Ok, so my group got together last night after about a month of being unable.  Overall a really good session.  There was one moment in particular that really took the focus, and I want to share it with you.  I think it's kind of a "you had to be there" moment, but at the time we were all in tears laughing so hard.

To set the scene, my group has recently entered a fortress to stop a ritual summoning of a big baddie.  They had cleared out the first few rooms, and were continuing their trek.  They entered a kitchen/galley room, and there stands a lovely elf maiden, toiling over a massive cooking pot.  When she sees the party, she starts crying and asking for mercy.  The party enters, and our cleric (the centerpiece of this story) moves in and slaps the woman to allieviate her hysterical behavior.  It actually causes the elf to grow more upset, and she drops to the ground begging for her life.

At this point the party works to calm the woman down, and she explains she's a princess that was abducted when her caravan was raided moving through the area.  She's been held here and forced to cook/clean for a week.  She's relieved to see she's being rescued, and asks the party if they will help escort her out.

Which sparks some discussion.  The cleric feels that this woman is evil, though the party's sense of her motive showed no deception.  The first thought is that the elf looks very similar to the cleric, and plan one is to have the elf give her clothes to the cleric, and then return home alone dressed only in bed sheets found earlier.  However, this plan falls through as they realize that the cleric is just too different, and the elf is more than reluctant to go out into the wilderness alone dressed only in bed clothes.

Plan two comes from the cleric, who suggests the best course would be to move the elf to a storage room, and put her in a barrel.  Debate ensues as to why this is the best course, and at some point the cleric suggests this helps protect the elf from being discovered, and protects the party from the elf, should she turn out to be evil.  This raises eyebrows, but the cleric clarifies she means to nail the barrel shut. 

This created a bout of roaring laughter, as our chaotic good cleric suggested entombing a slave in a barrel for safe keeping.  She felt that this plan was a very logical idea, and felt it in no way conflicted with her good nature.  Even when pointed out that if the party died, this poor elf would starve to death in a barrel in a storage room.  Which brings me to my question.  I would like to hear people's opinion on the "goodness" of this act.  Our cleric has a history of making some controvercial "good" decisions, such as killing a goblin prisoner because she feared others in the party might torture him.  I didn't rule on whether the barrel plan was good or evil, but instead opted to issue a written warning in the form of "Worst good ever!" on her character sheet.

After much debate, it was decided to hide her in the pantry instead, which unfortunately held two bearded devils, and the elf turned out to be a night hag in disguise.  The party really went nuts when they opened the panty and saw those guys sitting in there.  However, for the purpose of this debate, remember they believed they were working with a legit slave.

There was so much more to it!

First of all, the cleric was played by my paranoid wife who assumes (often correctly) that every maiden in distress is evil.

Not only is she a cleric, she is a human cleric of Corallan Latherion - Reincarnate rocks.

A third option ( presented by my Nuetreal Druid)- was to hide her under some bed sheets in the pantry. - hey, at least there was more leg room in there. A huge debate insues and my wife (who is VERY opinionated) threatens to flip the table and never play again- we finally decide (sensibly explaining that the girl might die) she agrees to hide the woman in the pantry.

The barbarian opens the pantry- hoping to find some yummy jam and POW!!! Bearded devils! 2 of them!

Now, we had been in that kitchen for AT LEAST 10 minutes. Any alarm set off was done an hour before- so for the life of us- we can't figure out what the heck these bearded devils are doing in a pantry! It's sort of like opening your fridge and seeing 2 badgers eating your breakfast sausage.So we start fighting the devils, while asking the fiends- why were you in there? is there a pit to hell in there? is there yummy devils food cake? Well, we finally made the assumption that someone in charge decided to hide treasure in the last place adventurers would look for it- the pantry- and just in case he stationed 2 bearded devils to kill anyone who did...of course this tactic made us suspicious- so the LARGE BARREL we found full of unassuming dried dung beetles- got thuroughly searched...who hides royal septers in their refidgerator?- oh, after we killed the night hag, we didn't bother stuffing her corpse in a barrel. My wife will be smug all week. Thanks Red Hand of Doom!

