[3.5] Alignment woes: Is that horrible thing I just did Lawful Good?

[ApologyFestival]

Alignment. Christ, alignment. Forewarning for those of you who are sick of alignment arguments: This thread is about my Lawful Good character being faced with a horrible choice, and me/the GM/the players struggling to justify it as alignment-appropriate behaviour.

I like to play heroes; I love roleplaying because it lets me save the world and make imaginary peoples' lives better. I ready through the Book of Exalted Deeds and loved it. Though my character isn't jumping for any exalted feats, I'm trying to play by the Book's guidelines on what motivates a truly Good character. The rest of the party is Good, though they're not so heavily attached to the label. My impression so far is that they Must Be Good because they're Not Evil, which has led to a fair few disagreements already.

Our party is currently adventuring in Carceri at the behest of the Church of Heironeous. I'm not sure how my GM's vision of Carceri matches up with the "stock" Carceri, so here's the low-down on that wretched hive: Carceri is the prison plane, where the worst of the worst get imprisoned for eternity. The plane has a weird relationship with time--it passes normally, but the residents don't feel its passing. Prisoners do not age, feel hunger, or the urge to sleep. On leaving Carceri, all that lost time immediately catches up. If anyone were to leave Carceri without, say, eating for a few dozen years, they would immediately die of hunger.

It is almost impossible to escape from, just getting the party out is going to be a months-long trial. Lastly--crucially--no-one can die in Carceri unless killed at the hands of an outsider.

Now, Carceri's pretty ****ing miserable. Almost everyone our party has come across wants to die, just so that they can be free of their wretched existence. Due to a SNAFU the player characters were outed as outsiders, and were quickly swarmed by people eager to die. After being forced to escape, my character put the word out that he would grant a mercy-killing to anyone who wanted it. The next day, he systematically forgave and executed anyone who came to him, and they numbered in the hundreds.

Yeah, my Lawful Good character executed *hundreds* of people in *one* day, and his ethics have been called in to question big-time. He's now treated as a pariah and a monster by the few NPCs that matter, the other PCs didn't want anything to do with it, and gauging the GM's reaction it's looking like an alignment shift is in the cards. Away from Good for the killing of hundreds. Away from Lawful because the criminals were placed in Carceri by means of punishment, and were not to be "freed". This is gonna be problematic not only because I place a lot of enjoyment on my character being a hero, but because my character's a Crusader--a class that doesn't play nice with alignment changes.

So, Playground, please help out a dude who is struggling to play Lawful Good, capital L capital G. Or at least struggling to justify his choices.

If a Good character respects all life, was it wrong to mercy-kill so many people? Even if they asked for it? I considered it a merciful act, but everyone else--even all of the NPCs--are referring to it as a genocide. And that's when they're being polite.

If a Lawful character, uh, upholds the law, was it wrong to free so many horrible people? But from asking around, there were so many people who did *bad things* but did not deserve an eternity of torment by any ethical standard. Many more who were thrown into Carceri by vigilante justice, or just for pissing off the wrong crowd. Necromancers deserve punishment, yes, but 500 years in Carceri as a short-lived race is surely not just? ...Right?

Imagine you're the GM, or another player, or in my character's shoes. What would you think?

Thanks, Playground!

[NichG]

I'd call it interesting, rather than 'good' or 'evil' or 'lawful' or 'chaotic'. Your character has basically revealed some of their core values - that existence, in its own right, is not 'good' - only 'harmonious', 'joyful', etc existence has value. That's not an unreasonable view to hold, though at the same time someone could be Good without holding that view (e.g. they view living itself as 'good', regardless of the quality of that life).

If anything, I'd say the most 'questionable' part is that you unilaterally ended the sentences of prisoners sent to Carceri for some crimes, which could be considered an unlawful act. However 'law' is always a tricksy subject, because it really matters what authority you answer to. E.g. if someone was sent there by Asmodeus, or some random prime material plane tyrant, or even just someone outside of your church hierarchy, you arguably have no responsibility to uphold their particular 'law' above your own.

One thing to consider though, is if you killed petitioners to Carceri as part of this process, you may or may not have been destroying 'immortal' souls. That might well involve a different ethical dilemma compared to simply ending mortal lives, but its up to your character to decide that.

