PDA

View Full Version : Baleful Polymorph and Morality



Golden-Esque
2011-07-11, 12:29 PM
I'm looking for some advice on the morality of something my Sorcerer did last week. The character is a 15 year-old human of noble blood and as a Sorcerer, he has no alignment-based abilities, so in the long run the outcome will not affect him much.

To make a long story short, while walking through a particularly sleazy city to pick up some scrolls that an acquaintance owes us, a young human boy (around 7 or 8) pickpocketed my Sorcerer of his coin purse. He was travelling with a companion (a cavalier) and as he ran off to pursue the boy, he called out to the cavalier that "Some kid ran off with my money!" We both proceeded to give chase to the kid, who eventually ended up in a dead-end ally.

It was clearly supposed to be an ambush; a bunch of other kids, a rag-tag gang all armed with sharpened sticks, came out of their hiding places to attack me. They all got rather scared when I pulled out my pointed stick; a +1 spell-storing rapier. They got freaked out and the kid dropped my money when I asked him to. I quickly scooped it up with Mage Hand.

Meanwhile, my comrade, the cavalier, is intimidating the crap out of these small kids (literally). He's well-known in the town and the little kids are all terrified. They all scamper except for the one who stole my money in the first place (who cornered himself as part of the ambush) and the oldest child, who appears to be about 10 years old, who is currently being grappled by the cavalier and having countless insults shoved into his ears by the man.

This is when the "real" leader of this gang shows up, a 17 year old kid who somehow managed to acquire enough levels of rogue to do 6d6 points of sneak attack damage to the cavalier while he was focused on the child. The cavalier flips out and he gets ready to throw fisty-cuffs with the teenager.

Meanwhile, my Sorcerer isn't satisfied with just having his money back; he wants to make the brat pay. My character is Chaotic Neutral; he doesn't really care about laws, but he doesn't go out of his way to break them unless he needs to in order to meet his ultimate objectives (find out what happened to his missing parents). My character is basically a blaster caster; he specializes in blowing stuff up extremely quickly, but he also has a fondness for transmutation magic. He figures that the kid is little better then a stray dog roaming the streets of the city, so he polymorphs the kid into a puppy and scoops it up.

It's around this time that the teenager attacks. I'm not sure if the cavalier forgot that he wasn't holding his sword instead of a child, but he wields the boy like a club and smashes him into the teenager; the teen is hurt pretty badly by the maneuver and the kid falls to the ground in a heap, unconscious and bleeding (fun factoid; the cavalier is LAWFUL GOOD).

Since it looks like the cavalier can take this teen, I run over to the kid to check on him. It clearly looks like he is going to die soon, and I don't have any wands or scrolls on me. Even though it won't prevent him from being in critical condition, I figure that altering his shape will at least stabilize the child, because his body would be reformed into a new shape, so I polymorph the second child into a puppy in order to save his life.

After a fairly quick combat that involved the black tentacles spell and some hijinxes involving a Sublime Cord and a dominate monster spell, we finish our business and return to our meeting point. The next day, I'm asked to use a true seeing spell in order to take care of some business. Now, as per true seeing, you see all things as they actually are, so out of the corner of my eyes, I get to see two young boys pretending to be puppies inside of my backpack. Kind of haunting, as their eyes had no hint of intelligence. Later in the afternoon, the Sublime Cord returned and made a joke about the fact that I had two kids transformed into dogs with me.

Now that you have the background information, this question is twofold: First, was transforming the children into puppies "evil?" I've heard all sorts of answers; yes, because I've stripped them of their free will, no, because they attacked me first, no, because they no longer have the capacity to possess free will in their new state, etc. I want the reader's opinion.

Second, my character is trying to decide what to DO with the children now that they are puppies. There's always the option of saying "to the hells with it, they attacked me first and now they are my pets!" However, my Sorcerer also knows how relatively easy it is to undo the spell (he possesses the Trueform spell, which is a 3rd / 4th level spell, for example) and since such simple magic can restore them, it kind of kills the illusion that they are his "pets" for him, plus since Baleful Polymorph altered their minds, the kids don't actually know what is happening to them. On the other hand, if I just restore them and send them on their way, they are going to go back to the streets and mug; possibly kill, another person who can't transform them into harmless critters at a whim.

What do you think?

Traab
2011-07-11, 12:46 PM
Id say it was a Chaotic Neutral act. Drop them off at an animal shelter and move on. These werent innocents you attacked, they were thugs and robbers.

erikun
2011-07-11, 01:02 PM
I really wouldn't call it evil, at least no more than attacking and not killing the kids in the first place was. You could arguably call the second polymorph good, as you saved the kid's life, in a way.

As for the second question, will Trueform restore their minds? If so, it would be the most good option to return them to normal. (Note that "most good" would be an alignment thing, not necessarily what would be best for you in this situation.) They've no doubt learned their lesson, and are unlikely to attack any sorcerers in the future. On the other hand, if Trueform won't return their minds to normal, it would probably be better to keep them as puppies. Having a pair of kids wandering the streets with the minds of (literal) dogs will just end badly.

Xanmyral
2011-07-11, 01:14 PM
Well, the first polymorph was out of revenge. The second out of necessity. I wouldn't clarify the first as evil, but not good, so I would thumb it as neutral. The first one is leaning more to the good side however. What you decide to do with them now however will determine the ultimate decision on if the polymorphing was good or evil, as if you polymorph someone into a tortoise so you can later throw them into a pond would definitely be evil. Turning them back and setting them go with some coin would be the "good" choice, although also the not-so-bright-for-the-future decision however. This all depends on if trueform gives them back their mind. If it doesn't, then the "good" option would be to take care of them in their new form, and get used to the idea that you just winked out two people in a state of death-yet-not-death.

... Although, if the spell doesn't return their minds, it would be quite hilarious to turn them back anyway and send them to the city. Not a good option mind you, but a rather funny one.

My suggestion? Go for the laugh.

Amnestic
2011-07-11, 01:18 PM
Id say it was a Chaotic Neutral act. Drop them off at an animal shelter and move on. These werent innocents you attacked, they were thugs and robbers.

I wouldn't put street urchins - even thieving street urchins - on the same level as 'robbers', a term with generally adult connotations.

Glimbur
2011-07-11, 01:44 PM
If their minds can be restored, can't you just restore them to being people and take them to the city guard? It's probably the most Lawful option.

Traab
2011-07-11, 01:59 PM
I wouldn't put street urchins - even thieving street urchins - on the same level as 'robbers', a term with generally adult connotations.

They lured him into an ambush so they could rob him. They are by definition robbers. They may be young robbers, but they are still thieves and robbers.

Golden-Esque
2011-07-11, 02:28 PM
Id say it was a Chaotic Neutral act. Drop them off at an animal shelter and move on. These werent innocents you attacked, they were thugs and robbers.

That would definitely be the most Chaotic Neutral thing I could possibly do to them. As a Chaotic Neutral character, there isn't much wrong with that.


I really wouldn't call it evil, at least no more than attacking and not killing the kids in the first place was. You could arguably call the second polymorph good, as you saved the kid's life, in a way.

As for the second question, will Trueform restore their minds? If so, it would be the most good option to return them to normal. (Note that "most good" would be an alignment thing, not necessarily what would be best for you in this situation.) They've no doubt learned their lesson, and are unlikely to attack any sorcerers in the future. On the other hand, if Trueform won't return their minds to normal, it would probably be better to keep them as puppies. Having a pair of kids wandering the streets with the minds of (literal) dogs will just end badly.

From what I can gather, True Form does restore the target's mind. It states that it completely removes the Polymorph effect from the target, and part of the Baleful Polymorph effect alters the creature's mind.


Well, the first polymorph was out of revenge. The second out of necessity. I wouldn't clarify the first as evil, but not good, so I would thumb it as neutral. The first one is leaning more to the good side however. What you decide to do with them now however will determine the ultimate decision on if the polymorphing was good or evil, as if you polymorph someone into a tortoise so you can later throw them into a pond would definitely be evil. Turning them back and setting them go with some coin would be the "good" choice, although also the not-so-bright-for-the-future decision however. This all depends on if trueform gives them back their mind. If it doesn't, then the "good" option would be to take care of them in their new form, and get used to the idea that you just winked out two people in a state of death-yet-not-death.

... Although, if the spell doesn't return their minds, it would be quite hilarious to turn them back anyway and send them to the city. Not a good option mind you, but a rather funny one.

My suggestion? Go for the laugh.

