RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Evil definately. Lawful? Hard to say.
Did he agree not to kill him?
Did he give himself any wiggle room to get out of that agreement? ("I didn't kill him the fall did." isn't LE, more Chaotic. Arnie's classic "I let him go." is more LE to me.*)
I get kind of confused with who did what on the escape part. The LE sorcerer burned the rope then the bard dropped the guy off the side, and then the LE sorcerer shot the bard in the head?
If that's the scenario then trying to acid splash/cutting the rope would be NE not LE. If he then shot the bard that would be CE (he just shot the bard for doing something the sorcerer was doing anyway.)
[puts Shadrach hat on] In either case it is a waste of valuable resources. If he surrendered you should have taken him at his word, gotten what information you could from him and let him go. If he betrays you, then you can kill him with a clear conscience. If he doesn't, he spreads tales of your kindness and Mercy, tales you can use to advance your own agenda. Also shooting the bard is wasteful and disruptive. Arrange for someone else to do it.[/takes Shadrach hat off]
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
No problem.
I'd call the acts more neutral or chaotic than lawful. Like my 'evil half said' they're also wasteful. He should have kept to his word and let him go. It would have been lawful to let the bard kill him. "I said I wouldn't kill you. I won't save you either" and maybe even better if he'd stopped the bard, "Let him go, he'll tell others how merciful we were in not killing him."
But I'm biased, my LE types are 'code of honour blackhearts', or as I once described Shadrach, "Me, with all the safeties off."
I don't necessarily agree with you Matthew. Unless there was an actual agreement between the PCs and the fey (which he did not mention) the Sorcerer is under no alignment-based obligation to spare him. I think it's more a question of motive; why did the sorcerer want the fey dead? Had the fey wronged him specifically (more detail on the struggle between them might help)? Did the fey pose some sort of threat to the sorcerer's plans if he allowed him to live? If he was just killing for the joy of killing, with no logical reason, then I would classify it as a chaotic act (as no act can really be neutral), but if he had a logical reason, and was not breaking any oath or agreement, then I say he was playing perfectly within his alignment.
My personal question is rather: How the hell does this group manage to stay together? If I understood the OP correctly, then two players tried to save the prisoner while two players were hellbent on killing him. If that doesn't spell future PVP for you, I don't know what else will do.
It's evil, certainly, but no, it's not lawful.
The party accepted the surrender of a prisoner. The prisoner was even cooperative during the questioning, so they didn't have to bother to torture him--not that they would have had a problem with that, but it would have been an inconvenience.
From a lawful perspective, what you are allowed to do with a prisoner is as follows:
1. Free him if you have no further use for him.
2. Free him charged to deliver a message to your enemy.
3. Try him for criminal charges in regards to your laws. The penalty for these criminal charges can include death, but needs to be reasonably and rationally thought out.
4. Hold him for ransom
5. Keep him as a slave
6. Sell him to someone else who wants a slave
Now, it could be a Lawful Evil act if, for example, the sorcerer had sworn an oath of genocide on all fey, and moreover had some rationale about fey being non-entities so you can lie to them all you want and kill them at a whim because they are not people, but frankly I doubt he'd thought it out that far. He sounds more like a Neutral Evil or plain old Chaotic Evil sociopath who knows enough to pay lip-service to a Lawful Evil society but is perfectly fine with violating the law if he won't get caught or at worst would have to pay a small fine if the Lawful Evil authorities ever found out about it.
Of course, if I were the Evil Overlord and had my zone of truth up and were interviewing prospective legions of terror, I would hardly consider this guy Trusted Lieutenant material. Indeed, I'd consider him the sort of Chaotic Evil sociopath who I might have some use for, but only if I had plenty of minions operating as his handlers and an excuse to be on a state visit elsewhere any time I might actually have to talk with him.
|
My personal question is rather: How the hell does this group manage to stay together? If I understood the OP correctly, then two players tried to save the prisoner while two players were hellbent on killing him. If that doesn't spell future PVP for you, I don't know what else will do.
