PDA

View Full Version : Alignment of this action?



WarKitty
2010-10-09, 10:16 PM
Yes, it's another alignment thread. :smallyuk:

So I'm playing a NG character. We've captured this guy. He's a known high-level mob member. I am well aware both that he has a considerable resources should he escape to hunt us down, and that he has no compunctions about breaking his word. There is no prison nearby other than the city he came from, in which he will certainly break out. We have a long journey ahead during which he would have ample opportunity to escape.

What would be the good action to take in this situation? On one hand, slaughtering a helpless prisoner is typically evil. On the other hand...I'm not playing stupid good. This guy will likely escape (we're level 3, we don't have that many tricks up our sleeves) and come back to try to kill us.

Nanoblack
2010-10-09, 10:32 PM
Are there any "Aces" up your sleeve that you could pull? Alternately, try thinking from the prisoners perspective. Is there anything you could do that would make escaping a worse option than staying with the merciful goodie-little-two-shoes?

If you weren't asking for advice other than just whether killing him as is would be evil... What do you know of his organization? If he dies who will replace him? Oftentimes it's the inexperienced follow up who is the worse of two evils, as they usually lack forethought and will often shell out more resources to hinder your party.

If you are feeling in a justicar-type mood, what crimes (specifically) has he commited that you can personally attest to? Even with the risk of him escaping and whatnot, I can't see a NG character suddenly having a change of heart and slaughtering him on the spot. If it really came down to a point where it was do or die, I can see a sudden decision to kill him rather than having him risk your live to keep him intact (In combat for instance).

I suppose if you were looking for a general alignment based answer, what type of good are you playing? Evil must be eradicated or merciful martyr? Or something in between? Neutral good can be many things, but most of all it's based on the specific character, so in the end it's really based off of behavior from previous sessions. Do what comes naturally for the character.

HunterOfJello
2010-10-09, 10:33 PM
Kill him if he deserves it and it would be in the best interest of society. Governments do it all the time.


I never understood the "killing humans in d&d is evil" mantra. If you knocked out a troll that was on his way to massacre a village, you wouldn't heal him back up then let him loose on the world again. Just because an npc is humanoid doesn't mean he isn't a monster on the inside. Killing evil or vile humanoids can be a good action.

WarKitty
2010-10-09, 10:37 PM
The particular character is a NG druid, typically fairly laid back you-don't-bother-me-I-won't-bother-you. He's high-level enough in the mob to enforce payback but he's not high enough that getting killed is going to be a power shakeup. Don't know specific crimes but I do know he was just trying to kill us for a powerful artifact, despite the fact that we were willing to give it to him if he'd pay our salaries (as he told us the original contractor was dead).

P.S. the actual situation played out without my input, as my less good party members sent him down to see the witch in the middle of the dungeon, and he died to a trap we had all forgotten about.

As far as keeping him, we have tying him up and no ranks in use rope among the party. :smalltongue:

Grynning
2010-10-09, 10:37 PM
Well, if he's intended to be a recurring villain, the DM may have him escape no matter what you decide...

However, if you really have the choice, a neutral or chaotic good character would avoid killing him if possible, but probably wouldn't hesitate to shoot him in the back if he runs away, or kill him if he tries to fight the party again. A LG character would try to capture and bring him to justice regardless of the difficulties involved.

Manacles aren't too expensive and are pretty difficult to get out of, if you can get some. Also, this is borderline, but since it's D&D land you can technically keep him unconscious with non-lethal damage the whole time without killing him (since non-lethal damage never actually converts to lethal). Of course, the morality of beating the guy mercilessly on the entire trip back is obviously on the darker side of gray.

Edit: Oh, never mind then. That was a fast resolution...are you playing the game right now?

WarKitty
2010-10-09, 10:40 PM
Well, if he's intended to be a recurring villain, the DM may have him escape no matter what you decide...

However, if you really have the choice, a neutral or chaotic good character would avoid killing him if possible, but probably wouldn't hesitate to shoot him in the back if he runs away, or kill him if he tries to fight the party again. A LG character would try to capture and bring him to justice regardless of the difficulties involved.

