Alignment and in-game actions [Archive] - Wizards Community

Alignment and in-game actions [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Miakoda
07-27-07, 01:07 PM I've got a thought- party walks in on a demon plant pulling a gnoll toward it to be dinner. Last time they fought gnolls they were slavers so I assume they will think said gnoll is evil by virtue of being a gnoll. My question relates to the fact that they are all good except one, one lawful and the other two chaotic. What does it say about them if they let the plant have the gnoll, knowing he will die nastily?

Whether the person is good or evil, I have always felt that if one considers murder to be absolutely wrong, then allowing an evil person to be murdered is not 'good'. Same with a race, generally considered to be evil - genocide of an 'evil' race seems to be fine in DND terms for a good person, but genocide of a 'good' race is evil.

I guess the real question is, do the players suffer alignment consequences for allowing a creature, who personally has never done anything wrong to the party or that the party is aware of, but who is of an 'evil' race, to die when they could prevent it? Does the answer change taking into account that said death will not be an easy one?

I have always felt that alignments do not define the character as much as the player's interpretation of said alignment, but actions outside of those guidelines should have consequences too.
Anomen
07-27-07, 01:51 PM If they killed an evil aligned creature it would not effect their alignment, so it would not effect it to let them die. As for the good gnoll, they don't know that its' good so that would not effect their alignment either.
queenfange
07-27-07, 01:59 PM I'd say what they did is a neutral act. Gnolls are assumed (correctly for the most part) to be evil, so their death is not necessarily an evil act. On the other hand, there was no evidence other than his race that this particular gnoll was evil nor had he attempted to harm the party. As the PCs neither actively contributed to his demise nor actively attempted to save him, I would classify it as a purely neutral act. I don't think you should force the PCs to change to neutral from this, but if they regularly act similarly, then you should discuss the good/neutral divide with them.

I disagree that allowing a gnoll to die does not affect alignment at all, however. It is not a good act to allow the death of anyone unless they are unquestionably evil (such as a devil, who is without a doubt LE) or acted in a manner that strongly suggests active evil, such as a murder suspect against who their is much evidence or a band of raiders who attack them while the PCs are setting up camp.
Lazigothi
07-27-07, 02:06 PM The decision depends on your definition of alignment for your campaign and then informing your players. They should know how their reactions to this situation will affect them. They should not be surprised when they think they were responding correctly only to be punished by their DM.

Is it evil for the plant to feed? A lot of lifeforms cause pain when they feed, something most need to do in order to survive. You suggest that in this case, since the prey is sentient (where the prey's alignment is inconsequential), that it's an evil act. Would you consider it an evil act if the plant were eating something else, like a deer or rabbit? Are these types of plants so despicable that they classify as a hated enemy (i.e. are "they" sentient)?

What is your reason for presenting this encounter/ how does this add to the adventure? I think if it's just to present an alignment problem, the scenario is moot with clear communication about alignment with the players. Would you have thrown in this encounter otherwise? What else could the party gain from it?
metalmayhem80110
07-27-07, 02:22 PM Gnolls are usually concidered evil so letting one die isn't going to touch their alignment.

You can't lok at killing as something to go against alignment, I mean look at paladin. Even in Real Life pallys would go on religious crusades to kill those that arn't worthy, and I think that is more "evil" than watching a creature concidered evil dieing.
ccerose
07-27-07, 02:29 PM I don't think what you've described constitutes an alignment shift. If the PCs believe that, in your world, all gnolls are evil, then who cares.

The only one who might act is the lawful good character. Failure to act though, wouldn't be enough to warrant a change in alignment.

If you have a campaign setting where there are such things as good gnolls and evil gold dragons, then they should at least make some attempt to assist until they have good reason to think the creature is evil. Despite this, the PCs not acting to help should not affect their alignments.
Miakoda
07-27-07, 04:14 PM The alignment system has always been frustrating for me because it simultaneously gives breaks to good people while holding them to a higher standard. The whole system seems like a black and white world forced to conceive of shades of grey that do not sit well with the extremes. After all chaotic neutral person is seen to put themselves first above everyone else. Neutral evil is also defined as out for themself first.

