PDA

View Full Version : More 3.5 Alignment Issues



Kaelaroth
2007-12-21, 02:51 PM
OK. In 3.5's slightly messed up alignment system, slavery of people is obviously a bad thing. Hence why good people free the poor little slavey-waveys from the bad gobbos and scary dwemons! (:smalleek:)

Yet, what happens when there is a good-aligned town/city/area which still practices slavery. However, rather than utilising normal neutral/good aligned humans, they enslave beings such as Drow and Kuo-Toa, subjecting thme to immense cruelty, and forcing them into humiliation and pain - but claiming that's all right, since they are evil beings. What alignment's that? :smallconfused:

NecroRebel
2007-12-21, 02:56 PM
Evil.

The Drow, Kua-Toa, Goblinoids, or whatever other evil race you have (even such things as fiends) are pretty clearly sentient beings. Thus, oppressing and hurting them and showing no regard for their dignity or life fits the description of Evil perfectly, and directly contradicts all of the attributes of Good.

In other words, it is Evil, with leanings toward EVIL.

Dullyanna
2007-12-21, 02:57 PM
I'd say that's evil, especially with the "immense cruelty and humiliation" bit. And claiming it's alright because they're evil doesn't make it alright. I could cite a very good RL example here, but that'd be a no-no. IMO, there's a distinction between doing battle against eeevil races, and harvesting their bodies/souls. I'd say the culture is Neutral at the very best.

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-21, 02:57 PM
*BUZZ*

Slavery is not a Good/Evil issue. It is a Law/Chaos issue.

Slavery is either legal or illegal. Slavery, in general, has rules. In general, slavery is Lawful.

How the slaves are treated modifies that.

A Lawful Good society can have slaves as long as it treats them well. What do you think Conscripted Soldiers and Debtors Prisons are?

A Lawful Neutral society uses slaves as it sees fit within its own rules. (typically not going out of their way to make life better or worse for the slaves)

A Lawful Evil society abuses and treats them cruelly.

Neutral/Good/Evil would be highly variable and Chaotic societies would as well.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-12-21, 02:57 PM
Evil. Full stop.

Morty
2007-12-21, 02:58 PM
Cruel slavery is Evil, and the fact that the slaves are evil is cheap excuse that doesn't change anything, unless those drow or kuo-toa have done something to deserve such punishment. So those people are plainly and simply Evil.

Dullyanna
2007-12-21, 02:59 PM
@Mr. Friendly-there's a difference between a debtor's jail and lifelong servitude, even if the slaves are treated "well".

Edit: Conscription really depends on context, IMO. If your country is being razed by Baron von ****head, who wants control of the mythical fountain of youth that's in your land, then I'd say it's not too bad (As long as you're picking up battle-worthy individuals, instead of kiddies). The poor bastards being drafted into the Baron's army to serve his own selfish interests are victims of an act of eeevil!

bugsysservant
2007-12-21, 02:59 PM
Evil, or if your DM is VERY lenient, neutral. Your alignment is generally in relation to yourself. Thus, while you can kill an evil person if doing so would save lives (arguably) and not have it be an evil act, you can't torture people to death just because they are evil. Likewise, you are enslaving evil people not because they are evil, but for slavery, which is an evil act.

Of course you could make the case that a non-evil strongly law aligned community could enslave people based upon past transgressions in a forced work system, but that would be on the basis of broken laws, not pure alignment.

Edit: GAH! So many ninjas :smalleek:

Kaelaroth
2007-12-21, 03:00 PM
What if the beings that were enslaved were demons/devils? Sentient, yes, but truly malign, who would easily wish to destroy the peoples of the town?

bugsysservant
2007-12-21, 03:03 PM
What if the beings that were enslaved were demons/devils? Sentient, yes, but truly malign, who would easily wish to destroy the peoples of the town?

Probably not, though it wouldn't be good. IIRC, there is a non-evil PrC that deals with essentially tricking demons into slavery (malconvoker?). These are beings of purer hate and malice, so killing them isn't evil, but willful association isn't good, and won't end well, kind of like the Numeroeans dragging Sauron before their king.

Kaelaroth
2007-12-21, 03:05 PM
Probably not, though it wouldn't be good. IIRC, there is a non-evil PrC that deals with essentially tricking demons into slavery (malconvoker?). These are beings of purer hate and malice, so killing them isn't evil, but willful association isn't good, and won't end well, kind of like the Numeroeans dragging Sauron before their king.

