The Moathouse, Brigandage, The King's Justice and Alignment

[keolander]

Boy, what a mouthful...

anyway, recently on one of the Facebook pages dedicated to 1st Edition AD&D there has been a rather lively discussion of what constitutes Lawful and Good vis-a-vis captured prisoners from The Moathouse. Now, this was started by a DM poster recounting what his players had done: taken prisoner the bandits (presumably) on the top floor of the Moathouse (at least that is the assumption as nothing was said about them taking out Lareth and his soldiers). The poster asked what our opinions were about the legal issues surrounding this act (whether the Town Elders should decide, the bandits sent to Veluna, etc). Since I have played Nobles in the past (the Blackmoor convention living campaign that Zeitgeist Games ran), I stated that summary judgement and then execution in the field was perfectly legitimate. That got an immediate reaction from at least one poster who stated that wasn't a Lawful act (and presumably not a good one). Of course, I didn't say my Noble was Lawful Good (he wasn't, he was Lawful Neutral...but why let pesky facts get in the way of a discussion ).

Dispatching brigands to the afterlife is not an evil act. Paladins (for example) should not be penalized for doing what it is they do: crusading. Even brigands that surrender can be tried and executed. After all, banditry is a felonious/infamous crime everywhere there is something considered civilization (likely even in truly Evil nations like The Horned Society; woe be to the Shield Lander partisan who raids their caravans). The best example in fiction that I can think of at the moment is from A Game of Thrones (novel) where the deserter crow Gared (who was in the prologue chapter) was executed by Eddard for the crime of desertion from The Nights Watch. Eddard gives the reasoning that such a man, knowing that his life is forfeit anyway, is liable to turn to banditry/brigandage.

This started a long series of posts going back and forth, with some saying that hanging said brigands would be the equivalent of being murder hobos. To me, that is nonsense. A murder hobo band would be a group that comes in and pillages Hommlet because someone in the village slighted them (or just because butchering no-level NPCs is relatively easy). When you are out in the wilds, you are SUPPOSED to be helping to carve out civilization for them (even if its an evil society). Bandits/brigands are the antithesis of this. Every caravan that they whack helps to push the forces of Chaos that much closer to victory. And that, ultimately, is what I think it comes down to: the Flanaess is not Medieval Europe so much as its The Hundred Years War, The Black Death and The Collapse of Rome/Early Migration Era on steroids, rolled into one and pumped to Level 11 in volume. Its Mad Max with magic! Killing Orcs, Kobolds and other humanoids isn't evil because these beings almost without exception worship Evil gods who command them to destroy and loot those who oppose them. Every Orc killed in a dungeon is one less Orc that will raid and destroy some village that is trying to hold on to what little civilization is left.

[mindcontrolsquid]

I have little to add except to say that when my players keep their prisoners alive, most of the time those prisoners soon wish that they were dead. My players scare me sometimes.

[blackadder23]

For me as DM, it would depend on the circumstances. I do pay some attention to alignment, and I do assess penalties for violations.

If monsters surrender with the explicit promise that they will be spared, and PCs then decide to execute them anyway, I would mark that down as an alignment violation for Lawful characters because they broke an oath. It would also be a class violation for paladins and good cavaliers due to ignoring the code of chivalry. (If LN and LE characters could find some loophole that allowed them to execute the prisoners without technically breaking their word - "I said I wouldn't execute you, I didn't say my friends wouldn't" - then it wouldn't be a violation for them. LG characters aren't allowed to split hairs that way though.)

If monsters surrender unconditionally, PCs can execute them without any alignment violation. However, this needs to be a clean death if meted out by Good characters - no torture, abuse, slavery, etc. Mistreating prisoners that way would be an alignment violation for Good characters, especially paladins and cavaliers. However, Good characters have no responsibility to "redeem" evil creatures (an argument I saw on another forum that sounded like it came straight from Dragonlance) or turn them over to "the authorities" for trial. Monsters can be executed without alignment repercussions - but it does have to be a clean death if done by Good characters, and it can't violate the explicit oaths of Lawful characters.

That's my two coppers anyway.

[scottenkainen]

Had the PCs just gone to Rufus and asked to be deputized before heading to the moathouse, all this could have been avoided...

[Deleted]

Most players are morons and have no idea what the Middle Ages was actually like.

If your noble has the power of High Justice, then declaring their lives forfeit IS Lawful, since HE MAKES THE LAWS.

Medieval justice was brutal. Welcome to history -- just like Game of Thrones minus the warm fuzzy cuddly parts.

[blackadder23]

In some settings (which shall remain nameless), the PCs are basically errand boys for powerful DM-ary Sues.

