I don't think any of these were evil acts. In both cases, the people killed were evil and threats to innocents. I agree with Starglim that act two could've been lawful, it depends on the circumstances and who defined the crimes in question. I don't agree with starglim on either happening being even close to changing him from CN to NN.
1. While killing another intelligent being is a morally "bad" thing, it is not necessarily "evil" either. Considering how many real-life saints are known for their trickery and apparent deals with the demons (tricking their truenames out of them etc etc) and of course, numerous dragonslaying, I would say slaying of an imprisoned demon-servant would not be considered evil. (well, unless the rogue killed the lieutenant to serve his own dark end, which would be evil)
It would however, be considered a pinnacle of Chaotic behaviour if the PC killed the target who had already been tried and sentenced for imprisonment, effectively taking justice into his own hands. But because it was his own gain that motivated the killing however, not good heart, it would not be a good act either.
2. Anyone, even Lawful Good characters, are prone to temporary lapse of judgement. I believe it's the motivation that should really count, not the action itself. The rogue could've killed the crime lord in a righteous wrath ("Good"), or for his own amusement/to further his darker plan ("Evil") or just because it was required to be so as the situation went (middle-ground; "neutral").
As long as the player can justify his action and role play accordingly, I wouldn't force change of alignment in the character. For example an LG character might feel an immense guilt over the loss of life and may honour the dead by whispering a few silent prayers before leaving; a CN character might act tough while OOC, says that the character feels a pang of guilt somewhere deep inside his heart, and so it goes.
3. OK, although I argued that those two acts would not be considered Evil with enough justification/character development, I still think an evil deed profound enough can cause a shift in a character's alignment.
Three questions. I'll try to leave them short and sweet, although I know no thread on alignment ends up that way.
Chaotic Neutral Rogue was offered money to assassinate an imprisoned crime lords Lieutenant, a known demon supporter / collaborater before an impending war with a demon army. The rogue was unaware of this person, and asked around to determine that A. the person was evil and did deal with demons, and that B. he was a potential threat if left alive. Rogue killed crime lord lieutenant.
Was this act evil?
no.
Same Chaotic Neutral Rogue is present with party when they assault a new city the crime lord has taken over. The party kills crime lords retinue and the mage dominates said crime lord. The party questions the crime lord (who has worked with demons, attempted to kill the party numerous times, murdered countless citizens, and murdered the person the party left in charge of this city after liberating it from a black dragon) and he answers all of their questions. The rogue executes the crime lord for his crimes.
Was this act evil?
I'd say this was a chaotic act, but not inherently evil.
The third and final question, EVEN if you consider the above two acts evil, are they enough to change the alignment of said rogue from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil considering the rogue also. Liberated a city from a black dragon, has worked tirelessly to recruit aid for a city about to be attacked by demons (not her own city), including spending time training the citizens within how to defend their churches. and spent money to res a cohort instead of just taking a new one (which with leveling would have actually been more powerful, though that is metagaming)
I tend to think of chaotic evil along similar lines of Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker. Chaotic evil doesn't play by the rules, it knocks things over and watches it burn. sure - sometimes there's a plan, but usually said plan is just a means to stir up more trouble. the key to determining an evil act is (at least to me) selfishness. Did someone inflict pain/suffering and/or death to advance their personal goals? if so then odds are they committed an evil act. If someone didn't care who they hurt while being selfish and destructive then they were probably acting in a chaotic evil manner.
that's just my 02 cents though. take it for what you will.
Keeping in mind that the examples I mentioned above are not exhaustive by any means, my current train of thought would say that the answer to both of your questions would be: "any action of questionable moral that are motivated by situational convenience or by mercenary gains is often considered Neutral".
Of course, by situational I would have to note that if this matter of convenience occurs often enough to be a part of the character (so "kill the guy" becomes a general method of dealing with problems), then I would say there's a streak of Evilness starting to appear. However, I would exercise great caution in shifting any characters' alignment.
Three questions. I'll try to leave them short and sweet, although I know no thread on alignment ends up that way.
Chaotic Neutral Rogue was offered money to assassinate an imprisoned crime lords Lieutenant, a known demon supporter / collaborater before an impending war with a demon army. The rogue was unaware of this person, and asked around to determine that A. the person was evil and did deal with demons, and that B. he was a potential threat if left alive. Rogue killed crime lord lieutenant.
Was this act evil?
No it's not an evil act, it's most probably a chaotic act but not an evil one.