I agree. From what the OP has told us, this party is doomed. It makes me think of a bunch of kids. How old are these people (the players, not the characters).
|
|
If he was just killing for the joy of killing, with no logical reason, then I would classify it as a chaotic act
That's what I'm seeing from this lack of context. He's not lawful evil, he's just a bargain basement psychopath. More chaotic evil than anything.
If he had sworn some oath to kill the fey, or the fey posed some long-term threat to his goals, then his act could be considered lawful.
My personal question is rather: How the hell does this group manage to stay together? If I understood the OP correctly, then two players tried to save the prisoner while two players were hellbent on killing him. If that doesn't spell future PVP for you, I don't know what else will do.
+1
My bet is this group does not end well. If they can't pull together any better than this, sooner or later their lack of cooperation will get them killed, if they don't kill each other first. Seems like an excellent example of why some people shouldn't play evil characters - they seem to think it gives them free rein to do whatever they want, no matter what the rest of the group wants.
As to the original question, I have no real problem with the action from an alignment point of view for a LE character, although it is definitely more E than L. Not every action taken by a character has to be within the chosen alignment, just the preponderance. Certainly not an alignment-changer, in and of itself.
My problem is just with the not playing nicely with others aspect likely to lead to party strife.
|
|
Stuff like this is why I don't usually allow Evil PCs in my games.
This sounds like the exact sort of situation that led to us banning Paladins (and UE's Paladin/Cavaliers) back in the days of 1st and 2nd edition, actually. Too much PVP and interparty conflict and backstabbing / betraying / abandoning other PCs that didn't play their non-Paladin characters by the Paladin players interpretation of the Paladin code. It's not the alignment of the character, it's the player acting out antisocial tendencies that's the problem. Someone who wants to be confrontational and competitive, instead of playing a cooperative game, is going to be even worse as a LG than they would be as a LE, because they'd go all PVP and be all self-righteous about it (and, in my experience, are far more likely to drag it into a real-world argument about morality, and accuse their players whose characters they just backstabbed of being evil or degenerate IRL, as happens on various D&D forums pretty much any time someone suggests a white necromancer concept).
If it wasn't for Paladin players, I wouldn't even know what the word 'killstealing' was.
CN (played as crazy psycho), CE (*malicious* crazy psycho), NE (stupidly selfish, willing to kill anyone for a rusty copper, even if it's guaranteed to get him killed in the process) and LG (willing to attack fellow PCs for insufficient respect, attack NPCs, town guards, merchants, etc. for being uppity and not deferential enough and not offering them special treatment because of their 'goodness,' etc.) are the top four jerk-magnet alignments, in my experience.
This sorcerer player sounds like he should have chosen CE, instead of LE, since his character is acting more like the Joker than Dr. Doom.
The sorceror left the tower after he was tied up saying "boring" and was waiting outside when the bard pushed him off the edge. as above.
Anyone who "roleplays" by quoting Evil Vampire Willow's signature line (actually "Bored now" but same thing) is playing Chaotic Evil pretty much by definition and not even very originally.
He's chaotic evil, and is the sort of person every sane character would ditch at the first opportunity.
Can killing a prisoner be a lawful act? Yes. Does this particular circumstance sound lawful? No.
If the LE character has the authority to judge a crime and execute a sentence, then yes, the act could be lawful. Think of an evil sheriff or deputy in a western. Rural areas often have more or less independent law enforcement.
I can easily see a LE character declaring a captured opponent an enemy of the state (after the evidence from the interrogation) and setting up a formal execution right there. Assuming they have at least a hint of authority to do so as agents of the kingdom, etc.
I recently experienced a real life example of what I would classify as Lawful Evil. We just moved to a new apartment complex. Unlike every other complex I've lived in, we needed to show proof that our cars were both registered at the new address and the insurance was changed to the new address before we'd be issued a parking sticker. Even once that was provided, he wouldn't give us the parking sticker, he has to meet us so that he can physically place the sticker on our car. This means meeting him twice, since the first time my wife's car wasn't available (she was at work). He actually told me he'd tow our car from our designated parking space if we parked there before getting the sticker. As if anyone would notice or care since nobody else could possibly park there.
