Moral Question of some sorts

[Aetis]

An alignment question came up in the last session I DM'd, and I would appreciate a second opinion on the matter.

PCs (levels 2-3) were tracking down some goblin bandits through the woods. They were aided by a NPC ranger-turned-bounty hunter named Race. It's getting dark, so they camp for the night. Their NPC hunter says he'll go scout ahead and disappears.

During the night, the PC warforged fighter, who does not sleep, hears a strange melody coming from the woods. He stays still. Soon, couple of tiny winged fairies appear. They start to draw things on the sleeping characters with tree sap, and other pranks etc. They must have been thought that the warforged fighter was also asleep, and were surprised when he suddenly grabbed them and stuffed them inside a lantern.

PCs get up in the morning and interrogate the fairies. Turns out that these prankster fairies have the ability to sing and put the listeners to sleep, at which point they prank the victims and move on. PCs decide to put them to a good use and keep them locked inside the lantern. PCs fashion together some earwax to become immune to the sleep effect of the fairies. From then on, every time there was a fight, the warforged fighter simply opened the lantern slightly and ordered the fairies to sing, putting the enemy to sleep. This tactic was highly effective throughout the campaign, and PCs ended up breezing through almost every combat encounter.

PCs were all Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, so I let them continue, but I was wondering if their act of kidnapping fairies, and using them as living weapons was an act of Evil?



P.S. When their NPC hunter never returned, PCs looked for him. They found his body inside a nearby cave. At the sight of his body, fairies admitted that they put him to sleep and pranked him last night before coming across the PCs. It seems that he was found, killed, and dragged away to be eaten by other monsters. This was after the PCs decided to enslave the fairies. Does this fact justify their action?

[dextercorvia]

Sometimes it is useful to ask, "Would this make me the bad guy in a disney movie?"

By this metric almost all PCs are Evil, though, so YMMV.

[Vhaidara]

Assuming that the fairies are unwilling, this is Evil. Capital E. This is slavery of creatures guilty of, at most, a misdemeanor. Maybe they did get the ranger killed, but they did not kill him. They were culpable, not responsible.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Slavery is generally evil, yes. That aside, why would the faeries actually obey. Why do they not escape when he opens the lantern? How did he even capture them (since he'd need to succeed a grapple check at the very least, and probably a pin too, at least all but one of the faeries should have been able to escape. And probably come back with friends.)

Also, the earwax supposedly made them deaf to provide the immunity. Did you enforce the penalties for that (no communication, spell failure, no listen checks, etc)?

[SciChronic]

Sounds pretty evil to me. They learned of the hunter's fate after the fact, so that can't be used to justify their actions. That's like someone going on a shooting spree, and they just happened to kill a terrorist. That person is still on a shooting spree.

Them forcing creatures to do their bidding against their will and holding them prisoner is a pretty harsh punishment for pulling mostly harmless pranks.

[Aetis]

Slavery is generally evil, yes. That aside, why would the faeries actually obey. Why do they not escape when he opens the lantern? How did he even capture them (since he'd need to succeed a grapple check at the very least, and probably a pin too, at least all but one of the faeries should have been able to escape. And probably come back with friends.)

Also, the earwax supposedly made them deaf to provide the immunity. Did you enforce the penalties for that (no communication, spell failure, no listen checks, etc)?

The warforged surprised the fairies. They have never seen a warforged before, and they didn't realize that warforged were immune to sleep effects.

Penalties were enforced for the earwax, but it didn't matter much, since warforged who was in charge of the lantern had no need to use them.

[Aetis]

Sounds pretty evil to me. They learned of the hunter's fate after the fact, so that can't be used to justify their actions. That's like someone going on a shooting spree, and they just happened to kill a terrorist. That person is still on a shooting spree.

Them forcing creatures to do their bidding against their will and holding them prisoner is a pretty harsh punishment for pulling mostly harmless pranks.

These fairies do pose a threat to travelers, no? This wasn't the first time that an unwary traveler was pranked by the fairies, then quickly set upon by another more lethal foe.

[Leviting]

Slavery is evil, but in this case, the faeries had it coming, so it's probably not as as evil as say, killing all the babies in a nearby village. It's not like the faeries wouldn't realize that knocking people out in a monster infested forest wasn't exactly good for the victims' well being, either.

[SciChronic]

These fairies do pose a threat to travelers, no? This wasn't the first time that an unwary traveler was pranked by the fairies, then quickly set upon by another more lethal foe.
How much did the PCs know about that before they enslaved the fairies? How evil their actions were must be determined by how much the PCs knew when they took those actions. Catching a prankster and enslaving him is more evil than enslaving murderers whose weapon was the wilderness, but both are still evil.

Also, did the fairies know that people were getting killed by their actions? was it a common occurrence? the best part of a prank is when the victim realizes what has happened to them, so it doesn't seem like the fairies were trying to get people killed.

[jiriku]

Evil, yes. Also chaotic, if their culture has laws against slavery.

[sleepyphoenixx]

"They had it coming" is no justification for evil acts. At best it justifies killing them. Slavery is always Evil.

[Leviting]

Evil, yes. Also chaotic, if their culture has laws against slavery.

a culture does not have laws. A nation does, some lord's land probably does, but a culture is different; it is the culmination of various ideas and thought processes of a group. In addition, they were in some forest, which appears to be uncivilized enough to have vandalizing fairies and goblins that were worth killing.

[Aetis]

How much did the PCs know about that before they enslaved the fairies? How evil their actions were must be determined by how much the PCs knew when they took those actions. Catching a prankster and enslaving him is more evil than enslaving murderers whose weapon was the wilderness, but both are still evil.

Also, did the fairies know that people were getting killed by their actions? was it a common occurrence? the best part of a prank is when the victim realizes what has happened to them, so it doesn't seem like the fairies were trying to get people killed.

PCs decided that the easiest way to get the job done, which was to track down and eliminate the goblin bandits, was to use the faeries as living weapons. PCs didn't know much about what was going on except what the faeries told them. They were just glad that they acquired a very useful weapon, and they shook the lantern vigorously until the faeries agreed to sing for them. PCs did let the faeries go after the goblins were dealt with.

Faeries knew that their victims got jumped by other monsters time to time. They weren't trying to get their victims killed intentionally though. They admitted their part in the NPC hunter's death out of guilt when they saw his body.

