PDA

View Full Version : The Choice (now on part 2 of 2)



Townopolis
2008-11-11, 01:28 AM
The Choice

You are deep within the lair of an ancient evil, stranger, otherworldly sigils mark the walls, and the air sends a chill down your spine, but you have reached the deepest chamber. Now you are faced with a choice. To destroy the entity living herein, you must sacrifice someone. The evil being will be annihilated utterly, but first someone must forfeit their own life.

There are two people on hand that you might sacrifice. The first came here seeking to make the world a better place, and wishes to see all evil vanquished, if you let them live, he will live on as a force of good. The second got here by chasing a butterfly and wishes to leave, if you let them live, they will return to a normal life. You have been given the power to choose one of these people to be the arrow that slays the fiend, so to speak.

You are the first person. Which will you sacrifice?



What is your decision, and why did you decide that way?
How would you place your decision on the 3eD&D alignment chart, on the 4eD&D alignment scale?
How would you place the other option on the alignment chart & scale?
It is encouraged to note other variables that may change the alignment/morality of either decision


For the purpose of this exercise, there is no option C. I won't try to contrive reasons for it, there just isn't, this isn't an actual in-game situation.



Person 1: 63% (12)
-0% Lawful Good ()
-25% Neutral/Chaotic Good (5)
-50% Neutral (10)
-25% Lawful/Neutral Evil (5)
-0% Chaotic Evil ()
Person 2: 37% (7)
-0% Lawful Good ()
-5% Neutral/Chaotic Good (1)
-30% Neutral (6)
-60% Lawful/Neutral Evil (12)
-5% Chaotic Evil (1)

Emperor Tippy
2008-11-11, 01:33 AM
What is your decision, and why did you decide that way? Person A
How would you place your decision on the 3eD&D alignment chart, on the 4eD&D alignment scale? Neutral on the 3.5 scale, don't know the 4e scale off the top of my head.
How would you place the other option on the alignment chart & scale? Evil
It is encouraged to note other variables that may change the alignment/morality of either decision There aren't any.

Granted as soon as I left I would just have my pet solar wish me up a scroll of True Res and bring back whatever one I offed.

The big thing about D&D that people always seem to forget is that most deaths aren't permanent (and it takes a real effort to make sure the person stays permanently dead).

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-11-11, 01:33 AM
I kill the second, because he's an idiot. I'd rule that CN, borderline CE(nearly random decision, doesn't try to gather further data about who deserves death more, based on personal prejudices).

streakster
2008-11-11, 01:38 AM
See, my option isn't on here. Ima gonna sacrifice me, if I can - guilt-free and awesome! Probably quote Kamina while doing so...

Interesting dilemma, though. I'll have to think on it.

Stupendous_Man
2008-11-11, 02:03 AM
Go for both.

Maximize your stabbity potential.

Harp
2008-11-11, 02:31 AM
As there is no option C, I'd likely sacrifice the do-gooder as they would probably be persuaded to agree just to that. Of course, other variables could influence my decision such as the state of the lands and obstacles beyond the evil alter, and if the village idiot or a righteous paladin would be more useful in the short term.

The decision to sacrifice anyone but myself definately earns me some evil points, even in the event we have a scenario where only the sacrifice of a "pure-heart" can free the world. If I can convince the do-gooder to sacrifice his or herself and I am for whatever reason unable to be used as the sacrifice, I would likely retain my current alignment. Alternatively, if I just kill one of them with no fuss, Neutral Evil.

This is a situation where there does not seem to be a lawful, chaotic, or even a "good" way to complete the quest. You are fulfilling your duty as much as preserving yourself, and as the death of an otherwise innocent person is required, there's no greater good done that isn't ultimately self-serving.

Brock Samson
2008-11-11, 02:32 AM
Tippy, remember that to resurrect a person they have to be willing to come back from the great here-after. Most people in some version of "heaven" probably wouldn't want to come back to their crappy ol' plane, but most in "hell" probably would. But, as there's a known afterlife in D&D, killing someone who's good really isn't that bad of an act, it's just sending them to their final reward early, it's like the "Advance to Go" chance piece in monopoly, skip ahead to the good stuff.

That in mind, both decisions would be "good" depending on circumstances. Of course killing person A would be good, all good characters should be killed so they can enjoy their heavenly reward sooner. Killing person B would be good because if you CAN'T resurrect them they must have been good so you did a good job. If they were evil they'll want to come back and probably atone for all their evil deeds and become a good person. And of course once they do that you're only doing you job as a good citizen by killing them then as quickly as possible. And once you've succeeded at that you've certainly proven yourself a good person in the eyes of your deity, so you need to kill yourself as well.

Starsinger
2008-11-11, 03:29 AM
* What is your decision, and why did you decide that way?

I would sacrifice the first person and save the second person for two reasons. One, I have much more compassion for the second individual, and two, by saving the second individual all three of us get what we want. He evil being is destroyed (making me happy) and thus the world is a better place (making person A happy). Person B gets to go home (making him/her happy) and will hopefully treat other people nicely in remembrance of the person who saves his/her life (Thus making the world a better place again).


* How would you place your decision on the 3eD&D alignment chart, on the 4eD&D alignment scale? Chaotic Good and Good respectively. Possibly Unaligned for the 4e.


* How would you place the other option on the alignment chart & scale? Evil. Condemning an innocent to die is bad enough, but what about all the evil people who Person A would destroy without trying to redeem?


* It is encouraged to note other variables that may change the alignment/morality of either decision Was Person A here by choice? I got the feeling as someone who wanted to vanquish all evil, Person A came here to destroy the entity himself.

