So. In an upcoming campaign I plan on putting one of my PCs in a moral connundrum.
This PC plays a warrior who is working as a double agent. He is a rank and file member of a brutal thieves guild that is causing havoc in the city that the campaign is set in. His real purpose however is to infiltrate the thieves guild and get close to the leader so that he can gather information about their true purpose.
He is being employed by a counter-terrorism group that wants to remove the thieves guild from the city at any cost and suspects (and rightfully so) that they may be up to something far more devious than just pickpocketing and drug trafficking.
So, here is the dillema. Next session the PC in question will be contactd by the leader of the thieves guild for a job. He and several other members will infiltrate a heavily guarded home. When they kill all the guards they will find a 16 year old girl sleeping in her bed and the guild leader will ask the PC to kill her to "prove his loyalty."
The PC is CN and I do not think that this would force an alignment shift since he will see the completeion of this act as a necessary step to advance further in the guild. Plus, the leader of the counter terrorism group specifically told him that he needs to do whatever is necessary "for the greater good." It will be interesting to see how it plays out though :)
|
Well, maybe. What if he refuses - does it derail your campaign? Is there a get-out where he can not kill the girl but still be seen as loyal? See, I don't see this as being very interesting unless there are multiple ways out, and unless there is stuff you aren't saying it seems to me you maybe haven't thought of anything else much. It's not even much of a moral choice. Frankly, to my mind it is an evil act if he kills her - doesn't mean he can't still be loyal to his original employers but CN doesn't mean "It's OK to kill people when I feel like it, 'cos hey! I'm CHAOTIC, right?" because it's still a morally bankrupt thing to do - it's obviously wrong, especially as the "greater good" (a bit of information on some guildmaster) doesn't seem that earth-shattering to me. Also, it's a bit of an unsavory set-up, to be quite honest, though I guess what's acceptable and what isn't is down to the group in question. Feels a bit more like tacky DM railroading.
Well, maybe. What if he refuses - does it derail your campaign? Is there a get-out where he can not kill the girl but still be seen as loyal? See, I don't see this as being very interesting unless there are multiple ways out, and unless there is stuff you aren't saying it seems to me you maybe haven't thought of anything else much. It's not even much of a moral choice. Frankly, to my mind it is an evil act if he kills her - doesn't mean he can't still be loyal to his original employers but CN doesn't mean "It's OK to kill people when I feel like it, 'cos hey! I'm CHAOTIC, right?" because it's still a morally bankrupt thing to do. Also, it's a bit of an unsavory set-up, to be quite honest, though I guess what's acceptable and what isn't is down to the group in question. Feels a bit more like tacky DM railroading.
It's ok Aubrey you don't have to beat around the bush. Say what's on your mind.
I have thought about the consequences and have considered the possibilities. The leader of the guild will make it abundantly clear that he will face no consequences if he refuses to kill her. He will simply kill her himself and send him on his way.
If he does kill her and earn the guild leader's trust he will start having horrible nightmares. He is not a "bad," person. However he will be brought into the inner sanctum and eventually be made privy to the guild leader's plans. The guild leader has come to posess a powerful artifact and is in the process of gathering what he needs to complete a ritual that will make him the new god of strife. He will eventually offer the PC the chance serve at his right hand and have unlimited wealth and power. Naturally, the resurrection of a powerful evil diety will cause untold death and destruction. If he resists the temptation he can relay this information and stop him. The guild leader is also interested in killing this particular girl because she is the only daughter of the head of the city guard who lost his wife two years ago. He plans on using his grief to make him a necessary pawn in his plans to ascend to godhood.
If he does not kill her then he will be kept on as a valued resource and continue to work for the thieves guild as a low level enforcer. Eventually I can have the information slip out but it will be much harder for him to catch on and put a stop to the ritual. I will impose some kind of drawback i.e. he finds out two days before the ritual is to take place instead of two months.
I take offense to the comment about railroading. I do not see how I am railroading this PC. It is unfortunate but if you pick up a newspaper you will see simmilar stories all the time. Gang initiations, murders, assasinations. I like to put my PCs in situations where they must make tough moral decisions. It seems like you are suggesting that I should just send them into the kobold den and just call it a day.
Remember that PC's are heroes and "she dies by your hand or she dies by mine" isn't terribly heroic.
You are talking about either the PC killing a minor or watching the minor get killed.
You need to give him a 3rd option. I can't speak for your players but this is where I'd walk out of the game and you'd never see me again. Yes- bad things happen. Murders happen. But railroading of this kind doesn't usually go over terribly well in the groups I've been in.
"danged if you do and danged if you don't" scenarios sound good in stores and such but they Are Not good in this kind of setup. At least, imo.
He needs to be able to "prove himself" in some other way. Maybe he finds out about the guild master's plan and sends ahead to make sure the girl isn't home, or gets with a wizard or cleric who can make his weapon /merciful/ for a few hours or something so that he "kills" her but she wakes up later.. or SOMETHING.
I mean, obviously, you know your players better than I ever will.. but that's my .02 on the matter.
the 16 year old shouldn't have a 100% chance of dying before you ever walk into it. That isn't heroic and it isn't role playing. Its just a rail road.
-S
Remember that PC's are heroes and "she dies by your hand or she dies by mine" isn't terribly heroic.
You are talking about either the PC killing a minor or watching the minor get killed.
You need to give him a 3rd option. I can't speak for your players but this is where I'd walk out of the game and you'd never see me again. Yes- bad things happen. Murders happen. But railroading of this kind doesn't usually go over terribly well in the groups I've been in.
"danged if you do and danged if you don't" scenarios sound good in stores and such but they Are Not good in this kind of setup. At least, imo.
He needs to be able to "prove himself" in some other way. Maybe he finds out about the guild master's plan and sends ahead to make sure the girl isn't home, or gets with a wizard or cleric who can make his weapon /merciful/ for a few hours or something so that he "kills" her but she wakes up later.. or SOMETHING.
I mean, obviously, you know your players better than I ever will.. but that's my .02 on the matter.
He can choose to refuse to go on the job in the first place. Or, maybe he heroically grabs her just as he is about to stab her and jump out the window carrying her to safety. Maybe he sacrifices his life fighting the guild leader to save her. The situation you describe above is making heroism an easy thing. It's not. Real heroes sacrifice and are prepared to die for the greater good and the pathway to hell is paved with good intentions.
And for what it's worth we are a mature group of players. All in our 30s and my players have come to expect and actually enjoy the dystopian elements of my homebrew.
