Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Undrhil Mar 02, 2015 20:55:15	If someone is any of the alignments on the Good axis, is there ever a time that they would outright kill an enemy?  Why or why not?
#2 Macv12 Mar 02, 2015 22:52:01	You may as well ask what the meaning of life is. This is one of the most contentious philosophical domains you can enter.   When is it morally justifiable to kill? When the negative outcome of that killing is less than the negative outcome that would occur if you hadn't killed that person. Basically. Unfortunately, how you define "negative" is hopelessly dependent on the person in question.   If you think that anyone who commits an evil act is fundamentally evil and can't be saved, killing them is for the greater good. If you believe that the only way to prevent thousands of deaths is to kill an innocent person standing in your way, killing them is for the greater good. If someone is suffering greatly and there's no way to alleviate that suffering except death, and they agree, then killing them is for the greater good. If you believe in an eternal hell, anything could be justified to prevent someone from undergoing an infinite amount of suffering.   Of course, if you believe that good people are bound for heaven and bad people for hell no matter what, you may kill much more readily, because you're either punishing the wicked or rewarding the righteous by doing so. You could still be a "good" person who believes this; whether it's actually good or not depends on whether you're correct. Or you could believe that protecting the law is the ultimate good, because it leads to order and more goodness in the long-term, and therefore you will readily kill criminals if the law demands it.   On the other hand, if you serve a god that teaches that mortals have no right to decide life and death, you may never see killing as justified. If you don't trust yourself to judge what's the "greater good," you might never allow yourself to kill. If you believe that everything is destined to work out for the best eventually, you might avoid killing, since there should always be another way.   Questions like this are why I consider the alignment system mostly worthless. It's just nonsense to ask what a "Good" (tm) person would do. It depends on the beliefs of the person in question and the metaphysics of the world.
#3 Nevvur Mar 02, 2015 22:56:24	I'm going to assume by "outright kill" you mean to include a situation where the enemy is helpless or offers surrender, i.e. murder. With that in in mind, the implication of your question is (I think) a broader philosophical question: can you commit an evil act and still be a good person? It's a debatable topic, but for me, the short answer is yes.   There's an interesting couple of lines in the PHB and MM worth noting. Alignment for mortals is a moral choice, but for fiends and celestials, it is part of their essence. "If it (devil) ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil." PHB p.122. Then in MM p.6 and 7, "...the exceptional celestial who strays from a good alignment is a horrifying rarity," and "if an evil celestial is a rarity, a good fiend is almost inconceivable" (emphasis mine).    I bring this up because by game language, a good mortal can justify murdering a fiend based on the PHB, but the MM suggests the possibility of redemption, meaning he could not justify it if the answer to the broader question posed above is 'no.'
#4 lawrencehoy Mar 03, 2015 3:47:05	Macv12 wrote:
#5 Undrhil Mar 03, 2015 21:12:11	For my specific example, a group of PCs is accosted by some bandits and their leader on the road.  Would the PCs be justified in killing the bandits and still be considered 'good'?   Add on the other axis and it gets even more confusing.    One of the players I am referring to said (paraphrased): "I basically consider everyone to be good unless shown otherwise.  If they do something which makes me think otherwise, then I have nothing against killing them because they aren't good."  This character is (I believe) Neutral Good.  We had about 10 bandits, of which only one was subdued (by my character) and the rest were slain.  When the DM asked what we were going to do with the bodies, everyone said "Let them rot." or "Burn them."   I just don't see those as choices a good aligned character would be making.  Am I just old fashioned?
(Reply to #5) AaronOfBarbaria	Undrhil wrote:
#7 Macv12 Mar 03, 2015 22:49:14	All of your examples are excellant ones; however, I think they support the alignment system, as defined by the RAW, rather than make it worthless. The problem is when people (players/DMs) try to shoehorn their PCs/NPCs into the extremes of what the alignment system defines.
#8 Byakugan01 Mar 03, 2015 23:21:43	In dnd Its pretty safe to assume that if someone tries to skewer you or melt you with a breath weapon then you can kill them.     In my AL group, i am the only good character.  I don't attack people before they attack us first. Well unless were in a dungeon full of cultists etc..   The rest of the party tends to just start attacking anything that appears, wether we have identified it or not. Kinda psychopathic, i know.  We just count on the DM not to be reckless and make us murder a bunch of helpless children.  Bad guys that surrender usually get killed after they give us the information we want.   I dont like it, so i usually leave the room.
#9 Enevhar_Aldarion Mar 04, 2015 0:55:00	Players have their characters kill, regardless of their alignment, because that is the main way they gain XP and level up. If your DM does not reward creative non-violent play with XP, expect it to continue this way, again, regardless of character alignment. For those bandits of yours, if the only way to stop them from robbing or injuring/killing your characters is to kill them first, then that is fine. If after a couple of them drop, the rest try to run away, but you chase them and kill them, that is morally ambiguous. If you take prisoners, but play with a DM who guarantees any freed prisoners will eventually try to kill you again, then you probably should execute them. But if your characters get the prisoners to swear to change and it is believable, then you better set them free and not murder them if you are Good.   Unfortunately, the "kill or be killed" mentality, regardless of alignment, that a lot of new players bring to the game is programmed into them by video games or perhaps by unimaginative DMs from previous gaming groups.