An example is genocide. Genocide is wanting to wipe a race from the face of the world. That concept is knee-jerk evil right? Well it is, unless you are talking about a good character that wants to wipe goblins out, kill them all because they are all evil creatures. Genocide against good is evil, genocide against neutral is evil, genocide against evil is . . . good? at worst neutral?

The above example makes perfect sense in the black and white world of, they are goblins and therefor evil, I am a cleric of Pelor and good, therefore killing them all down to the women and children is in service to good. Easy. Faced with a specific example of a goblin woman and child after raiding a goblin village - what does the cleric do? Kill defenseless goblins? But they must be evil simply by virtue of being goblins. This is introducing shades of grey to a situation which in the abstract is black and white. If shades of grey are going to be introduced, then the potential enters for the goblins to not all be evil. They can be neutral and still out for themselves first. Killing neutral creatures isn't evil, it is done all the time for random encounters . . unless it is done by an evil creature. Then the killing is evil, sometimes. Another quick example, commoners are neutral - but killing them is evil. Animals are neutral, but killing them is fine. Good killing evil is good, but evil killing evil is still evil.

I'm going to stop here before I confuse myself, hehe. I guess my point is, the alignment system allows for otherwise evil acts to be committed against perceived evil in the name of good to not be evil. This indicates that the act itself is neither good or evil, meaning intent matters. It also makes for a confusing set of absolutes which shift position depending on who is performing the action.

If anything above is confusing, I apologize since I am at work and it has been a long day. I would be happy to clarify anything I've said. ./end rant
StSteven
07-27-07, 05:26 PM An evil act is evil no matter who performs it. In the core, not all goblins or all gnolls are evil. Commoners are not all neutral. Genocide is evil unless it is against a race that is 'always evil.'

As far as the plant goes, I don't think that not acting is a reason to shift alignment unless they do it all the time.
Zarron
07-27-07, 05:33 PM They have to care for all sentient beings, whether that sentient creature is evil or not.

Certainly a one time thing isn't going to hit their alignment, but if they conveniently forget about being good when it inconveniences them or would challenge their preconceived notions of a certain quality of a creature, say, it being a gnoll -- they would certainly start shifting towards neutral.
LCD2YOU
07-27-07, 05:37 PM Which is the subject of endless threads on alignment.

I break it down like this:

What is the intent behind the action?

Good killing evil for personal gain is not good, it is an evil act.

Evil killing good for self defense is not evil it is a neutral act.

Good watching evil die is not good nor evil, it is a neutral act. If a LG Paladin watches evil feed upon other evil, he is in no way required to help the evil being who is getting eaten. However, any Paladin who has higher than room temperature IQ should know that gaining an ally who knows what's going on is a GOOD thing to do. Now trusting this new found "friend" even though you saved their life could be a very foolish thing to do as well.

So look at the players themselves. If one says, half heartedly, "Oh well, I tried, now how much loot is in there!?!", they aren't trying and I doubt if there is anything GOOD about their decision making. Then again, if a player of a LG character, even a Paladin, ponders over and over again about an action that ended in the death of an innocent, they are in no way responsible. That was a mistake, not a deliberate action.

Again, if the player continues to make "dumb decisions" I will start looking deeper into how they are playing and what their actions, the players, really are saying about "intent".
Marcus Majarra
07-27-07, 06:11 PM What does it say about them if they let the plant have the gnoll, knowing he will die nastily?
It says they have no inclinations towards saving a creature from a demon plant. While you'd normally expect this kind of behavior from neutral or evil characters, letting someone die is not an act. In fact, it's not acting at all. Even a good creature, fearful of either the gnoll or the plant, could make this choice and have no alignment issues, simply because he's not taking any actions.

