PDA

View Full Version : Moral dilemmas, yay!



Saph
2007-09-30, 08:49 AM
I've been a member of this forum for almost a year, and I'm finally starting an alignment thread. I feel like I've gone through a rite of passage or something. :)

Anyway, an event from yesterday's session - our party of 10th/11th level was working its way through a Dimension Locked dungeon when we opened a trapped door into a wide room with a magical darkness effect. The party was clustered in the corridor and couldn't see into the room, but the glabrezu (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#glabrezu) hiding in the back of the room could see us just fine, and proceeded to hit the party with two confusion spells that got everyone but me and the cleric. The glabrezu then power word stunned the cleric, put up a reverse gravity so that no-one who tried to get into the room could reach him, opened some popcorn, and sat back and laughed as the party proceeded to kill each other.

I was at the end of the corridor, trying to dispel the confusion while the party hacked each other to bits, when the glabrezu started talking to me telepathically. The gist of the conversation was that it would offer me a deal - it would dismiss the confusion spells and let the rest of the party live, in exchange for me giving it one of the PCs. By this point one of the PCs had floated into the room and was bobbing on the reverse gravity, so the glabrezu said he'd take that one - if I agreed. The cleric was still stunned, and the remaing party members were beating the crap out of each other, doing huge amounts of damage. The chances of me dispelling two CL 14 confusion spells was pretty much zero, and the glabrezu could have just recast it anyway.

What do you think the best thing to do would have been? And if this was your game, and a PC said yes to this deal and gave the glabrezu one of the other characters, would that be enough to drop their alignment from Good to Neutral?

- Saph

Yuki Akuma
2007-09-30, 08:53 AM
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

It's an Evil action, to be sure, but not an alignment-shifting one (unless the character shows no remorse whatsoever). A Paladin will fall. A Cleric might have an angry deity on his hands. But it won't change their alignment.

Intent is the thing that shifts alignments around. Alignment is your character's beliefs, not what they do. Paladins and Clerics can't do evil deeds, but that's specific only to them. A Good character can do something Evil is the ends justify the means (although it's still evil). Just be careful, as it's a bit of a slippery slope once you start down it. When you start doing morally objectional things all the times simply because it's easier, then you're going to slip to Neutral...

Remember: people generally don't change alignments after they reach adulthood, unless they go through something completely life changing. Your core values don't alter much once you've cemented them.

KIDS
2007-09-30, 08:56 AM
Sacrificing one person to save many others (especially in such a situation) is not a cause for anyone to be Nazi about alignments. I think a Paladin or Exalted character might lose his abilities for doing that, but otherwise it's nothing like "you become neutral". Why you did it and how you felt about doing it is much more a factor in there.

The question that also interests me is what did the Glabrezu do? That was a very interesting situation.

All in all, people often have the desire to act rules-lawyeringly and wield alignments as tool against other players but whether this character becomes neutral or remains good or heads up to exalted is his and his matter alone, and he can take it either way. Hope that helps.

Kaelaroth
2007-09-30, 09:00 AM
Personally, I would've sacrificed the player Saph. My DM would probably have shifted me a bit nearer to evil, unless I could provide incredible reasoning for it.

Typically, one offers to give over the weakest or most evil member of the party, so you can claim your act was excusable.

Yuki Akuma
2007-09-30, 09:02 AM
Personally, I would've sacrificed the player Saph. My DM would probably have shifted me a bit nearer to evil, unless I could provide incredible reasoning for it.

Typically, one offers to give over the weakest or most evil member of the party, so you can claim your act was excusable.

Sacrificing the weakest just because he's the weakest isn't really excusable. It's very Darwinian, though...

And... 'most evil'? Uhm. D&D alignments may be objective to outsiders... but if you actually live with them, it's going to be a little more subjective, wouldn't you say? How can you be sure who the 'most evil' is, if none of the characters are actually Evil?

Green Bean
2007-09-30, 09:02 AM
I'd say that your actions should not have resulted in an alignment change. While technically an evil act, it was modified by an intent to save the rest of the party. As Yuki_Akuma said, a paladin would fall, but his alignment wouldn't shift. Besides, frankly, the glabrezu was at a powerful enough advantage to take one of your party members with or without your consent.

Of course, if it were my game, the important part would be seeing how the character reacts. Does he/she feel guilty about it for a while afterwards? Does he/she insist that they find some way to rescue them?

leperkhaun
2007-09-30, 09:03 AM
I generally see alignment as a guideline. For situations like this it would have to depend on your characters history and their moral code.

Basically i would go like this. If there is no reasonable way for you to take out enemy and this was basically the only way to save the rest of your party, i could see it NOT affecting your alignment.

HOWEVER, are you going to trust that guy?

Saph
2007-09-30, 09:07 AM
Besides, frankly, the glabrezu was at a powerful enough advantage to take one of your party members with or without your consent.

Yes . . . and that was what was strange. After I'd had the chance to realise how bad our situation was, I told it: "Wait a minute. If you decided to just walk up right now and take him, I'd have no chance of stopping you anyway. So why are you trying to make a deal instead?"

The glabrezu's answer: "Oh, I've got my reasons. Ooh, look, the ranger's animal companion just died. Better hurry and make up your mind, elf."

- Saph

Counterpower
2007-09-30, 09:11 AM
I've always held that no one action is so evil that it can change your alignment. Alignments reflect a character's general attitudes. They do not respond to single acts, they respond to trends or patterns of activity.

That said, selling out one of your friends to a creature of pure Evil's up there on the bad list. I agree with Yuki on that: paladin falls, cleric might have some explaining to do. And if a Good-aligned character wasn't haunted by the decision they were forced to make, I would start questioning their alignment.

As for the best choice here? Of course, it's not easy to decide. I would like to be able to spit in the face of that foul creature (figuratively) and tear him to pieces, but it's one thing to want to do that and another to actually be able to do it. I will say that if I accepted the deal (and I'm not sure if I would or not) then Step 2 is to do some specialized preparation and Step 3 is go and get my friend back, killing a certain glabrezu in the process.

And the glabrezu's motivation is probably the possibility of corrupting you to a more evil viewpoint. That, or he has no intention of honoring the deal anyway. He is Chaotic after all.

Green Bean
2007-09-30, 09:13 AM
Yes . . . and that was what was strange. After I'd had the chance to realise how bad our situation was, I told it: "Wait a minute. If you decided to just walk up right now and take him, I'd have no chance of stopping you anyway. So why are you trying to make a deal instead?"

The glabrezu's answer: "Oh, I've got my reasons. Ooh, look, the ranger's animal companion just died. Better hurry and make up your mind, elf."

- Saph

I have a sneaking suspicion that it had more to do with your consent than the actual capture.

Clementx
2007-09-30, 09:24 AM
That is a really good situation your DM came up with, and highlights how horrible demons can be. If you wanted to spit in the face of the glabrezu, you could choose yourself as the sacrifice. That would probably annoy him so much he would kill the entire party, but he might capture you instead to make you pay for ruining his fun.

Of course, the next step is taking the DM aside and asking him if he would be ok with splitting the party, or, failing that, asking if you can cast a Fireball as a touch spell to negate the save so you could kill the demon and yourself, or some other Pyhrric victory.

If you were to select someone else, to maintain good alignment, you would need to display remorse, such as leading the efforts to rescue/revive the lost party member. Not saying I would require you to personally foot the bill for a Resurrection, but something as simple as trading out your usual defensive buffs for ones that will help the party survive the ensuing challenges/get revenge on the demon.

GoC
2007-09-30, 09:29 AM
It's a pretty neutral act.
Sacrificing the one to save the many is generaly the right thing to do if you could trust the demon.
As you can't (he's chaotic) it's best to agree and then attack when he drops the confusion spell.

Murongo
2007-09-30, 09:31 AM
Haha. The solution to the problem is to be the party leader and the most powerful in the party. Even my LN characters would elect themselves as the sacrifice and then dual the demon one on one. I mean hey- even if you die- you died a stubborn badass. And if you're good, you just validated your character's existence.

That and I'm good enough at making characters that I usually win...

Nowhere Girl
2007-09-30, 09:41 AM
It's all pretty subjective, but I'd say sacrificing one of the party members is, on the good/evil end of things:

1. A good act if you're doing it strictly to save the lives of your other companions, because there appears to be no other way. Of course, the most truly heroic version of this act comes in this form: "Fine. Take me."

2. A neutral act if you're doing it to save your skin but not out of any kind of malice. Remember, neutral characters, while not evil, don't make sacrifices to help others. That would be good characters.

3. An evil act if you view this as the perfect opportunity to eliminate a troubling rival while retaining the ability to claim innocence. "I'll just tell them, 'I had no other choice!' They might even thank me, the fools. Muahahaha!"

Whether it's good, neutral or evil, it's probably a chaotic act just the same, as it constitutes situationally compromising a principle (with the exception of sacrificing yourself, which doesn't constitute betraying the trust and loyalty of any of the others by making the decision for them that they will be sacrificed). Unless of course you're lawful evil and sacrifice the weakest member on the grounds that the weak exist to serve the strong, perhaps.

PaladinBoy
2007-09-30, 09:44 AM
After reading the glabrezu entry....... well, it says that it is one of the demons that enjoys tempting mortals. Getting you to sell out one of your party members to it is just as much as a victory to it as watching the entire party destroy itself.

On top of that, the demon is just as likely to watch you commit an evil act and leave you with dead friends then he is to actually follow through with his end, IMHO. More suffering and pain for mortals is what he wants, and I'm guessing that handing someone over then watching the rest of your friends die would be pretty bad. On the other hand, he might decide to give you and your friends false hope by letting you live so he can crush you later.......hmm.

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if the demon kept asking for another party member, until you had given him your entire party (except yourself). Then he would leave to let you stew over the fact that you just sold out your entire party just to save yourself. Admittedly, this only happens if you're stupid enough to think that he's actually going to follow through even after he doesn't once or twice.

All of this really adds up to one thing. This is a dangerous deal to make; the glabrezu has forced you into a very bad situation, likely so it can tempt a mortal. Personally, I think denying it that prize would be a true victory, even at the cost of the entire party, but I do realize that deciding this on behalf of my friends (who may not share my paladin-like morals) is a little arrogant. Even so, how does one explain to a friend that one of their other friends is likely dead (or worse) just so they could live? I must admit, in this situation, I would rather die with my friends then consign one of them to torture and possibly death...... a few decades later.

And in my game, this situation would be set up so that accepting the deal would lead to major problems (the glabrezu would not follow through or would ask for more party members), while staying true to Good even through likely death would cause the glabrezu to look for someone easier to tempt, and if the lingering effects of the glabrezu's spells caused the party's death, then I would reward them either in-game (Celestial forces reward you for your devoted Good, and revive you. Oh, and you all have new magic items) or out-of-game (Okay, roll up new characters. You can go up to X gp over the wealth-by-level).

EDIT: Why didn't I think of giving myself to the demon?! Paladins are supposed to sacrifice themselves for others........ I'm a horrible paladin :smallfrown:

More seriously, I think that would make the glabrezu mad enough to kill the entire party and take you straight down to the Abyss so it could enjoy your suffering for the length of your natural lifespan (and possibly longer if it could figure out a way). After all, instead of provoking evil from you, it provoked good. :smallamused:

Nowhere Girl
2007-09-30, 09:46 AM
So, for example, intentionally sacrificing someone in the party whom you know to be evil, because you know them to be evil, is probably pretty much chaotic good.

"Coolies! A chance to save the party and get some vigilante justice, all at the same time!"

horseboy
2007-09-30, 09:56 AM
First, I would like to point out that this is D&D. Death=/=Dead. So long as you guys have your toe nail clippings in your safe deposit box in the bank back in town, he's fine for a reincarnate/resurrection. There's really no moral ambiguity here, just a moment's inconvenience.

