After writing this, I see that it is long and rambling, so I'll do a quick summary here:
* LN Duskblade with a code of conduct
* The code is so loose that he rarely breaks it but it provides almost no restrictions
* The PCs are in an alternate universe, so I have an NPC who is the alternate version of the PC and have an NPC who is the alternate version of his father (in the PC's world, his father is dead); the alternate PC has power over the PC, because the PC needs his alternate self to willing give him a piece of hair, blood, etc. (out of desire to help)
* I want to test him to get him to stick to his code, and/or show that the spirit of the code is harder to stick to than the letter, and/or show that he really shouldn't even bother having a code, and/or show (using the alternate version of the PC) how the code should be followed
Okay, now onto the rambling...
I'm running a game with the following characters:
NG Seakin Spirit Shaman
NG Human Sorcerer
CN Human Rogue
LN Wild-elf Duskblade
The duskblade is giving me problems. He's part of a semi-civilised tribe, living in the slums of a small town. His father was killed in raid (arranged by the captain of the guard). We started and he chose his alignment and decided to have a code of conduct. I only noticed the problem a fair way into the game: his code barely restricts him at all.
Here it is:
1.Will always help those in need, who are not enemies
2.Will not immediately trust anybody, trust has to be earned
3.Will always strive forward in my training, however can see helping people as improving self
4.Will always strive to keep a promise if possible, no matter risk to self
5.Will hold to a strict and exhaustive training regimen wherever possible
6.Will only kill those who attack myself or an innocent party
7.Will sacrifice self to save a friend; a friend is only someone who has earned my trust
He's acting Chaotic Neutral and has turned from a somewhat lawful person into a very callous person. But he still sticks to his code, because it's so loose. My problem here is that he hasn't broken his code - so there's no consequences there - but the code was far too loose to start with. Much later on he told me that he purposely wrote loopholes into it. I didn't think he'd do that, and on a glance it seemed fine, but now I see that it isn't.
Take point number 6 for example, he can beat people to the edge of death and still be within the letter of his code. Number 3 says that he'll keep promises, but he never makes any. Number 2 is more of a personality trait. Number 1 is covered because they're on a quest to save the world, but he doesn't go out of his way to help people he sees (beggars and so on).
They were fighting a giant animated statue of a dwarf and they had heard rumour that a great dwarven hero had come this way long ago and never returned. He "killed" the statue and it cracked open, revealing a dwarf, and the whole thing began to fall towards him. He immediately said he wanted to stab the dwarf. All the other players/characters told him he shouldn't because it's probably the hero they heard about. He did it anyway, and killed the dwarf.
The statue the crushed him, doing lots of damage, and the earth spirit they were visiting told him that dwarves would now see him as an enemy. The duskblade started asking questions after he had killed the dwarf, such as "Was he in control when the statue attacked me?" and the answer was "No". He then felt somewhat sorry and gave a bit of his reward to help resurrect the dwarf.
Now the PCs are in an alternate universe where they didn't get together, and there have been many huge natural disasters (floods, eruptions, etc) and burning undead roam the land. The PCs need to find their alternate selves in this world to get a piece of them as a material component to power the portal to get back to their world. The alternate PCs must willingly (out of desire to help, rather than fear) give a piece of hair, skin, blood, etc. to the PCs. So, the PCs can't just hunt them down, draw blood and leave.
I want to show the duskblade that his code is so loose that he almost might as well not even have one. Or show that he's abiding by the letter of the code, not the spirit of it. I am in the unique position of having the ability to NPC the alternate version of the PC. Also, I'm thinking that his father is alive in this world, so I can NPC him too. He also has a half-brother.
Basically, I want to have the alternate PC (APC) show how the code should be followed. For example, having him help beggars, and get something of a high shelf for a halfling, make promises to people and then keep them, and so on. But I also want to present the PC with situations that would require him to stick to his code (like an NPC making him promise to do something, then I'd see if he actually does it). I haven't been very good with this so far, because I felt the code was so loose that it rarely mattered. I have had a few situations where he needed to follow it, though.
I guess the trouble is that if it was a knight's or paladin's code, it would be strict and therefore easy to see if he's following it or not, but because this one is so loose, it rarely even matters, and he basically acts like the characters without codes (sometimes worse).
