Good vs. Evil debate (was about CN) [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

3WhiteFox3

2014-02-12, 03:53 AM

I have asked my players to change their alignment before, but this case was interesting enough to merit a thread.

First of all, CN is (arguably) the most detested alignment, because it allows players to be disruptive and "evil".
Secondly, the character is a cleric of a chaotic neutral deity. Thus, being chaotic (any) is necessary to receive spells.

Before I present the situation, I'd like to know what kind of behavior would warrant losing the CN alignment and turning into N?

I can reveal that the character's ambiguous behaviour has been going on for two months in gametime, two game sessions and there have been a few incidents.

Important: I will not talk with the player in this case. At least not without drawing my own conclusions first and having a clear view. DMG clearly states that "DM is in control of the alignment change, not the player". Alignment is not a democracy. I will interpret the actions and decide accordingly. I just want some help with the interpretation.

The SRD also clearly states that Alignment is a tool, not a straightjacket, if the actions are ambigous that's the often the nature of alignment once actually applied to characters. There's no reason to hold the character up to what you think they should be, unless the character is acting wildly out of alignment, especially if the character is having character development. Screwing character's over in order to straight-jacket them into playing their alignment the way you think they should is just plain against what alignment is in the first place.

Also, you are really being vague and confusing. CN is generally expected to be 'evil' but seeing as how it's not Chaotic Evil should tell you something. If that's your expectation (you imply that the character is acting lawfully enough to move over towards TN). Also, without specifics, I don't think you'll get much help getting the playground's advice to match up with whatever behavior you think that CN shouldn't have or that the character is exhibiting. The SRD also states that alignments are broad categories, what makes one person CN is not the same through out the alignment, actions require context before really knowing what alignment they lean towards. The same actions in two different contexts can have wildly different impacts on alignment.

Ceaon

2014-02-12, 03:56 AM

Secondly, the character is a cleric of a chaotic neutral deity. Thus, being chaotic (any) is necessary to receive spells.

A cleric of a CN deity would need to be CG, CN, CE, or True Neutral to receive spells. But a cleric CAN'T be neutral unless his deity is neutral. So if this player's character is actually Neutral to you, he'll still be able to receive spells, but he wouldn't be a cleric.
Or something.

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-12, 03:58 AM

A cleric of a CN deity needs to be CG, N, CN or CE to receive spells.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm

A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral.

3WhiteFox3

2014-02-12, 04:06 AM

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm

It doesn't state on what axis the deity has to be neutral.

A Chaotic Neutral deity is still Neutral.

Even without that, the rule is dumb and should be ignored. A Lawful Good deity should be allowed to have Lawful Neutral clerics.

I think the intent was that a lawful good cleric couldn't become lawful neutral and serve a lawful good deity. Though, strangely enough a lawful neutral cleric could serve a lawful good deity without problems.

Lord Vukodlak

2014-02-12, 04:06 AM

The SRD also clearly states that Alignment is a tool, not a straightjacket
I find the biggest problem people have with alignments is forgetting that fact. That alignments are guidelines and not absolutes. The PHB even gave an example of a lawful good character might justify theft and yet still be lawful good.

Also, you are really being vague and confusing. CN is generally expected to be 'evil' but seeing as how it's not Chaotic Evil should tell you something. If that's your expectation (you imply that the character is acting lawfully enough to move over towards TN). Most often I've seen people play Chaotic Neutral as crazy. They don't really do anything evil just random acts for no apparent reason. Basically I always see it played as the schizophrenic alignment, one minute there standing up on the table singing the nest they decide to hit people with chairs. I don't think CN characters should behave like that but that is commonly how I've seen it done.

It doesn't state on what axis the deity has to be neutral.

A Chaotic Neutral deity is still Neutral.

Even without that, the rule is dumb and should be ignored. A Lawful Good deity should be allowed to have Lawful Neutral clerics.

A Chaotic Neutral deity is not Neutral he's chaotic neutral. When it ways a cleric can not be neutral unless the deity is also neutral it's talking about true neutral. The actual PHB specificities neutral on both the good-evil and lawful-chaotic axis.

HammeredWharf

2014-02-12, 04:31 AM

If the character has only been ambiguous for a few sessions, alignment change is completely unwarranted. Nothing says a CN character must be in crazy chaos mode all the time. The only case where an alignment change *might* be appropriate is if the character has been doing something extremely lawful, like installing a strict government in wild and untamed lands.

Also, worshiping a CN deity is a chaotic act. Being a cleric of one is even more so.

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-12, 05:02 AM

All right, maybe it's best that I explain the situation. I was being ambiguous, I admit, but I did mention that I was going to explain the situation. Here we go.

It all started with the gnomish king's audience. The CN character has assumed the official leadership of the adventurer party (a role which he embraces), and he was allowed to speak with the king. The gnomish king is not a tyrant and there was no immediate threat whatsoever, but CN character took great pains to learn official protocol and diplomacy to impress the king. When he met the king, the CN character was obedient and subservient, and treated him with the utmost respect.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority

[CN] avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions

Another incident: They were about to finish a long-term mission of finding a lost magical well. The well was guarded by deva, who proclaimed that only lawful good people were allowed to see the well. The CN character claimed that the deva was only an illusion, but nevertheless retreated and left the deva alone since he feared retribution.

A chaotic neutral character follows his whims.
However, the whim "it's only an illusion!" was not followed. He also yielded to a lawful good entity (who was alone and the area was completely lawless).

Now he has been working as a trainer for newbie adventurers and one of the main things that he has taught was carefulness. That was officially the main lesson he taught. He has also taught regimented group tactics.

[CN] is an individualist first and last.

In short, there have been several authority figures in the game, and he has managing well with all of them. He has never let anyone down and has always kept his word. He also likes to be a leader and he is always responsible for everything and everyone.

HammeredWharf

2014-02-12, 05:23 AM

Sounds like he's being smart. Technically, a CN character could spit in the king's face, be careless around possibly very powerful LG outsiders and teach his apprentices to charge in like a bunch of idiots instead of working together. In the best case scenario, that character would get nowhere with the king, piss off an angel and get his apprentices killed. That's more chaotic stupid than chaotic neural.

On the other hand, he could think that the king's alright, because he respects personal freedom. He could put on a show to make the king like him. He could be careful around devas, because that's what smart people do. He could teach his student tactics while respecting their individuality. He could get along with lawful people, because he knows people are different and thinks that's fine or just none of his business. He'd still be a CN character.

Abaddona

2014-02-12, 05:24 AM

So in your opinion as a chaotic neutral he should piss off the king and spend next few months in jail for making fun of authority or what? Because nowhere in this chart is said that you should act dumb - if you meet guy who has CR PECL +10 and this guy tells you to sit down and bark you would do this - because you like to be alive and in one piece. Only when you accumulate enough power to become person of authority yourself you are free to do what you like - and not even then because pissing of the gods is rarely good idea.

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-12, 05:31 AM

Some of you are going to ridiculous extremes, please. What about not giving a damn about the king? He's not special. Authority? Tradition? Blah! This guy is just a bum, right? You don't have to get on his face. It should not interest him a bit.

A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy.

And if your whim is that the deva is an illusion, then you should follow that whim if you want to be CN.

SPoilaaja

2014-02-12, 05:39 AM

And if your whim is that the deva is an illusion, then you should follow that whim if you want to be CN.

Chaotic neutral is not crazy. He had a feeling that the Deva might be an illusion, but maybe he didn't want to find out, in fear of getting killed? Chaotic neutrals are not supposed to be bat**** insane or have the whims of a wee-a-boo.

Just a day ago there was a thread where people talked how people abuse the CN alignment to be bat**** insane and wee-a-boo crazy. In this case, in the examples that you gave the character was just being reasonable

Avilan the Grey

2014-02-12, 05:44 AM

Not sure I understand what the problem is.

Also, I have never heard of the definition that "CN" isn't "Neutral". Of course I have only played CGG since 2Ed and now DnDNext, but in all computer games based on D&D editions the keyword is "Neutral", and CN definitely counted as Neutral when it came to clerics (or any other class).

CN characters does NOT lean towards Evil. The whole point is that they don't lean AT ALL along that axis. They are, by the sum of their actions and intentions, neutral.

It is often stressed that a CN character is the hardest to play, and I can see that it takes a bit of role-playing to do it well. But also remember that the CN character doesn't have to be a loon. He doesn't have to be Two-Face.

Edit:
As for the Deva argument... Not buying it. First of all it sounds like he's smart. Second... The whim is not that he THINKS the Deva is an illusion, but to CALL it an Illision. And that means he doesn't "break alignment" by not trying to walk thru it or whatever (the idea that he should is just as faulty as thinking CE characters should randomly kill people in pure daylight).

HammeredWharf

2014-02-12, 05:49 AM

Some of you are going to ridiculous extremes, please. What about not giving a damn about the king? He's not special. Authority? Tradition? Blah! This guy is just a bum, right?

He is special. He can cut your head off.

Here's an example for you: CN is the typical bard alignment. What would a smart CN bard do, if he was invited to play in front of a king? Would he act like the king is a bum? Of course not. He'd be charming and polite. Sure, later on he might tell the tales of the princess's gloriously low neckline and the king's increasing weight to the tavern drunks, but he wouldn't do that in the throne room.

Abaddona

2014-02-12, 05:56 AM

Deva -> even if he thinks that Deva is an illusion that doesn't mean that he is willing to piss of a person who made that illusion or walk right into some sort of trap of which said illusion may be warning them.

King -> even if he isn't powerfull by his own power he is powerfull by the power of his title. Title "king" usually implies that there are people who treat him a a "king" and listen to his orders. Usually whole nation. And murderhobo'ing around when whole nations (and parts of other nations) wants some of that price which was put on your head is quite tedious.

To be honest you seem like you think that your players roleplay wrong because he doesn't distrupts your sessions, which is kinda strange on your part.

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-12, 06:03 AM

Would he act like the king is a bum? Of course not. He'd be charming and polite.

He had a feeling that the Deva might be an illusion, but maybe he didn't want to find out, in fear of getting killed?

First of all it sounds like he's smart.

Well, this is true neutral for you:

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea.

If you want to play a character who ALWAYS does what seems to be a good idea (a good idea being the best and the most reasonable choice in the given situation), I will say "all right, you're true neutral". I will do this every time, until you start playing some other alignment.

You are not really discussing about CN alignment. Instead, you are proving that you are true neutral IRL :)

Chaotic Neutral is officially a "Free Spirit". Forget about reasonable behaviour. Yes, just forget about it. I will just sit here holding my breath until someone explains me how the things he has done are examples of "Free Spirit" behaviour.

Abaddona

2014-02-12, 06:17 AM

Because if you want to be free you must be alive? Or maybe you are willing to divide your session between adventures of the pissed of party (because CN leader did something which undermined their reputation so badly that they are in serious trouble now - for example pissing of a deity) and the adventures CN ex-leader now petitioner on one of CN planes (because said character did something which resulted in his death). Or maybe you are willing to pull your punches so CN may spit in the face of the king and king will only smile and say "naughty boy, you shouldn't act like that"?
And one more thing - "free spirit" in no way says that you should be rude to persons of authority which you can actually like despite them being the persons of authority (captain of the guard may be quite a nice guy when he is off duty).

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-12, 06:21 AM

Abaddona

2014-02-12, 06:30 AM

SPoilaaja

2014-02-12, 06:33 AM

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-12, 06:38 AM

Yeah - except authority of the king holds value to said king and all lawfull members of his court. And as I said before: irritating powerfull people is generally bad idea - because even if king himself doesn't mind you are really safe to assume that the moment you will act without proper etiquette the DM will roll 1d10 behind his screen to see how many nobles will feel resentfull towards you and will plot your fall. And it's not also terribly hard to deduce this using ingame means - being Chaotic after all doesn't give you penalty to wisdom.

Chaotic doesn't think about it that much. He's an individual and people may not always like his individualism. The moment that chaotic starts to care too much about the opinion of others is the moment he stops being chaotic.

There are certain people - some are intelligent and some are stupid - who always act the same no matter the situation. This is about being chaotic. You are free to act as you wish. People are not suicidal though, so they will not try to get themselves killed. The chaotic would have been right with his sense of protocol IF the king had been a tyrant. But with a good/neutral king, who cares? He's not your boss. No one is.

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-12, 06:40 AM

How about leaving a good impression on the king? The next time he needs something, the king might remember him and help in. Alignment is a guideline, not a strict set of rules you always go by. Even chaotic evil characters could make the effort to leave a good impression of themselves to the king, just to gain from it at a later time.

From DMG, page 134:
"Actions dictate alignment, not statement of intentions players"
I always go with what I see, not what the players think. And I'm seeing lawfulness here.

SPoilaaja

2014-02-12, 06:48 AM

By that notion adventuring with a structured party or having a set of rules how to distribute loot inside the party is lawful. Make every player you have lawful, if they distribute loot.

HammeredWharf

2014-02-12, 06:52 AM

I think you're mixing recognition and respect. A stupid character doesn't recognize obvious authority. A chaotic one doesn't respect it. He won't respect a king just because that king's a king. He may respect a king who's a cool guy in his opinion. He may fake respecting a king to further his cause. He may even (gasp!) not be the paragon of everything chaotic. He may simply not care about this situation, because it's not strange for a chaotic character to not care about etiquette at all.

For example, a character who is always fake and lies about everything is obviously chaotic. That character may act like the most noble of knights, the most polite of adventurers, etc. but that won't change his alignment.

Another example: a chaotic good cleric meets a lawful evil king. This is pretty much his archenemy. He may still kneel before the king and act polite, all the while thinking of the best possible way to stab that king in the back. He may even take on a quest from that king, only to screw up the king's plans in the worst possible way. That's what chaotic characters do. They lie, pretend and fake. Among other things.

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-12, 06:53 AM

By that notion adventuring with a structured party or having a set of rules how to distribute loot inside the party is lawful. Make every player you have lawful, if they distribute loot.

It doesn't work like that.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a 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.
If all the members are almost competely immune to any temptations to cheat or go against the agreed rules, then they are lawful.

SPoilaaja

2014-02-12, 06:54 AM

if the party is distributing loot, they are honoring an agreement a set of rules, set to make wealth equal. How is that not lawful?

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-12, 06:58 AM

I think you're mixing recognition and respect. A stupid character doesn't recognize obvious authority. A chaotic one doesn't respect it. He won't respect a king just because that king's a king. He may respect a king who's a cool guy in his opinion. He may fake respecting a king to further his cause. He may even (gasp!) not be the paragon of everything chaotic. He may simply not care about this situation, because it's not strange for a chaotic character to not care about etiquette at all.

Another example: a chaotic good cleric meets a lawful evil king. This is pretty much his archenemy. He may still kneel before the king and act polite, all the while thinking of the best possible way to stab that king in the back. He may even take on a quest from that king, only to screw up the king's plans in the worst possible way. That's what chaotic characters do. They lie, pretend and fake. Among other things.

These are all statements of intent. They are meaningless when you evaluate aligment. Only the actions count, and he put a lot of effort in showing deference to the king.

In case of the chaotic good cleric vs. lawful evil king and faking submission, it would be clear it's a plan to get close to the king and having him drop his guard. In my player's case, there is no clear advantage that would lead to a chaotic end.

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-12, 06:59 AM

if the party is distributing loot, they are honoring an agreement a set of rules, set to make wealth equal. How is that not lawful?

It's not strongly enough lawful. It's something that neutrals would do.

Pan151

2014-02-12, 07:00 AM

There are degrees to just about everything, including Chaotic alignment. Not all CN characters have to be bat**** crazy and act chaotically for chaos's sake.

And the chaotic alignment itself does not mean "disregard everyone, all the time". Even in the code of Paladins of Slaughter (paladins of CE alignment) it is clearly written that you are to respect people with enough power to inspire said respect. People such as powerful Kings and Devas, for example. And Paladins of Freedom (CG) are not to disrespect authority that is not being oppressive.

It just sounds like you're set on intentionally screwing your player over and are not willing to change your opinion on that.

caden_varn

2014-02-12, 07:02 AM

What exactly would be the consequences of the alignment change? For example would it cause issues with any of his class features or feats etc.?

If not, why care about it? I can't think it is going to impact the game that greatly if he has CN written on his sheet instead of N - the only differences I can think of off the top of my head would be usage of anarchic items or vulnerability to protection from chaos etc. Unless there is something I am missing I don't see that this is a big deal.

While I think to your view of ways a CN might act are valid, they are FAR from the only valid ones IMO. There are only 9 alignments, but there are far more personalities than that. There will always be grades to the behaviour.

Either way, If you decide you do want to change his alignment, talk to the player about it first. You don't have to give him a vote, but you should at the least warn him, and give him a chance to justify his actions. This will at least give him a chance to get used to the idea of his alignment changing and may help prevent resentment.

Lord Raziere

2014-02-12, 07:03 AM

well first you have to know how to play Chaotic Neutral RIGHT.

1. Chaotic Neutral DOES have limits. Its not a free ticket to do whatever you want
You want to do anything you want and not get an alignment change? Be Chaotic Evil. If you disagree with me, then you don't know what Chaotic Neutral is. Because the first thing I found that makes Chaotic Neutral, is the things they will never do. There has to be something that separates CN from CE. A Line They Never Cross. Chaotic Evil has no lines- it has already crossed all of them by being Chaotic Evil. Chaotic Neutral, despite all its love of freedom, its distrust of law and authority and its selfish focus, has things it will never do no matter what.
Often, this is not harming the good guys and innocents.

2. Chaotic Neutral above all, is self-consistent
Sure, your character might be freedom-loving, not particularly focused on helping others and an individualist, but that doesn't mean they are random or mercurial. The way they do things, the rules they follow, may not match up with the rest of the world or how it thinks, but they are self-consistent about how they think it. They are their own system, their own way, and it only works as long as they are self-consistent about how they go about it. The rules they follow might be loose and flexible, but they are self-consistent no matter what.

3. Chaotic Neutral recognizes Good and Evil
Chaotic Neutral people are not blind to alignment just because they like their freedom-if anything they are very good at recognizing when somebody is morally higher than them, and know who to fight and not to fight, who to oppose to fight for their freedom, and who to ally with to keep their freedom. After all, if the good guys win, Chaotic Neutral wins too, if Evil wins, that probably means less freedom- even if its a Chaotic Evil villain. After all, Chaotic Evil, does not care about what it does. Chaotic Evil will stomp over anyone else's freedom for their own freedom, and that includes Chaotic Neutral's freedom. Chaotic Neutral on the other hand is more live and let live.
Example: Julios Scoundrel, Jarlaxle

4. Chaotic Neutral can be negotiated with.
Just because they are free, doesn't mean they are stupid or that they force everything to go their way. They might follow their own self-consistent logic and not care about doing good all that much, but they know when to make a deal, when to change tactics, when to stop fighting and talk. If negotiation and restraint will help them keep their freedom better than any sword or spell, they will use it. If anything, they're probably more open to negotiation than Lawful Neutral- LN has rules that must Always Be Followed No Matter What, and is inflexible about carrying them out, following their code no matter the situation. Chaotic Neutral however knows when to cut a deal, when to be smart and pragmatically negotiate to secure their freedom.

5. Chaotic Neutral is flexible for their friends
Following up, its this: Chaotic Neutral can be flexible about how they do things for the people they care about. If their friends wish them to stop stealing, they will do so- at least in their presence and if nothing forces them to steal anyways. They will still feel nothing bad about stealing in general, they will just be smart enough to not to do it when their friends would disapprove of it, or when they could get caught. They won't think it bad that they do this, they just figure "hey what they won't know, won't hurt em". Since they themselves are free, they know that others are free to, and respect their choices, even if they don't agree with them. Lawful Neutral however is inherently inflexible about their code, and while to Chaotic Neutral this just means they need to be particularly careful about not doing something that the Lawful Neutral won't like in their presence, Lawful Neutral is not as open to negotiation and there will be conflict if they find out if Chaotic Neutral has broken a rule.

6. Chaotic Neutral doesn't want to tear down the law, but to avoid it.
This may seem strange to hear, but Chaotic Neutral doesn't actively work against the law. Chaotic good may oppose the law for more freedom for everyone if its tyrannical, Chaotic Evil will probably oppose any law that gets in the way of their selfish desires, but Chaotic Neutral, while often breaking the law, isn't exactly opposing it implicitly. They are just following their own self-consistent train of thought, and it just so happens to clash with the rules around them. If anything, they try to avoid the law.

If faced with a tyrannical city, CG will go in and try to change it for the better, CN is more likely to escape it and find somewhere else to be free, where its easier to be free and not have to jump through as many hoops to get their freedom. Staying in a tyrannical city is a good way to get killed by its laws after all. Though this may vary, some Chaotic Neutrals might desire an interesting, risk-taking life and go into it not to spreading freedom and good to everyone else, but just as a challenge to see if they keep up their life amidst an oppressive regime. However if faced with no other choice, they will stop avoiding and fight against unjust laws for their freedom right alongside Chaotic Good.

what does this all mean? it means that if Chaotic Neutral- if they really are Chaotic Neutral- is turning True Neutral, it means they becoming more flexible about following other peoples rules, as True Neutral is an even more flexible alignment that Chaotic Neutral. True Neutral just wants a good life for themselves, no matter what form it takes, open to negotiation with almost anyone as to how they achieve it. Rules, No Rules, they don't care as long as they are happy and no one else is causing trouble to them. True Neutral for example will do anything to get fame and fortune as long as its not Evil- negotiating with corporations, honing their talent at something to be the best at what they do, trying to find a product that will legitimately make them the most money, that sort of thing. Chaotic Neutral on the other hand will just steal a lot of gold while being non-lethal as possible and then call their wanted poster "fame".

The Grue

2014-02-12, 07:05 AM

HammeredWharf

2014-02-12, 07:12 AM

Either way, If you decide you do want to change his alignment, talk to the player about it first. You don't have to give him a vote, but you should at the least warn him, and give him a chance to justify his actions. This will at least give him a chance to get used to the idea of his alignment changing and may help prevent resentment.

I support this. Even if we assume TC's vision of CN is what the writers of D&D intended, there's obviously a lot of people who disagree. In my opinion alignment is something that the DM should only change in extreme situations, such as a good character butchering an entire village or a lawful character starting a career as a thief.

These are all statements of intent. They are meaningless when you evaluate aligment. Only the actions count, and he put a lot of effort in showing deference to the king.

In case of the chaotic good cleric vs. lawful evil king and faking submission, it would be clear it's a plan to get close to the king and having him drop his guard. In my player's case, there is no clear advantage that would lead to a chaotic end.

There is a clear advantage to having a king as your ally, no matter what your alignment is. If there's nothing wrong with that king, why not? Really, why? Unless the character in question is an embodiment of chaos, he doesn't have to dislike all figures of authority or all traditions. "Just because he's a king" or "just because it's a tradition" aren't good reasons.

Prime32

2014-02-12, 07:12 AM

It's not strongly enough lawful. It's something that neutrals would do.It's lawful to decide "the paladin gets any swords we find, the wizard gets wands, each person gets 25% of the gold and jewels", and stick to it unless you have a reason not to. It's chaotic to decide "whoever pulled their weight most gets first pick". It's neutral to have no opinion, or to insist you get more than everyone else regardless of circumstance (whether you want it for selfish or noble reasons is covered by the other half of your alignment).

Chaotic characters respect people for power and titles if they earned them, and likewise expect others to judge them mainly on their own accomplishments. For chaotic good this takes the form of guys like Ash Ketchum who want to be the very best, like no one ever was. For chaotic evil it comes out more as "survival of the fittest".
A chaotic character wouldn't automatically respect a king just for being a king, but he could respect him if he thinks he's doing a good job and/or allows his subjects to advance through merit.

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-12, 07:27 AM

Then what exactly should the character do to stop being chaotic? Where to draw the line?

rexx1888

2014-02-12, 07:33 AM

{Scrubbed}

hamishspence

2014-02-12, 07:34 AM

well first you have to know how to play Chaotic Neutral RIGHT.

3. Chaotic Neutral recognizes Good and Evil
Chaotic Neutral people are not blind to alignment just because they like their freedom-if anything they are very good at recognizing when somebody is morally higher than them, and know who to fight and not to fight, who to oppose to fight for their freedom, and who to ally with to keep their freedom. After all, if the good guys win, Chaotic Neutral wins too, if Evil wins, that probably means less freedom- even if its a Chaotic Evil villain. After all, Chaotic Evil, does not care about what it does. Chaotic Evil will stomp over anyone else's freedom for their own freedom, and that includes Chaotic Neutral's freedom. Chaotic Neutral on the other hand is more live and let live.
Example: Julios Scoundrel, Jarlaxle

Well put. However, Jarlaxle is consistently portrayed in the splatbooks, as Evil (3E: Underdark, 4E: FRCS).

Perhaps because his organization does a lot more Evil than Good.

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-12, 07:35 AM

Ehem, rexx1888, maybe you missed this question?

Then what exactly should the character do to stop being chaotic? Where to draw the line?

now go away, dont waste our time

I'm seriously considering this. I seriously did not mean to get anyone so worked up. If the subject and the way that I talk about it so offensive and irritating, I will back down. No problem.

nedz

2014-02-12, 07:41 AM

The two incidents you describe sound quite minor. If he was pro-actively upholding the law, bringing perps to justice, striving to uphold the monarchy, seeking out traitors (to the King) and bringing them to the attention of the King, ... or, Following the Deva's orders or instructions because of the Deva's status or because it was the right thing to do: then you may have a point.

But he didn't. He acted in self interest.

Toadying up to the King is a standard ploy for self advancement practised by all manor of people, often for their own ends. As for not looking at the Well, well if it's a lawful artefact then why would he be interested anyway ? Just not worth the hassle probably.

Ed: I normally find talking to the player helps, quell suprise. Ask him what his characters justifications were for acting in those ways. It's his character and he may have valid reasons for those actions, possibly such as those I described above — maybe not, who knows ?

Abaddona

2014-02-12, 08:23 AM

Ok first thing about alignments etc. - remember that DMG version of it (that only actions matter) has some serious consequences on world building (for which I personally don't like it and tend to take intentions into account). If only action matter then let's say we take coward king who at heart is evil sociopath (CE) but for some reason all his advisors are powerfull paladins - as an effect he will be treated as non-evil (for example Chaotic Good) - not because of his devotion to cause of good but because of fear that his advisors will smite him if he goes against them - then if he gets power (some sort of artifact) and his advisors are gone (killed during fight with hordes of abyss) then he will instantly turn into Joffrey. This is both great tool for making great twists but also it's not realistic and deprives the characters of their freedom.

Now - as to what constitutes crossing a line - as many of other people said already: it's major violation (or something smaller but what goes for really long time - probably years). Chaotic people can act according to etiquette when talking with persons of authority simply because it is trivial loss for their personal freedom which can end with expanding their freedo. If king likes you he can be willing to give you some privileges. Even if you live in wilderness they can be worth to obtain - privilege to hunt in king's forests is nice to have: even if you believe that no one has any right to tell you where you can hunt, it may simply not be worth to constantly trying to avoid accusations of poaching. At the same time becoming royal huntsman and actively pursuing poachers probably is a violation to alignment (unless you get in return something far greater).
What's most important - being inteligent in no way is violation to alignment: if bad demon wants you to do something or he will kill you then you are simply doing it even if you are LG (well, good characters will probably try to thwart his plans to the best of their abilities but will go on such quest nonetheless) - Paladins are only exception here but if DM gives Paladin such quest he should be smacked with BoED.

