We've been playing a new campaign for a month now, our party being led by a LG pally, 2 other LG's and a NG. I'm CG, It's the second time playing a good character (previous characters were NE, N, LE), and I figured I'd give him a rather simple philosophy: "Kill evil to make the world a better place". The first good character was another CG, but he was the party's tank and really didn't do much proactive good, he just went with the group and was highly focused on protecting them.
During our last session, we're in the underdark and at one point, we come across a crazy and disease-riddened person. After listening to his mad ramblings and a few members getting actually diseased themselves, the group decides to remove the disease from themselves and that person, which caused the NPC to be sane again, but have amnesia. At this point I ask the obvious: What race is he? Drow . And I should point out I'm also an elf. So my thought process goes as follows:
Drow - racial enemy
Drow - evil
Kill Drow
Hence I killed the drow. At the end of the session, DM states that I'm now CN because killing a crazed drow that didn't pose a threat was a very evil thing to do and he listed off a few other minor Neutral things I did simply to make the point that it was not just this event alone that caused the change. At this point I'm very confused, I'm not saying it was necessarily a good act, but very evil?
So I consult some of the other players privately and get mixed responses, some going with the "Killing a drow is not evil because they are inherently evil" angle, others, including the DM, going with the "Killing is evil, the drow didn't pose a threat and was crazed". Both are valid in their own regards. But the one that matters of course is the DM's. Not wishing to continue doing evil acts unintentionally knowing that the LG's will step in at some point, now many questions arise such as "ok... when is appropriate to kill a blatently evil creature" and general morality questions about killing evil creatures, more or less proactively and not only in self-defense. I prefer the more black and white "If it's known to be evil in nature, killing it is not evil" then the moral complications which adds several shades of gray "It wasn't threatening you... it's just a miner/farmer (i.e non-hostile)... the list goes on."
Any advice is appreciated on this one.
Next up, do you have any evidence to support that killing him was an appropriate punishment for whatever he might have done of his own free will? The punishment has to fit the crime for it to be justice.
Now, long story short: In 3e, whenever you think about playing a Paladin, you should always talk to the DM to see how he interprets the Paladin's code. You and he obviously view it differently, and you're going to be unsatisfied with the character. I'd recommend dropping the Paladin and playing something else.
as a side note, a single action shouldn't result in an alignment change, and alignment changes should be gradual ... one step at a time, not an abrupt drop to CN.
Killing creatures because you think they are evil do to racial prejudice is.
What you did was even worse as far as I can tell. You killed someone because you "assumed" that he must be evil, because the culture he comes from is mostly evil. Killing a drow because of his race might be the elvish thing to do, but it's not good.
I didn't go around killing everything that's evil, and there was plenty around if I wanted to, just that one drow.
That's what would have been reasonable in case of the drow. Speaking against giving him a weapon, not letting him keep watch etc. He has to prove first that he doesn't want to harm you. Giving him the chance would have been the good thing to do.
If he would have been evil and tried to kill you in your sleep
he would have been meat to be wasted.
In a game of moral delemas, solutions like Arcas_Shan's are spot on, but in games based solely around kicking in the door and killing things, Arcas_Shan's interpretation would only be a hinderance.
In this situation, I would have to agree with your DM and the entire moral delema route. However, it seems that your alignment drop was simply based on a misunderstanding of alignment in your game, so you should probably talk with your DM a little to see if you can get your CG alignment back, since it really was just a mistake.
Its like goblins though, they are even more monster like, but that doesn't mean you can walk into a goblin village, that never harmed anyone and murder all the woman and children.
The big problem I always used to have, was when the party took prisoners. If you take prisons you can't murder them after wards, because its inconvenient to bring them back to town with you.
Another one being: It's OK to kill it if it doesn't speak our language and/or has a non-humanoid appearance.
Partly because this is 3rd edition and alignments are important, and because it pretty much all falls on the DM to arbitrate, the only real solutions are to hammer out exactly what's good and when, or (much more practically) ask the DM on a case by case basis every time it comes to killing, tricking or robbing something.
Honestly, you will get different responses just as you found when you asked your other players. Everyone has an opinion. The only one that matters for your alignment though is the DM's opinion, not counting whatever you can convince him of. So, just ask him/her.
"I want to kill this guy, because he's a Drow and my people's racial enemy. He's not fighting us at the moment, but would it be evil to kill him now?"
Aside from the alignment issue, and also perhaps another reason the DM "snapped," you just randomly killed a quest NPC, or at least a clue to a plotline of some kind. Or you might have, but now don't know. This takes some options away from the other players who wanted to interrogate the guy, and causes a bit of a hiccup for the DM who may have been all ready to roleplay the crazy drow with amnesia. In that sense, killing an NPC "randomly" with no warning is similar to taking an unopened treasure chest, and just chucking it down a bottomless cliff because you don't like the craftsmanship of the box.
You certainly should feel free to roleplay your racial hostilities. Go ahead and act belligerent if it won't be too problematic for everyone. Vocalize your desire to kill the Drow to your teammates (preferably out of the Drow's earshot). Act confident that nothing good can come of talking to him.
But as a matter of courtesy, don't just erase the NPC and take him away from everyone else.
Under particular circumstances, it would not be evil to kill a good creature. For instance, if a group of Orcs are raiding a village, the healer in the group may very well be Good. That Orc may be the healer because he wished to help people and he has been struggling to get his people to listen to reason about declaring war on the humans... but they haven't listened. So this Orc found himself pulled into the war and is healing people who are committing evil acts because s/he feels honor-bound to stand by the tribe no matter their acts and there is still an ingrained preference for her/his family over foreign races even if s/he doesn't agree with what they are doing.
If the party then kills that good Orc in order to prevent her/him from healing the other Orcs who they are trying to stop, it would not be evil to do so. Regardless of the inherant alignment of this NPC, the NPC is presently a threat.
So it really depends on circumstances... yes, the D&D world is filled strange races, but if you've already accepted Draconians, Devils, Angels, Rockpeople, Warmachines, Werewolves, Demon Summoners, etc. as part of your party, I think it becomes contingent upon you not to jump to any conclusions about other races. Good characters would generally share a preference that they'd want everyone to live in peace with one another and if by winning over one Drow or Orc or Goblin you are one step away from pulling them all away from the darkness and into a united civilization, then the good character would not mind taking some risk to do so.
Of course, this is a fairly old arguement... since a lot of these humanoid races aren't compelled to be evil by their very nature, meaning that they MUST do great harm to others for their very survival, such as Vampires and Demons and they do have their own minds and independant thoughts unlike constructs and zombies... then is it okay to kill them?
Well, there are those who'd ignore that and state firmly they slaughtering an entire Goblin tribe that was not a threat to anyone without even trying to negotiate is not evil because they view Goblins as 2-dimensional 'evil' creatures, ones that are compelled to be evil not by having a social system that rewards wickedness but because they have black souls. However, there has been a major shift away from that mentality (starting with the pretty evil races rather than the weakest, most common and most manipulatable, regardless that it makes no sense to me. u_u) and more of an acceptance that the 'evil' label is more of a general trend and that there is always going to be some percent (like 10% or so) that are going to be even good while a great amount (40-60%) will be unaligned committing just as much evil as is necessary for them to survive and just as much good as is necessary to keep a functional society running.
Your character has a certain believe of what is evil and what is not. You don't need to follow the alignment-system for that.
Here's for the double standard!
So, we have a defendable position, only 2 ways in, and one locks from the inside (our side). The other door mechanism was broken during the fight so it won't close unless something is put in front of it.
