Vigilante Justice

[Draig]

Ok playground I have a moral dilemma that I am running by your years of experience and viewpoints. In my campaign the party (A CN dervish, a CN hexblade, and a NG rogue) has bunked down for the night at an INN. During the night a group of Bounty hunter/assassins from the neighboring nation attempt to ambush them in their sleep. The party wakes up, battles and in defense kill all but 1 of the attackers. The last attacker they subdue and tie him up. The party then begin interrogating him through methods of torture. After obtaining information from him they stab him in the gut and allow him to bleed out.

There is the backstory, now the party is arguing with me that they were justified in their actions, which to an extent I understand. However, the nation which they were in is one based on Freedom, Law, and a democracy. The party is now upset that they are possibly facing trial for murder, not of the group of attackers but for the murder of a helpless individual (in this case being the man who was restrained). The head inspector told the party to stay in town and not leave because they would need to be questioned. The party is saying that it is unrealistic for the time to be apprehended for this, and when I told them the lawful thing to do would have been to turn them in they scoffed at it.

My questions for the playground are #1 was the act of interrogation then execution evil. #2 Is it realistic to believe a nation based on the principles of freedom, trial by jury, etc. And #3 as a DM isn't it more believable to play characters of different creeds and codes, by having different national beliefs and systems of government.

[Hiro Protagonest]

They might need another couple of acts to change to evil, but the rogue is now for sure N. They didn't even give the guy a swift death. And besides, he was a bounty hunter. He was likely to just move on to another job, maybe reporting back to his employer that he was defeated.

As for the law? Yeah, this is going to be a crime.

[NOhara24]

I'd say you're fine. There's a big difference between self-defense and what they did to the attacker that they tied up. Especially because they didn't coup-de-gras him and let him die quickly.

But like you said, they're not facing punishment for defending themselves. They're facing punishment for torture and murder of a helpless man.

[Orannis]

1. They captured a man, tied him up, extracted information, and then murdered him. Even if he had tried to kill them he was subdued and posed no further threat. Personally I would call that evil. 2. While sounding a tad bit idealistic I could totally see a nation dedicated to freedom, law, trial by jury. 3. Hmmmm. Not necessarily. Many different creeds and codes could spring up under the same system, for example in this land you are talking about you could have a well intentioned LG type who wants more and more restrictive laws being opposed by CN's who value freedom over all. The LG type might be supported by and LE judge who wants to punish anyone who commits a crime extremely harshly while the LG might only want to reform the criminals. Same system but totally different creeds all balancing each other

[Z3ro]

I'm gonna jump on the train of saying yeah, what they did was a crime and shoudl be punished as such.

But I look at it as giving the players a chance to learn from their mistakes. If they don't stand trial they become wanted criminals in that town/city/whatever. Sure, they could move on to somewhere that hasn't heard of their past deeds, but if they keep acting this way, they'll run out of civilization sooner or later. This is what the slide to evil is; not the arbitrary movement on the alignment scale, but suffering in-world consequences for their actions. They might consider themselves CN or NG, but when they can't step foot in anything bigger than the smallest town, I think we know where they stand.

[SamBurke]

...

Your players seriously think they can get away with torture? I'd kick anyone from good on down, without hesitation. They can get back there if they show intense anguish, and deliver at least two soliloquies about justice's true meaning.

Until then, yeah. Torture for sure is illegal, and Vigilante Justice simply isn't Justice; it's mob rule. Remember, Right makes might, not the other way around.

[INoKnowNames]

Anyone remember Miko? Justified in her head that she could kill a traitor of her city, yet was wrong enough for the Gods themselves to strike her down for it.

Honestly, murder, even in situations of self defence, is hard enough for me to consider a "good" action (unless the person being killed is incredibly evil, of course). But you can't justify torture. Or a non-instant death. Even in revenge, such things can't be considered good.

