|
Hello everybody,
First of all, sorry if my english isn´t too correct. And if there´s any of my players here: ¡No sigáis leyendo! (do not read!)
I have an issue with the alignment of one of the PCs I´m DMing. A few months ago we discussed about her fighter´s alignment. I said that she is NN and she saids that NG. Finally I accepted that could be NG, but she shoud be aware that she´s walking over de edge of NN. Now, I want your opinion about this:
1- In the last session they went to a ruined keep. Inside, there was a bored and mighty titan (they´re at level 16), and they must kill him, or steal his belt. They buffed themselves, and entered. When they faced the titan, fighter winned initiative, and charged. She missed. Then, titan sundered and destroyed her +3 bane, holy falchion of awesomeness, with his maul of titans +3,with his first atack. He didn´t make more atacks,only laughting. Rest of the party atacked too or buffed themselves. In the second round, barely damaged, the figther flight away, leaving her fellows inside the keep, because "he can destroy my armor!", and running x4 in the third round. Finally, after 2 more rounds, all of them ran away, and gathered far from the titan. Can I consider her action neutral?
2- About their wealth. The party always makes a pool with the money obtained, and then divide. When one of them sells an item, the resulting money is divided too. For example, if the wizard sells a staff that isn´t using, and obtains 20.000 gp, he divides the money, and everybody gains 5.000 gp (each of my 4 players). After they gathered, the eldrith knight said to the figther. "What´s the problem? you could use one of your other magical swords!" and she answered "I sold it to upgrade my falchion". The other players know nothing about this selling. I said nothing, and the session ended, but I want to talk about her alignment next session (this saturday). Keeping the money and hiding the fact to the others characters (and players) is like a kind of stealing, don´t you think? I´m going to say her that I will change her alignment, but I want your opinion. Am I overreacting?
3- Also, the fighter refuses to atack the titan again, although they must steal his belt, to pass a test, to save the world, typical situation ;).I they fail, all golarion will be in danger! The other players wants to try again, but she doesn´t want to do. This fighter need a boost against her player´s fear!
What´s your opinion?
|
|
Number two is more a shift towards Chaotic than Neutral, IMO.
The other two, I think should be encouraged - It's rare that somebody roleplays actually being scared of their opponents.
If there's been a history of incidents over the campaign that make you think the character should shift, then go ahead. I'm not sure that these actions are quite enough though
1- In the last session they went to a ruined keep. Inside, there was a bored and mighty titan (they´re at level 16), and they must kill him, or steal his belt. They buffed themselves, and entered. When they faced the titan, fighter winned initiative, and charged. She missed. Then, titan sundered and destroyed her +3 bane, holy falchion of awesomeness, with his maul of titans +3,with his first atack. He didn´t make more atacks,only laughting. Rest of the party atacked too or buffed themselves. In the second round, barely damaged, the figther flight away, leaving her fellows inside the keep, because "he can destroy my armor!", and running x4 in the third round. Finally, after 2 more rounds, all of them ran away, and gathered far from the titan. Can I consider her action neutral?
This action is neutral. But it's not evil. If she says she's NG, a NG person would definitely do this. (Neutral Good means you try to help out more often than not - it doesn't mean you will fight to the death automatically, or even that you will act heroically.) She's not Neutral - she's a coward. Totally different things.
2- About their wealth. The party always makes a pool with the money obtained, and then divide. When one of them sells an item, the resulting money is divided too. For example, if the wizard sells a staff that isn´t using, and obtains 20.000 gp, he divides the money, and everybody gains 5.000 gp (each of my 4 players). After they gathered, the eldrith knight said to the figther. "What´s the problem? you could use one of your other magical swords!" and she answered "I sold it to upgrade my falchion". The other players know nothing about this selling. I said nothing, and the session ended, but I want to talk about her alignment next session (this saturday). Keeping the money and hiding the fact to the others characters (and players) is like a kind of stealing, don´t you think?
That's not a character/alignment problem - that's a player problem. You should lay down the rule clearly: If you sell stuff, it goes into the party fund; (or) if you sell stuff, it goes to your character directly (although you can share if you wish). If your player continues to defy the table rule (assuming the rule is "if you sell stuff, it goes into the party fund"), then you have a problem player, not a problem character.
Until such time, selling personal property and keeping the proceeds isn't evil or good - it's fairly normal, and might even be expected.
3- Also, the fighter refuses to atack the titan again, although they must steal his belt, to pass a test, to save the world, typical situation ;).I they fail, all golarion will be in danger! The other players wants to try again, but she doesn´t want to do. This fighter need a boost against her player´s fear!
Who says anything about having to attack the titan? All they need to do is steal the belt. Let them steal it.
It seems to me you're being a little close minded. Let the players play - and you stay the hell out of their plans.
|
|
This action is neutral. But it's not evil. If she says she's NG, a NG person would definitely do this. (Neutral Good means you try to help out more often than not - it doesn't mean you will fight to the death automatically, or even that you will act heroically.) She's not Neutral - she's a coward. Totally different things.
I´m not saying that she´s Evil, but may be true neutral. Abandoning your fellows when barely injured... but maybe I´m a little close minded; so I appreciate an external opinion.
That's not a character/alignment problem - that's a player problem....
If the character is hiding this fact, maybe other caracters get angry...
|
Good characters do not have to perform ONLY Good acts. Nor do Evil characters have to perform ONLY Evil acts. Or Neutral characters perform ONLY Neutral acts.
