Were these actions evil?

[Morphie]

Hello all,

So, in the last gaming session my players went to a house where supposedly the BBEG lives.
There were some guards stationed at the door and, as the party approached the entrance, the guards told them to go away and nothing would happen to them. The discussion started, the players insisted on getting in and asking about who their boss was, but the guards just kept on saying "Go away, this is none of your business, we are not going to do anything if you just turn your back and leave". Some of the players started casting spells right in front of the guards, becoming invisible among other things, some were kind of presumptuous and were acting like the fight wouldn't even be challenging if it started, so some of the guards starting insulting them, while still saying "Get out now!".

The cleric cast detect evil and sensed the guards weren't evil. However, he then later cast ice slick to make the guards trip. Some of the guards passed the save, exited the slippery area and kept on saying "Get out now!". One round later, the cleric cast the same spell a second time, and then the wizards summoned a Large Earth Elemental and told him to attack them with subdual damage. The fight started and the party knocked the whole group of guards with little effort.

A couple of sessions ago the party also stole the lair of some black dragons when the creatures asked them to kill an evil being that had invaded it, promising a reward. When the dragons returned to their lair to get the reward they found out they had been stolen of all their valuables, thus attacking the party.

I said nothing at that point, but after this last session was over I told them that I think they aren't playing their alignments correctly, based on 2 evil actions they have done recently. I didn't change their alignment or anything, it was more of a friendly warning that if they insisted in these types of actions, something could happen. They reacted as though I didn't gave them any other chance, since the guards were determined to keep them out of the house and didn't concede on anything they asked - "talk to the boss", "call him here", "your boss is evil", etc. I played the guards as neutral men hired by someone to keep people out of his property. They are loyal and don't accept any bribes and their initial reaction to the party is unfriendly.

Honestly, I believe the party is so confident in their abilities that they end up handling most situations as a "We are the good guys here, if you don't like us or do what we are asking you're probably wrong and so you must be defeated".

So, I would really like your opinion, do you think these 2 actions were evil or am I blowing this out of proportion? Was my reaction appropriate or should I have done something else?

Thanks in advance.

[DrMotives]

The party might try and argue with the guards, as they did use subdual damage, that's a grey area. But after agreeing to do a job for black dragons and then taking everything not nailed down in the dragon's lair? How can you justify robbing your employers blind as anything other than pure greed? If they say it's because the dragons are an inherently evil race, point out they party talked and accepted a job offer from them in good faith. I hope there's no paladin or any other divine requiring goodness in the team, because I'd start with those characters losing access to powers.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Stealing from your employers is evil. Doubly so with (evil) dragons because they are more likely to attack nearby inhabited places in revenge/to try to reclaim their lost loot. A horde is literally status second only to age so that dragon would go to some length to reclaim/replenish it.

The guards are a more neutral act. The party acted in good faith against a greater evil, but still launched an unprovoked attack on a non-evil target (in general unprovoked attacks are, at best, not good) and beat them into submission instead of say trying to use Rainbow Pattern (or any AoE disabling spell) to simply walk past them.

If the party did not fall from neutral for the first act I would say they wouldn't for the second. People who are good on the other hand are at much greater risk, since they committed an evil act followed by a very grey one. I would warn them that they are really toeing the line here and any more shenanigans will make them lose their good status (along with anything tied to that good status such as paladin class features, possibly cleric ones, exalted feats, etc.)

[Hazrond]

The party might try and argue with the guards, as they did use subdual damage, that's a grey area. But after agreeing to do a job for black dragons and then taking everything not nailed down in the dragon's lair? How can you justify robbing your employers blind as anything other than pure greed? If they say it's because the dragons are an inherently evil race, point out they party talked and accepted a job offer from them in good faith. I hope there's no paladin or any other divine requiring goodness in the team, because I'd start with those characters losing access to powers.

that is a bit harsh, subdual damage is by no means a "grey area" . its what you do when you are put into a situation where people who are not evil are stopping you from progressing, so you nonlethal damage to knock them out while keeping them from being lethally hurt, as for the dragons, that was an evil act, but even two evil acts "which there were not, only one" are not grounds for making a cleric lose their powers (barring something unusual like Familicide), clerics are not bound by such a strict code like paladins

Edit: this reminds me of that story where the party was attacked byy bandits on the road and they fought back and killed said bandits, then the DM sayys "The paladin Falls" because apparently those bandits were "Good"

[ZamielVanWeber]

Clerics can lose their spells if their alignment shifts to one illegal for their god. They can get them back by reshifting and atonement or by finding a new god that matches their new alignment. It is more inconvenient from a mechanical perspective, but can have serious RP ramifications.

Edit: The whole "violating the code of their god" is pretty vague outside of alignment restrictions so it is really up to DM purview. If their god is Bahamut he would be angry that they accepted a job from a black dragon. If their god is Pelor he probably wouldn't be too upset right now (aside from the evil act being contrary to his good alignment).

[Hazrond]

Clerics can lose their spells if their alignment shifts to one illegal for their god. They can get them back by reshifting (and possibly atonement) or by finding a new god that matches their new alignment. It is more inconvenient from a mechanical perspective, but can have serious RP ramifications.

i feel that shifting the clerics alignment over one action is a bit harsh, it was an evil action yyes, but it was not a particularly heinous one, so i would say that theyy wouldnt shift from that one action, if they continued acting in such a manner, they might but so far they havve only commited a SINGLE act of this type,

[ZamielVanWeber]

i feel that shifting the clerics alignment over one action is a bit harsh, it was an evil action yyes, but it was not a particularly heinous one, so i would say that theyy wouldnt shift from that one action, if they continued acting in such a manner, they might but so far they havve only commited a SINGLE act of this type,

Like I said, the good ones are toeing a line here. They can take some time and step back or they can continue on this path and slip, but if these are the last two major decisions they made neither of them was good (and that dragon one could have more evil consequences depending on how well they resolved it.)

[Morphie]

The black dragons were killed in the fight after they attacked the party. It wasn't much of a challenge, but it wasn't meant to be one, I was trying to see if they would keep their word and play according to their alignment.

It's funny you mention it, ZamielVanWeber, there is actually a sorcerer in the party that worships Bahamut and he was fine with dealing with black dragons. And the one that cast the ice slick spell on the guards was a cleric of Pelor.

I don't think the party is evil, not yet at least, but I do think they are crossing the line.

[jedipotter]

So, I would really like your opinion, do you think these 2 actions were evil or am I blowing this out of proportion? Was my reaction appropriate or should I have done something else?


Your not even close. First off, don't worry about alignment unless it's big, big stuff. Did your group brutally slaughter many innocents just for fun? Did the animate all the bodies so they could have fun killing them again?

If, not....your group is not evil.

So don't magnify the little stuff. They knocked out guards? Really? Knocked them out? Wow.. And they stole the stolen hoard of an human eating evil monster? Oh, say it is not so...

The actions they took are not even a ''ping'' on the Evil Radar.

[ZamielVanWeber]

It's funny you mention it, ZamielVanWeber, there is actually a sorcerer in the party that worships Bahamut and he was fine with dealing with black dragons. And the one that cast the ice slick spell on the guards was a cleric of Pelor.

The hilarity! The cleric is fine if he cuts out the shenanigans. If it is still topical Bahamut may want to have a chat with the sorcerer about staying on the path of righteousness (assuming he's high enough level for Bahamut to care), but other than that there shouldn't be serious repercussions.

(For reference I just took my favorite good god and the first good god that came to mind after; the fact it lined up is funny.)

[Surpriser]

Regarding the dragons, I would argue that accepting a job from obviously evil beings is morally grey at best and might touch into evil (depending on the circumstances of the job offer). Even more so as there is someone worshipping Bahamut in the group.
Then turning against the dragons and stealing their horde could be justified as cleansing the world of evil dragons and so is not necessarily evil (chaotic - yes, after all, they broke their contract).

In the case of the guards, their actions where not evil except by the strictest definition and definitely not warranting an alignment change. After all, they did try to resolve the situation peacefully at first and even after that failed, they resorted to nonlethal means instead of killing the guards (who probably took the job knowing that it might involve dangerous situations - after all, that's what guards are for).
You might want to ask yourself: What else should they have done? Admit defeat and leave? And if there was some way of bypassing the guards without violence (you did say bribery or talking to the guards did not work), was there any way they could have known about it? Playing "guess what the DM wants us to do" can be very frustrating.

[Hazrond]

Your not even close. First off, don't worry about alignment unless it's big, big stuff. Did your group brutally slaughter many innocents just for fun? Did the animate all the bodies so they could have fun killing them again?

If, not....your group is not evil.

So don't magnify the little stuff. They knocked out guards? Really? Knocked them out? Wow.. And they stole the stolen hoard of an human eating evil monster? Oh, say it is not so...

The actions they took are not even a ''ping'' on the Evil Radar.

You know jedi? for once i actually agree with you on something, this was not nearly bad enough to warrant alignment change from my point of view

[Hazrond]

Regarding the dragons, I would argue that accepting a job from obviously evil beings is morally grey at best and might touch into evil (depending on the circumstances of the job offer). Even more so as there is someone worshipping Bahamut in the group.
Then turning against the dragons and stealing their horde could be justified as cleansing the world of evil dragons and so is not necessarily evil (chaotic - yes, after all, they broke their contract).

In the case of the guards, their actions where not evil except by the strictest definition and definitely not warranting an alignment change. After all, they did try to resolve the situation peacefully at first and even after that failed, they resorted to nonlethal means instead of killing the guards (who probably took the job knowing that it might involve dangerous situations - after all, that's what guards are for).
You might want to ask yourself: What else should they have done? Admit defeat and leave? And if there was some way of bypassing the guards without violence (you did say bribery or talking to the guards did not work), was there any way they could have known about it? Playing "guess what the DM wants us to do" can be very frustrating. and here somebody has said what i was trying to say probably better than i ever could,

[Dgrin]

Your not even close. First off, don't worry about alignment unless it's big, big stuff. Did your group brutally slaughter many innocents just for fun? Did the animate all the bodies so they could have fun killing them again?

If, not....your group is not evil.

So don't magnify the little stuff. They knocked out guards? Really? Knocked them out? Wow.. And they stole the stolen hoard of an human eating evil monster? Oh, say it is not so...

The actions they took are not even a ''ping'' on the Evil Radar.

More or less this. There was one arguably evil action - the betrayal of dragons, who are, by the way, inherently evil. Knocking out guards... I'm not even sure if it's neutral or good :smalltongue:

Anyway, you don't change the alignment of players cause of one or two evil acts. It is overall not the best idea to mess with players' actions. They suffered the consequences of their decisions in game, that's enough. They betrayed dragons - they had to fight with them. That's, in my opinion, the right way to react to evil acts. If they break the law - they suffer the punishment through ingame means, like guards. And remember - thou shalt play your character, not your alignment.

EDIT: Also, if I remember correctly, Bahamut is very disapproving of evil, including chromatic dragons who usually worship his evil sister and greatest enemy, Tiamat. So one may argue it was good act too :smallwink:

[Banjoman42]

I don't think any part of the whole dragon situation falls anywhere on good vs. evil. They took a job from evil creatures (without bias towards the creature themselves), then robbed their employers blind. That's some strongly chaotic stuff, and I'd say they at least took a small step to becoming chaotic, if not a full leap.

[jedipotter]

The black dragons were killed in the fight after they attacked the party. It wasn't much of a challenge, but it wasn't meant to be one, I was trying to see if they would keep their word and play according to their alignment.



You want to be careful here. This Is A Bad Idea.

For a DM to craft plots of ''lets see if the players can play their characters according to their alignment when I throw them this curve ball'' is just asking for trouble.

So the dragons asked for help, and the group helped them by killing the dragons foe, and then looting the dragons lair. And then killing the dragons.

Now you might note your players are doing D&D Alignment by-the-book, and that is Objectively. Black dragons are evil monsters and can be killed at will. Your your doing the more Modern Relative Alignment. The black dragons are special unique snowflaks and might be of any alignment and only an intense investigation by the players would ever have them know for sure what alignment the dragons are, but they should assume everyone is a saint and lawful good, unless they have lots and lots and lots of hard evidence and proof.

See the difference? The players are playing ''combat adventure'' D&D, your looking for them to play D&D like ''Court TV''.

Ask yourself if you think the group would have looted a gold dragons lair? Would they? Then would they kill the gold dragon that said ''you took my stuff!''?

[Alabenson]

Regarding the first action, I wouldn't remotely classify the party's actions as "evil", and frankly I don't even see it as a grey area. They attempted to resolve the situation non-violently, and when that failed went out of their way to employ non-lethal force. That is essentially the ideal way a Good aligned character would handle the situation based on the information you provided.

As for the second situation, I'd see that as a bit more of a grey-area. True, backstabbing your employer typically isn't something encouraged by the good alignment, but I'd tend to classify it as more Chaotic than Evil, especially when the employer in question is an evil dragon. The question here becomes did the party ever actually intend to hold to their end of the bargain, or was this just an underhanded way to loot a dragon hoard from the beginning.

Personally, I wouldn't remotely consider shifting their alignment's towards evil for the sort of above actions you've described, although I MIGHT consider an alignment shift towards chaos if this represents a continuous trend.

[Morphie]

Regarding the dragons, I would argue that accepting a job from obviously evil beings is morally grey at best and might touch into evil (depending on the circumstances of the job offer). Even more so as there is someone worshipping Bahamut in the group.
Then turning against the dragons and stealing their horde could be justified as cleansing the world of evil dragons and so is not necessarily evil (chaotic - yes, after all, they broke their contract).

