The Choice (now on part 2 of 2)

[Townopolis]

The Choice

Spoiler

Show

You are deep within the lair of an ancient evil, stranger, otherworldly sigils mark the walls, and the air sends a chill down your spine, but you have reached the deepest chamber. Now you are faced with a choice. To destroy the entity living herein, you must sacrifice someone. The evil being will be annihilated utterly, but first someone must forfeit their own life.

There are two people on hand that you might sacrifice. The first came here seeking to make the world a better place, and wishes to see all evil vanquished, if you let them live, he will live on as a force of good. The second got here by chasing a butterfly and wishes to leave, if you let them live, they will return to a normal life. You have been given the power to choose one of these people to be the arrow that slays the fiend, so to speak.

You are the first person. Which will you sacrifice?

• What is your decision, and why did you decide that way?
• How would you place your decision on the 3eD&D alignment chart, on the 4eD&D alignment scale?
• How would you place the other option on the alignment chart & scale?
• It is encouraged to note other variables that may change the alignment/morality of either decision

For the purpose of this exercise, there is no option C. I won't try to contrive reasons for it, there just isn't, this isn't an actual in-game situation.

Person 1: 63% (12)
-0% Lawful Good ()
-25% Neutral/Chaotic Good (5)
-50% Neutral (10)
-25% Lawful/Neutral Evil (5)
-0% Chaotic Evil ()
Person 2: 37% (7)
-0% Lawful Good ()
-5% Neutral/Chaotic Good (1)
-30% Neutral (6)
-60% Lawful/Neutral Evil (12)
-5% Chaotic Evil (1)

[Emperor Tippy]

What is your decision, and why did you decide that way? Person A
How would you place your decision on the 3eD&D alignment chart, on the 4eD&D alignment scale? Neutral on the 3.5 scale, don't know the 4e scale off the top of my head.
How would you place the other option on the alignment chart & scale? Evil
It is encouraged to note other variables that may change the alignment/morality of either decision There aren't any.

Granted as soon as I left I would just have my pet solar wish me up a scroll of True Res and bring back whatever one I offed.

The big thing about D&D that people always seem to forget is that most deaths aren't permanent (and it takes a real effort to make sure the person stays permanently dead).

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I kill the second, because he's an idiot. I'd rule that CN, borderline CE(nearly random decision, doesn't try to gather further data about who deserves death more, based on personal prejudices).

[streakster]

See, my option isn't on here. Ima gonna sacrifice me, if I can - guilt-free and awesome! Probably quote Kamina while doing so...

Interesting dilemma, though. I'll have to think on it.

[Stupendous_Man]

Go for both.

Maximize your stabbity potential.

[Harp]

As there is no option C, I'd likely sacrifice the do-gooder as they would probably be persuaded to agree just to that. Of course, other variables could influence my decision such as the state of the lands and obstacles beyond the evil alter, and if the village idiot or a righteous paladin would be more useful in the short term.

The decision to sacrifice anyone but myself definately earns me some evil points, even in the event we have a scenario where only the sacrifice of a "pure-heart" can free the world. If I can convince the do-gooder to sacrifice his or herself and I am for whatever reason unable to be used as the sacrifice, I would likely retain my current alignment. Alternatively, if I just kill one of them with no fuss, Neutral Evil.

This is a situation where there does not seem to be a lawful, chaotic, or even a "good" way to complete the quest. You are fulfilling your duty as much as preserving yourself, and as the death of an otherwise innocent person is required, there's no greater good done that isn't ultimately self-serving.

[Brock Samson]

Tippy, remember that to resurrect a person they have to be willing to come back from the great here-after. Most people in some version of "heaven" probably wouldn't want to come back to their crappy ol' plane, but most in "hell" probably would. But, as there's a known afterlife in D&D, killing someone who's good really isn't that bad of an act, it's just sending them to their final reward early, it's like the "Advance to Go" chance piece in monopoly, skip ahead to the good stuff.

