive is risky business, and not a good idea. Doing so effectively leaves a wide-open teleportation effect for every agent near the pods, allowing them to gate in and gate out at their leisure. Killing an agent is far harder than killing a cop for those who've taken the Red Pill, as demonstrated by Morpheus' fight with Smith and Trinity's intro in the first movie, along with her psuedo-death in the second. Living is kinda difficult when your greatest enemy is capable of being literally anyone within a +60 billion population, especially in a city as dense as the one the Matrix takes place in. That's an awful lot of agents capable of popping up at any particular moment.

2: The Animatrix covered sparing people quite nicely, and showed that even rescuing them is risky business. The detective short is my reference here.

tl;dr:
kill everyone, solves problems.

lsfreak
2009-09-29, 02:58 PM
An important distinction is people who truly took up the job out of free will, and those coerced into doing so. This coercion extends not just to outright threats, but things such as economic coercion (i.e. in the US, a large number of soldiers are economically coerced into the military). Yes, they chose the job "of their own free will," but they were also pressured into doing so by forces beyond their control.

If the guards are actually in on whatever is going on, it's neutral. If you know that the guards are likely just there because they needed (and not wanted) the money, it's evil. Holding back (nonlethal damage, especially if your DM allows you to automatically turn a lethal hit into a knockout), taking surrenders, not using save-or-dies, and so on is neutral with good leanings. Actively trying to get your opponents to throw down their weapons and leave (including charm/suggestion/fear effects) is good.

Akal Saris
2009-09-29, 03:00 PM
If something is explicitly evil(or rather, fully and clearly evil), than Malconvoker couldn't get away with it. So, by plain definition of words, [evil] spells are not explicitly evil. Excepting the malconvoker and saying otherwise is a contradiction of terms.

On the other hand, something being evil by default is a different story. I'd say that killing people is evil by default. However, a default does not require that other interpretations are impossible, and there are many reasons to kill that justify it.

Godskook, I think you have the spells part backwards. The Malconvoker has a special class ability (Unhindered Conjuration or something) that overrides the norm, which is that casting [evil] spells is explicitly evil.

taltamir
2009-09-29, 03:01 PM
BoVD and FC2 both confirm this- that casting an [evil] spell is by default an evil act, though BoVD phrases it as
they also claim that any poison (but not venoms) use is an evil act. because poison is meant to cause unnecessary pain and suffering (1. it is very necessary. 2. and a sword to the gut doesn't hurt? 3. poison probably hurts less than sword to gut0

by that logic, every bartender is evil

WOTC published material has absolutely no room in a discussion about morality.

Delwugor
2009-09-29, 03:08 PM
All IMHO of course. The problem with D&D Alignments is that they are better used as a philosophy to life instead of a ethical/moral guide to actions.

So it is poor in saying if a character does *this* then he is good/evil/chaotic/lawful because it places this alignment above the actual character and how he looks at life and ethics and morality and ...

A better and more usable approach to alignments is from the character/player pov. Given a situation how will the character work within his philosophy/beliefs to resolve the issue.

In this way alignment becomes the guiding principle the character should use when faced with tough decisions not a restriction on what he can or can not do.

Godskook
2009-09-29, 03:41 PM
Godskook, I think you have the spells part backwards. The Malconvoker has a special class ability (Unhindered Conjuration or something) that overrides the norm, which is that casting [evil] spells is explicitly evil.

Nope, I'm good. If something is explicitly evil, that means that no matter what, and no matter who is doing it, it is an evil act. Period. End of story. Do not pass go. A Malconvoker can cast [evil] spells, and him doing so is not evil. Therefore, by definition of the word explicit, casting [evil] spells is not explicitly evil.

Casting [evil] spells might be normally evil, usuallly evil, typically evil, evil by default, or even almost always evil, but in D&D, it is never explicitly evil. The malconvoker proves this, as does the quote that Hamishspence used from BOVD, at least the way I read it.