Coidzor
2008-11-11, 03:57 AM
1&2 Hmm... I'd sacrifice B so that they wouldn't reveal what had happened there to anyone making the sacrifice hopefully more or less permanent until the next batch of adventurers. That, and either person A would attack and kill me, thus neutralizing the world's karmic balance of the taint of what I did and further silencing what had happened there (or vice-versa, in which case my taint is only a little bit worse). Or person A would go on to destroy more evil to balance out the ethical calculus of eliminating person B. Or it'd taint A enough that they eventually fell and grew to become a force of evil themselves (y'know, die a hero or live to see yourself become the villain and all that batman jazz)

This is what I'd call an overall neutral occurrence through an evil action to destroy another evil. (I don't believe that it is alright to kill someone if they'll go to heaven, simply because they go to paradise that much sooner. I find that to be sophistry.) Not familiar with 4e enough to make an alignment call, since all I hear about alignment in 4th ed are dirty rumors.

3 I'd say sacrifice A would be neutral through evil as well, but a lesser evil, since person A would be more likely to be willing/okay with the sacrifice. Morally this would be more desirable, but as I'd be worried about the sacrifice being made meaningless by people finding out about it and how easily it might possibly be revoked (who knows, since it's an ancient evil maybe someone who wants it back or who has it owing money to would home-brew a soul-ripping spell to draw back an unwilling soul into an undead monstrosity to release the seal), I'd rather word didn't get out so easily. But on the other hand, this would be more likely to resist a simple raise-dead spell foiling it all. Still, my paranoia wins over my sense of decency.


4 It depends on what kind of people A and B were. If A was a paladin, then they probably couldn't allow person B to be sacrificed instead, even if they'd cause enough good to counteract the death of B or they could raise B from the dead. If B were a small child that had been out chasing a butterfly and then gotten drawn into the dungeon delving that lead to this predicament, then it would be a much more evil act to slay an innocent child who is scared and isolated/alienated than, say, a village idiot who thought that a butterfly was a certain kind of fey that had to do something for someone who caught it. If A and B are both lowly commoners, but one has been traumatized to want to eliminate evil but the other is essentially about as carefree as one can be in a world of toil and strife, then the ethical/moral cost is about the same, but A is preferable as it helps relieve their own suffering and helps them fulfill their desire.

Hallavast
2008-11-11, 04:57 AM
What is your decision, and why did you decide that way? Person A
How would you place your decision on the 3eD&D alignment chart, on the 4eD&D alignment scale? Neutral on the 3.5 scale, don't know the 4e scale off the top of my head.
How would you place the other option on the alignment chart & scale? Evil
It is encouraged to note other variables that may change the alignment/morality of either decision There aren't any.

Granted as soon as I left I would just have my pet solar wish me up a scroll of True Res and bring back whatever one I offed.

The big thing about D&D that people always seem to forget is that most deaths aren't permanent (and it takes a real effort to make sure the person stays permanently dead).

Congratulations. You've ignored the entire purpose of the thread completely.

Flaws in the RAW will not interfere with story elements if a Dungeonmaster does not wish them to. There is a very simple "fiat" system put into place to make sure you play exactly the game you want to play with enough work.

Furthermore, Tippy, we know the RAW are flawed. I really don't see the need to ram this fact down the throat of every thread you come by. It does nothing but exasperate those of us who would actually want to discuss the quandary at hand. You are beating a dead horse. Will you please give up this particular tirade?

Back on topic: I choose person A, because that person might actually be a willing sacrifice. Both decisions are neutral (unaligned) according to D&D, because one of them must die (there isn't even an option to let the evil remain). I can think of no factors that would change the alignment of either action without changing the inherent nature of the question.

Drakefall
2008-11-11, 07:28 AM
Hmm...

Sacrificing person A would be Lawful Neutral/Unalligned
Sacrificing person B would be Lawful Evil/Evil
Person A allowing himself to be sacrificed (which he seems to be willing to do) would be Lawful Good.

All the Lawfulness is coming from the fact that your doing something unpleasant in order to complete your duty... unless of course your evil and enjoy sacrificing messers A and B in which case it'd be one of the Evil alignments depending on the why and how you ended up coming to the decision to do the the stabby.

random11
2008-11-11, 08:38 AM
The Choice

You are deep within the lair of an ancient evil, stranger, otherworldly sigils mark the walls, and the air sends a chill down your spine, but you have reached the deepest chamber. Now you are faced with a choice. To destroy the entity living herein, you must sacrifice someone. The evil being will be annihilated utterly, but first someone must forfeit their own life.

There are two people on hand that you might sacrifice. The first came here seeking to make the world a better place, and wishes to see all evil vanquished. The second got here by chasing a butterfly and wishes to leave. You have been given the power to choose one of these people to be the arrow that slays the fiend, so to speak. Which will you sacrifice.



What is your decision, and why did you decide that way?
How would you place your decision on the 3eD&D alignment chart, on the 4eD&D alignment scale?
How would you place the other option on the alignment chart & scale?
It is encouraged to note other variables that may change the alignment/morality of either decision


For the purpose of this exercise, there is no option C. I won't try to contrive reasons for it, there just isn't, this isn't an actual in-game situation.

I'd choose the second.
My choice is based on keeping the one that has a better chance to make the world better.
But this is my choice only because the question restricts me to only two options, and consider both options evil both in real life morally and on the D&D scale.

