The group in my game came upon a ransacked town with no survivors. While the rest of the group set about figuring out what happened, the Monk in the group entered the first store and began gathering goods.
Me: That's a chaotic act.
Monk: Everyone in town is dead; I'm not stealing.
Me: No, you're looting. Anyway, just because everyone in town is dead doesn't mean these things have no owner - it's now property of the Kingdom itself and officials will need to come take inventory (among other things) when they find out what happened. So you're being chaotic.
Monk: It's not chaotic, I'm following my moral code: this is for the good of our guild.
Me: You're in a general store in a small mining town. Nothing in here is of value to your guild.
Monk: There isn't rope, lanterns and oil?
Keep in mind that the group is level 11. So I'm here to fish for opinions. I didn't have a problem with the town being looted - I expected it. My problem was that it was the Monk doing it. Looting is completely chaotic in this instance, right? Can a Monk commit a black-and-white, textbook chaotic act, and justify it with his moral code? Especially if that moral code is apparently helping the APL 11 group's guild hall with some rope, lanterns and oil?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does it break the game? Are you still having fun?
Personally, I don't really think that its that chaotic.
It's better to take it for use by your own organization rather than leave it for bandits or thugs who may not be organized at all regardless of any 'law' that may state that ownership falls to the kingdom (which might be considered even by Abadar, a law few should follow, since it would mean anything not tied down is the kingdom's, even the weapon you just took off the bandit...)
I'd say I do not consider it a textbook Chaotic act and could asily be considered Lawful in the right circumstances. Now the good/evil axis, I'd stick it under Neutral. Good might actually take it to give to the proper owner or offer to the needy.
EDIT: I think one key aspect is that he's doing it for the guild (an organization) and not for himself.
Monks don't have to never do a chaotic act.
They just have to be lawful aligned.
People seem to think that one act changes your alignment.
It doesn't, and never will.
I kicked this dog! I'm evil now, even though i just walked into a homeless shelter and helped give out food.
Did he write his moral code before campaign start? Did you as a gm approve of it?
Hopefully you can answer yesto those 2questions...
Any situation not covered directly by the code (like this1) follow the following:
Gamebreaking? = falling.
Not Gamebreaking? = ok this time... Not next time...
He did not right his moral code down. This was actually the first time he even referred to having one.
Icehawk: I understand that Monks are allowed wiggle room with their actions (though if the dog deserved it...). I suppose it seemed very petty to me that he would make the effort of just grabbing rope and stuff when the group could buy a billion feet of it because they're level 11. extra rope and lanterns isn't going to help the guild any more than if they were made of gold. It was like he was just taking them to take them.I do suppose that it's a good point of taking them so robbers don't. I hadn't thought of that, though neither had the Monk.
|
Monks don't HAVE a code. They are required to maintain a lawful alignment in order to gain class levels, that's it. If they become non-lawful, they loose nothing, can continue to use all monk abilities, they simply cannot take more levels in Monk. That's not even counting the fact that Martial Artists exist, or Aasimar who are able to be non-lawful.
Taking the stuff or leaving it or burning the remaining buildings to the ground would have no effect on Monk abilities. He could go to Limbo, make out with a Slaad, and convert to Chaotic Neutral and not loose any class abilities.
My interpretation of the monks forced lawful alignment was that they are forbidden to use their abilities outside of self defense, defending the weak, etc. In my opinion you can be lawful without paying the actual government any heed at all. He's looting an abandoned store, not burning it down.
Although the "helping the guild" excuse is pretty weak.
|
|
My interpretation of the monks forced lawful alignment was that they are forbidden to use their abilities outside of self defense, defending the weak, etc.
This is completely wrong and not supported by the rules. You are inventing a code where one doesn't exist, and one that is on the good-evil axis instead of law-chaos at that.
The only "code" in the rules for monks is the "Ex-Monks" section of the class.
A monk who becomes nonlawful cannot gain new levels as a monk but retains all monk abilities.
|
Can a Monk commit a black-and-white, textbook chaotic act, and justify it with his moral code?
The answer to your question is "No".
However, as others have implied, you seem to be asking the wrong question!