*blinks*

*blinks again*

*goes to find LotR illustrated dictionary, grumbling*

SurlySeraph
2007-12-21, 03:05 PM
What if the beings that were enslaved were demons/devils? Sentient, yes, but truly malign, who would easily wish to destroy the peoples of the town?

Still evil, though less so. With demons/devils, it would make sense for them to be enslaved magically through binding rituals or some such. Magically obligating them to help the town is less evil than the whole chains-and-whips thing.

Remember, the evil slave-keeping races tend to keep members of OTHER evil races as slaves. Hurting evil people is not necessarily good (though it often is).

kamikasei
2007-12-21, 03:23 PM
*blinks*

*blinks again*

*goes to find LotR illustrated dictionary, grumbling*

The Numenoreans, Aragorn's ancestors, were so powerful that they actually defeated Mordor in the Second Age. Unfortunately they took Sauron back to their island as a prisoner, where his fast talking pretty soon had him as the power behind the throne leading the High Men in a war on the gods.

So, you know, don't try to get demons to do your dirty work.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-21, 03:24 PM
LESS evil? Humilliation, pain, and cruelty, are ALWAYS really evil, even when inflicted upon a monster from the Lower Planes. Thinking "He/she/It's a devil/demon/daemon/yugoloth/something else, the kid gloves come off!" is the way to go for becoming a more evil version of :miko:

Zenos
2007-12-21, 03:29 PM
Well, if they torture and humiliate them that is probably evil. The forcing them to work for them to repent for their evilness could be a neutral act.

Citizen Joe
2007-12-21, 03:32 PM
DIE ALIGNMENT THREAD! DIE!
*stab stab*
DIE!

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-21, 03:39 PM
@Mr. Friendly-there's a difference between a debtor's jail and lifelong servitude, even if the slaves are treated "well".

Edit: Conscription really depends on context, IMO. If your country is being razed by Baron von ****head, who wants control of the mythical fountain of youth that's in your land, then I'd say it's not too bad (As long as you're picking up battle-worthy individuals, instead of kiddies). The poor bastards being drafted into the Baron's army to serve his own selfish interests are victims of an act of eeevil!

Ah but Slavery does not mean lifelong servitude. Roman slaves had the opportunity to become freemen themselves.

I could see a Lawful Good society which, after winning a war against, say, orcs, enslaved them, but as the orcs became educated and more civilized, they were freed. If the LG society treats them well and without cruelty, they are essentially just POWs in work camps, the difference is that rather than having a warden they have an owner.

Obviously slavery is a fairly slippery slope in D&D, however I do not believe that slavery is, in and of itself, evil. It is not "good", but it isn't (necessarily) "evil" either. It isn't necessarily even Lawful or Chaotic. It simply "is".

In practice though, slavery, as practiced by civilizations, is typically Lawful. Papers have to be kept, records of sale, ownership and the like. Laws have to exist concerning the rights of slaves, etc.

As for the OPs question, the society in question is without a doubt evil. Treating evil cruelly is not good. It is just evil. To be a good society, enslaving them, they would need to treat them with kindness and have laws concerning the welfare of the slaves and conditions under which the slave could go free.

Tallis
2007-12-21, 03:40 PM
Not dead yet! :)

Enslaving evil creatures captured in battle could be neatral as long as they are well treated.
Torture, cruelty and humiliation are evil no matter who the target is.

bugsysservant
2007-12-21, 03:44 PM
DIE ALIGNMENT THREAD! DIE!
*stab stab*
DIE!


*Parry* *Block*
:smallyuk:

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-21, 03:53 PM
*Uses Setting Sun Counters, the proceeds to use Dual Boost to Activate Raging Mongoose and Girallon Windmill flesh rip, then uses Time Stands Still. As the opponent takes action, casts Celerity, and Time Stops.* Oh, no, we're having too much fun to quit now.

Lemur
2007-12-21, 03:54 PM
DIE ALIGNMENT THREAD! DIE!
*stab stab*
DIE!

Trying to kill an alingment thread just because it's an alignment thread is technically an evil act, you know.

:smalltongue:

Citizen Joe
2007-12-21, 03:56 PM
You can't debate this because none of the terms have been defined...

Where do you draw the line of what you consider slavery rather than simple imprisonment?

