#2 You stole from the shopkeeper.
#3 You killed an officer of the law.
I would have to agree with the GM on ruling this as an evil act.
Now...this could have been resolved in a different matter. Perhaps you could have settled at an Inn for the evening (a cheap one shouldn't run too expensive) the Bard (or Rogue if you have one) could then employ his/her stealth and thievery skills to sneak into various establishments and take what was needed. Perhaps (for the sake of humor and easing the GM's hard temper) leaving an anonymous I.O.U. in a conspicuous location.
I'm getting seriously worried that so many D&D players seem to have no moral compass at all...
As a DM, I would say your DM is right. Stealing isn't exactly evil but threatening someone while doing it is borderline. Attacking guards is OK but you can easily deal non-lethal damage.
Good and Evil is a matter of perspective in real life, but in D&D it is set by rules of what is acceptable and whats not. In your situation, the guidelines say that you performed an evil act. In the real world, it could be justified that your deeds were done out of necessity. However in the D&D world, the gods (and DM) judge what is evil, not you.
I would go with what the DM has said. If he decides to change your alignment (which I think would be a bit extreme) then you could seek atonement. It could be a good quest for your party.
Hope this helps
Even though you didn't rob him blind, you still robbed him. 10 gp for a village is quite a bit, actually, if you think about the usual storekeeper.
robbing him would probably be against the law, so that's at least a move away from being lawful. Robbing from an honest shop keeper (assumption that he's not some sort of drug dealing evil doer) means that would have been an evil act, since you took money away from at the very least, a not-evil person (even though the argument could be made that taking from evil can still be evil). Ultimately, you took what you wanted for your own personal needs, therefore, a selfish act, so that's at the very least a shift AWAY from the good scale on the good/evil spectrum.
Shame on the GM for making the PCs feel so desperate these acts became a rational option.
You're 5th level characters. You've wasted more money than most commoners will ever see. You can perform skills you're not even trained in as well as some people who do it for a living. You didn't think to approach the town guard or a local noble and request their aid? Did you consider trying to get a job and requiring equipment as part of the contract. How about approaching a merchant and trying to have them finance an expedition in exchange for a portion of your spoils.
The DM should have thrown these options out to you with at least 1 of them being executable. It could have been a great skill challenge and a starting point for a new adventure instead it turned into an argument.
i forgot to say he did insult the dwarf quite badly when the argument got into full swing, made acusations about him being greedy, called him names, tried to push him out of his shop. at this point the dwarf pushed him into the wall and wanted to kill him but we restrained him. then our human wizard had the idea of taking what we needed + 'compensation'. i presumed this was neutral because we did intend to play a fair price for everthing untill the shopkeeper tried to forcefully remove us and started a scuffle.
The issue is you are on his turf. Once he tries to get you out, you are trespassers.
TBH, wanting to kill a guy over some insults speaks volumes about the temperament of your party. That you decided robbing him was the best alternative says even more about the group.
However, as CaptainFred pointed out, some of the issues fall on the DM as well. My suggestion: file this away as a lesson learned, and next time your party is in desperate financial trouble, try some of CaptainFred's suggestions for reequipping the party/getting some money.
Is this a morally acceptable situation?
Instead I suggest next time you offer to perform services for goods, instead of theft? Such as go on a quest for the guy and have an adventure instead of playing common bandits.
You go to your local dnd store. You try to buy the new splatbook, but it turns out you are way short. You actually manage to barter with the owner, and he is going to give you like 5$ off, but thats all he can do. You get upset and start arguing with him, wanting more discount. He gets tired of this, and asks you to leave calling you greedy. You attack him, hold him down, and steal the books along with most of the cash register.
Is this a morally acceptable situation?
Instead I suggest next time you offer to perform services for goods, instead of theft? Such as go on a quest for the guy and have an adventure instead of playing common bandits.
Quoted for hilarity.
But yeah...*points up* That sums it up really well...IMO, stealing is pretty much always evil, there are some exceptions...I believe someone mentioned stealing from evil organizations who kill/blackmail/etc. to get their goods, and the classic stealing a piece of bread to feed starving children thing. It'd be more neutral, though still pretty dickish if you had taken the items and at least left what you considered to be the reasonable price...still out of game evil, but at least your characters would likely feel less guilty. As for killing the guard...assuming this is 4e, don't you have the option of just knocking people out when they get to 0?
#1 You attacked a shopkeeper unprovoked.
#2 You stole from the shopkeeper.
#3 You killed an officer of the law.
#1 They roughed up a price gouging shopkeeper who was obviously cheating them. He was a crook, and they left him alive, relatively uninjured, and only took what they needed. Sure, it wasn't exactly heroic, but on the other hand, having that gear in the PCs hands will almost certainly save the whole village.
#2 They stole from a price gouging thief.
#3 They shot back at people who started shooting at them first. Even in the REAL WORLD, if the cops start shooting at you when you have made no violent actions against them, shooting the cops is SELF DEFENSE, and will be acquitted in court, if you've got a competent defense.
My moral compass got repolarized...
#1 They roughed up a price gouging shopkeeper who was obviously cheating them. He was a crook, and they left him alive, relatively uninjured, and only took what they needed. Sure, it wasn't exactly heroic, but on the other hand, having that gear in the PCs hands will almost certainly save the whole village.
#2 They stole from a price gouging thief.
#3 They shot back at people who started shooting at them first. Even in the REAL WORLD, if the cops start shooting at you when you have made no violent actions against them, shooting the cops is SELF DEFENSE, and will be acquitted in court, if you've got a competent defense.
My moral compass got repolarized...
#1/#2: The OP states they bartered the price down...without knowing if they bartered down from an inflated price or from the book list price, we don't know if the merchant was price gouging. I think the comments about things being too expensive had more to do with the party having almost no money than the merchant price gouging, but as I said, that's just speculation.
Even if the merchant was trying to get the party to pay more because of their desperate state, how is arguing to kill him and then instead rob him an appropriate response? The OP also clearly states that they took more than they needed.
#3 In the real world when you are armed and threaten to kill a shop keeper, the cops are probably justified in shooting you. That's not self defense, that's you being a criminal and the law coming down on you.
The party discussed killing the shopkeeper. They then robbed him. The local militia chased after armed, violent criminals. The party killed one of the militia. That's not over aggressive police, that's law enforcement doing its job trying to protect the citizens of the town. At this point the biggest threat to the town is the bandits (the PCs) that attacked the store.
And as others have said, you could have done something else to earn some money.
#1 They roughed up a price gouging shopkeeper who was obviously cheating them. He was a crook, and they left him alive, relatively uninjured, and only took what they needed. Sure, it wasn't exactly heroic, but on the other hand, having that gear in the PCs hands will almost certainly save the whole village.
#2 They stole from a price gouging thief.
#3 They shot back at people who started shooting at them first. Even in the REAL WORLD, if the cops start shooting at you when you have made no violent actions against them, shooting the cops is SELF DEFENSE, and will be acquitted in court, if you've got a competent defense.
My moral compass got repolarized...
There are a few restaurants/convenience stores around me with higher prices then their competition...somehow, I think if I tried this approach, it'd not go over well...especially if I started shooting back at the cops. Assuming I managed to avoid being killed, I don't think my defense would really hold up in court.
. but yeah i agree with you guys now, and just so you know not all of us where up on the stealing idea, bout half and half, but seeing as they had the dwarf fighter, halforc barbarian and elf ranger it was hard for us to argueIn any case, this problem should of been resolved OOC, with the DM, because really, having no equipment and no money at level 5 is kind of, a problem the DM should normally resolve all by himself.
As for if the act was evil or not, stealing is "chaotic", against the law, but not necessarily evil.
As for the act of killing a millita, well, he ran after the PCs, and probably would of tried to hurt/imprison the PCs, so unless you had some lawful good guys, it's probably not that much of a problem.
Of course, what edition is this? I haven't read the whole thread (sorry
) but I don't really think it'll matter anyways (still interested in knowing tough), this is more or less a problem caused by the DM (like, not giving proper treasure) which influenced the PCs' choice towards having to act more 'chaotic'.fair enough then, i knew it deffo wasnt good but as we didnt deliberatly go out of our way to hurt him to begin with i didnt know if it was purely evil. also, never insult a dwarf :D and we did acturaly plan to jusk knock him out but our elf (the only purely evil charicter) shot an arrow as he had first priority and scored a crit, bye bye millitia man
Now I am starting to think that this entire thread is an entire joke. You say that you did not plan on hurting him and then turn right around and say that you were planning on knocking him out. How can you knock someone out (with a club, no less!) without hurting them?
And if this thread is not a joke, not intending to hurt someone does NOT negate the wrongness of robbing them!
. . . Somebody please tell me that this is a joke topic. A really unfunny one.
hey I think I get it
oh wait, no I don'tThey shot back at people who started shooting at them first. Even in the REAL WORLD, if the cops start shooting at you when you have made no violent actions against them, shooting the cops is SELF DEFENSE, and will be acquitted in court, if you've got a competent defense.
Just wanted to note that I quite despise games of D&D where law and order functions exactly as it does in the modern world. I would offer the following alternate, far more interesting approaches:
- IN D&D, just because an NPC isn't actively trying to kill your character at any given moment doesn't mean that your PC is always unjustified in killing them anyway. (It doesn't mean you always ARE justified either...)
- Theft is immoral in the real world, but in D&D it is INSTITUTIONALIZED. Is there anyones game world WITHOUT a thieves guild in at least one major city if not all of them and most towns as well along with a few villages? Terry Pratchett carries this to the logical, amusing extreme in the Discworld books by having citizens obtain reciepts from thieves when robbbed so that they don't get robbed excessively by the guild. Theft is non-good, but not evil. That is to say it's neutral as a rule.
- Real world legal systems have vast differences from what a D&D legal system generally has a right to be. Few nations are democratic - they are run by kings, princes, sultans, etc. That is, they are run by autocrats and dictators. The law is what they say it is at any given moment, not what 1000 years of legal precedent has sorted out and is printed in books with copies in every lawyers office, law university library, judges chamber, etc. Judges are not elected - they are appointed and serve at the discretion of the king because the king knows they'll convict and execute those whom he wants and needs removed from his kingdom. There isn't an established bar association for educating, training, and maintaining the legal profession. There certainly isn't a professional police force in the way that we think of them today. There are instead squads of low-paid goons with sharp implements who crack skulls of those crooks they can catch. There is no Dick Tracy or Sherlock Holmes to solve mysteries, murders and thefts. The crooks who get caught are the ones caught IN THE ACT and who are far more frequently chased and beaten by PERSONAL guards or the individual victim.
Self defense? That is a STRICTLY modern legal concept. Likely as not the killing of a "cop" in D&D will be of secondary consideration to the initial crime. If a "cop" is likely to be killed in D&D he is likely to run just a little slower or turn the wrong way in the alley as to give his life in the interests of justice. Constables don't have "To Protect and to Serve" engraved on their shields.
Even if PC's decide to go "rogue" on you, you don't have to whack them down with umptieth-level city watchmen who manifest only because you need them to keep the PC's in line. The PC's kill the fiercest monsters, loot the most dangerously protected treasures, and affect the course of world events - but God forbid they should ever get away with beating up and robbing a shopkeeper without doing time for it. Simply because the PC's ARE who they ARE - the most important personages in the campaign (without them there is no reason for the game to exist) if they want to be thieves and murderers they bloody well ought to discover that they can be every bit as successful at it as slaying dragons and saving princesses.
There are other ways of discouraging PC's from taking inappropriate courses of action - like TELLING THE PLAYERS, "THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR HEROES IN A HEROIC CAMPAIGN - RECONSIDER."
Okay, that's enough venting and rambling. Hopefully I made some salient point here.
For the guard, ask his widow and children :P
So we knocked them out but, knowing that they clearly would keep coming after us, more powerful than before, my dwarf thought the only rational and neutral thing to do (to prevent more problems), was to burn down the boat they were unconscious in.
Then we found a group of peaceful animal headed beasts. Clearly being different they must be demonic, and their attempts at trading and communication were tricks. Of course they had to be slaughtered, men, women, and children. Heck, that's a positively good act right there.
...
Or maybe theft, intimidation, and murder, are evil acts. If I were the DM I wouldn't hit you with the alignment stick (that's far too unwieldy). Instead I'd make sure descriptions of all of you went out all around. Soon you'd be running into attempts at arrest. Unless you gave in and were willing to be tried/punished things would continue to build as you fought off and killed officers of the kingdom.
Based solely on what you told me so far, neutral. If there is a good reason for doing what you did. I think most people who are apauled and calling it evil are assuming what you did should be counted as good and not neutral.
All in all I'd like more info.
EDIT: Just realized there were more posts. Need to catch up.
Why, outside of needing gear and money, did you rob the shopkeeper?
Based solely on what you told me so far, neutral. If there is a good reason for doing what you did. I think most people who are apauled and calling it evil are assuming what you did should be counted as good and not neutral.
All in all I'd like more info.
EDIT: Just realized there were more posts. Need to catch up.
Wow, where do you get your moral compass from? Merely following the laws and not breaking them is not "good". Robbing somebody that is otherwise (from the description) a normal NPC, lawfully living and selling wares, and is not evil themselves, just because you can or you can't pay for their goods is an evil act.
There are some things that mitigate this. If the shopkeeper was really a serial killer for instance. Or if he was secretly the evil lord that was stealing money from everyone in town and you intended to get it back for them.
But these are NPCs that through bad luck or incompetence found themselves without equipment. They stole from an innocent guy to get it - and then killed a recognized officer of the law sent to get it back and place them under arrest (I'm assuming 3.5 here, since in 4e it definitely would have been evil because you always have the option of deciding to do non-lethal damage when reducing someone to 0 HP with no penalties).
Though part of this is on your DM. He should have found ways to help "make up the difference". Maybe this merchant had a shipment of goods he needed to send, but the roads have recently been targetted by bandits. He'll give the party the equipment they need in exchange for protecting the goods.
Something like that. But the players acted in an evil manner - placing their own good above others. Perhaps it's a general statement of how I always viewed the good-evil side of the old alignment system:
Good = put others before yourself
Neutral = everyone is equal, yourself and others
Evil = put yourself above others
Law <--> Chaos was easier to grasp. Oh yes, and wanting to kill someone just because they insult you is a very very good indicator of evilness.
***
Just to clarify, I'm not saying Evil is a bad thing (of my above examples, the first one was true, the second not). I've played an evil character for 3 years in a campaign without causing any party strife (some conflict, never strife). Partly because he identified with parts of the party and placed them collectively above anything else. He also had some redeeming traits. That said, he was definitely on the evil spectrum. My DM didn't care because I didn't play him as a sociopathic lunatic, but instead as calculating, loyal to the party, and practical.
Evil and well played characters can be great for a campaign. Evil Stupid ones are terrible.
In my opinion, the actions you took as a whole were evil. I wouldn't consider just the stealing evil, that is unlawful. Stealing wouldn't get into the evil realm until you stole on multiple occasions and it would depend on what you used the ill-gotten gains on.
Someone stealing food to survive wouldn't be evil, but they would be still a thief.
Intimidating the shopkeeper borders on evil. Depends on what was said really.
Killing the guard is definitely an evil act. Can't really get around that unless he was working for some evil regime where he beat and tortured people everyday.
As I think about this, if I were the DM, i'd have the players run into a homeless woman and her child begging on the street. Let the players find out this was the dead guards family. I'd find it amusing to screw with the players like that.
So 2 for chaos, 1 for evil. Definitely chaos, and I'd say whether it was evil or not was determined by exactly how the players went about it, and their intentions.
