Alignments and PVP

[Spojack]

*contains killing, torture and cannibalism

In a recent game of D&D the party had a bit of an issue that escalated quickly and it leaves me with a lot a questions about morality and alignments. They have all been playing together almost every week for about a year now and this occurred in a newer campaign.

The names, alignments and classes of the PCs involved are the following:
Keora, CN wild magic sorcerer in a relationship with Zane and is trying really hard to be good
Zane, LG life cleric of Lathander, in a relationship with Keora and is a firm believer in forgiveness and redemption
Var Khan, LG totem barbarian, entire reason for being is to protect his people and maintain order, new to the party
Philomena, LN oath of the ancients paladin, loves nature above all things
Elisan, ?? circle of twilight druid, new to the party

It all started while the group was traveling with a group of refugees from Waterdeep (which is now ruled by a Lich) to Silverymoon. One night they were camped out with the other refugees on the side of the road when one of them heard distant screaming coming from the woods. The group went to investigate and found a group of Waterdeep guards standing around a woman with two children and a bloodied man tied to a tree. The one that seemed to be the captain was torturing the man tied to the tree with a dagger. The group overheard a conversation about how the man had refused to pay protection money to the guards and skipped town. The party was at this point discovered, the captain ordered his men to kill the hostages and combat started. With some amazing wild magic procs, hold person spells and a devastating smite crit the battle turned in favor of the party very quickly but not before the guard captain beheaded the man tied to the tree. The woman ran off with the children as soon as the fighting started.

After three of the guards had been killed two tried to run off but Keora and Elisan melted them with an acid arrow and a scorching ray before they could escape. Zane used hold person on the captain and they tied him up with rope. The group then interrogated the captain about what was going on with the use of a friends spell. They were given information on the groups leader and a story about how the captain didn't really want to be doing this.

Zane then decided that the captain should be forced to make amends to the family of the man that he murdered and then head north past to spine of the world to live out the rest of his days in exile. This idea was rejected under the premise that as soon as he went back to the caravan and admitted what he had done an angry mob would most likely form and kill him and the party agreed that starting a mob and possible riot among desperate refugees was probably a bad idea. Var Khan then suggested that they take the captain to Silverymoon with them and turn him over to the guards there. His suggestion wasn't understood during the heated debate so Zane cut the mans ropes to set him free and send him north.

As the captain was leaving Var Khan ran after him before he could make it to the woods and knocked him to the ground. At this Keora cast a firebolt at Var Khan and it crit him. Var Khan then went into a rage and killed the unarmed captain who was laying on the ground next to him. At seeing this Zane hit Var Khan with a guiding bolt. Var Khan then stood there over the dead captain not making any moves and Zane attempted to cast another guiding bolt when Philomena jumped in front of Var Khan in an attempt to stop the fight and Keora asked Zane to stop since the captain was already dead and there was no point.

As most of the group made their way back to camp they split into groups. Philomena explained to Var Khan that he cant just kill people because Zane is all about forgiveness and redemption and he is in a relationship with Keora. Keora and Zane discussed how they needed to stay with the group for the greater good so that they could defeat the Lich that had taken Waterdeep. Unbeknownst to the group Elisan snuck off and returned to the corpse of the recently deceased captain to engage in some ritualistic cannibalism.

The entire group talked it over and Var Khan agreed that while they were not in his lands that he would respect the rules and customs of the group. Zane and Keora agreed not to turn Var Khan into a cinder.

The questions. Can a player be considered good while pursuing justice to the exclusion of mercy? Can a player be good while showing borderline infinite mercy and forsaking any semblance of justice?

If you have any other questions, comments on the story or stories of your own that are similar I would be glad to hear about them and how you as a player or DM handled them.

[Esprit15]

The questions. Can a player be considered good while pursuing justice to the exclusion of mercy?
Yes. Not everyone gets mercy. Mercy is for those who intend to right their wrongs, and who would not be a high risk to turn back to the world. Unarmed does not mean harmless. Mages and monks can still be devestating without a weapon. A dagger can easily be hidden on a person. Good can still be pragmatic, or cautions, or distrustful.


Can a player be good while showing borderline infinite mercy and forsaking any semblance of justice?
Yes. Compassion and seeing the potential for good in people is part of what being good is about. Mercy exists to allow those who have done wrong to repent their actions. To not allow someone to do so removes the incentive to change. Good need not have always been so.

***
There is not one solution, even within the same section of the spectrum. I think you're speaking a bit hyperbolically about both of them, as though neither fits your expected standard of Good.

[Kane0]

Eh, alignment isn't that important anymore; at least compared to previous editions. Just use it to provide a short, convenient way to sum up a character's standard MO.

If your characters have a fully fleshed out personality and they aren't having any partiuclar trouble RPing then alignment is pretty much unnecessary. The characters will respond to moral and ethical concerns as characters, not as alignments.

[Malifice]

I deeply struggle to see how your barbarian was in any way LG.

He literally chased down an unarmed prisoner who had just been released and butchered him, despite the protestations of the rest of the party.

Id struggle to place him anything more moral than N on the G-E axis. To the extent i would change his alignment.

[Spojack]

I deeply struggle to see how your barbarian was in any way LG.

He literally chased down an unarmed prisoner who had just been released and butchered him, despite the protestations of the rest of the party.

Id struggle to place him anything more moral than N on the G-E axis. To the extent i would change his alignment.

Var Khan was originally attempting to restrain the man so he could take him to Silverymoon and turn him in. The man was unarmed and Var Khan did kill him but only after he was severely injured by the firebolt. He violated neither his own moral code nor the ethical codes of his people (they come from a bit of a harsh place where mercy is a dangerous concept). So given the choice between letting a torturer/murderer go free and killing him he chose to kill him. Taking into account original intent, his background and the captains previous actions I wouldn't change the alignment.
So i guess the question is in your game do you have a set of ethics that strictly define what is good and what is not? Or do you give your players a bit of leeway in defining what is "good"?

[Kane0]

So i guess the question is in your game do you have a set of ethics that strictly define what is good and what is not? Or do you give your players a bit of leeway in defining what is "good"?

In my game no, because it takes the fun out of arguing with the villain and the depth out of choosing to take certain actions. I want to see compelling stories more than I want to see clear guidelines from on high about what and what not to do.

[Sigreid]

Not surprisingly I disagree with Maliface. The prisoner was known to be a thief, torturer and murderer and was unilaterally set free by one character who is too forgiving and trusting of liars, thieves, murderers and torturers.

The one who let the guy go was good, but foolish. His actions would have almost certainly led to more people suffering at the hands of the prisoner.

The barbarian is also clean. He understood that the guy could not be safely released, and when it was apparent that delivering the guy to authorities was no longer an option thanks to the party, took the only option left open to him to prevent the prisoner from causing more harm to others.

[imanidiot]

Zane's unilateral decision to release a known murderer/extortionist because punishing him would be inconvenient was neither a Lawful nor Good act.

Var Khan's decision to murder his prisoner because he was attacked by one of his own companions was also neither Lawful nor Good.

Just given the information provided, Keora is CN, Zane, Var Khan, and Philomena are all N, and Elisan is NE or possibly CE.

[Malifice]

Not surprisingly I disagree with Maliface.

Thats because you're not 'good'. Most likely neutral.


The prisoner was known to be a thief, torturer and murderer and was unilaterally set free by one character who is too forgiving and trusting of liars, thieves, murderers and torturers.

Thats because the guy that let him go was good.


The one who let the guy go was good, but foolish.

There you go.


His actions would have almost certainly led to more people suffering at the hands of the prisoner.

Now this sentence is YOUR justification. YOU view killing unarmed and defenceless prisoners as 'sensible'.

I have news for you. YOU are not good. A 'good' person doesnt think the way you do.


The barbarian is also clean. He understood that the guy could not be safely released, and when it was apparent that delivering the guy to authorities was no longer an option thanks to the party, took the only option left open to him to prevent the prisoner from causing more harm to others.

How do you know the prisoner was going to cause more harm?

You dont.

[Esprit15]

An unarmed, defenseless prisoner, given a day, can become an armed, not defenseless ex-prisoner.

There's no need to make accusations about people's own morality here, and certainly not in such aggressive terms.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Thats because you're not 'good'. Most likely neutral.



Thats because the guy that let him go was good.



There you go.



Now this sentence is YOUR justification. YOU view killing unarmed and defenceless prisoners as 'sensible'.

I have news for you. YOU are not good. A 'good' person doesnt think the way you do.



How do you know the prisoner was going to cause more harm?

You dont.

You know, its arguments like these that make me question what good and evil really are. IRL, there are very few hard lines, and good is dependent on perspective and timing. I think Kane0 has the right idea. I don't really care about alignments as much as i care about whether or not someone knows what their character is about. Having a fully fleshed out character is difficult for some, so deciding that a person is one way always makes it easier, but thats not really how people work.

Unless the character is worried about being 'good' it shouldn't matter. And if he is contemplating his actions thats just good roleplay and I wouldn't as a DM give he character any type of answer, because alot of times there is none, and you just kind of have to live with that.

For this particular scenario I say that everyone acted as they should. Or rather I wouldn't change anyones alignment because of these events and I would also say that they played their characters and there is nothing wrong with that.

[Malifice]

Var Khan was originally attempting to restrain the man so he could take him to Silverymoon and turn him in.

Fair enough. Sounds pretty LG to me at this point.


The man was unarmed and Var Khan did kill him but only after he was severely injured by the firebolt.

The firebolt was cast by a PC; not by the unarmed man.

The prisoner was released by the party on the condition he fled north and lived a good life. He agreed to these terms, was release, got up and walked off - his heart full of hope.

At this point Var Khan chased the ex prisoner down and (after the party attempted to stop him by begging him to stop and even using violence to stop him via firebolt) flew into a bloody rage and brutally hacked the (now released) prisoner to death.

While the prisoner undoubteldy begged him to stop and cried out in fear and pain.

Sounds very NOT LG to me at this point.