[SciChronic]

PCs decided that the easiest way to get the job done, which was to track down and eliminate the goblin bandits, was to use the faeries as living weapons. PCs didn't know much about what was going on except what the faeries told them. They were just glad that they acquired a very useful weapon, and they shook the lantern vigorously until the faeries agreed to sing for them. PCs did let the faeries go after the goblins were dealt with.

Faeries knew that their victims got jumped by other monsters time to time. They weren't trying to get their victims killed intentionally though. They admitted their part in the NPC hunter's death out of guilt when they saw his body.

Then the PCs were being very evil. They treated creatures as objects to be used simply as a means to an end. what the fairies did doesn't even matter.

[jedipotter]

PCs were all Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, so I let them continue, but I was wondering if their act of kidnapping fairies, and using them as living weapons was an act of Evil?


Yup, big evil.

[Hazrond]

Yup, big evil.

Meh from the way i see it, kidnapping them was evil, but using their song was only chaotic because from what the op said i get the impression they let the faeries go after they dealt with the goblins

[Tommy2255]

It's certainly an Evil Act with the capitalization. If you're a Paladin, then you fall, because you're never allowed to commit an Evil Act, and enslaving a sentient being, regardless of the alignment of that being, is an Evil Act. But it's a pretty justified Evil Act. I'm not even sure I'd call it evil by real world morality (though it's certainly questionable at best). By itself, I don't think it would be enough to shift a good character to neutral, much less shift a neutral character toward evil. I mean, if you never committed any Evil Act, you'd be Good. Neutral characters aren't prohibited from occasional and minor Evil.

[Iain]

Meh from the way i see it, kidnapping them was evil, but using their song was only chaotic because from what the op said i get the impression they let the faeries go after they dealt with the goblins

Chaotic in what way?

Anyway, of course abduction and slavery is evil, do you really have to ask?!

I might let them off with it not being evil if they'd, say, done it for a day, while telling the fairies they were punishing them for their dangerous prank, and taking care to make sure they were keeping the fairies safe and unharmed.

Of course, neutral characters are quite at liberty do so some evil things. Even good ones are, as long as they aren't too evil too frequently (and aren't violating a code which has consequences).

[MrBright01]

This was after the PCs decided to enslave the fairies. Does this fact justify their action?

Emphasis mine. In short, justification does not magically happen if you suddenly find out later that it was justified. They enslaved the faeries before they learned they had done something wrong.

Yes, evil act. They enslaved a sentient creature. Slavery is generally an evil act, regardless of justification or that creature's alignment, from a purely moral standpoint. That said, I agree with what you did as DM, as it was not a good aligned party. You sign up for an evil or neutral game, you know this sort of thing might happen.

Although personally, I would have dropped a sharp shooter on them somewhere and had it shoot through the lantern after a few sessions of one-trick-pony shenanigans. Or made the faeries refuse to help and try to escape.

[Dalebert]

Yes, slavery is evil. I think for a short while, it could be argued to be compensation and learnin' them a think er two for their pranks, but VERY short--maybe a day. I would expect neutral characters to do evil sometimes but it should be somewhat balanced by them choosing to do good sometimes. I wouldn't expect them to participate in great evil unless they had really good reasoning for it like a character who believed in a balance of forces, i.e. the notion of true neutral. That person might do great evil at one point and great good later, all depending on whether he thought it was helping balance or if he thought it was necessary for his own personal internal balance. Most people, however, if they were neutral would probably avoid the extremes on both ends.

[DeltaEmil]

Slavery is always Evil.Apparently not by the D&D 3.x standards. Mulhorand from the Forgotten Realms was a good-aligned nation that practices slavery.

I'm sure that's one of the reasons why it got an entire nation dropped on it during the Spellplague, and hasn't been mentioned to be restored after the Sundering.

[Segev]

"You pranked us with a potentially lethal prank, for naught but your own amusement. We're going to make you make up for it by helping us with our current mission and minimizing the danger to ourselves from here on out."

That's neutral, at worst, I'd say. They didn't torture them more than some mild roughing-up (which, honestly, what piece of fiction hasn't had a hero - even occasional paladinal ones - rough up a recalcitrant informant or two at some point?), and they didn't enslave them beyond a limited term of service. If they'd kept them forever and treated them like objects of convenience only, that would have been pushing a bit further south on the alignment grid, but this was a neutral act. Neither good nor evil. Not even lawful or chaotic; quid pro quo punishment in a situation without formalized rules is pretty much ethically neutral, too.

And coming back to the "roughing up" point of shaking the lantern... the pixies wouldn't have been shaken around if they'd cooperated without the bullying. "Cooperate with this punishment or we'll inflict a worse one" is also neutral. (It seems evil at times because the FIRST punishment is evil, not because the enforcement mechanism is.)

[MrBright01]

Mulhorand from the Forgotten Realms was a good-aligned nation that practices slavery.

Forgotten Realms? There there's your problem.

Joke aside, I do not know that place all that well, so was it slavery or indentured servitude? Just curious, as from a morel point of view, as opposed to an alignment point of view, it makes a huge difference.

[SVentura77]

I disagree. You have a non-sleeping entity watch a group of creatures wander into "town" and molest sleeping people, I feel that capturing the creatures that have engaged in, the way I see it, hostile actions towards a neutral party justifies repercussions. Imprisonment for a time and forced reparations seems appropriate for what the fairies have done so far.

It's not like the party sought faeries out and imprisoned them because they thought it would be cool, but rather the party captured faeries who have been casting hostile magic spells upon them (do they allow saving throws normally?) and then drawing on their faces // allowing them to die from predators.

It seems like they're taking regular actions against a hostile force.

"Oh, you're attacking us? We'll fight back by using your power to our gain."

I'd place this as a neutral action at worst. Especially if they loose the faeries eventually. In this situation I may mark them as "evil" for a short time but not change their alignment, but after some time and depending on their actions, I would mark them neutral rather than full evil or chaotic.

*edit* I guess what Segev already said...

[DeltaEmil]

Forgotten Realms? There there's your problem.

Joke aside, I do not know that place all that well, so was it slavery or indentured servitude? Just curious, as from a morel point of view, as opposed to an alignment point of view, it makes a huge difference.Here's the quote from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting.

