Alignment issues on the front end - love vs duty

[Malapterus]

So, let's say the player party is an obstensibly Good party serving an allegedly Good cause for a sponsor whom they view as Lawful Good.

They are opposed by a party whom is primarily Chaotic Evil but they don't know for certain if evety member meets that alignment; the anti-party serves a Chaotic Evil master presumably toward Chaotic Evil ends.

Our heroes quietly come across two members of the anti-party enjoying some anti-downtime. These two are not sacraficing a baby or strangling gnomes or setting up the +3 death ray for tomorrow; they're just sitting privately, holding hands, looking up at the stars. We realize that these two have fallen in love, or are at least in the process of falling.

If the heroes take advantage of this moment and attack them by surprise, what alignments would they be violating?

In another example, perhaps we don't know about the romance, but the male is sitting atop a little waterfall singing a nice song, while the female is in the basin below having herself a bath. If we surprise-attack this sweet scene while the two are so far apart and one member doesn't have any of her gear, what alignments would that violate?

[J-H]

(I hope this doesn't violate forum rules - I don't think it's a "debate" just an example)...

If you kill Mao Zedong while he's making out with one of his mistresses, are you doing evil? How about Bonnie & Clyde? Jack Slash having ice cream sundaes with Bonesaw?
The circumstance doesn't change - you are attacking people whom you would fight anyway, and by killing them earlier, you keep them from killing more innocents.

This may violate some codes of conduct with regards to personal battle (ie the Knight), but it is not an unlawful or evil act to sneak-attack an enemy who is under some variety of a Kill Order.

[PunBlake]

Sneak attacks and ambush tactics are not inherently evil. Attacking at such a time would not violate alignment at all.

However, strict "evil can always atone" characters (clerics, paladins, and similar of lawful good alignment) may in some cases use such occurrences as evidence to try to convince the evil people that they maybe aren't so evil.

It really depends on how much a moment like this humanizes your opponent to such a character. Guilt about killing humanoids can, over time, shake someone's convictions, but one incident like this may not. Definitely a gray area that will vary character to character.

[Malapterus]

No argument, I just want opinions.

I want to point out, though, 2 things:

1. These two are not major players. Even though they are powerful agents, taking them out won't stop the problem. Their evil sponsor will send bodies to replace them; anything but the whole evil party going down is only going to be a minor slowdown.

2. This hasn't come up yet, but; the heroes are far from home. While on good terms with the locals, they're not to the point where they can show up with random people and have them put in jail. Capturing these two is not an option because the heroes just don't have anywhere to put them.

[John05]

I'd argue against it myself, but it depends on the alignment system you've set up.

Is alignment tightly coupled with morality or is it fairly decoupled? E.g. Decoupled Alignment/Morality, "I defiled a holy site once, and that made me 'evil' and just being a chill, friendly guy for the most part won't make me Good."/"That guy's father was a fiend, so he has an Evil aura, but he's actually a pretty nice guy himself." This has been easier on my own brain to handle.

If it's tightly coupled, then we'd have to go through the trouble of deciding what kind of normative ethical system we're using.

IMO, many things "feel bad" or violate codes of conduct/honor without being evil. Using "feelings" to guess what's moral and immoral seems based more on virtue ethics. If we're instead following a deontological system, then we'd have to look at the actions rather than the feelings. Are Sneak Attacks and other stealthy maneuvers inherently evil? No? Then this isn't evil. The final major normative system is consequentialism. We'd then question the consequences of what the PCs are doing. What's their goal and intent?

Throwing sand in someone's eyes during a duel might "feel cheap", but it's not necessarily evil. If you agreed *before* the duel not to use cheap tactics, but then broke the agreement, that might count as a lie though, and lies *might* be explicitly immoral acts. I don't see them that way.

An example closer to what you're presenting: An evil orc is just chilling, happily enjoying his momma's homecooked meal. The PCs sneak behind him and stab him in the back to avoid a dangerous encounter. He didn't even get to finish his favorite meal. His momma's gonna be disappointed. Feels bad, man. Is that "EVIL"? If it is, then that should make us question whether everything PCs in general do is evil. What if that same orc is busily writing a love letter instead of eating? Does it make a difference?

The only example I've read that gives me pause is the one I remember from the BoED, where a paladin struggles while deciding whether to slay a couple of succubi. Some nonsense about whether to slay evil or "honor love". I hate that example. :smallannoyed:

EDIT: ofc, IRL, this is a lot more contention, and most people using a complex mix of the various normative ethics (and outside monotheistic civs, perhaps not even normative).

[Karl Aegis]

It is not acting against alignment to attack enemies and take their stuff.

[King of Nowhere]

Depends very much on the specifics. But if those guys are your enemies, attacking them is simply pragmatic. I wouldn't call a paladin down for it, unless I wanted to enforce a lawful stupid attitude.
Personally, if I had reasons to think some enemies may be decent people, I'd try to take them alive, but it was mentioned this is not an option. Also, my character in that situation tries to discern if those people are actually ok, and he has little qualms about killing prisoners if they can't convince him they don't deserve death. He was nicer on that regard, but then a minor henchman we gave to guards escaped from prison and killed several innocents, something that could have been avoided if we had just executed him on the spot...

[Goaty14]

If you're lawful and it's a part of your personal code (or "law of the land", if you play lawful like that) to not attack enemies without them knowing of your presence, then that'd probably make you a bit more chaotic than you were before. At best such a character is convincing their DM that they should probably set a new code of conduct for themselves.

No other alignment probably changes due to such an act. I'd check the Knight's code of conduct to see if that has something significant should one of your players be one...