He violated neither his own moral code nor the ethical codes of his people (they come from a bit of a harsh place where mercy is a dangerous concept).

The ethical codes of his people could be 'Rape your enemies women, sell their children into slavery, and eat their warriors'. I dont care about his peoples ethical codes (those ethics could be very very evil).

I only care about whether chasing down an unarmed man (a released prisoner) and brutally murdering him in a rage is considered LG.

It isnt in my books. Nothing you say will change that view.


So i guess the question is in your game do you have a set of ethics that strictly define what is good and what is not?

My players can define 'good' and 'evil' for their own characters as they see fit. They can play a brutal sadistic rapist who genuinely subjectively views himself as LG if they want.

His actual objective alignment is CE. When he dies, he goes to the Abyss. A helm of opposite alignment turns him into a compassionate, merciful and honorable person (LG). Etc.

Good = Going out of your way to engage in mercy, compassion, charity; non-violence and refraining from evil. Doing the right thing. Being kind and putting yourself out to help others.
Evil = Harming and killing others. Rape, murder, torture. Violence used when not reasonably necessary, as a last resort, and in the defence of others.
Neutral = Not going out of your way to either help or harm. Self intrest, without mercy or compassion, and without causing unecessary harm.

[Malifice]

An unarmed, defenseless prisoner, given a day, can become an armed, not defenseless ex-prisoner.

Or he could become a man of peace, fully committed to spreading mercy, hope, charity and compassion.

The good person shows mercy, compassion and kindness. The Evil or Neutral person kills him for fun, sport or convenience ('just to be sure').


There's no need to make accusations about people's own morality here, and certainly not in such aggressive terms.

If you're going to advocate chasing down an unarmed man, and murdering him in a fit of bloody rage while your friends (and your victim) implore you to stop, as being morally 'good' then you open yourself up to a critique of your own morality in so advocating.

I dont see such an act as being morally 'good'. I dont see how anyone can argue such an act to be morally 'good'. I cant see any Judge in the world, passing sentence on a person who did such a thing to consider such an act as morally 'good'.

There is no way Deities in my campaign view such an act as morally 'good' either. The Barbarian might view himself as morally good of course.

He isnt.

[Kane0]

You know, its arguments like these that make me question what good and evil really are. IRL, there are very few hard lines, and good is dependent on perspective and timing. I think Kane0 has the right idea. I don't really care about alignments as much as i care about whether or not someone knows what their character is about. Having a fully fleshed out character is difficult for some, so deciding that a person is one way always makes it easier, but thats not really how people work.

Unless the character is worried about being 'good' it shouldn't matter. And if he is contemplating his actions thats just good roleplay and I wouldn't as a DM give he character any type of answer, because alot of times there is none, and you just kind of have to live with that.

For this particular scenario I say that everyone acted as they should. Or rather I wouldn't change anyones alignment because of these events and I would also say that they played their characters and there is nothing wrong with that.

I once played a Conquest Pally Hobgoblin that was captain of a ship in the goblinoid navy. Easily in my top three favourite characters.
His faith was placed in the goblinoid people and their society rather than a deity, much like a Crown Pally. His sacred text was The Chain O' Command, the hobgoblin equivalent of The Art of War. When it came to ethics, morality and alignment I always posed one question to myself: Does it serve a purpose? Answering that question always led to the correct action that character would take. He was all for torture, slavery and the death sentence when it served a purpose. Performing questionable acts for 'trivial' reasons like vengeance, honor or charity never occurred to him,. He ran a tight ship but nevertheless he was respected as one of the most fair and agreeable captains in the fleet.
The navigator of the ship was a water gensai storm sorcerer that, unbeknownst to the crew, was beholden to a kraken. He was actually responsible for causing a civil war that crippled the hobgoblins within the goblinoid empire and led to some fantastic exchanges between us. Because the kraken was keeping him alive I saw it as slavery, but he saw it as faith despite the fact that he was obviously being blackmailed with his life.
And did anyone care who was what alignment? Not one bit. Arguing over what labels to place on each other would have detracted from the story.

[Malifice]

Arguing over what labels to place on each other would have detracted from the story.

I dont let Players argue over rulings. Full stop. Im shocked when I see DMs that do. I mean; they can raise an objection, it will be considered, and then ruled on. As long as you're fair and consistent its a non issue.

And I allow CE 'monsters' in my games. In our current TFTYP campaign, the PCs are all evil. The group just 'rescued' the Gnome Erkie Timbers in the Sunless Citadel... and then handed him over to the Kobolds (so they could eat him) in exchange for the magic key.

Erkie was then the main course at the feast in the PCs honor. At least one of the PCs (our LE Dragonborn Knight).. ate some of him.

The LE Cleric of Myrkyl at least had the decency to put an arrow in the Gnome as he screamed to death on the flaming pyre as the Kobolds danced around him.

We played the music 'Yub-Nub' from RoTJ while Eskie burned.

The LE Death cleric now has the zombie whistle thing. He reanimated a fellow PC as a Zombie with it. They use that [PC/ Zombie] for... unspeakable acts.

Murder, cannabalism, torture, tyranny, necromancy and slavery have all featured so far. PvP is up next.

[imanidiot]

There is no way Deities in my campaign view such an act as morally 'good' either. The Barbarian might view himself as morally good of course.

He isnt.

Not even close. He's at best a Neutral alignment experiencing a stress-related psychotic break. At worst he is a petulant man child without any empathy or respect for social mores. He becomes violently angry when he doesn't get his way and murders a helpless prisoner who was seconds before promised exile and was complying. He doesn't care about rules or laws, or compassion, or order. He wants what he wants and he'll hurt you if he doesn't get it.

Neutral is being generous. He's Chaotic Evil that thinks he's Lawful Good. Like Dr. DOOM

[Mortis_Elrod]

I once played a Conquest Pally Hobgoblin that was captain of a ship in the goblinoid navy. Easily in my top three favourite characters.
His faith was placed in the goblinoid people and their society rather than a deity, much like a Crown Pally. His sacred text was The Chain O' Command, the hobgoblin equivalent of The Art of War. When it came to ethics, morality and alignment I always posed one question to myself: Does it serve a purpose? Answering that question always led to the correct action that character would take. He was all for torture, slavery and the death sentence when it served a purpose. Performing questionable acts for 'trivial' reasons like vengeance, honor or charity never occurred to him,. He ran a tight ship but nevertheless he was respected as one of the most fair and agreeable captains in the fleet.
The navigator of the ship was a water gensai storm sorcerer that, unbeknownst to the crew, was beholden to a kraken. He was actually responsible for causing a civil war that crippled the hobgoblins within the goblinoid empire and led to some fantastic exchanges between us. Because the kraken was keeping him alive I saw it as slavery, but he saw it as faith despite the fact that he was obviously being blackmailed with his life.
And did anyone care who was what alignment? Not one bit. Arguing over what labels to place on each other would have detracted from the story.

Ah man that sounds like a really fun Captain. I had a similar idea for a Pirate Lord. Swasbuckler + Hexblade + Conqueror. Stories for me are better when its about more than what is good and what is evil.

[Malifice]

Not even close. He's at best a Neutral alignment experiencing a stress-related psychotic break. At worst he is a petulant man child without any empathy or respect for social mores. He becomes violently angry when he doesn't get his way and murders a helpless prisoner who was seconds before promised exile and was complying. He doesn't care about rules or laws, or compassion, or order. He wants what he wants and he'll hurt you if he doesn't get it.

Neutral is being generous. He's Chaotic Evil that thinks he's Lawful Good. Like Dr. DOOM

Its symptomatic of DnD morality arguments. Mouthbreathing socially isolated comic book reading neckbeards attempting to justify abhorrent acts of violence and evil... in a game that expressly rewards acts of violence and evil.

Nothing short of mindless rape and genocide is ever viewed as 'evil'. And I've seen at least one of those two things put forward as being 'good' on multiple occasions.

Rape is about the only thing universally considered to be 'evil' in these parts. Ive seen everything else from cold (and hot) blooded mass murder, slavery, torture, genocide, ethnic cleansing, infanticide, necrophillia, necromancy etc attempted to be justified as 'good' things by peeps in thisn forum.

Heck there was a whole thread recently that purported to state Frank Castle is 'CG' in alignment when he is obviously LE.

I'll no doubt see a thread that states 'Joffrey was really LG...' soon enough.

[imanidiot]

Its symptomatic of DnD morality arguments. Mouthbreathing socially isolated comic book reading neckbeards attempting to justify abhorrent acts of violence and evil... in a game that expressly rewards acts of violence and evil.

Nothing short of mindless rape and genocide is ever viewed as 'evil'. And I've seen at least one of those two things put forward as being 'good' on multiple occasions.

Rape is about the only thing universally considered to be 'evil' in these parts. Ive seen everything else from cold (and hot) blooded mass murder, slavery, torture, genocide, ethnic cleansing, infanticide, necrophillia, necromancy etc attempted to be justified as 'good' things by peeps in thisn forum.

Heck there was a whole thread recently that purported to state Frank Castle is 'CG' in alignment when he is obviously LE.

I'll no doubt see a thread that states 'Joffrey was really LG...' soon enough.

LE is the best PC alignment. You can basically do whatever you want to almost whoever you want and you still have strong motivation to work with the other PCs and go adventuring.

[Kane0]

Y'know, that explains a lot. I've seen a disproportionally large amount of LE love at my table (me included), i guess thats part of the reason.

[DevilMcam]

Alignement is indeed a very difficult thing to completely understand.

Matt Colville maid a very interesting video on the topic.
I personnaly like to see the alignement the following way :
It is how the transcendant entitys (most likely gods) perceive you, and is according to this definition subject to changes.