Furthermore, not that it matters, but a 16 year-old in a quasi-medieval setting would not be considered a minor.
|
The short and the long is, however justified, it is a strictly evil act. Replace this situation with a cop infiltrating a mob to force the same act. If he kills the innocent, he is scum.
Instead, he should take the route the cop would. Have the place surrounded, and when they come in girl isn't there. PC helps save gang leader, becomes trusted (if he has the bluff to w trying this in the first place he should be able to pull it off).
Remember, CN is not "ends justify means", and if anyone was willing to kill the innocent just to not blow cover I would immediately make them evil, though would consider allowing atonement in the future.
|
I wouldn't consider it enough for an alignment shift in itself. If he enjoys it nd draws it out, definitely. If he dispatches her swiftly, its certainly a dark act but hes not really doing it for nefarious purposes- hes just doing it to further his cause; his own advancement.
That said, if you run alignment on a point basis, definitely note down a couple of evil points.
Well, maybe. What if he refuses - does it derail your campaign? Is there a get-out where he can not kill the girl but still be seen as loyal? See, I don't see this as being very interesting unless there are multiple ways out, and unless there is stuff you aren't saying it seems to me you maybe haven't thought of anything else much. It's not even much of a moral choice. Frankly, to my mind it is an evil act if he kills her - doesn't mean he can't still be loyal to his original employers but CN doesn't mean "It's OK to kill people when I feel like it, 'cos hey! I'm CHAOTIC, right?" because it's still a morally bankrupt thing to do. Also, it's a bit of an unsavory set-up, to be quite honest, though I guess what's acceptable and what isn't is down to the group in question. Feels a bit more like tacky DM railroading.It's ok Aubrey you don't have to beat around the bush. Say what's on your mind.
I have thought about the consequences and have considered the possibilities. The leader of the guild will make it abundantly clear that he will face no consequences if he refuses to kill her. He will simply kill her himself and send him on his way.
If he does kill her and earn the guild leader's trust he will start having horrible nightmares. He is not a "bad," person. However he will be brought into the inner sanctum and eventually be made privy to the guild leader's plans. The guild leader has come to posess a powerful artifact and is in the process of gathering what he needs to complete a ritual that will make him the new god of strife. He will eventually offer the PC the chance serve at his right hand and have unlimited wealth and power. Naturally, the resurrection of a powerful evil diety will cause untold death and destruction. If he resists the temptation he can relay this information and stop him. The guild leader is also interested in killing this particular girl because she is the only daughter of the head of the city guard who lost his wife...
The player might use social skills to try to save the girl. Is that a possibility?
It's only railroading if the PC really is only given one option: kill her, or give up the whole adventure (which isn't really an option). If the PC is allowed to come up with some alternate plan (talk his way into any situation where he can fake her death or "accidentally" allow her to escape), or if he can outright refuse, then that's great. If not, you're basically just screwing him over for the sake of screwing him over.
As far as the actual morality of it all, it sounds like he's already okay with slaughtering guards. Killing an unarmed kid is definitely a step in the wrong direction, but it isn't a huge leap. It's an evil act, but he's already committed a bunch to get where he is.
I consider it to be an evil act for the sake of good in the same way that lying out of loyalty is a chaotic act for the sake of lawfulness. It's the intent and the big picture that matters. He'd better be damn sure about how bad these guys really are, though. I know I couldn't stomach it. Ultimately it's a selfish act, as you're basically asking everyone to agree with your definition of the greater good, and you're banking on the possibility that it will result in less suffering overall.
In a similar case, an old character of mine came across a woman and her child who had both been infected with lycanthropy. She was aware of her condition and lucid enough to fear what she would inevitably do the next time she transformed, and begged us for mercy. My character was chaotic neutral with aspirations of becoming C-G. I reasoned that, as much as he strove to be an idealist, he was a pragmatist at heart. He empathized with the woman and imagined what he'd want in the same situation. He killed them both with a coup de grace. It #*$%ed him up for a long time, though.
I didn't consider the situation to be railroading, the way it was presented. I was given at least two options, and different ways of carrying them out. Sometimes bad @&%@ happens to you, and you only have the illusion of choice - and thus the illusion of failure when you come to realize that neither choice sits right with you. Though it took him time, my character came to realize that he wouldn't have been satisfied with either solution, and eventually stopped blaming himself. It was an interesting and important step of his development throughout the game.
...Well, maybe. What if he refuses - does it derail your campaign? Is there a get-out where he can not kill the girl but still be seen as loyal? See, I don't see this as being very interesting unless there are multiple ways out, and unless there is stuff you aren't saying it seems to me you maybe haven't thought of anything else much. It's not even much of a moral choice. Frankly, to my mind it is an evil act if he kills her - doesn't mean he can't still be loyal to his original employers but CN doesn't mean "It's OK to kill people when I feel like it, 'cos hey! I'm CHAOTIC, right?" because it's still a morally bankrupt thing to do. Also, it's a bit of an unsavory set-up, to be quite honest, though I guess what's acceptable and what isn't is down to the group in question. Feels a bit more like tacky DM railroading.It's ok Aubrey you don't have to beat around the bush. Say what's on your mind.
I have thought about the consequences and have considered the possibilities. The leader of the guild will make it abundantly clear that he will face no consequences if he refuses to kill her. He will simply kill her himself and send him on his way.
If he does kill her and earn the guild leader's trust he will start having horrible nightmares. He is not a "bad," person. However he will be brought into the inner sanctum and eventually be made privy to the guild leader's plans. The guild leader has come to posess a powerful artifact and is in the process of gathering what he needs to complete a ritual that will make him the new god of strife. He will eventually offer the PC the chance serve at his right hand and have unlimited wealth and power. Naturally, the resurrection of a powerful evil diety will cause untold death and destruction. If he resists the temptation he can relay this information and stop him. The guild leader is also interested in killing this particular girl because she is the only daughter of the head of the city guard
Everything is a possiblity. He could try and make the argument that it would be better to keep her alive and only make it look like she died. He has a ring that allows him to cast glibness on himself once/day so this is a distinct possibility.
I am not, I repeat, NOT forcing the player to kill her to forward my storyline. The story will move forward as it should no matter what he does. His actions will affect the outcome which is the opposite of railroading. If he comes up with a creative solution to get out of it then, sure, I will let him use it.
If he is sly enough to scry on the conversation that the guild leader is having with his trusted underling before they meet in the forest to set out on the job and he sends word to the town guard to remove her before they arrive then so much the better. I am not going to spoon feed him an easy out though.
