OK last night I was running a game,In one of the encounters the characters fought a Mindflayer with a Glabrezu, they killed the mindflayer and found a contract for the enslavement of the Glabrezu. I did not write the contract out but I might do that at some time, anyway as long as the Glabrezu is not put into situation that is meant to kill him he will serve the holder of the contract.
the party is a three man party (couple player could not make it) a Chaotic Neutral half orc rouge, Chaotic Good Ranger with favored enemy evil outsiders, and A Chaotic Good alchemist,
The whole party deside that the Rouge should keep the contract for now until we can figue out a way to get ride/destroy the Glabrezu. The Ranger for the rest of the night told the Rouge to summon the Glabrezu for every fight, and when the Rouge was domanated into giving the contract over, the Ranger gabed the Contract saying “it's combat so I better take that” but after the fight he did not give the contract back and used the Glabrezu a couple more times.
As I was handing out EXP at the end of the game I informed the Player of the Ranger that his Alignment shifted to Chaotic Neutral because of the way he handled the use of the Glabrezu. He used it many times, some of which were not need. He took the contract the first chance he had after we found it and he keep saying things like “we can use him for good to the other players”
There was some what long argument after I did this where the player said that he could not see how he did not act with in his Alignment. NOW am I being a jerk and overly harsh?
As it was his favoured enemy and he was 'trying to use it for good purposes' I'd probably err on the side of the Ranger.
But as the DM only you know the history and usual attitude and actions of his character.
|
OK last night I was running a game,In one of the encounters the characters fought a Mindflayer with a Glabrezu, they killed the mindflayer and found a contract for the enslavement of the Glabrezu. I did not write the contract out but I might do that at some time, anyway as long as the Glabrezu is not put into situation that is meant to kill him he will serve the holder of the contract.
the party is a three man party (couple player could not make it) a Chaotic Neutral half orc rouge, Chaotic Good Ranger with favored enemy evil outsiders, and A Chaotic Good alchemist,
The whole party deside that the Rouge should keep the contract for now until we can figue out a way to get ride/destroy the Glabrezu. The Ranger for the rest of the night told the Rouge to summon the Glabrezu for every fight, and when the Rouge was domanated into giving the contract over, the Ranger gabed the Contract saying “it's combat so I better take that” but after the fight he did not give the contract back and used the Glabrezu a couple more times.
As I was handing out EXP at the end of the game I informed the Player of the Ranger that his Alignment shifted to Chaotic Neutral because of the way he handled the use of the Glabrezu. He used it many times, some of which were not need. He took the contract the first chance he had after we found it and he keep saying things like “we can use him for good to the other players”
There was some what long argument after I did this where the player said that he could not see how he did not act with in his Alignment. NOW am I being a jerk and overly harsh?
I couldn't tell without knowing what the contract states. But that does seem like a pretty harsh alignment change to me, as a GM(25+years experience) alignment changes should never be given out unless there is prolonged shifting in the PC's attitudes, I would never do a snap alignment change. But thats my opinion, not anyone elses.
It depends.
Slavery, even of an evil being, is not a good thing. Any good character should be rather sickened by the whole thing to start with.
The character's actions were absolutely selfish. Good can be selfish, to some extent, but not as bad as was being shown.
What it comes down to, in my opinion, is whether this was an abberation or whether this was an ongoing thing.
If it's the first time the ranger has acted like this, I'd have given him a warning that his alignment was slipping, and kept a close eye on him from then on. If he's been acting like a selfish jerk IC for several games, then it was probably fair to change his alignment. However, I never do an alignment change unless someone (A) severely steps out of line (slaughtering a room full of kids for example) or (B) get's a warning first.
So, if you didn't give him a warning for continued activities, I'd say you might have been a little out of line. If it was the first time he'd acted in a non-good manner, again, a little out of line.
first this is an on going problem with this Player and Character and I gave the party hints at the fact that he was EVIL and using him was an EVIL act.
At one point in the game the party let the thing eat all the slaves in the dungeon, some what by mistake but they did not start wording there request any better after they found out about this.
Also I wanted the contract to have some what of a push on the Alignment I normal would not be this heavy handed other wise.
I did tell him that amending his behavior would shift it back fairly quickly but he would have to start acting Good.
first this is an on going problem with this Player and Character and I gave the party hints at the fact that he was EVIL and using him was an EVIL act.
At one point in the game the party let the thing eat all the slaves in the dungeon, some what by mistake but they did not start wording there request any better after they found out about this.
Also I wanted the contract to have some what of a push on the Alignment I normal would not be this heavy handed other wise.I did tell him that amending his behavior would shift it back fairly quickly but he would have to start acting Good.
Then I'd say you were not being harsh (now that I've got a few bits of extra information).
Honestly, two good characters who accidently got a bunch of slaves eaten by an evil outsider and then showed no remorse and didn't change their ways? I'd have smacked them both down to Neutral at that point. And the Neutral should be getting really nervous about being evil about now.
I was running the alchemist as an NPC I did not think that he should get punished for what the other guys did.