Players who started gaming in such settings (rather than in the awesomeness that is Greyhawk) can perhaps be forgiven for thinking they need to run to some NPC for permission every time they want to tie their shoes or blow their noses.

[oldkat]

Jan 12, 2016 9:21:36 GMT -6 scottenkainen said:

Had the PCs just gone to Rufus and asked to be deputized before heading to the moathouse, all this could have been avoided...

I think this goes to the heart/spirit of the game; depending on the campaign.

PCs running around robbing tombs and dungeons of long hidden treasure (and possibly powerful magic) are not, necessarily, agents of the local or even supreme Law of the land. They are opportunists. Sometimes hired by common folk to--find a missing kin, rescue a missing kin, find a secret ingredient/item/thingie for a local (wannabe powerful) NPC.

In fact, in a well planned campaign, the very action of robbing tombs and dungeons should, in all likelihood, be against the law; or at least, closely monitored, so the nobles and royals of the territory get their fair (if not most) share of the spoils.

Paladins in general are not, necessarily, deputized agents of the realm. While they should (by my standards) be closely attached to some specific institution/authority, it is usually not the case in a free-wheeling, free-man campaign.

So, if the characters are acting on their own authority, justified by some alignment claim, I'd scrutinize the situation very carefully.

[sepulchre]

I think part of the problem with the argument is rooting goodness in the defense of civilization. The justification for killing is fitting for an argument advanced from a lawful neutral position, one that really resembles Hammurabi's code. Even Dietrich Bohhoeffer confessed his own sin in his involvement with an assassination attempt on Adolph Hitler. His struggle speaks to the double-effect ethic at the heart of all worldly aspirations for justice.

Also the paladin is problematic. The paladin may have divine sanction, but a crusader he is not. He is the paragon of chivalry, a romantic and Arthurian figure, devoted to the quest. The crusader really is caught in the unfortunate mace-wielding order of the cleric. That said I have always looked to the dervish as an initial template for the military orders.

Killing is a culpable act, all of the great religious traditions wrestle with it. Though the framework is fantasy, the question is a moral hypothetical and thus bares a semblance of reality. Murdering or executing the brigands should pose a moral quandary and one each player and character will live with rather than resolve.

[mindcontrolsquid]

Jan 15, 2016 10:15:39 GMT -6 sepulchre said:

I think part of the problem with the argument is rooting goodness in the defense of civilization.

Therein lies part of the justification over my changing conception of the role of alignment. Originally I was quite a proponent of the nine-axis alignment system, but introducing "Good" and "Evil" into a game ostensibly about thieves and murderers seems like it takes away from the original dichotomy between civilization (i.e. "Law") and the wilderness (i.e. "Chaos"). I've always had difficulty explaining the concept of alignment to new players, and I think it's because of the moral absolutism that alignment in its more modern incarnations implies. Perhaps in the future something more direct could be used? "Civilized" and "Uncivilized" instead of "Law" and "Chaos," perhaps?

[sepulchre]

mindcontrolsquid wrote:

Originally I was quite a proponent of the nine-axis alignment system, but introducing "Good" and "Evil" into a game ostensibly about thieves and murderers seems like it takes away from the original dichotomy between civilization (i.e. "Law") and the wilderness (i.e. "Chaos").

As was I. If you haven't read these threads,I think you will find Bargle/Cooper's posts soundly speak to and expand on your inclinations.

www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=55321#p1206862

odd74.proboards.com/thread/9478/alignment-conundrum#page=1
odd74.proboards.com/thread/7832/gives-alignment

"...alignments inspiration has its roots there and more so in Tolkien's essays on Beowulf where he divides real world c.650 AD into christian/heathen/monstrous, specifically towards the former two (historical mindsets) treatment of the latter mythological". - Bargle

As part of a literary tradition growing out of Beowulf and the works of Tolkien and finding codification in his essays and the work of Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul Anderson, I think the three-tiered alignment system is important to the character of FRPGs, however, in print it deserves better exponents to speak to its meaning.

[Deleted]

Actually Gary's ideas on "alignment" are very strongly influenced by Moorcock. Much more than Beowulf and Tolkien.

[sepulchre]

Yeah, I recall hearing that his notion of alignment began with Moorcock. However Moorcock was very much influenced by Anderson, who in turn drew from Tolkien among other influences.