My first thought that came to mind was piling the bodies in front of the door (or at least enough to keep it closed and give us a bit of warning if someone tries to get in). The DM pipes up and says "So, you want to desecrate the bodies?" Which he considers to be an evil act (most of the party being good aligned, one of which is a Leonal being playtested that won't knowingly commit an evil act). To which our reply was "no, we just want to move them".
Ultimately he let us backtrack and use other items, however my question to everyone here is...
Is moving fallen enemies bodies, to provide a tactical advantage (whether there are other means or not) considered desecration? We aren't talking about anything more than picking them up and setting them down in another spot.
Ah, okay. The problem with D&D is, that the borders between monsters and individuals are blurred. The only type of that I can't remember any good members are aberrations. We had good red dragons, a demonic succubus paladin, good kobolds etc. In the end something is evil if it does evil. If you have a good reason to believe that someone is evil you can distrust them and watch them closely.
That's what would have been reasonable in case of the drow. Speaking against giving him a weapon, not letting him keep watch etc. He has to prove first that he doesn't want to harm you. Giving him the chance would have been the good thing to do.
If he would have been evil and tried to kill you in your sleep
That paladin is awful. Not only is she a 3.5 paladin, which already sucks, but she can't even use a bunch of her meagre abilities. I guess it might be fun RPing, but that's it.
That paladin is awful. Not only is she a 3.5 paladin, which already sucks, but she can't even use a bunch of her meagre abilities. I guess it might be fun RPing, but that's it.
The concept is great and just look at her charisma score. She get's +10 on all saving throws, that's not too bad. And if you want her to use everything she's got there's a blackguard version below.;)
Is moving fallen enemies bodies, to provide a tactical advantage (whether there are other means or not) considered desecration? We aren't talking about anything more than picking them up and setting them down in another spot.
I wouldn't consider it such under the circumstances but the individual belief systems of the dead in question may see it differently.
And we need to remember that "killing" has not traditionally been viewed as evil, while murder has. The difference is that murder is viewed as killing unjustly. But if there is a racial war going on, where Drow and Non-Drow are enemies in that fight, then Drow are to be treated as such. Challenging the Drow to a fight to the death should be view as "fair", while killing him when he is helpless would be seen as wrong.
But what is evil? Evil gods know they're evil, and don't claim to be good. That's another part of the design. If the gods say that bears are evil and killing them is good, then bears are evil and killing them is good, period.
So really, when confronted with a situation, ask "What does my religion teach me?" If it teaches you to slay all Drow, do it. If it tells you to treat them like they stole gum from the local grocery, do that.
Is moving fallen enemies bodies, to provide a tactical advantage (whether there are other means or not) considered desecration? We aren't talking about anything more than picking them up and setting them down in another spot.
Only if they've been buried. If you're using them as physical barricades (a la cavalry horses), it might get a bit iffy, but only if 1) you're overly religious, and 2) you make it specifically so that your enemies have to hack through the bodies instead of simply providing cover OR 1A) someone in the party is of a religion that does forbid moving the dead (in which case it varies - you may be able to get around it simply by not having him do anything). If your DM is calling sacrilige on trying to use bodies to block a door, he *should* also be calling sacrilige on your failure to bury them in the first place (and should be calling up ghosts and revenants left and right should you have failed to do so in the past).
1. to divest of sacred or hallowed character or office.
2. to divert from a sacred to a profane use or purpose.
Seeing as you've (presumably) already hacked the bodies up, you've already committed offense 1, and seeing as the bodies weren't buried (and there's no reason for them simply lying there to be sacred), you are unable to commit offense 2.
I've had the same situation occur with when a few players of mine asked if he could kill the bound goblins, and the Paladin ended up leaving the group because of their chaotic act.
I had a similar situation and am curious to hear others thoughts on it. On our last gaming session (3.5 game), we had just finished clearing a part of the dungeon. All the spell caster were low or out of spells and we have 2 additional sections to go through. We aren't really able to head back out to rest either.
So, we have a defendable position, only 2 ways in, and one locks from the inside (our side). The other door mechanism was broken during the fight so it won't close unless something is put in front of it.
My first thought that came to mind was piling the bodies in front of the door (or at least enough to keep it closed and give us a bit of warning if someone tries to get in). The DM pipes up and says "So, you want to desecrate the bodies?" Which he considers to be an evil act (most of the party being good aligned, one of which is a Leonal being playtested that won't knowingly commit an evil act). To which our reply was "no, we just want to move them".
Ultimately he let us backtrack and use other items, however my question to everyone here is...
Is moving fallen enemies bodies, to provide a tactical advantage (whether there are other means or not) considered desecration? We aren't talking about anything more than picking them up and setting them down in another spot.
I, personally would say no. digging up corpses for the heck of it or slathering them with your bodily waste is one thing, but moving bodies to save lives is another. If any of you are ever in a situation where moving my corpse will save lives, don't hesitate. I mean it's not like I'm still using it.
What's more, if they were evil, why do their corpses deserve to be honored? an evildoer's head on a pike is a great way to boost local morale and discourage someone else from repeating their actions.
Is the creature I want to kill attacking me or trying to hurt innocents or other people that need the help of my PC? Are they part of a scheme to hurt innocent people? If the answer is yes, then killing the creature could be an option.
One of the next steps then should be to think about the roleplaying implications. Now, if Drow are you enemies and you feel that your character could be willing to kill him, why not make a great roleplaying situation out of this and let the other players participate in an argument about what to do with the Drow?
Let there be a deep in-character discussion about what to do in which every PC can share their views. Maybe tell something about your character that the other players did not know, since this is group-building. In this way, everybody can show the type of PC they are playing and be original about it.
Lastly, do not be mad or bewildered about the decision your DM made, since killing the Drow was an evil act. Instead, use this situation as an awesome roleplaying opportunity. I am assuming you want to play a CG character and that you want that alignment back. So, atone, and I do not mean the 3.5 spell "Atonement". Instead, talk to the Paladin or a Cleric that you feel bad about what you did, that you did it in the spur of the moment and that you think it was the wrong thing to. Ask for moral help. This ensures that the other players have to deal with your remorse on a roleplaying level. And if you act "better" in the future, I am sure, your very reasonable DM will give you your original alignment back. He/She could even build this into your future adventures.
After all, a situation like this can be lots of fun for everybody and if handled well will be remembered from the campaign for a very long time.
If you're using Books of Exalted Deeds/Vile Darkness in your game, even then you may run into a redeemed or corrupted monster which breaks the 'Always' rule. If you're playing in Eberron, dragons specifically do not have the 'Always' tag.
The first being, its not grave digging as long as you do not use a shovel. Which means you can break into caskets and tombs and remove objects from buried bodies as long as you don't break the soil to dig them up.
The second, is that its not stealing unless a living person has a direct claim to an object. So when you go down into a dungeon your free to loot anything not bolted down, even if their religious or holy objects, or things buried to honor the dead. All dead bodies are freely lootable as well.
Being an adventurer grants the special rules to you. Breaking into an ancient burial ground, disrupting the dead within and stealing all their property is an evil action. However its commonly done by adventurers and no one ever takes a second look.
Who hasn't seen that fancy stone coffin at the final room of an adventure, cracked open the lid, pushed it over and then dug through the body within and stole that magic sword? Piling the dead bodies against the door to protect yourself, I think that falls under the protected actions of adventuring.
D&D isn't intended to be a course in morality and ethics. D&D was originally intended to be played with an extremely black and white alignment system. Races listed as evil were to be assumed to be evil, and killed by those who are good. I've had people argue that this isn't the case, but then again, I'm pretty sure I played more games with Gary than they did. That's not to say that this is how it should be... but that was the original goal of the old rules.
