Moral dilemmas, yay!

[Saph]

I've been a member of this forum for almost a year, and I'm finally starting an alignment thread. I feel like I've gone through a rite of passage or something. :)

Anyway, an event from yesterday's session - our party of 10th/11th level was working its way through a Dimension Locked dungeon when we opened a trapped door into a wide room with a magical darkness effect. The party was clustered in the corridor and couldn't see into the room, but the glabrezu hiding in the back of the room could see us just fine, and proceeded to hit the party with two confusion spells that got everyone but me and the cleric. The glabrezu then power word stunned the cleric, put up a reverse gravity so that no-one who tried to get into the room could reach him, opened some popcorn, and sat back and laughed as the party proceeded to kill each other.

I was at the end of the corridor, trying to dispel the confusion while the party hacked each other to bits, when the glabrezu started talking to me telepathically. The gist of the conversation was that it would offer me a deal - it would dismiss the confusion spells and let the rest of the party live, in exchange for me giving it one of the PCs. By this point one of the PCs had floated into the room and was bobbing on the reverse gravity, so the glabrezu said he'd take that one - if I agreed. The cleric was still stunned, and the remaing party members were beating the crap out of each other, doing huge amounts of damage. The chances of me dispelling two CL 14 confusion spells was pretty much zero, and the glabrezu could have just recast it anyway.

What do you think the best thing to do would have been? And if this was your game, and a PC said yes to this deal and gave the glabrezu one of the other characters, would that be enough to drop their alignment from Good to Neutral?

- Saph

[Yuki Akuma]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

It's an Evil action, to be sure, but not an alignment-shifting one (unless the character shows no remorse whatsoever). A Paladin will fall. A Cleric might have an angry deity on his hands. But it won't change their alignment.

Intent is the thing that shifts alignments around. Alignment is your character's beliefs, not what they do. Paladins and Clerics can't do evil deeds, but that's specific only to them. A Good character can do something Evil is the ends justify the means (although it's still evil). Just be careful, as it's a bit of a slippery slope once you start down it. When you start doing morally objectional things all the times simply because it's easier, then you're going to slip to Neutral...

Remember: people generally don't change alignments after they reach adulthood, unless they go through something completely life changing. Your core values don't alter much once you've cemented them.

[KIDS]

Sacrificing one person to save many others (especially in such a situation) is not a cause for anyone to be Nazi about alignments. I think a Paladin or Exalted character might lose his abilities for doing that, but otherwise it's nothing like "you become neutral". Why you did it and how you felt about doing it is much more a factor in there.

The question that also interests me is what did the Glabrezu do? That was a very interesting situation.

All in all, people often have the desire to act rules-lawyeringly and wield alignments as tool against other players but whether this character becomes neutral or remains good or heads up to exalted is his and his matter alone, and he can take it either way. Hope that helps.

[Kaelaroth]

Personally, I would've sacrificed the player Saph. My DM would probably have shifted me a bit nearer to evil, unless I could provide incredible reasoning for it.

Typically, one offers to give over the weakest or most evil member of the party, so you can claim your act was excusable.

[Yuki Akuma]

Personally, I would've sacrificed the player Saph. My DM would probably have shifted me a bit nearer to evil, unless I could provide incredible reasoning for it.

Typically, one offers to give over the weakest or most evil member of the party, so you can claim your act was excusable.

Sacrificing the weakest just because he's the weakest isn't really excusable. It's very Darwinian, though...

And... 'most evil'? Uhm. D&D alignments may be objective to outsiders... but if you actually live with them, it's going to be a little more subjective, wouldn't you say? How can you be sure who the 'most evil' is, if none of the characters are actually Evil?

[Green Bean]

I'd say that your actions should not have resulted in an alignment change. While technically an evil act, it was modified by an intent to save the rest of the party. As Yuki_Akuma said, a paladin would fall, but his alignment wouldn't shift. Besides, frankly, the glabrezu was at a powerful enough advantage to take one of your party members with or without your consent.

Of course, if it were my game, the important part would be seeing how the character reacts. Does he/she feel guilty about it for a while afterwards? Does he/she insist that they find some way to rescue them?

