Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Hiero5ant 12-02-05, 10:43 AM	Yes, I know that D&D's concept of morality couldn't be any more cartoonishly oversimplified if the characters actually wore color-coded cowboy hats to go with their alignments, and is divorced from anything remotely resembling "real-world" morality. And yes, I also know that DMs have the final word on what they consider to be an alignment-shifting act. Nonetheless, I submit the following scenario to the community and invite input. **Minor WLD Spoilers** The setting is the World's Largest Dungeon, and since it's pure hack-n-slash the game world, cosmology, and character backstories are scanty to nonexistent. The character is a LG Fighter/Psychic Warrior who had earlier picked up some minor permanent buffs from some Temple of Goody-two-shoes-ness. Ages ago, a dragon rose to godhood and has cursed his family, demanding the blood sacrifice of all female children at the age of adulthood -- so naturally, the guy has some deep-seated issues with false gods and evil monsters, as he is in the dungeon looking for a way to break the curse. Turns out this one evil goblin has turned his brethren against their old gods and has them worshipping an inanimate statue. Not only are they evil, but they can't even get their Evil Piety straight! So, to prove that the goblin emperor has no clothes, and that they are all worshipping a false god, he cracks the head off the statue and rolls it into the throne room. "See? No divine retribution! It was all a scam! Think for yourselves, and find true spirituality!" Well, turns out golins don't like to think for themselves, so they attack. As further evidence of non-thinking, they're all crowded together, so all 2 dozen of them get wiped by a fireball scroll from the Artificer. The question is: Is this really an evil act, to show a bunch of evil monsters that they're being lied to by their government and their church? I say this is absolutely a paradigm case of a good act, albeit a CG one. But the DM is of the opinion that it's evil, and says the minor LG buffs are gone until he "atones". Thoughts?
WayneTheGame 12-02-05, 10:55 AM	I 100% think its NOT an evil act. For one, goblins are EVIL creatures (lets open THAT can of worms again, shall we?). Two, you showed them the fallacy of their beliefs and (from how you worded it) only attacked them in self-defense after they decided to kill the "heretic" or whatever. So no, what you did wasn't an evil act. Now if you did it to say "I am your god now" and get a bunch of goblins worshipping you, I would say that is slightly evil.
Seeker95 12-02-05, 10:57 AM	How would someone go about justifying a claim that it *was* an evil act? It is not an evil act. It is not a chaotic act. He challenged a lie. He presented the truth.
Leap_UK 12-02-05, 11:30 AM	Actually that is a really good question...... If you offered them no better alternative, either in personal example (CG) or through directing their behaviour (LG), then really it was a neutral act of little more than one-up-man-ship to "stupid gobbos". :)
Kyuketsukiouji 12-02-05, 12:22 PM	I see no reason why "showing people they are being lied to and duped" would be an evil act. In fact, since goblins are traditionally enemies of humans, rendering assistance to people who more often than not would kill you seems quite good to me. The fighter put himself at risk to try and show the goblins they were being manipulated. Good act all the way in my book.
Bruunwald 12-02-05, 12:45 PM	Actually that is a really good question...... If you offered them no better alternative, either in personal example (CG) or through directing their behaviour (LG), then really it was a neutral act of little more than one-up-man-ship to "stupid gobbos". :) I tend to agree with this. It did seem less an altruistic act of freeing these creatures from a lie, and more a "my god is better than your god" sort of thing. But evil? Not at all. Now, perhaps the DM means that killing the goblins was evil. They were attacking, but maybe he sees them being wiped out in their place of worship as somehow offensive. I dunno. But I don't think he's thinking clearly on this in either case.
Hiero5ant 12-02-05, 12:55 PM	I see no reason why "showing people they are being lied to and duped" would be an evil act. In fact, since goblins are traditionally enemies of humans, rendering assistance to people who more often than not would kill you seems quite good to me. The fighter put himself at risk to try and show the goblins they were being manipulated. Good act all the way in my book. Well, he didn't really put himself in a lot of danger. He was a cheese-hax0red psychic warrior spiked chain build with whirlwind attack. A horde of closely-clustered 5hp critters is slightly less of a threat than getting struck by lightning in a coal mine.
Kyuketsukiouji 12-02-05, 12:59 PM	Well, he didn't really put himself in a lot of danger. He was a cheese-hax0red psychic warrior spiked chain build with whirlwind attack. A horde of closely-clustered 5hp critters is slightly less of a threat than getting struck by lightning in a coal mine. That's metagaming, though. The character had no real way of knowing that there wasn't one goblin in the lot that secretly was a 20th level barbarian (or all of them). But he still willingly gave up the element of surprise to try and inform them that they were being used.
