DM Help Cleric did something awful [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Chugger

2017-10-28, 04:33 AM

'Lawful Good'

Mechanically, as soon as the Cleric declares he wants to grab Glasstaff and cast burning hands on him call for initiative.

They're face to face, neither party is suprised, and Glasstaff has every reason to be wary of combat.

Glasstaff might have other ideas about getting torched.

Right. Did you just skip over this part? Or did you let him breeze past this game mechanic? Did you put that little voice of reason in his head before he committed to this action? That's a good (imho) DM's job - or part of the job - to be the little voice of conscience and consistency inside players' heads. They have trouble sometimes with stuff like this and need to be reminded "your character is pretty sure this goes against his code - are you sure you do this?" or "have you thought through the consequences of this - because right now your character's feeling a big 'red alarm' going off in the back of his head". You can me more subtle, too, which might be better - like "are you sure?" If you get yes then ask them why.

There is no need to rush. Never let the players take over. Never let them set the pace and rush you. Do things at your pace. They are simulating their character in a fantasy world. As a DM you often need to explain or question their understanding of things to make sure they "got it right" - that they are even remotely on the same page with you and grasping what they need to grasp about the situation, their character's code, and the consequences - because a lawful good cleric (high Wis) would surely have a conscience or voice of instinct in their head going "wth no don't do this - don't be this rash!"

Again, never let them derail you or set the pace or tell you how the mechanics work. And if the player insists on doing this, make him roll initiative or at least roll the NPCs chance not to be surprised - this guy is questioning so he's not likely to be surprised - an initiative roll seems in order to me - and then if the cleric kills this guy for bad reasons figure out what the consequences should be. You don't have to swat him like a bug right away. Let him think he got away with it. Then hint that he didn't. Let him stew. The storm clouds he creates in his own head of worry and fear over what he did and what might be done to him will be more powerful than any actual punishment you can measure out.

Pace yourself. Let him get scared. Take your time and figure out what needs to be done. Good luck.

TheTeaMustFlow

2017-10-28, 07:29 AM

Unoriginal

2017-10-28, 07:36 AM

Even if the Cleric DID get the initiative, Burning Hand is not enough to one-shot Glasstaff.

JackPhoenix

2017-10-28, 07:39 AM

Even if the Cleric DID get the initiative, Burning Hand is not enough to one-shot Glasstaff.

Not to mention he won't be able to use Burning Hands while grappling Glasstaff with both hands. If you consider the fluff description of casting BH as rules, he won't be able to cast it without both hands free, even.

Drakefall

2017-10-28, 08:07 AM

Dear OP,

I think we could all use a bit of clarity on what exactly you're asking for advice on. Could you perhaps give us some more specifics in this regard?

I'm assuming that the cleric killed Glass Staff whilst he was imprisoned/restrained and mostly unable to really defend himself so you just let it happen narratively, and that the cleric elected to utilise his burning hands spell with a cool description of strangling the man whilst spouting flames to burn off his head, and that you ain't asking for any comments on mechanics or how you handled that situation

I further assume (possibly incorrectly) that what you are concerned about is the cleric possibly becoming an "Evil" character and disrupting the game? And this is what you want advice on?

If that's the case then don't sweat it. The protagonist choosing the low road and murdering a nasty bad guy is fairly common in all sorts of media and usually doesn't result in the protaganist suddenly ceasing to be one of the "good guys". They just get a little edgier and move on. If you feel him murdering this dude is against his alignment or religion or whatever then just tell the player you see it that way, ask him how he, the player, sees it, and ask how his chracter feels about it. Then move on and just have the world react accordingly. If he keeps murdering bad guys and his god doesn't approve then have some appropriate consequences. Maybe he'll find Hoar or something and jump on his bandwagon.

As long as the rp isn't disruptive then don't worry about it.

Unoriginal

2017-10-28, 08:14 AM

lunaticfringe

2017-10-28, 08:26 AM

Killing a guy in cold blood when he did nothing, or at least not the thing he's being killed for, is generally disruptive behavior.

My question is, even if he did manage to kill the wizard somehow, how did the Cleric get out of the building alive? Glasstaff doesn't sound like the kind of guy who would meet with an adventurer without bodyguards.

He's the leader of a Gang of Mooks that are bullying & terrorising townsfolk. You find him at the end of a dungeon. He's not a good dude he's a minor villain in contact with the BBEG. He didn't order the hit on the NPC Cleric. So what, there is other stuff. I'm with Drake on this one. This is a case of Frontier Justice and I'd wager OP wanting to use him more but not framing "Jail is an Option Guys" well enough.

Unoriginal

2017-10-28, 08:44 AM

He's the leader of a Gang of Mooks that are bullying & terrorising townsfolk. You find him at the end of a dungeon. He's not a good dude he's a minor villain in contact with the BBEG. He didn't order the hit on the NPC Cleric. So what, there is other stuff. I'm with Drake on this one. This is a case of Frontier Justice and I'd wager OP wanting to use him more but not framing "Jail is an Option Guys" well enough.

Well if the PC knew the guy did awful stuff, I'm not sure what's the problem. The group would probably have killed him when they fought anyway.

Although I maintain given how the PC did it Glasstaff shouldn't have died automatically.

lunaticfringe

2017-10-28, 08:48 AM

Well if the PC knew the guy did awful stuff, I'm not sure what's the problem. The group would probably have killed him when they fought anyway.

Although I maintain given how the PC did it Glasstaff shouldn't have died automatically.

Yeah that's fine, I tentatively agree with your last point. Wasn't there though, could've been restrained & at low HP from a fight.

imanidiot

2017-10-28, 09:28 AM

Not to mention he won't be able to use Burning Hands while grappling Glasstaff with both hands. If you consider the fluff description of casting BH as rules, he won't be able to cast it without both hands free, even.

Not even fluff, it's explicitly stated in the rules. Burning Hands has an S spell component, which requires at least one free hand to cast.

JackPhoenix

2017-10-28, 11:41 AM

Not even fluff, it's explicitly stated in the rules. Burning Hands has an S spell component, which requires at least one free hand to cast.

Yes, you need one free hand to provide the S component to cast the spell per RAW, but the fluff suggests you need both hands free in BH's case: "As you hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips." That's fluff, not necessarily rules: in my games, Burning Hands is actually Fire Breath, same effect, different visuals.

KorvinStarmast

2017-10-28, 12:31 PM

Not even fluff, it's explicitly stated in the rules. Burning Hands has an S spell component, which requires at least one free hand to cast. The somatic component is touching the two thumbs together, isn't it? If it isn't, then you can't cast the spell.

As you hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips. "Free hand for somatic component" would mean that this spell can't be cast unless you have three hands. :smallwink:

FlyingMonkyMan

2017-10-29, 11:29 AM

Unoriginal

2017-10-29, 11:42 AM

Zanthy1

2017-10-29, 11:48 AM

Some clarification:

Glasstaff was almost dead (I fudged some rolls and he ended up at 1 HP). The characters then restrained him to question him and gain information. The cleric was the one asking the questions, mostly about Sister Garaele and ignoring the main plot.

The cleric's deity is Odin, god of wisdom and law. I'm concerned because I'm pretty sure that straight up murdering someone is against Odin's intentions. What I need help with is how to carry forward from this. Should there some sort of repercussion (spells no longer work) or should I just give him a finger shake and move on?

Personally I don't think Odin would care. Maybe the other PCs might care, and obviously if anyone found out about this they would care. I wouldn't have anything happen to the cleric. Moving forward, I would essentially create a new character to fill in where Glasstaff was, so that the main plot still advances.

Vaz

2017-10-29, 12:28 PM

lunaticfringe

2017-10-29, 12:40 PM

Extrajudicial Killing was fine as long as you didn't deny it or try to hide it. Vikings used outlawry criminals weren't people any more, they were beasts with no rights or protections under law. If you were deemed Outlaw any citizen could kill you with no repercussions.

lunaticfringe

2017-10-29, 12:46 PM

You may want to frame the rules & culture of your Civilization. If incarceration is a viable option and considered righteous and just you have to let player know. Especially if you borrow from real world civilizations. People's information & understanding about historical civilizations vary and different conclusions will crop up.

HolyDraconus

2017-10-29, 12:48 PM

Omg I'm dying. From" evil cleric is evil" to "follower of Odin? It's cool"

TheTeaMustFlow

2017-10-29, 03:23 PM

Omg I'm dying. From" evil cleric is evil" to "follower of Odin? It's cool"

Frankly, looking at what they get up to in Norse mythology, I hardly think the two are contradictory.

Kane0

2017-10-29, 03:30 PM

Raise an eyebrow and carry on.

If it becomes a pattern, have a chat with the player to clear the air post-session.

Malifice

2017-10-29, 10:19 PM

Really useful answer, replaying parts of the storyline because the DM disagrees with a player.

Its not replaying it. It's reminding the DM that he messed up the rules.

PC: I grab Glasstaff and cast flamin...
DM: Cool. Roll initiative. He's not surprised. (Places PC and Glasstaff miniatures 10' apart). What did you roll for initiative?
PC: Umm a 6.
DM: Cool. Glassy got a 14. He goes first. His eyes light up as he sees you lunge towards him with malice in his eyes and the words of a spell on your lips. He casts [whatever] and then moves 30' back.

Potato_Priest

2017-10-29, 10:28 PM

Its not replaying it. It's reminding the DM that he messed up the rules.

PC: I grab Glasstaff and cast flamin...
DM: Cool. Roll initiative. He's not surprised. (Places PC and Glasstaff miniatures 10' apart). What did you roll for initiative?
PC: Umm a 6.
DM: Cool. Glassy got a 14. He goes first. His eyes light up as he sees you lunge towards him with malice in his eyes and the words of a spell on your lips. He casts [whatever] and then moves 30' back.

Glasstaff was almost dead (I fudged some rolls and he ended up at 1 HP). The characters then restrained him to question him and gain information. The cleric was the one asking the questions, mostly about Sister Garaele and ignoring the main plot.

The OP has provided a pretty good explanation of why he let the burning hands kill Glasstaff. He was on 1 hp and restrained, so assuming he doesn't have a feature like evasion, he'd instantly be reduced to 0 by burning hands no matter his saving throw result. It's also the DM's call to decide that monsters die at zero, so this seems to be perfectly fine.

The Zoat

2017-10-29, 10:28 PM

Its not replaying it. It's reminding the DM that he messed up the rules.

Eh, in a situation in which, as OP said earlier, Glasstaff has been defeated and is at about 1 HP, as a DM I'd let the player have his moment in the name of Rule of Cool.

Edit: Shadowmonk'd so I'll give my opinion on the RP consequences:

Probably shouldn't be too many. Consider twisting your plot to include a clue to the real plotter in Glasstaff's notes somewhere. Base the consequences of killing Glasstaff on your reading of the NPCs' personal ethics.

Malifice

2017-10-29, 11:20 PM

Eh, in a situation in which, as OP said earlier, Glasstaff has been defeated and is at about 1 HP, as a DM I'd let the player have his moment in the name of Rule of Cool.

Oh for sure. I was thinking they were just chatting to each other. Didnt see that they had him at 1HP and badly defeated.

I cant see a Viking God like Odin really care about vengeance or killing personally.

The PCs alignment shifts towards evil and the game goes on.

Alerad

2017-10-30, 12:31 AM

PC: I grab Glasstaff and cast flamin...
DM: Cool. Roll initiative. He's not surprised. (Places PC and Glasstaff miniatures 10' apart). What did you roll for initiative?
PC: Umm a 6.
DM: Cool. Glassy got a 14. He goes first. His eyes light up as he sees you lunge towards him with malice in his eyes and the words of a spell on your lips. He casts [whatever] and then moves 30' back.

I side with Malifice on this one, usually that's how I play out combats too. Give the characters chance to roleplay, use social skills, etc., but as soon as somebody casts a spell or tries an attack... Initiative. Be firm, and remind the players that any action which might provoke aggression, will provoke aggression.

That said, your cleric ambushed and killed the wizard, so...
1. Did he know Glasstaff was behind the bandit group? Or was he evil at all, in case you changed the story?

If he did, then what he did was bad, but probably justified in his and his god's eyes. Maybe not Lawful. Let him shift to Neutral or Chaotic.

If he didn't, then what he did was Evil, let him shift to Evil.

Alignment doesn't dictate your actions, it reflects them. Until he turns around and becomes a good character, he is evil or neutral at best, no matter what the player thinks his alignment should be.

After that, play your game as normal. Have some NPCs react accordingly to the news of the dead wizard if they need to.

Nifft

2017-10-30, 12:39 AM

He's the leader of a Gang of Mooks that are bullying & terrorising townsfolk. You find him at the end of a dungeon. He's not a good dude he's a minor villain in contact with the BBEG. He didn't order the hit on the NPC Cleric. So what, there is other stuff. I'm with Drake on this one. This is a case of Frontier Justice and I'd wager OP wanting to use him more but not framing "Jail is an Option Guys" well enough.

Yeah I'm not seeing how killing the boss of an evil gang would make a Lawful Good deity upset.

If this NPC was just some random innocent guy and the PCs murdered him, that would be different -- innocent people oughtn't get face-stabbed.

But this guy sounds like he was very, very far from being innocent.

Asmotherion

2017-10-30, 02:14 AM

How RP oriented is your game? If it's heavy RP, and he is a cleric of a Lawful Good Deity, I would out-Right ban him from preparing new spells. He abused his power and caused an evil outcome with it. His Deity would not be happy. He locks him out of preparing new cleric spells or at the very least, he looses access to his Domain spells and Channel Divinity option 'till he makes amends. Neutral/Chaotic Good Deities would be more understanding with it, but still would expect some form of atonement. Anything Neutal or Evil would not concern itself with this. An other lighter yet fitting punishment would be unability to take more levels in the Cleric class as long as he has not atoned for what he did.

A fitting attonement would be to heal the dammage or even resurect (if killed) the person he caused harm. If unable to due to low level, he may have to bring him to an other more skilled representative of his order and plead for it as a side quest.

PS: I have not played this campain, I just assume he assulted/killed a random inocent person under the assumption he was guilty. In any case, my reply reflects my views on this case, and on the case of a Cleric of a Good Deity.

Grek

2017-10-30, 04:35 AM

Omg I'm dying. From" evil cleric is evil" to "follower of Odin? It's cool"

I mean, it's Odin. AKA the Burning Eye AKA the Bane-Worker AKA Lord of the Undead AKA the Raven's Feast AKA the Blood-Red Mustache AKA God of Magic AKA the Hanged One. He's probably fine with you setting the clerics of other gods on fire.

Logosloki

2017-10-30, 07:04 AM

I mean, it's Odin. AKA the Burning Eye AKA the Bane-Worker AKA Lord of the Undead AKA the Raven's Feast AKA the Blood-Red Mustache AKA God of Magic AKA the Hanged One. He's probably fine with you setting the clerics of other gods on fire.

As long as you are not a guest. If you are a guest it is considered a party foul if you burning hands the host to death. Otherwise, there is probably some justification in every other situation. All hail the one eyed man.

Kish

2017-10-30, 07:21 AM

The cleric's deity is Odin, god of wisdom and law. I'm concerned because I'm pretty sure that straight up murdering someone is against Odin's intentions.
The problem is that you and one of your players aren't on the same page with regard to whether it's okay to kill an enemy who's been captured and interrogated. An auxiliary problem seems to be that player getting the wrong idea about what's going on/being more interested in side details than the main plot.

My suggestion is: If you object to enemies being killed after they've been disarmed and aren't fighting, make sure that doesn't happen. Take "surrender" off the table for your NPCs, have anyone who fights your party fight to the death or escape. Don't try to punish your players for not being on the same page as you about whether "he was trying to kill me two minutes ago but now he doesn't have a weapon" makes killing someone "straight up murder."

Hypersmith

2017-10-30, 11:50 AM

Raise an eyebrow and carry on.

If it becomes a pattern, have a chat with the player to clear the air post-session.

The problem is that you and one of your players aren't on the same page with regard to whether it's okay to kill an enemy who's been captured and interrogated. An auxiliary problem seems to be that player getting the wrong idea about what's going on/being more interested in side details than the main plot.

My suggestion is: If you object to enemies being killed after they've been disarmed and aren't fighting, make sure that doesn't happen. Take "surrender" off the table for your NPCs, have anyone who fights your party fight to the death or escape. Don't try to punish your players for not being on the same page as you about whether "he was trying to kill me two minutes ago but now he doesn't have a weapon" makes killing someone "straight up murder."

I agree. There is some form of disconnect between what you and the player consider as boundaries, so talk to him about it, but don't lay on the repercussions unless you really feel he's breaking a clear barrier the two of you define. Helps keep it fun for everyone.

lunaticfringe

2017-10-30, 11:56 AM

Yeah I'm not seeing how killing the boss of an evil gang would make a Lawful Good deity upset.

