Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Harmor 06-15-04, 08:11 PM	Ok ok, here's another one of those "Did I break my alignment?" threads for ya. Sit back and enjoy the following: So I'm in this Lawful Evil city and need passage out. There are three ways to escape from the city; 1) deliver a fresh heart to a Lich who will boat us to safety though an underground river; 2) pay alot of gold to a magic-user to teleport us out; 3) brave the underground tunnels and try to find an escape route. At this time I don't have alot of gold and am only with two other companions (a ranger and a rogue). I also recently spotted some of my very powerful enemies in the city who are trying to catch me and my friends (we ran away from them twice before - they are reaccurring plot enemies). The underground tunnels are very treacherous, killing several party members in the previous month so going though the tunnels was not an option. Therefore what I did was buy 4 slaves from the local slave market. I untied one of the slaves and told him that I would exchange his freedom for their hearts. The fourth slave killed the other three slaves and handed me their hearts in a sack still dripping with blood. I then used the hearts to pay for passage for me and two other surviving party members (one of which refused to come with us because of how I got them - he was Neutral Good while the other was Chaotic Neutral and didn't really care). The Neutral Good character sold several of his possessions to pay the 4000gp necessary to get a teleport from an evil mage in the city while me and my Chaotic Neutral companion traveled by boat to safety. In retrospect I could had sold many of my possessions to get the 4000gp, actually only needing about 3600gp since I had 400gp in cash and gems. I didn't know exactly how much it would cost at the time and thought that it wasn't worth it because of the amount of work necessary to get the items in the first place over the several years of campaigning. Oh, the extra heart I sold for 300gp to someone who was refused service by the Lich because his heart was 'too old' before the boat departed. Technically I didn't kill the three slaves in cold-blood, rather I purchanced the three hearts from someone in exchange for the price I purchaced them as a slave (approximately 700gp was used to buy him, so that's 233gp/heart!!!). Obviously killing someone in cold-blood is an evil act, but having someone else do it...is this against my Lawful Neutral alignment? Any help, guidance is appreciated.
trapspringer 06-15-04, 08:18 PM	Beyond that (and I hate slavery) they were your property anyway.
Grox 06-15-04, 08:25 PM	Well, that was most certainly an evil ACT. However, it was also a lawful act, which is consistent with this character's alignment. DMs differ, though, on just how much space the ground of "neutrality" takes on the good-evil axis. Therefore, some DMs will rule that it's possible to commit many evil acts and still be LN, or to commit several good acts and still be LN. I suppose that, in most fantasy worlds, game mechanics are best served by having all alignments equally "resilient" --- i.e., resistant to change by one or two contradictory acts. However, a lot of human beings instinctively feel that the process of losing an "evil" descriptor should be much slower than the process of losing a "good" one. This is probably because, IRL, it is far quicker and easier to LOSE the trust of another, than to gain it back once lost.
ehrin 06-15-04, 08:30 PM	IMO buying and selling of humans is evil. you did that. hiring someone to commit murder, especially for profit or personal gain, is evil. you did that. According to the SRD: “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. Slavery is oppression. Evil act for supporting it. Killing others is evil.. You did that, by contract. You had others killed because it was convenient (you said yourself, you had the money, you just didn't want to spend it). the murder option was more convenient. Those acts were evil. Your alignment is a culmination of those acts and more.
Edymnion 06-15-04, 09:27 PM	Originally posted by ehrin Slavery is oppression. Evil act for supporting it. Actually, no. Slavery is Lawful Neutral. I believe you are letting the abnormal slavery practiced in the Americas in the last couple centuries color your opinion on slavery in general. Period slavery was not evil. Slaves were often criminals, debtors, prisoners of war, or other unsavory characters that actually deserved to be there. Slavery was not the institutionalized thing it became in modern times. In fact, slaves were quite capable of gaining rank and power in their own right (check the judeo-christian story of Joseph being sold into slavery in Egypt, and how he became one of the most powerful men in Egypt, while still a slave). Slavery in and of itself is not evil. What you do with it, and how you treat your slaves, that could become evil.
Harmor 06-15-04, 09:29 PM	1. Slavery was legal in this city. 2. The 3 slaves killed were goblins who, from what the slavermaster said, were sold into slavery when they lost a battle at the gladiator colesseum or could not pay their debts or were caught stealing. 3. If I were to leave these guys in slavery they might had been torchered or used as sport, killing them here I thought was humane. 4. To me the wood-elf slave that killed the other three goblin slaves commited evil. I gave the choice to the wood-elf. 5. We only have 11 more weeks in this dimension, giving my money to an evil mage (who would do evil stuff with it), was a deciding factor for me.
Sir Neil 06-15-04, 09:48 PM	ehrin pretty much nailed it. You had those goblins murdered because it was convenient. It was an evil act.
Thorak 06-15-04, 10:05 PM	As others have said; the slavery bit is irrelevant. A good character would probably have some qualms about slavery, but it would have been perfectly LG to, say, purchase slaves with the intent of freeing them, working within the system to better the downtrodden. What matters in this situation is what you did with the slaves. You had them murdered. What's more, you coerced a possible innocent into doing your dirty work for you. This doesn't make your act 'better', it makes it worse. You had three people killed, and forced someone else to do it for you, all so you could have a safe escape route. Definetely an evil act. Though, as a LN, evil acts aren't outside your scope. What you did might be perfectly in-character, if he was desperate to escape. He'll probably feel bad about it, but it alone probably isn't enough to shift your alignment.
