PDA

View Full Version : Alignment in this Situation



Thajocoth
2010-03-21, 01:42 PM
Lets say the villain of a campaign looked into some ancient way of gaining immortality, but didn't notice the cost. He was a Chaotic Good Human at the time.

After it's done, he finds out that he has 2 choices: He either must kill one Good aligned person per week to retain his sanity, or allow himself to go insane, at which point he'd basically become an animal that is constantly hunting people.

He can smell Good, and while, as a beast, that would drive him to kill more Good than not-Good, the beast would not really differentiate all that much, so more people would be at risk of death than are at risk now. (Neutral & Evil people)

He chooses to commit the 1 murder per month, because he knows that he'd otherwise become a beast capable of killing a dozen people per day, on average. He sets up his lair near a human village, which he visits once a week to commit this murder.

He did look into possible alternatives, but if he dies, he'll come back as that beast, and he's got a ton of ways to escape all sorts of imprisonment that as a beast he could still use.

If he kills more than one person per week, the extra kills go towards later weeks. He doesn't like killing people early though, and only does it if necessary.

He has no way of knowing anyone else's alignment, and assumes each person he kills was Good, and hates doing it. He's not entirely sure what he is now, but wishes he was Human again... Or dead.

What is his alignment now?

Froogleyboy
2010-03-21, 01:44 PM
I'd say . . . LE

Starbuck_II
2010-03-21, 01:46 PM
Evil. Killing people just to sustain your sanity isn't good.

If he became Insane animal than Neutral (as animals are neutral).

If he instead had detect evil and stalked and killed only evil people: than he'd be neutral as killing evil is a good thing, but killing people for no good reason is evil.
Which results in a overall neutral alignment.

2xMachina
2010-03-21, 01:47 PM
Problem: If he doesn't kill, he becomes the beast, which kills MORE.

So, alignment = don't bother.

Vitruviansquid
2010-03-21, 01:52 PM
Alignment is still Chaotic Good, only he's a slightly more tragic figure.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-21, 01:53 PM
Problem: If he doesn't kill, he becomes the beast, which kills MORE.

So, alignment = don't bother.

But he can't be blamed for the beast. So he doesn't matter anymore.

2xMachina
2010-03-21, 01:56 PM
So, letting a mass killer run around is ok, so long you die releasing him?

Starbuck_II
2010-03-21, 02:03 PM
It is better to release an evil creature live than let a man turn evil. Yes.
PCs can always kill it later. It is better than evil not be done by the good man.

Jastermereel
2010-03-21, 02:14 PM
It is better to release an evil creature live than let a man turn evil. Yes.
PCs can always kill it later. It is better than evil not be done by the good man.

Could the PCs really kill it later? Isn't it also immortal?

Besides, if killing a human per month is evil, then there isn't a "good" PC that's been played unless they stuck strictly to evil races in their games.

If he were a PC, this wouldn't even be enough of a drawback to count as a flaw. If he had this from level 1, he'd have gotten credit for centuries by the time he got to level 10.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-21, 02:17 PM
The reasons why he kills them matters too. If he sticks to killing evil creatures because they rob someone (as PCs do) than he will be doing good.

But the OP said he killed without a reason: It is premeditated murder:
He chooses to commit the 1 murder per month, because he knows that he'd otherwise become a beast capable of killing a dozen people per day, on average. He sets up his lair near a human village, which he visits once a month to commit this murder

deuxhero
2010-03-21, 02:18 PM
Neutral Hungry.


Is there any clause that they must be an innocent? Can't he just go hunting bandits?

Coidzor
2010-03-21, 02:20 PM
Jastermereel: Yes. PCs can do pretty much anything as long as they're around and there's no reason for us not to assume that PCs would come up against this thing if a DM made it. Plus, this is the villain of a campaign. There must always be some way of overcoming the villain, otherwise it's just an elaborate rocks fall situation.

Anyhoos, the sorcerer's an idiot, since if he's that powerful he could've just set up shop in the underdark and killed a bunch of drow Or stayed at least somewhat in the adventurer game and gotten all of the violence he needed forever.

The beast's alignment would be either Neutral or CE, depending upon just what its specific nature is, since it sounds sort of like a vampire from oWoD in frenzy mode that retains access to the skills of the person who occupied the body before it, I'm leaning towards CE. The sorcerer's alignment after doing this for awhile is a fairly miserable LE, keep it up long enough and who knows how he'll go. My bet is something like a vampire, where he becomes a massive *********.

So was he a villain before the immortality thing turned him into a perma-killer or just afterwards?

Thajocoth
2010-03-21, 02:30 PM
I'll up it from once a month to once a week and add: The victims must have a Good alignment. He can kinda smell Good now. I'll also add that when he turns into this monster, anyone within 25 feet of him has a chance to catch his curse. (I'm refining for eventual use here.)

There exists a way to remove it, but he's not aware of this fact.

Velden
2010-03-21, 02:30 PM
I would say he is neutral good, but only because the character thinks actively on the wellbeing of others, willing to take the guilt for every life lost in the process. If I were the pc, I would pray for the every victim killed thus far the same night after the last sacrifice (a common way is to remember the names of the victims). Also he must be actively looking ways to end his life/curse without the risk of reviving as a beast.

If the character "gives up" and simply accepts that killing an innocent is a means towards a end (not killing everyone) then yes, I would change his alignment towards neutral.

If the character doesn´t care about killing innocents but hates the idea of losing control of his own actions, then it´s Lawful Evil/Neutral Evil.

He prefers to become a beast of destruction? Chaotic Evil.

You´re saying it´s a villain (I suppose that means it´s controlled by the DM), the character could explain the situation to the PC´s and let them decide his fate:

-Kill him and make him revive as a uncontrolable beast, hoping to defeat it.
-Imprison him, with the risk of escaping once turned into a beast
-Let him live and help the heroes, with the promise of looking some way to end his curse.

Thajocoth
2010-03-21, 02:32 PM
So was he a villain before the immortality thing turned him into a perma-killer or just afterwards?

Just after.

KillianHawkeye
2010-03-21, 02:34 PM
What is his alignment now?

Not enough information. That's why I hate these questions. Your alignment is determined by the sum total of all your actions. Is murdering one person a month Evil? Sure it is. Does that make the person who does that Evil? Not necessarily. Good people can commit Evil acts, and Evil people can commit Good acts. I'd even go so far as to say that almost everyone in the world (except for paladins) commits both Good and Evil acts in some amount. So what really matters is how much of each you do.

Thajocoth
2010-03-21, 02:38 PM
Not enough information. That's why I hate these questions. Your alignment is determined by the sum total of all your actions. Is murdering one person a month Evil? Sure it is. Does that make the person who does that Evil? Not necessarily. Good people can commit Evil acts, and Evil people can commit Good acts. I'd even go so far as to say that almost everyone in the world (except for paladins) commits both Good and Evil acts in some amount. So what really matters is how much of each you do.

He's otherwise as Good as a Paladin.

Bibliomancer
2010-03-21, 02:43 PM
Not enough information. That's why I hate these questions. Your alignment is determined by the sum total of all your actions. Is murdering one person a month Evil? Sure it is. Does that make the person who does that Evil? Not necessarily. Good people can commit Evil acts, and Evil people can commit Good acts. I'd even go so far as to say that almost everyone in the world (except for paladins) commits both Good and Evil acts in some amount. So what really matters is how much of each you do.

Very true. If he saved, say, went about actively saving a dozen or so people each month, and thus his removal would result in local deaths due to the removal of his protection, he might well be good.

For that matter, what level is he? There are a few artifacts (BoED has a pair) that allow you to resurrect people without gp costs, and barring that he could constantly acquire money to pay for the true resurrections of the people he kills. If he outlined the situation to the villagers, and showed that there were no side-affects, he could probably get volunteers, thus removing the taint of evil altogether (what amounts to assisted suicide would certainly not be evil, especially if it was followed by their resurrection.

If he is not actively looking into ways to get around the curse using the above methods, he'd certainly be evil. If he was looking, he'd be neutral. If he had found a method and was operating with the villagers' consent, he'd retain his original alignment.

waterpenguin43
2010-03-21, 02:49 PM
That's tough....
If he was just doing something evil to support his belief that something was good, he'd be LE (See Light Yagami).
But he doesn't have a choice; If he doesn't kill people, he'll just go crazy and kill even more people.
I'd put him at Lawful Neutral.

Coidzor
2010-03-21, 02:55 PM
I wonder what moral entities that produce good individuals with any kind of reliability have a faster generation time than humies though.

^: What belief that something was good? That he got his kicks from being a sociopath wielding the power of life and death?
Not enough information. That's why I hate these questions. Your alignment is determined by the sum total of all your actions. Is murdering one person a month Evil? Sure it is. Does that make the person who does that Evil? Not necessarily. Good people can commit Evil acts, and Evil people can commit Good acts. I'd even go so far as to say that almost everyone in the world (except for paladins) commits both Good and Evil acts in some amount. So what really matters is how much of each you do.

So basically you want to know how long he's been doing this?

Well, as of now we know he's been doing it long enough to have found a village he can easily farm for lives, but he hasn't been doing it long enough that he's had to move on to different villages after having farmed them of most/all their (now Good-only) life.

Humans have a crappy generation time, so he's going to depopulate these places of their good individuals, making the world a worse place the longer he operates, and even causing a negative trend in the psyche of the survivors, since they either know that good people are being devoured for being good or they just know that something they can't defend against is stalking them and so become even more paranoid and xenophobic than usual.


...I'm kind of amused now by the idea of a sorcerer who is high enough level that he knows mindrape and he goes into the underdark to mindrape the drow there into being good before eating them.

Anyhoo, OPs. The whole monster that causes people within 25 feet of him to become mindless, immortal(?) monsters that detect good via scent and hunt it definitely sounds fun. Would that be a will or a fort save though, I wonder. Or maybe a fort save to resist getting whatever "disease" he has and a will save to prevent instantly going ravening like the beast is.

I think the having to kill people more often is mostly going to cause his alignment to shift faster. The fact that he has less time to do it in suggests to me that he'll have to rationalize it and get more paranoid, meaning I'm having trouble deciding which of the evil alignments he'd end up in offhand. I guess depends on how resigned to it he is, or if he's still trying to find some kind of workaround/fix/people strong enough to destroy the beast he's probably inevitably going to become.

Bibliomancer
2010-03-21, 02:58 PM
^: What belief that something was good? That he got his kicks from being a sociopath wielding the power of life and death?

So basically you want to know how long he's been doing this?

Length doesn't necessarily matter: what matters is what else he's been doing during that time. If all he's been doing is moping around, feeling sorry for himself and feasting on the souls of the innocent, then he's certainly evil, no matter how tragic a figure he is. However, if he's been actively searching for an alternative, he might be something else.

valce
2010-03-21, 03:00 PM
Despite all the frills, this is still the standard 'what if you had to commit an evil act to prevent a greater evil act' question. From an online review of the Book of Exalted Deeds:

"The Book of Exalted Deeds says no. If you do evil then you’ve made evil and in the D&D cosmology this is enough to harm good. If you had powers or abilities which require you to be good at all times then doing a little evil in the name of a greater good will cost you everything."

And that appears to be the general consensus/rules: Performing evil, even in the name of a greater good, means you are no longer good.

So yeah, Lawful/Neutral Evil (depending on whether his obedience of this rule is a character trait or an exception, I think being this strict in obedience to a rule forestalls the possibility of Chaotic.) Leaning toward Neutral, since his murders are not carried out solely in the name of personal gain.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-21, 03:04 PM
...I'm kind of amused now by the idea of a sorcerer who is high enough level that he knows mindrape and he goes into the underdark to mindrape the drow there into being good before eating them.


Drawback, casting mind rape is evil. So he still does evil. Even if the creature's he is eating were evil orginally.

KillianHawkeye
2010-03-21, 03:04 PM
He's otherwise as Good as a Paladin.

Okay, so he pretty much behaves like a Paladin except for the fact that he needs to murder 1 person a month or transform into a bloodthirsty immortal killing machine? Yeah, no alignment change. He is still CG.

Coidzor
2010-03-21, 03:04 PM
Length doesn't necessarily matter: what matters is what else he's been doing during that time. If all he's been doing is moping around, feeling sorry for himself and feasting on the souls of the innocent, then he's certainly evil, no matter how tragic a figure he is. However, if he's been actively searching for an alternative, he might be something else.

Well, the longer he's been killing the innocent and good, the more evil he has been doing. And the more time the killing has to effect him and his psyche. One can only do it for so long without it changing one's worldview, even if one is looking for a way out. If he's depopulated several villages of all of their good individuals, say, then he's actively made the world a worse place simply by eating and existing.

At best, if he finds one of those resurrection items but can't quite get the gumption to find a real fix, he'll become detached to humanity due to being immortal and having to kill and bring back and kill and bring back, so he'll be as unfeeling as Boccob given enough time.

Bibliomancer
2010-03-21, 03:12 PM
Well, the longer he's been killing the innocent and good, the more evil he has been doing. And the more time the killing has to effect him and his psyche. One can only do it for so long without it changing one's worldview, even if one is looking for a way out. If he's depopulated several villages of all of their good individuals, say, then he's actively made the world a worse place simply by eating and existing.

If all he's been doing recently is resting and murdering good people, then even one or two murders would shift him to evil. Alignment doesn't really keep track of your previous actions as 'credit' if it's clear that you've irrevocably altered your behavior patterns. In the DMG, it details that an evil thief can immediately become good after helping in one battle and deciding to be loyal to the (good) PCs and abandon his former colleagues (probably assassins).


At best, if he finds one of those resurrection items but can't quite get the gumption to find a real fix, he'll become detached to humanity due to being immortal and having to kill and bring back and kill and bring back, so he'll be as unfeeling as Boccob given enough time.

Not necessarily. There is no difference between killing people with their permission and then bringing them back unharmed and not killing them in the first place, and his alignment in either case would depend on his other actions. If he used his immortality to protect a huge region from monsters and demons, then he would certainly be good, and finding a permanent cure might in fact be a morally ambiguous act (and outright evil if he knew that his removal would definitely result in a demonic invasion).

Also, even if he did become detached, he could be a disinterested good (like elves). If he's saving people that he doesn't particularly care about, that would be good, because he would be saving them for the sake of goodness, regardless of their importance to him.

Aolis
2010-03-21, 03:14 PM
Neutral Evil

This is an example of a False Dilemma. There are not just two opposite options available. For example, the villain could approach an authority such as a powerful church to aid him. He could widely broadcast his presence so that the public could take steps to avoid or stop the beast. At the very least, the decision should be taken out of his hands since there is such a strong conflict of interest, his sanity being in the balance.

The character is lawfully responsible for his actions, no matter how ignorant or ill conceived. The villain is refusing to accept this responsibility so is not lawful. He is trying to justify his actions as preventing a greater evil. This internal conflict would tend towards neutral.

The villain is killing others for self benefit, so as not to loose his sanity. This is clearly evil. His moral justification is contrived and does not support his actions.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-21, 03:15 PM
If all he's been doing recently is resting and murdering good people, then even one or two murders would shift him to evil. Alignment doesn't really keep track of your previous actions as 'credit' if it's clear that you've irrevocably altered your behavior patterns. In the DMG, it details that an evil thief can immediately become good after helping in one battle and deciding to be loyal to the (good) PCs and abandon his former colleagues (probably assassins).

That is due to extreme situation. Those are rare.



Not necessarily. There is no difference between killing people with their permission and then bringing them back unharmed and not killing them in the first place, and his alignment in either case would depend on his other actions. If he used his immortality to protect a huge region from monsters and demons, then he would certainly be good, and finding a permanent cure might in fact be a morally ambiguous act (and outright evil if he knew that his removal would definitely result in a demonic invasion).

Also, even if he did become detached, he could be a disinterested good (like elves). If he's saving people that he doesn't particularly care about, that would be good, because he would be saving them for the sake of goodness, regardless of their importance to him.

No, I'm sure if you revived them it wouldn't be as evil (if evil at all).

Tengu_temp
2010-03-21, 03:19 PM
Despite all the frills, this is still the standard 'what if you had to commit an evil act to prevent a greater evil act' question. From an online review of the Book of Exalted Deeds:

"The Book of Exalted Deeds says no. If you do evil then you’ve made evil and in the D&D cosmology this is enough to harm good. If you had powers or abilities which require you to be good at all times then doing a little evil in the name of a greater good will cost you everything."

And that appears to be the general consensus/rules: Performing evil, even in the name of a greater good, means you are no longer good.

So yeah, Lawful/Neutral Evil (depending on whether his obedience of this rule is a character trait or an exception, I think being this strict in obedience to a rule forestalls the possibility of Chaotic.) Leaning toward Neutral, since his murders are not carried out solely in the name of personal gain.

I don't see how BoED states that this makes you more evil. The way I understand it, it only states that paladins and other characters like that lose their powers by doing something like that.

Killing one good person a week is an evil act, yeah. But preventing the otherwise unavoidable deaths of many more good people is a good act that balances it out. I'd say he's CG, just very tragic and tormented, if he was looking for solutions to end the curse or at least die/stay imprisoned and stop people from dying, and all of them failed. If he didn't try to change the situation and only cried in a corner about it, he's slowly slipping into CN.