Yukitsu
2009-09-29, 03:45 PM
Assuming evil is "evil" based only on the actions and never on the context, intent or consequinces taken as a whole is great if you're a firm believer in the laurels of dogmatic morality based on edicts sent from on high. I think it's a system that ultimately fails, however, and as such, the means, the ends and the reason all matter. An evil "mean" for a good end doesn't really seem anything other than good to me when that supposed evil is only evil by convention, rather than bringing any sort of harm to anyone.

hamishspence
2009-09-29, 04:10 PM
they also claim that any poison (but not venoms) use is an evil act. because poison is meant to cause unnecessary pain and suffering (1. it is very necessary. 2. and a sword to the gut doesn't hurt? 3. poison probably hurts less than sword to gut0

by that logic, every bartender is evil

WOTC published material has absolutely no room in a discussion about morality.

If we are using terms like "an evil act" for gaming mechnical purposes, it does.

A multiclass paladin/wizard has a scroll of X. Where X has the Evil descriptor. He casts it. Does he fall, yes or no? Its a fairly simple question.

And, given its listing on the Corrupt Acts list, in FC2, it has a simple answer, based on the assumption that by Corrupt, they mean Evil, which the wording, and the fact that Lawful persons who commit enough Corrupt acts without atoning go to Baator, would support.

Yes, the paladin would Fall. Because they committed a Corrupt (evil) act, and by the Code, they Fall for committing any evil act.

(By the way, neither FC2 nor BoVD has the "Poison use is evil" claim- only BoED does)

The Quote from BoVD is consistant with "its an evil act, but the good intentions, enable the person committing it to be Neutral rather than evil, at least for a while"

Heroes of Horror uses a similar wording, saying that some dread necromancers (which have a spell list very heavy on [Evil] spells) "balance evil acts with good intentions, and thus remain solidly Neutral"

BoVD does say that intent can matter to a degree in certain circumstances.
And BoED says intent can turn acts that would normally be considered Good into Neutral acts.

The rule is, there are a few moral absolutes (any corrupt act, generally) and aside from that, its mostly intent and context.

PHB2 has a similar phrase as one possible paladin credo "Aside from moral absolutes, an ethical code is based on the greatest good of the greatest number."

hamishspence
2009-09-29, 04:42 PM
There is plenty to work with (when you take all the books that speak on alignment, as a whole).

Can good people commit evil acts and remain good?

Yes- if the acts are rare, committed with good intentions, and do not present a trend of person routinely resorting to them.

Does intent matter?

Yes- most of the time. For some few acts though, there is an element of moral absolutism, with intentions not being mentioned as mitigating the act.

These are my answers derived as best as I can from the books, though not everyone will agree with them.

Ormur
2009-09-29, 05:06 PM
I've been thinking about this since my own NG wizard has been slaughtering Drow soldiers quite mercilessly in a campaign I'm in. They are in de facto war with the good guy's my wizard aligns himself with and have attacked and occupied parts of their kingdom.

However my character has gone a bit above and beyond what's strictly necessary in killing Drow to achieve his goals: casting cloudkill on an already leaderless army and using scry and die to infiltrate their headquarters instead of just making himself invisible.

They are soldiers in a war and should know the dangers but even so is it justifiable for a NG character to kill them on sight (and no killing evil characters is not inherently good here)? I'm also beginning to suspect that he has some issues with Drow (he's an elf after all).

Godskook
2009-09-29, 05:23 PM
A multiclass paladin/wizard has a scroll of X. Where X has the Evil descriptor. He casts it. Does he fall, yes or no? Its a fairly simple question.

And, given its listing on the Corrupt Acts list, in FC2, it has a simple answer, based on the assumption that by Corrupt, they mean Evil, which the wording, and the fact that Lawful persons who commit enough Corrupt acts without atoning go to Baator, would support.

Yes, the paladin would Fall. Because they committed a Corrupt (evil) act, and by the Code, they Fall for committing any evil act.

Paladins muddy the water because of the high emphasis on the lawful. A LG Paladin may fall for breaking his code, but I'd argue that it has more to due with the Lawful end of his alignment, not the Good, despite the act at issue being [Evil].