A greedy shopkeeper (and we don't even know that) is not so evil that he deserves to be robbed, and the militia sent after the people who robbed an innocent (for all we know) shopkeeper definitely isn't. It's an evil act, end of story. That being said, it sounds like the DM might play a game the players don't like, putting them in prison and taking away their gear, instead of letting them perform heroic deeds, but without more details, I can't know. The robbing and killing is still evil though.
fair enough then, i knew it deffo wasnt good but as we didnt deliberatly go out of our way to hurt him to begin with i didnt know if it was purely evil. also, never insult a dwarf :D and we did acturaly plan to jusk knock him out but our elf (the only purely evil charicter) shot an arrow as he had first priority and scored a crit, bye bye millitia man
So the party is traveling with an evil ranger, steals from a shopkeeper because he insults one of it's members, and kills a guard who is trying to stop bandits (your party). And you have to ask if this is evil. Why were you imprisioned in the other villiage in the first place?
It does sound like the DM is partly at fault for this issue, if he wants to run a low gold/equipment game he needs to tell the Pc's beforehand and make sure its what they want too.
#1 You attacked a shopkeeper unprovoked.
#2 You stole from the shopkeeper.
#3 You killed an officer of the law.
1. Evil.
2. Chaotic.
3. Chaotic *and* Evil.
our party got into a debate with our dm about our alignment the other day. we had stopped at a village for suplys after escaping from prison in another village. we had verry little on us (we had failed to get things back while escaping so our 5th level warriors had mostly clubs, padded armor and hardly any money. we decided to buy equipment first and me (the bard) did a fair bit of bartering and got the price down a little. but everything was to expensive. an argument started and ended up with our dwarf pinning the shopkeeper to the wall while the others took what we needed and a small amount of money (about 10 gp) , we diddnt robb him blind, hurt him, or damage anything he had. as you can imagine this didnt go down well with the villagers and we had to run off prety fast, we got chased and caught by some of the millitia who our elf ranger shot. after the session our DM complained that we acted evil by stealing, fighting neutral villagers and killing a millitia soldier. thoughts?
Okay right off the bat I'm seeing a big problem. we had stopped at a village for supplies after ESCAPING FROM PRISON IN ANOTHER VILLAGE. MY moral compass is already starting to spin. Why were you in prison? why were you escaping? These are purely non lawful acts right there at the least.
But okay, lets deal with the issue. You were out of items, had no real money, so you head into a shop and and barter. You barter as much as possible but it's still too expensive. Fine, shopkeeper gets insulting and tries to throw you out. All fine and normal. Here is where the second problem occurs. After being insulted the dwarf attacks the shopkeeper with intent to kill, why? Honor? or Revenge? Well since the party decided it would be fair to steal from him, I'm not guessing honor. A dwarf would NOT equate stealing as absolving an insult. So now my moral compass is definitely tilting.
So after robbing the shopkeeper and leaving a meager amount behind, the obviously ticked off villagers and law comes down upon you. You guys run. Okay good. Right, no wait, shouldn't you have tried to explain? No... couldn't have because you decided to steal instead of leave well enough alone. Okay, so you stole things, and now decide to run instead of giving the stuff back and discussing. But then. what would you have said? We just escaped from prison and we needed the stuff? Obviously the law is not on your side on any count.
So now you are running and someone decides to kill to prevent pursuit. I don't know why, it doesn't seem like they are really preventing you from running faster... seems more like he just, oh yes I see, he just wanted to kill somebody. Okay. so now that's killing too. Almighty. Moral compass is now pointing at STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM!
There are a number of decisions going on here, and each one has been bad in it's premise alone. You may have been escaping from a prison run by evil. But the village was obviously not evil because the shopkeeper at least let you barter a little instead of outright telling you to leave or calling the law. So to attack someone like that is, insulting or not, is an evil act. Next, You aren't stealing food. You're stealing gear. Stuff you could have earned other ways, jobs, performance, begging, heck, even returning in the dead of night to steal the gear and leaving a note that saying you will repay everything is more neutral than what you did. So that right there is strike two. and finally, You aren't killing to prevent death, you are killing to prevent pursuit. Death for any reason other than the prevention of your own death is technically an evil act. There are exceptions because this is D&D, but above all killing for no reason other than 'I wanted to' is an outright evil act. Seeing as how it came from an evil ranger, yeah I'd say that is a third strike. Welcome to evil.
If you wish to atone. First, go hunting or dungeon delving to earn enough money and only enough to pay for a resurrection of the guard and the egar you stole as well as a bit extra. When you have that, you can now go back to the town. Return all the gear. Pay the shop keeper for the gear and EXTRA for the hassle. And lastly offer yourselves for community service to absolve your guilt.
This could be a fun thing for the DM too. He could have you sent before the judge who will see you are all capable adventurers, and if he isn't evil, should offer you jail time OR a task to gain pardon. The task would be a small matter that solves two things. Absolves your guilt and earns you gear and money, such as slaying a beasty or saving somebody or cleaning out a dungeon. Everyone wins, everyone gets what they want, but you have to stay out of that shop now. Or you know, apologize profusely to the shop keeper and offer your services to make it up to him free of charge. Then maybe you could get on good terms with him.
Also, give that ranger a good talking too. You shouldn't have an evil character in the party if your striving for neutrality. But that's up to you guys.
If you look at what the shopkeep did, he insulted the dwarf specifically (probably in a racial way) and then proceeded to attempt to physically remove the party. If you look at cases today, racism is a very serious crime and some cases settle for large sums of money. Assault can also be defined to include not only violence, but any physical contact with another person without their consent. So lets say this happened today; the shopkeep would be charged with racism and assault, and get himself a nice big lawsuit as long as the PC’s did nothing to escalate the situation (I don’t know the situation specifically, when and how the PC’s were considered to be trespassing). If the shopkeep could have settled for a handful of items out of his store and $10 out of the till, he would be getting off lightly.
What I’m saying is that regardless of time period and locale, what the shopkeep did was also wrong, but in the pseudo-medieval setting the PC’s ability to retaliate is much more limited, so they took matters into their own hands and compensated themselves accordingly for the crimes committed against them. What happened after I have to say is wrong, the ranger should have tried to shoot the guard in a non-lethal way (in the leg?). Also, if the officer was using lethal force against the PC’s rather than trying to capture them, then it could be seen as self-defense.
The PC’s, as much as they would like to be good, cannot trust the town to resolve the case fairly (since why would they take the word of a bunch of hoodlums over an upstanding citizen like the shopkeep) and thusly become fugitives. IMO the town will be acting in it’s own best interest; the safety of it’s citizens, and since they are NOT looking out for the PC’s, the PC’s have to look out for themselves. If doing things for others is good and doing things for yourselves is evil, could not both parties be considered evil?
Another one?
I'm getting seriously worried that so many D&D players seem to have no moral compass at all...
Every D&D player has a moral compass. Sadly, Chaotic Evil = Magnetic North :P
TiwaxTyrsfist: It would be an evil act if you stole the lamp oil.
To play devil’s advocate: (not that I totally disagree with anything said thus far)
If you look at what the shopkeep did, he insulted the dwarf specifically (probably in a racial way) and then proceeded to attempt to physically remove the party. If you look at cases today, racism is a very serious crime and some cases settle for large sums of money. Assault can also be defined to include not only violence, but any physical contact with another person without their consent. So lets say this happened today; the shopkeep would be charged with racism and assault, and get himself a nice big lawsuit as long as the PC’s did nothing to escalate the situation (I don’t know the situation specifically, when and how the PC’s were considered to be trespassing). If the shopkeep could have settled for a handful of items out of his store and $10 out of the till, he would be getting off lightly.
What I’m saying is that regardless of time period and locale, what the shopkeep did was also wrong, but in the pseudo-medieval setting the PC’s ability to retaliate is much more limited, so they took matters into their own hands and compensated themselves accordingly for the crimes committed against them. What happened after I have to say is wrong, the ranger should have tried to shoot the guard in a non-lethal way (in the leg?). Also, if the officer was using lethal force against the PC’s rather than trying to capture them, then it could be seen as self-defense.
The PC’s, as much as they would like to be good, cannot trust the town to resolve the case fairly (since why would they take the word of a bunch of hoodlums over an upstanding citizen like the shopkeep) and thusly become fugitives. IMO the town will be acting in it’s own best interest; the safety of it’s citizens, and since they are NOT looking out for the PC’s, the PC’s have to look out for themselves. If doing things for others is good and doing things for yourselves is evil, could not both parties be considered evil?
Fair point, but back when we had segregated restaurants and such, if an African American tried something like that they'd still be arrested. Also, after re-reading the original post, it sounds like the DM intended for them to get equipment...something just went wrong, hence the failed to get it part.
As for the kobold thing...*shrugs and points at the current alignment thread in the whats a dm to do forums* The majority seem to agree that killing a Drow child = wrong, pretty sure its the same for a kobold baby.
If you look at what the shopkeep did, he insulted the dwarf specifically (probably in a racial way) and then proceeded to attempt to physically remove the party. If you look at cases today, racism is a very serious crime and some cases settle for large sums of money. Assault can also be defined to include not only violence, but any physical contact with another person without their consent. So lets say this happened today; the shopkeep would be charged with racism and assault, and get himself a nice big lawsuit as long as the PC’s did nothing to escalate the situation (I don’t know the situation specifically, when and how the PC’s were considered to be trespassing). If the shopkeep could have settled for a handful of items out of his store and $10 out of the till, he would be getting off lightly.
1: You don't know if the insult was racist, or if the dwarf didn't make an equally offensive insult first.
2: We also don't know if the shopkeeper told them to leave before he tried to push them.
3: The laws are technicalities, they're not solely about right or wrong. You can't make a law about 'assault' in general, and expect it not to be argued what constitutes assault. As such, it's much easier to define it as physical contact with another person without their consent. But that doesn't mean the strong, hardened dwarf surrounded by his tough adventurer buddies was actually hurt in the process, or felt threatened. And likewise, it's doubtful if the dwarf felt hurt or threatened at the shopkeepers words, even if they were racist.
4: Just because something is a law today, doesn't mean you're allowed to assault them for breaking it, except in self defence. In fact, just because something is wrong doesn't mean it's OK to attack people over it. And some crimes are just less serious than others. For instance, in my country, you're not allowed to live in your summer house all year round. A lot of people break that law, because they like to live in idyllic, natural surroundings (of course, with so many people living there all year round, at quickly stops being idyllic, which is the very reason for the law).
But I'm not allowed to assault or steal from people, simply because they break the law about living in their summer houses all year round. It's wrong, both legally and morally. It would be even more wrong to assault people on that basis in a country where there were no laws about summer houses. Sure, racism and unwanted physical contact is worse, but it's still not enough to assault people over, especially not when you never felt threatened by the person you're assaulting.
Every D&D player has a moral compass. Sadly, Chaotic Evil = Magnetic North :P
TiwaxTyrsfist: It would be an evil act if you stole the lamp oil.
What if I stole the oil from the evil kobolds themselves?
Using the its not our time argument doesn't really work given that back then the "law" was incredibly unfair, so it does more to hurt the argument then help. If the pcs weren't outright executed, they'd likely have a hand cut off for being thieves, obviously without a trial or a chance to explain themselves.
All very true - but the point being that their ALIGNMENT would not be in question. Execution and having your hand cut off without trial has nothing to do with whether you actually DESERVE the punishment you're recieving. Legal systems and alignment are NOT one and the same thing.
I believe someone upthread put it simpler - shame on the PC's for stooping to criminal acts; shame on the DM for guiding them to a point where criminal acts seem reasonable.
Every D&D player has a moral compass. Sadly, Chaotic Evil = Magnetic North
Mine is True Neutral.
Which just so happens to mean that my compass points at absolutely nothing, and frequently spins rapidly in circles trying to point inward. What can I say?
Mine is True Neutral.
Which just so happens to mean that my compass points at absolutely nothing, and frequently spins rapidly in circles trying to point inward. What can I say?
Mine has been pointing to the rum lately...
Consider whether the victims will consider your actions reasonable and understandable, were you to explain it to them after the fact.
For the guard, ask his widow and children :P
Well that takes the fun out of adventuring... I'm going to have to track down and apologize to so many Goblin and Kobold widows... hmm, as a lawful good character maybe I should pack up my adventuring gear and open a clinic to reform and forgive all the BBEG's out there. They are victims too!
Regarding the OP:
I think the PC's actions are on the slippery slope towards banditry, which will lead to evil even if this act is 'justifiable.' But consider their power and situation, and apply said consideration to the powerful but poor people of the real world. This is a realistic scenario, and despite most of the party probably wanting to do good, they are not in a position to do so due to the extreme poverty that they find themselves in (and an apparent lack of helpful NPCs).
I think the responsibility must partially rest on the DM in this case for not providing an alternative to banditry. Sure it's fun sometimes to take the party to rock bottom, but rather than having the shopkeeper mock them, maybe he could have offered them a job?
Every D&D player has a moral compass. Sadly, Chaotic Evil = Magnetic North :P
Sigged.
i forgot to say he did insult the dwarf quite badly when the argument got into full swing, made acusations about him being greedy, called him names, tried to push him out of his shop.
How does this justify the actions? Are your party's characters heroic third graders?
Points to consider:
1. Animals are neutral. Animals kill each other in self interest, mostly for survival, such as to eat or in defense of themselves or their family.
2. Doing something that isn't good or lawful doesn't make it evil or chaotic.
3. Acting in self interest is a fundamental part of existence.
4. Theft, by virtue of points (2) and (3), is neither evil nor chaotic.
5. Murder is likewise not inherently evil, or all campaigns would be evil.
I think this is a good time to bring up two other points.
6. I think most of us consider ourselves lawful and good, so it's hard to think of anyone who acts otherwise is not being evil. I'm not suggesting that people should steal and murder because it's not necessarily evil according to the D&D Alignment Chart.
7. I've always thought the D&D Alignment Chart to be one of the weakest aspects of the game.
Ok, so back to the OP:
Scanario 1. Players are in jail in their former town.
LG: Players wait for their day in court and plead their case.
TN: Players break out of jail and get out of town.
CE: Players break out of jail and burn the town to the ground.
Scenario 2: Players are desperate for equipment and cash.
LG: Players try to get jobs in town and earn enough cash to restart their former lives.
TN: Players rob a store and get out of town.
CE: Players kill the shopkeeper, kill his customers, ambush the guards, kill and rob everyone left in town, and burn it to the ground.
Scenario 3: Players are running from the law.
LG: Players lay down arms and wait for their day in court.
TN: Players fight off the militia until the militia runs away.
CE: Players defeat the militia, cut off their heads for good measure, go back to town, and burn it to the ground.
It is probably a good idea for the players to communicate with the DM on where the lines of alignment will be crossed.
1. Animals are neutral. Animals kill each other in self interest, mostly for survival, such as to eat or in defense of themselves or their family.
Animals are considered Neutral because they cannot reason:
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.
...
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.
1. Animals are neutral. Animals kill each other in self interest, mostly for survival, such as to eat or in defense of themselves or their family.
As already mentioned, animals are incapable of reason. It's like saying an earthquake which kills a million innocent people isn't evil, so a person killing a million innocent people isn't evil either. Also, animals usually kill for survival. The shopkeeper was no threat to the party, and it doesn't sound like their life depended on getting items they couldn't afford to pay for.
3. Acting in self interest is a fundamental part of existence.
But that doesn't prevent acts of self interest from being evil. Quite the contrary, the characters (fictional or real) that people mostly agree are evil, usually act in self interest at the cost of others.