He is being employed by a counter-terrorism group that wants to remove the thieves guild from the city at any cost and suspects (and rightfully so) that they may be up to something far more devious than just pickpocketing and drug trafficking.
So the group he works for, while saying they are 'on the side or right' is possibly as bad as the guild they are trying to destroy, in some moral area's. They are working to the betterment of the city, rather than at it's expense but are willing to do anything do get that done. Achieving an end at ANY cost is definately borderline to firmly evil. From that statement then, his orginaztion should have little issue with the deed, since AT ANY COST means they realise that innocents may need to die to get the job done. It is the very definition of the statement.
So, here is the dillema. Next session the PC in question will be contactd by the leader of the thieves guild for a job. He and several other members will infiltrate a heavily guarded home. When they kill all the guards they will find a 16 year old girl sleeping in her bed and the guild leader will ask the PC to kill her to "prove his loyalty."
The PC is CN and I do not think that this would force an alignment shift since he will see the completeion of this act as a necessary step to advance further in the guild.
Well any act in gaming that is a moral question is open to near infinite interpretation, since everyone will see the issue with their own morals and make judgements accordingly so asking about moral judgements (and IMO any questions about aligment and actions that impact it are just that) will be very sticky.
That said, what is the characters personality and personal code like, if any? He is neutral, so the good versus evil argument is not one he is overly concerned with. He does not harm for pleasure and does not go out of his way to help or hinder people, so in theory killing a child for what he percieves as a necessity is not outside the ballpark if just his alignment is taken into account as described in the book, especially considering the group he actually works for.
He will probably not be happy about it, he will probably get no pleasure from the deed, it may nag at him or even haunt him but in the end unless he makes it a regular habit and/or ENJOYS it, the one act it won't change his alignment. He may want to get an Atonement, if his moral code (or religious views if any) views the act as particulary wrong though.
Now is the act of killing an innocent evil? Yes. Is it more evil if it is a sleeping child? Like any moral question it is open to an individuals own moral code but I think most folks would agree that yes killing a sleeping child is pretty evil. Obviously there could be far more heinous evils that could be done to her (rape, torture, etc) but killing a young girl as she sleeps is still bad enough.
Although I find it interesting that in the aligments section of the game it even intimates that Lawful EVIL creatures tend to shy away from harming innocents and children.
Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
So I assume that your man is being tested by a Neutral or Chaotic Evil boss since he seems to have no compuntions whatsoever with the deed.
Really how bad the fallout on the character will be is pretty much heavily dependent on how well defined the characters morality is in regards to his aligment. Some Chaotic Neutrals will do it, get it done, and move on with life trying to forget it happend and succeeding in doing so and some may be haunted by the deed to the point of losing sanity. Or some may discover they liked it and degenerate to evil.
Really the whole reaction the character will have is ideally predicated on the RP ability of the player and how well defined his character is before that point.
I assume you run campaigns with more depth in them since this is a pretty weighty moral issue than standard high fantasy campaigns, where your evil and good are usually more clearly delineated and the hero's are mostly firmly in the good.
But if his character tends to be more of the 'humane' side of Chaotic Neutral rather than the 'freaking nutjob' side then he could have serious ental or spiritual repercussions. But the situation is not outside the realm of what some chaotic neutrals will do.
Necessity can be a harsh mistress, but not being Good aligned goes a long way to making her more amenable, even in the darker places you have to go. Especially in those places.
One event shouldn't cause an alignment shift. But keep commiting evil, even if for some concept of greater good, and you're on the road to hell. The enforcer may be CN now, but if he keeps doing the sort of thing you're putting him up to, he just becomes a bastard working to take out a somewhat worse bastard.
The morality of murdering innocents for the greater good is still pretty immoral.
|
|
Does it have to be the leader of the guild asking him to commit the act or can it instead be one of the guild leaders henchman? Maybe a real scumbag 2nd in command who already hates and distrust the PC (been used before in a ton of movies).
The PC gets some foreshadow on what is going to happen (the set up to commit the act) and maybe instead of killing the girl he instead kills the 2nd and makes it look like he died fighting the guards. Then maybe have the pc get the girl out somehow - I don't know the specifics of the scenario.
You could then preserve the choice dilemma if the PC is indifferent - follow the 2nds request to kill the girl to prove the loyalty, get that clown off of his back and just advance the story, or it can serve to give the PC hero an out doing a heroic act (well, he still killed the guards – but at least they were fighting men and knew the risk of their job).
He is being employed by a counter-terrorism group that wants to remove the thieves guild from the city at any cost and suspects (and rightfully so) that they may be up to something far more devious than just pickpocketing and drug trafficking.So the group he works for, while saying they are 'on the side or right' is possibly as bad as the guild they are trying to destroy, in some moral area's. They are working to the betterment of the city, rather than at it's expense but are willing to do anything do get that done. Achieving an end at ANY cost is definately borderline to firmly evil. From that statement then, his orginaztion should have little issue with the deed, since AT ANY COST means they realise that innocents may need to die to get the job done. It is the very definition of the statement.
Evil Thieves Guild - The Penumbra - Led by Karvas CE Assasin
Good Counter-Terrorist Group - The Fists of Eastgate (FoE)- Led by Richard Maurer CG RangerThat should simplify further explanations.
Very good feedback. Thank you.
The group that he is working for is run by a high-level CG Ranger. He has seen his beloved city turned into a cesspool of filth, crime, and corruption. Furthermore, he has studied The Penumbra and determined to his horror that what he thought was their primary means of income generation (drugs) is actually making them no money at all. They seem to be pumping drugs into the city just to create more filth and strife and he has reasoned (rightly so) that they must be up to something more devious and he has to find out what.
The CN PC was casually working as an enforcer before Richard found out that he was assisting the Penumbra through another PC. He essentially came to him and offered him a better deal as distasteful as it was if he would use his standing in the Penumbra to gather intelligence. The PC up until this point has been pragmatic. For instance, he allowed the Penumbra to use his blacksmith shop to traffic drugs as long as he did not have to get directly involved which I would say is pure CN.
Now, all that said, if the PC decides to try and save the girl and Richard finds out he would not hold it against him in the least and it would probably raise his opinion of him considerably. If he does kill her and finds out what happened it will upset him greatly and he will bear the weight of the guilt himself since he is involved. Now on the other hand if, and when he finds out that a CE god of death and strife is about to walk the earth again after 5000 years then he will probably reason that the girl was a necessary sacrifice even if now he can't sleep at night.