Besides, there's no restriction that I'm aware of that prevents a Paladin from becoming a Malconvoker...(Except the practical restrictions of the Paladin levels being completely useless to a summoner and vice versa)

hamishspence
2009-09-29, 05:31 PM
True- the question being, if the malconvoker's "immunity to changing alignment from casting Evil summoning spells" constitutes:

"casting these spells is no longer an evil act, if they are cast by the malconvoker"

Paladins Fall either for committing an evil act, or for committing a "gross violation of the code"

If the evil act is not a "gross violation of the code", the paladin will still Fall- because the two are separate reasons for Falling.

Akal Saris
2009-09-29, 05:48 PM
Nope, I'm good. If something is explicitly evil, that means that no matter what, and no matter who is doing it, it is an evil act. Period. End of story. Do not pass go. A Malconvoker can cast [evil] spells, and him doing so is not evil. Therefore, by definition of the word explicit, casting [evil] spells is not explicitly evil.

Casting [evil] spells might be normally evil, usuallly evil, typically evil, evil by default, or even almost always evil, but in D&D, it is never explicitly evil. The malconvoker proves this, as does the quote that Hamishspence used from BOVD, at least the way I read it.

The quote that Hamishspence used from the BOVD is under the section titled "Evil Acts", which is explicitly saying that it is an evil act. Likewise, a tag of [Evil] means that something is explicitly evil, unless otherwise specified. The Malconvoker example is something that is otherwise specified, breaking the rules of the game for this specific case. Just because a nonevil spellcaster can "get away" with casting "a few" evil spells doesn't mean that doing so isn't an evil act - it just means that the character is temporarily suspending her morality for some reason and is committing an evil act.

You can be a good person and still commit an evil act - Othello murdered his wife, for example, but he's still a 'good' character at heart, and murdering your wife is still an evil act by almost any moral viewpoint. If he did so more than a few times, he'd certainly be on a dark path indeed.

Likewise, within D&D, casting an evil still is an evil act - you can do it as a good character (well, not as a good cleric, since they don't get 'evil' spells and therefore can't even fall from grace for such an act even if they wanted to), but it is still an explicitly evil act, and both the BoVD and PHB make it clear that characters who do such an evil act repeatedly will eventually become evil themselves - within standard D&D morality.

Malconvokers also can easily fall under the 'Consorting with Fiends', 'Lying', 'Cheating Others', and 'Using Others for Personal Gain' listings of evil acts that the BoVD mentions - they walk a grim path indeed. (Coincidentally, I happen to play a CG Malconvoker in Eberron)

bosssmiley
2009-09-30, 04:19 AM
We don't need no steekin BO(V/E)D. Captain Carrot shows us the way.

"We've come to kill your boss. You know he's evil; we know he's evil; he knows he's evil. You can either display commendable loyalty to your employer and die hideously, or you can step aside and go home tonight to see your family. I for one think it is too beautiful a day to die, but the choice is yours."

Problem solved. Freedom of choice = freedom to take the consequences.

"What's that? Your family will be killed if we let you through. Well let's get your family to safety first. I don't like the idea of peoples' families to being held to ransom to ensure good behaviour."

Being Good: because there are two ways; one is easy, and that is its' only reward.

Riffington
2009-09-30, 04:50 AM
Nope, I'm good. If something is explicitly evil, that means that no matter what, and no matter who is doing it, it is an evil act. Period.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Saph
2009-09-30, 05:13 AM
It depends on the goons.

I'd think of it as a sort of scale. In the PCs' quest to stop Baron Kitteneater, they might run across the following sliding scale of goons:

The Sliding Scale of Goons

True Believer Goons: These guys are dedicated followers of Baron Kitteneater and enthusiastically support the eating of kittens.
Hired Gun Goons: These are the guys who are basically amoral and who'll take any job if it pays well. They don't really care if it involves eating kittens or not.
Reluctant Goons: These guys don't particularly want to eat kittens, and aren't that keen on the Baron, but due to various reasons are pressured into working for him - saying "no" to the press gang is hazardous to health.
Deluded Goons: These are the guys who think that Baron Kitteneater is a really nice guy, and all those stories spread about him are just propaganda. If the PCs burst in, they'll assume the PCs must be Evil, because they're trying to hurt the Baron.
Cops: Legitimate members of the police force. These are the guys who keep order in the city and defend it from other attacks; unfortunately, they can be manipulated the same way as any other government agency and if Baron Kitteneater frames the PCs for murder, it's their job to bring the PCs in.
The further you get down the scale, the harder it is to justify killing them and the more the PCs are going to slide towards Evil.

