I agree with a lot of what you say, especially the fact that "things are not (always) as they appear", although you note that I add one word to that statement to make it more accurate. The smaller point I was trying to make was that the paladin's assumption, based on the objective facts at his disposal (wholesale slaughter of apparently unarmed non-combatants in their sleep, cold-blooded execution of captured and helpless guard under the protection of the PCs), was not ridiculous.
No, it was the natural assumption to make. The character should have taken a step back and had a 'WTF' moment when detect evil turned up nothing.
He could have guessed that they had some kind of aura shielding.
He could have guessed that things were not as they seemed.
Instead the player assumed the DM was dicking with him. He didn't quit the game because of the moral ambiguity because he never got as far as finding out about it before he walked, he walked because he assumed the DM was 'doing it wrong'. The moral ambiguity thing was why he decided not to come back to the game.
Well considering the DM has admitted to not having thought things out, I don't think an assumption that he was "doing it wrong" is necessarily incorrect.
Well considering the DM has admitted to not having thought things out, I don't think an assumption that he was "doing it wrong" is necessarily incorrect.
Possibly, no, but it was seriously crappy role-playing.
Well considering the DM has admitted to not having thought things out, I don't think an assumption that he was "doing it wrong" is necessarily incorrect.
A few things, as others have already pointed out, a creature of 5HD or lower will not show up when using detect spells, so the entire issue was moot from the very beginning.
But I had already planned that the alignment of the attackers was lawful neutral. The only parts I hadn't really thought out completely were things like what these attackers had been doing all their lives, their actual role in the military, etc. Essentially, I didn't build out entire character histories for a few throw away NPCs.
I think it is unfair to have double-standards.
A party of PCs is routinely requested to rescue somebody, and prevent Armageddon. The actions described by the OP could very well have been a party of (neutral-and-good) PCs that attempt a rescue mission.
Perhaps they would start to question their actions half-way through, perhaps not. Assuming it played out more-or-less like it did - would the party now consider themselves evil? Or their act of rescue?
I doubt it.
What if we simply took the demon out of the equation? I was just watching Master and Commander, so some of you will recognize this scenario. Let's say that there's a ship full of people in a storm. Part of the mast broke off with the crow's nest and it fell into the sea along with the person in the crow's nest. That person is hanging on for life to the broken part of the mast, however the ropes that were attached to that part of the mast are causing a drag on the ship that is threatening to capsize it. You have the option of cutting the ropes and dooming the individual from the crow's nest or capsizing the entire ship causing many more deaths.
You! Secure the other end of this line! The rest of you get ready to cut those ropes and sing a prayer as you do! I'm either coming back with him or not at all!
That is noble and good. Sacrifing yourself to save another is a noble act. Sacrifing the whole ship for one man is not. Fight the demon to save the whole town. Don't flip off the demon and watch the town burn.
Draw the lines and live to them. Forcing everyone else to live to them is evil. Being good is some thing you do, not something you talk about.
I think it is unfair to have double-standards.
I quite agree.
A party of PCs is routinely requested to rescue somebody, and prevent Armageddon. The actions described by the OP could very well have been a party of (neutral-and-good) PCs that attempt a rescue mission.
Seriously? "Leave no witnesses" is common for good PCs? Look I know everyone jokes about how PCs break into humanoids' lairs and kill and rob them, ha ha ha. But seriously, is that how people actually play with good characters? I don't think I've every played with a group of people that acted in such a fashion.
And while yes, there have been rescue missions or missions where they party had to confront foes in their own lair, this was already done with first hand evidence of the opponents being dangerous (such as attacking thristletop after the goblins attack sandpoint). Even in those cases, when someone surrenders or begs for mercy it is rare for the party to kill them at that point. So is slitting the throats of apparently unarmed people something good PCs do in people's games? Is that really that common?
Perhaps they would start to question their actions half-way through, perhaps not. Assuming it played out more-or-less like it did - would the party now consider themselves evil? Or their act of rescue?
I doubt it.
