What happens to an alignment when the owner is blackmailed to do evil/good acts?

[Kruploy]

This has been bugging me for a while. Say that a good character has a lovely wife he loves above all else. Then some backhat shows up, kidnaps her, locks her up and then blackmails the good character to do evil acts.

The good character does these acts because he is afraid of losing his wife not because of any malice on his part.

Does this still make him evil?

[satcharna]

I don't believe he could be held responsible for his actions if under compulsion or duress, but whether that means strictly magical or including mundane probably depends on both what game you're playing and the guy in charge of it.

[Nobot]

(...) The good character does these acts because he is afraid of losing his wife not because of any malice on his part.

Does this still make him evil?

Giving in to fear leads to the dark side!

Honestly, I don't think there is an answer to this question. It depends on the character, the game master and the specific alignment. It is possible to do wrong things for the right reasons and vice versa.

[Segev]

At least in the US system of law, I believe I have read that it is considered an affirmative defense to most crimes (though maybe not all) to act under duress, whether that duress is afflicted against yourself or another (presumably about whom you care). As far as alignment goes, it likely depends on what he does, how willingly, and in response to what inducement.

Particularly for D&D alignments, I tend to personally fall into the, "You are responsible for your own actions, performed of your own volition," camp. So I would be actually pretty unforgiving of the good man who performed significant enough evil actions to cause his alignment to slide (under normal circumstances) in order to appease the monster holding his wife captive. I would say that a good man might compromise his principles, certainly, in that circumstance. It might be a cause for him to perform more of those less-than-good acts which, alone, are not enough to cause alignment shift, but which can lead to a pattern of behavior. I would even go so far as to say that the pattern of behavior is not truly established while he does it only under duress, because it's a choice between personally sacrificing some of his morals and knowledge that his wife will suffer or die.

If he actually performs one or more acts which could warrant alignment shift (or even very stern warnings), the mitigating factor of his motives will help, but he's probably sliding towards neutral.

That said, a neutral man in that situation could perform acts of utter evil without really slipping too much further, as long as he was doing it expressly at the command of the extortionist, and kept the evil to the barest minimum he could while obeying the man. Neutral has a lot of leeway, and the motive is counter-balancing the choice to commit the act. He still COULD slip further, but it would take a LOT, unless he starts making choices to act that way for his own purposes.

[Aedilred]

This has been bugging me for a while. Say that a good character has a lovely wife he loves above all else. Then some backhat shows up, kidnaps her, locks her up and then blackmails the good character to do evil acts.

The good character does these acts because he is afraid of losing his wife not because of any malice on his part.

Does this still make him evil?

I think it's an entirely grey area and one that largely comes down to personal philosophy, judgment, and so on. The scale of the evil acts performed would also play into it.

In many legal systems, coercion is an acceptable defence, although not a complete one (i.e. admitting partial culpability), and while law and morality don't always align, it's often a useful benchmark.

If you want a fictional example, along with acceptability of torture in extreme circumstances, acts committed as a result of blackmail or coercion was one of the major moral themes of 24, especially early in its run, and I don't think it really offered any easy answers to either quandary. In a lot of cases the consensus seemed to be "I understand why you're doing this, but what you're doing is still wrong, so you have to be stopped", but then a lot of the people saying that were presented as strangled by red tape or Lawful Stupid. If you can work out the D&D alignment of Jack Bauer and (early) Tony Almeida, you probably have your answer to this question, but that's just substituting a question for a different question.

[PrincessCupcake]

Blackmail is what I would call "Extreme Duress" or "Control of another". The acts will not technically affect their alignment, but the theoretical character in the example might get nightmares or bouts of guilt and seek atonement anyway. (Of course I am that DM that goes into detail about a character's nightmares.)

[Sith_Happens]

Good characters are distinguished by their willingness to make personal sacrifices for the sake of their principles. If one of those sacrifices is "the villain does horrible things to your loved ones," then so be it. Of course, for the exact same reason, a Good character is that much more obligated to attempt a rescue of said loved ones.

[jedipotter]

Nothing happens to the good guy in my view. You can't force an alignment change by blackmail. Every person has a hear/soul and mind, and when both agree, then that makes your alignment. So if you have a good heart and you choose to take good actions, then you are good. Same way if you have an evil heart and take evil actions your evil. But if you have a good heart, and take evil actions, then nothing happens. The ''universe/cosmic alignment'' knows your heart and knows that it has not changed.