The NG fighter can perform a Neutral act without shifting that way. If NO Good acts are performed, then maybe the character should be Neutral. Same with Law/Chaos. A Lawful act here and there does not make you a Paladin.
|
One act by itself isn't a good indicator on how to pin down a character.
On the other hand, if I was playing the scenario, I might get the idea as a player that brute force isn't the only way to approach the problem. If that's the way you set it up as the only route, maybe you should rethink how you're approaching that scenario. And be sensitive to your players. The problem with things like Sunder is that there are players that do get upset when you break their toys. Perhaps they're not aware that such damage can be repaired (a lot easier in Pathfinder than in D+D)
But again just digging into similar situations in Norse mythology, is brute force really the only solution that's in the scneario?
|
|
We´re playing an adaptation of Age of Worms AP in Golarion, I´ll try to mantain my post spoiler free, just in case...
Is not the only solution, but the Titan in Bestiary II (CR 22) has spell turning at will, and a very high SR. The adventure is "library of the last resort" by mr. Logue, and it´s pretty difficult (a grup of four players of level 16 vs. a CR 22!) But they only need to obtain the belt.
I´m sensitive, this is the first enemy who uses sunder, in 16 levels, and the campaign is a high magic one.
Another question about alignment:
- One player plays a cleric of Pharasma True Neutral. A few sessions ago, in a city with riots and disturbs, a mob try to enter in the house of the mayor, with a hostile attitude. They try to stop them, but diplomacy and intimidation failed (bad bad rolls). When the mob try to overrun the characters, the cleric casted "holy word" (a spell with good descriptor, so... a good act?), killing almost everybody (the spell affects everyone non good, and the moob was CN)...ehmm... thoughs about the cleric alignment?
I would've run away too if my +6 weapon was destroyed in the first round of combat.
- One player plays a cleric of Pharasma True Neutral. A few sessions ago, in a city with riots and disturbs, a mob try to enter in the house of the mayor, with a hostile attitude. They try to stop them, but diplomacy and intimidation failed (bad bad rolls). When the mob try to overrun the characters, the cleric casted "holy word" (a spell with good descriptor, so... a good act?), killing almost everybody (the spell affects everyone non good, and the moob was CN)...ehmm... thoughs about the cleric alignment?
Commoners shouldn't rush 12th level Clerics with murderous intent
Another question about alignment:
- One player plays a cleric of Pharasma True Neutral. A few sessions ago, in a city with riots and disturbs, a mob try to enter in the house of the mayor, with a hostile attitude. They try to stop them, but diplomacy and intimidation failed (bad bad rolls). When the mob try to overrun the characters, the cleric casted "holy word" (a spell with good descriptor, so... a good act?), killing almost everybody (the spell affects everyone non good, and the moob was CN)...ehmm... thoughs about the cleric alignment?
Killing in self defense. Even Good characters can do it, let alone Neutral ones.
The only thing that bothers me in this example is the spell itself - killing everything non-Good in the area doesn't really sound worthy of a Good descriptor to me. But... blame the system, not the character.
Overall, I think you should lay off a bit with regards to Alignment.
Another question about alignment:
- One player plays a cleric of Pharasma True Neutral. A few sessions ago, in a city with riots and disturbs, a mob try to enter in the house of the mayor, with a hostile attitude. They try to stop them, but diplomacy and intimidation failed (bad bad rolls). When the mob try to overrun the characters, the cleric casted "holy word" (a spell with good descriptor, so... a good act?), killing almost everybody (the spell affects everyone non good, and the moob was CN)...ehmm... thoughs about the cleric alignment?
Killing in self defense. Even Good characters can do it, let alone Neutral ones.
The only thing that bothers me in this example is the spell itself - killing everything non-Good in the area doesn't really sound worthy of a Good descriptor to me. But... blame the system, not the character.
Overall, I think you should lay off a bit with regards to Alignment.
Holy word can only kill non-good creatures at 10 below the caster's level. Holy Word might have been a bit excessive for a 12th+ level Cleric though..
|
2- About their wealth. The party always makes a pool with the money obtained, and then divide. When one of them sells an item, the resulting money is divided too. For example, if the wizard sells a staff that isn´t using, and obtains 20.000 gp, he divides the money, and everybody gains 5.000 gp (each of my 4 players). After they gathered, the eldrith knight said to the figther. "What´s the problem? you could use one of your other magical swords!" and she answered "I sold it to upgrade my falchion". The other players know nothing about this selling. I said nothing, and the session ended, but I want to talk about her alignment next session (this saturday). Keeping the money and hiding the fact to the others characters (and players) is like a kind of stealing, don´t you think? I´m going to say her that I will change her alignment, but I want your opinion. Am I overreacting?
I think you both have a different idea of 'what belongs to the PC' and 'what belongs to the party'.
By all means, split everything equally, when it's new loot.
But once it's split, that's the end of it. It's done; that's the PC's own gear.
He's already paid his dues on it first time round.
If he wants to trade it in for something else, that's no-one else's business.
If you sold some of your unwanted possessions (eg, on eBay), would you ring round your friends to give them their 'rightful share' of the proceeds?
|
|
2- About their wealth. The party always makes a pool with the money obtained, and then divide. When one of them sells an item, the resulting money is divided too. For example, if the wizard sells a staff that isn´t using, and obtains 20.000 gp, he divides the money, and everybody gains 5.000 gp (each of my 4 players). After they gathered, the eldrith knight said to the figther. "What´s the problem? you could use one of your other magical swords!" and she answered "I sold it to upgrade my falchion". The other players know nothing about this selling. I said nothing, and the session ended, but I want to talk about her alignment next session (this saturday). Keeping the money and hiding the fact to the others characters (and players) is like a kind of stealing, don´t you think? I´m going to say her that I will change her alignment, but I want your opinion. Am I overreacting?
