Another alignment changing action question

[GutterRunner]

Had this happen a couple of sessions ago. Party had tracked down the camp of human and minotaur bandits/raiders, captured a look out, intimidated/interogated him into giving them details on the camp, and were now planing what to do about attacking the camp in general and the 2 barracks each holding about half a dozen bandits in general.

Some people suggested blocking the doors and setting fire to them, but the good characters didn't like the idea of burning people alive. The LN monk of Ilmater (LG god of monks, self sacrifce, and suffering for others for those of you who don't play in FR) said he could sneak back up and kill them in their sleep, but the paladin didn't like that either. They decided that they would go in as soon as they could in the morning, attack the watch tower, and either go straight past the barracks or kill the bandits too if they were noticed. The monk then handed me a note saying that on his watch he would sneak in and kill the bandits anyway. The group settled down, watches were taken, the monk took the middle one, and that is exactly what he did.

Is this a chaotic and/or evil act? I know single actions don't generally cause allignment change, but if something like this happened several times again should it?

[Tempest Fennac]

I wouldn't say it was Evil if the bandits had been attacking people. It could be seen as Chaotic due to not killing them in a fair fight, but it could class as Lawful due to being the best way of eliminating the bandits without putting the Monk's friends in harms way (I'm assuming loyalty in Lawful, especially if you're putting yourself at risk to help your allies).

[Mr. Friendly]

That sure sounds like evil to me. In extreme cases I could see justification for it, but in this case they were just bandits. It's not like we are talking about an army of Orcs marching on innocent farmlands. The scale of the threat and lack of dire urgency doesn't justify the act.

Why didn't they just sneak in and knock them out and tie them up?

There were plenty of ways he could have dealt with the situation beyond killing. He could have snuck in and stole all their weapons for example.

They could have (assuming they have someone capable of casting) created illusions, or at least halfway decent dummies hidden in the brush and told the bandits they were surrounded and to come out with their hands up.

Plenty to do besides murder in the night.

[Tempest Fennac]

The problem with illusions is that if one of the bandits did try to attack them, the rest of the bandits would realise that they weren't really surrounded, which would probably lead to a battle where the PCs may ot have an advantage depending on the number of bandits and their usual tactics. Also, stealing their weapons would be at least as risky as killing them (it could be riskier due to encumberance setting in if they have a lot of weapons, and a lot of them could still be a risk to the monk if they were unarmed). Also, what would you do with them once you'd tied them up? How dangerous they are would depend on their level, but they could escape and kill the party, or escape from goal if you could get them to one before killing any guards who get in their way.

[Mr. Friendly]

The problem with illusions is that if one of the bandits did try to attack them, the rest of the bandits would realise that they weren't really surrounded, which would probably lead to a battle where the PCs may ot have an advantage depending on the number of bandits and their usual tactics. Also, stealing their weapons would be at least as risky as killing them (it could be riskier due to encumberance setting in if they have a lot of weapons, and a lot of them could still be a risk to the monk if they were unarmed). Also, what would you do with them once you'd tied them up? How dangerous they are would depend on their level, but they could escape and kill the party, or escape from goal if you could get them to one before killing any guards who get in their way.

Those are risks that heroes have to be willing to take. Villains burn you alive or slit your throat as you sleep. Heroes are supposed to fight (more or less) fair.

[Mikeavelli]

Definantly not alignment changing.

Mildly chaotic, mildly evil, the Paladin was right to not like it, and if you make a habit of this sort of thing you might be in for an alignment change, but here's the thing.

They're dead either way.

Capture them, arrest them and give them a fair trial, they'll be executed. Fight them openly, and a few might be able to run away, but most of them will die in the fighting.

Killing isn't innately wrong or Evil according to the D&D alignment system. The people you killed (Evil bandits) and the reason you did it (stop them from further terrorizing the countryside) are both firmly in the "lawful good" side of things. The method you used, while bound to leave a bad taste in the Paladin's mouth, is simply practical.

[Tempest Fennac]

I agree with Mikeavelli (my stance is that it's the heroes job to slve problms in the most efficient fashion possibly while minimising their own chances of failing as long as they don't hurt innocent people at all). I also take the stance that people who hurt other people for personal gain deserve to suffer a lot while having no right to complain if they are on the recieving end of some of the sort of tactics which they could use on people.

[Mr. Friendly]

Definantly not alignment changing.

