Today I learned a Chaotic Evi character can work with the party.

[NecroDancer]

I feel sorry for anyone who isn't part of the Chaotic Evil character's party.

Today we finally took down a cult that had been annoying us for almost two years (out of game), however during the battle our CE Barbarian killed 20 innocent bystanders. Out of character we all knew the Barbarian was evil ever since she let Dark Beings mess with her soul but in character we all had no idea. The paladin was the only one to suspect anything but since the Barbarian was a stalwart ally who had been a friend to all of us we decided that the paladin was just a bit paranoid and ignored his increasingly desperate attempts at warning us.

So once we finally confronted the Devil cult (that we may or may not have accidentally helped to start) we were all shocked that the barbarian unleashed a cone of cold spell (from a magical gift she had gotten) all over the innocent townsfolk and devil cultists alike.

None of us expected that to happen (although when the Barbarian, while wearing the pelt of a fiendish goat and carrying a weapon that was literally called "the Blood Spear", was praised by the spirit of an evil, cannibalistic berserker we should have suspected something was amiss).

Although the Barbarian massacred a small crowd with no remorse I will still stand by the Barbarian as a friend because the Barbarian was always loyal, kind, and a generally nice person to the party that I still trust with my life.

So yes a CE character can work wonderfully with a party as long as the CE character still cares about the people in the party and stands by their side 100%.

I'm only taking about this in character, out of character I am EXTREMELY sickened by what happened. I swear none of us are horrible people but I suppose this is what we get from playing a horror campaign.

[Gastronomie]

It probably depends on the group, but in my understanding there's no problem at all with Chaotic Evil PCs. It's just that a lot of people mistake Chaotic Evil for Chaotic Stupid.

[TheManicMonocle]

It probably depends on the group, but in my understanding there's no problem at all with Chaotic Evil PCs. It's just that a lot of people mistake Chaotic Evil for Chaotic Stupid.

Though now doesn't the paladin need to fight the barbarian in order to keep his god happy?

[scalyfreak]

Though now doesn't the paladin need to fight the barbarian in order to keep his god happy?

I think only if the paladin is Lawful Stupid....

[NecroDancer]

Though now doesn't the paladin need to fight the barbarian in order to keep his god happy?

Luckily no. We are in a situation where we need all the help we can get to stop the BBEG. We've allied with a lich, werewolves, and a fallen angel and the paladin is just as holy and good as ever.

[Dankus Memakus]

See, your chaotic evil buddy sounds way more fun than my players monk of the same alignment. He killed innocents left and right and was ended by our lawful good cleric... that cleric died and became a legend.... anyway as a longtime dm who had to just flat out ban CE characters it seriously warms my heart that someone out their plays their alignment right. Give your friend a hug for me lol.

[Kane0]

More! We must know more!

[Dankus Memakus]

More! We must know more!

Are you talking to me or the OP

[JackPhoenix]

Just wait until Malifice show up and explain why your group is a bunch of amoral bastards that would get their alignment forcibly changed in his game, and then startss some strawman trolling about LG and rape and murder.

[Dankus Memakus]

Just wait until Malifice show up and explain why your group is a bunch of amoral bastards that would get their alignment forcibly changed in his game, and then startss some strawman trolling about LG and rape and murder.

This must happen alot

[JackPhoenix]

This must happen alot

Pretty much every time alignment (especially evil alignment) is mentioned

[Malifice]

Although the Barbarian massacred a small crowd with no remorse I will still stand by the Barbarian as a friend because the Barbarian was always loyal, kind, and a generally nice person to the party that I still trust with my life.



Just to confirm what you're saying here...

As long as I am loyal and kind to you personally, you would stand by me as a trusted friend, even though I profess to worship demons, and you watch me engage in brutal mass murder of innocents?

Like; you'd happily retain Charles Manson or the Son of Sam similar as a trusted friend even after watching them engage in sensless bloody murder of innocents?

Thats.... disturbing.

Personally if you wilfully murdered an innocent person, I would (at a bare minimum) want nothing to do with you anymore.

And Im like CN in real life.

Each to their own I guess.

[scalyfreak]

Just to confirm what you're saying here...

As long as I am loyal and kind to you personally, you would stand by me as a trusted friend, even though I profess to worship demons, and you watch me engage in brutal mass murder of innocents?

Like; you'd happily retain Charles Manson or the Son of Sam similar as a trusted friend even after watching them engage in sensless bloody murder of innocents?

I would hope not.

But no one here is a character in an RPG.

[Gastronomie]

Just wait until Malifice show up and explain why your group is a bunch of amoral bastards that would get their alignment forcibly changed in his game, and then startss some strawman trolling about LG and rape and murder.
Just to confirm what you're saying here...

As long as I am loyal and kind to you personally, you would stand by me as a trusted friend, even though I profess to worship demons, and you watch me engage in brutal mass murder of innocents?

Like; you'd happily retain Charles Manson or the Son of Sam similar as a trusted friend even after watching them engage in sensless bloody murder of innocents?

Thats.... disturbing.

Personally if you wilfully murdered an innocent person, I would (at a bare minimum) want nothing to do with you anymore.

And Im like CN in real life.

Each to their own I guess.This is pretty fun.

But in all honesty, "each to their own" sums up all alignment discussions. Each table, each player. Not "turn this into a 10-page-long alignment argument thread when there's no actual need to have everyone agree on the same conclusion (when everyone knows that will never happen)".

Side note: I forgot his name, but I think there was this personal friend of Adolf Hitler who met him personally multiple times after WWII (and the massacre of the Jewish) started. When he was arrested by the United Nations and asked why he didn't kill Hitler when they met, his answer was "because he was a good friend".
So, I suppose, it does happen IRL.

[Safety Sword]

My 2 cp:

Your party seemed fine with having an evil party member among them and role playing properly to the extent of what your characters knew. Good show.

It also doesn't seem like the evil character was consistently undermining the party efforts. On the contrary it seems like your whole party was willing to bargain with the devil(s) to achieve your goals.

Many players don't get the opportunity to play their own character properly because the evil PC stabs every guard, soldier, commoner and shopkeeper because "it's what my character would do".

As I noted in another thread, evil characters are fine as long as everyone is on board with it and it doesn't cause the party to implode. In my experience the only way that works is if everyone is evil and agrees to not (literally) stab each other in the back.

[Mortis_Elrod]

happy to see some good rping done. I don't like alignments, because they shouldn't matter in a standard game. All that matters is the party being loyal to the party above everything. You turn on the party, its a problem (unless its agreed upon, for good stories,) and it disrupts things. Goes for any alignment.

[Chugger]

I wish I could groan like Lurch.

[xanderh]

I played a chaotic evil character for quite a while, with no issues for the party. Other players were problematic sometimes, but for reasons unrelated to characters and their alignment.
After some players were removed and others added, we only had 1 real confrontation within the party, which was due to the bard being corrupted by a Book of Vile Deeds and wanting to complete a necromantic ritual that required a sacrifice, and my character's morals being highly against necromancy in general (soul is sacred, all that stuff).
I never had issues with other players because of my alignment, even when we had good-aligned characters in the party.

[smcmike]

Just wait until Malifice show up and explain why your group is a bunch of amoral bastards that would get their alignment forcibly changed in his game, and then startss some strawman trolling about LG and rape and murder.


Just to confirm what you're saying here...

As long as I am loyal and kind to you personally, you would stand by me as a trusted friend, even though I profess to worship demons, and you watch me engage in brutal mass murder of innocents?

Like; you'd happily retain Charles Manson or the Son of Sam similar as a trusted friend even after watching them engage in sensless bloody murder of innocents?

Thats.... disturbing.

Personally if you wilfully murdered an innocent person, I would (at a bare minimum) want nothing to do with you anymore.

And Im like CN in real life.

Each to their own I guess.

Right on schedule.

[Dr.Samurai]

What in the world?!?!

"Today I learned that a Chaotic Evil character can work with the party"

Uh sure. The "party" in question here doesn't mind innocent people being slaughtered. What's the big deal?? If everyone is evil or (at best) doesn't care to see innocent people being murdered by a comrade, why would there be any issues between them and this barbarian?

This anecdote you've shared simply says more about your party than it does about the Chaotic Evil person among them.

The barbarian hasn't done *anything* to ensure the party will continue working alongside him. It's the party choosing to ignore wanton murder that is keeping the group together.

[Greylind]

Today I learned a Chaotic Evil character can work with the party.

I seem to recall something like that in a webcomic. Might have been a halfling?

. . .

[MadBear]

What in the world?!?!

"Today I learned that a Chaotic Evil character can work with the party"

Uh sure. The "party" in question here doesn't mind innocent people being slaughtered. What's the big deal?? If everyone is evil or (at best) doesn't care to see innocent people being murdered by a comrade, why would there be any issues between them and this barbarian?

This anecdote you've shared simply says more about your party than it does about the Chaotic Evil person among them.

The barbarian hasn't done *anything* to ensure the party will continue working alongside him. It's the party choosing to ignore wanton murder that is keeping the group together.

To be perfectly fair, he has done some things to ensure they'll work with him. It sounds like he likes/cares for his party, and isn't trying to murder his friends. While, that isn't enough for most people, I guess it's enough for the party he's in.

(I totally get the whole "chaotic evil" doesn't mean you can't have allies that you care about, but I'd have a hard time justifying playing any "good" character with any semblance of honesty, if he just let that pass. In my games, I'd be more inclined to just ensure that my BBEG's have good reasons for the generals and comrades they have, and that means, the players can't just turn them against their allies, because to the BBEG, he's loyal to his friends).

[Unoriginal]

What in the world?!?!

"Today I learned that a Chaotic Evil character can work with the party"

Uh sure. The "party" in question here doesn't mind innocent people being slaughtered. What's the big deal?? If everyone is evil or (at best) doesn't care to see innocent people being murdered by a comrade, why would there be any issues between them and this barbarian?

This anecdote you've shared simply says more about your party than it does about the Chaotic Evil person among them.

The barbarian hasn't done *anything* to ensure the party will continue working alongside him. It's the party choosing to ignore wanton murder that is keeping the group together.

To be 100% fair, this was a "shoot the hostages" (or at least "use AoE when civilians can get hit") situation in the middle of a combat.

It's nowhere near good (to use an understatement), and ruthless beyond measure, don't get me wrong, but it's not like the barbarian just spent time murdering people in a peaceful situation for the lolrandumb.

So the group might think "alright, it was an horrible move, but the cultists would probably have killed the civilians before we could rescue them anyway, and that way they didn't have a chance to win."

How faulty this logic is is debatable, but given how OP mentioned that a) the PCs might have accidentally started the cult and b) it was an horror campaign, it seems to me that they were already used to horrible things happening by the time they fought that cult.

[warmachine]

I'd expect the paladin to lecture the barbarian about avoiding innocents as collateral damage. Good people, especially paladins, are supposed to try harder, even at risk to themselves. Perhaps by telling the innocents to run away first. The paladin count still work with such a barbarian, regarding him as a powerful but loose cannon to be pointed at the right target.

Trouble would start if evil becomes deliberately hurting others for your own benefit or gratification. Then the cannon would be too loose. Like OotS attitude to Belkar, they regard him as useful but when he murdered the Oracle, he "dove headfirst down the liability side."

[Dr.Samurai]

To be perfectly fair, he has done some things to ensure they'll work with him. It sounds like he likes/cares for his party, and isn't trying to murder his friends. While, that isn't enough for most people, I guess it's enough for the party he's in.
"Isn't trying to murder his friends" seems like a super low bar to me. And a paladin excusing murdering innocent people because the barbarian "likes" him is pretty thin to me as well.

The only reason this is working is because the party doesn't mind (or might even be like-minded).

Most people fight cults because they are evil and they are hurting people, not because the cult is bothering them. Most people, when killing cultists, don't kill the very people they are trying to defend from the cultists.

This party is different, is the point. So using it as an example that chaotic evil people can work just fine in parties doesn't seem to make sense. Or at least, doesn't have the impact I think it's being given.

[MadBear]

For sure Samurai. I was merely being pedantic, that you said he hadn't done anything, when in reality, he did just a little above that bar.

[Sigreid]

"Isn't trying to murder his friends" seems like a super low bar to me. And a paladin excusing murdering innocent people because the barbarian "likes" him is pretty thin to me as well.

The only reason this is working is because the party doesn't mind (or might even be like-minded).

Most people fight cults because they are evil and they are hurting people, not because the cult is bothering them. Most people, when killing cultists, don't kill the very people they are trying to defend from the cultists.

This party is different, is the point. So using it as an example that chaotic evil people can work just fine in parties doesn't seem to make sense. Or at least, doesn't have the impact I think it's being given.

Mindset matters here too. Does the party see this as a beef, or a war. Once you're at full war mode you have to accept that sometimes civilians suffering is part if the price of victory. Given some of the alliances mentioned, the party (characters) do see this as all out war and not just a street fight between willing combatants.

[Finieous]

The interesting thing to me is that this action might well pass the proportionality test of modern Just War theory*, let alone the moral codes likely to maintain in a typical D&D setting. IMO, the chaotic evil should go out of his way to murder innocents, whether to make a point, advance some selfish end, or simply for pleasure. If, as it sounds, this act was highly directed toward a just goal and proportionate to that objective, he should clearly be threatened with an alignment change to lawful neutral if he won't start acting evil or chaotic.

* Depending on the details and numbers; the civilian casualties are described only as a "small crowd."

[KorvinStarmast]

Uh sure. The "party" in question here doesn't mind innocent people being slaughtered. What's the big deal?? If everyone is evil or (at best) doesn't care to see innocent people being murdered by a comrade, why would there be any issues between them and this barbarian? The action as described seems to be a matter of collateral damage during a battle. Cultists and non combatants in the same area/place, they all got hit by the weapon aimed at cultists. I may have misunderstood the OP, however.

Today I learned a Chaotic Evil character can work with the party. I seem to recall something like that in a webcomic. Might have been a halfling? . . . Yeah, first thing that came to mind.

To be 100% fair, this was a "shoot the hostages" (or at least "use AoE when civilians can get hit") situation in the middle of a combat. It's nowhere near good (to use an understatement), and ruthless beyond measure, don't get me wrong, but it's not like the barbarian just spent time murdering people in a peaceful situation for the lolrandumb.


I'd expect the paladin to lecture the barbarian about avoiding innocents as collateral damage. Good people, especially paladins, are supposed to try harder, even at risk to themselves. Perhaps by telling the innocents to run away first. The paladin count still work with such a barbarian, regarding him as a powerful but loose cannon to be pointed at the right target.

Trouble would start if evil becomes deliberately hurting others for your own benefit or gratification. Then the cannon would be too loose. Like OotS attitude to Belkar, they regard him as useful but when he murdered the Oracle, he "dove headfirst down the liability side." This as well.

Is this something the Barbarian always does, or is this a one off? What has the group told the Barbarian about such things? What effort to pay the wereguild, etc, was made after the battle? A lot was unsaid about this scenario.

Seems to me a few people have made some reflexive responses not accounting for the horror scenario in the first place.

[Dr.Samurai]

For sure Samurai. I was merely being pedantic, that you said he hadn't done anything, when in reality, he did just a little above that bar.
That's fair enough MadBear :smallsmile:.


Seems to me a few people have made some reflexive responses not accounting for the horror scenario in the first place.
We agree on that, though probably not on who the few people are :smallwink:.

Look, either the OP is remarking on alignment, or the OP isn't remarking on alignment.

The barbarian killed *twenty innocent people* and the party didn't mind. The conclusion drawn *by the OP* is that parties with a chaotic evil member can work together just fine.

If the act of killing twenty innocent people is not an indicator of the barbarian's alignment, then it is irrelevant, or the conclusion is wrong.

So if the OP inevitably returns and says "Actually, the cultists were going to kill them all anyways, or they had a bomb that was going to destroy the entire city, or there were three hundred cultists killed by the cone of cold, or the barbarian had no choice, etc etc etc" you'll turn around and say "Aha! See Dr. Samurai?! You jumped to conclusions without all the info!" But that info isn't necessary. If there's a reasonable explanation for killing those innocent people that isn't "he's evil" then the act is justified and isn't evil and suddenly we have a thread talking about nothing.

If the point is that the barbarian is chaotic evil and therefore chose to kill twenty innocent people even though he didn't have to, because he is chaotic evil and wanted to do it, then we're saying that it works because the party doesn't mind that the barbarian is chaotic evil and likes to kill innocent people.

So either nothing of note happened, or something happened and I still don't think it's enough to justify the claim being made.

[GlenSmash!]

It always made sense to me that an evil character would have more of a long term future with a neutral or good party, than with an all evil party. I think an all evil party would end up with too many competing interests that would end up in a last man standing scenario, or end up splitting up to consolidate their own interests.

A good party could keep that evil guy around in the hopes of redeeming them.

[Malifice]

Mindset matters here too.

No it doesnt.

Evil is evil. Mindset has nothing to do with it.

[NecroDancer]

I'm 90% sure the only reason why the paladin isn't prepared to arrest the barbarian is because we are at a high enough level to cast Raise Dead on the late commoners.

Although I can easily see us trying to cast geas on the barbarian if only so we don't run out of diamonds.

[Occasional Sage]

Just because a character is CE doesn't necessarily mean they are COMPELLED to do evil things. They may simply be perfectly WILLING to do so. It's perfectly plausible that a CE... barbarian, in this case?... would sigh and think "These crazy people would flip out if I did this the easy way" and settle back to watch things done the LG way, thinking derisive thoughts all the while.

There is no particular reason for the party to know the character is Evil.

Once there's active display if Evil (like killing a score of noncombatants), things change.

I have played the first type and it worked well. I have played alongside the second, and killed the character.

[Sigreid]

No it doesnt.

Evil is evil. Mindset has nothing to do with it.

It very much does. Taking an action to save the world that kills the commoners is very different than "lolz they shoulen't have been standing there".

But, pretty much everyone on this forum knows you are very black and white in your way of looking at it so there's really no point in going into an argument.

[MadBear]

No it doesnt.

Evil is evil. Mindset has nothing to do with it.

I find that fixed mindset on morality to be fairly boring. It's a matter of personal preference of course, but in a game like D&D I find a more complex and bands of grey scale morality to be more interesting. (now, in this particular case, I'd say the character probably crossed a line, without some major piece of context missing).

[Ionsniper]

Had I been there in that situation I would have forcibly threatened the Barbarian. I actually did that to one of my friends in game. He had been an evil PC for a while. In game I actually grabbed him by his throat and slammed him against the wall by his throat (he was a caster and I was a Sorcadin, 5 foot 8 human vs 8 foot Bear race). I told him if he did anything outright evil again I wouldnt hesitate to make sure he would never hurt anyone ever again and the only reason I tolerated him now was because we needed him. We did actually have a fairly big fued in game between our characters and I was always the hardest to work around. Not ashamed I had to threaten him a few times.

So yes Paladins can work with CE so long as there is a reason too, not outwardly being chaotic stupid, and in general not bringing the wrath of evil down on random people. You would have to have been adventuring for a while together for this to really work though.

I do remember my run as a Lawful Evil character where an NPC urchin tried to steal my gold and I tied him up and put him in a waste bin gagged so he couldnt call for help. It was my most evil act cause that campaign didnt last long lol.

[Dr.Samurai]

It always made sense to me that an evil character would have more of a long term future with a neutral or good party, than with an all evil party. I think an all evil party would end up with too many competing interests that would end up in a last man standing scenario, or end up splitting up to consolidate their own interests.

A good party could keep that evil guy around in the hopes of redeeming them.
This makes sense, but I think it starts to fall apart when the CE guy starts killing innocent people. If they are acting CE to that degree, I don't know that most "traditional" characters would stick around with them. EVEN if you're not a lawful stupid paladin let's say, that's still a very different life to live if you're killing innocent people wherever you go, with different consequences.

In this case, given what the OP is trying to demonstrate, I get the impression the barbarian killed those 20 innocent people for the fun of it. So, that's a hard sell for me to think that a paladin or really anyone else that also isn't evil and sadistic would stick around with them out of loyalty.

I worked at a pizzeria right out of high school, and befriended a coworker there. While I didn't have the best childhood ever, he was always in and out of foster care and juvenile facilities. So we came from different backgrounds but got along real well and developed a gym habit together and started a Bible study, etc etc.

Eventually, the pizzeria became the center of a coke ring in our small town. Where we're located is off the thruway in between two cities, so drugs were a problem growing up but have ballooned into a crisis since I've left back home. Anyways, my friend fell into his old ways, receiving a brick of cocaine to sell. He started making a lot of money each day. Over time, as this continued, I started to see the results of what he was doing. Guys that I worked with, one in particular was saving his money all summer to buy an expensive dirt bike. He was calling every night trying to get a hold of my friend. He'd show up to the pizzeria agitated. He eventually sold his shiny brand new dirt bike to buy more coke. Over time, his appearance began to suffer and deteriorate. Other people in the same condition started to show up looking for Mike, who kept making more money.

I had a talk with Mike, and told him what I thought about what he was doing. We got into an argument about it. He thought I was jealous of his success. I told him he was ruining people's lives, that it wasn't worth it. In the end, I told him I couldn't be his friend anymore, because there was obviously serious differences in our character that I, at least, couldn't overlook.

I'm not saying I was good and he was evil lol, obviously. Just a real world example and where I'm coming from.

If you're going to write your alignment down on your character sheet, it should mean something. So if you call yourself good and you're ok with one of your "friends" or "allies" murdering innocent people... I'm not convinced that you're "good". At that point, your loyalty to your friend is a more important part of your alignment than altruism. Can you still be good if that's the case? Maybe, I'm sure some people can make that case. For me though, the example in the OP doesn't really demonstrate anything. If the barbarian was being evil, and the party doesn't care, then the party isn't that "good" to begin with. If he wasn't being evil and it was an accident, then nothing to see here.

The whole reason people say this can't work is because it's assumed good people won't typically tolerate evil acts. If the party is ok with evil acts, then yeah, it will work :).

[Safety Sword]

Stuff &

The whole reason people say this can't work is because it's assumed good people won't typically tolerate evil acts. If the party is ok with evil acts, then yeah, it will work :).

Again, that's fine, but if you allow your travelling companion to go on a murder spree in every town and do nothing about it, you're probably OK with it.

And that makes you evil as far as D&D defines it.

[Dr.Samurai]

That's the point I'm making Safety Sword. The thread title should read: Today I learned a Chaotic Evil character can work with other evil people.

I hesitate to make that point because we'll probably get caught in an debate about whether or not someone that doesn't care or stands by as innocent people get slaughtered, or enables another to do it by continuing to adventure with them, is actually evil.

That sounds like a thread-ending debate lol.

For my part, I don't see how "good" characters will continue adventuring with someone that (presumably) kills innocent people for no reason. I don't see how you can call yourself "good" in that sense, so I don't agree with the OP.