[Darth Ultron]

The big thing here is Game vs Reality.

So to only talk about the Game, of course.

Just about all RPGs, except the rare ''cops and robbers" type one, has the simple straightforward killing of foes. The players encounter foes and kill them: the end. Does the game rule book have expansive and detailed rules taking up 100 pages or so about capturing, detaining and bringing foes to justice? Does the game have 500 pages about ''murderdeathkill' foes? It is easy to see what the game is about.

Also is the identification. Again, if the game was to make a big detail about the identification of foes...then it would have at least 100 pages of rules about it. If the rulebook does not have that, and again just has the 500 pages of 'murderdeathkill' the foes...then the game is about killing foes.

On the role play side, anyone who supports evil directly is evil. Even if the guy is ''just a guard or cook" it still counts as them supporting evil.

So yes, in a game with no huge rules for Identification and capturing foes, a surprise attack is just fine.

Though, also, the game really should be set up to avoid such things.

[DeadMech]

I can't help but notice some things. "Obstensibly" Good party, "allegedly" Good cause, a sponsor "whom they view as" Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil master "presumably" toward Chaotic Evil ends. I only hope there isn't a paladin in your party because it seems like you're just itching to pull the rug out from under the party with a "clever" twist.

There is only one reason I wouldn't jump them. If people seeing us do it didn't understand the context and would try punish us for it. These people are enemies who I can only assume the party has met before and know to be working against them. When I play LG characters I might make special effort to capture them alive. either by telling the DM my attacks are meant to knock out and not kill them. Or by applying either some heal checks after they go down, or a healers kit, or maybe perhaps a low level spell slot healing spell.

If I'm especially generous and the party is along for the ride them we rush them and instead of putting the pointy ends of our weapons through them we grab them and demand a surrender before they can draw their own pointies.

(Edit: Seems This isn't the 5e forum. So some of that above doesn't apply. Well you get the idea even if the mechanics are different.)

[Malapterus]

I can't help but notice some things. "Obstensibly" Good party, "allegedly" Good cause, a sponsor "whom they view as" Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil master "presumably" toward Chaotic Evil ends. I only hope there isn't a paladin in your party because it seems like you're just itching to pull the rug out from under the party with a "clever" twist. (Edit: Seems This isn't the 5e forum. So some of that above doesn't apply. Well you get the idea even if the mechanics are different.)

The reason for all the qualifiers is that the players are good and believe they are doing a good thing, their sponsor also believes she is good and that her intent is good even though the rest of the world would call it evil.

The enemy sponsor is definitely evil. He wants to nuke the world and scorch the sky so the creatures of the underdark can take an eternal tormentous reign over the surface world. The heroes don't -know- that, though, even their sponsor doesn't - they just know big bad guy want big bad artifact we get big bad artifact first so queen can seal it away.

Anyway, one thing that is not being accounted for here is the ~love~ aspect. Here we have evil beings for whom love is a nearly unheard of thing. If they are falling in love then they are doing something good. If we attack them right now, we are interrupting possibly evil creatures doing a very good thing of their own volition. We're also taking advantage of a good thing to do a violent thing and that is questionable.

Also I think the BoED says that cockblocking is lawful evil.

[Almadelia]

Our heroes quietly come across two members of the anti-party enjoying some anti-downtime. These two are not sacraficing a baby or strangling gnomes or setting up the +3 death ray for tomorrow; they're just sitting privately, holding hands, looking up at the stars. We realize that these two have fallen in love, or are at least in the process of falling.

If the heroes take advantage of this moment and attack them by surprise, what alignments would they be violating?

Romance doesn't make you Good. Even Evil people have those they love but that doesn't make them less Evil in D&D logic, Exemplars of Evil literally has a couple unleashing the Worm that Walks and they're not less Evil just because they're doing it for love. It's a very strange question in my eyes, because nothing in the description of Lawful or Good, let alone Chaotic, force you to fight "fair and square" unless you have a Paladin or Knight in the party, and then you're just asking for trouble anyway.


If you kill Mao Zedong while he's making out with one of his mistresses, are you doing evil? How about Bonnie & Clyde? Jack Slash having ice cream sundaes with Bonesaw?
I have to object to these examples because none of them take place in a world of objective Good and Evil. The entire reason why it doesn't matter is because they're Evil anyway, not because they're evil.

[DeadMech]

Anyway, one thing that is not being accounted for here is the ~love~ aspect. Here we have evil beings for whom love is a nearly unheard of thing. If they are falling in love then they are doing something good. If we attack them right now, we are interrupting possibly evil creatures doing a very good thing of their own volition. We're also taking advantage of a good thing to do a violent thing and that is questionable.

Yes, love sometime motivates people to be better but certainly not always. Evil people love. They have children, spouses, puppies, friends. Hell, people can do some pretty evil acts motivated by love. Either real or a twisted version of it.

“good is not necessarily stupid” is a quote from the earliest chapter of the BoED. Only the absolutely lawful stupid would let people off the hook just because they were snogging and some book vaguely suggested love is good. Also it's worth noting that the BoED also tends to hold PC's (and their DM) to some pretty high standards in comparison to standard play.

[John05]

Anyway, one thing that is not being accounted for here is the ~love~ aspect. Here we have evil beings for whom love is a nearly unheard of thing. If they are falling in love then they are doing something good. If we attack them right now, we are interrupting possibly evil creatures doing a very good thing of their own volition. We're also taking advantage of a good thing to do a violent thing and that is questionable.

Also I think the BoED says that cockblocking is lawful evil.