[Raine_Sage]

I think that was a really cool bit of roleplay, and that the PCs/GM are being a bit weird about it for reasons that escape me. Sure the subject of euthenasia is...tricky and that's essentially what you did. But it was done as a means of granting peace to people who might have been unjustly imprisoned. If you'd just gone around slaughtering prisoners for the hell of it I might be able to see calling it "genocide" but you didn't kill anyone who didn't literally beg for it.

Law doesn't mean upholding unjust punishments and you had reason to believe many of those trapped there are trapped for unjust reasons.

[Airk]

This is firmly grey area and interesting to discuss, IMHO. But then, so is the "right to die" for elderly people in real life, and that sure has plenty of people throwing around unnecessarily heated adjectives, so I guess that's not necessarily an inappropriate ingame reaction either. :P

But I don't think we're talking about 'lose paladin status' territory here. I'd say there's probably some 'cruel and unusual punishment' happening at the very least.

Hooray for moral complexity! :)

[ReaderAt2046]

I personally don't think that what you did was Lawful or Good, but I have two considerations to add.

First, almost no single act can change an alignment, it really needs to be a repeated pattern to induce change.

Second, though I personally would argue that euthanasia of the form you just practiced is wrong, I'm pretty sure you did it out of a sense of pity and mercy, which will massively reduce the possibility of an alignment shift. Also, on the issue of Law, you did make a promise, so there is some argument for your actions being in keeping with Law.

tldr; you did the wrong thing for the right reasons, very unlikely to shift alignments.

[Remmirath]

I hold that intentions are the most important consideration in terms of alignment, particularly when discussing whether or not an alignment switch is justified. Your character clearly had good intentions.

Now, the actual consequences of the action must also be taken into account, because otherwise an extremely well-intentioned person who goes about wreaking havoc and misery everywhere they go could still be a paladin. In this case, I think it's a grey area -- they asked for it, their alternative was eternal torment, and the worst that could happen is releasing hundreds of questionable people back into the world (albeit after a long prison sentence).

I'm inclined to say that granting mercy and forgiveness and sparing people from eternal torment is good, although if your DM is playing things such that their souls are destroyed that could send it into being a grey area.

As for the lawful part, well, I personally have always believed that the Good is more important than the Lawful in the paladin's alignment -- but that's not the strict rules, so I'll leave that aside. The laws that you need to be upholding are the laws of your own order's moral code, your own deity, and so forth. If that goes against them, I'd say it's an unlawful action. I believe it is explicitly stated that paladins can go against unjust laws -- and if your character believes that they were incarcerated through means of an unjust law, I don't see a problem with it.

So. I wouldn't change your characters alignment, or even consider changing it; I think that morality should be an individual sort of thing, as people clearly show that they have their own standards of morality. Falling a bit into a grey area is not enough to discount that. Going about and executing all the prisoners even though they didn't ask for it would get me questioning your alignment, and marking you as someone who might be on the path to falling.

I also don't think that any one act should cause an alignment change, unless it's a very dramatic act of either evil or good -- neutral acts I feel should affect the alignment but slightly, and it should take repeated questionable acts to make a good character neutral or repeated good acts to make an evil character neutral.

All in all, I'd say you should be fine.

[icefractal]

Good - Yes, definitely. I'm rather dumbfounded by suggestions that an eternity of torture is better than death, actually. I mean yes, many of them were evil, but since when is forgiveness not compatible with good? It's not like he was letting them out to roam the world anyway. If you can kill hundreds of orcs as a Paladin and not fall, you can sure as hell kill people who are requesting it for good reason!

Lawful - No. But not necessarily a big chaotic action, either. A Paladin's not sworn to uphold unjust laws, or even respect them if doing so would go against their ideals. I guess the more lawful thing would be to interview each person asking, find out whether there remains a just reason for their imprisonment. But given that this would likely be logistically impossible, it seem unreasonable to demand it. Personally, I would say - chaotic act, but not enough to change alignment.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Oh dear. This is a sticky one.

Out of a misguided sense of mercy, your crusader snuffed the existence (not just life but very existence) of hundreds of petitioners suffering their ultimate reward for lives lived as mostly evil people but with chaotic leanings.

Unfortunately, each and every one was a categorically evil act. You destroyed hundreds of souls. That's what petitioners are; the souls of the dead living their afterlives.

