Here's the story; At my friends last gamming session he (my friend, the GM) said what I was doing was evil, I would like your take forum.
We where asked by a druid queen to seek out her father, who was also a druid, hundered of miles away and kill him, then report back to her for a reward. This idea stuck me funny, saying it's her father and she's more or less hirring us out as a hit squad. In character I proclaimed "I am no assassin!"(being true neutral), and worked a deal to bring him back alive and let them talk it out, "Who knows?... IT'S YOUR DAD! you might have a change of heart." Keep in mind they are both humans, daughter and father alike. I buy a donkey (named it Bill) & a cart, so we have a way to bring 'papa' back home. We find 'father' (forgeting his name) and he attacks us, no parley, just attacks us. Mind you he's a huge snake at the time via wildshape. We have a battle that kills two other players but I managed to land a attack that landed him in the dying state. A evil warlock that's in our party and still standing say's "I'm going to finish him off!" to our GM and fires a arcane blast and rolls a natural one and misses. Seeing my chance to salvage 'pops' life I quickly role a slight of hand check and say "No worries, I will finish this!" and fake slitting 'pops' neck and I get away with it, as the warlock failed to spot my ruse. We then take the 'corpse' and load in the wagon being pulled by Bill. Knowing that the druid would wake at some time and break out of almost any kind of bindings I have on him, with his wildshape ability, the best recourse of action I could see was when none of my fellow evil party members were watching I would sneek attack with non-leathal damage as to keep him knocked out. I was a 5 day journey to get back to 'daughter' with 'pops' in tow. I told the DM I would feed him water every day as well too. That was silly hearing him say, "How does someone that's knocked out drink?" Then I said in a snarky tone back "Then how do we feed potions of healing to down teammates?!" Seeing how ridiculous his statement was. We get into a encounter later the next day, one day of travel with 'pops'. Almost as a gesture of comedy, saying everyone else in the party is already thinking he's dead, for my action I jog over to the cart and pop the 'corpse'(In game, to make sure he wouldn't wake up when we were already in a encounter) with the hilt of my rapier. No later then doing this action, the GM steps in and says what I am doing is evil, as far as form of torture. I laughed at that idea and said, "isnt torture a tool to get info out of someone or at the worse a sadistic pleasure?" None of which I though I was doing. Long story short, the conversation took way to much game time away from my pourly preped DM as it was. We only get around two encounters done in six hours or so and I have a gut feeling that's the reason why. I started thinking to myself he doesn't have stats for the druid queen and what happens when the two do meet? So as to keep things moving along I change my alignment to N/E and just slit 'pops' neck myself, more or less out of frustration and now plan on killing the druid queen too, why not now? lol
So, the over all question forum is this... Is attacking someone a few times a day with non-leathal damage, as to keep them knocked-out to answer for their crimes, a act of evil?
As far as I'm concerned, what you're doing isn't particularly nice but it's certainly not evil. If you look at the whole situation, what you're doing is potentially preventing this guy's death, as, if you didn't take the job, he'd be dealing with someone less scrupulous than yourself.
Of course, in returning him to his daughter, you may be taking him to his death. :)
If the evil people in your party are lawful, get them to swear not to kill him...or have him killed, or let him be killed, etc.
Also, reading a mass of text is difficult; might I suggest you use paragraphs in future? :)
<summarised> Is my GM evil? What about my DM? Is he/she evil too? Is it fair that my GM/DM is allowed to torture me by only giving me one combat encounter on average every three hours? </summarised>
Dear Mr. Amber Icosahedron of Criticals,
Your GM and/or DM is always right at the table, even when he or she is wrong. That does not mean that he or she is always fair. As a clue, listen out for maniacal laughter. Maniacal laughter is always a good hint that something not perhaps strictly fair is about to happen.The question of whether your GM and/or DM is evil is somewhat harder to analyse in the absence of hard data from divination spells. Any projectile vomiting which occurs in response to being splashed with holy water may just indicate fiendish possession and not necessarily outright evil on your GM and/or DM's part. A strong dislike for tea simply indicates that he or she is merely uncivilised, and no indicator of position as regards to good and evil.