The only time I remember BoED saying anything remotely close to that is "A paladin must choose between destroying evil and honoring love." Worse line in the book. :smalltongue: (It was the caption to a picture, page 7. Hopefully written as an afterthought.)

Love isn't by default a good thing, imo. Indulging in your own passions over duties is more chaotic And within that chaos is the potential for dereliction or moral duties, which can be Evil.

There's precedent for that in fantastic literature like Dante's Inferno, second circle, where people fell for their desires and abandonment of duties. It's not the worst thing in the world, because it's at least "mutual indulgence" rather than purely selfish indulgence.

There's an interesting part where one couple who were adulterers in their mortal lives are suffering in the second circle... they explain to Virgil that the one who murdered them (the husband who was cheated on) is suffering in a lower level of hell for violence. I suppose you could draw from that and show how violence vs love is "questionable"; however,

1. that has more to do with "wrathful" violence being sinful (and note that we're talking about a D&D world context where violence often has mitigated sinfulness)
2. in that case, "love" still isn't regarded as something inherently good. Morally neutral at best.

It's not inherently evil either, but do note that it can be temptation towards the wrong path. A starry-eyed lover could decide that he needs to rob a few banks to buy the object of his/her affections whatever they want. He/She just wants them to be happy after all. That's still a selfish act.

[Florian]

what alignments would that violate?

None. I mean, unless your alignment system is weird and postulates stuff like Love = Good, or Chivalry = Law.

[ezekielraiden]

So, let's say the player party is an obstensibly Good party serving an allegedly Good cause for a sponsor whom they view as Lawful Good.

They are opposed by a party whom is primarily Chaotic Evil but they don't know for certain if evety member meets that alignment; the anti-party serves a Chaotic Evil master presumably toward Chaotic Evil ends.

Our heroes quietly come across two members of the anti-party enjoying some anti-downtime. These two are not sacraficing a baby or strangling gnomes or setting up the +3 death ray for tomorrow; they're just sitting privately, holding hands, looking up at the stars. We realize that these two have fallen in love, or are at least in the process of falling.

If the heroes take advantage of this moment and attack them by surprise, what alignments would they be violating?

Noting that this is *my analysis* and not a "this should be true for EVERYONE FOREVER" thing. To give a really full answer, I need to make assumptions, so I'm going to try to call them out and clarify how reversing them would influence things.

First, I'm going to assume the party knows these guys are villains, who have participated in villainy willingly. It doesn't matter if they haven't committed murder or other horrors themselves; being a collaborator, accessory, or direct support for horrible crimes still generates a great deal of culpability. (Consider: Thief A steals nuclear material for Terrorist B, who then uses it to create a dirty bomb that kills a lot of people. Thief A is still guilty of murder, in most jurisdictions, because the clear consequence of providing nuclear material to a terrorist is that it will be used to hurt and kill.) Under such things? The party is as justified in attacking here as they would be anywhere, because these are known combatants willingly assisting in evil, outrightly harmful acts.

From there, I'll instead assume the party knows these people ultimately work for the bad guys, but in ignorance of the ultimate authority involved. If they do so while still committing clearly dangerous acts that would likely lead to much evil and harm (a la stealing nuclear material--it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that that's dangerous stuff!), then it is as before. If none of the individual acts can be reasonably tied to such clearly evil ends, and the pair in question are known (or reasonably expected) to not realize the ultimate consequences of their actions, instant attack would be inappropriate and certainly violate a Lawful Good alignment (I can see certain cases for Chaotic Good, but I consider them quite weak, so I am willing to say that *most* Good characters would be mistaken to do this.) If the people are coerced, that is somewhat more complicated, but in general I would expect at least an attempt to help or understand, not instantly attack, and thus the surprise attack would seem anti-Good.

Finally, we assume the party knows there is merely some connection, not strictly "working for" the bad guys, and has no clear information about this pair's motives or knowledge. Again, attack would be unwarranted as a first measure. That doesn't mean that attack would never be warranted. Merely that a Good character should, all else being equal, seek to know the motives and knowledge of others, to help steer them toward good ends rather than evil ones. It might still end up that violence (though preferably not lethal violence) proves necessary, but that would certainly be a weapon of last resort, not first.


In another example, perhaps we don't know about the romance, but the male is sitting atop a little waterfall singing a nice song, while the female is in the basin below having herself a bath. If we surprise-attack this sweet scene while the two are so far apart and one member doesn't have any of her gear, what alignments would that violate?

These circumstances do not materially differ from the preceding, except that to attack a genuinely defenseless target with lethal force is generally an unacceptable action regardless. (I say "genuinely defenseless" because I expect D&D characters to know that some individuals can be Really Gorram Dangerous, aka not actually defenseless, even when naked as the moment of their birth, e.g. a Monk, or certain outsiders.) Really, the particular details of both scenarios--where they're located, what they're doing with one another, etc.--appear nearly meaningless for the morality of the act. Fighting to the death two lovers who are known serial killers is not suddenly less Good because it ends a genuine, passionate, loyal romance. It's too easy to confuse tragic consequences with doing evil.**

Something that concerns me about these two examples is the presumption of surprise attack. That, in and of itself, is something a Good person should rarely employ. Not never--there are definitely times where it's warranted--but only with caution and rationale. It seems to me that you are, essentially, presuming the very conflict you wish to examine: first, that the party is 100% committed to an action which (for Good characters) I would expect to require rationale, and then second, denying any form that that rationale might take. Hence, unavoidable conflict. Either the party should not be so immediately resorting to surprise lethal force, or it should be doing so only when there is sufficient rationale for doing so.

