Alignment Change. Neutral Good murders Chaotic Evil in cold blood.

[Fenryr]

Hello! Yes, this time of the week. Yes, this happened today.

The NPC is Snowflake (nickname), a Snow Elf. She's Neutral Good because she likes to do good and prefers the greater good. When she was a small girl, she was adopted by a human Wizard who educated like that the way of the good. For years, she loved her father.

Then, in the future, when she matures, something happens. Her father is in fact a Chaotic Evil character that wants to create an army of undeads. This is stopped by the party (my players) and Snowflake aids them in chasing the Wizard. When everyone in the party got blinded by some spells and artifacts, they manage to defeat the Wizard. Snowflake, the only one who is not blind, seizes her opportunity: she murders her adoptive father. Treason, rage, greater good. All of this is mixed when she cuts his father's neck with an elven sword. Edit: the Wizard was helpless. He was in negative points and in the floor. The Paladin managed to guess what Snowflake was attempting and tried to roll Diplomacy but failed.

The paladin of Torm is ashamed and doesn't want to cooperate with Snowflake anymore. The paladin says Snowflake is now evil. But why? The Paladin of Torm wanted the Wizard alive so she could take him to a trial. And in the trial, he would be found guilty and would get executed because of treason (Torm punishes treason with death). Snowflake saves time and executes his father. Snowflake has not a particular love for a deity but respects most of them, specially the good ones.

Is she Neutral Evil now? Or she changes to True Neutral?

[Remmirath]

If anything I'd change her to Chaotic Good, assuming that her motives were for the good and not out of pure rage, hatred, selfishness, or what have you. I'm generally loathe to change alignment based on one action, but that is what I would change it to were I to change it based on that one action.

Disregarding the need for the trial strikes me as a chaotic action but not an evil one, particularly if the man needed to be stopped and there was a chance he'd escape. I see why the paladin would disapprove of that, but the paladin's disapproval does not make one evil.

I certainly wouldn't drop her all the way to evil for that one action. At most neutral, and that I'd say only if her motives were basically evil (which it doesn't seem like they were). I think it would take something quite extreme for one action to bring a character from good to evil at once.

[AspectOfNihil]

Personally, I see the act of killing a Chaotic Evil Necromancer who is planning on creating an army of undead as more of a chaotic act that a truly evil act. The effects of killing her adoptive father would affect her alignment far more than killing somebody who was meant to be brought in for trial. If it was only for the murder of somebody who was meant to be tried and executed, I'd say she was now Chaotic Good. Considering she was betrayed by and killed the one person she trusted, I'd say she would now be a very jaded True Neutral.
Just my two cents.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Oh, she's still good. Paladins can get too uppity about the "lawful" part, as well as confusing it with good. Remember, cap went against the law when Tony Stark took over, and he's pretty much the walking definition of paladin.

Also, alignment debates are doomed to go unresolved, unless you make a decision and say that's that.

[tyckspoon]

She doesn't change at all, IMO. Your paladin has confused "If I had done that I would have to Atone to get my powers back" (because it's an arguably evil act and specifically is against what his god would want done) with "Now you have changed alignments." Alignments don't change for a single act, not unless that act has significant magical/supernatural power behind it (like the act of putting on a Helm of Opposite Alignment or signing a magically-binding contract devoting your soul and service to an Archdemon.) Otherwise, in order to change alignment you must demonstrate a continued change of heart in multiple circumstances- if Snowflake starts showing a strong preference for expendiency over procedure she may drift to Chaotic, and if she starts feeling that threats are better deal with permanently and if necessary violently instead of with mercy and justice, she may move away from Good. But this one act of passion, killing a man who rather thoroughly deserved to be killed? It's not going to change her overall alignment, and it's not even provably Evil; it's just not how the Paladin would have done it.

[Griffin]

Hi all!, Im the one playing the paladin of Torm

Altough he does commited treason and must be tried for that and most likely executed, he was killed in a most dishonorable way

Let me explain, we fout this small humanoids, who, managed to blind the entire party except for snowflake, I personaly fought and defeated the humanoids leader and the other Thiefling (yes my paladin is a thiefling) eliminated the rest of the humanoids

Point is, when I cornered the leader, I hear some grunts of pain and, as I was blind I say all loud "Hold on there, I'll attend you in a second" to which I receive a negative response, reconigzing the voice, I know is the evil guy we are searching for, he is wounded, badly wounded

We finish of the monsters and close in on him, I ask the rest to let him have a trial, both party members disagree and try to kill him, our barbarian tossed him over and because of position, he falls on his daughter (snowflake) who inmediately manages to grapple him with both her swords on the neck (bewilders how she managed to do that... but is not the point) I try to convice her via diplomacy, rolling an 8 (total of 19 I have an 11 vs females) she doesnt listen to me, which of course I understand that part

What I dont is, she commited a fully evil act, killed a helpless person, who couldnt defend himself at all, if he were standing and able, I wouldn't have protested, but he was not able, he was killed dishonorably and without a fair chance to defend himself, thats an evil and coward act, that, in my opinion deserves to be considered evil and her alignment changed to evil, as it was not a chaotic act, it was an act made of pure vengeance, not justice, because, is to be taken into accout, she doesnt favor any good, nor worship any god, so, she doesnt have any charge to punish treasons

Torm paladin do, however, even they who are charged with this grim task must know to act honorably. she is not bound to those rules, but what she did was evil, something like that changes a person forever

Anyway, just my opinion he is the DM and if he wants he can do w/e to the alignment, but I feel I should let him and the party know my toughs

[Fenryr]

I did a small edit because maybe it wasn't clear enough. The Wizard was helpless and negative points when the party found him. He was defeated by previous enemies.

I'm the DM and I can say: "No, she's good". But I want good reasons to tell the party why she's still good.

Thanks so far.

[RndmNumGen]

What I dont is, she commited a fully evil act

This is true.

her alignment changed to evil, as it was not a chaotic act, it was an act made of pure vengeance, not justice, because, is to be taken into accout, she doesnt favor any good, nor worship any god, so, she doesnt have any charge to punish treasons

This is not. One act does not an alignment make. She slipped up, and did something wrong - that doesn't automatically make her Evil. If she continues the trend of killing for revenge, then yes, she would slide to True Neutral and eventually Neutral Evil, but she would need to continue doing Evil things to completely change alignment.

[Hiro Protagonest]

-snip-

There's quite a bit of difference between killing in cold blood and killing right after a battle with that person.

[Griffin]

There's quite a bit of difference between killing in cold blood and killing right after a battle with that person.

again, we did not have a battle with that person at that moment, he was maimed by the creatures we killed a bit before we found him

[tyckspoon]

Killing an evil creature, especially in the D&D default morality, is not necessarily (I'd go so far as to say 'usually is not') evil. The creature being helpless makes it more unpleasant, but doesn't significantly change the overall morality of it; an individual character and/or that character's deity may have a code that prohibits couping helpless foes, but the universal Good doesn't really care. You removed Evil from the world, you done Good. If you haven't actually promised that creature mercy and protection, there's no practical difference between striking it down in battle and finishing it off out of battle. D&D does assume that there are things, both monsters and people, that deserve nothing more than to be destroyed in the most expedient fashion that doesn't sacrifice Good things to do it, and a Chaotic Evil necromancer with designs for an undead army.. well, there's very few targets more acceptable than that.

[Big Fau]

Altough he does commited treason and must be tried for that and most likely executed, he was killed in a most dishonorable way

Dishonorable != Evil. Hell, Honor != Good.

The fact is, he's a Wizard. He's a reality warping liar who is trying to raise the dead. Fighting honorably against him, even if you have his word that the undead will remain spectators for the fight, is largely suicide just because of how powerful he is.

The player may not have known this. The character may not have known this. But in the end, the Elf's actions saved a lot of lives.

It's foolhardy to suggest that you should have taken him captive unless you can guarantee that he can't cast spells and can't contact his minions. And even then, if the DM wants to keep him as a recurring villain, all he has to do is come up with a minor justification and the Wizard is loose and killing people/reanimating the dead again.


Incidentally, this is one reason I hate Tyr as a deity entirely. Fair judgement is nice and all, but very impractical when there are characters capable of rewriting existence.