Bakeru

2014-02-12, 09:02 AM

Before I present the situation, I'd like to know what kind of behavior would warrant losing the CN alignment and turning into N?In my eyes (which are obviously 100% objective)...
Mostly, when he starts imposing rules on others.
He seems to get along with everyone. Not by imposing his rules on them, but by accepting their rules, whatever they are, and - temporarily - making them his own. He adapts. Which is, actually, pretty chaotic.
Now, if he *sticks* to these rules even when he leaves the court, or starts to impose these rules on others, that would make him shift towards Lawful.

He might just be a chaotic character who goes with the flow. How does he react in chaotic situations? If he sees someone break a law, would he tell on them?
A lawful character who sees someone stealing would either try to capture them himself or at least tell the nearest police-equivalent. (Makes an effort to uphold the law)
A neutral character would probably tell on them if asked, or if there's a reward posted somewhere. (Upholds the law, as long as it's not an effort or any effort gets rewarded)
A chaotic character would either not tell on them at all, or if directly offered a reward. (Needs to get some personal benefit to be convinced to uphold the law)
Of course, good/evil alignment and other factors also play a role in when someone would tell on whom, but still, I think this is a pretty decent guideline.

HammeredWharf

2014-02-12, 09:14 AM

From DMG, page 134:
"Actions dictate alignment, not statement of intentions players"
I always go with what I see, not what the players think. And I'm seeing lawfulness here.

I just looked through that page and saw nothing like that. In fact, it has an example of an evil NPC who travels with a good party and becomes good solely by watching them do good deeds. Are you sure you've got the right DMG?

Stux

2014-02-12, 09:23 AM

Then what exactly should the character do to stop being chaotic? Where to draw the line?

Is it really so important to draw this line?

You seem like you have a very strong idea of how you want alignments to work. That's all well and good, you are the DM. But if all it will really serve to do is piss off players then personally I think you have to reevaluate it. RAW be damned.

Bakeru

2014-02-12, 09:26 AM

I just looked through that page and saw nothing like that. In fact, it has an example of an evil NPC who travels with a good party and becomes good solely by watching them do good deeds. Are you sure you've got the right DMG?I assume he's referring to the first example (neutral good rogue who#s actually just neutral), but that's a case of someone who actually just wrote "neutral good" on his sheet and then played as true neutral, with no justification given.
Nowhere does it state that a character can't act in unconventional ways for his alignment as long as the player has good justifications for what he does.

Segev

2014-02-12, 09:34 AM

Bakeru's post has some of the best advice on what to actually look for when it comes to "Is he ceasing to be chaotic?"

The thing about CN is that it really is the alignment of personal freedom. If anything, you might have argument for sliding him up towards CG, not TN, based on the incident with the king: he was showing respect for another's feelings and avoiding causing undue strife. I wouldn't agree with that move, but it's as good as the argument that it was "lawful."

Chaotic Neutral people are not inherently opposed to every rule they ever encounter. They choose for themselves whether they think those rules are good ideas or not. In the case of meeting the King and studying court etiquette, he was not treating it as "respect for the law," but rather as rational analysis of the best procedure to get what he wanted: namely, a good audience with the king.

You can have a CN home-maker who nevertheless follows the directions from Ikea on building her home furnishings: she's not arbitrarily respecting somebody else's authority; she's looking at a list of instructions on how to do things correctly. She wants functional furniture with a minimum of fuss, so she's doing things rationally.

CN is not irrational. CN is simply "free spirited." A free spirit can whimsically decide to humor (or even not risk) an illusion as easily as he can decide to do what he wants in spite of a genuine Deva's commands.

To move from CN to True Neutral, he'd have to start using the law to his advantage when it suited him, even at the expense of others' freedom. A CN merchant might call upon the local constabulary to help him chase down a thief in the heat of a moment, and he would likely report the theft if the constabulary asked about it, but he's far more likely to seek to rectify the situation himself; why should he rely on the law? A TN person will report the theft and rely on the constabulary while pursuing his own means of getting his stuff back, or will decide it's not worth the latter. A CN person who makes the latter determination certainly won't bother reporting it to the constables unless they ask, because if it's not important enough for him to take it into his own hands to bother, it's not important enough to send the law after them.

CN people can work with the law! But there has to be something in it for them, and it can't be too gross a violation of another's freedom. Of course, when that other is using his freedom for evil, the CN person might still decide that's going too far. CN is not NE or CE; it's neutral. And even neutral-on-the-moral-axis people can be put off by evil. Otherwise, they'd probably be evil, themselves.

But what you should be looking for to move from C to N on the ethical axis is not whether he obeys others, but whether he obeys others out of some ethical obligation. Not whether he leads the party, but whether he expects to be obeyed just because he's "the boss." A CN leader will expect people to follow him because they like him or because his leadership/plans/ideas are good for them and result in successful undertakings. He will always respect - at least when he has time to objectively think about it rather than react in the moment to his emotional frustration - that his followers deserve to know why what he's saying is a good idea. He will generally expect that they will want explanations as to why they should go along with his orders (though obviously it may be simply a matter of trust in quick-thinking situations).

If he starts to expect to be obeyed because they agreed to obey him, even when there's ample time and liberty to discuss why what he's ordering is wise, then he's slipping towards TN. (In situations where time is of the essence or secrecy is required, he is still within CN allowances to say "no time to/can't explain right now, but do it!" if there are reasons the explanation and effort at persuasion would be better. HE should shy away from serious application of "you made me leader" as a "reason," though even then, a whimsical moment of irony directed at a known-Lawful subordinate might still support such an utterance.

It is only when he begins to expect that his authority is somehow self-justified or doesn't need to be re-assessed every time there's opportunity to do so that he's slipping away from CN towards TN. Simply doing what seems like a good idea at the time is quite CN, even if "what seems like a good idea" might require some planning or might include an assessment of "I think I could get away with it, but if I can't I'd be charcoal."

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-12, 09:40 AM

I just looked through that page and saw nothing like that. In fact, it has an example of an evil NPC who travels with a good party and becomes good solely by watching them do good deeds. Are you sure you've got the right DMG?

I can't believe that we are having this discussion, but here you go:
http://s27.postimg.org/nc8i05zvn/READITDAMNYOU.png
This is from the DMG page 134. I kid you not.
Are you sure, like abso-frigging-lutely sure, my dear Hammered Wharf, that you, my good sir, have the right DMG?

VonDoom

2014-02-12, 09:50 AM

I don't have the book with me right now, but considering the other headlines visible in that screenshot this looks very much like the 'advice' section, which is always to be taken with a grain of salt since not every way to deal with something is suitable for every group or even campaign within the same group.

Ultimately, though, it seems you've pretty much already decided for yourself and are pretty dedicated to your conclusion. So far not a single argument, of which there have been many, seems to have been received well. I can only add my support to the line of thought that basically, to quote a certain movie makes alignment out as 'more of a guideline than a rule'.

Chaotic Neutral being the alignment of irrational, erratic madmen is a relic of past editions and never really worked that well in a game outside of parody. What's a charming but ultimately selfish thief, then, who does fear the long arm of the law but will act against it when he can get away with it? Or a bard who's in it for his/her personal profit and enjoys their individual freedom as a traveling musician, but still entertains the rich and established nobility because that's where the money comes from?

HammeredWharf

2014-02-12, 09:54 AM

Oh, ok, I missed that part. Considering the context, I believe it just means that a character's alignment is determined by her in-character behavior and not selected by the player. As Abadonna explained, it wouldn't make much sense otherwise.

Red Fel

2014-02-12, 10:01 AM

It sounds, OP, like you have a clear image of what CN means. And in your mind, CN means, simply, "I do what I want, when and how and with whom I want to do it, irrespective of authority, rules, or tradition." (Please correct me if I'm mistaken.)

And that's a fair assessment, I think. Fair, if imperfect. As I've mentioned in other posts, anything-Neutral is hard to pull off, because it's hard to visualize. The extreme alignments (LG, LE, CG, CE) are easier for us, because they give us both a sense of morality and a sense of framework; Neutral alignments give us one but not the other (or, in the case of TN, neither).

However, I want to point out one distinction. You mentioned in a previous post that "doing what seems like a good idea" is in the description of True Neutral. That doesn't mean, however, that this designation is the exclusive province of TN alignments; rather, it means that it is one of the few ways in which TN can be expressed. I cannot conceive of a campaign setting where only TN characters do what seems like a good idea.

And another point. While I agree that CN means personal expression and freedom and doing what you want to do, I disagree that it means acting like a walking id. People are more than the sum of their desires and impulses; even CN people. Forcing a character to act entirely on whim and impulse is the quickest way to drop someone from CN to CE, given that the id is often described as more malicious and primal than the morally-conscious superego, and lacks the latter's tempering moderation.

So here's where we are. You point to three scenarios; let's go through them.

1. Before the King. I see no problem with a CN character showing respect for the King; that's basic self-preservation. If the CN character is the party face, I see little problem with learning the protocols and proper bearing; that's just doing your job well. However, I will acknowledge that for any party member whose job is not speaking with the nobles, there is little reason to learn more than the bare basics of how to conduct yourself in front of nobles. They may learn to wear the poofy shirt, bow when they enter, and keep their traps shut about the monarchy oppressing the free expression of the populace through a self-perpetuating fascist state, but they probably won't undertake the effort to learn more than that. However, given that this character is the party leader, he feels (and has) a certain responsibility for the party; it is understandable that he would develop the skills necessary to do his job.

2. The Deva Illusion. That's self-preservation. Characters with a Neutral alignment component tend to be pretty big on self-preservation, at least moreso than their more alignment-extreme colleagues. Now, you might argue that this was bowing to the authority of an admitted illusion - I would disagree, for reasons others have expressed. If someone announces, "all DMs present will be shot," you could try to challenge the authority, or you could decide it's not worth it - that's what he did. You also argue that he should have acted on his whim, knowing that it was an illusion - but again, self-preservation.

3. Training the Rookies. Let me say this upfront - combat tactics are not an alignment consideration. Certain actions, like killing a helpless opponent, may be Evil or non-Lawful, but general combat tactics are not an alignment consideration. Here, he is teaching group tactics and caution. These are not alignment concerns; they are self-preservation concerns that all adventurers should consider, regardless of alignment. They're just good sense.

You come back to the point that he's getting along with authority figures. That's his job. He's the party leader. As an aside, getting along with authority figures is distinct from pledging them fealty, and is a great way to keep them out of your business; play lip service to the king and he might not boss you around as much. Everybody wins.

I'd like to make one final point. You are correct that alignment falls to the DM to address as he pleases. However, my personal position (and I am known in these forums to err on the side of caution) is that, where ambiguities exist in alignment issues, if there is a reasonable and alignment-appropriate justification for a PC's conduct, that conduct is not a basis for an alignment penalty. That is, in a case such as this where the conduct in question is "on the fence," if you or the PC can offer an explanation as to how this conduct comports with a CN alignment, and that explanation is a reasonable one, the PC should not be penalized for it. This is particularly true in the instance of concepts, such as Clerics or Paladins, where alignment is vital to the continued function of the character.

Vhaidara

2014-02-12, 10:09 AM

One point I would like to raise is that you seem to believe that a chaotic character is not allowed to respect authority figures, follow laws, etc. But here's the problem: That creates a set of laws that they follow, such as
1. If someone is a figure of authority, I must disrespect and offend them
2. If a laws states that I must not do something, I must do it.

This is less chaotic, and more a really, really sick and twisted kind of lawful in my opinion.

Chaotic is the ultimate case-by-case. They don't use broad rules beyond what EVERYONE uses (ex. "If someone stabs me, either stab them back or run if the stabbing hurt a lot"). They don't get hung up on details of the rules, they decide, at each point of decision, what works out best.

Amphetryon

2014-02-12, 10:11 AM

OP: Seems to me like you're interpreting alignment as an exhaustive list of acceptable behaviours and actions for a character. I would direct you to previous comments regarding straightjackets, and how alignment isn't one.

I agree with this. This thread also reads to me as an attempt at a justification, rather than an attempt at a discussion to gain new insight.

Red Fel

2014-02-12, 10:15 AM

One point I would like to raise is that you seem to believe that a chaotic character is not allowed to respect authority figures, follow laws, etc. But here's the problem: That creates a set of laws that they follow, such as
1. If someone is a figure of authority, I must disrespect and offend them
2. If a laws states that I must not do something, I must do it.

This is less chaotic, and more a really, really sick and twisted kind of lawful in my opinion.

To be fair, even the Slaad - the embodiments of Chaotic alignment - have a Lawful subspecies, if for no other reason than because having every member of a Chaotic race be Chaotic just wouldn't be Chaotic enough.

A Chaotic character can have rules. They should just be willing to break them whenever they see fit. Again, see the Slaad. (But not in person. And don't visit them at home. And don't smell them, either.)

Abaddona

2014-02-12, 10:53 AM

Also as for the quote from DMG - I would lean towards interpretation that this fragment means OoC intent - like "my character is now Chaotic Good because I say so" not an IC intent like "i will become most loyal advisor of the king but only so i can rip the profits and stab him in the back when it will be beneficial to me".

Tragak

2014-02-12, 11:16 AM

It sounds like you already know what you want the character to do, so what do you need the player for?

albeaver89

2014-02-12, 11:54 AM

Who said anything about being rude? There are certain levels here: Respecting authority is lawful, disrespecting might be either stupid and/or chaotic and not showing any respect or disrespect is neutral or chaotic. In this case, he should have talked to the king like he talks with everyone else. His authority holds no value to him.

Did he get something out of the king? Maybe his character was thinking "If I kiss this idiots ass he will give me ****".

Segev

2014-02-12, 11:59 AM

Would he not endeavor to talk to somebody in a manner which would make them feel comfortable dealing with the party, as said party's representative, leader, and chief speaker?

albeaver89

2014-02-12, 12:01 PM

It seems like you just want to change his alignment and nothing anyone can say will change your mind. You already made your mind from the get-go.

NichG

2014-02-12, 12:18 PM

Ignoring the particular example/campaign here, can I attempt to get at the original question - what would make someone transition from CN to TN?

One important thing about alignments, at least the way that the humans around the table tend to react to them, is that they're not all equal. Some alignments are easier to become and others are easier to leave. For example, its easy to become evil - just do something really really horrible. Once you've done that, it might take years of trying to make amends before you shift back up to Neutral; it probably won't happen by accident just because you weren't paying attention or working to maintain your 'E'.

This may not be fair to the cosmology that D&D is trying to present, but it seems to just be an aspect of how we as humans see misdeeds versus good works - its hard to earn back trust and we value a degree of consistency and predictability in our interactions with others, so the standard for remaining trusted is more like 'never break it' rather than 'break it slightly less often than you keep it'.

I would suggest that a similar asymmetry exists between law and chaos. Its easy to stop being lawful. Its harder to become lawful. Again, whether or not the cosmology suggests this, I think its going to sort of come out of the way that people look at and interpret alignments.

So given that, I would say that part of going from CN to TN is an active desire on the part of the person to attempt to change their alignment. If you're going from E->N, you have to in some sense be seeking redemption for the evil deeds that got you an 'E'. If you're going from C->N, you have to be seeking some sort of balance or external authority to rely upon.

So for example, a CN character might have a lot of self-confidence. They might experience something that shakes that self-confidence, and then not trust themselves quite as much in the future. In order to guard against a future failure like that, they might put themselves in the care of another - get a mentor, join an organization, etc - so that there's always a second pair of eyes watching them and making sure they don't slip up, helping protect them, etc. The CN character then gradually becomes TN.

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-12, 12:29 PM

A very good post

Thank you Red Fel, so far your post has been the sole reason for the existence of this thread.
Instead of trying to argue with your points, let me ask you a question (which I have asked everyone already):
What kind of behaviour would change the CN to N?

Tragak

2014-02-12, 12:45 PM

What kind of behaviour would change the CN to N? Lots and lots, over a very long time.

Unless you, as the DM, decide otherwise for the character, but you're not playing WITH your so-called friends at that point, you're telling a story TO them. Are they comfortable with that?

Zubrowka74

2014-02-12, 01:17 PM

Random actions or downright insanity represents only two possibilities of playing CN. And they are extrême cases. Most I think would fit the "free spirit" definition. Some kind of hedonistic hippie might be another way to look at it.

Take as an exemple Olive Ruskettle, the halfling bard from Azure Bonds. She is unruly and fickle, but won't betray Alias in the end.

I say the change to TN should not occure except if : he does not follow the tennets of his god (so, his god's interpretation of the alignment), adopt an overly lawfull attitude (as a first step to an extreme change towards LN) or starts worrying too much about balance, all the time.

PC alignment is a mean value over time, not a granular evaluation of every thought or action taken.

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-12, 01:29 PM

So given that, I would say that part of going from CN to TN is an active desire on the part of the person to attempt to change their alignment. If you're going from E->N, you have to in some sense be seeking redemption for the evil deeds that got you an 'E'. If you're going from C->N, you have to be seeking some sort of balance or external authority to rely upon.

So for example, a CN character might have a lot of self-confidence. They might experience something that shakes that self-confidence, and then not trust themselves quite as much in the future. In order to guard against a future failure like that, they might put themselves in the care of another - get a mentor, join an organization, etc - so that there's always a second pair of eyes watching them and making sure they don't slip up, helping protect them, etc. The CN character then gradually becomes TN.

That's interesting, I like your thinking.
Two of the Chaotic Neutral PCs (yes, there's another one too) have been loyal members of an Adventurers' Guild and both are shining examples of the organization. They have always done what has been asked from them and they follow rules. They also take responsibility of the rookies.

TexAvery

2014-02-12, 01:42 PM

You started this thread by stating you hate CN characters and are looking for an excuse to change his alignment. That's going to rub a lot of people the wrong way here, including me. You aren't actually thinking that his behavior is TN; you're looking for an excuse to make it TN and that's going over very poorly here.

In fact, you say CN is hated for being an obnoxious stealth-CE alignment but are now punishing your player for not living down to that. Why not relax, let him stay CN unless he starts really pushing law, and let everyone have fun?

Vhaidara

2014-02-12, 01:47 PM

That's interesting, I like your thinking.
Two of the Chaotic Neutral PCs (yes, there's another one too) have been loyal members of an Adventurers' Guild and both are shining examples of the organization. They have always done what has been asked from them and they follow rules. They also take responsibility of the rookies.

I feel the question is: Why are they doing it?

If they are doing it because it is the right thing to do and it is their responsibility to the guild, then it's lawful behavior

If they are doing it because they want to keep the nice guild benefits, or because the guild did something for them and this is repayment, then they are still well within the bounds of CN.

Also, organizations are not fundamentally lawful. They can be Chaotic and still have rules.

Red Fel

2014-02-12, 01:54 PM

Thank you Red Fel, so far your post has been the sole reason for the existence of this thread.
Instead of trying to argue with your points, let me ask you a question (which I have asked everyone already):
What kind of behaviour would change the CN to N?

Lots and lots, over a very long time.

Tragak's post is a classic illustration. Alignment doesn't define your actions, but rather is defined by them. Thus, repeated Lawful actions would certainly merit an alignment slide.

For example, it's one thing to respect the king in his presence. But does the character ever stop his party from doing something because "The king told us not to, and we must do as he said?" For that matter, does he stop the party from doing anything they would otherwise choose to do?

Another example, has he ever engaged in honorable single combat? Handed a weapon back to a disarmed opponent? Helped an enemy back to his feet before resuming the fight? These evince more Lawful (specifically, chivalrous) tendencies.

Does he make a lot of promises? Does he keep them? Does he follow rules when nobody is looking? Are there any actions, not counting issues of morality, where the character says "I won't do that. I swore I'd never do that."

You described three isolated scenarios in which he acted in a manner which could be construed either as somewhat non-Chaotic, or as self-preservation. Isolated incidents, barring pronounced and extreme conduct, rarely merit an alignment change. You also described an ongoing pattern of paying respect, if not deference, to various leaders. Ongoing behaviors may merit an alignment change, but it's important to root out the reasoning for them.

Note also that if the player persists in Chaotic behaviors, regularly and with enthusiasm, they may well counterbalance any Lawful tendencies.

I think it's worth a talk, at least. The next time you observe one of these seemingly Lawful acts, you may interrupt the scene for a moment, and just ask, "Out of curiosity, why are you taking orders from this guy?"

If he answers "Because that's how we make money," or "Because we could use friends in high places," there's nothing particularly Lawful or otherwise about his actions. If, however, he says something like "It's the right thing to do," or "We owe him," or "He's entitled to our respect," that's an indicator that the character is acting with Lawful purpose.

The key thing here is consistency. A Good character who tells a lie on occasion isn't going to turn Evil. A Lawful character who breaks a promise once or twice doesn't go Chaotic. Barring extreme acts, such as genocide or atonement or heresy or oaths of major fealty, individual acts aren't going to merit alignment change. What will merit alignment shift - which is usually described as gradual anyway - is a tendency by the character to consistently and repeatedly act in a way inconsistent with his present alignment.

So look for the classics, as mentioned above. Giving an enemy a fair chance. Making and keeping promises without motivation (such as payment). Obeying the rules when there's nobody around to enforce them. Showing deference or respect to someone without the power to demand it, and without reason (such as expectation of compensation or aid). Imposing restrictions on the actions of others (this one's a biggie).

I'd like to talk specifically about that last one. CN is the alignment of the truly free. Free of rules, free of restrictions, free of morality. CN appreciates freedom both in himself and in those around him. Thus, while he may obey rules for as long as they benefit him, he won't do so for no reason; but more than that, he is unlikely to impose them on others, unless he has very good reason. (For example, "If you touch anything, the trap goes off and we all die. So don't. Touch. A thing.") So if this character is regularly telling other characters what to do or not to do (out of combat; barking orders in combat is fine, as I said previously) he's probably not respecting their personal freedom. That, I think, is a particularly Lawful tendency, although I imagine some might differ.

I hope these ideas help to clarify things.

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-12, 01:56 PM

I feel the question is: Why are they doing it?

If they are doing it because it is the right thing to do and it is their responsibility to the guild, then it's lawful behavior

If they are doing it because they want to keep the nice guild benefits, or because the guild did something for them and this is repayment, then they are still well within the bounds of CN.

Also, organizations are not fundamentally lawful. They can be Chaotic and still have rules.

When it comes to alignment, intent should not matter. Only the actions. Their actions don't show it either way in particular. They take care of their responsibilities and enjoy the benefits, just like everyone else. They are just the highest in the pecking order.

hamishspence

2014-02-12, 01:58 PM

The "sins for a CN character" list on the Easydamus site:

http://www.easydamus.com/chaoticneutral.html

may be a good starting point. The ones which aren't Good or Evil, may be Lawful.

TexAvery

2014-02-12, 02:05 PM

When it comes to alignment, intent should not matter. Only the actions. Their actions don't show it either way in particular. They take care of their responsibilities and enjoy the benefits, just like everyone else. They are just the highest in the pecking order.

Let me say I fundamentally disagree with that and would probably refuse to play in a game you were DMing as a result.

The Glyphstone

2014-02-12, 02:05 PM

What a weird thread. I came expecting a typical 'my CN player is a psychotic murderhobo who wears bunny slippers and flips coins at orphans on whether or not to stab them' stereotype. What we get is someone actually playing CN well, an incredibly rare occurrence, and you the DM are looking to change them.

Because they're not adhering exactly to your reading of the letter of the law for the description of Chaotic Neutral.

Even though adhering to a strict code of behavior, self-destructive or otherwise, would be Lawful. Irony much?

Legitimately respecting the king would be Lawful behavior. Pretending to respect the king when you really couldn't give a flip - but know he'll chop your head off if you're rude - is Chaotic behavior. Unless someone rolled Sense Motive during the encounter, you can't tell the difference IC, and since you won't talk to the player, how can you tell the difference OOC?

The Deva is a classic 'playing it safe' response. Chaotic is not Insane...in fact being cautious is more Chaotic than Lawful, because they can't or won't have Society as a backstop if something goes wrong. Just them and theirs, so discretion is often the better part of staying alive.

Training rookies...how is that Chaotic or Lawful? If those rookies are potentially going to be protecting him or backing him up, that's just smart.

I think someone upthread said it right...you came here having already made up your mind and are looking for validation, not opinions or discussion. But that's what you've gotten, since many people disagree with you, and that is causing the friction in this thread.

Vhaidara

2014-02-12, 02:14 PM

So a Good character placed in the Ticking Time Bomb situation would become evil for making the hard choice and killing the innocent person?

Ticking Time Bomb explained
In case you or anyone else is unaware with the TTB, it is an ethical dilemma, rather common in media of all kinds. In its most basic form, the villain, who is unable to be stopped or caught, gives the hero a choice: either commit a completely evil act (kill an innocent child, for example) by a given time, or the villain will destroy a major population center, killing every single person in it. You have mere seconds left on the clock before millions of innocents die, and you have no idea how to stop the villain. Is it an evil act to kill the innocent person to save a city full of innocent people?

zlefin

2014-02-12, 02:21 PM

after reading first page,
Those specific actions don't seem very chaotic, but they're mostly just being smart actions, so not strongly determinative imho.
What other actions has he taken that might lean toward chaos? What has the player said about their choices?

Well, you wanted our opinions and you got it; they simply disagree with yours. Arguing with us because we have a different opinion of what the alignments mean isn't terribly productive.

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-12, 02:26 PM

Thank you everyone for your opinions!
I've changed my mind. He will stay CN. You all have good points!

Coidzor

2014-02-12, 02:29 PM

Nothing says a CN character must be in crazy chaos mode all the time.

Or ever, really.

If one cleaves to the notion that CN is just the insanity alignment from a bad writer in earlier editions or that it's just CE with the serial numbers filed off, one is doing it equally wrong.

Segev

2014-02-12, 02:42 PM

So a Good character placed in the Ticking Time Bomb situation would become evil for making the hard choice and killing the innocent person?

Yes. Absolutely.

You are responsible for your own actions, not those of others. A good man will do all in his power to thwart the evil villain, but "kill the child" is not "thwarting the villain" but rather playing into his hands.

It is probably an evil act for which you could atone, but it would absolutely be evil, and rather monstrously so.

Again: Failing to stop the villain from killing those millions in a morally upright manner is failure of power, not failure of morality. Murdering the child is failure of morality on your part. You are not responsible for the villain's actions; you are responsible for your own.

Vhaidara

2014-02-12, 02:50 PM

Except that through your inaction (which is still an action) you killed those millions.

I agree there is an alignment impact, but I would say neutral with easy redemption (though the character would likely make things harder with their moping).

Lanaya

2014-02-12, 03:00 PM

Yes. Absolutely.

You are responsible for your own actions, not those of others. A good man will do all in his power to thwart the evil villain, but "kill the child" is not "thwarting the villain" but rather playing into his hands.

It seems to me that the Good act would be to put aside petty conceptions of morality and do whatever would help the most people, not to let millions die because utterly arbitrary rules say that it's the Gooder thing to do.

Segev

2014-02-12, 03:00 PM

Except that through your inaction (which is still an action) you killed those millions.Nope. Else you are claiming that we are all responsible for everything, ever, because we didn't stop it from happening. You are, by this logic, personally responsible for Pol Pot's regime, as well as for Twilight (both the novels and the movies) and the publication of 4e D&D. Because you didn't stop them from happening, through your inaction, you are responsible.

Reductio ad absurdum aside, it is not "inaction" but rather lack of time and opportunity to act or lack of power to prevent which afflicts the hypothetical good character who does not murder the child. Again: he is responsible for his own actions, not for those of the villain.