Well, obviously I game with strange outliers but I would imagine players that claim to be running good characters would get some strange looks from everyone if they proceeded like what was described in the OP. And I would certainly expect them to start questioning themselves when the killed someone that the people they were suppose to be rescuing were protecting. Hell at that point a neutral character should thinking, "Oh crap, did we just kill a bunch of innocent people?" (remember neutrals have compunctions against killing innocents)
Seriously? "Leave no witnesses" is common for good PCs? Look I know everyone jokes about how PCs break into humanoids' lairs and kill and rob them, ha ha ha. But seriously, is that how people actually play with good characters? I don't think I've every played with a group of people that acted in such a fashion.
+1,000,000. Suggesting otherwise is nothing more then eyerolling worthy, AFAIC.
Well, obviously I game with strange outliers
No, you don't.
Seriously? "Leave no witnesses" is common for good PCs?
That is not what I'm on about - I'm saying that it would be perfectly valid for a group of good PCs to believe they need to rescue someone, and that the least risky approach (both to themselves and in terms of collateral damage) is to kill the sleeping prison wardens.
If they later find out that they've been deceived they may be horrified - but when they executed their strategy they did so in good faith and with A PLAN(tm).
Any number of good characters would not have too much problems with committing localised genocide (i.e. whiping out the Thistletop goblins). A paladin might be convinced that he must cleanse this foul scourge. A ranger (especially with favored enemy goblin) would certainly also have little qualms with leaving no goblin standing.
Any number of good characters would come to the conclusion that taking some 3 dozen goblins prisoner and handing them over to the Sandpoint mayor (and expecting the mayor to do anything except summarily execute the goblins) is an exercise in futility. Sending the goblins packing with a slap on the wrist and a "don't do that again" is also particularly likely not to have much impact.
Perhaps it is a little contrived - but, really, I doubt it is particularly difficult to convince a party of good characters (PCs or otherwise) that a particular (objectively evil) act is in fact of grave necessity and done for good.
That might be the least risky, but that would not be the good thing to do. A good PC killing a helpless person would automatically become neutral at best in any game I GM.
I think this is the crux of the issue. A single action shouldn't change a character's (player or otherwise) alignment. It's a series of actions that slowly move you toward an alignment.
In the case of the attackers, they were lawful neutral characters who presumably have either never or very rarely done evil acts in the past. They are soldiers to their country first and foremost and follow orders for what they believe to be the greater good.
That is not what I'm on about - I'm saying that it would be perfectly valid for a group of good PCs to believe they need to rescue someone, and that the least risky approach (both to themselves and in terms of collateral damage) is to kill the sleeping prison wardens.That might be the least risky, but that would not be the good thing to do. A good PC killing a helpless person would automatically become neutral at best in any game I GM.
I'm sure your PCs all act honorably and good (well, the xG-aligned ones at least). And go out of their way to let the bad guys know that they're coming. Subterfuge and stealth are, after all, not something that a good and honorable person does - no no, play with the cards open and on the table.
Any number of good characters would not have too much problems with committing localised genocide (i.e. whiping out the Thistletop goblins).WHAT!?!?!?!? Are you friggen kidding me!?!!??! Genocide is EVIL!!!!
That doesn't stop a good party from killing the Thistletop goblins. Maybe a few get away or surrender. But 80% genocide is still at least EViL!!(!)
Certainly very few good parties will go the distance and setup a homeless goblin shelter and have encouraging singalongs to go with the resocialization program that will help the little gobbies integrate into society.
Perhaps it is a little contrived - but, really, I doubt it is particularly difficult to convince a party of good characters (PCs or otherwise) that a particular (objectively evil) act is in fact of grave necessity and done for good.You sound like a BBEG...
It's a pleasure to make your acquaintance. I am of course nothing but charm personified and would you be so kind to sign this little paper on the dotted line (and just again on the bottom here) - it's for my daughter's cookie fundraiser; I'm sure we'll get along swell.
...