[leperkhaun]

I generally see alignment as a guideline. For situations like this it would have to depend on your characters history and their moral code.

Basically i would go like this. If there is no reasonable way for you to take out enemy and this was basically the only way to save the rest of your party, i could see it NOT affecting your alignment.

HOWEVER, are you going to trust that guy?

[Saph]

Besides, frankly, the glabrezu was at a powerful enough advantage to take one of your party members with or without your consent.

Yes . . . and that was what was strange. After I'd had the chance to realise how bad our situation was, I told it: "Wait a minute. If you decided to just walk up right now and take him, I'd have no chance of stopping you anyway. So why are you trying to make a deal instead?"

The glabrezu's answer: "Oh, I've got my reasons. Ooh, look, the ranger's animal companion just died. Better hurry and make up your mind, elf."

- Saph

[Counterpower]

I've always held that no one action is so evil that it can change your alignment. Alignments reflect a character's general attitudes. They do not respond to single acts, they respond to trends or patterns of activity.

That said, selling out one of your friends to a creature of pure Evil's up there on the bad list. I agree with Yuki on that: paladin falls, cleric might have some explaining to do. And if a Good-aligned character wasn't haunted by the decision they were forced to make, I would start questioning their alignment.

As for the best choice here? Of course, it's not easy to decide. I would like to be able to spit in the face of that foul creature (figuratively) and tear him to pieces, but it's one thing to want to do that and another to actually be able to do it. I will say that if I accepted the deal (and I'm not sure if I would or not) then Step 2 is to do some specialized preparation and Step 3 is go and get my friend back, killing a certain glabrezu in the process.

And the glabrezu's motivation is probably the possibility of corrupting you to a more evil viewpoint. That, or he has no intention of honoring the deal anyway. He is Chaotic after all.

[Green Bean]

Yes . . . and that was what was strange. After I'd had the chance to realise how bad our situation was, I told it: "Wait a minute. If you decided to just walk up right now and take him, I'd have no chance of stopping you anyway. So why are you trying to make a deal instead?"

The glabrezu's answer: "Oh, I've got my reasons. Ooh, look, the ranger's animal companion just died. Better hurry and make up your mind, elf."

- Saph

I have a sneaking suspicion that it had more to do with your consent than the actual capture.

[Clementx]

That is a really good situation your DM came up with, and highlights how horrible demons can be. If you wanted to spit in the face of the glabrezu, you could choose yourself as the sacrifice. That would probably annoy him so much he would kill the entire party, but he might capture you instead to make you pay for ruining his fun.

Of course, the next step is taking the DM aside and asking him if he would be ok with splitting the party, or, failing that, asking if you can cast a Fireball as a touch spell to negate the save so you could kill the demon and yourself, or some other Pyhrric victory.

If you were to select someone else, to maintain good alignment, you would need to display remorse, such as leading the efforts to rescue/revive the lost party member. Not saying I would require you to personally foot the bill for a Resurrection, but something as simple as trading out your usual defensive buffs for ones that will help the party survive the ensuing challenges/get revenge on the demon.

[GoC]

It's a pretty neutral act.
Sacrificing the one to save the many is generaly the right thing to do if you could trust the demon.
As you can't (he's chaotic) it's best to agree and then attack when he drops the confusion spell.

[Murongo]

Haha. The solution to the problem is to be the party leader and the most powerful in the party. Even my LN characters would elect themselves as the sacrifice and then dual the demon one on one. I mean hey- even if you die- you died a stubborn badass. And if you're good, you just validated your character's existence.

That and I'm good enough at making characters that I usually win...

[Nowhere Girl]

It's all pretty subjective, but I'd say sacrificing one of the party members is, on the good/evil end of things:

1. A good act if you're doing it strictly to save the lives of your other companions, because there appears to be no other way. Of course, the most truly heroic version of this act comes in this form: "Fine. Take me."

2. A neutral act if you're doing it to save your skin but not out of any kind of malice. Remember, neutral characters, while not evil, don't make sacrifices to help others. That would be good characters.

