Moral crisis: how to stay Chaotic Good

[Werephilosopher]

Sorry for the wall of text. I just need some moral advice.

In the campaign I'm currently playing in, my character has hit something of a moral dilemma. He's a CG Celadrin Wizard/Malconvoker, working with a TN Lizardfolk Cleric (the other player). Recently we rescued a shop owner's daughter from an evil gnome wizard who'd hired some orc mercenaries as guards. It turns out the shop owner's rival - an evilish goblin who engages in black market trading - is related to said orcs, knew about their activities, and may have had a role in the kidnapping.

The cleric had gone to him to buy his black market wands, but then tried to kill him - both because she got the truth out of him, and also because she wanted to take the wands without meeting his price (that's True Neutral for you :smalltongue:). I saw the commotion, ran inside, and hit the goblin with a ray of clumsiness, dropping his Dex enough so the cleric could get him with a poisoned arrow that knocked him unconscious. Given my character's Goodness, I didn't want to just off him then, so I bound him in chains and stuck him in my handy haversack, then the cleric and I helped ourselves to some of his choicer magic items - because he was evil, and loot is loot, right?

Then the Law showed up. One of our new friends, a crusader who'd helped us rescue the kidnapped girl, arrived on scene - the town sheriff being out of town on business, he was pretty much the head law enforcement official. Rather than flee and risk pursuit, we stuck around to explain things to him - but since the cleric was not just an ally but a friend who I cared about, I lied and said nothing about stealing the goblin's stuff, and said that the body was destroyed in our magical duel. Then when the crusader went to get the barkeeper - the town's other notable warrior - I faked an attack from some unseen force, threw up a solid fog to mask our actions from the crusader, and summoned a dire bat to whisk me and the cleric out of town under the cover of night.

So, here's the moral dilemma. What do I do with the goblin chained up in my handbag? He's Evil, but helpless - I have no desire to kill him in his current state. I also don't want to keep him chained up indefinitely, since that doesn't jive with my ideals of freedom - fiends are one matter, mean mortals are another. Obviously, I can't FREE him, either - I feel fine lying to the crusader and saying he was killed, because he's no longer a threat to the town, but if I let him go, he could eventually threaten them again.

So... how do I deal with him, without becoming a murderer, a slaver, or someone who enables violence upon unsuspecting townsfolk?

[Flickerdart]

Drop him off in the wilderness with supplies and tools, and have him fend for himself. It builds character.

[firebrandtoluc]

Let him go. Leave town forever.

[Hazrond]

Sorry for the wall of text. I just need some moral advice.

In the campaign I'm currently playing in, my character has hit something of a moral dilemma. He's a CG Celadrin Wizard/Malconvoker, working with a TN Lizardfolk Cleric (the other player). Recently we rescued a shop owner's daughter from an evil gnome wizard who'd hired some orc mercenaries as guards. It turns out the shop owner's rival - an evilish goblin who engages in black market trading - is related to said orcs, knew about their activities, and may have had a role in the kidnapping.

The cleric had gone to him to buy his black market wands, but then tried to kill him - both because she got the truth out of him, and also because she wanted to take the wands without meeting his price (that's True Neutral for you :smalltongue:). I saw the commotion, ran inside, and hit the goblin with a ray of clumsiness, dropping his Dex enough so the cleric could get him with a poisoned arrow that knocked him unconscious. Given my character's Goodness, I didn't want to just off him then, so I bound him in chains and stuck him in my handy haversack, then the cleric and I helped ourselves to some of his choicer magic items - because he was evil, and loot is loot, right?

Then the Law showed up. One of our new friends, a crusader who'd helped us rescue the kidnapped girl, arrived on scene - the town sheriff being out of town on business, he was pretty much the head law enforcement official. Rather than flee and risk pursuit, we stuck around to explain things to him - but since the cleric was not just an ally but a friend who I cared about, I lied and said nothing about stealing the goblin's stuff, and said that the body was destroyed in our magical duel. Then when the crusader went to get the barkeeper - the town's other notable warrior - I faked an attack from some unseen force, threw up a solid fog to mask our actions from the crusader, and summoned a dire bat to whisk me and the cleric out of town under the cover of night.

So, here's the moral dilemma. What do I do with the goblin chained up in my handbag? He's Evil, but helpless - I have no desire to kill him in his current state. I also don't want to keep him chained up indefinitely, since that doesn't jive with my ideals of freedom - fiends are one matter, mean mortals are another. Obviously, I can't FREE him, either - I feel fine lying to the crusader and saying he was killed, because he's no longer a threat to the town, but if I let him go, he could eventually threaten them again.

So... how do I deal with him, without becoming a murderer, a slaver, or someone who enables violence upon unsuspecting townsfolk?

He would be dead, a handy haversack works like a bag of holding, and unless you specifically left the flap open for him to breath next time you open the bag you would find his suffocated body :smalltongue:

[Werephilosopher]

Drop him off in the wilderness with supplies and tools, and have him fend for himself. It builds character.

Thing is, we don't know if he's a spellcaster - he only used wands in our battle. He could follow and hassle us, or he could 'port back to town and start murdering without us knowing.


Let him go. Leave town forever.

Doesn't sound very Good...


He would be dead, a handy haversack works like a bag of holding, and unless you specifically left the flap open for him to breath next time you open the bag you would find his suffocated body :smalltongue:

It's houseruled it isn't airtight. I've held the cleric in there whilst teleporting around obstacles etc.

[Jack_Simth]

Thing is, we don't know if he's a spellcaster - he only used wands in our battle. He could follow and hassle us, or he could 'port back to town and start murdering without us knowing.Chaotic types don't generally look very far for consequences. That's Law's business.

[ktccd]

So, what you essentially need is a non-lethal way to reduce his combat abilities, for as long as possible, but leaving him a free and unsupervised afterwards.
I got no idea of the level we're talking about here, but if it's not that high, gauging out his eyes, removing his fingers and tongue should leave him pretty freaking crippled, even as a caster. Compared to this though, simply killing him would probably be more merciful. Doing this would probably dump you down to Neutral...

EDIT: I'm not sure why a CG person would have much trouble offing him though. He's an obvious threat to innocent people and anything that'd permanently stop him from being such without killing him would either be way out of your power-level, or really cruel.

The situation is tricky if you want him alive. Even if he isn't a caster, he might not even come after you (He got his *ss handed to him once already) and instead he'll become a terrible plight for innocent people somewhere else. If he is a caster, then the situation will be terrible not only for them, but for you as well, as he could plan even better for your next encounter (A caster with planning time... >_<).

[VoxRationis]

Chaotic types don't generally look very far for consequences. That's Law's business.

That's Wisdom's business. A chaotic sort could well look into the future; Elves are chaotic by default, and are frequently thought of as playing the long game.

In any case, a really good person would explain your sin and drop the culprit off at the local law enforcement, who can keep him under wraps. Your Chaotic nature would probably mean you wouldn't think much of returning to face charges of theft, but you might leave a note explaining just WHY it's imperative this ne'er-do-well be incarcerated.

Alternatively, you could just get a different Haversack and keep this guy around with you until some better solution becomes apparent.

[firebrandtoluc]

You are not responsible for his future actions. Let him go free. You certainly aren't a jailer. The leaving town forever part is because you just committed an assault and robbery, got spotted there by lawful types, and fled the scene.

[Dorian Gray]

So, you can't turn him in to the law, you can't let him go without hurting him (he might kill you), you can't hurt him (evil), and you can't keep him (you don't like that option).