[Belril Duskwalk]

So we've got two self-defense killings (legal, no moral impact), one torture (illegal and Evil) and one execution by a slow and painful death (illegal and MORE Evil). All of this they did inside the borders of a nation that is founded as a nation of Laws. And your players have the gall to act like them being investigated response was unrealistic? :smallannoyed:

1. Interrogation isn't necessarily evil. Interrogation by torture is. Killing a defenseless person when they could have just as easily handed him to a proper authority is also definitely.
2. Ancient Athens was a democracy, jury trials decided the fate of those accused of crimes. Now I won't discuss the Goodness of Athens, or the degree of Freedom found therein, but it was a democracy with trials for sure.
3. I'm all for nations with varied codes and governments. Benevolent and Malevolent Kingdom, Military Rule, Democracy, Theocracy, Oligarchy. Give me whatever you've got.

[deuxhero]

Possibly an evil act, but not really big enough to change alignements.

Illegality is reasonable. Just use it as a hook and force them into doing some quest.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Possibly an evil act, but not really big enough to change alignements.

Illegality is reasonable. Just use it as a hook and force them into doing some quest.

Possibly? Drawn-out death for a helpless creature is always evil.

The rogue's alignment should be changed to TN.

[Yora]

#1: Who cares? Good or evil are not up to debate here. It was forbidden by the law, that's all that matters right now.
#2: Is that a question? If it is, what do you want to know? Seems half the sentence is missing.
#3: Again, what is actually the question?

[Tarmikos]

Hello there, player in the campaign chiming in. Should bring up a few things. One, the argument, at least from me, isn´t a case of I disagree with the fact it was against the law. (The others do, however I knew where this would likely head, but thought it good rp.) The argument I had was over my char being able to justify it to himself.

A bit more background. Since leaving a temple they had been trapped in for a couple weeks (20 years outside time), they've been pursued by the evil kingdom, who had taken over the land. Nonstop running, sneaking, pursuit everywhere, with no way to shake it. They ended up in prison, had to break out, and mad dash to a Chronomancer, to change history, so the evil kingdom never had the opportunity to take over. That done, history changed, no one knows the truth aside from them. (And an NPC that travelled with them, learned by a note, as well as a separate evil char) They travel back to the capital of the good kingdom, to find no one believe they are who they say they are, and can't meet with the emperor, but must wait. They go to the inn, and are attacked during the night, as was said. Now, the reasoning I used for the extreme actions are such. 1) History was changed, things should be different, 2) They just spent a month of nonstop pursuit, no chance to rest. What does that do to their mental faculties, reasoning and such?, 3) They wake to shouting, and several figures in the hallway outside their rooms, 4) No one believes they are who they say, everyone believes them dead. Yet their first night in town, and second after changing history, a group of hunters knows exactly where they are, and goes after them?

The reasoning, at least behind my char, was that in his state of mind, he's still panicked, anxious. How did these people find them, after the changes in history no less, and with everything thinking they're dead? The reasoning was the information had to be obtained, for the safety of the group. Likewise, the thinking was they couldn't turn the hunter lose, there was no guarantee he wouldn't come after them again, or get others to do it. Somehow they found the group with no trouble, and likely could do so again, even catching them at a time where they would be unable to defend themselves.

As for the way in which the captured one was killed....that was for psychological effect, from the mind of a char who's been pushed to the edge. My rogue wanted to send a message to any who may have come after, and seen the aftermath, that to capture/kill him, the price will be high, and there will be pain for any who try and fail. Maybe not a good action, but not done out of malice, so much as warning. The interrogation was done for self preservation. Just thought I should clarify, it wasn't a situation of doing it for fun and chuckles, but the reasoning of a desperate individual, at least as far as my char goes.

[Draig]

And in Tarmikos' defense he is the only player in the group so far that has agreed to having his character face the legal system and "repent" so to speak.