Harmor 06-15-04, 11:43 PM	Ok ok ok...so it was an evil act, but when I did it I was 'acting in character' and fully justified to the GM so its not a big deal I guess. Thanks for your incite guys. I very much appreciate it.
Archangel 06-16-04, 05:59 AM	Of course you did it all after planning it out and it my book its the worst evil LE! So say hello to mister SMITE EVIL!!
Kheldren 06-16-04, 06:42 AM	Interesting one. Murder by proxy is still murder - so that "wood elf commited the evil act" argument is just words - sorry. That said, what is the campaign position on goblins? - in some campaigns killing them would be at worst neutral... Personally I would say it WAS an evil act (or 2 - getting the wood-elf to kill for you can be construed as worse...) As for slavery evil, that varies - but if you can do ANYTHING with slaves then it is - most cultures (if not all) had laws about what could be done to them, even if they were not enforced. Putting it all together though - "Neutral" does not mean a character never commits evil acts - even good ones can. Personally, if DMing I would issue you an alignment warning - i.e. "keep this up and you will go evil". This does not mean you have to commit good to balance - that would turn you good, but that you have to be careful for a while. As for the rest of the party, I would think a good character would take a warning for accepting your ride (which he didn't) and a Lawful Neutral would likewise have a smaller warning. Chaotic Neutral? - the consequences of your actions are your problem so I would be fine with that. The giving the 4th heart away is a good start on not staying evil too. To a significant degree you had no right answers here - paying the evil wizard is a bit dodgy for a good character (as LN your main concern would be would the good char come with you) but I would not (personally) see you having problems with this (apart from the cash). One other option would be to find some way of getting a fresh heart from someone who would have died anyway, but is giving a lich something it wants not an evil at too?
Al2902 06-16-04, 08:43 AM	First off, I'd argue that there is nothing *inherently* evil with slavery; it depends how you treat them. However, the act of effectively commissioning one slave to kill the other three is tantamount to hiring an assassin to murder an innocent i.e. it is evil. The act itself is lawful evil; whether or not it is of sufficient magnitude to bump you to LE in and of itself is questionable. If you were on the borderline in any case, you've probably slipped over; otherwise, you simply move towards LN with evil tendencies without an absolute alignment shift.
Krelios 06-16-04, 08:51 AM	The 3 slaves killed were goblins who, from what the slavermaster said, were sold into slavery when they lost a battle at the gladiator colesseum or could not pay their debts or were caught stealing. So you bought some evil humanoid criminals and let them kill each other, then used the result to get out of a city you were trying to escape. You did the world a favor and spent less than you would have otherwise. Hooray for you, it was a Lawful Neutral decision, no doubt about it.
Henchcritter 06-16-04, 09:48 AM	Originally posted by Harmor Technically I didn't kill the three slaves in cold-blood, rather I purchanced the three hearts from someone in exchange for the price I purchaced them as a slave (approximately 700gp was used to buy him, so that's 233gp/heart!!!). Obviously killing someone in cold-blood is an evil act, but having someone else do it...is this against my Lawful Neutral alignment? Any help, guidance is appreciated. That is what I call the henchman LE excuse. When a boss orders a henchman to kill someone, does that mean no evil is committed? The LE boss didn't kill anyone, the henchman did. The henchman just followed orders, the boss had the responsibility. Of cause, that's not the case. If you order a loyal henchman to kill someone, you know he's dead. When you pull the trigger on a crossbow to kill someone, you're responsible. A loyal henchman is a far better weapon then a crossbow. The henchman is also to blame. Unless something weird is happened, the henchman had free choice whether to execute the order. If he did execute the order, he's also responsible.
ehrin 06-16-04, 09:59 AM	Although I can agree that in societies where slaves have rights, were bonded to the state, were serving time for criminal offenses, etc., Slavery may not be evil, I would challenge anyone to tell me how THIS system where a person loses all civil liberties, all rights to control his own body, and all freedoms and recourse to law could possibly be "good". These slaves were bought for organ harvesting, against their will, and the act is encouraged by the society around them. If that isn't oppression, loss of liberty, and punishment waaaay out of proportion to the crime, what is? Lose a bet, become a slave whose owner can cut out your heart on a whim? The slaves were in an EVIL city. Ruled by EVIL men. they were bought on slave market (not evil itself, but certainly not a "good" way to own and sell slaves). They are tied up and bound (not a good sign that they are merely serving a sentence, indentured to the system, happy to be there, just part of another day as a slave, etc.). In context to this example, I still stand that slavery is evil. And I note that the PC untied the ELF and let him kill the bound up goblins. A bit of racism there? Certainly not another good action...
