Would this be evil?

[Hurske]

Alright, so I got a question for you all on a situation that happened in my last game.

Backstory first, this involves a good Paladin with the oath of conquest.

During downtime after the first arc of my campaign, one of the players did the pit fighting downtime, and got a Complication where the entire town got mad, formed a mob to drive him out of town, after the player beat the towns pit fighting champion.

On his way out, he cast burning hands and burnt down the inn, where the fight ring took place, no one was killed, but the entire building got cooked.

Come a couple hours later in the session, and the group gets ambushed by the captain of the guard and his men, sent by the town, to arrest the player for burning down the inn.

After negotiation failed, the guard lastly told the player to come willingly, or he will take him back by force, at this point all the guard pull their swords.

Now to my question. The paladin player, who is good, said he will attack the guards if they try to get the player.

His reason is that since they drew blades first, they are now enemies, even though they are here for a just reason, because of the crime by the other player.

If a fight did break out (it didn't the player bribed the guards), and the paladin did attack or kill the guards, would this have been evil?

[Speely]

It would have been chaotic for sure, but not necessarily evil.

[Unoriginal]

Is killing cops who are arresting a criminal evil?

Do you really need a thread to see if murdering innocent people who are trying to stop an unapologetic criminal is evil?

[Malifice]

If a fight did break out (it didn't the player bribed the guards), and the paladin did attack or kill the guards, would this have been evil?

I dont think its evil. It's self defence (or in this guys case defence of an ally). Its certainly not good though.

It would make the Paladin a wanted criminal. Killing the Kings men, is very much a capital offence isnt it?

I'd look at the Paladin player, and ask him somberly if hes sure he wants to do this.

Murder of the Kings men tends to get PCs in my campaign hung. A hue and cry goes up, and the King dispatches Knights, a Champion, a Mage or whatever to bring the murderers to justice.

He doesnt get to stay King for very long if random itinerants can rock into town and destroy property and kill his men with impunity.

[Tanarii]

Backstory first, this involves a good Paladin with the oath of conquest.
The important part here is there's no way for a good aligned character to avoid breaking the Oath of Conquest Tenets eventually. Or to start consistently behaving like another alignments typical behavior. Most likely Lawful Evil. So either the character is going to fall, or the player is going to choose to (officially or unofficially) shift the characters alignment.

[Malifice]

Is killing cops who are arresting a criminal evil?

Are they trying to kill you or him? If so it's self defence (or the defence of others) and not evil (but not good).

If they're just trying to carry out an arrest, and you draw a weapon on them and attack them, yeah, that's evil.

Are they arresting the guy, or trying to kill him?

[Malifice]

The important part here is there's no way for a good aligned character to avoid breaking the Oath of Conquest Tenets eventually. Or to start consistently behaving like another alignments typical behavior. Most likely Lawful Evil. So either the character is going to fall, or the player is going to choose to (officially or unofficially) shift the characters alignment.

I pretty much agree with this.

The Oath requires you act like basically a tyrannical bastard. LE is the most appropriate, maybe LN or (for a really nasty Conquest paladin) CE.

I could see a CE Orc warlord with the Conquest oath for example.

Vengeance isnt much better. It basically green lights at a minimum (or mandates in a literal reading of the oath) genocide, torture and murder.

[Hurske]

I made it a point, several times. That the guards where there to arrest the player, and bring have back to the town for judgment. They were not going to kill the player.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I think you have a conflict between player and character interests here. The player pretty much needs to keep the other guy out of jail. That's how this game works, you go adventuring with a party. But the paladin realistically would not be adventuring with this guy, if anything he'd be chasing him down. If you want to judge the paladin for his behavior in this situation you need to start having better session zero's, to prevent having a party where this situation can occur.

That's how I see it anyway.

[Malifice]

I made it a point, several times. That the guards where there to arrest the player, and bring have back to the town for judgment. They were not going to kill the player.

Why draw swords then?

Just have two walk up to him and arrest him.

Did the PCs draw weapons first?

[Lunali]

I made it a point, several times. That the guards where there to arrest the player, and bring have back to the town for judgment. They were not going to kill the player.

Do the guards have that authority outside the boundaries of the town? What assurance did the characters have that the player wouldn't be killed? Does the paladin know these guards or do they just happen to have guard armor? (do they even have a recognizable uniform?)

Regardless, I think it's unlikely that the paladins actions would be evil, chaotic? quite possibly, especially since they bribed the guards, but not evil. As a general rule, good means selfless and evil means selfish.

[Hawkstar]

Why draw swords then?
Same reason police approach potentially armed and dangerous criminals (or just black drivers on routine traffic stops) with drawn firearms - to protect themselves if the arrestee resists.

[Malifice]

As a general rule, good means selfless and evil means selfish.

As a general rule, evil implies harming, oppressing and killing others (and avoiding good).

Good implies altruism, a respect for life, mercy and compassion (and avoiding/ minimising evil).

IMG I use the same standard we use IRL for determining if violence (harming and killing others) is 'evil': 'Was the violent act reasonably necessary in self defence or the defence of others, and was it proportionate to that threat?'

Its not evil defending your town from Orc marauders, killing a thug trying to rob you in self defence, or slaying monsters that are trying to kill you. Its not a morally good act either of course. But Paladins carry swords for a reason and all that.

Breaking into a thugs house and murdering him as he sleeps, is evil on the other hand. An ambush killing enemy soldiers trying to kill you is not evil. Taking the captured POWs out the back and shooting them dead afterwards is evil on the other hand.

[Whyrocknodie]

Are the guards good guys... I mean, do they have black armour with little skulls on it and answer to the Suul-Azarn Immortal Empire, and have come to hurl the dangerous rebel into the Ooze Pits of Despair?

The context is everything really. If the guards represent the bad guys, then they're just that - bad guys. Even if they're good guys, there is no particular reason an otherwise Good aligned character has to respect the local law - particularly if they feel it's not a just law.

From a pro-paladin perspective, this story goes:

"My friend joined a competition in the town, and because the crowd did not like the results he was attacked. A building was set fire to when he defended himself. We have since left the town, but they sent an armed band after us to try and capture him. What possible motivation would I have to aid this clearly lawless band of thugs?"

[ShadowImmor]

Personally, I wouldn't say it's necessarily evil. I usually have evil defined as pure self interest, or choosing to disregard others.

In this situation the Paladin is doing something that is both against the law, and violent. However, is the paladin planning on subduing the guards or killing them? There's a big difference there. If he's planning on subduing them and then leaving, that's not necessarily evil, sure, it's definitely not GOOD but he's not doing more than is needed to get an outcome he wants.

If he is intending to kill them, then it's evil. He's killing people who are just doing their job. A job they are JUSTIFIED in doing because the Paladin's party member DID break the law.

The fact the Guards have drawn there swords is irrelevant. Sure, it cranks up the tension, but it could just be sabre rattling to try and get the party to back down. (The guards are unaware these characters are PCs and in fact likely to win, so will treat them like any other criminal, where a show of force probably is enough to get a regular criminal to back down.)

Intent matters a lot when deciding if an act is evil. But intent is also hard to understand. You have to make your judgement, and warn players if something is "evil" if they're trying to play a "good" character.

[Malifice]

Same reason police approach potentially armed and dangerous criminals (or just black drivers on routine traffic stops) with drawn firearms - to protect themselves if the arrestee resists.

In the USA. Which is an outlier.

They dont come at you with guns drawn in Australia (or Europe, or Japan, or China, or India or anywhere else for that matter) to arrest you, and they dont even have guns in the UK.

Pick up a weapon, and the cops will respond in kind of course. Our (Oz) police are heavily armed.

If I was the OP, I'd simply have the guards tell the Paladin (in game) that he is aiding and abetting a known arsonist, and a wanted criminal, and that attacking or killing a member of the Kings men is a capital offence. They would then tell him to put away/down his weapon or he is also under arrest.

I would then (as DM) ask the player if he really wants his character to become a wanted criminal with the death penalty over his head. I would look the player in the eye and say 'Think about the probable consequences here mate. Are you sure you want your character to be wanted for a capital offence? The King wont let this slide, and will hunt you to the ends of the earth.'

If that's what he wants, then fine. After the battle (presuming they kill the guardsmen) the King arranges for a speak with dead spell on one of the dead guards. He presumably has a low level Cleric in town and the funds to arrange this (or other magic) to find out who killed his men.

From there, he places a large bounty on the PCs head, contacts the PCs superiors in the PCs church or knightly order to have them arrest him (or excommunicate him), dispatches his best men to track down the PC and bring him to justice (a Champion, a few Knights, a squad of Veterans and a Mage should do it) and if that fails, he hires NPC adventurers to track the criminal down and bring him to justice.

Unless the PC is very smart, very paranoid, or very lucky, he likely winds up hanging from the gallows in a few weeks or months time.

[Lunali]

As a general rule, evil implies harming, oppressing and killing others (and avoiding good).

Good implies altruism, a respect for life, mercy and compassion (and avoiding/ minimising evil).

IMG I use the same standard we use IRL for determining if violence (harming and killing others) is 'evil': 'Was the violent act reasonably necessary in self defence or the defence of others, and was it proportionate to that threat?'

Its not evil defending your town from Orc marauders, killing a thug trying to rob you in self defence, or slaying monsters that are trying to kill you. Its not a morally good act either of course. But Paladins carry swords for a reason and all that.

Breaking into a thugs house and murdering him as he sleeps, is evil on the other hand. An ambush killing enemy soldiers trying to kill you is not evil. Taking the captured POWs out the back and shooting them dead afterwards is evil on the other hand.

I agree with your definition of good, not so much the rest. Good is helping others, even to your own detriment. Evil is helping yourself, even to the detriment of others. Oppressing others is lawful, both good and evil are quite capable of it. Killing others is chaotic, again, both good and evil are quite capable of it.

A chaotic good character may see killing a thug in his sleep as an effective way of helping protect others. Killing POWs is probably going to be both chaotic and evil, but in certain circumstances it could be just chaotic depending on the alternatives.

[Unoriginal]

Are they trying to kill you or him? If so it's self defence (or the defence of others) and not evil (but not good).

If they're just trying to carry out an arrest, and you draw a weapon on them and attack them, yeah, that's evil.

Are they arresting the guy, or trying to kill him?


As a general rule, evil implies harming, oppressing and killing others (and avoiding good).

Good implies altruism, a respect for life, mercy and compassion (and avoiding/ minimising evil).

IMG I use the same standard we use IRL for determining if violence (harming and killing others) is 'evil': 'Was the violent act reasonably necessary in self defence or the defence of others, and was it proportionate to that threat?'

Its not evil defending your town from Orc marauders, killing a thug trying to rob you in self defence, or slaying monsters that are trying to kill you. Its not a morally good act either of course. But Paladins carry swords for a reason and all that.

Breaking into a thugs house and murdering him as he sleeps, is evil on the other hand. An ambush killing enemy soldiers trying to kill you is not evil. Taking the captured POWs out the back and shooting them dead afterwards is evil on the other hand.

If cops show up in a bank robber's house with their weapons drawn, and the bank robber shoots them, it's not self-defense.

Attacking the king's guardsmen or soldiers because you or your friend refused to surrender when they told you to is NOT self-defense either.



In the USA. Which is an outlier.

They dont come at you with guns drawn in Australia (or Europe, or Japan, or China, or India or anywhere else for that matter) to arrest you, and they dont even have guns in the UK.

Pick up a weapon, and the cops will respond in kind of course. Our (Oz) police are heavily armed.


If the PCs were tasked with capturing a dangerous criminal, don't you think they'll have their weapons drawn even if they ask for a surrender first?

The man those guards were sent to arrest was an adventurer, and someone who can throw fire from his hands. It was clear he resisted his arrest. Why wouldn't the guards have their weapons drawn?



If I was the OP, I'd simply have the guards tell the Paladin (in game) that he is aiding and abetting a known arsonist, and a wanted criminal, and that attacking or killing a member of the Kings men is a capital offence. They would then tell him to put away/down his weapon or he is also under arrest.

I would then (as DM) ask the player if he really wants his character to become a wanted criminal with the death penalty over his head. I would look the player in the eye and say 'Think about the probable consequences here mate. Are you sure you want your character to be wanted for a capital offence? The King wont let this slide, and will hunt you to the ends of the earth.'

If that's what he wants, then fine. After the battle (presuming they kill the guardsmen) the King arranges for a speak with dead spell on one of the dead guards. He presumably has a low level Cleric in town and the funds to arrange this (or other magic) to find out who killed his men.

From there, he places a large bounty on the PCs head, contacts the PCs superiors in the PCs church or knightly order to have them arrest him (or excommunicate him), dispatches his best men to track down the PC and bring him to justice (a Champion, a few Knights, a squad of Veterans and a Mage should do it) and if that fails, he hires NPC adventurers to track the criminal down and bring him to justice.