Part of the character is that he is young (15 years old) and he's mostly Chaotic Neutral because he's a rebellious teenage who really doesn't know anything about how the world works. I feel like this decision will ultimately determine how the character will further develop his outlook on the world, and I am trying to figure out what that outlook should be.

Because of how I interpret the True Form spell (completely removing said Polymorph effect), it seems to be completely within my character's power to completely revert them to normal. Even though the kid DID steal from me, he also willingly returned my goods (abet at the threat of force). Like you said, the first polymorph was completely out of revenge.


I wouldn't put street urchins - even thieving street urchins - on the same level as 'robbers', a term with generally adult connotations.

I don't know, I don't think I would call them thugs, but I would definitely call them robbers.


If their minds can be restored, can't you just restore them to being people and take them to the city guard? It's probably the most Lawful option.

It probably would, except for two problems.

#1 My character is Chaotic Neutral, so he doesn't necessarily care about the "most Lawful option," but it must certainly is the most Lawful thing to do.

#2 I didn't mention this in the story, but part of the "adventures with dominate monster" that I mentioned above included learning that the ENTIRE city guard is corrupted and regularly bought out to the highest bidder. After experiencing that and currently being Chaotic Neutral, I don't think my character would trust the city guard to do their job.

After reading over some posts, here are some thoughts:

My character has done fairly "gritty" things (he's very much into shoot first when provoked, ask questions later) and he genuinely enjoys killing his foes because to him, its like when you get out of college and finally get to put all of the skills you learned to the test (hopefully you did). He's using everything he's learned and practiced about magic and it's serving him well; it's not so much the fact that his foes are dead that pleases him as much as it is the fact that he won and proved that he's worth his place in the party. After all, the other characters in the party are all in their late twenties / early thirties.

Back to the kids, I don't think that my character would have much remorse for the first kid that he has Polymorphed. That kid stole from him and he deserves what he is getting. The second kid was part of that attempt, but he didn't actually do anything wrong. I think my character wants to restore that child to normal, but at the same time, he's completely aware that doing so would only result in the kid going out onto the street and becoming a crook again. Give the kid some coin? He'll either waste it or have it stolen or swindled from him, but ultimately end up on the streets again.

I was thinking about trying to find an orphanage or something and dropping at least the one kid off to live there, but that seems like it could go rather far out of my way in order to do so.

Other notes, I do have the Leadership feat. I wonder how "worth it" it would be to have a bunch of followers in that particular age category ....

Jay R
2011-07-11, 02:52 PM
#2 I didn't mention this in the story, but part of the "adventures with dominate monster" that I mentioned above included learning that the ENTIRE city guard is corrupted and regularly bought out to the highest bidder. After experiencing that and currently being Chaotic Neutral, I don't think my character would trust the city guard to do their job.

Don't be silly. You just told us how you can trust them to do their job -- be the highest bidder.

Walk into the city guard's office, find the captain, tell him the story, turn the puppies back into kids in front of him, tell him you want them kept safely locked up, and give him a big, friendly smile and 10,000 gp.

Then tell the two thieves, "If you escape from here, I will find you, and the next time you will be transformed permanently -- both you and anyone who helps you escape." Glare malevolently at them, turn and glare at the captain, turn it into a big friendly smile, add "But I'm sure that won't be necessary," and saunter away.

Keld Denar
2011-07-11, 03:53 PM
Keep in mind that Baleful Polymorph is "permanent" rather than "instantaneous", and that a caster may automatically succeed in dispelling his own spells. Thus, if you cast Dispel Magic (either from your list, or from a scroll/wand) you could dispel the effect and return the boys to their origional form. Simply take them down to the local klink, drop them into the cell, lock the door, and cast the dispel. Its actually a decent idea for taking prisoners alive.

prufock
2011-07-11, 04:23 PM
Baleful Polymorph isn't an evil spell, so casting it to its desired effect isn't evil.

Easiest option here is just to dispel the polymorph and drop the kids in the clink. As for the town guard being sold to the highest bidder, I doubt you have to worry about a couple of street urchins buying their way out.

Acanous
2011-07-11, 05:05 PM
Keep them as pets and use handle animal to train them until you can find a druid to cast "Awaken Animal" on them.

Then ask if they'd rather be your magical attack dogs or go back to the street as commoners.

Cyrion
2011-07-11, 05:12 PM
As another option- one that eliminates the haunting puppy eyes as well as offers the possibility of keeping them from getting back on the streets- drop them off at a nearby cloistered monastery along with a gift of gold for the order, and then remove the polymorph.

Analytica
2011-07-11, 05:12 PM
Other notes, I do have the Leadership feat. I wonder how "worth it" it would be to have a bunch of followers in that particular age category ....

TOTALLY keep them as followers. Treat the dogs kindly until they like you. Then release the kids from the spell and say that they are free to go or stay.

I like this Chaotic Neutral interpretation, by the way.

erikun
2011-07-11, 05:17 PM
Walk into the city guard's office, find the captain, tell him the story, turn the puppies back into kids in front of him, tell him you want them kept safely locked up, and give him a big, friendly smile and 10,000 gp.
10,000 gp to keep a pair of teenage kids locked up in jail? :smalleek: That seems both overly expensive and harsh. If I were the character, I'd just turn them into the animal shelter and call it a day.

Coidzor
2011-07-11, 05:20 PM
You know what adventurers always need? Someone to clean their boots after a lengthy slog through dungeon muck.

I imagine that by the time you get the means to undo what was done, they'll be suitably cowed...

JBento
2011-07-11, 06:27 PM
You people are all too nice oO

If I was playing a CN character in that situation, I'd leave them on the street to their own devices - these are people who just tried to rob and then murder me.

(None of your actions are Evil, btw)

Shpadoinkle
2011-07-11, 07:25 PM
Put them in a cage or something, dispel the polymorph, then kill them as quickly and as painlessly as possible. Or just kill them as is without dispelling the polymorph. They tried to murder you, I wouldn't call murdering them right back evil- they demonstrated clear intent and planned things out, so they knew damn well what they were doing. You're probably not the first person they've tried to kill (considering they're still alive and the leader can do 6d6 SA damage he's almost certainly been doing this for quite a while), and if you let them go I'm pretty damn sure you won't be the last person they try to murder.

Show
2011-07-11, 09:19 PM
Here's my interpretation of the morality of the situation:

Your spell had the same effect as killing them(ie, destroying their mind and body). You have the power to have the same effect as resurrecting them, via your other spell. In essence, you have the power of life and death over them. I guess, considering what you've said about your character, the question is a utilitarian one:
Is the world(or your character, depending on your alignment leanings), benefitted by them being dead, or would it(and them) be a better place without them?

I'd personally say that an idealistic CN character would free them and try to teach them a lesson, while a cynical one would just leave them as dogs.

That's assuming two things: it is relatively easy to cast the spell, and your character has at least the tiniest bit of empathy.

Shadowknight12
2011-07-11, 09:22 PM
Not evil.

NEXT!

tyckspoon
2011-07-11, 09:29 PM
Put them in a cage or something, dispel the polymorph, then kill them as quickly and as painlessly as possible. Or just kill them as is without dispelling the polymorph. They tried to murder you, I wouldn't call murdering them right back evil-

I would. Killing somebody in defensive combat is not evil, nor is a justified execution for known crimes- if he'd killed them at the point of ambush, there wouldn't be a problem. Killing people after you have already granted them mercy and taken them prisoner? That's disposing of them for your own convenience, and it's evil. Wouldn't be out of character- it's definitely something I could see a teenager with far more power than maturity doing- but I don't see how you can argue it isn't evil.

Shpadoinkle
2011-07-11, 10:04 PM
I would. Killing somebody in defensive combat is not evil, nor is a justified execution for known crimes- if he'd killed them at the point of ambush, there wouldn't be a problem. Killing people after you have already granted them mercy and taken them prisoner? That's disposing of them for your own convenience, and it's evil. Wouldn't be out of character- it's definitely something I could see a teenager with far more power than maturity doing- but I don't see how you can argue it isn't evil.

So... you think it's not evil to kill somebody in hot blood, but it is evil to gain control of the situation, consider things rationally, and THEN decide whether death is an appropriate punishment?

tyckspoon
2011-07-11, 10:21 PM
If that's how you want to frame it, yes. I think it's non-evil to kill them either in the course of the combat or in the immediate aftermath (not *pleasant*, in the event of doing it as combat cleanup, but not evil), but once you have already spared their lives and taken them prisoner, especially in a way that renders them easily containable and harmless? Yes, it's evil to kill them. There's at least an implied promise there to either keep them alive or deliver them to some other authority to render judgement and justice if necessary.