In the case of the guards, their actions where not evil except by the strictest definition and definitely not warranting an alignment change. After all, they did try to resolve the situation peacefully at first and even after that failed, they resorted to nonlethal means instead of killing the guards (who probably took the job knowing that it might involve dangerous situations - after all, that's what guards are for).
You might want to ask yourself: What else should they have done? Admit defeat and leave? And if there was some way of bypassing the guards without violence (you did say bribery or talking to the guards did not work), was there any way they could have known about it? Playing "guess what the DM wants us to do" can be very frustrating.

Thanks for your input. I try really hard to avoid playing the "guess what I'm thinking game" with my players, they are rather smart and can come up with interesting ideas to solve problems. There were a lot of ways to get inside the place when a party can cast invisibility, fly and other spells. Even without spells a good rogue is able to do it, and they have one. But they decided to end that stalemate by attacking the guards, even if they just did subdual damage, the guards were just doing their job and gave them more than a chance to leave without fighting.

Granted that if we think about it, most of all good-aligned parties, when entering a dungeon and facing the first opposition, might attack first if they think the big guys standing there with the weapons are hostile. What would happen to every combat if the guys waited to see if the monsters are actually evil before attacking?


You want to be careful here. This Is A Bad Idea.

For a DM to craft plots of ''lets see if the players can play their characters according to their alignment when I throw them this curve ball'' is just asking for trouble.


Regarding the actions they did against the dragon, if they didn't want to do what the dragons asked to do, they could've just said no. Maybe the dragons would attack them then, because they are selfish and might crave the valuables the party had, but, who knows? I didn't craft this encounter as a trap of any sort, I just played by reading the dragon's personality and motivation. The party's action are their own and, as it has been correctly said, they had to face the consequences right after. Was it ok for the party to betray their temporary employers and rob them blind, regardless if they are evil or not?

But I don't plan to start yet another "alignment - what does it all mean actually?", I just want to know if I acted correctly by talking to the players after the session was over. Please note that I never said to the players that it would warrant an alignment change right NOW, I just told them that if they insist on that sort of behavior something is bound to happen. It was just a friendly warning, something to make them think a bit.

[Threadnaught]

First case, with the guards, not Evil.
Unlawful maybe, but not Evil, or Good. Though dealing with the guards' employer is Good.


Second case, neither Lawful nor Good, slightly Chaotic and depending on their employer's past, potentially Evil. Depending on how Dragons work in the setting, because their alignment can be malleable and it did hire them, it could be a more Evil act than what little information you gave us implies.

Not enough for an alignment shift, several more acts like these would be required to switch toward Chaotic, unless they're already Chaotic. :smallamused:

[jedipotter]

Was it ok for the party to betray their temporary employers and rob them blind, regardless if they are evil or not?


See here is the problem, your making things too gray. And worse, too modern.

Yes, by 21st Alignment views to ''betray'' your ''employer'' and ''rob'' them is an evil act. Sigh. OK. That is how things go down in the Real Word(sort of, but lets drop it anyway).

But other then that.....not so much.

Though ''betray'' is a bit much for a single deal. If someone takes your spare change off the table in your house, did they ''betray'' you? Really? And ''employers/employers'' is a bit more like a real job, not a single one time deal. It's like if Bob goes to the store and Fred says ''grab me a jolt cola'', is Bob now Fred's ''employee''?

Context matters too. It's easy to say ''wearing black is always evil'' in a vague way that is meaningless. The same way saying ''robbing is always evil''. And the deal was just ''get rid of the bad guy right? The dragons did not say ''swear to all that is good and holy that you won't steal our horde'', right? So it had nothing to do with the agreement....

Try and look at it like this: Was the black dragon horde obtained through Good and Lawful means? Do the dragons have jobs? Did they mine and craft all the items themselves? Were they all gifts? OR did the dragons slaughter and destroy to get the items in their horde?

See, if the dragons did the second one, their evil gotten horde of goods is fair game.

So, no, you did not even need to mention it. The players did nothing.

And i'm the last one to say ''talk to them'', but your view points and theirs might not match. And if your viewpoint unchanging, it will lead to problems. You really might want to have a talk with them all about ''what is good and what is evil''. They might think, for example, ''killing any monster any time is good''.....

[ZamielVanWeber]

Context matters too. It's easy to say ''wearing black is always evil'' in a vague way that is meaningless. The same way saying ''robbing is always evil''. And the deal was just ''get rid of the bad guy right? The dragons did not say ''swear to all that is good and holy that you won't steal our horde'', right? So it had nothing to do with the agreement....

The gold wasn't being used to fund evil acts; it was just sitting there and they stole it. Stealing is still evil. DnD is specifically not context dependent, morality exists in absolute, measurable, quantities.


Try and look at it like this: Was the black dragon horde obtained through Good and Lawful means? Do the dragons have jobs? Did they mine and craft all the items themselves? Were they all gifts? OR did the dragons slaughter and destroy to get the items in their horde?

So them stealing is evil and you stealing is not evil because what? It's a double negative? Stealing is evil in DnD. A big point of good in DnD is not giving in to evil temptations, like robbing dragons blind because its convenient.


And i'm the last one to say ''talk to them'', but your view points and theirs might not match. And if your viewpoint unchanging, it will lead to problems.

Or theirs. Two sides can come together in a negotiation.

[Morphie]

It shouldn't matter where the dragons got their hoard or how they got it. If the party doesn't know a thing about the black dragons, besides the general idea that they are evil, what should give them the right to do what they want with the place? The dragons even helped the party open the really heavy doors to their lair.
In short: The guys went to someone else's home to solve an issue. They did it and then robbed the place, knowing they were in someone else's home.

Maybe I'm judging this based on my personal lawful perspective of things. Perhaps these were unlawful actions instead of evil ones (mainly regarding the situation with the guards), but with the dragons... I don't know, it just doesn't fit with my notion of how a good-aligned party should act.

[Arbane]

Stealing from your employers is evil. Doubly so with (evil) dragons because they are more likely to attack nearby inhabited places in revenge/to try to reclaim their lost loot. A horde is literally status second only to age so that dragon would go to some length to reclaim/replenish it.

Remember, kids: Kill first, THEN take their stuff! Forget either step, and it's evil!

[ZamielVanWeber]

Remember, kids: Kill first, THEN take their stuff! Forget either step, and it's evil!

DnD's leveling scheme is "purge, loot, grow." That's why they added rules for waging peace in BoED (which doesn't solve the loot problem).

[Threadnaught]

See here is the problem, your making things too gray. And worse, too modern.

What's so bad about NPCs having more to them then "Heroes musteth do questeth or GOD SLAY THEM FOR NO RAISIN" for anything with Usually Good in it's Monster Manual entry, or Human and "RARR DIE" for anything with Usually Evil in it's Monster Manual entry?


Though ''betray'' is a bit much for a single deal. If someone takes your spare change off the table in your house, did they ''betray'' you? Really? And ''employers/employers'' is a bit more like a real job, not a single one time deal. It's like if Bob goes to the store and Fred says ''grab me a jolt cola'', is Bob now Fred's ''employee''?

If the loose change on your table is £1000 in notes, then yeah, that's an accurate comparison. The PCs got access to their employer's bank balance and decided to just help themselves to everything. If someone I trusted decided to leave me in financial ruin, I'd consider that to be a betrayal.


Context matters too. It's easy to say ''wearing black is always evil'' in a vague way that is meaningless. The same way saying ''robbing is always evil''. And the deal was just ''get rid of the bad guy right? The dragons did not say ''swear to all that is good and holy that you won't steal our horde'', right? So it had nothing to do with the agreement....

Dragon wanted them to get rid of the Evil thing, and offered to pay them a reward for their service. It offered to pay them, the offer wasn't "..and just help yourself to everything I own" it was "..and I will pay you some cash for helping me out".


Try and look at it like this: Was the black dragon horde obtained through Good and Lawful means? Do the dragons have jobs? Did they mine and craft all the items themselves? Were they all gifts? OR did the dragons slaughter and destroy to get the items in their horde?

See, if the dragons did the second one, their evil gotten horde of goods is fair game.

Exactly, IF, IF, IF.
You're asking those very same questions that need answering before you can say for sure whether or not the Dragon deserved to be robbed, or if the PCs are sociopaths.
And the second one, mining and crafting... Because artists and other craftsmen deserve to be robbed and murdered in their homes.
There are four options there.

Additionally, a Dragon does not need to destroy anything or kill anyone to be Evil and gather a large horde while being Evil. They need simply manipulate events around them and be patient. An example of an Evil Dragon making money without going around eating villagers.
Dar'khan (a Brass Dragon) lives atop a peak overlooking a large valley with several villages and a few towns within. In exchange for tribute, in the form of food, gold and buildings dedicated to him, he protects all settlements from raiders. The entire valley has been subject to raiders who cycle between each settlement, looting some valuables from one every few weeks, switching up the raiding parties so they have different members at all times. Dar'khan flies in every time to chase them off, to the applause of the citizens, with only a few items missing.
Dar'khan later pays the raiders at their headquarters and he continues to receive the benefits of being the "protector" of the valley.

[atemu1234]

I would say both were morally questionable, at best (or worst :smallconfused:). I'd bet they needed to get past the guards, and the Dragon thing is... complex. I'd say they're TN actions, and probably shouldn't impact alignment.

[Aka-chan]

The incident with the guards definitely wasn't Evil. Upon finding that the guards weren't Evil themselves, the party tried to negotiate with them, and when that failed, took care not to kill them. That's exactly how followers of Bahamut and Pelor should handle a situation like that.

Taking the job from the black dragons probably isn't Evil either. Once the dragons told them about the other evil creature, the PCs knew about a threat to innocent people in the area, and Good characters should try to do something about that. (Note: That doesn't necessarily mean just charging in and fighting it--if it's way above their power level, notifying authorities or more powerful adventurers is a perfectly reasonable course of action.) Saying, "Nope, we can't do what you asked us because you're a chromatic dragon" and letting the lich/orc horde/whatever continue preying on people isn't particularly in keeping with a Good alignment.

Stealing from the black dragons is a bit of a trickier question, and it partly depends on the surrounding circumstances. If the party would have killed the dragons and taken their stuff anyway (for example, if the last three towns they passed through bemoaned the black dragon menace threatening their populace), then doing it in the opposite order doesn't change its alignment on the Good-Evil axis. Stealing from them would be Chaotic, though. Even so, a single action that isn't of Familicide-level magnitude isn't going to change their alignment right away. And if they're already NG (you can certainly be an NG cleric of an LG god), a few Chaotic acts here and there aren't honestly going to make all that much difference unless they almost never do anything Lawful.

[jedipotter]

The gold wasn't being used to fund evil acts; it was just sitting there and they stole it. Stealing is still evil. DnD is specifically not context dependent, morality exists in absolute, measurable, quantities.

And this is the problem right here with the Relative Alignment view: Unless the PC's witness the person actively committing evil acts with their items then they can never loot anything.



So them stealing is evil and you stealing is not evil because what? It's a double negative? Stealing is evil in DnD. A big point of good in DnD is not giving in to evil temptations, like robbing dragons blind because its convenient.


Stealing is evil, but not all acts where one ''moves wealth'' are stealing. So, no, taken the wealth stolen by an evil inhuman monster is not stealing.


It shouldn't matter where the dragons got their hoard or how they got it. If the party doesn't know a thing about the black dragons, besides the general idea that they are evil, what should give them the right to do what they want with the place? The dragons even helped the party open the really heavy doors to their lair.
In short: The guys went to someone else's home to solve an issue. They did it and then robbed the place, knowing they were in someone else's home.

See, your stuck in the 21st century. Maybe this will work: some Cannibal Banker Thief Politician pays some Bounty Hunters to get rid of a person living in his illegal, off the books, second home he keeps his mistress in. The Bounty Hunters take the job, get rid of the person, and rob the home. Is that evil?




Maybe I'm judging this based on my personal lawful perspective of things. Perhaps these were unlawful actions instead of evil ones (mainly regarding the situation with the guards), but with the dragons... I don't know, it just doesn't fit with my notion of how a good-aligned party should act.

You really think a good party would just ignore the loot? What if the dragons had prisoners too? Would the good party ignore them too? Or set them free? Is that ''different''?

The problem here is the relativity. You want to say ''anything is anything, no one can judge''. But that makes a game like D&D impossible. It can quickly come down to ''the characters can never loot'' and ''the characters can't kill'' and the game stopper of ''the characters can't adventure''.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm pretty sure that the Black Dragons would probably have gotten up to very naughty things if they had their loot. If the party exploits an agreement with evil creatures to yoink their loot, that is chaotic, not evil. Do you think Robin Hood wouldn't waltz right in to the treasury if someone handed him the key? Oh no, you're giving me the means to end your schemes, no, please don't, its stealing.

I think these cases are pretty arguably...Not that bad. Keep in mind, many murderhobos would have simply slaughtered the guards and chucked their bloody heads at the next set to get a circumstance bonus to intimidate. Either start dropping in some in-game hints that they should be careful of their actions, or, preferably...Speak with them OoC. See where they stand on the issue and how they feel about the alignment of their actions.

[Baroknik]

From the description, I would say that the actions seemed non-evil, but both definitely seemed pretty textbook chaotic (betrayal of an employer's trust, taking actions into own hands without proper justification).

[ZamielVanWeber]

And this is the problem right here with the Relative Alignment view: Unless the PC's witness the person actively committing evil acts with their items then they can never loot anything.
I say objective. I point out objective. You are the one using relative alignment. In objective dnd alignment stealing is evil. Done. Whether or not this is a good policy is not what I am debating.


Stealing is evil, but not all acts where one ''moves wealth'' are stealing. So, no, taken the wealth stolen by an evil inhuman monster is not stealing.
They stole. Demonstrate how they did not march into a dragon's cave and steal his items. They are not playing the stock market or making some hedging against the dragon's land investments; they physically picked up his stuff and took it. That is literally the definition of stealing.