[Griffin]

Killing an evil creature, especially in the D&D default morality, is not necessarily (I'd go so far as to say 'usually is not') evil. The creature being helpless makes it more unpleasant, but doesn't significantly change the overall morality of it; an individual character and/or that character's deity may have a code that prohibits couping helpless foes, but the universal Good doesn't really care. You removed Evil from the world, you done Good. If you haven't actually promised that creature mercy and protection, there's no practical difference between striking it down in battle and finishing it off out of battle. D&D does assume that there are things, both monsters and people, that deserve nothing more than to be destroyed in the most expedient fashion that doesn't sacrifice Good things to do it, and a Chaotic Evil necromancer with designs for an undead army.. well, there's very few targets more acceptable than that.

To have in mind, she did not know he was an evil necro, she just knew he was her adoptive parent and betrayed her

@The guy before me: He didn't have any minion, nor any necro magic I could see, all we know is, he was in league with a former wraith who tried to be a lich and failed, and he wanted to be one

In fact, the only minion he had was destroyed a while before we found him a second time

[Hiro Protagonest]

Dishonorable != Evil. Hell, Honor != Good.

And that, in a nutshell, is why it's called lawful stupid.

[HunterOfJello]

A character's personal reasons for taking an action are important for potentially alignment changing actions.


For this situation, the Elf maiden killed an evil wizard who wanted to create an army of undead for nefarious purposes. A number of questions will have to be asked and answered first.
~~

Was this a kind and exalted action that little baby angels would smile down upon? No.

Was this an evil action that would bring harm to an innocent person? Definitely not.

Was this an action that ignored the laws of the land and the advice of her fellow paladin adventurer?
Yes.

Was this choice personally motivated?
Yes.

Was this an act that likely brought a potential increase happiness to the people of the area and a potential decrease to their pain and/or suffereing?
Yes to both.

Score so far:
Really Evil = No
Really Good = No
Really Lawful = No
Really Chaotic = Yes (potentially)

~

The description of these actions follow the definition of a good action taken by a Utilitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism) character. The morality of the action appears to have been judged based upon the resulting action (happiness in the land) and not the action itself (murder). Utilitarianism is a popular ethical perspective in modern society and would be popular among Chaotic Good characters. Elves are also described in D&D as commonly CG.

~

Lets next take a further step and analyze why her actions would be looked down upon by a paladin and possibly other members of the party.

1. Is it an evil act to kill an evil wizard who has known alignment of CE (or a plausible alignment of Evil) and who is known to be creating an army of undead?
The act brought less pain towards others and no personal gain to herself, therefore it is not evil.

2. Is it a Good act to kill an evil wizard who has a known alignment of Evil-ish and who is known to be creating an army of undead?
It isn't an act that should be praised by angels because all death is sad, but it isn't something that should be frowned upon.

3. Is it lawful to kill someone who deserves death, has committed a grievous crime, and could be instead transported to the local authorities?
Not at all.