Same Chaotic Neutral Rogue is present with party when they assault a new city the crime lord has taken over. The party kills crime lords retinue and the mage dominates said crime lord. The party questions the crime lord (who has worked with demons, attempted to kill the party numerous times, murdered countless citizens, and murdered the person the party left in charge of this city after liberating it from a black dragon) and he answers all of their questions. The rogue executes the crime lord for his crimes.Was this act evil?
No it wasn't an evil act, it was most probably a lawful act and, if he was aware that dominate person ends at some point, it can even be considered a good act under some circumstances.
Remember this isn't 21st century and executing someone for his crimes is pretty much a common punichment.
The third and final question, EVEN if you consider the above two acts evil, are they enough to change the alignment of said rogue from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil considering the rogue also. Liberated a city from a black dragon, has worked tirelessly to recruit aid for a city about to be attacked by demons (not her own city), including spending time training the citizens within how to defend their churches. and spent money to res a cohort instead of just taking a new one (which with leveling would have actually been more powerful, though that is metagaming)
That might also be considered a lawful act.
Single actions cannot change alignment.* Not even a multitude of single actions - if they can be parsed out as single actions - should change a character's alignment.
If, however, the way the player is running the character doesn't say "Chaotic Neutral" to you, you should perhaps have a sit down with the player (not the Boards) and talk to him about it. Perhaps the two of you can come to a resolution, or the player can remind you of other actions/circumstances that explain the character's behavior.
(Notably, Chaotic Neutral is a pretty difficult alignment to change - almost anything can be justified as CN.)
*Barring magical means.
no, no, and hell no.
To be more explicit: 1-Killing a known demon supporter worshiper or collaborater is actually a GOOD act, regardless of the means. It's what paladins are supposed to do. 2- Executing a known, reocurring enemy is a neutral act on the good-evil scale, even good if you knew him as a crime lord and a murderer, it might be a lawful act if he had already been sentenced to death or there was someone present capable of acting as an authority and passing judgement, like a paladin, but in that case the paladin himself would probably kill the prisoner, if it was you taking justice in your hands, it can be neutral "I did what had to be done" or chaotic "we needed justice, there was no time for laws that he would bend anyway" depending on interpretation. 3-Even if they were evil acts, two acts are barely enough to make a paladin fall, much less to make any character suffer an alignment shift. Heck, most DMs are weary of doing an alingment shift even when the character is constantly acting as CE.
I have a funny feeling we're dealing with a player who's telling his side of the story after a DM warned of or enacted an alignment change.
That being said, as described above neither act are evil, and given that no alignment change should be enacted.
I would say that none of the acts were actually evil in grand scheme of things. Each act resulted in the greater good, but each act was done for either profit or personal benefit. I would honestly argue that he is in fact being chaotic neutral. He is living by his own choices. Take the first example.
The PC wanted money, and was offered a job that he is morally ok with (assassinate unknown person). Through the course of this act he learned that said man is actually a vile person within this city and in all respects needs to die. PC gets the job done and collects money, city as a whole gains the benefit. PC (based on info given)really didn't care that the person he was going to kill was evil, he just wanted money. He is kind of like Han Solo. Han didn't care that his actions lead to the greater good (destroying the Death Star) simply that when the job was done he got paid.
In my opinion you have a really good CN player. Perhaps over the course of play he might slowly shift to CG or even N but that will depend on his actions.
Killing in real world is wrong, but if you are under attack you would do it. Would you be evil? Our government system legalizes weapons, most of them, like the mini-gun are not intended for hunting or "self- defense". Would our government be evil? I know I'm going to catch a lot of flame for this comments, but like stated above: the scenarios are not evil ... unless his motivations were evil. My PC (a CG human ranger/fighter/ wizard/eldritch knight) would do the same, and actually have done comparable, his alignment was never jeopardized...
The third and final question, EVEN if you consider the above two acts evil, are they enough to change the alignment of said rogue from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil considering the rogue also. Liberated a city from a black dragon, has worked tirelessly to recruit aid for a city about to be attacked by demons (not her own city), including spending time training the citizens within how to defend their churches. and spent money to res a cohort instead of just taking a new one (which with leveling would have actually been more powerful, though that is metagaming)
I'll start with this one: no, you shouldn't change the character's alignment. That said...
Chaotic Neutral Rogue was offered money to assassinate an imprisoned crime lords Lieutenant, a known demon supporter / collaborater before an impending war with a demon army. The rogue was unaware of this person, and asked around to determine that A. the person was evil and did deal with demons, and that B. he was a potential threat if left alive. Rogue killed crime lord lieutenant.