Sure, lots of fiction and crazy DM's like to the the ''if you don't cross one ''T'' then you fall to evil forever...muuhahahahahahah. But you could never have a universe like that.

After all, all characters are(mostly) mortal. And mortals will make mistakes...they really can't avoid it.

Just take lying. So the ''cosmic alignment'' says a good person can never, ever lie and if they tell a lie they fall from good and become evil. Jon and Jack are on a farm. Jack tells Jon we have five cows to sell. So Jon goes to town and tells folks they have five cows for sale. But Jack miss counted. They only have four cows. So as soon as Jon tells anyone he has five cows for sale...he is lying and not telling the truth. Granted he does not know he is lying, but it is still a lie ''cosmic wise''. And Jack for that matter falls to evil too, after all he mistakenly lied to Jon.

And this is why the intent of the heart matters. Neither Jack or Jon meant to lie. Both were just mistakes and would not count at all. After all it is impossible to know if anything is true. Anyone can say anything. It's not like every good person can take a week to fact check everything that anyone says.

[Talakeal]

I believe according to 3.5 RAW you are responsible for actions you are forced to do and they will affect your alignment, but a casting of the atonement spell will undo it.

[Sartharina]

Good characters are distinguished by their willingness to make personal sacrifices for the sake of their principles. If one of those sacrifices is "the villain does horrible things to your loved ones," then so be it. Of course, for the exact same reason, a Good character is that much more obligated to attempt a rescue of said loved ones.

But it's not the Good Person's place to sacrifice the life/well-being of his loved one. Me feeding my best friend to a lion so I can escape is NOT a Good Sacrifice, even though I'm sacrificing my close friend.

[Tvtyrant]

Without free-will there is no alignment, hence animals/none-magical vermin being unaligned. So actions taken while under duress are not aligned in any way IMO.

Also Oozes and Constructs having alignments is silly.

[Sartharina]

Without free-will there is no alignment, hence animals/none-magical vermin being unaligned. So actions taken while under duress are not aligned in any way IMO.

Also Oozes and Constructs having alignments is silly.

You always have free will, unless the 'duress' is actual possession.

[Tengu_temp]

In this scenario, a good character should try to find a way to rescue the kidnapped wife, and to do the blackmailer's bidding in the least evil way possible. Overall, though, this is an extremely morally complicated situation, and one where the demands of of the guy matter a lot ("evil acts" can mean a lot of things, from stealing stuff to commiting genocide). I don't think it should result in an alignment change in most cases, though, if the blackmailed good guy shows at least reluctance and tries to minimize the evil he's forced to do.

[Amaril]

You always have free will, unless the 'duress' is actual possession.

This, exactly. Short of either physically overpowering someone and forcing them to carry out an Evil act, or magically subverting their will, no compulsion is irresistible. If a villain threatens to harm your loved ones unless you do Evil, you're expected to not do it, and to do everything in your power to stop them from harming said loved ones or anyone else. If a villain holds you at gunpoint (or some equivalent) and tells you to kill someone else or be killed yourself, you are expected to let yourself be killed rather than commit murder, assuming you fail to find some third solution. I wouldn't call doing otherwise an Evil act, but rather a Neutral one, since it's motivated by self-preservation or the desire to protect people who are personally important to you, rather than by any real malice. So it couldn't push you from Good to Evil, but it could possibly pull you into the Neutral area, depending on your actions and motivations in other situations.

[Sith_Happens]

But it's not the Good Person's place to sacrifice the life/well-being of his loved one. Me feeding my best friend to a lion so I can escape is NOT a Good Sacrifice, even though I'm sacrificing my close friend.

This isn't about feeding your friend to a lion to spare yourself, it's about feeding a random bystander to a lion to save your friend (or rather, if you're Good, not doing so).

[Aedilred]

I'm reminded of a very long and increasingly acrimonious argument had a few months ago about self-sacrifice and sacrifice of others and so on and how that relates to Good, and so on.

As others have said, it's a very complex situation, and what makes it even more complex is that it's not you that's directly under threat. If someone is threatening your life, it's easier to make the argument that you should prioritise your own well-being lower than those of others, and take the hit yourself. But if someone is threatening a separate, autonomous individual who happens to mean a lot to you, how do you evaluate that? If you refuse on the basis that to do what they're asking would be evil, is that actually placing your own moral integrity above the life of someone else, and thus even more selfish than prioritising your life? Are you treating them merely as adjuncts to your own life (if they die, I suffer, but it's better that I suffer than $random) rather than as people in their own right whose life matters independently of yours?