4. Is it chaotic to kill someone who deserves death, has committed a grievous crime and could be instead transported to the local authorities?
Yes.

~~~~~~~

The act doesn't properly register on the good/evil scale because killed evil wizards is not inherently good or bad. The act does register on the lawful/chaotic scale because the law was ignored and the individual decided to take matters into their own hands to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

Good and Lawful are not the same. Chaotic and Evil are also not the same. These alignments are set on completely different sets of scales.

Should the act be frowned upon by a paladin who inherently views the world in black and white while viewing all chaotic and evil acts as anathema? Of course, but paladins have extremely limited worldviews (one of the may reasons they are hated by more broadminded individuals). Was the act evil? No. Was it more Chaotic than Neutral? Yes.


If the alignment must change from this action and the DM feels it is justified, then the character's alignments should switch from NG to CG.

If the players cannot understand why that has occurred, attempt to explain the moral perspective of Utilitarianism to them. If they still cannot understand, recommend that they go read John Stuart Mill's book, Utilitarianism.

[Griffin]

And that, in a nutshell, is why it's called lawful stupid.

In your nutshell perharps, my friend

A coup d grace is a most dishonorable act, a lawful good character should not perform one never, unless is a extreme merciful (unlikely to happen) act, she, snowflake wasnt, imo, I think she should gain an evil alignment, as a DM I would have do that, but I'm not the DM, he is, he decides, but I give my opinion

[HunterOfJello]

In your nutshell perharps, my friend

A coup d grace is a most dishonorable act, a lawful good character should not perform one never, unless is a extreme merciful (unlikely to happen) act, she, snowflake wasnt, imo, I think she should gain an evil alignment, as a DM I would have do that, but I'm not the DM, he is, he decides, but I give my opinion

If your personal understanding on the multiple and varied theories about morality is equivalent to that of a paladin in the d&d games and you can only view morality from your personal perspective, then you lack the knowledge and understanding necessary to make a decision upon situations like this.

If you cannot take a step back and analyze ethical situations by the personal standards of an individual along with the standards of of Consequentialism, Deontological Ethics, Virtue Ethics, and Pragmatic Ethics at the very least (ignoring all of the eastern schools of ethics philosophy), then you have no basis for making any arguments in this type of discussion.

[Griffin]

If your personal understanding on the multiple and varied theories about morality is equivalent to that of a paladin in the d&d games and you can only view morality from your personal perspective, then you lack the knowledge and understanding necessary to make a decision upon situations like this.

If you cannot take a step back and analyze ethical situations by the personal standards of an individual along with the standards of of Consequentialism, Deontological Ethics, Virtue Ethics, and Pragmatic Ethics at the very least (ignoring all of the eastern schools of ethics philosophy), then you have no basis for making any arguments in this type of discussion.

You don't need a PhD to form an opinion, whoever told you that need to rethink a bit his words

Even tough I do know a bit pof psycology, I do not pretend to use it on a D&D game, altough, I think sometimes I can throw in a bit of my own moral code, in which I base my own decisions, obviuosly my own view of the world is not 100% equals to me ingame paladin

However, if IRL you give me a gun and allow me the oportunity to shoot on the head on a kneeling criminal, I wouldn't do it, why? because that will make me him, if you look into all of your psycology books, you may find that once you break the taboo, its easy to keep doing it, once you steal, the next time it will be easier, so in a way at least I share my paladin point of view on that particular situation, killing a monster solves an inmediate problem, but doing it like he would have, won't turn you into a monster too?, won't you end been the evil you just erradicated?, time will tell probably

[Zagaroth]

going with 'evil act, mitigating circumstances'. If she's not likely to kill another helpless person, not evil. 1 act =/= alignment change. even a paladin who commits 1 act of minor evil is still LG but powerless, unless the act truly changed the person he was completely.

snowflake's alignment is NOT held to as high a standard as a paladins code.

Oh, and dishonorable does not mean actually evil. Honor is a Third ethics axis.

[Drelua]

In your nutshell perharps, my friend

A coup d grace is a most dishonorable act, a lawful good character should not perform one never, unless is a extreme merciful (unlikely to happen) act, she, snowflake wasnt, imo, I think she should gain an evil alignment, as a DM I would have do that, but I'm not the DM, he is, he decides, but I give my opinion

Alignment is not composed of absolutes. There are varying degrees of alignment. If I saw Hitler in front of me, I knew what he was going to do, and he was begging for mercy, would I instantly become evil for killing him? The only way the answer to that could be yes is if the guilt for having killed a man drove me insane. I would say one who twists the bodies of the deceased into terrible abominations for the sole purpose of achieving death and destruction doesn't score any lower on the scale of deserving to die than Hitler, though I apologize for being the one to inevitably bring him into this.

If this is evil, would it not be evil to give him a trial and sentence him to death? She disregarded the law. That is not evil, it is chaotic. The two do not go together any more than lawful and good, despite the typical image of a paladin. A core Paladin is no more good than a paladin of Freedom.

There is also the factor of the mental stress the character was under. Her father, as she saw him, betrayed her. Her friends were wounded, and she may have been as well, I'm not sure. This will drive a person to do things they would not normally do in many cases, and it is foolhardy to say that one action under great stress changes someone's alignment.

But in the end, who cares about all this? Unless you are playing a class with an alignment restriction, why would you form an idea of a character to an alignment? Many times I have seen it said on these forums that you should 'play the character, not the alignment'. No DM should ever tell their player to change their alignment if doing so would change their character's behaviour, but only if their character's behaviour cannot fit into the definition of their alignment.

It's easy to say that you did the wrong thing, but a lot harder to stop and ponder whether you are about to do the right thing or not in a situation of great stress and urgency. Many good people would fold under stress and let a good man be murdered. Would this be an evil act? No. Is it reasonable to say that one act in a position of no less stress should change someone's entire personality? Same answer, same reason. To do so would be absurd, and if you told me my character was evil when you were my DM for such an act, you wouldn't see me again for a long while, at least not at the gaming table.

[HunterOfJello]

You don't need a PhD to form an opinion, whoever told you that need to rethink a bit his words

Even tough I do know a bit pof psycology, I do not pretend to use it on a D&D game, altough, I think sometimes I can throw in a bit of my own moral code, in which I base my own decisions, obviuosly my own view of the world is not 100% equals to me ingame paladin

Are you now trying to introduce completely unrelated pop psychology into a discussion about ethical philosophy or do you just not understand the difference between psychology and ethical philosophy? Both options disqualify you from making any kind of informed opinions within this kind of thread.

[Sith_Happens]

Alignment is not composed of absolutes. There are varying degrees of alignment. If I saw Hitler in front of me, I knew what he was going to do, and he was begging for mercy, would I instantly become evil for killing him? The only way the answer to that could be yes is if the guilt for having killed a man drove me insane. I would say one who twists the bodies of the deceased into terrible abominations for the sole purpose of achieving death and destruction doesn't score any lower on the scale of deserving to die than Hitler, though I apologize for being the one to inevitably bring him into this.

Godwin's Law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law):smalltongue:


There is also the factor of the mental stress the character was under. Her father, as she saw him, betrayed her. Her friends were wounded, and she may have been as well, I'm not sure. This will drive a person to do things they would not normally do in many cases, and it is foolhardy to say that one action under great stress changes someone's alignment.

This is incredibly important. Even disregarding the psychological aspect, from a narrative perspective the whole "killing, during what is already a high-stress situation, your father who turns out to be evil and is about to do [evil act of geographically significant consequence]" is nothing particularly unusual or out-of-line for a "good guy," assuming that said good guy has not already been shown to be of the Thou Shalt Not Kill (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThouShaltNotKill) variety. The important part is that it's going to be a scarring experience that she'll angst about for some time, possibly questioning herself whether it was an evil act. A situation which is not helped by the paladin claiming that it was an evil act.:smallannoyed:

[HunterOfJello]

Godwin's Law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law):smalltongue:


Thank you for pointing that out above. I didn't see the name reference. If I had, I would not have made my previous post. I sincerely apologize to everyone.

~

As per the internet rules, I will no longer be posting in this thread under any circumstance.

I would also like to remind Drelua that by bringing up the name of the aforementioned genocidal dictator in their post in a thread about ethics, they have forfeited their ability to make any future comments about ethics here and have completely invalidated all of their previous comments.

I request that a mod close this thread now.

[Psyren]

While it is true that one act typically does not shift alignment, murder is one act that can do so. Having said that, however - I'm not convinced (given the circumstances) that a shift has even taken place here, and I'm definitely not convinced that she drops all the way from Good to Evil. At absolute worst she should drop to X Neutral.

The question you should ask is - would she have committed this heinous act against any foe the PCs were chasing and subsequently found incapacitated? Or were her actions motivated by an emotional cocktail of her perceived betrayal by her father, fear for the future if he escapes, lack of conviction at his possibility of reforming etc?

From what I've read of Snowflake, she wouldn't make a habit of slitting bad guy throats that the party comes across, and therefore she isn't evil.

