Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Beeker 03-01-05, 03:25 PM	To begin, let me first apologize for yet ANOTHER Alignment question. I have read through some of the threads on here, and tried to use the search feature but there is something on this system that is causing all these run faults on my computer (I am at a work computer so I can't change any settings). Secondly, I realize that I will be quickly met with 'It's your world, your word goes'. I know this, but I am coming to my peers for backup and help in this. Cast: Cleric of Lathandar (Forgotten Realms). Human Warlock (from Complete Arcane). Half-Orc Fighter. Elf Psion. Human Fighter. ALL Chaotic Good. The story: Group has been hired on to protect a caravan. The scene: Brigands appear from midair around the caravan, and demand the posessions. Party attacks. The fight, in a word, is a trounce. It was designed to be an easy encounter, and within three rounds three survivors are running for their lives, and the leader kneels and surrenders. You see it coming. The Warlock blasts him anyway. The cleric smacks him with his mace, but for subdual damage. The human fighter lays into the surrendered brigand leader. The leader does not die, thanks to the small amount of subdual he took, and the party goes on to turn him into the authorities, interrogate him, etc etc. My question is: Is it evil to absolutely whollop a person who has surendered? He threw down his weapons, kneeled, and lowered his head, and two of the party members did not stop their attack. They claim that once combat is initiated, there is no stopping. I feel that if someone surrenders, they are entitled to that. Does this fall more under the chaotic/lawful aspect, or the good/evil? I could go either way, and no punishments have been doled out or anything, its just an interesting question we are wrestling with at our table. Any help you could give would be appreciated :)
clarkvalentine 03-01-05, 03:41 PM	This seems more chaotic than evil, but that's me. Don't dole out punishements, no matter what. Instead, if this sort of piling on continues, adjust alignments and have the world itself respond appropriately (the PCs earn reputations for cruelty, or something like that).
pres_man 03-01-05, 03:57 PM	Law/Chaos: chaotic people do not feel compeled to obey the "rules" of war. Therefore they do not perhaps have to offer quarter or give any. Good/Evil: good people have a respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. The question is then were they more chaotic then they were non-good. The obviously were not acting good (not respecting life), yet they were probably acting chaotic by not bowing to the expectations of "proper" warfare. Assuming this game is not meant as a hack-and-slash (no deep moral dilemnas): My view is that they acted evilly, or at least psychopathicly, since most people aren't going to kill people if they can avoid it. The cleric did a pretty good job by knocking them unconscious, this saved the guys life. Personally, how I would have handled it, before their actions went off. I would ask them, "Do you feel it is good to kill a defenseless person who is at your mercy, who you could capture and take prisoner?" If they thought it was fine I would then say to the fighter, "Do you think it is 'brave' to attack a defenseless person? Or is that the act of a coward?" Edit: It should be noted that my personal opinion is that Good/Evil is the ends and Law/Chaos is the means in most cases. Therefore I rule more based on was something Good/Evil, then was it Law/Chaos (except in the cases where it would matter for a specific class of character).
Arrowhen 03-01-05, 04:01 PM	"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." What they did may not have been nice, but it certainly wasn't evil.
pres_man 03-01-05, 04:08 PM	protecting innocents = good not respecting life = non-good (maybe neutral or maybe evil) The 2 of the PCs did not respect life (they attempted to kill a person when they could have taken the person prisoner without any danger to themselves), therefore they were acting non-good. Were they acting evil? That is up to the DM to decide, though just from basic psychology anyone that is willing to kill someone when it is not necessary probably has some screws loose.
