Alignment Dings.


Advice


Had an interesting conversation with one of my GM's (Who's also a friend).

One character had gained the Half-Undead type/template, whatever. Either way, Positive energy was bad for him.

I had joked around with him too, Roleplaying not knowing (He hadn't said anything IN character. :P), "healing" him with a CLW wand twice before he managed to sputter out a "STOP! OW!", nothing major, we're all level 14, so 2x 1d8+1's is an annoying poke at best (He got me back with a couple conjure water's, and we called a "Truce").

The next session, the Paladin decided that his character hadn't been paying attention to the "Undead" portion of his change the previous day, and did a channel to top off the group, including him (Again, it was like 25-30 HP, no real big deal when the average party member is around 180-200). It was in character, non-malicious, and the player didn't remember the character's status change till after saying he would cast it, he Roleplayed it from there.

The GM immediately said (Before anyone could react), that, "Any retaliation by the undead player would be considered a malicious and vengeful act, moving him 2 points towards evil."

I was a bit offput, and as I can apparently rarely resist questioning things, did so here. After a bit, it became clear this was NOT one of those instances where you can discuss things, eventually after I pointed out how small the "Offense" was (Meaning: Any "Revenge" conducted would be pettiness, or, joking, not a truly evil act), I pointed out that moving someone's alignment that drastically over so small a potential action (When the Player had never even indicated that they might do so, beyond maybe the customary Conjure water of Annoyance) that 2 points was over-reacting, 1 point would still be overreacting, and hell, I'd done the same damn thing to him already too and he hadn't been dinged for it before. The GM said that, "Your Morality is skewed then, and your ethics wrong."

I pretty much said that we'd have to disagree then, since it was clear that aside from insulting each other (Glared at him there), that we would not be agreeing anytime soon.

This GM has been under pressure lately, and on a hair trigger when it comes to arguments, my engaging of him wasn't to cause one, but to prevent a potential party/friend's circle issue (Everyone picks at that Bard). The question here isn't how to manage a GM that's letting his anger (Or his desire to protect a socially awkward Paladin from the constantly picked on but Socially overbearing half undead Bard) control his decision making (I'm usually pretty good at doing that), but what potential arguments, or logic, I can use the next time it comes up.

That poor bard gets enough crap from the group OOC, I don't particularly want to see him get crap IN game too.

Help please? :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Welcome to 'yet another reason alignment is garbage'.

There are no real rules regarding alignment. It's entirely arbitrary at the whims and decisions of the GM.

You're hosed.


What the heck does '2 points towards evil' mean? What scale are you on? Are they being lowered from 100 to 98? 10 to 8?

On a practical note: a GM forcibly changing someone's alignment isn't going to help anything unless the character in question has some reason to maintain a good alignment.

If the purpose is to prevent internal group conflict getting out of hand with escalating vengeance, then it's more valuable getting the players to agree on what an acceptable level of conflict is for that game.


Zhayne wrote:

Welcome to 'yet another reason alignment is garbage'.

There are no real rules regarding alignment. It's entirely arbitrary at the whims and decisions of the GM.

You're hosed.

Pretty much in agreement here.

Alignement is usually up to the group to decide how it works.
From your description it also sounds like there are some out of game issues that need to be adressed. Hopefully it's something that you can discuss with your gm as adults. Maybe he gets defensive when you question him in front of the group? might be an idea to take it up a bit more subtly?
Avoiding confrontational language is always good, try to make this a "how do WE fix this, so WE can go back to having fun?" -discussion, and less of a "this is how I think you F***ed up" - monologue.
I also find it good to remind everybody (yourself included) that it's a GAME, and we play together because we want to have fun. - Sometimes we all forget this.

EDIT: also I have no idea what these points in alignment are and how they relate, but then again I've removed alignment from my games - with suprisingly ease might I add.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

They could be using the optional alignment scales from Ultimate Campaign.

Changing Alignment


So on that scale, 'good' is 1-3, 'neutral' is 4-6 and 'evil' is 7-9. Yes, a 2 point ding for pranking someone who injured you is clearly going too far.


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

They could be using the optional alignment scales from Ultimate Campaign.

Changing Alignment

This, mostly, though the actual number scale (1-9) isn't used.