**Perhaps a parallel example with Law/Chaos would be illustrative. Say that a very legalistic society is built up, one that has strict rules for social caste and all sorts of other things, and as a consequence, that society prospers and enters a golden age of art, literature, music, etc. Suddenly, artistic passion is being (in some way) *caused* by fulfilling an obviously Lawful goal. I don't think this is at all the same as saying this society is "less lawful" because its laws have resulted in beautiful poetry.

[Malapterus]

This is how I see it. None of the people involved want to conquer the world; that's their bosses' goal. Even if the evil party knows about the nuke thing, from their perspective it will benefit their race and other underdark natives.

In the end, both parties are just people doing their jobs. Bothering someone about their job outside their shift is a **** move, though if you came across the whole party camped out and surrounded them that wouldn't be quite the same thing.

In this situation, we have two people in their off-time exploring love. Our heroes do not know what an exceedingly rare and powerful thing Drow love is, but they know love is a positive thing.

Love breeds compassion and empathy. Compassion and empathy breed peace and inhibit bigotry and greed - not a guaruntee that these specific two will overcome their upbringing, but a chance.

This is a good chance that of their own volition they will turn against this goal and possibly even fight it
Again, the party doesn't know enough about Drow to know how much the fact that they have a King instead of a Queen is chafing the entire society, but they know these are free-willed creatures.

Interrupting their chance to become better people seems wrong, wrong enough to fall under Neutral and be questionable for a Good-aligned character, to me.

What's going on is that for my open-world campaign I have gotten very excited about the two CN drow falling in love and I am wondering the bedt way to subject my party to it. It's entirely feasible, as I have characterized these two, that they will bail on the job and/or create interesting moral complications down the road, so I don't want my players to kill them off because witnessing this moment makes for a good ambush.

P.S. is dont-look-at-the-boobs a reflex save or a will save?

[16bearswutIdo]

This is how I see it. None of the people involved want to conquer the world; that's their bosses' goal. Even if the evil party knows about the nuke thing, from their perspective it will benefit their race and other underdark natives.

In the end, both parties are just people doing their jobs. Bothering someone about their job outside their shift is a **** move, though if you came across the whole party camped out and surrounded them that wouldn't be quite the same thing.

In this situation, we have two people in their off-time exploring love. Our heroes do not know what an exceedingly rare and powerful thing Drow love is, but they know love is a positive thing.

Love breeds compassion and empathy. Compassion and empathy breed peace and inhibit bigotry and greed - not a guaruntee that these specific two will overcome their upbringing, but a chance.

This is a good chance that of their own volition they will turn against this goal and possibly even fight it
Again, the party doesn't know enough about Drow to know how much the fact that they have a King instead of a Queen is chafing the entire society, but they know these are free-willed creatures.

Interrupting their chance to become better people seems wrong, wrong enough to fall under Neutral and be questionable for a Good-aligned character, to me.

What's going on is that for my open-world campaign I have gotten very excited about the two CN drow falling in love and I am wondering the bedt way to subject my party to it. It's entirely feasible, as I have characterized these two, that they will bail on the job and/or create interesting moral complications down the road, so I don't want my players to kill them off because witnessing this moment makes for a good ambush.

P.S. is dont-look-at-the-boobs a reflex save or a will save?

"I was just following orders" didn't fly in the Nuremberg Trials, and it wouldn't fly here. The evil act benefiting the evil race doesn't justify it in a cosmological moral sense.

The PCs are unfamiliar with Drow culture, but they know that THESE SPECIFIC DROW are working to destroy the world. They have no reason to suspect that "these two Drow in love MAY EVENTUALLY, through the power of love, overcome their violent nature and destructive desire." It would be evil of the party NOT to confront them here.

If you don't want your party killing these Drow, I wouldn't give them this literally ideal ambush opportunity. Or at least attempt to humanize them and show their reluctance to engage in the war before this scene.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

This is how I see it. None of the people involved want to conquer the world; that's their bosses' goal.
Irrelevant, they are nonetheless actively aiding in it.

Even if the evil party knows about the nuke thing, from their perspective it will benefit their race and other underdark natives.
And the fact that they are literally willing to aid in genocide for lebensraum helps their case... how, exactly?

In the end, both parties are just people doing their jobs.
...And they're "just doing their jobs", to boot. That exonerates them about as much as it did Eichmann.

[Malapterus]

Irrelevant, they are nonetheless actively aiding in it.

And the fact that they are literally willing to aid in genocide for lebensraum helps their case... how, exactly?

Genocide is a complicated issue because, and I hate to type this, it is not intrinsically an evil act.

In real life, the WW2 genocide attempt was evil, because the victims posed no real threat to the aggressors. Complete inaction would have resulted in no major problems for the aggressors.

In a theoretical situations, there is an "us and them" situation going on. Race A needs something that Race B is keeping them from. Sharing is not an option so Race A needs to eliminate or subjugate Race B so that Race A can have this resource. Maybe it's food or territory, but it's something valid.

It doesn't matter what alignment either side is; engaging in this when there is not another option is a neutral act. It's not evil to refuse to let your family starve for the sake of another family.

In this case, the Drow King is sick of his people being banished to the Underdark and wants free access to the surface. The other races in power aren't going to allow that and so he has to take it by extreme force. The Drow are down there for a reason and the King is motivated by a lot of greed and vanity, so he is no hero by any means, but his actions are understandable so his xenocide is neutral.

As for the two parties, all they know is that their bosses want them to find a big purple rock. The heroes don't even know it's a big purple rock, they just know it's a dingus they are supposed to get to first.

[denthor]

Being that playing chaotic boarderline is way for me.