Of course this act was evil. It's not murdering-orphans-with-a-smile evil, but yes, it's evil. The rogue denied this person a chance at redemption for money. The individual was helpless, not a clear and present danger, and no other attempts to minimize whatever "threat" this person was in prison. They didn't hide him, knock him out, disguise him and move him, use magic to control him during the demon threat. Killing a prisoner should be the last option, not the first. Finally, of course, they don't have the right to kill him and this kind of thing has a chance to corrupt people in an "I AM the LAW!" kind of way.
Same Chaotic Neutral Rogue is present with party when they assault a new city the crime lord has taken over. The party kills crime lords retinue and the mage dominates said crime lord. The party questions the crime lord (who has worked with demons, attempted to kill the party numerous times, murdered countless citizens, and murdered the person the party left in charge of this city after liberating it from a black dragon) and he answers all of their questions. The rogue executes the crime lord for his crimes.
That depends on whether there's any extenuating circumstances. See above re: redemption denied, helpless and lack of immediate danger. In addition, they have this person under total control for caster level*days. This time he does have the right to kill him, as the legitimate leader, although this may be a case of one illegitimate killing leading to another and another and another...
One interesting thing that you've omitted is the character's reaction to doing these things. A gleeful joy shades the answer one way, while sadness and guilt at what must be done tinges the answer the other way. Your intention isn't everything, but it is something.
Chaotic Neutral is a hard one to justify changing. It's pretty much the 'do what I want, When I want...' alignment. Very prone to impulse.
All characters are allowed to lapse into good or evil decisions as long as the majority of their decisions fit their alignment they shouldn't be forcibly changed.
As for the above examples... everyone he's killed has been evil. Whether they were 'Lawful... or good' could be debatable. but I don't think they'd be 'evil' acts.
In fact, he if money was his sole motivation... Would he have let them live if offered a higher price? Doesn't sound like 'helping people' or 'the joy of killing' was the determining factor. It was a very neutral decision. The right argument/counter argument may have swayed him to either side.
|
Another thing to consider, as well, is that the game is supposed to be fun, and alignment is intended to be a guide of sorts as to what sort of moral compass a character follows, although its admittedly a pretty loose guide. The acts the character committed could be sorted and sliced and quantified again and again, but is there really a need for the character to change alignment? Will it be more fun for the character to do so? Unless the discussion between you and the player is one that adds something to both of your enjoyment of the game, I wouldn't beat the subject to death, since a shift to one branch or another of the alignment tree won't even have an impact on his character. I imagine that most players whose characters have had an alignment change forced on them aren't exactly happy with said change---in the interest of overall fun, why split hairs?
|
|
Another thing to consider, as well, is that the game is supposed to be fun, and alignment is intended to be a guide of sorts as to what sort of moral compass a character follows, although its admittedly a pretty loose guide. The acts the character committed could be sorted and sliced and quantified again and again, but is there really a need for the character to change alignment? Will it be more fun for the character to do so? Unless the discussion between you and the player is one that adds something to both of your enjoyment of the game, I wouldn't beat the subject to death, since a shift to one branch or another of the alignment tree won't even have an impact on his character. I imagine that most players whose characters have had an alignment change forced on them aren't exactly happy with said change---in the interest of overall fun, why split hairs?This affects our game in three important aspects.
1. Blasphemy and the other demon castable spell does not work on chaotic evil characters, which is an advantage to the character meta wise.
2 - 3. and the really important aspects to me, is that if we are enforcing alignment and making it change based on single incidents, which I think everyones above postings concludes are shades of grey at best. we have a Paladin in the party who is now adventuring with a chaotic evil character, which makes us either ignore that quandry for his alignment, or costs him his power, or forces him to fight the rogue of the party. We are summoning angels to fight said demon invasion, who also face the quandry of overlooking the CE rogue.
Referring to points 2 and 3, in a Crimson Throne game I ran, the paladin explained it thusly to Laori. "You are on my list. Be glad it is a very long list and you're not currently near the top of it." In your case the rogue, whatever his alignment, is helping fight off a horde of demons who are he embodiement of pure evil. Come on, priorities! You can deal with the rogue after the insane engines of metaphysical evil and destruction are dealt with.
Changing a player's alignment.
Can't be done. Tried a thousand times. I had this player who was just evil. Tried to turn him good or at least neutral. Didn't work. I threw him out of the group.
And the characters he created...
:P
Chaotic Neutral Rogue was offered money to assassinate an imprisoned crime lords Lieutenant, a known demon supporter / collaborater before an impending war with a demon army. The rogue was unaware of this person, and asked around to determine that A. the person was evil and did deal with demons, and that B. he was a potential threat if left alive. Rogue killed crime lord lieutenant.Was this act evil?
Nah. Maybe not lawful, but certainly not evil.
