Alignment issues

[seth6]

Ok so im running a game 3.5 for some friends one of which is a Lawful Good Crusader his race is hell spawn the idea behind his character is that he wishes to escape the clutches of the demon who owns his soul by becoming a Vassal of Bahamut. With that in mind they were going threw a city on there way to the main quest when a bar maid decided to lighten his load just a tad she dipped a finger in his pocket and failed her check he then proceeded to turn and cut her down in the center of the bar. her having only 4 hp was killed instantly when he hit her for 26 damage. He said he was acting as any lawful good person would carrying out justice by slaying her for her crime. So my question to the play ground is one does anyone else think he was justified and killed the unarmed bar maid in righteous justice, and two does any one think Bahamut would take on such a person as his vassal (he said Bahamut would be cool with it scene she was touching his horde.

[AgentofHellfire]

Certainly not.


If she was trying to kill you, that'd be one thing. Trying to kill someone for a bit of pickpocketing just...isn't proportional to the crime.

Also, his motivation sounds far more N to me. He's doing the crusading thing for himself (to escape the demon), not to help others. His actions might mean he's still good, but...this one isn't indicative of that.

[ArcturusV]

Well "Horde" is generally more Chromatic (Thus Evil) Dragon than Metallic.

But honestly questions like this come up all the time. There's no real "Right" answer for this. The fact that the barmaid was unarmed, and that she was caught. Means that the Crusader in question could have just smacked her with his fist and KOed her instead.

But in the grand scheme of things? One mistake, one slip up, isn't going to impact the character. Now if the character makes a PATTERN of doing things like this... going to an extremist definition of the Law in order to uphold his own desires, that's Lawful Evil territory. Might want to look towards Tyranny Gods like Hextor.

But just one thing here and there? Gods and outsiders may be personified examples of Pure Law and Pure Good, but they know Mortals aren't. Especially a "Good" God should be more concerned with the bigger picture. If the crusader in question TRIES to be good a vast majority of the time, rather than going, "Well, you killed one unarmed thief who was no danger to you... to Baator you go!".

[Felyndiira]

That line of action is, in fact, the very definition of Lawful Stupid (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid).

It is not good, and not supported by Bahamut by any stretch of his alignment. Now, of course, a single action isn't always enough to plummet someone down to evil, although given that this seems to be a core part of the character's belief system instead of a single regrettable mistake, it would not be unreasonable for some proxy to have a serious heart-to-heart talk with this character.

[Xenogears]

Well first I would like to mention that Bahamut is all about compassion to the weak and downtrodden (poor barmaid kind of seems like she would fall in this category) but also very stern with evil. So he probably would admonish the guy to reign in his wrath and to promote compassion but probably wouldn't tell the guy to go **** himself.

I don't think he really seems to be acting in accordance with what a Hellbred should be doing though. Hellbred are evil mortals that repented a fraction of a second too late to save their souls and are just barely given one more chance. They should be avoiding doing ANYTHING even REMOTELY bordering on evil since they saw what fate awaits them if they don't manage to literally do something along the lines of saving the entire material plane.

[seth6]

Thanks for the ideas everyone I think Ill give him a second chance

[Phelix-Mu]

I agree that Bahamut probably isn't going to abandon this guy over one misdeed, however foul.

The rationale about the "hoard" is completely wrong-minded. Point out that, far from being greedy, Bahamut routinely hands out stuff from his celestial hoard to people that can put it to good use (I think this is explicitly called out in Vassal of Bahamut PrC description).

Finally, while Bahamut may forgive him, this might be a good moment to instruct the character upon the rule of mortal law in a given city. Murdering a civilian is illegal pretty much everywhere. This even extends to murdering criminals (though not convicted, a particularly enlightened society would not allow the character's witness to her crime be used as evidence, since he is obviously a biased party in providing exculpatory evidence in defense of his actions), as most systems of law do not promote enforcement of the law by individuals, instead appointing authorities to make sure laws are enforced in an (ideally) uniform manner.

While the penalty for killing the barmaid may vary considerably, and the PCs may be able to get out of it, it is probably not a wise precedent to set to just say "Bahamut doesn't approve," as Bahamut isn't even remotely the party with the most at stake.

[ArcturusV]

One thing to watch about about using Mortal Law and punishments for a PC is often they don't accept the slap on the wrist. And it ends up turning into a "Freedom vs Tyrannical Government" thing in their minds. Even if an authority is set up as legit and good they are going to frame it up as the Law (because it's pestering them, and they are Good), is Evil and they need to take it on.

... Not always. But it happens. The times it doesn't happen I usually see them just kinda grumble about it, figure the Government in that case is wrong, stupid, and I'm just giving them grief for the sake of giving them grief. And will promptly forget about the scene as soon as it is over.

[Namfuak]

I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I honestly cannot see a possibility of this being pardoned by the Gods or the State. If he is in a bar, he presumably doesn't have any weapons drawn, so he had to spend a whole action to draw his weapon, identify this person, and still decide to attack her. If he had quickly stabbed her with a dagger because he was afraid his mistress was sending assassins after him and then turned to see that he had made a mistake, that would be different. But that does not seem to be the case, and as such he should be punished the same way any murderer is punished in the setting. Considering the circumstances, an atonement quest from Bahumat and a disciplinary quest from the town might be acceptable, but death by hanging would definitely be on the table.