4. Theft, by virtue of points (2) and (3), is neither evil nor chaotic.
5. Murder is likewise not inherently evil, or all campaigns would be evil.
'Inherently' has nothing to do with it. If the PCs sneaked into the castle of an evil overlord, and stole his artifact of doom in order to destroy it to prevent it from being used for evil, I'm sure no one here would argue they'd done something evil. However, they took property from an innocent (no matter how rude he is, he hadn't tried to hurt them) shopkeeper, who had done nothing to deserve it. And sorry, shouting back at someone you're in an argument with, and trying to get people off your property, doesn't count as 'deserving it'.
6. I think most of us consider ourselves lawful and good, so it's hard to think of anyone who acts otherwise is not being evil. I'm not suggesting that people should steal and murder because it's not necessarily evil according to the D&D Alignment Chart.
Wow!
I've heard a lot of unbelievable things about the alignment system, but this is among the weirdest. You seem to assume good is the easiest, most natural thing to be, while evil is almost unattainable. People barely have to try to be the same alignment as paladins, or be worthy as representatives of the deities of goodness, but someone trying to court favour from a devil need to practically kill everything on sight in order to maintain their evilness.I can see it now: “Sure, I've stolen things, but only because I wanted other people's stuff, and I didn't kill everybody around me while doing it, so it's not evil”. “I might have killed people, but only because they were in my way, and I didn't kill all of them, so it's not evil” “Of course I've raped people, but it was just to get sex, and I didn't always kill them, so it's not evil”. “Yeah, I broke the legs of the old lady staring at me in the bus, but it was because she looked at me funny, and I didn't kill her, so it's not evil”.
Sorry, but evil is not something you need to aspire to be, and 'lawful good' is not the alignment of common people. Evil is easy, you just do what you want, and take what you want, without regard for whom it hurts. And Good is more than simply not harming people.
Scanario 1. Players are in jail in their former town.
LG: Players wait for their day in court and plead their case.
TN: Players break out of jail and get out of town.
CE: Players break out of jail and burn the town to the ground.
Scenario 2: Players are desperate for equipment and cash.
LG: Players try to get jobs in town and earn enough cash to restart their former lives.
TN: Players rob a store and get out of town.
CE: Players kill the shopkeeper, kill his customers, ambush the guards, kill and rob everyone left in town, and burn it to the ground.
Scenario 3: Players are running from the law.
LG: Players lay down arms and wait for their day in court.
TN: Players fight off the militia until the militia runs away.
CE: Players defeat the militia, cut off their heads for good measure, go back to town, and burn it to the ground
Scenario 1: That depends entirely on what they're arrested for. If they were innocent, but bound to get an unfair trial, escaping wouldn't be against the LG alignment.
Scenario 2: Define 'desperate'. Starving and having no money for food is one thing, thinking it would be useful with a better armour, and more cash than you already have, is another thing entirely. Having the cash to pay for what you need, but not liking the price (which sounds like the case here), is no excuse to rob someone.
Scenario 3: If the law they're running from is unjust, there's nothing requiring LG characters to surrender. But killing an innocent militia who's just doing his job trying to stop you because you've robbed a shop, is an entirely different matter.
As already mentioned, animals are incapable of reason. It's like saying an earthquake which kills a million innocent people isn't evil, so a person killing a million innocent people isn't evil either.
Sorry, but not everything that seems like it would be evil is actually evil.
Imagine a guy sets up an automated machine gun turret that will randomly fire into the area around it periodically. Imagine that a community sprouts up around that turret, full of people from all walks of life, including innocent children and whatnot. Then imagine that the guy knows that it will kill people, but leaves the turret active, and from time to time, it will spray lethal gunfire on the citizens of the community.
Most people would agree that the guy was an evil bastard for leaving something in play that would randomly kill countless people.
However, virtually no one would agree that God was evil an evil bastard for leaving plate tectonics in play on Earth, causing earthquakes that randomly kill countless people.
Who can say why?
I certainly don't know, but it clearly illustrates that just because something seems evil, that doesn't mean that it is.
I certainly don't know, but it clearly illustrates that just because something seems evil, that doesn't mean that it is.
Please don't bring real world religion into it. It provides some people with a feeling of certainty and hope, but it doesn't make sense, it never has, and never will. Also, it's against the CoC to discuss ;)
You stole from a person who wasn't evil, or at least wasn't confirmed evil. The 10gold you stole came from a village, that would actually effect the whole village (assuming this is a village, not a smaller town). Anyway, in the future return to the village and make it all good. Pay for the stolen goods. And give lots of money to the family of the now dead guard.
Let's be honest here, pouring 4 pints of lamp oil over a baby kobold and lighting it on fire is a good action since kobolds are evil. Why are we concerned with morality in this game again?
If you mean lighting a tribe of kobolds on fire that attacked the nearby village and baby kobolds die in it, it is acceptable not the most chivalric act but okayish...(but would depend on how likely it would be to do it without killing lots of inoccent babies)
If you have already killed all kobolds that pose a threat to the village and the party and after that discover a kobold baby and then pour 4 points of lamp oil over it... that is not even a slight bump towards the deep end its instant chaotic evil...
#1 You attacked a shopkeeper unprovoked.
#2 You stole from the shopkeeper.
#3 You killed an officer of the law.
#1 = Evil
#2 = Neutral, but if unnecessary, evil; this is really one of those "grey area" things where you focus on motivation.
#3 = Evil if unprovoked or if the law is in support of Good, but there's nothing inherently good about law. Any evil in this particular sort of act is tied to murder vs. necessity arguments.
Further is the very real mechanics of the alignment system. This system is very useful for the DM to balance the game world. In this aspect characters who are "neutral" are really cheating when they use that as a guise to commit evil. By cheating I mean that alignments are there, in part, to serve the purpose of limiting players actions from getting out of hand, ignoring these restrictions ruins the DMs ability to run and control his game world.
For example, your characters were in a troublesome situation, they were short on gear. This is a trial that is part of your story, but instead of facing that trial and overcoming it properly, you stepped out of character and allignment to rob and steal to get your supplies.
That action makes it difficult for the DM to control the character's wealth by level, game balance or indeed reward them properly. Since if you can't afford something you will simply rob the storekeeper for it.
What you did was not true evil but it comes kinda close. I dont think you should have robbed him but you could have done a little self defense like knock him back after all if anyone puts their hands on you for any reason then they can not expect you to just allow that. More so when its a dwarf who are known for being touchy about that sort of stuff. But dwarves dont kill that easy, they will mess you up badly and give you one or two warnings before they kill you for not backing away. So your dwarf friend was not acting anything different then most of his kind but he was jumping the gun a bit. Btw your wizard could have used a spell to help things along or used his knowledge to find out some stuff to help your party out. If he had a good local or geogaphy check you may have found out something to help like a custom about giving aid or mine near by that you could work at for money.
If you have already killed all kobolds that pose a threat to the village and the party and after that discover a kobold baby and then pour 4 points of lamp oil over it... that is not even a slight bump towards the deep end its instant chaotic evil...
I've never understood this. Why is it that when people talk about murdering things for the sake of murdering them, they always bring up Chaotic Evil?
If the party instead raised the kobold themselves and taught it to be good wouldn't that change it's destiny? wouldn't that be the "good" thing to do?
Also, torturous, painful kills don't seem like a "good" thing to do.
Also, torturous, painful kills don't seem like a "good" thing to do.
If the person was good, I think the kobold should just have been put out of its misery with a quick sword-strike, rather than someone pouring oil over it and immolating it - which is a painful death for an adult kobold and would also probably constitute torture.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The kobold is evil, but so is torture.
I play a true neutral epic rogue type in 3.5 who doesn't slip in alignment just because he broke out of jail and stole stuff and killed a guard in the escape. Thats what he does as a character.
Heres my take on the situation:
1. Stealing things you need isnt evil. Its just immoral. In real life, I consider myself to be a mostly "good" person but I have stolen things before and never went to confession. I dont think I'm going to hell.
2. Killing a guard while escaping is very immoral, but I wouldnt even say that that constitutes in an alignment slip. It really depends on the motive for me. If you kill the guard to see what color he bleeds, id say youre more evil than killing the guard because hes attacking you and you're trying to get away.
Like I said, I think it mostly depends on the motive. I think youre evil if you get a joy out of being immoral. But I dont think youre evil if you do it for self-preservation and actually feel bad about it. I dont think non-paladins should even have to go through an atonement as long as they feel remorse for being immoral. The only reasons paladins have to atone is because they are bound by their religion to behave a certain way.
And dont give me crap about my "moral compass". I dont have a compass. This is just how I see it in DnD terms.
2. Killing a guard while escaping is very immoral, but I wouldnt even say that that constitutes in an alignment slip. It really depends on the motive for me. If you kill the guard to see what color he bleeds, id say youre more evil than killing the guard because hes attacking you and you're trying to get away.
One action almost never will cause any sort of alignment shift (if you went into a city with the express intention of murdering every living thing, *then* you'd go evil).
One action almost never will cause any sort of alignment shift (if you went into a city with the express intention of murdering every living thing, *then* you'd go evil).
I think it would add insult to injury.
If the characters were scared and making their getaway, and in the heat of the battle, then people are going to get hurt and killed (as anyone might do in the thick of a fire-fight after an armed robbery, which is essentially what this is). I agree to a certain extent, but I think the players are going to have a hard time coping with the repercussions of their activities and they will have to think hard of how to make amends for their banditry.
If it was all in the heat of the moment, yes, it could be taken as neutral in terms of alignment, but there are some serious issues that arise from being wanted men in civilised territory. The PCs will find it very difficult to avoid it happening again if they wander into neighbouring settlements, and repeats of the situation would probably nudge them, yes, towards being evil bandits. Once people get a taste for villainy, it is difficult to go back to acting as upright pillars of the community. Not all outlaws are Robin Hood and his Merrie Men. Some are just...bandits. These guys are getting very close - if they don't face up to their actions being wrong, then they will never learn the right way to behave.
If it really was just a once off, there ought to be serious efforts to atone for all this, otherwise they will get the taste for it, and it will end up with them turning evil.
G-d help any paladins or clerics of good gods who were involved with this stunt, btw. I assume there aren't any...
Immoral = evil, no?
No, immoral = immoral and evil = evil. Just because being evil is immoral, that doesn't mean being immoral is evil. It is immoral to lie, but lying isnt evil. Its just not "good" (for DnD's sake). You cant just say if something is not good then its evil. It's like saying "If its not red, its blue." When there is also yellow and green.
If it really was just a once off, there ought to be serious efforts to atone for all this, otherwise they will get the taste for it, and it will end up with them turning evil.
What do you mean by serious efforts to atone? Do you mean they should strive to not steal and such if its against their morals? If so then I think everyone would agree. But if you mean they should have to atone to avoid becoming more evil, then I disagree. An action happened, it has consequences, and I don't agree that some of the consequences should be forcing the PC's to go on a quest to save their blackened souls lest they burn in the firey pits of hell after they die. If the PC's choose to do so, fine, but it shouldn't be mandatory in order for them to remain in good moral standing.
One action almost never will cause any sort of alignment shift (if you went into a city with the express intention of murdering every living thing, *then* you'd go evil).
In my opinion, one action should cause an alignment shift if it is drastically opposed to the characters "normal" alignment. If you make a character that is neutral good, and you force yourself onto the princess, the DM should talk to you about an alignment change because either A) You changed your mind and want to play a different alignment or B) You chose an inappropriate alignment for your character on purpose in order to "slip one past" the DM.
Now in the OP's case, I feel like the motives justify the crime so there is no need for alignment change/atonement because the characters guilt is enough to keep them in good alignment standing and the consequences that occur should be sufficient to not need to "punish" the characters with a forced atonement quest. Unless of course, they are a paladin or cleric of lawful or good faith.
No, immoral = immoral and evil = evil. Just because being evil is immoral, that doesn't mean being immoral is evil. It is immoral to lie, but lying isnt evil. Its just not "good" (for DnD's sake). You cant just say if something is not good then its evil. It's like saying "If its not red, its blue." When there is also yellow and green.
In most ideas of the term, an immoral act is one that involves vice of some sort, and vice usually is something like stealing, lying, cheating, or killing. Red and green are distinct colours. Are you really sure that this isn't likely to make the PCs feel that it is ok to go around murdering, robbing innocent storekeepers, or whatever? Is that not immoral AND evil to you? I don't like to say this, but try it in the real world and see how immorality and evil coincide and what consequences arise as a result.
What do you mean by serious efforts to atone? Do you mean they should strive to not steal and such if its against their morals? If so then I think everyone would agree. But if you mean they should have to atone to avoid becoming more evil, then I disagree.
Yes, but if they get away with it, they will do it again with impunity, so some sort of consequences have to arise. They can't say "We're good guys, but every so often, we go postal and attack innocent shopkeepers and militia men, but after that, we go home and continue to worship Pelor as we always did, so it's not evil." Evil actions have disruptive effects on communities and end in tragedy. It would not make them devil-worshippers, but it would cause their morals to slide a bit towards the evil end of the spectrum. It is an immoral act, and it is an evil act. Getting away with murder tends to suggest that murder is OK, and then it becomes a routine way of settling disputes. This is manifestly evil, not neutral.
An action happened, it has consequences, and I don't agree that some of the consequences should be forcing the PC's to go on a quest to save their blackened souls lest they burn in the firey pits of hell after they die. If the PC's choose to do so, fine, but it shouldn't be mandatory in order for them to remain in good moral standing.
Rubbish, for the reasons above. In the real world, as in the D&D world, consequences always arise from your actions and I can't believe that you think the PCs' behaviour would be unaffected if they thought they could get away with it.
In my opinion, one action should cause an alignment shift if it is drastically opposed to the characters "normal" alignment. If you make a character that is neutral good, and you force yourself onto the princess, the DM should talk to you about an alignment change because either A) You changed your mind and want to play a different alignment or B) You chose an inappropriate alignment for your character on purpose in order to "slip one past" the DM.
Try and explain how the OP's actions don't pretty much constitute an evil act. Better yet, try and explain how anyone doing it in the real world would end up, either in terms of punishment or in terms of what they'd do if they thought they could get away with it. I've heard in most jurisdictions cop-killing is more strictly punished than many other types of murder. In any mediaeval society, the PCs would be hunted down mercilessly and probably hanged for killing an on-duty militiaman; if anything our laws in the 21st century are slightly more humane than 15th century jurisprudence was.
Now in the OP's case, I feel like the motives justify the crime so there is no need for alignment change/atonement because the characters guilt is enough to keep them in good alignment standing and the consequences that occur should be sufficient to not need to "punish" the characters with a forced atonement quest. Unless of course, they are a paladin or cleric of lawful or good faith.
How on earth are they justified?! Please explain, because otherwise it might be a good idea for you to go out and try it the next time you are short on cash and want another D&D book.
The PCs may have done it, in short, but, yes I do feel they should have to go on a quest to make amends for their action, or submit to the relevant law authorities, or lose the support of good people in the campaign world. Anything else and you are justifying and supporting their actions, and I find that sad that we are raising a generation of kids who think like this IRL.
We as people obviously want to think of ourselves as good. I myself think I'm a good person, but I'm not so naive as think this means I haven't done bad (evil) things in my life. I think what it really comes down to is justification...IMO, killing is always bad/evil...but also justifiable. One of the common alignment things is killing one life to save one hundred. Using my views, its wrong to take that one life, but certainly justifiable. I don't think its possible to live your whole life without committing one bad or evil act, especially since the early parts of our lives we're still really learning about what this means. The important part is that we still continue to do good after committing the not so good actions, and that the good ones will in the end outweigh the bad ones...there are just unfortunately some situations where the only options are taking the one that is less evil.
I agree, but I think it is possible to go through your life trying not to, and not robbing a shop and killing a policeman in the course of trying to get away.
