Another Lawful Good Quandry

Simplifying here because campaign details are yawn-inducing. I am DMing a 1st edition AD&D game with some friends. One friend is playing a neutral druid and the other is playing a lawful good ranger. If they make it that far, they will at some point need an artifact that is in the possession of an evil shadow-witch.

How did she get it? No idea.

Why do they need it? To cast a special spell that will save their forest from the bad thing© that happened to it.

Now, she will not have done anything evil that they know of, or in their presence. They won’t even know her reputation. She is just some ugly creature with a hut in the swamps, who possesses the artifact that they need.

What would be the proper way to handle it within the lawful good perspective? Politley ask the witch to loan it to them? What then, when she tells them no?

If the lawful good ranger goes in there, and kills her or scares her off and then takes the artifact, how would you handle it? Just shrug it off and say, alignments aren’t set in stone? Or rationalize it- that he did it for the greater good?

He is not a paladin, so he will not fall from grace. He does not have a lawful good deity to answer to. In the first edition rules, if you have a change of alignment after 3rd level, then you lose a level. But I do not think that one breach is enough to shift your alignment.

Yes, I know, many people don’t even bother with alignments. Too late for that.

So how would you handle it?

Yep. But of course they should try to discuss it first.

I haven’t played D&D for years, but it seems reasonable for the witch to flat out refuse (“I don’t lend my tools.”) If there are discussions, she might point out that loans typically involve interest and collateral, just as services typically involve payment.

“But please, tell me about this big bad.”

How will they find out that she has it, without finding out anything about her reputation?

Lawful good means following the strictures of a society or institution. Your lawful good ranger’s perspective should be informed by whatever external code he follows.

Characters who do whatever they want and rationalize it because it’s the “greater good” aren’t lawful.

@Chronos The Great Frog tells them to seek her out in the swamps but does not call her the “Evil Shadow Witch.” or elaborates on her reputation. =p

A YouTuber, Amanda with Misfit Adventures, runs DnD games and she mentions what a pain in the arse Paladins can be. While your person is a Ranger it is the lawful good thing which can muck things up. Amanda said she sees players use being lawful good to excuse being “lawful stupid.” Which is to say, being lawful good is not a complete straight-jacket obligating them to kill anything or behave badly or stupidly. For instance, if a greater good is served by letting the witch live that is not necessarily a violation of their oath (maybe they do a small quest later for penance like clear a local graveyard of skeletons or donate to the local temple or whatever).

While the discussion is not exactly on point for you I think you might find it interesting and it may give you some ideas. I queued it up to a little ahead so you have context. You can see it here.

If the swamps are situated on the land of some ruler, maybe the ranger can get the ruler to legally force the witch to lend the macguffin.

As @hogarth points out, it may be easier to satisfy (depending on the setting) the “lawful” portion than the good portion. If the swamp is the fief of an individual, the direct superior may have that ability. If it’s not a personal fief, but part of a kingdom, an extra step but the same.

If it’s independent, then they’re stuck asking nicely, and then accepting a sub-quest for whatever said witch wants MORE than the macguffin.

Of course, it also depends on the campaign level - if it’s lowish, getting cooperation of the authorities is going to be a whole lot harder!

As for Good… my personal feeling is that most of the fiction that AD&D is based on always favors a “greater good” philosophy. After all, from Tolkein on down, theft from people that are EVIL is at worst just bad form. Theft from good (or unknown) people in service of the greater good is almost always excuseable, especially if you make an effort at good faith restitution. In that sense (and since it’s NOT a pally) the Ranger is likely safe on that front as long as the consequences of failing to get the artifact are dire enough.

Now no one has mentioned the classic fix to the problem - if the witch isn’t cooperative, and the druid is convinced that the greater balance is served by getting the macguffin sooner (or the bargain the witch offers will create a greater evil) the druid takes unilateral action (theft or worse) while the ranger is otherwise occupied. But that tends to make for a bad game of note passing, hard feelings, and depending on the witches power compared to the players, one or more in-party deaths.

IMHO though, any game with only two players, and of that diverse an alignment (if they roleplay it well) are always going to be difficult. You lack an “impartial” third to arbitrate, and a truly neutral druid is just as bad in some campaigns as the LG/CE extremes.

I have never had any issues with Lawful. IMHO the worst alignment to deal with is CN, or “that’s just what my character would do”.

We even had an AD&D game with all paladins- sorta.

To be fair, the person I quoted above said (paraphrasing) that in her experience Paladins are either really great or a pain to deal with. Depends on the people playing them. If you like Paladins…go for it.