Second, he never bargained for his own safety. So you could easily use the distraction of him eating the other character to get the party back together, and take the offensive. Then raise the dead guy.

PaladinBoy
2007-09-30, 10:01 AM
So, for example, intentionally sacrificing someone in the party whom you know to be evil, because you know them to be evil, is probably pretty much chaotic good.

"Coolies! A chance to save the party and get some vigilante justice, all at the same time!"

That seems questionable. After all, presumably, if you're an adventuring party that's been going strong for a while, then there will be a solid level of trust/friendship among the members of the party, whatever their alignment. And that turns this into betraying a friend...... an Evil act if I ever saw one. It's mitigated slightly by the fact that you're saving the party, but then no remorse over it would toss it right back down.

Of course, I realize there are situations where you could have an evil character in your party who you don't trust and they don't trust you. In which case this isn't too bad. I would still view it as a chance to demonstrate true Good to the evil guy ("See, even though you're evil, I still didn't betray you.") which might help turn him to Good.

Rex Blunder
2007-09-30, 10:07 AM
In literature, this type of choice comes up a lot, and the "right" answer usually appears to be "We stand or fall together!" followed by the appearance of a heretofore-unconsidered clever tactic that allows everyone to live. At least, that's what always happens on Star Trek: TNG. And I think you could do worse than basing LG on Captain Picard.

As I believe Nowhere Girl said first, though, the most awesome Good answer is to sacrifice yourself.

In real life, I think it makes ethical sense to sacrifice one person to save the lives of all. However, that might just be evidence that I have an alignment of Neutral Weasel.

PaladinBoy
2007-09-30, 10:08 AM
First, I would like to point out that this is D&D. Death=/=Dead. So long as you guys have your toe nail clippings in your safe deposit box in the bank back in town, he's fine for a reincarnate/resurrection. There's really no moral ambiguity here, just a moment's inconvenience.

Second, he never bargained for his own safety. So you could easily use the distraction of him eating the other character to get the party back together, and take the offensive. Then raise the dead guy.

So death, or your example of getting eaten by a glabrezu, is a "moment's inconvenience"? I don't really think so. Whether or not he's dead permanently, I'm guessing that would be pretty painful and traumatizing. And that's if the demon kills him. Personally, I think it's just as likely that the demon will retreat to its personal torture chamber. And that is definitely going to be painful and traumatizing, and you can't rez him, as he's still alive.

Yuki Akuma
2007-09-30, 10:11 AM
First, I would like to point out that this is D&D. Death=/=Dead. So long as you guys have your toe nail clippings in your safe deposit box in the bank back in town, he's fine for a reincarnate/resurrection. There's really no moral ambiguity here, just a moment's inconvenience.

Second, he never bargained for his own safety. So you could easily use the distraction of him eating the other character to get the party back together, and take the offensive. Then raise the dead guy.

Demons have several rather messy and psychologically scarring ways of assuring that dead is dead. Or they could simply not kill the bargaining chip!

horseboy
2007-09-30, 10:28 AM
That seems questionable. After all, presumably, if you're an adventuring party that's been going strong for a while, then there will be a solid level of trust/friendship among the members of the party, whatever their alignment. And that turns this into betraying a friend...... an Evil act if I ever saw one. It's mitigated slightly by the fact that you're saving the party, but then no remorse over it would toss it right back down.

Of course, I realize there are situations where you could have an evil character in your party who you don't trust and they don't trust you. In which case this isn't too bad. I would still view it as a chance to demonstrate true Good to the evil guy ("See, even though you're evil, I still didn't betray you.") which might help turn him to Good.

I'm just not seeing the evil here. This is no different than falling into lava. You don't send the whole party into the lava pit to try and get him back. You go back to town, take out his lock of hair and have him reincarnated/resurrected. Then laugh at him for being such a klutz. That there's no perma-dead takes out any real sting or mortality.


Demons have several rather messy and psychologically scarring ways of assuring that dead is dead. Or they could simply not kill the bargaining chip!

Which is why you might have to throw a mercy tap to the back of his nugget. It's nothing your buddies wouldn't do for you.

Mithhuan
2007-09-30, 10:49 AM
Because your intent was to save the rest of the party, giving over one of the party members, in this situation, shouldn't change your alignment. Now, if you were doing it to gain a special favor from the glabrezu that would be different.

The solution to this problem would be to tell it that it's terms may be acceptable only if the party was able to choose who gives themselves to it. After all it could easily kill you all if you tried something foolish. Hopefully it would fall for the bluff and dismiss it's spells. Then you run.

This was an obvious no-win situation. The glabrezu's goal was probably either to turn you to evil or turn the party against you. I did a similar thing to a character that wanted to get his familiar brought back from the dead. After he sold out the party member, the evil cleric in this case cast animate dead and sent the pc on his way. The rest of the party was wiped out later when the now wronged pc lied to them and led them to rescue the "captured" pc. It was a long process of taking a chaotic good pc through each step of evil as listed in the BoVD to the point to where the pc was irredeemably evil.

NecroRebel
2007-09-30, 10:53 AM
I'm just not seeing the evil here. This is no different than falling into lava. You don't send the whole party into the lava pit to try and get him back. You go back to town, take out his lock of hair and have him reincarnated/resurrected. Then laugh at him for being such a klutz. That there's no perma-dead takes out any real sting or mortality.

The difference is that with the lava, it was (probably) the ally's own fault or the fault of an enemy, rather than it being you sending them to certain death. A better comparison would be you pushed your friend into the lava and then saying "Hey, he was Evil so I'm justified," and then calling THAT Chaotic Good. It isn't an accidental death we're talking about here.


Which is why you might have to throw a mercy tap to the back of his nugget. It's nothing your buddies wouldn't do for you.

I'm agreed with you on this point, though. There are fates much worse than death, particularly where death is strictly temporary.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-30, 10:56 AM
The "goodest" thing you could have done is sacrifice yourself, offering your own life for the rest of the party.

That said, I disagree that it would have been "evil" to sacrifice the other character. It wouldn't be "good" either, of course, and is definitely off-limits for a paladin, but given sufficient guilt and shame over it it's certainly not something that should "shift" you.

See, situations like these are precisely why I haven't play with alignment for over a decade.

horseboy
2007-09-30, 11:02 AM
The difference is that with the lava, it was (probably) the ally's own fault or the fault of an enemy, rather than it being you sending them to certain death. A better comparison would be you pushed your friend into the lava and then saying "Hey, he was Evil so I'm justified," and then calling THAT Chaotic Good. It isn't an accidental death we're talking about here.

But he ALREADY was going to die. Using his death would prevent a TPK. If there's not TPK, then that death is only temporary, therefore it doesn't count. You've just got to get back to town to "respawn" him.

Yuki Akuma
2007-09-30, 11:04 AM
There's always someone who uses these threads to say "Of course, I don't play with alignment, because it's inherently flawed, and I am not. Isn't my way of playing so much better?" And then they fail to say what they do about all the spells and special abilities that rely on alignment.

And I'm afraid selling a comrade to a demon is an evil act. The justification doesn't stop that. That's why it's a no-no for a Paladin or a Cleric of a good deity.

Saph
2007-09-30, 11:07 AM
But he ALREADY was going to die. Using his death would prevent a TPK. If there's not TPK, then that death is only temporary, therefore it doesn't count. You've just got to get back to town to "respawn" him.

I should probably point out here that the entrance to the dungeon that we'd taken had been sealed off. We were trying to find a way out when we ran into the glabrezu. Even if we'd managed to fight our way out and gotten back to town, Raise Dead/Resurrection both require a body.

- Saph

Serpentine
2007-09-30, 11:12 AM
What do you think the best thing to do would have been? And if this was your game, and a PC said yes to this deal and gave the glabrezu one of the other characters, would that be enough to drop their alignment from Good to Neutral?
This is a great scenario. Someone's been reading a... Dungeon, I suppose it must have been. Delicious. One of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" moments. Doom several people to probable death, or condemn one to an almost certainly painfully short existance for increased likelyhood of survival for the others? Which way would you (or your character) want to gamble? Either way, I don't think it'd be alignment shift-worthy, especially if you made it clear your character is seriously torn.


Intent is the thing that shifts alignments around. Alignment is your character's beliefs, not what they do. Paladins and Clerics can't do evil deeds, but that's specific only to them. A Good character can do something Evil is the ends justify the means (although it's still evil). Just be careful, as it's a bit of a slippery slope once you start down it. When you start doing morally objectional things all the times simply because it's easier, then you're going to slip to Neutral...
I was under the impression that for simplicity's sake, alignment in D&D is action-based. If a paladin kills an innocent child because it will probably grow up to kill thousands of people, it's still an evil act, no matter what the good intent, and he would probably fall or close to.


First, I would like to point out that this is D&D. Death=/=Dead. So long as you guys have your toe nail clippings in your safe deposit box in the bank back in town, he's fine for a reincarnate/resurrection. There's really no moral ambiguity here, just a moment's inconvenience.
I'm pretty certain that all the resurrecting spells require a part of the corpse. At the very least, Reincarnation definitely has that clause.

Yuki Akuma
2007-09-30, 11:15 AM
D&D has absolutely no rules for changing alignments bar ninth-level spells in non-core splatbooks. Any alignment-shifting that goes on in your games is purely based on house rules.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-30, 11:22 AM
There's always someone who uses these threads to say "Of course, I don't play with alignment, because it's inherently flawed, and I am not. Isn't my way of playing so much better?" And then they fail to say what they do about all the spells and special abilities that rely on alignment.
The only thing flawed here is your reading of the thread, and your attacking people who disagree with you.

Note this recent thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56926) which discusses at length how it is quite possible to replace abilities such as "smite evil" with similar things in systems that don't use alignment.

PaladinBoy
2007-09-30, 11:25 AM
I was under the impression that for simplicity's sake, alignment in D&D is action-based. If a paladin kills an innocent child because it will probably grow up to kill thousands of people, it's still an evil act, no matter what the good intent, and he would probably fall or close to.

Personally, I think it's more complicated than action- or intent-based. I think it's a combination....... good intent counts for a lot, but isn't the whole story, just like good actions.


I'm pretty certain that all the resurrecting spells require a part of the corpse. At the very least, Reincarnation definitely has that clause.

They do (except for true resurrection, but that's 9th level). I belive what horseboy is saying is that the party has kept stuff like a lock of hair or a toenail or something in storage at their home base/ bank/ whatever, and will use that to revive the party member with resurrection.

BardicDuelist
2007-09-30, 11:26 AM
Well, let's see: Self-Sacrifice would have been the most Good option, I agree.
Making a deal with an inherently chaotic creature is probably not a good idea, and so this was not a wise act (but it can be easily argued that it was worth a shot since that alternative was TPK).
In this case, a single act should not change alignment, since desperocity can drive many good people to do a bad thing (though they should be ashamed of it), and many neutral people to rationalize their actions (but will probably have some guilt).

Really, I agree that a single act should not be enough to change alignment, except for certain circumstances: Burning down an orphanage, etc.

My general guidelines for this situation would be:
Good: Sacrifice self for others
Neutral: Save's own skin first, tries not to sacrifice others
Evil: Willingly sacrifices other for self

horseboy
2007-09-30, 11:28 AM
There's always someone who uses these threads to say "Of course, I don't play with alignment, because it's inherently flawed, and I am not. Isn't my way of playing so much better?" And then they fail to say what they do about all the spells and special abilities that rely on alignment.

And I'm afraid selling a comrade to a demon is an evil act. The justification doesn't stop that. That's why it's a no-no for a Paladin or a Cleric of a good deity.
For the record, this is a "D&D sucks" argument, not a "Alignment sucks" argument. :smallwink:
Second, you're not "selling a comrade to a demon", this is just a workman's comp claim for a typical adventurer.