[Phelix-Mu]

I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I honestly cannot see a possibility of this being pardoned by the Gods or the State. If he is in a bar, he presumably doesn't have any weapons drawn, so he had to spend a whole action to draw his weapon, identify this person, and still decide to attack her. If he had quickly stabbed her with a dagger because he was afraid his mistress was sending assassins after him and then turned to see that he had made a mistake, that would be different. But that does not seem to be the case, and as such he should be punished the same way any murderer is punished in the setting. Considering the circumstances, an atonement quest from Bahumat and a disciplinary quest from the town might be acceptable, but death by hanging would definitely be on the table.

While it might be good to drop a hint that murderers are often hanged, I think that moving to hang a player character should be handled very carefully, if at all. By throwing the book of law at a law-breaking character, you all but ensure a change of career path, and no player likes to feel that their character concept is suddenly unachievable because they are now a major criminal on the run.

It would, however, be a sensible punishment for the law-breaker to be persona non grata in the city, banned from its public places and with people unwilling to do business with him/her. While not crippling to a character design, it can be very inconvenient if it's a key city in the plotline. Make sure to suggest work-arounds, like being able to hire people to shop for you, a town near the city where they don't pay attention to who is welcome in the nearby city, etc.

[Andezzar]

It would, however, be a sensible punishment for the law-breaker to be persona non grata in the city, banned from its public places and with people unwilling to do business with him/her. While not crippling to a character design, it can be very inconvenient if it's a key city in the plotline. Make sure to suggest work-arounds, like being able to hire people to shop for you, a town near the city where they don't pay attention to who is welcome in the nearby city, etc.This would make sense if the character had some kind of immunity, but for the average adventurer I'm not seeing it. Killing is very rarely rewarded with such a small slap on the wrist. Also being declared persona non grata usually also means an express ticket back home. So no more interaction by proxy in the city.

I think he should be punished appropriately, or take the consequences of being a criminal on the run. Depending on mitigating circumstances (former exemplary conduct etc.) and the fact that death is a lot less permanent than IRL there may be options for less permanent punishments than retiring the character into prison or to the headsman's block.

[Gwendol]

Killing unarmed petty thieves in a bar on a whim is very far from LG. That's not a slip-up, that's a fall. With presumably a fair number of witnesses the player may even have trouble convincing the authorities she did try to steal from him (unless a witness managed a spot check to see her sleight of hand).

I say he needs to read up on "Hallowed Be Thy Name":


I'm waiting in my cold cell, when the bell begins to chime.
Reflecting on my past life and it doesn't have much time.
'Cause at 5 o'clock they take me to the Gallows Pole,
The sands of time for me are running low.

[chronomatophobe]

If one's lawful good says "I will summarily execute apparently unarmed citizens for doing what i assume to be illegal" and he's in character, you should ask him to play something else if that interpretation bothers you. If it's really not a problem for you, then maybe his L-G pursuit is really in the best interest of a lawful, benevolent utopia. I once DMed for a C-G crusader who, as part of his religious duties, had to murder worthy elderly people in honorable combat so they could properly ascend to Valhalla, as they were obviously denied the chance in their youths. "Honorable combat" didn't always necessitate that they needed to know about it, or even that they were of the same faith, but he'd always lead a vigil afterward. He role played it very well.

If it's a problem, help your player find a "law" more congruent with your society. Also, if his character's actions aren't well thought out, you might tell him to imagine D&D as a world without alignment effects and if he thinks one would generally find his actions to be fitting the alignment he chose,

[Rhynn]

He said he was acting as any lawful good person would carrying out justice by slaying her for her crime.

Hahahaha no.

The LAWFUL thing to do is to report her to the authorities. The Heroic Lawful thing to do is to capture her and deliver her to them.

Execution for (failed) pickpocketing is a LAWFUL EVIL punishment at best.

Disproportionate murderous reaction is an EVIL action.

[WhiteShark]

Summary execution of an unsuccessful pickpocket strikes me as about as far from LG as you can get. Not only is it vigilantism (which is on the chaotic end of things) but it's also extremely disproportionate and somehow, somehow I get the feeling that he wouldn't have done that if the thief was trying to steal from someone else. All together this strikes me as a CE action that should get him at best banished from the city and a stern talking to from Bahamut. Maybe Bahamut could come to him in a dream and explain why his action was so wrong, and then possibly assign him an atonement quest. After all, as a LG deity like Bahamut should be understanding but still demand some sort of justice.

[chronomatophobe]

I'm not trying to support his character's action as much as I am trying to show that the alignment system is, as I'm sure we all know, a pile of excrement.

I can justify whatever I want to in whatever alignment of whatever religion in the lens of any poorly role-played (if even relatively defined) character. My character only has limits when my character is significantly more than numbers on a page. EDIT: For reference, L and G (specifically L-G) are not generally considered to be numbers or numerical variables in D&D 3.5

Point being:

The first question everyone should have asked before they posted here was "Does his character have the civic authority to do it?" Just because we can probably assume the answer doesn't mean we should. for all we know, he's just upholding a local moral/ethical criminal code.

What the character should have asked himself (and what you probably should have stopped him to make him ask you) was "Does my character have the divine authority to do this?" His character probably respects civic law above most things, but divinity probably isn't one of them. Religion can make people do very peculiar (if 'holy') things.

I mean, we can assume the answers, but the answers in defiance of what we expect paint a pretty atypically L-G portrait. Talk to him about it.

[AntiTrust]

When you say his race is "hell-spawn" don't mean hellbred from Fiendish Codex II do you?