[skycycle blues]

As for the way in which the captured one was killed....that was for psychological effect, from the mind of a char who's been pushed to the edge. My rogue wanted to send a message to any who may have come after, and seen the aftermath, that to capture/kill him, the price will be high, and there will be pain for any who try and fail. Maybe not a good action, but not done out of malice, so much as warning. The interrogation was done for self preservation. Just thought I should clarify, it wasn't a situation of doing it for fun and chuckles, but the reasoning of a desperate individual, at least as far as my char goes.

I think the bolded text is a very clear explanation of how your character is no longer good but well within the confines of TN. I could see a DM allowing you to remain good some sort of repentance is done in the immediate future, but murder of a defenseless person as a warning for self preservation is TN bordering on evil.

If the other players don't think that they should be prosecuted at all, then they are wrong and should probably run. But they definitely committed murder in a society that they should expect to punish murder. You could have the court offer some sort of leniency, something like a temporary insanity defense, since the situation Tarmikos described is the sort of extreme duress that now a days could be grounds for an insanity defense. But it was definitely murder.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I think the bolded text is a very clear explanation of how your character is no longer good but well within the confines of TN. I could see a DM allowing you to remain good some sort of repentance is done in the immediate future, but murder of a defenseless person as a warning for self preservation is TN bordering on evil.

If the other players don't think that they should be prosecuted at all, then they are wrong and should probably run. But they definitely committed murder in a society that they should expect to punish murder. You could have the court offer some sort of leniency, something like a temporary insanity defense, since the situation Tarmikos described is the sort of extreme duress that now a days could be grounds for an insanity defense. But it was definitely murder.

Yes, it is most definitely enough to push your character to neutral. Poor mental faculties don't change that, just look at Thog. He isn't true neutral, he's chaotic evil. I don't care how much he likes puppies.

[Tarmikos]

Wasn't arguing the alignment of the action either, merely explaining the backing of it, and how it can be justified in character. Felt it added a depth to the rp rarely seen, especially by chars whose first concern is staying true to alignment, and placing the story, and range of emotions that a person would feel and act on, second

[Orannis]

Ok, the back story does help quite a bit. I still say it is an evil act but your character and his companions still killed a person in cold blood and, by your own admission, with premeditation. At the very least he should have been handed over to the law to 1. provide an explanation for the dead bodies of his fellow assassins 2. legitimize your claims regarding your identity and 3. help lead you back to the organization that attacked you. Since you have no idea what might have changed information is VITAL. The resources a kingdom could bring to bear in finding that out from a living assassin would be far greater than your own and would also help prove what you had been saying.

If I was DMing I wouldn't change your alignment over it but I would certainly be looking more closely at your actions to see if you continue this trend.

[Belril Duskwalk]

Wasn't arguing the alignment of the action either, merely explaining the backing of it, and how it can be justified in character. Felt it added a depth to the rp rarely seen, especially by chars whose first concern is staying true to alignment, and placing the story, and range of emotions that a person would feel and act on, second

I love this argument. And I'm all for it. Fun fact: I actually don't care if a person violates his stated alignment wildly. What gets me riled is when a person grossly violates their alignment, then tries to claim that the thing they did didn't violate it. Or when they do something wildly different from what they have done before without any clear progression or shifting point detailing when their character went from who they used to be to who they are.

If it can be justified in character, roll with it. If the character shows remorse for something they did rashly, they might even be able to maintain their alignment and learn something about their character at the same time.

Now your character's CN friends... sounds like they fall under the category of 'what do you mean torture and cold-blooded murder aren't legal (and morally Neutral) methods of dealing with captured enemies?' Yeah... that's less cool in my book.