(Reply to #9) AaronOfBarbaria	Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
#11 QwertyAzerty Mar 04, 2015 7:55:37	Alignement questions.   it all begin on what do you base your alignment on? who is the judge of your action? and their is no perfect answer here.   are you your OWN judge based on your self knowledge? So I give you paladin a vial of poison but I tell him that it's a miracle elexir that will cure all the sickness. If he imbue the vial with his holy power and drop it in the water supply of the town he will save everyone. The paladin fails his insight check, believe me and do so, dropping the entire poison vial in the water supply of the town thinking that he's doing a GOOD thing. Is this paladin becoming evil? according to the maxim: Hell is paved with good intention. He should become evil.   Are you your own judge based on the result of your action? (so the paladin in the previews example, when he learn that he actually poison the villager would become evil? what happen if he's called in an other town for an heroic quest before learning that he poisoned the village? then he would keep believing that he's good since in his mind he still believe that the result is that he cure everyone?   Are you your own judge based on self believe? I am a very wise man, and if I would rule the town I truly believe that I will solve ALL the problem of the town, and make the town prosperus safe etc... But I have a very low Charisma so I'm unable to convince people to give me control over the town. So I hire a group of mercenary to conquer the town in my name. This would make a lot of Lawful Evil, to actually become Lawful Good since they might use evil ways but it the end they believe that they will offer great good to the people. Kind of same mentality as our dad who would spank us when we were kid to teach us how to behave properly, so when we become adult we become honest, well behaved, contributing member of society.   This one(I believe) would be the system used in the real world, since history is written by the victorious and the victorious will alway apply their point of view in there work. So when Ceasar ask to a writter to write his story, the writter wanting to receive a good pay and not get executed won't tell the story of Ceasars when he conquer his town and killed his son and raped his wife, He'll tell the story of Ceasar expending his territory and bringing his little barbarian village and made it a prosperus romain town.   Are the God the judge of your alignement? I think in a world where God give you powers the god should be judge of your action. So for example, an Lich capture an honest merchant and infect him with a extremly contagious magical disease (that cannot be cured by mortals) and erase his memory from those event. A Lawful Good paladin learn about this and need to prevent the merchant from reaching Neverwinter. The paladin try to use lay on hand, but it fails, he try to get a cleric to cast greater restoration, remove desease etc... nothign work, he ask a wizard to cast wish... still fails. He ask a cleric to use divine intervention, but his god ignore him. The paladin ask the merchant to become a hermit and never come in contact with civilization otherwise he will kill everyone. The merchant do not believe the paladin, he would remember of a lich would have infect him with a diseases. No the merchant got a huge contract waiting for him at Neverwinter and nothing will prevent him from reaching Neverwinter accept death itself. So the paladin is faced with killing an innocent merchant (the merchant is innocent since he doesn't know that his infected and why would he believe a lunatic fighter who receive one too many blow to the head?) or allow the entire town of neverwinter to die from an horrible disease. (Similar choice that Arthas from World Of Warcraft had to do when he entered Stratholmes) The paladin review his oath, review his paladin code, review teh teaching of his code, and decide to kill the merchant because he cannot allow such a tragedy to happen. Let the God decide if the paladin was right or not. Even if the Paladin believe and know that he was right, his god should have the last word determining if this paladin is still fit to stay his champion.   Now once you decided who will be the judge. Are you using a scale?   Does the thief stealing gold so he can sleep on a pile of gold, is as Evil or less evil then the thief killing an innocent in order to steal the gold? are those 2 thief less, equal or more evil then the warlord who ransack town on his path, kill the sons, and raped wife and daughter? is this warlord more or less evil then the Tyrant who require to bath in baby blood every week? The thief who steal gold today, might kill a witness next time?   between those 4 Evil character, which one should simply receive a warning? which of these should be simply warn? which of these shoudl get his hand chop? which of these should be send in jail, which of these should be executed but allow his soul to return to his god? Which of these should be executed and get his soul capture to prevent him to go to the after life?
#12 OoftaMeg Mar 04, 2015 11:36:05	In my campaigns, "good" characters would feel quite justified killing the bandits because there is very little recourse.  Actions towards others have to be judged in context of the civilization and of the situation facing the PCs in a more general sense.     Suppose for example that the PCs subdue the bandits instead of killing them.  What happens next?  Is there a local authority they can be turned over to?  Are the local authorities trusted or corrupt?  What will happen to the bandits if they are turned over to the authorities?   Let's suppose for a moment that the party is well known and respected in the local area.  They probably have an option to turn people in to the authorities, but what happens then?  In historical analog to the typical fantasy realm, there were very few (if any) prisons and most people were fined, excommunicated or executed.  Prisons were generally reserved for the wealthy who could be ransomed, not for general bandits.  If the bandits do end up in prison, it will probably be because the authorities want them to suffer a long painful death as an example to others.   Turning the bandits over to the authorities, in most cases is just going to delay the inevitable.  It's not a question of if the bandits are going to be executed, it's simply a question of by whome they are going to be executed and how soon.   On the other hand, what if the PCs are not well known in the local area?  At that point if they haul the bandits into town, what evidence is there that the PCs are not thugs who jumped the bandits?  Why would the locals believe the PCs over the bandits?   If they just subdue the bandits and leave them tied up in the wilderness there are one of two likely options.  In most cases the bandits will die anyway, so leaving them tied up is just a kind of torture.  If the bandits do survive, they will likely go back to being bandits and harm other innocents.     The standard fantasy/medievel setting is more brutal and less forgiving than the modern world.  You can't just tie the bandits up and call 911 to have to local constabulary come pick them up.   But even given all of that, how many nameless thugs are gunned down on a regular basis in most action/drama movies/TV shows?  Is every movie hero an evil mass murderer?
#13 lawrencehoy Mar 04, 2015 13:17:56	Macv12 wrote:
#14 Orethalion Mar 04, 2015 14:56:08	My opinion on this is that in combat, good beings can kill.  It happens.  However, if someone or something surrenders and isn't inherently evil to the core (demons, devils and the like), then it would not be a good act, and would probably be an evil one to kill, even if you don't have a convenient way to keep the captured party under wraps.  Dispatching a surrendered demon or devil would be fine.