[scottyg]

IMO, the terms "Lawful" and "Chaotic" have created much of the debate surrounding alignment, an overly literal interpretation of the words that causes bizarre behavior by players. Lawful isn't the same as law abiding. In D&D Lawful and Chaotic are like tangible forces of the multi-verse. Lawful (alignment) should be objective, whereas lawful (law abiding) can be very subjective based on culture, the capriciousness of a ruler, etc. A law can be very un-'Lawful'.

[Deleted]

Unfortunately, you got those terms ending up in the hands of 14 year old kids who'd never even HEARD of Moorcock or Anderson.

[sepulchre]

Scottyg wrote:

...an overly literal interpretation of the words that causes bizarre behavior by players. Lawful isn't the same as law abiding. In D&D Lawful and Chaotic are like tangible forces of the multi-verse. Lawful (alignment) should be objective, whereas lawful (law abiding) can be very subjective based on culture, the capriciousness of a ruler, etc. A law can be very un-'Lawful'.

I think this was Cooper's point, alignment "is not about behavior", though behavior can be indicative of alignment.

Gronanofsimmerya wrote:

you got those terms ending up in the hands of 14 year old kids who'd never even HEARD of Moorcock or Anderson.

Yes, I was tragically incapable of interpreting Moldvay at 14. As mentioned above, a stronger iteration of the three alignments would have been insightful, even at 14.

[keolander]

Jan 17, 2016 20:23:46 GMT -6 sepulchre said:

Yes, I was tragically incapable of interpreting Moldvay at 14. As mentioned above, a stronger iteration of the three alignments would have been insightful, even at 14.

Sadly, this wasn't apparently a group of 14 year olds with the Moathouse.

The same sort of thing happened when I was playing in the Blackmoor living campaign from Zeitgeist. The Paladin would have none of us hanging the slavers that had tried to capture us. Granted, I was Lawful Neutral...but we were in the wilds between cities and I saw no reason to allow slavers to live. Given where we were close to (Frog Island IIRC), I have no doubt we would have ended up down the in the pits of The Temple of the Frog....

[Deleted]

The Paladin was a dolt.

Look, in the Middle Ages most crimes were punished by death, period, and a criminal caught "red handed" was executed on the spot.

Hanging the slavers was 100% appropriate, and definitely Lawful Good in the view of a typical medieval ruler.

I say it again -- medieval justice was brutal.

[blackadder23]

Jan 18, 2016 23:22:07 GMT -6 @jamethon said:

I  disagree about slavery. It is not inherently evil to punish a criminal by making him work and taking away his freedom.

Here I am not interested in debating RW moral questions, but just looking at the game. I don't think a LG character has to be against chaining up murderers and kidnappers and forcing them to do hard labor, even for life.

I guess it depends on the individual DM. Personally I do consider slavery to be inherently non-good, and mark alignment violations for good character who practices it. In any case, I would mark an alignment violation for a good (especially LG) character who kept any evil servants or minions, voluntary or otherwise.

But with respect to the original question, I don't think a clean execution of evil beings is an alignment violation per se for good characters, and in some cases it would almost be required (e.g., turning an ogre loose to rape, kill, and eat more people might itself be an alignment violation for good characters).

[oldkat]

While I get many of the points mentioned, there is something to be addressed:

Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Forgotten Realms, Known World (BX), etc., etc. are fantasy lands.
How the greater world works around the pcs is determined by the DM. Does he/she allow frontier justice? That tatamounts to allowing a bunch of citizens/subjects to roam about the lands deciding for themselves what legal recourses they can take in varying situations. And it doesn't matter if some village, clan, or local merchant hires a party to "flush out some bad guys and eradicate them"... IF there is a royal legal system, it is that which must be followed.
Characters encounter situations. That's par for the course. Most of the time, they're the looters themselves. And one should tread lightly as a PC when taking on the role of the Realm/Nation/City law enforcer without being given such authority by the actual powers-that-be; for, someone else could justifiably come upon them in a given situation and do the same to them.
Each situation warrants careful oversight by the Game Referee, and a large amount of common sense in executing the workings of one's fantasy land.

[Deleted]

Jan 27, 2016 11:47:04 GMT -6 oldkat said:

IF there is a royal legal system, it is that which must be followed.

Precisely my point! In the actual "royal legal system" of the European middle ages, thieves caught red handed were to be killed on the spot. That IS royal justice.

And the fact that the PCs are allowed to wander around fully armed and carrying weapons by the authorities means they have the same obligation to execute this justice as anyone. As Gary said in, I think the AD&D DMG, the pcs are assumed to be of at least gentle birth.

[oldkat]

And the fact that the PCs are allowed to wander around fully armed and carrying weapons by the authorities means they have the same obligation to execute this justice as anyone. As Gary said in, I think the AD&D DMG, the pcs are assumed to be of at least gentle birth.