DMgangster 06-16-04, 12:05 PM	Thomas jefferson would be considered an evil man because he owned slaves, right?? i would highly doubt that all slave owners were evil tyrants, it was simply the LAW back then i agree slavery (esp america's slavery) was immoral, but following the law to the letter is the basis of the alingment LN "true lawful" i would goto the local prison / jail and await the next exicution. then buiy his heart from the city guard. killing a being that didnt deserve to die is evil - wether they beloged to you or not. all living creatures have rights. DMG
HamHam 06-16-04, 12:43 PM	Well, I dislike alignment in general, but by my interpretation: 1) The slaves weren't exactly "innocents" were they. 2) Trying to keep your hands clean by having the elf do it is hypocritical, but not really evil (though it might be depending on the elf's alignment/history/etc). 3) Neutral, imho, means doing what is most convenient for you, regardless of larger moral issues. Usually that means being generally good, since it's easier to get along with people that way, but in this case the "evil" action was easier and correct. You had the slaves killed because you had to, and that is a purely neutral action, even if you had done it yourself (although that may have still caused an alignment shift because of a more complicated psychological reaction that addicted you to the power-trip of killing them, but that is really all up to the deeper roleplaying characteristics of the character; you could just as easily have been so repulsed by the act that from than on you couldn't bear to kill anyone ever again). 4) Like I said, I dislike alignment in general and think it is often misinterpreted (or rather that the way it is to be interpreted is too vague and anyone who doesn't agree with me is misinterpreting it ;) ). Alingment is about INTENT not ACTIONS. Reputation is about ACTIONS, however your actual alignment is purely about WHY you perform those actions. Saving a friend because you like them isn't good, its' neutral. Saving a stranger because it's the right thing is good. Killing someone because it's necessary, isn't evil, it's neutral. Killing someone because you like killing people is evil. Therefore, since no where do you suggest your character enjoyed ripping their hearts out, it wasn't anything that would make you evil. However, this may have more complicated, non-alignment results on how you roleplay the character (if this is the first time something like this has happened, I would expect to have SOME kind of effect on him) but that is enterily up to you to decide on and develop. Personally, I would probably make a fairly big deal of this because it provides a great opportunity for character development and roleplay, but like I said it's up to you.
Henchcritter 06-16-04, 01:15 PM	Originally posted by DMgangster Thomas jefferson would be considered an evil man because he owned slaves, right?? i would highly doubt that all slave owners were evil tyrants, it was simply the LAW back then In D&D yes. But I have to make two points to make my yes moot. First, alignment is a game system. Taking this system out side the game is not what is it designed for. It is the same like using Monoploy for to your mortgage investment. The second pitfall is using modern morality to judge past times. I'm sure that a century later, people will judge us as evil for valuing our fast travel more then the casualties it produces. They will gladly forget that the computer system which will govern their traffic was not feasible in our days.
ehrin 06-16-04, 01:21 PM	DMGanster: If Thomas Jefferson existed in DnD, then I can judge his actions. He didn't, and DnD Alignments don't transfer to the real world. Second, you need to separate an evil ACT from an evil BEING. Anyone can commit an evil action. One action does not make you evil. It is the series of actions that gives you your alignment. Asmodeus doesn't suddenly become Good simply because he shows mercy to a kitten, he simply remains Evil and has performed one good act. Ham Ham... No, the slaves weren't innocent. One was poor (surely not a crime worthy of death?), one lost a battle in the gladiator arena (a crime? worthy of death sentence?) and the other was a thief (a crime at last, but the death sentence for it?). They were poor and lousy fighters, and for that, they were sentenced to lose all civil liberties, all rights to control their lives, and sold to another person who could harvest their organs, etc.. They were bound/tied and executed for the convenience of another for being too poor to pay a debt, and being losing a fight. That's not servitude, that's not indenturedness, that is slavery at its' worst. Innocent? No. Deserving of a death sentence for the crime of being poor?
MrkGrismer 06-16-04, 01:55 PM	Originally posted by Harmor 1) deliver a fresh heart to a Lich who will boat us to safety though an underground river Good grief, you couldn't just buy 4 pigs? Afterall, if goblin hearts are good enough, pig hearts probably would be.
Elendur 06-16-04, 02:29 PM	This was clearly an evil act. The fact that you 'technically' didn't kill them doesn't matter(in fact the phrase sets off alarm bells for me). Their race or alignment doesn't matter. You killed them for your own gain. Evil act. Now does that one act make you evil? No. You are well on your way though. It is interesting, how an evil society like this is going to force a polarizing of alignment. Just to get by, a person may find himself doing more and more evil things. You would either be forced to make a stand and take huge personal risks, thus pushing you towards goodness, or conform to the evil society, and slide into evil.
HamHam 06-16-04, 03:07 PM	Originally posted by ehrin Ham Ham... No, the slaves weren't innocent. One was poor (surely not a crime worthy of death?), one lost a battle in the gladiator arena (a crime? worthy of death sentence?) and the other was a thief (a crime at last, but the death sentence for it?). Unless you know something we don't, that's an interpretation. From what Harmor said they could just as easily be: 1) A compulsive gambler who probably did some really nasty things before to get money but eventually ran out of luck and wasn't able to pay his debts. 2) A gladiator who has proabably killed many peole in the arena before and somehow survived losing. 3) Depends on what he stole and from whom.
ehrin 06-16-04, 05:07 PM	I can just go by what he said: lost a battle at the gladiator colesseum or could not pay their debts or were caught stealing In the first case, I hardly call losing a crime. If there are gladitorial arenas, I can hardly assume that killing your opponent in such a thing is a crime. That would be odd, to force people into a gladitorial arena, then punish them for fighting. Besides, he didn't say "they killed someone", he said they were slaves because they LOST. Second, being unable to pay a debt is being poor. Period. There are lots of reasons why one might be poor, but the fact is, they had no money to pay a debt. Sentencing such a person to death is hardly good. It is you who are introducing facts not in evidence, by claiming the gamber did nasty things before being caught, or a fighter who killed many people already. I chose the simplest explanation that fit the facts.
trapspringer 06-16-04, 06:52 PM	Law can be evil, but it is still law.