TinManFan 03-01-05, 04:10 PM	If he were a Pally or a cleric of an uptight god of proper war or something like that, I'd say atonement. However, he ain't so let him go. However, you should talk out of game and say, according to your perceptions of allignment, that was an Evil act. (BoED, when someone surrenders, you show mercy, when ya don't, yer just as bad as the bad guy). Also, next time he surrenders, blast him, and shout "YEAH! HOW YOU LIKE IT NOW?!", then sit down and calmly continue.
orionm42 03-01-05, 04:17 PM	It was designed to be an easy encounter... If it was designed to be an easy encounter, what was the purpose of having one of the attackers surrender? Does it somehow fit into your plotline? If it is not required for plot purposes, why do it? Why not simply have the character retreat with the others? :confused:
Nukacola 03-01-05, 04:21 PM	I like to run a happy medium between PHB and BoED good, and i'd say that attacking someone that obviously surrendered, threw down their arms, and knelt is definetly NOT good, and probably evil. That's the kind of stuff that the bad guys do. Using the excuse "well we're in combat/we rolled initiative, we can't stop" borders on metagaming, because their characters have no concept of the initiative game mechanic, and a character can stop fighting in combat at any time by just not taking any action when their turn comes up. I guess whether it's good or evil in your game depends on if you use PHB "diet good/hack-n-slash good" or the more mature, serious style of good described in BoED. BoED makes this clearly evil, as TinManFan pointed out.
fdnickerson 03-01-05, 04:27 PM	Does this fall more under the chaotic/lawful aspect, or the good/evil? I could go either way, and no punishments have been doled out or anything, its just an interesting question we are wrestling with at our table. Any help you could give would be appreciated :) I think one reason people have so many problems with the whole alignment issue is that they think of the two arcs (law/chaos) and (good/evil) as separate issues. They can't be considered separately because they're a continuum. It doesn't make sense to say, "That action wasn't evil, it was merely chaotic." Every action a character takes will rest somewhere on the alignment axis for both chaos/law and good/evil. Actions aren't just chaotic, they're chaotic good, chaotic neutral or chaotic evil. In the case presented the person's actions aren't just chaotic, they aren't just evil, they're both at once.
MrkGrismer 03-01-05, 04:48 PM	The scene: Brigands appear from midair around the caravan, and demand the posessions. Assuming that this demand is under the thread of death if refused, the Brigands are not innocents, even if they later surrender. The Good thing to do would be to accept the surrender. The Lawful Good thing would be to accept the surrender and take the brigands to the authorties. The Chaotic Good thing would be to accept the surrender, knock the guy out and leave him for the fates to decide. Finishing the guy off would probably be neutral, it isn't really evil because the guy isn't innocent and he is counting on the mercy of the characters to avoid his well-deserved death. I would make note of the action and start the good characters on their journey towards neutrality. (I hope the guy that surrendered had a pretty low wisdom...)
fdnickerson 03-01-05, 08:18 PM	Finishing the guy off would probably be neutral, it isn't really evil because the guy isn't innocent and he is counting on the mercy of the characters to avoid his well-deserved death. I would make note of the action and start the good characters on their journey towards neutrality. I disagree. I know it isn't exactly kosher to use real world examples to make a point about a D&D campaign, but if a person did that in real life they'd be charged with 2nd degree murder. Combat was clearly over. There's no way the killing of an unarmed noncombatant is a neutral act. It doesn't matter if the guy was evil. You can't justifiably kill people for being evil. You can only do it to stop them from doing evil. Otherwise you'd have paladins detecting evil every time they walked into a pub and murdering 1/5 of the clientele. I don't know what the laws are in whatever part of Faerun your guys are playing, but even if they do prescribe the death penalty for what is essentially armed robbery, I doubt the local rulers will be happy with your guys for carrying it out on their own. I do howerver agree with the part about starting the characters on the path to neutrality. However, if they keep this up neutrality will just be a bump on the road on the way to full-on evilhood.