#15 Nevvur Mar 04, 2015 14:58:22	Moral relativism is the word of the day here. Ooftameg's reply (and several others) cites some plausible reasons why good people might "outright kill an enemy." The short of it is, we can't necessarily apply 21st century Earth ethics to a fantasy setting when defining what's right and wrong.   Something I find philosophically interesting, however, is that moral relativism exists not only between reality and the game setting, but also in-universe for the game. An afterlife determined by your mortal actions is all but guaranteed. In the real world, debates between moral relativism and universalism exist because we cannot 'prove God.' What is right and wrong in a typical D&D setting is usually determined by higher powers, yet cultural norms still vary wildly on issues like justice (among many others).
#16 Orethalion Mar 04, 2015 15:20:50	Nevvur wrote:
#17 Nevvur Mar 04, 2015 16:02:30	Orethalion, when I wrote "...we can't necessarily apply..." I meant to suggest that some of our real life standards are applicable to a D&D setting, some are not. It wasn't an all or nothing statement. I acknowledge the law-chaos/good-evil axes are largely based on our real life standards, but the setting allows room to redefine those standards.
(Reply to #15) OoftaMeg	Nevvur wrote:
#19 Orethalion Mar 04, 2015 16:54:10	Nevvur wrote:
#20 Orethalion Mar 04, 2015 17:00:11	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #15) Macv12	Nevvur wrote:
(Reply to #20) OoftaMeg	Orethalion wrote:
#23 Undrhil Mar 04, 2015 21:09:19	I will ask it as I asked them: How can you justify killing as 'good'?  Ignore wars, this wasn't a war and there is no 'war on banditry' in D&D, that I know of, anyway.  What you are saying is that if someone assaults me with a knife, I could kill them and that isn't an evil act?  Or a non-good act, I should say.  There is the neutral alignment axis, after all.    I just think that these players that I am referring to are playing Neutral characters and just labelling themselves as good because the DM wants 'good' characters.  Maybe the DM doesn't really want good characters but just wants to make sure the players aren't going to go running around killing innocent peasants for no reason.  I don't know since I'm not the DM.   What gives the PCs the right to take a life, except in self-defense or when ordered to by a higher authority?  What allows for that character to be judge and jury over someone else's life, just because "He threatened to kill me first"?  Did he actually kill you?  No.  Might he have killed you?  Yes.  He also might have just knocked you out and taken your stuff.    "He said he's killed for less before; so he's evil!"  Do you *know* he's actually killed before?  He could have been trying to intimidate you, to make you flee or surrender.  There are such things as bandits who don't kill .. who steal from the rich and give to the poor, so to speak.   In the setting of Robin Hood, these players would have killed Robin Hood and his band of Merry Men and just left their bodies to rot.  Hooray for the Sherrif of Nottingham!
#24 Macv12 Mar 05, 2015 0:34:03	So, these players don't attach any morality to the words "Good" and "Evil." They're treating it as simple, mechanical, "alignment." As in, teams. They aren't "good," they're Team Blue. The other guys aren't "evil," they're Team Red. It's the goal of Team Blue to destroy all of Team Red, and vice versa. When these bandits attacked, since the PCs are Blue and no Blue would attack another Blue, those bandits must be Red. It's always okay to kill a Red, because that's how these teams work.   If you don't like this, float the idea of roleplaying more realistically. Just choosing a word on a sheet doesn't say anything about a character's behavior; you need actual specific motivations before you can decide what a character will think about a given decision. Maybe the other players don't want to do that. Maybe they just want to play TF2 in with swords and magic. You can't force them to want anything else. But I guarantee that just saying "that's not Good you guys" will not have any effect.   Also, how is the DM treating it? Because if the DM has the same attitude, it doesn't make sense to say "but maybe those bandits weren't all bad," because the DM has decided that yes, actually, they're just Evil, and they're there to be killed. There would be no moral choice to make there, and no reason for the players to do anything other than what they've been doing.
#25 arnwolf666 Mar 05, 2015 0:47:04	A good person can only kill in self defense or while attempting to stop another person from harming an innocent person/bystander.  A convicted criminal fleeing could be considered such depending on the crime and his past deeds.  Some creatures like goblins may already be convicted as enemies of society and this killed on the spot, especially in a magic world where such being are cosmically aligned to evil and are this always working towards evil and the destruction of good people.  In a game where creatures are not inherently evil and a goblin can be good, then killing the goblin on sight would be an evil act.  Killing someone that surrenders is evil.
#26 Vahnyu Mar 05, 2015 3:36:22	There are many cases in which killing someone construes an unambiguously good act, whereas not killing them is at the very least neutral, if not outright evil. Defending others is usually related to this. Generally speaking, killing is not an inherently evil act. Murdering is, but differentaiting the two can be an excercise in frustration. As a good rule of thumb, for D&D, think the following:   "What is the moral cost of not killing compared to the moral cost of killing, for a given situation." Not Killing cost >>> Killing Cost = Killing is an act of Good. Not Killing cost <<< Killing Cost = Killing is an act of Evil. Not Killing cost ~== Killing Cost = Killing is a Neutral act Undrhil wrote:
#27 OoftaMeg Mar 05, 2015 6:44:40	Assume for a moment we have the typical D&D bandit.  It's a pretty safe assumption that the bandit has made a decision that they are going to rob and murder people for a living.   They made the decision to attack a well armed group, they knew what they were doing and what risk they were taking.  They are proficient with weapons and armor and are using them.  It's pretty obvious they've been doing this for a while and intend to continue doing it.   If you are attacked by bandits, in most cases you effectively have 2 choices. 1) Kill them.   2) Let them go.   Option number 1 means you are killing someone who has decided that it's ok to kill others in order to make a living.  This, in my opinion, is not an evil act.     Option number 2 means you are letting murderous thugs go so that they can kill other people.  To me that seems like a borderline evil act.  By    The Robin Hood scenario does not normally apply, Robin and hs merry men only stole from very specific targets.  If you are working for the Sherrif or the corrupt Bishop (?) they will probably give you a chance to surrender before attacking.