So all options are equally bad. In that case, just do whatever you feel like- one action shouldn't change your alignment. But if I were in your situation, I would either kill him or maim him. Good is not nice (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotNice), and vigilante justice is a very CG thing to do. Just because he's helpless doesn't mean that he can't suffer punishments, and you, as a powerful adventurer, are the only person able to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

[firebrandtoluc]

Also, if this person has any will left to apply to spiteful pursuits, I highly doubt that his efforts will be directed at the townsfolk. You just stole his entire life's work from him. You are his only target. At least that is what I would suspect.

[Prince Raven]

Chaotic Good characters believe strongly in individual rights, so I would consider killing or maiming him to be very out of alignment unless your character honestly believes they truly deserve either punishment.

[Segev]

Can the cleric cast Mark of Justice? If so, you can lay a curse on him that triggers if he hurts an innocent humanoid, for example.

If not...you could always intimidate him, let him know you're watching and that you're showing him mercy...this time. Next time, he won't be so lucky. Then track him silently until he gets a chance to be evil, and jump out to thwart him if he looks like he's about to. Let him talk his way out of it, but combine Bluff and Intimidate again to make him think you were summoned by his intent.

[holywhippet]

Find a helm of opposite alignment. Keep trying it on him until it works.

[atemu1234]

Killing him still wouldn't violate your alignment: he's evil and thus needs to die, and killing evil is not evil.

[morkendi]

Polymorph him into a turtle and drop him in a remote pond. If he manages to remember what he is, it will take him forever to get somewhere to do anything about it. You didn't kill him.

[Spore]

Killing him still wouldn't violate your alignment: he's evil and thus needs to die, and killing evil is not evil.

Alignment debate incoming! Yeah I agree.

Ingame good is not philosophically good. It's just the counterpart to evil. A good character does what hurts the least amount of good people. So a righteous paladin killing evil indiscriminately is as good as a wizard trying to make the NPC good.

[Sartharina]

Kill him, if he's indeed a monster (As in morally, not racially). The law may not like it because it's not a killing in self defense and he was never formally convicted of any wrongdoing, but that's not your problem. Vigilante Justice isn't evil when it's not wrong, even if the law hates it.

Yes, it's a **** move, but so is what the goblin did. And, it's not like he doesn't have a soul to go to the appropriate afterlife to continue to live.

[Prince Raven]

Killing him still wouldn't violate your alignment: he's evil and thus needs to die, and killing evil is not evil.

Not sure which game system the OP is playing, but in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook it says this on alignments:

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Executing helpless foes sounds pretty Evil to me under this definition, or Neutral as they aren't innocent.

[atemu1234]

Not sure which game system the OP is playing, but in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook it says this on alignments:


Executing helpless foes sounds pretty Evil to me under this definition, or Neutral as they aren't innocent.

True, killing it isn't [GOOD] but it's acceptable.

[AMFV]

Alignment debate incoming! Yeah I agree.

Ingame good is not philosophically good. It's just the counterpart to evil. A good character does what hurts the least amount of good people. So a righteous paladin killing evil indiscriminately is as good as a wizard trying to make the NPC good.

Well we have both Pathfinder sources and 3.5 Sources that disagree with this sentiment strenuously. The Pathfinder Source was just linked and the most severe condemnations of executing helpless prisoners is in the BoED.


Killing him still wouldn't violate your alignment: he's evil and thus needs to die, and killing evil is not evil.

Since when does being evil mean that somebody needs to die? They need to be reformed, or restrained, or put in a place where they aren't going to be able to do more harm. Being good does not give you an indiscriminate license to kill.


Polymorph him into a turtle and drop him in a remote pond. If he manages to remember what he is, it will take him forever to get somewhere to do anything about it. You didn't kill him.

I second this solution. Chaotic, random, good (since you're sparing him), and effective. It's everything you want in a nutshell.

[Kaeso]

Just a small detail everyone's overlooking: shouldn't the goblin already be dead due to a lack of oxygen as in the haversack? :smallconfused:

[torrasque666]

Just a small detail everyone's overlooking: shouldn't the goblin already be dead due to a lack of oxygen as in the haversack? :smallconfused:
Already mentioned as being houseruled to not be air-tight. Hence, why they were "overlooking" it.

[Nilehus]

Hm... Sneak back in town, drop him off at the foot of the guardhouse sufficiently restrained, and book town forever.

Let the Lawful types deal with it, since you already did all their work for them. :smalltongue: That's what I'd do, anyway.

[Maryring]

Mark of Justice or Geas seem the best solutions to this kind of problem.

[Coidzor]

So.... Why did you take the goblin as loot, exactly? :smallconfused:

And why did the cleric knock him out instead of just kill him in battle?

[Twilightwyrm]

So one option I think is being overlooked here is what one might call the hard way. The very hard way, as it happens. But, it satisfies every requirement you need so it should be mentioned: convert him. True, you knocked him out, stole his things, and carried him around in a sack, but that will only make this slightly more difficult. This is not, after all, a cold-blooded bandit, stoic assassin, or diabolical fiend. This is a goblin merchant. Whatever his beef with you, he should be that nice mix of self-serving and gullible enough that you can "spin" events in your favor, demonstrating to him that maybe it was his evil/maliciousness that got him into this situation, and you were really only appropriately reacting to circumstances thrust upon you. Remember, you are Chaotic Good. While you won't keep him enslaved, or kill an unarmed prisoner, this does not mean you need be forthright with him, especially if it means making him a better person. So lie, spin the facts, and manipulate him into doing the right(ish) thing. This "conversion" should, by the way, take place on the outskirts of another town. Additionally, you should research what spells you might use buff yourself and make some extended diplomacy checks. Once you have set him on the path of redemption (or at least acceptably pragmatic neutrality), you can leave him in this other town to make his way on his own. As an added bonus, and to help satisfy your own conscious as a Good character, use some of the money from the sale of the wands, and/or favored acquiesced from helping townsfolk with tasks/quests, to help him set up his new life. You will have satisfied your conscious, avoided bloodshed, put another good (or acceptably neutral) person in the world, and assuming your DM goes along with this in the first place, scored some major Good points on the DM's alignment scorecard.

[Dalebert]

Killing him still wouldn't violate your alignment: he's evil and thus needs to die, and killing evil is not evil.


Alignment debate incoming! Yeah I agree.

Ingame good is not philosophically good. It's just the counterpart to evil. A good character does what hurts the least amount of good people. So a righteous paladin killing evil indiscriminately is as good as a wizard trying to make the NPC good.


Kill him, if he's indeed a monster (As in morally, not racially). The law may not like it because it's not a killing in self defense and he was never formally convicted of any wrongdoing, but that's not your problem. Vigilante Justice isn't evil when it's not wrong, even if the law hates it.

Fourth-ed. I'm with these folks. Of course, there are some nuances in how you decide to interpret what CG means for your character. There have to be because individual ethics are a lot more complicated than nine categories allow for.

That said, it seems very common for vigilante types to be interpreted as CG so I don't think you're violating your alignment to just kill him. It comes down to how you've crafted your character's personality. Re: CG vigilantes, their goals are good but they can be the-end-justifies-the-means types. (I have a bit of a problem with Sporeegg on LG Paladins being vigilantes, however.) In fact, elves have often been depicted as CG and very vigilante, even to the point of racism toward characteristically evil races like orcs. They seem almost capable of genocide with regard to the "evil" races. It's just a matter of how much effort and risk is involved with killing them off. Let's face it--Tolkien had a large part in defining elves in RPGs.

