Were these actions evil?

[Morphie]

Hello all,

So, in the last gaming session my players went to a house where supposedly the BBEG lives.
There were some guards stationed at the door and, as the party approached the entrance, the guards told them to go away and nothing would happen to them. The discussion started, the players insisted on getting in and asking about who their boss was, but the guards just kept on saying "Go away, this is none of your business, we are not going to do anything if you just turn your back and leave". Some of the players started casting spells right in front of the guards, becoming invisible among other things, some were kind of presumptuous and were acting like the fight wouldn't even be challenging if it started, so some of the guards starting insulting them, while still saying "Get out now!".

The cleric cast detect evil and sensed the guards weren't evil. However, he then later cast ice slick to make the guards trip. Some of the guards passed the save, exited the slippery area and kept on saying "Get out now!". One round later, the cleric cast the same spell a second time, and then the wizards summoned a Large Earth Elemental and told him to attack them with subdual damage. The fight started and the party knocked the whole group of guards with little effort.

A couple of sessions ago the party also stole the lair of some black dragons when the creatures asked them to kill an evil being that had invaded it, promising a reward. When the dragons returned to their lair to get the reward they found out they had been stolen of all their valuables, thus attacking the party.

I said nothing at that point, but after this last session was over I told them that I think they aren't playing their alignments correctly, based on 2 evil actions they have done recently. I didn't change their alignment or anything, it was more of a friendly warning that if they insisted in these types of actions, something could happen. They reacted as though I didn't gave them any other chance, since the guards were determined to keep them out of the house and didn't concede on anything they asked - "talk to the boss", "call him here", "your boss is evil", etc. I played the guards as neutral men hired by someone to keep people out of his property. They are loyal and don't accept any bribes and their initial reaction to the party is unfriendly.

Honestly, I believe the party is so confident in their abilities that they end up handling most situations as a "We are the good guys here, if you don't like us or do what we are asking you're probably wrong and so you must be defeated".

So, I would really like your opinion, do you think these 2 actions were evil or am I blowing this out of proportion? Was my reaction appropriate or should I have done something else?

Thanks in advance.

[DrMotives]

The party might try and argue with the guards, as they did use subdual damage, that's a grey area. But after agreeing to do a job for black dragons and then taking everything not nailed down in the dragon's lair? How can you justify robbing your employers blind as anything other than pure greed? If they say it's because the dragons are an inherently evil race, point out they party talked and accepted a job offer from them in good faith. I hope there's no paladin or any other divine requiring goodness in the team, because I'd start with those characters losing access to powers.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Stealing from your employers is evil. Doubly so with (evil) dragons because they are more likely to attack nearby inhabited places in revenge/to try to reclaim their lost loot. A horde is literally status second only to age so that dragon would go to some length to reclaim/replenish it.

The guards are a more neutral act. The party acted in good faith against a greater evil, but still launched an unprovoked attack on a non-evil target (in general unprovoked attacks are, at best, not good) and beat them into submission instead of say trying to use Rainbow Pattern (or any AoE disabling spell) to simply walk past them.

If the party did not fall from neutral for the first act I would say they wouldn't for the second. People who are good on the other hand are at much greater risk, since they committed an evil act followed by a very grey one. I would warn them that they are really toeing the line here and any more shenanigans will make them lose their good status (along with anything tied to that good status such as paladin class features, possibly cleric ones, exalted feats, etc.)