[Sith_Happens]

Thank you for pointing that out above. I didn't see the name reference. If I had, I would not have made my previous post. I sincerely apologize to everyone.

~

As per the internet rules, I will no longer be posting in this thread under any circumstance.

I would also like to remind Drelua that by bringing up the name of the aforementioned genocidal dictator in their post in a thread about ethics, they have forfeited their ability to make any future comments about ethics here and have completely invalidated all of their previous comments.

I request that a mod close this thread now.

You should probably add some smileys in there somewhere or people might think you're being serious.:smalltongue:

[TheJake]

In your nutshell perharps, my friend

A coup d grace is a most dishonorable act, a lawful good character should not perform one never, unless is a extreme merciful (unlikely to happen) act, she, snowflake wasnt, imo, I think she should gain an evil alignment, as a DM I would have do that, but I'm not the DM, he is, he decides, but I give my opinion

Are you the DM in the campaign?
Has the DM appointed you the Morality Police in the campaign? (Not talking self appointed by choosing to play a Paladin btw).

Assuming the answer is 'no' to both, you're not in a position to dictate what warrants an alignment shift or not. End of discussion. Your opinion != fact. What constitutes fact is for your DM to determine. You don't get to decide what radiates evil when you cast "Detect Evil" - the DM does. You can certainly decide who your character is willing to work with or not, but be prepared to walk from the party (if not the game with that character) if this means you are the only party member who has a problem with what Snowflake did.

The majority here clearly agree (myself included) the act is definitely chaotic and not "good" in the extremist sense. However to call the deed "evil" is a stretch. There's an entire alignment axis called "neutral" as well - I assume you've heard of it?

- J.

[Username_too_lo]

A coup d grace is a most dishonorable act, a lawful good character should not perform one never, unless is a extreme merciful (unlikely to happen) act, she, snowflake wasnt,

Except she's neutral Good, which means you do what you have to do for the greater good; what your own lawful good character would do is largely irrelevant.

I'll give you an example from my own game. My warlock was Chaotic Good. He understood the eldritch forces swirling inside him and fought against that; using those powers to empower the weak and disenfranchised, partly as a way to distance himself from the evil of his parentage, and partly because he felt it was the right thing to do.

Long story cut short, his wife was killed, his son kidnapped, and his village burned. He decided "Y'know what, screw everyone else," and dedicated his life to getting his son back and avenging himself against the drow who stole him. On the one hand, the Drow are evil, which means that he works well with any good-aligned party. On another, if ever anyone says "Kill this kitten and I'll show you where some sleeping helpless drow are," the air will be filled with the smell of burning kitty as a swift action.

That's a dedicated lifestyle change - that's an assertion that the character is going the only way they want to and not because the end justifies the means, or because it leads to a greater good, but because that's what makes sense to their own mindset - hence the bit in the rules about x alignment being "the best you can be". A character should never apologise for acting as to their alignment anymore than a cleric would apologise for following their deity.

[Metahuman1]

Ok,

Neutral good, my favored alignment type to play.

Kills evil character. Had a personal Ax to grin with the character, well, it happens, and it's not like he didn't give her a reason to want to grind that Ax.


Now, here's the thing. He was knocked out. He's a reality altering wizard assembling hoards of the undead to obey him so he can take over, but he was unconcess. She knew this when she found him. So at that point, killing him isn't evil. It's what any practical person who didn't have SEVERE reservations about all killing period would do at that point, as it allows you to neutralize the threat too yourself, your friends and allies and companions, and everyone else on the same general landmass that the person you just offed posed. It's not about being evil at that point, it's about being NOT an idiot.

If she has a Wis of like 8 or lower or an Int of 6 or lower, you MIGHT make an argument that it was out of character, but it's not evil. It's not even really chaotic enough to make her change to Chaotic Good.





And YES, a Paladin will have an issue with it. He's got Stick up his butt as a class feature. He's a PROCEDURE NUT, even when procedure is idiotic, foolish, unnecessarily risky to self, innocents, and everything he is suppose to be protecting, he will follow it.

Which makes him a horrible judge of other peoples Moral character, as has been demonstrated wonderfully in this thread by the Pally Arguing she must now be Evil for this action.

I wonder if he'd feel different if the Wizard was left alive, handed to the local authority's, escaped as he inevitably would unless an even more powerful wizard babysat him all the way through the execution, and proceeded to go on a massive killing spree, including annihilating the Paladin's god's temple and priests and fellow paladins, and animating them as undead worshipers of Cryac (I think that's how his name was spelled, been forever since I looked though.)

Logically, by that point, he'd be hacked off that Snowflake DIDN'T cut the bastards head off when she had the golden opportunity.

[2xMachina]

Isn't an execution also killing a helpless person?

All Snowflake did is cut short procedure. The only differences between the 2 acts are on the L/C scale, not the G/E scale.

Following rules doesn't make you good. It makes you Lawful.

[Metahuman1]

Isn't an execution also killing a helpless person?

All Snowflake did is cut short procedure. The only differences between the 2 acts are on the L/C scale, not the G/E scale.

Following rules doesn't make you good. It makes you Lawful.

Quite the opposite as often as not.


Example:

Let's say you walk into a province, and the local law is taking a woman into custody. She sees you, a paladin, and begs you to help her.

You ask the law man what crime she stands accused of. He tells you that the local lord, in a "Noble" attempt to purify the perfection of the local bloodlines, is having persons who represent with "Heinously undesirable traits, duly punished for daring to glorify the mixing of a perfect bloodline with it's inferiors."

Your Paladin Detects Evil on the woman, and she pings good. And then he asked what exactly represent with heinously undesirable traits means.

Answer: She has blue eyes, and for a thousand generations it has been common knowledge that only violet eyes show in truly pure bloodlines around here. And The local Lord has listed that among a number of other things including height, build, hair color and skin tones, are grounds for any lawman too punish at there discretion on the spot in any fashion they deem fitting.

He then produces badges and papers with the right stamps and seals and such to prove he's telling the entire truth so far and that that is indeed local rules and he is indeed a lawfully designated enforcer.

And the punishment this lawfully designated enforcer deems appropriate too the woman who's crime was having blue eyes? He and his men will publicly Gang rape her on the spot.





I grant you, this is a tad extrema, but not impossible. Normally killing or torture would take the place of the gang raping, but that was to make sure the point is gotten across that even though all the rules say sure they can do that and you're breaking the law if you try to stop them, it's still a genuinely evil act.

[Username_too_lo]

I grant you, this is a tad extrema, but not impossible. Normally killing or torture would take the place of the gang raping, but that was to make sure the point is gotten across that even though all the rules say sure they can do that and you're breaking the law if you try to stop them, it's still a genuinely evil act.

Not quite. A Lawful Good creature is CONSISTENT. If those rules in a particular domain correspond with his own, then he'll follow them, but if the rules in another area are different, then they are heathen, misguided, and must be shown the error of their ways.

Your example leads its way into Godwin territory, and the persecution of the Jews. If an individual TRULY believed that the presence of the Jews meant that the Aryan race were being held back from achieving Ubermensch status, and believed that their persecution was for the greater good, then - detestable as it stands to our modern eyes - the Jews have been reduced to the status of kobolds, and their eradication is following the law. Evil is when you KNOW that what you're doing is for your own personal benefit or aggrandisment, but DON'T CARE.

Disclaimer: I love the Jewish people, their culture, their food, their music and have a great deal of respect for their religious observances. Example used for illustration only.

[Lord_Gareth]

In your nutshell perharps, my friend

A coup d grace is a most dishonorable act, a lawful good character should not perform one never, unless is a extreme merciful (unlikely to happen) act, she, snowflake wasnt, imo, I think she should gain an evil alignment, as a DM I would have do that, but I'm not the DM, he is, he decides, but I give my opinion

Single actions don't determine alignment. Additionally, what's more 'evil' about a finishing blow against an unconscious opponent (that can no longer feel it) than putting those same four feet of edged steel into his gut while he's awake? How about lighting him on fire, the famous adventurer staple? Smite Evil certainly inflicts more pain and misery upon a foe. Cone of Cold? Charm them into fighting their former allies?

In life-and-death combat, you use the tools you have available. Was Snowflake motivated by personal revenge in addition to the greater good? Certainly. Almost anyone would be. But it's not like she kept him up for days at a time torturing him to death. She finished off an evil being that had wronged her (and was going to wrong others) in a swift and ultimately painless fashion. There are worse ways to die, ways experienced on battlefields both historical and modern almost daily. Her alignment shouldn't shift a bit. She's NG, not LG or CG. Her concern is protecting others. The fact that her motives weren't completely 'pure' doesn't negate that.

Also, you may want to back off on the seemingly sarcastic replies. They don't endear you to the community.

[Big Fau]

Single actions don't determine alignment. Additionally, what's more 'evil' about a finishing blow against an unconscious opponent (that can no longer feel it) than putting those same four feet of edged steel into his gut while he's awake? How about lighting him on fire, the famous adventurer staple? Smite Evil certainly inflicts more pain and misery upon a foe. Cone of Cold? Charm them into fighting their former allies?

Exactly. If singular acts could shift alignments, adventurers would be best represented as a spinning top with each alignment depicted on the sides.