Astanphaeus 06-16-04, 11:12 PM	Originally posted by Harmor 1. Slavery was legal in this city. Check. That's a LE city, right? ;) 2. The 3 slaves killed were goblins who, from what the slavermaster said, were sold into slavery when they lost a battle at the gladiator colesseum or could not pay their debts or were caught stealing. Oh, so if they were all cuddly, happy fuzzy wumpkins, your character wouldn't have had them killed? And, of course, the slavemaster in this LE city is naturally a model of honesty. ;) 3. If I were to leave these guys in slavery they might had been torchered or used as sport, killing them here I thought was humane. How big-hearted of you! ;) 4. To me the wood-elf slave that killed the other three goblin slaves commited evil. I gave the choice to the wood-elf. Wait... so were you being humane, or was the wood elf being humane? You engineering the murders was humane, but the guy doing the actual killing was not? Isn't that convenient. ;) What we have here is a big pile of... ahem... rationalization. Ultimately, though, none of it matters. Your character's goal was to have people gacked in order to get their hearts. That those unfortunate souls were of dubious character doesn't matter, nor does it matter that someone else did the dirty work for your character, nor does it matter that their futures, in all probability, would've been bleak. None of that justifies instigating their deaths for personal gain. What matters is that your character created a situation in which he could engineer the deaths of 3 beings, strictly so he could get from point A to point B. That's fairly well depraved. Evil act all the way... big dark, sticky blotch on his soul. A devil would take one sniff of him and nod knowingly. "Yep," he'd say. "You got potential, laddy." Would it make him evil, though? Not in my campaign... but he'd be a very big step closer to being so. The rationalizations are great, by the way. If your character is telling himself all that nonsense to ease his conscience, good show. It'd indicate to me that he's not entirely comfortable with what he did, which would lessen the swing toward evil that he made. That's how I'd handle it. ~ A.
Votan 06-16-04, 11:47 PM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus [BThe rationalizations are great, by the way. If your character is telling himself all that nonsense to ease his conscience, good show. It'd indicate to me that he's not entirely comfortable with what he did, which would lessen the swing toward evil that he made. [/B] Or make it a lot easier to slide into the pit. "The path to hell is paved with good intentions.". You had three helpless enemies murdered because it would save you money (3600 GP for a teleport). Seriously. Human (or goblin) life is only worthwhile if I can't save money by having them killed. I mean if you couldn't afford the teleport (but you didn't even ask) it might have been more of an issue. But as it is you had these poor souls killed just to save cash that you could afford and to avoid a path that was dangerous. Evil beyond a doubt. But these rationalizations make this easier as well as the next one as well . . . After all, that rich merchant has money that we could use for an important magic item and it's cheaper to rob and murder him than to part with hard earned loot! How is this different?
Harmor 06-17-04, 03:54 AM	1. Granted, killing someone, even if you order or ask someone to do it is evil...I'll give you guys that. My character tends to do good acts (like saving people from imminent death and keeping my word or promise), because we have 2 good party members (Lawful Good Paladin and a Neutral Good Rogue). The other three party members are a Chaotic Good Cleric, a Chaotic Good Ranger and a Lawful Evil Mage (very Rastlin like...) - NOTE: the mage covers his alignment with spells/items so that the Paladin, who would never work with him, doesn't know know he's evil - my character knows the mage is evil but doesn't much care, but was promised to keep that secret from the other party members. 2. To my character, killing goblins, which are inheriently evil creatures, is not an evil act. I kill goblins all the time and on sight. The only reason I didn't do it in this city is because I would probably have been killed if I killed the wrong one. In retrospect to my character goblins are the equivalent to sheep and are not "human", but I wasn't necessarily thinking that at the time...it was more of an afterthought one I had time to reflect while on the boat. I didn't kill the goblins myself because I saw a wood-elf being sold with them and thought that he could do it make the killing of them better if I was giving the choice to someone else who was doing it for their freedom; eventhough, I would still released the wood-elf if he refused to kill the goblins...I would had done it myself. 3. Granted, the slavemaster could had lied to me but I didn't detect it nor did I really care. 4. If the wood-elf didn't kill the goblins I would had probably done it myself. When I was buying slaves the GM gave me a list of slaves that were being sold. I originally was just going to buy 3 goblins, but the GM said that there was a wood-elf that was presented to me. Although I don't generally get along with elves in general, I know elves are generally good creatures and that a wood-elf would never be in a evil underground city like this. So I bought him for 700gp. 5. Slavery in any form is immoral, but in this city it was legal. How the slaves were slaves was not my concern, rather someone else determined they were slaves by whatever means that is legal in this city. My character will conform to laws eventhough he personally may and in this case did find them immoral. 6. The reason my character was in the slave pens in the first place was because the day before our Lawful good Paladin of Tyr(who played him Lawful Stupid), lost a fight in the gladitorial arena the day before (the arean master gave him a cursed weapon and 'magic' hindered him while he fought - my character deduced that from the descriptions of the fight - I got a high Gather Information role). I tried to buy my friend, but too much word spread that a Paladin was for sale (the winner decided to sell him rather than kill him), that several of us in the party could not afford the price. The person who purchaced our friend was an enemy of ours. We needed to leave the city as fast as possible and since I was already at the slave pens this is one of the factors that led to to buy the slaves for boat passage rather than scouring the city for a mage to teleport. 7. I didn't see the Lich as necessarily evil since it was gathering fresh hearts from goblins (which I thought of as sheep). To me the Lich was making a semi-honest living providing safe passage though the underground river. Since that's all this Lich was doing for literally decades (again from a good Gather Information role), I saw him doing less 'damage' than say an evil mage taking 4000gp/teleport. Additionally, because we were on a time crunch, finding a mage would had taken sometime that I didn't want to waste (every minute we were in that city gave a chance for our adversaries to find us and blow our quest - which was to destroy them and their plans). 8. FYI: We are on a quest to stop an army from another dimension from invading Forgotten Realms. The mage and his henchmen that we saw in the slave pens are helping them. We were traveling to this other underground city because: 1) our mage traveled there and was waiting for us; 2) information to find our guide that could get us back to the other dimension was there in this other city; and 3) the mage needed "special components" for a magical item that he was creating that would greatly help our quest there.