[smcmike]

That's the point I'm making Safety Sword. The thread title should read: Today I learned a Chaotic Evil character can work with other evil people.

I hesitate to make that point because we'll probably get caught in an debate about whether or not someone that doesn't care or stands by as innocent people get slaughtered, or enables another to do it by continuing to adventure with them, is actually evil.

That sounds like a thread-ending debate lol.

For my part, I don't see how "good" characters will continue adventuring with someone that (presumably) kills innocent people for no reason. I don't see how you can call yourself "good" in that sense, so I don't agree with the OP.

Plot reasons, presumably.

Let's say you are in a military unit. You are under direct orders, and you know your mission will save many lives. Let's say you are fighting the forces of hell, to make it completely unambiguous. One of the other unit members is Evil. You haven't personally seen him do any evil things, but you know he has, and you expect he will again. What do you do? At this point, not much, right? Quitting will serve no purpose, and you don't have any leverage against Mr. Evil to stop him. The best you course of action is probably to stick close to him and try to protect innocents from his actions as best you can.

Let's say you see him drop a Fireball on some cultists in a crowd with some innocents, and you are sure that the circumstances make this an evil act - there was no immediate need to counterbalance the killing of innocents.

What do you do?

You can confront him. He argues that it was justified.

You can report him up the chain of command. He convinces the CO that it was justified. Now what?

You can attack him. This will probably get you killed, and won't bring his victims back.

Plot can push enemies together. Characters can hate eachother's guts and stay together for a long time. How many people like everyone they work with? Heck, a lot of people don't like the people they live with.

[Dr.Samurai]

I like how "not liking" someone is conflated with "you don't believe in killing people and this guy kills people" lol.

Smcmike, I addressed those circumstances earlier.

You can give all sorts of reasons why the party would stay with the barbarian.

But then your point changes to "A chaotic evil character can work with the party if basically the party has no choice but to tolerate them".

As opposed to "a chaotic evil character that treats his party members nicely, can get away with killing innocent people, because party members that you are loyal to don't mind the murder of innocents".

[ZorroGames]

To me the title of this thread should be "... a Chaotic Evil character can 'work' (as in manipulate) the party."

Really hate to even partially agree with Maliface but... if the label fits, wear it.

[Justin Sane]

... You guys are aware the Evil characters (even the Chaotic ones) don't have to kick puppies on a daily basis, right?

[xanderh]

... You guys are aware the Evil characters (even the Chaotic ones) don't have to kick puppies on a daily basis, right?

That's the thing I always find funny about these threads. One act is enough to condemn a person as evil, but evil people have a pattern of performing evil acts.
In the example above, the characters witnessed one evil act. Just one. The barbarian showed a complete disregard for innocent lives in that one situation, but he didn't specifically target a group of innocents just because he felt like it. He killed hostages to make it safer for himself and his party to defeat the enemy.
I agree that is an evil act, but I don't agree that a reasonable response from a good person is to immediately disassociate from that person, and it's ridiculous to assume they would immediately try to kill them. Educate the barbarian on the appropriate response, and try to keep him from doing such a thing again. He is a barbarian after all.

[War_lord]

The problem with evil characters in parties is that either the character isn't acting his/her alignment, i.e. "I would never betray the the party" or the rest of the party is acting evil "oh, we're fine with him/her massacring civilians for X reason".

I just don't allow evil characters, there's enough horror and negativity in the real world, why would I want to run a game for people who also want to roleplay inflicting it? Gray characters are fine, but evil is evil.

[xanderh]

The problem with evil characters in parties is that either the character isn't acting his/her alignment, i.e. "I would never betray the the party" or the rest of the party is acting evil "oh, we're fine with him/her massacring civilians for X reason".

I just don't allow evil characters, there's enough horror and negativity in the real world, why would I want to run a game for people who also want to roleplay inflicting it? Gray characters are fine, but evil is evil.

Chaotic evil characters can be loyal to people. There's nothing in the alignment description to state they can't be loyal to people they like. And as others have said, evil isn't about walking around murdering orphans and kicking puppies whenever you get the opportunity. A chaotic evil character might feel urges to kill/harm people they find annoying, but might choose not to because of the consequences of such actions (being hanged, for example. Or just ostracized by people they care about). In a vacuum, said person would just kill the annoyance, but because someone they care about would get upset (which would upset the CE person), they refrain from doing so. CE characters don't do things when they anticipate that doing those things is going to lead to more negative than positive consequences for them.

[Justin Sane]

The problem with evil characters in parties is that either the character isn't acting his/her alignment, i.e. "I would never betray the the party" [snip]Has Belkar ever betrayed the party?

Seriously, they don't have to kick puppies every day.

[War_lord]

Has Belkar ever betrayed the party?

Seriously, they don't have to kick puppies every day.

Belkar is a character in a comedy webcomic, and as the strip has moved from gag-a-day to a plot driven work a major part of Belkar's arc has been learning empathy.

"They don't have to kick puppies every day" is a straw man, no one is arguing that evil means cartoon villainy. But evil characters act evil, they attack innocent people, they kill selfishly and without any remorse, they steal and lie and betray. They may try to justify it, but that's not relevant. So either the character is actually acting evil and their party is ignoring it, making them complicit, or the character isn't actually acting worse then neutral.

[Justin Sane]

Belkar is a character in a comedy webcomic, and as the strip has moved from gag-a-day to a plot driven work a major part of Belkar's arc has been learning empathy.He's been learning to fake empathy. Big difference.


"They don't have to kick puppies every day" is a straw man, no one is arguing that evil means cartoon villainy.
But evil characters act evil, they attack innocent people, they kill selfishly and without any remorse, they steal and lie and betray. They may try to justify it, but that's not relevant.No one? Right.


So either the character is actually acting evil and their party is ignoring it, making them complicit, or the character isn't actually acting worse then neutral.So Belkar wasn't Evil before he got that Mark of Justice on him? If he still was, how come he wasn't attacking innocent people?

[Dr.Samurai]

The problem with evil characters in parties is that either the character isn't acting his/her alignment, i.e. "I would never betray the the party" or the rest of the party is acting evil "oh, we're fine with him/her massacring civilians for X reason".

I just don't allow evil characters, there's enough horror and negativity in the real world, why would I want to run a game for people who also want to roleplay inflicting it? Gray characters are fine, but evil is evil.
Quoted for truth.

"Chaotic evil characters can work in the party if they don't act evil" goes without saying.

"Chaotic evil characters can work in the party if the party doesn't mind evil acts" goes without saying.

[Cybren]

I don't think a character not wanting to betray the party necessitates that a CE character isn't playing their alignment.

[xanderh]

Belkar is a character in a comedy webcomic, and as the strip has moved from gag-a-day to a plot driven work a major part of Belkar's arc has been learning empathy.

"They don't have to kick puppies every day" is a straw man, no one is arguing that evil means cartoon villainy. But evil characters act evil, they attack innocent people, they kill selfishly and without any remorse, they steal and lie and betray. They may try to justify it, but that's not relevant. So either the character is actually acting evil and their party is ignoring it, making them complicit, or the character isn't actually acting worse then neutral.

Why would an evil person walk around killing random people for no gain? That's going to get them killed very quickly. Chaotic Evil characters can still look at the potential consequences for their actions, and decide not to do something because the consequences for doing that are bad.
If you are with a group of people who take issue with killing innocent people (and you can't just leave them, for whatever reason. Read here (http://theangrygm.com/campaign-glue-the-binds-that-tie/) for more information), you can either choose not to kill random innocent people (no real negative consequences), or you can do it anyway and deal with the rest of the party being mad at you, and the rest of society wanting you dead.
This stuff isn't hard to explain, nor is it hard to understand. If you play your character as a thinking individual with needs and desires, it's easy to make a CE character that can work with the party, especially if the GM and other players are willing to work with you to give your character reasons.
It's also easy to explain why a CE character would want to save the world from a world-destructive evil: they like being alive enough that they find it to be worth fighting for, and they're willing to work with other people to increase their chances of not dying.

[Dr.Samurai]

Sure Cybren.

But if the CE character never does evil, then the alignment is irrelevant.

If he does evil and the party doesn't mind, then, again, the alignment is irrelevant.

In this case, the barbarian committed an evil act. He killed twenty innocent people when he didn't need to (presumably, otherwise I don't see why his alignment matters in this context).

Did the party mind that he murdered all these people? No. As the OP said, he is loyal and they can Raise Dead.

So he did an evil act and it didn't phase them.

[War_lord]

He's been learning to fake empathy. Big difference.

Eh, no. Making the connection between Gannji and Enor being forced to fight to each other and how he would feel being forced to fight Mr. Scruffy is a sign of actual empathy. The fact that you can't understand that is rather telling. You seem to fundamentally not understand what empathy actually is.


No one? Right.

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here. "kicking puppies" is a deliberately absurd metric. The fact that evil characters don't have trouble with murder is uncontroversial. Did you think the Yuan-ti's backstory as former human snake worshipers who gained their current forms and lack of emotion or pity was... what? A cute personality quirk of and otherwise charming group.

[Cybren]

Sure Cybren.

But if the CE character never does evil, then the alignment is irrelevant.

If he does evil and the party doesn't mind, then, again, the alignment is irrelevant.

In this case, the barbarian committed an evil act. He killed twenty innocent people when he didn't need to (presumably, otherwise I don't see why his alignment matters in this context).

Did the party mind that he murdered all these people? No. As the OP said, he is loyal and they can Raise Dead.

So he did an evil act and it didn't phase them.
Warlords dichotomy lacked a common way alignments can and are played though: deferring to the group in scenarios involving the group and acting hyperbolicly to your alignment in private.

[War_lord]

Warlords dichotomy lacked a common way alignments can and are played though: deferring to the group in scenarios involving the group and acting hyperbolicly to your alignment in private.

My point is that then it's not actually a case of a Chaotic Evil character working in a Good or Neutral Party within the confines of the game. It's the player writing "Evil" on their sheet and then acting like a neutral or good character for meta social reasons that their actual character could/would never maintain for extended periods of time. And if you're going to roll up a character whose presence has to constantly be tenuously justified by both sides, it begs the question of why you didn't just roll up a character suited to your party in the first place.

[smcmike]

I disagree with the idea that evil alignment is irrelevant if the character refrains from evil acts due to social pressure. Alignment is a tool for players to create their character's personalities. There are plenty of fictional examples of exactly this sort of evil character, and they are usually fun. The evil isn't irrelevant - the tension it creates within the party can be used for all sorts of fun, and the motivations of a character always matter.

In other words, being evil is fine. Doing evil causes problems.

[Cybren]

My point is that then it's not actually a case of a Chaotic Evil character working in a Good or Neutral Party within the confines of the game. It's the player writing "Evil" on their sheet and then acting like a neutral or good character for meta social reasons that their actual character could/would never maintain for extended periods of time. And if you're going to roll up a character whose presence has to constantly be tenuously justified by both sides, it begs the question of why you didn't just roll up a character suited to your party in the first place.

To that I respond with a quote from a Very Good Blog


Imagine your Thief needs to get information about saving the world from a prisoner, and he decides that torture is the way forward. Imagine the Cleric is against this. If you say – “Right, to hell with this, I’m torturing the guy.” The Cleric could stop you then and there, saying that she overpowers you and ties you to a post overnight until the guard come to collect the prisoner. If she succeeds, no-one gets any information; you don’t get to act.

Or! The Cleric’s player realises that this is an interesting thing to happen, for their morals to get in the way of the investigation, so they have their Cleric arrive halfway through your torture, rather than turn up before it starts. Maybe she’s got God stuff to do. Or she can’t make up her mind on it. Or she’s trying to persuade herself that it’s for the good of the world, but she just can’t. By the time she arrives, the guy’s a mess; but the GM realises that this is a good opportunity for some roleplaying, so he has the prisoner tell you half of what you need to know. Is the Cleric going to let you finish, now you’ve started? Does she heal away the pain you’ve inflicted? Are you going to listen to her? Does she call the church? Do you try and abscond with the prisoner?

That’s a conflict I can buy into. That hasn’t weakened either of your character motivations, but pushed a negation into a full-blown conflict because Bad Things Have Already Happened. Both of your characters get to do what they want and hold true to their morals, but both of the players realise that it’s more interesting for this to happen after the torture has begun. “Yes and,” not “No.” (my thanks to user Eskidell on the RPGnet for asking the torture question on this discussion thread)


Source: http://lookrobot.co.uk/2013/06/23/stanislavski-vs-brecht-in-tabletop-roleplaying/

[King of Nowhere]

Quoted for truth.

"Chaotic evil characters can work in the party if they don't act evil" goes without saying.

"Chaotic evil characters can work in the party if the party doesn't mind evil acts" goes without saying.

Good way to sum it up.

I would also add, however, that they can act evil as long as they stay below a certain treshold. The barbarian in my party is evil, he is often intimidating people into doing what he wants just because it's easier/cheaper than persuading them nicely, and sometimes he abuses prisoners if they gave him reasons to despise them particularly. He is in league with some evil associations, and has helped some of them further some of their goals in exchange for favors.
However, he has never deliberately hurt an innocent; his ruthless ways get the job done, and they generally go towards the greater good. the people he trashes were bad people to start with; he helped evil organizations by going against other rivaling evil organizations (like, once he helped a demon kill another demon). So while the most good aligned members of the party may sometimes frown at his methods - and try to smooth things over - he has never done anything that would ever remotely justify the other characters turning on him. He is a CE character perfectly integrated with the party.

Now, he has plans to upend political balance, possibly causing a world war, to become more powerful. If he was to do it, the party would have to do something. I am trying to persuade him to turn it into a war against the evil powers and seek allies among the good powers. He'd still be trying to cause a war to come up on top of the rubble when it ends, but considering that wars are fought by golems and high level people with fairly reduced casualties, that the world is already in a state of cold war, and that most of the evil nations/churches commit atrocities on a regular base (the god of death is given several human sacrifices daily, the clerics of the god of tiranny are expected to be paedophiles to "give a good example on picking on the weak", in elbonia those who are not good at playing chess upon reaching the age of majority are stripped of human rights, branded and considered animals, to the point that it is legal to kill them and serve their meat at restaurants...) then nobody in the party would object if he manipulated events to start this war on the good side.

[War_lord]

I disagree with the idea that evil alignment is irrelevant if the character refrains from evil acts due to social pressure. Alignment is a tool for players to create their character's personalities. There are plenty of fictional examples of exactly this sort of evil character, and they are usually fun. The evil isn't irrelevant - the tension it creates within the party can be used for all sorts of fun, and the motivations of a character always matter.

In other words, being evil is fine. Doing evil causes problems.

See, you make a good point there, if there's a tension going on that everyone OOC has agreed to maintain, that can work. At a table that's okay with interparty struggle it can work. I would argue that the longer the duration of the campaign the harder it gets to maintain though.

...But that's not actually the assertion we're dealing with in the OP. In the OP the party is continuing to work with what is essentially a Warhammer style Chaos Champion who just slaughtered 20 innocent people in cold blood with an evil artifact while being praised by the spirit of an explicitly evil cannibal. And the party is continuing to co-operate with this person because "well they never did anything to me". AT BEST that's Neutral behavior, arguably sliding into evil if they continue to enable and excuse such acts as cruel necessity. I would expect the Paladin to be branded an Oathbreaker even just for allowing this to transpire. Artificially excusing the behavior for the sake of keeping the game going isn't the party "working with" someone.

It's a good example of why we NEED Alignment in D&D, because once you start moving away from it all but the most character-minded players start running psychopaths.

[Dr.Samurai]

Going into a meeting, but I feel like posters are focusing on the info we don't have in the OP, and dismissing the info we do have.

[Justin Sane]

Eh, no. Making the connection between Gannji and Enor being forced to fight to each other and how he would feel being forced to fight Mr. Scruffy is a sign of actual empathy.I think Belkar's feelings for Mr. Scruffy were there from the beginning. Also, http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html and http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0622.html - he's faking it, alright.


The fact that you can't understand that is rather telling. You seem to fundamentally not understand what empathy actually is.I would disagree.


I would also add, however, that they can act evil as long as they stay below a certain treshold. The barbarian in my party is evil, he is often intimidating people into doing what he wants just because it's easier/cheaper than persuading them nicely, and sometimes he abuses prisoners if they gave him reasons to despise them particularly. He is in league with some evil associations, and has helped some of them further some of their goals in exchange for favors.
However, he has never deliberately hurt an innocent; his ruthless ways get the job done, and they generally go towards the greater good. the people he trashes were bad people to start with; he helped evil organizations by going against other rivaling evil organizations (like, once he helped a demon kill another demon). So while the most good aligned members of the party may sometimes frown at his methods - and try to smooth things over - he has never done anything that would ever remotely justify the other characters turning on him. He is a CE character perfectly integrated with the party.

Now, he has plans to upend political balance, possibly causing a world war, to become more powerful. If he was to do it, the party would have to do something. I am trying to persuade him to turn it into a war against the evil powers and seek allies among the good powers. He'd still be trying to cause a war to come up on top of the rubble when it ends, but considering that wars are fought by golems and high level people with fairly reduced casualties, that the world is already in a state of cold war, and that most of the evil nations/churches commit atrocities on a regular base (the god of death is given several human sacrifices daily, the clerics of the god of tiranny are expected to be paedophiles to "give a good example on picking on the weak", in elbonia those who are not good at playing chess upon reaching the age of majority are stripped of human rights, branded and considered animals, to the point that it is legal to kill them and serve their meat at restaurants...) then nobody in the party would object if he manipulated events to start this war on the good side.This, good sir, is a fine example of not-puppy-kicking Evil. Do you mind if I use this as a counter-example whenever someone says Evil characters need to "attack innocents"?

[King of Nowhere]

Well, the OP is not a good example of an evil character in an otherwise good group, but if they are in a dire need-all-the-help-we-can-get situation, I fully support the paladin for keep working with this guy. For now.
A good way to roleplay it, by the way, since the barbarian has this evil artifact, would be for the other characters to assume that their fellow is succumbing to the power of the artifact, and therefore keep him in the party and look for a way to "heal" him of his evilness.



This, good sir, is a fine example of not-puppy-kicking Evil. Do you mind if I use this as a counter-example whenever someone says Evil characters need to "attack innocents"?

Yeah, go ahead.

And really, in general the best way to handle evilness is to make sure that the greater good and the good of the evil people coincide. It is generally done by punishing them if they do something bad and rewarding them if they do something good. Also, good people generally make for more reliable allies.

[Dr.Samurai]

In other words, being evil is fine. Doing evil causes problems.
Right. The character Guiren linked in my sig is in a current campaign alongside a Lawful Evil Tiefling Infernal Warlock. My character is a Lawful Good (or Neutral Good, can't remember and don't feel like checking) barbarian.

The *only* reason the two get along well is exactly because the teifling's actions do not betray his actual nature. He types his thoughts in his post, so we, as the players, know his intentions and his inner character. But outwardly, the character does things for more pragmatic reasons. His goals align with ours because we're hired arms. But when we leveled up recently, he retired to his room and consulted his Book of Shadows and thanked his Dark Master.

The point is, if he were actually doing evil, it wouldn't work. But he's not. He's not obvious about his evil, unlike this barbarian in the OP that has the paladin warning his allies about him. He hasn't ever killed TWENTY innocent people in a single action because they were in his way. In fact, my character credits him with leading our group to rescue the mayor's son. A heroic act that got us labeled as the Heroes of Langzhen. My character is completely duped by his act because there's nothing to indicate that this person is actually EVIL, and everything to indicate that he's an intelligent pragmatic man that can lead dangerous missions to victory.

Playing alongside a barbarian that is talking to an evil spirit/master, using an evil artifact, and killing innocent people... your character just doesn't care. Don't call your character good aligned. Don't act like this proves a point, unless your point is what I've already said a few times now "Evil characters can work in parties as long as the parties don't care about evil acts".

The party in this case has dismissed the barbarian's murder of TWENTY people because he's loyal to them. That doesn't sound good aligned to me, but whatever. But what happens if the family of the woodsman was in that group of TWENTY people? Or the blacksmith's wife? Or the huntmaster's? What if a group of people, enraged at the barbarian for murdering TWENTY of their friends and family, suddenly pounced on him and tried to kill him? Would the paladin and the rest of the party standby? Would they defend the barbarian? When they have to choose between the justified rage of the people that were just wronged, and their own selfish sense of loyalty, what would they do? What if the barbarian chose to defend himself and just starting cleaving more towns people in half because they're attacking him? Is that justified? Are those evil acts? Would the party excuse that as well?

I don't know. If you downplay what evil is and think anyone that doesn't murder people is good, I guess anything goes...

[Slayn82]

As someone that likes to play quick thinking, amoral characters (neutral in the evil- good axis), I would gladly take the shot against the crowd to beat the cultists. It would have a very ugly aftermath, and I would need to attend their funneral services (if not performing those myself), and some hefty donations would be necessary for their families, but I would be ok with the outcome. It's called moral calculus, or doing what brings the more efficient positive outcome.

Of course, once this meant I threw a fireball right on the palladin and rogue that were surrounded by several enemies, about to be subdued, because my contract said to protect the NPC the enemy wanted to kidnap. They would be killed by the enemies if the fight continued, enemies wanted our surrender. After the fireballs, the rogue and the palladin still were alive - barely.

Just because I'm willing to work to you guys for a good cause doesn't mean I won't sacrifice you to achieve that cause. But I will remember your sacrifice and honor your memory. And this is neutral - my life before yours, sorry mate, better luck for us next time.

A good character would act like the palladin and my contractor - surrender, taking a risk to themselves in order to lesser the risk for others.

A neutral character does the more convenient thing - surrender if he is certain of survival and being rescued, fights if sure of having a chance to win or unsure of survival, or run away if the odds are too bad.

An Evil character does the more brutal act he can get away with, and then sings about it on his happy place at night, considering it his finest moment of glory.

[Dr.Samurai]

As someone that likes to play quick thinking, amoral characters (neutral in the evil- good axis), I would gladly take the shot against the crowd to beat the cultists. It would have a very ugly aftermath, and I would need to attend their funneral services (if not performing those myself), and some hefty donations would be necessary for their families, but I would be ok with the outcome. It's called moral calculus, or doing what brings the more efficient positive outcome.
I'd kill twenty people to beat the cultists. I'd go to their funerals, because that matters to who exactly? And I'd give donations, but I'd totally be fine with murdering people to stop bad guys from... murdering people, I guess? Anyways, it's math you know. Totally fine. No reason in the world this would conflict with other party members in the least.

Speaking of which...

Of course, once this meant I threw a fireball right on the palladin and rogue that were surrounded by several enemies, about to be subdued, because my contract said to protect the NPC the enemy wanted to kidnap. They would be killed by the enemies if the fight continued, enemies wanted our surrender. After the fireballs, the rogue and the palladin still were alive - barely.