Unless the PC is very smart, very paranoid, or very lucky, he likely winds up hanging from the gallows in a few weeks or months time.

That's the legal consequences, OP was just asking if killing cops doing their job so a friend avoid going to jail for a crime they commited was evil or not.

And it's kinda sad that a) people need to ask b) other people respond that it's not evil.



Regardless, I think it's unlikely that the paladins actions would be evil

Killing cops who are legitimately arresting your friend for crimes they're absolutely guilty of is unlikely to be evil.

OK.

[Lunali]

Killing cops who are legitimately arresting your friend for crimes they're absolutely guilty of is unlikely to be evil.

They are not cops outside of town, they are bounty hunters at best. The friend's crimes consist of property damage resulting from self defense and probably some assault charges, also in self defense. The paladin (the character, not the player) has no guarantee that his friend will survive the trip back to town. Even if he does, a fair trial is highly unlikely as he is an outsider to the town.

[JackPhoenix]

Same reason police approach potentially armed and dangerous criminals (or just black drivers on routine traffic stops) with drawn firearms - to protect themselves if the arrestee resists.

There's a difference between approaching opponent armed (potentially or not) with a firearm and when everyone has a melee weapon, because easy to use guns weren't invented yet. In the later case, it's much safer, because melee weapon takes longer to both draw and use... that's true both for the guard and the criminal. Just keep your distance, and you should be able to draw a sword before the enemy draws his and closes the distance to use it. (which... doesn't actually work in D&D combat, for obvious, initiative-related reasons)

[Malifice]

If cops show up in a bank robber's house with their weapons drawn, and the bank robber shoots them, it's not self-defense.

It is self defence. It might not be lawfully justifiable self defence (unless those cops we're corrupt and going to shoot the guy regardless), but from the POV of the bank robber, it's still self defence.


I agree with your definition of good, not so much the rest.

I lifted that straight from 3.5 DnD (the last edition to have the same alignments as 5E, and where the alignment descriptions of 5E appear to be paraphrased versions of the 3.5 alignments).

While 'evil is not expressly defined in 5E, I dont see any reason why the meaning of word 'evil' (which in 3.5 was expressly stated to mean 'harming, oppressing and killing others') should have changed so dramatically between editions.

Certainly this mirrors the real world expectations as well. We call people who harm others evil (rape, murder, torture, beating up people, genocide etc) unless those acts were done in self defence or the defence of others (cops shooting armed criminals, military forces defending a nation from a foreign invader, being required to use force to repel a rapist or murderer etc).

We dont call a Cop that shoots an armed terrorist about to kill someone 'evil' nor do we define the killing as morally evil. We dont call him (or the act) morally good either. It was morally neutral (he had no other choice, his force was proportionate etc).

We would call the Cop evil if he broke into someones house and shot the person as he slept.

Thats where we as a society (and its near universal across the globe by the way) draw the line. Killing and harming others is only OK when done as an expression of self defence (including collective self defence, and the self defence of others) when it is proportionate to the threat, and reasonably needed in response to an imminent threat.

Killing or harming people in other situations is near universally condemned as immoral (evil).

[Malifice]

Just keep your distance, and you should be able to draw a sword before the enemy draws his and closes the distance to use it. (which... doesn't actually work in D&D combat, for obvious, initiative-related reasons)

Not actually true.

Google the 21 foot rule.

Thats how much space you need between you and an adversary to be able to react to them charging you, draw a pistol (much smaller than a sword and easier to draw) and get off a round before he is on you.

It's not far off the 30' average movement of a DnD combat round.

[Malifice]

They are not cops outside of town, they are bounty hunters at best.

You dont know that.

They act under the legal authority of the local (king? baron? lord?). What on earth makes you think they dont have legal jurisdiction outside the built up area of the town?

Lets presume they do have jurisdiction, and this isnt a wrongful arrest.


The friend's crimes consist of property damage resulting from self defense

Lol. There was no self defence. The friend snuck to the tavern afterwards, and burnt it down out of spite.

[JackPhoenix]

Not actually true.

Google the 21 foot rule.

Thats how much space you need between you and an adversary to be able to react to them charging you, draw a pistol (much smaller than a sword and easier to draw) and get off a round before he is on you.

It's not far off the 30' average movement of a DnD combat round.

That's when the opponent already has a weapon drawn, though. If he's not, you're in the same situation, both of you will need to draw a weapon first. Obviously, if he's already armed, there's no point in keeping your sword in its sheath.


Lol. There was no self defence. The friend snuck to the tavern afterwards, and burnt it down out of spite.

" On his way out, he cast burning hands and burnt down the inn, where the fight ring took place, no one was killed, but the entire building got cooked. "

It still wasn't self defense (diversion to aim the chasing mob elsewhere, sure), but it doesn't sounds like he was sneaking anywhere after being chased.

[Mercurias]

In response to the OP, my answer would depend on if the town guard was participating in running your PC out of town for whooping their local champion. I’m beginning to suspect your PC was playing dirty pool to win, given the reaction of the town and the fact that the same player resorted to arson a few minutes later.

If the guards had been chasing your PCs around for no reason and abusing their authority, flight would have been a good response, or maybe knocking out guards and fleeing (if they didn’t know your names). Killing them would not be a lawful act, but you could squeak by with a self-defense KO against a corrupt guard, particularly if you later found a non-corrupt official to report them to.

If the guards were trying to arrest an arsonist and we’re entirely unrelated to the events of the town fight club, a lawful Paladin should probably turn in his or her friend, possibly accompanying them to talk to the magistrate.

[napoleon_in_rag]

Alright, so I got a question for you all on a situation that happened in my last game.

Backstory first, this involves a good Paladin with the oath of conquest.

During downtime after the first arc of my campaign, one of the players did the pit fighting downtime, and got a Complication where the entire town got mad, formed a mob to drive him out of town, after the player beat the towns pit fighting champion.

On his way out, he cast burning hands and burnt down the inn, where the fight ring took place, no one was killed, but the entire building got cooked.

Come a couple hours later in the session, and the group gets ambushed by the captain of the guard and his men, sent by the town, to arrest the player for burning down the inn.

After negotiation failed, the guard lastly told the player to come willingly, or he will take him back by force, at this point all the guard pull their swords.

Now to my question. The paladin player, who is good, said he will attack the guards if they try to get the player.

His reason is that since they drew blades first, they are now enemies, even though they are here for a just reason, because of the crime by the other player.

If a fight did break out (it didn't the player bribed the guards), and the paladin did attack or kill the guards, would this have been evil?

In summary, the friend commits arson and then the Paladin attacked the cops who came to arrest the friend. That's a Chaotic Evil act.

Chaotic - The Guard are lawfully executing their duties. A lawful character would stand aside or perhaps help out.

Evil - The friend destroyed someone else's property. Unless the friend 100% knew that their was no one in the inn, he recklessly endangered innocent lives. What if a child had been sleeping in the inn when it caught fire? To defend this person is to become an accessory to an evil act.

The "drawing blades first" sounds like a weak justification on the part of the player. Drawing the blades has nothing to do with alignment.

[Unoriginal]

I lifted that straight from 3.5 DnD (the last edition to have the same alignments as 5E, and where the alignment descriptions of 5E appear to be paraphrased versions of the 3.5 alignments).


3.5 has NOT the same alignment system as 5e.

The descriptions are a bit similar, but 5e removed A LOT of the 3.5 stuff and changed some core concepts.

For example, 3.5 considered a spell that forcibly transformed people into good guys to be a good act. 5e makes clear that good entities value free will over making sure people are good, as beings forced to do good are not free.

[Malifice]

3.5 has NOT the same alignment system as 5e.

The descriptions are a bit similar, but 5e removed A LOT of the 3.5 stuff and changed some core concepts.


I didnt say they were the same.

I said (and you agree above) that they used paraphrased excerpts from 3.5 to describe the alignments in 5E.

I also say that I see no reason why I should suddenly ignore the definitions of evil and good given in that edition of the system as a secondary source.

Maybe good and evil mean something different now that editions have changed. I see nothing to support that argument though, and I see secondary material and a pretty clear inference that they still mean the same thing as before.

That said, they can mean whatever you want them to mean. If you want 'morally good' to mean 'only rapes and murders evil people' then go for it.

[DarkKnightJin]

Are the guards good guys... I mean, do they have black armour with little skulls on it and answer to the Suul-Azarn Immortal Empire, and have come to hurl the dangerous rebel into the Ooze Pits of Despair?

The context is everything really. If the guards represent the bad guys, then they're just that - bad guys. Even if they're good guys, there is no particular reason an otherwise Good aligned character has to respect the local law - particularly if they feel it's not a just law.

From a pro-paladin perspective, this story goes:

"My friend joined a competition in the town, and because the crowd did not like the results he was attacked. A building was set fire to when he defended himself. We have since left the town, but they sent an armed band after us to try and capture him. What possible motivation would I have to aid this clearly lawless band of thugs?"

This seems about right.
The guards follow someone that is no longer within their jurisdiction (presumably, anyway), and the Paladin stated that he would use violence to protect his ally *if* the guards tried to harm him.
Which is a pretty decent conclusion to make when they draw their weapons. From the story, it seems like the party didn't make any aggressive moves towards the guards. They just didn't allow a guard to take an ally for a 'crime' that didn't even harm anybody.

If the guards tried to appeal to the party's better nature. "Hey, listen. We know you didn't mean to burn that place down. But, they wanna see you about getting that place built back up."

[Unoriginal]

That said, they can mean whatever you want them to mean. If you want 'morally good' to mean 'only rapes and murders evil people' then go for it.

Dude, it's you who's arguing that killing cops because your friend refuses to surrender for the arson he commited is neutral behavior.

[hymer]

If a fight did break out (it didn't the player bribed the guards), and the paladin did attack or kill the guards, would this have been evil?
Attack, no. Not a good act, either, though, and likely chaotic. But killing them seems pretty evil to me, especially considering just how easy it is to knock people out without causing permanent harm in 5e.

[Lunali]

Evil - The friend destroyed someone else's property. Unless the friend 100% knew that their was no one in the inn, he recklessly endangered innocent lives. What if a child had been sleeping in the inn when it caught fire? To defend this person is to become an accessory to an evil act.

I took the description of the event very differently from you. My reading was that the mob formed at the inn as soon as the fight ended, the friend used burning hands to defend himself against the mob, failing to kill anyone, and the inn caught fire as a result.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Here's a rule of thumb. Not perfect, but covers most cases.

If you have to ask seriously whether something is evil, it probably is. Or it's at least evil-leaning neutral.

[hamishspence]

I took the description of the event very differently from you. My reading was that the mob formed at the inn as soon as the fight ended, the friend used burning hands to defend himself against the mob, failing to kill anyone, and the inn caught fire as a result.

That seems like a fair summary - it's not an ordinary inn - it's a fight ring inn.

[sophontteks]

Nothing about the OP was evil, or even neutral. When it comes to alignment it was definately not lawful, though not nessesarily chaotic either.

If the paladin stopped the authorities because he hate authority, chaotic, otherwise neutral.

Is it evil to defend your friend?
The players allegiences are his own. Good people kill other good people all the time for little reason beyond the fact that they are members of two conflicting groups. And in this case thats all it is.

[Hurske]

Well this exploded. Ok, as to some who were not sure how things went down, let me clear it up more.

The inn was burnt down during the time the mob was trying to get him, so it was more of a distraction than just sneaking out, and burning down the inn out of spite.

This group I am running for, is very new, their very first paper RPG, during the beginning of the game, the Fighter (who burnt down the inn) accidentally started a fire in another inn that was attacked by a thieves guild, when he cast burning hands. Him being a Skyrim rpg player, never expected me to say that the walls where he cast burning hands also caught on fire. But was put out by the same paladin using frost breath, being a dragonborn. This was a way for me to show him that there was consequences for actions he took, by having the guards go after him.

So for fact, the guards were outside of town, still within the regions territory, but no longer the towns. The guards were doing their duty by order of the mayer, and were to bring the fighter back for a trial for his crimes. Being new players, not wanting him to get hanged (Which I believe would be the realistic result) and the fighter was a town guard himself in another location, I told him he mostly likely knew the punishment would of been imprisonment, and he himself would have to rebuild the inn, which would have messed with the groups task of a time important quest.

As for the drawing of blades, it was more a message that negotiations were over, as the players tried multiple times to talk their way out of it.

For sure, if the fight did break out, and the guards or even one was killed, Evil act and I would deal with him, if the players just went and beat the guards to a pulp to get away, but let them live is more of why this post was made.

I will say, I never looked at it with the cop angle. My honest initial feeling while this was unfolding, and what I told the Paladin player, was that if a fight did break out, I would not consider this any type of good alignment. But he countered back that he considers them enemies because of the fact they were here to get the party member and they would have attacked first to grab the fighter.

[Tanarii]

Here's a rule of thumb. Not perfect, but covers most cases.