Given this PCs history I would probably say that he is going to do it. He may even take Karvas up on his offer of wealth and power when he decides to become a God. That's what makes the adventure interesting.
Reading through it all again I realized I hadn't actually addressed your question. I apologize, and will do so.
The morality of it all, to me, is that: If he kills, or allows the child to be killed, then its evil. Probably big C.E. evil.
The fact that "the guild" has some evil artifact actually isn't known to him. All he knows is that he's getting paid to infiltrate the guild. If he lets the kid get chopped, or if he does it himself, then he's doing something "evil" to accomplish /his job/. He's in it for the shinies.
To me, this is a marked contrast from "do I save the girl or save the world" type scenario. Why? Because *he doesn't know about the artifact*.
For all he knows when he makes the decision about the girl- the guild could be up to nothing but picking pockets and drug deals. He doesn't know. That is why he is there. He's basically letting the girl get the axe in order to *find out* if there is "Big Evil" going on.
(obviously- if he does find some way for the girl to not get chopped, then kudos for him.. but as you originally presented the scenario he had two options: kill her himself, or the guild master would do it).
Letting her die so he can get paid for the job is eeee vvvv iiiii lllll.
-S
Does it have to be the leader of the guild asking him to commit the act or can it instead be one of the guild leaders henchman? Maybe a real scumbag 2nd in command who already hates and distrust the PC (been used before in a ton of movies).
The PC gets some foreshadow on what is going to happen (the set up to commit the act) and maybe instead of killing the girl he instead kills the 2nd and makes it look like he died fighting the guards. Then maybe have the pc get the girl out somehow - I don't know the specifics of the scenario.You could then preserve the choice dilemma if the PC is indifferent - follow the 2nds request to kill the girl to prove the loyalty, get that clown off of his back and just advance the story, or it can serve to give the PC hero an out doing a heroic act (well, he still killed the guards – but at least they were fighting men and knew the risk of their job).
Funny you should mention this. Yes there is, in fact, an underling that I have established. However, he does not speak and is regarded as more of a pet than a servant. I am going to build resentment into the storyline if the PC decides to advance in the Penumbra.
In the past the PC has dealt directly with Karvas so I cannot imagine why he would break that precedent.
Reading through it all again I realized I hadn't actually addressed your question. I apologize, and will do so.
The morality of it all, to me, is that: If he kills, or allows the child to be killed, then its evil. Probably big C.E. evil.
The fact that "the guild" has some evil artifact actually isn't known to him. All he knows is that he's getting paid to infiltrate the guild. If he lets the kid get chopped, or if he does it himself, then he's doing something "evil" to accomplish /his job/. He's in it for the shinies.
To me, this is a marked contrast from "do I save the girl or save the world" type scenario. Why? Because *he doesn't know about the artifact*.
For all he knows when he makes the decision about the girl- the guild could be up to nothing but picking pockets and drug deals. He doesn't know. That is why he is there. He's basically letting the girl get the axe in order to *find out* if there is "Big Evil" going on.(obviously- if he does find some way for the girl to not get chopped, then kudos for him.. but as you originally presented the scenario he had two options: kill her himself, or the guild master would do it).
Letting her die so he can get paid for the job is eeee vvvv iiiii lllll.
-S
Thank you for the feedback. He is probably moving in this direction but I would not force an alignment change just yet. I will, however, let him know that this is "points against."
Who knows. He may be so wracked by guilt that it causes him to shift in the other direction and repent. It all depends on how he plays it.
I just had a thought that is making me change my mind on the whole situation. He could very well reason that the girl is dead either way, so he might as well kill her to earn Karvas's favor. Karvas is too smart to allow someone into his inner sanctum based on a technicality.
On second thought, I think that he would probably confront him before the mission by bringing along a captive who is bound and gagged. He then tells him that he can kill the captive, and join the Penumbra or he can take his leave and take the captive with him to safety. This way the choice before the PC is absolutely clear and there is no railroading involved whatsoever. Killing the captive is an evil act, no question. Taking him to safety is a neutral/good act.
Agreed?
|
|
Everything is a possiblity. He could try and make the argument that it would be better to keep her alive and only make it look like she died. He has a ring that allows him to cast glibness on himself once/day so this is a distinct possibility.
I am not, I repeat, NOT forcing the player to kill her to forward my storyline. The story will move forward as it should no matter what he does. His actions will affect the outcome which is the opposite of railroading. If he comes up with a creative solution to get out of it then, sure, I will let him use it.
If he is sly enough to scry on the conversation that the guild leader is having with his trusted underling before they meet in the forest to set out on the job and he sends word to the town guard to remove her before they arrive then so much the better. I am not going to spoon feed him an easy out though.
If everyone is cool with the elements in that, then fine - I'm aware that other groups have different dynamics, but for me the aesthetic behind this seemed a bit squalid and not something I'd really want to address or foist on my players.
I guess for me the railroad is (or appeared) that he would face this situation no matter what - it was a no win situation he couldn't avoid. If you are in fact giving him an out in some way (and he needs to be warned somehow of the possibility, not basically to get there and have you say "Well, you could've scried" when he didn't expect anything like this) then I'd be more relaxed. But I'm aware it is your game and you and your players can do whjat you want - if you wanted my opinion, this isn't something I'd find fun to play.
I agree with Aubrey on the railroad and the squick issue.
And yes, it's an evil act. That's why going deep undercover like this is such a sacrifice: there are CONSEQUENCES.
|
|
Not all PCs are heroes. Well, in your game they may be but, not in everyone's game. I tend to like these conundrums myself just be prepared for the PC to decide this is too much and put his life on the line saving the girl!
The easiest way to think about it is, "Good people sacrifice themselves they do not sacrifice others." Being good is not easy, in fact its quite difficult. However being evil isn't that easy either even though the description and popular belief makes it seem so. Since this particular PC is chaotic neutral I could see him going any way on this.
Based on my interpretation, anyone who rationalizes the ends justify the means is no longer a good person. So that chaotic good ranger who sent this PC undercover I would rule was no longer chaotic good. The change happened the moment he sent an agent on assignment with "do whatever is necessary" to acquire your goal.
Side note: I dont understand the railroad accusations. Unless every possible choice the PC had lead to this moment, and the OP really hasn't eluded to this. Not saying this is certainly not a railroad, it very well could be but, I think people are mistaking a morale trap for railroad here.
I am thinking of instituting a system of corruption points to manage "evil acts."
