Eliminating Werebears? Good, bad or neutral?

[Jon_Dahl]

A bunch of werebears have been spotted near some small village in the hinterlands of the kingdom.

Werebears can highly infectious because their bite can actually CURSE you for the rest of your life, and curing it can be difficult at best.

The king, who is very busy with a multitude of things and can't spare too much time on this issue, sends a band of adventurers to ask the bears to leave the kingdom at once or be killed on the spot.

Good, bad or neutral? How should the king react? Please remember that this king is very busy and has much more urgent issues on hand, and can't spare the time to talk about this with his counselors etc. The alignment of the king is irrelevant. What matters is that how should good or neutral guys handle the issue.

[eggynack]

Werebears, even in bear form, are both lawful good and reasonably intelligent. Killing them is therefore evil, but conversely, the situation likely shouldn't arise where killing them would make that much sense. They're lawful good, after all. They shouldn't be running around infecting people all the time. I would suggest, y'know, talking to the werebears. Ask them if they're a serious threat to the non-infected nature of village folk, under the general assumption that they wouldn't want to be one, and figure out a generally equitable solution. Maybe even give them a job with the kingdom. They're big and burly, after all, and they'd probably be amenable to taking up some form of guarding/soldiering/adventuring work.

[Phelix-Mu]

"Do x or die" to anyone that hasn't earned the ultimatum is probably evil, and likely lawful given the larger context of the king's orders.

Remember, by the standard of "but werebears are dangerous because [reasons]," then it's fine to kill any adventurer, because ALL adventurers make a habit of going around and using their power in aggressive (and often violent) ways (or virtually/stereotypically so). A werebear may choose to never inflict it's curse on anyone; by comparison, Johnny the [PrC] is very likely to use his class features as often as possible (because that's why he took that class).

[Extra Anchovies]

Werebears =/= of "always evil" alignment
∴ a good number of them are considered innocents
∴ killing all of them is an evil act

[Coidzor]

If there's some belief that they can be talked to at all to deliver this message, then you're not dealing with any Eberronian Lycanthropic Scourge type of extenuating circumstances, it seems, so it's kind of a **** move.

Considering that without deliberate and extraordinary efforts, all Werebears are going to be capable of becoming Paladins if not maintaining such, then you know that there's some issue with just murdering 'em in cold blood or engaging in any kind of genocidal action against them.

Considering the benefits, one possible reaction would be to try to recruit some of their warriors to his banner. Possibly having them purposefully infect volunteers from his personal forces/champions, since werebear is pretty tempting for non-PC martial types, and beats out just taking Warrior levels in many respects. If there's some mechanic by which they're leveling, of course, well...

[Abd al-Azrad]

I've been called an ivory-tower liberal for saying so, but IMO, any solution that involves the eradication of thinking beings is, by its nature, not the "Good" solution.

It does not matter if these creatures are scourges of society, unquestionably evil, etc. It may not be "Evil" to wipe out an advancing, belligerent army of unquestionably evil monsters, but I can't call that the "Good" solution either. At best, it is the solution one is forced to accept when better options (diplomacy, etc.) have failed and violence is necessary for the sake of self-preservation or the protection of those under one's charge.

A leader who decides to eradicate a population because he cannot be bothered to spend some time dealing with its existence is not a good leader. At best, he is a lazy and simple-minded ruler, and I would be very concerned the next time some of his subjects begin to petition for, say, more bearable taxes or the right to own ancestral lands rather than have their lands confiscated by the State. Who's to say such a ruler would not be tempted to use the same solution to resolve such a problem with another population living within the realm he claims to rule?

[atemu1234]

Diplomacy seems in order here. Maybe there's something behind them "recruiting" you need to find out.

[Venger]

If there's some belief that they can be talked to at all to deliver this message, then you're not dealing with any Eberronian Lycanthropic Scourge type of extenuating circumstances, it seems, so it's kind of a **** move.