[Pandiano]

He surely takes his "intention" to redeem himself from his heritage not very seriously.
A minor crime. No forgiveness, no hesitation, no lecture, no justice, but impulsive murder of an unarmed, weaker woman he knows nothing about soley for protecting his own few coins over another persons life.

Wow.

I don't see lawfulness, since the judgement wa inappropriate. I don't see goodness either. Even neutrality is a stretch.

[Andezzar]

I don't see lawfulness, since the judgement wa inappropriate. I don't see goodness either. Even neutrality is a stretch.Me neither, unless either the city or Bahamut has given him the authority to summary execution (at least in case of the latter I highly doubt that). A killing is never a good act and in the case of the thief I even doubt it would be a neutral one.

Even if the thief turns out to be a master thief with a rap sheet a mile long, and the society will probably benefit from her not being around anymore, the crusader could not know that. Intent is important, so IMHO it would still be second degree murder.

At least a crusader does not have the "do something wrong willingly and you're screwed" mechanic of the paladin.

[Gwendol]

No, but there is still the "cross the gods and you're screwed" flavor to it.

[Andezzar]

No, but there is still the "cross the gods and you're screwed" flavor to it.There is? Crusaders (usually) have a cause and should persue it, that cause need not be one of a deity. If that cause is "to punish every minuscule wrongdoing with death, especially if I am the victim of the wrongdoing" that is fine. This cause obviously is not compatible with a lawful good alignment, but that is about it. Unless his cause is "advance the agenda of bahamut", bahamut should care about that CE crusader that worships him about as much as Umberlee cares about the good people who pray to her to appease her.

There is also no rule against changing the cause, and alignment, through the course of the career.

[Yahzi]

I have a different view of the Lawfulness angle - I don't think a Crusader gives a hoot about secular law, that is, what some dude with a shiny hat says - but even given that, a death sentence for pick-pocketing seems... extreme.

Is that what Bahamut's law is? Because while the Crusader only has to obey local law to the extent that they can force him to, he isn't allowed to break Bahamut's law even when no one is looking.

I don't think Bahamut prescribes death for every petty crime. So, ya, the Crusader is in huge trouble. Atone or fall kind of trouble. And atonement probably means raising the slain woman, compensating her for her death, and then applying whatever punishment is appropriate for attempted pickpocketing.

I also have a different view on the local reaction. Chances are the Crusader is a noble, or effectively a member of the noble class. The person he killed is not. Given typical medieval customs, he might even be within his right to kill a filthy peasant for touching him without permission. The local lord will of course be cheesed off that somebody (else) is whacking his peasants, but you know, he's also cheesed off that the Paladin's horse ate some of his prize roses, and frankly both are probably equally annoying.

But even given that kind of view of nobility and peasantry... is that Bahamut's view? Again, I think your Crusader is in serious metaphysical trouble.

[Gwendol]

There is? Crusaders (usually) have a cause and should persue it, that cause need not be one of a deity. If that cause is "to punish every minuscule wrongdoing with death, especially if I am the victim of the wrongdoing" that is fine. This cause obviously is not compatible with a lawful good alignment, but that is about it. Unless his cause is "advance the agenda of bahamut", bahamut should care about that CE crusader that worships him about as much as Umberlee cares about the good people who pray to her to appease her.

There is also no rule against changing the cause, and alignment, through the course of the career.

I suggest you read the OP. My reply is specific to this very case.

[Andezzar]

I suggest you read the OP. My reply is specific to this very case.I did and my reply is also in relation to that situation you have a character that claims to be LG and whose professed cause is Bahamut's. His actions are neither LG nor in line with bahamut's agenda. However there is no way for Bahamut to screw a crusader over as directly as a deity could do with a paladin or a cleric.

The situation would be quite different if the character already had levels in the vassal of Bahamut class or was on the way to qualifying. I'm not sure if that is the case. Entry to this class requires two [Exalted] Feats. Needless slaughter for minor wrongdoings would most likely remove the exalted status from the character.

To fulfill your vow, you must unquestioningly obey your superior and live according to the rules of your organization. If you intentionally break your vow, you immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. You may not take another feat to replace it.


Bahamut is stern and very disapproving of evil. He brooks no excuses for evil acts. In spite of this, he is among the most
compassionate beings in the multiverse. He has limitless empathy for the downtrodden, the dispossessed, and the helpless.

So unless the Bahamut of this campaign ordered him to slay thatunsuccessful pickpocket, he ceases to be/won't become a Vassal of Bahamut. There would have been plenty of options for resolving the situation much more aligned with Bahamut's dogma. Heck even just punching her in the face and handing her over to the authorities would have worked.

How a Hellbred would be awarded with two such feats in the first place is something I'd like to know as well.

[Gwendol]

I think we are in agreement, my point being that while there is no in-game mechanics for the crusader to "fall", the DM is in full right of letting the PC feel the consequences of not living up to expectations wrt Bahamut, society, and/or being exalted.

[Savith9]

Ok so im running a game 3.5 for some friends one of which is a Lawful Good Crusader his race is hell spawn the idea behind his character is that he wishes to escape the clutches of the demon who owns his soul by becoming a Vassal of Bahamut. With that in mind they were going threw a city on there way to the main quest when a bar maid decided to lighten his load just a tad she dipped a finger in his pocket and failed her check he then proceeded to turn and cut her down in the center of the bar. her having only 4 hp was killed instantly when he hit her for 26 damage. He said he was acting as any lawful good person would carrying out justice by slaying her for her crime. So my question to the play ground is one does anyone else think he was justified and killed the unarmed bar maid in righteous justice, and two does any one think Bahamut would take on such a person as his vassal (he said Bahamut would be cool with it scene she was touching his horde.