I see negotiate in the forcast. Let them have the meal the moment and then blackmail them. Err....have a conversation where you offer them a chance to escape from there circumstances. If they are unwilling to leave outright then offer them cover to continue the relationship with the promise of sparing them if they turn and help you take down the rest of the group.

Being Evil betrayal is easier and in this case a step towards neutral.

[16bearswutIdo]

Genocide is a complicated issue because, and I hate to type this, it is not intrinsically an evil act.

It doesn't matter what alignment either side is; engaging in this when there is not another option is a neutral act. It's not evil to refuse to let your family starve for the sake of another family.

In this case, the Drow King is sick of his people being banished to the Underdark and wants free access to the surface. The other races in power aren't going to allow that and so he has to take it by extreme force. The Drow are down there for a reason and the King is motivated by a lot of greed and vanity, so he is no hero by any means, but his actions are understandable so his xenocide is neutral.



What you're not including here is that the Drow CAN live in the Underdark. Their entire race has specifically "evolved" and adapted to living in the Underdark. This King is CHOOSING to attempt to gain access to the surface by systematic genocide, while simultaneously putting the lives of each and every one of subjects at risk.

The Drow King is pretty objectively evil here. His actions being "understandable" doesn't make him neutral. He can dress it up any way he wants, but if his actions are evil, his goals don't matter. "The ends justify the means" is widely regarded as an evil outlook for a reason. If he took deliberate steps to avoid genocide and wasn't chasing after a world-ending magic item, he might be neutral. But as of now, he's pretty much evil.

[Malapterus]

What you're not including here is that the Drow CAN live in the Underdark. Their entire race has specifically "evolved" and adapted to living in the Underdark. This King is CHOOSING to attempt to gain access to the surface by systematic genocide, while simultaneously putting the lives of each and every one of subjects at risk.

The Drow King is pretty objectively evil here. His actions being "understandable" doesn't make him neutral. He can dress it up any way he wants, but if his actions are evil, his goals don't matter. "The ends justify the means" is widely regarded as an evil outlook for a reason. If he took deliberate steps to avoid genocide and wasn't chasing after a world-ending magic item, he might be neutral. But as of now, he's pretty much evil.

Oh, he's super Chaotic Evil. He needs to be removed and at the very least replaced with a proper matriarch who will restore the status quo.

That doesn't mean everything he does is evil, though. Drow can live in the Underdark, but Humans can live in an iron box with an in-hole and an out-hole if someone brings them food and water.

The Drow can't grow crops or ranch meat, they can't run free in a field or visit a new part of the world, they can't build a house in a lovely meadow for their family, they can't walk to work without worrying about cave-ins or spiders of all sizes or random monsters or radioactive rocks or dwarves with a bad sense of direction. Their quality of life is nothing compared to a surface-dweller, and they have no reason to beleive they have any less right to the starlight than us. It's not evil for them to want these things for their own kind and to take it by force if sharing is not an option.

[John05]

Love breeds compassion and empathy. Compassion and empathy breed peace and inhibit bigotry and greed - not a guaruntee that these specific two will overcome their upbringing, but a chance.

It can do the opposite as well. You're ignoring all the examples all the real world and fantastic examples people are giving you. I mentioned the Inferno, one of the most famous literatures on Hell, which even partially inspired D&D cosmology. You can look even to pop culture, where love is the driving cause behind Anakin Skywalker's descent into the Dark Side.

Some others even brought up real world examples like Bonnie and Clyde. Love can easily be a corrupting influence as much as it can be a redeeming influence. Have you heard of a psychological phenomenon folie à deux? It describes cases where people who may otherwise be normal, civilized individuals end up becoming psychotic ("shared psychosis"). "Evil".

But I'm beginning to think this is a pointless argument.

I'm sure i'm not the only one who is wondering:

What are you planning to do with this? Make an exalted PC or a Paladin fall? Or is it to teach the players your own moral / political views?

If it's the latter, then it doesn't matter to me. You're entitled to your own philosophy/worldview. If you feel "Love" is objectively good, you're the DM. There's no point in arguing, because even if we had a point, you could just make the situation increasingly sympathetic to those two lovestruck NPCs.

If it's the former, then I can only express how I'd feel as a player. In my experience, when DMs do this to me, and I heavily disagree with the way they impose morality even when i'm playing with the best intentions (to put reasonable effort into being good rather than a murder hobo), I stop caring as much about the setting. I mean, i'm doing what I think is the safest, most expedient way to *save the world*, a world I care about, and I'm being lectured over it? Yeah no thanks. I'd just make a mental note not to play characters that give the DM too much control over my character's (by extension, my own) philosophies/morality. Let someone else play the paladin/cleric and deal with that headache.

If you wanted the two to survive, I'd have rather you gave them a means to escape instead of hoping I behave in a certain expected way without informing me.

[16bearswutIdo]

It's not evil for them to want these things for their own kind

Correct, it is not.


and to take it by force if sharing is not an option

We disagree heavily here. Do the Drow have any claim to this land? Do they have any right to this land? Seems a bit like you're conveniently overlooking the "Drow committing genocide" part and trying to justify as "the big bad surface dwellers kicked us out before so now X amount of time later it's fine if we rape and pillage the land!"

All I'm saying is that if I were a player in your game, the waterfall these two Drow are chilling at would be running red real quick.

[John05]

All I'm saying is that if I were a player in your game, I would salt the Underdark with the blood of the Drow if they tried genociding my land.

I suspect there's double standards at play here by us anyway. Two lovebird lackeys of the Chaotic Evil BBEG get the excuse "Oh they're not evil, they're just following orders." We're now arguing whether killing those lackeys is evil or not. Do the PCs get this much consideration? Are the PCs just "following orders" and get away with killing the lackeys? Keeping in mind that we're talking about a world where genocide isn't inherently evil, apparently, as long as the genocidal one has a half-cocked justification.