Mildly chaotic, mildly evil, the Paladin was right to not like it, and if you make a habit of this sort of thing you might be in for an alignment change, but here's the thing.

They're dead either way.

Capture them, arrest them and give them a fair trial, they'll be executed. Fight them openly, and a few might be able to run away, but most of them will die in the fighting.

Killing isn't innately wrong or Evil according to the D&D alignment system. The people you killed (Evil bandits) and the reason you did it (stop them from further terrorizing the countryside) are both firmly in the "lawful good" side of things. The method you used, while bound to leave a bad taste in the Paladin's mouth, is simply practical.

I disagree.

When you start using practicalities and the greater good in the name of alignment, you end up with Lawful Good Nazis. (Not that I am going for a Godwin on this, they are just a practical, realworld example)

The bandits that were killed were evil, yes, they were plaguing the countryside, yes. Would they have been executed for their banditry? Possibly. The OP doesn't actually list what the crimes of these bandits are though. Have they ruthlessly killed and murdered? Or have they simply robbed? Do the PCs actually know the bandits have done really evil things? These are all fairly important questions.

Another question is where is this taking place? What are the laws of the kingdom in question. If the laws call for fair trials... well then, there you go.

As an aside, in 2e I once played a Specialty Priest of Tyr. He was good and just and righteous, generally cramped the party's style. The other characters always wanted to torture, maim and murder, he would stop them. He would always demand the surrender of the enemy and would always conduct a fair trial afterwards. Now OOC, I knew the other characters would do all sorts of things like wait for me to sleep then kill the prisoner who was "escaping" and other shenanigans, but in general we had a lot of fun since it was a deadly game of cat and also cat.

The point of that story was this, my character and our party never died because we did the right thing. Call it DM intervention in some cases, but from an IC perspective it was Tyr's righteous protection that kept me alive as I stormed the forces of evil and chaos, bringing justice to them.

[Kioran]

I think it´s slightly evil. It´s okay if you´re Lawful Neutral, but killing them in the most safe and easy fashion should not sit well with a follower of an LG god of sacrifice for the sake of others.
Ilmater would be pissed. You do not seek to redeem or be an example, but kill for your convenience or or out of cowardice. That´s LN with an evil tilt. Good vs. Evil is not Us vs. unless one side clearly occupies the moral high ground. I can´t see that here.

I wouldn´t let the monk fall, but question the fact whether he truly follows Ilmater.......

[sapphail]

Somewhat evil, definitely not lawful. Depending on how you play neutral in your campaigns (or more importantly, the way the DM rules it) he could get away with it in a single incidence. If it starts becoming habit, he's probably looking at gradual alignment shift. If I was DMing this I'd start slowly shifting him toward TN (while informing him in clear terms of the ramifications should he persist).

[Fixer]

Not Enough Information.

1) Are these bandits known for unusual acts of cruelty or destruction? Basically, were the bandits known for being Evil or just Chaotic?
2) Are the characters acting as law enforcement? Have they been given the task of eliminating the bandits by a figure in authority or are they giving out vigilante justice?

If the bandits were publicly known for behaving evil, their destruction is more justified. I agree that burning all the bandits in the houses and not allowing them to escape would be borderline evil, simply allowing them only ONE escape route and keeping that route covered and demanding surrender from each bandit that comes out would be an acceptable alternative.

If the characters have been given the task of 'stopping the bandit attacks' or whatever, then their actions are more lawful than just behaving as vigilantes. The monk sneaking in and killing everyone in their sleep could only be justified by alignment if they had been specifically charged by a lawful authority to KILL the bandits. The monk could have just as easily snuck in and stolen all their weapons.

For me, the best case scenario here would have been:
1) Have someone sneak in and steal all their weapons while they slept. Hide them far away from the barracks.
2) Seal doors and windows of barracks to refuse exit except by one door from each barrack.
3) Set up a trap at each exit to keep the bandits neutralized (a pit would work best, but a bunch of guys with swords pointed and others with manacles and ropes works too).
4) Set fire to the houses and, when they are burning well, yell, "Fire!" and catch the bandits as they come out.


I don't believe any alignment changes are necessary, but the monk might have committed a chaotic act if this is all in the name of vigilante justice. No penalty for that, of course.

[MrNexx]

This is a monk of Ilmater? Saying "I'll just go kill them in their sleep, leaving aside my assigned duty as a watchman over my comrades so I can commit murder?"