It was a lot of fun to run even if one of my player got his feather ruffled, hopefully the next game they do something about the whole thing. Either way it should be entertaining and hopeful player a few more of my player show
first this is an on going problem with this Player and Character and I gave the party hints at the fact that he was EVIL and using him was an EVIL act.
At one point in the game the party let the thing eat all the slaves in the dungeon, some what by mistake but they did not start wording there request any better after they found out about this.
Also I wanted the contract to have some what of a push on the Alignment I normal would not be this heavy handed other wise.I did tell him that amending his behavior would shift it back fairly quickly but he would have to start acting Good.
Then I'd say you were not being harsh (now that I've got a few bits of extra information).
Honestly, two good characters who accidently got a bunch of slaves eaten by an evil outsider and then showed no remorse and didn't change their ways? I'd have smacked them both down to Neutral at that point. And the Neutral should be getting really nervous about being evil about now.
+1, I'd also note that it is a glabrezu's job to bring about chaos and evil, so do not hesitate to put some oil on the fire.
As a glabrezu, he should prolly try take advantage of this and try to steer the ranger towards creating more chaos and evil, he might even trick them into a false sense of security by being relatively submissive and controlable until such time he can create epic chaos.
Don't be too afraid of the consequences, just do not make encounters they have no option but to summon the glabrezu, even if it is fleeing instead, you should not out them in a situation they have no other option but to use evil to win the day.
OK last night I was running a game,In one of the encounters the characters fought a Mindflayer with a Glabrezu, they killed the mindflayer and found a contract for the enslavement of the Glabrezu. I did not write the contract out but I might do that at some time, anyway as long as the Glabrezu is not put into situation that is meant to kill him he will serve the holder of the contract.
the party is a three man party (couple player could not make it) a Chaotic Neutral half orc rouge, Chaotic Good Ranger with favored enemy evil outsiders, and A Chaotic Good alchemist,
The whole party deside that the Rouge should keep the contract for now until we can figue out a way to get ride/destroy the Glabrezu. The Ranger for the rest of the night told the Rouge to summon the Glabrezu for every fight, and when the Rouge was domanated into giving the contract over, the Ranger gabed the Contract saying “it's combat so I better take that” but after the fight he did not give the contract back and used the Glabrezu a couple more times.
As I was handing out EXP at the end of the game I informed the Player of the Ranger that his Alignment shifted to Chaotic Neutral because of the way he handled the use of the Glabrezu. He used it many times, some of which were not need. He took the contract the first chance he had after we found it and he keep saying things like “we can use him for good to the other players”
There was some what long argument after I did this where the player said that he could not see how he did not act with in his Alignment. NOW am I being a jerk and overly harsh?
IMO, you should not change the alignment, even if the ranger is stupid. I think it works better to let the player change the alignment of the character. There are no hard feelings when it is done that way. For example, going with just the few facts you provided, you could say:
If your intention in using the demon repeatedly over time, even after you knew that it was killing innocent beings when given the chance and even when you were likely to win without its aid (making the use of the demon both unnecessary and risky), was because you are too foolish to see that the decision resulted in a net increase in chaos and evil in the world, you are still CG, but anyone who hears about your exploits is likely to think that you are CN or CE.
If your intention in using the demon repeatedly over time, even after you knew that it was killing innocent beings when given the chance and even when you were likely to win without its aid (making the use of the demon both unnecessary and risky), was because you wanted to do what was most effective for your own personal reasons, but did not really want to do evil and just weren't smart enough to limit collateral damage, you are CN.
If your intention in using the demon repeatedly over time, even after you knew that it was killing innocent beings when given the chance and even when you were likely to win without its aid (making the use of the demon both unnecessary and risky), was because you didn't care about the consequences of using a demon, you are CE.
If he chooses CG, then he will probably change his actions next time, but will not have become annoyed with the forced alignment change. So the effect will be the same, minus some conflict.
Well, with a CG ranger with favoured enemy of evil outsiders ... what is that Glabrezu still doing alive? That alone is out of character to me.
Next ... it ate all the slaves (a CG should have been thinking of freeing them) and they did nothing? It is STILL alive?
I think your alignment change is more than deserved - it seems to me they are putting the desire for an extra set of hands before their morals.
Ehhh... totoro, I'd have to say that he already had his chance when he found out that it was killing innocent people and decided to NOT change what he was doing.
If he found out, and then, because he was CG, changed his actions, then yeah.. no alignment change.
But being informed that innocents are dying and then not doing what needed to be done to protect the innocent.. that's the very definition of Neutral vs Good.
.
Actually.. considering the only reason the Glabrezu was capable of killing those innocent was because of the actions of the Ranger, I'd be pretty close to saying that the Ranger continuing to summon the thing and do nothing to prevent it from killing more innocents is on the verge of "disregard for sentient life", which is whole cloth evil.
If someone else in the group was doing the summoning and the Ranger did nothing to stop them (to the benefit of himself), then I could see Neutral...
But actively making an environment where innocent people are dying? I'm sorry... I'd be warning the player that he's about to slip into Evil territory here.
.