Heck, there is neither guarantee that the villain is REALLY so evil (or so capable) as to destroy a million lives, nor guarantee that - even should Mr. Good Guy murder the child - the villain won't end the lives of those millions anyway.

This comes down to Agency: we each have our own, and (barring Domination/Compulsion magic) no others'.

The neutral action would be to do nothing, even if you thought you had time to try to stop the bad guy. It's not your concern; you're not doing it; it doesn't affect you. It's tragic, but it's not like you asked to be in this position. And you're not murdering some kid; that'd be wrong.

The good action would look the same as the neutral one in the situation as presented, if only because we've explicitly denied the good person any time to even attempt to stop the bad guy by some other means. But a good man is characterized by an urge to find a way to stop it, and the more powerful he is, the more likely he is to take serious steps towards it. (A 20th level wizard, I'm sure, would find a way to use Time Stop and Celerity to buy himself enough time to actually make a serious effort at stopping Mr. Bad Guy.)

Vhaidara

2014-02-12, 03:07 PM

No, I am not responsible for those things by this line of thought, because I did not have the opportunity/ability to stop them. The character in this situation had the ability to stop the destruction of the city, and chose not to.

Also, this being an ethical experiment, it is assumed that the villain will keep their word (LE, in DnD terms).

Further, you say we've denied the good character the chance to stop it: the experiment assumes that attempts have been made and they have all failed. All other options have been exhausted. In DnD terms, the villain here is the Voice of the DM. You cannot stop it, you cannot trick it, and it will do what it has said it will do.

Segev

2014-02-12, 03:08 PM

It seems to me that the Good act would be to put aside petty conceptions of morality and do whatever would help the most people, not to let millions die because utterly arbitrary rules say that it's the Gooder thing to do.
Except that "petty conceptions of morality" are the very essence of "Good" vs. "Evil."

And no, you do not become justified in any action you wish to take as long as somebody else holds a threat of murder of others over your head. If you do what they say, you are morally culpable for what you do. (Ethically is another matter, and laws in LG and even reasonable LN societies tend to have exceptions for such situations.) Morally, you have the sin on your hands one way, but not the other. It might be easier to atone for than if you did it just for grins, but it's still on your hands.

You don't get to set aside morality in the name of morals, though, which is the premise of the quoted text above.

Amphetryon

2014-02-12, 03:11 PM

Nope. Else you are claiming that we are all responsible for everything, ever, because we didn't stop it from happening. You are, by this logic, personally responsible for Pol Pot's regime, as well as for Twilight (both the novels and the movies) and the publication of 4e D&D. Because you didn't stop them from happening, through your inaction, you are responsible.

Reductio ad absurdum aside, it is not "inaction" but rather lack of time and opportunity to act or lack of power to prevent which afflicts the hypothetical good character who does not murder the child. Again: he is responsible for his own actions, not for those of the villain.

Heck, there is neither guarantee that the villain is REALLY so evil (or so capable) as to destroy a million lives, nor guarantee that - even should Mr. Good Guy murder the child - the villain won't end the lives of those millions anyway.

This comes down to Agency: we each have our own, and (barring Domination/Compulsion magic) no others'.

The neutral action would be to do nothing, even if you thought you had time to try to stop the bad guy. It's not your concern; you're not doing it; it doesn't affect you. It's tragic, but it's not like you asked to be in this position. And you're not murdering some kid; that'd be wrong.

The good action would look the same as the neutral one in the situation as presented, if only because we've explicitly denied the good person any time to even attempt to stop the bad guy by some other means. But a good man is characterized by an urge to find a way to stop it, and the more powerful he is, the more likely he is to take serious steps towards it. (A 20th level wizard, I'm sure, would find a way to use Time Stop and Celerity to buy himself enough time to actually make a serious effort at stopping Mr. Bad Guy.)
This indicates that Good cannot act, within the terms of the dilemma, and that voluntarily allowing millions of deaths through lack of effort is the morally superior (Good) choice.

I disagree with this assessment, personally.

Grek

2014-02-12, 03:16 PM

I think we're missing the crucial question here. The player is playing a Cleric, and that Cleric has a Chaotic God. The player is probably concerned about alignment in terms of "Can I still be a Cleric?", not in terms of what gets written on his character sheet. A God being Chaotic Neutral could mean a lot of different things. If it's a God of Travel, or a God of Music then all is well - being polite to the King and listening to a Deva aren't going to upset his God unless that King censors music or that Deva is blocking off a highway. But if it's a God of Democracy or a God of the Slaad, then there maybe a problem.

Red Fel

2014-02-12, 03:18 PM

This indicates that Good cannot act, within the terms of the dilemma, and that voluntarily allowing millions of deaths through lack of effort is the morally superior (Good) choice.

I disagree with this assessment, personally.

It doesn't mean that Good cannot act. It means that Good would do everything in its power to Take a Third Option (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeAThirdOption). (Warning: TV Tropes.)

A Good character obviously can't sit by and do nothing. But by the same token, the Good character can't sacrifice an innocent (other than the character himself) to prevent such tragedy. "For the Greater Good" justifications are a shortcut to alignment slippage.

So he finds another way. Or dies trying. Which, I imagine, is what the villain with the Ticking Time Bomb intended all along - to destroy the hero, literally or figuratively.

Out of curiosity, wasn't this thread about CN, not G-E?

Vhaidara

2014-02-12, 03:21 PM

When it comes to alignment, intent should not matter. Only the actions. Their actions don't show it either way in particular. They take care of their responsibilities and enjoy the benefits, just like everyone else. They are just the highest in the pecking order.

It is about CN, but it has been resolved, and currently we're discussing my response to this post (the TTB moral/ethical dilemma)

Joe the Rat

2014-02-12, 03:21 PM

It seems to me that the Good act would be to put aside petty conceptions of morality I'm pretty sure "Putting aside the petty concepts of morality" is a philosophical step away from Good (D&D Good, mind you. "Morality" is sort of their shtick). But I get what you're saying - look at this from a Utilitarian perspective. It's a hard choice affair - A single negative action to avoid a greater negative outcome. Hard choices make for good drama.

That's why I like Neutral - It's not about fretting over the better choice, it's whether you like the kid more than all those folks, accepting fewer fatalities as the best option, or come up with a third option. Same choices, less angst.

Or Chaotic Evil: Say screw it and use the child to beat the villain to death.

@Jon_Dahl: Thank you for letting him stay CN. Every example of a not bat-guano crazy CN is a step away from Chaotic Stupid and into reasonable play.

Amphetryon

2014-02-12, 03:22 PM

It doesn't mean that Good cannot act. It means that Good would do everything in its power to Take a Third Option (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeAThirdOption). (Warning: TV Tropes.)

A Good character obviously can't sit by and do nothing. But by the same token, the Good character can't sacrifice an innocent (other than the character himself) to prevent such tragedy. "For the Greater Good" justifications are a shortcut to alignment slippage.

So he finds another way. Or dies trying. Which, I imagine, is what the villain with the Ticking Time Bomb intended all along - to destroy the hero, literally or figuratively.

Out of curiosity, wasn't this thread about CN, not G-E?
Perhaps you missed part of what I quoted:

The good action would look the same as the neutral one in the situation as presented, if only because we've explicitly denied the good person any time to even attempt to stop the bad guy by some other means. But a good man is characterized by an urge to find a way to stop it, and the more powerful he is, the more likely he is to take serious steps towards it. (A 20th level wizard, I'm sure, would find a way to use Time Stop and Celerity to buy himself enough time to actually make a serious effort at stopping Mr. Bad Guy.)My emphasis.

Segev

2014-02-12, 03:25 PM

No, I am not responsible for those things by this line of thought, because I did not have the opportunity/ability to stop them. The character in this situation had the ability to stop the destruction of the city, and chose not to.By the description of the problem given, no, he didn't. He had the chance to commit murder on the chance that the bad guy was both willing and able to destroy those millions, and on the chance that the bad guy would choose to refrain if the child's murder is performed.

This is not "prevention," this is murder on the HOPE that it might result in another being with his own Agency choosing to act in a specific way. The existence of a moral Agent - the bad guy - in the causal chain between your choice to murder the child (or not) and the salvation or destruction of the millions of people absolves you of responsibility for the millions' deaths.

Also, this being an ethical experiment, it is assumed that the villain will keep their word (LE, in DnD terms).Technically, this is a moral, not an ethical, experiment, but if we accept that addition to the hypothesis, then we can replace the villain with a device built by the villain. It WILL kill somebody in 3s; it is currently targeting group A of 1 million people, but a button to which you have access can retarget it to group B, consisting of one innocent child.

In this situation, the villain has already exercised his Agency to commit murder. You have the choice of trying (ineffectually, according to the hypothesis) to disarm the device, of doing nothing, or of actively taking part in the death of the one child by pressing the button.

You are not responsible for the deaths of group A just because you refrain from killing group B.

Further, you say we've denied the good character the chance to stop it: the experiment assumes that attempts have been made and they have all failed. All other options have been exhausted. In DnD terms, the villain here is the Voice of the DM. You cannot stop it, you cannot trick it, and it will do what it has said it will do.If you've done all you can, and are still trying up to the moment the villain murders the millions, you are, in fact, good. You're just a good person who failed to have the [/I]power[/I] to prevent those deaths.

Now, let's re-examine this: if Group A consists of only 1 innocent boy, and Group B consists of 1 innocent girl, and the villain will kill the boy if you do not kill the girl first, are you guilty of murder no matter whether you choose to kill the girl or not?

Segev

2014-02-12, 03:27 PM

Or Chaotic Evil: Say screw it and use the child to beat the villain to death.

My favorite CE solution is the same as my favorite NE one in this specific case: Ask which group will pay me more.

(Valid for LE, too, unless he has prior ethical constraints on the situation.)

Segev

2014-02-12, 03:32 PM

This indicates that Good cannot act, within the terms of the dilemma,Within the terms of the dilemma, you have denied Good a chance, or you are assuming Good has done all it can and has failed.

and that voluntarily allowing millions of deaths through lack of effort is the morally superior (Good) choice.It isn't voluntary in this example. Good did all it could, and failed.

I again invite you to reconsider the situation, replacing either the millions with another innocent child, or the innocent child with another group of millions. Is the character guilty of murder no matter what he does?

I disagree with this assessment, personally.Given that you're operating from the flawed premise that it is voluntary, your disagreement is valid. Your premise does not reflect the scenario as presented, however.

Lanaya

2014-02-12, 03:47 PM

In this situation, the villain has already exercised his Agency to commit murder. You have the choice of trying (ineffectually, according to the hypothesis) to disarm the device, of doing nothing, or of actively taking part in the death of the one child by pressing the button.

You are not responsible for the deaths of group A just because you refrain from killing group B.

No, you're not responsible for their deaths. The villain is, and you'll make them pay for all the evil they've done. But good isn't about fixing things you're reponsible for, it's about making the situation right even if you didn't mess things up in the first place. It doesn't matter whose fault it is that millions of people are going to die, and simply letting it happen and then insisting that you didn't do anything wrong, you simply chose to not save their lives, is not exactly a noble and virtuous thing to do.

So let's say that the hypothetical PC is a paladin. They're always good for these silly morality debates. This paladin has a choice: kill some innocent babies and fall because that's a very Evil act, or sit idly by and let the villain's machine kill millions of people, including far more innocent babies than the paladin would have killed. I don't see how the Good choice would be to declare that your own alignment matters more than the lives of millions and pull out a pack of cards to play with while the doomsday device ticks down. I would argue that valuing your super duper paladin powers over the lives of millions of others would make you fall on the spot. The Good choice would be to swear to get revenge on this terrible villain, do whatever has to be done to stop the device from going off and then feel terrible about it afterwards and try to atone for what you did. Again, it doesn't matter whose fault it is. You're the one who has the power to stop it, and to declare that it's not your fault and you therefore cannot be held responsible for anything bad that happens is a neutral act at best.

Bakeru

2014-02-12, 03:48 PM

[Basically the same thing I wanted to say earlier, but failed to properly convey]Just quoted so I could do a very poor "Hey, I said that too" (it's poor because Red Fel said it much better then I did, and said much more of it).

When it comes to alignment, intent should not matter. Only the actions.I disagree, but am to tired to actually argue about it. I do agree that "player intend" (As in, "I don't care if my character stabs random people, his sheet says he's good!") shouldn't matter, but character intend should. ("Yes, my Lawful Evil character didn't stab the annoying beggar, but that's because he needs the generally good group's help in preventing the end of the world (the world being where he keeps all his stuff, so the end of it is kind of his problem, too), and he swore to them only to stab people he's told to stab until they finished with that (because they wouldn't accept his help otherwise, and he doesn't trust them to do it without him), and he never breaks his word. He's totally going back to stabbing once they're done. He already made a list of whom he's going to stab.")

@Lanaya: In my eyes, under those circumstances, killing the baby wouldn't be evil (at most, neutral, since it prevents even more deaths), but a paladin would still fall. Of course, a paladin who falls under such circumstances is prime material for the Grey Guards (aka. Roly-Poly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roly-poly_toy) Paladins).

NichG

2014-02-12, 03:53 PM

The child-vs-million things comes down to 'what is alignment?'. If alignment is spiritual 'gunk' that accumulates on people for personally doing bad things, then murdering the child is 'evil' and doing nothing causes no change. Neither act is 'good'.

If alignment is the judgement of the gods (maybe in council, with gods possessing a particular alignment allowed to vote), then situations like this would generally create the outcome that the council of gods (posters on this thread...) disagree. So, by virtue of disagreement of the judging authority, no alignment change would likely occur regardless of the person's action in the situation - killing the child or not, neither is a good or evil act, because the context causes the act to become ambiguous and debatable. It's sort of like a hung jury - lots of people might argue that the guy's alignment should change for this or that, but since they can't agree, the default - no change - happens.

If alignment has to do with a global balance of cosmic forces, where one compares 'how would the universe look after action' with 'how would the universe look in terms of inaction' then not killing the child is a non-act (zero change when comparing inaction with itself) and killing the child is a good act.

So, pick your poison - what is alignment really?

BRC

2014-02-12, 03:59 PM

Segev

2014-02-12, 04:02 PM

No, you're not responsible for their deaths. The villain is, and you'll make them pay for all the evil they've done. But good isn't about fixing things you're reponsible for, it's about making the situation right even if you didn't mess things up in the first place. It doesn't matter whose fault it is that millions of people are going to die, and simply letting it happen and then insisting that you didn't do anything wrong, you simply chose to not save their lives, is not exactly a noble and virtuous thing to do.Agree with you so far.

So let's say that the hypothetical PC is a paladin. They're always good for these silly morality debates.That they are!

This paladin has a choice: kill some innocent babies and fall because that's a very Evil act, or sit idly by and let the villain's machine kill millions of people, including far more innocent babies than the paladin would have killed.Wait, is there time for him to try something? I thought we had him having exhausted every option other than baby-murder.

I don't see how the Good choice would be to declare that your own alignment matters more than the lives of millions and pull out a pack of cards to play with while the doomsday device ticks down. I would argue that valuing your super duper paladin powers over the lives of millions of others would make you fall on the spot. The Good choice would be to swear to get revenge on this terrible villain, do whatever has to be done to stop the device from going off and then feel terrible about it afterwards and try to atone for what you did.And the bolded part is where your premises start contradicting each other in order to justify the baby-murder. Or, if not justify, at least claim that it is "better" than the alternative.

Because you're right; the Paladin who is true to his alignment is going to do whatever he can to stop the device. Pushing the button to retarget it on the innocent child is not stopping it.

Again, it doesn't matter whose fault it is. You're the one who has the power to stop it,In the original hypothetical, the only one with the power to stop it was the bad guy; he'd just said he would exercise that power if you killed an innocent child. In the modified example, nobody has, anymore, the power to stop it. Only to choose to redirect it to a different (but specific) target.

and to declare that it's not your fault and you therefore cannot be held responsible for anything bad that happens is a neutral act at best.The neutral act is to say "not my problem" and let it happen because trying to stop it would be hard and you have other things to do. The good act is to do everything you can with whatever time you have to stop it. If that means desperately pulling apart the console, or trying to rush to the scene, or calling out a warning, or reaching somebody else you think COULD stop it...you try it. You try the best solution you have that is not, itself, evil. You may be wrong about the best solution; you may be utterly incapable of succeeding. But the paladin will be trying desperately to stop it right up until it happens. Not change its target to another innocent, and certainly not murdering innocents deliberately in the effort, but trying to stop it entirely.

You still haven't - that I can see (so if you've done so while I typed this, sorry) - answered my question about if the two hypothetical groups had equal numbers of people in them.

Is the paladin committing evil whether he retargets the death to group B to save group A, or does nothing and lets group A die?

Segev

2014-02-12, 04:07 PM

It comes down to "What is a good/evil act"
and then depends on your scope.

Sitting and whistling a jaunty tune to yourself while you do nothing is a neutral act.

Killing an innocent is an evil act.

Saving millions is a good act.

Allowing millions to die when you could have saved them is an evil act.True.

For a Good aligned person, the proper choice is to kill the child and save the millions. False.

For a Good aligned person, the proper choice is to try your best to save the millions and the child. RISKING the death of the child, if you think you can find a way to save him, too, might be acceptable. MIGHT. That's actually sticky. But simply saying "one child is less important than millions, and so I am right to murder him personally" is not Good. It is Evil.

A Paladin falls if they commit an evil act.
One could argue that a Paladin in that situation would kill the child, save the millions, Fall for committing an Evil act, but NOT change alignment and be able to atone. If there were no other options, the Paladin would be willing to sacrifice both the child, and their powers, in order to save the millions.We can't speak to every paladin, actually. Some might make that choice, and fall, and they'd deserve it. It is an understandable choice, but it is still Evil. Others would refuse to deliberately murder the child, but would be working up until the death of millions happened in order to prevent it. He might - and in the scenario as presented, would - fail, but he'd be trying.

I repeat my query: Replace the child with another set of millions. Is it evil to let the first group of millions die when, by the scenario, the only guaranteed way to save them is to kill the second group of millions?

Lanaya

2014-02-12, 04:29 PM

Wait, is there time for him to try something? I thought we had him having exhausted every option other than baby-murder.

We have, and now the only options left are baby murder to allowing the device to do its thing. I don't know if that's because there isn't time or because the device cannot be stopped by any other means or whatever else.

And the bolded part is where your premises start contradicting each other in order to justify the baby-murder. Or, if not justify, at least claim that it is "better" than the alternative.

Of course it's better than the alternative. How could you possibly claim that a dozen babies dying is somehow worse than millions of people dying? They're both clearly bad things and one is clearly worse.

In the original hypothetical, the only one with the power to stop it was the bad guy; he'd just said he would exercise that power if you killed an innocent child. In the modified example, nobody has, anymore, the power to stop it. Only to choose to redirect it to a different (but specific) target.

Ok, I assumed the paladin could stop the device by killing the babies, presumably because the BBEG was trying to construct a no-win scenario to make his nemesis fall. It's hardly relevant though, either way you're making a decision that will save millions of lives.

The neutral act is to say "not my problem" and let it happen because trying to stop it would be hard and you have other things to do.

That's so, so evil. You've got a button that you can press to save millions of lives and you don't press it because that's too much work and you just don't care about them? Neutral is not sociopathic, it's just a normal person.

But the paladin will be trying desperately to stop it right up until it happens. Not change its target to another innocent, and certainly not murdering innocents deliberately in the effort, but trying to stop it entirely.

That's just dodging the question. The whole point of these hypothetical moral dilemmas is that you only have two choices and have to decide which is the better one, trying to come up with a clever third option would be great if this scenario came up in an actual game but is pointless in a debate about the morality of choosing option A versus choosing option B.

You still haven't - that I can see (so if you've done so while I typed this, sorry) - answered my question about if the two hypothetical groups had equal numbers of people in them.

I hadn't answered that. In that case none of the available options have any real alignment-related consequences, assuming the two people are in all ways equal - obviously if one was the evil overlord of the world you ought to ensure that they get blown up. If you have a choice between one person dying and another person dying and both people are in all pertinent ways equal then there's no real consequence to switching the target or walking away because you think moral dilemmas are stupid. It'd be a bit evil to choose to save whichever potential victim has the most money to give in exchange for their life I guess, that sort of thing is the only way alignment could come into it.

Bakeru

2014-02-12, 04:34 PM

[To long, didn't quote (It's right above this one)]
[To long, didn't quote (It's right above this one)]I'm going with Star Trek on this one: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Not that, while Star Trek does later also say that sometimes, the need of the few (or the one) can outweigh the need of the many, it does so in a very specific context - where every member of "the many" had chosen to place their needs behind the needs of the one.

So, yes, in my eyes, killing a baby to save millions is a non-evil act. It's not good, but not evil either (but would still make a paladin fall, because Paladin isn't just about good). Killing millions to save millions? Plus minus zero, no real impact.

hamishspence

2014-02-12, 04:46 PM

I'm going with Star Trek on this one: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

This one is also context-sensitive - it was Spock justifying his own personal sacrifice.

"The needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few" tends to be a theme of dystopian rather than utopian fiction.

Acrux

2014-02-12, 04:46 PM

BRC

2014-02-12, 05:07 PM

True.

False.

For a Good aligned person, the proper choice is to try your best to save the millions and the child. RISKING the death of the child, if you think you can find a way to save him, too, might be acceptable. MIGHT. That's actually sticky. But simply saying "one child is less important than millions, and so I am right to murder him personally" is not Good. It is Evil.

We can't speak to every paladin, actually. Some might make that choice, and fall, and they'd deserve it. It is an understandable choice, but it is still Evil. Others would refuse to deliberately murder the child, but would be working up until the death of millions happened in order to prevent it. He might - and in the scenario as presented, would - fail, but he'd be trying.

I repeat my query: Replace the child with another set of millions. Is it evil to let the first group of millions die when, by the scenario, the only guaranteed way to save them is to kill the second group of millions?
First of all, the thought experiment as presented only allows for absolutes. If we allow alternative options we invalidate the purpose of the thought experiment, which is to confront the morality of justified murder.

Assume the ONLY options are to kill the child, or let the millions die. Assume all parties involved are perfectly aware of this. Otherwise you're dodging the question. We can assume the Paladin would try everything in their power to save everybody, but unless you allow them to reach the crucial decision: Kill the Child or let the millions die, then you are just being a smart alec rather than answering the question. Saying "Well the proper decision is to keep trying to save everybody" invalidates things.

As for the Millions vs Millions question, all things being equal (and assuming a lack of decision will cause both to die) the proper action is to choose at random.

That said, boiling things down to the murder of the child involves stripping away VERY crucial context, and we know Alignment MUST involve context, or else the adventuring paladin does not work.

Consider

Killing Another is an evil act.

However, the classic DnD Paladin would readily kill, say, a cruel bandit chief who has been killing for years and will, unless stopped, gladly kill again as long as he is able. He would not only Kill said bandit chief, he would set out from town with the express purpose of bringing the chief to justice.

He may try to capture the Chief and bring them back for a trial and execution, but it all comes down to the same thing. Context.

So, in the context of DnD, since Killing another is an evil act, the Adventuring Paladin should fall after they slay their first goblin, UNLESS the context of actions is taken into account.

So, back to the question of the Paladin and the Choice.

Let's change things up. The Villain says "I will kill a million people, OR I will kill a million and ONE people, you must choose"
The good decision (Once again, assuming there are no other options) is to choose to save that last person. Fewer deaths is better. The Paladin is not responsible for the million that will die anyway.

In the initial scenario, it's not a million lives at risk, it's a million and ONE lives at risk. The Child is just as much at risk as the million other people. The Child's life relies on the Paladin's decision.

What we're debating about is the question of how much Action vs Inaction changes things. Right now, if the Paladin waits, the people die and the baby lives. Does the fact that the Million die by inaction while the Child dies by action tip the karmatic scale enough to counteract things.

Also, concerning "Try to save everybody", that sounds a lot like "Good must be stupid"

Let's go back to the supervillain. The Supervillain has his hand on the button and an army of burly henchmen. The Paladin is in a cage with the baby.

"If you Kill that baby, I will not push this button".

Theoretically, the Paladin could try to bust out of the cage, defeat all the henchmen, then stop the supervillain before the button is pushed.

This will not happen. It takes only a fraction of a second to push the button, but it's theoretically possible. The Supervillain could be shocked by the attempt and forget about the button, the Henchmen could be inspired by the Paladin's bravery and turn on their master.

Is the Paladin required to try? Or is there a point where the forces of good recognize that The Paladin did everything in their power."

If your answer is yes, consider this.

So, if a Paladin must follow the course of action that leads to the best possible outcome, no matter the likely consequences of that action, what does a paladin do when they meet somebody whose alignment is not good.

It's possible that "Person" is actually a powerful evil demon in disguise. In which case the best possible outcome is that the Paladin slays the evil demon and saves their countless potential future victims.

The Person's alignment is at best neutral, so there is not an equal chance this person is a celestial in disguise that will spread good.

hamishspence

2014-02-12, 05:15 PM

The Villain says "I will kill a million people, OR I will kill a million and ONE people, you must choose"

I can't see the average paladin letting a Villain coerce them into making any choices.

O-Chul said it best:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0547.html

"The act is on your hands, not mine"

BRC

2014-02-12, 05:21 PM

I can't see the average paladin letting a Villain coerce them into making any choices.

O-Chul said it best:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0547.html

"The act is on your hands, not mine"
O-Chul's situation was crucially different. O-Chul was not in a position to change anything.

"Were I free I would kill you and rescue them, but there is no way my words can save them". O-Chul is refusing to accept blame for deaths he could do nothing to prevent, that is very different than refusing to make a choice that saves lives because it is being offered by a villain.

In fact, in the previous comic O-Chul did TRY to do something. He made up a reasonable lie about a maze of riddles and traps. It didn't work, but he tried it. He was given the choice "Tell me, or these people die", and even though he could not Tell Redcloak what he wanted to hear, O-Chul chose to tell Redcloak ANYTHING, on the off-chance it would save the prisoners.

Bakeru

2014-02-12, 05:32 PM

What if it's you must kill a close loved one (parent, spouse, child) in order to save one million? Is that still a non-evil act?

What if you must kill the one in a horrendous, tortuous way for the villain to be satisfied? Is that still a non-evil act?

What if you have to kill 10 people, or 100 people, or 500,000 or 999,999 people to save one million? Is that still a non-evil act?In my eyes? None of those are evil. Even killing a million to save a million isn't inherently evil, merely grey.

Here are some other fun moral dilemmas:
You and a stranger are subjected to a poison which will kill both of you in one minute. There is exactly one dose of antidote available - it needs to be taken completely, or it won't work.
Is taking the antidote evil? It would doom the other person to die, after all.
What if the other person actually tries to take the antidote? Would you kill him for it? After all, he's essentially trying to (indirectly) kill you, and he'd die anyway if you took the antidote.

hamishspence

2014-02-12, 05:44 PM

You and a stranger are subjected to a poison which will kill both of you in one minute. There is exactly one dose of antidote available - it needs to be taken completely, or it won't work.
Is taking the antidote evil? It would doom the other person to die, after all.
What if the other person actually tries to take the antidote? Would you kill him for it? After all, he's essentially trying to (indirectly) kill you, and he'd die anyway if you took the antidote.

"Survival" may qualify as a "nefarious motive" for sacrificing another person's life, under certain circumstances.

BoVD:

"Sacrificing yourself to save others is a Good act. Sacrificing others to save yourself is an Evil act. It's a hard standard, but that's the way it is."

Segev

2014-02-12, 06:00 PM

This one is also context-sensitive - it was Spock justifying his own personal sacrifice.