[Darth Ultron]

In this case, the Drow King is sick of his people being banished to the Underdark and wants free access to the surface. The other races in power aren't going to allow that and so he has to take it by extreme force. The Drow are down there for a reason and the King is motivated by a lot of greed and vanity, so he is no hero by any means, but his actions are understandable so his xenocide is neutral.


Lets take this though. With the standard D&D back story that Drow were elves that turned to evil and wanted to kill all the other elves. They lost that war and were banished to the Underdark.

If like a 1,000 years later Drow King Zor comes to the surface is pure, true and honest peace...and asks the good elves to let them come back to the surface.....do you really think the good elves would be like ''nope, never"?


Oh, he's super Chaotic Evil. He needs to be removed and at the very least replaced with a proper matriarch who will restore the status quo.

That doesn't mean everything he does is evil, though.

Yes it does. Ok...literally EVERY thing he does is not evil....but any MAJOR thing he does is evil. That is kinda what ''being evil is". An ''super chaotic evil" person does not do like one evil thing every other Sunday...and then is a saint and angel the rest of the time. They are super chaotic evil 24/7.

Is there some reason the Drow can't just come to the surface...anywhere in the wilderness? Like far away from the other folks?

Is there some reason the Drow can't find a ''good ally" that won't just be a murderhobo to them?

Is there some reason the Drow don't just attack an EVIL place?

[ezekielraiden]

If I desire a good spouse, I agree that that is not evil (and may even be good). But to take another's good spouse by force because I have struggled to find a good spouse of my own is, IMO unambiguously, evil. David ordering Uriah to his death was evil, even if we understand his desire to marry Bathsheba, Uriah's wife.

If I desire good food, I agree that that is not evil. But to steal another's food, by violence, is at the very least not good; to murder in the name of ensuring you get all the food is pretty clearly evil.

If I desire knowledge, I agree that that is (probably) not evil. But to come in by force and take the library of another? Even one who desperately wants knowledge has crossed a line in doing this.

Taking by force is always a morally inferior, and almost always morally wrong, action. We *conditionally* forgive the use of force when the need is desperate and the choices all bad, e.g. killing in self-defense. The loss of *any* life is a tragedy, but opposing a violent malfeasor is considered acceptable some of the time.

If these drow are knowingly and willingly collaborating in the magical equivalent of superweapon terrorism, they are not merely witnessing evil, not merely condoning evil, they are actively collaborating to see evil done, for their benefit (extending "their" to include drow at large). They are not ignorant, and even if they personally refuse to kill anyone, they are still condoning the murder of lots if people for personal gain. That is evil and unacceptable. They must be stopped, and finding them "unawares" does not make them not collaborators in genocide.

Therefore, I don't think any alignment has been violated. I think the *best* thing (e.g. a Paladin's proper choice) is to still try, one last time, to sway them from their course. But if they refuse, they are aiders and abettors of genocidal terrorism, or even outright unprovoked total war, and should be dealt with accordingly.

[Quertus]

So, IMO, this is not an alignment issue, it's a tactical and narrative one.

Sure, love might make these two susceptible to being seduced by the light side, or other such insanities. Tactically, this could be advantageous to the party.

Also, if that which is supposedly incapable of love is showing signs of love, then either they're not what they seem, it's a trap, or they're an aberration. In the last case, that may be tactically advantageous to the party. Otherwise, it's a tactical concern of a different sort.

What story do you want to tell? That can determine how you want to approach this scenario. Killing just one of them, and being hunted by the hatred of one who had learned love, could make for a great story.

But love is not good, and taking advantage of your opponent's weakness is just tactics. It's only not doing so that says anything.

[Zanos]

Since when is romance inherently Good?

Even if it was, do you give Darth Hitler a pass because he decided to give a peasant a loaf of bread instead of murdering him today?

No alignments are violated by taking advantage of a situation where a Chaotic Evil person whom you know to be guilty of many crimes is vulnerable. Good is not nice. A Knight or Paladin or Cleric of some particular deity might piss of their god if they care about such things.



That doesn't mean everything he does is evil, though. Drow can live in the Underdark, but Humans can live in an iron box with an in-hole and an out-hole if someone brings them food and water.

The Drow can't grow crops or ranch meat, they can't run free in a field or visit a new part of the world, they can't build a house in a lovely meadow for their family, they can't walk to work without worrying about cave-ins or spiders of all sizes or random monsters or radioactive rocks or dwarves with a bad sense of direction. Their quality of life is nothing compared to a surface-dweller, and they have no reason to beleive they have any less right to the starlight than us.
Do you know much about drow culture? They aren't generally the type to build houses in lovely meadows for their families.


It's not evil for them to want these things for their own kind
If I'm humoring you with these drow that want to frolick through the forest, sure. Wanting something generally is not Evil.


and to take it by force if sharing is not an option.
100% Evil.


Genocide is a complicated issue because, and I hate to type this, it is not intrinsically an evil act.
Lol, what?

I read your justification and if you're literally at war with someone and you have a war with them and you kill them until there stops being a war, then yeah the morality of that depends on the reason for the war. If you are literally exterminating every member of a race for belonging to that race that's Evil...probably. D&D contains some "races"(species, really) like Mind Flayers and Demons/Devils etc. that are pretty much irredeemable and "being a demon" is generally a good justification for killing something, but none of the humanoid races have any such characterization.

Also if you are the aggressor in a war because someone has something you want that is probably also Evil.