If it wasn't for the innocents dying, I probably wouldn't have done anything though. That's a fairly significant factor in this discussion. Just summoning the thing and using it in battle might be uncharacteristic for someone with a favored enemy against them.. then again, it might feel like an ultimate irony to use it in that way, etc, so maybe not.
Letting innocents die (nay, actively putting innocents in harms way), is entirely different.
If the "slaves" were all prisoners or murderers, etc.. then things might sway back again. But honestly, Chaotic Good should be fuming at the idea of slaves being here to begin with... not being blaze about their dying because he summoned a creature that intends to eat them.
+1
|
I couldn't tell without knowing what the contract states. But that does seem like a pretty harsh alignment change to me, as a GM(25+years experience) alignment changes should never be given out unless there is prolonged shifting in the PC's attitudes, I would never do a snap alignment change. But thats my opinion, not anyone elses.
I typically like to give PCs warning, if over multiple sessions there is a trend then I tell them "i have observed this trend" Then if that goes on I start shifting their alignment, not all at once, but slowly,
So if they were LG but acting CE they would (depending on if they were more E or C) LG -> NG -> CG -> CN -> CE
All along if they changed then we would stop their, and if they started behaving better then it would go the other way.
There has been one exception to that, the player was willingly trending from LN -> LE, and then inside of a session released and undead plague on an evil city, and killed a servant in cold blood. His alignment shifted, but he knew it was going to so it wasn't me being a rat bastard. The players who had detect good were a bit surprised, but they didn't know about the zombie plague, and their characters didn't know about the murder.
Ehhh... totoro, I'd have to say that he already had his chance when he found out that it was killing innocent people and decided to NOT change what he was doing.
If he found out, and then, because he was CG, changed his actions, then yeah.. no alignment change.
But being informed that innocents are dying and then not doing what needed to be done to protect the innocent.. that's the very definition of Neutral vs Good.
.
Actually.. considering the only reason the Glabrezu was capable of killing those innocent was because of the actions of the Ranger, I'd be pretty close to saying that the Ranger continuing to summon the thing and do nothing to prevent it from killing more innocents is on the verge of "disregard for sentient life", which is whole cloth evil.
If someone else in the group was doing the summoning and the Ranger did nothing to stop them (to the benefit of himself), then I could see Neutral...
But actively making an environment where innocent people are dying? I'm sorry... I'd be warning the player that he's about to slip into Evil territory here.
.
If it wasn't for the innocents dying, I probably wouldn't have done anything though. That's a fairly significant factor in this discussion. Just summoning the thing and using it in battle might be uncharacteristic for someone with a favored enemy against them.. then again, it might feel like an ultimate irony to use it in that way, etc, so maybe not.
Letting innocents die (nay, actively putting innocents in harms way), is entirely different.
If the "slaves" were all prisoners or murderers, etc.. then things might sway back again. But honestly, Chaotic Good should be fuming at the idea of slaves being here to begin with... not being blaze about their dying because he summoned a creature that intends to eat them.
Actually, I completely agree with your logic. My concern is more meta. There is often a disconnect between what a player does and what a character does, just by the fact that this is a game and it is hard to get completely into character. Stupid players often do things that they really wouldn't want to do because they miss the point. I don't change alignment towards evil when a player is stupid, as long as they utter the magic words: "It was my intention to protect the innocent." I have never had a problem with a player trying to do really evil things while uttering those words because most players are happy to shift alignment to match the definition of the alignment in the game.
I certainly wouldn't take the side of the ranger player if I was in that game, though. The alignment change was well-reasoned and justified.
But honestly, Chaotic Good should be fuming at the idea of slaves being here to begin with...
I agree that slavery is a bad thing. However, for the sake of argument, does this make most of the Founding Fathers CE?
How much should environment account for alignment?
But honestly, Chaotic Good should be fuming at the idea of slaves being here to begin with...I agree that slavery is a bad thing. However, for the sake of argument, does this make most of the Founding Fathers CE?
How much should environment account for alignment?
CE? Certainly not.
But then, trying to apply D&D's simplistic and gamist alignment system (let's face it, this is a 35-year-old D&D concept) to the real world is silly.
The Founding Fathers created a government that has lasted centuries, and has been heralded by many great men as the best form of government practiced in the world - surely this is a highly lawful act (in fact, a lifetime of lawful acts to found such a government).
Yet, they also defied their existing government, started and carried out a revolution against established authority. Highly chaotic.
Yet they did so for good reasons, so despite wavering between lawful and chaotic, their actions generally bespoke of a good alignemnt.
Although, many of them were motivated by their own financial greed. Wealthy businessment who correctly deduced that overthrowing the existing greedy government and replacing it with a new government that favors their personal industries would make them all much wealthier. This is clearly a neutral act. So maybe they weren't always expmplifying a good alignment.
And many of them owned slaves or endorsed slavery. By our gamist alignment standards, this is evil.
So, basically, our Founding Fathers alignments were, more or less, Lawful Chaotic Good Neutral Evil.
Stick that feather in your hat and call it Yankee Doodle...
(all of which is very much why I don't use alignments when I DM)
(all of which is very much why I don't use alignments when I DM)
Ayep.
I fell in a star wars game for less, and was fine with it.