I think you both have a different idea of 'what belongs to the PC' and 'what belongs to the party'.
By all means, split everything equally, when it's new loot.
But once it's split, that's the end of it. It's done; that's the PC's own gear.
He's already paid his dues on it first time round.
If he wants to trade it in for something else, that's no-one else's business.If you sold some of your unwanted possessions (eg, on eBay), would you ring round your friends to give them their 'rightful share' of the proceeds?
The problem about this is that all the other players split everything (new loot, and used too). It´s their decission. They use this money to buy components for resurrections, or wands of "cure"...etc
I won't go into details, but I wouldn't force a character to change because he does neutral acts, as long as he does good acts from time to time.
Also the Player shouldn't take it to personal if you tell him that his alignment is changed, except if it leads to penalties (good cleric gone evil, or even items that help them).
Also your player doesn't seem to think about any penalties, because true neutral normally helps most, nobody can cast protection against good at himself.
So, noone should take alignments more serious than they actually are in your game. So if you want to push him to do better deeds, change his alignement, but only if he doesn't loose anything but his good opinion of himself.
1st point : you are fighter, the big mob in front of you breaks your sword quite easily. Well you don't have a lot of choice : fleeing is a really good option, especially if your teammates can't do anything for you. I don't see any problem in that one.
2nd point : using the party money to buff yourself without approval of the party. Very selfish act, typically chaotic !!
3rd point : still being afraid of the big mob who broke her sword. You know, if even bad guys love their mom, then good characters have the right to be afraid. But I tinhk that in this case, it's in fact the player who is afraid of losing magic items.
4th point : the Holy Word slaughter. This is an evil act : casting intentionnally a spell that can kill low-level NPCs against a riot is an overdone use of violence. He could easily cast this spell at the minimal CL to avoid any risk of killing people.
|
|
If he wants to trade it in for something else, that's no-one else's business.
If you sold some of your unwanted possessions (eg, on eBay), would you ring round your friends to give them their 'rightful share' of the proceeds?
The problem about this is that all the other players split everything (new loot, and used too). It´s their decision. They use this money to buy components for resurrections, or wands of "cure"...etc
Then that's them being overly generous, above and beyond the bounds of reasonable behaviour. You can't declare someone to be evil, just because they fail to match someone else's philanthropy.
I think it would be a better idea for the party to set up a Party Fund, to cover the cost of healing wands, raising the dead, etc. That's what we do, so the cleric isn't having to pay for it out of his allowance.
The party tax is up front, and no-one minds if one person ends up needing more healing or gets raised, as it was never their money to start with.
But once that's paid for, whatever is left gets split. And it is totally up to each person to decide how they spend it.
Imagine a four-person party (no relation to your players, so nothing personal);
One PC may save his share in the bank till they can afford one uber-item.
Another PC may buy a modest item, and follow up with more modest items.
A third may buy a modest item, and then keep improving it, in stages.
A fourth may buy a modest item, then trade it in toward a better one.
Why should the first three pay nothing toward the party, but the fourth be taxed 3/4 the sale value of his old item?
If the players are interested in fairness, they can tax everyone an equal share at each payday. Otherwise, they are relying on haphazard amounts of unequal value, at unpredictable dates. I can't see how that's any efficient way to fund something as important as the Party Health Plan.
1st point : you are fighter, the big mob in front of you breaks your sword quite easily. Well you don't have a lot of choice : fleeing is a really good option, especially if your teammates can't do anything for you. I don't see any problem in that one.
2nd point : using the party money to buff yourself without approval of the party. Very selfish act, typically chaotic !!
3rd point : still being afraid of the big mob who broke her sword. You know, if even bad guys love their mom, then good characters have the right to be afraid. But I tinhk that in this case, it's in fact the player who is afraid of losing magic items.
4th point : the Holy Word slaughter. This is an evil act : casting intentionnally a spell that can kill low-level NPCs against a riot is an overdone use of violence. He could easily cast this spell at the minimal CL to avoid any risk of killing people.
The "minimum CL" (whatever that is) would have killed every commoner still.
Azeneal, may I suggest...
Sit down with your player with your core rulebook open to the alignment section in the Additional Rules chapter.
Read with her the following:
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
and
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
(You may also want to compare the description of Neutral Good to True Neutral.)
Ask her to describe all the times her character has made personal sacrifices to help others, shown concern for the dignity of sentient beings, and generally been altruistic--giving of herself out of the goodness of her heart and not for her own benefit. Ask her to then describe the times she did NOT do these things, such as when she did not commit to make sacrifices to protect or help others (if she doesn't bring it up, gently suggest the time she abandoned the party to the fight with the titan--because certainly, the good act was to stand and help the party, even if she wasn't at a personal advantage).
Then ask her to honestly assess which alignment description she thinks describes her own character better and explain in concrete terms, why.
Be absolutely clear that she is doing nothing wrong--you just want to clear up your interpretation of her character versus her interpretation of her character.