For instance. Whenever someone does something that is outside of their alignment they earn a corruption point. If they do not switch alignment and continue to do evil acts the points start to add up and there are unpleasant consequences like bad dreams that cause wis/con damage, uncontrolable weeping and sobbing, suicide, etc depending on the severity and frequence of the acts.
I am sure that this is not an original idea. Anyone done this before?
|
|
I am thinking of instituting a system of corruption points to manage "evil acts."
For instance. Whenever someone does something that is outside of their alignment they earn a corruption point. If they do not switch alignment and continue to do evil acts the points start to add up and there are unpleasant consequences like bad dreams that cause wis/con damage, uncontrolable weeping and sobbing, suicide, etc depending on the severity and frequence of the acts.
I am sure that this is not an original idea. Anyone done this before?
Not necessarily in D&D/Pathfinder but all the time in Call of Cthulhu!
Not all PCs are heroes. Well, in your game they may be but, not in everyone's game. I tend to like these conundrums myself just be prepared for the PC to decide this is too much and put his life on the line saving the girl!
The easiest way to think about it is, "Good people sacrifice themselves they do not sacrifice others." Being good is not easy, in fact its quite difficult. However being evil isn't that easy either even though the description and popular belief makes it seem so. Since this particular PC is chaotic neutral I could see him going any way on this.
Based on my interpretation, anyone who rationalizes the ends justify the means is no longer a good person. So that chaotic good ranger who sent this PC undercover I would rule was no longer chaotic good. The change happened the moment he sent an agent on assignment with "do whatever is necessary" to acquire your goal.
Side note: I dont understand the railroad accusations. Unless every possible choice the PC had lead to this moment, and the OP really hasn't eluded to this. Not saying this is certainly not a railroad, it very well could be but, I think people are mistaking a morale trap for railroad here.
To say that the CG ranger is no longer good for sending the PC in to infiltrate the Penumbra is a bit of a stretch. Maybe it is outside of his alignment but I do not think it would cause an immediate shift.
And especially considering the fact that I am placing the moral dillema before him outside of the original context I cannot see how anyone could accuse me of railroading anyone.
|
|
Side note: I dont understand the railroad accusations. Unless every possible choice the PC had lead to this moment, and the OP really hasn't eluded to this. Not saying this is certainly not a railroad, it very well could be but, I think people are mistaking a morale trap for railroad here.
Well, railroad is maybe not the right term. But it is something included deliberately to trip up / morally challenge (delete depending on your preference) the character, rather than being anything much tied to the overarching plot - in other words, it seems specifically there to mess with the PC, not to advance plot elements (I could be wrong, as I don't have all the info that Phazzle does). Frankly, it might be a bit more powerful if it's not "random 16 year old girl" but someone the PC knows already - frankly, a bigger dilemma and more emotionally resonant, and it also might feel a bit less forced.
Based on my interpretation, anyone who rationalizes the ends justify the means is no longer a good person. So that chaotic good ranger who sent this PC undercover I would rule was no longer chaotic good.
Have to agree to some extent. I was really suprised to hear that this 'Counter Terrorist Organisation had a GOOD Ranger leader. If he regularly is sending out missions to get the job done 'At any cost' he is probably not in the realm of good any more. You cannot time and again make commands like that and preserve your alignment status in the good realms.
'At any cost' is the realm of evil. Not even neutrality will regularly engage in such things. They may dip into it occasinally out of what they perceive as unavoidable necessity, but Neutral generally tries to avoid becoming evil, hence one of the reasons they are Neutral in the first place, and as such this is someone they would find repugnant.
As you said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This Ranger may have the best of intentions but if he has been regularly following, enforcing and assigning this 'No Matter What' policy himself then he is NOT good any more. He may even not be chaotic any more, as they are huge on personal rights and freedoms, which 'At any cost' just walks all over.
As an example. Torture is wrong and evil. It does not matter if your torturing an evil person or it will save many lives, the act of torturing someone is still evil. You may have the best intentions, and it may even come out that it DOES save many people. But it is still an act of evil.
I think it was Nietzche who said "When you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you.".
Meaning you do evil long enough, it becomes a part of you.
|
|
Not all PCs are heroes. Well, in your game they may be but, not in everyone's game. I tend to like these conundrums myself just be prepared for the PC to decide this is too much and put his life on the line saving the girl!
The easiest way to think about it is, "Good people sacrifice themselves they do not sacrifice others." Being good is not easy, in fact its quite difficult. However being evil isn't that easy either even though the description and popular belief makes it seem so. Since this particular PC is chaotic neutral I could see him going any way on this.
Based on my interpretation, anyone who rationalizes the ends justify the means is no longer a good person. So that chaotic good ranger who sent this PC undercover I would rule was no longer chaotic good. The change happened the moment he sent an agent on assignment with "do whatever is necessary" to acquire your goal.
Side note: I dont understand the railroad accusations. Unless every possible choice the PC had lead to this moment, and the OP really hasn't eluded to this. Not saying this is certainly not a railroad, it very well could be but, I think people are mistaking a morale trap for railroad here.
To say that the CG ranger is no longer good for sending the PC in to infiltrate the Penumbra is a bit of a stretch. Maybe it is outside of his alignment but I do not think it would cause an immediate shift.
And especially considering the fact that I am placing the moral dillema before him outside of the original context I cannot see how anyone could accuse me of railroading anyone.
On the contrary, the ranger is sending someone else to infiltrate the group. Someone who could do some pretty evil things under the guise of "whatever is necessary." Once again my interpretation but that doesn't sound very good to me. It sounds reckless which is pretty chaotic but its also convenient and may include sacrificing others to accomplish the goal. I cant see a good person agreeing to this.
|
In the spirit of D&D heroics, your player should be thinking of a clever way to save the girl but not blow his cover. Justifying cold-blooded murder of an innocent because I'm "CN" or "it's for the greater good" is what the bad guys do. Bit too dark of a game for me if a player thinks slaying the girl is the solution.
Not something I'd really want to address or foist on my players.
That is totally fine. We probably run very different campaigns. I play in an XCrawl campaign every other Sunday that is just good old-fashioned hackin and slashin no moral conundrums to speak of. This campaign is different. I specifically designed this world with elements of Cyberpunk fiction in mind (not to be confused with steampunk).
The world is a very ugly place and it is very easy to lose your soul. The powers that be are unforgiving and will make you their playthng if you are not careful. The campaign is actually set in a demiplane on the plane of shadow, not unlike Ravenloft, though instead of being a prison for powerful evil beings it is more of a prison for everybody. You will never get to heven, but if you are lucky you might manage not to go to hell. Cultures routinely rise with the ambition of doing great things only to fall under the weight of their own corruption. Yes it is a jaded, dystopian, miserable campaign world, and we love to play in it!