For those who disagree, what alignment would you assign to a vigilante, e.g. someone who believes in meting out capital punishment to overtly evil beings based on his own judgment (no judges, officials, trials) but is kind, generous, and protective of the innocent? He steals from the rich (if they got rich through exploitation and theft rather than good service) and gives to the poor.

[AMFV]

Fourth-ed. I'm with these folks. Of course, there are some nuances in how you decide to interpret what CG means for your character. There have to be because individual ethics are a lot more complicated than nine categories allow for.

That said, it seems very common for vigilante types to be interpreted as CG so I don't think you're violating your alignment to just kill him. It comes down to how you've crafted your character's personality. Re: CG vigilantes, their goals are good but they can be the-end-justifies-the-means types. (I have a bit of a problem with Sporeegg on LG Paladins being vigilantes, however.) In fact, elves have often been depicted as CG and very vigilante, even to the point of racism toward characteristically evil races like orcs. They seem almost capable of genocide with regard to the "evil" races. It's just a matter of how much effort and risk is involved with killing them off. Let's face it--Tolkien had a large part in defining elves in RPGs.

For those who disagree, what alignment would you assign to a vigilante, e.g. someone who believes in meting out capital punishment to overtly evil beings based on his own judgment (no judges, officials, trials) but is kind, generous, and protective of the innocent? He steals from the rich (if they got rich through exploitation and theft rather than good service) and gives to the poor.

Well killing an unarmed prisoner is usually assumed to be evil. And is stated as such in the rules. Spiderman is an example of a CG vigilante, he ties up the bad guys and leaves them for the police. Rorschach is rarely depicted in a positive light, he's more along those lines, and he's fairly clearly evil. Murdering prisoners is as per RAW explicitly evil

[kalasulmar]

Don't murder him. Trial by combat seems appropriate. Let him out. Fight to the death. Fair, but final.

[AMFV]

Don't murder him. Trial by combat seems appropriate. Let him out. Fight to the death. Fair, but final.

There you go, that's appropriate. My vote is still on the Turtle thing though.

[Dalebert]

Well killing an unarmed prisoner is usually assumed to be evil. And is stated as such in the rules. Spiderman is an example of a CG vigilante, he ties up the bad guys and leaves them for the police. Rorschach is rarely depicted in a positive light, he's more along those lines, and he's fairly clearly evil. Murdering prisoners is as per RAW explicitly evil

Okay, then I'll repeat my question.


For those who disagree, what alignment would you assign to a vigilante, e.g. someone who believes in meting out capital punishment to overtly evil beings based on his own judgment (no judges, officials, trials) but is kind, generous, and protective of the innocent? He steals from the rich (if they got rich through exploitation and theft rather than good service) and gives to the poor.

There are exactly 9 choices of alignment. I think interpreting them too strictly is just not in line with the variety of human ethical points of view. What alignment is The Punisher? Mal from Firefly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPRlHwwVIug)? For that matter, what alignment is Joss Whedon? Remember when Buffy wouldn't kill the helpless guy that turned into that indestructable female god (Glory) but the Watcher did? That was a moment when everyone at my viewing party cheered! He did it for the greater good because even though that guy was basically a cursed innocent, he was vulnerable, while Glory, who was hideously evil and would continue to wreak havoc, was not. This stuph seems to come up a lot in his works with characters that certainly seem very good-aligned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPRlHwwVIug


Don't murder him. Trial by combat seems appropriate. Let him out. Fight to the death. Fair, but final.

Fighting fair and with honor? Now you're getting into things a lawful character cares about. This is a chaotic character.

[Gabrosin]

I second this solution. Chaotic, random, good (since you're sparing him), and effective. It's everything you want in a nutshell.

Different type of shell.


Don't murder him. Trial by combat seems appropriate. Let him out. Fight to the death. Fair, but final.

If turtling him isn't an option, I like this one best.


Fighting fair and with honor? Now you're getting into things a lawful character cares about. This is a chaotic character.

No, it's letting fate decide rather than deciding yourself. Besides, it doesn't have to actually be a fair fight. He probably doesn't have spells memorized... you can force him to fight it out with just sticks, or the like.

[Vogonjeltz]

Some stuff has been covered already.


Sorry for the wall of text. I just need some moral advice.

In the campaign I'm currently playing in, my character has hit something of a moral dilemma. He's a CG Celadrin Wizard/Malconvoker, working with a TN Lizardfolk Cleric (the other player). Recently we rescued a shop owner's daughter from an evil gnome wizard who'd hired some orc mercenaries as guards. It turns out the shop owner's rival - an evilish goblin who engages in black market trading - is related to said orcs, knew about their activities, and may have had a role in the kidnapping.

The cleric had gone to him to buy his black market wands, but then tried to kill him - both because she got the truth out of him, and also because she wanted to take the wands without meeting his price (that's True Neutral for you ). I saw the commotion, ran inside, and hit the goblin with a ray of clumsiness, dropping his Dex enough so the cleric could get him with a poisoned arrow that knocked him unconscious. Given my character's Goodness, I didn't want to just off him then, so I bound him in chains and stuck him in my handy haversack, then the cleric and I helped ourselves to some of his choicer magic items - because he was evil, and loot is loot, right?

Then the Law showed up. One of our new friends, a crusader who'd helped us rescue the kidnapped girl, arrived on scene - the town sheriff being out of town on business, he was pretty much the head law enforcement official. Rather than flee and risk pursuit, we stuck around to explain things to him - but since the cleric was not just an ally but a friend who I cared about, I lied and said nothing about stealing the goblin's stuff, and said that the body was destroyed in our magical duel. Then when the crusader went to get the barkeeper - the town's other notable warrior - I faked an attack from some unseen force, threw up a solid fog to mask our actions from the crusader, and summoned a dire bat to whisk me and the cleric out of town under the cover of night.

So, here's the moral dilemma. What do I do with the goblin chained up in my handbag? He's Evil, but helpless - I have no desire to kill him in his current state. I also don't want to keep him chained up indefinitely, since that doesn't jive with my ideals of freedom - fiends are one matter, mean mortals are another. Obviously, I can't FREE him, either - I feel fine lying to the crusader and saying he was killed, because he's no longer a threat to the town, but if I let him go, he could eventually threaten them again.

So... how do I deal with him, without becoming a murderer, a slaver, or someone who enables violence upon unsuspecting townsfolk?

1) The attempt to murder a shop owner because of greed is Neutral Evil/Chaotic Evil, not True Neutral. True Neutral wouldn't give two figs about the characters involvement in the kidnapping.

2) The Goblin would have suffocated in the haversack within 10 minutes, it's pockets are like bags of holding. Even assuming they fit in the largest compartment which maxes out at 80lbs (Goblin alone is 40-45lbs). Doing so with no regard for his safety is evil.

3) Lying is certainly Chaotic, but not Good.

Your moral dilemma is solved, he suffocated to death yesterday in a small enclosed space, alone and afraid.
Of course if the DM is kind and handwaves the rules so the goblin still lives, you still kidnapped a shopkeeper, stole their wares, and lied to the authorities in doing so.

If you don't have any evidence of his participation in the crime (or any other) the right thing to do is release him. Otherwise leave him tied up in front of the sheriff's office with an explanation of his crimes and where evidence can be found. That's fairly Chaotic Good, breaking the law to capture a criminal.