Under certain conditions, it might be considered a necessary evil, but still an evil act - Both options are unaware victims who didn't choose, and weren't even aware of that specific danger.
Just because there are two options doesn't mean that the better one has to be neutral, and just because the intentions are good doesn't mean it's not evil.

Telonius
2008-11-11, 09:18 AM
The Choice

You are deep within the lair of an ancient evil, stranger, otherworldly sigils mark the walls, and the air sends a chill down your spine, but you have reached the deepest chamber. Now you are faced with a choice. To destroy the entity living herein, you must sacrifice someone. The evil being will be annihilated utterly, but first someone must forfeit their own life.

There are two people on hand that you might sacrifice. The first came here seeking to make the world a better place, and wishes to see all evil vanquished. The second got here by chasing a butterfly and wishes to leave. You have been given the power to choose one of these people to be the arrow that slays the fiend, so to speak. Which will you sacrifice.



What is your decision, and why did you decide that way?
How would you place your decision on the 3eD&D alignment chart, on the 4eD&D alignment scale?
How would you place the other option on the alignment chart & scale?
It is encouraged to note other variables that may change the alignment/morality of either decision


For the purpose of this exercise, there is no option C. I won't try to contrive reasons for it, there just isn't, this isn't an actual in-game situation.

You mean I can't cooperate with the evil being, or kill them both just to be contrary? :smallfrown: Oh! Ideal solution: threaten to throw the first one into the evil being, causing butterfly-chaser to innocently volunteer. Then start corrupting the do-gooder, wracking him with guilt until he turns blackguard.

Okay, okay. If I have to be the one to do it, kill the first one, since he'll clearly do the most good in the world if he's alive after it's over. The butterfly-chaser probably won't contribute much to the cause of evil, but at least won't actively harm it.

Killing the first guy would be NE in 3.x and Evil in 4. I'm looking out for the greatest evil for the greatest number. It's not really a question of law versus chaos. Killing the butterfly-chaser would be CE in 3.x and 4. Because really, the only reason I'd do it is because they were so annoyingly cute.

Leewei
2008-11-11, 09:38 AM
Just to make things interesting, I'd take both people and leave the ancient evil intact. If it ever makes any more trouble for me, I'm coming back and kicking it's butt for good!

Neither choice has an alignment, as such. I think assigning an alignment to individual actions creates far more trouble in 3.5ed than looking at the bigger picture. Someone who brainwashed people into mindset A and dispatched them regularly to rid the world of ancient evils could be practically any alignment themselves, depending on motive. Someone who simply grabbed a person with mindset B, likewise could be of any alignment. The difference lies principally in how much compulsive handscrubbing they do afterward.

Starbuck_II
2008-11-11, 11:06 AM
The Choice

You are deep within the lair of an ancient evil, stranger, otherworldly sigils mark the walls, and the air sends a chill down your spine, but you have reached the deepest chamber. Now you are faced with a choice. To destroy the entity living herein, you must sacrifice someone. The evil being will be annihilated utterly, but first someone must forfeit their own life.

There are two people on hand that you might sacrifice. The first came here seeking to make the world a better place, and wishes to see all evil vanquished. The second got here by chasing a butterfly and wishes to leave. You have been given the power to choose one of these people to be the arrow that slays the fiend, so to speak. Which will you sacrifice.



What is your decision, and why did you decide that way?
How would you place your decision on the 3eD&D alignment chart, on the 4eD&D alignment scale?
How would you place the other option on the alignment chart & scale?
It is encouraged to note other variables that may change the alignment/morality of either decision


For the purpose of this exercise, there is no option C. I won't try to contrive reasons for it, there just isn't, this isn't an actual in-game situation.

Assuming no C which is foolish to assume, but in theory I guess possible.

I'd give my own based on this wording: There are two people on hand that you might sacrifice.
The word might implies that you can might not; thus I can choose another. Since there are only three beings I go with me.

I can always be revived by my family, right?
My decision would CG (best good while ensuring freedom for all)
In 4th, just good as there is CG, just Good.

Other options?
To sacrifice the 1st dude would be neutral at best: while he wants to better the world; unless he agrees to this, it would be bad to do it to him.

2nd dude (dudette) would be evil as he/she wants nothing to do with saving the world.

As I said, if either agreed that it was okay to kill them then, it would be okay (neutral). Neither is good unless you choose yourself as you are only one with the right to kill thyself.

streakster
2008-11-11, 11:10 AM
Assuming no C which is foolish to assume, but in theory I guess possible.

I'd give my own based on this wording: There are two people on hand that you might sacrifice.
The word might implies that you can might not; thus I can choose another. Since there are only three beings I go with me.


Woot! Heroic Sacrifice ITP!

We should have a club.

random11
2008-11-11, 11:23 AM
Woot! Heroic Sacrifice ITP!

We should have a club.

Not very heroic when the hero is counting on being revived later...

Suzuro
2008-11-11, 11:23 AM
...dang, someone beat me to saying myself...That's always been my choice in these questions.

I'd also go with Lawful Good for sacrificing yourself, and neutral at best for sacrificing the others.


-Suzuro

streakster
2008-11-11, 11:29 AM
Not very heroic when the hero is counting on being revived later...

Sure it is. We're risking permanent death - maybe the Rez won't work, or they won't cast it, or they'll lose the body, or what have you.

The fact that we're taking out some insurance to reduce that risk doesn't mean it's not there.

OverdrivePrime
2008-11-11, 11:33 AM
I could never justify sacrificing someone else. I am the onely one who can completely make that choice when the that cold, runed dagger is in my hand. I don't know that it's a lawful act, or even a good act, but at least it's not evil.