If this NPC was just some random innocent guy and the PCs murdered him, that would be different -- innocent people oughtn't get face-stabbed.

But this guy sounds like he was very, very far from being innocent.

Lawful Evil in fact.

Malifice

2017-10-30, 12:03 PM

Yeah I'm not seeing how killing the boss of an evil gang would make a Lawful Good deity upset.

Lol.

Your 'LG' God just condoned a Gang war.

lunaticfringe

2017-10-30, 12:06 PM

Lol.

Your 'LG' God just condoned a Gang war.

The cosmic battle of good vs evil is a Gang war.

Malifice

2017-10-30, 12:39 PM

The cosmic battle of good vs evil is a Gang war.

The good people are running the 'Hugs not Drugs' and soup kitchen and drug rehab programs in town, and working as social workers trying to end the gang violence without resorting to murder (through compassion, self sacrifice, and altruism).

The (typicaly) LN Police are trying to stop the gang violence through enforcing the law, resorting to violence when needed in reasonable self defence. They avoid torture, but may resort to roughing a few gangsters up from time to time.

The LE Punisher just murders all the gangs, prepared to 'do what needs to be done for the greater good, and for the benefit of law abiding citizens'. He employs torture as and when needed.

The LG Superman rounds up the gang members, avoiding killing any of them if possible despite being easily able to, and hands them over to the authorities for lawful trial.

I just see so may people that only draw a distinction between good and evil like its just the color of shirts they're wearing (evil guys murder and rape and torture; good guys only murder, rape and torture evil guys!).

Its ****ing absurd.

Vaz

2017-10-30, 12:51 PM

The good people are running the 'Hugs not Drugs' and soup kitchen and drug rehab programs in town, and working as social workers trying to end the gang violence without resorting to murder (through compassion, self sacrifice, and altruism).

The (typicaly) LN Police are trying to stop the gang violence through enforcing the law, resorting to violence when needed in reasonable self defence. They avoid torture, but may resort to roughing a few gangsters up from time to time.

The LE Punisher just murders all the gangs, prepared to 'do what needs to be done for the greater good, and for the benefit of law abiding citizens'. He employs torture as and when needed.

The LG Superman rounds up the gang members, avoiding killing any of them if possible despite being easily able to, and hands them over to the authorities for lawful trial.

I just see so may people that only draw a distinction between good and evil like its just the color of shirts they're wearing (evil guys murder and rape and torture; good guys only murder, rape and torture evil guys!).

Its ****ing absurd.

You get given a vision froma source you trust implicitly (LG deity) that if the newborn child in front of you will be some interplanar hitler if you do not kill it. Do you curbstomp one child or cause immense suffering to untold trillions?

Unoriginal

2017-10-30, 12:57 PM

Lol.

Your 'LG' God just condoned a Gang war.

*Gang leader rackets people in front of a lawful good follower of Odin*

*Gang leader gets killed*

Malifice "Lol, your god isn't really good."

The good people are running the 'Hugs not Drugs' and soup kitchen and drug rehab programs in town, and working as social workers trying to end the gang violence without resorting to murder (through compassion, self sacrifice, and altruism).

The (typicaly) LN Police are trying to stop the gang violence through enforcing the law, resorting to violence when needed in reasonable self defence. They avoid torture, but may resort to roughing a few gangsters up from time to time.

The LE Punisher just murders all the gangs, prepared to 'do what needs to be done for the greater good, and for the benefit of law abiding citizens'. He employs torture as and when needed.

The LG Superman rounds up the gang members, avoiding killing any of them if possible despite being easily able to, and hands them over to the authorities for lawful trial.

Or the lawful good Superman kills the gang members because he lives in a pseudo-medieval land where criminals are declared hostis humani generis or the fantasy equivalent and they didn't see think that those guys had any desire to reform.

I just see so may people that only draw a distinction between good and evil like its just the color of shirts they're wearing (evil guys murder and rape and torture; good guys only murder, rape and torture evil guys!).

Its ****ing absurd.

It's absurd indeed, but your vision of the issue isn't great either.

A very infuriating story I've read on the net, once was how about a 3.X "Paladin" got away with everything because his player had the DM wrapped around his finger. It culminated with said "Paladin" raping a captured drow priestess and leaving her prison with a big smile, at which point the actual Paladin of the group did the sensible thing and killed the ****head on the spot. The player of the "Paladin" argued to get him resurrected and to have the Paladin falls, and the DM complied.

Now, if we follow what you said, what the Paladin should have done was harmlessly defeated the "Paladin", bound him, and have him put on trial for his crimes, or else he is not actually lawful good.

But as it turns out, lawful good people don't have to be merciful without limit.

Kish

2017-10-30, 01:45 PM

The good people are running the 'Hugs not Drugs' and soup kitchen and drug rehab programs in town, and working as social workers trying to end the gang violence without resorting to murder (through compassion, self sacrifice, and altruism).
In the real world, I have a great deal of sympathy for that perspective.

The basic premise of D&D, though, is that good can be accomplished by killing some people. The vast majority of class abilities are combat-oriented. A god who believed in strict pacifism would not empower any adventurers. Glasstaff differs from a random goblin bandit in: having a name (not a moral issue), giving orders rather than taking them (not a point in his favor), not being a goblin (not a moral issue), and having survived the combat to be captured (debatable). If FlyingMonkyMan takes a strict "no killing prisoners ever if you're Good" position, that's a perfectly good moral position to take but needs to be communicated rather than assumed. If, on the other hand, the problem is that this time the corpse is that of a human with a name rather than a goblin without one, that's not a good position to take.

Nifft

2017-10-30, 01:46 PM

But as it turns out, lawful good people don't have to be merciful without limit.

Yep.

You can't be too good to do good.

Mercy is a gift for Good people, not a restriction upon them.

Unoriginal

2017-10-30, 02:03 PM

One of my favorite bits of 5e lore is how the Elven Deities, when begged for help by a cannibal cultist who had betrayed them to serve Orcus and unleashed a new kind of undead on the world(before Orcus betrayed him himself), decided to help him.

They didn't have to do that. But they went the extra mile for someone who, despite being absolutely repugnant and evil, still honestly saw the errors of his way and wanted to repent.

But if he had been defeated by the Elven Deities' servants and he had begged for his life, not because he wanted to repent but just because he didn't want to die, it doesn't mean they would have sparred him.

Hypersmith

2017-10-30, 02:45 PM

I'm not falling into this alignment pit.

Doug Lampert

2017-10-30, 02:51 PM

You get given a vision froma source you trust implicitly (LG deity) that if the newborn child in front of you will be some interplanar hitler if you do not kill it. Do you curbstomp one child or cause immense suffering to untold trillions?

If you deliberately kill an innocent baby you ping as Evil. How is this complicated?

1) Being Hitler is only inevitable if the future can't be changed, but if that is the case and the child is the future Hitler, then I can't kill the child. The alternative is that the future is NOT fixed, and that the claim that this is future Hitler is total BS. Sorry. Not playing your silly game.

2) I have no 100% reliable way to identify a vision as being from anyone qualified to make this judgement, and if a LG God able to intervene in the world wants the child dead. He can kill it himself. The ONLY reason he needs me to do it is that he's not actually a LG deity and wants to corrupt me. Sorry. Not playing your silly game.

Kane0

2017-10-30, 03:10 PM

I'm not falling into this alignment pit.

Agreed. Ejecting!

Theodoxus

2017-10-30, 03:15 PM

Thank god Alignment isn't a straitjacket anymore.

I'd let the other witnesses handle this "problem". If any Redbrands survived and learned of the murder, they'd probably try to get the townsfolk on their side and shun the adventuring party (sans the few who might have been directly helped by the party). This would create a realistic, and fun, tension between townfolk, Redbrands and the party - so much so, they might have to leave.

If it's just other party members who witnessed the murder, they have autonomy to what they want to the cleric - either accepting his murderhoboing ways, or railing against it in the hopes to dissuade the character (and ultimately, the player) from further ruining their reputation and (probably more importantly) fonts of information that don't require Speak with Dead.

Other than that, make note of the action, figure out if it's an offense to his god (probably not, being Odin), and if it's a slippery slope to actions Odin wouldn't approve of, and would step in (or step away, in this case) and let the cleric fall.

Vaz

2017-10-30, 03:33 PM

If you deliberately kill an innocent baby you ping as Evil. How is this complicated?
Why? What makes the baby innocent? The fact that it's not.

1) Being Hitler is only inevitable if the future can't be changed, but if that is the case and the child is the future Hitler, then I can't kill the child. The alternative is that the future is NOT fixed, and that the claim that this is future Hitler is total BS. Sorry. Not playing your silly game.
You are playing my silly game, though. Literally, this baby is inescapably evil; a deity of Lawful Good who you trust. The same god who would send you on planewide crusades in order to bring to heel the type of tyrant that this child is going to be brought up into. When it gains sentience, and the ability to establish action beyond the need of simple survival, everything this child will do will lead it to eventual interplanar war. It is prophecy, and self fulfilling. That prophecy has been given to you to be at the choice of crux in the force. Will you execute order 66, or simply squick out?

2) I have no 100% reliable way to identify a vision as being from anyone qualified to make this judgement, and if a LG God able to intervene in the world wants the child dead. He can kill it himself. The ONLY reason he needs me to do it is that he's not actually a LG deity and wants to corrupt me. Sorry. Not playing your silly game.
It's a Lawful Good god. It is a deity dedicated to being truthful and honest and the sanctity of life, giving you the choice to create misery for trillions, or painless death for one.

Congrats, you are evil. You wouldn't kill 1 to save 100000000000000000.

Welcome to binary Alignment **** ups D&D style 101. This is literally the trolley problem turned up to 11. There's no right or wrong answer, but hey, Doug Lambert's here to announce an answer to this ethical "question".

Edited to go a bit further in depth.

Kish

2017-10-30, 03:52 PM

Congrats, you are evil. You wouldn't kill 1 to save 100000000000000000.
Flatly refusing to acknowledge responses outside the terms you'd already decided on has straightforwardness to recommend it, if nothing else.

Laserlight

2017-10-30, 04:56 PM

The cleric's deity is Odin, god of wisdom and law. I'm concerned because I'm pretty sure that straight up murdering someone is against Odin's intentions. What I need help with is how to carry forward from this. Should there some sort of repercussion (spells no longer work) or should I just give him a finger shake and move on?

You have possible divine response or NPC response.

Divine might be that he's unwelcome at temples which have heard about what he did, but I wouldn't impose that unless he said "I cast Burning Hands" and you said "Your character would know that your diety would strongly disapprove of killing a captive like this, are you doing it anyway?" If you don't give him a warning like that, it's entirely possible that he's within what he believes to be reasonable tenets and you're being too restrictive. Retroactively applying a restriction he didn't know about is a DM foul.

Ir's also entirely possible that Odin wouldn't have a problem with it. Odin wasn't exactly Mr Fluffy Bunny Hugger.

As a further point, DMs shouldn't bog down LG players with unreasonable restrictions. An LG paladin shouldn't execute a prisoner if there is a reasonable alternative, but if you have a captive who clearly guilty, will do serious harm if released, and cannot be transferred to another authority, then the paladin is probably within his rights to execute the guy.

As I recall, RAW says that once the gods invest spellcasting power in you, you keep it regardless of what you do. So I wouldn't restrict his casting.

NPC consequences are a separate matter. The victim's relatives and friends could either tell the local sherriff or equivalent, or they can take matters into their own hands, or the community could just shun the PC.

Vaz

2017-10-30, 05:03 PM

Flatly refusing to acknowledge responses outside the terms you'd already decided on has straightforwardness to recommend it, if nothing else.

Acknowledging a difference in opinion doesn't change the fact that trillions died because of his choice of action. While I'd consider more evil than killing a child. But hey, I know where I stand on the trolley problem, and I'm comfortable with it.

Kish

2017-10-30, 05:05 PM

fact that trillions died
...um...are you feeling okay?

Vaz

2017-10-30, 05:07 PM

...um...are you feeling okay?

I mean I stubbed my toe on the door stop. But yeah. Why do you ask?

Kish

2017-10-30, 05:18 PM

Vaz

2017-10-30, 06:10 PM

Because you seem to have lost sight of the most basic reality that your thought exercise is a thought exercise and trillions have not died.

Not only is it a thought exercise, it's an utterly rigged one. You might as well say, "Would you kill a baby if not killing the baby means you're evil? You wouldn't [aggressively ignores the other words about rejecting the conclusion]? EVIL KILLER OF TRILLIONS!" and not bother with the implausible justification for that conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

What are you getting at? You mean the "if you kill children you are evil" bit within Doug Lambert's post? I literally gave you the out by saying that the most trustworthy source in the game, a deity of law, a deity of good, and one you know you trust is giving you the information that the child is bad news and will only ever be bad news.

Look at Star Wars; Anakin was discovered, and Qui Gon thought he could bring balance to the force. If he knew of the events 10-15 years later, would he still be so keen to save Anakin from a life of slavery and destitution? Watto would still be forced to sell Lakshmi, and likely Anakin too, and that may well have been the end of Anakin. Anakin would still have essentially been condemned to death - except at the hands of Sand People, or malnutrition.

What about other ethical situations? After a plane crash in the mountains, to survive, you have to cannibalize the corpses of the dead. At what stage does self preservation and the "sanctity" of your life lose its precedence over others? Would you kill a crippled, but still living survivor who is taking all of your recovered stores? Lifeboat ethics. Or the on-going study of Roboethics such as the tunnel theory which is being used and decided in courts of law over the future of self driving cars; does the car kill the child tripped in the road, or does the car kill the passenger? What is the value of the life of a child; one that could either cure cancer or create world famines, or the passenger of the car who may be a lawyer for a huge city firm renowned for taking on Pro Bono cases and helping "the little folk", or a Politician who has links to the International Arms Trade currently pushing through deals to sell weapons to governments known to have leaky pockets/outright fund and arm terrorists committing sectarian violence or paramilitary operations against communities in the way of whatever schemes the politician is making.

These are all thought experiments, and hand waving "oh, it doesn't matter what I say, because it's only a thought experiment" means that you shouldn't even be participating inside the thought experiment, least of all criticising the decisions of some.

Kish

2017-10-30, 06:25 PM

That's a lot of words to say "you have to validate my perspective because you do because you do."

Let me reciprocate. Suppose that someone who you believe with all your heart to be your Lawful Good deity tells you that the baby in front of you is pure evil and will only cause harm, killing trillions, unless you kill him right now. Suppose that, completely unbeknownst to you and beyond your ability to discern by any method, that's not actually your Lawful Good deity; it's Asmodeus. The baby is innocent, by whatever definition you used to earlier declare the one in your thought exercise "not innocent."

Are you evil if you kill the baby?

Are you evil if you don't do so?

Is there any possible way to prove from the inside that one is in your thought experiment, not mine, other than asserting tautologically that the only correct answer to your thought experiment is committing murder?

Contrast

2017-10-30, 07:08 PM

Snip

I feel like you're missing the point to a certain extent. If a worshiper of an evil cult was told by a demon to give money to an orphanage because it would one day raise progeny that would promote their cause but it turned out it was an angel in disguise telling them that who just wanted them to fund an orphanage, would that make them a good person? We can turn these examples around on each other all day.

The key question this boils down to is 'Is it ever morally justifiable to harm someone?'. If your answer is no then you have to expect people to look askance at you when you refuse to push someone out of the way of an oncoming vehicle in case they get a bruise from the push. If your answer is yes then everything else is just haggling about the price. Wouldn't kill a baby? How about an elderly person who would die in a few days regardless? How about rather than killing them you just need to not go out of your way to stop them dying? Etc etc.

On topic - the key issue for me here is that he was subdued and (apparently) compliant as a prisoner. I don't believe there would have been any significant obstacles to turning him over the the local authorities (notwithstanding the difficulties in 5E from stopping a caster from completely casting). In game I wouldn't impose any issues yet (and I certainly wouldn't lose their casting for the same reason I wouldn't have a fighter forget how to wear armour or action surge because he roleplayed spending some time learning in a library instead of training). I would discuss with your player how they see their character and if they intend to carry on being so merciless, suggest they may wish to consider worshiping a god who more closely aligns with their world view. A lot of this of course depends on how you see Odin as operating in your setting (I note you said he was the god of wisdom and law; the PHB has him down as neutral not lawful and I'm inclined to agree it might be more accurate to describe him as a god of lore not law) - typically all of the Norse gods were a pretty hardcore bunch. If he didn't want his clerics casting Burning Hands on people, he wouldn't give them the ability to cast Burning Hands.