That in mind, both decisions would be "good" depending on circumstances. Of course killing person A would be good, all good characters should be killed so they can enjoy their heavenly reward sooner. Killing person B would be good because if you CAN'T resurrect them they must have been good so you did a good job. If they were evil they'll want to come back and probably atone for all their evil deeds and become a good person. And of course once they do that you're only doing you job as a good citizen by killing them then as quickly as possible. And once you've succeeded at that you've certainly proven yourself a good person in the eyes of your deity, so you need to kill yourself as well.

[Starsinger]

* What is your decision, and why did you decide that way?

I would sacrifice the first person and save the second person for two reasons. One, I have much more compassion for the second individual, and two, by saving the second individual all three of us get what we want. He evil being is destroyed (making me happy) and thus the world is a better place (making person A happy). Person B gets to go home (making him/her happy) and will hopefully treat other people nicely in remembrance of the person who saves his/her life (Thus making the world a better place again).

* How would you place your decision on the 3eD&D alignment chart, on the 4eD&D alignment scale?

Chaotic Good and Good respectively. Possibly Unaligned for the 4e.

* How would you place the other option on the alignment chart & scale?

Evil. Condemning an innocent to die is bad enough, but what about all the evil people who Person A would destroy without trying to redeem?

* It is encouraged to note other variables that may change the alignment/morality of either decision

Was Person A here by choice? I got the feeling as someone who wanted to vanquish all evil, Person A came here to destroy the entity himself.

[Coidzor]

1&2

Spoiler

Show

Hmm... I'd sacrifice B so that they wouldn't reveal what had happened there to anyone making the sacrifice hopefully more or less permanent until the next batch of adventurers. That, and either person A would attack and kill me, thus neutralizing the world's karmic balance of the taint of what I did and further silencing what had happened there (or vice-versa, in which case my taint is only a little bit worse). Or person A would go on to destroy more evil to balance out the ethical calculus of eliminating person B. Or it'd taint A enough that they eventually fell and grew to become a force of evil themselves (y'know, die a hero or live to see yourself become the villain and all that batman jazz)

This is what I'd call an overall neutral occurrence through an evil action to destroy another evil. (I don't believe that it is alright to kill someone if they'll go to heaven, simply because they go to paradise that much sooner. I find that to be sophistry.) Not familiar with 4e enough to make an alignment call, since all I hear about alignment in 4th ed are dirty rumors.

3 I'd say sacrifice A would be neutral through evil as well, but a lesser evil, since person A would be more likely to be willing/okay with the sacrifice. Morally this would be more desirable, but as I'd be worried about the sacrifice being made meaningless by people finding out about it and how easily it might possibly be revoked (who knows, since it's an ancient evil maybe someone who wants it back or who has it owing money to would home-brew a soul-ripping spell to draw back an unwilling soul into an undead monstrosity to release the seal), I'd rather word didn't get out so easily. But on the other hand, this would be more likely to resist a simple raise-dead spell foiling it all. Still, my paranoia wins over my sense of decency.


4

Spoiler

Show

It depends on what kind of people A and B were. If A was a paladin, then they probably couldn't allow person B to be sacrificed instead, even if they'd cause enough good to counteract the death of B or they could raise B from the dead. If B were a small child that had been out chasing a butterfly and then gotten drawn into the dungeon delving that lead to this predicament, then it would be a much more evil act to slay an innocent child who is scared and isolated/alienated than, say, a village idiot who thought that a butterfly was a certain kind of fey that had to do something for someone who caught it. If A and B are both lowly commoners, but one has been traumatized to want to eliminate evil but the other is essentially about as carefree as one can be in a world of toil and strife, then the ethical/moral cost is about the same, but A is preferable as it helps relieve their own suffering and helps them fulfill their desire.

[Hallavast]

What is your decision, and why did you decide that way? Person A
How would you place your decision on the 3eD&D alignment chart, on the 4eD&D alignment scale? Neutral on the 3.5 scale, don't know the 4e scale off the top of my head.
How would you place the other option on the alignment chart & scale? Evil
It is encouraged to note other variables that may change the alignment/morality of either decision There aren't any.