[Hazrond]

The party might try and argue with the guards, as they did use subdual damage, that's a grey area. But after agreeing to do a job for black dragons and then taking everything not nailed down in the dragon's lair? How can you justify robbing your employers blind as anything other than pure greed? If they say it's because the dragons are an inherently evil race, point out they party talked and accepted a job offer from them in good faith. I hope there's no paladin or any other divine requiring goodness in the team, because I'd start with those characters losing access to powers.

that is a bit harsh, subdual damage is by no means a "grey area" . its what you do when you are put into a situation where people who are not evil are stopping you from progressing, so you nonlethal damage to knock them out while keeping them from being lethally hurt, as for the dragons, that was an evil act, but even two evil acts "which there were not, only one" are not grounds for making a cleric lose their powers (barring something unusual like Familicide), clerics are not bound by such a strict code like paladins

Edit: this reminds me of that story where the party was attacked byy bandits on the road and they fought back and killed said bandits, then the DM sayys "The paladin Falls" because apparently those bandits were "Good"

[ZamielVanWeber]

Clerics can lose their spells if their alignment shifts to one illegal for their god. They can get them back by reshifting and atonement or by finding a new god that matches their new alignment. It is more inconvenient from a mechanical perspective, but can have serious RP ramifications.

Edit: The whole "violating the code of their god" is pretty vague outside of alignment restrictions so it is really up to DM purview. If their god is Bahamut he would be angry that they accepted a job from a black dragon. If their god is Pelor he probably wouldn't be too upset right now (aside from the evil act being contrary to his good alignment).

[Hazrond]

Clerics can lose their spells if their alignment shifts to one illegal for their god. They can get them back by reshifting (and possibly atonement) or by finding a new god that matches their new alignment. It is more inconvenient from a mechanical perspective, but can have serious RP ramifications.

i feel that shifting the clerics alignment over one action is a bit harsh, it was an evil action yyes, but it was not a particularly heinous one, so i would say that theyy wouldnt shift from that one action, if they continued acting in such a manner, they might but so far they havve only commited a SINGLE act of this type,

[ZamielVanWeber]

i feel that shifting the clerics alignment over one action is a bit harsh, it was an evil action yyes, but it was not a particularly heinous one, so i would say that theyy wouldnt shift from that one action, if they continued acting in such a manner, they might but so far they havve only commited a SINGLE act of this type,

Like I said, the good ones are toeing a line here. They can take some time and step back or they can continue on this path and slip, but if these are the last two major decisions they made neither of them was good (and that dragon one could have more evil consequences depending on how well they resolved it.)

[Morphie]

The black dragons were killed in the fight after they attacked the party. It wasn't much of a challenge, but it wasn't meant to be one, I was trying to see if they would keep their word and play according to their alignment.

It's funny you mention it, ZamielVanWeber, there is actually a sorcerer in the party that worships Bahamut and he was fine with dealing with black dragons. And the one that cast the ice slick spell on the guards was a cleric of Pelor.

I don't think the party is evil, not yet at least, but I do think they are crossing the line.

[jedipotter]

So, I would really like your opinion, do you think these 2 actions were evil or am I blowing this out of proportion? Was my reaction appropriate or should I have done something else?

Your not even close. First off, don't worry about alignment unless it's big, big stuff. Did your group brutally slaughter many innocents just for fun? Did the animate all the bodies so they could have fun killing them again?

If, not....your group is not evil.

So don't magnify the little stuff. They knocked out guards? Really? Knocked them out? Wow.. And they stole the stolen hoard of an human eating evil monster? Oh, say it is not so...

The actions they took are not even a ''ping'' on the Evil Radar.

[ZamielVanWeber]

It's funny you mention it, ZamielVanWeber, there is actually a sorcerer in the party that worships Bahamut and he was fine with dealing with black dragons. And the one that cast the ice slick spell on the guards was a cleric of Pelor.

The hilarity! The cleric is fine if he cuts out the shenanigans. If it is still topical Bahamut may want to have a chat with the sorcerer about staying on the path of righteousness (assuming he's high enough level for Bahamut to care), but other than that there shouldn't be serious repercussions.

(For reference I just took my favorite good god and the first good god that came to mind after; the fact it lined up is funny.)

[Surpriser]

Regarding the dragons, I would argue that accepting a job from obviously evil beings is morally grey at best and might touch into evil (depending on the circumstances of the job offer). Even more so as there is someone worshipping Bahamut in the group.
Then turning against the dragons and stealing their horde could be justified as cleansing the world of evil dragons and so is not necessarily evil (chaotic - yes, after all, they broke their contract).