True, killing it isn't [GOOD] but it's acceptable.

Killing a helpless foe is always [EVIL].

*The turtle solution is also a good idea for [CHAOTIC][GOOD].

[Winterwind]

For those who disagree, what alignment would you assign to a vigilante, e.g. someone who believes in meting out capital punishment to overtly evil beings based on his own judgment (no judges, officials, trials) but is kind, generous, and protective of the innocent? He steals from the rich (if they got rich through exploitation and theft rather than good service) and gives to the poor.This question treats a whole bunch of completely disparate situations, that would lead to diametrally opposed evaluation from me, as if they were one.

It is one thing to oppose an evil, murderous and dangerous creature in combat, and use lethal force to prevent it from continuing its evil. That's perfectly acceptable for a Good character.

It is one thing to decide that a temporarily subdued foe is just way too dangerous to be allowed to live, and the chances to contain or redeem him are too slim to accept the risk, and hence to execute him. That, too, is acceptable for a Good character (if a lot shadier and more debatable, from case to case).

It is a completely different thing to decide to murder - yes, murder - a prisoner, even if he is known to be Evil, if they are in no position to do any harm and handing them over to the proper justice, trying to redeem them or going about any of the myriad of other options that would preserve their life is no more than a minor inconvenience. That is Evil in its purest form, and should be treated as such.

Lastly - Evil does not mean guilty. An egoistical misanthrope, who is rude to everybody and never helps anybody if there is nothing in for him is an Evil character, but he might never ever break any kind of law and completely abhor the idea of actually doing so. Killing people for no better reason than because they are jerks? While I'm not exactly fond of jerks, I nonetheless not only I adamantly disagree with the notion that this is in any way justified for Good (or even just Neutral) characters, but would argue that characters who actually do that are much more in need of some Good-aligned hero stepping in and stopping them - with much, much better justification to use lethal force, if need be - than the people they are wantonly slaughtering.

[Dalebert]

This question treats a whole bunch of completely disparate situations, that would lead to diametrally opposed evaluation from me, as if they were one.

I feel like you're kind of making my point. I said human ethics can get very complicated. It feels like you're passing some kind of personal judgment which is missing the point. I'm just trying to pick an alignment out of only 9 choices. I'm personally 100% against capitol punishment but I rarely play a character with my exact ethics.

I only wrote two sentences to describe the ethics of a character. Unfortunately, due to D&D design, it was a multiple choice question with only 9 possible answers. You answered it with four paragraphs. Re-read those two sentences (note where I said "overtly evil"). If I came to you as a player and described my character thusly and asked you what alignment you would assign as a DM to that particular ethical structure, which one would you pick?

I find it rather funny that folks have talked about how the CHAOTIC good character would hand the bad guys over to the legal system, i.e. the law. A chaotic good character might very well have been shaped by a distrust for organized systems of justice. In fact, they may have experienced them to seem too harsh and not merciful enough or to pass judgment against potential innocents too easily. It's important to note--I'm not saying CG chars are all vigilantes. I'm saying that vigilantes focused on fighting evil are just one type of ethical framework that might fit within CG, mainly because it's just the one that fits them best out of the limited choices. There's a lot of wiggle room within each of the alignments. There has to be. People just aren't that simplistic.

I think this helps explain why my current DM decided to do away with alignments altogether in his game.

[Werephilosopher]

Killing him still wouldn't violate your alignment: he's evil and thus needs to die, and killing evil is not evil.


Ingame good is not philosophically good. It's just the counterpart to evil. A good character does what hurts the least amount of good people. So a righteous paladin killing evil indiscriminately is as good as a wizard trying to make the NPC good.


Kill him, if he's indeed a monster (As in morally, not racially). The law may not like it because it's not a killing in self defense and he was never formally convicted of any wrongdoing, but that's not your problem. Vigilante Justice isn't evil when it's not wrong, even if the law hates it.

Yes, it's a **** move, but so is what the goblin did. And, it's not like he doesn't have a soul to go to the appropriate afterlife to continue to live.

If I do end up having to kill him, it won't be while he's helpless. Killing someone who's defenseless is an Evil act, as far as my character is concerned; and even if it wasn't, taking it upon myself to sentence another to death removes all agency from the accused, which my Chaotic-ness won't stand for.


So.... Why did you take the goblin as loot, exactly? :smallconfused:

Because he was knocked out, I didn't want to execute him, and leaving him to be interrogated would've revealed my friend was being shady. Short sighted, yes- but I do have a rather poor Wisdom.


And why did the cleric knock him out instead of just kill him in battle?

She likes poisoning people. This time she chose knock-out poison. I have no idea why, really.


In fact, elves have often been depicted as CG and very vigilante, even to the point of racism toward characteristically evil races like orcs. They seem almost capable of genocide with regard to the "evil" races. It's just a matter of how much effort and risk is involved with killing them off. Let's face it--Tolkien had a large part in defining elves in RPGs.

I'm trying not to be like that, though. There's a reason people always say, "Screw you, elves! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScrewYouElves)"


Fighting fair and with honor? Now you're getting into things a lawful character cares about. This is a chaotic character.

Lawfulness means respect for external authority. Characters of any alignment can respect the authority of a personal code of conduct. Boba Fett had a strict code of honor, and he was very Chaotic Neutral.


1) The attempt to murder a shop owner because of greed is Neutral Evil/Chaotic Evil, not True Neutral. True Neutral wouldn't give two figs about the characters involvement in the kidnapping.

She didn't actually start the fight- she tried to steal from him, he retaliated with violence, and I came in to save her sorry butt.


2) The Goblin would have suffocated in the haversack within 10 minutes, it's pockets are like bags of holding. Even assuming they fit in the largest compartment which maxes out at 80lbs (Goblin alone is 40-45lbs). Doing so with no regard for his safety is evil.

As I said, they're houseruled to not be airtight.


3) Lying is certainly Chaotic, but not Good.

But not strictly Evil? :smallwink:


If you don't have any evidence of his participation in the crime (or any other) the right thing to do is release him. Otherwise leave him tied up in front of the sheriff's office with an explanation of his crimes and where evidence can be found. That's fairly Chaotic Good, breaking the law to capture a criminal.


Lastly - Evil does not mean guilty. An egoistical misanthrope, who is rude to everybody and never helps anybody if there is nothing in for him is an Evil character, but he might never ever break any kind of law and completely abhor the idea of actually doing so. Killing people for no better reason than because they are jerks? While I'm not exactly fond of jerks, I nonetheless not only I adamantly disagree with the notion that this is in any way justified for Good (or even just Neutral) characters, but would argue that characters who actually do that are much more in need of some Good-aligned hero stepping in and stopping them - with much, much better justification to use lethal force, if need be - than the people they are wantonly slaughtering.

We do have evidence that he is guilty- he practically confessed to being involved with the orcs who nabbed the victim, and his earrings tie him to them.

I'm liking the suggestions, everyone - especially the turtle thing. As it is, I'm thinking I'll leave him in the woods with some supplies if I find out he can't cast spells, and if he can... well, I'm still working on that :smalltongue:

[russdm]

If I do end up having to kill him, it won't be while he's helpless. Killing someone who's defenseless is an Evil act, as far as my character is concerned; and even if it wasn't, taking it upon myself to sentence another to death removes all agency from the accused, which my Chaotic-ness won't stand for.