Seriously, that Ranger is not acting good and I would have no problem shifting his alignment. Perhaps you should have given him a warning after the first couple times that he used it that using it in that was not a good act, but justifying an evil act by saying you can do good is the way you get fallen angels.
But honestly, Chaotic Good should be fuming at the idea of slaves being here to begin with...I agree that slavery is a bad thing. However, for the sake of argument, does this make most of the Founding Fathers CE?
How much should environment account for alignment?
Slavery is a tricky topic because it is easy, even normal, to have a knee-jerk reaction. Logically, it seems like any evil alignment would be happy to have slaves. IMO, institutionalization of slavery has a lawful feel because it turns people into property. Sounds LE. I would go further, though. I think LN might be comfortable with slavery, but would not act like monsters to their slaves. NE might be fine with the institution of slavery and use slaves as toys; N might be fine with the institution of slavery, but not act like monsters to their slaves. The founding fathers perhaps had a few LE ardent believers in the institution of slavery, but any alignment would have been possible depending upon how important uniting the states really was, and how much of a compromise would be acceptable to accomplish the goal.
CE would be more into the domination over another sapient being angle than the importance of a well-run state slavery institution. The feel would be different even though both CE domination and LE chattel would be called slavery. Even LG has a slavery analog, which would look something like a socio-economic hierarchy where the bottom of the hierarchy is so poor that they do not have the freedoms of the apex.
Slavery is a tricky topic because it is easy, even normal, to have a knee-jerk reaction.
Trust me, it is not the only one. I just wanted to point out that defining alignment is not at cut and dry as we might like it to be.
To the OP, I would suggest talking with your player. Both of you should explain what your expectations of alignment are and then try to find a common ground.
I have slavery in my campaign world.
In the orclands, it's outsiders who get captured on raids who are slaves.
In the free-desert lands, it's criminals. Rather than put a criminal in a place and make the populous feed them, they enchanted collars on them and turn them into slaves. They serve out their sentences and help the populous instead of being a drain on them. Criminals who are sentenced to death for their crimes are simply and quickly beheaded or hung.
Good characters usually grimace when they see a slave collar in the desert lands, but they usually don't kick up a big fuss, since 95% of the slaves are criminals (there's always a few innocents that slip through, just like our justice system in the US).
If a good character is convinced a slave was incorrectly condemned, then they might fight it in court or try to get the slave free (by force or words), but that's a roleplay opportunity.
But honestly, Chaotic Good should be fuming at the idea of slaves being here to begin with...I agree that slavery is a bad thing. However, for the sake of argument, does this make most of the Founding Fathers CE?
How much should environment account for alignment?
Eh? I'd say he was against the idea of slavery (limiting the personal freedoms of a person) because he's Chaotic, not because he's Good.
A Good person who was Chaotic would want to protect innocent people from the slavery placed on them... while an Evil person who was Chaotic would be against himself being placed into slavery.
This Chaotic Good Ranger sounded like he was moving towards Chaotic Evil, or Neutral Evil (not caring so much about personal freedoms), hence why I thouht it odd that the slavery going on didn't resonate with the character at all.
Granted, I don't know the full background of the situation. Perhaps the Ranger had been raised where slavery was normal, or at least partially accepted.. so his neutral attitude might stem more from "I've seen it before" than "I don't care".
.
As an aside, I would say the founding fathers were all about personal freedoms (moreso after the abolishement of slavery and equal rights and all that jazz), so yeah.. I think the US was built on Chaotic ideals, which is why it clashed so much from the British "do what we say" government.
Just because many owned slaves at the time, doesn't mean they weren't thinking in Chaotic terms. Keep in mind, the government they founded got the ball rolling to eventually legally abolish things like slavery, etc.
|
This really sounds like "The ends, justifies the means."
I think we can agree, using a contracted Glabrezu is in, and of itself an evil act.
Now, if you use him sparingly only when you absolutely need to (save yourself, save someone else). That is Justified and no alignment shift.
If you are using him all the time to make every encounter easier you are doing exactly what a Glabrezu would want you to do. That is not Justified and an Alignment shift to Chaotic.
If you are using the Glabrezu to do humiliating things like get kittens out of trees or work at a soup kitchen or help an old lady across the street. That is Justified and Hilarious.
Ok, allow me to straighten a few things out. I am playing the C-G ranger in question. Please allow me to enlighten you on the situation as it really happened....
Firstly, no one in the party actually said that the Rogue should keep the contract as his own...it's just that no one else wanted it.
Next, the rogue is the character that didn't word the direction to the Glabrezu correctly that got the villagers killed. My character only noticed a hand sticking out of a sack that the Glabrezu was carrying. Also, let me point out that this was the 4th session in said dungeon, and my character was not in the original group that entered the dungeon. Not to mention that the DM doesn't re-cap all that much. So, once he informed us that all the villagers were dead, i remembered that they were the reason that were in said dungeon.
