A question about alignments and blood sports/entertainment

[Jon_Dahl]

As far I have understood, the consensus is that good-aligned realms do not permit gladiatorial combats fought to death. What about death as an entertainment in general?

I was thinking that in my game a group of insanely rich non-good nobles contact the local adventurers' guild and foreign mercenaries and tell them that their organizations and mercenary companies will be paid and receive unique benefits if they agree to play a game of deadly puzzles and traps (some of them will be like in the Saw movies) and the survivors will receive substantial rewards. All of this will be officially agreed upon and there will be binding contracts. Under no circumstances will be the participants fight each other nor will they be offered the chance to harm another sentient being. This will be purely a '(wo)man vs. inanimate objects' type of deal.

Will it be an alignment breach if the realm's good-aligned ruler does not interfere with this activity?

[DeTess]

Will it be an alignment breach if the realm's good-aligned ruler does not interfere with this activity?

Probably, yes. Stuff like this is extremely decadent, and those contracts will be abused in the long-run. They might not send soldiers to break it up, but to retain their alignment they'd at the very least have to express strong disapproval and chastise you in court.

[RedMage125]

There's no actual rule anywhere that says that good-aligned realms would not allow gladiatorial combat, even lethal combat.

Now, it's unlikely that kingdoms with an overall bent towards good allow slavery, which is what most gladiator-style pits use. But there could be volunteer Fighting Arenas that have fabulous prizes (enough money to buy one's family out of poverty, or even a small grant of land somewhere). Animals and monsters could be captured and fought in this arena. 3.5e specifies that people who are Good on the moral axis "have concern for the dignity of sentient beings". There are plenty of beings that don't fit that bill that Good people just don't consider a moral or ethical element to them. Like animals, or vermin. in such a volunteer arena, there is probably some means of "surrender", that other fighters have to honor, and the person surrendering has to leave and not pick his weapon back up, or be disqualified.

You know what? Look up the Xcrawl setting. There's a lot in there that would be useful.

[Darth Ultron]

I don't think Good would be opposed to blood sports/entertainment. Good does not equal prude or boring. The big thing for good people is if the acts are willing by all. If two people wish to fight to the death, most Good is fine with that. Lawful and Neutral good would insist on some sort of formal ''duel contract'' and a formal challenge. Chaotic good would be fine with it being informal, but only to a point.

While some misguided good societies will say ''no one can kill anyone ever", most understand that life and death are a normal part of life.

For the ruler, even if he is of the wacky ''no one can ever die in my good realm" type....maybe the Saw Group could just keep the whole thing secret. The ruler can't stop or oppose what he does not know about.

Also, unless the good ruler is the ruler of the world....they Saw Group only needs to go five feet across the border to avoid the good tyrant.

[Geddy2112]

I agree that while they might not openly endorse it, a good leader would probably not condone such entertainment.

Heroes and entertainers doing daring and dangerous acts for money is not really aligned. So long as they are freely doing so and nobody is being murdered by somebody rigging the game against them I don't think good has a problem. Walking a tightrope across a large pit without a safety net, escape artist stunts, juggling knives and the like all have danger. The saw style puzzles are certainly turning that up to 11, and while incredibly morbid are not evil if people voluntarily do so.

I could see a lawful society having laws in place that prohibit such for various reasons, but not because these acts are evil or even nongood.

[Quertus]

So, are we really discussing the morality of ****-fighting, and killing animals for sport?

Anybody got a rules citation for D&D "good" that covers this. Or, heck, that covers blood sports in general?

EDIT: also, the leader shouldn't have to worry about "violating their alignment". Violating their religion, perhaps. Violating the will of the people, perhaps. But alignment is irrelevant. What is their personality? How do they feel about it?

That is what should determine their response.

[gkathellar]

Bear in mind that when a ruler interferes in the affairs their vassals, that's an expenditure of political capital, especially if the vassal is conducting themselves according to statute. Historical kings rarely operated with impunity, and when they did it's because they put tremendous effort into keeping their power centralized. Those who meddle excessively will find that they are quick to make enemies and even quicker to lose allies. (Of course, failing to meddle when it's necessary can be just as dangerous, but that's a different topic.)

Your ruler may not like what the nobility are doing, but if there's no actual slavery or coercion involved and/or the nobles are within their rights, it may not be worth interfering.

[Kish]

So, are we really discussing the morality of ****-fighting, and killing animals for sport?

Anybody got a rules citation for D&D "good" that covers this. Or, heck, that covers blood sports in general?

EDIT: also, the leader shouldn't have to worry about "violating their alignment". Violating their religion, perhaps. Violating the will of the people, perhaps. But alignment is irrelevant. What is their personality? How do they feel about it?