[Threadnaught]

And this is the problem right here with the Relative Alignment view: Unless the PC's witness the person actively committing evil acts with their items then they can never loot anything.

Mostly setting dependent.


Stealing is evil, but not all acts where one ''moves wealth'' are stealing. So, no, taken the wealth stolen by an evil inhuman monster is not stealing.

If stealing is Evil, then stealing is Evil, even when the victim is a thief.
This was stealing with no attempt not to kill the victim. Imagine that, someone emptying your bank balance in front of you and if you try to stop them, they shoot you. From the information given, it most certainly is not a Good act, it borders on Evil, even in cosmologies where Chromatic Dragons are ALWAYS EVIL, because they agreed to work with the Dragon before betraying it. And that is far from Good, not only did they work with an Evil creature, but they also betrayed their employer's trust.


See, your stuck in the 21st century. Maybe this will work: some Cannibal Banker Thief Politician pays some Bounty Hunters to get rid of a person living in his illegal, off the books, second home he keeps his mistress in. The Bounty Hunters take the job, get rid of the person, and rob the home. Is that evil?

Yes, because knowing full well that the person is the complete monster you painted them to be, I accepted the job knowing that killing the guy is the only Good thing to do, went to his home, profited on other people's misery and took the mistress into servitude as my prize and left the house burning. I think it's rather diabolical of me to do that. I'm even worse than the politician, because I knew he'd take it out on those who can't defend themselves, not to mention the unforgivable things I'm doing to that poor woman. Yes, clean mah muddy boots with your tongue and when you're finished, search for traps naked, if you die at least your clothes will be worth something.


You really think a good party would just ignore the loot? What if the dragons had prisoners too? Would the good party ignore them too? Or set them free? Is that ''different''?

Don't you think if the Dragon had prisoners, the OP would've mentioned them and this incident wouldn't have been as against the PCs "Goodness"?
Nothing so far to indicate that the Black Dragon was Evil, except it's race.


The problem here is the relativity. You want to say ''anything is anything, no one can judge''. But that makes a game like D&D impossible. It can quickly come down to ''the characters can never loot'' and ''the characters can't kill'' and the game stopper of ''the characters can't adventure''.

I'm saying everything could be anything, it'd be wrong to judge too soon.

The characters can kill and can adventure, but without knowing their environment, they'd get themselves slaughtered, or at least a horrible reputation that would lead to them dying.

Edit:
They are not playing the stock market or making some hedging against the dragon's land investments; they physically picked up his stuff and took it. That is literally the definition of stealing.

Nitpick: They picked up the items without the Downer's consent. With the owner's consent it wouldn't be stealing.

[Morphie]

And this is the problem right here with the Relative Alignment view: Unless the PC's witness the person actively committing evil acts with their items then they can never loot anything.

Stealing is evil, but not all acts where one ''moves wealth'' are stealing. So, no, taken the wealth stolen by an evil inhuman monster is not stealing.

(...)
See, your stuck in the 21st century. Maybe this will work: some Cannibal Banker Thief Politician pays some Bounty Hunters to get rid of a person living in his illegal, off the books, second home he keeps his mistress in. The Bounty Hunters take the job, get rid of the person, and rob the home. Is that evil?

You really think a good party would just ignore the loot? What if the dragons had prisoners too? Would the good party ignore them too? Or set them free? Is that ''different''?

The problem here is the relativity. You want to say ''anything is anything, no one can judge''. But that makes a game like D&D impossible. It can quickly come down to ''the characters can never loot'' and ''the characters can't kill'' and the game stopper of ''the characters can't adventure''.

I agree with you on the possible problems of the Relative alignment view, they exist and defining the bad guys from the start helps to keep the game moving. But that doesn't mean the players should enter "Auto" mode and just crush anyone in their path, just because they are playing the role of "the good guys" and if someone stops them, that person is probably wrong. At least not if they are playing characters with a Good alignment.
Sure, the game is based on: 1 - Defeat the bad guys; 2 - Get xp and loot from doing 1; 3 - Get better at doing step 1; I get that it is hard, it isn't always linear to define who is the bad guy. But the players should at least think about the things they're doing and why they're doing it, and if their actions fit with the personality of their chars.

You're saying that stealing is different from "Moving wealth" because the owner of the stuff I steal might be evil so he probably did something wrong to have that money. So, because he's evil, it is my rightful duty to take everything he has, even though he did nothing that proved me he's actually evil? I respectfully disagree with you on that. And yes, if the Bounty Hunters were to rob that creepy Polititian's house they would be commiting a crime (an evil act), all the wrong stuff the guy probably has done doesn't justify their actions.

And, answering your last question, YES. If the dragons had prisoners in their lair, it would be completely different. The dragons don't uphold the law in the city so they have no right to imprison a person against their will. Releasing the prisoners or, at least, confronting the dragons about it, would be an act of a Good-aligned character.

To each their own, I guess.

[DrMotives]

And this is the problem right here with the Relative Alignment view: Unless the PC's witness the person actively committing evil acts with their items then they can never loot anything.




The problem here is the relativity. You want to say ''anything is anything, no one can judge''. But that makes a game like D&D impossible. It can quickly come down to ''the characters can never loot'' and ''the characters can't kill'' and the game stopper of ''the characters can't adventure''.

No, no one is saying that here. You keep making bizarre analogies that don't make sense. The PCs already judged the dragons when they took the job. You can't after that go back and take the hoard because the dragons were objectively evil, because if you believed that you were in no position to accept the job offer in the first place. It shows the PCs are completely untrustworthy. The PCs judged the target of the dragon's mission as evil invaders, and thus were entitled to loot the bodies without calling their goodness into question. But they judged the dragons as worthy of fair dealing, and then abused that fair dealing. It's baldly evil, it's not even a grey area. Is one act enough to shift alingments? Probably not, but it's a firm push in the evil direction.

I must make a mental note to not let you know where I live, because you might steal everything I have in case I ever shoplifted a store, cheated on my taxes, or bad mouthed Ayn Rand.

[Troacctid]

Stealing isn't evil. It's more chaotic if anything.

[Morphie]

Thanks guys for all the input, just to sum up the opinions so far and track it back to the original post:
- The first situation with the dragons: Grey area, possibly Evil.
- Second situation with the guards: Not evil, because the party resorted to dealing subdual damage to the non-evil guards after they were denied entrance to a place where they believe the "evil guy" probably is.

After thinking about it, I'm inclined to agree that the second situation wasn't probably an evil act by itself, even though they could've done something else. Unlawful maybe, but no one is lawful in the party, so that's ok.
I spoke about this with the players after the game session, while making it clear that their actions wouldn't incur in any alignment shift or any immediate negative consequences, but if they insisted on those sorts of actions something could happen in the future. Next Friday I'll talk to them about this again and I'll admit that I could be wrong on the second situation. However, I'll advise them to play according to their chars' alignment and think twice if something like this comes up.
Do you have any other tips on what else I could say to them regarding this subject?

[jedipotter]

What's so bad about NPCs having more to them then "Heroes musteth do questeth or GOD SLAY THEM FOR NO RAISIN" for anything with Usually Good in it's Monster Manual entry, or Human and "RARR DIE" for anything with Usually Evil in it's Monster Manual entry?

It makes the game hard, maybe even impossible to play.



Dragon wanted them to get rid of the Evil thing, and offered to pay them a reward for their service. It offered to pay them, the offer wasn't "..and just help yourself to everything I own" it was "..and I will pay you some cash for helping me out".

So the group was hired to be paid assassins? Well, they are not a very good group then. See, you can't kill someone for money and say it's good....it does not work like that.



Additionally, a Dragon does not need to destroy anything or kill anyone to be Evil and gather a large horde while being Evil. They need simply manipulate events around them and be patient. An example of an Evil Dragon making money without going around eating villagers.


This is the problem with gray. In the normal D&D game of Objective alignment the character fight against evil. In the more modern Relative alignment view the characters...er...spend lots of time trying to figure out who is good and evil and who and what they can kill and fight against. And then it goes from D&D to more CSI: Old Tyme.

After all, unless the PC's see someone, say behead an innocent in public and drink their blood, they can never really know who is good or evil. So what do the characters do? Nothing....




If stealing is Evil, then stealing is Evil, even when the victim is a thief.

The problem is, when is it stealing. If your going to say stealing is ''taking something that does not belong to you'', then how will the characters ever take any loot a treasure. If everything belongs to someone, the characters can't take it. And then your not playing D&D any more




they agreed to work with the Dragon before betraying it. And that is far from Good, not only did they work with an Evil creature, but they also betrayed their employer's trust.

Good and evil really should not mix. But you can't really ''betray evil''. As they are evil, they are not under the same rules as you. It's like Say your paid by Hydra to assassinate a member of the Legion of Doom, and while your in the house you rob it. Good or evil act?


I agree with you on the possible problems of the Relative alignment view, they exist and defining the bad guys from the start helps to keep the game moving. But that doesn't mean the players should enter "Auto" mode and just crush anyone in their path, just because they are playing the role of "the good guys" and if someone stops them, that person is probably wrong. At least not if they are playing characters with a Good alignment.

Be careful with the slippery slope....you went from ''taking a dragon horde'' to ''mass slaughter'' kinda fast. But, yes, good player characters should slaughter all evil in their path.



Sure, the game is based on: 1 - Defeat the bad guys; 2 - Get xp and loot from doing 1; 3 - Get better at doing step 1; I get that it is hard, it isn't always linear to define who is the bad guy. But the players should at least think about the things they're doing and why they're doing it, and if their actions fit with the personality of their chars.

I agree with the whole players must think, and as an Evil, Unfair, Killer DM I throw my players for loops all the time. But you need to know how the players think and they need to know how you think. And you will need to decide whose idea of good and bad is right. I think your players are more ''traditional good and bad'' and your more ''new age''.

So you want to avoid the ''wacky gray area'', with things like ''a black dragon that could be of any alignment''. You want to keep black, black and white, white. So the evil races do bad things and are evil. Period. The good ones do good. Period. And if you want to do gray...use the gray races. For example, have a human who owns a cave horde and hires the group. But you can't have them on their tip toes not doing anything as ''every lich might have angel wings''.



I respectfully disagree with you on that. And yes, if the Bounty Hunters were to rob that creepy Polititian's house they would be commiting a crime (an evil act), all the wrong stuff the guy probably has done doesn't justify their actions.

I do disagree. Note a crime is not an evil act, by itself. Not everyone that does 26 in a 25 miles per hour zone is evil when they commit that crime.



And, answering your last question, YES. If the dragons had prisoners in their lair, it would be completely different. The dragons don't uphold the law in the city so they have no right to imprison a person against their will. Releasing the prisoners or, at least, confronting the dragons about it, would be an act of a Good-aligned character.

The City? Does your world only have one city? Or are there dozens? You can't use One City as your good goal posts. City A kills criminals after guilty trials, city B puts them in prison...what city is good? They can't both be right, right? If city A allows slavery does that make the city Evil or Good?

You need to think more about Cosmic Alignment, not small pictures.

[goto124]

After all these... what should the DM and the players do? The problem is that they saw things differently, leading to disagreement. The question is, what should happen next? Should the players' alignments change due to a misunderstanding? Should the DM and players talk until the misunderstanding is resolved, have everyone agree on a particular understanding of morality, and then move on?

[jedipotter]

After all these... what should the DM and the players do? The problem is that they saw things differently, leading to disagreement. The question is, what should happen next? Should the players' alignments change due to a misunderstanding? Should the DM and players talk until the misunderstanding is resolved, have everyone agree on a particular understanding of morality, and then move on?


It all depends on How Everyone Agreed to Play the Game.

For example, my game has the simple OOC Three Alignment Warning, for new players. Should you do something ''out of alignment'', you will get a warning and have it explained it you. And that Fourth time and form then on, you get the full effects of whatever happens.

My view on alignment are not ''common''. I encourage players to learn more, either in the game or outside it. alignment questions are my Number One E-mail Topic. I just answered the question ''what does Mystra think about evil magic'' just yesterday for a player with a cleric of Mystra.

Though my world also has very active gods and alignment too. So should a good character think it's a good idea to betray an innocent for fun, they are very likely to get a Divine Message that says ''Don't Do it''.

[Morphie]

(...)
I do disagree. Note a crime is not an evil act, by itself. Not everyone that does 26 in a 25 miles per hour zone is evil when they commit that crime.

(...)
The City? Does your world only have one city? Or are there dozens? You can't use One City as your good goal posts. City A kills criminals after guilty trials, city B puts them in prison...what city is good? They can't both be right, right? If city A allows slavery does that make the city Evil or Good?

You need to think more about Cosmic Alignment, not small pictures.

Both good points.
However, speeding over the limit established by law isn't a "crime" as serious as stealing, it's more of an infraction actually. Even though you're disobeying a law by speeding over the limit you're not actively causing harm to others without provocation (a thing that defines Evil) that's why there are different consequences for each of the actions. One could argue the gravity of stealing based on the ammount stolen and that could escalate to a discussion on "degrees of evilness", but that's beyond the point at the moment.

About the second, you're right. I shouldn't base the definition of Good in any city, ruler or person. The laws/punishment derive from the Law maker's view on what is good and what is evil, so that's even a shadier area. So I have to follow what the core rulebooks, mostly the PHb and the DMG, say in the matter. The SRD says "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings". Keeping someone imprisoned in a dragon cave should at least make a good character think about ways to end that, or at least investigate the reasons why they are there and then act accordingly.

