Results 1 to 14 of 14
Thread: Some Thoughts on Good and Evil
-
2007-07-09, 10:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Albany, NY
- Gender
Some Thoughts on Good and Evil
Recently in a 3.5 game I'm playing in there have been some character conflicts about what exactly it means to behave according to particular alignments. Now, I'm not looking to start a thread bashing the alignment system here rather just to get some general opinions on what the alignment of the following actions would generally be. Anything from exalted (boed worthy) to vile (bovd worthy) is ok. Reasons would be nice too.
Here goes:
Killing werewolves in their lair who have their pups in the next room after offering them a chance to leave. The werewolves detect as 'evil' with detect evil.
Fireballing a mass of held orcs without doing an alignment check on them when they pose no real threat (think mid-high level party).
Offering held Orcs an option between deserting their army and death.
Seeking out a green dragons lair to loot it and kill the dragon. The dragon has been praying on travelers.
Killing a cleric of Bane in her bedroom.
Torturing a cleric of Bane to death in retrobution for all the things she has done (think bound in an acid fog or being repeatedly hit with a desk).
Resting to get more spells when there are vampires preying on people close enough by that their screams can be heard.
Staying up all night trying to distract some of the vampires.
So, thoughts?[CENTER]So You Wanna Be A DM? A Potentially Helpful Guide
Truly wonderful avatar made by Cuthalion
-
2007-07-09, 11:09 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: Some Thoughts on Good and Evil
You haven't stated in clearly. As I read it, we give the werewolves an option to leave, they refuse, so we kill them? Not good, but not evil either.
Evil.
Neutral.
Neutral. Good if the reason for it was to get rid of the dragon, not to get loot.
Good, though probably not Paladin-style lawful.
Evil.
Neutral uncaring, probably evil. I don't know how possible is to rest when screams keep waking you up.
Seems like a plan to get rid of the vampires. Probably good.
-
2007-07-09, 11:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Gender
Re: Some Thoughts on Good and Evil
Killing things is a horrible way of figuring out the balance of good/evil. The governing question is WHY did someone do what they do.
Killing orcs to see them in agony -> evil
Killing orcs because you believe them to be irredeemably evil and a threat to your home -> good
Killing orcs because they opposed you -> neutral
-
2007-07-09, 11:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
Re: Some Thoughts on Good and Evil
Insufficient information given.
Fireballing a mass of held orcs without doing an alignment check on them when they pose no real threat (think mid-high level party).
Offering held Orcs an option between deserting their army and death.
Seeking out a green dragons lair to loot it and kill the dragon. The dragon has been praying on travelers.
Killing a cleric of Bane in her bedroom.
Torturing a cleric of Bane to death in retrobution for all the things she has done (think bound in an acid fog or being repeatedly hit with a desk).
Resting to get more spells when there are vampires preying on people close enough by that their screams can be heard.Staying up all night trying to distract some of the vampires.Diamond Mind avatar provided by Abardam.
-
2007-07-09, 11:38 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Albany, NY
- Gender
Re: Some Thoughts on Good and Evil
[CENTER]So You Wanna Be A DM? A Potentially Helpful Guide
Truly wonderful avatar made by Cuthalion
-
2007-07-09, 11:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Albany, NY
- Gender
Re: Some Thoughts on Good and Evil
[CENTER]So You Wanna Be A DM? A Potentially Helpful Guide
Truly wonderful avatar made by Cuthalion
-
2007-07-09, 11:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
Re: Some Thoughts on Good and Evil
Killing werewolves in their lair who have their pups in the next room after offering them a chance to leave. The werewolves detect as 'evil' with detect evil.
I'm not sure, could be anything.
Fireballing a mass of held orcs without doing an alignment check on them when they pose no real threat (think mid-high level party).
CE.
Offering held Orcs an option between deserting their army and death.
CN, on account of deserting being punishable by death.
Seeking out a green dragons lair to loot it and kill the dragon. The dragon has been praying on travelers.
TN. Loot=bad, travelers=good.
Killing a cleric of Bane in her bedroom.