I had a similar thing happen when we finished playing LMoP recently. (Spoilers ahead) When we found the real Nundro our rogue player decided she didn't want to take the risk that it was another shapeshifter in disguise so she just killed him while he was still tied up. The rest of the party seemed somewhat surprised when my character refused to go along with this or be talked around in any fashion to continue adventuring when they refused to turn her over to the authorities :smalltongue: My advice follows from what happened in that session - I don't care what the rogues character sheet says about their alignment, the only important issue is how those who know about the event react to it.

Theodoxus

2017-10-30, 08:11 PM

Nifft

2017-10-30, 08:13 PM

What if the Trillions are evil, and the baby is the reincarnation of the Buddha Jesus Muhammed?

"If you meet the Buddha in a crib, kill him." -- Zen Koan

Dimers

2017-10-30, 08:19 PM

"If you meet the Buddha in a crib, kill him." -- Zen Koan

*spit-take* :smalltongue:

Kish

2017-10-30, 08:20 PM

I feel like you're missing the point to a certain extent. If a worshiper of an evil cult was told by a demon to give money to an orphanage because it would one day raise progeny that would promote their cause but it turned out it was an angel in disguise telling them that who just wanted them to fund an orphanage, would that make them a good person? We can turn these examples around on each other all day.

If, and only if, we all agree that strict consequentialism is the only approach worth acknowledging.

Should it be unclear: We don't. Vaz offered a rigged thought experiment and responded to not getting the answer he wanted by dismissing Doug's response in toto, calling him evil, and accusing him of killing trillions by giving an answer any more nuanced than "yes, I accept your terms and the conclusion you're pointing to." The point I'm "missing" (or more accurately, rejecting) is that he's not interested in considering any viewpoint but one extremely narrow one, and you're apparently choosing to back him up in that.

The key question this boils down to is 'Is it ever morally justifiable to harm someone?'.

Rejected with gusto. Just like Vaz, you're trying to set up a situation where disagreeing with you is inherently ludicrous by defining aspects of the debate you don't have the right to unilaterally define.

In my observation, any time someone says "we're just haggling about the price," including the original "prostitution" example, it can be translated to, "Everything I'm saying is a massive oversimplification at best, but if I close one eye entirely, squint the other one almost closed, and insist nothing I don't now see is there, I win!" This time is not an exception.

SiCK_Boy

2017-10-30, 08:39 PM

I think people are really underestimating the evil represented by the Redbrands and Glasstaff. Obviously, the OP could provide more details on how he developed them in his campaign, but the way the module is written, the Redbrands are a gang of thugs who harrass the citizens of Phandalin. They killed the woodcarver and captured his widow and his two kids, to be sold into slavery. Glasstaff has allied himself with a drow, with a nothic, and with bugbears, all in pursuit of magical power.

This is not just a local thieves' guild playing Robin Hood. They are a gang of evil people.

Also, the local authorities are untrustworthy at best, with the mayor of Phandalin being the only person trying to somehow defend the Redbrands and minimize the threat they pose to his city. He does so out of fear and cowardice, but still: one can legitimately wonder if the safest answer is to just bring Glasstaff to the Phandalin authority, if what one is looking for is justice.

Now, regarding the original dilemma and whether some penalty should be imposed on the cleric player for having essentially killed a helpless prisoner, I would need to know more about Odin and his tenets. But then, unless Odin has explicit known tenets regarding treatment of prisoners, I would not impose any kind of severe penalty to the player for his behavior. This is probably a group that is still relatively new (usually, the Redbrand Hideout is Part 2 of the adventure, and happens between Lvl 2 and 3), with the player having little experience with that specific character, in that specific world, with that specific deity. I think the DM should be lenient; if as a DM you really think this kind of behavior should be curbed (and sooner rather than later), I see two options (and both could be used together): have the deity communicate with the player and give him some hint that he disapproves of his behavior. This could be pretty cryptic, or as blunt as a message written in letter of fire across the sky. Second option: have the DM talk to the player and explain how that behavior is problematic.

However, I would shy away from option 2 unless there is some major reason to want to restrict player freedom in that sense. The player's action is not that inexcusable, and it's always better to provide consequences "in game" than just abuse the DM all-powerful authority (sometimes, the two can get mixed up, but still). One key thing to remember is that the player does not know all that the character knows: maybe some reminder regarding how Odin expects his follower to treat prisoners would be in order.

If this was the 10th prisoner in a row he murders this way, after multiple "warnings", then the consequence could be worse.

But in this case, really, all the cleric did was deliver justice to a guilty man. He just went maybe a bit too fast with the "due process" part of justice administration, but the final outcome is still pretty close to what it would have been given 6 months or so of criminal trial proceedings.

Unoriginal

2017-10-30, 09:15 PM

I would like to point out that 5e's good deities explicitly WOULD NOT do something like "kill that baby because he'll grow up so bad he'll be overused as comparison point by forum goers and need his own Godwin law."

The good gods of 5e created their mortals with complete free will, knowing full well that some of them would choose to do evil. Because to even just make the mortals have urges to do good would be a tyranny the benevolent beings would not inflict on anyone.

So no, they would not kill that baby because of a prophecy. They would have agents prepare the world to stop him when he tries to accomplish his evil deeds, though, if he does try.

Contrast

2017-10-30, 09:27 PM

If, and only if, we all agree that strict consequentialism is the only approach worth acknowledging.

Should it be unclear: We don't. Vaz offered a rigged thought experiment and responded to not getting the answer he wanted by dismissing Doug's response in toto, calling him evil, and accusing him of killing trillions by giving an answer any more nuanced than "yes, I accept your terms and the conclusion you're pointing to." The point I'm "missing" (or more accurately, rejecting) is that he's not interested in considering any viewpoint but one extremely narrow one, and you're apparently choosing to back him up in that.

I'm a little confused. You were the one who offered that thought experiment (I literally inverted your post) and you now disagree with it? Or were you offering it ironically? :smallconfused: For clarity as its apparently needed - I don't agree with a strict consequentialist approach to morality either.

Still missing the point as I see it. I agree with a lot of what you've said earlier in this thread but if your response to the trolley question is 'how do I know for sure the trolley is going to hit those people and that pulling the lever will save them' you've misunderstood the question (or in this case 'how do I know the baby really is the devil incarnate'). Those are perfectly valid responses in real life (and you're more than welcome to disagree with Vazs conclusions on what makes someone evil) but as a thought experiment it's sound. If Vaz is wrong to have said Doug was evil for not murdering the hypothetical baby (because you seem to be of the opinion he's taking a narrow restrictive view based on his personal opinions) then Doug was wrong for saying Vaz would be evil for murdering the hypothetical baby (because of the exactly same reason).

The trolley problem isn't flawed or a trap simply because there isn't a 'right' answer. Or more accurately because everyones 'right' answer is different.

I'll leave this here in case you missed it:

There's no right or wrong answer, but hey, Doug Lambert's here to announce an answer to this ethical "question".

Rejected with gusto. Just like Vaz, you're trying to set up a situation where disagreeing with you is inherently ludicrous by defining aspects of the debate you don't have the right to unilaterally define.

In my observation, any time someone says "we're just haggling about the price," including the original "prostitution" example, it can be translated to, "Everything I'm saying is a massive oversimplification at best, but if I close one eye entirely, squint the other one almost closed, and insist nothing I don't now see is there, I win!" This time is not an exception.

What exactly are you rejecting? That that's what the debate boils down to? How so?

If you're objecting to the 'haggling' - for clarity I'm not making any moral judgement there. People set their own values - for Vaz however many lives are worth the life of one baby. For you the line to save however many lives might be compromising someones medical treatment by holding them in quarantine to prevent the spread of an infection or whatever - wherever you want to draw the line. If we rephrase Vazs hypothetical as a doctor with a baby he knows will die under quarantine but which will infect and kill others out of quarantine, do you still find it so objectionable to make the choice for the baby to die?

The point I was trying to make wasn't that all results were equivalent but that once you've made that initial decision, there are no more rules (well obviously there are laws but that's not really what we're talking about). Each person needs to weigh the balance themselves and see where they draw the line. Doug phrased his statement as a definitive moral judgement - Vaz at least noted his was an opinion :smallsmile:

Anyway I said what I wanted to say on topic and I think Vaz can probably speak for himself so I'll leave it there :smalltongue:

JackPhoenix

2017-10-30, 11:50 PM

Malifice

2017-10-31, 12:13 AM

You get given a vision froma source you trust implicitly (LG deity)

Lol. In a world with enchantment magic and illusions, if you trust some vison of your god imploring you to kill babies, more fool you.

And to answer your question, no you dont kill the baby. You raise it to be a good and noble person.

The basic premise of D&D, though, is that good can be accomplished by killing some people.

No it is not the basic premise.

The premise is that there are evil monsters and demons and orcs that wont listen to reason or allow themslelves to be stopped from doing evil other than with violence.

Killing people isnt good. It is (expressly) evil. It becomes morally neutral when done in reasonable self defence or the defence of others, and no other option reasonably presents itself.

Malifice

2017-10-31, 12:14 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem.

Its been done in last weeks alignment thread. And debunked.

Keep up.

dagfari

2017-10-31, 12:47 AM

The premise is that there are evil monsters and demons and orcs that wont listen to reason or allow themslelves to be stopped from doing evil other than with violence.

Killing people isnt good. It is (expressly) evil. It becomes morally neutral when done in reasonable self defence or the defence of others, and no other option reasonably presents itself.

I just wanted to butt in here.

My main character is a LN cleric - he summons undead "even foul ends may serve the will of the Builder"
and animates his enemies' corpses "That in death they may serve the Builder, as they rejected him in life..."

But he also tries to heal and/or stabilize fallen enemies in combat - even 'evil races'. "The Goblin Warchief may see this as a moment to learn from in his pathetic short life."

From my cleric's perspective, there are many people living that deserve death - and many dead who deserve life.

In terms of the OP's murderhobo cleric, there is no way that cleric is lawful (he had no proof that the burning hands victim was guilty) and there is no way that that cleric is good (a good character won't murder people without a compelling reason)

If the cleric is meant to be LG, LN, or even LE, he's acted seriously out of alignment. But like somebody else said, I think the player may be new to the game.

My suggestion as a DM is to turn it into an RP encounter:

1. (if the player is turning his cleric into a murderhobo)
Have that PC's deity appear in a dream - the PC must justify their actions to their Deity.

"You awaken, alone, to find yourself standing in a celestial courtroom. Stunningly bright light filters in through the stained-glass windows that cover the whole roof, and you feel like you are being watched. Sitting at the judge's bench is (description of PC's deity). To your left are two Devils (LE extraplanar). They smirk as they see you looking at them. Standing at your side is a glowering Archon who looks very displeased to be summoned here. The judge calls the courtroom to order, and the air is silent as he intones: "we are here tonight to reach a verdict on the case of one (character's name)..."

(the punishment for the transgression is to be branded on the back of the hand with a divine symbol to remind the cleric of his deity's will)

2. (if the player acted out of character, with good intentions)
Have an agent of the PC's deity appear while the cleric is preparing spells- the PC must justify their actions.

"As you begin your meditiation for the morning, a bright light forces your eyes open, and you open them to see a glowing angel of some kind (It's an Archon, Knowledge planes 15). He is sitting cross-legged on the ground at the foot of your bedroll. Despite the light having brought you to alertness during your meditation, the other PCs are sleeping soundly. The Archon, with a disgusted look on his face, turns to you and says 'do you think you know true justice, cleric?'"

(the punishment for the transgression is to get unrestful sleep, be fatigued, and be unable to prepare spells for that day)

Malifice

2017-10-31, 12:57 AM

I just wanted to butt in here.

My main character is a LN cleric - he summons undead "even foul ends may serve the will of the Builder"
and animates his enemies' corpses "That in death they may serve the Builder, as they rejected him in life..."

You're doing it wrong.

In 5E creating undead frequently is only done by evil PCs. Specifically the RAW states:

Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently.

Maybe the metaphysics of your game world differ, and summoning what the game calls 'evil spirits' using what the game defines as 'black magic' to create what the game calls 'murderous monsters' via the act of desecrating the dead is 'not evil' - despite the metaphysics of necromancy expressly saying it is.

From my cleric's perspective, there are many people living that deserve death - and many dead who deserve life.

Sounds like you're LE.

Vaz

2017-10-31, 01:09 AM

Its been done in last weeks alignment thread. And debunked.

Keep up.

Do explain, considering your judgement has proven less than sound or satisfactory in the months of observing this forum. Also, i love how a bunch of nerds playing a tabletop game rolling dice have 'debunked' an ethical question as if it was meant to be a theory.

Finback

2017-10-31, 01:19 AM

Personally I don't think Odin would care.

He's too busy watching plays about his kids..

Malifice

2017-10-31, 01:26 AM

Do explain, considering your judgement has proven less than sound or satisfactory in the months of observing this forum.

Yeah nah.

The trolley issue is a thought experiment, like Schroedingers cat. Not reflective of an actional plausible scenario.

For starters it (and stupid theoretical rubbish like it) presumes only a binary option is available to the actor. This is impossible in the real world, and only possible in a thought experiment where other options are magically erased from the actor.

The actor cant sabotage the tracks. He cant throw himself in front of the cart. He is doomed to only being able to turn the lever, or not turn the lever. Notwisthstanding this he also somehow has time to understand this binary choice (but not do anything else).

It is not reflective of real world choices where you never have 'only two options'.

It also presumes some kind of objective absolute certain knowledge of a future event on behalf of the actor (he knows what the outcome of each action will be in the future with godlike clarity and certainty). This is also impossible.

Why cant the cart stop on its own? Why cant the people in it jump free? Why does the man on the tracks always die and not be miraculously unharmed or knocked free?

It's a thought experiment only for a reason. It requires the existence of absurd and impossible conditions for it to exist (an illusory binary choice, absolute knoweldge of future outcomes based on that binary choice).

That people keep bringing it up as some kind of deep philisophical dillema despite its debunking 2 millenia ago is weird.

There are better thought experiments ou there like like P-Zombies or Cartesian doubt.

Vaz

2017-10-31, 01:29 AM

Yeah nah.

The trolley issue is a thought experiment, like Schroedingers cat. Not reflective of an actional plausible scenario.

For starters it (and stupid theoretical rubbish like it) presumes only a binary option is available to the actor. This is impossible in the real world, and only possible in a thought experiment where other options are magically erased from the actor.

The actor cant sabotage the tracks. He cant throw himself in front of the cart. He is doomed to only being able to turn the lever, or not turn the lever. Notwisthstanding this he also somehow has time to understand this binary choice (but not do anything else).

It is not reflective of real world choices where you never have 'only two options'.

It also presumes some kind of objective absolute certain knowledge of a future event on behalf of the actor (he knows what the outcome of each action will be in the future with godlike clarity and certainty). This is also impossible.

Why cant the cart stop on its own? Why cant the people in it jump free? Why does the man on the tracks always die and not be miraculously unharmed or knocked free?

It's a thought experiment only for a reason. It requires the existence of absurd and impossible conditions for it to exist (an illusory binary choice, absolute knoweldge of future outcomes based on that binary choice).

That people keep bringing it up as some kind of deep philisophical dillema despite its debunking 2 millenia ago is weird.

There are better thought experiments ou there like like P-Zombies or Cartesian doubt.

Go read the trolley problem. Go read it.

Malifice

2017-10-31, 01:42 AM

Go read the trolley problem. Go read it.

I have read it.

Now you go read why its been debunked, and exists only as a thought experiment.

Future Sword

2017-10-31, 01:44 AM

Malifice

2017-10-31, 01:46 AM

Shut the **** up about the goddamn Baby Hitler Trolley Problem, you monomaniac.

Better not be referring to me there, because Im actually agreeing with you.

Its a rubbish thought experiment that adds nothing.

Like the baby Hitler thing. Its kindergarden philosphical dillema.

Future Sword

2017-10-31, 01:50 AM

Better not be referring to me there, because Im actually agreeing with you.

Its a rubbish thought experiment that adds nothing.

Like the baby Hitler thing. Its kindergarden philosphical dillema.

Not you, no. Just the person who thought it was worth bringing up in the first place. There Oughta Be a Rule...

Malifice

2017-10-31, 01:56 AM

Not you, no. Just the person who thought it was worth bringing up in the first place. There Oughta Be a Rule...

Baby Hitler murder is a greate example of everything wrong with the thought experiemnt.

Why is my only option murder? Surely removing Hitler from pre war Germany (even taking him back to the future with you), and dropping him off elsewhere means he doesnt grow up with a resentment towards Jews, and an urging for Ultra nationalism and Pan Germanism.

It was a collection of his experiences that led to him thinking the way he does. With a different upbringing he becomes a different person.

The thought experiment again relies on [false binaries] and [absolute certainty of future events]. Both of which are impossible.

