What is the makeup of the party?
Optimized or not?
Any gear suitable for the encounter?
What is the tactical environment like?
Assumed power of the orcs magical support?
How much time did you have before the attack?
How much planning time and effort had been put into this scene?
How well did you know the villagers?
Were the orcs likely typically (1st level), or did you think they were advanced?
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?
Were you Good... no. Good would have at least tried to defend them. Though not to the death. An ambush on the orcs in the forest. Hit and run tactics. But you didn't even try. You just threw up your hands at the situation and walked away. So, Good...defintely not, you were not "within" your alignment (IMO).
Were you Evil...again no. You weren't doing the killing, the orcs were. You were even running away to get help. The DM is wrong, you aren't "evil". He just got upset with you for ruining his scenario and wants to punish you.
Was it cowardly...yes. But cowardice is not evil. 20 orcs at 3rd level, doesn't really sound like a suicide mission to me. Tough, but winnable with good tactics and/or resources. Alot depends on the answers to the previous questions. The impression I get is that the OP decided he didn't like the railroad (I agree, the villagers request was silly and "GM says Im wasting my time, but lets me try anyway" is a BAD sign) and jumped off. Then the DM over-reacted to this.
Glass-half-full observation:
What if the ...
(...) They even wanted s to surrender our normal weapons for blunt maces that "wouldnt draw blood on their sacred ground". (...)
Is an actual Mystical/Divine-Major-Magic situation of that place?
Maybe there is an actual story situation where the Blood on the ground (at least minimized if not supressed by blunt weapons) does something wrong "for real"!
Is there the remains of a beast in the ground that would feed on "slashed/pierced"-out blood or respond to violence in the heart of those who fight. The less fighting there is the deeper it sleeps.
Maybe the splashing of blood in a fight "polutes" the power of healing herbs that "eases souls" important in that erea.
Maybe you are being "tested" by "higher beings" that will judge your ability to protect the good but weak (in this case moraly weak).
If so, then the DM might want to give some clues. So again, talking to him might help.
Were you Good... no. Good would have at least tried to defend them. Though not to the death. An ambush on the orcs in the forest. Hit and run tactics. But you didn't even try. You just threw up your hands at the situation and walked away. So, Good...defintely not, you were not "within" your alignment (IMO).
Alignment is not a straightjacket! Walking away is Neutral at worst. A CG character can act neutrally and not violate their alignment.
Were you Evil...again no.
This shouldn't even be a question...
Was it cowardly...yes.
Not in the slightest. A CG character got annoyed with a bunch of pansies who wouldn't even help themselves. How is that so hard to understand?
|
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.
I agree. An awesome solution to show the GM that he is being unfair.
Not in the slightest. A CG character got annoyed with a bunch of pansies who wouldn't even help themselves. How is that so hard to understand?
+1000
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.
Actually... I have no problem with the shared definition of Chaotic. It was 100% Chaotic. Loaba (and Hama for that matter) and I just disagree with the interpretation of 'Good'.
I agree that it was Chaotic. I just say it was Chaotic Neutral.
As for not wanting to help the villagers because they wouldn't help themselves... I don't know. I'd have to be at the table for the description.
I find it 100% likely to run across a band of monks who don't want to accept violence on their behalf... so you'd try to evacuate them...
This was a village however.... Was it the only village around with no women or children? Did you leave the children to die because the elders didn't want you to use your weapons?
As pacifists, would they have been able to STOP you from defending them however you saw best?
Honestly, Without being in the game I can't answer those... but It doesnt' seem like a Good response to me.
On a seperate note... If people aren't worth SAVING... Then why would they be worth AVENGING. The idea of leaving now, and coming back to avenge them confuses me.
If they had it coming... then they had it coming... circle of life and survival of the fittest and all that.
|
I don't think it's a question of 'are they worth saving', but more of 'are we able to save them'. In this case, the party is unable to save them with the restrictions the village wants to place on the party.
Now, coming back to take care of the orcs is important regardless of the village. Even if the village deserves to be destroyed, those orcs are still around. The PCs need to stop them now before they attack other people.
Actually... I have no problem with the shared definition of Chaotic. It was 100% Chaotic. Loaba (and Hama for that matter) and I just disagree with the interpretation of 'Good'.
I agree that it was Chaotic. I just say it was Chaotic Neutral.
Fair enough. It was very CN of our very put out Ranger/player. And I want to talk more about that put out player and the overall situation. Seems to me like there is no one in the Director's Chair. There is nobody running the show. What we have here is a failure to communicate.
The DM, whether wittingly or no, has set this thing up as a "me against them" thing. If that's not the case, okay. I wasn't at the table, that's just how I'm seeing things right now.
The DM set up a situation where the characters needed to do the Good thing and save the village from the Evil Orcs, but he threw in a couple of wrenches while he was at it. Pacifist villagers aren't gonna help (and that's fine, really) and they've got a hard-on for not drawing blood too.
I expect the DM knew these little caveats were gonna be an issue...
Player says screw you, DM. We're not doing it. And he does it under the guise of playing a Chaotic-type character. And he's right, too. His CG can say "no do'n it." The DM reacts in typical fashion and dings the guy with an alignment shift and maybe even a penalty (that last part is unclear to me.)
Thing is, if there is someone in the Director's Chair, then it should have been pointed out to the Ranger that he could do the Chaotic thing and kill the Orcs however he liked. But he really needed to do something to help these people, because that's what Good is all about.
Having said all this, I still don't think the guy did anything whatsoever to shift his alignment at all.
I don't think it's a question of 'are they worth saving', but more of 'are we able to save them'. In this case, the party is unable to save them with the restrictions the village wants to place on the party.
I don't see how those restrictions mattered that much. I'm not sure if the PCs checked just how far those restrictions extended - was it, say, just in the vicinity of the temple of Gand'hi, enlightened soul of nonviolence? Or was it in the area of the whole village? Even then, the PCs could well ignore the villagers' request. If they are so nonviolent, they'd have to live with it. If they aren't... hey, good, helpers for when the orks arrive.
Either way, there's no problem with the PCs starting a fight outside the village, thinning their ranks by ambushes and guile. A party of experienced warriors led by a capable guide (ranger) can do that well enough. I really got the "I can't be bothered" feel off this character, which for some reason irked me even more than the jerk DM.