Alignment of this action?

[WarKitty]

Yes, it's another alignment thread.

So I'm playing a NG character. We've captured this guy. He's a known high-level mob member. I am well aware both that he has a considerable resources should he escape to hunt us down, and that he has no compunctions about breaking his word. There is no prison nearby other than the city he came from, in which he will certainly break out. We have a long journey ahead during which he would have ample opportunity to escape.

What would be the good action to take in this situation? On one hand, slaughtering a helpless prisoner is typically evil. On the other hand...I'm not playing stupid good. This guy will likely escape (we're level 3, we don't have that many tricks up our sleeves) and come back to try to kill us.

[Nanoblack]

Are there any "Aces" up your sleeve that you could pull? Alternately, try thinking from the prisoners perspective. Is there anything you could do that would make escaping a worse option than staying with the merciful goodie-little-two-shoes?

If you weren't asking for advice other than just whether killing him as is would be evil... What do you know of his organization? If he dies who will replace him? Oftentimes it's the inexperienced follow up who is the worse of two evils, as they usually lack forethought and will often shell out more resources to hinder your party.

If you are feeling in a justicar-type mood, what crimes (specifically) has he commited that you can personally attest to? Even with the risk of him escaping and whatnot, I can't see a NG character suddenly having a change of heart and slaughtering him on the spot. If it really came down to a point where it was do or die, I can see a sudden decision to kill him rather than having him risk your live to keep him intact (In combat for instance).

I suppose if you were looking for a general alignment based answer, what type of good are you playing? Evil must be eradicated or merciful martyr? Or something in between? Neutral good can be many things, but most of all it's based on the specific character, so in the end it's really based off of behavior from previous sessions. Do what comes naturally for the character.

[HunterOfJello]

Kill him if he deserves it and it would be in the best interest of society. Governments do it all the time.


I never understood the "killing humans in d&d is evil" mantra. If you knocked out a troll that was on his way to massacre a village, you wouldn't heal him back up then let him loose on the world again. Just because an npc is humanoid doesn't mean he isn't a monster on the inside. Killing evil or vile humanoids can be a good action.

[WarKitty]

The particular character is a NG druid, typically fairly laid back you-don't-bother-me-I-won't-bother-you. He's high-level enough in the mob to enforce payback but he's not high enough that getting killed is going to be a power shakeup. Don't know specific crimes but I do know he was just trying to kill us for a powerful artifact, despite the fact that we were willing to give it to him if he'd pay our salaries (as he told us the original contractor was dead).

P.S. the actual situation played out without my input, as my less good party members sent him down to see the witch in the middle of the dungeon, and he died to a trap we had all forgotten about.

As far as keeping him, we have tying him up and no ranks in use rope among the party.

[Grynning]

Well, if he's intended to be a recurring villain, the DM may have him escape no matter what you decide...

However, if you really have the choice, a neutral or chaotic good character would avoid killing him if possible, but probably wouldn't hesitate to shoot him in the back if he runs away, or kill him if he tries to fight the party again. A LG character would try to capture and bring him to justice regardless of the difficulties involved.

Manacles aren't too expensive and are pretty difficult to get out of, if you can get some. Also, this is borderline, but since it's D&D land you can technically keep him unconscious with non-lethal damage the whole time without killing him (since non-lethal damage never actually converts to lethal). Of course, the morality of beating the guy mercilessly on the entire trip back is obviously on the darker side of gray.

Edit: Oh, never mind then. That was a fast resolution...are you playing the game right now?

[WarKitty]

Well, if he's intended to be a recurring villain, the DM may have him escape no matter what you decide...

However, if you really have the choice, a neutral or chaotic good character would avoid killing him if possible, but probably wouldn't hesitate to shoot him in the back if he runs away, or kill him if he tries to fight the party again. A LG character would try to capture and bring him to justice regardless of the difficulties involved.

Manacles aren't too expensive and are pretty difficult to get out of, if you can get some. Also, this is borderline, but since it's D&D land you can technically keep him unconscious with non-lethal damage the whole time without killing him (since non-lethal damage never actually converts to lethal). Of course, the morality of beating the guy mercilessly on the entire trip back is obviously on the darker side of gray.

Edit: Oh, never mind then. That was a fast resolution...are you playing the game right now?

Yes, this was two sessions ago.

Edit: oh you meant now-now. No, I was just using the historical present tense, asking a hypothetical.

[Dr.Epic]

Have you killed any neutral monsters? How's this any different? I'm assuming since he's a mob boss he can't be good. I'd suggest Mark of Justice but you're party is too low and that could always be removed.

[Urpriest]

It would be entertaining to give the guy an impromptu trial and then execute him, but I could see that backfiring.

[WarKitty]

It would be entertaining to give the guy an impromptu trial and then execute him, but I could see that backfiring.

Not to mention several members of our party have the attention span of a hummingbird.

[Knaight]

There is more to your character than Neutral good right? Think about how your character would act from that perspective, and ignore alignment.

[WarKitty]

There is more to your character than Neutral good right? Think about how your character would act from that perspective, and ignore alignment.

To be fair my character would probably be thinking the same thing. Heck I'm thinking the same thing. I mean, she's not thinking "well is this within the alignment the paper says" but she is I'm sure thinking "is it right to kill this guy?" It's a fairly inexperienced 17 year old, she's never had a situation like this before!

I'm not even sure how I'd answer the "is this right?" question if it suddenly came up in RL, for that matter.

[mucat]

The thought "I am neutral good, so what should I do?" should never be a part of the equation. Alignment describes a character; it doesn't define them. More important than her alignment are her views on violence and justice, her faith in social institutions that might help her rein this guy in without killing him, her sense of duty to others who might be hurt if she releases him. Decide what the character would do, not what the alignment would do.

[WarKitty]

The thought "I am neutral good, so what should I do?" should never be a part of the equation. Alignment describes a character; it doesn't define them. More important than her alignment are her views on violence and justice, her faith in social institutions that might help her rein this guy in without killing him, her sense of duty to others who might be hurt if she releases him. Decide what the character would do, not what the alignment would do.

Spoiler

Show

Didn't I just answer that? Make the question "what would the good or right action to do in this case be?" Same difference here. In character or out of character I really don't know. It's very clear that the local jails aren't going to be of any use. As for the rest, it's rather muddy.

Edit: wow that sounds passive-aggressive upon re-reading it. Working on a rephrasing.

[lsfreak]

The thought "I am neutral good, so what should I do?" should never be a part of the equation. Alignment describes a character; it doesn't define them. More important than her alignment are her views on violence and justice, her faith in social institutions that might help her rein this guy in without killing him, her sense of duty to others who might be hurt if she releases him. Decide what the character would do, not what the alignment would do.

A character who is conscious about right and wrong will ask that question, though, if they are in a new situation. I'd certainly ask it. I'd probably have to default to "Is more evil likely to come about by killing him here, or letting him go?" In which case I'd kill him in the least painful way I could come up with.

[Jallorn]

You could maim him in some way, or beat him to a pulp frequently enough to keep him unconscious, brutal, yes, but considering the danger I think most people of the world would agree it was necessary and kinder than killing him.

[Coidzor]

my less good party members sent him down to see the witch in the middle of the dungeon

What a curious euphemism...

[Knaight]

To be fair my character would probably be thinking the same thing. Heck I'm thinking the same thing. I mean, she's not thinking "well is this within the alignment the paper says" but she is I'm sure thinking "is it right to kill this guy?" It's a fairly inexperienced 17 year old, she's never had a situation like this before!

That provides useful information. Some degree of naivete can be expected, along with the fear of being thrown into the situation she was, thus she will have two conflicting ideas at the very least, the idea that people can improve and should be forgiven, and the idea that she is in way over her head and that this guy represents a real threat. Given the emotional aspect of the situation, "what is good" is less likely to be her main consideration, odds are something more emotional, such as "What would Role Model X do?", with role models drawn both from childhood fantasy and idealism and her experience in the real world, both of which are exaggerated due to her youth.

[Rising Phoenix]

Have you tried talking to him? Why is he doing the things he does? Is there any way he'd change his ways?

It could be a long journey, but redeeming him could be fun.

As for killing him outright: You're a Druid, nature is cruel and you know that. It just doesn't sit well in your conscience.

From where I am standing killing anything is never a good act. It is either neutral if done for sustenance, self defence and in a none cruel way. Or evil if done in a manner that causes suffering.

From a pragmatic point of view: Killing him would be the easy, clean and somewhat dirty way to get rid of him if you know what I mean.

Strong neutral act from where I am standing

That provides useful information. Some degree of naivete can be expected, along with the fear of being thrown into the situation she was, thus she will have two conflicting ideas at the very least, the idea that people can improve and should be forgiven, and the idea that she is in way over her head and that this guy represents a real threat. Given the emotional aspect of the situation, "what is good" is less likely to be her main consideration, odds are something more emotional, such as "What would Role Model X do?", with role models drawn both from childhood fantasy and idealism and her experience in the real world, both of which are exaggerated due to her youth.

I like this too.

[herrhauptmann]

You could maim him in some way, or beat him to a pulp frequently enough to keep him unconscious, brutal, yes, but considering the danger I think most people of the world would agree it was necessary and kinder than killing him.

Amputated limbs can be regenerated. He's probably got the cash/contacts to get that done. Besides, intentionally maiming/disfiguring a character is probably just as evil as killing a bound prisoner.

Keeping him unconscious with nonlethal damage doesn't have to be described as pounding on him until your knuckles are torn open and he's a bloody mess. Describe it as one very solid blow to the back of the head with a billy club or sap. Have the party rogue do it for SA if the Dm doesn't like the idea. Or a CDG with a sap, a strictly non lethal weapon. Doesn't the CDG do full damage, crit, and sneak attack when performed? 1d4*2 +Xd6 of nonlethal sounds pretty decent.

I'm in favor of the 'holding a trial' option. If you're unsure of being impartial, offer him a trial by combat. Equal rules for both sides. Nonmagic weapon of choice, no buffing, no interference. Attempted escape means death. Your champion (party warrior) has the option of admitting defeat before his own death, which would count as a victory for the mobster without anyone dying.
And if he wins, let him go. Give him a days worth of trail rations, and the weapon he used (perhaps everything he had on him that was definitely his when you took him prisoner.)

[Thajocoth]

Untie him. Toss him a sword. THEN kill him. If he has a particular weapon he likes to use, give him that one, just to be sporting.

[Marnath]

Have you tried talking to him? Why is he doing the things he does? Is there any way he'd change his ways?

It could be a long journey, but redeeming him could be fun.

As for killing him outright: You're a Druid, nature is cruel and you know that. It just doesn't sit well in your conscience.

From where I am standing killing anything is never a good act. It is either neutral if done for sustenance, self defence and in a none cruel way. Or evil if done in a manner that causes suffering.

From a pragmatic point of view: Killing him would be the easy, clean and somewhat dirty way to get rid of him if you know what I mean.

Strong neutral act from where I am standing



I like this too.

I heartily disagree. Some people are capable of such evil that allowing them to continue living is the same as putting a blade to the throat of all their victims yourself. Sometimes taking a life is the only morally acceptable option. In this case, there is no way to imprison him, and no authority figure nearby that has the jurisdiction/will to see justice done. This leaves the burden of deciding punishment yourself. Unless you are prepared to either imprison him yourself or turn him loose to continue harming innocents, your only real option is to execute him for his crimes. In my opinion the neutral option would be to ensure he has no desire to cross you again, and send him packing. What do you care if he hurts people you don't know personally?

*edit @ ^^: I don't think you can CDG with a non-lethal weapon.

[WarKitty]

That provides useful information. Some degree of naivete can be expected, along with the fear of being thrown into the situation she was, thus she will have two conflicting ideas at the very least, the idea that people can improve and should be forgiven, and the idea that she is in way over her head and that this guy represents a real threat. Given the emotional aspect of the situation, "what is good" is less likely to be her main consideration, odds are something more emotional, such as "What would Role Model X do?", with role models drawn both from childhood fantasy and idealism and her experience in the real world, both of which are exaggerated due to her youth.

I'm actually setting her up for a conflict with her mentor, who was my previous druid character. He's solidly NE of the "humanoids are evil until proven otherwise, kill first and ask questions later" variety. Hence part of why I'm interested in this facet. It's already a change from her upbringing for her to be asking the question "Is this right?"

[herrhauptmann]

I*edit @ ^^: I don't think you can CDG with a non-lethal weapon.

I might be trying to remember something else instead. But basic idea remains, if you hit, you deal all that damage, just as nonlethal. And it's preferable to hitting a 10th level character 30 times with your bare hand until you can knock him out. At least as far as efficiency, lack of cruelty, and remaining on one end of the good/evil scale.

[ericgrau]

Your actions don't always match your alignment. Only mostly. Decide in character. Ask what would he do not what would your alignment do. Morality is a concern he might consider, but he might come to either conclusion while still believing it to be good. Whether or not you're right is another matter.

Though if well tied up and constantly watched day and night I see little way for the baddy to escape... except due to a railroading DM. If that's the case then kill the guy immediately, viciously and without hesitation.

[WarKitty]

Your actions don't always match your alignment. Only mostly. Decide in character. Ask what would he do not what would your alignment do. Morality is a concern he might consider, but you might come to either conclusion while being good. Whether or not you're right is another matter.

Though if well tied up and constantly watched day and night I see little way for him to escape... except for a railroading DM. If that's the case then kill the guy immediately, viciously and without hesitation.

I suppose I should edit the first post. I'm curious what you playgrounders come up with as to what would be the "good" action, and why.

As far as the well tied up and constantly watched day and night - we're a level 3 party with 0 ranks in use rope among us in the middle of a desert. Also half of my fellow party members have the collective attention span of a drunk squirrel. In the middle of a scorching magical desert with no transportation.

[Knaight]

I'm actually setting her up for a conflict with her mentor, who was my previous druid character. He's solidly NE of the "humanoids are evil until proven otherwise, kill first and ask questions later" variety. Hence part of why I'm interested in this facet. It's already a change from her upbringing for her to be asking the question "Is this right?"

You have a huge opportunity here. Let the guy free out of spite towards your mentor, part of the building tensions between the characters. Then come to a realization that he should have been killed after he does something bad, and go on a downward spiral. Of course, I tend to enjoy stories of characters slowly falling into decay as they cope poorly with their errors, so I have some bias.

[Marnath]

You have a huge opportunity here. Let the guy free out of spite towards your mentor, part of the building tensions between the characters. Then come to a realization that he should have been killed after he does something bad, and go on a downward spiral. Of course, I tend to enjoy stories of characters slowly falling into decay as they cope poorly with their errors, so I have some bias.

I was going to advocate deciding he's bad enough to deserve killing, but then I read this idea and decided it's a lot better than mine.

[WarKitty]

You have a huge opportunity here. Let the guy free out of spite towards your mentor, part of the building tensions between the characters. Then come to a realization that he should have been killed after he does something bad, and go on a downward spiral. Of course, I tend to enjoy stories of characters slowly falling into decay as they cope poorly with their errors, so I have some bias.

Eh, that's what my last two were like, it's time for a change.

[chiasaur11]

A good measuring board?

"What would Sam Vimes do?"

It's a good quick rule of thumb system, I find.

[ericgrau]

I suppose I should edit the first post. I'm curious what you playgrounders come up with as to what would be the "good" action, and why.

As far as the well tied up and constantly watched day and night - we're a level 3 party with 0 ranks in use rope among us in the middle of a desert. Also half of my fellow party members have the collective attention span of a drunk squirrel. In the middle of a scorching magical desert with no transportation.

Under the circumstances killing him is probably not evil. If possible an effort should be made to bring him with you, if it's likely to fail then don't. IMO he could be well secured and thus should be brought along. You seem to think he'll escape and the DM might also arrange it, so then you should kill him. Killing things to prevent evil is what adventurers do every day. That much should be an easy decision. The only matter is whether or not killing him is necessary to prevent evil.