My own view on the alignment factor has always been that the system is flawed to a point. A character can cut another down and it still be "good" all simply due to his moral standpoint. For example I can be a Lawful Evil assassin and as long as my moral standpoint is something along the lines of doing it for a good cause due to this my character is still Lawful Evil but his personality and moral standpoint shows Lawful Good qualities. For this reason I usually toss in a point based system for alignments to give them more value and make it a challenge to the player to be who they want to be and that usually fixes the problem with scenarios like yours.

[Gildedragon]

Said action would cause, without doubt, the loss of the [exalted] feats. If the character has a notion of good and law that somehow allows for that, they may well argue they are LG; but not [exalted] not by a long shot.

As to facing the law: here can be a good time for character growth. If the character submits to the law for his crimes, allow him to plead his case, not for clemency but for time to win his soul back. Geas is placed, and the man is due to return in N time to face punishment for his crimes.

Note: A way to get the player "off the hook" with the law would be trial by ordeal. Survive a particular task or quest and you are exonerated of the crime.

[Edenbeast]

But in the grand scheme of things? One mistake, one slip up, isn't going to impact the character. Now if the character makes a PATTERN of doing things like this... going to an extremist definition of the Law in order to uphold his own desires, that's Lawful Evil territory. Might want to look towards Tyranny Gods like Hextor.

Just one slip up? I know it's a difficult thing, as a GM I have trouble with these matters as well, but I intend to run a 'realistic' campaign. Not in terms of magics and powers, but morale. This guy just murdered the barmaid, you can go like "oh but pickpocket is an evil act", that doesn't justify the PC's action.
It may be a lack of creativity on the player's side who could have grappled or tripped her. If that is the case, as GM I would have asked the player which side of the weapon is he using, to check if he'll acknowledge the non-lethal route.


Thanks for the ideas everyone I think Ill give him a second chance

I'm very strict in these sort of situations. It's not just a slip up. If you do these sort of things in real life, you're in trouble. When I'd tell the player "all right, I'll give you a second chance", then I'll also start questioning the morals in my campaign world. No, I give the player two options: accept being trialled like anyone else would, or make a new character. The last is only if there's no reasonable way out of it. A scenario like Pistorius who 'accidentally' killed his girl friend, could well be possible. In that case the player can leave jail, but has to pay a huge bail.

[Andezzar]

In that case the player can leave jail, but has to pay a huge bail.Bail can only be posted before conviction, so he will be on borrowed time. Or are you saying the character should get off with a fine(n*cost to cast true resurrection for example)? For something like this he probably should do time (which would remove the character) or be sent on a reasonably suicidal mission to make amends. So either the player will need a new character or he will hog the spotlight.

[Edenbeast]

Bail can only be posted before conviction, so he will be on borrowed time. Or are you saying the character should get off with a fine(n*cost to cast true resurrection for example)? For something like this he probably should do time (which would remove the character) or be sent on a reasonably suicidal mission to make amends. So either the player will need a new character or he will hog the spotlight.

Something like that. And I would discuss with the party if they are willing to join his 'suicidal' mission. It could be a nice quest hook and doesn't necessarily have to mean he takes the spotlight. But yeah, if not, the player can play another character for the time being, while his original character is doing a personal quest.
The point that I'm trying to make is; how far will the GM go to sacrifice the credibility of his game world for the sake of players having 'fun'.

Edit: if the player likes his new character more than than the other, it's up to him if he wants to change back if the option arrises. If not, I'll discuss with him the possibility that his old character returns as NPC who may have failed his quest and is now a major antagonist.

[Alienist]

Pure Lawful Evil. Practically the textbook definition of it.

[Andezzar]

Something like that. And I would discuss with the party if they are willing to join his 'suicidal' mission. It could be a nice quest hook and doesn't necessarily have to mean he takes the spotlight. But yeah, if not, the player can play another character for the time being, while his original character is doing a personal quest.
The point that I'm trying to make is; how far will the GM go to sacrifice the credibility of his game world for the sake of players having 'fun'.I totally agree. For group dynamics (on the players' side) this can be difficult though, especially if the others decide not to risk their necks for someone who nilly-willy slaughters people. Just think of the rogue in the party, he will probably steal stuff sooner or later.


Edit: if the player likes his new character more than than the other, it's up to him if he wants to change back if the option arrises. If not, I'll discuss with him the possibility that his old character returns as NPC who may have failed his quest and is now a major antagonist.That is one option. Another would be that the character succeeds (possibly in a 1on1 session or a session with a group of different characters) but decides that his adventuring days are over and either vanishes from the focus of the campaign or becomes a helpful NPC/quest giver.

The thing is IMHO having the character face the consequences will be more interesting than giving the character a free pass. I would not want to break credibility of the gameworld.

Especially for future situations you should come to a consensus with all players what the 9 alignments mean, and how serious a transgression would merit the various alignment based disadvantages.

[theduck]

How seriously does your group play alignment, normally? I've seen groups where the 'good' characters executed groups of people held prisoner by demons, solely because some of the prisoners were also demons, and who coup de graced surrendered foes the party attacked for being suspicious whilst other party members were trying to interogate them. Different groups approach the alignment system differently, and it might not be bad to make sure everyone is on the same page.

As far as your situation goes, this does present an interesting opportunity to introduce the characters to the idea that actions have consequences, but only if nothing like this has happened before in this campaign - otherwise, your player might feel like you are unduly punishing his character.