As to what goto124 said (wish I knew how to quote a post besides the first one), it was more of a friendly warning from the DM - currently me - based on his opinion about the events and the players' behaviour. I even told them that my view isn't necessarily the right one or even the ultimate truth, because, even though I currently hold a position of power at the game, I'm not a dictator and I like to listen to their opinions and might even change mine if I'm proven to be wrong. This however doesn't apply to world-building or any setting-specific things that are of the exclusive responsibility of the DM, if they agree with playing in my world, they should respect the rules that are defined by me at the beggining, if not, they are more than welcome to suggest another adventure to play with another DM with other rules, that's cool too.
However we might end up discussing this subject if something like this ever happens again with broader consequences. My friends and I get along fine and we believe it is better to just tackle an issue head-on than to allow it to create roots and cause more serious effects in the future.

[jedipotter]

However we might end up discussing this subject if something like this ever happens again with broader consequences. My friends and I get along fine and we believe it is better to just tackle an issue head-on than to allow it to create roots and cause more serious effects in the future.

You need to make sure everyone is on the same page.

For example, As DM I'd say ''stealing'' only applies in Civilization. It's not a Cosmic Evil, it's a Social one.

Though I also say good can kill and slaughter at will...for good reasons.....

[Killer Angel]

If stealing is Evil, then stealing is Evil, even when the victim is a thief.


If Killing is Evil, then Killing is Evil, even when the victim is a murderer.
But to kill Evil, is the job of LG paladins.

So, the evilness of killing and stealing, especially in D&D, depends on many circumstances.

[Threadnaught]

It makes the game hard, maybe even impossible to play.

Not really, it just makes it so the PCs are able to kill the Usually Good races when they're being uppity genocidal jerks, just as easily as they'd wipe out a village of a Usually Evil race when they're getting all their children ready for some celebration, or whatever.


So the group was hired to be paid assassins? Well, they are not a very good group then. See, you can't kill someone for money and say it's good....it does not work like that.

A group is hired by Corellon Larethian to wipe out a bunch of Drow farmers. Is this not a group being hired to be paid assassins?
Worse still, in this analogy, the PCs are the home invaders. Would you really call this situation Good because the murder victims are Drow? Even while the Elves who hired the PCs are encroaching on a Human city, kidnapping and murdering people, so they can build the Grand Elven Empire of Corellon Larethian?


This is the problem with gray. In the normal D&D game of Objective alignment the character fight against evil. In the more modern Relative alignment view the characters...er...spend lots of time trying to figure out who is good and evil and who and what they can kill and fight against. And then it goes from D&D to more CSI: Old Tyme.

After all, unless the PC's see someone, say behead an innocent in public and drink their blood, they can never really know who is good or evil. So what do the characters do? Nothing....

It doesn't need to be CSI, though the world doesn't need to be split halfway between moustache twirling madmen who tie women to train track and are prone to outbursts of maniacal laughter, and special snowflake mary sues either. You keep saying you play a gritty version of D&D, but I just don't see it. If I were a player in your games, I'd be like Jim from Darths&Droids, and simply ask if an NPC has a beard, a twirlable moustache or a top hat and cape, then I'd kill them then and there, because that person is obviously Evil.
The problem with Gray is that the decision is completely up to the player... Oh, right.


The problem is, when is it stealing. If your going to say stealing is ''taking something that does not belong to you'', then how will the characters ever take any loot a treasure. If everything belongs to someone, the characters can't take it. And then your not playing D&D any more

It's stealing when it has an owner who hasn't given consent to take it. In most cases, killing a Dragon prevents it's hoard from being stolen, simply by causing it not to have an owner.
Though there are Undead who have property, the same rule applies to Undead, as long as they're around, in the sense that they're walking and talking, if they don't give consent, it's stealing.

I have made myself clear before and again now, I am getting bored of repeating this line. Please stop ignoring it.


Good and evil really should not mix. But you can't really ''betray evil''. As they are evil, they are not under the same rules as you. It's like Say your paid by Hydra to assassinate a member of the Legion of Doom, and while your in the house you rob it. Good or evil act?

Nah, let's look at it another way. Your name is Starscream and you are the second in command of the Decepticons. You want to lead, but your boss, Megatron is stronger than you and doesn't really die in battle against the Autobots either. Do you?
A: Challenge him to single combat for leadership.
B: Cross your fingers that he dies the next time he fights the Autobots.
C: Ask him nicely.
D: Try to kill him when his back is turned.

Of course Megatron trusts you to help the Decepticons in their fight against the Autobots, he knows that at any time a Decepticon may roll up and challenge him for leadership, potentially killing him though. A isn't betrayal, it's the right of every Decepticon to challenge their commander for leadership. B isn't betrayal, it's not your fault if he really does get killed by the Autobots. C is not betrayal, though it's also the least likely to work. D is betrayal, you're not helping the Decepticons defeat the Autobots, you're helping yourself while selling the Decepticons down the river. Betrayal.
There's a reason Starscream is synonymous for Traitor in the Transformers fanbase.


Be careful with the slippery slope....you went from ''taking a dragon horde'' to ''mass slaughter'' kinda fast. But, yes, good player characters should slaughter all evil in their path.

Even potential evil? (http://www.goblinscomic.org/09172005/)


I do disagree. Note a crime is not an evil act, by itself. Not everyone that does 26 in a 25 miles per hour zone is evil when they commit that crime.

You are aware that some crimes carry a harsher punishment for others because they're more serious, right?

People who do 32mph in a 30 zone are unlikely to even get a ticket. People who do 50mph in a 30 zone may receive a fine and points on their licence, which could result in a ban.
People who steal from someone's home after being invited in to work for them (plumber, decorator, exterminator, etc.), who later kill the person who hired them when they take offence to having been stolen from, are more likely to receive time in prison.


The City? Does your world only have one city? Or are there dozens? You can't use One City as your good goal posts. City A kills criminals after guilty trials, city B puts them in prison...what city is good? They can't both be right, right? If city A allows slavery does that make the city Evil or Good?

City A is harsh on petty criminals, city B is a soft touch on scumbags.
As for the slavery, I'm struggling to comment on that without going into real world history and politics. So I'll let someone else tackle that specific point.


If Killing is Evil, then Killing is Evil, even when the victim is a murderer.
But to kill Evil, is the job of LG paladins.

So, the evilness of killing and stealing, especially in D&D, depends on many circumstances.

Isn't Assassination a Good act, while Murder is Evil?
The srd doesn't give too many details for alignment.

[Deophaun]

Not everyone that does 26 in a 25 miles per hour zone is evil when they commit that crime.
And Officer McSmitey, the Paladin 8/Prestige Traffic Cop 2, falls before his time...

We can say that working with black dragons and then robbing them blind is not a good act without also saying it is an evil one. It is definitely chaotic, especially the irresponsible nature of leaving a pair of angry dragons behind that are liable to do anything. It's the same with knocking out the guards. Not good, not evil, but chaotic, at least the haphazard way they went about it. The issue here is more with the ethics of the party, not the morality.

Now, the problem with the BBEG is that yeah, they were at least a little bit railroaded into it by you stonewalling the party. If the guards said something like "Show me a warrant" (highly anachronistic, but you get the idea), that would at least be a hint as to how they could get access without combat, and give them a lawful means to do so. Ideally, any "incorrect" approach they take should point towards the "correct" approach (please make note of the scare quotes) if you really don't want the party to pursue their current course of action.

[goto124]

The DM might say there was no railroading, but I guess the problem is the appearance of railroading?

[Mystral]

Hello all,

So, in the last gaming session my players went to a house where supposedly the BBEG lives.
There were some guards stationed at the door and, as the party approached the entrance, the guards told them to go away and nothing would happen to them. The discussion started, the players insisted on getting in and asking about who their boss was, but the guards just kept on saying "Go away, this is none of your business, we are not going to do anything if you just turn your back and leave". Some of the players started casting spells right in front of the guards, becoming invisible among other things, some were kind of presumptuous and were acting like the fight wouldn't even be challenging if it started, so some of the guards starting insulting them, while still saying "Get out now!".

The cleric cast detect evil and sensed the guards weren't evil. However, he then later cast ice slick to make the guards trip. Some of the guards passed the save, exited the slippery area and kept on saying "Get out now!". One round later, the cleric cast the same spell a second time, and then the wizards summoned a Large Earth Elemental and told him to attack them with subdual damage. The fight started and the party knocked the whole group of guards with little effort.

A couple of sessions ago the party also stole the lair of some black dragons when the creatures asked them to kill an evil being that had invaded it, promising a reward. When the dragons returned to their lair to get the reward they found out they had been stolen of all their valuables, thus attacking the party.

I said nothing at that point, but after this last session was over I told them that I think they aren't playing their alignments correctly, based on 2 evil actions they have done recently. I didn't change their alignment or anything, it was more of a friendly warning that if they insisted in these types of actions, something could happen. They reacted as though I didn't gave them any other chance, since the guards were determined to keep them out of the house and didn't concede on anything they asked - "talk to the boss", "call him here", "your boss is evil", etc. I played the guards as neutral men hired by someone to keep people out of his property. They are loyal and don't accept any bribes and their initial reaction to the party is unfriendly.

Honestly, I believe the party is so confident in their abilities that they end up handling most situations as a "We are the good guys here, if you don't like us or do what we are asking you're probably wrong and so you must be defeated".

So, I would really like your opinion, do you think these 2 actions were evil or am I blowing this out of proportion? Was my reaction appropriate or should I have done something else?

Thanks in advance.

Doesn't sound evil. Only quite cocky, and quite rightly so, since they seem to overcome your challenges with ease. Firmly neutral.

[Andreaz]

So, in the last gaming session my players went to a house where supposedly the BBEG lives. [...]This one is complicated one to evaluate. They were jerks about it, but being an ass is not evil. Their attempts to communicate with the guard, how were they? Were they actually trying to convince them it was a bad idea to defend the dude? I mean, as in actual persuasion attempts, not just lip service "he's evil, we're not, let us in" stuff.
If they did, then went aggressive, I'm fine with associating such deed to someone neutral or good. If they did little more than telling them to quit and jumped to aggression, then i'd say that's evil people territory.
A couple of sessions ago the party also stole the lair of some black dragons when the creatures asked them to kill an evil being that had invaded it[...]This one on the other hand is dirt easy. Negotiating with someone knowingly evil isn't evil, and it was a fine job...just get back my home please. But then they went and stole everything they could get their hands on. Evil-grade greed right there, especially since it's tied to blatant betrayal.


It's important to remember this about alignment: All said and done, being evil is easier than being good. Good is the alignment that suffers for others, remember? And no, Chaotic doesn't let you steal from your boss when you agree to help him even if he's evil. It just means the fact you agreed to help isn't all that important. "It's his home. We came here to kill a thief. I'll be no better if I just take everything." are more likely to spring than not.
And lo, being evil does not take away your capacity of being a hero, or a playable character! You can be evil and still be one of the "good guys".

[Kid Jake]

I have a hard time seeing theft in and of itself as an evil act. If Robin Hood donned a disguise and took a menial job with the Sheriff of Nottingham so that he could break into and loot the Sheriff's vault, is that actually evil? If he does it with any regularity does that really make him a monster on par with Hannibal Lectre?

[Segev]

From the description, I would say that the actions seemed non-evil, but both definitely seemed pretty textbook chaotic (betrayal of an employer's trust, taking actions into own hands without proper justification).

Overall, their actions were chaotic, not evil.

The theft and subsequent killing of the dragons is solidly CN, maybe on the southern end of it, but they get a pass because Black Dragons are evil, themselves, and "kill evil monster; take his stuff" is concidered acceptable in D&D-land. (You can argue that it's no different than if they'd done this to a gold dragon, but killing evil dragons is "good." And good actions for neutral-to-evil reasons round out to about neutral, generally speaking.


Refusing to bow to the possibly-lawful authority of the guards, resorting to violence when the PCs' views of "right" and those of the guards' conflicted, but keeping from outright killing? Definitely neutral, morally, and chaotic, ethically. (If they'd had lawful authority to do this, it would be lawful.)

Stealing from an employer? Chaotic. Neutral, morally, under MOST circumstances players will come across.

Killing the victim of your theft? Usually evil, but...

1) The targets in this case were the sort that would generally be non-evil to do the standard adventurer thing to (kill monster, take stuff).
2) They didn't initiate violence, so it's self-defense, at least in the immediate sense.
3) While 2) is not normally enough to prevent "steal and kill them" from being evil, there's no indication that they forced the dragons to escalate it to lethal levels. Both sides could have chosen to give up rather than die (well, maybe the dragons would have killed them anyway for their temerity, putting it even more firmly in self-defense).

In all, the circumstances as presented are both CN. The first is CN without even a hint of moral question; the second is CN with maybe a "you should not make a habit of this" levels of veering into CN with evil tendencies. (Which still isn't an alignment shift. It just could indicate a start of a slippery slope if they keep getting worse.)

[Andreaz]

I have a hard time seeing theft in and of itself as an evil act. If Robin Hood donned a disguise and took a menial job with the Sheriff of Nottingham so that he could break into and loot the Sheriff's vault, is that actually evil? If he does it with any regularity does that really make him a monster on par with Hannibal Lectre?It was not the theft that was evil, it was the fact they're stealing from the guys they said they'd help, a textbook type of betrayal, coupled with the fact there's no attenuating context. They're not Robin Hood, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. They're stealing from the rich that was paying them to protect him, and giving to themselves.

[Segev]

It was not the theft that was evil, it was the fact they're stealing from the guys they said they'd help, a textbook type of betrayal, coupled with the fact there's no attenuating context. They're not Robin Hood, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. They're stealing from the rich that was paying them to protect him, and giving to themselves.

Betrayal, absent any other context save "you did not do what you promised, and may even have done the opposite," is Chaotic, but it is not Evil.

A man sworn to a gorgeous princess who agrees to help her overthrow her tyrannical father so she can become queen and have him rule by her side may be a hero. If he then discovers that the princess is an evil, evil woman who is only kept from abusing the commonfolk by her father's good but firm hand, and who is to be disinherited because her father fears what she'd do as queen, he might choose to betray her and reveal the plot to her father, siding with him against the squad of assassins she hired to back up our protagonist.