Depends on how they did it. Probably CN.
Torturing a cleric of Bane to death in retrobution for all the things she has done (think bound in an acid fog or being repeatedly hit with a desk).
LE. Eye for an eye.
Resting to get more spells when there are vampires preying on people close enough by that their screams can be heard.
NE if they could help, TN if they couldn't.
Staying up all night trying to distract some of the vampires.
NG.Founder of the Fanclub of the (Late) Chief of Cliffport Police Department (He shall live forever in our hearts)
CATNIP FOR THE CAT GOD! MILK FOR THE MILK BOWL!
Shameless shill:
-
2007-07-09, 11:51 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: Some Thoughts on Good and Evil
Any. Pups are irrelevant (though not what you do with them after), but just busting in on someone at random and telling them to get out of their home or die is evil, even if they are werewolves. On the other hand, you might have a Good reason.
Evil. Not because of the alignment check, but because of no effort to eliminate the threat non-lethally, when the ability probably existed.
Good, under logical assumption that just letting them go was unacceptable.
Good to neutral, unless a viable negotiated resolution was available. You can't really get to evil in exterminating a public menace without undue viciousness or unneeded force, but goodness depends on motive.
Same as the dragon, or the werewolves really.
Probably evil, though I would consider the shady end of neutral possible. Not if retribution is the actual point though.
Neutral to evil depending on whether you have a viable way to intervene.
Good, but extraordinarily stupid if you're the arcane caster of the prior example, and likely if you aren't.Last edited by Ulzgoroth; 2007-07-09 at 11:54 AM.
-
2007-07-09, 12:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- London, England.
Re: Some Thoughts on Good and Evil
Attacking the party is kind of important . . .
That aside, it depends on why the party's attacking them. Probably neutral.
Arguable. You could say it's evil, because you're not giving them a chance to surrender/flee. You could say it's good, because if they surrender they'll just end up doing the same thing again and you're protecting the innocent town in the long run. I'd split the difference and say neutral.
Could be good, could be neutral. Depends on whether you're doing it out of unwillingness to kill or just pragmatism.
Depends on why you're killing the dragon. Is it to protect the travellers? If so, good.
Depends on why you're killing her. If it's because she's doing evil things, good. If you just want to rob her, evil.
Evil.
Depends on whether you could beat the vampires without your spells.
Good, unless doing so would be suicidal.
You might notice that the word 'depends' comes up a lot in my answers. The reason is that you're not telling us the important stuff. You're only giving the resolution (party kills monster X) without the ethical aspects (emotions, motivations, circumstances, mission, presence of civilians), so there's no way to say for sure without making assumptions.
Killing can be good, neutral, or evil - it depends on the circumstances and especially on the motivation. Is the party killing these enemies because they're preying on innocents, and need to be stopped? If so, that's good. Are they doing it in self-defence and for a reward? If so, that's neutral. Are they just killing them for the loot/entertainment and not caring about anything else? If so, that's evil.
- Saph
-
2007-07-09, 12:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Gender
Re: Some Thoughts on Good and Evil
Everyone's already answered these pretty well, and covered what I'd say about most of them.
I just wanted to point out there's a difference between "character alignment" and a single good/evil/neutral/lawful/chaotic act.
If a good-aligned character sees that vampires are killing people, but has no means of destroying the vampire until she can get her spells, then her most reasonable action is to rest to get the spells. You can argue that letting the vampires kill in the meantime is an "evil" thing to do and that the character should try to stop them--but if the character is the only one who can kill the vampire, then just getting herself killed before she can prepare the spells she needs is an act of stupidity, let alone immorality (because more people will die if she doesn't prepare that spell).
Sometimes good people are forced into a corner and have to do something "evil" or at least "less than good" to get out of it. Sometimes evil people have a moment of conscience or clarity and do something good, but may return to their dark ways before they can really be redeemed. As long as their overall actions remain consistent, their alignment isn't going to change.