This isn't like pickpocketing someone in order to survive. The PCs were violent bandits, and ought to be treated like same. The good characters should be made to atone or face punishment for this.
We all do things wrong, but none of us here has probably attempted to do what the PCs have done, which IMO is profoundly premeditated and evil. If they make amends, they needn't become evil. But if they don't, then they won't survive as good characters.
Are you really sure that this isn't likely to make the PCs feel that it is ok to go around murdering, robbing innocent storekeepers, or whatever? ...
Yes, but if they get away with it, they will do it again with impunity, so some sort of consequences have to arise. ...
I can't believe that you think the PCs' behaviour would be unaffected if they thought they could get away with it....
You seem to assume the players motives are to do this again. The DM should talk to them and see what their intentions are before he assumes that they will repeat this behaviour. Anyways, consequences WILL arise. They will be hunted and have to be tried for their crimes if caught.
I don't like to say this, but try it in the real world and see how immorality and evil coincide and what consequences arise as a result...
Rubbish, for the reasons above. In the real world, as in the D&D world, consequences always arise from your actions ...
Try and explain how the OP's actions don't pretty much constitute an evil act. Better yet, try and explain how anyone doing it in the real world would end up, either in terms of punishment or in terms of what they'd do if they thought they could get away with it. I've heard in most jurisdictions cop-killing is more strictly punished than many other types of murder...
How on earth are they justified?! Please explain, because otherwise it might be a good idea for you to go out and try it the next time you are short on cash and want another D&D book.
I can't remember who posted earlier in this thread, but I think it was a person by the persona including something about a funny hat. I agree with them, that it is innappropriate to compare the DnD justice system to the real world justice system. And I believe they are justified, because if a rogue was to steal something from a shopkeeper, they wouldn't be evil. The murdering of the guard is semi-questionable, but as I said, in DnD where you dont always get a fair trial, killing a guard for self preservation, while illegal, doesnt have to be evil. I dont think I'll convince you of this so I'll drop it.
The PCs may have done it, in short, but, yes I do feel they should have to go on a quest to make amends for their action, or submit to the relevant law authorities, or lose the support of good people in the campaign world. Anything else and you are justifying and supporting their actions...
I agree that they should have to submit to the law or lose support of good people. I dont think they should have to atone.
and I find that sad that we are raising a generation of kids who think like this IRL.
I find it insulting that you assume I am a kid because I disagree with you. If you don't assume this, please rephrase your words because it really does imply that (to me).
second and really important. did you really NEED the stuff you stole or was it man... we could have better stuff and they have it so lets take it! AKA we did it because we wanted to be stronger.
and if you felt you NEEDED it why? what was so eminent that if you did not get the gear NOW bad stuff would happen.
why could the bard not distract with a mesmerizing song? seduction? wait until dark and sneak in and take stuff?
killing the guard... there was not a control spell in inventory, was there a reason you could not just keep running? was he in the way, did you try bull rushing or pushing past?
what i see is a chain of purposefully made, and completely unnecessary acts of violence performed by a group of people stronger than anyone else in the town, all because they wanted to use a great sword instead of a club, chain mail is shinier than leather, and because the group felt they deserved free cheap stuff instead of earning it because they are special and more important than the populace.
there are groups of people like this in real life, we call them gangs and thugs, they tend to become sociopaths and in many cases psychotic, and yes your characters attitude that its all gravy because you can convince yourself neutral is sociopath behavior, the mere fact you are capable of allowing yourself to reason robbing a store just cause you want stuff, and murdering a town guard for confronting you is psychotic.
here is how i see someone talking to their lawyer about this.
dang man just busted outta prison and have 20 bucks, but this jerk wanted 40 for the slightly bigger gun then i had, i talked him down to 35 but he wouldn't budge and we got in an argument. he tried to make us leave and he stepped on my puma so i jacked the fool up and stole his inventory and cash out the register along with his air jordans, was gonna kill him but since im not a bad guy i let him live, then the cops got on us so i shot him up and ran, but really im not a bad guy let me explain i NEEDED that gun because it was bigger than mine, and i NEEDED his shoes because they were better than my pumas plus and he disrespected my twenty dollar shoes. as for the cop they shoulda just backed off i do what i want and i killed him for thinking otherwise and getting all up in my grill.
Another one?
I'm getting seriously worried that so many D&D players seem to have no moral compass at all...
Some of these types of posts are sometimes an ambiguous call, but did the op really just post about how he and his party robbed a guy and resisted arrest and ask if it was evil or not? Seriously??? /weeps4humanity
In my opinion, one action should cause an alignment shift if it is drastically opposed to the characters "normal" alignment. If you make a character that is neutral good, and you force yourself onto the princess, the DM should talk to you about an alignment change because either A) You changed your mind and want to play a different alignment or B) You chose an inappropriate alignment for your character on purpose in order to "slip one past" the DM.
Then we're in agreement - normally, any single action will not cause a shift in alignment. However, a significantly deviant action (in terms of alignment) can cause a shift. I would say that your example is one that is not likely to cause an alignment shift unless previous actions were also outside the Good spectrum, in which case the character would slide to NN. Outright torture and butchery, on the other hand, would.
If you mean lighting a tribe of kobolds on fire that attacked the nearby village and baby kobolds die in it, it is acceptable not the most chivalric act but okayish...(but would depend on how likely it would be to do it without killing lots of inoccent babies)
If you have already killed all kobolds that pose a threat to the village and the party and after that discover a kobold baby and then pour 4 points of lamp oil over it... that is not even a slight bump towards the deep end its instant chaotic evil...
Ah, but you're wrong.
See, Kobolds are Evil, Inherently Evil.
A baby Kobold, rather than being Tabula Rasa Innocent, Is EVIL from the moment it's born, because Kobolds are, by DEFINITION, Evil.
A Kobold, regardless of age or actions is, automatically, the moral equal of a Human who commits serial cannibalism.
As such, in a system of morals where killing a serial cannibal is a just and moral action, such as in D&D, then killing a Kobold, no mater the actions it has taken or not taken in it's life up to that point, is ALSO a just and moral action.
Because Morality in a set up of make believe is a purely artificial construct.
My point is not to support any particular action, but rather to lampoon the whole concept of moral/not moral actions in a game.
I view the extremes as motive. If they robbed the storekeeper so they could get back on their feet and save the world from bigger threats, wouldn't it be evil to instead get menial jobs at 1sp a day to toil their way back to viability?
It's fine if you want to believe that the modern justice system is on your side (just like the human resources department at your job, right?), but I agree that if your characters are running from an angry militia and can't run fast enough, you should fight them, and deaths are a likely consequence.
See, Kobolds are Evil, Inherently Evil.
A baby Kobold, rather than being Tabula Rasa Innocent, Is EVIL from the moment it's born, because Kobolds are, by DEFINITION, Evil.
Kobolds are Usually Lawful Evil. This could mean that Lawful Neutral is the "normal" alignment, and the Evil is learned. Likewise, the Ixzan (special Ixitshachital [however it's freakin' spelled] from the Sunless Sea module for 2nd Ed) have a Chaotic Evil listing, but the young are specifically noted in the module as being C Neutral, with the Evil being learned/forced. So, Your Milage May Vary.
As such, in a system of morals where killing a serial cannibal is a just and moral action, such as in D&D, then killing a Kobold, no mater the actions it has taken or not taken in it's life up to that point, is ALSO a just and moral action.
I think Emmerask's point was that the pouring of oil and setting it ablaze would send you Evil, not simply the killing. After all, murder is still evil in D&D ... and since most people would call the slaughter of a (currently) innocent creature with no chance of fighting back "murder," one could make an argument either way.
Ah, but you're wrong.
See, Kobolds are Evil, Inherently Evil.
A baby Kobold, rather than being Tabula Rasa Innocent, Is EVIL from the moment it's born, because Kobolds are, by DEFINITION, Evil.
A Kobold, regardless of age or actions is, automatically, the moral equal of a Human who commits serial cannibalism.
As such, in a system of morals where killing a serial cannibal is a just and moral action, such as in D&D, then killing a Kobold, no mater the actions it has taken or not taken in it's life up to that point, is ALSO a just and moral action.
As Entropy_Judge said, kobolds are usually lawful evil. According to the MM, this means that more than half (but not the whole) of the population is of that alignment, and that it can both be a result of a strong cultural influence, or be a legacy of the creatures' origin. In other words, you can't be sure the kobold is evil, and there's a good chance it wont be if its raised differently. Likewise, an elf is usually chaotic good, but that doesn't mean there can't be any villains among them, or that slaying an elf is always an evil act.
Likewise, an elf is usually chaotic good, but that doesn't mean there can't be any villains among them, or that slaying an elf is always an evil act.
Killing an elf is never an evil act.
Assault.....Theft..... Murder
I can't imagine how someone would beleive that sequence of events mights be immoral...evil....not nice....generally considered criminal
Essentially the op is asking the question is this evil? I'm not sure who said it but I know it was on these boards. It was something along the lines of "If you have to ask the question. Do you think X is evil? It probably is"
Sadly the d20 SRD, as I read it, doesn't actually allow for neutrality. There is only good or evil, law or chaos, and doing enough of each of them to find a cosmic balance.
What are you talking about?
As Entropy_Judge said, kobolds are usually lawful evil. [1] According to the MM, this means that more than half (but not the whole) of the population is of that alignment, and that it can both be a result of a strong cultural influence, or be a legacy of the creatures' origin. In other words, [2] you can't be sure the kobold is evil, and [3] there's a good chance it wont be if its raised differently.
Point 2 does not necessarily flow from point 1, and point 3 flows from neither.
After all, "Usually Lawful Evil, with significant minorities of Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil, but biologically destined for Evil of some stripe" fits the definitions the MM gives us just fine.
after the session our DM complained that we acted evil by stealing, fighting neutral villagers and killing a millitia soldier. thoughts?
...
... Really?
You REALLY don't see how robbery, harming innocent people, and MURDERING LAW ENFORCEMENT isn't evil?
Point 2 does not necessarily flow from point 1, and point 3 flows from neither.
After all, "Usually Lawful Evil, with significant minorities of Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil, but biologically destined for Evil of some stripe" fits the definitions the MM gives us just fine.
Except the part where the MM tells you that by other alignments they mean all other alignments.
There's no such thing as a 100% Evil monster group outside of houserules, ever since late 2nd ED. 3rd ED brought us the Succubus Paladin, and 4th ED has removed enforced alignment entirely.
So I just said alotta nothing but here's my point. The DM decides good and evil. He makes the npc's and monsters and acts them out, decides the alignment of their actions. The DM gets the final word
As for the initial topic we would need a very detailed description of in-game events to determine how wrong the PC's were, instead of just summing it up as random acts of assault/theft/murder.
Lastly I just wanted to say that we don't have the facts regarding the death in the militia. In the world we live in today it is always wrong to kill an officer of the law (or simply not comply with their authority). But in this unknown fantasy world we cannot assume that the militiaman is upholding lawful-goodness rather than the good of the town he works in or even ulterior motives. Should not Robin Hood have surrendered to the officers of the Sheriff of Nottingham?
Just wanted to note that I quite despise games of D&D where law and order functions exactly as it does in the modern world. I would offer the following alternate, far more interesting approaches:
- IN D&D, just because an NPC isn't actively trying to kill your character at any given moment doesn't mean that your PC is always unjustified in killing them anyway. (It doesn't mean you always ARE justified either...)
- Theft is immoral in the real world, but in D&D it is INSTITUTIONALIZED. Is there anyones game world WITHOUT a thieves guild in at least one major city if not all of them and most towns as well along with a few villages? Terry Pratchett carries this to the logical, amusing extreme in the Discworld books by having citizens obtain reciepts from thieves when robbbed so that they don't get robbed excessively by the guild. Theft is non-good, but not evil. That is to say it's neutral as a rule.
- Real world legal systems have vast differences from what a D&D legal system generally has a right to be. Few nations are democratic - they are run by kings, princes, sultans, etc. That is, they are run by autocrats and dictators. The law is what they say it is at any given moment, not what 1000 years of legal precedent has sorted out and is printed in books with copies in every lawyers office, law university library, judges chamber, etc. Judges are not elected - they are appointed and serve at the discretion of the king because the king knows they'll convict and execute those whom he wants and needs removed from his kingdom. There isn't an established bar association for educating, training, and maintaining the legal profession. There certainly isn't a professional police force in the way that we think of them today. There are instead squads of low-paid goons with sharp implements who crack skulls of those crooks they can catch. There is no Dick Tracy or Sherlock Holmes to solve mysteries, murders and thefts. The crooks who get caught are the ones caught IN THE ACT and who are far more frequently chased and beaten by PERSONAL guards or the individual victim.
Self defense? That is a STRICTLY modern legal concept. Likely as not the killing of a "cop" in D&D will be of secondary consideration to the initial crime. If a "cop" is likely to be killed in D&D he is likely to run just a little slower or turn the wrong way in the alley as to give his life in the interests of justice. Constables don't have "To Protect and to Serve" engraved on their shields.
...
There are other ways of discouraging PC's from taking inappropriate courses of action - like TELLING THE PLAYERS, "THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR HEROES IN A HEROIC CAMPAIGN - RECONSIDER."
...
QFE. This is what I believe is the correct way to look at the situation but whenever it got brought up in this thread it got ignored. I'd just like to see what some people think about it who disagree. In short:
...
It's fine if you want to believe that the modern justice system is on your side (just like the human resources department at your job, right?), but I agree that if your characters are running from an angry militia and can't run fast enough, you should fight them, and deaths are a likely consequence.
/shortversion
All in all, in answer to the question "why is this not neutral?" as posed by the OP; It's not neutral because it's chaotic (Note, chaotic-neutral...or as some people call it, chaotic-stupid).
(Note, chaotic-neutral...or as some people call it, chaotic-stupid).
Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Stupid are completely different alignment. Chaotic Stupid is the character who does the most utterly random and inappropriate thing he can think of (Speaking with the king of a country? Moon him. In the middle of combat with the BBEG and winning? BS your allies to let him escape. Just won 10 million GP? Disintegrate the lot.) and usig his alignment as an escape clause. Chaotic Neutral is the character who believes personal freedom and individuality comes before the group.
Except the part where the MM tells you that by other alignments they mean all other alignments.
Quote please?
There's no such thing as a 100% Evil monster group outside of houserules,
This is, obviously, not the case.
(Unless, of course, you're referring to the fact that a monster specified as "Always Lawful Evil" can still have that 1-in-a-million Chaotic Evil member. In which case, sure, but so what?)
Ultimately you have to remember that the published materials are guidelines. The DM in this case, as well as several irrelevant people on the internet, think the players were acting in an Evil manner. The OP disagrees. I started on the 'obviously evil' side of the fence but after discussing it with another player (coworker) I saw his point that it was not evil, and I agree. I am also irrelevant to the DM's decision.
Part of the controversy seems to be varying definitions of good, neutral, and evil. Some people are using their own definitions, some are using the game book definitions and some are freely mixing both :D
If good were called the white team, neutral the gray team, and evil the black team with the same alignment definitions but lacking the words 'good', 'neutral', and 'evil' in the names, people might be better able to agree on how to classify actions.
It is similar to the way some people claim that lawful X characters will not voluntarily break laws, because the word 'lawful' is used in their alignment names and some people claim that they can do as they wish in accordance with their own orderly personal code.
When I determine if killing something is evil I follow (actual) military guidelines (not that terrible stuff you sometimes hear solders doing).
