The barbarian IS at fault. No ifs, ands, buts, ors or nors. He is responsible for that death. His alignment should shift to CN at best. ~shrugs~ That is my take on it.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I'm usually very careful with shifting alignments after being burned on this once before. HOWEVER while this classic hostage situation is not as clear-cut and dry as it first seems, the "no remorse" is. While there is any number of ways to justify attacking the ogre before he can do something drastic, seeing the "failed result" should move any good person.
I'd have a talk with the player about what alignment means, and try to convince him that probably some flavor of neutral fits the character better.
|
The ogre snaps the infant's neck and moves to engage the barbarian.
When he moved to engage the barbarian, did he chunk the corpse or the corpse's head at the barbarian if for no other reason than the humor value?
In regards to the barbarian's actions and alignment, how would you deal with this situation?
I'd let it go.
Is the barbarian even at fault, as it was, after all, the ogre who killed the child?
Exactly.
|
This is a good point. I to have similar worries with a rogue that has been created for the RotRL. She is set CG but has made money by scamming people and has fled city to city before heading to Sandpoint. I know the circumstances are different but treatment of the PC would be the same.
My background is that I tell, as a group and individually at character creation, that you must play your alignment. I also am enforcing no PVP, character wish, and no "backstabbing".
With this particular case I would consider two possibilities. Penalise the player or give the player a choice.
If the player is experienced and is playing purely mechanically I would not give the player XP for the encounter and point out that they did not play the character's alignment correctly. This is a straight forward and logical penalty that most folks understand, particular mechanical players. I would also have a discussion with the group at XP time and remind them of alignments.
I use choice as an option when the player has made a "geninue" mistake or you have a beginning player. The choice could be at two times - before the combat allow the player to change their mind (a reload option if you like) or allow the PC to not take XP to keep alignment or take the XP and shift alignment. The latter option could also have a profound effect on divine spellcasters.
In this particular case you as the DM have to make a judgement call. You should know the player and the character. What does it feel like to you? In the scheme of things it is a minor problem. At worst change to true neutral at best a warning. But remember to follow through on your warnings. :)
|
|
Attacking was ill advised but the ogre did the act. The no remorse thing is disturbing but I would let it go. Now, if there is a pattern of acts that could be deteremined as evil (which this one probably is not) then that is different.
One event or action should not change a PCs alignment. It should be a pattern of behavior over time. Is a person doing one evil act in fact evil - I don't think so. Is a person who does one good thing then good. In life we are a mix of good acts and at least no so good acts.
Exactly.
Is the barbarian even at fault, as it was, after all, the ogre who killed the child?
You have a fairly neutral view... one could easily agree that the barbarian's action caused the death... parlay could have occurred and saved the child.
~cast summon Sebastian, the emo Bella Sara fanboi~ Lets ask a lawyer what his thought are.
This is why I usually track alignment. In a case like this, I'd move them a step or two closer to neutral and chaotic, but not change the alignment automatically. If they do more "non good" things and more chaotic things, eventually they'll change to CN, and usually when someone levels up I let them see where they are at on alignment.
I hate to shift someone's alignment due to one action that they take, but at the same time, I don't like the idea of someone just acting in any manner they want and saying that they "ultimately" are still their listed alignment.
The numerical value I started using to track this is the "21 point" alignment system in Green Ronin's Advanced Player's guide.
|
I view alignment as descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, your alignment follows your actions, you don't have to make your actions follow your alignment.
Obviously, in practice players do want to "play their alignment," whether simply because they want to feel on the heroic side of things, or because there's an actual in-game penalty if a PC's alignment shifts. But in most cases, a PC's actual alignment doesn't matter much; all we can do as DMs is explain how we view the alignments and then let the players play.