If you have to ask seriously whether something is evil, it probably is. Or it's at least evil-leaning neutral.
Actually, in 5e, it just means you're asking the wrong questions.

In 5e, actions arent evil. Only overall typical behavior can be. No one scenario can be used to answer a question of "would this be evil?"

Which is why I ignored the question in the OP, which is impossible to answer in 5e but still going to generate a 15 page thread. And instead focused on the long term impossibility of a Good-aligned Oath of Conquest Paladin, due to an inherent conflict between all three Good-aligned typical behavior descriptions and the Tenets.

Any player using the good alignments as a motivation is going to eventually break the tenets. Any player adhering to the tenets is going to end up with a character who (over the long term) matches the description of the behavior of another not-good alignment, most likely Lawful or Neutral Evil. So both way that people (correctly) use 5e Alignment, either they're not going to be be good or their going to Fall eventually.

[Hurske]

Actually, in 5e, it just means you're asking the wrong questions.

In 5e, actions arent evil. Only overall typical behavior can be. No one scenario can be used to answer a question of "would this be evil?"

Which is why I ignore the question in the OP and focused on the impossibility of a Good-aligned Oath of Conquest Paladin.

For myself, I do agree that a Paladin of Conquest and being good aligned does not really walk the same line. For this entire thing, the Oath is actually not something I am thinking about, I am more looking at if the God he worships, which is good alignment, would take away his power, for attacking the town guards.

[sophontteks]

Well this exploded. Ok, as to some who were not sure how things went down, let me clear it up more.

The inn was burnt down during the time the mob was trying to get him, so it was more of a distraction than just sneaking out, and burning down the inn out of spite.

This group I am running for, is very new, their very first paper RPG, during the beginning of the game, the Fighter (who burnt down the inn) accidentally started a fire in another inn that was attacked by a thieves guild, when he cast burning hands. Him being a Skyrim rpg player, never expected me to say that the walls where he cast burning hands also caught on fire. But was put out by the same paladin using frost breath, being a dragonborn. This was a way for me to show him that there was consequences for actions he took, by having the guards go after him.

So for fact, the guards were outside of town, still within the regions territory, but no longer the towns. The guards were doing their duty by order of the mayer, and were to bring the fighter back for a trial for his crimes. Being new players, not wanting him to get hanged (Which I believe would be the realistic result) and the fighter was a town guard himself in another location, I told him he mostly likely knew the punishment would of been imprisonment, and he himself would have to rebuild the inn, which would have messed with the groups task of a time important quest.

As for the drawing of blades, it was more a message that negotiations were over, as the players tried multiple times to talk their way out of it.

For sure, if the fight did break out, and the guards or even one was killed, Evil act and I would deal with him, if the players just went and beat the guards to a pulp to get away, but let them live is more of why this post was made.

I will say, I never looked at it with the cop angle. My honest initial feeling while this was unfolding, and what I told the Paladin player, was that if a fight did break out, I would not consider this any type of good alignment. But he countered back that he considers them enemies because of the fact they were here to get the party member and they would have attacked first to grab the fighter.

He's right, they drew swords on his party and his friends. Their intentions are wholly negative. His stance on authority is in the lawful-chaotic curve and this really has nothing to do with being good or evil at all.

Good doesn't mean pacifist. It just means they strive to make the world a better place.

In the crusades the Byzantine people wanted to be neutral. They believed that killing was a sin, and thus a holy war was an oxymoron. BUT, they still killed people all the time. They just felt that it was a sin.

Thats the idea behind good essentially. In this fantasy world penalizing a good player for killing is far, far too harsh. Death and killing are the reality of their world.

[BW022]

Hurske,

I would classify it as evil -- baring additional information. The paladin is shielding a person from being held responsible for rather serious crimes.

Unless the paladin knows that there won't be a fair trial, doesn't know/believe that the character burned down an inn, or the inn was so corrupt that burning it down was necessary... it an awful act.

Let's say in 2018 you were a soldier. One of your friends gets involved in something and ends up burning down a building. The police come to arrest him. You are carrying a weapon and tell the police they can't arrest your friend. They pull their firearms. The moral act is to step aside, let them arrest your friend, and deal with it in court.

[Tanarii]

For myself, I do agree that a Paladin of Conquest and being good aligned does not really walk the same line. For this entire thing, the Oath is actually not something I am thinking about, I am more looking at if the God he worships, which is good alignment, would take away his power, for attacking the town guards.Ah. Possible consequences. That's an entirely different matter from "is this evil".

So some questions:
1) do gods in your campaign watch what individuals who they've granted power too that closely? Does it depend on if they use the divinely granted power in a situation, or are gods omniscient where their followers are concerned?

2) Wouldn't it depend more on the God's overall personality and portfolio than just their alignment? Or do you not have those details, and alignment is the only thing you have to fall back on is alignment?

3) Is this going to apply to all characters granted divine power? Possibly warlocks too? Did you warn them before they started that their characters could lose their powers based on their actions?

The default for 5e Paladins is the only way they lose their power is by violating their Oath Tenets. So if you're going to strip a Paladin or Cleric or Warlock of class features for actions other than that, it's fair to warn them this is a possible consequence for actions taken in your session 0. If you didn't do that, I'd recommend you don't have the God intervene that directly this time, no matter what. At most, have the God send a dream or omen they are displeased. Then directly warn them that they can lose their class features by displeasing their diety / patron.

And that's only if you want your Gods to be omniscient with their followers AND take a direct hand on a regular basis with their followers AND determine from the God in questions personality that they would be displeased.

--------

Other than that, consider other natural consequences and outcomes of the players fighting back and killing the guards. Questions related to that off the top of my head: Will anyone know? How big is the local jurisdiction, just the town or is it national? Will they be reported to any other parts of the same jurisdiction, or neighboring jurisdictions? Will they end up with a bounty on their head, if the local jurisdiction can afford one?

[Lunali]

For myself, I do agree that a Paladin of Conquest and being good aligned does not really walk the same line. For this entire thing, the Oath is actually not something I am thinking about, I am more looking at if the God he worships, which is good alignment, would take away his power, for attacking the town guards.

Paladins lose their power for breaking their oaths, not for acting outside their god's alignment.

[Malifice]

Well this exploded. Ok, as to some who were not sure how things went down, let me clear it up more.

The inn was burnt down during the time the mob was trying to get him, so it was more of a distraction than just sneaking out, and burning down the inn out of spite.

This group I am running for, is very new, their very first paper RPG, during the beginning of the game, the Fighter (who burnt down the inn) accidentally started a fire in another inn that was attacked by a thieves guild, when he cast burning hands. Him being a Skyrim rpg player, never expected me to say that the walls where he cast burning hands also caught on fire. But was put out by the same paladin using frost breath, being a dragonborn. This was a way for me to show him that there was consequences for actions he took, by having the guards go after him.

So for fact, the guards were outside of town, still within the regions territory, but no longer the towns. The guards were doing their duty by order of the mayer, and were to bring the fighter back for a trial for his crimes. Being new players, not wanting him to get hanged (Which I believe would be the realistic result) and the fighter was a town guard himself in another location, I told him he mostly likely knew the punishment would of been imprisonment, and he himself would have to rebuild the inn, which would have messed with the groups task of a time important quest.

Why is he at risk of being hung?

He accidentally burn down a tavern?


I will say, I never looked at it with the cop angle. My honest initial feeling while this was unfolding, and what I told the Paladin player, was that if a fight did break out, I would not consider this any type of good alignment. But he countered back that he considers them enemies because of the fact they were here to get the party member and they would have attacked first to grab the fighter.

Who cares if its a good act anyway?

Paladins can do evil **** all they want in 5E. Youre aware of this right?

Like; a Conquest Paladin can murder babies for fun if he wants to all day long, and not fall.

[Malifice]

For myself, I do agree that a Paladin of Conquest and being good aligned does not really walk the same line. For this entire thing, the Oath is actually not something I am thinking about, I am more looking at if the God he worships, which is good alignment, would take away his power, for attacking the town guards.

The God he worships is fine with having Conquest Paladins, then I'd say he is fine with evil behavior.

Does the God really care, and take an active part in granting spells.

In my games you can be an evil cleric or priest of a good God if you want.

Just like in real life.

You get a rude shock when you die of course.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Paladins lose their power for breaking their oaths, not for acting outside their god's alignment.

Especially since there is no class-based requirement that a paladin even worship a god. Some settings may impose penalties for those that don't (FR and its stupid Wall), but paladins and gods aren't really connected. The only ones that are are Clerics.

[Malifice]

Especially since there is no class-based requirement that a paladin even worship a god. Some settings may impose penalties for those that don't (FR and its stupid Wall), but paladins and gods aren't really connected. The only ones that are are Clerics.

Do clerics even need to worship a god in 5E?

I've never actually checked. Can they still just follow a loose philosophy or personal conviction?

[Malifice]

Then again, I suppose active/ inactive Gods (and the need for Paladins and Clerics to worship one) are in the realm of the DMs world.

This one is on you DM. You allowed a good aligned Conquest Paladin, from a Good god who takes his powers away if he isnt good.

This is the Oath this 'good' person has sworn:


Douse the Flame of Hope. It is not enough to merely defeat an enemy in battle. Your victory must be so overwhelming that your enemies’ will to fight is shattered forever. A blade can end a life. Fear can end an empire.

Rule with an Iron Fist. Once you have conquered, tolerate no dissent. Your word is law. Those who obey it shall be favored. Those who defy it shall be punished as an example to all who might follow.

Strength Above All. You shall rule until a stronger one arises. Then you must grow mightier and meet the challenge, or fall to your own ruin.

[Yagyujubei]

i would say that if they subdued the guards non-lethally then it wouldnt be evil, just chaotic. if they ended up fighting and killing them then it would be evil for sure

[sophontteks]

Hurske,

I would classify it as evil -- baring additional information. The paladin is shielding a person from being held responsible for rather serious crimes.

Unless the paladin knows that there won't be a fair trial, doesn't know/believe that the character burned down an inn, or the inn was so corrupt that burning it down was necessary... it an awful act.

Let's say in 2018 you were a soldier. One of your friends gets involved in something and ends up burning down a building. The police come to arrest him. You are carrying a weapon and tell the police they can't arrest your friend. They pull their firearms. The moral act is to step aside, let them arrest your friend, and deal with it in court.

Fair trial, knowledge of a crime. Sounds like the lawful chaotic spectrum, which is completely independent of the good evil spectrum.

A lawful evil creature would be following its alignment turning his friend into the authorities. As would a lawful good or lawful neutral.

But a chaotic good person or neutral good would be following their alignment by disrespecting the authority. "He's my friend you can't take him."

[Lunali]

A lawful evil creature would be following its alignment turning his friend into the authorities. As would a lawful good or lawful neutral.

Assuming the code\sense of honor\etc that they follow requires following the laws of the land. Depending on their code they may be required to refuse to give up their friend instead.

[sophontteks]

Assuming the code\sense of honor\etc that they follow requires following the laws of the land. Depending on their code they may be required to refuse to give up their friend instead.
You're right. I generally think of it as people who naturally tend to follow rules and laws but surely there are those who strictly follow a specific set of laws and no other.

[Davrix]

This is exactly why I write out my oaths when I make any sort of paladin in 5th so I know exactly how to interpret them. And for those saying you cant be a good paladin doing the oath of conquest. I've done it for the past as a LG one ever sense the first UA for it came out. You just have to be smart about it.

In this situation however and someone correct me if I am wrong but it just says he's good aligned. Is he lawful good? Chaotic? This will be a key factor.

But lets assume a few things and if I make wrong assumptions please correct me.

The person in question burnt down the place after being driven out. Was the fighting rigged in some way, was he cheating or were the town's people just upset their fighter lost and a bunch of gold lost.? These details are important to the situation.

Lets Assume then that the town was upset they lost money and this was why they drove him out, not wanting to pay him.
- While the players response is not in the good realm it was a reaction based on a unjust response. You could argue payback to sore looser.

Now lets go move to the current situation of the guards. If the above is true the paladin can correctly argue that they are trying to arrest a man that simply responded to a bad situation and ask if all the towns people who attacked him are being tried for unlawful actions taken against the player as well? If not well this arrest is a farce and he warns them that he will defend his friend till his last breath (Make it intimidating you are a conquest here)

This is the more lawful good solution.

The Chaotic - is he doesn't abide by the laws of this petty town. They broke a deal because they lost a fight. if they cannot take the price of such dishonor then he will show you what true fear is and that they should run now or he will leave each of them a scar to remember this farce of justice by and what dishonorable actions bring. (Don't kill any of them and re-enforce that idea to the party as well)

[Mikeavelli]

I just wanted to point out that this is almost exactly the situation Conan the Barbarian gets into in the story Queen of the Black Coast:


Well, last night in a tavern, a captain in the king's guard offered violence to the sweetheart of a young solider, who naturally ran him through. But it seems there is some cursed law against killing guardsmen, and the boy and his girl fled away. It was bruited about that I was seen with them, and so today I was haled into court, and a judge asked me where the lad had gone. I replied that since he was a friend of mine, I could not betray him. Then the court waxed wroth, and the judge talked a great deal about my duty to the state, and society, and other things I did not understand, and bade me tell where my friend had flown. By this time I was becoming wrathful myself, for I had explained my position.