According to this : Zane first idea to force the captain to make amend was Lawful but not particulary good.
Him freeing the prisonner for him to live as an exile was good but against the will of the others, therefore more chaotic.
Him attacking his fellow twice (without retaliation), and without asking to drop the weapons first was clearly evil though

Var Khan turning the capitain to the authorities was completely lawfull, and so was him running after the "fugitive" and knocking him down.
Him executing the prisonner was more difficult to get, as a barbarian sujet to rages I would let it pass as a rage as long as it stays rare.
Keora firbolting the Var khan was clearly chaotic. stoping a useless fight was somehow neutral or good
The paladin was true to his lawful neutral allignement, while the druid was eh... probably Evil

To answer the question asked : Mercy is one of the requirement to be good. if you pusue justice with no mercy you are the perfect definition of LAWFULl NEUTRAL. Justice is the related to the lawfull-Chaotic arc of the allignement, so a character with infinite mercy but little care for justice would more likeley be chaotic good.

Would I be the DM, I'd probably talk with the barbarian about allignements, according to his value and acts he should probably be LN.
Concerning the cleric, i'd have him face some kind of ordeal, because when you are all about redemption you can't just attack twice someone who is no threat, even if he actually did something bad (forgiveness and redemption, you know the stuff)
Concerning the druid and paladin, I have not much to say.
The wild mage is true to her alignments and principle.

[Malifice]

LE is the best PC alignment. You can basically do whatever you want to almost whoever you want

Well no; you have a code of honor, and you're evil. Both of those things are contraints, and both of those things might not endear you to others.

Either or both of these things create all kinds of problems for a great many people. Many (good) people will have issues with your evil. For example Daredevil (NG) doesnt get along well with Punisher (LE) at all despite the two both being crime fighting vigilanties. DD finds Castles use of murder and ultra violence abhorrent.

DD isnt above roughing his victims up to extract information. But he wont murder them. In fact he'll risk his own life to save one of them. Something Castle finds insane.

Batman had the same issues with the Punisher. Despite them both sharing a ton of similarities (Both are crime fighting vigilanties that witnessed their families murdered) one of them in Batman doesnt murder even his most hated foe (the Joker).

The Punisher would start with the Jokers family first. And would then torture the Joker before killing him. Publicly. And brutally. As a warning to others.

Superman and Batman wouldnt be entirely cool with that (to say the least). Neither would the Daredevil or many other Heroes.

Wolverine (in some of his darker incarnations) might approve (or not really care enough to intervene). He's been depicted as everything from CG to CE (for periods) though with a CN(G) being the rough baseline for much of his golden and silver age stuff.

Logan wouldnt intervene (to save a helpless Joker from being brutally murdered) unless it was happening in front of him (in which case he'd probably stop the murder, and have the Joker handed over to the authorities or at worst give him a quick death). He sits between the N and G area of morality (and is very Chaotic).


and you still have strong motivation to work with the other PCs and go adventuring.

Your alignment says nothing about your motivations to adventure. It does speak to the methods you employ while adventuring though.

[Malifice]

According to this : Zane first idea to force the captain to make amend was Lawful but not particulary good.

Showing mercy and compassion (and offering a chance at redemption) to a prisoner is very good.


Him freeing the prisonner for him to live as an exile was good but against the will of the others, therefore more chaotic.

What? No you're assesing things against 'what the other PCs wanted'. Law/ Chaos isnt defined that way.


Him attacking his fellow twice (without retaliation), and without asking to drop the weapons first was clearly evil though

What weapons? The dude was unarmed, and was running away (after being released).


Var Khan turning the capitain to the authorities was completely lawfull,

Agreed.


and so was him running after the "fugitive" and knocking him down.

Huh? He had just been pardoned by the rest of the party. Nothing 'lawful' about it.


Him executing the prisonner was more difficult to get, as a barbarian sujet to rages I would let it pass as a rage as long as it stays rare.

Wut? Murder is only 'not' an act of evil... when you do it when angry!


Keora firbolting the Var khan was clearly chaotic. stoping a useless fight was somehow neutral or good

'Chaotic' has nothing to do with it. She was using lethal force in the self defence of others (the prisoner). It was morally neutral.

Unless she had a non lethal means of taking him down and arbitrarily went for lethal force instead.


To answer the question asked : Mercy is one of the requirement to be good. if you pusue justice with no mercy you are the perfect definition of LAWFULl NEUTRAL. Justice is the related to the lawfull-Chaotic arc of the allignement, so a character with infinite mercy but little care for justice would more likeley be chaotic good.

Largely agree with this.


Would I be the DM, I'd probably talk with the barbarian about allignements, according to his value and acts he should probably be LN.

Largely agree with this, but I'm not seeing 'L' here. I'd make him CN (and monitor his ongoing actions).


Concerning the cleric, i'd have him face some kind of ordeal, because when you are all about redemption you can't just attack twice someone who is no threat, even if he actually did something bad (forgiveness and redemption, you know the stuff)

The Sorcerer is CN. I have no issues with her actions in firebolting the barbarian (who was actively trying to murder someone). Its an act of self defence (or the defence of others) as a last resort and when no other options reasonably presented themselves.

The sorcerers use of force (firebolt v the barbarian) wasnt evil. Wasnt good either (harming others never is) but it wasnt evil (reasonable force in defence of the helpless).

The barbarians (murdering the released unarmed prisoner) use of force certainly was evil though.

[imanidiot]

Well no; you ...

Your alignment says nothing about your motivations to adventure. It does speak to the methods you employ while adventuring though.

You are right I misspoke. What I mean is LE lends itself easily to typical adventuring activities. Someone hire you to go kill goblins? Fine, lets kill em, they're just goblins. Breaking into an ancient crypt to rob it's treasures? No big deal, they've been dead for centuries they dont need it any more. Stealing a magic goose from cloud giants? They should have protected it better, not my problem.

And it's very easy to justify other PCs trusting that character because he'll only hurt "The Others". He would never betray or abandon his friends.

Not that LE character absolutely would do any of this. It's just really easy to fitthem in with a group.

[Unoriginal]

Err, just to point two things out:


One: when a Barbarian rages, they are not mentally impaired or compelled to be violent toward anyone. Which means that Var Khan knowingly murdered someone because someone else hurt him. Needless to say, it is an evil act.

Two: using lethal force on an ally just because they disagreed with you is *not* a good act, and it's *not* a neutral act. Keora knowingly attempted to kill Var Khan with a firebolt. You might say "but he survived", maybe, but it's like shooting someone in the torso and have them survive because of their super-toughness: you still used lethal force.

Zane continuing the assault instead of calming things was not good (though this can be debated), but understandable because he just saw the barbarian murder someone arbitrarily.

Both Zane and Var Khan acted within the tendencies described by lawful good, at first. None of them wanted to harm the villain more than necessary, they just had different ideas on what kind of mercy should be applied. It's when Keora attacked that things went to hell and that both Zane and Khan revealed they would murder to impose their ideas. Which is an evil act.

[Malifice]

Err, just to point two things out:


One: when a Barbarian rages, they are not mentally impaired or compelled to be violent toward anyone. Which means that Var Khan knowingly murdered someone because someone else hurt him. Needless to say, it is an evil act.

Two: using lethal force on an ally just because they disagreed with you is *not* a good act, and it's *not* a neutral act. Keora knowingly attempted to kill Var Khan with a firebolt. You might say "but he survived", maybe, but it's like shooting someone in the torso and have them survive because of their super-toughness: you still used lethal force.

Zane continuing the assault instead of calming things was not good (though this can be debated), but understandable because he just saw the barbarian murder someone arbitrarily.

Both Zane and Var Khan acted within the tendencies described by lawful good, at first. None of them wanted to harm the villain more than necessary, they just had different ideas on what kind of mercy should be applied. It's when Keora attacked that things went to hell and that both Zane and Khan revealed they would murder to impose their ideas. Which is an evil act.

The sorcerer only used lethal force on the barbarian as a last resort and in defence of the helpless (to prevent an imminent murder). It wasn't evil any more than it would be evil if a police officer shot you dead to stop you from killing someone.

It wasn't morally evil to use lethal force in those circumstances. Wasn't morally 'good' either of course. But the sorceress is CN. She's more than justified in her actions under her alignment in that instance.

It's the barbarian here that was at fault. He wasn't in any way acting in a manner that can be described as Lawful and Good.

[Unoriginal]

The sorcerer only used lethal force on the barbarian as a last resort and in defence of the helpless (to prevent an imminent murder). It wasn't evil any more than it would be evil if a police officer shot you dead to stop you from killing someone.

No, she didn't. The barbarian wasn't murdering anyone, he was knocking out a criminal that the cleric had freed without the agreement of the group.

The sorcerer resorting to lethal force in those circumstances is certainly not neutral, especially when there are alternatives to stop an ally from doing something.



It's the barbarian here that was at fault. He wasn't in any way acting in a manner that can be described as Lawful and Good.

Again, he was not planning to kill the guy, he wanted to keep him prisoner until they reached a city, as he judged releasing the criminal now would be dangerous both for himself and for others. It is in accordance to law and benevolent.

I agree that the barbarian murdering the guy because he got pissed was utterly malevolent, of course.

[Herobizkit]

Just an aside, what about the 'justice' of the man paying for the crime of murder? The party may have agreed to letting the man go, but that wouldn't (necessarily) ring true to a LG person. I'd argue that it would be a LG's duty to to carry out justice where there was none to be had. The punishment for murder is (generally?) death in most D&D fantasy-style worlds.

To the Barbarian, letting the guilty man go with a slap on the wrist and "don't do it again" isn't justice for the murdered party. A Chaotic person might see it that way (valuing freedom over tradition), but I feel the Barbarian was in the right to execute this person regardless of what the party thought.

Finally, at least at my table, one 'wrong' act doesn't automatically change a character's alignment... but it does open the door for some interesting soul-searching RP moments.

[Lacuna Caster]

Var Khan was originally attempting to restrain the man so he could take him to Silverymoon and turn him in. The man was unarmed and Var Khan did kill him but only after he was severely injured by the firebolt. He violated neither his own moral code nor the ethical codes of his people (they come from a bit of a harsh place where mercy is a dangerous concept). So given the choice between letting a torturer/murderer go free and killing him he chose to kill him. Taking into account original intent, his background and the captains previous actions I wouldn't change the alignment.
This sounds like a rather interesting session, but I'm unclear on the logic here. Why did Var Khan suddenly change his mind about taking the captain alive? I mean, if the point was that he had to go chase after Keora (who was threatening him), why did he go into a rage and then just stand there for two extra rounds? Otherwise Keora's actions have no bearing on whether the man deserved death or not.