A Superman-style "boy scout" probably won't be willing to use lethal force against any except the first type, and not even then if it's possible to solve the problem by subduing them. A morally grey antihero will probably be willing to kill all of the top four categories. The Punisher is quite happy to slaughter mafia families with claymore mines, but even he won't kill cops.

This all assumes a battle between PCs and the BBEG in a basically functioning society, kind of like superhero stories. If you're fighting a war, as in the Matrix, then things work a bit differently.

taltamir
2009-09-30, 05:27 AM
I'd think of it as a sort of scale. In the PCs' quest to stop Baron Kitteneater

How ethnocentric... cats are just dumb animals. Sure they are cute dumb animals, but so are cows and sheep and piglets. There is nothing evil about eating kittens... ;p

Yes I know you probably did not mean it seriously, I am not really accusing you of being ethnocentric... but my point about killing cute things stand...
Like the other day I mentioned baleful polymorph someone into a newborn puppy (so they cannot escape) and then kill them. Some people figured killing a puppy is an evil act, even if that puppy is the BBEG.

Project_Mayhem
2009-09-30, 05:32 AM
A Superman-style "boy scout" probably won't be willing to use lethal force against any except the first type, and not even then if it's possible to solve the problem by subduing them. A morally grey antihero will probably be willing to kill all of the top four categories. The Punisher is quite happy to slaughter mafia families with claymore mines, but even he won't kill cops.

Heh. And generally, if your doing something that the punisher considers too harsh, you should probably reassess your alignment

Saph
2009-09-30, 05:34 AM
There is nothing evil about eating kittens... ;p

Of course there is. It's how you identify evil characters. You check to see if they participate in or support any of the following activities:

a) kicking puppies
b) eating kittens
c) stealing candy from small children.

Killing the questioner and raising them as a zombie is also an acceptable way of testing positive.

Riffington
2009-09-30, 05:40 AM
How ethnocentric... cats are just dumb animals. Sure they are cute dumb animals, but so are cows and sheep and piglets. There is nothing evil about eating kittens... ;p

Yes I know you probably did not mean it seriously, I am not really accusing you of being ethnocentric... but my point about killing cute things stand...
Like the other day I mentioned baleful polymorph someone into a newborn puppy (so they cannot escape) and then kill them. Some people figured killing a puppy is an evil act, even if that puppy is the BBEG.

For killing animals to be nonevil, it should be justified. Cows, sheep, and pigs are arguably* delicious and nutritious enough to justify a humane death. I don't really know any human cultures that enjoy kittens, though of course it's possible that nonhumans have different taste buds than humans do, and that might justify it for them. Humans only eat them if they are desperately poor, whereas this guy's a Baron.

Obviously, your second example is different: puppies are more intelligent than kittens but this is no puppy. This is a human posing no immediate threat, who can safely be brought to justice, but who you killed anyway. Not knowing the specific circumstances (is there a legal system around? Can you safely transport him to it?), that may well have been evil.

*though not for me.

taltamir
2009-09-30, 05:42 AM
a variety of cultures keep pigs, cows, chickens, and piglets as pets.
And many claim kats and dogs are delicious...


Obviously, your second example is different: puppies are more intelligent than kittens but this is no puppy. This is a human posing no immediate threat, who can safely be brought to justice, but who you killed anyway. Not knowing the specific circumstances (is there a legal system around? Can you safely transport him to it?), that may well have been evil.
Legal system? he is a BBEG, probably an evil necromancer of considerable strength, and if he gets away he will continue to slaughter, and if I bring him in he will be executed on the spot.
Worse, he might have connections and get off and sick the law on me... I only need to know he is evil.