Pretty much it's 3 "Points" from each alignment to the next, and if you're an outlier at start, you're assumed to be at full points. So, a LG paladin is full Lawful and full Good, three points away from Neutral in either direction.

Just another example of our groups using pathfinder rules, but subtly not, apparently. XD

LuxuriantOak wrote:

Pretty much in agreement here.

Alignement is usually up to the group to decide how it works.
From your description it also sounds like there are some out of game issues that need to be adressed. Hopefully it's something that you can discuss with your gm as adults. Maybe he gets defensive when you question him in front of the group? might be an idea to take it up a bit more subtly?
Avoiding confrontational language is always good, try to make this a "how do WE fix this, so WE can go back to having fun?" -discussion, and less of a "this is how I think you F***ed up" - monologue.
I also find it good to remind everybody (yourself included) that it's a GAME, and we play together because we want to have fun. - Sometimes we all forget this.

EDIT: also I have no idea what these points in alignment are and how they relate, but then again I've removed alignment from my games - with suprisingly ease might I add.

This GM comes from the school of "GM is the enemy", we've been trying to wean him away from it, and with great success so far. But, it does mean it's up to him, not us.

At this point, I/we can't talk to the GM right now, there's stuff going on, kinda pointless to share it all with you guys, no offense to you all, just likely a lot of extraneous information.

Pretty much the GM is being confronted with a lot of his early GM mistakes in another game, that and the constant arguing in that other game have made him hair trigger everywhere else. Yeah, he shouldn't be doing that, but, people are people. /shrug

The odd thing is, is that this is the FIRST alignment reference in the game so far, and it's been going for over a year. Hell, it's the 4-5 session with my new character that I made True Neutral since they're a brand spanking new adventurer, and (Against my better judgement (Never give the GM control over your character they don't already have!)) requested that he actually point out what direction I appear to be going alignment-wise, and THIS was his first alignment reference.

Until now, alignment has had no bearing on the game whatsoever beyond role playing and characterization, and our group has been really good about that.

Zhayne wrote:

Welcome to 'yet another reason alignment is garbage'.

There are no real rules regarding alignment. It's entirely arbitrary at the whims and decisions of the GM.

You're hosed.

I disagree with the last part, there's always room for Diplomancy. :P

First part is unfortunately true.

Alignment is supposed to be a Black/White thing that operates apart from Real World Morality, but...

No one seems able to resist applying their own morals and ideals to it. :/

----

In hindsight, I may have been a bit vague, trying to not have every post here be an epic length tale of 2-4 pages in a word doc, but, not very good at being concise.

The GM is being argumentative, but, I can probably still point out the need to be more neutral and balanced if I just have the right argument.

The problem is, alignment really IS subjective when you allow it to be, so, I need to argue in HIS viewpoint.

I need to prove that that action (And actions like it) doesn't count as sufficiently "Malicious" in nature to be an evil act.

I can do this, by successfully arguing that the action is way to small in nature, or intention, to be considered as such.

OR, I can move the goalposts, and get him to correctly reassess the situation by moving evil back to where it should be (So, defining evil correctly, and using the correct definition to prove that the action was never close enough).

Thanks all for reading this, and replying. :)


Here's a diplomatic trick, have the GM explain in detail why Conjure Water would be considered malicious enough to warrant a 2-point drop in alignment.

As a new GM myself, I've had to deal with much worse actions in-game that warranted a full-on alignment shift for one character.

I had/have a chaotic neutral rogue that made the decision to force themselves upon a captured enemy (I.E. They raped a prisoner; description was, as with most matters of sex at the table, kept to a minimum). The rest of the party did nothing to intervene/stop them (the group Paladin's player had quit the group the session before), but we had a few good-aligned characters.

The rogue is now chaotic evil, and for allowing that to happen, good aligned characters took a 1-point hit to their alignment.

I waited until the end of the session before telling the character's player alone of the shift, explaining that Pathfinder's Lawful-Chaotic/Good-Evil spectrums are black-and-white, objective and clear forms, that evil acts involved exacting a forced cost on others for one's own personal amusement/benefit.