Or he could become a man of peace, fully committed to spreading mercy, hope, charity and compassion.
I don't know if this specifically applies in the captain's case- the party have fairly limited information about his past behaviour here- but I will say that there is a certain cost-benefit calculation that applies when considering the probability or rehabilitation vs. containment vs. escape/recidivism. And in a universe where high-level villains can, e.g, summon armies of flesh-eating demons, the cost of escape/recidivism can be rather high.

[Lacuna Caster]

No, she didn't. The barbarian wasn't murdering anyone, he was knocking out a criminal that the cleric had freed without the agreement of the group.

The sorcerer resorting to lethal force in those circumstances is certainly not neutral, especially when there are alternatives to stop an ally from doing something.
To be fair, Keora might have misinterpreted Var Khan's intentions as lethal from a distance, and depending on how aware the PCs are of how Hit Points work, it might not count as "lethal force".

Also, not sure why we're glossing over this point:

After three of the guards had been killed two tried to run off but Keora and Elisan melted them with an acid arrow and a scorching ray before they could escape. Zane used hold person on the captain and they tied him up with rope.
So... is it totally morally acceptable to use lethal force to cut down two guards who were fleeing the scene beforehand, but not when the captain does the same thing after being released by the party cleric?

[Malifice]

Also, not sure why we're glossing over this point:

So... is it totally morally acceptable to use lethal force to cut down two guards who were fleeing the scene beforehand, but not when the captain does the same thing after being released by the party cleric?

I'm prepared to give a little leeway in the chaos of battle.

Subduing a guy, disarming him, tying him up, interrogating him for a it, then releasing him... before chasing him down, flying into a rage and stabbing him through the neck... not so much.

I think the OP views justice as good.

Justice isn't morally good. Mercy is.

[Sigreid]

Thats because you're not 'good'. Most likely neutral.



Thats because the guy that let him go was good.



There you go.



Now this sentence is YOUR justification. YOU view killing unarmed and defenceless prisoners as 'sensible'.

I have news for you. YOU are not good. A 'good' person doesnt think the way you do.



How do you know the prisoner was going to cause more harm?

You dont.

We've been down this road before. We don't agree. We'll never agree, and that's fine.

[Corran]

It isn't about alignment, it is about teamplay.

And Zane is the problem.

He acted before the group had reached a conclusion regarding the fate of the prisoner, thus making the decision on behalf of everyone else. Var Khan proceeded to do the same, which is a mistake too, but letting it pass would set a precedent that Zane has the final say, so I justify Var Khan somewhat. Last but not least, Zane initiated PvP, attacking not once, but twice (why didn't he just forgive Var Khan?).

Have a session 0, where the players talk about their characters' motivations and personalities, and about why they are ONE party. Encourage them (or force them, depending how far you want to go) to change character traits that dont mesh well with the concepts of the other characters. You need to ensure that there wont be cliques at the table. ''Kill'' the cliques. One party.

[Lacuna Caster]

I'm prepared to give a little leeway in the chaos of battle.

Subduing a guy, disarming him, tying him up, interrogating him for a it, then releasing him... before chasing him down, flying into a rage and stabbing him through the neck... not so much.

I think the OP views justice as good.

Justice isn't morally good. Mercy is.
I'd point out that Var Khan wasn't the one who released him, but I'm still sufficiently baffled by the characters' motives here than I'd like to see those questions resolved first.

Seeking to minimise death and suffering, I think, is a reasonable first approximation to 'good', but if you're going to say that killing the captain was 'justice', well... that kind of implies it's a part of maintaining a socially-countenanced deterrence policy that helps to minimise death and suffering.

I like to point people toward strong female protagonist (http://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-6/page-112-2/) whenever these topics come up.


He acted before the group had reached a conclusion regarding the fate of the prisoner, thus making the decision on behalf of everyone else. Var Khan proceeded to do the same, which is a mistake too, but letting it pass would set a precedent that Zane has the final say, so I justify Var Khan somewhat. Last but not least, Zane initiated PvP, attacking not once, but twice (why didn't he just forgive Var Khan?).
Hey, what's wrong with a little PvP (https://www.burningwheel.com/pdf/dow_95_108.pdf)?

[smcmike]

Its symptomatic of DnD morality arguments. Mouthbreathing socially isolated comic book reading neckbeards attempting to justify abhorrent acts of violence and evil... in a game that expressly rewards acts of violence and evil.


This sort of personal attack is uncalled for.



One: when a Barbarian rages, they are not mentally impaired or compelled to be violent toward anyone. Which means that Var Khan knowingly murdered someone because someone else hurt him. Needless to say, it is an evil act.

While it's true that the game rules do not cause a barbarian to become crazed during a rage, there is nothing wrong with choosing to play it that way. There should be room for players to have their characters do irrational things in the throes of emotion. That doesn't take away the moral weight of murder, but it isn't irrelevant either.


It isn't about alignment, it is about teamplay.

And Zane is the problem.

He acted before the group had reached a conclusion regarding the fate of the prisoner, thus making the decision on behalf of everyone else. Var Khan proceeded to do the same, which is a mistake too, but letting it pass would set a precedent that Zane has the final say, so I justify Var Khan somewhat. Last but not least, Zane initiated PvP, attacking not once, but twice (why didn't he just forgive Var Khan?).

Have a session 0, where the players talk about their characters' motivations and personalities, and about why they are ONE party. Encourage them (or force them, depending how far you want to go) to change character traits that dont mesh well with the concepts of the other characters. You need to ensure that there wont be cliques at the table. ''Kill'' the cliques. One party.

I agree with this, but even in a party where you create an initial unity, disagreements will happen. What you really need is a clear decision-making structure. It can be a vote, but it doesn't have to be - one character can simply be given control over these sorts of decisions, with background justification for this power.

[Contrast]

Justice isn't morally good. Mercy is.

How exactly isn't justice morally good? How is justice (correctly apportioned whatever you consider that to mean) morally worse than mercy? Many people would consider the 'correct' amount of mercy to be an equivalent way of telling you what justice entailed.

I assume your argument is that an evil person may consider something evil to be justice. However an evil person could equally consider something someone else might consider evil to be mercy as well.

Imagine I was being hunted through the woods by a serial killer and I managed to turn the tables on him and tie him up. He swears his murdering days are over and says he regrets his actions (even as the blood of this most recent victims still coats his clothes). I'm still lost in the forest so if I leave him tied up there's a good chance he'll starve to death. Am I morally obligated to let him go? How about if I could loosen the bonds so he'll escape in a day but there are other lost campers stumbling through the woods and I'd put them at risk plus there's no chance then of being able to turn him over to the authorities. If I'm not prepared to let him go, I can't take him to the authorities and the other option is to let him starve to death, isn't the moral thing to do to execute him as humanely as I can there and then?

Seems like the barbarian was choosing to execute a potentially dangerous criminal rather than take long term responsibility for him (after having suggested taking long term responsibility and being ignored?), whereas the cleric was choosing to release a potentially dangerous criminal rather than take long term responsibility for them (presumably because they had other pressing issues which needed attending). Neither are the morally clear choices you seem to be presenting them. You say the cleric was doing good by being merciful and letting him go - would the action still have been good if they caught the guy three days later doing the exact same thing? If that did happen, in order to be 'good' should they let him go again?

[DevilMcam]

In dungeons and dragon the morailty is evaluated upon two scope :
the good-evil one and the law-chaos one.

Mercy is good, because it is related to one's own belief, you can't deliver mercy on another one's name. in a similar way cruelty is bad.
thoses two things belong to the good/evil scope.


How exactly isn't justice morally good? How is justice (correctly apportioned whatever you consider that to mean) morally worse than mercy?
Justice however belongs to the law-chaos scope. it is not worse than mercy, it is rated with a different scope. Justice contrary to mercy is institutionnal, based on the Law of the group/country and is most of the time delivered on the ruler's or the kingdom's name (and there are actual professions for this such as judge and executionner).

We as human tend to mix thoses in our daily lifes. but in DnD those are completely different concepts.

[Unoriginal]

I like to point people toward strong female protagonist (http://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-6/page-112-2/) whenever these topics come up.


Isn't that the webcomic where the girl with regeneration powers decide she could do more good as an organ donor than as a superhero, so she decides to have her organs surgically harvested 24/7, without any way to dull the pain, for the rest of her life?

[Lacuna Caster]

Isn't that the webcomic where the girl with regeneration powers decide she could do more good as an organ donor than as a superhero, so she decides to have her organs surgically harvested 24/7, without any way to dull the pain, for the rest of her life?
Yes! Yes it is! Without spoiling anything, you should read the rest of the storyline tho.

[Officer Joy]

Isn't that the webcomic where the girl with regeneration powers decide she could do more good as an organ donor than as a superhero, so she decides to have her organs surgically harvested 24/7, without any way to dull the pain, for the rest of her life?

Yes it is, but later there was found a way to save her from that fate. Without stoping the amount of people she could help.

[Contrast]

Justice however belongs to the law-chaos scope. it is not worse than mercy, it is rated with a different scope. Justice contrary to mercy is institutionnal, based on the Law of the group/country and is most of the time delivered on the ruler's or the kingdom's name (and there are actual professions for this such as judge and executionner).

I would argue a stereotypical CG character is much more likely to seek justice for justices sake than a stereotypical LE character. Obviously their opinions of what exactly justice entails are likely to be different.

You also seem to be trying to separate when no such separation really exists. In OPs example they said if they'd returned him to the caravan he'd have been killed. So clearly vengeance, not justice right? So that pushes caravaners towards chaotic. Oh except it turns out the law of the land is that the punishment for his crime is being stoned to death and he was unquestionably guilty of the crime. So turns out they were lawful.