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-02-05, 01:07 PM	So... in character... Did he do this to show them the truth? Or to goad them into attacking so he could slaughter them for thier delicious XPs?
Hiero5ant 12-02-05, 01:13 PM	So... in character... Did he do this to show them the truth? Or to goad them into attacking so he could slaughter them for thier delicious XPs? In character he did it to show them the truth, driven by his rage at people being manipulated and used by the trappings of religion. Out of character of course I just wanted the expeez. Plus, plots that involve severed heads of any description are just rad.
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-02-05, 01:23 PM	Then it's not evil.
StormD 12-02-05, 02:27 PM	A few talking points... 1. It wasn't an inanimate statue, it was a wayward goblin that had been petrified by a flesh-to-stone effect, which the party was fully aware of (although they didn't know what had generated the effect...could have been a bunch of things, but the party didn't really bother to figure out how the "god" had gotten there in the fighter's eagerness to start a battle with the goblin king) when he broke off its head, effectively insuring that it can never survive being unpetrified. So add a murder to the mix (even if the poor thing didn't have too enjoyable of a life at that point, it wasn't really dead, and it certainly had no way to defend itself). 2. It wasn't so much a "Here's the liberating truth of your religion" presented in a reasonable, liberating way, so much as "here's the head of your enemy" *plonk*, throwing the head down on the floor in front of the crowd in a highly sacreligious and insulting manner that was pretty much deliberately orchestrated to provoke a big fight. 3. The other LG character in the party (monk) objected to the whole plan on alignment grounds, and protested that the fighter didn't try to find a better way to alert the goblins to their plight. 4. The party then took the head of the goblin "king" (who turned out to have been a doppleganger all along), to the isolated goblin rebels, thus encouraging them to re-establish their old order and old religion of worshipping evil earth-spirits or whatever it is that goblins worship that they didn't bother inquiring too much about, so the net effect of the whole escapade was to advance the interests of one evil group over another. 5. I didn't and don't buy the "driven by rage at manipulative false religions" excuse for making an act non-evil. I mean, I totally buy it as a reason for his character doing what he did, but that doesn't make it a good act. Sometimes rage or personality or self-righteousness leads people astray into making immoral choices. Anyway, that was the way I saw it, and the logic I used to determine that an atonement would be necessary in this situation. I'm not trying to be a total alignment nazi here, either, but the buffs in question were a favor from the gods rewarding characters of exceptionally pure heart. Being some pretty awesome buffs (permanent cold and fire resistance/5), I determined it would be appropriate to enforce rather stringent paladin-like behavioral codes in order to maintain them. The gods took a dim view of Strong-Li's actions last night, and he will have to make right with them if he wants to return to their grace.
ChimericalWolf 12-02-05, 02:45 PM	In a hack'n'slash like WLD, I think that the DM would be better off playing it fast and loose with alignment. If I were running, I'd laugh it off, give you your goblin treasure, and have you go about your merry way.
Rocketboy13 12-02-05, 02:48 PM	This is dead neutral in my perspective, and can't be used to strip abilities. Revealing the truth was a lawful act... but doing so caused chaos. Helping them out from under an opresive empty religion was good... but you were returning them to the whorship of true evil gods, which is evil. You killed goblins, which was good... But they were more or less helpless before you, so it was kind of evil. It all balances out in my perspective.
StormD 12-02-05, 02:55 PM	In a hack'n'slash like WLD, I think that the DM would be better off playing it fast and loose with alignment. If I were running, I'd laugh it off, give you your goblin treasure, and have you go about your merry way. Well, in the WLD, there's all kinds of places and events that have alignment-based effects, including such cheese as "The Hall of Good" that like triples the natural healing rate for good characters within it, but strikes evil characters blind and deaf (seriously), as well as the aforementioned shrines the party has already discovered that hurt evil characters, healed good ones, and gave LG characters nice permanent elemental damage reduction. With that in mind, I determined before we even started (and told the players so), that I'd be paying attention to alignment, which in and of itself is a change of pace for me, because I normally do play fast and loose with alignment. Alignment is not just a vague character ethic, it is an alliance with fundamental cosmic forces. If you take actions that directly result in a significant increase in evil in the world, you will eventually become (or stay) evil. If you take actions that actively promote the cause of good, you will remain (or become) good. Same goes for Law vs. Chaos. Yes, this approach is cartoonish, but it’s really the only way to justify alignment-based magic and effects in the game-world, and there will be alignment-based magic and effects in this campaign. As I mentioned under party Governance, evil characters will be allowed, but try not to make them disruptive to the party. Keep in mind, though, that if all the other characters are enjoying a healing rest in the Hall of Goodness while you are stricken deaf and blind, you’re not going to keep your hideous inner nature a secret for very long. And I did laugh about it and give them their goblin treasure, and they're on their way. It was a pretty funny situation. The only thing is, Strong-Li has sort of fallen from grace a little and needs to atone, that's all.