SLAVERY
Few of the human kingdoms and cities of the Heartlands permit slavery within their borders. Indentured servitude and serfdom are relatively common practices that approach the hopelessness and brutality of slavery in some lands, but even the most wretched serf or servant is considered a human being, not property.
This does not prevent slavers from other regions or races from seeking their quarry in these lands. Orcs and goblins sweep down from their mountain strongholds, carrying off unfortunates to brutal thralldom in their mines and fields.
Pirates of the Inner Sea frequently sell their victims into captivity in the eastern lands of Mulhorand or Thay. Parties of Zhentarim slavers brazenly ply their trade almost anywhere in the Heartlands, deterred only by the most vigorous and aggressive defenses. Thayan enclaves in many of the more dangerous or lawless cities openly trade magic devices for slaves, and are rumored to deal in slaves secretly in cities where they are not allowed to do so openly.
Outside the Heartlands, slave-owning societies are much more common. Zhentil Keep and Mulmaster in the Moonsea make extensive use of slave labor. The societies of the eastern lands—Thay, Mulhorand, and Unther—are founded on the ceaseless toil of millions of state-owned and privately held slaves. In these lands, a free peasant or small common-born farmer simply does not exist. All lands are worked and all menial tasks performed by slaves. A strong, healthy slave costs between 50 and 100 gold pieces in lands where slavery is common.
Conditions of slavery vary wildly between different lands. Slaves in Mulhorand outnumber the free citizens—and, not surprisingly, the life of a slave in Mulhorand is little worse than the life of a peasant
in most other lands. Slaves in Thay and Unther endure far harsher treatment, both by callous masters and a society that considers them to be nonentities. Anyone unfortunate enough to fall under the cruel dominion of orcs or goblins rarely lives out a year of abject misery before succumbing to overwork, malnutrition, and various slave-baiting "games".
Regardless of the conditions, most Heartlands humans find slavery extremely distasteful at the very least, and more than a few consider it an abomination in the sight of the gods.

[SciChronic]

"You pranked us with a potentially lethal prank, for naught but your own amusement. We're going to make you make up for it by helping us with our current mission and minimizing the danger to ourselves from here on out."

As the OP puts it, they didnt even take them prisoner as a punishment. they did it because they knew they were going to fight goblins, and the fairies would be a useful tool against them.

[lytokk]

I actually don't see this case as much as slavery as imprisonment. They pulled a prank on you, harmless in nature. They do however represent a potential threat to you. If they often put travellers to sleep, they could seriously hamper your efforts to eradicate the goblin threat. Now they haven't done anything worth killing them over sure, but you have to make sure that nothings going to interfere with your mission. You could try and get them to promise not to do it again, but they're fey, which makes them pretty chaotic, and in that regard, somewhat untrustworthy. Right now they're contained, and so long as the intention was to release them at some point, I don't see a lot of evil there.

Realizing that your new captives could be used to ease your quest, also not evil. The method for making them help you however I wouldn't classify as good. Since it was using intimidations, threats and actual physical violence I would classify it as neutral, but not evil.

The only thing I can think of that would be evil would be actually releasing them after finding out their seemingly harmless pranks have resulted in people dying. And since the fairies know that their pranks have resulted in people's deaths from time to time and they still do it, I don't think there'd be a huge issue in taking more extreme measures to make sure it didn't happen again.

[rexx1888]

i dunno why everyone is sticking up for the fairies :\ if you were in the woods, your pal wandered off an got murder eaten, wouldnt you be pretty pissed. If it so happened you found the reason for his death(the fairies.. the fairies are most definately not innocent in this, putting random ppl to sleep in the woods is not a prank, even if they think it is,especially as it gets people killed apparently) then wouldnt you kill them. Most folks in dnd tend to see a monster and immediately resort to violence. Not even a paladin could reliably argue that the faries werent bad news in this instance. Sure, being slaves is kinda ****, but they need to be locked up in some way some how, they are actively getting people killed :\

However, them singing shouldnt have been reliable enough to get players through many many encounters, thats kinda broken :\

[Vhaidara]

i dunno why everyone is sticking up for the fairies :\ if you were in the woods, your pal wandered off an got murder eaten, wouldnt you be pretty pissed. If it so happened you found the reason for his death(the fairies.. the fairies are most definately not innocent in this, putting random ppl to sleep in the woods is not a prank, even if they think it is,especially as it gets people killed apparently) then wouldnt you kill them. Most folks in dnd tend to see a monster and immediately resort to violence. Not even a paladin could reliably argue that the faries werent bad news in this instance. Sure, being slaves is kinda ****, but they need to be locked up in some way some how, they are actively getting people killed :\

However, them singing shouldnt have been reliable enough to get players through many many encounters, thats kinda broken :\

The problem is that they did all of this before they knew anyone had gotten killed. Which means that they would have done it even if they were harmless pranks.

[lytokk]

The thing is, the warforged trapped them in the middle of the night. It seems reasonable for him to wait until after everyone wakes up naturally before finding out what to do about them. What we don't know is the order of events after everyone wakes up. Did they decide to use them as a weapon before realizing the scout was still missing?

[Dalebert]

You could try and get them to promise not to do it again, but they're fey, which makes them pretty chaotic, and in that regard, somewhat untrustworthy.

Unfortunately there's nothing about it in D&D lore, but I like the fey in Dresden Files lore. They can't break a promise. They will, however, attempt to find any loopholes possible to technically abide by it while still doing what they want to do. They're very sneaky in that way. I don't know how that would reflect in alignment. It's really like they're chaotic creatures trapped in lawful bodies and being forced to behave a certain way. It might even be borderline lawful evil because they also try to use it to their advantage. If you make a pact with them, it makes them far more powerful specifically with respect to you so the binding kind of goes both ways and helps them to enforce it on your side as well.

[Segev]

While we can argue their intent was more selfish and potentially on the southerly side of Neutral, they ultimately didn't do anything that involved cruelty to innocents nor unwarranted punishment.

The fairies were jerks, and the party didn't want to have them cause further trouble while they were on their mission. The fairies were also useful.

Their actions are pretty firmly Neutral on all accounts. Not enough to move an alignment anywhere unless it's part of a long string of equally-Neutral actions.

[Graypairofsocks]

Just curious: what kind of fairy were they?

Were they petals?

[Vogonjeltz]

PCs decided that the easiest way to get the job done, which was to track down and eliminate the goblin bandits, was to use the faeries as living weapons. PCs didn't know much about what was going on except what the faeries told them. They were just glad that they acquired a very useful weapon, and they shook the lantern vigorously until the faeries agreed to sing for them. PCs did let the faeries go after the goblins were dealt with.

Faeries knew that their victims got jumped by other monsters time to time. They weren't trying to get their victims killed intentionally though. They admitted their part in the NPC hunter's death out of guilt when they saw his body.

