One of my players tried got frustrated with the a prisoner's unyielding loyalty to his now deposed king (even though he was a hardcore loyalist since the king was deposed 5 years previous) and decided to hack him to pieces to show prove something to the other prisoner they had.
They laid out torture implements and mutilated a corpse in order to intimidate him, but really they didn't ask him any questions the demands of the NPCs group was a boat in exchange of the hostages still held and they did not waver. Before they got around to torturing the other prisoner I DM magiced a cyanide pill tooth just to move on from that mess.
He says he is Chaotic Good, and I shouldn't try to pigeon hole him into an alignment. I told him that it is defiantly an evil act. He says he would do anything for the good of his country, whatever it takes.
Here is a little of the background about the setting. We are running the Iron Kingdoms RPG it is a steam punk setting, one of the factions is a Stalinist-like empire which this character works for.
If you heal someone in this world who is of opposed alignment your gods instantly punish you in horrible ways, so alignment in the group is pretty important.
Where do you draw the line? Do you move him one step towards evil? How would you DM a character who makes these choices?
It's absolutely an evil act. "Anything no matter what it takes" is the very road to Hell. Devils will sell you that line all. day. long. Why? Because it works.
Good is the high road. If you want to maintain a good alignment, you have to take the moral high road. You do NOT do "whatever it takes". You do "what is right".
That all said, there are no rules of any type for acting out of alignment. It's left up to each DM to adjudicate. Personally, I would look at that character's history and re-examine his alignment based on the totality of his actions. My suspicion is that he'd be Neutral on the G-E scale at a minimum.
He does do good things, if only to give himself a better image so that he can be a better spy or perhaps because he cares about people.
Hrmmmm, other boarder line actions include:
He oversaw the selling of a lost orphan baby he found to an evil witch wearing cloths made of human skin in exchange for her aid in helping a city under attack. "I don't know that baby" was their reply. Of course they had to come across a blind lost mother of the baby frantically searching later, which they fail to tell anything about the baby to and pretend to help her look.
He shot a member of the army of the nation he is pretending to work with in the back pretty much because he really liked his awesome pistol. This man had done some bad wartime things and had captured an agent of the PC's nation so this is a fuzzy line, but not a good action.
Good actions:
Saved many people, including orphans from burning buildings, hostages, and others.
Took charge of leading an expedition to save the city the deposed king took back (even if the only way to do this was to help raise an army of the dead and give an evil artifact to an evil sorceress so she can lead them to defeat the invading force. Which led the sorceress to sate her vendetta by banishing her nemesis' soul breaking the artifact and creating a mass super unhallow spell on the city raising the dead).
So if a character saves 3 lives, but then kills 3 prisoners in cold blood that would make him neutral because it balances out? I need help on knowing when you alter a PCs alignment.
Evil, the baby thing was not borderline but over the line. NE or LE seems to be a better fit to me
|
Motivation is everything in alignment calls. There are always "society norms" arguments but you need a baseline. Even in a fantasy world where most problems are resolved with a sword or fireball, things like killing a prisoner to make an example and mutilating the corpse is evil, a good smacking around and a little washboarding is neutral and deception, threats, and restraints are general tactics of the good.
Instead of dealing a divine smackdown, how about another deity takes interest in him and becomes his patron (without his knowledge at first, drop a few hints, then if he doesn't pick up on the hints, he will be surprised when he goes to get healed =). Then he will have to live up to that deities standards or risk being passed on or abandoned totally.
I have never liked the even out concept. Bad is bad and you might try to atone, but you are always tainted (so sayeth an individual who is tired of having reformed people telling me to change my life when I never did 1/10th the evils they did =). Accidents and bad judgement calls happen but there is no excuse for premeditation =)...
I vote CE...
Absolutely it's a good act. "Sometimes you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelette." is the very road to great leadership. Take Cleopatra, Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan. They're all considered great, powerful leaders of their people and were greatly praised by them. According to their own country, they were far from evil. Yet they murdered many in the name of their countries, and were ruthless.
In my games when I DM, I always look to see what the highest motives a character follows in regards to his alignment. It kind of comes down to perspective. What is the characters perspective of good? Yes, there are some characters who closely follow morality, so breaking that morality would break his alignment. On the other hand, there is a Lawful character belonging to a game i'm DMing currently. He has a very strict "Code" that he follows of a secret society. Sometimes, in order to follow that code, he will break laws and even perform questionable acts, but to him, he is following HIS higher law to the letter. A good character could have the same analog, meaning his version of good could include killing a thousand babies if it meant killing hitler before he grew up and stopping a worse evil.
So you have to find out what the characters motives for good are. Do you think he believes he is doing the greater good and protecting his country/life/loved ones? Or is he stepping out of his normal bounds and has snapped from his normal path?
Yes, i'm playing the devils advocate. But the fact remains, each individual alignment ISN'T black and white. There's a wide range of personality within each alignment, and they're not all cut and dry.
Looks like a duck. Walks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. Let's just say evil and get it over with. Like pretty much everyone has said, the selling the baby thing is way over the line into the heart of evil... it does make the shooting the guy in the back for his pistol look less revolting though...
My first post was in response to the original post, before j l 629 clarified more on the characters actions.
The character's downright lost his marbles insane.
Absolutely it's a good act. "Sometimes you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelette." is the very road to great leadership. Take Cleopatra, Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan. They're all considered great, powerful leaders of their people and were greatly praised by them. According to their own country, they were far from evil. Yet they murdered many in the name of their countries, and were ruthless.
In my games when I DM, I always look to see what the highest motives a character follows in regards to his alignment. It kind of comes down to perspective. What is the characters perspective of good? Yes, there are some characters who closely follow morality, so breaking that morality would break his alignment. On the other hand, there is a Lawful character belonging to a game i'm DMing currently. He has a very strict "Code" that he follows of a secret society. Sometimes, in order to follow that code, he will break laws and even perform questionable acts, but to him, he is following HIS higher law to the letter. A good character could have the same analog, meaning his version of good could include killing a thousand babies if it meant killing hitler before he grew up and stopping a worse evil.
So you have to find out what the characters motives for good are. Do you think he believes he is doing the greater good and protecting his country/life/loved ones? Or is he stepping out of his normal bounds and has snapped from his normal path?
Yes, i'm playing the devils advocate. But the fact remains, each individual alignment ISN'T black and white. There's a wide range of personality within each alignment, and they're not all cut and dry.
True, they are not black and white. But you are WAY over the line. The historic examples you used the only one that wasn't Evil was Alexander, and yet, he was far from good. But that's another story.
The character you depicted is evil, but who says evil is a character that won't have ANY good in him? He may be a loyalist to his country, a great patriot, friend and lot's of "nice" stuff and still be evil.
Of course, good and evil will depend on which side you are on, but his actions are not even borderline as many said before.
|
|
Raven, the devil would be proud =).
I will pull the contrary card and disagree. The majority rules argument implies the lack of freewill. To say that because the majority of people in Nazi Germany agreed with the persecution of undesirables and followed the laws made then LG, or even that they perceived they were LG is a bit of a stretch (LN at the righteous best).
If there were no rules or consequences for your actions would you go instantly nuts and then feel what you did was right? Or would you still be guided by that internal moral meter that is inside you (assuming you have one... You do play dnd after all =).
If a character is worshiping Asmodeus, I do not believe he would think he is being a good guy. If he is following the ethics he would be lawful, if he was freewilled he would be Chaotic but he understands that his torturing and enslaving is not a good thing and when he dies he will not dance with angels.
I agree on the whole perception is everything philosophy, I just have this annoying hope for humanity... That and I can't help being contrary =)
The baby trading thing they were very non-nonchalant about at the time of the deal(cracking jokes about how they need space the space in their backpack and shrugging), but looking back on it they blame the fact that they were afraid of this witch who they have hear rumor and legends of so they gave her the baby.
Maybe you guys can help me come up with some difficult moral scenarios that will better show their true character that I can put them through.
This character is not a cleric, but the cleric did watch this all happen, the neutral cleric of the earth goddess Dhunia. Would condoning such acts be an evil?
How and when would you change the alignment? I am sure these PCs would flip out if they became evil thinking it was unfair, similar to the 1000 babies argument.
Killing 1000 babies to save 2000 babies is not a good act even though you do have a net gain.
@Xum:
Genghis Khan was a ruthless militaristic leader who showed brutality and no mercy to his enemies. But as a leader to his own people, he advanced the Mongol Empire as one of the worlds best leaders, historically. He promoted religious tolerance in the Mongol Empire and unified the empire from the nomadic tribes of northeast Asia from the warmongering tribes and warlords. Present-day Mongolians regard him highly as the founding father of Mongolia. I'm pretty sure a very very large cross section of Mongolia would be offended at you saying he's evil.
I could go on with Cleopatra as well. Hardly evil.
As i said, shades of gray. It's not cut and dry, and the alignments have wide ranges to them.
If you do evil things you are still evil alignment, doesn't mean everyone doesn't like you. You have a cruel empire you kill prisoners women and children but you are good to your people and they live good lives. Your people will see you as a hero, but your alignment should still reflect what you have done.
Shades of gray indeed, but this game calls for the boarders to be clearly marked, that's what I am having a hard time dealing with, because if a PC went over the line to evil it would be a major hinderence when the cleric channels positive energy and they are both divinely punished for it.
|
|
I wouldn't set up moral dilemmas, save those for paladins =). I would just keep a side talley of what you believe their alignment should be at the moment. Let them believe what they want, and when it comes time to get healed, let them feel your dismay. It is your table, and while entertaining them is your job, don't let them the upper hand =)
Raven, the devil would be proud =).
I will pull the contrary card and disagree. The majority rules argument implies the lack of freewill. To say that because the majority of people in Nazi Germany agreed with the persecution of undesirables and followed the laws made then LG, or even that they perceived they were LG is a bit of a stretch (LN at the righteous best).
If there were no rules or consequences for your actions would you go instantly nuts and then feel what you did was right? Or would you still be guided by that internal moral meter that is inside you (assuming you have one... You do play dnd after all =).
If a character is worshiping Asmodeus, I do not believe he would think he is being a good guy. If he is following the ethics he would be lawful, if he was freewilled he would be Chaotic but he understands that his torturing and enslaving is not a good thing and when he dies he will not dance with angels.
I agree on the whole perception is everything philosophy, I just have this annoying hope for humanity... That and I can't help being contrary =)
Aha, but i'm NOT pulling the majority argument! As is my example with the Mongols: They were not an evil people back in the days of Genghis Khan. They were militaristic, however, and perhaps a bit chaotic, but not evil.
Nazi Germany I would say was an evil country during the height of it's reign, if you want to use simple analogous game terms. If you really get into the nitty gritty, it was actually just the government leadership, as many of the citizenry were secretly opposed or largely unaware of the extend of the horrors that went on. But thats semantics in regards to this argument.
But we are floating away from the original issue here:
Evil people perform evil acts to their evil standards.
Good people perform good acts to their good standards.
Lawful people perform lawful acts to their lawful standards.
Chaotic people... you get the idea by now.
It's the persons own standard of conduct that sets the basis of things. A paladin has a standard of not lying, cheating, honor, etc. When they break that code, they have broken their alignment. By the same token, a Lawful Good fighter who doesn't break the law in town, generally avoids bad company, then lies to people habitually because he doesn't trust anyone due to his shadowy past that he has since reformed from, isn't breaking alignment either. It's his different perspective of a lawful good existence than a straight-and-narrow moralists view.
"I'm chaotic good to my own standards, I do whatever it takes for the greater good."
So that is okay? Should you allow everyone their own self-defined understanding of their alignment no matter what their actions?
Philosophical alignment discussion aside, AT BEST your player shows traits of True or Chaotic Neutral, Neutral Evil to Chaotic Evil at worst. They seem from your descriptions be playing a very selfish, "I'm going to do whatever is best for me at this moment" view of things with a slight lean towards sowing evil, so i'd most likely nudge them to True Neutral then watch them closely and nudge them again if they continue with selling babies and the such.
It really depends if they're doing it because it was just opportunity that presented itself to be taken advantage of for self gain, (Neutrality) or because they hold little to no value to human life, such as using them for questionable purposes or entertainment. (Evil).
Hehe, I think that I am chaotic evil for putting them in that baby situation to test them and sitting here giggling about the outcome. They were on a time sensitive mission back to the city and they hear a baby crying in the woods. Then they had to waste more time with the mother helping her look around. They didn't know what to do so I fixed it up for them with a random encounter, and adding the mother to the casualties in their wake.
He is also not working in his native country, but working to infiltrate the country he is in and gain high standing before the impending war breaks out between them.
Infernals being mentioned is an interesting aspect of this setting. Evil outsiders tempt mortals to sell their souls in trade for boons in this setting. Perhaps these characters need a visit and to be made a deal that they cannot refuse.
"I'm chaotic good to my own standards, I do whatever it takes for the greater good."
So that is okay? Should you allow everyone their own self-defined understanding of their alignment no matter what their actions?
Its not self defined understanding. It's self defined purpose. If they have a big picture, greater good in mind, yes that's Chaotic Good.
If, while going down that greater good path, they lie, murder, steal, cheat, etc, for purposes OUTSIDE of their defined "greater good", then they've broken alignment.
Say i'm Chaotic Good. My "greater good" path is to protect the king and country at all costs. I learn of a conspirator who wishes to assasinate the king, but he's too well defended inside his house, so I burn it down along with everyone else inside. I don't consider that breaking alignment.
Same situation, but everyone is asleep and he's unguarded, but I choose to burn the house down anyway along with everyone else inside the house regardless, that's unecessary and i've killed others outside of my purpose of defending the king and country that didn't need to be killed. I'm now either lazy (Chaotic Neutral) or just didn't care about the other people (Chaotic Evil).
Of course these are generalist examples though.
Sooooooo, he is chaotic good. His greater cause is his motherland and advancing his position in order to infiltrate this country before a war breaks out so he can be useful to the motherland.
So lying and deceiving people are okay to reach his goal. Killing an enemy agent is okay (although his method was not honorable). This advances his greater god cause.
Killing the prisoners out of frustration of their loyalties was not needed in any way to advance his cause so this is an evil act.
(Though if it would have gotten him the info he thought the guy had that he thought would help him would it be okay then to torture and kill helpless prisoners for the greater good and remain chaotic good??)
Trading the baby was not an act to further the goals to for the motherland.
(Unless the help of the witch would have helped him enough to place him in a position of power after saving the city thus furthering his greater good?)
YOU see what I am getting at here? You can justify a lot and remain 'chaotic good' if you twist your perspective enough.
The character can think whatever he wants about himself, that is no the part I need help on.
I need help on the god's perspective. Your neutral good follower gets punished if he heals the wrong alignment person. Where do you draw the line, is this how the good earth goddes would see his alignment?
Sheesh this is complicated.
Hehe, I think that I am chaotic evil for putting them in that baby situation to test them and sitting here giggling about the outcome. They were on a time sensitive mission back to the city and they hear a baby crying in the woods. Then they had to waste more time with the mother helping her look around. They didn't know what to do so I fixed it up for them with a random encounter, and adding the mother to the casualties in their wake.
He is also not working in his native country, but working to infiltrate the country he is in and gain high standing before the impending war breaks out between them.
Infernals being mentioned is an interesting aspect of this setting. Evil outsiders tempt mortals to sell their souls in trade for boons in this setting. Perhaps these characters need a visit and to be made a deal that they cannot refuse.
Did they have an option in the baby trade scenario? Clearly they did in the torture captive scenario so that is an evil act but I agree with the shades of grey possibility; it is an evil act (ie paladinhood gone) but not necessarily a total alignment change.
I think if you give them a situation where they MUST trade a baby to an evil witch or a city of people are lost you are in effect forcing them to commit an evil act. It is a gotcha situation- they cant win. It is like putting a dozen ravening fiendish dire wolves against a 1st level party - they die.
You are the DM if you create a situation where the party must commit an evil act to succeed then you cant really blame them for committing it. If, in the baby situation, they could have done something else which was harder to complete but which didnt sacrifice the life of an innocent then that is different but if the baby trade was their only option hmm.... it isnt really a test of their alignment is it? Just as the dire wolf situation isnt really a test of their combat/tactical skills.
there is a thread around here (I have no Link-Fu, sorry) about how the AP's frequently paint the players into a corner where they are virtually required to commit evil acts It covers a lot of the same ground this one does.
They had a total choice in the baby situation. It would have just been easier to save the city with the witch's help they felt. They saved the day fine without her, I didn't have her do anything to aid them until after they had turned the tide and thwarted the invasion, and then the witch did a few things to speed up the mopping up. They thought she would be more helpful though and more people would be saved with her help. That's what you get for making deals with witches!
Anyway there was defiantly a choice, and no threats made by her, unless her creepy presence and lore surrounding her are considered threats.
You be the judge, here she is, this is the character and her model:
http://www.wargamesheaven.co.uk/images/warmachine/33033.jpg
Scrapjack was not with her at the time.
I am not sure what portfolio you are referring to. He worships a good deity, Marrow, though extremely loosely. Like saying I worship Jesus because I might say his name when I slip and fall.
I am just wondering how the other deities would feel about his actions and their divine magic healing him, when healing evil people is extremely punished by the gods.
He oversaw the selling of a lost orphan baby he found to an evil witch wearing cloths made of human skin in exchange for her aid in helping a city under attack. "I don't know that baby" was their reply. Of course they had to come across a blind lost mother of the baby frantically searching later, which they fail to tell anything about the baby to and pretend to help her look.
Selling a baby to an evil witch? And you have doubts if that was an evil act?
It was an evil act, a soulless evil act to be precise.
They had a total choice in the baby situation. It would have just been easier to save the city with the witch's help they felt. They saved the day fine without her, I didn't have her do anything to aid them until after they had turned the tide and thwarted the invasion, and then the witch did a few things to speed up the mopping up. They thought she would be more helpful though and more people would be saved with her help. That's what you get for making deals with witches!
Anyway there was defiantly a choice, and no threats made by her, unless her creepy presence and lore surrounding her are considered threats.
You be the judge, here she is, this is the character and her model:
http://www.wargamesheaven.co.uk/images/warmachine/33033.jpg
Scrapjack was not with her at the time.
Ok then-
definitely evil, they made their choice, they seem to commit more that just the odd thoughtless evil act.
I reckon lawful evil, justifying it by saying it is for 'the greater good' is a typically LE thing IMO
|
Given that the character is Chaotic Good to start with, my vote would be for moving him along to Chaotic Neutral. I don't think falling back on the societal norm for Khador would be vailid for a chaotic character as they are already saying those rules don't apply as much to them as they do to other people. But good people do bad things and generally don't become Mwahaha evil overnight, Iron kingdoms is a good setting for shades of gray.
Dude, seriously, there is no question about it, they are evil. Some of the party may be neutral, but as I see it, Evil.
The thing is, if you start reading stories you will see that most fallen paladins, clerics and ANGELS, where on that basis too. They thought about the greater good, or the order of their Gods/churches and became Evil.
You don't even have to look so far as the Nazi and the Crusades, both evil deeds for the "Greater Good".
And I gotta say, you don't have to say anything to them, when that healing comes, make them suffer, that's the consequence of their actions. I'll even say more, if it was I, I would strip the priest from his powers until he attoned, specially if the God he follows is good.
The alignment system is quite clear (though any individual GM can fudge/adjust them as they see fit... that is the beauty of the game).
This is how I rule on these matters in my games:
If you do an act that helps others and does not cause harm to others... that is good.
If you do an act that helps others but causes harm to others... that is neutral.
If you do an act that helps nobody (except yourself) and causes causes harm to others... that is evil.
The second is open to debate however, and this is where the problems on "acting within alignment" generally occur. In these cases, the GM must look at the reasoning behind the act, and whether the acting character knows what the consequences of their actions are going to be. If the character is doing an action for personal gain, or to further the personal gain of somebody they know to be evil... then the act is most likely to be evil. If they do the action whilst personally sacrificing something of their own (something that puts them at a serious disadvantage), then that could be a good act.
However... the look at the examples give:
Selling anyone into slavery is almost always an evil act. The only eception this could be argued if the person they are being sold to will improve the life of the individual, but even then this is shaky ground.
The baby thing... that is certainly an evil act... and if there was any doubt, the fact they "pretended" to help the blind mother nails the guilty verdict to them. The "help" they gave only furthered to rid them of any guilt they may be carrying and was a simple PR excercise to improve their own personal image as "good" people.
Torture is an evil act. Inflicting pain on others is not a good act no mater how you dress it up. Going as far as inflicting mental torture on the prisoners (i.e. the corpse etc) prior to any phsyical torture further proves this.
What you have here is a classic senarios where players beleive that a chaotic alignment (even chaotic good) is an excuse to do evil acts. Chaotic simply means that you do not follow the rules and you cannot keep a promise. It is not an excuse to do evil.
A lawful person will not break the law and will never berak a promise.
A neutral person will bend the rules and breaka few if it is necessary. However, they will also respect and follow the law as they regonise it's importance.
A chaotic person is unable to follow the law and will break it without a second thought. Likewise, they will never honor a promise as they hold no value in such things. Treaties and laws are there to be broken and do not aply to them. Promises are just words used to get what you want and nothing else.
If the character breaks the rules and is free with their promises so that they can help others - then you could argue they are chaotic good.
However, the examples given do not fall into this category... at least not to me.
The dedication to their home country suggests a lawful alignment if any. And the desire to do anything regardless of the pain it causes to other is evil. They are lawful evil. not chaotic good.
And a final thought... if the historical leaders who did great evil for the good of their people were good... what will that make the likes of Hitler a thousand years from now? (Just playing devil's advocate).
A lawful person will not break the law and will never berak a promise.
OK, change that to "almost never" and I'm totally with you there.
A neutral person will bend the rules and breaka few if it is necessary. However, they will also respect and follow the law as they regonise it's importance.
I can agree with all this.
A chaotic person is unable to follow the law and will break it without a second thought. Likewise, they will never honor a promise as they hold no value in such things. Treaties and laws are there to be broken and do not aply to them. Promises are just words used to get what you want and nothing else.
... but this just veers way off into left field.
You're describing a scale where Lawful is 1, Neutral is 0, and Chaotic is -1,000,000, and those are the only three valid values.
No such thing. Chaotic people are not compelled to break promises and laws. They just don't think twice about doing so if it would make their job easier.
Let's illustrate this with a scenario:
Bob is a pious man. He follows a religion that states that anyone who goes out in the dark of night is unclean and defiled, and anyone who gazes out into the black of night has committed a sin (yes, I know, it's over-the-top, but it's an example). One night, while in his house, he hears the scream of a terrified young child in the street right outside his door.
If Bob is Lawful, he will not leave his house. He follows the tenets of his faith rigidly.
If Bob is Neutral, he will probably open up the window and look out before deciding whether to act. He's willing to sin, but he needs an overwhelming reason to do so.
If Bob is Chaotic, he's out the door without a second thought. That kid's in danger, and while he's as pious as any man, his God does not condone the death of innocents.
So, that scenario fits your statements pretty well. But now let's consider a different scenario: Bob with his religion as above, but nothing untoward happening during the night.
According to your definitions, Bob3 would go out into the night just to spite his God. That's patently silly. He's going to stay in his house just the same as Bob1 and Bob2.
I agree with Zurai. A lot of people tend to conflate evil and chaotic, or chaotic and insane.
Words are cheap. Based on his actions, I definitely think the character is evil, but I wouldn't call him lawful just because he's supposedly doing it for his country. Is murder and torture legal in his country? I'd say he was chaotic evil - doing as he pleases without concern for either the law or the moral value of his actions. I'd say he's done enough of these evil acts to tip his moral scale past merely chaotic neutral.
Here are some really interesting articles on alignment that I think might help you decide:
Paper analyzing the individual alignments (scroll down to A Better Alignment System: Alignment Combinations)
From the first one:
"In my world, the struggle of good and evil is at least twice as important as the struggle between law and chaos. Good and evil are in conflict over WHAT should be achieved, whereas law and chaos are NOT arguing about WHAT so much as HOW it is to be achieved.
...
To briefly generalize, GOOD strives for the mutual benefit of everyone. EVIL is the absence of any desire in this direction. Selflessness and altruism characterize GOOD. EVIL is characterized by selfishness and the belief one's personal concerns are more important than any other person's is.
...
LAWFUL beings believe order and structure may best achieve their goals. They believe individual rights are superseded by the rights and needs of the many. CHAOTIC beings believe order and structure can't possibly be as useful or better than the individual's freedom of choice. They believe they know what is best for them and probably what is best for others as well. They rely on their individual sense being better than societies' and know the individual's rights should supersede societies'."
- James Beach
Wasn't this covered in recent evil threads? You aren't being evil, you're just liberating yourself from moral constrictions...
|
|
About the lawful thing and lying... My wife is definitely LG with LN tendencies... I, on the other hand, am NG with CG tendencies. One of the games we cannot play is the card game BS. My kids and I can fib pretty well but when it come to my wife she either puts down the card and calls it or simply takes the stack because she won't lie.
This year marks twenty years of marriage and I cannot remember her ever lying. With that said, she is also quite blunt and to the point (works great for her intimidate =) while I am the diplomat (classic good cop bad cop setup =).
I appreciate and live within the law but have a passion for chaos and individual freedom. I go out of my way to help others keep my word and make sure to keep my garbage to myself. Does this mean I don't make mistakes? Oh hell no. But I do learn from them and make amends for the damage done.
I find it hard to believe that my alignment would be perceived any different regardless of where I would be (some of the more regimented might emphasis my chaotic tendencies =).
All in all I really like the alignment system and find it to be a perfectly simple mechanic to describe a rather difficult concept.
I know it has come up several times here, but really what alignment is, is describing a pattern of behavior. A single good or evil act should not, in my opinion, change someone's alignment, though it can definetly start someone down the path. Admittedly I didn't read every post here, but the charachter does sound evil, due to a pattern of evil activity.
I always find this example useful to describe the moral slides. A LG charachter is like a Jedi. Han Solo started CN (only caring about his own benefit), but ended CG when he came back to back up Luke on the trench run. Palpatine is LE.
A lawful person upholds the law, whereas a chaotic person dosen't care what the law says, as long as it serves his purposes on the moral axis of good or evil. So, if your player is actic on a moral scale more like an altruistic and kind hearted jedi, he's good. If he considers himself the most important factor, without harboring ill will towards others, he's neutral. If he is willing to use others to advance himself or his ideology without regard for their inherent right to life, he is evil.
Those help me understand some guideposts for determining what a player's actions are on the scale.
|
|
Using the star wars theme, where does the whole Darth Vader thing fit in? As a kid he seemed NG then bent to the classic LE, and in the end tried to atone? In the classic sense of things, did he go to heaven or hell?
Then, waxing way more philosophical then is healthy, do we ever truly change? I definitely was way more chaotic when I was younger but was that just a phase? Was it a detour due to my surroundings at the moment?
As for whether the gods should directly smite the lost, I think an even better punishment in Dndland is to simply cut the healing fountain off. That nd do they really care to mettle with the average people, even if they are heroes?
Gotta agree, the characters are evil evil evil. The whole baby thing was way over the top. A cleric of any god except an evil one should need an atonement for that one. I've seen it written before that 'one single evil act shouldn't change your alignment', but I disagree with that. I think it's a matter of degree. I think of Good/Evil as basically a range on a scale. 1000 being so good that angels have trouble looking at the bright aura you exude. -1000 being so evil that demons and devils get jealous of the dark miasma that surrounds you. A single act normally only moves you a little bit. So, shooting an enemy in the back to steal his equipment might get you a 5 point drop towards evil. Torturing a prisoner might knock you down a 100 points. Selling a baby to a witch who's wearing clothes made of dead baby skins is an automatic 1000 point bump towards evil, go straight to evil alignment, do not pass go, collect 30 pieces of silver.
Here's my take on it.
Good : If you are of good alignment, you despise evil. You don't do evil acts, you try to thwart evil acts if you can. This doesn't mean you commit suicide to do it, but if there is anything at all you can do, you do it. Especially evil acts (and yes, evil can have degrees, say stealing someone's life savings is pretty evil, while selling a baby to a woman where a coat made from baby skins is about a 1000 times more evil) should cause a good person to seriously consider a suicidal action. Any good character seeing the baby deal should have tried to stop it, even if it was a suicide mission to try to do so. That the characters did it and joked about it puts them way into the evil category. Something that evil, even as a single act, could move them all the way down the axis from good to evil.
Neutral : There are basically two philosophies in this alignment. Either I don't care at all about good and evil, they can take care of themselves. This is the 'selfish' neutral alignment, and it says that neither good nor evil is important, only what is 'good' for me is important. My life, wishes, happiness come first. The other stance is, 'The balance must be maintained'. This is the one most Nuetral druids adopt. Good and Evil have their place, is this philosophy. Yes, torture is evil, and occasionally necessary. Killing is evil, and occasionally necessary. So is protecting the young, so that species continue, which is good, and also necessary.
Evil : If you are of evil alignment, you despise good. You will do good acts, but only to forward your own machinations. You won't do especially good acts though, only small ones. For example, you might save the child from the witch who's about to cook it, but you will turn around and make that child a slave and make it work in a brothel to pay you back. Any 'good' deed you do will have as selfish ends to it, a way to make you more powerful or get you what you want. At the end of the day, evil is about 'the ends justify the means' more than anything else. Even those who revel in evil actions and enjoy committing evil acts are still 'ends justify the means' types. It's just their ends are self gratification, and the means are the evil acts.
Why is it when ever I see a thread like this I just think "Why ask the question?"
|
I mean, the way you did it sure, that was evil. Tearing apart dead corpses and torture? Yeah those are bad. But killing a bound prisoner? Not so much. In fact, it's almost a neccesity; what are you going to do, drag all your captured
people through the dungeon / across the countryside?
I have a Paladin of Chiliax that won't allow surrender for this very reason, though he at least won't bound them. He informs them their life was forefit when they signed up with X evil overlord, and they may as well die fighting. Compassion and good aren't always hand-in-hand.
Why is it when ever I see a thread like this I just think "Why ask the question?"Enquiring minds want to know!
My players are (insert good alignment here) and have (insert obvious evil act here) should they change alignment to evil? They say they aren't evil because they give blood/donate to charity/like puppies and balances out the (insert heinous evil act here).
Yup there are some dubious "evil" acts but some are universally constant. Killing helpless prisoners because its convenent, selling babies to Ed Gein's mother, murder of innocents are a few examples.