Shooting enemy soldier who is shooting you/allies/civilians - Good
Shooting enemy soldier who is surrendering - Evil
Shooting hostile armed civilians - Good(but check for non-lethal solution)
Shooting hostile unarmed civilians - Evil
Shooting non-hostile civilians - Very Evil
As for stealing material possessions: it is chaotic if done to law abiding citizens, neutral against everyone else.
What you did is absolutely unheroic, probaly very unthinking (there are plenty of solutions other then what you did) and in my opinion, damn stupid.
Other then that; discuss it with your DM because it depends greatly on the world.
Ah, but you're wrong.
See, Kobolds are Evil, Inherently Evil.
A baby Kobold, rather than being Tabula Rasa Innocent, Is EVIL from the moment it's born, because Kobolds are, by DEFINITION, Evil.
A Kobold, regardless of age or actions is, automatically, the moral equal of a Human who commits serial cannibalism.
As such, in a system of morals where killing a serial cannibal is a just and moral action, such as in D&D, then killing a Kobold, no mater the actions it has taken or not taken in it's life up to that point, is ALSO a just and moral action.
Because Morality in a set up of make believe is a purely artificial construct.
My point is not to support any particular action, but rather to lampoon the whole concept of moral/not moral actions in a game.
I have to bring up a quote from the Warcraft Archive, (Day of the Dragon, The Last Guardian, Lord of the Clans, and Of Blood and Honor) I believe from "Lord of the Clans". I don't have the exact quote, but here's the basic line:
"If I am to kill this orc, then it shall be on the battlefield, as an equal, not when he is a helpless youngling."
Or something like that. The point is, just because the Kobold will grow up to become evil, it's downright cruel to kill a helpless young creature (Especially in that manner!
) when he hasn't done anything wrong. Think of Drizzt. His entire race is primarily evil, and in all likelihood, he would have grown up to be an evil creature. But he didn't. Maybe that Kobold would have gone on to dislike the manner of his race and go off and live without them. I'm not saying he has to become a heroic, Lawful Good warrior of justice, but he might have gone on to lead a fulfilling, honest life.ikkitulakubidiii put it best when he offered that a player teach it right and wrong, and raise it as a good creature. As Drizzt has taught us, (Though I'm certain he's not the first example of it) it's entirely possible to step outside the bounds of your racial standards.
Now, back to the topic...
Personally, I think it was an evil act, primarily because there are numerous other options that the party could have taken. Someone else suggested that the party might have simply offered to do some odd jobs to earn the gold honestly. And if you have a Rogue in the party, s/he could simply sneak into the store at night, steal the necessary equipment, and leave an IOU with an apology. That second option doesn't even require the party to waste time, if that's a huge factor.
Frankly, I think the best action for the DM is to try and rein in the party that has assaulted, stolen, and killed. Which once again raises the question, why was the party in prison in the first place?
When I determine if killing something is evil I follow (actual) military guidelines (not that terrible stuff you sometimes hear solders doing).
Shooting enemy soldier who is shooting you/allies/civilians - Good
Shooting enemy soldier who is surrendering - Evil
Shooting hostile armed civilians - Good(but check for non-lethal solution)
Shooting hostile unarmed civilians - Evil
Shooting non-hostile civilians - Very Evil
I disagree with that one. I would classify it as "neutral," especially as the only difference between it and the one of above it is access to weaponry. It gets more fun if you try to port it into D&D, where the *unarmed* classes are actually more dangerous than the armed ones (M-U, Cleric, Sorc ...). Also, does a mob pulling up cobblestones and throwing them count as 'unarmed,' and therefore killing them would be 'evil?' What about an unarmed mob that's just going to dispense with weaponry altogether and tear you limb from limb?
That's a problem, right there. Being the protagonist of a work doesn't give you any right to act however you please.
A shopkeeper charged you a high amount. Was what he charged too much because you couldn't afford it, or because you just didn't want to pay all the gold you had on hand?
He gets belligerent with you and attempts to throw you out. The appropriate, sane response in this situation is to go to his competitor and complain loudly about him being a greedy dick, NOT smash him against the wall, threaten his life, steal the goods and his till, and then murder the watch guard coming to put a stop to the disturbance.
The fact that you're even asking if this is acceptable behavior or not is because you have this idea that just because you're a PC in this game you are somehow entitled to whatever you want from whoever you talk to whenever you want it. Maybe you should examine your motives and justifications a bit closer.
Acceptable to whom, anyway? The townies? The DM? The internet peanut gallery?
I disagree with that one. I would classify it as "neutral," especially as the only difference between it and the one of above it is access to weaponry. It gets more fun if you try to port it into D&D, where the *unarmed* classes are actually more dangerous than the armed ones (M-U, Cleric, Sorc ...). Also, does a mob pulling up cobblestones and throwing them count as 'unarmed,' and therefore killing them would be 'evil?' What about an unarmed mob that's just going to dispense with weaponry altogether and tear you limb from limb?
so its cool to fire into a crowd of angry unarmed protesters? i do believe all the rulers of the world who have made a habit of that are written into the history books as tyrannical and down right cruel evil rulers, not as cool neutral guys who just wanted to calm a problem.
so its cool to fire into a crowd of angry unarmed protesters? i do believe all the rulers of the world who have made a habit of that are written into the history books as tyrannical and down right cruel evil rulers, not as cool neutral guys who just wanted to calm a problem.
Understanding disconnect. When using the term "hostile civilians" in both an armed and unarmed sense, I interpreted it as a willingness to engage. Protesters are not a faction I would qualify as "hostile" in the same sense as the armed crowd is "hostile."
For example. The Kobold baby. True it is an evil being, their god would tell you so if you asked it. So killing a kobold baby would be destroying evil. But. It is a baby. Helpless. And therefore, you are robbing it of the ability to NOT be evil. Because alignments can change you see. Therefore killing it and robbing it of the ability to change, especially since it posses no threat to you and can only be helped to the side of good all the more if you chose to raise it and give it life, ending that life 'because it is evil' is an evil act.
And if you don't believe me, ask your gods. Would pelor pour that lamp oil on that baby kobold? How about Elhonnananaona... na.. er, yeah? Would they pour lamp oil on the baby kolbold and set it afame? I'd say not. At the most maybe abandon it to nature, or kill it painlessly and quickly if it was going to starve to death and there was no other way to take care of it.
But the CHOICE while KNOWING THE LIMITATIONS is the true measure of alignment in D&D. These characters are neutral sure, but they knowingly chose outright evil acts. NOT neutral acts. The choice then is what makes them turn. No matter what we as people with our moral or ethical believes may think, the choice is always the forefront. What you choose to be is what you are, not what you were made or are supposed to be. That's just plain freewill. And therefore, the only thing applicable to D&D and it's visible and readily communicable religions.
So we may debate the acts and motivations and laws and letter and alignment words. But we know these evil acts were done when other option were open. The choice to ignore those options and choose on the side of evil makes one evil. What qualifies as an evil act is NOT for us to decide here, in this world, because it is already decided in D&D. So no matter WHAT justification the players may come up with, the DM plays the gods and the gods say what goes. So therefore it is up to the DM. And the DM of course has all the source books and what not to pull from so what he says goes.
So the question now is not whether or not it was neutral or evil, but whether the DM made a good call for the players actions. The DM is at fault for putting them in the situation. But the players can not change the decisions they've made unless they replay. Decisions were made, choices, the DM did not make those choices for them. Just the consequences. Now we can question the consequences all we want, but that's more of a DM thread me thinks.
as for this particular thread. Evil acts. Evil alignment. so say the gods whom ARE evil or good or what have you. The players themselves and we know it isn't 'neutral' because we are too busy arguing the 'good or evil' balance. based on real world. Which is dumb. because everyone knows what would have happened in real world. Duh. But in D&D, it's up to the gods and therefore DM to judge, as the gods anyway. So do not consult us players, consult the books on what is good and evil. And you will find these acts were not neutral.
but that's just my opinion.
Neutral, "Undecided"
A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea...
Not the whole thing, but one way you can interpret True Neutral.
If you REALLY need gear, steal it. If you can't get away from the guard, fight them. These are good ideas for the DnD world and as long as you do them without malice, theyre neutral. They are simply a means to an end. I think people get caught up in their own views of right and wrong instead looking at it from the perspective of DnD where you play a fictional character in a fictional world with rules and morals much different from the real one.
From the D20 SRD (3.5)
Not the whole thing, but one way you can interpret True Neutral.
If you REALLY need gear, steal it. If you can't get away from the guard, fight them. These are good ideas for the DnD world and as long as you do them without malice, theyre neutral. They are simply a means to an end. I think people get caught up in their own views of right and wrong instead looking at it from the perspective of DnD where you play a fictional character in a fictional world with rules and morals much different from the real one.
Nut uh! See it clearly says what would be a 'GOOD' idea. So that means they only follow ideas that are good!!
but seriously. This would be up to the DM to cal and he did, so it becomes a question of his call really. Best to ask other DMs on the DM board i'd say.
just my opinion though.
From the D20 SRD (3.5)
Not the whole thing, but one way you can interpret True Neutral.
If you REALLY need gear, steal it. If you can't get away from the guard, fight them. These are good ideas for the DnD world and as long as you do them without malice, theyre neutral. They are simply a means to an end. I think people get caught up in their own views of right and wrong instead looking at it from the perspective of DnD where you play a fictional character in a fictional world with rules and morals much different from the real one.
The srd says this about evil in general:
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.
The srd also says this for neutral evil:
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble.
I find that it described the players' actions better than the true neutral description. I also see some good stuff in the chaotic evil description.
A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable.
In particular, it seems to describe the dwarf's actions quite well.
In the real world evil does not exist
It does. It can be figured out through logic and the fact that the same rule applies to everyone. Example: If everyone killed anyone who looked at them funny, we'd all be dead. A rational person would not find this desirable because a rational person, all things unchanged, would like to live. Therefore it can be concluded that killing a person who looks at you funny is wrong because if it is wrong for everyone to do it, it is wrong for you to do it.
Also, those saying that stealing if you "need" it is okay: What if others who can pay for it need it just as much? What about the person you're stealing from? Because you are having problems, that suddenly gives you the right to create problems for others?
The srd also says this for neutral evil:
I find that it described the players' actions better than the true neutral description. I also see some good stuff in the chaotic evil description.
These are the key words I see:
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble.
I feel that as long as someone does the things the PCs did with no remorse, they are evil. If they do it because they feel its the best course of action for the situation regardless of morality, and feel remorse that the situation had to come to it, it is neutral. If they refuse to act the way the PC's did because it is immoral, they are good.
As it is, there is no way to tell if the PC's did what they did and felt remorse or actually have "no love of order". A chaotic person would technically have no love of order.
It does. It can be figured out through logic and the fact that the same rule applies to everyone. Example: If everyone killed anyone who looked at them funny, we'd all be dead. A rational person would not find this desirable because a rational person, all things unchanged, would like to live. Therefore it can be concluded that killing a person who looks at you funny is wrong because if it is wrong for everyone to do it, it is wrong for you to do it.
Also, those saying that stealing if you "need" it is okay: What if others who can pay for it need it just as much? What about the person you're stealing from? Because you are having problems, that suddenly gives you the right to create problems for others?
You're talking right and wrong which is slightly set apart from good and evil. Debating what is right and what is wrong is far more complex than good and evil. For example, the right and wrong in your example is logical and reasoned. So, how does good and evil come into play? Well naturally a good person would not do the 'wrong' because it is wrong and he would rather do the 'right'. While an evil person would do the 'wrong' because it isn't 'right'. That is what would make them evil. Correct?
So the question then becomes 'what makes one choose the wrong or right?' and if you only answer 'because they are good' or 'because they are evil'. The logic and reason seem somewhat diluted doesn't it? Meaning, good and evil, while conceptually able to simplify certain motivations and reasonings and logical deductions, it is those very motivation and reasonings and logical deductions that challenge the concepts of good and evil themselves.
That is to say, a person can see good or evil in his choices depending on the way he reasons or deduces the logic from it. A person may deduce that killing anyone who looks at you funny is reasonable and logical and right if say a mental instability in his mind made him believe that everyone and anyone was out to kill him. So in his own mind he was perfectly doing the right thing and therefore good. But this does not require a mental instability, before you point that out, many historical figures led down the wrong path of thinking have done great 'evil' in the name of their right and good.
SO. from this, and other such examples, it is hard to simply base all choices on a universal ethically understanding of right and wrong. Because peoples backgrounds and those teachings of right and wrong are so varied- but such a debate would be far to lengthy- let alone be able to base one's actions on some perception of 'good' or 'evil'. There is far to much middle ground you see, and because of that, the existence of 'good' and 'evil' as tangible means of measurement from person to person can not exist.
Now I am not saying right and wrong don't exist, but peoples right and wrongs are different based on perception, background, experience, and above all, thought processes. Sorry if I seem long winded, but I spent much time debating such things against man being inherently evil or good and whathaveyou for a thesis long ago. Not that i'm saying my opinion is better than you own because of my experience or that your argument is invalid, merely that I tend to talk a lot about it. Sorry if I offended anyone!
You're talking right and wrong which is slightly set apart from good and evil. Debating what is right and what is wrong is far more complex than good and evil. For example, the right and wrong in your example is logical and reasoned. So, how does good and evil come into play? Well naturally a good person would not do the 'wrong' because it is wrong and he would rather do the 'right'. While an evil person would do the 'wrong' because it isn't 'right'. That is what would make them evil. Correct?
What matters is the choice, not why they made it. Evil is the word used to describe wrong from an ethical standpoint and good is used to describe what is right. It's usually very hard to describe a person as either, but not so much their willful actions. Evil people don't do wrong for the sake of itself. What is happening in their heads is that they fail to see other people as individuals with equal rights and thus grant themselves exceptions from universal rules that they'd have a hell of a time justifying if asked.
So the question then becomes 'what makes one choose the wrong or right?' and if you only answer 'because they are good' or 'because they are evil'. The logic and reason seem somewhat diluted doesn't it? Meaning, good and evil, while conceptually able to simplify certain motivations and reasonings and logical deductions, it is those very motivation and reasonings and logical deductions that challenge the concepts of good and evil themselves.
People choose to do right for many reasons, and definitely not always the right ones. Again, such actions are rarely done for the sake of themselves or because of some inherent quality in the person doing them.
That is to say, a person can see good or evil in his choices depending on the way he reasons or deduces the logic from it. A person may deduce that killing anyone who looks at you funny is reasonable and logical and right if say a mental instability in his mind made him believe that everyone and anyone was out to kill him. So in his own mind he was perfectly doing the right thing and therefore good. But this does not require a mental instability, before you point that out, many historical figures led down the wrong path of thinking have done great 'evil' in the name of their right and good.
Logic isn't relative. In his mind, he may be justified, but if his reasoning doesn't meet the standard everyone else has to bow to, his opinion of his own self matters for naught. Nobody is within their right to grant themselves an exception because to do so means to violate others and thus brings the world one step closer to hell.
SO. from this, and other such examples, it is hard to simply base all choices on a universal ethically understanding of right and wrong. Because peoples backgrounds and those teachings of right and wrong are so varied- but such a debate would be far to lengthy- let alone be able to base one's actions on some perception of 'good' or 'evil'. There is far to much middle ground you see, and because of that, the existence of 'good' and 'evil' as tangible means of measurement from person to person can not exist.
Ethics aren't a matter of opinion any more than anything else in reality. People tell each other all kinds of bull, but ultimately, it's what can be justified that is the real deal and the rest is false like the theory of a flat earth.
Now I am not saying right and wrong don't exist, but peoples right and wrongs are different based on perception, background, experience, and above all, thought processes. Sorry if I seem long winded, but I spent much time debating such things against man being inherently evil or good and whathaveyou for a thesis long ago. Not that i'm saying my opinion is better than you own because of my experience or that your argument is invalid, merely that I tend to talk a lot about it. Sorry if I offended anyone!