It depends a lot on the evil act(s) you're being asked to perform.

I guess from a RP perspective the character for whom alignment is most important is the paladin, and in this instance performing an evil act might not be enough to turn his alignment to Evil or even to Neutral, but it's still an evil act and that's enough to fall regardless (you could argue over "willingly", but I'd say it's enough to qualify for the purposes of the class). For other characters, I would exercise caution in inducing an alignment change, unless they really throw themselves into it or something.

[hamishspence]

I guess from a RP perspective the character for whom alignment is most important is the paladin, and in this instance performing an evil act might not be enough to turn his alignment to Evil or even to Neutral, but it's still an evil act and that's enough to fall regardless (you could argue over "willingly", but I'd say it's enough to qualify for the purposes of the class).

While the class description itself says "willingly" at one point, and "willfully" at another, the Atonement spell description mentions neither, and strongly implies it is possible for various classes to fall for unwitting deeds, or even ones committed under magical compulsion:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm

If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds and acts of a knowing and willful nature, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 500 XP) in order to expunge the subject’s burden.

A paladin who has lost her class features due to committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell.

[Mastikator]

If the psychological damage of being forced to cause suffering to others causes you to start to become apathetic to the suffering of others then yes, it would cause alignment shift against your will.

You could always shift back though.

[Lord Torath]

My position on this has always been that I am responsible for my own actions, and no one else's. I have no control over the Hostage-Taker's (HT) actions. He can kill or not kill the hostage, and I have no way of really affecting that. Sure, I can carry out HT's will. Will that stop HT from killing the hostage? Only if HT decides it will. There's nothing I can do (short of Charm, Domination, or similar effect) to affect what HT is going to do. So my point would be that yes, doing evil actions when directed by HT is an evil act I am responsible for. Refusing to carry out HT's instructions may result in the death of the hostage, but that death is not on my hands. HT is responsible for the lives of those under his control.

[Segev]

Eh, I would give more leeway to somebody acting in hopes that the HT will live up to his word. By the same token, though, I wouldn't hold them responsible if they refused on moral grounds and the HT killed the hostage. A good person might agonize over the decision, or might make it firmly but with regret, while a neutral or evil person might refuse more callously, but refusing to do evil does not decide the villain's actions...only fails to give him more incentive not to go through with it.

[Mr.Moron]

Your DM allows you to find or outright gives you an alternative to giving into their demands, assuming they're not trying to go for some really dark tone. non-issue.

The player is given a chance best the baddie without giving into their demands because they evil guy is just a bit sloppier, just a bit dumber, just a bit slower or just has fewer allies than the player.

[Red Fel]

In my interpretation, a Good character is defined by his "Thou shalt not"s. His principles. The lines that he will not, under any circumstances, cross.

This debate has raged across these forums in myriad forms. What if he's blackmailed? What if the lives of innocents are at stake? What if it's commit Evil or do nothing? It's essentially the same question - under what circumstances can a Good character violate his principles without consequence?

And the answer, in my experience - the technical, specific, if painful to accept answer - is "None." For a Good character to remain truly Good, he cannot, under any circumstances, compromise his moral code. He can't.

That's not to say that performing an Evil act under coercion or duress causes a Good character to instantly join Team Evil. It doesn't. What it does is to carve out an exception. "Thou shalt not" becomes "Thou shalt not, unless." And the unlesses are what form the slippery slope. Again, it's not to say it's inevitable. But when you're willing to compromise your morals, even for the very best reason, you've demonstrated a willingness to compromise your morals. It's a tautology, but it's a valid one. If you can do it at all, even under an extreme circumstance, you can do it. Being able to compromise your morals - more than that, having actually done so - is what distinguishes non-Good from Good.

Now, there are lines. If the DM informs you that you have no choice but to do X, you are being railroaded, and under no circumstances should a PC have his alignment change because the DM literally forces an action. Similarly, as mentioned by others, actual possession - a total inability to control ones actions - should not cause alignment change.

But when a hero is given a choice between two Evil outcomes, he doesn't take the lesser of the two Evils. He takes a third option. He finds a way, even at the cost of his own life, to avoid both. That's Good, at least in my estimation.