How do you define evil?

Depending on where you fall on those definitions, slavery could be anything.

"Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded." - Inspirational poster (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/killercheesewedge/motivationals/funny.jpg)

SurlySeraph
2007-12-21, 04:03 PM
Both are somewhat subjective but will be clarified and made more precise as the thread goes on. For example, it looks like we're not going to be considering debtor's prison or conscription forms of slavery.

"How do you define evil?" We don't. That's so subjective that it cannot be agreed on; we can just discuss whether certain things are evil.

As for the last quote... arguing that arguments are stupid is in and of itself an argument! You're arguing too! You're special, just like us! Yaaaaaaay! *claps uncoordinatedly*

bugsysservant
2007-12-21, 04:07 PM
"Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded." - Inspirational poster (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/killercheesewedge/motivationals/funny.jpg)

That's officially hilarious! Horible, yet very funny. What's really funny is that my kindergarten teacher (who later went on to become teacher of the year) said that I was retarded. :smalltongue:

Citizen Joe
2007-12-21, 04:14 PM
OK then we won't argue... I'll just restructure this discussion into a manner that is less alignment thready...

Cite and describe examples of slavery and rate on a moral scale of:
1: People are taken, blinded, deafened and tortured endlessly and forced to do menial work despite the presence of magic or technology that would do it more efficiently.
10: Slaves are revered for their selfless devotion to a cause despite not being paid for the important jobs they do.

Kaelaroth
2007-12-21, 04:33 PM
"Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded." - Inspirational poster (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/killercheesewedge/motivationals/funny.jpg)

Shouldn't really be on my thread (:smallmad:), but that's frickin' hilarious. And mean. Very, very mean.

Meanwhile, I have another alignment question. If a bunch of lawful good aligned adventurers are fighting their way through a dungeon full of demons, cultists and mysterious fiends, and while there, they happen to find a bunch of young half-fiends and tieflings asleep in their beds, and one PC kills them, claiming that they would have both alerted their parents to the PC's presence, and have grown up to be cruel and evil, what alignment should he go to/remain? :smallconfused:

Admiral Squish
2007-12-21, 04:42 PM
Shouldn't really be on my thread (:smallmad:), but that's frickin' hilarious. And mean. Very, very mean.

Meanwhile, I have another alignment question. If a bunch of lawful good aligned adventurers are fighting their way through a dungeon full of demons, cultists and mysterious fiends, and while there, they happen to find a bunch of young half-fiends and tieflings asleep in their beds, and one PC kills them, claiming that they would have both alerted their parents to the PC's presence, and have grown up to be cruel and evil, what alignment should he go to/remain? :smallconfused:

I'd say definitely evil. Killing of children, especially in their sleep, is not a good thing. If they were adults, it might be neutral. But, as alternative to their murder, maybe you could transport them out of the dungeon, somehow, and get them adopted by good people? That would be some serious points for good in your favor.

Nightgaunt
2007-12-21, 04:55 PM
hmm... let's see


Being Ahead of your Time
..."Even if slavery, torture, or discrimination are condoned by society, they remain evil"...


Naturally you can always feel free to ignore any WotC books, but that's about that.

Nightgaunt
2007-12-21, 05:03 PM
If a bunch of lawful good aligned adventurers are fighting their way through a dungeon full of demons, cultists and mysterious fiends, and while there, they happen to find a bunch of young half-fiends and tieflings asleep in their beds, and one PC kills them, claiming that they would have both alerted their parents to the PC's presence, and have grown up to be cruel and evil, what alignment should he go to/remain? :smallconfused:

This feels like a troll, but I'll answer anyway:


Violence
... In fact, even launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not necessarily good if the attack comes without provocation - the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm.


The answer is really DM fiat though, your players need to have a clear understading of what is Good and what is Evil in your campaign. The descriptors given in the PHB are reasonable, but not specific enough to account for all variances. If the player wants to do that say, "Not in my campaign world, here it is evil". But make sure the player is aware of that prior to the act. Don't penalize a character for using his values of Good and Evil in your campaign world and then declare him evil later. He grew up in your world and should have some understanding of it's values. Especially in a world of D&D, where alignments are cut and dry with spells and gods to enforce them.