[Strormer]

Tarmikos, I support your play style 100%. A character is more than a list of stats, abilities, and alignment. A character is supposed to be a person with complex emotions, opinions, and motivations. Given the situation the players were in I would allow, as a DM, the torture to go by without too much alignment trouble, provided it was within reason, but the killing was a decidedly evil act. Tarmikos would be ok given that he was appropriately bothered in that he admitted to being out of his right mind and he was willing to submit to justice, though I would put him close to sliding to neutral and would say that one more act of that nature would push him over. The others, as they seem to not only have no problem with their actions, but also feel that the government has no authority to pursue them for such would be playing chaotic perfectly, but are now decidedly in the evil category.
That said, alignment has always been a loose set of guidelines as far as I'm concerned. A paladin might perform an act that others would call evil and still be ok given the circumstances, though his personal code might not forgive such as easily as the alignment system. When I think of alignment I tend to think more in terms of the Star Wars KotOR games rather than as strict categories. You slide back and forth based on your actions, but your alignment doesn't jump categories from one act unless it's a major shift. Example: I once had a monk that was ordered to kill hostage children. The paladin was horrified when my LG monk started in on the task without hesitation, but my monk only saw a group of orcs that were being trained in a military academy, not children. Perception defines personal actions, alignment is absolute based on the baseline morality of the world. Yes, the monk would've gained dark side points for the act if I was DMing, but she wouldn't see it as an evil act. Now if she just went into an orc camp and killed children, she'd've seen things differently, but this was a military camp and the children were being trained as combatants. Mind you, Miko falls into the same.

tl;dr - The torture might be justified, though illegal, but the killing is both evil and illegal. Major DS points for the others and a small net DS shift for Tarmikos.

[Mystify]

Player will always protest alignment shifts.

The had captured a couple of suspected bandits who were camping near the road. Since they had spotted them first, the party captured them before they even got a chance to attempt to rob them. They had a quest, and didn't feel like going back to town to turn them in, so they tied them up and dragged them through the woods for a few weeks, not giving them much respect since they were criminals. Eventually the prisoners managed to get free of their bonds, and stole the party horse to make their escape. I forget the details of how it unfolded, but the barbarian chase down one of the on foot, and the monk ran down the guy on the horse. The monk knocked the guy out, and dragged his unconscious body back to the party, where the barbarian killed him.
So they basically kidnapped a couple of people whom they suspected of being bandits, dragged them through the woods in chains for weeks, then subdued and executed them when they tried to escape. The barbarian tried to justify the murder because they were horse thieves now, and he was just being chaotic. I told him that he just murdered a guy who was trying to escape his captors, not just killed him in the process of preventing their escape, but actually murdered him after he was recaptured. Also, being chaotic is not a shield against becoming evil from evil acts.
Players have a tendency to get caught up in their own perspective, consider their acts only from their point of view, and hence misjudge their own actions. It is fully possible for a character to have a different alignment than they consider themselves to have. As DM, it is perfectly permissable to say "hey, you are acting evil, get your act straightened out or you will shift alignments".

[Pilo]

I don't get why people always want to torture to get response.
GM, remember a thing, NPCs can lie, and should if they are tortured, and charge a well known and important person for treason, and PCs will trust someone they are torturing.
If they ask for a psychology test, give them a (big)malus because it is hard to read the face of someone who is suffering for anything else than pain.

Torture is evil and should be discouraged if your PCs are good.
Murder a foe is less evil, even cold blooded, because it prevents retaliation. But it has to be quick and painless.

[Gwendol]

My replies to the OP are:

1: torture and killing of a defensless prisoner is evil (and in the context of the lawful good kingdom they are currently in, a crime).
2: Yes
3: As far as I understand the question, yes

Finally: killing the remaining member of the assassination squad after interrogation with no witnesses? Not only evil but also CS (chaotic stupid). I suggest a trial, and as punishment a quest to redeem themselves for those that repent. For the others punishment commensurate with their crimes.

[Seharvepernfan]

#1 was the act of interrogation then execution evil.

Yes. Torture is always an evil act, and the execution they performed was basically a kind of torture.

#2 Is it realistic to believe a nation based on the principles of freedom, trial by jury, etc.

A medieval United States? Why not? It didn't happen IRL history, but that doesn't mean its unrealistic.