Oh, and for whether your barbarian was "at fault" or not, do a Google search for "moral transference." My guess is that you really don't want to get into that mess, and will decide the barbarian's not at fault. Now the "no remorse" thing ... that's a little more telling. IMO, a Neutral Good person would feel remorse, even if he didn't have culpability.
|
|
Certainly not trying to rule lawyer. Following a logical and descriptive or structured process (common sense?) does not equal rule mongering. :)
Alignment is important and should be a consideration into character actions of both player and DM. It is important for other situations as well, ie. protect spells. If players play mechanically it makes sense to set the mood and the story (conditions) in that manner as well. That refers to my previous post.
Playing alignment does not want nor need to be policed to the nth degree but has to be a considered. The DM makes the call and can feel the situation and is best to react to situations.
If this is not the case then... why bother having alignment? That is no emo sentiments, I can assure you. :)
Attacking was ill advised but the ogre did the act. The no remorse thing is disturbing but I would let it go. Now, if there is a pattern of acts that could be deteremined as evil (which this one probably is not) then that is different.
One event or action should not change a PCs alignment. It should be a pattern of behavior over time. Is a person doing one evil act in fact evil - I don't think so. Is a person who does one good thing then good. In life we are a mix of good acts and at least no so good acts.
I agree with what Shem said 100%.
Okay, I have to admit, I got burned in a similar situation for showing "no remorse" after accidentally causing the death of a hostage. (Not an infant, but still.) I was informed that my alignment had changed to CN. After awhile, when it became clear that no amount of good acts were ever going to be sufficient to return my alignment to CG, I said screw it and started playing to the new alignment. I finally convinced the DM that the whole lack of remorse thing had been a huge misunderstanding on his part, but by then the character was too invested in the new alignment to change back.
See, the original incident wasn't as clear cut as it seemed. The character felt a great deal of remorse for what happened. But she was traveling with people who loved to lecture her on every supposed fault. If she admitted fault in this case she was never going to hear the end of it from them. So she shrugged it off, said she hadn't meant to kill him, and that sitting around feeling bad wasn't going to bring him back so let's move on.
Now, the reason I bring all this up is just to illustrate that sometimes things aren't what they appear to be. Talk to the player and figure out what's going on. Make sure the situation is actually what you think it is. If so, then I would say go with a warning before actually changing the alignment. And make it clear what they would need to do to change back if they want to.
|
|
There are times when a PC's actions can warrant an alignment change but as others have posted as well you can not do it on one action... well very rarely. Alignment change should be gradual as well, just because an action is say CN/CE doesnt mean the character shifts from NG to there... they should slide.
To the OP, it goes back to your call... I would be talking to me players about there characters and guiding them to develop their personalities. Or if the game is more hack and slash run alignments mechanically and let them change under a rating system (21 point as before).
Had the player been watching Speed in the past week?
I'd call the player on his stupidity, first. Unless he's of such a level that an ogre isn't a challenge to him at all, it's highly unlikely that he's going to save the day with anything but a confirmed critical. Besides, hasn't he ever heard of a disarm attempt? Or waiting for his fellow players to come up with a solution that spotlight-hog can't manage?
The term "reckless endangerment" seems appropriate to this scenario, and a number of cultures use something similar to find fault. I'd have his character start having bad dreams and if he failed a fort save, have the exhausted condition for the day.
|
|
Also consider this, what would the ogre do with the baby once they left?
Ah, this I had not even considered. Woudld the evil ogre have spared the infant (in the barbarian's view) if they left as seemed their other option? I kind of doubt it. Maybe ate the kid but provided loving nurturing until he could find a suitable foster home? Not so much...
Again one act or even one side trek should not change someone's alignment but a pattern over time.
A radical idea maybe....
I got this idea from the old computer game Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar. You can have players declare their intended alignment, but that's really just for them.
As DM, you keep track of alignment and keep it secret from the players until they try to do something that's based on alignment. If a player picks up an evil sword and nothing happens, that's a pretty scary thing to the rest of the party.
These little moments where the players have a view into secrets only the DM knows is really intriguing.
As an alternate idea, don't even allow the PCs to declare an alignment. Have their alignment completely dictated by what they write for a backstory and what they do in game.