ETA: In the video link I gave in my earlier post, if you start at the beginning of the whole video, they describe an “edgelord Rogue” causing big problems in the group (they are reading problems posted to Reddit…not something they dealt with). While I do not think they specify alignment that sounds CN or CE to me.

Heh, when I run AD&D games, I ban chaotic evil/neutral players. And, IMHO, an accurately or thoughfully played Lawful Evil character is far easier to deal with than a chaotic good one. And the 1st Edition Stronghold / Hireling chart agrees with me!

At the very least, I’d make sure the crone was willing to bargain with the PCs for the McGuffin. Nothing really interesting happens if the crone just flat out refuses to engage the PCs. So think of something she wants and the PCs can work for it. As a DM, I avoided making things overly difficult for Lawful Good characters to be Lawful Good. That isn’t to say you can’t have them make hard choices, but give them some option besides betraying their alignment and stealing from someone.

In 1st Ed? Instant alignment change (I’d do it to chaotic evil, but any non-good, chaotic-ish alignment would do), with all that that entails - for 1st ed, I believe that means:

Any change to non-good alignment immediately strips the ranger of all benefits, and the character becomes a fighter, with eight-sided Hit Dice ever after. He can never again regain ranger status.

1st Ed. AD&D? Naah. Check Pg 24 of the PHB (as quoted above).

Now, if the ranger was legally empowered in some way to claim the artifact, that would let him off the hook for taking it. But your scenario didn’t include that.

I think the “evil shadow witch,” “ugly creature with a hut” part is a little confusing, for the scenario. For the purposes of discussion, can we instead say that it’s an artifact held by a gentle gnomish shopkeeper with a tidy little store on the edge of town? And that the shopkeeper refused to part with the artifact because it was her only connection with her family?

If that were the case, what would be the proper way to handle it?

I think the answers in the two scenarios should be the same.

As DM, be sure you’re not putting the PCs in an unwinnable situation, unless everyone’s agreed ahead of time that that’s fun. Here are some possibilities:

  • The artifact owner has a big ask in return (i.e., a side quest).
  • The artifact is for sale.
  • During the negotiations, the artifact-owner is attacked, and if the PCs help fend off the attackers, the owner changes her tune.
  • The owner refuses to part with the item, but gives them a lead on another way to solve the quest.

I’m currently rereading The Black Cauldron, and almost this exact scenario appears in the book (with the proviso that the ugly shadow witch is actually three witches, and they’re way more powerful than the PCs). In the book, the problem is solved when each of the PCs offers their most valuable possession in trade for the artifact; the witches eventually accept one of them.

If you’re worried the PCs might go murder-hobo, consider using the Black Cauldron’s technique of having the witch be obviously and terrifyingly powerful.

I think so, too.

  • The artifact owner - persuaded of the need to save what might also threaten her home, assuming the swamp-hut is close to or even in the forest - accompanies them on the rest of the quest herself to babysit her artifact. And does so without doing anything noticeably evil. Maybe even befriends the party.

After the adventure, the PCs are now the known associates of an evil entity - the further adventures almost write themselves. Rival witches looking to weaken their competition by taking out her friends, a paladin looking to cleanse the swamp of all evil (and evil’s friends), the witch wanting to reform after experiencing being a “good guy” for once and needing her friends’ help…

I can picture the evil witch offering a bargain such as “I will trade it to you in exchange for the dangerous-to-get-thing.” Then, due to her being Evil, laughing at them when they return with it. Would that be cause enough to attack her and take her artifact for a lawful good PC?

By the way, there is no local government or organization that the ranger is a part of, or governing the area. Along with the druid, he is one of the last of the wood elves. They are just following how they were raised, long ago. Sorry that I did not include that info in my OP.

The one wrinkle is if the witch is genuinely evil, not just an ugly old lady.

Would that be enough to murder the friendly little gnome in the tidy shop on the edge of town? Use that as your compass.

If you want her to be evil, have her be boiling up a pot full o’ babies, or a basement stocked with the tormented souls of her victims, screaming in eternal agony, or have her light a couple of candles when the PCs enter the room, except the candles contain an inhaled poison that knocks the PCs out (or just gives them big penalties on rolls), so that she can kill them and feed them to her carnivorous garden, or something.

Make her the stuff of nightmares, not someone who cheats at business.

But I’m guessing the PCs have plenty of critters to murder and loot, and I think the scenario might be more interesting if it’s a problem they don’t solve through violence.