On the bright side, it was a result of sticking firmly to one's ethics even though they called for him to do such a terrible thing. That's lawful to a T.

You should unquestionably be pinging on detect evil but you should still be pinging detect law too. Since the evil wasn't malicious or even intentional a casting of atonement should clear it right up. Such severe actions may call for an atonement quest, though, at the DM'a discretion.

Pro tip: buy a phylactery of faithfulness at your earliest opportunity.

[Slipperychicken]

Damning or harming souls is an evil act according to BoVD, so yeah, it's evil by RAW.


Aside from that, I think that this is mercy. You're alleviating needless suffering. These people aren't getting rehabilitated, they aren't coming back, and they aren't going to do any more evil. The petitioners don't have any memories of the events which led them to Carceri. These people, however evil, were begging for death (well, destruction. whatever), and you freed them from eternal suffering. It's basically euthanasia.

If it was my decision, I think the "relieved from eternal suffering" bit would have outweighed the "destroying souls" bit, and thus had an overall positive impact on your alignment.

[Tengu_temp]

Mercy-killing someone who wants to die but can't kill him/herself is very much a good act. Leaving them to live and suffer for all eternity would be evil. What you did is pretty much how I expect a paladin or another goody-two-shoes to act in such a situation, and your group's shock over your decision baffles me. They probably approach this in a simplistic, "good characters ALWAYS preserve life no matter the cost" way.

[Slipperychicken]

Mercy-killing someone who wants to die but can't kill him/herself is very much a good act. Leaving them to live and suffer for all eternity would be evil. What you did is pretty much how I expect a paladin or another goody-two-shoes to act in such a situation, and your group's shock over your decision baffles me. They probably approach this in a simplistic, "good characters ALWAYS preserve life no matter the cost" way.

Agreed. And technically it's not even "preserving life", because petitioners are already dead. Even so, they're suffering enough that a mercy-killing is acceptable in my opinion.

[Spore]

You shifted to NG in my books.

You gave the people the deaths they wanted but ultimately you circumvent the "law" of an entire plane. You could even shift towards CG but I want players only to shift 1 step at a time (making stuff like switching Paladin levels for Blackguard levels a bit harder and not immediately killing a Cleric's chances for Atonement).

You did good for the sake of good, in disregard of the law (NG or CG). If this new credo becomes your main value and goal, you should end up in CG (freedom and virtue above all things) instead of LG (law and virtue above all things).

[Tengu_temp]

A single chaotic act, unless it's something of a ridiculously huge magnitude, is not enough for an aligment shift. By DND 3.5 rules, it's not even enough to cause a paladin to fall!

[The Fury]

Oh dear. This is a sticky one.

Out of a misguided sense of mercy, your crusader snuffed the existence (not just life but very existence) of hundreds of petitioners suffering their ultimate reward for lives lived as mostly evil people but with chaotic leanings.

Unfortunately, each and every one was a categorically evil act. You destroyed hundreds of souls. That's what petitioners are; the souls of the dead living their afterlives.

On the bright side, it was a result of sticking firmly to one's ethics even though they called for him to do such a terrible thing. That's lawful to a T.

You should unquestionably be pinging on detect evil but you should still be pinging detect law too. Since the evil wasn't malicious or even intentional a casting of atonement should clear it right up. Such severe actions may call for an atonement quest, though, at the DM'a discretion.

Then it would be a damned if you don't, damned if you do sort of situation. Either grant the petitioners pleas for mercy and destroy their souls forever, or condemn them to an eternity of suffering by doing nothing.

Apparently Carceri was so dreadful that these petitioners would rather not exist at all than serve out their punishment. Also, with some inference on my part it seems like if there is an end to their time on Carceri at all it seems like it would be really painful-- aging five-hundred years or starving to death in the blink of an eye. Your Crusader appears to have granted them their requested mercy-killing in a comparatively painless way and offered them forgiveness for their past crimes. I don't personally see your character as evil, though even if he were he's not the monster that that all the other characters seem to think he is.

[icefractal]

Out of a misguided sense of mercy, your crusader snuffed the existence (not just life but very existence) of hundreds of petitioners suffering their ultimate reward for lives lived as mostly evil people but with chaotic leanings.