#28 Jamwes Mar 05, 2015 8:22:02	Undrhil wrote:
#29 Orethalion Mar 05, 2015 9:04:46	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #29) OoftaMeg	Orethalion wrote:
#31 Orethalion Mar 05, 2015 10:41:39	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #31) OoftaMeg	Orethalion wrote:
#33 Orethalion Mar 05, 2015 11:26:26	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #33) OoftaMeg	Orethalion wrote:
#35 Orethalion Mar 05, 2015 14:34:40	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #35) OoftaMeg	Orethalion wrote:
#37 Nevvur Mar 05, 2015 15:57:48	There's something written into the game mechanics that, I believe, makes this topic even murkier. P.198 PHB Knocking A Creature Out: "When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt. The creature falls unconscious and is stable." Good characters should not ever have to take a life. I think the author made an oversight by calling it just a melee attack, and not a melee weapon attack. A melee spell attack should not have this option IMO.   An aside, if we're applying real life morality to the D&D setting, many states in the US include a "Duty to Retreat" clause in their Use of Force laws. Lawful Good types whose Plan A ought to be to retreat from most threats could be just as disruptive to the narrative as a Chaotic Evil character.   As for what happened to the bandits' bodies after the fight... Leaving them to rot falls into neutral territory, IMO. However, burning a dead body is not the same as cremating it. If the PCs erect a funeral pyre and send the ashes to the winds, that actually seems like a Good action. If they just light the bodies on fire and leave the charred remains on the road, that seems more like desecration, evil.
#38 durntaur Mar 05, 2015 16:16:50	Don't all strawmen arguments break down into hypotheticals? Isn't this thread about solutions to hypothetical situations? Then why not take those hypotheticals to various logical solutions?   Also, how do I knock a bandit out with a firebolt, or fireball for that matter, if I'm a good-aligned wizard?
#39 Nevvur Mar 05, 2015 16:26:08	Sleep spell.
(Reply to #38) OoftaMeg	durntaur wrote:
#41 durntaur Mar 05, 2015 16:28:12	Nevvur wrote:
(Reply to #39) OoftaMeg	Nevvur wrote:
#43 Orethalion Mar 05, 2015 17:36:32	OoftaMeg wrote:
#44 Orethalion Mar 05, 2015 17:38:53	durntaur wrote:
(Reply to #43) OoftaMeg	Orethalion wrote:
#46 Gwaithador Mar 05, 2015 19:43:36	Talking in the context of the Dungeons and Dragons game,  If bandits jump me on the road, threaten to kill me if I don't hand over my belongings, and a sword fight ensues, and in the course of that battle, I kill the bandits, I've not acted unethically. It's self defense. If robbers kick down my door and I defend myself and my love ones and in the course of that defense, I kill one of them, it's self defense. There's nothing ambigous about it, and its not evil to do so. It may be unfortunate, but it isn't evil.  If Lareth the Beautiful is working on releasing a demon lord across the Flanaess, and I run him through, I've not acted unethically, and in fact, I'll go so far as to say I've acted quite good. Evil in Dungeons and Dragons is not a matter of perspective nor is it generally morally ambigious.  It's clear, i'st defined and in fact, it can be detected, protected against and even dispelled.  People who willingly serve demon lords, devils, vile, wicked gods and so forth do not make it incumbment upon my character of  Lawful Good alignment to spare them, when the tied turns and only a few moments before, they were perfectly willing to sacrifice a child and then myself to their evil cause. A good character should have no hesistation in putting a mindflayer who attacks the character to the sword. It's an evil being that enslaves and eats sentient, sapient creatures. Granted, not every situation requires an immediate violent solution and discretion will be the better part of valor in a number of situations nor should characters go around slaughtering people in the local town because the townsfolk are of evil alignment. There needs to be a bit of common sense applied to each situation.
#47 Macv12 Mar 05, 2015 20:42:05	Maybe this can be steered in a more productive direction?   The relevant issue to the OP is not whether killing is objectively good in this or that situation, it's whether you are allowed to write "Good" on your character sheet and still do evil things.   Let's assume that the bandits were forced to take their actions because of bad circumstances; that they will turn from their life of crime if left alive; that there are children back at their camp that will be defenseless in the wild if the bandits are killed. In other words, it is inexcusable to kill the bandits if you know all this.   If you don't know or don't believe any of that is true - if you believe that the bandits are murderers, and will keep murdering, and you can't turn from your world-endingly important mission to escort them to the constable - is it an Evil act to kill them? Does the "Good" on your sheet represent the objective rightness or wrongness of your actions, or does it represent what you strive to fulfill? We may all agree that a certain act is evil based on whatever criteria, but that doesn't affect whether a given character agrees. So you really have to know what that "Good" on the character sheet means.   If it means "my character thinks they're Good, and because of motivation X and belief Y, they perform act Z to accomplish that," then you can't say a character's not "Good" just because their motivations and beliefs don't align with yours. If it means "act X is the inherently Good one, and my character is Good, so whatever motivations and beliefs they hold have the net effect of making them perform act X," then you can criticize them for failing to act according to the alignment they've written.   I think this is the lynchpin of most alignment debates, including this one. OoftaMeg is saying "a person could consider act X good in situation Y, hence they are Good," while Orethalion is saying "act X is objectively evil outside of situation Z, hence they are Evil." These are not mutually exclusive; the characters could be doing something that is in fact Evil, but their Good motivations and some inaccurate beliefs made them think it was acceptable. So answering either question doesn't address whether they can be called "Good" or not, until you define what alignment refers to exactly.   And again, this hinges on the DM. If it's not actually true that bandits will change their ways, or if the bandits' actions are illogical because they're just 2D cutout villains, then the moral questions start to disappear. If you lived in a cartoonish world where "Bad Guys" just did bad stuff indiscriminately for the sake of being bad, and couldn't be changed, then killing them wouldn't generally be evil anymore. This describes many D&D worlds, but certainly not all. You can't take moral conclusions from one world and apply them to another, just as you can't take the winning moves from one game of chess and expect them to win against a different opponent.