Good =! stupid

Anyways, if anything killing in the heat of the moment is evil; while executing a helpless opponent is moral and just...
Why? If you subdue an enemy and then judge him to be too evil and dangerous to live after considerable deliberation you are taking care to only kill when necessary...
If you kill out of anger or just spar of the moment, you prove yourself a threat to society and to innocents everywhere by killing without consideration to the sanctity of life.

Altair_the_Vexed
2009-09-30, 06:05 AM
There's lots of great discussion here, thanks to everyone who's chipped in.

I see that there's a general agreement that it may not be evil to kill your way through troops who stand between you and your Noble Goal, as long as those troops are opposing your Noble Goal. There's some debate as to whether it's Neutral or Good.

There's also general agreement that it depends on the goons:

It depends on the goons.

I'd think of it as a sort of scale. In the PCs' quest to stop Baron Kitteneater, they might run across the following sliding scale of goons:

The Sliding Scale of Goons

True Believer Goons: These guys are dedicated followers of Baron Kitteneater and enthusiastically support the eating of kittens.
Hired Gun Goons: These are the guys who are basically amoral and who'll take any job if it pays well. They don't really care if it involves eating kittens or not.
Reluctant Goons: These guys don't particularly want to eat kittens, and aren't that keen on the Baron, but due to various reasons are pressured into working for him - saying "no" to the press gang is hazardous to health.
Deluded Goons: These are the guys who think that Baron Kitteneater is a really nice guy, and all those stories spread about him are just propaganda. If the PCs burst in, they'll assume the PCs must be Evil, because they're trying to hurt the Baron.
Cops: Legitimate members of the police force. These are the guys who keep order in the city and defend it from other attacks; unfortunately, they can be manipulated the same way as any other government agency and if Baron Kitteneater frames the PCs for murder, it's their job to bring the PCs in.
The further you get down the scale, the harder it is to justify killing them and the more the PCs are going to slide towards Evil.

A Superman-style "boy scout" probably won't be willing to use lethal force against any except the first type, and not even then if it's possible to solve the problem by subduing them. A morally grey antihero will probably be willing to kill all of the top four categories. The Punisher is quite happy to slaughter mafia families with claymore mines, but even he won't kill cops.

This all assumes a battle between PCs and the BBEG in a basically functioning society, kind of like superhero stories. If you're fighting a war, as in the Matrix, then things work a bit differently.
Good scale - thanks. I have a secondary question arising from the idea of the Scale of Goons: What if the PCs don't stop to ask where the goons fall on the scale?
I'll begin an answer myself, to see if people agree:The PCs may be assuming that the goons are at True Believer or Hired Gun level, and acting accordingly - which (if they're right) is not evil
Are the PCs wrong to make this assumption? Does the assumption make the motivation non-evil? Should they put more thought into it, or has that got nothing to do with good and evil?

In the example I'm thinking of, the Vile Baron is actually the legitimate ruler of the Barony. He's also certainly evil - I can't list some of his crimes on a family forum. The Baron keeps his evilness hidden - not very well, but it'd be easy to turn a blind eye without too much doublethink.
So - the Baron's guards are in some ways, Cops on Saph's scale. Some may also be Hired Guns, and a few of the top ranking leaders are certainly True Believers. In general, however, their job is to guard the castle, keep order in the Barony and enforce the law of the Baron.

Since I started this thread, one of the PCs has made the empathic leap of "Hang on - I used to be a guard... These guys are just doing their job. We should go get the Baron, and stop trying to kill everyone."
That character, by the way, has Neutral written on his character sheet.

The Neoclassic
2009-09-30, 08:17 AM
Good scale - thanks. I have a secondary question arising from the idea of the Scale of Goons: What if the PCs don't stop to ask where the goons fall on the scale?
I'll begin an answer myself, to see if people agree:The PCs may be assuming that the goons are at True Believer or Hired Gun level, and acting accordingly - which (if they're right) is not evil
Are the PCs wrong to make this assumption? Does the assumption make the motivation non-evil? Should they put more thought into it, or has that got nothing to do with good and evil?

Well, how little thought are they putting into it? :smallwink: If they see the goons cooking up some kitten for dinner, or talking about how swell the Baron's kitten-banquets are, it's reasonable to assume that they're enthusiastic supporters. Some guards standing around looking rather unhappy & frightened, with no hint of evil-supporting on their part other than their job, it's not such a reasonable assumption.