[Techsmart]

I wouldnt say it were evil.
Let's look at it this way. If she WERE evil, what would she do? 1) if snowflake still cared about him, would join him and try to kill the party. 2) otherwise, do everything she could to make him suffer before he died.
If I were to put this into an alignment, I would go with the masses of CG, but I would lean towards CN. Not evil though.

[shadow_archmagi]

But this one act of passion, killing a man who rather thoroughly deserved to be killed? It's not going to change her overall alignment, and it's not even provably Evil; it's just not how the Paladin would have done it.

My thoughts exactly.

[Fenryr]

Thanks for all the responses. Me and Griffin got an agreement.

The rest of the party will understand me better because they don't play Paladins. Ever.

[Hiro Protagonest]

In your nutshell perharps, my friend

A coup d grace is a most dishonorable act, a lawful good character should not perform one never, unless is a extreme merciful (unlikely to happen) act, she, snowflake wasnt, imo, I think she should gain an evil alignment, as a DM I would have do that, but I'm not the DM, he is, he decides, but I give my opinion

W.W.R.D?

:roy: If Xykon were still human, and I found him sleeping, I wouldn't have a second thought about killing him. I know the afterlife exists, so a quick death and whatever he deserves is what he's getting.


If your characters don't know the afterlife exists? It's still a quick death.

[Griffin]

Oh well, agreement, thanks all for the opinions, altough I found myself quite confused of what you guys think of (and some facist forms of saying I know it all, you don't shut it, hey Jello =P, take it lightly), but an opinion is an opinion and as such yours have benn most helpfull

as a note for Mr. Jake: no, I never tried to impose or say what should be done this way (if it seemed that way, well, thats wasn't the intention) because, when we starting debating, I said to Fenryr: "Rule#1" which he knows I mean "You are dm, after all you can do w/e you want in your campaing" I'm just giving my opinion, which I can do as a I please if I don't hurt anybody and say it properly and with at least some foundation

Anyway, as a DM, I would do an alignment change, why? because I do not feel PC or NPC can do as they please and don't get a consenquence, world doesn't work like that

Oh well, I extended too much, guess topic can be closed now, everything that has to be said its said by now

Regards

[2xMachina]

If you really want it closed, get Fenryr to ask. IIRC, Mods don't close threads when asked by non-OP.

[Coidzor]

>Combat Scenario
>In Cold Blood

I see a problem here.

[Griffin]

If you really want it closed, get Fenryr to ask. IIRC, Mods don't close threads when asked by non-OP.

true, but anyway, doesn't matter

[Hague]

Presuming the Paladin honors the laws of a particular nation (Torm, in this case) then it's obvious why the Paladin dislikes the actions of Snowflake. However, it's still not grounds for any kind of good-evil alignment change. I can totally agree with the chaotic change since the actions were in direct violation of a law (something unanswered: Was Snowflake a citizen of Torm as well?) and the stated goal. However, were Snowflake not a citizen of Torm and had for instance, come from a culture where mercy-killing is a standard practice of law or that such actions were ritualized then the act might actually be considered lawful in that respect. For all the Paladin knew, hours of rigorous torture may have followed a guilty sentence long before the execution.

This is why Law and Chaos are so hard to adjudicate because they are based more on personal experience and motivation than the absolutes present in the Good-Evil axis. Breaking the law in one nation is not necessarily chaotic if you were ordered to do so in fulfillment of your sworn duty from elsewhere. This is why if you're going to play a Paladin, make them from an order that doesn't necessarily have a direct tie to any nation, that way the laws and oaths they take aren't directly tied to a government that may or may not be good.

[Jack_Simth]

What I dont is, she commited a fully evil act, killed a helpless person, who couldnt defend himself at all, if he were standing and able, I wouldn't have protested, but he was not able, he was killed dishonorably and without a fair chance to defend himself, thats an evil and coward act, that, in my opinion deserves to be considered evil and her alignment changed to evil, as it was not a chaotic act, it was an act made of pure vengeance, not justice, because, is to be taken into accout, she doesnt favor any good, nor worship any god, so, she doesnt have any charge to punish treasons
Essentially all executioners kill someone who is helpless to defend themselves. That's pretty much the definition of an execution. However, execution is not generally considered an Evil act (although some people do).

The person slain had committed many evil deeds, and by your own admission was very likely to be executed if a trial was done.

If motive is part of alignment, then you'd need to ask the person who did the killing about motive.

If motive is not part of alignment, then this is chaotic (taking the execution into her own hands, sans due process) but not evil (as he'd be executed anyway).

A dishonorable act? Sure. Dishonor is pretty much textbook chaotic. But not fundamentally evil.


Torm paladin do, however, even they who are charged with this grim task must know to act honorably. she is not bound to those rules, but what she did was evil, something like that changes a person forever

Anyway, just my opinion he is the DM and if he wants he can do w/e to the alignment, but I feel I should let him and the party know my toughs
Even were it an Evil act? Check out the Alignment Section (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment):
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.(emphasis added)

One act might make a Paladin fall... but one act does not an alignment change make for most people and most acts.

[Jeraa]

Its because of stupid situations like this and the arguments that follow that made me remove all alignments from my games.

[King Atticus]

I don't think this situation would qualify as murder anyway. Voluntary manslaughter would be more likely. Snowflake didn't plan a course of action to kill dear ol' dad, but the circumstances led to diminished capacity; learning your father isn't who you thought he was; everything he ever told you would be called into question; horror at the completely unnatural acts he performs. All these things add up to, and ended in, an impulsive response.

[Murdim]

This was neither cold-blooded, nor even a murder. She killed her disabled aggressor in a fit of rage while fighting for her life and those of hundreds of innocent people. This is voluntary manslaughter at the very worst.

Moreover, I can't shake off the feeling that the only reason this whole affair is controversial is because the necromancer was 1) human, 2) an important character and 3) shown to have a more developed personality than "generic evil guy". Your good-aligned characters probably have left countless disabled orcs/goblins/kobolds/whatever dying in their own blood. How does it matter that their evil acts are much fewer and much smaller in scale than those of their depraved masters ; who cares if some of them weren't even evil ; they're expendable minions, and nothing more. Let's keep our precious mercy for those who deserve it the least.

EDIT : *dies from King Atticus' Five-Shadow Creeping Ice Enervation Strike*

[Drelua]

I don't think this situation would qualify as murder anyway. Voluntary manslaughter would be more likely. Snowflake didn't plan a course of action to kill dear ol' dad, but the circumstances led to diminished capacity; learning your father isn't who you thought he was; everything he ever told you would be called into question; horror at the completely unnatural acts he performs. All these things add up to, and ended in, an impulsive response.

That makes it second degree murder, not manslaughter, if I remember law class correctly. Manslaughter is when you kill someone accidentally, like if you got in a fight, and just meant to knock him out, but he landed on something pointy or something. Second degree murder is intentionally killing someone without forethought.

Then again, the law could be different in the States than it is up here.

[King Atticus]

Manslaughter is when you kill someone accidentally, like if you got in a fight, and just meant to knock him out, but he landed on something pointy or something.

I believe that would be involuntary manslaughter, when you didn't think your actions would lead to death but they do.

The diminished capacity is what leads to voluntary manslaughter charge as apposed to murder 2

[Drelua]

I believe that would be involuntary manslaughter, when you didn't think your actions would lead to death but they do.

The diminished capacity is what leads to manslaughter charge as apposed to murder 2

Some quick research tells me that there is no such thing as voluntary or involuntary manslaughter in Canadian law, and that any manslaughter in Canada would be called involuntary manslaughter in US law, so I guess we were both right. Well, either that or I didn't do enough research, which is certainly a possibility.

[Redshirt Army]

The act was definitely Chaotic, and probably Neutral on the morality axis - so it's not at all surprising that the Paladin is up in arms about it, even if it's not Evil. Furthermore, as has been stated multiple times already, one action should not be enough to change alignment - a paladin who falls for breaking his code is usually still Lawful Good. If the DM feels an alignment change is necessary, he/she should wait to see how the character acts in future actions, then determine whether the character is now Chaotic Good, True Neutral, or at most, Chaotic Neutral.

tl;dr : The act was Chaotic, but not necessarily evil, and no alignment change is necessary.

[King Atticus]

Some quick research tells me that there is no such thing as voluntary or involuntary manslaughter in Canadian law, and that any manslaughter in Canada would be called involuntary manslaughter in US law, so I guess we were both right.

Works for me :smallbiggrin:

[Frosty]

She committed one Chaotic act (it could be Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic good, but it is definitely NOT a Chaotic Evil act). This is in no way enough to change her alignment at all.

A Paladin would fall, but she's not a paladin.

[Jack_Simth]

She committed one Chaotic act (it could be Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic good, but it is definitely NOT a Chaotic Evil act). This is in no way enough to change her alignment at all.

A Paladin would fall, but she's not a paladin.
Interestingly, a Paladin doesn't fall for committing a single Chaotic act - just for doing so consistently (and changing alignment off of LG). A single Evil act will do it... but a single Chaotic act, not so much.

[deuxhero]

Killing an evil creature in a fight is not an evil act. Why do we need to do this every month? You can't "defeat" a wizard without death and there is no indication he would actually honor a surrender.

[hex0]

Spiderman in Neutral Good (at least according to Complete Scoundrel). Go read that section.

[noparlpf]