If you are desirous of more combat encounters per hour, may I suggest that you take to propitiating your GM and/or DM with frequent (and expensive) gifts, accompanied by subtle hints? To be sure your GM and/or DM may just take the gifts and enjoy them without giving you any more combats per hour (see my earlier comment to the effect that GMs/DMs are not always fair), but at least you'll have tried.
Hoping that you have found this post Helpful.
Yours,
Ask A Succubus.
Normally bashing someone on the head every few days would be torture, but you seem to be making an genuine (if severely misguided) attempt at keeping alive, so its not evil.
Druid dad probably attacked you because he figured out why someone was comming into his section of the woods with a cart. Next time put on peasant clothes and put some turnips in the back.
Normally bashing someone on the head every few days would be torture, but you seem to be making an genuine (if severely misguided) attempt at keeping alive, so its not evil.
Druid dad probably attacked you because he figured out why someone was comming into his section of the woods with a cart. Next time put on peasant clothes and put some turnips in the back.
I wouldn't even call it misguided; it sounds like he just lacks the resources to do so in any other fashion. He has told a lie to keep the druid alive so that he may have a chance to defend himself against his accuser. This is a neutral act at worst. At best, it's an ill-equipped venture by someone with LG intentions.
A paladin would insist on allowing a criminal to stand trial, but would not besmirch his own integrity by using the methods displayed: NG. If you are staunchly arguing that knocking him unconscious daily is an evil act, then at worst you can only remove the good axis of the alignment.
Far from what I would call evil.
You weren't acting evil at all, but that's not the point. It sounds like your GM really wants the party to be evil, or wants the game to go in a different direction than you're taking it. Ask him what's up, and try and get on the same page.
The GM is NOT always right. He is however always in charge of what goes down. That has nothing to do with being right though.
With that out of the way the OP's actions were not evil. I think the GM was trying to save his hide because you altered his story by jumping off the rails.
That was not evil. Heck, you even tried to save the guy! Unless you only wanted to keep him alive so you could further your own ends, it's not evil. Torture is used to inflict pain, but you only hit him to keep him unconscious so he might have a chance to live later on. I don't call that torture.
Neutral, but not evil.
|
Sometimes I read these things and I get the impression other people play the game like some kind of wacky sitcom. Constantly knocking someone unconscious, over and over, for days on end, is not "evil" so much as its "only possible because of the failure of the rules to accurately model reality."
In the real world, that would result in permanent brain damage, and would require almost unfathomable cruelty. Imagine yourself in that situation: bound, gagged, and every time you start to become conscious and struggle for help, someone grabs you by your hair and slams your head against the ground until you black out. Over and over again. Would you think that person was evil? You bet your ass you would.
So the simple answer to your question is: Yes, constantly cracking someone's skull in order to keep them unconscious is an cruel and vicious way to treat someone in your custody, and is indeed a form of torture. So yes, it is evil.
But I don't get this DM. Taking the assignment in the first place was evil. You're a bunch of hired hitmen. You're assassins. Assassins are, by definition, evil. Only evil people kill for money. But I don't get the sense at all that your DM would be having a fit if you'd just ganked the druid when you first had him at dying. So what's his deal? This seems less like a legitimate argument over ethics and more of a "everyone is talking around whatever the real issue is" sort of problem.
It sounds to me like there is no penalty for playing evil in your group, and the DM is encouraging you to play in Murderous Hobo mode, so either a) find a different group or b) roll with it and play the best goldurn Murderous Hobo you can. Just look your DM straight in the eye and say "Damn straight it's an evil act. I'm an evil druid. He's an evil warlock. You got a problem with that?"
0.o?
This entire situation seems strange. Dude kills your buddies and you give him a shot at life.
That's a good action.
Holding that same man hostage against his will and taking him to someone who wants him dead (And might actually have the means to kill him outright) is evil. Even if you have good intentions, and especially if you hold them hostage by knocking them unconscious on a regular basis.
So from what I understand, you're character has his alignment moves towards Chaotic, or insane.
Holding that same man hostage against his will and taking him to someone who wants him dead (And might actually have the means to kill him outright) is evil. Even if you have good intentions, and especially if you hold them hostage by knocking them unconscious on a regular basis.