Boba Fett had a strict code of honor, and he was very Chaotic Neutral.


Boba Fett is actually more Neutral Evil than anything or maybe Lawful Neutral. He follows his own code of honor, which is very lawful, and works solely for money with almost nothing being personal.

As for you statement, "Taking it upon myself to sentence another to death removes all agency from the accused" sounds really lawful to me, not Chaotic. This sounds like applying the rule of law, "Innocent until proven guilty and what not", not some Chaotic bit. It be Chaotic actually, I don't know.

Do you actually trust the jail he would end up in to get him secure? In D&D, jails have tendency of being less than useless for holding prisoners. Besides, do you really want to deal with this guy becoming back to irritate you again and again?

Solve the problem by employing KBS on him and if you can't do, have a teammate do. KBS stands for Kill the bad guy, Burn his body, Scatter the Ashes. This way you don't get an undead showing up.

You have already kidnapped someone, stolen from somebody, and lied to authorities about it. Why not round it off by ending a problem while you are at it?

You can waste time trying to reform him, but once that doesn't work, what are you going to do? Don't waste the time, its not worth it.

[Werephilosopher]

As for you statement, "Taking it upon myself to sentence another to death removes all agency from the accused" sounds really lawful to me, not Chaotic. This sounds like applying the rule of law, "Innocent until proven guilty and what not", not some Chaotic bit. It be Chaotic actually, I don't know.

"Taking it upon myself to sentence another to death" sounds Lawful. "Taking it upon myself to sentence another to death removes all agency from the accused" sounds lawful. And since it is an argument against what I've just pointed out to be Lawful, it is Chaotic. Just because it sounds lawful doesn't make it Lawful.


Do you actually trust the jail he would end up in to get him secure? In D&D, jails have tendency of being less than useless for holding prisoners. Besides, do you really want to deal with this guy becoming back to irritate you again and again?

I don't really trust jails in general - another reason I didn't just hand him over to the cops. I think suitable intimidation might preclude chances of get harassed by him again.


Solve the problem by employing KBS on him and if you can't do, have a teammate do. KBS stands for Kill the bad guy, Burn his body, Scatter the Ashes. This way you don't get an undead showing up.

Getting my teammate to off him is just as Evil as if I did the deed myself. Even if I didn't wield the knife, it would still be done with my consent, and the blood would still be on my hands.


You have already kidnapped someone, stolen from somebody, and lied to authorities about it. Why not round it off by ending a problem while you are at it?

You can waste time trying to reform him, but once that doesn't work, what are you going to do? Don't waste the time, its not worth it.

That may "round it off" in that our interactions with him come to an end, but it won't be rounded out morally. Following a few actions of questionable morality with an undoubtedly Evil act is not something I want to do.

I appreciate the efforts being put into this sort of argument, but for my character, murder is not something he will consider. I'm not looking for some kind of easy way out, or a cheap justification of murder being for the "greater good."

[NichG]

Recruit him. Make the point that whatever benefits or riches he might've seen on the side of the orcs, you can do far better as adventurers. Convince him that good is profitable.

[Anlashok]

Lawfulness means respect for external authority.
Not necessarily (because your opinion on said authority still matters). Law in a character's alignment implies honor, trustworthiness and tradition.

[Phelix-Mu]

Recruit him. Make the point that whatever benefits or riches he might've seen on the side of the orcs, you can do far better as adventurers. Convince him that good is profitable.

I agree with this. If your group is using anything resembling the default Diplomacy rules, it's not at all hard to convince bad guys that they are in the wrong line of work. Even if your DM isn't totally onboard, it's often possible to make a very sound and well-rp'd argument for the goblin to at least become neutral.

Another thing that strikes me in this discussion is that neutral really is much more prevalent than most of the other alignments. Why? Because people screw up, and sticking to any extreme in any kind of pattern is actually a good bit of work, and usually an inconvenience that common folk (and even a fair few others) can't be bothered with. Life is hard, decision-making is an imperfect science, instinct is a powerful force, and otherwise there is lots that complicates any kind of extremist behavior. Anyone that can't stick to their guns on a regular basis pretty much ends up closer to neutral than not.

And anyone that willingly pursues two contradictory paths is gonna skew neutral as well. Really, neutral is a really big area, compared to the relatively small areas on the edges.

[Prince Raven]

For those who disagree, what alignment would you assign to a vigilante, e.g. someone who believes in meting out capital punishment to overtly evil beings based on his own judgment (no judges, officials, trials) but is kind, generous, and protective of the innocent? He steals from the rich (if they got rich through exploitation and theft rather than good service) and gives to the poor.

Ends-justify-the-means vigilantes are somewhere in the bottom right part of the alignment chart, they're not lawful because they're vigilantes, they're not good because they're willing to do evil deeds to further their goals. Based solely on the text quoted I would say True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, depending on how much they value liberty, but could easily drop down into Neutral Evil if they start hurting innocents.

[Dalebert]

And anyone that willingly pursues two contradictory paths is gonna skew neutral as well. Really, neutral is a really big area, compared to the relatively small areas on the edges.

I can see that. I still remember having a rather uncomfortable conversation with a friend of mine. He believed in karma and seem sincerely confused why karmic rewards didn't just land in his lap. Never mind that in the real world, that just seems like a silly thing to believe. What made it really uncomfortable was when he was making his case for being a good guy which mainly came down to not doing anything overtly evil. He was, however, known to "borrow" magazines from the grocery store where he worked, take them home to read, and then bring them back. He was ultimately fired for that and supposedly putting too much fruit in fruit baskets that he made for himself and not putting the right price on them. When I pointed out that not being evil didn't make him good, he got very upset, but I think it was fairly obvious he was upset because he had no rational defense.


Ends-justify-the-means vigilantes are somewhere in the bottom right part of the alignment chart, they're not lawful because they're vigilantes, they're not good because they're willing to do evil deeds to further their goals. Based solely on the text quoted I would say True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, depending on how much they value liberty, but could easily drop down into Neutral Evil if they start hurting innocents.

These are the best answers I've seen. At least you answered. I could see how CN(g) might be the best fit.

EDIT: I've pondered this a bit more with this food for thought. I think the problem here is treating everyone like a paladin. Most people are mostly a certain way and that's their alignment. I'm inclined to agree with Phelix-Mu about people being mostly neutral in the real world, but in fantasy settings, people more often tend to be heroic or villainous because it's a story world where drama is a key element.

If you primarily only kill in battles when your life is at stake and generally try to avoid killing but occasionally make exceptions for a truly despicable and irredeemable creature that will sow great evil if released and you think the world is just SO much better off with that creature not in it, and if you regularly go out of your way to help people in need, that's still a predominantly good character. That's a person who respects life but is not following a strict code of behavior for how they serve that purpose. In that person's mind, veering off of a strict code-vs-killing serves good overall because he's dealing with a mass murderer who will kill many innocents if free, and maybe they don't trust the authorities to deal with him properly, and maybe it's just not viable to keep the bad guy as a prisoner themselves while continuing on their mission(s) which might result in a great deal more of the causes of good being served.

You can disagree personally with that person's ethical standpoint, but a good alignment is still more fitting for that character than a neutral one. That's Mal in the firefly scene where he kicks a guy into the engine who's tied up and helpless. That guy is EVIL and promises to do evil the moment he's let go. I'm not talking about someone who kills petty thieves. That would lean a lot more toward the neutral area. Mal has gone to great effort to steal medicine from what he sees as a wealthy evil empire only to hand it all over to poor sick people when he was enlightened to the actual situation. Mal is CG. He's not CN because he occasionally kills truly despicable characters who absolutely poison the world he lives in.