q'afuu 12-02-05, 02:56 PM	Yes, I know that D&D's concept of morality couldn't be any more cartoonishly oversimplified if the characters actually wore color-coded cowboy hats to go with their alignments, and is divorced from anything remotely resembling "real-world" morality. You know wrong. D&D alignment is a crude indication of a character's personality, but it doesn't oversimplify anything. Morality works the exact same way in D&D as it does IRL - meaning it's just as complex - aside from a few things that have no real-world equivalent (undead, spells, etc).
phoenixshard 12-02-05, 03:00 PM	A few talking points... 1. It wasn't an inanimate statue, it was a wayward goblin that had been petrified by a flesh-to-stone effect, which the party was fully aware of (although they didn't know what had generated the effect...could have been a bunch of things, but the party didn't really bother to figure out how the "god" had gotten there in the fighter's eagerness to start a battle with the goblin king) when he broke off its head, effectively insuring that it can never survive being unpetrified. So add a murder to the mix (even if the poor thing didn't have too enjoyable of a life at that point, it wasn't really dead, and it certainly had no way to defend itself). That would be an evil act there to me too. If it is a LG character and they know that the statue was not a statue, but a pertrified being, the monster is no danger, so no action needs to be taken against it. I would consider it an evil act as well. 2. It wasn't so much a "Here's the liberating truth of your religion" presented in a reasonable, liberating way, so much as "here's the head of your enemy" *plonk*, throwing the head down on the floor in front of the crowd in a highly sacreligious and insulting manner that was pretty much deliberately orchestrated to provoke a big fight. That would be pushing the envelope to me, but I don't know as I would call it an overtly evil act. 3. The other LG character in the party (monk) objected to the whole plan on alignment grounds, and protested that the fighter didn't try to find a better way to alert the goblins to their plight. If you have another LG character protesting and you just push them away without even taking their counsel into your decision, its not evil, but maybe not so bright to do. 4. The party then took the head of the goblin "king" (who turned out to have been a doppleganger all along), to the isolated goblin rebels, thus encouraging them to re-establish their old order and old religion of worshipping evil earth-spirits or whatever it is that goblins worship that they didn't bother inquiring too much about, so the net effect of the whole escapade was to advance the interests of one evil group over another. What were the conditions for the party working for a group that is known to be evil? I mean, if they are evil creatures, why would any LG character be working for them at all? That would put a strain on the alignment right there IMO. 5. I didn't and don't buy the "driven by rage at manipulative false religions" excuse for making an act non-evil. I mean, I totally buy it as a reason for his character doing what he did, but that doesn't make it a good act. Sometimes rage or personality or self-righteousness leads people astray into making immoral choices. Totally agree with the last part of the statement. Anyway, that was the way I saw it, and the logic I used to determine that an atonement would be necessary in this situation. I'm not trying to be a total alignment nazi here, either, but the buffs in question were a favor from the gods rewarding characters of exceptionally pure heart. Being some pretty awesome buffs (permanent cold and fire resistance/5), I determined it would be appropriate to enforce rather stringent paladin-like behavioral codes in order to maintain them. The gods took a dim view of Strong-Li's actions last night, and he will have to make right with them if he wants to return to their grace. Some valid points there, and the DM has final say. I'd have to say, I would probably have reached the same decision you did, mostly after the first thing that was mentioned.