Whether the person is good or evil, I have always felt that if one considers murder to be absolutely wrong, then allowing an evil person to be murdered is not 'good'.
That's just it. Allowing for someone to be murdered is not an action. While it's obvious that murder is evil and saving a life is good, not doing anything falls under no alignment compass simply because it's not actually acting.

I guess the real question is, do the players suffer alignment consequences for allowing a creature, who personally has never done anything wrong to the party or that the party is aware of, but who is of an 'evil' race, to die when they could prevent it?
No, they do not. They're not actually allowing the creature to die; they're simply not involving themselves. Will good creatures cease being good because they allow the homeless on the streets to slowly starve to death by not giving them any money? Of course not.

Keep in mind that alignment is a matter of acting. Saving the gnoll would be a good act, but not doing anything is not an act at all and carries no alignment consequences.
queenfange
07-27-07, 07:29 PM No, they do not. They're not actually allowing the creature to die; they're simply not involving themselves. Will good creatures cease being good because they allow the homeless on the streets to slowly starve to death by not giving them any money? Of course not.

Keep in mind that alignment is a matter of acting. Saving the gnoll would be a good act, but not doing anything is not an act at all and carries no alignment consequences.

To be Devil's Advocate, lack of action is still making a choice, even if you choose to be passive. If you watch as someone is being killed, and do nothing about it, is none of their blood on your hands? Good is going above and beyond, it is not just being passive, it is actively fighting against the bad, the unjust, and the evil. A paladin watching calmly as goblins destroy a village? Cleric of Pelor not getting involed in a trial where an innocent person is being unjustly found guilty, because getting involved might bring the wrath of the corrupt magistrate? It doesn't fit.
calronmoonflower
07-28-07, 02:24 PM It is neutral. Letting a creature die on its own is neither good nor evil.

This behavior is something that I would expect from a true neutral character, but as one act alone doesn't change alignment this shouldn't really shouldn't affect anyones alignment unless they keep it up.
syrinth
07-28-07, 04:57 PM I would say it's an evil action but not worthy of an alignment shift.
Dragonsblood
07-28-07, 05:32 PM Saving the gnoll would be good. Letting the gnoll die because they want to avoid the dangerous plant creature is neutral. Enjoying the show would be evil unless they believe the gnoll to be beyond redemption, but still not worthy of an alignment shift.
Sroblin
07-28-07, 09:22 PM Well, unless the OP believes the the 'good' alignments written on their character sheets will make them want to intervene, I suspect the more relevant question is how the players will react for the purpose of the DnD scenario. This will reflect in part their personalities as people, as well as how they perceive their characters would react. I dont think telling them that because they're 'good' they have to react in a particular way is really appropriate.

If you really wanted to drive the point home that it was a good act, however, you could have the gnoll beg for the PCs to save him while the plant is eating him. This would establish that gnoll won't attack them if they rescue him, and furthermore casts the 'goodness' of such an action in a more compelling and certain light. This I think is the best you can do if you really want to encourage the PCs to intervene and consider the 'humanity' of the gnoll.

I think that while saving the Gnoll would be a 'good' and merciful act, I think it would be perfectly understandable for 'good' people not do so. If the plant is very dangerous, a good party could even decide they couldn't afford to save even other 'good' creatures if the risk of death was too great. The fact that gnolls are generally presented as evil and harmful to others would generally make the merciful intervention of PCs less likely; honestly, how many 'good' people would risk their lives to save something that they would normally expect to kill under most circumstances.