JDMSJR
2011-07-11, 11:03 PM
Have we forgotten we are talking about a 7 year old and a 10 year old, even if they are street urchins?

Bob
2011-07-11, 11:08 PM
Whether or not a summary trial and execution for the boys/dogs in question would be a good or evil act, it certainly seems to tend toward a lawful one.

In my opinion the most neutral thing you could do on the good/evil axis in this situation would be to let the kids go, especially if your character would sympathize with them, a bunch of street urchins scraping by on the mean streets, fighting the system that failed to give them the opportunities to lead wholesome and productive lives; that's punk rock, that's Dickens, thats as CN as you get.





Two sentences.

Mastikator
2011-07-11, 11:38 PM
It's not evil if the children are turned back into children.

Depending on the guards, I'm not sure it's a good thing to turn them in. Better to look for a foster family for the children, now that's on the upper end of the good/evil spectrum. If you show them mercy and protect them from the law after they broke it you end up on the chaotic good side.

Graytemplar
2011-07-11, 11:51 PM
a good chaotic viewpoint on anything is "keep it you can use it" If they're not helpful soon, discard them as u desire, but circumstantially, they can be just what u need


say u need a distraction, release the puppies, let them wander into a public area, then dispel the polymorph, their transformation, combined with their puppylike actions could be exactly what u need to lure corrupt guards from their posts

alternatively release them into a dragon's lair, wherever the mood takes u

Coidzor
2011-07-12, 12:33 AM
Have we forgotten we are talking about a 7 year old and a 10 year old, even if they are street urchins?

I believe so. :smallconfused:

JBento
2011-07-12, 08:55 AM
I find their ages to be irrelevant for this discussion, as nowhere in the rules exists a... let's say "legal age limit" (or rather, there is, in the minimum ages table, but since they are under the rogue age limit while clearly having such training, that's out of the window).

Even if there was, "attempted 1st degree murder" is more than enough reason to try them as adults, or otherwise deliver punishment as if they were so.

hamishspence
2011-07-12, 09:00 AM
Technically, the only one proven to have lots of rogue training, and to have had a good try at murdering the PC, was the 17 year old.

Jay R
2011-07-12, 09:05 AM
So... you think it's not evil to kill somebody in hot blood, but it is evil to gain control of the situation, consider things rationally, and THEN decide whether death is an appropriate punishment?

Yes, of course. Using deadly force in self-defense against deadly force aimed at you is legal in most jurisdictions and either acceptable or forgivable in most cultures, and killing somebody who is not an immediate threat to you is illegal in most jurisdictions and unforgivable in most cultures.

In the first instance, it's impossible to go through legal procedures and consult the judicial authorities. The person dies if he doesn't fight back. In the second case, deciding on your own to kill that person is putting yourself above the law.

Individuals have the immediate right to defend themselves, but cannot perform executions separate from their society's procedures.

JBento
2011-07-12, 09:06 AM
The 7 year old performed a Sleight of Hand, which is trained only - this suggests something with levels in a class other than commoner.

Furthermore, the OP says that the urchin led them to what "was clearly supposed to be an ambush." So... conspiracy to commit 1st degree murder, I guess. I would still have Scorching Ray'd the lot of them.

TriForce
2011-07-12, 09:15 AM
First of all, remember that your actions determine your alignment and your alignment doesnt dictate your actions. so dont think "what would be a chaotic neutral thing to do" just think "what would my character do"

as you discribed him, he seemed like a bit of a spoiled brat, someone with a lot of power but not the maturity to use it wisely all the time.

now is the point where you can decide how your character will grow. judging from your discription, both of the kids have the mind of a dog now, wich is a bad thing, its almost the same as killing them, since they are no longer sentient to the same degree as before. the "leader" id just keep in dog form forever, he was the leader, and he was the only one who physically harmed any of you. the other one, who you polymorhed to save his life, you could either do the same, since he WAS trying to rob you, OR you could indicate some growth in maturity for your character, and try to make him human again, and restore his intelligence. this would be a hard thing to do, but thats what character growth is all about

Analytica
2011-07-12, 09:18 AM
Even if there was, "attempted 1st degree murder" is more than enough reason to try them as adults, or otherwise deliver punishment as if they were so.

Cause, you know, starving and abandoned children are well known for having thoroughly thought through the full moral implications of their actions... :smallyuk:

hamishspence
2011-07-12, 09:23 AM
The 7 year old performed a Sleight of Hand, which is trained only - this suggests something with levels in a class other than commoner.

Suggests- but does not prove- a 1st level commoner can take 2 ranks in Sleight of Hand (cross-class).

JBento
2011-07-12, 10:20 AM
Cause, you know, starving and abandoned children are well known for having thoroughly thought through the full moral implications of their actions... :smallyuk:

That is utterly true. You know what else is utterly true? In D&D, it doesn't matter. Evil for Evil's sake and Evil through recklessness are just as Evil.

hamishspence
2011-07-12, 10:23 AM
That said, killing Evil children can, depending on the circumstances, also be an evil act.

BoED gives the example of battling an orc tribe- placing a fireball to encompass not only orc combatants, but orc children- this is Evil.

Proportionality is generally appropriate when fighting those who are evil- how much of a threat are they? How liable are they for their actions? and so on.


Evil for Evil's sake and Evil through recklessness are just as Evil.

BoVD phrases recklessness as "should probably make the paladin fall" whereas knowing the likely consequences and doing it anyway is "definitely evil"

So- there is a difference.

Analytica
2011-07-12, 10:44 AM
That is utterly true. You know what else is utterly true? In D&D, it doesn't matter. Evil for Evil's sake and Evil through recklessness are just as Evil.

Very well, if that interpretation makes the game most enjoyable for you then by all means play that way. For my part, I tend to care more whether my character's actions are empathetic than whether they are Good or Evil.

hamishspence
2011-07-12, 10:47 AM
While "punish those that harm the innocent" is certainly a valid interpretation of "non-evil" generally, it needs to be appropriate to the situation.

Murdering 7 year old children because they "led you into an ambush" doesn't really fulfill the "appropriate" criteria.

Gamgee
2011-07-12, 11:31 AM
You've been slighted by two people who you easily bested, it was laughable really. So instead of at least getting vengeance by turning them in, you instead go and turn them into puppies for all of time completely destroying their life not to mention shortening it since dogs live shorter, even worse dogs travel in roaming packs that fight for survival in real life. You've essentially signed their death warrant for a slight, this goes beyond defense to torture.

Yes, your evil.

Neutral Evil.

Stegyre
2011-07-12, 11:47 AM
My character. . . polymorphs the kid into a puppy and scoops it up.

I run over to the kid to check on him. It clearly looks like he is going to die soon, . . . so I polymorph the second child into a puppy in order to save his life.

After a fairly quick combat that involved the black tentacles spell and some hijinxes involving a Sublime Cord and a dominate monster spell, we finish our business and return to our meeting point.

What do you think?

Two 5th level Baleful Polymorphs, a 4th level Black Tentacles, and amIright a 9th level Dominate Monster to handle one marginal attacker and his worthless child-minions??

This is beyond good and evil: it was exceedingly inefficient.

JBento
2011-07-12, 11:48 AM
Very well, if that interpretation makes the game most enjoyable for you then by all means play that way. For my part, I tend to care more whether my character's actions are empathetic than whether they are Good or Evil.

Ah, but that's a whole other ballpark. The discussion at hand WAS about the alignment of the actions, not their empathy - I'll agree with you that the empathetically speaking, then turning them back is the best option.

@Hamish: note that the BoED (the Book of What the Hell) makes a different distinction there - it doesn't distinguish between adults and children, it distinguishes between combatants and children (therefore implying that the children are non-combatants). What we have here are combatants.

In truth, the problem boils down to the fact the D&D alignment system, at best, is a point of contention, and, at worst, is a random crapshoot. And I can only assume the game designers were fully aware of this, seeing as Core contains the Plot Devictery of Faithfulness.

Coidzor
2011-07-12, 01:08 PM
I find their ages to be irrelevant for this discussion, as nowhere in the rules exists a... let's say "legal age limit" (or rather, there is, in the minimum ages table, but since they are under the rogue age limit while clearly having such training, that's out of the window).

Even if there was, "attempted 1st degree murder" is more than enough reason to try them as adults, or otherwise deliver punishment as if they were so.

Regardless of whether it's explicitly stated in the rules, there's something known as the bonds of good taste. That is to say, just because there's nothing in the rules saying DMs shouldn't go into long, sordid descriptions of the PCs getting brutally raped, that doesn't mean that DMs still should not do this kind of thing.

