PDA

View Full Version : is my charecter evil



awa
2011-03-13, 10:50 AM
Me and my group were playing yesterday and during the campaign my dm said my actions were sufficiently evil to immediately turn me to evil i disagreed but alignment does not matter to my characters classes (ranger and scout) and it was in character so i didn't argue much. I think the rest of the party agrees with me but id like to see what other people think.

our party is currently in an evil empire, the empires stated goals are the eradication all of non casters almost all non casters are conscripted into the army and forced to invade other nations where from what weve seen they will get kill by friendly fire from their arcane commanders. every new place they take over everyone is rounded up and forced into the army and sent to the next land to take it over. because their goal is to kill all non casters more than to actually win they use incredible stupid tactics and end up winning because they have lots of high level casters.

The next place on their hit list is my people who wont stand a chance. The events in question happened while sneaking into an enemy city. everyone in the city was either an arcane caster and part of the empire or a slave.
I ambushed a passing wizard in the dark shot him in the back then slit his throat. I latter lassoed a second one around the neck pulled him into an alley and killed him as well. The dm said this was cold blooded murder.

I personally felt that we were in an enemy stronghold wizards by virtue of there spells are never unarmed and are always dangerous and any damage i dealt to the empire gave the rest of the world a better chance of surviving.

so sorry for the length but what do you think

The Glyphstone
2011-03-13, 10:54 AM
Of course it's cold blooded murder. So is a paladin kicking in the door of a dungeon and butchering the CE goblins and orcs living there, but they don't get hit with alignment shifts.

I'd call it Chaotic, but you're fighting to defend your people against an evil empire by means of asymmetrical warfare. The pre-emptive nature of your attacks (this was offense, not defense), makes it murky between Good and Neutral, but I wouldn't have shifted alignment for one act. Your Dm is way off base.

JeminiZero
2011-03-13, 10:59 AM
I think its easier if you try an argue it from a Star-Wars perspective: You're a Rebellion freedom fighter, caught in the middle of Empire territory, run by various Sith Lords of immense power. You just killed two of them to help the Rebellion.

Barbin
2011-03-13, 11:09 AM
You are not evil. All you did was preemptive defense, basicly kill them befor they can kill me and all of my friends.

If I had to an alignment on you it would be in the Chaotic Good/Neutral axis.

Urpriest
2011-03-13, 11:13 AM
You're not in the city to kill the wizards, though, you're in the city to accomplish your plot objectives. As such, killing the wizards is essentially unpremeditated, and when your mind immediately leaps to killing when you're not in combat with somebody, with no planning or rational consideration, then the DM can rightfully be worried that your character is evil. That said, nobody switches alignment for just one act. Alignment is supposed to describe your actions as a whole, not dictate them in individual cases. Your DM is still way off-base.

Kish
2011-03-13, 11:15 AM
Ever heard of a fellow named Piers Anthony? He's infamous for his rather bizarre concept of honor...

Do all arcane spellcasters in the empire approve of its goals? What happens to those who don't? Assuming the two wizards you're referring to were something like a guard patrol, no, your character isn't evil and didn't do anything wrong.

If the answers to my two questions are "I never thought to ask," and the wizards in question weren't in the military or might have been forced to join it, you're on much shakier ground.

Ranos
2011-03-13, 11:16 AM
Are you a paladin ? Is there a mechanical reason why you would care about your alignment ?
Otherwise, why not just shrug at your DM and carry on playing your character like you always do ?

gbprime
2011-03-13, 11:20 AM
Are you certain the two wizards you ambushed were guilty of anything? Were they on their way to buy more slaves, or were they on the way home to their children? Remember, even in Menzoberranzan there are innocent people.

But the real question... did your character CARE whether or not they were guilty of anything?

If yes, then your slide to evil should be slow. If no, then you're already there.

Yuki Akuma
2011-03-13, 11:27 AM
A single evil act doesn't instantly change your alignment to evil.

Unless you'd never done a single good act...

DragonBaneDM
2011-03-13, 12:59 PM
A single evil act doesn't instantly change your alignment to evil.

Unless you'd never done a single good act...

Agreed! Tell us more about your character. What's he done that would distinguish him from a cold blooded murderer?

awa
2011-03-13, 01:41 PM
The party was in the process of trying to rescue slaves for no reward.

When forced to fight his own people he used subdual damage and payed to raise all the warriors who did get killed. we killed a roc threatening a village for no reward because it was a danger to the community.

In particular He goes out of his way to kill monsters that threaten roads making roads safe for travelers

The Glyphstone
2011-03-13, 01:51 PM
Who the heck is he:smallconfused:

A fantasy author, with, as noted, an 'odd' idea of honor.

Lord_Gareth
2011-03-13, 01:54 PM
A fantasy author, with, as noted, an 'odd' idea of honor.

Honor itself is odd as hell, it should be said. It can be honorable to accept abuse without complaint, for example. No, it's not right, but it is honorable.

[/Court of the West]

Vknight
2011-03-13, 02:09 PM
Honor is to each his own as is rational thinking.

The Paladin may say its rational to leave the wizards alone because he cannot prove they are evil at this distance or risk his fellow party members lives.

The Ranger/Rouge/whatever may say take them down to be safe and remove a possible threat that can come back at later dates.

Both rational and both logical. They also follow each individuals code of honor

Burner28
2011-03-13, 02:11 PM
Good point Vknight though I do not think Honour is really the issue concerning the character. After all we don't know whether or not the character is Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic.

awa
2011-03-13, 02:16 PM
the characters law/chaos is not being questioned just his good/evil
the character follows his own (and his peoples) well defined code of honor to the letter. So it just comes down to the point that of are his actions evil and if they are are they enough to turn him instantly evil or do his other actions negate them

Vknight
2011-03-13, 02:17 PM
Thank you

Well that does have a determining factor.
A lawful character may see that as something that shouldn't be done on the reasoning he may only be forced as stated earlier

A neutral character should understand that doing the action means he must kill him quickly to not risk others and the law

A chaotic character can just say they were killing them because they can or because the wizard may become a threat.

Tengu_temp
2011-03-13, 02:26 PM
A single evil act of this magnitude is not enough to make an otherwise good character evil, but yes, what you did was definitely evil. As far as you know, these wizards didn't really do anything wrong, and they weren't soldiers out to get you. Just because you're facing an evil empire does not mean it's okay to massacre its citizens.


Of course it's cold blooded murder. So is a paladin kicking in the door of a dungeon and butchering the CE goblins and orcs living there, but they don't get hit with alignment shifts.

To be fair, in campaigns that actually care about story consistency and logic, not plot-less dungeon crawls, the paladin is usually there because the goblins are raiders threatening a nearby peaceful community.

Lord_Gareth
2011-03-13, 02:28 PM
To be fair, in campaigns that actually care about story consistency and logic, not plot-less dungeon crawls, the paladin is usually there because the goblins are raiders threatening a nearby peaceful community.

Said paladin should still offer an honorable surrender.

Tengu_temp
2011-03-13, 02:31 PM
Said paladin should still offer an honorable surrender.

That's true. It's important to note that in a campaign that actually cares about roleplaying, paladins and other good-aligned characters should not exhibit the violent hobo mentality.

Voldecanter
2011-03-13, 02:49 PM
Well your actions do seem effective for what you are trying to accomplish, but at the same time; I can see you sliding right into the evil spectrum. Your character right now doesn't seem all that evil, but given that you are sneaking into enemy territory in a War, the act should be justified. How long until you find yourself killing anyone that gets into your way, that is the question your DM is probably troubled with.

Talk to the DM about the alignment change; and make sure that both of you are on the same page. Ask the DM what it would take for you to attain your former Alignment if you want it back, or what actions would further shift you into the Lawful Evil/Neutral Evil/Chaotic Evil Spheres.

However, perhaps you just killed some Wizards who were on their way to the Government building to discuss how their actions have offer-stepped the bounds of human dignity etc, etc........

Decisions, Decisions:smallamused:

Tekren
2011-03-13, 02:51 PM
Off topic: I understand honor to be gained the making and keeping of promises. Therefore, Honor is never gained by never promising anything, and is lessened by making and then breaking promises. Honor is how true to your word your actions are... and that is all. There is no morality inherent to it.

A person who promises to kill ten thousand people and does so gains a sort of honor. A person who is always on time could be said to be honorable. A person who swears to uphold the law, and does so is also honorable. A person who lies- even to say 'everything will be OK'- is committing a dishonorable act. A person who tells you "I will betray you if you trust me" is committing strangely honorable act.
It is how true you are.

On topic:
Cold blooded murder is evil. How can you possibly be certain the men you killed deserved it? Did someone Detect Evil? What if they were just some guys who knew they lived in an awful system but felt powerless to change it? What if they were part of a 'loyal opposition' trying to change the politics of the empire from the inside? What if they were part of a disloyal opposition, trying to meet and assist a new resistance fighter? (namely you?)
While all that is unlikely, and you very well my have murdered a mustache-twirling villain, cold-blooded murder is still an evil act. However, it would take many such evil acts to force an alignment shift.
How many? I don't know. But when you are looking upon the blood-soaked corpse at your feet, and you don't feel the slightest bit of emotion about killing this thing that was once a creature with hopes and dreams like you.... When there is no anger, sorrow, pity or compassion... you are there.

I was going to say something about paladins... but instead I shall say something about Ninjas.

WOAH, Ninja'd!

Hazzardevil
2011-03-13, 02:52 PM
You're not in the city to kill the wizards, though, you're in the city to accomplish your plot objectives. As such, killing the wizards is essentially unpremeditated, and when your mind immediately leaps to killing when you're not in combat with somebody, with no planning or rational consideration, then the DM can rightfully be worried that your character is evil. That said, nobody switches alignment for just one act. Alignment is supposed to describe your actions as a whole, not dictate them in individual cases. Your DM is still way off-base.

I've lost count the number of times i've heard this.

A faustian pact instantly LE.
What you did was evil but from what I think, not enough to make you evil.
Now honour is really odd.
I read some sort of honour handbook for dnd.
It said that honourable people look down on giants because they are big. So a lawful good paladin would be looked down no by halflings because he can poke something from 20 feet with a lance.

Grollub
2011-03-13, 03:10 PM
I guess the real question is.. WHY did you kill the two wizards? Were they just walking down the street and you saw them and decided wth, easy kills or ???

