Lads, can Good characters leave a prisoner with the only Evil party member, knowing with 99% certainty that he will torture him for information, or will it be going against their alignment?
And yes, my group's playing 5e so alignments are a necessary evil.
I'm pretty sure that's against their alignment.
>can Good characters leave a prisoner with the only Evil party member, knowing with 99% certainty that he will torture him
No.
>going against their alignment
Fuck off.
Why would you not ban evil alignments entirely? Mixing alignments is just asking for trouble, and evil parties are nearly as bad.
Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. Answer this question: is your character the sort of person who has no problem with allowing a prisoner to be tortured for information?
The easiest route would be for you to make a character that would actually fit in with the rest of the party.
>can they
Yep
>will it hurt their alignment
Not unless they make it a habit.
The finesse of being sole Evil in the party of Goods is never letting them know how ruthless you can be about getting things done.
Well, that and the Angelskin undergarments.
And if "Evil" character never does evil things because his party members are all good (or neutral) and don't let him do it and he never forces the issue, is he still evil? Even if he personally doesn't mind torturing and executing prisoners?
Depends on ingame understanding of good and evil sides of alignment and characters perception of each other.
Sir goody two shoes and mister McEDGY the Eyesocketraper are both shitty archetypes for people without any creativity and "ironic" roleplayers.
But if good alignment guy refuse to watch or participate in torture which may give party clues how to save city from demon cult or something similar he is just a moral coward who only stand for something when it is comfortable for him. And it gets even worse if said good guy turns a blind eye on torture because it will "stain" him.
Yeah, temporarily
he might still be holding a grudge, or be just trying to exploit his party
Like this beautiful motherfucker
The thing is, I'm the "evil" character and I'm trying to figure out if I picked the right alignment for my character. I took LE, with lawful being his loyalty to the party and evil being his willingness to do pretty much anything to get the job done (or get more money). So in a hypothetical situation I used in the OP he would advocate torture but if the rest of the party objected he would be just "fine, suit yourself".
You sound like the standard CN/NE idiot
LE is like, "technically i didn't do anything wrong" or malicious rule-lawyers, social climbers...
LN is the pedantic fag who holds on to dogma to fulfill his pathetic life, also the "deus vult" kind of paladin who smites all willy nilly
Also the point of posting greed is because all the evil character i've ever played ended up reedeeming themselves
(Even in evil parties)
I'd say it depends on the circumstances.
>"I'm going to take a whizz, can you watch him for a sec?"
No.
>"So there's some kind of magic-bomb about to go off under the most densely populated city in the world and this guy is the only one who knows how to locate and stop it. Mind watching him while I... 'take a whizz'?"
Yes.
That depends if the prisoner is an evil being or not.
>Not letting characters have their own ambitions and goals, even if they are less than ideal
Is the prisoner Evil?
Only if she's hot.
Torture never produces reliable information, and as good people they would know that, rendering the question moot.
Esdeath a slut.
Justice best girl!
Being good does not somehow magically make you knowledgeable on that kind of shit. Or any kind of shit, for that matter.
And sometimes it's the only option.
But they're not good people, they're Good people.