First off hostage is not the correct choice of terms. He is a prisoner. And if keeping someone a prisoner is evil then any court system which uses a prison system to hold criminals is evil, and anyone that arrests someone that is going to be charged with a crime that could result in a death sentence (and holds said person against their will) is too evil.
Using unconsciousness to transport a dangerous captive isn't off the wall insane or evil either -- the method being used isn't the best in this case however... and lying to his party about what's going on isn't going to be able to last much longer either.
Ha ha ha!. You should've slit the druid's throat. That would've would've been boss!
I wouldn't even call it misguided; it sounds like he just lacks the resources to do so in any other fashion. He has told a lie to keep the druid alive so that he may have a chance to defend himself against his accuser. This is a neutral act at worst. At best, it's an ill-equipped venture by someone with LG intentions.
The description of the events doesn't include an actual crime. The queen wants him dead, so that makes it lawful at least. Good... would take some doing.
The queen wanted him dead, and when he gets there he's going to be dehydrated, starved, and at negative hit points.(and nursing one hell of a hang over)
First off hostage is not the correct choice of terms. He is a prisoner. And if keeping someone a prisoner is evil then any court system which uses a prison system to hold criminals is evil, and anyone that arrests someone that is going to be charged with a crime that could result in a death sentence (and holds said person against their will) is too evil.
Using unconsciousness to transport a dangerous captive isn't off the wall insane or evil either -- the method being used isn't the best in this case however... and lying to his party about what's going on isn't going to be able to last much longer either.
Hostage is a subset of prisoner.
A prisoner is anyone who is deprived of liberty against their will, a hostage is someone who has been abducted and used by the abducted in order to influence someone to act, or refrain from acting, in a certain way.
Also, I probably could've refraised it better, but honestly, I'm not in the mood and willing to humor people with the following:
A Barbarian that arrests someone that is going to be charged with a crime that could result in a death sentence (and holds said person against their will) is committing a Lawful Act that should move his alignment away from Chaotic.
And a Monk who decides to side with a grass-roots movement against an established government is vomiting (yes, vomiting) a chaotic act that moves his alignment away from Lawful.
No one ever complain about those axis restrictions.
A Barbarian that arrests someone that is going to be charged with a crime that could result in a death sentence (and holds said person against their will) is committing a Lawful Act that should move his alignment away from Chaotic.
Good to know. I'll keep that in my next time I want to play as a bounty hunter.
And a Monk who decides to side with a grass-roots movement against an established government is vomiting (yes, vomiting) a chaotic act that moves his alignment away from Lawful.
Also good to know. I guess I can't play Shimada Kanbe after all.
A Barbarian that arrests someone that is going to be charged with a crime that could result in a death sentence (and holds said person against their will) is committing a Lawful Act that should move his alignment away from Chaotic.Good to know. I'll keep that in my next time I want to play as a bounty hunter.
Also good to know. I guess I can't play Shimada Kanbe after all.
And a Monk who decides to side with a grass-roots movement against an established government is vomiting (yes, vomiting) a chaotic act that moves his alignment away from Lawful.
If you're going to be a chaotic bounty hunter, that's still doable. It just means you have an active disregard for due process and are more likely to collect "dead" than "alive."
And you can sort of screw with the Law/Chaos axis, and say that your monk doesn't care about the laws of this land, but his own Monk code that he adheres to strictly for the purposes of self-perfection...
On the monk/barbarian examples
While turning the guy is might be lawful the actions involved in getting to him based on how most bounty hunters act probably weren't.
And lawful is not always that the character follows the laws of the land without recompense.
P.S. If i didn't use recompense properly someone let me know.
His point stands, however, that people don't discuss the Law/Chaos axis. It's not like it has any less gray-area than Good/Evil does. It also has RP implications and class-restrictions, but alignment discussion's still always about Paladins and Good vs. Evil for some reason.
It also has a lot more wiggle room than good and evil. Having a strong sense of law could mean you have a strong moral code, a need to follow the letter of the law, or a sense that iron-fisted control is needed to have peace. Chaos could be sign of madness, a lack of respect for lawmakers and peace keepers, or even a general sense of doing whats best for me.
It also has a lot more wiggle room than good and evil. Having a strong sense of law could mean you have a strong moral code, a need to follow the letter of the law, or a sense that iron-fisted control is needed to have peace. Chaos could be sign of madness, a lack of respect for lawmakers and peace keepers, or even a general sense of doing whats best for me.