In my world view, sacrificing someone else's life, even for the greater good is always an evil act. Certainly sacrificing the willing crusader is less evil (and less intelligent, as they will go on to do more good things) than the poor lepidopterologist, but in my world it sill earns you some serious dark side points

paddyfool
2008-11-11, 12:28 PM
Killing yourself probably counts as an option C. Not killing anyone, or letting people volunteer to kill themselves, likewise. Under the logical rules of this artificial situation where there is no other option and the description given is all you know about them... heck, you might as well toss a coin. Killing A is more in line with their goals; killing B less ultimately detrimental to the greater good if A is remotely effective at what A seeks to do. Neither is evil, neither is good. But probably A, on balance; from the sounds of it, they probably weren't going to get much joy out of life anyway.


But, as there's a known afterlife in D&D, killing someone who's good really isn't that bad of an act

Which gives me a great idea for a relatively crazy villain! ("It's a dark and evil world, but there are a few souls with enough of a spark of good in them to make it to heaven where they can be eternally happy... if I kill them right away, they might still make it there before they get corrupted" :smallsmile:). The PCs would [get called in to investigate/stumble upon] the killings of a string of famously saintly types without warning in precisely targetted and pain-free ways and seek to investigate. The killer would try to evade them rather than engage on the whole, but might, of course, target the noblest and purest of the party. Bonus points if they can figure out his motivation...

Vortling
2008-11-11, 12:51 PM
The Choice
For the purpose of this exercise, there is no option C. I won't try to contrive reasons for it, there just isn't, this isn't an actual in-game situation.

I would argue that based off this comment the entire premise is flawed. If you can't come up with a situation in which there is no option C, but you want to enforce 'no option C' then you really need to work on the initial premise.

Myself, I'd choose me after some deliberation to determine that the three people there were the only options (ie ridiculous DM fiat deserving of hammergun). If you want something done right you do it yourself. Glorious afterlife here I come!

Coplantor
2008-11-11, 01:06 PM
See, my option isn't on here. Ima gonna sacrifice me, if I can - guilt-free and awesome! Probably quote Kamina while doing so...

Interesting dilemma, though. I'll have to think on it.

Now that's the origianl Good aligned answer. Yeah, as a D&D character I would've done that. I dont care if i cant be resurrected after. Considering my RL morals... I would'nt even be near that god forgotten cave of doom!

EDIT: I believe that both choices, A and B, are evil in a very strict way of seeing the aligment system. A neutral guy can do both of them, but a good guy should use the C, plane, just kiding, C, I kill myself option.

Yahzi
2008-11-11, 08:30 PM
The Choice
Person one. The reason? If I were person one, I would want to be chosen; and if I were person two, I would not want to be chosen. Thus, my choice is the choice of fairness - even to people who aren't necessarily fair (like person two), and that makes me NG.

LG would also probably choose the same, since it's fair. CG, on the other hand, would decide that the first person is a better person to have around, and thus sacrifice person two. LE would choose just the second person also, since the first person - being a better person - would be worth more to them. CE and NE would sacrifice the first person, because that kind of goodness can only oppose them.

OverdrivePrime
2008-11-11, 08:37 PM
There are two people on hand that you might sacrifice. The first came here seeking to make the world a better place, and wishes to see all evil vanquished. The second got here by chasing a butterfly and wishes to leave. You have been given the power to choose one of these people to be the arrow that slays the fiend, so to speak. Which will you sacrifice.

Aha! I've got it.

There are just two people on hand that I might sacrifice. So, just myself and one other person are present. Therefore:

I am the person who came here seeking to make the world a better place, and thus feel ethically able to sacrifice myself.

SurlySeraph
2008-11-11, 08:41 PM
I sacrifice Person 2. Why? I know that Person 1 is devoted to improving the world and fighting evil, and will continue to improve the world and fighting evil if he lives. I have no such guarantee about Person 2. As my goal is to increase good and reduce evil, I will save the person who I know will further this goal.

I consider this choice borderline between Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral. I am following a principle, *and* following this principle does good. However, sacrificing an unwilling innocent does evil, which reduces the amount of good that this does.

I'd say saving Person 2 would be Chaotic Good - choosing kindness to an individual and individual choice over maintaining a system, even a system that promotes kindness to people.

Like streakster said, sacrificing yourself is the really good option - I'd call that Neutral Good. However, in some cases sacrificing Person 1 would be more good than sacrificing yourself. If you knew that you were a good person and had vastly more power to do good than Person 1, you could do more good by keeping yourself alive even if you did the slightly evil act if letting a good man die to protect yourself.

SoD
2008-11-11, 08:48 PM
I'd sacrifice person 1.

Person 1 would be a lot more likely to be willing to be sacrificed to destroy the evil thing.

Of course, if I knew that person 2 was a ruthless murdering [expletive] who just likes chasing butterflies and isn't very observant, that changes my answer. Just because they chase butterflies, doesn't mean they're a good person.

KingGolem
2008-11-11, 10:53 PM
I would sacrifice butterfly man, because if I sacrifice him, the world is short one idiot who chases a butterfly into the tomb of an ancient evil, which I assume had some monsters guarding the front of it. Second of all, by sacrificing him, the world gets to keep one evil vanquishing guy who may live to vanquish another day.

On the 3.5E alignment scale, I would place that at Lawful Neutral, as it is my alignment and it was unbiased pragmatism that compelled me to do it. Now I am only barely familiar with the 4E alignment scale, but didn't they compress the entire neutral section into "unaligned?" If that's the case, it probably falls there.