Granted as soon as I left I would just have my pet solar wish me up a scroll of True Res and bring back whatever one I offed.

The big thing about D&D that people always seem to forget is that most deaths aren't permanent (and it takes a real effort to make sure the person stays permanently dead).

Congratulations. You've ignored the entire purpose of the thread completely.

Flaws in the RAW will not interfere with story elements if a Dungeonmaster does not wish them to. There is a very simple "fiat" system put into place to make sure you play exactly the game you want to play with enough work.

Furthermore, Tippy, we know the RAW are flawed. I really don't see the need to ram this fact down the throat of every thread you come by. It does nothing but exasperate those of us who would actually want to discuss the quandary at hand. You are beating a dead horse. Will you please give up this particular tirade?

Back on topic: I choose person A, because that person might actually be a willing sacrifice. Both decisions are neutral (unaligned) according to D&D, because one of them must die (there isn't even an option to let the evil remain). I can think of no factors that would change the alignment of either action without changing the inherent nature of the question.

[Drakefall]

Hmm...

Sacrificing person A would be Lawful Neutral/Unalligned
Sacrificing person B would be Lawful Evil/Evil
Person A allowing himself to be sacrificed (which he seems to be willing to do) would be Lawful Good.

All the Lawfulness is coming from the fact that your doing something unpleasant in order to complete your duty... unless of course your evil and enjoy sacrificing messers A and B in which case it'd be one of the Evil alignments depending on the why and how you ended up coming to the decision to do the the stabby.

[random11]

The Choice

Spoiler

Show

You are deep within the lair of an ancient evil, stranger, otherworldly sigils mark the walls, and the air sends a chill down your spine, but you have reached the deepest chamber. Now you are faced with a choice. To destroy the entity living herein, you must sacrifice someone. The evil being will be annihilated utterly, but first someone must forfeit their own life.

There are two people on hand that you might sacrifice. The first came here seeking to make the world a better place, and wishes to see all evil vanquished. The second got here by chasing a butterfly and wishes to leave. You have been given the power to choose one of these people to be the arrow that slays the fiend, so to speak. Which will you sacrifice.

• What is your decision, and why did you decide that way?
• How would you place your decision on the 3eD&D alignment chart, on the 4eD&D alignment scale?
• How would you place the other option on the alignment chart & scale?
• It is encouraged to note other variables that may change the alignment/morality of either decision

For the purpose of this exercise, there is no option C. I won't try to contrive reasons for it, there just isn't, this isn't an actual in-game situation.

I'd choose the second.
My choice is based on keeping the one that has a better chance to make the world better.
But this is my choice only because the question restricts me to only two options, and consider both options evil both in real life morally and on the D&D scale.

Under certain conditions, it might be considered a necessary evil, but still an evil act - Both options are unaware victims who didn't choose, and weren't even aware of that specific danger.
Just because there are two options doesn't mean that the better one has to be neutral, and just because the intentions are good doesn't mean it's not evil.

[Telonius]

The Choice

Spoiler

Show

You are deep within the lair of an ancient evil, stranger, otherworldly sigils mark the walls, and the air sends a chill down your spine, but you have reached the deepest chamber. Now you are faced with a choice. To destroy the entity living herein, you must sacrifice someone. The evil being will be annihilated utterly, but first someone must forfeit their own life.

There are two people on hand that you might sacrifice. The first came here seeking to make the world a better place, and wishes to see all evil vanquished. The second got here by chasing a butterfly and wishes to leave. You have been given the power to choose one of these people to be the arrow that slays the fiend, so to speak. Which will you sacrifice.

• What is your decision, and why did you decide that way?
• How would you place your decision on the 3eD&D alignment chart, on the 4eD&D alignment scale?
• How would you place the other option on the alignment chart & scale?
• It is encouraged to note other variables that may change the alignment/morality of either decision

For the purpose of this exercise, there is no option C. I won't try to contrive reasons for it, there just isn't, this isn't an actual in-game situation.