[Philistine]

Bail can only be posted before conviction, so he will be on borrowed time. Or are you saying the character should get off with a fine(n*cost to cast true resurrection for example)? For something like this he probably should do time (which would remove the character) or be sent on a reasonably suicidal mission to make amends. So either the player will need a new character or he will hog the spotlight.

"Blood Money" is an old and well-attested tradition, entirely suitable for the faux-medieval settings typical of D&D. In a situation like the one described, the "fine" probably wouldn't even have been terribly high. "Doing time" is a much more modern concept; worse, the broad spectrum of powerful abilities available to D&D characters may simply render imprisonment impractical.

That said... Based on the limited information provided, it sounds like this is an OOC problem with the Crusader character's player - specifically, that this player may be kind of a psychopath if he's arguing in all seriousness that killing an unarmed person in response to an attempt to pick his pocket even might a Good action. Lawful is possible (if improbable), but Good? LOL no.

[Andezzar]

"Blood Money" is an old and well-attested tradition, entirely suitable for the faux-medieval settings typical of D&D. In a situation like the one described, the "fine" probably wouldn't even have been terribly high. "Doing time" is a much more modern concept; worse, the broad spectrum of powerful abilities available to D&D characters may simply render imprisonment impractical.I agree. Corporal punishment wouldn't break verisimilitude either though.

[MukkTB]

In some cultures in the past thieves would get their hands cut off. I'm just pointing out that this may not be as far out of line as you may think. It depends on the culture.


OK. Is it lawful?
#1 Did the PC have the civic authority to do this thing?
#2 Did the PC's personal code of conduct indicate this thing should be done?
#3 Did the local civic code indicate that this thing should be done.
#4 If #2 and #3 differ in answer, was there any attempt to reconcile the two?

Without most of these answers being "Yes" than it becomes very hard to sell this as a lawful act. If some of the answers are "Yes" then its neutral. If none of the answers are "Yes" then its chaotic. I do not know the setting so I can't weigh in.

Is it good?
#1 Was there a net good for the parties involved? Obviously no. Neither party benefited. One is dead and the other is a murderer +1.
#2 Did it increase the net good for the community at large? Probably not. The wench doesn't seem to have been a master thief. Assuming she regularly did this kind of thing it seems to represent only a moderate loss to the community at worst. On the other hand a community suffers significantly if one of its members can easily be slaughtered without due process or anything else. That's a quick road to tyranny, chaos, and lawlessness. Then there is any of the good she may have been doing lost as well. Children or family members she cared for will be hit by this.

My guess is that this is a moderately evil act because it will cause moderate suffering in the community and leaves someone dead who probably did not deserve that degree of punishment. The motivations for this act seem to be negative because there does not seem to have been any meditation over it. Anger is my prime suspect. Furthermore, the decision to slaughter someone in an instant shows very little regard for the sanctity of life.

Luckily for the player Crusader doesn't really care about alignment too much. He could fall all the way to chaotic evil and keep his abilities although he would probably have to refluff them. He should be worried about other things more than whether his character sheet is allowed to read "L/G."
#1 Will the local authorities be coming after him for a cold blooded murder?
#2 Will Bahamut allow someone with this kind of behavior to represent him?
#3 Will Bahamut punish one of his operatives for this kind of behavior?
#4 Will the family sit idly by? What if one of them is a bit more wealthy and can hire an assassin to even the score?
#5 What if the adventuring party picks up a reputation for slaughtering innocents? That might put a crimp on their style.
"My King, the Seth6 Expedition has arrived and they're seeking audience."
"What those murderers and strongmen from up north? Get them out of here."
In short there is a world of consequences waiting to fall on that guy's head, no railroading required.

[Phelix-Mu]

So, along the lines of the recent posts, while execution or life imprisonment or some variation thereof is probably the likely result in a LN or LG society, I think we can agree that the canned D&D human society is not exactly enlightened or particularly lawful. Thus, the DM can have magistrates bend rules for influential players, act on petty vendettas (this dragon worshiper is scum), or arbitrarily act however best fits the overall flow of the campaign.

The important part isn't the exact nature of the punishment, but that it is memorable to the player and inconvenient (at the least) for everyone in the party. I, too, am inclined to have the judge bring the hammer down on this guy, both for realism and alignment reasons, but the DM's responsibility is to keep the game both honest and entertaining. If the player wants to play LG, help him learn what this means, not by sending his PC to the gallows, but by firmly but gently making him aware that, while evil people can do good and get away with it, good people must avoid evil (or they quickly cease to be good). Murdering people is evil (distinguish this from normal combat...murder is strictly out of combat killing, with several other requirements that would take time to explore, imho).

Bahamut, the NPC whom the PC should be most concerned about, will offer redemption, but demand evidence of repentance (typically some holy quest of great difficulty, possibly doubly so because of hellbred...really, hellbred entitles the DM to throw the book at the PC in terms of redemption choices).

The long and short of it is QUEST. While the player's PC concept can bear being an outlaw or exiled from a city, it can't bear loss of virtue without some major rethinking (change to crusader of different alignment...not wise for a hellbred). Some price for atonement, methinks.

[ArcturusV]

Just one slip up? I know it's a difficult thing, as a GM I have trouble with these matters as well, but I intend to run a 'realistic' campaign. Not in terms of magics and powers, but morale. This guy just murdered the barmaid, you can go like "oh but pickpocket is an evil act", that doesn't justify the PC's action.
It may be a lack of creativity on the player's side who could have grappled or tripped her. If that is the case, as GM I would have asked the player which side of the weapon is he using, to check if he'll acknowledge the non-lethal route.