And we need to remember that "killing" has not traditionally been viewed as evil, while murder has. The difference is that murder is viewed as killing unjustly. But if there is a racial war going on, where Drow and Non-Drow are enemies in that fight, then Drow are to be treated as such. Challenging the Drow to a fight to the death should be view as "fair", while killing him when he is helpless would be seen as wrong.
But what is evil? Evil gods know they're evil, and don't claim to be good. That's another part of the design. If the gods say that bears are evil and killing them is good, then bears are evil and killing them is good, period.
So really, when confronted with a situation, ask "What does my religion teach me?" If it teaches you to slay all Drow, do it. If it tells you to treat them like they stole gum from the local grocery, do that.
See, your answer is that we make it okay in D&D by declaring that all propaganda is necessarily true-- which only means the next time this sort of mentality arises in public you are joining in on the lynch mob and calling yourself "good" up until the falsehoods are exposed and then spending the rest of your life protesting and rationalizing your actions.
But, the rest of us would like to play a game where we've actually LEARNED from our past and instead of buying into the same mentality that caused all the tragefies of the past we recognize the hypocrisy in such mentality and call "good" the actions one takes when that propaganda is presented, even if the propaganda may well have some truth in it.
That way the next time someone does make a convicing arguement that so-and-so group of people are "ratpeople" who like to lie, cheat, steal, eat babies and are prone to backstabbing violence, our response instead can be "surely they aren't ALL like that and it doesn't mean we need to round them up and exterminate them-- just route out the particular evil members amongst them and share our society with the rest."
Desecrating bodies is a protected action! In the fine tradition of adventuring, there are set immunities that apply to all adventures.
The first being, its not grave digging as long as you do not use a shovel. Which means you can break into caskets and tombs and remove objects from buried bodies as long as you don't break the soil to dig them up.
The second, is that its not stealing unless a living person has a direct claim to an object. So when you go down into a dungeon your free to loot anything not bolted down, even if their religious or holy objects, or things buried to honor the dead. All dead bodies are freely lootable as well.
Being an adventurer grants the special rules to you. Breaking into an ancient burial ground, disrupting the dead within and stealing all their property is an evil action. However its commonly done by adventurers and no one ever takes a second look.
Who hasn't seen that fancy stone coffin at the final room of an adventure, cracked open the lid, pushed it over and then dug through the body within and stole that magic sword? Piling the dead bodies against the door to protect yourself, I think that falls under the protected actions of adventuring.
You should start a thread listing all the special rights of the adventurer. I think it would be a hoot.
In 3e, there are 'Usually' and 'Always' in front of creature alignments. If a creature has 'Always' (and typically the alignment as a subtype), they are locked into that alignment and should be dealt with accordingly.
Not necessarily. The MM states that there are exceptions to even 'always' alignments, though they are few and far between.
See, your answer is that we make it okay in D&D by declaring that all propaganda is necessarily true-- which only means the next time this sort of mentality arises in public you are joining in on the lynch mob and calling yourself "good" up until the falsehoods are exposed and then spending the rest of your life protesting and rationalizing your actions.
But, the rest of us would like to play a game where we've actually LEARNED from our past and instead of buying into the same mentality that caused all the tragefies of the past we recognize the hypocrisy in such mentality and call "good" the actions one takes when that propaganda is presented, even if the propaganda may well have some truth in it.
That way the next time someone does make a convicing arguement that so-and-so group of people are "ratpeople" who like to lie, cheat, steal, eat babies and are prone to backstabbing violence, our response instead can be "surely they aren't ALL like that and it doesn't mean we need to round them up and exterminate them-- just route out the particular evil members amongst them and share our society with the rest."
Because D&D is a lot like REAL LIFE, and people who play D&D (and video games! Can't forget them) can't tell the difference between REAL LIFE and D&D.
If drow are evil by nature, and the good gods order their destruction, then failure to kill drow is evil. I feel very sorry for people who feel the need to correlate this with the holocaust. They’ve obviously missed the point.
-- Yagami Light
If you don't get the reference, there's a manga/anime called Death Note you reminded me of. In it, the main character--Yagami Light--gains the ability to kill anyone whose name he knows and face he would recognize.
With his godlike power over life and death, he decides that he is going to clean up the world. He is going to look up the name and face of every single criminal on the planet, and murder them with his power.
So, moral dilemma: Is Yagami Light doing good? He's killing hundreds or even thousands of people a day, based on his judgement of who does and does not deserve to die. But he's killing criminals... mostly... so it's okay, right? That murderer here and serial killer there deserved what was coming to them, after all! The child molester will never hurt someone again!
...murder is wrong. It doesn't matter who you're killing: the ends do NOT justify the means. In D&D, killing is standard; Hell, in _LIFE_ our nations tend to keep 'kill the other guys' in their breast pocket of diplomacy.
Killing is an evil act--a being of 'pure good' could not harm a fly. The Vow of Peace (or was it nonviolence?) 3.5 power strips you of your powers if you happen to drink a glass of water with a gnat in it, because you harmed the gnat.
So whether you're deciding that someone--based purely on their race--needs to die in real life, in Death Note, or in D&D... you've performed a wholly evil act.
In my games, as a DM, I'd even apply this concept to killing monsters. One person said in this thread that the line between monster and person was blurry--well, it works both ways, too. That drow might be nothing but a mindless killing machine, just as likely as that beholder just wants to sit in his cave peacefully and write poetry about the stars. One's a person, one's a beast; who are you, as a non-omniscient PC, to decide which one is which?
Not necessarily. The MM states that there are exceptions to even 'always' alignments, though they are few and far between.
Amen!
The gods of the game world can be quite actively communicating their definitions of good and evil, and their definitions can be free of relative moral perspective. People sometimes paraphrase a few lines from Plato’s Euthyphro and ask why something is good or evil. They miss the point that if the gods do agree that something is good or something else is evil, then there can be no doubt about it. The model is perfect for the D&D world; the game is not the real world, nor is it intended to model it.
The gods of D&D are far too human to decide what's good and what's evil.
If drow are evil by nature, and the good gods order their destruction, then failure to kill drow is evil.
Drow aren't evil by nature and the only god that wants to wipe them out is a chaotic neutral former mortal.
If killing someone is an evil act it is an evil act regardless of who you do it to. If you kill someone you don't know in an alleyway for his spare change you've committed an Evil act. If you ambush a known military force of a nation you are at war with, you've committed a neutral act. It doesn't matter if the man you killed in the alley was a child sacrificing servant of Orcus and the military unit was a squad of paladins, what matters is you and why you did your actions.
Of course my suggestion is to burn alignment, but killing Drow just because would be frowned upon by most of my non villainous characters.
With that said, I'd say this:
* killing is bad
* killing those who are thought of as bad without any proof is bad
* killing those who are proven as bad but have not committed any grave acts in recent times is bad
* killing those who are committing evil depends on the severity of the crime I suppose, but often killing is a last resort, not a first
* killing because of racial discrimination is bad, no matter how justifiable it is in your race's eyes
* killing for life is acceptable, but limits ought to be set
** in self defense? yes
** to eat? not always
** to save another life? perhaps, depending on the situation (if it was an innocent, definitely... but of course you have to make sure it *is* an innocent, and not someone posing as an innocent)
The world in black and white? I don't think so. That's why the life of a Paladin is not for me, because trying to divide the world into two is like trying to cut yourself in half.
If I've learned anything from reading too many of them, it's this: Everyone has their own opinion, and none of them matter as much as your DM's.
Killing is an evil act--a being of 'pure good' could not harm a fly.