You mean I can't cooperate with the evil being, or kill them both just to be contrary? Oh! Ideal solution: threaten to throw the first one into the evil being, causing butterfly-chaser to innocently volunteer. Then start corrupting the do-gooder, wracking him with guilt until he turns blackguard.

Okay, okay. If I have to be the one to do it, kill the first one, since he'll clearly do the most good in the world if he's alive after it's over. The butterfly-chaser probably won't contribute much to the cause of evil, but at least won't actively harm it.

Killing the first guy would be NE in 3.x and Evil in 4. I'm looking out for the greatest evil for the greatest number. It's not really a question of law versus chaos. Killing the butterfly-chaser would be CE in 3.x and 4. Because really, the only reason I'd do it is because they were so annoyingly cute.

[Leewei]

Just to make things interesting, I'd take both people and leave the ancient evil intact. If it ever makes any more trouble for me, I'm coming back and kicking it's butt for good!

Neither choice has an alignment, as such. I think assigning an alignment to individual actions creates far more trouble in 3.5ed than looking at the bigger picture. Someone who brainwashed people into mindset A and dispatched them regularly to rid the world of ancient evils could be practically any alignment themselves, depending on motive. Someone who simply grabbed a person with mindset B, likewise could be of any alignment. The difference lies principally in how much compulsive handscrubbing they do afterward.

[Starbuck_II]

The Choice

Spoiler

Show

You are deep within the lair of an ancient evil, stranger, otherworldly sigils mark the walls, and the air sends a chill down your spine, but you have reached the deepest chamber. Now you are faced with a choice. To destroy the entity living herein, you must sacrifice someone. The evil being will be annihilated utterly, but first someone must forfeit their own life.

There are two people on hand that you might sacrifice. The first came here seeking to make the world a better place, and wishes to see all evil vanquished. The second got here by chasing a butterfly and wishes to leave. You have been given the power to choose one of these people to be the arrow that slays the fiend, so to speak. Which will you sacrifice.

• What is your decision, and why did you decide that way?
• How would you place your decision on the 3eD&D alignment chart, on the 4eD&D alignment scale?
• How would you place the other option on the alignment chart & scale?
• It is encouraged to note other variables that may change the alignment/morality of either decision

For the purpose of this exercise, there is no option C. I won't try to contrive reasons for it, there just isn't, this isn't an actual in-game situation.

Assuming no C which is foolish to assume, but in theory I guess possible.

I'd give my own based on this wording: There are two people on hand that you might sacrifice.
The word might implies that you can might not; thus I can choose another. Since there are only three beings I go with me.

I can always be revived by my family, right?
My decision would CG (best good while ensuring freedom for all)
In 4th, just good as there is CG, just Good.

Other options?
To sacrifice the 1st dude would be neutral at best: while he wants to better the world; unless he agrees to this, it would be bad to do it to him.

2nd dude (dudette) would be evil as he/she wants nothing to do with saving the world.

As I said, if either agreed that it was okay to kill them then, it would be okay (neutral). Neither is good unless you choose yourself as you are only one with the right to kill thyself.

[streakster]

Assuming no C which is foolish to assume, but in theory I guess possible.

I'd give my own based on this wording: There are two people on hand that you might sacrifice.
The word might implies that you can might not; thus I can choose another. Since there are only three beings I go with me.

Woot! Heroic Sacrifice ITP!

We should have a club.

[random11]

Woot! Heroic Sacrifice ITP!

We should have a club.

Not very heroic when the hero is counting on being revived later...

[Suzuro]

...dang, someone beat me to saying myself...That's always been my choice in these questions.

I'd also go with Lawful Good for sacrificing yourself, and neutral at best for sacrificing the others.


-Suzuro

[streakster]

Not very heroic when the hero is counting on being revived later...

Sure it is. We're risking permanent death - maybe the Rez won't work, or they won't cast it, or they'll lose the body, or what have you.