I should probably point out here that the entrance to the dungeon that we'd taken had been sealed off. We were trying to find a way out when we ran into the glabrezu. Even if we'd managed to fight our way out and gotten back to town, Raise Dead/Resurrection both require a body.

- Saph

Oh suck, and you don't have teleport?
Raise Dead requires the whole body.



I'm pretty certain that all the resurrecting spells require a part of the corpse. At the very least, Reincarnation definitely has that clause.

Not according to my PBH. They both say "so long as part of the body still exists," A lock of hair, some nail clippings, part of the body. You keep them stored along with your back up set of gear and your g2g.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-30, 11:30 AM
I don't see anything evil in dealing with the demon if you have to. And it doesn't sound like you had any other options on hand. Unless there's a reason you can't, offering yourself is the classic good response, but I wouldn't see it as evil even if you did give it someone else. Neutral, to be sure.

On the other hand, it seems as if the demon thinks otherwise. It may have a better grasp of the local rules...

RandomNPC
2007-09-30, 11:31 AM
from the OP and given info i don't see where the demon said it was going to kill the party member. maybe it just wants someone to torture for twenty years. then you need a wish spell to get him out of it, and if the DM is that kind of DM then you end up with the demon, your friend, and an animated torture table device, maybe some demented golem, all teleporting into the area you're in when you get your wish.

also, i would have told the demon he doesn't get my friend, he gets me. i'd let my friends leave then i would stand and fight. if i survived i'd start taking levels in paladin, because thats the kind of thing that would make me want to become a pally. it's not that i would want to be a pally, it's that i think after doing something like that you would hear the call to become a paladin. (they are still sponsored directly by the good deities right?)

Serpentine
2007-09-30, 11:38 AM
Not according to my PBH. They both say "so long as part of the body still exists," A lock of hair, some nail clippings, part of the body. You keep them stored along with your back up set of gear and your g2g.
Reincarnate
So long as some small portion of the creature’s body still exists, it can be reincarnated, but the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature’s body at the time of death.

Raise Dead
While the spell closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of most kinds, the body of the creature to be raised must be whole.

Resurrection
The condition of the remains is not a factor. So long as some small portion of the creature’s body still exists, it can be resurrected, but the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature’s body at the time of death.

True Resurrection
This spell can even bring back creatures whose bodies have been destroyed

The last is the only one that doesn't require at least a piece of the corpse.

By the way, the finger, signet ring attached, of my dwarf knight currently resides in the pocket of the druid.

Saph
2007-09-30, 11:39 AM
Oh suck, and you don't have teleport?

Not only do I have teleport, I have a scroll of teleport, and an item that lets me spontaneously cast teleport by sacrificing a 5th-level or higher spell slot. And then we end up in a dungeon with a dimension lock effect. Them's the breaks.


Not according to my PBH. They both say "so long as part of the body still exists," A lock of hair, some nail clippings, part of the body. You keep them stored along with your back up set of gear and your g2g.

Wouldn't work, actually.

From the SRD entry for Resurrection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resurrection.htm):

"So long as some small portion of the creature’s body still exists, it can be resurrected, but the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature’s body at the time of death."

- Saph

horseboy
2007-09-30, 11:46 AM
Well, that's what I get for speed reading. :smallredface:

Serpentine
2007-09-30, 11:49 AM
*ahem*

Tolja so, tolja so! :biggrin:


I'm not right very often :smallredface:

TreesOfDeath
2007-09-30, 12:00 PM
This seems grossly unfair. Both the aligment thing and the fact a DM would pull that on you. I definately do not think its an algiment shifitng action, you have no frgging choice.
I guess one thing you could do is choose the most powerful pc, and as the Glazerbu is comng to take his prize, double team him. But then if you could handle a Glazerbu I doubt you'd be in that situation.
Theirs picking yourself I guess.
But then also, how would you know the Glaz would keep its end of the bargain?

horseboy
2007-09-30, 12:07 PM
This zero-g area, was it just in the room itself, or was everybody floating around all willie-nillie fighting each other?

Saph
2007-09-30, 12:11 PM
But then also, how would you know the Glaz would keep its end of the bargain?

I brought that up too.

Me: "Wait, aren't you a demon? How do I know you're not lying about keeping your end of the deal?"
Glabrezu: "These pacts are not ones we can break. If I strike a deal with you, I'm bound by the power of the Abyss to follow through with my part of the bargain."
Me: " . . . How do I know you're not lying about not lying about keeping your end of the deal?"
Glabrezu: "Stop being a smartass and make up your mind."


This zero-g area, was it just in the room itself, or was everybody floating around all willie-nillie fighting each other?

A 20-foot square just inside the room, so that if anyone rolled "Attack Caster" on the confusion table and charged the glabrezu, they got lifted into the air. That was how the PC inside the room got there. The glabrezu dismissed the spell a few rounds later.

- Saph

Quellian-dyrae
2007-09-30, 12:54 PM
Good rule of thumb is to never trust a demon. Especially a glabrezu. Especially a glabrezu who is trying to get you to perform a morally questionable act. Self-sacrifice seems like a viable bet alignment-wise, get you the moral victory and all that, but ideally we want better than a moral victory. What spells do you have available? Is there a way to prevent the party from killing each other without negating the confusion? Stinking cloud, maybe? Web? Glitterdust? Fear? And if so...can you take the glabrezu on yourself?

Ooh...what about an illusion of the glabrezu casting an offensive spell at them? Did you say he turned off the Reverse Gravity?

drawingfreak
2007-09-30, 01:26 PM
As interesting a debate as this is, I'm more interested in the situation. MORE! Tell me more!

Chronos
2007-09-30, 02:20 PM
If this were a devil we were talking about, here, then there might be a moral dilemma. I still don't trust a devil to keep to the spirit of an agreement (it might, for instance, instantly re-cast Confusion after dismissing it), but it'll at least stick to the letter. But with a demon? The choice is "Continue trying to fight the demon while the demon watches the party kill themselves through Confusion" or "Voluntarily sacrifice a party member while the demon watches the party kill themselves through Confusion". There's nothing at all to be gained by dealing with the demon. At best, you might be able to stall it by keeping up the debate, but then again, while the Confusion spells last, time is on its side.

BardicDuelist
2007-09-30, 02:23 PM
Not to offend your DM, but why would the Abyss have rules concerning anything? It is a plane of TOTAL CHAOS!

dyslexicfaser
2007-09-30, 02:32 PM
Self-sacrifice seems like a viable bet alignment-wise,

Ah, but the glab didn't ask for Saph, did it? It wanted Saph to sell out the party member caught in its reverse gravity.

Kudos to your dm for coming up with this - it seems like a demon (or are they devils?) would enjoy this sort of random emotional torture and twisted moral quandaries the most. Especially glabrezu, who are famed for that sort of thing.

It wouldn't really need a deeper motive, it's a demon (or devil)! Just ****ing with mortal minds (and maybe picking up a snack for the ride back to the Abyss along the way) is enough.

The only problem is that this can cause hurt feelings from the sacrificee out of game if your group isn't mature about it.

Nowhere Girl
2007-09-30, 02:39 PM
That seems questionable.

Of course it's questionable. Chaotic is the alignment of dishonorable action. I think there's an unfortunate tendency to sugarcoat over that point, or to think of the honorable "lawful" side of things as somehow silly or antiquated, but chaotic good is absolutely an alignment that states "the ends justify the means," because in essence, it means "dishonorable good" or "will do anything to accomplish whatever he/she thinks is good."

An evil person being eliminated is good. Therefore, any means that does not itself bring about an evil (no specific evil is brought about by the elimination of an evil person) to justify that end is good, says the chaotic good person. Case closed.

Of course, the lawful character will point out that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions and that once we abandon our principles in the name of "good," we stand to inflict more harm in the long run. But since when did the anarchistic chaotic character care about any of that?

Remember, betrayal, too, is chaotic -- not evil. Lawful people "tell the truth, keep their word ..." and etc. That's right out of the book. Chaotic people are on the opposite end of the spectrum. What do you suppose they do?

BardicDuelist
2007-09-30, 02:42 PM
Remember, betrayal, too, is chaotic -- not evil. Lawful people "tell the truth, keep their word ..." and etc. That's right out of the book. Chaotic people are on the opposite end of the spectrum. What do you suppose they do?

Since this is an alignment thread, I feel I can ask this:

Then why is Hell wrought with betrayal? Isn't it a Lawful plane?

Citizen Joe
2007-09-30, 02:45 PM
Good: "Fine, take me."
Neutral: "OK, I couldn't stop you anyway."
Evil: "Can I have his stuff?"

Nowhere Girl
2007-09-30, 02:51 PM
Since this is an alignment thread, I feel I can ask this:

Then why is Hell wrought with betrayal? Isn't it a Lawful plane?

Well, it depends on the nature of the betrayal. Properly played lawful evil won't break the rules, but it will certainly use the rules. A greedy capitalist who follows the letter of the law but uses it to accomplish horrible things in the name of accumulating more wealth is an example of a lawful evil person.

Here we run into another tricky thing about "lawful" alignments: codes of honor or ethics vary wildly. Bushido is one code of honor. Chivalry is another. They're not the same, but they both mean something, and the truest adherents will follow them faithfully even in the face of impending death. My interpretation of "lawful" is devotion to some distinct set of rules, so the very act of claiming a lawful alignment, in my mind, requires the player to explain why his/her character is lawful in the first place. "Okay, you have a code. What is that code, exactly?"

Yuki Akuma
2007-09-30, 02:58 PM
So, what you're saying, Nowhere Girl, is that you have a double standard?

Betrayel is Chaotic... unless done in a Lawful manner?

Betrayel is, by definition, inherently harmful. Things that are inherently harmful tend to be Evil. Note that breaking your word isn't the same as betraying someone... you can, as you say, betray someone in an entirely Lawful manner. Turning your best friend over to the authorities, for instance.

You also make it sound as if a Chaotic character will break all promises, alwways tell lies and betray everyone just because to do otherwise would be Lawful, which is just silly... :smalltongue: Chaotic Good characters aren't somehow 'worse' than Lawful Good characters. A Chaotic Good character will avoid doing Evil deeds if he can help it. "The ends justify the means" is a rather Lawful philosophy...

puppyavenger
2007-09-30, 03:05 PM
Of course it's questionable. Chaotic is the alignment of dishonorable action. I think there's an unfortunate tendency to sugarcoat over that point, or to think of the honorable "lawful" side of things as somehow silly or antiquated, but chaotic good is absolutely an alignment that states "the ends justify the means," because in essence, it means "dishonorable good" or "will do anything to accomplish whatever he/she thinks is good."

An evil person being eliminated is good. Therefore, any means that does not itself bring about an evil (no specific evil is brought about by the elimination of an evil person) to justify that end is good, says the chaotic good person. Case closed.

Of course, the lawful character will point out that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions and that once we abandon our principles in the name of "good," we stand to inflict more harm in the long run. But since when did the anarchistic chaotic character care about any of that?

Remember, betrayal, too, is chaotic -- not evil. Lawful people "tell the truth, keep their word ..." and etc. That's right out of the book. Chaotic people are on the opposite end of the spectrum. What do you suppose they do?

so what alingment do you think robin hood is?

leperkhaun
2007-09-30, 04:04 PM
can you teleport within the place? or is just leaving restricted?

BardicDuelist
2007-09-30, 04:10 PM
can you teleport within the place? or is just leaving restricted?

Re-read the OP, it is Dimension Locked. That means not dimension door, teleport, etc.

horseboy
2007-09-30, 04:16 PM
Well, since I've got to be less cavalier, (:smalltongue:) I'd go with option "C". Gust of wind the confused party. Worst case scenario, they're in the blackness area, where they're missing 50% of the time and slowing down their attrition until I came up with a better plan. Best case, they go past the reverse gravity and next to the demon where he has to either take licks and AoO's to move out of there, or drops the dimensional anchor so he can dim door out of the way. Or slaughter the party despite your best efforts. Nobody said being a hero would be easy.