Without knowing all aspects.... definately seems Chaotic, and could be construed as evil.

But then again.. you are in an enemy empire, who is invading your country so everyone could be seen as a potential enemy, if your character is ruthless.

Mastikator
2011-03-13, 03:14 PM
Guilt by association much? Just because the two victims were wizards in a nation where there's a systematic genocide against non-casters doesn't mean that the two were actually involved in this genocide.

Unless your have some reason to suspect the wizards were guilty of anything other than not being on the short stick of their own government (which isn't a form of guilt, for the record) the yes, it was cold blooded murder, completely unjustified.

They could have been citizens that were just trying to get along with their lives, and there's no reason to assume otherwise.


Does this make your character evil? I don't know, people are complicated, (even when you use alignments) and I certainly don't have all the necessary information.
But this piece of info I have undoubtedly points to the deep end of the alignment pool.

Urpriest
2011-03-13, 04:39 PM
I've lost count the number of times i've heard this.

A faustian pact instantly LE.


Yes, and this is also true for a Helm of Opposite Alignment. These are both magical effects. The point I was making is that just going about your business non-magically should never be enough to instantly change your alignment.

Hubert
2011-03-13, 04:49 PM
The problem is: how many cold-blooded murders does it take to send you to the deep end of the alignement pool? 1? 2? 5? 10?

Amnestic
2011-03-13, 04:51 PM
On topic:
Cold blooded murder is evil. How can you possibly be certain the men you killed deserved it? Did someone Detect Evil?

Just gonna throw my 2 copper in here and say that things detecting as Evil isn't generally a good enough reason to kill them, even for Paladins or other such crusaders of Good-with-a-capital-G.

Tvtyrant
2011-03-13, 04:56 PM
The problem is: how many cold-blooded murders does it take to send you to the deep end of the alignement pool? 1? 2? 5? 10?

Depends on your definition: I have personally been a Lawful Good Cleric who walked into a city of Hobgoblins and killed thousands while setting fire to it in order to prevent an upcoming war and it was considered a "good" act by the DM because the other option was WW IV.

Vangor
2011-03-13, 05:10 PM
Depends if the world is cut-and-dry. Is everyone who is a spellcaster within this empire automatically a villain? Are there no pockets of officials and guards who think differently from the empire? Are some merely complacent rather than supportive?

Vknight
2011-03-13, 05:18 PM
Being complacent those not make innocence

Vangor
2011-03-13, 05:31 PM
Being complacent those not make innocence

Does not make them deserving of being randomly murdered, which is the point. Plenty of folks feel they are unable to resist, especially when family is involved, and thus they secretly curse the tyrants while making no outward action to resist.

Vknight
2011-03-13, 05:34 PM
True but I'm poitning out as a person that cannot tell wether that is the case or not he went about it in the most logical manner possible

Vangor
2011-03-13, 05:57 PM
True but I'm poitning out as a person that cannot tell wether that is the case or not he went about it in the most logical manner possible

If you cannot tell whether that is the case or not, why would the logical step be to kill? You are mapping expectations of cultists and such to an entire empire. Not everyone who dons the same robes within the empire is a villain.

Vknight
2011-03-13, 05:59 PM
True but it's better to release a pack of Half-Dragon, Gelantinous Cubes upon the populace then pick out which ones deserve to die and which ones don't

Vangor
2011-03-13, 06:03 PM
True but it's better to release a pack of Half-Dragon, Gelantinous Cubes upon the populace then pick out which ones deserve to die and which ones don't

...which would be evil. You do realize we're discussing whether an action was evil or not, right? What is prudent in terms of personal safety is not the discussion.

Amnestic
2011-03-13, 06:04 PM
True but it's better to release a pack of Half-Dragon, Gelantinous Cubes upon the populace then pick out which ones deserve to die and which ones don't

Uh, what? If you're good? It bloody well is not. That's decidedly evil, fluctuating between mass murder or genocide. Effective? Maybe. But it's also evil as all hell.

awa
2011-03-13, 06:05 PM
the empire has within one generation killed or enslaved all non magic users in its borders and at least all adjacent countries. (with the possible exception of hidden resistance groups we have not encountered) with the long term goal of killing all non magic users. So in my opinion they were worse then your average orc horde. not killing them meant they might be able to give away our position when we were returning with the slaves. i was told that if i failed to kill them instantly in the surprise round they would immediately sound the alarm.

Their empire runs on magic any wizard removed from the empire weakens their ability to make war and thus slows their genocide.

we have no ability to caste detect evil and even if we did it would require us giving away our position to do so.

Amnestic
2011-03-13, 06:08 PM
i was told that if i failed to kill them instantly in the surprise round they would immediately sound the alarm.


How did your character know that? :smallconfused:

Themrys
2011-03-13, 06:13 PM
The party was in the process of trying to rescue slaves for no reward.

When forced to fight his own people he used subdual damage and payed to raise all the warriors who did get killed. we killed a roc threatening a village for no reward because it was a danger to the community.

In particular He goes out of his way to kill monsters that threaten roads making roads safe for travelers

Apart from the slave-rescuing and payment for the raising of the dead, all those good deeds have something to do with killing. Which Belkar would do for no reward, too.

Is this because killing is what your character is best at, or is this because of the things the DM threw in?

I can't perceive killing something or someone as good act. It is too destructive.

So, if your character aims to be one of the good guys, he should think about his actions.
Great occasion for some roleplaying, I'd think.

Vknight
2011-03-13, 06:14 PM
Dm probably told him.

Also the Gelantinous Cube idea is not genocide because that would involve targeting every spellcasters even those beyond that countries borders, so it would be considered Mass Murder if your going to blame someone for letting creatures with 3+ intelligence attack people.

awa
2011-03-13, 06:15 PM
hes done other stuff but the only places we've been hes either been banished from do to being framed or the evil empire where we were either hiding or fighting.

Amnestic
2011-03-13, 06:19 PM
Dm probably told him.

Also the Gelantinous Cube idea is not genocide because that would involve targeting every spellcasters even those beyond that countries borders, so it would be considered Mass Murder if your going to blame someone for letting creatures with 3+ intelligence attack people.

If the DM told the player, that's meta-game knowledge. I asked how his character knew they would raise the alarm.

"Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"

Dropping gelatinous cubes on a city which would indiscriminately munch on the populace could be construed as genocide.

awa
2011-03-13, 06:25 PM
we were rescuing their slaves, we weren't casters, and we weren't part of their empire all of which are punishable by death.

Their is no reason to believe they would not have sounded the alarm

edit
also our group would not do the cube plan because it would hit slaves and children.

137beth
2011-03-13, 06:45 PM
I don't think what you did was an evil act. If you knew they were enemies, and you had to kill them to help free slaves, that is not evil.

On the other hand, I am assuming that you knew they were opponents. You said your group had not encountered factions of good spellcasters in this empire, but for all you know, the two casters you killed were the leaders of the most powerful good-aligned faction:smalltongue:

Still, even if it was an evil act, it is not enough to change your alignment instantly.

Mastikator
2011-03-13, 06:55 PM
True but it's better to release a pack of Half-Dragon, Gelantinous Cubes upon the populace then pick out which ones deserve to die and which ones don't

Killing the innocents and the guilty without discrimination is not an act of good, but of evil. In D&D morality, the ends do not justify the means and the greater good is not worth sacrificing innocents for.

Urpriest
2011-03-13, 07:21 PM
Awa, could you clarify something: did the DM say that the wizards would sound the alarm if you didn't kill them in the surprise round after you attacked them, or that they would have sounded the alarm if you had tried to avoid them?

In the former case, that's not really an argument in your favor by any stretch of the imagination. If the latter, then that's reasonably in the bounds of good. If you actually needed to kill the guys to succeed on your mission then it's potentially not evil to kill them. You made it sound like you were there to rescue slaves and went out of your way to kill spellcasters instead, risking your ability to get the slaves out.

Ytaker
2011-03-13, 07:33 PM
If the DM puts you in a situation where you have to kill people to protect other people, that is never grounds for an alignment shift. An alignment shift occurs when you willingly hurt people for bad reasons. Killing to protect others is generally neutral or good, since you are doing a good deed.

Otherwise, the DM is just being an ass.

Razgriez
2011-03-13, 07:34 PM
Well there is no denying, that alignments tend to shift in "What is X" (Alignment type) from campaign to Campaign, and with various DMs. The old Oriental Adventures Rokugan background in the book for example, puts more of a focus of "Law versus Chaos" rather than "Good versus Evil"

That said. from the sounds of it.... I'm going to be rather blunt and to the point here...

Your DM is an idiot. From the sounds of it, at worse, what you did was Chaotic Good. You committed cold blooded murder, but you did so in the name of a greater good. And one minor incident like that, would not be enough in my book to turn a Lawful good character into an evil one.

The only way I can see this being justifiable, is if those two mages you killed were really members of an underground resistance group fighting against the evil tyrant mages, and good guys at the end.

Talk to your DM when you get a chance and have him explain to you, out of character, why he made you do an Alignment change.


Could a DM in theory, throw you into a situation where the only escape, is to accept an alignment change? Sure. But this situation doesn't sound like one of them.

Yuki Akuma
2011-03-13, 07:48 PM
Murder is never Good. It can be Neutral, though.

awa
2011-03-13, 07:52 PM
the situation was wizards were walking the streets on the rout we need to move through to get to the slave and to get back out i could have waited and let them move past but their would be the possibility we would bump into them again once we had the slaves.
the slaves were the priority at the time but weakening the empire was also a goal of the character.

As ive said before i don't really care what my alignment is i was just curious to see what other peoples opinion were

Tyndmyr
2011-03-13, 07:53 PM
the empire has within one generation killed or enslaved all non magic users in its borders and at least all adjacent countries. (with the possible exception of hidden resistance groups we have not encountered) with the long term goal of killing all non magic users. So in my opinion they were worse then your average orc horde. not killing them meant they might be able to give away our position when we were returning with the slaves. i was told that if i failed to kill them instantly in the surprise round they would immediately sound the alarm.

Aright, you've established the empire is fairly bad, yes...but that's an incredibly broad label. Just because the empires done a number of bad things doesn't mean that THESE guys did bad things.


Their empire runs on magic any wizard removed from the empire weakens their ability to make war and thus slows their genocide.