So the DM throwing children as adversaries as something to be killed casually is... both tacky and unlikely to be the optimum solution.

Sparing them and pumping them for information, on the other hand, could lead to whoever's been organizing the street children and taking advantage of the corruption of the city in order to do other things on the sly, which could lead to information about the OP's PC's missing parents. And cleaning up an unpleasant aspect of the black market/criminal underworld is generally potentially lucrative as well as something that'll attract the right sorts of right and wrong attention.

Because if someone's gone missing mysteriously, odds are someone in the underworld knows a guy who knows a guy... At least, that's what my plot sniffer is telling me.


While "punish those that harm the innocent" is certainly a valid interpretation of "non-evil" generally, it needs to be appropriate to the situation.

Murdering 7 year old children because they "led you into an ambush" doesn't really fulfill the "appropriate" criteria.

Generally there's a bit of a grey area about whether children are capable of being Evil when D&D has addressed it at all (which it... mostly hasn't as far as I know for various reasons). Even IRL, there's not a huge consensus about the exact time things change over, but most cultures, AFAIK, tend to view children as having less moral agency.

Lotta difference between a 17 year old and a 7 year old.


Furthermore, the OP says that the urchin led them to what "was clearly supposed to be an ambush." So... conspiracy to commit 1st degree murder, I guess. I would still have Scorching Ray'd the lot of them.

Seemed more like an attempt at mugging/intimidation than outright trying to murder the blargh out of the PCs when I read through it myself. Aside from the rogue teenager, who while capable of killing has the most inscrutable motives due to being dead and arriving on the scene after the burly guy started brutalizing the kids after he overpowered them.

JBento
2011-07-12, 01:41 PM
Actually, there IS something in the rules about that - the game clearly states that you shouldn't make the other players uncomfortable. I'm AFB during the week, so i can't give you a quote, but I am absolutely certain it's there.
If the DM doesn't want children to be brutally murdered, and I can't stress this enough, HE SHOULDN'T HAVE CHILDREN VIOLENTLY ANTAGONIZE A NON-GOOD PC, especially when the PC is a child himself and has a tendency to blast enemies.
Regardless, I see your point.

As a note, this being D&D, the 17 year old's motives are far from inescrutable, and is quite possible to pump the kids for information even if they're dead.
I suggest a liberal application of the spell of Bane of Mystery Murd, er, Speak With Dead :smallsmile:

Coidzor
2011-07-12, 01:43 PM
As a note, this being D&D, the 17 year old's motives are far from inescrutable, and is quite possible to pump the kids for information even if they're dead.
I suggest a liberal application of the spell of Bane of Mystery Murd, er, Speak With Dead :smallsmile:

...I always forget about that spell... :smallsigh: Yeah, definitely seems like that'll be a necessary thing to get to the bottom of this plot hook...

Notreallyhere77
2011-07-12, 03:59 PM
Two 5th level Baleful Polymorphs, a 4th level Black Tentacles, and amIright a 9th level Dominate Monster to handle one marginal attacker and his worthless child-minions??

This is beyond good and evil: it was exceedingly inefficient.

Those spells were used against someone else, I'm pretty sure. They were uncovering corruption in the city guards when those spells were cast.
Yeah. Here we go.


#2 I didn't mention this in the story, but part of the "adventures with dominate monster" that I mentioned above included learning that the ENTIRE city guard is corrupted and regularly bought out to the highest bidder. After experiencing that and currently being Chaotic Neutral, I don't think my character would trust the city guard to do their job.

So it appears that at least the Dominate spell was used on someone else.

JBento
2011-07-12, 03:59 PM
Spellcasting: destroying murder mysteries since Y2K :smallbiggrin:

Golden-Esque
2011-07-12, 07:52 PM
Don't be silly. You just told us how you can trust them to do their job -- be the highest bidder.

Walk into the city guard's office, find the captain, tell him the story, turn the puppies back into kids in front of him, tell him you want them kept safely locked up, and give him a big, friendly smile and 10,000 gp.

Then tell the two thieves, "If you escape from here, I will find you, and the next time you will be transformed permanently -- both you and anyone who helps you escape." Glare malevolently at them, turn and glare at the captain, turn it into a big friendly smile, add "But I'm sure that won't be necessary," and saunter away.

Both my character and I would rather not associate with these guards. Besides having been shown to be horribly inefficient at their jobs, there are several noble and merchant houses that could easily out pay me. Why they would want to free two small boys that I locked up in prison is beyond me, but whatever.


Keep them as pets and use handle animal to train them until you can find a druid to cast "Awaken Animal" on them.

Then ask if they'd rather be your magical attack dogs or go back to the street as commoners.

Would they even HAVE their old, original personalities? Who's to say that the spell doesn't manifest some other personality, in which case I'd befriend the awakened dogs and then feel awful when some other spellcaster dispelled them on me.


As another option- one that eliminates the haunting puppy eyes as well as offers the possibility of keeping them from getting back on the streets- drop them off at a nearby cloistered monastery along with a gift of gold for the order, and then remove the polymorph.

To be honest, this is also a path I was considering taking with the children.


TOTALLY keep them as followers. Treat the dogs kindly until they like you. Then release the kids from the spell and say that they are free to go or stay.

I like this Chaotic Neutral interpretation, by the way.

I actually asked my DM about it; he told me that I would need a wicked Diplomacy check in order to keep them as followers after warping their little bodies and minds into common dogs. To be honest, I'm a little disappointed by that. Considering I can teleport vast distances with a world, scry on them with an hour's notice (I have locks of their hair, after all), and easily retransform them into puppies, you'd think they'd be a little more open to being my followers :(. Granted, I COULD do all of this; doesn't necessarily mean I will.


You people are all too nice oO

If I was playing a CN character in that situation, I'd leave them on the street to their own devices - these are people who just tried to rob and then murder me.

(None of your actions are Evil, btw)

Leave them on the street as puppies or as boys? Because the whole "Street Urchins" thing almost got me robbed, got them transformed into puppies, and got their leader killed in order to sate the bloodlust of a cursed, Intelligent Magical Shield.


Put them in a cage or something, dispel the polymorph, then kill them as quickly and as painlessly as possible. Or just kill them as is without dispelling the polymorph. They tried to murder you, I wouldn't call murdering them right back evil- they demonstrated clear intent and planned things out, so they knew damn well what they were doing. You're probably not the first person they've tried to kill (considering they're still alive and the leader can do 6d6 SA damage he's almost certainly been doing this for quite a while), and if you let them go I'm pretty damn sure you won't be the last person they try to murder.

Yeah, but my character wouldn't be willing to just off them; not as puppies, especially not as boys. That's why he didn't make an example of the first kid by simply frying him alive with Scorching Ray.


Here's my interpretation of the morality of the situation:

Your spell had the same effect as killing them(ie, destroying their mind and body). You have the power to have the same effect as resurrecting them, via your other spell. In essence, you have the power of life and death over them. I guess, considering what you've said about your character, the question is a utilitarian one:
Is the world(or your character, depending on your alignment leanings), benefitted by them being dead, or would it(and them) be a better place without them?

I'd personally say that an idealistic CN character would free them and try to teach them a lesson, while a cynical one would just leave them as dogs.

That's assuming two things: it is relatively easy to cast the spell, and your character has at least the tiniest bit of empathy.

That part about "killing the boys" with Polymorph is actually going right along with my character's current thinking; especially after seeing them "as they really are" with the True Sight spell. The pair are just young children; it's rather hard to say. They're thieves, so as of now the world is a better place without them, but at the same time, there's a lot of potential there for the boys that hasn't been realized yet.

Originally, transforming the first child into a dog was supposed to teach the other gang members a lesson, but taking the second kid just sort of happened out of fear for his life.


Have we forgotten we are talking about a 7 year old and a 10 year old, even if they are street urchins?

I certainly have not! If they were adults who tried to rob my character, they would be dead. No Polymorph spells, no morality questioning. Just two smoldering piles of ash. To both myself and my character, the entire issue of morality is COMPLETELY based on the fact that these are kids we're dealing with; I hope everyone else can keep that fact in mind as well.


Whether or not a summary trial and execution for the boys/dogs in question would be a good or evil act, it certainly seems to tend toward a lawful one.

In my opinion the most neutral thing you could do on the good/evil axis in this situation would be to let the kids go, especially if your character would sympathize with them, a bunch of street urchins scraping by on the mean streets, fighting the system that failed to give them the opportunities to lead wholesome and productive lives; that's punk rock, that's Dickens, thats as CN as you get.