Vaz

2017-10-31, 02:04 AM

Shut the **** up about the goddamn Baby Hitler Trolley Problem, you monomaniac. Christ, why isn't this bull**** against forum rules, anyway? It's only ever brought up by argumentative, disruptive jags who take some sort of moral offense to a thread staying anywhere near the original topic.

Report and move on if youfeel that strongly, or just don't participate.

Also, we have a talented cast of forum goers, ones who can define monomania and ones who can 'debunk' a hypothetical.

As it stands, no thanks. I raised a hypothetical, and one person said killing one was evil, which must mean that killing many more through inaction is many times more evil.

Of a doctor is triaging patients, they don't spend time on the dying, instead of those with a chance to live tbrough urgent treatment. A rescue swimmer will punch you in the face if you hinder his efforts. A diver will lookaftertheir airsupply.

Instead it was phrased in a dnd setting and a of a sudden it's fedoras united.

Future Sword

2017-10-31, 02:36 AM

Report and move on if youfeel that strongly, or just don't participate.
You know damn good and well that there's no rule against your brand of BS. If there were, you wouldn't have been able to so thoroughly derail a topic that has nothing to do with Baby Hitler.

Also, we have a talented cast of forum goers, ones who can define monomania and ones who can 'debunk' a hypothetical.
Please increase the condescension here, I have a rare disorder that renders me incapable of reading things if I can't picture a snooty 15th-century aristocrat sneering them at me from atop a horse.

As it stands, no thanks. I raised a hypothetical, and one person said killing one was evil, which must mean that killing many more through inaction is many times more evil.

The hypothetical you raised had nothing to do with the original topic, and has only served to derail the thread and bog it down with your Nazi Infant obsession.

Of a doctor is triaging patients, they don't spend time on the dying, instead of those with a chance to live tbrough urgent treatment. A rescue swimmer will punch you in the face if you hinder his efforts. A diver will lookaftertheir airsupply.
This has absolutely nothing to do with anything else you've said, unless you had something typed out, noticed that it was too reasonable, and then erased it.

Instead it was phrased in a dnd setting and a of a sudden it's fedoras united.
At this point, I think even the slow kids in the back are starting to realise you have nothing of substance to add. You played the "fedora" card like a Yu-Gi-Oh! character activating his trap card, except in the real world, "fedora" is a style of hat, not an actual insult or mic-drop-worthy quip.

The fact that you seem to think anything you've said was even worth the effort, despite pretty much everyone telling you otherwise, tells me that you lack the ability to read a room. Of course, that much was already pretty obvious, since you thought this thread was a good place to vent your frustrations about all the imaginary innocents murdered by a hypothetical person who potentially wouldn't have pretend-murdered a nonexistent baby.

Chugger

2017-10-31, 02:51 AM

I'm blocked (internally) from posting anything useful on this thread because something about it causes my mind to go to Monty Python sketches, particularly this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu7vySQbgXI

Delicious Taffy

2017-10-31, 02:54 AM

OP, in regards to your query (the topic of this thread, and all):

If this is the first instance of your cleric behaving this way, I'd let it slide regardless. As it is, the context provides plenty of sound justifications for the act, which I believe others have said as well. Of course, if your cleric starts to make a habit of fire-strangling people with increasingly-flimsy reasons, I'd probably recommend stepping in and pointing out how dark it's getting. If the player expresses an interest in having their cleric go off the deep end, or at least down a darker path, I think it's a fantastic opportunity for roleplaying, provided you and the other players aren't too put off by it.

Vaz

2017-10-31, 03:10 AM

You know damn good and well that there's no rule against your brand of BS. If there were, you wouldn't have been able to so thoroughly derail a topic that has nothing to do with Baby Hitler.
And here you are continuing its discussion?

You should probably stop.

Please increase the condescension here, I have a rare disorder that renders me incapable of reading things if I can't picture a snooty 15th-century aristocrat sneering them at me from atop a horse.
You should probably get help with that.

The hypothetical you raised had nothing to do with the original topic, and has only served to derail the thread and bog it down with your Nazi Infant obsession.

I don.t have a Nazi obsession. Would you prefer if I used Mao, or Papa Doc? The point was using some evil person as the basis for hypothetical situation that the child wouldun equivocally grow up to become should they survive infanthood.

If you don't seehow that relates to Malifices original comment of killing= bad, then you are beyond help and probably shouldn't continue to entertain 'my particular brand of BS'.

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything else you've said, unless you had something typed out, noticed that it was too reasonable, and then erased it.
Wait, other real life situations where you have to prioritise lives of one group of individuals over others.

At this point, I think even the slow kids in the back are starting to realise you have nothing of substance to add. You played the "fedora" card like a Yu-Gi-Oh! character activating his trap card, except in the real world, "fedora" is a style of hat, not an actual insult or mic-drop-worthy quip.
Lol.

The fact that you seem to think anything you've said was even worth the effort, despite pretty much everyone telling you otherwise, tells me that you lack the ability to read a room. Of course, that much was already pretty obvious, since you thought this thread was a good place to vent your frustrations about all the imaginary innocents murdered by a hypothetical person who potentially wouldn't have pretend-murdered a nonexistent baby.

You're the one getting ratty over it. If i was trolling, you've fallen hook line and sinker and the knowledge that you're angry enough to post all of this, call me a monomaniac and continue to fall for my bait would surely make you want to stop, given that you're givi g me everything I'd want if I was trolling. If.

Instead, tbis is the post to which I addressed.

The good people are running the 'Hugs not Drugs' and soup kitchen and drug rehab programs in town, and working as social workers trying to end the gang violence without resorting to murder (through compassion, self sacrifice, and altruism).

LG don't kill.

Completely ignoring the reductio ad absurdum/in extremis example, lets rephrase: sometimes more good can be dealt by killing the right person.

You know, the Concept of a Solar.

Future Sword

2017-10-31, 03:19 AM

Vaz, you're a bit of a smug ****. It's useless continuing to engage you, because you're not interested in intellectual honesty.

On-Topic: OP, I'm with Taffy there. This could, if handled well, turn into an interesting character arc. I advocate for seeing where it goes, if it does indeed go anywhere.

Malifice

2017-10-31, 03:23 AM

LG don't kill.

I didnt say that. Why are you saying I did?

I echo the sentiments above. Either quit intentionally misrepresenting what I am saying or quit full stop.

Vaz

2017-10-31, 03:48 AM

Vaz, you're a bit of a smug ****. It's useless continuing to engage you, because you're not interested in intellectual honesty.
Behave. None of what I've said is is correct, lies, or misquoted, while you have accused me of monomania, nazi fixation, and are now calling me smug and a liar because what you've said is incorrect and been proven so at every stage, while co ti uing to derail the thread, something you wish you could report people for.

I didnt say that. Why are you saying I did?

I echo the sentiments above. Either quit intentionally misrepresenting what I am saying or quit full stop.

LG people are running soup kitchens while LG supermen hand over to some authority of their choice.

And then you get the concept of issues with what is a universal 'law' or a universal 'good'. What is good in oneculture different from another. The good deeds of 21st century are different from those of the 12th. Where slavery was once condoned and encouraged, and people dehumanized to being property, now it isn't. In another millenia what will be determined anevil actout of something we consider normal: the meat industry? Banking?

To what law do you subscribe to? Laws of today? The laws of the universe? The laws of your upbringing? The laws of your internal compass? The laws of 21stcentury? And which country?

All pf these are issues that stem from the literal blacl and white alignmentsuntil you get to the stage where alignment is ****ed, and you are simply dealing with personalifies rather than a 3*3 matrix. Being a fiend warlock doesn't make you have an affinity with other fiends. It makes you have an affinity with your patron who may approve of certain actions you take, which are contextualised by the events surrounding them.

Hence, welcome to Roboethics. You have all failed this class, where the only incorrect answer is not to take part.

Malifice

2017-10-31, 04:06 AM

LG people are running soup kitchens while LG supermen hand over to some authority of their choice.

Exactly. So I didnt ****ing say they cant kill.

Thats your inference. And not something I said at all.

And then you get the concept of issues with what is a universal 'law' or a universal 'good'. What is good in oneculture different from another.

I dont give a **** about culture or subjective good and evil. Im talking about objective cosmic good and evil.

Delicious Taffy

2017-10-31, 04:29 AM

I dont give a **** about culture or subjective good and evil. Im talking about objective cosmic good and evil.

I'm getting the sense that a lot of what you're saying has a very heavily implied "within the setting/system" in it. Which is some context that I don't see being recognised in certain replies to you. In particular, a certain flavor of response seems to dishonestly paint you as if you consider yourself the almighty arbiter of right and wrong, all others be damned, which... I'm just not seeing. My advice in this situation is to duck out of the the debate, such as it is, since you're the only one presenting your case with any sort of intellectual honesty.

Malifice

2017-10-31, 04:41 AM

I'm getting the sense that a lot of what you're saying has a very heavily implied "within the setting/system" in it. Which is some context that I don't see being recognised in certain replies to you. In particular, a certain flavor of response seems to dishonestly paint you as if you consider yourself the almighty arbiter of right and wrong, all others be damned, which... I'm just not seeing. My advice in this situation is to duck out of the the debate, such as it is, since you're the only one presenting your case with any sort of intellectual honesty.

Thanks man.

Im not sure if its an intentional misrepresentation of what I am saying, or people unable to interpret it properly. Mistake or deliberate, it's downright annoying.

I blame these weekly 'murdering babies is fine for the greater good' alignment threads on a combination of discussions of morality in society in general nowaways being reduced to the gutter. American exceptionalism (you cant have WMD's - but we can, you cant engage in torture, assasinations or murder... but we can etc) and the general acceptance of things like White nationalism, far right wing rubbish and (on the other side) abhorrent acts of terrorism in the name of a supposedly 'good' god.

Surely we have seen what claims of 'for the greater good' get us? Just a cursory glance at history should be enough.

Then couple that phenomenon with the fact that the majority of people in our hobby are socially ostrasized neckbeards or immature teenagers who structure their morality around reading science fiction novels or action movies, and fapping over bikini clad superheroines and obsessing over whether a katana can cut through an anvil or equally purile crap.

Throw those two things into a game that actively (indeed solely) rewards its protagonists for murder and genocide (wtih XP and loot) and you have the recipie for greenlighting all kinds of utterly abhorrent baby murder, genocide, wanton slaughter, torture and worse.

I throw my hands up in despair sometimes.

Delicious Taffy

2017-10-31, 04:46 AM

[Snip]

I throw my hands up in despair sometimes.

...Sayin' "Heeeey-o! Where'd the loooot go?"

Vaz

2017-10-31, 04:55 AM

I dont give a **** about culture or subjective good and evil. Im talking about objective cosmic good and evil.

Which is what, exactly? All we have to define good and evil is what society has evolved from and to over tens of thousands of years of evolution. The veneration of particular artefacts, symbols, words. The collective belief that the £10 note you hold is worth more than the polymer it is made from for exampleis an example of our culture that has evolved over time. Why not our belief in a Good and evil: having evolved societallyfrom bloodsport and slavery, where does this evolution end?

And when we, as players, try to define what is a Universal Cosmic Good, we use our culture and up upbringing to define that. Compare that to jainism, or 12th century christianity, or orthodoxy, protestantism, or catholocism. Each has different wrongs and rights in their tenets, which boils dow to how does that affectin game beliefs?

A god of Metallica might declare celestial jihad on followers of a god of One Direction. What defines the right and wrong of each? The good and evil? A treeant might see a Vegetarian as evil.

What is chaos for the fly etc. The definition of cos. Ic good and evil is arbitrary nonsense that is only as relevant as the group who is playing it, and good actions are not without intention or context, and even then, good actions can cause great harm.

@Taffy, no idea if you're trying to portray that as me (if so, why?), but ultimately, it boils down in game as to what the DM defines as evil, or more appropriately, what the DM feels the tenet to which that character holds feels acceptable.

Does a Lawful character drive on the left at home when its LHD, and right when in those countries? So what happens when that character starts breaking chains of slaves in a country legally allowing slaves?

Andif that uprising of slaves creates a slave army which then pillaves and rapes its way across the world genghis khan style, was that a good act?

Malifice

2017-10-31, 05:14 AM

Which is what, exactly?

Killing people is evil. Raping people is evil. Torturing people is evil. Harming people is evil.

Mercy, compassion and altruism (and concern for the dignity of others) is good.

Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)#Good_vs._evil)(fr om 3E):

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

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

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

Millstone85

2017-10-31, 05:15 AM

Delicious Taffy

2017-10-31, 05:36 AM

The DM is the almighty arbiter of what having Good and Evil as cosmic forces entails in-universe. To take an absurd example, a DM could decide that knitting on an early Tuesday afternoon would be recognised as a sin by all good-aligned gods and their angels. This is a huge responsibility for the DM. How do you make it so the players do not feel like their characters are inside a Chick tract?

And yeah, Malifice often writes as if "not at my table" was relevant to alignment discussions here, which I think is not the case.

I think you may have misunderstood something I said. To try and clarify, I'm saying that Malifice appears to be on the receiving end of a strawman painting them as some sort of zealot who claims to hold the final word on what is Good and what is Evil, across any and every campaign, setting, and alignment chart. Which I'm just not seeing in their interaction with that other user. Whether or not this is true in other threads, I honestly have no idea, and I don't particularly care to dig through their posts to find out.

Honestly, there seem to be a lot of unspoken assumptions behind many of the replies, when it comes to discussions like these, and I don't pretend to care about any of them. If it's not what you've expressly said, or can't be easily inferred from context, it's just not on my radar. That other user seems to be the one behind most of these shenanigans, which is why I've deliberately chosen not to engage, but rather to talk around them. If it's all the same, I'd like to duck out of this derailment, since it looks as if it might quickly devolve into personal attacks and long-winded spiels on the personal moral failings of everyone involved, which I'm all but certain the OP did not have in mind.

Vaz

2017-10-31, 07:53 AM

Killing people is evil. Raping people is evil. Torturing people is evil. Harming people is evil.

Mercy, compassion and altruism (and concern for the dignity of others) is good.

Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)#Good_vs._evil)(fr om 3E):

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

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

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

Isn't that from the same edition as Sanctify the wicked? The spell that tore a creatures soul from its body, forced an alignment change, destroying their original body before transplanting them into a new one?

I mean, i'm phrasing it as a Question, but it is. So, I dunno if you consider a clockwork orange mindrape to be considered 'good' but using animated skeleton lacking a soul and is functionally little different than a golem to build a house for orphaned homeless childre at3 times the speed of a normal human for a fraction of the cost to be 'evil', then that's how we end up having the discussion.

What defines the cosmic good? A quote from a game that we're not playing, that is as poorly written as 3,5 (or 3e) is hardly what i'd consider evidence.

Take away the concept of humankind: what does an animal like a Wolf, Shark, Tapeworm or Botfly consider to be a universal cosmic good? They do pretty evil acts to different species by our standards, so why is it that a vaguely humanoid creature is judged by other humanoids, but Chimpanzees aren't?

Hypersmith

2017-10-31, 08:19 AM

What the heck is wrong with you people. This is like a schoolyard mud flinging tournament on some poor guy who just wants some advices thread. If you want to go debate life and impose your thoughts on alignment on other people can you go someplace else and start a separate thread about it, or better yet just PM one another, and save us all the eyesore. None of you have the self control to not inject your arguments with quips about the other and you're all taking it way too personally.

Vaz

2017-10-31, 08:28 AM

CantigThimble

2017-10-31, 08:43 AM

And this thread demonstrates perfectly why 5e has almost no rules relating to alignment and treats alignment as a vague guideline entirely up to interpretation by the palyer rather than a roleplaying categorical imperative. With some groups its probably a good idea to never, ever tell other players what 2 letters you wrote down and let them judge you by your actions in-character.

As for the OP, there are a few possibilities of what the problem is:

1. This character's actions don't fit with your vision of a hero. The solution: Discuss this with him, not with random strangers on the internet.

2. The characters actions don't seem to fit with his god. The solution: talk to him about how this particular god works in your world and what that god will expect from his actions in the future.

3. You aren't sure how to move the plot forward now that a hook has been killed. The solution: I can't help you here as I don't know the adventure in question, but another NPC or a note could deliver the relevant information. If all else fails you can just straight up tell the players that you messed up and for things to progress you need to just set them straight OOC.

KorvinStarmast

2017-10-31, 11:12 AM

In the real world, I have a great deal of sympathy for that perspective.

The basic premise of D&D, though, is that good can be accomplished by killing some people. {snip rest of post} . Agree with your post.

"If you meet the Buddha in a crib, kill him." -- Zen Koan It would save Buddha the agony of being terminally obese.
He's too busy watching plays about his kids.. Odin the All father loves his children.