[Segev]

But when a hero is given a choice between two Evil outcomes, he doesn't take the lesser of the two Evils. He takes a third option. He finds a way, even at the cost of his own life, to avoid both. That's Good, at least in my estimation.

I assume you mean he tries, gives it his all, and if he fails, he fails only because he literally lacked the capacity or luck to succeed.

Because I don't think you mean to say that he committed an evil act if he tried to find a third option...and did not succeed, so evil happened anyway.

[Raimun]

Do note that Alignment-issues depend on GM a lot.

However, if we follow Alignment as presented in the books, blackmailing is not a mitigating factor. If you are Good and someone asks you to commit Evil acts and you do as you are told, you will lose your Good Alignment and first go to Neutral and then Evil if you keep that up. The reverse is also true for Evil characters and you can apply this to Law-Chaos-axis as well.

At the very best, you could claim that compromising your principles for blackmail is a Neutral act. If you only do as told and don't cross that line, you remain Neutral for a longer time before finally and inevitably turning Evil.

Thing is, the intent doesn't determine the Alignment as it is presented in the books, only actions do. Evil actions strengthen the Evil in the world (and vice versa) and you are responsible for the actions you take, barring Dominate Person and such magical compulsions, where the caster is responsible for the actions he makes you commit.

In the original example, the Good character should play time if possible and try to defuse the situation by somehow rescuing his wife, directly or indirectly. If the wife dies during the rescue attempt, it is very sad but the Evil act is on the blackmailer's hands, not the husband's, even if that is not much of a condolence.

However, if that doesn't happen, and the character does as he is told, he begins his fall to Evil. That said, if an outside force suddenly defuses the situation and rescues the wife, things might change for the better.

If the character had Good intentions the whole time, didn't commit Evil that wasn't required of him, forsakes his Evil ways immediately after the rescue and atones by doing Good deeds thereafter, the said character will change his Alignment again, first to Neutral and perhaps even back to Good if he keeps it up.

D&D-Alignment is absolute but it is never final... until you die, of course.

[Sith_Happens]

But when a hero is given a choice between two Evil outcomes, he doesn't take the lesser of the two Evils. He takes a third option. He finds a way, even at the cost of his own life, to avoid both. That's Good, at least in my estimation.

This is exactly what I was getting at. When the villain kidnaps your wife, you don't give in to their demands, you rescue your wife.

[Red Fel]

I assume you mean he tries, gives it his all, and if he fails, he fails only because he literally lacked the capacity or luck to succeed.

Because I don't think you mean to say that he committed an evil act if he tried to find a third option...and did not succeed, so evil happened anyway.

Correct. The third option is a non-Evil act; failure when you at least tried is not an Evil act, but a noble (if futile) gesture.

This is exactly what I was getting at. When the villain kidnaps your wife, you don't give in to their demands, you rescue your wife.

And become every bada** action hero ever. Only hopefully with better dialogue.

[Kruploy]

He takes a third option.[/I] He finds a way, even at the cost of his own life, to avoid both. That's Good, at least in my estimation.

While this is all well and good; this kind of thinking turns good into a luxury, something only the powerful or the rich can afford to be.

You see, not everyone has the talent or the resources to overcome powerful, evil adversaries and these people cannot hope to find a third option because they are too weak or too poor to actually afford one. They are simply pitted against too great an adversary and they cannot deceive him. As such; they are doomed to either compromise their principles or fight an impossible battle against evil and most certainly end up dead, having accomplished nothing and leaving their loved one to rot.

This effectively turns good into a commodity that only the elites of the society and people foolish enough to undertake tasks they cannot accomplish can have. Something that the powerful may choose to adhere to because they can and I really don't think that being good should be something that only a resourceful man can afford to have.

Furthermore; even if the good guy possesses the capacity to deceive the coercer; he may not necessarily realize it or have the courage to take such a risk. As Yoda said fear leads to the dark side but I don't think someone who commits evil deeds due to fear becomes evil himself. Tell that to the victims though. I am reminded of the Salem Witch Trials. I highly doubt I wouldn't consider a guy who would burn me at the stake evil just because he was motivated by fear and not malice.

[Red Fel]

While this is all well and good; this kind of thinking turns good into a luxury, something only the powerful or the rich can afford to be.

You see, not everyone has the talent or the resources to overcome powerful, evil adversaries and these people cannot hope to find a third option because they are too weak or too poor to actually afford one. They are simply pitted against too great an adversary and they cannot deceive him. As such; they are doomed to either compromise their principles or fight an impossible battle against evil and most certainly end up dead, having accomplished nothing and leaving their loved one to rot.