How much thinking one does, yes, influences the good/evil-ness of the act to an extent. If you do a lot of thinking to determine that the guards are kitten-eaters (sorry, too easy of an example), this does make your actions slightly more towards good than just assuming without any thought or evidence. Why? Because consequences do matter to an extent, and more thinking means you're more likely to reach an accurate conclusion.

The biggest issue here is the worry that the PCs won't have enough information to make an accurate decision. If they ask the goons, they may very well lie (figuring that if the adventurers are asking, after all, saying they're only doing it because their families are in danger and they have no choice will let them run free). Then again, lie-detecting spells and Sense Motive can help reduce the chances of this occuring.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-30, 08:36 AM
For killing animals to be nonevil, it should be justified. Cows, sheep, and pigs are arguably* delicious and nutritious enough to justify a humane death. I don't really know any human cultures that enjoy kittens, though of course it's possible that nonhumans have different taste buds than humans do, and that might justify it for them. Humans only eat them if they are desperately poor, whereas this guy's a Baron.

Korea culture does eats Puppies and kittys. At least the resturants do.
They enjoy it (although they do hide it in stews and stuff).

blackseven
2009-09-30, 09:58 AM
@OP I love your topic and I've been following the responses myself. I have had that thought myself and constantly play characters that shy away from killing guards and low level goons unless it's clear they have it coming.


Korea culture does eats Puppies and kittys. At least the resturants do.
They enjoy it (although they do hide it in stews and stuff).

Um... not sure about cats, but you are right about dogs to a certain extent. However, although it makes good joke material (especially by other Koreans), it's not actually all that common in Korea.

I've never had it, my parents never had it, none of my cousins or aunts/uncles who live in Korea even really knew where to get it at a non-shady location (that is, some place that's clean and safe).

Lvl45DM!
2009-09-30, 10:17 AM
Transforming something into a puppy is one thing
transforming it into a newborn puppy? i dunno its the newborn that gets me, thats why i dont eat veal *shudders*
dont get me wrong ill eat any meat dog cat cow giant sloth chubacabra whatever trevor, just not...babies

Oh and in response to the original post, going all Miko on them, that is killing them without an explanation just attacking cos they are in the evil fortress before they have a chance to explain anything or justify anything is neutral if it achieves an end
If they are under threat sure kill em

Though does anyone remember that bit in austin powers where the henchmen gets his head eaten by the sea bass and they call his friends who are celebrating his birthday?

Riffington
2009-09-30, 10:43 AM
Korea culture does eats Puppies and kittys. At least the resturants do.
They enjoy it (although they do hide it in stews and stuff).

I've never been there, but have been informed differently by my Korean friends. They claim that dog is eaten, but that it's not eaten because it's delicious but rather because it's edible and they're poor. Cat is a couple steps below that. And none believed that puppy or kitten were eaten. But they may have been misinforming me, of course.

Altair: I think the general consensus was that it's not necessarily evil, provided there isn't a better way, and depending on the type of goons and the nature of the evil. That PC could well be Neutral btw - you haven't given us quite enough information.

chiasaur11
2009-09-30, 10:47 AM
We don't need no steekin BO(V/E)D. Captain Carrot shows us the way.

"We've come to kill your boss. You know he's evil; we know he's evil; he knows he's evil. You can either display commendable loyalty to your employer and die hideously, or you can step aside and go home tonight to see your family. I for one think it is too beautiful a day to die, but the choice is yours."

Problem solved. Freedom of choice = freedom to take the consequences.

"What's that? Your family will be killed if we let you through. Well let's get your family to safety first. I don't like the idea of peoples' families to being held to ransom to ensure good behaviour."

Being Good: because there are two ways; one is easy, and that is its' only reward.

Good and proper.

