Benevolent choices...i beg to differ

[Masterteo89]

As the title says.

 

Nonton quest, one of the very first quests of the game. You know, the quest in short is :

 

 

Pearly go with Nonton to a cavern where there are bears.

 

Bears appears : Pearly and Nonton run away but Nonton stabs Pearly, so that he is unable to escape and the bears kill him.

 

You discover from a dialogue that Pearly was a " beast " , a cruel man. Nonton and Pearly's wife are happy now and ready to start a new life...togheter.

 

--------------------------------

 

So, we get a wife that probably plotted with Nonton the murder of Pearly. We have Nonton that " killed " Pearly , because he trapped him in the cave with the bears.

 

Benevolent choice is more or less " ok, nothing happened because Pearly was a cruel man. So get married and keep the money you wanted to give me so that i would let you live ( i call this a bribe ) ".

 

-----------------------------------

 

Do you think it's a benevolent choice ? Not getting bribed but letting a murderer go away freely ?

 

This is not a critic against the developers, i simply would like to discuss about this. You know, my point of view could be different, so i'm curious.

 

----------------------------------

 

Oh, my idea of benevolent choice would have been " Pearly was cruel, but that was not a reason to murder him. You should have called the soldiers, like now i'm going to do because your murder won't go unpunished"

 

...so, because i'm benevolent i will do the " honest" answer that more or less is like i said i would do. Else, better would be killing him but that would put me to their same level, so i won't do it.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Masterteo89

[AndreaColombo]

You've got a point there.

[Baron Pampa]

Assuming that what they say is true(and I think we have to, otherwise discussion would be meaningless), letting them go with money is the choice in which you strive to improve the world around you through empathy and understanding. It seems that benevolence in the game is often understood as dealing as little pain and suffering as possible, which includes mercy and forgiveness. Revealing people to the law usually achieves nothing in that direction, they'd probably hang. So the choice might not be just, but is benevolent. It's similar to the choice of what to do with Wirtek, the man who betrayed Eothasians.

[Miquel93]

The dispositions are not some sort of moral compass, exactly, and more how other people will value what you do or say. Here it is benevolent because you show comapssion to these people. Yes, they've done something bad, even if it may have been justified, but your action towards them is a benevolent one. 

Edited March 5, 2016 by Miquel93

[gkathellar]

Benevolent doesn't mean "morally correct." It means "benevolent." Letting them go is charitable, but not necessarily right.

[Masterteo89]

The dispositions are not some sort of moral compass, exactly, and more how other people will value what you do or say. Here it is benevolent because you show comapssion to these people. Yes, they've done something bad, even if it may have been justified, but your action towards them is a benevolent one. 

 

I don't know. It seems to me that " benevolent " here means being a hypocrite.

 

I mean, you show compassion by breaking the law, letting those murderers free. No way.

 

Who are you to judge who deserve mercy ?

 

By showing your misplaced compassion, you judge in your way those criminals. But you can't replace the law, you can't take this kind of decisions...

 

Being benevolent, in my opinion, means indeed showing mercy and being compassionate, but... following the law.

 

If a murderer deserve to go to jail, if you are benevolent you do all you can to put him in jail instead of killing him. You do not let him go, because in that way...

 

Yes, you are benevolent because you forgive the murderer. But what about the one that got killed ? His killer got away without paying for his crime. So, you are surely not benevolent to the victim.

 

-----------------------------------

 

So, what's better ?

 

Put the killer to jail --> justice served for both killer and victim

 

or

 

Let the killer go away --> mercy for the killer while the victim is forced to suffer, because the one that killed him got away ?

 

---------------------------------

 

Choices...life is full of them. If you kill, it's your fault : you chose to kill someone and so you deserve to go to jail.

 

Benevolence is following the law in the less painful and more merciful way.

 

But nonetheless you have to follow the laws.

 

Oh, and morality too. Because if you only follow the law, you could follow the laws of a tyrant. So, you should follow both. Morality + law, always.

 

That's my opinion on the matter.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Masterteo89

[Baron Pampa]

"Benevolent – charitable, kind, soft, or weak." - from the game's manual.