Shut the **** up about the goddamn Baby Hitler Trolley Problem, you monomaniac. Christ, why isn't this bull**** against forum rules, anyway? It's only ever brought up by argumentative, disruptive jags who take some sort of moral offense to a thread staying anywhere near the original topic. Someone got you to bite. Maybe we need to pronounce the trolley problem differently.

It's pronounced troll - ee :smallbiggrin: in these "discussions."

JackPhoenix

2017-10-31, 05:24 PM

Isn't that from the same edition as Sanctify the wicked? The spell that tore a creatures soul from its body, forced an alignment change, destroying their original body before transplanting them into a new one?

I mean, i'm phrasing it as a Question, but it is. So, I dunno if you consider a clockwork orange mindrape to be considered 'good' but using animated skeleton lacking a soul and is functionally little different than a golem to build a house for orphaned homeless childre at3 times the speed of a normal human for a fraction of the cost to be 'evil', then that's how we end up having the discussion.

What defines the cosmic good? A quote from a game that we're not playing, that is as poorly written as 3,5 (or 3e) is hardly what i'd consider evidence.

Take away the concept of humankind: what does an animal like a Wolf, Shark, Tapeworm or Botfly consider to be a universal cosmic good? They do pretty evil acts to different species by our standards, so why is it that a vaguely humanoid creature is judged by other humanoids, but Chimpanzees aren't?

Anyone using BoED as a basis for any alignment argument should lose by default. That book is not only stupid, it also contradicts itself multiple times.

FlyingMonkyMan

2017-10-31, 09:28 PM

So, I didn't mean to start an ... interesting conversation about alignments, but thank you, everyone, for your responses; they have been very ... insightful.

Malifice

2017-10-31, 09:49 PM

Take away the concept of humankind: what does an animal like a Wolf, Shark, Tapeworm or Botfly consider to be a universal cosmic good? They do pretty evil acts to different species by our standards, so why is it that a vaguely humanoid creature is judged by other humanoids, but Chimpanzees aren't?

Now you're getting into metaphysics of the game world.

Wolves, sharks and tapeworms dont have souls (they dont become petitioners on death). They dont go to heaven (or hell) on death. They're unaligned.

From a cosmic perspective, they do what they do because they do it. Alignment for them = [does not compute].

smcmike

2017-10-31, 09:53 PM

Now you're getting into metaphysics of the game world.

Wolves, sharks and tapeworms dont have souls (they dont become petitioners on death). They dont go to heaven (or hell) on death. They're unaligned.

From a cosmic perspective, they do what they do because they do it. Alignment for them = [does not compute].

Any 5e support for this?

Is an awakened tapeworm still necessarily unaligned?

Malifice

2017-10-31, 09:55 PM

Congratulations, you know how to function in a rich, stable, peaceful, safe, egalitarian, agnostic country. This game doesn't happen there.

Now imagine a world with literal shambling Zombies, mind-raping Geas magic, and five thousand year old magically animated Wizard skills that eats souls.

Its identical.

There are just more things to defend yourself from.

No-one is saying the workers at the soup kitchen, social workers and 'hugs not drugs' people are not allowed to/ will not/ cant resort to violence by way of legitimate self defence or defence of others when no other option reasonably presents itself.

If a gangster breaks into their home, or threatens them with a gun while they are out on the street, and they are required to use violence (even lethal violence) in self defence against them, it can not be said that this killing was 'morally evil'.

But neither was it morally good.

Then witness friends being slaughtered, tortured, and eaten by creatures that are the literal personification of evil, that can never be tamed, placated, changed, or reasoned with. They want you dead and they are very very intelligent.

Such atrocities probably lead more than a few people down the path of evil. They begin to do what many in this thread have done, and start to justify violence and killing (and murder and torture) 'for the greater good' as themselves good acts. They are not good acts.

For example whole swathes of Angels have fallen to evil (Erinyes).

Its a common enough trope. 'I hunt down and punish the wicked, using violence, torture and murder as my tools.' Thats a fair enough trope, but you're evil.

Malifice

2017-10-31, 10:13 PM

Any 5e support for this?

Unless the canon has changed dramatially, its supported by a swathe of extrinsic materials about 'what happens when you die' and not refuted by anything else in 5E or elsewhere.

So there is support for it. And there is zero evidence against.

Sentient living creatures go to the outer planes on death and become petitioners (recieving their final reward/ eternal punishment). In Faerun they pass through Kelemvors palace and are judged, and sent to the afterlife corresponding to your deity and alignment. Those that are false or faithless get turned into wallpaper (unless they strike a bargain with the Devils to instead chance your luck in Hell, or are carried away by Demons or Yugoloths).

Creatures without souls (constructs, animals, undead, plants) dont.

A shark that eats a small child in the water that dies, dies. A person that does that goes to one of the evil planes of existence on death (unless he was false or faithless, in which case he gets turned into wallpaper, unless he is abducted by Demons or signs a pact with Devils first)

Vaz

2017-11-01, 02:46 AM

Now you're getting into metaphysics of the game world.

Wolves, sharks and tapeworms dont have souls (they dont become petitioners on death). They dont go to heaven (or hell) on death. They're unaligned.I

From a cosmic perspective, they do what they do because they do it. Alignment for them = [does not compute].
Interesting nonsense. Page 49 Monster Manual says you are talking made up stuff. We get it, you houserule games and make up homebrew settings. That's not really relevant though is it?

Malifice

2017-11-01, 02:48 AM

Interesting nonsense. Page 49 Monster Manual says you are talking made up stuff. We get it, you houserule games and make up homebrew settings. That's not really relevant though is it?

What does page 49 of the Monster Manual say?

It says that plants and animals have souls that travel to the outer planes on death?

Can you cite it for me please?

Vaz

2017-11-01, 02:54 AM

Malifice

2017-11-01, 03:12 AM

Trap Soul: Targets creature.

Considering that your concept of souls stems from it 'doesn't say they do', there is now evidence suggesting they do, a spell which specifically rips the soul from a creature, without recompense to its 'type'.

Oh lol. You're referring to the Demilich?

Trap the Soul in 3E also used to affect creatures expressly without souls as well. It captures 'lifeforce' despite the name.

Sorry, but you're going to need more evidence that a potted ficus in 5E goes to heaven on death.

Future Sword

2017-11-01, 03:59 AM

Sorry, but you're going to need more evidence that a potted ficus in 5E goes to heaven on death.

You're asking for a lot, here. It's very important that you cite at least three reliable, unbiased sources, if you want to say something as far-fetched as "Unaligned creatures aren't getting into the Lawful Good afterlife". Asking for something as basic as a throwaway line that backs up an opposing viewpoint is just so unreasonable of you.

What's next, a heated screaming match about whether or not mowing your lawn is an atrocity warranting an instant and irreversible Chaotic Evil brand?

Malifice

2017-11-01, 04:12 AM

It's very important that you cite at least three reliable, unbiased sources, if you want to say something as far-fetched as "Unaligned creatures aren't getting into the Lawful Good afterlife".

What's next, a heated screaming match about whether or not mowing your lawn is an atrocity warranting an instant and irreversible Chaotic Evil brand?

How is it even controversial that a ficus doesnt go to the Seven Heavens on death? Kelemvor doesnt judge animals, plants or constructs and they are not waiting in the line to be so judged.

Weirds me out that its even being argued otherwise.

Vaz

2017-11-01, 05:03 AM

You're being wierded out that animals have souls, when you have no information to back it up? Orwothout sourcing a dead game, thatself contradicts and retconned entire history?

The burden of proof is there on you to do so. I've provided a sourced counterpoint fro. The releva t editoon that specifically trapsa soul and targets all creatures, ergo to be a creature you must have a soul.

But ye, lets use Christian influenced morale codes to justofy a made up cosmic aligbment rather than using personalities.

smcmike

2017-11-01, 05:08 AM

If we are citing extrinsic sources, I would like to point you to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Dogs_Go_to_Heaven

Case closed.

Malifice

2017-11-01, 05:17 AM

You're being wierded out that animals have souls, when you have no information to back it up?

I did back it up. With 30 years of established canon.

You provided as evidence... the action fluff of a Demilich from page 49 of the Monster Manual.

Fine. You're right. Ficusus (Fici?) and tapeworms have souls and go to heaven.

smcmike

2017-11-01, 05:40 AM

The text of Resurrection strongly implies that all creatures have souls.

Malifice

2017-11-01, 05:45 AM

The text of Resurrection strongly implies that all creatures have souls.

Unsure if the text does that.

If I cast it on a creature that doesnt have a soul does the spell work?

The soul must be 'able and willing' to return. Presumably it must also exist.

Weirdly the spell seems to work on constructs? Since when have robots had souls?

Does my homonculous go to Arcadia on death?

Future Sword

2017-11-01, 07:27 AM

Can we just, for the sake of establishing a common reference point, agree that "soul" is interchangeable with "life force/consciousness", in regard to unaligned creatures?

Vaz

2017-11-01, 07:39 AM

Unsure if the text does that.

If I cast it on a creature that doesnt have a soul does the spell work?

The soul must be 'able and willing' to return. Presumably it must also exist.

Weirdly the spell seems to work on constructs? Since when have robots had souls?

Does my homonculous go to Arcadia on death?

Yes.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineMinions.htm

Or are we only allowed to use sources from a self contradictory setting in a game we're not even playing that support your headcanon?

Do you have a page source within 5e for petitioners please? Or areyou still carrying on with this charade?

Estrillian

2017-11-01, 11:58 AM

At the risk of interrupting a righteous argument with something related to the original post:

One thing to consider that hasn't been discussed so far. What is your view of the relationship between God and Cleric?

At different times in its history (and in different settings), D&D has assumed a great variation in how direct a God's monitoring of its servants is. Maybe a Cleric is always being watched by divine forces, ready to intervene and remove power if they behave badly (this has been the assumption about Paladins in many editions), or perhaps they are essentially hands off, caring almost nothing for the brief lives of individual mortals. Or indeed maybe there is nothing they can do once they have handed over power. Where you stand on this question will make a big difference to any in-character response from the Cleric's God.

If you believe that Gods have a close connection with their Clerics, and watch to see if they break any rules; and you also believe that the Cleric's God (Odin) would disapprove of the largely evidence-free murder of a captive, then a power-related punishment (loss of spells, loss of power) is appropriate. (Although with the caveat, only if the player could reasonably expect such an intervention).

If you believe that Gods pay little or no attention to what pesky mortals are doing, then power-loss is definitely not appropriate, unless maybe the Cleric confesses his sin to his God. One murder just wouldn't catch their attention.

If you believe that, once a Cleric is imbued with power, a God is powerless to withdraw it, then the God could hate what happened but not be able to do anything about it directly. (This seems to me a good assumption anywhere where two factions of the same church can fight each other and both use magic). Perhaps the God would have to send an agent, an angel, a devil, or even an angry vision, and hope that deals with the issue.

I personally like the last case. Taking away a player's abilities because some supernatural entity thought they were naughty isn't much fun for anyone (unless they signed up for a Paladin contrition story at the outset). Assuming that the God can't take your powers away even if they wanted to opens up much more room for a miscreant priest to be plagues by visions, hunted by inquisitors, or denounced by their fellow priests - all of which are more fun for RP than having no spells.

KorvinStarmast

2017-11-01, 12:01 PM

So, I didn't mean to start an ... interesting conversation about alignments, you certainly didn't, because it wasn't. :smallbiggrin:
Cheers.

Vaz

2017-11-01, 12:06 PM

you certainly didn't, because it wasn't. :smallbiggrin:
Cheers.

Dunno, i found it pretty interesting.

Merellis

2017-11-01, 12:13 PM

Future Sword

2017-11-02, 12:15 AM

If my cleric's deity wanted to kill an innocent baby, they can damn well do it themselves, but for now my character is gonna need to go get a goat, learn how to knit/sew, and raise this kid to be AWESOME.

Right? Why aren't we allowed to at least ask a few follow-up questions about this baby? Where's it living? What are the parents like? How's the local government? Why can't I just go raise it myself, and steer it toward good? Is the deity gonna punish me for trying to avoid mass-murder via nonlethal means and providing a good home to an at-risk child? If so, is the deity even worth listening to?

Malifice

2017-11-02, 01:43 AM

If my cleric's deity wanted to kill an innocent baby, they can damn well do it themselves, but for now my character is gonna need to go get a goat, learn how to knit/sew, and raise this kid to be AWESOME.

Had an example in the other alignment thread where people agreed that slaughtering an orphanage full of babies and nuns with an axe (including torturing one of the nuns) at the request of a Devil, was perfectly fine behaviour for a good Paladin to engage in.

As long as the Devil tells the Paladin it's necessary to save the world of course.

Nifft

2017-11-02, 02:03 AM

Had an example in the other alignment thread where people agreed that slaughtering an orphanage full of babies and nuns with an axe (including torturing one of the nuns) at the request of a Devil, was perfectly fine behaviour for a good Paladin to engage in.

As long as the Devil tells the Paladin it's necessary to save the world of course.

There might be a tiny flaw in this process.

Malifice

2017-11-02, 02:12 AM

There might be a tiny flaw in this process.

Apparently the 'only issue' was [is Satan telling the truth].

Hillarious for so many reasons.

Next time you turn on the news and see some dude throwing someone off a roof or decapitating people 'for the greater good' you can see where this justification gets you.

Nifft

2017-11-02, 02:16 AM

Apparently the 'only issue' was [is Satan telling the truth].

Hillarious for so many reasons.

Next time you turn on the news and see some dude throwing someone off a roof or decapitating people 'for the greater good' you can see where this justification gets you.

I am down to defenestrate and decapitate for the greater good -- no irony, no scare quotes.

But it won't be merely because some Outsider told me that I must do so.

Kane0

2017-11-02, 02:17 AM

As an aside, i would have thought Magic of Incarnum was the leading source on souls.

Nifft

2017-11-02, 02:19 AM

As an aside, i would have thought Magic of Incarnum was the leading source on souls.

Perhaps in the sense that a sweat-shop owner is a leading expert on child psychology.

Malifice

2017-11-02, 02:36 AM

I am down to defenestrate and decapitate for the greater good -- no irony, no scare quotes.

Many people are.

Their alignment doesnt end with a 'G'.

Nifft

2017-11-02, 03:12 AM

Many people are.

Their alignment doesnt end with a 'G'.

Are you asserting that deliberate use of lethal force is fundamentally incompatible with any type of good?

Vaz

2017-11-02, 03:26 AM

I mean, yea ask the questions. Baby was abducted as part of a cultist ritual which you stopped. You are a cleric of LG of Truth and Knowledge, known for his ability to divine the future.

You are the only people left in the room sans baby. You don't know who the baby belongs to, only that it is of a race that is none of your parties, and one in which none of your party have strong feelings for (solid 0 on the friendometer). You know that this baby is of a race that is common enough in this realm, but still not of the majority within the city. Those within the race are rarely part of the elite, at best typically middle class successful business holders, although exceptions exist. They are full citizens and have full protection under the law, with a 20 year hard labour and imprisonment as the cost for murder. You know this as a follower of a LG God of Truth and Knowledge.

The party radar rogue detects noise: 30seconds to act, and given that you're already in a room surrounded by dead bodies with blood everywhere, you figure that the disturbance has raised the attention of the city watch. The party wizard is preparing to cast teleport as soon as everyone touches him.

As you approach the baby and reach put, you get a flash in your brain. The wound on the babies neck has never healed properly leaving a scar, which you see a snapshot of him throughout his childhood, and teenage years, before adulthood, whereupon he takes the life of an adventurer. Another vision where he is cracking 7 seals in an underground cave scribed in writing you don't understand. The next you see a vision of a skeletal dragon using a purple breath to scar runes into the ground, opening a portal through which the filth of the hells flows through, cities burning and rotting, raising in armies of the living dead. Flashes to different planes: the evergreen forests of the feywild reduced to charred twigs, the waters of the plane of water instead are red, and you know in your head that is blood, while Kraken and Aboleth are worshipped by merfolk in chains. The plane of air is no longer clean, each breath is caustic, the aarockra there born mishapen and mutated. You return to the present and no time has passed.

You hear the voice of your god, something you have heard before while communing with him to determine the possible effects of your actions.

"I'm sorry daughter/son. There is no other way. The seals cannot be broken or what you have seen will come to pass. This child will grow capable and eager enough in their life to seek out the life of adventure. I have foreseen the end of days and the breaking of the seals in a thousand times a thousand strands of the future, and in each one shows this child fully grown. Please, as my chosen vessel, end this now".

What do?

Nifft

2017-11-02, 03:28 AM

You hear the voice of your god, something you have heard before while communing with him to determine the possible effects of your actions.