The Church of the Silver Flame is a Good-aligned organization, which is exactly what makes them so evil.

it's worth discussing here that Good and Evil (the alignment descriptors) are essentially the opposite of the commonplace words they're named after in deeandee.

I've been called an ivory-tower liberal for saying so, but IMO, any solution that involves the eradication of thinking beings is, by its nature, not the "Good" solution.

have you been called that for arguing against genocide in the game, or arguing against genocide in real life? if the first, that's a bummer, but you know how hacknslash players are. if the latter... I'd hate to think what they thought the "moderate" solution was.

It does not matter if these creatures are scourges of society, unquestionably evil, etc. It may not be "Evil" to wipe out an advancing, belligerent army of unquestionably evil monsters, but I can't call that the "Good" solution either. At best, it is the solution one is forced to accept when better options (diplomacy, etc.) have failed and violence is necessary for the sake of self-preservation or the protection of those under one's charge.

A leader who decides to eradicate a population because he cannot be bothered to spend some time dealing with its existence is not a good leader. At best, he is a lazy and simple-minded ruler, and I would be very concerned the next time some of his subjects begin to petition for, say, more bearable taxes or the right to own ancestral lands rather than have their lands confiscated by the State. Who's to say such a ruler would not be tempted to use the same solution to resolve such a problem with another population living within the realm he claims to rule?

while it may not be the good solution, it's most assuredly the Good solution. racism, genocide, and extermination of sentient species who look different from you is consistently portrayed as a Good act everywhere in the rulebooks. the most expedient example is this gem from savage species:

Many monstrous beings are
not tolerated by the surrounding community and must keep
their existence secret. Evil communities may tolerate the presence
of monsters that other communities would not, but
neutral and good communities are liable to drive away
monsters and those who would associate with them.

that's probably what this party's next fetch quest is going to be. pick up the money this tribe of villagers stole from me and feel free to kill anyone who gets in your way. then later: plot twist, you were actually tax collectors the whole time.

and yeah, your king is at best, a maniac. I'd be prepared for him to turn on you later in the campaign. if your party isn't the Law before good kind, you should probably see what you can do to kill him, or at least get him out of a position of authority.

this whole moral arithmetic problem reeks of a test from the DM. you probably aren't supposed to kill all the werebears without question. I agree with the rest of the thread and you guys should at the very least look into the issue.

[hamishspence]

while it may not be the good solution, it's most assuredly the Good solution. racism, genocide, and extermination of sentient species who look different from you is consistently portrayed as a Good act everywhere in the rulebooks. the most expedient example is this gem from savage species:

Savage Species also has the "Chaotic-Accepting campaign model"

In this world, evil among monsters is largely perceived to be a psychological condition rather than an absolute or genetic one. Most monsters are thought to become creatures of evil or destruction not because of any infernal or diabolic tie, but because of rejection, loneliness, or some other understandable psychological condition. Even the foulest tanar'ri may in truth be the victim of its own psychoses, and the enlightened people of this world hold out hope that with openness, respect, and even love, the darkest of souls can be redeemed. And who knows? Perhaps they are right.

with the "enlightened people" being pretty much a match for BOED perspectives.

And BoED makes a point of saying that declaring war on a tribe of Evil orcs "who have done no harm" is not a Good act. As well as stressing that just because evil acts are accepted by society, doesn't make them any less evil.

BoVD makes a point of saying that genocide is one of the evilest acts - it's one of the examples given for the most spectacular level of "evil acts warping the landscape and the creatures within" so to speak.

[Abd al-Azrad]

your king is at best, a maniac. I'd be prepared for him to turn on you later in the campaign. if your party isn't the Law before good kind, you should probably see what you can do to kill him, or at least get him out of a position of authority.

That's overdoing it a bit. At best, he's not thought through the ramifications of this action, he's simply burned out trying to balance the demands of all the needy people in his realm. Chasing them away on threat of death, not considering the possibility that this might lead to that ol' Genocide, is the easiest apparent solution for a busy man.