The victim's dead anyway, and you can't do anything for him. As Miquel93 have put it - you present yourself as a soft-hearted person relying on compassion and mercy, not the rules. That's generally seen as benevolent in the game's terms. You might not consider it to be good, moral or lawful. But it matches the definition of benevolent reputation.

[Miquel93]

 

The dispositions are not some sort of moral compass, exactly, and more how other people will value what you do or say. Here it is benevolent because you show comapssion to these people. Yes, they've done something bad, even if it may have been justified, but your action towards them is a benevolent one. 

 

I don't know. It seems to me that " benevolent " here means being a hypocrite.

 

I mean, you show compassion by breaking the law, letting those murderers free. No way.

 

Who are you to judge who deserve mercy ?

 

By showing your misplaced compassion, you judge in your way those criminals. But you can't replace the law, you can't take this kind of decisions...

 

Being benevolent, in my opinion, means indeed showing mercy and being compassionate, but... following the law.

 

If a murderer deserve to go to jail, if you are benevolent you do all you can to put him in jail instead of killing him. You do not let him go, because in that way...

 

Yes, you are benevolent because you forgive the murderer. But what about the one that got killed ? His killer got away without paying for his crime. So, you are surely not benevolent to the victim.

 

-----------------------------------

 

So, what's better ?

 

Put the killer to jail --> justice served for both killer and victim

 

or

 

Let the killer go away --> mercy for the killer while the victim is forced to suffer, because the one that killed him got away ?

 

---------------------------------

 

Choices...life is full of them. If you kill, it's your fault : you chose to kill someone and so you deserve to go to jail.

 

Benevolence is following the law in the less painful and more merciful way.

 

But nonetheless you have to follow the laws.

 

Oh, and morality too. Because if you only follow the law, you could follow the laws of a tyrant. So, you should follow both. Morality + law, always.

 

That's my opinion on the matter.

 

 

Ok, let me put it this way. You are the one that murdered one guy that was an awful human being and defended the woman you loved. A man shows up and knows about it. He's armed, and knows every detail of how you murdered that guy. After explaining your motive, he lets you go and show sympathy for you and your situation. What would your opinion of that guy be? 

 

The dispositions are there to represent how people sees you. Accumulate enough points and you earn a reputation of being X (in this case, benevolent). Here, this guy see that action as a benevolent one, and that helps getting the voice around that you're a compassionate guy. That's all there is to it. It's not a moral compass.

 

If it bothers you, just deactivate the option to see the dispositions in dialog (in my opinion it works a lot better)

Edited March 5, 2016 by Miquel93

[Stoner]

I'm not gonna argue "benevolent" meaning, and I don't exactly word by word rememeber all NPC replics, but I think everything is fine with this particular quest and choices. We can let them go, kill them or report (which ends up in killing). I think latter would be "benevolent" by your interpretation, or rather just, and their death is their own fault, as it was an act of self defence and you weren't going to kill them. All in all no matter how cruel Pearly was, killer needs to be convicted and punished.

 

This quest has rather tiny moral aspect playing on your minute by minute sympathies, I don't see heartbreaking dilemma here worth big discussion tbh...

[Luckmann]

Benevolent doesn't mean "morally correct." It means "benevolent." Letting them go is charitable, but not necessarily right.

 

This is what I was thinking. I've got a lot of criticism for a lot of the Disposition dialogues in the game, but this really isn't one of them.

 

This is in fact one of the few times the game gets it right, by not moralizing over the disposition itself, and manages to underline that Benevolent does not mean "Good". There's other instances in the game where it feels like they've attached "Deceptive" on something just because it's evil, not deceptive at all. Don't get me started on Cruel. There's so many cruel options that never get tagged with the Cruel disposition, because they are morally righteous, even though they ruin someone's life largely out of spite and vengeance.

 

They kinda dropped the ball with the dispositions, and should probably have had a lot tighter guidelines over what should constitute each of them, and hired the job out to a high-functioning autistic guy with antisocial personality disorder, to make it as impassionately applied as possible. Rational is another one that appears to be applied seemingly randomly.

 

I don't know. It seems to me that "benevolent" here means being a hypocrite.

 

[...]