"The needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few" tends to be a theme of dystopian rather than utopian fiction.

IT is noteworthy that Leonard Nimoy plays a villain who uses that very line as a shout-out to his role as Spock AND to demonstrate the evil of the position when it is not one's OWN needs one is sacrificing. Spoiler colored: "When will you learn, Prime, that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few??"

In counter to the claim that it is evil to say "not my problem," then we're right back to it being evil that you are not personally actively engaged in stopping every unkindness that is happening in the world right now.

Also, the premise is again being misrepresented: you do not have a button that will let you save millions of lives; you have a button that will let you murder a baby. But we can also take this a bit deeper: If it's evil because "all you have to do is push a button," at what level of difficulty and sacrifice on your part is it no longer evil to say "Not my problem?"

Clearly, the entirety of the populace not engaged in actively saving lives every minute of every day is not guilty of evilly "letting people die," so there must be a point where it is neutral to choose to let things be. What is that point? Must it be two buttons?

At what point does it stop being "good" to kill that baby? You've stated that if it's one set of millions or another, there's no "good" choice. Does that mean being in that room with that button makes you evil either way? Are you evil if you push the button, but not if you don't? Or does it matter whether you push the button or not?

If it's "Good" as long as it's one baby versus millions, is it still "good" if it's one baby versus a thousand? Versus a hundred? Versus 10? Versus 2?

One healthy and hale youth versus two slightly older people? What if the youth will be killed but you're sparing the older people quadriplegia? Paraplegia? Leprosy?

When does it become evil for you to push that button? How few must you be saving from how light a level of harm before it becomes neutral, and how much further before it becomes evil?

More directly, if the point of the hypothetical is to set up a "no-win," then they are either failing in their purpose OR you are presuming your conclusion. However, I think it the former, because the truth of the matter is, it is the villain who is responsible for any deaths you do not proactively cause. You are responsible only for your own actions, and it's no cop-out to say "I will not push that button, but I will not sit idly by and do nothing, either." You don't get to claim that those are the only options when there is always a third choice of trying to find a way to save them all.

And it certainly is neutral to sit in that room, say, "I will not harm that child, because that would be evil, but I can't be bothered to find a way to save those millions because honestly, I don't think there is one. But I would certainly applaud any heroes who brought down the villain, and would do so myself if I could, if only to prevent this kind of atrocity in the future."

Let's keep examining this, though: What if you're IN The group of millions, and you are the only one who can choose whether to push the button that retargets it to the child. Is it good, neutral, or evil to push that button?

What if, instead of a child, it's you? Are you evil for not pushing that button? Do you owe other people your life? If so, please consider the following: Again, reduce the number of people you're saving; how few does it have to be before you're no longer required to sacrifice yourself to be a good person?

What if everybody in both rooms had a set of buttons that chose which room was to be destroyed? The simple majority of all buttons will determine the end result. Is everybody who pushes the "destroy myself and all in the room with me" button good for being self-sacrificing? Are they evil, since if everybody does this, the room with the MOST people will be destroyed? Is everybody who pushes the "destroy the other room" button evil for putting others ahead of themselves, or good because if everybody does this, the room with the MOST people will be spared?

Would a room full of good people vote to destroy themselves in order to spare the single child in the other room? Or would they be evil for sparing the child? Would knowing that the room full of good people would want the child to live change whether you're a good person for pushing the button or not?

Would knowing that the child is evil and the millions are neutral to good make it more good to kill the child, or equally good? Would knowing the millions are all bad people and that the child is innocent make it good to spare the child, or is killing the child still better?

If the millions would want the child spared if they were good, thus guaranteeing that they're neutral to evil if they would not approve, would it be better to let them die rather than murder the child, since you know they either would willingly make the sacrifice or are not as good of people as the child is?

All of these start building contradictory answers if you go with the presumption that the needs of the many so outweigh the needs of the few that it is okay to make that decision to sacrifice the few regardless of their wishes, to the point that it is GOOD to ACTIVELY kill the few to spare the many.

Of course, I guess there are those who think otherwise. They're in this thread. I do wonder: would they walk away from Omelas?

Bakeru

2014-02-12, 06:06 PM

"Survival" may qualify as a "nefarious motive" for sacrificing another person's life, under certain circumstances.

BoVD:

"Sacrificing yourself to save others is a Good act. Sacrificing others to save yourself is an Evil act. It's a hard standard, but that's the way it is."But in the second example, he's already trying to take the antidote. Thus, he's trying to sacrifice you - indirectly harming you - and you're merely defending yourself.

hamishspence

2014-02-12, 06:09 PM

nedz

2014-02-12, 06:16 PM

First of all, the thought experiment as presented only allows for absolutes. If we allow alternative options we invalidate the purpose of the thought experiment, which is to confront the morality of justified murder.

Assume the ONLY options are to kill the child, or let the millions die. Assume all parties involved are perfectly aware of this. Otherwise you're dodging the question. We can assume the Paladin would try everything in their power to save everybody, but unless you allow them to reach the crucial decision: Kill the Child or let the millions die, then you are just being a smart alec rather than answering the question. Saying "Well the proper decision is to keep trying to save everybody" invalidates things.

As for the Millions vs Millions question, all things being equal (and assuming a lack of decision will cause both to die) the proper action is to choose at random.

That said, boiling things down to the murder of the child involves stripping away VERY crucial context, and we know Alignment MUST involve context, or else the adventuring paladin does not work.

Consider

Killing Another is an evil act.

However, the classic DnD Paladin would readily kill, say, a cruel bandit chief who has been killing for years and will, unless stopped, gladly kill again as long as he is able. He would not only Kill said bandit chief, he would set out from town with the express purpose of bringing the chief to justice.

He may try to capture the Chief and bring them back for a trial and execution, but it all comes down to the same thing. Context.

So, in the context of DnD, since Killing another is an evil act, the Adventuring Paladin should fall after they slay their first goblin, UNLESS the context of actions is taken into account.

So, back to the question of the Paladin and the Choice.

Let's change things up. The Villain says "I will kill a million people, OR I will kill a million and ONE people, you must choose"
The good decision (Once again, assuming there are no other options) is to choose to save that last person. Fewer deaths is better. The Paladin is not responsible for the million that will die anyway.

In the initial scenario, it's not a million lives at risk, it's a million and ONE lives at risk. The Child is just as much at risk as the million other people. The Child's life relies on the Paladin's decision.

What we're debating about is the question of how much Action vs Inaction changes things. Right now, if the Paladin waits, the people die and the baby lives. Does the fact that the Million die by inaction while the Child dies by action tip the karmatic scale enough to counteract things.

Also, concerning "Try to save everybody", that sounds a lot like "Good must be stupid"

Let's go back to the supervillain. The Supervillain has his hand on the button and an army of burly henchmen. The Paladin is in a cage with the baby.

"If you Kill that baby, I will not push this button".

Theoretically, the Paladin could try to bust out of the cage, defeat all the henchmen, then stop the supervillain before the button is pushed.

This will not happen. It takes only a fraction of a second to push the button, but it's theoretically possible. The Supervillain could be shocked by the attempt and forget about the button, the Henchmen could be inspired by the Paladin's bravery and turn on their master.

Is the Paladin required to try? Or is there a point where the forces of good recognize that The Paladin did everything in their power."

If your answer is yes, consider this.

So, if a Paladin must follow the course of action that leads to the best possible outcome, no matter the likely consequences of that action, what does a paladin do when they meet somebody whose alignment is not good.

It's possible that "Person" is actually a powerful evil demon in disguise. In which case the best possible outcome is that the Paladin slays the evil demon and saves their countless potential future victims.

The Person's alignment is at best neutral, so there is not an equal chance this person is a celestial in disguise that will spread good.

But this is not a question, it's a constructed paradox. It's a classic Fall or Fall Paladin trap.

Bakeru

2014-02-12, 06:28 PM

[...lots of stuff here...]

All of these start building contradictory answers if you go with the presumption that the needs of the many so outweigh the needs of the few that it is okay to make that decision to sacrifice the few regardless of their wishes, to the point that it is GOOD to ACTIVELY kill the few to spare the many.

Of course, I guess there are those who think otherwise. They're in this thread. I do wonder: would they walk away from Omelas?It should be noted that in the story about Omelas, those who walk away are rare exceptions, far from the norm.

Anyway, the examples you gave don't necessarily lead to contradictions, merely to some trouble calculating when it comes to low numbers of people - although I still wouldn't call it good, merely not evil, at any point. If some people die no matter what, choosing who does isn't evil, at least not in my eyes.

Both characters have equal right to it.

But once one character has it in hand - the other loses their right to it.

Each character reaching for the antidote at once is Neutral.

But the character who wrests it from the other character's hand - is crossing the line into "doing Evil".So, instead of "Might makes right", it's "Speed and/or unhesitating selfishness makes right". Got it.

Da'Shain

2014-02-12, 06:51 PM

Both characters have equal right to it.

But once one character has it in hand - the other loses their right to it.

Each character reaching for the antidote at once is Neutral.

But the character who wrests it from the other character's hand - is crossing the line into "doing Evil".Possession is 9/10ths of the law, not the moral right.

The mere fact that someone lays a claim first does not, morally, take away the other person's right to it. It's just easier for a legal system to give precedence to the first in time.

Also, while BoED or BoVD or w/e may disagree on this, saying that choosing to save your own life at the cost of another's is inherently evil is childish. Sure, if you murder a third party to save your life, of course that's an evil act (committed under duress, but still evil). But if the other person is literally the obstacle to your survival and neither of your actions contributed to this life or death situation you're in? It is neutral to value your own life over theirs. Self-sacrifice is good because it is the exception, not the rule.

Abaddona

2014-02-12, 08:04 PM

One little addition from me for all of you who disagree with Segev. You are talking about human lives like peddlers on the market are talking about potatoes. Do you know why this certain problem is formulated in a way that on one side we have several milions and on other one person? Because by using numbers you are dehumanizing people. And by making numbers big enough you are assured that no ones will change those numbers back into people. So let's use people instead of numbers. On one side we have: Marc - young teacher who loves very much his wife Monica (they took wedding two months ago), John - 34 year old lawyer who is ruthless and certainly not nice person, but he will do anything for his little daughter Sylvia, Hannah - old widow who bakes great cookies, Clark - lively 8 year old boy who is kinda irritating but cares about his little sister, Peter - who was released from prison after 20 years jail time - he doen't know what to do with himself; on the other side: Juliette - sweet little girl, maybe not the brightiestand and little shy, but having many friends.
My point is - if you are choosing on the basis "where is more people" then your verdict isn't moral - just mathematical. And you morally failed the moment when you agreed to base your decision on numerical values.
EDIT:
Projecting it back to the game. We know that paladin falls by willingly doing evil act.
In this case - killing innocent person is evil - everyone here aggrees that paladin will fall and will have to atone (which is funny because to atone he must regret his action)
But by choosing to kill the innocent he also strikes the deal with the villain - collaborate with him "I will kill this kid and in return you will refrain from killing those people" - this also makes him fall.
On the other hand Paladin cannot be held responsible for not having enough strength or wisdom to defeat the villain.
So yeah - in this case Paladin will not fall if he does not aggre to terms presented by villain.
Also every DM who presents before Paladin player such dillema should be smacked in the head with BoED.

georgie_leech

2014-02-12, 08:12 PM

Amphetryon

2014-02-12, 08:12 PM

One little addition from me for all of you who disagree with Segev. You are talking about human lives like peddlers on the market are talking about potatoes. Do you know why this certain problem is formulated in a way that on one side we have several milions and on other one person? Because by using numbers you are dehumanizing people. And by making numbers big enough you are assured that no ones will change those numbers back into people. So let's use people instead of numbers. On one side we have: Marc - young teacher who loves very much his wife Monica (they took wedding two months ago), John - 34 year old lawyer who is ruthless and certainly not nice person, but he will do anything for his little daughter Sylvia, Hannah - old widow who bakes great cookies, Clark - lively 8 year old boy who is kinda irritating but cares about his little sister, Peter - who was released from prison after 20 years jail time - he doen't know what to do with himself; on the other side: Juliette - sweet little girl, maybe not the brightiestand and little shy, but having many friends.
My point is - if you are choosing on the basis "where is more people" then your verdict isn't moral - just mathematical. And you morally failed the moment when you agreed to base your decision on numerical values.
How, then, do you propose to make the moral choice? From where I sit, your response indicates that choice that results in loss of life is immoral, which makes the question 'which is more moral' impossible.

Vogonjeltz

2014-02-12, 08:20 PM

Amphetryon

2014-02-12, 08:40 PM

Outcomes do not matter. Within d&d morality, an evil act taints any result making it evil.

Asking the threatened person to willingly sacrifice themselves might be ok, but murdering is evil no matter the reason.

The question remains: of the available options, make the moral choice. "There isn't one" is dodging the question.

Abaddona

2014-02-12, 08:45 PM

georgie_leech and others -> point is: from the moral perspective value of any individual life is equal to the combined value of every life. It isn't even possible to estimate the value of persons life and by trying to do so you are going beyond the range of morality.

And back to the game: DnD has actually pretty simple rules governing morality (it's actually quite openly stated in DMG that it is intentional because trying to closely emulate this would be detrimental to the fun) but still it has several points such as "killing other beings only because they are evil is an evil act (BoED)" - also I'm not entirely sure, but whole Prisoner Dillema was presented in the DMG.

Amphetryon - it's not dodging the question. Your reasoning is based on false premise that one of presented choices is moral or more moral than other. It's not the case here because whole "experiment" is constructed in such a way that by making choice you are not basing it on moral premises.

georgie_leech

2014-02-12, 08:52 PM

georgie_leech and others -> point is: from the moral perspective value of any individual life is equal to the combined value of every life. It isn't even possible to estimate the value of persons life and by trying to do so you are going beyond the range of morality.

Not every moral system would agree. Utilitarianism, for instance, argues that the moral/ethical thing to do is sacrifice the child because it has the greatest chance of saving the most people.

Personally, I agree that there isn't both a Good and good option here; the choices are between Kill the Baby (Evil), Let Millions Die When You Had a Chance to Save Them (More Evil), and Attempt to Thwart the Villain Currently In a Position to Immediately Cause the Deaths of Millions Based on Your Choice (Good, but stupid and likely to get both the Milions and the Baby killed anyway).

Amphetryon

2014-02-12, 08:54 PM

Amphetryon - it's not dodging the question. Your reasoning is based on false premise that one of presented choices is moral or more moral than other. It's not the case here because whole "experiment" is constructed in such a way that by making choice you are not basing it on moral premises.

No, because the whole point is "make the most moral choice." It is an ethical dilemma, not an ethical 'no way out.'

veti

2014-02-12, 09:09 PM

I think any "dilemma" that means the paladin has to personally murder babies... is likely to involve a level of railroading that justifies tying the DM to his chair and beating him with a wiffle bat. "Allowing events to unfold that will result in innocents dying" is one thing, but "purposely killing them yourself just because someone tells you to" crosses a line.

The answer to this dilemma lies in the "just because someone tells you to" clause. As a paladin, if an Evil Mastermind presents me with a choice like that, I'm going to assume one of:

he's either insane or lying, his doomsday machine can't or won't do anything like what he claims it will (and even if it can and will, why should I believe that "me killing babies" would somehow prevent it?), or
he's stupid, there is another way out of this - probably several - that he just hasn't thought of because he's such a monumental ****, or
if he really is all he claims and thinks he is, then "me killing the babies" must be part of an even more diabolical plan that will, ultimately, result in the destruction of all that is pure and good on a far greater level than his present puny doomsday machine.

Edit: to clarify Option 3 - killing the innocents in this scenario is giving in to a blackmailer. Which, as any Agatha Christie fan knows, is always bad policy, because there's nothing to stop him from coming back next week and giving me the same choice all over again, but with twice as many babies this time. Or he could be making the rounds of all good characters, paladinic or otherwise, in the world and presenting them all with the same choice. Whatever, "playing along" is the one answer that is 100% guaranteed to be wrong.

So bottom line is, I reject your dilemma and the horse it rode in on, and I hope you get hives.

Vogonjeltz

2014-02-12, 09:18 PM

The question remains: of the available options, make the moral choice. "There isn't one" is dodging the question.

No, it really isn't. There is always an option that carries no moral weight. For a paladin it becomes a question of the moral imperative to commit no evil act, inaction is simply not an act, murder is.

From the paladin perspective murdering someone is simply never an option.

Amphetryon

2014-02-12, 09:28 PM

No, it really isn't. There is always an option that carries no moral weight. For a paladin it becomes a question of the moral imperative to commit no evil act, inaction is simply not an act, murder is.

So, which option carries no moral weight? That's the 'non-evil' action, incidentally, and your argument is - apparently - that standing there shrugging his shoulders and doing nothing to help a million people he knows will die because he chose not to act is the 'non-evil' choice.

Again, I do not agree that deciding to cause a million people to die via his action, or lack thereof, is not an evil option.

Red Fel

2014-02-12, 09:30 PM

I think any "dilemma" that means the paladin has to personally murder babies... is likely to involve a level of railroading that justifies tying the DM to his chair and beating him with a wiffle bat. "Allowing events to unfold that will result in innocents dying" is one thing, but "purposely killing them yourself just because someone tells you to" crosses a line.

This is the key, I think.

If we are still discussing the ticking time bomb scenario mentioned awhile back (I can't tell, since we've gone into the more theoretical at this point), then the Good character should try to choose a third option. If the hypothetical framework explicitly defines that there are only the two options listed, and no possibility of any other, then the answer is auto-fall.

If your only two options are "do Evil" and "do Evil," you can't look at one and say "this is the lesser of the two Evils, and is therefore Good." You can call it the lesser of two Evils, for that is true; but within the D&D cosmology, the lesser of two Evils is still Evil.

A Good character should do whatever is possible to avoid doing Evil. (An Exalted character would probably sooner die than do Evil, but that's not at issue.) If you have created a neat little box where the Good PC's only choices are "do Evil" and "do a slightly lesser Evil," then congratulations, you've learned the ways of fiat.

You've also robbed the player of any sense of agency in their character.

Offer any actual in-game scenario like the ticking time bomb, and there are people on this board who can come up with a third option. Any scenario. They will find a way. They're creative, almost scarily so. So if you're saying that there is absolutely no third option, then you're saying that anything the players attempt other than those two options will automatically fail; that's railroading of the very worst kind.

As a hypothetical, assuming it's set in the D&D world, there is simply no option. A Good character must choose between actively performing an Evil act, and passively permitting an Evil act. Doing nothing constitutes the latter. There is no Good answer.

As a gaming matter, it is impractical and cruel to play that kind of trick on your players.

As a philosophical point, the difference between doing evil and allowing evil to be done is the difference between consequentialism and the categorical imperative, and probably isn't an appropriate subject for these forums. We are in essence recreating the "runaway train car" hypothetical.

Stux

2014-02-12, 09:30 PM

The hypothetical question assumes so many things as to make it pretty much ridiculous as it stands. A real villain may indeed keep his word, but may not. You can't know. He may kill both the child and the millions regardless, or the whole thing could have been a bluff. This is why in game it is perfectly reasonable for a good character to continue attempting to stop the villain and not make the choice even if his efforts are futile. The villain has agency of his own which it is totally unreasonable for you to be entirely responsible for.

But with what the actual dilemma proposes the villain is no longer a person, but may as well be a machine. The machine is set to kill a million people, or a child, or both. You have no direct access to the mechanism of the machine, which is too far away to reach in time. All you have access to is lever which acts as an input to the machine which is currently set in a middle position which you know means the machine will kill both. You can't just destroy the lever, as the machine will just go with the default input. You also know if you move it one way it kills the million only, if you move it the other way it kills the child only. What should you do now?

This is more accurate as to what is actually being asked of us, but is for practical purposes a very different question, and one where moving the lever to allow only the child to die is probably the good act.

Vogonjeltz

2014-02-12, 09:33 PM

So, which option carries no moral weight? That's the 'non-evil' action, incidentally, and your argument is - apparently - that standing there shrugging his shoulders and doing nothing to help a million people he knows will die because he chose not to act is the 'non-evil' choice.

Again, I do not agree that deciding to cause a million people to die via his action, or lack thereof, is not an evil option.

Yes, not getting involved in the affairs of others is the neutral act. Acting to stop the villain is a good act, and capitulating to evil, indeed abetting evil by aiding in its goals, by committing murder is the evil act.

Those million people, if they die, die because of the villains actions, not the person the villain is trying to manipulate.

veti

2014-02-12, 09:46 PM

But with what the actual dilemma proposes the villain is no longer a person, but may as well be a machine. The machine is set to kill a million people, or a child, or both. You have no direct access to the mechanism of the machine, which is too far away to reach in time. All you have access to is lever which acts as an input to the machine which is currently set in a middle position which you know means the machine will kill both. You can't just destroy the lever, as the machine will just go with the default input. You also know if you move it one way it kills the million only, if you move it the other way it kills the child only. What should you do now?

This is more accurate as to what is actually being asked of us, but is for practical purposes a very different question, and one where moving the lever to allow only the child to die is probably the good act.

You're right, in that that's a very different question. If the choice is between "saving one person" and "saving a million", it becomes easy.

I'd still want to know, though - who built this machine, why, and what are they planning to do with it next? Because someone has been to a lot of trouble to achieve something extremely evil, and they badly need to be stopped before they do it again.

Amphetryon

2014-02-12, 09:49 PM

Stux

2014-02-12, 09:50 PM

I'd still want to know, though - who built this machine, why, and what are they planning to do with it next? Because someone has been to a lot of trouble to achieve something extremely evil, and they badly need to be stopped before they do it again.

Well of course. And I still believe it would be arguably Good to spend your entire countdown searching for an alternative to what is presented to you even in that situation. Because in real life, and in real games, you are never given such a binary choice. Or rather, if you are in a game then it's probably a kinda lame game!

Stux

2014-02-12, 09:51 PM

New hypothetical:

Party of 1st Level adventurers (Paladin, LG Cleric, CG Wizard, LN Rogue) are hired to clear out a Goblin warren. How many Goblins can the Paladin murder - or witness her companions murder without stopping them - before she falls? How many can the Cleric slaughter before being cut off from his spells? How much of the Goblins' treasure can the Rogue appropriate before the Paladin is required to act to stop this theft?

What alignment are the goblins and what has prompted the hiring of the party to kill them? Without knowing that it is impossible to attempt an answer.

Amphetryon

2014-02-12, 09:56 PM

What alignment are the goblins and what has prompted the hiring of the party to kill them? Without knowing that it is impossible to attempt an answer.

There's nothing in the hypothetical that says they were hired to kill them. It says 'clear them out.' Assume the SRD listing of 'usually Neutral Evil' is true, but explain clearly why the murder of redeemable (because it doesn't say 'Always,' and because 3.X has given us a Succubus Paladin example regardless) member a particular Alignment will change the answer.

Vogonjeltz

2014-02-12, 09:58 PM

New hypothetical:

Party of 1st Level adventurers (Paladin, LG Cleric, CG Wizard, LN Rogue) are hired to clear out a Goblin warren. How many Goblins can the Paladin murder - or witness her companions murder without stopping them - before she falls? How many can the Cleric slaughter before being cut off from his spells? How much of the Goblins' treasure can the Rogue appropriate before the Paladin is required to act to stop this theft?

D&D distinguishes between murder and killing.

It's actually perfectly valid to hunt down evil monsters who have committed wrongdoing.

Monsters who are innocent of any crime? That's another matter. In that scenario the Paladin would be justified in stopping the murder of innocents, regardless of their racial composition.

Abaddona

2014-02-12, 10:00 PM

Amphetryon

2014-02-12, 10:01 PM

D&D distinguishes between murder and killing.

It's actually perfectly valid to hunt down evil monsters who have committed wrongdoing.

Monsters who are innocent of any crime? That's another matter. In that scenario the Paladin would be justified in stopping the murder of innocents, regardless of their racial composition.

Please clarify the D&D difference between 'murder' and 'killing' within the context of clearing out a goblin warren.

I ask because it's a fairly stereotypical 1st level adventure hook.

veti

2014-02-12, 10:13 PM

Please clarify the D&D difference between 'murder' and 'killing' within the context of clearing out a goblin warren.

I ask because it's a fairly stereotypical 1st level adventure hook.

As the paladin, I've probably got the highest charisma, which means I'll probably have a lot of say in how the scenario unfolds. The key question I'd want an answer to is, why are we being asked to "clear them out"?

Is it because the human landowner plans to build here and wants them gone? Then there's no justification for killing, we need to negotiate.

Is it because the nearby defenseless village is scared of what they might do? Then the correct answer is probably to get some sort of village militia organised for their own defence, give them a lecture about peaceful coexistence, and go talk to the goblins to make sure there's no misunderstanding.

Or is it because they've been actively attacking local residents? Then a more robust approach is in order. I'd still try to talk to them, but now I'd think my party was justified in returning fire if they start something, and fighting them without further discussion if they refuse to talk.

Abaddona

2014-02-12, 10:14 PM

Book of Exalted Deeds clearly states that killing kobolds, orcs and other such beings only because they are evil (which means: they aren't making any trouble for other races - they only are there) is evil act. It of course gets quite funny with outsiders and undeads but in the case of goblins - I would say that the moment Paladin will kill any inteligent being without reason is the moment he will fall. And yes - most DMs don't do that because most players don't like to play that way (seriously - Prisoner Dillema is hard enough without applying it to basically every creature with int 3+).
And now I am going to sleep.

Vogonjeltz

2014-02-12, 10:15 PM

Please clarify the D&D difference between 'murder' and 'killing' within the context of clearing out a goblin warren.

I ask because it's a fairly stereotypical 1st level adventure hook.

Sure, let me quote parts of the BoED where it makes the distinction(this goes on at length): In fact, even launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not necessarily good if the attack comes without provocation

Launching an incursion into Orc territory is not a good act if the primary motivation is profit, whether that means clearing the treasure out of ruins the orcs inhabit or claiming their lands for natural resources. Violence against evil is acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done.

georgie_leech

2014-02-12, 10:31 PM

Georgie_leech -> yeah, I know, Utilitarians liked to calculate various things (such as happiness) and sometimes were pretty ridiculous about it (for example: theft is a good thing because thanks to it money gets to be redistributed - certainly true but I dare to say that from our culture point of view stealing definetely isn't good act (of course except "higher cause" like saving life)).

If Wealth Redistribution is a Good Thing (tm) as regarded by the one making the calculation, then yes, Theft could be Good. I don't agree that Wealth Redistribution is inherently a Good Thing, but it can be (Culturally, see: Robin Hood)

Actually you are playing with words here - firstly by arbitrarily deciding that one choice is more evil than other and secondly - by claiming that by killing one person you are "saving" millions other.

It's not arbitrary; I hold Human Life to be of largely equal inherent value, in that the loss of any human life is bad. Ergo, greater loss of life is worse. To claim that killing one person and letting a million deaths happen (and that is the scenario; if you find the villain example to implausible, replace it with the lever/compute/machine example above or some other scenario) are morally equivalent is to claim that each individual in that million has only one millionth the value (if 1x=1000000y, y=x/1000000).

But let's see i can also play this game (and I really don't mean to offend anyone here)- you are assigning "letting others die when you had a chance to save them" "more evil" value - ok. So here we go: probably each one of us has enough money to eat three decent meals a day and enough additional money to go to cinema, buy computer and generally other not necessary to our personal survival valuables. Each year about 15 mln people dies from hunger. It's absolutely in the power of each one of us to save one maybe two people (for each of us, so all people who talked here about choice kill one to save million would save about 20 people). It's not even hard - we must simply resign from buying ne smartphone etc. And yet not one of us does this (yeah, of curse - each one of us donates few pennies - probably less than 1% of his total income simply to silence his conscience). So - how "evil" exactly are we?