Citizen Joe
2007-12-21, 05:03 PM
Meanwhile, I have another alignment question. If a bunch of lawful good aligned adventurers are fighting their way through a dungeon full of demons, cultists and mysterious fiends, and while there, they happen to find a bunch of young half-fiends and tieflings asleep in their beds, and one PC kills them, claiming that they would have both alerted their parents to the PC's presence, and have grown up to be cruel and evil, what alignment should he go to/remain? :smallconfused:

Let me rephrase your question. A bunch of vigilantees break into a crack den, killing a bunch of dope heads and drug dealers when they come across a couple kids asleep but with obvious needle tracks and that sickly druggy palour. One of the vigilantees kills them because they might alert the rest of the drug dealers and they would have grown up to be addicts and dealers themselves.

The key point here is that they are being vigilantees... so I'm not sure where lawful good falls into play if they are acting that way.

To answer your question, you shouldn't ask US you should ask your player what he thinks should happen to the alignment.

BRC
2007-12-21, 05:09 PM
With the exception of outsiders, I believe that no sentient race should have an alignment mentioned in it's entry. If hobgoblins, for example, are truely free-willed then they are just as likely to become lawful or chaotic or good or evil as anything else. Now hobgoblin SOCIETY might tend towrds lawful evil, but societies are the result of campaign settings, and there is no universal DnD campaign setting, there is no "Canon" in DnD. And even then, a societies values are not neccisarily those of the individuals raised in it, or else how do you explain all those evil chanclors/advisors to LG Kings. the whole "racial alignment" thing is just so that a group of adventuers can slaughter a village of goblins simply for moving into the neighborhood without any moral qualms. Why? Because their goblins and therefore Evil, how do you know that entire society was evil, maybe if everytime you set up camp anywhere near a group of humans, and therefore anywhere near a good area to build a town, it was only a matter of time before 4-6 people with enough skill and firepower to take down a standard millitary platoon showed up to kill you and take all the shiny things you had, YOU might feel some animosity towrds the humans as well.

mockingbyrd7
2007-12-21, 05:22 PM
Killing in self defense is almost always neutral. Slaying evil creatures for the purpose of good is neutral or good, depending on how you look at it. However, subjecting evil creatures to oppression, physical pain and abuse, emotional abuse and humiliation, torturously suffocating their rights, and treating them like filth is undoubtedly evil.

Some may argue that in DnD, two wrongs do make a right, i.e. killing an evil creature is a good act. I won't disagree with this. However, this is a wrong without a good purpose. How does enslaving, torturing, and humiliating an evil sentient being serve the cause of good? It doesn't matter that these creatures are evil, it doesn't matter if they deserve it, they are very much sentient and therefore torturing them without a purpose except for to watch them suffer is evil.

SurlySeraph
2007-12-21, 05:23 PM
Meanwhile, I have another alignment question. If a bunch of lawful good aligned adventurers are fighting their way through a dungeon full of demons, cultists and mysterious fiends, and while there, they happen to find a bunch of young half-fiends and tieflings asleep in their beds, and one PC kills them, claiming that they would have both alerted their parents to the PC's presence, and have grown up to be cruel and evil, what alignment should he go to/remain? :smallconfused:

Well, half-fiends and tieflings aren't automatically evil (I'm not sure about half-fiends, but tieflings definitely can be good). Besides, they're children. and they're helpless. There are a few situations where killing helpless children is arguably good (illithid larvae, for example), but these are kids who won't necessarily grow up to be evil, just powerful. Me, I'd tie the kids up, drag them out of the dungeon, and hand them off to the Monastery of Pelor to be raised. If that wasn't an option, I might tie them up or something, but killing children who may not be evil is wrong.

Citizen Joe
2007-12-21, 05:43 PM
Well, half-fiends and tieflings aren't automatically evil (I'm not sure about half-fiends, but tieflings definitely can be good). Besides, they're children. and they're helpless.
They were creatures within the prescribed 'kill zone' without designated friend or foe beacons. i.e. collateral damage.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-12-21, 05:47 PM
That doesn't make killing them not evil, though.

Kioran
2007-12-21, 05:53 PM
They were creatures within the prescribed 'kill zone' without designated friend or foe beacons. i.e. collateral damage.

Thatīs at best LE. Good means you take on risks and fight "clean" for the worlds betterment. Taking out evil because it threatens you is Neutral. Killing out of convenience when bloodshed could be avoided is evil, especially when your targets are children and/or helpless.