[QUOTE]Malin Lug wrote
Well, I really don't see that as a good act.  It is like chaining a prisoner to a wall so you don't have the inconvience of having to protect them.  A while back, we were confronted by a Paladin that we knew surounded by 3 trumpet archons.  (Well beyond our CR if they turned out to be hostile in any way.)  Completly on a hunch with a clue from an NPC 3 game sessions earlier, I walked up and attacked the trumpet archons (I am NG.)  I caught them completly by surprise and killed two of them instantly (they weren't archons, but hags in disguise.)  It was a tricky situation and there was alot of talk about whether or not I was acting my alignment.  It is a tough line to walk.  Chaotic Good shouldn't be able to do anything they want.  I would probably put a check mark next to the good part in her alignment and if she gets too many of them (entirely subjective of how many) I would move her to Chaotic Neutral.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with the check idea.  Right now she's got one (circa the "Worst Good Ever" notation on her sheet).  I probably should have talked with her earlier too, when she killed a goblin prisoner, while the rest of the party fought off a group of hobgoblins, because she feared it might be tortured after the fight.  Then there was the other woman that they encountered during an evacuation that she was sure was evil, and so called for her summary execution.  That was borderline, as that woman did show evil under a dectect evil (though I would feel better if the murder calls came after the check, instead of before).

Given all the above, I considered forcing a change to CN, but since she is still really upset over her shift from elf to human (circa reincarnation), I used her new humanity as a punishment (she argued her god would allow her to remain elf despite the spell mechanics, but I ruled that her god felt she needed to learn some lessons about being a cleric in his service).

I am of the firm opinion that all adventurers, regardless of what alignment is listed on their character sheet, are the purest form of evil.

Think about it. How many adventurers go traipsing through the countryside killing whatever crosses their path, taking said creature's valuables after the fight, and leave the corpse to the wolves?

Everyone says kobolds are "evil." When, honetly, was the last time you witnessed a kobold commit an evil act? Most of the time when an adventurer kills one, it was simply guarding its home, possessions, and family.

No, adventurers are the true evil in the world.

Villains, therefore, must be the true heroes. The only way to keep an adventurer from murdering countless monsters just for their treasure and "exp" is to kill them first, and that is exactly what the "villains" are attempting to accomplish.

The above is a satire and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Honestly? That's more CN/CE, and metagaming unless the character had some way to suspect the maiden was lying (Sense Motive, Zone of Truth, etc).

I mean, here's a person who's been traumatized pretty severely. A GOOD person, regardless of the prefix, would want to help. Nailing her into a barrel? Stripping her naked and flinging her into the wilderness gambling that she'll be able to find her way back? Pssh.

If the adventurers had unfinshed business in the dungeon, then they should have simply told her to remain where she was, doing what she was doing, and when they came back they would take her to freedom (and if they didn't come back, she wouldn't suffer any further reprecussions). If the adventurers did not (or they were retreating due to wounds, exhaustion, etc) then they should have taken her along with them immediately, either back to the nearest settlement or simply to a safe campsite.

Remember, the iconic CG character is Robin Hood - he defies authority to help the abused. If CG is willing to rob the rich to feed the poor, CG should be tripping over its shoes with eagerness to help free a slave. Even if the *player* has suspicions, the *character* should be so ecstatic at this perfect instance of her ideals (Bad authority! Down with the king! Up with the oppressed!) that she'd be willing to squash minor suspicions (though not major ones) in order to undertake this new mission.

Good discussion!  I will admit, I too believe that an alignment shift is probably something that should take place.  I let it go after the goblin incident in favor of maintaining the group.  That whole scenario got heated on several sides, and I allowed everyone to walk away unscathed by alignment shifts and the like on the condition that the debate end, and the game move on.

I definately agree that the act isn't necessarily evil, as her argument was not to hurt the prisoner, but was one of self/group preservation while also giving a slanted typed of protection.  When this scene ended, I considered a shift, however was persuaded not to by other group members.  She really did not appreciate being reincarnated to human (which was the roll on the table), and my group feared that the addition of the shift might cause her to quit gaming.  So, given that we're probably 2-3 hours from finishing our adventure, and then we're starting a new campaign with new characters, I let her slide to ensure future gaming (at which point we're switching DM's so she's someone elses problem, hehe).  Just call me a self-serving softie!

Note:  I can't remember who pointed this out, but I edited the title to warn off regarding Ethandrul's spoiler.

I am of the firm opinion that all adventurers, regardless of what alignment is listed on their character sheet, are the purest form of evil.

I think it could be argued that the idea was merely dumb, rather than alignment-impacting. Carelessness and lack of planning is not the same thing as evil. 

EDIT: Never mind, I re-read the initial account and I don't think that it can be construed as good-but-dumb behavior. CN at best.

Well, when you put it that way, her logic is appropriate.