It is still a betrayal. She was not even lying when she called her father "tyrannical;" to her, he is, and she doesn't think of the people as anything other than tools for her amusement. She was even dealing in good faith; she finds our hero attractive and lovable, and would like having a powerful warrior as her consort. But this betrayal is chaotic (since he broke his word), but good (since he's stopping an evil plot).

[Honest Tiefling]

If stealing, betrayal, lying are evil, no matter if it saves the lives of adorable, mischievous orphans and their dog, then what...Does a chaotic good character do differently from a lawful one?

[Kid Jake]

It just reminds me of the old Viking parable about the starving warrior who ate a family's food to regain his strength and when he discovered that the home he was in belonged to somebody felt so bad....that he murdered all of them, because stealing is wrong but pillaging is ok.

[Deophaun]

It was not the theft that was evil, it was the fact they're stealing from the guys they said they'd help, a textbook type of betrayal, coupled with the fact there's no attenuating context.
First, attenuating context is they were black dragons. Unless the campaign has made it clear that alignment is not written into a creature's genetic code, then that's a fine context to justify slaughter. That's just how D&D is setup by default.

Second, if betrayal--stealing from them that brung you--were evil, that means James Bond, Michael Westen, Ethan Hawk, and every other superspy, even MacGuyver on occasion, is evil.

[Starbuck_II]

The problem is, when is it stealing. If your going to say stealing is ''taking something that does not belong to you'', then how will the characters ever take any loot a treasure. If everything belongs to someone, the characters can't take it. And then your not playing D&D any more



Plus, if the victim is a thief: then it didn't belong to the "victim" either. So therefore it is unclaimed loot. Thus you can freely claim it as you are Not Stealing!

[DrMotives]

If stealing, betrayal, lying are evil, no matter if it saves the lives of adorable, mischievous orphans and their dog, then what...Does a chaotic good character do differently from a lawful one?

Nope, stop with these silly straw men. This wasn't about lying, and there's no qualifier like saving some innocent. You're adding extra stuff to try and make those arguing against you seem ludicrous when no one is saying such things. There was no greater good in killing these dragons, other than the standard alingment of them in the MM. Which, frankly, doesn't matter for the crime of betrayal once the PCs have agreed to help them, and the dragons gave no indication they couldn't be trusted after that.

If the PCs had seen them, yelled "Black dragons? Those guys are inherently evil!" and killed them right there, it wouldn't be a evil act. It'd be classic PC murderhobo behavior. But this betrayal is evil. And before someone says something about modern vs ancient morals, no. Remember in Dante's "Divine Comedy" the deepest pit in Hell was for betrayers, with Brutus Cassius having the special honor of spending eternity in Lucifer's mouth getting chewed up. And Brutus betrayed his friend Caesar for patriotism, because he firmly believed it was for the best interests of his nation. If anything, an act of betrayal in the ancient world was a worse crime than it would be by modern standards.

[Kioran]

In my opinion both acts were somewhat evil, the stealing from the dragons more than beating down the guards.

The guards were in their way, but not evil, and just doing their jobs. Unless the player characters actually tried to persuade them AND had no easy ways to by-pass the guards, I think their actions are hardly good. It's a bit like using tasers and tear gas to disperse people in your way - while definitely not terribly evil or vile, the PCs are hurting people for their convenience.
A party that can actually cast fly, invisibility and maybe even things like pass wall or phase door should have attempted to sneak in, scry, or circumvent the defenses otherwise. It's not evil enough for an alignment shift or even to be a big deal unless it's their usual modus operandi, but it is slightly evil in my opinion

Dealing with the Dragons first and THEN robbing and murdering them is pretty damn evil. Either they should have refused to deal with evil creatures (and they could have killed them fair and square) or have dealt with them in good faith. Good means actually having principles and following them, it should not be red vs. blue.

The most important thing, to me, is that being good is not just a space to fill on the character sheet, but should be a conscious and consistent thing. The default alignment for most sentient creatures is, after all, neutral - if the characters want to be good, being good takes effort and sacrifice. If they do not at least make a good effort to stay away from evil or just ruthless convenient solutions, they can hardly call themselves good (Side note: This is why I consider Haley of the OOTS CN, not CG)

And unless they are some sort of divinely powered characters like Clerics or Paladins, it shouldn't matter. If the sorcerer is not good, that doesn't affect him. There is no shame in being neutral. No honor, but also no shame.

As a GM, I would probably fire 1-2 more warning shots if this kind of behaviour is consistent and then start flipping characters to neutral.

[Xelbiuj]

I know black dragons like caves and such but I'm pretty sure none of them are out mining . . . or involved in any sort of trade.

I don't accept a black dragon's claim to its hoard as legitimate. It's all blood money. Worse, it's blood money taken out of the economy until some heroes recover it.

Of course there are always exceptions.


As for the TCs question, the first one is definitely unlawful (arguably immoral too as KO's can cause real damage IRL, though not raw)
Back to the dragon, if they just used it as a ruse to get close to the dragon, meh, it's cool.

[atemu1234]

Nope, stop with these silly straw men. This wasn't about lying, and there's no qualifier like saving some innocent. You're adding extra stuff to try and make those arguing against you seem ludicrous when no one is saying such things. There was no greater good in killing these dragons, other than the standard alingment of them in the MM. Which, frankly, doesn't matter for the crime of betrayal once the PCs have agreed to help them, and the dragons gave no indication they couldn't be trusted after that.

If the PCs had seen them, yelled "Black dragons? Those guys are inherently evil!" and killed them right there, it wouldn't be a evil act. It'd be classic PC murderhobo behavior. But this betrayal is evil. And before someone says something about modern vs ancient morals, no. Remember in Dante's "Divine Comedy" the deepest pit in Hell was for betrayers, with Brutus Cassius having the special honor of spending eternity in Lucifer's mouth getting chewed up. And Brutus betrayed his friend Caesar for patriotism, because he firmly believed it was for the best interests of his nation. If anything, an act of betrayal in the ancient world was a worse crime than it would be by modern standards.

Note Inferno was written by a contemporary Italian exile.

[Segev]

But this betrayal is evil. And before someone says something about modern vs ancient morals, no.Again, betrayal, absent any other context, is chaotic, not evil.


Remember in Dante's "Divine Comedy" the deepest pit in Hell was for betrayers, with Brutus Cassius having the special honor of spending eternity in Lucifer's mouth getting chewed up. And Brutus betrayed his friend Caesar for patriotism, because he firmly believed it was for the best interests of his nation. If anything, an act of betrayal in the ancient world was a worse crime than it would be by modern standards.

In the ancient world, particularly Dante's time, the Divine Right of Kings was assumed. "I was just following orders" was considered not just a defense, but laudible. And a reason to feel sorry for the guy who did the horrid deed under orders in spite of his conscience.

Lying, cheating, stealing, and betraying are all aspects of the same crime: violating trust. Trust for reasons other than personal friendship is an inherently law-based element; it relies on a concept that people do as they say and follow the rules.

Treason is viewed with such horror because of the harm it can do.

Really, we care less about expected betrayals than we do unexpected ones. They hurt less.

Nobody REALLY holds it against Skeletor when he tries to turn on He-Man after they worked together to seal the Elder Evil. Nor against Starscream that he'll take advantage of Megatron's precarious position to do away with him and claim his throne. It's expected behavior. Still chaotic, because it's going to come at their timing and against protestations of loyalty, but really, we just fault them for the lie.

True traitors are hated because they take advantage of their position of trust to strike where we are vulnerable, where we left ourselves open to them, expecting they would protect us.


And again, that's generally only evil if done for the wrong reasons.

Really, I don't view Brutus as evil. Possibly misguided, depending on whether his analysis of the need for his nation to be spared Caesar's continued reign was accurate, but not evil. Chaotic, certainly; he took advantage of the promises of loyalty he'd made and the fact that Caesar would have trusted him with his life.

But evil...? Brutus committed an act somewhere along the CN to CG area of the grid, depending on a bunch of factors. For it to be CE, he'd have had to be doing it for his own personal power and with no extenuating justification as to the moral desert of the target.

Whether the target really was deserving of death is not wholly relevant; Brutus's judgment that he was was not based on anything other than a good faith analysis of the situation. At least, as far as I am aware of his depiction.

[DrMotives]

Again, betrayal, absent any other context, is chaotic, not evil.





Disagree strongly. Devils, the exemplars of both Law & Evil, are all about betrayal, they just do it with loopholes. It's all legally airtight when they do it, but morally it's clearly betrayal, and devils are great at it. The CG exemplars, the Eladrin, are far more likely to cleave to the spirit of any agreement they might make, because betrayal isn't chaotic, it's evil.

[hamishspence]

A good example of "necessary betrayal" might be infiltrating a villain's organization specifically in order to bring it down.

Theft might not "count as theft" when the victim had no moral right to the goods in question, and the goods are intended to be delivered to those who do have a right to it. Taking back stuff from a thief in order to return it to the original victim (as opposed to keeping it for oneself) would be a good example of "not what's meant by term 'steal' ".

[Honest Tiefling]

Note Inferno was written by a contemporary Italian exile.

And if I recall middle school well, it was also self-insert fan fiction where he also shoved contemporary people he disliked into hell and a girl he liked was an angel or something.

I also don't recall ancient morality coming into play here, because ancient heroes slew monsters all the time without much of a thought and took their shinies. And even if it was, a black dragon really isn't any different then a hydra except that it is much more dangerous because it was intelligent. Ancient myths have plenty of examples of betrayal or trickery that is acceptable because the hero had a reason. I mean, Anasazi and Coyote aren't bad people.

[Segev]

Disagree strongly. Devils, the exemplars of both Law & Evil, are all about betrayal, they just do it with loopholes. It's all legally airtight when they do it, but morally it's clearly betrayal, and devils are great at it.Ah, but you say it right here: it's "morally" betrayal. In truth, it's not; they do EXACTLY what they agreed to do.


The CG exemplars, the Eladrin, are far more likely to cleave to the spirit of any agreement they might make, because betrayal isn't chaotic, it's evil.Here, we're running afoul of overloaded terms.

You're right, but there's a hair that needs splitting: "the spirit of the agreement" is not the letter, barring a truly spectacular Lawful Good writer (or a Lawful Neutral writer who's equally intelligent and agreed to help craft rules that hold to a spirit he understands perfectly).

An Eladrin would turn on somebody, violating the letter of an agreement, if they found that person had abused the letter to violate the spirit for evil ends. This is betrayal in the sense that somebody is turning on somebody else.

I may have used a poor word when I said trust was at the core of it. Because in truth, chaotic people engage in trust and can even be trustworthy, particularly if they're Good, because trust is about loyalty more than honesty.

The thing about ethics is that they don't care about right and wrong; they care about letter of the law. Chaos is about disregarding it, whether in favor of a less-well-spelled-out "spirit" of some understanding, or in favor of one's own whims, or self-interest, or what-have-you.

But it is the Eladrin who is the betrayer when he holds to the spirit of an agreement and refuses to live up to the letter because the Devil had found a loophole to abuse.

The reason this is important is because it is where even the LG might take issue with the CG. The problem with concerning oneself only with the spirit of an agreement is that you may not have the same spirit in mind as the other person. Both could mean to be working in good faith, but if you leave "the details" to best judgment, you'd best be ready to renegotiate when it becomes clear that the two of you have differing views.

CG types usually will be willing to renegotiate even to their disadvantage; that's part of what makes them Good: they want to help others and don't want to be the cause of harm to others who did nothing wrong.

LG types tend to come off unsympathetically to CG types, because darn it, they hammered out an AGREEMENT. They will do their part, and may even go above and beyond to be kind, but they feel (rightfully) betrayed if the CG type tells them, "no, we didn't realize this would turn out this way, and we don't feel it was within the spirit of the agreement to let this happen," at the LG types' expense. The LG types were RELYING on that clause that just got thrown out.

Worse, because the CG types would not have agreed to the deal if they'd appreciated what it entailed, the LG types are left having paid what they thought was fair (but the CG types thought was too little) for what they PLANNED to get, but only got something for which they'd have paid far less (and the CG types felt was fair).

It's innocent miscommunication, and if they're being reasonable, Good can negotiate with Good to get help. But the CG will be dealing from a position of having what they want AND what the LG want, now. While they might feel badly if the LG group is in trouble, and might want to help, they won't help to the detriment of themselves and those they were already responsible to aid. Whereas LG types would have, dealing with other LG types, been disappointed by accepted that they miscalculated and allow the "side" who doesn't have "possession" to take it, if the agreement said to.


In that light, the CG are, again, the betrayers. They may mean well, or at least not have MEANT to betray, but they did. Even if it was for neutral to good reasons.

[HyperDunkBarkly]

I'd place the backstabbing of the black dragons as chaotic evil. impulsively breaking your word to rip off and provoke your employer into a massacre? oh yeah, definitely chaotic, if not CE.

and at least chaotic neutral for the subdual. it shows a blatant disregard for a person's property(it was the BBEG's HOUSE), and they forced the guards who were just doing their jobs to submit while mocking them and goading a fight so that they could trespass.


easily would be able to put two strikes on a paladin's record. if any of them reported a knight to the local authorities they'd be in serious RP heat too.

[Zirconia]

I would definitely rule that using nonlethal damage to take out guards is not evil, if every bad guy could stop good adventurers by just hiring a neutral guard to stand near him, the world would be overrun by baddies by now. ;)

To make it more nuanced, was it Evil for the neutral guards to work for an Evil boss and protect him? Should THEY have to worry about their alignment as well? Is it then Good for a Good party to terminate their employment by knocking them out and eliminating the boss, thus preventing them from falling into Evil? You see how getting into debates about alignment for murky areas like that is likely to be a problem in a game, unless the DM and players all want to make such things a focus of the game and have agreed on parameters (D&D vs. "modern" views of good and evil).