People perceive all kinds of things. People are also not perfect. What they perceive may be, and usually is, colored by their past experiences and self-interest. So who to trust: Reason (which we use to understand reality) or people (who tend to contradict each other; everyone can't be right at the same time if they disagree)?
What matters is the choice, not why they made it. Evil is the word used to describe wrong from an ethical standpoint and good is used to describe what is right. It's usually very hard to describe a person as either, but not so much their willful actions. Evil people don't do wrong for the sake of itself. What is happening in their heads is that they fail to see other people as individuals with equal rights and thus grant themselves exceptions from universal rules that they'd have a hell of a time justifying if asked.
Not true, in y opinion, choice and why they made it means everything. For example, the choice to steal is wrong, but to steal because if you didn't you or one you loved would die can be right. There one who makes the 'evil' choice can not be designated evil because of this. Certainly not in the same breathe of evil that **** or murder can be. It is because of these extremes and perceptions that rely on situation that Good and evil can not be used synonymously with right and wrong, meaning there is no universal right and wrong (or at the most very few) so it would be more accurate to label the motivations that fuel choosing right and wrong. Example, someone not taught right and wrong, if these truths of right and wrong were universal they would be apparent if not instinctual. But they are not. one must be taught, or their actions seem out right evil- if only self centered. I take the food because I am hungry, I hit the person because they were hitting me, I kill the person because I thought they were going to kill me and could not escape. Which shall these actions be labeled under, good evil right or wrong? Right for whom? from what side? Ignorance in the face of right and wrong does not equal evil, just as it can not equal good. Just as children can be cruel but all children are not seen as evil.
Se a lot of what you are saying relys on a universal system of right and wrong based on logical deduction. But logic and reasoning alone can not work if such other perceptions are not equal to them. Compassion, empathy, for example. It is wrong to hurt others because I it is wrong for me to be hurt. Their cognitive ability to reason must be fleshed out by a language for which these complex thoughts can be simplified. What I am saying then, is that if you strip away language, teaching, and knowledge, and leave reason and logic as they are.... there is absolutely no possible way a universal and equal system of judgment can exist. It would always be self centric. Simply because one did not know any better. Does that then allow concepts of good and evil to exist within such a person or persons? Are the inborn with a system of ethical right and wrong that allows them to reason and logic with such a language so they MAY choose between them? They are not. it must be taught. and because of this, no matter what age, there can be not tangible, logical, reasonable, explanation for actions if we are to look at good and evil alone.
There must always be circumstance, and experience, and reason, and logic itself placed within these terms of expression so we may justify a person's actions or condemn them. That is, to judge, one can not simply use good or evil alone. Explainable, or not, there is always reason, there is always motivation, pure evil or pure good for their own sake simply does not exist. Unless we go into the religious sense which we can not on these forums. but above all there is no tangible measurement, or system, of evil. Only a word, in a language, used to describe a person who chooses wrong. Therefore, why they choose wrong becomes paramount if another person wishes to judge them, but it can not be and must not be, explained or reasoned as imply "because they are evil." Evil is not a force in any of these cases, it is not a quality, but a mode of description for actions that have already been reasoned and logically deduced by the original person and therefore must be figured out by the others in order to understand, and through understanding, the ability to judge. Right or wrong.
People choose to do right for many reasons, and definitely not always the right ones. Again, such actions are rarely done for the sake of themselves or because of some inherent quality in the person doing them.
I may be misreading, but you seem to be agreeing. The inherent quality I am arguing against is evil or good in this sense.
Logic isn't relative. In his mind, he may be justified, but if his reasoning doesn't meet the standard everyone else has to bow to, his opinion of his own self matters for naught. Nobody is within their right to grant themselves an exception because to do so means to violate others and thus brings the world one step closer to hell.
Again you seem to be agreeing with me. However, again I must stress that there can be no universal standard. A universal standard would encompass ALL forms of life if there were, and this is simply not the case. All things being equal I mean. This universal standard then would apply to all, and I do mean ALL, not just humans. And I am afraid I can understand this 'that nobody is in their right to grant themselves to exception', as I have stated before there is no standard nor rule for which exception may be taken, but if there was one it would be that a being acts as they must to survive, for to survive is right because life is right. It is what everything in nature is based on, to live, so therefore if a universal standard existed it would support living as the ultimate goal, or all would be death. Another possible universal standard, all eventual dies. So therefore one trying to gain exception to the rule of survival would die, and one trying to live violates the standard of death. So if one is to die then they must die because all die, to deny this and try to survive would be wrong. Or to survive and to deny death because one wishes to live, would be wrong because you deny others the right to live.
Now we get into territory of life and death as their most basic levels, far beyond the complexity of trying to decide actions with motivations, if boiled simply down to note dieing and living. An 'evil' person can live just as long or longer than a 'good' person, so clearly these standards can not be used as universal for right and wrong. They are simply truths one can not avoid, it is therefore the choices, reasonings and logic to continuing living and accept death that we CAN discuss. but I think I am rambling. Perhaps going to deep.
Ethics aren't a matter of opinion any more than anything else in reality. People tell each other all kinds of bull, but ultimately, it's what can be justified that is the real deal and the rest is false like the theory of a flat earth.
Yet it is the language and motivations, logic and reasons which we use to justify that creates so broad a birth of middle ground. Just as the world is not flat, neither can right or wrong or good nor evil be so flat. My opinion of right and wrong can differ from yours. Based on culture. Would it be wrong to a vegetable or animal? Both take life, but at what standard do you hold one life over another? Taking life is wrong, as we have established, so by what standard, what reason, what motivation, what language do you describe your justification for taking life and eating everyday to live? Again, the complexities, again the failure of finding a tangle means to use good or evil. It must be measured in another way, a way that is taught, learned, not inborn or inherent.
People perceive all kinds of things. People are also not perfect. What they perceive may be, and usually is, colored by their past experiences and self-interest. So who to trust: Reason (which we use to understand reality) or people (who tend to contradict each other; everyone can't be right at the same time if they disagree)?
I would trust people. Because, as I have said, Their reasons and logic, and past experiences, and self interest is not better nor lesser than my own. Therefore, as I have no standard for which we both may, on a level ground, rightfully judge them, it takes communicating, understanding, and compassion and empathy to find out who what and why they are. My reality is experienced and expressed by my views and perceptions, just as theirs, if I am to understand- to connect and therefore to live or coexist with them, I must find a means to understand that is beyond an inherent instinct or self focused reality. If our realities are to meet and be explored understood and compared and fused so that together we may reach a higher way of living, I must first allow for the fact there is NOT perfection, there is NOT equality, and there is NOT good or evil. Only then can I ever hope to try and help them understand how I view reality.
This may be getting personal, so I will step in now and tell you I bare you no ill will nor am I trying to prove your wrong or shatter your perceptions or beliefs, I am stating my pure opinion, debating upon a subject so I may understand your varied point of view and hopefully explain my own, though argumentative language is the only way i know -through words- to discuss and debate every perception of an issue. I DO NOT intent to change you nor have you change me, but I am thanking for the experience and hope I have not been a waste of your own.
Thank you for reading and your time.
I still support the player characters' actions as neutral. Granted, I am not the DM in this case, and I am not going to tell the actual DM that he mad a bad call, but all the same I support the players.
It comes down to motive. Were the thieves motivated by a love of Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos? No. They were motivated by greed or desperation. Right and wrong are very personal perceptions. They are not a universal truth.
Let's say you have two nations at war. One is fighting for resources, glory, and future prosperity of their nation. The other is fighting because they want to kill the other guys. In my view, the first nation is neither good nor evil, while the latter is closer to evil. Granted, that's a broad brush to paint an entire nation with. Within each nation you will have a gradient.
One final tidbit of US Law, just as an example of motive. PC 459, Burglary: Entering a structure with the intent to commit a felony or larceny (paraphrased). Let's say you go into a department store and get upset with the pharmacist, so you go to the sporting goods, grab a baseball bat, and attack the pharmacist. Now let's say that rather than going to the sporting goods you go out to your car and grab a bat from the trunk, re-enter the store, and attack the pharmacist. In the first situation, you are not guilty of burglary, while the second situation you are. I bring this up because the intent of entering the store the first time was not to assault someone (felony). Entering the store the second time was. The relevance? The adventuring party did not enter the merchant's store with the intent of assaulting him or robbing him. That's how it ended up, and they broke the law.
Now, back in the game world, the players could argue that the marchant showed he was evil by spewing racial slurs against the dwarf, and so harming and robbing him was really an act of good. And the militia were working on his behalf, wittingly or not, so they are likewise evil. Players win!
Now, back in the game world, the players could argue that the marchant showed he was evil by spewing racial slurs against the dwarf, and so harming and robbing him was really an act of good
The players would be wrong with that argument. The merchant showed he was a jerk, or that he had a foul mouth, but he did not show he was evil.
The players would be wrong with that argument. The merchant showed he was a jerk, or that he had a foul mouth, but he did not show he was evil.
Two wrongs don't make a right. (I work with children and have to explain this on a daily basis. It is really amazing how many children/adults have never heard of the concept. )
In other words, turn the other cheek, rise above it, or anything MLK and Ghandi ever said.
Two wrongs don't make a right. (I work with children and have to explain this on a daily basis. It is really amazing how many children/adults have never heard of the concept. )
In other words, turn the other cheek, rise above it, or anything MLK and Ghandi ever said.
Yet a negative times a negative equals a positive.
....Damn you, Math! *shakes fist angrily in the air* DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN YOU!
Two wrongs don't make a right.
They make it even. :D
Two wrongs don't make a right. (I work with children and have to explain this on a daily basis. It is really amazing how many children/adults have never heard of the concept. )
In other words, turn the other cheek, rise above it, or anything MLK and Ghandi ever said.
Huh? The post I was responding to said the PCs could make the argument that the shopkeeper was evil because he made racist jokes, and I said that they'd be wrong for making that judgement. Are you agreeing with me?
Two wrongs don't make a right. (I work with children and have to explain this on a daily basis. It is really amazing how many children/adults have never heard of the concept.)
It seems like most people only quote things other people say that they can argue with and ignore more or less the main point of their post. For instance:
The adventuring party did not enter the merchant's store with the intent of assaulting him or robbing him. That's how it ended up, and they broke the law.
Is the main point of his post. The fact that 2 wrongs dont make a right isn't really related. He said that the shopkeeper could be considered evil as an afterthought. Dwelling on that instead of his point isn't very clever imo and is really just like talking in circles for four pages while we nitpick on little slips in each others wording or whatever.
Also, it's pretty rude to assume that this person doesn't understand that 2 wrongs don't make a right as well as comparing him to a child. I know you didn't come out and say it, but it is very implied and to be honest, your apparent feeling of superiority offends me. And it's not just you because other people in this thread have acted the same way.
Sorry for the rant or whatever you want to call it.
The DM in this situation was not presenting a fun game to the players of the game, and the players of the game took action toward making the game fun for the players again. And the DM chided the players of the game for it.
You may have noticed the part about it being a game.
And really, what's the big deal? A single act of lawlessness, or even evil, is not a big deal in game terms. It takes a huge shift in moral compass and overall behavior to change one's alignment, and even then it has little impact on game play. Besides, even though the actions in question were clearly lawless, the Neutral alignment allows for characters to perform actions of all moral stripes.
I really cannot figure out why so many people are so hung up on alignment. It is a game play tool, not dogma, and is largely a bit of fluff. Stop getting all bent out of shape over how every damned thing applies to alignment and just play the damned game.
It was not an evil act, it was a lawless one. Too few players seemingly can tell the difference.
And really, what's the big deal? A single act of lawlessness, or even evil, is not a big deal in game terms. It takes a huge shift in moral compass and overall behavior to change one's alignment, and even then it has little impact on game play. Besides, even though the actions in question were clearly lawless, the Neutral alignment allows for characters to perform actions of all moral stripes.
I really cannot figure out why so many people are so hung up on alignment. It is a game play tool, not dogma, and is largely a bit of fluff. Stop getting all bent out of shape over how every damned thing applies to alignment and just play the damned game.
I concur with one act not changing things. The first thing you say though is so much rubbish bullocks that you couldn't be more rubbishy bullocks filled on the most rubbishy bullocks filled day of your life with a rubbishy bullocks filling machine.
First, just because something is lawless doesn't mean it can't be evil. In 3.5 you have two meaningful scales, law-chaos and good-evil. We've clearly identified that these acts are not lawful, indeed they're likely chaotic. However, we are looking at whether or not they're good or evil.
They took from an innocent third party for their own selfish purposes, despite other options being open (such as working the bill off). They physically assaulted someone for no reason. Then they killed a police officer (effectively) who was merely doing his duty - when they could have simply surrendered.
Those are evil acts in addition to being lawless. Further, the poster seems to convey that this is a normal course of affairs. Having evil acts being 'normal' largely would seem to indicate gradual party shift towards evil.
Yet a negative times a negative equals a positive.
....Damn you, Math! *shakes fist angrily in the air* DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN YOU!
As funny as this was, while I'm doing the others I'll address this. A wrong and a negative are not the same. Nothing is difinitivly bad about a negative value, it is just less than 0.
They make it even. :D
Less funny, but see above.
Huh? The post I was responding to said the PCs could make the argument that the shopkeeper was evil because he made racist jokes, and I said that they'd be wrong for making that judgement. Are you agreeing with me?
They could make the arguement that he was evil, sure, but I don't really think that matters. Doing evil to evil does not make good or even neutral. It is still evil. (Opens big bag of worms). I would argue that in order for an act to be good it doesn't matter who it was done to. You should be able to take an act and perform it to anyone from a Balor to Mother Theresa and it's value (good or evil) will stay the same. That's why being good is harder, and less people do it. (I honestly think of myself as more of a neutral person, but I like to think I at least understand the other points of view)
The Gist
I'd say you were correct in your judgement, but you also implied that the PCs would thusly be justified in their acts. If you did not mean that, totally ignore everything I said.
It seems like most people only quote things other people say that they can argue with and ignore more or less the main point of their post. For instance:
Keep in mind I have not posted in this thread since post 7ish. I basically popped back in because alignment debates are interesting to me, and I wanted to see if anyone had said anything that hasn't been said in the other 4,000 threads on the same topic.
Is the main point of his post. The fact that 2 wrongs dont make a right isn't really related. He said that the shopkeeper could be considered evil as an afterthought. Dwelling on that instead of his point isn't very clever imo and is really just like talking in circles for four pages while we nitpick on little slips in each others wording or whatever.
Again, I haven't been talking in circles for four pages, but simply occasionally reading bits of it to see if anything new comes up. I saw something I felt really needed to be pointed out.
Also, it's pretty rude to assume that this person doesn't understand that 2 wrongs don't make a right as well as comparing him to a child. I know you didn't come out and say it, but it is very implied and to be honest, your apparent feeling of superiority offends me. And it's not just you because other people in this thread have acted the same way.
Sorry for the rant or whatever you want to call it.
... I was gonna address this but actually the idea that a person you have never/will never meet on the internet can offend you by talking to another person you have never/will never meet and you reading it is a little sad. (essentially take everything you read on the internet as totally irrelivant or not true. Go ahead and assume I am a 13 yr old D student who makes things up as he goes, it won't hurt my feelings and if you do the same for every other person on the internet your life wil be a lot easier.)[totally serious, I sincearly hope this does not come across as sarcasm]
... I was gonna address this but actually the idea that a person you have never/will never meet on the internet can offend you by talking to another person you have never/will never meet and you reading it is a little sad. (essentially take everything you read on the internet as totally irrelivant or not true. Go ahead and assume I am a 13 yr old D student who makes things up as he goes, it won't hurt my feelings and if you do the same for every other person on the internet your life wil be a lot easier.)[totally serious, I sincearly hope this does not come across as sarcasm]
I'm not gonna do that because I like discussing things and assuming something about someone else during a discussion doesn't help the discussion at all. It really just detracts from it and can lead to some serious flaming etc. I'd rather say what offends me as polite as I can (hopefully) and hope people can be understanding.