Well, yes. You could say that about any random commoner, too. Still, ambushing and killing randoms is generally pretty evil. If they were wearing uniforms? Well then, casualties of war, no big. But just anyone? Def evil.


we have no ability to caste detect evil and even if we did it would require us giving away our position to do so.

Detect evil is hardly the only way to determine if someone is good, bad, or not.

Killing randoms with no attempt to determine if they, personally are evil(at least to the level of "they're wearing the big evil dudes uniforms") is pretty evil.

Killing can be part of a good act. Say, killing an irredeemably evil monster. Classic hero work. That said, it usually takes more than one evil act to fall. I'd certainly change your alignment if you made a habit out of killing off random people without warning, and warn you of this in advance, but for one act? Nope. Good people do make mistakes.

awa
2011-03-13, 08:33 PM
how would you determine if they were evil with out giving away your position?

Tyndmyr
2011-03-13, 08:41 PM
Uniform, position, seeing evil acts, w/e.

The good act would have been to bypass the guards. Or use nonlethal damage.

Mewtarthio
2011-03-13, 08:49 PM
the situation was wizards were walking the streets on the rout we need to move through to get to the slave and to get back out i could have waited and let them move past but their would be the possibility we would bump into them again once we had the slaves.

Hang on, when you say "walking the streets," do you mean they're on patrol, or they're just out for a walk? Because there is a difference as far as evilness goes.


Their empire runs on magic any wizard removed from the empire weakens their ability to make war and thus slows their genocide.

That right there is the quintessential terrorist logic.

awa
2011-03-13, 08:53 PM
they weren't wearing uniforms but then again none of the guards were.

as wizards they are armed and dangerous not civilians

Vknight
2011-03-13, 08:54 PM
Ah but to destory those in power as a rebel is not evil therefor as a rebel against this empire he should get off scot free.

Force
2011-03-13, 09:04 PM
Is there a curfew at night? Do citizens regularly walk the streets at the hour you suggest? What was the demeanor of the wizards-- just walking, looking around, hustling somewhere?

If there was a curfew and they were breaking it without looking sneaky, they were probably guards or military. Justified.

If citizens don't regularly walk the streets at that hour, they were again, probably guards or military. Justified.

Yuki Akuma
2011-03-13, 09:11 PM
Ah but to destory those in power as a rebel is not evil therefor as a rebel against this empire he should get off scot free.

What?

Rebels can be evil.

Pentachoron
2011-03-13, 09:17 PM
I think its easier if you try an argue it from a Star-Wars perspective: You're a Rebellion freedom fighter, caught in the middle of Empire territory, run by various Sith Lords of immense power. You just killed two of them to help the Rebellion.

Only if the DM is handling morality as comedically heavy handedly in his setting as they do in Star Wars.

Most settings (and I'll assume the DM's too otherwise this wouldn't/shouldn't be an issue) have a bigger range of morality than every person in one group being irredeemably kick the puppy evil and the other group being populated by wise-cracking rogues with a heart of gold.

So if that range exists, then yes the character committed an Evil act, probably shouldn't have fell immediately for it though.

Callista
2011-03-13, 10:27 PM
I think the problem isn't really alignment so much as not thinking about the NPCs as people rather than targets.

That aside, let's look at your character and his reasoning:

Your character has evidently come to believe that EVERYONE in the mage empire you're fighting is worthy of death (or at least, all mages), to the point that he is willing to kill civilian mages who have the bad judgment to walk outside at night. Considering that these mages are probably not involved in the decisions that are endangering your people and are at worst potential soldiers in the war, yes, those were evil acts; and it is likely that the character who is willing to do these things is probably evil.

You are most likely playing a NE character; I do not see any strong tendencies toward law or chaos; but it could be CE if you lean strongly toward individualism/anarchy or hatred of government and order in general. It could also be LE if you are extremely dedicated to your own people.

Do NOT assume that because your character is evil, he will go on random killing sprees or consider it acceptable to kill civilians on his own side or even to kill children who can't cast spells yet. He is simply someone who does not have any particular limits on what he is willing to do to win the war and save his people. He will probably be willing to use torture, spread disease to enemy cities and kill innocents, enslave prisoners or even workers on his own side, allow people to die if it's more efficient, won't care about destroying crops and causing famine, and will ignore collateral damage. In other words: This character wants to win. He wants to save his own people. And he does not care whose lives, souls, or families he has to destroy to do it.

This is an interesting idea and you have the potential to play a very interesting evil character; but don't let yourself just go wading in guts and senseless violence just because you have an "E" on your sheet. Play your character, not a caricature of his alignment.

davidpetersjk
2011-03-13, 10:41 PM
Me and my group were playing yesterday and during the campaign my dm said my actions were sufficiently evil to immediately turn me to evil i disagreed but alignment does not matter to my characters classes (ranger and scout) and it was in character so i didn't argue much. I think the rest of the party agrees with me but id like to see what other people think.

our party is currently in an evil empire, the empires stated goals are the eradication all of non casters almost all non casters are conscripted into the army and forced to invade other nations where from what weve seen they will get kill by friendly fire from their arcane commanders. every new place they take over everyone is rounded up and forced into the army and sent to the next land to take it over. because their goal is to kill all non casters more than to actually win they use incredible stupid tactics and end up winning because they have lots of high level casters.

The next place on their hit list is my people who wont stand a chance. The events in question happened while sneaking into an enemy city. everyone in the city was either an arcane caster and part of the empire or a slave.
I ambushed a passing wizard in the dark shot him in the back then slit his throat. I latter lassoed a second one around the neck pulled him into an alley and killed him as well. The dm said this was cold blooded murder.

I personally felt that we were in an enemy stronghold wizards by virtue of there spells are never unarmed and are always dangerous and any damage i dealt to the empire gave the rest of the world a better chance of surviving.

so sorry for the length but what do you think

There's not really enough information here to make a good assessment. You don't say if they'd seen you, which is a pretty big component, if they had seen you, you could at least chalk it up to necessity. The second one is pretty obviously murder. Unless they were in uniforms, in which case they would be combatants, putting on a uniform forces you to accept all associated risks.

From a purely military standpoint, killing guards is stupid, like REALLY STUPID. Because accountability is inherently incredibly important to a military force, so when people are missing, all kinds of alarms are raised, and people tend to go on the alert. If they had seen you, then you wouldn't have been risking your life, and the lives of your friends to kill them, it would have possibly even been necessity. Actually taking the fact that you were part of a team into account; I would say that's evil. Killing people (possibly noncombatants) when it would directly put your companions in danger to do so, is pretty clearly selfish and therefore evil.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-13, 10:45 PM
Ah but to destory those in power as a rebel is not evil therefor as a rebel against this empire he should get off scot free.

Those in power /= random people walking by.

Just because they have casting doesn't mean they are "armed and dangerous" and thus not civilians. That's not how it works. A civilian can have a gun too, and so long as he's not waving it about threatening you, you're not allowed to shoot first. Being a caster is not automatic justification for killing in D&D.

Upon learning that this is actually two separate instances of cold blooded murder of people just walking around...I gotta say, your DM seems fairly justified.

Xuincherguixe
2011-03-14, 12:21 AM
I kind of want to be on your side here. Ambushes are fun! And it's not like you could really interrogate these guys effectively. And you know I can kind of see your reasoning. Evil wizards going to go off and kill some folks elsewhere? Is it right to just let them go because you can't give them due process?

Well, that's the difference between heroes and a guy with a lot of power. The fact that there was no evidence to say that these two specifically were evil wizards is the problem. All you can say for sure is that they were wizards located in the evil empire. (I'm assuming there's a reason to assume they were wizards)

Had you any evidence at all they were going to do various nasty business, beyond that of "it was your gut feeling" it would be different. Even if someone detects as evil doesn't necessarily make it okay to start killing folks... that would at least be something. Evil Wizards in the Evil Empire? Reasonable to assume they're going to go around hurting people.

If you had to wait until they start feeding orphans to Cthulhu that's a little late for the Orphans.

Were it me? I'd have knocked them out, tied them up, and keep them gagged and tried to talk to them. Not very good tactics I'll admit. But even if they *could* still cast spells, the number that are available is considerably less. A good compromise between efficiency and morality.


Fun fact. In a recent game I was in, some bandits attack our Caravan. I've put a crossbow bolt in one of their necks (only ALMOST died), and one of the bandits got kicked off. Later the caravan crashes, and is leaning over a cliff. I offer the contents if they manage to pull everyone out safely.

I should note that the contents were not mine to give out, I was expecting the caravan to go over and he wouldn't be able to get it anyways, and although I'm sure the owner would have been okay with it, if he refused I could just wash my hands of the whole affair. I'm a sneaky, sneaky guy.

Anyways it worked. Turns out the Bandit had a back story. He was the *one* good guy. So he helped out and didn't even ask for anything in return.

The event was scripted, the owners were supposed to die. It was going to be the back story of another PC. Nothing says good has to obey the rules either ^_^



Of course, in that game, the DM is serious about making NPCs people too. If we're going by http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysChaoticEvil then your lack of evidence and the fact you are killing them in cold blood rather than standing at the opposite side of them underneath a colorful banner makes this a chaotic, rather than evil act.

And although what you did is horrible, I wouldn't shift your alignment because it seems a lot like you don't understand what the problem is. And I'd set you aside and we'd have a talk about this.


Had you handled yourself a little differently, you'd be getting the Xuincherguixe nod of approval.

Privateer
2011-03-14, 01:41 AM
Didn't read the whole thread after your OP, but absent other information, I'm with your DM on this. These are clear-cut evil acts.

Just because the empire you are fighting is evil does not automatically make every person who's part of it evil. They are born into it, most likely, and don't know anything different. They may even be opposed to what their empire is doing, or not know what their empire is doing. You can't argue that killing civilians of enemy empires is EDIT:wrong right. If you do, you'd have to argue that present populations of Germany, Italy, and Japan should never have been born and all their parents should've been killed. Which is evil.

You also can't argue that all casters are to be killed just because they are casters. That's the opposite of what the evil empire you oppose is doing and is just as evil.

So, bottom line, you ambushed and killed two people, whose intentions you did not know, and who did not pose you a direct threat, on the basis of their citizenship and profession. That in itself is evil.