Unfortunately, each and every one was a categorically evil act. You destroyed hundreds of souls. That's what petitioners are; the souls of the dead living their afterlives.

Ultimate reward? He mentioned that some of these people have relatively petty crimes, not worthy of eternal torment (in fact, I have a hard time imagining what would qualify as actually worthy of eternal torment). If that's how Carceri works, then Carceri is evil, and in fact, worthy of being smashed entirely had he the power to do so. Remember, in D&D, divine != good. There are evil gods, and the way they run their afterlives is a bad thing. Ao is neutral. There's nothing inherently good about the natural order of the planes.

And as far as destroying souls being evil - did those souls actually have any chance of anything beyond suffering forever? Carceri isn't where you go to be reformed, it's where you go to stay forever. Utter destruction is, in fact, an improvement on eternal misery.

[Envyus]

I won't consider it an evil act but I would not consider it a good act. However I would consider it a Chaotic Act.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Then it would be a damned if you don't, damned if you do sort of situation. Either grant the petitioners pleas for mercy and destroy their souls forever, or condemn them to an eternity of suffering by doing nothing.

Apparently Carceri was so dreadful that these petitioners would rather not exist at all than serve out their punishment. Also, with some inference on my part it seems like if there is an end to their time on Carceri at all it seems like it would be really painful-- aging five-hundred years or starving to death in the blink of an eye. Your Crusader appears to have granted them their requested mercy-killing in a comparatively painless way and offered them forgiveness for their past crimes. I don't personally see your character as evil, though even if he were he's not the monster that that all the other characters seem to think he is.

Actually, alignment doesn't count the things you -don't- do against you, only the things you do. To rule otherwise would mean that -all- creatures would become evil fairly shortly after reaching adulthood. Apathy is neutral, not evil.

[SiuiS]

Interesting.

You should search for the story "Lady Despina's Virtue". It's a D&D log that's fantastic. The paladin is now in epic levels, probably a demigod, definitely kitted-out with templates. He at one point authorized full-on raze the earth warfare, offering full forgiveness for his followers and shouldering the burden of their sins himself.

In some sense, ignoring provincial rules and sticking to his morals, if the religion he belongs to allows for mercy and forgiveness, sort of sets him up as a paragon of lawful and good. So the questions are, how willing is the DM to have multiple viewpoints? Are there different good factions or is good a universal thing with solid rules and no interpretation or variegation?

I would ask the DM what would be more fun for the game, the universal good approach, or the beig a radical new exemplar of good which shakes up the foundations of the faithful? Some games thrive on that kind of drama. Some games see causing death as murdering, always bad, and good doesn't do that. Your mileage shall vary.



It should be noted, too, that killing a petitioner doesn't destroy the soul. It hastens their absorption, probably messes with their karma, but each and every single outer plane in D&D operates the same: you sit there until you lose self-identity and merge with the plane. You're breaking them down to their base incarnum, you're not destroying them. Destroying a soul removes that incarnum from the multiversal pool entirely.

@spoorreeg(?): paladins are required to actively resist wicked laws. The laws of a plane of evil are not sacrosanct, and well within the class' limits.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ultimate reward? He mentioned that some of these people have relatively petty crimes, not worthy of eternal torment (in fact, I have a hard time imagining what would qualify as actually worthy of eternal torment). If that's how Carceri works, then Carceri is evil, and in fact, worthy of being smashed entirely had he the power to do so. Remember, in D&D, divine != good. There are evil gods, and the way they run their afterlives is a bad thing. Ao is neutral. There's nothing inherently good about the natural order of the planes.

Then the DM did it wrong. A few petty crimes in life do not make for an evil alignment. Alignment is the result of consistent behavior. For a creature to be evil it has to consistently do evil and rarely do good. If it doesn't do a lot of either it's neutral.

Also, carceri -is- evil. The entire plane and all of its denizens are made up of evil so great that it takes physical form.

And as far as destroying souls being evil - did those souls actually have any chance of anything beyond suffering forever? Carceri isn't where you go to be reformed, it's where you go to stay forever. Utter destruction is, in fact, an improvement on eternal misery.

Destroying -any- soul is an evil act, regardless of that soul's circumstances.