Can you trust an Ogre? They are Chaotic Evil. I'd be wary of trusting even a Lawful Evil enemy... but a Chaotic one? Seriously... if faced with such a situation, I'm not sure I'd trust the Ogre to not just eat the baby anyways after I left!
So I'd charge in to try and at least get the initiative and maybe critically hit the Ogre, killing or incapacitating him and preventing him from doing anything. Especially if I were a Strong, Melee, Barbaric character type, that tends to get angry in battle. When you have a hammer, every problem resembles a nail, that sort of thing.
Now, keep in mind that this is a warrior character, who was raised in a warrior and likely nomadic tribe, where children likely die often from raiders, wildlife, the elements, and simple starvation due to lack of hunting animals.
If the barbarian felt that charging in to try and stop the untrustworthy Ogre from harming that child was his only option, then why would he feel remorse over the child's death? He didn't kill the child.. he did all that he felt he could to stop it.
While not feeling remorse might be callous, being that he's an "Adventurer"... a person who felt the best occupation for him was to explore the 100% guaranteed lethal unknown, and probably seen many allies die... I don't see that as an issue.
.
You can really play this any way you want and make your alignment turn out to be any way you want.
As DM, only you will have an idea of how the player really meant it. If you are getting the vibe that he was being flippant about the life of the child, rather than feeling cornered into a position where he had no choice... well, then it's likely he's at least shifting to a Neutral alignment.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So you have an ogre holding a human infant, threatening to kill it if the PCs don't leave his cave immediately.
Living Triskele, what was you intention here? Was the encounter a no-win situation, or was there some hint that the ogre wasn't quite so chaotic evil as all that? Did the party sorcerer have Invisibility and a silenced Hold Monster available?
I suppose my response to the original question is: what were the clear alternatives?
|
So you have an ogre holding a human infant, threatening to kill it if the PCs don't leave his cave immediately-- and instead of backing off, one of the PCs (a raging NG barbarian) charges forward to attack the ogre. The ogre snaps the infant's neck and moves to engage the barbarian. After coming out of his rage, the barbarian shows no remorse.
It seems like a 'trap' designed to make someone lose their alignment anyway. Make the whole party CE, if that's what you want to do.
The Ogre happened to have a human infant in it's hands when the party showed up, and was willing to waste an action (and probably provoke an AoO, as well as lose any Dex bonus to AC, for being in a 'grapple' situation) to kill the infant, rather than engage the screaming psychopath with the sword *who killed his fat butt.*
Obviously, the Ogre wasn't 'playing the game,' (since, one would presume, he wanted to *live,* and wouldn't have signed his death warrant by taking a full-round coup de grace action (on a harmless bystander) in combat that put him a huge disadvantage *and* guaranteed no mercy from his attackers) he was serving as a means by which the DM could mess with the players.
If you wanna mess with your players, do so. You're the DM, and if they're okay with that sort of thing, great. You sure don't need anyone else's permission or approval to play your game.
Living Triskele, what was you intention here? Was the encounter a no-win situation, or was there some hint that the ogre wasn't quite so chaotic evil as all that? Did the party sorcerer have Invisibility and a silenced Hold Monster available?
I suppose my response to the original question is: what were the clear alternatives?
- And -
It seems like a 'trap' designed to make someone lose their alignment anyway. Make the whole party CE, if that's what you want to do.
This is how I feel also. Tiskele, you basically set an alignment trap for the players and resulting alignment issues fall squarely on your hands. Give the players a break and deal with their alignment in normal situations not no-win traps.
I can understand the remorse thing but I think a lot of players have trouble RPing something like that and would cut him a little slack.
This is how I feel also. Tiskele, you basically set an alignment trap for the players and resulting alignment issues fall squarely on your hands. Give the players a break and deal with their alignment in normal situations not no-win traps.
I wouldn't call it a "trap" (I hate that word); hostage-taking is something that can legitimately happen in a game. But I agree that you shouldn't judge someone's alignment too harshly when they're in kind of a no-win situation
|
|
I wouldn't call it a "trap" (I hate that word); hostage-taking is something that can legitimately happen in a game. But I agree that you shouldn't judge someone's alignment too harshly when they're in kind of a no-win situation.