Manacles aren't too expensive and are pretty difficult to get out of, if you can get some. Also, this is borderline, but since it's D&D land you can technically keep him unconscious with non-lethal damage the whole time without killing him (since non-lethal damage never actually converts to lethal). Of course, the morality of beating the guy mercilessly on the entire trip back is obviously on the darker side of gray.

Edit: Oh, never mind then. That was a fast resolution...are you playing the game right now?

Yes, this was two sessions ago.

Edit: oh you meant now-now. No, I was just using the historical present tense, asking a hypothetical.

Dr.Epic
2010-10-09, 10:45 PM
Have you killed any neutral monsters? How's this any different? I'm assuming since he's a mob boss he can't be good. I'd suggest Mark of Justice but you're party is too low and that could always be removed.

Urpriest
2010-10-09, 10:49 PM
It would be entertaining to give the guy an impromptu trial and then execute him, but I could see that backfiring.

WarKitty
2010-10-09, 10:53 PM
It would be entertaining to give the guy an impromptu trial and then execute him, but I could see that backfiring.

Not to mention several members of our party have the attention span of a hummingbird. :smalltongue:

Knaight
2010-10-09, 10:53 PM
There is more to your character than Neutral good right? Think about how your character would act from that perspective, and ignore alignment.

WarKitty
2010-10-09, 10:55 PM
There is more to your character than Neutral good right? Think about how your character would act from that perspective, and ignore alignment.

To be fair my character would probably be thinking the same thing. Heck I'm thinking the same thing. I mean, she's not thinking "well is this within the alignment the paper says" but she is I'm sure thinking "is it right to kill this guy?" It's a fairly inexperienced 17 year old, she's never had a situation like this before!

I'm not even sure how I'd answer the "is this right?" question if it suddenly came up in RL, for that matter.

mucat
2010-10-09, 11:03 PM
The thought "I am neutral good, so what should I do?" should never be a part of the equation. Alignment describes a character; it doesn't define them. More important than her alignment are her views on violence and justice, her faith in social institutions that might help her rein this guy in without killing him, her sense of duty to others who might be hurt if she releases him. Decide what the character would do, not what the alignment would do.

WarKitty
2010-10-09, 11:08 PM
The thought "I am neutral good, so what should I do?" should never be a part of the equation. Alignment describes a character; it doesn't define them. More important than her alignment are her views on violence and justice, her faith in social institutions that might help her rein this guy in without killing him, her sense of duty to others who might be hurt if she releases him. Decide what the character would do, not what the alignment would do.

Didn't I just answer that? Make the question "what would the good or right action to do in this case be?" Same difference here. In character or out of character I really don't know. It's very clear that the local jails aren't going to be of any use. As for the rest, it's rather muddy.

Edit: wow that sounds passive-aggressive upon re-reading it. Working on a rephrasing.

lsfreak
2010-10-09, 11:10 PM
The thought "I am neutral good, so what should I do?" should never be a part of the equation. Alignment describes a character; it doesn't define them. More important than her alignment are her views on violence and justice, her faith in social institutions that might help her rein this guy in without killing him, her sense of duty to others who might be hurt if she releases him. Decide what the character would do, not what the alignment would do.

A character who is conscious about right and wrong will ask that question, though, if they are in a new situation. I'd certainly ask it. I'd probably have to default to "Is more evil likely to come about by killing him here, or letting him go?" In which case I'd kill him in the least painful way I could come up with.

Jallorn
2010-10-09, 11:21 PM
You could maim him in some way, or beat him to a pulp frequently enough to keep him unconscious, brutal, yes, but considering the danger I think most people of the world would agree it was necessary and kinder than killing him.

Coidzor
2010-10-09, 11:27 PM
my less good party members sent him down to see the witch in the middle of the dungeon

What a curious euphemism...

Knaight
2010-10-09, 11:30 PM
To be fair my character would probably be thinking the same thing. Heck I'm thinking the same thing. I mean, she's not thinking "well is this within the alignment the paper says" but she is I'm sure thinking "is it right to kill this guy?" It's a fairly inexperienced 17 year old, she's never had a situation like this before!