Note, however, that souls aren't condemned to -eternal- torment. Over time they lose more and more of themselves until they fade away entirely, merging with the plane itself or, sometimes, becoming true outsiders as appropriate to the individual soul and plane. Hell, the latter is how most devils are created in Baator. The baatezu have turned their entire plane into a factory for such transformation.

[Envyus]

It should be noted, too, that killing a petitioner doesn't destroy the soul. It hastens their absorption, probably messes with their karma, but each and every single outer plane in D&D operates the same: you sit there until you lose self-identity and merge with the plane. You're breaking them down to their base incarnum, you're not destroying them. Destroying a soul removes that incarnum from the multiversal pool entirely.

Well it does not work that way in the Abyss and Hell however.

[TheOOB]

The the question posed in the thread title, the only appropriate answer is "Mu" which roughly translated means "The question is wrong". It is not feasible, nor possible, nor helpful to take every action a character can take and try to place it someone in the D&D alignment spectrum. Alignment is a quality of creatures, objects, places, spells, planes, ect, but not so much actions. Actions get muddied up with expectations, cultural norms, intent, ad what not. It's better to look at general objective qualities to determine alignment.

Ask yourself, is your character willing to take risks or make sacrifices to help in innocent, are they unwilling to harm the innocent to advance their goals. If you said yes to that, congrats you are good aligned!

As for lawful, the actions taken don't speak to someone who is lawful aligned to me. Lawful people respect order and tradition, they try to work within the rules rather than ignoring them, they also tend to take a long term view of their actions, thinking of their long term and far reaching consequences. The actions the character took were incredibly short sighted, and directly opposed to the established law and tradition of the plane. They just walked in and said "Your rules suck, I'm imparting my own rules".

Does this mean the character is not lawful, no, but a lawful character is unlikely to perform this action, and if such actions are taken often, then the character's alignment should be changed(or rather it was already changed and it's time to update the character sheet to reflect the actuality of the situation).

For a creature to be evil it has to consistently do evil and rarely do good. If it doesn't do a lot of either it's neutral.

I disagree. Someone who performs both good and evil acts with any regularity isn't neutral, they are evil...or insane. A neutral character doesn't balance good and evil, they are someone who is unwilling to be truely good(that is take risks and make sacrifices purely to help others), but also unwilling to be truely evil(hurt others to advance their own goals.) Anyone who regularly hurts others to advance their goals is likely evil. A chaotic good/neutral character may be willing to do so occasionally, but alignment is about consistency.

[Another_Poet]

First alignment threat I've ever enjoyed.

If a Good character respects all life, was it wrong to mercy-kill so many people?

<dusts off philosophy degree>

Mercy-killing at someone's informed request is not not necessarily wrong.

In the real world, the question of euthenasia is still controversial. It is not universally considered right or wrong to kill someone who's suffering at their request. However, there are certainly good, moral people who believe it is right and even the best moral choice.

Complications: begging to die is often a nearsighted request, when there may be better long-term options. Almost no one who wants to die can be said to be mentally healthy. Thus, they may not be capable of making a sound decision.

If I were your GM, I would not consider it Evil and, given your motivations I would consider it merciful and Good. You made a principled choice. If there are no other realistic options to relieve their suffering, then you did the most morally correct thing in a horrific situation.

On law: You may have broken a local, planar or even universal law by killing condemned prisoners. This does not affect your alignment. Lawful Good characters are allowed to go against Evil laws. The Paladin description says only to respect "legitimate" authority, and says Paladins lose their powers for committing evil acts - not for committing unlawful ones. I don't have the Crusader class handy, but it seems unlikely to be stricter than Paladin.

Moreover, "lawful" in the alignment sense doesn't mean "following every law." If someone panics over driving 36 mph in a 35 mph zone, it doesn't make them Lawful Good, it makes them neurotic. "Lawful" in this sense means orderly, principled, & respectful of authority. People like that can still conscientiously object to, and willingly break, stoopid laws.

The only reason I can see a moral issue here is: what happens to these beings you kill? I assume none of them are native to Carceri, making them outsiders. Normally outsiders who die... go back to their home plane. Did you just set free hundreds of criminals?

If not, any reasonable interpretation says you're in the clear. If your god revokes your powers, your character should assume that the god is in fact not Good at all, and should feel duped into following a sadistic, evil being. Seek a wiser, more compassionate god and renounce the articles of your old faith. If possible, go and kill your former god when you are higher level: there can be almost no crime higher than misleading millions of souls into a false conception of justice.