Angels (and other celestials) would like a word with you. Good =/= Pacifist. Murder is something different from killing, is an evil act, and fits the OP (Possibly - we don't have any information other than the fact that he killed the drow). What's that one quote? "All that is necessary for Evil to succeed is Good men to do nothing," or something? If you are truly Good, often enough you will find yourself absolutely forced to take violent action, and often enough end lives. How else could Paladins fight, if killing is Evil and committing an Evil act makes a Paladin fall?
Murder is something different from killing...
Yup!
These D&D morality threads bug me, because both sides tend to swing too far in either direction. Murdering the drow was an evil act. The DM probably should've asked the player if he really wanted to do this, and explain the resultant alignment shift beforehand so the player would know what he's getting himself into.
As far as exceptions to the 'Always' tag - they're DM fiat exceptions, nothing more. An ordained exorcist isn't going to start second-guessing himself when fighting devils just because there's a slim chance one may be a saint!
At our next session I fully plan to make this a good RP experience, to show regret for realizing after the fact that I was misguided and my true intentions is to do good in the world.
As for the DM changing my alignment, like I stated before, he's a great DM, but he has one flaw that I've been on the receiving end of with several characters: He makes many assumptions in regards to my characters in hypothetical situations, and uses that assumption as something that can change my alignment. In this case, one of the reasons he listed for the alignment change, other then the obvious murder, was "My character only does good when it either benefits him or if he's forced too". However I've been playing the character with the mentality that he chooses to stay in the party because of the common goal of doing good, and I have never been given a choice in-game to demonstrate using actions or RP my characters motivation in that regard. I always believed that my character's actions in-game determines his alignment, not what the DM believes he might do. It is annoying that the DM believes he knows my character better then I.
The worst case was my previous Scout going from N to NE, despite not doing any evil acts. When I discussed it with him, he, again, listed off that my characters motivations, which were again wrong, is what made him Evil. There was not a single actual evil act in that list. In the following 4 sessions, my scout then went to CN and then N, bring up the tally of alignment changes to 3 in 5 sessions.
I apologize for that rant, it's just something that's been on my mind ever since this alignment change.
How many DMs actually bother thinking about whether those monsters actually ever get out of the dungeon to commit some atrocities to humans that would need avenging.
If D&D truly wants to reflect reality, then this system definitely is NOT going to work in portraying it. The world simply isn't as black and white and these arguments over morality in D&D quickly become arguments on morality irl, which seems to underline this problem.
The way I see it - only certain acts can be totally evil. Killing is one of them. And one evil act gives birth to more of the like.
I wouldn't consider it such under the circumstances but the individual belief systems of the dead in question may see it differently.
I can completely agree with that. Since we were fighting religious zealots of Hextor, I can definitely see a follower of Hextor considering what we wanted to do as desecration.
Only if they've been buried. If you're using them as physical barricades (a la cavalry horses), it might get a bit iffy, but only if
1) you're overly religious,
We do have a Favored Soul of Olidammara (sp?) and as the Leonal I play he is defined as the epitome of good (NG alignment). Won't run from battle, won't knowingly commit an act of evil.
1A) someone in the party is of a religion that does forbid moving the dead (in which case it varies - you may be able to get around it simply by not having him do anything).
Not that I'm aware of.
2) you make it specifically so that your enemies have to hack through the bodies instead of simply providing cover
I suppose if they pushed on the door and it didn't open, they would try hacking it down. So, that could be a grey area.
If your DM is calling sacrilige on trying to use bodies to block a door, he *should* also be calling sacrilige on your failure to bury them in the first place (and should be calling up ghosts and revenants left and right should you have failed to do so in the past).
Don't give him ideas =P
Seeing as you've (presumably) already hacked the bodies up, you've already committed offense 1, and seeing as the bodies weren't buried (and there's no reason for them simply lying there to be sacred), you are unable to commit offense 2.
Makes sense to me. I remember from the olden days (2nd Ed) of actually getting bonus experience by "desecrating" evil religions stuff. Though bodies of the fallen might have still been iffy back then too.
I, personally would say no. digging up corpses for the heck of it or slathering them with your bodily waste is one thing, but moving bodies to save lives is another. If any of you are ever in a situation where moving my corpse will save lives, don't hesitate. I mean it's not like I'm still using it.
Thanks I'll keep that in mind =P
What's more, if they were evil, why do their corpses deserve to be honored? an evildoer's head on a pike is a great way to boost local morale and discourage someone else from repeating their actions.
Very true. I could still see a very devote cleric or paladin offering the fallen enemies "salvation" by giving them their burial rituals. Which in turn could still be seen as desecration by one of the fallens comrades.
Desecrating bodies is a protected action! In the fine tradition of adventuring, there are set immunities that apply to all adventures.
The first being, its not grave digging as long as you do not use a shovel. Which means you can break into caskets and tombs and remove objects from buried bodies as long as you don't break the soil to dig them up.
The second, is that its not stealing unless a living person has a direct claim to an object. So when you go down into a dungeon your free to loot anything not bolted down, even if their religious or holy objects, or things buried to honor the dead. All dead bodies are freely lootable as well.
Being an adventurer grants the special rules to you. Breaking into an ancient burial ground, disrupting the dead within and stealing all their property is an evil action. However its commonly done by adventurers and no one ever takes a second look.
Who hasn't seen that fancy stone coffin at the final room of an adventure, cracked open the lid, pushed it over and then dug through the body within and stole that magic sword? Piling the dead bodies against the door to protect yourself, I think that falls under the protected actions of adventuring.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
-----------------------------------------
Thank you all for your responses. Ultimately I am willing to defer to the DM's position and his ruling doesn't cause any fun to be lost in playing. But it is good to know what "rules" one should play by. I don't mind playing in games that present moral dilemma's, but I do think the rules should be consistent.
Ahh, I understand now. I didn't view the drow as being a race, I put them in the same category as beholders and such, in other words being a monster and not an actual individual in this case.
I didn't go around killing everything that's evil, and there was plenty around if I wanted to, just that one drow.
God I wish you were a playing a Paladin or the like in one of my games..
I follow the rules on how alignment is defined in the MM, I mess with my players alot.
I have thrown Nuetral Red Dragons at them, Demons that didn't care to continue the war and in fact were merchants, etc..
I would also have the Enemy NPC wizard going around and casting spells that altered auras just to mess with detect magics..
Basically my party would finally learn, "It's not evil till it tries to kill us, even then it just might be hungry.."
Even if it turns out he WAS evil, you should have a good reason for attacking him -- he attacks you or he states the intention of doing something evil or something.
A paladin is essentially Sir Galahad from the arthurian mythos or Sturm from the Dragonlance saga. He's a religious, spiritual, agent of god who is motivated not by self but by some greater purpose. Think of your God and ask yourself if he would want you to do some action. Ask your DM if you're unsure (pray for guidance from your god if you have time). If you don't want to be second guessed by a deity (or your DM) play a fighter. In 4e you can be a better melee combatant that way anyway.
...The worst case was my previous Scout going from N to NE, despite not doing any evil acts. When I discussed it with him, he, again, listed off that my characters motivations, which were again wrong, is what made him Evil. There was not a single actual evil act in that list. In the following 4 sessions, my scout then went to CN and then N, bring up the tally of alignment changes to 3 in 5 sessions.