In fact, it's often what heroes - even paladins do: "Say, there's this evil bastard, he must be stopped, use whatever force necessary. He's mad and a demoniak, so you'll probably have to kill him. You'll be rewarded generously." "We'll do it!"
Same Chaotic Neutral Rogue is present with party when they assault a new city the crime lord has taken over. The party kills crime lords retinue and the mage dominates said crime lord. The party questions the crime lord (who has worked with demons, attempted to kill the party numerous times, murdered countless citizens, and murdered the person the party left in charge of this city after liberating it from a black dragon) and he answers all of their questions. The rogue executes the crime lord for his crimes.Was this act evil?
Again, not necessarily evil. The guy was a prick. Real evil. World is better off without him.
The rogue probably broke lots of laws by playing vigilante, and if he were going for Good deed (with capital G) would have been to try to redeem the guy.
But killing some bastard who lists murder as his hobby? Rarely evil.
The third and final question, EVEN if you consider the above two acts evil, are they enough to change the alignment of said rogue from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil considering the rogue also. Liberated a city from a black dragon, has worked tirelessly to recruit aid for a city about to be attacked by demons (not her own city), including spending time training the citizens within how to defend their churches. and spent money to res a cohort instead of just taking a new one (which with leveling would have actually been more powerful, though that is metagaming)
The other acts aren't evil. And he's CN, so he could actually do a bit of evil. So he's in the pink.
If getting paid or rewarded to kill evil people/creatures who are doing evil things makes characters change alignments towards either neutral or evil then all manner of PC's are in serious trouble.
Is it bad to get paid to kill an evil person? Of course not. The guy was offered money, checked the guy's background, found him to be needing killin, and so took the contract.
If the PC had simply found some demon summoning/supporting A-hole and went in and took care of him- would it have been seen as evil? I don't think so. The fact that it was brought to his attention by someone who wanted the guy dead and would pay for it just makes it.. and adventuring hook. ("We'll pay you 5oo gold to go clear the goblin den out in yonder forest, they've been attacking our caravans").
In our society alot of people tend to frown on capital punishment because we have these awesome prisons setup where you can lock someone up at 2 years old and they can stay there until they die of old age.
This. Is. Not. D&D. This is our own modern times.
In the equivalent time period, if someone needed killin they were slain.
You captured someone, interrogated them, found them to be guilty, and killed them. The fact that he had been "defeated" beforehand is completely irrelevant. Given the way the alignment system works, its a royal pain in the butt to separate our "morality" from what the morality would be given the abilities of society and the people at hand.
"I surrender, now you can't kill me" is not an effective combat tactic for terminally evil villains.
-S
The only parts I disagree with in this discussion are for those who are speculating that the execution was a "lawful" act. I beg to differ. I would think that a lawful person would take the stance that said bad guy should be tried for his crimes in a courtroom setting held in the city where the crimes took place. The fact that the rogue used his personal sense of justice, thereby trumping the "law of the land", in favor of his own personal feeling, places this squarely in the "chaotic" realm.
I really have no disagreements regarding the answers for the first or third questions.
The only parts I disagree with in this discussion are for those who are speculating that the execution was a "lawful" act. I beg to differ. I would think that a lawful person would take the stance that said bad guy should be tried for his crimes in a courtroom setting held in the city where the crimes took place. The fact that the rogue used his personal sense of justice, thereby trumping the "law of the land", in favor of his own personal feeling, places this squarely in the "chaotic" realm.
I really have no disagreements regarding the answers for the first or third questions.
I think that (in the world of DnD) the chaos and law (along with good and evil) are greater cosmic powers and not morality (especially 21st century morality), much like Michael Moorcock puts them. And i think that by killing the crime lord who has taken over the city you battle the chaos.
My good-aligned cleric used to kill a lot of defenseless evil guys. Sure, he could have tied them up and carried them through all these miles of forest to the next courtyard. The outcome would be that the town has to waste some fine pieces of rope when the guys finally dance on air.
As for the rogue, think about WHY he killed the evil guys. Is it more because they are a threat to society or because he gets some shiny coins?
It's also about the time the person lives in. How authorities see killing and stuff.
Movies act as if the fantasy hero comes right from modern society and has no ethical weaknesses. They solve the problem of the living meanie by these "hero shows mercy but fate decides to kill the evil guy anyway"-situations. Don't count on that in a PnP.
(however, especially Tolkien uses the concept of absolute morale and ethics, easy to see when the good guys only win because they spared Smeagols life so he can bite of Frodos finger - Middleearth has this "justice is fate"-thing going on)
"I surrender, now you can't kill me" is not an effective combat tactic for terminally evil villains.