So? Shouldn't this flexibility make it even more difficult for people to properly adjudicate things then?
I mean seriously, Law and Chaos have the same amount of connotation as Good and Evil do, but only Good and Evil create RP hang-ups and that spawn threads like this.
Is it just implicitly agreed that L/C have enough flexibility to make it so GM Rule Zero is taken without complain, while G/E is can only be done one way, and one way only?
If you're going to be a chaotic bounty hunter, that's still doable. It just means you have an active disregard for due process and are more likely to collect "dead" than "alive."
An incomplete list of Bounty Hunters who prefer their targets alive:
Boba Fett (Boba Fett to Darth Vader: "He's worth more to me alive than dead.")
Fiona Glenanne
Spike Spiegel (is neutral on due process)
Jack Walsh
Alias, "The Bounty Hunter, Dog" (actively supports due process)
Beck (the Rundown) (is neutral on due process)
John Marston (Actively supports due process)
Jonah Hex
Alita (in theory)
List of bounty hunters who have never taken anything alive:
Samus Aran
And you can sort of screw with the Law/Chaos axis, and say that your monk doesn't care about the laws of this land, but his own Monk code that he adheres to strictly for the purposes of self-perfection...
So which is it? Vomit or kinda? It isn't both.
|
|
Good to know. I'll keep that in my next time I want to play as a bounty hunter.
Rangers make better bounty hunters than barbarians anyways. Favored Enemy: Human + Track = Always Gets His Man.
Jeranimus is right about arresting someone being a lawful act. Chaotic characters are more likely to be vigilantes than bounty hunters, and if they are bounty hunters they likely won't find favor with the legal establishment.
He's wrong about the Monk though. It's more complicated than that. Lawful characters can oppose governments, they just can't oppose them on general principle like a Chaotic character can. But a Lawful Good monk could fight to overthrow a Neutral Evil government in the hopes of replacing it with something in the Lawful Neutral/Lawful Good range without risking his alignment at all.
No one argued the aressting being lawful but everything in between me going after you and me arresting you could involve me breaking a dozen laws. The point i was making is that law/chaos tends to have more balance in your life than good evil.
If you're going to be a chaotic bounty hunter, that's still doable. It just means you have an active disregard for due process and are more likely to collect "dead" than "alive."An incomplete list of Bounty Hunters who prefer their targets alive:
Boba Fett (Boba Fett to Darth Vader: "He's worth more to me alive than dead.")
Fiona Glenanne
Spike Spiegel (is neutral on due process)
Jack Walsh
Alias, "The Bounty Hunter, Dog" (actively supports due process)
Beck (the Rundown) (is neutral on due process)
John Marston (Actively supports due process)
Jonah Hex
Alita (in theory)List of bounty hunters who have never taken anything alive:
Samus Aran
So which is it? Vomit or kinda? It isn't both.
And you can sort of screw with the Law/Chaos axis, and say that your monk doesn't care about the laws of this land, but his own Monk code that he adheres to strictly for the purposes of self-perfection...
?? That just means that bounty hunters are, on average, more lawful than chaotic, which makes sense, and supports the point.
And I have no idea what the second part means.
Edit: And Neutral Evil governments tend to not get anywhere as organizations, due to what "Neutral Evil" entails. Rex only posited a possible scenario, didn't make a hard statement that all monks against governments lose class features.
Rangers make better bounty hunters than barbarians anyways. Favored Enemy: Human + Track = Always Gets His Man.
My first point: So?
My second point: Rangers can be in the same party as barbarian. In fact the ranger and the barbarian might even be the same person.
Jeranimus is right about arresting someone being a lawful act. Chaotic characters are more likely to be vigilantes than bounty hunters, and if they are bounty hunters they likely won't find favor with the legal establishment.
My first point: John Marston and Jack Walsh
My second point: Arresting someone doesn't have an alignment. Individual actions don't have alignments. "General moral and personal attitudes" have alignments. True story.
He's wrong about the Monk though. It's more complicated than that. Lawful characters can oppose governments, they just can't oppose them on general principle like a Chaotic character can. But a Lawful Good monk could fight to overthrow a Neutral Evil government in the hopes of replacing it with something in the Lawful Neutral/Lawful Good range without risking his alignment at all.