Looting isn't a black and white textbook chaotic act, a monk doesn't usually have a moral code, and the occasional chaotic act shouldn't cause you to change your alignment.
Did the group barbarian loose his ability to rage when he forgot to take some stuff left behind by others?
If the Monk becomes an ex Monk was definitely never brought up in my OP, so I'm not sure how the conversation has converted to it...I was simply looking to explore the grey area of looting and moral codes vs. alignments.
Sounds like you're really reading into the very general alignments (a wonky game mechanic if there ever was one) with your very specific take on things...it won't end well.
Am I alone on the stance that looting the dead bodies of a group of robbers who just tried to kill you is NOT the same as looting a store in a town of recently slaughtered villagers?
|
|
It's a neutral act that may be chaotic if there are survivors or any remnant of the town. It's looting, yes. If the town is destroyed and the owners dead, it's no different than claiming salvage rights if you find a sinking ship.
Regardless, even if it was a chaotic act, a single chaotic act is not enough to change your alignment. Even if it did, there would be no mechanical penalties for doing so. There is no code required by being lawful or being a monk.
@ imbaticus
Whoa, settle down there, pal, I was just voicing my opinion. No need to tell me how to make-believe or that my understanding of monks is badwrongfun. I guess I was wrong to assume that the monk class is based of off xiaolin monks who used their martial arts for self defense to combat bandits, the oppressive ruling class and their samurai...they're definitely just kung-fu paladins.
Am I alone on the stance that looting the dead bodies of a group of robbers who just tried to kill you is NOT the same as looting a store in a town of recently slaughtered villagers?
It's different, just not so vastly different that it warrants too much concern over.
It would seem to me that the best advice you'll get out of this thread is "talk to the player".
I'm certain you both want to have fun with the game and don't want something like this to become a repeating issue. So hash it out now over a cup of coffee (or a beer an hour before the next session.) Tell him that you don't want to limit his fun, but that you'd like to be in the loop on his character's behavior. I think it's fair, as a GM, to expect to have a general idea of how a lawful character will act in most situations. I also think that as a GM you should expect an empty town to be looted by your party - Sure, maybe the monk shouldn't have been the one to jump on it, but that's more likely the player getting excited about something and just not thinking it through. These things happen - we're human.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference, it's just not one that all Lawful characters have to care about. Everyone in the town is dead - the shopkeeper's kids aren't around to claim the stuff in his store. The stuff in it legally belongs to the kingdom. This is only relevant if the specific lawful character personally agrees with the kingdom's right to own unclaimed property in its borders. A lawful knight of the realm, absolutely. A lawful monk with different loyalties? No obligation.
Just because the goods legally belong to the kingdom doesn't mean it's chaotic to take them. Moreover:
Pathfinder monks are Lawful because they seek perfection and enlightenment, even if they aren't a member of a larger order or temple. They follow a regimen of exercises, meditation, kata (themselves orderly patterns). That doesn't mean they give two ticks about the local sherrif, unless said sherrif tries to interrupt their morning contemplation.
I personally disagree that perfection and enlightenment are necessarily orderly but the intent in PF is for monks to be considered lawful because of structured personal training, not because of adherence to codes of law, tradition, or morality - though some monks may certainly adopt such.
As others have mentioned, lawful doesn't necessarily correlate to following the law of the kingdom.
Imagine a character comes from a place with traditions/laws which are unaccepted, perhaps illegal in his current location. If he adheres to the rules he's been following before rather than the ones appropriate to his current location, is he chaotic? I would say no.
It's easy enough to accept that he believes in right of salvage in this specific case.
|
|
If the Monk becomes an ex Monk was definitely never brought up in my OP, so I'm not sure how the conversation has converted to it...I was simply looking to explore the grey area of looting and moral codes vs. alignments.
Moral codes vs alignments?
I have a moral code because I am Lawful. This particular moral code requires me to do chaotic things, so every time I do chaotic things I am being Lawful and every time I do lawful things I am being Chaotic. Is that what you wanted to explore?
Or was it, if he has sworn a Lawful oath to do the best for his Guild, and a chaotic act would appear to be best for the Guild at this point, is it Lawful to be chaotic?