Just because I'm willing to work to you guys for a good cause doesn't mean I won't sacrifice you to achieve that cause.
I'm guessing the paladin and the rogue continued to work with you after you made them suffer horrific third degree burns because of strict/literal interpretations of a contract. How did that go? What were the mental gymnastics required, I wonder, to continue adventuring with an obvious liability to their own safety and well-being??

But I will remember your sacrifice and honor your memory.
Apart from you, who cares that you'll honor the memory of their character after you kill them off because "I'm neutral"?

It wasn't their "sacrifice". They didn't willingly die. You killed them. For no reason other than "I'm not GOOD, so it doesn't matter to me".

And this is neutral - my life before yours, sorry mate, better luck for us next time.
Uh, sure. The contract said protect the NPC, so here, take a fireball allies. That's called "Neutral" alignment, why do you look confused??

As long as I have a reason that makes sense to me, I can kill people. Textbook definition of Neutral, hello!

A good character would act like the palladin and my contractor - surrender, taking a risk to themselves in order to lesser the risk for others.

A character that wants to continue adventuring alongside other characters, wouldn't act like your character and throw fireballs at his teammates so that they're "alive, barely".

[War_lord]

I love it. I'd kill twenty people to beat the cultists. I'd go to their funerals, because that matters to who the **** knows? And I'd give donations, but I'd totally be fine with murdering people to stop bad guys from... murdering people, I guess? Anyways, it's math you know. Totally fine. No reason in the world this would conflict with other party members in the least.

The tone you're taking here is rather appalling. Reminder that you're arguing game alignments, not actual political stuff that effects anything. As for the murder thing: Blackrazor, a sentient sword whose whole thing is manipulating the wielder into killing as many living beings as possible so it can feed on the souls is Chaotic... Neutral. D&D's Evil requires a certain degree of malice in thought or action.

Justifying murdering a bunch of people on the basis of "well, I'll turn up at the burial" is SUPER Lawful Evil though.

[Dr.Samurai]

Maybe not having a problem with killing innocent people because you've done the math in your head is Neutral. I don't think it is but you gave a fine example to your point.

But the thread is about working alongside a party.

I fail to see how justifying it to yourself (meaning, the Neutral guy) means anything to the person you're roasting in your fireball spell.

Every example given is of someone convinced of their own behavior. Just because you have a reason for what you did, doesn't mean other people will agree or care.

So if you say to the *other* neutral person, let's say a Rogue "Hey, I targeted you because it just made sense to. I know you're barely alive and that was probably really painful, but I'm sure you understand. Moral calculus and all. We're both neutral right?" I don't see why the rogue would simply say "Hey, that makes sense. You gave an explanation, so I guess I'll keep adventuring with you and trust you won't kill me in the future."

When arguing about whether evil people can work in a party, I think you have to do more than explain why you yourself think your actions are justified. I think it goes without saying that the person performing the evil action feels justified in doing so.

Edit: I scrubbed the language in my previous post so it doesn't seem I'm more charged about this than I am and needlessly escalate this conversation into a heated argument.

[Zingzing Jr.]

I'd expect the paladin to lecture the barbarian about avoiding innocents as collateral damage. Good people, especially paladins, are supposed to try harder, even at risk to themselves. Perhaps by telling the innocents to run away first. The paladin count still work with such a barbarian, regarding him as a powerful but loose cannon to be pointed at the right target.

Trouble would start if evil becomes deliberately hurting others for your own benefit or gratification. Then the cannon would be too loose. Like OotS attitude to Belkar, they regard him as useful but when he murdered the Oracle, he "dove headfirst down the liability side."

Member of Necrodancer's party here: The thing is, the Barbarian just blasted the Cone of Cold without telling anybody. The pally had no chance to warn anybody.

(Playing a CG Rogue that is barely G, and I keep forgetting RP is a thing, so don't ask how I feel about it, the answer is, I *guess* I'm against it, but I really don't have a character)

[Zingzing Jr.]

"Isn't trying to murder his friends" seems like a super low bar to me. And a paladin excusing murdering innocent people because the barbarian "likes" him is pretty thin to me as well.

The only reason this is working is because the party doesn't mind (or might even be like-minded).

Most people fight cults because they are evil and they are hurting people, not because the cult is bothering them. Most people, when killing cultists, don't kill the very people they are trying to defend from the cultists.

This party is different, is the point. So using it as an example that chaotic evil people can work just fine in parties doesn't seem to make sense. Or at least, doesn't have the impact I think it's being given.

Hi, member of the party here, Necrodancer is our resident devil worshiper and as such is a lot more OK with this, I on the other hand, am pretty against it, but there isn't anything I can do about it, the barbarian's main character trait is that he does not give a damn about anyone else or what they say. Nor do we have strong enough magic to bring everyone back. We do not enough diamonds on hand for revivify and there is no way I nor Necrodancer are paying for that out of pocket (Me and Necrodancer have 95% of the party's wealth)

[Squiddish]

Paladin here. First off, some information.

The barbarian is not naturally evil. They are the victim of a curse obtained in the amber temple. I have been trying to remove this curse since he got it, but have not been able to.

The rest of the party is willing to overlook this for now, but I am not. The only thing stopping me from killing the barbarian at this point is that I cannot do so singlehandedly.

[Safety Sword]

My questions to the members of the party:

As PLAYERS: How do you feel about there being an evil party member? Is it fun having this "situation" to deal with?

As characters I think you've answered the "what we're doing about this".

[Squiddish]

My questions to the members of the party:

As PLAYERS: How do you feel about there being an evil party member? Is it fun having this "situation" to deal with?

As characters I think you've answered the "what we're doing about this".

No, having an evil character isn't fun, and it especially isn't fun to have to deal with it so often. This is the 4th time some party member has been turned evil. The first time it was Necrodancer's warlock, who gouged out someone's eyes with a spoon and then attempted to cut off their thumbs. The next time it was Zingzing's rogue, who fortunately didn't pull off anything bad before being cured. Then was GPS's cleric, who was actually full-on possessed and betrayed us at a critical moment, resulting in my (nearly permanent) death.

[Safety Sword]

No, having an evil character isn't fun, and it especially isn't fun to have to deal with it so often. This is the 4th time some party member has been turned evil. The first time it was Necrodancer's warlock, who gouged out someone's eyes with a spoon and then attempted to cut off their thumbs. The next time it was Zingzing's rogue, who fortunately didn't pull off anything bad before being cured. Then was GPS's cleric, who was actually full-on possessed and betrayed us at a critical moment, resulting in my (nearly permanent) death.

Well... here's your real problem.

You need to talk to the DM and get the kind of game you want to play sorted out. Everyone should be having fun and someone being "turned evil" seems to happen all too frequently and you seem frustrated by it.

You have an out of game problem that is manifesting itself in the game.

[Malifice]

D&D's Evil requires a certain degree of malice in thought or action.

No, it doesnt.

How does a person murder, torture and rape without malice by the way?

[Mortis_Elrod]

No, it doesnt.

How does a person murder, torture and rape without malice by the way?

Can you describe an evil act that is without malice? (in D&D)

[Malifice]

Can you describe an evil act that is without malice? (in D&D)

No.

Malice is defined as: 'the desire to harm someone; ill will.'

Its a little like Mens Rea in Criminal law. If you didnt intend to kill someone you act 'without malice' and cant be said to be evil (or criminally responsible for your action).

In my games, we run to a similar moral code that has governed civil society since we were all Apes: The only form of killing/ violence that is 'not evil' and is condoned by society is that which is reasonably necessary in self defence (collective or otherwise).

A LG Knight is well within his rights to defend a peasant from bandits, including using lethal force if necessary. Whether thats because the peasants life is in danger (the Knight enters a clearing and sees two bandits attacking a peasant) or because a town is under constant raids from a nearby bandit encampment (the Knight can ride out to confront the Bandits and bring them to justice, using force - including lethal force - if needed).

Paladins carry swords for a reason. In a word with supernatural evil (undead and demons) then no amount of negotiation or non-violence is going to do you much good.

If possible a good man doesnt resort to violence and seeks to avoid it. A neutral man may resort to violence. An evil man prefers to.

The accepted grounds to excuse a killing (across all societies) is reasonable self defence (including collective self defence). A Soldier isnt 'evil' for killing an enemy combatant that wishes him dead, any more than a police officer is 'evil' for shooting an armed bank robber, or a violent home invader in self defence (or the defence of innocents).

Its a different story if that Police officer tracks the bank robber down and shoots him dead as he sleeps however (and he would be convicted of murder in that instance). Thats an act of evil, and society would condemn it as such.

In addition to the above general rule, some societies also condone killing in other forms (capital punishment) as a form of lawful killing by the State (as vengance and punishment). This is not 'morally good' despite being lawful. It is morally good to grant mercy and clemency. Killing defenceless prisoners is the opposite of that.

[Mortis_Elrod]

No.

Malice is defined as: 'the desire to harm someone; ill will.'

Its a little like Mens Rea in Criminal law. If you didnt intend to kill someone you act 'without malice' and cant be said to be evil (or criminally responsible for your action).

In my games, we run to a similar moral code that has governed civil society since we were all Apes: The only form of killing/ violence that is 'not evil' and is condoned by society is that which is reasonably necessary in self defence (collective or otherwise).

A LG Knight is well within his rights to defend a peasant from bandits, including using lethal force if necessary. Whether thats because the peasants life is in danger (the Knight enters a clearing and sees two bandits attacking a peasant) or because a town is under constant raids from a nearby bandit encampment (the Knight can ride out to confront the Bandits and bring them to justice, using force - including lethal force - if needed).

Paladins carry swords for a reason. In a word with supernatural evil (undead and demons) then no amount of negotiation or non-violence is going to do you much good.

If possible a good man doesnt resort to violence and seeks to avoid it. A neutral man may resort to violence. An evil man prefers to.

The accepted grounds to excuse a killing (across all societies) is reasonable self defence (including collective self defence). A Soldier isnt 'evil' for killing an enemy combatant that wishes him dead, any more than a police officer is 'evil' for shooting an armed bank robber, or a violent home invader in self defence (or the defence of innocents).

Its a different story if that Police officer tracks the bank robber down and shoots him dead as he sleeps however (and he would be convicted of murder in that instance). Thats an act of evil, and society would condemn it as such.

In addition to the above general rule, some societies also condone killing in other forms (capital punishment) as a form of lawful killing by the State (as vengance and punishment). This is not 'morally good' despite being lawful. It is morally good to grant mercy and clemency. Killing defenceless prisoners is the opposite of that.
Ah mmk. So in short. D&D evil requires malice? not a 'certain degree' but any degree? I'm sorry i wasn't clear with the answer i was looking for. You responded with "No it doesn't" what did you mean by that?

Wondering if you also incorporate collateral damage deaths. Say a large area attack taking down enemy combatants but also killing bystanders or hostages by accident/ non intent/ without knowledge of.

[Malifice]

Ah mmk. So in short. D&D evil requires malice? not a 'certain degree' but any degree? I'm sorry i wasn't clear with the answer i was looking for. You responded with "No it doesn't" what did you mean by that?

Malice is = the intent to harm others.

If you harm others accidentally (with no intent to do so) then it's not evil in my books.

Caveats apply. Reckless actions can also show a disregard for human life and suffering (your evil nature).


Wondering if you also incorporate collateral damage deaths. Say a large area attack taking down enemy combatants but also killing bystanders or hostages by accident/ non intent/ without knowledge of.

Not evil. Unless you were reckless in your actions, and simply didnt care if someone else got hurt. It almost certainly would be a different story (evil) if you willfully fireballed a crowd of innocents just to kill badguys interspersed throughout though.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Malice is = the intent to harm others.

If you harm others accidentally (with no intent to do so) then it's not evil in my books.

Caveats apply. Reckless actions can also show a disregard for human life and suffering (your evil nature).



Not evil. Unless you were reckless in your actions, and simply didnt care if someone else got hurt. It almost certainly would be a different story (evil) if you willfully fireballed a crowd of innocents just to kill badguys interspersed throughout though.

Ok ok. i can get behind this. One more question. Recklessness in the case of disregarding life. Evil? or Neutral? No malice, but there is no concern as well. I think that's by definition neutral no?

[Safety Sword]

Ok ok. i can get behind this. One more question. Recklessness in the case of disregarding life. Evil? or Neutral? No malice, but there is no concern as well. I think that's by definition neutral no?

That might be a more chaos/law question than an evil/good one?

Although the fact that you say "disregarding life" makes me think evil immediately. In D&D life itself being sacred is usually associated with good.

[Malifice]

Ok ok. i can get behind this. One more question. Recklessness in the case of disregarding life. Evil? or Neutral? No malice, but there is no concern as well. I think that's by definition neutral no?

I'd say it definately indicates an evil alignment.

Lobbing a grenade into a room you suspect is full of civilians just to protect yourself from the one bad-guy in there certainly indicates a willingness to kill innocent people just to save your own backside.

Unless it is an absolute last resort, no morally neutral person would recklessly endager the lives of innocents in such a manner. Certainly no good person would do it.

An evil person would. Cant make an omlette without breaking a few eggs after all, and to an evil person, the ends justify the means (even if the means are murder, torture and the occasional massacre).

The evil person likely justifies it to himelf thus: 'He didnt mean to kill them, and it was a tragedy for sure, but sometimes **** happens. They shouldnt have been there in the first place. It was them or him.'

Some truly vile evil people, might even relish the fact that innocents died.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I'd say it definately indicates an evil alignment.

Lobbing a grenade into a room you suspect is full of civilians just to protect yourself from the one bad-guy in there certainly indicates a willingness to kill innocent people just to save your own backside.

Unless it is an absolute last resort, no morally neutral person would recklessly endager the lives of innocents in such a manner. Certainly no good person would do it.

An evil person would. Cant make an omlette without breaking a few eggs after all, and to an evil person, the ends justify the means (even if the means are murder, torture and the occasional massacre).

The evil person likely justifies it to himelf thus: 'He didnt mean to kill them, and it was a tragedy for sure, but sometimes **** happens. They shouldnt have been there in the first place. It was them or him.'

Some truly vile evil people, might even relish the fact that innocents died.
Ok so for you, where does neutral lie. Seems like there is none here, or rather its very hard to be neutral, indicating the idea that people are either good or evil with few exceptions.

[Safety Sword]

Ok so for you, where does neutral lie. Seems like there is none here, or rather its very hard to be neutral, indicating the idea that people are either good or evil with few exceptions.

Not going out of your way to help the innocent but not going on a murderous rampage in every town? :smallamused:

[Mortis_Elrod]

Not going out of your way to help the innocent but not going on a murderous rampage in every town? :smallamused:

thats a bit on the extreme sides right? Also that doesn't really explain what a neutral person would do, just what he wouldn't do.

From what Malifice is saying:

good would not take another's life with intent except in self defense.
Evil will take another's life with malice, regardless of self defense.

So logically, is neutral taking life without malice but also not restricted to self defense? (or is this a fallacy).

Correct me if I'm wrong (especially since this is what im asking)

[Kane0]

thats a bit on the extreme sides right? Also that doesn't really explain what a neutral person would do, just what he wouldn't do.

From what Malifice is saying:

good would not take another's life with intent except in self defense.
Evil will take another's life with malice, regardless of self defense.

So logically, is neutral taking life without malice but also not restricted to self defense? (or is this a fallacy).

Correct me if I'm wrong (especially since this is what im asking)

I think you've struck the crux of why Malifice tends to be controversial in alignment threads.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I think you've struck the crux of why Malifice tends to be controversial in alignment threads.

Shhhh. I'm getting answers. I want to know where the lines are drawn so I can understand.

[Malifice]

Ok so for you, where does neutral lie. Seems like there is none here, or rather its very hard to be neutral, indicating the idea that people are either good or evil with few exceptions.

No; actions are defined as good or evil (a Neutral person might occasionally do something evil like lobbing a grenade into a room that might contain innocents, and might also occasionally do something good like going out of his way to help people, but has no strong inclinations either way). Characters that consistenly do Good acts are Good. Consistently doing Evil acts (even if justified to the actor himself) and youre probably evil. Sitting in the middle and maybe leaning one way or the other from time to time, but no strong convictions either way, and youre neutral.

Good examples of CN include Bronn from GOT, Brad Pitts Achillies from Troy, and Captain Jack Sparrow from PoTC.

All three characters do the occasional 'morally dubious act' but equally none can be considered to be truly evil. They also occasionally help people. Bronn has even stated he would consider killing a child if there was enough money in it (although that may have just been him talking tough).

For CG you're looking at Han Solo or Robin Hood. For CE youre looking at the Joker (for an extreme example) Joffery Baratheon from GoT, or Titus Pullo from Rome (rapist, murderer, torturer, but also a protagonist).

In fact for those of you that have seen HBO's Rome, Titus Pullo is a fantastic example of a CE character that is both a protagonist, and also works well with Lucious Vorenus (LN). He is a rapist, thief, hitman, assasin, murderer and torturer, that acts with arbitrary violence, doesnt care about honor, discipline or laws.

He is also one of the series main protagonists (alongside Vorenus who is textbook LN).

[Mortis_Elrod]

No; actions are defined as good or evil (a Neutral person might occasionally do something evil like lobbing a grenade into a room that might contain innocents, and might also occasionally do something good like going out of his way to help people, but has no strong inclinations either way). Characters that consistenly do Good acts are Good. Consistently doing Evil acts (even if justified to the actor himself) and youre probably evil. Sitting in the middle and maybe leaning one way or the other from time to time, but no strong convictions either way, and youre neutral.

Good examples of CN include Bronn from GOT, Brad Pitts Achillies from Troy, and Captain Jack Sparrow from PoTC.

All three characters do the occasional 'morally dubious act' but equally none can be considered to be truly evil. They also occasionally help people. Bronn has even stated he would consider killing a child if there was enough money in it (although that may have just been him talking tough).

For CG you're looking at Han Solo or Robin Hood. For CE youre looking at the Joker (for an extreme example) Joffery Baratheon from GoT, or Titus Pullo from Rome (rapist, murderer, torturer, but also a protagonist).

In fact for those of you that have seen HBO's Rome, Titus Pullo is a fantastic example of a CE character that is both a protagonist, and also works well with Lucious Vorenus (LN). He is a rapist, thief, hitman, assasin, murderer and torturer, that acts with arbitrary violence, doesnt care about honor, discipline or laws.

He is also one of the series main protagonists (alongside Vorenus who is textbook LN).

AHHHHH. Ok i see. There are no Neutral Actions. neutrality only exists when you just balance it all out. Is this the same for the Law/Chaos axis for you?

[Safety Sword]

thats a bit on the extreme sides right? Also that doesn't really explain what a neutral person would do, just what he wouldn't do.

I thought the :smallamused: emoji would have signaled my intention that I wasn't being terribly serious...

Neutral people tend to not kill the innocent because you'd still prefer a world where everyone wasn't killing indiscriminately. They are probably less likely to put themselves at risk to save the innocent either.

In a hostage situation say, they would try their best to avoid hostage losses but not lose much sleep if things go awry because the whole situation isn't their doing.

Good people would put themselves at risk to protect the hostages and would do everything to the extreme to try and save everyone.

If it goes wrong they're much more likely to turn into a twisted anti-hero later in the story. :smallamused:

[Malifice]

AHHHHH. Ok i see. There are no Neutral Actions. neutrality only exists when you just balance it all out. Is this the same for the Law/Chaos axis for you?

A neutral action is one that doesnt result in the actor going out of his way to harm (evil) or help (good) others.

He's neither overly merciful and kind, but nor is he cruel or malicious. He lacks the benevolence to seriously go out of his way to help others (unless there is something in it for him), but also lacks the skewed moral compass (or lack of empathy) that leads him to seek to harm others for profit, gain or convenience (or even simply pleasure).

Many people are Neutral. They lack the conviction to help other people (working at the local soup kitchen, helping little old ladies cross the road, giving regularly to charity etc) but equally have enough of a moral compass to not go out of their way to harm others either (they dont murder, harm, rape and torture people to get what they want from them, or for their own advancement, pleasure, profit or gain).

A Neutral person might do the occasional act of good (helping), or the occasional act of evil (harm). Less common (but still possible) is a good person might occasionally stray into doing evil (see NG Tyrion when he murders Shay for example) and an evil person might also occasionally help others, or even have a redeeming quality that distinguishes their evil (yet remain evil).

Even Cersei from GoT loves her children; as Tyrion points out - its her one redeeming feature. Shes still very NE however notwithstanding this.

For mine, an otherwise Neutral person who commits an act of evil (say a blatant premeditated murder) probably isnt Neutral when he commits the act and also leading up to it (if he's justifying murder in his own mind, he's probably not Neutral).

His own doubts and internal justification leading up to him deciding to do the act, and then actually performing the act show that he is now almost certainly; evil. If (even at the last moment) he realises what he's doing and lacks the conviction to carry out the murder he's not really evil at all.

He could also do the evil act (the murder) and recoil in horror at what he's done and repudiate that evil. Maybe after a long period of genuine reflection and redemption, the stain might be removed and he might be (objectively speaking) considered no longer evil.

Long story short; if you're justifying murder, torture and rape (for whatever reason - your reasons dont matter) you're not good aligned. You're also probably not neutrally aligned.

[Mortis_Elrod]

A neutral action is one that doesnt result in the actor going out of his way to harm (evil) or help (good) others.

He's neither overly merciful and kind, but nor is he cruel or malicious. He lacks the benevolence to seriously go out of his way to help others (unless there is something in it for him), but also lacks the skewed moral compass (or lack of empathy) that leads him to seek to harm others for profit, gain or convenience (or even simply pleasure).

Many people are Neutral. They lack the conviction to help other people (working at the local soup kitchen, helping little old ladies cross the road, giving regularly to charity etc) but equally have enough of a moral compass to not go out of their way to harm others either (they dont murder, harm, rape and torture people to get what they want from them, or for their own advancement, pleasure, profit or gain).

A Neutral person might do the occasional act of good (helping), or the occasional act of evil (harm). Less common (but still possible) is a good person might occasionally stray into doing evil (see NG Tyrion when he murders Shay for example) and an evil person might also occasionally help others, or even have a redeeming quality that distinguishes their evil (yet remain evil).

Even Cersei from GoT loves her children; as Tyrion points out - its her one redeeming feature. Shes still very NE however notwithstanding this.

For mine, an otherwise Neutral person who commits an act of evil (say a blatant premeditated murder) probably isnt Neutral when he commits the act and also leading up to it (if he's justifying murder in his own mind, he's probably not Neutral).