It isn't one way for one half of the axis and another for the other half. Either the law/chaos axis is complicated or it is strait forward. Which would you like it to be?
?? That just means that bounty hunters are, on average, more lawful than chaotic, which makes sense, and supports the point.And I have no idea what the second part means.
Many are. Many aren't. I think you will have a hard time convincing people that Spike Spiegel is lawful.
I've always thought of lawful, neutral, and chaotic as adjectives to describe in what way a character is good, evil, or neutral. To me it seems kind of silly that a chaotic character can never do a lawful act, or that a lawful person can never perform a chaotic one. That essentially means that the CG human kingdom could never sign a treaty with the neighboring LG dwarven kingdom.
I played with a person a few months ago who felt (as a character and a person) that law and chaos, as concepts, trumped all. I was playing a paladin, and when I decided to go against the dictates of a largely neutral, apathetic, and clueless body of government to save a large number of people from damnation and death he felt that I should have lost my paladin status.
I suppose this thread shows why alignment is one of the most contentious aspects of the game.
|
|
An incomplete list of Bounty Hunters who prefer their targets alive:
Boba Fett (Boba Fett to Darth Vader: "He's worth more to me alive than dead.") ["No Disintigrations" from Vader was directed at Fett. Wanting Han alive was pure buiness for that transaction. Han was worth more alive because Jabba wanted to torture him to death, DO NOT confuse greed for good.]
Jonah Hex [I don't think you and I are thinking of the same Jonah Hex: Wears a confederate uniform, has a history of ludicrous excuses for his really gnarly facial scar? "He had only two companions, death and the constant smell of gunsmoke." In the newer comics he actively seems to prefer the Dead portion of a "Dead or Alive" bounty]
Boba Fett (Boba Fett to Darth Vader: "He's worth more to me alive than dead.") ["No Disintigrations" from Vader was directed at Fett. Wanting Han alive was pure buiness for that transaction. Han was worth more alive because Jabba wanted to torture him to death, DO NOT confuse greed for good.]
Please take the time to actually read my post before rebuking me on a claim I never made or insinuated.
Jonah Hex [I don't think you and I are thinking of the same Jonah Hex: Wears a confederate uniform, has a history of ludicrous excuses for his really gnarly facial scar? "He had only two companions, death and the constant smell of gunsmoke." In the newer comics he actively seems to prefer the Dead portion of a "Dead or Alive" bounty]
I was actually hesitant to add Jonah to the list. He is the only one on the list I'm not familiar with. I used him because he is recognizable. The point was to show that bounty hunters vary greatly, and the act of arresting someone and keeping them alive isn't an inherently lawful/chaotic or good/evil trait.
I think we can say without much contraversy that cutting people is evil, and cutting helpless people is doubly so. And yet if a helpless, dying man shows up on a surgeon's table, not only is it morally permissable for him to cut the dying man (i.e. not evil) but it is morally required that he use his abilities in regards to cutting to try to save the man's life (i.e. good).
The distinction is clear, because while cutting always hurts, it is not always a harm. The surgeon need to do damage to the body in order to help it get better. The cutting is not done for the benefit of the surgeon, but for the good of the patient. The surgeon of course limits the amount of cutting he needs to do in order to achieve his goal of helping the patient, he is not given a carta blanc, each cut must be justifiable in some medically relevent way.
Compare this to the situation presented above. The evil druid is dying, and the player can save him, but only by doing bodily damage. This damage is not a harm however, because it is being inflicted for the good of the druid, not for the benefit of the player (arguements about altruism aside).
My only possible complaint is that more might have been done to minimize the damage that needed to be afflicted, but obviously that would be very hard to do when the prisoner has the ability to drastically change his size and shape.
TL;DR: Not evil.
|
|
Arresting someone because they are a criminal and they have broken the law - Lawful
Arresting someone because of a sweet Pay cheque with little care of what the person has done - not Lawful
So, arresting someone is not always a Lawful act. Reasoning is a key part of all alignments. Just like transporting someone alive because you get more money than if they are dead does not make it a Good act.