I am thinking of instituting a system of corruption points to manage "evil acts."
Check into both 'Hero's of Horror' and 'Book of Vile Darkness' from WotC 3.5. They are both great for the exact sort of game you seem to run and for handling 'evil and corruption'.
The Book of Vile Darkness especially has some very nice treatices and examinations on what is or is not evil and how evil can appear good, etc. It has a corruption point system in there as well.
|
|
I don't really buy the whole "deep cover" thing. What, is he gathering information on these criminals so they can indict them for a grand jury trial?
What is the whole point of the infiltration, to eventually take out the thieves guild - well then the PC should just kill the leader when they are alone and work his way down from there.
In all the modern deep cover movies and stories the reason men are tested to see if they are loyal, not a fed, etc, but is also to see at what capacity of evil they can operate at. Again, there is no grand jury to worry about and the PC isn't building a case to get the guild thrown in jail. The premise for restraint just isn't there - unless it takes a more historical intrigue turn - influence the king to go turn on an allied country, undermine the royal line, etc, something that takes years to work in.
It seems as if the scenario is built emulating modern real-world situations and drama (drug dealing front business, infiltrate guild, loyalty tests) but no considerations are given to the fact that the PC can just waste the guy first chance he gets, especially if he is being given these challenges directly by the target. Unless the leader is unkillable or out of reach of the PC there is no reason to hold back and waste him at the first opportune moment.
So we get all the real-life drama and restrictions when in fact under the circumstances there is no reason (at least from what I've read) for this to play out like a modern double agent scenario.
I can see why someone might think of this as "railroading" but the fact of the matter is that when people get mixed up in things like this, it's a lot LIKE a railroad. It isn't a hardline, you can deviate, but your options narrow considerably in order to maintain your cover.
The guy could say "Yeah, I'll kill her. Let me have 15 minutes with her, first. [wink]" And shut the door. That buys him 150 rounds of figuring out wtf he's gonna do to keep her alive. A CE whackjob that would kill an innocent 16 yr old girl for proof of loyalty probably would encourage this implied rape as well. Hell, why not?
I think there are plenty of options here, but they are obscured by the severity of the *given* options.
Also: No Russian. Anyone play Call of Duty? Similar concept. The game is linear and doesn't provide options, but... I don't really know of any way Allen could get out of going through with that one.
We don't know the PCs backstory and how he managed to get into this crazy thief guild, so his cover may be very heavy. He might have even changed his name and got a new place to live. He could have been doing his for months before this event. It's a difficult thing to earn the trust of paranoid groups with nefarious intent.
All that said, I would encourage you to give some hints towards hidden alternatives (faking the murder, buying more time, etc). This situation is meant for a hero, which most of us are not, so your player may not respond the same way as his character might, even if he tries very hard to do so, similar to how you would make allowances for characters with an Int above 18 (vastly superior intellect) solving puzzles.
Unless the leader is unkillable or out of reach of the PC there is no reason to hold back and waste him at the first opportune moment.
Wowsers. Yes this is more or less the situation. He is not only a high-level assassin but he has surrounded himself with powerful and loyal underlings as well as an ancient society dedicated to the resurrection of the evil god and he has a super-powerful artifact. He is untouchable.
Please everybody if you want to comment on the situation stick to the questions that I ask. Is it an evil act? Yes we have determined that those of you that helped have been very helpful. You have also helped me realize that the original plotline may have been too restrictive. I have tried to take everyone's criticisms with a grain of salt and I truly appreciate everyon that lent a hand.
Thanks Gilfalas, Pan, Selgard, and even Aubrey.
The post above is self-serving and pretentious. Swell, you think my whole premise is ridiculous. How does that help me? How about I rewrite the adventure? Better yet, why dont you rewrite it?
This case is closed. I got what I came for. I am no longer responding. Thanks again helpful people, for being helpful.
In all the modern deep cover movies and stories the reason men are tested to see if they are loyal, not a fed, etc, but is also to see at what capacity of evil they can operate at.
Your forgetting one more important fact: Should they turn on the 'Family' or 'Guild' or what have you, they themselves can be turned on for the murder they have to comit to prove loyalty.
Once they see you kill someone, then your life is their's. It is a an event that binds you together by mutual damnation. No one can afford to expose it or betray it because as soon as they do all the rest are just as damned.
While this works well today with our legal system, it worked JUST as well in ages past, where those with you when you did the killing would rather see you dead then have you expose their involvement as well.
My impression from the first post was that the Boss was not going alone with the PC but with many guildmembers. Correct me if I am wrong. One should not assault a fortified home with 2 guys when a guild of rogues is your to command.
Also, as a CN guildmember, this 'informer' could probably have access to poisons that, when carefully administered, could cause this young lady to appear dead. A nice scalp cut to supply blood (head cuts always bleed like crazy but are usually anything but fatal) and he may be able to 'kill' her and actually save her. Assuming he has that kind of poison and enough general sneakiness to carry that on a regular basis for 'odd occasions'.
BRB need to add something to my 'Book of Rogue tricks'...
The post above is self-serving and pretentious. Swell, you think my whole premise is ridiculous. How does that help me? How about I rewrite the adventure? Better yet, why dont you rewrite it?
I fail to see how defending your position that you are NOT "railroading" your player is either self-serving OR pretentious.
Sorry for rationalizing your standpoint on that matter. :P
The post above is self-serving and pretentious. Swell, you think my whole premise is ridiculous. How does that help me? How about I rewrite the adventure? Better yet, why dont you rewrite it?I fail to see how defending your position that you are NOT "railroading" your player is either self-serving OR pretentious.
Sorry for rationalizing your standpoint on that matter. :P
Miscommunication. Your post was, in fact, helpful. I was referring to the post above it. You just happened to post as I was composing my diatribe.
Sorry for the confusion.
|
|
Yeah he got mad/hurt at my post which was self-serving.
Yes this is more or less the situation. He is not only a high-level assassin but he has surrounded himself with powerful and loyal underlings as well as an ancient society dedicated to the resurrection of the evil god and he has a super-powerful artifact. He is untouchable.
Why don't you come back and post when the PC actually has a decision to make?