Some US soldiers in Afghanistan accidentally shot a little girl (again) - they were of course sure that the vehicle was only occupied by militants. Not, as it turned out, innocents. It was just an order to engage. Just following orders. Does that make them evil?
That might be the least risky, but that would not be the good thing to do. A good PC killing a helpless person would automatically become neutral at best in any game I GM.I think this is the crux of the issue. A single action shouldn't change a character's (player or otherwise) alignment. It's a series of actions that slowly move you toward an alignment.
In the case of the attackers, they were lawful neutral characters who presumably have either never or very rarely done evil acts in the past. They are soldiers to their country first and foremost and follow orders for what they believe to be the greater good.
And to go back to an earlier question I asked, that I don't think was ever answered. Is each throat cut a separate act, or since it was all on one mission then all the throats "still only counts as one"?
Four thousand throats may be cut in one night by a running man.
-Turkish proverb
But it only counts as one act.
|
Four thousand throats may be cut in one night by a running man.
-Turkish proverbBut it only counts as one act.
Some sort of Epic use of Whirwind Attack or Great Cleave, perhaps? :)
Whirlwind Coup de Grace!
Ooh, a feat that allowed one to 'shape' a Whirlwind Attack to affect everyone along a line as you run could be kinda sexy!
Seriously? "Leave no witnesses" is common for good PCs? Look I know everyone jokes about how PCs break into humanoids' lairs and kill and rob them, ha ha ha. But seriously, is that how people actually play with good characters? I don't think I've every played with a group of people that acted in such a fashion.
Consider yourself fortunate.
|
|
I honestly find your morality to be sociopathic. You are an evil person, by d20 alginment rules or otherwise. The idea you coudl beleive genocide to be a Good act is jsut laughable. I really hope you are simply trolling and not really such a horribly evil person.
On the one hand, this is comedy.
On the other hand, it's tragedy.
Possibly even irony, depending on one's definition of irony.
|
|
*passes Set popcorn*
I've decided that I'm a little bit evil for being sadistic enough to find the frustration of another human being amusing, and a little bit good for being empathic enough to feel kinda bad for the guy. [I also transpose letters like a fiend when I'm agitated. Dyslexia sucks!]
Hm. A little bit evil. A little bit good. Does this make me the Osmond Family of Alignment?
What alignment do I have, if I willingly put on two Rings of Contrariness and use a Helm of Opposite Alignment as a chamberpot?
*passes Set popcorn*I've decided that I'm a little bit evil for being sadistic enough to find the frustration of another human being amusing, and a little bit good for being empathic enough to feel kinda bad for the guy. [I also transpose letters like a fiend when I'm agitated. Dyslexia sucks!]
Hm. A little bit evil. A little bit good. Does this make me the Osmond Family of Alignment?
What alignment do I have, if I willingly put on two Rings of Contrariness and use a Helm of Opposite Alignment as a chamberpot?
Have you worked in the service industry? I've found that you have to remain detached to survive at all in many service jobs, to the point that you are far enough away that tragedy appears as comedy.
Especially if you have the Benny Hill song running through your head all the time...Regarding your question: Chaotic Neutral. The older edition version.
No, that makes them neutral. You seem to forget that morality, even in PF is not black and white, there this wonderful gray area called NEUTRALSome US soldiers in Afghanistan accidentally shot a little girl (again) - they were of course sure that the vehicle was only occupied by militants. Not, as it turned out, innocents. It was just an order to engage. Just following orders. Does that make them evil?
I agree, actually. The US occupation of Afghanistan is probably, on the whole, an evil act, and the US soldiers that enact it are probably neutral (on average). That is the whole point of this discussion: people and their individual actions, and the collective action as a whole, can have vastly different alignment. (In the same way that an individual ant behaves in a semi-chaotic manner, but an ant-hive is a highly ordered lawful entity.)
To suggest that a group of good PCs cannot on purpose perform evil acts in good faith is laughable. Whether they maintain their alignment afterwards is a different discussion. But a paladin on purpose killing someone that turns out to be innocent is not a far fetched thing.