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-02-05, 03:06 PM	A few talking points... ... And then we hear the truth... 1. It wasn't an inanimate statue, it was a wayward goblin that had been petrified by a flesh-to-stone effect, which the party was fully aware of (although they didn't know what had generated the effect...could have been a bunch of things, but the party didn't really bother to figure out how the "god" had gotten there in the fighter's eagerness to start a battle with the goblin king) when he broke off its head, effectively insuring that it can never survive being unpetrified. So add a murder to the mix (even if the poor thing didn't have too enjoyable of a life at that point, it wasn't really dead, and it certainly had no way to defend itself). O_o 2. It wasn't so much a "Here's the liberating truth of your religion" presented in a reasonable, liberating way, so much as "here's the head of your enemy" *plonk*, throwing the head down on the floor in front of the crowd in a highly sacreligious and insulting manner that was pretty much deliberately orchestrated to provoke a big fight. Pretty much what I expected, though I was inclined to believe the OP. 3. The other LG character in the party (monk) objected to the whole plan on alignment grounds, and protested that the fighter didn't try to find a better way to alert the goblins to their plight. Only Paladins are allowed to metagame alignment into thier actions >_< 4. The party then took the head of the goblin "king" (who turned out to have been a doppleganger all along), to the isolated goblin rebels, thus encouraging them to re-establish their old order and old religion of worshipping evil earth-spirits or whatever it is that goblins worship that they didn't bother inquiring too much about, so the net effect of the whole escapade was to advance the interests of one evil group over another. Evil? Not really. Dangerously Neglegent? Oh yeah. 5. I didn't and don't buy the "driven by rage at manipulative false religions" excuse for making an act non-evil. I mean, I totally buy it as a reason for his character doing what he did, but that doesn't make it a good act. Sometimes rage or personality or self-righteousness leads people astray into making immoral choices. Now that you describe it, you're right. So yeah, he's pretty damn evil. As an aside, those saying WLD is a hack and slasher, should check out the guys playing through it on http://rpgmp3.com , They've managed to get in some quite good RP.
Hiero5ant 12-02-05, 03:59 PM	I should add I'm not provoking this discussion just so I can walk out of the game in a huff; this is clearly within DM discretion, especially on such a vague issue as alignment, and I'm ready to take my lumps and laugh it off. I'm just interested in it as an abstract philosophical issue. My IRL militant atheism doesn't exactly give me a neutral perspective on this... WRT it being "just an innocent goblin", it's not like a party of 5th lvl characters can metagame every encounter along the lines of "don't worry, eventually we'll reach 11th lvl and have an arcane caster who can solve this problem by casting Stone to Flesh (BTW, the only wizard in the party is an Arcane Trickster, who won't reach 6th lvl wizard spells until CL 19ish)". For all practical purposes, the stone golblin was already dead.
q'afuu 12-02-05, 04:30 PM	WRT it being "just an innocent goblin", it's not like a party of 5th lvl characters can metagame every encounter along the lines of "don't worry, eventually we'll reach 11th lvl and have an arcane caster who can solve this problem by casting Stone to Flesh (BTW, the only wizard in the party is an Arcane Trickster, who won't reach 6th lvl wizard spells until CL 19ish)". For all practical purposes, the stone golblin was already dead. :confused: Ever heard of scrolls? Besides, you never know what you might get done. There's always room for particulars. Spell reversals triggered by the caster dying, the fortuitous find of a potion, a ritual that undoes a spell rather than requiring an exact counterspell... More importantly though, the fact that you couldn't - at that point - undo the petrification is largely immaterial. With the statue intact, it was possible for anyone with the right means. With the statue broken, it isn't anymore. That's all there's to it. That's what makes it evil.
Bruunwald 12-02-05, 07:46 PM	I should add I'm not provoking this discussion just so I can walk out of the game in a huff; this is clearly within DM discretion, especially on such a vague issue as alignment, and I'm ready to take my lumps and laugh it off. I'm just interested in it as an abstract philosophical issue. My IRL militant atheism doesn't exactly give me a neutral perspective on this... WRT it being "just an innocent goblin", it's not like a party of 5th lvl characters can metagame every encounter along the lines of "don't worry, eventually we'll reach 11th lvl and have an arcane caster who can solve this problem by casting Stone to Flesh (BTW, the only wizard in the party is an Arcane Trickster, who won't reach 6th lvl wizard spells until CL 19ish)". For all practical purposes, the stone golblin was already dead. However, your characters live in a world where experience has taught them better. It might seem like metagaming to believe that you will find someone to release this being, but it is not metagaming or unreasonable to assume that this creature can be released eventually, and it is only reasonable to refrain from finishing it off until you have faced it. Obviously, somebody in your party thought so, too. The problem with the thread is you didn't supply us with a very crucial bit of information. That is, that the statue wasn't a statue, but a petrified (and therefore helpless) sentient entity, and that you knew it before you guys lopped its head off and threw it at its followers. There's always a better way of doing things. Lawful Good people are supposed to understand that, even if they are not incredibly wise. They are supposed to give the benefit of the doubt and act carefully. From the original post, I considered the acts neutral. But willfully killing the helpless is something else from that, even if the helpless are potentially evil. You don't know until you release them, what their behavior will be, and a LG character owes it to himself and others to be honorable and careful. This is at best, careless, at worst downright evil. I will give the benefit of the doubt and say carelessness and zealousness drove this, but yes, now I definitely think atonement is in order. Remember, zealous people can quickly become evil without ever knowing it. Ambition, zeal and passion can lead us quickly down a dark path.