If you value benevolence above all else, yes, you will be a hypocrite. Nobody ever said you couldn't be both. There's a lot of situations in the game where you'll have the opportunity to do benevolent things that has nothing to do with doing what is right or wrong from a legal or socially acceptable perspective. The only sad thing is that if you always and forever go for benevolence, it never really comes back to haunt you, even though it absolutely should, imo. The game is already way too black and white in most regards.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Luckmann

[HawkSoft]

Revealing people to the law usually achieves nothing in that direction, they'd probably hang.

And it seems in Gilded Vale they don't bother to check that the *drop* killed you,

The *law* in Gilded Vale can not be compared with what we expect of a modern democracy.

[Elerond]

 

Who are you to judge who deserve mercy ?

 

You are one that knows about the crime, you are only one that has any evidence that there has been a crime, so what those people in question deserve hangs fully on your characters judgement. If your character is soft hearted and thinks that people should be able to get another change after bad deed and therefore your character lets said people go, then benevolent is quite accurate way to describe your character.

 

If your character just want to punish them for sake of punishing them then your character could be described as cruel.

 

If your character don't see that deed has been done and nothing will bring said man back and there isn't really need for seeking justice for cruel dead man, then your character could be described as rational

 

And so on. It is how dispositions should work in PoE.

[MaxQuest]

Do you think it's a benevolent choice ? Not getting bribed but letting a murderer go away freely ?

 

This is not a critic against the developers, i simply would like to discuss about this. You know, my point of view could be different, so i'm curious.

That quest,.. taking that decision got me stuck for quite awhile, thinking about happiness and retribution; and morality in general.

And in the end, I let them go.

 

---

The benevolence as I see it is a quite relative thing. The benevolency being in the eye of beholder.

A hunter slaying a deer, can be cruel for it's pup; but benevolent to a strayed and starving traveler with whom he shares the meal at the bonfire.

---

Sparing that couple is cruel and unfair to memory of Pearly. Yet it is a benevolent act to his wife and Nonton. Giving them a chance for a new and hopefully better life.

---

But how do we actually aggregate such different views together? And how will other people see us, during the posterior interactions? As partner in crime? Benevolent weakling? Or maybe compassionate and emphatic good fellow? I believe that it depends on their own morale compass. Their own set or rules and behavior templates.

 

A lawful-good one, the one who is adept of "For Great Justice" paradigm, will seak to avenge every missdead with a punishment, equal in modulus, or even greater (as for edification and admonition). And that's the common way of building a better world. Reducing crime, misery, the negative that happens, by threatening with imminent penalty infliction.

 

And then there are guys like Bob. Who really likes happiness. Not only for himself. For everybody. And wants the world to have as much happiness as possible.

Killing a happy-together couple will dim the world. So it's not a good option in instant perspective. It's not a good choice in long perspective either. As those two are not like some killers set on rampage. And if left be, will most likely settle down somewhere, quietly, peacefully and happily. Just like Bob wants it to be. And that is a chaotic-good approach.

 

 

Btw, really good (short but interesting) read can be found here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForHappiness

P.S. Damn, I really can't MC as paladin...

Edited March 6, 2016 by MaxQuest

[Masterteo89]

 

Do you think it's a benevolent choice ? Not getting bribed but letting a murderer go away freely ?

 

This is not a critic against the developers, i simply would like to discuss about this. You know, my point of view could be different, so i'm curious.

That quest,.. taking that decision got me stuck for quite awhile, thinking about happiness and retribution; and morality in general.

And in the end, I let them go.

 

---

The benevolence as I see it is a quite relative thing. The benevolency being in the eye of beholder.

A hunter slaying a deer, can be cruel for it's pup; but benevolent to a strayed and starving traveler with whom he shares the meal at the bonfire.

---

Sparing that couple is cruel and unfair to memory of Pearly. Yet it is a benevolent act to his wife and Nonton. Giving them a chance for a new and hopefully better life.

---

But how do we actually aggregate such different views together? And how will other people see us, during the posterior interactions? As partner in crime? Benevolent weakling? Or maybe compassionate and emphatic good fellow? I believe that it depends on their own morale compass. Their own set or rules and behavior templates.

