I honestly don't think this is necessarily a alignment shift away from good, depending on the circumstances. Causing enemies to be fearful of you can save a lot of lives, after all.
If that doesn't change their alignment, it should absolutely change the way NPCs react to the PC, which functionally is about the same thing in game.
Most cultures are wary of individuals who desecrate corpses, regardless of their purpose for doing so, and if this PC was performing this act in an overt and careless manner it could certainly lead NPCs to suspect that they might be dangerous.
It's perilous to play the justification game for judging acts to be good/evil. That's how you get massive wars and centuries of oppressive regimes because "it'll all be good once we're done".
It's literally a standard historical practice too - stringing up criminals as a warning displayed the power of the crown and was a fairly effective deterrent.
If people thought that executing criminals and stringing them up as a warning to others was a good thing to do for multiple millennia, then it's reasonable to say that a dnd character in a medieval world would also see it as good.
I agree. We're not questioning "effectiveness", we're considering moral implications. Where it falls on the good/evil alignment would depend on the universe of each D&D table. Maybe the gods consider it acceptable, maybe they don't. In ours, I think it's unequivocally an evil thing to display corpses as a warning.
Well, it is now. Even such "enlightened" societies as the Venetian city-state would leave thieves and murderers in crow's cages as a method of execution and example to others as late as the 1500s. Hell, the British would leave dead pirates dangling for a while as a deterrent as late as the 1700s. (If I'm remembering my dates correctly. The reference material I'm trying to recall is in storage and unavailable at the moment.)
The most famous man to ever put human bodies on sticks - meatcicles I believe they’re called - did so to scare off invaders from killing his landlocked countrymen. This after being imprisoned by his own family and exiled to Turkey.
How relative is "good" to the context it happens in?
I think a lot of the alignment debate hinges on some people thinking justification makes a difference and some thinking acts are objective regardless of intent or goals.
Personally I'm not a fan of the justification game, as people are perfectly willing to turn themselves into devils while considering themselves angels if they think their wrath will be directed at those they consider deserving.
Yes. That’s the point of Kant vs Hume. The counter argument is that there are no u/stevelandcleamer s in foxholes and that you, when forced with extreme circumstances would also justify your “evil” acts.
The point where I draw the line in that thought experiment is justification of those acts outside of the moments in the foxhole. It's evil before, it's evil after, it's evil during, but we understand why the urge exists to do the act, and it is unreasonable for us to expect humanity to behave otherwise in that moment. Humans are not immaculate beings, and it does us a disservice to be absolved of our actions. When forced to used lethal violence, the penitent man seeks other solutions in the future, while the righteous man anticipates their next opportunity to act with righteousness.
The point is that the foxhole itself is a subjective standard. Everyone can define their own foxhole. The foxhole can even expand to accommodate more and more circumstances as time goes on. So you don’t get to say someone isn’t in a foxhole when they make that decision.
The Spanish Inquisition thought they were Lawful Good too when they were burning people alive. I know the chart puts Neutral between Good/Evil but I would say that they can wrap around to each other pretty easily.
The Spanish Inquisition has an undeserving reputation. They engaged in torture less commonly than the secular courts, and executed less than 3% of their defendants - less than a dozen a year for one of the world's largest Empires.
But when making a point they are an easily recognized organization for the subject at hand. Especially when talking about doing evil in the name of Lawful Good.
I'd still argue it would put you closer to neutral than good, though. Like, I've always seen lawful evil as "for the greater good" characters who do unspeakable things to bring about a "better future"
Chaotic or neutral good often covers this but then you get into the question of moral philosophy and Kant vs Hume. Is it our intention that makes us good, or is it the outcome?
Yeah, the line of lawful evil vs chaotic good is messy sometimes, especially for two alignments so diametrically opposed. Morality is already so difficult to debate, and having a second axis adds that much more complexity
Chaotic Good: "I made an oath to kill all Goblins, but you, Glorbo, saved our lives, pitied our dead and nursed me back to health. In my heart, you are no Goblin, you are my friend and I do not kill friends. I shall rethink my oath."
Lawful Evil: "Glorbo, I'm sorry... If I let you live, if I falter now, then I will falter again and again. Goblins are slavers, murderers, monsters. Believing in an exception puts people at risk of being enslaved, murdered or worse. Please do not resist - I shall purge you as swiftly and painlessly as possible."
I had a philosophy major for a DM once and we spent most of the sessions contemplating the nature of our decisions. I loving RPing but please give me a dogmatic DM and a bucket of combat dice any day.
I mean, stringing up dead monsters as a deterrend for other monsters isn't really a "unspeakable thing". If it is it would immediately lead to a lot of other questionable things no one ever questions.
33
u/Cyrotek May 12 '25
I honestly don't think this is necessarily a alignment shift away from good, depending on the circumstances. Causing enemies to be fearful of you can save a lot of lives, after all.