Or was it, if he has sworn a Lawful oath to do the best for his Guild, and a chaotic act would be of minimal benefit to the Guild at this point, is it ok for the player to delude himself that it is Lawful to be chaotic?
Hmm I'm genuinely surprised that I'm alone on this. I suppose it would have changed the circumstances to closer to how I was looking at it if there were survivors. Thanks for your input everyone!
|
|
@ imbaticus
Whoa, settle down there, pal, I was just voicing my opinion. No need to tell me how to make-believe or that my understanding of monks is badwrongfun. I guess I was wrong to assume that the monk class is based of off xiaolin monks who used their martial arts for self defense to combat bandits, the oppressive ruling class and their samurai...they're definitely just kung-fu paladins.
Manks are not shaolin. They can be role-played that way, but they have no requirement to be. Self imposing a code like that is fine as a player. But a monk can be a drunken brawler, a cold-hearted assassin, a poor peasant hero how makes do with farm tools, or a disciplined traditional monk. The monk class is a set of abilities that can be applied to any ki based skirmisher that fights unarmored while using martial arts.
It's not badwrongfun for you to play that way. But it is wrong for you to force players to play that way when it is not a requirement of the class.
Just tell him to leave a gold coin and be done with it.
If the Monk becomes an ex Monk was definitely never brought up in my OP, so I'm not sure how the conversation has converted to it...I was simply looking to explore the grey area of looting and moral codes vs. alignments.Moral codes vs alignments?
I have a moral code because I am Lawful. This particular moral code requires me to do chaotic things, so every time I do chaotic things I am being Lawful and every time I do lawful things I am being Chaotic. Is that what you wanted to explore?
Or was it, if he has sworn a Lawful oath to do the best for his Guild, and a chaotic act would appear to be best for the Guild at this point, is it Lawful to be chaotic?
Or was it, if he has sworn a Lawful oath to do the best for his Guild, and a chaotic act would be of minimal benefit to the Guild at this point, is it ok for the player to delude himself that it is Lawful to be chaotic?
For the record, I'm aware that having a moral code doesn't make you Lawful. Chaotic, Good, and Evil creatures - and even True Neutral - can follow a personal code that dictates their actions. Having a code that dictates you do Chaotic things makes you chaotic.
I was looking to explore "I have a moral code to do the best for my guild, so I will begin destroying all people, places, and things that may slow down its progress, and steal anything I need to if it means a monetary/strategic/influential gain for it." This is obviously no longer Lawful territory; these are the actions of a Chaotic character. Like everyone seems to agree on: looting a store in a ghost town is not unlawful. So I suppose the direction to explore from here is: where DOES the line begin to become greyed?
@ imbaticus
I wouldn't force anyone to play a certain way, that's...actually my entire point. I was trying to illustrate that lawful alignments can be portrayed in any number of ways. You're difficult.
(Thanks for the Shaolin correction <3)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks don't HAVE a code. They are required to maintain a lawful alignment in order to gain class levels, that's it. If they become non-lawful, they loose nothing, can continue to use all monk abilities, they simply cannot take more levels in Monk. That's not even counting the fact that Martial Artists exist, or Aasimar who are able to be non-lawful.
Taking the stuff or leaving it or burning the remaining buildings to the ground would have no effect on Monk abilities. He could go to Limbo, make out with a Slaad, and convert to Chaotic Neutral and not loose any class abilities.
Monks may not have a set code like paladins...but the fact that they are lawful, and quite often either part of an esoteric order or taught by someone that comes from an esoteric order tends to mean that they take on moral codes anyway (such as you see in the 'monk vows'). And going against a code you vowed to uphold is rather much a chaotic act.
Of course, again, none of that is set. Many monks also come from more martially minded orders, and from a utilitarian stand point I suppose this behavior is alright. It all depends on the likelihood of the materials scavenger being: taken back by nature via rotting/wandering bears (so why let it go to waste?), taken by 'unseemly' sorts (lets ignore that this might include the party at this point) to support their nefarious schemes, and whether there is even a strong regional authority which even could claim the goods.