What you are doing is trying to rationalize it by projecting assumed qualities and your hatered of the empire onto these people, whom you did not know and about whom you knew nothing besides their profession and city of residence (and even those you assumed).

Let me end by saying I'm not juding you the player. I did the exact same thing in my last session, ambushing a patrol we assumed was pirates and incinerating one of them before he knew what hit him. It was evil and that is my alignment, but unlike in real life, being evil in DnD is good fun. :smallbiggrin:

Silus
2011-03-14, 02:04 AM
Just my two copper on this...

Personally, I think you were in the right. You mentioned that the guards and the mages go without uniform, correct? Then there was no way to know if the two mages you killed were on or off duty, working for the empire or what. But from the knowledge that your character had, that being:

1. Casters work for the Evil Empire.
2. Casters and Guards do not wear uniforms.
3. These people are casters.
4. These people are not in uniform.

Since secrecy was top priority to get the slaves out, killing them was, in my opinion, necessary. If they are on the route that you HAVE to travel with the slaves, and they were walking the route, then there was the chance they would be on patrol on that route. Which means they would come back that way. Which means that there's a decent chance you would run into them with the slaves and it turns into a giant mess as you try to deal with hostiles while protecting the slaves. Killing them insured that the path would be that much more clear when you broke the slaves out.

In short, I'd reckon it's a Chaotic act, as it was a necessary evil as opposed to a decidedly Evil act.

Weasel of Doom
2011-03-14, 02:37 AM
Depending on the style of campaign this could be evil but I think it is far more likely that it was a neutral act.

You didn't kill them "for fun or profit", you killed them as part of an operation to rescue slaves and as a way of defending your people.

Your character hasn't shown "no compassion for others", in fact rescuing slaves seems to show considerable compassion.

As soldiers for an extremely evil empire I don't think the casters can be called "innocent life" so killing them is not an indicator of evil tendencies.

If there was a reasonable chance that they were not supporting the genocide, i.e. if the genocide was being pushed by faction inside the Empire with the general public not having a major role in it, then this would be an evil action because they could probably be innocent life but I wouldn't assume that to be the case.

If this was evil then surely a party of heroes who break into the cave of goblins who have been raiding villages are evil as well, they don't know that the goblins they're killing are the same one's that have been murdering villagers. Maybe the goblin you just killed merely accompanied the raiders because he felt he had to to maintain his position within the tribe and never actually killed anyone.
If the heroes have to make assumptions like that then there are very few enemies paladins can attack without falling.

Monodominant
2011-03-14, 05:00 AM
Is killing a soldier in the battlefield an evil act?

You dont know if he was drafted or if he joined voluntarily.

You also dont know if he already tried to leave the army but was caught, punished and then sent to the front line with the threat that if does not fight they will kill his family.

So would killing an armed soldier on the battlefield without first learning his backstory considered an evil act or not?

Another question:

Same as above but answer me for the following scenarios:

a) You are sabouters. The above soldier is sleeping in front of the vault you need to open.
b) You are charging, said soldier right now is a few feet away from his weapon as he was taken by suprise
c) You have sneaked inside the camp. He was a guard, he sees you armed and ready to attack and he drops his weapon, raises his hand but also calls out for alarm.
d) You are a spy and have just learned the plans of the enemy is to launch a preemptive strike in the morning. Two officers are leaving this "meeting" to go and relay the message to their troops... since you are outnumbered managing to stop both of them in time unless you aim to kill seems improbable at best.


Now consider all of the above again but vs a non-human race. Even more against a generally or typically evil race (Orcs, Hobgoblins, Quotoa).

--===

Other scenarios.

15 level fighter vs 2 low level Orcs attacking him. He is being attacked so sure, he can choose to just swing once and cut them down. But he does know he is so much more potent than them and that there is almost 0% chance they can harm him.

Is he evil if he chooses to kill them "in self defence"?

What if ones stays to block your way and the other runs away.

What if you want to just hit him a bit but you roll a critical and kill him instead?


PS>

I am looking for how people think on the above... on the next post I shall come back with how I actually answer those questions :D

Lhurgyof
2011-03-14, 07:31 AM
Sounds like his character was semi-desperate, and was doing all he could to help save his home town.

Evil? Maybe. But his intentions were good.

Burner28
2011-03-14, 08:24 AM
In short, I'd reckon it's a Chaotic act, as it was a necessary evil as opposed to a decidedly Evil act.

That is not Chaotic at all especially as we don't know if the character broke the code of his people. Necessary evil is not Chaotic


You are most likely playing a NE character; I do not see any strong tendencies toward law or chaos; but it could be CE if you lean strongly toward individualism/anarchy or hatred of government and order in general. It could also be LE if you are extremely dedicated to your own people.

Actually the Op said the character was following the code of the character's people so... Lawful it is

mangosta71
2011-03-14, 10:00 AM
If there's a guy walking down the street, it's reasonable to expect him to cry out if he's attacked. Raising an alarm when his life in endangered does not make him evil, or even a supporter of the empire that you oppose. It just means he's surprised and isn't sure he's gonna make it to tomorrow without help. The question, as others have asked, is "Would he have raised an alarm if you hadn't attacked?" "How did you know they were mages?" is another valid point - any number of individuals wear garb that could be described as robes as part of their professional attire. Maybe you just killed a judge that was walking home after letting an escaped slave go free. And of course, there's nothing saying that mages have to wear robes - the guy walking next to the cart full of vegetables wearing a pair of coveralls could easily be a mage.

From a military standpoint, when operating in a small group far from the front line/support, staying hidden is always preferable to revealing yourself (unless the purpose of your operation is to be detected). Killing those two unnecessarily is a mistake, and one that a good DM would punish you for in game with heightened security around your objective rather than an arbitrary alignment shift.

It was evil and that is my alignment, but just like in real life, being evil in DnD is good fun. :smallbiggrin:
Fixed that for you. :smallwink:

McSmack
2011-03-14, 10:12 AM
they weren't wearing uniforms but then again none of the guards were.

as wizards they are armed and dangerous not civilians


the situation was wizards were walking the streets on the rout we need to move through to get to the slave and to get back out i could have waited and let them move past but their would be the possibility we would bump into them again once we had the slaves.
the slaves were the priority at the time but weakening the empire was also a goal of the character.

As ive said before i don't really care what my alignment is i was just curious to see what other peoples opinion were

So he's within an enemy city, when he sees two dangerous people who are armed, walking along the path he needs to take to get his people out. Killing them gives his plan a higher chance of success (at least in his view) and allows him to weaken the Empire even further.
He makes a judgement call and kills them.
I don't see this as an evil act. His reasoning is tactically sound, and fitting with his archetype of a rebel scout/guerrilla fighter.
If, by some wierd randam happenstance, the two wizards that he killed were not enemy combatants, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I think it's also important to note that these killings occured while the character was attempting to liberate slaves. If he had snuck into the city for the sole purpose of killing random wizards that might be a different story.
The point is he killed them because he believed they posed a threat to his mission, they were associated with the enemy and they were armed.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-14, 10:42 AM
Sounds like his character was semi-desperate, and was doing all he could to help save his home town.

Evil? Maybe. But his intentions were good.

Well, the road to hell and all that. A great many evil people do not see themselves as such.

McSmack, his tactical reasoning is not being questioned here. Assassination does work. That does not make it GOOD. Nor do good desires justify every act done toward those ends. Especially not in D&D land.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-14, 12:07 PM
I have a better question for you: why does it matter?

You play your character with its own virtues and sins, and you decide what's the morality that will define it. Why do you need a morality tag attached to you? What does it matter if the DM decides you are evil or good?

Rather than using the easy way out with "evil" and "good", next time the GM uses an Omnipotent Entity of Judging, go to the core of this entity's purposes and goals rather than accepting the arbitrary Good/Evil axis (or just as abritrary Chaotic/Lawful). If you have a Paladin smiting you, ask why. If he says "'cause you are evil", as why would the Paladin's god consider you to be his ennemy. Did you acted against what this god stands for?

Much less pointless argument all around when you stop having an arbitrary scale of morality, and more gamefluff-relevant actions. To the Mageocratic Empire, you are a ruthless criminal, terrorist and murderer. To your people, you are the last stand between them and their genocidal end.

Take that as you will, but seems to me you play your character well ennough to need an alignment letters to hold your hand. Some people's point about your character being violent and kill-thirsty are right. Again, does it matter? So what if your character is a psychopath doing what he thinks is right?

Tyndmyr
2011-03-14, 12:10 PM
Oh, I'm not saying that being evil is bad.

D&D evil is a very interesting place. I'd end up on that spectrum of the alignment myself, most likely. Lawful, though. That does not mean I'm a bad person...it merely means that I happen to have a different set of values than a game does. I'm ok with that.

Alignment is descriptive, not proscriptive. You don't have to change your character's beliefs, or kill babies and what not. Just keep on doin the same thing.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-14, 12:15 PM
Alignment is descriptive, not proscriptive. You don't have to change your character's beliefs, or kill babies and what not. Just keep on doin the same thing.

Alignment is labelling. Which is the worst thing you can do in a role-playing game, as the richness of our game comes from the capacity to go beyond the roles that have been given to us. In a video-game, Evil/Good is relevant. In a roleplaying tabletop? Why does "evil" even need to be brought up?

Gnaeus
2011-03-14, 01:11 PM
I actually had a similar question, which I thought I would post here rather than having 2 parallel alignment debate questions.

My character is a CN priest of a CE god. His background makes him essentially an anarchist. He wants to overthrow established authority, to create a world in which everyone can do as they wish without lawful restraint. He does not kill without a purpose, nor does he torture (although he lets other party members torture). He has done a lot more good than evil acts, just by virtue of the power of plot.

We are in a Lawful kingdom. Defending it from a demon invasion. My character is going along with this because it is important for his teammates, and he is a team player (and because he hopes to establish a shrine there later). So our ECL 12 party discovers (through scrying) a group of 8 outsiders on tigers about to attack a defenseless (they have level 1 guards) village. We teleport in, kill the outsiders, and save everyone in the village, but we have no additional travel magic. We go into the village, with a bunch of demon bodies & 3 prisoners. My character pulls out a big bag of money and demands 4 horses from the village that we just saved, to take the prisoners back to the capital for interrogation. A guard walks off to comply, but comes back 10 minutes later with 2 broken down nags, because the villagers want all their horses at this time. We are standing beside a wagon train surrounded by mounted, level 1 guards on perfectly good horses. I point to a guy on a good horse and say "You! Come here and sell me your horse or I will kill you." He rides off, so I kill him. Guards, who know that we just killed 8 (to them) massively powerful demons immediately charge me and try to hurt me, but they only hit on nat 20s and I fast heal, so I kill the ones in my way and ignore the rest.