I'm not quite sure what I want from the Paizo community here. Some situations that I could put the PC in to test his adherence to his code would be good. And ways that I can show the APC sticking to the code (or it's spirit), where the PC wouldn't stick to it (or would stick to the letter). I've got the alternate version of the PC, his father and his half-brother to use.
I'd first propose a change to your player, as follows:
1.When asked, always render aid to the innocent.
2.----
3.----
4.Will always keep a promise, no matter risk to self
5.----
6.May only kill as a last resort.
7.----
1. Really, he's striving for a neutral version of charity; the above requires him to aid people whenever they asked (if they don't ask, they don't need help), but provides for the enemy loophole. Your enemies aren't innocent in your eyes.
2. The whole trust thing is a non-stricture. It's a personal preference, not something that should be in a code.
3. Striving to train is flavor, and meaningless unless it causes him actual hardship. Strike it from the code.
4. Don't strive. Do it. 'Striving' lets you off with a 'well, I tried' excuse. The above change allows you to really put his code to the test.
5. This one's just a repeat of 3. Kill it too.
6. C'mon, only allowed to kill if you're defending yourself or innocents? That's pretty much every combat situation an adventurer comes across. The rewording forces him to extend some mercy to anyone he doesn't /have/ to kill (No coup de grace, no killing someone who has surrendered, etc.), regardless of who or what they are. Don't tag him for just dropping something during the pitch of battle, AND allow him to 'let' die if they're below 0 HP. That way it's not Good, but it can inconvenience him when people surrender. Even then, it's still not much of a stricture, but it's good color.
7. Who you sacrifice yourself for isn't a stricture unless you're forced to sacrifice yourself for a friend. Better to strike this stricture, since any such 'promises' of self sacrifice can be handled by 4.
I mostly agree with Xellan.1.Will always help those in need, who are not enemiesOkay, this is a good start. More of a Good start than a Lawful start, actually.
2.Will not immediately trust anybody, trust has to be earnedAs Xellan said, this is a personality trait not a part of any code. Unless his god's first commandment is 'Thou Shalt not Trust in thy Fellow Man.' Not likely.
3.Will always strive forward in my training, however can see helping people as improving selfAnother personality trait.
4.Will always strive to keep a promise if possible, no matter risk to selfOkay, this is good. Like Xellan said, 'strive' can have different interpretations. Maybe he's using it as a loophole, but sometimes keeping a promise is simply impossible due to external factors that can't be helped. Also, different people have different interpretations of what a promise is. For example, many people consider 'I will try to do X' as a promise. To me though, that is just a statement of intent and is subject to change as the situation changes. A promise to me requires the actual use of the word, such as 'I promise to try to do X'.
5.Will hold to a strict and exhaustive training regimen wherever possibleMore personality BS. Does he think that self discipline is somehow linked to lawfulness?
6.Will only kill those who attack myself or an innocent partyThis is good, though again is indicitive of Goodness rather than Law.
7.Will sacrifice self to save a friend; a friend is only someone who has earned my trustThis is good, though more a personality trait than a CoC thing, as it is so vague. If he ever follows through with this, it could be a Good and/or Lawful act depending on the circumstances.
He's acting Chaotic Neutral and has turned from a somewhat lawful person...Having nothing to judge him by except for his "CoC", I'd say that he was never LN. This is fine, as anyone can have a CoC. I don't think that you really need to prove anything to him; just tell him what his alignment actually is--I'd say he's NG but you said he's become callous so maybe true neutral is more appropriate. Tell him why he's not LN, and why his CoC is mostly pointless. If he wants to change his character to actually be LN, make sure that he knows that he may someday have to make real sacrifices to do so, regardless of the letter of his "CoC". You might even want to write a real CoC for him.
I came up with an alternate for 6. after some more thought:
6. Must offer quarter when asked, though terms may be demanded.
This isn't as merciful as the first, as he's only required to offer mercy when asked for it. He can let people die, coup de grace, or whatever, but if they surrender, he can't kill them unless they refuse his terms (if he demands any).
