Would this make you evil?

[Shnigda]

So I just saw this posted by another member (Jendekit) of the forum and was wondering whether characters would have an alignment shift in this situation or if a character that derives power from a good God (Paladin, Cleric etc) would lose their power due to their god abandoning them for such a horrific deed. Thoughts?


Jendekit:
The most evil thing done to PCs that I have ever seen wasn't immediately apparent. The party (epic level) was investigating a series of mountain villages that had gone missing a la Collectors from ME2. Well they stumbled across an army of orcs, hobgoblins, kobolds, etc. in the process of kidnapping one such village. So, the party swoops in, kills the entire horde, and are patting each other on the back when the DM (me) reveals that before combat began Will saves were rolled for all of them. They all failed, and as they were celebrating their victory, the illusion disguising the missing villagers as goblinoids faded away.

[Urpriest]

So I just saw this posted by another member (Jendekit) of the forum and was wondering whether characters would have an alignment shift in this situation or if a character that derives power from a good God (Paladin, Cleric etc) would lose their power due to their god abandoning them for such a horrific deed. Thoughts?

Being tricked pretty self-evidently doesn't shift your alignment.

[Karl Aegis]

I would generally consider mass killings to be evil, but it isn't Evil until its genocide. Slaughtering several thousand without taking any prisoners would certainly deviate from social norms, but wouldn't cross into Evil for some reason or another.

[Zaq]

Well, that kind of depends. First, is it considered Always Good to attack orcs/goblins/kobolds? Some GMs play those races as being Irredeemably Evil (and thus worthy of being killed on sight), but plenty of GMs treat them as just being people like any other, so killing a bunch of them just because they're orcs is kind of racist at best and evil at worst, just as it would be if you attacked a bunch of halflings on sight just because they're halflings. So if orcs and the like are just people like any other, then this was an evil act to begin with, illusion or no illusion. If it's Always Good to kill orcs on sight (a view I personally disagree with, but I'm not the GM), we move on to the next question.

Second, do you make characters need Atonement after committing acts they were compelled into doing by magic? An illusion isn't quite the same as a compulsion, but if they failed their Will saves, then they truly believed that the people they were killing were orcs. Again, if we're working off the assumption that it is Always Good to kill orcs on sight, then they truly believed that they were doing something good. They weren't given a chance to think that they might have been doing something that wasn't good. If there were no magic involved and they were fully in control of their senses, they wouldn't have attacked, right? Therefore, they were magically tricked into doing it. If your world requires Atonement from people who do things because of magic that they wouldn't have done without that magic, then that's exactly the case that applies here. If you require Atonement and alignment shifts only from people who knowingly and willingly commit acts against their original alignment, then the party is in the clear here (again, assuming that it is Always Good to kill orcs on sight, which is dubious, but again, I'm not the GM).

If I were GMing, I'd make them fall/shift alignment just because I don't think it's Always Good to attack orcs/goblins/kobolds on sight. So that's really the first point you have to address. After that is when we get into issues of magical trickery.

[XionUnborn01]

Well, that kind of depends. First, is it considered Always Good to attack orcs/goblins/kobolds? Some GMs play those races as being Irredeemably Evil (and thus worthy of being killed on sight), but plenty of GMs treat them as just being people like any other, so killing a bunch of them just because they're orcs is kind of racist at best and evil at worst, just as it would be if you attacked a bunch of halflings on sight just because they're halflings. So if orcs and the like are just people like any other, then this was an evil act to begin with, illusion or no illusion. If it's Always Good to kill orcs on sight (a view I personally disagree with, but I'm not the GM), we move on to the next question.

Second, do you make characters need Atonement after committing acts they were compelled into doing by magic? An illusion isn't quite the same as a compulsion, but if they failed their Will saves, then they truly believed that the people they were killing were orcs. Again, if we're working off the assumption that it is Always Good to kill orcs on sight, then they truly believed that they were doing something good. They weren't given a chance to think that they might have been doing something that wasn't good. If there were no magic involved and they were fully in control of their senses, they wouldn't have attacked, right? Therefore, they were magically tricked into doing it. If your world requires Atonement from people who do things because of magic that they wouldn't have done without that magic, then that's exactly the case that applies here. If you require Atonement and alignment shifts only from people who knowingly and willingly commit acts against their original alignment, then the party is in the clear here (again, assuming that it is Always Good to kill orcs on sight, which is dubious, but again, I'm not the GM).

If I were GMing, I'd make them fall/shift alignment just because I don't think it's Always Good to attack orcs/goblins/kobolds on sight. So that's really the first point you have to address. After that is when we get into issues of magical trickery.


I think you're missing some of the point here. The question isn't if attacking orcs/etc is always good, it's a question of if defending a village through lethal means is evil. That's what they were doing, they weren't attacking them for pleasure, they were trying to save a village.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Killing bandits is pretty much standard procedure for most campaign worlds. They don't have the same mindset about killing or due process. No, not even lawful good gods (who tend more to the "smite first and let the gods sort them out" mindset anyway, with the more merciful being a distinct minority).

So no, since they didn't know that they were facing an illusion they wouldn't fall, though i'd imagine that any halfway good character would be looking both for revenge and some way to atone for his part in the massacre, however unwilling.

[Geddy2112]

Alignment should never shift due to any action made in good faith to be within that alignment, even if the consequences turned out to be the opposite. Nor under duress, coercion, deception and certainly not mind control.

No character in that party would be evil for their actions up to that point. Now, a good character would probably feel terrible and be very angry(at themselves for being fooled and whatever sick thing did this) and show remorse. The characters would be evil if they all decided they enjoyed it, or did not seem to care or be phased by butchering an entire village.

[EyethatBinds]

These suckers are epic level and they don't have anyone who casts True Seeing? Didn't they question why the orcs weren't fighting back?