Quite evil, depending on how much time and money people donate. I'm not sure how this is relevant; I never claimed that I was perfect, or indeed that anyone was. From a strict perspective, buying a Smartphone or what have you instead of using the money to feed the starving is indeed the worse option.

It's quite funny how lightly we can talk about hypothethical impossible (yeah, seriously - this experiment assumes that guy who was willing to kill several millions of people will keep his promise) situations at the same time ignoring daily tragedies.

Humans are a strange bunch, aren't we?

But that was quite long, back to the topic. "Evil" in this experiment simply lies in the act of comparing the value of one human life to the life of another human (or group of humans), in using a mathematical measure. So in this case moral act is refusal to make a choice. BTW - choice between death of one person and death of millions is also a false choice here because you have only control on one side of this equation: killing or not killing.

If applying mathematics to human life is Evil in and of itself, I weep for the charities that actually bother to try and determine how many people they can help with their limited resources. Why is it evil to say "I can use this $100000 to save Group A, which contains 100 people, or Group B, which contains 100000 people, so I should save Group B?" Should we just save Group A because it was the first group noticed?

Refusing to make a choice is just another way of choosing.

Amphetryon

2014-02-12, 10:33 PM

Sure, let me quote parts of the BoED where it makes the distinction(this goes on at length): In fact, even launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not necessarily good if the attack comes without provocation

Launching an incursion into Orc territory is not a good act if the primary motivation is profit, whether that means clearing the treasure out of ruins the orcs inhabit or claiming their lands for natural resources. Violence against evil is acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done.
So, given this, what's the answer to the hypothetical I posted? If the Paladin would fall, if the Cleric would lose spells, if the fact that the Rogue would appropriate wealth that isn't his (taking wealth that isn't yours is stealing, and definitely not Lawful under most definitions or legal systems) would prevent the Paladin from being able to continue to associate with him. . . .

then please give a typical D&D adventure that is devoid of these concerns, or explain why the game presumes that nobody can play a Paladin or a LG Cleric without failing to maintain Alignment.

Vogonjeltz

2014-02-12, 10:42 PM

So, given this, what's the answer to the hypothetical I posted? If the Paladin would fall, if the Cleric would lose spells, if the fact that the Rogue would appropriate wealth that isn't his (taking wealth that isn't yours is stealing, and definitely not Lawful under most definitions or legal systems) would prevent the Paladin from being able to continue to associate with him. . . .

then please give a typical D&D adventure that is devoid of these concerns, or explain why the game presumes that nobody can play a Paladin or a LG Cleric without failing to maintain Alignment.

Assuming this the party had no legitimate reason? The paladin would fall for murdering innocents, or not protecting the goblins from these predators.

That being said, the other party members would be committing some fairly evil acts by killing a peaceful tribe without provocation, so they'd probably all face alignment changes.

Now, if you want to obviate that, it's just a matter of having these goblins behave to type, and being actual threats, routinely preying upon whosoever asked the adventurers to help them.

Problem solved

veti

2014-02-12, 10:45 PM

then please give a typical D&D adventure that is devoid of these concerns, or explain why the game presumes that nobody can play a Paladin or a LG Cleric without failing to maintain Alignment.

Well, usually the DM sets up the first scenario's target group such that they unequivocally do have to be "cleared out" with force. They're established as aggressive, violent and not open to negotiation. Then it's perfectly OK to "kill them and take their stuff", so no dilemma arises.

(Incidentally, this was originally the justification given for the OOTS adventuring in the Dungeon of Dorukan - "make the countryside safe again (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html)" implies that the dungeon's occupants are currently doing something that makes it not-safe.)

However, for some reason you're describing a scenario in which that particular bit of background has been left out. Which is why you're getting so much backchat.

Amphetryon

2014-02-12, 11:03 PM

Well, usually the DM sets up the first scenario's target group such that they unequivocally do have to be "cleared out" with force. They're established as aggressive, violent and not open to negotiation. Then it's perfectly OK to "kill them and take their stuff", so no dilemma arises.

(Incidentally, this was originally the justification given for the OOTS adventuring in the Dungeon of Dorukan - "make the countryside safe again (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html)" implies that the dungeon's occupants are currently doing something that makes it not-safe.)

However, for some reason you're describing a scenario in which that particular bit of background has been left out. Which is why you're getting so much backchat.
See, generally goblins (kobolds, orcs, insert-appropriate-CR-critters) aren't aggressive and violent in a vacuum, assuming a decent DM and a decent over-arching story. They're that way because something is exerting pressure on the goblins to change their behavior and make them more of a threat. They're facing a food shortage, or have another group competing for territory, or are dealing with predators of some other sort of their own. . . .(see also, the OotS example you yourself linked).

The Rogue's behavior as I described it? That seems pretty typical of both Rogues and adventurers in general, judging from my own experience and the general adventuring journals and blogs available.

And yet, this sort of scenario is commonplace in D&D circles and - apparently - does not inevitably lead to the immediate fall of every Paladin or LG Cleric who participates in the group's adventures. I am at a loss, given the conclusions thus far in this thread, to explain how this is so unless the vast majority are simply Doing It Wrong.

Segev

2014-02-12, 11:06 PM

If applying mathematics to human life is Evil in and of itself, I weep for the charities that actually bother to try and determine how many people they can help with their limited resources. Why is it evil to say "I can use this $100000 to save Group A, which contains 100 people, or Group B, which contains 100000 people, so I should save Group B?" Should we just save Group A because it was the first group noticed?

Refusing to make a choice is just another way of choosing.

Ah, but here you've hit upon the crux of the issue: The charity sees two groups in need of (presumably equivalent amounts of) aid, and chooses to actively help the group that they can do the most good for. They have not altered the smaller group's prospects for the worse; they merely lacked the resources to be able to alter them for the better. They have performed a good act.

Let's alter this a bit, to reflect something closer to the "ticking time bomb" scenario. Our charitable organization is a guild that hires adventurers, amongst other things. They've discovered two relatively poverty-stricken groups, one of 100,000 elves and one of 5,000 dwarves. The dwarves have a mystic totem that guarantees the group which owns it will never become sick. Unfortunately, it can only grant its blessings to a single race at a time. The elves and dwarves are far enough apart that neither knows of the other.

A dreadful, always-lethal plague, however, has stricken the entire continent upon which these two races dwell. It's a genuine pandemic, but it only afflicts demi-humans. Humans are immune, so the Charitable Organization only sends human adventurers in. The dwarves quite reasonably do not wish to give up their totem; they can't get another and will die horrid plague-ridden deaths without it. Is it evil of them not to give it up, since 100,000 elves could be saved from this plague if they gave it to them? Is it good or evil of the Charity Organization to hire human adventurers to steal the totem from the dwarves and give it to the elves?

I, consistent with my prior statements, contend that it is evil to actively bring harm upon one group just because they're smaller in number in order to help a larger group.

Segev

2014-02-12, 11:13 PM

See, generally goblins (kobolds, orcs, insert-appropriate-CR-critters) aren't aggressive and violent in a vacuum, assuming a decent DM and a decent over-arching story. They're that way because something is exerting pressure on the goblins to change their behavior and make them more of a threat. They're facing a food shortage, or have another group competing for territory, or are dealing with predators of some other sort of their own. . . .(see also, the OotS example you yourself linked).

The Rogue's behavior as I described it? That seems pretty typical of both Rogues and adventurers in general, judging from my own experience and the general adventuring journals and blogs available.

And yet, this sort of scenario is commonplace in D&D circles and - apparently - does not inevitably lead to the immediate fall of every Paladin or LG Cleric who participates in the group's adventures. I am at a loss, given the conclusions thus far in this thread, to explain how this is so unless the vast majority are simply Doing It Wrong.
Honestly? In my experience, the goblins/orcs/kobolds have done something aggressive to draw the adventurers out. A particularly typical example is kobolds or goblins taking over the mine that is the main livelihood of Startington. The party is hired - possibly even forms - specifically to go clear them out and make them stop murdering the gnomes and dwarves that try to go in and mine things. The mine has typically belonged to Startington for ages.

At this point, it's not murder, but small-scale urban warfare. They're repelling an invading force that has taken up occupation and is a threat with potential to expand.

It doesn't matter if it turns out the kobolds were driven there by a juvenile red dragon who's the real mastermind; the kobolds' actions were hostile rather than "please, we need someplace to hide; there's an awful dragon after us."

Typically, if it were, say, gnomes instead of kobolds, the gnomes would have come to the human-and-dwarf town of Startington and explained there was a terrible dragon driving them out of their homes, and could they please help?

Then the adventurers would go and face the dragon.

So the reason the Acceptable Targets tend to be Acceptable is that they have that "usually evil" alignment, and as a group they tend to start with aggression and taking what they want. This justifies the retaliation of "send in an adventuring party." That "usually" in their alignment refers to the fact that it is possible to have a PC or the odd NPC that is an exception. Such exceptions are generally exceptional in that they stand out. The party is not likely to "accidentally" kill a "good" kobold while raiding the mines the kobolds have invaded. "Good" kobolds will likely do something to give reason to spare them.

Is it realistic? Not particularly, not necessarily, but it is narratively fitting. (In practice, the invading kobolds are likely the closest thing their culture has to soldiers, and will defend their newly-taken territory. The "good kobold" in the group is either too busy being an enemy warrior for that to matter to the adventurers, or is the one who came to the city first to beg for help to try to prevent needless killing on either side.

georgie_leech

2014-02-12, 11:16 PM

Ah, but here you've hit upon the crux of the issue: The charity sees two groups in need of (presumably equivalent amounts of) aid, and chooses to actively help the group that they can do the most good for. They have not altered the smaller group's prospects for the worse; they merely lacked the resources to be able to alter them for the better. They have performed a good act.

Let's alter this a bit, to reflect something closer to the "ticking time bomb" scenario. Our charitable organization is a guild that hires adventurers, amongst other things. They've discovered two relatively poverty-stricken groups, one of 100,000 elves and one of 5,000 dwarves. The dwarves have a mystic totem that guarantees the group which owns it will never become sick. Unfortunately, it can only grant its blessings to a single race at a time. The elves and dwarves are far enough apart that neither knows of the other.

A dreadful, always-lethal plague, however, has stricken the entire continent upon which these two races dwell. It's a genuine pandemic, but it only afflicts demi-humans. Humans are immune, so the Charitable Organization only sends human adventurers in. The dwarves quite reasonably do not wish to give up their totem; they can't get another and will die horrid plague-ridden deaths without it. Is it evil of them not to give it up, since 100,000 elves could be saved from this plague if they gave it to them? Is it good or evil of the Charity Organization to hire human adventurers to steal the totem from the dwarves and give it to the elves?

I, consistent with my prior statements, contend that it is evil to actively bring harm upon one group just because they're smaller in number in order to help a larger group.

I agree, it would be evil in this circumstance to do so. I also think it's evil to kill the baby. In either case, it's evil. It's evil of the CO to hire adventurer's to steal it in their stead; it would be evil (albeit less so) for the elves to do the same. In many cases, evil options abound (in this case, the Good option might be to somehow get the elves and dwarves to live together so all are spared). That said, what's necessary can still be morally wrong. In this circumstance, I'd say the necessary option is to move the totem (or people) to wherever the most lives can be saved; I wouldn't be able to go through with it myself, 'cause I wouldn't be able to stomach the thought of consciously condemning the dwarves to die, but I never claimed to be perfectly able to support my own values :smalltongue:

Amphetryon

2014-02-12, 11:29 PM

Honestly? In my experience, the goblins/orcs/kobolds have done something aggressive to draw the adventurers out. A particularly typical example is kobolds or goblins taking over the mine that is the main livelihood of Startington. The party is hired - possibly even forms - specifically to go clear them out and make them stop murdering the gnomes and dwarves that try to go in and mine things. The mine has typically belonged to Startington for ages.

At this point, it's not murder, but small-scale urban warfare. They're repelling an invading force that has taken up occupation and is a threat with potential to expand.

It doesn't matter if it turns out the kobolds were driven there by a juvenile red dragon who's the real mastermind; the kobolds' actions were hostile rather than "please, we need someplace to hide; there's an awful dragon after us."

Typically, if it were, say, gnomes instead of kobolds, the gnomes would have come to the human-and-dwarf town of Startington and explained there was a terrible dragon driving them out of their homes, and could they please help?

Then the adventurers would go and face the dragon.

So the reason the Acceptable Targets tend to be Acceptable is that they have that "usually evil" alignment, and as a group they tend to start with aggression and taking what they want. This justifies the retaliation of "send in an adventuring party." That "usually" in their alignment refers to the fact that it is possible to have a PC or the odd NPC that is an exception. Such exceptions are generally exceptional in that they stand out. The party is not likely to "accidentally" kill a "good" kobold while raiding the mines the kobolds have invaded. "Good" kobolds will likely do something to give reason to spare them.

Is it realistic? Not particularly, not necessarily, but it is narratively fitting. (In practice, the invading kobolds are likely the closest thing their culture has to soldiers, and will defend their newly-taken territory. The "good kobold" in the group is either too busy being an enemy warrior for that to matter to the adventurers, or is the one who came to the city first to beg for help to try to prevent needless killing on either side.
So, you're presuming a whole bunch of facts not in evidence in order to justify the killing and the notion that the Paladin and Cleric should keep their abilities. . . in this scenario. Why? What makes the transgressions here acceptable, compared to the hypothetical proposed earlier, where you argued that tacitly agreeing to allow the BBEG to murder a million people was the less evil (in other words, the more good) option than killing a single innocent?

Segev

2014-02-12, 11:29 PM

Me, I see it as tragic that the elves are plague-ridden. The dwarves are fortunate. If the dwarves were willing to give up their totem, they would be self-sacrificing heroes of the highest caliber, but they are not under any moral obligation to do so. The only way I could see it reasonably justified to take it from them would be if the dwarves - specifically, this generation of dwarves - had stolen it from the elves to begin with.

Once you get into "second generation" considerations, it gets a lot stickier.

And besides, that would alter the circumstances of the scenario: as presented, the elves and dwarves knew nothing of each other before (and unless) adventurers told them about each other.

I could see the dwarves having some moral drive (if they are good-aligned) to do what they could to help the elves out, if the elves were their neighbors, without giving up the totem. A dwarven paladin would be under no obligation to push to give up the totem to the elves, and would in fact fall if he tried to take it without the permission of his society as a whole. But he definitely would be out trying to help the elves find their own cure/vaccine and trying to make their lives easier through this hard time.

Meanwhile, an elven paladin might ask the dwarves to give the totem up. Ask. And if they did, he would be IMMENSELY and EFFUSIVELY grateful. But he would oppose - violently, if necessary - any effort to steal the totem from the dwarves. By his own people or by our hypothetical Charitable Organization's hired human adventurers.

It should be noted that this scenario is pretty much the same, in base terms, as the Ticking Time Bomb: the "millions of people" who will die if you do nothing are the elves; the "innocent child" whose murder would apparently save the millions is the dwarves. You can save the elves by condemning the dwarves by stealing their totem and giving it to the elves.

So, if you think it is "good" (or the lesser of two evils) to murder the child to stop the villain from blowing up a planet full of people, then would you also say it is "good" to go in adventuring against the dwarves to steal their totem (killing any who get in your way, if needs be) and condemn the dwarves to a horrible plague-ridden death in order to give the elves the totem and spare them that same death?

Segev

2014-02-12, 11:35 PM

So, you're presuming a whole bunch of facts not in evidence in order to justify the killing and the notion that the Paladin and Cleric should keep their abilities. . . in this scenario. Why? What makes the transgressions here acceptable, compared to the hypothetical proposed earlier, where you argued that tacitly agreeing to allow the BBEG to murder a million people was the less evil (in other words, the more good) option than killing a single innocent?

Because I wasn't conflating the two scenarios at all. I was answering the question about "typical" adventuring as presented. If you read my answer again, you will see that I said that, in my experience, the scenario of the low-level adventuring party "clearing out" a goblinoid lair is presented as something sparked by those goblinoids performing evil deeds ranging from banditry to small-scale warfare/invasion.

Why is it okay to go raid the bandit lair (of any race)? Because bandits are committing violence and theft and generally making the roads less safe for more benign travelers and, possibly, interfering with trade to the point that it's creating second-hand hardships, too.

If, indeed, the DM just has you hired to kill acceptable targets because, um, they're there...yeah, that's probably not good-aligned behavior. Of course, if the DM is setting it up such that these humanoids are not doing anything evil to deserve this, he's probably deliberately setting up a plot twist around the fact that the bad guys hired the heroes in the first place.

As a "moral dilemma," it doesn't hold much weight. Of course killing a town full of people innocent of any harm to their neighbors just because they happen to be of a given race is evil. I wasn't arguing otherwise. Again, if you re-read what I said, I commented on my experience as to how the dungeon crawl into the kobold/goblin/orc lair is typically justified.

georgie_leech

2014-02-12, 11:35 PM

Segev

2014-02-12, 11:40 PM

My position remains that it is Good to leave the totem with the dwarves and to do everything in your power to find some other way to help the elves - some way that doesn't cost unwilling victims their lives or livelihoods.

It is neutral to leave well enough alone, and maybe offer help to elves who happen to be around without actively seeking out more to help.

It is evil to exploit the elves in some way, and it is evil to actively take the totem from the dwarves to save the elves.

Amphetryon

2014-02-12, 11:40 PM

Because I wasn't conflating the two scenarios at all. I was answering the question about "typical" adventuring as presented. If you read my answer again, you will see that I said that, in my experience, the scenario of the low-level adventuring party "clearing out" a goblinoid lair is presented as something sparked by those goblinoids performing evil deeds ranging from banditry to small-scale warfare/invasion.

Why is it okay to go raid the bandit lair (of any race)? Because bandits are committing violence and theft and generally making the roads less safe for more benign travelers and, possibly, interfering with trade to the point that it's creating second-hand hardships, too.

If, indeed, the DM just has you hired to kill acceptable targets because, um, they're there...yeah, that's probably not good-aligned behavior. Of course, if the DM is setting it up such that these humanoids are not doing anything evil to deserve this, he's probably deliberately setting up a plot twist around the fact that the bad guys hired the heroes in the first place.

As a "moral dilemma," it doesn't hold much weight. Of course killing a town full of people innocent of any harm to their neighbors just because they happen to be of a given race is evil. I wasn't arguing otherwise. Again, if you re-read what I said, I commented on my experience as to how the dungeon crawl into the kobold/goblin/orc lair is typically justified.

Who included "innocent of any harm" in my scenario? Who indicated the goblins were bandits in my scenario? I don't recall including either of those things, yet they were clearly assumed in the above justification for murder and robbery.

Vogonjeltz

2014-02-12, 11:51 PM

hamishspence

2014-02-13, 02:14 AM

Possession is 9/10ths of the law, not the moral right.

The mere fact that someone lays a claim first does not, morally, take away the other person's right to it. It's just easier for a legal system to give precedence to the first in time.

Maybe - though a case could be made that the law came after the moral principle.

So, instead of "Might makes right", it's "Speed and/or unhesitating selfishness makes right". Got it.

"Ordinary" selfishness is Neutral. Being so selfish as to initiate violence against a person who has done you no wrong - tends to be Evil.

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-13, 05:53 AM

I have to say that even though I do agree with everyone's assesment of the CN alignment, I still spoke with the player about the situation. There's no harm in player/DM communication after all.

The player agreed that he had been playing the character too lawfully and promised to add more chaos into his character. I didn't have to twist his arm or anything. I just pointed out my personal views and asked for some feedback.

Even though I fully agree with everyone in this thread, I must stay that I'm still happy to see chaotic characters played in a distinctively different way than neutral characters. I know that you may not agree, but that's just me :)

Sewercop

2014-02-13, 06:18 AM

There's no harm in player/DM communication after all.

So you told him how you wanted him to play his character?

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-13, 06:22 AM

So you told him how you wanted him to play his character?

Of course not.

Amphetryon

2014-02-13, 06:27 AM

Where did you get the idea that orcs aren't aggressive in a vacuum?

MM1 states outright that Orcs believe they must conquer as much territory as possible, and that all other beings are inferior to orcs.

From their Alignment descriptor: often Chaotic Evil. "Often," not "usually" or "always" (and remember, the "always Chaotic Evil" Succubi include at least one example by canon of LG Paladin), meaning it's a tendency of a race a a whole, not of each individual Orc. That means that, statistically, going in to fight an Orc encampment (which wasn't my proposed scenario, incidentally) involves the killing of Neutral and/or Good Orcs who are merely guilty of being of the wrong Race and possibly defending their families, friends, and selves.

How can the killing of such beings be acceptable for Paladins, LG Clerics, or indeed, any Good Characters, by the parameters established within this thread?

Abaddona

2014-02-13, 06:33 AM

Georgie_leech -> yeah, except in the case with thievery it's not money redistribution which is presented as "a value in itself" (i hope I got this term right) but it's only a way to make more people happy. Of course Utilitarians saw problems which resulted from this, so they generally added that it is not morally acceptable to gain happiness (or something else) from another person despair - but then whole "kill one person to prevent the death of million" is right out of the window as morally unacceptable even from this point of view.
Also - operations on infinity are kinda funny (set of all natural numbers is infinite and has as many objects (is equal) as set of only prime numbers - which technically is a subset of the former) in a way that for example "infinity*2=infinity".

But we are drifting from the game to real life here a little too much, so let's go back to the game.

Amphetryon - to be honest I don't know what you want here.
We stated it rather clearly here that in the case that "Paladin sees non-hostile goblin in the middle of the wilderness - doesn't know anything about it safe that it's goblin and immediately proceeds to smite him" he would fall because non-provoked violence is an evil act (again probably except outsiders and undeads). Except that in typical adventure we have additional factors such as:
1. almost nobody is treating whole moral system in DnD so precisely because it is unfun to do so (hey, look - random goblin in the wilderness and we won initiative, but we cannot harm it because DM then will shift our alignments to evil) and the most important aspect of the game is fun (this is also the reason why almost nobody precisely counts encumbrance, bat guano left in the spell component pouch and all others little details which are requiring lots of work but have minimal impact on the game).
2. In typical campaign you actually have a reason to attack those orcs/goblins/kobolds (and commit any other murderhobo'ing you usually commit during adventure) - and the fact that they had their reasons also is unimportant simply because you cannot be held responsible for something you don't know. If you murder kobolds who were forced to commit evil by a dragon then it is failure of your knowledge not failure of your morality.

MonochromeTiger

2014-02-13, 06:40 AM

So you told him how you wanted him to play his character?

are you sure you want to phrase it that way without context? there's a difference between inquiring about methods and jumping up and down on the "take offense" button to tempt fate.

Maybe - though a case could be made that the law came after the moral principle.

I can agree with that to a degree, really theft always struck me as an odd thing in D&D with how often people claim it's only unlawful. my personal interpretation (from an evil perspective, just more normal for me) is that if you steal something of actual importance, something that person may actually need or that will cause them discomfort or emotional pain to lose, that's evil. if the item being stolen is inconsequential, like something they have several more of or something with no real value to the person who owns it, that's just unlawful. finally if the item stolen is stolen for the purpose of denying harmful use by someone who is beyond a doubt going to do something "wrong" (read: stabbity-stab-stab-stab and other fun activities) or the "unlawful" option mentioned earlier but to aid someone who needs it more then it can be seen as good aligned.

morally speaking theft may always be unlawful but leaving anything unlawful as JUST unlawful without looking at it closer is ignoring consequences and results for the action.

"Ordinary" selfishness is Neutral. Being so selfish as to initiate violence against a person who has done you no wrong - tends to be Evil.

also agreed, there can be any number of reasons to not put someone before yourself from not being sure you can do anything for them to self preservation, but generally it's not seen as actually evil until you're intentionally putting others into bad situations for your own sake.

Segev

2014-02-13, 06:45 AM

Who included "innocent of any harm" in my scenario? Who indicated the goblins were bandits in my scenario? I don't recall including either of those things, yet they were clearly assumed in the above justification for murder and robbery.
The way you presented it, it sounded like you were trying to claim that "your scenario" was typical of adventures run in D&D, and that therefore most adventuring parties are secretly evil. That was the point I was refuting by attacking your premise.

Nobody has argued that, in the exact scenario you outlined ("go kill the Acceptable Targets in this lair ten miles outside of town, even though they've never caused anybody any harm"), a paladin would not fall. ...but, rereading your post above, you note you didn't say they HADN'T caused any harm, either. Right before you say you haven't defined them as guilty of harm. So your scenario is deliberately vague to the point where it is unanswerable because one can treat it as irrelevant or can swing to whichever interpretation (they are causing harm/they are not causing harm) lets one paint the person making a definite statement as wrong.

I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you state it clearly? It may be that there's no disagreement with your core point, and that your example scenarios are merely presented in such a way that people are refuting the premise and missing the point entirely.

Sewercop

2014-02-13, 06:51 AM

Segev

2014-02-13, 07:04 AM

Yes. Instead of straight up changing the characters alignment because he didnt agree to how chaotic was, he decided to "talk" to the player. It doesn`t matter if the player agreed. He still tried to make someone play different. In my book that is bollocks.

Others may see it different.Talking to the player is not a bad thing. If the DM has concerns, it is best not to let them fester and to see what the player has to say about it. Obviously, we can't know for sure that the DM didn't engage in horrible bullying tactics in this "talk," but I don't think it likely somebody who would do such a thing would care so much about an internet forum's opinion of his 'net-identity as to bother coming back and lying about it.

And the paladin debate is hilarious, follow the rules and you will never have a paladin that wont fall.
Nonsense. The problem isn't the rules (and I'm not being sarcastic); it's people misinterpreting them with a lens designed to play the "make the paladin fall" game.

MonochromeTiger

2014-02-13, 07:15 AM

Nonsense. The problem isn't the rules (and I'm not being sarcastic); it's people misinterpreting them with a lens designed to play the "make the paladin fall" game.

oh definitely, that and players playing their paladins like robots who practically force everyone else to be good aligned or else. a paladin actually keeping to their code and being a person instead of a rule book with a weapon and armor should have no problem avoiding falling short of a DM arbitrarily throwing a no win situation at them, they're also much less likely to fall afoul of other players or the DM themself trying one of the billions of anti-paladin plans that exist.

Amphetryon

2014-02-13, 07:33 AM

Nonsense. The problem isn't the rules (and I'm not being sarcastic); it's people misinterpreting them with a lens designed to play the "make the paladin fall" game.
Then clearly present a reasonable campaign setup where a Paladin - who hasn't foresworn lethal force - is allowed to adventure and kill without danger of falling.

Based on how Alignment and the actions that determine it have been defined within this thread, I postulate that this is not possible. Further, I'd posit that the notion that it's not possible is not an intention of the rules or Alignment system. . . and yet here we are.

georgie_leech

2014-02-13, 07:34 AM

MonochromeTiger

2014-02-13, 07:38 AM

The Lawful Good Gods have tasked the party with ending the Blood War?

considering the aversion several groups seem to have to the idea of evil campaigns or playing evil characters I'm curious why a campaign where good aligned characters do good aligned things within the law is unheard of to the point that we use sarcasm to say it.

hamishspence

2014-02-13, 07:44 AM

Then clearly present a reasonable campaign setup where a Paladin - who hasn't foresworn lethal force - is allowed to adventure and kill without danger of falling.