(Reply to #5) Hibiki54	Undrhil wrote:
#49 lawrencehoy Mar 05, 2015 22:37:27	Vahnyu wrote:
#50 lawrencehoy Mar 05, 2015 22:59:57	durntaur wrote:
#51 Nevvur Mar 06, 2015 0:06:30	No lawrencehoy, the knock out option is available only to melee attacks. By RAW, this would apply to melee spell attacks as well, but I think that's wonky.    ---   Ooftameg, as to the sleep spell only being effective against low level NPCs, no... It's effective against low HP creatures. Exactly the same as the knock out melee option. If your wizard is the sort of Good guy that prefers to take prisoners, and he's torn between preparing Burning Hands and Sleep, he really ought to prepare Sleep. The spells he chooses don't dictate his alignment, but they can certainly reflect it.
#52 lawrencehoy Mar 06, 2015 0:24:14	Nevvur wrote:
#53 Llenlleawg Mar 06, 2015 3:00:28	I tend to think that we can overcomplicate the question and enter into metaethical questions that, while interesting in their own right, are probably not what most people have in mind when playing D&D.   So, simply put, ask what kind of world the game world is. By way of comparison, if you are playing a Silver Age style superhero game, then not killing your enemies is a must, and there will always be a way to avoid killing them and succeeding. Likewise, locking up the criminals is always a good option, and the fact that they escape over and over is no more to be noticed than the fact that no one recognizes that Superman and Clark Kent are one and the same person (i.e. wearing glasses [and, with women, putting your hair up] is a sufficient disguise, as is a small mask over the eyes, e.g. Robin and Green Lantern). It's a genre convention, and should be no more resisted in a Silver Age world than super-intelligent gorillas with mind-control powers and time machines. In such a world, the PCs should never encounter impossible scenarios, i.e. kill-or-be-killed, or worse kill-or-the-world-will-be-destroyed.   If you want to play in an "Iron Age" world, gritty and full of lots of moral ambiguity, and in which the tropes of Silver Age are openly mocked, the a "hero" or "good" character is going to behave a lot differently, or at least if he behaves in classically good ways, he's likely to fail.   What would be a bad idea is having players who want to be good PCs in a heroic world while a DM tries to force them into gritty moral dilemmas. (Or, conversely, players who want their PCs to be morally ambiguous and gritty in a world that has deeper moral foundations, nihilists in a world full of meaning!)
#54 Llenlleawg Mar 06, 2015 3:08:08	Another problem, I think, is when DMs punish players from follwing heroic tropes, i.e. letting a vanquished for go free. For mindless beasts or demons, sure, but then there's no real problem in killing a mindless beast, and fiends can't be killed on the Prime Material plane, anyway, so there's no moral problem there at all. (Likewise, undead should be dead, so one is doing the cursed soul a favor by ending its unlife, either setting its body free, or its soul free, or at least sending a wicked soul to its just reward!)   The thing is, most soundly defeated, intelligent enemies don't keep coming back for revenge. They'll want to keep far away from those who defeated them, and may even be able to be effectively banished, e.g. "You deserve worse, but in courtesy and honor I set you free. Let me hear that you ever trouble the good people of this village again, indeed let me ever hear you spoken of again, and I will not be so merciful." This should largely work (and so avoid the "do we kill the defeated bandits" dilemma). It need not always work, but it should be a viable strategy. Not all opponents are psycopathic, and many can and should be able to be scared off from any futher harm to the players or their world (depending on the size of the campaign).
#55 OoftaMeg Mar 06, 2015 5:14:51	One of the assumptions of D&D good aligned PCs is that in general one of their main goals is to find evil creatures and kill them.  Whether that fits into certain people's ideas of "good" and "evil" is kind of beside the point.   What difference does it make if the evil creature you are killing happens to be human or not?
#56 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 6:35:09	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #56) OoftaMeg	Orethalion wrote:
#58 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 8:25:50	OoftaMeg wrote:
#59 OoftaMeg Mar 06, 2015 9:02:53	This is at a standstill.     Back to the original question.  Let's say you have an evil human NPC.  Assume for a moment that they've demonstrated that they're evil and have no remorse about killing people.  Nothing you can do (short of killing them) will stop them from killing in the future.  You've done a Zone of Truth and the NPC has admitted that he will continue to murder innocents.   On one side we have people that say their PCs will never kill the NPC, even if that means that the NPC is practically guaranteed to murder other innocents in the future.   The other opinion is that if you can ensure that the evil NPC will be incarcerated or otherwise appropriately punished, do so.  If not, the most moral option is to kill them and thus prevent the death of innocents.   I obviously support the latter opinion.  It is better to protect innocent lives than to let a murderer go.
#60 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 9:20:47	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #60) OoftaMeg	Orethalion wrote:
#62 Vahnyu Mar 06, 2015 9:58:21	Orethalion wrote:
#63 FrogReaver Mar 06, 2015 10:02:28	D&D offers a whopping 9 alignment choices.  Since it is supposed to be a scale I think we can conclude:   1.  A character that does mostly good things is considered good. 2.  A character that does mostly evil things is considered evil. 3.  A character that falls between these extremes is considered neutral.   1.  A character that mostly follows the law is considered lawful. 2.  A character that mostly does not follow the law is considered unlawful 3.  A character that falls between these extremes is considered neutral.     I think too many people get caught up in thinking that good characters must always do good things and that lawful characters always must do lawful things.  I think that's a mistaken assumption.     But more to the heart of this thread.  Can a good character kill bandits?  Well yes, considering that good characters just have to mostly do good things.  So even if killing the bandits is evil, good characters aren't prevented from ever doing evil.   I think the question that is getting answered is:  is killing bandits an evil act?  The answer to that question is it depends.