The other option is probably Neutral Good (with a hint of law), as it is only "fair and proper" to have a man's consent before you sacrifice him.

My option to sacrifice butterfly man could probably become Chaotic Evil, if it was done entirely out of spite. I mean, as an adventurer you probably fought your way through a horde of unspeakable horrors to reach the final chamber, only to have some random bystander accomplish the same goal by following a freakin' butterfly. It would become even more Chaotic Evil-ish if you were to kill vanquish man if he protests to you sacrificing butterfly man.

By the way, I like this thread. Very nice. :smallcool:

Brock Samson
2008-11-12, 06:21 AM
Paddyfool I'm glad you took my argument to the logical extension I was hoping someone would go with.

And of course, if you kill everyone in the world, then try to revive them all, only the evil ones will revive. Eventually the scales of what is evil and what isn't will be tipped quite far and, as the Gods in D&D will probably still want their entertainment and followers, declare a new law on what is and isn't evil. So at that point you go through another fresh round of complete genocidal killings and raisings. Rinse, and repeat.

Of course it's likely a bunch of do-evilers are going to come around and try to stop you for their own selfish reasons, wanting you to stop the killing, how evil they are! The only Good thing to do is kill them. But to ensure that you live through all the genocides that take place you'll want to find a way to make yourself mostly-immortal, yet still capable of dying when you're the last sentient being. One easy way, make yourself a lich!

The problem is that sentient beings will continue to reproduce, and there's still a chance you might die before you can "deal" with them all. So you'll also want to sterilize all sentient beings to make sure you can stop the cycle of people being born and ultimately getting sent to hell. However since this world has magic people could always use that to restore their fertility, so you'll probably want to create phobias in people about sex in general. A good way to do this might be attained through linking sex and torture in their minds. No one tries to get back fertility, problem solved.

Or is it? Even after you've killed all sentient beings and sent them to heaven evolution will not stop occurring. So after you're the last sentient being *alive* you'll also want to destroy the universe somehow to make sure no more sentient beings evolve and go to hell.

So, logically, murder, torture, forced sterilization, and the complete negation of all existence are the only Good things a true hero should ever aspire to.

And now we know why Xykon isn't such a bad-guy after all.

Fri
2008-11-12, 06:48 AM
Sorry, I need to think for a bit, but the image of someone chasing a butterfly (Frolicking merrily!) and ended up in an otherwordly evil nasty dungeon really crack me up. I'm laughing now, seriously.

TricksyAndFalse
2008-11-12, 11:02 AM
If persons 1 and 2 are my only choices, I'd pick 1. I'd choose him/her because because their sacrifice helps them achieve their goal of seeing evil erradicated. Person 2 is innocent, and killing him/her seems cruel to me.

On the 3.5 alignment chart, I'd rate killing person 1 as a Lawful Neutral act. It's a sacrifice of one for the benefit of the many. It achieves a good end, but by non-good means. If I could convince him/her that this was the best choice, it could become a Lawful Good act.

On the 4.0 alignment chart, I'd rate killing person 1 as a Lawful Good act. It's not Unaligned because I am taking a stance on the good vs evil spectrum. It's not an evil act because though I am doing something others might question, the goal is clearly to benefit others. It's Lawful Good because I'm putting the good of the many ahead of the good of this individual.

I'd rate killing person 2 as a Lawful Evil act in the 3.5 model. The act still benefits the greater good, but person 2 is an innocent who lacks understanding of the stakes involved--picking him/her would be a choice of convenience for me.

I'd rate killing person 2 as a Lawful Good act in the 4.0 model for the same reasons as above.

It's weird. As I try to fit this choice into the two alignment models, the 3.5 model seems to favor alignment based on actions, and the 4.0 model seems to favor alignment based on intent.

hamishspence
2008-11-12, 01:12 PM
"Sacrifice" is a classic evil act in BoVD, but I suspect its not that meaning we are going for.

"Murder" (for whatever reason) is evil by BoVD, BoED, FC2.

Is knowingly sacrificing someone who didn' consent to be sacrificed, murder, morally speaking?

D&D has long tradition of sacrificing people, even for Good reasons, being an exceptionally evil act (1st ed, 2nd ed, Buring the Plague Village to Save The Country- LG to NE instant change.)

BoED goes so far as to say no amount of Good Motivation will turn any evil act into a Neutral one- Exalted people lose benefits of feats, Paladins fall. They can get them back by atoning though.

chiasaur11
2008-11-12, 01:14 PM
Aha! I've got it.

There are just two people on hand that I might sacrifice. So, just myself and one other person are present. Therefore:

I am the person who came here seeking to make the world a better place, and thus feel ethically able to sacrifice myself.

Good one!

I'd go with that one, but not before calling the butterfly guy a moron.

Seriously, what kind of idiot chases a butterfly into a tomb of pure evil?

Coidzor
2008-11-12, 02:06 PM
Sure it is. We're risking permanent death - maybe the Rez won't work, or they won't cast it, or they'll lose the body, or what have you.

The fact that we're taking out some insurance to reduce that risk doesn't mean it's not there.

Or worse, resurrecting the sacrifice causes the ancient evil to come back and this time be awake.

EvilElitest
2008-11-12, 02:10 PM
if its you sacrificing either one of them its evil (the type varies) on the 3.5 scale, what ever you want it to be on the 4E scale.