3. An evil act if you view this as the perfect opportunity to eliminate a troubling rival while retaining the ability to claim innocence. "I'll just tell them, 'I had no other choice!' They might even thank me, the fools. Muahahaha!"

Whether it's good, neutral or evil, it's probably a chaotic act just the same, as it constitutes situationally compromising a principle (with the exception of sacrificing yourself, which doesn't constitute betraying the trust and loyalty of any of the others by making the decision for them that they will be sacrificed). Unless of course you're lawful evil and sacrifice the weakest member on the grounds that the weak exist to serve the strong, perhaps.

[PaladinBoy]

After reading the glabrezu entry....... well, it says that it is one of the demons that enjoys tempting mortals. Getting you to sell out one of your party members to it is just as much as a victory to it as watching the entire party destroy itself.

On top of that, the demon is just as likely to watch you commit an evil act and leave you with dead friends then he is to actually follow through with his end, IMHO. More suffering and pain for mortals is what he wants, and I'm guessing that handing someone over then watching the rest of your friends die would be pretty bad. On the other hand, he might decide to give you and your friends false hope by letting you live so he can crush you later.......hmm.

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if the demon kept asking for another party member, until you had given him your entire party (except yourself). Then he would leave to let you stew over the fact that you just sold out your entire party just to save yourself. Admittedly, this only happens if you're stupid enough to think that he's actually going to follow through even after he doesn't once or twice.

All of this really adds up to one thing. This is a dangerous deal to make; the glabrezu has forced you into a very bad situation, likely so it can tempt a mortal. Personally, I think denying it that prize would be a true victory, even at the cost of the entire party, but I do realize that deciding this on behalf of my friends (who may not share my paladin-like morals) is a little arrogant. Even so, how does one explain to a friend that one of their other friends is likely dead (or worse) just so they could live? I must admit, in this situation, I would rather die with my friends then consign one of them to torture and possibly death...... a few decades later.

And in my game, this situation would be set up so that accepting the deal would lead to major problems (the glabrezu would not follow through or would ask for more party members), while staying true to Good even through likely death would cause the glabrezu to look for someone easier to tempt, and if the lingering effects of the glabrezu's spells caused the party's death, then I would reward them either in-game (Celestial forces reward you for your devoted Good, and revive you. Oh, and you all have new magic items) or out-of-game (Okay, roll up new characters. You can go up to X gp over the wealth-by-level).

EDIT: Why didn't I think of giving myself to the demon?! Paladins are supposed to sacrifice themselves for others........ I'm a horrible paladin

More seriously, I think that would make the glabrezu mad enough to kill the entire party and take you straight down to the Abyss so it could enjoy your suffering for the length of your natural lifespan (and possibly longer if it could figure out a way). After all, instead of provoking evil from you, it provoked good.

[Nowhere Girl]

So, for example, intentionally sacrificing someone in the party whom you know to be evil, because you know them to be evil, is probably pretty much chaotic good.

"Coolies! A chance to save the party and get some vigilante justice, all at the same time!"

[horseboy]

First, I would like to point out that this is D&D. Death=/=Dead. So long as you guys have your toe nail clippings in your safe deposit box in the bank back in town, he's fine for a reincarnate/resurrection. There's really no moral ambiguity here, just a moment's inconvenience.

Second, he never bargained for his own safety. So you could easily use the distraction of him eating the other character to get the party back together, and take the offensive. Then raise the dead guy.

[PaladinBoy]

So, for example, intentionally sacrificing someone in the party whom you know to be evil, because you know them to be evil, is probably pretty much chaotic good.

"Coolies! A chance to save the party and get some vigilante justice, all at the same time!"

That seems questionable. After all, presumably, if you're an adventuring party that's been going strong for a while, then there will be a solid level of trust/friendship among the members of the party, whatever their alignment. And that turns this into betraying a friend...... an Evil act if I ever saw one. It's mitigated slightly by the fact that you're saving the party, but then no remorse over it would toss it right back down.

Of course, I realize there are situations where you could have an evil character in your party who you don't trust and they don't trust you. In which case this isn't too bad. I would still view it as a chance to demonstrate true Good to the evil guy ("See, even though you're evil, I still didn't betray you.") which might help turn him to Good.