The only people on horses decide to stand back and pepper me with arrows (uselessly). I ride up to the wagon train, hoping that the threat to their women and children will induce them to come back, but they don't. Throughout the entire thing, I am holding a bag of money, saying things like "This can all stop if someone will sell me some horses! I will kill as many people as I have to to get some horses, which I will use to help save your kingdom." Finally, I cut two horses lose from the wagons (continuing to offer money to people for them, but no one will take my money).

Personally, I feel that I was very restrained. As a 12th level caster, I could easily have massacred as many villagers as I wanted to, instead of killing one guy who disobeyed me and a few of the guards who attacked me (which, considering the level disparity, my character thinks of as suicide, not murder). In my mind, this is much less evil than a typical bandit (I was begging people to take my money, and I had saved all their lives to begin with), and bandits can be neutral. And my ultimate goal (saving the kingdom) was arguably good.

My DM says that I was robbing and massacring defenseless villagers, and I move immediately to CE. In my mind, this was certainly an evil act, but not even up to the level of many common thieves. Opinions?

Tyndmyr
2011-03-14, 01:21 PM
Yeah, that's pretty clearly evil, dude.

mangosta71
2011-03-14, 01:23 PM
That's more hilarious than evil.

Callista
2011-03-14, 01:37 PM
Alignment is labelling. Which is the worst thing you can do in a role-playing game, as the richness of our game comes from the capacity to go beyond the roles that have been given to us. In a video-game, Evil/Good is relevant. In a roleplaying tabletop? Why does "evil" even need to be brought up?Well, generally, "evil" gets brought up anytime a group of spellcasters tries to genocide anyone who can't cast spells... or, y'know, just about anytime somebody tries to do something horrible to someone innocent... In a video game, Good/Evil is much less relevant than it is in a tabletop RPG, because video games have pre-scripted plots, but in a tabletop RPG, you can have your character do anything he's physically capable of doing. That gives you a much wider range of possibility. Good/Evil as supernatural forces, as qualities of souls, as philosophical concepts to fight for or against, or as alignments of the deities or the planes, are a huge part of mythology, fantasy, and legends of all sorts. You can cut them out if you like; but you'll do it at the cost of reducing the possible stories you can tell.

Aergoth
2011-03-14, 01:40 PM
While the actions might not seem evil, let's take a look at your strikes here. From my point of view as a DM:

Your character is worshipping an evil god. That's going to colour my perception to begin with.



"I will kill as many people as I have to to get some horses, which I will use to help save your kingdom."

This is the difference between good and evil here. If you're playing a good character the end DO NOT under any circumstances, justify the means. A good character would have walked. A neutral character might have stolen the horses in the night. You did not have to kill.



As a 12th level caster, I could easily have massacred as many villagers as I wanted to
A twelfth level caster could have incapacitated the enemy. Looking at the spells in the SRD, at the 12th level, you have access level 7 spells. Sleep? Entangle? Grease? All first level, none of them damage.

Symbol of sleep is a 5th level spell. You can't tell me any of the guards had more than 10 hit dice. An intimidate check? You're level 12 and you just laid the smack to a large group of outsiders. You could have done non-lethal damage.
Wall of fire, wall of thorns? also fifth level. And they both deal damage, but who's going to run through it? Transmute rock to mud, that'll slow some people down.

You had other options. Worst case, you could have walked for a day. Mount is a 1st level spell, cast it later. The DM is completely justified.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-14, 01:44 PM
Yeah, that's pretty clearly evil, dude.

Meh. The guards were clearly attacking him while he was perfectly willing to steal with compensation the horses (I don't use "buy" because forcing someone to sell you stuff isn't "buying").

As he said, the guards were stupid ennough to attack him while they knew they were clearly outclassed. They fit into the Lawful Stupid behavior. It's pretty simple: in a time of war, the people fighting the ennemy have the moral right to requisition whatever they want to achieve these ends. Roman generals requisitionned food and horses to citizens, because it was needed. In a classic feodal kingdom, a peasant's village should be happy to actually be offered money in return for their horses.

When you are in over your head, you don't have a say.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-14, 01:53 PM
You had other options. Worst case, you could have walked for a day. Mount is a 1st level spell, cast it later. The DM is completely justified.

Dude. CE deity. While I doubt Mr. Godabove would have minded his pawn to steal stuff with minimal violence, using the God-given powers to incapacitate nonlethally obviously defenseless citizen? That would have been quite insulting to the deity in question.

The character is clearly not a good character. But I have to wonder how he is in the wrong if you look at it without pre-imposed arbitrary morality.

Fact: The demons are attacking the land.
Fact: They got prisonner who can yield critical information
Fact: The land's people have horses that can help

There is no question. You take the horse in the name of whatever authority you can call up, and you throw a bag of gold for their trouble. It's not a matter of choice.

Jayabalard
2011-03-14, 01:54 PM
@ the OP: yes, those were evil acts; I have a feeling we still don't really have the whole story, so I'm on the fence as to whether changing your character's alignment is justified or not.


Murder is never Good. It can be Neutral, though.No, killing can be neutral, murder not so much.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-14, 01:56 PM
@ the OP: yes, those were evil acts; I have a feeling we still don't really have the whole story, so I'm on the fence as to whether changing your character's alignment is justified or not.

No, killing can be neutral, murder not so much.

Depends. Are you looking at it from the moral imposition WotC is forcing on us through their morality books?

mangosta71
2011-03-14, 02:03 PM
The definition of murder (the unjustified taking of life) makes it evil. Unless you want to try arguing that it can be neutral to kill someone without justification.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-14, 02:10 PM
The definition of murder (the unjustified taking of life) makes it evil. Unless you want to try arguing that it can be neutral to kill someone without justification.

Why does murder has to be unjustified?

If a Gaul warrior was to slip into Caesar's tent during the War in Gaul, and slit his troath, that's murder. Is it evil?

Tyndmyr
2011-03-14, 02:19 PM
Meh. The guards were clearly attacking him while he was perfectly willing to steal with compensation the horses (I don't use "buy" because forcing someone to sell you stuff isn't "buying").

And the one thing caused the other, yes. Stealing brings trouble from the guards.


As he said, the guards were stupid ennough to attack him while they knew they were clearly outclassed. They fit into the Lawful Stupid behavior.

They had terrible tactics, yes. That does not justify his actions in any way. Good and evil are different from smart and dumb.


It's pretty simple: in a time of war, the people fighting the ennemy have the moral right to requisition whatever they want to achieve these ends. Roman generals requisitionned food and horses to citizens, because it was needed. In a classic feodal kingdom, a peasant's village should be happy to actually be offered money in return for their horses.

When you are in over your head, you don't have a say.

That's not always how that works. You will notice that roman generals are not random mercenaries. They are government. And while yes, even governments can be evil, adventurers and their kin do not enjoy rights that they do, such as taxation for defense. No, you have to make a deal.

If he'd stolen the horses, left a bag of gold, and ridden off, it would have been a minor evil act. Very minor. Absolutely justified for the greater good in the minds of a neutral character. Possibly even for a chaotic good one. When you start burning them all alive and yelling that you'll kill them all to get a horse if that's what it takes...it's evil. Evil with style, perhaps, but still evil.

mangosta71
2011-03-14, 02:28 PM
Why does murder has to be unjustified?
Because that's the definition of murder. For a killing to be murder, it therefore has to be unjustified. If it can be justified, it's homicide.

murder: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
They substitute "unlawful" where I wrote "unjustified," but the point stands. Particularly in light of this:

unlawful: not morally right (synonym - wrongful)

Gaius Marius
2011-03-14, 02:30 PM
If he'd stolen the horses, left a bag of gold, and ridden off, it would have been a minor evil act. Very minor. Absolutely justified for the greater good in the minds of a neutral character. Possibly even for a chaotic good one. When you start burning them all alive and yelling that you'll kill them all to get a horse if that's what it takes...it's evil. Evil with style, perhaps, but still evil.

No. He was killing those who were attacking him, who were proving to be a direct (but minime) threat to him.

And regarding the behavior/right of people to requisition stuff: I don't care if they were mercenaries or the King himself. They were fighting on the side of this village. They just killed a bunch of demons that would have massacred the entire population. they ask for necessary horses for the war effort, and even have the courtesy to offer to pay for them (because it's a courtesy, not a necessity).

The villagers refuse for stupid reason. They start threatening to get what they want, just like a feudal lord would have done, because meager peasants shouldn't refuse material aid to those above their station, specially when said aid is directly related to their survival!

And then, after a direct violation of an order (regardless if it was lawful or unlawful, it was still an order of somebody more important than you in the order of things), he didn't reacted to the very, very clear threat of killing if further dis-obedience happened. Such threat isn't that out of place regarding people who act and speak out of place.

And then, the rest of the guards have the gall to attack the priest who laugh at their attacks and just slaughtered demons?

I am sorry, but it was stupid behavior. It was stupid and selfish behavior on the part of the guards. Now, instead of losing a couple of horses, they have half of their numbers killed, just because of what? Because they wouldn't provide horse to the war effort to someone who was clearly on your side.

The end. You might want to argue wether or not if it was a good or evil act, but the guards were in the WRONG. (Lawful Good Wrong, if you are a stickler). They were wrong to refuse aid. They were wrong to openly resist their better. They were wrong to attack their better.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-14, 02:32 PM
Because that's the definition of murder. For a killing to be murder, it therefore has to be unjustified. If it can be justified, it's homicide.

They substitute "unlawful" where I wrote "unjustified," but the point stands. Particularly in light of this:

Meh. That's a self-fulfilling definition, don't you think.

"what is an evil act?"
"Murder is an evil act"
"Why is murder evil?"
"Because murder is an evil killing"

Murder isn't an action, it's a post-jugement call definition of an action.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-14, 02:35 PM
Dude, just because someone helps you does not mean you owe fealty, horses, or anything else to them.