By the way, it must be one huge settlement to afford having one person killed each week.

Coidzor
2010-03-21, 03:24 PM
^: Hence my comment about having to move on and depopulate multiple villages of most-to-all of their good people, leaving neutrals, animals, and the evil behind. Also children(?)
If all he's been doing recently is resting and murdering good people, then even one or two murders would shift him to evil. Alignment doesn't really keep track of your previous actions as 'credit' if it's clear that you've irrevocably altered your behavior patterns. In the DMG, it details that an evil thief can immediately become good after helping in one battle and deciding to be loyal to the (good) PCs and abandon his former colleagues (probably assassins).

Well, yes, you're forgetting the fact that there is some psychology going on here. His personality and approach are not going to remain static, that's what I'm saying about the longer he does it having an effect on him.

That and the whole what's worse than murdering good people? Murdering all of the good people in a region and leaving it morally destitute, making the world a quantifiably worse place.


Not necessarily. There is no difference between killing people with their permission and then bringing them back unharmed and not killing them in the first place, and his alignment in either case would depend on his other actions. If he used his immortality to protect a huge region from monsters and demons, then he would certainly be good, and finding a permanent cure might in fact be a morally ambiguous act (and outright evil if he knew that his removal would definitely result in a demonic invasion).

Also, even if he did become detached, he could be a disinterested good (like elves). If he's saving people that he doesn't particularly care about, that would be good, because he would be saving them for the sake of goodness, regardless of their importance to him.

In terms of what it does to the alignment immediately, but not in terms of what it does to HIM. Who's to say that after awhile he won't get tired of the rigarmarole and simply keep a good rube around on hand in his larder until the rube spoils and he grabs a new one.

And it's definitely not good to sit back and do nothing so that a demonic invasion is ready to go forward as soon as you leave town or die. That's definitely a gross abuse of your idea of being a protector of the region, and much more in line with what a lich would do to disuade adventurers from permanently destroying him long enough for them to deal with that set up and for the lich to get something else lined up.

And who's to say that he'll stay doing good if he becomes disinterested and apathetic to the fate of others? The fact is, I don't need to argue that he'll embrace the darkness, merely that his ability to hold onto the light with conviction diminishes with time, especially from the scenario as given, which is true given what he has to do. Now in your alternate scenarios there are things he can do, but will he actually do them? We don't know, there's a chance either way, but it sounds like the DM is going to take everything we say about a way to fight it and take it away for more tragedy.

Bibliomancer
2010-03-21, 03:29 PM
That is due to extreme situation. Those are rare.

Fair enough. However, it does demonstrate that present actions are prioritized over previous ones (otherwise paladins would never fall, with the right backstory).


No, I'm sure if you revived them it wouldn't be as evil (if evil at all).

Er...I believe you misread that. I apologize if the wording was ambiguous. I was affirming that if you revived them (and had killed them with their consent) AND no lasting harm was caused (so True Resurrection was used) it would not be evil at all.

However, he was saying that even if this occurred the character would still be, at best, neutral, because he would inevitably become detached from the world.

I was saying that 1) Causing someone to be consensually dead for ten minutes with no lasting harm is effectively the same as not killing them at all so

2) their alignment could be good if they tried to protect their region and acted as if they did not have the curse and were simply an immortal Robin Hood.


^: Hence my comment about having to move on and depopulate multiple villages of most-to-all of their good people, leaving neutrals, animals, and the evil behind. Also children(?)

Well, yes, you're forgetting the fact that there is some psychology going on here. His personality and approach are not going to remain static, that's what I'm saying about the longer he does it having an effect on him.

That and the whole what's worse than murdering good people? Murdering all of the good people in a region and leaving it morally destitute, making the world a quantifiably worse place.

Not if he resurrects them. They come back and exist normally (that was my basic point supporting the hypothetical (and unlikely) scenario of him being good. If he followed the course of action outlined above, good would be strengthened and no-one would die, so he would be good.

Also, yes, it's possible that he might change over time, however that is not certain: elves live for hundreds of years while maintaining a chaotic good perspective. Why should he be any different?


In terms of what it does to the alignment immediately, but not in terms of what it does to HIM. Who's to say that after awhile he won't get tired of the rigarmarole and simply keep a good rube around on hand in his larder until the rube spoils and he grabs a new one.

And it's definitely not good to sit back and do nothing so that a demonic invasion is ready to go forward as soon as you leave town or die. That's definitely a gross abuse of your idea of being a protector of the region, and much more in line with what a lich would do to disuade adventurers from permanently destroying him long enough for them to deal with that set up and for the lich to get something else lined up.

And who's to say that he'll stay doing good if he becomes disinterested and apathetic to the fate of others? The fact is, I don't need to argue that he'll embrace the darkness, merely that his ability to hold onto the light with conviction diminishes with time, especially from the scenario as given, which is true given what he has to do. Now in your alternate scenarios there are things he can do, but will he actually do them? We don't know, there's a chance either way, but it sounds like the DM is going to take everything we say about a way to fight it and take it away for more tragedy.

Fair enough. I'm not saying this is likely (that idea that he might maintain his good alignment is itself a low probability scenario), but if it happened he wouldn't have to fall (which I thought you were implying).

Since he's chaotic good initially, he would presumably try to adhere to this course of action as much as possible, but the odds of him falling are high. Yes, the idea that he might crack is likely, but if he made it to this state, he might be able to maintain it for some time, especially since he would be supported by the love and devotion of the people that he's protecting.

This is, again, an unlikely but possible best-case scenario.

Additionally, once he had achieved this state, I was simply trying to point out that in some cases it might be better for him to remain here and protect the region. Assuming that he's good, he wouldn't want to stay but would be obligated to try to protect his area to the best of his abilities, which he certainly can't do if he dies.

BIRDMANﺕ
2010-03-21, 04:14 PM
Evil. Killing people just to sustain your sanity isn't good.

If he became Insane animal than Neutral (as animals are neutral).

If he instead had detect evil and stalked and killed only evil people: than he'd be neutral as killing evil is a good thing, but killing people for no good reason is evil.
Which results in a overall neutral alignment.

Exactly, this is why all vampires are evil. They kill to keep themselves sustained, killing people to help themselves is for one thing murder and heres a list of other things it is: Selfish (if the character is killing people consciously and is doing this for himself then that is indeed wrong), inconsiderate (he clearly isn't considerate of others if he is killing people because he wanted immortality. Why should the good die because he decided to be a moron not thinking such a great wish like that wouldn't have terrible side effects. in words of the engi from TF2 "It just ain't right!" , and the character of course is murdering people which is already an evil act.

If the character was truly good aligned he would nobly sacrifice himself (killing himself) in the interest of good people as to not be a burden on society.

I wouldn't say he is lawful evil because true he may be following his immortality's demands... the only problem is he is breaking a law (or at least I hope there is laws against murder! hehehe) also murder is not a social norm I do believe either, and it clearly would go against your mainstream morals so definitely not lawful

and he isnt really chaotic either since as stated earlier he has to abide by a strict rule, even if its only one.

I would say he is Neutral Evil.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-21, 04:32 PM
Exactly, this is why all vampires are evil. They kill to keep themselves sustained, killing people to help themselves is for one thing murder and heres a list of other things it is: Selfish (if the character is killing people consciously and is doing this for himself then that is indeed wrong), inconsiderate (he clearly isn't considerate of others if he is killing people because he wanted immortality. Why should the good die because he decided to be a moron not thinking such a great wish like that wouldn't have terrible side effects. in words of the engi from TF2 "It just ain't right!" , and the character of course is murdering people which is already an evil act.

If the character was truly good aligned he would nobly sacrifice himself (killing himself) in the interest of good people as to not be a burden on society.

I would say he is Neutral Evil.

He should just become an adventurer. I mean, as lon as he takes no more than 6 days from killing evil: he will stay sane and do good instead of waste time killing to not become a beast.

Yora
2010-03-21, 04:39 PM
Neutral Evil

This is an example of a False Dilemma. There are not just two opposite options available.
I am with Aolis here. If he either has to murder consciously, or becomes a monster that kills without his own doing, killing people to stay sane is neutral at best, or depending on your interpretation of alignment, even evil.
The good thing to do would be to make sure that he won't be able to kill innocents once he turns into a monster. Easiest way would be to kill himself, but if this is impossible, he should search for heroes, priests, or mages to imprison him in a magical vault. And if the monster is so powerful, that it can't be contained by mortal magic, he could still be plane shifted to the abyss. He'd still hunt for good people, but what creature in the abyss doesn't? As an insane monster, he would be unable to return to the material plane on his own.

Jastermereel
2010-03-21, 07:04 PM
He should just become an adventurer. I mean, as lon as he takes no more than 6 days from killing evil: he will stay sane and do good instead of waste time killing to not become a beast.

Same sort of thought I had. If this were "the real world" it might have more of a moral dilemma to it, but in a D&D world, all he needs is "just another snake cult" every few years and he's set. Hell, just be the executioner of a major city with a high-crime rate and capital punishment. Provided there's at least one beheading a month, he's solidly lawful and likely good.

This guy isn't a combat threat, he's a brain-storming role-playing challenge.

Tengu_temp
2010-03-21, 07:23 PM
He can't just kill any people to maintain sanity. He must kill good-aligned people. How many good-aligned criminals get sentenced to death?

I like the plane shift idea. Sounds like the best possible solution here.

Thajocoth
2010-03-22, 02:39 AM
So here's what I'm thinking for a final pass at the character, as a usable villain in the next 4e game I eventually run:

He was a town guard sent to bring a message to another town. On his way back, he noticed something and went to inspect it. It was a book. He was able to make out some of it, but had a lot of trouble reading it. It was a very old spellbook in Draconic, which happened to be his bonus language, but it seemed to be an older version of Draconic, which is why he couldn't understand all of it. He noticed a few words and phrases in one of the spells "no longer age", "clearer thoughts", "regeneration", "immune to disease" and began sounding out whatever else he saw on the page, trying to understand the specifics, believing that these would be good qualities to have as a guard, and that he'd be much better at protecting his community. Not being incredibly educated, he didn't really understand the fact that such things always have tradeoffs, nor could he read anything from the section detailing that.

After he finished, he felt really hot and dizzy, and went from standing to asleep. When he eventually awoke, he found he was now fluent in this older version of Draconic. Reading the pieces he couldn't understand before, he was horrified by what he'd done. He had received a boost to all stats, immunity to disease, a small amount of fire magic ability, regeneration, could move (and attack) more quickly, see in low-light, and could catch the scent of anyone Good within 5 miles.

He also gained an unknown hunger, but reading on, he figured out what that was for. He no longer required sleep, food, air or water to live, but needed to sacrifice a Good person every <still deciding>, or he'd lose his own mind, allowing this instinctual hunger to overtake him. This works as a sort of burning of his mind, that gets delayed from the sacrifices, though he still can feel the heat of the burn in his mind at all times, it's just stronger when burning his own mind.

If he dies, the magic of the spell would spread forth over about 25 feet and try to catch anyone it can. (Attack vs Fortitude) It would also heal and mutate his body, growing to large size, growing wings, gaining darkvision, and growing claws and venomous fangs.

He knew that his power was greater than anyone's that he'd ever known. The town's got clergy and such, and they've got a pretty good heal score, but no one that can cast anything. He knows there must be some powerful wizards in the world somewhere, but he hasn't the faintest idea where to look or if they'd be powerful enough to kill him the second time.

He believes that there's nothing more powerful than what he just did to himself and wishes he could reverse it. He's never heard of the Shadowfell, Feywild or Far Realm, and believes the Astral Plane and Elemental Chaos aren't places you can go to until you die.

He tries to continue his work, to at least use it for Good, even if he does now need to commit Evil as well, but realizes that he can't continue to live there AND hide what he's now become, so he hides out in the forest around the town.

Eventually a group of cultists find him. Theyre mostly Dragonborn, Humans & Kobolds, all dressed alike, that bow as soon at they see him. He doesn't understand, but they explain and, basically they're a sort of armageddon cult that believes him to be their messiah. That he will decide when the end days begin. Some artifact of theirs triggered when he cast the spell and they used it to eventually find him.

He doesn't smell any Goodness among them, and is wary, but figures that perhaps, through them, he could find out more about the situation, and maybe even figure out a way to reverse it. They assure him there is no way to reverse it. The PCs will find, however, that one of the top cultist guys has something saying that the messiah is not to enter the sacred caverns (the book was found right outside these caverns), or he could be cured and all hopes of their apocalypse would be lost. (Plot hook to the next dungeon. Hopefully at least one PC got infected to need to go there.)

In the meantime, they mined a cavern for him nearby and set up their cult there. They do whatever he wants them to, with the exception of leaving him alone. They insist on making their messiah as comfortable as they can until he decides that the apocalypse is to occur. He doesn't really ask anything of them, except occasionally to fetch him something, but that's usually to get a few moments of peace, rather than to have whatever he asked for. The only time they really let him be alone is when he goes into town for a sacrifice.

The townsfolk are aware that people are vanishing from their town, and haven't any idea what's going on. (He devours them, so there's no corpse left behind.) They hire the PCs to look into the matter.

I'll play with the numbers in the Monster Builder to make them both level appropriate Solos with the monster being the stronger of the two. Or maybe an Elite and a Solo, and toss in some cultists with him for the first battle... (I plan to take a published dragon of the same level as I make the monsters, and ensure that the dragon is slightly more powerful than whatever I make.) Tactics-wise in battle, he'd deal nonlethal damage, but the beast would not. He defends himself believing he's basically the beast's jail cell door, and doesn't want to let it out. The place is basically a dungeon crawl. I need to name lots of things here. I always have trouble thinking up names...

Amiel
2010-03-22, 03:18 AM
Killing another for selfish purposes is always an evil act; the ends does not justify the means.
After his spree, his alignment is going to be dependent on his mental state; he could be insane; or he could experience some lucidity.

He could either be Chaotic Evil; if such acts unhinged his mind; and may be especially true for his bestial state; does he retain his intelligence and cunning, or does he fully revert to a state of beast?; or he could be Neutral Evil. There is no example of him working within the bounds of law; everything he does is supremely self-centred.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-03-22, 03:46 AM
So he has a basic choice,

He can murder good people to retain his sanity, or lose himself to the beast and become a mindless killer. The third option is to die and let the beast roam free.

He's evil, plain and simple he can justify himself in saying he sacrifices a few innocents to protect his own life so he can save even more people. But that still makes him evil. He doesn't have to be entirely selfish to be evil. Doing good through horribly evil means is still evil.

His curse sounds similar to that of the spirit eater stuff from Mask of the Betrayer.

More details on what happens when he dies is needed and what he knows.
From what I can tell based on what the guard knows. His only real good option is to kill himself or at least collapse the mine entrance trapping himself inside.

What you might want to consider is give the evil beast its own personality and its own powers. The guard can't control the evil at all. It is a separate entity possessing his body and not simply a consuming hunger. At times the entity takes over and uses its power to feed its self.

Put the ethical choice on the PC's because that is where its interesting. The PC's could kill the monster but then they are also killing an innocent man

Kylarra
2010-03-22, 09:21 AM
Eh whatever. It sounds like you're trying to make a tragic villain who can still say he's good, but everytime someone comes up with an idea that could help him stay good, you shaft him again.

Either way, he can just hunt cultists for a living and still be Good. Cultists have a good chance of having Good followers that are still trying to kill you, so in a D&D sense, as long as you have a slight surfeit of morality towards collateral damage, you can get your quota in earlier rather than later. Or if you're a soldier fighting in a war against other humans or some other race not normally "always Evil". A fair number of those will be Good as well, and while you could make the argument that pinging Good on his Good-dar should trigger something, it really means nothing, particularly in 4e, similarly to how pinging evil on the evildar in 3.X isn't an auto death sentence for that person... well not usually.

Good can be slightly more monolithic than evil, but in practice, Good tends to not be monolithic either.

Thajocoth
2010-03-22, 02:58 PM
What you might want to consider is give the evil beast its own personality and its own powers. The guard can't control the evil at all. It is a separate entity possessing his body and not simply a consuming hunger. At times the entity takes over and uses its power to feed its self.I like this. I might mix a variation of this in there...


Eh whatever. It sounds like you're trying to make a tragic villain who can still say he's good, but everytime someone comes up with an idea that could help him stay good, you shaft him again.

He'll certainly believe he's good. I won't really offer his alignment. I was just wondering what general consensus would be on it. I keep changing the situation a bit because I'm refining him as a usable villain. Ultimately, the players' opinions will be what matters here...

Devils_Advocate
2010-03-22, 07:02 PM
3.5: "A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment. ... Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. ... "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. ... Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it. ... "Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility."

This character values life and wants to protect people, but he hasn't gone to a church with this problem, thinking it better to address it independently (for some reason). He's altruistic and follows his conscience, but demonstrates a reckless distrust of authority.

He still has the same alignment as he did to start with (Chaotic Good).