Hrm, I wouldn't worry too much then. It's not slavery, but it would be taking captives for a time. The faeries were opponents who the warforged captured. That they were required a service before release is actually fairly amiable considering their actions resulted in the death of a friend.

In a forest teeming with wild monsters, nothing that makes its victims helpless is a harmless prank. In this case, the faeries were definitely threatening the safety of the PCs. Imprisonment is a fair punishment under the circumstances, and certainly less awful for the faeries than killing them.

On top of all this, the consequences of putting someone into a magical slumber in a dangerous place should be easy to comprehend for a sentient species. If the faeries were truly incapable of recognizing the threat from what they were doing, then capturing them is no worse than capturing an animal. And using them is no worse than using a trained animal. In D&D terms, this is neutral, not evil.

[Hazrond]

Hrm, I wouldn't worry too much then. It's not slavery, but it would be taking captives for a time. The faeries were opponents who the warforged captured. That they were required a service before release is actually fairly amiable considering their actions resulted in the death of a friend.

In a forest teeming with wild monsters, nothing that makes its victims helpless is a harmless prank. In this case, the faeries were definitely threatening the safety of the PCs. Imprisonment is a fair punishment under the circumstances, and certainly less awful for the faeries than killing them.

On top of all this, the consequences of putting someone into a magical slumber in a dangerous place should be easy to comprehend for a sentient species. If the faeries were truly incapable of recognizing the threat from what they were doing, then capturing them is no worse than capturing an animal. And using them is no worse than using a trained animal. In D&D terms, this is neutral, not evil.

BAM, explained better than i ever could :smalltongue:

[Zanos]

While we can argue their intent was more selfish and potentially on the southerly side of Neutral, they ultimately didn't do anything that involved cruelty to innocents nor unwarranted punishment.

The fairies were jerks, and the party didn't want to have them cause further trouble while they were on their mission. The fairies were also useful.

Their actions are pretty firmly Neutral on all accounts. Not enough to move an alignment anywhere unless it's part of a long string of equally-Neutral actions.
Agreed. Pretty firm stamp of neutrality from me.

[Phelix-Mu]

Depends. Some chaotic fey have a really poor understanding of the implications of their actions, as their behavior is kind of hardwired into their being. Also, some fairies are pretty stupid. But I generally agree that this is somewhere on the southern (evil) side of neutral. It's minorly evil because they really weren't picturing this as just compensation or punishment, from what we know. Just that using the fairies as a tool would be useful.

[Sartharina]

"They had it coming" is no justification for evil acts. At best it justifies killing them. Slavery is always Evil.This isn't slavery.
1. Fairies and other fey are forces of nature, not people.
2. Their incarceration and forced cooperation is punishment for their crimes against the party.

Furthermore, if someone's life is forfeit, all their freedoms are as well. They can have them back when they're dead.

[sleepyphoenixx]

This isn't slavery.
1. Fairies and other fey are forces of nature, not people.
2. Their incarceration and forced cooperation is punishment for their crimes against the party.

Furthermore, if someone's life is forfeit, all their freedoms are as well. They can have them back when they're dead.

Storms are forces of nature. Fey are sapient beings, same as any other creature with Int 3 or higher. Incarceration and forced cooperation is slavery. Using it as punishment doesn't make it not-slavery.

The thing is, there is no law in the wilderness. Even if there was and the punishment was legal it would be lawful - but still evil. In this case it's a very minor thing since they eventually released them but that doesn't change that fact that they captured sapient beings and forced them to follow their orders.
They also did it for selfish reasons (to make their fights easier). If they were really concerned about the safety of others they would have neutralized the threat, one way or another. They didn't.

[Sartharina]

Storms are forces of nature. Fey are sapient beings, same as any other creature with Int 3 or higher. Incarceration and forced cooperation is slavery. Using it as punishment doesn't make it not-slavery.Monsters are monsters, not people. Also, you are way over-defining slavery.

The thing is, there is no law in the wilderness. Even if there was and the punishment was legal it would be lawful - but still evil. In this case it's a very minor thing since they eventually released them but that doesn't change that fact that they captured sapient beings and forced them to follow their orders.
They also did it for selfish reasons (to make their fights easier). If they were really concerned about the safety of others they would have neutralized the threat, one way or another. They didn't.They bring their own law. Forcing people to follow their orders is a Lawful, not Evil, act.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I think that "bringing your own law" is pretty much the definition of chaotic.
Taking someone prisoner because they are a threat to you is neutral, as is killing them.
Forcing someone to act against their will is evil, no matter what you call it. It may be socially acceptable when the other is not human but that doesn't make it Good. Good is a universal constant that doesn't care what society considers good at the moment.

At least that's how i see it and that's the definition i use when i DM. The breaking point for me is forcing someone to do something that goes beyond "being a prisoner".
Helping you in combat fits that definition. It would be different if they had offered the fairies to release them in exchange for their help, but they didn't.

[Sartharina]

I think that "bringing your own law" is pretty much the definition of chaotic.
Taking someone prisoner because they are a threat to you is neutral, as is killing them.
Forcing someone to act against their will is evil, no matter what you call it. It may be socially acceptable when the other is not human but that doesn't make it Good. Good is a universal constant that doesn't care what society considers good at the moment.

At least that's how i see it and that's the definition i use when i DM. The breaking point for me is forcing someone to do something that goes beyond "being a prisoner".
Helping you in combat fits that definition. It would be different if they had offered the fairies to release them in exchange for their help, but they didn't.Maybe you should learn how real prisoners are treated, then?

And "Bringing your own law" is Lawful, not Chaotic, assuming there is self-consistency in the law the person ascribes to and brings. That is the ONLY source of law (Someone imposing their will on others, with others accepting that will). Chaotic is "Following your own whims".

[Sagitta]

In fiction*, fey are often associated with forced servitude. You eat their food, you have to serve for seven years. You catch one, you can demand a service in exchange for releasing them. And so on. The same often applies to djinn and outsiders too, of course. So far as their own moral code goes, the fairies were probably surprised at being freed after a few weeks instead of having to serve for a year and a day.

PCs are not judged by other races' standards, though. If you're interested in whether they were following their declared alignment, it depends very much on their motivation.

Imprisoning the fairies for a short time in an effort to reform them or deter others would be Good. (But completely ineffective, they're innately incapable of learning that pranks are bad, mmkay.)
Drafting unwilling troops to ensure victory might be justified to prevent a terrible evil ... but not just to catch some goblins. I'm sure the PCs didn't conscript every human peasant they encountered.
Hurting the fairies as an act of retribution is a sufficiently murky act I won't discuss it further.
Demanding service from the fairies because they were entitled to it would be Neutral. Assuming they are not harmed or endangered, say by shaking the lantern or taking them into combat.
Capturing sentient creatures and forcing them to fight for their lives, just for one's own advantage, would be Evil. Just as it is Evil to capture human slaves so they can earn money for you as gladiators.
Doing nothing when an NPC ally disappears would normally be Evil. But there could be extenuating circumstances, like him being too hard to track, or you being in a magical slumber.

So yes, Evil in this case, but I'd rate it low on the scale. A serious matter for a paladin or anyone following a similar strict moral code. But perfectly consistent with a neutral character.

By the way, I notice you didn't mention feeding the slaves.




*I'm saying nothing about real fey.

[...]

Just curious: what kind of fairy were they?

Were they petals?

Well, if we assume that they were petals, MM3 does shed some light on the fact that they don't think that there are other things in the forests that they reside in that want to kill sleeping humanoids, but they are neutral good and only want people to be well-rested, so you are being a bit harsh, at best.

[Phelix-Mu]

It may be a little heavy-handed to call it slavery, but stuff starts getting black long before one gets to slavery. Removing someone's free will without due process (lawful, even if the form of due process varies wildly) and forcing them to work for short period X is still probably kidnapping and possibly assault. Remember, if people are lawful, then they can generally prescribe their views, but their views may not touch on all possibilities. While it may be wrong for the fairies to endanger people (in the sense of immoral), I highly doubt that it is unlawful in the sense the party members were following (especially as none seem to have been L Anything). Why? Because if it was unlawful to go around harming things without due cause and process, then most adventuring-based activities wouldn't have much basis.

Basically, unless this was an unusually virtuous party (not backed up by their implied alignments), then typical practices of murder-hobos would also contravene any law levied against the fairies. While neutral people may selectively apply the law (a chaotic act), doing so to their own explicit and intended benefit is pushing the action toward evil. Still neutral, but definitely more evil than good.

If this kind of behavior became a pattern of minor evil for self-benefit, some of the party might approach the area of alignment change, in my campaign. I'd always let the player know, of course, but evil habits are how evil typically corrupts people, and any downsliding generally gathers steam without due diligence to avoid doing so.

[Graypairofsocks]

Monsters are monsters, not people.

Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings listed in the Monster Manual, under "Monsters A to Z".
Logically they are Monsters if they are listed there.
According to you because they are monsters they are not people.

Also what is the definition of people you are using here?



Well, if we assume that they were petals, MM3 does shed some light on the fact that they don't think that there are other things in the forests that they reside in that want to kill sleeping humanoids, but they are neutral good and only want people to be well-rested, so you are being a bit harsh, at best.

I forgot to mention this earlier, but Petals (as fluffed at least) also don't prank people they put to sleep, they just remove armor from the sleeping person and clothe them in flowers.

[...]

I forgot to mention this earlier, but Petals (as fluffed at least) also don't prank people they put to sleep, they just remove armor from the sleeping person and clothe them in flowers.

Well, I know that, but a bit of DM license is always allowed in the monster descriptions. Maybe these Petals were particularly mischievous.

[Elkad]

Not sure where people are getting "slavery and imprisonment" are always evil, because they aren't. They can be used for evil ends of course, like anything else, but they are simply social rules.

If the fey were captured and imprisoned for a set term, such term to be reduced for instances of good behavior, I don't see any evil there at all. The fact that the good behavior was singing to charm enemies instead of breaking rocks on a road crew or washing the Sheriff's laundry makes no difference.

If the fey were innocent of all wrong-doing and captured, that would be different.

[Phelix-Mu]

Not sure where people are getting "slavery and imprisonment" are always evil, because they aren't. They can be used for evil ends of course, like anything else, but they are simply social rules.

If the fey were captured and imprisoned for a set term, such term to be reduced for instances of good behavior, I don't see any evil there at all. The fact that the good behavior was singing to charm enemies instead of breaking rocks on a road crew or washing the Sheriff's laundry makes no difference.

If the fey were innocent of all wrong-doing and captured, that would be different.

Slavery is when one sentient creature or group of sentient creatures removes self-determination and liberty from the lives of other sentient creatures, usually for the benefit of slavers. While it may be lawful, it is really, really hard to argue that slavery is even neutral, let alone good. At the very least, the act of enslaving someone is a grave act of disrespect and violating the dignity of another person. Usually, this entails some kind of oppression, as even well-treated slaves are rarely in favor of their arrangement (as its very nature is demeaning...x works for y because x has no choice...this sucks, even if the work is good and the conditions are good).

Moreover, relying on other people to do work that a good person should probably be doing out of self-reliance and the value of being responsible and humble is detrimental to the slaver, let alone the enslaved. The dichotomy of the powerful and the weak that is created by this kind of mentality is poisonous to D&D ideals of goodness, and a good person would want to avoid this tendency to think of themselves as better or more than the enslaved.

Some cultures may have slavery and not be, on the whole, evil. This does not change the fact that an individual engaging in enslavement of another is evil.

[HighWater]

The Party was attacked by Fairies, who mildly molested them while sleeping, while also putting them in a very vulnerable position in a dangerous environment. This is, in fact, reckless endangerment (a serious charge) and later on we find out that they have also successfully committed actual third degree murder.

Rather than kill the Fairies, which is pretty much okay in the "laws" of the wild, the Warforged captured them and the party put the fairies to good use. As all the Fairies were required to do was to occasionally sing on command to put people to sleep, something the Fairies do by themselves all the time, their forced labour was not of a depraved nature and is somewhat comparable to regular prison work. The party, being typically arrogant, probably never realised there was some potential harm for the fairies if they happened to lose a fight, because they never realised they could lose a fight (and therefore didn't). Roughing up the fairies a little is not Good, but it is not Evil either (no long term physical harm was inflicted). To top it all off, the Fairies were released upon completion of their mission...

All sounds pretty balanced and neutral to me, maybe a hint of chaotic, though there's no law in the wild.

[SangoProduction]

OK, no one has actually brought this up (for the first page). But D&D is a world of objective (not subjective) Evil and Good. It does not matter if you raise zombies to serve everyone unlimited supplies of food and prevent all violence. It is Evil because it is an "evil spell," not because you used it in a malicious, mean, or cruel way.
Even killing an evil creature is an evil act in D&D. As such, alignment !@$@! can never be in a group with a PC Paladin that's playing by PHB rules. Even in self defense, it's evil, and a paladin would fall.
And in fact, there would be 0 adventurers who are ever actually good. Even the most pious, generous, helpful. peace-loving adventurer who got to level 5 would be whole-heartedly evil according to the objective Good and Evil of D&D.

Evil in this world can be compared to gravity in ours. Doing an "evil" act and explaining why it's not evil is like jumping off a cliff, and explaining why you shouldn't fall.

Obviously, though, this is not normally enforced objectively, but instead, subjectively based on either the player's or the character's views, or at least the DM's world.
If, in your world, it is considered a good act to kill goblins, it's a good act, and a paladin doesn't fall because that's now an exception to the regular "All killing is evil" rule. (Rule 0 - the GM is always right)

But, objectively speaking, there is nothing in Vile Darkness (generally the go-to-guide for determining if something is objectively evil in the D&D world, aside for spell descriptors), aside for Using Others For Personal Gain. Now, this is a fairly severe version of that, but this also assumes they had no empathy or concern for those they use. They let them go in the end.
As such, they should get a warning that they are teetering on the edge of sliding a rank towards evil (if good), if neutral, it shouldn't be that bad unless it's a recurring theme. But it is not, in and of itself, an objectively evil act strong enough to immediately slide them towards evil, in D&D.

(Disclaimer: No, I don't support slavery.)

EDIT: Someone did mention it would be quite like a prisoner being put to work. And unless your players were being especially cruel or uncaring, it would be no more evil than locking someone up in a prison...which is typically seen as the "right" thing to do. The "good" thing to do. Of course, this is not objectively "Good" by D&D's standards, unless you actually redeem them from their evil ways. (And yes, they were committing evil.)

[Coidzor]

PCs get up in the morning and interrogate the fairies. Turns out that these prankster fairies have the ability to sing and put the listeners to sleep, at which point they prank the victims and move on. PCs decide to put them to a good use and keep them locked inside the lantern. PCs fashion together some earwax to become immune to the sleep effect of the fairies. From then on, every time there was a fight, the warforged fighter simply opened the lantern slightly and ordered the fairies to sing, putting the enemy to sleep. This tactic was highly effective throughout the campaign, and PCs ended up breezing through almost every combat encounter.

PCs were all Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, so I let them continue, but I was wondering if their act of kidnapping fairies, and using them as living weapons was an act of Evil?

I could see once or twice before letting them go to be proportionate and potentially drive a moral lesson home to the fey to keep in mind the repercussions of their actions and who they choose to target.

I suppose I'm mostly just a bit surprised that the faeries didn't betray them in an attempt to gain their freedom at some point than I am concerned about the morality here. Or they didn't attract something worse from the fey for having captive faeries without having gone through the formal process to make them thralls. You just... don't really take faerie types captive, especially for a duration, it's just such a bad idea.

It's clearly non-good to imprison and coerce a creature, especially for a longer and longer period of time and also for what their initial reason for doing so was. It's definitely leaning towards the evil end of the alignment pool, there's no question about that.


P.S. When their NPC hunter never returned, PCs looked for him. They found his body inside a nearby cave. At the sight of his body, fairies admitted that they put him to sleep and pranked him last night before coming across the PCs. It seems that he was found, killed, and dragged away to be eaten by other monsters. This was after the PCs decided to enslave the fairies. Does this fact justify their action?

No, but it would've justified destroying them or taking steps to stop the fairies in that forest from engaging in such things, as it exacerbates what was a very stupid and annoying prank into negligent homicide. As much as destroying anything within one's power is justified, considering we're dealing with murder-hobos as a base-line.

I'm... honestly quite confused as to why you did that, really. :smallconfused:


These fairies do pose a threat to travelers, no? This wasn't the first time that an unwary traveler was pranked by the fairies, then quickly set upon by another more lethal foe.

That just raises the question as to why the fairies are pranking people near dangerous wild animals or plant creatures or why they're not pranking these other creatures. You'd think these things would love to prank goblins.

[Phelix-Mu]

Also, why they ever get a chance to prank anyone. Woods filled with fairie pranksters are usually notoriously empty (or not actually full of fairie pranksters, but full of clever people that want to be left alone), even for fairies substantially less lethal than these.

Also, I'd like to reiterate what Coidzor said; mucking around with one fey might be okay, but usually you want to make a good impression. While there is no guarantee of anything with fey, there is a fair likelihood of the fairies developing an undying obsession with their once-captors, and fey are typically just crazy enough to make extremely undesirable enemies. And this is to say nothing of the higher-powered fey that often lurk in such places and take a dim view of the mistreatment of their cousins (or they might not care at all and just see the mistreatment as an excuse to screw around with the party). Evil nymphs in particular can be quite horrendous enemies, and while they are usually friends of the forest critters, they would have little compunction about making life impossible for mortals if such seemed like fun/desirable.

[Sith_Happens]

Important question: Did any of the fairies, at any point, say "Hey, listen?"

If so, then these PCs now qualify for Exalted feats.

[Sartharina]

Slavery is when one sentient creature or group of sentient creatures removes self-determination and liberty from the lives of other sentient creatures, usually for the benefit of slavers. While it may be lawful, it is really, really hard to argue that slavery is even neutral, let alone good. At the very least, the act of enslaving someone is a grave act of disrespect and violating the dignity of another person. Usually, this entails some kind of oppression, as even well-treated slaves are rarely in favor of their arrangement (as its very nature is demeaning...x works for y because x has no choice...this sucks, even if the work is good and the conditions are good).Depends on the cause. Removing the self-determination and liberty from the lives of other sentient creatures in response to a wrong against you is perfectly in line with natural law and basic rights, just as removing the right of life in response to a wrong. If you're morally justified in killing something, you're equally morally justified in impressing it instead.

What separates the Good from the Evil (And neutral) in these situations is their treatment of those they impress. Impressement is NOT the same as slavery.

[Raven777]

This feels strangely relevant. (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=118) :smallamused:

[...]

Important question: Did any of the fairies, at any point, say "Hey, listen?"

If so, then these PCs now qualify for Exalted feats.

Huh. I just made a similar joke about half-fey will-o-wisps a couple days ago on this forum.

[1pwny]

Okay guys, lets step back a bit, and look at what actually happened. From what I understand of the situation, the faeries played a harmless prank on the adventurers. The adventurers then got revenge by temporarily capturing the faeries and using them for what they were already doing!

I find the situation similar to this: The adventurers had a cannon fired at them, found the cannon, and pointed it at some goblins.

The point is thus: They didn't hurt the pixies, didn't kill their family, and didn't force them to do anything they wouldn't have done anyway. They just took a loose cannon and pointed it. I've always considered Chaotic Neutral as giving a bit of leeway towards Good or Evil actions. I would consider this more of using a resource than slavery.

[nedz]

Important question: Did any of the fairies, at any point, say "Hey, listen?"

If so, then these PCs now qualify for Exalted feats.

On a similar note, the PCs could have made a pass to qualify for Nymph's Kiss.

[Phelix-Mu]

Depends on the cause. Removing the self-determination and liberty from the lives of other sentient creatures in response to a wrong against you is perfectly in line with natural law and basic rights, just as removing the right of life in response to a wrong. If you're morally justified in killing something, you're equally morally justified in impressing it instead.

What separates the Good from the Evil (And neutral) in these situations is their treatment of those they impress. Impressement is NOT the same as slavery.

At which point we pretty much need to return to D&D morality, which, IIRC, states that slavery is evil, regardless of any shades of gray that real life might interject.

Personally, killing people is never the right thing to do, because life is sacred and ending it is bad. It may be an acceptable cost, but should always be a last resort; change of heart, diplomacy, hope, redemption...all of these fail when we remove the possibility for change that life represents. Same with removing another person's right to be themselves, as opposed to being who I say they can be (slavery). I don't see much in the way of shades of gray in terms of morality, but it may be lawful to engage in such behavior in a society (say Ancient Greece) and so generally acceptable behavior. But that doesn't make it moral, in my mind, since right/wrong aren't simply determined by what society deems acceptable.

But none of that is D&D's objective alignment thing, which is much more clear cut about a whole array of actions and behaviors.

Either way, this wasn't really an example of slavery, and they weren't forced to do much (though it is rather unrealistic that fey would be coerced easily or without repercussions...these seem like extremely simpleton fairies).

[Yahzi]

I'm with the people saying it is Neutral. In fact, in my world it would be consistent with Chaotic Good.

The fairies attacked; the party didn't know their intent was harmless. Capturing them was justified.

Forcing them to provide a service (one that incidentally benefited them as well since the goblins probably kill fairies on sight) as retribution is pretty normal. It's not super-good, but it's not evil. Making them fight once is OK; more than that is pushing it (since they only attacked the party once).

Once they discovered the fairies had gotten one of their people killed, then they were entitled to a lot more. They could have executed the fairies for the crime of manslaughter and still been CG in my world.

If, at the end, they released the fairies unharmed, then I would still say the party was CG. If they abused or tortured the fairies unnecessarily during the process, that makes them evil; but merely impressing (forcibly recruiting) them into battle is not unfair, especially since they fairies put themselves forward.

As for not impressing every peasant they saw; well, in my world, CG could get away with a certain amount of that, if the goblins were also enemies of the peasants.



Even killing an evil creature is an evil act in D&D. As such, alignment !@$@! can never be in a group with a PC Paladin that's playing by PHB rules. Even in self defense, it's evil, and a paladin would fall.
That seems... self-refuting. The rules of D&D give paladins swords. When they swing those swords at evil creatures, the gods inflict extra damage (smite). Clearly the gods of LG do not think killing evil creatures is an evil act.

[Hazrond]

-snip-

I pretty much agree, it was really a chaotic act if anything

[Iain]

I pretty much agree, it was really a chaotic act if anything

I understand the Neutral vs Evil arguments, but why would anyone suggest this is a Chaotic act?

And Chaotic Good?! That's the alignment of individual freedom and benevolent intentions. If anything, it's the alignment least likely to press someone into involuntary service, for any reason!

[Segev]

I understand the Neutral vs Evil arguments, but why would anyone suggest this is a Chaotic act?

And Chaotic Good?! That's the alignment of individual freedom and benevolent intentions. If anything, it's the alignment least likely to press someone into involuntary service, for any reason!

I can honestly argue this action as something a person of ANY alignment might take. This is really less alignment-based and more based on personal interpretations of the situation. It's a firmly neutral set of actions on all axes.

[Hazrond]

I understand the Neutral vs Evil arguments, but why would anyone suggest this is a Chaotic

It's chaotic because its essentially vigilante justice, the faeries got caught when they were defacing the party (in their faces :smalltongue:) and the party made them do a short amount of work in retribution, hardly the slavery everybody keeps calling it, they also let the faeries go after they finished off the goblins

[Segev]

It's lawful because there is no legal authority over to which to turn them, and justice demands they be kept from causing further harm at least for a time.

Because either a lawful or a chaotic person can find equal justification for it, it's ethically neutral.

[Yahzi]

That's the alignment of individual freedom and benevolent intentions.
Kinda like Hazron said.

However, I find the D&D descriptions of alignment to be really, really unhelpful. As both Sango and Phelix have pointed out.

Morality is pretty simple. It is doing to others what you want done to you. Everybody understands this; everybody can figure out what it means in any given situation (the fairies, for example, would not want to be knocked out and left to be eaten by monsters).

What determines your alignment is who you think counts as an "other," that is, as a moral peer. Nobody counts trees as equals; any alignment can cut them down and use them for firewood. Everybody counts themselves as moral agents; i.e. they look out for their own best interest. Where you draw the line in-between determines your alignment:

NE - nobody else counts
CE - people you are afraid of
LE - people you can make a profit off of
CG - your friends, family, kin, or tribe
LG - your nation or nations you have treaties with
NG - everything sentient

I know this is different than standard D&D, but it maps reasonably well, and is a lot more useful in helping players stick to an alignment. Murder-hobos get to be CG in this scheme because they don't view the monsters as "people." Once they do view a monster as a person (say, they befriend a toothless old goblin) they can't treat him like a piece of firewood, even while they are burning goblin villages. Since this is in fact how most players act, and we know that D&D by default expects most players to be at least weakly aligned to Good, this produces the results the game expects, while making it easier to figure out what actions go along with that.

Casting Evil spells is still an evil act, because Good people aren't supposed to use that tainted power source. Paladins still have codes that restrict them from using poison, because they recognize it is a destabilizing act that weakens national treaties. However, that doesn't mean they won't put out ant poison (even possibly against intelligent ants, if those ants are outside of the international system).