But I choked my ire and held my peace, and the judge squalled that I had shown contempt for the court, and that I should be hurled into a dungeon to rot until I betrayed my friend. So then, seeing that they were all mad, I drew my sword and cleft the judge's skull; then I cut my way out of the court, and seeing the high constable's stallion tied near by, I rode for the wharfs, where I thought to find a ship bound for foreign parts.

In any case, it's very clearly chaotic, and also evil unless the Paladin affirmatively knows that the guards in this city are corrupt in some way.

[jas61292]

I think this is fairly clear cut evil.

A lot of people like disregarding evil actions as chaotic because they are breaking the law, and "law" is the root of "lawful." But this really has nothing do do with it at all. Lawful and Chaotic are not about respecting the laws. They are about a person's general outlook on things, and while a lawful person might have high respect for laws, they might also derive their lawfulness from a sense of duty to a particular authority, and not recognize other laws or rules outside of that. A chaotic person on the other hand is not one who has no respect for the laws. Being chaotic does not mean "screw the law, I do what I want." It is about freedom and your own conscience. If the laws do a good job of guarding the freedoms and other morals a chaotic person holds close, they will would be just as likely to protect and defend them as a lawful person.

All this is to say that "it was against the law" is not a reason to regard an act as chaotic. The simple fact is that a large number of laws are in place to prevent acts that are evil. Killing is against the law, but murder is evil, not chaotic. Theft is against the law, and, once again, it is evil, not chaotic. Yes, that is right, theft is evil. It is causing misfortune to others for your own benefit. Yes, like with killing, mitigating circumstances can certainly cause it to not be, but it is certainly a default of evil. This is probably true for a large number of things that are against the law. The laws are not there because they represent the values of lawfulness. They are mostly there because they are designed to enforce the morals (good - evil scale) of the society.

Overall, the lawful/chaotic-ness of an action has no bearing on whether it represents good or evil. It is not some scale where being more chaotic makes it less evil. In this particular case, as I said at the top, it is pretty clear cut evil. Attacking others and potentially killing them, when they are not posing an actual threat to you, is evil. The specific circumstances make it even worse as you are doing evil in order to defend someone who committed evil acts from facing the consequences. I honestly don't see any other interpretation here.

Oh, and while Tanarii is right that really, alignments in 5e are just descriptors of typical behavior, not descriptors of particular actions, my experience tells me that, in a less mechanical sense:


If you have to ask seriously whether something is evil, it probably is.

[hamishspence]

Did the guy the paladin's defending actually do something evil? I got the impression he was attacked by a mob (after winning an arena fight) - fought his way out using fire (without killing anybody, but destroying the arena and the inn the arena was in) - and is being apprehended "for arson" on the orders of the corrupt mobsters who don't like that he escaped them.

I could be wrong of course - but the impression I got was that the arrest was not, at its core, rooted in good motives, but in mob wanting revenge.

[sophontteks]

I think this is fairly clear cut evil.

A lot of people like disregarding evil actions as chaotic because they are breaking the law, and "law" is the root of "lawful." But this really has nothing do do with it at all. Lawful and Chaotic are not about respecting the laws. They are about a person's general outlook on things, and while a lawful person might have high respect for laws, they might also derive their lawfulness from a sense of duty to a particular authority, and not recognize other laws or rules outside of that. A chaotic person on the other hand is not one who has no respect for the laws. Being chaotic does not mean "screw the law, I do what I want." It is about freedom and your own conscience. If the laws do a good job of guarding the freedoms and other morals a chaotic person holds close, they will would be just as likely to protect and defend them as a lawful person.

All this is to say that "it was against the law" is not a reason to regard an act as chaotic. The simple fact is that a large number of laws are in place to prevent acts that are evil. Killing is against the law, but murder is evil, not chaotic. Theft is against the law, and, once again, it is evil, not chaotic. Yes, that is right, theft is evil. It is causing misfortune to others for your own benefit. Yes, like with killing, mitigating circumstances can certainly cause it to not be, but it is certainly a default of evil. This is probably true for a large number of things that are against the law. The laws are not there because they represent the values of lawfulness. They are mostly there because they are designed to enforce the morals (good - evil scale) of the society.

Overall, the lawful/chaotic-ness of an action has no bearing on whether it represents good or evil. It is not some scale where being more chaotic makes it less evil. In this particular case, as I said at the top, it is pretty clear cut evil. Attacking others and potentially killing them, when they are not posing an actual threat to you, is evil. The specific circumstances make it even worse as you are doing evil in order to defend someone who committed evil acts from facing the consequences. I honestly don't see any other interpretation here.

Oh, and while Tanarii is right that really, alignments in 5e are just descriptors of typical behavior, not descriptors of particular actions, my experience tells me that, in a less mechanical sense:
If we cut away everything and just look at this bare bones. A group of people have come to take your friend away. Doesn't matter who they are. Doesn't matter who they are affiliated with. Defending your friend is not an evil act.

Their alignment, the actions of your friend, their stance with the law. None of that matters. Defending your friend is not an evil act.

What is the precise thing that makes this instance of defending your friend evil? Sounds like a pretty good action to me.

[Hurske]

Thanks for all the replies everyone, definitely looking at things with a slightly different angle. And have some new insights to add in how I would deal with this kind of situation if it ever happens again.

So short story, the players bribed the guards. So they are still wanted by the mayor for the crime. But it is true, the fighter was ran out because of a mob, he didn't cheat, he beat the local champion fair and square and was paid for it. If he ever goes back to the town (he initially talked with the party to settle the matter with the mayor, but stopped because of time issues). I would have this settled as a form of self defense, or I could just actually make the mayor corrupt. Will decide if they ever go back to the region.

[jas61292]

If we cut away everything and just look at this bare bones. A group of people have come to take your friend away. Doesn't matter who they are. Doesn't matter who they are affiliated with. Defending your friend is not an evil act.

Their alignment, the actions of your friend, their stance with the law. None of that matters. Defending your friend is not an evil act.

What is the precise thing that makes this instance of defending your friend evil? Sounds like a pretty good action to me.

Except you cannot eliminate the circumstances. That completely changes things. Saying "a group of people have come to take your friend away" is the entirety of what needs to be considered is equating attacking a policeman arresting a criminal with attacking criminals attempting to kidnap your friend. That is absurd.

In this circumstance, the one character committed a crime. And a bad one at that. Going along with what I mentioned in my last post, it doesn't matter whether no one was hurt or not when he burned down the inn. Claiming that it does matter is indicating that only physical harm is evil, which is just patently untrue. By burning down the inn, you just ruined the livelihood of a person and their family, and the reason it was done was said to be as a distraction. That's not necessary self defense. It is evil. Maybe not high up the evil scale, but evil nonetheless.

Furthermore, as has been noted, the NPCs were not attempting to kill the character, just arrest them. And it was also said that this was not a life or death situation because they believed the punishment would be imprisonment and rebuilding the inn. Responding with force in general in such a circumstance, in order to defend the evildoer, is leaning evil at best. I could see someone argue that it was acceptable if the greater circumstances meant that screwing with the parties current quest by going to prison would allow bad stuff to happen or something. But if it is just a "I don't want to face the consequences" kinda thing, that is its no excuse whatsoever, and the act is slightly evil. And if the force used to escape is lethal... well, then its not even a question. Evil.

[Lunali]

My general impression reading this thread is that the people that see the act as evil don't see law vs chaos as being nearly as important as good vs evil. Despite it being at the heart of arguably the greatest war of the planes.

[Ganymede]

Why draw swords then?

Just have two walk up to him and arrest him.


It is really difficult to knock someone unconscious without a weapon.

[Finney]

Now to my question. The paladin player, who is good, said he will attack the guards if they try to get the player.

His reason is that since they drew blades first, they are now enemies, even though they are here for a just reason, because of the crime by the other player.

If a fight did break out (it didn't the player bribed the guards), and the paladin did attack or kill the guards, would this have been evil?

I think there is a more important question.

Do you want alignment to drive and define the actions of the characters at your table? Or do you want their actions to define their alignment?

The second option will probably make for a more harmonious table, as you can resolve scenarios like you described by simply changing the character's alignment on their character sheet to match the actions they take in the game.

The first option is how the game was played in earlier editions and if it is enforced rigorously, it doesn't generally end well for the players or the dungeon master.

[rmnimoc]

I'm going to be honest, if they didn't kill the guards then I really don't see what about this is evil. Maybe burning down the inn, but desperate times call for desperate measures and it was apparently as a distraction. Doesn't matter though, because the focal point here is the paladin. So, let's just look at the paladin's actions.

He refused to let the guards take his party member and was willing to back that refusal with force. There are three major ways to determine morality. You can look at the reasoning behind the action, the action itself, or the consequences of the action.

So first: the reasoning. Why did the paladin do it? Well, from how it looks, the paladin resisted the arrest of his party member to protect him. Well, looking at the best guide we've got for what is good and what is evil (PHB p124, Ideals) this is a Good reason ("our lot is to lay down our lives in the defense of others", "it is each person's responsibility to make the most happiness for the whole tribe"). His intentions were to protect a member of his party (tribe) at the potential cost of his life. If we look at this act solely through the lens of why it was done, this is a Good act.

Next comes the act itself. What did he do? Well, the paladin told the guards that if they attempted to take his party member by force, he would attack the guards. Unfortunately while the PHB gives us a good guide on what motivations are good and which are evil, it kind of fails here. So we've got to find out own definition. Google defines 'evil' as "profoundly immoral and malevolent" or "harmful or tending to harm". So, did the paladin's act cause harm? It doesn't appear to have. Was it unfair or unjust? That's harder to answer. It's also more related to the motivations of the act, so it's not particularly relevant here. Purely warning the guards off then, is not an evil action judging solely by the act itself. That said, the question wasn't about what the paladin did, but what he could have done. If he had fought the guards, then he would have likely caused them harm. Harming an individual is, ignoring all motivations or consequences, an evil act. Had the paladin harmed the guards then, he would have committed an evil act by the framework of a purely action-based morality.

The consequences. What effects did his action have on the world? Well, the first consequence is that his friend was protected. That's good. The next consequence is that the guards are harmed. That's not good. Honestly though it's all but impossible to judge the consequentalist morality of an action shortly after it happens. If that party member helps save the world, it's Good. If that party member helps kill the world, it's obviously Evil. It's very much a sliding scale. The more Good this eventually leads to, the more Good the initial act and the same for Evil. Simple enough.

So, it should have become fairly obvious by now that we can't judge this act solely by its consequences because he don't know them yet. If we judge acts solely by the acts themselves, every adventurer constantly commits evil acts, so this one isn't really worth note. The only way I can see to judge this act in a way both possible at the moment and consistent with the world of the game is to judge the motivations of the act. The paladin did what he thought was necessary to protect someone. That is solidly a good act according to the player's handbook.

Of course if he did this specifically to hurt the guards and not to help his party member then he's just an evil jerk.

[Tanarii]

I think there is a more important question.

Do you want alignment to drive and define the actions of the characters at your table? Or do you want their actions to define their alignment?

The second option will probably make for a more harmonious table, as you can resolve scenarios like you described by simply changing the character's alignment on their character sheet to match the actions they take in the game.

The first option is how the game was played in earlier editions and if it is enforced rigorously, it doesn't generally end well for the players or the dungeon master.I disagree. 5e Alignment, used as a motivation along with the other four personality traits, to inform player decision making is a fantastic RP tool. The player alone needs to decide which Alignment they want to use as a motivation, and they get to decide how that one motivation interacts with the other facets of their personality.

Table arguments happen when it's used descriptively. Because who decides? Unless it's the player alone, its almost inevitable that there will be a disagreement over whether or not the overall behavior of a character matches one alignments typical behavior or another.

And that's before others bring not-5e ideas about Alignment to the table, and try to impose their judgement of a PCs behavior based. Like individual actions carrying moral / social attitude weight. Or their own personal definitions of Lawful, Good, Chaotic, or Evil that have nothing to do with the 5e typical behavior descriptions.

[Ganymede]

I think there is a more important question.

Do you want alignment to drive and define the actions of the characters at your table? Or do you want their actions to define their alignment?

For me, alignment is just another way to flesh out how a player intends to roleplay a PC. In that way, it is the same as Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws.

I let my players freely determine these features of their PCs, but then I expect them to hew to them at least on a rudimentary level. If players are going to change their PC's personality traits on a whim, what is the point of even developing them in the first place?

Don't get me wrong: sometimes a PC's personality does not crystallize right away, and personalities can evolve over time, but they still have to be coherent people (unless the PC is actually insane, that is).