 

A lawful-good one, the one who is adept of "For Justice" paradigm, will seak to avenge every missdead with a punishment, equal in modulus, or even greater (as for edification and admonition). And that's the common way of building a better world. Reducing crime, misery, the negative that happens, by threatening with imminent penalty infliction.

 

And then there are guys like Bob. Who really likes happiness. Not only for himself. For everybody. And wants the world to have as much happiness as possible.

Killing a happy-together couple will dim the world. So it's not a good option in instant perspective. It's not a good choice in long perspective either. As those two are not like some killers set on rampage. And if left be, will most likely settle down somewhere, quietly, peacefully and happily. Just like Bob wants it to be. And that is a chaotic-good approach.

 

 

Btw, really good (short but interesting) read can be found here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForHappiness

P.S. Damn, I really can't MC as paladin...

 

 

True.

 

Well, in both real life and games i'm lawful good. If we can say that.

 

More precisely, from this website http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulGood

 

i'm exactly a Lawful Good in the flavour of a Balance Seeker. ( That means taking also the better choice, even if it leads to the death of someone in order to save many more lives)

 

That's why i don't like the benevolent choice of the quest. Law force you to put them to jail. Morality is a struggle between putting them to jail ( that would hurt them) and let them go.

 

In the end my morality tells me that they had no right to kill Pearly, even if he was a bad man. They should have solved the problem in another way. So, morality tells me that they should pay for their crime because Pearly deserve to be avenged. They showed that they were at his same level. He was a beast, but so were them because they tricked and killed him for their benefit.

 

So, balancing morality and law i decided that they deserved to go to jail.

 

-----------------------------------

 

About the other flavours... good before law is not right, because in my opinion will lead to a chaotic allignment. Not always the good choice follows the law.

 

Law before good leads to fanatism. Very bad. 

Edited March 6, 2016 by Masterteo89

[MaxQuest]

Well, in both real life and games i'm lawful good. If we can say that.[...]

i'm exactly a Lawful Good in the flavour of a Balance Seeker.

Well, nice to meet you )

I am a Chaotic Good at heart (of [2 * freedom before goodness + 1 * balance seeker] / 3 flavor). And passively Neutral Good in life, just because it's less of hassle.

 

That's why i don't like the benevolent choice of the quest. Law force you to put them to jail. Morality is a struggle between putting them to jail ( that would hurt them) and let them go.

The interesting thing about Law, is that I see it more like a codex of good (but not always) advices, invented by good and wise (but not always) people. I take the law "prescription" into account, but if I find it stupid, or it lacks the common sense, I discard it.

And as for morality: I believe all people are slightly different. They went through different situations in their lives, and have developed different behavior and decision patterns. This leads to the fact that different people have different morality. Now... Your morality tells you to put them to jail. And I understand you. But... I can 'borrow' their morality. And see a different view. Hell, I can have even few of them at a time, try to compare them, and decide which I like better. (not for me personally, but overall, from a bigger picture)

 

 

He was a beast, but so were them because they tricked and killed him for their benefit.

Yeap. I agree.

And from lawful point of view, the taking of decision ends here, resulting in the choice of jail.

 

But... there are guys like Bob And Bob has decided to spent a few more moments at trying to rationalize and... feel the situation.

And he gets quite a few of following strange thoughts: "hmm, they were at the same beast level when they killed him. But are they now?", "Are they actually rotten to the core? or.. maybe just too weak to handle the situation and the wrath of Pelry in direct, straight manner by having a talk in 6 eyes?" and finally "I can handle their resistance and put them to jail, but.. to what end? They already know they have done a bad thing. They don't seem to repeat it. And there is no Pelry. Ok. f**k it, let them start from a clean page. But if I will hear them causing trouble I will Jack Reacher the s**t out of them".

 

By the way... will it sound weird, if I will tell that I compare different outcomes by color? For example:

Killing them is dark-red for me.

Putting them to jail is gray. The lead (plumbum) shade.

Letting them go, and if they kill someone more is dark-poisony-green.