Regarding working for Evil dragons, then stealing their stuff and killing them, that kind of thing is normally considered a staple of the D&D world. Anyone is allowed to kill Evil beings and take their stuff, on any pretext, or none. I might say that Lawful Good characters shouldn't do what you described, but strictly speaking they probably should not have accepted employment from a black dragon to start with, they should just kill it when they find it. Neutral Good, no problem, you can lie for the greater good.

If you want a different flavor of morality for your game, you probably need to discuss it with the players and see if everyone wants to go that direction in the game. Then you can start having Evil beings surrender, instead of fighting to the death, and worrying about prisoners, and Good bandits, and Evil protectors of peasants, and so on. Some players love that kind of roleplaying and intrigue and difficult moral choices, others not so much, so see what you have.

[Deophaun]

and at least chaotic neutral for the subdual. it shows a blatant disregard for a person's property(it was the BBEG's HOUSE)
I loled.

Paladin: Guys, we can't break into the evil wizard's tower on Mt. Ominous where he's sacrificing the town's orphans to Nerull. It's his HOUSE.

[jedipotter]

A group is hired by Corellon Larethian to wipe out a bunch of Drow farmers. Is this not a group being hired to be paid assassins?
Worse still, in this analogy, the PCs are the home invaders. Would you really call this situation Good because the murder victims are Drow? Even while the Elves who hired the PCs are encroaching on a Human city, kidnapping and murdering people, so they can build the Grand Elven Empire of Corellon Larethian?

If your using Extreme Good, such as ''good people must keep their word to anyone, always'' and ''good can never steal'', then your going down a strange road. Then the good PC's can ''never invade a home'' and ''can not assassinate people'' and ''can't take money to kill''.



The problem with Gray is that the decision is completely up to the player... Oh, right.

No, it's up to the DM and his spin. This is like where the DM has ''and orc covered in blood in an alley'' and the PC attacks and kills the orc.....only to find it was Good Orc Bob the Butcher





I have made myself clear before and again now, I am getting bored of repeating this line. Please stop ignoring it.

I don't recall you being clear....



There's a reason Starscream is synonymous for Traitor in the Transformers fanbase.

Well, I'm a Transformers Fan from way back. G1. And I don't care for any of the stuff after that(other then Beast Wars). And My Version of Starscream, the G1 Starscream Tried to do your ''D'' all the time! And it is not ''Betrayal'', ever. Anyway you can kill the leader and take over is fair game(and you might also have to kill anyone who asks questions or complains or whines or anything else



You are aware that some crimes carry a harsher punishment for others because they're more serious, right?

We are not talking about law enforcement, we are talking about good and evil. Is committing a crime and evil act, yes or no? You can not say ''some crimes are evil, but some are not''.




Isn't Assassination a Good act, while Murder is Evil?


Assassination is not a good act to some.....

[hamishspence]

We are not talking about law enforcement, we are talking about good and evil. Is committing a crime and evil act, yes or no?

Depends on the crime. Evil authorities might criminalize Good acts, and vice versa.

[Honest Tiefling]

I do wonder if a lot of us are making assumptions regarding their intentions. I think I am assuming that the party did so because it was an evil dragon and letting it keep its wealth was probably a bad idea in the first place. I think some of the other people arguing that it was an evil act might be assuming that the party did so only because of loot. I have to ask, did the party members ever explain their reasoning for the action the first place? I think that might shed some light and perhaps show if the DM and the party are on the same page or not.

[HyperDunkBarkly]

I loled.

Paladin: Guys, we can't break into the evil wizard's tower on Mt. Ominous where he's sacrificing the town's orphans to Nerull. It's his HOUSE.

better be deputized and have legal authority to hunt his ass down then. it isn't hard to get a warrant as a paladin, they just need to be "the law."

[Deophaun]

better be deputized and have legal authority to hunt his ass down then. it isn't hard to get a warrant as a paladin, they just need to be "the law."
That was the point of being on Mt. Ominous and not in the city square: Outside local jurisdiction, beyond national boundaries.

[Arbane]

better be deputized and have legal authority to hunt his ass down then. it isn't hard to get a warrant as a paladin, they just need to be "the law."

"The legal authorities within 100 miles were all killed and reanimated."

Y'know, my character in our most recent adventure killed a bunch of laborers and sailors who were working for a rather vile villain. They were probably neutral and didn't know who they were working for, but my character's not going to lose any sleep over it, despite being CG. Know why?

BECAUSE KILLING PEOPLE ISN'T EVIL in D&D. Especially not when you firmly believe that people who die fighting get to go to Valhalla.

[HyperDunkBarkly]

That was the point of being on Mt. Ominous and not in the city square: Outside local jurisdiction, beyond national boundaries.
and still firmly on someone else's property. that he's received lawful permission from his church/king/whoever to straight up invade for the greater good of his patron organization or diety. lawful doesn't even have to be about the area's laws. knights invade other countries and wage war for their lords all the time. it's still devotion to your social hierarchy.

this is blatant disregard for property "because he's the villain" which isn't even roleplaying at that point. which really is the major issue at hand here: the players aren't roleplaying well if at all. they're just going with the aimless "evil creature gives quest, hit accept. loot here, take. evil creature angry, kill. they're evil who cares." and expecting none of that to have ramifications.

which is they blundered into a situation where, evil or not, they agreed to reclaim a home, looted it and then thought nothing would happen. then a few weeks later some guards were standing in they way and they pummeled them until unconsciousness because they wouldn't cave, then walked in and...whatever happened next.

which is a situation of "guy in way, kill=bad=not kill=not bad beat up, we good guys still." thinking when it also shows that they don't have to respect anything, not even a person's private property that is obviously not accepting visitors, regardless of who is in there.

even if he isn't caught, a lawful character should at least see their act as regrettable, even a paladin. because I've always viewed paladins closer to templars, with a stronger Lawful emphasis over Good emphasis and willing to be brutal when the situation serves.

[Segev]

If a paladin is a respector of the local law - not a given, necessarily - he would need a warrent or functional equivalent permission to break down Lord Evil's Ominous Door of Doom, yes. Part of being Lawful Good. But he would do all in his power to obtain it.

Note that this only applies if he is a respector of local laws. If Lord Evil's Ominous Door of Doom to his Gloomy Castle of Villainy is located in Malevoland, where the laws exist only to oppress the innocent and empower those who abuse them, he could safely ignore them entirely. He is a foreign agent acting as an enemy combatant to the entire local government, taking out a particular evil threat. He is not acting Chaotically, but according to a law other than the local one.

I don't know that this particular thread is the place to examine what it takes to have a Lawful character be adhering sufficiently to a code of behavior.


I will also note that the party is not said to have deliberately lured the black dragons into attacking them. They may have known it a likely outcome, but it sounds like the dragons found them with their stuff rather than being deliberately taunted into making themselves "acceptable targets" by goading them into attacking when they wouldn't have, otherwise.

This is relevant because somebody seems to be making the claim they tried to provoke violence to excuse killing them. This is not, to my understanding, the case.

[jedipotter]

Paladin: Guys, we can't break into the evil wizard's tower on Mt. Ominous where he's sacrificing the town's orphans to Nerull. It's his HOUSE.

Well, if your going to say Good Must Follow the Rules of 21st America, then yes.

Even if Paladin McFriendly knows evil wizard D'ark is sacrificing innocents of a town in his tower to the Dark God, he can't do anything. The tower is private property. All the paladin can do, all armed and armored and with divine power, is walk over to the nearest place of town law enforcement and file a complaint. Then the law enforcement people will decide what action, if any, to take.

[HyperDunkBarkly]

Hello all,

So, in the last gaming session my players went to a house where supposedly the BBEG lives.
There were some guards stationed at the door and, as the party approached the entrance, the guards told them to go away and nothing would happen to them. The discussion started, the players insisted on getting in and asking about who their boss was, but the guards just kept on saying "Go away, this is none of your business, we are not going to do anything if you just turn your back and leave". Some of the players started casting spells right in front of the guards, becoming invisible among other things, some were kind of presumptuous and were acting like the fight wouldn't even be challenging if it started, so some of the guards starting insulting them, while still saying "Get out now!".

The cleric cast detect evil and sensed the guards weren't evil. However, he then later cast ice slick to make the guards trip. Some of the guards passed the save, exited the slippery area and kept on saying "Get out now!". One round later, the cleric cast the same spell a second time, and then the wizards summoned a Large Earth Elemental and told him to attack them with subdual damage. The fight started and the party knocked the whole group of guards with little effort.

A couple of sessions ago the party also stole the lair of some black dragons when the creatures asked them to kill an evil being that had invaded it, promising a reward. When the dragons returned to their lair to get the reward they found out they had been stolen of all their valuables, thus attacking the party.

bolded are provoking acts by players toward perfectly sentient beings that have done nothing specifically wrong to them prior, underlined are provocations from the NPC's. italicized are attempts at peaceful resolution by the NPC's. both are situations where the NPC's aren't directly at fault due to being retaliation against
1) threatening spellcasting(hostile tresspasser goes invisible or outright produces ice to prone you), insulting you because you won't get in their way and eventually attacking you because they simply can, to which you and your coworkers simply respond "leave. this is private property." and eventually adding "you jerks." to the mix. a fight then breaks out.

this is literally bullying. I can only think of the players as aggressors, from the way it is described. and I have no reservations preventing me from reaching such an conclusion either.

2) You hire someone for a job: Kill these invaders and free up our home. the people you hire then proceed to take everything nailed down and you come back to that. you then attack to kill them and take your stuff back.

just like an adventurer, dragons kill/scam to get their stuff. it's the spoils of war. if the players kill the dragons or outright war(might be an exaggeration to call it that, but I can't think of a less extreme word) against them, sure. it's their spoils. they didn't. they deliberately took a job from these creatures, killed the invaders, and stole not only their stuff, but their home. it was worded "stole their lair." that is more than just looting the place.

this party is just a gathering of bullies and murderhobos devoid of honor. it's just "see evil creature, kill evil creature. see loot, grab loot." it's the classic shallow, impulsive, outright thoughtless playstyle. I'd just quit at that point, they're on autopilot in the one kind of gaming shouldn't. this isn't GTA, where your decisions don't matter.

Well, if your going to say Good Must Follow the Rules of 21st America, then yes.

Even if Paladin McFriendly knows evil wizard D'ark is sacrificing innocents of a town in his tower to the Dark God, he can't do anything. The tower is private property. All the paladin can do, all armed and armored and with divine power, is walk over to the nearest place of town law enforcement and file a complaint. Then the law enforcement people will decide what action, if any, to take.

and then you get a quest: Murder Douchebag Wizard. Bonus exp for reducing Mt Doom to rubble.

[Threadnaught]

If your using Extreme Good, such as ''good people must keep their word to anyone, always'' and ''good can never steal'', then your going down a strange road. Then the good PC's can ''never invade a home'' and ''can not assassinate people'' and ''can't take money to kill''.

No I'm not using Extreme Good, that would be Vow of Peace.

I'm describing a Mary Sue variety of Good, where the Elves are Mary Sue, if they want the PCs to murder a bunch of farmers so the Elves can take over their land, they must be Good because the Elves worship Corellon Larethian, who is Good. If the Elves want to murder Humans, then it must be Good to go into a Human settlement and slaughter every Human within because those Elves must be Good.
Take note of the amount of justification required.

Seriously, I described sociopathic genocidal morons who slaughter innocent people of all races, because the Elves (who are obviously Evil) told them to.


No, it's up to the DM and his spin. This is like where the DM has ''and orc covered in blood in an alley'' and the PC attacks and kills the orc.....only to find it was Good Orc Bob the Butcher

In a world of Gray Morality, there are few instances where a choice is obviously Good or Evil, and when a choice is obvious, it could have adverse effects as time goes on. It becomes less about the eternal struggle of Good vs Evil, and more about the PCs, the world doesn't revolve around them, but their decisions do.

In a game of Good vs Evil, a large amount of the players' decisions are already made for them, with the PCs revolving around the "decisions" that "they" make.


I don't recall you being clear....

To steal, is to acquire property without the owner's consent. If the property doesn't have an owner, then it is not property until claimed and cannot be stolen until such a claim is staked.
If you encounter a Dragon in the middle of it's raid on a village, then it's not Evil to kill it, even if you later discover the village is some kind of cult dedicated to Asmodeus. Dragons aren't known to travel far from their lairs, so there should be an unguarded hoard without an owner, guilt free loot.
Additionally, if a group of adventurers are hired to travel to a Dragon's lair, to stop it from attacking the outlying settlements, well, if the Dragon isn't feeling up to Diplomacy and it's first instinct when faced with a knightly entourage determined to stop it one way or the other, is to take the other way, then by all means nothing Evil about slaughtering the Dragon, even in it's home.


Well, I'm a Transformers Fan from way back. G1. And I don't care for any of the stuff after that(other then Beast Wars). And My Version of Starscream, the G1 Starscream Tried to do your ''D'' all the time! And it is not ''Betrayal'', ever. Anyway you can kill the leader and take over is fair game(and you might also have to kill anyone who asks questions or complains or whines or anything else

Okay, imagine if the Decepticons were the Good guys and Starscream behaved exactly the same. No double standards please, what is it now?


We are not talking about law enforcement, we are talking about good and evil. Is committing a crime and evil act, yes or no? You can not say ''some crimes are evil, but some are not''.

You are the one who brought breaking speed limits into this!

All I said was, that some crimes are more serious than others, and carry harsher sentences to reflect this.


Although in game terms, yes all crimes are Chaotic, some are Evil.


Assassination is not a good act to some.....