This is chaotic, for one thing; he abandoned his assigned role as watchman to take an action that the party had decided against. Evil? It could go either way, though I would lean towards it being evil. D&D morality generally doesn't care if you kill someone in a stand-up fight, but sneaking in and slitting their throats (or coup de punching them) sounds like Assassination, which is evil. It's certainly out of line with his religion... Ilmater is LG, and while he cares more about the spiritual aspects of life, he cares about the spiritual aspects of life.

Edit: While this shouldn't necessarily result in immediate alignment change (one action like this doesn't do that), I would definitely give him a hairy eyeball when he gets back to his church/monastery and explains his actions. The Triad help him if the Paladin is Ilmatari... Tormite would be almost as bad, given their views on duty.

[JoshuaZ]

Is this a chaotic and/or evil act? I know single actions don't generally cause allignment change, but if something like this happened several times again should it?

Arguably chaotic for going against the wishes of the rest of the party and his friends. But since it was to save his friends lives (well and his own) that has a lawful element, so mildly chaotic maybe neutral. Nothing evil about it at all. Bandits are evil and will try to kill people. You're going to try and kill them anyways. Unsportsmanlike or unchivalrous isn't evil.

[Prometheus]

Chaotic, or Neutral at the least:
-I think part of a lawful alignment is viewing the party as part of a team which one owes loyalty. It is one thing for a lawful person to seriously contradict the wishes of an acquaintance, random king, or even a friend, but a party is the system of justice that a lawful character as associated himself with. Sometimes parties are really glued together by DM fiat because they wouldn't ordinarily travel together, but the character still has to work in the framework
-To be deceitful and oppositional is inherently unlawful as well. It would be one another thing if the monk said that they were going to do it in anyway and the rest of the party had the option to either help or sabotage him.
-To kill someone in their sleep is unlawful as well. I don't know what Ilmater's philosophy on life is, but if it includes mercy killing than he still has no reason to assassinate the bandits even if they are agents of chaos and evil.

I've had problems with a Chaotic monk too. I think it is hard for all of us to get a clear figure for what law and chaos means.

[Mewtarthio]

I wouldn't call it Evil. Evil would be killing the bandits needlessly to save yourself some trouble. Those bandits would have died in combat if not by stealth. Granted, it's certainly not Good, but as someone before me pointed out, unsportsmanlike is not Evil.

It's clearly Chaotic, though. He abandoned his post as guard to take a reckless action on his own. What if he'd been captured or killed? The bandits would have taken the party unconscious in the dead of night, and they'd probably show the party the same mercy the monk showed the bandits. Personally, I'd have given the bandits checks to notice the monk, not to mention guards posted. How did the monk manage to slaughter an entire camp of bandits without being noticed? That's a little ridiculous.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Not Evil, but also not Good and not Ilmater-like, as MrNexx explained. Not Lawful and probably Chaotic.

However, single actions don't cause alignment shifts, except for very rare cases, and isn't one of them.

[Felius]

Let's divide it in parts for analysis:

The reason for killing was Lawful Good: They wanted to get rid of a threat for everyone who lived in that lands.

The way of killing: I wouldn't say it was evil, although it's definitively not good. It was just expedient. They wouldn't be less dead if it was in a fair fight. IF the other PCs were planning dealing with them without killing, it might be borderline evil.
And I wouldn't say it was either particularly chaotic or lawful. Remember that there can be Lawful rogues/assassins. Depending of what kind of lawful this particular monk is (law/personal code of conduct/etc), it might bring him closer to neutral.
That said, it's not fitting with Ilmater. I'd say they should have tried a non-lethal approach first, but it's not that problematic unless it start repeating itself. His is not a Paladin after all. And it would certainly leave a bitter taste in the mouth of any chivalrous character.

Going against the other PCs: Depends on his motivations. Could be argued to anything. If he did that to reduce the risk of being hurt for his friends, I'd say it's neutral good.

And to these who called that expedience is a way to evil, caution with the slippery slope. Although if they start murdering defenseless prisoners in cold blood and torturing mooks to get some piece of information faster that they could somewhere else I would wholehearted agree that they are on the way to evil, if not already there, the case here is not evil enough to justify it. The expedient way is not always the evil way. One could say it was even more merciful to kill them in their sleep, as they hadn't had to suffer in battle. It was just not chivalrous.

[MrNexx]

I have to disagree with you, Felius, on several points.