Next, The party was getting owned, and after the rogue got dominated we were in big trouble. Once the monster that dominated the Rogue was killed, my character grabbed the contract because no other character was able to do so at the time (and no one else wanted it once again). After the fight was over, my character asked the Glabrezu to help us out of the dungeon that we were in. At which time the Glabrezu tried to kill us all by taking a Month to get out of the dungeon (not uncommon for a Glabrezu).
Next, The DM asked what my character was going to do with the contract, and i replied i'm going to study what the monster is and then probably release it back to it's home plane.
Lastly, the DM then decided that the session was over and began handing out EXP and that is the point in which he informed me that my character was changing alignment.
My only problem was that i didn't understand what my character had done to have to change alignments. I will say that YES there were clues, but only very subtle clues that made sense in hindsight. If I am completely out-of-line than I am sorry. Maybe i need a better understanding of how alignment works.
So, i guess my question is...What did my character do to deserve an alignment change?
I usually prefer to give a warning before I force an alignment shift, sometimes before an action that would cause an instant change in alignment. Not everyone sees alignment the same, so, I tend to be forgiving. If the ranger (as Drargo said) was not involved in the innocents getting killed, that's a reason for some leniency. (I'd smack the rogue down though... but that's just me.)
Yes using the contract in and of itself is an evil act. Still, an alignment shift is when it becomes a pattern or the act is really really bad. If the ranger gets a chance to reverse the issue (by actions or an atonement spell), while it's not how I would do it, it's not that bad...
Personally, if I was the ranger, I'd summon the Glabrezu, release it from the contract, then kill it. That seems a way to set things right. (I'd check with the DM first, but to me this seems both Chaotic and Good.)
In true fantasy using the foces of evil to do good is Always wrong and almost always ends up destroying the charecter in question, two eksamples are:
Starwars: Anakin using the dark side (to do somthing he thinks is good) turns him into Darth vader.
Lord of the rings: using the ring even to do good corupts the one using it(gandalf points this our to frodo in the first book)
there are tons of other eksamples, and it is a clasic story line.
anyway using the scroll is like using "the one ring" no matter how clever you think you are it will always come back to bite you, and so using it is an evil act more so now that you know it is dangerus.
In true fantasy using the foces of evil to do good is Always wrong and almost always ends up destroying the charecter in question, two eksamples are:
Starwars: Anakin using the dark side (to do somthing he thinks is good) turns him into Darth vader.Lord of the rings: using the ring even to do good corupts the one using it(gandalf points this our to frodo in the first book)
there are tons of other eksamples, and it is a clasic story line.
anyway using the scroll is like using "the one ring" no matter how clever you think you are it will always come back to bite you, and so using it is an evil act more so now that you know it is dangerus.
I didn't use Evil for Good. I used Evil out of necessity. I also fully intend to release (and possibly kill the Glabrezu as it is one of my favored enemies) at the next session. I just don't see how i can change alignment for just holding on to the contract (as the DM implied to me). The Glabrezu is in a cave where not many can go (high above a waterfall) and was told to stay there by my order (as to not harm anyone). I would personally say that the intent is the important thing here.
But in all fairness, i did say to the DM that I would accept the alignment change so that the game could continue. Next thing i know he sends me a link to this post.
I have always interpreted chaotic good as " the ends justify the means" . So I would be ok with them using an evil creature that way.
Seems to me this is largely a failure to communicate issue. The DM didn't give the player clear indication what was going on and how he (the DM) perceived what was happening. The player failed to ask questions on how the DM perceives alignment and what the repercussions could be if he took the actions he did.
Over all I think the whole thing could be solved very quickly with a 5 minute conversation between the player and GM with both approaching it with open minds and a coperative additude.
The DM should have waited until the in-game situation was over, instead of doing it at XP time. XP time is for us real people, but the game is still going on. I would move you back to your original alignment, and see how your character handled the monster once the opportunity to release it came up. Killing it or sending it home would be acceptable.
I have always interpreted chaotic good as " the ends justify the means" . So I would be ok with them using an evil creature that way.
Alignments of characters don't determine alignment of actions. A point I have always argued is that evil does what is easy. When a good character starts to use an evil character's actions it can't really be considered good. The willingness to do things the hard, but correct way, even if it possibly gets you killed, is the dividing line between good and evil.
Choatic good characters ignore rules and regulations, since they are restricting, but that does not mean resorting to evil acts.
Example: The PC's can't do anything about the Baron(possible murder suspect) because it takes 6 months to investigate a baron due to red tape. The CG guy might give you about 30 minutes then he does it anyway. He has broken the law, but not necessarily done anything evil.
|
You avoid a lot of these arguments with a simple warning, "Doing that could put your alignment at risk of a shift."
Alignment is somewhat subjective. Everyone thinks THEY know what acts fall into which alignment categories but, truth is, there's usually some variance between any two players or DM's... or even between players and DM's in the same campaign.
Warn him. Listen to his side of it. He might have an angle in mind that isn't readily apparent. Finally, remind him that Law, Chaos, Good and Evil aren't just concepts in Pathfinder... they're tangible attributes by which the cosmos measures each being and you have the task of portraying the cosmos. After all that, either accept his explanation (but hold him to it!), give him a chance to change his mind about whatever it is that brought on the warning, or do what you think is necessary.