I'd do what you are doing, that is tell him he is misinterpreting your intentions. And I'd probably avoid playing any class which is sensitive to alignment change. If the others in the group do that too -- refuse to play a cleric or a paladin -- he may get the message that he's going too far. Play a fighter and let him change your alignment to anything he wants, but continue to play your character heroically. If that doesn't work, DM an adventure and change his alignment every encounter on the most spurious reasons you can until he says he gets the point
Evil implies hurting, oppressing and killing others. The major acts are defined in the BoVD...lying, theft, betrayal, murder, cheating, whoshipping evil gods or making demon pacts, animating undead, casting evil spells, daming or harming souls, consorting with fiends, creating evil creatures, using others for personal gain, selfishness, greed, bullying and cowing innocents, bringing despair, blood vendetta's, tempting others, vengence, immorality, cannabilsim, torture, genocide, turning the blind eye, and the most common confused aspect that good characters tend to fall neutral too...revenge...
Slipping into neutral area's are ok, but you should speak to your DM about why he set your alignment as NE for your scout. Look in contrast to your other player characters around the table...how do their characters act while representing their own alignments. There must of been some reason or past actions that led your character down the path that turned him N, then CN. Alignment is a gradual change and take place in game, not by the session.
As for your elf caster character aka drow killer, you should know by what we all said, your character killed because he thought he was doing good, but in truth the act numbed his alignment to CN. Showing a repentence and accepting what you did was wrong will bring him back to CG. Eitherway, your DM would not shift your alignment, unles he/she felt it nessecary, as your fellow PC's. Good luck.
.
And I should point out I'm also an elf. So my thought process goes as follows:
Drow - racial enemy
Drow - evil
Kill Drow
Hence I killed the drow.
This is the same logic that was used in the Salem witch trials, the inquisition, the crusades, Nazi germany durring the holocuast, and probably a few noteworthy things i'm missing. Do you think the actions committied in any of those situations were all good? Or all Evil? Personally i lean toward 3/4 to 9/10 evil depending on the situation.:D
The point is the only time you can use a blanket statement is against an object that can't think for itself. And if it cannot think then its nuetral. Being good or evil is a choice. You chose to Kill. The drow chose to ramble on. Thus your gm was right but probably over reacted a little. I would have giving you bad/guilty dreams from your god for your first offence. Your alignment is another reason. A CG should find good in the strangest places, LG should be trying to eradicate evil when possible. If i were the gm i'd expect to see the LG trying to say all drow are evil and the CG trying to say anthing can be good.
Take a modern setting, the last BATMAN movie. Joker C/E(i dont think anyone will argue) Batman C/G. Remember BATMAN's one quote: " i only have one rule". Batman is willing to break ANY laws to bring evildoers to justice EXCEPT one, KILL. He lets Joker live in the end. Batman = C/G; You = N/g ? true N?, I dont know.
Largely because in this case, I agree with them.
The problem here is the one of racial prejudice. The assumption was "Drow = evil", but unless the Paladin happens to follow a particularly violent god that insists on handling things this way, most gods in DnD would view this as an evil act. The party was given an opportunity to redeem the drow; he had amnesia AND had just been saved by the party. Rather than convert or assist the drow, gaining a follower for the God, the paladin killed the helpless creature.
"Good" typically resorts to attempting to redeem its foes when it can. "Evil" destroys anything that is in the way of its agenda.
This is the same logic that was used in the Salem witch trials, the inquisition, the crusades, Nazi germany durring the holocuast, and probably a few noteworthy things i'm missing. Do you think the actions committied in any of those situations were all good? Or all Evil? Personally i lean toward 3/4 to 9/10 evil depending on the situation.:D
The point is the only time you can use a blanket statement is against an object that can't think for itself. And if it cannot think then its nuetral. Being good or evil is a choice. You chose to Kill. The drow chose to ramble on. Thus your gm was right but probably over reacted a little. I would have giving you bad/guilty dreams from your god for your first offence. Your alignment is another reason. A CG should find good in the strangest places, LG should be trying to eradicate evil when possible. If i were the gm i'd expect to see the LG trying to say all drow are evil and the CG trying to say anthing can be good.
Take a modern setting, the last BATMAN movie. Joker C/E(i dont think anyone will argue) Batman C/G. Remember BATMAN's one quote: " i only have one rule". Batman is willing to break ANY laws to bring evildoers to justice EXCEPT one, KILL. He lets Joker live in the end. Batman = C/G; You = N/g ? true N?, I dont know.
I'd see chaotic good as the more likely candidate to assume an entire race is evil, as chaotic good "goes with their gut" where as lawful good follows some kind of protocol. but then, I guess that depends largely on what types of protocol are mainstream in the setting, but I would assume protocol will have some sort of by-law or footnote for dealing with possibly good members of a generally evil species.
Rather than convert or assist the drow, gaining a follower for the God, the paladin killed the helpless creature.
As a point, the character in question isn't a Paladin (or at least that hasn't been stated outright). If the character was a Paladin I'd have slapped the player upside the head and told him to find a new class, because a Paladin has no excuse in this scenario. They have an unlimited supply of Detect Evil, and not spending a tiny amount of effort before killing a non hostile as a Paladin is sheer incompetence.
However, you can't kill helpless people or things.
I once played a paladin with the vows of peace and poverty, dedicated wholely to the eradication of undead. That was a fairly interesting campaign. Though with the exalted feats from BoED you need a group that's okay with rping in that direction. Especially the vows of peace and poverty, since either one can really rattle the game and both together can turn the whole thing on its ear.
If you weren't given the opportunity ask your DM what would happen if the above scenario played out. If he still would have changed your alignment ask him why.
However, I believe that after you cured him the party took on at least a small amount of responsibility for him. The least you could have done is knock him out and left him with a dagger while you carried on with your quest, giving him at least a chance of survival. If he turned out to be good or neutral he'd go on his way with a couple of lumps on his head and if he's evil you'd have humiliated him which is about twice as good as killing him ;) and you might have yourself an interesting nemesis in the future.
But, since your DM seems to have made hasty, and apparently wrong, assumptions about your character's motivations in the past perhaps you should make a quick note of them and keep it with you and hand it to him when he thinks of changing your alignment next.
Above all remember the golden rule of sorting problems with your DM or fellow players. Just sit down and have a friendly chat about any issues you have with them.
I'd see chaotic good as the more likely candidate to assume an entire race is evil, as chaotic good "goes with their gut" where as lawful good follows some kind of protocol. but then, I guess that depends largely on what types of protocol are mainstream in the setting, but I would assume protocol will have some sort of by-law or footnote for dealing with possibly good members of a generally evil species.
Well, i can see your point, IMO though LG would be the person who would stick with convention. Ie. "Drow are evil cause they kill elves, i dont have time to do a trail. The Judges sentence drow to death. Thus i must kill drow. IT what the law requires." That logic. Choatic character typically defy rules or convention. Thus a CG character would be MOSTLY likely to go "DROW = RACIAL ENEMY, well lets take it case by case". Ie. Not follow the rule. Lawful follows rules choatic usually doesnt. IMO.
Remember, Murder or to Kill is an aspect of Good vs Evil. It doesnt always fall into Lawful vs Choatic. In this case especially. It's Lawful for and elf to kill a drow. Hell, its his racial enemy. It's jsut not good. Does any think if he goes back to and elf city and tells the sherrif what he did they'd arrest him? I'd doubt it.
Heck, if i was his gm, i'd tell him he's starting to swing towards L-N. I wouldnt change him yet though.
Killing evil creatures is not evil.
Killing creatures because you think they are evil do to racial prejudice is.
On the other hand, Killing Angsty Drow is ALWAYS a LG act.