Unless your GM disagrees. Then you're boinked.

[SiuiS]

Well it does not work that way in the Abyss and Hell at howver.

Sure it does. Where do you think the energy comes from to spawn random demons? They aren't all birthed or transformed, some literally form in like, pockets of soil and awaken. That both fiend sets also interfere with this cycle doesn't change that, any more than nice eating seeds doesn't change that when berries rot and seeds fall into the earth, they grow into trees.

It's worth noting that the evil planes tend not to reproduce new souls, instead forming and then punishing outsiders. It gets hazy on what the exact composition. Of a soul is and whether evil energies meet good energies and balance or whatnot.

Campaign fodder? Good is selfless and allows the transmigration of soul energy so that new creatures can be reborn. The lower planes are jealous and hoard their soul energy, though, eventually tipping the balance of the world in a battle of relative infinities. The players must break the gates of the underworld and allow the departed wicked souls to rejoin the cycle of reincarnation... Or find some method of producing new soul energy entirely, so that Good does not ultimately lose by keeping such a small portion Of it's harvest.

The the question posed in the thread title, the only appropriate answer is "Mu" which roughly translated means "The question is wrong".

This idea of mu intrigues me and I wonder wherefor you came by its definition?

If not, any reasonable interpretation says you're in the clear. If your god revokes your powers, your character should assume that the god is in fact not Good at all, and should feel duped into following a sadistic, evil being. Seek a wiser, more compassionate god and renounce the articles of your old faith. If possible, go and kill your former god when you are higher level: there can be almost no crime higher than misleading millions of souls into a false conception of justice.

Unless your GM disagrees. Then you're boinked.

It should be noted before one scrunched their pants up and gets ready to fight to consider how trustworthy the DM is. I have several I play with, and my reaction would change based on who it is. I've had one where I threw a fit over the surprise force field that wasn't there until I had an adamant weapon and wanted to dig, and I have another who I wouldn't bat an eyelash at if we stated the session with telling me my wizard lost ten points of intelligence and couldn't use magic.

Perhaps losing your powers could be a test? Your god cannot uphold you because you are Good and Lawful but also against his doctrine; it would be spiritual suicide for the deity to dilute himself. So you quest to prove you'll maintain your morality even without divine blessing, and eventually reach apotheosis of your own!

[Kelb_Panthera]

I disagree. Someone who performs both good and evil acts with any regularity isn't neutral, they are evil...or insane. A neutral character doesn't balance good and evil, they are someone who is unwilling to be truely good(that is take risks and make sacrifices purely to help others), but also unwilling to be truely evil(hurt others to advance their own goals.) Anyone who regularly hurts others to advance their goals is likely evil. A chaotic good/neutral character may be willing to do so occasionally, but alignment is about consistency.

A) I didn't say that it was neutral to regularly do both good and evil. I said it was a neutral creature that didn't do a lot of either.

B) You're -probably- right in your assessment of someone who frequently does both. That, however, depends on motivation. The motivations that lead to doing evil prevent acts that would otherwise be good from being good.

Feed the hungry because they're hungry; good. Feed the hungry because it's good PR; not good, helpful to those people but not good. Both motivation -and- results count toward determining the alignment of an action.

If a creature actually has the motivations to do both good and evil acts then he -is- neutral but likely also deeply disturbed. The psychological dissonance necessary to be both a genuine altruist and an utter sociopath is.... noteworthy.

[NichG]

The the question posed in the thread title, the only appropriate answer is "Mu" which roughly translated means "The question is wrong". It is not feasible, nor possible, nor helpful to take every action a character can take and try to place it someone in the D&D alignment spectrum. Alignment is a quality of creatures, objects, places, spells, planes, ect, but not so much actions. Actions get muddied up with expectations, cultural norms, intent, ad what not. It's better to look at general objective qualities to determine alignment.

I really need to make 'Mu' into a mysterious, hidden 10th alignment in my games that you can get only by repeatedly being exposed to ethical inconsistencies and paradoxes of the multiverse - the equivalent of 'your life is dominated by acts which by their nature actively resist being classified'.

Of course, this means that upon their death, the universe pitches a fit and possibly nucleates a new demiplane on the Ethereal for them.

