| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
dagonet
Sergeant
442 Posts
    
 | | 02/11/2007 12:40 PM |
|
    Or not. . . ?
   My D&D group has just
started a new campaign, in which alignment is going to be fairly
strictly monitored/enforced (i.e. we get punished if we step too far
out of line). This is a first for us, and we should probably have
taken some time to define just exactly what Good, Evil, Lawful, and
Chaotic mean before diving in to the adventure. We didn't, and
I'd like to get the forum's opinion on party actions at our last
session that (apparently) almost resulted in sanctions from our GM. . .
   My character, by the way, is a Neutral Good wanderer
whose class is based around protecting a very sturdy magical Egg until
it hatches. The rest of the party is some flavor of Good, with
the exception of our Beastmaster (basically, he recruits Animals and
Magical Beasts as followers who feed him experience), who is True
Neutral.
Â
   While heading towards a town called Denozar (the
nearest outpost of a group we've dealt with before, called The Circle
of the Rising Tide, probably best described as Lawful Neutral), we passed on the road (and were later passed by,
and then passed again, etc.) a group of four white-cloaked figures (the
two in front carrying brilliant white banners) forming a loose square
around a silent, black-cloaked form.
  Â
Now, the black-cloaked figure closely resembled someone we'd seen
before, at first while exploring a series of caves, and more recently
during our raid on an ogre encampment (which we set on fire before
entering), where he/she/it was engaged in friendly discussion with a
group of ogre mages in the command tent. In addition, the GM had
dropped a subtle hint that he/she/it was a Greenblood, a servitor-race
of a group who've been our principal villains in prior campaigns.
    Rebuffing our offers to accompany them on the
road, as well as our
questions about theit identity and purposes, the group turned north a
few hours before reaching Denozar, at which point we chose to confront
them, demanding that they explain themselves, either to us here or to
the Circle outpost to the south. They refused, claiming the
equivalent of diplomatic immunity (never an absolute tradition in our
campaign world), and we attacked, first
attempting to subdue, then striking for lethal damage when we
discovered that we had to beat the white-cloaks up a bit before they
could be captured. Two of the white-cloaks were killed (by the
Neutral
Beastmaster); we knocked the others unconscious and thwacked the
black-cloak a few times before grappling her and tying her up.Â
And
yes, the black-cloak was a Greenblood.
   My question to you-all is this: were we, as
good characters, out of line? Was our neutral character out of
line?
   Cheers,
   Dagonet
  Â
| |
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
Champion of Kyuss and his Servants of Squishy Doom | |
|
gss_000
Commander
3204 Posts
Baltimore, MD
| | 02/11/2007 2:21 PM |
| I've written this post about two times already coming down on either sides of the argument both times. I think you need to dissect this a bit.
Before anything else: None of you would qualify for exalted feats because of this act in my book. Essentially, jumping someone who you think might have conspired with evil creatures, and even then he's a member of a servitor race and may be forced to do those actions. You had no absolute proof when you jumped him of his guilt, just hunches. If to your party being good means being saints, then you were out of line. Sometimes even against your beter judgement being good means letting things go.
But probably there is some wiggle room and being this strict is unreasonable all the time. Let's look at the results to each party.
Greenblood: You did have your hunch that he was a trouble maker and was consorting with ogre mages. You did confront him first, asking him about this siuation. You did give him an option to resolve the matter if he was falsely accused. When he refused only then did you take action and it was non-lethal. A Lawful Good character should have no problem with this since you are using lawful means and institutions to end the issue, and cavorting with evil creatures must be dealt with. A Neutral good character may also have little problem since you gave him the chance to explain but only on his refusal are you involving other means. A chaotic good character might have the most problems with it, but even then it shouldn't be too bad on account it is a group attacking an idividual who you're not sure did anything wrong and are involving institutions which might bother him. (These are just one way of seeing LG, NG, and CG alignments). I don't think it broke a Neutral alignment either.
Whitecloaks: There I think you all screwed the pooch. For all these people knew, he was a travelling companion. If you were with a group of friends and someone started accosting and then beating up one of the group and you could stop them, what would you do? Fight back. So their response to the situation was reasonable. They were not conspirators, nor criminals. Their only mistake was being at the wrong place at the wrong time. From what it sounds like you gave them nothing other than your word that they should trust you over their companion. Subduing them, while not the best action in the name of "good", was not the worst. Allowing two of them to be killed was definitely not good, nor neutral, no matter how you slice it. The moment your party crossed the line was when they switched from subdual to lethal atacks. You were then trying to kill, and even if you didn't want to kill them, innocent participants.