His own doubts and internal justification leading up to him deciding to do the act, and then actually performing the act show that he is now almost certainly; evil. If (even at the last moment) he realises what he's doing and lacks the conviction to carry out the murder he's not really evil at all.

He could also do the evil act (the murder) and recoil in horror at what he's done and repudiate that evil. Maybe after a long period of genuine reflection and redemption, the stain might be removed and he might be (objectively speaking) considered no longer evil.

Long story short; if you're justifying murder, torture and rape (for whatever reason - your reasons dont matter) you're not good aligned. You're also probably not neutrally aligned.

Does that also work the other way? blatant act of good means character is no longer neutral, but good?

[Malifice]

Does that also work the other way? blatant act of good means character is no longer neutral, but good?

Yep. A blatant act of self sacrifice by a Neutral PC means he probably isnt Neutral anymore (and likely wasnt leading up to the act of self sacrifice).

If Bob the Commoner decides to give all his worldly possesions to the local orphanage (leaving himself homeless), he's pretty clearly no longer morally neutral. Same if he pushed a stranger out of the path of an incoming wagon, and elected to be trampled to death in the place of the stranger.

To commit an extreme act of evil (or good) like wilful premeditated murder, or extreme self sacrifice its pretty hard to claim to be 'morally neutral'.

Actions speak louder than words.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Yep. A blatant act of self sacrifice by a Neutral PC means he probably isnt Neutral anymore (and likely wasnt leading up to the act of self sacrifice).

If Bob the Commoner decides to give all his worldly possesions to the local orphanage (leaving himself homeless), he's pretty clearly no longer morally neutral. Same if he pushed a stranger out of the path of an incoming wagon, and elected to be trampled to death in the place of the stranger.

To commit an extreme act of evil (or good) like wilful premeditated murder, or extreme self sacrifice its pretty hard to claim to be 'morally neutral'.

Actions speak louder than words.

Okay thank you, i understand where you come from and what you mean when you speak of alignment now.

[Dr.Samurai]

No, having an evil character isn't fun, and it especially isn't fun to have to deal with it so often. This is the 4th time some party member has been turned evil. The first time it was Necrodancer's warlock, who gouged out someone's eyes with a spoon and then attempted to cut off their thumbs. The next time it was Zingzing's rogue, who fortunately didn't pull off anything bad before being cured. Then was GPS's cleric, who was actually full-on possessed and betrayed us at a critical moment, resulting in my (nearly permanent) death.
Ugh, I feel for you. Nothing worse than having an evil schmuck in the party making the entire game about them.

Though it seems you're in quite the predicament. The fact that the barbarian is cursed means he's not really acting under his own control. Does your paladin feel a duty to try and continue curing him? To what lengths will he go to save the barbarian?

As a player I'd be so over this "each party member goes evil for a spell" bit.

But, as I've said numerous times on these boards, I don't have faith that most players can handle evil or pvp well so I look to avoid it at all costs.

The fact that Malifice's comments on alignment in this thread are considered "controversial" bolster that point.

[Slayn82]

I think people go way overboard with "Killing = Evil" in D&D alignment. Game scenarios are about people armed and dangerous, dealing with other armed and dangerous people or dangerous monsters and places. Violence is an acceptable path of action for any alignment, even if not their first recourse.

Good may care about their own notions of justice before resorting to violence, and Evil may choose to go overboard in the use of violence to achieve their goals, but fighting in a kill or be killed situation, even if you were the first to throw a punch, is neutral.

The world isn't divided among people who, in difficult times of famine, would give their last bit of food to feed a stranger in need and people who would be glad to watch the stranger death from starvation. Most people would simply throw an excuse, or not say anything, and leave the stranger with his problems, and remember to be more careful with their food. To be good or evil, you have to go out of your way in the course of your action.

Throwing a punch in anger at someone in a tavern brawl, and knocking him out isn't evil. Sneak attacking with a dagger someone in the middle of a tavern brawl to murder him - that's murder, and thus evil. Giving quarter to someone you are fighting who Surrender isn't evil or good. Giving the other face, after being punched out, that's good.

Orcs invading a territory and killing or capturing the inhabitants because their homeland isn't able to sustain them anymore isn't necessarily evil - and said inhabitants resisting the invasion and killing the invaders isn't necessarily a good action.

Should morality of the justice of the invasion depend if the orc invaders are adepts of nature and shamanism or instead brutal conquerors? If the invaded are peaceful humam villagers or cannibalistic lizardman? I say, if the situation at hand is either kill or be killed, then its clearly neutral.

My party companions of course got angry after I threw fireballs at them. But I pointed that it wasn't anything against them, and they actually survived, when their chance of survival in the mercy of bandits was very slim, and they would be welcome to do the same for me in the future if needed, as long as they made sure to win.

In another day, my wizard went to melee against a stronger enemy, taking quite a beating, so the rogue could sneak attack him and finish him off. Then the companions were impressed by his bravery, but it was the same thought - what sacrifice was needed to achieve his own goals.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think people go way overboard with "Killing = Evil" in D&D alignment. Game scenarios are about people armed and dangerous, dealing with other armed and dangerous people or dangerous monsters and places. Violence is an acceptable path of action for any alignment, even if not their first recourse. Yes. Particularly in threads that discuss alignment at all on the GiTP forums. the game assumes the use of violence, force, or threats a lot. (Intimidation skill check, anyone?)

[Dr.Samurai]

I don't think anyone is surprised that violence is an integral or assumed part of the game. Most of the rules are describing all the different ways to kill creatures or prevent yourself from being killed.

What I see is people trying to describe justified murder as evil, or trying to describe evil acts as justified.

So someone describes an act of "evil" where they kill or maim or betray someone. And we're like "wow, that's evil, why does the party stay with you?" And then the person backpedals "oh well, it was justified for all of these reasons..." and we're like "oh, so it wasn't really evil, it was necessary" and then the person says "yeah, but my alignment is evil so..."

It's like... did you do an evil thing or didn't you do an evil thing?

The default assumption though, is that people don't typically tolerate an evil person doing evil things around them unless they are evil themselves or pretty close to it, or forced to.

[greenstone]

A neutral action is one that doesnt result in the actor going out of his way to harm (evil) or help (good) others.

That's the way I think of it as well. A good creature inconveniences itself to help others. An evil creature inconveniences itself to hurt others.

[Cybren]

That's the way I think of it as well. A good creature inconveniences itself to help others. An evil creature inconveniences itself to hurt others.

So you're saying an opportunistic murderer, who only hurts others when it's both convenient and beneficial to themselves, are not evil???? that's uh, odd.

[Malifice]

Yes. Particularly in threads that discuss alignment at all on the GiTP forums. the game assumes the use of violence, force, or threats a lot. (Intimidation skill check, anyone?)

Absolutely. Paladins carry swords for a reason (and yes I know they can be evilly aligned now!).

No one (certainly not me anyways) is suggesting that violence is evil. My argument is that violence (unless used as a reasonable form of self defence or the defence of others, when no other option reasonably presents itself, and in a proportionate manner) is evil.

In 3E at the very least 'Evil' was defined as harming, hurting or opressing others. The only time it is not considered 'evil' to harm, hurt or oppress others, was when you were doing so in self defence of the defence of others, and there was no other reasonable option open to you.

This mirrors a near universal standard set in societies both now, and throughout time: You are entitled to respond to force with force. You are not going to punished or held to account for using violence (even for killing someone) if the force you used was proportionate, reasonably necessary in the circumstances (and in self defence or the defence of others from harm).

I cant think of any society in the world now or at any other time that punishes a person for using force in response to someone trying to kill them (even if that force used in response kills the other person). As long as it was reasonably necessary, propoprtionate in response, and you had no other reasonable option open to you.

From this individual right of self defence, flows the collective right of self defence (repelling a foreign military invader).

A LG Paladin who rides into town and discovers that children have been abducted by nearby Kobolds is well within his rights to ride out to their lair, and demand the return of those children. Using force (including lethal force) if necessary to ensure their safe return.

Preferably he would like those Kobolds to be redeemed, and to enter into a truce and to work with the nearby settlement towards mutual benefit and order. He knows that for every evil life he takes, he only strengthens the forces of Hell (the souls of the condemned feed the Gods and Devils of the 9 Hells and the Abyss). He would (or should) attempt negotiation first (if possible and safe to do so) to try and resolve the dispute (and free the children) with the least harm and death to both parties. If no other option reasonably presents itself, he is entitled to use force. If attacked with lethal force (or such force is imminent), he is more than within his rights to cut down the Kobolds where they stand.

Killing is never (ever) a 'morally good' thing to do. At best (as a last resort in self defence) it is morally neutral.

Of course there are some foes like undead that cant be reasoned with or redeemed. Of course; you're not harming or killing the undead when you put them to the sword, because they're not alive either.

Some people see 'good' vs 'evil' as two sides wearing different labels, who both employ the same barbarity, genocide, violence and mayhem against each other. Ive seen people justifying all sorts of abhorrent acts (including genocide, infanticide, torture, pityless mass murder etc) as 'good' as long as the murderer can justify it as such.

Personally (from an objective alignment position) as DM I dont care what the player or the players characters justifications are. I dont enter (or entertain) alignment debates. I as DM (acting for the Gods) determine the PCs 'actual' alignment based of his actions. Both the player (and indeed the character) can assume they are playing a LG 'hero' who is 'acting for the greater good' when they put a villiage of Orcs to the sword in an act of genocide. The reality is that that LG 'hero' is actually LE (a fact he generally only finds out on death when Kelemvor tells him he is about to be walled into the Wall of the Faithless... unless he agrees to enter into a pact with one of the Devils or Demons on the Fuge Plane first).

[King of Nowhere]

I have a much simpler definition of goood, neutral and evil, which is also simpler to use.

- good will accept personal suffering to help others
- evil will cause suffering to others to help himself
- neutral will do neither

So, in a famine with rationed food, a good person will give some of his already scarce food to others, an evil person will steal others his food, a neutral person will just eat his food.
A good person will donate money to those in need, and evil person will steal money for himself, a neutral person would simply keep his money.
A good person may use his body to shield someone in a fight, an evil person may take someone to use as a human shield, a neutral person willl just mind his own fight.

Now, of course there are always complex situations that don't have a clear way to adjudicate alignments. Say, the canonical situation where your enemies are using hostages. A good person should avoid fireballing everything and use other tactics, at a higher personal risk; an evil person will instead have no qualms about fireballing the crowd to kill his enemies (except maybe for self-convenience, like if he had been payed to rescue those people alive). A neutral person may fireball only as a last resort option.
But then, a paladin that lets a demon army invade the world because he's unwilling to risk the lives of a few hostages is stupid good - not to mention the kind of message you sent to evildoers by letting them know that they can get away with everything as long as they get some hostages to threaten. If the neutral waits to use fireball until it'sn the last resort, he may find out that by that time he's also bogged down in melee and fireballing won't work anymore. So in this case the actual good thing to do will very well depend on how what are exactly your chances at victory wiithout fireballing, what is the consequence of the badd guys winning, and other stuff like that.
Still, the general rule hold.

[Slayn82]

The average person, if looked in detail, does,condones or benefit from a lot of good or evil actions. But they won't go that extra length to be virtuous or cause evil. People are lazy, omiss and ignorant in their natural states, and behave like this on large groups unless a form of leadership emerges to give them directions.

To be good, you need quite a bit of effort. To be evil, you also need some risk and effort (but the benefits tend to be more immediate).

In a society where slavery is condoned, a slave that harms a citizen will be killed, even if it was in self defense. If a slave commit a mistake in public, most people won't bat an eye if his masters beat him for a bit, will consider it foolish if a good master don't punish the slave, and will be appalled but rationalize as necessary, and hardly will interfere if a evil master gives a heavy beating to the slave (probably think more along the lines that it was too far, or that shouldn't be done in public).

Neutral people will mingle with slave traders, drug traffickers, thirds and corrupt politicians, and other evil characters, as long as they see a immediate or continued benefit by doing so. It's quite often more easier than dealing with Good people, who hardly can comprise on their ideals. You can ask evil people to go do their evil things somewhere else, and not tell you details, just bring your part of the business.

[xanderh]

The average person, if looked in detail, does,condones or benefit from a lot of good or evil actions. But they won't go that extra length to be virtuous or cause evil. People are lazy, omiss and ignorant in their natural states, and behave like this on large groups unless a form of leadership emerges to give them directions.

To be good, you need quite a bit of effort. To be evil, you also need some risk and effort (but the benefits tend to be more immediate).

In a society where slavery is condoned, a slave that harms a citizen will be killed, even if it was in self defense. If a slave commit a mistake in public, most people won't bat an eye if his masters beat him for a bit, will consider it foolish if a good master don't punish the slave, and will be appalled but rationalize as necessary, and hardly will interfere if a evil master gives a heavy beating to the slave (probably think more along the lines that it was too far, or that shouldn't be done in public).

Neutral people will mingle with slave traders, drug traffickers, thirds and corrupt politicians, and other evil characters, as long as they see a immediate or continued benefit by doing so. It's quite often more easier than dealing with Good people, who hardly can comprise on their ideals. You can ask evil people to go do their evil things somewhere else, and not tell you details, just bring your part of the business.

You say that as if all forms of slavery are evil. They aren't, ancient Rome is a good example of this. Lots of people signed slavery contracts to pay off debt, and if they were mistreated by their master, they could sue for compensation and immediate annulment of the contract. They couldn't be sold or traded either. It was still slavery, but I find it incredibly hard to call it evil.

[Slayn82]

You say that as if all forms of slavery are evil. They aren't, ancient Rome is a good example of this. Lots of people signed slavery contracts to pay off debt, and if they were mistreated by their master, they could sue for compensation and immediate annulment of the contract. They couldn't be sold or traded either. It was still slavery, but I find it incredibly hard to call it evil.

I didn't take the matter of slavery in the elaboration of that example from the POV of it being Evil. While it's pretty terrible, it also was often the alternative to being promptly killed.

And while I don't intend to cover every kind of slavery system, it's a matter of fact that except when the slave had exceptional value (due to being skilled, beautiful or educated), when he would be a type of second class citizen, he would be subjected to some degree of physical punishment semi regularly.

It works the same if you imagine the difference of treatment of prized horses and worker horses. While some horses were treated significantly better, some were worked to death.

[NecroDancer]

Lets not bring slavery into this argument please.

Also (this may just be my opinion) when most people associate slavery with evil they are talking about slavery in America before the Civil War which was extremely inhuman to unbelievable levels.

[hamishspence]

You say that as if all forms of slavery are evil. They aren't, ancient Rome is a good example of this.

Slavery in the silver mines or the farms was rather more oppressive than "debt slavery".



Also (this may just be my opinion) when most people associate slavery with evil they are talking about slavery in America before the Civil War which was extremely inhuman to unbelievable levels.

There has been "unbelieveably oppressive slavery" for thousands of years - it's not a new thing. There was always a range from "most oppressive" to "least oppressive".

[Slayn82]

There has been "unbelieveably oppressive slavery" for thousands of years - it's not a new thing. There was always a range from "most oppressive" to "least oppressive".

If anything, people have been pretty good and innovative to create brand new ways to be incredibly oppressive in the name of "promoting civilization, bring culture, prosperity and employment".

You read about the horrors of the american slavery, and then go read about how it was quite worse in Latin America. And then you learn about Belgian Congo.

Let's stop and let this door closed on this argument. I just reiterate that, if people as a whole can get their lives become slightly better at the cost of the suffering of someone they would never meet in their lives, they would promptly take the improvement.

[Malifice]

The average person, if looked in detail, does,condones or benefit from a lot of good or evil actions. But they won't go that extra length to be virtuous or cause evil. People are lazy, omiss and ignorant in their natural states, and behave like this on large groups unless a form of leadership emerges to give them directions.'

Thats because the average person is neutral. Check the MM - Commoners are N in alignment.

They wont go out of their way to help you (unless there is something in it for them) but they wont go out of their way to hurt you either.


In a society where slavery is condoned, a slave that harms a citizen will be killed, even if it was in self defense. If a slave commit a mistake in public, most people won't bat an eye if his masters beat him for a bit, will consider it foolish if a good master don't punish the slave, and will be appalled but rationalize as necessary, and hardly will interfere if a evil master gives a heavy beating to the slave (probably think more along the lines that it was too far, or that shouldn't be done in public).


In a society where slavery is condoned by the majority, then the majority are Evilly aligned.

[Malifice]

You say that as if all forms of slavery are evil. They aren't, ancient Rome is a good example of this. Lots of people signed slavery contracts to pay off debt, and if they were mistreated by their master, they could sue for compensation and immediate annulment of the contract. They couldn't be sold or traded either. It was still slavery, but I find it incredibly hard to call it evil.

You think (for example) the impoverished and the poor should be allowed to sell themselves into slavery, and that such a thing would not be evil if it existed?

Its bad enough we have homeless people and the destitute, but to then implement a system where they are effectively pressured into selling themselves into slavery is downright monstrous.

Instead of the State implementing laws that push the impoverished into slavery (evil), how about the State implementing laws that provide social security, housing, food and welfare benefits to the poor and homeless (good)?

[MadBear]

You think (for example) the impoverished and the poor should be allowed to sell themselves into slavery, and that such a thing would not be evil if it existed?

Its bad enough we have homeless people and the destitute, but to then implement a system where they are effectively pressured into selling themselves into slavery is downright monstrous.

Instead of the State implementing laws that push the impoverished into slavery (evil), how about the State implementing laws that provide social security, housing, food and welfare benefits to the poor and homeless (good)?

Couldn't have said it any better. As much as I love playing morally ambiguous characters, slavery is just evil. Doesn't matter the era, or the guise it took. Owning another human being as property makes you an evil being.

.... With that said, arguing that it's good is exactly what I'd expect an evil NPC who owns slaves to do.

[Bohandas]

What in the world?!?!

"Today I learned that a Chaotic Evil character can work with the party"

Uh sure. The "party" in question here doesn't mind innocent people being slaughtered.

The way I read it made it sound more like reckless collateral damage, or at least something that could plausibly be made to appear to be collateral damage

[Bohandas]

Couldn't have said it any better. As much as I love playing morally ambiguous characters, slavery is just evil.

I think under D&D's alignment it would technically fall under Lawful-Evil rather than plain evil (or at least institutionalized slavery would; holding people captive in the basement or pirates shanghaing people would probably be neutral evil)

[Sigreid]

I have a much simpler definition of goood, neutral and evil, which is also simpler to use.

- good will accept personal suffering to help others
- evil will cause suffering to others to help himself
- neutral will do neither

So, in a famine with rationed food, a good person will give some of his already scarce food to others, an evil person will steal others his food, a neutral person will just eat his food.
A good person will donate money to those in need, and evil person will steal money for himself, a neutral person would simply keep his money.
A good person may use his body to shield someone in a fight, an evil person may take someone to use as a human shield, a neutral person willl just mind his own fight.

Now, of course there are always complex situations that don't have a clear way to adjudicate alignments. Say, the canonical situation where your enemies are using hostages. A good person should avoid fireballing everything and use other tactics, at a higher personal risk; an evil person will instead have no qualms about fireballing the crowd to kill his enemies (except maybe for self-convenience, like if he had been payed to rescue those people alive). A neutral person may fireball only as a last resort option.
But then, a paladin that lets a demon army invade the world because he's unwilling to risk the lives of a few hostages is stupid good - not to mention the kind of message you sent to evildoers by letting them know that they can get away with everything as long as they get some hostages to threaten. If the neutral waits to use fireball until it'sn the last resort, he may find out that by that time he's also bogged down in melee and fireballing won't work anymore. So in this case the actual good thing to do will very well depend on how what are exactly your chances at victory wiithout fireballing, what is the consequence of the badd guys winning, and other stuff like that.
Still, the general rule hold.

I'm with you. If someone were hole in the baby ward at the hospital, with armed people to defend him, working to set off a nuclear bomb I wouldn't want to throw a grenade through the window to stop him. I'm not sure I'd have the stomach to be able to do it if I had to. I wouldn't hold it against the person to did do it to stop the far greater calamity though. Of course if my kid were in the baby ward I probably would never forgive them, but that's more a personal affect thing than a basic circumstance thing.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I'm with you. If someone were hole in the baby ward at the hospital, with armed people to defend him, working to set off a nuclear bomb I wouldn't want to throw a grenade through the window to stop him. I'm not sure I'd have the stomach to be able to do it if I had to. I wouldn't hold it against the person to did do it to stop the far greater calamity though. Of course if my kid were in the baby ward I probably would never forgive them, but that's more a personal affect thing than a basic circumstance thing.

I mean i agree, but is also a very specific circumstance. That said please forgive me, i need to throw a grenade.

[xanderh]

Couldn't have said it any better. As much as I love playing morally ambiguous characters, slavery is just evil. Doesn't matter the era, or the guise it took. Owning another human being as property makes you an evil being.

.... With that said, arguing that it's good is exactly what I'd expect an evil NPC who owns slaves to do.

I find it funny that the word slavery leads you to instantly believe it to be evil, no matter the form. Roman slavery had many restrictions that, in my mind, make it no longer evil. Among those are:
Forced time limits on the slavery. In the contract, an end date has to be specified. The duration of the slavery cannot legally exceed this.
Slaves had to have a decent quality of life while they were slaves. The owner had to provide decent living quarters and food, and in some cases also had to provide the above for any family of the slave.
Cruelty of any kind was strictly forbidden, and would lead to immediate cancellation of the contract, and the slave could sue his former owner for damages.
When the contract was signed, the nature of the work the slave was expected to do was spelled out. Anything not on that list, the slave could legally say no to.

In addition to those, slaves were not considered second-rate citizens by any governing body. The Roman slavery contracts were essentially work contracts where the slave was paid up front for their work, and the owner had to provide for them. It was generally used as a way for poor people to pay off debts that they couldn't otherwise pay. They got to work off their debt without having to worry about earning enough money to pay the loan and also provide for their family.

Now, they most likely did also have an evil kind of slavery, where non-citizens were enslaved with basically no rights. But that's not the kind I'm talking about.
I don't see how the Roman slavery I'm talking about can be considered evil, unless you take issue with the word "owner".

[Blacky the Blackball]

The notion that killing is evil is - while pretty straightforward in the real world - made more complicated in D&d because of the "revolving door afterlife" and the nature of the planes of Good.

To use an OOTS example, take Roy for instance.

Roy died, and went to the Seven Heavens. There, he was re-united with family members; got to go fishing with his grandfather and play with his brother; and generally had a good time. He had such a good time that he wasn't aware of how long he'd spent there because he was enjoying himself so much.

Now in this particular case, he had important unfinished business that he needed to live for. But let's say that he hadn't. Let's imagine that he'd died during the first act of the strip, before the larger plot had kicked in and the stakes had ramped up.