The group was in the Underdark city of" Pedastal" on assignment to take out a Evil Cleric of Lolth, a female Drow that was head of a house...who was killing and sacrificing innocents in town, and they came to a tannery where there was secret passage to the Matron's home...and a plagued Drow suffering from the disease "Ash Doom" was lounging their. He was ranting and raving about the end of the world and nonsense. The Drow touched the Half-Orc Fighter and infected him by accident, and the Human Druid told the Drow to stay back as he cured the Fighter...then Dragonborn Paladin asked the Druid to cure the Drow's disease hoping that he would not affect anyone else and save him. The Dwarf Dragon Shaman worned the Paladin of most Drow's intent, then the Paladin, kneeled down and asked the Drow what his story was...the Drow proceeded to rant, but he showed signs of amnesia and paranoia. He gave the Drow some gold and his cloak to clothe him and asked him to go on his way, and not speak to anyone that they came this way. The Elf Sorcerer objected and fired a Ray of Fire at the Drow missing it. The Drow began to run away, and the party asked what he was doing, but Elf Sorcerer negated to listen and fired another ray killing the Drow...and then its body was dropped in a tanning oil vat...the Paladin shook his head and asked "if the was nessecary" and the Sorcerer replied with "What...It's a Drow...they're my enemy..."
The Half-Orc fighter told the Paladin it wasn't the time to dispute moral codes and differences. The Paladin decided to settle the dispute later since they did not wish to jeopordize the quest, since they were in dangerous territory...When they returned from the mission, the Paladin asked the Sorcerer why he did it, and the Sorcerer replied with the same answer. Then the Paladin came forward and brought up, why the Sorcerer didn't kill the group of Drow they met at the bar earlier that night?
So that's what happened.
Well, i can see your point, IMO though LG would be the person who would stick with convention. Ie. "Drow are evil cause they kill elves, i dont have time to do a trail. The Judges sentence drow to death. Thus i must kill drow. IT what the law requires." That logic. Choatic character typically defy rules or convention. Thus a CG character would be MOSTLY likely to go "DROW = RACIAL ENEMY, well lets take it case by case". Ie. Not follow the rule. Lawful follows rules choatic usually doesnt. IMO.
Remember, Murder or to Kill is an aspect of Good vs Evil. It doesnt always fall into Lawful vs Choatic. In this case especially. It's Lawful for and elf to kill a drow. Hell, its his racial enemy. It's jsut not good. Does any think if he goes back to and elf city and tells the sherrif what he did they'd arrest him? I'd doubt it.
Heck, if i was his gm, i'd tell him he's starting to swing towards L-N. I wouldnt change him yet though.
First off, you're confusing lawful good and lawful stupid. But then, the whole Law/"Chaos" axis (Chaos is in quotes because it does not mean what wizards of the coast thinks it means) is pretty screwy. Does breaking the law to uphold your personal code make you lawful (unwilling to budge on your principles) or "chaotic" (willing to defy the law)? My thinking, however, is that since the lawful character generally derives his idea of good from a religion, philosophy, or social norm, where as the chaotic character derives it from emotion, he's more likely to give in to killing out of prejudice.
Second off, I'm pretty sure murder is generally against the law.
I'd see chaotic good as the more likely candidate to assume an entire race is evil, as chaotic good "goes with their gut" where as lawful good follows some kind of protocol. but then, I guess that depends largely on what types of protocol are mainstream in the setting, but I would assume protocol will have some sort of by-law or footnote for dealing with possibly good members of a generally evil species.
I protest against this discrimination of my favoured alignment! Going by your gut means that you don't have a rigid set of guidelines, don't care much for rules or planning and are a bit unpredictable. It has nothing to do with assuming anything about races.
That's more the lawful way. 100 of 100 humans say that all Drow (except Drizzt Do'Urden) are evil. So who am I to question that?
Girl: MY MOTHER SAYS THAT DARK ELVES SHOULD BE HANGED UNLESS THEY'RE NAMED DRIZZT!!
Viconia: (sigh) So what else is new?
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=239217
BYE-BYE, SEE YOU LATER.
Ahem.
This is what really happened. I am the DM.
The group was in the Underdark city of" Pedastal" on assignment to take out a Evil Cleric of Lolth, a female Drow that was head of a house...who was killing and sacrificing innocents in town, and they came to a tannery where there was secret passage to the Matron's home...and a plagued Drow suffering from the disease "Ash Doom" was lounging their. He was ranting and raving about the end of the world and nonsense. The Drow touched the Half-Orc Fighter and infected him by accident, and the Human Druid told the Drow to stay back as he cured the Fighter...then Dragonborn Paladin asked the Druid to cure the Drow's disease hoping that he would not affect anyone else and save him. The Dwarf Dragon Shaman worned the Paladin of most Drow's intent, then the Paladin, kneeled down and asked the Drow what his story was...the Drow proceeded to rant, but he showed signs of amnesia and paranoia. He gave the Drow some gold and his cloak to clothe him and asked him to go on his way, and not speak to anyone that they came this way. The Elf Sorcerer objected and fired a Ray of Fire at the Drow missing it. The Drow began to run away, and the party asked what he was doing, but Elf Sorcerer negated to listen and fired another ray killing the Drow...and then dropped its body in a tanning oil vat...the Paladin shook his head and asked "if the was nessecary" and the Sorcerer replied with "What...It's a Drow...they're my enemy..."
Well, said Drow being amnesiac and suffering from a disease in a secret passage of the enemy's home could have meant that the Drow was a former servant of the enemy who was dropped down there to slow/stop any intruders, or simply to die. The Elf's actions were callous and extremely pragmatic - I don't know if I'd call them evil, per se, but I don't know if I'd disagree with your ruling.
I would, however, disagree with the immediate alignment shift. That is something you normally warn about first (doing this will shift your alignment; you're starting to become evil - if you keep doing things like that, your alignment will become Evil).
I protest against this discrimination of my favoured alignment! Going by your gut means that you don't have a rigid set of guidelines, don't care much for rules or planning and are a bit unpredictable. It has nothing to do with assuming anything about races.
That's more the lawful way. 100 of 100 humans say that all Drow (except Drizzt Do'Urden) are evil. So who am I to question that?
Girl: MY MOTHER SAYS THAT DARK ELVES SHOULD BE HANGED UNLESS THEY'RE NAMED DRIZZT!!
Viconia: (sigh) So what else is new?
honestly, I could see it going either way. but most laws I know protect against most forms of discrimination, and again, you're confusing lawful good and lawful stupid. Lawful good isn't "what society says, goes" because, in my experience at least, society is generally wrong on multiple levels and most authority figures are chaotic stupid, so that kind of mindset would make it impossible to be "good".
honestly, I could see it going either way. but most laws I know protect against most forms of discrimination, and again, you're confusing lawful good and lawful stupid. Lawful good isn't "what society says, goes" because, in my experience at least, society is generally wrong on multiple levels and most authority figures are chaotic stupid, so that kind of mindset would make it impossible to be "good".
First of all, you need to read my post again, the one you quoted. What i was saying, is the behavior that was exibited by a CG sorcerer, "he;s my favored enemy, kill it" is the behavior i expect out of a LG paladin. Or more commonly known as lawful stupid. He didnt kill the drow on a whim, he killed it because it was a drow. That's not choatic behavior, that's following the preset belief; "all drow are my racial enemy kill, kill, kill." What everone expects out of an elf when he meets a drow.
EDIT: I'm not saying a LG is REQUIRED TO follow that line of thought, "must kill drow" just the most likely to. (and be LS)
Lawful (removing the good) means following a code, not the LAW. Just because murder is agaist the law doesnt mean a lawful character wont commit one. Furthermore, there are plenty of examples where killing, if not murder, was completely acceptable in a lawful society. Vikings, Feudal japan and china, any society with slavery it was usually (though not always) acceptable to murder a slave.
My thinking, however, is that since the lawful character generally derives his idea of good from a religion, philosophy, or social norm, where as the chaotic character derives it from emotion, he's more likely to give in to killing out of prejudice.