First, you have a "captive" in charge of the kitchen. If said "captive" really wanted to escape, she could have poisoned all of the food in the place.

Second, after the guards were killed, this "captive" could have made a run for the door, but chose not save her hide.

Third, I like pie.

In conclusion, although the cleric's intuition was correct, it doesn't excuse her from attempting "evil" in the name of good.

[QUOTE]gss_000 wrote

While I think your argument is valid and your interpretation is a good one, it'sone I do not completely share.  I think the application of the phrase does define whether the person is good or evil.  I will grant that it is a lot easier to be evil when using this, but there are good people that could do it, too and still remain good. 

Running through my head is the phrase "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."  In purest form that is a Lawful Neutral philosophy, but if you asked a Lawful Good ruler if he would sacrifice one person to save his/her kingdom and there was no other way to do so, I think he/she could do so and stil be considered good.
[/QUOTE]

Whoa, you're using citations that are favorably looked upon by myself here

I see you point. I suppose this could be true in some cases.

Of course, in the example of the sacrifice, it supposes that "no other choice exists". However, in my mind, there are rarely only two choices, i.e. sacrifice 100 persons or a single one to save those 100.

All this brings us back to the good'ol good/evil discussion. Personally i do not believe in absolute good and evil parameters in real life (your example of allowing one to die to save others is one of many examples where there is no good or evil solution to a problem, and you can interpret it both ways). Those two concepts of good and evil were established by humanity to give us certain rules, but then again, good and evil is not defined equally depending on who you ask. Back to D&D it's used to materialize a simplified morality system that's intermeshed with a game mechanic. I do not think that all situations can be broiled down to good or evil (or neutral, although what's that: a bit of both, or sometimes one, other times the other?).

Myself, i'm not too fond of the questions pertaining to alignment for that reason and others. When the PCs are created, I ask my players to figure out how their characters will behave generally, and then attach an alignment to that afterwards (used mostly for game mechanics). If a players does something weird such as wanting to kill innocents when he's mostly a good person, instead of telling him that he's acting out of alignment, i'll ask him if he doesn't think that he's acting out of character. I usually never have problems in playing this way, but it requires some measure of immersion by the players into their characters. Of course, it's only our way to play, and by no means the only one.  I'm sure there are tons of other perfectly viable evil playing methods

Anyway, i'm digressing here. Bottom line: i think you're right in that the phrase "the end justifies the means" does not necessarily imply evil, the way you apply it will determine whether you're good or evil. I guess my point was more that someone that justifies all his actions by that single phrase may well fall into evil acts if he doesn't take care of what means he uses.

Sky

[QUOTE]Ethandrul wrote
So, my wife agrees that it wasn't the most CG act ever. Then she explained her side...
This prisoner was in a kitchen, with access to the facilitys food stuffs, unguarded after an alarm had been raised. the exit to the facility was like 500 feet away- the guards were all killed ( by us). Logic stated ( at least to her) that something was amiss. So I think she may have had enough woman's intuition to be grossly more paranoid then needed.[/QUOTE]

I think this point has merit.  However, I would counter by saying that people that are enslaved don't always behave this way.  I believe, if you've been properly terrorized, and lead to believe that escaping will make things worse, the desire for freedom could easily be outweighed by fear of failure.  The captor makes a point to inform the prisoner all the horrible things he will do if she's found trying to flee, coupled with assurances that she will be caught, or consumed by the teeming wildlife that infests the surrounding land.  If everything looks hopeless, is it really hard to believe a person might continue tending a stew?

Ethandrul wrote So, my wife agrees that it wasn't the most CG act ever. Then she explained her side... This prisoner was in a kitchen, with access to the facilitys food stuffs, unguarded after an alarm had been raised. the exit to the facility was like 500 feet away- the guards were all killed ( by us). Logic stated ( at least to her) that something was amiss. So I think she may have had enough woman's intuition to be grossly more paranoid then needed.

I think this point has merit.  However, I would counter by saying that people that are enslaved don't always behave this way.  I believe, if you've been properly terrorized, and lead to believe that escaping will make things worse, the desire for freedom could easily be outweighed by fear of failure.  The captor makes a point to inform the prisoner all the horrible things he will do if she's found trying to flee, coupled with assurances that she will be caught, or consumed by the teeming wildlife that infests the surrounding land.  If everything looks hopeless, is it really hard to believe a person might continue tending a stew?

I rolled Sense Motive on this topic...

I got a 3...

I rolled Sense Motive on this topic...

I got a 3...