IF, however, through her own words, she describes a neutral character by the definitions provided by the rules of the books, suggest that this might be a better alignment for her character. She has to have performed a NUMBER of actions consistent with morally neutral philosophy rather than good philosophy for this to make sense (as others note, one neutral act in the face of fear does not an alignment shift make). Make it clear that changing her alignment is not a punishment (indeed, sometimes neutral characters mechanically have it better because all the outsiders' spells that target characters of a certain alignment will affect a neutral character less). It's just about making sure her character sheet is reflecting her roleplaying as accurately as possible, and that this does not poorly reflect upon her or her ability to play her character--it's a rules confusion, and that's all.
Good luck.
ETA: Also: it occurs to me as I reread the thread... that if the Titan situation may not have been an issue of her roleplaying, but her thinking her character was useless in the situation. She may need a primer in tactics--stuff like learning how to do Aid Another attempts may be helpful. On the other hand, I have to wonder, based on the description here (and to be fair, I don't know if it's the whole story), if the issue is not that the fighter isn't a team player, but that the player is not a team player, and that may be a whole other can of worms quite separate from alignment.
|
|
2nd point : using the party money to buff yourself without approval of the party. Very selfish act, typically chaotic !!
It's not party money, though, is it?
It's his own gear, on which he's already paid for from his own allowance.Hypothetical situation:
Your car is starting to get old, and you wanted a new one. You take it to the dealer, who offers you $500 for it.
Do you put that $500 toward your new car?
Or do you ring round four of your friends, give them an unexpected gift of $100 each, and then use the $100 you have left?
If your friends found out you'd traded the car, and used the whole $500 toward your new one, would they be mad at you, for stealing $100 of their money?
If so, I'd say get new friends.
First and third points are unaligned (not neutral, but unaligned). Anyone can show cowardice when feeling helpless.
Second point. Not exactly evil, but rather chaotic. Character decided to break the rule of his social group (the party) - not something that will change alignement to chaotic but a small mark of such tendencies. Unless they all are declared communists sharing joint ownership of their equipment, then it could be viewed as a (tiny) bit evil.
Four point. Self-Defense unless it was character that provoked riot. Rioting people are extremally dangerous and rarely can be reasoned with. There were indeed excessive force used which I would count as a black mark against the cleric if s/he were good. Being good includes trying to use nonlethal methods first - if possible. Note that holy word could not be used safely in that instance, probably: when using lower caster level character cannot lower CL below that required to cast the spell in qustion - i.e. 13th for holy word - which still kills anyone at 3rd or lower level and I assume that rioters were common people without higher levels.
The only thing she did that I think should result in an alignment discussion is the selling of the sword behind everyone’s back - definitely not Good. It’s maybe neutral given the right set of circumstances, but from what I gather she (her and her character both)was acting Evil. She knew the agreement was to split all loot, new loot and old. She agreed and accepted the money from the sale of everyone else’s old gear all the while double dipping for her upgrades (and not even keeping a backup magical weapon on hand – for shame!).
The loot-rule may seem a little odd until you think about it. Otherwise you end up with the PCs at disparate wealth levels with the gap growing exponentially over time. If the group has a greedy member playing a martial character (a fighter especially) this will become a big problem and fast. I concur this is a player problem not a character problem, but it may be an easier conversation if you explain to her how evil her character’s actions are.
2nd point : using the party money to buff yourself without approval of the party. Very selfish act, typically chaotic !!It's not party money, though, is it?
It's his own gear, on which he's already paid for from his own allowance.Hypothetical situation:
Your car is starting to get old, and you wanted a new one. You take it to the dealer, who offers you $500 for it.
Do you put that $500 toward your new car?
Or do you ring round four of your friends, give them an unexpected gift of $100 each, and then use the $100 you have left?
If your friends found out you'd traded the car, and used the whole $500 toward your new one, would they be mad at you, for stealing $100 of their money?
If so, I'd say get new friends.
If the four friends helped me get the car in the first place, shared the use of their cars back and forth with me (i.e. take whichever car is closest when you need a ride), and shared the money from them selling their cars, then yes, I'd expect them to expect that I'd share the money from selling my car.
A better comparison might be: If you find out your spouse decided to sell their car without telling you and invested the money on a new laptop, rather than putting it back into the family bank accounts, would you be mad?
|
A better comparison might be: If you find out your spouse decided to sell their car without telling you and invested the money on a new laptop, rather than putting it back into the family bank accounts, would you be mad?
Not exactly. It's more like you agreed with your wife to split X amount of money and buy separate cars, then she realized she didn't need hers and sold it to buy a laptop. It's unfortunate she didn't tell you, but if she really didn't need that car...
Of course, finding out like this is like finding out when she calls to beg you for a ride...
So definitely not ideal, but not as bad as people are making it out to be.
1- In the last session they went to a ruined keep. Inside, there was a bored and mighty titan (they´re at level 16), and they must kill him, or steal his belt. They buffed themselves, and entered. When they faced the titan, fighter winned initiative, and charged. She missed. Then, titan sundered and destroyed her +3 bane, holy falchion of awesomeness, with his maul of titans +3,with his first atack. He didn´t make more atacks,only laughting. Rest of the party atacked too or buffed themselves. In the second round, barely damaged, the figther flight away, leaving her fellows inside the keep, because "he can destroy my armor!", and running x4 in the third round. Finally, after 2 more rounds, all of them ran away, and gathered far from the titan. Can I consider her action neutral?