[Malapterus]

I just wanted to take a moment to say everyone has been very objective & intelligent about this. I know people can get nasty about this sort of thing but this whole thread has been enjoyable for me to participate in. You guys are great.


I'm sure i'm not the only one who is wondering:

What are you planning to do with this?

The goal here is to add another secret layer of story to the whole campaign. For this game I am designing the whole world, and giving the players a boat, and all they are told is 'Find the dingus'. In their hunt for the dingus, they are free to explore however they like, and they really don't have the option of burning straight to the end goal because they do not know where the dingus is or even what it is.

Of the many little wrinkles and details, I got very excited about the idea of two members of the anti-party falling in love. Since they are Drow, they're not expected to have such emotion, but in their society they're not really allowed to be in love. It's too dangerous, the Drow won't tolerate a happy couple.

This can be built up in so many ways; an internal conflict among the anti-party if the others find out, the two in love wanting to escape to the point where they may even sneak onto the heroes' boat and try to get back to the 'good' nation for sanctuary, an alignment change on one if our heroes kill the other (an enemy NPC going from CN to CE because of something the players did seems like it would really up the ante). The whole thing is just a little spark of potential that could really turn into a huge and fun thing for the campaign.

Example: the Drow party so far consists of Leader, Necromancer, Summoner, Deulist, Druid, and Vampire. Deulist and Druid are the happy couple. Vampire finds out about their relationship and Dominates Druid so Druid becomes Vampire's mind-controlled girlfriend, just because Vampire thinks it's funny to be cruel to Deulist. Deulist can't say or do much about this, but our heroes, if they know, could make the choice to try and help. If they DO free Druid from domination, and Druid and Deulist are aware of who did this for them, what could happen there? Druid and Deulist do not like their king nor their party, they don't care about living on the surface, one of their party members has done something horrible to them, but OUR party has done something selfless to help them. The two are CN, so really anything could happen.

So, what I am trying to accomplish here is to expose the heroes to it without instantly ending it when the players bull-rush their stargazing date. I don't want to make it impossible to catch them or make it a cinematic in which the heroes cannot interact; I am trying to avoid railroading as much as possible.

I want to try and set this up in a way where my players can and will make the choice -not- to act and come away with this valuable information. If that's not possible then I need to find another way to do it or forget about it entirely.

I expect to have a few cases where the heroes get the opportunity to pass their own divine judgment on something that is really not their business, and I want to see how the players and their characters act on and learn from these things. The little love interest is one very fun one for me.

Another one is, I have a small race of people whom everyone else is trying to kill off. They don't deserve it, and are not an Evil race, but it started generations ago and the reason for it has even ceased to exist, but such things have a way of refusing to die & there is a sizeable bounty for killing one of these guys and so if the last of them are found it will be very bad, and even until they have to live as wasteland nomads wandering around trying to avoid the inevitable.
There is also an island nation that was once quite the civilization and is now a ghost city; many of the great buildings remain but there are no known sentient inhabitants and no one goes there ever since the original residents vanished, presumably genocided themselves.
It might seem obvious to load up this race on a boat and take them to this island where they can live in peace and civilization, and it is certainly feasible to get them aboard a big boat and take them there in this case. The island does not belong to the heroes nor is it the heroes' place to determine what's best for the race, but it is in their power to make this happen and I am wondering if they will choose to do so.

This is a great deal easier to set up than the love thing, though, and so I am trying to figure out the best way to approach the love thing without railroading.

[King of Nowhere]

Genocide is a complicated issue because, and I hate to type this, it is not intrinsically an evil act.

In real life, the WW2 genocide attempt was evil, because the victims posed no real threat to the aggressors. Complete inaction would have resulted in no major problems for the aggressors.

In a theoretical situations, there is an "us and them" situation going on. Race A needs something that Race B is keeping them from. Sharing is not an option so Race A needs to eliminate or subjugate Race B so that Race A can have this resource. Maybe it's food or territory, but it's something valid.

It doesn't matter what alignment either side is; engaging in this when there is not another option is a neutral act. It's not evil to refuse to let your family starve for the sake of another family.


I can agree with that. However, it goes both ways. If it is necessary for the drow to try and genocide the humans, it is equally necessary for the humans to try and genocide the drow. After all, the humans have as much right as the drow to not die. In a strict "us or them" situation, both sides can be excused equally. And if you want to apply this in your world, then the party will be even more justified in taking down two drow. That's two less to fight. They were in love? they'd make a family and raise children, which will be enemies. Even more reason to stop them immediately.

And genocide is neutral only if it really is the case of "us or them". In this case, the drow live in the underdark, the humans on the surface, nobody has a reason to genocide. Maybe the surface is nicer, but hey, if that is a good reason for genocide, then the canadians would be "justified" in invading florida and killing the inhabitants, so they could live someplace warmer :smallbiggrin:.

In fact, the drow are adapted for live in the underdark. If they were to reach the surface, the light would hurt them. The game only details mechanics for eyesight, but consider how much sun lotion needs someone who is fair of skin, and compound it for someone who's lived underground all his life. No, the surface is no paradise for the drow. they have no justificatin to invade.

Really, if you want to call "those droows are justified in trying to kill you, because they only want to live in the sun! But you're not justified to kill them, because they are not attacking you right now", I'd get away from your table. Really, that's a perfect example of double standards.

[John05]

The goal here is to add another secret layer of story to the whole campaign. For this game I am designing the whole world, and giving the players a boat, and all they are told is 'Find the dingus'. In their hunt for the dingus, they are free to explore however they like, and they really don't have the option of burning straight to the end goal because they do not know where the dingus is or even what it is.