Al2902 06-17-04, 06:00 AM	To my character, killing goblins, which are inheriently evil creatures, is not an evil act. I kill goblins all the time and on sight. The only reason I didn't do it in this city is because I would probably have been killed if I killed the wrong one. In retrospect to my character goblins are the equivalent to sheep and are not "human", but I wasn't necessarily thinking that at the time...it was more of an afterthought one I had time to reflect while on the boat. I didn't kill the goblins myself because I saw a wood-elf being sold with them and thought that he could do it make the killing of them better if I was giving the choice to someone else who was doing it for their freedom; eventhough, I would still released the wood-elf if he refused to kill the goblins...I would had done it myself Where's Toastytot, bitnine and the amazing frying goblin babies thread when you need it? Seriously, three points. Firstly, goblins are not "always evil". It might be a fair assumption that a plurality or even a majority are evil, but to assumes that all goblins are evil is clearly fallacious. It's a bit like sentencing all arrested criminals immediately, as 'most' will be guilty, and the fact that you encompass some innocent ones is irrelevant. Secondly, goblins are emphatically not equivalent to sheep. They are intelligent, sentient creatures. Thirdly, even if the goblin is evil, that does not give one free rein to smite it, let alone kill it in cold blood. If I kill an evil person, that does not make it a good act. For example, if I am a NE thief, break into a LE noble's house, murder him and steal his gold, that it still an evil act. The fact that the noble himself is LE is irrelevant. Murder in cold blood is almost invariably evil (unless you are performing the greater good): most goblins you "kill on sight" are presumably on the verge of attacking you, so pre-emptive self-defence is the justification. In this scenario, that is not the case.
Archangel 06-17-04, 06:13 AM	I am shocked at some responses from people at this thread! Didn't your parents teach you a difference between right and wrong? What he did is EVIL in D&D and EVIL in real world, there is no doubt about it! And all of you who said different should think long and hard about the things you said until you see its wrongness!
Astanphaeus 06-17-04, 09:30 AM	Originally posted by Votan Or make it a lot easier to slide into the pit. "The path to hell is paved with good intentions." Yep, it could go that way, depending on how he behaves from here. It's always more gratifying when they kick and scrabble on the way down... Er. I mean. Tsk. Such a sad thing. Yes, that's what I meant. Originally posted by Harmor To my character, killing goblins, which are inheriently evil creatures, is not an evil act. :rofl: Well, first of all, goblins aren't inherently evil. But the crux of the matter is why your character killed them. Again, what if there weren't any goblins? to my character goblins are the equivalent to sheep and are not "human" Your character looks at sentient beings as the "equivalent of sheep"? Look, ma! More Evil! What happened to it being the "humane" thing to do? And did it ever occur to your character that the Lawful Evil city probably shares his viewpoint? What does that tell ya? ;) but I wasn't necessarily thinking that at the time...it was more of an afterthought one I had time to reflect while on the boat. "Reflect" in this case meaning "desperately trying to convince himself his actions weren't completely dispicable," right? ;) I didn't kill the goblins myself because I saw a wood-elf being sold with them and thought that he could do it make the killing of them better if I was giving the choice to someone else who was doing it for their freedom; eventhough, I would still released the wood-elf if he refused to kill the goblins...I would had done it myself. Right, he would've done it himself. So that he did it through proxy doesn't really matter... except that he shared the stain of his evil with another. ;) Last time you said the elf would be the evil one, because he did the killing, not your character. Now you're saying that because the elf was doing it to earn his freedom, it's okay? I bet that elf thinks your character is a monster! Granted, the slavemaster could had lied to me but I didn't detect it nor did I really care. Right, what they did to become enslaved doesn't really matter to your character. Thus, it has no bearing on the situation. I originally was just going to buy 3 goblins, but the GM said that there was a wood-elf that was presented to me. Although I don't generally get along with elves in general, I know elves are generally good creatures and that a wood-elf would never be in a evil underground city like this. So I bought him for 700gp. And then made him kill for his freedom! :rofl: The person who purchaced our friend was an enemy of ours. We needed to leave the city as fast as possible and since I was already at the slave pens this is one of the factors that led to to buy the slaves for boat passage rather than scouring the city for a mage to teleport. Not that it mattered, because the ranger then went to find a mage anyway... The need for expediency doesn't mitigate the evil of the act. If anything, it makes it worse. "Well, Mr. Goblin, here's the deal. I need to get somewhere. I need to get there fast. I don't have time to look for other options... and besides, you're like so much sheep to me. So, I'm going to place this elf -- who's probably a decent fellow -- in a moral quandry and tell him: in order to gain your freedom, you must kill this helpless goblin... and that one... oh, and that one over there. The real funny part? I'll free him, whether he does it or not. But he doesn't know that. Ha ha! What fun!" Harmor, I'm starting to side with Votan here. Your character's just digging a deeper hole for himself with this big ugly knot of rationalization, excuses, and faulty logic. While I'm sure the LE fellow in your group finds it all very amusing, your poor character should probably just bite the bullet, call it a "necessary evil" due to the extenuating circumstances, and try to avoid resorting to such measures in the future. Maybe he should ask the ranger for some advice on how to rebalance his soul, as it's looking a little soiled right now. I'm not even going to get into the mental acrobatics that brought you to: "these goblins must be evil to the core, but that lich? Hey... he might just be tryin' to make an honest living, y'know? Maybe he just likes hearts and has no nefarious purpose for them (involving souls) at all! I'll bend over waaaaay backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt -- because I need to get somewhere -- but not those goblins! They're scum!" :rofl: ~ A.