I say one slip up because, well... you never really know the particulars. Yes, you need to be responsible even for your mistakes. That's part of GOOD dogma in general. A good man who accidentally does something wrong seeks to correct that wrong somehow later on. I think the good example of that in fiction that leaps to mind is from the Comic "Goblins" where Senor Kickasso accidentally psyches himself up and hurts an elf child. So to make it up he risks his life sneaking into a city where he'd be killed on sight to return the girl's doll to her.

It's entirely possible (And lacking additional information for not being there, always willing to give the benefit of the doubt) that it was something a little like that. He got himself all riled up for whatever reason, and acted without really thinking. Then KNOWING after the fact that his soul was in trouble due to being Hellbound (Or whatever it is actually called), tried OOCily to defend himself from an "attack" against his character without actually thinking about it and pondering how he might make up for it.

Because... sometimes things happen. I've seen plenty of games around my table where an otherwise Innocent NPC gets it for... whatever reason. The one I can think of recently was when my players were going through the lair of a Telepath who had mindjacked a bunch of people. Due to destroying some key focuses (Not that they knew what they really were doing), several of the thralls to the Telepath were freed. They were fleeing the Telepath best they could... and happened to run into the heavily armed, paranoid players. Before they could do anything to explain I had the party Ranger (CG) calling out an attack on the lead former Thrall because they thought it was a zerg rush sort of mob (Which also got the party sorcerer to lob a Fireball into them as well).

But anyway. The point being I could see how this might be a one time thing. Maybe he was jazzed up when the DM said "you notice someone trying to pick your pocket" because he was in some wretched hive of scum and villainy and expecting something like a skilled thief who, if caught, might just shiv the Crusader for 1d4 plus 4d6 style damage. Maybe the Crusader (Or the Player OOCily) was just having a bad day. Maybe later, after the fact the DM could give him a gentle nudge, or the player himself might go, "... you know... that wasn't quite Holy Dragon material... I should atone for that somehow..."

Gotta give them the benefit for one time acts unless it is so clearly evil that there is no wiggle room. Like if he sacrificed an orphanage (Filled with Orphans), to summon up the Daemon Prince of Indiscriminate Slaughter and Carnage.

[Edenbeast]

Gotta give them the benefit for one time acts unless it is so clearly evil that there is no wiggle room. Like if he sacrificed an orphanage (Filled with Orphans), to summon up the Daemon Prince of Indiscriminate Slaughter and Carnage.

I can see your point. And I would definitely try to be lenient with the player especially if it's the first time. The GM's role is also to keep the players in check, make sure they stay in character. And like I've stated before, in a situation like the OP's, I would have asked the player what he is doing, preferably before rolling to hit.
The problem is, and that's the way I see it, is that it should never hurt the credibility of the setting. The slip was made, and I would remind the player that in real life there's never a second chance when you kill someone. Make an exception once, and the next time it will be even harder. The GM can be lenient with the player, with not putting him in jail, but at least have him make restitution for his 'mistake' in the form of paying an amount of money to the family, or a bail to the local sheriff.

[ArcturusV]

Though I would usually suggest not dealing with said fallout immediately. It gets to the point where people feel like they're getting piled on and they get that Victimized mindset. But bringing it up later. Especially if you have a week between sessions. Lets people cool off and avoid some of that.

[Rhynn]

Pure Lawful Evil. Practically the textbook definition of it.

Not really, IMO. Unless killing a thief is legal in the jurisdiction (which it might be in a LE jurisdiction), it seems more Chaotic Evil - taking "justice" into your own hands, or just exacting vengeance rather than dealing justice. Lawful would be deferring to the authorities/laws. Death for pickpocketing is a Lawful Evil kind of punishment, though (if a bit on the extreme evil end).

[SowZ]

While I wouldn't immediately change his alignment, unless serious reparations were made and he regretted his actions he wouldn't be a vassal, though I would let him keep the abilities of/keep leveling in the PrC and refluff them if he wished. Or replace the levels with some other class.

I would also make him a fugitive, unless he surrendered to the guard.

[Rhynn]

"Blood Money" is an old and well-attested tradition, entirely suitable for the faux-medieval settings typical of D&D. In a situation like the one described, the "fine" probably wouldn't even have been terribly high. "Doing time" is a much more modern concept; worse, the broad spectrum of powerful abilities available to D&D characters may simply render imprisonment impractical.

Indeed. Unless you killed someone really important (a noble when you're a peasant/commoner, a member of royalty when you're not one, etc. - these crimes were basically treason, as they were crimes against the "system"), you were mostly required to pay blood-money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_money_%28term%29) (like the weregild (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild) of Germanic/Viking society). Killing a serf mostly meant a payment to the serf's lord. Castle dungeons (there were rarely any prisons, as such) were more for politicals and for important people.

Of course, most D&D fantasy worlds have decidedly more modern approaches to laws, so go figure.

[SowZ]

Indeed. Unless you killed someone really important (a noble when you're a peasant/commoner, a member of royalty when you're not one, etc. - these crimes were basically treason, as they were crimes against the "system"), you were mostly required to pay blood-money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_money_%28term%29) (like the weregild (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild) of Germanic/Viking society). Killing a serf mostly meant a payment to the serf's lord. Castle dungeons (there were rarely any prisons, as such) were more for politicals and for important people.

Of course, most D&D fantasy worlds have decidedly more modern approaches to laws, so go figure.