4.Will always strive to keep a promise if possible, no matter risk to selfOkay, this is good. Like Xellan said, 'strive' can have different interpretations. Maybe he's using it as a loophole, but sometimes keeping a promise is simply impossible due to external factors that can't be helped. Also, different people have different interpretations of what a promise is. For example, many people consider 'I will try to do X' as a promise. To me though, that is just a statement of intent and is subject to change as the situation changes. A promise to me requires the actual use of the word, such as 'I promise to try to do X'.
Right. Just a kneejerk reaction to the language, and attempting to close a potential loophole (we /are/ talking Lawful here). Since I didn't see anything about actual penalties for breaking his code, I figured failing to keep a promise was a matter of honor. It could be a point of shame, or the character could feel that he truly did everything in his power and come away with a clear conscience. Going above and beyond and still failing isn't something I'd punish someone for, but I'd gladly put them through the ringer to see just how determined they are to keep the promise.
6.Will only kill those who attack myself or an innocent partyThis is good, though again is indicitive of Goodness rather than Law.
Yeah, I was mostly going with the assumption that he wasn't going to arbitrarily whip out his sword and kill someone without good cause, since that's a fairly blatant evil act. So assuming that, I just strove to provide a less 'good' and more 'law' rule to abide.
I'd first propose a change to your player, as follows:
1.When asked, always render aid to the innocent.
2.----
3.----
4.Will always keep a promise, no matter risk to self
5.----
6.May only kill as a last resort.
7.----
1. Really, he's striving for a neutral version of charity; the above requires him to aid people whenever they asked (if they don't ask, they don't need help), but provides for the enemy loophole. Your enemies aren't innocent in your eyes.
4. Don't strive. Do it. 'Striving' lets you off with a 'well, I tried' excuse. The above change allows you to really put his code to the test.
6. C'mon, only allowed to kill if you're defending yourself or innocents? That's pretty much every combat situation an adventurer comes across. The rewording forces him to extend some mercy to anyone he doesn't /have/ to kill (No coup de grace, no killing someone who has surrendered, etc.), regardless of who or what they are. Don't tag him for just dropping something during the pitch of battle, AND allow him to 'let' die if they're below 0 HP. That way it's not Good, but it can inconvenience him when people surrender. Even then, it's still not much of a stricture, but it's good color.
Nice. I like it :) Thanks!
You're right about a lot of those not needing to be in the code. I'm glad you agree. I really like the changes you've made here. I was having a lot of trouble seeing how I could present a combat situation where he couldn't just outright kill the opponents, but this helps a lot. He's a crazy powerhouse, and can sometimes get over the massive damage threshold in one hit (with spells), so this is a nice restriction that still lets him be the main warrior, but sometimes situations will come up where he has to lay down his sword.
I totally agree with the removal of the "strive" and "possible" bits. EDIT: Like TS said though, it could mean "unless it is physically impossible".
As for the first one, I like what you've done there, and it's a great way of "neutral charity", as you said. I was having a tough time trying to make it worthwhile without being too Good. However, I might change it to the following instead: "When asked, always render aid to the innocent and needy." That way, if beggars or old people or whoever ask him for help, he has to give it to them (if they're innocent and not his enemies). It may be a superfluous change, but it makes it clearer in my mind.
I don't think I just want to present these changes to the player, though. I think I'd like to do it in game, especially because I have the perfect vehicles for it (his NPC self and family). I've brainstormed a bit and there's some great ideas I've gotten from this new code. Thanks a lot! :)
Having nothing to judge him by except for his "CoC", I'd say that he was never LN. This is fine, as anyone can have a CoC. I don't think that you really need to prove anything to him; just tell him what his alignment actually is--I'd say he's NG but you said he's become callous so maybe true neutral is more appropriate. Tell him why he's not LN, and why his CoC is mostly pointless. If he wants to change his character to actually be LN, make sure that he knows that he may someday have to make real sacrifices to do so, regardless of the letter of his "CoC". You might even want to write a real CoC for him.