Btw.: You use a military lingo that represents a philosophy that has not been well received both on the other side of it and by onlookers. With such attitudes, even if it helps in the short run, you just deepen the entrenched emnity and make peace a little more difficult - even "Evil" creatures have a right to indignation if their lives a devalued or their children carelessly killed. Whatīs more, you adopt their standards and begin losing your moral high ground. That canīt be good, nor the right solution.

Azukius
2007-12-21, 08:56 PM
Slavery is not always evil, in late imperial Rome (probably the most famous slave based society) slaves were well treated and fed better then many plebeian citizens. It was also customary to free slaves in you're will or after they had done a great service for their master, if you did it was then his responsibility to set up the new freedman in a good business etc and ensure he was well off, some slaves died very rich and/or had great friendships with their (former masters), live was incredibly harsh for many slaves, true.
But this was in a time when the lower, free, classes were poor and wretched relying on handouts from their patrons and the empire.

As this slavery was was the basis of the empire their were many decrees passed to protect slaves and prevent revolt (ala sparticus).

In this case I don't believe that the slavery was an in evil act in any way and the society would not be evil.

similarly homerian greeks often took defeated warriors as slaves, which while not fun for the defeated was better then being killed and they were well treated as the status deserved, this was agreed by both sides through long custom and accepted as a possible consequence. Occasionally non-combatant slaves were taken such as Agememnons capture of cassandra but this was disapproved of and punished.

Two examples or neutral (or, arguably good) cultures which held slaves

MCerberus
2007-12-21, 09:47 PM
I'd say it depends on how/why.

Criminal/Enemy soldier treated well while they work their way up to free status? That may be LG slavery

Are they just another caste in the system like serfs, possibly LN, going near to LE.

Slaves are cheap labor! It saves your other resources for other things. You don't need to even take care of them well, they just die anyway. - LE

They're slaves because I want them to be. They do stuff I don't want to do after I force them to. Beating them up occasionally for giggles is a pleasurable pastime - CE. Note here it isn't a very stable situation and will lead to revolts etc. This is also how NE societies do it.

It's a necessity. Even if you don't like it you need slaves to do some things. - TN slavery.

NG, CN, and CG you'd be hard pressed to find slaves. So, I'll say slavery is LE.

Citizen Joe
2007-12-21, 10:05 PM
Thatīs at best LE. Good means you take on risks and fight "clean" for the worlds betterment. Taking out evil because it threatens you is Neutral. Killing out of convenience when bloodshed could be avoided is evil, especially when your targets are children and/or helpless.


It may on deep reflection be an evil act. But Soldiers on the field do not have the luxury of pondering the nature of good and evil. These guys were sent into enemy territory to kill bad guys. If some innocent bystanders that look just like the bad guys get killed then that is what atonement is for.

Who is more evil? The guy that shoots the baby, or the guy that used the baby as a human shield in the first place?

Now, if you want to debate if they should have gone into enemy territory in the first place, that's something different.

tyckspoon
2007-12-21, 10:42 PM
Who is more evil? The guy that shoots the baby, or the guy that used the baby as a human shield in the first place?


In the example given? It's the guy who goes into the baby's playroom, where no combat is happening, and shoots the kid anyway. You can extend it if you want- I would agree that shooting through an innocent could be a valid choice if it is the necessary means to bring down an enemy, although it's still not a *good* choice- but the stated scenario is fairly unambiguous.

Citizen Joe
2007-12-21, 11:18 PM
The baby shield analogy is that the demons/cultists/whatever brought these children into the potentially dangerous area. They should have been left at home and the only reason they exist at all is to give the DM a chance to screw over the players with a stupid alignment conundrum.

Besides, in DND you can always take the body (or part of the body) back to the church and say WHOOPS, killed these guys... not sure if they were evil. Try rezzing them... if they don't want to come back, we know I did a good thing. If they do come back we can raise them proper, thus saving them.

http://www.llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/images/lawfulgood.jpg

TheOOB
2007-12-21, 11:27 PM
Determining the alignment of any one action is largely pointless unless you have a paladin in your party. A single act is rarely enough to change one's alignment, unless it is exceptionally important, a persons alignment is more a measure of how they usually act rather then the sum of any one action. The warrior who kills a prisoner out of malice isn't automatically evil, they are just someone who happened to do an evil act, if they make a habit of doing this, however, they will become evil.

