1) There should not be any penalty. That is nonsense...but
2) It is the GM's game...if so technicaly what he say goes so to continue playing you have to accept his rulings. Though you may plead your case or not depending on how open minded the DM is.
Personaly...I would have not set up such a rail road type adventure. As in you will fail in getting the villagers to help defend themselves bit...there is always a chance(it might not be very good...)
Ultimately I think you as a group should discuss this...if the DM is not willing to bend at all...find a new DM.
Being good does not equate to being suicidal, so I think you played your character appropriately as far as alignment goes. Nothing evil about going to get more help, although many Paladins certainly would have stayed to try to buffer the war party as long as possible.
However, it's possible that the orc war party was actually not an impossible encounter to overcome. Had you scouted the war party in advance, so you knew the tactics and relative skill they possessed compared to your party?
First consideration, Gm's game Gm's rules. You might have to eat the penalty and work your way back to CG.
That said you seem on solid ground to me. I do have a couple of questions that might erode where you are standing.
1. What level are you and the others. 20 orcs vs 4 pc's is suicide at 1st level and afternoon tea by 5th.
2. Are the offered weapons really junk? Anyone detect magic? If these are mercy weapons the villagers are handing you a fortune.
2.5 If the GM thinks that a mace does not draw blood find the Dinner scene in 'The Untouchables' where Capone smashes a disloyal gangster's head in with a baseball bat. Now imagine the bat was solid steel. Or look up mace on Wikipedia. They draw blood.
I'm not a fan of GMs who don't allow players to affect the outcome of events. It's one thing to have a mechanic or plot in place which makes your speech ineffective (behind the screen), but to tell you that beforehand? That's just poor GMing to me because it makes the player feel ineffectual. If that trend continues it makes for a very boring game when the GM just stonewalls everything you want to do.
As far as your actions are concerned. A CG character leaving a town to it's fate? I don't think that's an "evil" act but certainly morally ambiguous. I would say it's a more neutral act, not choosing sides. In my opinion you did what you could to help them with your speech, no reason to sign up for a suicide defense and sacrifice your life. Seems like a no win scenario to me.
2.5 If the GM thinks that a mace does not draw blood find the Dinner scene in 'The Untouchables' where Capone smashes a disloyal gangster's head in with a baseball bat. Now imagine the bat was solid steel. Or look up mace on Wikipedia. They draw blood.
This is probably a left over philosphy from previous edition where Clerics were only allowed to use blunt weapons because blunt weapons 'don't draw blood'....yes not very realistic and one of the sillier things disposed of.
It is possible that the GM had "clues" that would lead you and the party to find a different path. These "clues" would likely consist of minute details that he never described fully, or that you missed (see the "minute" part). For that reason, I would give some benefit of doubt to the GM.
However, given that your PC tried to help and the villagers refused said help, I see it as a "rising flood waters and the old folks won't abandon the family home" situation. I hate to see people swept away in a flood or obliterated via volcanic eruption, but there are more important things to do than get stubborn people to see reason. Good doesn't mean beating one's head against a wall every single time you encounter a wall.
If the GM plays the "all killing is bad" game, you (as a player) cannot win. You won't have fun. And based on this adventure, the railroading will only get worse.
Now, it is entirely possible the GM has some grand plans to create a situation where killing the orcs isn't necessary. But those railroads don't end well unless the GM is very up-front and communicative about the situation.
The situation you described does not lead me to the conclusion that you should have any penalty. I don't like the prospects of the future of this game, either. Talk to the GM and try to find out what he was smoking.
Talk to the GM and try to find out what he was smoking.
Really the first four words above are all any of us in the boards can really offer.
Best of luck
~will
This is probably a left over philosphy from previous edition where Clerics were only allowed to use blunt weapons because blunt weapons 'don't draw blood'....yes not very realistic and one of the sillier things disposed of.
If I remember my history correctly, there was a papal decree about priests not using weapons that had sharp edges. So, no swords. But maces and such weren't sharp, so they passed muster. Smashing the skin until it didn't keep blood inside the body wasn't the same as "drawing blood."
A mace doesn't draw forth blood.Weird medieval logic.
(...)
This is probably a left over philosphy from previous edition where Clerics were only allowed to use blunt weapons because blunt weapons 'don't draw blood'....yes not very realistic and one of the sillier things disposed of.
Actually I think it came to the first edition from actual history of a specific religious order during the crusades.
(Edit: Ninja'ed!)
Personally, I see leaving the people more like neutral align.