I agree; letting the towns guard is not what my character would do, as it is far too lawful. Especially considering that my character has seen how corrupted the local government is.

However, my character doesn't sympathize with the whole "failed system" ideology. He is a noble, born with fantastic powers because of two parents who worked hard to discover the secrets of magic. His parents ran a Mage's School in Lyrabar before their disappearance (we're playing in Forgotten Realms) and had the backing of the strongest noble house. My character is the literal example of a brat born with a silver spoon in his mouth.


Depending on the guards, I'm not sure it's a good thing to turn them in. Better to look for a foster family for the children, now that's on the upper end of the good/evil spectrum. If you show them mercy and protect them from the law after they broke it you end up on the chaotic good side.

Finding them a home is most certainly the route I am most strongly considering exploring; the biggest problem is that the best place for them would not be in a completely run-down cesspit like Westgate.


a good chaotic viewpoint on anything is "keep it you can use it" If they're not helpful soon, discard them as u desire, but circumstantially, they can be just what u need


say u need a distraction, release the puppies, let them wander into a public area, then dispel the polymorph, their transformation, combined with their puppylike actions could be exactly what u need to lure corrupt guards from their posts

alternatively release them into a dragon's lair, wherever the mood takes u

My last pleasure with Baleful Polymorph involved something like this, actually. After disintigrating a druid, I polymorphed her bear companion into a bunny. Several minutes later, I had our Hurler Barbarian fling the bunny at some enemy dwarves who were going to kill us and then True Formed it back into a bear. Hilarity ensued. However, while it was hilarious with a bear, my character wouldn't want to use people for something like that.


Yes, of course. Using deadly force in self-defense against deadly force aimed at you is legal in most jurisdictions and either acceptable or forgivable in most cultures, and killing somebody who is not an immediate threat to you is illegal in most jurisdictions and unforgivable in most cultures.

In the first instance, it's impossible to go through legal procedures and consult the judicial authorities. The person dies if he doesn't fight back. In the second case, deciding on your own to kill that person is putting yourself above the law.

Individuals have the immediate right to defend themselves, but cannot perform executions separate from their society's procedures.

Luckily, I am Chaotic Neutral, so if I decided that I wanted to kill them (which I probably won't, unless given a very good reason to) I would have no qualms from my side of the Law / Chaos axis.


The 7 year old performed a Sleight of Hand, which is trained only - this suggests something with levels in a class other than commoner.

Furthermore, the OP says that the urchin led them to what "was clearly supposed to be an ambush." So... conspiracy to commit 1st degree murder, I guess. I would still have Scorching Ray'd the lot of them.

We play Pathfinder; anyone can buy ranks in any skill in that system. Plus, we don't have an OotS campaign where the characters are aware of the mechanics of their world :-).


First of all, remember that your actions determine your alignment and your alignment doesnt dictate your actions. so dont think "what would be a chaotic neutral thing to do" just think "what would my character do"

as you discribed him, he seemed like a bit of a spoiled brat, someone with a lot of power but not the maturity to use it wisely all the time.

now is the point where you can decide how your character will grow. judging from your discription, both of the kids have the mind of a dog now, wich is a bad thing, its almost the same as killing them, since they are no longer sentient to the same degree as before. the "leader" id just keep in dog form forever, he was the leader, and he was the only one who physically harmed any of you. the other one, who you polymorhed to save his life, you could either do the same, since he WAS trying to rob you, OR you could indicate some growth in maturity for your character, and try to make him human again, and restore his intelligence. this would be a hard thing to do, but thats what character growth is all about

Rest assured that I will only do what I think my character would do in this situation :). Sadly, I don't have the "leader" Polymorphed. I have the young kid who we thought was the leader, until the actual leader (the 17 year old teen) backstabbed my cavalier companion. That young man is dead; he is no child, he attacked a fully armed man; the captain of the forces of a local merchant house, no less. The kid whom I Polymorphed, the one who we originally thought was the leader, is the child that was transformed in an effort to save his life. The other child that I polymorphed is the one who actually stole my gold off of me; he has a perfectly good reason to spend the rest of his life as a dog. The first one had intent, but never acted upon it. Also, restoring the characters is extremely simple, it only requires the casting of a 3rd level spell which I have access to.


You've been slighted by two people who you easily bested, it was laughable really. So instead of at least getting vengeance by turning them in, you instead go and turn them into puppies for all of time completely destroying their life not to mention shortening it since dogs live shorter, even worse dogs travel in roaming packs that fight for survival in real life. You've essentially signed their death warrant for a slight, this goes beyond defense to torture.

Yes, your evil.

Neutral Evil.

I wouldn't agree entirely on this. I only acted out of vengeance on the first child; the second one was in an attempt to save his life. Second, the spell is relatively easy to remove, so calling it "all of time is a little much as well." Third, these puppies are not travelling in "roaming packs," they're still on my person (ah, the wonders of Rope Trick!). Fourth, I wouldn't call intent of manslaughter a small slight. I'd also argue against torturing them; they'd have to be able to realize what is going on for it to be torture; they're just two puppies that I feed and take care of each day now.

I agree that keeping them this way, especially when it is within my power to release them, is definitely not a good act, however.


Two 5th level Baleful Polymorphs, a 4th level Black Tentacles, and amIright a 9th level Dominate Monster to handle one marginal attacker and his worthless child-minions??

This is beyond good and evil: it was exceedingly inefficient.

Baleful Polymorph #1 was used to transform the slighter into a puppy.
Baleful Polymorph #2 was used to transform the dying child into a puppy.
Black Tentacles was used to trap the teenager who was trying to kill my comrade.

My character is only 14th level, can't cast 9th level spells, and doesn't have Dominate Monster. The "hijinxs" that I referred to was us trying to complete our task; the original reason that we separated from the party to begin with. While we were out, we ran into a bardess who wanted us to kill someone for her. The cavalier and I got separated, and she ended up forcing him to do it with a Dominate spell. Sorry if my mentioning of that party of the story was confusing; it was supposed to reference a time skip after the incident with the gang of kids.

Figgin of Chaos
2011-07-12, 08:20 PM
a good chaotic viewpoint on anything is "keep it you can use it" If they're not helpful soon, discard them as u desire, but circumstantially, they can be just what u need


say u need a distraction, release the puppies, let them wander into a public area, then dispel the polymorph, their transformation, combined with their puppylike actions could be exactly what u need to lure corrupt guards from their posts

alternatively release them into a dragon's lair, wherever the mood takes u

Being chaotic good doesn't involve endangering children, or puppies, to distract corrupt guards. Nor does it involve feeding them to dragons.


Even if there was, "attempted 1st degree murder" is more than enough reason to try them as adults, or otherwise deliver punishment as if they were so.
There is never a reason to try a child as an adult. Courts do it in real life, but they're doing it wrong; declaring something that is not true isn't the way of law.

Golden-Esque
2011-07-12, 08:34 PM
Being chaotic good doesn't involve endangering children, or puppies, to distract corrupt guards. Nor does it involve feeding them to dragons.

When he said "good chaotic," I think he meant "good" as in the sense of "adequate or acceptable" and not the alignment. He was saying that an acceptable, chaotic viewpoint and not a Chaotic Good viewpoint (note that Law/Chaos is always placed before Evil/Good when naming alignments :-P).


There is never a reason to try a child as an adult. Courts do it in real life, but they're doing it wrong; declaring something that is not true isn't the way of law.

In fairness, children of the age in this situation (7 - 10) don't typically go to court, period. They may get sentenced to juivie or whatnot, but you don't see the Supreme Court handling cases such as that.

Analytica
2011-07-12, 10:33 PM
I actually asked my DM about it; he told me that I would need a wicked Diplomacy check in order to keep them as followers after warping their little bodies and minds into common dogs. To be honest, I'm a little disappointed by that. Considering I can teleport vast distances with a world, scry on them with an hour's notice (I have locks of their hair, after all), and easily retransform them into puppies, you'd think they'd be a little more open to being my followers :(. Granted, I COULD do all of this; doesn't necessarily mean I will.

Try it: feed them, play with them, retransform them, then train them and see if you can teach them sorcery. Then either have them pay it forward by transforming new urchins into animals as a first step towards empowering said urchins, or have them return as angsty teenage avengers out to get you. Either way, it is a good test to apply to yourself. :smallbiggrin:

dps
2011-07-13, 10:04 PM
However, my character doesn't sympathize with the whole "failed system" ideology. He is a noble, born with fantastic powers because of two parents who worked hard to discover the secrets of magic. His parents ran a Mage's School in Lyrabar before their disappearance (we're playing in Forgotten Realms) and had the backing of the strongest noble house. My character is the literal example of a brat born with a silver spoon in his mouth

Your character is, no offense intended, a spoiled brat. As such, you're showing too much empathy for these kids. Do with them whatever is most convenient for you, or whatever suits your whims

Figgin of Chaos
2011-07-13, 10:50 PM
When he said "good chaotic," I think he meant "good" as in the sense of "adequate or acceptable" and not the alignment. He was saying that an acceptable, chaotic viewpoint and not a Chaotic Good viewpoint (note that Law/Chaos is always placed before Evil/Good when naming alignments :-P).