The fact that we're taking out some insurance to reduce that risk doesn't mean it's not there.

[OverdrivePrime]

I could never justify sacrificing someone else. I am the onely one who can completely make that choice when the that cold, runed dagger is in my hand. I don't know that it's a lawful act, or even a good act, but at least it's not evil.

In my world view, sacrificing someone else's life, even for the greater good is always an evil act. Certainly sacrificing the willing crusader is less evil (and less intelligent, as they will go on to do more good things) than the poor lepidopterologist, but in my world it sill earns you some serious dark side points

[paddyfool]

Killing yourself probably counts as an option C. Not killing anyone, or letting people volunteer to kill themselves, likewise. Under the logical rules of this artificial situation where there is no other option and the description given is all you know about them... heck, you might as well toss a coin. Killing A is more in line with their goals; killing B less ultimately detrimental to the greater good if A is remotely effective at what A seeks to do. Neither is evil, neither is good. But probably A, on balance; from the sounds of it, they probably weren't going to get much joy out of life anyway.

But, as there's a known afterlife in D&D, killing someone who's good really isn't that bad of an act

Which gives me a great idea for a relatively crazy villain! ("It's a dark and evil world, but there are a few souls with enough of a spark of good in them to make it to heaven where they can be eternally happy... if I kill them right away, they might still make it there before they get corrupted" ). The PCs would [get called in to investigate/stumble upon] the killings of a string of famously saintly types without warning in precisely targetted and pain-free ways and seek to investigate. The killer would try to evade them rather than engage on the whole, but might, of course, target the noblest and purest of the party. Bonus points if they can figure out his motivation...

[Vortling]

The Choice
For the purpose of this exercise, there is no option C. I won't try to contrive reasons for it, there just isn't, this isn't an actual in-game situation.

I would argue that based off this comment the entire premise is flawed. If you can't come up with a situation in which there is no option C, but you want to enforce 'no option C' then you really need to work on the initial premise.

Myself, I'd choose me after some deliberation to determine that the three people there were the only options (ie ridiculous DM fiat deserving of hammergun). If you want something done right you do it yourself. Glorious afterlife here I come!

[Coplantor]

See, my option isn't on here. Ima gonna sacrifice me, if I can - guilt-free and awesome! Probably quote Kamina while doing so...

Interesting dilemma, though. I'll have to think on it.

Now that's the origianl Good aligned answer. Yeah, as a D&D character I would've done that. I dont care if i cant be resurrected after. Considering my RL morals... I would'nt even be near that god forgotten cave of doom!

EDIT: I believe that both choices, A and B, are evil in a very strict way of seeing the aligment system. A neutral guy can do both of them, but a good guy should use the C, plane, just kiding, C, I kill myself option.

[Yahzi]

The Choice

Person one. The reason? If I were person one, I would want to be chosen; and if I were person two, I would not want to be chosen. Thus, my choice is the choice of fairness - even to people who aren't necessarily fair (like person two), and that makes me NG.

LG would also probably choose the same, since it's fair. CG, on the other hand, would decide that the first person is a better person to have around, and thus sacrifice person two. LE would choose just the second person also, since the first person - being a better person - would be worth more to them. CE and NE would sacrifice the first person, because that kind of goodness can only oppose them.

[OverdrivePrime]

There are two people on hand that you might sacrifice. The first came here seeking to make the world a better place, and wishes to see all evil vanquished. The second got here by chasing a butterfly and wishes to leave. You have been given the power to choose one of these people to be the arrow that slays the fiend, so to speak. Which will you sacrifice.

Aha! I've got it.

There are just two people on hand that I might sacrifice. So, just myself and one other person are present. Therefore:

I am the person who came here seeking to make the world a better place, and thus feel ethically able to sacrifice myself.

[SurlySeraph]

I sacrifice Person 2. Why? I know that Person 1 is devoted to improving the world and fighting evil, and will continue to improve the world and fighting evil if he lives. I have no such guarantee about Person 2. As my goal is to increase good and reduce evil, I will save the person who I know will further this goal.