4E: "If you choose an alignment, you’re indicating your character’s dedication to a set of moral principles. ... If you’re a good character, you believe it is right to aid and protect those in need. You’re not required to sacrifice yourself to help others or to completely ignore your own needs... you’re keenly aware that power tends to corrupt those who wield it, too often leading them to exploit their power for selfish or evil ends."

He was and is Good.

Alignment is a character's internal moral nature, not his behavior. This is what allows a Good-aligned character to slaughter his way through a goblin warband. He's taking the lives of a bunch of sapient beings; he's hurting others to achieve his goals; in short, he's totally employing Evil means. But he's killing because of the value he places on life in general, and that's what makes him Good. Killing innocents to protect many more innocents is much the same. Valuing life in general demands sacrificing the few to save the many rather than vice versa, if it indeed comes down to that.

If you change a character's circumstances but not his attitudes, his alignment remains the same. To say otherwise bespeaks a misunderstanding of what alignment is.

Riffington
2010-03-22, 07:14 PM
Valuing life in general demands sacrificing the few to save the many rather than vice versa, if it indeed comes down to that.


Valuing life actually demands that you refrain from "sacrificing the few". That phrase is precisely the sort of phrase someone who devalues life would use.



If you change a character's circumstances but not his attitudes, his alignment remains the same. To say otherwise bespeaks a misunderstanding of what alignment is.
True as far as it goes, though circumstances often change your behavior, and behavior shapes your attitudes.

Devils_Advocate
2010-03-22, 11:09 PM
Someone who wishes to minimize death may kill, just as someone who wishes to maximize profit may find it necessary to buy things. 'Cause sometimes you've gotta spend money to make money. Acknowledging that principle doesn't mean that you don't value money.

Admittedly, the question of how to decide whether killing or otherwise attacking an individual will prevent more harm than it causes is a difficult one. Judging an attack to reduce harm more than any available nonviolent alternative is even more complicated. Still, the point where that becomes a valid conclusion, if indeed there is such a point, is the point where the attack becomes the right thing to do.

How much of the total harm is done by you, personally, really should not be a consideration. Good is not self-centered. If your preference ordering for the sets of behaviors that a group of agents in a scenario could engage in changes based on which one is you, You're Doing It Wrong.

Schylerwalker
2010-03-23, 02:28 AM
He's evil. Period. Killing for your own personal gain (I.E., to not lose your sanity) is an evil act.

Math_Mage
2010-03-23, 02:31 AM
He's evil. Period. Killing for your own personal gain (I.E., to not lose your sanity) is an evil act.

If that's all that would happen, it would be a much simpler situation.

2xMachina
2010-03-23, 02:39 AM
Yeah. It's kill 1 per month, or don't kill now, and kill loads next month.

Riffington
2010-03-23, 07:56 AM
Someone who wishes to minimize death may kill, just as someone who wishes to maximize profit may find it necessary to buy things. 'Cause sometimes you've gotta spend money to make money. Acknowledging that principle doesn't mean that you don't value money.

Money has a finite value, and can be added/subtracted. Lives have an infinite value; infinities don't add/subtract. If you "value life" at 100gp, that means you don't value life. If you figure out that 100gp can save a life on another continent, and murder someone for 1000gp to save 10 lives on that other continent... that is the opposite of valuing life. Valuing life means not murdering innocents.

2xMachina
2010-03-23, 07:59 AM
How about valuing 1 life vs 2?

Either kill 1, or kill 2.

It's not a GP value, but 2 infinities is larger than 1 infinite.

Kylarra
2010-03-23, 08:46 AM
He's evil. Period. Killing for your own personal gain (I.E., to not lose your sanity) is an evil act.So pretty much all adventurers are now evil.

Riffington
2010-03-23, 09:47 AM
2 infinities is larger than 1 infinite.
Not in math, anyway.

But more importantly: valuing life means no murder, period. It is a very different form of value than valuing gold (where you can spend gold to make more gold).
This situation is not a new one. It is analogous to the brigand who demands "kill this man or I will kill five". If you value life you will not kill the man (even if the brigand is quite strong and known for his honesty).

Starbuck_II
2010-03-23, 11:10 AM
Not in math, anyway.

But more importantly: valuing life means no murder, period. It is a very different form of value than valuing gold (where you can spend gold to make more gold).
This situation is not a new one. It is analogous to the brigand who demands "kill this man or I will kill five". If you value life you will not kill the man (even if the brigand is quite strong and known for his honesty).

But you can spend gold to make more life (revive spells). So most lives are worth 5000 gp minimum.

TaintedLight
2010-03-23, 11:17 AM
Lets say the villain of a campaign looked into some ancient way of gaining immortality, but didn't notice the cost. He was a Chaotic Good Human at the time.

After it's done, he finds out that he has 2 choices: He either must kill one Good aligned person per week to retain his sanity, or allow himself to go insane, at which point he'd basically become an animal that is constantly hunting people.

He can smell Good, and while, as a beast, that would drive him to kill more Good than not-Good, the beast would not really differentiate all that much, so more people would be at risk of death than are at risk now. (Neutral & Evil people)

He chooses to commit the 1 murder per month, because he knows that he'd otherwise become a beast capable of killing a dozen people per day, on average. He sets up his lair near a human village, which he visits once a week to commit this murder.

He did look into possible alternatives, but if he dies, he'll come back as that beast, and he's got a ton of ways to escape all sorts of imprisonment that as a beast he could still use.

If he kills more than one person per week, the extra kills go towards later weeks. He doesn't like killing people early though, and only does it if necessary.

He has no way of knowing anyone else's alignment, and assumes each person he kills was Good, and hates doing it. He's not entirely sure what he is now, but wishes he was Human again... Or dead.

What is his alignment now?

Neutral evil, I'd say. He is deliberately making the choice to kill innocent people for personal gain which he does not have to do. If the option ever existed to pass on immortality at that cost, a good character would have. If we go by the SRD/PHB's horribly oversimplified alignment descriptions:


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.

"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.

The important part is the destroying of innocent life for profit. He's okay with that, even if it is reluctant. If he were truly committed to being good and protecting innocents as a good person would, he would seek a way to reverse the process, repent, divine intervention, etc. The point being that he wouldn't just shrug his shoulders and get to slaughterin'.

I say NE because from what I can see, his killing is not random or wanton enough to be chaotic nor do I see a clear motivation for him to be lawful.

Kylarra
2010-03-23, 11:50 AM
note that Good != innocent

TaintedLight
2010-03-23, 11:56 AM
note that Good != innocent

Allow me to preface my response by saying that I hate the concept of alignment as the SRD presents it, but for this purpose I'm going with it.

The SRD is very explicit on this. Good characters do not hurt innocent people for any reason if there is a way to avoid it. This villain is killing people to maintain his immortality, a selfish gain if ever there was one in fantasy literature. He sure isn't innocent, but the people he's killing (whether they are neutral or good or evil) are completely unrelated to his affliction and are thus innocent of any involvement.

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-23, 12:04 PM
Allow me to preface my response by saying that I hate the concept of alignment as the SRD presents it, but for this purpose I'm going with it.

The SRD is very explicit on this. Good characters do not hurt innocent people for any reason if there is a way to avoid it. This villain is killing people to maintain his immortality, a selfish gain if ever there was one in fantasy literature. He sure isn't innocent, but the people he's killing (whether they are neutral or good or evil) are completely unrelated to his affliction and are thus innocent of any involvement.

No. He's harming some, to avoid harming LOTS. Not killing people, to avoid taking a hit to your karma, and to not have to make that difficult choice (because you as a sentient being will 'die' if you don't anyway thus taking the issue from your own hands, because it is dooming many, many more people to die than if you did the unpalatable deed. It is FAR more selfish than the alternative.

Of course, the correct course of action is to kill only those few you need to, make sure they are ALL raised again as soon as possible, and spend the majority of your time researching a cure (or way to truly kill yourself). This basically should translate to 'Find a PC adventuring party, either send for macguffin, or bluff into killing you permenantly by revealing your immortality and taunting them about being powerless to truly kill you.'

Possible ways out include spheres of annihilation, soul-trapping magic, or any kind of epicly undefeatable prison.

Note; the latter is a terrible idea, if the ammount of game and story related quests revolving around 'Ancient uber-prison has failed!' is anything to go by.

Riffington
2010-03-23, 12:27 PM
note that Good != innocent

This is a fair point. He may be able to find a situation wherein he justifiedly kills many non-innocent people, including enough good ones to remain sane. An example of this might be to enroll in a just war: he may be required by that just war to kill enemy soldiers, some of whom are Good. This would be a temporary situation at best.

the humanity
2010-03-23, 12:50 PM
I'm pretty sure he's killing not to maintain his sanity, but to keep 'the beast' from killing people.

therefore, he's doing something that, if looked at black and white, is evil, with little regard for laws, but is performing a good act by keeping his dark side in check.

chaotic good.

Choco
2010-03-23, 01:24 PM
He is immortal, but not all-powerful right?

If I were in that position (and good aligned :smallamused:), I would kill to avoid going insane just long enough to find a way to seal myself away (compensating the victim's families before I do so, probably anonymously). Then I would just go insane and basically be an int 1-2 animal and thus true neutral alignment, as I chill in my self-made prison waiting to be put out of my misery or released by some fool.

Or just Teleport Without Error into the sun.

Draco Dracul
2010-03-23, 02:28 PM
Evil, if he was good he'd buy all the iron chains he could find, take a row boat as far out to sea as he could and sink himself.

Math_Mage
2010-03-23, 03:11 PM
Evil, if he was good he'd buy all the iron chains he could find, take a row boat as far out to sea as he could and sink himself.

Running away from the problem is, at best, neutral.

LG would turn himself over to the authorities for either justice or curing or protection.
CG would go on a quest to find a cure or reversal, and do all the good he could along the way.

krossbow
2010-03-23, 03:14 PM
Is he killable after he turns into the beast? or will he ressurect every time he dies?


Because if not, then i'd buy an adamantine room, cover it completely with exploding runes designed to go off in 30 seconds, Commit suicide, then let the runes immolate the beast when it resses.

Taelas
2010-03-23, 03:53 PM
If he kills purely to retain his sanity, he's Evil.

If he kills to prevent the beast from killing others, he's Neutral.

He's not Good.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-23, 04:02 PM
After it's done, he finds out that he has 2 choices: He either must kill one Good aligned person per week to retain his sanity, or allow himself to go insane, at which point he'd basically become an animal that is constantly hunting people.

. . .

He chooses to commit the 1 murder per month, because he knows that he'd otherwise become a beast capable of killing a dozen people per day, on average. He sets up his lair near a human village, which he visits once a week to commit this murder.
Highlighted for emphasis.

You choose to kill 1 person per month without cause (e.g. self-defense, protection of innocents), you're Not-Good.


"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Normally I don't like fighting hypotheticals, but here it's pretty clear that there are a couple of alternative solutions to murdering folks.

(1) Find a cure, and get someone to lock you up and guard you until it is found.

(2) Go to the most remote place you can before going insane.

(3) Die rather than become a threat to Innocents everywhere.

Even if, for some reason, none of these are an option, he's still Not-Good. Honestly, considering the plan, I'd say he's Evil.

Since nothing here touches on Law/Chaos, that makes him Chaotic Evil.

herbe
2010-03-23, 04:10 PM
Normally I don't like fighting hypotheticals, but here it's pretty clear that there are a couple of alternative solutions to murdering folks.

(1) Find a cure, and get someone to lock you up and guard you until it is found.

(2) Go to the most remote place you can before going insane.

(3) Die rather than become a threat to Innocents everywhere.

Even if, for some reason, none of these are an option, he's still Not-Good. Honestly, considering the plan, I'd say he's Evil.

Since nothing here touches on Law/Chaos, that makes him Chaotic Evil.

There is a point

Thajocoth
2010-03-23, 05:11 PM
(1) Find a cure, and get someone to lock you up and guard you until it is found.

(2) Go to the most remote place you can before going insane.

(3) Die rather than become a threat to Innocents everywhere.

Death for him only kills his sane mind. Something strong enough to hold him would require materials beyond his knowledge. Going to a remote place only means it will be the people closest to THAT place that get killed instead.

He's tried to think of alternatives, but he hasn't thought of any. The only options he's aware of are: "Kill some people now" and "Let a monster loose that kills, quite possibly everyone, one by one." He's unaware that there ARE people powerful enough to kill him.

None of this is new information.

krossbow
2010-03-23, 05:19 PM
does he have the ability to ignore adamantine hardness? because if not, then it shouldn't be too hard to construct a way to hold him.

Thajocoth
2010-03-23, 05:23 PM
does he have the ability to ignore adamantine hardness? because if not, then it shouldn't be too hard to construct a way to hold him.

He's never heard of adamantine, so he wouldn't think of that.

I'm not saying there aren't things that can be done, I'm saying he's unaware of those possibilities. If someone else suggested an adamantine box, after explaining it, he'd want to that.

Gamgee
2010-03-23, 05:30 PM
Neutral Evil

This is an example of a False Dilemma. There are not just two opposite options available. For example, the villain could approach an authority such as a powerful church to aid him. He could widely broadcast his presence so that the public could take steps to avoid or stop the beast. At the very least, the decision should be taken out of his hands since there is such a strong conflict of interest, his sanity being in the balance.

The character is lawfully responsible for his actions, no matter how ignorant or ill conceived. The villain is refusing to accept this responsibility so is not lawful. He is trying to justify his actions as preventing a greater evil. This internal conflict would tend towards neutral.

The villain is killing others for self benefit, so as not to loose his sanity. This is clearly evil. His moral justification is contrived and does not support his actions.
I agree. You summed it up quite well.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-23, 05:54 PM
Death for him only kills his sane mind. Something strong enough to hold him would require materials beyond his knowledge. Going to a remote place only means it will be the people closest to THAT place that get killed instead.

He's tried to think of alternatives, but he hasn't thought of any. The only options he's aware of are: "Kill some people now" and "Let a monster loose that kills, quite possibly everyone, one by one." He's unaware that there ARE people powerful enough to kill him.

None of this is new information.
Right. Like I said - I don't like to fight hypos, but it seems like a rather silly hypo.

But if the question is "does choosing the lesser of two evils make him Good" the answer is no. It's pretty clear that planning to murder innocents on a regular basis - regardless of reason - is Not Good. I'd say choosing to unleash himself on totally innocent guys rather than arguably "they all should die" folks (say, by 'porting to the Abyss) puts him in the Evil category.

Of course, if he literally has no choice in the matter, he doesn't change Alignment at all. If his choice is "kill some innocents or kill all innocents" I'd argue he doesn't actually have a choice, and therefore no volition. At the worst, this poor guy would be Neutral.

Devils_Advocate
2010-03-23, 06:11 PM
Money has a finite value, and can be added/subtracted. Lives have an infinite value; infinities don't add/subtract.
Value is relative. Just valuing three lives equally means being willing to sacrifice one to save the other two, if that's what it takes. That you might value each of them infinitely more than something else doesn't change that. Being unwilling to do so just means that you value not personally killing one of the three more than you value one of them being alive.

Money may have non-intrinsic, instrumental value on par with lives for its ability to save lives. Lives themselves may be considered to only have non-intrinsic, instrumental value. I know that there are sorts of lives that I wouldn't want to live; I don't value life itself independently of what it allows for.

Would you seriously not be willing to shave one second off of your total life expectancy in exchange for a million dollars? I'm pretty sure that I would. I don't value my own life that highly! A life in the count noun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_noun) sense of the word is just a big collection of life in the mass noun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun) sense, after all. And that's an important consideration. Extending someone's life by one second might be technically "saving" it, but except under extraordinary circumstances, I wouldn't even make the effort. Based on what you've said, though, you shouldn't even care how much more time you buy someone, since the value of that time is "infinite" regardless. :smallconfused:


If you "value life" at 100gp, that means you don't value life. If you figure out that 100gp can save a life on another continent, and murder someone for 1000gp to save 10 lives on that other continent... that is the opposite of valuing life.

valuing life means no murder, period. It is a very different form of value than valuing gold (where you can spend gold to make more gold).
This situation is not a new one. It is analogous to the brigand who demands "kill this man or I will kill five". If you value life you will not kill the man (even if the brigand is quite strong and known for his honesty).
In other words, you're insisting that "valuing life" means something other than... well, valuing life. In contrast, I take "valuing life" to mean precisely that. If works just like valuing gold, because the verb "value" means the same thing in each case. I think that you would do better to use a different phrase for what you're talking about. "Valuing not murdering" seems to be what you mean, though I'm still not sure precisely what you mean by "murder" in this context.

Actually, I'm comparing valuing personally having gold and valuing personally not murdering with valuing anyone having life. Hopefully this has been clear from context.

That you appear to primarily value something for yourself is part of why your perspective does not seem especially Good to me.


This is a fair point. He may be able to find a situation wherein he justifiedly kills many non-innocent people, including enough good ones to remain sane. An example of this might be to enroll in a just war: he may be required by that just war to kill enemy soldiers, some of whom are Good. This would be a temporary situation at best.
I feel that this very much illustrates the difference between our views. For me, Good means attempting to reduce harm, while to you, it apparently means following the proper rules about doing harm. (What are those rules?) I associate the latter view with Law, not Good.