OK, they won't use bleeding weapons, but would they use slings? saps? nets? pit traps? lassos? foot knots? a lock-down house trap?
Will they be good at it? No but it's better then nothing and there might be something to take out of the captives.
It might be a form of "challenge" to the party from the DM but I would have a discussion with the DM about all the future options/challenges coming to either change the type of characters your playing or the game being played...
we're level 3.
hmmmmmmm...... It is possible for 4 skilled 3rd level PC's to take 20 orcs. Iffy but possible. You would need to ambush them or get lucky and take out the spellcaster early. Might work.
In any case you are within CG to run like Sir Robin and get help. A Paladin might have a problem but not a CG.
my 2cp anyway
This definitely feels suspect. Killing is not inherently evil in D&D's alignment system - how else can Paladins do their job and how on earth could they "Smite Evil" (You know...KILLING evil) ever if it were evil?
At any rate, yes, talk to your DM. Be frank and honest, and learn other player's feelings on the matter too.
Dave...
Its fun with all of us players being military, history buffs, and/or SCA members, and the GM isnt. We roll our eyes alot at his mistakes. :)
I pray that by "SCA" you mean "The Society for Creative Anachronism"?
If so, I am a proud member of that group, from the noble kingdom of Glenn Abhann! I'm a light fighter, as well (heavy is too expensive for me right now, but someday...)!
Am I assuming the right group here?
And yeah, I know about maces. Its fun with all of us players being military, history buffs, and/or SCA members, and the GM isnt. We roll our eyes alot at his mistakes. :)
I never was in the military, history is boring, there is no SCA around here I think. Still, I know that you can draw blood with, well, almost everything. You don't need sharp edges or pointy ends.
Ok, heres the situation:
We have a new GM, who advicates the idea that all killing is bad. (doesnt mesh well with our party's style)
The idea doesn't mesh well with the game.
He set an adventure where the villae dedicated to pacifism was going to be invaded by an orc war party of about 20, for our 4 party team to defend.We thought it would be the "train the villagers" trope, and were cool with that. But the villagers refused to help. They even wanted s to surrender our normal weapons for blunt maces that "wouldnt draw blood on their sacred ground". I assume they were mercy-ed, but dont know for sure as we were unwilling to give up our choice gear for their offered junk.
I'm personally against taking away weapons or gear. I long ago lost all interest in this sort of situation. I guess too many crappy executions by GMs who just weren't good enough to pull this off properly.
So my CG ranger hops on a stump to give a speech; the GM says Om wasting my time, but lets me try anyway.
Warning bells. I can see "you're going to have quite the uphill struggle here" or something like that. If I am told up front that I'm wasting my time, it does not bode well for the game. Or the GM.
Unless it's just a realistic assessment to the character's abilities and the difficulties involved. Rangers aren't usually Grand Diplomats.
However, I wasnt going to talk to the villagers, I spoke to the party. I pointed out how I "believed" that every man has the right to choose his own path in life, and eventually, his death. We were facing impossible odds, with no help, as well equipped as us as far as we could tell; it was suicide to stay, and we could do more good by going to get aid and avenging these villagers than by dying beside them. It was wrong to impose our beliefs of violence on them, or to profane their beliefs by killing in their village. The only solution was to withdraw, get the help we needed, and return to slay the evil orcs.
The party agreed (I was the only good PC in the bunch) and we did.
Personally, I think that makes perfect sense. If they can't be convinced to see reason, there's no helping them. Especially not by being killed.
The assessment was reasonable. Getting yourself killed over people who won't help you isn't going to help anyone. Let them die in their sacred village. After all, trying to convince them that blood will be splattered either way is a waste of your time.
Best course of action is to find someone who will help and then take out the orcs, so they won't do more harm. If you're quick enough, you might even find them fast enough to save these morons.
Now the GM says I was "evil", and wants to slap me with a penalty and an alignment change. Should I accept his judgement? Or am I right, that that was within my alignment?
I can tell you only what I'd do:
I'd leave the group. I personally couldn't play under the GM.
Bail. You might try to talk to the GM first, your call. I predict that you won't get anywhere. But then again I'm a cynical bastard.
Many wise words
I will agree.
Chaotic Good character refuses to help people who won't help themselves? Inconceivable!
|
Yeah, you really need to just talk with your DM.
Let him know that you are concerned about the PCs being railroaded, being penalized because their actions were different than his expectations and playing in an atmosphere that seems to trump player creativity.
Whether or not you feel it's a big enough concern to leave the group is up in the air, maybe.