Silverthumb128 12-02-05, 08:38 PM	so naturally, the guy has some deep-seated issues with false gods and evil monsters, as he is in the dungeon looking for a way to break the curse. My first question, if the dragon rose to godhood, what makes him a false god? Having deific powers renown and merit, that makes him a god. The question is: Is this really an evil act, to show a bunch of evil monsters that they're being lied to by their government and their church? Its not evil, no. I agree with a few of the other posters that it neutral. I say this is absolutely a paradigm case of a good act, albeit a CG one. But the DM is of the opinion that it's evil, and says the minor LG buffs are gone until he "atones". I think the whole "killing everyone you just spent the time to save" part wasn't exactly what I'd consider the paragon's act of good, to be honest. Of course, if I just strolled into a church, snapped the head off of their divine object, and told them all their entire faith structure was balogna, I wouldn't expect much more than to be attacked. Also, as a last point, if alignment were so color-coded, why are roughly half of the threads here about alignment? :D
Hiero5ant 12-02-05, 09:01 PM	Come on -- if one of our 5th lvl PCs gets petrified by a basilisk in the next session, we're not going to have the player "patiently stand by for the next 6-12 months until one of the party members gets Stone to Flesh"; we count the character as dead, and roll a new one with appropriate penalties. The goblin was dead.
Orayn, Elvish Blademaster 12-02-05, 09:14 PM	Of course this isn't an evil act! Why is there even a question? First of all goblins are evil. The fact that the fighter did everything peacefully is a plus. Second, he's leading them down a path of good by exposing an evil leader. Again, a good act. Is there a dumb player going on about how killing bugs will drop an NG 20th level Fighter to CG? Because evil is entirely out of the question in this situation.
q'afuu 12-03-05, 07:11 AM	Come on -- if one of our 5th lvl PCs gets petrified by a basilisk in the next session, we're not going to have the player "patiently stand by for the next 6-12 months until one of the party members gets Stone to Flesh"; we count the character as dead, and roll a new one with appropriate penalties. The goblin was dead. 'Dead' is relative in D&D. There are plenty of ways to bring a dead character back to life. Even if you don't have access to any of these options yourself, removing them is hardly a Good act. Besides, mutilating a corpse doesn't ring very LG to me either way.
Yabanjin 12-03-05, 08:03 AM	....Besides, mutilating a corpse doesn't ring very LG to me either way. Only if you're making a flesh golem. [sorry, ;) couldn't resist] Come on -- if one of our 5th lvl PCs gets petrified by a basilisk in the next session, we're not going to have the player "patiently stand by for the next 6-12 months until one of the party members gets Stone to Flesh"; we count the character as dead I think you just failed your Friendship Save roll. (get it? nudge.. nudge.. :dancin: ) OK. Right of course you wouldn't make the player wait, that person should get to rolling, but you and your merry band of 'good guys' might consider burning some imaginary calories trying to find a way to save your traveling companion. Thats what the Good Guys do. Don't they?
q'afuu 12-03-05, 09:47 AM	Only if you're making a flesh golem. [sorry, ;) couldn't resist] :confused: Am I missing something? Building a Golem, especially a Flesh Golem, is pretty much inherently evil. Enslaving a spirit by binding it to an artificial body to do your bidding, stealing and hacking up corpses to get parts, ...
Hiero5ant 12-03-05, 10:39 AM	Besides, mutilating a corpse doesn't ring very LG to me either way. Yeah, but the point is that it's lol. The 'L' in 'LG' stands for 'LOL'.
Yabanjin 12-03-05, 10:47 AM	:confused: Am I missing something? Building a Golem, especially a Flesh Golem, is pretty much inherently evil. Enslaving a spirit by binding it to an artificial body to do your bidding, stealing and hacking up corpses to get parts, ... NOPE. Unfortunately, I looked it up after I posted the note. There was a standing joke in my group about Flesh Golems not being 'evil.' The golem's alignment is always neutral, the creation requirements include casting an evil spell... My bad. :surrender