You mean like the victim?
I don't own the book myself, but I remember a comment from a previous alignment discussion, in which someone cited the book as declaring Assassination as a Good act. I hoped someone who owned the book would pick up on it and either confirm or debunk it.



HyperDunkBarkley explained the Black Dragon situation best.

[jedipotter]

No I'm not using Extreme Good, that would be Vow of Peace.

I don't think ''peace'' is extreme good....



In a world of Gray Morality, there are few instances where a choice is obviously Good or Evil, and when a choice is obvious, it could have adverse effects as time goes on. It becomes less about the eternal struggle of Good vs Evil, and more about the PCs, the world doesn't revolve around them, but their decisions do.

I guess this is why Storyteller type DM's love Gray Morality so much, it puts a spotlight on the PCs.



In a game of Good vs Evil, a large amount of the players' decisions are already made for them, with the PCs revolving around the "decisions" that "they" make.

Well, not so much. The Gray game has to take a HUGE amount of time even deciding if the characters should act and what is good or bad or ok or not ok. The Good vs. Evil game just does the Orcs are Evil, and ok, how do you plan to stop them. So while the Gray game is debating philosophy, the vs. game is rolling and attacking the orcs.



If you encounter a Dragon in the middle of it's raid on a village, then it's not Evil to kill it, even if you later discover the village is some kind of cult dedicated to Asmodeus. Dragons aren't known to travel far from their lairs, so there should be an unguarded hoard without an owner, guilt free loot.

Wait, are you saying it's OK to steal if someone is not home? So items left in someones home are guilt free loot?



Additionally, if a group of adventurers are hired to travel to a Dragon's lair, to stop it from attacking the outlying settlements, well, if the Dragon isn't feeling up to Diplomacy and it's first instinct when faced with a knightly entourage determined to stop it one way or the other, is to take the other way, then by all means nothing Evil about slaughtering the Dragon, even in it's home.

All you need do is replace ''dragon'' with ''human'' and you will see the problem. Just because ''it's a dragon'' killing it is OK? But if it was a human doing the same actions, could you still ''just kill them''? Or does the human get captured and a trial and punishment under the law? What is the difference?



Okay, imagine if the Decepticons were the Good guys and Starscream behaved exactly the same. No double standards please, what is it now?

Well, no Good-Bot, AKA an Autobot would want to kill their leader and want to take over. But if say Ironhide turned to Evil then killing Prime would still be an evil act.



I don't own the book myself, but I remember a comment from a previous alignment discussion, in which someone cited the book as declaring Assassination as a Good act. I hoped someone who owned the book would pick up on it and either confirm or debunk it.

What book says assassinations are good?




2) You hire someone for a job: Kill these invaders and free up our home. the people you hire then proceed to take everything nailed down and you come back to that. you then attack to kill them and take your stuff back.

just like an adventurer, dragons kill/scam to get their stuff. it's the spoils of war. if the players kill the dragons or outright war(might be an exaggeration to call it that, but I can't think of a less extreme word) against them, sure. it's their spoils. they didn't. they deliberately took a job from these creatures, killed the invaders, and stole not only their stuff, but their home. it was worded "stole their lair." that is more than just looting the place.

Well...except the part of ''black dragons loose the loot to ''monster X''. Ok, so now monster X says ''this horde is mine''. The dragons don't have a ''lifetime claim '' on the loot (''I killed Sir Bob, so his sword is mine forever!''). So when the PC's kill ''monster X'' they take his loot, not the dragons.

And here is the most fun with good: without a legal frame work that everyone in the world obeys and follows, it gets hard to say ''what is what''. It's all reduced to options.

The black dragons live in Spot X and they say it is their lair. Does that have meaning? Can anyone just say ''I live in this spot and everyone has to accept that?''

Who ''owns'' anything, without a legal framework agreed on by all?



this party is just a gathering of bullies and murderhobos devoid of honor. it's just "see evil creature, kill evil creature. see loot, grab loot." it's the classic shallow, impulsive, outright thoughtless playstyle. I'd just quit at that point, they're on autopilot in the one kind of gaming shouldn't. this isn't GTA, where your decisions don't matter.

Sound like good players to me. (murderhobos would have killed the guards....)

[HyperDunkBarkly]

Well...except the part of ''black dragons loose the loot to ''monster X''. Ok, so now monster X says ''this horde is mine''. The dragons don't have a ''lifetime claim '' on the loot (''I killed Sir Bob, so his sword is mine forever!''). So when the PC's kill ''monster X'' they take his loot, not the dragons.

and yet the PC's undertook a quest to get back their loot/lair.


And here is the most fun with good: without a legal frame work that everyone in the world obeys and follows, it gets hard to say ''what is what''. It's all reduced to options.

The black dragons live in Spot X and they say it is their lair. Does that have meaning? Can anyone just say ''I live in this spot and everyone has to accept that?''

Who ''owns'' anything, without a legal framework agreed on by all?

again, the PC's straight up recognized such property with the quest they accepted. it's right there, they acted in representation of the black dragons' claim to property and eliminated the supposed "illegitimate claim" of the invaders.


Sound like good players to me. (murderhobos would have killed the guards....)
your table must be pretty shallow then.

[jedipotter]

and yet the PC's undertook a quest to get back their loot/lair.

Well, we don't know the details. I'm still going with ''taking from evil is not an evil act''.



again, the PC's straight up recognized such property with the quest they accepted. it's right there, they acted in representation of the black dragons' claim to property and eliminated the supposed "illegitimate claim" of the invaders.

See, that is if the players were playing ''21st century life with a sprinkle of D&D ish, maybe''. Your response if full of ''lawyer talk''. I think the players were a bit more like ''playing D&D lets kill some monsters and get some loot''.



your table must be pretty shallow then.

My game table is very shallow, he has a very wooden character, but he does not like to talk about it and he tabled the discussion.

[HyperDunkBarkly]

Well, we don't know the details. I'm still going with ''taking from evil is not an evil act''.

I'm content to judge their actions. after all, intentions don't really decide consequences.

See, that is if the players were playing ''21st century life with a sprinkle of D&D ish, maybe''. Your response if full of ''lawyer talk''. I think the players were a bit more like ''playing D&D lets kill some monsters and get some loot''.
let's see the medieval justification for "complete lack of empathy" then.

My game table is very shallow, he has a very wooden character, but he does not like to talk about it and he tabled the discussion.
admittedly, I lol'd.

in other news: smartass detected.

[Arbane]

I don't own the book myself, but I remember a comment from a previous alignment discussion, in which someone cited the book as declaring Assassination as a Good act. I hoped someone who owned the book would pick up on it and either confirm or debunk it.


Probably not the book you're thinking of, but from the Illuminatus! Trilogy:
With just a few daggers strategically placed in exactly the right throats, he found Wisdom's alternative to war, and preserved the peoples by killing their leaders. Truly, his was a most exemplary life of grandmotherly kindness.

[goto124]

Had the players provided their input on what their thought process was when playing the game? We could guess, but in the end it's just guessing.

What I guess they thought: The dragons are Evil, so it's okay to betray and kill them. The loot we take will be used for greater good, since we're the protagonists and working on the long-term go to kill the BBEG or whatever. The guards just wanted money to feed their families, so let's not kill them.

I might be biased towards the players, since I share their apparent logic that's more suited towards video games. Heck, they tried not to kill the guards, that's already amazing!

Anyway, had they killed the dragons then took their stuff, is it 'better' than making an agreement with the Evil dragons, going back on their word and then killing them? What if they didn't kill the dragons after the betrayal?

[Threadnaught]

I don't think ''peace'' is extreme good....

Really? You weren't referring to the type of PC who doesn't fight or kill any enemy ever regardless of how EVIL they may be?


I guess this is why Storyteller type DM's love Gray Morality so much, it puts a spotlight on the PCs.

Nope, I'm generalizing more than a fair bit, but storyteller DMs just want to tell their story, player agency be damned. An easier way to do this, is to make it more obvious who the villains are supposed to be, or to hog the spotlight for the NPCs.
By putting the spotlight on the PCs, the game becomes about what the players do.


Well, not so much. The Gray game has to take a HUGE amount of time even deciding if the characters should act and what is good or bad or ok or not ok. The Good vs. Evil game just does the Orcs are Evil, and ok, how do you plan to stop them. So while the Gray game is debating philosophy, the vs. game is rolling and attacking the orcs.

The decisions are harder to make in a game with gray morality, because they aren't already made as they're likely to be in a game about GoodvsEvil, which is a preferred Campaign for storyteller DMs, as it shifts the focus away from the PCs and toward the plot.
Additionally, in games with gray moral choices, the players are free from the majority of philosophy based arguments that are far more likely to rise up in a game of GoodvsEvil.


Wait, are you saying it's OK to steal if someone is not home? So items left in someones home are guilt free loot?

Oh the mental gymnastics you must have gone through to come to that interpretation. Please, I want to see your work.

If someone dies and they have no next of kin, or none to make the claim, then how does their property, continue to be their property? This isn't merely an empty house, it is an empty house of which it's sole occupant has died. Should the house remain empty forever? Should nobody but the deceased former owner be allowed inside?
I'm pretty sure I said the Dragon was killed in the encounter.


All you need do is replace ''dragon'' with ''human'' and you will see the problem. Just because ''it's a dragon'' killing it is OK? But if it was a human doing the same actions, could you still ''just kill them''? Or does the human get captured and a trial and punishment under the law? What is the difference?

Of course, if it's possible to capture and detain either Human or Dragon within a reasonable cost, then okay. The problem is the Dragon Human being a menace to their neighbours by destroying property, threatening lives and stealing livestock. So the PCs go up to the Dragon Human to find a solution as they have been charged to, but the Dragon Human is having none of it and uses lethal force to get out of any kind of punishment, so the party kill/detain them. It's a little easier to detain the average Human than it is to detain a Dragon, so forgive me if the PCs are more likely to knock the Human out and kill the Dragon.


Well, no Good-Bot, AKA an Autobot would want to kill their leader and want to take over. But if say Ironhide turned to Evil then killing Prime would still be an evil act.

Not the Autobots, I asked you to turn the Decepticons into the Good guys, without changing Starscream's backstabbing (aha, synonym for betray) tendencies. The rest of the Decepticons behave completely out of character, while Starscream is completely unchanged, what do you think of Starscream's behaviour?


What book says assassinations are good?

Afaik the Book of Exalted Deeds. I've requested a citation, but it could take a while. I may just have to order the book.


Well...except the part of ''black dragons loose the loot to ''monster X''. Ok, so now monster X says ''this horde is mine''. The dragons don't have a ''lifetime claim '' on the loot (''I killed Sir Bob, so his sword is mine forever!''). So when the PC's kill ''monster X'' they take his loot, not the dragons.

It's the Dragons' home, surely you're not implying that a person's belongings in their home legally cease to belong to them if they leave and someone else happens to be in the property? This is exactly the same thing you tried to call me out on with the dead homeowner without a will.


And here is the most fun with good: without a legal frame work that everyone in the world obeys and follows, it gets hard to say ''what is what''. It's all reduced to options.

You do realize that universal worldwide law is something that doesn't exist in the real world? We're as connected to every other country on the planet, as any Tippyverse. Any setting less advanced than anything made by the good Emperor Win, is even more likely to have a fractured political scene.


The black dragons live in Spot X and they say it is their lair. Does that have meaning? Can anyone just say ''I live in this spot and everyone has to accept that?''

That depends entirely on the culture, which is what the laws are entirely dependent on. If a bunch of Dragons are going to go into a cave, start breeding and keep their hoard there, they have the right to, it's not like a bear is going to stop them, as for the village on the edge of the forest, as long as the Dragons don't attack them, they won't need to seek outside help to deal with the Dragons. Additionally, the Humans and Elves of Dragonview live in the village, they say the house each of them sleeps in and by extension the village itself, is their home. Does that have meaning? Does everyone have to accept that?

[HyperDunkBarkly]

Anyway, had they killed the dragons then took their stuff, is it 'better' than making an agreement with the Evil dragons, going back on their word and then killing them? What if they didn't kill the dragons after the betrayal?
1) yeah, it's better. at that point, the spoils of war are part of the victor's rewards. the treasure is incidental instead of a deliberate act of betrayal.

2)they still back stabbed them. I'd rule that as straight up dishonorable and probably CE if they knew what they were doing because it's in-line with villainous tropes.

[jedipotter]

By putting the spotlight on the PCs, the game becomes about what the players do.

Every game is about that....




The decisions are harder to make in a game with gray morality, because they aren't already made as they're likely to be in a game about GoodvsEvil, which is a preferred Campaign for storyteller DMs, as it shifts the focus away from the PCs and toward the plot.
Additionally, in games with gray moral choices, the players are free from the majority of philosophy based arguments that are far more likely to rise up in a game of GoodvsEvil.

I don't see how. So how does a player in a gray game decide A) if something is evil and B) what can they do about it?



Oh the mental gymnastics you must have gone through to come to that interpretation. Please, I want to see your work.

You said once the dragon leaves his lair the horde is ''unclaimed''. I'd say if your Goody Two Shoes then nothing is ever ''unclaimed''.



If someone dies and they have no next of kin, or none to make the claim, then how does their property, continue to be their property? This isn't merely an empty house, it is an empty house of which it's sole occupant has died. Should the house remain empty forever? Should nobody but the deceased former owner be allowed inside?
I'm pretty sure I said the Dragon was killed in the encounter.

Well, it simply can not be good to ''only loot and steal if the person you kill has no next of kin''


[/QUOTE]
Of course, if it's possible to capture and detain either Human or Dragon within a reasonable cost, then okay. The problem is the Dragon Human being a menace to their neighbours by destroying property, threatening lives and stealing livestock. So the PCs go up to the Dragon Human to find a solution as they have been charged to, but the Dragon Human is having none of it and uses lethal force to get out of any kind of punishment, so the party kill/detain them. It's a little easier to detain the average Human than it is to detain a Dragon, so forgive me if the PCs are more likely to knock the Human out and kill the Dragon.[/QUOTE]

Yup, good is hard. But you get two choices: Change the rule of Good so you can kill, loot and pillage OR suck it up and live with your Hard Good rules. But you can't just choose to ignore them.