In 3E murder is evil, absolute no exceptions. No, ends don't justify the means, BoED, that doesn't work

now if one of them chooses to sacrifice themselves, its ok. Through why the person in question wouldn't sacerfice themselves seems a little odd
from
EE

hamishspence
2008-11-12, 02:18 PM
the question is- how evil? Fiendish Codex 2 rated it worse than anything else listed other than the worst kinds of torture. And- should it cause an alignmnet change?

The original phrasing of the statement might have been better translated as "excuses" rather than "justifies" and only in pretty narrow areas. and "a good end may excuse it, and when the result is good, always excuses it"

it still phrased it as "reprehensible acts" or, in the editor's words "times when it is necessary to do admittedly evil acts for the welfare of others." with strong suggestions that the acts themselves were evil, and a good result didn't make the act itself non-evil.

Gao
2008-11-12, 02:24 PM
* What is your decision, and why did you decide that way?
Myself. I have no right to ask either of these two people to sacrifice themselves for my cause.

* How would you place your decision on the 3eD&D alignment chart, on the 4eD&D alignment scale?
Neutral Good, Good.


* How would you place the other option on the alignment chart & scale?
Evil. You have no right to make this decision for other people.

hamishspence
2008-11-12, 02:29 PM
Some decisions about other peoples lives, people are granted authority to make. Doctors, for example. and circumstances might not give them opportunity to get anyone's consent.

however, active decisions are different from passive ones- choosing who to save, is not the same as choosing who to kill.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-11-12, 02:39 PM
however, active decisions are different from passive ones- choosing who to save, is not the same as choosing who to kill.Why do people say this? If you're a Doctor and have to choose which of 2 patients to work on, knowing that whichever one you don't will die, you end up with hopefully one alive and one dead. If each of them needs an organ, but if you wait for one to die both die, then you better choose which to save. Otherwise you end up with both dead. What does it matter if you cut his throat instead of abandoning him to die? Either way the result is the same.

hamishspence
2008-11-12, 06:03 PM
Probably beacuse the examples given usually involve a healthy person- you cut throat of healthy man and use his organs to save several dying men. Net result- more people alive than would be if you hadn't.

Yet- morality survey said- most people think that is very evil. Killing a person requires justification, and "It will save others" is generally, not enough.

Ozymandias
2008-11-12, 06:15 PM
I'm going to go against the grain and sacrifice person 2 - it's just bad luck, but person 1 is proven a good and is probably reasonable capable (and, most importantly, proactive in the cause of good) person while 2 is dubious. Statistically, 1 will probably do better things in the future.

I have no idea about how that sort of thinking would fit on the D&D alignment scale. Probably neutral evil or something.

horngeek
2008-11-12, 09:21 PM
Person A, because he would be the willing choice.
Neutral
Lawful Evil
If I could be the sacrifice, then I would do that.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-11-12, 09:32 PM
Ooh, this is fun! I choose number two, because he is most likely a moron and therefore less valuable to the good of all than number one. (Chasing a butterfly into the den of Evil? His wisdom is what, 5-1/2, at most?) Number one is much more valuable because he is presumably of average mental capacity and more importantly, a Good person and therefore more advantageous to keep alive.

If I believe in the power of faith within this hypothetical situation, I of course would pray for a third option that does not involve the death of any innocent. But as the situation apparently requires it, I will have to live with the guilt of sentencing the moron to death.

My decision is Good, as is the other decision, because both cause significantly more good than harm. Both include an Evil action of course, but the fact that the Evil is unavoidable cancels its taint.

TS

elliott20
2008-11-12, 09:45 PM
I could never justify sacrificing someone else. I am the onely one who can completely make that choice when the that cold, runed dagger is in my hand. I don't know that it's a lawful act, or even a good act, but at least it's not evil.

In my world view, sacrificing someone else's life, even for the greater good is always an evil act. Certainly sacrificing the willing crusader is less evil (and less intelligent, as they will go on to do more good things) than the poor lepidopterologist, but in my world it sill earns you some serious dark side points
Bah, ODP, we all know that earning light side points just means you subscribe to Jedi Hippy politics! but dude, you have got to try out these brownies they make!

gibbo88
2008-11-12, 09:48 PM
What is your decision, and why did you decide that way? I would go with the individual who is willing to rid the world of evil, since those are my options.
How would you place your decision on the 3eD&D alignment chart, on the 4eD&D alignment scale? Neutral Good
How would you place the other option on the alignment chart & scale? Lawful Evil
It is encouraged to note other variables that may change the alignment/morality of either decision If you were given the option of self sacrifice, I would probably go with that. Obviously the ideal would be if there was some equally evil person to sacrifice.

Proven_Paradox
2008-11-12, 10:05 PM
If I am a paladin or a similarly super-good character, I offer to sacrifice myself. (In person, I am most certainly not.)

Otherwise, if person 1 is willing to be sacrificed--as he might be--I sacrifice him.

Otherwise, I sacrifice person two. My reasoning is simple: this person chased a butterfly deep into the lair of an ancient evil, ignoring all the obvious signs of "this is not a place you want to be?" This person is Too Dumb to Live. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TooDumbToLive) Sacrificing this person will end a life that will likely be put into similar peril at a later time; doing it now hastens the inevitable and does some good too. Meanwhile, keeping this other person alive gives them a chance to do more good in the world. Person 2's life is given meaning through death.

If I choose to sacrifice myself, the act is good, with a slight bend towards lawful.

If person 1 is willing to be sacrificed, and I choose to sacrifice them, it is a neutral act. A non-act, even; I didn't do much, just let someone else make take a good action.