Are we saying identical actions with identical motivations can have opposite impacts on your alignment depending on which side of a country border you're standing in?

I guess I mostly just find the intrinsic concept of the alignment chart silly and the chaotic/lawful one in particular. Basically, if I'm obeying the customs of a chaotic aligned society, does that make me chaotic or lawful? If I'm a lawful character but then I move to a different society with different customs and laws, am I now chaotic? What about someone born in that society who has picked up my traits and beliefs? Would it be lawful or chaotic to abandon my old customs and beliefs to fit in with my new society? What if I'm obeying a strict moral code but no-one else can figure out what it is so my actions appear random?

The fact that D&D (though 5E, much to its credit, has distanced itself) pretends there are moral absolutes doesn't make it true. The gods might have an opinion on such things but there are lots of gods with lots of different opinions. In response to OP (or other DMs) I guess my advice would be, do what you did - let your characters argue the morality out in character. There is no definitive answer anyone else can give you because morality is something you have to consider and come up with your own conclusions on. The DM can arbitrate such things in game but that doesn't mean the characters the DM is playing will be 'right' (nor would it be reasonable to expect to be - not everyone in the real world are paragons of moral virtue so it would be odd for a DM to try and roleplay that). As a DM you only need to step in if people start to forget they're arguing in character and actually start arguing.

Or you can have your own setting where there's a single god whose morality is the DMs personal opinions and tells you when you've been NaughtyTM. I'd probably be fine with that until the DM issued a moral statement I disagreed with and then you'd end up with one of those threads where the DM complains the players went off to free the slaves or whatever instead of doing the actual plot :smallbiggrin:

[Spojack]

[QUOTE=Lacuna Caster;22313951]This sounds like a rather interesting session, but I'm unclear on the logic here. Why did Var Khan suddenly change his mind about taking the captain alive? I mean, if the point was that he had to go chase after Keora (who was threatening him), why did he go into a rage and then just stand there for two extra rounds? Otherwise Keora's actions have no bearing on whether the man deserved death or not.


Var Khans thought process:

The the murderer cannot go free until someone explains to me why we can't just take him to Silverymoon. He is leaving. I will restrain him.

Firebolt

I am under attack. The murderer cannot go free and I can't get him to Silverymoon.

(kills prisoner and gets hit with guiding bolt)

If I harm Keora or Zane my people are doomed.

I am going to die

[Gorgo]

A thought is that, unless your character has taken a paladin's oath or something similar, alignment (at least IMO) is the sum total of all your actions, and even a single very evil action doesn't may not imply a change of alignment. There may be consequences, but you can be "good" and still have done a few evil things.

King Arthur's story is a great example. He does a very evil thing by ordering the killing of all children born in a certain time range to try to kill his bastard son, and that evil thing eventually leads to his downfall, but overall is regarded as a very good man and king.

[Footman]

What is good? What is Evil? This is something you as a DM have to Define. D&D is very very Vague on the whole Good and Evil thing, because Human beeings are actually a bit too Complex for these to simple Philosophical Concepts.

You need to consider two things:
Is the Action Evil/Good?
Or is the Intent Evil/Good?


Also People are only responsible for their own Actions. Wherver the Dude they let go, continues killing, or Atones to become a peacefull Person, is up to him. The PCs are not responsible for that. They can't look into his Heart, and into the Future.

If only the Action is Evil. Killing will always, always be Evil. No matter the Circumstances, reasons or excuses. Good and Evil will be clear, but this makes for a boring Black and White world my opinion.

If only the Intent is Evil, people can be really really misguided. People have different Worldfviews, and really how much Bloodshed can Intent justifiy? In my opinion this is the best option, because it means Morals will be ambigous, and even People who are very good natured at Heart can be driven/tricked to do horrible horrible
things, even though he still retains a good Alignment. This creates some Nice Drama!

The Problem is if you mesh both of them Together. If sometimes the Intent and sometimes the Action itself is Evil you run into Problems, because everyone will define "Good" and "Evil" for themselves, that creates only Chaos and Arguments like the one you have.

If you declare only the Intent someone has is Evil, People become very diverse. An Action that is Evil for one, might be good for another Person. People have different Sets of Values after all.

[Unoriginal]

People might often say that Justice is Lawful, but it is not accurate.

Justice, as a principle, is the concept that for one's action, one receive a retribution judged appropriate by a system of standards and values. What this system is depends of the persons and time periods involved, though some people would argue that there is an inherent and supreme system which is the correct and objective one.

And such, Justice can justify sparring a warlord who pillaged a city just as well as it can justify condemning to death the victim of an horrifying situation who defended themselves in a way that did not met the standards.

Justice, by itself, is neutral, in D&D terms.

Now, lawful people tends to want gravitate toward Justice as it is a powerful way to bind people together and make them follow the rules, either to help them (if lawful good) or to obtain power over others (if lawful evil). Chaotic people tends to want Justice for themselves and the people they care about, and don't care if it applies on others.


In OP's case, the Cleric wanted to be Just, so he decided to free a torturer and someone who murdered a man in cold blood out of spite, judging that it was both in accordance to law and merciful, despite the fact he decided to do so unilaterally. The Barbarian wanted to be Just, so he decided the torturing murderer could not be let off free in those circumstances and so needed to be re-restrained, and judging that it was both in accordance to law and merciful, despite the fact he decided to do so unilaterally.

Then the Sorcerer used lethal force on the Barbarian to stop him, the Barbarian murdered the murderer, and the Cleric nearly killed the Barbarian.

None of those actions were reasonable, or benevolent. People died or nearly died because of a lack of consensus on what Justice was in this situation and because all the people involved were trigger-happy.


A thought is that, unless your character has taken a paladin's oath or something similar, alignment (at least IMO) is the sum total of all your actions, and even a single very evil action doesn't may not imply a change of alignment. There may be consequences, but you can be "good" and still have done a few evil things.

In 5e, Alignment is explicitly a tendency, not a clear cut "X always do Y" thing, so yeah, one instance generally don't define a tendency. Some instance does, though.



King Arthur's story is a great example. He does a very evil thing by ordering the killing of all children born in a certain time range to try to kill his bastard son, and that evil thing eventually leads to his downfall, but overall is regarded as a very good man and king.

I don't want to sound insulting, but it's actually a pretty poor exemple.

There are a lot of versions and interpretations of King Arthur, and he was defined as "good" or "bad" by a lot of different standards. And that's not even including the texts which might or might not be ironic.

In any case, Arthur is generally depicted as a very flawed man, often described as arbitrarily violent, extremely passive (once he has knights doing the quests for him) and the like. He was mostly considered good because he had a kingdom where the author's ideals could exist

[Malifice]

A thought is that, unless your character has taken a paladin's oath or something similar, alignment (at least IMO) is the sum total of all your actions, and even a single very evil action doesn't may not imply a change of alignment. There may be consequences, but you can be "good" and still have done a few evil things.

And you can also be evil, but have done a few good things.

A good example is the TV depiction of Jamie Lannister.

His depiction is quite complex, but generally hovers around NE. He's demonstrated acts of mercy, loyalty and kindness, but also abhorrent acts of child murder, backstabbing, kinslaying and treachery. He has a code of honor (refusing to kill Ned Stark unless it was a 'fair' fight), but is prepared to break his Oath when he deems it necessary. He has no desire to rule, but equally no love of following rules either.

Of the twins he is the more sympathetic one. Cersei is also very much NE, but unrepentently so.

The Hound is another complex character. He generally hovers around CN(E) but since his fight with Brienne has mellowed to more CN(G).

Tywin was LE. Roose Bolton as well.

Joffrey (and Ramsay Bolton) were both CE. As was (is) the Mountain.

Bronn is CN.

Tyrion is NG. Samwell as well. Both are good men, and while both feel an obligation towards their families and institutions, both have shown the inclination to break from both when it ran against their moral code. Tommen also fit this bill when he was alive.

Stannis was textbook LN. Sansa is now as well. Dany is LN(G tendencies). She lost some 'good' points with her recent merciless burnings of the Tarly family.

Eddard was LG. Robb too. Jon Snow is NG (despite being honorable like Eddard and Robb, he has also demonstrated the ability to break with tradition and walk away from his Oath).

Id place Brienne at LG(N) as well.

Bran is (at least at present) TN.

Arya is the intresting one. She was depicted (early days) as hovering around the CG mark. Now that she has embraced murder (including killing people, cooking them into a pie, feeding that pie to their father, and then killing him after mocking him about it) she's looking very firmly NE; recent episodes only drive that point home further.

[Unoriginal]

Trying to attribute alignments to characters outside of D&D is not really pertinent, because alignment only work precisely within the framework of the game, and outside of it can any alignment can be argued with.

After all, one could easily argue that Bronn is neutral evil because he would kill anyone if payed enough (as long as he think he can get away with it), that Stannis was lawful evil at the end of his life because he literally sacrificed innocents by burning them alive for power, that Roose Bolton was neutral evil because he betrayed anyone as soon as it was more profitable for him to do so, that Tyrion can't be good because he willingly supported people he knew were evil and corrupt in order to live a relatively comfortable life, until the day they condemned him to death, and that Arya is not evil because while cruel with her enemies, she has refused to hurt innocents, even when she knew it would put her life at risk or cost her greatly or when said people were in the service of her enemies (like the Lannister soldiers or Frey's wife), and that her enemies' crimes were worse than the cruelty she inflicted on them.

[Malifice]

Arya is not evil because while cruel with her enemies, she has refused to hurt innocents,

So?

Are you saying I am not evil as long as I only murder, torture, enslave and rape... my 'enemies' (or even just bad people in general).

It's the murder, torture, enslavement and rape that makes you evil. Not your choice of victims, or the reasons why you engage in those acts.

[smcmike]

So?

Are you saying I am not evil as long as I only murder, torture, enslave and rape... my 'enemies' (or even just bad people in general).

It's the murder, torture, enslavement and rape that makes you evil. Not your choice of victims, or the reasons why you engage in those acts.