Imagine perfectly 'good' soldiers facing a wounded enemy soldier from a hated enemy nation stuck in a minefield: while it would be 'good' for them to risk their lives to save him, (and he may be perfectly good individual, regardless of his background), you normally wouldn't expect them to, nor call them evil for not doing so. (Many would call that 'rational'.)
Elwyn_Sylveran
07-29-07, 01:03 AM would you expect them to stop a gnoll from eating a plant?

everything has to eat, and it isn't the PCs' jobs to be weight-watchers

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Miakoda 07-27-07, 01:07 PM	I've got a thought- party walks in on a demon plant pulling a gnoll toward it to be dinner. Last time they fought gnolls they were slavers so I assume they will think said gnoll is evil by virtue of being a gnoll. My question relates to the fact that they are all good except one, one lawful and the other two chaotic. What does it say about them if they let the plant have the gnoll, knowing he will die nastily? Whether the person is good or evil, I have always felt that if one considers murder to be absolutely wrong, then allowing an evil person to be murdered is not 'good'. Same with a race, generally considered to be evil - genocide of an 'evil' race seems to be fine in DND terms for a good person, but genocide of a 'good' race is evil. I guess the real question is, do the players suffer alignment consequences for allowing a creature, who personally has never done anything wrong to the party or that the party is aware of, but who is of an 'evil' race, to die when they could prevent it? Does the answer change taking into account that said death will not be an easy one? I have always felt that alignments do not define the character as much as the player's interpretation of said alignment, but actions outside of those guidelines should have consequences too.
Anomen 07-27-07, 01:51 PM	If they killed an evil aligned creature it would not effect their alignment, so it would not effect it to let them die. As for the good gnoll, they don't know that its' good so that would not effect their alignment either.
queenfange 07-27-07, 01:59 PM	I'd say what they did is a neutral act. Gnolls are assumed (correctly for the most part) to be evil, so their death is not necessarily an evil act. On the other hand, there was no evidence other than his race that this particular gnoll was evil nor had he attempted to harm the party. As the PCs neither actively contributed to his demise nor actively attempted to save him, I would classify it as a purely neutral act. I don't think you should force the PCs to change to neutral from this, but if they regularly act similarly, then you should discuss the good/neutral divide with them. I disagree that allowing a gnoll to die does not affect alignment at all, however. It is not a good act to allow the death of anyone unless they are unquestionably evil (such as a devil, who is without a doubt LE) or acted in a manner that strongly suggests active evil, such as a murder suspect against who their is much evidence or a band of raiders who attack them while the PCs are setting up camp.
Lazigothi 07-27-07, 02:06 PM	The decision depends on your definition of alignment for your campaign and then informing your players. They should know how their reactions to this situation will affect them. They should not be surprised when they think they were responding correctly only to be punished by their DM. Is it evil for the plant to feed? A lot of lifeforms cause pain when they feed, something most need to do in order to survive. You suggest that in this case, since the prey is sentient (where the prey's alignment is inconsequential), that it's an evil act. Would you consider it an evil act if the plant were eating something else, like a deer or rabbit? Are these types of plants so despicable that they classify as a hated enemy (i.e. are "they" sentient)? What is your reason for presenting this encounter/ how does this add to the adventure? I think if it's just to present an alignment problem, the scenario is moot with clear communication about alignment with the players. Would you have thrown in this encounter otherwise? What else could the party gain from it?
metalmayhem80110 07-27-07, 02:22 PM	Gnolls are usually concidered evil so letting one die isn't going to touch their alignment. You can't lok at killing as something to go against alignment, I mean look at paladin. Even in Real Life pallys would go on religious crusades to kill those that arn't worthy, and I think that is more "evil" than watching a creature concidered evil dieing.
ccerose 07-27-07, 02:29 PM	I don't think what you've described constitutes an alignment shift. If the PCs believe that, in your world, all gnolls are evil, then who cares. The only one who might act is the lawful good character. Failure to act though, wouldn't be enough to warrant a change in alignment. If you have a campaign setting where there are such things as good gnolls and evil gold dragons, then they should at least make some attempt to assist until they have good reason to think the creature is evil. Despite this, the PCs not acting to help should not affect their alignments.