Still, feel free to kill him and take over the kingdom. That's how it works, right? Assassinate the King, become the new King? And have to deal with the werebears yourself... oh drat.

have you been called that for arguing against genocide in the game, or arguing against genocide in real life? if the first, that's a bummer, but you know how hacknslash players are. if the latter... I'd hate to think what they thought the "moderate" solution was.

We are so close to "Final solution" references, and automatically losing this conversation. I shan't push this line of thinking any further.

In general, if I'm sent on a quest to wipe out a colony under the guise of diplomacy in a game, I tend to assume shenanigans are afoot. The only real choice to make at that point, is whether you want to question the orders and get into a big conspiracy-style game, or if you want to carry out your orders like a boss and make yourself indispensable to the powerful ruler who has shown himself willing to dispatch assassins when people start making problems.

[Venger]

We are so close to "Final solution" references, and automatically losing this conversation. I shan't push this line of thinking any further.

In general, if I'm sent on a quest to wipe out a colony under the guise of diplomacy in a game, I tend to assume shenanigans are afoot. The only real choice to make at that point, is whether you want to question the orders and get into a big conspiracy-style game, or if you want to carry out your orders like a boss and make yourself indispensable to the powerful ruler who has shown himself willing to dispatch assassins when people start making problems.

huh?

in case it was unclear, I'm on your side. I thought in the example you gave, people were saying you were too liberal for arguing against genocide. I was agreeing with you that that's a pretty ridiculous thing to say if it's about games, and much worse if it's not about games. I wasn't implying that you were advocating genocide.

yeah, that's a pretty good assessment of the situation.

That's overdoing it a bit. At best, he's not thought through the ramifications of this action, he's simply burned out trying to balance the demands of all the needy people in his realm. Chasing them away on threat of death, not considering the possibility that this might lead to that ol' Genocide, is the easiest apparent solution for a busy man.

Still, feel free to kill him and take over the kingdom. That's how it works, right? Assassinate the King, become the new King? And have to deal with the werebears yourself... oh drat.

whether they take any sort of action against him or not (social, political, or combat), they already know that he likes to kill people who haven't done anything to him without cause because he's too lazy to seek out any kind of amicable solution. it's only a matter of time before he turns on them.

unlike this king character, I didn't say "kill him" as an exhaustive list of their options. not being a player in this game, I have no idea how viable this option is, and mentioned "or get him out of power" via hobnobbing with his scheming vizier or the nobles who want his throne or something. not knowing the style of game, I don't know if "keep what you kill" is in play although since this seems to, as mentioned earlier, be an evil (if not Evil) kingdom, it may well be how the system's set up since that's usually how it works when you kill a boss or ruler in games.

and not thinking through the consequences of your actions is fine when you're talking about filling in potholes or getting behind on payroll, but when it involves killing hundreds of people, it's pretty out there to say he should just get to take a mulligan.

the fact that this is the easiest solution to him pretty much says all there is to say about his character.

OP, are you playing or GMing? I have this sinking feeling that we're overthinking this for no reason, and the advice/questions we ask will be different depending on which side of the screen this is regarding.

[hamishspence]

it's worth discussing here that Good and Evil (the alignment descriptors) are essentially the opposite of the commonplace words they're named after in deeandee.

Most of the sample Evil alignment descriptions though, are consistent with "people one would not feel at all safe around" - and conversely - Good people are ones you want near you when you're in trouble:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Lawful Good, "Crusader"
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Neutral Good, "Benefactor"
A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them..

Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.

Chaotic Good, "Rebel"
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.

Lawful Evil, "Dominator"
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical," because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.

Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

Neutral Evil, "Malefactor"
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. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.

Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

Chaotic Evil, "Destroyer"
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. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Chaotic evil is sometimes called "demonic" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.

Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.