I disagree. Someone who performs both good and evil acts with any regularity isn't neutral, they are evil...or insane. A neutral character doesn't balance good and evil, they are someone who is unwilling to be truely good(that is take risks and make sacrifices purely to help others), but also unwilling to be truely evil(hurt others to advance their own goals.) Anyone who regularly hurts others to advance their goals is likely evil. A chaotic good/neutral character may be willing to do so occasionally, but alignment is about consistency.

Of course inconsistency need not mean insanity, it may just mean that the person is following an ethical code that is not congruent with the 9 alignment system - or even a code that emphasizes one axis over another.

For example, someone who is extremely Lawful might say 'I will do whatever I am ordered no matter what it is'. If they serve a kind and just liege lord, they end up doing many acts consistent with Good during that reign. If he dies and they go on to serve the liege lord's son, a brutal and vicious ruler, then they may go on to perform many acts consistent with Evil. The net result is that they act consistently Lawful, but their actions can't be described as anything but inconsistent on the good/evil axis - odds are at most tables they'd end up Evil because of the good/evil asymmetry, but such a label would not accurately represent their personal motives or be very predictive of future actions (if, e.g., they ended up serving a new lord).

[Envyus]

Sure it does. Where do you think the energy comes from to spawn random demons? They aren't all birthed or transformed, some literally form in like, pockets of soil and awaken. That both fiend sets also interfere with this cycle doesn't change that, any more than nice eating seeds doesn't change that when berries rot and seeds fall into the earth, they grow into trees.

Not quite. The souls are turned into Mane over time which mutate in other Demons over time at the whims of the Abyss or it's Demon Lords. Other Demons just randomly spawn. So the Abyss gets Demons from Souls and Demons that just pop up.

In Hell all Souls are tortured unless the soul is going to be used for something else. Then after that the Devils turn the souls into Lemures to produce Divine Energy.

[WbtE]

I'm not going to give an argument on the right or wrong of this, as other contributors have canvassed the various positions.

My advice is to seek out Atonement. Your character could believe that he did the right thing but also feel that killing, whatever the reason, is a heavy burden to carry on one's soul. This is also the position most likely to appease your DM.

[Grozomah]

This is for me the best reason for playing RP games - you get into situations that you wouldn't otherwise and get to live out. That being said, this post is gonna be long (wall of text FTW) and very much my interpretation, which not everyone might agree on.

The Great Post of Alignments
A case study

Firstly, what alignment are you is very much up to the DMs discretion, so if he interprets that you're CE now (or whatever), there's not much you can do about it other than Atone or turn Blackguard. That being said, IMO he would be wrong for shifting your alignment for this, for several reasons.

I)
I'll start with asking what is Lawful Good? So far i know about three archetypes that fit this description.

1. The first one is you - the typical mortal goody-two-shoes. You'll help the downtrodden and the opressed, punish the wrongdoers, honor and obey thy elders and uphold the mortal law, slay the evil dragons, yadda yadda yadda. You'll struggle, you'll fail, but in the end you'll do the best as you could. We'll all probably agree that this is LG.
2. Next on the list we have The Protector of the Vicked, also known as lawful-stupid. The protector will tresure his concepts of the sacredness of life in any circumstance. Did your party finally bring the evil wizard that enslaved the nation to the knees? Time for a sharp dose of justice to his neck before he pulls one of his trademark escapes. What is this, the holy ser Derpington claims it is wrong to kill him without proper trial? Despite the fact that we saw him murder this village and reanimate the corpses? Yes, I know all life is sacred, but ... and he just teleported away. Again.
3. Last, but not least we have the Iron Fist of Justice, e.g. Kore. As the eight-winged steel clad angel of Justice bearing the radiant sword of Ultimate Avenging descends in a beam of light from the heavens accompanied by the horns from Inception you are trouly tahnkful that you recently saved that orphanage. Yet as his gaze turns toward you, other memories are forcefully drawn to your mind and you see the questions form in your head: You stole the key to the doors? And you beat up the arsonist before turning him to the autorithies? Not only that, but the kid you saved will turn out to be a ruthless dicator in twenty years? EVIL! The last thing you hear before burning away in the radiant light of Good is You dare question ME, who has never in his life harmed an innocent? And it's your fault if you don't see the future. Get informed.

