Silver Sword Moral Quandry (Spoilers)
bjorne
Member Posts: 32
So I've just gotten back from the underdark and am now aware that the silver sword part I have has been stolen. I avoided contact with the Githyanki in the underdark after the mindflayers, and just got to Waukeen's Promenade where I was confronted by the Githyanki. (This is my first time this far into the game, as I re-rolled after getting to the underdark, replayed 1, and then restarted 2.) I had to go to work, so I left this for another time...
My quandry is that I'm playing a LG Monk who usually takes the most lawful good path (or at least tries to). On the one hand, the silver sword has been stolen from the Githyanki. On the other hand, it is a powerful item, and if I turn it over I will be handing it to a race of evil beings who simply attacked me without question and even quasi-betrayed me in the mindflayer's layer. I don't actually need the sword, since I don't have any two handed users (I set Keldorn free and chose Mazzy over Minsc).
Anyone want to weigh in?
My quandry is that I'm playing a LG Monk who usually takes the most lawful good path (or at least tries to). On the one hand, the silver sword has been stolen from the Githyanki. On the other hand, it is a powerful item, and if I turn it over I will be handing it to a race of evil beings who simply attacked me without question and even quasi-betrayed me in the mindflayer's layer. I don't actually need the sword, since I don't have any two handed users (I set Keldorn free and chose Mazzy over Minsc).
Anyone want to weigh in?
0
Comments
As a Lawful Good character, you have to honor both the moral and ethical high-grounds. The sword was not stolen by you, and therefore keeping it does not violate your ethical code; handing it over to a band of githyanki would be granting a powerful weapon to a known enemy, however, which would violate your moral imperative.
The Lawful Good solution would be to fight the githyanki, slay them, and then (if you're truly embracing the Lawful Good alignment) "destroy" the weapon itself to keep it out of evil hands, either by dropping it on the ground, or by carrying it to Throne of Bhaal in the hopes of finding a way to destroy it utterly.
The PC has plenty of reason to be negatively biased against the githyanki through experience as well. First, they're willing to murder an entire ship of men because they feel they were 'insulted' by having the sword hidden from them, then they abandon you in an illithid city, then, when you meet Simyaz again, he will attack you just because you might have the sword on you. In fact, I think if his reaction to you is hostile (due to low charisma) he will still attack you even after giving him the sword because his pride has been tarnished or whatever. I think I'd be unwilling to cooperate with any more of his kind in the future, regardless of my moral standards.
If you have the sword you helped a thief steal from another thief -- what did your monk do in the underwater city? One time my NG character decided to help the rebel prince thinking it would be best to not to disrupt the balance of power between drow and the shark men. Another time a CG elven character decided to help the mad prince in the hopes that the shark men would stay so weak that they couldn't threaten the aquatic elves.
This is an issue of good vs nice in part. Good has too much interest in 'greater good' to help evil by giving them such a tool imho, but it would be totally in character for LN. LE evil might too, unless they need it... because they can argue that they personally got the blade legitimately, thus it is their property. I could see some LN seeing it that way too, and keeping it.
That said, some utter bumpkin (low int, wis and cha) LG might be willing to return the blade.
Aside, Kruin is awesomeness. Fully and completely awesomeness.
On the lawful side, things are a bit murkier because of the vagaries of property. There's a saying in the legal profession: "You can't get good title from a thief." You can't claim rightful ownership of a stolen sword simply because you didn't steal it yourself. This would probably only be a concern for a very lawful character, though, considering the usual convention of "I killed you, I get to keep your stuff" that holds in D&D.
It's great fodder for role playing. Which is the good path? Endanger innocents to keep the blade, with the possibility of inspiring more such attacks in the future? Or give the blade up, with the knowledge that other innocents might die at some future point when the blade is reforged? I guess it all depends on the danger value you assign to the blade. Yes, it can decapitate, but even mundane swords are quite effective at killing people. Should a Lawful Good character destroy every surplus weapon they find because if they sell them an evil person might later buy one and use it to kill someone? or only sell to goodly shop keepers who use detect alignment and extensive background checks before any weapon sale? I wonder what the moral quandry would feel like if the silver sword were instead a mundane non-magical dagger. It's the same situation, really. Because of the nature of the D&D combat rules people attribute a lot of power to what is essentially just a very sharp sword.
I guess what makes it a fun question is that there really isn't a right answer to the dilemma.
Lawful Evil wouldn't hesitate to keep the blade under this pretext, assuming they can use it. They see the law as a tool or weapon, not a personal guide imho.
I could buy the argument of surrendering it to avoid a deadly battle in town; but otherwise I think its best to not surrender it. If the Gith consider that a killing offense, they're sort of asking for the consequences.
It's bit like wondering around in armor with unholy symbols of Bhaal on it -- the armor protects you while defend the innocent but at the same time you are promoting an evil religion.
My NG and CG good characters have given it back to prevent civilians from being killed by fireballs and never gave the issue of ownership any consideration.
Neutral Good could also give it over to preserve the balance of power -- the Gith spend most of their time fighting the mind flayers. I think LE and LN pcs should give it back because a vorpal silver sword can only belong to a Gith. LE could also decide that possession is 9 /10th of the law and that it belongs to them by right of conquest. NE and CE pcs should keep it because it benefits them and they are strong enough to beat the Gith.