[Yogibear41]

Does the Paladin know the other character burnt down the building?

Did the character that burnt the building down do it with other people inside or did he know it was empty and no one would be hurt?

If said character set fire to a building with people in it that is most definitely evil even if they all made it out alive. If said Paladin then prevented said character from facing his justice then that would be Evil because he is protecting evil. The act was Chaotic either way. If the Paladin was LG he should have turned his own companion in unless there was some specific reason that turning him in would lead to greater suffering of innocents or lives lost, etc.

To be honest even if he was LE or LN, after reading the oath, seems like it should favor the Law factor anyway.

Just another example of a player breaking his characters RP/Backstory for the benefit of the player. If you want your character to be able to do whatever he wants whenever he wants to do it be CE or CN.

[hamishspence]

If said character set fire to a building with people in it that is most definitely evil even if they all made it out alive.

The impression I got was that the "setting fire" was a byproduct of "using fire spells to escape from a mob".

Something like:

Mob closes in on adventurer
Adventurer yells "Back off!" and blasts out a burning hands.
Mob backs off. Everybody, mob and adventurer, notice that part of the building is now beginning to burn.
Everybody leaves building.



The act was Chaotic either way. If the Paladin was LG he should have turned his own companion in unless there was some specific reason that turning him in would lead to greater suffering of innocents or lives lost, etc.


Even LG people can be big subscribers to "personal loyalty" and "not abandoning one of their people in the face of the enemy":

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html

[Davrix]

Thanks for all the replies everyone, definitely looking at things with a slightly different angle. And have some new insights to add in how I would deal with this kind of situation if it ever happens again.

So short story, the players bribed the guards. So they are still wanted by the mayor for the crime. But it is true, the fighter was ran out because of a mob, he didn't cheat, he beat the local champion fair and square and was paid for it. If he ever goes back to the town (he initially talked with the party to settle the matter with the mayor, but stopped because of time issues). I would have this settled as a form of self defense, or I could just actually make the mayor corrupt. Will decide if they ever go back to the region.

Case closed on this then. The player who set fire to the Inn did nothing wrong. He participated in a fair sporting match. Won and was then attacked by the towns people without provocation. Did he cause collateral damage in the scuffle to get away? yes but in the end its the town at fault, not the player and the guards, while pretty damn dumb are just following orders. As long as the paladin doesn't kill them (even if he is conquest as I said leave them knocked out with a few good scars to teach them that stupid doesn't exempt you from punishment) You have no evil l act on any of the party members side of things.

[Tanarii]

You have no evil l act on any of the party members side of things.
Especially since there is no such thing as an "evil act" in 5e. The closest thing is one singular instance of a "not-good" act, and even the morality of that is then addressed as an overall behavior. Not a single act.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

i would say that if they subdued the guards non-lethally then it wouldnt be evil, just chaotic. if they ended up fighting and killing them then it would be evil for sure

This. The character is capable of dealing with the situation nonlethally. Even disregarding any other questions, deliberately killing innocent people when you could still accomplish your goals without doing so is about the very definition of evil.

[Davrix]

Especially since there is no such thing as an "evil act" in 5e. The closest thing is one singular instance of a "not-good" act, and even the morality of that is then addressed as an overall behavior. Not a single act.

Ok call me curious. How are there no "evil acts?" in 5th. I mean if someone murders a child or rapes a women, how would you classifies these things. I mean burning the village to the ground with everyone alive in the houses would also be a pretty dark thing.

[Tanarii]

Ok call me curious. How are there no "evil acts?" in 5th. I mean if someone murders a child or rapes a women, how would you classifies these things. I mean burning the village to the ground with everyone alive in the houses would also be a pretty dark thing.
5e alignment is about associated typical overall behaviors. Not a specific act.

A given act may be evil or good in common parlance, but that's not the same thing as being a Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil or Chaotic Good act. It's the overall combination of acts, the typical behavior, that matters for Alignment. Whether you choose to use it as a role playing tool / motivation (like personality traits), or descriptive in hindsight.

[lordorinko]

Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good.

Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. Many celestials, some cloud giants, and most gnomes are neutral good.

Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons, many elves, and unicorns are chaotic good.

Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral.

Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don't take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Lizardfolk, most druids, and many humans are neutral.

Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else. Many barbarians and rogues, and some bards, are chaotic neutral.

Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are Lawful evil.

Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Many drow, some cloud giants, and yugoloths are neutraI evil.

Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.

by this explanations the options of him being CE, NE, LE gets eliminated directly, CN is also eliminated since he was protecting someone who was dear to him from getting arrested (although he burned the inn no lives were taken and townsfolk were wrong in the first place for driving him out of town) N is very close to that reaction but it can be NG or G too in my opinion. I'm also DMing two games right now and if you ask me i would say it's a CG move but situations like these are mostly in DM's discretion

[Davrix]

5e alignment is about associated typical overall behaviors. Not a specific act.

A given act may be evil or good in common parlance, but that's not the same thing as being a Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil or Chaotic Good act. It's the overall combination of acts, the typical behavior, that matters for Alignment. Whether you choose to use it as a role playing tool / motivation (like personality traits), or descriptive in hindsight.

ah I see what your getting out, seems like something I already do anyway. Its the line of thought a normally good character under the right circumstances and environment could be pushed to do an evil thing in the heat of the moment and while he has to live with that act it doesn't have to define him(or it could) but that one act doesn't just become his new alignment. That and as we know from real life. Mistakes happen based on perception of what is right and wrong at the time all the time.

[Amdy_vill]

Evil no. A little neutral many a bit chaotic. This shounds like a NN NG or CG type choice.

[Requilac]

Why does it matter whether the act was evil or not? Evil is really a subjective term in the first place, and really a matter of perspective. Even in D&D cosmology what is an evil and good action is debatable, hence why this arguement is going on. This argument is a matter of opinion, and there is no way to determine who is correct, despite how strong one’s opinions might be. I personally can’t see how it wouldn’t be an evil action, but why does that even matter? This is D&D, not real life after all.

What you need to be asking is whether this breaks the paladin’s oath or not. And considering that said person is a conquest Paladin, murdering guards who try to force them to submit is well within the tenets of their oath. This isn’t against the paladin’s philosophy of conquest at all. All the questions you need are answered.

You argue on and on forever about whether it was an evil action or not, but does it actually matter? Change the paladin’s alignment, or don’t. Unless you have to collect a cache of talismans of ultimate evil to fight an army of rakshasas then it will not matter at all.

It doesn’t break the paladin’s oath of conquest. They might change an alignment. The only difference at the end of a day is what that meaningless pair of capital letters in the upper right corner of the character sheet is. This isn’t 3.5 addition where alignment dictates the effects of a lot of features and spells.

[Hawkstar]

I see a lot of people conflating Good and Lawful. There is absolutely nothing compelling the player characters (Or anyone else) to respect the authority of the mayor or his goons, no matter what damage they may or may not have caused. If the guards wanted to escalate to a fight to arrest the arsonist as their Lawful Imperative, they're free t do so. But the Paladin is free to defend his ally with lethal force, regardless of whether it's the King's Men or a bunch of drunk hooligans.

As a Paladin of Conquest, in fact, he is compelled to use his own force of arms to make the guards submit, even if it means killing some of them. The guards are the one initiating violence here - despite what some silly dude with a funny hat says, they have no moral standing to assault and kidnap the fighter on a cosmic scale. Adventuring parties (Or anyone else for that matter, but most lack power) are under no moral obligation to respect any nation or land's Laws. It doesn't matter if that nation is the Dark Empire of Morgoth, or Shining Kingdom of Arcadia.

[jas61292]

I see a lot of people conflating Good and Lawful. There is absolutely nothing compelling the player characters (Or anyone else) to respect the authority of the mayor or his goons, no matter what damage they may or may not have caused. If the guards wanted to escalate to a fight to arrest the arsonist as their Lawful Imperative, they're free t do so. But the Paladin is free to defend his ally with lethal force, regardless of whether it's the King's Men or a bunch of drunk hooligans.

As a Paladin of Conquest, in fact, he is compelled to use his own force of arms to make the guards submit, even if it means killing some of them. The guards are the one initiating violence here - despite what some silly dude with a funny hat says, they have no moral standing to assault and kidnap the fighter on a cosmic scale. Adventuring parties (Or anyone else for that matter, but most lack power) are under no moral obligation to respect any nation or land's Laws. It doesn't matter if that nation is the Dark Empire of Morgoth, or Shining Kingdom of Arcadia.

Lawful and Laws are not the same thing. Most laws are more about good and evil than law and chaos. That may not be intuitive, but its true. You don't outlaw murder because murder weakens the structure of society. You outlaw murder because it is bad and evil. In most cases, following laws is less about being lawful and more about simply having the same morals as the people in charge of the society.

Saying that its cool to use lethal force when it is completely unnecessary is supporting evil. Its true that you are not obligated to follow laws. But this does not justifies your actions. And yes, being a Paladin of Conquest may encourage you to act a certain way. But there is a good reason it is frequently said that it is very hard to be a Paladin of Conquest without being evil.

[sophontteks]

Lawful and Laws are not the same thing. Most laws are more about good and evil than law and chaos. That may not be intuitive, but its true. You don't outlaw murder because murder weakens the structure of society. You outlaw murder because it is bad and evil. In most cases, following laws is less about being lawful and more about simply having the same morals as the people in charge of the society.

Saying that its cool to use lethal force when it is completely unnecessary is supporting evil. Its true that you are not obligated to follow laws. But this does not justifies your actions. And yes, being a Paladin of Conquest may encourage you to act a certain way. But there is a good reason it is frequently said that it is very hard to be a Paladin of Conquest without being evil.
Saying that the only evil people can kill is silly.
Good does not mean pacifist.
Disrespecting local laws is not evil.
Defending your friend is not evil.

I agree with you. If the law is don't kill, and you kill for no cause, just because, thats evil, but that is not the case here. The case here is lawman wants to take the persons friend away.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While it's true that individual acts are neither Good nor Evil in 5e, I think that we can safely use it when speaking more generally:

"X is an evil act" == "If someone habitually defaults to X, they best fit the Evil alignment descriptor" or "If someone habitually defaults to X, they're probably Evil"

and similar for good. So a single instance of X isn't enough, but if the person has that as their default setting, they're probably evil.

There are some actions that, if performed knowingly and willingly, are hard to square with a Good alignment. Things so far beyond the pale that, while not determinative, are pretty darn damning. I'd put knowing soul-destruction up there (along with things like rape and genocide). The same does not hold in reverse--even Evil people can be self-sacrificing (for example) occasionally. They don't usually make a habit of it, and usually have an ulterior motive, but Evil can do "good deeds" much easier than Good can justify doing "evil deeds" (meaning deeds usually associated with evil/good people).

But then again, I don't play with alignment as anything more than a private decision for each player that I don't want to know about (having removed all alignment mechanics from the game), so I'm not the best one to talk here.

[JoeJ]

Lawful and Laws are not the same thing. Most laws are more about good and evil than law and chaos. That may not be intuitive, but its true. You don't outlaw murder because murder weakens the structure of society. You outlaw murder because it is bad and evil. In most cases, following laws is less about being lawful and more about simply having the same morals as the people in charge of the society.

That's not most laws, it's just the laws most people think of first. Most laws are about things like the rules of driving, how to fill out tax declarations, and which forms must be filed to import various products.

[Tanarii]

ah I see what your getting out, seems like something I already do anyway. Its the line of thought a normally good character under the right circumstances and environment could be pushed to do an evil thing in the heat of the moment and while he has to live with that act it doesn't have to define him(or it could) but that one act doesn't just become his new alignment. That and as we know from real life. Mistakes happen based on perception of what is right and wrong at the time all the time.
Yes. Well said.

No matter which way you use 5e alignment (to drive roleplaying moving forward, or defined by prior behavior), all characters already have a "breaking their typical behavior" trait in terms of the Flaw. That's usually something that can easily come into conflict with or override other personality traits, as well as the characters normal moral and social attitudes.

The Bond might well cause that to happen too. Especially if the DM uses it against the player in a particularly nasty way, equivalent to going after their parents or siblings. It might well trigger an extreme out of normal character's moral and social attitudes reaction.

Edit: Which is why Tenets are more specific. Paladins can still Fall From Grace. It's just not based on a single Evil action any more.

[KorvinStarmast]

In the crusades the Byzantine people wanted to be neutral. They believed that killing was a sin, and thus a holy war was an oxymoron. BUT, they still killed people all the time. They just felt that it was a sin.

Thats the idea behind good essentially. In this fantasy world penalizing a good player for killing is far, far too harsh. Death and killing are the reality of their world. People keep forgetting that D&D world isn't 21st century western civilization.
FWIW: the reality of what town guards and armed men were in the medieval setting, as opposed to professional police forces, is like comparing a cub scout to an astronaut. The assumption that the town guard was bribed or behaving for ulterior motives was usually a good one. (Likewise the case for any number of lawmen in the 19th century in the American West).