[Spacewolf]

interrogation i would of said wasnt necessarily evil depends on what information they where trying to get if it was say to get information on an army and where they plan to attack. Doing it to a bounty hunter might stretch it abit futher as its for personal gain still not awful though considering the person should of expected to have been killed anyway if they let him go at this point it would still be justified.

As for the slow killing thats definatly going down the slippery slope as there was no reason not to release him, kill him quickly.

But from a roleplaying point of veiw for the trial how did the authoritys tell the man was defenseless when they killed him and that he wasnt killed with the rest?

[Gwendol]

The interrogation was evil because the group decided to use torture. That has nothing to do with the information they were after.

[Draig]

But from a roleplaying point of veiw for the trial how did the authoritys tell the man was defenseless when they killed him and that he wasnt killed with the rest?

The man they interrogated was found shoeless, missing an eyeball, and his corpse was still tied up.

[Gwendol]

As I said: CS... :smallwink:

[Spacewolf]

Yea thats pretty stupid, i still stand by that torture shouldn't always be evil if it's there only possible way of getting information and they have a reason to suspect that that person has vital information then it would be wrong but not evil if that makes sense. As in i did the best for the most people with the resources i had.

[Darrin]

You're barking up the wrong tree. The issue is not good/evil or law or justice or realism. That's all basically an "alignment" thread and those can go on for weeks with no meaningful resolution. If you seriously want to argue morality issues with your players, by all means, you'll just make everybody unhappy and your gaming group will become dominated (if not completely destroyed) by misunderstood expectations and hurt feelings.

The question you need to answer is "What kind of game are we playing?" Is this a game where the players argue with the DM about motivations and moral accountability, or is this a game where the players expect a more traditional D&D style: "Kill things and take their stuff." If that's the players' expectations, and you want to beat them over the head for acting like nearly every other D&D PC in the history of the game, then they're going to be seriously disgruntled because that's not the type of game they expected. Unless your players explicitly signed up for the "let's have a nuanced discussion about morality" game and are eagerly anticipating the opportunity to roleplay out the arrest, incarceration, and impending courtroom drama, don't go there.

Yes, ideally it would be great if laws, justice, and moral accountability could be woven into the campaign, but don't sacrifice "fun" (as defined by the players) at the altar of "believability" and "realism". If you want to work in a nation that reveres the principles of freedom, justice, etc., fine, but make that an interesting story element rather than a bludgeon to enforce player behavior. You can spring the PCs on a technicality, have a sympathetic "anti-govt shadowy-conspiracy" organization break them out, or just lampshade it with something like, "Oh, you're PCs? Torture, mass murder, attacked by an orphanage? Whatever, pay the fine, your +12 Hackmaster is in that cabinet over there."

[Z3ro]

Yes, ideally it would be great if laws, justice, and moral accountability could be woven into the campaign, but don't sacrifice "fun" (as defined by the players) at the altar of "believability" and "realism". If you want to work in a nation that reveres the principles of freedom, justice, etc., fine, but make that an interesting story element rather than a bludgeon to enforce player behavior. You can spring the PCs on a technicality, have a sympathetic "anti-govt shadowy-conspiracy" organization break them out, or just lampshade it with something like, "Oh, you're PCs? Torture, mass murder, attacked by an orphanage? Whatever, pay the fine, your +12 Hackmaster is in that cabinet over there."

I find this attitude to be bizzarely too much in the opposite direction. So if PCs slaughter an entire village and a guard shows up, they're supposed to be all like "wut, oh you PCs? 10 gold fine, ha ha!"? I suppose different people play differently, but I imagine most people would not call that fun.

The point worth making is about expectations. If it was a seriour game, set in a complex world with subtle interactions, then torture and murder should get the full weight of law. But if it was a less serious game, and all the players cared about was the killing and the taking, then no problem.

I think the problem arises when such things aren't decided ahead of time.

[Slipperychicken]

My two cents:

Killing attackers = self defense. This is legal and morally justified.

Torture to send a message = IMO, morally inexcusable. In this case its also illegal.