To me, it's totally a trap. The Ogre *committed suicide* for a chance to cause the Barbarian some alignment difficulties. It's an enormous honking flagrant meta-gaming trap.
Unless the Ogre was possessed by a chaotic evil demonic entity whose entire goal was to tear at the character's moral foundations as part of a deliberate corruptive scheme (which is certainly a possibility, and would fit a Fiend of Corruption from the Book of Vile Darkness quite well), there's no excuse to have the Ogre take a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity to coup-de-grace someone who is completely harmless, *while he's being charged by men with swords.* He might as well have turned his back and eaten a sammich. Ogres are dumb, which I get, but this was not just poor tactics, it was both suicidal and Machiavellian (as the Ogre's act was calculated to cause long-term effects to the character, beyond the Ogre's lifespan), neither of which seem terribly 'in-character' for your average Ogre.
It's like sending a tribe of Orcs after the party wielding adamantine weapons who all take Raging Charge attacks to Sunder the entire parties weapons, to soften them up for the real encounter that is coming next. Metagaming at it's worst, having the enemy sacrifice their lives to impose conditions to hamper the party for a later encounter.
Doing this sort of stuff in earlier editions, when alignment change could lead to level loss, was even more of a 'dick' move.
|
|
But that’s the way we play. There are a lot of players out there (Set for example) who would not like it and hate you for putting them in a no-win trap situation.
It's not a 'hate' issue, I even offered a situation (fiend of corruption specifically attempting to corrupt the characters morally, and using the hapless Ogre as a 'sacrifice' to do it) where it would totally make sense for this scenario to occur.
It could even be a complex plotline, and, again, as I mentioned above, very 'Book of Vile Darkness.' Having played a lot of Vampire, I'm pretty familiar with situations that can ravage your Humanity score (the Vampire equivalent of alignment change), and don't have a problem with that particular style of play.
But there's no reason for a DM who has chosen to go that route to ask whether or not he's 'in the right' to do so. He's absolutely in the right. He's the DM, and if the players are having fun, then he's totally 'doing it right.'
As long as there is some sinister force behind this Ogre's decision to sacrifice it's life to cause the PC some alignment shiftage, a force far more intelligent than any old Ogre (and willing to sacrifice it's life in the attainment of this greater goal), it's potentially a cool plotline, with 'no-win scenarios' being the order of the day, as the corrupter fiend continues to possess people (and arrange their seemingly senseless deaths) to put the PCs in situations where a slow slide into the arms of corruption seems inevitable (and, like true heroes, they resist and end up ganking the demon in the end, cue the dancing villagers and the happy festival at the end!).
|
|
That said, I don’t see the need for the sinister force behind the Ogre’s decision to kill the child. For me this could be just the cruelty and malice of the Ogre. If he felt he was going to die, then the murder of the child may have just been a result of his rage and a final act of evil defiance.
It's possible, but given the horrible consequences of taking that action to kill the child, instead of doing almost anything else that would be more likely to not provoke all sorts of attacks of opportunity, waste an action (his last action on this earth, most likely) and guarantee a lack of mercy from his attackers, it seems like a strange last act of defiance.
Tossing the baby (don't toss the baby!) to the Barbarian and running would probably have been a better choice, as the Barbarian would have lost an action dropping his/her weapon and catching the baby (or impaled it on his greatsword and charged in screaming, rendering any dispute about whether or not they should change alignment moot!), and then been unable to effectively pursue, as the Ogre ramps up to 4x full Run action on the second round (and, with it's Con score, would be likely to stay at a full Run longer than most PCs).
Granted, I don't know the terrain. Perhaps the Ogre was cornered in it's lair, and would have had to run out past the party, provoking a bazillion AoOs anyway, in which case, yeah, having a last taste of delicious baby before you get gutted like a trout might seem like a fine choice. Then again, with an Int 6, clutching the baby close and claiming to be it's mother and thanking the adventurers for rescuing them from the 'efil ogurs' might also seem like a cunning plan...