I honestly find your morality to be sociopathic. You are an evil person, by d20 alginment rules or otherwise. The idea you coudl beleive genocide to be a Good act is jsut laughable. I really hope you are simply trolling and not really such a horribly evil person.
Firstly, let me emphasize that I don't believe genocide is a good act - I reiterate that it is possible for a good party to commit genocide willingly. What happens to their alignment afterward is a different story.
Contrived example: a fortress is overrun by demons (Diablo-style). 4 paladins go in and clean up; killing every last demon. Definitely an example of localized genocide. Definitely an example of good characters that do what they believe is good and honorable.
I honestly find your morality to be cookie cutter and prone to jump to conclusions. By my understanding of morality and alignment there is more to it than black, white, and gray, and shades thereof. Call me post-modern, but in my world a single two-axial alignment stamp does not describe a person.
Crisis. It's like arguing with a newborn Christian.
Let us make a clear distinction here:
In the real world, genocide always involves killing fellow human beings, which is always evil.
In a fantasy world, genocide can mean that, or it can mean wiping out a nest of brain-sucking nightmares from another dimension out to turn you and yours into a mindless slave and food animal. There is a huge difference between the two, and in the latter case it's genocide as a clear-cut one of pre-emptive retaliation.
|
My latest take on the Good/Evil axis of the alignment is that it is not so much based on what you do (or why you do it, since sentient beings are real great at finding positive reasons to commit negative acts), but on how you feel doing it.
To put it succinctly :
- A Good person will feel bad about hurting or killing someone (anyone in fact)
- An Evil person will enjoy it
- A Neutral person will not feel strongly about it, one way or the other
Hope this helps.
My take on alignment is all about circles. We all draw them around ourselves, and they include and exclude people. They are the extent to which we empathise with people, the extent to which we care.
A good person cares about everyone, regardless of who they are, he acknowledges their rights and feelings as if they were very close to him. He cares as much about the stranger as he does about his own family (well, he might choose his family in a straight choice, but in their absence he would act in a way that would make no difference were it a stranger or his brother).
A neutral person cares about the people he knows, his friends and family, and while he may acknowledge the principal of being good and helping the stranger, it comes down to how much it's going to potentially cost him to do so and what his gain may be. A neutral person may well find it easier to agree to bad things happening to somebody he does not know and has never met if it profits him.
An evil person has a very small circle around him indeed. It may encompass his family or a few friends, but not much more. It's all about what profits him, and if you aren't one of the few (if any) that he cares about, that's not his problem. An evil person does not see the people outside that circle as people at all, they are just 'things' that can be used or are in his way.
In the end, it always comes down to the individual. Throwing out godwins and genocide threatens to skew the discussion to knee-jerking. Of course we all want to say that genocide is evil because IRL, it is about as close as we come to evil. However, a paladin may feel that it is his duty to kill off every last vampire in the world, which is genocide. So you can't just play the genocide card and make a declaration of alignment.
Also, it is misleading to call a nation, a war, or a social movement Evil (where capital Evil is the alignment and is not intended to be colloquial in usage). Soldiers in a war can have different alignments, even every one of the 9 alignments, on the same side. Indeed, soldiers on both sides of a conflict can. Participating in a (colloquially) evil war does not impact your alignment. It would be unappealing to my gaming style to force an unwitting participant to change alignments because they didn't know better or because they didn't know what else to do when drafted to defend their kinsmen. For the purpose of determining alignment, you have to consider the intent of an individual.
I also don't believe characters fluctuate in their alignments. Good characters don't do "neutral" actions or evil ones. Actions that have nothing to do with alignment are not "neutral" actions, because there is no moral action involved. So I have no need for the score-keeping method of determining alignment. If a person always attempts to save innocent people that the person believes is in their power to save without risking other innocents, the person is good. If a person sometimes refuses to save innocent people, even if it is in their power and there is no risk to other innocent people, then the person is neutral. If a person willingly kills innocent people, even if they do not have to do so in order to save other innocent people, then the person is evil. At any given time, the person has the same alignment and the player can tell you what that alignment is because they are the only person who really knows whether they will always save innocents, will sometimes refuse, or will sometimes kill innocent people for fun/profit/the heck of it.