Then I informed the rest of the group which consisted of the 1-point lowering of alignment. Including the Neutral Good Goblin Bard and the Lawful Good Dwarven Monk. Players took it as a foray and example of what limits existed with alignments. The justification for the 1-point lowering towards neutral (as only good characters were affected) was that neutral characters tend to not go out of their way to defend others (which'd make them good), and tend not to go out of their way to exploit others (which'd make them evil).

The group all took it rather well, and the Goblin Bard was rather amused that he'd have the opportunity of having a goblin and a thestral (think bat-winged horse, medium sized, custom race) arguing about "What is good?"

I'm personally looking forward to having an ignorant backwoods peasant walk in on the conversation. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I'll agree that the alignment change is bull, as is alignment in general, I'm quite confused here. When the paladin channeled positive, they'd have had to decide whether they were healing living, or harming undead, so the half-undead wouldn't have been harmed unless the paladin was specifically trying to, which itself would have been an evil act, if the DM's going that route.


Ricard the Daring wrote:
While I'll agree that the alignment change is bull, as is alignment in general, I'm quite confused here. When the paladin channeled positive, they'd have had to decide whether they were healing living, or harming undead, so the half-undead wouldn't have been harmed unless the paladin was specifically trying to, which itself would have been an evil act, if the DM's going that route.

Right, it wouldnt have done any damage.

Ok, a few thoughts: first of all, alignment change is something that needs to be agreed upon between the Player and DM. It should never be forced, outside of a Helm of Opposite Alignment, etc.

Next of all, "NO PvP' is a rule which is a very good idea and needs to be added here. Thus, if the Undead did retaliate by a damage causing attack, his PC would simply become a NPC. However, filling the Paladins boots with "horse apples" while he slept would be funny.

I think the Paladin player was being a bit of a "Richard" however.


Just to mention something again - One can not Heal Living and Harm Undead with the same action. If a paladin channels to heal then the half-undead or even full undead would simply be unaffected.

Silver Crusade

Why is the Paladin choosing to adventure with an undead in the first place?


Ugh, not the alignment-points rules. Way to take a crappy concept and make it crappier.


Brad McDowell wrote:
Why is the Paladin choosing to adventure with an undead in the first place?

Half-undead, and not Evil.


Brad McDowell wrote:
Why is the Paladin choosing to adventure with an undead in the first place?

Because being undead is not inherently evil. Though most are, it isn't a requirement (except for a few types).


Westphalian_Musketeer wrote:
Here's a diplomatic trick, have the GM explain in detail why Conjure Water would be considered malicious enough to warrant a 2-point drop in alignment.

Nice story BTW, I especially like how no one tried to argue that there was justification. XD

I will certainly have to do that, always better to not be the one on the defensive. Sometimes taking things one step at a time helps.

Admittedly, we don't know WHAT the undead would have done, if anything, the GM told that to him (And us) before any reaction was possible. The "Conjure water on Head" thing is just the typical response to someone's shenanigan's, a harmless way to express annoyance/displeasure. Whether or not he would have done it is something we'll never know, though he did do it to me when I had done the same thing.

As for all the Channel energy to Heal/Harm comments, I actually can't remember if I mentioned that or not, kinda got overshadowed in the "Wait, alignment hits from WHAT?" debate. I've reminded several people in our group that you can't do both (This GM included in our other Pathfinder game) and it gets forgotten every few weeks.

The Bard becoming undead was the result of a Mishap. He did not start out as such, nor did he look to become it.

----

Well, it looks like the best bet is to hear the GM out, and cause sufficient doubt to get him off. Or to at least get the GM to realize you need to give the players a bit more benefit of the doubt than that.

Never really had issues with GMs when it came to alignment before, we've generally been able to agree on things. Killing goblins, okay, killing goblins with fire, unfortunate, but frequently necessary, killing goblins with fire and laughing, okay, issues here, burning down a still occupied goblin orphanage after barricading the doors so they can't escape. Yeah, you're evil.

I think most of this one is due to scale. He's enforcing a minor thing in a major way, a petty theft with an execution essentially.

Thanks for the help all, I'd close this as "Resolved", but I can't. :)


Jeraa wrote:
Brad McDowell wrote:
Why is the Paladin choosing to adventure with an undead in the first place?
Because being undead is not inherently evil. Though most are, it isn't a requirement (except for a few types).

And even then, there are always exceptions, and PCs are nothing if not exceptional.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Alignment Dings. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice