"Brutally and publicly"

[Jon_Dahl]

In my campaign world, there's a powerful Adventurers' Guild. The guild has a "deluxe" guild charter, which, in addition to be many rights, gives the guild the right to punish its members as the guild sees fit. Guild secrets are a matter of life and death, and the kingdom fully acknowledges their importance.

Some of the guild's rejects and rogue members have formed a mockery adventurer group and they behave like petty thieves and troublemakers, although they are suspected of various murders, disappearances and rapes. They claim that they belong to the guild and some do believe them.

The guild leadership is not unanimous how to handle the situation. Basically, there's no consensus whether the rejects should be killed or not. The PCs are consulted and they agree to kill them. The guild's vice alderman, who supports the killings, advises the PCs to make their death brutal and public, since that would disencourage any further treachery against the guild. "Since they are going to die anyway, let them horrible deaths."

In general, how morally dubious do you see this mission? Should there be alignment shifts?

[aleucard]

Depend on whether they do it with glee or not. If not, then no immediate shift is necessary, though it may have the pally (if you have one) still need atonement depending if it's a full fight or an execution. Don't make him fall, just notify him of feeling unclean and his conscience wanting him to confess to the nearest appropriate person (AKA someone who can cast Atonement for him).

[Phelix-Mu]

Cruelty and torture, even as a prelude to inevitable death, are evil behaviors that good-aligned people should likely find repulsive. Killing can be necessary, but it's rarely ideal, and should not be the go-to solution for those that style themselves virtuous. Neutral people can get away with more of it more often, but even for them, dragging the executions out into sadistic displays intended to instill fear and remorse in others is pretty beyond the pale.

So definitely an evil-ward drift, I'd say, if the pcs follow through on the suggestions. Also might be lawful, if the action is intended to compel obedience from others and as an enforcement of standing law authorities (guild heads), but that's much murkier than the good-evil side of things.

I generally only snap-change alignment for really heinous stuff done without a second thought, or with full knowledge of the nature of the act. Otherwise it's more of a series of tiers where the character gradually shifts alignment. Honestly, I've only had to deal with it a few times, and usually the player decides to have their character regret what they did, seek repentance, or otherwise avoid such behaviors in the future.

[Xelbiuj]

In general, how morally dubious do you see this mission? Should there be alignment shifts?

If brutal means painful/torture, it's evil, and yes, alignment shifts. If brutal meaning gory or something like beheading or other quick death, it's lawful neutral. Probably doesn't need a moral shift, anyone doing it chaotic?

[sonofzeal]

If the Guild has legal authority to order such things, but the PCs have no stake in it, it's a Lawful though not Evil act. I wouldn't even make a Paladin fall, necessarily, for carrying out a lawfully-ordaned execution. It depends on the Paladin's order. A Paladin of St Cuthbert, for instance, would be A-ok. One of Pelor, less so.

Making a show of it is not a big deal one way or another. If it's just a spectacle, that hardly signifies on alignment. If there's torture though, that's evil. Paladins fall, but atonement shouldn't be too hard. Nobody should actually alignment shift off that alone, but that puts some weight towards the LE corner of the spectrum, and CG characters may step towards neutral on both axis if there's several other such instances.

[Jon_Dahl]

I'm starting to see some consensus here that their actions are lawful, which is very interesting indeed, because the PCs are all exclusively chaotic... And the cleric actually needs to be chaotic in order to cast divine spells. You're giving me interesting ideas here so keep up them coming, please...

[mashlagoo1982]

I'm starting to see some consensus here that their actions are lawful, which is very interesting indeed, because the PCs are all exclusively chaotic... And the cleric actually needs to be chaotic in order to cast divine spells. You're giving me interesting ideas here so keep up them coming, please...

I would be careful going with the conclusion that their actions are lawful. The important question to ask here is WHY the characters are behaving in this manner.

If their answer is something like "We don't really want to kill these people, but we were ordered to do so...", that is lawful.

It could just as easily be that they just happen to agree with what is viewed as a necessity.

[aleucard]

It depends HEAVILY on the why's behind their actions, and what they personally emphasize. Whether it's fall-worthy would depend heavily on how much they support their Good alignment, if they have one. Whether it'll move on the LNC axis depends on why they're doing it; following orders is obviously Law, but everyone hates backstabbers, which this qualifies as, so a Chaotic would also be interested in kicking the **** out of them. Of course, they could just be in it for the loot/fight/etc., but that's not very Good now is it?

EDIT: In short, making this ONE event force an alignment shift sounds kinda bonkers, but keep track of why they say they did it for later perusal.

[Jon_Dahl]

I would be careful going with the conclusion that their actions are lawful. The important question to ask here is WHY the characters are behaving in this manner.

If their answer is something like "We don't really want to kill these people, but we were ordered to do so...", that is lawful.

It could just as easily be that they just happen to agree with what is viewed as a necessity.

That's fine, but you are the first person in this thread so far to suggest that their actions might not be lawful. It's important that we view their actions as they are and simply conclude whether they are good or evil, lawful or chaotic, or neither.

[aleucard]

That's fine, but you are the first person in this thread so far to suggest that their actions might not be lawful. It's important that we view their actions as they are and simply conclude whether they are good or evil, lawful or chaotic, or neither.

Actions are almost never any of these in a vacuum. Even for the few that are, there may be extenuating circumstances that bend it a different way. Try not to pidgeonhole your players, especially when there's at least one playing a class that relies on you not ******* with their alignment to function north of an NPC class. If you must, ask for their motivations before they act, and tell them both which direction that would get them to start leaning and why. Don't have this force a shift regardless, with the singular exception of stuff like trying to devour a baby and other Retarded-Evil acts.

[sonofzeal]

That's fine, but you are the first person in this thread so far to suggest that their actions might not be lawful. It's important that we view their actions as they are and simply conclude whether they are good or evil, lawful or chaotic, or neither.

"I'm doing something I wouldn't otherwise do because an official body of some kind is telling me to" is pretty much the definition of Lawful. It might not be very lawful, depending how much they wouldn't otherwise do it.

[mashlagoo1982]

That's fine, but you are the first person in this thread so far to suggest that their actions might not be lawful. It's important that we view their actions as they are and simply conclude whether they are good or evil, lawful or chaotic, or neither.

No problem. I just wanted to emphasize caution, especially in the case with the cleric.
The fact that there was no consensus among the authority figures would make it even more ridiculous to switch a character to lawful (assuming the flawed chaotic = anti-authority logic)... the authority can't even decide what to do.


I usually have my chaotic PCs develop their own code of conduct (not a hard set of rules, just some guidelines). Anytime there is a conflict of their own code with any authority, I expect to see something to reflect the conflict... even if it is just mumbling

The better you know your PCs, the more easily you can watch for this stuff.

To answer your original question, it is really hard to say if a shift of alignment is necessary without knowing the outcome.

As stated above, if the characters perform the deed because they were ordered to (and with no other relevant reasons), that is a lawful action.

If the characters do something else specifically different from what was asked of them, because they thought it was right (following own moral compass), that is more chaotic action.

No single action should warrant a shift. There is usually a build-up over time.

Good vs Evil... the comments above seem to have a good part of that covered.

[atemu1234]

Publicly and brutally is up for debate. A quick albeit well advertised beheading qualifies as much as brutal torture and slow exsanguination, but one is far more evil than another.

[Jon_Dahl]

The chaotic neutral cleric has been loyal to the guild since the beginning and has done everything as ordered. I will ask the player about the character's motivation. Just to get an honest answer, I will request the answer straightaway without giving him time to think about his answer.

[Phelix-Mu]

So, after a bit of thought, maybe some more detail:

1.) Brutal

Well, this is vague, and a large portion of the alignment implications of this depend on the interpretation the pcs give it. If it's unnecessarily cruel and slow, I don't really see that different as torture; not all torture is done as part of interrogation. Quoth the google:noun

noun: torture
1.
the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.


The first definition of brutal that occurs is "savagely violent," while the second is "punishingly hard or uncomfortable." So if they go for emphasizing the punishment aspect and make it painful and whatnot, I'd say that's evil. The game, I believe, explicitly lays out that torture is evil (but I'm pretty sure that is BoED talking).

On the other hand, a straight up decapitation in combat without giving the guy much time to reflect on his grisly fate is just about as evil as any other death in combat. Actually, death in combat is often seen as an honor of some kind, allowing a measure of dignity which normal criminals in shackles are denied (this varies heavily based on culture, and I'm not really sure if the game says anything either way, beyond that it's wrong to kill unarmed people that are innocent, but these guys aren't...).

2.) Public

Well, there are basically two sides to this.

Law: Enforcement of the law is mainly lawful, even when it may or may not be distasteful. So if the crime dictates execution, the execution is a lawful act. It seems in this instance that the authorities are unclear on the correct punishment, but they have given great leeway to the pcs to act as they see fit (as indicated by the vague nature of the orders beyond brutal and public deaths). If they just follow the letter here, and kill the targets publicly in a particularly showy, bloody fashion that isn't terribly cruel, then this is probably more lawful, with a side order of evil.

Evil: Public executions are also used as a tool of fear, used to bend others to the will of the powers that be. Such behavior is not only oppressive, but it is essentially psychological torture. I doubt the Guild is being particularly onerous here, but that Vice Alderman sounds like he is basically saying "something bad has to be done to solve X, so make it extra bad while you are doing it." In other words, while doing some lawful evil, add on a heaping extra bit of evil.

3.) And here's why it's likely evil to some extent:

Is there any proof that the targets actually did the things of which they stand accused? Suspicions are pretty much totally unreliable, and certainly only a reason to mete out punishment in LE societies (or other brands of evil looking for a reason to inflict harm on people). If there is even a slim possibility that the targets are actually innocent (or only guilty of far lesser crimes), then the pcs will be killing people without justification. And unjustified killing is more commonly known as murder.

And, beyond all of this, if the targets did do it, but no one can prove it, then it's still probably wrong to kill them, at least from a lawful perspective, since most law systems have a more stringent burden of proof than suspicion.

Anyway, it's an interesting situation, to be sure. I largely concur, as I stated earlier, that no alignment shift should happen right off the bat except in extremely dire circumstances. But a responsible DM trying to encourage role playing does well to measure these behaviors over time, and have the world around the pcs begin to react to the characters as their actual alignment behavior would indicate, not what is written on the character sheet.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Jon_Dahl
In general, how morally dubious do you see this mission?

There's nothing dubious about this. It's a contract killing.

There's nothing lawful about it. This is no different from a capo in the thieves' guild telling his lackeys to murder a rival crew.


Originally Posted by Jon_Dahl
The guild leadership is not unanimous how to handle the situation. Basically, there's no consensus whether the rejects should be killed or not.

This right here tells me there's no mechanism in Guild law to prevent extrajudicial killings, which is what this would be. If the Guild leadership can't decide whether an execution is justified, then the internal Guild process isn't complete and by definition it isn't lawful. This would be the PCs carrying out a hit for one faction within the Guild.

Also, is there no option for the PCs to bring the renegades to trial? I'd think that would also be necessary for "lawful" to be invoked.


Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu
Is there any proof that the targets actually did the things of which they stand accused?

...if the targets did do it, but no one can prove it, then it's still probably wrong to kill them, at least from a lawful perspective, since most law systems have a more stringent burden of proof than suspicion.

This is a key point. If proof of guilt is not required before you execute someone for a crime, there's even less cause to claim the proceedings are "lawful" in any meaningful way.

And unlawful killing, as Phelix points out, is more commonly described as murder.


Originally Posted by sonofzeal
If the Guild has legal authority to order such things, but the PCs have no stake in it, it's a Lawful though not Evil act. I wouldn't even make a Paladin fall, necessarily, for carrying out a lawfully-ordaned execution.

The problem is that right now the Guild as a whole doesn't have the legal authority to order this action, because the Guild leadership hasn't reached a consensus. The PCs would be acting privately--and extralegally--at the behest of one high official in the Guild.

That's almost the antithesis of lawful.

.

[Lightlawbliss]

Good job. It's hard to cause difficult moral choices and you have done it by accident.

[Red Fel]

First off, I'm siding with those who argue that carrying out these executions is Lawful. Generally speaking, performing an act like that, in a specific and orchestrated fashion, in accordance with explicit instructions, is an act of obedience - a Lawful tendency. This is true even if the Guild is going beyond its legal rights (which it doesn't appear to be).

Now, on the G vs. E debate, I'm going to side with Phelix to a certain extent. Here's why. Execution: An execution, in a vacuum, is an LN act. It is neither Good nor Evil, it is simply a lawfully-enforced punishment carried out in accordance with instruction and rule. Public: A public execution is not substantially different from a private one. It grants the sentenced a bit less dignity, and carries a certain air of pageantry to it, but it also serves a powerful deterrent function. Brutal: A brutal execution is one which goes above and beyond the requirements of justice or law. Killing is a morally Neutral act. Killing in self-defense, similarly. Killing upon orders may even be Good, depending upon the orders and the subject of the killing. But going from execution to brutality is going from Neutral to Evil. Why? Because it's unnecessary. It no longer simply serves a function; it has turned into excess.
As for alignment shift, I don't like the idea of forcing an alignment shift based on a single act. I would, however, remind the players that if their characters agree to do this, then their characters are becoming people who are comfortable with killing on orders. Ask them if their characters are okay with that.

If a player says that his PC is uncomfortable with it, but will do it just this once, no alignment shift (this time); he's probably still mostly Good. If a player says that his PC does as ordered, full stop, no shift (this time); he's fairly Neutral about it. If, on the other hand, a player says that his PC will do it, and relishes the idea that he is being told to kill instead of kept from it, you need to step back and ask why there isn't already an E on his character sheet, because that's a pretty Evil response.