Actually, in most D&D settings, murder even of important people should be forgivable for around 5,000 GP, plus a cleric fee, maybe plus another fee for inconvenience/trauma.

[Rhynn]

Actually, in most D&D settings, murder even of important people should be forgivable for around 5,000 GP, plus a cleric fee, maybe plus another fee for inconvenience/trauma.

Justice for capital crimes tends to be punitive, though. When it's an important person, in particular, the whole idea is to scare other people into not doing it. In the medieval system, attacking someone above your social class was essentially a crime against the divine mandate that placed some people above others. That deserved the most horrible punishments, mostly to scare everyone else into never doing it.

[Twilightwyrm]

Flat out no. Lawful characters believe in the rule of law, and good characters do not simply resort to violence on a whim. His life was not in danger, and she only attempted to steal a coin. Hell, he didn't even know for sure she was trying to do that (she might have been coming on to him, who knows). Apprehending her and dragging her to the authorities would be within such an alignment, but I doubt even one of the Shadowbane members (who would, as per their description, seriously consider burning down or kill an entire village if doing so would guarantee the death of a fiend) would resort to killing so quickly over such a slight offense. Hell, I'm not even sure any but the most zealous, ruthless Lawful Neutral characters would take such an action (they might cut her hand off for it on the spot, but I doubt they would attempt to end her life). This should get him instantly shunned from his church, and he should really be seeking an atonement for this.

[SowZ]

Justice for capital crimes tends to be punitive, though. When it's an important person, in particular, the whole idea is to scare other people into not doing it. In the medieval system, attacking someone above your social class was essentially a crime against the divine mandate that placed some people above others. That deserved the most horrible punishments, mostly to scare everyone else into never doing it.

Very few people could afford a 5,000 GP+ bill, though. Making the payment of such a thing mandatory for the crime not only keeps victims alive, but is an out for the elite in society who have that kind of coin.

[ArcturusV]

One thing worth mentioning now that I think of it (And Twilight Wyrm's post among others reminded me), is that the LAWFUL part of Lawful Alignments is not based around some civic code like the Laws of Hammurabi or the Municipal Penal Code. It's about order in general, defined typically in a manner that is more about divine mandate than whatever foolishness local lawyers, kings, barons, etc declare.

So it's not worth really considering "Does the local city punish..." and what not. What's more important is what their alignment makes of Law, based on personal or divine inspiration. Again, Lawful Good probably considers balance and temperance to the Law. I'm sure I've seen examples of Lawful Good that hit on this point, usually an extremist example like "If the local kingdom practices Slavery legally, the Lawful Good character is not driven to practice slavery, catch run away slaves, etc, etc, etc. In fact they will probably try to free slaves."

[Rhynn]

So it's not worth really considering "Does the local city punish..." and what not. What's more important is what their alignment makes of Law, based on personal or divine inspiration. Again, Lawful Good probably considers balance and temperance to the Law. I'm sure I've seen examples of Lawful Good that hit on this point, usually an extremist example like "If the local kingdom practices Slavery legally, the Lawful Good character is not driven to practice slavery, catch run away slaves, etc, etc, etc. In fact they will probably try to free slaves."

Yup. The nature of the justice and right practiced by a Lawful character is pretty much defined by the second component. A Lawful Good character probably shouldn't turn in a failed pickpocket to authorities who are going to cut his/her hand off, for instance - he'd more likely try to help the poor pickpocket never to have to steal again. (Ideally, if he's got the time...)

Although this is sort of going with the modern conception of Good. If you're going for a more medieval feel, then even Lawful Good characters might be all for harsh punishments, just not arbitrary ones. (Lawful Evil is all about arbitrary application of law and justice, corruption, etc.)

[SowZ]

Yup. The nature of the justice and right practiced by a Lawful character is pretty much defined by the second component. A Lawful Good character probably shouldn't turn in a failed pickpocket to authorities who are going to cut his/her hand off, for instance - he'd more likely try to help the poor pickpocket never to have to steal again. (Ideally, if he's got the time...)

Although this is sort of going with the modern conception of Good. If you're going for a more medieval feel, then even Lawful Good characters might be all for harsh punishments, just not arbitrary ones. (Lawful Evil is all about arbitrary application of law and justice, corruption, etc.)

Yeah, I highly doubt in any medieval culture it would be considered noble to turn around and decapitate an impoverished woman who tried to pickpocket you.

[ArcturusV]

Well, I wouldn't call it arbitrary. That seems to imply that you only follow the law when you wish and ignore it the rest of the time. Which seems more Neutral or Chaotic. I'd rather define Lawful Evil as someone who uses the Law he upholds as a personal tool to ensure his own well being and power, regardless of circumstances that it imposes on others. He sees this system as ultimately "fair" because anyone who was as cunning as he is could have done the same. Meanwhile he also counts on the protects of this Law to avoid repercussions of his actions.

Which is why I said his behavior was Lawful Evil (if he made a pattern of it). It is taking a general stance against Thievery, Property Rights, etc (Quite Lawful), and applying it towards a selfish desire (Keeping his own wealth) and punishing those who would challenge the law (Severely, with death in this case).

Where as the Lawful Neutral sort probably would have just slapped the barmaid in question. Or threatened to call the local constable in and have her hauled off to work in the Salt Mines, maybe challenge the barmaid to a formal duel over the dishonor/crime if that's a thing according to their code, etc.