allenchan 03-01-05, 08:41 PM	Purge their wicked taint from the mortal world. Cleanse the darkness that festers in their sinful, greedy souls. Brigands are cancer. They feed and manipulate the weak. They breed insurgance and vile lies through just and honorable societies. Do not trust their attempts at diplomacy. Retribution must be swift and sure, for to waver now is to kneel before darkness. May their blood sate the appetite for destruction, and may the glorious gods of the sun allow their warped spirits a chance of redemption in the afterlife. ...whoops, that was the LG paladin in me coming out :D
Vatras 03-01-05, 08:55 PM	Here you go: The problem is a moral one, good vs evil. You can read it up in the Book od Exalted Deeds in the first chapter, how this is seen in game context. First and foremost, bandits, brigands, marodeurs and other kinds of criminals, who got caught in their misdeeds in the dark ages, were unceremoniously hanged on the next tree. That was a necessity to protect the society from them so that it could survive. The Law and its executives were few and far away, so there was usually no recourse. From that point of view it is understandable why they killed the bandits, may they have thrown away their weapons or not. Coming to the tricky point of alignment, I turn to the BoED. On page 7 is discussed the quality of mercy and evildoers who surrender. A good character should accept the surrender and spare his life (at least now, he can still hand the prisoner over to the authorities for a hanging...the law is the law, and was made to protect society, not the criminals standing outside of it). They also mention that you cannot expect such behavior from players who get always - or very often - betrayed or attacked by the ones they showed mercy. Now the BoED lays down the standards for exalted characters, the epitome of goodness. Unless one of my good-aligned players has one of the classes therein or exalted feats (to qualify for them you have to be said epitome, pg. 39) I dont expect them to adhere to this standard all the time, though. I had the same problem a short time ago. The CG half-orc barbarian, raised in the beliefs of his people (drow are the epitome of evil, shoot on sight) wanted to kill the defeated drow by giving them the cut of mercy, while the LG fighter wanted to take them prisoner to hammer out an agreement later. Both had a valid reason for what they wanted to do. So I let them fight it out (with words) among themselves. Even if the half-orc is CG, it is common knowledge that drow are evil, and it was also clear that those drow had been up to no good. He knew also from past encounters that drow following Lolth are untrustworthy and vengeful. The fighter on the other hand wanted to give it another try and see, if some kind of agreement between drow and surface could be brought about, therefore acting not only in character as also in alignment. I would be hardpressed to punish the one for being in character, even if he didnt act absolutely good. I dont agree with the notion that a CG would knock out the brigand and leave him to the fates. Chaotic means he is an egocentric, and I myself would make sure, that a defeated criminal doesnt get a chance to take revenge on me later. I would probably make sure at the next tree without waiting for a jury to condemn him, like vigilantes did in earlier times - a lawful guy on the other hand would follow procedures and deliver him to the authorities without taking the law into his own hand. Arrowhen has put it much better than I could, regarding the situation at hand :)
Super Guy 03-01-05, 09:41 PM	Um... yeah, I don't penalize alignments very often, and I wouldn't penalize them, but I'd give them all a warning. If there was a paladin in the party, he is required to accept the surrender, I'm fairly sure. So I'd tell him to seek atonement. Overall, I think the Warlock and Fighter were really acting non-good. Which isn't to say evil, just non-good. It was chaotic to not follow the rules of war, but more importantly, it was non-good to try to kill a defenseless. Now, if he were going to stand back up and attack and you knew it, it wouldn't be non-good. But, because they figured he gave up and was defenseless, he is no longer a threat and they are acting out of malice, which is non-good.
Andrew_980 03-01-05, 09:56 PM	Never, i repeat never look up morality in the BoED because if you do you will realize that any PC that leaves his home is evil by that horrid books pathetic reasoning. think for yourself. that book is the worst turd ever put to paper
aaron3579 03-01-05, 10:03 PM	I agree with above the sentiment, even if I don't agree with the logic behind it. :pint:
pres_man 03-01-05, 10:21 PM	Here is my opinion for chaotic good characters who are not going to accept a surrender. Tell the guy that you won't accept it. NPC: (throws down weapon) I surrender. Fighter: You had better pick up your weapon because we don't give quarter. NPC: What are you going to do, murder me? Fighter: Nope, we are going to hold an informal jury trial. I vote guilty. Party: Guilty! Fighter: There you go, you've been tried. Now it's time for the punishment. :fight!: :mage: NPC: Crud! (grabs weapon) fight continues The players and the DM should decide whether accepting a surrender is common practice for good people. If it is then a CG person will honor it. Notice that if it is not then each encounter has to be to the death (or until the unconscious to be killed later). This really weakens the roleplaying aspects IMO. Vatras: I don't think chaotic means egocentric, I always thought it meant more of freedom-centric. CGs would still sacrifice themselves for others, something an egocentric I don't think would. I had a CG turn on a party member because they wanted to kill a prisoner. My character knew that was wrong and he didn't give a flying hippogriff who you were. He had loyality to good, everything else was secondary.