Otherwise, sacrificing either person is an evil act. It goes towards good ends, and is thus not something to cause one to change alignment then and there, but it would cause massive guilt, and good people will probably want to seek a redemption spell of some sort.

Nohwl
2008-11-12, 10:07 PM
can i pick none and fight it?

SurlySeraph
2008-11-12, 10:11 PM
can i pick none and fight it?

I'm reasonably sure that'll get everyone involved killed.

Nohwl
2008-11-12, 10:21 PM
it cant be that hard to get to the lair if the village idiot can do it. if the group dies, someone else can come along and make a sacrifice to seal it away. if we win, noone is sacrificed.

Vinotaur
2008-11-12, 10:26 PM
Okay, I think you guys have some confusion about the Afterlife in D&D.

Evil people don't hate their afterlife. Everyone gets what fits them.

If a Powerful good Person dies they get to be Astral Deva or play around in super fun town.

If a weak good person dies they become minor lantern archon number 12 or they go play in fun town.

But evil people go to hell and become demons. Serious Demons. Everyone in the nine hells is both torturer and tortured, the imps take it so that they can work their way up, and the badass generals are still put down by the Head Honchos.

Everyone gets the afterlife that fits them. People do or do not want to come back based on unfinished life goals, so that Person A is going to want to come back because they still haven't ended all evil.

streakster
2008-11-12, 10:30 PM
New Plan!

I'll just use Iron Heart Surge to end the existence of evil. The ancient evil is now either gone or cute and lovable.

TOB makes everything better.

OracleofWuffing
2008-11-12, 11:42 PM
No need for Iron Heart Surge, just sacrifice the evil being.

In all hypothetical seriousness, though, person A. How I would place the alignment of the choice kinda relies on how much information person A knows about the situation. If he knows and willingly submits, then Neutral Good, if not, then Chaotic Good, maybe Chaotic Neutral. I would personally say the other choice is Chaotic Evil, though there's a bit in me suggesting that it's Chaotic Neutral, as well.

Other variables? Drat, I guess I kinda answered that already... The knowledge these two people have of the circumstances.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-11-13, 12:28 AM
Option 0: sacrifice myself. Given the information provided in the OP, there's no reason why this shouldn't be an option.

Neutral Good, perhaps Lawful Good depending how you reason it. Same deal for 4e alignments.

If I'm not allowed to cheat, Person A assuming he can be persuaded (Neutral/Unaligned). If he can't, I cheat anyway.

random11
2008-11-13, 12:30 AM
Aha! I've got it.

There are just two people on hand that I might sacrifice. So, just myself and one other person are present. Therefore:

I am the person who came here seeking to make the world a better place, and thus feel ethically able to sacrifice myself.

Or better: There is only one person in the cave.
You are the brave man trying to save the world. But at the same time you are also the second person.
Trying to enter a cave with ultimate evil alone, without any specific plans? You might as well be chasing butterflies...

Z97
2008-11-13, 01:02 AM
How old is person 2, because if person 2 is a 30 year old person chasing butterflies, I'd would probably sacrifice him... and keep the other guy as a NPC. :)

Nerd-o-rama
2008-11-13, 01:25 AM
Or better: There is only one person in the cave.
You are the brave man trying to save the world. But at the same time you are also the second person.
Trying to enter a cave with ultimate evil alone, without any specific plans? You might as well be chasing butterflies...For once, I approve of someone thinking too hard.

Bravo, sir.

Random NPC
2008-11-13, 01:53 AM
I would personally explain the situation, offer someone to step up and if nobody wants it, I rip the character sheet and kill myself.

Why? Because dying in a noble way gives you +100 Heroic Points :smallamused:

random11
2008-11-13, 02:53 AM
For once, I approve of someone thinking too hard.

Bravo, sir.

And I didn't even get to the part where the question actually symbolizes an inner struggle, and the choice answers which part of yourself to keep on the expense of the other... :smallcool:

Irreverent Fool
2008-11-13, 05:48 AM
The big thing about D&D that people always seem to forget is that most deaths aren't permanent (and it takes a real effort to make sure the person stays permanently dead).

I dunno. It doesn't take too much effort to repeatedly toss someone into a bag of devouring and then repeatedly try resurrecting them until you fail, meaning "no mortal magic" can bring them back.
obnoxious
sig

Starbuck_II
2008-11-13, 06:56 AM
Or better: There is only one person in the cave.
You are the brave man trying to save the world. But at the same time you are also the second person.
Trying to enter a cave with ultimate evil alone, without any specific plans? You might as well be chasing butterflies...

That is so insightful and deep...I might cry :smallcool:

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-11-13, 08:39 AM
Probably beacuse the examples given usually involve a healthy person- you cut throat of healthy man and use his organs to save several dying men. Net result- more people alive than would be if you hadn't.

Yet- morality survey said- most people think that is very evil. Killing a person requires justification, and "It will save others" is generally, not enough.I really don't see how people see it that way. If it came down to it, you're looking at either letting several die, or killing one. I don't see how ignoring the deaths of multiple people is worse than slitting the throat of one to help others.

Vinotaur
2008-11-13, 10:34 AM
I really don't see how people see it that way. If it came down to it, you're looking at either letting several die, or killing one. I don't see how ignoring the deaths of multiple people is worse than slitting the throat of one to help others.

It could be because they are looking at probabilities and person years, since that one person might live for another 80 years, but statistically, all 12 organ donors, even if they all work for some reason are going to be dead in 10.

So yeah, I don't think killing one person to give five people five more years is a good idea. And that's what most Organ Donor things turn into.