Ask him, out of game, what he thought the PCs were gonna do.
.
.
.
Personally, I think abandoning the village idiots was a bad decision -- but not "evil." Certainly not punishable.
You could have attempted some hit and run guerilla tactics against the orcs (or something) before fleeing.
Anyway, that's not the issue.
Talk to your DM.
Your DM is a cock.
Find a new DM.
Chaotic Good character refuses to help people who won't help themselves? Inconceivable!
Sarcasm noted! This is the epitome of a CG Ranger, you did well. If these idiots won't help themselves, then you rock on down the road. I mean, what did your DM expect?
Your DM is a cock.
Find a new DM.
In answer to my own question, your DM expected you and the party to just take it. Because as the Prof said, he's a cock.
Developer
|
A paladin would suffer repercussions, but their code goes above and beyond and explicitly requires they not abandon people. A ranger has no such code.
Your action was neither good nor evil. Abandoning people is not particularly nice, but refusing aid offered is also foolish on their part. No one except a paladin is obligated to aid a fool who actually puts the lives of the party at risk through stubbornness.
Honestly, the whole penalty thing seems to be petty vengeance on the GMs part because you would not ride his train. I know rule 0 is sacred, but there are bad GMs out there, and petty vengeance like this is a sure sign of one. A good GM would give incentives to go along, or not try to force such tactics on a morally ambiguous group (you mentioned being the only good character). A good GM adapts to players and their characters, and adventures should be designed with their motivations in mind.
If your adventure has hooks that make players want to go along, then it's not so railroad-y. Your GM tried to force the characters to conform to the story, as apart from the story conforming to the characters.
It might be a good idea to walk away from the table, or at least give someone else a turn behind the screen. Show him a better way. Talk to him. You don't punish a character because a legit action derails your story. That means you wrote a bad story.
"The only solution was to withdraw, get the help we needed, and return to slay the evil orcs.
The party agreed (I was the only good PC in the bunch) and we did."
Now, the idea of just leaving the locals to their fate seems to me to be a non-good act. Maybe not evil, just not exactly good. At least help them evacuate the village or something - if they aren't willing to do that, suggest that they use the weapons they offer. You, the party, are outsiders after all. You could fight outside the holy ground - or at least so that the blood would be spilled outside.
What kinda jars me is that from what you say, the good PC wasn't willing to go to the trouble to even suggest that. The excuse that the morally right thing is "too much bother" can cut it for neutral characters, but hey - the ranger was the one who had that "G" on the character sheet.
Yeah, maybe the DM was a bit of a dick (can I write that here?). However, I don't think the ranger's actions were completely ok either. Whether they were significant enough to warrant an alignment change is another issue - but given the fact that it means leaving a village with little or no defense when an attack is coming, it is at least a yellow card offense.
What kinda jars me is that from what you say, the good PC wasn't willing to go to the trouble to even suggest that. The excuse that the morally right thing is "too much bother" can cut it for neutral characters, but hey - the ranger was the one who had that "G" on the character sheet.
He's ChaoticGood... Honestly, this is textbook CG behavior.
What kinda jars me is that from what you say, the good PC wasn't willing to go to the trouble to even suggest that. The excuse that the morally right thing is "too much bother" can cut it for neutral characters, but hey - the ranger was the one who had that "G" on the character sheet.He's ChaoticGood... Honestly, this is textbook CG behavior.
Is it? CGs might not believe in laws - but they believe in people, supposedly. Here, those people that might see their homes burned, their kinfolk slaughtered, and their throats held fast by chains - or cut by a sword. Is that worth giving 5 minutes of your live to spare?
I might be old-fashioned, but I'd expect the ranger would at least try to get everyone out of there before leaving them to the gods to take care of. Now, I'm not aware of whether there were any attempts from that before, but if no, this does seem more of a chaotic neutral behavior to me. "Everyone follows their own path, and I can't be bothered about idiots" is how I'd define CN, not CG.
I might be old-fashioned, but I'd expect the ranger would at least try to get everyone out of there before leaving them to the gods to take care of.
I think the Ranger was put off by the whole "do it for us" attitude and the blunt weapon restriction as well. Now, the OP was a little hard to follow, so I may be wrong here...
|
Why would anybody want to protect people that do not want to protect themselves? Seriously. If they can't protect themselves, that is a completely different story. But this is a village filled with a bunch of holier than thou pacifists. Let them burn if they won't listen to reason.