Can it really be said that Roy's (pretty instant and painless) death and temporary stay in the Seven Heavens with his family was a form of suffering? Was sending him to spend enjoyable "holiday" with his family an evil act? What if he wanted to visit his family, and he agreed with V and Durkon that V would kill him in a painless manner and then after a couple of weeks of "holiday" Durkon would raise him once more.

The objective presence of life-after-death in default D&D settings, and the fact that death doesn't even need to be permanent, makes the morality of killing people weird.

Sure, doing it to someone against their will is clearly still not a nice thing to do, especially if the death itself is painful, but death just doesn't have the same moral weight in D&D settings that it does in the real world.

[Sigreid]

I mean i agree, but is also a very specific circumstance. That said please forgive me, i need to throw a grenade.

Well, as seen in Rise of Tiamat, in D&D an evil cult ritual can be the setting equivalent of setting off a nuke. We don't, to my knowledge, know what the ritual was supposed to do.

[Dr.Samurai]

The way I read it made it sound more like reckless collateral damage, or at least something that could plausibly be made to appear to be collateral damage
I don't think the item triggered on its own. The barbarian chose to use it. It doesn't sound like the barbarian was surprised that it killed all the people it did, or that he much cared.

But again... maybe it was ignorant recklessness. But then you can't really use it to make the claim the OP is making. If the alignment matters, then I assume an evil act was performed.

For me, I feel like the claim being made only matters if an evil act was performed and the party is aware that an evil act was performed. Otherwise, you're saying "it can work if people don't know about it or it's not actually evil".

[MadBear]

I find it funny that the word slavery leads you to instantly believe it to be evil, no matter the form. Roman slavery had many restrictions that, in my mind, make it no longer evil. Among those are:
Forced time limits on the slavery. In the contract, an end date has to be specified. The duration of the slavery cannot legally exceed this.
Slaves had to have a decent quality of life while they were slaves. The owner had to provide decent living quarters and food, and in some cases also had to provide the above for any family of the slave.
Cruelty of any kind was strictly forbidden, and would lead to immediate cancellation of the contract, and the slave could sue his former owner for damages.
When the contract was signed, the nature of the work the slave was expected to do was spelled out. Anything not on that list, the slave could legally say no to.

In addition to those, slaves were not considered second-rate citizens by any governing body. The Roman slavery contracts were essentially work contracts where the slave was paid up front for their work, and the owner had to provide for them. It was generally used as a way for poor people to pay off debts that they couldn't otherwise pay. They got to work off their debt without having to worry about earning enough money to pay the loan and also provide for their family.

Now, they most likely did also have an evil kind of slavery, where non-citizens were enslaved with basically no rights. But that's not the kind I'm talking about.
I don't see how the Roman slavery I'm talking about can be considered evil, unless you take issue with the word "owner".

A couple of major issues.

1. Slaves in Rome were not necessarily treated as well as you state. What you're describing is debt slavery. Other worse versions were absolutely a part of Rome, where you were a slave for life, you could be beaten and harmed, you weren't given any legal rights, and you absolutely were a second class citizen. You had women forced into prostitution, men sent to mines to live out short horrible lives. So you really need to classify that you're talking about debt bondage slavery and not just Roman slavery because they are not at all the same.

2. Even debt slavery included selling your child into slavery to help pay off debt, and many atrocities were still committed even under this form. There's a reason that even this practice was eventually abolished. If the people who lived through it found it so bad that it needed abolishing then I'd say that's a good indicator that it probably would fall under "evil". I'm a little shocked that you are here defending the owning of another person as property as not being evil.

3. Out of sheer curiosity, we you be in favor of the US instituting Roman debt slavery, since you don't see it as evil?

[Dr.Samurai]

I feel like he was pretty clear he was talking about a specific type of Roman slavery, even if he didn't call it "debt slavery".

And people are defending killing *twenty* innocent people in cold blood as not necessarily evil. So I'm not sure why you're surprised that someone is saying "some forms of slavery weren't the evil brutal types of slavery that everyone thinks of".

[Bohandas]

I don't think the item triggered on its own. The barbarian chose to use it. It doesn't sound like the barbarian was surprised that it killed all the people it did, or that he much cared.

The point is that it was aimed at the devil cultists and hit the devil cultists. As long as that is the case there's no in-game diegetic reason to assume he was trying to kill civilians, even thouh metagame knowledge tells us he was

[hamishspence]

It's reasonable to conclude IMO though, that he knew that the spell would hit civilians along with cultists and didn't care - writing them off as "acceptable collateral damage".

[xanderh]

A couple of major issues.

1. Slaves in Rome were not necessarily treated as well as you state. What you're describing is debt slavery. Other worse versions were absolutely a part of Rome, where you were a slave for life, you could be beaten and harmed, you weren't given any legal rights, and you absolutely were a second class citizen. You had women forced into prostitution, men sent to mines to live out short horrible lives. So you really need to classify that you're talking about debt bondage slavery and not just Roman slavery because they are not at all the same.

2. Even debt slavery included selling your child into slavery to help pay off debt, and many atrocities were still committed even under this form. There's a reason that even this practice was eventually abolished. If the people who lived through it found it so bad that it needed abolishing then I'd say that's a good indicator that it probably would fall under "evil". I'm a little shocked that you are here defending the owning of another person as property as not being evil.

3. Out of sheer curiosity, we you be in favor of the US instituting Roman debt slavery, since you don't see it as evil?

I feel like I was pretty clear about what kind of slavery I was talking about. I didn't specifically call it debt slavery, but I did say that it was done to pay off debts. I even acknowledged that not all slavery in Rome was like this. So when you say that I "really need to classify" what I'm talking about, my response can only be "you really need to read what I wrote a little closer".

As for selling a child into slavery, I'd say that's more evil on the part of the person selling the child than the one buying, unless the buyer is suggesting it. And any atrocities committed under this form of slavery was illegal. It still happened, but that doesn't make the practise itself evil, just like murder doesn't make guns or kitchen knifes evil. By the way, I don't consider the owning of another person inherently more evil than the owning of pets. As long as it's a mutually beneficial relationship (and it has to be truly mutually beneficial), I don't see how it's evil.

I don't have much of a stake in what happens in the US, since I don't live anywhere close to it, but no, I'm not opposed to properly implemented and regulated debt slavery. It's a dangerous subject, and I don't have strong feelings that we should implement it, but I wouldn't be opposed to debt slavery where the laws and terms favour the would-be slave. It's a moot point anyway, since nobody is stupid enough to suggest it because of the stigma associated with the word slavery.

[Dr.Samurai]

The point is that it was aimed at the devil cultists and hit the devil cultists. As long as that is the case there's no in-game diegetic reason to assume he was trying to kill civilians, even thouh metagame knowledge tells us he was
He is completely remorseless. It doesn't matter that it was aimed at the cultists because it was also aimed at the townsfolk. There are types of people that would have decided not to trigger the magic item for *that very reason*. He didn't, and he also didn't care afterwards.

The entire OP is set up to explain to us that the barbarian did something evil and the party is sticking with him because he has been kind and loyal to the party members.

The evil thing he did is... kill those twenty people as collateral damage, with intent and without remorse.

[Malifice]

I don't have much of a stake in what happens in the US, since I don't live anywhere close to it, but no, I'm not opposed to properly implemented and regulated debt slavery. It's a dangerous subject, and I don't have strong feelings that we should implement it, but I wouldn't be opposed to debt slavery where the laws and terms favour the would-be slave. It's a moot point anyway, since nobody is stupid enough to suggest it because of the stigma associated with the word slavery.

Are you aware that this would lead to the wealthy (who laws already favour) owning the poor (whom laws punish the most harshly)?

You would be happy with a system that has wealthy corporate CEOs owning homeless people as slaves?

[AMFV]

Are you aware that this would lead to the wealthy (who laws already favour) owning the poor (whom laws punish the most harshly)?

You would be happy with a system that has wealthy corporate CEOs owning homeless people as slaves?

I would argue that system would not be greatly removed from what you have today.

[Malifice]

I would argue that system would not be greatly removed from what you have today.

You and Marx both!
:smallwink:

[xanderh]

Are you aware that this would lead to the wealthy (who laws already favour) owning the poor (whom laws punish the most harshly)?

You would be happy with a system that has wealthy corporate CEOs owning homeless people as slaves?


I would argue that system would not be greatly removed from what you have today.

Firstly, there's that.
But secondly, that's the reason why I said that I would be okay with a properly implemented and well regulated system that legally inherently favours the weaker party, which in this case is the slave.
Please don't misrepresent my stance when I put it in plain text.

And in the hypothetical system of slavery that I would be okay with, slavery would be a temporary solution for the homeless to improve their quality of life and stop being homeless. They become slaves during a temporary period in which their living accommodations are paid for by the individual or organisation owning them, and once the period is over, they have money to spend (unless they already spent it), new skills that will help them get a job, and potentially employment at their former owner since no smart business would let a skilled worker who already knows how to operate as an employee go away without at least a job offer (unless the worker is so bad they don't want them, of course).

[Malifice]

But secondly, that's the reason why I said that I would be okay with a properly implemented and well regulated system that legally inherently favours the weaker party, which in this case is the slave.

Mate I will take trade unions, an eight hour working day, weekend's off, weeks of sick leave every year, minimum wage, One month minimum annual leave each year, Long service leave, Maternity leave etc over debt slavery any day of the week.

If you want laws that inherently favor the poor and the homeless there are better ways that do it than forcing them into slavery!

Before trade unions (and after the abolishment of serfdom) the wealthy used to have children working seven day weeks for 16 hours a day. Occupational Health & Safety didn't exist and people would be dangling over molten lead via ropes. It was Dickensian.

There can be no system of voluntary slavery where one can assume an even close to even balance in bargaining power between the potential slave and potential master.

There are very very good reasons why slavery in all of its forms has been abolished.

[KorvinStarmast]

There are very very good reasons why slavery in all of its forms has been abolished. I'd regret to report to you that it is alive and well, albeit mostly underground, in a great deal of the real world. It's an ongoing struggle. (Suggest you read a recent article in The Atlantic on a lady form the Philippines who was a domestic servant, and in truth you can only assess her condition as slave. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/lolas-story/524490/
The sex slavery rings are all over the world in various places.

As to trade unions, yeah. They arose for a compelling reason. My dad was a card carrying union member back in the 1940's, working in a steel mill, before he went to college on the GI bill.
OK, backing off from RL stuff and heading to the topic of this thread.


I don't think the item triggered on its own. The barbarian chose to use it. It doesn't sound like the barbarian was surprised that it killed all the people it did, or that he much cared. The point is that it was aimed at the devil cultists and hit the devil cultists. As long as that is the case there's no in-game diegetic reason to assume he was trying to kill civilians, even though metagame knowledge tells us he was There is a difference between being negligent and evil, and that's where intent does matter. I'll leave intent to the player and the character, but the DM needs to make an assessment on how that reflects on character alignment as shown by behavior, changes in behavior, or lack of change in behavior.

[Malifice]

I'd regret to report to you that it is alive and well, albeit mostly underground, in a great deal of the real world.

For sure - I was mainly talking the developed world.


There is a difference between being negligent and evil, and that's where intent does matter.

There is also a difference between being negligent and being recklessly negligent, or recklessly indifferent to potential suffering.

Intentionally killing a bunch of orphans just to get to the guy that is trying to get you is evil.

Burning an orphanage to the ground because the guy that is trying to get you is in there, without checking to see who else is in there, and killing a bunch of orphans with your recklessness, is also evil.

Heck a good person probably wouldn't burn down the orphanage even if it was otherwise abandoned aside from a single bad guy. Where on earth are the orphans going to go afterwards? He wouldn't want to cause that kind of suffering.

A person that goes about recklessly harming others, is demonstrating that they are at a bare minimum indifferent to the potential suffering. I would have little problem labelling that person as evil if it persisted long enough or was a frequent occurrence.

[Dr.Samurai]

Mate I will take trade unions, an eight hour working day, weekend's off, weeks of sick leave every year, minimum wage, One month minimum annual leave each year, Long service leave, Maternity leave etc over debt slavery any day of the week.
I get the point you're making here but... unions are on the decline. That option is just not realistically open for people to take over worse positions. I say that as a former union member currently working on a non-union construction site smack-dab in the middle of Manhattan.

[KorvinStarmast]

A person that goes about recklessly harming others, is demonstrating that they are at a bare minimum indifferent to the potential suffering. I would have little problem labelling that person as evil if it persisted long enough or was a frequent occurrence. Indeed to the bolded part, you are being too simplistic with some of the other points. If you bother to immerse yourself into the original trope that D&D is built around, and that a core premise is that of lethal conflict as a standard method of conflict resolution (which is NOT how RL works in the civilized world, but in parts of the uncivilized world it is) you realize that life is cheap in the quasi medieval world, life is nasty brutish and short in much of that world, and that the forces of chaos (meta sense) are opposed to civilization prospering. (Cities and towns, orderly polity, justice, etc).

That existential tension is what this game was built on. As the editions have come and gone, some seriously cartoonish depictions of how RL maps to fantasy worlds have grown. (That goes beyond my usual complaint that the dual axis alignment system having all kinds of holes in it. L/N/C was fine as is. Alignment is to my view a tool for the DM (mostly) and the player (lesser extent) to inform rather than dictate the basis for some in game decisions and their outcomes. That Gygax went a bit over the top on "no free lunch" with the LG paladin in 1e strikes as the core problem ever since then ... I don't think the game has ever recovered from that decision although 5e is a step in the right direction.

(Heh, do you remember alignment languages? :smallbiggrin: )

[Dr.Samurai]

Indeed to the bolded part, you are being too simplistic with some of the other points. If you bother to immerse yourself into the original trope that D&D is built around, and that a core premise is that of lethal conflict as a standard method of conflict resolution (which is NOT how RL works in the civilized world, but in parts of the uncivilized world it is) you realize that life is cheap in the quasi medieval world, life is nasty brutish and short in much of that world, and that the forces of chaos (meta sense) are opposed to civilization prospering. (Cities and towns, orderly polity, justice, etc).
Almost all quest givers in the game ever: "Please help us. You look like a strong lot. There are these people that are recklessly harming us and our loved ones. We are suffering. Please help!"
Adventurers: *shrugs* "What's wrong with recklessly harming other people? Life is cheap. Lethal conflict is a core premise of the world. IN helping you, our barbarian might actually kill two dozen of you. And we'd be okay with that."

[Malifice]

I get the point you're making here but... unions are on the decline. That option is just not realistically open for people to take over worse positions. I say that as a former union member currently working on a non-union construction site smack-dab in the middle of Manhattan.

I agree to an extent but context is important. In the United Kingdom and in Australia the trade union movements are much stronger. One of the major political parties in each country is the Labour party which is founded and based pretty much off the back of the trade union movement.

The bosses vote for the conservative party on the other side. They have the money but we have the power of the people (more votes).

It's why in Australia we have a minimum wage of around $20 per hour, a bare minimum of four weeks annual leave (and as much as six for even eight weeks per year), plus generous long service leave, maternity leave and sick leave entitlements and laws against no grounds dismissal etc. Underlying all that we have a welfare system where you get $300 per week unemployment benefits if you're unemployed (plus extra to pay your rent), and free universities (to up skill, and not lock you into crippling debt for your entire life) and free healthcare and mandatory superannuation (so you are not reliant upon your employer to provide it) etc

Unfortunately in the USA the wealthy were able to hoodwink much of the population into believing things like welfare, free healthcare, higher taxes for the wealthy, and a decent minimum wage were 'evil evil Communism'.

That said, things are cheaper over there in the US. And your taxes are lower.

Anyways back to the topic.

[Squiddish]

Okay, to reiterate, the party as a whole is not okay with this, Necrodancer does not speak for the whole group, et cetera et cetera.

Onto another clarification, party members turning evil isn't something the DM foists upon them, nor in any way arbitrary. In all cases it has been the result of a cursed magic item or a dark deal that they used/made willingly in hope of personal gain.

[Malifice]

Indeed to the bolded part, you are being too simplistic with some of the other points. If you bother to immerse yourself into the original trope that D&D is built around, and that a core premise is that of lethal conflict as a standard method of conflict resolution (which is NOT how RL works in the civilized world, but in parts of the uncivilized world it is) you realize that life is cheap in the quasi medieval world, life is nasty brutish and short in much of that world, and that the forces of chaos (meta sense) are opposed to civilization prospering. (Cities and towns, orderly polity, justice, etc).

Oh I agree that combat and violence is at the core of DnDs conflict resolution.

In my games there are monsters that are actively trying to kill and enslave things (at a bare minimum the player characters). But notwithstanding this this doesn't justify or permit the player characters to become monsters themselves.

Or to be more correct they can. I have no problem with a player character using violence and excessive force to deal with the threat of monsters. He might genuinely believe he is in the right when he engages in genocide on the nearby Orc Village. He might genuinely believe he is doing the right thing when he slaughters orc children (in order to protect the town from future problems with the orcs). He might genuinely believe that torture is inappropriate means of defeating a greater evil. Real life is littered with just such examples of people doing absolutely abhorrent things for the 'greater good'.

In my games he is not objectively speaking, good. Unless he worships an appropriate lawful evil deity he will be walled into the wall of the faithless by Kelemvor upon his death.

[Dr.Samurai]

I agree to an extent but context is important. In the United Kingdom and in Australia the trade union movements are much stronger. One of the major political parties in each country is the Labour party which is founded and based pretty much off the back of the trade union movement.
Gah! Sorry, I'm American. So naturally I think everyone else is as well. *offends all other Americans in this thread*


Okay, to reiterate, the party as a whole is not okay with this, Necrodancer does not speak for the whole group, et cetera et cetera.
That's okay Squiddish. I'm just arguing against the idea that because violence is assumed in the game, killing twenty people for no other reason than they were in proximity to your targets isn't actually evil.

[KorvinStarmast]

Almost all quest givers in the game ever: "Please help us. You look like a strong lot. There are these people that are recklessly harming us and our loved ones. We are suffering. Please help!"
Adventurers: *shrugs* "What's wrong with recklessly harming other people? Life is cheap. Lethal conflict is a core premise of the world. IN helping you, our barbarian might actually kill two dozen of you. And we'd be okay with that." If that's the kind of adventurer that you play, then I am pretty sure your table is little to no fun. I advise you to revisit what a trope is, and why adventurers are out adventuring in the first place. (No point in an adventure based game if the players don't want to go on an adventure).

I'm just arguing against the idea that because violence is assumed in the game, killing twenty people for no other reason than they were in proximity to your targets isn't actually evil.
Who made that argument? You just did, I noticed, but who else did?

I offer you yet another point: accidentally killing someone with your car (since you didn't see them and they were wearing black clothes at night) isn't evil even though the person is dead. It is certainly a tragic and lethal mistake. You seem to be ignoring intent as a factor in alignment, and trend. When it gets to combat, and the problem of non combatants being mixed up with combatants, the simplistic garbage I see spewed out on these forums (and in general) is just that.
Since I have some no kidding RL experience with that, I am (1) not going to derail this game thread with digression there and (2) will not respond to the typical ill informed noise on that topic. But I did make that point early in the discussion, so I'll not call it "collateral damage" but rather in game "the consequence of being a non combatant during the middle of combat." As millions of dead over the millennia discovered, being unable to flee a war or battlefield can be lethal. That's got little to do with alignment. It has a lot to do with how migrations happen, and how refugees come about.

Back to an in-game alignment point about the character in the OP:
What is this character's habit?
What remorse, if any, is shown?
In the medieval context, what wereguild is or was offered?
What restitution is offered?

All of that can be role played, and can make for some rich RP experiences in capable hands.

Digress to GiTP and OoTS for a minute:
Vaarsuvius at one point asks how to go about making restitution for the horrific ripple effect of the spell cast on the black dragon and family). Likewise in the Heavens story line the deva interrogating Roy makes a solid point about trends, efforts to get right when one has done wrong, and intentions.

If this character habitually slaughters any and all targets without any consideration, nor any attempt at the follow up per the above questions, that trend is chaotic to the core as reflected in both alignment (actual versus professed) and if the DM has a sack, consequences.

How fellow players react can become a real challenge depending upon how much immersion that table likes and how important alignment is at that table. The question is: are the fellow players in the group role playing this or not? Is the DM folding this in, or is this a less immersive table where going from one fight to the next in search of XP is the norm?

[xanderh]

Mate I will take trade unions, an eight hour working day, weekend's off, weeks of sick leave every year, minimum wage, One month minimum annual leave each year, Long service leave, Maternity leave etc over debt slavery any day of the week.

If you want laws that inherently favor the poor and the homeless there are better ways that do it than forcing them into slavery!

Before trade unions (and after the abolishment of serfdom) the wealthy used to have children working seven day weeks for 16 hours a day. Occupational Health & Safety didn't exist and people would be dangling over molten lead via ropes. It was Dickensian.

There can be no system of voluntary slavery where one can assume an even close to even balance in bargaining power between the potential slave and potential master.

There are very very good reasons why slavery in all of its forms has been abolished.

I'm out. You're continually strawmanning my arguments rather than engaging what I'm actually saying, and from what I've seen, that seems to be a pattern for you in alignment threads.

[smcmike]

I'm out. You're continually strawmanning my arguments rather than engaging what I'm actually saying, and from what I've seen, that seems to be a pattern for you in alignment threads.

Your thesis is "maybe slavery is sometimes ok." That is not the sort of thesis that is going to get a positive response. Also, legal systems never favor the weaker party.

I'm glad this alignment thread delivered the goods. They always do.

[xanderh]

Your thesis is "maybe slavery is sometimes ok." That is not the sort of thesis that is going to get a positive response. Also, legal systems never favor the weaker party.

I'm glad this alignment thread delivered the goods. They always do.

I wasn't expecting a positive response, but I did expect responses to at least engage with what I was actually saying. Some people did, which was nice, but I guess it's pointless to discuss controversial topics over the internet...

[AMFV]

Your thesis is "maybe slavery is sometimes ok." That is not the sort of thesis that is going to get a positive response. Also, legal systems never favor the weaker party.

I'm glad this alignment thread delivered the goods. They always do.

Well I think "Maybe slavery is not always objectively Evil in terms of D&D" is probably a defensible thesis at least in certain cases. A person for example who is a slaveowner in a culture where he does not know any better and cannot really free his slaves without causing scandal or uproar or thrusting them into poverty who endeavors to treat them with compassion may not be Evil. But real world stuff tends to have that complexity. I would say that slavery as an institution is Evil, but not all forms of participation in it would constitute objective Evil in D&D terms.

[MadBear]

I feel like I was pretty clear about what kind of slavery I was talking about. I didn't specifically call it debt slavery, but I did say that it was done to pay off debts. I even acknowledged that not all slavery in Rome was like this. So when you say that I "really need to classify" what I'm talking about, my response can only be "you really need to read what I wrote a little closer".