Ekranoplan 03-01-05, 10:24 PM	I disagree. I know it isn't exactly kosher to use real world examples to make a point about a D&D campaign, but if a person did that in real life they'd be charged with 2nd degree murder. Combat was clearly over. There's no way the killing of an unarmed noncombatant is a neutral act. It doesn't matter if the guy was evil. You can't justifiably kill people for being evil. You can only do it to stop them from doing evil. Otherwise you'd have paladins detecting evil every time they walked into a pub and murdering 1/5 of the clientele. I don't know what the laws are in whatever part of Faerun your guys are playing, but even if they do prescribe the death penalty for what is essentially armed robbery, I doubt the local rulers will be happy with your guys for carrying it out on their own. I do howerver agree with the part about starting the characters on the path to neutrality. However, if they keep this up neutrality will just be a bump on the road on the way to full-on evilhood. I have minor side-comment that should be considered when talking of alignment. Just because a local area has a law, or lack there of, does not change what is good and evil in the continuum of alignment .It may not be against the law to dismember all the evil people in that pub, but it certainly is evil.
MrkGrismer 03-01-05, 10:38 PM	I disagree. I know it isn't exactly kosher to use real world examples to make a point about a D&D campaign, but if a person did that in real life they'd be charged with 2nd degree murder. And that is why one should not use modern day examples. If you were mugged in present day society and you defened yourself you might be charged with murder or manslaughter if you killed the mugger, but you would have self-defense on your side as a defense. If the guy surrendered part way thru the beating and you continued (and it was witnessed) then the self defense would be shaky (but still possible, juries being what they are). However this is because we live in a society were the law is never far away and it is reasonable to bring such a person to justice. In the type of society that is D&D there is no such luxury. To show mercy is good, or exalted, but it is not required to avoid doing evil. The Brigand is a brigand, and the penalty for such in most midevil societies was death. A nobel (and especially a knight) was expected to dispense the penalty on the spot. Combat was clearly over. I think sometimes we get a little too detached when we conduct these combats as a turn-by-turn game. These characters are in a struggle for their very lives. Just because "combat was clearly over" doesn't mean the participants are suddenly neutral towards each other, and suck it up with a "Tut, tut, good fight man. How about some tea and biscuits? Maybe some cricket later?" There's no way the killing of an unarmed noncombatant is a neutral act. Not a noncombatant. Brigand, remember? Extorting money with the threat of murder and violence remember? It doesn't matter if the guy was evil. You can't justifiably kill people for being evil. You can in D&D. Nasty Demons and Devils. Can't be sufferred to live. But if you are talking about non-always-evil creatures. I agree. But you can justifiably kill people in self defense or the defense of others. Dropping your sword and yelling "I surrender" when you reach 5 hit points is a big gamble. You can only do it to stop them from doing evil. Otherwise you'd have paladins detecting evil every time they walked into a pub and murdering 1/5 of the clientele. I don't know what the laws are in whatever part of Faerun your guys are playing, but even if they do prescribe the death penalty for what is essentially armed robbery, I doubt the local rulers will be happy with your guys for carrying it out on their own. It seems the local rulers would be very happy about it. Less brigands accosting travellers. Remember D&D assumes a certain amount of vigilantism, else adventurers would be constantly hunted. I do howerver agree with the part about starting the characters on the path to neutrality. However, if they keep this up neutrality will just be a bump on the road on the way to full-on evilhood. They did wind up taking the guy to the authorities.