+1
(well, some predatory aliens will fall for it)
To be honest, you guys have a completely different understanding of alignment than I do. I see alignment as nothing more than your character's general goals, viewpoints and preferences, not as a yardstick to measure all of his/her actions. Do I need to worry that my "chaotic" character committed a lawful act by driving the speed limit or that my "Lawful" character committed a chaotic act by J-walking? God no. An alignment change means a fundamental paradigm shift in the way your character approaches the world.
Very few villains are actually Evil, because they don't actively want to inflict pain and cruelty so much as they're willing to if it will help them meet their ultimate ends. Magneto? Not evil. Dr. Doom? Definitely not evil. Even Galactus isn't really that evil by D&D terms so much as he is really really selfish Neutral, I suppose. Hannibal Lecter, the Joker, Deadites, Sauron, THOSE are evil guys.
Even then, evil people are capable of love and compassion in the right circumstances. Hitler was married and apparently very kind to (German) children. Look at the mayor on Buffy. He really did love Faith. conversely, Giles, the very beacon of good on that series, smothered a wounded man to death. Gandalf is quite good, but it doesn't stop him from being a jerkass bully (let's not even get started on Aslan).
Point is, in any game, I want my players to tell me what their alignment means to them and why, so we can agree that their alignment fits. Unless they're playing a Paladin, or a Cleric, or they continuously go way outside the lines of their code of ethics, I'm not going to question the acts they commit. I care more that they're playing out their characters.
No offense meant to the OP, but it kind of sounds like he's trying to squeeze a mechanical benefit from a couple of morally questionable acts that fall well within the spectrum of most CN characters. Unless hes undergone a serious fundamental shift in the way he sees the world, or goes out of his way to inflict pain and suffering, he sounds CN to me.
The problem is that in D&D, Alignment is objective not subjective.
It doesn't matter what you Think you are- the universe has said what you actually ARE. You can be wrong about it or delusional- but your absolute alignment doesn't care. The "bad guy" who is doing evil for "good reasons" is still evil. Doesn't matter that HE thinks he's doing it for the greater good, the willingness to murder completely innocent people to "win the war".
The same thing is true of PC's and their alignments. I can write LG on my character sheet while going to slaughter an orphanage of infants. It just makes me wrong about what my alignment actually *is*. "Congratulations, your character doesn't think he is evil. Be advised though that he IS evil and that holy weapon now imposes a negative level".
This isn't to say a PC can't use it to help define his or her character. Its a great tool for doing so. But, just because the PC thinks he is neutral or CG or whatever doesn't mean they actually -are-. Your actions dictate your alignment not what you write on the character sheet. That makes it imperative to know sometimes what certain "big actions" will do to your alignment. Its not so much that jay-walking will terminate a lawful alignment but if your general tendencies are beginning to stray away from following codes (not necessarily laws in general) such that you do whatever you want rather than to follow structure or hierarchy in life, then you may be slipping from Lawful to Neutral or chaotic.
The same way that an evil person can donate to a charity without becoming good, but if overall they are becoming more and more generous and less and less evil and more and more concerned with the (objective) public welfare and less and less with their own self, then they might actually be climbing out of being Evil and sliding closer on towards Good.
-S
In fact, it's often what heroes - even paladins do: "Say, there's this evil bastard, he must be stopped, use whatever force necessary. He's mad and a demoniak, so you'll probably have to kill him. You'll be rewarded generously." "We'll do it!"Paladins normally break into prison and execute people in your campaigns?
Since most people seem to judge the alignment on the act based on the victim, would most people consider it a neutral or even good act to rape someone, if said person was evil?
This example is going too far, and it misses the point KaeYoss was making. The "Bad guys are bothering the good guys - save us!" is the tried and true adventure hook to give a group of adventurers, often with abrasive personalities and alignments (one to another), a reason for being.
To the original question, and being rather fond of CN characters myself, I would call this behavior a solid CN due to the seeming motivations of the PC. If you wish to change your alignment for a metagame reason, I suggest you discuss it with your DM and other group members, as their input matters more than ours.
Three questions. I'll try to leave them short and sweet, although I know no thread on alignment ends up that way.Chaotic Neutral Rogue was offered money to assassinate an imprisoned crime lords Lieutenant, a known demon supporter / collaborater before an impending war with a demon army. The rogue was unaware of this person, and asked around to determine that A. the person was evil and did deal with demons, and that B. he was a potential threat if left alive. Rogue killed crime lord lieutenant.
Was this act evil?