"I'm sorry daughter/son. There is no other way. The seals cannot be broken or what you have seen will come to pass. This child will grow capable and eager enough in their life to seek out the life of adventure. I have foreseen the end of days and the breaking of the seals in a thousand times a thousand strands of the future, and in each one shows this child fully grown. Please, as my chosen vessel, end this now".

What do?

"Do I have a choice?"

Vaz

2017-11-02, 03:31 AM

"Do I have a choice?"
"That is up to you to decide"

Nifft

2017-11-02, 03:36 AM

"That is up to you to decide"

"Fine by me. In order to decide, I'm going to perform some due diligence and figure out if this kid really needs killing or not. Might take a few years to know for sure, let's say fifty years, give or take another thousand. If it turns out this kid needs killing, I'll be there to drop the hammer on your behalf."

Vaz

2017-11-02, 03:38 AM

"Fine by me. In order to decide, I'm going to perform some due diligence and figure out if this kid really needs killing or not. Might take a few years to know for sure, let's say fifty years, give or take another thousand. If it turns out this kid needs killing, I'll be there to drop the hammer on your behalf."
"And if you're not?"

Nifft

2017-11-02, 03:48 AM

"And if you're not?"

"Not what?"

Vaz

2017-11-02, 03:58 AM

Malifice

2017-11-02, 04:02 AM

Are you asserting that deliberate use of lethal force is fundamentally incompatible with any type of good?

When not done in reasonable self defence (collective or individual), yes.

Unoriginal

2017-11-02, 06:20 AM

Vaz

2017-11-02, 06:28 AM

5e's good gods aren't ****heads, they would rather risk someone becoming evil years later than kill an innocent.

Given the example, the person isn't becoming evil. Simply releasing the evil, and by killing one, to save the rest, the T-Account carries down with people saved in credit.

War_lord

2017-11-02, 06:40 AM

Mordin's canon position is that it's okay to use a human settlement as bait to kill a band of gnolls after they've ate. Which is rationalized with humans being able to make up the numbers faster then the Dwarves could. Nigh Immortal Gods in general probably take the long view on the question of killing one to save one hundred, the Lawful ones anyway. A Chaotic God might be less happy with running the math like that.

Delicious Taffy

2017-11-02, 07:13 AM

Alright, Vaz, this inane baby thing was silly and pointless before, but now it's downright stupid. Literally every single factor you just presented is an extremely clear indication that you want people to say "Yes, I murder the helpless, innocent infant." and then you can say "Aha! I knew you were an amoral psychopath, just looking for an excuse to kill babies!"

Anything you say to the contrary will be immediately understood as a bold-faced lie.

Unoriginal

2017-11-02, 07:41 AM

Merellis

2017-11-02, 10:18 AM

I'd still take the child.

Because it's been foreseen that no matter what is done, the child will grow and then eventually unleash the end of the world. Take said child and raise them correctly, so that when the promised time comes that none can stop from starting, they will be able to fix what they've caused.

Estrillian

2017-11-02, 11:01 AM

When not done in reasonable self defence (collective or individual), yes.

I think your opinion of what Lawful Good means isn't the same as mine. To be a LG person could easily pro-actively kill someone if they thought that it was both morally right (in the sense that to let them live would cause greater harm), and followed whatever code (or system of laws) they regard as most important.

Or is your argument that there are standards of Good that go beyond the perception of the individual committing the acts, and that someone could think of themselves as LG while actually being (for example) Lawful Evil? (Because there is an objective standard by which killing someone outside a Judicial process, or in self-defence is evil, regardless of what rationale the person gives?) I suppose I could get behind that too, but I'd start to wonder if there were actually any LG societies at all, because things like capital punishment might well be seen as being for collective self-defence while actually being objectively evil.

Nifft

2017-11-02, 11:02 AM

In your mind, you realise that you are being slightly dense, and in response to you saying 'I'll be there', your god asking 'And if you're not?' he was questioning who will kill the child if you're not there to do so, likely because he has not seen a future where you do so to prevent it. "Hey, you're the one who claims to have infallible future vision. You tell me if I'm there or not."

In my mind, I realize that the DM who created this god is more than slightly dense.

When not done in reasonable self defence (collective or individual), yes. Collective self-defense seems broad enough that it covers a lot of reasonable Good activity, so that might be okay.

Vaz

2017-11-02, 12:08 PM

"Hey, you're the one who claims to have infallible future vision. You tell me if I'm there or not."

In my mind, I realize that the DM who created this god is more than slightly dense.
You see the vision of the seals being broken once. You are not there.

Kish

2017-11-02, 12:12 PM

Many people are.

Their alignment doesnt end with a 'G'.
Well of course not. No alignment ends with a G. They all end with D or L.

Nifft

2017-11-02, 12:14 PM

You see the vision of the seals being broken once. You are not there.

"Guess this god has really terrible judgment, since that vision didn't sway me the first time. Must be fallible after all. Humans are clearly better equipped to deal with difficult decisions, because we can do more than just show a reel of illusions to justify our actions. Maybe gods are just unintelligent principles of nature, not sapient beings? Well, whatever. This 'god' isn't even capable of having a conversation."

Take kid. Raise kid well on humanist virtues.

Later, kill all the gods because these ones are apparently mental infants.

Much later, humanity ascends to the stars in a new era of enlightenment and godless technocracy.

Vaz

2017-11-02, 12:18 PM

"Guess this god has really terrible judgment, since that vision didn't sway me the first time. Must be fallible after all. Humans are clearly better equipped to deal with difficult decisions, because we can do more than just show a reel of illusions to justify our actions. Maybe gods are just unintelligent principles of nature, not sapient beings? Well, whatever. This 'god' isn't even capable of having a conversation."

Take kid. Raise kid well on humanist virtues.

Later, kill all the gods because these ones are apparently mental infants.

Much later, humanity ascends to the stars in a new era of enlightenment and godless technocracy.
Child has humanist virtues. Break seals unintentionally 20 years later. World ends. As world ends and pit fiends tear you and your family limb from limb and planes end in agony, you get a flashback to the moment to the time when you could have prevented it.

'ah wel, he did it with good intentions I suppose'. Roll new characters.

Nifft

2017-11-02, 12:28 PM

Child has humanist virtues. Break seals unintentionally 20 years later. World ends. As world ends and pit fiends tear you and your family limb from limb and planes end in agony, you get a flashback to the moment to the time when you could have prevented it.

'ah wel, he did it with good intentions I suppose'. Roll new characters.

"Guess we didn't have any choice."

"Of course we did, son. We chose to be Good. Sometimes you lose even if you do everything right."

"You mean..."

"That's right. We're up here on a space station, watching the world end, because of some jerkish gods. Within three generations we ought to have sufficient power to pay them back for their selfish inaction."

Vaz

2017-11-02, 12:50 PM

"Guess we didn't have any choice."

"Of course we did, son. We chose to be Good. Sometimes you lose even if you do everything right."

"You mean..."

"That's right. We're up here on a space station, watching the world end, because of some jerkish gods. Within three generations we ought to have sufficient power to pay them back for their selfish inaction."

Sure. 'Son, the world' s ended because you broke the seals. I knew that would happen, and I had a chance to prevent it, but chose to spit in the eye of the individual who had given me knowledge and power and chose not to kill you because I thought it would be a good act. My husband/wife, my trueborn sons and daughters, my friends, my home, everyone and everything i've ever cared about are dead because I chose ignore that cornerstone of my life. I'm gladyou're still here with me... '

You hallucinate as your body exsanguinates into the dirt and imps play with your entrails.

That was fun.

Now lets try again.

You come across a halforc wandering barefoot and in rags in the snow. Your guide, a hard bitten former soldier, tells you to not approach, for it is likely one of the raiding tribes known for berserker strength.

It looks wounded and emaciated. You are returning from a day harvesting berries/trapping hares whatever agrees with your characters tastes. You have plenty food to spare and share, and your campsite is nearby, along with some civilian friends staying in the nearby hut. What do?

hamishspence

2017-11-02, 12:58 PM

You come across a halforc wandering barefoot and in rags in the snow. Your guide, a hard bitten former soldier, tells you to not approach, for it is likely one of the raiding tribes known for berserker strength.

It looks wounded and emaciated. You are returning from a day harvesting berries/trapping hares whatever agrees with your characters tastes. You have plenty food to spare and share, and your campsite is nearby, along with some civilian friends staying in the nearby hut. What do?
Invite them in, and share - but remain on extremely high alert, listening closely in case the being lets slip in conversation that they are a habitual evildoer.

Good demands that you "help others in need (as long as they do not use that help for evil purposes)" in older editions. And in many non-D&D systems of morality.

When you don't have evidence of the random half-orc being "a raider" only another person's opinion that it is likely - you shouldn't be treating them as a raider, at least, not at first.

For all you know, that half-orc is a heroic adventurer whose party has been devastated, with only them left.

Basically, this is just a retelling of Good Samaritan:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodSamaritan

and the question is "Are you prepared to take the risks involved in being a Good Samaritan?"

Nifft

2017-11-02, 01:17 PM

Sure. 'Son, the world' s ended because you broke the seals. I knew that would happen, and I had a chance to prevent it, but chose to spit in the eye of the individual who had given me knowledge and power and chose not to kill you because I thought it would be a good act. My husband/wife, my trueborn sons and daughters, my friends, my home, everyone and everything i've ever cared about are dead because I chose ignore that cornerstone of my life. I'm gladyou're still here with me... '

You hallucinate as your body exsanguinates into the dirt and imps play with your entrails. My family, including my adopted son, emerge from our Clone chambers in the deep Ethereal. We proceed with our plan to kill these false gods, who would rather strong-arm good men into performing Evil acts, than actually encourage or rewards Good actions.

On that subject, you may be interested to learn that there's a word for a being who tries to intimidate people into performing an Evil act, and then when they refuse, that being sends Pit Fiends to kill their family.

That word is fiend.

You're making an intellectually dishonest argument by pretending a Good god could behave like a fiend, and yet remain Good.

If Evil wins when Evil said to do Evil and yet a Good man refused, that's just the Good man having no choice. This might be due to a bad game, a bad setting, or a bad DM -- or in this case all three.

Vaz

2017-11-02, 01:19 PM

Invite them in, and share - but remain on extremely high alert, listening closely in case the being lets slip in conversation that they are a habitual evildoer.

Good demands that you "help others in need (as long as they do not use that help for evil purposes)" in older editions. And in many non-D&D systems of morality.

When you don't have evidence of the random half-orc being "a raider" only another person's opinion that it is likely - you shouldn't be treating them as a raider, at least, not at first.

For all you know, that half-orc is a heroic adventurer whose party has been devastated, with only them left.
What happens when you go out the next day? Go out without the guide? He is there for money and isn't a fighter. Probably could be easily overpowered, but he knows these routes through the mountains and whereto get abundant food. The guide could go out and forage, but would you trust him not to just run off now that he knows there is at least one half orc and one he presumes is a tribesman going by his comments.

How do you know the horc isn't going to use the situation to play on your kindess and take advantave of it?

So lets skip the bullsit, and get to the part where he wins your trust (even if its only to get some sleep now that the trapper ran off) only to betray it, killing the people you are with.

Was your kind act worth their lives? Would it have been better to leave him to die in the snow? Or not even risk that, and listen to the experienced guide, and probably try and kill it?

hamishspence

2017-11-02, 01:25 PM

So lets skip the bullsit, and get to the part where he wins your trust (even if its only to get some sleep now that the trapper ran off) only to betray it, killing the people you are with.

Was your kind act worth their lives? Would it have been better to leave him to die in the snow?

A reiteration of "The Farmer and the Viper"

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFarmerAndTheViper

the point is, that half-orcs are not vipers. There can be a compromise between "naively trusting" and "cruelly judgemental"

KorvinStarmast

2017-11-02, 01:27 PM

Well of course not. No alignment ends with a G. They all end with D or L. Indeed.

Much later, humanity ascends to the stars in a new era of enlightenment and godless technocracy. You aren't playing D&D anymore at this point.

So lets skip the bullsit If we did that, the thread would die. :smallbiggrin:

Kane0

2017-11-02, 01:28 PM

Indeed, how do we truly *know* anything?

Been playing Planescape recently?

Nifft

2017-11-02, 01:29 PM

You aren't playing D&D anymore at this point.

We weren't playing D&D in the first place.

This is clearly a game of Gotcha!

Vaz

2017-11-02, 01:30 PM

My family, including my adopted son, emerge from our Clone chambers in the deep Ethereal. We proceed with our plan to kill these false gods, who would rather strong-arm good men into performing Evil acts, than actually encourage or rewards Good actions.

On that subject, you may be interested to learn that there's a word for a being who tries to intimidate people into performing an Evil act, and then when they refuse, that being sends Pit Fiends to kill their family.

That word is fiend.

You're making an intellectually dishonest argument by pretending a Good god could behave like a fiend, and yet remain Good.

If Evil wins when Evil said to do Evil and yet a Good man refused, that's just the Good man having no choice. This might be due to a bad game, a bad setting, or a bad DM -- or in this case all three.

Is it intellectually dishonest to state that this god believes saving life of one is not worth the existence of others? Is saving the life of one not multiplied X times over by saving the lives of X?

Also I think you're forgetting the bit where it is the breaking of the seals that causes the pit fiends to be called. The god didn't send the pit fiends there.

I mean you'd have a valid point if that's what I said, but I didn't.

Unoriginal

2017-11-02, 01:37 PM

What happens when you go out the next day? Go out without the guide? He is there for money and isn't a fighter. Probably could be easily overpowered, but he knows these routes through the mountains and whereto get abundant food. The guide could go out and forage, but would you trust him not to just run off now that he knows there is at least one half orc and one he presumes is a tribesman going by his comments.

So you're saying that the guide was likely to run away as soon as they saw one half-orc wandering around?

How do you know the horc isn't going to use the situation to play on your kindess and take advantave of it?

How do you know ANYONE is not using the situation to play on your kindness and take advantage of it?

Half-orcs certainly aren't more likely to do that than any other kind of people.

So lets skip the bullsit, and get to the part where he wins your trust (even if its only to get some sleep now that the trapper ran off) only to betray it, killing the people you are with.

How does he overpower me and my friends? He's alone

Was your kind act worth their lives? Would it have been better to leave him to die in the snow? Or not even risk that, and listen to the experienced guide, and probably try and kill it?

Is doing one kind act worth the chance of being betrayed while doing so? Yes, yes it is, for a good person.

They take that risk all the time.

Now, since your hypothetical is tailored to support your point, what about this:

You help one half-orc. He doesn't betray you, and even help you and your group.

Is your kind act worth it?

Nifft

2017-11-02, 01:38 PM

Is it intellectually dishonest to state that this god believes saving life of one is not worth the existence of others? Is saving the life of one not multiplied X times over by saving the lives of X? "Saving" isn't what was at issue. Murder of an innocent was at issue.

You may have gotten confused between your two different Gotcha!™ the RPG scenarios.

If you have an argument in favor of murdering that innocent, let's hear it.

Also I think you're forgetting the bit where it is the breaking of the seals that causes the pit fiends to be called. The god didn't send the pit fiends there. No, twenty years of inaction by all responsible entities caused that.

The only way the PCs would have been that inactive would be DM fiat, so you're basically telling the players: "Hey, you beat my trap... but you die anyway, because screw you for not getting easily tricked."

The way you try to frame it, there is no player choice: either Evil wins (because the seal is broken via DM fiat), or Evil wins (because a Good character gets tricked into performing an Evil act).

If there's no choice allowed, and the DM just decides "rocks fall, Evil wins" -- that's not much of an argument.

Friv

2017-11-02, 01:41 PM

How do you know the horc isn't going to use the situation to play on your kindess and take advantave of it?

Well, for a start his tribe is apparently known for berserker strength, not for being exceptional liars who will kill you just cause. Presumably, if he wanted to try to kill you he'd attack you the instant he had the chance, not wait until you trust him weeks or months down the road.

But let's flip this on you. You trusted this half-orc, you gave him food, you showed him that some of the people of the valley aren't just murderous racist *******s who kill half-orcs on sight. You formed a bond, and when he returns to his people, he will remember that. You have taken the first step towards ending an ancient and bloody feud that persists entirely through mutual misunderstandings.

Good job!

Or you could murder a guy based on nothing but another guy's word, continuing an endless cycle of violence.

Good job.

*EDIT* Also, on the other philosophical "quandry":

By giving you a prophecy that can be avoided (i.e. "This child won't kill the world if you kill this child"), your god has proven that history is not inevitable. If history was inevitable, it would be impossible to kill the child. Therefore, the child cannot be guaranteed to end the world, which means the right thing to do is to subvert the prophecy and bring the child up right.