Most definitely not an evil act. However, it is a chaotic act. But does one action change a person from NG to CG? I think that it depends on the person, and if so, that person was probably CG all along and just mislabeled. Other characters might actually end up quite conflicted and have strong feelings of guilt after such an action.

[Safety Sword]

News just to hand:

Evil creature slain by player characters. Alignment debate ensues. More at 11!

OK, now to my actual opinion.

If you know the thing is evil and has evil intentions and you're out to make the world a better place... kill it. Kill it with fire. And acid. And truth, justice and the sharp pointy weapons that you carry around.

My opinion on alignment change is thus: No. Character acted within the Neutral Good spectrum. Killing evil things is NG's job. Letting the evil live on to go to trial would be a typical LG thing to do. And stupid. If it's dead it can't escape and continue being evil (and it's a Wizard, so kill it NOW and make sure it stays that way).

Killing the evil thing is a pretty big tick in the "good" box for me.

[Frosty]

If it's dead it can't escape and continue being evil.
*buzzer rings loudly*

This is DnD. Since when has DEATH stopped most wizard BBEGs?

[Lord_Gareth]

*buzzer rings loudly*

This is DnD. Since when has DEATH stopped most wizard BBEGs?

Since my PCs learned to hunt them down in the afterlife and slaughter their Outsider-type'd souls, thus subjecting them to true oblivion.

[Safety Sword]

*buzzer rings loudly*

This is DnD. Since when has DEATH stopped most wizard BBEGs?

Like I said, I'd be burning the body and diluting the ashes in acid. You have to have some trace of them to bring them back.

And I'm not talking about undeath here. I'm talking about removing all traces of this bastard. Plus, no one likes him enough to raise him. He has no friends. And if he does, they're evil and i have someone else to hunt down. :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

You have to have some trace of them to bring them back.

Actually, for True Res (or double Wish/Miracle) all you need is their name. And if he is useful enough - say, to an evil god or archfiend - they wouldn't have to like him to consider bringing him back useful.

To really be sure they don't come back, you need Soul Bind (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/soulBind.htm) or similar, and then you are a constant target for anything that wants to free him.

[Big Fau]

Actually, for True Res (or double Wish/Miracle) all you need is their name. And if he is useful enough - say, to an evil god or archfiend - they wouldn't have to like him to consider bringing him back useful.

To really be sure they don't come back, you need Soul Bind (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/soulBind.htm) or similar, and then you are a constant target for anything that wants to free him.

Or a Thiniaun weapon (CW).

[Safety Sword]

Actually, for True Res (or double Wish/Miracle) all you need is their name. And if he is useful enough - say, to an evil god or archfiend - they wouldn't have to like him to consider bringing him back useful.

To really be sure they don't come back, you need Soul Bind (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/soulBind.htm) or similar, and then you are a constant target for anything that wants to free him.

Yes, yes.. now go about your business. :smallwink:

[Psyren]

Or a Thiniaun weapon (CW).

That falls under "or similar." :smallwink:

Some drawbacks too: Material that rare would be rather easy to track down. And if they relieve you of the weapon in question, rezzing the guy you have trapped inside actually becomes easier. Not to mention dying while holding the blade soul binds you instead.


Yes, yes.. now go about your business. :smallwink:

Just saying that dipping ashes in acid is a speed bump in high-level D&D :smalltongue:

[Coidzor]

That's why you...


Use the soul in crafting after you get hold of it.

Then you have the item Disjunction'd (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magesDisjunction.htm).

Then eaten by a Rust Monster.

Then you Flesh to Stone the monster.

Then Stone to Mud the statue.

The mix the mud with water to get muddy water.

Then cast Purify food and drink to get clean water.

Give the clean water to gnomes and have them filter it through their kidneys.

Repeat Steps 4 to 8 until you get bored.

Take all of the collected water from this and take it to the plane of water.

Do the same with all of the collected urine, only this time on the plane of fire.

[Safety Sword]

Just saying that dipping ashes in acid is a speed bump in high-level D&D :smalltongue:

Of course it is. But so is the entire game system.

Not every bad guy is the favoured of the bad gods. Sometimes an evil wizard is just an evil wizard too.


That's why you...


Use the soul in crafting after you get hold of it.

Then you have the item Disjunction'd (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magesDisjunction.htm).

Then eaten by a Rust Monster.

Then you Flesh to Stone the monster.

Then Stone to Mud the statue.

The mix the mud with water to get muddy water.

Then cast Purify food and drink to get clean water.

Give the clean water to gnomes and have them filter it through their kidneys.

Repeat Steps 4 to 8 until you get bored.

Take all of the collected water from this and take it to the plane of water.

Do the same with all of the collected urine, only this time on the plane of fire.



I suppose that will work too...

[Psyren]

-Use the soul in crafting after you get hold of it.

Note that doing this will drop your alignment, regardless of the wickedness of the soul itself. BoVD pg. 33:

"Using a soul in any way other than simply transferring it as barter consumes it completely, destroying it forever. Destroying a soul is an evil act of the blackest sort, even if the soul was evil itself."

[deuxhero]

So it's a Black act? Aren't most PCs Black aligned alreddy? Isn't that why they live as murderous hobos for a chance at personal wealth and power?

[Coidzor]

More mundane evil act to get someone else to destroy a soul for ya though. :smallamused:

Pretty sure if you're routinely going up against evil foes you'll be able to easily maintain a neutral alignment if Paladins can maintain a Good alignment despite murder to the face being their modus operandi.

[deuxhero]

It doesn't matter if its an evil act. Wizard has no use for alignment.

[Callista]

So it's a Black act? Aren't most PCs Black aligned alreddy? Isn't that why they live as murderous hobos for a chance at personal wealth and power?Nah, some live like murderous hobos for a chance to Save The World.

...which is completely different. Really.

(Seriously, though, if you've got nothing but murderous hobos in your party, chances are it's a hack-and-slash game and you can't really apply the more intricate details of role-playing to it.)

[Psyren]

It doesn't matter if its an evil act. Wizard has no use for alignment.

The thread is about the alignment of the party and the paladin associating with them, so it actually does matter. A Paladin or Saint would lose their powers for associating with someone who turns souls into magical currency.

[Big Fau]

Nah, some live like murderous hobos for a chance to Save The World.

...which is completely different. Really.

(Seriously, though, if you've got nothing but murderous hobos in your party, chances are it's a hack-and-slash game and you can't really apply the more intricate details of role-playing to it.)

I find the nomadic homicidal kleptomaniac trait remains even amongst my best RPers. Though this is probably because they are aware of the stereotype and like poking fun at it.

[Socratov]

ok...

so isntead of repeating opinions over and over, how would you guys solve it in game? personally i would have the paladin drag snowflake into court before a jury of her peers and have them decide (ofcourse the DM still has to solve the whole alighment change conundrum). that way the paladin still gets to have his proedure, in game the motives behind the 'murder' becomes clear, and to be honest it ouwld be a great opportunity to roleplay. If found guilty, community service would be a great start at making amends (even if apliccable). get a few friends for a one time only session to act as defense lawyer (the palladin would obviously be prosecutor), judge and jury (jury could be npc's too, but this is way more fun). since this is a matter of foster perants faling, have her do community service at an orphanage finding foster parents for the orphans (or at least try sufficiently). and as an added cherry on top, have the god snowflake's following act up in the middle of the trial (either channeling through a cleric or otherwise, make story up as you like). although the combat would be missing, it would be a magnificent roleplay experience and actually enahcing the storyline. Afterwards the paladin can trust snowflake again, or not (your choice mate :smallamused: ), and in character, snowflake can be all happy again :)

[Tyndmyr]

What I dont is, she commited a fully evil act, killed a helpless person, who couldnt defend himself at all, if he were standing and able, I wouldn't have protested, but he was not able, he was killed dishonorably and without a fair chance to defend himself, thats an evil and coward act, that, in my opinion deserves to be considered evil and her alignment changed to evil

Yeah, no. You're confusing honor and alignment.They're not entirely the same. A chaotic good or lawful evil person can both be an honorable sort. Or not. Yes, the paladin code tends to enforce honor as well as LG...but she's not a paladin. Your code does not bind her.

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

Note that honor and fighting chance does not enter into it. It's much more about your reasons for doing what you do. Entirely good people can kill others if they have sufficient cause.

There was a reasonable good cause to kill this individual. Now, I'd probably consider it not altogether good, given the situation, but alone, it certainly isn't enough to change your alignment.


Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts.

Behold. Your interpretation directly contradicts the rules. Therefore, you are wrong, and are attempting to hold someone else to your personal rules.

[Andreaz]

My typical judgment of good and evil wouldn't put her under evil by what you said. Nor would I change her alignment to evil just because of that sole act either. If one of my players disagreed, he'd get "no, it ain't evil. And no, I won't change her alignment". If his CHARACTER finds the act morally wrong, then the two characters deal with it in-character.

[JackRackham]

Saving a high-level spellcaster for trial seems risky. I could see killing him as aa CG, NG, CN, or TN action depending on the exact reason - all of which would be appropriate actions for a TN character. I see no need for an alignment change here.

[Hague]

Necrotic Termination and be done with it. Sure, it's evil, but it destroys a soul for good. No chance of returning, ever.

[marcielle]

Ugh, the only reason this is even in question is because PALADIN code dictates that they can't kill the helpless, even evil. But killing an evil is always a good act, even if done for selfish reasons. Think of the Bloodwar. No matter how many good deeds all the paladins do, they will never achieve as much good as whoever started the Bloodwar. Yet, the Bloodwar is an endless orgy of killing.