Anyways, I already said my opinion on the matter. I guess theres not much more for me to say.
In the real world evil does not exist
I'm really getting tired of all the "in the real world, good and evil are blah" or "in the real world, good and evil aren't blah." you don't know that. none of us do. If this is truly a discussion of game-world good and evil, then why are so many people tacking on what they think they know about real world good and evil for no reason?
The Gist
I'd say you were correct in your judgement, but you also implied that the PCs would thusly be justified in their acts. If you did not mean that, totally ignore everything I said.
Oh, okay. All I was saying (and all I meant, too :D) is that if they players had tried to use that line of reasoning, they'd have been wrong. I'm honestly not sure whether I've chimed in with my opinion on their actions yet.
If this is truly a discussion of game-world good and evil, then why are so many people tacking on what they think they know about real world good and evil for no reason?
Because the game rules are expressly just guidelines. It is incumbent on the players and DM to use common and not-so-common sense, which we draw from reality, as we perceive it.
I'm really getting tired of all the "in the real world, good and evil are blah" or "in the real world, good and evil aren't blah." you don't know that. none of us do. If this is truly a discussion of game-world good and evil, then why are so many people tacking on what they think they know about real world good and evil for no reason?
Cos they think it helps them win.
I concur with one act not changing things. The first thing you say though is so much rubbish bullocks that you couldn't be more rubbishy bullocks filled on the most rubbishy bullocks filled day of your life with a rubbishy bullocks filling machine.
Does being both wrong and rude at the same time usually work out this poorly for you?
Because the game rules are expressly just guidelines. It is incumbent on the players and DM to use common and not-so-common sense, which we draw from reality, as we perceive it.
Yes, but the "in the real world, good and evil are/are not blah" comments have always been either directly preceded or directly succeeded by "D&D doesn't use real world good and evil". and even if it dose, saying that they don't exist doesn't help anybody, nor does any other form of weighing in your opinion, as the only view of good and evil that matters are those of the ones actually in the game.
what would be most helpful is to make sure you know what your DM considers all the alignments to be like beforehand, as each DM will differ greatly. of course it's a little late for that, but not too late to keep this from happening again.
I would also advise avoiding mugging people whenever possible. most people consider mugging an evil act.
I could have potentially called this chaotic neutral if you hadn't killed a guard. Stealing is more chaotic than evil, especially since you went out of your way to not harm the shopkeeper. Fleeing the law is definitely chaotic. Killing a villager that is part of the militia is evil.
So 2 for chaos, 1 for evil. Definitely chaos, and I'd say whether it was evil or not was determined by exactly how the players went about it, and their intentions.
^^^this. Stealing out of necessity is pretty neutral, and definitely chaotic.
Killing without any real necessity is probably evil. Running away would seem like a more neutral course of action.
They could make the arguement that he was evil, sure, but I don't really think that matters. Doing evil to evil does not make good or even neutral. It is still evil. (Opens big bag of worms). I would argue that in order for an act to be good it doesn't matter who it was done to. You should be able to take an act and perform it to anyone from a Balor to Mother Theresa and it's value (good or evil) will stay the same. That's why being good is harder, and less people do it. (I honestly think of myself as more of a neutral person, but I like to think I at least understand the other points of view)
By that logic, giving charity to an axe murder would be considered Good. Not by the D&D scale, at least. I definitely think it matters who you do it to.
Here's my 2 cents.
In D&D, stealing in any society where theft is against the law (i.e., most) is Chaotic. Who you steal from, how you do it, and what you use the proceeds for would then determine the Good or Evil part of it.
Say you're stealing the money from the evil baron and giving it to needy children. That would make your act Chaotic Good.
Instead, say you're stealing from street urchins and keeping it to yourself. Chaotic Evil.
Does being both wrong and rude at the same time usually work out this poorly for you?
Just because someone disagrees with your opinion, doesn't mean they're wrong.
Alignment is based on what the DM chooses, not the players. In the DM's world, if stealing is an evil act, it's an evil act, even if it has 21st century morals interpretations. After all, what else will you have for a model? I would think twice about introducing medieval morals in a game simply because it limits the scope of character conception. Would there be any female heroic adventurers at all in such a world? There is a time for realism. Not so much in fantasy game.
Players should adjust their PC Alignments to accommodate the DM's interpretations. If they feel it's okay to steal and kill anyone who gets in their way, and the DM calls it evil, maybe the PC really is evil.
I guess these old debates keep resurfacing.
Alignment is based on what the DM chooses, not the players. In the DM's world, if stealing is an evil act, it's an evil act, even if it has 21st century morals interpretations. After all, what else will you have for a model?
The PHB. You can houserule however you want, but that's a separate issue.
I would think twice about introducing medieval morals in a game simply because it limits the scope of character conception. Would there be any female heroic adventurers at all in such a world? There is a time for realism. Not so much in fantasy game.
Players should adjust their PC Alignments to accommodate the DM's interpretations. If they feel it's okay to steal and kill anyone who gets in their way, and the DM calls it evil, maybe the PC really is evil.
By the definition of the alignments in 3.5 (which is what I'm assuming is being discussed, since the 4e alignments are woefully limited), stealing is not inherently evil, just chaotic. A classic example of (Chaotic) Good stealing is Robin Hood.
Chaotic, by definition, is rebelling from society's norms, or breaking the law. That's not inherently good or evil.
By that logic, giving charity to an axe murder would be considered Good. Not by the D&D scale, at least. I definitely think it matters who you do it to.
Sure, an axe muderer asks you for your help. Not in doing anything evil, but just for a favor (IE charity) "I am going to be killed for this, please watch over my children" "Please, I am starving to death, I know I killed those people but I am about to die, can I have some bread + water?" Sure, I consider any of those good actions.
Driving the getaway car? No. Harboringhim from the cops? No. Bandaging his wounds before you call the cops? Yes.
Does being both wrong and rude at the same time usually work out this poorly for you?
I don't know - does being so oblivious you can't see an evil act that effectively is waving a glowing neon sign saying "I'M EVIL" work this poorly for you?
In seriousness, beyond missing the (admittedly dated Simpsons reference) did you even read a tiny portion of the message - or did it also simply sail above your head. An act can be both lawless and evil, or lawless and non-evil.
Intimidation, threats, and killing guards and/or civilians of a non-evil nation/alignment for personal gain are both lawless and evil.
I'm really getting tired of all the "in the real world, good and evil are blah" or "in the real world, good and evil aren't blah." you don't know that. none of us do. If this is truly a discussion of game-world good and evil, then why are so many people tacking on what they think they know about real world good and evil for no reason?
What I actually said was:
I think people need to step back a moment here, everyone is beginning to mix real world morality with game world alignments. In the real world evil does not exist, not a present provable existence of one anyway -leaving religion out of this as best I can though a lot of work upon morality is done through these sources- in D&D evil does exist. It is real. A real tangible thing and can be right there to laugh at you when you do evil things. So asking whether something is good or evil by trying t apply your real world morality and concepts therein will only lead you to the inevitable conclusion that evil doesn't exist and therefore make it seems impossible to judge a world where evil does exist.
Yes, but the "in the real world, good and evil are/are not blah" comments have always been either directly preceded or directly succeeded by "D&D doesn't use real world good and evil". and even if it dose, saying that they don't exist doesn't help anybody, nor does any other form of weighing in your opinion, as the only view of good and evil that matters are those of the ones actually in the game.
what would be most helpful is to make sure you know what your DM considers all the alignments to be like beforehand, as each DM will differ greatly. of course it's a little late for that, but not too late to keep this from happening again.
I would also advise avoiding mugging people whenever possible. most people consider mugging an evil act.
My opinion is still my opinion whether it is helpful to others or not. Use of my opinion was not the exact point of the post, but rather explaining what you have just said, in that, it would be pointless to use real world blah on D&D blah because they are not compatible. Directly because "you don't know that. none of us do." and therefore relying on the written rules and parameters, as you said "you know what your DM considers all the alignments to be like beforehand, as each DM will differ greatly"
For which I refer back to my original post saying...
So we may debate the acts and motivations and laws and letter and alignment words. But we know these evil acts were done when other option were open. The choice to ignore those options and choose on the side of evil makes one evil. What qualifies as an evil act is NOT for us to decide here, in this world, because it is already decided in D&D. So no matter WHAT justification the players may come up with, the DM plays the gods and the gods say what goes. So therefore it is up to the DM. And the DM of course has all the source books and what not to pull from so what he says goes.
So the question now is not whether or not it was neutral or evil, but whether the DM made a good call for the players actions. The DM is at fault for putting them in the situation. But the players can not change the decisions they've made unless they replay. Decisions were made, choices, the DM did not make those choices for them. Just the consequences. Now we can question the consequences all we want, but that's more of a DM thread me thinks.
If you are going to use my post as justification for your post, please read the entire post and keep the context. And no i am not angry nor reprimanding, simply explaining and asking, if you would be so kind. Thank you for your time.
"But wait" you're probably thinking right now, "I said that it wasn't provable you said that we aren't sure."
that's true, but me saying we aren't sure what constitutes good and evil is a lot different than saying good and evil's existence cannot be proven. I'd say it can be, we just can't be certain what it's full extent is.
all that said, I probably should not have quoted you, as it was less a comment directed at you and more those who do this IN EVERY SINGLE ALIGNMENT THREAD EVER in general. I just finally got sick of it, skimmed for the most recent example I could find, and quoted it. While still annoying, yours was probably the worst example for me to pick. for that, at they very least, I do apologize, but I feel my point remans valid. unless we're discussing real-world good and evil, making off-hand comments about it will only **** people off.
It's a comment that is insulting and disrespectful to the beliefs of others and should not have been mentioned, at least not without an "if you ask me" or other such disclaimer, at all regardless of context.
"But wait" you're probably thinking right now, "I said that it wasn't provable you said that we aren't sure."
that's true, but me saying we aren't sure what constitutes good and evil is a lot different than saying good and evil's existence cannot be proven. I'd say it can be, we just can't be certain what it's full extent is.
all that said, I probably should not have quoted you, as it was less a comment directed at you and more those who do this IN EVERY SINGLE ALIGNMENT THREAD EVER in general. I just finally got sick of it, skimmed for the most recent example I could find, and quoted it. While still annoying, yours was probably the worst example for me to pick. for that, at they very least, I do apologize, but I feel my point remans valid. unless we're discussing real-world good and evil, making off-hand comments about it will only **** people off.
Understandable hence why in my original post the final word I had on the matter was...
but that's just my opinion.
However, I never said my opinions were correct, though I admit they are strong, which is what led to the latter debate I had with another. In truth it is directly because it could offend and that such things ARE left solely up to opinion instead of fact or counter fact. I never come on here trying to change peoples beliefs, but I do relish learning and exploring them. That being said it is also a matter that dips too deeply into belief and therefore can not be covered, in it's entirety here, in this medium. Therefore, while asked to debate, or challenged if you like, I remained reserved. Just as I do so now, never insulting, never angry, never accusing. Merely politely asking. Speaking of- I accept your apology, though you need not give it. As I said I understood the reasoning and the sentiment behind it. It is for the exact reason I do not question or challenge or seek to change a person's beliefs that I stepped in to say everyone in the thread need step back.
and i shall use this opportunity to say again, for the final time -unless so called to question or elaborate- this matter is not a matter or real world ethics or morality, but a question of the DM's perception on them through his or her judgment of the rules and his ruling with that in mind. Therefore, asking "why this is not neutral?" can only be answered with "Because the DM said so." which would lead to "Why did the DM say so?" in which case one needs ask their Dm and not us. We can not back up the player against their DM. Only provide our opinion on the matter. If they wish to ask if other players see the DM's choice as good or bad, they have gotten their answer, clouded as it was by our own musing of morality and conjunction with the D&D realms. This should be a group matter expressed with the Dm and Players. Any further looking into would best be served by asking other DM's if what their dm decided was right or wrong or good or bad whathaveyou.
Was his call a good one concerning the rules and text and subtext given by the books and such? Because no one can say anything about it outside of the books, to do so would question the DM's morality and ethical thinking and other such nonsense that need not come up in these threads. However... if it did. It would still largely remain a DM topic and therefore a DM thread.
Therefore, therefore, therefore, therefore and therefore... I digress.
But. As always. That is just my opinion.
P.s. Therefore.
our party got into a debate with our dm about our alignment the other day. we had stopped at a village for suplys after escaping from prison in another village. we had verry little on us (we had failed to get things back while escaping so our 5th level warriors had mostly clubs, padded armor and hardly any money. we decided to buy equipment first and me (the bard) did a fair bit of bartering and got the price down a little. but everything was to expensive. an argument started and ended up with our dwarf pinning the shopkeeper to the wall while the others took what we needed and a small amount of money (about 10 gp) , we diddnt robb him blind, hurt him, or damage anything he had. as you can imagine this didnt go down well with the villagers and we had to run off prety fast, we got chased and caught by some of the millitia who our elf ranger shot. after the session our DM complained that we acted evil by stealing, fighting neutral villagers and killing a millitia soldier. thoughts?
This was certainly unlawful, but it's easily chaotic neutral. If you had a higher, noble purpose that you just HAD to have proper gear for I would even call it chaotic good.
This was certainly unlawful, but it's easily chaotic neutral. If you had a higher, noble purpose that you just HAD to have proper gear for I would even call it chaotic good.
If this is your grasp of good and evil I really, truly, hope that I don't live in your town.
If this is your grasp of good and evil I really, truly, hope that I don't live in your town.
Okay, so riddle me this: some terrorist has a nuke, and Jack Bauer needs some weapons and some other gear to stop them. He stops at some knuckledragger's sporting goods store, tries to explain, tries to reason with the man, but the jerk won't budge. Jack Bauer is, in this situation, entirely justified in roughing up the guy and taking what he needs.
Lawful? No, even federal agents aren't allowed to do the crap Jack Bauer pulls off. Evil? No; he's getting stuff for himself, but only because he's the only one who can stop the terrorists. Not even neutral: he's putting himself at grave risk to save the city/country/world. This is a good action, and it involves theft.
So, I stand by my statement: if there were some dire task that required the PCs to be well armed and supplied, then these actions were chaotic good.
Okay, so riddle me this: some terrorist has a nuke, and Jack Bauer needs some weapons and some other gear to stop them. He stops at some knuckledragger's sporting goods store, tries to explain, tries to reason with the man, but the jerk won't budge. Jack Bauer is, in this situation, entirely justified in roughing up the guy and taking what he needs.
Really? Jack bauer can't use his giant government blank check to just buy whatever he needs? He doesn't sneak in the back room and grab what he wants? He doesn't say some catchy "Sorry ive got to do this" and knock the guy out?
His first and only option is to shoot the man in the face, grab the goods and run? Glad I don't watch that show...
Now back to whatever the last 5 pages has been about
Really? Jack bauer can't use his giant government blank check to just buy whatever he needs? He doesn't sneak in the back room and grab what he wants? He doesn't say some catchy "Sorry ive got to do this" and knock the guy out?
His first and only option is to shoot the man in the face, grab the goods and run? Glad I don't watch that show...