@ the OP
I am not sure if you are going to continue to read responses on your thread. I see you have had to put up with a lot of the "you're doing it wrong" crowd. Anyway I think it is a good idea, a very, very dark game and one I would have to be in a certain mood for, but a good idea. I have often wanted to incorporate elements of darkness such as this but never got as deep as you are going with this character/story.
I don't think it is Railroading. The player is presented with a reasonable request, well reasonable coming from an Evil Assassin anyway. He can either "prove himself" or not, it is not unlike many things that happen in real life. Now, if the player wants to get in with the Penumbra but doesn't have the stomach to kill the girl it is "on him" to find a way of doing that, again, not unlike real life. The answers aren’t always just thrown in your face. And if the player chooses to try and save the girl well that's on him too. He can play the hero and he can take the hard road but the story will be different and the answers won't come as easily as they would if he were a trusted agent of the Penumbra. My only advice here is that you should have full and interesting stories/plots prepared for either choice the player makes. If he chooses to throw in with the Penumbra he should have a deep and interesting story ahead of him, which it sounds like you have planned. If he chooses the role of a hero he should be rewarded with an equally engaging, if more difficult, story and plot.
This character is CN and already an established enforcer for the Penumbra right? And he has allowed them to conduct business in and around his business. So this guy is not the shiny hero type at all. The only problem I see with his recruitment by FoE is this: Yes they need people on the inside, but they really need people inside who can be trusted without question. This players seems like he was recruited out of desperation, and Richard Maurer is playing on his greed. Yes that makes a good turn coat, but what happens if he is offered a better deal? Richard Maurer needs people on the inside that won't turn, people that have a blind dedication to him and believe that sometimes Evil is the path to a greater Good. (I am not saying that mentality is correct, I am saying it is what is needed for this type of situation.) But it also seems you have worked this problem into your story. Richard Maurer did approach this character out of a type of desperation, and you already plan to have Karavas offer him a better deal. It should be interesting.
Karavas is an interesting character. He will need a ton of work. You have to develop deep, intricate reasons why he is untouchable. In a society with access to magic you have to build him with an equal if not greater access to magical protections. He has to have defenses from both magical tracking as well as mundane tracking. It does him no good to never sleep in the same place twice if he can be scried at any time. You will also have to think of reasons why the local government doesn't just assemble a small army to destroy him. Why are they unable to end this threat? Is he too powerful? Is he too elusive? Is he infiltrated into the government? If you don't build intricate reasons why he is in power it becomes unbelievable that he would have so much power. For instance the local government could declare Martial Law and just mercilessly eradicate all traces of the Penumbra. Why is this not an option?
As far as the double agent idea, spies are not farfetched in ancient times. Before the invention of a lot of today's technology the only source of intelligence on an enemy was spies. In a fantasy setting you have Magic to contend with. So you have to come up with ways that Karavas has been able to thwart all magical attempts to gather intelligence on his operations. Also you must provide the player a method of escaping such magic targeting him. It will do the character no good to kill a young woman and prove his loyalty if Karavas has his trusted mage interrogate the player with a Charm Person or Detect Lies or some other such magic. If this level of magic is not a part of the story than not such a big problem, but if it is, it definitely deserves a great deal of consideration.
With this type of story it seems like you are not going to want to go with a rigid Alignment system. Players should have their base Alignment when they start out, and then you might want to incorporate some type of Alignment scale, which has been suggested above in the thread. As far as the initiation act itself. This is the thing that Assassins require for their PrC; to murder someone for no other reason than to join the guild. This is an EVIL act, not just evil or Evil mind you, but EVIL! In a scaling system would this instantly change his Alignment, well maybe not, I suppose it depends how far you separate CN from CE and how much you decide that murdering and innocent young girl for no other reason than you were told to do so would cost you in Evil points. Would this automatically change your Alignment in a rigid Alignment system, you bet it would. I reiterate this is EVIL! It is no less Evil just because it is necessary to gain trust and succeed as a spy, although the character may try to convince himself of that. I could see a CN slipping too far, willing to do very ugly things to achieve his goal. Take the movie Taken for example, the hero of that movie was... well as my DM would say "there is no G in his Alignment." Does he achieve good things, yes. Does he work for a greater good, the good of his country and in the movie his family, yes. Is he a good hero, oh no, no he is not. Any time you are willing to injure or kill innocent people to achieve your goal, you are not playing a Good hero. You might be playing a hero, but certainly not a Good one. This also reminds me of the Operative from the movie Serenity:
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?
The Operative: I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.
But it also brings up another good point. That old saying: Be careful when you are hunting demons that you do not become one yourself. Your Ranger NPC needs to have a bit of this in his character too, he seems willing to employ and do some horrible things to achieve his "greater good" but what does that mean for his soul and sanity? This definitely seems like a good story to incorporate sanity rules. There is a good guideline on the d20pfsrd.com website. Killing young women is definitely the type of thing that will drive you mad and it should reflect in game. These types of things are why you see all kinds of books and movies about Special Forces guys or Undercover Cops who go completely out of their minds.
I would ask you about your Alignment for FoE and Richard Maurer. Are you sure this is a Good guild and are you sure he is a CG NPC? Any force that is willing to allow Evil things to be done in their name for the sake of a “greater good” is probably not in and of itself a Good organization. It may be on the side of good, may be fighting for good, but itself is probably not so. Again I site movies like Taken and Unthinkable. Sometimes a situation calls for ruthlessness, sometimes torture, sometimes murder. Being willing to do this for a “good cause” does not make you Good. I would say this is a N guild. Possibly even LE. Why Lawful, well because they believe they are doing it for a “greater good” and because they do it to serve their country. Also because I assume, even if they do things in a Chaotic manor, there is some form of rank and order within the organization. And they are possibly Evil for obvious reasons.
It IS up to the player to work out an 'out'.
There are several solutions and none involve ganking the girl, and it is up to them to work that out.
I am not sure if you are going to continue to read responses on your thread…
Thanks for your interest. Your thoughtful post merits a response.
I don't think it is Railroading…
While I have not considered every possibility I have a general idea of where I can take the campaign in subsequent sessions depending upon how he reacts. It will be a good time no matter what happens and I will have two weeks to plan in between sessions no matter what he does in a given session.