The reason I point this out is because I feel that to an extent, discussions like this just needlessly overcomplicate what already are overcomplicated alignment discussions. No offense to the OP--I think the philosophical aspects of this are really cool to consider and read. But I do wonder... do they help or hinder good roleplaying and the general use of the alignment system in D&D?Last edited by DeathQuaker; 2007-07-09 at 12:32 PM.
-
2007-07-09, 03:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- Orlando, FL
- Gender
Re: Some Thoughts on Good and Evil
so, to clarify: the "heroes" break into their home, demand that they leave, and when they don't they kill them?
Non-good, most likely evil. It might be neutral if "heroes" had a very pure reason for confronting them. Being attacked first doesn't count; they were breaking into the werewolves home, so the werewolves were defending themselves from invaders.
-
2007-07-09, 03:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- Connecticut
- Gender
Re: Some Thoughts on Good and Evil
That depends. Did this "chance to leave" include their pups, or did the adventurers expect the werewolves to abandon their children or face death? If the latter, it'd tend toward Evil. If the werewolves were to be allowed to take their pups with them, then the adventurers' actions could be Neutral or Good, depending on the reason why the adventurers were attacking.
Fireballing a mass of held orcs without doing an alignment check on them when they pose no real threat (think mid-high level party).
Offering held Orcs an option between deserting their army and death.
Seeking out a green dragons lair to loot it and kill the dragon. The dragon has been praying on travelers.
Killing a cleric of Bane in her bedroom.
Torturing a cleric of Bane to death in retrobution for all the things she has done (think bound in an acid fog or being repeatedly hit with a desk).
Resting to get more spells when there are vampires preying on people close enough by that their screams can be heard.
Staying up all night trying to distract some of the vampires.Last edited by Jannex; 2007-07-09 at 03:22 PM.
Spoiler
Zöe Althira in When On Olympus
Ratri Aeval in Double Major
Mercedes Swift, Scion of Hermes, in ???
Haiiro Mariko in The Scarlet Shadow
Kris "Krash" Ashton in Colony
Karen Mallory in Changing Breeds
Spoiler
-
2007-07-09, 04:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
Re: Some Thoughts on Good and Evil
Neutral. You're killing evil, but you're doing it by invading their home.
Neutral. The orcs are in the employ of the BBEG, but you're murdering them.
Neutral. As traitors, Grummush would demand they be killed. They cannot return to an Orc settlement because they did not fight to the death. You're not getting your hands dirty by killing them, but they're dead all the same.
Neutral. You're going out to kill an evil dragon, but you're hunting it down and invading it's home to do so.
Neutral. You're murdering Evil.
Neutral. You're torturing and killing Evil. Ultimately you achieve nothing.
Neutral. Their deaths would be meaningless, as you cannot defend them yourself.
Neutral. You're trying to distract vampires, who can more than easily avoid you and continue feasting.
Thoughts: Ultimately, this entire exercise is meaningless, as an argument can be made for any of the alignments. What matters is that you think it's chaotic/evil/neutral/good/lawful
-
2007-07-10, 12:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Albany, NY
- Gender
Re: Some Thoughts on Good and Evil
A few thoughts of my own now.
I've noticed a bunch of people state that the intention matters. It surely does, but the reason I was asking about actions was precisley because of the issue that brought to topic up in my mind in the first place. Interparty interaction, which doesn't show characters intentions any more than interacting with other real people can. It can only show you behaviour. Hence, the questions not being overly specific about intentions (for the record the party did not all have the same displayed intentions anyway).
The reason I phrased this thread the way I did was precisley to avoid the issue of alignment shift or if one persons view of alignment is right. I just wanted to see what the range of interpretation of each of these actions was in terms of the alignment usually associated with that behaviour. This is also why I must disagree with Zero about the exercise being pointless. D&D is a group game, so one persons defintion of an alignment or actions that go with it is not all that matters. Everyone needs to negotiate with the DM and the other players as to what fits. I think the range of interpretation on some of these makes that even more interesting and I'd still love more imput as to why each action tends to go towards particular alignments.[CENTER]So You Wanna Be A DM? A Potentially Helpful Guide
Truly wonderful avatar made by Cuthalion