The world is full of marauding predators (some with two legs, some with more, or less). It's the paladin's job to seek them out in their dens when they raid the towns, cities, villages, etc and put a stop to it.

They adventure for the sake of others - not for their own gain - and in defence of civilians - not as an aggressor.

Abaddona

2014-02-13, 07:52 AM

Kobolds are worshipping red dragon who forces them to raid trade caravans. Paladin is interested in unusual kobold activity and wants to investigate it.

I mean seriously - it's really simple and you are presenting this as it is gods only know how hard to do.

EDIT:
adventure disassembled:

1. Real evil who needs to be smited is red dragon, without it kobolds stay in their caves and don't cause the troubles.
2. Paladin doesn't know about dragon but only about massive attacks of kobolds on trade caravans and human settlements.
3. Paladin won't fall for attacking kobold bandits because they are aggressors - not knowing about that they are forced to be aggressive is failure of his knowledge not moral.
4. Paladin to the best of his ability should try to discover why kobolds act that way - failure on this part again can't cause his failure because being too stupid doesn't cause Paladin to fall. Only if he due to own malice disregards occasions to obtain inteligence (for example kobolds surrendering or trying to tell him about dragon) he will fall.
5. Even if he knows about the dragon he still can fight and kill kobolds because he doesn't need to risk his own life to spare the life of someone who tries to kill him - but he should try to the best of his ability to not cause neccessary suffering - luckily in DnD we have saps and mercifull weapons which should be obtained by the Paladin if he ever will have an occasion to do so (and seriously - is there any Paladin who doesn't use those?).
6. Of course violence against non-combatants will cause Paladin to fall, but this is classical Prisoner Dillema.
7. Paladin should try to negotiate with the Dragon but only if by doing so he isn't putting himself in unnecessary danger.

Bakeru

2014-02-13, 08:33 AM

Looking through my answers to various theoretical situations here, it seems my general outlook is that "The moment a moral dilemma shows up, most choices becomes neutral".
Oh, and Paladins get the short end of the stick, because Neutral isn't Good enough for them.

Yes, not getting involved in the affairs of others is the neutral act. Acting to stop the villain is a good act, and capitulating to evil, indeed abetting evil by aiding in its goals, by committing murder is the evil act.

Those million people, if they die, die because of the villains actions, not the person the villain is trying to manipulate.By that reasoning, sitting there, watching silently, and calmly drinking tea while the evil mass murderer kills everyone right in front of you is still neutral, even if you could stop him.
After all, all you're doing is not getting involved.

The question is not "Did you do it?", the question is "Could you have stopped it?"

[The plague-situation with Elves, Dwarves and plague-immune humans]

I, consistent with my prior statements, contend that it is evil to actively bring harm upon one group just because they're smaller in number in order to help a larger group.My reasoning (also consistent with my prior statements) is still that, while "sacrificing one group for another" isn't good, it isn't evil either. The dwarves are under no obligation to die for complete strangers (although doing so would be the "Exalted Good" choice), but the elves aren't required to ignore the chance to save themselves, either (Although doing so would be the "Good" choice).

Now, Paladins are an entirely different matter, because Paladins need to be more then good. No matter the choice, Paladins on both sides might or might not fall, unless at least one of the groups unanimously chooses to die.
And yes, a DM who would actually does this deserves to be beaten with the BoED, the BoVD as well as Complete Champion, unless he's warned all his players that there might be "no-win" scenarios in his campaign.

For humans entering the scene, them helping the elves would be the "better" choice, but again, not doing so isn't evil either.

"Ordinary" selfishness is Neutral. Being so selfish as to initiate violence against a person who has done you no wrong - tends to be Evil.Tends? Maybe. But I'm convinced that trying to survive - even by force - when you have done nothing to cause the situation you're in isn't evil.
In other words, if you're in a situation - not due to your own fault, but because of circumstances outside of your own control - where the only way to survive is to harm or even kill someone else, harming or killing is neutral. It isn't good (which would require a general willingness to self-sacrifice - but not, necessarily, willingness to sacrifice friends and loved ones), but not evil either.

At last, on attacking "Often/Usually Evil" humanoids:
Several kinds of them are aggressive "in a vacuum", and/or serve other forces which directly order them to attack.
Even if such a settlement contains neutral members, these would help the evil members of the settlement to attack - and such directly harm - other people in the area, and as such, stopping them, even by force, is acceptable.
Any possible good members would have to leave the settlement or cease to be good. You can only stay so long with people who rob and murder in the service of a Red Dragon without becoming at least "I'm just doing my job"-neutral (and even that requires you to skip out on a lot of rob-and-murder duties).

Segev

2014-02-13, 08:54 AM

Then clearly present a reasonable campaign setup where a Paladin - who hasn't foresworn lethal force - is allowed to adventure and kill without danger of falling.

Based on how Alignment and the actions that determine it have been defined within this thread, I postulate that this is not possible. Further, I'd posit that the notion that it's not possible is not an intention of the rules or Alignment system. . . and yet here we are.I still don't know what point you're trying to make. The only way that I can read what you've written in this thread to support the assertion made in the second quoted paragraph here is...unkind to your logical integrity, so I shall assume I am missing something.

What I've said about alignment - particularly good, evil, and the various hypothetical situations - has been quite consistent. I expressly outlined how one could have a typical "clear the kobolds from the mines" adventure with a paladin in zero danger of falling (barring, of course, the paladin going out of his way to do so). You responded by saying your scenario didn't include the kobolds as aggressors. Now, however, you are asking me to outline how a paladin can go adventuring. Which I did before, in response to this very question. Maybe some others' words will phrase this better than I have, such that you can see what I mean:

The Lawful Good Gods have tasked the party with ending the Blood War?

The world is full of marauding predators (some with two legs, some with more, or less). It's the paladin's job to seek them out in their dens when they raid the towns, cities, villages, etc and put a stop to it.

They adventure for the sake of others - not for their own gain - and in defence of civilians - not as an aggressor.

Did that help?

Straight-forwardly, the typical adventure establishes that the reason the Heroic Adventuring Party is engaged to go and clean out a dungeon is that the denizens of said dungeon have either recently taken it over through violence (effectively, go in and push invaders out) or that the dungeon has been the dwelling-place of evil forces that are posing ongoing and increasing threats to the well-being of the peaceful inhabitants of surrounding lands.

In the simplest versions, the threat is clear and there is little to investigate; go beat up monsters and take their stuff. In more morally complex tales, perhaps our Paladin might wish to investigate to make sure he's not being duped into attacking innocents who just happen to look scary, but it's still likely (given the premise of the question is to establish a way a Paladin can do Typical Adventuring without falling) he'll find out these bad guys are, well, bad guys who need to be thwarted. With just enough "plot twist" style "the bad guy isn't who it seems to be" cases to make sure the investigation is still important.

Heck, the adventure breakdown provided by Abaddona is more harsh on paladins than it really needs to be: kobolds worshipping a red dragon and being forced into greater predation are still choosing to go out and raid the innocent farmers and travelers. Going with usual D&D stereotypes, if it were dwarves rather than kobolds who had a dragon suddenly appear and demand worship and tribute, the dwarves would usually seek to escape and find aid to get rid of the dragon, not go out raiding.

The kobolds thus are in the wrong, and, unless they take the active step to surrender and plead for mercy and aid, the Paladin is perfectly justified in beating them up and/or killing them to prevent them from doing more harm to the innocent. He might, once he learns of the dragon's influence, see if he can turn his high Charisma and trained Diplomacy skill towards rallying the kobolds to his side (lesser evil against a greater, with a possibility of maybe teaching the lesser to be - one might hope - neutral). But he's not obligated to if they're not showing any signs of desire to do so. It's just an option.

Killing evil minions of an evil master to get to their master and prevent both (or even just the latter) from doing more harm won't cause a paladin to fall. Said minions are not innocent victims. They might be victims, but victimhood does not also make one innocent.

Gnaeus

2014-02-13, 08:55 AM

For me, the issue of how a CN cleric should act has the most to do with his deity. A cleric of Shaundakul might not have an issue with authority figures, so long as they did not interfere with his or anyone elses ability to travel freely. That wandering nature is what makes the god chaotic. A cleric of Tempus might similarly not care, as long as the LG realm was regularly at war with its evil neighbors, or that king was regularly sending him out into fights. A cleric of Leira would undoubtably be very polite to a reigning monarch, the better to sow lies and confusion in his court as part of a long term plan. A cleric of Mystryl might not care about temporal power at all, but might very actively aid a lawful ruler in seeking out and stopping attempts to interfere in the time line. Likewise, a cleric of Shevarash would eagerly assist even the most oppressive ruler in any activities that involved killing drow.

I don't immediately see any CN deities that would require their clerics to be rude to authority figures just because. Maybe a cleric of a god of anarchy, or some Orc god that just hates humans in general.

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-13, 09:21 AM

MonochromeTiger

2014-02-13, 09:25 AM

Gnaeus

2014-02-13, 09:30 AM

In this case the deity is Zagyg, the deity of Humor, Eccentricity, Occult Lore, Unpredictability. His name is the Mad Archmage, so it's fair to assume that his cleric are bat-guano crazy. At least they should be telling jokes all the time. If such clerics doesn't tell any joke for a month or does nothing unpredictable, why should he receive spells.

Fair enough. If he isn't doing that stuff, give him a warning that he is out of favor with his deity. Maybe grant him random spells one day instead of the ones he asked for, just as a hint. Or bless him with some mild temporary delusion that he needs to RP. Then, he can either punch up his comedy routine, or go looking for another god that more closely reflects his personality. Did he just pick Zagyg for the domains?

Although even then, he could still not be impolite to authority figures, he might just try to throw a couple of jokes into the conversation. He bows, takes off his hat, and a rabbit jumps out, or something.

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-13, 09:51 AM

Fair enough. If he isn't doing that stuff, give him a warning that he is out of favor with his deity. Maybe grant him random spells one day instead of the ones he asked for, just as a hint. Or bless him with some mild temporary delusion that he needs to RP. Then, he can either punch up his comedy routine, or go looking for another god that more closely reflects his personality. Did he just pick Zagyg for the domains?

Although even then, he could still not be impolite to authority figures, he might just try to throw a couple of jokes into the conversation. He bows, takes off his hat, and a rabbit jumps out, or something.

I agree with you 100%. This is exactly what I should do.
Too bad I didn't mention the deity in the OP. I'm certain that would've saved me from a lot of hassle.

Bakeru

2014-02-13, 09:51 AM

In this case the deity is Zagyg, [...]In that case, going by this Greyhawk-Website (http://www.canonfire.com/wiki/index.php?title=Zagyg), the following points should be the biggest influences: Zagyg promotes "enlightened neutrality and uncertain humor" everywhere. He believes it incumbent to afflict his jokes on all he meets, preferably in a way that leaves them wondering for some time afterwards. He never creates a puzzle unless it has some solution. He continually searches for odd bits of arcane knowledge and occult lore, and his followers do the same. He frequently changes his habits, believing that predictability is the bane of creativity and wit.Looking for arcane lore and doing some practical jokes is the minimum, it seems, with actual randomness being encouraged. Zagyg has very few priests. They enjoy bringing humor and strangeness into the lives of others, and can often be found working as bards. They also seek to uncover lost magical knowledge. Jup, weirdness and looking for arcane secrets. One of Zagyg's few temples, the House of Zagyg, is a bizarre edifice with slanted, windowless walls, a skewed door, and an eccentric color scheme - purple, yellow, red, and pink. The floor is angled as well, the legs of the furniture cut to compensate. The temple is run by Abbot Kormath Burrsten; there were two other abbots, but they are "on sabbatical."...nothing definite, except that randomness (including just walking away from your post, apparently) is fine by him.

So, yah, given this information, the cleric seems to have been to neutral.
Not to neutral for his alignment, merely to neutral for his god - there's a difference there.
Still, he doesn't need to be actually insane, but apparently his god is a prankster, joke-teller and arcanist, so he should try to emulate him, that's what priests are for, after all.

Gnaeus

2014-02-13, 09:57 AM

for the bolded reason, if you're going to base the requirements for spells on the deity's domains it's only fair to account for all of them, so obtaining or spreading occult lore could be just as good a requirement as being highly impulsive or telling jokes.

The only reason I disagree with this is that Greyhawk has multiple magical deities. Just like occult secrets? Vecna is the god for you. Just like magic? Boccob, or Wee Jas. Zagyg is the magic god for the wizards who are a little bit different in the head.

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-13, 09:59 AM

Bakeru

2014-02-13, 10:00 AM

The only reason I disagree with this is that Greyhawk has multiple magical deities. Just like occult secrets? Vecna is the god for you. Just like magic? Boccob, or Wee Jas. Zagyg is the magic god for the wizards who are a little bit different in the head.Jup. Though, as has been mentioned, he really doesn't need to be rude - Zagyg is subservient to Boccob, actually doing as he's told. He's not right in the head, but he has no inherent problem with authority. (As long as said authority isn't bothered by his eccentricity, I guess)

hamishspence

2014-02-13, 10:37 AM

Tends? Maybe. But I'm convinced that trying to survive - even by force - when you have done nothing to cause the situation you're in isn't evil.

In Fiendish Codex 2, one of the layers has a prison for captured paladins - which is designed specifically to make it very hard to survive without committing evil acts (either terrorising other prisoners, or toadying to the guards).

Either tends to result in gravitation toward LE alignment.

It's kind of a Villain Thing, to pull this kind of stunt on heroes.

Scow2

2014-02-13, 10:45 AM

From their Alignment descriptor: often Chaotic Evil. "Often," not "usually" or "always" (and remember, the "always Chaotic Evil" Succubi include at least one example by canon of LG Paladin), meaning it's a tendency of a race a a whole, not of each individual Orc. That means that, statistically, going in to fight an Orc encampment (which wasn't my proposed scenario, incidentally) involves the killing of Neutral and/or Good Orcs who are merely guilty of being of the wrong Race and possibly defending their families, friends, and selves.

How can the killing of such beings be acceptable for Paladins, LG Clerics, or indeed, any Good Characters, by the parameters established within this thread?When it comes to "Often", that tends to be on a cultural level, not individual one. You won't find Nonevil orcs in a band of roving maurader orcs killing everyone in the world - you can find entire "Reformed" tribes entirely - perhaps they reject Gruumsh, and live in harmony with nature. Or they believe that the duty of the strong is to help others become strong as well. BUt again - it's not a "Gotcha" Good orc in an Evil camp - it's a tribe of Good or Neutral orcs.

Same with gnolls - you have packs that are distinctly "Butchers Brood", roving the land and enjoying their demonic heritage as they destroy all that is orderly and just... but you also have tribes that instead focus on just being animals and enjoying life.

Same with Goblins - There are Chaotic Evil roving goblins that take and kill on a whim, and you also have urban goblins that are slightly arsonist-inclined but otherwise decent (if obnoxious) citizens living in a city.

Red Fel

2014-02-13, 10:46 AM

Then clearly present a reasonable campaign setup where a Paladin - who hasn't foresworn lethal force - is allowed to adventure and kill without danger of falling.

Based on how Alignment and the actions that determine it have been defined within this thread, I postulate that this is not possible. Further, I'd posit that the notion that it's not possible is not an intention of the rules or Alignment system. . . and yet here we are.

1. Paladin fights and slays aggressive enemies.
1a. Paladin fights invading forces.
1b. Paladin travels, and is allowed to fight in self defense.
1c. Paladin slays dangerous evil creatures, such as Dragons, who are plaguing areas.
2. Paladin slays "Always Evil" creatures, including unintelligent Undead and Evil Outsiders.
2a. Oh, look, his class gives him tools explicitly for that purpose. How convenient.
3. Paladin fights non-lethally to prevent greater problems.
3a. Merciful weapons are a thing.
4. Paladin diplomances his way around unnecessary conflicts where the enemies are not Evil, are not aggressive, and do not deserve death or violence.
4a. Oh, look, Paladins need Charisma for class abilities. How convenient.

Are these restraints unreasonable? Yes. A player playing a Paladin to-the-letter like this would likely be more unbearable than a TN Druid who suddenly decides to fight on the side of the enemy "to maintain the balance." (I've seen this happen.) Is a player who plays like this adhering to the Paladin's alignment restrictions as written? Yes. And that's the key thing.

Your proposed scenario - "clearing out" a Goblin warren - does not require violence. It doesn't even require the PCs to take the job. The Paladin - a truly Good Paladin - learns very quickly and very effectively when and how to take the option that does not involve needless bloodshed. (Maybe that's because it's such an un-optimized class.) In the case of your hypothetical, it means - if the goblins are not Evil - he cannot kill them. If he feels they are an unwitting threat, he may attempt to negotiate them away, scare them off, or teach them safe practices; he may, as others have suggested, instead teach the villagers to protect themselves and about peaceful coexistence.

Your argument that it's impossible for the Paladin to adventure is invalid - any of these efforts would make, in my mind, an entertaining adventure.

Similarly, your argument that the Paladin cannot go around and kill things simply because these Goblins are not Evil is invalid. Evil constitutes 30% of the ordinary population (albeit not to a "let's kill 'em all" degree); how much moreso must it constitute a large part of the population of any "Usually Evil" or "Always Evil" race? Certainly, it's usually not safe to assume everything is Evil in a vacuum, but it's a reasonable assumption when something is charging at you with a spear in hand. If only Paladins had some sort of ability to detect if something was actually Evil...

Oh, wait.

Vogonjeltz

2014-02-13, 11:13 AM

hamishspence

2014-02-13, 11:59 AM

What is "compassionate" - and therefore, what is its opposite?

"To feel upset when one sees another suffer" - that feeling is compassion.

A couple of opposites:

"To feel upset when one sees another joyful"
"To feel happy when one sees another suffer"

The opposite of "Selfish" may be more "Self-sacrificing".

Scow2

2014-02-13, 01:24 PM

In the earlier "Time Bomb" fork we were given... I'd say both options, the "It doesn't matter what the world thinks - I do what ends best for everyone" and the "The Blood is on your hands, not mine, Villain!" are BOTH "Good" options, with the result of the guy choosing to avenge either the person he felt forced to kill, or the thousands that died at the hands of the villain. Alignment is not a straightjacket.

When there are no right answers, there are no wrong answers either.

Amphetryon

2014-02-13, 02:05 PM

1. Paladin fights and slays aggressive enemies.
1a. Paladin fights invading forces.
1b. Paladin travels, and is allowed to fight in self defense.
1c. Paladin slays dangerous evil creatures, such as Dragons, who are plaguing areas.
2. Paladin slays "Always Evil" creatures, including unintelligent Undead and Evil Outsiders.
2a. Oh, look, his class gives him tools explicitly for that purpose. How convenient.
3. Paladin fights non-lethally to prevent greater problems.
3a. Merciful weapons are a thing.
4. Paladin diplomances his way around unnecessary conflicts where the enemies are not Evil, are not aggressive, and do not deserve death or violence.
4a. Oh, look, Paladins need Charisma for class abilities. How convenient.

Are these restraints unreasonable? Yes. A player playing a Paladin to-the-letter like this would likely be more unbearable than a TN Druid who suddenly decides to fight on the side of the enemy "to maintain the balance." (I've seen this happen.) Is a player who plays like this adhering to the Paladin's alignment restrictions as written? Yes. And that's the key thing.

Your proposed scenario - "clearing out" a Goblin warren - does not require violence. It doesn't even require the PCs to take the job. The Paladin - a truly Good Paladin - learns very quickly and very effectively when and how to take the option that does not involve needless bloodshed. (Maybe that's because it's such an un-optimized class.) In the case of your hypothetical, it means - if the goblins are not Evil - he cannot kill them. If he feels they are an unwitting threat, he may attempt to negotiate them away, scare them off, or teach them safe practices; he may, as others have suggested, instead teach the villagers to protect themselves and about peaceful coexistence.

Your argument that it's impossible for the Paladin to adventure is invalid - any of these efforts would make, in my mind, an entertaining adventure.

Similarly, your argument that the Paladin cannot go around and kill things simply because these Goblins are not Evil is invalid. Evil constitutes 30% of the ordinary population (albeit not to a "let's kill 'em all" degree); how much moreso must it constitute a large part of the population of any "Usually Evil" or "Always Evil" race? Certainly, it's usually not safe to assume everything is Evil in a vacuum, but it's a reasonable assumption when something is charging at you with a spear in hand. If only Paladins had some sort of ability to detect if something was actually Evil...

Oh, wait.

Invading forces aren't necessarily Evil, and are often 'just following orders.' If that's LG behavior to you, our definitions are likely incompatible.

Paladin goes around waiting for people/monsters to attack her, and responds with lethal force. There are clearly no moral or ethical issues here, and this is a perfectly fine setup for a campaign.

Paladin slays dangerous Evil creatures who are plaguing the area. . . in their lair? While they're not actively engaging in Evil, or even actively plaguing the area? I'm not the first, nor even the first in this thread, to argue that the Paladin's behavior here is neither Lawful nor Good.

Paladin slays "always Evil" creatures, like the canonical Succubus Paladin. Oh, wait. It turns out "always Evil" in D&D allows for exceptions.

Luckily, the Paladin's Detect Evil can never be fooled. http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/detectevilfulltweaked_9875.gif This is not to mention repeated arguments that indicate a Paladin who uses a "Detect Evil/Evil confirmed/SMITE!" paradigm is almost certain to fall due to zealotry and not allowing Evil to be nuanced.

Paladin fighting non-lethally is directly ignoring the proviso I gave where the Paladin continues to use lethal force. That sounds a lot like moving the goalposts.

Merciful weapons are indeed a thing. Please explain how you're affording them when just starting out - remember, the example Paladin starts adventuring at 1st level. Merciful weapons are also addressed in my previous point.

Paladin diplomancing around everything sounds lovely, except all the conditions you listed that tell him when diplomacy is appropriate have already been addressed, above, and found to be faulty with at least enough regularity to cause issues with the method - particularly at low levels where Diplomacy is not yet a truly reliable tool. Paladin diplomancing around everything also leaves the rest of the party seriously twiddling their thumbs in most campaign setups.

So. . . .

Bazza McSpleen

2014-02-13, 02:51 PM

Well, here's my take (I'm new on here, be gentle :smalleek: )

As far as I'm concerned on the TTB problem as stated here, Segev and Abadonna are entirely correct.

But there's another thing that I don't think anyone has addressed here - the TTB problem is not just an issue of ethics, or morality. It's actually both.

Let me put forward the argument thus: the ethical action (greater good, needs of the many etc.) is to kill the child, and thus save the city.

However, the moral action is to refuse to kill the child.

I would further argue that the Paladin would not fall for refusing to murder a child. The destruction of the city is on the hands of the villain, not the paladin, and the only actively evil act in the whole scenario is the murder of an innocent.

Note also that refusal to murder the child, and refusing to make the decision to do one or the other are not the same (they may have the same result, but they are by no means equal). Refusing to make the decision could also result in the paladin's fall, but the simple refusal to murder an innocent would not.

All IMO obviously :smallbiggrin:

Segev

2014-02-13, 02:53 PM

Invading forces aren't necessarily Evil, and are often 'just following orders.' If that's LG behavior to you, our definitions are likely incompatible.Ah, so you see nothing wrong with "just following orders" when said orders are evil? I mean, seriously, you're Godwin-baiting here, when you choose that specific quote.

And even accepting your claim, it absolves our paladin, as well. If it's fine, because they're just following orders and doing their job, for the "good orc" to be part of this invading force, it's equally fine for our paladin, who is just defending or reclaiming the land that belongs to the invaders' victims, to kill said orc along with any others who don't surrender or at least retreat.

Without accepting your claim, we still have your "good" orcs not being so good, and thus our Paladin is in the clear to fight them with lethal force as long as they're using lethal force to invade.

Paladin goes around waiting for people/monsters to attack her, and responds with lethal force. There are clearly no moral or ethical issues here, and this is a perfectly fine setup for a campaign.You say that sarcastically, but it's uncalled-for. There ARE no moral or ethical issues with waiting to be attacked and responding with lethal force. Not if all you're doing is "waiting." And, since you're a stickler for not adding new conditions, I will assume that is all that is happening: Paladin is standing around, just existing in an area, and responds in kind to any lethal force used against him.

Non-sentient monsters, this would be called "hunting," and (like it or not) that is behavior that is perfectly acceptable in the kinds of cultures D&D typically emulates. Sentient monsters/people, if they're attacking him unprovoked (which, if all he's doing is waiting out in the wilds to be attacked, he's not provoking anybody of non-evil alignment), have revealed themselves to be hazardous to innocent travelers by actively attacking somebody who's done nothing to them (by the conditions you've established). So he's in the clear for attacking them back and making sure they don't go pick on somebody weaker, later.

Paladin slays dangerous Evil creatures who are plaguing the area. . . in their lair? While they're not actively engaging in Evil, or even actively plaguing the area? I'm not the first, nor even the first in this thread, to argue that the Paladin's behavior here is neither Lawful nor Good.Why not? Are you going to claim that, after a serial killer is done with his killings for the night, that the cops are morally wrong for hunting him down in his home?

Really, Amphetryon, when you've got a known monster - in the "hazardous to all around him because of a pattern of harmful behavior" sense - it is not exactly unprovoked murder to hunt them down in their lair.

You said yourself they're "plaguing the area." That they're not out actively attacking a farmer or kidnapping a princess or performing banditry on hapless peddlers at that very moment doesn't change that they've been doing it for a while and there's no indication they'll stop. So the paladin is, yes, perfectly allowed to go hunt down this monster in its lair.

Paladin slays "always Evil" creatures, like the canonical Succubus Paladin. Oh, wait. It turns out "always Evil" in D&D allows for exceptions.Indeed it does. Typically, a paladin not being played Stupid will not be looking to attack anybody when they're just lounging around with no indication they've done anything to deserve it.

This is not to mention repeated arguments that indicate a Paladin who uses a "Detect Evil/Evil confirmed/SMITE!" paradigm is almost certain to fall due to zealotry and not allowing Evil to be nuanced.I don't think anybody's really claiming the "detect evil/smite" auto-response Paladin is the "right" way to play them. Not in this thread, at least. You're attacking a straw man.

Paladin fighting non-lethally is directly ignoring the proviso I gave where the Paladin continues to use lethal force. That sounds a lot like moving the goalposts.Only because you are trying to find reasons to argue. It is one of many responses given. And yes, it does seem reasonable that a Paladin would want a Merciful weapon. Many Good people would.

Merciful weapons are indeed a thing. Please explain how you're affording them when just starting out - remember, the example Paladin starts adventuring at 1st level. Merciful weapons are also addressed in my previous point.Irrelevant, given that plenty of other responses have been given to explain how, exactly, a typical adventuring paladin would operate just fine.

Paladin diplomancing around everything sounds lovely, except all the conditions you listed that tell him when diplomacy is appropriate have already been addressed, above, and found to be faulty with at least enough regularity to cause issues with the method - particularly at low levels where Diplomacy is not yet a truly reliable tool.Really? I am not seeing these "addressings" of this notion. Could you explicitly point them out? And, if I've responded to them in another context in this post, explain why my responses don't invalidate your addressing of this issue?

Paladin diplomancing around everything also leaves the rest of the party seriously twiddling their thumbs in most campaign setups.

So. . . .Only if the rest of the party is solely built for hack-and-slash, in which case the DM probably shouldn't be designing adventures that have the level of ambiguity that makes hack-and-slash questionably moral.

Red Fel

2014-02-13, 03:46 PM

You keep moving the goalposts, Amph. Keep changing the hypothetical. That's just dirty pool.

Invading forces aren't necessarily Evil, and are often 'just following orders.' If that's LG behavior to you, our definitions are likely incompatible.