Evil? Yes, I think so. Big, bad change the alignment evil act -- no. Still, evil. As for law / chaos, hmmm... neutral I think. Sure it broke the law, but it fulfilled a contract. I don't see the nature of the target excusing the act. Sure he was evil. He was also essentially helpless and had already been punished (although why the H3ll they didn't execute him judicially given what he'd done I don't know).
Same Chaotic Neutral Rogue is present with party when they assault a new city the crime lord has taken over. The party kills crime lords retinue and the mage dominates said crime lord. The party questions the crime lord (who has worked with demons, attempted to kill the party numerous times, murdered countless citizens, and murdered the person the party left in charge of this city after liberating it from a black dragon) and he answers all of their questions. The rogue executes the crime lord for his crimes.Was this act evil?
Depends. Probably not evil given his confession, forced or not, of his crimes. Not good. Again neutral. As for the law / chaos thing... not lawful, morally ambiguous, possibly neutral, probably chaotic. A lot depends on motivation and circumstance.
The third and final question, EVEN if you consider the above two acts evil, are they enough to change the alignment of said rogue from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil considering the rogue also. Liberated a city from a black dragon, has worked tirelessly to recruit aid for a city about to be attacked by demons (not her own city), including spending time training the citizens within how to defend their churches. and spent money to res a cohort instead of just taking a new one (which with leveling would have actually been more powerful, though that is metagaming)
Not enough for an alignment shift. That takes time or a nice string of really over the top stuff. At least in my game. And yes, old fashioned DM that I am, I track alignment :) A lot depends on the campaign in terms of the presence of law, order, punishment, etc. (or the lack thereof).
In my game a Paladin could be charged with the authority of High Justice. Judge, jury, executioner (if waranted). More likely a court (civil or ecclesiastical) would take care of that business. An assassin or bounty hunter (or adventuring party) could be charged with an execution in absentia (i.e. find villain "X", who already stands convicted of crime "Y" and execute the sentence of this court). Lawful, if not all that good.
This is why tying game effects to alignment sucks. Every DM will interpret the exact same actions differently, and differently from the player who their ruling will affect. So far in this thread we have had people claim the above actions were neutral on both axis, chaotic, lawful, evil, and good.
This is why tying game effects to alignment sucks. Every DM will interpret the exact same actions differently, and differently from the player who their ruling will affect. So far in this thread we have had people claim the above actions were neutral on both axis, chaotic, lawful, evil, and good.
So the player should discuss his potential actions with his DM. They can figure it out. If they differ, DM wins by default. You can play the game without alignment (or without paying any real attention to it), but I think your losing more than you're gaining.
The problem is that in D&D, Alignment is objective not subjective.
It doesn't matter what you Think you are- the universe has said what you actually ARE. You can be wrong about it or delusional- but your absolute alignment doesn't care.
+1
In fact, it's often what heroes - even paladins do: "Say, there's this evil bastard, he must be stopped, use whatever force necessary. He's mad and a demoniak, so you'll probably have to kill him. You'll be rewarded generously." "We'll do it!"Paladins normally break into prison and execute people in your campaigns?
Not that, but they kill evil people for money, when you get down to it.
The prison thing is not something that makes it evil. It makes it chaotic, that's all.
Since most people seem to judge the alignment on the act based on the victim, would most people consider it a neutral or even good act to rape someone, if said person was evil?
How would that prevent future evil the way taking out an evil warlord would?
+1The problem is that in D&D, Alignment is objective not subjective.
It doesn't matter what you Think you are- the universe has said what you actually ARE. You can be wrong about it or delusional- but your absolute alignment doesn't care.
What is this D&D thing you speak of? :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When in doubt, I use Saint Thomas Aquinas "Principle of the Double Effect" for these things:
-If the goal is good and the method is good, then the act is good.
-If the goal is good but the method is evil, there being no other viable option to achieve a necessary good, then the act is good ("The lesser of two evils").
-If the goal is good but the method is evil, there being other viable options to achieve a necessary good, then the act is evil.
-If the goal is evil, the act is evil, regardless of method or options.
Chaotic Neutral Rogue was offered money to assassinate an imprisoned crime lords Lieutenant, a known demon supporter / collaborater before an impending war with a demon army. The rogue was unaware of this person, and asked around to determine that A. the person was evil and did deal with demons, and that B. he was a potential threat if left alive. Rogue killed crime lord lieutenant.
Was this act evil?
The goal seems to be good (to stop a crime lord/demon worshipper), but the means seem questionable. Was killing him the only viable option? If so, then yes, it was an evil act.
Did he pose any threat? After all, he was already imprisoned. Depending on whether your DM uses the "all evil is evil and destroying it is always good" interpretation of the alignments, then this would qualify it as a good act; in my view, however, it could be evil if he didn't pose any threat at all.