As for the GM, i agree heartily with assessments of several people. He is either a very inexperienced GM, a very bad GM or simply a dick. Either way, talk to him, just to give him the benefit of the doubt, and then, if the group agrees, kick him. Or leave the group. People like that are the reason why so many first time players never come back for seconds.
I will agree with KaeYoss' assessment. You will not have fun in this game: walk away now, before anyone gets hurt.
A paladin would suffer repercussions, but their code goes above and beyond and explicitly requires they not abandon people. A ranger has no such code.
Honestly, I wouldn't even punish a Paladin for this. They're not only refusing to defend themselves, they're demanding that the party not spill blood in defending them. Those are their laws and their decision, and a Lawful Good Paladin would be bound to abide by them.
Paladins are charged with defending the weak, not the cowardly.
WOW. Thats all I have for now....more to come Im sure.
I haven't read any responses other than the original poster at this point, so my opinion may be a duplicate or better ideas may have already been posted.
First thing I would do is get everyone together and have an honest conversation with the DM about what you guys consider to be a "FUN" game. It sounds like your game is not fun for you and that needs addressing first. Maybe your new DM thinks about the game differently? All of you need to try and work together as a group to get on the same page about how to have fun or you need to part ways before anger sets in.
He's ChaoticGood... Honestly, this is textbook CG behavior.
Really??
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent.[\b] [b]He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.
THAT is textbook CG. it's the standard Superhero mentality. I believe in good, and right, And i dont' care what the law says.
Too many people push the Chaotic = Psychotic mentality...
I had a CG ranger once put in a similiar spot... The town wasn't 'unwilling' they were simply incapable and untrained... My ranger (based of the Elfquest wolfriders) couldn't comprehend people needing OTHER people to defend their clan...
he took it upon himself to slap them around enough to get their blood boiling and them to start reaching for weapons...
Of course... as his tribe didn't differentiate between men and women warriors... and he saw eye to eye with children,...
the ones he was slapping around WEREN'T exactly socially correct!! ;)
But it successfully got the parents and menfolk angry enough to grab some pitchforks!!! ^_^
regardless... I don't think this was truly a 'CG' attitude to leave. The idea of 'we can't save them... lets run away and avenge them later...' seems very neutral to me.
EVIL would have been killing them quick and easy themselves to avoid whatever the orcs were going to do... Fleeing wasn't evil.
i'll admit, my characters would have tried evacuate the town... or use nets or traps or SOMETHING...
4 pcs vs a mob of evil?? EASY... the A-team do it ALL the time ;)
The way you describe it, the ranger acted neutrally – not good, not evil. Changing your alignment may be in order if you do this type of thing too often. (Assuming there actually was possible options other than suicide mission, refuse to help them at all, or ride the story-rails.) But that is in a PF/DnD game where all killing is not evil. And that’s the part of this scenario I don’t understand.
If at this point you (everybody?) don’t like this houserule. You tried it for 3 levels and you still don’t like it. You should tell the GM and see if he is willing/able to let it go… If not: You can stay and be content with being neutral/evil characters as long as the setting is concerned. OR You can not play in this campaign. I don’t see you having fun playing this game’s version of good.
posted his opinion and couched it as though it was fact
The CG Ranger erred more to his Chaotic nature this time. Because he felt like it, or had a stick up his butt or what have you. There was no alignment deviation.
posted his opinion and couched it as though it was factThe CG Ranger erred more to his Chaotic nature this time. Because he felt like it, or had a stick up his butt or what have you. There was no alignment deviation.
Really? I was actually questioning your definition of 'textbook' by actually 'quoting' the text...
I don't think that's uncalled for in these situations... or trying to push opinions as facts.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules
here are the actual definitions of the various alignments, CG is GOOD. They try to help people... Following your whims or 'Because he felt like it' is actually the definition of CN.
If people want to house rule what is and isn't good, that's fine. Just don't claim it's 'textbook'.
I don't believe alignments should be shackles anyway. If a CG person wants to perform a lawful act or a neutral act WHY not... Heck... Even the best of people act selfishly and evil motives ONCE in a while.. As long as at least 75% of their motivation stick with the listed alignments.
I don't believe DMs should be penalizing characters for every decision they make. that's where guilt and character building comes from. Leaving a village to die, should create some GREAT RP potential!!!
As for the OP's last point. Should he accept the ruling???
What choice do you have?? it's the DM's world... your choices are either, A) accept it and get on with the game... or B) leave the game.
neither sound like much fun... but this sounds like a tough to dm to play with.
|
|
I'm going to agree with Phantom1592, and even go a bit further.
Deciding not to help the villagers is a neutral act (with respect to good/evil).