I guess the problem is that, looting rope at level 11... just seemed so...beneath them that the GM went "Lol wut?". The confusion was likely what colored this as chaotic, and the GM was then put off by this sudden mention of a 'moral code' that had not come up in the past 11 levels...
|
|
From d20pfsrd:
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity — it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
The original aligment system said the Lawfull is a rules-follower, but what rules? In a culture where in the death a people leave the goods for living ones, the monk are not chaotic for take anything from the dead for himself (it is selfish), and if not, I guess Stealing (from dead or heirs) is a more Good-Evil aligned behavior than chaotic.
But one action don't change alignements, as not every person don't act exactly the same way everytime. Listen his arguments and if you still not agree, ask him a counter-part for this woo-boo chaotic behavior (like drop a coin for each thing taken that way, or paying to the Lord for the itens grabbed).
In my case I only dont give him the bonus 200XP for interpretation in the end of game (which I atested, made miracles for people trying to roleplay the character).
The ultimate question is: What would Kwai Chang Caine do?
Taking something you genuinely need from someone who does not need it (or is dead) isn't particularly chaotic. Agreed with lemeres and others that looking for rope and mundane supplies as a level 11 is a bit, well, odd. The Law/Chaos axis can be perceived a number of ways though, including being internally consistent and having your own code rather than externally imposed laws.
If you have issues with the guy then get him to write down his order's purpose and views. If he deviates from it then point it out, but don't necessarily penalise him. The basic monk fluff is more about personal discipline than obeying laws, not stealing or anything else.
To me the fundamental difference between law and chaos is that law is focused on improving/building/creating while chaos is focused on tearing down/destroying.
What they build or destroy is based upon their other viewpoints. A LG character is trying to create systems/societies etc that benefit everyone. A LE character is trying to create systems/societies etc that benefit themselves. A CG character is trying to get rid of systems/societies that are oppressive while a CE character is trying to destroy anything and everything he can for his own pleasure.
In this case, if their is a strong system in place where the looted goods would go to the kingdom or the rightful heirs etc. then looting is probably a little chaotic. If the goods are more likely to be taken by bandits, rot away or something, then taking them and using them would be the more lawful choice. In no event would I see this as a major act that would have a huge effect on alignment.
|
To me the fundamental difference between law and chaos is that law is focused on improving/building/creating while chaos is focused on tearing down/destroying.
That's an unusual take on it. I'm more accustomed to the idea that Law is maintaining the established order while Chaos is seeking to change the status quo.
I personally find the difference to be a question of 'do the ends justify the means?'
Law said no, Chaos says yes.
Some of my view is from way old school...before there was good and evil there was only law and chaos. Probably lifted in concept from the Elric novels, although a few other fantasy stories at the time explored similar themes.
Law and Chaos is not about morality. IT's about ethics.
Morality is good and evil.
Law and chaos merely speaks about method.
My recollection of Elric and other such stories of Law/Chaos was that they were just monikers for Good/Evil rather than separate things.
Not really.
Both the Lords of Chaos and Order will tell you that good and evil is up to the entities that use law and chaos in Moorcock's work.
I think there were few actual agents of evil save Stormbringer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yes I love Elric.
But not sexually. That way lies fates worse than death.
Chaos was fairly evilish, and Law fairly goodish (basic D&D only had 3 alignments.) In the Moorcock stories either, taken to extreme was inimical to humanity, and hence 'evil' but, probably due to entropy, most of the time it was Chaos that was the danger of destroying the world and Law that was protecting.
I have a monk who is a member of a criminal organization. He maintains his lawful alignment by following the guild rules. He really does not care about the rules of society at large. I have never had anyone take issue with his alignment.
Chaos was fairly evilish, and Law fairly goodish (basic D&D only had 3 alignments.) In the Moorcock stories either, taken to extreme was inimical to humanity, and hence 'evil' but, probably due to entropy, most of the time it was Chaos that was the danger of destroying the world and Law that was protecting.
Not necessarily... That is only because you cannot devorce the idea that to obey laws is good and that chaos is all about anarchy.
Law is just as capable of destroying the world as chaos is. For instance, Juggalag from Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion expansion pack The Shivering Iles. Juggalag is pretty muc LN to an extreme. Everything was bleek, grey, and featureless. Most the servants were pretty much nothing more than drones. THAT is extreme law.