And the Lawful Good character probably would have stopped the thievery, then just given her some coinage, warned her that this pattern of behavior will eventually bring her suffering because not all potential marks would be like that. Maybe ask her why she has to steal. Talk to her boss at the inn if there was some greater injustice going on? "Mr. Timmins keeps us chained up and only feeds us watery gruel once every other day and beats us if we step out of line and I was stealing to save up enough coin to be able to run away and keep going"... or something. In an extreme case. Probably going to, in most cases, stop with just the warning about the dangers of her behavior.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Personally, I would respond by guilt-tripping the hell out of the guy.

Next time he goes to the village, they're holding her funeral. Her husband is weeping in the pews. She was trying to save money to get a potion of Cure Disease for him; now he has no chance of surviving the next year. One of her infant children throws himself onto the grave and starts trying to dig up Mommy. The local slum lord strides up and hauls her away. She's being sold to Gnoll slavers, in order to pay off the dead woman's debt.

[The Fury]

My two cents:
Passing sentence without trial or appeal? Not lawful.
Disproportionate sentence, (execution,) for petty theft? Not good.

[Edenbeast]

Personally, I would respond by guilt-tripping the hell out of the guy.

Next time he goes to the village, they're holding her funeral. Her husband is weeping in the pews. She was trying to save money to get a potion of Cure Disease for him; now he has no chance of surviving the next year. One of her infant children throws himself onto the grave and starts trying to dig up Mommy. The local slum lord strides up and hauls her away. She's being sold to Gnoll slavers, in order to pay off the dead woman's debt.

Brilliant!

[ArcturusV]

Seems heavy handed to me. You can do a more subtle version of it however. I know quite a few players don't like the "hidden information" guilt trip sort of thing. I mean they had no way of really knowing particulars. Then having it come up to guilt trip them just feels... eh. Hamfisted and overdone usually.

You might want to go more subtle like... the next time he's at a bar (or similar place) in that city, everyone gives him a wide berth. People ask for him to check his weapons at the door to a place (since he's shown he has no restraint), etc. Give him the reputation as a stone cold killer and have people act that way towards him. No more benefits of the doubt. No open carrying your weapons in a place, etc.

[Yahzi]

Personally, I would respond by guilt-tripping the hell out of the guy.
Seconded! And now the Crusader can go a on quest to exterminate all Gnoll slavers. And Barons that deal with them.

[Rhynn]

Yeah, I highly doubt in any medieval culture it would be considered noble to turn around and decapitate an impoverished woman who tried to pickpocket you.

Enh. It would probably still be considered a killing rather than justice, but "just" punishments could be pretty harsh - death for stealing food, etc.

And, technically, a feudal Japanese samurai doing exactly this would have been within his rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirisute_gomen) and acting honorably (although he would have had to offer the poor sod a short sword for defense, first).

The point was that, if you're going for a nastier, more medieval, less typical D&D world, "Good" becomes a much more nebulous and relative concept.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Seems heavy handed to me. You can do a more subtle version of it however. I know quite a few players don't like the "hidden information" guilt trip sort of thing. I mean they had no way of really knowing particulars. Then having it come up to guilt trip them just feels... eh. Hamfisted and overdone usually.

You might want to go more subtle like... the next time he's at a bar (or similar place) in that city, everyone gives him a wide berth. People ask for him to check his weapons at the door to a place (since he's shown he has no restraint), etc. Give him the reputation as a stone cold killer and have people act that way towards him. No more benefits of the doubt. No open carrying your weapons in a place, etc.

Well, I was kind of exaggerating for effect, there - but, you could have something. Maybe her brother attacks the party in drunken anger and grief, maybe they see her parents, something like that; you don't have to exaggerate to say that "The random civilian you killed had people who cared about her."

Saying "There are things you don't know because you didn't bother to find out" isn't the same as "Hidden information." To put it another way... if someone leaps before they look, they don't get to complain about hidden information when they don't like what they land on.

[Gildedragon]

@Rhynn: that's lawfulness and honor becoming nebulous. Good gets nebulous when ends can justify means

[FreakyCheeseMan]

@Rhynn: that's lawfulness and honor becoming nebulous. Good gets nebulous when ends can justify means

It isn't about "A means to an end" it's about good and evil being relative to the society. A few hundred years ago, a "Good" guy might be one who treated his slaves well, gave them time off, and tried to keep families together while buying and selling, even if he made less profit for it. A hundred years from now, "Good" might be some hopelessly naive thing we couldn't really consider, while our current behavior might be barbaric and cruel.

[Phelix-Mu]

It isn't about "A means to an end" it's about good and evil being relative to the society. A few hundred years ago, a "Good" guy might be one who treated his slaves well, gave them time off, and tried to keep families together while buying and selling, even if he made less profit for it. A hundred years from now, "Good" might be some hopelessly naive thing we couldn't really consider, while our current behavior might be barbaric and cruel.

Not an untrue sentiment here about relative alignments and all, but our current behavior is barbaric and cruel. Good as an ideal still can't really look at irl human behavior and be anything more than generally disappointed. Particularly with our short-sightedness and general lack of wisdom when handling our tech-granted world-altering powers of international trade and consumerism. Are we better than we used to be? In some respects, yes. But Jefferson other conscientious slaveholders (as non-Good-to-Evil as they were) weren't part of a system that stands to make the planet considerably less habitable for anyone (massively increasing the potential for suffering on a grand scale) within the next hundred years.

In short, a DM should be very careful when modeling alignment standards in game off of historical or modern standards, cause humans have generally done poorly as a society, and only occasionally better on an individual level.