Arya didn't REDACTED. Her burning desire to REDACTED her REDACTED is certainly not a trait usually associated with good people, though.

I'm also not sure how this statement fits with some of your other ratings. Tyrion is a REDACTED. Stannis REDACTED his REDACTED to REDACTED.

Edit: some spoilers were REDACTED.

[Malifice]

Arya didn't enslave or rape anyone. Her burning desire to murder her enemies is certainly not a trait usually associated with good people, though.

I'm also not sure how this statement fits with some of your other ratings. Tyrion is a murderer. Stannis BURNED HIS INNOCENT DAUGHTER TO DEATH.

Tyrion is indeed a murderer. The people he killed (his father and Shea) were on his way escaping imprisonment and betrayal from them both.

Remember they not only imprisoned him, but set him up to die. If he doesn't kill them, they notify the guards, or come after him looking to kill him. He is consistently both before and after, portrayed as a good person and haunted by his actions.

Of course one evil act does not an evil person make. His portrayal has very consistently been 'good'.

He may have worked for evil people, but he spent the majority of his time keeping those people people in check and stopping them from being evil.

He even did everything he could to stop Danny from burning the Tarlys alive.

Stanis very clearly committed an act of evil with his daughter. He's lawful neutral. He can commit the odd act of evil or good with and remain (broadly) neutral.

He also ordered the murder of his brother is well remember. Other than that he remained fairly consistently lawful neutral.

If he was a player in my campaign after the Shireen incident I would put a bracketed 'E' next to the N on his character sheet. Despite consistently betraying the character as a very lawful neutral, that act was beyond the pale and enough to justify a shift towards an evil alignment.

[Millstone85]

The people he killed (his father and Shea) were on his way escaping imprisonment and betrayal from them both.Were they? He found one in bed and the other on the privy.

[Malifice]

Arya didn't enslave or rape anyone. Her burning desire to murder her enemies is certainly not a trait usually associated with good people, though.

She is very very clearly shifting towards an evil alignment, if she is not there already.

I mean seriously. Killing someones kids, cutting them up into pieces, cooking them into a pie, feeding that pie to their father, just to mock him with what you've done before you cut his throat is very clearly, very evil.

Not that there is anything unusual with an evil agent working towards a good cause.

Someone's gotta get their hands dirty.

[Malifice]

Were they? He found one in bed and the other on the privy.

Both were actively trying to have him killed. Both had conspired to have him killed previously and both had conspired to have him imprisoned.

He has a pretty strong self defence argument when everything is taken into context there. Particularly with regards to his father. Tracking him down and putting a crossbow bolt into him on the way out was can be argued as self defence.

There can be no doubt Tywin was actively trying to have him killed.

His murder of Shay was much more questionable. I didn't get the feeling he was actively looking for her. More of the case he bumped into her on his way escaping. She had been actively manipulating him for years to this point. She wasn't going to keep quiet once he left that room.

Incidentally I'm not saying either act was good. I'm just saying the context of those two acts compared with his consistent portrayal as an otherwise very good person would not justify an alignment change in my view.

[smcmike]

Tyrion is indeed a REDACTED. The people he REDACTED (REDACTED and REDACTED) were on his way escaping REDACTED and REDACTED from them both.

Remember they not only REDACTED him, but set him up to REDACTED. If he doesn't REDACTED them, they REDACTED the REDACTED or come after him looking to REDACTED him. He is consistently both before and after, portrayed as a good person and haunted by his actions.

Of course one evil act does not an evil person make. His portrayal has very consistently been 'good'.

He goes out of his way to REDACTED. He could have just left. I'm not arguing that he's evil, just that your pronouncement of "REDACTED = evil" doesn't seem very consistent.



Stanis very clearly committed an act of evil with his REDACTED. He's lawful neutral. He can commit the odd act of evil or good with and remain (broadly) neutral.

He also ordered the REDACTED of his REDACTED is well remember. Other than that he remained fairly consistently lawful neutral.

This is insane. Oh, sure, he's an okay guy, apart from that time he used REDACTED to REDACTED his REDACTED, or that other time he REDACTED his REDACTED to REDACTED, or that other time he redacted his REDACTED to REDACTED, or that other time he planned to REDACTED his REDACTED to REDACTED, or that time he instigated a REDACTED which REDACTED thousands of REDACTED to REDACTED...

[ZorroGames]

Such threads as these occurred in OD&D when your options were only Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic.

Really only means something if the DM uses alignment significantly.

As a Lawful/Neutral Dwarf Monk my preference would have been to kill him initially in combat to not imperil the mission.

Not the Barbarian respons but close.

BUT I have very strong thoughts as an Christian (Presbyterian tradition, evangelical in nature,) about Good and Evil. Also but - 30 years in military, DOD civilian and Intel work has made me aware of two things; not every culture has the same basic morality/ethics (which changes nothing in my mind) and that disorder/war/cultural conflicts creates many shades of grey in people's decision when life and death are the results.

The child throwing the grenade at a truck load of soldiers is killed mid-throw with no hesitation (real life) whereas My Lai steps way over the line though culpability seems skewed in the aftermath (and I will leave it there) so I understand that black and white decisions are required as a baseline.

But it has become clear to me that some grey areas (a friend is a conservative Christian but is homosexual and in a caring relationship with another conservative Christian) that maybe is not my place to judge beyond the obvious moral conflict in their lives.)

I am glad I as the DM do not have to make this call.

Note: when the released prisoner picked up the weapon to defend himself he became a combatant (in modern terms) and the whole situation becomes MUBB (Mucked Up Beyond Belief.)

If the Barbarian was an avowed L/G Cleric - instant karma in my mind. As a D&D barbarian, perhaps not so clear.

Okay, sermon over. Changing someone's alignment versus inflicting penalties for their actions is where I am uncomfortable as a potential DM. Talk OOC with all sides and start using natural consequences if action grossly violate declared alignments until the moral actions change or voluntary alignment change mutually occurs.

Flagrantly Evil druids might have more trouble dealing with creatures that sense evil or Good aligned creatures such as Unicorns as one example.

[Malifice]

He goes out of his way to seek them out. He could have just left.

They were actively conspiring to kill him. And had been for some time. Like I said before, he is acting with in the context of self defence.

It certainly didn't appear to me to be a case of simple vengeance.


I'm not arguing that he's evil, just that your pronouncement of "murderer = evil" doesn't seem very consistent.


I havent been saying that one murder (or one evil act) makes a person evil. In fact, if you go back and read closely I've been saying the exact opposite.


This is insane. Oh, sure, he's an okay guy, apart from that time he used blood magic to murder his brother, or that other time her burned his daughter to death, or that other time he burned his brother-in-law to death, or that other time he planned to burn his nephew to death, or that time he instigated a war which burned thousands of people to death....

I'm not saying he is a good guy. I'm says he was consistently portrayed as lawful neutral, certainly with evil tendencies. To the point that after he ordered his own daughter sacrificed, I would have put an (E) next to (or perhaps even in the place of) the N on his character sheet.

That's the second time I've said that now.

He had been flirting with evil for some time and he certainly crossed the line at that point. His men knew it when they abandoned him, and his wife too when she hung herself. Even at the end he realised he crossed the line.

Incidentally I'm not sure I would say he 'murdered' his brother. They were actively engaged in warfare at the time. He certainly ordered his death. I would clearly call it an evil act, but certainly not enough to want an alignment change.

Heck even Davos was an accomplace remember, and he's very clearly good aligned and raised objections to it the whole way along.

They kept Shireens death a secret from him though because even that would be too far for him.

[smcmike]

They were actively engaged in warfare at the time. I would clearly call it an evil act, but certainly not enough to want an alignment change.

If I'm the barbarian from this thread, I declare that "I'm actively engaged in warfare at this time" whenever I go into a rage.

[Malifice]

If I'm the barbarian from this thread, I declare that "I'm actively engaged in warfare at this time" whenever I go into a rage.

You can say whatever you want before you go into a rage.

Raging isn't evil.

If you meant to say that that you intend to declare you are actively engaged in warfare before you murder someone (In the expectation that declaration somehow makes you less evil) then be my guest. It won't change a bloody thing.

The DM determines what alignment you are. Objectively speaking. Not that that has any real relevance to you. I mean... it tells me where you go when your PC dies. Possibly a few other corner case things like whether or not you can be a oathbreaker paladin.

You can choose whatever subjective alignment or justifications for your actions you want. I'm not stopping you.

Feel free to play an evil monsterous murdering demon worshipper (even one genuinely thinks he is a really good guy) at my table if you want to. As long as you play it believable and well I don't care.

[Finieous]

Zane was the problem. As a lawful officer of the church, he certainly had the right (and likely the obligation) to execute the torturer and murderer. These rules exist for a reason, as he should know better than almost anyone: When the laws are ignored, the result is chaos. He abdicated his responsibilities and chaos ensued. Instead of redeeming his moral failure, he fed the chaos.

He might have wished he could grant mercy, and he might have felt really bad about his obligation to mete out such rough justice, but perhaps he could have spared some passing thought for the murderer's past and future victims and nevertheless done his duty.

[Unoriginal]

She is very very clearly shifting towards an evil alignment, if she is not there already.

I mean seriously. Killing someones kids, cutting them up into pieces, cooking them into a pie, feeding that pie to their father, just to mock him with what you've done before you cut his throat is very clearly, very evil.

Not that there is anything unusual with an evil agent working towards a good cause.

Someone's gotta get their hands dirty.

The "kids" she killed were grown-up men who knowingly decided to murder her family and her family's allies and armies. Yes, they were the children of someone, but everyone is.

Yes, cooking them and feeding them to their father was cruel, no doubt, but as you said "one evil act does not an evil person make". If you consider her evil, you're deliberately ignoring part of her actions to fit your interpretation.


Also, not sure why you consider burning the Tarlys something that makes Daenerys more on the evil side. While it was not merciful, the Tarlys were traitors who led the charge against one of Daenerys's allies, and she was willing to let them live provided they followed her. It fits a neutral mindset well.