This character is CN and already an established enforcer for the Penumbra right? …
I have kind of given Richard Maurer a bad rap. The party is just about to finish an adventure that will end in Maurer trying to buy the PC’s loyalty. For the sake of simplicity I told everyone that he had already agreed. I am almost sure that he will agree to Richard’s demands. Not only is he going to make him a sweet deal, but the PC has been dying to build a stronghold so I am pretty sure he will comply. If he doesn’t though I still have a couple of weeks before the next session to figure out what happens. In any case at some point Karvas will put the decision on his plate. I think I am going to have Richard simply ask him to “get close,” to Karvas and leave the rest up to interpretation. That leaves the PC with more choice anyway. And, yes, he is getting to the end of his rope with this guild and has become desperate. He is going to designate another PC to be the enforcer’s handler so it opens up even more opportunity for RP and this PC is completely trustworthy.
Karavas is an interesting character. He will need a ton of work. You have to develop deep, intricate reasons why he is untouchable…
Thank you for the compliment. I love to play Karvas. He is pure evil but not stereotypical evil. For instance I play him as a kind jovial smiling type. He is a natural tempter. The kind of person who tells you “go ahead, take another hit, it won’t hurt,” or “You love sex anyway, why not get paid to do it.” He loves nothing more than to lead his followers on a smooth path straight to hell. Imagine the Joker if he was a little nicer.
I have given a LOT of thought as to what makes him untouchable. First, he is naturally badass. A 12th level character with three levels in Assasin. He also possesses The Kris of Oblivion, the artifact that he will use to resurrect the spirit of Omicidio (the dead god of murder, strife, and addiction) in his own body (think Christian Dorf in Blade). The PCs were actually unwittingly responsible for putting the Kris in his hands. They assisted him in ousting the former leader of The Penumbra and he let them have anything they wanted provided he could keep the kris. He went from a standard CN thief to a brutal, cunning, evil mastermind. The kris is beastly. It is a +3 unholy intelligent weapon that communicates with its wielder through empathy. He can also cast Finger of Death three times a day. Furthermore, when the kris communicated it’s desires to him through visions and dreams he began to recruit clerics to his cause and fell in with a secret order that is dedicated to bringing Omicidio back from his prison on the plane of shadow and they were content to follow him since the kris “chose,” him. So in addition to being the head of a powerful thieves guild he is also has an order of clerics who are reliable “partners.” Furthermore, the city that he is working out of is cesspool of corruption and he has many powerful politicians in his pocket.As far as the double agent idea, spies are not farfetched in ancient times…
It is more of a low/mid magic setting but the scenario above is still possible. The character will be given a ring that allows him to cast glibness on himself once/day for an hour and is undetectable so it is likely that he will succeed when he lies to Karvas. Karvas is mainly protected from local authorities because they really do not want to catch him. The dirty politicians are getting plenty rich off of his bribes so the guards turn a blind eye. As far as FoE scrying him this might be an option now that they have someone on the inside. Up until this point they did not have much information on Karvas. They did not know where he was, what he looked like, etc. In fact, he is sly enough that he will soon be spying on the PCs if they are not smart. He plans on giving the PC a ring of protection that will actually be used to scry him if he does not do anything about it.
With this type of story it seems like you are not going to want to go with a rigid Alignment system…
I read up on the alignment system in Heroes of Horror earlier and I am going to use the rules for depravity. Essentially you are “allowed,” to commit evil acts without switching alignment but you accrue depravity points and suffer negative mental effects, i.e. madness, paranoia, narcissism, etc. Eventually once you accrue enough points it forces you to temporarily shift alignments until you atone and enough points results in permanent alignment shift. I think this very accurately represents the guilt, shame, and apathy that builds up when you start doing evil things. The character in the above example would have to kill two people before the temporary shift and would have to kill about 7 or 8 before he is completely beyond redemption. I also worked it into the system that even when you atone 20% of the points that you accrue remain so players can’t just play the system. Thanks again Gilfalas!
As far as FoE go. They are a mix of CG and CN NPCs and one CG PC. They really mean well but (as everything in my campaign) they are teetering on the brink and if they are not careful they could spin out of control. They are currently considered to be a radical group that incites riots and protests around the city and gets into all kinds of shenanigans. They are not above taking the law into their own hands but they do not harm innocents. For instance, a few adventures ago they found a warehouse that was an operation for part of the Penumbra and paid the guards off to look the other way while they took it out. (Gumdrops! I can’t wait for someone to jump all over me with their interpretation on this.)Maurer is CG for now, but as far as alignment goes if he does shift alignment it really will have 0.0% effect on the game. I will play him as Richard Maurer, who up until this point has been idealistic and hot-headed. If he turns LE for some wacky reason it does not affect his abilities or MO. It’s not like he is running an order of paladins.
Thanks a million for breaking it down so well. You gave me a lot of good ideas. Much appreciated (bows)
Funny -
Not too long ago, i had a similiar situation in my group - one of the groups PC body was possesed by a demon Lord, a NPC who often helped the group tried to extract the demon. In this process the Demon took possesion of the NPC (at least tried to)- which resulted that the NPC was in a comatose state - in which the two "souls" harbored by the body of the NPC fought over said body.
The Group knew that in the case the Demon would win it could result in the death of hundreds of thousands innocennts.
So 2 of the chars tricked the others in lowering their guard - so that they had free access to the NPC and then killed the NPC.
i probably should mention - the NPC saved the lives of the PC´s on several occasions and was always loyal to them - and around half of the (players) chars of the group (those tricked) would have died trying to protect the NPC -
So you can imagine those different opinions on how to handle situation combined with action they took nearly resulted in the group killing each other -
what at that point would have been prabably a good thing to happen than this kind of action wasn´t actually foressen by me - they had some better course of options presented to them (a little riskier
tough)
So i had a hard time deciding if i should change their alignment. After some talk with the players about their intentions etc i decided to let them keep theirs. I found it was penalty enough that the trust in the group after this act was no longer existant.
In your case tough - i would really consider an alignment shift exspecially if the players don´t try to at least find a way to fullfill the given mission without killing the innocent girl (for example save the girl cast mind blank on her and find a lately died girl around the same age to substitute her dead body - then you tke the girl into custody of the local authorities ....)- which is by the way in my opinion far TOO old in a medievil setting this girl could have been married a long time ago - and the impact on your conscience of killing a adult woman for the greater good is by far not as great as by killing a newborn - (what really requires assasins to do - because those are the only one aside from psychopaths which could commit this act - and thats clearly an evil act)
what eventually would result in alignment change, if the player who commited this sin isn´t at least atoning for this in some way.
i would require thta the char has to show some changes in his personality, because of what they forced him to do - for example showing no longer mercy against members of this organization - changing his modi of operandum from a clean fighter to someone using every available method to fight this organization at least after he has fullfilled why he infiltrated them.