Ooh–another idea, that would require a careful touch, but could be fun:

Make the witch a rules lawyer.

She’s noticed the paladin’s holy symbol before she sends them off on the quest. When they return, she laughs and cheats them, as you suggest; but then she smirkingly explains the law to them. As a follower of Tyr or whoever, the paladin will lose his powers if he breaks the law, she says; and in the case of a business dispute such as this one, the law determines that the case must be brought to the itinerant judiciary who makes his rounds through the swamp twice a year.

Have her be really fucking annoying in her knowledge of the law and her willingness to use the law to cheat the paladin. Make it very clear to them that the paladin risks everything by breaking the law (and, she can explain, if he has any reason to think that his companions intend to break the law, he’s similarly obliged to prevent them, through violence if necessary). Explain that if they steal the item, they’re breaking the law.

And then be really generous with whatever scheme they come up with to solve the problem, whether it’s through getting deputized as a judge, or teleporting the judge to the scene, or whatever.

Over the years as a GM, I’ve come to think of alignments as the “religion” the character was raised in, but eventually gets tired of living with. Just like some Christians who break the law and violate commandments, the PC will find some way of justifying their actions. If their “religion” (fellow LGs) catch wind of their misdeeds, then they might hold judgment. If word gets out that the LG ranger met with a swamp witch, that would raise some eyebrows of other LGs. If the ranger were to go to his temple and request a resurrection spell later, the high priest may say “First, what’s this about you consorting with a swamp witch?” They’d be concerned about their reputation and the so-called appearance of impropriety.

There’s also ramifications of the ranger decides to kill the swamp witch. Maybe she has family who decide to seek revenge and ambush the party later. Maybe killing her undoes some kind of pact she had with demons/devils and they’re now free to wreak havoc. Don’t make it a matter of redefining their alignment. Make the fallout external, not internal.

In the last Pathfinder campaign I ran before COVID shut down my RPG hobby for good, I ran a campaign based on the Crotalorn Empire from Brain McNaughton’s “The Throne of Bones.” In a nutshell, the Empire is on its last days, and it entails two warring clans, the Vendrens and the Fands. The Vendrens can be described as evil, as they’re usually backstabbing, selfish, paranoid, entitled, and likely to delve into the dark arts. The Fands aren’t much better. They believe themselves to be descended from dragons, so they’re conceited bullies who have little imagination and see everything in terms of black and white.

The main PC was Pharcos, a paladin who was contacted by another PC who works for the Vendrens, but secretly despises them and wants to poison them from within. Turns out Pharcos is actually a Vendren, and they want him back to present a more solid united front against their enemies, the Fands. So, you have a character who’s ostensibly LG, whose mostly LE family wants in their good graces. Pharcos is a worshipper of the Sun god, who the Vendrens pretend to worship, but have secretly replaced the priests of that religion with sorcerers who can fake cleric spells. So, there’s a reason why a LG character would want to return, to undo all the damage his family is responsible for.

Thing is, the player let the fact that he’s now a noble get to his head (which I knew he would, because the guy playing Pharcos was that kind of personality), so he started acting like he was the Second Coming, and considered anybody who got in his way evil. That usually happened to be ordinary citizens who didn’t WANT the empire to return to power. Pharcos got angry at a peasant who dared insult him, and one whole session became a kangaroo court where he judged the peasant in front of a crowd of citizens and executed him by beheading.

Yes, I realize that’s cause for the Sun god to come parting the clouds with thunder and lightening and punishing Pharcos on the spot. That’s probably what I would have done in the old days. But I decided to not to go that route. The gods didn’t do anything to prevent the Crotalorn Empire from crumbling, so I decided they wouldn’t intervene because they lacked the desire or ability to do so, much as when the Romans eventually tired of their gods. So, I had Pharcos later get visions of Sleethreethra, goddess of evil, carrying around the peasant’s head and snogging it. His healing spells became temporary until he properly “atoned” himself. Killing the boss of the next adventure fits the bill.

So naturally, the Vendrens get wind of this and he becomes their Donald Trump. They approve of his actions, while the “good” people consider Pharcos evil. PCs on the whole don’t really care about politics and just want to kill monsters and get treasure, and were getting weary of having to act as Pharcos’s damage control. It led to a lot of funny and awkward situations at least.

Just saying, you don’t have to resort to divine intervention or split hairs on the proper ways to act LG. There’s lots of entertaining stories about characters having to fix the messes they made, and this could turn into such an event.