Miakoda 07-27-07, 04:14 PM	The alignment system has always been frustrating for me because it simultaneously gives breaks to good people while holding them to a higher standard. The whole system seems like a black and white world forced to conceive of shades of grey that do not sit well with the extremes. After all chaotic neutral person is seen to put themselves first above everyone else. Neutral evil is also defined as out for themself first. An example is genocide. Genocide is wanting to wipe a race from the face of the world. That concept is knee-jerk evil right? Well it is, unless you are talking about a good character that wants to wipe goblins out, kill them all because they are all evil creatures. Genocide against good is evil, genocide against neutral is evil, genocide against evil is . . . good? at worst neutral? The above example makes perfect sense in the black and white world of, they are goblins and therefor evil, I am a cleric of Pelor and good, therefore killing them all down to the women and children is in service to good. Easy. Faced with a specific example of a goblin woman and child after raiding a goblin village - what does the cleric do? Kill defenseless goblins? But they must be evil simply by virtue of being goblins. This is introducing shades of grey to a situation which in the abstract is black and white. If shades of grey are going to be introduced, then the potential enters for the goblins to not all be evil. They can be neutral and still out for themselves first. Killing neutral creatures isn't evil, it is done all the time for random encounters . . unless it is done by an evil creature. Then the killing is evil, sometimes. Another quick example, commoners are neutral - but killing them is evil. Animals are neutral, but killing them is fine. Good killing evil is good, but evil killing evil is still evil. I'm going to stop here before I confuse myself, hehe. I guess my point is, the alignment system allows for otherwise evil acts to be committed against perceived evil in the name of good to not be evil. This indicates that the act itself is neither good or evil, meaning intent matters. It also makes for a confusing set of absolutes which shift position depending on who is performing the action. If anything above is confusing, I apologize since I am at work and it has been a long day. I would be happy to clarify anything I've said. ./end rant
StSteven 07-27-07, 05:26 PM	An evil act is evil no matter who performs it. In the core, not all goblins or all gnolls are evil. Commoners are not all neutral. Genocide is evil unless it is against a race that is 'always evil.' As far as the plant goes, I don't think that not acting is a reason to shift alignment unless they do it all the time.
Zarron 07-27-07, 05:33 PM	They have to care for all sentient beings, whether that sentient creature is evil or not. Certainly a one time thing isn't going to hit their alignment, but if they conveniently forget about being good when it inconveniences them or would challenge their preconceived notions of a certain quality of a creature, say, it being a gnoll -- they would certainly start shifting towards neutral.
LCD2YOU 07-27-07, 05:37 PM	Which is the subject of endless threads on alignment. I break it down like this: What is the intent behind the action? Good killing evil for personal gain is not good, it is an evil act. Evil killing good for self defense is not evil it is a neutral act. Good watching evil die is not good nor evil, it is a neutral act. If a LG Paladin watches evil feed upon other evil, he is in no way required to help the evil being who is getting eaten. However, any Paladin who has higher than room temperature IQ should know that gaining an ally who knows what's going on is a GOOD thing to do. Now trusting this new found "friend" even though you saved their life could be a very foolish thing to do as well. So look at the players themselves. If one says, half heartedly, "Oh well, I tried, now how much loot is in there!?!", they aren't trying and I doubt if there is anything GOOD about their decision making. Then again, if a player of a LG character, even a Paladin, ponders over and over again about an action that ended in the death of an innocent, they are in no way responsible. That was a mistake, not a deliberate action. Again, if the player continues to make "dumb decisions" I will start looking deeper into how they are playing and what their actions, the players, really are saying about "intent".