In the case of the guards, their actions where not evil except by the strictest definition and definitely not warranting an alignment change. After all, they did try to resolve the situation peacefully at first and even after that failed, they resorted to nonlethal means instead of killing the guards (who probably took the job knowing that it might involve dangerous situations - after all, that's what guards are for).
You might want to ask yourself: What else should they have done? Admit defeat and leave? And if there was some way of bypassing the guards without violence (you did say bribery or talking to the guards did not work), was there any way they could have known about it? Playing "guess what the DM wants us to do" can be very frustrating.

[Hazrond]

Your not even close. First off, don't worry about alignment unless it's big, big stuff. Did your group brutally slaughter many innocents just for fun? Did the animate all the bodies so they could have fun killing them again?

If, not....your group is not evil.

So don't magnify the little stuff. They knocked out guards? Really? Knocked them out? Wow.. And they stole the stolen hoard of an human eating evil monster? Oh, say it is not so...

The actions they took are not even a ''ping'' on the Evil Radar.

You know jedi? for once i actually agree with you on something, this was not nearly bad enough to warrant alignment change from my point of view

[Hazrond]

Regarding the dragons, I would argue that accepting a job from obviously evil beings is morally grey at best and might touch into evil (depending on the circumstances of the job offer). Even more so as there is someone worshipping Bahamut in the group.
Then turning against the dragons and stealing their horde could be justified as cleansing the world of evil dragons and so is not necessarily evil (chaotic - yes, after all, they broke their contract).

In the case of the guards, their actions where not evil except by the strictest definition and definitely not warranting an alignment change. After all, they did try to resolve the situation peacefully at first and even after that failed, they resorted to nonlethal means instead of killing the guards (who probably took the job knowing that it might involve dangerous situations - after all, that's what guards are for).
You might want to ask yourself: What else should they have done? Admit defeat and leave? And if there was some way of bypassing the guards without violence (you did say bribery or talking to the guards did not work), was there any way they could have known about it? Playing "guess what the DM wants us to do" can be very frustrating.

and here somebody has said what i was trying to say probably better than i ever could,

[Dgrin]

Your not even close. First off, don't worry about alignment unless it's big, big stuff. Did your group brutally slaughter many innocents just for fun? Did the animate all the bodies so they could have fun killing them again?

If, not....your group is not evil.

So don't magnify the little stuff. They knocked out guards? Really? Knocked them out? Wow.. And they stole the stolen hoard of an human eating evil monster? Oh, say it is not so...

The actions they took are not even a ''ping'' on the Evil Radar.

More or less this. There was one arguably evil action - the betrayal of dragons, who are, by the way, inherently evil. Knocking out guards... I'm not even sure if it's neutral or good

Anyway, you don't change the alignment of players cause of one or two evil acts. It is overall not the best idea to mess with players' actions. They suffered the consequences of their decisions in game, that's enough. They betrayed dragons - they had to fight with them. That's, in my opinion, the right way to react to evil acts. If they break the law - they suffer the punishment through ingame means, like guards. And remember - thou shalt play your character, not your alignment.

EDIT: Also, if I remember correctly, Bahamut is very disapproving of evil, including chromatic dragons who usually worship his evil sister and greatest enemy, Tiamat. So one may argue it was good act too

[Banjoman42]

I don't think any part of the whole dragon situation falls anywhere on good vs. evil. They took a job from evil creatures (without bias towards the creature themselves), then robbed their employers blind. That's some strongly chaotic stuff, and I'd say they at least took a small step to becoming chaotic, if not a full leap.

[jedipotter]

The black dragons were killed in the fight after they attacked the party. It wasn't much of a challenge, but it wasn't meant to be one, I was trying to see if they would keep their word and play according to their alignment.

You want to be careful here. This Is A Bad Idea.