Altair_the_Vexed
2009-09-30, 02:22 PM
...
Altair: I think the general consensus was that it's not necessarily evil, provided there isn't a better way, and depending on the type of goons and the nature of the evil. That PC could well be Neutral btw - you haven't given us quite enough information.
The party is a mix of Good and Neutral characters.
(One Neutral character has displayed the sort of moral fibre one might have expected from the LG cleric of the party, who has instead been merrily hacking his way through dozens of guards, not apparently making any attempt to get to the Baron, but concentrating on killing every guard in the Castle.)

I've been general with my descriptions of the situation, rather than specific, in order to keep the discussion general and relevant to other people's games. The parenthetic example above is very specific. I've avoided things like that to try and keep the discussion hypothetical, rather than getting into the detail of any one player's actions.
I mentioned before - I'm not trying to get any definitive answer - this is an alignment discussion, and good and evil may be relatively well defined in D&D, but as soon as you start adding situational modifiers to the definition, you're into an area so grey that millennia of dedicated thought hasn't been able to adequately clarify it.

Mechanically, one thing I'll do next session is give Sense Motive checks to the PCs - the guards they're fighting aren't motivated by evil, just grim determination to defend their castle, and I think that's an important distinction to make for the players.
In fact, I shall adopt this as a rule of thumb for future encounters with persons of unknown motivation - it's important to know why someone is attacking you, and would alter the actions of PCs if they had a clue.

The Neoclassic
2009-09-30, 02:24 PM
Mechanically, one thing I'll do next session is give Sense Motive checks to the PCs - the guards they're fighting aren't motivated by evil, just grim determination to defend their castle, and I think that's an important distinction to make for the players.
In fact, I shall adopt this as a rule of thumb for future encounters with persons of unknown motivation - it's important to know why someone is attacking you, and would alter the actions of PCs if they had a clue.

I like it- but inform players of the rule and then have them say when they want to make Sense Motive checks. Also, possibly require the checks to have them talk to and observe the guards a bit more than just "We jump into the room and INITIATE COMBAT!" That makes it reasonable but makes them think a bit, rather than a free know-their-motives card. :smallsmile:

Altair_the_Vexed
2009-09-30, 02:57 PM
I like it- but inform players of the rule and then have them say when they want to make Sense Motive checks. Also, possibly require the checks to have them talk to and observe the guards a bit more than just "We jump into the room and INITIATE COMBAT!" That makes it reasonable but makes them think a bit, rather than a free know-their-motives card. :smallsmile:
I think even the holiest of Goody-Two-Shoes NPCs is allowed to fight violently when set upon by a band of marauding PCs.
Still, there's likely to be a difference in the attitude of a guy defending himself out of necessity, and a dude who's thoroughly getting into the fight cause he's had no action for days.

Gnaeus
2009-09-30, 03:57 PM
Mechanically, one thing I'll do next session is give Sense Motive checks to the PCs - the guards they're fighting aren't motivated by evil, just grim determination to defend their castle, and I think that's an important distinction to make for the players.
In fact, I shall adopt this as a rule of thumb for future encounters with persons of unknown motivation - it's important to know why someone is attacking you, and would alter the actions of PCs if they had a clue.

"Hey these guys we are killing are grimly determined...therefore not evil!"

What? Evil guys can't be grimly determined? How do you get their alignment from any non epic sense motive?

Fiery Diamond
2009-09-30, 05:33 PM
"Hey these guys we are killing are grimly determined...therefore not evil!"

What? Evil guys can't be grimly determined? How do you get their alignment from any non epic sense motive?

Actually, if I were a player, I'd be more likely to assume from "grimly determined" that they were evil. I'd be looking for things like "desperate" or "frightened" or "conflicted" to indicate non-evil people.

taltamir
2009-09-30, 06:22 PM
Actually, if I were a player, I'd be more likely to assume from "grimly determined" that they were evil. I'd be looking for things like "desperate" or "frightened" or "conflicted" to indicate non-evil people.

+1.

As for the cops being the hired guns because the law IS evil... this is a clear cut case where you treat them as hired guns. If the evil baron mc kitten eater has hired a local "police force" of thugs then calling them cops is an insult to cops everywhere. They are not upholding the peace, they are just the bullies in charge.