Disregarded an order from someone more important than them? That's not a crime. PCs don't just get to order everyone else to do what they like because screw it, they're PCs.

Tactics aside, the townspeople are not obligated to sell their horses. Just like you are not obligated to help them. If they are ungrateful and unhelpful, leave them be and move on.

Guards are perfectly justified in attacking thieves. That's what guards are FOR.

Yes, perhaps it would have been a wiser decision to sell them horses, but mainly because they got killed otherwise. In short, it's only really a bad decision because the PC acted more or less like the demons would have. He killed until he got what he wanted.

Gnaeus
2011-03-14, 02:43 PM
A twelfth level caster could have incapacitated the enemy. Looking at the spells in the SRD, at the 12th level, you have access level 7 spells. Sleep? Entangle? Grease? All first level, none of them damage.

Symbol of sleep is a 5th level spell. You can't tell me any of the guards had more than 10 hit dice. An intimidate check? You're level 12 and you just laid the smack to a large group of outsiders. You could have done non-lethal damage.
Wall of fire, wall of thorns? also fifth level. And they both deal damage, but who's going to run through it? Transmute rock to mud, that'll slow some people down.

Fair enough. My actual build, however, was not cleric 12. I am a Cleric 1/Swordsage 4/Chameleon 7 with Divine/Arcane focus. So I have a single 5th level spell, which on that day was the originally used teleport. I have most of the raw power of a level 12 caster (or at least of a level 12 Mystic Theurge), but not as much depth in the high level spells. And on that particular day, I had loaded up for demon combat, and had already burned through most of my spells. I thought about Confusion, but I think that would have led to MORE casualties.


You had other options. Worst case, you could have walked for a day. Mount is a 1st level spell, cast it later. The DM is completely justified.

If I hadn't been concerned about time, we could have rested for 23 hours and either teleported again, or called up 4 phantom steeds. But we were only 30 miles from the capital and had to get back with prisoners before the besieging army arrived. Waiting until nightfall was similarly not an option. The horses would all have been gone by then.



Yes, perhaps it would have been a wiser decision to sell them horses, but mainly because they got killed otherwise. In short, it's only really a bad decision because the PC acted more or less like the demons would have. He killed until he got what he wanted.

I didn't eat ANYONE. I killed the people who were in the way of my mission, while trying to get them to listen to me. The demons would have killed everyone who they didn't capture to eat later, while laughing. I don't think that's really comparable.

Kylarra
2011-03-14, 02:43 PM
No. He was killing those who were attacking him, who were proving to be a direct (but minime) threat to him.Actually, he killed the first guard for refusing to sell him his horse after threatening him.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-14, 02:47 PM
Dude, just because someone helps you does not mean you owe fealty, horses, or anything else to them.

Disregarded an order from someone more important than them? That's not a crime. PCs don't just get to order everyone else to do what they like because screw it, they're PCs.

Tactics aside, the townspeople are not obligated to sell their horses. Just like you are not obligated to help them. If they are ungrateful and unhelpful, leave them be and move on.

Guards are perfectly justified in attacking thieves. That's what guards are FOR.

Yes, perhaps it would have been a wiser decision to sell them horses, but mainly because they got killed otherwise. In short, it's only really a bad decision because the PC acted more or less like the demons would have. He killed until he got what he wanted.

What if their unhelpfulness is bringing danger to the kingdom?

This is war. In war, the military needs trump the comfort of the civilians. These mercenaries clearly shown they were a force that could make difference between the kingdom's defeat or survival, by their might alone.

It's not like they are for ALL the horses, just a couple. They needed these horses for the better of the kingdom. Medieval time, remember. This isn't a time when property rights were as elaborated as right now. The government is simply the biggest bully around that can take from you what they want in order to organise the resource in the best way to assure your defence.

What the character there was doing is simply the exact same thing on a lower scale. I still strongly blame the guard's leader. His actions/decisions weren't merely "unwise", they were suicidal. They put his entire village and fellow guardsmen's lives at risk, sacrificing them all for a stupid stand.

Regardless of the rights or wrong of the strongest people bullying the weaker into giving them things, the world works that way: in front of clearly superior forces, you give in to demands and accept what you get in return, hoping to keep your life out of the event.

If you are responsible of a lot of people, that's the decision you do when you are a responsible leader. You allow them to survive. You don't pick up your handgun to go attack the tank in front of your house because they just stole 10% of your fuel, specially when your family/neighbours are standing aside.

Because that's what these dumb guards did. They attacked a tank with handguns, while being repeatly told that they'd be killed if they kept at it, that they had a way out.

Moral loser = the guards.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-14, 02:51 PM
Actually, he killed the first guard for refusing to sell him his horse after threatening him.

Yup. 'cause he needed the horse. The rest of the guards didn't had to attack him while they were clearly outclassed.

They practically committed suicide.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-14, 02:55 PM
The government is simply the biggest bully around that can take from you what they want

Cut away all the rest. You've just justified bullying. Well, and also murder. Look at that, is that a good or even neutral attitude? It is "everyone's doing it".

Murder does not promote defense. Certainly not for the murdered dude. He is now worse off.

Therefore, it is evil. You can attempt to justify it by saying that even worse things would have been done by other (also evil) parties if you had not, but D&D alignment does not work like that. You are not to blame for the actions of those other parties. You are to blame for the blood on your hands.

Jayabalard
2011-03-14, 03:08 PM
Why does murder has to be unjustified?Because that's what the word means... if it's not unjustified killing with premeditated malice, then you're using the wrong word.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-14, 03:08 PM
Cut away all the rest. You've just justified bullying. Well, and also murder. Look at that, is that a good or even neutral attitude? It is "everyone's doing it".

Well, a military dictatorship like your classic feodal kingdom? Yhea, that's the best example of a bullying government system. The guys in the castle have the swords, the horse and the training. You do as you are told and you shut up. Try to defend if you want, but you better win.

It doesn't matter if the king is a saint or a tyrant, he's still using his military might to enforce his power, and that is simply institutionalised bullying, which is.. you know, a fact of life. Even if modern world, we bully all citizen to accept the government's ruling. The fact that we have some impact on what the government decide (or the government's opposition) and that there are limits to the government's power doesn't mean that the government doesn't use various means of bullying to enforce its will: the Legal and administrative appartus is meant to do just that.

Governing is to enforce your decision on the people in order to achieve what you believe is the best decision. (Best for who? that's up to the governor). To enforce your decision, you have to use leverage on your citizens. A.K.A. bullying, soft or hard.


Therefore, it is evil. You can attempt to justify it by saying that even worse things would have been done by other (also evil) parties if you had not, but D&D alignment does not work like that. You are not to blame for the actions of those other parties. You are to blame for the blood on your hands.

That is why I found the whole alignment system in D&D silly as hell. we are applying utopian early 21st-century moral jugement on a time period governed by a feudal system where might made right.

Or any other time period, really. Our ideals are perfect when adapted to our society and time period, because we have been shaped by these conditions. People living in different times, with actual, you know, hardship, would probably have felt different.

At a time when the "protection racket" run by the local knights could actually mean that he'd prevent the local bandits from raiding and killing your village, I have a hard time conceiving the current definition of good and evil.

Was Vlad Drakul an evil man? He used extremely abusive methods to protect his people against the local banditry and the Turks. What does that make him in a D&D game?

In a war against demons, you gotta do what you gotta do to save the kingdom, 'cause people are going to die a lot if you don't.

Gnaeus
2011-03-14, 03:16 PM
As it happened, we were sort of part of the feudal system. One of the party members was the son of a duke from the same kingdom (although not of that village). He had identified himself and ordered that they give us some horses. That didn't work either.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-14, 03:20 PM
As it happened, we were sort of part of the feudal system. One of the party members was the son of a duke from the same kingdom (although not of that village). He had identified himself and ordered that they give us some horses. That didn't work either.

Even better.

the more I listen, the more I believe I am right. Your character certainly didn't acted nice. But it was a clear violation of feudal duty. You were certainly in position to apply force to requisition what you needed for the Kingdom's benefit, and you had more than ennough right to inflict punishment on those daring to ATTACK you. That's open act of rebellion in a time of war.

As I said, you had the generosity to actually propose to buy stuff, and they still refused. Were you my player, I'd say you behaved pretty well, all within the game's parameter.

Obviously, if you killed guardsmen without reasons, I might have brought the hammer down. But I think you had darn good reasons.

But I guess it's not everybody here who agree with me. I'd simply never play with them. :smallbiggrin:

Jayabalard
2011-03-14, 03:21 PM
That is why I found the whole alignment system in D&D silly as hell. we are applying utopian early 21st-century moral jugement on a time period governed by a feudal system where might made right. A lot of the things that people are using to determine whether something is good or evil are quite a bit older than our 21st century dystopian society. Of course, a lot of that is hard to talk about here on these fora, since historical ethics/morality discussions have a tendency to be tied to religion.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-14, 03:22 PM
Well, a military dictatorship like your classic feodal kingdom? Yhea, that's the best example of a bullying government system. The guys in the castle have the swords, the horse and the training. You do as you are told and you shut up. Try to defend if you want, but you better win.

Yup. And government's can be evil too. This doesn't change a thing.


It doesn't matter if the king is a saint or a tyrant, he's still using his military might to enforce his power, and that is simply institutionalised bullying, which is.. you know, a fact of life.

Not at all. Listen to any description of "good kings", either in the D&D world or the real. One common thread is that they are loved by their subjects. Sure, they were born into that position, but they use military might to defend the people, not oppress them.


Even if modern world, we bully all citizen to accept the government's ruling. The fact that we have some impact on what the government decide (or the government's opposition) and that there are limits to the government's power doesn't mean that the government doesn't use various means of bullying to enforce its will: the Legal and administrative appartus is meant to do just that.

Look, if you see all forms of law and force as equal, I suspect you won't understand this...but most people don't. Laws what stop thieves are generally considered legit. It's amazingly common for people to be ok with, say, guards stopping thieves, even if a certain level of violence is used.

It is substantially less accepted to kill a man for daring to say "no, I won't sell you that". They are not the same.


Governing is to enforce your decision on the people in order to achieve what you believe is the best decision. (Best for who? that's up to the governor). To enforce your decision, you have to use leverage on your citizens. A.K.A. bullying, soft or hard.