Getting more RAW, DnD defines Good as 'altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings'. By killing a NECROMANCER she actually satisfies 2 out of 3 criterion for Good with the first not really being relevant.

Neutral on Chaos vs Law scale goes 'normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others'. Don't see anything that conflicts with Neutral in her actions. Sure she skipped a few steps, but the end is the same and really, in that very sentence it says she doesn't HAVE to listen to the authorities all the time.

TLDR; By RAW what she did was Neutral Good. Changing her alignment would be adding circumstantial rules based on pressure by a Paladin, who SHOULD NEVER be compared to normal folks anyway.

Also, seconding Socratov's suggestions.

[Andreaz]

Ugh, the only reason this is even in question is because PALADIN code dictates that they can't kill the helpless, even evil. But killing an evil is always a good act, even if done for selfish reasons. Think of the Bloodwar. No matter how many good deeds all the paladins do, they will never achieve as much good as whoever started the Bloodwar. Yet, the Bloodwar is an endless orgy of killing.
On the contrary, killing an evil being is typically as moral as any other being. Even against the actual anthropomorphic manifestations of evil (fiends) I can see a case for non-good situations.

The rest of your arguments fall under the same logic.

[hamishspence]

Ugh, the only reason this is even in question is because PALADIN code dictates that they can't kill the helpless, even evil. But killing an evil is always a good act, even if done for selfish reasons. Think of the Bloodwar. No matter how many good deeds all the paladins do, they will never achieve as much good as whoever started the Bloodwar. Yet, the Bloodwar is an endless orgy of killing.

None of these seem to be correct. Nothing in the PHB paladin's code forbids "killing the evil helpless" (and BoED points out that execution is not inherently evil).

Conversely, "killing an evil being is always a good act, even for selfish reasons" is again not true- BoVD states that killing for selfish reasons is at best a Neutral act , and that this only works for creatures of "consummate, irredeemable evil".

Sometimes, killing an evil being can be Murder- which is itself evil.

The Blood War isn't exactly "achieving good" either. A fiend killing another fiend is not "committing a good act".

[marcielle]

Well, that's really more acurate in the REAL world, where people will more often than not change their ways, if not their actual way of thinking,after a significant penalty. In the DnD world, they will keep on doing evil until they had an appropriate revelation. Like how killing random creatures get you in trouble with PETA in the real world but makes you famous and well liked in DnD.

Though I admit, killing bad might not NESCESARILY be a good act, it still usually achieves significant good. Still, RAW part of argument stil stands.

[Big Fau]

On the contrary, killing an evil being is typically as moral as any other being. Even against the actual anthropomorphic manifestations of evil (fiends) I can see a case for non-good situations.

The rest of your arguments fall under the same logic.

On the contrary; killing creatures with the Evil Outsiders is considered a Good-aligned act, at least if your goal isn't to win the Blood War. This is pretty much the one reasonable rule the BoED actually printed.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Ugh, the only reason this is even in question is because PALADIN code dictates that they can't kill the helpless, even evil. But killing an evil is always a good act, even if done for selfish reasons. Think of the Bloodwar. No matter how many good deeds all the paladins do, they will never achieve as much good as whoever started the Bloodwar. Yet, the Bloodwar is an endless orgy of killing.

As much as I'm in favor of "not evil", your argument doesn't hold water. The Bloodwar was started by a fiend, and when the flail he used became a holy weapon, he was disgusted and cast it away. He had killed and caused the killing of thousands of evil creatures, and he was still evil.

You're also saying war criminals are good-aligned, if the enemies are goblinoids.

[Andreaz]

On the contrary; killing creatures with the Evil Outsiders is considered a Good-aligned act, at least if your goal isn't to win the Blood War. This is pretty much the one reasonable rule the BoED actually printed. It also said, along with it, that there can be exceptions. Funny how rules work.

[hamishspence]

Depends on the evil character in question. Some evil tends to be on the small scale- the cruel landlord, greedy attorney, and so on.

Thus- the person cleaving civilians in half for "being evil" ends up a murderer.

[marcielle]

Killing goblins. Seriously? I don't see HOW that could be anything but good by itself( meaning there aren't any wierd plots, just the killing of goblins). TORTURING would definitely be Evil though.
Also, Mongoose, your example prooves that starting the Bloodwar was SO Good, it actually gave a FIEND a chance of redemption. The fact he did not take that chance is another matter(though not entirely)

[hamishspence]

On the contrary; killing creatures with the Evil Outsiders is considered a Good-aligned act, at least if your goal isn't to win the Blood War. This is pretty much the one reasonable rule the BoED actually printed.

actually, that was BoVD. BoED only says "they are best slain, or at least banished, and only a naive fool would try and convert them." Though it also shows a paladin confronted with two fiends in love and says "paladin must choose between destroying evil and honoring love".

It says nothing about the evilness or goodness of the act.


Killing goblins. Seriously? I don't see HOW that could be anything but good by itself( meaning there aren't any wierd plots, just the killing of goblins).

As for goblins- what if they're goblin citizens of a city? A despised underclass- yet still participating in society. Cityscape points out this is not uncommon.

[Andreaz]

As for goblins- what if they're goblin citizens of a city? A despised underclass- yet still participating in society. Cityscape points out this is not uncommon.

Or even about anyone really? Your random goblin is almost as likely of NOT being evil as a human. Will it help if I give them all Charisma 16?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Killing goblins. Seriously? I don't see HOW that could be anything but good by itself( meaning there aren't any wierd plots, just the killing of goblins). TORTURING would definitely be Evil though.

I'm not talking about goblin bandits. I'm talking about starting a war with them, and then this guy in the army starts burning down the goblin camps and hobgoblin towns.

[marcielle]

Well, it's really my own fault for saying always. Its just so easy to use words like that. Sure there are exceptions, but ask yourself, why are they despised in the first place? Because, were the NOT being ground under heel, they would be trying to kill every non goblinoid in sight, followed soon by every other goblinoid in sight.

Maybe I'm just oldschool but I CANNOT picture any significant goblinoid force NOT trying to pillage and defile everything it can.

Note, again, this is DnD logic, not realworld. DnD is a lot more binary because the infinite variables of the real world are too infinite. Goblins ARE MEANT to always be evil, exceptions ONLY being allowed so the DMs could pull a fast one on their PCs, not because there is any significant likelyhood of a Good goblinoid.

[hamishspence]

Some settings, like Pathfinder, do it that way. In others, goblins are quite capable of getting on with other sentients, and do so with some frequency- becoming hirelings of various kinds.

"evil" doesn't necessarily mean "out to kill all other beings".

[marcielle]

Derp, only official settings I know are Eberron and Faerun. Note, when I say always, I mean DnD always, where exceptions are at DM disgression.:smallbiggrin:

[Coidzor]

I'm not talking about goblin bandits. I'm talking about starting a war with them, and then this guy in the army starts burning down the goblin camps and hobgoblin towns.

Sounds like total war and the sorts of denial of resources and harassment that typical cavalry units did historically to me, so not really any more heinous than the war itself. Hobgoblins don't typically have non-combatants other than their very young, being so devoted to war. And, well, goblin camps are so spread out it's not like you're going to do more than deprive the enemy of resources and force them to congregate elsewhere in greater strength or flee from the contested area.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Derp, only official settings I know are Eberron and Faerun. Note, when I say always, I mean DnD always, where exceptions are at DM disgression.:smallbiggrin:

...

You thought goblins were always evil in EBERRON!? :confused:

[hamishspence]

Derp, only official settings I know are Eberron and Faerun. Note, when I say always, I mean DnD always, where exceptions are at DM disgression.:smallbiggrin:

Goblins are "Usually Neutral Evil" however, they are not "Always Evil (any)".

Eberron is most dramatic about goblins as a part of society (plus they have their own empire which has established diplomatic relations with its neighbours).

It's less common in Faerun, but it does happen.

[Mando Knight]

in my opinion deserves to be considered evil and her alignment changed to evil, as it was not a chaotic act, it was an act made of pure vengeance, not justice,
Take care with your judgment, paladin, for you will be judged by the same measure. Perhaps that act was against jurisprudence, but if such a single deed makes her worthy of damnation, what do you deserve? Or your companions?

[Coidzor]

The Blood War isn't exactly "achieving good" either. A fiend killing another fiend is not "committing a good act".

Well, there's a fair bit of argument there, at least about how the Blood War itself is achieving good. Since it's canonically and fanonically accepted and all that the only reason the lazy, weak celestials haven't been wiped out and the material planes eaten has been because of the Blood War.

So, by the Blood War being perpetuated, Good is allowed to exist at all. Because for some reason the multiverse is so borked that Evil can't be destroyed but Good can.

D&D Cosmogeny, everbody. It makes one's head hurt if examined for too long.

[marcielle]

I thought the goblin empire fell ages ago and now they are just brutes and bandits? No, wait, that might be another setting. I think I derped again:smalltongue:

[Hiro Protagonest]

I thought the goblin empire fell ages ago and now they are just brutes and bandits?

Did you even read the section on Darguun?

[marcielle]

Man this thread moves fast. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I got settings mixed up now.

[Fenryr]

Man this thread moves fast. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I got settings mixed up now.

A bit.

Unless someone else has anything to say to my OP, I think the thread is done here. Thanks for all the comments, discussions and ideas.

[Coidzor]

I thought the goblin empire fell ages ago and now they are just brutes and bandits? No, wait, that might be another setting. I think I derped again:smalltongue:

There's still a number of tribes that are pretty much just brutes in Darguun, making the job of the ones trying to recreate Goblinoid civilization more difficult and causing international incidents with adventurers, aye.

[Hiro Protagonest]

There's still a number of tribes that are pretty much just brutes in Darguun, making the job of the ones trying to recreate Goblinoid civilization more difficult and causing international incidents with adventurers, aye.

Bugbear-only tribes are brutes and bandits, but the hobgoblins are like Spartans and the goblins are sneaky, black market types, and the bugbears in the mixed tribes are shock troopers in the army, still brutes, but not bandits.

[hamishspence]

In one Faerun novel (War in Tethyr) the main character has a bugbear butler.

[Coidzor]

Bugbear-only tribes are brutes and bandits, but the hobgoblins are like Spartans and the goblins are sneaky, black market types, and the bugbears in the mixed tribes are shock troopers in the army, still brutes, but not bandits.

No, it's pretty much stated in several places that there are still bandit tribes, and you're being overly specific with regards to combat with the word "brute," here.

[hamishspence]

On nonevil goblins- in R. A. Salvatore's short story Dark Mirror, one such goblin discusses his problem- and how it's somewhat different from Drizzt's:

I tried to remind Nojheim again that I had escaped a similar fate, that I had walked out of a desperate situation. I explained that I had travelled among peoples who surely hated me and feared me for my heritage.

"You are drow, not any goblin," he replied again, and this time I began to understand the meaning behind his words. "They will never understand that I am not evil in heart, as are other goblins. I don't even understand it!"

"But you believe it," I told him firmly.

"Am I to tell them that this goblin is not an evil sort?"

"Exactly that!" I argued. It seemed reasonable enough to me. I thought that I had found the opening I needed.

Nojheim promptly closed that door, promptly taught me something about myself and about the world that I had not previously considered.

"What is the difference between us?" I pressed, hoping he would see my understanding of the truth.

"You think yourself persecuted?" the goblin asked. His yellow eyes narrowed, and I knew that he thought he was being shrewd.

"I no longer accept that definition, just as I no longer accept the persecution," I declared. My pride had suddenly got in the way of understanding what this pitiful wretch was getting at. "People will draw their own judgements, but I will no longer accept their unfair conclusions."

"You will fight those that do you wrong?" Nojheim asked.

"I will deny them, ignore them, and know that in my heart I am right in my beliefs."

Nojheim's smile revealed both an honest happiness that I had found my way, and a deeper sorrow- for himself, I came to know.
"Our situations are not the same," he insisted. I started to protest, but he stopped me with an upraised hand. "You are drow, exotic, beyond the experiences of the vast majority of people you meet."

"Almost everyone of the surface has heard horrible tales of the drow," I tried to reason.

"But they have not dealt directly with dark elves!" Nojheim replied sharply. "You are an oddity to them, strangely beautiful, even by their own standards of beauty. Your features are fine, Drizzt Do'Urden, your eyes penetrating. Even your skin, so black and lustrous, must be considered beautiful by the people of the surface world. I am a goblin, an ugly goblin, in body if not in spirit."

"If you showed them the truth of that spirit..."

Nojheim's laughter mocked my concern. "Showed them the truth? A truth that would make them question what they had known all their lives? Am I to be a dark mirror of their conscience? These people, Rico included, have killed many goblins- probably rightly so," he quickly clarified, and that addition explained to me everything Nojheim had been trying to get through my blind eyes.

If these farmers, many of whom had often battled goblins, and others who had kept goblins as slaves, found just one creature who did not fit into their definitions of the evil race, just one goblin who showed conscience and compassion, intellect and a spirit akin to their own, it might throw their entire existence into turmoil. I, myself, felt as if I had been slapped in the face when I'd learned of Nojheim's true demeanor. Only through my own experiences with my dark elven kin, the overwhelming majority of whom well deserved their evil reputation, was I able to work through that initial turmoil and guilt.

These farmers though, might not so easily understand Nojheim. They would surely fear him, hate him all the more.

[marcielle]

Welp, that settles it. RAI<RAW<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Salvatore.:smallbiggrin:

[Templarkommando]

The PHB defines a neutral good character thusly:

A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Jozan, a cleric who helps others according to their needs, is neutral good.

Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.

Now the question we have is whether or not Snow meets the description mentioned above. Let's analyze this on a sentence by sentence basis:

1. "A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do."

This statement is somewhat ambiguous. I don't think that any alignment changing decisions can be derived given our situation versus this statement.

2. "He is devoted to helping others."

This statement is less ambiguous than the first. However, I am convinced that Snow's actions meet these criteria depending on what the motivations for killing the necromancer were. By eliminating a necromancer bent on destruction Snow could be helping a huge number of other people in order to prevent them from suffering under the oppression of an evil wizard.

3. "He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them."

This statement is kind of a loophole. It's sort of what defines the alignment. Neutral good specifically means that the character necessarily doesn't care whether he works with characters that occupy any place on the law/chaos spectrum. So, it's entirely expected that a Neutral good character might behave in a lawful or chaotic way from time to time. If Snow's action is the only one example (or on of only a few examples) of chaotic behavior then she really ought to remain a neutral good character.

4. "Jozan, a cleric who helps others according to their needs, is neutral good."

This statement seems to be intended as an example of a neutral good character, but is not necessarily the only occupation of a neutral good character. There are plenty of other character possibilities between lawful good and chaotic good that ought to be considered neutral good without saying Jozan's exact alignment and personality quirks is it. There is no other neutral good.

5. "Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order."

Snow also meets this criteria. Snow isn't committing this action because it's evil, or because it is lawful or chaotic. If Snow's motivation here is because killing her adoptive father was truly a good action, then not only is it within the realm of leniency, it further cements her location in the neutral good alignment.

Unless your player is like "Snow did this because she knows it's evil/chaotic/lawful/etc." then I really wouldn't even consider an alignment change personally. There are situations where a character should be changed even if the player is unaware that the actions of the character fall under another alignment description, but I think that's really up to the DM's discretion. I don't think this is one of those situations.

If I could sum up my argument into one phrase it would be this: Whereas lawful good doesn't always mean nice, the same holds true for neutral good.

[hex0]

TL;DR version: NG characters are often Utilitarian.

Right?

[Andreaz]

Maybe I'm just oldschool but I CANNOT picture any significant goblinoid force NOT trying to pillage and defile everything it can.
Here in my country we have an official setting (been around for a lil over a decade now, got its own spinoff d20 after WotC quit 3.5) that portrays goblins as civilized beings, although the most screwed of them. At best they own some small business or their own workshop. Most of them are stuck with the lowest jobs, like being the reason sewers don't need to be invented.

Mind you, what I said about goblins here otherwise is all based on 3.5 material, in which they are "usually evil". Meaning more than a third and less than half of the population is evil. "34-49%" against humans' "33%" isn't much more, so saying that goblins are way worse and deserving of death sentences by virtue of existing is actually a pretty evil thing to do, before even weighing down the whole genocide thing.

[Templarkommando]

TL;DR version: NG characters are often Utilitarian.

Right?

I guess that's a short way of putting it. :D

[deuxhero]

4. "Jozan, a cleric who helps others according to their needs, is neutral good."


Lies! He casts Symbol of Pain!

[Sucrose]

Here in my country we have an official setting (been around for a lil over a decade now, got its own spinoff d20 after WotC quit 3.5) that portrays goblins as civilized beings, although the most screwed of them. At best they own some small business or their own workshop. Most of them are stuck with the lowest jobs, like being the reason sewers don't need to be invented.

Mind you, what I said about goblins here otherwise is all based on 3.5 material, in which they are "usually evil". Meaning more than a third and less than half of the population is evil. "34-49%" against humans' "33%" isn't much more, so saying that goblins are way worse and deserving of death sentences by virtue of existing is actually a pretty evil thing to do, before even weighing down the whole genocide thing.

While they aren't nearly bad enough to warrant genocide, you're misusing the numbers.

The technical term is "Usually Neutral Evil." One specific type of evil accounts for between 34 and 49% of their population. Most of the rest of their population is one step from said alignment, so, assuming a high end of 49% of their population is NE, and assuming that those fairly close to their society's standards make up about 75% of the remaining population, that means that 25% of the remaining half is TN, 25% is CE, and 25% is LE, leaving another 25% for the other five alignments.

Ergo, as a pessimistic, but by no means worst case measurement, 49% of their population is NE, ~12.5% is CE, and ~12.5% is LE, for a total of 74% of their population that falls on the south pole of the good/evil axis.

As a best-case measurement, with the same assumption that most are around their cultural norms, then 25% of 66% is CE, 25% is LE, 25% is TN, giving 67% of their population that writes an E on the second part of their alignment.

[hamishspence]

"Usually X alignment" is 51% and up- it's Often X Alignment that's 50% or less.

(With the upper limit on Usually being undefined- I've seen it as high as 90% in the case of Cambion Demons which are Usually Evil (any) + Often Chaotic Evil).

So- a really harsh version could be- 90% NE, 3% LE, 3% CE, 3% TN, 1% Any Other Alignment).

Or some other combination depending on the DM.

In some cases, even proportions within 1 step don't actually occur- while Orcs are Often Chaotic Evil, in MMIV it mentions the most common alignment after this is CN- rather than CN and NE being equally common.