Lawful Evil is the bully that enforces the strict letter of the law with malicious intent. They abuse their power because it let's them have power over others.
Sorry, I realized that probably went a little far off topic, but it really irked me.
Accepting a surrender and then not following up is not Lawful.
Although I agree with this, I don't think the sorcerer accepted any surrender.
Sounds like the fey attempted to surrender and the sorcerer flattened him with a magic missile barrage in response. That's lawful evil for "Sorry, not taking prisoners today."
It doesn't matter if the Sorcerer wanted to accept the surrender himself, the group accepted the surrender. That's why the lawful issue really kicks in. A lawful character might not like the decision, but should follow will of the larger group, society, nation, etc...
From the OP, it appears 2 characters wanted to accept the surrender. What we don't know is whether either of those 2 characters are accepted by the sorcerer as the party leader or in positions of authority over the sorcerer. If so, his act was certainly not lawful. If not, the sorcerer character may simply not recognize their authority to accept a surrender, especially after he's already made it clear that he doesn't intend to accept the surrender.
|
|
Also bear in mind that Fey are to Chaos what Devils and Demons are to Evil. Heck with the Hellkngiht prestige class Fey are mentioned as getting the 2x level on smite.
Before penalizing the sorceror, I would ask yourself if the sorceror had been good, and the fey had been a demon that 2 of the people were willing to work with. Would you have accepted the sorceror killing the demon as a good act or at least non-evil?
To answer that we would have to know what kind of fey?
Was it a Mite (LE), Pixie (NG), Saytr (CN), or Nymph or Dryad (both CG)?
Also, many good characters may accept a surrender from a demon. Note that they would also make sure to do their best to "defang" the demon as much as they can. Depends if they believe that the demon has info they need.
guys i have a question. I have a player who is playing a sorceror LE (lawful Evil) and today they captured a fey who was fighting in combat, when his leader died he put up his hands and surrendered. saying "i give up i surrender dont kill me." He put his hands on top of his head and got down on his knees, he was on 1 hp, the sorcerer cast magic missile doing 11 points of damage. which put him to -10 bleeding out. Two characters cured him and tied him up. They questioned him. THe sorceror wanted to kill him.
After questioning him the bard kicked him off a tower ledge but he was tied up and two characters saved him. The sorceror acid splashed the rope the sorceror pulled out his crossbow and shot at him. Then the bard cut the rope and sent him his death. THe sorceror loaded and fired his crossbow into this head.Is this a lawful evil act?
He was deliberating over the fact that it was an evil act to kill a surrendered prisoner, and a lawful act to accept his surrender and not harm him.
If there's one thing that's clear from the plethora of alignment debates that pop up on these boards it's that nothing is crystal clear when alignment is concerned. My idea of what is good and yours may be different, so the whole thing becomes subjective.
The characters motivations and actions should define his/her alignment, but their alignment should not restrict their actions and motivations. Doing the latter prevents character complexity, which turns alignment into a negative factor on roleplaying.
Whether the Sorcerer's action could be considered lawful (it was certainly evil) would depend on a lot of factors not in your post as well as factors you may not even be aware of. Did the player have in his head a lawful motivation for his character that you hadn't considered?
Even if the Sorcerer's actions are determined to be chaotic, that's not a real problem. Lawful characters are allowed to take chaotic actions. The lawful alignment merely means that the character trends more to lawful actions than to chaotic ones. Shades of grey are OK.
If your player was looking for the most stereotypical way that a LE character would deal with a prisoner of war, I would think that questioning through torture followed by disciplined execution would be very lawful evil.
If your player was looking for the most stereotypical way that a LE character would deal with a prisoner of war, I would think that questioning through torture followed by disciplined execution would be very lawful evil.