I'll for sure agree, that I could read a little closer. I'd also point out putting the context at the very end, after spending multiple paragraphs talking about Roman Slavery as if that was synonymous with debt slavery, only to clarify at the last post isn't as clear as it could/should be. I'd also point out that the main slavery in Rome was the tyrannical kind.


As for selling a child into slavery, I'd say that's more evil on the part of the person selling the child than the one buying, unless the buyer is suggesting it. And any atrocities committed under this form of slavery was illegal. It still happened, but that doesn't make the practise itself evil, just like murder doesn't make guns or kitchen knifes evil. By the way, I don't consider the owning of another person inherently more evil than the owning of pets. As long as it's a mutually beneficial relationship (and it has to be truly mutually beneficial), I don't see how it's evil.

If you accept a deal where you are taking someones son into slavery in exchange for payment, you're evil. I mean, the father is too, but that doesn't alleviate at all how messed up you are as a person for doing that.

As for the knife murder analogy, you're a bit off. In a relationship where one person is the master, and the other is property, there can be no "truly mutually beneficial" relationship. The mere fact that a society like that can reduce a human to a commodity is inherently wrong.




I don't have much of a stake in what happens in the US, since I don't live anywhere close to it, but no, I'm not opposed to properly implemented and regulated debt slavery. It's a dangerous subject, and I don't have strong feelings that we should implement it, but I wouldn't be opposed to debt slavery where the laws and terms favour the would-be slave. It's a moot point anyway, since nobody is stupid enough to suggest it because of the stigma associated with the word slavery.

Feel free to substitute your home country for the US, I forget that not everyone on this forum is from here, which is my bad.

With that said, I Don't think there's more to say, when you say that you would not be opposed to slavery. By the time you jump through the hoops you'd need to, to make slavery not inherently evil, it would no longer be slavery. That's analogous to saying "I'm in favor of murder..... as long as we completely redefine what murder means and remove it from all context".

(Also slavery rightly deserves to be stigmatized, although apparently you disagree).

[xanderh]

I'll for sure agree, that I could read a little closer. I'd also point out putting the context at the very end, after spending multiple paragraphs talking about Roman Slavery as if that was synonymous with debt slavery, only to clarify at the last post isn't as clear as it could/should be. I'd also point out that the main slavery in Rome was the tyrannical kind.



If you accept a deal where you are taking someones son into slavery in exchange for payment, you're evil. I mean, the father is too, but that doesn't alleviate at all how messed up you are as a person for doing that.

As for the knife murder analogy, you're a bit off. In a relationship where one person is the master, and the other is property, there can be no "truly mutually beneficial" relationship. The mere fact that a society like that can reduce a human to a commodity is inherently wrong.





Feel free to substitute your home country for the US, I forget that not everyone on this forum is from here, which is my bad.

With that said, I Don't think there's more to say, when you say that you would not be opposed to slavery. By the time you jump through the hoops you'd need to, to make slavery not inherently evil, it would no longer be slavery. That's analogous to saying "I'm in favor of murder..... as long as we completely redefine what murder means and remove it from all context".

(Also slavery rightly deserves to be stigmatized, although apparently you disagree).

For sure, I should have put the context closer to the start. That's my bad.

I didn't intend to argue that the buyer wasn't doing evil by buying a child, but I still consider the seller to be a greater evil. The seller should get the harsher punishment than the buyer, but that's my general opinion on that, and some may disagree.

I don't agree with the inherent wrongness of owning a person, just like I don't believe having a pet is inherently wrong. If both parties have more individual gain through whatever relationship they have than they would alone, I consider that a truly mutually beneficial relationship.

By the way, I don't consider slavery to be unjustly stigmatised, it is well deserved because of how it has been done historically. I just don't think we have to dismiss all forms of it as evil, no matter the circumstances. There's a very careful way it can exist without being evil, and I wouldn't be opposed to that existing. I wouldn't advocate for it, because it's a system that is fairly easy to corrupt or abuse, but as a moral hypothetical, I don't agree that all forms are inherently evil.

[Unoriginal]

Just wanted to add something about the "slavery in D&D" topic:



Mortal slaves serve to validate a genie's power and high self-opinion. A hundred flattering voices are music to a genie's ears, while two hundred mortal slaves prostrated at its feet are proof that it is lord and master. Genies view slaves as living property, and a genie without property amounts to nothing among its own kind. As a result, many genies treasure their slaves, treating them as honored members of their households. Evil genies freely threaten and abuse their slaves, but never to the extent that the slaves are no longer of use.

MM p. 141


Djinn treat their slaves more like servants deserving of kindness and protection, and they part with them reluctantly

MM p. 142

The Djinni is still listed as a chaotic good being.

[Bohandas]

There is a difference between being negligent and evil, and that's where intent does matter. I'll leave intent to the player and the character, but the DM needs to make an assessment on how that reflects on character alignment as shown by behavior, changes in behavior, or lack of change in behavior.

The point is that in-game it could be made to look merely negligent, and thus the other characters wouldn't necessarily need to strongly react

[Bohandas]

Unfortunately in the USA the wealthy were able to hoodwink much of the population into believing things like welfare, free healthcare, higher taxes for the wealthy, and a decent minimum wage were 'evil evil Communism'.

Hopefully this will decline with time as more and more people reach voting age who were not yet born during the era when Russia was decorated with a communist theme. That country was reskinned in 1991 so the USA should have been gradually accumulating uncorrupted voters since 2009.

[King of Nowhere]

Well I think "Maybe slavery is not always objectively Evil in terms of D&D" is probably a defensible thesis at least in certain cases. A person for example who is a slaveowner in a culture where he does not know any better and cannot really free his slaves without causing scandal or uproar or thrusting them into poverty who endeavors to treat them with compassion may not be Evil. But real world stuff tends to have that complexity. I would say that slavery as an institution is Evil, but not all forms of participation in it would constitute objective Evil in D&D terms.

Exactly that. Constitutional rights and minimum wages and mandatory vacations are much better than slavery anyway, but slavery with the proper protections for slaves can be not evil. I'd say the minimum requisites to call slavery not evil are: fixed terms, no gratuitous violence, and possibility for the freed slave to improve his life as a result of his period of slavery. Slavery is almost always evil, and even when it isn't there are generally better solutions, but the basic argument (slavery can be non-evil) is correct. Just don't read too much in it.

I'd also point out that the definition of slavery is pretty broad, and that by that definition we (meaning western nations) do still apply slavery in two cases, and we do not see it as evil:
1) penal servitude. People are condemned to "soocially useful jobs" or some similar formula, and it is slavery by the definition - they are forced to perform some works (they can refuse it and go to jail, but that's sort of the point: they are punished for refusing to work). It is not seen as evil because people are condemned to it because of misdeeds, so it is a sort of you-broke-it-you-bought-it policy, plus there is absolutely nothing inhuman or debasing with the jobs they are doing, and getting criminals used to work can help to recover them to society.
2) military conscription. In countries practicing it, young people are forced to join the army. Some people see it as evil anyway, but most people accept it as just because being in the army is a dirty job, but someone has to do it, and by forcing everyone to spend one or two years in it, it's the best you can do for fairness; everyone does his share.

P.S. Under ancient roman law, a father was the legal owner of his children, and could sell them as slaves at any time, regardless of whether he himself was a slave or not. Ancient rome was advanced and just for its time, but it still amounted to a crappy banana republic/dictatorship for modern standards.

[MadBear]

For sure, I should have put the context closer to the start. That's my bad.

I didn't intend to argue that the buyer wasn't doing evil by buying a child, but I still consider the seller to be a greater evil. The seller should get the harsher punishment than the buyer, but that's my general opinion on that, and some may disagree.

I don't agree with the inherent wrongness of owning a person, just like I don't believe having a pet is inherently wrong. If both parties have more individual gain through whatever relationship they have than they would alone, I consider that a truly mutually beneficial relationship.

By the way, I don't consider slavery to be unjustly stigmatised, it is well deserved because of how it has been done historically. I just don't think we have to dismiss all forms of it as evil, no matter the circumstances. There's a very careful way it can exist without being evil, and I wouldn't be opposed to that existing. I wouldn't advocate for it, because it's a system that is fairly easy to corrupt or abuse, but as a moral hypothetical, I don't agree that all forms are inherently evil.

I think in the end we mostly agree (I still think there's something inherently wrong with a human being treated as property, in a way that I don't see the same problem with a cat). My overall contention would be, that by the time you get to a point where I would consider slavery to not be evil, you might as well not call it slavery.

[Dr.Samurai]

Who made that argument? You just did, I noticed, but who else did?
Oh. So I'm misunderstanding you? Would you mind reiterating your point for me?

I offer you yet another point: accidentally killing someone with your car (since you didn't see them and they were wearing black clothes at night) isn't evil even though the person is dead. It is certainly a tragic and lethal mistake. You seem to be ignoring intent as a factor in alignment, and trend.
The OP did not say this was an accident. As a matter of fact, he said, to the surprise of everyone in the party, the barbarian turned and unleashed the cone of cold on the crowd.

I'm not ignoring intent. I'm assuming it. From the context of the OP and the whole point of the thread.

When it gets to combat, and the problem of non combatants being mixed up with combatants, the simplistic garbage I see spewed out on these forums (and in general) is just that.
*KorvinStarmast used the word "garbage". It was ineffective!*

It seems you're suggesting the barbarian's act wasn't evil. Is this the case?

The opposite of "simplistic garbage" is the next quote by the way.

But I did make that point early in the discussion, so I'll not call it "collateral damage" but rather in game "the consequence of being a non combatant during the middle of combat." As millions of dead over the millennia discovered, being unable to flee a war or battlefield can be lethal. That's got little to do with alignment. It has a lot to do with how migrations happen, and how refugees come about.
I don't see the relevance. This was a D&D battle, not a war. Not a battlefield. This wasn't about people escaping a nation. What are you talking about? This was a fight between the adventurers and some cultists, and one of the PCs freely massacring twenty innocent people to kill some cultists.

What is this character's habit?
According to the OP, communing with demonic spirits, allowing evil entities to influence his soul, various other things that are enough to tip the Paladin to his nature and warn the rest of the party.

What remorse, if any, is shown?
Again, according to the OP, absolutely none.

In the medieval context, what wereguild is or was offered?
What restitution is offered?
If you kill twenty people and don't care that you killed twenty people, do you often offer restitution?

All of that can be role played, and can make for some rich RP experiences in capable hands.
I don't think anyone is arguing that (though I admit I don't think this is likely for most groups).

Look, the OP is not painting a picture of the Scarlet Witch in Civil War struggling to contain an explosion, and failing to do so and accidentally killing a crowd of people. That's not what the OP is describing. The OP is describing the Avengers fighting Crossbones, and the Scarlet Witch blowing up a city street, with all the pedestrians walking on it, to kill Crossbones.

It's not an accident. It's not moral calculus. It's just a blatant disregard for human life and suffering. It's evil. The Avengers wouldn't keep fighting alongside her without getting to the bottom of why she did that and determining whether she would ever do it again or not. And those are the kinds of things that people don't just do once (and not care that they did) and then never do again. It's a big deal.

It's not even the point about whether or not the act was evil. The OP is telling us it was evil. That is the entire point behind the thread. The discussion is about how a party would react to it. And I think killing a crowd of people with such disregard and no remorse is a huge hurdle to overcome for most parties, unless you're not really taking these things too seriously.

[Bohandas]

Exactly that. Constitutional rights and minimum wages and mandatory vacations are much better than slavery anyway, but slavery with the proper protections for slaves can be not evil. I'd say the minimum requisites to call slavery not evil are: fixed terms, no gratuitous violence, and possibility for the freed slave to improve his life as a result of his period of slavery. Slavery is almost always evil, and even when it isn't there are generally better solutions, but the basic argument (slavery can be non-evil) is correct. Just don't read too much in it.

I'd also point out that the definition of slavery is pretty broad, and that by that definition we (meaning western nations) do still apply slavery in two cases, and we do not see it as evil:
1) penal servitude. People are condemned to "soocially useful jobs" or some similar formula, and it is slavery by the definition - they are forced to perform some works (they can refuse it and go to jail, but that's sort of the point: they are punished for refusing to work). It is not seen as evil because people are condemned to it because of misdeeds, so it is a sort of you-broke-it-you-bought-it policy, plus there is absolutely nothing inhuman or debasing with the jobs they are doing, and getting criminals used to work can help to recover them to society.
2) military conscription. In countries practicing it, young people are forced to join the army. Some people see it as evil anyway, but most people accept it as just because being in the army is a dirty job, but someone has to do it, and by forcing everyone to spend one or two years in it, it's the best you can do for fairness; everyone does his share.

Only the first is non-evil (unless the war in the second one is being fought for a damn good cause, and isn't a thoroughly pointless pissing contest like 'nam) and only if they committed a violent crime or a business crime. If its someone who's in for something harmless like smoking weed, jaywalking, or uploading the music of Metallica then it's evil.

[Bohandas]

The OP did not say this was an accident.

That's metagame knowledge

[Slayn82]

MM p. 142

The Djinni is still listed as a chaotic good being.

Excellent point. Cultural norms of the society frame what is Good or Evil, specially in D&D settings. In fantasy, being the slave of a CG Djinni probably is a much better experience than being a free villager under the Church of Bane.

Good people and Evil people play a tug of war, to change the morality of the society, while Neutral people follow the current customs and act as inertia for changes and brakes to prevent outright conflict. They are the guys that pray for healing to the God of Sun, and later give offerings to appease the God of Disease.

And I really hate the entire concept of the Wall of Faithless in Forgotten Realms, because most people IRL simply don't get to have much true faith or convictions, ever. And being good is hard, so I bet dying people worried about after life go really hard on Evil to compensate. It kind of becomes "The guys you kill will become your status in afterlife" all over again.

[King of Nowhere]

And I really hate the entire concept of the Wall of Faithless in Forgotten Realms, because most people IRL simply don't get to have much true faith or convictions, ever. And being good is hard, so I bet dying people worried about after life go really hard on Evil to compensate. It kind of becomes "The guys you kill will become your status in afterlife" all over again.

I hate that concept because basically the whole universe is trying to force people to follow a certain path, and it doesn't fit well with the variety of the game. as in "yes, you can do what you want, but unless you're a good and pious character, you'll suffer horribly after death". I figure that since there are many deities with conflicting agendas, there would be many ways to get a reward in the afterlife

[Dr.Samurai]

That's metagame knowledge
Elaborate please.

I feel like you're all missing what was said and adding much more weight than necessary to the "unknowns".

The OP said: Although the Barbarian massacred a small crowd with no remorse I will still stand by the Barbarian as a friend because the Barbarian was always loyal, kind, and a generally nice person to the party that I still trust with my life.

Emphasis mine. Nowhere is it said or even implied that it was an accident. That'd be a pretty good reason to ignore the action. It would read something like this: Although the Barbarian massacred a small crowd with no remorse I will stand by the Barbarian as a friend because it was an accident.

Why are you assuming that Necrodancer's character doesn't think this was done intentionally and an act of evil? Please explain what the point of the thread is, in your opinion, if the characters believe this to be an accident.

[KorvinStarmast]

The OP did not say this was an accident. As a matter of fact, he said, to the surprise of everyone in the party, the barbarian turned and unleashed the cone of cold on the crowd. That appears to be a contradiction, but I can see how it isn't. This suggests to me that this behavior was not habitual, since the rest of the party was surprised.

I'm not ignoring intent. I'm assuming it. From the context of the OP and the whole point of the thread. I find your assumption less than sufficient.


It seems you're suggesting the barbarian's act wasn't evil. Is this the case? The barbarian was in a battle with cultists, and aimed at the cultists and also hit the non combatants. That is a whole different case than simple shooting into a crowd of non combatants.

I don't find it inherently evil in the simplistic sense that gets bandied about here, but it's a step toward evil to do so without remorse. (On this we agree) (Remember that in D&D you can heal/try to heal people who drop to 0 HP, which in RL you mostly cannot do). It is at best reckless and undisciplined, and at worst if it was done with the explicit intent to harm the bystanders regardless of the battle it's evil.

As it was part of a battle/melee, the cultists were the foe and apparently got hit. This is one of those hard things. Then what happened? Then what did the party do to deal with this careless, reckless act?

I don't see the relevance. This was a D&D battle, not a war. Indeed.

This was a fight between the adventurers and some cultists, and one of the PCs freely massacring twenty innocent people to kill some cultists.I find the way you frame the event to be insufficient.
The character fired into a mixed crowd knowing that there was enemy there. (Do you understand the moral problem of using human shields? )
According to the OP, communing with demonic spirits, allowing evil entities to influence his soul, various other things that are enough to tip the Paladin to his nature and warn the rest of the party. OK, there's a trend of behavior. A single act isn't what determines any of that. I'm with you if we are talking about a trend.
Again, according to the OP, absolutely none. And the case gets stronger.
If you kill twenty people and don't care that you killed twenty people, do you often offer restitution? Hmm, in the RL cases where my orders led to significant numbers of people dying, no. The people I cared about were calling for fire. The ones shooting at them became dead. But that was more or less a war, and the RoE was so tight that the people calling for fire were sure that they were combatants and that no friendlies/non targets were around (otherwise we'd have been weapons tight) so I can't say I've been in an analogous situation.

If I saw someone spray a .50 cal into a crowd of people for no apparent reason, I'd most likely characterize that as evil. (I'd try to stop them if I could). But I have a bias. I am a firm believer in fire discipline, and adherence to the RoE. A D&D melee, as you note, isn't that situation. Nor does it have a Geneva convention, nor RoE, or LoAC.

The OP is describing the Avengers fighting Crossbones, and the Scarlet Witch blowing up a city street, with all the pedestrians walking on it, to kill Crossbones. If Crossbones lives, how many more innocents will die? How critical is it to kill that foe?
It's not an accident. It's not moral calculus. It's just a blatant disregard for human life and suffering. It's evil. Ah, we are back to garbage. The battle was on with the foe. Foe needed to die. If foe remains alive, how many other innocents will die? That context was missing from the OP. Does that excuse sloppy decisions to engage the enemy with lethal force? Hard question. My personal opinion is no, but I'm not in that group.

The discussion is about how a party would react to it. And I think killing a crowd of people with such disregard and no remorse is a huge hurdle to overcome for most parties Which is why I asked the questions that I did. That party needs to do some serious interparty work, and maybe the rest of the party needs to try and make restitution since that reckless one won't.

But I do get your other point. If the character himself freely admits that it was evil and the character didn't care, then the issue is does the party want to keep this goon in their party or not? I think we agree on that. If the rest of the party is NOT happy with this recklessness, there is a non trivial problem within this party.

Not for us to solve. That is to be solved at the table.

[Bohandas]

Elaborate please.

I feel like you're all missing what was said and adding much more weight than necessary to the "unknowns".

The OP said: Although the Barbarian massacred a small crowd with no remorse I will still stand by the Barbarian as a friend because the Barbarian was always loyal, kind, and a generally nice person to the party that I still trust with my life.

Emphasis mine. Nowhere is it said or even implied that it was an accident.

Because the players know it wasn't


That'd be a pretty good reason to ignore the action. It would read something like this: Although the Barbarian massacred a small crowd with no remorse I will stand by the Barbarian as a friend because it was an accident.

Why are you assuming that Necrodancer's character doesn't think this was done intentionally and an act of evil? Please explain what the point of the thread is, in your opinion, if the characters believe this to be an accident.

anywho the line "the barbarian unleashed a cone of cold spell (from a magical gift she had gotten) all over the innocent townsfolk and devil cultists alike." suggests to me something that would at least look like the spell was cast to deal with the devil cultists

[hamishspence]

I'd say the nearest equivalent is firing a wide-stream flamethrower into a crowd.

[Bohandas]

I'd say the nearest equivalent is firing a wide-stream flamethrower into a crowd.

A crowd that includes, but is not limited to, crazy devil cultists coming after you

[KorvinStarmast]

Further my point to Dr Samurai, and somewhat in response to your point Bohandas, if before this battle this party hadn't had the kind of intraparty discussion on how to deal with a situation where foes are mixed with friendlies, or foes are mixed with innocents, then
- the party lacked the kind of RoE or decision tool to help with that problem when it crops up
- the party has poor communication
- the party has varied opinions and no consensus on running battles in populated areas
etc.

If you don't have a party consensus on what we do and don't do, you are bound to run into some situations where the party doesn't operate from the same page. And stuff like the scenario happens. (And what, one wonders, are the consequences that the DM levies on the player, and the party, for this happening? )

Then what? How does a party resolve a situation like that? Well, the party does, or it doesn't, depending on the people at the table.

Or, one can try to slap labels on other people.

[Dr.Samurai]

The character fired into a mixed crowd knowing that there was enemy there. (Do you understand the moral problem of using human shields? )
I think this is our biggest disconnect Korvin.

I'm coming at this from the perspective that the barbarian is a melee combatant, designed to fight in melee, and will engage in melee. Or even if he chooses to use a bow, he might take a penalty to hit the cultist **if the cultist was using anyone as an actual human shield** but otherwise wouldn't kill anyone by directly engaging the cultists in the crowd (as he is designed to do).

Again, because the OP is framing this as the barbarian did something evil, and didn't describe a situation in which the cultists were going to murder anyone anyway, or unleashing this cone of cold was the *only* way to deal with this problem, I see no reason to think that's the case.

Whereas you seem to be filling in these unknowns with these assumptions; that the barbarian needed to use that magical item to unleash an AoE, that the cultists were in the crowd specifically to use the humans as shields, that this was the only way to handle this situation.

Typically, if the DM throws the map up and the enemies are mixed in with the NPCs, a barbarian can run up and attack a cultist with no risk of harming anyone else.

You're assuming he made a calculation there that might justify the action or make it "gray". I don't see anything pointing to that at all, and the point of the OP suggests the opposite to me.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think this is our biggest disconnect Korvin. We seem to be talking past one another, and IMO the problem is one of labels.
1. The OP never tells us what consequences the DM has applied to the outcome of this battle. Given the conclusion that "the CE character can work with our party" by the OP I suspect that the DM applied no significant consenquences (yet?) which makes the OP statement true.
2. The "we were surprised" line (and the in game/out game point) looks to this party being deliberately dysfunctional by design. (or, as Squiddish notes, due to a curse). And the DM apparently lets them play that way.
3. It's their table, perhaps this was a discussion not worth having, and I got somewhat sidetracked by the usual "must slap the evil tag on X" thing that happens too often on these forums.
4. It is obvious to me from the OP that a significant in game world issue is destroying the cult/cultists. The party appears to have accomplished that mission.
5. The follow on RP is opaque to us, and while I know how I'd have handled it at my table, the scene didn't happen at my table.
6. If the group will not influence, or otherwise censure the Barbarian for this reckless act, they own it as accomplices. (*But apparently this story has not yet been fully told).
7. What the DM does with that will or won't ever be posted here. I'd be interested to see the next few chapters of this tale.