And finnaly letting them go, and they leave a happy, peaceful life together is bright-yellow, sunny tint. And that's the one I do opt for. For happiness

Edited March 6, 2016 by MaxQuest

[gkathellar]

A lawful-good one, the one who is adept of "For Justice" paradigm, will seak to avenge every missdead with a punishment, equal in modulus, or even greater (as for edification and admonition). And that's the common way of building a better world. Reducing crime, misery, the negative that happens, by threatening with imminent penalty infliction.

 

And then there are guys like Bob. Who really likes happiness. Not only for himself. For everybody. And wants the world to have as much happiness as possible.

Killing a happy-together couple will dim the world. So it's not a good option in instant perspective. It's not a good choice in long perspective either. As those two are not like some killers set on rampage. And if left be, will most likely settle down somewhere, quietly, peacefully and happily. Just like Bob wants it to be. And that is a chaotic-good approach.

No, I dispute this on several points.

 

Firstly, D&D's Law vs. Chaos is (at least on the mortal scale) about behavioral consistency and internal rules, not about obedience to external social strictures. The lawful good character believes to some degree that good upholds a set of rules and procedures, which likewise uphold good; what's crucial is not any particular strictures so much as it is the clear, embodied nature of those strictures. Chaos, on the other hand, is about freedom, spontaneity, and formlessness - it may help to bear in mind that planar chaos strives in its purest form towards the infinite possibility of nonexistence. Chaotic good characters react according to what they feel is right in the situation, rather than trying to force that situation into a set of principles that can be articulated.

 

Second. It's important to bear in mind that concepts like vengeance and justice don't actually map to the aforementioned alignments. Certainly, organizations like the Mercykillers are lawful in being obsessed with a very clear and specific form of justice. But that's not because they're interested in law, it's because they're interested in justice, law being what we extrapolate their philosophy out to on examination. But a chaotic character is just as capable of vengeance or retribution or even resorting to the law of the land, it's just that they're going to do it when they feel like it.

 

Likewise, a preoccupation with happiness is not a distinctly chaotic good characteristic, or even a distinctly good one. The alignment wheel cares a lot about means and intended ends, but not much about underlying emotional motives. What you're presenting with the happiness thing is a sort of consequentialist-deontological set of motives as driving LG characters. But while it might be fair to say that LG characters are more deontological by nature whilst CG characters are more utilitarian, a CG character could just as easily be portrayed as having an inclination towards virtue ethics, while a LG one might be seen as a rule utilitarian. Planescape-era alignment wheel stuff (the only time the wheel has been coherent) is grounded less in "x philosophy equals y alignment," and more, "alignment as a literal term for the relationship between an individual's worldview and cosmic forces sitting on either end of the fulcrum of existence."

 

Thirdly, and I want to stress this, any judgment of Nonton and whatsherface ultimately depends on whether the Watcher believes anything they say, and on whether the Watcher believes themselves capable of making that judgment. Sure, the two claim that Parley was a bad dude and that they needed to kill him to escape his bad dude behavior, but we actually see zero evidence for this claim. In the language of PoE, a Benevolent Watcher is charitable not just for letting the two go, but also for believing them. In the language of alignment, either a Lawful or a Chaotic character might see this as an understandable reason for skepticism, and feel that it's better to let a magistrate or other qualified individual sort the whole mess out.

Edited March 6, 2016 by gkathellar

[Luckmann]

[...]

 

Thirdly, and I want to stress this, any judgment of Nonton and whatsherface ultimately depends on whether the Watcher believes anything they say, and on whether the Watcher believes themselves capable of making that judgment. Sure, the two claim that Parley was a bad dude and that they needed to kill him to escape his bad dude behavior, but we actually see zero evidence for this claim. In the language of PoE, a Benevolent Watcher is charitable not just for letting the two go, but also for believing them. In the language of alignment, either a Lawful or a Chaotic character might see this as an understandable reason for skepticism, and feel that it's better to let a magistrate or other qualified individual sort the whole mess out.

The fact that most modern games have conditioned gamers to take twists or claims by certain characters at face value is actually something that really, really bothers me.

 

I would've given a lot to actually be lied to convincingly, or have "good" decisions come back to haunt me because I was gullible. But it's practically never the case.