[AMFV]

Ends-justify-the-means vigilantes are somewhere in the bottom right part of the alignment chart, they're not lawful because they're vigilantes, they're not good because they're willing to do evil deeds to further their goals. Based solely on the text quoted I would say True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, depending on how much they value liberty, but could easily drop down into Neutral Evil if they start hurting innocents.

But if they're using evil ends, such as torture, and (potentially) murder for their vengeance, isn't that going to drag them down to evil? I mean it's not like they're holding a trial to determine guilt, or like they extract information in a good way. I'd argue it's also easy to have a Lawful vigilante, since vigilantes tend to have very restrictive personal moral codes (don't harm children, or others) which they follow, being lawful does not mean one follows the law of the land, but rather that one follows a personal moral code.

I've thought about this quite a bit recently, and my conclusion is that chaotic people are powered by feeling they do the thing they feel is right in most circumstances, whereas a lawful person does the thing he thinks is right given his own moral code. And a neutral person on that axis is anywhere in between.

[jiriku]

So, here's the moral dilemma. What do I do with the goblin chained up in my handbag? He's Evil, but helpless - I have no desire to kill him in his current state. I also don't want to keep him chained up indefinitely, since that doesn't jive with my ideals of freedom - fiends are one matter, mean mortals are another. Obviously, I can't FREE him, either - I feel fine lying to the crusader and saying he was killed, because he's no longer a threat to the town, but if I let him go, he could eventually threaten them again.

So... how do I deal with him, without becoming a murderer, a slaver, or someone who enables violence upon unsuspecting townsfolk?

You want to stay Chaotic Good, right?

You want to release him, because he should be free. That is Chaotic.
You want to keep him locked up, because he might threaten folks again. That is Lawful.
You want to let him live, because he is helpless. That is Good.
You have considered killing him, because it would be an easy solution. That is Evil.

Sorry, bro. You can't have everything. If your first priority is to make a moral decision that's consistent with your alignment, let him go. It's the Chaotic Good thing to do.

[Dalebert]

You have considered killing him, because it would be an easy solution. That is Evil.

You're right. It's evil. But he might see the alternative as far more evil if the person would then go out and kill a bunch of people. It may be easier but that isn't why he's doing it. If he was doing it simply because it's easier, then that makes it a lot more evil. A more lawful person might have a strict code that precludes the death penalty or may believe in the death penalty but would demand a strict process for ensuring guilt.


Sorry, bro. You can't have everything. If your first priority is to make a moral decision that's consistent with your alignment, let him go. It's the Chaotic Good thing to do.

That's way oversimplified. I think it's inconsistent with how he perceives his character but not necessarily inconsistent with being CG. I don't know exactly how evil this person is. It's just ridiculous to say that a CG character would never believe in the death penalty for a creature he confidently believed to be deeply evil for the sake of the greater good, or that they might exact that penalty without a trial, because respect for a detailed process to determine guilt would be a lawful trait.

[Anlashok]

Sorry, bro. You can't have everything. If your first priority is to make a moral decision that's consistent with your alignment, let him go. It's the Chaotic Good thing to do.

Only we go with the assumption that he's a freedom loving peacenik sort of CG. Which for some reason seems to be the default assumption on the Playground even though I almost never see someone playing that version of the alignment (and there is more than one version) at all.

Nevermind that trapping someone in a cage isn't inherently lawful either. Lawful would be handing him over to proper authorities.

Seriously you could just as easily flip them all around:

You want to let him live because killing helpless targets violates your personal code of ethics. That is Lawful.
You want to kill him because you don't believe he deserves due process and ending him is the only right decision. That is Chaotic.
You consider releasing him, but he will no doubt continue his actions afterwards and you'd be allowing it. That is Evil.
You've considered imprisoning or killing him because he can't be allowed to continue and must pay for his crimes. That is Good.

[Prince Raven]

While a Chaotic Good character may believe in the death penalty, it would need to be incredibly well justified, with no viable alternate option and against someone so evil and dangerous that executing them is a service to the community.

Also remember that part of being Good is being self-sacrificing, if your character chooses execution over another option because it's easier they aren't Good as defined by D&D.

[atomicwaffle]

kill him unless you think the Roleplaying experience would be higher for letting him go. A chaotic good character never turns down potential EXP (Prove me wrong).

[Prince Raven]

There's a rollplayer in the thread!

[Runeclaw]

Killing a helpless foe is always [EVIL].

In a Lawful Good society with a death penalty, would sentencing a convicted criminal to death be [EVIL]? Would carrying out the sentence, on the part of a duly authorized executioner, be [EVIL]?

If not, then your sentence is clearly untrue. And the only difference between that and killing a clearly evil and guilty prisoner yourself is along the Law/Chaos axis.

I think.

Wrestling with this myself in my own campaign.

[Winterwind]

I feel like you're kind of making my point.I mostly wrote that post in seeming disagreement to you because your initial post started with "Fourth-ed. I'm with these folks.", where the very first of "these folks" made the point that "Killing him still wouldn't violate your alignment: he's evil and thus needs to die, and killing evil is not evil.", which is about as far removed from my position as it could be. In subsequent posts, you have made it rather clear that your actual position is a lot more differentiated and reasonable, and I actually pretty much fully agree with everything you have said henceforth. :smallwink:

[Regissoma]

Honestly what I would do is tie him up and make to where he can't go anywhere and thourghly question him. Make it so he can't lie or hopefully have a high sense motive in the party to see if he is lieing. Ask what he has been doing exactly, and if by then with the answers you've obtained and it seems he is truly a evil character end him there for everyones sakes. Word your questions so its harder to wiggle by with smartly worded answers, but do not use loaded questions as this would make things harder. Eventually with enough asking and also do not forget diplomacing him slowly every few hours or even days, you will have your answers in game wise if this man is a truly evil character and that the world would be better without him or to release him into the wild with supplies.

Keeping an evil guy from making other peoples horrible. Good
Detaining him and questioning. eh I can't really call this one
Ending his life if it keeps people from harm. Chaotic Good
Killing him while he is helpless. Evil
Killing him because he has no remorse for anything evil he has done and will continue to do evil acts. Eh its effy on this one for me too, would say ends justify the means here
Releasing him to the authorties. Lawful
Releasing him to the wild to fend for himself and hopefully he dies. Chaotic

[Prince Raven]

In a Lawful Good society with a death penalty, would sentencing a convicted criminal to death be [EVIL]? Would carrying out the sentence, on the part of a duly authorized executioner, be [EVIL]?

This is a trick question, as (a) there is no such thing as a Lawful Good society with a death penalty in D&D* and (b) a Good character wouldn't want to be an executioner.

I also remain unconvinced there is any such thing as a Lawful Good society.

[AMFV]

In a Lawful Good society with a death penalty, would sentencing a convicted criminal to death be [EVIL]? Would carrying out the sentence, on the part of a duly authorized executioner, be [EVIL]?

If not, then your sentence is clearly untrue. And the only difference between that and killing a clearly evil and guilty prisoner yourself is along the Law/Chaos axis.

I think.

Wrestling with this myself in my own campaign.

That isn't the same thing, since there is a procedure for it. Executing a helpless prisoner has no due process. I wouldn't say it's particularly good, but it isn't evil.