I consider this choice borderline between Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral. I am following a principle, *and* following this principle does good. However, sacrificing an unwilling innocent does evil, which reduces the amount of good that this does.

I'd say saving Person 2 would be Chaotic Good - choosing kindness to an individual and individual choice over maintaining a system, even a system that promotes kindness to people.

Like streakster said, sacrificing yourself is the really good option - I'd call that Neutral Good. However, in some cases sacrificing Person 1 would be more good than sacrificing yourself. If you knew that you were a good person and had vastly more power to do good than Person 1, you could do more good by keeping yourself alive even if you did the slightly evil act if letting a good man die to protect yourself.

[SoD]

I'd sacrifice person 1.

Person 1 would be a lot more likely to be willing to be sacrificed to destroy the evil thing.

Of course, if I knew that person 2 was a ruthless murdering [expletive] who just likes chasing butterflies and isn't very observant, that changes my answer. Just because they chase butterflies, doesn't mean they're a good person.

[KingGolem]

I would sacrifice butterfly man, because if I sacrifice him, the world is short one idiot who chases a butterfly into the tomb of an ancient evil, which I assume had some monsters guarding the front of it. Second of all, by sacrificing him, the world gets to keep one evil vanquishing guy who may live to vanquish another day.

On the 3.5E alignment scale, I would place that at Lawful Neutral, as it is my alignment and it was unbiased pragmatism that compelled me to do it. Now I am only barely familiar with the 4E alignment scale, but didn't they compress the entire neutral section into "unaligned?" If that's the case, it probably falls there.

The other option is probably Neutral Good (with a hint of law), as it is only "fair and proper" to have a man's consent before you sacrifice him.

My option to sacrifice butterfly man could probably become Chaotic Evil, if it was done entirely out of spite. I mean, as an adventurer you probably fought your way through a horde of unspeakable horrors to reach the final chamber, only to have some random bystander accomplish the same goal by following a freakin' butterfly. It would become even more Chaotic Evil-ish if you were to kill vanquish man if he protests to you sacrificing butterfly man.

By the way, I like this thread. Very nice.

[Brock Samson]

Paddyfool I'm glad you took my argument to the logical extension I was hoping someone would go with.

And of course, if you kill everyone in the world, then try to revive them all, only the evil ones will revive. Eventually the scales of what is evil and what isn't will be tipped quite far and, as the Gods in D&D will probably still want their entertainment and followers, declare a new law on what is and isn't evil. So at that point you go through another fresh round of complete genocidal killings and raisings. Rinse, and repeat.

Of course it's likely a bunch of do-evilers are going to come around and try to stop you for their own selfish reasons, wanting you to stop the killing, how evil they are! The only Good thing to do is kill them. But to ensure that you live through all the genocides that take place you'll want to find a way to make yourself mostly-immortal, yet still capable of dying when you're the last sentient being. One easy way, make yourself a lich!

The problem is that sentient beings will continue to reproduce, and there's still a chance you might die before you can "deal" with them all. So you'll also want to sterilize all sentient beings to make sure you can stop the cycle of people being born and ultimately getting sent to hell. However since this world has magic people could always use that to restore their fertility, so you'll probably want to create phobias in people about sex in general. A good way to do this might be attained through linking sex and torture in their minds. No one tries to get back fertility, problem solved.

Or is it? Even after you've killed all sentient beings and sent them to heaven evolution will not stop occurring. So after you're the last sentient being *alive* you'll also want to destroy the universe somehow to make sure no more sentient beings evolve and go to hell.

So, logically, murder, torture, forced sterilization, and the complete negation of all existence are the only Good things a true hero should ever aspire to.

And now we know why Xykon isn't such a bad-guy after all.

[Fri]

Sorry, I need to think for a bit, but the image of someone chasing a butterfly (Frolicking merrily!) and ended up in an otherwordly evil nasty dungeon really crack me up. I'm laughing now, seriously.