I was thinking of having some influential NPCs that should be important to him (his alternate father and self) show him the benefits and restrictions of the new code and encourage him to use it. They are a LN clan and might tell him that he should either accept and abide by a proper code, or just do as he wishes and not bother with a code. This way, his character can choose what to do in-game. If he chooses the code, he'll stay (or become) LN, but if he chooses to leave the code behind, his alignment will change to what he and I jointly agree it really should be. This will have implications for him. If he takes the code, then its restrictions apply but he'll be accepted back into his tribe (he was exiled for other reasons in his backstory), and if he doesn't, then even the other LN wild-elf tribes will probably not want to associate with him any more. He's a bit of a loner anyway, so I think that's not too bad a restriction and seems like a fair compromise providing benefits/drawbacks in-game.
|
You have a number of problems.
First and foremost, anyone who comes up with a code like that is not someone you can "teach a lesson." He will either ignore your tests, or actively do the opposite, just to teach you a lesson for trying to teach him one. As a worst case, he could decide to try and tank the game because you will not let him get away with his pushing the rules that way.
Second, unless you have some hefty limit in the game, he can always just shrug and say he is changing his alignment. What will you do if he just decides to become CN?
Third, he slipped that "code" by you once, he is going to try it again. And if you manage to catch him next time, he will just shrug and say never mind.
I would suggest telling him that you have changed your mind, and his code is not suitable for a LN alignment. If he wants, he can modify the code, but he can not keep using it and be LN.
Thanks for your comments Sam. After responding to them (below) I think I'm pretty confident about dealing with this out-of-game but at a point in-game where it makes sense. I'd be having the NPCs present the same situation to the PC as the I am presenting to the player.
You have a number of problems.
First and foremost, anyone who comes up with a code like that is not someone you can "teach a lesson." He will either ignore your tests, or actively do the opposite, just to teach you a lesson for trying to teach him one. As a worst case, he could decide to try and tank the game because you will not let him get away with his pushing the rules that way.
Second, unless you have some hefty limit in the game, he can always just shrug and say he is changing his alignment. What will you do if he just decides to become CN?
Third, he slipped that "code" by you once, he is going to try it again. And if you manage to catch him next time, he will just shrug and say never mind.
First: I will give him a choice one way or the other (code or no code) so that he can either live up to the character concept or fully embrace the way he's actually playing the character. For example, he's been non-LN for a while, but now he'd have to make the choice for real.
Second: Here's my current plan for the situation. His dead father's spirit is what powers his sword (giving it the flaming ability and some other cool things that he discovered as he levelled) and it's been helping him because his main quest is a noble and honourable one, but once his father's spirit realises that there's people around who could possibly get him to change his code, he will stop powering the sword. This should prompt the PC to seek out his tribe in this world to find out what's wrong with his ancestral sword. If he accepts the new code, then his father's spirit powers the sword again, and the mark of exile from the tribe is removed. If he rejects it, then he changes alignment, his father's spirit refuses to power the sword (depriving him of some of his combat power) and he is marked mystically marked as dishonourable and a traitor to the family. Other wild-elf tribes that uphold family honour (most of them) will treat him as an outside and be weary of helping him or associating with him. That said, I don't actually mind if he rejects the code, I'm just not a fan of the loose code: either have a worthwhile code or none at all.
Third: I won't let him write a new code. I'll use the one developed here and allow no alterations. (Or if he really wants a code after becoming non-LN, then it won't need to be very restrictive and he will already be suffering the penalties, so he can't become much worse off.)
I would suggest telling him that you have changed your mind, and his code is not suitable for a LN alignment. If he wants, he can modify the code, but he can not keep using it and be LN.
That kinda is what I'm planning to do, but in-game (as well as out) if I can work it. I've mentioned a few times that he doesn't seem very LN, so he'll understand what the NPCs confronting him about his code means. And I'll metagame explain it to him as much as he needs as well. Basically, I'd be doing what you suggest, but instead of him suddenly just having a new code out of the blue, it'd be because the NPCs confront him about it.
This way, I'm explaining it to him in and out of game, and making it make sense in and out of game.
THREAD: COMPLETE!
We played last night and the player was very receptive of the changes as presented by his alternate self and father. He's been told that his sword will power-down as a warning if he breaks his new code, and he can perform a (somewhat expensive) atonement ceremony in which he admits his transgressions and (if possible) rights his wrongs. He's looking forward to using the new code and admitted the faults with the old one.
Thanks for all the help, everyone :)