Hard to say. :)
That said, I don’t see the need for the sinister force behind the Ogre’s decision to kill the child. For me this could be just the cruelty and malice of the Ogre. If he felt he was going to die, then the murder of the child may have just been a result of his rage and a final act of evil defiance.It's possible, but given the horrible consequences of taking that action to kill the child, instead of doing almost anything else that would be more likely to not provoke all sorts of attacks of opportunity, waste an action (his last action on this earth, most likely) and guarantee a lack of mercy from his attackers, it seems like a strange last act of defiance.
Human beings don't have a monopoly on doing stuff out of spite. :-)
Thanks for the responses. I'm a little baffled by the concluding hostility, though. There was no alignment trap. I haven't explained the entire situation or course of events leading up to the encounter I described. It was quite fluid and made sense--a result of the PCs'/NPCs' interactions, with the NPCs making decisions to the best of their Int scores. My question was 'what would you do in such a situation?' Not, 'what is your opinion of the situation'.
If I wanted hostility I'd hand out on the 4e forum :) I'm joking of course.
I appreciate (most of) your responses and have a clear idea where to take it from here now. Thank you.
Apologies, didn't mean to come across hostile or imply it was a deliberate attempt on your part to trick the player.
|
|
I would argue that a while a single act that is significantly opposed to one's alignment can cause a shift, the OP example would not, IMO, warrant that result. The barbarian was acting within his character. What would the ogre have done with the baby after the PCs left? et. all.
Changing the barbarians alignment should be the result of a pattern of behavior. The act of charging the ogre was really a reaction to a no win situation. However, the no remorse part is where I would have issue as the GM. I would think that a good aligned person should be remorseful of any innocents death, especially one caused by one's own actions, whether or not these actions were avoidable or not.
Added to this (not really covered in the OP) but equally relevant IMO, is the question of whether the barbarian had the means with which to resurrect the infant? What about the other members of his party? I would think other good aligned characters should also be held up to scrutiny if they did not act after the fact.
Anyhow, gotta run. Just a few things to consider.
Cheers.
So you have an ogre holding a human infant, threatening to kill it if the PCs don't leave his cave immediately-- and instead of backing off, one of the PCs (a raging NG barbarian) charges forward to attack the ogre. The ogre snaps the infant's neck and moves to engage the barbarian. After coming out of his rage, the barbarian shows now remorse.
In regards to the barbarian's actions and alignment, how would you deal with this situation? Would you allow the player to use the fact that his character was raging as an excuse for the grim consequence of his bold charge? Is the barbarian even at fault, as it was, after all, the ogre who killed the child?
I used to work in counter-terrorism for 6 years. I have many friends who were police officers, some of them SRT or HRT (similar to swat), I taught room clearing tactics to the FBI recruits at quantico for 6 months after returning from MOUT (military operations in urban terrain) and hostage situations in somalia.
So first off let me say, the Ogre killing the child is not the barbarians responsiblity, this is often a terrorist threat "you will force me to kill this hostage if you do not do what I want".
US government's #1 policy on terrorism: "We do not negotiate with terrorists"
It it the ogres decision if he is going to kill the child.
Are you trying to tell me if the PC's went away and didnt come back that the ogre wouldnt not have killed the child and let it go?
The truth is, if the PC's were there or not, the child was in terrible peril.
Would it have been smarter to back out, have the mage cast invisibility on the rogue and let the rogue sneak back in to try and free the child before PC's tried to enter melee with the ogre? Yes.
But it would have been impossible with an already raging barbarian.
Is an ogre trustworthy? Could you have counted on his word? no.
The barbarian did not kill the child, the ogre did, and is responsible for his own actions.
If this was a situation with a modern day police officer, would the cop have been reprimanded for this situation?
You bet.
NO LOSS is the only acceptable loss.
But It does happen.
Have I ever shot at a terrorist holding a hostage, threatening to kill him/her? Yes, you bet. Many times.