Stereotypical is very often the right way to portray things.
Since there was discord and disagreement among the party members as to the proper course of action, I'd have to say it was non-lawful unless possibly the sorcerer followed his spontaneous offing of the fey with a "Submit to my au-thor-i-tah!" soliloquy and used this as his action to take leadership of the party.
We don't have all the evidence, though I would submit that saying "Boring" and magic missiling the fey over the objections of two other members of the party is not being a team player and thus chaotic.
Being lawful requires some form of party consensus. Democracy is one system. Autocracy is another.
Anarchy? That's chaotic.
guys i have a question. I have a player who is playing a sorceror LE (lawful Evil) and today they captured a fey who was fighting in combat, when his leader died he put up his hands and surrendered. saying "i give up i surrender dont kill me." He put his hands on top of his head and got down on his knees, he was on 1 hp, the sorcerer cast magic missile doing 11 points of damage. which put him to -10 bleeding out. Two characters cured him and tied him up. They questioned him. THe sorceror wanted to kill him.
After questioning him the bard kicked him off a tower ledge but he was tied up and two characters saved him. The sorceror acid splashed the rope the sorceror pulled out his crossbow and shot at him. Then the bard cut the rope and sent him his death. THe sorceror loaded and fired his crossbow into this head.Is this a lawful evil act?
He was deliberating over the fact that it was an evil act to kill a surrendered prisoner, and a lawful act to accept his surrender and not harm him.
Lawful just means you behave in an orderly manner. An example are devils. It does not mean you have to obey other people's rules. If it did devils would not be able to pull a lot of things they do.
I posted this on the d20 Radio forums, but here were my thoughts on the subject:
The problem is you actually have several acts going on there. Accepting the surrender, especially if it was beneficial to the party, isn't indicative of good or evil, but it could indicate a lawful tendency, i.e. doing a specific thing the "right" way when it makes sense to do so.
On the other hand, killing something, especially in a cruel manner, is definitely evil.
The problem is, good or evil is often (in terms of d20 fantasy alignments) objective, but lawful and chaotic do tend to be a bit more subjective. In other words, law and chaos have a lot do do with the mindset of the person performing the action. While the situation you describe above sounds like a NE or CE person could do it ("we got what we want, I feel like killing them"), if the person's mindset is "I never leave a prisoner alive, they may someday seek revenge," and they methodically follow this maxim, it could still fit very easily with a LE character.
So, yeah, a lot of times I can see figuring out if something is good or evil, in game terms, but figuring out law and chaos? That really does, to me at least, fall back on what the character is thinking and what the greater context of the action is.
Hope that makes some sense.
While the situation you describe above sounds like a NE or CE person could do it ("we got what we want, I feel like killing them"), if the person's mindset is "I never leave a prisoner alive, they may someday seek revenge," and they methodically follow this maxim, it could still fit very easily with a LE character.
Nah, sounds like LN than LE.
|
I think that just because a PC is LE or any other alignment that not every act they do is going to be strictly of that alignment. A Paladin does not get in trouble unless he does an evil act but not a Neutral act or a Chaotic act once in awhile just an evil act.
I do not see a problem with what he did. I may not have been a Lawful act but so what. No alignment should be a noose that dictates every act.
On the other hand what was the real purpose of doing it anyway.
|
In a pervious game I gave the player who was playing a barbarian to interact with fellow members of his barberic tribe, he was doing real poorly with the roleplay situation and instead of try to help him the sorceror (same guy same character) cast maximised sphere of acid doing 90 points of damage, I went off at him for it and it started a massive argument.
I have to ask: Have the other players in any of these campaigns given an in-character reason for continuing to associate with this guy's PCs?
|
|
I'm getting the impression this gaming group needs a nice game of Paranoia, where killing your fellow PCs is allowed, but only if you are smart enough to cover it up and explain it to the Computer afterwards, otherwise you get to take off all metal objects and report to the food vats for 'repurposing.' (Protein Love is people!)