Not really. Its 1) COWARDLY 2) Worried about rules that don't exit (you can't sunder armor someone is wearing) 3) The action is neutral, but its not non good. Neutral actions don't make you neutral. Even the most paladinist paladin commits neutral actions all day (brushing his teeth, looking in the mirror, bathing etc)
2- About their wealth. The party always makes a pool with the money obtained, and then divide. When one of them sells an item, the resulting money is divided too. For example, if the wizard sells a staff that isn´t using, and obtains 20.000 gp, he divides the money, and everybody gains 5.000 gp (each of my 4 players). After they gathered, the eldrith knight said to the figther. "What´s the problem? you could use one of your other magical swords!" and she answered "I sold it to upgrade my falchion". The other players know nothing about this selling. I said nothing, and the session ended, but I want to talk about her alignment next session (this saturday). Keeping the money and hiding the fact to the others characters (and players) is like a kind of stealing, don´t you think? I´m going...
Thats more chaotic than outright evil. Actually it seems more like not remembering than chaotic.
|
|
Azeneal, may I suggest...
Sit down with your player with your core rulebook open to the alignment section in the Additional Rules chapter.
Read with her the following:
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.and
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.(You may also want to compare the description of Neutral Good to True Neutral.)
Ask her to describe all the times her character has made personal sacrifices to help others, shown concern for the dignity of sentient beings, and generally been altruistic--giving of herself out of the goodness of her heart and not for her own benefit. Ask her to then describe the times she did NOT do these things, such as when she did not commit to make sacrifices to protect or help others (if she doesn't bring it up, gently suggest the time she abandoned the party to the fight with the titan--because certainly, the good act was to stand and help the party, even if she wasn't at a personal advantage).
Then ask her to honestly assess which alignment description she thinks describes her own character better and explain in concrete terms, why.
Be absolutely clear that she is doing nothing wrong--you just want to clear up your interpretation of her character versus her interpretation of her character.
IF, however, through her own words, she describes a neutral character by the definitions provided by the rules of the books, suggest that this might be a better alignment for her character. She has to have performed a NUMBER of actions consistent with morally neutral philosophy rather than good philosophy for this to make sense (as others note, one neutral act in the face of fear...
We did it a few months ago, but we couldn´t achieve the same point of view. She said Neutral Good, and I said True Neutral. She makes no evil acts, but many neutral, for example:
- when fighting side by side with an ekujae female elf boss, against a big badass, the ekujae ally died. She take the elf´s wondrous figurine of a lion from her body, and later when the other elves took the body of their fallen boss, she said nothing. (a good person will give back the figurine, I think)
- She discovered a map to a tomb that legends claims has a mighty sword. She is going to go there hiding her journey to the cleric of pharasma, because she doesn´t wants to discuss about her tomb robbing intentions.
The only thing she did that I think should result in an alignment discussion is the selling of the sword behind everyone’s back - definitely not Good. It’s maybe neutral given the right set of circumstances, but from what I gather she (her and her character both)was acting Evil. She knew the agreement was to split all loot, new loot and old. She agreed and accepted the money from the sale of everyone else’s old gear all the while double dipping for her upgrades (and not even keeping a backup magical weapon on hand – for shame!).
(...) If the group has a greedy member(...)
This.
Case 1 and 3: Should not change alignment ever...alignment is not a sledge hammer for the DM to make the PCs behave as you want.
Case 2: Treasure division is always a fun issue. Did the fighter agree to this? Is that a out of game descision or in game or was it RPed out during the campaign? Etc.
Though at best this is more of a law/chaos issue. Regardless you should address this with the group...You as a DM Should know what your players are selling.
So for the fighter all I don't really see a alignment change at all... definitly nothing evil...
As for the cleric and casting Holy Word. While non-leathal would have been the best...was everyonw going to resort to it? I mean if the everybody else inb the group was going to a sword or such...does it matter?
Also this is not a MMORPG....creatures are not colored to indicate the level of a mob...true he could assume it will kill all of them...but he has no way of knowing for sure...heck if they were higher level it would have taken the mob out with killing everybody and risking everybody else.
I think the clerics action were a reckless(how does he know this spell won't kill anybody in the nobel's house hold? And if it did...I probably would have him arrested for murder...but that is a different issue). Did he show remorse?
My finale conclusion is that I would probably give the character a warning...and watch his actionbs closely.
|
|
Neutral actions don't make you neutral. Even the most paladinist paladin commits neutral actions all day (brushing his teeth, looking in the mirror, bathing etc)
Alignment actions are about morality and ethics, not hygiene...not the same. I think that if you do neutral actions all the day, you are neutral. ;)
The cleric show remorse, but arguing that no good people can die with the holy word spell, and now they are in Pharasma´s cradle :S
About give a warning...this is the issue. I gave a warning some time ago.
Even the most paladinist paladin commits neutral actions all day (brushing his teeth, looking in the mirror, bathing etc)
-somewhat snark on-
only low level paladins Clean themselves with Morally Neutral Bath Products.everyone knows that a +3 Holy bar of Soap is better for cleaning off the filth of lesser beings than that stupid bar of soap the fighter over there uses.-snark off-
anyways, as for the Topic at Hand: the first and third points there are truely non-aligned, I mean, she's a fighter who jsut had her sword broken in half by a Giant who laughed at her. As someone said earlier, she might not be aware of the Aid Another action, and figured she was going to be completely useless in the fights (I know the feeling, I play Witches and Enchanters dominantly, and well.... oozes, undead, constructs, etc every fight for like 4 sessions gets really stupid after a while "I stab at it with my dagger and miss. next person's turn... -.-;")
and thusly didn't really want to go back in there, which is a valid PoV, especially for a Fighter who DID charge and learn first hand that that was not a good idea at all.