Oh yeah! Guess I just saw "chaotic" and "good" in the same place and jumped to conclusions.

Golden-Esque
2011-07-13, 11:15 PM
Your character is, no offense intended, a spoiled brat. As such, you're showing too much empathy for these kids. Do with them whatever is most convenient for you, or whatever suits your whims

None taken. That's how I've been playing him as well :). The major reason my character is empathetic is because he has a younger brother in that age range who may or may not be dead (he had to leave his home quickly and without a chance to explain what was going on).

Basically, I'm looking for ideas and viewpoints that my character could adapt, because I haven't decided if this event is something that I want to use to change his character and cause a little bit of growth (whether that is for good, evil, or neither, I still haven't decided). I'm growing fond of the idea of changing them back, offering them the choice to become my followers, and turning them into dogs again if they decline. (After all, the one boy owes me his life either way and the other tried to rob me and lured me into an ambush).

Haarkla
2011-07-16, 09:39 AM
Now that you have the background information, this question is twofold: First, was transforming the children into puppies "evil?" I've heard all sorts of answers; yes, because I've stripped them of their free will, no, because they attacked me first, no, because they no longer have the capacity to possess free will in their new state, etc. I want the reader's opinion.

Very deffinitely, if you dont turn them back, especially in the case of the 1st child.

As Hamishspence says, murdering children because they led you into an ambush doesn't fulfill the criteria for acceptable vengance.

JBento
2011-07-16, 10:19 AM
What? Sure it does, according to D&D alignment rules - you may argue that the rules are crap (which they are), but if you ARE following them, it's more than enough reason to kill them. Well, not MURDERING them, but killing them during the course of the fight would have been perfectly fine.

Regardless, that's not what he did - polymorphing them wasn't Evil.
Stripping others of their free will isn't Evil by the rules (whether or not it SHOULD be is another point entirely). Charm and Dominate don't have the Evil tag, and neither does the Polymorph line - heck, BoED has a spell that MINDRAPES people, and it has the Good tag.

Not undoing the Poly is not Evil, either, in case you're wondering.

EDIT: There's no such thing as "acceptable vengeance" according to the D&D alignment rules, which qualify vengeance as an Evil act.

Grendus
2011-07-16, 08:34 PM
Ok, so here's what I'm getting. You're chaotic neutral, neutral because you aren't particularly dedicated to good, and chaotic because you're powerful enough to ignore the rules when you want to. Your actions, however, lean towards chaotic good. You didn't kill the urchins, though you had plenty of reason to, instead opting to incapacitate them. Heck, in the second situation you were downright merciful, the kid would have died if you hadn't reshaped his body into one that wasn't bleeding to death.

So your character is more of an immature chaotic good, the type who acts impulsively enough that he'll do evil without thinking, but isn't chaotic stupid or chaotic jerkass. He just doesn't think through the consequences of his actions very well and tends to be vengeful when wronged. The first spell was revenge/punishment, the second was mercy.

As for where you go from here, the question is where do you want to? Actions make alignment, not vice versa. If you lean towards chaotic good, dispelling the magic and finding them homes would be a good route. Chaotic neutral would probably dispel the polymorph, threaten to turn them back if they ever crossed him again. Chaotic evil would leave them as dogs to show his power, or just kill them because they're inconvenient. Take your pick. What do you see your character doing? What do you want him to become?

Haarkla
2011-07-17, 11:33 AM
What? Sure it does, according to D&D alignment rules - you may argue that the rules are crap (which they are), but if you ARE following them, it's more than enough reason to kill them. Well, not MURDERING them, but killing them during the course of the fight would have been perfectly fine.

Regardless, that's not what he did - polymorphing them wasn't Evil.
Stripping others of their free will isn't Evil by the rules (whether or not it SHOULD be is another point entirely). Charm and Dominate don't have the Evil tag, and neither does the Polymorph line - heck, BoED has a spell that MINDRAPES people, and it has the Good tag.

Not undoing the Poly is not Evil, either, in case you're wondering.

EDIT: There's no such thing as "acceptable vengeance" according to the D&D alignment rules, which qualify vengeance as an Evil act.
I think you misunderstand the alignment system. D&D alignment is based on real life. What is a good act in real life is a good act in D&D. Playing it any other way is stupid.

If you attempt to define good and evil on the alignment descriptors off spells, rather than on the conventional English meanings of the terms ... then that way lies madness.

Mono Vertigo
2011-07-17, 11:40 AM
I think you misunderstand the alignment system. D&D alignment is based on real life. What is a good act in real life is a good act in D&D. Playing it any other way is stupid.
Then, may I ask you what to do with the stuff we can do in D&D that we cannot do in real life? Removing one's free will and turning them into an animal has no equivalent in real life, so we cannot base it on our own experience. The same issue pops up when you give sentience to something, or have the possibility to kill a creature labelled as obviously Evil, or kill an innocent baby in order to prevent the coming of a powerful demon.
These dilemmas do pop up in-game. So no, the D&D alignment isn't completely based on real life. And the current situation cannot be adequately solved if one only relies on real life.

Cerlis
2011-07-17, 11:59 AM
your viewpoint. these are a buncha reckless kids who did something they thought would work rather sporadically (just like you mister 15 year old chaotic guy). Even though they failed horribly, that just reminds you of what you could have been. Further it reminds you of what your brother could be right now if he is lucky enough to have found such merciful people such as yourself. You care about your parents or at least what happened to them so the idea of growing up as a family is not alien to you.

You are a 15 year old boy thrust into a man's position(a combatant) and suddenly have to make a very adult decision regarding children. It doesnt matter what your alignment is i feel that the strongest factor here is your emotional ties to the situation.

the way i see it, your character would want to do his (slightly twisted) version of what he thinks is right. (not the actual thing that is right, since he's a chaotic teenager). keep them until you can learn or get 2 scrolls of Charm monster. Use it on both of them, dispell the polymorph and take em to a Decent but not uptight monastary or simular place. You can explain how you caught these vagabonds on the street and rather than turn them into the corrupt authorities you thought you'd give them a chance.

Naturally you'd omit the part about charming them and turning them into dogs. I'm hopeing your DM would have that since their mind is altered for the time they wouldnt remember or be very aware of the whole dog situation. for all they'd know they where teleported or knocked out, ask your DM.

THe charm spell should last enough to get em off your hands.

Now depending on how your character developed you might forget them completely, you might grow more responsible and good acting as a surogate father to them in between adventures. you might play the part of the cranky weird uncle wizard who the nuns grow to dislike. You might grow to be a corrupt evil sorcerer who sees the boys as his kids or as someone who owes him and either be that "evil uncle wizard" archtype they dread seeing everytime he shows, or even corrupting them as future minions.

Either way, Lawful, CHaotic, GOod, Evil.....i think most characters with your history and state of life, regardless of alignment, would have their ties to family alter their view of this, and if you take this path every door is open to you.

JBento
2011-07-17, 01:27 PM
I think you misunderstand the alignment system. D&D alignment is based on real life. What is a good act in real life is a good act in D&D. Playing it any other way is stupid.

If you attempt to define good and evil on the alignment descriptors off spells, rather than on the conventional English meanings of the terms ... then that way lies madness.

A - that's a lie

B - even if it WERE true (which it isn't), what constitutes a Good act in real life varies so much it isn't even funny. I assure you, WHATEVER act you can think of that's evil, despicable, and utterly wrong has been considered quite right by some culture at some point

D&D alignment is based, only and solely, in what the designers felt like it, apparently in some cases under the influence of illegal stuff, and quite often haphazardly and contradictory. Seriously, sometimes it seems they were throwing darts at a board while blindfolded.