It really weeds out the psychos from the people who can play smart evil or, best of all, Team Evil.
If, at the end of the first session, a player is on the fifth of seven clones, and the GM only killed one of them with the regularly-scheduled unavoidable equipment failure, perhaps he lacks the social skills or pragmatism to play an effective evil character, as he seems less motivated by goal-oriented enlightened self-interest than by an urge to screw with other people, like some D&D equivalent of a social bully or a 'Heather.'
Short version?
Bad dog. Back to the kennel with it, and replace with one that doesn't crap all over the place.
In a pervious game I gave the player who was playing a barbarian to interact with fellow members of his barberic tribe, he was doing real poorly with the roleplay situation and instead of try to help him the sorceror (same guy same character) cast maximised sphere of acid doing 90 points of damage, I went off at him for it and it started a massive argument.
Wow. Just wow.
Sounds to me like the problem may be less one of maturity and or understanding of alignment and more one of an attention hog who gets bored when the attention isn't all on him so has to do something dramatic to regain the spotlight. I think the GMG has some decent advice on how to deal with the type. My advice would be to talk to the other players and see if they can give you some help via peer pressure.
Or you can have the bigger, badder brother of one of those poor barbarians come looking for him some time when he doesn't have the rest of his buddies around to protect him and drop kick that character through the goalposts of life. :)
|
|
The sorceror hasnt ever talked about having a code. Every game he plays its always a sorceror who likes to fireball everything.In a pervious game I gave the player who was playing a barbarian to interact with fellow members of his barberic tribe, he was doing real poorly with the roleplay situation and instead of try to help him the sorceror (same guy same character) cast maximised sphere of acid doing 90 points of damage, I went off at him for it and it started a massive argument.
My advice as a fellow GM is to have the players each describe the motivations of their character as it relates to their alignment. Tell them what you think their alignments mean, and then ask them to describe:
1. how did their character get to be the person they are (with the alignment they have).
2. what motivations, attitudes, codes of conduct (in the case of lawful types), loyalties, hatreds, goals in life, and loves their character has.
I tend to do this by email because it gives people time to think, but in my youth there was no email and we had to walk both to and back from school up hill in the snow, without shoes. And people described their characters in person at the gaming table.
I would have to agree with Moon Glum.
I will add that as a DM you need to be up front with your players with how you are going to enforce and handle infractions based on alignments.
If you have never dinged a player for this kind of act before then all of a sudden start handing out punishments you should expect a heated discussion.
On the other hand if the player is aware of the "enforcement policy" from the begining of the campign then they need to take the punishment and learn from their mistakes.
If you are going to enforce there has to be consequences.
Az
|
|
Accepting a surrender and then not following up is not Lawful.Although I agree with this, I don't think the sorcerer accepted any surrender.
Sounds like the fey attempted to surrender and the sorcerer flattened him with a magic missile barrage in response. That's lawful evil for "Sorry, not taking prisoners today."
+1
I'm going to have to go with Toon Evil on this one. They've got no consistent motivations, they treat violence as a comic device, they don't work together yet they are together? That's a Toon.
|
|
I love these alignment discussions.
Scenario with the Pixie as I read it:
Pixie-"I surrender"
Sorceror-"Surrender denied"
Oracle/Druid-"Wait he might have information or could be a plot hook."
Sorceror-"Or he could be a liability, he dies."
Oracle/Druid-"G!+&&*nit what does it matter? If he does it will be our problem you don't have to worry about it."
Sorceror-"I want to do what I want and that is to kill him."
End result: Cruel, selfish, immediate gratification. Chaotic Evil.
Scenario with the Barbarians:
Barbarian PC-"Crap, I am rolling like hell and not sure what to say keep this civil."
Sorceror - "I'm bored. This is stupid. Maximized Acid Ball."
Barbarian NPCs - "Ah! We are melting along with a cohesive story in which the PCs actually have a goal instead of just reacting to what the Sorceror does!"