[Xelbiuj]

{scrubbed}

[Phelix-Mu]

@Palanan:

The only argument I would make against your position is that not all systems of law have the same threshold required to claim authority. Just as there are limits to a central authority in many systems of government, there are also areas where less central authorities are given right to govern certain functions. Think about a sheriff and the county council; the council may be up in arms about some issue, but the sheriff has authority to enforce existing law within his purview, regardless of what the council may be currently debating (assuming he isn't directly beholden to them).

My point is that law is as inordinately complicated as it wishes to be; just because the Guild is not currently in agreement doesn't mean that there is no precedent established for one of its heads (the Vice Alderman) to issue edicts or make rulings as to what punishment is to be exacted. The is a difference between opinion and authority, and the OP is unclear to what degree the Vice Alderman is or is not acting within his rights.

Certainly, prudent PCs would avoid being pawns for anyone acting outside their authority. But just because someone is subversive, doesn't mean they are outside the law; look at the Nine Hells. Everyone there is trying to subvert the order while serving it. It's definitely the LE side of the law, though, which views the law by the letter, to the exclusion of the spirit. A corruption of true law, to be sure, but that's evil for you.

EDIT: It may still be as you say, though, Palanan, given that there really is no acting authority and just a bunch of individuals that happen to wear the company logo on their lapels. In that case, the L-to-C is at least neutral, if not chaotic, and the evil really becomes more pronounced, because now this Vice Alderman appears to be ordering executions as part of his personal desires or views, irrespective of authority or process, and possibly as part of a power grab. This should make the pcs even more cautious.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Red Fel
Generally speaking, performing an act like that, in a specific and orchestrated fashion, in accordance with explicit instructions, is an act of obedience - a Lawful tendency. This is true even if the Guild is going beyond its legal rights (which it doesn't appear to be).

For the executions to be lawful, at a minimum they would require an official order from the Guild leadership, following whatever procedures are established in Guild law. It seems clear that the internal process that would lead to such an order has stalled out. Until that process is resolved, which sounds unlikely, there is no legal authorization for the killings.

Instead what we have is one faction, led by the vice-alderman, who is privately ordering the PCs to carry out the killings anyway, without official orders from Guild leadership. This is not lawful, unless you define lawful to mean "doing what any given higher-up tells me to do," rather than following the precise procedures set forth in Guild law.


Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu
My point is that law is as inordinately complicated as it wishes to be; just because the Guild is not currently in agreement doesn't mean that there is no precedent established for one of its heads (the Vice Alderman) to issue edicts or make rulings as to what punishment is to be exacted.

Very true in theory, although we can't really address this unless Jon_Dahl gives us more information about what precedents may exist.

We also don't know exactly how the Guild charter is constituted, and what the actual procedures might be for determining consensus on a kill order. Is it a simple majority? A certain percentage or supermajority? Does the Guildmaster have the authority to veto a decision under certain circumstances, and if so, have those circumstances been met?

Because it's entirely possible, depending on how the charter is constituted, that if the Guildmaster hasn't signed off on the mission, then the PCs' actions might directly contravene the Guild charter--and thus be unlawful by definition. We can't really determine this until we know more about how the Guild comes to these decisions.

Until then, what we have is the PCs agreeing to a mission without the official sanction of the Guild leadership. Not lawful.


Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu
In that case, the L-to-C is at least neutral, if not chaotic, and the evil really becomes more pronounced, because now this Vice Alderman appears to be ordering executions as part of his personal desires or views, irrespective of authority or process, and possibly as part of a power grab. This should make the pcs even more cautious.

This is how I'm reading it, and why I feel so strongly this isn't a lawful operation.

[Red Fel]

For the executions to be lawful, at a minimum they would require an official order from the Guild leadership, following whatever procedures are established in Guild law. It seems clear that the internal process that would lead to such an order has stalled out. Until that process is resolved, which sounds unlikely, there is no legal authorization for the killings.

Instead what we have is one faction, led by the vice-alderman, who is privately ordering the PCs to carry out the killings anyway, without official orders from Guild leadership. This is not lawful, unless you define lawful to mean "doing what any given higher-up tells me to do," rather than following the precise procedures set forth in Guild law.

Actually, I do define acting out orders, without question, as "Lawful" behavior. Blind obedience is a lawful tendency. If your first instinct, after being given an instruction by a person with apparent authority, is to follow instructions, your alignment likely leans towards the L on the C-L spectrum.

