Alignment question (3.5)

[Weezer]

I've been doing a little planning for a game that I'm DMing and I thought up a scenario that I'd like to try but I'm not sure how it will affect the PC's alignment.

In the campaign there is a kind of cliche tyrranical evil government and the PC's are resisting it. I was thinking of haviong them contact or be contacted by a fake resistance that would then push the PC's towards actions that will hurt the real resistance, at the beginning there would be very few clues as to the true nature of their allies but the evidence will build up until it becomes obvious that they are actually working for their enemies.

I was wondering how it would affect their status as good PC's if they were tricked into murdering say a good leader of the resistance. I know it wouldn't be a good act but would it be at least neutral because they don't know who their actually killing?

Also as a side note what would your reaction be as a player if something like this was pulled on you?

[hamishspence]

in Atonement description, it stresses that unknowing evil acts still count for paladin or exalted feat purposes, but, its easier to atone because the caster of Atonement doesn't pay XP.

for example, a paladin executing an innocent person who'd been magically disguised, despite genuinely believeing his act to be just, would still Fall, but caster would pay no XP to Un-Fall him.

[Who_Da_Halfling]

I'm not really sure about the alignment question, but I can speak to the player reaction.

If you didn't give the PCs any chance to realize what they were doing before they passed the point of no return (for instance, committing an act that seriously undermines the real resistance, like murdering the leader), then they'll probably be pretty pissed. There has to be at least an opportunity for them to realize what's going on and change it beforehand. It doesn't have to be an obvious opportunity or anything, but they should get a chance to, say, talk to a real resistance member and find out about the real resistance or something. He should not necessarily stick out (that would be a bad underground resistance member...), but he shouldn't be That Random Villager They Passed On The Street One Time. If they're smart, they should be able to realize that they may want to talk to him.

Now, if they don't take the opportunity to talk to the random NPC, that's their problem. But if they aren't given any opportunity to take the side of good, they may react badly to finding out they accidentally betrayed the Rebel Alliance.

-JM

[EvilJames]

It won't really affect their alignments. While unknowingly committing an evil act is still and evil act, evil really has to be done on purpose for someone to really be evil, you have to chose it(even if you don't necessarily realize you are choosing it). Paladins will fall as was mentioned though, Clerics are in danger of it as well. In fact when they find out realistically all good characters will want to atone for the deed somehow whether the game rules require it or not. However even though the party might not be evil now, the real resistance isn't going to see it that way. It will be very hard to convince the secretive rebels the party is on their side after that.

[Riffington]

tricked into murdering

So, it depends how tricked they were, exactly.
If they were tricked as in "you thought you were giving him itching powder, but instead it was poison", well then it doesn't change their alignment.
If they were tricked as in "you thought you were murdering someone else"... well, murder is a strongly evil act even if the target is evil.

[Myou]

EvilJames has it right.

[Tengu_temp]

If they were tricked as in "you thought you were murdering someone else"... well, murder is a strongly evil act even if the target is evil.

I disagree. If murdering is the only way to stop someone really evil, because he is cunning or influential enough that there aren't any legal ways to stop him, then many good characters won't think twice.

As for the actual question, EvilJames is indeed correct. I'd also add that there are very few players who like playing good characters who won't be pissed about this plot twist.

[Atamasama]

I disagree that this plot would be a bad thing to do. It's possible that the players may feel railroaded, and they might get mad at finding out they were duped. However, things can take a strong turn for the awesome if it becomes apparent that they can take action that both punishes the false resistance people, and advances the cause of the real resistance people. Take the resentment the players will feel and temper that into a feeling of real satisfaction and satisfied vengeance and the game will be much richer for it.

To make it even better, give the players the opportunity to scam the scammers into doing it themselves. They'll relish the irony.

As to the alignment question, alignment represents a character's outlook. If their actions came about because they thought they were doing the right thing then the results are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is if they have remorse when they learn of their mistake and try to correct it. The argument about paladin Atonement is a bit of a non sequiter; a paladin has a code that goes beyond alignment and can violate his oaths even when acting in a perfectly good and lawful manner.