For a DM to craft plots of ''lets see if the players can play their characters according to their alignment when I throw them this curve ball'' is just asking for trouble.

So the dragons asked for help, and the group helped them by killing the dragons foe, and then looting the dragons lair. And then killing the dragons.

Now you might note your players are doing D&D Alignment by-the-book, and that is Objectively. Black dragons are evil monsters and can be killed at will. Your your doing the more Modern Relative Alignment. The black dragons are special unique snowflaks and might be of any alignment and only an intense investigation by the players would ever have them know for sure what alignment the dragons are, but they should assume everyone is a saint and lawful good, unless they have lots and lots and lots of hard evidence and proof.

See the difference? The players are playing ''combat adventure'' D&D, your looking for them to play D&D like ''Court TV''.

Ask yourself if you think the group would have looted a gold dragons lair? Would they? Then would they kill the gold dragon that said ''you took my stuff!''?

[Alabenson]

Regarding the first action, I wouldn't remotely classify the party's actions as "evil", and frankly I don't even see it as a grey area. They attempted to resolve the situation non-violently, and when that failed went out of their way to employ non-lethal force. That is essentially the ideal way a Good aligned character would handle the situation based on the information you provided.

As for the second situation, I'd see that as a bit more of a grey-area. True, backstabbing your employer typically isn't something encouraged by the good alignment, but I'd tend to classify it as more Chaotic than Evil, especially when the employer in question is an evil dragon. The question here becomes did the party ever actually intend to hold to their end of the bargain, or was this just an underhanded way to loot a dragon hoard from the beginning.

Personally, I wouldn't remotely consider shifting their alignment's towards evil for the sort of above actions you've described, although I MIGHT consider an alignment shift towards chaos if this represents a continuous trend.

[Morphie]

Regarding the dragons, I would argue that accepting a job from obviously evil beings is morally grey at best and might touch into evil (depending on the circumstances of the job offer). Even more so as there is someone worshipping Bahamut in the group.
Then turning against the dragons and stealing their horde could be justified as cleansing the world of evil dragons and so is not necessarily evil (chaotic - yes, after all, they broke their contract).

In the case of the guards, their actions where not evil except by the strictest definition and definitely not warranting an alignment change. After all, they did try to resolve the situation peacefully at first and even after that failed, they resorted to nonlethal means instead of killing the guards (who probably took the job knowing that it might involve dangerous situations - after all, that's what guards are for).
You might want to ask yourself: What else should they have done? Admit defeat and leave? And if there was some way of bypassing the guards without violence (you did say bribery or talking to the guards did not work), was there any way they could have known about it? Playing "guess what the DM wants us to do" can be very frustrating.

Thanks for your input. I try really hard to avoid playing the "guess what I'm thinking game" with my players, they are rather smart and can come up with interesting ideas to solve problems. There were a lot of ways to get inside the place when a party can cast invisibility, fly and other spells. Even without spells a good rogue is able to do it, and they have one. But they decided to end that stalemate by attacking the guards, even if they just did subdual damage, the guards were just doing their job and gave them more than a chance to leave without fighting.

Granted that if we think about it, most of all good-aligned parties, when entering a dungeon and facing the first opposition, might attack first if they think the big guys standing there with the weapons are hostile. What would happen to every combat if the guys waited to see if the monsters are actually evil before attacking?

You want to be careful here. This Is A Bad Idea.

For a DM to craft plots of ''lets see if the players can play their characters according to their alignment when I throw them this curve ball'' is just asking for trouble.

Regarding the actions they did against the dragon, if they didn't want to do what the dragons asked to do, they could've just said no. Maybe the dragons would attack them then, because they are selfish and might crave the valuables the party had, but, who knows? I didn't craft this encounter as a trap of any sort, I just played by reading the dragon's personality and motivation. The party's action are their own and, as it has been correctly said, they had to face the consequences right after. Was it ok for the party to betray their temporary employers and rob them blind, regardless if they are evil or not?