Do clerics even need to worship a god in 5E? Yes, as a general case, unless the DM takes the DMG guidance on page 13 and has clerics following Forces and Philosophies for Divine Power/Spells. It's an exception, not the general rule. See the "how to roll up a cleric" section ... but it's not an absolute requirement.

I am pretty sure that was a marketing decision, but that said, in the original game gods were mostly off stage, and Clerics got their powers from "somewhere" as lawful characters. So you might say that not having a cleric have to have a god is very old school.

[guachi]

Regarding the arson, I looked up Penal Law for the state of New York and the burning of the inn would likely be classified as Arson in the Second Degree as it fulfills the following qualifications:

1. You intentionally damage a building by fire or by causing an explosion
2. The building or vehicle was occupied at the time that you caused the fire or explosion, and
3. You had reason to believe that the building was occupied.

This is a serious crime that carries a minimum five year sentence up to 25 years.

The mob that drove the PCs out of town would be guilty of either Menacing in the Third Degree or Menacing in the Second Degree. The former carries a sentence of up to three months and the latter a sentence up to one year.

Drawing a weapon on the peace officers would also be Second Degree Menacing.

So the arson is a far more serious offense than that carried out by the mob.

Is it evil? Capturing someone who committed a serious felony like burning an inn would be the kind of thing I'd use as a plot hook for an adventure. In fact, I could see the PCs being the peace officers in this case.

Arson is certainly in violation of the law. It's not a good act. From the information I have, I'd say that, yes, it's an evil act.

[Hawkstar]

Regarding the arson, I looked up Penal Law for the state of New York and the burning of the inn would likely be classified as Arson in the Second Degree as it fulfills the following qualifications:

1. You intentionally damage a building by fire or by causing an explosion
2. The building or vehicle was occupied at the time that you caused the fire or explosion, and
3. You had reason to believe that the building was occupied.

This is a serious crime that carries a minimum five year sentence up to 25 years.

The mob that drove the PCs out of town would be guilty of either Menacing in the Third Degree or Menacing in the Second Degree. The former carries a sentence of up to three months and the latter a sentence up to one year.

Drawing a weapon on the peace officers would also be Second Degree Menacing.

So the arson is a far more serious offense than that carried out by the mob.

Is it evil? Capturing someone who committed a serious felony like burning an inn would be the kind of thing I'd use as a plot hook for an adventure. In fact, I could see the PCs being the peace officers in this case.

Arson is certainly in violation of the law. It's not a good act. From the information I have, I'd say that, yes, it's an evil act.You're conflating Law and Good. The player characters do not answer to the State of New York's authority or judgements.

[jas61292]

That's not most laws, it's just the laws most people think of first. Most laws are about things like the rules of driving, how to fill out tax declarations, and which forms must be filed to import various products.

True. Saying "most" was a mistake on my part. However, I do still believe that it is generally true that the purpose of laws is more about morals (good/evil) than actual lawfulness. They are a way of codifying morals. You don't make a law simply because you like order. You make a law because there is something specific you want society to do or not do. The specific details of the laws, including their intricacies and the punishments for breaking them, are where the lawful/chaotic axis better shows itself.


You're conflating Law and Good. The player characters do not answer to the State of New York's authority or judgements.

I think you are the one that is confusing alignments. A character doesn't get to decide what is good and what is not. Neither does an authority, true. But it is not relative or varying. Arson is not evil because New York State says it is. It is evil because it is the intentional destruction of other people's property, which causes immense harm, physical, financial, and/or emotional.

[Hawkstar]

If burning down a tavern was Evil, there'd be no Good adventurers in the world.

[sophontteks]

True. Saying "most" was a mistake on my part. However, I do still believe that it is generally true that the purpose of laws is more about morals (good/evil) than actual lawfulness. They are a way of codifying morals. You don't make a law simply because you like order. You make a law because there is something specific you want society to do or not do. The specific details of the laws, including their intricacies and the punishments for breaking them, are where the lawful/chaotic axis better shows itself.



I think you are the one that is confusing alignments. A character doesn't get to decide what is good and what is not. Neither does an authority, true. But it is not relative or varying. Arson is not evil because New York State says it is. It is evil because it is the intentional destruction of other people's property, which causes immense harm, physical, financial, and/or emotional.

But the character in question didn't commit arson!!!

And is highly questionable if arson is evil. A pheonix is neutral and commits arson 24/7. Its from the plane of fire. Its not evil. It just doesn't follow local laws on arson.

[dehro]

I find it highly amusing that people are arguing over jurisdiction in such a case.

if Pratchett has taught me anything, the rule of hot pursuit would apply (and not just because this guy's an arsonist).
Arguing over jurisdiction in a world of vaguely medieval with a lot of fantasy setting is ludicrous... as is the notion of holding the guards in such a situation to the procedural standards of modern day police in a first world nation (you'd be surprised if you knew just how untrue some of the statements about the rules for them I've seen here are)
Ultimately it's the call of the DM.

as for the paladin.. he's interfering with lawful authority in pursuit of a criminal. (the guy may have been unfairly treated by the mob who chased him out, but that does not excuse burning down a tavern on purpose... for that, the paladin should have turned him in himself).
They're there to arrest him, not execute him. it stands to reason that there would follow some sort of judgement, by trial, fire, combat or what have you. in that context, the paladin could have stood by his "friend"... at a later time.

I don't know if the oath taken by the paladin changes things considerably, as I'm unfamiliar with it.

I would suggest, if you haven't read it already, to pick up Terry Pratchett's "the fift elephant".. it's one of his best, and also relevant to this situation... almost in its entirety

[hamishspence]

(the guy may have been unfairly treated by the mob who chased him out, but that does not excuse burning down a tavern on purpose... for that, the paladin should have turned him in himself).

That's the question - did he burn down the tavern on purpose as revenge, or accidentally as part of the process of escaping from the mob?

For that matter, was the paladin present for the fight and the escape? If he was, he may know whether it was "accidental in self-defence" or "revenge".

[Mystral]

I made it a point, several times. That the guards where there to arrest the player, and bring have back to the town for judgment. They were not going to kill the player.

Judgement for what, for defending himself after he fairly beat another fighter and got chased around?

This town is obviously chaotic and has no rules a LG paladin should need to abide to. If there even is a court, it would be a kangaroo court one.

[dehro]

That's the question - did he burn down the tavern on purpose as revenge, or accidentally as part of the process of escaping from the mob?

For that matter, was the paladin present for the fight and the escape? If he was, he may know whether it was "accidental in self-defence" or "revenge".
My interpretation of teh OP's wording was that he did it on purpose. if not, that's again something to be determined during the judgement...


Judgement for what, for defending himself after he fairly beat another fighter and got chased around?

This town is obviously chaotic and has no rules a LG paladin should need to abide to. If there even is a court, it would be a kangaroo court one.

I would accept that if the mob that chased him out was led by the town rulers themselves.. since we don't know that to be the case, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. A mob led by drunken people who are angry they lost a bet on their champion is not necessarily representative of the town, its authorities or legal system.

[Maxilian]

It depends, how much does the Paladin knows? Does he know that the PC burned down the inn? (i imagine he does), but i also imagine he knows that the other PC was being accused of what? being too good in the ring for the townsfolk taste?

To be fair, i wouldn't even blame the guy who burned down the inn, he was being followed by a crowd that looked like wanted to kill him, so he just made a well put diversion (and got a little pay back for those bad losers)

[Maxilian]

I would accept that if the mob that chased him out was led by the town rulers themselves.. since we don't know that to be the case, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. A mob led by drunken people who are angry they lost a bet on their champion is not necessarily representative of the town, its authorities or legal system.

By the OP it was the whole town (small towns getting to rally everyone is not that hard), so to be fair, at least as we see it, they were at fault.

[dehro]

yeah.. the whole town notion sounds like a bit of a stretch to me.. street merchant peddlers? wet nurses? the town cleric? elderly people? children? the rando beggar on crutches? the town magistrate?.. if common sense rules out at least a couple of those categories, then also the legal authorities should be either explicitly present or counted as not part of the mob.
that's just my view of course.. the people around the table are the only ones, the DM primarily, who know the dynamic of the setting, of the event and of that particular village/town.
My feel is that if the guards explicitly tried to arrest him rather than just mowing him down with arrows, then maybe there is some sort of rule of law, however skewed and corrupted. I would expect a paladin to try that route first.
Did the Paladin have reason to believe a trial would have been unfair or have an unlawful/unfair outcome? Then yes, he would have done right to stand by his friend. Did the Paladin just not want to leave his friend behind and use the "self defense" as an excuse to sort of talk himself out of following the rule of law, then no, he is doing something that if I were the DM would put him in trouble with other members of his order/church, and possibly with his deity.

[Hawkstar]

I find it highly amusing that people are arguing over jurisdiction in such a case.

if Pratchett has taught me anything, the rule of hot pursuit would apply (and not just because this guy's an arsonist).
Arguing over jurisdiction in a world of vaguely medieval with a lot of fantasy setting is ludicrous... as is the notion of holding the guards in such a situation to the procedural standards of modern day police in a first world nation (you'd be surprised if you knew just how untrue some of the statements about the rules for them I've seen here are)
Ultimately it's the call of the DM.

as for the paladin.. he's interfering with lawful authority in pursuit of a criminal. (the guy may have been unfairly treated by the mob who chased him out, but that does not excuse burning down a tavern on purpose... for that, the paladin should have turned him in himself).
They're there to arrest him, not execute him. it stands to reason that there would follow some sort of judgement, by trial, fire, combat or what have you. in that context, the paladin could have stood by his "friend"... at a later time.

I don't know if the oath taken by the paladin changes things considerably, as I'm unfamiliar with it.

I would suggest, if you haven't read it already, to pick up Terry Pratchett's "the fift elephant".. it's one of his best, and also relevant to this situation... almost in its entirety
Interfering with Authority is not Evil. People are not actually beholden to any form of authority, even if Lawful people believe they are, and can't distinguish between Nonlawful and Nongood.

The guards pursuing the player character may have legal authority to arrest the fighter, but the party is not obligated to respect or acknowledge that authority. The Guards may have a moral obligation to seek compensation for the tavern owner or seek retribution against the arsonist, but the Paladin has the moral obligation to protect his friend, and keep their adventure uninterrupted.

[sophontteks]

It doesn't matter at all what the other person did. Its not evil to be friends with people who have done bad things. And its not evil, ever, to defend your friend from harm. That is pretty squarely a good action.

[dehro]

I don't know the tennets of the vow chosen by the paladin, but in my past experience, paladins tend to be the upholders of the law. if they put personal friendships before the rule of law (what law and whether the law is always just remains to be seen of course), they would not be doing their paladin job.
but again, that's just my view and how we've more often than not played paladins around the tables I played at.
in the end, this is all opinions and the specific circumstances are what matters..and we don't quite know them well enough to make a call.
As for people not being beholden to authority.. that sort of clashes with my view of paladins in most settings I've played them (right now we're playing dragonlance, where paladins..or rather, knights, pretty much ARE the authority, so that may colour my views on the matter).

[sophontteks]

All you need to be the authority is the will and a big stick.
Paladins in 5e are not cookie cutter lawful good anyway.

[guachi]

It doesn't matter at all what the other person did. Its not evil to be friends with people who have done bad things. And its not evil, ever, to defend your friend from harm. That is pretty squarely a good action.

Knowingly abetting people who have done something evil is, in my book, evil. In your book, killing peace officers who wish to arrest someone one is always a good act.

Police show up at your door with a warrant to arrest your friend and you think gunning the police down is a good act.

[sophontteks]

Knowingly abetting people who have done something evil is, in my book, evil. In your book, killing peace officers who wish to arrest someone one is always a good act.

Police show up at your door with a warrant to arrest your friend and you think gunning the police down is a good act.
Its not lawful.
Peace officers have a very bad record for civil rights violations. Do you believe these people good? No. Its just that violating law in a global economy is that taboo.

But this is medieval times. And the law is quite a different thing. We are not subject to local laws. Remember that "In your book" is subjective and you are basing it on modern times, not dnd.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It boils down like this for me: Alignment isn't a core requirement when playing a Paladin, but I believe that the tenets of your oath are important when you create your character and role play them out and that choosing a "might makes right, those weaker than me lick my boot" subclass you probably aren't a "good" guy.

What he chose to do in this case is justifiable by his oaths tenets. If those with authority want to pass judgement over his travelling companion, they should be strong enough to do so and if they can't measure up then send someone who can.

Some might view it as Evil. Some might view it as Good, in relation to their own ideals. Murder of a city official carrying out their duty is something most would consider Evil.

However I think that asking if it's Evil is the wrong question though, a better question would be "Is this something that a Paladin who took an Oath of Conquest would be doing" and the answer is yes. Which is why maintaining an Oath of Conquest, in my belief, is difficult to maintain if you're trying to play your character with a Good alignment.