Aolis
2010-03-23, 06:15 PM
So pretty much all adventurers are now evil.

Your average adventurer has a hard time justifying being good aligned.

Imagine a good character exploring a cave that runs into a group of goblins which had made it their home. The character would respect their home and leave promptly while trying to avoid hurting any of them.

The adventure needs some sort of qualifier such as the goblins raiding the local village to make it a good act. Even then, the character would want to explore options such as negotiation or driving them off without killing them. The goblins being evil would likely force the player to fight.

Nero24200
2010-03-23, 06:27 PM
The aligment system isn't itended to handle particularly complex issues. And ones like this don't work at all, especially since they exist purley to mess with the system.

A suitable analogy would be intentionally trying to find glitches within a computer program, but, being unable to find one, intentionally trying to get the program to do it's not programmed for.

This scenario is played specifically to make someone willingly do evil.
If they don't kill, they end up killing more. I dislike such scenarios since they will only ever exist to throw a wrench in the works - In no decent game of D'n'D will you ever find a scenario like this.

Edit: The fact that the scenario is set up to make someone willing commit evil also creates a paradox. If "forced" to commit evil acts, it can't be willing. In this scenario's case, it's hard to call the character evil, since no matter what happens he/she is forced into evil. Which again, is something that should never happen in a reasonable D'n'D game.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-23, 06:41 PM
The aligment system isn't itended to handle particularly complex issues. And ones like this don't work at all, especially since they exist purley to mess with the system.

A suitable analogy would be intentionally trying to find glitches within a computer program, but, being unable to find one, intentionally trying to get the program to do it's not programmed for.

This scenario is played specifically to make someone willingly do evil. If they don't kill, they end up killing more. I dislike such scenarios since they will only ever exist to throw a wrench in the works - In no decent game of D'n'D will you ever find a scenario like this.
I'd disagree here.

The Alignment system handles complicated situations very well - just not in the way people would like it to. It's essentially a sorting algorithm in which any character will be placed in one category or another. The problem here is that the hypo has glaring flaws which make it hard to focus.

A better example would be the classic Trolley Problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) To put it in a fantasy setting: A CG Fighter finds himself at a switch with a view of a stone labyrinth. Currently an unintelligent killing machine is heading down the stone corridor towards three orphans who are chained to a wall. A Being That Cannot Lie shows up and says

"Flip the switch and a steel door will seal off the orphans from the Beast, saving their lives. But, doing so will open the door to an adjacent room where a single chained orphan awaits. The Beast is hungry and will eat anything it can reach - but it cannot get through the steel door. Either do nothing and let the Beast devour the three orphans, or flip the switch and the Beast will devour only the one. Once the Beast is finished, I will permit you to rescue whomever is still alive and return to your home without harm."
Under the Alignment System, this is a non-event. The character has no choice - some innocent is going to die, whether by his action or inaction. Since Good characters have an affirmative duty to Protect Innocents, it would be proper for the character to pull the switch. However, failing to act cannot truly be held against he character either - there was nothing he could do to save all of them, and there is no hint that Good requires some sort of utilitarian calculus. In any case, there's just not enough "choice" here to make this a legitimate Alignment changing event - it's much the same as if he were chained up and an evil (but totally honest) wizard said "choose one of your friends to live - I will kill the rest."

Starbuck_II
2010-03-23, 06:53 PM
I think the solution to the trolley issue is hit the switch till the beast is tired.

Step 1: Hit switch, wall slams in front protecting orphans x3. Beast turns
Step 2: Hit switch again, Beast pounds at door now sealed protecting orphan x1. He turns again.
Step 3: Hit switch, wall slams in front protecting orphans x3. Beast turns.

Continue until you die of old age or beast dies of starvation.

Taelas
2010-03-23, 06:56 PM
Your average adventurer has a hard time justifying being good aligned.

Imagine a good character exploring a cave that runs into a group of goblins which had made it their home. The character would respect their home and leave promptly while trying to avoid hurting any of them.

The adventure needs some sort of qualifier such as the goblins raiding the local village to make it a good act. Even then, the character would want to explore options such as negotiation or driving them off without killing them. The goblins being evil would likely force the player to fight.

This is wrong. A Good character who is exploring a cave where he meets a group of goblins that live there have a choice to make. He can try to leave peacefully -- this is undeniably a Good act. He is preserving life, namely the lives of the goblins.
He can also try to kill them. The vast majority of goblins are evil (with over 50% of them being Neutral Evil in particular), therefore most of them will most likely eventually harm innocents. How would you react if you found a rat in your basement? The logic is much the same. This is still a Good act -- he is preserving innocent lives by removing those who threaten it.
The fact that one act is Good does not automatically make the other act non-Good -- even if they seem to be completely opposite.

If he kills the goblins in self-defense, he's doing a Neutral act -- he just wants to get out of there in one piece. If he's killing them because he likes watching them bleed, he's doing an Evil act.

The alignment system is far better at handling complex issues than people give it credit for. This is usually because they do not understand the system fully. It is not perfect by any standards, but it is more than adequate for what it does.

Riffington
2010-03-23, 08:08 PM
Value is relative. Just valuing three lives equally means being willing to sacrifice one to save the other two, if that's what it takes.
That's precisely the difference between valuing money and valuing life. When you value money, you will sacrifice a dollar to save two. If you value human life, you won't.




[Edit]Would you seriously not be willing to shave one second off of your total life expectancy
First, that's not sacrifing my life, that's sacrificing my health. I'm obviously permitted to breathe smoke into your face in order to save a life. Further this example shows the flaw in your viewpoint far more than in mine. Obviously it is more evil for me to ruin your health for my personal profit than for me to ruin my own. Your system allows me to value you and me equally, and thus claim "If I'd be willing to take the placebo for $500, then I get to give you the placebo and pocket the $500". This is, however, obviously evil. Obvious from the point of view of D&D as well as Utilitarianism: people who purport to be able to sacrifice one life for many almost-inevitably end up causing harm disproportionate to good.



A life in the count noun sense of the word is just a big collection of life in the mass noun sense, after all.
Really? So, in your system, a Good Elan who accidentally commits a capital crime is required to murder all the witnesses because (on the off chance one saw him), his lifespan is longer than all theirs put together? Honestly you think this is ok?


Based on what you've said, though, you shouldn't even care how much more time you buy someone
Obviously true. I work approximately as hard to save the lives of my elderly patients as my pediatric ones. Certainly I don't give the elderly ones 2% of the effort (as your system would suggest).



It works just like valuing gold, because the verb "value" means the same thing in each case.
No. No it doesn't. If you say "I value life. I value it at $100.", I would be justified in responding "that would mean you don't value life". There's not some magic monetary threshold where if you are willing to murder a man for $5 you are evil, but if it takes you $100k then you are good. If you value human life, you won't do it.



I feel that this very much illustrates the difference between our views. For me, Good means attempting to reduce harm, while to you, it apparently means following the proper rules about doing harm. (What are those rules?) I associate the latter view with Law, not Good.
Your views actually promote harm to others. People who claim to be helping overall but are willing to murder to do so can safely be assumed to be incorrect about the consequences of their actions (assuming history repeats itself). A Utilitarian should be skeptical of any attempt to reduce harm that starts by causing harm.
The D&D rules for Good include:
protecting innocent life, avoiding debasing innocent life, altruism, respecting life, promoting the dignity of sentient beings, a willingness to make personal sacrifices for others, avoiding hurting others, avoiding oppressing others, avoiding killing others, and having compassion for others.
Note that you can not claim that you are protecting innocent life while you are engaged in destroying it (well you can, but such a claim rings hollow).

Law actually has a different set of rules than these, and I'm not sure why you're conflating the two.

Devils_Advocate
2010-03-23, 09:45 PM
That's precisely the difference between valuing money and valuing life. When you value money, you will sacrifice a dollar to save two. If you value human life, you won't.
To put it bluntly, argument by unsupported assertion is essentially a logical fallacy. One can so argue for any claim, regardless of how untrue it might be.


First, that's not sacrifing my life, that's sacrificing my health.
What does it mean to kill someone, if not to cause that person to die earlier than he or she otherwise would have?


Obviously it is more evil for me to ruin your health for my personal profit than for me to ruin my own. Your system allows me to value you and me equally, and thus claim "If I'd be willing to take the placebo for $500, then I get to give you the placebo and pocket the $500".
On the contrary. Coercion robs individuals of self-determination. Provided that self-determination is valued, either intrinsically or instrumentally, then permitting greater self-determination is preferred, all else being equal.


This is, however, obviously evil. Obvious from the point of view of D&D as well as Utilitarianism: people who purport to be able to sacrifice one life for many almost-inevitably end up causing harm disproportionate to good.
Do policy-makers who attempt to minimize fatalities really have a well-established track record of doing more harm than good? For that matter, how does this track record compare to that of policy-makers with different approaches?

There are areas of governance/management/regulation that deal with systems in which people get killed, where the best you can do is to minimize the number of deaths. These are the sort of cases in which one might prefer to sacrifice the few to spare the many. When dealing with systems where it isn't the case that some people are certainly going to die, it's generally preferable to try to prevent anyone from getting killed at all. (Duh.)


Really?
Um, yes? If someone lives for 100 years, then he had a life made up of 100 years of life. Unless I'm missing something here.


So, in your system, a Good Elan who accidentally commits a capital crime is required to murder all the witnesses because (on the off chance one saw him), his lifespan is longer than all theirs put together?
Um, no? I never said that, and I don't see how it follows from what I have said. Not aging doesn't necessarily give an elan a life expectancy many, many times longer than a human's. If we're considering a significant possibility that he could be killed in the near future, then that sort of serves to illustrate that point. And if it's not a significant possibility, then he has all that much less justification for killing anyone. And how likely is it that killing a bunch of people is going to get him in less trouble?

Minsk: Gorb. Dis iz turnink into vun of dose plans...hyu know, de kind vere ve keel everybody dot notices dot ve's keelin' people?
Gorb: It is?
Minsk: Uh huh. And how do dose alvays end?
Gorb: De dirigible iz in flames, everyboddyz dead an' I've lost my hat.
Minsk: Dot's right. Und any plan vere you lose you hat iz?
Gorb: A bad plan?
Misnk: Right again!


Obviously true. I work approximately as hard to save the lives of my elderly patients as my pediatric ones. Certainly I don't give the elderly ones 2% of the effort (as your system would suggest).
I'd suggest that effort should be expended where it is expected to produce the best results (which seems like common sense). And if you could only cure a disease that would kill a patient in a year with a treatment that would kill him in five years, then barring other drawbacks, I'd recommend the treatment.

But why should you try to save any lives at all, if there's infinite value worth of life regardless?


No. No it doesn't.
Yes. Yes, it does. More specifically, I am using "value" to consistently mean the same thing, more or less. I am well aware of what I intend to communicate.


There's not some magic monetary threshold where if you are willing to murder a man for $5 you are evil, but if it takes you $100k then you are good.
What does "magically" allow for a good person to take human life? I'd say that preventing more harm than that caused does (and that magic has nothing to do with it). What would you say? Unless you think that no one should ever kill a human being for any reason, of course.


Your views actually promote harm to others.
No more so than your own, it would appear. You speak of deliberately and "justifiably" killing many people, giving a "just war" as an example.


People who claim to be helping overall but are willing to murder to do so can safely be assumed to be incorrect about the consequences of their actions (assuming history repeats itself).
Generally speaking, yes. Under special circumstances, special considerations may come into play. It seems pretty clear that you're not actually absolutely opposed to killing. You just deem killing "murder" in those cases in which you consider it immoral, right? But obviously immoral killing is immoral; that's a tautology. The question is what makes killing immoral in some cases but not in others.


A Utilitarian should be skeptical of any attempt to reduce harm that starts by causing harm.
Well, obviously. I don't think that I'm any more eager to hurt anyone than you are. If something that I've said gave you that impression, I'd like to know what.


Note that you can not claim that you are protecting innocent life while you are engaged in destroying it (well you can, but such a claim rings hollow).
The character in the scenario presented in this thread protects innocent life by destroying innocent life. That's sort of a central point.


Law actually has a different set of rules than these, and I'm not sure why you're conflating the two.
Um, aren't I the one who should be saying that to you? You seem to think that killing becomes compatible with Good alignment for reasons other than preventing harm or otherwise helping others. I'm the one who thinks that only preventing harm or otherwise helping others makes hurting others compatible with Good alignment.

Aolis
2010-03-23, 10:05 PM
He can also try to kill them. The vast majority of goblins are evil (with over 50% of them being Neutral Evil in particular), therefore most of them will most likely eventually harm innocents. How would you react if you found a rat in your basement? The logic is much the same. This is still a Good act -- he is preserving innocent lives by removing those who threaten it.

A rat is not sentient nor would I consider myself good. ;)

You are arguing that it is "good" to kill anyone you find that is evil. It does strictly work with the D&D alignment system but goes against the idea of respect for life that good characters have. Are there not other, more positive, ways to deal with evil such as imprisonment or even alignment change?

A fifth level good cleric can cast Atonement for 500 xp. Shouldn't you then capture the goblins in the hopes that a cleric could help them? That is the more altruistic solution.

Taelas
2010-03-24, 03:54 AM
A rat is not sentient nor would I consider myself good. ;)

You are arguing that it is "good" to kill anyone you find that is evil. It does strictly work with the D&D alignment system but goes against the idea of respect for life that good characters have. Are there not other, more positive, ways to deal with evil such as imprisonment or even alignment change?

A fifth level good cleric can cast Atonement for 500 xp. Shouldn't you then capture the goblins in the hopes that a cleric could help them? That is the more altruistic solution.

Yes, a rat is sentient. It is not sapient, but I don't see how that has any effect on this situation.

It does not go against the idea. I already explained how it works with it. A Good character can preemptively kill Evil characters for the simple reason that because they are Evil, they will hurt innocents. Thus killing Evil characters preserves life by preventing them from doing so.

What you suggest is also Good. In fact, it may be more strongly Good. But that does not invalidate the other action.

2xMachina
2010-03-24, 04:51 AM
Atonement does not work when they do not repent. And why would they repent? They're doing what natural to them.

What you want is the Good Mind Rape.

Taelas
2010-03-24, 05:01 AM
It's called Sanctify the Wicked, and as you say, it is essentially Mindrape, except that the only thing it does is turn the subject Good (and imprison them in a diamond for a year). That spell never made any sense.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-24, 06:51 AM
It's called Sanctify the Wicked, and as you say, it is essentially Mindrape, except that the only thing it does is turn the subject Good (and imprison them in a diamond for a year). That spell never made any sense.

It is Magical Time Out. How much more good can it get. Yes, next time a kid gets sent to time out: realize the parent cast Santify the Wicked on it.

2xMachina
2010-03-24, 06:56 AM
It's Trap the Soul with someone trying to convert you continuously for 1 year. This torture is so effective that you are guaranteed to convert after 1 year.

Then, an evil wizard studies the spell, and reverses it. Profane the Good.

Aolis
2010-03-24, 08:11 AM
Yes, a rat is sentient. It is not sapient, but I don't see how that has any effect on this situation.

I really doubt that when the PHB3.5 suggests that Good characters have "a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" that they include animals. Especially given that they have special rules about animal intelligent at 2 or 3.


It does not go against the idea. I already explained how it works with it. A Good character can preemptively kill Evil characters for the simple reason that because they are Evil, they will hurt innocents. Thus killing Evil characters preserves life by preventing them from doing so.

Of the two options, one clearly shows a much greater respect for life than the other. Even imprisonment is better. Going on the kill them anyways is just more practical. But if you are choosing the more practical way, while taking life, that is a selfish choice. After all, killing defines evil.

Aolis
2010-03-24, 08:14 AM
Atonement does not work when they do not repent. And why would they repent? They're doing what natural to them.

The point is that there are other accessible ways to deal with evil creatures beyond killing them. Good characters would explore these instead of genocide.

Taelas
2010-03-24, 08:49 AM
I really doubt that when the PHB3.5 suggests that Good characters have "a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" that they include animals. Especially given that they have special rules about animal intelligent at 2 or 3.
Animals are sentient beings, and there is absolutely no reason why they should be excluded other than your desire to protect your incorrect usage of the word.


Of the two options, one clearly shows a much greater respect for life than the other. Even imprisonment is better. Going on the kill them anyways is just more practical. But if you are choosing the more practical way, while taking life, that is a selfish choice. After all, killing defines evil.
I agree that one option shows greater respect for life than the other, but I also said that does not invalidate the other option with regards to being Good.

As for killing... Killing in self-defense is Neutral. Killing for food is Neutral. Killing in defense of others is Good. Killing just for the sake of killing is Evil, yes.

Math_Mage
2010-03-24, 12:37 PM
Killing people because they show up on your Evildar is not good. The only justification offered is playing calculus with life (and bad calculus at that: "they'll eventually 'hurt innocents', so it's all right for me to kill them"? Doesn't fly).