BRC
2007-09-30, 04:18 PM
Remember, betrayal, too, is chaotic -- not evil. Lawful people "tell the truth, keep their word ..." and etc. That's right out of the book. Chaotic people are on the opposite end of the spectrum. What do you suppose they do?

A chaotic person wouldn't have many qualms about breaking an oath or telling lies, but that dosn't make them evil.
Example: Lets say somebody has been captured by a group of lawful evil soliders, they ask their prisoner how to get into a city so they can plunder and slaughter, and they say that they will let their prisoner go if he tells them, provided he then promises not too tell the city about their attack.

Now, if the prisoner was lawful, under your interpritation, he couldn't do anything, lets say there is a secret tunnel into the city, if the prisoner tells them about the tunnel he betrays his city and assists evil people in slaughtering citizens, which would be bad, but that acoording to you, his alignment would make him say.

However, if the prisoner is Chaotic, and instead tells them that the best way for them to get into the city is VIA a series of caves up in the mountain, a series of caves which lead nowhere, and the soliders let him go and go off to wander aimlessly around some caves while he breaks his oath and tells the city, which has troops waiting when the LE army emerges from their wild goose chase in the caves. Which of the two prisoners was more honorable, the one who told the truth or the lier who protected the city.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-09-30, 04:35 PM
1. He's a demon, don't believe anything he says.

That said.

2. It's an evil act to give over one of the PCs to the Glabrezu to save the others; Not a "vile" act, but an evil one. You're declaring one life as less valuable/important than the others, and sacrificing him for some idea of the "greater good"

If you gave yourself, or he agreed to go to the Glabrezu, you'd have a different situation.

Anyone can be good in ideal situations, but real heroism involves never giving into the easy path.

3. This can all be excused by matter of utilitarianism and "greater good" reasoning, but that is Neutral thinking, not Good thinking. Good involves holding oneself to a higher standard of morality than a utilitarianist, who only sees people as numbers or abstracts.

BRC
2007-09-30, 04:37 PM
1. He's a demon, don't believe anything he says.

That said.

2. It's an evil act to give over one of the PCs to the Glabrezu to save the others; Not a "vile" act, but an evil one. You're declaring one life as less valuable/important than the others, and sacrificing him for some idea of the "greater good"

If you gave yourself, or he agreed to go to the Glabrezu, you'd have a different situation.

Anyone can be good in ideal situations, but real heroism involves never giving into the easy path.

3. This can all be excused by matter of utilitarianism and "greater good" reasoning, but that is Neutral thinking, not Good thinking. Good involves holding oneself to a higher standard of morality than a utilitarianist, who only sees people as numbers or abstracts.

A comment on that, I think it could also be considered a non-evil act if you picked the person to give to the Glabrezu randomly, that way you are not saying that one life is worth less then the others.

Rex Blunder
2007-09-30, 04:56 PM
Kudos to your dm for coming up with this

I'm withholding my kudos until i find out what further the DM had planned. I don't know how fun this sounds to me. So far it sounds like a nearly unavoidable situation where at least one PC has to die. But I'm willing to give Saph's DM the benefit of the doubt.

Saph
2007-09-30, 06:30 PM
Here's what happened.

My character's a Neutral Good sun elf with an emphasis on the 'good' part - she's kind, pure-hearted, and trusting, and would never think of betraying a companion since the idea wouldn't even occur to her. Which was probably the reason the glabrezu was picking on her in the first place. The DM likes my character, but also can't resist trying out nasty dilemmas on her from time to time to see if he can get her to do something evil. I'd been put in a similar 'Sacrifice your friends or die' position against a dracolich at the culmination of the last campaign season - you can read the story of that one here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2620633&postcount=25).

In this situation, though, I didn't know what to do. I didn't want to let the rest of my party get killed, but I didn't want to give the glabrezu one of them either. I didn't understand why the glabrezu was offering the deal, and didn't know if it would keep it even if I agreed.

Finally I realised what I should have worked out from the start - that it was a no-win choice. The demon wouldn't have been offering the deal in the first place unless any option I picked would make things worse. So I flew into the room, past the confused party who were still fighting each other, and landed facing the glabrezu.

Me: "You're better at this than I am. I don't think I can beat you in a fight either. But I'm not going to make a deal with you and I'm not letting you take any of my friends."
Glabrezu: "What a shame. I guess I'll just have to kill you instead, then. Unless you want to give me that one over there? Because if not I'll take you instead."
Me: ". . . You know, a dragon gave me that same choice a while ago, give him my friends or die myself. I'll give you the same answer I gave him. Go to hell. And if you want to kill me, come and try!
Glabrezu: "Okay."

The glabrezu proceeded to rip me to pieces. Turned out I'd guessed right - I really didn't have a chance against it one-on-one. But while I fought, a couple of PCs finally rolled "Act Normally" on the confusion table and pulled most of the party away down the corridor and down the nearby staircase. I fled and managed to get out of the room and to the stairs before the glabrezu hit me with a final unholy blight that dropped me to negatives. I went down - but by then the cleric had recovered from the stun, and got to me and healed me before I bled to death.

The battle kept going for ages (literally about 30 rounds). The glabrezu was too big to fit through the doorway, so it just spammed unholy blight, chaos hammer, and confusion at the scattered PCs. Finally I managed to badly hurt it with a disintegrate, it lost its temper and charged into melee, and another PC stepped from around the side of the door and finished it off.

The final tally was: one dead glabrezu, two dead animal companions (belonging to the ranger and the kobold trapsmith), one dead PC (the kobold trapsmith) and several more on negatives but stable. The dead PC was the same one whom the glabrezu had wanted me to 'give' to him. He'd only joined our party earlier in the same session, and was being played by a veteran who'd just dropped in to play as a one-time thing.

Not exactly a victory, but could have been a lot worse.

- Saph

Nowhere Girl
2007-09-30, 08:10 PM
So, what you're saying, Nowhere Girl, is that you have a double standard?

Betrayal is Chaotic... unless done in a Lawful manner?

Not quite. I'm saying that the act of betrayal is a generally chaotic thing, as it tends to imply a breaking of some code or set of rules (in this case, a code of ethics), but as codes themselves are varied things, that can vary depending on the type of code in question.

Perhaps I adhere strictly to the idea that it's the natural order of things that the weak serve the strong. I truly believe this, and I hold myself to it, and I may even believe that the strong, in turn, by virtue of being rightful rulers, have a responsibility to use their power wisely. Nevertheless, I have no problem subjugating the weak. I don't mind sacrificing them for my own purposes, and I owe them no explanation. Their function is to serve, and serve they will.

I'm probably lawful evil. ;)


Betrayal is, by definition, inherently harmful. Things that are inherently harmful tend to be Evil.

So it's harmful and evil when an undercover police officer deceives and finally betrays a murderous criminal? Remember, that criminal may mistakenly believe the officer is a friend or ally. And at some point, that officer is going to betray the criminal.


Note that breaking your word isn't the same as betraying someone... you can, as you say, betray someone in an entirely Lawful manner. Turning your best friend over to the authorities, for instance.

But you just contradicted yourself ... twice. First you question that while betrayal is a generally chaotic act, one can still betray someone in a lawful manner in some cases, and then you give an example of it yourself. Then you say that betrayal is by definition harmful, just before you go on to give an example where it might not be (if that best friend did something truly horrible).


You also make it sound as if a Chaotic character will break all promises

Of course not. I didn't think I'd need to be so explicit, but no, a chaotic character doesn't have to lie or break promises every single waking moment. She will, however, probably lie whenever it's convenient (while the lawful character will be honest even when it's inconvenient, and therein lies a fundamental difference) and keep promises only if she happens to feel like it. She thinks the concept of honor is silly and that the ends justify the means.

If she's picked someone out as definitely evil, and she's good herself, she'll probably reason that it's just as well they're done away with, even if the method was underhanded. After all, getting rid of that evil person makes the world a better place: one less evil person in it who might have hurt an innocent somewhere down the line! This isn't the same as a rationalization (which a neutral character might engage in); it's an honest feeling that the baddie had it coming anyway, and fair play and honor are crap, so there's no reason not to throw him to the wolves. Only good can come of it.


"The ends justify the means" is a rather Lawful philosophy...

Is it now? How do you figure? How do you reconcile "tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition" with that? Those are all part of adhering to a code that's pretty far from "the ends justify the means." Maybe I'd like to spread lies about a person I know is evil and has been doing terrible things (but I can't prove it), with the intention of sabotaging him. But darnit, I'm lawful good, so I can't. Why? Because as an honorable person, I'm unwilling to engage in that kind of behavior, even to get at this villain.

But if I were chaotic good, I might consider it a good plan. "Let's use that scumbag's own tricks against him. Heh."

That's the very essence of an "ends justify the means" mentality.

Nowhere Girl
2007-09-30, 08:32 PM
A chaotic person wouldn't have many qualms about breaking an oath or telling lies, but that dosn't make them evil.
Example: Lets say somebody has been captured by a group of lawful evil soliders, they ask their prisoner how to get into a city so they can plunder and slaughter, and they say that they will let their prisoner go if he tells them, provided he then promises not too tell the city about their attack.

Now, if the prisoner was lawful, under your interpritation, he couldn't do anything, lets say there is a secret tunnel into the city, if the prisoner tells them about the tunnel he betrays his city and assists evil people in slaughtering citizens, which would be bad, but that acoording to you, his alignment would make him say.

No, that's a classic misunderstanding of lawful good, one I like to think of as "lawful stupid." First of all, there's no reason that the prisoner need tell his or her captors anything willingly. Second, lying to people who are coercing information out of you effectively "at gunpoint" in order to hurt someone to whom you have a duty is not the same thing as lying because it's a convenient way to achieve a goal. To suggest that it is is an extremely simplistic take on what constitutes reasonable honest behavior.

In short, even the most honorable people in the world will lie if they're placed into situations where they're effectively absolutely forced to. What separates them from dishonorable people is that they won't lie or use underhanded methods to achieve their goals simply because it's convenient.

A better example is something more along the lines of what I brought up in my previous post, where the chaotic good character spreads lies about a person she knows to be evil in order to sabotage him because she's unable to prove that he's evil, while the lawful good character, unwilling to resort to such underhanded behavior to achieve her goals, waits for a better way. Why? Because in the minds of the honorable, honor itself is part of what makes up true good.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-30, 09:09 PM
And now we see the true motivations of the demon: To spawn endless debates about alignment issues! How evil indeed.

Serpentine
2007-09-30, 11:53 PM
And now to add further to its goals...

Chaotic is the alignment of dishonorable action.
I know several self-righteous and Chaotic characters (Robin Hood, my game's rogue) who'll disagree strenuously there. Just because you don't have, say, a paladin's code of honour doesn't mean you don't have any honour at all. Say someone's imprisoned for breaking what the character considers to be an unfair law. Breaking the criminal out will be a Chaotic act, but it will also be honourable, at least to that character's idea of honour.

Saph, I think you handled that admirably. Bravo.

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-01, 01:03 AM
And now to add further to its goals...

I know several self-righteous and Chaotic characters (Robin Hood, my game's rogue) who'll disagree strenuously there. Just because you don't have, say, a paladin's code of honour doesn't mean you don't have any honour at all. Say someone's imprisoned for breaking what the character considers to be an unfair law. Breaking the criminal out will be a Chaotic act, but it will also be honourable, at least to that character's idea of honour.

Well, now, see, that cuts to the heart of the matter, doesn't it? What do we mean by "lawful"? The name suggests "obeys the law," but the description is more in line with generally being honorable, which is not the same thing as slavishly obeying the law. If the law is corrupt, those who truly feel bound by a strict code of honor are likely to be the first to stand up and say so! After all, their codes don't just let them weasel out and wait 'till it all blows over. Think of how Bushido's basic underlying concept, "succeed or die," works out. Does it sound to you like there's much room for weaseling there?