Note the follow up by two people in the party: NecroDancer and Squiddish.


1. Luckily no. We are in a situation where we need all the help we can get to stop the BBEG. We've allied with a lich, werewolves, and a fallen angel and the paladin is just as holy and good as ever.
I'm 90% sure the only reason why the paladin isn't prepared to arrest the barbarian is because we are at a high enough level to cast Raise Dead on the late commoners. Although I can easily see us trying to cast geas on the barbarian if only so we don't run out of diamonds. Funny, I believe I raised that point a few posts back (yeah, pun intended) about how in D&D you can undo that kind of recklessness which in RL you can't.
Squiddish

Paladin here. First off, some information.
1. The barbarian is not naturally evil. They are the victim of a curse obtained in the amber temple. I have been trying to remove this curse since he got it, but have not been able to.

2. The rest of the party is willing to overlook this for now, but I am not. The only thing stopping me from killing the barbarian at this point is that I cannot do so singlehandedly.
3. No, having an evil character isn't fun, and it especially isn't fun to have to deal with it so often. This is the 4th time some party member has been turned evil. The first time it was Necrodancer's warlock, who gouged out someone's eyes with a spoon and then attempted to cut off their thumbs. The next time it was Zingzing's rogue, who fortunately didn't pull off anything bad before being cured. Then was GPS's cleric, who was actually full-on possessed and betrayed us at a critical moment, resulting in my (nearly permanent) death.
This is an interesting counterpoint to the premise of the OP.
They have not finished RPing the situation yet, it appears.
The answer to most of my question is "this is a work in progress" rather than a completed interaction, or resolved situation.

[Unoriginal]

OP described them as Fiend-worshiping cultists coming for a fight. How where they not going to kill people?

[KorvinStarmast]

OP described them as Fiend-worshiping cultists coming for a fight. How where they not going to kill people? That depends upon how much effort into "not killing other people" the party exerts.

[Dr.Samurai]

We seem to be talking past one another, and IMO the problem is one of labels.
I don't think that's it. I think, and this can certainly be on me, I just don't know what point you're trying to make. You're saying a lot, but I'm missing the point of most of it.

3. It's their table, perhaps this was a discussion not worth having, and I got somewhat sidetracked by the usual "must slap the evil tag on X" thing that happens too often on these forums.
The "evil" tag is in the thread title. In the first sentence of the OP. In the second sentence of the OP. In the third sentence of the OP. And so on.

50% of the sentences in the OP, not including the title, refer back to the evil or chaotic evil alignment of the barbarian.

You see my reading comprehension and inferences as "simplistic garbage", and I see all of your reasoning to avoid "slapping a label" as deliberately obtuse.

Funny, I believe I raised that point a few posts back (yeah, pun intended) about how in D&D you can undo that kind of recklessness which in RL you can't.
You did. One of the other players also raised a point that Raise Dead is simply not an option because they don't have the resources for it.

Never mind that all of those *twenty innocent murdered townsfolk* are now frozen statues. Can you raise a statue?

I'm just skeptical that this point has any bearing on the alignment discussion, as if the barbarian chose to massacre twenty people because they can spend 10000gp worth of diamonds and 20 hours bringing them back from the dead. I highly doubt that calculation entered his mind.

OP described them as Fiend-worshiping cultists coming for a fight. How where they not going to kill people?
What's the point here? That it's all a wash?

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm missing the point of most of it. Not to worry, the Malifice digression had me staring at the wrong thing.

One of the other players also raised a point that Raise Dead is simply not an option because they don't have the resources for it. It is possible for the party to make some restitution; whether they do or not is up to the party to decide.

Never mind that all of those *twenty innocent murdered townsfolk* are now frozen statues. Can you raise a statue? "Murdered?" No, dead. Use simple, unevocative language if you want a clean description. As you noted, the barb likely didn't bother to think/ponder/consider. Murder strikes me as overstatement.

FWIW: I did not read in the text that the weapon used turned people to stone. As I understood the weapon, it hit people, cultists and others alike, with cold damage. That doesn't turn you into a statue. Note for RL, if you die of cold you are not petrified. Petrified things don't thaw, cold things do.

the barbarian unleashed a cone of cold spell
You may be overselling your reading comprehension, as with your hyperbole (and the OPs) regarding the killings during the battle.

I highly doubt that calculation entered his mind.Probably, but as noted, the character is under a curse/compulsion.

What's the point here? That there was a hell of a lot more in operation than a character's alignment, which had been changed to evil. (We find out from another party member). It appears that the player embraced the enforced alignment change well enough. Maybe that was good role playing.

[Dr.Samurai]

It is possible for the party to make some restitution; whether they do or not is up to the party to decide.
Not really the point. Raise Dead was brought up and promptly rejected as an option. Restitution also doesn't really matter when we're talking about if the barbarian did something evil and whether the party is okay with his actions.

"Murdered?" No, dead. Use simple, unevocative language if you want a clean description. As you noted, the barb likely didn't bother to think/ponder/consider. Murder strikes me as overstatement.
Oh. Now you like simple language. The plot thickens.

Don't twist my words. I said the barbarian likely didn't calculate Raise Dead into his *very much a* decision to murder those townsfolk while he took out the cultists. That doesn't mean he wasn't thinking when he made the choice. Unless the DM decided what action he was going to take that turn and the item triggered itself.

FWIW: I did not read in the text that the weapon used turned people to stone. As I understood the weapon, it hit people, cultists and others alike, with cold damage. That doesn't turn you into a statue. Note for RL, if you die of cold you are not petrified. Petrified things don't thaw, cold things do.

You may be overselling your reading comprehension, as with your hyperbole (and the OPs) regarding the killings during the battle.
I may, once again, be missing your point here, but I'll just respond with some quotes:

...we were all shocked that the barbarian unleashed a cone of cold spell (from a magical gift she had gotten) all over the innocent townsfolk...

A creature killed by this spell becomes a frozen statue until it thaws.

If this escaped you, I'll assert again that I think people are ignoring the information we already have and assuming a lot of what we don't have.

That there was a hell of a lot more in operation than a character's alignment, which had been changed to evil. (We find out from another party member). It appears that the player embraced the enforced alignment change well enough. Maybe that was good role playing.
The alignment changing to evil is a relevant point *when discussing how the party reacts*. But I don't see how that factors in to what Unoriginal said. I get the impression that you're not really staying on target when responding to me and that's why I'm having trouble making sense of what you're saying.

[JackPhoenix]

A crowd that includes, but is not limited to, crazy devil cultists coming after you

When you're actually specialized in dealing with the crazy devil cultists without causing collateral damage, i.e. barbarian engaging in melee combat where his attacks can't hit bystanders by accident.

[GPS]

Elaborate please.

I feel like you're all missing what was said and adding much more weight than necessary to the "unknowns".

The OP said: Although the Barbarian massacred a small crowd with no remorse I will still stand by the Barbarian as a friend because the Barbarian was always loyal, kind, and a generally nice person to the party that I still trust with my life.

Emphasis mine. Nowhere is it said or even implied that it was an accident. That'd be a pretty good reason to ignore the action. It would read something like this: Although the Barbarian massacred a small crowd with no remorse I will stand by the Barbarian as a friend because it was an accident.

Why are you assuming that Necrodancer's character doesn't think this was done intentionally and an act of evil? Please explain what the point of the thread is, in your opinion, if the characters believe this to be an accident.

As someone in this party, I'm just gonna go on record saying that you're partially right, in that while some of the civilian deaths were accidents, the intent was to kill several people who were known to be good aligned along with people known to be evil aligned since long before this incident (CoS, paladins have alignmentdars, not getting into that again). So the motive is kind of iffy, but it was mostly just to kill as many people connected to the baddie as possible in a convenient fashion, good or evil, if that makes sense. I don't know how you'd rate that on the alignment scale. To me it was chaotic evil, but I'm kind of an idiot when it comes to alignment.



The alignment changing to evil is a relevant point *when discussing how the party reacts*. But I don't see how that factors in to what Unoriginal said. I get the impression that you're not really staying on target when responding to me and that's why I'm having trouble making sense of what you're saying.
Also, just a minor point, did Necro tell you guys the Barb's alignment had been evil for in-game days before the incident? Based on what I've been reading, people seem to be saying that the Barb changed alignments due to this incident. I apologize if I'm reading that wrong.

Edit to section 2: My bad, that the alignment change happened prior to the incident was made clear. I was reading it wrong.

[Chet_Wrongman]

As someone in this party, I'm just gonna go on record saying that you're partially right, in that while some of the civilian deaths were accidents, the intent was to kill several people who were known to be good aligned along with people known to be evil aligned since long before this incident (CoS, paladins have alignmentdars, not getting into that again). So the motive is kind of iffy, but it was mostly just to kill as many people connected to the baddie as possible in a convenient fashion, good or evil, if that makes sense. I don't know how you'd rate that on the alignment scale. To me it was chaotic evil, but I'm kind of an idiot when it comes to alignment.

Personally, I'd rate it chaotic, but not necessarily evil, perhaps neutral. The barbarian's intentions were clearly in the right place, as he was working towards the greater good. Sometimes good people have to die so that powerful baddies are vanquished. In those cases, you recognize the sacrifice of the innocent, but never let guilt cloud this victory in the battle of good vs. evil.

[Bohandas]

Though the party;s reaction, again, depends only what it looked like in-world

[GPS]

Though the party;s reaction, again, depends only what it looked like in-world
I'm a tired and sick, so I'll make this quick.

Background, background.
Evil lady's taken over town, summoned devils, devil cult happened. Party is in attendance at fun devil cult festival, evil lady and low-level devils up on a podium with evil lady's two drunk chaotic/neutral (I forget) good sons. Low level cultists, 30% of whom are innocent bystanders and not full cultists (so the killed 20 innocents thing is kind of deceptive, since like, 30% of them are innocent) and are sitting at the front of the crowd. High level cultists are in the back of the crowd.

In World: Barbarian sneaks behind the podium, aims a cone of cold up, and shoots the podium with the best damage rolls I've seen to date, killing all the low-level cultists in the front row and almost everyone on the podium. Party reacts with horror, but kind of scrambles into action as evil lady's corpse is being dragged off by a dude to be resurrected, and they need to take care of that asap.

You see how this may require a little more than the in-world view?
Well today's your lucky day, I'm here to give you a sneak peek of the OOC transcripts, as best as I can remember them.

Nota bene: All conversation from this point on is OOC! I don't want to have to say this again later.
Nota bene 2: Zingzing Jr. was absent, as he had left a few minutes earlier, but was also fully filled in after, and is as such a valid authority on the subject.

Barbarian (who we all kinda forgot was CE): "I'm gonna go behind the podium."

Squiddish and I: *Forming plan of attack*

Barbarian: "I'm gonna shoot the podium with my last cone of cold!" (cos stuff, not gonna bother to explain, that's a whole nother post)

Squiddish: "No, you'll hit the sons!"

Barbarian: "I don't really care, I'm just aiming for evil lady and her squad.

*Squiddish, Necro, and I can't stop Barb as we are on the other side of the stage with no IC knowledge of Barb's location*

Squiddish: "At least aim that blast so that it doesn't hit the crowd."

Me: "We're in the crowd, but we can probably take a cone of cold."

Necro: "Yeah, but the civies can't."

Barbarian: "Aight, I'll aim it upwards at the podium."

Jamgretter (DM): "Aight, roll it up."

Barbarian: *Gets incredible damage rolls. Seriously, these were quite good.*

Jamgretter (DM): "That blast takes out everybody on the podium but the spine devil [c/n good sons and party favorite imp included] along with 20 townsfolk in the front row."

Jamgretter (DM): "...Moment of silence for [party favorite imp]."

Party: *collective sad groan*

*Moment of silence follows*

Squiddish: "But angled up!"

Jamgretter: "Yeah, which left the 20 dudes in the front in range."

*Necro and I briefly laud Barbarian on truly chaotic evil action, fits character well*

*This is where I leave the sesh*

[B]EDIT: Jamgretter (DM) informs me that the podium surrounded on all sides, therefore the people Barbarian was hitting weren't behind the podium from her direction, they were still out front. Barbarian just used the language "behind the podium" to specify that she was flipping to the opposite side of the podium. Thank you

EDIT2: I put this one above in an edit, just wanted to make extra sure for the people who've already responded. The reason Squiddish, Necro, and I don't attempt to stop the Barbarian in character is because we do not know in character that he is on the other side of the stage. To attempt to stop the Barb under these circumstances would be some pretty hardcore metagaming.

EDIT3: Cultists were not aggravated prior to the blast. OP mischaracterized cultists. While roughtly 60% of them were evil cultists, some were regular dudes, and they were all mainly just chilling and watching evil lady grow stronger. As such, our target was mainly the lady and her squad. The barb killing all those cultists really made our job easier post-blast though, as let's not forget, 60% of them were evil devil cultists, they weren't exactly saints.

EDIT4: I don't wanna have to say this again, but I know I'll regret it if I don't. Paladins have alignmentdars in CoS, we all knew the sons were good and the lady was evil in character!!!

[Malifice]

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/rickandmorty/images/a/a6/Rick_Sanchez.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/250?cb=20160923150728

Rick Sanchez. Another great example of a CE protagonist.

His rap sheet includes:


Genocide: In the episode The Ricks Must Be Crazy, in order to keep the inhabitants of the microverse producing power for his spaceship, Rick smashes the container of the Miniverse. This causes the Miniverse, and the Teenyverse (a miniature universe within the Miniverse), and at least two entire species of inhabitants to be wiped from existence.
Murder: Outside of all of the hostile aliens he's killed, Rick has killed multiple innocent beings too. In the episode Meeseeks and Destroy, he blasted King Jellybean with a laser gun just as he was leaving the dimension. In the episode Big Trouble In Little Sanchez, he ran around with an axe and killed several living versions of himself at different ages, including a baby, a young child, a young adult, and a full adult. In the episode The Wedding Squanchers, he killed a few more members of the Galactic Federation. In Look Who's Purging Now, Rick and Morty partake in the Purge, and Rick kills a large number of government officials.
Through the course of their adventures, many people have died as a direct or indirect result of Rick's actions. These deaths were usually during the commission of various other serious crimes he was committing, including felony evasion, smuggling, fraud, etc. Rick has also induced Morty to kill people for him, such as making him shoot the security guards to aid their escape in the Pilot episode.
Slavery: In the episode The Ricks Must Be Crazy, it was revealed that Rick's spaceship battery was powered through a microverse, containing a whole planet of people forced to generate his power (originally through deception, later through fear of destruction).
Assault: In the episode A Rickle in Time, Rick started beating up a member of the Galactic Federation. Also in the pilot episode, Rick slaps a bystander alien in the face while fleeing from airport security, causing the alien to cry
Bioterrorism: In the episode Rick Potion #9, Rick made a dysfunctional love potion that spread a flu-like virus to everyone in the world, which caused them to rip apart and mutate into giant praying mantis monsters. He attempted to fix this, by using another potion, but this only made them mutate again, cronenberging the entire world. He couldn't fix the mutations in the end, and just left the dimension with Morty, leaving all of the mutated humans behind.
Breaking and Entering (Burglary): In the episode Lawnmower Dog, Rick and Morty snuck into Mr. Goldenfold's house while he was sleeping with the intent to brainwash him into giving Morty an A in math by invading Mr. Goldenfold's his dreams and incepting the idea.
Child Abuse: In most episodes of the series, Rick takes Morty along with him on all of his adventures, sometimes against his will. He often endangers his life as well as leaving him traumatized and mentally scarred by exposing him to scary and horrible things, such as watching himself get killed and having to bury his own body or being forced to kill clones of his family. Morty is also the victim of lots of physical damage such as breaking his legs in three places. In the episode Total Rickall, Rick was even seen pushing Morty down a stairwell, simply as a practical joke, in a flashback montage, along with other ways Rick has mistreated him.
Driving Under Influence: Rick is drunk throughout the majority of most episodes of Rick and Morty and he's seen driving the space cruiser while he's drunk. Most notably in the Pilot episode, when Rick was visibly intoxicated while he flew the space cruiser with Morty and it almost led to him destroying the world.
Illegal Arms Dealing: In the episode Mortynight Run, it was revealed that Rick has been selling weapons to a hitman for a long time, possibly also hiring him to kill various living beings.
Kidnapping and False Imprisonment: In the episode Auto Erotic Assimilation, it was revealed that Rick had kidnapped an alien and kept it imprisoned in the basement against its own will for an amount of time, so that he could perform multiple tests on him.
Smuggling: In the Pilot episode, Rick attempted to smuggle Mega Seeds past Intergalactic Customs security, by having Morty shove them up his butt to avoid the scanner detecting them. However, when the security guard told them they have a new machine that would detect things up there, Rick grabbed Morty and took off running from them.
Terrorism: At the end of the episode The Ricks Must Be Crazy, the inhabitants of the microverse are forced to step on gooble-boxes to power Rick's spaceship for fear of their planet being destroyed (see above: Slavery).
Torture/Cruelty to Animals: At the end of the episode Auto Erotic Assimilation, Rick revealed to be in possession a living, albeit frozen, being (unclear on the sentience of said being), which was horribly suffering after thawing out , and then he shocked it with a superheated ray, reducing it to ash. This was apparently to test his suicide machine.
Vandalism/Arson: Rick destroyed multiple things in Intergalactic Customs in the Pilot episode. In the episode Something Ricked This Way Comes, Rick had a store and soon got bored of it, so he doused it with gasoline and lit it on fire while people were still in it.
Treason/Rebellion: Prior to the start of the series, Rick was part of an organization that attempted to overthrow and destroy the Galactic Federation, along with his old comrades Squanchy and Birdperson. He eventually causes both the Federation, and Citadel of Ricks to collapse, killing thousands (at least) if not millions in the ensuing chaos.

Plus many (many) other undocumented offences.

[Chet_Wrongman]

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/rickandmorty/images/a/a6/Rick_Sanchez.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/250?cb=20160923150728

Rick Sanchez. Another great example of a CE protagonist.

His rap sheet includes:



Plus many (many) other undocumented offences.

Honestly, if we're using the D&D morality system, I'm gonna put this into D&D context. In a D&D context and even in real life, half of those could barely be considered evil. Crimes, sure, but neutral crimes. Therefore, I have to conclude that Rick must be CN.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm a tired and sick, so I'll make this quick.

Got it. Collateral damage and crappy/poor/difficult RoE and coordination within the party. Not that uncommon. And with the curse, I think there was a good case for lauding the player for taking an action that fit the alignment change to "I don't care who else gets hit, I have a target and I'm gonna blast it."

As to the usual Greek chorus / knee jerk posters bewailing the death of innocents ... the in game "truth on the ground" was once again somewhat different, but it was still crappy fire discipline by the barbarian.

(PS: bad fire discipline contributed to Pat Tillman's death, and other "blue on blue" fatalities).

[Malifice]

In a D&D context and even in real life, half of those could barely be considered evil. Crimes, sure, but neutral crimes. Therefore, I have to conclude that Rick must be CN.

He's murdered innocent people. Billions of them. He's engaged in flat out genocide. He's enslaved entire galaxies under fear of annhilation simply to power his car before wiping them all out. He's (directly and indirectly) murdered millions of innocent members of the Federation and the Citadel simply to become the patriarch of his home again and kick Jerry out (trolling Morty about it afterwards). He's turned an entire planet into Cronenbergs, and then simply abandoned them (and his own family) condemning them all to a fate worse than death.

While drunk, he imprisoned his adventuring party in a death trap, laced with neutrino bombs, leading to several of them dying, simply to prove a point. According to Morty, this isnt the first time he's done it.

I mean what exactly do you define as CE?

For the love of God man.

[Dr.Samurai]

Got it. Collateral damage and crappy/poor/difficult RoE and coordination within the party. Not that uncommon. And with the curse, I think there was a good case for lauding the player for taking an action that fit the alignment change to "I don't care who else gets hit, I have a target and I'm gonna blast it."
If left to his own devices, the barbarian would have killed those people, because he didn't care not to. He said it himself.

When asked to adjust his aim, he says "ok, I'll adjust upwards", which the DM later clarifies actually put those innocent people into range, which then triggers a "lauding of the chaotic evil action". So what exactly are you interpreting here?

As to the usual Greek chorus / knee jerk posters bewailing the death of innocents ... the in game "truth on the ground" was once again somewhat different, but it was still crappy fire discipline by the barbarian.
The OP is "truth on the ground", and the other two players didn't directly contradict his account. This third one does a little. You're very eager to push this "knee jerk" narrative.

But again, I don't see how you're interpreting this. GPS himself is telling you that he considers the act CE. Crappy fire discipline is not what happened here. He intended to fire the cone of cold and hit all those people, and the players asked him not to. And he said ok and then did it anyways. Did he know he was still going to hit them? I don't know, but they lauded him for the CE action. Even if he didn't know, he doesn't care and he was going to do it anyways before the players appealed to him not to.

So everyone in the game thinks it's evil, but when I operate on that notion it's a knee-jerk reaction lol. Makes sense...

[Zingzing Jr.]

If left to his own devices, the barbarian would have killed those people, because he didn't care not to. He said it himself.

When asked to adjust his aim, he says "ok, I'll adjust upwards", which the DM later clarifies actually put those innocent people into range, which then triggers a "lauding of the chaotic evil action". So what exactly are you interpreting here?

The OP is "truth on the ground", and the other two players didn't directly contradict his account. This third one does a little. You're very eager to push this "knee jerk" narrative.

But again, I don't see how you're interpreting this. GPS himself is telling you that he considers the act CE. Crappy fire discipline is not what happened here. He intended to fire the cone of cold and hit all those people, and the players asked him not to. And he said ok and then did it anyways. Did he know he was still going to hit them? I don't know, but they lauded him for the CE action. Even if he didn't know, he doesn't care and he was going to do it anyways before the players appealed to him not to.

So everyone in the game thinks it's evil, but when I operate on that notion it's a knee-jerk reaction lol. Makes sense...

It's not that the Barbarian wanted to kill those people, it's more that the barbarian didn't care in the slightest.

[jas61292]

I'm not going to get into the specific example in the OP, but I think a lot of the idea that evil doesn't work with a good party comes from people forgetting that alignment is just one of many aspects of a character. Sometimes, even if your alignments are diametrically opposed, there can be other ties that bind.