as for the Second, at worst it's one Chaotic neutral act done by a Neutral Good Character, and expecting the character to change alignment over something like that is kind of stupid, that's like expecting a monk or paladin to lose their abilities because they didn't look both ways before jaywalking.
anyways, keeping quiet about tomb robbing against a cleric who would tear her limb from limb over it is a smart idea, and isn't even vaguely evil, tomb robbing being a staple in the adventurer's lifestyle to account for being able to do ANYTHING. As for the Figurine, that's not something a Lawful GOod person would do, but neutral good, eh, maybe she figured she needed it for something.
all in all, if she believes she's Neutral Good, let her stay NG. It means you can Blaspheme, prot good, etc which you can't really do against a Neutral Neutral Character (true neutrals are pretty safe from a lot of things O.o)
I point you towards the section titled Changing Alignments on page 168 of the core book. All four paragraphs the end result is she is a fighter it doesn't matter what her alignment is being neutral actually is a gain for her mechanically speaking as unholy weapons do less damage to her.
Alignment especially for those not bound by class restriction is mostly just a guideline for the player to follow and the DM to have some expectations of behavior not a straight jacket that punishes the player for behaving in X Y or Z fashion.
She seems to be obsessed with her sword and gear and a bit of a coward, I have seen Paladins run from rust monsters and they are immune to fear non of that makes her not good. It makes her character have character. I wish my players ran from more things, for the most part it's stand and fight to the death every encounter and then getting upset when they realize that sometimes that means they are the ones that die.
A better comparison might be: If you find out your spouse decided to sell their car without telling you and invested the money on a new laptop, rather than putting it back into the family bank accounts, would you be mad?Not exactly. It's more like you agreed with your wife to split X amount of money and buy separate cars, then she realized she didn't need hers and sold it to buy a laptop. It's unfortunate she didn't tell you, but if she really didn't need that car...
Of course, finding out like this is like finding out when she calls to beg you for a ride...
So definitely not ideal, but not as bad as people are making it out to be.
Actually to make this analogy fit it would go more like…
Couple splits their ‘car money,’ say $40,000, down the middle it with the agreement any revenue from selling the cars down the road will be split evenly.
Each buys a car with their $20,000 and keeps whatever is left over to spend as they wish.
Then they win a new car worth $25,000 for winning first prize in a writing contest for a short story they co-wrote. They decide the husband should use the new car because he will get more utility out of (it doesn’t matter why, maybe he has a longer commute, whatever), so he sells his old one for $10,000 and gives $5,000 to his wife. (I’m using the PF economy rules here, assuming no supply/demand effect, depreciation or anything like that for comparison purposes.)
At this point the husband and wife are unequal, but only slightly so, no big deal. She still gets value from the husband’s car. She can drive it if she needs to and enjoy ridding in it when they go out together (like a wizard benefiting from the fighter using her uber-sword). His assets total $30,000 and hers $25,000 plus some small amount of the husbands car as it does benefit her, say $2,500, for a total of $27,500.
Over time they save up and divide the ‘car money’ again. Again, each gets $20,000 to spend. The husband sells his car for $15,000, gives $7,500 to his wife and buys a new car for $32,500. The wife sells her car for $10,000 but doesn’t divide the revenue with the husband. Instead, she buys a car for $42,500. Now he has assets worth $36,750 ($32,500 car + 10% of wife’s better car) and she has $42,500 worth. The equality gap is getting pretty big now.
The husband takes notice, “Wow, how’d you get the money to pay for that?”
Wife responds, “Oh, I conveniently forgot about that splitting the revenue 50/50 thing…”
He says, “Um, the $7,500 check I wrote you yesterday wasn’t a reminder.”
She replies, “No, no it was. I remembered the ‘you sharing yours with me’ part. It’s the reciprocation part of the agreement that I can never seem to remember…”
Then imagine this scenario plays out dozens of times. The cumulative effect of the husband splitting his revenues and the wife keeping her’s while taking half of his is that the wife’s ‘car-power level’ will become exponentially higher than the husband’s rather quickly and the only way to fix it is to liquidate everything and start over.
The inequity in and of its self is not necessarily evil, but the lying, stealing and greediness creating it is.
|
|
Why would anyone in their right mind sign up to an agreement that is so fiddly, and doomed to end in acrimony?
What if the wife never sells her car? Just lets it run as long as it will go? Banks her $20K every time, and pockets half the value of hubby's car every time he sells his? That would be, technically, all above board, since the original agreement contains no compulsion to sell a car that's working fine.
Here's a better idea; both use their share of the money, plus whatever they can raise from the sale of their own property, to buy whatever they like, stop spying on each other, and stop micromanaging the other person's budget.
While I understand parties that split the selling of loot, I really don't understand why someone should redivide a sale of something that was purchased for a character. Example:
Group of 4 gets 32k in gold. Each spends their 8k share on items. Person A realizes they'd rather have a frost weapon instead of a flame one. They sell their 8k item and receive 4k. If person A has to then split that amongst the others, person A now has 1k and everyone else has 9k. How is that an equitable distribution of wealth? Person A is already taking enough of a hit for selling the 8k item in the first place...
|
|
Why would anyone in their right mind sign up to an agreement that is so fiddly, and doomed to end in acrimony?
What if the wife never sells her car? Just lets it run as long as it will go? Banks her $20K every time, and pockets half the value of hubby's car every time he sells his? That would be, technically, all above board, since the original agreement contains no compulsion to sell a car that's working fine.