Forget that Robin Hood was opposing the "law" of the moment. Look instead at his motives. Was he an anarchist who fundamentally despised government of any kind? No. Was he a lone wolf determined to do things his way who didn't give two ****s about the government one way or another? No. He was a man determined to overthrow a corrupt regime in order to preserve the rightful one.

Fundamentally, his goal wasn't chaotic. His actions could be argued as being such, somewhat, and on the whole, perhaps he was neutral good. Chaotic good? No, I don't buy it. Chaotic good wouldn't fight to protect any form of government. Chaotic good people are the ones saying "f*** the police" -- but because they feel the very concept of police is fundamentally bad, not because they just want to be able to do anything at all with no consequences.

Edit: At least this is my take on it. The alignment question is a really sticky one, and a lot of it has to do, after all, with how you interpret the meaning of words like "lawful" and "chaotic" to begin with. I can see how others would come to different conclusions. But I honestly don't buy that Robin Hood was chaotic. I don't see it.

Xuincherguixe
2007-10-01, 05:44 AM
Not exactly a victory, but could have been a lot worse.
- Saph

Sounds like a Viking victory to me :P I wonder if Kobolds can go to Valhalla...


But yeah, seems to me like you won the moment you decided to fight. Even if you had been killed.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-01, 08:44 AM
A Chaotic Good character would fight to protect a Good government. Even a Lawful Good one. Chaotic Good people are Good as well as Chaotic! A Good-aligned government is benevolent and helps people. Unless he's a complete idiot, a Chaotic Good character won't rock that boat.

Why would a Chaotic Good person automatically think the idea of the police is a bad one? The police help protect people. Chaotic Good people are (shock!) Good people. They would want people to be protected.

A Chaotic Good character might not like corrupt cops, or the ones who focus on law instead of justice, but they won't hate the idealistic purpose just people it's a Lawful one.

I think you're confusing Chaotic Good with Chaotic Neutral Who Happens To Be A Nice Guy.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-10-01, 12:25 PM
A Chaotic Good character would fight to protect a Good government. Even a Lawful Good one. Chaotic Good people are Good as well as Chaotic! A Good-aligned government is benevolent and helps people. Unless he's a complete idiot, a Chaotic Good character won't rock that boat.

Why would a Chaotic Good person automatically think the idea of the police is a bad one? The police help protect people. Chaotic Good people are (shock!) Good people. They would want people to be protected.

A Chaotic Good character might not like corrupt cops, or the ones who focus on law instead of justice, but they won't hate the idealistic purpose just people it's a Lawful one.

I think you're confusing Chaotic Good with Chaotic Neutral Who Happens To Be A Nice Guy.
Okay; now we've gotten to the heart of why people get alignment wrong:
"A chaotic good character won't rock that boat"

Not true!

Robin Hood might not, but what about a character who is good hearted but anarchist to the extreme? Both are chaotic good, but they have different emphasees.

Alignment is not your character, it's a abstract description of your character. There is not one way to play a chaotic or lawful or good or evil character; Alignment is a tool, not a strait-jacket.


As for betrayal, it's a Chaotic Evil action in the connotation for which it has become known.
In the case of undercover cops, it could be Chaotic Good or Neutral, but really it's not very often referred to as "betrayal" so much as espionage or deception, morally neutral values.

Betrayal, however, carries the connatation of abuse of trust or goodwill; using others and forsaking loyalty. That is CE.

I know this is a semantic argument, but perhaps an important one.

Citizen Joe
2007-10-01, 12:48 PM
Oh NOES! How ever will I distill the complex psyche of the universe into 9 discrete beliefs?

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-01, 01:03 PM
Okay; now we've gotten to the heart of why people get alignment wrong:
"A chaotic good character won't rock that boat"

Not true!

Robin Hood might not, but what about a character who is good hearted but anarchist to the extreme? Both are chaotic good, but they have different emphasees.

Exactly.

What is the nickname of chaotic good? "Rebel." How do they feel about laws or rules (any laws or rules)? "A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him ... He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations."

The types of people who fit into this role are generally those who either just decide in the moment what they think is good and go with that, without concern for any laws, principles or particular codes of conduct, and those who view laws (any laws) and government (any government) as inherently evil and bad and will never be satisfied with anything but total freedom (anarchy).

Chaos is essentially the antithesis of honesty, consistency and structure.

Xuincherguixe
2007-10-01, 01:04 PM
I recommend with a lot of moonshine.

Yuki Akuma
2007-10-01, 01:19 PM
Again, you seem to be slipping into Chaotic Neutral Who Happens To Be A Nice Guy territory.

"Good" doesn't imply that you think what you do is the right thing. It implies that you think "hurting others is wrong", among other things. Many people who would automatically be classed as Evil thought what they were doing was right.

A Chaotic Neutral person would think what they were doing was right, because... they're Chaotic Neutral. From their point of view, governments and laws are bad.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-10-01, 04:27 PM
John Green is a well-meaning person, but he doesn't really care for laws, restrictions, or duties. He lives his life emotionally, helping people when he can but not generally involving himself in any long-term commitments. He dislikes authority, because it stops him from living his life in the moment. He resists laws, but doesn't muster the strength to overthrow them. He thinks bureaucracy gets in the way of doing real good for people.


Marty Red thinks that governments and systems of any kind are an affront to decency; people will never live free with the oppression of governments hanging over their head. He wants to do what's best for people, and he believes that true freedom will help everyone. To this end, although he strikes against symbols of authority and government, never physically harms anyone unless absolutely necessary, and never destroys anything that someone needs to survive. Additionally, he strikes against anyone who would try to take advantage of the liberty of others. However, he believes that people can only help themselves if systems, as a whole, are gotten rid of.


Both these characters are CG;

I'm sick of the limitations about how "CG wouldn't do that, NE wouldn't do that, LN wouldn't do that, et. al."

Or the snarky comments about how alignment tries to "Compress all of morality and philosophy into 9 tiny categories."

It's not the 9 Characters, It's just a descriptive graph of morality and ethics.

There's no such thing as a CG Character, only characters who happen to be CG;
If a CG character kills a puppy for fun, he isn't playing CG wrong, he's playing a character who isn't CG.

horseboy
2007-10-01, 04:50 PM
Can I make this joke (http://www.rhjunior.com/GH/00052.html)?

But, yeah, it's why I hate the alignment system. Which of the 9 stereotypes do you want to play?

ArmorArmadillo
2007-10-01, 05:17 PM
Can I make this joke (http://www.rhjunior.com/GH/00052.html)?

But, yeah, it's why I hate the alignment system. Which of the 9 stereotypes do you want to play?

Don't play an alignment; play a character, and then describe it with alignment!

I'm sorry, but everyone who says that alignment gives you 9 Stereotypes you have to choose between is absolutely, 100% wrong.

Counterpower
2007-10-01, 06:45 PM
Perhaps I adhere strictly to the idea that it's the natural order of things that the weak serve the strong. I truly believe this, and I hold myself to it, and I may even believe that the strong, in turn, by virtue of being rightful rulers, have a responsibility to use their power wisely. Nevertheless, I have no problem subjugating the weak. I don't mind sacrificing them for my own purposes, and I owe them no explanation. Their function is to serve, and serve they will.

I'm probably lawful evil. ;)

I just have to respond to this. Because I don't think I've ever read anything more wrong in my life.

Ever read any of the Enlightenment writers? John Locke? Voltaire? Anything like that? "Government rules by the consent of the governed."

Even the weak have rights. The right to choose. They are under no obligation to sacrifice themselves for someone else's desires! The military serves as an excellent example. The brave men and women don't give up their lives just because their captain, admiral, or whoever else is in charge is stronger than they are. They protect the people, whether those people be weak or strong. While it is their duty to obey orders, that doesn't mean that they don't need any explanation. Would you sacrifice your goals, or more, just because someone who had power over you ordered it? I can only speak for myself, but I would not.

Everyone has their own dreams, their own desires, and their own goals in life. People do not exist solely to serve. Even the weak have the right to pursue their own objectives, and should be able to expect that their superiors will allow this, instead of using them for unrelated objectives that would only help him.

Okay, rant over. You may return to your regularly scheduled thread.

P.S. I do agree with you on one point: that view is most likely LE.

Saph
2007-10-01, 06:54 PM
Okay, rant over. You may return to your regularly scheduled thread.

Oh, I pretty much guessed that it was going to drift into arguing about alignment definitions. That's what all threads that mention alignment do sooner or later, after all. :)

- Saph

Citizen Joe
2007-10-01, 07:05 PM
Oh, I pretty much guessed that it was going to drift into arguing about alignment definitions. That's what all threads that mention alignment do sooner or later immediately, after all. :)
Fixed that for you.

Dervag
2007-10-01, 07:15 PM
John Green is a well-meaning person, but he doesn't really care for laws, restrictions, or duties...

Marty Red thinks that governments and systems of any kind are an affront to decency; people will never live free with the oppression of governments hanging over their head....

Both these characters are CG;

I'm sick of the limitations about how "CG wouldn't do that, NE wouldn't do that, LN wouldn't do that, et. al."I agree, although my preferred example is different:

If Lawful Neutral means anything, then it would seem reasonable to describe both the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and the philosophy of Confucius as being Lawful Neutral. Both philosophers emphasize following rules and pursuing certain kinds of correct relationships as being the key to constructing a good, well-ordered society.

But the philosophies of Kant and Confucius contradict each other on many points, and come to very different conclusions, because they are based on different kinds of 'universal law'. Where Confucius focuses on the importance of certain categories of interpersonal relationships, Kant tries to derive universal moral laws that people are compelled by logic to follow.

So a Kantian and a Confucian could easily end up having a rousing argument with each other, despite sharing the same alignment in D&D terms. And their behaviors in a specific situation might be totally different.


Edit: At least this is my take on it. The alignment question is a really sticky one, and a lot of it has to do, after all, with how you interpret the meaning of words like "lawful" and "chaotic" to begin with. I can see how others would come to different conclusions. But I honestly don't buy that Robin Hood was chaotic. I don't see it.In the specific case of Robin Hood, you may well be right, because there are conflicting explanations for why the legendary Robin Hood was robbing the rich.

Some claim that he wasn't giving to the poor; he was trying to save up money to help pay King Richard the Lionheart's ransom so that the king could come back to England and throw out the 'usurper' Prince John. That would be a lawful goal, although Robin Hood's highly irregular means of achieving the goal would probably make him a Neutral (Good?) character.

Others say that he was simply attacking the rich to restore his own fortunes, which had been taken from him by the actions of his enemies (such as the Sheriff of Nottingham). In which case he'd probably be a moral Neutral or Evil and a Chaotic.

Still others say that he was trying to protect the weak from the abuses of the English throne and its officials, which would qualify as Chaotic Good.

Robin Hood is inherently ambiguous, and is probably not the best example of the chaotic good alignment, although the popular stereotype of him 'robbing the rich and giving to the poor' might be.

PaladinBoy
2007-10-01, 07:52 PM
Before I get to the debate part of this post, I would like to say two things to Saph:

1) Good job on the moral dilemma! You picked the right answer. Have a cookie.

2) I appear to have been so caught up in the heady, intoxicating joy of a moral debate that I forgot to express my undying, eternal thanks to Saph for giving me what I live for....... moral debate. So there you go.

Now.......*ahem*


Not quite. I'm saying that the act of betrayal is a generally chaotic thing, as it tends to imply a breaking of some code or set of rules (in this case, a code of ethics), but as codes themselves are varied things, that can vary depending on the type of code in question.