Now, this is oly one interpretation based on the info you provided. In a lot of ways you guys got lucky with the Greenblood being who you thought he was. But if ever you are resorting to the ends justifying the means argument, you have not done a truly good act. | |
Completed trades: blackthorne, Drakkengi,Thorgrin, Ironfist Boulderbender x2, ckissee, nasamonkey, Username, Star, Ace13 x3, emontedodger x2, Drconveyor, church, Joeyb, Sir Bozak The Damned, Xeromod, the other guy x2, Qucalion of Celene, Dagaron x2, berus316, qillan_dvra, AshloreDarkShadow
For further info go to My Reference Thread and Trade Interface
Champion of Radiant Sevant | |
|
dagonet
Sergeant
442 Posts
| | 02/11/2007 3:28 PM |
| Â Â Â Heya gss_000 (as well as anyone else who wanders by),
   Thanks for your quick and very-well thought-out reply. Just a few clarifications:
   It was known to us before the actual combat (either
because the blackcloak told us or else straight from the GM) that the
whitecloaks were "employees" of the blackcloak, on the order of
hirelings or an honor guard. Technically, the white banners were
supposed to represent truce or parley or diplomatic status or somesuch,
though this was not explicitly stated until AFTER the dust had
settled.Â
  Â
   Regarding the two dead whitecloaks, we have a
blanket rule which prohibits PC's from attacking one another on pain of
expulsion from the campaign (which allows for a fair amount of
self-expression while preventing the more poisonous intra-party
disputes), so there really wasn't anything the rest of us could do to
restrain the Beastmaster. In general, the best we can do to
"persaude" evil and sort-of-evil PC's to abandon their ways is to
withhold healing or assistance in combat.Â
   Lastly, the Greenblood status wasn't mentioned as a
justification for our actions; I know that Good doesn't get to excuse
negative actions with positive results. It was just part of the
information we had at the time.
   Again, thank you for your thoughts,
   Dagonet
| |
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
Champion of Kyuss and his Servants of Squishy Doom | |
|
notserious
Sneak
117 Posts
| | 02/12/2007 8:07 AM |
| It sounds as though the key sticking point is the meaning/value of travelling under the white banner - is it an absolute that even the nasties abide by, is it a highly valued custom of the good guy culture (that the bad guys abuse) or is it a nicety than can be used when it serves every one's purpose?
This is one of those tricky spots where it can be hard for a GM to know how much cultural information (i.e., the meaning of the white banners) to give to players. It is really tempting to either assume they'll understand, based on similarity to our own (or historical) cultural norms, but this is tricky because norms (and understanding of historical norms) can vary. At the same time, it can be quite a front end load to give players exhaustive treaties on social and cultural norms in the world they are playing. The third approach - to tell them when it is relevant - also has drawbacks in terms of it feeling a little bit like railroading sometimes.
Sounds like, as a group - players and GM - it eventually worked out (no one got smote by lightning :-)Â But you may want to talk about that norm a bit more - who uses it, what are the rules, how widely respected it it, etc.
| |
| |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 02/12/2007 8:13 AM |
| Here are a few thoughts, if you're looking to play by the book on alignment.
I don't agree with gss_000 that your act was lawful, unless you're representatives of the law. Indeed, citizens aren't normally allowed to arrest someone and require that these persons follow them to the "police", especially not solely on account that one of their group is dressed similarly to someone they saw talking with evil creatures. By forcing their will on the group, i believe that your PCs were acting chaoticly.
Furthermore, I think that attacking and killing members of this group was evil. Even if the blackcloak creature ends up being evil, you cannot kill someone simply on the basis of his morales. What has this particular creature done that is reprehensible? And who are you to be the judge and executioner for this creature?
Caveat: have you been officially legally named to carry out the law in the area where this occurred? If so, then their refusal to follow you was illegal, but it's not my understanding of your post.
Sky | |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 02/12/2007 8:17 AM |
| Further to my last post...
Think of it this way. Say you see someone walking down the road in your city, dressed in the colors of a group of known bandits. He's with his bodyguard. You walk up to him, and tell to state his business, and then you tell him to follow you to the police. As can be expected, the guy tells you to buzz off. You then attack the guy and his bodyguard, and kill the latter.
What did the guy do wrong? So, he's dressed in the colors of a criminal band. Does that make *him* a criminal? What entitles you to force him to do anything, such as accompany you to the pollice? And then attack him?
I believe that in this example, you'd probably be charged with assault and murder among other things, and sent to jail.