Let's divide it in parts for analysis:

The reason for killing was Lawful Good: They wanted to get rid of a threat for everyone who lived in that lands.

To paraphrase the being of Pure Law and Good in OotS #490, an important part of being LG (or, in this case, LN), is trying to do things by those standards. This action may ultimately have LG results, but that does not mean that the means of it was LG, or even terribly LN.

The way of killing: I wouldn't say it was evil, although it's definitively not good. It was just expedient. They wouldn't be less dead if it was in a fair fight. IF the other PCs were planning dealing with them without killing, it might be borderline evil.

"It was just expedient" is the one that gets me, here. LG, or even just plain good, isn't about taking the expedient course just because it's easier. Now, in the case of LN, that can be argued, provided there are order-based reasons to do it that way, but LG isn't about expedience at the expense of morality. LN isn't about expedience at the expense of ethics. Expedience is a chaotic trait. And, in the case of an Ilmatari priest, this goes against his ethics in the interests of expedience.

And I wouldn't say it was either particularly chaotic or lawful. Remember that there can be Lawful rogues/assassins. Depending of what kind of lawful this particular monk is (law/personal code of conduct/etc), it might bring him closer to neutral.

There can be lawful rogues and assassins. However, a lawful assassin operating under these circumstances wouldn't be leaving his party unguarded for an unknown period of time, after having specifically volunteered for the job of watching over them. He would not have gone against the will of his party in how to deal with them, especially by lying about his agreement. These are very chaotic acts that show a lot of disdain for his responsibilities and for life itself.

[Taliserra]

To add to the details the monk did believe that by killing them in their sleep he was saving them the pain of dying in a fight, and the group was severely outnumbered. The Paladin did object, but the rest of the group is fairly chaotic so they were happy for the encounter to be resolved without having to risk their lives.

[RukiTanuki]

Wow. I'm all for some of his reasoning here (taking on the burden for himself rather than risk the lives of his allies, most notably), but he broke his promise to stand watch, abandoned his team, and killed his opponents while they were defenseless. Capturing a scout, notably, offered a good opportunity to figure out why the bandits are invading and whether they can be reasoned with; I'm assuming that conversation either never happened (disappointing) or proved fruitless (giving him a bit more justification).

But, in all seriousness, what happened to taking a sap to their noggin and tying them up? Was that ever an option?

[Fiery Diamond]

Chaotic Neutral act.

Chaotic, definitely. See above posters who called it chaotic for why.

Neutral - assuming these are murderous bandits, rather than just thieving bandits. If they are just thieves, then it's Evil. But if they are murderers, unsportsmanly slaying them while deceiving comrades... has elements of good and evil, not an equal amount, but not overwhelming in one way or the other. Therefore, Neutral.

- Fiery Diamond

[VanBuren]

Chaotic Neutral act.

Chaotic, definitely. See above posters who called it chaotic for why.

Neutral - assuming these are murderous bandits, rather than just thieving bandits. If they are just thieves, then it's Evil. But if they are murderers, unsportsmanly slaying them while deceiving comrades... has elements of good and evil, not an equal amount, but not overwhelming in one way or the other. Therefore, Neutral.

- Fiery Diamond

I'm sure a Bard of any alignment could appreciate the irony in murdering a group of murderers. They like poetic justice, right?

[EvilElitest]

Killing isn't innately wrong or Evil according to the D&D alignment system.

I think killing is an evil act in D&D, just killing for a good reason (protect your self or others ect) negates that and makes it netural. note this doesn't count for killing beings like demons or most undead

I agree with Mikeavelli (my stance is that it's the heroes job to slve problms in the most efficient fashion possibly while minimising their own chances of failing as long as they don't hurt innocent people at all). I also take the stance that people who hurt other people for personal gain deserve to suffer a lot while having no right to complain if they are on the recieving end of some of the sort of tactics which they could use on people.