Perhaps I adhere strictly to the idea that it's the natural order of things that the weak serve the strong. I truly believe this, and I hold myself to it, and I may even believe that the strong, in turn, by virtue of being rightful rulers, have a responsibility to use their power wisely. Nevertheless, I have no problem subjugating the weak. I don't mind sacrificing them for my own purposes, and I owe them no explanation. Their function is to serve, and serve they will.

I'm probably lawful evil. ;)

Aside from the obivous problems with exploiting others, a skillful leader who treats his people properly gains the satisfaction of being a good leader and more effective performance out of his subordinates. So it's a double benefit.

Subordinates that know you will sacrifice them for your own purposes will live in fear and stay out of your way, never knowing when their usefulness will reach its end. They will be more concerned with keeping their heads down than serving the higher goal of your group. And if they don't know why they're doing something, how can they be expected to be particularly motivated or carry on in your absence? For all they know, they're doing pointless busywork that doesn't need doing anyway.

On the flip side, a united group of subordinates that knows the higher purpose of their organization (and can take pride in it) and knows how their actions contribute to that purpose can reach truly amazing levels of effectiveness. Another intstance in which the military is a good example...... this is the model that good military leadership is based on.

Okay, now on to the debate on chaos....


So it's harmful and evil when an undercover police officer deceives and finally betrays a murderous criminal? Remember, that criminal may mistakenly believe the officer is a friend or ally. And at some point, that officer is going to betray the criminal.

You have a point. Betrayal, like many actions, is not inherently evil. I do agree with ArmorArmadillo that the word's connotation generally supports the evil uses more than the good uses.


Of course not. I didn't think I'd need to be so explicit, but no, a chaotic character doesn't have to lie or break promises every single waking moment. She will, however, probably lie whenever it's convenient (while the lawful character will be honest even when it's inconvenient, and therein lies a fundamental difference) and keep promises only if she happens to feel like it. She thinks the concept of honor is silly and that the ends justify the means.

I think this is where the difference between Chaotic Good, Chaotic Neutral, and Chaotic Evil is thrown into relief. When it comes to lying, most Good characters will realize that lies are often wrong and harmful to others, and use them only when appropriate. A more Neutral viewpoint is the typical "me first", namely, he'll lie when he needs to, and only when he needs to. Evil would then be more malicious lies, or lying specifically to hurt others.

Ends justify the means seems, IMHO, to fall under a similar spectrum. A Good character will realize that there are limits to the amount of suffering that can be employed set by simple standards of decency and morality, unless he wants to be as barbarous as his enemy. Neutral is "me first" again, and will often have limits, usually defined by not caring enough about barbarous ends to employ them. Evil will then try to cause as much suffering as possible.


If she's picked someone out as definitely evil, and she's good herself, she'll probably reason that it's just as well they're done away with, even if the method was underhanded. After all, getting rid of that evil person makes the world a better place: one less evil person in it who might have hurt an innocent somewhere down the line! This isn't the same as a rationalization (which a neutral character might engage in); it's an honest feeling that the baddie had it coming anyway, and fair play and honor are crap, so there's no reason not to throw him to the wolves. Only good can come of it.

Now this strikes me as downright dangerous. Dishonorable methods, maybe, but if this drifts toward justifying evil means to take down evil foes, then you're becoming exactly what you're trying to destroy.


Is it now? How do you figure? How do you reconcile "tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition" with that? Those are all part of adhering to a code that's pretty far from "the ends justify the means." Maybe I'd like to spread lies about a person I know is evil and has been doing terrible things (but I can't prove it), with the intention of sabotaging him. But darnit, I'm lawful good, so I can't. Why? Because as an honorable person, I'm unwilling to engage in that kind of behavior, even to get at this villain.

But if I were chaotic good, I might consider it a good plan. "Let's use that scumbag's own tricks against him. Heh."

That's the very essence of an "ends justify the means" mentality.

As I said, this only goes so far before you drift out of Good territory. What is the point of ending an evil threat if you're going to become just like it? What is the difference between you and the enemy if you're doing the same things, only to different people? I believe that if good people really want to be Good, then they have to set themselves apart and apply certain limits of decency and kindness to their actions. In short, morals.

I leave you with one last thought. If you compromise your goals with evil tactics, are you truly aiming for the ultimate victory of Good, or a flawed, corrupted version of the real thing? Are you aiming for a victory for pure Good or the impure version? And why would you want to aim for the latter without even trying for the former? Because if you admit to yourself that using Evil's methods is acceptable, then you will end up using evil actions eventually. And then you are aiming for the impure version.

Hmm, long last thought....... oh well.

horseboy
2007-10-01, 08:39 PM
I'm sorry, but everyone who says that alignment gives you 9 Stereotypes you have to choose between is absolutely, 100% wrong.
Alignments are like pizza toppings, no two people can agree on them. So instead you boil it down to the lowest common denominator of pepperoni, or a stereotype, if you will. Otherwise you have this popping up every time you try and do something. (That, or just not play with a straight jacket on)

ArmorArmadillo
2007-10-01, 10:17 PM
Alignments are like pizza toppings, no two people can agree on them. So instead you boil it down to the lowest common denominator of pepperoni, or a stereotype, if you will. Otherwise you have this popping up every time you try and do something. (That, or just not play with a straight jacket on)

Boiling alignments down into limiting and hackneyed stereotypes because people can't agree on them is sloppy playing.

You don't have to agree entirely on morality, it's meant to be an abstraction and a system with nuance.

People have ruined alignment by expecting it to be exact, simple, and without question. When it isn't, they blame the system when the only real problem was their expectations.

A Lawful Good character can break the law on extreme occasion, a Chaotic Good character can't kick puppies for fun, and a Neutral Evil character can still have friends he refuses to betray.

And, for the record, getting rid of alignment doesn't make anybody a better roleplayer.

horseboy
2007-10-01, 10:25 PM
And, for the record, getting rid of alignment doesn't make anybody a better roleplayer.
No, but it does make it far more fun by having more realistic characters.

Serpentine
2007-10-01, 11:29 PM
Alignment is a guide for how a character might act. The associated stereotypes are useful for the definition of the alignments, but really only so you can deviate from them with an idea of how far you can go before you hit a different alignment. It's a useful tool, no more and no less (well, except when it comes to spells, religion etc.).

A dimension I think is interesting to throw in is emphasis. Which axis is more important to your character? Take your average paladin, for example. Lawful Good. Now, which is more important to him, upholding law and order, the stability of the state and of authority because this is the best circumstance in which people can live (Lawful Lawful Good) or doing what is right and fair, even if said law and order isn't quite in tune with that goal, because occasionally a law will fail to uphold justice (Good Lawful Good)? For example, will he arrest a child for stealing an apple because if you let one off, you may as well let them all off and therein lies the path to anarchy, or will he offer to pay for the apple and give the child some coin and a lecture? (A more personal example: In my dwarf knight's backstory, she's exiled from her homeland because she took the fall for her brother. She believed that taking care of family was more important than strictly upholding what she considered, in this specific instance, to be not entirely just rules and laws. That's not to say that they didn't still mean a great deal to her, just that she considered that situation to be exceptional)
In the case of Chaotic Good, is the rogue distrustful of authority and of the belief that they need to be carefully monitored for signs that they no longer have the good and freedom of their people in mind, but otherwise acknowledges the necessity of an encoded system of laws and an enforcement body for the general comfort and wellbeing of the people - though possibly not that they apply to her (Good Chaotic Good)? Or does she believe that power always corrupts and no person can be truly free while someone else stands over them telling them what is right and wrong and what they can and should or can and should not do (Chaotic Chaotic Good)? In either CG case, they are following their concience, probably adhering to their own personal code of honour. Even a Chaotic character might believe it to be dishonourable to kill a man when he's down, but this idea of honour is probably self-imposed rather than from some external code. It doesn't make them inately any less honourable. Hell, a Chaotic character may even try to avoid telling lies whenever possible. That's not to say they won't get creative or selective with the truth, and it makes it easier to avoid getting caught out (not to mention messing with truth spells).

Chronos
2007-10-02, 12:27 AM
No, but it does make it far more fun by having more realistic characters.Any character you can play in a game without alignment, you can play in a game with alignment, too. It might be a bit difficult to figure out what alignment a character is, but that hardly matters, for most characters.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-02, 12:56 AM
Ironically enough, Robin Hood, while often held up as the iconic Chaotic Good Hero, always struck me as a Lawful Good character. His loyalty was to King Richard, and he stood up to Prince John, who he felt was a usurper of King Richard's throne. His beef with Prince John was his illegitimate use of authority.

As for the OP's DM, cudos. I love moral dilemmas. My players too. Right guys? :smallwink:

horseboy
2007-10-02, 01:18 AM
Any character you can play in a game without alignment, you can play in a game with alignment, too. It might be a bit difficult to figure out what alignment a character is, but that hardly matters, for most characters.

Yes, but much like most of D&D, that's roleplaying in a game system despite the system, not because of it. In an alignment system you get the typical "Look! Orcs outside of town and they look pissed. They're evil, we get to kill them and take their stuff!" In a non-alignment system it's "Look! Orcs outside of town and they look pissed. What do they want?" They've automatically got a deeper response built into the system than "they're evil. Kill them and take their stuff."

Mike_Lemmer
2007-10-02, 02:11 AM
Not exactly a victory, but could have been a lot worse.

So what was the reward for "choosing right"? Treasure? Recognition & meeting a good outsider for once? Or did the GM just go "you survive... this time" and start preparing a nastier encounter?

Jannex
2007-10-02, 03:43 AM
Yes, but much like most of D&D, that's roleplaying in a game system despite the system, not because of it. In an alignment system you get the typical "Look! Orcs outside of town and they look pissed. They're evil, we get to kill them and take their stuff!" In a non-alignment system it's "Look! Orcs outside of town and they look pissed. What do they want?" They've automatically got a deeper response built into the system than "they're evil. Kill them and take their stuff."

I don't think I've ever made a character who killed other sentients just because they were green, and all the D&D games I've played in have used alignments. I guess there's a difference between "playing with alignment" and "playing with alignment stupidly."

Also, I like pepperoni. I don't mean anything deeply metaphorical by that; it's just my favorite pizza topping. It's yummy.

Saph
2007-10-02, 06:13 AM
So what was the reward for "choosing right"? Treasure? Recognition & meeting a good outsider for once?

Nothing, really. Some treasure, but no more than usual.

But then, my character wouldn't expect any reward for being Good-aligned, anyway. You do it because it's the right thing to do.

- Saph

horseboy
2007-10-02, 08:35 AM
I don't think I've ever made a character who killed other sentients just because they were green, and all the D&D games I've played in have used alignments. I guess there's a difference between "playing with alignment" and "playing with alignment stupidly."How/why did you work alignments into WW?


Also, I like pepperoni. I don't mean anything deeply metaphorical by that; it's just my favorite pizza topping. It's yummy.
I like pepperoni, but it gives me the winds something fierce.

Serpentine
2007-10-02, 08:42 AM
How/why did you work alignments into WW?
Huh? :smallconfused: And does WW refer to World of Warcraft? Cuz she wasn't referring to that, I think...

horseboy
2007-10-02, 09:22 AM
Huh? :smallconfused: And does WW refer to World of Warcraft? Cuz she wasn't referring to that, I think...

No, that's WoW. WW is White Wolf, you know World of Dorkness. They've got the Nature/Demeanor system that SOO much better than alignments.


Edit: BTW, nice adds to your avatar.

Serpentine
2007-10-02, 09:31 AM
OOOooooooh, of course. But yeah, she was talking about D&D, I believe. Or were you actually asking, if you know what I mean?
Also: Thankee ^_^

Person_Man
2007-10-02, 10:47 AM
The only Good option is to offer to sacrifice yourself. Anything else would be Evil.

Though it'd say that it certainly falls into the "fog of war" type of "forced" Evil actions, like shooting a prisoner, accidentally killing civilians, or ordering a subordinate into a suicidal mission at the end of the war because you've been ordered to do so by your superiors.