Your logic is basically as follows:

1. All governments use force.
2. If governments do it, adventurers can too.
3. Might makes Right.

This is inherently evil.


That is why I found the whole alignment system in D&D silly as hell. we are applying utopian early 21st-century moral jugement on a time period governed by a feudal system where might made right.

Socrates disagreed with you. There are many things that the D&D alignment system leaves to be desired. The fact that they used something other than "might makes right" is not among them.


Or any other time period, really. Our ideals are perfect when adapted to our society and time period, because we have been shaped by these conditions. People living in different times, with actual, you know, hardship, would probably have felt different.

Oddly enough, murder is pretty well known as bad. It's been considered evil for a very long time, across a very many cultures. There's a reason it's considered evil in D&D.

See, if you really, truly believe that the end justifies the means...that's one thing. But if your character believes that, and is willing to slaughter piles of innocents to achieve his goals, then he's evil.

mangosta71
2011-03-14, 03:27 PM
I probably would have added in a dream/vision that your CE deity greatly enjoyed your performance in that little village. Maybe even a line about you finally shaping up.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-14, 03:28 PM
A lot of the things that people are using to determine whether something is good or evil are quite a bit older than our 21st century dystopian society. Of course, a lot of that is hard to talk about here on these fora, since historical ethics/morality discussions have a tendency to be tied to religion.

I'd say it's the other way around. Morality and ethics of the people tend to swing their way into religious ruling, but usually all of these steems from practical necessity.

You have to try to understand the kind of world it was at the time. To do so, you gotta try to find proper real world analogy. You might want to claim all you want, if a tank driven by a Captain of the neighbouring state's National Guard happens to drive into your barn in the middle of a Russian invasion, and they tell you they want some of your ressource, you better give it to them. If they tell you they'll kill you if you try to run away with said ressource ('cause you know, they NEED it), you better stop.

It's on your head if you take your handgun and attack the tank. This tank crew needed your supplies to go fight the ennemies that are invading your land. You give it to them. That's the moral thing to do. If they genuinely need it, they are in the right to take some of your supplies.

they'd be in the wrong if they took ALL of your supplies, leaving you to die. And there lies the morality line. Admiral Cain was wrong, Commander Adama was right.

Jayabalard
2011-03-14, 03:43 PM
I'd say it's the other way around. Morality and ethics of the people tend to swing their way into religious ruling, but usually all of these steems from practical necessity. I didn't say which way it was tied. I don't really have an opinion either way on that. I'm just pointing out that you can't talk a whole lot about historical morality because it's relationship with religion (which is a verboten topic on these fora).


It's on your head if you take your handgun and attack the tank. This tank crew needed your supplies to go fight the ennemies that are invading your land. You give it to them. That's the moral thing to do. If they genuinely need it, they are in the right to take some of your supplies.Absolutely not. If they take their tank into my barn, murder me and steal my stuff, they're begin immoral. Their need or lack thereof does not enter into it.

Monodominant
2011-03-14, 03:50 PM
Frankly speaking all this is moot...

Regardless of if your character was good or evil one thing is certain

Your DM is a very BAD DM!

So, a bunch of guys roll into town carrying DEMONS as PRISONERS.

They offer to pay for horses and are refused...

The first guard attacks and is probably cut down where he stands...

And at this point the rest attack?

I can only assume you were not playing Dark Heresy where the villagers where fanatical Space Marines or Deth Korps of Krieg!

So sorry but the reaction of people in that town makes me believe they were actually cultists in league with the demons.

Tell your DM you figured out his plan and in your characters mind it is proven beyond doubt that the villagers are in league with the invading forces. Return and raze the village to the ground.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-14, 03:50 PM
Not at all. Listen to any description of "good kings", either in the D&D world or the real. One common thread is that they are loved by their subjects. Sure, they were born into that position, but they use military might to defend the people, not oppress them.

"Good kings" don't govern in a void. They have people opposing them. They still use their armed troops or political power to crush or depower what they feel needs to be crushed.

Richard Lionheart was deemed a "good king" 'cause he wasn't home to actually do any ruling. Name me another "good king", and I guarantee all of them used their power and strenght to enforce what they thought was the right thing to do. That's what happens, because that's how power is enforced. Period.


Look, if you see all forms of law and force as equal, I suspect you won't understand this...but most people don't. Laws what stop thieves are generally considered legit. It's amazingly common for people to be ok with, say, guards stopping thieves, even if a certain level of violence is used.

Law also forces you to pay taxes, to go for jury duty, to care for your children and to stop when the light is red. The government has punishment prepared in case you violate these rules. Ergo, the government uses its power to enforce what it think is necessary.

The government doesn't appeal to the people's goodwill for these things. Ergo, by your definition, the government is evil because of these things. It's clearly ludicrous.


It is substantially less accepted to kill a man for daring to say "no, I won't sell you that". They are not the same.

Well, in your common-life situation, you are 100% right. Which is why you are 100% wrong for this situation.

1- This is not modern society with laws that preserve rights of property
2- Hardship is hitting the kingdom, and everybody has to contribute
3- Denying the required ressource to the demandors could have put the kingdom in danger.

The guards were clearly endangering the kingdom by they narrowmindness. Killing them might (or might not) have been overly use of force, but they clearly shouldn't have been allowed to keep the horse.


Your logic is basically as follows:

1. All governments use force.
2. If governments do it, adventurers can too.
3. Might makes Right.

This is inherently evil.

Why? You just made an ideological jugement that should apply to all situation, which is ludicrous.

1. The government use force to enforce it will, sometimes for good or bad. If the government use force to enforce its will for the better of the Kingdom (conscription, war taxes, etc...), it's not an immoral act.

2- If the government is allowed to use force to enforce actions that are deemed necessary to ensure the survival of the kingdom, well the Government's agent are also allowed. Use of force is not, by itself, an evil act.

3- Might makes rights by virtue that it's pointless to oppose it directly. You have NOTHING to gain by going against impossible odds for silly reason. It doesn't matter if the guards wanted to sell or not their mount: what's gonna happen is that the adventurer are going to go back to the city with these horse.

It's like when police comes to arrest people. "We can do it the easy way or the hard way". Clearly stating that violence will happen if they don't comply. This action is not inherently evil or good. You are quick to make jugement calls, which is a stupid thing to do in ANY circumstances. There is no absolutes in this world when you have responsibilities to your fellow man. You have to consider the rights and wrongs of the situation, and make the call.

If you stop yourself at saying "taking stuff away from citizens is wrong", well you better resign as a leader immediately, 'cause you're gonna be an incompetent fool.



Socrates disagreed with you. There are many things that the D&D alignment system leaves to be desired. The fact that they used something other than "might makes right" is not among them.

I'm soooo happy for Socrates. It certainly didn't ended well for him, eh?

Stop labelling good an evil individual actions by themselves.



Oddly enough, murder is pretty well known as bad. It's been considered evil for a very long time, across a very many cultures. There's a reason it's considered evil in D&D.

Yhea, that's quite fortunate that the definition of murder is practically "an evil killing". When killing is evil, it's a murder. When there's a murder, it's because it's an evil killing. Circular argument.

The question you gotta ask yourself is not "is this murder justified?", 'cause that' biasing the question from the beginning. When you qualify the act as murder, you already made the jugement call.

The question is: was this murder?

I believe it wasn't. It was a necessary killing in order to secure essential ressources meant to help achieve a goal that would preserve these very citizen's lifes. The guard ran away, trying to deprive the government's agent of that ressource, action had to be taken. Warning had been issued.


See, if you really, truly believe that the end justifies the means...that's one thing. But if your character believes that, and is willing to slaughter piles of innocents to achieve his goals, then he's evil.

He killed 1 man in order to achieve his objective, clearly stating he wasn't going to kill the other guards. He killed them in self-defense, as they attacked him while there was no direct threat upon them.

He gave them the option to stop attacking him and escape death, but he ensured them he'd kill them if they kept trying to stop him.

He's not in the wrong.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-14, 03:55 PM
Absolutely not. If they take their tank into my barn, murder me and steal my stuff, they're begin immoral. Their need or lack thereof does not enter into it.

Thank you.

Need is a justification. Even if they would immediately die without my stuff, they are still not entitled to murder me for it.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-14, 03:55 PM
Absolutely not. If they take their tank into my barn, murder me and steal my stuff, they're begin immoral. Their need or lack thereof does not enter into it.

You are right. If they simply stop, shoot you on sight, and take what they want, yes they are immoral.

If they stop to your barn, kill the russians who were going to kill you, and tell you they need half of your fuel to get back to the fighting (maybe even offering to pay), and you deny it to them, even trying to run away from them with said fuel, then they aren't exactly immoral for killing you. For all they know, you are a collaborator.

Why? 'cause they are the frakking people who are in the capacity to free your land from the invaders. They get the priority of ressources, and your selfishness should not get in the way of their duty. Period.

Jayabalard
2011-03-14, 03:59 PM
If they stop to your barn, kill the russians who were going to kill you, and tell you they need half of your fuel to get back to the fighting (maybe even offering to pay), and you deny it to them, even trying to run away from them with said fuel, then they aren't exactly immoral for killing you. For all they know, you are a collaborator.They are acting in a completely immoral fashion if they choose to kill you and take your stuff in this case, or if they present you with the options to either (a) give them (or even sell them) the fuel or (b) be killed. There's zero moral difference between them and the mugger who stops you in the street with a gun and the statement "your money or your life".

Gaius Marius
2011-03-14, 04:00 PM
Thank you.

Need is a justification. Even if they would immediately die without my stuff, they are still not entitled to murder me for it.

STOP USING THE WORD "MURDER"

Since we have defined "murder" as "unjustified act of killing", it's quite obvious NOBODY is EVER entitled to "murder" anyone. You are speaking in circle.

Now, if we properly re-write what you said:


Thank you.

Need is a justification. Even if they would immediately die without my stuff, they are still not entitled to kill me for it.

Hum, yhea they are, if you actually resist their requisition. Sorry to tell you that, but a tank crew fighting a war has higher priority than you. If it's you or them, it's gonna be you. 'cause you are useless. They aren't entitled to kill you for the fun of it (that's murder), but if you threaten them or try to actively deprive them of ressource? That's treason.

Yhea, it's sad. But your selfish desire to keep what's yours would put waaay more lives at risk. That tank is needed on the battleline. Your civilian ass isn't.