That is what should determine their response.

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
As is usually the case when someone argues that alignment is just random crap that doesn't mean anything, I don't think this is ambiguous at all. If you can fit "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" in the same headspace as "the events depicted in the SAW movies," without rewriting those terms into meaninglessness, I find that boggling. Having them sign contracts agreeing to be mutilated or die horribly for other people's entertainment matters a great deal to the Lawful alignment, not at all to the Good alignment.

That said, adventurers are generally really rich. If there's truly no coercion involved, not even the passive coercion of "do this or go hungry because you can't afford food," and the adventurers are just agreeing to this because they'd rather have +4 swords than +3 ones, I could see a good-aligned ruler taking the position that all the intervention they can really justify is watching the nobles closely and being ready to act if this ever becomes anything other than a game in which all the participants are rich lunatics.

[King of Nowhere]

I would say it depends on how great is the risk, and how great is the free will of those participating (as in, highly paid professionals as opposed to poor people who took the chance to escape debts).

Let's take a couple of real world standards, hoping that they are tame enough to stay within forum rules: car racing and boxing. Both are dangerous sports, in both cases it has happened that someone died or became disabled because of them. but it happens very, very rarely. Rarely enough that there are people doing those just for fun. Also, there are all kind of rules and safeguards to ensure that real damage is extremely unlikely.
Also mountain climbing is another case where we accept that people take risks. One person in three who attempted to climb the K2 died on the way, but nobody goes to put fences around the mountain to stop people from going. We assume that those who go there have the right to put themselves at risk.

So I would say that dangerous sports are acceptable to a good culture as long as they keep similar standards. Keep in mind that the presence of resurrection and regeneration makes the concept of "acceptable damage" much more lax.

Another moral concern is whether the entertainment is about watching people with great skill, or about watching people getting hurt. The latter is decadent, but the first is not.

My campaign world has similar blood sports where adventurers are sent into a dungeon crawl for the entertainment of a crowd ("dungeoning"), but there's the caveat that everyone participating must bring enough diamonds for his own resurrection, just in case (a cleric capable of casting it, and regeneration, must be available). Also, there are emergency exits and other ways to prevent actual death, (EDIT: for example, as the death trap is about to kill the unfortunate adventurer and it's clear he can't get out, an employee stops the trap, and another comes out of a bolt-hole and gives a healing potion to the victim) as the expence would quickly make the whole business a net loss. In fact, only the most rich nations practice it, because it's very expensive to practice safely.

[Darth Ultron]

So, are we really discussing the morality of ****-fighting, and killing animals for sport?

Good has no problem with killing animals. Good only really has a problem when it comes to excessive cruelty. Good has no problem with hunting animals. Though the animal blood sports are much more for Chaotic Good, and not Neutral or Lawful Good.



Anybody got a rules citation for D&D "good" that covers this. Or, heck, that covers blood sports in general?

Well D&D good allows for killing freely, so there is no reason that would not cover blood sports. A lot of people don't ''like" it, but that does not make it Evil.

If a fighter can just walk out of town to some ruins and kill whoever or whatever they see....how is that any different from doing it in an arena? It's not.

[Jon_Dahl]

Thank you for the feedback so far, I really appreciate the input. I hope I won't derail my thread if I present one of the games to you.

In this game, you are in a room that has only one door that has a lock. You are naked and the room is completely empty. The only thing that exists in the room is a small key. You are told that you can only receive the permission to leave the room if you first discover and say the secret password.

Another player will enter the room after two minutes. You may not hurt each other. This player will win and you will lose if he or she finds the key within five minutes. The player has a hint where to look for the secret password. If the player has not found the key within five minutes, he or she will lose and you will win. If the player loses, he or she will be obligated to give the hint to you. What do you within those two minutes?

The player enters the rooms and either finds the key or does not find the key.

The player wins, you will be given your clothes and asked to you leave. You have lost and are out of the game.

The player will be cued to leave the room and tell you the hint. The hint will be that the secret password will be in different pockets of your clothes and you have to piece the password together. The player leaves, your clothes will be thrown into the room and the door will be closed and locked. You will find the syllables "wa", "ter", "trap" in the pockets. You will also find a small rusty knife. When you say the words "water trap", a voice will inform that you are free to leave the room. The room will then slowly start to fill up with water. After five minutes, the room will be full of water.
What do you do? You cannot use brute force or magic to escape the room, which has adamantium walls and the room has an Anti-Magic Field

The relevance of this question is to demonstrate how the games will be. That may be relevant to some posters.

[Quertus]

Good has no problem with killing animals. Good only really has a problem when it comes to excessive cruelty. Good has no problem with hunting animals. Though the animal blood sports are much more for Chaotic Good, and not Neutral or Lawful Good.