Taelas
2010-03-24, 01:13 PM
Killing people because they show up on your Evildar is not good. The only justification offered is playing calculus with life (and bad calculus at that: "they'll eventually 'hurt innocents', so it's all right for me to kill them"? Doesn't fly).

Sorry but it's perfectly acceptable. They are Evil. They will hurt innocents. Killing them to avoid that is a Good action. It is not the only possible Good response, and it is not the best possible Good response. It IS one, however. Good characters are not necessarily saints. They can and do kill, often, without further provocation than an Evil alignment.

Math_Mage
2010-03-24, 01:32 PM
Sorry but it's perfectly acceptable. They are Evil. They will hurt innocents. Killing them to avoid that is a Good action. It is not the only possible Good response, and it is not the best possible Good response. It IS one, however. Good characters are not necessarily saints. They can and do kill, often, without further provocation than an Evil alignment.

And the Lawful Evil dictator who reduces violent deaths with an iron-fisted policy meant to maintain order? The manipulative vizier who maintains peace between his nation and others to save his own skin? The Chaotic Evil thief whose only crime is stealing lots of money from a nobleman's house? Point being, killing Evil people is often not only suboptimal, but wrong.

2xMachina
2010-03-24, 01:37 PM
And the Lawful Evil dictator who reduces violent deaths with an iron-fisted policy meant to maintain order? The manipulative vizier who maintains peace between his nation and others to save his own skin? The Chaotic Evil thief whose only crime is stealing lots of money from a nobleman's house? Point being, killing Evil people is often not only suboptimal, but wrong.

I'd put them as not really evil.

Dictator is probably LN, not LE, since no real indication of evil.

Vizier... not evil too.

And the pseudo Robin Hood would not qualify as CE.

grautry
2010-03-24, 02:20 PM
Yep, I agree with the first poster who said it was a False Dilemma.

Here's what a Good person does in this situation: he finds a Cleric(of a good deity) powerful enough to cast Commune. He pays him enough money to cast it. The Cleric explains the situation to his deity and the petitioner pleads with the deity to kill him and/or imprison him.

No matter how good a method of immortality you have(unless you're a cosmic power yourself) - a deity will find a way to kill you or permanently imprison you - and it'll likely be effortless for such a being.

Alternatively, he'll come up with a solution to a problem that does not involve personal divine intervention.

There, problem solved.

A person powerful/intelligent enough to enact some sort of an ancient immortality ritual will also be intelligent enough to think of this plan. If he doesn't or can't come up with it himself for some reason - and I can't think of any - then someone should eventually suggest it on his quest to find a cure/help.

He can't use this idea for three reasons only:
A) He's unwilling to search for help(because, seriously, in a world with active gods someone will eventually suggest such a solution)
B) He's unwilling to use that idea once he figures it out/finds it somehow
C) The god is unwilling to help

A and B make him evil, because either means that he's committing murder because of laziness or pride. C means that you didn't contact a Good god.

Je dit Viola
2010-03-24, 02:55 PM
I'd put them as not really evil.

Dictator is probably LN, not LE, since no real indication of evil.

Vizier... not evil too.

And the pseudo Robin Hood would not qualify as CE.

But they could qualify as Evil, depending on the other things they do, which were not detailed out in that post.

The Dictator, in addition to keeping peace by ruling with an iron fist, could also be extraordinarily paranoid, and harshly sentences traitors and murderers and thieves to death in a gruesome manner, which he watches and enjoys on Saturdays to relieve the stress of work.

The Vizier, you just put a whole lot more emphasis on the "Manipulative" and "Save own Skin" part. Like, a lot more, so that they become his defining traits.

The thief could be stealing it for totally selfish reasons, or maybe he's stealing it because the Rich Guy slighted him in the past, and it's his way of taking revenge. Or he's just completely uncaring about others and disregards their lives, despite being a thief who steals from rich people.

I would definitely say that one killing them for no other reason than "They made a blip as Evil" would be an Evil act, because he (the person killing them) is not valuing life, gambling with someone else's life that they are indeed a murderer rather than just a non-murderer, or sentencing someone to death without knowing what the crime is.

Taelas
2010-03-24, 03:06 PM
And the Lawful Evil dictator who reduces violent deaths with an iron-fisted policy meant to maintain order? The manipulative vizier who maintains peace between his nation and others to save his own skin? The Chaotic Evil thief whose only crime is stealing lots of money from a nobleman's house? Point being, killing Evil people is often not only suboptimal, but wrong.
An act being "wrong" does not disqualify it from being Good. By the same token, an act being "right" does not disqualify it from being Evil.

A Good character would not "kill people because they are Evil"; he would "kill people because they will threaten innocents because they are Evil".

If he kills them simply because Evil people are fair game, then he's Evil. He must have the intention to protect others in order for it to become a Good act. If his intention is to protect himself, he's Neutral.

People seem to be forgetting just what is required for someone to actually be Evil. A person who does nothing that qualifies as Evil isn't Evil, he's Neutral. It is quite simple: If someone is Evil, they have done or are going to do acts that will qualify them for said alignment. The "are going to do" clause only exists because they might not have actually done anything yet, but if they are Evil, then they are going to. If they aren't, they wouldn't be Evil!

Mauther
2010-03-24, 03:41 PM
Yep, I agree with the first poster who said it was a False Dilemma.

Here's what a Good person does in this situation: he finds a Cleric(of a good deity) powerful enough to cast Commune. He pays him enough money to cast it. The Cleric explains the situation to his deity and the petitioner pleads with the deity to kill him and/or imprison him.

No matter how good a method of immortality you have(unless you're a cosmic power yourself) - a deity will find a way to kill you or permanently imprison you - and it'll likely be effortless for such a being.

Alternatively, he'll come up with a solution to a problem that does not involve personal divine intervention.

There, problem solved.

A person powerful/intelligent enough to enact some sort of an ancient immortality ritual will also be intelligent enough to think of this plan. If he doesn't or can't come up with it himself for some reason - and I can't think of any - then someone should eventually suggest it on his quest to find a cure/help.

He can't use this idea for three reasons only:
A) He's unwilling to search for help(because, seriously, in a world with active gods someone will eventually suggest such a solution)
B) He's unwilling to use that idea once he figures it out/finds it somehow
C) The god is unwilling to help

A and B make him evil, because either means that he's committing murder because of laziness or pride. C means that you didn't contact a Good god.

The revised post from the OP, seems to clarify that the "victim" is limited in his knowledge. Call him WIS 8, INT 8. A nice enough guy probably, but not the sharpest knife in the box. He's done everything he can think of (NOTE: NOT EVERYTHING POSSIBLE) and has consigned himself to his fate. To what extent does ignorance come into play? It doesn't sound like he's even consulted a cleric to try and get an intercessetion, so you coyuld argue he's guilty of negligence. But if its something he's ignorant of can he really be held accountable?
For what it's worth, I'd rate him at N, with a gradual progression towards LE/NE. It's apparent that he's making a good faith attempt to mitigate his impact. But at some point the whole slippery slope will catch up with him. Why not just start farming out people, maybe clean out an orphange or retirement home once a year. eventually, you stop seeing the sheep as people.
BTW, if one of my player's tried setting something like this up, I'd have them hit by a comet.
If I was hit with this curse, I would sponsor Disintegrate-a-palooza 2010 where every mage around is welcome to come and reduce the cursed idiot to ash for a chance at moderate to middling wealth.

Kylarra
2010-03-24, 03:51 PM
Keep in mind he's also not a PC and this is 4e which means by default in a "Points of Light" setting. So your average adventurer has a lot less metaknowledge and metathinking at his/her disposal than is common in even greyhawk, let alone higher magic settings.

Aron Times
2010-03-24, 04:42 PM
If he's a good person, why not have him commit suicide so he doesn't have to go around killing people? This way, he'd save the lives of the people that he'd have to kill in order to survive.

Je dit Viola
2010-03-24, 04:55 PM
Except, back from this post, it can be inferred that, if he dies once, it'll be much worse off for everybody:

...

If he dies, the magic of the spell would spread forth over about 25 feet and try to catch anyone it can. (Attack vs Fortitude) It would also heal and mutate his body, growing to large size, growing wings, gaining darkvision, and growing claws and venomous fangs.

...in addition to possibly having other people catch it if they're nearby.

So he'd have to do it alone, which, due to the Law of Drama, will require him to face off against the darker side within him and likely lose, because that's what happens in all the movies and books [/speculation]

Anyway, if he kills himself, from what I read and infer, it'll be worse off.

Math_Mage
2010-03-24, 05:01 PM
An act being "wrong" does not disqualify it from being Good. By the same token, an act being "right" does not disqualify it from being Evil.

A Good character would not "kill people because they are Evil"; he would "kill people because they will threaten innocents because they are Evil".

If he kills them simply because Evil people are fair game, then he's Evil. He must have the intention to protect others in order for it to become a Good act. If his intention is to protect himself, he's Neutral.

People seem to be forgetting just what is required for someone to actually be Evil. A person who does nothing that qualifies as Evil isn't Evil, he's Neutral. It is quite simple: If someone is Evil, they have done or are going to do acts that will qualify them for said alignment. The "are going to do" clause only exists because they might not have actually done anything yet, but if they are Evil, then they are going to. If they aren't, they wouldn't be Evil!

*pre-emptive apology for invoking Godwin's Law*

Would the Holocaust really have been better if the justification was protecting innocents from all those Jews and gays that show up on our Detect Evil scans? *Even if those scans are infallible*, is such a slaughter Good? No, Good is not Nice, but this is just Lawful Stupid.

There has to be a point at which actions supersede intentions. Great, so the intentions behind killing someone can help to determine the morality value of the action. But just how will intentions justify the action of *slaughtering everyone that hits your Evildar*? At best, that's a Paladin of Tyranny to me.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-03-24, 05:03 PM
What is his alignment now?
DM fracked.

Sebastian
2010-03-24, 05:13 PM
Well, I didn't read all the thread so maybe I repeating things already said but these are my two cents.

As long as he really try to find a remedy to his condition or to reduce the damage he does, or to stop himself from doing it then he can stay neutral on the evil-good axis, maybe even good. Maybe.

The moment he accept what happen as inevitable, BAM! evil.

About the thing he could attempt are included, but not limited to:

raise or pay to raise any person he kill

build a prison for himself/his beast form, maybe with the help of some religious order as guardian (paladins would be appropriate.

Find a way to off himself for good,

buy an Helm of Opposite Alignment, find a evil person/monster turn him good and kill a good person. Not perfect but is a way to limit damage. :)

etc.

Taelas
2010-03-24, 05:42 PM
There has to be a point at which actions supersede intentions. Great, so the intentions behind killing someone can help to determine the morality value of the action. But just how will intentions justify the action of *slaughtering everyone that hits your Evildar*? At best, that's a Paladin of Tyranny to me.

It is not infallible. When did I say it was? A smart paladin doesn't kill everyone who detects as Evil. There's the law to consider, quite often. Also, magic can influence your abilities. There are also personal ethics to consider: Many paladins will probably not think it is acceptable to kill someone who has not done anything yet (regardless of how certain it is that he will). A paladin might also not be aware of this fact, just as many players are not. A smite-on-sight paladin is the worst way to play a paladin, but it is one that is permitted, by RAW.

Assuming they are Evil, you can kill people immediately upon meeting them to protect (or at least avenge) innocents as a Good action. Keep in mind that it is not specifically because they are Evil, but because anyone who is Evil will either already have threatened innocents, or will do so in the future. Otherwise, they would not be Evil. A Good character who threatens innocents (which is not impossible) can also be killed as a Good action. Neutral as well. The alignment of the person in question is beside the point, aside from the fact that Evil people automatically qualify due to their actions.

Also keep in mind that intention is not divorced from the action. If the Good character kills all these Evil people in an excessively cruel and debasing manner, even if his intention is to protect innocents, it changes the entire thing. He does not have to be humane -- swinging a sword at people rarely is -- but if he is excessive, that will count against him. Yes, possibly even turning what would otherwise be a Good act into an Evil act.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-24, 06:09 PM
I think the solution to the trolley issue is hit the switch till the beast is tired.

Step 1: Hit switch, wall slams in front protecting orphans x3. Beast turns
Step 2: Hit switch again, Beast pounds at door now sealed protecting orphan x1. He turns again.
Step 3: Hit switch, wall slams in front protecting orphans x3. Beast turns.

Continue until you die of old age or beast dies of starvation.
Nice try, but the lever only works once :smalltongue:

Math_Mage
2010-03-24, 06:11 PM
It is not infallible. When did I say it was? A smart paladin doesn't kill everyone who detects as Evil. There's the law to consider, quite often. Also, magic can influence your abilities. There are also personal ethics to consider: Many paladins will probably not think it is acceptable to kill someone who has not done anything yet (regardless of how certain it is that he will). A paladin might also not be aware of this fact, just as many players are not. A smite-on-sight paladin is the worst way to play a paladin, but it is one that is permitted, by RAW.

What is morally permissibly by RAW and what is morally permissible by reason are two different things. Frankly, I don't care all that much what the exact text is.


Assuming they are Evil, you can kill people immediately upon meeting them to protect (or at least avenge) innocents as a Good action. Keep in mind that it is not specifically because they are Evil, but because anyone who is Evil will either already have threatened innocents, or will do so in the future. Otherwise, they would not be Evil. A Good character who threatens innocents (which is not impossible) can also be killed as a Good action. Neutral as well. The alignment of the person in question is beside the point, aside from the fact that Evil people automatically qualify due to their actions.

I dispute that definition of Evil. An Evil character will act to the detriment of others, whether as part of his motivation or as collateral damage, but there is a HUGE gulf between that and threatening innocents to the point where killing in defense or vengeance is justified.


Also keep in mind that intention is not divorced from the action. If the Good character kills all these Evil people in an excessively cruel and debasing manner, even if his intention is to protect innocents, it changes the entire thing. He does not have to be humane -- swinging a sword at people rarely is -- but if he is excessive, that will count against him. Yes, possibly even turning what would otherwise be a Good act into an Evil act.

A Good character who goes around killing people who show up on his Detect Evil because of their *potential* threat is a zealot at the very least, a disproportionately retributive maniac at the worst. The manner of killing can make it worse, but not better. I would not classify either as Good, whatever RAW may say on the matter.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-24, 06:27 PM
N.B. Good characters respect life. Any character whose first response to any problem is "kill it" is not Good.


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

Aolis
2010-03-24, 06:39 PM
The vast majority of goblins are evil (with over 50% of them being Neutral Evil in particular), therefore most of them will most likely eventually harm innocents.

Your argument is that killing any particular member of a race because they are probably evil and therefore probably going to cause some sort of harm to a person in the future is a good action.

While I can see why this approach might be more convenient for a group of dungeon crawlers, it hardly makes sense.

There is a difference between an immediate threat, like someone trying to kill you, and some possible threat that may or may not occur. You would end up killing good and neutral goblins. You would end up killing evil goblins that might cause suffering but not actually kill anyone. Do you have the right to kill people who just cause suffering?

Good characters respect life. Killing is the opposite of this. It must be a last recourse when there are no other possible choices. In a magical world, there are always numerous other choices. Coming up with a reason based on some possible future does not justify it.

Riffington
2010-03-24, 07:16 PM
To put it bluntly, argument by unsupported assertion is essentially a logical fallacy.
We are disagreeing about a definition; this is not subject to fallacies or argument. I assert that this is the definition that most people mean: to value human life is not to say "I put a price on it" but rather to refrain from putting a price on it. If you disagree, ask 5 random people or religious leaders: "Think of someone who values human life. Ok, now tell me, does that person value human life in the sense of having a dollar price for it? Or by being unwilling to put a dollar price on it?"
Or just imagine the people who do put a specific dollar price on human life: they may be praised for some things (pragmatism?) but they are typically accused of not valuing human life.




What does it mean to kill someone, if not to cause that person to die earlier than he or she otherwise would have?
It means to cause them to die in the anticipatable future. Giving a healthy man a cheeseburger is not the same thing as putting a bullet in his head. One imperceptibly affects his health. The other is murder.



Provided that self-determination is valued
Self-determination isn't the main factor here. If I remove a cereal from the shipment to your grocery store I haven't taken away your self-determination; neither do I do so by removing a drug. Removing the drug may harm or kill you; that is the issue.



Do policy-makers who attempt to minimize fatalities really have a well-established track record of doing more harm than good?
So you are conflating two things, and I want you to stop doing this.
1. counting "how many people may die statistically if this policy is followed"
2. being willing to murder a specific person.

Counting how many people may die on a stretch of beach and making decisions based on that number is non-evil. Being willing to name a person(s) and call for their murder is evil. Find some good people in the second group for me. All I can come up with are tyrants, evil scientists, and horrible doctors.


There are areas of governance/management/regulation that deal with systems in which people get killed, where the best you can do is to minimize the number of deaths. These are the sort of cases in which one might prefer to sacrifice the few to spare the many.

Again, this is group 1, not group 2. You are not sacrificing anyone by leaving a beach open. Sacrificing someone means picking a person to die.



Um, yes? If someone lives for 100 years, then he had a life made up of 100 years of life. Unless I'm missing something here.