@Drargo
I think, by the input you've given, there shouldn't have been an alignment shift.
Perhaps the smitter made some unfortunate wording, but I was going by the comment:
"At one point in the game the party let the thing eat all the slaves in the dungeon, some what by mistake but they did not start wording there request any better after they found out about this. "
Since it doesn't seem to be the case with your situation, I'd have given a warning at most, and waited to see how you reacted from there.
In true fantasy using the foces of evil to do good is Always wrong and almost always ends up destroying the charecter in question, two eksamples are:
Starwars: Anakin using the dark side (to do somthing he thinks is good) turns him into Darth vader.Lord of the rings: using the ring even to do good corupts the one using it(gandalf points this our to frodo in the first book)
there are tons of other eksamples, and it is a clasic story line.
anyway using the scroll is like using "the one ring" no matter how clever you think you are it will always come back to bite you, and so using it is an evil act more so now that you know it is dangerus.
I didn't use Evil for Good. I used Evil out of necessity. I also fully intend to release (and possibly kill the Glabrezu as it is one of my favored enemies) at the next session. I just don't see how i can change alignment for just holding on to the contract (as the DM implied to me). The Glabrezu is in a cave where not many can go (high above a waterfall) and was told to stay there by my order (as to not harm anyone). I would personally say that the intent is the important thing here.
But in all fairness, i did say to the DM that I would accept the alignment change so that the game could continue. Next thing i know he sends me a link to this post.
note using evil is evil, having no choice in the manner wouldnt, then again there is nearly always a choice, just not always very good ones, but if another choice is especially unappealing it might make the act of evil less severe.
killing evil isnt a clear act of good either, and the fact that it is your favored enemy doesnt bother me especially, it does show that you have knowledge of how to 'deal' with evil outsiders but not muvh else, likely you hate evil outsiders, but it might rather be directed at devils specifically knowledge to kill demons and such is a beneficial side effect of your studies.
Holding on to the contract isn't evil perse.. but holding on to it with the option to use it isnt exactly saintly either, actually using it is an evil act. It is hard to determine wether you actually used it on several occasions or not, but I am inclined to believe it is possible there is ground to shift alignment, but not as much as the OP initially made me believe. I'd just roll with it, ok you are chaotic neutral, you are at a crossroad and either you regret using the demon and possibly seek atonement at a local shrine or church (for example) or you dont and stick to chaotic neutral (which doesnt mean you are an instant bastard anyway), if you continue using the demon regardless of consequences there might be a good chance to shift to evil over time.
Alignment change might be a bit harsh but I am not too fond of having good aligned players interacting with demons either, whatever excuse they might have.. possibly (though the situation is a bit blurry) I might have solicited an alignment change as well.
Using evil is not in and of itself evil. It's what you do with the evil. The glabrazu made a contract with the original holder of the contract. We don't know what his price was. Maybe it was 10 kids souls. Maybe it was 100,000gps. Either way, the glabrazu willingly entered this pact for something.
So, releasing it from he contract early is only going to allow it to go make another contract if you don't kill it immediately.
Using evil against evil is a main trope of good. Why waste the lives of good when if you just let evil be evil and give it a good reason to gnaw on it's own bones it'll defeat itself? One of the main reasons evil rarely wins is that it's a house divided, it turns on itself, betrays itself, works at counter purposes to itself. Evil doesn't understand the concept of working for the 'greater evil'.
Now, having said that, the glabrazu is a hammer, and that's part of why evil does win battles (but not wars). When you have a big nasty hammer, you tend to start seeing every problem as a nail. Sometimes a nasty nail, sometimes just a nail you don't want to waste a lot of time on.
So you start off using the glabrazu against evil, only sending it to attack evil minions. Then, you send it to attack neutral bandits because there's a lot of them. Then eventually you're sending it to the store to pick up milk. Oh sure, occasionally it get's confused and rips a cows udder off and brings it back instead of buying the milk at the store. Or it brings back the torso of a new mother instead, but it was your fault for not wording it right, and you'll be more careful next time. right? right? I mean, it's not that big a deal? And if you have to sic him on the husband and brother of that new mother that died because they tried to burn your house down, then, that's self defense, right? right? Good glabrazu, you protect me. You're the only one I can trust, glabrazu.
(Kind of insidious isn't it?)
Now, having said that, the glabrazu is a hammer, and that's part of why evil does win battles (but not wars). When you have a big nasty hammer, you tend to start seeing every problem as a nail. Sometimes a nasty nail, sometimes just a nail you don't want to waste a lot of time on.
(Kind of insidious isn't it?)
"Using evil is not in and of itself evil. It's what you do with the evil. The glabrazu made a contract with the original holder of the contract. We don't know what his price was. Maybe it was 10 kids souls. Maybe it was 100,000gps. Either way, the glabrazu willingly entered this pact for something.
So, releasing it from he contract early is only going to allow it to go make another contract if you don't kill it immediately."
Been hanging with your pitfiend buddies alot recently ?