But I don't plan to start yet another "alignment - what does it all mean actually?", I just want to know if I acted correctly by talking to the players after the session was over. Please note that I never said to the players that it would warrant an alignment change right NOW, I just told them that if they insist on that sort of behavior something is bound to happen. It was just a friendly warning, something to make them think a bit.

[Threadnaught]

First case, with the guards, not Evil.
Unlawful maybe, but not Evil, or Good. Though dealing with the guards' employer is Good.


Second case, neither Lawful nor Good, slightly Chaotic and depending on their employer's past, potentially Evil. Depending on how Dragons work in the setting, because their alignment can be malleable and it did hire them, it could be a more Evil act than what little information you gave us implies.

Not enough for an alignment shift, several more acts like these would be required to switch toward Chaotic, unless they're already Chaotic.

[jedipotter]

Was it ok for the party to betray their temporary employers and rob them blind, regardless if they are evil or not?

See here is the problem, your making things too gray. And worse, too modern.

Yes, by 21st Alignment views to ''betray'' your ''employer'' and ''rob'' them is an evil act. Sigh. OK. That is how things go down in the Real Word(sort of, but lets drop it anyway).

But other then that.....not so much.

Though ''betray'' is a bit much for a single deal. If someone takes your spare change off the table in your house, did they ''betray'' you? Really? And ''employers/employers'' is a bit more like a real job, not a single one time deal. It's like if Bob goes to the store and Fred says ''grab me a jolt cola'', is Bob now Fred's ''employee''?

Context matters too. It's easy to say ''wearing black is always evil'' in a vague way that is meaningless. The same way saying ''robbing is always evil''. And the deal was just ''get rid of the bad guy right? The dragons did not say ''swear to all that is good and holy that you won't steal our horde'', right? So it had nothing to do with the agreement....

Try and look at it like this: Was the black dragon horde obtained through Good and Lawful means? Do the dragons have jobs? Did they mine and craft all the items themselves? Were they all gifts? OR did the dragons slaughter and destroy to get the items in their horde?

See, if the dragons did the second one, their evil gotten horde of goods is fair game.

So, no, you did not even need to mention it. The players did nothing.

And i'm the last one to say ''talk to them'', but your view points and theirs might not match. And if your viewpoint unchanging, it will lead to problems. You really might want to have a talk with them all about ''what is good and what is evil''. They might think, for example, ''killing any monster any time is good''.....

[ZamielVanWeber]

Context matters too. It's easy to say ''wearing black is always evil'' in a vague way that is meaningless. The same way saying ''robbing is always evil''. And the deal was just ''get rid of the bad guy right? The dragons did not say ''swear to all that is good and holy that you won't steal our horde'', right? So it had nothing to do with the agreement....

The gold wasn't being used to fund evil acts; it was just sitting there and they stole it. Stealing is still evil. DnD is specifically not context dependent, morality exists in absolute, measurable, quantities.

Try and look at it like this: Was the black dragon horde obtained through Good and Lawful means? Do the dragons have jobs? Did they mine and craft all the items themselves? Were they all gifts? OR did the dragons slaughter and destroy to get the items in their horde?

So them stealing is evil and you stealing is not evil because what? It's a double negative? Stealing is evil in DnD. A big point of good in DnD is not giving in to evil temptations, like robbing dragons blind because its convenient.

And i'm the last one to say ''talk to them'', but your view points and theirs might not match. And if your viewpoint unchanging, it will lead to problems.

Or theirs. Two sides can come together in a negotiation.

[Morphie]

It shouldn't matter where the dragons got their hoard or how they got it. If the party doesn't know a thing about the black dragons, besides the general idea that they are evil, what should give them the right to do what they want with the place? The dragons even helped the party open the really heavy doors to their lair.
In short: The guys went to someone else's home to solve an issue. They did it and then robbed the place, knowing they were in someone else's home.