[JackPhoenix]

The firebolt was cast by a PC; not by the unarmed man.

The prisoner was released by the party on the condition he fled north and lived a good life. He agreed to these terms, was release, got up and walked off - his heart full of hope.

At this point Var Khan chased the ex prisoner down and (after the party attempted to stop him by begging him to stop and even using violence to stop him via firebolt) flew into a bloody rage and brutally hacked the (now released) prisoner to death.

While the prisoner undoubteldy begged him to stop and cried out in fear and pain.

Sounds very NOT LG to me at this point.

Sounds like you should actually read the OP's post. The prisoner was NOT released by the party, he was released by the single individual while his fate was still being decided. There's no mention of party begging him to stop or anything, only outright attacking him while he was trying to stop the fleeing prisoner.


The ethical codes of his people could be 'Rape your enemies women, sell their children into slavery, and eat their warriors'. I dont care about his peoples ethical codes (those ethics could be very very evil).

I only care about whether chasing down an unarmed man (a released prisoner) and brutally murdering him in a rage is considered LG.

It isnt in my books. Nothing you say will change that view.

And

My players can define 'good' and 'evil' for their own characters as they see fit. They can play a brutal sadistic rapist who genuinely subjectively views himself as LG if they want.

His actual objective alignment is CE. When he dies, he goes to the Abyss. A helm of opposite alignment turns him into a compassionate, merciful and honorable person (LG). Etc.

Good for you. OP is not asking about your houserules, though.


Good = Going out of your way to engage in mercy, compassion, charity; non-violence and refraining from evil. Doing the right thing. Being kind and putting yourself out to help others.
Evil = Harming and killing others. Rape, murder, torture. Violence used when not reasonably necessary, as a last resort, and in the defence of others.
Neutral = Not going out of your way to either help or harm. Self intrest, without mercy or compassion, and without causing unecessary harm.

Citation needed. From the edition we're talking about, naturally.

And perhaps you should stop inserting your views, which are objectively wrong, if we're talking about alignment as presented in 5e D&D, into every single alignment thread on this forum, if it leads to you insulting people who will unavoidably disagree with your subjective ideas.


Justice isn't morally good. Mercy is.

https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0547/66/1502259301633.jpg

And ease up on the GoT spoilers, will ya? (that goes for all of you, some people haven't got to watching the latest season(s) yet) Not to mention it's hypocritical to call Stannis LN, because he's allowed fome freebie evil actions and the barbarian from OP "anything but LG" when he executes fleeing murderer while under attack by people who unilateraly decided to set the murderer free.

[smcmike]

And ease up on the GoT spoilers, will ya?

Sorry, that wasn't very Good of me. I REDACTED the spoilers that I was able to.

[ZorroGames]

[Qoute] snip
And ease up on the GoT spoilers, will ya? (that goes for all of you, some people haven't got to watching the latest season(s) yet) Not to mention it's hypocritical to call Stannis LN, because he's allowed fome freebie evil actions and the barbarian from OP "anything but LG" when he executes fleeing murderer while under attack by people who unilateraly decided to set the murderer free.[/QUOTE]

Seems obvious but applying GoT examples to D&D is at minimum ridiculous.

As for a proper source, see page 122 of the PHB.

Seems about as clear as an edition seeming to not want to excessively trap characters can be.

LN - individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal code.

LE - creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of tradition, loyalty, or order.

Check out CG which may apply and LG which honestly does not seem to apply.

NG, N, CN, NE, and CE also do not, IMO, apply.

Edit: "... alignment is a moral choice."

[Contrast]

So?

Are you saying I am not evil as long as I only murder, torture, enslave and rape... my 'enemies' (or even just bad people in general).

It's the murder, torture, enslavement and rape that makes you evil. Not your choice of victims, or the reasons why you engage in those acts.

In your post above the one quoted you named a number of GoT characters who've murdered and imprisoned a whole ton of people, because they were their enemies, as good (and I doubt they would be repentant about a lot of them). You may argue that 'ah but they had no choice in those murders as they couldn't have just held them all captive, they would have liked to have found another way'...much like the barbarian in this thread who you state can be nothing but evil.

You can't argue moral absolutism in one case and then start offering dispensations and get out of jail free cards to the people you happen to like/agree with :smalltongue: well...actually I guess every social morality system does that so you're in good company at least :smallbiggrin:

Edit -



The DM determines what alignment you are. Objectively speaking. Not that that has any real relevance to you. I mean... it tells me where you go when your PC dies. Possibly a few other corner case things like whether or not you can be a oathbreaker paladin.

You can choose whatever subjective alignment or justifications for your actions you want. I'm not stopping you.

If the DM objectively determines someones alignment (or the alignment of an action they took) and I disagree with their interpretation, why is my opinion automatically subjective and theirs is objective? Clearly its a game and the DM gets final say but OP seems to have started this thread specifically to get peoples opinions on exactly this issue precisely because OP was not clear that there was an objective answer to the question. The rulebook gives some loosely worded broad strokes guidance (and that is clearly all its meant to be) and leaves the rest to players and DMs to figure out for themselves.

[Malifice]

The "kids" she killed were grown-up men who knowingly decided to murder her family and her family's allies and armies. Yes, they were the children of someone, but everyone is.

Yes, cooking them and feeding them to their father was cruel, no doubt, but as you said "one evil act does not an evil person make". If you consider her evil, you're deliberately ignoring part of her actions to fit your interpretation.

Dude; she has clearly shifted alignment from CG to evil. There hasnt been 'one evil act', there have been a succession of evil acts, each one displaying extreme cruelty and suffering and premeditation (and her obvious pleasure at that cruelty and suffering).

She is a mass murdering, overly cruel and vengeful person. Who likes it. That is evil.

If you ever find yourself sawing up a couple of human beings into little bits, with the intention of baking them into a pie and feed to their father, so you can mock him after he eats his own children, before you also murder him... I would have no hesitation labelling you as evil as well.


Also, not sure why you consider burning the Tarlys something that makes Daenerys more on the evil side.

You cant also see why burning a father and son alive after they have surrendered to you is evil?

Tyrion certainly saw it as evil. Varys too.


While it was not merciful,

Mecy = good. Burning people to death who are at your mercy = evil.


the Tarlys were traitors who led the charge against one of Daenerys's allies, and she was willing to let them live provided they followed her. It fits a neutral mindset well.

Tripe.

Its evil. It was clearly depicted as evil in the show (and as a nod to her father who also used to burn people alive; including Brandon Stark and his father in similar circumstances). Varys and Tyrion called it out as much (privately, and in Tyrions case, publicly). It was clearly and unequovocally an act of evil.

Im not saying it makes Dany evil (shes LN (G) imo). But if youre arguing burning people alive who have surrendered to you, and are at your mercy, simply because they refuse to fight for you against their own countrymen is 'morally neutral' Im seriously disturbed.

Tell me. If you were deployed overseas in military action for your country, and you were captured by the enemy, and they demanded you and your son either fight and kill your countrymen for the terrorists or die by burning on the spot would you describe that ultiamtum (kill for us, or die by burning) as morally good, morally neutral or morally evil act by the terrorists?

Morally good: Showing mercy. Treating POWs with compassion and kindness. Ensuring they are not harmed, and are looked after and fed. Pardoning them after the war, and releasing them to live with their families.
Morally evil: Burning the POWs alive. Intentionally mistreating them. Concentration camps. Torturing them.

Please tell me you can you see the distinction between the two?

[Malifice]

In your post above the one quoted you named a number of GoT characters who've murdered and imprisoned a whole ton of people, because they were their enemies, as good (and I doubt they would be repentant about a lot of them).

Look dude, for the billionth time, I am not arguing that one act of evil makes on evil or vice versa.

And again, killing in self defence (or the defence of others) when no other option reasobly presents itself is not evil.

A police officer who shoots a criminal to save lives is not evil. A soldier who fights against an invading army is not evil. A homeowner who shoots dead a violent home invader is not evil.

None of those acts are 'good'; but equally none of those acts are evil. No Judge in this country or anywhere else will sanction you for those acts. No jury of your peers will label you as evil for those acts.

A police officer who guns down an unarmed suspect in the interview room is committing an act of evil. A soldier who storms into a civilians home in theatre and rapes and kills the family is committing an act of evil. A homeowner who guns down someone for stealing their wallet is committing an act of evil.

See the difference?

Force (including lethal force) in reasonable self defence or the defence of others when no other option reasonably presents itself is not evil. It never has been, and never will be.

It's unfortunate, but not evil (and nor is it good).


You may argue that 'ah but they had no choice in those murders as they couldn't have just held them all captive, they would have liked to have found another way'...much like the barbarian in this thread who you state can be nothing but evil.

I didnt say that either.

I stated I have a serious problem with someone who identifies as 'LG' chasing down and butchering an unarmed prisoner who has just been released.

As an ex soldier, if you were one of my men, and you gunned down an unarmed POW I just released, I would have you tried for murder.

And you would be convicted.


You can't argue moral absolutism in one case and then start offering dispensations and get out of jail free cards to the people you happen to like/agree with :smalltongue: well...actually I guess every social morality system does that so you're in good company at least :smallbiggrin:


I didnt say that either.


If the DM objectively determines someones alignment (or the alignment of an action they took) and I disagree with their interpretation, why is my opinion automatically subjective and theirs is objective?

In games you DM, you can feel free to determine that rape, slavery, murder and torture are all viewed as 'Good' acts when 'done to evil people' or 'done for good reasons' by the Gods. Fill your boots.

In games I DM, I define murder, torture, slavery and rape as evil. Full stop. I dont care about your justifications for those acts when determining how the Gods view your alignment.

If you're a murderer, rapist, slaver or torturer, you are going to Hell/ the Abyss/ Hades when you die (and you're free to enter the Oathbreaker Paladin class).