When a choice between which innocent to save or sacrifice is called for, good characters are still good even if they make stupid choices. The player can inform you of whether they are good by letting you know whether the choice was a "hard one" that they thought was the right one.
I think soldiers are no more good or evil than anyone else, though they may be closer to testing their morality than civilians. As long as a soldier believes they are fighting the good fight (i.e., more innocent people will be saved by actions that result in the death of other innocent people), they can be good. The risk is that the closeness of death will make them stop caring, and slide in the direction of neutrality or even evil. The OP is tricky because of the mistakes that were made, but the NPCs have alignments that are determined by whether they are killing others to save innocents, or fighting the good fight.
with my short career as a GM and Player in many systems and additions (7years now), I have stopped asking my players what alignment are you, I simply tell them that during the first session I will watch how they act and react this will decide what alignment I think they are. this can change, but usually I define their alignment on how they act and how they justify there characters thinking. I then write this down, once that is done I tell someone when they are out of alignment, more on they are acted odd for their past actions, and thus I get them to reason why would their character act this way. Keeping to a set style of acting for a character or finding good explanations for odd actions leads to bonus xp in my games for role playing
with my short career as a GM and Player in many systems and additions (7years now), I have stopped asking my players what alignment are you, I simply tell them that during the first session I will watch how they act and react this will decide what alignment I think they are. this can change, but usually I define their alignment on how they act and how they justify there characters thinking. I then write this down, once that is done I tell someone when they are out of alignment, more on they are acted odd for their past actions, and thus I get them to reason why would their character act this way. Keeping to a set style of acting for a character or finding good explanations for odd actions leads to bonus xp in my games for role playing
This *sounds* OK, but I've found that what you see as a certain alignment is not necessarily what the player sees. You can go an entire game where a player saves every innocent person he comes across. If you pick the alignment for the player, they are good. If you ask the player, they might say it just seemed profitable to save those innocent persons, and their character would not have done so if there was no potential for profit. It turns out that apparently good character was neutral all along. That's why you ask the player. Just like "Are you evil if you kill a person" cannot be answered without more, "Are you good if you save a person" cannot be answered without more, either.
I agree that a DM can and should ask players for reasons for certain actions. If you see them kill an innocent creature, and don't understand why they would do so, you ask the player. Most players are honest about whether their characters are evil and will give you the justification for declaring the intent+action Evil. The one thing that I let players maintain complete control over is how their characters feel. I never tell them that they are angry, sad, happy, etc. That is for the player to decide. Even charm spells only impact a small aspect of their feelings ("Your character really likes the spellcaster until the spell wears off.") So I'm not about to tell them that they want to kill innocent people because they accidentally or erroneously killed an innocent person. That is exactly what you are saying when you slap an Evil alignment on a PC. So checking with the player before shifting alignment is very important. It's no fun to be told how your character feels and acts, unless they are compelled with magic (which has nothing to do with the true feelings of the character).
I have played the guess-the-PC-alignment game before. Sometimes you can guess and sometimes you can't. It doesn't work as well in practice as it should in theory. It is more effective to explain what alignment means in your game because alignment is different in different games (even two different "core" games). It doesn't help that different authors have different takes on alignment, either. Clarify what you can. Then let the players decide what their characters are.
|
This *sounds* OK, but I've found that what you see as a certain alignment is not necessarily what the player sees. You can go an entire game where a player saves every innocent person he comes across. If you pick the alignment for the player, they are good. If you ask the player, they might say it just seemed profitable to save those innocent persons, and their character would not have done so if there was no potential for profit. It turns out that apparently good character was neutral all along. That's why you ask the player. Just like "Are you evil if you kill a person" cannot be answered without more, "Are you good if you save a person" cannot be answered without more, either.
I had one like that, played the hero soley for the glory. never did care about the people.