Here's how I reason it: I'm playing a character in SKT. He's a Bounty Hunter by trade using the Blood Hunter class. I've chosen to try and play him as a Chaotic Good character, valuing his friends and allies safety even before his own but criminals and monsters will not be spared even a passing thought.
We made it to the temple where the oracle is kept and found it being assaulted by Barbarians. We approached intending to talk and were immediately attacked, killed them and went on our way. The DM made note of who took the leaders equipment, our ranger decided to wear it as a trophy. We eventually found our way to a spiders lair and found an unconscious woman dressed and tattooed in the same way as the Barbarian's at the door. I reasoned that they were there for her, and their willingness to attack us on sight put them in particularly low opinion state for my character.

I felt the best thing to do for my party was to execute her on the spot. If the other raiders were willing to trespass on sacred grounds to recover her, she obviously supported the Chief and would likely take offense to the ranger parading around with the dead Chiefs equipment.

The decision to kill the captive was not met well initially. My party was taken aback by my decision, the DM (in poor taste, in my opinion) joked that my character was now Chaotic Evil and that I had killed an innocent person. I was offended by this, especially after learning that this person I killed was definitely not innocent (the DM linked an excerpt from the module in defense of his joke that only further solidified my stance on the issue).

Killing a restrained and unconscious person would stereotypically be seen as "Evil" but it's something my Character did to protect his companions. Whether it was actually a Good or Evil decision was irrelevant to me, it was the decision I made that was most closely aligned with my characters Bonds and Ideals. I felt it was a "Good" decision because it kept my party safe and rid the world of someone in support of a violent barbarian.

I'm pretty firmly on the side that your alignment is the goalpost that you try to keep your character's actions within but straying too far from it shifts them accordingly. There are times where a bad decision is a good one to make and when acting Lawful Good is more of a hindrance than help. The characters reasoning is important, the context of the situation is important.

I would start looking twice at your player, and my own character on that same note, if killing people who proved to be any sort of obstacle became the go to decision. In this case it's not something I would call "Evil" given the context, my opinions on a good aligned Conquest Paladin aside.

[Sorlock Master]

Alright, so I got a question for you all on a situation that happened in my last game.

Backstory first, this involves a good Paladin with the oath of conquest.

During downtime after the first arc of my campaign, one of the players did the pit fighting downtime, and got a Complication where the entire town got mad, formed a mob to drive him out of town, after the player beat the towns pit fighting champion.

On his way out, he cast burning hands and burnt down the inn, where the fight ring took place, no one was killed, but the entire building got cooked.

Come a couple hours later in the session, and the group gets ambushed by the captain of the guard and his men, sent by the town, to arrest the player for burning down the inn.

After negotiation failed, the guard lastly told the player to come willingly, or he will take him back by force, at this point all the guard pull their swords.

Now to my question. The paladin player, who is good, said he will attack the guards if they try to get the player.

His reason is that since they drew blades first, they are now enemies, even though they are here for a just reason, because of the crime by the other player.

If a fight did break out (it didn't the player bribed the guards), and the paladin did attack or kill the guards, would this have been evil?

It would be chaotic, not evil. If the paladin had defended his party member, if he had killed them it could be considered evil if and only if the guards; identified themselves, notified the person why they were being arrested, peacefully attempted to arrested the PC, and then were actively resisted.


Is killing cops who are arresting a criminal evil?

Do you really need a thread to see if murdering innocent people who are trying to stop an unapologetic criminal is evil?

Robin Hood was an unapologetic criminal, and the Sherrif of Nottingham's men were trying to arrest him, he kills them. Robin Hood is evil, according to you.


I made it a point, several times. That the guards where there to arrest the player, and bring have back to the town for judgment. They were not going to kill the player.

Then they should have pulled out manicles and grappled him, not swords. Pulling swords is "I want to kill you", Pulling manicles is "I want to restrain you" arresting is restraining not killing.

P.S. Bribing guards is also Chaotic. I would say if the Paladin keeps up the chaotic behavior start shifting his alignment.

[dehro]

Pulling swords is "I want to kill you", Pulling manicles is "I want to restrain you" arresting is restraining not killing.

That's definitely an ideea informed by modern day police. They were facing a proven fighter/magic user (not sure which), who had just burned down a tavern.. before you pull out the manacles, wouldn't you want to make sure he's not going to rearrange your face?
Actually, come to think of it, I don't think any modern day cop would approach someone declared armed and dangerous with handcuffs in hand, rather than his weapon of choice.



P.S. Bribing guards is also Chaotic. I would say if the Paladin keeps up the chaotic behavior start shifting his alignment.
Agreed

[Hurske]

The fighter is an eldritch knight. With the burning down of the inn, this was during my downtime scenes with all the players, so I only spent a few minutes with him, he won the rolls for the fight, I rolled a Complication that resulted in the mob. So the entire scene played out in around 2 minutes.

But I wanted to show him there would be consequences for having the inn burn down, which he completely learned, as he gave away his gold winning, and the rest of his purse to have the guards go back without him. Wasn't the paladin who bribed them.

[Daumon]

In my opinion, the Oath of Conquest seems to completely put aside any of the normal rules a PALADIN of the Old school would follow. So let's start by assuming your players has a OoC Paladin that is NOT of LG alignment. It seems LN or LE are more in keeping with an alignment suited to them. If he selected LG for an Oath of Conquest he is setting himself up to fail either his alignment or his Oath.

The first issue. An LG Paladin would not travel with someone who would burn down an INN either to be spiteful or to cover his escape. The OoC Paladin should have driven this home to the crowd as an Object lesson for daring to challenge his Party. The Paladin should also have words with that party member about taking such actions at random and not as a campaign to enforce their will on the locals. Such random and pointless acts could tarnishes his honor and that of his Order.

Second Issue. Yes, the Captain of the Guard was legally within his rights to give chase and bring the wrongdoers to JUSTICE. An old school LG character would recognize this and not interfer beyond trying to negotiate. He would make sure no harm came to his friend if he surrendered but not keep them from being duely arrested. HOWEVER, A OoC Paladin would slay the Guards out of hand for challenging him. Soon as his presence was known and the intent to prevent their arrest the OoC Paladin would be free to slaughter the Guardsmen. How dare they challenge him.

So we should think more akin to Mordred from Camalot or Darth Vadar from Star wars as the role model for this type of paladin.

[Tawmis]

Alright, so I got a question for you all on a situation that happened in my last game.
Backstory first, this involves a good Paladin with the oath of conquest.
During downtime after the first arc of my campaign, one of the players did the pit fighting downtime, and got a Complication where the entire town got mad, formed a mob to drive him out of town, after the player beat the towns pit fighting champion.
On his way out, he cast burning hands and burnt down the inn, where the fight ring took place, no one was killed, but the entire building got cooked.
Come a couple hours later in the session, and the group gets ambushed by the captain of the guard and his men, sent by the town, to arrest the player for burning down the inn.
After negotiation failed, the guard lastly told the player to come willingly, or he will take him back by force, at this point all the guard pull their swords.
Now to my question. The paladin player, who is good, said he will attack the guards if they try to get the player.
His reason is that since they drew blades first, they are now enemies, even though they are here for a just reason, because of the crime by the other player.
If a fight did break out (it didn't the player bribed the guards), and the paladin did attack or kill the guards, would this have been evil?

Imagine police attempting to arrest an arsonist - and you're there, with your friend - thinking no one was killed, so what's the big deal?

The big deal is the damage it did. The business that burned down. The future income of the town that used that for money.

It is a big deal.

So - as someone else said, it's more on the chaotic side.

Now if a Paladin strikes down and kills one of these guards - then that's edging towards evil. These guards are not enforcing a drastic and unusual law, that would be deemed questionable.

They're enforcing a logical law.

[sophontteks]

Imagine police attempting to arrest an arsonist - and you're there, with your friend - thinking no one was killed, so what's the big deal?

The big deal is the damage it did. The business that burned down. The future income of the town that used that for money.

It is a big deal.

So - as someone else said, it's more on the chaotic side.

Now if a Paladin strikes down and kills one of these guards - then that's edging towards evil. These guards are not enforcing a drastic and unusual law, that would be deemed questionable.

They're enforcing a logical law.
Doesn't matter. They are trying to hurt your friend.

[Tawmis]

Doesn't matter. They are trying to hurt your friend.

Not really. They're trying to ARREST your friend.

There's a difference. One has you dead and six feet under. Not what I assume the guards are trying to do.

The other has the guards subduing your friend (unless he gets violent) and arresting him to stand (ideally) trial for his actions (for which he is obviously guilty of).

How does a Paladin stand next to a "friend" who so willingly burns down a building, without knowing, at the time, if innocent people were inside?

If anything the Paladin should be the voice of reason and try to work this out peacefully (offer his friend to pay for the damages, and maybe work some of it off, in other ways).

[dehro]

Doesn't matter. They are trying to hurt your friend.
...
aaand I'm done

[GlenSmash!]

Imagine police attempting to arrest an arsonist - and you're there, with your friend - thinking no one was killed, so what's the big deal?


Imagine if you are gambling in a casino and you are winning and everyone in the casino attacks you for it. When you defend yourself (in perhaps a reckless manner) the casino catches fire.

Would you stay around a town that wanted to string you up for winning fair and square?

Would you give yourself up to the authority of a town that wanted to string you up for winning fair and square?

Now imagine if you are the friend of this person. Would you let your friend be taken when there is a very real possibility they will be lynched for defending themselves from a mob?

[Tawmis]

Imagine if you are gambling in a casino and you are winning and everyone in the casino attacks you for it. When you defend yourself (in perhaps a reckless manner) the casino catches fire.
Would you stay around a town that wanted to string you up for winning fair and square?
Would you give yourself up to the authority of a town that wanted to string you up for winning fair and square?
Now imagine if you are the friend of this person. Would you let your friend be taken when there is a very real possibility they will be lynched for defending themselves from a mob?

So you're saying that a Paladin should pretty much ignore any action his friends commit ... because they're friends?

"Listen Paul the Paladin, I didn't really mean to stab that guy over there. You see, I was just sharpening my blade, and he fell on it."
"Sounds reasonable, Frank the Fighter. And these towns people want to arrest you and make you stand trial, because they say you murdered the man?"
"Pretty much, Paul the Paladin. But I didn't murder him. You believe me don't you, Paul the Paladin?"
"Of course, I do, Frank the Fighter! You would not lie to me! We are friends!"

:smallconfused:

[Sorlock Master]

That's definitely an ideea informed by modern day police. They were facing a proven fighter/magic user (not sure which), who had just burned down a tavern.. before you pull out the manacles, wouldn't you want to make sure he's not going to rearrange your face?
Actually, come to think of it, I don't think any modern day cop would approach someone declared armed and dangerous with handcuffs in hand, rather than his weapon of choice.

Yes and modern day police are seen mostly as brutes who abuse thier power. People in general listen because they fear the them and what they can do, rather then respecting them.

They have come under heavy critisim because the default is draw and shoot rather then approach and talk.

[Grek]

No, that's Chaotic. The Paladin is defending a criminal. And, as Robin Hood taught us, defending criminals can sometimes be a Good act - just not a Lawful one.

[sophontteks]

So you're saying that a Paladin should pretty much ignore any action his friends commit ... because they're friends?

"Listen Paul the Paladin, I didn't really mean to stab that guy over there. You see, I was just sharpening my blade, and he fell on it."
"Sounds reasonable, Frank the Fighter. And these towns people want to arrest you and make you stand trial, because they say you murdered the man?"
"Pretty much, Paul the Paladin. But I didn't murder him. You believe me don't you, Paul the Paladin?"
"Of course, I do, Frank the Fighter! You would not lie to me! We are friends!"

:smallconfused:
I'm saying a chaotic and good person would.
You are clearly a lawful person. So lawful that, to you, breaking the law or even defending someone who broke the law is evil. That is your subjuctive opinion and its not the alignments as they are laid out in this game.

[dehro]

Yes and modern day police are seen mostly as brutes who abuse thier power. People in general listen because they fear the them and what they can do, rather then respecting them.

They have come under heavy critisim because the default is draw and shoot rather then approach and talk.

we clearly live in different countries.

[sophontteks]

we clearly live in different countries.

You've pretty much admitted now that you view the law as good and those thst oppose the law as bad. Thats not reality and its not the dnd alignment system.

Chaotic good will fight the law actively and seek to cause its demise, all while helping their friends. You may hate them, but they are not evil.

[jas61292]

Doesn't matter. They are trying to hurt your friend.

And that is irrelevant. Loyalty to friends is certainly honorable, but it is not justification. If the friend did evil and you are attacking the guards in order to aid and abet them in getting away with their evil act, what you are doing is evil. That does not mean that you yourself are evil. An evil person is one whose typical actions are those that we would typically qualify as evil, not someone who just does an evil thing on occasion.

I have actually played a character who fit this exact mold. This character very actively defended a totally evil friend, including assisting in killing the paladins who were (justly) sent to hunt down that friend. Yet my character was absolutely a good guy. His typical behavior was overwhelmingly good, and he actively wanted to help people the vast majority of the time. But his loyalty to his friend was just as strong a character trait as his alignment, and when they came into conflict, alignment didn't always win.

Good people can do evil things. That does not make them evil. But neither does them being good make anything they do not evil. And, as I have said earlier, in my view, the described act is a certain evil.


Also PLEASE, can people stop trying to pretend that anything that is not physical harm is not evil. Stop saying that destroying someone's home and business and ruining their life and livelihood is chaotic. It has nothing to do with chaos. Chaos is about freedom. Burning down a building is not about freedom. Without proper justification, it is evil. Period.

[Kane0]

I’d rule it neither good nor evil and carry on.

[hamishspence]

Stop saying that destroying someone's home and business and ruining their life and livelihood is chaotic. It has nothing to do with chaos. Chaos is about freedom. Burning down a building is not about freedom. Without proper justification, it is evil. Period.

The OP's description made it sound possible that the act was committed in self-defence as part of trying to escape the mob.

Though it's also possible that it was revenge committed after they had evaded the mob but before they left town.

Until we know which (self-defence, or revenge) it's hard to say what alignment "casting burning hands in that moment" was.

[Hawkstar]

Also PLEASE, can people stop trying to pretend that anything that is not physical harm is not evil. Stop saying that destroying someone's home and business and ruining their life and livelihood is chaotic. It has nothing to do with chaos. Chaos is about freedom. Burning down a building is not about freedom. Without proper justification, it is evil. Period.

If you don't want to lose your home and livelihood, don't threaten and try to take or ruin someone's life (Which is the usual goal of mobs, even if they don't want to admit it)

[Luccan]

Some thoughts: Arson is usually a bad way to handle things, unless absolutely necessary. Mobs are a bad way to handle things, in general. Neither of these are relevant to whether killing the guards was evil, however. The guards were sent to arrest the PCs. Presumably, they have jurisdiction even outside the town if that is the case. The guards offered peaceful terms and are presumably their mission is lawful*. Now comes the question: is the law of the land just? What will be the character's likely punishment? This might hold some sway for fighting the guards, but in 5e non-lethal combat is no different than lethal combat; that is, the players do not need to kill the guards regardless as there is no inherent risk to themselves for simply knocking them out (beyond potentially being followed again, but eventually the guards should give up). So, the act of killing is unnecessary. If the guards offered peaceful terms and the PCs had reason to believe it to be true and to believe that their friend would be tried fairly and not punished ruthlessly, then yes, killing the guards would be evil. No law or chaos about it: they offered peaceful terms and the PC didn't have to kill them.

Further, while modern sensibilities might not be entirely appropriate, let's not pretend most D&D games are accurate recreations of medieval social norms and expectations (in other words, whether or not it was "good" based on medieval beliefs is no more, possibly less relevant, than judging it by modern standards. Depending on the game world, of course.)

Edit: *because someone will probably twist this: by lawful, I mean the guards aren't breaking any laws going after the PCs. It isn't a vendetta, it is doing their job.

[Hawkstar]

Some thoughts: Arson is usually a bad way to handle things, unless absolutely necessary. Mobs are a bad way to handle things, in general. Neither of these are relevant to whether killing the guards was evil, however. The guards were sent to arrest the PCs. Presumably, they have jurisdiction even outside the town if that is the case. The guards offered peaceful terms and are presumably their mission is lawful*. Now comes the question: is the law of the land just? What will be the character's likely punishment? This might hold some sway for fighting the guards, but in 5e non-lethal combat is no different than lethal combat; that is, the players do not need to kill the guards regardless as there is no inherent risk to themselves for simply knocking them out (beyond potentially being followed again, but eventually the guards should give up). So, the act of killing is unnecessary. If the guards offered peaceful terms and the PCs had reason to believe it to be true and to believe that their friend would be tried fairly and not punished ruthlessly, then yes, killing the guards would be evil. No law or chaos about it: they offered peaceful terms and the PC didn't have to kill them.
It doesn't matter what the guard's jurisdiction or authority is, on the Good/Evil axis of Alignment/morality. There is no intrinsic authority. The guards are ultimately attempting to kidnap and cage the fighter. They may feel legally compelled to do so, but the Fighter and Paladin are free to defend themselves if the guards do not respect the fighter's refusal to come with them - they have absolutely no moral authority over him. There is no Good/Evil reason for the party to care about Jurisdictions, Trials, the Guard's Jobs, or Punishments. if the Guards attempt to use Lethal Force to enforce their will/orders, the party is entitled to use lethal force to defend themselves, because they're the ones who started the particular conflict.

[Luccan]

It doesn't matter what the guard's jurisdiction or authority is, on the Good/Evil axis of Alignment/morality. There is no intrinsic authority. The guards are ultimately attempting to kidnap and cage the fighter. They may feel legally compelled to do so, but the Fighter and Paladin are free to defend themselves if the guards do not respect the fighter's refusal to come with them - they have absolutely no moral authority over him. There is no Good/Evil reason for the party to care about Jurisdictions, Trials, the Guard's Jobs, or Punishments. if the Guards attempt to use Lethal Force to enforce their will/orders, the party is entitled to use lethal force to defend themselves, because they're the ones who started the particular conflict.

It does, though that is mainly because I don't want anyone to claim I'm equating Law and Good. I'm trying to point out, perhaps poorly, that this wasn't a vendetta nor were they out to kill the PCs. They were doing their jobs and got killed for it. The killing of people just because they're inconvenient is evil. The CG solution would be to run or knock them out.

On that front, my argument stems partly on meta-information: IRL, knocking someone unconscious in combat is basically impossible without proper tools and training and even then it's possible to kill them accidentally. In 5e, dealing non-lethal damage is as easy as dealing lethal damage, so killing them was entirely unnecessary. I also tend to fall into the camp that if you're going to kill someone, it should be because you've exhausted other methods of dealing with the problem (or other methods are just as heinous as what you're preventing, like convincing a warlord to go massacre a different innocent village).

[sightlessrealit]

Honestly, reading all the Intel the op has given through out the thread. I'd say screw the town & the DM. Legit wins the fight is than mobbed by the town so burns the inn where the fight happens as a distraction to flee. Is latter acosted by the town's guards and has to uses all his earnings won from the fight to bribe the guards so they leave in peace.

[Hurske]

Honestly, reading all the Intel the op has given through out the thread. I'd say screw the town & the DM. Legit wins the fight is than mobbed by the town so burns the inn where the fight happens as a distraction to flee. Is latter acosted by the town's guards and has to uses all his earnings won from the fight to bribe the guards so they leave in peace.

Well it is a sure good thing my players enjoy my game, and not out to screw me like you so aptly put.

[Tanarii]

Chaotic good will fight the law actively and seek to cause its demise, all while helping their friends.5e Chaotic agood behavior doesn't say anything about either of those two things.

[ciarannihill]

The big irony in every alignment debate is that people end up bringing biases into them, myself included so I'm not trying to preach here....

In my opinion the only reasonable way to view alignment is relative to the society (lawful vs chaotic) and perspective of the individual (good vs evil).

Society dictates what laws are, and therefore lawful vs chaotic is dependent on how the society one finds themselves in "views" the action(s) and behavior(s) of the character through the lens of the law.

Good vs evil in terms of alignment has as much to do with motive as with the action taken, IMO. In the case of someone bestowed with powers, like a Cleric, the perspective of their deity also matters, but the reason for one's actions impacts where on the spectrum it falls for me a great deal.



Honestly rather than trying to get our opinions, I'd ask your player what the motivating factors were in his decision making, and why his actions were taken and decide based on that whether it falls into Good, Neutral or Evil...

It seems pretty clearly Chaotic to me, though, given that it was done in blatant defiance of the law.

[hamishspence]

That's heavily dependent on whether the society is "your society" or not.

Plus there are Chaotic societies.

An elf who defies their society might, depending on the nature of the defiance, be acting Lawfully.

[Davrix]

Also PLEASE, can people stop trying to pretend that anything that is not physical harm is not evil. Stop saying that destroying someone's home and business and ruining their life and livelihood is chaotic. It has nothing to do with chaos. Chaos is about freedom. Burning down a building is not about freedom. Without proper justification, it is evil. Period.

The fighter won the battle fair and square and was paid a prize. The towns people took this badly and attacked him. In his attempt to escape the inn was burned down. None of which is an evil act by the fighter. The only "evil" action would be the actions of the townspeople. The guards are just trying to do there job unless they were part of that mob, they are just ignorant of the situation.



Honestly, reading all the Intel the op has given through out the thread. I'd say screw the town & the DM. Legit wins the fight is than mobbed by the town so burns the inn where the fight happens as a distraction to flee. Is latter acosted by the town's guards and has to uses all his earnings won from the fight to bribe the guards so they leave in peace.

You could of put this a little nicer.


Well it is a sure good thing my players enjoy my game, and not out to screw me like you so aptly put.

While I don't agree with his statement. i will agree that your set up here is not the best. Now you haven't given an exact set of details so maybe this is a flawed opinion but I find the motivation of the townspeople attacking the fighter to be very confusing and it makes little sense. Even if they were upset that their champion lost why would a bunch of them try to jump the new champion? I could see one or two angry patrons who lost money doing this but the entire inn? This is a very overly aggressive and rather unlawful attack on a innocent person by many people.

Now the rest I can see as logical. The inn gets burned down by accident, the mayor or governor wants someone to blame and so he simply fingers the fighter and sends his guards after him. I don't even have a problem with the bribe part as that was the party's choice to offer it up instead of the guards demanding money. At least that was my take away. if the guards hit them up for the money then yea that might be a little heavy handed against the players, especially when they did little to cause all of this. (By all means when they are doing dumb stuff, let there be consequences)

So in summery, I am personally not a fan of situation where DM's put paladins into a moral situation that arises from weak foundations / actions. And what happened at the inn was a very weak foundation in my eyes of something that could of been a lot stronger in the set up. (One again I don't know all the details this opinion is based solely off what you have stated so far)

[sophontteks]

5e Chaotic agood behavior doesn't say anything about either of those two things.
Compelling arguement there.

[guachi]

The fighter won the battle fair and square and was paid a prize. The towns people took this badly and attacked him. In his attempt to escape the inn was burned down. None of which is an evil act by the fighter. The only "evil" action would be the actions of the townspeople. The guards are just trying to do there job unless they were part of that mob, they are just ignorant of the situation.

The townspeople didn't attack him. Some number of them formed a mob and drove him out of town. They only *threatened* to attack him. There is a difference.

Your passive tense usage of "the inn was burned down" denies the agency the fighter used. From the information provided, the inn was intentionally burned as a distraction. We don't know if the owner of the inn threatened the fighter. We also have been provided no information (that I'm aware of) on whether the mob was armed or not. We have no information on whether the mob was in the inn or not at the time of the arson.

The mob is guilty of menacing. From the information we have, the fighter is guilty of arson. Menacing is far lower on the scale of wrongdoing than arson is. Arresting the fighter on suspicion of arson is a completely just act and I'd consider the paladin evil for attacking and potentially killing the guards.

[JackPhoenix]

So many people who don't understand how 5e alignment works.

As usual in alignment threads.

[Tawmis]

So many people who don't understand how 5e alignment works.
As usual in alignment threads.

Well for me, I feel like the OP was asking a general feeling.

I think "alignment" varies for everyone in D&D. What some would consider good, evil, or down the middle - might be different in my campaign than it is in your campaign (for example).

So when I was answering, I was answering from the perspective of how I would handle the situation if I was the DM.

[KorvinStarmast]

Well for me, I feel like the OP was asking a general feeling.

I think "alignment" varies for everyone in D&D. What some would consider good, evil, or down the middle - might be different in my campaign than it is in your campaign (for example). People are still hung up on this step function concept of "that's an evil act" while failing to take in context. The situation was not cut and dried, but was a combination events. One has no idea from the sparse detail in the OP narrative if the town's armed guards/cops/thugs were on the take, pure as driven snow, and it is quite possible that the OP has not bothered to think that through as a DM. Not all DM's do subtlety and gray.

I also, vainly, wish people like the OP would stop trying to play Gotcha with Paladins.
"You did that it's an evil act." It's been a cheese DM move since 1e AD&D. (EGG's attempt to try the "for awesome powers comes a price" thing in a lot of ways made a mess that we are all still cleaning up). (Given how few people bothered to read up on the 1e DMG's treatment of atonement, a lot of DM's missed the point on how a paladin, or other good character, could restore their alignment position ... but never mind, this isn't a 1e forum).

Let's try to, on this 5e discussion forum, try to grok paladins the way 5e has presented them.

This isn't your previous edition's paladin, so stop treating it like one.

[greenstone]

...would this have been evil?

If you have to ask, the answer is "yes".