LordHell 03-01-05, 10:51 PM	Based on the circumstances, the act was either Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil. I am leaning towards Chaotic Neutral. The reason being is that Chaotic characters, even Chaotic good characters, really don't have any faith in the law and are quite willing to take justice into their own hands. These characters could have quite possibly believed they were doing good by killing a bandit. Now the reason I lean towards Chaotic evil is because the Bandit was a bit of a pushover, there was plenty of manpower around to deal with him afterwards, and it is possible that the guy could be under some hardship and forced into banditry by a cruel ruler (in this case, a Chaotic good character might even let him go). However if these guys were way out in the dangerous countryside on a REALLY important quest and the found this guy raping a young girl, I could definately see Chaotic Good characters killing him right then and there. Lawful Good characters might even be inclined to give him a 'fair trial' on the spot and listening to everyones story before giving him an execution. Also, you should never punish characters for acting out of alignment. You should take note of any actions they do that seem to contradict their alignment and when it is clear they are doing more actions outside their alignment they should begin to change. You don't even have to tell them directly that they've changed alignment but factor it in to your roleplaying, however with characters that rely on certian alignments for class abilities (paladin, etc) i'd give them plenty of subtle warning their alignment is changing (You wake up today with a foul temper, feeling somewhat detached from your god Tyr).
fdnickerson 03-02-05, 12:41 PM	In reply to MrkGrismer, I don't disagree with most of what you said. We can both agree that the act was nongood. What we appear to disagree on is just exactly how non-good it was. However, I disagree with your statement about combat. When combat ends, combat ends. Killing an unarmed person is murder and murder is evil. I'm not saying they should have tea and crumpets afterwards, but there's a fairly wide spectrum of possible actions that fall between killing the helpless and inviting them back to your house for cake and pie. Note, I'm not saying that the characters are evil. I'm just saying the action is. In my understanding of alignment it is very hard to perform an action that is morally neutral . People can be neutral if their actions are just about equally divided between good and evil, but actions are usually either good or they are evil. Performing a neutral act is about as likely as flipping a coin and having it land on its side.
MrkGrismer 03-02-05, 01:33 PM	In reply to MrkGrismer, I don't disagree with most of what you said. We can both agree that the act was nongood. What we appear to disagree on is just exactly how non-good it was. However, I disagree with your statement about combat. When combat ends, combat ends. Killing an unarmed person is murder and murder is evil. I'm not saying they should have tea and crumpets afterwards, but there's a fairly wide spectrum of possible actions that fall between killing the helpless and inviting them back to your house for cake and pie. This attitude is unrealistic. If good people are expected to behave that way then good people would soon cease to exist as evil people could simply drop their weapon and say, "I surrender" when battle is going poorly. Since the same would not hold true for good people, the good people would keep dying while the evil people continued to live. Note, I'm not saying that the characters are evil. I'm just saying the action is. In my understanding of alignment it is very hard to perform an action that is morally neutral . People can be neutral if their actions are just about equally divided between good and evil, but actions are usually either good or they are evil. Performing a neutral act is about as likely as flipping a coin and having it land on its side. That is how earlier versions of D&D treated neutrality. Now, in 3.5, neutrality is a lack of commitment towards either good or evil (or law or chaos on the other axis). A character that continually chose to do nothing, or who never furthered a cause would sooner or later wind up being neutral.
fdnickerson 03-02-05, 02:01 PM	This attitude is unrealistic. If good people are expected to behave that way then good people would soon cease to exist as evil people could simply drop their weapon and say, "I surrender" when battle is going poorly. Since the same would not hold true for good people, the good people would keep dying while the evil people continued to live. Two points. One. Good people are hindered by a moral code that evil people lack. Two. I never said they have to behave this way. I only said that behaving this was is an evil action. Sometimes good/neutral people do bad things for good reasons. But the actions themselves are still evil.