ehrin 06-17-04, 11:19 AM	One could always apply the Grandmother test: Would you be proud to tell your Grandmother what you just did? If so, it's probably a good thing. If not, then it was a bad thing.
Elendur 06-17-04, 11:48 AM	I think you are facing a very interesting character moment. You have a Lawful Neutral character trying to come to grips with the evil deed he's just done. If he can just push it aside and rationalize it, he's made the next evil act that much easier. Or maybe he realizes he's crossed a line he wasn't aware of. He sees himself becoming more like the villians his good aligned friends oppose, and he worries what they would think.
Votan 06-17-04, 01:08 PM	Originally posted by Elendur Or maybe he realizes he's crossed a line he wasn't aware of. He sees himself becoming more like the villians his good aligned friends oppose, and he worries what they would think. Seeking redemptions for acts of evil committed in the heat of the moment is an old and hallowed part of story telling. Heck, it is what got Heracles into so much trouble over and over again (he'd do something that was a crime in the heat of the moment and end up having to do the labors of Heracles to redeem himself). This could be a very interesting way to play. Alternatively, following this pathway can lead to the most evil of characters because they don't really see their actions as evil. Goblins are sheep. heck, so are bugbears. And those dwarves. And who caresa about halfings. The masses are really sheep. As are junior members of the organization. Heck, it's all for the greater good anyway! Right? Nasty, nasty stuff becomes possible.
Thorak 06-17-04, 01:44 PM	Originally posted by ehrin One could always apply the Grandmother test: Would you be proud to tell your Grandmother what you just did? If so, it's probably a good thing. If not, then it was a bad thing. This would work really well for my personal views that alignment should be based on intent and motivation, but D&D alignment is based mostly on action. If (to paraphrase a movie) you thought you had a God-given quest to kill the demons that were possessing people, you might be proud to tell your grandmother about it. However, the fact that you're an insane serial killer makes you pretty thoroughly evil. And yes, by my view this guy isn't evil. He's insane. He would be absolutely horrified if he knew, and understood and believed, the truth.
Arthur_Pendragon 06-17-04, 04:36 PM	Originally posted by ehrin One could always apply the Grandmother test: Would you be proud to tell your Grandmother what you just did? If so, it's probably a good thing. If not, then it was a bad thing. Well that depends . . . if your grandmother is a fiend or not? :devil:
danielinthewolvesden 06-17-04, 04:50 PM	Evil. And stupid. Please guys lets not get into another "slavery is evil" argument here, OK? That's been hashed over a zillion times, and no one will be convinced either way. Let us also not be guilty of "presentism"- that is judging those in the past by todays standards. I suspect we'll ALL be judged rather harshly by those 200 years from now as we didn't give Dolphins & Chimps the vote. Handing over hearts to the Lich is not Good, but hardly evil. Killing the slaves was Evil, but still perhaps lawful (depends on what the local Slavery laws are, most make it unlawful for a Master to kill his slaves). But you said there was a arena and gladiatorial games in town. Sheesh- why not just go buy a few hearts from the guy who hauls off the bodies? Or, buy some from the town executioner, or the coroner, or even go hang out in the bad area of town until thugs attack you, and there ya go- "bobs your uncle". :D :b:
Votan 06-17-04, 05:10 PM	Originally posted by danielinthewolvesden Handing over hearts to the Lich is not Good, but hardly evil. Killing the slaves was Evil, but still perhaps lawful (depends on what the local Slavery laws are, most make it unlawful for a Master to kill his slaves). Lawful evil == Evil. A Pit Fiend couldn't have given the wood elf a more horrible dilemma and one filled with more irony. That is what I'd use on somebody that I wanted to torture (as part of the game -- given them an impossible moral dilemma and see what happens).
Pongolyn 06-17-04, 05:49 PM	By the definitions of evil in the D&D setting, then yes, buying some slaves so you could kill them and gain your freedom was probably pretty evil. You caused undue pain and suffering on another living creature for your own convenience, even in the face of other options. Slavery notwithstanding, that's an evil act. But unless you're constrained by some sort of code of conduct (i.e., a paladin), I don't see why it would matter. One evil act does not a blackguard make.
anevilpetingzoo 06-17-04, 06:51 PM	Im sorry to be nit-picking, but a lot of posts have been throwing around the word murder. Murder is the UNlawfull taking of a life. Killing is the lawfull taking of a life. As was posted earlier, sure they like killing goblins on sight, but in this town that would be murder. Killing your slaves is perfectlly leagal (i am assuming)
ehrin 06-17-04, 07:03 PM	question: why would you assume that killing your slaves would be perfectly legal? just curious.