Gnaeus
2011-03-14, 04:01 PM
Absolutely not. If they take their tank into my barn, murder me and steal my stuff, they're begin immoral. Their need or lack thereof does not enter into it.

Well, no one is arguing that it is a good act. My position was that it was no different than the action of a typical modern soldier or mercenary (most of whom are likely neutral), and less evil than most bandits, who can also be neutrally aligned (less evil because of the circumstances, the attempt to pay, etc). Personally, I think it was neutral. But if not, it certainly doesn't seem to be highly evil, of the change-your-alignment from a single action type.


They are acting in a completely immoral fashion if they choose to kill you and take your stuff in this case, or if they present you with the options to either (a) give them (or even sell them) the fuel or (b) be killed. There's zero moral difference between them and the mugger who stops you in the street with a gun and the statement "your money or your life".

But thieves can be neutral! That mugger is not automatically evil. If he commits one mugging, for a good cause (like to feed his child, or to SAVE AN ENTIRE FRIGGING COUNTRY FROM DEMONS), and kills someone......

Jayabalard
2011-03-14, 04:02 PM
They aren't entitled to kill you for the fun of it (that's murder), but if you threaten them or try to actively deprive them of ressource? That's treason.They aren't entitled to take it either.

Nor is it treason.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-14, 04:02 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Tyndmyr
2011-03-14, 04:02 PM
You are right. If they simply stop, shoot you on sight, and take what they want, yes they are immoral.

If they stop to your barn, kill the russians who were going to kill you, and tell you they need half of your fuel to get back to the fighting (maybe even offering to pay), and you deny it to them, even trying to run away from them with said fuel, then they aren't exactly immoral for killing you. For all they know, you are a collaborator.

Why? 'cause they are the frakking people who are in the capacity to free your land from the invaders. They get the priority of ressources, and your selfishness should not get in the way of their duty. Period.

No. Yknow what a justified murder is? Killing someone who tries to do this.

I don't know what all this talk of selfishness is. Why is refusing an offer of purchase selfish? Why is killing someone for their things an acceptable answer to even selfishness.

Yes, it is their duty. THEIR duty. Not the farmers. The farmer has no duty of the sort.


{{scrubbed}}

Hi, I'm in the military. We have a label for people that do things like this. It's "war criminal". Yes. They are considered criminals, just like the mugger is.

This is fairly well established historically. Go research political philosophy, "just war", etc.

Edit: Also, refusing to sell something is not treason in any state I am aware of. I hope no such state exists.

Jayabalard
2011-03-14, 04:30 PM
All right. If you really, really don't see the difference between a group of soldiers fighting to save your country and a mugger, I think you need a clear education on morality, and you don't qualify to actually argue over here.That's what you've described. A bunch of people in a tank, come in, demand my gasoline, and kill me if I don't give it to them. It's exactly the same except your guys have a bigger gun; I'd actually label your tank guys as less moral than the street mugger. (and holy crap, I'm agreeing with Tyndmyr on something?)

Gaius Marius
2011-03-14, 04:33 PM
That's what you've described. A bunch of people in a tank, come in, demand my gasoline, and kill me if I don't give it to them. It's exactly the same; I'd actually label your tank guys as less moral than the street mugger. (and holy crap, I'm agreeing with Tyndmyr on something?)

Yup.

Because with the same analogy, there is no difference between the mafia man who murders a shopowner and the guy who press the button in a capital execution.

You juge the action, without considering the context. A random group of soldiers in peacetime doing the actions described up-there, or even in a time of war, if they happen to be well-supplied, would be immoral.

If you don't get the difference, really, I won't care to argue more.

Kish
2011-03-14, 04:40 PM
If you don't get the difference,

We all get the difference, it's just not a difference that changes the fact that both are thoroughly evil.

really, I won't care to argue more.
Thank heavens.

mangosta71
2011-03-14, 04:44 PM
How do you know that the guys with the tank aren't enemies of the state? How did the villagers know that the party wasn't a group of demon collaborators and that they were attempting to sneak the "captured" demons into the capital for a surprise attack? In those cases, aiding them is treason.

Jayabalard
2011-03-14, 04:44 PM
Yup.

Because with the same analogy, there is no difference between the mafia man who murders a shopowner and the guy who press the button in a capital execution.Two comments:

1. A lot of people actually agree with this; that's why some people anti-capital punishment. Historically, professional executioners have often been shunned by society in the west (less so in Aisia, other than Japan iirc). hopefully that's not enough real world politics to upset a mod.

2. That's not a valid analogy. A mafia hitman is killing someone for fun and profit; a government appointed executioner is killing a criminal who has been judged worthy of death beyond a shadow of a doubt by due process of law, and has had ample opportunity to appeal this decision.

Your tank guys are like the hitman: they have no justification for killing you, or for demanding your resources. They have nothing in common with the executioner.


You juge the action, without considering the context. A random group of soldiers in peacetime doing the actions described up-there, or even in a time of war, if they happen to be well-supplied, would be immoral.No, I'm considering it... but the context simply does not justify those actions. It's just as immoral for them to do it when they are poorly supplied as it is when they are well supplied.

Gnaeus
2011-03-14, 05:20 PM
How do you know that the guys with the tank aren't enemies of the state? How did the villagers know that the party wasn't a group of demon collaborators and that they were attempting to sneak the "captured" demons into the capital for a surprise attack? In those cases, aiding them is treason.

His scenario? Because they are driving a US tank with US markings wearing US uniforms.

Our scenario? Because we were human. With a bunch of demon bodies. And a recognizable local nobleman. No one disputed who we were, they just wouldn't help us. Also, because if we had been demons, wanting 4 horses, we would have killed the whole village and had all the horses, and a snack for the road.

The_Jackal
2011-03-14, 06:01 PM
Seriously, take the D&D alignment system and set it on fire. It's pointless, obstructive, un-nuanced and mostly irrelevant anyway.

As for your situation, yes, you're a cold blooded killer. But I fail to see the functional moral difference between sneaking up behind them and killing them quietly and kicking down the door shouting 'Y'all know what this is', and cutting them in half with a greatsword. They're just as dead.

Gaius Marius
2011-03-14, 09:20 PM
As for your situation, yes, you're a cold blooded killer. But I fail to see the functional moral difference between sneaking up behind them and killing them quietly and kicking down the door shouting 'Y'all know what this is', and cutting them in half with a greatsword. They're just as dead.

May I ask wether or not you are referring to the OP or the 2nd situation?

And being a cold blooded killer doesn't make you evil. It just makes you a cold blooded killer.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-14, 09:55 PM
That's what you've described. A bunch of people in a tank, come in, demand my gasoline, and kill me if I don't give it to them. It's exactly the same except your guys have a bigger gun; I'd actually label your tank guys as less moral than the street mugger. (and holy crap, I'm agreeing with Tyndmyr on something?)

I won't lie, I had the exact same thought. Clearly, this is either a sign that we are irrefutably right or the last sign of the apocalypse. I give it even odds.

Now, I actually feel this is one of the clearer alignment arguments I've seen. A lot of em are pretty squishy depending on the details, but here, we've got enough info to form a pretty reasonable conclusion.

1. Well, the townsfolk were acting a bit odd. This could be a clue that something else is wrong, possibly. I don't really have the info to say for sure, but perhaps they were told not to help you by someone they feared more or had some other reason for the unwillingness to sell you something.

2. There is no difference between a forced "sale" and theft. Well, perhaps except for the initial man, because he thought you were offering him a choice between a sale and no sale, when you really were offering him the choice of a sale or death. That is...certainly an evil act.

3. After witnessing what appears to be a deceptive, chaotic, and dangerous person kill someone in cold blood for no rational reason, the townspeople have roughly two choices, fight or run. They could *try* to deal with you, but they have absolutely no reason to believe you will be more reasonable with them. Especially when you're lighting them on fire and screaming about killing as many as it takes. No, fighting or running are the rational choices there.

4. Ownership of a horse may have meant life or death itself. When the demons are coming for you, speed matters. If the townspeople felt this to be the case, they would not be unjustified. After all, the town was threatened by demons, and you told them the entire kingdom was in dire danger of falling to demons. Selling your only chance at escape in such a situation is fairly unreasonable.

5. It is illogical to claim that someone else must die for you because you are...more important. Not to them, you are not. If you were, you wouldn't need to tell them. Just about everyone values their own life. The entirety of any plausible society is based on meeting mutual needs. The first need of any organism is life itself. Therefore, any just system must accept that people will try to continue to live, and doing so is not inherently wrong(unless you're doing things like removing other peoples ability to live).

So, as a result of this, we have killing without cause being considered wrong in any human society. And "I wanted/needed his things" is not considered cause in pretty much any civilization outside of prison systems.

Privateer
2011-03-15, 12:26 AM
Seriously, take the D&D alignment system and set it on fire. It's pointless, obstructive, un-nuanced and mostly irrelevant anyway.


Only if you let it be such. :smalltongue:

I always thought players defined their own alignments and then played them out as they saw fit. That's where the flexibility comes from. DM just adjudicates extreme acts incompatible to one's alignment. If I say I'm neutral, then go around habitually killing innocents, well... a good god probably will not give me spells.

Seems to me like a very simple system, if applied sparingly. And it adds a lot of flavor, nudging players to particular acts, giving them a carte-blanche, if you will, to do things they normally might be embarrassed to do.

Sometimes it's a bad thing, but with mature, responsible players who look out for each other's fun, it can be very nice.

Callista
2011-03-15, 12:30 AM
It definitely adds flavor. I think that people who don't like the alignment system often have had bad experiences with DMs who expect characters to be stereotypes of their alignment, with every act perfectly in tune with the alignment. That's not realistic, though; people do things they know they shouldn't, surprise themselves with their own generosity, settle down despite themselves, or take chances they wouldn't normally take. Once you understand that, you realize that the alignment is not meant to restrict the character, but to describe him; and that two people of the same alignment can be very, very different.

Jayabalard
2011-03-15, 01:02 PM
Seriously, take the D&D alignment system and set it on fire. It's pointless, obstructive, un-nuanced and mostly irrelevant anyway.It has several points; by the rules it's not obstructive (the rules clearly state that it's not a straight jacket for behavior); and it's quite relevant in the D&D mythos.