Know what's LG in my book? Defending innocents against an aggressor. If there are innocent villagers, and an invading army is attacking, it doesn't matter if they're Good or not. (And admittedly, it'd be hard for them to stay Good while attacking innocents en masse.) An army is not a person with whom you can negotiate; it is a massive blob of warlike chaos. To defend the innocent, an LG Paladin can fight invaders, even non-Evil ones.

Yes. That's LG behavior to me.

Paladin goes around waiting for people/monsters to attack her, and responds with lethal force. There are clearly no moral or ethical issues here, and this is a perfectly fine setup for a campaign.

That's absolutely correct. If someone attacks me, I can defend myself. If someone attacks me with lethal force - as most monsters or predators are likely to do - I can defend myself with lethal force. And there are no moral or ethical issues there.

Paladin slays dangerous Evil creatures who are plaguing the area. . . in their lair? While they're not actively engaging in Evil, or even actively plaguing the area? I'm not the first, nor even the first in this thread, to argue that the Paladin's behavior here is neither Lawful nor Good.

Segev put it extremely succinctly. An Evil creature does not cease to be Evil simply because it is not acting in an Evil manner at that moment. So, yes, slaying the Dragon in its lair would be Good. But I never said slaying it in its lair - I just said slaying it. Don't put words in my mouth or change the scenario.

Paladin slays "always Evil" creatures, like the canonical Succubus Paladin. Oh, wait. It turns out "always Evil" in D&D allows for exceptions.

It does. I acknowledge that there are exceptions. Funny thing about D&D morality, though, is that it doesn't paint a distinction. An Outsider (Evil) remains Evil despite becoming Good. Even the canonical Succubus Paladin is an LG Outsider (Chaotic, Evil). By the technical RAW, killing her would be a Good action. I wouldn't advise it, but it's technically alright.

Yes. "Always Evil" allows for exceptions, and a Paladin shouldn't rely on the rule that "this is Evil and therefore must die" to decide what to kill. That said, if you see an Evil Outsider - even a Succubus - doing anything other than sipping tea with uncle or helping grandma across the street, there's a reasonable chance you're catching it in the middle of doing something Evil.

Stop sitting there and kill it before it succeeds.

Luckily, the Paladin's Detect Evil can never be fooled. http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/detectevilfulltweaked_9875.gif This is not to mention repeated arguments that indicate a Paladin who uses a "Detect Evil/Evil confirmed/SMITE!" paradigm is almost certain to fall due to zealotry and not allowing Evil to be nuanced.

I never said "Detect/Confirm/Smite." Did you read that someplace in my post? Again, don't put words in my mouth.

I said that Detect Evil is a useful tool; I find it's good for confirming one's suspicions. Is it infallible? No. Should you be suspicious if someone holds a mysterious relic or a lead sheet while you scan them? I would be.

But the point is that a Paladin should not assume a thing to be Evil and therefore smite-worthy. That's why they have Detect Evil - to confirm their suspicions before they do something serious.

Paladin fighting non-lethally is directly ignoring the proviso I gave where the Paladin continues to use lethal force. That sounds a lot like moving the goalposts.

Pot, kettle. Your original scenario was "a paladin who hasn't foresworn lethal force," not one who only uses lethal force. I think that a Paladin who refuses to use non-lethal force is almost begging for a fall scenario; there is a time and a place for everything.

Merciful weapons are indeed a thing. Please explain how you're affording them when just starting out - remember, the example Paladin starts adventuring at 1st level. Merciful weapons are also addressed in my previous point.

If a DM is subjecting the PCs to moral quandaries at first level, he's going to make things hard for the Paladin; that's just the nature of things. Frankly, any combat is a hazard at first level, regardless of class or morality. And since you want me to rule out diplomacy (see below) that basically means that every adventure is a combat adventure.

If a DM places only combat in front of the characters, and nothing else, and the combat is morally questionable, then the DM is essentially forcing the Paladin to either fall or leave the table. That is not okay, and that's a bad scenario.

And as an aside, Merciful weapons aren't the only way to deal non-lethal damage.

Paladin diplomancing around everything sounds lovely, except all the conditions you listed that tell him when diplomacy is appropriate have already been addressed, above, and found to be faulty with at least enough regularity to cause issues with the method - particularly at low levels where Diplomacy is not yet a truly reliable tool. Paladin diplomancing around everything also leaves the rest of the party seriously twiddling their thumbs in most campaign setups.

Who says the Paladin has to be the only diplomancer? Who says the adventure has to be combat-only? Paladin is one of few melee classes whose abilities permit him to be functional, if not optimal, outside of combat; do you want to deprive him of this?

And I'll take it a step further. If you try diplomacy, and the other side is nonetheless intent on harvesting you and your allies for spare parts, do you know what that means? It means self-defense has become justified.

So. . . .

Yes?

Abaddona

2014-02-13, 04:13 PM

First thing - say "hi" to sap: light handy 1d6 non-lethal damage for 1 gold piece. Coincidentally also a weapon which every sane adventurer should have if he wants to spend some time in any city (unless your DM tends to handwave those little details like "butchering few thugs on the street probably should catch attention of city guards - and they by definition don't like people killing other people").
Diplomancing - hmmm, charisma as one of main stats, diplomacy, sense motive and knowledge (nobility and royalty) on a class skill list = it's actually quite easy to get +11 to skill on second level. If you are playing with retraining rules he also can take skill focus (diplomacy) and retrain it later to something more usefull.

So, Amphetryon - what exactly is your problem here?

veti

2014-02-13, 04:47 PM

Then clearly present a reasonable campaign setup where a Paladin - who hasn't foresworn lethal force - is allowed to adventure and kill without danger of falling.

Several posters have already done that, and you've rejected their answers on the grounds (as far as I can follow your logic) that you weren't the one that presented them. As here:

Who included "innocent of any harm" in my scenario? Who indicated the goblins were bandits in my scenario? I don't recall including either of those things, yet they were clearly assumed in the above justification for murder and robbery.

The answer to both of those questions is that you described a scenario where none of this information was included, and the reply you got was that "it depends on these things, which typically a DM will include in their setup". So the answer to "Who?" is: "The DM who runs the campaign."

Invading forces aren't necessarily Evil, and are often 'just following orders.' If that's LG behavior to you, our definitions are likely incompatible.

I don't care what alignment they are. The important word there is "invading". If you're a defensive fighter, you kill invaders. They may be absolutely anything on the alignment spectrum - what makes them a legitimate target is their actions (invading), not the inmost secrets of their hearts.

Paladin goes around waiting for people/monsters to attack her, and responds with lethal force. There are clearly no moral or ethical issues here, and this is a perfectly fine setup for a campaign.

Obviously, "goes around" is the far-too-vague bit of that description. Wandering the streets of a civilised city, is she justified in killing someone who leaps from the shadows and tries to slit her throat? Damn' straight she is. Wandering the wilds far from anywhere, is she justified in killing someone who shoots at her from behind a tree? No, there might be any number of reasons for that, and she should probably retreat and make some effort to find out what they are before retaliating. She may have inadvertently wandered into someone's domain, or into the middle of a conflict zone.

Paladin slays dangerous Evil creatures who are plaguing the area. . . in their lair? While they're not actively engaging in Evil, or even actively plaguing the area? I'm not the first, nor even the first in this thread, to argue that the Paladin's behavior here is neither Lawful nor Good.

Define "plaguing the area". Seriously, why do you persist in these hugely vague scenarios? I wouldn't put up with that from any DM.

Why do you use the word "Evil" in this context? If all it means is "pings positive on paladin radar", then it makes no difference whatsoever. Or is it shorthand for "raiding, robbing, killing, burning, destroying people all around them?" In which case, that's a highly relevant, and separate, bit of information.

Vogonjeltz

2014-02-13, 07:03 PM

MonochromeTiger

2014-02-13, 07:09 PM

According to the rules, only the second option is good. Doing something evil, no matter the intent or outcome, makes the whole thing evil.

I'm a little surprised they don't have the simple and obvious third option of "trick the villain". use a magical sleep or "false death" effect on the person the villain wants you to kill, play it off as having killed them complete with self loathing and horror at what the character was forced to do, remove the effect from the person when you're confident you stopped the threat to everyone else. when you have characters capable of magic most arbitrary choices between two bad results become less threatening.

Bakeru

2014-02-13, 07:25 PM

According to the rules, only the second option is good. Doing something evil, no matter the intent or outcome, makes the whole thing evil.There's no way it is Good - you're doing nothing to stop the villain. It might be "not alignment relevant"-Neutral, but that's it.

Pan151

2014-02-13, 08:24 PM

I'm a little surprised they don't have the simple and obvious third option of "trick the villain". use a magical sleep or "false death" effect on the person the villain wants you to kill, play it off as having killed them complete with self loathing and horror at what the character was forced to do, remove the effect from the person when you're confident you stopped the threat to everyone else. when you have characters capable of magic most arbitrary choices between two bad results become less threatening.

The whole point is that there is a hypothetical situation where the only choices are kill the child, refuse to kill the child and refuse to make a decission. Adding other options defeats the point of the excercise.

At any rate, while all 3 options are evil and would cause the paladin to fall, the important difference is what would happen next. If the paladin kills the kid then his patron god would accept that he did it to save the lives of the many, and welcome him back once he atones. If he doesn't kill the kid, (or, even worse, refuses to make a decission) then he has demonstrated that he is not fit to protect the many over the few, and no patron god in their right mind would ever accept his atonement.

Lord Vukodlak

2014-02-13, 08:55 PM

The whole point is that there is a hypothetical situation where the only choices are kill the child, refuse to kill the child and refuse to make a decission. Adding other options defeats the point of the excercise.
No it proves the exercise is stupid and irrelevant any DM who refused to allow any other option would be accused of railroading and called all manner of nasty things. If player's are ever placed in the situation of kill the child(and save millions), refuse to kill the child(and doom millions) or do nothing. The correct course of action is save them both because the fun of being presented with the Kobayashi Maru scenario is winning.

Even within the limited confines of the hypothetical there is another option. How old is this child? He could be old enough to decide to take his own life rather then allow millions to die.

Pan151

2014-02-13, 09:11 PM

No it proves the exercise is stupid and irrelevant any DM who refused to allow any other option would be accused of railroading and called all manner of nasty things. If player's are ever placed in the situation of kill the child(and save millions), refuse to kill the child(and doom millions) or do nothing. The correct course of action is save them both because the fun of being presented with the Kobayashi Maru scenario is winning.

Even within the limited confines of the hypothetical there is another option. How old is this child? He could be old enough to decide to take his own life rather then allow millions to die.

Which is exactly why it's called a hypothetical situation. Because none of the variants that would exist in a real situation exist.

It's not about if and how this should exist in an actual game. It's a purely theoretical dilemma.

Vogonjeltz

2014-02-13, 09:15 PM

There's no way it is Good - you're doing nothing to stop the villain. It might be "not alignment relevant"-Neutral, but that's it.

In terms of the rules of d&d it absolutely is. And trying to stop the villain but failing isn't doing nothing.

rexx1888

2014-02-13, 09:20 PM

on the TTB thing:

i would argue that in a normal everyday world, all options presented are neutral. Whether you like it or not, even with justications floating in your head, you are still going to feel truly crappy about what you just did(or didnt do as the case may be). However, since its a no win scenario, its really hard to actually say that the choice you made was specifically evil. In a choice with no clear good option, how can you say taking any of the available options is bad. thats real world ethics and morality. Thats the sort of thing people deal with every day. Some people think they are evil, others think they are good, and no one really wins.

however, in dnd world, the answer is alot simpler. As has been pointed out in this thread many a time, dnd only cares about actions. It gives no hoots about your motivation, and it doesnt consider inaction to be an action in relation to alignment(at best its considered neutral and has no bearing on a paladin falling or what have you). DnD world says that killing an innocent is evil, but that doing nothing is NA or neutral depending on your inclination. So, in DND the GOOD thing to do still doesnt exist, but since there is an active evil option, not taking it is the only GOOD thing you can do(by dint of not touching your alignment, not actually being GOOD).

So, yay we just discovered that in a game like dnd morality and ethics are all very screwed up and we should flat out stop using the alignment system before it makes our kids crazy. maybe instead when we build a new system we could just do what happens in real life, and punish people using the rules of law.. o wait that systems kinda stupid as well, balls :\

Pan151

2014-02-13, 09:20 PM

In terms of the rules of d&d it absolutely is. And trying to stop the villain but failing isn't doing nothing.

I don't know if trying to stop the villain is non-evil when it risks the deaths of a million times more people that ther otherwise would be, but it cairtainly qualifies as Stupid.

Lord Vukodlak

2014-02-13, 09:21 PM

It's not about if and how this should exist in an actual game. It's a purely theoretical dilemma.

Which means it is pointless and irrelevant. Hypothetical doesn't mean it couldn't exist in a real situation. A good hypothetical question presents a situation that could happen. If you take away all the options there is no point in asking the question.

MonochromeTiger

2014-02-13, 09:23 PM

Which is exactly why it's called a hypothetical situation.

if the situation is hypothetical the answer has no point conforming to simple options of falling one way or falling the other way. if asked a hypothetical I'm not obligated to give the person asking a response they'll like, nor am I obligated to give them a response expected by the question itself. if you ask me a hypothetical question without VERY specific restrictions I will abuse that fact, and you can't exactly expect better in a game that gives options and has people actively theorizing all the different ways they can break reality in their spare time.

you say there are only two options, I took an option in a way the hypothetical situation wasn't built to understand, to the eyes of all involved that option was taken in its entirety, the individual "died" as far as anyone watching can see from a spell cast by the hero, the lawful evil villain releases the city as promised. now that they aren't able to immediately destroy said city the exercise's options are exhausted and thus the hypothetical question is over, you're now free to reveal the deception. playing the system beat the challenge and unless the person who asked the question is willing to go into childishly changing their mind because I didn't lose like they wanted I feel no need to care that their flawed trap had a way out.

edit: in other words, life's not fair, if the game itself is unfair and rigged to make you fail...cheat. better yet play fair but in a way that feels so close to cheating that whoever tried to force you into an unwinnable situation doesn't find the holes in their trap.

Bakeru

2014-02-13, 09:26 PM

In terms of the rules of d&d it absolutely is. And trying to stop the villain but failing isn't doing nothing.But "not killing the child" isn't "trying to stop the villain", it's just "doing nothing". Saying no to evil isn't good, it's neutral. Don't forget, there's a middle ground.

I can see that in D&D-RAW, killing the child is evil (though I don't agree that it should be), but not killing it is merely not affecting the alignment. Both neutral and good characters have valid reasons not to kill the child.

TuggyNE

2014-02-13, 09:57 PM

are you sure you want to phrase it that way without context? there's a difference between inquiring about methods and jumping up and down on the "take offense" button to tempt fate.

Well put.

Yes. Instead of straight up changing the characters alignment because he didnt agree to how chaotic was, he decided to "talk" to the player. It doesn`t matter if the player agreed. He still tried to make someone play different. In my book that is bollocks.

Others may see it different.

Compromise is fine: if you sit down and agree between yourselves that X is how things should go in the game, that's just a normal part of friendship. It's when the DM dictates "X way or the highway" that you have problems.

A player does not have some sort of high and lonely destiny, solely responsible for determining their character's personality with no input from anyone else. Give and take is reasonable, and indeed often necessary.

Amphetryon

2014-02-13, 10:21 PM

You say that sarcastically, but it's uncalled-for. There ARE no moral or ethical issues with waiting to be attacked and responding with lethal force. Not if all you're doing is "waiting." And, since you're a stickler for not adding new conditions, I will assume that is all that is happening: Paladin is standing around, just existing in an area, and responds in kind to any lethal force used against him
This means that - in your setting - vigilante justice is perfectly Lawful and Good. So far as I can tell, that's neither the default, nor true outside of game. Unfortunately, citing evidence of this untruth would be mixing in real world events and therefore against forum rules.

MonochromeTiger

2014-02-13, 10:29 PM

Amphetryon

2014-02-13, 10:36 PM

self defense is "vigilante justice" now? if your character is attacked it takes a very special kind of good alignment to sit there hoping you can dodge or block everything because "killing the thing actively trying to kill me sounds like the job for a guard".

If you're going out with that intent, as the response above indicated? Yes, it is vigilante justice. If that doesn't fit your definition of vigilante justice, I'm curious what would; as I said, I could give specific examples but for forum rules.

MonochromeTiger

2014-02-13, 10:42 PM

If you're going out with that intent, as the response above indicated? Yes, it is vigilante justice. If that doesn't fit your definition of vigilante justice, I'm curious what would; as I said, I could give specific examples but for forum rules.

you're going out, likely exploring or adventuring or on your way to some other important activity, if you get attacked you defend yourself, if your intention is to NOT defend yourself I suggest having a very high move speed and AC because in most setting where going out into the wild is dangerous being attacked will be inevitable. as such, yes the intention is preventing yourself from being harmed and also removing something dangerous that randomly attacks people while they travel since it so kindly attacked you to prove it doesn't feel social today. perhaps you would also like to add loitering if the paladin stays anywhere but one of his or her deity's holy sites for more than 5 minutes of in game time?

Lord Vukodlak

2014-02-13, 10:53 PM

Red Fel

2014-02-13, 10:56 PM

This means that - in your setting - vigilante justice is perfectly Lawful and Good. So far as I can tell, that's neither the default, nor true outside of game. Unfortunately, citing evidence of this untruth would be mixing in real world events and therefore against forum rules.

Self-defense is not vigilante justice. It is not non-Lawful; Inevitables (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/inevitable.htm) do it.

Inevitables take self-defense very seriously; anyone who attacks an inevitable with what the creature perceives as deadly force is met with deadly force in return.

Nor is it non-Good. Trithereon, a Greyhawk deity, represents individuality, liberty, retribution, and self-defense. He's Chaotic Good, in case you were wondering.

Indeed, "retribution" as a concept is often associated with figures that are both Lawful and Good, as a form of immediate justice. Self-defense is that taken to a practical level.

And don't try to bring in "outside of game" logic. Ignoring for the moment the fact that most legal systems find self-defense an effective defense in a criminal action where the defender was not the aggressor and did not use disproportionate or unreasonable force, you've been painfully avoiding any outside logic in your hypotheticals. Your scenarios have been carefully constructed vacuum-sealed boxes, and you've criticized any attempt to use external logic. You don't get to change that rule this late in the game.

Short version? Self-defense, if proportionate, is perfectly legitimate, generally legal, and certainly not non-Good.

If you're going out with that intent, as the response above indicated? Yes, it is vigilante justice. If that doesn't fit your definition of vigilante justice, I'm curious what would; as I said, I could give specific examples but for forum rules.

Who said you're going out with that intent? I only said that the Paladin goes out exploring, and employs self-defense.

I happen to think that exploration, seeing the great, wide world, is one of the wonderful things about tabletop games in general, and D&D in particular. I could see a Paladin just traveling the world, and offering a helping hand to the weak and downtrodden. And if the Paladin happens to be attacked, well, that's self-defense, perfectly legitimate, isn't it?

But even if we assume that the Paladin is going out with that intent, it's not vigilante justice. It's careless and stupid, walking around hoping to get attacked, but it's not vigilante justice.

Vigilante justice is generally seen as a person pursuing criminals in defiance and circumvention of local laws. This isn't that. This is, for example, a Paladin walking through a high-crime area, looking harmless, knowing that he may be mugged at any moment. It's not vigilante justice if he actually gets mugged and defends himself.

It is if he chases the muggers down, and attacks them in their lair, but at that point, he has confirmed that the person he is pursuing is a mugger, and is thus potentially Evil. But that's not what we're describing.

Vogonjeltz

2014-02-13, 11:54 PM

But "not killing the child" isn't "trying to stop the villain", it's just "doing nothing". Saying no to evil isn't good, it's neutral. Don't forget, there's a middle ground.

I can see that in D&D-RAW, killing the child is evil (though I don't agree that it should be), but not killing it is merely not affecting the alignment. Both neutral and good characters have valid reasons not to kill the child.

According to the BoED neutral characters might be willing to cross the moral event horizon and commit evil acts to try and achieve a desired outcome. It is, however still evil.

Inaction, by definition, is not an act, so no moral outlook can be assigned to it.

Bakeru

2014-02-14, 12:11 AM

According to the BoED neutral characters might be willing to cross the moral event horizon and commit evil acts to try and achieve a desired outcome. It is, however still evil.

Inaction, by definition, is not an act, so no moral outlook can be assigned to it.It should be noted that Exalted Good isn't the same as "regular guy" Good. A Paladin killing the child would fall, because by D&D-RAW, doing so is Evil. Any Exalted Good character would loose whatever bonuses he gets from being Exalted Good (and the book points out that this does not only mean he loses his bonuses, but represents a deeper victory of evil, thus being Not Actually Worth It). I disagree with this, but it's still RAW.

But for a "regular Good" guy who just wants to help people? Well, such people can do an occasional evil deed without directly changing alignment. They could kill the child and stay Good. If it becomes to common (in fact, if it becomes anything but "worst case scenario"), then he'll shift first towards neutrality and later against evil, but not due to one thing.

Scow2

2014-02-14, 01:11 AM

TuggyNE

2014-02-14, 01:46 AM

hamishspence

2014-02-14, 02:21 AM

Vigilante Justice IS Lawful And Good. If it's not Good, it's not Justice. Vigilantism (Derived from the term "Vigilant") is Lawful, because it's enforcing and spreading Order when the appointed guardians of order have failed. The reason modern society tends to frown on Vigilantism is because it boils down to "His word Vs. Mine", and because it's usually pulled off by amateurs who will commit worse offenses in the process of trying to bring the perpetrator to justice.

Batman is Lawful Good because of his Vigilante Justice (Though he doesn't usually use lethal force because he can afford not to through skill), bringing order and justice to Gotham City when the GCPD has failed due to corruption and worse.

The Giant's take on Law and Vigilantism in D&D may be of interest here: it's possible to be a Lawful Vigilante who pays attention only to their own "punish the wicked" personal code - but very difficult:

In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

So as far as vigilantism goes, if a character has a specific pre-established personal code that involves personally punishing those who commit offenses, then yes, they could still be Lawful. Most characters do not have such a code; most characters simply follow general ideas of their alignment on a case-by-case basis. Certainly none of the characters in OOTS have such a code except perhaps for Miko. And we all saw what a slippery slope that turned out to be.

Lanaya

2014-02-14, 04:44 AM

Inaction, by definition, is not an act, so no moral outlook can be assigned to it.

So if I'm hanging on the edge of a cliff for dear life and you stumble upon me, it's not even slightly evil to pull up a chair, take out a book and have a nice, relaxing read while trying to ignore my cries for help?

Amphetryon

2014-02-14, 07:45 AM

Vigilantes tend to be unlawful because they are explicitly bypassing existing laws and procedures in the belief that they personally know better. That is a strongly chaotic attitude, and indeed mob rule generally reduces to might makes right. Often, though by no means always, this ends up CE.

Fortunately, self-defense is quite different, since it is not a deliberate attempt to solve problems outside the law: it's a matter of strict necessity, and what's more, one generally recognized lawfully. Therefore, self-defense is generally ethically and morally neutral.

Note that my response was never about mere self-defense, but about deliberately setting out in the hopes that people and monsters would attack you in order to 'claim' self-defense in the use of lethal force.

Gnaeus

2014-02-14, 08:25 AM

Batman is Lawful Good because of his Vigilante Justice (Though he doesn't usually use lethal force because he can afford not to through skill), bringing order and justice to Gotham City when the GCPD has failed due to corruption and worse.

http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/3949151/batman-alignment-chart/

Batman is notoriously depicted as being of all different alignments, depending on who is writing that issue. Sometimes he is willing to resort to torture, usually he isn't. Sometimes he kills, usually he doesn't. Sometimes he is driven by a desire for justice, sometimes for revenge, sometimes he is just kind of insane. Note that probably the closest D&D equivalent, the god Shevarash, who hunts the Drow as a result of a massacre they committed, is CN.

Abaddona

2014-02-14, 08:34 AM

Except in every campaing you are not "setting out in the hope that you will be attacked", but you are simply going from point A to point B. And even if you are indeed "setting out in the hope that you will be attacked" that this still isn't reason to fall because other party is attacking you (claiming otherwise is like claiming that someone deserved to be robbed because he was standing there and looked very provocative). To fall in this way you would have to basically force the other party to attack you when they would normally peacefully walked past you.

Segev

2014-02-14, 09:13 AM

There's no way it is Good - you're doing nothing to stop the villain. It might be "not alignment relevant"-Neutral, but that's it.

It's "neutral" in the sense that it is "non-evil, but not pro-actively good." There is, in the scenario as presented, with options restricted by definition of the scenario to "kill child or do nothing," no pro-actively good solution. But lack of pro-actively good solutions does not cause you to slip from good alignment.

You are not guilty because you didn't stop the murders that happened in Chicago last night. You were powerless to prevent them. The good man in this hypothetical scenario is, per definition, powerless to actually stop the villain. He can sate the villain's bloodlust in an alternate way by taking a pro-actively evil action, but the blood remains on the villain's hands if the good man does nothing. (Note: "All that is required for evil to win is for a good man to do nothing" requires that there be something to PREVENT EVIL the good man can do. This scenario outright defines away all non-evil pro-active actions.)

Red Fel

2014-02-14, 09:16 AM

Note that my response was never about mere self-defense, but about deliberately setting out in the hopes that people and monsters would attack you in order to 'claim' self-defense in the use of lethal force.

As I mentioned above:

Who said you're going out with that intent? I only said that the Paladin goes out exploring, and employs self-defense.

I happen to think that exploration, seeing the great, wide world, is one of the wonderful things about tabletop games in general, and D&D in particular. I could see a Paladin just traveling the world, and offering a helping hand to the weak and downtrodden. And if the Paladin happens to be attacked, well, that's self-defense, perfectly legitimate, isn't it?

But even if we assume that the Paladin is going out with that intent, it's not vigilante justice. It's careless and stupid, walking around hoping to get attacked, but it's not vigilante justice.

Vigilante justice is generally seen as a person pursuing criminals in defiance and circumvention of local laws. This isn't that. This is, for example, a Paladin walking through a high-crime area, looking harmless, knowing that he may be mugged at any moment. It's not vigilante justice if he actually gets mugged and defends himself.

It is if he chases the muggers down, and attacks them in their lair, but at that point, he has confirmed that the person he is pursuing is a mugger, and is thus potentially Evil. But that's not what we're describing.

Segev

2014-02-14, 09:17 AM

At any rate, while all 3 options are evil and would cause the paladin to fall, the important difference is what would happen next.False. There is a neutral option and an evil option on the table in the scenario as presented. The paladin taking the evil option (murdering the child with his own hand) would cause him to fall. Neutral inaction is not grounds for falling. Certainly not when it happens only once, and it was clear that he literally could not have taken good action.

If the paladin kills the kid then his patron god would accept that he did it to save the lives of the many, and welcome him back once he atones. If he doesn't kill the kid, (or, even worse, refuses to make a decission) then he has demonstrated that he is not fit to protect the many over the few, and no patron god in their right mind would ever accept his atonement.Or, if he kills the kid, his patron god refuses to accept his atonement because Paladins are explicitly unable to atone for evil acts willingly taken. If he doesn't kill the kid, he's shown that he is not susceptible to mind games played by evil beings designed to twist the Paladin's ethos into something other than the paragon of good he should be.

Segev

2014-02-14, 09:21 AM

So if I'm hanging on the edge of a cliff for dear life and you stumble upon me, it's not even slightly evil to pull up a chair, take out a book and have a nice, relaxing read while trying to ignore my cries for help?