HamHam 06-17-04, 07:06 PM	Originally posted by Archangel I am shocked at some responses from people at this thread! Didn't your parents teach you a difference between right and wrong? What he did is EVIL in D&D and EVIL in real world, there is no doubt about it! And all of you who said different should think long and hard about the things you said until you see its wrongness! *must resist urge to counter-flame* :behold: I'll just say once again that, in my own interpretation of how alignment works, what Harmor's character did would not change his neutral alignment any. It might alter his reputation amongst other people to evil, assuming they find out in some way. And I think it should have some effect on the character that is far more complex than changing some meaningless letters on his character sheet. One option would be to make him lean towards evil actions and means because of this (although his alignment could just as easily stay neutral, depending on motive and justification). Another would be for this to have the opposite effect and push him toward good (which might actually change his alignment to good, or it might not) as he decides to "make up" for what he did.
HamHam 06-17-04, 07:08 PM	Originally posted by ehrin question: why would you assume that killing your slaves would be perfectly legal? just curious. Ummm...... "LE city" mean ANYTHING to you?
anevilpetingzoo 06-17-04, 07:09 PM	Well in a lawfull Evil society they would be treated as property. Kid of like a dog or cat. And if the laws are in fact evil then I would presume that every thing would be legal concerning treatment of slaves. Now in a LN law system then that might not be the case. They may have strict laws dealing with the treatment of slaves.
Harmor 06-17-04, 07:40 PM	Good point...I was in a LE town and technically once I legally purchaced the slaves they were my property and I could do anything I wanted to do to them (don't bring real-world ideas...obviously this is immoral...blah blah blah). Hehe...I feel better now with that point. I think we're done with this discussion really. I'm LN with LE tendencies after this 'event'. Guess that what happens when you're living in a LE city... PS: The heart I needed to give to the Lich needed to be from a Human or Demi-human that was alive no less than 1-hour ago. According to the mage in our party he said that it was used as some type of life sustaining ritual or something like that...I didn't much care.
FitzNighteyes 06-17-04, 08:10 PM	Originally posted by Harmor Obviously killing someone in cold-blood is an evil act, but having someone else do it...is this against my Lawful Neutral alignment? Is it illegal to do any of the following things in the city in question: Own a slave? Murder/kill a slave you own without reason? Pay someone to commit murder? Commit murder of a slave owned by someone else? If you are not the "law abiding" LN type, but rather the "personal code of honor" LN type, does it break your personal code in any way? If the answer to any of those is yes, then you probably acted out of character. If the answer to all of those is No, then you may have acted within your alignment bounds. Remember, LN characters are free to commit both evil and good acts, as long as they commit lawful acts (or at least non-chaotic ones). Only if they regularly do one or the other do they cross the line into LG or LE.
Archangel 06-18-04, 09:32 AM	I think we're done with this discussion really. I'm LN with LE tendencies after this 'event'. Guess that what happens when you're living in a LE city... No, you are EVIL! Especially after hearing you explain it. You/your character doesn't regret it and that is pure evil. There are very simple explanations for good/neutral/evil alignment Good: Goes out of his way to help others! Neutral: Does things for himself without hurting others! Evil: Does things for himself without the consern for the others! And this is not only true for killing, but stealing, cheating and some other actions!
HamHam 06-18-04, 11:36 AM	Originally posted by Archangel No, you are EVIL! Especially after hearing you explain it. You/your character doesn't regret it and that is pure evil. There are very simple explanations for good/neutral/evil alignment Good: Goes out of his way to help others! Neutral: Does things for himself without hurting others! Evil: Does things for himself without the consern for the others! And this is not only true for killing, but stealing, cheating and some other actions! Hmm, with all do respect, you're wrong. Good: actually, this one is right on the ball Neutral: doing what you want without direct consideration of it's moral implications (which still leaves lots of other factors that may make these actions more toward one or the other, such as reputation, laws, a personal revulsion to doing really evil things, etc) Evil: doing evil because it's evil (very, very rare) or because you enjoy doing evil (quite common), or some other reason that indicates a strong bent toward taking the evil-action even when it's most convenient In other words: A neutral character will always do what is most convenient for him, although cultural, emotional, etc factors may effect exactly which choice that is. Good and evil characters will take less convenient actions that are more consistent with said alignment.
Grox 06-18-04, 11:43 AM	Originally posted by Archangel No, you are EVIL! Especially after hearing you explain it. You/your character doesn't regret it and that is pure evil. There are very simple explanations for good/neutral/evil alignment Yes, and I think all of us (or 99% of us) concede that this was an evil ACT. But a person in this game system can commit evil acts and still be LN, TN, or CN. If we later receive evidence that the evil intentions or actions are more common, run deeper, or pervade the characters' intentions in more situations, then we could conceivably say he no longer qualifies for any non-evil alignment. But most of us don't think he's there yet.
Grox 06-18-04, 12:01 PM	Originally posted by anevilpetingzoo Im sorry to be nit-picking, but a lot of posts have been throwing around the word murder. Murder is the UNlawfull taking of a life. Killing is the lawfull taking of a life. As was posted earlier, sure they like killing goblins on sight, but in this town that would be murder. Killing your slaves is perfectlly leagal (i am assuming) Most importantly, there is only one definition of murder that makes any sense in D&D terms: the common-law definition. It's the killing of another person with malice aforethought. In the fantasy world, you could easily contrive a situation where an NPC government official comes across a PC breaking the law somehow, and executes that PC. The official may even feel bad about it: "It's a shame that so-and-so had to be executed, I can see he's a nice guy and meant no harm --- but I had no choice in executing him, I have a duty to the law and the king and the stability of the realm and blah blah blah---" As a PC you might not agree with, or like, the NPCs' rationale as explained by the DM, but if the official is being honest and sincere, he has not murdered anyone (even if he's evil). Compare that to THIS situation: the official actually CREATES a law that he knows will lead to many executions, either for the joy of it or to help him eliminate rivals; or he takes an existing law and deliberately EXPANDS its definition simply to encourage more executions; or he ENCOURAGES clueless people to take actions that he secretly knows will later lead to their being prosecuted under this law so he can exert his power over them; or he uses some power of mercy or clemency he can exercise to EXTORT money from those who are facing execution under the law. These things may all be perfectly legal, because the official is corrupt and very proficient at hiding his intentions. Or they could be legal because the government itself actually cares so little for individual rights that it approves of these actions. However, all the examples in the preceding paragraph, if used by the official to bring about anyone's death, are certainly murder.