Here's a better idea; both use their share of the money, plus whatever they can raise from the sale of their own property, to buy whatever they like, stop spying on each other, and stop micromanaging the other person's budget.
Does it MATTER?!? It's not your group (or marriage). The GROUP agreed to this method...period. There is no discussion about if it what YOU want and what YOU think is a good method is irrelivant. She did not follow what was agreed to before hand. If this agreement was done OOC then it is an OOC issue. If it was done IC then yes it is an evil and chaotic act (stealing, breaking of oaths). I would make a paladin fall if s/he did such a thing...but for people a bit less alignment restricted, well one is fine...but if there are issues before, I would really start to look hard at that alignment.
Also, to the original poster's other situations: Cowardice doesn't make someone not good. Being afraid to fight something which has proven to be a superior opponent doesn't make you not good. Failing to come up with an alternate plan may mean she isn't clever, but that still doesn't make it not-good.
I would require a lot more serious moral offenses before I would start talking to the player about changing alignments.
|
|
While I understand parties that split the selling of loot, I really don't understand why someone should redivide a sale of something that was purchased for a character. Example:
Group of 4 gets 32k in gold. Each spends their 8k share on items. Person A realizes they'd rather have a frost weapon instead of a flame one. They sell their 8k item and receive 4k. If person A has to then split that amongst the others, person A now has 1k and everyone else has 9k. How is that an equitable distribution of wealth? Person A is already taking enough of a hit for selling the 8k item in the first place...
1) Doesn't matter.
2) Who says they divide evenly? I know many groups who do the who can use it most gets it...and THEN splits it even when sold to get maxium usage out of magic items.
Does it MATTER?!? It's not your group (or marriage). The GROUP agreed to this method...period. There is no discussion about if it what YOU want and what YOU think is a good method is irrelivant. She did not follow what was agreed to before hand. If this agreement was done OOC then it is an OOC issue. If it was done IC then yes it is an evil and chaotic act (stealing, breaking of oaths). I would make a paladin fall if s/he did such a thing...but for people a bit less alignment restricted, well one is fine...but if there are issues before, I would really start to look hard at that alignment.
It could also be a miscommunication or misunderstanding of the intent of the agreement. I doubt it was written down as a legal document. She may have assumed the splitting was only the first time the wealth was acquired, not on re-sales of already divided wealth. Which is what I would assume with any sane group I played with.
2) Who says they divide evenly? I know many groups who do the who can use it most gets it...and THEN splits it even when sold to get maxium usage out of magic items.
My group does that too. They make a distinction between an item that was found and is being used by a member (but still belongs to the group for when it is sold) and an item purchased using divided wealth.
And it does matter, because selling a group item and keeping the money to selfishly increase one character's wealth is evil, and selling a personal item to change what they have (maintaining equitable wealth distribution) is not. Sticking to the letter of an agreement (even when not good) is lawful, but the character in question isn't lawful. I would expect a NG character to bend the rules occasionally, and a chaotic character to ignore the rules completely.
|
|
Does it MATTER?!? It's not your group (or marriage). The GROUP agreed to this method...period. There is no discussion about if it what YOU want and what YOU think is a good method is irrelivant. She did not follow what was agreed to before hand. If this agreement was done OOC then it is an OOC issue. If it was done IC then yes it is an evil and chaotic act (stealing, breaking of oaths). I would make a paladin fall if s/he did such a thing...but for people a bit less alignment restricted, well one is fine...but if there are issues before, I would really start to look hard at that alignment.It could also be a miscommunication or misunderstanding of the intent of the agreement. I doubt it was written down as a legal document. She may have assumed the splitting was only the first time the wealth was acquired, not on re-sales of already divided wealth. Which is what I would assume with any sane group I played with.
And you think when the rest of the party split on the resale, that isn't a bit of a clue?!? Yes I can see it happening once at the START as a misunderstanding...but this isn't the start. They have been playing from at least level 12-16.
|
|
Azaneal - On those three examples while not good, I don't think are enough for a alignment shift either. NG should mean she does more good than neutral acts. So you would have to look at the whole body of her actions over her career. If you feel she has done more neutral acts than good in relation to good and evil or as much evil than good etc. Then I would warn her, her alignment is starting to shift and point out how and why. Make it clear all she has to do to keep it from happening is starting doing more good acts. But that she doesn't have to only do good acts.
I agree with the fact that has been brought up: Cowardliness doesn't automatically call for a change from good to neutral. But you did mention this point:
(...) they must steal his belt, to pass a test, to save the world, typical situation ;).I they fail, all golarion will be in danger! (...)
If that's the case and the character brings up her loss of gear more important than protection of the world and can't be a "save the world hero" because of that... I think the Good vs Neutral might be considerable in that regard.
complete de-rail, maul of the titans cannot sunder that sword
Hello everybody,
First of all, sorry if my english isn´t too correct. And if there´s any of my players here: ¡No sigáis leyendo! (do not read!)
I have an issue with the alignment of one of the PCs I´m DMing. A few months ago we discussed about her fighter´s alignment. I said that she is NN and she saids that NG. Finally I accepted that could be NG, but she shoud be aware that she´s walking over de edge of NN. Now, I want your opinion about this:
1- In the last session they went to a ruined keep. Inside, there was a bored and mighty titan (they´re at level 16), and they must kill him, or steal his belt. They buffed themselves, and entered. When they faced the titan, fighter winned initiative, and charged. She missed. Then, titan sundered and destroyed her +3 bane, holy falchion of awesomeness, with his maul of titans +3,with his first atack. He didn´t make more atacks,only laughting. Rest of the party atacked too or buffed themselves. In the second round, barely damaged, the figther flight away, leaving her fellows inside the keep, because "he can destroy my armor!", and running x4 in the third round. Finally, after 2 more rounds, all of them ran away, and gathered far from the titan. Can I consider her action neutral?