But killing him at age 99 is not 2% as bad as killing him at age 50.




But why should you try to save any lives at all, if there's infinite value worth of life regardless?
Because I value each life.
The point shouldn't be to maximize the "value worth of life existing in the world" (or then procreating could justify murder, which is obviously wrong) but to value each person.




What does "magically" allow for a good person to take human life?


Self-defense, or defense of others. (in an immediate sense).
A just war.
In very limited cases (more in D&D), execution.



You speak of deliberately and "justifiably" killing many people, giving a "just war" as an example.
Yeah. There's a reason that Paladins are Good. A soldier who kills in the line of duty is not the same as a murderer. Standing idly by while Sauron conquers your neighbors is not a good act. Taking up arms to defeat him is the good act.


You just deem killing "murder" in those cases in which you consider it immoral, right?
No. All murder is immoral, but not all immoral killing is murder.
Example: you are a mid-level barbarian ambushed by hungry low-level ruffians. It would be self-defense to kill them, and thus not murder. It would be wrong to do so if you can defeat them nonlethally and force them to an alternate life-path.




Well, obviously. I don't think that I'm any more eager to hurt anyone than you are. If something that I've said gave you that impression, I'd like to know what.
Of course not. But some of the justifications you are using sound an awful lot like "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs".



The character in the scenario presented in this thread protects innocent life by destroying innocent life. That's sort of a central point.

The character destroys innocent life. That is the central point.
Again, this is not a new situation. Evil tyrants and brigands have often put people in this situation: "kill this man, or I'll kill these ones". The Good answer has always been to refuse to murder.



Um, aren't I the one who should be saying that to you?

Not really. Good has a list of requirements you seem to be glossing over and calling "law". Among them being altruism (note that altruism requires you to distinguish between yourself and others), and avoiding destroying innocent life.


because anyone who is Evil will either already have threatened innocents, or will do so in the future.

Ah, but threatened them with what?
Not necessarily with killing or torture. It could also be hurting someone or debasing life. For instance, by saying mean things about someone in class, because you like watching her cry. Such a mean person deserves punishment, but not death.

Taelas
2010-03-24, 07:52 PM
What is morally permissibly by RAW and what is morally permissible by reason are two different things. Frankly, I don't care all that much what the exact text is.
That is your prerogative.


I dispute that definition of Evil. An Evil character will act to the detriment of others, whether as part of his motivation or as collateral damage, but there is a HUGE gulf between that and threatening innocents to the point where killing in defense or vengeance is justified.
Dispute it if you will, that does not make your position correct.


A Good character who goes around killing people who show up on his Detect Evil because of their *potential* threat is a zealot at the very least, a disproportionately retributive maniac at the worst. The manner of killing can make it worse, but not better. I would not classify either as Good, whatever RAW may say on the matter.
Then you are not going by the alignment rules as written, which, again, is entirely your prerogative.


N.B. Good characters respect life. Any character whose first response to any problem is "kill it" is not Good.

A Good character can respect life by killing those who threaten it, even if it is always his first reaction in those situations. Obviously that does not extend to solving any problem by killing the people involved.


Your argument is that killing any particular member of a race because they are probably evil and therefore probably going to cause some sort of harm to a person in the future is a good action.

While I can see why this approach might be more convenient for a group of dungeon crawlers, it hardly makes sense.
It does make sense. There is more than one method of determining alignment.


There is a difference between an immediate threat, like someone trying to kill you, and some possible threat that may or may not occur. You would end up killing good and neutral goblins. You would end up killing evil goblins that might cause suffering but not actually kill anyone. Do you have the right to kill people who just cause suffering?
That depends entirely on how the situation unfolds, but in most cases, there would be no Good or Neutral goblins. They would either not survive growing up in a mostly Neutral Evil society, or they would end up as slaves. We are talking about a race where over 50% of the population is Neutral Evil - and that does not prohibit the remainders being mainly Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil.


Good characters respect life. Killing is the opposite of this. It must be a last recourse when there are no other possible choices. In a magical world, there are always numerous other choices. Coming up with a reason based on some possible future does not justify it.
If you insist on killing being a last recourse, you break D&D. At best, no adventurers can be of Good alignment, and you can completely forget about paladins. It does not work.


Ah, but threatened them with what?
Not necessarily with killing or torture. It could also be hurting someone or debasing life. For instance, by saying mean things about someone in class, because you like watching her cry. Such a mean person deserves punishment, but not death.
Yes, necessarily. A "mean" person is not Evil. Being "mean" is not enough. They are Neutral, bordering on Evil. If they are Evil, then they are prepared to do much more than just insult someone.

Riffington
2010-03-24, 08:07 PM
Then you are not going by the alignment rules as written, which, again, is entirely your prerogative.

What page does it say that Good people can kill innocent Evil people?


If you insist on killing being a last recourse, you break D&D. At best, no adventurers can be of Good alignment, and you can completely forget about paladins. It does not work.

Why can't you have adventurers who refrain from killing except when needed? Frodo wasn't exactly Stabby McSlayerson.



Yes, necessarily. A "mean" person is not Evil. Being "mean" is not enough. They are Neutral, bordering on Evil. If they are Evil, then they are prepared to do much more than just insult someone.

Are you ignoring the rule about humans tending towards no particular alignment (even neutral)? Much less than a third of humans are murderers; this means most evil people would have to be cruel in less spectacular ways.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-24, 08:47 PM
A Good character can respect life by killing those who threaten it, even if it is always his first reaction in those situations. Obviously that does not extend to solving any problem by killing the people involved.
Those who are currently or actively threatening it, but surely not those who may later threaten it. There are many non-lethal (if not non-violent) methods for incapacitating a potential threat - if those cannot be used, then death is appropriate.

A Neutral character may get away with killing folks who might later threaten his life - including running down escaping baddies. A Good character never kills a non-threatening individual without very good reason.

In short: a Good character never resorts to killing as their Plan A (or even Plan B) - they will always consider any reasonable alternative to mass slaughter before taking lives. And even then, they will only take the minimum number of lives necessary to conclude any threat.

Math_Mage
2010-03-24, 09:54 PM
It's very simple: a character for whom murder is the best solution (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MurderIsTheBestSolution) is not a Good character.

And for the record, RAW leaves a gargantuan gap between Neutral and Evil. Where you draw the line is your prerogative, but don't claim that your position is more RAW.

EDIT: I suppose it would be more accurate to say that of a character for whom murder is the first solution.

grautry
2010-03-25, 02:40 AM
The revised post from the OP, seems to clarify that the "victim" is limited in his knowledge. Call him WIS 8, INT 8. A nice enough guy probably, but not the sharpest knife in the box. He's done everything he can think of (NOTE: NOT EVERYTHING POSSIBLE) and has consigned himself to his fate. To what extent does ignorance come into play? It doesn't sound like he's even consulted a cleric to try and get an intercessetion, so you coyuld argue he's guilty of negligence. But if its something he's ignorant of can he really be held accountable?

Then the answer is to keep searching. Do it forever, if that's what it takes.

You can't be Good and freaking settle for murdering a good person every week.

To be Good, in this situation, you have to continuously and relentlessly search for a cure(or death, or imprisonment). When you kill - you cough up for a True Resurrection and I don't care how many kidneys do you have to sell in order to come up with money for it.

And yeah, that's harsh and tough and unpleasant for the guy. But that's what it means to be Good. It means sacrificing yourself for the greater good.

Besides, how does an Int 8 Wis 8 guy come up with the ideas, funds and resources necessary to successfully use an ancient immortality ritual?

Schylerwalker
2010-03-25, 03:13 AM
So pretty much all adventurers are now evil.

To be completely honest...yeah. Any adventuring party who wanders around killing bands of intelligent creatures for the sole sake of profit, or if the cause of righteousness is just a side benefit...I would say so.

Math_Mage
2010-03-25, 03:41 AM
To be completely honest...yeah. Any adventuring party who wanders around killing bands of intelligent creatures for the sole sake of profit, or if the cause of righteousness is just a side benefit...I would say so.

It's a rare case where roleplaying is so meager that the adventurers could be characterized thus...

Malificus
2010-03-25, 04:00 AM
Those who are currently or actively threatening it, but surely not those who may later threaten it. There are many non-lethal (if not non-violent) methods for incapacitating a potential threat - if those cannot be used, then death is appropriate.

So, killing corrupter type evils like succubi is almost never a good action in your opinion?

Math_Mage
2010-03-25, 04:14 AM
So, killing corrupter type evils like succubi is almost never a good action in your opinion?

If it's just sitting there doing nothing or minding its own business? No, it isn't a good action. If it's luring someone to come alone to a place where it can apply its killing kiss, as is stated to be its modus operandi in the SRD? Then yes, it's a good action.

Since most situations where one encounters succubi will feature them actively trying to kill you (via the above, or more direct means), this is rarely an issue.

Taelas
2010-03-25, 05:32 AM
What page does it say that Good people can kill innocent Evil people?
That's an oxymoron.


Why can't you have adventurers who refrain from killing except when needed? Frodo wasn't exactly Stabby McSlayerson.
Frodo is not a D&D adventurer.

Good characters will end up in many situations where, if they are forced to seek a less than lethal response, they will end up dead.


Are you ignoring the rule about humans tending towards no particular alignment (even neutral)? Much less than a third of humans are murderers; this means most evil people would have to be cruel in less spectacular ways.
You are assuming that humans in the real world also would not tend toward a particular alignment. This is wrong. The vast majority of humans in the real world are Good or Neutral.

In D&D, a full third of humans are Evil, therefore a full third are willing to do murder. They might not have done it -- yet -- but they are more than willing to do so.


Those who are currently or actively threatening it, but surely not those who may later threaten it. There are many non-lethal (if not non-violent) methods for incapacitating a potential threat - if those cannot be used, then death is appropriate.

A Neutral character may get away with killing folks who might later threaten his life - including running down escaping baddies. A Good character never kills a non-threatening individual without very good reason.

In short: a Good character never resorts to killing as their Plan A (or even Plan B) - they will always consider any reasonable alternative to mass slaughter before taking lives. And even then, they will only take the minimum number of lives necessary to conclude any threat.
A Good character can kill Evil people indiscriminately, as long as her intention is to protect innocents. They are always threatening, unless of course they have already been incapacitated by other means. (Someone who is running away is not incapacitated.)

It is not a question of threatening the Good character in question -- responding with lethal force to personal threats is Neutral, not Good. Evil people will threaten innocents, however. If they don't, then they should not have been Evil in the first place. This is how D&D works. This is why Good adventurers can go out and slaughter goblins by the score and remain Good.


It's very simple: a character for whom murder is the best solution (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MurderIsTheBestSolution) is not a Good character.

And for the record, RAW leaves a gargantuan gap between Neutral and Evil. Where you draw the line is your prerogative, but don't claim that your position is more RAW.

EDIT: I suppose it would be more accurate to say that of a character for whom murder is the first solution.
Have you ever heard of paladins? They're these warriors who walk around killing Evil people. What do you think warriors do, sit around to talk about flowers?

Look. I am not saying this is the go-to response. I am saying it is VALID. Also keep in mind that I am saying that killing Evil people is a Good action (but only because Evil people will always threaten innocents, not strictly because of their alignment). If you kill a Good or Neutral person, thinking he is Evil, this is not a Good act. Morality in D&D is objective, not subjective. The question of whether you knew what you were doing (as well as your intentions for doing so) influences the alignment, but it is not the sole defining factor.

magic9mushroom
2010-03-25, 05:38 AM
By consistent and logical morals, he's doing the right thing and is hence Good.

By D&D morals, he's [Uh... that doesn't compute... uh... You're under arrest!]. Probably the system would assign him Lawful Evil.

Malificus
2010-03-25, 05:54 AM
If it's just sitting there doing nothing or minding its own business? No, it isn't a good action. If it's luring someone to come alone to a place where it can apply its killing kiss, as is stated to be its modus operandi in the SRD? Then yes, it's a good action.

Since most situations where one encounters succubi will feature them actively trying to kill you (via the above, or more direct means), this is rarely an issue.
How about demons who give people power (either for their souls or eternal service)?

Kylarra
2010-03-25, 08:54 AM
I think I'm gonna agree that he's "DM-Frakked" as alignment. He'll believe himself to be good, and since 4e doesn't really care about alignment, it won't matter what you put him down as.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-25, 07:30 PM
A Good character can kill Evil people indiscriminately, as long as her intention is to protect innocents. They are always threatening, unless of course they have already been incapacitated by other means. (Someone who is running away is not incapacitated.)
There's a bit of a hiccup here.

You aren't killing Evil people indiscriminately if you are discriminating regarding which Evil people you you kill (i.e. such as not killing those "already incapacitated).

This is not a mere semantic quibble, but the key. Killing indiscriminately is Not Good, no matter who you kill. You must protect Innocents, to be sure, but you use the method that can protect people with the least loss of life. Intention alone does not matter - if you Cloudkill a goblin base and discover that they were holding Innocents (which you accidentally killed), then you did not commit a Good act. Alignment is an Objective morality system; merely believing you are "doing good" doesn't make it so.

Taelas
2010-03-25, 08:03 PM
There's a bit of a hiccup here.

You aren't killing Evil people indiscriminately if you are discriminating regarding which Evil people you you kill (i.e. such as not killing those "already incapacitated).
Yes, this is mere semantic quibble. By "indiscriminately", I meant without looking for anything but the Evil alignment. If they are Evil, you can, as a Good act, kill them, as long as your intention is the protection of innocent people.

Note that I am talking about killing them as a method of stopping them. If they are already incapacitated, killing them is pointless -- unless you're in a situation where you cannot spare anyone to guard them, cannot bring them to the authorities or along with you, and cannot set them free. It would be more humane to simply execute them than to leave them bound and gagged for days until they starve. You would also run the risk having them either get free or be found by someone who sets them free to wreak havoc once again.

Either you kill them or you find some other way of stopping them. Otherwise you cannot defend it as a Good act.


This is not a mere semantic quibble, but the key. Killing indiscriminately is Not Good, no matter who you kill.
If your intention is to protect innocents, and you only kill people who threaten them (which includes all Evil people)? Yes, it is.


You must protect Innocents, to be sure, but you use the method that can protect people with the least loss of life. Intention alone does not matter - if you Cloudkill a goblin base and discover that they were holding Innocents (which you accidentally killed), then you did not commit a Good act. Alignment is an Objective morality system; merely believing you are "doing good" doesn't make it so.
Perhaps you should go back and read my previous post where I specifically point this out. It is the last paragraph of the post you just quoted.

So no, it would not be a Good act, I completely agree. I have said repeatedly that you can kill all Evil people. I have also said that if they threaten innocents, you can freely kill them as well, no matter their alignment. Innocents prisoners whom you accidentally kill change the act. It's all up in the air from there. If you could not have reasonably known they were there, it's probably a Neutral act. If you could have but simply did not do enough scouting, it is potentially Evil. You also have to watch how they respond to the situation. A Good character would be distraught at their deaths. A Neutral character might feel that it is a tragedy, but also that it is an acceptable loss in order to destroy the base. An Evil character would just laugh.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-25, 08:18 PM
Yes, this is mere semantic quibble. By "indiscriminately", I meant without looking for anything but the Evil alignment. If they are Evil, you can, as a Good act, kill them, as long as your intention is the protection of innocent people.

. . .

Perhaps you should go back and read my previous post where I specifically point this out. It is the last paragraph of the post you just quoted.
I'm having trouble reconciling these two points. Does your intention matter when you kill people, or does it not? :smallconfused:

Anyhow, the equation that Evil people = threat to innocents = kill all Evil people is the sort of thing which puts you in the Neutral category.

Why?

Because Good people respect life and that means not killing things all the time. Your description of "good" leads to well-intentioned genocide which, as far as I can see, does not "respect life" under any definition of the phrase.

Riffington
2010-03-25, 08:21 PM
Szar: do you really play that ~1/3 of humans are murderers just looking for their chance to kill innocents?

Math_Mage
2010-03-25, 09:01 PM
Yes, this is mere semantic quibble. By "indiscriminately", I meant without looking for anything but the Evil alignment. If they are Evil, you can, as a Good act, kill them, as long as your intention is the protection of innocent people.

No. You started out with a good intention--protect the innocent from evil people. But you have brought disproportionate retribution to the table. Unless your definition of Evil is so narrow as to restrict it to the mustache-twirling villains who are *constantly* out for the blood of innocents, you are killing people who are, in large part, undeserving of that fate. As Oracle_Hunter says, you are committing well-intentioned genocide on the basis of your Evildar. If you are not discriminating on the basis of action and available knowledge, you cannot claim to be doing anything else.

Taelas
2010-03-25, 10:17 PM
I'm having trouble reconciling these two points. Does your intention matter when you kill people, or does it not? :smallconfused:
It matters. It is not the only thing to do so, however. Intention is but one part of an act, and different intentions create different acts. Protecting innocents by killing those who threaten them is a single act. Killing the same people for a different reason is a different act altogether.

Killing different people (i.e. someone who does not threaten innocents) for the same reason (protecting innocents) is ALSO a different act.