Because there's NO reason - at all - for a skeleton or zombie to be Evil, or for poison to be Evil (seriously, couatl must go to a serious identity crisis everytime they attack), or for Ur-Priests to be Evil, or how Paladins can redeem evil-doers without actually associating with them (whatever associate means) and if you can actually explain to me the differences between the PHB's examples of LN and CN, you win 5 internets.

randomhero00
2011-07-17, 01:41 PM
I would leave them in puppy form (I don't think they'll ever grow up that way will they?) and make a gift of them to some noble that likes puppies. Giving him or her two permanent puppies would be quite a gift.

edit PS as to the LN vs CN. LN is upholding laws that are neither good nor evil. An extreme example of this in real life IMO is waterboarding. You're not physically hurting them but its pretty effed up to do to someone. CN follows only his own inner feelings, and does whatever feels best in whatever situation. However they aren't completely selfish as CE would be.

huttj509
2011-07-17, 04:22 PM
Because there's NO reason - at all - for a skeleton or zombie to be Evil,

A mortal soul bound by magic against its will to animate a corpse to do the bidding of the caster? Especially if the setting considers negative energy the magical embodiment of unlife, and by using it, you have, in a small way, shifted the balance of the cosmos?

Not evil at all.

I can see reanimation used as a form of extra-corporal punishment, "not only will we kill you, you also get community service afterwards," but that would be using evil means to good ends.

I agree on poison, tho.

JBento
2011-07-17, 04:37 PM
There's no bound soul on skellies and zombies - it's just a piece of flesh.

You know where there IS a bound and tortured soul? Golems, which are all Always Neutral, including the flesh golem, which is made up of stolen human body parts all animated by an Animate Dead spell (among others) and an elemental spirit which is litterally tortured into obedience.

@randomher00: waterboarding is torture and, therefore, an Evil act.

Coidzor
2011-07-17, 05:24 PM
A mortal soul bound by magic against its will to animate a corpse to do the bidding of the caster? Especially if the setting considers negative energy the magical embodiment of unlife, and by using it, you have, in a small way, shifted the balance of the cosmos?

Not evil at all.

Was this ever stated in the old editions that people so often cite as the source of this idea?

Cerlis
2011-07-17, 06:21 PM
A - that's a lie

B - even if it WERE true (which it isn't), what constitutes a Good act in real life varies so much it isn't even funny. I assure you, WHATEVER act you can think of that's evil, despicable, and utterly wrong has been considered quite right by some culture at some point

D&D alignment is based, only and solely, in what the designers felt like it, apparently in some cases under the influence of illegal stuff, and quite often haphazardly and contradictory. Seriously, sometimes it seems they were throwing darts at a board while blindfolded.

Because there's NO reason - at all - for a skeleton or zombie to be Evil, or for poison to be Evil (seriously, couatl must go to a serious identity crisis everytime they attack), or for Ur-Priests to be Evil, or how Paladins can redeem evil-doers without actually associating with them (whatever associate means) and if you can actually explain to me the differences between the PHB's examples of LN and CN, you win 5 internets.


first paragraph you make it sound like "right" is the opposite of "Evil, despicable and wrong", but its just the opposite of wrong. Anything viewed as "evil" by the alignment system is merely viewed as "justified" or "the right thing to do" I might agree that they may be viewed as "right" , and my main reply would be "yes, and those civilizations would be viewed as evil"

Because contrary to your second paragraph, no, the DnD view of good and evil is based on our civilization's views of good and evil. there is even an entry on lycans saying how if you make a Were-something that isnt in the book, its aligmnent should be based on the views that society see that animal. I.E. Wolves are associated with evil, violence, and frenzy and so werewolves are evil.


ANd (though i've said this in 3 other topics this week) undead are evil because they are made out of evil. Evil is a physical tangible force in DnD, usually refered to as negative energy. ANd though it can be used for good causes it is always evil. saying Undead arent evil is like saying a water elemental is not Watery.

and i highly question the regard on Coutl. I'm pretty sure the entry says Poison use. Now if you want to be close minded and a grammar nazi you could refer to this as anything you do that involves poison, but i'm pretty dang sure that means making a concious effort to use poison in combat to disable and torture a foe. There is a big difference between a snake creature using its saliva to hinder a foe to defend itself, or slow down prey, and a humanoid using it to murder another humanoid.

Coidzor
2011-07-17, 06:24 PM
ANd (though i've said this in 3 other topics this week) undead are evil because they are made out of evil. Evil is a physical tangible force in DnD, usually refered to as negative energy. ANd though it can be used for good causes it is always evil. saying Undead arent evil is like saying a water elemental is not Watery.

[Citation Needed]

Cerlis
2011-07-17, 10:56 PM
For what? Well even though this Theory is based on the entirety of the 3.5 written word as it pertains to the actual planes, the use of magic and evil and good tools, and Alignment related classes such as paladins and clerics.


ANd undead are evil because they are made out of evil.
Its stated in the books that Necromancy is evil because it uses negative energy, undead are animated through negative energy. They are animated and thus created via negative energy, and evil energy source, thus they are an embodiment of evil.


Evil is a physical tangible force in DnD, usually refered to as negative energy The various hells and lower planes are a place of spiritual energy that is Evil energy. Things become evil just by being there, and things spawned there are evil. This is basic proof that Evil is a physical force, and when concentrated it takes the form of negative energy effects. that is why oh so many demons have negative energy effects.


ANd though it can be used for good causes it is always evil.

Simply, Evil for the sake of good is the halmark of Lawful evil and a few other evils, and the statement that casting an evil spell is an evil act.



Instead of looking at stuff through preconcieved notions and not letting it matched up to what you think it should be, try trying to figure out the RAI and what they intended it to be.




--------------------------
So OP, that sound like a decent answer i gave you before?

Starwulf
2011-07-17, 11:06 PM
I.E. Wolves are associated with evil, violence, and frenzy and so werewolves are evil.

Uhh, what society associates Wolves with Evil? Last time I checked, there are millions upon millions of shirts with Wolves on them, looking regal and majestic. Many Indian tribes used the Wolf as their Totem Animal, to represent ferocity and power, plus unity of the pack. Wolves are not an inherently evil animal, and there is NOTHING you can say that will ever convince me of that. They are virtually the Royalty of the Forest Kingdom.

Coidzor
2011-07-18, 02:25 AM
Uhh, what society associates Wolves with Evil? Last time I checked, there are millions upon millions of shirts with Wolves on them, looking regal and majestic. Many Indian tribes used the Wolf as their Totem Animal, to represent ferocity and power, plus unity of the pack. Wolves are not an inherently evil animal, and there is NOTHING you can say that will ever convince me of that. They are virtually the Royalty of the Forest Kingdom.

It is certainly an incredibly euro-centric view considering the people who invented D&D were American last I heard.

tyckspoon
2011-07-18, 02:30 AM
[SPOILER]For what? Well even though this Theory is based on the entirety of the 3.5 written word as it pertains to the actual planes, the use of magic and evil and good tools, and Alignment related classes such as paladins and clerics.
So OP, that sound like a decent answer i gave you before?

Ok, so.. Negative Energy is Evil, right? That means we should be able to look at a lot of negative-energy-using things, and they'll all be clearly tagged for evil? Soo..

Inflict (X) Wounds
Enervation
The Negative Energy Plane itself..
These are all [Evil] and clearly show us that the designers intended negative energy to be evil.

What? They aren't? Really? Maybe your theory needs some adjusting.

hamishspence
2011-07-18, 03:57 AM
EDIT: There's no such thing as "acceptable vengeance" according to the D&D alignment rules, which qualify vengeance as an Evil act.

Actually BoVD states "vengeance is not always evil- but the Evil mindset tends to redefine it as "revenge at any price".

Not every deity with Vengeance as part of its portfolio is evil either- as I recall, either Anhur or Horus from Faerun (both Good) have it.

On Skeletons being evil in 3.5 but not 3.0 or earlier- Libris Mortis provides an explanation of sorts- near-mindless, malevolent spirits are used to animate them.

"channelling negative energy" (in both 3.0 and 3.5 PHB, under Rebuking Undead) was classed as an evil act, even though the plane of negative energy itself, isn't.

Maybe there's a very loose tie between negative energy and evil magic. Sometimes it's evil, sometimes it isn't.

deuxhero
2011-07-18, 04:35 AM
What alignment was your actions?

Awesome!

As for the kids, is "7" an estimate or a fact? The 17 year old should definitively be kept as a dog (or killed), he's old enough for a PC to start play, so he's an adult in all senses for the setting.



Maybe there's a very loose tie between negative energy and evil magic. Sometimes it's evil, sometimes it isn't.


I prefer "WotC gave it as much thought as they did game balance". Golems are built by enslaving sapient speaking creatures (and this isn't pure fluff, they is a chance of them rebelling), and have no moral implications.