This is a trick question, as (a) there is no such thing as a Lawful Good society with a death penalty in D&D* and (b) a Good character wouldn't want to be an executioner.

I also remain unconvinced there is any such thing as a Lawful Good society.

There certainly is, in FR, and many of those have the death penalty. Paladins even have the death penalty.

[Prince Raven]

How do the Forbidden Realms books define "Good", then? Because avoiding killing people if it isn't necessary is a pretty major facet of being Good in the books I'm familiar with.

[AMFV]

How do the Forbidden Realms books define "Good", then? Because avoiding killing people if it isn't necessary is a pretty major facet of being Good in the books I'm familiar with.

Well the point is that the death penalty is not used when it is not absolutely necessary.

Edit: Also there is a strong argument that the death penalty is more merciful than life imprisonment.

[Prince Raven]

Ah, it seemed to me like it was more of a "yeah, we just execute people instead of imprisoning them if they've done something bad enough" rather than a "we execute people if there's absolutely no other option we can take to keep them from hurting others."

Depends on the prison conditions, a society whose prisons are worse than the death sentence is definitely not a "Good" society, as part of being Good is being "concerned for the dignity of sentient life".

[Segev]

A man who kills people based on his own judgment, but seeks to be certain his judgment is correct and that said person truly does need to die to protect the world from him, is either Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral. A Chaotic Good person will do it iff (if and only if) it truly is necessary; he does not kill in cold blood when there are other reasonable options. However, unlike his Neutral Good friend, he will do it without too much compunction if it is expedient and necessary. A Chaotic Neutral person may well do it if it is expedient even if there might be other options, provided he can justify it as "deserved."

The CG guy is going to kill your goblin prisoner iff the goblin is guilty of offenses that really warrant death. He is especially likely to do so if he knows that the result of a "fair trial" by the local law types would result in execution anyway, because Chaotic means he doesn't care about respecting the form of the law despite presumably agreeing with the LG moral reason behind their punishment structure.

The CN guy is going to kill your goblin prisoner if he is certain the goblin is evil and that there's no other expedient solution that won't cause more harm to more other people.

An LG guy would turn the goblin over and attempt to atone for the unlawful robberies committed as well as lying about it to the authorities. An NG guy would kill the goblin only as a last resort, preferring to keep him prisoner and try to rehabilitate him. Failing that, turn him over to lawful authorities wherever he can do so without risking the exigencies of law getting in the way of protecting the innocent.


So, as a CG character, your choices are to either attempt to rehabilitate him while keeping him in your custody, or to kill him if your determination is that he has done things that warrant death AND will do them again.

[tomandtish]

This is a trick question, as (a) there is no such thing as a Lawful Good society with a death penalty in D&D* and (b) a Good character wouldn't want to be an executioner.

I also remain unconvinced there is any such thing as a Lawful Good society.


There certainly is, in FR, and many of those have the death penalty. Paladins even have the death penalty.

Been a while since I read any forgotten realms. Is there a Lawful Good society, or is there a society with a Lawful Good leader(s) who rules according to their beliefs? These are two dramatically differing things. A Lawful Good society would mean the major alignment of all members of the society is Lawful Good. Is there one out there like that? (Note: Actually is LG, not "claims to follow the beliefs of so and so").

As for the original poster, the only right answer depends on what alignment means in your game. While alignment may be intended to be objective in D&D, those objective boundaries still have to be determined by the DM and players. CG in my world may be substantially different from CG in yours.

Let’s look at your post. I bolded a few things:


This is a trick question, as (a) there is no such thing as a Lawful Good society with a death penalty in D&D* and (b) a Good character wouldn't want to be an executioner.

I also remain unconvinced there is any such thing as a Lawful Good society.


In the campaign I'm currently playing in, my character has hit something of a moral dilemma. He's a CG Celadrin Wizard/Malconvoker, working with a TN Lizardfolk Cleric (the other player). Recently we rescued a shop owner's daughter from an evil gnome wizard who'd hired some orc mercenaries as guards. It turns out the shop owner's rival - an evilish goblin who engages in black market trading - is related to said orcs, knew about their activities, and may have had a role in the kidnapping.

The cleric had gone to him to buy his black market wands, but then tried to kill him - both because she got the truth out of him, and also because she wanted to take the wands without meeting his price (that's True Neutral for you :smalltongue:). I saw the commotion, ran inside, and hit the goblin with a ray of clumsiness, dropping his Dex enough so the cleric could get him with a poisoned arrow that knocked him unconscious. Given my character's Goodness, I didn't want to just off him then, so I bound him in chains and stuck him in my handy haversack, then the cleric and I helped ourselves to some of his choicer magic items - because he was evil, and loot is loot, right?

Then the Law showed up. One of our new friends, a crusader who'd helped us rescue the kidnapped girl, arrived on scene - the town sheriff being out of town on business, he was pretty much the head law enforcement official. Rather than flee and risk pursuit, we stuck around to explain things to him - but since the cleric was not just an ally but a friend who I cared about, I lied and said nothing about stealing the goblin's stuff, and said that the body was destroyed in our magical duel. Then when the crusader went to get the barkeeper - the town's other notable warrior - I faked an attack from some unseen force, threw up a solid fog to mask our actions from the crusader, and summoned a dire bat to whisk me and the cleric out of town under the cover of night.

So, here's the moral dilemma. What do I do with the goblin chained up in my handbag? He's Evil, but helpless - I have no desire to kill him in his current state. I also don't want to keep him chained up indefinitely, since that doesn't jive with my ideals of freedom - fiends are one matter, mean mortals are another. Obviously, I can't FREE him, either - I feel fine lying to the crusader and saying he was killed, because he's no longer a threat to the town, but if I let him go, he could eventually threaten them again.

So... how do I deal with him, without becoming a murderer, a slaver, or someone who enables violence upon unsuspecting townsfolk?


So what I see here is we have a Goblin shopkeeper who pegs evil on the detectorama. He knows the orcs involved in the kidnapping, knows about their activities (knew about the kidnapping? elaborate please?), and MAY have been involved with the kidnapping (or may not).

Against that we have that one party member came into his shop, questioned him (how?), tried to steal from him, then tried to kill him. Another party member then assisted the first in kidnapping him.

Hate to tell you, but you may very well already be someone who enables violence upon unsuspecting townsfolk (needs more clarification on what we mean by knew about their activities).

But the bottom line: You've imprisoned a shop keeper where the only concrete thing you seem to have on him is that he detects evil and he knows the orcs involved in the kidnapping. So now, what does your interpretation of your alignment allow you to do? Because we can say anything we want here, but it is ultimately up to you and your DM's interpretation of what it means to be CG.

[DeAnno]

Kidnapping restricts Freedom and is an Evil act. The shopkeeper was involved. Enemies are for Killing.

[Sartharina]

The condition of a person you kill has no bearing on alignment. Killing a helpless 'prisoner' or someone who surrenders is no more evil than killing someone armed and ready, or just walking around.

Only two factors figure into whether killing someone is Evil or not - Why you kill them, and how.
1. The reason to kill needs to be sound. "He's capital-E Evil" is sound enough for Good, if it can be confirmed, and his Evil is great enough to be beyond mind rape/redemption (There's no difference if it's not voluntary - you're still forcing someone to become someone else).
2. The way you kill needs to be done with respect for their life. Kill quickly and cleanly, and inflict as little pain as possible. Everyone dies sometime.