Then they fight an impossible battle against evil and most certainly end up dead. Not every story of epic heroism has a happy ending. Sometimes, what defines a hero is his ability to struggle against impossible odds, futile though it might be.

This effectively turns good into a commodity that only the elites of the society and people foolish enough to undertake tasks they cannot accomplish can have. Something that the powerful may choose to adhere to because they can and I really don't think that being good should be something that only a resourceful man can afford to have.

I don't even understand what this has to do with anything. We're talking about murderhobos in tabletop games, not the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Does having resources help? Yes. But sometimes it boils down to (1) brains, and (2) guts, and that's all a hero truly needs. Everything else just makes his job a bit easier. A hero is ultimately defined as a hero, not by what he has at his disposal, but by the ends to which he directs his resources (if any) and abilities.

Furthermore; even if the good guy possesses the capacity to deceive the coercer; he may not necessarily realize it or have the courage to take such a risk. As Yoda said fear leads to the dark side but I don't think someone who commits evil deeds due to fear becomes evil himself. Tell that to the victims though. I am reminded of the Salem Witch Trials. I highly doubt I wouldn't consider a guy who would burn me at the stake evil just because he was motivated by fear and not malice.

And that's one view. The one I espouse for purposes of this discussion, however, is the one employed in some tabletop games with arbitrary bright-line morality rules, such as D&D: The action is evil. Whatever your reasons for taking that action, doing so voluntarily is evil. In your illustration, a person - motivated by fear, but not by malice - chose to set fire to an innocent person. By arbitrary tabletop morality rules, that is an evil act. It doesn't matter that there was nothing personal. It doesn't matter that he sought no personal gain apart from the relief from fear. All that matters is that, of his own volition (admittedly under some emotional duress), he took up fire and consciously set it to an innocent, knowing what would probably result. Again, by arbitrary tabletop morality rules, that's evil.

Here's the alignment shift, in a nutshell. A hypothetical. Able is a Naughty Person in a small, impoverished, ignorant, superstitious town. Baker is not evil, just ignorant and frightened. Able is highly charismatic, and periodically organizes mobs to root out and kill people he doesn't like. And because Baker doesn't want to be on the receiving end of these mobs - motivated by fear - he joins in. He helps the mob destroy buildings, ruin homes, and burn people alive. And every time, he goes back home, sobbing, and repeats to himself, "It wasn't my fault, I was too scared to stop them. It wasn't my fault, I was too scared to stop them."

So here's the hypothetical: At what point does that abdication of moral responsibility - "It wasn't my fault" - stop acting as a shield? My contention is that, at a certain point, Baker has so surrendered control of his moral decisions to an evil person committing evil acts that he has, himself, justified his own descent into evil. He has allowed it, by justifying his evil actions. A moral person would have a breaking point, a point at which he says, "I can't do this, it's wrong." Maybe he's not brave enough to stand up against Able, but he could at least run away. Frightened people are good at that. He would do something to avoid having to take evil action. By using his mantra - "It wasn't my fault" - as a shield, Baker is justifying his acts. Justification is the easy road down the slippery slope of evil. Even if Baker never becomes Evil, he certainly can't remain Good if he's willing to abdicate his moral responsibility.

[Ebon2014]

This has been bugging me for a while. Say that a good character has a lovely wife he loves above all else. Then some backhat shows up, kidnaps her, locks her up and then blackmails the good character to do evil acts.

The good character does these acts because he is afraid of losing his wife not because of any malice on his part.

Does this still make him evil?

It can, yes. He's still making the choice to do bad things and that is really the crux of the entire alignment thing - did you choose to do it, knowing that death or worse is also a choice you can take to stop it. Coercion is more of a legal concern; morally, he's still choosing to elevate the needs of the one above the needs of the many. One could hoo-haa around about the relative 'worth' of the people involved - for instance if the wife is a good and wise queen whose rule has brought prosperity and freedom to many, then you could make the argument that she's 'worth' more than what ever it is you're being blackmailed to do, but that only takes you so far.

[Sartharina]

In my interpretation, a Good character is defined by his "Thou shalt not"s. His principles. The lines that he will not, under any circumstances, cross.

This is LawfulGood, not True Good. True Good actually pays attention to circumstances.