It sounds like you put a lot of effort and thought into it. If it's important to you, then do you have contingencies to save those two in case the PCs do decide to kill them for expediency? Would save yourself some trouble, possibly in the form of:

1. alignment arguments with players.
2. Or dead NPCs wasted effort
3. Or disappointment.

I normally avoid planning too far ahead unless I'm relatively detached from those plans and don't mind if they don't come to fruition. But that's just me. I hate setting myself up for disappointment

[Fizban]

I got very excited about the idea of two members of the anti-party falling in love. Since they are Drow, they're not expected to have such emotion, but in their society they're not really allowed to be in love. It's too dangerous, the Drow won't tolerate a happy couple.
This sounds like an incredibly important detail I've never heard about (not that I deep-dive Drow lore, yawn).

The only reason to consider any real moral angle in the initial question is the idea that these drow acting lovey dovey somehow indicates that they might not be bad guys, redeemable, etc. And that is entirely predicated on the idea that Drow society specifically prohibits "love," which is presumably part of a total conditioning that makes all Drow Evil, thus making the fact that these Drow are acting differently than expected actually important.

How the PCs react to this scenario will thus hinge on their knowledge of, and if so then belief in, this aspect of drow societal conditioning.

[Feantar]

So, let's say the player party is an obstensibly Good party serving an allegedly Good cause for a sponsor whom they view as Lawful Good.

They are opposed by a party whom is primarily Chaotic Evil but they don't know for certain if evety member meets that alignment; the anti-party serves a Chaotic Evil master presumably toward Chaotic Evil ends.

Our heroes quietly come across two members of the anti-party enjoying some anti-downtime. These two are not sacraficing a baby or strangling gnomes or setting up the +3 death ray for tomorrow; they're just sitting privately, holding hands, looking up at the stars. We realize that these two have fallen in love, or are at least in the process of falling.

If the heroes take advantage of this moment and attack them by surprise, what alignments would they be violating?

In another example, perhaps we don't know about the romance, but the male is sitting atop a little waterfall singing a nice song, while the female is in the basin below having herself a bath. If we surprise-attack this sweet scene while the two are so far apart and one member doesn't have any of her gear, what alignments would that violate?

First of all, one of the tenets of good is redemption. So attack them, yes, but don't go for the kill immediately. If you attempt this, then this act is either neutral (if these people aren't particularly nasty but are part of a larger evil scheme) or good. In no case is it evil.

However it can be argued that a good character might stay their blade in case they feel like the evil character's current experience might indicate a change of course down the line. Not doing so isn't evil. It's just something a good character might do.

The second scenario is the same, from this perspective.

Note: Of course, if this party keeps attacking people just because they are told they are evil with no confirmation of their own, they either have a collective Int of 8, they were told by a good deity, or are evil themselves (or neutral close to evil).




However, strict "evil can always atone" characters (clerics, paladins, and similar of lawful good alignment) may in some cases use such occurrences as evidence to try to convince the evil people that they maybe aren't so evil.

I think evil can always atone is an element of good. Nothing to do with lawful. I'd argue it's closer to a neutral good element (benevolence above all things), as in good untainted by law or chaos.

[Malapterus]

It sounds like you put a lot of effort and thought into it. If it's important to you, then do you have contingencies to save those two in case the PCs do decide to kill them for expediency? Would save yourself some trouble, possibly in the form of:

1. alignment arguments with players.
2. Or dead NPCs wasted effort
3. Or disappointment.

I normally avoid planning too far ahead unless I'm relatively detached from those plans and don't mind if they don't come to fruition. But that's just me. I hate setting myself up for disappointment

My group hates being railroaded and so I want to avoid as much deus ex machina impossible stuff as I can it sucks, but I'd rather let them have free will than satisfy my own story additions.


This sounds like an incredibly important detail I've never heard about (not that I deep-dive Drow lore, yawn).

Drow of the Underdark is a good read. It goes inti how a Chaotic Evil society can exist (such things are anathema to structure). Drow society is an economy of power, rach Drow is trying to gain more power over as many people as they can, and the best way to do that is to play the game.

Drow marriages and mating are generally about getting more influence; they may be attracted to and fond if each other, but they would never get so intimate that their mate would have any power over them.

Loving someone gives them an extreme amount of influence over you. The Drow don't see it and don't want it so they don't pursue it. However, it happens sometimes and the pair sees it through. Two people in love are firmly united, bound together, and acting in the same interest. They can be harder to manipulate and they are unpredictable. Rarest of all among the Drow, they have someone they can trust.

This gives them a huge advantage in the Drow power game, and the other players don't like that. While true love is not illegal in the Underdark, everyone will want you dead if they find out.

That is why this tidbit is special for my story; it gives them bith a strength and a weakness, and makes them unpredictable. Also, they can't let their party find out; if they do, then more story options emerge that are not good for our lovers.

I think the "happy" end for these two would be letting them extract from the party and run off to found their own CN House that opposes the Drow King but is not necessarily friendly to the surface.

[Peat]

Stick me in the group that a) Sees nothing inherently good about love and wouldn't hesitate to waste a group of servants of evil who are in love and b) Views anyone serving an Evil cause as servants of evil regardless of their alignment and fair game.

The only thing that would give me pause if I had a PC in this scenario, without knowing all the stuff about the Drow that interests you, is the thing about only killing the entire enemy group doing any good. In that scenario, it seems to me the smartest thing to do is to simply watch the enemy and look for ways to eliminate them all in one fell swoop.

So if you play up that angle - if you interest them in the idea of covert intelligence gathering in order to bring these guys down - then you might get the scenario you want.