I could see where a GM may even say that giving a speech to the rest of the party to convince them to also leave the village is an evil act. I'm not making that claim but I could see it, depending on the specifics of what actually happened.
In my opinion, a Chaotic Good character tries to save the villagers, but may not heed their wishes about what weaponry to use. And "saving the villagers" does not have to mean a suicidal stand against the orcs.
All that said, it certainly sounds like your group does not mesh with this GM. At the very least, a discussion about expectations (of both sides) is needed.
|
|
In my opinion, a Chaotic Good character tries to save the villagers, but may not heed their wishes about what weaponry to use. And "saving the villagers" does not have to mean a suicidal stand against the orcs.
Not really, not if they don't want to be helped, or want to be helped in a specific way. They wanted to train them so they could hold their own. The villagers refused. Then the villagers had the gall to actually demand that players use clubs because they didn't want blood spilled on their precious town? Good riddance i say. I may be a good person, but if somebody doesn't want me to help them, or actually wants to tell me how to do my job, I'd blow them off.
|
|
Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
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.
To me, the situation sounds more like the latter, but I was not at the session.
Edit: More importantly, I was not part of the campaign, to judge the character's actions as a whole, rather from one incident.
|
Yeah, I'd say cutting and running was a definitely Neutral act. An understandable one, but still. Definitely not enough to send the character to CN much less an evil alignment, but a Neutral act.
A Good act would've been to stay and try and defend them somehow despite the dificulty. 20 Orcs at level 3 isn't a sure death...maybe not even a likely one if they have no method of reinforcement and you use hit and run tactics (which, as a Ranger, he should be good at).
A specifically CG act would be doing so while ignoring the villagers silly weapon restrictions. :)
If it were actually a suicide mission, then the retreat wouldn't even be a Neutral act...but in this situation not at least trying seems less than Good.
|
|
He's ChaoticGood... Honestly, this is textbook CG behavior.
Well, maybe for you buddy but you ain't exactly the be all, end all in determining what Alignment means for everyone else.
Neither is the PRD (nor the SRD or any other published work on Alignments).
I tend to agree with you (see my earlier post) on this interpretation but that's just two gamers in a world of gamers with differing and valid opinions.
No one can say that their interpretation of an Alignment, whether DM or Player, is absolute. That's not really different than a DM saying the PCs Have to stay on his railroad or a PC saying his backstory is Law.
He's ChaoticGood... Honestly, this is textbook CG behavior.Well, maybe for you buddy but you ain't exactly the be all, end all in determining what Alignment means for everyone else.
Neither is the PRD (nor the SRD or any other published work on Alignments).
I tend to agree with you (see my earlier post) on this interpretation but that's just two gamers in a world of gamers with differing and valid opinions.
No one can say that their interpretation of an Alignment, whether DM or Player, is absolute. That's not really different than a DM saying the PCs Have to stay on his railroad or a PC saying his backstory is Law.
I'm not saying Phantom's opinion is invalid, rather I'm saying he's conveniently ignoring the Chaotic in Chaotic Good.
Personally, I could see the CG Ranger either washing his hands of the affair entirely (admittedly a N act) or thumbing his nose at the villagers and taking the Orcs out by any means necessary (I will agree, this is the more CG way of doing things.)
Regardless of which path the PC takes, I'm not seeing where we need to shift his Alignment.
|
Developer
|
I'm also curious as to why there's a penalty.
Even if we accept that this is an evil act (I don't), and that a single evil act changes your alignment (it shouldn't)... why is there a penalty?
I can see penalizing players for killing random townsfolk to intentionally disrupt a campaign... but those penalties are simply enforcing the consequences (namely that such PCs are branded criminals, hunted, and have a hard time showing their faces in nearby towns). This is not a case like that.
I'm also curious as to what penalty your GM wants to enforce.
If after talking to your GM, he won't bend on the silly "killing is automatically evil bent", lead your party into being evil, massacre the village and force yourselves off the railroad tracks. It's rude to do in a normal game, but if the GM is unmanageable and unreasonable, throw him that curveball.
Phantom's conveniently ignoring the Chaotic in Chaotic Good.That's cool, I was jumping on one of my pet peeves.
How 'bout this:
Phantom's not necessarily ignoring the Chaotic, he just has a different interpretation of what Chaotic is than you and I.
Fair enough. I just wish people would consider that a CG character can err to Neutrality. It's built in. Now if the guy always ignores the Good side of things, well okay that's a trend. But right now, one time walking away does not mean Alignment shift.