Even if the vice-alderman is acting beyond his authority, even if he is acting in opposition to Guild policies or local laws, if the PCs' first instinct is to follow his instruction without hesitation, that's more likely to be an L than anything else. The vice-alderman may be Neutral, or even Chaotic, but if the PCs automatically obey, that obedience is generally Lawful in nature.

[hamishspence]

The game, I believe, explicitly lays out that torture is evil (but I'm pretty sure that is BoED talking).

Not just BoED - Fiendish Codex 2, as well.

Going right back to the various editions of Basic D&D - (in one, there were only 5 alignments (LG, CG, N, LE, CE) - there was text saying that characters should suffer XP penalties for acts that were inappropriate for their alignment - and one example given was "A Good character who tortures a prisoner."

So, it's not like it's unique to 3.5.

[aleucard]

You don't have to be Lawful to be loyal. These guys are making your guild look bad, therefore kick the **** out of them in public so everyone both knows that they aren't with you and that you don't take this sort of thing lightly. There's a perfectly good non-Evil, non-Lawful explanation for going along with this. Made doubly so by the fact that these people are doing Evil things, and stopping them in the future and discouraging others from emulating is Good, up to a certain point at least.

If you REALLY want to determine if the cleric's in need of an alignment shift, ask him why he's so willing to toe the guild line so often. It may be that the guild line just so happens to be in lockstep with his own on the various issues he's been ordered to deal with, which isn't necessarily Lawful depending on the issues. It may be that he's not cool with at least some of it, but knows that it helps his buddies and he's not a backstabber (a common reason for why a 'CN' Rogue can be in the party without stealing everyone's crap, if only they took it).

Just make sure to ask him, rather than make assumptions. At the very least, give him some advance warning before his alignment shifts. 2 strikes should be enough, with him being warned when his actions may make him cross either of the 2 lines.

[Jon_Dahl]

the OP is unclear to what degree the Vice Alderman is or is not acting within his rights.

She is acting within her rights, because the Alderman is out of town and she has the ultimate leadership and so-say during that time. She's always thinking the best of the Guild, and nothing else, so since the rejects are going to die anyway and the PCs are given full authority to do it as they see fit, she recommends that it should be done brutally and publicly. This is only a recommendation, but she will inform the rest of the guild leadership that she has said it to the PCs. Most of the leaders will disapprove, but everyone recognizes the authority of the acting Alderman.

[ahenobarbi]

The PCs are consulted and they agree to kill them. The guild's vice alderman, who supports the killings, advises the PCs to make their death brutal and public, since that would disencourage any further treachery against the guild.

PCs are not doing the execution because they wers ordered to do it. They do it because they talked guild leadership in to allowing it. Tricking legal system to allow you murder people without risk of punishment sounds pretty chaotic evil to me.

[Sartharina]

PCs are not doing the execution because they wers ordered to do it. They do it because they talked guild leadership in to allowing it. Tricking legal system to allow you murder people without risk of punishment sounds pretty chaotic evil to me.What? Where are you getting this? Me going to a friend and saying "Hey, do you think it would be a good idea if you do X for me?" is not me tricking him into letting me do X.

[mashlagoo1982]

If you REALLY want to determine if the cleric's in need of an alignment shift, ask him why he's so willing to toe the guild line so often. It may be that the guild line just so happens to be in lockstep with his own on the various issues he's been ordered to deal with, which isn't necessarily Lawful depending on the issues. It may be that he's not cool with at least some of it, but knows that it helps his buddies and he's not a backstabber (a common reason for why a 'CN' Rogue can be in the party without stealing everyone's crap, if only they took it).


This is exactly what I was trying to say (only more well worded).

The chaotic characters could have completely legitimate reasons to perform this deed that isn't simply "following orders".

They may actually believe this is a good idea for whatever reason.

If you are uncertain of characters motivations, ask your players for their justifications.

I would expect lawful characters to mention orders while other alignment characters would state something else.

Performing a deed ordered by a superior is not mutually exclusive with the chaotic alignment.

[aleucard]

Performing a deed ordered by a superior is not mutually exclusive with the chaotic alignment.

For an Evil example of this, take Solf J. Kimblee from Fullmetal Alchemist. You can damn well guarantee that the only thing he is interested in is spreading carnage to everywhere and everyONE he can see. However, he'll still follow orders. Why, you might ask? Because 1) the people giving those orders give proper payment for the right to give it (namely, supplies and legal immunity), 2) the orders are stuff he'd like doing anyway, and 3) the people giving those orders could slurp him up like a noodle pretty much at will, and "Having Fun" is hard to do when you're dead. Surely you can find a way to work such reasoning into a non-Evil alignment?