Also, did the rogue investigate thoroughly before determining the evilness of the crime lord? When someone's life is on the stake, asking around is not enough. There must be certainty. Although this I'd see less as evil and more as careless (which if repeated could be interpreted as evil, as the character eventually would be aware of his carelessness and should do something about it).
Same Chaotic Neutral Rogue is present with party when they assault a new city the crime lord has taken over. The party kills crime lords retinue and the mage dominates said crime lord. The party questions the crime lord (who has worked with demons, attempted to kill the party numerous times, murdered countless citizens, and murdered the person the party left in charge of this city after liberating it from a black dragon) and he answers all of their questions. The rogue executes the crime lord for his crimes.
Was this act evil?
As I said before, this depends on the interpretation used. On a "bare-bones" version of the alignment system, this could actually be a good act.
In a more ellaborate view (which I believe is the one you are after), this would be an evil act. The reason lies at the same principles I mentioned at the start, and can be summarized in "Revenge does not equal Justice".
Basically, excecuting someone for his crimes is not Justice (which is restorative), but instead Revenge (which is retributive); the former seeks to restore that which has been lost through the crime (or the closest it can get to it), while the later seeks simply to punish the criminal.
So, unless excecuting the crime lord was the only viable way of stopping a greater evil from happening (say, the guy was a connection to a hige demonic entity that was about to occupy his body), then the act was evil.
The third and final question, EVEN if you consider the above two acts evil, are they enough to change the alignment of said rogue from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil considering the rogue also. Liberated a city from a black dragon, has worked tirelessly to recruit aid for a city about to be attacked by demons (not her own city), including spending time training the citizens within how to defend their churches. and spent money to res a cohort instead of just taking a new one (which with leveling would have actually been more powerful, though that is metagaming)
As a DM, no, I would not consider these acts to be enough to turn someone evil. In general, I believe that only outright evil acts (ie, those which are not really moral conflicts for the character, but straight, nonquestionable acts of conscious malice of which the character is well aware) should warrant a ticket on the evil train. Acts such as the ones you describe should have an effect eventually, but on the long run (as these are gray areas. If after an extended time the character keeps falling on the darker side of the gray shade, then it tells us where really his heart is, and it might be time for an alignment change, but it should take time).
Hope it helps. But still, keep in mind that there is no real definitive answer for alignments, since what exactly do they mean depends a lot on how your DM interprets them.
|
The goal seems to be good (to stop a crime lord/demon worshipper), but the means seem questionable. Was killing him the only viable option? If so, then yes, it was an evil act.
Wait--If the goal is good, and there's no other viable option, then it's an evil act? I hope that was a typo, because otherwise you've set up a real catch-22 situation there.
Ah, yes, yes, it was a typo. My mistake. I meant to say "If there was another viable option, then it was an evil act".
I can be a machiavellan DM at times, but not that bad!
My opinion neither acts would constitue a alignment shift.
1) one meh adventures get paid to kill things all the time...just because the guy was in jail is meaningless. He still did what he did....and well prisons are not like a failsafe against him doing futher harm.
2) Again what were they going to do with the guy?
If the OP is the DM and not the rogue....what do you think the 'good' course(s) would have been?
I dont see any of those acts as stand-alone evil. Nor am I that worried about them being lawful. A chaotic character is one who believes that individual independence is the best course of action. Doing a lawful thing does not an alignment shift make. Setting up lawful systems (like organizing a town militia, and helping set up its rules) might be lawful. A very similar idea (telling people to take individual responsibility for safety in their town and encouraging them to be vigilantes) would be chaotic.
Three questions. I'll try to leave them short and sweet, although I know no thread on alignment ends up that way.
Chaotic Neutral Rogue was offered money to assassinate an imprisoned crime lords Lieutenant, a known demon supporter / collaborater before an impending war with a demon army. The rogue was unaware of this person, and asked around to determine that A. the person was evil and did deal with demons, and that B. he was a potential threat if left alive. Rogue killed crime lord lieutenant.
Was this act evil?
Same Chaotic Neutral Rogue is present with party when they assault a new city the crime lord has taken over. The party kills crime lords retinue and the mage dominates said crime lord. The party questions the crime lord (who has worked with demons, attempted to kill the party numerous times, murdered countless citizens, and murdered the person the party left in charge of this city after liberating it from a black dragon) and he answers all of their questions. The rogue executes the crime lord for his crimes.
Was this act evil?