Arresting someone because they are a criminal and they have broken the law - Lawful
Arresting someone because of a sweet Pay cheque with little care of what the person has done - not Lawful
Have to agree with that -- especially if it's arrest someone who you know is being framed or with a forged warrant, etc.
In any case, to the OP, I don't think what you're doing is evil -- your motivation is to save the person's life... and the accusation of torture makes no sense: if you keep whacking him on the head before he wakes, technically, he never even feels it -- and so it's certainly not torture. (And if you wait 'til he wakes, then I imagine the restraining the upset wild-shaping druid in the cart would be an issue...)
However...I do think that you're sort of taking advantage of the abstraction inherent in the rules with the whole "bopping him on the head" thing -- and so your GM's frustration may just be that you're doing something that's rules-legal but makes no sense and "solving a problem" by exploiting the system.
As a GM, I would have taken you aside and basically said that you can't really do that (at least not that way) without risking permanent damage and the person's life. And if you do it anyway, well, it's not evil, but it's not good either. But hey, you're neutral, so power to you.
The OP's running with a lynch mob. Pretty much everything that follows that will have a taint of evil any way you slice it.
Notice the OP didn't mention a supposed 'crime' until the very last sentence (probably along the lines of how much weight the party gave it in considering this operation).
Why, exactly, when your party members and the druid queen wanted this fellow dead, did you deem it wise to keep him alive? It doesn't sound like sainthood befits you much to begin with.
In any case, to the OP, I don't think what you're doing is evil -- your motivation is to save the person's life...
How can his motivation possibly be 'to save the person's life'? He's assisting a posse sent by someone that wants this man dead, with teammates that are actively trying to kill him. There's no mention of ditching the party to actually keep this man alive. At most, this is an unpleasant reprieve from what is likely to be a grisly affair in which he's been a crucial component. He's surrounded himself with unsavory types, but, hey, he's neutral, right? As long he doesn't hold the knife, everything's okey-doke. Wha?
There's a lot of context missing in this post.
1. Why does the Queen want her father dead? Did the party even ask? Do the rest of them even care? Does your character care? Given that you are taking the father to someone who wants him dead, keeping him alive isn't neccessarily going to score you brownie points with anyone.
Like I wrote, they are both human. I side with the idea that humans are not inherently "evil". They are evil because of actions & intentions and always have a possibility of change, like I said in character "It's your dad!"
Reason for her wanting her father dead was kind of a loop-hole, We had visited 'dad' before to transport a 'little girl' back to the 'daughter' (druid queen) who ended up being possessed and turned on the party.
Hardly a reason to kill her father. Not like my rogue can challenge the 'wisdom' of a druid but as I was also quoted saying "I'm no assassin!" I would say that suggests my character did indeed care about being hired to murder. (because I WASN'T evil if you did actually read it all)To automaticaly assume it was the fathers wrong doing was one of two things, she's very presumptuous or telling me she was evil as well. I say that because of the punihment leveled without any proof.
Sure the little girl was possessed but it isnt too much of a stretch of the imagination to belive her (the druid queens) father might be possessed as well?2. The rest of your group seems to be a cadre of mercenaries perhaps even mercenary assassins. Why are you dissenting in this case? What makes this dissent worth making an enemy of your fellow party member? (Trust me, if you're clubbing me every day to knock me out, you're not going to be on my Xmas list)
Funny that you say this, saying half of the party is evil and I'm playing a neutral Drow rogue lol. To which they cared little about killing someone and I would figure myself included. For evil party member are the 'friends' that do not have the guts to kill you... yet!
How can his motivation possibly be 'to save the person's life'? He's assisting a posse sent by someone that wants this man dead, with teammates that are actively trying to kill him. There's no mention of ditching the party to actually keep this man alive. At most, this is an unpleasant reprieve from what is likely to be a grisly affair in which he's been a crucial component. He's surrounded himself with unsavory types, but, hey, he's neutral, right? As long he doesn't hold the knife, everything's okey-doke. Wha?
In any case, to the OP, I don't think what you're doing is evil -- your motivation is to save the person's life...
As written, I was protesting from the start.("thats your dad".."i'm no assassin!".. buying a cart & a donkey to bring him back as a prisoner ring a bell?) Not like I had 'good' intent. I just like to know the whole story before our merry band goes to off someone. I would like to think every action has a consequence; and being neutral that seems true to its form.