Altair_the_Vexed
2009-10-01, 01:56 AM
Perhaps grimly determined isn't the right phrase to carry my meaning - but the last couple of posts have picked up on emotions that would hint at the alignment or at least motives of the guards, so I stand by the argument.

As for guards of an evil regime being "hired guns" and "thugs" by default - I refute that idea. There are going to be such people among the guard, sure. Equally, there are going to be fellows who have joined the guard to do the job of cops, with all the altruism that is entailed.
As we're not allowed to discuss real-world politics in the Playground, I can't point to specific real-world examples, but I can think of a few within my personal experience, and several within history, when decent individuals in a police force were told to do questionable things, or otherwise act to uphold the policies of a corrupt, or draconian, or racist government.
Such people, in my experience, tend to do their job, and agonise about it afterwards. They're not evil, they're loyal, even though their loyalty is misplaced since the regime they serve has become less than Good.

taltamir
2009-10-01, 02:07 AM
Perhaps grimly determined isn't the right phrase to carry my meaning - but the last couple of posts have picked up on emotions that would hint at the alignment or at least motives of the guards, so I stand by the argument.

As for guards of an evil regime being "hired guns" and "thugs" by default - I refute that idea. There are going to be such people among the guard, sure. Equally, there are going to be fellows who have joined the guard to do the job of cops, with all the altruism that is entailed.
As we're not allowed to discuss real-world politics in the Playground, I can't point to specific real-world examples, but I can think of a few within my personal experience, and several within history, when decent individuals in a police force were told to do questionable things, or otherwise act to uphold the policies of a corrupt, or draconian, or racist government.
Such people, in my experience, tend to do their job, and agonise about it afterwards. They're not evil, they're loyal, even though their loyalty is misplaced since the regime they serve has become less than Good.

that entirely depends on HOW evil the regime is...

Altair_the_Vexed
2009-10-01, 02:13 AM
that entirely depends on HOW evil the regime is...
Yes - but I'd add this:

It depends on how openly evil the regime is.

In the in-game example, the heroes have uncovered the evil of the Baron in question. He's not publicly eating cute baby animals, he's privately doing unspeakable things, and building up a secret army to attack his neighbour.

Friend Computer
2009-10-01, 04:15 AM
We don't need no steekin BO(V/E)D. Captain Carrot shows us the way.

"We've come to kill your boss. You know he's evil; we know he's evil; he knows he's evil. You can either display commendable loyalty to your employer and die hideously, or you can step aside and go home tonight to see your family. I for one think it is too beautiful a day to die, but the choice is yours."

Problem solved. Freedom of choice = freedom to take the consequences.

"What's that? Your family will be killed if we let you through. Well let's get your family to safety first. I don't like the idea of peoples' families to being held to ransom to ensure good behaviour."

Being Good: because there are two ways; one is easy, and that is its' only reward.

/thread
Go Carrot.

hamishspence
2009-10-01, 01:49 PM
some Star Wars authors raise the point that stormtroopers may vary like this- they mean be honorable types unaware of the atrocities of their employers.

I, Jedi by Michael Stackpole is one. However while it raised the point of view of guards:

"If I'm a guard and I see someone coming at me with a lightsaber, I'm going to shoot. You know, its that "certain point of view" thing"-

- it also took the approach that, they are still enemies and if circumstances make killing them the most practical approach, mostly, they can be killed.

Akal Saris
2009-10-01, 04:50 PM
I'm glad that Stackpole somehow got dragged into an argument on D&D ethics through his Star Wars books (I, Jedi is actually my favorite of his books), because he is also purely by coincidence an expert in arguing D&D ethics. No, seriously.

He used to do seminars on D&D and ethics, and how D&D was not in any way connected to satanism.

http://www.rpgstudies.net/stackpole/pulling_report.html

Here's Stackpole on alignments in D&D influencing players to do evil things:
In reality, most players do whatever they have to do and don’t worry about alignment. Alignments are generally viewed with distaste among players and are not featured in many games outside the D&D family. (The author once postulated an alignment system for a game that consisted of one axis running from Naughty to Nice and the other from Sloppy to Neat, but it never caught on.) Alignments are basically silly and impede play, so are most often ignored.