Combatant
2007-12-22, 01:06 AM
*BUZZ*

Slavery is not a Good/Evil issue. It is a Law/Chaos issue.

Slavery is either legal or illegal. Slavery, in general, has rules. In general, slavery is Lawful.

How the slaves are treated modifies that.

A Lawful Good society can have slaves as long as it treats them well. What do you think Conscripted Soldiers and Debtors Prisons are?

A Lawful Neutral society uses slaves as it sees fit within its own rules. (typically not going out of their way to make life better or worse for the slaves)

A Lawful Evil society abuses and treats them cruelly.

Neutral/Good/Evil would be highly variable and Chaotic societies would as well.


*DING* you sir, have won the prize.
If slavery was the law of the land, even paladins would uphold it. In a Lawfull city, while slavery was legal, there would be many laws governing them, care, treatment, punishment, etc. Such as, you couldn't just raid some small village and take all the able bodies as your slaves. They would more likely be the losing end survivors of a 'legal' war. Or the perpetrators of some crime, and rather then putting them to death, or imprisoning them, they were put to work.

Maybe sometimes more like second class citizens. But the end result would be the same.

Things like goblinoids or demons would be way to difficult to keep as slaves.

Different paladin orders all have differing views on different things, its why they have founded that different order. Also, (and should go without saying) different nations have different laws. It is important that the DM actually sets things down, and is upfront about it.

And here is an example of that. You are a police officer in (Random State) North America. You uphold all State and Federal laws without fail. You are the ultimate in Law Enforcement ethics.

You get sent to Amsterdam, Holland.
You do the math.

Let this go, no one wins in an arguement like this.

DeathQuaker
2007-12-22, 01:18 AM
The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org), I find, does a fairly decent job of describing "good" and "evil" as defined by the alignment rules.

(Note 1: The Alignment descriptions of "good" and "evil" may or may not match your own definitions of "good" and "evil." Your own definitions are of course valid, but not for the rules of the game, provided of course you are not houseruling. If you're houseruling, I'd assume you wouldn't be asking us these questions.)

Now, this is what the SRD says about good and evil (consult it and the PHB for more information):



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

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

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


"Hurting, oppressing, and killing others," generally, by my interpretation falls under the line of "Evil" according to the rules. Therefore, if a group of people are regularly hurting and oppressing their slaves, regardless of the slaves' origins, they are Evil.

I also note that NOWHERE in the SRD's description of alignment does it state that "Good people are obligated to actively go out and kill, maim, injure, enslave, insult, humiliate, torture or destroy every being with an evil alignment." Someone might claim that they are "good" because they go out and actively kill or enslave or torture or humiliate evil creatures, but it does not make them "good" by the D&D rules. In fact, if they obviously do not "respect the dignity of sentient beings" they are probably not good, since that is a trait that defines "Goodness" according to the rules.

I would say that a "Good" person, who according to the rules protects life and respects it, would probably only hurt or kill another person, regardless of alignment, in order to protect other people when they could find no other means of doing so. I'd also argue that in most cases they'd be okay hurting and killing others in self defense as well. Their SRD rules-described respect for life would seek out the solution that would protect the most sentient beings whom they want to protect, which sometimes unfortunately involves killing.

To answer the OP's quandaries, by the guidelines and rules provided to us by the game:

1. The slavers would be evil, because they are hurting and oppressing others. It doesn't matter whom they are oppressing; the fact is they are being oppressive and that is, as written, an "evil" trait.

2. Since the SRD states that "Good creatures protect innocent life," and that Evil characters "debase or destroy innocent life," I'd say that if the children presented were likely innocent, then killing them is an evil act. However, if the situation was dire, I doubt I'd let that single act shift the PC's alignment. After all, the rules also state that "few people are completely consistent" so there is some leeway for difficult moral quandaries.

It's interesting stuff to discuss, but I do highly recommend reading the SRD closely when seeking answers to questions such as these. It is actually helpful from time to time.

Kioran
2007-12-22, 03:33 AM
It may on deep reflection be an evil act. But Soldiers on the field do not have the luxury of pondering the nature of good and evil. These guys were sent into enemy territory to kill bad guys. If some innocent bystanders that look just like the bad guys get killed then that is what atonement is for.

Who is more evil? The guy that shoots the baby, or the guy that used the baby as a human shield in the first place?

Now, if you want to debate if they should have gone into enemy territory in the first place, that's something different.