Whoooaaaa-nelly!

1. Allowing PCs to wander around fully armed and carry weapons is not a given fact. There is lots of historical affirmation that non-nobility in some realms was not permitted to possess/carry, weapons of war; only simple peasant working tools--and sometimes even that was closely watched to nip revolutions at the bud!
2. This is simply a personal GM preference to allow players this type of freedom.

Who, in the end, is the final arbiter of one's game world?
If we were all meant to run "the game" exactly like one another, I think we'd all be talking about other stuff on the forums.


Addendum:
Of course, I might not have read the OP as closely as I thought. If the question is posed in the context of Greyhawk as the world, and the social system/s found within as the basis and maintenance of the GH realm, then it might very well be that all PCs are supposed to be of "gentle birth."
Okay, there's this:

After all, banditry is a felonious/infamous crime everywhere there is something considered civilization (likely even in truly Evil nations like The Horned Society; woe be to the Shield Lander partisan who raids their caravans).

But that is the OPs interpretation. As i reread the piece, it seems that he was responding to some other DM's situation.

[Deleted]

Whether the PCs are considered able to carry out justice like an aristocrat is one thing; my point that medieval justice was harsh, brutal, and usually fatal is something else.

I've gotten considerable heat from various places for asserting that yes, a Paladin may execute a thief caught red handed and still be Lawful Good.

[Deleted]

As Lord Gronan has carved at the entrance to his castle,

"LAWFVL is not the same as NICE, Cvpcake!"

[keolander]

Jan 26, 2016 22:24:33 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

The Paladin was a dolt.

Heh, I wholeheartedly agree. He managed to get the party to vote and swayed them to "send them back to the town to face justice". I was ready to chop them to bloody bits right then and there....

Look, in the Middle Ages most crimes were punished by death, period, and a criminal caught "red handed" was executed on the spot.

Hanging the slavers was 100% appropriate, and definitely Lawful Good in the view of a typical medieval ruler.

I say it again -- medieval justice was brutal.   

That, I think, is truly the crux of the matter. Somewhere along the way D&D got infused with this idea of moral traps/"gotcha" moments where players were almost certainly going to get hosed with an alignment violation no matter which decision they made. The most egregious that I can remember, off hand, was Return to White Plume Mountain where at the end, any rational person would have tossed baby Keraptis into the d**n lava. The DM is informed that literally there is NOTHING that the players can do to prevent baby K from growing up and resuming his evil ways. No love, snuggles or giant teddy bears on birthdays will prevent him from crushing the nations of the Flanaess under his boot heel once he grows into his power. But, if you do like the rational "bad guy" Druid, its an unimaginable evil act to grant him Gollum's justice.....

[Deleted]

"Somewhere along the way D&D got infused with this idea of moral traps/"gotcha" moments where players were almost certainly going to get hosed with an alignment violation no matter which decision they made. "

Crap idea is crap.

[derv]

I personally enjoy a little infusion of Westphalian Vehmic justice in a game. It's the dark side of Lawful

Vehmic Courts

[keolander]

[keolander]

Heh, the argument over alignment has reared its ugly head AGAIN on that same Facebook page. Its amazing the number of people that outright told me I was wrong, after posting Mr. Gygax's exact words about "nits and lice" ON TOP OF screen caps of the Alignment sections of the 1E AD&D DMG and PHB.

I had one poster, supposedly rebutting me, by replying:

The statement "Lawful Neutrality countenances malign laws. Lawful Good does not." is absolutely false. Lawful good may fight against a law they think is malign, attempting to change it, but they will absolutely follow it until it is repealed or changed. It is the neutral and chaotic good that will not countenance a malign law.

I am absolutely STUNNED by the level of ignorance in these posters. Seriously, even quoting Gygax AND the DMG/PHB isn't enough. I truly wonder if an entire generation of dolts have wandered into our hobby....

[scottenkainen]

Just breathe deep and remember that a lot of D&D players are at least borderline autistic. Their own interpretation of the game mechanics becomes the road map they use for interpreting the otherwise confusing real world around them. Challenge their understanding of the game mechanics and you're throwing their whole world view into chaos.

[chicagowiz]

Mar 8, 2016 9:23:28 GMT -6 scottenkainen said:

Just breathe deep and remember that a lot of D&D players are at least borderline autistic. Their own interpretation of the game mechanics becomes the road map they use for interpreting the otherwise confusing real world around them. Challenge their understanding of the game mechanics and you're throwing their whole world view into chaos.

I *am* autistic and I don't think that is a fair or kind statement.