The third and final question, EVEN if you consider the above two acts evil, are they enough to change the alignment of said rogue from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil considering the rogue also. Liberated a city from a black dragon, has worked tirelessly to recruit aid for a city about to be attacked by demons (not her own city), including spending time training the citizens within how to defend their churches. and spent money to res a cohort instead of just taking a new one (which with leveling would have actually been more powerful, though that is metagaming)
This probably isn't the answer you want to hear but...
None of this actually matters. A single atonement spell later and your a good guy (or other alignment) again! No fuss. As long as you aren't a monk who has transcended to Outsider, in which case you're kinda screwed because you can't atone outsiders for some reason (personally I'd let that slide since I don't see why a tiefling or aasimar can't receive atonement. That would suck for an aasimar paladin).
Otherwise, I think those actions were neutral. Not even with a chaotic bent, as both the first and second scenario are arguably lawful. One was a contract killing, the other was an execution for crimes against humanity (while not necessarily backed by the public law, such actions are probably lawful in nature if anything since it's an eye-for-an-eye kind of thing).
Was this act evil?
Definitely not. It was chaotic. People often confuse the two.
Only in the most politically correct game of D&D would execution be considered illegal. It was an integral part of all medival/feudal justice systems, and I'm pretty sure there are paladins on record executing people in game. For an execution, you make the prisoner helpless and them have someone cut off his head, killing him. If you're good you do this quickly and painlessly. If you're evil there's probably some animals and a musical score to go with it. The fact is that killing a helpless person is obviously not in and of itself an evil act.
What then, is the difference between an execution carried out by a duly authorized representative of a government and one carried out by an individual? The law. Nothing more, nothing less. Killing people you know to be complete monsters is no different on the good/evil axis than executing them after a trial.
The third and final question, EVEN if you consider the above two acts evil, are they enough to change the alignment of said rogue from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil considering the rogue also. Liberated a city from a black dragon, has worked tirelessly to recruit aid for a city about to be attacked by demons (not her own city), including spending time training the citizens within how to defend their churches. and spent money to res a cohort instead of just taking a new one (which with leveling would have actually been more powerful, though that is metagaming)
The problem is that in D&D, Alignment is objective not subjective.
It doesn't matter what you Think you are- the universe has said what you actually ARE. You can be wrong about it or delusional- but your absolute alignment doesn't care. The "bad guy" who is doing evil for "good reasons" is still evil. Doesn't matter that HE thinks he's doing it for the greater good, the willingness to murder completely innocent people to "win the war".
I'm afraid you and I differ on this point. I don't think the D&D-iverse can always objectively define one's alignment. If could, there would be 4 alignments and not nine. In fact, some of the worst atrocities committed in the real world or games I've played have been by 'just following orders' lawful neutrals. That includes people willing to sacrifice innocents just to 'win the war.' I definitely agree with you that those are evil acts, but it's overly simplistic to think neutral characters can't commit them (or even good, from time to time). In fact, I'm pretty sure neutral alignments exist for characters who commit a mix of good and evil acts. I'd hate to be a neutral character who only committed neutral acts. And I don't think motivation should be completely separated from the act.
Anyway, I find the alignment system as described in the book pretty open-ended, and I think this is deliberate. It creates all kinds of fringe cases, like the ones we're discussing. This isn't to say alignment is completely subjective, but neither is it completely objective as you'd like it to be.
This is why tying game effects to alignment sucks. Every DM will interpret the exact same actions differently, and differently from the player who their ruling will affect. So far in this thread we have had people claim the above actions were neutral on both axis, chaotic, lawful, evil, and good.
Yes, that's why, in my games, those effects typically only work in cases of extreme and obvious examples of alignments (paladins, torturers, outsiders who exemplify their alignment).
When in doubt, I use Saint Thomas Aquinas "Principle of the Double Effect" for these things:
-If the goal is good and the method is good, then the act is good.
-If the goal is good but the method is evil, there being no other viable option to achieve a necessary good, then the act is good ("The lesser of two evils").
-If the goal is good but the method is evil, there being other viable options to achieve a necessary good, then the act is evil.
-If the goal is evil, the act is evil, regardless of method or options.
Huh, that's an interesting way of stating it. Ignores the possibility of neutral, but it is a good principle for deciding how good/evil an act is.
Was this act evil?Definitely not. It was chaotic. People often confuse the two.
And it's a tragedy.
Especially since it's so easy to tell apart. Good and evil are meaningless concepts invented by the gods to get you in line. Chaos is the universal truth and order the universal enemy.
Easy peasy.
And the random word for this post is: Paisley.
RPGs promote all sorts of violence.
in most cases, being a player character acts as a free pass to all sorts of atrocities.