Except that killing out of prejudice is to kill because of philosphy or social norm. Thus something a lawful character would do over a chaotic one.
All those statements require pre-thought. Thus they can be evil and Lawful if it acceptable to do so in the society in question. None of them are Chaotic because they all have to do with pre-thought. You cant be random if your thinking ahead.
You don't really believe that Chaotic characters mean totally random and incapable of planning ahead, do you? That's just as bad as saying a Lawful character can never improvise (for example, if a Lawful character has a plan that involves him going into a store and stealing something, is he going to follow through with the plan even though someone is watching? By your reasoning, he would - after all, turning around and leaving isn't in the plan, and not following the plan would be a Chaotic action ...).
You don't really believe that Chaotic characters mean totally random and incapable of planning ahead, do you? That's just as bad as saying a Lawful character can never improvise (for example, if a Lawful character has a plan that involves him going into a store and stealing something, is he going to follow through with the plan even though someone is watching? By your reasoning, he would - after all, turning around and leaving isn't in the plan, and not following the plan would be a Chaotic action ...).
No i believe choatic character act with a random element. Lawful characters don't. That even means following the rules on occasion jsut to be different today.(As general rules, there are always exceptions)
you need to remember that "chaotic" good is generally more based on emotions, things like anger and prejudice are emotions.
This statement is wrong. There is no backing that i am aware of that says chaotic people are required to act on their emotions. Chaotic people are required to have a random element in there actions, but be it from emotion, or planning a random element (a bit of an oxymoron there, lol) is fine. Heck, sometimes chaotic character will plan everthing out jsut to be different this time and fly the next action out by the set of their pants.
you also need to keep in mind that racism is evil, and a lawful good person would be following a good code, therefore would not be racist. any social norm that included "be racist" would not be followed by a lawful good person. all of your examples may be followed by a lawful evil person, but not a lawful good person.
Racism is not evil, Racism is ignorant. Racism is a concept, which doesnt have any thought of its own so it cant be evil. A person acting as a racist can be evil. He has thought. Your blanket statement that a LG would never be a racist is just pure wrong. A LG would never act as a racist if he played his alginment properly. All my previous statement were made to a Lawful Alignment w/o good or evil. This is the trapping of a Lawful character and why it get's refered to as LS. It's very easy to believe your acting as lawful good and end up Lawful evil or nuetral or as we summarize lawful Stupid.
Which is why i still stand by my statement that his actions as he listed them are what i would expect out of a lg elf paladin, not a cg elf sorc. The lg should be trying to stick to convention (all drow's are bad must kill) and balance that with the good (he's helpless, what do i do). The chaotic good sorc shouldnt have the racial enemy hang up (which he did, he's chaotic he can ignore it) and failed to balance it with the good (he's helpless what do i do).
This is why i dont require alginements in my games, we cant agree on lg and cg. How can you run a game with this crap.
The Elf Sorcerer objected and fired a Ray of Fire at the Drow missing it. The Drow began to run away, and the party asked what he was doing, but Elf Sorcerer negated to listen and fired another ray killing the Drow...and then dropped its body in a tanning oil vat...the Paladin shook his head and asked "if the was nessecary" and the Sorcerer replied with "What...It's a Drow...they're my enemy..."
This is why we need the 'Lina Inverse' alignment, specifically for casters with spell slots to burn.
It's a horrible schizophrenic mess often irreconcilable with individual morality and brings nothing to the system.
I think the pc didn't do himself any favours by dumping him in a tanning vat and give an off the cuff, what its my racial enemy. It strikes me that although he may be racial enemies but by doing so in the presence of his party members he did make them in part, a party to the killing. Whether they approved or not.
It's a horrible schizophrenic mess often irreconcilable with individual morality and brings nothing to the system.
Oh, but alignment does bring something to the system: yet another topic which bogs everything down in unproductive squabbling!
In this case, you killed a helpless prisoner on the basis of their race (or alignment). This is, in fact, an evil action. Indeed, it doesn't matter if they're good or evil. Even if they were evil, it wouldn't mitigate that fact.
It would not necessarily be evil to kill a prisoner on the basis of them doing some sort of evil act, and acting as judge, jury, and executioner, but it might be, depending on the circumstances. It would almost certainly be a chaotic act, but it might not be an evil (or even neutral) one.
Being evil doesn't mean good people can (or should) kill them. Indeed, someone who wandered around, using detect evil on everyone they saw, and then killing them if they turned up as evil would be evil themselves - very likely chaotic evil, though possibly neutral or lawful evil depending on the circumstances.
Note that this is not an unreasonable or out of character thing for your character to do; elves are often racist against drow, and drow are almost invariably evil. But it is an evil thing. If there were a lot of other neutral things you'd done in the past, maybe you are better off in chaotic neutral. Honestly, alignment isn't that big of a deal anyway; just play your character how you see fit to play them.
More or less, combat is an unaligned thing in D&D, neither good nor evil inherently, and what affect it might have on you is circumstantal - killing a knight protecting some villagers from bandits would be evil, while killing aforementioned bandits in order to protect the villagers would be good (though it might be neutral if you have some other purpose in protecting them, like getting paid). Killing a helpless creature outside of combat is usually an evil act, though it might not be depending on your motivation for doing it (or rarely other circumstances). In this case, they were crazy, but they weren't attacking anyone or posing any sort of threat to the party or anyone else, and ergo it was an evil act.
killing a knight protecting some villagers from bandits would be evil
Unless circumstances dictate otherwise - if he attacked you and wouldn't listen to reason, you'd be well within your rights to kill him and be done with it. Now, were you good, you would then clear out the bandits as well ....
Killing a helpless creature outside of combat is usually an evil act, though it might not be depending on your motivation for doing it (or rarely other circumstances).
Mercy-killing and assisted suicide-like behaviors are the only ones I can think of, and the latter is iffy.
As far as I am concerned, choosing to kill someone who does not want to be killed is evil. Always. 100%
Sometimes things that are alive do evil things. Killing them tends to stop them from doing evil things.
Is the evil of not killing something more than the evil of killing them? Sometimes yes.
But here's the catch. The lesser of two evils is not the inherently good choice, it's just the lesser of two evils. Killing people is just about the worse way of preventing evil possible. Better would be any other method that also prevents that evil.
So what is a vaguely moral character to do? They are going to take the best choice they can. Sometimes your only options are kill them or let them kill. So pick the better one. In the vast majority of cases, however, there is a better option out there.
Good, then, can be measured by how hard people try to take the best option.
Such are my views.
Now, applied to DnD's morality system, you might want to calibrate your good-evil scale.
The group I am playing with considers evil to be those who don't try to take the better choice, neutral to be characters who balance self-interest with whether they try to do the right thing, while the good characters who actually have an interest in doing the better action even when it does not also benefit them.
Thusly they go around and slaughter things. And if they don't make a net profit off of slaughtering things, only the "good" characters want to go on and slaughter things.
To me, the characters whose reason for going out and doing good was gaining wealth and power could have been either neutral or evil. The ones that considered themselves "good" were trying to promote the the interests of them and their allies - neutral, in my book. Good would be someone interested in higher ideals than just the promotion of their people and religion.
Given how much my original good character got ragged on by the rest of the party, I would really recommend matching morality scales. (This also had something to do with all the "good" characters' players having chosen to be "good" to have a stronger reason to kill things.)
In this case, if I had to be a judge, you took a misinformed neutral action. But I also won't modify a character's alignment just because you weren't good in an instance. Good isn't easy, but it's the trying that counts.