Not the Autobots, I asked you to turn the Decepticons into the Good guys, without changing Starscream's backstabbing (aha, synonym for betray) tendencies. The rest of the Decepticons behave completely out of character, while Starscream is completely unchanged, what do you think of Starscream's behaviour?

So what if the Decepticons were good Transformers, but not Autobots? And what if Starscream stayed an evil Decepticon Transformer, but he mas still aligned and hung out with the good not-Autobot not-Decepticons?




Afaik the Book of Exalted Deeds. I've requested a citation, but it could take a while. I may just have to order the book.

I can't find anything that says Assassinations are good... It does have nice parts about ''dwaves are people'' and ''dragons are not'' though....



It's the Dragons' home, surely you're not implying that a person's belongings in their home legally cease to belong to them if they leave and someone else happens to be in the property? This is exactly the same thing you tried to call me out on with the dead homeowner without a will.

To say ''legally'' is Lawful, not Good.



You do realize that universal worldwide law is something that doesn't exist in the real world? We're as connected to every other country on the planet, as any Tippyverse. Any setting less advanced than anything made by the good Emperor Win, is even more likely to have a fractured political scene.

But that is the exact problem. Both Good and Evil require definitions that come from the same base line. To say ''stealing is evil'' is too vague, because you have to define ''stealing''. And worldwide everyone has different views on everything, like for example property and ownership.

[Aka-chan]

Afaik the Book of Exalted Deeds. I've requested a citation, but it could take a while. I may just have to order the book.


I have a copy of the BoED. I think you may be thinking of the Slayer of Domiel prestige class? It's an order of good-aligned assassins who serve one of the Celestial Paragons. The description of the prestige class does say that assassins are generally evil, but that occasionally the skill set used by assassins is needed for good/holy purposes, so the Slayers are a group who carries out this kind of mission.

[Arbane]

let's see the medieval justification for "complete lack of empathy" then.


"They're evil. God wants us to kill them."

Also popular with the less 'civilized' cultures: "They're not kin, or as strong as us. KILL THEM AND TAKE THEIR STUFF!"

[hamishspence]

Y'know, my character in our most recent adventure killed a bunch of laborers and sailors who were working for a rather vile villain. They were probably neutral and didn't know who they were working for, but my character's not going to lose any sleep over it, despite being CG. Know why?

BECAUSE KILLING PEOPLE ISN'T EVIL in D&D. Especially not when you firmly believe that people who die fighting get to go to Valhalla.

If the killing "qualifies as Murder" though, it generally is considered Evil though.

When Good characters kill, they usually have some kind of mitigating factor that moves it from Murder to Manslaughter or even Justifiable Homicide - like Self-Defence/Defence of Others.

[big teej]

I would have to give it some thought on if I really counted these actions as Evil


I would argue that they were undoubtedly chaotic.


the rule of thumb I use for alignment shifts is it has to be such an egregious break from who/what the character is supposed to be that it breaks me from my DM flow and prompts the "wait, what?" response.

if it were my group, I would likely caution them to think carefully about the potential consequences of their actions, and pay a bit closer attention in the future.


but given the literal avatars of Chaos that show up at my table each week.....

[Honest Tiefling]

the rule of thumb I use for alignment shifts is it has to be such an egregious break from who/what the character is supposed to be that it breaks me from my DM flow and prompts the "wait, what?" response.

I have to admit, this seems like a pretty good rule that I shall have to steal.

[Hazrond]

My game table is very shallow, he has a very wooden character, but he does not like to talk about it and he tabled the discussion.

*slow golf clap of appreciation for the flurry of puns that was released in that one sentence*

[goto124]

I have to admit, this seems like a pretty good rule that I shall have to steal.

Chaotic spotted!

[Threadnaught]

*snip*

{scrubbed}


I have a copy of the BoED. I think you may be thinking of the Slayer of Domiel prestige class? It's an order of good-aligned assassins who serve one of the Celestial Paragons. The description of the prestige class does say that assassins are generally evil, but that occasionally the skill set used by assassins is needed for good/holy purposes, so the Slayers are a group who carries out this kind of mission.

Then I may have been mistaken in my earlier comment. Thank you for the citation.

[Deophaun]

If the killing "qualifies as Murder" though, it generally is considered Evil though.
I believe this sentence is the textbook example of "begging the question." The determination of whether a killing qualifies as murder is the end of the moral discussion, not the beginning.

[hamishspence]

The point is that books like FC2 have "Murder" "Cold Blooded Murder" and "Murder for Pleasure" as Corrupt acts (not "Killing" "Cold Blooded Killing" and "Killing for Pleasure").

thus - to determine whether the killing qualifies as Corrupt, one must first determine whether it qualifies as Murder.

Possibly by using the same principles that the law does (Are there relevant mitigating factors? Was it intentional? And so forth).

The way I see it - since there's no question about whether or not the killing happened, and who carried it out - it's not the DM's job to convince the player that the killing is murder, but the player's job to convince the DM that it isn't - by citing aforesaid mitigating factors, describing to the DM their character's state of mind, etc.

In other words - if a paladin (or Exalted character, or other relevant character class/PRC that gets penalized for committing Evil Acts) player doesn't want the DM to make them Fall, they'd better be cautious about the killings their character carries out - and have a convincing explanation when it's a borderline case.

[big teej]

I have to admit, this seems like a pretty good rule that I shall have to steal.

it's been working so far, I like to emphasize to players that I *do* expect them to follow whatever codes/regulations/whatsits their class has (looking at you paladin) but not to so agonize over it that they're paralyzed.

in 5-6 years of gaming, I've only had 2 characters (that come to mind) prompt the :smallconfused:

:smalltongue:

I hope it works out well for your table.

[Morphie]

I would have to give it some thought on if I really counted these actions as Evil


I would argue that they were undoubtedly chaotic.


the rule of thumb I use for alignment shifts is it has to be such an egregious break from who/what the character is supposed to be that it breaks me from my DM flow and prompts the "wait, what?" response.

if it were my group, I would likely caution them to think carefully about the potential consequences of their actions, and pay a bit closer attention in the future.


but given the literal avatars of Chaos that show up at my table each week.....

Yes, that is indeed what I did.

Thanks guys for all the input so far :)

[Tysis]

The heroes who go into the green dragon's woodland lair to slay it are not murderers. In a fantasy world based on an objective definition of evil, killing an evil creature to stop it from doing further harm is not an evil act. Even killing an evil creature for personal gain is not exactly evil (although it's not a good act), because it still stops the creature's predations on the innocent. Such a justification, however, works only for slaying creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil, such as chromatic dragons.


If anything letting the dragons live would cause the alignment shift, certainly not killing them.

[Threadnaught]

If anything letting the dragons live would cause the alignment shift, certainly not killing them.

Hold on though, aren't the BoVD and BoED 3.0 and 3.5 respectively?

I'm asking because iirc BoED trumps BoVD.

[Starbuck_II]

Hold on though, aren't the BoVD and BoED 3.0 and 3.5 respectively?

I'm asking because iirc BoED trumps BoVD.



No, BoVD was developed during 3.0 and but they did later add supplemental stuff for 3.5

BoED is pure 3.5.

[Tysis]

Hold on though, aren't the BoVD and BoED 3.0 and 3.5 respectively?

I'm asking because iirc BoED trumps BoVD.
Yes BoED is 3.5 and BoVD is 3.0.

Maybe I'm missing something but the violence section of BoED doesn't explicitly call any one form of violence evil. It says some forms of violence are not good. Similar to the way the text I quoted from BoVD calls a particular situation not evil, though it actually specifies its not a good act either. The BoED defines what is a good act and the BoVD defines what is an evil act. Killing the dragons regardless of the context I would argue as neutral. Black dragons are always CE as stated in the monster manual so killing them is a non-issue.

However, BoVD says betrayal is evil, full stop no exceptions it doesn't even have to be intentional. So agreeing to clean the bad guy out of the dragons lair and then following through with that only to steal from the dragons and kill them in 'self defense' was a betrayal and therefore evil. If the party had gotten the details on the bad guy before agreeing to clean out the lair and then killed the dragons because black dragons are always CE then I would consider that neutral.

The situation with the guard's at the the BBEG's house definitely not lawful and definitely not evil.

[hamishspence]

Maybe I'm missing something but the violence section of BoED doesn't explicitly call any one form of violence evil. It says some forms of violence are not good. Similar to the way the text I quoted from BoVD calls a particular situation not evil, though it actually specifies its not a good act either. The BoED defines what is a good act and the BoVD defines what is an evil act. Killing the dragons regardless of the context I would argue as neutral. Black dragons are always CE as stated in the monster manual so killing them is a non-issue.


BOVD specifically calls out Murder as evil - but says not all killings are Murder - and suggests that killing a chromatic dragon purely for profit (without any mitigating factors like self-defence) is one of these "not-Murder" killings.

BoED specifically calls one form of Violence (torture) evil at one point, and "out of the question for characters following the Exalted path of goodness" at another.

As well as saying "Violence in the name of Good must have just cause (must primarily be directed at Evil characters), and good intentions, and must be discriminatory" (it says that placing a fireball so that it will harm orc noncombatants as well as orc combatants, is Evil, not just "not Good".)

[Yahzi]

This is why I define alignment as a series of circles. Evil is evil: betraying, attacking, stealing are all evil and everybody knows it. What matters is who you consider worthy of moral treatment. The more moral you are, the wider the circle. You only violate your alignment when you mistreat the people in that circle.

Black (NE): No one. Not even yourself.
Red (CE): People stronger than you.
Yellow (LE): People who can make you a profit.
Green (CG): Your family and friends.
Blue (LG): Your society.
White (NG): Everybody.

So:

The Black Dragon affair: CG. The dragons are Team Evil. As long as the PCs don't recognize them as worthy of moral status, they can be killed at whim. Promising to help them and then back-stabbing them is just clever. (Note: LG could not do that, as anyone they give their word to is automatically elevated to moral status).

The Guards Affair: NG. Assuming they had some reason and/or authority to be entering the house, merely subduing the guards is an act of such extreme mercy that it will occasion dropped jaws at the local tavern. LG Paladins could have gotten away with killing them after a warning. "You are warned you serve an evil master. Stand aside or join him in Hell." And acting like the fight will be easy? That's another act of mercy - since they were being honest.

Thus your average murderhobo can maintain CG alignment because he never betrays his mates (i.e. the party) or kills other humans (or whatever his species is).

LG won't be killing people out of hand because it would cause trouble for their home country and fellow knights. But once their King declares jihad against the orcs, then charge! They still won't use poison because they don't want it used against them, and it's too indiscriminate and likely to kill "innocents." Although nerve gas that only targets giant ants? Eh, probably. If he made a deal with the dragons, he would keep it; but he might well come back the next day and challenge them.

NG is the guy all the moral relativists are talking about. He can still kill people, but only because they deserve it and there isn't any other way out. Attacking the orcs for profit is right out; for revenge, questionable; but as a pre-emptive strike to save human lives down the line, fine. He can still kill soldiers in battle, but he won't be happy, and if they surrender he'll have to take it seriously. He wouldn't have backstabbed the dragons, but then, he wouldn't have agreed to work for them.

LE don't kill ordinary citizens either, since you can usually make a profit off of them. But leaving a beggar to die in a ditch? Sure, whatever. They might feel bound to keep their word to the dragon, since getting a rep for double-dealing will affect future profits; but if they can find a loophole they are all in.

CE are kept in line because they are scared of retribution. They don't kill a stranger for fear of angering his patron or kin. But a homeless bum without kith or kin? Fair game. (Hello Vikings!) The dragons deserved to die because they dared to challenge the party.

NE are the sociopaths of typical Chaotic Stupid. They kill people just for fun. You can't run a party of NEs together for very long. They would have sided with the dragons and backstabbed the party for a share of the loot (and then, of course, backstabbed the dragons).

[goto124]

The most morally questionable part of their actions, is the betrayal. Some say it's Chaotic Evil, others say it's just Chaotic...

[Deophaun]

You only violate your alignment when you mistreat the people in that circle...

Green (CG): Your family and friends.
Blue (LG): Your society.

These in particular are highly questionable, and would encompass a lot of RL historical monsters, which is why I don't think your circle idea works.

[georgie_leech]

These in particular are highly questionable, and would encompass a lot of RL historical monsters, which is why I don't think your circle idea works.

Well, it's a fair approximation of how people think of themselves in reality, if you were to port D&D's Alignment to Real Life, but it does fail in the baseline Absolute Morality that bases D&D operates under.

[Segev]

Okay, imagine if the Decepticons were the Good guys and Starscream behaved exactly the same. No double standards please, what is it now?

Chaotic. Whether CG, CN, or CE depends a lot on the figures involved.

Is good!Megatron a competent leader under whose guidance the good!Decepticons are prospering and helping others prosper? Then it's at best CN, because it's personal ambition to rule being valued over the greater good. It is CE if this version of Starscream uses murder and the spreading of misery to try to get rid of or undermine good!Megatron. It can stay CN if he resorts merely to politicking and a bit of character assassination (though there's a slippery slope to evil here, too, as character assassination can ruin lives, rather than merely undermine a career).

It could be CG if this version of Megatron is actually incompetent, or is secretly, himself, evil and is using his power to corrupt the good!Decepticons.



Obviously, if you change everything in the Decepticons to Good except Starscream, whose (evil) behavior remains unchanged, Starscream's behavior remains evil.