Anyhow, the equation that Evil people = threat to innocents = kill all Evil people is the sort of thing which puts you in the Neutral category.

Why?

Because Good people respect life and that means not killing things all the time. Your description of "good" leads to well-intentioned genocide which, as far as I can see, does not "respect life" under any definition of the phrase.
Killing those who threaten innocent life is a way of respecting life. Anything else makes paladins completely paradoxical; they cannot exist, at least not in their present form, namely that of holy warriors.

Whether that attitude leads to genocide or not does not matter. It is completely and utterly irrelevant. If it is a Good act to kill one person who threatens an innocent person, then it is a Good act to kill a thousand people if each individual person threatens an innocent, and it is a Good act to kill an infinite number of people if each of them threaten an innocent. The quantity of these acts have absolutely no bearing on their alignment.


Szar: do you really play that ~1/3 of humans are murderers just looking for their chance to kill innocents?
I honestly do not bother keeping track of how many Evil humans I have in my games. I do not play strictly by RAW. Any Evil humans in my games are more than willing to kill innocents, which is as far as it goes.


No. You've brought a good intention to the table--protect the innocent from evil people. But you have brought disproportionate retribution to the table. Unless your definition of Evil is so narrow as to restrict it to the mustache-twirling villains who are *constantly* out for the blood of innocents, you are killing people who are, in large part, undeserving of that fate. As Oracle_Hunter says, you are committing well-intentioned genocide on the basis of your Evildar. If you are not discriminating on the basis of action and available knowledge, you cannot claim to be doing anything else.
It is not "my" definition. It is the definition of the RAW.

Let me quote the definitions of the three Evil alignments, as well as the definition of Evil, from the SRD for your convenience:


"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.

Lawful Evil, "Dominator"
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.
Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical," because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.
Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

Neutral Evil, "Malefactor"
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.
Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

Chaotic Evil, "Destroyer"
A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil is sometimes called "demonic" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.
Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.

Math_Mage
2010-03-25, 10:30 PM
"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.

Doesn't fit your definition. Rather, it's quite a bit broader.

Taelas
2010-03-25, 10:37 PM
That is the definition I am working from.

Please explain what you think "my definition" is.

Math_Mage
2010-03-25, 11:07 PM
That is the definition I am working from.

Please explain what you think "my definition" is.

Well, you had no objection to my characterization of Evil as mustache-twirling villains out to kill innocents, so that *appeared* to be an accurate characterization. Is evil that oppresses best returned with slaughter? Is an evil man in a lawful society, constrained from slaughter in the pursuit of his goals because it's inconvenient to deal with the police, deserving of your cutthroat justice? How about the examples I gave previously, per Je dit Viola's elaborations in post 93? Each of those fits the SRD definition. Your Paladin just says, "Ah, they all show up as Evil, they're all after innocents, slaughter the lot."

Taelas
2010-03-25, 11:31 PM
No, they do not fit. You are misunderstanding the definition.

""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."

Note that it says "and", not "or", as you seem to believe. Evil implies all three of those things at once, not simply any one of them.

hamishspence
2010-03-26, 06:08 PM
Note the "implies" bit.

Not just that, but the SRD description is very skimpy. It's entirely possible for none of a persons victims to be innocent, and yet, for the acts to still be evil. A serial killer who only ever targets the "deserving" for murder, torture, etc, is still evil.

Conversely, a person does not have to commit all 3 to be Evil. A tyrannical boss might hurt and oppress his workers, but never kill any- he can still be Evil.

Fiendish Codex 2 lists the Corrupt acts- basically, the ones capable of condemning a Lawful-aligned being to Baator. And not all of them are Killing.

Taelas
2010-03-26, 06:56 PM
Note the "implies" bit.
Which is used because they cannot possibly list all potential acts that are Evil. Any acts that are similar qualify. The sentence still represents the bare minimum required for an Evil alignment, however -- not in the specific acts, but in the level of cruelty.


Not just that, but the SRD description is very skimpy. It's entirely possible for none of a persons victims to be innocent, and yet, for the acts to still be evil. A serial killer who only ever targets the "deserving" for murder, torture, etc, is still evil.
It is the description verbatim from the Player's Handbook as well.

But you're right, it is possible for an Evil person to have never harmed an innocent person, and it is even possible for him to not want to do so -- he would probably be Lawful Evil in that case.

So, allow me to change what I said slightly: It is a Good act to kill someone who is disrespecting life (which automatically includes all Evil beings) if your intention with the act is to respect life.


Conversely, a person does not have to commit all 3 to be Evil. A tyrannical boss might hurt and oppress his workers, but never kill any- he can still be Evil.
It is not impossible but that implies a level of "hurt" and "oppress" to which killing is an appropriate response.


Fiendish Codex 2 lists the Corrupt acts- basically, the ones capable of condemning a Lawful-aligned being to Baator. And not all of them are Killing.
I have not said that all Evil people kill. (Not doing so is an exception rather than the rule, however.)

hamishspence
2010-03-28, 06:18 AM
I tend to favour the Eberron portrayal of Evil alignment- that some characters may be both Evil and Not Deserving of Death.

So being evil does not necessarily imply "a level of hurting and oppression to which killing is an appropriate response"

It's consistant with PHB's "humans tend toward no alignment, not even neutrality"

Neutral people (good/evil axis) aren't 95% of the D&D world's population- they are closer to about 1/3.

One of the tropers on TV Tropes phrased it best, in the Always Chaotic Evil section:


The Eberron campaign setting for D&D 3.5 has gone so far as to explicitly discourage the use of the alignment section of a monster's stats, even for those who are "tied" to a certain alignment. The core book also makes clear that "evil" does not equal "kill on sight" — the tavern owner overcharges for draft and cheats on his wife; are you gonna put the sword to his neck like you would with Lord Dark Von Doompantsington XIII?

Aolis
2010-03-28, 11:03 AM
There are circumstances that lead to conflict that can be made use of to create a D&D campaign for good players including paladins.

There are creatures that you should destroy on sight such as demons and undead.

There are situations where you would fight on sight, such as opposing forces in a war or those raiding your country. Ideally, a good person would capture them but sometime the dice don't roll that way.

You would fight followers of an evil cult, those actually committing a violent crime or those who display obvious signs of supporting evil.

This does not include attacking any member of a race who is minding their own business just because the race is predominately evil. Even should a fight break out, capture should the top priority. A good character would even risk their lives, making the fight more dangerous, in order to capture rather than kill.

Every sentient creature has the freedom of choice. That means that they can choose to change their alignment, however unlikely it is to occur, and not commit any future evil acts. By killing them, you are taking away this opportunity from them. This is not justice nor a respect for their life and dignity. The very minimum would be to ask them immediately to repent their evil ways.

This does not break D&D in any way. As I mentioned in the start, it does make it difficult, but not impossible, for good players to randomly wander through dungeons killing the sentient creatures that live there.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-28, 11:51 AM
One of the tropers on TV Tropes phrased it best, in the Always Chaotic Evil section:

But Ebberon sucks for saying overcharging and cheating make him evil. They are not evil acts by themselves. I say Overcharging is neutral.
Cheating might be evil (argueable), but I don't think it makes you evil aligned.

Kaiser Omnik
2010-03-28, 12:06 PM
The only thing that the PCs need to understand is that this poor NPC is the plaything of Fate (aka the DM).

Seriously, this villain was screwed from the beginning.

hamishspence
2010-03-28, 01:29 PM
But Ebberon sucks for saying overcharging and cheating make him evil. They are not evil acts by themselves. I say Overcharging is neutral.
Cheating might be evil (argueable), but I don't think it makes you evil aligned.

BoVD says exactly the same things- excessive greed is a symptom of evil alignment, betrayal (and cheating) are evil acts.

In D&D, a character does not have to be a complete monster to be evil- evil can be fairly banal.

"It is a good act to kill all Evil beings if the intention is to respect life" sort of misses the whole "respect life" bit.

Protecting others directly from evil beings, yes.
Even killing evil beings who have been committing serious crimes.

But killing a being because they detect as evil, with no other evidence of wrongdoing, no. Since, as mentioned, not all evil beings have done acts "deserving of death"

Riffington
2010-03-28, 01:46 PM
Let's be clear what overcharging means. It does not mean "charging a higher price than others would charge" - that is neutral. It means "charging more than the listed price", and is a form of stealing. Pretty mild as far as evil goes, but it can take you there. You just have to become that person who's generally looking for the extra little bit for himself, who's quick to exploit a situation for personal gain even if someone else suffers a little, etc.

Taelas
2010-03-28, 02:22 PM
BoVD says exactly the same things- excessive greed is a symptom of evil alignment, betrayal (and cheating) are evil acts.
Committing a single Evil act, even repeatedly, does not make you Evil.


In D&D, a character does not have to be a complete monster to be evil- evil can be fairly banal.
Wrong. They do have to. That is the entire point.


"It is a good act to kill all Evil beings if the intention is to respect life" sort of misses the whole "respect life" bit.
No. It does not.


Protecting others directly from evil beings, yes.
Even killing evil beings who have been committing serious crimes.

But killing a being because they detect as evil, with no other evidence of wrongdoing, no. Since, as mentioned, not all evil beings have done acts "deserving of death"
If they have an Evil alignment? Yes, they have.

hamishspence
2010-03-28, 02:37 PM
According to Champions of Ruin, evil alignment is the result of consistantly committing evil acts.

They do not have to be big ones.

Savage Species, BoVD, Champions of Ruin, Exemplars of Evil- every single alignment sourcebook makes the point that Evil beings aren't always Complete Monsters.

Sample NPCs in sourcebooks like Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, and its many splatbooks, are often Evil without being out-and-out villains that the party are expected to slay on the spot.

Heroes of Horror- makes the point that if you kill someone because of their "evil aura" you will be jailed for murder.

In short- in 3.0-3.5, alignment tends to follow a theme that Evil beings are everywhere in society- you can't go around killing them just for being Evil- that makes you a murderer- you have to have a justification, like direct defense of yourself or others.

Even in 2nd ed, the point was emphasised that not all beings with an evil alignment, had done enough evil to register on Detect Evil- only Know Alignment would pick it up.

in 3.5, Know Alignment was effectively folded into the Detect Evil, Detect Law, etc. spells- so you can detect a creature as "evil" but you don't necessarily know that they are utter monsters- they might be merely self-centred and generally unpleasant.

Taelas
2010-03-28, 03:01 PM
According to Champions of Ruin, evil alignment is the result of consistantly committing evil acts.
Consistently. Committing one single Evil act is not "consistently committing evil acts" (even if you do so repeatedly).


They do not have to be big ones.
Yes, practically speaking, they do. Committing a small Evil act (like overcharging on the bill) does bring you closer to being Evil, but if it is the only thing you do, you will never cross the boundary.

The sheer number of "small Evil acts" you'd have to commit to become Evil by doing nothing but those small acts makes it practically impossible.


Savage Species, BoVD, Champions of Ruin, Exemplars of Evil- every single alignment sourcebook makes the point that Evil beings aren't always Complete Monsters.
I point you once again towards the alignment section in the Player's Handbook.

Also, I am not talking about a Complete Monster (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CompleteMonster). You do not have be that far gone to warrant execution.


Sample NPCs in sourcebooks like Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, and its many splatbooks, are often Evil without being out-and-out villains that the party are expected to slay on the spot.
Of course not. You are completely misunderstanding my position. I am not saying this is what every Good adventurer should do -- I am saying it is a valid course of action for a Good character. Killing all Evil creatures on sight -- with verification that they are, indeed, Evil -- is a very poor thing to do, but it can be Good.


Heroes of Horror- makes the point that if you kill someone because of their "evil aura" you will be jailed for murder.
Certainly. Killing someone because they are Evil can easily be an illegal act (especially since, with them being dead, you can't verify that they were in fact Evil). That does not disqualify it from being Good, however.


In short- in 3.0-3.5, alignment tends to follow a theme that Evil beings are everywhere in society- you can't go around killing them just for being Evil- that makes you a murderer- you have to have a justification, like direct defense of yourself or others.
Evil creatures threaten others. They do it by being Evil. Otherwise, they would not be Evil.

TheMadLinguist
2010-03-28, 03:33 PM
Put as many restrictions as possible upon himself, then level drain himself down to level 1, then die. The beast will be only slightly more harmful than the average housecat. Stick a craft contingent geas on himself (contingencies stay with the body), and a craft contingent "flesh to stone".

Turn into beast->Must voluntarily fail save-> Turn into stone. Problem solved.


Ask the foremost CG cleric what to do.

Planeshift to a CG god's backyard, and ask for help.

Become a necropolitan, then seal himself away permanently in concrete. In a dead magic zone. An ethereal solid dead magic zone. In fact, let's say a demiplane that has no magic whatsoever, so it's impossible to leave.

Restrain himself as much as possible, buy a helm of opposite alignment, and get somebody competent to jam it on his head when he dies and transforms so he only hunts evil.

Or use one of those sensory altering spells to screw up his detect goods so he only attacks constructs or plant monsters or something.



That said, I'd peg him as chaotic neutral.

hamishspence
2010-03-28, 03:53 PM
Consistently. Committing one single Evil act is not "consistently committing evil acts" (even if you do so repeatedly).

What is the difference between committing the same Evil act numerous times and committing a range of different evil acts?



Yes, practically speaking, they do. Committing a small Evil act (like overcharging on the bill) does bring you closer to being Evil, but if it is the only thing you do, you will never cross the boundary.

What source do you have for this? Champions of Ruin seems to suggest otherwise.


The sheer number of "small Evil acts" you'd have to commit to become Evil by doing nothing but those small acts makes it practically impossible.

Where does it say that?


Killing all Evil creatures on sight -- with verification that they are, indeed, Evil -- is a very poor thing to do, but it can be Good.

Not according to BoED.



Certainly. Killing someone because they are Evil can easily be an illegal act (especially since, with them being dead, you can't verify that they were in fact Evil). That does not disqualify it from being Good, however.

BoVD and BoED make it clear this only applies to creatures of "consummate, irredeemable evil".


Evil creatures threaten others. They do it by being Evil. Otherwise, they would not be Evil.

By doing evil acts, to be precise. Many of which, while punishable, should not be punished with death- to kill without proof that a person deserves to die (and an Evil alignment is not proof in itself) is to fail to respect life. On a pretty severe scale.

To sum up- to avoid their killings being evil, characters need to be very very careful. "It detects as evil" is not enough.

It might have been, in 1st and and 2nd ed, when Detect Evil worked differently from Know Alignment. It is not, however, valid in 3.0-3.5.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-28, 05:49 PM
BoVD and BoED make it clear this only applies to creatures of "consummate, irredeemable evil".


So killing evil god on sight, but nothing else? Because everything else can be redeemed even Mind flayers (can be exalted) and Succubi (can be Paladins).

Riffington
2010-03-28, 05:57 PM
Why can't deities change alignment?

TheMadLinguist
2010-03-28, 06:25 PM
Can't we just agree that the BoED, BoVD, and FCII have really dumb rules, and leave it at that?

Mystic Muse
2010-03-28, 06:30 PM
Can't we just agree that the BoED, BoVD, and FCII have really dumb rules, and leave it at that?

Can't we agree that the players handbook is vague at best and that other splatbooks define alignment much better and leave it at that?see, it works both ways.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-28, 06:41 PM
Why can't deities change alignment?

Because it has never happened. Every other type has 1 of its own that changed alignment, but I've never seen a god change alignment.

I did see Dumbo, but I still haven't seen in real life a Elephant fly.

waterpenguin43
2010-03-28, 06:42 PM
Can't we just agree that the BoED and BoVD and FCII have really dumb rules, and leave it at that?

I believe I just fixed it for you.


Why can't deities change alignment?
Lolth did. It's perfectly possible.

Mystic Muse
2010-03-28, 08:38 PM
although this may have been a houserule by my friend it makes sense. If all of a deities worshippers are of a certain alignment the deity is that alignment. Also, if a demon can have its alignment changed a god definitely can.

Taelas
2010-03-28, 11:40 PM
What is the difference between committing the same Evil act numerous times and committing a range of different evil acts?
I worded that poorly. There's no real difference, but committing only one Evil act, even repeatedly, makes it much harder to qualify for being Evil. I suppose it is possible, though.


What source do you have for this? Champions of Ruin seems to suggest otherwise.
I have not read Champions of Ruin, so I do not know what it suggests. I cannot give you a "source" for this beyond the alignment description in the Player's Handbook; it is simple logic. You can commit Evil acts without changing alignment -- thus a minimum level of Evil acts must be committed before someone becomes Evil. That minimum level must be assumed to be "hurting, oppressing, and killing others", as that is the definition of the Evil alignment.


Where does it say that?
See above.


Not according to BoED.
Either you or the Book of Exalted Deeds does not take the motivation into account, which is where things break down. The motivation is not "because they are Evil", but "to protect innocent creatures", or at the very least, "to respect life". This is the crucial linchpin; this is what makes it a Good act.


BoVD and BoED make it clear this only applies to creatures of "consummate, irredeemable evil".
Because you do not consider the motivation.