#64 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 10:09:21	Vahnyu wrote:
#65 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 10:12:16	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #64) OoftaMeg	Orethalion wrote:
#67 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 10:18:31	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #67) OoftaMeg	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #68) Bloodscythe	OoftaMeg wrote:
#70 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 11:23:36	OoftaMeg wrote:
#71 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 11:26:12	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #69) OoftaMeg	Bloodscythe wrote:
#73 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 12:46:36	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #71) FrogReaver	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #74) Bloodscythe	FrogReaver wrote:
#76 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 13:58:23	FrogReaver wrote:
#77 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 14:03:18	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #73) OoftaMeg	Orethalion wrote:
#79 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 15:09:41	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #79) OoftaMeg	Orethalion wrote:
#81 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 16:36:50	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #81) OoftaMeg	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #76) FrogReaver	Orethalion wrote:
#84 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 17:04:01	OoftaMeg wrote:
#85 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 17:04:49	FrogReaver wrote:
(Reply to #83) FrogReaver	FrogReaver wrote:
(Reply to #85) FrogReaver	Orethalion wrote:
#88 Gwaithador Mar 06, 2015 17:41:37	Orethalion,   If a vampire took "great pains to never kill when feeding and other situations", it is likely not evil.   Also,, who grants "authority" it's authority?  Authority can and often is abused nor does it make your acts "good" because it comes from "authority." I find that rather dangerous thinking. If you like, I can offer numerous examples of "authority" without an iota of  morality or "good" or legitimacy.   I'll also add, sometimes cold blooded murder is a good act. If an opportunity rose to kill a man like Adolf Hitler while he was unaware, and I were say, a German citizen and I murdered him in his sleep; I acted against the ruling authority, I acted without "authorization" and it was premedidated murder. But was it evil? I think not. I'd posit, it was actually good.
#89 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 18:38:12	FrogReaver wrote:
#90 Vahnyu Mar 06, 2015 18:38:59	Orethalion wrote:
#91 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 18:40:20	Gwaithador wrote:
#92 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 18:41:44	Vahnyu wrote:
#93 Vahnyu Mar 06, 2015 18:53:18	Orethalion wrote:
#94 BRJN Mar 06, 2015 18:58:30	Killing bandits: - The player-characters do not have the luxury of a highly-developed adversarial system of justice, complete with extensive comfortable detention facilities to confine accused lawbreakers.  (In other words, modern Courts of Justice and jails.)  Therefore action is usually taken swiftly without getting and considering ALL the facts.  Everybody - all NPCs - knows this to be the case; have them act accordingly. - If the player-characters have not gotten permission from some recognized lawful authority to kill people, expect the agents of that authority (a Marshall and posse) to come looking for the PCs, to either arrest them or fine them or compel them to obtain such authorization or kill THEM as a danger to society. - If the player-characters are moving through a totally lawless area, do not be afraid to expose them to Rousseau's "nasty, poor, brutish, and short" description of life without Civilization or any Civil Society.   I'm creating a mini-campaign which features almost 100 encounters with Bandits, as the PCs work to bring law-and-order to a frontier society.  Some of the bandits have earned the Penalty of Death; some of them can be returned into society albeit with some risk to others; some can be returned to civilian life and will be thankful for a 'second chance'.
#95 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 19:02:24	Vahnyu wrote:
#96 Mephi1234 Mar 06, 2015 19:11:12	Heh.   Alignment argument threads crack me up.      I've personally come to the opinion that the idea of "good" is instrictly tied to society's safety and wellbeing.   Which is also tied into the Law axis of the game.  There's a whole fascinating psychological study about how people internalize social taboos and laws (Lawful Neutral) as personal morals that follow them even outside society (Chaotic Good).     Because of this overlap, you'll never really ever settle the whole divide.   And that's not touching on the whole "Goodness is a balance between opposing forces, and Evil is imbalance" thread that runs through a number of religions and cultures.
#97 Vahnyu Mar 06, 2015 19:25:03	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #89) FrogReaver	Orethalion wrote:
#99 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 22:42:57	Vahnyu wrote:
#100 Orethalion Mar 06, 2015 22:44:17	FrogReaver wrote:
(Reply to #100) FrogReaver	Orethalion wrote:
#102 Luciender Mar 06, 2015 23:49:59	I'm with Orethalion. We had a situation in the game I'm DMing last week where the party wizard cast a sleep spell on a bandit that was playing sentry. This group of bandits are known as cut throats to the local town, robbing caravans and outlying farms. They recently graduated to kidnapping and murder for hire. Even so, the party paladin of Heironeous had a lot to say to the wizard after he slit the throat of the bandit he had just put to sleep and disarmed. His reasoning? "Just in case".   It was definitely murder in cold blood and was completely unnecessary.
#103 FrogReaver Mar 06, 2015 23:50:07	Orethalion,    Your orignal premise was that it was never good for the players to kill bandits.   You have now said that if the DM determines that the players are acting with the proper authoritys blessing that the players can kill the bandits and instead of it being murder it will be considered an execution.     That's a significant shift from your original position....
#104 Vahnyu Mar 07, 2015 1:55:54	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #102) FrogReaver	Luciender wrote:
#106 Macv12 Mar 07, 2015 2:25:23	Uh, saying that murder is only okay when someone gave you the authority to do it is the definition of "might makes right." The act is morally evil unless you have the power to say that it isn't. In effect, it's right to kill if and only if you have the might to say so.   Killing someone because you think it will result in a net good is not "might makes right. You're not saying that something is morally right only because you have the strength to enforce it. You're saying that it's morally right regardless, and if you have the power to actualize it, you will do so. The fact that you wound up having more might than the evil person has nothing to do with whether it was right to kill them or not.   It doesn't help to say that killing is always an evil act, but can be used toward good ends. In the cases where it accomplished a net good, the killer was not evil. You could say that it's more good to accomplish that thing without killing, but that wasn't an option, you're left with a situation where you either accomplish a net good or leave a net evil to work itself out. Refusing to achieve a net good because you were too hung up on a single step in the process leaves you with a net bad. As I see it, this is not moral reasoning; it's refusing to reason morally, and just sticking to a list of acceptable and unacceptable actions. Fine for a character concept, but I don't think this adds anything to a discussion about what a Good character can or can't do.