You don't need a trial or any other supervision if you're Chaotic. Those are things Law concerns themselves with, because law doesn't trust others' intuition or conscience, and is reliant on Due Process. It cannot cannot confirm the difference between someone murdering another and making it look like self-defense, or a genuine case of self defense. It needs multiple witnesses, and an aggregate of arbiters to pass judgement to mitigate corruption. Society sees "Your word against his!/You don't know the Truth!" and balk at killings they are ignorant of the details of.

However, Chaotic Good people are judged only by the omniscient cosmic power of Good, and their own hearts and intuition.

In fact, even Law allows the execution of Evil creatures. It is their choices, not their circumstances, that make them Evil. A Paladin is invested with the authority of Law and Good to be Judge, Jury, and Executioner. But you're not a paladin, so it doesn't matter.

[tomandtish]

Kidnapping restricts Freedom and is an Evil act. The shopkeeper was involved. Enemies are for Killing.

His original post says the shop keeper is involved with the orcs and "may" have been involved with the kidnapping.



We do have evidence that he is guilty- he practically confessed to being involved with the orcs who nabbed the victim, and his earrings tie him to them.


Even his later post only stresses that he's involved with the orcs (no clarification on "involved"). Haven't seen anything to indicate involvement in the kidnapping. Seems to be "he's 'involved' with the orcs, the orcs performed the kidnapping, therefore he performed the kidnapping".

[Prince Raven]

The condition of a person you kill has no bearing on alignment. Killing a helpless 'prisoner' or someone who surrenders is no more evil than killing someone armed and ready, or just walking around.

I completely disagree with every word you just said.

[...]

Umm... doesn't BoED have a whole chapter on what's good and what's not? Why don't we all just consult the RAW?

[Prince Raven]

Good idea.* Book of Exalted Deeds says, under Mercy:
"For good characters who devote their lives to hunting and exterminating the forces of evil, evil’s most seductive lure may be the abandonment of mercy. Mercy means giving quarter to enemies who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion and even kindness. It is, in effect, the good doctrine of respect for life taken to its logical extreme—respecting and honoring even the life of one’s enemy. In a world full of enemies who show no respect for life whatsoever, it can be extremely tempting to treat foes as they have treated others, to exact revenge for slain comrades and innocents, to offer no quarter and become merciless.
A good character must not succumb to that trap. Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness or escape from captivity to continue their evil deeds. If a foe surrenders, a good character is bound to accept the surrender, bind the prisoner, and treat him as kindly as possible."

*unintentional pun

[...]

I love when people get caught up in alignment arguments, I say "let's all consult BoED/BoVD," and all the problems are solved.

[kalasulmar]

There seems to be a serious problem with the definition of Chaotic alignment. I have never taken it to mean "anarchic" as some seem to be labeling it. It is rather a way of saying that a person values their own morality and personal code over the letter of the law.

[atemu1234]

There seems to be a serious problem with the definition of Chaotic alignment. I have never taken it to mean "anarchic" as some seem to be labeling it. It is rather a way of saying that a person values their own morality and personal code over the letter of the law.

This, really. Unless the point is to be an anarchist (usually CN or CE, unless they're rebelling against a LE government) it tends to just be valuing your morals and judgement above others.

[Segev]

A chaotic good person will execute evil people based on their own judgment, but they WILL want to be certain the person really deserves it. They are not murderers. But because they're Chaotic, the only person to whom they feel they must prove the guilt of their potential target is themselves. They have no need to wait for some "lawful authority" to find them guilty by some arbitrary standard; the CG person knows the truth and will act on it.

[jiriku]

Seriously you could just as easily flip them all around:

You want to let him live because killing helpless targets violates your personal code of ethics. That is Lawful.
You want to kill him because you don't believe he deserves due process and ending him is the only right decision. That is Chaotic.
You consider releasing him, but he will no doubt continue his actions afterwards and you'd be allowing it. That is Evil.
You've considered imprisoning or killing him because he can't be allowed to continue and must pay for his crimes. That is Good.

You could flip them around like that, but the behaviors you've described here are at best a weak fit for the alignments described. My list, however, is smack in the middle of what's considered "generically appropriate behavior" for the alignments I listed. If the player's primary concern is "how to stay Chaotic Good" and he follows my advice, he'll definitely achieve his goal, and his behavior will be consistent with his own description of his character's morality. If he follows your advice, he'll be acting in direct opposition to what he described as his character's moral outlook.

[Sartharina]

Good idea.* Book of Exalted Deeds says, under Mercy:
"For good characters who devote their lives to hunting and exterminating the forces of evil, evil’s most seductive lure may be the abandonment of mercy. Mercy means giving quarter to enemies who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion and even kindness. It is, in effect, the good doctrine of respect for life taken to its logical extreme—respecting and honoring even the life of one’s enemy. In a world full of enemies who show no respect for life whatsoever, it can be extremely tempting to treat foes as they have treated others, to exact revenge for slain comrades and innocents, to offer no quarter and become merciless.
A good character must not succumb to that trap. Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness or escape from captivity to continue their evil deeds. If a foe surrenders, a good character is bound to accept the surrender, bind the prisoner, and treat him as kindly as possible."

*unintentional pun

This is contrary to Gary Gygax's statements on morality, which explicitly allowed Paladins to execute surrendered Evil foes, and even states that it's a logical extreme of the concept of respect for life.

[Prince Raven]

How Evil? Detects-as-Evil-and-may-have-possibly-done-something-wrong-but-we're-not-sure Evil or bathes-in-the-blood-of-orphans-and-is-too-dangerous-to-leave-alive Evil?

[hamishspence]

This is contrary to Gary Gygax's statements on morality, which explicitly allowed Paladins to execute surrendered Evil foes, and even states that it's a logical extreme of the concept of respect for life.

Yes - but D&D's evolved past Gygax, a bit.

[AMFV]

This is contrary to Gary Gygax's statements on morality, which explicitly allowed Paladins to execute surrendered Evil foes, and even states that it's a logical extreme of the concept of respect for life.

And Gygax's statements would hold more weight if we were in the Older D&D subforum, but we aren't. Furthermore in AD&D, RAW doesn't have as much weight as GM approval, therefore Gygax's statements needn't be weighted as heavily there either.

[hamishspence]

And even back in the day, "killing a prisoner" was given as an example of "alignment-inappropriate behaviour" for Good characters, in one edition of Basic D&D (the Eric Holmes one, with 5 alignments - LG, CG, N, LE, CE).

[Darkweave31]

I like this (http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html)as a guide to all things alignment.

[Sartharina]

And even back in the day, "killing a prisoner" was given as an example of "alignment-inappropriate behaviour" for Good characters, in one edition of Basic D&D (the Eric Holmes one, with 5 alignments - LG, CG, N, LE, CE).

Well, I guess it depends on the context. Yeah, killing someone you've already taken prisoner is probably Evil. But denying someone Evil a surrender in the first place? "No surrender. You just die on your feet (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-y69ELWNyA)"

War is a different situation, where it's normal grunts fighting normal grunts "Just because he's on the other team"(And, unlike the sides in the Good Vs Evil war, their membership on the other team isn't defined by execution-worthy acts), and thus "No Quarter" is considered Evil. Unless there are reasons that prevent quarter from being extended. Then again... war is hell and the greatest atrocity possible, so all actions, no matter how vile they may seem, can be justified if they end it (Except most vile acts only add more fuel to the fires of war, and thus extend it, making them doublewrong. War is hell)