"Using evil against evil is a main trope of good. Why waste the lives of good when if you just let evil be evil and give it a good reason to gnaw on it's own bones it'll defeat itself? One of the main reasons evil rarely wins is that it's a house divided, it turns on itself, betrays itself, works at counter purposes to itself. Evil doesn't understand the concept of working for the 'greater evil'. "
Agreed on the nature of evil, evil vs evil is born of necesity and not really something that is 'good' though it may be practical.
"So you start off using the glabrazu against evil, only sending it to attack evil minions. Then, you send it to attack neutral bandits because there's a lot of them. Then eventually you're sending it to the store to pick up milk. Oh sure, occasionally it get's confused and rips a cows udder off and brings it back instead of buying the milk at the store. Or it brings back the torso of a new mother instead, but it was your fault for not wording it right, and you'll be more careful next time. right? right? I mean, it's not that big a deal? And if you have to sic him on the husband and brother of that new mother that died because they tried to burn your house down, then, that's self defense, right? right? Good glabrazu, you protect me. You're the only one I can trust, glabrazu."
This.. well not very much untrue, for the glabrezu it is just a calculation excersize, the more it is summoned the more oppurtunity to do evil, ignorant or arrogant summoners tend to be sure they can control it and use it for good, in the long run the casino always wins.
Anyone summoning it knows it is not 'right' but is it 'evil'.. they will make all kinds of excuses blurs their perception of morality, meanwhile the glabrezu just waits for a chance to cause evil and chaos.
A single evil act does not render a Good character Neutral... a number of evil acts will (and should make him eventually slide to evil if the behavior continues).
Alignment should be a spectrum. People sometimes make mistakes or act against their nature in times of emotional distress. A generally good person who one time in his life kills someone out of extreme anger doesn't immediately become neutral or evil... BUT if that person says, "Well, I killed one person I may as well murder everyone now..." that's a fast road to evil.
If he has been doing this for awhile I would agree that he may have slid to Chaotic Neutral at this point.
HOWEVER, I would also say you need to sit down with your player and review the rules for alignment (they're written out in the rulebook for a reason--let the guidelines established there guide you as much as possible as they can be something you and the player can agree upon, whereas his and your personal moral perceptions may differ). Talk to him about his vision for his character and your perception for him and try to work something out from there.
Now, from an in-game standpoint, glabrezu are masters of deception and helping others deceive themselves. Giving the glabrezu a chance to make him BELIEVE he's doing the right thing when he's going down the path of corruption could make for a great story... but you need a mature player to carry that off effectively, and I am not sure this is the case.
Then eventually you're sending it to the store to pick up milk. Oh sure, occasionally it get's confused and rips a cows udder off and brings it back instead of buying the milk at the store.
LOL. I can imagine the glazebru trying to pretend that it was confused, and looking innocent, well as innocent as it can look anyway.
I also had the image of the terrified shopkeeper this thing does walk into his shop assuming the doorway is big enough. That was funny also.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you start off using the glabrazu against evil, only sending it to attack evil minions. Then, you send it to attack neutral bandits because there's a lot of them. Then eventually you're sending it to the store to pick up milk. Oh sure, occasionally it get's confused and rips a cows udder off and brings it back instead of buying the milk at the store. Or it brings back the torso of a new mother instead, but it was your fault for not wording it right, and you'll be more careful next time. right? right? I mean, it's not that big a deal? And if you have to sic him on the husband and brother of that new mother that died because they tried to burn your house down, then, that's self defense, right? right? Good glabrazu, you protect me. You're the only one I can trust, glabrazu.
(Kind of insidious isn't it?)
Evil is never so easy to commit as when it is convenient.
Been hanging with your pitfiend buddies alot recently ?
You have no idea. :) Most of my players have a masters in EVIL PLOTTING, several are working on their doctoral dissertation, and I think at least one sold his soul to something insidious for a candy bar just for research.
This.. well not very much untrue, for the glabrezu it is just a calculation excersize, the more it is summoned the more oppurtunity to do evil, ignorant or arrogant summoners tend to be sure they can control it and use it for good, in the long run the casino always wins.
Anyone summoning it knows it is not 'right' but is it 'evil'.. they will make all kinds of excuses blurs their perception of morality, meanwhile the glabrezu just waits for a chance to cause evil and chaos.
Yep, evil's kind of schitzophrenic. One part is unbelievably patient, willing to throw a nail out and wait for it to trip up a horse just in time to cause a major war. The other part is too ADHD to wait more than 3 seconds. It's that dynamic that is part of what keeps it fighting itself. It's also why so many people fall to it, the people who want 'right now' fall to the ADHD part, and the people that think they can handle it fall to the patient half.
Then eventually you're sending it to the store to pick up milk. Oh sure, occasionally it get's confused and rips a cows udder off and brings it back instead of buying the milk at the store.
LOL. I can imagine the glazebru trying to pretend that it was confused, and looking innocent, well as innocent as it can look anyway.
I also had the image of the terrified shopkeeper this thing does walk into his shop assuming the doorway is big enough. That was funny also.