#107 Knight_Marshal Mar 07, 2015 6:18:41	While my Tiefling Sorcerer is chaotic good, she approaches combat in a simple black and white way of determining who lives. Its not good vs evil to her, its us vs them.
#108 Orethalion Mar 07, 2015 6:49:27	FrogReaver wrote:
#109 Gwaithador Mar 07, 2015 7:40:48	Orethalion,   I strongly disagree with you.  The end can justify the means if that end is the greatest good for the greatest number. In the context of the general D&D setting, a good character who spares a cultist of Orcus, bent on sending an army of ghouls at a village,because at the last moment, the cultist throws himself at the mercy of the character, is at best unwise. It's the definition of making good 'stupid.' The idea that "good can never kill except in self-defense" is naive and simplistic. In the D&D multiverse, things are not as morally relative as they are in our 21st century real world. In th D&D setting, the gods are real. Demons are real. Devils are real.  These beings take a side in the cosmic struggle. Yes, you can add moral relativism and quandry to the setting, I do so myself. You can have an Orc who is good, etc. But in general, the typical, the norm,  the people of Gruummsh (Orcs) are chaotic evil. Their god made them in his image.  It's intrisic to their nature. If the characters are in the deep wilderness, seeking out an enemy's camp, etc. and they fight a band of Orcs, and the DM has one of the Orcs surrender,  the characters are faced with a terrible quandry. Do they march the Orc back to civilization for trial?  Do they let him go? Deal with the risks of having a prisoner the rest of the way?  Or do they put him to the sword? To default say: "well, you can't kill him, without a change in your alignment because he surrendered"  is simply a trap and explotive of thei characters having a good alignment and ignores all the other factors, including he intrisic nature of the chaotic evil Orc.   I strongly suggest, if anybody runs a game that is replicative of the complexities of morality in the 21st century post modern world, you scratch alignment altogether. If you intend to keep alignment, at least warn the players of how you define "Good" that way, they can ensure their characters have suitably low wisdom and intelligence scores to explain how they're constantly exploited by evil characters.
#110 OoftaMeg Mar 07, 2015 8:42:25	So I'm playing my chaotic good vengeance paladin and we just captured a Hannibal Lecter type villain.     I cast zone of truth and verify several things He has murdered and eaten many, many people. If given the chance, he will continue to kill and eat people.  Nothing we can do will convince him to stop. His cousin is the king.  If we turn him over to the authorities, he will be let go.  There's a good chance my paladin will be arrested for kidnapping. My character is good and wants to prevent the death of more innocents at the hands of this monster.  He doesn't really care about the "legal authority" because he follows a different standard.  He's dedicated his life to hunting down and stopping people like this who would otherwise escape justice.     This is one of many cases where killing the NPC would be a good act and my character couldn't give a furry rat's behind about having the "legal authority" to carry out an execution.
#111 Orethalion Mar 07, 2015 10:37:18	Gwaithador wrote:
#112 Orethalion Mar 07, 2015 10:38:20	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #112) OoftaMeg	Orethalion wrote:
#114 Nevvur Mar 07, 2015 11:20:42	I think it's funny that the argument is still being posed as Good vs. Evil, when it's more like Good vs. Good.   It's a Good act to remove Evil from the world (justice) It's a Good act to spare a person's life (mercy)   Which is more Good? Depends on the situation, and which virtue you consider to be more Good. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned, though I suspect it will go on. Cheers to another unresolved alignment thread!
#115 Orethalion Mar 07, 2015 11:43:34	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #114) FrogReaver	Nevvur wrote:
#117 Beoric Mar 07, 2015 12:41:28	All anyone here is discussing is justification, so let me posit this:  the degree to which act act may be considered good or evil depends upon comparing the harm done to the justification required to do that harm.   In all instances, the harm being contemplated here is the taking of a life (well, except the vampire example, which is less clear).  Every example that has been given is simply a point along the continuum.  I suspect for the most part, the contributors could agree which examples provide more justification and which require less.  All you are arguing about is where, on that continuum, you will draw the lines between good, neutrality, and evil.    Because as a species we are genetically predisposed to find justification for our actions, so as not to live with constant guilt, everyone is going to believe that whatever their position is regarding adequate justification is the correct one.  In other words, no-one is going to be convinced of a position they do not already hold.  All the posters are doing is revealing their own moral code.  With the following exception.   My players often run into situations where they have to decide what to do about the inconvenience of prisoners.  For the PCs, that is.  If they don't want to kill them or let them go, the PCs have to either find a way of securing them for a period of time, or march them back to the nearest authorities.  The players, on the other hand, are hardly inconveneinced at all.  They just have to say they have secured the prisoners, or have taken them to the authorities.  And yet, time and again, good-aligned PCs found justifications for slaughtering people of amiguous alignment to avoid finding another solution.   It bothered me, since the characters were supposed to be paragons of a sort.  The way I dealt with it was to humanize the NPCs.  Not necessarily to imply that they were good people, or undeserving of death.  I just gave them little touches to make them seem real, and hinted at their fear or desparation.  It was funny how, with just that little touch of humanity added, the players couldn't do it anymore.  So for those of you whose argument consists of "they were born evil", dig deeper, because I'm not buying it.