 

I agree with you 100%, but in reality, we all "know" that we weren't lied to, and that their claims are true, and that they end up as hard-working people in an inn in Defiance Bay. And that gets to me. It's the same with Raedric, although there being completely rational arguments that could be made, is clearly made out to be the bad guy, and there's no real effort expended in trying to rationalize his behaviour beyond "Like. Berath.". And probably countless other offenders, spanning entire genres of gaming.

 

I want to go "But I truuuusted yooou! D:" at least once.

[Masterteo89]

Raedric was a strange case.

 

I killed him, but only because his metods were efficient but too much bloody and cruel.

 

I mean, he was a good king ( good king doesn't mean good man, here) and he knew what had to be done and how to do it.

 

But in the end i killed him. It does not matter how much good or wise you are, there is almost always a different solution for each kind of situation. Raedric solution was iron will and bloodshed.

 

So i killed what i thought was a good and efficent king but a very bad human being.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Masterteo89

[Rosveen]

How exactly were Raedric's methods efficient? How did they improve the situation?

[gkathellar]

How exactly were Raedric's methods efficient? How did they improve the situation?

inorite

 

Nothing he was doing had any effect, nor did he have any reason to believe it would. That borders on the definition of a witch hunt.

[Caribou]

 

How exactly were Raedric's methods efficient? How did they improve the situation?

inorite

 

Nothing he was doing had any effect, nor did he have any reason to believe it would. That borders on the definition of a witch hunt.

 

 

This is exactly the sort of thing a dirty animancer would say...

[gkathellar]

 

 

How exactly were Raedric's methods efficient? How did they improve the situation?

inorite

 

Nothing he was doing had any effect, nor did he have any reason to believe it would. That borders on the definition of a witch hunt.

 

 

This is exactly the sort of thing a dirty animancer would say...

 

Hey! I may be dirty, but I'm no animancer.

[MaxQuest]

@gkathellar, thanks for the reply. I enjoy getting an interesting view from a different angle.

 

Firstly, D&D's Law vs. Chaos is (at least on the mortal scale) about behavioral consistency and internal rules, not about obedience to external social strictures.

This indeed explains why you do dispute my previous post. As we seem to use different definitions as starting points.

You use the D&D context. While I was reffering exclusively to the linked article, borrowing definions from it and it's forking links. (For Happiness, CG, NG, LG)

 

--------------

 

I must confess, that there are moments in your reply which I strugle to comprehend. Although it might, or even is likely to, be due to my lack of language knowledge. The thing is, I cannot really comment on them, unless you elaborate further. For example:

 

set of rules and procedures, which likewise uphold good; what's crucial is not any particular strictures so much as it is the clear, embodied nature of those strictures.

Common... this should be complemented with a headache painkiller

 

What you're presenting with the happiness thing is a sort of consequentialist-deontological set of motives as driving LG characters.

As I see it: there are two main approaches to judging an action. One is judging based on what consequences it has, hence Consequentialism. And another one is judging it based on it's adherence to a rule or set of rules; i.e. Deontology. The problem is I can't understand what does "consequentialist-deontological set of motives" mean. And also, hmm, why did you write "LG characters". 

What I was trying to present, was that trope into a more briefly association chain: Bob - for happiness - utilitarianist - chaotic good. 

 

--------------

 

Perhaps instead of using LG vs CG Bob pair, I should mark them down as deontological vs utilitarian?

As for LG vs CG alignments themselves, I will write down a set of points, which are in accordance to my current view/understanding, for you to dispute/agree on:

- Law - is related to the aforementioned external strictures/prescriptions. It is heavily interwined with the principle of Justice/Rightneousness. And unless corrupted/twisted/or missthought, seeking for "people to be treated justly, be it justly rewarded for their services or justly punished for their ill deeds".

- Order - is related to behaviour consistency, that results from mass obidience to the above laws/restrictions.

- Chaos - opposes Order. It denies it's rigid strictures. It looks for freedom and change.

 

I never felt that Order vs Chaos, is the same as life vs death (or "the infinite possibility of nonexistence" how do you call it). 

When thinking of a chaotic person, I can hardly imagine a guy plotting to bring an end to everyone. 