Well D&D good allows for killing freely, so there is no reason that would not cover blood sports. A lot of people don't ''like" it, but that does not make it Evil.

If a fighter can just walk out of town to some ruins and kill whoever or whatever they see....how is that any different from doing it in an arena? It's not.

Um, the quote from the SRD (thanks Kish!) said "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, "

So, personally, I'd say that killing animals for sport would be covered under both "respect for life" and "protect innocent life".

And I'm not sure that I'd describe D&D good as "killing freely", especially not "whoever or whatever they see."

[Segev]

Good being squeamish about blood sports is reasonable, but not crucial. Cruelty and bloodlust as attractors would be frowned upon, but violence done with skill as a display of prowess may be acceptable. Good would, where sentients are involved, insist that all be willing. And would also demand minimal suffering. If death is involved, it is to be swift and as painless as possible. No prolonging, torture, etc.

Lawful good night outlaw such things if squeamish about it. Chaotic good would not, viewing it as a matter of personal taste for the willing participants.

[Darth Ultron]

So, personally, I'd say that killing animals for sport would be covered under both "respect for life" and "protect innocent life".

And I'm not sure that I'd describe D&D good as "killing freely", especially not "whoever or whatever they see."

The trick is not to mix weird modem thoughts with the more classic ones.

Hunting animals for sport is not an evil act, nor is eating animals. People can ''not like it", but that does not make it evil. To one big view of good, animals don't count as ''innocent beings of life": they are more "objects to be used". You could be wacky good and say you can not ever kill any life for any reason...but then such a person won't live for more then a short wile if they eat nothing.

And the killing freely is tricky. A good person can't kill good or neutral folks freely, most of the time, in civilization without a good good reason. However a good person can always freely kill an evil person....though, for the most part, they should avoid this in civilization. But all this ends at the line of civilization.

Once in the 'wild' a good person can kill evil and even neutral freely. If your in the wild and your attacked by an animal or creature you don't have to ''safely capture it and take it to a wild life zoo". Same way if you encounter a human or humanoid foe or one that just opposes you, you may simply kill them. If you encounter say a goblin bndit, a good person does NOT have to...sigh...capture the goblin and do no harm, then collect evidence of the goblin's crime, escort the goblin back to civilization, press charges against the goblin, have the goblin put into jail to await trial(that must have at least a half goblin jury) and then be a witness in the case to accuse the goblin of being a bandit..and then if the goblin is found guilty, the judge will give sentience. All that is not D&D good......D&D Good is ''Lorn swings his sword and cuts the head off the goblin bandit!".

[Raven777]

As far as I know Good can condone a "blood and honor" mind set that would allow consensual fights and contests. This is evidenced by the Chaotic Good afterlife being an endless series of bloody battles for honor and glory followed with getting blackout drunk celebrating victory. Codified jousts and duels to the death also feel like things Lawful and Neutral Good would be OK with, while underground fighting rings would be more likely to be prohibited.

Now, what goes on in Saw, with the levels casual disregard for life that entails, would absolutely not fall under anything remotely honorable or glorious. Good authorities might indeed take moral issue. Depending on their power to do so, they should at the least denounce and at the most forcibly shut down these events.

[hamishspence]

As far as I know Good can condone a "blood and honor" mind set that would allow consensual fights and contests. This is evidenced by the Chaotic Good afterlife being an endless series of bloody battles for honor and glory followed with getting blackout drunk celebrating victory.

More "Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies" than "Chaotic Good".

[Almadelia]

There's very little anywhere about blood sports being evil, or even betting on gladiators. The closest you get is slavery being explicitly called out as being Evil, and one imagines that it's not Evil to allow people to sign up to fighting tournaments for glory. Remember that a joust is effectively just a blood sport in dressed up in expensive gilded armor.

[Jon_Dahl]

Remember that a joust is effectively just a blood sport in dressed up in expensive gilded armor.

This is a very good point! I have never even considered that before.

[hamishspence]

Death is not the intended result of normal jousts, though.

[Almadelia]

Death is not the intended result of normal jousts, though.

Technically, neither is that the intended result of a gladitorial combat - many gladiators who didn't put on an absolute rubbish show were generally just sent back to be treated. It's just a rather probable result of swinging weapons at unarmored enemies (though boxing matches were also quite common). You could say the same for jousts - your normal joust doesn't intend to kill the Duke, sure, but running a massive warhorse full tilt at someone with a hardwood stick braced against your arm pointed at their chest has a pretty decent chance of killing them outright, even with a shield between and a blunter on the lances.