[Venger]

Most of the sample Evil alignment descriptions though, are consistent with "people one would not feel at all safe around" - and conversely - Good people are ones you want near you when you're in trouble:

I don't disagree with that. My point was more that the way they're applied versus common conduct in certain situations seems a bit off.

The sample LE, for example, sounds like pretty much like what the king's doing, even if what's on his sheet says otherwise, the same way the stereotypical genocidal maniac pally going around killing goblins for existing is rather in line with the fluff example of CE, regardless of what the mechanics dictate.

[Extra Anchovies]

Most of the sample Evil alignment descriptions though, are consistent with "people one would not feel at all safe around" - and conversely - Good people are ones you want near you when you're in trouble:

The issue is that although that fluff may exist, there is a lot of given examples, here and there, of Good actions that basically revolve around xenophobic genocide because so-and-so has the wrong type/subtype.

[Abd al-Azrad]

A lot of the time, I feel like the discussion of Good and Evil in simpler game systems comes down to, "Is this person cackling maniacally while slaughtering innocents, or brooding darkly?" People like killin' in silly hack-and-slash games, they certainly don't want to have to think about the fatherless children left behind when they depopulate orc villages.

"If killing is wrong, why is it so fun?!?!?"

Venger, yeah, I totally got where you were coming from. Apologies, I have a tendency to randomly shift from joking to sarcasm to serious without any indication of which is which. I do it in real life too, I understand it's exhausting to try to keep up.

[Venger]

The issue is that although that fluff may exist, there is a lot of given examples, here and there, of Good actions that basically revolve around xenophobic genocide because so-and-so has the wrong type/subtype.

Yes, this is basically the point I'm trying to make. Also, that's sample fluff text in the book's section on alignment, sort of written "in a vacuum" whereas the stuff we're talking about is encountered "in the wild" as it were, when people weren't thinking at the forefront about alignment, so offers a sort of more unrefined look at actions.

[hamishspence]

The issue is that although that fluff may exist, there is a lot of given examples, here and there, of Good actions that basically revolve around xenophobic genocide because so-and-so has the wrong type/subtype.

BoVD's "Killing a fiend is clearly a Good act - allowing one to exist is clearly evil" is the primary example. And even that gets bent a bit with the existence of redeemed fiends.

In most other cases in the fluff - the characters might think their actions are good - but there's no reason to believe that they are right.

[Venger]

BoVD's "Killing a fiend is clearly a Good act - allowing one to exist is clearly evil" is the primary example. And even that gets bent a bit with the existence of redeemed fiends.

your succubus paladins and the like.

(mandatory mention of sanctify the wicked to get it out of the way and move past it)

whew, glad that's over, I always hate that part. really slows things down.

In most other cases in the fluff - the characters might think their actions are good - but there's no reason to believe that they are right.

oh, I see, so that was your point when you quoted the alignment text. I can definitely understand that, that makes sense.

[hamishspence]

It's possible that D&D novel writers are prone to ignoring the general principles - but that's their fault, not that of the rulebook writers.

[123456789blaaa]

The Church of the Silver Flame is a Good-aligned organization, which is exactly what makes them so evil.
<snip>

I would contest that.

[Phelix-Mu]

I would contest that.

Was sure you'd show, Count, after Venger mentioned CotSF. That thread is worth the read, went into some interesting detail.

Though standard werebears are not even remotely in the same boat as what was going on in Eberron at that time, so the OP's given situation is pretty straightforward evil. I posted my rationale earlier (post #3), but I think it bears (hehe) repeating that the same rubric that judges the werebears a threat in the OP would also judge the adventurers a threat, and probably anyone else with pc class levels that the king found scary.

Slippery slope is slippery. (Wow, I almost invoked Godwin's again without even realizing it.)

[Gemini476]

The OP's situation is really weird and also kind of Evil since becoming a were-bear is one of those things that forces will saves vs. not becoming Lawful Good.