I might be wrong, but I think neither anarchy, nor nihilism are in the kernel of a chaotic character. But rather freedom and wild spirit. Which for a Chaotic Good one, would translate into:

- Freedom in doing good:  intuitive caring about other people's feelings and needs without having to calcify it into specific rules. It's not that the laws are always bad. They just believe that their own consciences are their best guides, and that tying themselves to any given code of conduct would be limiting their own ability to do good. 

- and Goodwill: it's not that they feel pressed/obligated to do good (be it by some rules or regime), it just happens that they want to do good. They are driven by internal, rather than external code of morality.

 

Thirdly, and I want to stress this, any judgment of Nonton and whatsherface ultimately depends on whether the Watcher believes anything they say, and on whether the Watcher believes themselves capable of making that judgment

You have a point here. Yet, I didn't even consider them lying to my highly perceptive cipher, reader of people minds and souls. If there would be any hitch in that conversation, it would be another story. But the dialog was short, and none were found.

 

and feel that it's better to let a magistrate or other qualified individual sort the whole mess out.

It might sound bold, but looking at that hanging tree, and the way they prefer to deal with problems in Gilded Vale, I had a feeling that there were only two qualified individuals for that sort of job. My MC and Eder (who could actually say something about his co-settlers).

 

Hey! I may be dirty, but I'm no animancer.

Hey! That's exactly what an animancer would say.

Edited March 8, 2016 by MaxQuest

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

The dispositions are not some sort of moral compass, exactly, and more how other people will value what you do or say. Here it is benevolent because you show comapssion to these people. Yes, they've done something bad, even if it may have been justified, but your action towards them is a benevolent one. 

 

I don't know. It seems to me that " benevolent " here means being a hypocrite.

 

I mean, you show compassion by breaking the law, letting those murderers free. No way.

 

Who are you to judge who deserve mercy ?

 

 

 

Who are you to judge who doesn't?

 

  

 

Yes, you are benevolent because you forgive the murderer. But what about the one that got killed ? His killer got away without paying for his crime. So, you are surely not benevolent to the victim.

 

-----------------------------------

 

So, what's better ?

 

Put the killer to jail --> justice served for both killer and victim

 

or

 

Let the killer go away --> mercy for the killer while the victim is forced to suffer, because the one that killed him got away ?

 

 

 

Why would the killer need to pay for his crime in this case?

 

The laws exist for a reason. You lock people up because you want a stable society - punishment acts as a deterrent, and by locking people up, you protect others who would be harmed by them. In other words, you don't jail people because some abstract concept of justice demands their punishment, you jail people to reduce future crime. Now, in this particular case, since - aside from the three of you - nobody knows about the crime, general respect for the law won't be eroded by their example (which means the deterrent effect will continue to function), and since there's no indication they wish to commit any other crimes in the future, you don't need to jail them to protect society.

 

More importantly, what's the alternative? You hang them? Congratulations, now you have three times the corpses you started out with, and you gained nothing aside from a warm fuzzy feeling in your stomach telling you that you did the right thing. You lock them up? Now you've actively reduced productivity in your community by turning two people who could meaningfully contribute into mouths to feed, again, for the warm fuzzies. You've fallen victim to the sunk costs fallacy.

 

 

Also, the idea of a dead person "continuing to suffer because their killer got away" is patently absurd. They're dead. They're not going to suffer, because even if their soul doesn't fragment into tiny pieces (which, as far as I understand, happens to most), they're overwhelmingly likely to remember nothing about their past life upon reincarnating.

 

 

 

Well, in both real life and games i'm lawful good. If we can say that.

 

 

 

...Well I consider myself to be True Neutral in D&D alignment terms and I still come down strongly in favor of showing compassion in this particular case, so I'm not sure we can say that.

[illathid]

 

I would've given a lot to actually be lied to convincingly, or have "good" decisions come back to haunt me because I was gullible. But it's practically never the case.

 

 

I think killing Raedric in favor of Kolsc is a pretty good example of a "good" decision coming back to haunt you. I mean, arguably the best outcome for Gilded Vale is siding with Raedric to kill Kolsc.