MrkGrismer 03-02-05, 02:16 PM	I disagree with it being an evil action. The guy was just trying to kill you, just because he says he surrenders doesn't change a thing. The only thing that probably changed is that he doesn't think he can win. It is different if it is something like a unit in a war or something, but when it is somebody that sets out to do evil murder (or extortion based on the promise of murder) then failing to accept the (most likely insincere) surrender is not evil. Accepting it could be good, but generally I consider self-defense to be neutral, and the defense of others to be good.
fdnickerson 03-02-05, 02:24 PM	I disagree with it being an evil action. The guy was just trying to kill you, just because he says he surrenders doesn't change a thing. The only thing that probably changed is that he doesn't think he can win. It is different if it is something like a unit in a war or something, but when it is somebody that sets out to do evil murder (or extortion based on the promise of murder) then failing to accept the (most likely insincere) surrender is not evil. Accepting it could be good, but generally I consider self-defense to be neutral, and the defense of others to be good. I don't entirely disagree with your point of view. I see my objection more as a matter of degree than one of kind. However, after the guy surrenders it is no longer self defense. The guy was never much of a threat to the pc to begin with and he is even less of one now that he has been disarmed. I understand where your argument is coming from, I just think you underestimate the amount of cold bloodedness it takes to deliberately kill a defeated foe.
pres_man 03-02-05, 03:40 PM	A small child gets angry at you and picks up a knife and charges you, do you a. disarm the child and try to calm them down. b. kill the child out right and claim self-defense. c. disarm the child and then kill them, still claiming self-defense. If you choose (a) but still believe that it was ok to try to kill a person who had surrendered, please explain how the two situations are fundamentally different. Both involve someone trying to do you harm. Both appear to be not overly dangerous.
LordHell 03-02-05, 03:50 PM	It all depends on the circumstances, but using the 'Child' arguement is a bit extreme. An armed bandit is a lot different to a child. An armed bandit in general can make rational decisions, a child under the age of 12 cannot make rational decisions because they have difficulty distingushing between reality and fact. Anyway, in the above example given I would think the action borderlines on evil because there clearly wasn't any nessesary reason to kill the bandit. They had a whole caravan of guards who could detain the prisoners and he wasn't much of a threat anymore. However if this was in the middle of a war zone (ongoing battle) then the player characters would be quite justified in finishing off the Bandit, afterall he may grab his sword again and they would have no real means to effectively deal with him. I also think it borderlines on stupid because the best way to get accurate information out of people is to capture two, seperate them, and get their stories. At any rate, the action was in the shades of grey between Neutral and Evil. I think it depends on the players reasoning for killing him. The claim "They claim that once combat is initiated, there is no stopping." is a metagame claim and I think the players knew what they did was wrong and didn't want to admit it. My ruling on it would be a 'chaotic neutral' act.
fish_heads 03-02-05, 04:19 PM	I think that even though all the characters are of similar alignment, they will each doubtless play that alignment differently. Some CN players will put more emphasis on being good, while others will put it more on being chaotic. I think that the Warlock would be primarily playing chaos over good, which would indicate to me that his understanding of the situation is that "they attacked me, and in doing so, accpeted the possibility and risk of their own demise" I would guess (but I'm not really qualified to say) that the fighter was thinking along the same lines - "you start a fight, I finish it." I think that clarkvalentine had a good suggestion - rather than nailing them for this one instance, wait for the pattern to continue and then allow the world around them to react accordingly. There's no use in punishing players who, for all I know, might have just been in an agressive mindset during the game.
MrkGrismer 03-02-05, 04:37 PM	C'mon people, let's remember that in this case the guy was not killed! He was knocked out and then later taken to the authorities. Personally I don't think it would be evil to kill the guy, but that isn't what was done anyway. What was asked is if it is evil to hit the guy with lethal damage (but not kill him). Of course, it seems that the intent of two of the characters was to kill the guy, but that is still only "attempted" (heh, reminds me of Sideshow Bob: "Convicted of a crime I didn't even commit. Attempted Murder indeed.")
Andrew_980 03-03-05, 08:39 PM	read the DARK TOWER by Stephen King, in a fire fight the enemy asks for "parole" if he leave the main guys alone and the gunslinger refuses and kills him. Because he is an agent of evil and will only keep up his ways. you don't have to accept surrender and let the bad guy know it