2- About their wealth. The party always makes a pool with the money obtained, and then divide. When one of them sells an item, the resulting money is divided too. For example, if the wizard sells a staff that isn´t using, and obtains 20.000 gp, he divides the money, and everybody gains 5.000 gp (each of my 4 players). After they gathered, the eldrith knight said to the figther. "What´s the problem? you could use one of your other magical swords!" and she answered "I sold it to upgrade my falchion". The other players know nothing about this selling. I said nothing, and the session ended, but I want to talk about her alignment next session (this saturday). Keeping the money and hiding the fact to the others characters (and players) is like a kind of stealing, don´t you think? I´m going...
Good strives to do what it has to, even if it means death, especially to save the world. I don't know why your fighter insist on being good since he is not a paladin, but I would tell him that he is not good, but he can regain his good status by proving his courage.
Does the fighter refuse to fight the Titan under an circumstances or only if the group has a better plan?
By the campaign rules the Titan can be bargained with. I would allow a player with knowledge planes to make a knowledge check if you think they can't win without the fighter's help, or if they give the titan a good fight maybe he can say he will give them the belt as a reward for putting up a good fight. I almost forgot to add that if the fighter does not participate he does not get XP for this fight.
As for the lying about the sword you should have have him roll a bluff check. Most fighters don't do social skills to well.
Hmm.
Time to weigh in.
'I don't see how avoiding dying in a situation wherein you have no way to contribute usefully to combat is an evil or neutral action.'
Good is about altruism, honor and valor. It is very difficult to be altruistic if you die for being an idiot. Unless the fighter had an option available to them (and I somehow doubt they were about to up and trip/disarm a Titan while completely unarmed) I'm really not sure how running like a scared little girl was such a not-good idea. It's not honorable or courageous to stand in front of an enemy you have no way to fight against and just kind of sneer and make punches (which would provoke AoO's most likely) at.
It's just plain stupid.
The altruistic thing to do would be to get the hell outta' the way at that point so the ones able to do something could do something without worrying about your useless butt being in the area of their spell, in their line of arrow fire, blocking their charge, etc.
I will say that her reasoning for fleeing was stupid reasoning, and should earn the character a point towards NS.
As for the party loot thing?
There was an established order in place for how things were supposed to be done. She shirked that to get a better sword. That's not evil, but that's not good either. That's chaotic.
|
|
complete de-rail, maul of the titans cannot sunder that sword
Complete de-rail answer, the Maul of titans (of this titan)is +3. Fighter´s weapon is +3 too (to sunder only counts enhancement bonus), so, it can be sundered... or I made a mistake?
I care about their alignment (although there´s no paladin, o cleric who could lose their powers in this case)because, for example, there´s an +2 axiomatic sword in the treasure of the titan. If the fighter is chaotic, it will be painful for her. And if she is true neutral, the next holy word could affect her...and so on. It cares.
About spliting wealthness in our group...it´s no my decission, is THEIR decission. Originally they doesn´t want, when choosing between the gained treasure, that anyone pick the most expensive item, only to sell it for money. But now I´m thinkink that it isn´t working.
About cowardice... she had an adamantite armored gauntlet +1, and a +1 sword, and I think that leaving the fight without trying to regroup o discuss tactics (they have a wizard that can teleport, and has a cube of force) was strange. The other players were surprised too.
And you think when the rest of the party split on the resale, that isn't a bit of a clue?!? Yes I can see it happening once at the START as a misunderstanding...but this isn't the start. They have been playing from at least level 12-16.
This. Misundertanding? I don´t think so.
I wrote a mail to the fighter player about this issue, and she said to me that it isn´t the first time SOMEBODY in the party do this. Now I´m fearing that this issue will tear apart a little the inner harmony of the group. Now I´m thinking how to handle this next saturday.
I wrote a mail to the fighter player about this issue, and she said to me that it isn´t the first time SOMEBODY in the party do this. Now I´m fearing that this issue will tear apart a little the inner harmony of the group. Now I´m thinking how to handle this next saturday.
I think you need a discussion before Saturday to find out how to solve the issue. If I was the fighter, and I lost my best weapon, and I was expected to give up another weapon when someone else gets to do what they want to do I would be upset also.
...just a small thing to add, if you aren't aware of it:
The destroyed sword can be repaired (and so could the armor, if it was possible to sunder it) by quite a simple spell: "Make Whole" (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/make-whole) - knowing this might help limit the cowardness of the player (and maybe thereby help him/her to live better up to being a NG fighter).
|
|
...just a small thing to add, if you aren't aware of it:
The destroyed sword can be repaired (and so could the armor, if it was possible to sunder it) by quite a simple spell: "Make Whole" (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/make-whole) - knowing this might help limit the cowardness of the player (and maybe thereby help him/her to live better up to being a NG fighter).
Only if your caster level is at least twice that of the item. The sword was a +3 weapon, so, you need a caster of 18th level. About armor, in 3.5 it was no possible, but in pathfinder you can use sunder on held or worn items. I understand that you can sunder armor (and maybe sunder clothes, if you want this kind of roleplaying :-)