Well, the post you're quoting *does* have him try to explain things first ... and AFAIK the show is basically about preventing terrorist strikes that are showing up *now* (ie, in 24 hours or less, hence the name of the show), so time is at a premium, and anything that slows him down has a chance to get people killed. Of course, I don't really know much about the show either, aside that Jackie-boy has his own interrogation technique ....
D&D-wise, he's probably either a Rogue or a Grey Guard - doing things that aren't Good for a Good cause.
Okay, so riddle me this: some terrorist has a nuke, and Jack Bauer needs some weapons and some other gear to stop them. He stops at some knuckledragger's sporting goods store, tries to explain, tries to reason with the man, but the jerk won't budge. Jack Bauer is, in this situation, entirely justified in roughing up the guy and taking what he needs.
Lawful? No, even federal agents aren't allowed to do the crap Jack Bauer pulls off. Evil? No; he's getting stuff for himself, but only because he's the only one who can stop the terrorists. Not even neutral: he's putting himself at grave risk to save the city/country/world. This is a good action, and it involves theft.
So, I stand by my statement: if there were some dire task that required the PCs to be well armed and supplied, then these actions were chaotic good.
Somehow you seem to overlook the part about murdering a guardsmen
Sure, an axe muderer asks you for your help. Not in doing anything evil, but just for a favor (IE charity) "I am going to be killed for this, please watch over my children" "Please, I am starving to death, I know I killed those people but I am about to die, can I have some bread + water?" Sure, I consider any of those good actions.
Driving the getaway car? No. Harboringhim from the cops? No. Bandaging his wounds before you call the cops? Yes.
Well, you are defining a "good" act as something that can be done to anyone and its morality value will remain the same. I don't see how jailing an innocent man and jailing a serial killer both have the same morality value.
But that's neither here nor there. Here's the real flaw. Nobody can accurately predict every repercussion of their actions. You do what you do because you think it is the right thing to do, and you think it will help the most people.
So it comes down to good intentions. You do things because you believe they are for good. Okay. So what happens when somebody who quite solidly fits into the D&D "Evil" category is only doing what they're doing because they believe it's for the greater good? Not all "villains" think of themselves as villains. Some think of themselves as rebels, vigilantes, heroes. They seek power not for the sake of power, but because they think they can help the world, and forming a military dictatorship, for example, is the best way to do it. Or maybe they think the current regime is corrupt, and dismantling it is the right thing to do.
By that logic, everyone who intends well is considered good.
The D&D alignment scale tries to make concrete what is patently ambiguous. And that's fine. This is a game, it's perfectly okay to define something complex in terms of something simple, just like it's perfectly okay to define a vicious sword thrust as the roll of a few dice.
The point is, D&D morality is a game mechanic, much like classes, powers, and feats. The PHB has always provided decent guidelines as to who is what. If someone does this, values this, and follows this, they are Chaotic Good. However, if someone does that, values that, and follows that, they are Chaotic Evil. They are based off some classic definitions of words. That's all.
Back on topic: the act in question is definitely Chaotic and had some elements of Evil in it (unnecessarily killing the guardsman, for one), as per the 3.5 scale.
Really? Jack bauer can't use his giant government blank check to just buy whatever he needs? He doesn't sneak in the back room and grab what he wants? He doesn't say some catchy "Sorry ive got to do this" and knock the guy out?
His first and only option is to shoot the man in the face, grab the goods and run? Glad I don't watch that show...
Jack is frequently working outside the law. He often does not have the financial backing to do what has to be done to stop the terrorists. As the OP described the situation, it's similar in his campaign.
Somehow you seem to overlook the part about murdering a guardsmen
Doing so improved the odds of their escape, which improved the odds of them stopping whatever world-ending evil they'll be stopping. It was an evil act that served the greater good.
Daerien, you managed to miss my entire point. Intentions don't matter at all.
I argued that any act can always be either a good act or an evil one. No ifs, ands, or buts.
I don't see how jailing an innocent man and jailing a serial killer both have the same morality value. But that's neither here nor there. Here's the real flaw. Nobody can accurately predict every repercussion of their actions. You do what you do because you think it is the right thing to do, and you think it will help the most people. So it comes down to good intentions. You do things because you believe they are for good. Okay. So what happens when somebody who quite solidly fits into the D&D "Evil" category is only doing what they're doing because they believe it's for the greater good?
Jailing an innocent man and jailing a serial killer are both neutral acts. Neutral as in no motivation behind it, you are simply following an order. Keeping an innocent man from his family is an evil act, keeping a serial killer away from future targets/trying to rehabilitate him is a good act. Keeping a serial killer from his family? Pretty much an evil act, but I never said our justice system was "good aligned". No further on that, its a discussion of politics and off topic.
SUMMARY at bottom
Your example, someone we would classify as evil, doing evil acts for what they believe to be a good reason. Lets say they know that sacrificing a virgin to keep a dragon at bay every 4000 years, will work, but unfortunatly there are no volunteers for that silly tradition that most believe is superstition. Our evil character, lets call him Jack B, decides to go down to the farm and grab the farmers daughter claiming its for the good of everyone. He then ties her up on a ritual stake near the supposed dragons cave, and kills her. We have kidnapping, and murder. Both evil acts. Both done for the good of society. Its not even really relavent if the dragon comes or not, so I will leave that open. This character is IMO an evil character. He did evil things, and in the end he saved the day. He did two pretty evil things, and managed to stave off a huge evil thing which can be considered a pretty good thing. That does not mean he did 3 neutral things. He did 2 evil things, and 1 great thing.
Overall the character can probably get away with calling himself a good one in most games, and if I were DMing I wouldn't object. But I would insist that he did in fact do some evil things. It won't change his alignment, it won't penalize him, but it will be there, and it was done. If I were playing the character, I think I would call myself evil, but that doesn't mean I would go around killing everyone in sight. I would just be willing to take the dirty short cut. The Neutral characters solution to this encounter would probably be to try to find alternative solutions to the dragons return problem. Like volunteers, other methods of satisfaction, or ways to kill the evil dragon. Then when/if none were available, he would kidnap the farmer's daughter. A good characters solution would be, like the neutrals solution, only instead of resorting to the farmer's daughter, would offer up themselves or attempt to defeat the beast once and for all.
Sum it all up? Evil=easy, neutral=hard until it is too hard then easy, Good= Hard until you fail.
I'd have to say everyone handled this pretty badly.
Was I the DM, that dwarf would have given you everything you needed to equip yourselves well, and asked you to do a favor and protect him while he traveled to the next town in return. I'd then improvize a few skirmishes with some easy enemies in a few minor encounters, and set you on your way.
You, as players, could have offered your services to the dwarf as guards or mercenaries, before deciding to attack him and steal from him. It would make your DM have to improvize, but it's better than attacking innocent people and killing guards.
You, as players, could have also asked around town for anyone who needs a favor, in exchange for some gold. Nothing like a hard day's work to earn some cash, and some renown with the locals.
As a DM, I could have also seen that things were going badly with the escape from the prison, and given you aid from an improvised friendly NPC posing as one of the guards in the prison. He would give you your stuff back if you promised to help him escape from this land.
See, there's lots more options for both sides here, but all in all, yeah, that was pretty evil. I guess that no one heard the voice of reason. Shame on all of you.
Ok, this point in fact is not evil...nothing they have done is evil(atleast not as a party), none of it is good, but it is not evil.
1. Stealing is not evil it may be against the law but is not evil. It doesn't matter if the shop keeper didn't deserve it or not, it is not evil. Beating him up after he yells and curses at you is not evil either, killing him would have been, but they just roughed him up a bit and took what they needed to get back on their feet. Maybe the shop keeper should look at who he insults before he runs his mouth.
2. The PC were trying to flee, they had not killed any one and were running. Anyone that starts to chase them knows full well what may happen if they catch them, and that is a fight that may be fatal..So go tell the widow and children of the militia that Daddy was stupid and confronted criminals known to be armed as they were despretely trying to flee. Only one Party member killed someone, that means he is evil not the whole party..now if they got a rush from this said "the way you took out that militia was cool" and started up a life of banditry, then they may be evil.
3. As I see it they are nuetral or even good characters that were pushed to the edge of desperation and made some bad decisions and unfortunately lead to the death of an 'innocent' militiaman who apparently made some bad decisions himself.
4. Who cares? Not like they were outright killing and stealing because they could, they did it because their options were quickly disappearing, and they took a kneejerk reaction, things snowballed from there and they had to run with it. If they keep doing it then there may be an issue, but for now I would say it is done with, just dont get to near that part of the country for a long while.
Stealing isn't exactly evil
Um, yes it is.
Sorry to say, it might be romanticized in D&D and film and such, but stealing is an evil act. Now it is somewhat softened in the D&D world, since often enough your thieves are stealing from the rich, and often do good deeds, but in the end, stealing is wrong. The whole Robin Hood deal is not as much stealing as much as it is an act of social rebellion. But stealing for your own profit is evil. It is, however, not an unforgivable act, and is fine for a neutral alginment.
Shooting the lawman was definitly evil as well. Forgivable as an act of desperation, but still something you would want to atone or if you want to be good aligned.
One thing that has seemed strange to me in reading this discussion is that no one has discussed the idea that there are a variety of levels of good and evil actions.
An act does not have to be simply Good or Evil, it might be mildly evil, mildly good, nuetral, greatly evil... &c. In this sort of system, most 'immoral' acts are ones I would consider mildly evil, but not some great 'True Evil' sort of nonsense.
So, out of curiousity, on the following scale, where do you place the PCs actions? I've tried to include some examples to give a sense of the scale. Granted, the 'Good' end of this won't be necessary for this exercise, but I wanted to have it for completeness' sake.
GOOD
10 - Sacrificing one's life to save an innocent stranger.
5 - Tithing 20% of one's income to a worthy charity.
0 - Buying a donut. (Bavarian creme filled)
-5 - Premeditated murder
-10 - Setting an orphanage on fire. For fun.
EVIL
It seems to have been ignored, for the most part, but the people were thrown in jail before. This is why they originally needed gear to continue their adventures, because they lost their gear while in jail. It's not the DM's fault they don't have gear, the players shouldn't have landed themselves in jail to begin with. It's possible they didn't deserve to go to jail, and it was unfair for whatever reason, but given the actions of the group from what we've heard, they probably deserved to go to jail, and thus deserved their lost gear.
As people have said, the group could have done other things. Acting in an aggressive and violent manner, when they had many other options on how to proceed, was a poor option. I'm sure the DM could have done something else to help them get gear and money, and many people have pointed out ways they could acheive their goal, so unless the players had no desire to act politely, or at least decently, there was no real reason for this.
Stealing can be good, neutral, or bad. It depends on what you take, who you're taking from, and whay you are taking it. They stole money and goods from a shopkeeper in a decently sized town because they didn't want to pay the price they managed to negotiate for. The shopkeeper was even willing to lower his original price. I'd say this is evil, simply because the shopkeeper originally started out nice, or at least decent, and they stole a considerable amount from someone, stealing the money he had earned and the supplies he needed to earn more.
Killing, as above, same issue. I say evil because they killed a guard who was just trying to do his job because they didn't want to go to jail (again) because they stole (who knows what they did before). The guard could have been evil, but no real proof of this, and in all likelihood, he's neutral. The violent acts with little to no real provoking, brought about because they couldn't control themselves before and manage to keep their gear, when the people involved were trying to take into account their needs (the shopkeeper) or just trying to do their job (guard) marks them as evil. You can try and justify it, but it's at the very, very least evil leaning towards neutral, but I sincerely doubt it.
Trying to justify their actions by twisting their actions is silly. They didn't need their gear, they could have gotten gear in a non-violent way, they could have slept elsewhere, plenty of things. It's not like they were pushed into that situation. The shopkeeper was not the only way to get supplies and rest, and even assuming he is, helping people out around the town would help pay for that. Considering that he lowered the price, it's more than people nowadays would normally do.
This is just my opinion, of course, but this is a really long argument, so I thought I'd drop my opinion, see if it changed anything.
So, out of curiousity, on the following scale, where do you place the PCs actions? I've tried to include some examples to give a sense of the scale. Granted, the 'Good' end of this won't be necessary for this exercise, but I wanted to have it for completeness' sake.
Between 0 and -3. I don't think anyone would actually consider their actions "Good," but they weren't wholly evil, either. Also, what would these modifications do to your list?
GOOD
10 - Sacrificing one's life to save an innocent stranger. Instead of someone you hate.
5 - Tithing 20% of one's income to a worthy charity. That you know is riddled with corrupt officials.
0 - Buying a donut. (Bavarian creme filled). GLAZED
-5 - Premeditated murder ... On a Death Row inmate.
-10 - Setting an orphanage on fire. For fun. After making sure no one was in the building and nothing valuable was inside.
EVIL
0 - Buying a donut. (Bavarian creme filled)
WRONG!
Bavarian Creme is the most evil of donut fillings! Buying a Bavarian creme donut is like a -11 on that scale. Enough to make Spinal Tap proud.
My evil goes up to 11.
Killing bad guys: Good.
Killing random people: Evil.
Stealing: Evil.
GOOD
10 - Sacrificing one's life to save an innocent stranger. Instead of someone you hate.
5 - Tithing 20% of one's income to a worthy charity. That you know is riddled with corrupt officials.
0 - Buying a donut. (Bavarian creme filled). GLAZED
-5 - Premeditated murder ... On a Death Row inmate.
-10 - Setting an orphanage on fire. For fun. After making sure no one was in the building and nothing valuable was inside.
EVIL
"
Ahh, interesting.
I'd use the following:
Sacrificing one's life to save an innocent instead of someone you hate: 8
Tithing to a corrupt charity: 3 or perhaps 4. If it was still the place such money would help the most people.
I enjoy glazing on a donut, in addition to being creme filled. :)
Premeditated murder of a death row inmate: -1 or -2. He was destined to die already. This is,
of course, on the assumption the death was not excessively painful. Knife to the throat or
something, not set on fire.
Setting an empty orphanage on fire: -2, unless the fire spreads to other places.
If the building was still needed by people, and it was just emptied prior to inflammation, -4.
He was destined to die already.
Isn't everybody?
I think this is a good time to bring up two other points. 6. I think most of us consider ourselves lawful and good, so it's hard to think of anyone who acts otherwise is not being evil.
In D&D terms i consider myself solidly Unaligned/Neutral. I have killed people before as a necessity of my occupation, and still actively work in a job that supports people who are basically well-paid murderers, even if many people would consider it justifiable murder, and i continue to follow my occupation despite the ease with which i could find a more peaceful one because its easy and its what i know. I don't lose any sleep at night over any of this.
Now if i were to go out maliciously slaughtering people and taking thier stuff when i had other, nonviolent options available then i might be slipping into Evil territory. And even in that case, it depends on context. Stealing doesn't even put up a blip on my moral radar if it harms no one; sure its illegal and unlawful, but that doesn't make it inherently wrong.
So yeah, id say the party in the OP didn't do anything evil. Even killing the guard was a largely neutral act; it was necessary and not done out of malice.
I agree with the DM.
There's no need to resort to the actions taken.
It just shows an utter lack of creativity by the players.
Thugs and hoodlums resort to taking from the innocent, these are actions that "Points of Light" should oppose, not participate in.
Consider this--if the GM described the actions of some NPCs as holding up the merchant, stealing from him, killing the local militia, and fleeing into the woods, the Players would naturally assume that was the night's Plot Hook and that they, as Heroes, should go hunt them down.
Considering it was the PCs doing those very actions, I think we can see that the deeds weren't those of Good people, nor even Unaligned people--they were those of Evil people who took what they wanted without care or regard for the harms done to innocent people.
In my take, the party is Evil, the players Lame.