Marcus Majarra 07-27-07, 06:11 PM	What does it say about them if they let the plant have the gnoll, knowing he will die nastily? It says they have no inclinations towards saving a creature from a demon plant. While you'd normally expect this kind of behavior from neutral or evil characters, letting someone die is not an act. In fact, it's not acting at all. Even a good creature, fearful of either the gnoll or the plant, could make this choice and have no alignment issues, simply because he's not taking any actions. Whether the person is good or evil, I have always felt that if one considers murder to be absolutely wrong, then allowing an evil person to be murdered is not 'good'. That's just it. Allowing for someone to be murdered is not an action. While it's obvious that murder is evil and saving a life is good, not doing anything falls under no alignment compass simply because it's not actually acting. I guess the real question is, do the players suffer alignment consequences for allowing a creature, who personally has never done anything wrong to the party or that the party is aware of, but who is of an 'evil' race, to die when they could prevent it? No, they do not. They're not actually allowing the creature to die; they're simply not involving themselves. Will good creatures cease being good because they allow the homeless on the streets to slowly starve to death by not giving them any money? Of course not. Keep in mind that alignment is a matter of acting. Saving the gnoll would be a good act, but not doing anything is not an act at all and carries no alignment consequences.
queenfange 07-27-07, 07:29 PM	No, they do not. They're not actually allowing the creature to die; they're simply not involving themselves. Will good creatures cease being good because they allow the homeless on the streets to slowly starve to death by not giving them any money? Of course not. Keep in mind that alignment is a matter of acting. Saving the gnoll would be a good act, but not doing anything is not an act at all and carries no alignment consequences. To be Devil's Advocate, lack of action is still making a choice, even if you choose to be passive. If you watch as someone is being killed, and do nothing about it, is none of their blood on your hands? Good is going above and beyond, it is not just being passive, it is actively fighting against the bad, the unjust, and the evil. A paladin watching calmly as goblins destroy a village? Cleric of Pelor not getting involed in a trial where an innocent person is being unjustly found guilty, because getting involved might bring the wrath of the corrupt magistrate? It doesn't fit.
calronmoonflower 07-28-07, 02:24 PM	It is neutral. Letting a creature die on its own is neither good nor evil. This behavior is something that I would expect from a true neutral character, but as one act alone doesn't change alignment this shouldn't really shouldn't affect anyones alignment unless they keep it up.
syrinth 07-28-07, 04:57 PM	I would say it's an evil action but not worthy of an alignment shift.
Dragonsblood 07-28-07, 05:32 PM	Saving the gnoll would be good. Letting the gnoll die because they want to avoid the dangerous plant creature is neutral. Enjoying the show would be evil unless they believe the gnoll to be beyond redemption, but still not worthy of an alignment shift.
Sroblin 07-28-07, 09:22 PM	Well, unless the OP believes the the 'good' alignments written on their character sheets will make them want to intervene, I suspect the more relevant question is how the players will react for the purpose of the DnD scenario. This will reflect in part their personalities as people, as well as how they perceive their characters would react. I dont think telling them that because they're 'good' they have to react in a particular way is really appropriate. If you really wanted to drive the point home that it was a good act, however, you could have the gnoll beg for the PCs to save him while the plant is eating him. This would establish that gnoll won't attack them if they rescue him, and furthermore casts the 'goodness' of such an action in a more compelling and certain light. This I think is the best you can do if you really want to encourage the PCs to intervene and consider the 'humanity' of the gnoll. I think that while saving the Gnoll would be a 'good' and merciful act, I think it would be perfectly understandable for 'good' people not do so. If the plant is very dangerous, a good party could even decide they couldn't afford to save even other 'good' creatures if the risk of death was too great. The fact that gnolls are generally presented as evil and harmful to others would generally make the merciful intervention of PCs less likely; honestly, how many 'good' people would risk their lives to save something that they would normally expect to kill under most circumstances. Imagine perfectly 'good' soldiers facing a wounded enemy soldier from a hated enemy nation stuck in a minefield: while it would be 'good' for them to risk their lives to save him, (and he may be perfectly good individual, regardless of his background), you normally wouldn't expect them to, nor call them evil for not doing so. (Many would call that 'rational'.)
Elwyn_Sylveran 07-29-07, 01:03 AM	would you expect them to stop a gnoll from eating a plant? everything has to eat, and it isn't the PCs' jobs to be weight-watchers