But it was a one shot, one kill situation, the bullet passed through the terrorists nerve center and prevented a retalitory shot, ending the engagement. We are trained day in day out to do that sort of thing.
Law enforcement and modern military are, by definition "lawful"
the barbarian was "chaotic" by virtue of his alignment.
It would have been a lawful decision to set up the above scenario with the invisible rogue.
Chaotic good, has often been discribed as "charles bronson and dirty harry"
Both types of Tv/Movie characters would have blown away the terrorist.
I would say he was definately playing a raging chaotic good barbarian.
Should he feel bad the child died?
Yes, but its not alignment shifting.
Perhas he should have made ammends to the childs family in a portion of the treasure, or personally quested to find a high preist, or magical item to resurrect the child.
But the mere act of charging and killing to ogre? Nope. Not an evil act. (stupid yes, evil no)
|
|
Added to this (not really covered in the OP) but equally relevant IMO, is the question of whether the barbarian had the means with which to resurrect the infant? What about the other members of his party? I would think other good aligned characters should also be held up to scrutiny if they did not act after the fact.
Yeah, what happened to the infant? Was he chunked at the charging barbarian? Was he kept as a doll or used as a football? If he was resurrected, were the PCs allowed to finish playing their game of touch football? Or maybe they continued after he was resurrected. Maybe they had to resurrect him again after a few field goals.
So you have an ogre holding a human infant, threatening to kill it if the PCs don't leave his cave immediately-- and instead of backing off, one of the PCs (a raging NG barbarian) charges forward to attack the ogre. The ogre snaps the infant's neck and moves to engage the barbarian. After coming out of his rage, the barbarian shows now remorse.
In regards to the barbarian's actions and alignment, how would you deal with this situation? Would you allow the player to use the fact that his character was raging as an excuse for the grim consequence of his bold charge? Is the barbarian even at fault, as it was, after all, the ogre who killed the child?
Sorry misread the bit about showing remorse, originally thought he did show remorse but reading through the rest of the thread the gist is he didn't show remorse then he has violated alignment maybe not the same had he been LG but being NG he should have shown some remorse even going so far as to apologise to the child's parents for his actions.
I'd say CN is more appropriate maybe plain Neutral except I don't know how the player was running his character up to that point and ever since then.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Regarding "showing remorse":
Do we think it's appropriate to judge a character's alignment on his/her actions, or rather on his/her emotions regarding those actions?
(This, making an exception for the paladin's code, which is all about action and behavior.)
If I my wizard commits wanton Chaoticity, but I roleplay deep distress every time, is the wizard chaotic, or lawful?
In any case, I guess I'm not sure what "shows no remorse" mean in this context. Did the barbarian say he as happy the kid as killed? If anyone asked, would the barbarian have expressed regret that the child had to die?
Can stoic people, who might feel distress but do not choose to show it, be good-aligned?
"No" might be a perfectly acceptable answer in your campaign, Triskele. That's why we call it "role-playing".
Thanks for the responses. I'm a little baffled by the concluding hostility, though. There was no alignment trap. I haven't explained the entire situation or course of events leading up to the encounter I described. It was quite fluid and made sense--a result of the PCs'/NPCs' interactions, with the NPCs making decisions to the best of their Int scores. My question was 'what would you do in such a situation?' Not, 'what is your opinion of the situation'.
If I wanted hostility I'd hand out on the 4e forum :) I'm joking of course.
I appreciate (most of) your responses and have a clear idea where to take it from here now. Thank you.
If the responses haven't been in line with what is going on in the situation, perhaps you should give more details. Given only that an ogre killed a kid when a barbarian didn't back away isn't going to be exactly very accurate. Why was the party there in the first place? To save the kid? Guess what, they failed. To loot the place? Picking greed (killing the evil ogre to get his stuff) over possibly helping an innocent (find some way to safely get the kid out) would at least be a neutral decision, possibly evil depending on where the exact lines are in the game. We just don't have enough information, so please give the background on this situation and describe the setting in detail if you want "meaningful" responses.