*GRIN*
Evil is never so easy to commit as when it is convenient.So you start off using the glabrazu against evil, only sending it to attack evil minions. Then, you send it to attack neutral bandits because there's a lot of them. Then eventually you're sending it to the store to pick up milk. Oh sure, occasionally it get's confused and rips a cows udder off and brings it back instead of buying the milk at the store. Or it brings back the torso of a new mother instead, but it was your fault for not wording it right, and you'll be more careful next time. right? right? I mean, it's not that big a deal? And if you have to sic him on the husband and brother of that new mother that died because they tried to burn your house down, then, that's self defense, right? right? Good glabrazu, you protect me. You're the only one I can trust, glabrazu.
(Kind of insidious isn't it?)
Yep. And that's why evil tries to make it as easy as possible.
But honestly, Chaotic Good should be fuming at the idea of slaves being here to begin with...I agree that slavery is a bad thing. However, for the sake of argument, does this make most of the Founding Fathers CE?
How much should environment account for alignment?
Eh? I'd say he was against the idea of slavery (limiting the personal freedoms of a person) because he's Chaotic, not because he's Good.
A Good person who was Chaotic would want to protect innocent people from the slavery placed on them... while an Evil person who was Chaotic would be against himself being placed into slavery.
This Chaotic Good Ranger sounded like he was moving towards Chaotic Evil, or Neutral Evil (not caring so much about personal freedoms), hence why I thouht it odd that the slavery going on didn't resonate with the character at all.
Granted, I don't know the full background of the situation. Perhaps the Ranger had been raised where slavery was normal, or at least partially accepted.. so his neutral attitude might stem more from "I've seen it before" than "I don't care".
.
As an aside, I would say the founding fathers were all about personal freedoms (moreso after the abolishement of slavery and equal rights and all that jazz), so yeah.. I think the US was built on Chaotic ideals, which is why it clashed so much from the British "do what we say" government.
Just because many owned slaves at the time, doesn't mean they weren't thinking in Chaotic terms. Keep in mind, the government they founded got the ball rolling to eventually legally abolish things like slavery, etc. after every other civilized nation had already abolished slavery
Ha! Corrected for you. ;)
A single evil act does not render a Good character Neutral... a number of evil acts will (and should make him eventually slide to evil if the behavior continues).
Alignment should be a spectrum. People sometimes make mistakes or act against their nature in times of emotional distress. A generally good person who one time in his life kills someone out of extreme anger doesn't immediately become neutral or evil... BUT if that person says, "Well, I killed one person I may as well murder everyone now..." that's a fast road to evil.
If he has been doing this for awhile I would agree that he may have slid to Chaotic Neutral at this point.
HOWEVER, I would also say you need to sit down with your player and review the rules for alignment (they're written out in the rulebook for a reason--let the guidelines established there guide you as much as possible as they can be something you and the player can agree upon, whereas his and your personal moral perceptions may differ). Talk to him about his vision for his character and your perception for him and try to work something out from there.
Now, from an in-game standpoint, glabrezu are masters of deception and helping others deceive themselves. Giving the glabrezu a chance to make him BELIEVE he's doing the right thing when he's going down the path of corruption could make for a great story... but you need a mature player to carry that off effectively, and I am not sure this is the case.
I disagree. A good character will never perform an evil act. It only takes one "I'm going to kill an innocent person for fun" to change your alignment from good, and it is a change right to evil, skip neutral. Using the contract was not an evil act, unless it was with the intention of doing evil. It was the ranger's belief that use of the contract was necessary, and he was not aware that it would result in the deaths of villagers. Ignorance is not evil. A paladin might be held to a higher standard, but he would not fall for it (atonement would be needed, though), IMO.
Crimes of passion are not part of the core rules. So any decision about them is necessarily going to be a house rule.
The LotR fantasy trope about evil being a corrupting influence is not part of the core rules. So any decision that using an evil item impacts your alignment regardless of intent is a house rule.
Wow, I am really love all the feed Back on this,
I know that Shifting Alignments is a big deal, I did this for Two reasons (well 3 but I am not going to post the 3 reason as the player in question would read it even if I hide it so back to my point)
1 I felt the player took every opportunity to use the thing and guided the other player to do the same (come on Drargo you know it true) Which I know is not the same as the character but intent of the player needs to count for something.
2 The shift in alignment is not permanent and can be reversed with good behavior and as there is no penalty for changing Alignment I felt it was more of tell thing the player what was happening more then a punishment. SO if you are playing a character like he is CN then there is no reason to have CG on you sheet.
As to my not recapping I did, but I will do a better job of recapping for you in the next time.
I am enjoying this thread and hope to hear more.
Smitter - I've already stated that i'm ok with your ruling, i just wanted more information on the topic myself. And u made it VERY clear that it wasn't a permanent alignment change, so i am not contesting it. I just wanted the forum to have a clear picture of what was going on from my perspective as well. And i have an idea of what the 3rd reason may be, but i'm not gonna stick my foot in my mouth..lol :)
Also, i enjoy reading this forum as i am not quite ready to start running my own campaign, but this is a good way to get insight on how to rule on moral challenges such as the one in our game.
I disagree. A good character will never perform an evil act.
Nobody is ever perfectly good or evil. You can be evil and do good things, or good and do evil actions.