[Rex Blunder]

In literature, this type of choice comes up a lot, and the "right" answer usually appears to be "We stand or fall together!" followed by the appearance of a heretofore-unconsidered clever tactic that allows everyone to live. At least, that's what always happens on Star Trek: TNG. And I think you could do worse than basing LG on Captain Picard.

As I believe Nowhere Girl said first, though, the most awesome Good answer is to sacrifice yourself.

In real life, I think it makes ethical sense to sacrifice one person to save the lives of all. However, that might just be evidence that I have an alignment of Neutral Weasel.

[PaladinBoy]

First, I would like to point out that this is D&D. Death=/=Dead. So long as you guys have your toe nail clippings in your safe deposit box in the bank back in town, he's fine for a reincarnate/resurrection. There's really no moral ambiguity here, just a moment's inconvenience.

Second, he never bargained for his own safety. So you could easily use the distraction of him eating the other character to get the party back together, and take the offensive. Then raise the dead guy.

So death, or your example of getting eaten by a glabrezu, is a "moment's inconvenience"? I don't really think so. Whether or not he's dead permanently, I'm guessing that would be pretty painful and traumatizing. And that's if the demon kills him. Personally, I think it's just as likely that the demon will retreat to its personal torture chamber. And that is definitely going to be painful and traumatizing, and you can't rez him, as he's still alive.

[Yuki Akuma]

First, I would like to point out that this is D&D. Death=/=Dead. So long as you guys have your toe nail clippings in your safe deposit box in the bank back in town, he's fine for a reincarnate/resurrection. There's really no moral ambiguity here, just a moment's inconvenience.

Second, he never bargained for his own safety. So you could easily use the distraction of him eating the other character to get the party back together, and take the offensive. Then raise the dead guy.

Demons have several rather messy and psychologically scarring ways of assuring that dead is dead. Or they could simply not kill the bargaining chip!

[horseboy]

That seems questionable. After all, presumably, if you're an adventuring party that's been going strong for a while, then there will be a solid level of trust/friendship among the members of the party, whatever their alignment. And that turns this into betraying a friend...... an Evil act if I ever saw one. It's mitigated slightly by the fact that you're saving the party, but then no remorse over it would toss it right back down.

Of course, I realize there are situations where you could have an evil character in your party who you don't trust and they don't trust you. In which case this isn't too bad. I would still view it as a chance to demonstrate true Good to the evil guy ("See, even though you're evil, I still didn't betray you.") which might help turn him to Good.

I'm just not seeing the evil here. This is no different than falling into lava. You don't send the whole party into the lava pit to try and get him back. You go back to town, take out his lock of hair and have him reincarnated/resurrected. Then laugh at him for being such a klutz. That there's no perma-dead takes out any real sting or mortality.

Demons have several rather messy and psychologically scarring ways of assuring that dead is dead. Or they could simply not kill the bargaining chip!

Which is why you might have to throw a mercy tap to the back of his nugget. It's nothing your buddies wouldn't do for you.

[Mithhuan]

Because your intent was to save the rest of the party, giving over one of the party members, in this situation, shouldn't change your alignment. Now, if you were doing it to gain a special favor from the glabrezu that would be different.

The solution to this problem would be to tell it that it's terms may be acceptable only if the party was able to choose who gives themselves to it. After all it could easily kill you all if you tried something foolish. Hopefully it would fall for the bluff and dismiss it's spells. Then you run.

This was an obvious no-win situation. The glabrezu's goal was probably either to turn you to evil or turn the party against you. I did a similar thing to a character that wanted to get his familiar brought back from the dead. After he sold out the party member, the evil cleric in this case cast animate dead and sent the pc on his way. The rest of the party was wiped out later when the now wronged pc lied to them and led them to rescue the "captured" pc. It was a long process of taking a chaotic good pc through each step of evil as listed in the BoVD to the point to where the pc was irredeemably evil.