An interesting twist to the whole idea of good-aligned characters mistakenly doing evil things is to have an NPC villain of good alignment who maintains that alignment when committing atrocities, because he doesn't realize the consequences. The way to "defeat" a villain like that could be to get him to see that what he's doing is wrong.

[hamishspence]

I'd say while outlook is important, actions are at least as important.

note Atonement spell applies to everyone- even Exalted CG characters would lose benefits of Exalted feats or prestige classes if they do something evil.

[MickJay]

I disagree. If murdering is the only way to stop someone really evil, because he is cunning or influential enough that there aren't any legal ways to stop him, then many good characters won't think twice.

Perhaps, but it's very easy to justify things with this approach. If there really is no other way, and it is indeed objectively the best solution, then the killing probably wouldn't qualify as murder anyway.

Still, I'd make sure the players had an opportunity to rethink everything and consider consequences.

D&D alignment is a funny thing; since it reflects character's world view and such, it should not shift unless the player consciously did something contrary to his character's beliefs. Evil player who thinks he's working for an evil cause but is in fact aiding forces of good won't suddenly become neutral (unless DM just wants to have a laugh), same with good guys unwittingly aiding evil.
Unless the DM provided enough information to players about the real state of things and players simply ignored them even after the hints got obvious, but that's a different situation.

[hamishspence]

There are lots of D&D groups with evil people in them who genuinely belive what they are doing is for the best- the Witch Hunters in Tome of Magic who believe binders are a threat to everyone, the Victorious Blade of the People in Faerun who think humans are overrunning the world and wish to stop them by any means necessary, and so on.

BoVD points out that a character "blind to the evils they are doing" can become a pretty nasty villain over time.

I would say that, even if you lost powers for committing them, unwitting acts don't lead to full alignment shift.

[ericgrau]

Players should make an active effort to investigate anything suspicious. Failure to do so is neutral. Ignoring events because they know they might not like what they find out after investigating is evil. Being totally oblivious has no effect, and could let a good PC remain just as good. But based on your description that wouldn't be able to last and they'll have to investigate to stay good.

Regardless, while a paladin might fall from one act, a PC going against his alignment won't necessarily result in alignment change for him or other PCs. It depends how far they go.

In regard to what hamishspence said, there's a difference between believing your actions to be good and knowing you committed an evil act. In the above examples a PC might decide that the tyranny is good and stick with the false rebellion even after investigating. That's evil. But if he thinks he's helping the rebellion and he's really helping the tyranny, that usually is not evil. Unless he's dodging the issue, intentionally ignoring hints, or otherwise making excuses.

[hamishspence]

I though that was quite common- believing your actions were evil, and doing them anyway- "a small evil to prevent a greater one" Or, for that matter, a person who is lacking in self-control and knows it- saying "i'm flawed, but I can change"

Believing self to be evil- much rarer (some fiction does have it). believing action to be evil but needed- quite common in fiction.

[ericgrau]

Even those small evils are cited as being for the greater good.

Mistakes, etc. happen, but that works as a general overview, and especially for a rebellion movement. Rarely does someone say, "I have this nasty habit of murdering people that I'm trying to shake off." Unless they're in a straight jacket.

[hamishspence]

But still evil, and sometimes not so small, and in the hope of a future better world, whereas the present evil deeds are not in the unpredictable future, but the fixed present.

The Operative in Serenity openly admits "What I do is evil but it must be done"

Anita Blake in Laurell Hamilton's Blue Moon- torturing a villain to get info to save people; her comrades "its practical- its justice" her:

"its evil, and we all know it. I'll do it."

and so on.

[hamishspence]

on the nasty murdering habit:

Ed Greenwood: Shadow of the Avatar Book 2: Cloak of Shadows: Page 83

Rage burned deep in Itharr Jathram all the time. Slow and buried deep, but there all the time, like coals glowing under turf for the night. Once in a while- not often, but eventually- that building rage rose and warmed and boiled up... and the burly, quiet Harper slew things.

He'd said as much to Storm, that first day at her farm, sitting on two stumps in the forest behind her house. "Lady," Itharr had told her softly, "you must know I'd not be the best citizen in a land at peace. From time to time I find... I must kill."