In this scenario, there is pro-actively good action you can take.

If you're hanging off of a cliff with a small child hanging from your ankles, and I'm not strong enough to lift you AND the child, it is nonetheless good for me to try futilely to pull you out while the child makes you both too heavy, even if my strength will give out and you'll both fall to your death when the cliff-face crumbles and makes me stumble.

It would be evil of me to use my bow to shoot the child so he dies and falls, making you alone light enough for me to pull you out.

Segev

2014-02-14, 09:32 AM

Note that my response was never about mere self-defense, but about deliberately setting out in the hopes that people and monsters would attack you in order to 'claim' self-defense in the use of lethal force.

Honestly? If you're doing it for the thrill of killing people, it's Lawful Evil. But if we're not going to measure intent in our judgment of alignment, he is not technically forcing (or even provoking) those who would not otherwise attack him into attacking him. The agency is still theirs.

Let's pretend that there is no difference between the Paladin who goes out into the Bad Part Of Town or the Wilderness Full Of Evil Sentient Monsters and kills those who attack him, and the CE serial killer who wants to murder people for kicks and grins:

Both employ the same tactics in order to justify (or "justify") their actions - they go into the area with their targets and wait to be attacked.

The Paladin - let's make her a high-charisma young lady for this example - walks into The Bad Part Of Town and allows herself to be lured into a dark alley by a tall and dark stranger. 5 of his closest buddies jump out at her and attack with potentially lethal force when she doesn't agree to their propositions, and she uses her mighty fighting skills to trounce them. Possibly killing one or more of them, since we're dealing with lethal force.

The serial killer - let's make her a high-charisma femme fatale type, for symmetry, in this example - walks into the Upscale Neighborhood Near The Church and responds positively to the tall and dark stranger who invites her into his home to help her out (and, perhaps, hoping for a date). He is a gentleman who introduces her to a friend of his who might be able to help her find her bearings (if she is or claims to be lost), and treats her with respect. Nobody attacks her, certainly not with lethal force. She thus does not ever get her "justification" for killing people.

So, if we remove motive from the action (as those who've said alignment is about actions and not intentions would require), then the Paladin and the serial killer would behave just as the other did if their choice of "dangerous" locations were reversed. Both are waiting for somebody to attack them in order to identify an acceptable target.

In other words, no, the paladin isn't doing anything wrong. She's going somewhere she knows dangerous beings lurk, and is reducing that danger by decreasing their number (after they prove they are, in fact, deserving of it) and by increasing the risk to them of attacking random passers-by (since if one was a dangerous paladin who will retaliate, others might be, too).

Pan151

2014-02-14, 10:29 AM

Or, if he kills the kid, his patron god refuses to accept his atonement because Paladins are explicitly unable to atone for evil acts willingly taken. If he doesn't kill the kid, he's shown that he is not susceptible to mind games played by evil beings designed to twist the Paladin's ethos into something other than the paragon of good he should be.

Disregard the whole thing about evil beings and mind games. Who said there has to be a villain in all this?

Imagine a nondescript undispellable curse that would cause a town to instantaneously combust at midnight. The origin of it is unknown and irrelevant - it may as well have been cast on the town millenia ago by a long now dead god. The only one that can deal with it, for whatever reason, is the chief paladin of the local church, who joined the order with the primary duty of protecting the town and its people from harm. The only solution is to personally sacrifice the life of his child before midnight. Alternatively, he and his child alone can flee from the town before everyone else dies.

He can sacrifice the life of his child to save the lives of the people entrusted to him, or save his family at the cost of indirectly causing the deaths of all that depended on him. Or he can let everyone die out of negligence. The two primary options are undeniably evil, except the first is totally redeemable. The last is argueably neutral, arguably evil, but would nontheless cause his patron deity to permanently abandon the paladin due to his sheer incompetence at fullfiling his duties.

And before you say anything about how this would not happen in a real game, yes, it would not happen in a real game. It's a hypothetical situation created solely for the purpose of this thought experiment.

BTW, there is no such rule about being unable to atone about willingly commited evil acts, at least to the best of my knowledge.

Bakeru

2014-02-14, 11:04 AM

It's "neutral" in the sense that it is "non-evil, but not pro-actively good."This is exactly the kind of neutral I meant.
I also have to accept that, RAW, killing the child is Evil, because that's what the BoED says.
I'm still convinced, though, that for a merely Good character (As in, "good, but flawed" - which is different from Exalted Good, "Paragon of Goodness"), doing an evil act from time to time, especially when done with good intention, wouldn't change his alignment.
On the other hand, an Exalted Good character (which all Paladins are, automatically) would loose his Exalted status, which is, according to the BoED, a victory for evil and must never happen, since it actually makes the multiverse a worse place by shifting the balance between good and evil towards the worse.

Also, there are more possible reasons for someone to have to kill a child to save many. Not just "satisfying an evil villain". The child might be chained to an evil artefact through some Adamantit or Obdurium chains (or whatever that crazy-strong stuff was - note, the chains are around the torso, so you can't just cut of a hand or foot, you'd actually have to cut the child to pieces to get it off), and in one round, the Artefact uses the child's soul as catalyst (or worse, fuel - note that a catalyst stays unharmed, while fuel gets, well, burned) and kills everything (outside the room it's in) within several miles. And you happen to be in a populated town.

If you say "Who would even build such an crazy Artefact in the first place?", I answer "All those crazy gods of evil who delight in torturing Good people with their inability to help". There are enough of those.
Yes, this still nearly of goes into "satisfying an evil villain"-territory, except that the child's soul might actually be a necessary compound for the artefact to go of, so the villain actually doesn't want you to kill the child, he still needs it to kill all those people.

The chains can't be broken in that one round (you're not even nearly strong enough, and can't Open their Locks), so your only options are to either remove the catalyst/fuel - by killing the child - or let the artefact go off.

I don't doubt that you're still saying that killing the child is evil, and I know RAW agrees with you. I, however, don't.

At last, I'd like to point out the Grey Guard (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070320) Prestige Class, which can be summed up as "Paladins who accept 'Necessary Evil' as necessary, and become slowly immune to falling". They still have to stay Lawful Good and have to uphold their faith, but the rest of the Paladin code (no poison, no cheating, no lying...) becomes less and less binding, atonement becomes easier, and once they reach class level 10, the only thing that can make them fall is if their superior in the order decides they finally went to far.

Segev

2014-02-14, 11:39 AM

Imagine a nondescript undispellable curse that would cause a town to instantaneously combust at midnight. ...

The only one that can deal with it... is the chief paladin of the local church, who joined the order with the primary duty of protecting the town and its people from harm. The only solution is to personally sacrifice the life of his child before midnight. Alternatively, he and his child alone can flee from the town before everyone else dies.Ah, this is a more interesting one. Notably, there is one more agent involved in this that we keep ignoring: the child to potentially be sacrificed.

If he's the paladin's own kid, especially, in this very specific circumstance, I could see the paladin talking to him and even using Diplomacy to talk his son into willingly upholding the family duty to protect the town. At that point, it is no longer murder; it is a heart-felt and genuine sacrifice by two willing, undoubtedly good people.

If the paladin's kid lacks the faith or generosity to sacrifice himself, however, there is no moral force making the kid owe his life to the town. It would remain evil to try to force the kid to do so. Cajole, implore, convince, persuade...that's fine.

But if the kid won't...the paladin had better start evacuating the entire town. Why can he and his kid escape, but the rest of the town cannot?

The thing is, these situations cannot ever be as simple as presented. At some point, the contrivance requires an outside agent. Who then becomes the one responsible for the deaths not directly caused by pro-active action of our hypothetical paladin.

BTW, there is no such rule about being unable to atone about willingly commited evil acts, at least to the best of my knowledge.Ah, you seem to be right; I recalled the rules allowed for atonement if you violated the Lawful part of your alignment or unintentionally violated the Good part. The RAW as currently constituted for 3.5e, however, merely makes the cost higher if one is atoning for a willingly-committed sin, against any alignment. And it has specific rules for paladins atoning for evil deeds.

Bakeru

2014-02-14, 11:51 AM

If he's the paladin's own kid, especially, in this very specific circumstance, I could see the paladin talking to him and even using Diplomacy to talk his son into willingly upholding the family duty to protect the town. At that point, it is no longer murder; it is a heart-felt and genuine sacrifice by two willing, undoubtedly good people.How is this different from simply talking random people you meet into suicide? Diplomancer builds can easily turn people into fanatics and send them one-by-one against angry red dragons for fun. Shouldn't that be evil, even though it's technically "their choice"?

killem2

2014-02-14, 11:54 AM

I'd like to know if I played this former character wrong then.

He was a CN, Barbarian/Fighter dungeon crasher. He was very strong and powerful but also (charisma of 3), brutish, rude, illmannered, ill tempered, ugly, stinky, illbathed, arrogant, macho, creation I've ever played.

Thus, he felt he was his own boss. He had no use for laws and rules and order. His order was running into a dungeon, smashing statues, calling out the bad guys, charging in, and letting the, have it.

That was until we had a L/N paladin join, and he was very unhappy about the way I did things, and was always trying to correct things I would do. Like taking a crap in a holy shrine of a red dragon. What did I care, it's bratty little kid almost tried to kill me!

The paladin saw it as a sign of disrespect and vandalism.

So, since the paladin was a newer player and he was having fun, and I could have fun with any character, I worked with the dm to write off this guy, and turned him on the party, under the guise of the, choosing this lawman over me.

Along the way however, I would protect my party with a fervor that could be only rivaled by the mightiest dragon.

Scow2

2014-02-14, 11:55 AM

The Giant's take on Law and Vigilantism in D&D may be of interest here: it's possible to be a Lawful Vigilante who pays attention only to their own "punish the wicked" personal code - but very difficult:The code isn't "Punish the Wicked" - it's "Uphold the law and justice where the Enforcers have failed. Being Lawful Good doesn't require that you surrender your agency and wallow in helplessness because you're not of the appropriate social standing

Note that my response was never about mere self-defense, but about deliberately setting out in the hopes that people and monsters would attack you in order to 'claim' self-defense in the use of lethal force.Not evil if you don't provoke the others beyond merely existing or making yourself vulnerable. Antagonizing someone to provoke them into attacking you deliberately is either Neutral or Evil, depending on the level of provocation required and extent of violence used by the target.

http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/3949151/batman-alignment-chart/

Batman is notoriously depicted as being of all different alignments, depending on who is writing that issue. Sometimes he is willing to resort to torture, usually he isn't. Sometimes he kills, usually he doesn't. Sometimes he is driven by a desire for justice, sometimes for revenge, sometimes he is just kind of insane. Note that probably the closest D&D equivalent, the god Shevarash, who hunts the Drow as a result of a massacre they committed, is CN.The batman I'm most familiar with is the Animated Series, where he was distinctly Lawful Good in his outlook and

hamishspence

2014-02-14, 11:57 AM

The code isn't "Punish the Wicked" - it's "Uphold the law and justice where the Enforcers have failed."

"You say po-TAY-to, I say po-TAH-to." :smallamused:

Lord Vukodlak

2014-02-14, 11:57 AM

How is this different from simply talking random people you meet into suicide? Diplomancer builds can easily turn people into fanatics and send them one-by-one against angry red dragons for fun. Shouldn't that be evil, even though it's technically "their choice"?

Because someone brought up to believe in self-sacrifice for the good of others may volunteer to take there own life to save everyone without even being asked.
If its the paladin's own child the likely scenario is the child convincing his parent to do it for the good of everyone.

hamishspence

2014-02-14, 12:01 PM

Being Lawful Good doesn't require that you surrender your agency and wallow in helplessness because you're not of the appropriate social standing

True.

The paladin's code phrases it as:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm

punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

When law & order breaks down - one could see a Vigilante Paladin organising their own trials, and sentencings - if necessary "on the spot" when they find serious wrongdoing being done.

Bakeru

2014-02-14, 12:10 PM

Because someone brought up to believe in self-sacrifice for the good of others may volunteer to take there own life to save everyone without even being asked.
If its the paladin's own child the likely scenario is the child convincing his parent to do it for the good of everyone.He explicitly said he could imagine the Paladin use Diplomacy (the skill that gives the (Ex) mind-controling build "Diplomancer" its name) to convince his child to die.

Sergev also said, as far as I understood it, that intentions don't matter. If what you're doing is evil, then it's evil, no matter what reason is behind it.

So, what's the difference between "Paladin convincing someone to die for the greater good" and "Diplomancer convincing someone to die because he thinks it's fun"...
...which isn't also the difference between "Paladin killing someone for the greater good" and "Stabby guy killing people because he thinks it's fun"?

/Edit: It's not just a system flaw in D&D's presentation of Diplomacy.
By "what people do in the end is their fault, not the fault of the one who made them do it", you suddenly get into weird places when it comes, for example, to the issue of child soldiers and children raised by cults. Suddenly, turning children into fanatics isn't evil, it's their choice to murder all those you tell them to kill. Or, at the very least, they're as evil as the guy they're working for for doing the only thing they've ever learned.

Scow2

2014-02-14, 12:15 PM

Diplomacy isn't mind control it can be used to persuade others, but it doesn't deprive the person of their own agency.

Gnaeus

2014-02-14, 12:18 PM

The batman I'm most familiar with is the Animated Series, where he was distinctly Lawful Good in his outlook and

That would be the difference between a TV show aimed at children and produced by a major network, and comics aimed at an adult market. Here is a book which discusses the philosophical outlook of the batman, including questions like why doesn't he kill the Joker when he knows that the joker will kill again if not eliminated.

http://www.amazon.com/Batman-Philosophy-Knight-Blackwell-Culture/dp/0470270306/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220231225&sr=8-1

Or here is Cracked.com's opinion on Batman's 6 most brutal murders. http://www.cracked.com/article_20111_the-6-most-brutal-murders-committed-by-batman_p2.html

hamishspence

2014-02-14, 12:20 PM

Diplomacy isn't mind control it can be used to persuade others, but it doesn't deprive the person of their own agency.

The "Fanatical" attitude level is compared to mind control, though:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#diplomacy

any effect that suppresses or counters mind-affecting effects will affect it normally.

Bakeru

2014-02-14, 12:24 PM

Diplomacy isn't mind control it can be used to persuade others, but it doesn't deprive the person of their own agency.In D&D 3.5, RAW? It effectively is mind control.

Here, Epic Uses of Diplomacy:
Fanatic
The attitude of fanatic is added here. In addition to the obvious effects, any NPC whose attitude is fanatic gains a +2 morale bonus to Strength and Constitution scores, a +1 morale bonus on Will saves, and a -1 penalty to AC whenever fighting for the character or his or her cause. This attitude will remain for one day plus one day per point of the character’s Charisma bonus, at which point the NPC’s attitude will revert to its original attitude (or indifferent, if no attitude is specified).

Treat the fanatic attitude as a mind-affecting enchantment effect for purposes of immunity, save bonuses, or being detected by the Sense Motive skill. Since it is nonmagical, it can’t be dispelled; however, any effect that suppresses or counters mind-affecting effects will affect it normally. A fanatic NPC’s attitude can’t be further adjusted by the use of skills.

Attitude: Fanatic
Means: Will give life to serve you
Possible Actions: Fight to the death against overwhelming odds, throw self in front of onrushing dragon

Pan151

2014-02-14, 12:27 PM

Well, you might as well kill the child yourself, because at that point slitting the kid's throat is little different than diplomancing it into suicide. I mean, we are talking about a creature which has yet to fully develop its sense of self, after all... It would be slightly different if you were to do it on an adult, but on a child Diplomacy is effectively mind control, by both RAW and, arguably, RAI.

Segev

2014-02-14, 12:29 PM

How is this different from simply talking random people you meet into suicide? Diplomancer builds can easily turn people into fanatics and send them one-by-one against angry red dragons for fun. Shouldn't that be evil, even though it's technically "their choice"?
Honestly? If the paladin can talk the individual into sacrificing themselves for the greater good, it's a viable solution. AT that point, he has convinced somebody to make the sacrifice willingly.

As for "diplomancers can turn anybody into fanatics," that's a failure of the system's oversimplifications, not of the moral system in place.

Bakeru

2014-02-14, 12:57 PM

Honestly? If the paladin can talk the individual into sacrificing themselves for the greater good, it's a viable solution. AT that point, he has convinced somebody to make the sacrifice willingly.

As for "diplomancers can turn anybody into fanatics," that's a failure of the system's oversimplifications, not of the moral system in place.Saw that coming, pre-emptively answered it.

/Edit: It's not just a system flaw in D&D's presentation of Diplomacy.
By "what people do in the end is their fault, not the fault of the one who made them do it", you suddenly get into weird places when it comes, for example, to the issue of child soldiers and children raised by cults. Suddenly, turning children into fanatics isn't evil, it's their choice to murder all those you tell them to kill. Or, at the very least, they're as evil as you for doing the only thing they've ever learned.

There's a reason for "Age of Consent". Just because someone got a child to say "Yes" doesn't make what he does afterwards acceptable.

Segev

2014-02-14, 03:32 PM

There's a reason for "Age of Consent". Just because someone got a child to say "Yes" doesn't make what he does afterwards acceptable.

Interesting argument, and yes, you're right. There is. (For Mormons, it's 8 years, in that at 8 children are considered mature enough to be morally accountable for their actions. Prior to that, children are considered incapable of sin due to being unable to really understand; this doesn't mean they don't need to be disciplined - quite the contrary - but it does mean they aren't expected to make any religious decisions of their own and on their own behalf before 8. At 8, they are old enough to decide to be baptized, for example.)

In this extremely specific case, presumably our Paladin in question has been raising his child with an eye towards said child being a good person, able to make the right and wise choices he will be called upon to make when he grows up.

Obviously, our paladin doesn't WANT to kill his child. But, since he is the moral agent who is responsible for helping the child make the decision that a truly good and selfless person would, he is in the right to persuade his child to the goodness and rightness of the action. Unlike many situations, where a parent would also be right to force the child (generally for their own good) to do the right thing, in this case, he should respect the child's agency, because it's so crucial. But he is absolutely in the right to seek to persuade the child.

If it were NOT his child, he would first need to persuade the child's rightful guardian that it is right, and THEN persuade the child.

But yes, introducing children under the age of accountability complicates things.

plastickle

2014-02-14, 10:24 PM

Abaddona

2014-02-15, 08:14 AM

When persuading someone to do something using DnD diplomacy rules became "evil"? I know that the way that those things are described in the books is kinda creepy (especially rules for conversion) but still. I mean - it would be good to establish some sort of border between "good diplomacy" and "evil diplomacy". Alse persuading someone probably works a little different to influencing attitude.
Second thing - whole ticking bomb scenarios are impossible simply because Paladin from some reliable source knows how the doom device works but don't have a way to stop it. Seriously - this just stinks of DM fiatting every possible outcome to be "not possible". Also - it cripples the character: choosing to kill will require Paladin to find 9 level cleric or druid (which can be hard in some settings) and go on a quest - everything while being fighter without bonus feats. Choice to not kill the kid - well, even if this will not result in falling is still leave Paladin crippled - not because of mechanic but RP-wise because someone who had to make such choice would be in heavy trauma and depression (and while casting of restoration could help here it would be kinda strange).
Third - even if Paladin fights with mind-controlled creatures he still can use lethal force because he has right to self-defense (altough doing so will cause him probably some sort of trauma). Of course if he knows that his opponents are controlled by someone he should use non-lethal damage - which is rather easy to obtain. To be honest people who are giving such examples are behaving like greatsword/guisarme/lance are only weapons in the game, and hey - even if you use them you still can stabilize dying people with Lay on Hands.

Dimcair

2014-02-15, 08:56 AM

Changing my characters alignment for following the cultural protocols of a person that can kill/benefit me in different ways....

I hate the sheer thought of that a DM even thinks about alignment here....

Bakeru

2014-02-15, 10:32 AM

So, what's the difference between "Paladin convincing someone to die for the greater good" and "Diplomancer convincing someone to die because he thinks it's fun"...The difference is that the person is convinced into committing an unambiguously good act, instead of being convinced to commit an unambiguously evil act. Did you just say that "dying because someone else thinks it's fun" is evil? If I kill myself because someone else talked me into it, do I somehow become evil?
The act they're being convinced to commit (dying) isn't evil in either case (unless you argue suicide is by default evil, which is an entirely different can of worms). The difference is why they're being convinced to die - in one case, for the greater good, in the other, because someone thinks it's fun.

...which isn't also the difference between "Paladin killing someone for the greater good" and "Stabby guy killing people because he thinks it's fun"?This is comparing an ambiguously evil act to an unambiguously evil act. A very different comparison.But what makes one ambiguously evil and the other unambiguously - is it the reason for why they're killed? Because then we're at the same difference as above, in one case the reason being "the greater good", in the other case being "someone thinks it's fun".

No one here said that blaming the coerced person means that the coercer is not at fault.True, my mistake, I got carried away.

And you are also strictly wrong to add "as evil as you." No one has made that claim, or any argument that can be developed into that claim.Sorry, that's a result of how I write my posts. They're usually edited and re-written several times before I post them, and often several times after. In one version, I had the example being "if you turn children into fanatics...", changed it later, but forgot to change that part. Changing it now to "as evil as the guy who convinced them".

Also, because continuing to discuss subjective matters (which I consider evil/good stuff to be) is tiring, here some fun stuff: Wizards can't keep their own alignment system straight.
There are several intelligent Neutral creatures which will attack other intelligent beings - including using lethal force in their attacks - for sustenance or even "just because". Since, apparently, harming others, even for your own survival is a no-go, this should make them Evil, but they're still neutral on the Good/Evil scale.
First example, the Glaistigs (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mm/20021124a)
Another, the Cloaker (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/cloaker.htm), whose description (in the Monster Manual, not in the SRD) includes "They kill intruders without remorse or pause, except to plan cruel amusements"... and somehow are "Usually Chaotic Neutral".
Formians, who are "Always Lawful Neutral" (so any who aren't are rare exceptions), are actively trying to conquer and enslave the whole multiverse.
Gibbering Mouthers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/gibberingMouther.htm), "Usually Neutral", get described as "Although not evil, it thirsts after bodily fluids and seems to prefer the blood of intelligent creatures." They're only Int 4, but that's enough for sentience, and they speak Common.
I'm sure I remember there being more, so I'm still going through my books.

Vogonjeltz

2014-02-16, 05:05 PM

It should be noted that Exalted Good isn't the same as "regular guy" Good. A Paladin killing the child would fall, because by D&D-RAW, doing so is Evil. Any Exalted Good character would loose whatever bonuses he gets from being Exalted Good (and the book points out that this does not only mean he loses his bonuses, but represents a deeper victory of evil, thus being Not Actually Worth It). I disagree with this, but it's still RAW.

But for a "regular Good" guy who just wants to help people? Well, such people can do an occasional evil deed without directly changing alignment. They could kill the child and stay Good. If it becomes to common (in fact, if it becomes anything but "worst case scenario"), then he'll shift first towards neutrality and later against evil, but not due to one thing.

Those rules were talking about regular good/evil, not exalted good. Individual Evil acts don't change alignment, and aren't really an issue except for those characters who have mechanical repercussions (paladins, clerics). The only reason it matters if the responses are good/neutral/evil is because of those mechanics.

So if I'm hanging on the edge of a cliff for dear life and you stumble upon me, it's not even slightly evil to pull up a chair, take out a book and have a nice, relaxing read while trying to ignore my cries for help?

An excellent question. Assuming I was not reepobsible for your predicament, and took no joy in not assisting you, then no it would be neutral.

If I made your situation actively worse or took pains to make you suffer, that would be different. Indifference is not evil as defined within D&D.

Segev

2014-02-16, 05:14 PM

I think, technically, pulling up a chair would qualify as reveling in the predicament.

"Walking by" would be neutral. The two guys before the Good Samaritan came along (the ones who "passed by on the other side of the road") were not being evil, but were definitely neutral in action.

veti

2014-02-16, 08:22 PM

Imagine a nondescript undispellable curse that would cause a town to instantaneously combust at midnight. The origin of it is unknown and irrelevant - it may as well have been cast on the town millenia ago by a long now dead god. The only one that can deal with it, for whatever reason, is the chief paladin of the local church, who joined the order with the primary duty of protecting the town and its people from harm. The only solution is to personally sacrifice the life of his child before midnight. Alternatively, he and his child alone can flee from the town before everyone else dies.

Another failed dilemma. Sacrificing an innocent to save a town - would taint the whole town with evil.

I'd take the following steps, in this order:

Evacuate the town. Tell everyone, in the starkest possible terms, that owing to this ancient curse, the whole town is going to burn down at midnight and they'd better be out of there by then.
I will, of course, help those who most need it to get themselves out of the town limits in time, and do whatever I can to organise/help with setting up temporary shelters for them to survive until they're able to make a start on rebuilding.
If someone brings up the 'sacrifice' clause, point out that demanding the murder of an innocent to save their own material goods would be a highly evil act, and do they really want to go that way? If so, I wash my hands of any responsibility to them.
If my god tells me that I've failed in my duty to protect the town to the best of my ability, tell him to go roger himself with a rusty spike. If this admonition is relayed through a priest/other intermediary, offer to do it for them.

Amphetryon

2014-02-16, 08:42 PM

Another failed dilemma. Sacrificing an innocent to save a town - would taint the whole town with evil.

I'd take the following steps, in this order:

Evacuate the town. Tell everyone, in the starkest possible terms, that owing to this ancient curse, the whole town is going to burn down at midnight and they'd better be out of there by then.
I will, of course, help those who most need it to get themselves out of the town limits in time, and do whatever I can to organise/help with setting up temporary shelters for them to survive until they're able to make a start on rebuilding.
If someone brings up the 'sacrifice' clause, point out that demanding the murder of an innocent to save their own material goods would be a highly evil act, and do they really want to go that way? If so, I wash my hands of any responsibility to them.
If my god tells me that I've failed in my duty to protect the town to the best of my ability, tell him to go roger himself with a rusty spike. If this admonition is relayed through a priest/other intermediary, offer to do it for them.

Town combusts at midnight, due to this curse, the existence of which is kept hidden from the Paladin who can fix the curse (through incompetence, through malice, through whatever rationale works for you) until one minute before midnight. Good luck with that 'evacuation/temporary shelter set up' contingency plan.

Alternately, the curse manifests as an immediate boiling of the blood of all the people descended from the townsfolk who populated the area when the curse was originally uttered, a thousand years ago. Which people do you choose not to save?

veti

2014-02-16, 09:43 PM

Town combusts at midnight, due to this curse, the existence of which is kept hidden from the Paladin who can fix the curse (through incompetence, through malice, through whatever rationale works for you) until one minute before midnight. Good luck with that 'evacuation/temporary shelter set up' contingency plan.

Sound the fire alarm. Help as many people as possible to escape.

Because even your New Improved Railroad hasn't addressed the issue that "sacrificing an innocent would taint the whole town with evil, therefore it wouldn't actually resolve the issue at all".

To say nothing of the fact that at this point the DM has revealed himself to be a complete jerk, and so if I do go along with the "sacrifice" idea, he's more than likely to pull the same crap all over again next week, but with more innocents to be murdered this time.

You don't play along with blackmailers - it empowers them. Make them go through with their threat. Then they're disarmed, and you can deal with them in your own time.

I'm not going to address the second scenario, except to point out that even though the mitigating step no longer works, the philosophical objection still applies in full force. To kill the innocent in that scenario is not only evil, it's also unforgivably stupid.