[NecroRebel]

I'm just not seeing the evil here. This is no different than falling into lava. You don't send the whole party into the lava pit to try and get him back. You go back to town, take out his lock of hair and have him reincarnated/resurrected. Then laugh at him for being such a klutz. That there's no perma-dead takes out any real sting or mortality.

The difference is that with the lava, it was (probably) the ally's own fault or the fault of an enemy, rather than it being you sending them to certain death. A better comparison would be you pushed your friend into the lava and then saying "Hey, he was Evil so I'm justified," and then calling THAT Chaotic Good. It isn't an accidental death we're talking about here.

Which is why you might have to throw a mercy tap to the back of his nugget. It's nothing your buddies wouldn't do for you.

I'm agreed with you on this point, though. There are fates much worse than death, particularly where death is strictly temporary.

[Kurald Galain]

The "goodest" thing you could have done is sacrifice yourself, offering your own life for the rest of the party.

That said, I disagree that it would have been "evil" to sacrifice the other character. It wouldn't be "good" either, of course, and is definitely off-limits for a paladin, but given sufficient guilt and shame over it it's certainly not something that should "shift" you.

See, situations like these are precisely why I haven't play with alignment for over a decade.

[horseboy]

The difference is that with the lava, it was (probably) the ally's own fault or the fault of an enemy, rather than it being you sending them to certain death. A better comparison would be you pushed your friend into the lava and then saying "Hey, he was Evil so I'm justified," and then calling THAT Chaotic Good. It isn't an accidental death we're talking about here.

But he ALREADY was going to die. Using his death would prevent a TPK. If there's not TPK, then that death is only temporary, therefore it doesn't count. You've just got to get back to town to "respawn" him.

[Yuki Akuma]

There's always someone who uses these threads to say "Of course, I don't play with alignment, because it's inherently flawed, and I am not. Isn't my way of playing so much better?" And then they fail to say what they do about all the spells and special abilities that rely on alignment.

And I'm afraid selling a comrade to a demon is an evil act. The justification doesn't stop that. That's why it's a no-no for a Paladin or a Cleric of a good deity.

[Saph]

But he ALREADY was going to die. Using his death would prevent a TPK. If there's not TPK, then that death is only temporary, therefore it doesn't count. You've just got to get back to town to "respawn" him.

I should probably point out here that the entrance to the dungeon that we'd taken had been sealed off. We were trying to find a way out when we ran into the glabrezu. Even if we'd managed to fight our way out and gotten back to town, Raise Dead/Resurrection both require a body.

- Saph

[Serpentine]

What do you think the best thing to do would have been? And if this was your game, and a PC said yes to this deal and gave the glabrezu one of the other characters, would that be enough to drop their alignment from Good to Neutral?

This is a great scenario. Someone's been reading a... Dungeon, I suppose it must have been. Delicious. One of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" moments. Doom several people to probable death, or condemn one to an almost certainly painfully short existance for increased likelyhood of survival for the others? Which way would you (or your character) want to gamble? Either way, I don't think it'd be alignment shift-worthy, especially if you made it clear your character is seriously torn.

Intent is the thing that shifts alignments around. Alignment is your character's beliefs, not what they do. Paladins and Clerics can't do evil deeds, but that's specific only to them. A Good character can do something Evil is the ends justify the means (although it's still evil). Just be careful, as it's a bit of a slippery slope once you start down it. When you start doing morally objectional things all the times simply because it's easier, then you're going to slip to Neutral...

I was under the impression that for simplicity's sake, alignment in D&D is action-based. If a paladin kills an innocent child because it will probably grow up to kill thousands of people, it's still an evil act, no matter what the good intent, and he would probably fall or close to.

First, I would like to point out that this is D&D. Death=/=Dead. So long as you guys have your toe nail clippings in your safe deposit box in the bank back in town, he's fine for a reincarnate/resurrection. There's really no moral ambiguity here, just a moment's inconvenience.

I'm pretty certain that all the resurrecting spells require a part of the corpse. At the very least, Reincarnation definitely has that clause.

[Yuki Akuma]

D&D has absolutely no rules for changing alignments bar ninth-level spells in non-core splatbooks. Any alignment-shifting that goes on in your games is purely based on house rules.