Storm had merely nodded, sober-eyed, and said as gently, "I can see it in you. Yet know this, Ithar. You are welcome in my house, now, and to the end of your days."

[Riffington]

I disagree. If murdering is the only way to stop someone really evil, because he is cunning or influential enough that there aren't any legal ways to stop him, then many good characters won't think twice.

As for the actual question, EvilJames is indeed correct. I'd also add that there are very few players who like playing good characters who won't be pissed about this plot twist.

Well, now wait a second. If you don't think twice, you aren't good. A good person might in rare circumstances and after great consideration commit murder (of a plague-victim, of a vile dictator, etc). And they will usually afterwards find that they've made a mistake, and regret it for the rest of their life.

As to the plot twist, I certainly would not be pissed. After all, if you've joined a revolution whose first (or tenth) request is a murder, that's a pretty good clue that it's as bad as the dictator it opposes. Once it wins, it won't be hugs and puppies, it'll be "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

It's interesting that you're killing the wrong guy, but even if it was the right guy you have every reason to suspect things will go wrong based on the fact that you're being asked to murder. The onus is certainly on the party to investigate things first.

[hamishspence]

the revolution in Simon R. Green's Deathstalker is a lot like that- with the relative similarity afterward, and the exceptionally ruthless rebels.

on the other hand, the hero may jump off the slippery slope in opposing the new system, and thats not Good either.

2nd eds approach- the murder of (a lot of) plague victims to save the many, in 2nd ed PHB, was considered evil enough for an immediate alignment leap from LG to NE or CE.

[Devils_Advocate]

Q: Is being Good is a crapshoot? (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-luck/)

A: Generally, I'd say no. I'm pretty sure that official material on this question is mostly lacking or outright contradictory. But if alignment isn't about what you consciously choose to do, but covers things you do unintentionally... Then why the heck are animals all Neutral again?

Sure, you could say that non-Neutral alignment requires the ability to make deliberate moral choices, but which alignment you have has nothing to do with which deliberate moral choices you make. But there's a problem with that: It's completely ridiculous.

Q: When is carelessness Evil?

A: This more specific question is far trickier. Because Good and Evil shouldn't boil down to a crapshoot, obviously willingly endangering lives should be Evil for the same reason as willingly killing is: if anything, the Evilness of an act is measured in expected lives lost (and other expected consequences).

But what about when you aren't knowingly endangering lives... but the only reason that you're unknowingly endangering them is because you didn't take the time to think things through? The evidence was there, but you didn't bother to properly analyze it. Or you just weren't paying good enough attention. Does that not bespeak a certain disregard for the consequences of one's actions?

I really don't think so, honestly. You can do something that costs you a lot of money, and look back and see that your mistake was obvious in retrospect, because hindsight is 20/20. But that doesn't mean that you didn't really care about keeping your money. Same deal with bad consequences for other people. Just because you screwed up doesn't mean you don't care.

We only have limited amounts of time and mental energy. We can't analyze everything as thoroughly as would be ideal. It's easy to look back and say that someone was negligent, but that's usually a matter of hindsight bias. Most likely the person was being as cautious -- or rather, as incautious -- as is entirely usual, and it just so happens that this time that wasn't enough.


A good person might in rare circumstances and after great consideration commit murder
A Chaotic Good person shouldn't necessarily murder any less frequently or more hesitantly than a Lawful Good person legally kills. Which is probably still fairly damn infrequent and hesitant, but it still seems important to make that point.


2nd eds approach- the murder of (a lot of) plague victims to save the many, in 2nd ed PHB, was considered evil enough for an immediate alignment leap from LG to NE or CE.
I don't see how that's more Evil than killing a bunch of ugly monsters to save the many. And if that were Evil, a stereotypical paladin would fall before making second level.

[ericgrau]

I really don't think so, honestly. You can do something that costs you a lot of money, and look back and see that your mistake was obvious in retrospect, because hindsight is 20/20. But that doesn't mean that you didn't really care about keeping your money. Same deal with bad consequences for other people. Just because you screwed up doesn't mean you don't care.