Sky | |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
|
gss_000
Commander
3204 Posts
Baltimore, MD
| | 02/12/2007 3:01 PM |
| Posted By Skyscraper on 02/12/2007 8:17 AM
Further to my last post...
Think of it this way. Say you see someone walking down the road in your city, dressed in the colors of a group of known bandits. He's with his bodyguard. You walk up to him, and tell to state his business, and then you tell him to follow you to the police. As can be expected, the guy tells you to buzz off. You then attack the guy and his bodyguard, and kill the latter.
What did the guy do wrong? So, he's dressed in the colors of a criminal band. Does that make *him* a criminal? What entitles you to force him to do anything, such as accompany you to the pollice? And then attack him?
I believe that in this example, you'd probably be charged with assault and murder among other things, and sent to jail.
Sky
For killing the bodyguards, I definitely see that and I hope my post was clear enough to agree with your conclusions. With the Greenblood, here they essentially are making a citizens arrest (a modern concept but essentially what it is). From my understanding of the post they did see him consorting with ogre magi, which would be a deal more than a group of bandits, more like slavers and killers.  Since it was based on suspicions, it is shaky ground to build an argument,but it turned out the hunches were right, which is why I think they were lucky in regard to him and only him. A Truly Good Party, 100% above reproach, would not have attacked in the first place. But that is a hard standard to always maintain.
| |
Completed trades: blackthorne, Drakkengi,Thorgrin, Ironfist Boulderbender x2, ckissee, nasamonkey, Username, Star, Ace13 x3, emontedodger x2, Drconveyor, church, Joeyb, Sir Bozak The Damned, Xeromod, the other guy x2, Qucalion of Celene, Dagaron x2, berus316, qillan_dvra, AshloreDarkShadow
For further info go to My Reference Thread and Trade Interface
Champion of Radiant Sevant | |
|
Skyscraper
Sergeant
659 Posts
Montreal
| | 02/13/2007 8:30 AM |
| I do not play with a strict interpretation of alignments, but the OP stated that this is what he wanted to do so i tried to answer his question in that perspective.
This being said, as concerns a citizen's arrest, i live in Canada, there is no such thing here 
But i hear you gss_000, i assume it depends on the law of the kingdom where the action occurred. If there is some leeway according to law for citizens to force others to follow them to the authorities, then i assume that the action was legal. However, it is not very commonplace for such laws to exist; and i assume that you must have a good reason to rely on. IMO, someone discussing with an ogre mage is not a good enough reason to throw him in jail (unless the law prohibits talking to ogre mages?!?!). I mean, technically, adventurers speak with evil creatures all the time without necessarily killing those creatures. Are all adventurers to be brought before the sherriff?
You see where i'm getting to: the black cloak never actually *did* anything wrong except being seen with a race that is known to be evil. Could you even convict the ogre mage just for *being* evil? No, because he didn't do anything wrong (yet). How then can you charge the back cloack with anything for simply having *discussed with* the ogre mage?
Sky | |
The wise man doubts often. The ignorant, sometimes. The fool, never. | |
| Master of the
Awesome Sauce
Teflon Jeff
Warlord
7055 Posts
Idaho. Yes, we have Gamers in Idaho.
| | 02/13/2007 10:15 AM |
| For the record, quaint as it sounds, there's really no such thing as a citizens arrest in most of America, too.
As far as i see things, the party started the confrontation, then escalated the confrontation when their demands weren't met. I wouln't put any of them in the good category.
That being said, on action is not enough to accuratley portray alignment. For instance, I would bet the majority of posters here are good, law-abiding citizens. I'd also bet a number of them speed, thus breaking the law. Would that make them non-lawful? That's a personal interpretation. So while I think the act is not good, it doesn't necessarily mean the characters aren't good.
| |
Official Delegate, Wizards of the Coast
Against The Giants Called Shot: Huge Green Dragon
Icons Called Shot: Gargantuan Prismatic Dragon
"Rejoice, for bad things are about to happen." | |
|
gss_000
Commander
3204 Posts
Baltimore, MD
| | 02/13/2007 11:10 AM |
| Posted By Teflon Jeff on 02/13/2007 10:15 AM
So while I think the act is not good, it doesn't necessarily mean the characters aren't good.