Also, what type of player (as opposed to character) expectations are there? If this was a 3.5 game for example, the barbarian might have thought they could get a surprise round (1 standard action only), he might have thought that he could do a [partial] charge (up to one move) and the ogre couldn't do a coup-de-grace (full round action). So perhaps there were different expectations from you and the player. The player may have felt he was punished unfairly and thus didn't feel he (the player) should feel any remorse over the death of the child and thus didn't play his character as such.
|
|
If I my wizard commits wanton Chaoticity, but I roleplay deep distress every time, is the wizard chaotic, or lawful?
Saying "sorry" isn't always enough.
Your actions are what counts.
In regards to the OP premise, while the barbarians act of charging the ogre was not an evil act IMO, even given the result, the lack of action after the fact would be where I would have focused my attention.
Given that criteria, in a game I was GMing, I would have expected any good aligned characters present, not just the barbarian, to make some effort to "make things right" in regards to the infant.
This is one of the best alignment discussio threads I've seen. I have to weigh in and say that an ogre holding a child hostage and threatening to kill it if the party didn't back away, and then doing so when charged by the barbarian, doesn't sound like a suspicious scenario at all. The fact that the barbarian charged him (assuming we're talking about the mechanical maneuver here) means the ogre was at least 10 feet away from the barbarian (and I'm going to take the risk of assuming the rest of the party as well), and therefore didn't have to worry about the AoO for performing a coup de grace.
Now, I will also say that the barbarian could, in theory, have taken more appropriate actions, even as he was raging and attacking the ogre. He could have tried to "disarm" the ogre of the baby. He could have tried a trip attempt. Of course, that brings up a whole other set of problems. The disarm attempt may have had a very sizeable chance of wounding the child unless done unarmed, which (depending on the specifics of the barbarian's weapon and feat choices) could have made the attempt even more difficult to actually pull off. The barbarian would have had to do the trip attempt unarmed unless he had a tripping weapon, and even then it would have been against a Large foe, and not necessarily guaranteed that the ogre wouldn't get a chance to kill the baby. Thus, the feasibility of such actions is highly contengent upon the specific circumstances, and may have left a straight charge/power attack as the best option available.
With the information provided thus far, I agree with most of the other posters: the baby's death is certainly the fault of the ogre and not something that should affect the barbarian's alignment. If the barbarian was truly callous and cold about the event, then he should probably drop to some kind of neutral, or at least be on alignment probation for a while (with one more offense dropping him). However, if any of the number of above exceptions were in effect at the time (misunderstandings between the player and DM in terms of roleplaying, the mechanics of the situatin, etc.), then the barbarian shouldn't be penalized at all.
The OP, as the DM of the situation, should know how to proceed from here. If he desires more feedback, however, more information on the situation would be necessary (and something I certainly would be interested in).
If the PCs believed the ogre to be a typical CE ogre, then the barbarian's actions were totally in keeping with a Good alignment. I mean really, what was he supposed to believe the ogre was gonna do after the party left the cave, give it a bottle of milk and then put it down for a nap? Ogres are brutish, cruel, Evil and often cannibalistic. A human baby survives a typcial ogre cave only as long as it takes the ogre to get his cauldron boiling.
If on the other hand, the PCs had some reason to believe the ogre was not a typical CE ogre, then you might be justified in adding a weight to the Evil arm of the barbarian's moral scale. DEPENDING ON THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES. But you would NOT be justified in changing his alignment right then and there as a sole result of this one [possibly] Evil act.
The fact that he was raging has no impact on this scenario one way or another. If a barbarian performs a Good act while raging, it is still a Good act. If he performs an Evil act while raging, it is still an Evil act.
TS
The fact that he was raging has no impact on this scenario one way or another. If a barbarian performs a Good act while raging, it is still a Good act. If he performs an Evil act while raging, it is still an Evil act.
Agreed. Now if he had been a frenzied berserker ...