That provides useful information. Some degree of naivete can be expected, along with the fear of being thrown into the situation she was, thus she will have two conflicting ideas at the very least, the idea that people can improve and should be forgiven, and the idea that she is in way over her head and that this guy represents a real threat. Given the emotional aspect of the situation, "what is good" is less likely to be her main consideration, odds are something more emotional, such as "What would Role Model X do?", with role models drawn both from childhood fantasy and idealism and her experience in the real world, both of which are exaggerated due to her youth.

Rising Phoenix
2010-10-09, 11:30 PM
Have you tried talking to him? Why is he doing the things he does? Is there any way he'd change his ways?

It could be a long journey, but redeeming him could be fun.

As for killing him outright: You're a Druid, nature is cruel and you know that. It just doesn't sit well in your conscience.

From where I am standing killing anything is never a good act. It is either neutral if done for sustenance, self defence and in a none cruel way. Or evil if done in a manner that causes suffering.

From a pragmatic point of view: Killing him would be the easy, clean and somewhat dirty way to get rid of him if you know what I mean.

Strong neutral act from where I am standing


That provides useful information. Some degree of naivete can be expected, along with the fear of being thrown into the situation she was, thus she will have two conflicting ideas at the very least, the idea that people can improve and should be forgiven, and the idea that she is in way over her head and that this guy represents a real threat. Given the emotional aspect of the situation, "what is good" is less likely to be her main consideration, odds are something more emotional, such as "What would Role Model X do?", with role models drawn both from childhood fantasy and idealism and her experience in the real world, both of which are exaggerated due to her youth.

I like this too.

herrhauptmann
2010-10-09, 11:40 PM
You could maim him in some way, or beat him to a pulp frequently enough to keep him unconscious, brutal, yes, but considering the danger I think most people of the world would agree it was necessary and kinder than killing him.

Amputated limbs can be regenerated. He's probably got the cash/contacts to get that done. Besides, intentionally maiming/disfiguring a character is probably just as evil as killing a bound prisoner.

Keeping him unconscious with nonlethal damage doesn't have to be described as pounding on him until your knuckles are torn open and he's a bloody mess. Describe it as one very solid blow to the back of the head with a billy club or sap. Have the party rogue do it for SA if the Dm doesn't like the idea. Or a CDG with a sap, a strictly non lethal weapon. Doesn't the CDG do full damage, crit, and sneak attack when performed? 1d4*2 +Xd6 of nonlethal sounds pretty decent.

I'm in favor of the 'holding a trial' option. If you're unsure of being impartial, offer him a trial by combat. Equal rules for both sides. Nonmagic weapon of choice, no buffing, no interference. Attempted escape means death. Your champion (party warrior) has the option of admitting defeat before his own death, which would count as a victory for the mobster without anyone dying.
And if he wins, let him go. Give him a days worth of trail rations, and the weapon he used (perhaps everything he had on him that was definitely his when you took him prisoner.)

Thajocoth
2010-10-09, 11:42 PM
Untie him. Toss him a sword. THEN kill him. If he has a particular weapon he likes to use, give him that one, just to be sporting.

Marnath
2010-10-09, 11:47 PM
Have you tried talking to him? Why is he doing the things he does? Is there any way he'd change his ways?

It could be a long journey, but redeeming him could be fun.

As for killing him outright: You're a Druid, nature is cruel and you know that. It just doesn't sit well in your conscience.

From where I am standing killing anything is never a good act. It is either neutral if done for sustenance, self defence and in a none cruel way. Or evil if done in a manner that causes suffering.

From a pragmatic point of view: Killing him would be the easy, clean and somewhat dirty way to get rid of him if you know what I mean.

Strong neutral act from where I am standing



I like this too.

I heartily disagree. Some people are capable of such evil that allowing them to continue living is the same as putting a blade to the throat of all their victims yourself. Sometimes taking a life is the only morally acceptable option. In this case, there is no way to imprison him, and no authority figure nearby that has the jurisdiction/will to see justice done. This leaves the burden of deciding punishment yourself. Unless you are prepared to either imprison him yourself or turn him loose to continue harming innocents, your only real option is to execute him for his crimes. In my opinion the neutral option would be to ensure he has no desire to cross you again, and send him packing. What do you care if he hurts people you don't know personally?

*edit @ ^^: I don't think you can CDG with a non-lethal weapon. :smallconfused:

WarKitty
2010-10-09, 11:49 PM
That provides useful information. Some degree of naivete can be expected, along with the fear of being thrown into the situation she was, thus she will have two conflicting ideas at the very least, the idea that people can improve and should be forgiven, and the idea that she is in way over her head and that this guy represents a real threat. Given the emotional aspect of the situation, "what is good" is less likely to be her main consideration, odds are something more emotional, such as "What would Role Model X do?", with role models drawn both from childhood fantasy and idealism and her experience in the real world, both of which are exaggerated due to her youth.

I'm actually setting her up for a conflict with her mentor, who was my previous druid character. He's solidly NE of the "humanoids are evil until proven otherwise, kill first and ask questions later" variety. Hence part of why I'm interested in this facet. It's already a change from her upbringing for her to be asking the question "Is this right?"

herrhauptmann
2010-10-09, 11:52 PM
I*edit @ ^^: I don't think you can CDG with a non-lethal weapon. :smallconfused:

I might be trying to remember something else instead. But basic idea remains, if you hit, you deal all that damage, just as nonlethal. And it's preferable to hitting a 10th level character 30 times with your bare hand until you can knock him out. At least as far as efficiency, lack of cruelty, and remaining on one end of the good/evil scale.

ericgrau
2010-10-09, 11:56 PM
Your actions don't always match your alignment. Only mostly. Decide in character. Ask what would he do not what would your alignment do. Morality is a concern he might consider, but he might come to either conclusion while still believing it to be good. Whether or not you're right is another matter.

Though if well tied up and constantly watched day and night I see little way for the baddy to escape... except due to a railroading DM. If that's the case then kill the guy immediately, viciously and without hesitation.

WarKitty
2010-10-10, 12:00 AM
Your actions don't always match your alignment. Only mostly. Decide in character. Ask what would he do not what would your alignment do. Morality is a concern he might consider, but you might come to either conclusion while being good. Whether or not you're right is another matter.

Though if well tied up and constantly watched day and night I see little way for him to escape... except for a railroading DM. If that's the case then kill the guy immediately, viciously and without hesitation.

I suppose I should edit the first post. I'm curious what you playgrounders come up with as to what would be the "good" action, and why.

As far as the well tied up and constantly watched day and night - we're a level 3 party with 0 ranks in use rope among us in the middle of a desert. Also half of my fellow party members have the collective attention span of a drunk squirrel. In the middle of a scorching magical desert with no transportation.

Knaight
2010-10-10, 12:01 AM
I'm actually setting her up for a conflict with her mentor, who was my previous druid character. He's solidly NE of the "humanoids are evil until proven otherwise, kill first and ask questions later" variety. Hence part of why I'm interested in this facet. It's already a change from her upbringing for her to be asking the question "Is this right?"

You have a huge opportunity here. Let the guy free out of spite towards your mentor, part of the building tensions between the characters. Then come to a realization that he should have been killed after he does something bad, and go on a downward spiral. Of course, I tend to enjoy stories of characters slowly falling into decay as they cope poorly with their errors, so I have some bias.

Marnath
2010-10-10, 12:03 AM
You have a huge opportunity here. Let the guy free out of spite towards your mentor, part of the building tensions between the characters. Then come to a realization that he should have been killed after he does something bad, and go on a downward spiral. Of course, I tend to enjoy stories of characters slowly falling into decay as they cope poorly with their errors, so I have some bias.

I was going to advocate deciding he's bad enough to deserve killing, but then I read this idea and decided it's a lot better than mine. :smallsmile:

WarKitty
2010-10-10, 12:04 AM
You have a huge opportunity here. Let the guy free out of spite towards your mentor, part of the building tensions between the characters. Then come to a realization that he should have been killed after he does something bad, and go on a downward spiral. Of course, I tend to enjoy stories of characters slowly falling into decay as they cope poorly with their errors, so I have some bias.

Eh, that's what my last two were like, it's time for a change.

chiasaur11
2010-10-10, 12:05 AM
A good measuring board?

"What would Sam Vimes do?"

It's a good quick rule of thumb system, I find.

ericgrau
2010-10-10, 12:05 AM
I suppose I should edit the first post. I'm curious what you playgrounders come up with as to what would be the "good" action, and why.

As far as the well tied up and constantly watched day and night - we're a level 3 party with 0 ranks in use rope among us in the middle of a desert. Also half of my fellow party members have the collective attention span of a drunk squirrel. In the middle of a scorching magical desert with no transportation.

Under the circumstances killing him is probably not evil. If possible an effort should be made to bring him with you, if it's likely to fail then don't. IMO he could be well secured and thus should be brought along. You seem to think he'll escape and the DM might also arrange it, so then you should kill him. Killing things to prevent evil is what adventurers do every day. That much should be an easy decision. The only matter is whether or not killing him is necessary to prevent evil.

Marnath
2010-10-10, 12:05 AM
Eh, that's what my last two were like, it's time for a change.

In that case, OFF WITH HIS FREAKIN' HEAD!!!:furious:

Hehe, or maybe not. :smalltongue:

Knaight
2010-10-10, 12:07 AM
Eh, that's what my last two were like, it's time for a change.

Have them not be involved in that downward spiral then, have him represent the character's mentors continuing influence, while the party and what not keep her from falling back under the mentor.


I was going to advocate deciding he's bad enough to deserve killing, but then I read this idea and decided it's a lot better than mine. :smallsmile:

I'm seriously considering sigging this, maybe just as "...but then I read this idea and decided it's a lot better than mine. :smallsmile:"

WarKitty
2010-10-10, 12:07 AM
A good measuring board?

"What would Sam Vimes do?"

It's a good quick rule of thumb system, I find.

Believe it or not I have never read the discoworld series. A fault I intend to rectify as soon as I either gain access to a decent library system or get enough money in my pocket to justify that kind of expenditure.


Have them not be involved in that downward spiral then, have him represent the character's mentors continuing influence, while the party and what not keep her from falling back under the mentor.

Confused...too many pronouns...tired. Character is a "her" btw. Mentor is former PC of mine and still solidly under my control in terms of development (and solidly on said downward spiral).

Knaight
2010-10-10, 12:10 AM
Him is the guy who isn't going to be killed, or maybe is. Them and her is the character.

WarKitty
2010-10-10, 12:20 AM
Him is the guy who isn't going to be killed, or maybe is. Them and her is the character.

Ok making a bit more sense now. I think I'll go to bed, my reading comprehension has obviously tanked.

Knaight
2010-10-10, 12:24 AM
The writing quality of that bit was rather significantly below that which one could reasonably expect most to understand.

Rising Phoenix
2010-10-10, 12:30 AM
I heartily disagree. Some people are capable of such evil that allowing them to continue living is the same as putting a blade to the throat of all their victims yourself. Sometimes taking a life is the only morally acceptable option. In this case, there is no way to imprison him, and no authority figure nearby that has the jurisdiction/will to see justice done. This leaves the burden of deciding punishment yourself. Unless you are prepared to either imprison him yourself or turn him loose to continue harming innocents, your only real option is to execute him for his crimes.


Hello,

I agree with what you say. Frankly what I described is (EDIT: Probably) what an exalted good character would try to do. But in this case this doesn't apply. Still killing him on the spot makes you no better then him imo. It certainly isn't an evil act, but it isn't good either. I would say, give him a chance to redeem himself while he's kept under your vigil and if he tries to do harm, kill him then. At least that way you have tried to better the world.

But given that this doesn't appear to be easily feasible in this situation, killing him may be the most straightforward and perhaps best answer.


In my opinion the neutral option would be to ensure he has no desire to cross you again, and send him packing. What do you care if he hurts people you don't know personally?


Yes, that's a Neutral Act as well in my book as is killing him swiftly and with the leats amount of pain.

Cheers,

R.P.

herrhauptmann
2010-10-10, 12:30 AM
As far as the well tied up and constantly watched day and night - we're a level 3 party with 0 ranks in use rope among us in the middle of a desert. Also half of my fellow party members have the collective attention span of a drunk squirrel. In the middle of a scorching magical desert with no transportation.

Important distinction: Party members, or fellow players?
If it's really that large and harsh of a desert, just 'set him free' and stay on your guard for a few days. If the desert is that large, he'll die trying to get out, and his only choice will be to follow/attack you for your water.
Under those circumstances, which is more evil? Leaving him to suffer and die of thirst, perhaps get eaten alive by monstrous animals? Or killing him quickly and mercifully?

WarKitty
2010-10-10, 12:33 AM
Important distinction: Party members, or fellow players?
If it's really that large and harsh of a desert, just 'set him free' and stay on your guard for a few days. If the desert is that large, he'll die trying to get out, and his only choice will be to follow/attack you for your water.
Under those circumstances, which is more evil? Leaving him to suffer and die of thirst, perhaps get eaten alive by monstrous animals? Or killing him quickly and mercifully?

Party members. While there is a fair bit of roleplaying yourself happening, the players at least have enough attention span to generally know what's going on in the game. Their characters, however, have severe ADHD.

Rising Phoenix
2010-10-10, 12:37 AM
Under those circumstances, which is more evil? Leaving him to suffer and die of thirst, perhaps get eaten alive by monstrous animals? Or killing him quickly and mercifully?

Killing him quickly and mercifully is the option a good character would pick imo. Setting him lose in the dessert to die of animals/thirst/hunger is harshly neutral. ("I don't give a ****")
Whilst a third option: "Lets tie him to a cactus, give him a wound or two and let the flies have their way with him" is one of the evil options.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-10, 08:21 AM
Yes, it's another alignment thread. :smallyuk:

So I'm playing a NG character. We've captured this guy. He's a known high-level mob member. I am well aware both that he has a considerable resources should he escape to hunt us down, and that he has no compunctions about breaking his word. There is no prison nearby other than the city he came from, in which he will certainly break out. We have a long journey ahead during which he would have ample opportunity to escape.

What would be the good action to take in this situation? On one hand, slaughtering a helpless prisoner is typically evil. On the other hand...I'm not playing stupid good. This guy will likely escape (we're level 3, we don't have that many tricks up our sleeves) and come back to try to kill us.

Personally, I'd keep him prisoner. Mind you, there's ample justification for keeping him knocked the hell out until you reach civilization and someone high enough level to take him off your hands, but I'd honestly take advantage of how the nonlethal attack system works and keep the hell so thoroughly beat out of him that escape isn't really an option.

Just make sure that, with regards to EVERYTHING ELSE (food, water, permanent bruising) you treat him well. He is, after all, your prisoner.

Valameer
2010-10-10, 02:09 PM
It would be difficult to keep this guy prisoner. Even with wood shape or manacles, he's probably bound to be rescued, bailed, or escape on his own.

So you have two (coherent) choices. To kill, or to free.

Neither one is an easy pill to swallow, regardless of alignment. But adventurers find themselves in this position too often.

I think lawful leans toward inprisonment or execution, since he's too big a threat to society to let go. Chaotic leans towards letting him go, a second chance for him to reprioritize his life.

As a neutral good, I would let him know he's been spared, and let him go. It may be hard, and it may come back to haunt you - but this guy is only mid-rung crime boss. And maybe you can even earn his respect before you set him free. At least, if he has a sense of honour and you didn't treat him poorly, you could offer him a 'get out of jail free' for a similiar favour from him in the future.

He might laugh, or think you are too naive or whatever, but if the DM plays him with some character growth, he might appreciate not dying and secretly come to respect you.

If not - you're the PCs, you'll beat him again. :smallsmile: Better to fight the devil you know...