Killing an Evil creature because it has an Evil alignment is not a Good act. Killing a creature that expresses sufficient disrespect for life (which Evil creatures automatically either already have or will do in the future, otherwise they would not be Evil), in order to protect innocents or to respect life, is.

Also -- regardless of what the Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds say -- I would not label killing a creature of "consummate, irredeemable evil" for no other reason than that it is Evil a Good act. It is a very poor reason.


By doing evil acts, to be precise. Many of which, while punishable, should not be punished with death- to kill without proof that a person deserves to die (and an Evil alignment is not proof in itself) is to fail to respect life. On a pretty severe scale.
It is proof. An Evil alignment means the person has committed acts that allows someone to kill them as a Good action if he does so in order to protect innocents or respect life. Any other interpretation ignores the definition of Evil in the Player's Handbook.


To sum up- to avoid their killings being evil, characters need to be very very careful. "It detects as evil" is not enough.
No, which is why I have included the clauses "in order to respect life" and "to protect innocents". The fact that they have the Evil alignment simply means that they qualify automatically. It is not the Evil alignment in and of itself which warrants slaying, but the acts that it must logically mean the creature has committed.

If a character loses sight of those reasons, the hammer falls.

It is not the only way to play a Good character. In fact, it is a rather poor example of such. But it is logically possible.


It might have been, in 1st and and 2nd ed, when Detect Evil worked differently from Know Alignment. It is not, however, valid in 3.0-3.5.
Yes, it is, unless you ignore the definition of Evil provided in the Player's Handbook.

Mystic Muse
2010-03-28, 11:53 PM
I worded that poorly. There's no real difference, but committing only one Evil act, even repeatedly, makes it much harder to qualify for being Evil. I suppose it is possible, though.


Murder
Torture
Rape
Genocide
Interfering with a person's soul in a negative way.

do any of these things repeatedly and you'll definitely qualify as evil. it isn't hard. I'm sure I could think of more but I'm tired and am going to sleep soon.

hamishspence
2010-03-29, 04:13 AM
The fact that they have the Evil alignment simply means that they qualify automatically.

This is the bit that is contradicted in numerous other sources.

The abusive spouse/parent hurts and oppresses their spouse/children on a regular basis- enough to qualify as being Evil- this doesn't mean that slaughtering them on the spot in order to "protect innocent life" is a Good act.

Your argument is basically

"A creature with evil alignment has, by definition, committed acts deserving of death"

and

"A creature with evil alignment is, by definition, enough of a threat to others, that killing them, based on this presumption of their being a threat, is a Good act"

Neither of which is supported.

It does not in fact, logically follow, that they have committed enough acts to deserve an on-the-spot slaying, nor, that they are that much of a threat to their neighbours.

The numerous "Evil but fairly harmless" NPCs in Faerun supports this.

In Waterdeep: City of Splendours- one of the nobles is evil because they are a malicious gossip, who delights in the misery their rumour-monging causes others.

But malicious gossip is not exactly a threat that calls for instant slaying.

I've said this before in an earlier thread:




In the 3rd party book Quintessenial Paladin 2, there were 3 tiers:

Low-Grade Evil Everywhere
Roughly 1/3 of the human population are evil. This is not something the paladin can defeat. Using diplomacy or intimidate to steer "grasping landlord" toward Good might be appropiate, but stronger action is not warranted.

Evil As A Choice
Anyone who detects as Evil is probably a criminal, a terrible and wilful sinner, or both. Still, the paladin is not obligated to take action- in this campaign, detecting someone as Evil is a warning, not a call to arms. The paladin should probably investigate this Evil person and see if he poses a threat to the common folk, but he cannot automatically assume that this particular Evil person deserves to be dealt with immediately.

Evil As A Supernatural Taint
Merely human evil would not be detected. A murderer who kills randomly would be evil on the human scale, but the paladin's senses operate on the divine level.
However, if this murderer was killing as part of a sacrificial ritual to summon a demon, then his evil would be supernatural in nature and therefor detectable by the paladin. This is a morally black-and-white setup- anyone who is Evil should be investigated or even attacked immediately.

Given that in PHB "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral", and in BoED being evil is not enough to justify action, most D&D games should by this principle, be somewhere around Evil Everywhere.

However, some players seem to play Good characters as "radardins" killing anything that pings as evil.

Taelas
2010-03-29, 06:19 AM
This is the bit that is contradicted in numerous other sources.
Really.


The abusive spouse/parent hurts and oppresses their spouse/children on a regular basis- enough to qualify as being Evil- this doesn't mean that slaughtering them on the spot in order to "protect innocent life" is a Good act.
Your assumption is that it qualifies them as Evil. I dispute that assumption.


Your argument is basically

"A creature with evil alignment has, by definition, committed acts deserving of death"

and

"A creature with evil alignment is, by definition, enough of a threat to others, that killing them, based on this presumption of their being a threat, is a Good act"
Yes, as I have summarized multiple times.


Neither of which is supported.
Yes, it is. The definition of Evil supports it entirely.


It does not in fact, logically follow, that they have committed enough acts to deserve an on-the-spot slaying, nor, that they are that much of a threat to their neighbours.
It does logically follow that they have committed enough acts to equal the level of "hurt, oppress, and kill" of the Evil definition.

The question becomes "Does someone who does that deserve execution?" I say 'yes'.


The numerous "Evil but fairly harmless" NPCs in Faerun supports this.
It is your interpretation that they are "fairly harmless". You claim they are fairly harmless because you do not think an Evil alignment automatically deserves retribution.


In Waterdeep: City of Splendours- one of the nobles is evil because they are a malicious gossip, who delights in the misery their rumour-monging causes others.

But malicious gossip is not exactly a threat that calls for instant slaying.
That depends entirely on the nature of the "gossip".


I've said this before in an earlier thread:
Third party material matters about as much as houserules, i.e. not at all.

hamishspence
2010-03-29, 06:30 AM
It is your interpretation that they are "fairly harmless". You claim they are fairly harmless because you do not think an Evil alignment automatically deserves retribution.

I claim it because I've read the novels, seen exactly how the "evil" characters behave- and how paladins behave around them.

The general portrayal of Evil-aligned characters in D&D does not appear to be "Kill on sight"

If a rulebook describes a character as Evil- and outlines the evil acts they do (like reputation-smearing, or bullying) then it's pretty clear that they are both Evil, and not necessarily enough of a threat, for it to be justified, for a paladin to kill them on sight as "a danger to others"

BoED gives 3 conditions for acceptable violence.

It must have just cause (which means primarily that it must be directed at evil, however it gives the example of a village of evil aligned orcs who do not attack their neighbours, and says there is not just cause for attacking them.

It must have good intentions- as you mentioned earlier, protecting others from a threat is a good intention- but, without just cause, it's not enough.

It must be discriminatory- violence toward "noncombatants"- like orc women and children, is not justified. Even if the children might grow up to be bandits.

So, you can be evil, and not deserving of execution.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-29, 06:39 AM
It must be discriminatory- violence toward "noncombatants"- like orc women and children, is not justified. Even if the children might grow up to be bandits.

So, you can be evil, and not deserving of execution.

Isn't it sexist to claim woman as noncombatants? Look at the Drow Woman fight/kill all the time there.

I'll grant you children, but I say Woman are case by case basis.

olentu
2010-03-29, 06:54 AM
Isn't it sexist to claim woman as noncombatants? Look at the Drow Woman fight/kill all the time there.

I'll grant you children, but I say Woman are case by case basis.


Actually as I recall there is a passage in the book of exalted deeds that says that discrimination among other things remains evil regardless of common practices. Though as always I may be remembering this incorrectly.

But perhaps in the example ork women will never fight for any reason ever and so are always non combatants because they actually will not ever participate in combat.

Taelas
2010-03-29, 07:00 AM
I claim it because I've read the novels, seen exactly how the "evil" characters behave- and how paladins behave around them.
Meaning nothing. Novels are not applicable here; they are stories, not D&D rulebooks. Regardless, I doubt you can say you have seen every single act said Evil characters have taken.


The general portrayal of Evil-aligned characters in D&D does not appear to be "Kill on sight"
No, it isn't.


If a rulebook describes a character as Evil- and outlines the evil acts they do (like reputation-smearing, or bullying) then it's pretty clear that they are both Evil, and not necessarily enough of a threat, for it to be justified, for a paladin to kill them on sight as "a danger to others"
Rulebooks are not infallible.


BoED gives 3 conditions for acceptable violence.

It must have just cause (which means primarily that it must be directed at evil, however it gives the example of a village of evil aligned orcs who do not attack their neighbours, and says there is not just cause for attacking them.

It must have good intentions- as you mentioned earlier, protecting others from a threat is a good intention- but, without just cause, it's not enough.

It must be discriminatory- violence toward "noncombatants"- like orc women and children, is not justified. Even if the children might grow up to be bandits.
The Book of Exalted Deeds refers to Exalted characters, who are a step above Good.

Regardless, it is also horribly written, and should be dismissed on that alone.


So, you can be evil, and not deserving of execution.
You cannot be Evil and not have committed acts that would make it a Good action to kill you.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-29, 07:05 AM
On the subjects of novels: there are evil Deathless in Ebberron. Yes the good undead can be evil.

It was in a novel with a elf deathless Sorceror: if you stayed the night: she will kill you if you try to leave.

So I think Novels show opposite of reality since evil deathless are a contradiction.

Geiger Counter
2010-03-29, 07:17 AM
You cannot be Evil and not have committed acts that would make it a Good action to kill you.

I disagree with this, I really like the third season of Lexx and plan on basing my cosmotology on it. planet fire is a planet of evil and planet water is a planet of good. There's one city where the people are really petty mean spirited, ungrateful and have a mob mentality, but they aren't baby eating evil. And another city where the people are mindless bureaucrats that make life for other people unpleasant. The system is flawed though, they met a guy on one of the floating water cities and he betrayed them and took their shuttles. My guess is that he is evil by nature but simply didn't have the opportunity to express it in life.


So I think Novels show opposite of reality since evil deathless are a contradiction.

both deathless and undead are really contradictions and quite impossible with any consistent set of physics. the negative version of air is void, so negative energy simply destroys all gases. apply negative energy to water and it becomes saltier until it turns completely to salt. It erodes earth, a process I though had to do with wind and water and it turns fire that wasn't burning anything into ash. And yet when it comnes into contact with flesh it not only preserves it but makes it more durable. positive and negative energy is supposed to be oposites yet they create indental creatures when used in high amounts.

hamishspence
2010-03-29, 07:35 AM
Rulebooks are not infallible.

Including the PHB- it's portrayal of evil alignment is a generalization and does not apply to all evil characters.



The Book of Exalted Deeds refers to Exalted characters, who are a step above Good.

Actually, it makes it clear that many of the rules cover evil acts (such as killing beings, even evil beings, without just cause.) And the limitations of being Good- if you don't adhere to at least the minimum standard, you are Neutral at best, not good.


You cannot be Evil and not have committed acts that would make it a Good action to kill you.

Incorrect. Pretty much every alignment-based sourcebook makes this clear.

Heck, Lawful good paladins and Lawful evil clerics can be members of the same organization (paladins and clerics of Wee Jas, for example). If the paladins considered it a Good act to kill their fellow devotees because they were "a threat to others" such organizations would tend to break up rather fast.

Cisturn
2010-03-29, 07:44 AM
oh opinion based arguments they never get old. I'd say to the OP that the guy is LAWFUL Evil, it sucks and he's probably a good guy at heart but i think alignment should be based on actions and not mindsets or intentions. Though strangely if your PC's are able to kill him for good, i'd show show something like his soul being released from the curse and going to one of the good afterlives

hamishspence
2010-03-29, 09:17 AM
For a couple of examples (from Core) of how a being can be Evil-aligned and have committed no evil acts at all- a Good being who has literally just failed their save against a Helm of Opposite alignment- and a newly hatched Chromatic Dragon.

In both cases-

Alignment: Evil. Amount of acts committed deserving of death: Zero.

In these cases, alignment is based entirely on outlook on life, not acts.

That said, under normal circumstances, outlook is not enough on its own.

Fiendish Codex 2 goes into some detail on how Lawful Evil societies work- the children are brought up to believe in the Lawful Evil virtues, during their upbringing they are encouraged to beat and torment each other, and at their coming of age ceremony, they commit an evil act (again, involving tormenting younger ones)

So, you can be evil through the combination of your outlook on life (drummed into you) and your evil acts (which don't have to involve killing).

As to the original situation:


Lets say the villain of a campaign looked into some ancient way of gaining immortality, but didn't notice the cost. He was a Chaotic Good Human at the time.

After it's done, he finds out that he has 2 choices: He either must kill one Good aligned person per week to retain his sanity, or allow himself to go insane, at which point he'd basically become an animal that is constantly hunting people.

He can smell Good, and while, as a beast, that would drive him to kill more Good than not-Good, the beast would not really differentiate all that much, so more people would be at risk of death than are at risk now. (Neutral & Evil people)

He chooses to commit the 1 murder per month, because he knows that he'd otherwise become a beast capable of killing a dozen people per day, on average. He sets up his lair near a human village, which he visits once a week to commit this murder.

He did look into possible alternatives, but if he dies, he'll come back as that beast, and he's got a ton of ways to escape all sorts of imprisonment that as a beast he could still use.

If he kills more than one person per week, the extra kills go towards later weeks. He doesn't like killing people early though, and only does it if necessary.

He has no way of knowing anyone else's alignment, and assumes each person he kills was Good, and hates doing it. He's not entirely sure what he is now, but wishes he was Human again... Or dead.

What is his alignment now?

it seems like a case of "Committing evil acts to "survive" as a personality"

Champions of Valor gives as possibles reason why some evil beings may not be deserving of death- they may have become evil through starvation (which forces them to commit evil acts to survive) or the worship of evil gods.

Its a bit like being a vampire that must kill its victims to live and stay sane, in that respect.

Routinely commiting evil acts- Evil alignment (Champions of Ruin).

However, its a more sympathetic evil- since the character wasn't exactly aware that this was how it would turn out.

Riffington
2010-03-29, 10:04 AM
it is simple logic. You can commit Evil acts without changing alignment -- thus a minimum level of Evil acts must be committed before someone becomes Evil. That minimum level must be assumed to be "hurting, oppressing, and killing others", as that is the definition of the Evil alignment.
Your interpretation requires a very unusual reading of the word "and". (Among other things, it'd make a murderous demon who never leaves his victims alive long enough to oppress non-evil). Wouldn't a more logical threshold/minimum level for evil deeds be "worse than 2/3 of the human race"?

Yukitsu
2010-03-29, 11:38 AM
My vote? Martyrdom. He should kill the closest good person to himself, which is himself. He preserves his sanity and dies good.

hamishspence
2010-03-29, 12:10 PM
Wouldn't a more logical threshold/minimum level for evil deeds be "worse than 2/3 of the human race"?

This seems a bit more reasonable.

The logic also seems a bit iffy. Yes, a very Good character can commit one or two minor evil acts without changing from Good, a Neutral character bordering on Good can commit a few minor evil acts without changing from Neutral.

However, a Neutral bordering on Evil character might only need to commit minor evil acts to be deemed Evil.

Alignment is partly acts, and partly personality- a person "raised evil" so to speak, won't need to do much evil to be deemed Evil-aligned. They're out for themselves, they like to hurt people (possibly emotionally, possibly physically)- but they aren't necessarily murderers.

The tavern bully who beats up people who comes into "his" bar, the malicious gossip, the corrupt cop who turns a blind eye because he's being paid off, all these are good examples of "small scale" evil characters.

And the various sourcebooks frequently include examples of this kind of character.

Math_Mage
2010-03-29, 01:14 PM
I think the main problem here is that Szar_Lakol is adhering strictly to the ridiculously narrow definition of evil given in the PHB (or rather, to his ridiculously narrow interpretation of the PHB definition), and rejecting how it is portrayed everywhere else because "rulebooks are not infallible." This is an internally inconsistent position. This is why I quit the argument days ago.

hamishspence
2010-03-29, 01:19 PM
Yes- I like the way the other sources (novels, splatbooks, etc) portray it- allows for more nuances- evil-aligned antivillains, evil-aligned Well Intentioned Extremists, etc.


Champions of Ruin had a whole collection of different types of evil character- they aren't all the cliched psychopathic evil type that PHB portrays evil characters as.

Even BoVD allows for "Naive Fools" and various others.

Similarly, I can't think of a single D&D novel which has paladins walking through towns, scanning for evil beings, and slaughtering them on the spot.

Even when an evil character is being brought before a paladin judge (such as Artemis Entreri being brought before Gareth Dragonsbane in Road of the Patriarch-

the important issue isn't "Is he evil?" but "Has he done anything, in our jurisdiction, deserving of death?"

Math_Mage
2010-03-29, 02:32 PM
Even when an evil character is being brought before a paladin judge (such as Artemis Entreri being brought before Gareth Dragonsbane in Road of the Patriarch-

the important issue isn't "Is he evil?" but "Has he done anything, in our jurisdiction, deserving of death?"

Well, to be fair, that's to satisfy the Lawful as much as to satisfy the Good. But since the example that keeps coming up is "LG" radardins, the point is still valid.