The fact that he was raging has no impact on this scenario one way or another. If a barbarian performs a Good act while raging, it is still a Good act. If he performs an Evil act while raging, it is still an Evil act.Agreed. Now if he had been a frenzied berserker ...
** spoiler omitted **
Absolutely agreed!
|
|
This is why I usually track alignment. In a case like this, I'd move them a step or two closer to neutral and chaotic, but not change the alignment automatically. If they do more "non good" things and more chaotic things, eventually they'll change to CN, and usually when someone levels up I let them see where they are at on alignment.
I hate to shift someone's alignment due to one action that they take, but at the same time, I don't like the idea of someone just acting in any manner they want and saying that they "ultimately" are still their listed alignment.
The numerical value I started using to track this is the "21 point" alignment system in Green Ronin's Advanced Player's guide.
This is where the Alignment system from The Book of Divine Might would come into effect...You aren't CG you're C7G1 if you're chaotic neutral
or L7G7 if you're a fanatical paladin, There's no "true neutral" Everyone one is biased one way or another, and 2s are required to be maintained for "alignment purposes" so a Paladin would have to be a minmum of L2G2...if he was more concerned about law, he might be a L7G2, a devil would be L3or4 and E5-7, demons like C5+E5+It's a great system, you should check it out.
|
|
My group tends to get annoyed with alignment, and tracking it is a pain.
Ideally (which means it only sometimes happens) we try not to worry about the alignment axes and just play our characters.
Paladins, monks, and clerics and such are expected to behave according to their respective relgion/order's code of ethics. Violating the code is usually more clear-cut than trying to figure out "Good" and "evil" and wasting game time in ethical debating.
To account for Evil as a Force. I like to use Taint from Heroes of Horror, replacing Detect Evil, Smite Evil, etc. with Detect/Smite Taint.
Like I said, it sometimes works. Sometimes we fall back into the old alignment defintiions and taint goes out the window.
Sometimes, we fall back so far that we hold Alignment Auditing Sessions at the end of the evening's game.
|
So you have an ogre holding a human infant, threatening to kill it if the PCs don't leave his cave immediately-- and instead of backing off, one of the PCs (a raging NG barbarian) charges forward to attack the ogre. The ogre snaps the infant's neck and moves to engage the barbarian. After coming out of his rage, the barbarian shows now remorse.
In regards to the barbarian's actions and alignment, how would you deal with this situation? Would you allow the player to use the fact that his character was raging as an excuse for the grim consequence of his bold charge? Is the barbarian even at fault, as it was, after all, the ogre who killed the child?
Neutral Good alignment is pretty much "good for good's sake" and no good character should leave that situation without feeling remorse. The barbarian is definitely not NG and you should approach the player about a GM enforced change.
Ok, railroading on alignment is a bit of a touchy area. However, you are GM and if you think a player is not keeping to his alignment, note down the examples. Once you have enough points, discuss it with the player and recommend a new, more appropriate alignment.
|
|
With the information provided thus far, I agree with most of the other posters: the baby's death is certainly the fault of the ogre and not something that should affect the barbarian's alignment.
He felt no remorse about the outcome of his actions during his rage. Sorry, but if you are indirectly involved in the murder of ANYONE and feel no remorse over the event, that could be a sign of psychopathy.
I am sure we all have encountered a player who has chosen an alignment and cannot play that alignment well or at all. I personally have problems with Lawful Neutral, but love to play Chaotic Good. Players need to think about their alignments, though some GMs are more relaxed than others when it comes to alignment.
About ten years ago I played with a guy at university who always chose a good alignment. He tended to gravitate towards Lawful Good or Neutral Good. His characters tended to be the most violent, antisocial and pathologically driven individuals in the game. Sometimes they were more evil than the bad guys... Sometimes I felt our PCs should be making his character a red stain way before taking on the evil wizard or balor lurking around the dungeon.
If a player says his NG character feels no remorse over the death of an infant, either through direct or indirect action on his part, that calls for an alignment change. May be not an evil alignment, but definintely not Neutral Good.