Now i'm certain that a lot of you will disagree with at least some of the definitions above. It does hopefully show that sometimes, for the greater glory sacrafices do need to be made. The only question is where to draw the line of what is lawful good and what is downright stupid. And this is purely subjective.

It's actually much easier to define evil: An act of evil is one that causes another being harm in return for your own benefit or pleasure. And considering the convicts asked you to kill them means that they decided that the act did them more good than harm. Since they were the only ones harmed, and no one else gets hurt, the act is not evil.
I consider your action Good.

Lawful is a bit more straightforward, however you do need to tell what is the code you follow - is it a personal decree, a paladin's code, orders of the king or the mortal laws? Any of these do, you just need to show some adherence to them. Of course you can try to obey more than one, but eventually you'll find situations where they contradict, and when you get fed up with them you'll just go Jamie Lannister on it all and turn chaotic.

Spoiler

Show

How can you still count yourself a knight, when you have forsaken every vow you ever swore?"

Jaime reached for the flagon to refill his cup. "So many vows...they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other.

You could argue that you were following some other code than the law, however, I consider your action Chaotic.

II)
The second reason would be that your alignment is something that represents your actions over several years or maybe even a lifetime and no single action can change that (exceptions include going on an unporovoked murderous rampage through the Village of Song and Flovers purely fur teh lulz). Anakin's slaughter through the desert people camp (who were after all evil slavers) in itself wasn't enough to turn his eyes yellow, but it did start him on the idea that sometimes sacrafices must be made. He did slide down the morality slope pretty quickly after that, it's true.

III)
Your intentions matter a lot. You did what you thought was best because you wanted to help. Others before me have elaborated this well, so i won't repeat it.

IV)
In your case you had a choice between a chaotic good act (helping and freeing the souls without endangering others) and a lawful evil one (Suffer, you deserve it!! Mwahaha!) Such decisions shift you diagonally on the alignment grid, but considering you are already in the corner, you cannot really be moved away from there.
Another view on this is that either choice moves you away from LG. Either toward chaotic or toward evil.
I would consider it very poor DMing if a forced hand, like in this case, results in an alignment shift that prevents you from using your abilities.

II, III, IV all speak against an alignment shift, not taking the action itself into account.

V)
Carceri itself is a fishy subject. It's an evil plane with evil inhabitants. I'm pretty sure your party doesn't get their panties in a bunch when there's something evil on the material plane that needs killing? So why bother over killing that is actually consentual from both sides (this really doesn't happen often)

VI)
The lawyer approach.
I think me and the other posters pretty much established that your action is generally good, but not Lawful. Or is it? If they were meant to stay in Carceri forever does not neccecarily mean they were sentenced to it.

What exactly is the sentance that the prisoners got at the time they were judged? That they will spend the rest of their days in Carceri? Then there were no laws broken. Was it that they must spend an eternity in Carceri? That's a funny thing to enforce in a plane without time. Even so, was it that they must forever stay in carceri? They never left - you destroyed them at their own request. In every law, there are loopholes and it's not that difficult to be lawful evil or in this case lawful good even if a system expects something else. It would depend on the specific wording, so check it with your DM.

The verdict:
The DM can do whatever he pleases, because rule 0. That said, I consider your action to be chaotic good, but not enough to change your alignment automatically. When you come out of Carceri, I (as a DM) would, however make you do a few quests to prove your convictions and be more attentive to your future decisions.

[SiuiS]

Not quite. The souls are turned into Mane over time which mutate in other Demons over time at the whims of the Abyss or it's Demon Lords. Other Demons just randomly spawn. So the Abyss gets Demons from Souls and Demons that just pop up.

In Hell all Souls are tortured unless the soul is going to be used for something else. Then after that the Devils turn the souls into Lemures to produce Divine Energy.

I am aware of the processes involved. That they are artficily accelerated does not change the basic principle.

[AMFV]

The thing you did is complicated, probably at least Good in intention if not in action. Destroying souls is RAW completely evil though, so RAW you have no legs to stand on. It's dumb that it's evil but it is. I would rule that it's good and possibly chaotic. I would probably require an atonement, simply because having that on your conscience would be unbearably harsh, something no good God would want for their champions, I imagine.