Also, I personally don't give a crap about morality, and only care about personal rights. And I like to think that I have the right to not be slaughtered in my sleep for no damn reason.

hamishspence
2008-11-13, 02:45 PM
ah, but there is the theory, that all morality begins with personal rights- when you violate the rights of others (in the absence of evidence that they may have forfeited their rights, which generally has to be proved) you step off the moral path, no matter how many lives you save by doing so.

"evil begins with seeing people as things" and sacrificial object is a pretty fair example of thinghood.

If "I want to survive" isn't a justification for murdering the only other person on a desert island in their sleep (Some think it is, I don't) why is "I want Other People to survive" suddenly morally better?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-11-13, 03:05 PM
ah, but there is the theory, that all morality begins with personal rights- when you violate the rights of others (in the absence of evidence that they may have forfeited their rights, which generally has to be proved) you step off the moral path, no matter how many lives you save by doing so.

"evil begins with seeing people as things" and sacrificial object is a pretty fair example of thinghood.

If "I want to survive" isn't a justification for murdering the only other person on a desert island in their sleep (Some think it is, I don't) why is "I want Other People to survive" suddenly morally better?Maybe that's it. I don't view it as evil to kill someone if it's the only way to survive. Yes, it's wrong to violate their right to life, but your right to live is violated if you don't, so...I just can't see it as evil.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-11-13, 03:11 PM
Maybe that's it. I don't view it as evil to kill someone if it's the only way to survive. Yes, it's wrong to violate their right to life, but your right to live is violated if you don't, so...I just can't see it as evil.Isn't that a case where both choices are objectively evil? Although, voluntarily forfeiting your own right to live so that someone else can certainly isn't evil, so I tend to say that self-sacrifice is the "correct" choice.

hamishspence
2008-11-13, 03:13 PM
Is it? the other person isn't actively violating your right to live. Its a problematic assumption- that every time person doesn't get what they want, their rights are being violated.

If you are one of two candidates and you fail to get the job, neither the employer nor the other candidate has actually violated your rights.

Same principle applies when there is a limited resource to be distributed- not getting that resourse, be it air, water, food, etc, doesn't mean it has been stolen from you.

hamishspence
2008-11-13, 03:17 PM
not all theories insist on it being self-sacrifice either- you aren't killing yourself to save other person, you are merely saying "better to starve, than to murder"

If both do this, and one dies, the survivor, assuming still strong enough, might eat the first to die- can a dead person own anything? but it avoids the "I must kill them" decision.

If both die simultaneously of starvation, thats sad, but why is it objectively worse than one murdering the other to stay alive?

Townopolis
2008-11-13, 07:53 PM
I'm going to go ahead and post the second part here. Part 2 is identical to part 1 except with one change. You are person 1/A.

If you have already answered part 2 via declarations of self-sacrifice, if you would repost a summary of your choice and moral judgements of the 2 options (taking into account that choosing person 2 is now also choosing to not sacrifice yourself), that would be grand. Otherwise, i'll sift through the posts above this one for your deviant responses.


The Choice

You are deep within the lair of an ancient evil, stranger, otherworldly sigils mark the walls, and the air sends a chill down your spine, but you have reached the deepest chamber. Now you are faced with a choice. To destroy the entity living herein, you must sacrifice someone. The evil being will be annihilated utterly, but first someone must forfeit their own life.

There are two people on hand that you might sacrifice. The first came here seeking to make the world a better place, and wishes to see all evil vanquished, if you let them live, he will live on as a force of good. The second got here by chasing a butterfly and wishes to leave, if you let them live, they will return to a normal life. You have been given the power to choose one of these people to be the arrow that slays the fiend, so to speak.

You are the first person. Which will you sacrifice?



What is your decision, and why did you decide that way?
How would you place your decision on the 3eD&D alignment chart, on the 4eD&D alignment scale?
How would you place the other option on the alignment chart & scale?
It is encouraged to note other variables that may change the alignment/morality of either decision


For the purpose of this exercise, there is no option C. I won't try to contrive reasons for it, there just isn't, this isn't an actual in-game situation.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-11-13, 09:06 PM
I'd choose moron B just like I would in the first scenario. Again, I'll probably cause the more Good than him if I continue living, and in addition I know that I'm smarter than he is.

Again,

If I believe in the power of faith within this hypothetical situation, I of course would pray for a third option that does not involve the death of any innocent. But as the situation apparently requires it, I will have to live with the guilt of sentencing the moron to death.

My decision is Good, as is the other decision, because both cause significantly more good than harm. Both include an Evil action of course, but the fact that the Evil is unavoidable cancels its taint.

TS

Nohwl
2008-11-13, 09:24 PM
Im still in favor of fighting it without making a sacrifice.

streakster
2008-11-13, 09:28 PM
Yay!

Me, NG, NE

More detail:

I'm killing me. It's the only good act.

Self-Sacrifice is Neutral Good. Law or Chaos or just plain nice, works either way.

It's evil to kill someone else to benefit yourself. Hence, NE.

SurlySeraph
2008-11-13, 09:43 PM
I kill myself for two reasons. First, because killing an innocent is an evil act that will probably outweigh the good I could do if I lived. Second, self-sacrifice is a very good act, which together with sparing the innocent outweighs the good that is prevented by the end of my life. I'd say this is an NG act. Killing the innocent would probably be Neutral, because it's self-interested.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-11-13, 09:49 PM
Kill the innocent. I'm not going to kill myself to save one other's life. I'd put it at TN.