Then, first of all, itīs the responsibility of the one who trained and sent the soldiers - and donīt try telling me soldiers cannot make proper judgement calls (not in juristic, but a morale sense) once theyīre out of immediate danger. These children where not posing an immediate thread - you could have taken a minute to think before killing them in their sleep.
Also, their HQ wasnīt a warzone beforehand - thatīs the problem with unilateral/chaotic warfare, the other side does not know what you declare a warzone, and thus isnīt bound to include it in their morale decision.

Of course taking a human shield is evil and irresponsible, but itīs not what happened here. That guy? Depending on the reasoning some flavor of evil. As is with anyone that has a blanket excuse for atrocious behaviour

Citizen Joe
2007-12-22, 01:06 PM
My point isn't so much that it is evil to kill the (potentially evil) children, it is actually that it was evil to break into the temple/compound/etc in the first place. You don't get to claim "good" for killing evil and then claim "evil" for killing something undetermined. Killing is either evil or it doesn't affect your alignment.

The goals and results are what matters to me. The character in question mercifully put the children to death rather than risk their corruption by cultists and demons. At the time he did not know of a way to save them. Thus he rid the world of a potential threat. Goal (rid world of evil) + result (children did not become evil) = morality (not evil)

Now if the goals were: get XP and the result was: Bloody murderous violation of helpless children then morality would be evil.

If the game were halted right then by the GM for OOC morality discussion I would have walked out of the game.

PollyOliver
2007-12-22, 01:43 PM
My point isn't so much that it is evil to kill the (potentially evil) children, it is actually that it was evil to break into the temple/compound/etc in the first place. You don't get to claim "good" for killing evil and then claim "evil" for killing something undetermined. Killing is either evil or it doesn't affect your alignment.

Personally, and this is just personally, I consider killing to be at best neutral--though it could be a part of a larger set of actions which, taken together, are good. For example, killing a random guy who simply reads as evil would be evil. Killing someone who is in the process of commiting acts which would harm a great number of people would be neutral, but the overall act of saving people by stopping him would be good, if that makes any sense.

With respect to the original question, I agree with the poster who said that slavery (while I would regard it as evil in all or most forms in real life) can in an ancient or medieval society run the spectrum from good to evil (though usually be lawful). It depends on how the slaves are acquired (i.e. are they criminals and prisoners of war or are they randomly captured people), how they are treated, what kind of work they are used for, and, I think, whether there is some way for them to earn their freedom. Just my $.02, though.

Kaelaroth
2007-12-22, 01:50 PM
Hmmm... Interesting how this thrad is turning out. I may just post up random alignment decisions for you guys to decide upon.

A hideous demon has developed a magical ritual that will slowly transport the Material plane into the Abyss, leading to the deaths of thousands. This'll take several years, and may be able to be stopped. The "hero" of the campaign has a way to kill the demon now, before he starts the ritual. However, the only way to kill the demon (at the moment) would create deadly strain of natural disasters, which would kill many hundreds or thousands instantly, possibly causing inrrevocable damage to the environment. So, should "hero" kill the demon... or wait, lose that way to kill him, possibly threaten the existence of mankind, but give him time to work out a way to safely kill it?

Wooter
2007-12-22, 01:59 PM
I don't have enough details to answer that question.

I probably would ignore the demon for now, and get the best minds in the world working on how to stop him from manifesting without killing thousands of people. Maybe.

FlyMolo
2007-12-22, 02:05 PM
Shouldn't really be on my thread (:smallmad:), but that's frickin' hilarious. And mean. Very, very mean.

Meanwhile, I have another alignment question. If a bunch of lawful good aligned adventurers are fighting their way through a dungeon full of demons, cultists and mysterious fiends, and while there, they happen to find a bunch of young half-fiends and tieflings asleep in their beds, and one PC kills them, claiming that they would have both alerted their parents to the PC's presence, and have grown up to be cruel and evil, what alignment should he go to/remain? :smallconfused:

Lawful Neutral, shading to lawful evil. Predicting the rest of their lives? Lawful. Killing them not just because, but because of immediate personal gain? Lawful. Killing them? Neutral.

Actually, possibly he could become Lawful :miko:

Citizen Joe
2007-12-22, 03:15 PM
The solution is obvious. Let the DM's world fall to pieces and go play Halo 3.

How could that situation POSSIBLY be fun?