A more creative, and slightly less Evil option would be to agree, but only if you can kill your friend yourself before giving him to the demon. If the demon agrees, you can kill your friend, then cut off some of his hair, hand over the corpse, and then use Resurrection to bring back your friend. It'll suck that he looses all his items and takes a Con hit, but hopefully the demon is a BBEG and you'll be able to get your friend's stuff back when you kill him later. It also makes for a funny story.

horseboy
2007-10-02, 11:00 AM
OOOooooooh, of course. But yeah, she was talking about D&D, I believe. Or were you actually asking, if you know what I mean?
Also: Thankee ^_^

Yeah, I missed the "In D&D" part of her statement.

Saph
2007-10-02, 11:22 AM
The only Good option is to offer to sacrifice yourself. Anything else would be Evil.

Though it'd say that it certainly falls into the "fog of war" type of "forced" Evil actions, like shooting a prisoner, accidentally killing civilians, or ordering a subordinate into a suicidal mission at the end of the war because you've been ordered to do so by your superiors.

In the end I really didn't trust the glabrezu enough to make any kind of deal with it. So I just went in to fight and hoped for the best.


A more creative, and slightly less Evil option would be to agree, but only if you can kill your friend yourself before giving him to the demon. If the demon agrees, you can kill your friend, then cut off some of his hair, hand over the corpse, and then use Resurrection to bring back your friend. It'll suck that he looses all his items and takes a Con hit, but hopefully the demon is a BBEG and you'll be able to get your friend's stuff back when you kill him later. It also makes for a funny story.

. . . Okay, I have no idea what alignment that would qualify as, but there's something seriously creepy about it all the same.

- Saph

SoD
2007-10-02, 12:20 PM
I think that my current character, would probably debate on weather to try and kill the thing himself, and hope he lasts until the cleric comes back, and then get annoyed at himself for debating it in the first place, and offer a 'counter-offer'. A paladin with four whip-daggers and multi-attack. And then get torn to peices.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-10-02, 01:12 PM
Yes, but much like most of D&D, that's roleplaying in a game system despite the system, not because of it. In an alignment system you get the typical "Look! Orcs outside of town and they look pissed. They're evil, we get to kill them and take their stuff!" In a non-alignment system it's "Look! Orcs outside of town and they look pissed. What do they want?" They've automatically got a deeper response built into the system than "they're evil. Kill them and take their stuff."

That's painful metagaming; character's don't know what a group is listed as in the MM.

If someone is saying "Orcs are evil, kill them", they're just awful RPers and that has nothing to do with having an objective alignment system.

Also, people need to stop acting like detecting a Evil automatically makes somebody a Balor; just being a selfish jerk can make someone detect as evil, but they don't necessarily deserve to be killed.

Somehow, people have gotten this completely wrongheaded idea that objective alignment means that everyone falls directly into a one of 9 severe extremes.

horseboy
2007-10-02, 01:35 PM
That's painful metagaming; character's don't know what a group is listed as in the MM.

If someone is saying "Orcs are evil, kill them", they're just awful RPers and that has nothing to do with having an objective alignment system.

Also, people need to stop acting like detecting a Evil automatically makes somebody a Balor; just being a selfish jerk can make someone detect as evil, but they don't necessarily deserve to be killed.

Somehow, people have gotten this completely wrongheaded idea that objective alignment means that everyone falls directly into a one of 9 severe extremes.Probably because that's how it's presented. In none of the prepublished modules I remember reading back when I was really big on D&D (87-97) none of the non-human evil monsters ever needed any motivation beyond "I'm evil, BOOGETY, BOOGETY!" to burn down the peasant's farmstead and steal their goats. It was never the goats got out of the orc's corral, wandered through the forest, where little Timmy found them and brought them home. Let alone Timmy broke them out of the orc's corral, stole the goats and brought them home. Nope, orcs are evil, kill them and take their stuff.

Now, to make them interesting, yes, you probably should home brew alignments into something like you're discussing, but that's not really RAI.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-10-02, 02:23 PM
Probably because that's how it's presented. In none of the prepublished modules I remember reading back when I was really big on D&D (87-97) none of the non-human evil monsters ever needed any motivation beyond "I'm evil, BOOGETY, BOOGETY!" to burn down the peasant's farmstead and steal their goats. It was never the goats got out of the orc's corral, wandered through the forest, where little Timmy found them and brought them home. Let alone Timmy broke them out of the orc's corral, stole the goats and brought them home. Nope, orcs are evil, kill them and take their stuff.

Now, to make them interesting, yes, you probably should home brew alignments into something like you're discussing, but that's not really RAI.

They're monsters, they're supposed to be savage, but not arbitrary. They may be territorial, aggressive, and militaristic, but they don't just kill people because they're evil.

The RAI are meant to allow the DM to tell a good story; if people are seeing Alignment as forcing them to make bad decisions, they're scapegoating their own corner-cutting.

horseboy
2007-10-02, 02:48 PM
The RAI are meant to allow the DM to tell a good story; if people are seeing Alignment as forcing them to make bad decisions, they're scapegoating their own corner-cutting.
Sure, but what kind of story? Alignments work real well for Saturday morning shenanigans. Optimus Primal: Awful Good. Silverbolt: Lawful Stupid. Rattrap: Chaotic Good, Cheetor Neutral Good, Dinobot Lawful Evil. You want passion plays, it works well for that too. Personally, while I can do it in small doses, it's not something I'm fond of, because it's too artificial for a multifaceted character.

Krelon
2007-10-02, 05:19 PM
Nothing, really. Some treasure, but no more than usual.

But then, my character wouldn't expect any reward for being Good-aligned, anyway. You do it because it's the right thing to do.

- Saph

true,

good doesn't expect a reward (doing the good deed is the reward)

neutral expects a quid pro quo (pretty much like our society works in RL)

evil demands for itself not caring if it justified (though it well might be)


of course, egoism is not the only measure for good/evil, I also think that there is some relative aspect (why/to what ends you do something) and some absolute aspect (what is the impact of what you are doing).


the other axis is more tricky and more artificial.
If you never tell the truth, what does that make you? If it is an oath or a code of conduct that you are strictly following then never telling the truth is a lawful thing, isn't it?
If you are an anarchist at heart but you choose to be true to your word and keep three contracts in a row because: 1. you just felt like it, 2.you like the person you made the contract with, 3.you tossed a coin, it doesn't make you less chaotic, does it?



btw, well done. Sometimes a hero has to do the heroic thing (fight against overwhelming odds). I pretty much guess that was anyway what the GM hoped for, the very close outcome of the fight makes your decision even more significant.

Chronos
2007-10-02, 05:46 PM
If someone is saying "Orcs are evil, kill them", they're just awful RPers and that has nothing to do with having an objective alignment system.Not necessarily. Such a person could be doing an excellent job of roleplaying a xenophobic bigot.

Would it be OK by everyone if we have a world where orcs tend to be vicious, ill-tempered, and in the employ of brutal dictators, so long as we don't use the E-word? Because in every fantasy story I've ever heard of with orcs, all of those things apply, and the inhabitants of any town would be at least reaching for their weapons if they saw a bunch of orcs congregating outside of town.

Of course, orcs are only usually evil, so you could still tell an interesting story about a band of orcs who happen to be good. But such a story is interesting by virtue of the fact that orcs are usually evil, and other people are likely to still have unfriendly reactions to them.

Mike_Lemmer
2007-10-02, 06:29 PM
Nothing, really. Some treasure, but no more than usual.

But then, my character wouldn't expect any reward for being Good-aligned, anyway. You do it because it's the right thing to do.

True, but the bumping into a demon just reminded me of the typical imbalance between good & evil outsiders in a D&D game.

"Okay, we've battled a dozen demons so far without any aid or recognition, but this next one looks like a biggy. Think we could get some divine help on this next one?"

*crickets chirp*

"Uh, would asking for an angel backup be too much?"

"We're sorry, the forces of good have taken a vow of non-interference. You're on your own."

"Oh for the love of-"

IMO, recognition is a great way to reward PCs for good RP that's horribly underused, especially since you can use it to single out PCs without imbalancing the game.


Not necessarily. Such a person could be doing an excellent job of roleplaying a xenophobic bigot.

Perhaps, but xenophobic bigots are not excellent to roleplay IMO. Having a blanket reaction to a specific group slides the character towards one-dimensional.

Idea Man
2007-10-02, 11:26 PM
Applause to Saph. Best possible decision!

Demons love to torment weaker beings, moral dilemmas being a favorite. I do that kind of stuff to my players...well, more than I should. :smallamused:

It sounds like the party was outclassed, at least in this situation. I hope you all got a handsome XP reward, with a bonus for roleplay.

Ahh, the fickle, person to person meaning of alignment. My players love to justify anything and everything as "not evil", and I almost believe that they think that it's not.

Basically, alignment is a game mechanic that would be made worse with hard and fast rules, but is an integral part of many games. Because it is a game mechanic, people argue the finer details. While I deplore buying books for role-playing uses alone, the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness pretty well describe the two basic viewpoints of good/evil. Not that the books don't have cool stuff besides. :smallbiggrin:

Not that these books actually solve any problems, just add fuel to the fire. :smallamused:

Yahzi
2007-10-03, 01:26 AM
Good: "Fine, take me."
Neutral: "OK, I couldn't stop you anyway."
Evil: "Can I have his stuff?"
Good summation!

And kudos to the DM for coming up with such a wicked scenario. :smallsmile:

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-03, 02:22 AM
P.S. I do agree with you on one point: that view is most likely LE.

But ... that's the only thing I was saying. It was a "for example" scenario, not an actual statement of my own views. :smallamused:

So in short, you agree with me, and that long digression into disagreeing with me over something I wasn't saying, well ... I'll try to be more explicit next time?

In reality, I think I'm (me, personally?) probably lawful neutral, although I really want to be good sometimes. I oppose my government on principle (strongly), but that doesn't mean I oppose the idea of government or think nothing of honor or codes of conduct. (In fact, the lying, deceiving, thieving, honorless nature of my government is one of my chief objections to it.)

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-03, 02:25 AM
I agree, although my preferred example is different:

If Lawful Neutral means anything, then it would seem reasonable to describe both the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and the philosophy of Confucius as being Lawful Neutral. Both philosophers emphasize following rules and pursuing certain kinds of correct relationships as being the key to constructing a good, well-ordered society.

But the philosophies of Kant and Confucius contradict each other on many points, and come to very different conclusions, because they are based on different kinds of 'universal law'. Where Confucius focuses on the importance of certain categories of interpersonal relationships, Kant tries to derive universal moral laws that people are compelled by logic to follow.

So a Kantian and a Confucian could easily end up having a rousing argument with each other, despite sharing the same alignment in D&D terms. And their behaviors in a specific situation might be totally different.

In the specific case of Robin Hood, you may well be right, because there are conflicting explanations for why the legendary Robin Hood was robbing the rich.

Some claim that he wasn't giving to the poor; he was trying to save up money to help pay King Richard the Lionheart's ransom so that the king could come back to England and throw out the 'usurper' Prince John. That would be a lawful goal, although Robin Hood's highly irregular means of achieving the goal would probably make him a Neutral (Good?) character.

Others say that he was simply attacking the rich to restore his own fortunes, which had been taken from him by the actions of his enemies (such as the Sheriff of Nottingham). In which case he'd probably be a moral Neutral or Evil and a Chaotic.

Still others say that he was trying to protect the weak from the abuses of the English throne and its officials, which would qualify as Chaotic Good.

Robin Hood is inherently ambiguous, and is probably not the best example of the chaotic good alignment, although the popular stereotype of him 'robbing the rich and giving to the poor' might be.