Maybe I'm judging this based on my personal lawful perspective of things. Perhaps these were unlawful actions instead of evil ones (mainly regarding the situation with the guards), but with the dragons... I don't know, it just doesn't fit with my notion of how a good-aligned party should act.

[Arbane]

Stealing from your employers is evil. Doubly so with (evil) dragons because they are more likely to attack nearby inhabited places in revenge/to try to reclaim their lost loot. A horde is literally status second only to age so that dragon would go to some length to reclaim/replenish it.

Remember, kids: Kill first, THEN take their stuff! Forget either step, and it's evil!

[ZamielVanWeber]

Remember, kids: Kill first, THEN take their stuff! Forget either step, and it's evil!

DnD's leveling scheme is "purge, loot, grow." That's why they added rules for waging peace in BoED (which doesn't solve the loot problem).

[Threadnaught]

See here is the problem, your making things too gray. And worse, too modern.

What's so bad about NPCs having more to them then "Heroes musteth do questeth or GOD SLAY THEM FOR NO RAISIN" for anything with Usually Good in it's Monster Manual entry, or Human and "RARR DIE" for anything with Usually Evil in it's Monster Manual entry?

Though ''betray'' is a bit much for a single deal. If someone takes your spare change off the table in your house, did they ''betray'' you? Really? And ''employers/employers'' is a bit more like a real job, not a single one time deal. It's like if Bob goes to the store and Fred says ''grab me a jolt cola'', is Bob now Fred's ''employee''?

If the loose change on your table is £1000 in notes, then yeah, that's an accurate comparison. The PCs got access to their employer's bank balance and decided to just help themselves to everything. If someone I trusted decided to leave me in financial ruin, I'd consider that to be a betrayal.

Context matters too. It's easy to say ''wearing black is always evil'' in a vague way that is meaningless. The same way saying ''robbing is always evil''. And the deal was just ''get rid of the bad guy right? The dragons did not say ''swear to all that is good and holy that you won't steal our horde'', right? So it had nothing to do with the agreement....

Dragon wanted them to get rid of the Evil thing, and offered to pay them a reward for their service. It offered to pay them, the offer wasn't "..and just help yourself to everything I own" it was "..and I will pay you some cash for helping me out".

Try and look at it like this: Was the black dragon horde obtained through Good and Lawful means? Do the dragons have jobs? Did they mine and craft all the items themselves? Were they all gifts? OR did the dragons slaughter and destroy to get the items in their horde?

See, if the dragons did the second one, their evil gotten horde of goods is fair game.

Exactly, IF, IF, IF.
You're asking those very same questions that need answering before you can say for sure whether or not the Dragon deserved to be robbed, or if the PCs are sociopaths.
And the second one, mining and crafting... Because artists and other craftsmen deserve to be robbed and murdered in their homes.
There are four options there.

Additionally, a Dragon does not need to destroy anything or kill anyone to be Evil and gather a large horde while being Evil. They need simply manipulate events around them and be patient. An example of an Evil Dragon making money without going around eating villagers.
Dar'khan (a Brass Dragon) lives atop a peak overlooking a large valley with several villages and a few towns within. In exchange for tribute, in the form of food, gold and buildings dedicated to him, he protects all settlements from raiders. The entire valley has been subject to raiders who cycle between each settlement, looting some valuables from one every few weeks, switching up the raiding parties so they have different members at all times. Dar'khan flies in every time to chase them off, to the applause of the citizens, with only a few items missing.
Dar'khan later pays the raiders at their headquarters and he continues to receive the benefits of being the "protector" of the valley.

[atemu1234]

I would say both were morally questionable, at best (or worst ). I'd bet they needed to get past the guards, and the Dragon thing is... complex. I'd say they're TN actions, and probably shouldn't impact alignment.

[Aka-chan]

The incident with the guards definitely wasn't Evil. Upon finding that the guards weren't Evil themselves, the party tried to negotiate with them, and when that failed, took care not to kill them. That's exactly how followers of Bahamut and Pelor should handle a situation like that.