We only have limited amounts of time and mental energy. We can't analyze everything as thoroughly as would be ideal. It's easy to look back and say that someone was negligent, but that's usually a matter of hindsight bias. Most likely the person was being as cautious -- or rather, as incautious -- as is entirely usual, and it just so happens that this time that wasn't enough.


But you can think it through for something that affects someone else at least as much as you do for yourself. If it gets to the point where you're just making lame excuses, that's evil. If you didn't fully realize you should have considered it harder, but maybe had a hunch, then it's not. And yeah, I've seen this behavior. Frequently. It's often termed as "selective hearing" when related to other topics. For good/evil, I dunno what you'd call it.\

Hopefully the DM will be able to figure that all out on a case by case basis. Given this is a party of heroic goody types in an adventure, I doubt it'll be much of a problem for them to investigate above and beyond what they are obligated to do as good people, though they may be fooled for a while. But I can't say for sure.

[Riffington]

A Chaotic Good person shouldn't necessarily murder any less frequently or more hesitantly than a Lawful Good person legally kills. Which is probably still fairly damn infrequent and hesitant, but it still seems important to make that point.


I don't see how that's more Evil than killing a bunch of ugly monsters to save the many. And if that were Evil, a stereotypical paladin would fall before making second level.

The response to both these points is that murder is meant as a moral term, not as a legal one (the two overlap but are nonidentical). If your King decrees that shooting a bow in self-defense is legally "murder", then doing so may potentially be Chaotic. It does not become Evil or murder. So in both cases, the Chaotic Good and Lawful Good person are equally unlikely to murder. The Chaotic Good person might be more likely to put himself in a position where an unlawful-but-justified killing takes place; a Lawful Good person might be more likely to put himself in a position where a legal-and-justified killing takes place.

Then to hamishspence's point, there is a difference between murdering ugly intelligent humanoids and finding that you have to kill them. Suppose a bunch of Kobolds have been raiding your town and taking babies. You break into their camp and demand [they leave, they face trial, they hand over the children, whatever]. If they fall on their faces and begin to apologize, killing them would be murder. If their hands go for their daggers (or the switch to the boiling oil), killing them would not.
Thus, in most adventurers' combats I've seen, the adventurers were not murdering. They were trying to right a wrong, and facing armed opposition. In the plague victim example, we will assume the infected persons are not deliberately trying to kill anyone.

[Devils_Advocate]

What distinguishes a killing as "murder", if not criminality?

Also, I'm not a linguist, but I'm pretty sure that "unlawful killing" is at least as valid a definition of "murder" as "immoral killing". Or whatever you're using it to mean. In order to discuss clearly, it's probably best to avoid using the term at all, so as to avoid equivocation. Better to clearly say what you really mean than to dubiously employ loaded words. Saying things like "The relevant distinction is between killing and murder" as if your definition of "murder" were already clearly established seems a bit disingenuous.


But you can think it through for something that affects someone else at least as much as you do for yourself. If it gets to the point where you're just making lame excuses, that's evil. If you didn't fully realize you should have considered it harder, but maybe had a hunch, then it's not.
Well, yes. If you didn't recognize the risk of not investigating/analyzing/whatever, then you didn't choose to endanger others by forgoing to do so. Not doing so wasn't actually a conscious decision on your part. On the other hand, if you did realize the risk but opted to proceed without appropriate precautions, then, by golly, you knowingly endangered others, didn't you?

Obviously, you have to know a character's thoughts to decide which is the case. Fortunately, in a pencil and paper RPG, the DM can just ask the players what their characters were thinking. (If you're not willing to assume that they're answering honestly, barring evidence to the contrary, then your hopes of running a friendly game would seem to be pretty slim.)


In the plague victim example, we will assume the infected persons are not deliberately trying to kill anyone.
They might still wind up killing others regardless, though.

[Curmudgeon]

For most characters it'll suck, but not impair them unduly. For Paladins, or Clerics with the Good domain, any evil acts -- even unwitting evil acts -- have consequences.

[Tequila Sunrise]

For most characters it'll suck, but not impair them unduly. For Paladins, or Clerics with the Good domain, any evil acts -- even unwitting evil acts -- have consequences.
Of course there's nothing stopping Weezer from saying "screw that BS, divine characters shouldn't Fall for not being omniscient." There is always the best judgment route.