#118 Vahnyu Mar 07, 2015 14:19:38	Orethalion wrote:
#119 Vahnyu Mar 07, 2015 14:27:33	Alrighty then, let's try this senario.   Good PC vs Evil PC. In this campaign, the DM has decided to allow all alignments, anything goes. He will treat both PCs fairly and evenhandedly, with no prejudice towards alignment. If a PC would be captured, the DM would offer them reasonable opportunities to escape from their NPC captors.   The senario unfolds as the thread starter, the Good PC fends for themselves against the Evil PC who is a bandit. The Good PC has captured the bandit. When asked, under a zone of truth, the bandit reveals his despicable acts, and admits that he is never gonna seek forgiveness, won't steer from his way, and if given half a chance, will go at it again.
#120 Orethalion Mar 07, 2015 14:30:49	Vahnyu wrote:
#121 Orethalion Mar 07, 2015 14:33:32	Vahnyu wrote:
#122 Vahnyu Mar 07, 2015 14:51:14	Orethalion wrote:
#123 Orethalion Mar 07, 2015 15:29:05	Vahnyu wrote:
#124 Gwaithador Mar 07, 2015 15:14:03	Orethalion,   Notice my stress on the word "can" in my sentence concerning the end justifying the means if its for the greatest good for the greatest number.   The question with "100,000 innocents" to save 250,000 starving. Is bereft of details.  Selectively catergorizing the number as 100,000 "innocents", without context and sufficient detail doesn't allow me to make a determination of whether the deaths of 100,000 to save 250,000 would be the right thing to do or if there's another way of handling the problem.   And according to the 5e monster manual, Orcs, are,  by their nature and not upbringing, evil. Even the Player's Handbook asserts that half-orcs are influenced by the blood of their orc parentage, regardless of upbringing. Read  pages 40 and 41 of the PHB."The Mark of Gruummsh" and under "alignment."  Real world sociology is strongly tempered, even marginalized in the game world. And that's been the basis of my position. In the context of the game world, several of your assetions do not apply. People are injecting moral realtiivism and sociological development where it doesn't exist.  In the "standard" world(s) of Dungeons and Dragons, there are some things that are intrinsically evil; not just the demons and the devils.   I  suggest folks get their hands on the old Dragon Magazine number 38 and read Gygax's Sorcerer Scrolls' article: "Good isn't Stupid."  Or see if you can find the article on the net. It's worth a read and helpful in putting a lot of this sort of discussion in context.
#125 Orethalion Mar 07, 2015 15:32:21	Gwaithador wrote:
#126 Vahnyu Mar 07, 2015 15:35:32	Orethalion wrote:
#127 WhiteShirtCaptain Mar 07, 2015 16:00:51	Interesting, I never thought about how alignment questions could be effected by Zone of Truth.
#128 Orethalion Mar 07, 2015 16:07:00	Vahnyu wrote:
#129 jonathonhawke Mar 07, 2015 22:33:46	Vahnyu wrote:
#130 Orethalion Mar 08, 2015 7:57:40	jonathonhawke wrote:
#131 Vahnyu Mar 08, 2015 8:24:17	jonathonhawke wrote:
#132 Orethalion Mar 08, 2015 8:31:08	Vahnyu wrote:
#133 Vahnyu Mar 08, 2015 8:31:34	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #132) OoftaMeg	Orethalion wrote:
#135 Orethalion Mar 08, 2015 8:45:24	Vahnyu wrote:
#136 Gwaithador Mar 08, 2015 9:28:48	Mark of Gruumsh "...The one-eyed god Gruumsh created the orcs, and even those orcs who turn away from his worship can’t fully escape his influence. The same is true of half-orcs, though their human blood moderates the impact of their orcish heritage. Some half-orcs hear the whispers of Gruumsh in their dreams, calling them to unleash the rage that simmers within them. Others feel Gruumsh’s exultation when they join in melee combat-and either exult along with him or shiver in fear and loathing. Half-orcs are not evil by nature, but evil does lurk within them, whether they embrace it or rebel against it." PHB, pages 40-41.   "...Each place that Gruumsh wanted had already been claimed. The other gods laughed at Gruumsh, but he responded with a furious bellow. Grasping his mighty spear, he laid waste to the mountains, set the forests aflame, and carved great furrows in the fields. Such was the role of the orcs, he proclaimed, to take and destroy all that the other races would deny them. To this day, the orcs wage an endless war on humans, elves, dwarves, and other folk." -MM, page 244.   "Orcs gather in tribes that exert their dominance and satisfy their bloodlust by plundering villages, devouring or driving off roaming herds, and slaying humanoids that stand against them."   MM. page 244   "...their lust for slaughter demands that orcs dwell always  within striking distance of new targets."   MM, page 244 Alignment in the Multiverse   For many thinking creatures, alignment is a moral choice. Humans, dwarves, elves, and other humanod races can choose to follow paths of good or evil, law or chaos... The evil deities who created other races, though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods.  Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc god, Gruummsh, and are thus inclined toward evil.  Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against is innate tendencies for its entire life." --PHB, page 122.
#137 Avross Mar 08, 2015 11:15:54	Couple additional points here, many of which are probably within the discussion already:   D&D defines the difference between good and evil as a question of morality.   Basic Rules, p33-34 wrote:
#138 MechaPilot Mar 08, 2015 11:23:38	Undrhil wrote:
#139 Orethalion Mar 08, 2015 11:24:41	Gwaithador wrote:
#140 Orethalion Mar 08, 2015 11:27:36	MechaPilot wrote:
#141 MechaPilot Mar 08, 2015 11:34:39	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #140) OoftaMeg	Orethalion wrote:
#143 Orethalion Mar 08, 2015 11:59:56	MechaPilot wrote:
#144 Gwaithador Mar 08, 2015 16:34:23	Orethalion,   You're welcome.  Yes, the take on Orcs and other humanoids is markedly different. Which is why, I suppose, I came on so strong about this.  Or course, there's enough there to allow for "the grey" which,  I think is necessary to develop a good, rich setting. And of course, each DM will alter the setting to fit what he or she thinks makes for a good story.