Taking the job from the black dragons probably isn't Evil either. Once the dragons told them about the other evil creature, the PCs knew about a threat to innocent people in the area, and Good characters should try to do something about that. (Note: That doesn't necessarily mean just charging in and fighting it--if it's way above their power level, notifying authorities or more powerful adventurers is a perfectly reasonable course of action.) Saying, "Nope, we can't do what you asked us because you're a chromatic dragon" and letting the lich/orc horde/whatever continue preying on people isn't particularly in keeping with a Good alignment.

Stealing from the black dragons is a bit of a trickier question, and it partly depends on the surrounding circumstances. If the party would have killed the dragons and taken their stuff anyway (for example, if the last three towns they passed through bemoaned the black dragon menace threatening their populace), then doing it in the opposite order doesn't change its alignment on the Good-Evil axis. Stealing from them would be Chaotic, though. Even so, a single action that isn't of Familicide-level magnitude isn't going to change their alignment right away. And if they're already NG (you can certainly be an NG cleric of an LG god), a few Chaotic acts here and there aren't honestly going to make all that much difference unless they almost never do anything Lawful.

[jedipotter]

The gold wasn't being used to fund evil acts; it was just sitting there and they stole it. Stealing is still evil. DnD is specifically not context dependent, morality exists in absolute, measurable, quantities.

And this is the problem right here with the Relative Alignment view: Unless the PC's witness the person actively committing evil acts with their items then they can never loot anything.

So them stealing is evil and you stealing is not evil because what? It's a double negative? Stealing is evil in DnD. A big point of good in DnD is not giving in to evil temptations, like robbing dragons blind because its convenient.

Stealing is evil, but not all acts where one ''moves wealth'' are stealing. So, no, taken the wealth stolen by an evil inhuman monster is not stealing.

It shouldn't matter where the dragons got their hoard or how they got it. If the party doesn't know a thing about the black dragons, besides the general idea that they are evil, what should give them the right to do what they want with the place? The dragons even helped the party open the really heavy doors to their lair.
In short: The guys went to someone else's home to solve an issue. They did it and then robbed the place, knowing they were in someone else's home.

See, your stuck in the 21st century. Maybe this will work: some Cannibal Banker Thief Politician pays some Bounty Hunters to get rid of a person living in his illegal, off the books, second home he keeps his mistress in. The Bounty Hunters take the job, get rid of the person, and rob the home. Is that evil?

Maybe I'm judging this based on my personal lawful perspective of things. Perhaps these were unlawful actions instead of evil ones (mainly regarding the situation with the guards), but with the dragons... I don't know, it just doesn't fit with my notion of how a good-aligned party should act.

You really think a good party would just ignore the loot? What if the dragons had prisoners too? Would the good party ignore them too? Or set them free? Is that ''different''?

The problem here is the relativity. You want to say ''anything is anything, no one can judge''. But that makes a game like D&D impossible. It can quickly come down to ''the characters can never loot'' and ''the characters can't kill'' and the game stopper of ''the characters can't adventure''.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm pretty sure that the Black Dragons would probably have gotten up to very naughty things if they had their loot. If the party exploits an agreement with evil creatures to yoink their loot, that is chaotic, not evil. Do you think Robin Hood wouldn't waltz right in to the treasury if someone handed him the key? Oh no, you're giving me the means to end your schemes, no, please don't, its stealing.

I think these cases are pretty arguably...Not that bad. Keep in mind, many murderhobos would have simply slaughtered the guards and chucked their bloody heads at the next set to get a circumstance bonus to intimidate. Either start dropping in some in-game hints that they should be careful of their actions, or, preferably...Speak with them OoC. See where they stand on the issue and how they feel about the alignment of their actions.

[Baroknik]

From the description, I would say that the actions seemed non-evil, but both definitely seemed pretty textbook chaotic (betrayal of an employer's trust, taking actions into own hands without proper justification).