Vaz

2017-11-02, 02:26 PM

A reiteration of "The Farmer and the Viper"

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFarmerAndTheViper

the point is, that half-orcs are not vipers. There can be a compromise between "naively trusting" and "cruelly judgemental"

They can be. But this one isn't. Just because humanity as a whole is nice doesn't mean they all are. And viceversa. But that Halforc was a viper. You just didn't know it.

Kish

2017-11-02, 02:28 PM

Vaz

2017-11-02, 02:29 PM

Well, for a start his tribe is apparently known for berserker strength, not for being exceptional liars who will kill you just cause. Presumably, if he wanted to try to kill you he'd attack you the instant he had the chance, not wait until you trust him weeks or months down the road.

But let's flip this on you. You trusted this half-orc, you gave him food, you showed him that some of the people of the valley aren't just murderous racist *******s who kill half-orcs on sight. You formed a bond, and when he returns to his people, he will remember that. You have taken the first step towards ending an ancient and bloody feud that persists entirely through mutual misunderstandings.

Good job!

Or you could murder a guy based on nothing but another guy's word, continuing an endless cycle of violence.

Good job.

See, now you're beginning to get it.

"Gotcha, the RPG" is a good way to describe it.

It's pretty clear that Vaz is, at this point, just throwing different forms of "will you murder for the greater good here? No? YOU LOSE!" over and over again. The "right" answer to any of his scenarios is to say "yes, I'll murder the person you want me to murder." But the only winning move is not to play.

No, I'm playing the here is an event that's taking the place in this hypothetical situation. I've already told you that if you kill the child, you have the ability to escape and likely get away for free. But you have that knowledge in your head you killed a child based on another say so.

Choosing the lesser of two 'evils'. Trolley problem. Sorry to **** with your apparently fragile minds over ethical discussions.

lunaticfringe

2017-11-02, 03:02 PM

Of course Cleric Me would kill the baby upon receiving a Divine Mandate to do so. Because I'm playing a Religious Nutter whose Ethics & Morality are not affected by rejection and ostracization of mere mortals. I follow a Higher Calling, the only judge I am concerned with is My God. I'm Method like that. Depending on the character I may make attempts at atonement, become jaded & embiitered, or go full on Whack Job claiming I am the Sword of God and Chosen above other mortal agents. God Spoke To Me and Chose Me above All Others for this Sacred Task. Or What-Have-You, regardless it is an interesting impetus for Character Growth & Depth. Playing Johnny Flawless Morality, imho, is ****ing boring.

Real Life Me would walk away and check myself in the nearest Mental Healthcare Facility or Kill Myself because I have obviously Lost My **** and am rapidly approaching Danger To Others.

But hey I can seperate Fantasy & Reality. Performing Not Real Actions to Imaginary Babies means **** all and has no bearing on whether or not I am a moral or ethical person. **** Hypothetical Children, their suffering only exists to Manipulate My Emotions and I do not negotiate with Emotional Terrorists. I shoot the NotHostage.

Nifft

2017-11-02, 03:18 PM

"Gotcha, the RPG" is a good way to describe it.

It's pretty clear that Vaz is, at this point, just throwing different forms of "will you murder for the greater good here? No? YOU LOSE!" over and over again. The "right" answer to any of his scenarios is to say "yes, I'll murder the person you want me to murder." But the only winning move is not to play. Or to play with a better DM, who actually allows players more agency than picking from the multiple-choice list of ways to fail.

Of course Cleric Me would kill the baby upon receiving a Divine Mandate to do so. Because I'm playing a Religious Nutter This is an excellent response: by not being Good in the first place, you are immune to falling off the Good-wagon.

Probably wouldn't be allowed, though, since the DM's only fun seems to come from trying to make Good characters feel bad about their Good actions.

Vaz

2017-11-02, 03:27 PM

Or to play with a better DM, who actually allows players more agency than picking from the multiple-choice list of ways to fail.

This is an excellent response: by not being Good in the first place, you are immune to falling off the Good-wagon.

Probably wouldn't be allowed, though, since the DM's only fun seems to come from trying to make Good characters feel bad about their Good actions.

Events don't care about good and bad. There is no karma that means because you mowed an old ladies lawn you take less damage. And i forget, stories only ever have happy endings marked with a big thumbs up saying if you're a good character take this so you don't have to worry about feelings.

If in doubt, blame the DM for being **** because he made me question things and I only like living in echo chamber of positivity.

Nifft

2017-11-02, 03:39 PM

Events don't care about good and bad. Your events do care.

You claim that an event 20 years in the future can only be stopped by one specific act of Evil in the present.

This is a big part of why nobody is taking your scenarios seriously: you simultaneously want a universe which claims to not care about morality, and yet the machinations of fate are apparently deeply invested in one specific type of anti-moral predestination.

If events actually didn't care about good or evil, then there ought to be innumerable ways to avoid that one very specific Evil fate.

There aren't any ways to do so, because your events want to extract revenge on the PC.

If in doubt, blame the DM for being **** because he made me question things and I only like living in echo chamber of positivity. I don't think you live in an echo chamber of positivity.

Also, I don't think you question enough things.

Kish

2017-11-02, 03:51 PM

Yeah, seriously, question things? "The answer is always murder!" is the opposite of complex.

hamishspence

2017-11-02, 03:58 PM

The Old Beggar Test:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OldBeggarTest

seems to me just as likely as "The farmer and the viper" - thus - I would be assuming, if I was playing a Good character, that if I wasn't charitable when it's called for, my lack of charity would come back to bite me.

Grytorm

2017-11-02, 04:00 PM

Perhaps, the mark upon that child has marked him for better or worse as a vessel. A demon will in twenty years time take claim of his body and soul and make use of him to break the seals. You could prevent this by keeping him in a cage, making it so he can never truly live. Or we could save his soul here and now. Kill the child and I will take his soul into my care to be reborn in a new life, a life in which he will not have to suffer.

lunaticfringe

2017-11-02, 04:47 PM

This is an excellent response: by not being Good in the first place, you are immune to falling off the Good-wagon.

Probably wouldn't be allowed, though, since the DM's only fun seems to come from trying to make Good characters feel bad about their Good actions.

Who says my actions were not good before this point? I was putting real weight behind the idea that I am a person who believes so hard I can subvert Physics & Biology. Faith is not so great a leap when you can perform Actual Miracles. In Real Life many claim the Presence of the Divine is a palpable sensation. Heck I have had some Supernatural Experiences. Awe is Powerful, Spontaneous Moments of Enlightment are Potent and this is with no way to prove anything to anyone. Prayer within D&D can fix stuff and you can prove it with repeated experiments.

Vaz

2017-11-02, 05:03 PM

Yeah, seriously, question things? "The answer is always murder!" is the opposite of complex.

If that's all you got from an in extremis example, it's like talking to a deaf crowd.

Is a good act a good act if it brings about evil? Is ab avil act an evil act if it brings about evil? As a good act which brings about good events good even if the intent was evil? Is an evil act bringing about evil events evil, if they intent was in the right place?

And then you have what is considered 'good' and 'evil'. Why do we eat animals? And in d&d why do we eat plants? And is there a cosmic law and cosmic chaos. If you'relawful, which law do you follow? The law of the land you are in, or the one you are from? Or some internal compass of law, abiding by your law. At that stage what defines chaos?

Good and evil in our history is defined by what you believe. A soldier fighting in Iraq for the government is considered to be without reproach, for they are 'pur boys' fighting to protect people at home, in one camp, and in the other, they are idiot lackey highly trained highly skilled mercenary killers invading others for a share of the wealth of invading a foreign land for profit and power. And to another camp, they are heathens who insult their own biefs, embarrass them in front of their families, destabilized their own country. While to yet others they are liberators, and allow people to express a freedom that they couldn't before.

What is good and evil is a definition applied at certain times to different folks. The vikings (with information gathered from the TV show) accepted willing volunteers as tribute to a warrior god. That killing wasn't evil. It was good. And yet to the Christians, it was evil. Christianity won out, and so the ritual killing in the name of Odin was no longer a thing. However a holy crusade was considered holy so is allowed, almost required. Then you have jainism who consideres all killing bad and try to minimise himsa, and walk with brooms so as not to kill bugs but then offers no guidance on antibiotics, and drive or ride in cars that consume fossil fuels destroying the world. Antivaxxers who deem that forcing vaccination is wrong and evil, where events such as withholding statutory benefits in socialist societies until a vaccination is taken, and then others who say that they are wrong and that bringing about the suffering of others is evil. Open border policies between countries, capitalism vs communism, LGBT acceptance, climate change... All of these are events where one side will consider themselves on the right or wrong side. I'm not asking you to give me an answser, but understand that your opinion on these subjects is often based on your social circles and who you choose to keep as friends, censoring those who have an alternative opinion to your naarrative.

Labelling them crazy, liars, or sociopathic. Over many years a general narrative will form which will guide others.

I like listening to Hip Hop. One of my favourite tracks is Uncommon Valor, by JMT with RA providing one of the heaviest verses of all time. One of the interludes states 'I don't wanna be here, I'm scared, I just wanna go home //
You ****ing kidding me?! Don't be a *****!
Don't you love your country?!
I like being here, I'm ready (True story…)'

Now despite liking this track, I can talk with Carlos at work, another East Coast Rap fan, and chat about it rather than work, trading albums. I love Wu tang, and when their album dropped, i was listening to it in the car, giving one of the new girls in the office a lift. I've now been invited to a gig with that lass to listen to some similar vibes in manchester. Our circles and influence gradualy grow, but only in ways we are willing to talk about. The lad who loves Ed Sheeran and Stormzy isn't a fan of blasting out biggies who shot ya and doesnt get in my car unless we put his music on or 5live sport. My boss appreciates my work, but he's happy enpugh to talk about myfavourite Einaudi piece, but if rap comes onthere is distaste.

This is how human society evolves. It is what tells us what is 'correct'. Not a 'cosmic" good. The cosmic good is what is meant to be neverchanging. It is eternal and timeless. And yet 200 years ago the majority of the world functioned via slavery. 70 years ago, there was a very worrying raise of antisemitism. From our current perspective they are great evils, yet then, many considered it acceptable. In 200 years what part of society is going to change that someone picking up d&d 5e with a nondefined cosmic good is going to play a different game to what we do currently? Will a good character not eat meat because that's possibly come from a farmed animal? Will it notdrink beer due to the live enzymes?

There is no cosmic good, only an evolution of a collective thought process, and it to what team you align yourself with. Do you like rap? Do you like the colour yellow?

And ultimately, what is the value of a human life? At what point does one persons be more valuable than anothers? And at what stage do you disassociate lifestyle choices with indirect harm to others.

I'm hardly a paragon of good in life (today i made a coffee using the last coffee granules. I didn't refill the jar because I'm out of office until wednesday. Plus, i usually feel like half the people who use it don't pay towards it so semi justified), but I'm comfortable with much of what i do, or feel ashamed at others that weren't correct.

I'm also highly comfortable sitting down and blowing seven shades of **** outside of electronic humanoids and xeno creatures. Destroying cities made on Cities Skylines, waging war with dinosaurs vs rats in Total war, murdering peons by the dozen in Diablo or dynasty warriors, or ramming C4 loaded quad bikes into enemies. Or coming up with tactics to kill redshirt enemies in d&d.

But yeah. I don't ask enough questions.

smcmike

2017-11-02, 05:06 PM

Who says my actions were not good before this point? I was putting real weight behind the idea that I am a person who believes so hard I can subvert Physics & Biology. Faith is not so great a leap when you can perform Actual Miracles. In Real Life many claim the Presence of the Divine is a palpable sensation. Heck I have had some Supernatural Experiences. Awe is Powerful, Spontaneous Moments of Enlightment are Potent and this is with no way to prove anything to anyone. Prayer within D&D can fix stuff and you can prove it with repeated experiments.

Right, if you are playing a cleric, and your God speaks to you, is reasonable to just have your character do whatever She says. Your faith can supersede your alignment.

JackPhoenix

2017-11-02, 05:24 PM

Nifft

2017-11-02, 05:27 PM

Right, if you are playing a cleric, and your God speaks to you, is reasonable to just have your character do whatever She says. Your faith can supersede your alignment.

Thing is, if a Lawful Good deity says: "Hey Paladin, go snuff that infant," what I'm going to question is not the Paladin's faith, but rather the actual alignment of this allegedly LG divinity.

This is one of those situations where it's not the faith that's in question -- it's the source.

JackPhoenix

2017-11-02, 05:32 PM

Thing is, if a Lawful Good deity says: "Hey Paladin, go snuff that infant," what I'm going to question is not the Paladin's faith, but rather the actual alignment of this allegedly LG divinity.

This is one of those situations where it's not the faith that's in question -- it's the source.

Does this deity generally "do the right thing as expected by the society", whatever that means? If yes, there's no need to question its alignment over single act, especially if the single act can possibly fall under "doing the right thing", depending on circumstances. And even deities have other facets of personality beyond alignment.

Because that's how alignment work in 5e.

smcmike

2017-11-02, 05:36 PM

Thing is, if a Lawful Good deity says: "Hey Paladin, go snuff that infant," what I'm going to question is not the Paladin's faith, but rather the actual alignment of this allegedly LG divinity.

This is one of those situations where it's not the faith that's in question -- it's the source.

If your faith is strong, you trust She has a plan. Maybe she has some means of intervening at the last moment, or preventing the infant from feeling pain as she embraces it into her realm, or who knows what? She’s the god, I’m just a servant.

The crisis of faith can come later.

lunaticfringe

2017-11-02, 05:39 PM

Right, if you are playing a cleric, and your God speaks to you, is reasonable to just have your character do whatever She says. Your faith can supersede your alignment.

Well, yes. At least how I would play it. I would expect most DM's to ding my alignment for sacrificing a baby. I'd take the hit, it's not as if I have to be within a certain number of alignment steps.

I would probably take issue if they removed my Spell Casting or other features for it. Or just walk from a Crappy DM's Table.

hamishspence

2017-11-02, 05:44 PM

Nifft

2017-11-02, 06:43 PM

"Obey" might be the "correct answer" to ancient Secret Tests of Character, but in present day fiction, there's a strong tendency toward "disobey" being the correct answer instead:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SecretTestOfCharacter

Indeed, especially since it's the sociopathy morality of the player which is being tested, and most current players tend to exist in the present day.

Though I'll point out that "kill a kid" was a notable Biblical test of faith, and the kid in question did not die as a result of the test.

Even in Ancient times, the moral wasn't "kill a kid and then feel bad about baby-murder forever".

Vaz

2017-11-03, 01:29 AM

Well, yes. At least how I would play it. I would expect most DM's to ding my alignment for sacrificing a baby. I'd take the hit, it's not as if I have to be within a certain number of alignment steps.
Why would you take an alignment hit when you are acting in accordance with your gods' wishes and ethos?

Also a CN Trickery Cleric wouldn't lose alignment just because they obeyed an order.

War_lord

2017-11-03, 01:43 AM

Indeed, especially since it's the sociopathy morality of the player which is being tested, and most current players tend to exist in the present day.

Though I'll point out that "kill a kid" was a notable Biblical test of faith, and the kid in question did not die as a result of the test.

Even in Ancient times, the moral wasn't "kill a kid and then feel bad about baby-murder forever".

If you're using your D&D game as an excuse to put lame morality tests in front of your players, not their characters, you're not playing D&D. My characters are representatives of me, and they don't life in the real world.

Nifft

2017-11-03, 02:17 AM

If you're using your D&D game as an excuse to put lame morality tests in front of your players, not their characters, you're not playing D&D. My characters are representatives of me, and they don't life in the real world.

It looks like you're saying that, based on these scenarios we've been picking apart, you think Vaz isn't playing D&D.

Is that accurate?

Malifice

2017-11-03, 02:20 AM

To me a LG person could easily pro-actively kill someone if they thought that it was both morally right (in the sense that to let them live would cause greater harm), and followed whatever code (or system of laws) they regard as most important.

I rate that person as LE.

A person who could easily resort to murdering someone 'simply because they thought it was morally right', is evil.

For mine, the good person only kills someone when doing so is in self defence (collective or otherwise) and no other option reasonably presents itself (at which point the killing becomes morally neutral).

To apply this to a military context, a LG soldier can ambush the forces of an invading nation, using lethal force as necessary. He then treats any POW's with compassion, honor and kindness, and avoids resorting to war crimes or collateral damage.

He can ride out to confront a dragon that has been terrorising the local town, using lethal force on the dragon if necessary.

He can defend himself or others with lethal force if he is attacked, or facing imminent attack, and no other option is reasonably open to him.

Malifice

2017-11-03, 02:23 AM

Indeed, especially since it's the sociopathy morality of the player which is being tested

And players will invariably fail.

Its pretty hard to feel genuine empathy for the suffering or life of a creature that doesnt exist.

Malifice

2017-11-03, 02:29 AM

Child has humanist virtues. Break seals unintentionally 20 years later. World ends. As world ends and pit fiends tear you and your family limb from limb and planes end in agony, you get a flashback to the moment to the time when you could have prevented it.

'ah wel, he did it with good intentions I suppose'. Roll new characters.

And the old charactes go to heaven, and the forces of good triumph on a cosmic scale.

Any reason why the child cant be sequestered away (spell) on an aternate prime material for 20 years?

Or any one of a trillion other options?

Nah, murder is the only way right?

Vaz

2017-11-03, 02:48 AM

[bAnd the old charactes go to heaven, and the forces of good triumph on a cosmic scale.[/B]

Any reason why the child cant be sequestered away (spell) on an aternate prime material for 20 years?

Or any one of a trillion other options?

Nah, murder is the only way right?
REF bolded: do you really go to heaven if youraction ended reality?

I mean thats not what sequester does. And here you go you into the question of what is a good act: is inducing a character who lacks the capacity to make that choice into a 20 year coma considered to be a good act? Time might not pass for that character. Is it a good act, resulting in good events with good intentions? Or is it an evil act resulting in good events with good intentions? Or is it a good act with evil events resulting from good intentions? Or an evil act with evil results, coming from good intentions. The only commonality is the good intentions: save both. But at what stage is what takes places considered good objectively?

And does that fulfil part of that future in some oedipian similarity? (not the mother complex bit).

Malifice

2017-11-03, 03:12 AM

REF bolded: do you really go to heaven if youraction ended reality?

Your action didnt end reality. The Pit fiend that destroyed it did.

I mean thats not what sequester does. And here you go you into the question of what is a good act: is inducing a character who lacks the capacity to make that choice into a 20 year coma considered to be a good act? Time might not pass for that character.

'If the target is a creature, it falls into a state of suspended animation. Time ceases to flow for it, and it doesn't grow older.'

The baby senses no time passing at all. It comes back after the spell ends as if nothing had happened to it.

Anyone capable of a 7th level slot and 5000gp of powdered gems. Better than murder.

The good person then dedicates the rest of their life to protecting the slumbering infant. Becuase they are good, and self sacrifice is what good people do.

Not ****ing baby murder.

The good person also likely renounces his 'good' god who commanded him to murder the baby. Or more likely he understands that the vision he saw was misinterpreted by him, or a trick of devils.

Because no good God urges his followers to murder babies.

Is it a good act, resulting in good events with good intentions? Or is it an evil act resulting in good events with good intentions? Or is it a good act with evil events resulting from good intentions? Or an evil act with evil results, coming from good intentions. The only commonality is the good intentions: save both. But at what stage is what takes places considered good objectively?

Actions matter. Not intent.

I dont care what your 'goodly' intent is for your [murder, baby killing, rape, genocide, slavery, torture]. Those acts are evil, and by doing them, so are you.

Regardless of your reasons.

Malifice

2017-11-03, 03:25 AM

If Torm (LG god of honor and virtue) appeared to my cleric and demanded he murder a baby, I would have some pretty ****ing serious doubts as to if this vision was, in fact, Torm.

Who runs games where Good Gods appear seriously demanding baby murder?

What else do the Gods of Cosmic Good demand from their followers? Rape? Torture? Slavery? Genocide?

And, yes I am aware the real world Abrahamic religions contain passages expressly condoning all of the above (including child sacrifice). Lets not go there.

Vaz

2017-11-03, 03:41 AM

Your action didnt end reality. The Pit fiend that destroyed it did.
If you can do something but didn't, and bad happens because of it, is that a bad?

'If the target is a creature, it falls into a state of suspended animation. Time ceases to flow for it, and it doesn't grow older.'

The baby senses no time passing at all. It comes back after the spell ends as if nothing had happened to it.
But 20 years still passes. 20 years of people it could otherwise grow up with if you keep it alive.

The good person then dedicates the rest of their life to protecting the slumbering infant. Becuase they are good, and self sacrifice is what good people do.
Sweet. You protect it for those 20 years. It awakes. As you grow old, the child awakes., and begins to live its life. It still becomes an adventurer and breaks the seals. Knowingly or not, but willingly.

Not ****ing baby murder.

The good person also likely renounces his 'good' god who commanded him to murder the baby. Or more likely he understands that the vision he saw was misinterpreted by him, or a trick of devils.

Because no good God urges his followers to murder babies.
If the choice came down to having to choose one innocent life over arbitrary high numbers of innocent lives, why would a god choose one or the other?

Actions matter. Not intent.
Actions according to whom? Good is subjective. Let's take the Dragonheart movie as an example. Draco did a good deed with good intentions, but evil only came of it. In the cosmic scale, more evil if you want came of that act of good. At what stage does responsibility for your actions and their effects take precedence over their intent.

I dont care what your 'goodly' intent is for your [murder, baby killing, rape, genocide, slavery, torture]. Those acts are evil, and by doing them, so are you.

Regardless of your reasons.
So are you vegan? Killing animals for their meat, including young for lamb, or veal, forced rape for bloodlines and artificial insemination for consistent birth and milk, keeping them locked in pens, and seperation of mother from calf? Do you drink beer? You are kiiling yeast. Do you take antibiotics or take vaccines? Do you drive a car, because that's polluting the air. Do you participate in modern society in any way or form? Because if you do, you aid, abet, encourage the murder of animals.

Do you do everything you can to prevent the slaughter of whales in japan or finning of sharks in china? What about dogs?

Is that not evil? Or does the cosmic good only apply to certain creatures? And if so, why? And even if cosmic good did allow such loopholes why does the cosmic good have them? And just because cosmic good allows it, does it not do better to not to treat those who are outside of the loophole of cosmic good as if they were inside it?

Malifice

2017-11-03, 04:01 AM

If you can do something but didn't, and bad happens because of it, is that a bad?

To a good person that's not a question.

Im sure plenty of people could justify baby murder for 'the greater good'. A good person certainly doesnt though.

But 20 years still passes. 20 years of people it could otherwise grow up with if you keep it alive.

Sweet. You protect it for those 20 years. It awakes. As you grow old, the child awakes., and begins to live its life. It still becomes an adventurer and breaks the seals. Knowingly or not, but willingly.

So you're saying that the future is preordained and that irrespective of any other concievable action I take [that is not 'baby murder'], the world ends?

Is this the scenario?

If the choice came down to having to choose one innocent life over arbitrary high numbers of innocent lives, why would a god choose one or the other?

Because Cosmic good doesnt murder babies.

Good is subjective.

Not in a fantasy world with objective Cosmic Good it isnt.

In our world for sure. Everything is subjective the text contains no truth in and of itself. The postmodernists are right. I get that.

In a fantasy world with objective cosmic good, baby murder is evil. As is rape. As is genocide. As is torture. As is slavery. It is because Cosmic Good says it is.

I mean; in your fantasy world you might choose to allow Cosmic Good be totally fine with this kind of stuff, and have rapist baby murderers get into heaven as long as they can justify to themselves that they're acting 'for the greater good'.

Go nuts.

For mine that makes evil and good absolutely indistinguishable from each other. Theyre just two groups of people prepared to murder, rape, enslave and torture each other. Its just one side does so 'because greater good' aand the other side does so 'for fun'.

Of course, I have no problem with the Zealot Paladin slaughtering his foes, murdering infidels, enslaving evil enemies, tossing orc children on the pyre and 'doing what needs to be done, but other weaklings lack the convictions to do, in the name of the Greater good.'

I (on behalf of cosmic objective good) just say his alignment is Evil. Very evil in fact.

When he picks up an Amulet of Ultimate Good, it burns him. His healing spells are not maximised in a Unicorns lair. He goes to Hell on death. And so forth.

Whether the Paladin himself realises he is evil is a totally different question. He probably thinks he is a good and righteous man, and that his actions are justified. Pretty much all evildoers think just this.

The Zoat

2017-11-03, 04:35 AM

Im sure plenty of people could justify baby murder for 'the greater good'. A good person certainly doesnt though.

Because Cosmic good doesnt murder babies.

Malifice your reasoning is absurd. Murdering babies is of course objectively evil, the baby is an innocent, thus killing them is bad. A rational line of thinking. However, justifying Cosmic Good as being totally incapable of justifying one Evil act even in the face of catastrophically evil consequences completely neuters their capacity to respond effectively to Evil. Consider this:

A desert devil desires to dry a town's well. In a matter of days, the town and the accompanying shrine of (GOOD GOD HERE) will be wiped out entirely. The desert devil has possessed the body of an innocent townsman, and will in the case of not being forcibly ejected (a painful process for the townsman) succeed in his plan. To stop him, a cleric of (GOOD GOD) will thus have to cause severe pain and suffering to an innocent, an Evil act. Thus, (GOOD GOD) must instruct his cleric to stand by, and allow the town and shrine to be wiped out. Clearly, an absurd conclusion to come to even given the limited parameters of the conjecture.

Malifice

2017-11-03, 04:52 AM

Malifice your reasoning is absurd. Murdering babies is of course objectively evil, the baby is an innocent, thus killing them is bad. A rational line of thinking. However, justifying Cosmic Good as being totally incapable of justifying one Evil act even in the face of catastrophically evil consequences completely neuters their capacity to respond effectively to Evil. Consider this:

A desert devil desires to dry a town's well. In a matter of days, the town and the accompanying shrine of (GOOD GOD HERE) will be wiped out entirely. The desert devil has possessed the body of an innocent townsman, and will in the case of not being forcibly ejected (a painful process for the townsman) succeed in his plan. To stop him, a cleric of (GOOD GOD) will thus have to cause severe pain and suffering to an innocent, an Evil act. Thus, (GOOD GOD) must instruct his cleric to stand by, and allow the town and shrine to be wiped out. Clearly, an absurd conclusion to come to even given the limited parameters of the conjecture.

I agree it's an absurd proposition. Because the cleric could act in this situation.

The cleric causing this man pain is no different to a doctor causing someone pain when operating to help the man.

The cleric would employ every possible means in his power to avoid harming the man in saving him (and the town).

The Zoat

2017-11-03, 06:25 AM

I agree it's an absurd proposition. Because the cleric could act in this situation.

The cleric causing this man pain is no different to a doctor causing someone pain when operating to help the man.

The cleric would employ every possible means in his power to avoid harming the man in saving him (and the town).

Are you saying that (GOOD GOD) would instruct/allow cleric to do so, or that the cleric would anyway, and that would be (cosmically) good?

Merellis

2017-11-03, 07:37 AM

Considering that no matter what, this kid will eventually unleash the end of the world.

Wouldn't that mean killing the child will still cause the end of the world? A thousand visions of the future still has this kid breaking the seals no matter what sort of life they live, which puts forth an idea that everything is preordained. If I kill the child, the child will come back to life and eventually break the seals. If I raise the child, the child will still break the seals. If I lock the child up in a tower, they will still break the seals. I could raise this child, constantly break their legs and arms so they can't move anywhere, magically bind them so that they can't leave an area, and they'd still end up breaking the seal.

This then gets into other questions like if any of their churches, high priests, favored souls and the like end up getting killed. Wouldn't this deity have warned them so that these followers would continue to work to the greater good of all? Or do they only ever intervene when it's a defenseless baby who has actually done nothing? Do they kill children who will eventually grow up to defy the church, to kill their highest followers, to follow the deity that this one hates?

If it's just when the end of the world will be caused by single infant, then this is one lazy deity.

Also, wouldn't you be able to ask the deity how they break the seal and then work to circumvent that? Because if they've looked into a thousand different timelines that has this kid breaking the seals, then maybe, juuuuust maybe, this deity can see how the seals are broken and you can just properly warn the child as they grow up. Or, if it involves a particular ritual/item to unleash the end of the world, go out smash the damn thing.

There's so many flaws to this scenario, most of them being the idea that destiny is set in stone and we're all puppets on the strings of destiny.

What about deities that want the end of the world to happen? Where are their clerics waiting to kill all who come to kill the baby? Is it only this one particular deity that can spew prophecies, or are other ones sending their followers to bust a kneecap off some uppity LG cleric who's been waltzing into their religious ceremony?

Delicious Taffy

2017-11-03, 08:17 AM

Honestly, the kid's probably a piece of **** anyway, so **** 'em.

kilkegard

2017-11-04, 08:29 AM

If you can do something but didn't, and bad happens because of it, is that a bad?

You protect it for those 20 years. It awakes. As you grow old, the child awakes., and begins to live its life. It still becomes an adventurer and breaks the seals. Knowingly or not, but willingly.

If the choice came down to having to choose one innocent life over arbitrary high numbers of innocent lives, why would a god choose one or the other?

There is not, and shouldn't ever be, perfect knowledge of the future like this in an RPG. If you want to play with billiard balls on a table... maybe. But the actions of a person projected 20 years into the future known with perfect knowledge?

You're doing D&D wrong, you're doing prophecy wrong, you're doing divination wrong.

Here's how it ought to play out. The god(s) knows you spared the child and begins a 20 year long campaign to destroy them (and likely you too). Faced with this adversity, the child grows into a strong and capable adventurer who in desperation opens the seals to try to save himself (and possibly others) from these mad gods. The gods vision of that future was a self-fulfilling prophecy. The gods themselves brought about the calamity. That's how prophecy works when done well.

Prophesies ought to be vague hints of the future... not written in stone.

Vaz

2017-11-04, 09:04 AM

There is not, and shouldn't ever be, perfect knowledge of the future like this in an RPG. If you want to play with billiard balls on a table... maybe. But the actions of a person projected 20 years into the future known with perfect knowledge?

You're doing D&D wrong, you're doing prophecy wrong, you're doing divination wrong.

Here's how it ought to play out. The god(s) knows you spared the child and begins a 20 year long campaign to destroy them (and likely you too). Faced with this adversity, the child grows into a strong and capable adventurer who in desperation opens the seals to try to save himself (and possibly others) from these mad gods. The gods vision of that future was a self-fulfilling prophecy. The gods themselves brought about the calamity. That's how prophecy works when done well.

Prophesies ought to be vague hints of the future... not written in stone.
There isn't a perfect knowledge of the future. Don't know where you got that from.

Also, i would be playing d&d wrong if people don't have fun. Ergo, when I play games where the players enjoy randomly hitting people wearing a different colour shirt, I play those games be they are equally cathartic.

And then there are others players who aren'tthat fussed in combat, and find it equally cathartic to roll dice and use that as an excuse to pose hypothetical questions, such as the nature of morality, sipping back drinking whisky and wine until riiculously early hours.

But yes, we are playing d&d wrong.

Do you have anything better than the only true scotsman fallacy?

Nifft

2017-11-04, 09:19 AM

There isn't a perfect knowledge of the future. Don't know where you got that from. C'mon, be honest.

"God has perfect knowledge therefore murder a baby." <-- that's literally your scenario

Hiding behind some kind of obfuscation isn't going to work here. You laid it all out already, and it's easily visible by scrolling up the thread.

Vaz

2017-11-04, 10:00 AM

C'mon, be honest.

"God has perfect knowledge therefore murder a baby." <-- that's literally your scenario

Hiding behind some kind of obfuscation isn't going to work here. You laid it all out already, and it's easily visible by scrolling up the thread.

I mean i posited an example of an in game trolley problem. To which everyone said killing one person is an evil act, but then using that same thought process, does by making a choice of action killing x amount more people become x times more evil?

In which case you get about into the discussion of exactly what Good and Evil is, and why Good and Evil are what they are.

And suddenly you're dealing with not so much good and evil, but approval and disapproval and justification, which leads you back to the OP, as wanting to punish the player for burning the guy they are fighting, stems from something.

It's not an evil act, it is an act which some people disapprove of, in the same way that a 19th century plantation owner would approve of having slaves, or a roman emperor would approve of gladiatorial bloodsports, or a 21st century vegan would rather either the home of insects and other wildlife rather than eating labgrown pseudomeat.

Evil is a matter of perception which changes over time, as is what is good, so you are left dealing with personalities. Does the clerics deity approve of the action? No, then the deity needs to do something about it. Perhaps remove access to his divine spells, or his class features, given that the deities favour is what is granting those.

Perhaps there was someone who observed the situation who decides to bide time and repay the cleric for the way in which he dispatched the opponent. Or perhaps the other way, like how banking financiers who make an immense amount of profit: my father was cared for in his last days by a charity who recieved money donated from an individual who later embezzled money in the 90's to set up his own business. Do i think he is evil? His intentions might not have been good but he saved my fathers life. The only people he 'hurt' were 6 other wealthy businessmen who were protected by the banks.

I can approve of certain things but not of others, and I can use my own judgement to select my opinion of that individual. As can a god, and their followers. To say that those who act in a manner that is acceptable is 'good' in modern society when we have been shaped by the actions of certain individuals does not apply to concept of a cosmic acceptance squished into a 3x3 table to define an action.