Sometimes I read these things and I get the impression other people play the game like some kind of wacky sitcom.Honestly, I've run a few sessions where I had my laptop at the table and had a program that allowed you to deliver canned laughter like in a sitcom. You could pick several different types of audience laughs and there was a slider that let you manually adjust the intensity of the laughing and when to fade in and out. It would have been perfect if it had a moan option, but it was just laughter.
I have to say those were among my top sessions I've ever run. Left me and the table in tears. I'd just control the "laugh commentary" throughout the session. It made the adventures into these "wacky" ironic adventures. The priceless moment was when two players got into an exasperated argument over a rule. I let it run for just a bit and then hit them with the laugh track at just the right moment. Sent everyone almost to the floor. The guys dropped it and we moved on with the game. Good stuff!
Anyway, I didn't think the OP was particularly evil. If you're neutral than you're supposed to be finding the balance, and having a running gag of whacking the guy over the head, like it's the Three Stooges (I can even hear the 'Boink!') is perfect. Of course, tossing that all away and just offing the guy after a few days kind of ruins the whole setup.
As far as torture... the big problem is that if you try and go down the "realism" route you're bound for disappointment. The system is amazingly abstract and trying to sort through the abstract rules to get at some clinical physics-engine reality is going to leave you digging deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole. It's better to embrace the abstraction when you can rather than fight it.
Besides, it's the abstraction which also helps support the weird surrealistic moments that allow for drama and comedy to emerge. If the OP's GM was berating him for his plan and basically driving the OP towards killing the guy then...
Can I play in your game? lol I must say I liked your post the most! I didn't want to kill 'dad' but I was frustrated at the DM and the game it self. The next question on my mind, now that I am evil, is do I even bother wasting my time, at gas around four bucks a gallon, playing in this group any more? I would like to kill the queen, just for evils sake now and drive home the point of what evil is, but will there only be a 'phantom' to attack as she gets away due to lack of preperation on my DM's behalf?
@OP: I wouldn't call it an evil act at all. If that was the only way to transport "pops" back to the daughter without someone in your party murdering him, then you weren't doing evil, you were preventing evil. Maintaining the non-lethal damage wasn't torture, it was required for preservation of life. He even went as far as to ensure that the NPC was properly hydrated during the trip.
a) find a different group or b) roll with it and play the best goldurn Murderous Hobo you can. Just look your DM straight in the eye and say "Damn straight it's an evil act. I'm an evil druid. He's an evil warlock. You got a problem with that?"
Would be the reason I would keep playing. Just to 'whitewash' him with what true evil is.
I think the GM was trying to save his hide because you altered his story by jumping off the rails.
Welcome to roleplaying... ya' know!? I have heard of curving it back on the player as to make things "seamless". "Your acting evil" had to be the lamest curveball ever!
Thannks to all for your input. I posted this because there was more then one opinion on the matter at the gamming table. Just wanted to hear from some fellow pros. By no means is this a final outcome; For the idea of ethics is never cut and dry.
IMHO, it was an evil act...if you define evil as "not doing what the DM wanted me to do."
Not evil.
And people seem to think nowadays that mostly anything qualifies for evil... it's lame. Now, if an evil necromancer saves a child from a fire because... heck, he likes children. No one is gonna scream at him and say "GOOD!" Change your alignment... Half measures suck. Now the good guy stole someones icecream and he suddenly becomes evil... that's non sense.
Anyway, just for the record, good people KILL good people too, WITHOUT alignment change. It's called war, and it happens in every fantasy scenario and in real life, unfortunatelly.
That's kind of the problem with evil campaigns. I don't think I've heard of anyone that keeps going back to them. You jump into one, push past some boundaries, and eventually it all gets to a point where it's unpalatable. It's hard to imagine completing an evil campaign because there is some great payoff.
Funny, the 1st game of 3.0 I ran was evil. The best solution to party infighting was the threat of being the "winner". I would talk to the party of how it's alot easier to kill off one evil person then five, you all better work together! lol They worked well as a team, they even crashed the gates of heaven together! Woot!
Also, I want to find that laugh track program that was mentioned earlier.
+1