[Aka-chan]

I think that, to be compatible with a Good alignment, any gladitorial combat would have to be restricted to willing participants. But as others have pointed out, there isn't really a huge difference between such a contest and a joust or knightly tourney, and very few would categorize those as things a Good-aligned leader would "have to" do something about. It just doesn't make sense that "willing participants fighting each other or dangerous monsters for money in an arena" would be Evil in a setting where "fighting bad people or dangerous monsters for money in the wilderness" is an accepted career choice.

[gkathellar]

Technically, neither is that the intended result of a gladitorial combat - many gladiators who didn't put on an absolute rubbish show were generally just sent back to be treated. It's just a rather probable result of swinging weapons at unarmored enemies (though boxing matches were also quite common). You could say the same for jousts - your normal joust doesn't intend to kill the Duke, sure, but running a massive warhorse full tilt at someone with a hardwood stick braced against your arm pointed at their chest has a pretty decent chance of killing them outright, even with a shield between and a blunter on the lances.

Aye, a well-trained gladiator was first-and-foremost an investment, and so there was effort put into keeping them alive and training them to put on a good show without killing each other. Serious matches had more than a touch of pro-wrestling to them.

There were definitely highly-lethal bouts, but they tended to be arranged beforehand as big melees where the entire point was to see a massacre, and to revolve around unskilled fighters whose deaths wouldn't constitute enormous sunk costs.

[Telonius]

I think that the intent matters. If we're talking about a contest where the express purpose is to end in one or the other participant dying for a crowd's entertainment, I don't think there's all that much difference between that and an individual killing someone for fun. That would be Evil. If death is an unintended byproduct of the match, it would kind of depend on what safeguards you took beforehand. If there's negligence to the point where it's really casual disregard for safety, Evil. If reasonable precautions, anywhere from Neutral to Good. (For a modern-day example, the existence of the Olympics is arguably a Good thing. An athlete dying on the luge course is a horrible tragedy, but it doesn't make the Games in general Evil).

For what the OP described, I don't think that would be a Good thing. If there are Clerics on hand (I'm imagining Clerics of Kord, or maybe St Cuthbert as referees) with Contingent Delay Death and healing magic, Neutral. If not, Neutral edging to Evil, depending on how ridiculous the traps are and whether they just let any random person join without a qualifier.

[Almadelia]

I think that the intent matters. If we're talking about a contest where the express purpose is to end in one or the other participant dying for a crowd's entertainment, I don't think there's all that much difference between that and an individual killing someone for fun. That would be Evil. If death is an unintended byproduct of the match, it would kind of depend on what safeguards you took beforehand. If there's negligence to the point where it's really casual disregard for safety, Evil. If reasonable precautions, anywhere from Neutral to Good. (For a modern-day example, the existence of the Olympics is arguably a Good thing. An athlete dying on the luge course is a horrible tragedy, but it doesn't make the Games in general Evil).

For what the OP described, I don't think that would be a Good thing. If there are Clerics on hand (I'm imagining Clerics of Kord, or maybe St Cuthbert as referees) with Contingent Delay Death and healing magic, Neutral. If not, Neutral edging to Evil, depending on how ridiculous the traps are and whether they just let any random person join without a qualifier.

I disagree. As long as you signed yourself up, well, you knew the risks. It's not Evil just because you miscalculated how tough you are.

[Telonius]

I disagree. As long as you signed yourself up, well, you knew the risks. It's not Evil just because you miscalculated how tough you are.

Consent is necessary but not sufficient; kind of like how slavery would still be Evil, even if somebody willingly sold themselves. If you're putting on an alligator wrestling competition, you have some responsibility to verify that the contestants are somewhat capable of wrestling an alligator, and won't just be immediately eaten. That falls under "respecting life" for the organizer.

[Almadelia]

Consent is necessary but not sufficient; kind of like how slavery would still be Evil, even if somebody willingly sold themselves. If you're putting on an alligator wrestling competition, you have some responsibility to verify that the contestants are somewhat capable of wrestling an alligator, and won't just be immediately eaten. That falls under "respecting life" for the organizer.

I'm pretty sure this is just an opinion and one supported basically nowhere at all in the actual materials. It's not as if a competition organizer for the PCs is mandated to be Evil if he doesn't immediately tell this ragtag group of wandering nobodies they're not allowed to sign up because "didn't you know that Tatiana the Raven and Alaya the Necromancer are participating this time and they don't pull punches!?!?". As for slavery, it's actually explicitly pointed out that you can't just sell yourself into slavery, which has always been a rather weak stance since you can very easily redefine selling yourself into slavery as "pay me next year's wages before I work that year". Agreeing to that doesn't require you to be Evil.