TS

[Curmudgeon]

Of course there's nothing stopping Weezer from saying "screw that BS, divine characters shouldn't Fall for not being omniscient." Unintentional evil just makes you automatically need Atonement. That's really all that's required; one middling-level spell, with no XP needed.

[Dixieboy]

No it wouldn't, just plain no

[TheOOB]

Unless you have a paladin in your party, the alignment of any one action doesn't matter. Your alignment is a general idea of how your character acts in most situations.

Paladins fall for any evil act though, even unintentional ones, but as mentioned above it's easier to atone them if they didn't intentionally perform an evil act.

[Curmudgeon]

It's just an arbitrary rule. So follow it, and get an Atonement cast for your Paladin. It's no better or worse than keeping Clerics from getting their daily spells if they don't know what time it is:
If some event prevents a character from praying at the proper time, he must do so as soon as possible. If the character does not stop to pray for spells at the first opportunity, he must wait until the next day to prepare spells. If the Cleric just loses track of the time, they're screwed -- no more spells for a full day.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Unintentional evil just makes you automatically need Atonement. That's really all that's required; one middling-level spell, with no XP needed.
Yeah, that's true. Atonement is a pet peeve mine; I mean, think about what it means to a character in-game. It means "If I have a powerful friend in the church or lots of cash to throw around, I don't have to be as morally disciplined as someone without those things." Really, what kind of a god grants his clerics a spell which encourages that kind of thought? Maybe an LE god, but I like to think that any truly Good god is above that kind of BS.

/non sequitur

TS

[Curmudgeon]

Atonement is a pet peeve mine; I mean, think about what it means to a character in-game. It means "If I have a powerful friend in the church or lots of cash to throw around, I don't have to be as morally disciplined as someone without those things." There's historical precedent in the Catholic Church's granting of Indulgences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgences).

[Tequila Sunrise]

I'm no Protestant, but I find indulgences...let's just say "less than consistent with a benevolent all-powerful deity." While gods in D&D aren't omniscient, they are generally assumed to know what's going on with their own devout worshippers. I just thought I'd point out to Weezer how absurd it is for a deity to punish his cleric or paladin for committing an Evil deed which the character had no way of recognizing as such, CoCs be burned. And having a magical GET OUT OF JAIL FREE card is equally absurd. Either you committed an Evil deed unknowingly, making it an irrelevant event for your moral compass, or you committed an Evil deed knowingly and no amount of finger-wiggling will undo it. The only way to undo an Evil deed is to try and make it right, and then remind yourself not to repeat the same mistake in the future.

TS

[Riffington]

What distinguishes a killing as "murder", if not criminality?
Well, the legal systems that use the word are actually referencing the moral standard (when they wish to avoid doing so, they have to use words like manslaughter and homicide). In our case, since the instigator is a dictator (who presumably has control of the laws), there is no good way to apply the legal standard to him - only the moral one.

Also in our case, we don't know all the details of what is to be done, except that the DM believes it to be murder. And if the DM can't decide what kinds of killing are and aren't murder, then he wouldn't be using alignment.


as if your definition of "murder" were already clearly established
Since this is D&D, the DM has a clear definition of murder. I'm not sure we need a real-life debate over the exact boundaries of "what is murder" or "what is death" or "what is an intent", but purposefully killing someone by surprise is a pretty cut-and-dry case of murder.



They might still wind up killing others regardless, though.
Well, that's why I picked them as my example. Innocent plague victims pose a grave threat to others just by breathing, but don't mean to - they are still innocents. A good person might be tempted to just kill them, but would find a different way, or spend the rest of their lives repenting.

[hamishspence]

Except in wartime.

Fiendish Codex 2 puts heavy limitations on atoning for intentional acts- while at the bottom end of the scale you can "clear the soul" without the spell, at all levels of the scale, you have to fix the damage you did, apologize, give up direct benefits of the evil act, etc.

So, its not a total Get Out Of Jail Free card- you do have to do acts of atonement, as well as the spell. BoED also has this, though it isn't so severe about it.