I personally have been in multiple parties featuring both good and evil that worked just fine. Sometimes I am the evil guy, and sometimes I have been good. It doesn't always work out, but it usually does. Perhaps my favorite example though was one where I was playing a good aligned character, and my friend was unquestionably evil. My character had a background in hunting and trapping, and had no problem fighting beasts or monsters, but to him, killing sentient creatures, most specifically humanoids, was just wrong and evil. There were entire missions early on that were pretty standard d&d fare (bandits or whatnot) that my character would refuse to directly participate in because it involved killing people. My friend, on the other hand, thoroughly enjoyed murder. He was not some psychopath who would kill just for fun, but he had no qualms about doing so whenever he deemed it an effective course of action.

Now, I know the reaction of some people here on the forums would be to question my character and why I kept hanging out with my friend. And that's without me even getting into the fact that, not only did we stuck together, but I ended up killing many people just to help him. But anyone suggesting I was not good aligned is completely and totally off base. What they are missing is all the details beyond simply what two letters were written on our character sheets.

When the party first formed, my character was in a pretty bad place in his life (everyone has some pretty extensive backstory, and our DM worked them all into the campaign masterfully). It was the party, including my evil friend, that really turned my entire life around. They gave me hope and reasons to keep going. And through our early adventures, they became my friends. Not colleagues. Not friendly acquaintances. Real, true, friends.

Now that doesn't mean I was cool with all of my friend's evil. I tried to talk them out of evil courses of action when I could. And I was ever optimistic that they would change. But I wasn't about to walk out on them just because of an evil action that they took. And when their actions caught up with them, and they were hunted down by Paladins, I was right there, ready to take the first shot in his defense. Because regardless of what he had done, he was there for me when I needed him, and so I was not about to abandon him when he needed help.

We may have been complete opposites in thought process and what we deemed acceptable, but he was my friend, and that bond was every bit as important a part of my character as his alignment. To suggest that such a relationship is absurd or unreasonable would only show that you lack enough experience with reality to understand that the mind doesn't work on logic when forming relationships.

In my opinion, the only people who believe that good and evil cannot work together just fine, are those who see alignment as something more powerful and overreaching than all other character traits; something not reflected in the actual rules of the game.

[Dr.Samurai]

Now, I know the reaction of some people here on the forums would be to question my character and why I kept hanging out with my friend. And that's without me even getting into the fact that, not only did we stuck together, but I ended up killing many people just to help him. But anyone suggesting I was not good aligned is completely and totally off base. What they are missing is all the details beyond simply what two letters were written on our character sheets.

When the party first formed, my character was in a pretty bad place in his life (everyone has some pretty extensive backstory, and our DM worked them all into the campaign masterfully). It was the party, including my evil friend, that really turned my entire life around. They gave me hope and reasons to keep going. And through our early adventures, they became my friends. Not colleagues. Not friendly acquaintances. Real, true, friends.

Now that doesn't mean I was cool with all of my friend's evil. I tried to talk them out of evil courses of action when I could. And I was ever optimistic that they would change. But I wasn't about to walk out on them just because of an evil action that they took. And when their actions caught up with them, and they were hunted down by Paladins, I was right there, ready to take the first shot in his defense. Because regardless of what he had done, he was there for me when I needed him, and so I was not about to abandon him when he needed help.
It seems to me that what you're saying is "loyalty to a friend excuses murdering people in defense of an evil character".

So, you're saying you're Good aligned, but that you "killed many people" to help the evil guy, and that you were first in line to fight paladins that were hunting him down when his "actions caught up with him".

And you're still "good" because of the power of friendship.

I don't know. I'm not convinced.

We may have been complete opposites in thought process and what we deemed acceptable, but he was my friend, and that bond was every bit as important a part of my character as his alignment. To suggest that such a relationship is absurd or unreasonable would only show that you lack enough experience with reality to understand that the mind doesn't work on logic when forming relationships.

In my opinion, the only people who believe that good and evil cannot work together just fine, are those who see alignment as something more powerful and overreaching than all other character traits; something not reflected in the actual rules of the game.
If you're okay with other people being evil and killing people (in a way that makes them *EVIL*) and you're okay with killing people yourself to defend that person, then yes, those two people can work together. Of course. But you're just watering down alignment to not really mean anything.

You're just basically arguing that friendship can overcome all differences between people. But you haven't argued that killing paladins in defense of an evil person that is being brought to justice is a good action. Or rather, that you can routinely defend that person and kill for that person and still be good. Being friends with him doesn't make that case.

[KorvinStarmast]

But again, I don't see how you're interpreting this. GPS himself is telling you that he considers the act CE. Yeah, and I agree. The tidbit on the alignment change/curse, and the role play to accomodate that was a data point we didin't have in the OP.

Crappy fire discipline is not what happened here.
From the perspective of the group, it sure did. (Remember, they were surprised and the paladin's post backs this up).

From the perspective of the player, he didn't care who else died, but that is exactly what crappy fire discipline is: you don't care who else you hit when you open up be it with fireball, cone of cold, lightning bolt, .50 cal, blunderbuss, shotgun, cloudkill ...

zingzing's point:
It's not that the Barbarian wanted to kill those people, it's more that the barbarian didn't care in the slightest. For sure chaotic and undisciplined. What's more interesting from the point of view of the debrief last page is the number of cultists/enemies (who barbarian apparently didn't realize were cultists/enemies) that also got taken out.

Nothing clean and nothing clear cut about the virtue of that, or lack thereof, except that the paladin doesn't seem to have liked the result. (Can't say as I blame the paladin for that). The follow up RP to this battle being over is:
Does the group offer to make restitution for the damage/death from that battle?
Does the Barbarian participate in this, or not?
How do the Barbarian and Paladin reconcile their approaches to this battle where some of the casualties were not cultists and well within the description of "innocent bystander."

That's part of the game too: role play and dealing with consequences. Simply slapping labels on things does not aid and abet that.
The story ain't over.

[Bohandas]

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/rickandmorty/images/a/a6/Rick_Sanchez.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/250?cb=20160923150728

Rick Sanchez. Another great example of a CE protagonist

Other great CE protagonists include:


Master Shake
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/adultswim/images/4/4f/Shake_headshot.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/300?cb=20170330211514

-Constant threats and verbal abuse (just about every episode of ATHF)
-Constant lying (just about every episode of ATHF)
-Physical violence/assault (most episodes of ATHF)
-Druggings (Creature From Plaque Lagoon)
-Cannibalism (Freedom Cobra)
-Animal Cruelty (Freedom Cobra; Ridiculous; Freida; several others)
-Patent fraud (Buddy Nugget)
-Accessory to murder (The Creditor)
-Tricks his neighbor into jumping out of a fifth story window (Lasagna)
-Tricks his neighbor into being electrocuted (Lasagna)
-Attempted armed robbery (Creature from Plaque Lagoon)
-Manslaughter (Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters)
-Theft (Hoppy Bunny; Laser Lenses; other episodes)
-Attempts to sell his roommate into slavery (Circus; Boston)
-Attempted Murder (Greatest Story Ever Told)
-Grave robbing (Total Re-Carl)
-Involved with a deadly hazing incident (Frat Aliens)
-Stole a combat mech and went joyriding (Fightan Titan)
-Torture (PDA)
-False Imprisonment (PDA)
-Attenpts to literally scare someone to death (Universal Remonster)
-Blackmail (Baffler Meal)
-Destruction of property (several episodes)
-Capitalizes on a disaster for material gain (Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters)
-Fakes a disaster for material gain (Dirtfoot)
-Tricks his roommate into committing murder (Zucotti Manicotti)
-Fakes a murder to scare his roommate (Zucotti Manicotti)
-Impersonating a police officer (Kidney Car; Zucotti Manicotti)
-Illegal dumping (Revenge of the Trees; Superhero)
-Deliberately provoked a nuclear war(!) (The Granite Family)
-Extortion (Laser Lenses)
-Robbed a liquor store (Hoppy Bunny)
-Caused an environmental disaster (Global Grilling)
-Killed a man by dropping a slab of concrete onto him from a bridge [although this was obly intended to wreck the man's car] (Juggalo)
-Tries to frame his roommates for murder (One Hundred)
-Lets one of his roommates drown because he can't be bothered to pause a videogame (Kangorilla and the Magic Tarantula)

and Bender B. Rodrieguez
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/18500000/2x08-Raging-Bender-futurama-18555917-500-375.jpg
-Constant theft (including stealing from boyscouts, nuns, banks, orpans, friends, co-workers, and others)
-Fraud
-Assault
-Advocating mass murder
-Pimping (Put Your Head On My Shoulders)
-Depriving children of food (The Cyber House Rules)
-Selling children as food (The Cyber House Rules)
-Misrepresenting the weight of livestock (The Cyber House Rules)
-Eating people (in the third movie)
-Traded his son to the devil in exchange for an army (in the second movie)
-Cheating at games of chance (Hell is Other Robots)
-Forging phony IOUs (Hell is Other Robots)
-Identity theft
-Animal cruelty (Hell is Other Robots)
-Fencing stolen goods (Hell Is Other Robots)

[jas61292]

It seems to me that what you're saying is "loyalty to a friend excuses murdering people in defense of an evil character".

So, you're saying you're Good aligned, but that you "killed many people" to help the evil guy, and that you were first in line to fight paladins that were hunting him down when his "actions caught up with him".

And you're still "good" because of the power of friendship.

I don't know. I'm not convinced.

If you're okay with other people being evil and killing people (in a way that makes them *EVIL*) and you're okay with killing people yourself to defend that person, then yes, those two people can work together. Of course. But you're just watering down alignment to not really mean anything.

You're just basically arguing that friendship can overcome all differences between people. But you haven't argued that killing paladins in defense of an evil person that is being brought to justice is a good action. Or rather, that you can routinely defend that person and kill for that person and still be good. Being friends with him doesn't make that case.

You are correct that one cannot be repeatedly evil and not be... evil.

Where you are wrong is in conflating a very limited selection of my characters actions with the entirety of their being. You take for granted that my calling my friend evil makes him so, such that the defence of him is necessarily evil (which I fundamentally disagree with anyways), despite the fact that I talked about how he helped me personally. Yet despite the fact that my character was good (undoubtedly so, if you actually knew them) you are oh so quick to condemn them for single actions.

This is a general problem with people and their interpretations of alignments. People are far too quick to take individual actions and make overall judgements. Alignment is all about the characters views on the world and how to act. It is not relative (ie evil is evil, even if you think it is good), but it is not action determinate either. It simply one element among many that helps you determine how to roleplay your character.

The fact that another element (traits, flaws,
or bonds) can cause you to act in a way contrary to stereotypical alignment definitions is a feature, not a bug. It doesn't mean you are not good if you protect an evil friend. It means that your characters values place that friendship above their value of certain other things, even if that is not the generic case for them, should their bond not be involved.

Individual actions do not define alignment. When you pretend they do, and especially when you pretend evil is far stronger in that sense than good, you end up with everyone being evil. And that is just not how it works.

[Dr.Samurai]

Where you are wrong is in conflating a very limited selection of my characters actions with the entirety of their being. You take for granted that my calling my friend evil makes him so, such that the defence of him is necessarily evil (which I fundamentally disagree with anyways), despite the fact that I talked about how he helped me personally. Yet despite the fact that my character was good (undoubtedly so, if you actually knew them) you are oh so quick to condemn them for single actions.
I'm not taking anything for granted. You described him as evil. I'm taking you at your word. This double-speak has been a large part of the problem in this thread. You said:

"unquestioningly evil"
"thoroughly enjoyed murder"
"that doesn't mean I was cool with all of my friend's evil"
"I tried to talk them out of evil courses of action"

This isn't knee-jerk. This isn't taking anything for granted. You are telling us that your friend is evil. Your point, just like this thread, is that evil and good can work together. And the second you get push back you're like "oh, you're taking for granted that he's evil, I did mention to you that he helped me through hard times..."

He is still evil. According to you.

Forget about anyone being quick to condemn anything (or, in your case, quick to dismiss anything). I'm asking you to explain why "we're friends" absolves you of murdering people with him, for him, etc.

This is a general problem with people and their interpretations of alignments. People are far too quick to take individual actions and make overall judgements. Alignment is all about the characters views on the world and how to act. It is not relative (ie evil is evil, even if you think it is good), but it is not action determinate either. It simply one element among many that helps you determine how to roleplay your character.
The one thing you mentioned when explaining that you are good is that you refused to kill sentient people. You avoided missions where you would have to fight/kill people, and you believe it is wrong and evil.

But to help your buddy out, you "killed many people". Not only would many players argue that this is evil, your own character in-game would argue that this is evil. But because you're doing it to help a friend out, it's cool.

As I said before, I'm not convinced. Instead of complaining that I'm having a knee-jerk reaction, explain how doing bad things for a friend makes it not evil.

The fact that another element (traits, flaws, or bonds) can cause you to act in a way contrary to stereotypical alignment definitions is a feature, not a bug. It doesn't mean you are not good if you protect an evil friend. It means that your characters values place that friendship above their value of certain other things, even if that is not the generic case for them, should their bond not be involved.
Sure. I can totally see a good character trying to protect an evil friend.

But you killed people. You fought paladins (and probably killed them, but that's not clear from your post). He loves to murder people, and gets in trouble for it, and then you go ahead and murder the people coming after him. That's quite a team. Still not sure what makes you "good" other than you suggesting you are.

Individual actions do not define alignment. When you pretend they do, and especially when you pretend evil is far stronger in that sense than good, you end up with everyone being evil. And that is just not how it works.
It is difficult to be good or evil. Most people are neutral. Circumstances dictate their actions most of the time. They aren't exceptionally cruel or benevolent. If you are going to make the claim that you are "good", you need to back it up. Murdering many people to help a friend and fighting paladins who are seeking justice is not a step in that direction. Having a friend doesn't make you good in D&D.

From the perspective of the group, it sure did. (Remember, they were surprised and the paladin's post backs this up).

I'm not reading that either, though I can see that that might be the case.

By my reading of it is that they were shocked that he killed all those people, as opposed to shocked that a mistake was made.

From the perspective of the player, he didn't care who else died, but that is exactly what crappy fire discipline is: you don't care who else you hit when you open up be it with fireball, cone of cold, lightning bolt, .50 cal, blunderbuss, shotgun, cloudkill ...
Well, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that then. You gave the example of Tillman, but the soldiers specifically didn't realize they were firing on friendly targets in that case, whereas the Barbarian here was deliberately aiming to hit the woman and her sons and anyone else in the area, and responded with "I don't care" when he was warned that he would kill good people. These are two very different cases.

That said, I would like confirmation from the players (zingzing, squiddish, necro, and gps). In-game, did your characters perceive this as intentional by the barbarian, or as accidental collateral damage? I'm guessing as intentional murder since the paladin is not happy about it and the rogue says he thinks he might not like it but doesn't feel too strongly about it. I get the sense the party knows the barbarian simply didn't give a crap who he hit when he aimed that 60' cone of cold at the stage.

[jas61292]

Sure. I can totally see a good character trying to protect an evil friend.

But you killed people. You fought paladins (and probably killed them, but that's not clear from your post). He loves to murder people, and gets in trouble for it, and then you go ahead and murder the people coming after him. That's quite a team. Still not sure what makes you "good" other than you suggesting you are.

There are two main things I want to address here. First off, I simply left it as me saying that I was good because I didn't think it was necessary. This was a long campaign spread out over at least a year, with the specific events I talked about making up two or three sessions out of dozens. I could have gone on about all the times I protected innocent people, volunteered to help those in need, donated to good causes and tried to reform evil-doers, or about my overarching quest to track down and rescue young girls kidnapped and sold into slavery. I could have talked about all the times I stopped my friend from doing evil. But I didn't think that was necessary.

My character was good. So were the Paladins. And yes, I helped kill them. Not because I was malicious and evil. But because, even if my friend was arguably guilty, and probably deserved whatever they would do, I was not about to let some Paladins show up in the middle of our adventure and act as judge, jury and executioner. My bond with my friend did not allow that.

And yes, this is all about that bond. If this was not my friend, if he had not helped me in the past, if we did not have that bond, there is no way I would have opposed the Paladins. Depending on the circumstance, I might have even helped them.

But I opposed them in the situation that happened, not because I was not good, but because, of the many aspects that make up my character, good was just one. People are not perfect. Even heroes have flaws. A character that puts alignment first and foremost in every decision is an unrealistic robot, not a well played, believable character. Regardless of what alignment that is.

The other thing I want to address is the notion that doing evil makes you evil. It doesn't. And doing good does not make you good. Not in 5e at least. Alignment is not a measuring stick of what actions you have taken. It is a chosen description of how your character generally thinks and views things, and one of many tools to help determine how you act. Obviously, if you are not caring about being good in your decision making process, you are not good, even if you write it on your sheet. But if you pick an alignment, and truly have that alignment influence (along side other character traits) the decisions you make, then that is your alignment, even if the results of your actions don't always seem to reflect that alignment.

[gameogre]

Very few evil people think of themselves as evil. Mostly in rpg's they are not played that way but when it is, it can get interesting.
I dislike alignments in general, few of my literary heroes are of any one alignment.

Conan was all over the place, Fafhrd and and The Grey Mouser as well. Even some of the Lord of the Rings characters strayed from time to time.

I would much rather do away with alignment and have each character be true to there own inner code that does change over time.

Murder for the sake of murder is mostly for psychopaths but killing (in a rpg) can be for all kinds of reasons. Some good and some evil depending on point of view.

What I like to stress is consequences. For instance if that barbarian murdered a bunch of people is he wanted now? a Bounty on his head? Does he have some Knight of the law on his trail? do npc's call him the Butcher of Bayfield( or whatever the place was named)?

For me consequences trump everything. I have opponents that are L.G. Paladins who will not rest until those perpetrators are brought to justice. Sometimes they are wrong and for the greater good things had to get messy BUT you will never convince them of that. They will arrest the wrongdoers if they can or barring that put them down.

All that said I like my pc's to be heroic. Even those with evil bents should strive at all times to be worthy of being the star of the game and should have logical reasons why their actions are necessary.

One of the major supporters of my current party is the L.E. King who protects his people and delivers justice to the wicked oathbreakers. He upholds the law and appreciated the party doing things to strengthen his lands.

[KorvinStarmast]

Well, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that then. I noticed.

I am still not sure why you are down playing the matter of the evil cultists and their leaders being the major foe this party was supposed to be defeating/killing in the first place. That appears to have been a core of the adventure they were in the middle of. The barbarian player, for whatever reasons, had the character focus on that regardless of other consequences. And now, the party will or won't have to deal with those consequences based on how the DM handles this.

Not based on the labels assigned by interested parties on this forum, such as you and me.

[Sorlock Master]

What he did wasn't Evil it was Neutral or Chaotic. Killing 10 civilians to save 1000 civilians from a death cult could even be considered a Good act given you have no other options.

[Dr.Samurai]

There are two main things I want to address here. First off, I simply left it as me saying that I was good because I didn't think it was necessary. This was a long campaign spread out over at least a year, with the specific events I talked about making up two or three sessions out of dozens. I could have gone on about all the times I protected innocent people, volunteered to help those in need, donated to good causes and tried to reform evil-doers, or about my overarching quest to track down and rescue young girls kidnapped and sold into slavery. I could have talked about all the times I stopped my friend from doing evil. But I didn't think that was necessary.
Well, you didn't think it was necessary because you think your bond excuses the evil things you've done (killing probably good or innocent people to help your friend, killing paladins in their quest for justice, allowing your friend to go on and continue doing evil things and harm more people).

I don't think your bond erases these things from consideration when discussing your alignment. So yes, for me, you can't say "I travel with my friend and am very loyal to him, and he is evil and thoroughly enjoys murdering people, but I defend him when his evil deeds catch up to him, killing many people in his defense. Also, I'm good."

For me, more information is required.

My character was good. So were the Paladins. And yes, I helped kill them. Not because I was malicious and evil. But because, even if my friend was arguably guilty, and probably deserved whatever they would do, I was not about to let some Paladins show up in the middle of our adventure and act as judge, jury and executioner. My bond with my friend did not allow that.

And yes, this is all about that bond. If this was not my friend, if he had not helped me in the past, if we did not have that bond, there is no way I would have opposed the Paladins. Depending on the circumstance, I might have even helped them.

But I opposed them in the situation that happened, not because I was not good, but because, of the many aspects that make up my character, good was just one. People are not perfect. Even heroes have flaws. A character that puts alignment first and foremost in every decision is an unrealistic robot, not a well played, believable character. Regardless of what alignment that is.
I'm not asking you to put alignment first and foremost before every decision.

I'm telling you that your actions have an impact on the alignment you have written on your character sheet. So I get that the bond between the two characters is strong and built on the experiences you've had. And I get that that bond means more to your character than sticking to his principles about not harming people.

But that doesn't mean that you get to continue calling yourself "good" while murdering people, let alone paladins, and aiding your friend in his life of evil. It just means that your character has developed into someone that doesn't mind killing people for his very good friend. Your character has evolved and grown into someone that isn't like his former self. That's fine and to be expected and great RPing.

I mean... you don't think, even if let's say you are still "good", that those actions call anything into question at all? Do you think the paladins that you killed or helped kill think you are good? Or the "many people" that came after your friend? Do you think that as you aid and abet and enable an "unquestioningly evil" character that "thoroughly enjoys" killing people, you will be able to convince the people you've murdered to defend him that you're still a good person because you have a strong bond with him? Can you convince their friends and family? Or the keepers of the peace and other lawful authorities?

The other thing I want to address is the notion that doing evil makes you evil. It doesn't. And doing good does not make you good. Not in 5e at least. Alignment is not a measuring stick of what actions you have taken. It is a chosen description of how your character generally thinks and views things, and one of many tools to help determine how you act. Obviously, if you are not caring about being good in your decision making process, you are not good, even if you write it on your sheet. But if you pick an alignment, and truly have that alignment influence (along side other character traits) the decisions you make, then that is your alignment, even if the results of your actions don't always seem to reflect that alignment.
Right. So your position is that being "good" doesn't determine your actions, and your actions don't determine if you're "good". It's just one consideration among many. And in your case, the bond is a much bigger consideration.

So... when does the way your character thinks and views things change exactly? It seems your character already had a significant change in his worldview --> I will never kill, even if it's standard D&D bad guys... changed to... I will kill people seeking justice against my friend for his evil deeds.

That's quite a shift in what you yourself consider to be your alignment (the way you think and view things). Now, it seems like you've only done these things a handful of times out of a much larger campaign, so maybe an argument can be made that it still doesn't represent a major change. But you're not really making a numbers argument. You're saying that alignment and actions are essentially divorced from each other. It makes me wonder what alignment really means then.

[MeeposFire]

What he did wasn't Evil it was Neutral or Chaotic. Killing 10 civilians to save 1000 civilians from a death cult could even be considered a Good act given you have no other options.

How very utilitarian of you but even with that idea it does not really fly. The situation did not really show that killing the civilians was necessary to stop the cult rather it was just more expedient. Even your typical utilitarian would probably require that killing the civilians was actually required in order to save the world.