Your character can justify his murder, rape and torture however he wants (as can you the player). Most evil monsterous villians genuinely view themselves as good people. Your PC is likely one of them. Your PC can genuinely think he is LG as he murders and rapes people. Fill your boots with that character portrayal, Im not going to stop you.


Clearly its a game and the DM gets final say but OP seems to have started this thread specifically to get peoples opinions on exactly this issue precisely because OP was not clear that there was an objective answer to the question.

The OP asked a specific question re mercy v justice.

Mercy is good. Its been framed as 'good' for some time now in DnD and in most real world religions and philosophies to date.

Justice comes in many forms. Justice (vengance) can in fact be very very evil. I might see it as 'justice' to rape and torture to death someone who has harmed my family in a similar manner (an eye for an eye).

It isnt good to do that to someone, just like it wasnt good when they did it to my family to begin with (triggering my own vengance.

The good person shows mercy, kindness and forgiveness to those that have wronged him.

The evil person responds to those that have wronged them with harm and violence.

In DnD, 'Good' 'Evil' and 'Neutral' have been defined as:

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

'Justice' is neither good, nor evil. It can be both.

[JackPhoenix]

So much for not putting GoT spoilers to a thread that has nothing to do with GoT.


No Judge in this country or anywhere else will sanction you for those acts.

You'd be surprised


As an ex soldier, if you were one of my men, and you gunned down an unarmed POW I just released, I would have you tried for murder.

And you would be convicted.

And if you've been soldier and randomly decided to release captured enemy and attacked your fellow soldiers when they tried to apprehend the prisoner again, you'd be shot immediately, and if you've survived, you'd be court martialed. And convicted. After the prisoner was re-captured or killed during the escape attempt.


Mercy is good.

Says you. Others disagree, with valid points.


Justice comes in many forms. Justice (vengance) can in fact be very very evil. I might see it as 'justice' to rape and torture to death someone who has harmed my family in a similar manner (an eye for an eye).

Vengeance is not justice, and you, as an individual, do not decide what is or isn't justice.


In DnD, 'Good' 'Evil' and 'Neutral' have been defined as:

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.


Citation from the edition we're talking about here (5e, in case you've forgot) needed.

[Contrast]

And again, killing in self defence (or the defence of others) when no other option reasobly presents itself is not evil.

A police officer who shoots a criminal to save lives is not evil. A soldier who fights against an invading army is not evil. A homeowner who shoots dead a violent home invader is not evil.

All of the characters you cited as good have executed people they considered enemies or criminals they could have otherwise held who represented no immediate threat to anyone. I would bet those characters would not regret their actions and if you asked them they would tell you those people deserved death. I'm not arguing their actions were evil, I'm just trying to point out you can't say a certain activity is evil no matter what (for instance murder) and then start saying 'well obviously not that type of murder in this case'.

I'll remind you its you who said:


It's the murder, torture, enslavement and rape that makes you evil. Not your choice of victims, or the reasons why you engage in those acts.

If murder is evil and who you're doing it to and your reasons don't matter, why are you now saying that it does matter if you're a solider doing it to protect your country or a policeman doing it to protect people from criminals. If you're now distancing yourself from that statement then I'll consider us in agreement.



I didnt say that either.

I stated I have a serious problem with someone who identifies as 'LG' chasing down and butchering an unarmed prisoner who has just been released.

As an ex soldier, if you were one of my men, and you gunned down an unarmed POW I just released, I would have you tried for murder.

And you would be convicted.

Apologies, having gone back and looked through your comments you've talked a lot about evil people but I'll concede you never said the barbarian in OP was evil. That said, as an ex-soldier if your commanding officer started releasing prisoners of war who had just been caught committing war crimes in the middle of a war zone with no explanation and then started shooting at you when you tried to recapture them I'm pretty sure they would also be put on trial and convicted. Admittedly the main issue is that there was nothing stopping the barbarian choosing to knock the guy unconscious rather than kill him (other than possibly roleplaying actually being enraged when raging which isn't covered mechanically in the rules).

Out of interest, would you have had a problem with someone shooting him in the back if he had tried to escape on his own?

I feel we're probably steering too close to real world morality discussions here and also imposing our own sensibilities into a situation which is much different than our own here as well. Its worth remembering taking prisoners is a much more risky proposition in a world where there are otherwise normal looking people who can use magic or are literally as strong as a giant.


In games you DM, you can feel free to determine that rape, slavery, murder and torture are all viewed as 'Good' acts when 'done to evil people' or 'done for good reasons' by the Gods. Fill your boots.

In games I DM, I define murder, torture, slavery and rape as evil. Full stop. I dont care about your justifications for those acts when determining how the Gods view your alignment.

If you're a murderer, rapist, slaver or torturer, you are going to Hell/ the Abyss/ Hades when you die (and you're free to enter the Oathbreaker Paladin class).

Your character can justify his murder, rape and torture however he wants (as can you the player). Most evil monsterous villians genuinely view themselves as good people. Your PC is likely one of them. Your PC can genuinely think he is LG as he murders and rapes people. Fill your boots with that character portrayal, Im not going to stop you.

That doesn't really seem to address my point at all. The rulebook doesn't offer a definitive checklist (and it doesn't seem like it would be possible or sensible for it to do so) of what counts as good or evil or lawful or chaotic so any interpretation of those things is going to be intrinsically subjective. I don't intrinsically object to you running your game to align with your own personal moral compass. As I said in an earlier post, I'd be fine up until you said something I disagreed with - I imagine in a practical sense we agree far more than we disagree on what things count as good or bad what with being from similar societies in a similar time period. I'm just pointing out that nothing about your opinions on morality is intrinsically any more objective than anyone else. When you start saying things like 'my morality is objective, yours is subjective' you're effectively just saying 'I'm right because the definition of being right is what I say and you're wrong because you disagree with me'. From what you've said I sense that, when you said the DM is objective and everyone else is subjective, what you meant to say was that the morality the DM imposes in the context of the game is definitive. I wouldn't have any objections to that statement.

For reference my current PC has never injured anyone who wasn't actively trying to kill him/the party and tends to stick to control spells wherever possible :smallbiggrin: Last session he talked a hobgoblin into surrendering and then let him escape while the rest of the party had their back turned without their agreement so my character is on the clerics side in this debate :smalltongue:


Justice comes in many forms. Justice (vengance) can in fact be very very evil. I might see it as 'justice' to rape and torture to death someone who has harmed my family in a similar manner (an eye for an eye).

I guess my answer there is that is not what I would consider justice. I would probably consider that a miscarriage of justice. I guess this depends on if you consider justice to mean 'the action of a judicial body' of some sort, be it a government or a mob; or justice to mean the concept of a fair and just outcome (as I mentioned in a previous post to use your terminology, I would consider justice to be the 'correct amount of mercy being applied' whatever you consider that to mean). Obviously different people would have different opinions on what exactly 'justice' would entail but, as discussed above, there isn't an objective measure we can hold people up against, unless you start involving religion and that is problematic in the context of D&D (unlike the real world) given there are lots of different gods who will give you different opinions.

Edit - partially sniped :smalltongue:

[Finieous]

Citation from the edition we're talking about here (5e, in case you've forgot) needed.


The rules leave a lot of room for different approaches to alignment.



Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.


The societal expectations for what counts as "the right thing" are going to be dramatically different for a society modeled on 8th century Europe and one modeled on 21st century Europe. As DM, I think you have to do a little world-building. Are you drawing your inspiration from real-world history or the fantastic morality of a Middle-earth or similar setting? A lot of DMs don't really think about it and unconsciously impose modern Western expectations on the setting. This can be fine, too, but thinking about it (and even discussing it with the group) is usually a good idea IMO.

[smcmike]

The societal expectations for what counts as "the right thing" are going to be dramatically different for a society modeled on 8th century Europe and one modeled on 21st century Europe. As DM, I think you have to do a little world-building. Are you drawing your inspiration from real-world history or the fantastic morality of a Middle-earth or similar setting? A lot of DMs don't really think about it and unconsciously impose modern Western expectations on the setting. This can be fine, too, but thinking about it (and even discussing it with the group) is usually a good idea IMO.

Yeah.

LG Paladin: I bind the thief, and take him to the local magistrate for trial.
DM: The magistrate takes your testimony. The following day the thief is taken to the public square for the traditional punishment for commoners like him. His abdomen is cut open, and boiling lead is poured into the wound. He is then hanged by the neck in such a way that he is slowly strangled to death, kicking and flailing in an attempt to make it end faster.
LG Paladin: .....

[ZorroGames]

Yeah.

LG Paladin: I bind the thief, and take him to the local magistrate for trial.
DM: The magistrate takes your testimony. The following day the thief is taken to the public square for the traditional punishment for commoners like him. His abdomen is cut open, and boiling lead is poured into the wound. He is then hanged by the neck in such a way that he is slowly strangled to death, kicking and flailing in an attempt to make it end faster.
LG Paladin: .....

If the Paladin did not know that was coming then he was at least incompetent in his/her role. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. :smallwink:

If theft is a capital crime then kill the avowed and known thief mercifully. Or determine what is appropriate in this case and impose justice by your evaluation of an appropriate penalty. Stealing the crown jewels or a deadly force assault to avoid paying the innkeeper for a meal differs from stealing food to feed starving children.

DMMV but that is how I would play the L/G Paladin. Or play another class/alignment. Which is what I would do. There are lots of ways to be w hero.

[Saeviomage]

The best strategy is to dump alignment.

There's about 3 places in the rules where it matters, and they can all be replaced with the question "does this individual/cosmic power broadly agree with you morally and ethically?" or something more fine-grained.

[ZorroGames]

The best strategy is to dump alignment.

There's about 3 places in the rules where it matters, and they can all be replaced with the question "does this individual/cosmic power broadly agree with you morally and ethically?" or something more fine-grained.

Leftover from OD&D Law-Neutral-Chaos axis becoming 5 (LE-TN-CG-LG-CE) alignments then 9 (current) alignments. Even in OD&D it was frequently abandoned by some DMs because it was "hard to pin down" for some players. I like it but it is flawed or ignored in many games.