I've been playing 3.5 ed for a year now. Both the DM and the group is great.
We've been playing a new campaign for a month now, our party being led by a LG pally, 2 other LG's and a NG. I'm CG, It's the second time playing a good character (previous characters were NE, N, LE), and I figured I'd give him a rather simple philosophy: "Kill evil to make the world a better place". The first good character was another CG, but he was the party's tank and really didn't do much proactive good, he just went with the group and was highly focused on protecting them.
During our last session, we're in the underdark and at one point, we come across a crazy and disease-riddened person. After listening to his mad ramblings and a few members getting actually diseased themselves, the group decides to remove the disease from themselves and that person, which caused the NPC to be sane again, but have amnesia. At this point I ask the obvious: What race is he? Drow . And I should point out I'm also an elf. So my thought process goes as follows:
Drow - racial enemy
Drow - evil
Kill Drow
Hence I killed the drow. At the end of the session, DM states that I'm now CN because killing a crazed drow that didn't pose a threat was a very evil thing to do and he listed off a few other minor Neutral things I did simply to make the point that it was not just this event alone that caused the change. At this point I'm very confused, I'm not saying it was necessarily a good act, but very evil?
So I consult some of the other players privately and get mixed responses, some going with the "Killing a drow is not evil because they are inherently evil" angle, others, including the DM, going with the "Killing is evil, the drow didn't pose a threat and was crazed". Both are valid in their own regards. But the one that matters of course is the DM's. Not wishing to continue doing evil acts unintentionally knowing that the LG's will step in at some point, now many questions arise such as "ok... when is appropriate to kill a blatently evil creature" and general morality questions about killing evil creatures, more or less proactively and not only in self-defense. I prefer the more black and white "If it's known to be evil in nature, killing it is not evil" then the moral complications which adds several shades of gray "It wasn't threatening you... it's just a miner/farmer (i.e non-hostile)... the list goes on."
Any advice is appreciated on this one.
That act alone shouldn't cause an alignment shift, but remember that racism and hatred are the signs of an evil character much more than a good one. But D&D has a much more militant form of morality, especially considering how races literally have been at war with each other since their creation. Is holding an amnesiac Drow responsible for the actions of his ancestors and creator and patron goddess a good thing in our eyes? No. But in the eyes of Correlon Laranthion, yes it would be.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic.
This is what really happened. I am the DM.
The group was in the Underdark city of" Pedastal" on assignment to take out a Evil Cleric of Lolth, a female Drow that was head of a house...who was killing and sacrificing innocents in town, and they came to a tannery where there was secret passage to the Matron's home...and a plagued Drow suffering from the disease "Ash Doom" was lounging their. He was ranting and raving about the end of the world and nonsense. The Drow touched the Half-Orc Fighter and infected him by accident, and the Human Druid told the Drow to stay back as he cured the Fighter...then Dragonborn Paladin asked the Druid to cure the Drow's disease hoping that he would not affect anyone else and save him. The Dwarf Dragon Shaman worned the Paladin of most Drow's intent, then the Paladin, kneeled down and asked the Drow what his story was...the Drow proceeded to rant, but he showed signs of amnesia and paranoia. He gave the Drow some gold and his cloak to clothe him and asked him to go on his way, and not speak to anyone that they came this way. The Elf Sorcerer objected and fired a Ray of Fire at the Drow missing it. The Drow began to run away, and the party asked what he was doing, but Elf Sorcerer negated to listen and fired another ray killing the Drow...and then its body was dropped in a tanning oil vat...the Paladin shook his head and asked "if the was nessecary" and the Sorcerer replied with "What...It's a Drow...they're my enemy..."
The Half-Orc fighter told the Paladin it wasn't the time to dispute moral codes and differences. The Paladin decided to settle the dispute later since they did not wish to jeopordize the quest, since they were in dangerous territory...When they returned from the mission, the Paladin asked the Sorcerer why he did it, and the Sorcerer replied with the same answer. Then the Paladin came forward and brought up, why the Sorcerer didn't kill the group of Drow they met at the bar earlier that night...
So, considering what happened, he is CN, and he is trying to shift back by understanding what he did was wrong. He had a sit down with the LG Dragonborn Paladin and LG Dwarf Dragon Shaman and explained why he did it. All fine now.
For example, what if inside of city limits in a lawful good city, you catch an Evil Thief who is unarmed and cannot fight back or escape? He surrenders when caught. Although he is evil, his particular crimes donot warrent the death penalty, and indeed the city would consider killing an unarmed man under these circumstances as murder. The correct action would be to turn him over to the proper authorities to be tried and punished as the state sees fit.
Evil must be stopped, that doesn't always equal killed. Imprisonment is another option, as is appropriate punishment or pennance for their crimes. However in most situations for an adventurer when they encounter Evil, it is on the other side of a sword and it is generally rare in most games where Evil isn't killed outright as a simple result of combat.
In your situation however, killing the Evil Drow was wrong. This is because he isn't in a combat situation. He was in parley with the group, and as a crazed, diseased person had come under your group's care. At worse he could be considered a prisoner in these circumstances. You killed him without cause (beyond being evil) an act which would be considered murder even if the drow was evil.
The difference here being this, as an illustration.
-The police kick in the door of a bank robber to arrest him, he is armed and resists, the police shot him. This is justified to kill him as he is shooting back.
-The police kick in the door of a bank robber to arrest him, he isn't armed, but they discover the dead bodies of several hostages in the house, so the police take the handcuffed criminal and shoot him on the spot after seeing the bodies.This is Murder by the police.
Your other options in this situation are to take the drow as a prisoner, release the Drow if he poses no threat (although this would be risky) although there are ways to reduce this risk (charm, dominate, blind etc) perhaps trying an atonement spell. Tie him up and leave him.
You need a reason to kill someone in this situation, beyond Drow-Evil-Dead. You could perhaps decide to kill him if you determine that he is too great a risk to the party, and can prove that he is evil (easy enough with a detect evil spell) and have sufficeint cause to beleive he will betray the party. But to kill outright simply because he is a Drow (and therefore a high probability that he is evil) is murder.
No i believe choatic character act with a random element. Lawful characters don't. That even means following the rules on occasion jsut to be different today.(As general rules, there are always exceptions)
Chaos is really a poor choice of words in DnD. What it is intended to indicate is the allignment on the other end of the spectrum from Lawful. There is really nothing "random" a chaotic character is simply one that is not bound by lawful behavior. Classic behavior for Chaotic Good is:
-Robynhood archtype, rob from the rich and give to the poor, revolutionaries against a corrupt government. Invironmental activists like Greenpeace staging demonstrations of civil disobedience (such as blocking roads to logging areas, harrassing whaling vessels etc)
There is nothing random about their actions, they are chaotic because they are stepping outside the laws and conventions of society, not because they do random things.
Chaotic Neutral just means the person does what they please. It doesn't mean they flip a coin and are good one day, evil the next. They are neutral towards this access (generally good but not commited, can be corrupt but likely believe most evil is bad such as murder, theft etc) haotic because they don't care about the laws or cenventions, only what they want.
A Cat Burgular, most teenagers, a college frat house which parties alot. this is the "Eat, Drink and be Merry, for tomorrow we die" attitude (or is that Gorge, Guzzle and Wench for tomorrow we get gutted?)
Only the Pure Chaos extreme of the allignment (a Chaotic deity or being perhaps) does this allignment become random. It devolves to more randomness for Chaotic Evil creatures no doubt, who thrive on the chaos of destruction and who are likely mad as a result. An insane lunitic might be Chaotic Neutral, but it is not the allignment alone that causes him to be mad, but rather his particular form of lunacy is what makes him chaotic.