At the same time, the couragous rebel fighting to overthrow a tyrannt is VERY much chaotic, but still very much considered good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Beats head against desk repeatedly*
And people always ask me "Why do you hate alignment based game mechanics so much?"
BECAUSE OF THREADS LIKE THIS.
Not necessarily... That is only because you cannot devorce the idea that to obey laws is good and that chaos is all about anarchy.
Law is just as capable of destroying the world as chaos is. For instance, Juggalag from Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion expansion pack The Shivering Isles. Jyggalag is pretty muc LN to an extreme. Everything was bleak, grey, and featureless. Most the servants were pretty much nothing more than drones. THAT is extreme law.
At the same time, the couragous rebel fighting to overthrow a tyrannt is VERY much chaotic, but still very much considered good.
An interesting example where Chaos was shown to be a sustainable, if very odd world, but Law was essentially utter destruction of everything that was built.
The reason why alignment-based mechanics draw so much hate is because there is only one method of keeping track of them: GM FIAT. Something which, in the wrong hands, makes it insufferable to play as a class whom has alignment mechanics.
Basically, those who rely on alignment-based mechanics are at the mercy of the GM, and most GMs either assume you already know the responsibilities being set by choosing the class (which isn't elaborated upon), are anal about upholding your responsibilities, or quite frankly just want to play "Gotcha" games with you.
That isn't to say that alignment-mechanic PCs don't try and pull the wool over a GM's eyes when he can so as to skate by playing both sides of the fence; there are players that do that, and it's because of those few players that we come across that causes GMs to play these kinds of games. Those goobers should go to the elevator downstairs.
But 9 times out of 10, it boils down to a GM not condoning what a PC did when it wasn't already previously discussed what the GM's expectations of the player(s) are, or enforcing a "zero-tolerance behavior" rule on just that PC because he has alignment-based mechanics, or just want to make the player weaker by throwing "Gotcha" scenarios at him after his "apparent restrictions" aren't really restrictions.
The only real arbitrary method around this is to develop an "alignment tally" sort of system, where actions calculate where your position is on the C/E/G/L axis, (each alignment axis would have point values and examples as to what would constitute such point values) to determine if the PC changes alignment or not (and therefore cause the loss of powers or the forbade ability to advance in the respective class).
Problem is, Paizo didn't implement such a system because they believed the consumers/players would sort it out for themselves, and if they did, it also basically gives players free reign to play Good Cop/Bad Cop with themselves and their alignment.
Problem is, Paizo didn't implement such a system because they believed the consumers/players would sort it out for themselves, and if they did, it also basically gives players free reign to play Good Cop/Bad Cop with themselves and their alignment.
Which is frankly the best way to go about it outside of nixing the system entirely. Alignment is a bit too married to many of the mechanics to be rid of entirely.
And that's what we're doing here, helping the OP work it out wiht hsi players.
I don't think the monk was being chaotic. However I would ask that he write down his actual ethical code for you to reference. If he deviates from that than his alignment may start to slide. But you have to point this out to him when it happens.
Problem is, Paizo didn't implement such a system because they believed the consumers/players would sort it out for themselves, and if they did, it also basically gives players free reign to play Good Cop/Bad Cop with themselves and their alignment.Which is frankly the best way to go about it outside of nixing the system entirely. Alignment is a bit too married to many of the mechanics to be rid of entirely.
And that's what we're doing here, helping the OP work it out wiht hsi players.
I don't think the monk was being chaotic. However I would ask that he write down his actual ethical code for you to reference. If he deviates from that than his alignment may start to slide. But you have to point this out to him when it happens.
I think the biggest problem is the latter portion of my argument; if you're giving players wiggle room with their alignment with them knowing "Oh, if I do this now, my alignment will change," they'll simply do the required actions, and then every now and then purposefully do what they want because they can without getting in trouble.
If it's kept track by GM only and only the GM knows the PC's alignment trajectory, it's a lot less prone to min-maxing metagame shenanigans.
Which is frankly the best way to go about it outside of nixing the system entirely. Alignment is a bit too married to many of the mechanics to be rid of entirely.
Actually its pretty easy to get rid of, at worst you just have to make a few decisions like how to handle outsiders or spells like blasphemy. Worth it imo.