[Iain]

Yup, I don't see anything that makes me think it's either Chaotic or Lawful.

And at the very least, dragging the fairies along unwillingly into life-threatening combat, when there were alternative options, sounds non-Good to me.


Perhaps only peripherally relevant, but it's a pretty clear violation of the Paladin of Freedom's code of conduct - which I'd suggest is an indication that it shouldn't sit too comfortably with a Chaotic Good alignment.


Additionally, a paladin of freedom's code requires that he respect individual liberty, help those in need (provided they do not use the help for lawful or evil ends), and punish those who threaten or curtail personal liberty.

Of course, most Chaotic Good characters have a bit more leeway.

[Iain]

Morality is pretty simple. It is doing to others what you want done to you. Everybody understands this; everybody can figure out what it means in any given situation (the fairies, for example, would not want to be knocked out and left to be eaten by monsters).

Nah, that's far too simplistic. By this reasoning, it would be quite moral for me to break into Angelina Jolie's house and wait in her bed dressed in head-to-toe latex.


What determines your alignment is who you think counts as an "other," that is, as a moral peer. Nobody counts trees as equals; any alignment can cut them down and use them for firewood.

Morality is at least as much about how you treat those who are not your equals. Trees probably don't really count, unless they're sentient.

[Segev]

Nah, that's far too simplistic. By this reasoning, it would be quite moral for me to break into Angelina Jolie's house and wait in her bed dressed in head-to-toe latex.

You'd want a random individual who had the hots for you, regardless of their gender or body type, to dress in latex and wait in your bed?


It's not "as you want THEM to do unto you," it's "as you want done unto you." With an unspoken "by any random person."



Though yes, it IS imperfect. I know people who enjoy things done to/for them that I would loathe, and who would hate things that I happen to like when others do for me. The easiest example is surprise parties: some people love them; others hate them. If somebody who loved them threw one for somebody who hated them, they'd be doing unto others as they would want done unto them, but still causing displeasure for the person they did it for.

[Iain]

You'd want a random individual who had the hots for you, regardless of their gender or body type, to dress in latex and wait in your bed?


It's not "as you want THEM to do unto you," it's "as you want done unto you." With an unspoken "by any random person.".

OK, fair cop!

Still, the point I was -trying- to make was the one you go on to describe: that to be moral, you have to try to take into account that individuals are different, and it's not just about what -you- like or dislike, but how your actions affect others and make them feel - which is much harder to judge.

In game, that could potentially be related to a character's Wisdom - with low a Wis character more likely to assume others are the same as them, and do bad things while meaning well. (Or should that be Charisma?)

[Segev]

OK, fair cop!

Still, the point I was -trying- to make was the one you go on to describe: that to be moral, you have to try to take into account that individuals are different, and it's not just about what -you- like or dislike, but how your actions affect others and make them feel - which is much harder to judge.

In game, that could potentially be related to a character's Wisdom - with low a Wis character more likely to assume others are the same as them, and do bad things while meaning well. (Or should that be Charisma?)

Agreed.

Still, it IS a good rough guideline: at the least, don't do unto others what you would not done unto you, unless you KNOW they actually would like it despite your dislike for it.

[Sartharina]

Personally, killing people is never the right thing to do, because life is sacred and ending it is bad.As a farmer, I find this sentiment to be completely ludicrous. Life lives at the expense of other life. Sapience does not change the value of that life (And all animals are sentient).

[Coidzor]

As a farmer, I find this sentiment to be completely ludicrous. Life lives at the expense of other life. Sapience does not change the value of that life (And all animals are sentient).

Eh. We don't know that and it's incredibly hotly contested at any rate.

Also, do you have something to back up the assertion that sponges are sentient?


On a similar note, the PCs could have made a pass to qualify for Nymph's Kiss.

Nah, that'd have just made them Samanthas.

[Lodraygazagtar]

Singing people to sleep can have truly dangerous consequences.
Whether it's a rogue ambushing and coup de gracing, or what have you. Let us look at the good and the bad.
It is teaching the fairies a lesson for using magic against unwilling and non-hostile characters. GOOD
Slavery BAD
Perhaps not evil, but probably chaotic.
It really depends how long they are enslaved and if the PCs are using them for good reasons. Good as in alignment.

[SangoProduction]

No, not all life is sentient nor sapient, but much of it is.
Sentient: to feel or perceive
Sapient: ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or common sense and insight.
As defined by dictionaries.
-
By those definitions, virtually every living thing, down to bacterium is sentient. They can perceive when they are damaged, when food is nearby, etc. As a side note, when grass (or some similar plant I forget) is cut, they produce a chemical that's a known pain killer in animals. Why would plants produce this if they weren't in pain?
Virus: Does it just float around until something happens to let it infect it, or does the virus seek it's targets? If the latter, then even something that's controversially "not a living thing" is sentient.
-
Sapient - not near as many (as far as we can prove) possess this ability, though virtually every animal does. Some of the animals that blur the lines between animal and plants are quite debatable.
Though, there are some who are suggesting that some of the plant behavior is learned as well as natural.

[Yahzi]

I can honestly argue this action as something a person of ANY alignment might take.
This is the best answer. The point of alignment is to make the players creatively justify their actions, not to actually limit their actions.

[Phelix-Mu]

It's wrong to kill, but it can be acceptable, like when it supports other life (typical predator-prey relationships), or when in self-defense. Such instances don't remove the wrong, but they mitigate it to the point where, as long as the relationship between survivor and victim is given the proper respect and gravity that it should be, blame is minimal.

Again, as I'm fairly certain I've said before, this is pretty much just my view. The game is clearly open-minded about using violence to solve problems. While violence is inherent in the relationship between living creatures in the natural order, it's wrong for humans that have a choice about how to live to conclude that, since animals do it, it is acceptable behavior for humans. It may be acceptable in some circumstances, but clearly there are ways of solving things among animals that aren't the best way for humans to act (like dueling to the death over a desired mate...pretty much nonsensical if talking is also an option).

Anyway, that's all pretty far off-tack. I think I said my part on my view on slavery, and it barely applies to this instance anyway.

[Ettina]

The problem is that they did all of this before they knew anyone had gotten killed. Which means that they would have done it even if they were harmless pranks.

Maybe the PCs were smart enough to realize that putting someone to sleep in goblin-infested woods isn't safe, and even though they didn't know someone they knew had died from this, they were pretty sure someone must've died from this at some point.