Very true. To paraphrase Order of te Stick: If the game didn't recognize that good characters didn't occasionally have to do bad things, there wouldn't be an atonement spell.
| |
Completed trades: blackthorne, Drakkengi,Thorgrin, Ironfist Boulderbender x2, ckissee, nasamonkey, Username, Star, Ace13 x3, emontedodger x2, Drconveyor, church, Joeyb, Sir Bozak The Damned, Xeromod, the other guy x2, Qucalion of Celene, Dagaron x2, berus316, qillan_dvra, AshloreDarkShadow
For further info go to My Reference Thread and Trade Interface
Champion of Radiant Sevant | |
|
gss_000
Commander
3204 Posts
Baltimore, MD
| | 02/13/2007 11:24 AM |
| Posted By Skyscraper on 02/13/2007 8:30 AM
You see where i'm getting to: the black cloak never actually *did* anything wrong except being seen with a race that is known to be evil. Could you even convict the ogre mage just for *being* evil? No, because he didn't do anything wrong (yet). How then can you charge the back cloack with anything for simply having *discussed with* the ogre mage?
I see what you are saying. That's why in my first post I said that they definitely had left the path towards exalted feats with this action. If charactes are going to be absolutely good you have to base things on actions, which means letting things you know you can catch early on slide.
If it was just one ogre, I definitely agree. However, here we have a situation that mgh need a little more explanation. This person was conversing with a group of ogre magi who were leading an ogre encampment. Were the ogres known criminals, a raiding band? What were they doing? If it was something nefarious, then this conversation could have drastic implications for neighboring towns and cities. What if this was a conversation preparing to storm a city? Being evil is definitely not a crime all by itself. But depending on what they originally saw, they did have reason to be concerned. I'd be highly suspicious by his evasions and depending on the character would have jumped him like this group did or leave them and warn the surrounding officials of a potential threat.
For dagonet, I have another question. How strict are you being with alignment? Is it something like a dial with one setting for each alignment or is it more fuzzy, where a range of actions are allowed?
| |
Completed trades: blackthorne, Drakkengi,Thorgrin, Ironfist Boulderbender x2, ckissee, nasamonkey, Username, Star, Ace13 x3, emontedodger x2, Drconveyor, church, Joeyb, Sir Bozak The Damned, Xeromod, the other guy x2, Qucalion of Celene, Dagaron x2, berus316, qillan_dvra, AshloreDarkShadow
For further info go to My Reference Thread and Trade Interface
Champion of Radiant Sevant | |
|
dagonet
Sergeant
442 Posts
| | 02/13/2007 1:34 PM |
| Â Â Â Again, a big thank-you to everyone who's replied so
far; I'll be passing your comments along to our GM prior to our next
session tomorrow.
   To clarify a few matters:
   We caught up to the ogre group (as well as their orc
servants) about a week after they basically leveled a small town called
Bylon, killing about 85% of its militia and civilians. While
scouting their encampment (before setting it on fire), we noticed
several stewpots containing humanoid. =/Â
   I'd forgotten this in my initial post (and am not
100% certain now), but I believe that the blackcloak did admit to
having been in the ogre camp (i.e. that she was the person we'd seen
poring over maps with the ogre mages in their command tent), and that
her dealings with them were none of our business.
   To gs_000, alignment for us has been extremely
low-key, with players usually declaring their PC alignment at the start
of a campaign (for the purposes of effects which key off of
Law/Chaos/Good/Evil), but no enforcement from whoever is currently
serving as GM. I'm thinking that if we want to have alignment
play a more prominent role, we're going to have to define a range of
allowable behavior for each of the moral and ethical components, and
then actually convert people (err, or at least their characters) if
they stray too far.
   Cheers,
   Dagonet
| |
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
Champion of Kyuss and his Servants of Squishy Doom | |
|
gss_000
Commander
3204 Posts
Baltimore, MD
| | 02/13/2007 2:39 PM |
| That's probably a good thing to do. It's hard to keep things "strict" when no one has talked about it. Without that framework, it probably would also make the first enforcement feel arbitrary. You might as well talk about how your characters view their alignment as well. Since any alignment can have a range of interpretations, this migt help you roleplay it better as well. Since game mechanically it's more important, you might have fun making it more important in your interactons as well.
Thanks for the clarification. | |
Completed trades: blackthorne, Drakkengi,Thorgrin, Ironfist Boulderbender x2, ckissee, nasamonkey, Username, Star, Ace13 x3, emontedodger x2, Drconveyor, church, Joeyb, Sir Bozak The Damned, Xeromod, the other guy x2, Qucalion of Celene, Dagaron x2, berus316, qillan_dvra, AshloreDarkShadow
For further info go to My Reference Thread and Trade Interface
Champion of Radiant Sevant | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 | You must be signed in to participate in the
games. |