Vizzerdrix
2011-07-18, 04:50 AM
Okay. What I'd do is turn the wounded one back. Let him know it was to save his life, and offer him a job with the party. let him know that money and riches can be gained, or he can go back to living on the streets and eating trash and puddle water. Oh and hey! his first job is to take care of this puppy! :smallbiggrin: If this works out, turn the other one back and put him to work too.

As for a diplomacy check, just take a shiny new platinum piece and plop it down in their hands. Tell them if they don't want the job, they gotta give it back. Heck, at level 14, put a ruby the size of their fists in front of them.

hamishspence
2011-07-18, 04:54 AM
There's a bit of debate over whether the "elemental spirit" within the golem is sapient or not- and whether its rebellion is a rebellion per se, or more like a wild animal breaking its chains.

Either way, there's a bit of moral dissonance.

That said- BOED was the first 3.5 source to emphasise heavily that slavery was evil. In 3.0 Faerun, Mulhorand practices slavery, and is run by a paladin.

Conversely- the association between animating the dead and evil predates WoTC considerably-

the phrase "casting this spell is not a good act, and only evil (casters) cast it regularly" was used in 2nd ed- and possibly 1st ed as well, though I'm not sure.

deuxhero
2011-07-18, 05:01 AM
undead=evil is based largely in human aversion to the presence of dead people as a natural defense against the nasties assoiated with corpses (most often, the reason they are one). At least that much makes sense.

OracleofWuffing
2011-07-18, 05:24 AM
What? They aren't? Really? Maybe your theory needs some adjusting.
Add Opalescent Glare to that checklist, too, being both Necromancy and [Good]. :smallwink:

Parra
2011-07-18, 05:28 AM
Personally I would restore the children to Human form again and leave them with certainty of what would happen if they continue their life of crime.

If I was feeling particularly helpful I would try to get them apprenticed to some random local craftsperson

Wulfram
2011-07-18, 06:10 AM
Dispel the baleful polymorph. Have fun making creative use of your soreerous powers to give them even more of a scare than they've already had in the hope that they'll learn a lesson from this, then turn them loose.

hamishspence
2011-07-18, 06:16 AM
@randomher00: waterboarding is torture and, therefore, an Evil act.

Pretty much. How evil, may depend on the interpretation.

Fiendish Codex 2 lists "intimidating torture" (which causes no actual damage) as a 1 point Corrupt act- same as casting an [Evil] spell would be- significantly less evil than various other acts, like "stealing from the needy for personal gain", for example.

Ashtar
2011-07-18, 07:17 AM
Turn the one that was wounded back into a kid and tell him to take care of his buddy that's now a puppy. Set him free with the example of what can happen to him if he continues on his ways. If you're kind (or feeling generous) give him some money and / or find a place where he can be apprenticed or placed (stable boy for tavern, etc...). Leave.

You've now created a character who will :
A) Hunt you down with his animal companion when he's gained levels
B) Someone who's grateful to you for escaping the bad life of thievery
C) will be a memorable event when you tell the story by the fire one evening at camp.

Ravens_cry
2011-07-18, 07:50 AM
Uhh, what society associates Wolves with Evil? Last time I checked, there are millions upon millions of shirts with Wolves on them, looking regal and majestic. Many Indian tribes used the Wolf as their Totem Animal, to represent ferocity and power, plus unity of the pack. Wolves are not an inherently evil animal, and there is NOTHING you can say that will ever convince me of that. They are virtually the Royalty of the Forest Kingdom.
Well, for better or for worse, wolves were considered "evil" in many European cultures, which makes some sense sense as those cultures had been agricultural for thousands of years, and wolves have hunted domesetic animals and even humans. Such actions are not ones that are likely to endear one to said farmers.
More First Nations cultures on the other hand, not all of course, but many, were hunter gatherers of some form. The wolf was competition but also worthy of emulation.
No animal is "inherently" evil, but neither are they "inherently" good. They are animals, apparently incapable of value judgements on that level.
In D&D alignment terms, they are Always Neutral.

Starbuck_II
2011-07-18, 07:50 PM
The various hells and lower planes are a place of spiritual energy that is Evil energy. Things become evil just by being there, and things spawned there are evil. This is basic proof that Evil is a physical force, and when concentrated it takes the form of negative energy effects. that is why oh so many demons have negative energy effects.


Then why does negative energy hurt Demons and Devils? Maybe because they aren't made of it?

JBento
2011-07-19, 05:40 AM
More glaringly, why is the Plane of Negative Energy - which is totally and entirely made of, y'know, negative energy - not Evil?

Because it isn't, and you'll have a hard time convincing me that negative energy is more concentrated anywhere else.

hamishspence
2011-07-19, 06:10 AM
I could imagine certain ways of tapping negative energy being evil because, somehow, it requires "evil energy" to open the way to that plane's power.

Same with positive energy.

Was it just 3.0 and 3.5 that had "channelling negative energy (by rebuking undead) is an evil act" or did rebuking undead exist in older editions?

Coidzor
2011-07-19, 11:13 AM
Well, it's entropy and destruction. I do imagine that taking entropy and destruction and channeling it could have ways of doing so that would ping as evil.

TimeWizard
2011-07-19, 06:21 PM
"The wolf knows what the ill heart thinks" .

Personally I would have killed the thief with my obviously long range magic before chasing him.

Graytemplar
2011-07-23, 01:22 PM
Need I remind everyone that has turned this thread into a virtual holy war that each individual dm can choose to play the game the way he wants it?!

I personally see negative energy as a tool, dangerous to be sure, but available to be harnessed by anyone with enough power, regardless of allignment. The only things that are truly evil by nature would be infernal/abyssal beings, because even evil vampires can choose to be nonevil

edit-and nonsentient/dominated beings of course

hamishspence
2011-07-25, 05:43 AM
This is true- however- such beings will ping as Evil on a Detect Evil spell, even if their alignment doesn't match.

(and even fiends have changed alignment voluntarily).

Maybe it's a case of "evil energy" as seperate from "evil personality"- a fiend, or an undead, can change their personality over time- but the energy is still present, and it's the energy that's catching the attention of the guy with the spell.

Same is true of neutral clerics of evil deities, for that matter.

Cerlis
2011-07-25, 06:26 AM
Ok, so.. Negative Energy is Evil, right? That means we should be able to look at a lot of negative-energy-using things, and they'll all be clearly tagged for evil? Soo..

Inflict (X) Wounds
Enervation
The Negative Energy Plane itself..
These are all [Evil] and clearly show us that the designers intended negative energy to be evil.

What? They aren't? Really? Maybe your theory needs some adjusting.

i'll go ahead and say that my point was talking about the intent behind the game, rather than the literal wording of it. and though they might not be tagged as so, that pretty much just leaves two facts that wherent mentioned. The coincedence that each of those negative energy abilities destroys life. and destroying life is an evil act. And you never see creatures who dish out negative levels on the side of good (i'm talking angels and paladins, not good meaning wizards; and no an evil creature getting a temporary negative level from a holy weapon doesnt count) while almost every single undead and demon has if not direct negative level giving ability, some for of negative energy ability. there is also the fact that Good clerics have a natural affinity to positive energy and evils to negative.

The associations are there, thats what i was talking about. you have to look beyond RAW and try to figure out what the designers where thinking. The associations are there and intended.

---------------------
and though that argument has shakey ground which i admit (and i only bring it up because people act like saying "the defiled corpse with negative energy is evil" is crazy talk made by the hacks at WotC, as if evil objects are somehow rare...) i cant believe people are jumping down my throat about the werewolf thing. yes in Modern society everyone is loving on wolves and werewolves, but the AMERICAN WotC KNEW that wolves and werewolves are associated with evil in oh so much lore that they BASED DnD on. It boggles my mind how i can say something that is equivlenant to "Hey werewolves are evil in Lore, and so the Lore of DND which is based off this Lore has them also be evil" and people act like you are crazy.

I found my DMG and the part i've read several times that shows where i'm coming from.

In the section on creating a lycanthrope
"Aligmnent: Any: Noble creatures such as bears, eagles, and lions tend to produce good-aligned lyanthropes. Sinister creatures such as rats, snakes, and wolves tend to produce evil-aligned lycanthropes. This is a reflection of how these animals are percieved, not any innate quality of animal itself, so the Dungeon Master can arbitrarily assign the aligmnent of the form"
page 178. FIrst paragraph. look it up

Proof that the creaters of DnD arbitrarily assigned alignments to things (such as werewolves and........undead) based on peoples perceptions of them based on the lore of the past.

So there is your answer. Perfectly reasonable. if you dont like it thats why they say a thousand times in the DMG to change things if you want.

no problem.