Eldermount 06-18-04, 12:19 PM	Originally posted by HamHam Hmm, with all do respect, you're wrong. Good: actually, this one is right on the ball Neutral: doing what you want without direct consideration of it's moral implications (which still leaves lots of other factors that may make these actions more toward one or the other, such as reputation, laws, a personal revulsion to doing really evil things, etc) Evil: doing evil because it's evil (very, very rare) or because you enjoy doing evil (quite common), or some other reason that indicates a strong bent toward taking the evil-action even when it's most convenient In other words: A neutral character will always do what is most convenient for him, although cultural, emotional, etc factors may effect exactly which choice that is. Good and evil characters will take less convenient actions that are more consistent with said alignment. Sorry. It looks like you're wrong on this. From the SRD: “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
ehrin 06-18-04, 03:51 PM	I asked about the assumption that killing a slave was legal because I wondered.... Even in a Lawful Evil city, I would have thought there would be rules about killing, even slaves. For instance, you cannot murder one simply because it has red hair, etc.. I base this on the (albeit real life) historical concept that in almost every society that had slaves, slaves had rights. Not many, granted, but some. I also base this on the idea that a city could not long survive itself if the following were true: You can become a slave if you are poor, if you are bad at fighting, or if you steal anything. Slaves have no right to even live. You will be killed at any whim once you become a slave. In general, I would think people would be fleeing such a city in droves. What merchant, artisan, craftsman, etc. would work in a city where their life meant zero, and they had absolutely no protection under the law? Wanna do business in the city? Sure. Oh, did we mention that if you violate ANY law whatsoever (including not paying a bar debt, etc), you can be made a slave, and as a slave, you have no rights. Everything in our city is a potential death penalty. How would a city like that survive?
Lincoln Hills 06-18-04, 04:14 PM	Originally posted by Votan A Pit Fiend couldn't have given the wood elf a more horrible dilemma and one filled with more irony. Hey Harmon, I'm running a Despot (LE paladin-style warrior) and I was wondering if you mind if I steal this "Harmon Maneuver" whenever our group takes prisoners! It's gem-like in its beautiful, awful evil... Not only do I get to see my helpless enemies slain in cold blood, but I help to DARN the unlucky survivor - DARN him to the NINE HECKS! :smirk: If you're really worried about your LN character losing his alignment, have his actions on this occasion haunt him... to the point of going out of his way to treat slaves and prisoners well. You'll do occasional acts of LG as a result of this compassion, which might help you out of this little alignment hole.
Harmor 06-18-04, 07:11 PM	Yeah...go ahread and copyright it :-P
Eidrog 06-18-04, 07:46 PM	My thoughts are, yeah it was evil. . . but given the situation perhaps not evil enough to drop your alignment. . . However, if the character got into the habit of committing evil acts like this all the time regardless of the circumstances. Then I'd shift him to evil. I wonder what happened to the Elf slave in the end? (If it's posted I didn't read it, sorry) I think it would have been much better for a "neutral" character to offer the left-over heart to the Elf in thanks for the Elf's services, and then free the Elf from slavery. . . The best "neutral" characters tend to be "fair" like that (balance of both good and evil). The fact that the left-over heart was sold definitely leans towards evil again. So right now that lawful neutral character may be borderline evil. It depends what he does latter on. Eidrog
Harmor 06-19-04, 12:06 AM	For those curious what happened with the wood-elf I bought from the slave pens in the LE city he not only killed the other three goblin slaves, but when I told him that he was free and that I was using the hearts to travel to another town he went and killed someone else and got his 'own' heart for traveling...guess he really wanted to get out of the town too. The wood-elf has since been following me around...I'm not sure what I'm going to do with him. Probably try to help him get to the surface...don't know if he's a good fighter or not - I would hope he was for 700gp!!! But I'm not going really go out of my way to help him. /shrug I'm not controling his fate anymore. Hmm...I wonder if he will trying to backstab me when I least expect it after I 'encouraged' him to kill the goblins. So far he's pretty much been watching my back and staying close to me since I let him.
Lord Zeb 07-02-04, 10:22 PM	Great role-playing dilemna there! I say your character is still Lawful Neutral. A couple of "evil" acts don't make LE. If you make a habit out of buying slaves & making them kill each other, then yeah, you are LE. In return for a True Resurrection, my LN PC was asked to assassinate an "evil" member of the church of Helm in our homebrew. I put "evil" in quotes, because I have no idea if that was legit, or just propaganda to make me feel better about it. Either way, I played up the fact that my PC would feel bad about what he did, but he still did it.... just didn't advertise it to his good friends. So, don't make a habit out of it, and play up some angst regarding it and you should be fine w/ LN. Cheers, Zeb