End Result - Reckless, selfish, psychopathic. Chaotic Evil.
Honestly sounds like the only way you are gonna reign this guy in is to get him invested. Do a bit of DM trickery and hit him with a double edged curse. Every time you do something Chaotic Stupid you get a little more powerful (metamagics, increased caster levels, DCs, lot of little stuff spread out) but end up with permanent CON drain (NOTHING brings it back). He hits zero CON or is killed under curse, BAM evil NPC for the party to deal with and he rolls a new character.
If he has a problem with it. Fine let him. Give him the opportunity to get rid of the curse by doing Lawful Evil things or switch his alignment to Chaotic Stupid. When he finally starts to get how he should be acting, have a storyline that runs around with him confronting the curse giver and getting it broken/removed.
|
|
OK, wow. A lot going on there.
First off, whether it was lawful or not really doesn't matter too much unless this is a pattern. People break from their established norms here and there. Second, lawful doesn't necessarily mean following the laws of a particular nation or culture. It may mean a personal code. Or the laws of that nation or culture might not consider what the sorcerer unlawful. Treatment of enemy combatants and whatnot varies.
Now, on to everyone jumping on the possible dysfunction of the group. Is the group dysfunctional? Are people not having fun? If so, then some work probably needs to be done. I think its important that players remember that RP's are a group story and everyone should try to tell the story together and have it come out something everyone likes. My GM recently shared with us an interesting little booklet called Play Unsafe. It's got some cool ideas for roleplaying and even if you don't agree with everything the author says (I didn't), it at least gets you thinking about the act of roleplaying as more than just sh*t you say.
|
|
I love these alignment discussions.
Scenario with the Pixie as I read it:
Pixie-"I surrender"
Sorceror-"Surrender denied"
Oracle/Druid-"Wait he might have information or could be a plot hook."
Sorceror-"Or he could be a liability, he dies."
Oracle/Druid-"G*@!@&nit what does it matter? If he does it will be our problem you don't have to worry about it."
Sorceror-"I want to do what I want and that is to kill him."
End result: Cruel, selfish, immediate gratification. Chaotic Evil.Scenario with the Barbarians:
Barbarian PC-"Crap, I am rolling like hell and not sure what to say keep this civil."
Sorceror - "I'm bored. This is stupid. Maximized Acid Ball."
Barbarian NPCs - "Ah! We are melting along with a cohesive story in which the PCs actually have a goal instead of just reacting to what the Sorceror does!"
End Result - Reckless, selfish, psychopathic. Chaotic Evil.Honestly sounds like the only way you are gonna reign this guy in is to get him invested. Do a bit of DM trickery and hit him with a double edged curse. Every time you do something Chaotic Stupid you get a little more powerful (metamagics, increased caster levels, DCs, lot of little stuff spread out) but end up with permanent CON drain (NOTHING brings it back). He hits zero CON or is killed under curse, BAM evil NPC for the party to deal with and he rolls a new character.
If he has a problem with it. Fine let him. Give him the opportunity to get rid of the curse by doing Lawful Evil things or switch his alignment to Chaotic Stupid. When he finally starts to get how he should be acting, have a storyline that runs around with him confronting the curse giver and getting it broken/removed.
Except it isn't a pixie, it's a an evil fey. Which means it probably WILL turn on them. Which makes the act neutral.
That ain't murder, that's just being genre savvy.
|
I'd give him a "chaos bump" for acting like that, personally. Then, after 3-5 "bumps", I'd shift his alignment to neutral evil. Then, later, to chaotic evil. Unless he shifts back somehow.
Anybody who says "Gee, I'm bored, I think I'll go kill something" is acting chaotic evil. You could be lawful good and act chaotic evil once, but if you do it a lot then your alignment should actually change.
Since the character in question is a sorcerer and not a druid/barbarian/monk/cleric/etc., this alignment change will probably not do much of anything. There's no mechanical benefit to being lawful, really.