Wait wait wait, bab people or not, they still have some rights. Torture of an evil person is still evil, as is killing them after they surrendered ect. Sure they can't complain if they are killed while they are attempting to hurt others, and if they are lawfully exacuted (I'm presuming hte PCs are doing this to protect people), but that still isn't an excuse for the good guys to stoop to their level

that being said, as far as evil actions though, this isn't that bad for the Monk. But it was unnessary, they didn't really have to resort to that. So a bad blemish on the record, would be nasty for the pladadin, but not aligment worthy. Still evil though
from
EE

[VanBuren]

I think killing is an evil act in D&D, just killing for a good reason (protect your self or others ect) negates that and makes it netural. note this doesn't count for killing beings like demons or most undead



Wait wait wait, bab people or not, they still have some rights. Torture of an evil person is still evil, as is killing them after they surrendered ect. Sure they can't complain if they are killed while they are attempting to hurt others, and if they are lawfully exacuted (I'm presuming hte PCs are doing this to protect people), but that still isn't an excuse for the good guys to stoop to their level

that being said, as far as evil actions though, this isn't that bad for the Monk. But it was unnessary, they didn't really have to resort to that. So a bad blemish on the record, would be nasty for the pladadin, but not aligment worthy. Still evil though
from
EE

Just out of curiosity, and not to derail the thread, but if a villain surrenders I can see how killing him would be Evil. But what if the villain had a history of surrendering when things turned sour and then being evil all over again when people turned the other way. In other words, if they've demonstrated that their surrender cannot be trusted.

[EvilElitest]

Just out of curiosity, and not to derail the thread, but if a villain surrenders I can see how killing him would be Evil. But what if the villain had a history of surrendering when things turned sour and then being evil all over again when people turned the other way. In other words, if they've demonstrated that their surrender cannot be trusted.

1. It doesn't matter if the villian had surrendered before, killing the guy who surrendered is evil. However, taking extra percations is still ok and you can still take him to a trial to be exacuted
2. Being evil isn't a crime
from
EE

[VanBuren]

2. Being evil isn't a crime

Oh come now, you know perfectly well what the intent of that sentence was.

[EvilElitest]

Oh come now, you know perfectly well what the intent of that sentence was.

well details man, detals. What does he do that is evil?
What is he doing when we capture him? What does he normally do when he surrenders
from
EE

[VanBuren]

well details man, detals. What does he do that is evil?
What is he doing when we capture him? What does he normally do when he surrenders
from
EE

Is it hard to infer that I was suggesting any number of actions which may warrant intervention, or do I have to spell everything out for you? I'm trying to bring the situation of a 'false repentant' villain. How technical do we really need to get about it?

1. He does something really bad. Maybe he murdered a bunch of people or he was animating corpses, I dunno.

2. He's beaten. He surrenders and promises never to do it again.

3. He does it three minutes later.

Rinse, wash and repeat. Is that enough for you?

[PaladinBoy]

Is this Evil? Probably not. Quite dishonorable, certainly, and a little ruthless. I tend to think that mercy, particularly given the advantage of stealth, would have been a better solution. What made it impossible to subdue instead of kill? As a paladin, I would certainly be if one of my allies did this.

Not Evil, though. Violence against evil creatures is justified..... even if it's done simply for the treasure they carry, it's more neutral, since you're at least stopping them from doing more evil. I'm guessing this party had better reasons than that, and that makes up for the monk's lack of mercy, a little.

I certainly think that this goes against the precepts of Ilmater's religion, though. A god of sacrifice on behalf of others does not strike me as the type of god to look on this with favor. Particularly since you could look at going through some trouble to capture instead of kill as a type of sacrifice for the immortal souls of your enemies.

Oh, and VanBuren: A good character that trusts a villain's promise to never to evil again and simply lets him go is stupid, and definitely responsible for what happens next. A smart good character will realize that this promise is not true redemption and take him prisoner anyway. (This also serves as a good clue of whether he's truly redeemed or not: if he's good now, he won't mind - as much.) Smart good characters also keep on eye on recently redeemed villains, whether by going with them or with the aid of magic. If he betrays Good, then you chase him down and beat him up again. If he surrenders again - well, I'd keep the redemption option open, but if I did release the supposedly redeemed villain again (I'd have much higher standards this time) then I'd travel with him to keep him under control. More likely, he'd never meet the higher standards and remain in prison for a very long time.

[EvilElitest]

Is it hard to infer that I was suggesting any number of actions which may warrant intervention, or do I have to spell everything out for you? I'm trying to bring the situation of a 'false repentant' villain. How technical do we really need to get about it?

1. He does something really bad. Maybe he murdered a bunch of people or he was animating corpses, I dunno.

2. He's beaten. He surrenders and promises never to do it again.

3. He does it three minutes later.

Rinse, wash and repeat. Is that enough for you?

Then the solution is simple, tie him up next time. Knock him out, tie him up, take away his stuff, and take him away for trial
Also three mins even OOTS are that incompetent
from
EE