Good point. I was mostly basing my assessment on Kevin Costner's Robin Hood, which is probably not the best thing to do for a few reasons. :smalltongue:

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-03, 02:36 AM
As I said, this only goes so far before you drift out of Good territory. What is the point of ending an evil threat if you're going to become just like it? What is the difference between you and the enemy if you're doing the same things, only to different people? I believe that if good people really want to be Good, then they have to set themselves apart and apply certain limits of decency and kindness to their actions. In short, morals.

No. Ethics, maybe. It's not strictly immoral, necessarily, to deliberately set up a person you know is evil to fall by dishonorable means. In fact, the chaotic good person might argue in return, it's the only moral thing to do in such a situation. "All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." This is it: right here, right now. You know the person is evil. You have an opportunity. If you don't take it, the next time that person does evil, the blood is on your hands. I'm looking at you, Batman.

Your argument is a very good ... lawful argument. See, your mistake is in thinking that a lawful good character wouldn't argue that a chaotic act invites evil. He/she would. Likewise, a chaotic good character would have occasion to argue that lawful acts invite evil. That's why they differ so strongly on that axis: they have very, very different ideas about what really leads to good. They both "make sacrifices to help others," but regardless of their similar intentions, the way they go about it is not just a little different, it's enormously different. It's massively different. It's so different, they occupy opposite ends of the law/chaos part of alignment ... which, in its own way, means just as much as the good/evil part does.

PaladinBoy
2007-10-03, 07:22 PM
No. Ethics, maybe. It's not strictly immoral, necessarily, to deliberately set up a person you know is evil to fall by dishonorable means. In fact, the chaotic good person might argue in return, it's the only moral thing to do in such a situation. "All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." This is it: right here, right now. You know the person is evil. You have an opportunity. If you don't take it, the next time that person does evil, the blood is on your hands. I'm looking at you, Batman.

Your argument is a very good ... lawful argument. See, your mistake is in thinking that a lawful good character wouldn't argue that a chaotic act invites evil. He/she would. Likewise, a chaotic good character would have occasion to argue that lawful acts invite evil. That's why they differ so strongly on that axis: they have very, very different ideas about what really leads to good. They both "make sacrifices to help others," but regardless of their similar intentions, the way they go about it is not just a little different, it's enormously different. It's massively different. It's so different, they occupy opposite ends of the law/chaos part of alignment ... which, in its own way, means just as much as the good/evil part does.

As for dishonorable actions, such as stabbing the evil guy in the back when he's not looking or ambushing him in the dead of night, I actually agree with you. I try to maintain standards of honor, but in a real, actual fight, the only advantage I have is intelligence and cleverness. I'm going to use that, dishonorable or no.

I don't think it's wrong to do so. To a point.

But I have limits. I'm not going to kill an enemy if he's weaponless and can't fight back. I'll take him prisoner. Nor will I humiliate him or inflict any undue pain or suffering. I'm not going to murder an innocent man in order to gain favor with and infiltrate a criminal gang. There are certain points where dishonorable, which isn't very good, changes to evil, which is very, very bad. Crossing those lines will eventually turn me into what I am fighting against, and I refuse to let that happen.

For that matter, I don't really like the dishonorable stuff either. I usually try to avoid it and stick to something resembling a paladin's honor. I just don't succeed nearly as often as I would like.

Now, I'll requote something:

"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." This is it: right here, right now. You know the person is evil. You have an opportunity. If you don't take it, the next time that person does evil, the blood is on your hands. I'm looking at you, Batman.

This point comes up every time an alignment debate comes up. It's usually pretty annoying every time, too. Always, it's said that the good people are doing nothing, which is always patently untrue.

It really doesn't even matter whether the action in question is just dishonorable or truly evil. Either way, the choice is: Compromise principles, or watch evil go free.

The former seems like it is the only good decision. Think about it this way: The evil goes free, and has a chance to commit more crimes. Meanwhile, the hero is hunting him down, and eventually does so. Some evil has been committed, by the villain, despite massive resistance on the hero's part. Keep in mind: The only willing evil acts here were done by the villain........ and the hero tried to stop it, and did succeed, though not immediately.

Sound bad? Well, try this: The hero compromises his principles to destroy the evil. It works well enough that he begins to make a habit of it. He begins to slide into evil. How is good supposed to win the war, as it were, when evil resides in one of its champions? The only way is to redeem the champion or kill him.

Also, I think the number of situations where you know that someone is evil, know that he will do something heinous unless you stop him, and know what every single one of your options are and their chances of success is rather low. Without knowing all of that, the willing evil by omission charge that's laid against the hero becomes rather more murky.

I just don't think that compromising principles is a smart thing to do, unless you want to start doing much more of it than you intend. And once that happens, your morals are in trouble. If you actively say to yourself that you might have to compromise your principles, then you're already nine-tenths of the way to doing it.

I will admit, though: Your take on this as a ideological conflict between Law and Chaos is rather intriguing, and seems rather accurate.

Squee_nabob
2007-10-03, 09:31 PM
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57770

look at the alignment section for ideas about alignment, and it's vaugness (at least on the good/evil axis)

horseboy
2007-10-03, 11:29 PM
It really doesn't even matter whether the action in question is just dishonorable or truly evil. Either way, the choice is: Compromise principles, or watch evil go free.

The former seems like it is the only good decision. Think about it this way: The evil goes free, and has a chance to commit more crimes. Meanwhile, the hero is hunting him down, and eventually does so. Some evil has been committed, by the villain, despite massive resistance on the hero's part. Keep in mind: The only willing evil acts here were done by the villain........ and the hero tried to stop it, and did succeed, though not immediately.

Sound bad? Well, try this: The hero compromises his principles to destroy the evil. It works well enough that he begins to make a habit of it. He begins to slide into evil. How is good supposed to win the war, as it were, when evil resides in one of its champions? The only way is to redeem the champion or kill him.

Wouldn't that really depend on if the hero is actually compromising his principles? I would like to point out Frank Castle here.

Harlequin
2007-10-03, 11:45 PM
Now, I apologize if this has already been said, but I thought I might as well throw it out.

Saph, did you ever think about sacrificing yourself? You would pretty much become the biggest martyr the party will ever know, and I'm pretty sure that would be out of left field for the DM. If I were the DM I'd sit back in my chair for a minute, stunned that a PC would actually think of that, and wiping a tear of joy from my eye, release the party and begin a new campaign arc to rescue you. But that's just me. Maybe your DM's a sadist.

However, whatever your choice may be, remember it's a Demon you're dealing with. I'd be much more likely to sell my soul to a Devil; at least devils keep their words. Demons can be as tricky and as pain-in-the-assy as they want, hence the Chaotic alignment. So whatever you do, be careful, and think it out.

But i strongly recommend sacrificing yourself.

**EDIT: CRAP. I really should read whole threads before I post. Well, disregard all of the above text, unless a similar situation comes up again, or change present tense to past in your head or do something like that, I don't care, I don't have control over you. Goodnight.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-03, 11:48 PM
Wouldn't that really depend on if the hero is actually compromising his principles? I would like to point out Frank Castle here.

You aren't seriously positting that Frank Castle is good aligned, are you?

horseboy
2007-10-04, 12:05 AM
You aren't seriously positting that Frank Castle is good aligned, are you?Why not? It's not like he's running around kicking puppies and slaughtering the innocent. He kills evil people and takes their stuff.

Bitzeralisis
2007-10-04, 12:08 AM
...

Do you have a trick up your sleeve?

Dervag
2007-10-04, 12:13 AM
Why not? It's not like he's running around kicking puppies and slaughtering the innocent. He kills evil people and takes their stuff.However, he is utterly amoral about the tactics he uses to attack them.

I would argue that he kills criminals primarily because he hates them, and not because he wants to protect others. It is quite possible for a neutral person to wage a 'crusade' against evil.

Stormcrow
2007-10-04, 12:17 AM
I have a sneaking suspicion that it had more to do with your consent than the actual capture.

Can a party member sell away the soul of another party member if they give consent for a demon to take that person to the Abyss? Because it sounds like they can.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-04, 12:34 AM
Why not? It's not like he's running around kicking puppies and slaughtering the innocent. He kills evil people and takes their stuff.

Which makes him nuetral at best. His motivation is revenge, not altruism. There is more to being good-aligned than killing evil people.

horseboy
2007-10-04, 12:35 AM
However, he is utterly amoral about the tactics he uses to attack them.

I would argue that he kills criminals primarily because he hates them, and not because he wants to protect others. It is quite possible for a neutral person to wage a 'crusade' against evil.

Amoral, but extremely methodical, meticulous, and ordered. Driven by a pain that he hopes he can spare others from; granted Bigears took that motivation easier without the psychotic episode.

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-04, 12:51 AM
I will admit, though: Your take on this as a ideological conflict between Law and Chaos is rather intriguing, and seems rather accurate.

Then I accomplished all I wanted to accomplished. :smallsmile:

I don't want to convince you that the chaotic (or what I define as chaotic, in any case) approach is the correct one, because I don't personally happen to believe that it is. I argued from that perspective only when trying to show why a chaotic good person would say that -- and it's important to remember that, even if I disagree with them, people who take an "ends justify the means" approach do have their reasons for feeling that way.

As I mentioned once before, I'm probably personally more along the lines of lawful neutral, with a tendency to idealize lawful good and perhaps "good tendencies." I'm not quite self-sacrificing enough (for just anyone, anyway) to describe myself as lawful good, but I tend toward a pretty strict personal code and have done ever since I was strongly influenced by a friend who's very into Bushido.

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-04, 12:58 AM
Which makes him nuetral at best. His motivation is revenge, not altruism. There is more to being good-aligned than killing evil people.

I'd actually argue that the Punisher has been written in a variety of ways, some of which I'd define as chaotic good, and some of which I'd define as chaotic neutral. His motivation seems to vary and is sometimes portrayed as revenge, sometimes as simple hatred of criminals, and sometimes as actually wanting to save someone. Even if the end result (dead criminals) is the same, the reasons are still very different.

Dervag
2007-10-04, 02:19 AM
I'd actually argue that the Punisher has been written in a variety of ways, some of which I'd define as chaotic good, and some of which I'd define as chaotic neutral.Good point; and essentially the same good point as is true of Robin Hood.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-04, 02:38 AM
I have to admit I am not a Punisher fan, and so am only familiar with the character from the movie and from his appearances in X-men and Avengers comic books.

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-04, 06:39 AM
I have to admit I am not a Punisher fan, and so am only familiar with the character from the movie and from his appearances in X-men and Avengers comic books.

I have to admit I only really became aware of him first under Ennis. It was a silly, guilty pleasure.

"It's bears!"

:smallbiggrin:

Nonah_Me
2007-10-04, 11:09 AM
This was a great situation, and when my group gets back together again, I might spring something simular on them. Thanks!

As to alignment, here are my thoughts. Disclaimer and all that.

Lawful is utilitarianism. The ends justify the means.

Example: A guttersnipe steals a loaf of bread from a merchant. A lawful neutral character likely would turn him in because he broke the law. The kid was homeless and hungry? No dice, he should have asked or even offered to work for the merchant. In the long run, society is much more important than the individual.

Chaos, however, holds the individual's will as a higher ideal. Was it wrong for the guttersnipe to steal the bread? Yes, but a chaotic neutral character would let him get away with it, because he feels no need for society to work. That is, I mean, that it isn't the character's responsibility to show the guttersnipe that stealing is wrong. It is the merchant's responsibilty, not of anyone else, including society. In the long run, an individual's free will and freedom of action are more important than society.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utilitarianism

u·til·i·tar·i·an·ism Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[yoo-til-i-tair-ee-uh-niz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun the ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility, and that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons.

http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/lib/Ethics/summary.ethics.types.html

Deontological theories
* It's about moral obligation
* It's about actions (not ends)
* Rejects acts that harm minorities, individuals
* Stems from Immanual Kant
* Opposite of utilitarianism
* "Do what is right, though the world should perish."