Then again, the good lycanthropes are kind of weird in general. I'm not entirely sure why they exist, to be honest - having a character spend the full moon unknowingly fighting evil and donating to charities is kind of thematically strange when compared to the standard werewolf horror fare.

[atemu1234]

The OP's situation is really weird and also kind of Evil since becoming a were-bear is one of those things that forces will saves vs. not becoming Lawful Good.

Then again, the good lycanthropes are kind of weird in general. I'm not entirely sure why they exist, to be honest - having a character spend the full moon unknowingly fighting evil and donating to charities is kind of thematically strange when compared to the standard werewolf horror fare.

I find alignment rules for Lycanthropy odd to begin with.

[OldTrees1]

Quick question:
Has the RAW for Alignment descriptors in 3.5 become so divorced from the philosophical terms good and evil that the Alignment descriptors have no bearing on discussions of good and evil?

I ask this because I commonly see "[Good]RAW =/= good" followed by discussing [Good]RAW rather than discussing good (even when the thread was initially discussing good).

[Phelix-Mu]

My view is that they are still much in agreement in a more strict sense. Much of the disagreement crops up in the fluffier bits of the game, where I typically go about with a keen eye toward culling the weak removing elements that don't ring true, or at least changing emphasis given. The statblocks for gnomes emphasize a hatred for certain races; to me, I just change it to a series of historical wars, which don't necessarily imply hatred, just great familiarity with the tactics of their enemies.

I think there are discrete areas of conflict between [Good] and irl good, but they are the exception, rather than the rule, to my mind.

[SamsDisciple]

and now we come to questioning whether were-bears should be LG or not in the setting... I love bears and they are one of my favorite animals so I literally giggle with glee if I can ever play one and be good aligned. From a RAW perspective I love were-bears as is. On the other hand... one of the theories of where the legends of were-creatures comes from (specifically were-wolf and were-bear) is from a couple of warrior classes in the Norse and Germanic areas. I can never spell the wolf version right but the bear version is what we all know as the Berserker. These warriors would leave all civilization behind for a time in order to connect more with nature and with their chosen predator. Once they have achieved the ability to enter their "war trance" they would return to their homes to be a warrior. It was said that the berserkers would wear little more than a bear skin and toss aside both sword and shield in order to fight more like their predator inspiration. They were bloody, brutal, and they killed/raped/pillaged anything and everything they could lay their hands on. Besides sounding like the average adventuring party this doesn't sound lawful good to me.

[hamishspence]

I think Beorn in The Hobbit was what inspired the "LG werebear" concept.

[Venger]

Quick question:
Has the RAW for Alignment descriptors in 3.5 become so divorced from the philosophical terms good and evil that the Alignment descriptors have no bearing on discussions of good and evil?

I ask this because I commonly see "[Good]RAW =/= good" followed by discussing [Good]RAW rather than discussing good (even when the thread was initially discussing good).

Yes, we've discussed that quite a bit in this thread, namely me. I agree with you. that's why I always capitalize in alignment threads to separate Good from good and Evil from evil.

[Gemini476]

Yes, we've discussed that quite a bit in this thread, namely me. I agree with you. that's why I always capitalize in alignment threads to separate Good from good and Evil from evil.

Remember to distinguish them from [Good] and [Evil] as well - the alignment system gets pretty needlessly complicated at times.

[Evil] things detect as Evil no matter their alignment and doing an [Evil] deed is Evil no matter the purpose, for instance.

And then you have Law/Chaos which is just ridiculously vague in comparison to the other axis.

[Venger]

Remember to distinguish them from [Good] and [Evil] as well - the alignment system gets pretty needlessly complicated at times.

[Evil] things detect as Evil no matter their alignment and doing an [Evil] deed is Evil no matter the purpose, for instance.

And then you have Law/Chaos which is just ridiculously vague in comparison to the other axis.

Yes, I do do that. Good thing to mention though, it does get confusing.